Liberals vs MAGA: The Debate Over America’s Future

[0:00] And there's a reason why he's not focusing on that, because he knows it's bullshit. [0:03] I mean, I wouldn't say... [0:04] We all know it's bullshit. [0:04] I mean, I get it. [0:05] And you're stammering right now because you can't defend it, and you want to move on up. [0:09] We're not moving on. We're not moving on, because that's what this is all about. [0:12] It's about getting money for something that didn't happen. [0:15] Well, no. [0:16] Yes, it is. [0:22] My name is Mason. I'm a leftist. [0:24] My name is Keith, and I am a Democrat. [0:26] My name is Austin Julio, and I am a conservative populist. [0:28] My name is Martin, and I'm a MAGA Republican. [0:30] And you're watching Roundtable. Let's get into it. [0:32] I've said very clearly, making buses fast and free costs about $700 million a year. [0:38] Making universal child care a reality costs about $5 or $6 billion a year. [0:42] If you raise the state's top corporate tax rate to match that of New Jersey, you'd be raising $5 billion in and of itself. [0:47] Well, Zoran, boy, your fantasies are never going to come about in terms of funding everything you want that's going to be free, free, free. [0:57] It's a fantasy. Let's deal with the reality. [0:59] The Assemblyman's whole plan is based on a myth. [1:02] He said he's going to raise the tax. [1:03] Is it the same as New Jersey, corporate tax? [1:05] No, it would be double the tax. [1:07] You would see New Yorkers on I-95 fleeing to Florida. [1:12] Zoran Mamdani promotes a political ideology that undermines core American principles. [1:19] I commend you on getting his name right. [1:20] It's something Andrew Cuomo can't do. [1:23] Yeah, so I guess we could start on the prompt here. [1:26] I think that there's two main ways in which Mamdani undermines core American principles. [1:30] I think, first of all, his economic agenda is inherently anti-American. [1:33] And then I also think what he represents culturally is inherently anti-American. [1:35] First of all, on the economic part, I think that it's pretty well established that rent controls, [1:41] price controls just flat out do not work. [1:43] This is, it's really a variation of Marxist ideology that the government needs to step in and set what the market should be. [1:52] That it's an ideology that we fought against for the entirety of the 1900s. [1:55] We can get into later why price controls and rent controls don't work. [1:58] On the cultural aspect, I think that Mamdani's characterization of New York City as being this Islamic phobic city and that [2:06] America is this place that is just harmful to Muslims could not be further from the truth. [2:11] And I think that the story that he told the other day of the real victim of 9-11 being his aunt is probably one of the most [2:17] disrespectful things that someone could say as someone running for the mayor of New York City. [2:21] The victims of 9-11 were the people who died on 9-11. [2:25] All Americans were victims of 9-11. [2:27] And to say that the real victims were Muslims that were living in the city who may or may not have had an extra look glance at them. [2:34] May or may not. [2:35] Is just. [2:36] It's just crazy. [2:37] And I could literally not think of anything more anti-American than to say that. [2:42] I could respond to the first part. [2:44] I don't really have an opinion about the second part. [2:46] You don't have an opinion? [2:47] I don't really have an opinion. [2:47] On Islamophobia? [2:48] I mean, I have an opinion on Islamophobia. [2:50] Bad. [2:50] But I don't really think it's the crux of this. [2:53] I think, you know, if you think price control is bad, which I think government has a role in controlling prices. [3:02] You disagree with that? [3:04] I mean, I think that price controls themselves. [3:06] People setting price caps are, you know, that the government shouldn't have a role in doing that. [3:09] But the government does have some role, you're agreeing, in controlling prices. [3:13] In controlling inflation, sure. [3:15] But when we're talking about rent controls or price controls, we're talking about setting a price cap. [3:19] That's what a rent control is. [3:20] I think we should focus the first part of the conversation on whether or not this is un-American. [3:23] And then we can move to, like, the effectiveness of the policy. [3:25] Yeah, yeah, yeah. [3:26] Because I'd like to talk about both. [3:27] I think it's wild for you to say that they may or may not have gotten a couple more glances. [3:31] When we know Islamophobia is proven to be. [3:35] Not only specifically linked to the attacks on 9-11, to which most Muslim Americans were blamed for, [3:40] even though there's no relation to Al-Qaeda, but also... [3:43] Wait, no relation to Al-Qaeda from 9-11? [3:45] No, no, no, no. [3:45] The Muslim Americans. [3:47] Wait, go back, hold on, go back. [3:49] You said something, I don't know if you misspoke, [3:51] but you said that there was no correlation between Islamophobia and 9-11. [3:55] Is that... [3:56] No, no, no, I'm saying there was. [3:57] There was a high correlation in post-9-11 that specifically Muslims were targeted socially. [4:01] I was contending with Martin's claim that they may or may not have gotten... [4:05] Gotten a couple glances. [4:06] When we know that hate crimes are on the rise, that's from the NYPD, [4:09] specific data that has proven that, it's not just an opinion. [4:13] And when we saw a lot of the capture during the Bush administration, [4:17] which I've increasingly noticed a lot of MAGA are willing to say that the Bush administration [4:20] acted outside of their authority. [4:23] Would you guys agree with that? [4:24] I hate George Bush, so... [4:25] Okay, look at... [4:26] That's all I'll say. [4:26] George Bush... [4:27] We agree. [4:28] The Iraq war was a big fat mistake. [4:29] Yeah, and specifically the abduction of Muslim Americans and sent to Guantanamo Bay to torture them, [4:34] to try to... [4:35] Pry out any information relating to Al-Qaeda is insane. [4:38] And that specific racial profiling, which we would call Islamophobia, [4:41] specifically because of the basis of the religion. [4:43] And that had heightened effects after 9-11, which is exactly what Zoran's talking about. [4:48] He's not dismissing the victims of 9-11. [4:51] He's not saying that the people that died in 9-11 were not actually victimized. [4:55] He was saying specifically there is an undercurrent of hatred towards Muslims [4:59] that has happened in New York City that goes unnoticed. [5:01] And by presidents of Republican organizations that say they may or may not, [5:05] they've got an extra look. [5:06] But he was saying that the real victim of 9-11 was Muslims, [5:10] which is just an ass in 9-11 to me. [5:12] Do you think he genuinely means that? [5:13] Or are you specifically focusing on a couple of words? [5:15] Yes, I do think that is what he genuinely means. [5:18] Then I don't think you know how to interpret someone's speech. [5:20] Now, when we say the same thing about Trump... [5:22] That's exactly what I'm saying. [5:23] You guys can defend Trump on ends, on every single thing he says has a positive tone. [5:27] And you can say some person that misspoke, [5:30] oh my God, he literally thinks that the people deserve to die in 9-11. [5:32] It wasn't a misspeak. [5:33] And because it's indicative of a broader ideology that Zoran... [5:35] has, that America is a systemically Islamic-phobic country, [5:38] when it's just flat-out not true. [5:39] If you look at the data, I mean, if you look at the data, [5:41] the Islamic population in the United States has grown from right around 500,000 before 9-11 [5:46] to over 4.5 million today because we've let them in. [5:49] His opponent said he would be cheering during another 9-11. [5:52] That is Islamophobic. [5:54] Based off the comments he just made, I don't know. [5:55] I mean, if he's saying that the real victims of 9-11 were Muslims, [5:59] not the actual people who died in it... [6:00] Do you think the next mayor of New York City would cheer if the Twin Towers were taken? [6:05] That's what you're saying. [6:06] I'm saying that Zoran Mamdani has a view of America, [6:09] that it is this place where Muslims are... [6:13] No, but you said you weren't sure if Zoran Mamdani would cheer a terrorist attack against New York City. [6:21] I know that on October 7th that Zoran Mamdani didn't condemn Hamas in the aftermath of it, [6:25] so I hope that if he... [6:26] But that's not what I'm talking about. [6:27] I mean, Zoran has a history of downplaying terrorist attacks and not condemning them. [6:32] So I don't want that person as the mayor of the nation's largest city. [6:35] To his point... [6:36] Zoran Mamdani did not condemn the October... [6:38] He did not condemn Hamas in the aftermath of it. [6:40] Every interview, and I mean every interview, maybe you could find three or four, [6:44] Zoran has asked about Hamas, and there's a specific reason for that. [6:47] It's because of his identity. [6:48] In every single interview, he has said that the actions committed on October 7th [6:52] are something that are unjustifiable. [6:54] He didn't say that the day of or the day after. [6:56] His immediate response wasn't that. [6:58] Zoran didn't immediately when he was on stream with Hassan, [7:01] a man who has literally said that the United States deserved 9-11. [7:04] Why are we talking about Hassan Piker? [7:05] Because this is someone who's... [7:07] Because this is someone that Zoran has downplayed himself with. [7:09] We gotta rewind, because you think it's fine for the President of the United States [7:14] to not talk about two democratically elected... [7:18] No, let's talk... [7:18] No, state senators... [7:20] Chat, this man is Hassan Brain, chat. [7:21] Let's talk about Zoran. [7:22] This man is Hassan Brain. [7:23] No, but no, I'm saying you think it's appropriate for an assemblyman [7:26] to talk about October 7th in Israel, but you don't think... [7:29] The next mayor of New York City? [7:31] No, but you don't think it's appropriate for them... [7:32] I don't... It doesn't make sense. [7:34] You have unrealistic expectations. [7:35] You have the expectations of an assemblyman from New York [7:38] to have to condemn a war that's happening not in America [7:41] when the President of the United States... [7:43] Yeah, people who are running to be the mayor of New York City [7:45] should condemn terrorist attacks. [7:47] At the first New York mayoral primary debate, [7:49] when there was a sea of Democrats, [7:51] they went one by one asking, [7:54] where would you visit if you became the next New York mayor? [7:57] Where would you make a specific trip [7:59] where you're representing New Yorkers? [8:01] All of them said Israel, except for Zoran Mamdani. [8:05] And a lot of... [8:06] A very strong Zionist said that's indicative that he is anti-Semitic. [8:11] But I saw a lot of conservative populists, Charlie Couric included, [8:15] who said, hey, he's actually trying to speak to New Yorkers. [8:18] He's saying that he cares about specifically [8:20] the people that he will be governing [8:22] instead of just capitulating to the demands of the Democratic establishment [8:26] who wanted him to say something like Israel [8:28] or who a majority of them were saying Israel. [8:30] And I think that everyone can agree that that's an awesome value. [8:33] And that's pro-American. [8:34] That's America first. [8:36] That value is America first. [8:37] But I also think... [8:38] Yeah, we can disagree on policy. [8:39] I'm not saying that you have to endorse his character entirely. [8:42] But I think that this notion that Zoran Mamdani would be cheering a 9-11 [8:45] or Zoran Mamdani is inherently anti-Semitic [8:47] or Zoran Mamdani is going to prioritize Muslims over all of New Yorkers... [8:50] I mean, look at his record. [8:51] Zoran Mamdani is focusing on affordability. [8:53] And that's affordability for all New Yorkers. [8:55] It's not just for Muslims. [8:57] It's not anti-Jew. [8:58] He has built a multiracial coalition of working class people [9:01] where he has 90,000 volunteers. [9:04] That is an army. [9:06] He's forced people in counties across the United States. [9:08] He's an effective politician. [9:08] And that is because he's building a multiracial coalition. [9:12] It's not just Muslims. [9:13] It's not people that are anti-Jews. [9:14] I don't even disagree with you that he's built a hell of a coalition. [9:16] No one can, obviously, right? [9:18] But I think my issue with Mamdani is he's talking about price controls and all that. [9:21] That doesn't happen. [9:23] First of all, the state of New York has one of the highest costs of living in the country. [9:27] So if we were to raise... [9:27] I'm sorry. [9:28] I don't want to interrupt you. [9:29] I want to talk about effectiveness. [9:30] And you'll get the floor right after. [9:31] Can we just go one by one saying whether or not he's un-American? [9:33] I think his policies are... [9:36] Okay. [9:36] Let's say him as a person first, and then we'll go into the... [9:39] I don't know enough about him. [9:40] I'm not going to call him un-American or American. [9:41] I'm not going to do that. [9:42] Well, I'm going to say that he's pro-America. [9:43] I think he's pro-America, for sure. [9:45] I don't know enough about him. [9:46] I'm not going to... [9:47] His values are inherently un-American. [9:48] Perfect. [9:48] All right. [9:49] Now we'll move on to effectiveness. [9:50] So, you know, you look at price controls and you look at wanting to increase the corporate [9:54] tax rate to accomplish this. [9:55] More taxation only leads to more difficulty for the consumer in the end. [9:59] So what I think should actually be the case, because what he's talking about is just great [10:03] political jargon, but you're not going to fix prices in this country without a massive [10:06] restructuring of the financial system that we operate under. [10:08] Fiat currency is causing the U.S. dollar... [10:11] I mean, it has. [10:12] The United States dollar has lost... [10:13] Back to the gold standard. [10:13] Well, I mean, I brought it up in my debate with Destin. [10:15] I'm going to bring it up again here. [10:17] The fact is that as it stands right now, the U.S. dollar, and you can look this up, guys, [10:21] the U.S. dollar has lost 97% of its purchasing power since the Federal Reserve under the [10:26] direction of Franklin Delano Roosevelt with Executive Order 6-1... [10:30] I forget the number, but somebody put it in the chat. [10:32] When Franklin Delano Roosevelt took the United States off the gold standard in 1933 under [10:36] the guise of... [10:36] Trying to end the Depression, all he did was steal what little wealth Americans had [10:39] left, because now we can print money ad nauseum, and that only hurts the end consumer who is [10:44] essentially taxed twice. [10:45] So he can talk all that political jargon about, oh, we're going to... [10:48] Price increases and price control. [10:49] Prices would drop when we don't print money ad nauseum. [10:52] So all the rest of that that he's talking about is political BS to me. [10:55] Yeah, and I actually want to talk about Zoran's specific policy with freezing the rent, a.k.a. [11:00] a rent control. [11:01] Right. [11:02] So I'm going to go up to you, because you're a left-wing populist. [11:05] I assume you're a fan of Zoran's economics. [11:06] I assume you're a fan of Zoran's economic policy there. [11:07] Can you give me the argument for a rent control? [11:09] Yeah, these are already rent-stabilized units, so it's not a rent control at large for all [11:15] of the apartments in New York City, as I've seen a lot of conservatives caricature. [11:18] These are already rent-stabilized apartments. [11:20] He's saying that he's going to freeze the rent, which essentially means he will no longer [11:24] allow rent hikes that are already affecting a majority of New Yorkers there. [11:28] 52% of New Yorkers are rent-burdened, which means that the cost is over 30% of the income [11:33] that they generate. [11:34] So this is something that is crippling New Yorkers. [11:36] And if we want to have an actual working class that's able to actually work a lot of [11:41] the jobs that don't require college degrees or don't require professionalism in New York [11:45] City, we have to be able to make it affordable. [11:47] Sure. [11:47] So he's not saying this is by and large going to fix the problem, but this is a Band-Aid [11:51] that is needed specifically because of the increased heights. [11:54] Okay. [11:54] So when it comes to rent, can you name a single place where a rent control has actually helped [12:01] with affordability? [12:02] Yeah, we've seen in multiple different urban areas that this— [12:05] That's not true. [12:06] Let's look at the place where I go to college. [12:08] You couldn't even let me give an example. [12:10] Let's look at where I go to college. [12:11] Let's look at Berkeley. [12:12] Berkeley has one of—and it's not as bad as New York's is right now—but has a very [12:16] bad problem with its rent controls. [12:18] It has one of the strictest rent control policies in the nation. [12:21] And what we see in Berkeley is we see a massive shortage of housing because that's what happens [12:25] when you have rent control. [12:26] Right. [12:27] Because what's the focus? [12:28] So let me get through this real quick. [12:29] The issues with rent controls is that it disincentivizes people from building new housing, which is [12:33] the actual way— [12:34] Private developers. [12:35] Yes. [12:36] It disincentivizes landlords from building new housing because it makes it unaffordable [12:40] for them to rent out these, you know, apartments. [12:43] That's why you see in Berkeley only luxury apartments being built right now, and the [12:47] city has just had a massive crisis with affordability of housing. [12:50] Can you tell the audience the difference between inelastic and elastic goods? [12:52] Yeah, so it's a main—the difference is the price in goods where it's necessary for [13:00] people to buy them. [13:01] Where they're always going to need them. [13:02] An inelastic need is a need that you have to pay—in other words, gas, there's an inelastic [13:07] demand for gas. [13:08] You have to have gas. [13:09] Yeah, you're always going to have it. [13:10] And housing, that's it. [13:11] And so, I mean— [13:12] So housing specifically is something, regardless of how expensive it is, people are going to [13:14] pay for it. [13:15] So the point is, for inelastic goods, there should be a prioritization on getting the [13:19] resources to people rather than just allowing private developers to continue to profit off [13:24] a system that is built on necessity. [13:26] That's the point here. [13:27] So when Keith and I are talking about things like rent control, that's part of a broader [13:30] structure to decommodify housing for a specific portion of the population. [13:33] Now, does that mean we all get luxury apartments where we have balconies and we have a backyard? [13:36] Not everybody's saying that. [13:38] But what we're saying is there should be more of a prioritization on specific housing that [13:42] is not geared towards the profit of land developers or private institutions. [13:46] And that's what Zoran's rent freeze is a first step in moving towards. [13:49] Is Zoran going to fix every problem in New York City? [13:51] No. [13:52] Is he going to get a majority of his agenda done within the first year, within the first [13:55] two years? [13:56] Probably not. [13:57] I don't even know if he'll get all of it through his administration. [13:59] But the point is, he is leading with the vision that says the impossible—that's called the [14:03] impossible—is something that we should be striving for. [14:05] And I'm not just going to give crumbs when people in New York City are already failing [14:09] to the affordability crisis and can't provide their families with essential resources. [14:13] That's the point. [14:14] I don't disagree with that premise. [14:16] I think that I'm someone that is a big proponent of the universal basic income plan that Dr. [14:20] King was a fan of, which was promoted by a Republican administration in Nixon, by the [14:24] way, because as a Christian, God's children should always have a place to eat and a place [14:29] to live in their head. [14:30] We're commanded to do that as Christians, but at the same time, you have to find a balance [14:34] between the profit motive of— [14:35] the landlord—and the affordability of the housing, to everyone's point at this time. [14:40] Yeah, I'm not calling for a land seizure. [14:41] I don't think we should go now. [14:42] Well, that's what my question was to you. [14:43] No, no, no. [14:44] My question directly to you, Mason, is how do you find that balance? [14:47] You spoke about the decommodification of housing, but at some point, that's going to impact [14:52] both the consumer and the landlord. [14:54] So how do you mitigate that? [14:55] How do you mitigate that? [14:56] I guess that would be my question. [14:57] Well, yeah. [14:58] The point is—and I appreciate you asking the question—the point is that tenants for [15:01] too long have been completely ignored. [15:03] It has always been for the profit of the landlord. [15:05] It has always been, how do we make sure that private developers are going to maximize the [15:10] output that they have for what's going on in a particular geographical region? [15:14] What we should be focusing on is how we make tenants livable, how we allow a society that [15:19] is required on the underclass of people who are working these menial jobs that I know [15:23] so often conservatives like to dismiss. [15:25] These people need places to live. [15:27] If you are going to work in New York City and you are going to be a service worker, [15:31] you need to be able to live in New York City. [15:32] So the priority is making sure that these people can actually live in those places. [15:35] As opposed to just the profits of private developers. [15:37] Well, the best way to do that and make it so that there's a bigger supply of housing [15:41] is to make it incentivized, you know, private developers to come in and actually produce [15:45] affordable housing. [15:46] It doesn't have to be just private developers. [15:47] Let me get through this point real quick. [15:49] Because the point there is that when you have rent control places, like in Berkeley, the [15:52] only exception to that usually is for luxury apartments. [15:55] So what private developers will do, because they are not going to come in and make a place [15:58] that's going to be rent controlled because they're not going to make money off of it, [16:00] they come in and they make luxury apartments that people can't afford. [16:04] That's the problem with rent controls. [16:05] Is that it limits the supply of housing when the best way to bring down the price of any [16:09] good is to increase the supply of it. [16:11] So what we should be focused on is making housing, you know, more plentiful. [16:15] We should be focused on creating zones and making it so that people can actually produce [16:19] housing. [16:20] Rent controls have just, and price controls in general, have shown time and time again [16:23] not to work because they limit the supply of the housing. [16:26] But then we have to, I would actually, I would actually throw this in there just to enhance [16:30] the conversation as well. [16:31] President Donald Trump has been working to lower the price and put a cap on the price [16:34] of medication. [16:35] He's been working to lower the price of medications like insulin and things of that nature. [16:38] So we see a multiplicity of instances where Republican and Democratic administrations [16:42] set price control ceilings or floors for given drugs or commodities. [16:46] So the real question to me would be why have we not tackled this as a nation from a top [16:53] down perspective? [16:55] Because Mamdani doesn't have to make the statement that we're going to try to raise the tax rate [16:58] on corporations, raise the tax rate to do this, then a third, if there's not first at [17:02] the federal level something being done to accomplish both. [17:05] So I think that's the real question. [17:06] I think that's the real task. [17:07] Increase the supply of homes, which is absolutely necessary to kill the homeless problem in this [17:09] country. [17:10] But at the very same time, we have to also incentivize the American worker and fund the [17:14] American worker's pocket to be able to afford housing. [17:16] We have to kill two birds with one stone here. [17:18] Yeah, and I think this is a big part of why Mamdani's campaign has been so successful [17:22] is because he's generating energy on people identifying where these problems lie. [17:26] It's no longer people are blindly going into whatever is given to them and saying, okay, [17:30] I'm just, I'm going to have to deal with this. [17:32] He's specifically pointing at areas of problems. [17:34] Which is the lack of housing. [17:35] It's the lack of political will in order to get affordable housing. [17:37] That's not just through prioritizing private developers to continue to profit. [17:41] It's also through non-profitable means of building infrastructure and building public [17:44] infrastructure. [17:45] So this would be- [17:46] Another part, another part is- [17:47] That's what you're saying. [17:48] Yeah. [17:49] And another part of it is specifically transportation, which we haven't even talked on. [17:52] Another key pillar of his campaign is free and fast busing. [17:55] Do you guys know one of the most successful examples of free transportation in Southern [17:59] California? [18:00] I know none of you are from here. [18:01] I'm not from California. [18:02] Yeah, yeah. [18:03] So I'll say Laguna Beach. [18:04] Yeah. [18:05] Laguna Beach actually has a bus infrastructure within the entire city that is free. [18:08] You walk on, you go to your destination, and you get off. [18:11] And there are reports from an array of different economists that say for every dollar that's [18:17] spent on making public transportation public, which means the public's able to use it, four [18:22] to five dollars goes back into the local economy. [18:24] That's because people are actually spending it at the shops, the commerce areas that these [18:27] buses are taking them to. [18:29] On the second point is, everyone always says that the free busing is just going to allow [18:35] unhoused people to just take over the buses, and they're going to sleep on there, blah, [18:38] blah, blah, blah. [18:39] It's only done for poor areas. [18:40] I think that's a legitimate concern. [18:41] Well, in Laguna Beach, if you look at the median house price, these are not poor people. [18:43] They can definitely afford a bus fare. [18:45] The reason why they don't do it is because it just makes it more convenient for everybody. [18:48] You get on, you get off at your location, it makes it faster so people aren't having [18:52] to fiddle with their tap cards, which can increase two minutes per person. [18:55] Sometimes it takes up to seven, eight minutes just for the bus to get everybody on, and [18:59] that just creates inefficiency. [19:00] Yeah, and on the transportation thing, I'm not going to get into the economics of it [19:02] because it's going to be a long-winded debate. [19:03] We're kind of running low on time. [19:04] My big issue with Zoran's free busing policy was just how he sold it the other day. [19:09] He sold the free busing policy as being able to lower the amount of assaults in New York. [19:14] I mean, what... [19:15] It's a bad selling point. [19:16] Yeah, yeah. [19:17] How are we selling this policy of free busing, which I would consider economically illiterate? [19:21] But how are we selling this policy? [19:23] How are we selling this policy as a policy that's going to lower the amount of assaults? [19:29] We're saying that the solution to people assaulting bus drivers is just less than a [19:33] bus. [19:34] We're not going to let them on the bus. [19:35] I mean, what a ridiculous statement. [19:36] Well, I just... [19:37] I mean, I haven't said much. [19:38] I'm just going to say this because I don't... [19:39] I'm not really a policy person. [19:40] I just know... [19:41] I come from a working-class family, and many of my relatives just cannot make enough, [19:51] and there's not enough to get around. [19:52] And I don't know what the solution is, but what's happening right now is unsustainable, [19:59] and it's one of the reasons why Donald Trump is president, because it is unaffordable, [20:03] and no one is talking about the fact that... [20:04] People feel like they cannot make it a week, and when you're living like that, it is completely [20:15] anxiety-inducing and, I think, un-American to allow so much suffering happening in this [20:22] country. [20:23] So, I don't know what the solution is to any of this stuff. [20:26] I'm glad there's going to be someone trying something different, because it could work. [20:29] In post-2024, the Democratic Party has had some of the lowest approval radiance that [20:33] they've had in modern American history. [20:35] As they should. [20:36] They were not valued by the American people. [20:38] A lot of people didn't see them as a vision for the future, and yet, in spite of that, [20:43] we see somebody that's able to galvanize so many different people across ideology. [20:47] This is not just the most far lefties that are loving Zoran. [20:50] There are Trump districts in New York City that have swung significantly conservative [20:54] that are emphatic about this guy, and the reason is because he's speaking to the affordability [20:58] crisis that's facing New Yorkers, and that is what's going to unify people, is economic [21:02] justice. [21:03] Awesome. [21:04] I think we all understand that America, for most people, is unaffordable. [21:08] I think how we get there is up for discussion, but I'm glad that we all agree that for most [21:16] Americans, this is not a country that's working for them right now. [21:20] Trump is going to be president in 28, and people just ought to get accommodated with [21:23] that. [21:24] So, what about the 22nd Amendment? [21:26] There's many different alternatives. [21:28] At the appropriate time, we'll lay out what the plan is, but there's a plan, and President [21:31] Trump will be the president in 28. [21:33] So, what about the 22nd Amendment? [21:34] The 23rd Trump presidential term would be an egregious abuse of power. [21:40] Do you want to go first? [21:41] Sure. [21:42] First of all, I'll say he shouldn't, but I think that, you know, President Trump's made [21:47] his kind of comments clear in recent days when he was asked about kind of the most popular [21:51] one is the whole, he runs for vice president, becomes president. [21:53] He says, I don't want to do that. [21:55] Mike Johnson's met with him, and he said that Trump is not running for a third term. [22:00] The only manner in which it's being applied that Trump, like, feasibly could, even though [22:04] he wouldn't, would be if Congress... [22:06] If Congress would repeal the 22nd Amendment. [22:08] That's the only method that he would actually even have to do it. [22:11] But even he has kind of said in statements that he's not going to run for a third term, [22:15] that it's going to be, and likely Vance Rubio is what he suggested. [22:18] So I think that to suggest it would be an egregious abuse of power, I mean, the only [22:23] way he would actually do it is through a constitutional means. [22:26] There's precedent for presidents doing it in the past through a constitutional means. [22:29] I mean, if there's an amendment that happens, then it's not unconstitutional just by definition. [22:34] So I think that you're weaseling your way out of the question. [22:36] We're saying that if he ran, if he ran, that would be an incredible abuse of power. [22:41] Because he knows that it's anti-constitutional and thereby un-American. [22:44] I mean, what I'm saying is that the only manner in which he actually runs for a third term [22:49] is if he does it constitutionally. [22:51] That's not what... [22:52] That's not... [22:53] And in the same... [22:54] No, there's nothing in the Constitution that says Trump can't run for a third term. [22:56] It says he can't be elected. [22:58] Right. [22:59] He could run. [23:01] And you think it would be okay for him to run? [23:03] I mean, that's pretty much the same thing. [23:05] No, it's not. [23:06] He can't be elected. [23:07] Running for president is a political process. [23:10] Being elected president is a different thing. [23:12] So Donald Trump could be on a primary ballot and he could play a game of chicken with everyone [23:17] else. [23:18] There is that... [23:19] No, you're looking at me like you're confused. [23:20] Yeah, yeah. [23:21] I don't understand... [23:22] So let me... [23:23] Well, what I'm describing to you is that Donald Trump could say he's running for a third term. [23:26] He could announce in November. [23:29] And he would not be going against the Constitution. [23:31] The only thing it says, a person cannot be elect... [23:35] No person... [23:36] The only person elected. [23:37] Right. [23:38] So he could play a game of chicken. [23:39] Which implies he can't go to the ballot. [23:40] No, no, no. [23:41] I don't know if he could... [23:42] I don't know if he could file like the federal paperwork. [23:43] The Constitution explicitly states that any person ineligible to the office of president [23:48] is also ineligible to the office of vice president. [23:50] It explicitly says that. [23:51] Well, no. [23:52] What the Supreme Court did when, and I believe it was Colorado, who tried to kick him off [23:56] the ballot because of the 14th Amendment that says that he's an insurrectionist, the Supreme [24:01] Court actually ruled and said they are not allowed to determine... [24:03] Right. [24:04] That states are. [24:05] That states are not allowed to determine eligibility. [24:06] Well, but... [24:07] To that point... [24:08] So he could actually... [24:09] Well, kind of. [24:10] I mean, that wasn't really the full ruling. [24:11] The full ruling is that it lies with the federal system. [24:14] So you could just... [24:15] I mean... [24:16] Well, so that he could run... [24:17] So, I mean, how would feasibly go, if you're talking about this, which won't happen, would [24:20] be if he were to file paperwork, it'd probably get challenged to the Supreme Court, and the [24:23] Supreme Court would rule whether or not it'd be constitutional or not, and they would rule [24:27] for that. [24:28] The problem is this. [24:29] This is just pure political theater. [24:30] President Trump has said repeatedly, he is not a king. [24:33] He will not seek a third term. [24:34] And if he, in fact, did, I would be one that would use my platform to say, get him out [24:39] of the White House immediately. [24:40] I have a question. [24:41] I think you're truthful about that. [24:42] Yeah. [24:43] It seems that, though... [24:45] I think the biggest alarm is that he's entertaining the idea. [24:48] Of course he said that he won't do it. [24:49] I know that he's never said he's going to do it, but selling Trump 2028 hats in the [24:54] White House, making this a focal point of rallies and campaigns, like, I'll be president [24:59] forever. [25:00] It's a pretty clear... [25:01] Vote for me once, and then you'll never have to vote again. [25:03] A lot of that stuff is just... [25:04] It's not good for the office of the president. [25:06] I would take it as a joke, because he loves to troll, and I do think sometimes he just [25:09] likes to say things to get a rise out of people. [25:11] He's trolling. [25:12] But he didn't want to leave when he lost in 2020. [25:16] He didn't want to. [25:17] On January 20th, he left office. [25:18] He did not want to. [25:19] Yeah, but if Mike Pence went along with denying the electors, he wouldn't have left. [25:21] So to me, it's like, the best way to determine how someone's going to act in the future is [25:26] by looking how they acted in the past. [25:27] The only time that Donald Trump has lost an election, Donald Trump did not want to leave [25:32] on his own accord. [25:33] He did leave because he tried every other way to stay. [25:38] He went through the legal process. [25:40] And I think you guys are right that he left, right? [25:42] Which is admitting that the election wasn't stolen. [25:45] If the election was legitimately stolen, he should be fighting in there and trying to [25:48] galvanize the US military to stop the overturn of the rightful president. [25:52] That's not what we do in this country. [25:54] We don't have violent revolutions against the other side. [25:57] Donald Trump respected the process. [25:58] If the election was stolen, that denies the people... [26:01] It's not a process if it's undermined. [26:03] On integrity. [26:04] But Mason, once again, that doesn't... [26:08] It doesn't matter. [26:09] He left in 2020. [26:10] No, no, no. [26:11] It does matter. [26:12] It does matter. [26:13] The point why we keep bringing it up, right? [26:14] I'm not even fixated on January 6th. [26:15] I think that was egregious. [26:16] But I think Republicans have shown we don't really give a shit. [26:17] So we don't even have to talk about that. [26:19] But what I'm saying is, we know that Donald Trump knows that the election wasn't stolen. [26:22] One, because he's admitted it twice. [26:24] But two... [26:25] When did he admit that? [26:26] He admitted it with... [26:27] It was an interview with the 60 Minutes. [26:28] He said, I lost by a whisker. [26:30] I lost by a whisker. [26:31] Look it up. [26:32] Look up Donald Trump. [26:33] But also look up the MSNBC interview where she said, Mr. President, will you concede [26:36] that you lost 2020? [26:37] He said, I'm not going to concede it. [26:38] Exactly. [26:39] That's the flip-flop of him not having proper integrity. [26:41] But that's why I said, and I'm going to be clear here, I am not going to make the definitive [26:45] claim one way or the other that the 2020 election was stolen or that it wasn't. [26:48] I'm not personally going to do it. [26:49] Why would you not make that claim? [26:51] Because I'm not... [26:52] I'm just not going to do it. [26:53] Do you care about your country, though? [26:54] I believe... [26:55] Do you care about your country? [26:56] I absolutely do. [26:57] But no, no, no. [26:58] Why would you not fight for your country's integrity? [26:59] You're saying I'm not going to do it. [27:00] I'm not going to make the definitive claim whether... [27:01] Because I still, the reason I'm not going to do it, I have not sat and combed through [27:04] all available... [27:05] Well, let me tell you, the people who have, the courts, have all said there's no evidence [27:12] or they have dismissed. [27:13] Is Brian Kemp unpatriotic? [27:14] Brian Kemp? [27:15] Yeah. [27:16] The governor of Georgia? [27:17] Yeah. [27:18] You should know him. [27:19] I do know Brian Kemp. [27:20] Is he? [27:21] I wouldn't say he's unpatriotic. [27:22] All right. [27:23] And he specifically said, Donald Trump, you lost the election. [27:24] He said it over and over. [27:25] Okay. [27:26] And that's fine. [27:27] Again... [27:28] And that's not a woke Democrat. [27:29] That's not a trans... [27:29] Again, when I... [27:30] You are actively hurting our democracy when you don't accept the results of an election. [27:35] I accept that Donald Trump left the White House in 2020. [27:37] No, but... [27:38] I accept that Joe Biden... [27:39] No, you are actively hurting, you are undermining everyone's trust. [27:41] You have a big platform. [27:42] I'm not undermining anything. [27:43] Yes. [27:44] By making a statement that I want to know what I'm doing, Keith, hold on. [27:45] You are... [27:46] Hold on, let me be clear. [27:47] No, because this is really important. [27:48] It is important. [27:49] Because if you do not say... [27:50] The reason I'm not going to say it is because when I use my, when I take my time and conduct [27:54] my own investigation... [27:55] Well, why wouldn't you have if you don't know? [27:57] How do you know I'm not doing that right now, Keith? [27:58] Because you just... [27:59] How do you know I have... [28:00] All I've said is I have not yet made the claim. [28:02] It's been five years. [28:03] And you know what? [28:04] The beauty of being an independent investigator doing your own investigation is you're not [28:07] on anybody's timeline. [28:08] I'll say one more thing and I... [28:09] So when I get the... [28:10] When I have the... [28:11] When I am able to... [28:12] All right, so you're not... [28:13] All right, so there's a... [28:14] So you're not saying whether or not the 2020 election was stolen is because you haven't [28:18] personally looked into it and you're going to do that at some point in the future. [28:21] I'm in the process of doing that. [28:22] You're in the process of determining and then you will know for sure. [28:25] I want to say, one last thing, I promise I won't talk about 2020 election for the [28:29] entirety of the video. [28:30] They love... [28:31] They left love... [28:32] They love 2020. [28:33] They love January 6th. [28:34] No, I'm going to... [28:35] No, no, no. [28:36] I'm sorry. [28:37] I'm going to let you talk. [28:38] No. [28:39] I'm going to let you talk in just a second. [28:40] Sorry. [28:41] I didn't talk about Zoran Mandani once. [28:42] Okay. [28:44] But it's actually one of the most critical moments in American history. [28:46] It is. [28:47] Yes. [28:48] Because the sitting president tried to undermine our elections. [28:53] And because of that, people do not trust our elections. [28:56] And because of that, we now do not live in a society... [29:01] That I believe trusts our democracy. [29:04] This is not... [29:05] Keith, this is... [29:06] You act like this is the first time in American history that election results have been called [29:08] into question. [29:09] Does anyone remember 2000? [29:10] I know I was a child back then, but I mean, do we remember what happened in Florida? [29:13] What did Al Gore do again? [29:14] All I'm saying... [29:15] No, no, no. [29:16] All I'm saying is... [29:17] All I'm saying is that when we speak about election integrity... [29:18] He probably conceded it. [29:19] Got it. [29:20] All I'm saying is that when we... [29:21] Yes, he did. [29:22] All I'm saying is that when we speak about election integrity... [29:23] He shouldn't have. [29:24] All I'm saying is when we speak about election integrity, I have the right to investigate [29:27] something of my own volition. [29:28] Again, I didn't say it was or was not stolen. [29:30] I have not made a claim, either positive or negative. [29:32] Here's my last point on this whole thing. [29:34] We have two different camps right here. [29:36] The 2020 election, let's say it was stolen. [29:39] Let's say Keith and I are these woke wing bats who are defending a stolen election because [29:43] we're unpatriotic and we hate America. [29:45] If that is the political reality, the Republican Party should be doing everything to jail all [29:50] Democrats who are saying that the election wasn't stolen, because that is directly undermining [29:54] the American people by saying that Joe Biden is an illegitimate president, worked as an [29:59] illegitimate president for four years. [30:00] That is something that was taken away from the person who rightfully should have been [30:04] in the Oval Office. [30:05] I'll give you... [30:06] I'll give you what happened. [30:07] To Mason's point, is that I guess if someone did steal the election, who was it? [30:14] How did it happen? [30:16] Where are the criminals? [30:17] Why has no one been arrested for stealing the election? [30:18] I'll respond to that. [30:20] I would say that Donald Trump, when he went to office, he said that they were going to [30:24] investigate it. [30:25] It's only been what? [30:26] It's only been a year. [30:27] So we have a DOJ who is investigating the 2020 election probably. [30:30] And I mean... [30:31] I'm sure that if there is evidence that comes up of a coordinated effort to commit fraud, [30:36] that they would release it. [30:37] But we had four years of a Biden DOJ who obviously wouldn't be investigating it if this were [30:40] to happen. [30:41] This was brought to every court across the country for every single contested state. [30:45] I mean, there was just no world where you're going to gather enough evidence to overturn [30:48] an election in the weeks after. [30:51] How do you think it's that easy to cover up an election fraud? [30:54] The Kennedy assassination has been covered up for decades. [30:56] So you don't want to do that, Mason, because the Kennedy election, the United States federal [31:01] government was found guilty of assassinating Martin Luther King in a civil trial. [31:04] It's like talking through a wall, y'all. [31:05] This idea... [31:06] The thing is, you guys are in power. [31:07] Wait a minute. [31:08] You guys have the power. [31:09] You have the Congress. [31:10] You have the judiciary. [31:11] And you have the executive. [31:12] Wait a minute. [31:13] You can't concede a 2020 election. [31:14] It's being investigated. [31:15] Again, I'm not saying... [31:16] Again, I am not against conceding it. [31:17] It hurts me. [31:18] Well, I'm sorry. [31:19] I'm sorry. [31:20] But listen, facts over feelings for me personally. [31:23] So I am not going to concede as of yet that it was stolen or that it wasn't. [31:26] I am going to use my investigative brain to do my own investigation. [31:30] You say facts over feelings? [31:31] And you're putting all of your feelings over every piece of evidence that's brought into [31:34] every court case regarding the 2020 election? [31:35] Not at all. [31:36] Not at all. [31:37] Mason, I'm literally sitting here telling you, I have not fully examined every piece [31:39] of evidence. [31:40] There's a new Pentagon press pool. [31:42] The new core is made up of groups and individuals who agree to a new press policy put in place [31:48] by the defense secretary, Pete Hegseth. [31:50] Nearly all longstanding news outlets, including CNN, rejected the very restrictive policy [31:56] and turned in their press passes. [31:58] Pete Hegseth's new Pentagon press mandate and the new [32:01] press core are harmful to the integrity of American journalism. [32:04] You guys want to say why you like it a lot? [32:09] Sure. [32:10] Well, I'll say first of all, I think it's important to understand what this new mandate [32:13] was. [32:14] So there was three main categorical changes in the mandate. [32:17] First of all, that the press can't just roam freely around the Pentagon anymore, that they [32:20] need to have an escort, which makes sense. [32:22] Why wasn't that a thing before? [32:23] Second of all, that the press need to wear identifiable badges so you can identify that [32:28] the press and not actual workers of the Pentagon. [32:30] Again, why wasn't that a thing before? [32:32] And third of all, that the press can no longer solicit illegal information, illegal information [32:38] being leaked to them, aka classified documents. [32:40] Again, why was that not a thing anymore? [32:43] So I think that this change, it's pretty common sense that you want to protect classified [32:47] information and that you want to make sure that we don't have press wildlessly wandering [32:52] around the Pentagon. [32:53] So a lot of it's security concerns, right? [32:56] Yeah, mainly. [32:57] So would you say that part of ensuring that we have proper security means we stop things [33:01] like independent oversight on Pentagon security? [33:02] Yeah. [33:03] Like Pentagon spending or things like whistleblowers for troops' conditions that are experienced [33:07] in the field? [33:08] Well, there's no changes here to whistleblowers. [33:10] I mean, you can still have people send in information to the press, just the press can't [33:14] go out and solicit this information from Pentagon employees. [33:18] Was the press soliciting information? [33:20] I mean, likely, yeah. [33:22] But is there evidence of that? [33:23] I mean, does it really matter if there's evidence? [33:25] Yeah. [33:26] I mean, that's why it's kind of like creating... [33:29] Can you agree that they shouldn't be soliciting that information? [33:31] I think the press is free to do whatever they want. [33:34] They're the free press. [33:35] They're not the controlled press. [33:36] Well, the free press is a very good statement to make. [33:39] However, you have to understand that the nature of what the Pentagon is, that's for the Department [33:42] of Defense, that's military, that deals with classified information on a daily basis. [33:45] So it would be an absolutely ridiculous thing to have press freely roaming around the Pentagon. [33:50] Now I'm not going to make the claim that there's evidence that there have been missteps or [33:54] that there was leaked information. [33:55] What I'm saying is that at the core of what the mandate is, is to ensure a baseline level [34:00] of security. [34:01] Within the American military and the way in which information is disseminated. [34:04] I'm just trying to go back to this original point because I guess what I don't understand [34:09] is, was the press roaming freely hurting our intelligence in any way? [34:13] Like I don't think there's any evidence of... [34:15] I think that's... [34:16] I'm sorry. [34:17] Go ahead. [34:18] Is there any evidence of that? [34:19] I mean, I think that that's just a pretty clear security breach. [34:21] I mean, to have people roaming around the Pentagon, the most secure building in the [34:25] world. [34:26] Can we at least agree... [34:27] If it's secure, then why is it a problem that the press is roaming freely to be able [34:31] to talk to people? [34:32] So are we going to act as if... [34:33] Hold on. [34:34] No. [34:35] Are we going to act as if there have not been instances? [34:36] Not necessarily the Pentagon per se. [34:38] Have there been instances... [34:39] Well, we're talking about the Pentagon. [34:40] Well, right. [34:41] What I'm saying is... [34:42] Let's start from general work away to the Pentagon. [34:43] Have there been instances in American history where information has been leaked before it [34:47] was supposed to? [34:48] Can we agree that that has occurred in the history of this country? [34:49] Yeah. [34:50] And would you say that... [34:51] So if we can agree to that... [34:52] Hold on. [34:53] Hold on. [34:54] If we can agree to that, my only question is this. [34:55] What is wrong at face value with setting that baseline security risk or that security measure? [35:00] Excuse me. [35:01] What's wrong with that baseline? [35:02] Well, the problem is you have not substantiated that that is a risk. [35:06] They're just creating this rule for no reason to control the press rather than giving... [35:11] Let's just admit that it is a risk to state goals. [35:13] That's all I was asking. [35:14] Thank you. [35:15] Let's just admit that there's a risk even just for the sake of argument. [35:17] Thank you. [35:18] Would you say that leaking information that is showing clear abuses and injustices of [35:23] our military is something that's a bad thing? [35:25] Absolutely. [35:26] It is. [35:27] Leaking information is... [35:28] Excuse me. [35:29] Leaking information is not a bad thing. [35:30] Let me restate that. [35:31] Leaking information where abuse is occurring is not a bad thing. [35:33] There should absolutely be whistleblower protections. [35:35] I'm not going to ever argue against that. [35:36] However... [35:37] You're making it more difficult for that to come to light if you are putting unnecessary [35:42] mandates on what's happening to these press. [35:44] Obviously, you want to prevent the amount of leaks. [35:46] If you're a Pete Hexeth at the Pentagon, you want to be able to have your classified information [35:50] stay classified, and if there's actual abuses, then there's still protections in place for [35:55] them to actually go out and leak the information to the press. [35:57] But again, that has not happened. [35:59] It hasn't happened. [36:00] Also... [36:01] But I think this is important because they're creating a solution where there is no problem. [36:07] There has been no leak of classified information because of roaming reporters. [36:12] What they're trying to do is create a tier of reporting... [36:15] We don't know if it's because of roaming reporters or not because that's kind of a hard thing [36:20] to prove. [36:21] Well, I guess... [36:22] The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence. [36:25] Just because there's not... [36:26] Yeah, but you would want... [36:27] You would want substantial evidence. [36:28] You can't make that statement. [36:29] That's not... [36:30] That's not the evidence for the government to put more guardrails on the press. [36:34] If you want... [36:35] If you were taken away from the freedom of assembly and the freedom of press, you want [36:37] to make sure that you have proper evidence before you implement a guardrail. [36:39] I want potential leaks to be minimized as much as possible, and I think that the Pentagon [36:44] being a place where the press can just roam free, go into any room of the Pentagon they [36:48] want, locate any file they want, and not have to be escorted by anyone, I think that that's [36:52] obviously a potential leak. [36:53] Do you think the Pentagon's a place where people just go look at a file? [36:57] Do you think someone can just walk into an office and find a file? [36:59] Is that what you think the Pentagon is? [37:00] I mean, with press being around to just roam free in the Pentagon before... [37:04] But do you know... [37:05] Like, I've been to the White House. [37:07] There are 12 levels of security just to get into that place, and you are not allowed to [37:12] go anywhere without a very specific badge. [37:14] The White House... [37:15] That's what I want for the Pentagon, too. [37:16] I've been... [37:17] Right. [37:18] But what I'm saying is the Pentagon is one of the most secure places in America. [37:22] There's absolutely no way a journalist is walking into an office and discovering a file. [37:26] That's just not happening. [37:27] Have you been to the Pentagon? [37:28] What? [37:29] I dated someone... [37:30] Have you been to the Pentagon? [37:31] We're to the Pentagon. [37:32] Have you been to the Pentagon? [37:33] Have you been in the building? [37:34] No. [37:35] So then we can't necessarily... [37:36] We're not gonna... [37:37] None of us at this table... [37:38] Y'all can fact check that on the internet, because I am telling you that there are levels [37:41] of security... [37:42] Well, I understand that. [37:43] I've been to the White House myself. [37:44] I'm probably going back in December, not if I get the invite to the Christmas party. [37:46] But the point is that what we're getting at is... [37:50] My question was, and Mason answered it directly, so thank you for that. [37:53] At baseline, there is nothing wrong with creating a baseline level of security to ensure that [37:59] the potential for leaks is mitigated. [38:00] But this isn't about security. [38:01] Why isn't it? [38:02] And the focus right here is not saying that there are proper guardrails to maximize security. [38:07] What we're doing is we're approving state-approved media. [38:10] We're saying that the state needs to be able to oversight and have clear control over what [38:17] is released from the Pentagon. [38:18] They are not only having a specific escort where somebody who is already working with [38:23] the motivations of the state walk alongside to make sure that they're properly... [38:27] Obviously, there should be state control over what comes out of the Pentagon. [38:29] Yeah. [38:30] I mean... [38:31] There should be. [38:32] Yeah, pretty clearly. [38:33] That's classified information. [38:34] And the Pentagon... [38:35] The focus on classified information... [38:36] The United States has an interest in making sure that our classified information... [38:37] The focus on classified information is denying specifically what these guardrails are. [38:41] It's not just classified information. [38:42] It's also declassified information. [38:44] The Pentagon has explicitly said that stories that go against the national interests of [38:48] the United States should not be released. [38:49] That's part of the new guardrails. [38:51] And you could say that for anything. [38:53] You could literally say if you are in charge of what information is released, who is to [38:57] say that there's not proper guardrails? [38:59] On that classification of what is a national... [39:01] That's not part of the pledge. [39:02] That's not part of the pledge, Mason. [39:03] First of all... [39:04] It absolutely is. [39:05] What part... [39:06] Why would Fox News... [39:07] Why would the administration... [39:08] Why would Fox News not sign the pledge then? [39:09] Do you think Fox News is against the current administration? [39:11] I mean, I think generally Legacy Media obviously doesn't want to sign on to these sort of things [39:15] because they were previously allowed to just have free reign around the Pentagon. [39:18] I mean, you brought up earlier that in the White House, you need to have press passes [39:21] and you need to have people kind of assisting you where to go. [39:25] I think that that should be in place for the Pentagon too. [39:27] It was in place. [39:28] It was in place. [39:29] It literally wasn't. [39:30] I cannot walk into the Pentagon and just go wherever I want. [39:32] That's just not a thing. [39:33] If you're a member of the press, you obviously could. [39:35] What we're getting at... [39:36] No, you couldn't. [39:37] That's what this is changing. [39:38] No, that's what I'm telling you. [39:39] It's not a real thing. [39:41] To wrap it up, I think very simply, it means that we have differing views about what information [39:45] the press should have access to freely and classified information and information that [39:50] is used or needs to be used by the American military, we have differing viewpoints on [39:53] that. [39:54] I think that's where we are. [39:55] Oppensation first reported about the New York Times yesterday. [39:58] He was answering questions in the Oval Office and said it could be something his legal [40:02] team was pursuing for the federal investigations into it. [40:05] I don't know what the numbers are. [40:07] I don't even talk to them about it. [40:08] All I know is that they would owe me a lot of money, but I don't—I'm not looking [40:09] for money. [40:10] I'd give it to charity or something. [40:11] And it's awfully strange to make a decision where I'm paying myself. [40:12] In other words, did you ever have one of those cases where you have to decide how much you're [40:13] paying yourself in damages? [40:14] But I was damaged very greatly. [40:15] And any money that I would get, I would give to charity. [40:16] That's what I'm saying. [40:17] I don't know what the numbers are. [40:18] I don't even talk to them about it. [40:19] I don't know what the numbers are. [40:20] In other words, did you ever have one of those cases where you have to decide how much you're [40:21] paying yourself in damages? [40:22] But I was damaged very greatly. [40:23] And any money that I would get, I would give to charity. [40:24] It is reasonable for President Donald Trump to seek $230 million in damages for malicious [40:25] political prosecution. [40:26] You guys want to start on this one? [40:27] Yeah. [40:28] I think we set a bad precedent when we have elected officials who there's a form of accountability [40:29] that is trying to be imposed, feels like their feelings are slighted, or feels like [40:30] they're trying to get away with it. [40:31] I don't know. [40:32] I don't know. [40:33] I don't know. [40:34] I don't know. [40:35] I don't know. [40:38] I don't know. [40:39] I don't know. [40:40] I don't know. [40:41] I don't know. [40:42] And I don't know if, at least with all this funding, I've heard that some of [40:45] the ref affecting officials who there's a form of accountability that is trying to be [40:46] imposed feels like their feelings are slighted or feels like their reputation was tarnished [40:53] and is now seeking for taxpayers to continue to enrich them. [40:57] I know Donald Trump is saying that he's going to use the money for charity or what not. [41:01] It does not set a good precedent when people that are trying to be held accountable are [41:05] then demanding certain money from the taxpayers. [41:09] Are they demanding the money from the taxpayers. [41:11] So, he's already won a lawsuit against Apple. [41:12] ABC. Was it ABC or? I think it was ABC. I think it was about $30 million, something like that, [41:17] for political defamation. And this is the only president that I'm aware of that has continuously [41:20] donated both of his salaries directly to the Department of Treasury, which goes back to the [41:24] American taxpayer. $400,000, right? Well, the president has, when you look at all the money [41:28] the president gets, around $1.4 million. He has a $400,000 base salary and a slew of discretionary [41:33] funds. Right. And he's donating all that to charity, right? He is, yes. Yeah. Did he donate [41:35] like the billions that he made on crypto, like right before he got in office? I mean, what he [41:39] does as a private individual has nothing to do with the presidential salary. So that's a red [41:42] herring. Good try, though. $400,000 compared to billions. Well, no, $1.4 million. There's a [41:47] difference. $1.4 million to billions. And the thing is, it is very reasonable. This is the [41:52] only president that I've seen in my lifetime that had his social media platforms taken away from [41:56] him, that has had the most politically motivated criminal prosecution targeted. He's been a [42:02] target of the worst political prosecution. Why was his social media taken away? Because he was [42:06] falsely accused of inciting the January 6th riots and was acquitted. False. Yeah, falsely. How was [42:11] that false? [42:12] He was acquitted. [42:13] He was impeached for it in E1. There's no evidence. There is absolutely zero evidence. I'm [42:17] going to say this. He was impeached for it in E1? [42:18] No, no, no. He was acquitted. But where is the evidence? [42:20] There you go. What evidence, what evidence do we have that can prove conclusively that the [42:25] president of the United States incited the January 6th riots? What's the difference between [42:27] inductive and deductive reasoning? Well, I think we need to get to this point, which is, was [42:32] January, was the election stolen from Donald Trump? That has nothing to do with what I just said. [42:38] It does, because that's, no, no, no. May I make my point real fast? Because that's what leads us [42:42] to all of this, is malicious political prosecution. Right. So was it a malicious political prosecution [42:49] for the folks to go after Donald Trump when he said the election was stolen? Absolutely, [42:54] that's malicious political prosecution. Why? The president of the United States has a right [42:57] to legally challenge the results of elections in court. I mean, that is, I mean, he didn't [43:01] do anything. He lost every challenge. He went through the legal process. He challenged in [43:06] courts and then- Does the president of the United States have the right to nominate his own electors and [43:12] try to send them to D.C. to change the results of the election? I mean, I mean, there is precedent [43:15] for it with Richard Nixon and- No, does he have the right? He has the right to try to do that. [43:20] It's actually illegal. No, it's not. It is. That's why people want to- He has the right to try it, [43:24] and then Congress voted on it, and they said that, no, they certainly voted to certify the election. [43:28] You think if Joe Biden or Kamala Harris- He went through the legal means of trying to- [43:32] Hold on, hold on. Let's just get this clear. Let's just get this clear. You think that Kamala [43:37] Harris could have sent her own electors on, wherever the hell that was, 2024, [43:43] 2025, where they voted, and she said, actually, I won. You think that's okay? [43:48] Kamala Harris had the right to challenge the 2024 election if she wanted. [43:50] That's not what I'm saying. Well, that's the answer, because that's all it was. [43:53] Well, no, because this is what this is all about, is that it's not that he challenged [43:56] the election. It's that he sent a slate- No, hold on. Why did ABC pay him $30 million? [44:00] He sent a slate of electors to get voted on that Mike Pence was going to reject the real electors. [44:07] Right, it was a legal theory about the Constitution that was being tested out based off previous [44:11] precedent. No, it's not a legal theory. These are fake- [44:14] It's not a legal theory. These are fake electoral votes. [44:17] The problem with what you're saying is none of what you said is now relevant, because [44:20] he- It is relevant, because now he's asking us [44:22] for money. No, no, no. We know he's asking us for [44:24] money. He already, well, let's be clear. He already won one $30 million lawsuit. I wouldn't [44:27] be surprised- Well, I just want to know, was the 2020 election [44:30] stolen? Because that's what this is all about. No, this is- [44:32] That's an absolute no to the process. That's not what this is about. This is about [44:34] the fact that Trump- It's so bad. It's so easy to say yes or no. [44:35] It's malicious political prosecution. Is it malicious, and is it prosecution if Donald [44:41] Trump lied about the thing that he's being persecuted for? [44:44] I think let's actually talk about the problem. The key issue, and then the one that's really [44:47] being debated, is whether or not it's justified for the President of the United States to- [44:50] You all can't answer if the 2020 election was stolen. [44:53] I don't know. I'm going to say, I don't know if the 2020 election was stolen. [44:55] Now, I have a question, because Donald Trump is using the Justice Department to go after [44:59] folks, right? What do you mean? [45:02] He's going after people using the Justice Department. [45:03] People who committed crimes. Okay. [45:05] Michael Boland, what kind of- So where is the person being sent to jail [45:09] who helped steal the 2020 election from Donald Trump? [45:12] What do you mean? No one is, I'm not making this up. [45:14] I'm not making the claim, I refuse to make the claim that definitively the 2020 election [45:18] was stolen. I'm not doing that. [45:19] Well, I genuinely think- I want to know then- [45:20] I'm not making this up. Where- [45:21] I think that is- [45:22] Real quick. Go ahead. [45:23] I think that that is probably one of the most important questions for American democracy. [45:27] Because if Donald Trump is correct, which he continues to say, that the 2020 election [45:30] was stolen, we need to use the full force of the government to punish whoever did that. [45:35] And what I think- [45:36] Where are they? [45:37] What I think Keith is saying is that that is not materialized in any way, and Donald [45:40] Trump- [45:41] Yeah, that has nothing to do with this prompt, so I think- [45:42] It is, dude. [45:43] Because this is about- [45:44] Well, let's talk about it. [45:45] Hold on. [45:46] I just think that it is wild to say that that doesn't matter, whether or not the 2020 election [45:50] was stolen. [45:51] Because if that is true, if the President of the United States has sufficient evidence [45:55] that an American election was undermined, you need to fully focus on that, because what's [46:00] going to stop that from happening again? [46:02] And there's a reason why he's not focusing on that, because he knows it's bullshit. [46:05] I mean, I wouldn't- [46:06] And we all know it's bullshit. [46:07] I mean, again- [46:08] And you're stammering right now because you can't defend it. [46:09] I'm not going to make this up. [46:10] And here- [46:11] And you want to move the prompt because you know- [46:12] Let's move on. [46:13] We're not moving on. [46:14] What is it about? [46:15] It's about getting money for something that didn't happen. [46:17] Well, no. [46:18] Yes, it is. [46:19] So, the- [46:20] What was the malicious political prosecution- [46:22] Malicious political prosecution was creating new crimes that have literally never been [46:25] charged for by any presidential candidate, despite multiple candidates before in history [46:29] challenging results of presidential elections, and then going after Donald Trump to try to [46:33] jail him, and Joe Biden trying to jail his chief political opponent. [46:37] That's what the malicious political prosecution was in this case. [46:40] And the only thing that really needs to be debated here is whether or not the President, [46:44] or the United States, can seek from their own DOJ a payout for malicious political prosecution. [46:48] And there are statutes which allow an American citizen to seek retribution in the form of [46:55] payments from the government if there has been malicious political prosecution. [47:00] But where is it? [47:01] What do you mean? [47:02] Where is the malicious political prosecution? [47:04] Here's the malicious part of it, and this is what Trump is actually pursuing. [47:07] I just had to look it up. [47:08] The Russia-Russia collusion is the primary thing that Donald Trump is seeking the $230 [47:13] million in damage for. [47:14] The leftists and the Democrats. [47:15] Was there any objective evidence that linked Russia to stealing the 2016 election, where [47:20] Trump kicked Hillary Clinton's ass? [47:23] Yes or no? [47:24] The evidence? [47:25] Yes or no? [47:26] Do you understand the nuances? [47:27] Oh, no, no, no, no. [47:28] But see, we have real objective, either there was objective evidence, or there was not. [47:33] Was there any objective evidence that was presented that the President of the United States colluded [47:36] with Vladimir Putin and Russia, Russia, Russia to get 2016 elected? [47:40] Hold on, hold on. [47:41] This round table, typically these are supposed to be civil discussions. [47:43] I get that you're animated and a little bit emotional. [47:44] This is very civil. [47:45] How civil is your guys' event? [47:46] I'm not saying, I'm not saying you. [47:47] I'm specifically pointing at you right now. [47:50] I think that it's very indicative in what you just admitted to earlier, and I really [47:53] appreciate you're honest and being transparent about everything, and I really appreciate [47:56] that. [47:57] So to say that you had to look up what the script was for like, why Donald Trump is being [48:00] maliciously persecuted, instead of knowing that, even though you seem very convicted [48:04] and very defensive of the administration, I think that really shows the problem with [48:08] a lot of these political discussions, because it shows that there's a lot of post hoc like [48:11] justification of like, I know Donald Trump is innocent, let me look it up real quick, [48:15] so that way I can show it in the conversation. [48:16] I never claimed he was innocent. [48:17] I simply claimed what he was seeking the damages for, Mason, and you did an excellent, you [48:19] did an excellent job in a civil, let me, let me respond to that if I can. [48:22] You did an excellent job in remaining civil. [48:24] I think we've been pretty civil at this table, I'd like to believe. [48:26] I'd say so. [48:27] I think you've been really civil. [48:28] But I think, but I think that you still didn't answer my question, which is, has any objective [48:32] evidence been presented that Russia interfered in the 2016 election where Trump won? [48:37] Yes. [48:38] Where? [48:39] What happened? [48:40] There's no evidence. [48:41] Trump won. [48:42] There you go. [48:43] I mean, Trump won. [48:44] Can we go back to what we're talking about? [48:45] Well, I, I, I do know, I do know some instances. [48:47] So you wouldn't obtain information like I just did? [48:49] You wouldn't take the time? [48:50] I don't even have my phone on me because I'm trying to just talk to you guys. [48:53] I'm going to say, I'm going to say that there's no sufficient evidence to show that the 2016 [48:56] was illegitimate. [48:57] Thank you for that. [48:58] I agree with that. [48:59] Thank you. [49:00] But, but you can't admit that there was Russian collusion. [49:01] No. [49:02] Specifically with spreading misinformation. [49:03] No. [49:04] That's okay. [49:05] Russia is an adversary to the United States. [49:06] Do you really think that you can't be America first and talk about this? [49:07] I'm not going to make that up. [49:08] There's no provable link to the Trump campaign and to Donald Trump. [49:11] No, there is. [49:12] No, to Donald Trump specifically. [49:15] I agree with you. [49:16] There's no link to Donald Trump specifically as an individual colluding with Russian officials, [49:20] but there are actual evidence that was presented in courts and proven in courts that members [49:24] of his campaign did. [49:26] That is not to say that Donald Trump authorized like his campaign members to do that or he [49:29] colluded with that or use the information, but we know, and this is proven in court through [49:33] bipartisan judicials, this is not just a Democrat hoax of there was collusion with Russian officials [49:40] and certain members of the Trump campaign. [49:42] Now, is that to say that there is sufficient evidence to overturn the 2016? [49:45] Of course not. [49:47] Both Keith and I would probably agree, you're going to agree, right, that Donald Trump won [49:50] the 2016 election? [49:51] Yes. [49:52] There you go. [49:53] I'll respond to that. [49:54] So Donald did win. [49:55] But what you guys can't say is that the 2020 election was legitimate. [49:59] You're still like dancing around and stammering and stuttering because you know that Donald [50:03] Trump still doesn't acknowledge that. [50:04] No, I'm not. [50:05] I'm not making it up. [50:06] Let's go back to your point real quick about 2016. [50:08] So you said that there was completely legitimate investigations into the Trump campaign, and [50:13] that's just false. [50:14] And we were told... [50:15] Well, the reports that Tulsi Gabbard and the Department of Intelligence have released [50:17] have kind of showcased that it was all a political witch hunt against President Trump, which [50:21] is what they're seeking the damages for. [50:23] And yeah, if there was actual malice committed by a federal employee against Donald Trump [50:29] and during his 2024 election, then absolutely, he is entitled to seek damages from that. [50:34] Can you guys read just the principle of it, that if Trump was actually, if he was maliciously [50:39] politically prosecuted, that he would be able to seek damages? [50:43] Can we agree just to that general precedent? [50:44] Yeah. [50:45] I think if there are specific directives that are targeted towards individuals, they should [50:50] be able to seek justice. [50:51] Now, is that in the form of $230 million to enrich yourself? [50:55] Well, not to enrich yourself. [50:56] I don't think that that shouldn't be... [50:57] He's not enriching himself, Mason. [50:58] He's donating it to charity. [51:00] We have precedent with that. [51:01] He's already doing it to his salary. [51:02] So based on the principle of first mention, if he's done it with his salary, why wouldn't [51:05] he do it with the damages? [51:06] I'm just saying, my friend, there's a difference between deductive and inductive [51:08] reasoning. [51:09] There's a huge difference. [51:10] I didn't really get to talk about that earlier. [51:11] But we can inductively see through the character of Donald Trump that, you know, someone who's [51:15] selling NFT baseball cards or whatever the cartoons that he's selling to enrich himself, [51:19] this is somebody who likes money a lot. [51:20] I mean, he talks about it a lot. [51:22] Primarily, he sees wealth accumulation as one of the biggest reasons why you're worth [51:27] in society. [51:28] And so I think that, you know, seeing an individual like that, I think it's okay to be skeptical. [51:32] Now, that's not saying that people shouldn't try to seek justice if there has been injustice [51:35] that's occurred. [51:37] But what we're saying is we're pretty skeptical given the character of Donald Trump that he's [51:40] presented to the American people, and that's a worthy skepticism. [51:43] Given the character of the man that has consistently donated his... [51:45] He's already set some sort of a precedent by donating his, to you, measly $400,000 when [51:50] the average American in this country don't even make $56,000. [51:52] I'm just saying. [51:53] No, no, you're saying... [51:54] These are pennies in the war chest. [51:55] Well, okay. [51:56] Well, Donald Trump is worth a couple billion dollars. [51:57] Why is it not... [51:58] Why doesn't he take a dollar? [51:59] What do you mean why doesn't he take a dollar? [52:00] Ask him. [52:02] No, I'm asking you. [52:03] He doesn't need the money. [52:04] He said... [52:05] If he doesn't need the money, why not just take a dollar? [52:06] Well, I know for a fact that none of that money that's going toward the building of the new [52:08] East Wing ballroom is coming out of the pockets of American taxpayers. [52:11] I know that for certain. [52:13] We can prove that just looking at the huge donors, the people that have willingly, freely [52:16] used their money to make those donations. [52:20] So would you think then that Trump is not going to take that $230 million if he wins? [52:23] I know that Trump has a charity, he has a charity that he used to pay himself. [52:31] What charity is that you're talking about? [52:32] The one that Tish James made him have to dissolve in 2018. [52:38] So Donald Trump does not have a clear record on taking money that's meant for someone else [52:44] and using it for someone else. [52:46] So that's interesting. [52:47] So you're conveniently still ignoring the fact that he donates his presidential salary [52:51] directly to the treasury and you're completely, you're being willfully ignorant of that fact. [52:56] You're ignoring, not even ignorant because you know it, you're ignoring that and now [52:59] using that to say or running from that to say... [53:01] I'm just saying there's evidence that, I'm saying there's evidence that Donald Trump [53:06] when given money for charity tends to use it on Donald Trump. [53:09] And to be clear, this isn't just a Trump issue. [53:10] Like the Clinton Foundation has also done a lot of like money laundering in order to [53:14] enrich themselves. [53:15] Do you agree with that? [53:16] Yeah. [53:17] I mean, sure. [53:18] So this is more of like a question of transparency again and how we hold people in positions [53:22] of power accountable. [53:23] I think we should be skeptical as the people when people that are already at a certain [53:27] wealthy status are asking for more from the taxpayer. [53:29] That should be something that's bipartisan. [53:31] And I think, you know, of course we need to see actually what charity he donates it to [53:35] and we can kind of evaluate after that. [53:36] But I think that there is good precedent here of President Trump, you know, using the, I [53:41] guess, funds he gets for his public service and giving them back to the American people [53:44] or giving them to charity. [53:45] Like it was brought up with the presidential salary, there is no evidence or precedent [53:49] for President Trump using his position as president to enrich himself. [53:52] There's just no precedent of that. [53:53] Wait, why hasn't he completely severed ties with the businesses that he's associated [53:57] with? [53:58] What do you mean? [53:59] So like Jimmy Carter specifically is one example who completely severed ties with [54:04] an agricultural farm that he had when he became president because he wanted to show, hey, [54:08] I don't want to have any ties specifically to something that's going to enrich me or [54:11] I don't want to show that my position of power is going to be used to prop up this business. [54:15] That's under my name. [54:16] Donald Trump has not done that. [54:17] He's only... [54:18] But he's under an obligation to. [54:19] You've just said right now that there's... [54:21] To sever ties with businesses? [54:22] He literally said, or he didn't say, you said that there's a precedent for him not showing [54:28] that he's using his position of power to enrich himself. [54:31] And I'm saying that's the precedent right there. [54:33] If he completely wanted to show, hey, I'm in this for the American people, I'm in this [54:37] for public service, he would detach himself from private enterprises. [54:40] I mean, that's just not... [54:42] That's an opinion. [54:43] That is an opinion, Mason. [54:44] How is that not... [54:45] But you can't make... [54:47] What you're saying is that if he, by your logic, is if... [54:51] I'm trying to make sure I understand what you're saying. [54:53] You're saying that if he was really for the American people, he would sever ties from [54:57] all of his private businesses that he had prior to him becoming president. [54:59] I'm just making sure I'm understanding that. [55:01] I'm just saying that somebody that becomes the president of the United States, the most [55:03] powerful position in the world, shouldn't also have other obligations to specific enterprises [55:07] that they're also affiliated with. [55:09] Well, there's no evidence of him prioritizing his obligations over his obligations... [55:13] There is. [55:14] I mean, if you have Saudi officials in his own hotels, that's showing that you're utilizing [55:17] your role as government in order to enrich yourself. [55:18] I mean, him housing Saudi officials in a nice hotel and creating a pleasant experience... [55:22] Hold on, but Mason... [55:23] There's housing them in your own hotel that's not so enriching... [55:25] No, but hold on, Mason. [55:26] To be fair... [55:27] No, but to be fair, he owned those hotels and he had them well before he ran for president, [55:31] right? [55:32] Yeah. [55:33] So then why is that a problem, Mason? [55:34] Why are they choosing that specifically? [55:35] Well, no, what I'm saying is Trump is... [55:38] He has a degree of narcissism in his bones. [55:40] He loves his... [55:41] Wait, why does he... [55:42] Why does he want Trump casinos in Gaza? [55:43] By actually... [55:44] By actually acquiring that land through Israel's acquisition? [55:46] Trump has a slight degree of narcissism. [55:48] I think that all politicians... [55:49] Trump, did you hear that? [55:50] I think all politicians do. [55:51] You have to do the job and do it to some degree well. [55:54] So he owned these properties before he became the president of the United States. [55:57] Correct. [55:58] So he has the right to host someone in a beautiful hotel. [56:00] He loves saying, I love luxury. [56:01] I love luxury. [56:02] He says that all the time. [56:03] So whether you love him or hate him, he has that right to do so. [56:06] It's his property. [56:07] He owned it prior to becoming president, doesn't it? [56:08] I'm not saying it should be illegal. [56:10] I'm just saying that this is more indicative of how he views his role as the executive. [56:13] That's all we're saying. [56:14] Do you think that members of Congress should be able to make money off of stock [56:19] trades? [56:20] No, Nancy Pelosi. [56:21] No. [56:22] No. [56:23] Me neither. [56:24] Or Dan Crenshaw. [56:25] Let's not pretend like it's just the left. [56:26] But there are a lot. [56:27] Oh, no. [56:28] It's the left and the right. [56:29] It's the left and the right. [56:30] 100%. [56:31] We all agree, though. [56:32] But we all... [56:33] Oh, my God. [56:34] We all agree on this. [56:35] Yes. [56:36] We all agree that members of Congress should not make money off of their access [56:37] to information within the government. [56:38] Yes. [56:39] Okay. [56:40] As it relates to stocks. [56:41] I'm going to be specific with that. [56:42] Okay. [56:43] Why would they make money off of that? [56:44] Because they have access to modify. [56:46] And as it relates specifically to the stock market and Wall Street, they could have access [56:50] and influence to modify the outcome of the price of certain stocks. [56:54] Right. [56:56] So I know it's hard because you really like Donald Trump. [56:59] But I'm being serious here. [57:02] That's what Donald Trump is doing. [57:05] He's doing this in the Oval Office where he is deciding what he focuses on and what's [57:10] important to him. [57:12] What's important to him? [57:13] He's making money for himself. [57:14] And I... [57:15] That's just fundamentally not true. [57:16] I mean... [57:17] We've seen it happen in real time. [57:20] And I personally... [57:21] And I think... [57:22] I would hope you would agree with me. [57:23] I want to live in a country where the people who represent us are representing us and not [57:29] representing how to make themselves richer. [57:31] Right? [57:32] I think we can broad strokes agree with that. [57:34] This notion that President Trump is somehow... [57:36] That he has an incentive to use the office to enrich himself. [57:38] I mean, it's just silly. [57:39] The guy is, I think, what? [57:40] At this point, 78 years old. [57:41] I mean, he already has a slew of wealth. [57:42] I mean... [57:43] He has a slew of wealth. [57:44] He's worth billions of dollars. [57:45] There's just no incentive for him to, you know, try to get hundreds of millions of dollars [57:49] incentive to enrich himself. [57:50] And yet... [57:51] And yet... [57:52] And there's no... [57:53] And you have no evidence you could point to of him using the office of the presidency [57:54] to do it. [57:55] I've already pointed out multiple. [57:56] If you're housing government officials in your own enterprises, if you're not severing [57:59] ties between private equity that is continuing to get enriched under your presidency, coincidentally, [58:04] that's not something that is... [58:05] That his businesses are successful. [58:06] That is not something that is conducive for somebody who is trying to put public service [58:10] over his... [58:11] I disagree. [58:12] I think you can... [58:13] I think you can do both. [58:14] And I think that's what Trump has done. [58:15] When you had... [58:16] When he first got in office, the United Arab Emirates, I think they... [58:18] The thing was to the tune of $1 billion investment that they wanted to throw into the United [58:22] States. [58:23] Apple agreed to invest $300 billion. [58:24] Not only does that... [58:25] I think there's this... [58:26] What's happening, I think, we have this sort of catch-22 where it's... [58:29] You're saying, oh, only the rest of the country should be enriched, as if the president is [58:32] not still also a citizen. [58:34] He's not still also a business owner, to be quite frank. [58:37] Him using Trump Towers and the Trump Hotels to house Saudi officials, he legally has every [58:43] right to do so. [58:44] Now, you can argue, we can argue all day long, it's in bad taste, but that would require [58:47] a law change. [58:48] And at present, I see nothing wrong with what the man is doing. [58:51] Would we all agree that the president, that we would like to live in a country where the [58:56] president can't make money from his access to the government? [58:59] Would we broadly like to agree that that's something we'd like in our country? [59:03] Can't? [59:04] I mean, I would say that they should prioritize it. [59:06] Okay. [59:07] So I... [59:08] Like, what if, like, the president made, I think, $500,000 a year is not enough to be [59:11] president, honestly. [59:12] Like, what if the president made $10 million a year, and we said, that's it? [59:17] If you make any extra money from your access to the government, it's illegal. [59:21] Would that... [59:22] I mean, I think our politicians are generally rich enough. [59:23] I don't think we really need to be raising salaries for them. [59:25] Yeah. [59:26] Well, I also think that most of their wealth is going to come through status and connection, [59:29] more so than it is, like, a monetary, like, pension, you know? [59:33] I think we found common ground on, or we did not find common ground on whether or not Donald [59:37] Trump faced malicious political prosecution, but I think we found some on the fact that [59:40] a president should have the right to seek. [59:42] Okay. [59:42] I think we should talk about legal redress if they did. [59:43] ...fall out after the leak of racist text messages linked to members of young Republican [59:49] groups across the country. [59:51] The website Politico says it obtained seven months' worth of messages from a group chat [59:55] in which racist and anti-Semitic slurs were used more than 250 times. [1:00:00] It's awful. [1:00:01] It's revolting. [1:00:02] It's disgusting. [1:00:03] It's obnoxious. [1:00:04] Politico says Peter Junta, who was the chair of the New York State Young Republicans, [1:00:09] allegedly wrote in a text message, [1:00:13] In another exchange, Junta reportedly responded, [1:00:17] Some Republicans have denounced the language, while Vice President J.D. Vance dismissed the [1:00:26] messages as edgy, offensive jokes. [1:00:29] We're not canceling kids because they do something stupid in a group chat. [1:00:33] Bigotry and hate speech are becoming normalized among young conservatives. [1:00:36] I mean, I'll let, I'll let y'all have the floor on this one. [1:00:41] Sure. [1:00:42] Why's it not? [1:00:43] Well, I think that, first of all, I'll say that I think that's a good thing. [1:00:44] It was a good thing. [1:00:45] the much bigger problem in our country with hate speech and bigotry is amongst the American left [1:00:49] wing, and especially the youth left wing. I think that the response that we've seen in the aftermath [1:00:55] of multiple assassinations, of the attempted assassination of Donald Trump, the assassination [1:00:59] of Charlie Kirk, and the assassination of the healthcare CEO, the response of the American [1:01:04] youth left to celebrate these assassinations is, it was just disgusting. I think that the American [1:01:09] left wing has a really big problem right now with promoting and wanting political violence. And I [1:01:13] think that that's a lot bigger of a deal than some 20, 30 year olds making some jokes in a group [1:01:18] chat. I'm going to say very quickly that those nobodies, because that's what they are. Nobody [1:01:23] knew who they were until those chats got leaked. They were horrendously racist jokes, but I'm going [1:01:28] to say that that's exactly what they were, jokes. Because that's what they were. They were a group [1:01:33] of nobodies. Do you think that nobodies are like heads of organizations that have over 15,000 [1:01:38] members? You're saying that that's how many members that they have? Yeah. So they were head [1:01:43] of different statewide. [1:01:44] Young Republican groups and those organizations, specifically the one in New York has over 15,000 [1:01:50] members. I don't think that these are just like people without influence or not. They may have [1:01:54] some influence. How old were they? I believe he was in his early thirties. The main guy I think [1:02:00] was 28. I actually had a question for you. I don't want to pry into your personal life. I know that [1:02:04] you're affiliated with like a young Republican group. I'm the president for the college Republicans. [1:02:07] Is that affiliated with, is that a statewide agency of the broader family? I'm the national [1:02:13] president for the college Republicans. [1:02:14] I'm the president of the United Nations of America. So we, we're separate from the YRs. Okay, gotcha. [1:02:18] But, but I mean, I, Keith, you had your answer. I was going to say, like, I condemn any jokes that were made [1:02:23] about Charlie Kirk. I think it's terrible. Do you condemn what these young men were saying? I do. [1:02:32] I think that they were, I mean, I think the jokes were in poor taste is what, is what I'll say. I think [1:02:36] that, but what I will say as well is that I think that there is a broad characterization on the left [1:02:40] to try to paint these as being, as if they were serious or as if that these isn't, that [1:02:45] this is an ideology amongst American conservative, young American conservatives. And it's just not. [1:02:49] I think if you look at what they actually... Well, Nick, Nick Fuentes is, Nick Fuentes does not [1:02:54] represent the conservative movement at all by any stretch of the imagination at all. The thing is, the thing is that's [1:02:58] interesting with that, though. And I'm glad to hear that you disagree with Nick Fuentes. Like, that's [1:03:01] refreshing to hear because he's growing at such a rapid pace. And the reason why is because so [1:03:06] many young men are viewing that as my ideology. I agree with that fully. I have, there's a term [1:03:12] that's going around called black fatigue, where people are saying that when they [1:03:16] see a black person in public, they're one, either assuming that they're going to be committing [1:03:19] violence, or two, they don't want to live in a neighborhood with black people. And that is a term [1:03:24] that's specifically coined by Nick Fuentes that has garnered the attention of people like Steven [1:03:28] Crowder. Tucker Carlson just had on Nick Fuentes where they had a buddy-buddy interview. Like, this [1:03:32] is a man that is getting so much influence. And whether you like it or not, that is the future of [1:03:37] the Republican Party. I just want to talk about these group chats real quick and go back to my [1:03:40] point. I think that there is a, if you look at the, what was actually said, and [1:03:46] if you look at them in context, these weren't serious statements being made. Like, the headline [1:03:50] of the article saying, I love Hitler, that wasn't what, he wasn't making an actual claim about a [1:03:54] political ideology. He was talking mess in a group chat. Again, it's in horrendous poor taste, [1:03:58] and I think it's stupid. But again, he's... And to say that when Nick Fuentes says, I love Hitler, [1:04:04] is he joking? I mean, I don't really know much about ideology. I do. But that's what I, but I [1:04:10] feel like you actually can't discount one person and then say that someone else is doing the same [1:04:17] joke. I think those are two different people, though. So, I mean, we got to, we have to be, [1:04:20] we got to be fair, though, because those kids in that group chat is one thing. Nick Fuentes has [1:04:24] made a platform of saying insane, outlandish, nonsensical crap. There's, and I'm not, I'm not [1:04:29] going to, I'm not even going to do that to those people in that group chat. I'm not going to do [1:04:33] that. I'm not going to make that correlation between them and a guy like Nick Fuentes. I refuse [1:04:37] to do that. So, in the sake of fairness, right, when you say that, obviously, there's a political [1:04:40] motive between the jokes made about Charlie Kirk or Christians and a lot of the left, can you say [1:04:45] that there's the same thing for the right? I think that there, I think that there is a very [1:04:48] distinct difference between the two. And so for, like, let's, let's talk about, you know, what I [1:04:53] brought up earlier with the Charlie Kirk stuff. If you look at the actual rhetoric of prominent [1:04:57] Democrat politicians calling people like Donald Trump and Charlie Kirk fascists. Or Hitler. [1:05:02] Exactly. Can you name one Democrat official? Yes, Kamala Harris. He called Trump Hitler. [1:05:06] She called Trump Hitler. Or another one, Jasmine Crockett. What about J.D. Vance? What about him? [1:05:12] He did the same thing. He called him Hitler. And one of them. And he was wrong. He was, [1:05:15] he was radicalized by the. And one of them changed. I don't think he ever apologized for [1:05:18] that. One of them had the sense to change their stance. Well, he had to apologize. He may have [1:05:21] not have done it publicly. And he did apologize publicly, by the way. So, one of these people [1:05:25] that were named changed their stance, became Trump's vice president. The other one has the [1:05:29] audacity to go on The Breakfast Club, still to this day, talking about Byron Donald is whitewashed [1:05:33] just because he married a white woman and then has the audacity to call Trump Hitler versus actually [1:05:36] getting, doing her job in Congress. So, I mean, like that doesn't, and Donald Trump is not Hitler. [1:05:41] I'm sorry. There's nothing that Donald Trump. I don't think Donald Trump is Hitler, but I think [1:05:45] Donald Trump. He's nowhere near. [1:05:45] Donald Trump is doing a lot of similar things. Has he authorized the slaughter of six million [1:05:49] Jews? No. Has he stolen all the guns? Has he taken away the guns of the citizens in the country like [1:05:53] Hitler did to the Germans? You could go down a gif of a bunch of different policies. You say he's [1:05:57] close, but he. Yes, but we could talk about the similarities. And then we're spending a whole [1:06:01] hour talking about what's similar with Donald Trump, with Hitler, what's not similar. What [1:06:04] we're saying is there's a clear authoritarian push and something that y'all are okay with, [1:06:08] especially when it comes to censorship of journalists, when it comes to the rounding [1:06:11] up and the lack of due process for people that are being detained by ICE. Like a lot of this [1:06:15] is clear. [1:06:16] Clearly a push for authoritarianism. And I know a lot of Republicans that say, you [1:06:19] know, I'm fine for a little authoritarianism. We need some law and order. It's been too [1:06:22] lawless for too long. And I don't know if you would at least sympathize with those that [1:06:26] end. I think that's where we're really seeing the divide here is, is people that want to [1:06:30] maintain institutions that have been principled in American history. And then those that say, [1:06:34] you know, it's time for change. We need a strong man like Trump to take over. [1:06:36] Going back to my point earlier, I think that the, going back to the point about the fascism, [1:06:42] calling Trump fascist, we have prominent Democrat politicians. [1:06:46] Kamala Harris calling Donald Trump fascist and likening him to Hitler. That creates the [1:06:49] ideological base for the crazies on your, in your party to go and assassinate someone [1:06:54] like Charlie. [1:06:54] So you also condemned Trump saying that Kamala Harris is a fascist. [1:06:56] Let me finish my point. That's why you saw on the bullet, it said, catch this fascist, [1:07:01] the one that shot Charlie Kirk. That's why, that's why you see people on, you know, thousands [1:07:05] of people on the Democrat base on social media celebrating the death of Charlie Kirk. And [1:07:10] the problem isn't necessarily people making jokes that are in poor taste about it. The [1:07:13] problem is when people on left genuinely celebrate the death of Charlie Kirk. And that's why [1:07:16] they celebrate it. And that's the difference that we see between, you know, these right [1:07:18] wing group chats and, you know, all people on the left and their response to Charlie [1:07:22] Kirk's assassination. It's people on the right, they joke, they make bad jokes. [1:07:24] What is... [1:07:25] People on the left, it is genuine celebration of Charlie Kirk's assassination. [1:07:28] What is fascism? [1:07:30] Fascism is violently suppressing political dissent through means of force. [1:07:33] It's also the, the control, the, the, it is when you're trying to control all aspects [1:07:42] of government and trying to crush any dissent. [1:07:44] Right, that's right. [1:07:45] I would disagree with that. [1:07:46] I disagree with that definition. I mean, I think that we've seen Marxist-Leninist regimes [1:07:50] that have crushed political dissent. Those aren't fascist. [1:07:52] I would 100% classify Stalin as a fascist. [1:07:55] Communism is inherently fascist. [1:07:56] No. [1:07:57] No. [1:07:58] You guys are, you guys are getting confused with your ideologies. [1:07:59] No, no, we're not. [1:08:00] And that's not... [1:08:01] It depends, it depends on... [1:08:02] Fascism specifically is a call to a mythological nostalgia about a particular hierarchical [1:08:07] group. So it's about promising and protecting hierarchy between particular groups, whether [1:08:12] that is racial, whether that is religious, whether that is cultural. That's what fascism [1:08:15] is. [1:08:16] I don't know who's defining the term. Fascism is one of the least defined political terms [1:08:20] out there. [1:08:21] I think it's pretty easy to point to things that are fascist. [1:08:22] No, there's a pretty good amount of historians who would call Stalin a fascist. [1:08:25] He was. [1:08:26] But... [1:08:27] Can you name two? [1:08:28] Not off the top of my head. [1:08:29] Webster-Tarpley? [1:08:30] Don't, don't try to appeal to that ethos. [1:08:31] Webster-Tarpley. [1:08:32] Webster-Tarpley would be one. Webster-Tarpley would be one that would properly identify [1:08:36] Hitler as a fascist. [1:08:37] Yeah, Hitler is a fascist, right. [1:08:38] The ideological, no, no, no. The ideological tap dance that's going on here is insane [1:08:43] to me. Bigotry and hate speech is becoming normalized among young conservatives. Our [1:08:46] conservatives. Outside of Nick Fuentes, can you show me any other young conservative... [1:08:52] I think Nick is a little bit... [1:08:53] I have an example. Donald Trump. Donald Trump. [1:08:57] Trump is not a fascist. [1:08:58] What hate speech and bigotry? [1:09:00] Yeah, what... [1:09:01] He is called people here who are undocumented vermin. [1:09:06] Isn't that what he said? [1:09:07] Yeah. [1:09:08] Yeah, he did. [1:09:09] He said we need to get rid of the vermin in our country. [1:09:10] Yeah, people like MS-13. [1:09:11] He's... [1:09:12] By vermin, he's... [1:09:13] Right, right. [1:09:14] He said, he said... [1:09:15] I would say drug dealers are vermin, yes. [1:09:16] He said undocumented immigrants are poisoning the blood of... [1:09:18] Yes. [1:09:18] ...the blood of America. [1:09:19] MS-13, correct. [1:09:20] He was specifically... [1:09:21] Thank you. [1:09:22] He was specifically referring to MS-13 gang members and people that were killing and taking [1:09:25] over neighborhoods in Chicago. [1:09:26] No. [1:09:27] I wish that were true. [1:09:28] I wish he said MS-13. [1:09:29] I wish that were true. [1:09:30] That's not what he said. [1:09:31] No, I'm telling... [1:09:32] No, that's what he was referring to. [1:09:33] No, I didn't say... [1:09:34] I didn't say that he said it in that quote that you're trying to pull. [1:09:35] I said that's what he was referring to. [1:09:36] Any time he's been referring to the illegals as immigrants or... [1:09:37] You can say no all you want. [1:09:38] Like, there's not thousands of clips of him condemning illegal immigrants going into American [1:09:41] apartment homes like in Chicago or across the country. [1:09:44] Right, right, right. [1:09:45] It's not okay to label undocumented immigrants as vermin. [1:09:48] If you're killing American citizens, that is exactly what you are. [1:09:50] But that's not what he... [1:09:51] He was not saying these Americans... [1:09:52] That is what he was referring to. [1:09:53] No, no. [1:09:54] Yeah, it was. [1:09:55] It's exactly what the man did. [1:09:56] The point is, the criticism is the generalization. [1:09:59] That's the point. [1:10:00] Yes. [1:10:01] So if you were specifically saying MS-13 and you're doing that... [1:10:02] They're vermin. [1:10:03] Whatever. [1:10:04] Right. [1:10:05] When you're saying just the overall day, there's a lot of interpretation that your constituency [1:10:07] is going to interpret. [1:10:08] And your job as an executive, the person that's in charge of the entire country, you should [1:10:12] be trying to appeal to all those that are constituents within you. [1:10:15] And when you say the fascist radical left that are Marxist, the anarchist, they're ruining [1:10:18] our country, you're attributing a whole list of different insults towards a large majority. [1:10:24] Would you argue that it was bigotry when Joe Biden got his ass on the online and called [1:10:28] all of those of us that wanted to vote for Trump garbage? [1:10:30] Is that bigotry or hate speech? [1:10:32] When he put on the MAGA hat? [1:10:33] No, no, no. [1:10:34] Yes or no. [1:10:35] Just yes or no. [1:10:36] Is that hate speech? [1:10:37] Yeah. [1:10:38] Okay. [1:10:39] Thank you. [1:10:40] At least you can be that honest. [1:10:41] This idea... [1:10:42] So Donald Trump's never said anything incendiary towards Democrats? [1:10:44] Trump has absolutely never said anything incendiary towards Democrats. [1:10:45] That's just, that's just what politicians do. [1:10:49] That's political theater. [1:10:50] Then we need to drop, we've gone down a whole tangent, hold on, we've gone down a whole [1:10:54] tangent of saying that because Democrats called Donald Trump a fascist, this is indicative [1:10:57] that there is political violence that's being accrued by the left. [1:10:59] No, there is a 100% difference because you don't see people on the right celebrating [1:11:03] violence or going out and trying to assassinate people like Joe Biden. [1:11:05] So people on the right did not celebrate when Nancy Pelosi's husband was bludgeoned by a [1:11:09] hammer. [1:11:10] You're saying nobody on the right made jokes or laughed? [1:11:11] Donald Trump... [1:11:12] Made jokes about it? [1:11:13] Yeah. [1:11:14] Celebrated it? [1:11:15] There's a lot of political ideology on the left that wants to violently suppress Republican [1:11:19] and people like ours belief systems. [1:11:21] That's the difference. [1:11:22] Let's slow this down for just one moment because, again, we are condemning what happened to [1:11:27] Charlie Kirk and anyone who joked about it. [1:11:29] I actually cried about it on my YouTube channel. [1:11:31] I thought it was, as someone who talks about politics, I was terrified. [1:11:34] I wish the majority of the base would. [1:11:35] Now, Nancy Pelosi's husband was alone in her home and in his home. [1:11:42] Someone broke into his home looking for Nancy Pelosi. [1:11:48] He had a hammer. [1:11:49] Thank God she wasn't there. [1:11:51] But he was. [1:11:53] He got hit in the head so hard that he had to go to the hospital and they weren't even [1:11:57] sure he was going to make it out, okay? [1:12:00] What did Donald Trump Jr. do a couple days later? [1:12:04] He posted underwear and a hammer saying, I got my Halloween costume ready. [1:12:09] No, no, no. [1:12:10] That wasn't in reference to celebrating the violence. [1:12:12] That was in reference to... [1:12:13] Oh my God. [1:12:14] You think that's okay? [1:12:15] No, no. [1:12:16] Yes or no. [1:12:17] You think what Donald Trump Jr. did is okay? [1:12:19] I thought it was a bit insensitive. [1:12:20] I think that the real divide here is pointing to specific examples of what could be perceived [1:12:26] as political violence. [1:12:28] I think that what we should go back to is when the media would not show the face, would [1:12:32] not show the motive of people who commit these violence, because one, I think it encouraged [1:12:35] copycats, and two, I think we could go down this rabbit hole of always trying to psychoanalyze [1:12:40] the specific motives of people who are clearly deranged, that we can all agree with. [1:12:43] So I think the bigger question here is how do we develop a culture that leads to these [1:12:47] nihilistic tendencies to where people feel like these actions of violence are actually [1:12:50] violence are okay, and that really should be what we're focusing on, and it seems to [1:12:54] be like we're getting lost in the weeds on specifically whose fault that is. [1:12:58] The removal of God leads to nihilism. [1:13:00] The thing that I realized from this conversation is that there are things we have in common, [1:13:06] and I think algorithms and I think oligarchs want us to think that we are completely different, [1:13:13] and it's when we have conversations like this that we become more powerful as citizens because [1:13:19] we realize actually there aren't that many things different. [1:13:23] Obviously we have extreme differences, but we all want the same thing. [1:13:27] Yeah, and on the sentiment, I think that we'll blame different things, but I think [1:13:31] that the mainstream media definitely doesn't want these conversations to happen. [1:13:34] I think that types of conversations like these where we're not calling each other racist [1:13:40] or socialist or any other insult is actually incredibly productive to our country. [1:13:45] I think that the rapid development of our country of people... [1:13:49] De-friending others or cutting off family because of their political beliefs is incredibly [1:13:53] alarming, and I want us to get back to a country where we can have heated, passionate discussions [1:13:57] where we just vehemently disagree with each other, but at the end of the day can actually [1:14:01] have a conversation and still be friends after. [1:14:03] As someone that has lost connection with family members because of my political views, I think [1:14:07] the internet should be the public square. [1:14:09] Platforms like Jubilee should have as large a reach as possible because the internet is [1:14:14] the fastest way to disseminate and to transfer information to everybody, so therefore it [1:14:17] should be treated like a phone company. [1:14:18] Just like... [1:14:19] It should be free and fair for all Americans. [1:14:21] I was actually nervous going into this. [1:14:24] I'm used to just talking to a camera. [1:14:27] I'm not used to engaging with people, so I was nervous, but it's actually been really [1:14:30] nice, so thanks for allowing this to happen. [1:14:32] I absolutely appreciate you guys coming out. [1:14:34] This was a great conversation. [1:14:37] Glad that all four of us got a chance to sit at the round table. [1:14:40] Good picks, Jubilee. [1:14:41] Thank you. [1:14:42] Boy's Day. [1:14:44] Good job. [1:14:45] You got that.