The Ben Shapiro Show - May 10, 2023


Tucker's Back!


Episode Stats

Length

1 hour and 17 minutes

Words per Minute

218.0

Word Count

16,895

Sentence Count

1,235

Misogynist Sentences

21

Hate Speech Sentences

19


Summary

Tucker Carlson has now broken his silence, saying that he would be back sometime in the near future. And yesterday, he explained that he was, in fact, back. He will be launching a version of his show, he says, on Twitter, but it's not clear exactly what that will look like, or what it means for the future of Tucker's show on the social media platform. Alex Blumberg and Peter Bergen discuss why this is a good thing, and what it could mean for Tucker's future on other media outlets, including Fox News and the other cable news networks that have been rumored to be interested in taking him on as a guest host. They also discuss why it would be a good idea for Tucker to go on the air on other networks, and why it's a bad idea for him to be on the other shows he's been linked to, like MSNBC, CNN, CBS, NPR, and the New York Times, among other outlets. And they talk about why it makes sense for him not to return to Fox News, and how it could affect his chances of landing a new job at another network that pays him the same amount he was getting at Fox News. Music: "Good Morning America" by Haley Shaw, "American Morning" by The Cut, "Goodbye Outer Space" by Fountains of Wayne State University, "The Good Morning Show" by John Singleton, "Incomptech" by Sarah Downey, "Outrageous" by David Axelrod, and "Outro Music: by Ian Dorsch, "No Country" by Jeff Perrin (feat. by Suneaters, "I Don't Know What" by Kevin Spacey, "How I'll Figure It Out" by Jingle Bells, by John Mayer, "Solo" by D'Andruv "I'm Not a Badass" by Ian McKinnon, "This Is My Name" by Scott Holmes, "Blame It On You" by James Rocha, "Let's Talk About It" by Robert Downey Jr., on SoundCloud, and . in the new album art by Ian McElton John's "I'll See You Soon" by , is out! -- -- and we'll be back with a new song written and performed live on the next episode of the new ep. -- by The Good Morning America?


Transcript

00:00:00.000 Well, Tucker Carlson has now broken his silence.
00:00:02.000 Last week, he put out a video saying that he would be back sometime in the near future.
00:00:05.000 And yesterday, he put out about a two-minute video in which he explained that he was, in fact, back.
00:00:11.000 He will be launching a version of his show, he says, on Twitter.
00:00:14.000 Here was Tucker's announcement yesterday.
00:00:16.000 The best you can hope for in the news business at this point is the freedom to tell the fullest truth that you can.
00:00:22.000 But there are always limits.
00:00:24.000 And you know that if you bump up against those limits often enough, you will be fired for it.
00:00:29.000 That's not a guess.
00:00:31.000 It's guaranteed.
00:00:32.000 Twitter has long served as the place where our national conversation incubates and develops.
00:00:37.000 Twitter is not a partisan site.
00:00:39.000 Everybody's allowed here.
00:00:41.000 And we think that's a good thing.
00:00:43.000 And yet for the most part, the news that you see analyzed on Twitter comes from media organizations that are themselves thinly disguised propaganda outlets.
00:00:52.000 You see it on cable news, you talk about it on Twitter.
00:00:55.000 The result may feel like a debate, but actually the gatekeepers are still in charge.
00:01:01.000 We think that's a bad system.
00:01:03.000 We know exactly how it works and we're sick of it.
00:01:06.000 Starting soon, we'll be bringing a new version of the show we've been doing for the last six and a half years to Twitter.
00:01:12.000 We bring some other things too, which we'll tell you about.
00:01:15.000 But for now, we're just grateful to be here.
00:01:17.000 Free speech is the main right that you have.
00:01:20.000 Without it, you have no others.
00:01:22.000 See you soon.
00:01:23.000 And so it is not perfectly clear at this point exactly what Tucker's show on Twitter will look like.
00:01:28.000 What is clear is that there's been no financial arrangement between Tucker and Elon Musk.
00:01:32.000 That was the early speculation as soon as this video came out.
00:01:34.000 There have been rumors in the air that Tucker was working some sort of deal with Elon in order to take his show to Twitter and that Twitter was going to be launching essentially its own sort of show network, video podcast network.
00:01:45.000 And all of the rest, it was unclear exactly how that would monetize.
00:01:48.000 Would you pay a subscription fee in order to be able to see a show like Tucker's?
00:01:51.000 Would Tucker be directly getting advertising dollars or whatever the deal is?
00:01:55.000 None of that has been cleared up, especially because Musk actually put out a statement in which he pretty much openly dissociated from the show that Tucker is doing, at least he didn't say it's bad that he's putting it up or anything, but he did say, I'm not putting money behind it.
00:02:08.000 He suggested, he put out a tweet saying that there is no actual deal Between him and Tucker and on this platform, unlike the one-way street of broadcast, people are able to interact, critique, and refute whatever he or anyone else may say.
00:02:23.000 He said, I want to be clear.
00:02:24.000 We have not signed a deal of any kind whatsoever.
00:02:26.000 Tucker is subject to the same rules and rewards as all content creators.
00:02:30.000 And then he added those rewards would be subscriptions and advertising revenue shares.
00:02:33.000 So apparently there'll be some sort of substack model, I guess, via Twitter, in which you'll be able to directly contribute to people like Tucker if you enjoy their show via Twitter.
00:02:40.000 He said, I hope that many others, particularly from the left, also choose to be content creators on this platform.
00:02:46.000 So, the early speculation, which is that Musk would have been paying some sort of cash bounty, some sort of salary, to Tucker appears not to be the case at this point.
00:02:53.000 What is clear is that Tucker is going to be bringing some version of his show back to Twitter.
00:02:58.000 So he's not going to be absent from the public debate for 12 or 18 months, as the length of his contract at Fox News would suggest.
00:03:03.000 Now, remember, the early news when Fox News parted with Tucker is that this would have made Tucker free as a bird, but that's not how these contracts work.
00:03:09.000 Tucker, presumably, is still bound by contract.
00:03:12.000 They can continue to pay him and just take him off the air.
00:03:15.000 This is very common in the media industry, is that you are able to pay somebody and then basically pay them to stay home.
00:03:21.000 Fox has an interest, presumably, in doing that because they don't want Tucker going somewhere else and bad-mouthing them.
00:03:26.000 So how exactly is he able to go on Twitter and do that?
00:03:28.000 Because pretty much by implicit association, that's what he's doing there.
00:03:33.000 When he says there are a lot of media outlets that'll just fire you for saying the truth, you have to assume he means the people who just fired him for, in his mind, telling the truth.
00:03:40.000 So what exactly is he doing?
00:03:41.000 So, here is my suspicion.
00:03:43.000 My suspicion is that Tucker's contract is very onerous with regard to the other cable networks that he could go to, the other kinds of shows that he could start, any sort of competitive service with, say, Fox Nation.
00:03:54.000 Because, again, this is how lawyers draw contracts.
00:03:57.000 If you have a big personality like Tucker, and if you let Tucker go, either because you want to or because you have to, what you don't want is Tucker going into direct competition with you until you pay him to stay home.
00:04:06.000 However, I'm assuming that there is one area of Tucker's sort of public life that is unbound, and that presumably would be Twitter.
00:04:14.000 And that's, again, very, very common, because most personalities wish to keep their Twitter personas separate from their business relationships.
00:04:20.000 This is very common.
00:04:21.000 Here at Daily Wire, for example, we don't control Matt Walsh's Twitter feed.
00:04:24.000 We don't control Candace Owens' Twitter feed.
00:04:26.000 Daily Wire does not control my Twitter feed.
00:04:28.000 These are all things where we are saying exactly what we think and what we want.
00:04:31.000 I assume that Tucker's personal Twitter feed is the same sort of thing, that he retains rights to his personal Twitter feed, and so he felt comfortable putting this out on his personal Twitter feed.
00:04:39.000 Now, theoretically, it could violate his contract if the contract extends to virtually all video content, but clearly it doesn't extend to all video content.
00:04:47.000 It might be only extending to video content on channels to which Fox News has rights, or its direct competitors.
00:04:53.000 And so if Tucker is not considered a direct competitor, then theoretically this could free him from his contract, and this would be why he's launching a show on Twitter.
00:05:00.000 Now, I would assume this is the first step in Tucker's comeback.
00:05:03.000 I really doubt that this is the last step.
00:05:04.000 He's going to be battling out in the courts with Fox to free himself, I would assume, from the other provisions of his contract, which is why he has now issued a letter, according to Axios, an aggressive letter, from his lawyer to Fox.
00:05:16.000 That letter essentially argues that Carlson can now breach his contract because he's accusing Fox of having breached its contract.
00:05:25.000 Carlson's contract, according to Axios, currently runs until January of 2025.
00:05:29.000 Fox wants to keep paying him, which would prevent him from starting a competing show.
00:05:33.000 And of course, there are many outlets that have reached out to Tucker.
00:05:36.000 No comment, folks.
00:05:37.000 And the fact is that Tucker is, you know, presumably, until that legal situation clears up, bound by contract.
00:05:44.000 So his lawyer, Brian Friedman, is a very competent lawyer.
00:05:46.000 He's a lawyer for a lot of big name personalities, ranging from like Megyn Kelly to you, Charlie.
00:05:51.000 Brian Friedman.
00:05:52.000 has sent a letter to Fox officials like Via Dinh and Arena Borganti saying that Fox employees
00:05:57.000 broke promises to Carlson intentionally and with reckless disregard for the truth. They're going to
00:06:01.000 claim that essentially Fox broke the contract, not Tucker, and so now Tucker is going to be able to
00:06:05.000 come back and break the contract back. The lawyers are accusing Fox executives, including Dinh and
00:06:10.000 Murdoch, of making quote material representations or promises to Carlson that were intentionally
00:06:14.000 broken, constituting fraud.
00:06:16.000 What exactly would that fraud be?
00:06:17.000 The letter alleges that Fox broke an agreement with Carlson not to leak his private communications to the media and not to use Carlson's private messages to take any adverse employment action against him.
00:06:26.000 Now, it is certainly possible that Fox executives were leaked.
00:06:30.000 This was the original assumption.
00:06:32.000 And it was an assumption made by Megyn Kelly, who used to work at Fox News, right?
00:06:34.000 She actually mentioned Irina Briganti, who is sort of the head of comms over at Fox, she mentioned her saying that when she left for NBC Daytime, when she did that, she believed that Irina Briganti was the one who was releasing information on her, so she was assuming that that was the same thing that was happening here, that a lot of these leaks about Tucker, you know, the white supremacy leak, or the leak in which she suggested that white people don't fight this way, that that was actually coming from Fox in order to smear Tucker while he was still under contract, and now Tucker is claiming that's exactly what happened.
00:07:04.000 This, I assume, is also why Fox sent a letter to Media Matters, which has been the source of many of these leaks in terms of distributing them.
00:07:11.000 Fox sent a letter to Media Matters telling them to stop doing that.
00:07:13.000 I assume that was a piece of legalese intended to say, it's not us.
00:07:17.000 We're not the ones who are doing the leaking.
00:07:19.000 So it doesn't look as though they are violating their contract with Tucker.
00:07:23.000 Also, the letter alleges that Fox broke promises not to settle with Dominion Voting Systems in a way that would indicate wrongdoing on Tucker's part.
00:07:31.000 And now they're claiming that a member of the board said that Tucker had been fired because of the Dominion voting system's settlement.
00:07:39.000 Now, that may very well be true.
00:07:40.000 It may very well be true that as part of the sort of Dominion settlement, not that Dominion wanted Tucker fired.
00:07:46.000 They've actually put out a statement themselves saying, we didn't want Tucker fired.
00:07:49.000 We don't care about Tucker.
00:07:50.000 But it's possible that Fox looked at that settlement, an $800 million settlement, and they said, we don't want anybody who presents legal risk to us.
00:07:56.000 And Tucker is very often walking the line.
00:07:58.000 He's very often on razor's edge.
00:07:59.000 We don't want that legal risk, and so we're getting rid of Tucker.
00:08:02.000 And so, theoretically, it could be sort of tangentially related to the Dominion voting system's fallout.
00:08:07.000 They could legally do that, but they can't say it.
00:08:09.000 If they say that we did this as part of the Dominion voting system settlement or as fallout from Dominion voting systems, could that theoretically be read as a breach of a promise that they would not harm Carlson's reputation over the Dominion voting system's claim and settlement?
00:08:25.000 It's a letter from Tucker's lawyer says, So we'll get to more on this in just one second.
00:08:27.000 the covenants of good faith and fair dealing in the agreement.
00:08:29.000 They give rise to claims for breach of contract and intentional and negligent misrepresentation.
00:08:34.000 A Fox News spokesperson then came out and said it is categorically false that Carlson
00:08:37.000 lost his job as part of the $787.5 million settlement.
00:08:42.000 So we'll get to more on this in just one second.
00:08:44.000 First, you know, all of this stuff is very confusing.
00:08:47.000 It's very miasmatic.
00:08:48.000 And the communications have been garbled.
00:08:50.000 But there is one area where you cannot afford to have your communications garbled.
00:08:53.000 I'm talking about your cell phone coverage.
00:08:54.000 You need the best cell phone coverage at the lowest possible price.
00:08:56.000 This is why you need PureTalk.
00:08:58.000 Remember the last time you got a free phone?
00:08:59.000 You started out feeling amazing.
00:09:01.000 And then came the hefty activation fees, four line requirements, and of course the binding contract.
00:09:04.000 PureTalk is giving you a free 5G Samsung Galaxy phone without the feeling you've been duped.
00:09:08.000 When you switch to PeerTalk's unlimited talk and text data plan that comes with a mobile hotspot, you get a 5G Samsung Galaxy for free.
00:09:14.000 That's right, unlimited everything at a fraction of the price of Verizon, AT&T, or T-Mobile.
00:09:18.000 Here's another thing, you will be on America's most dependable 5G network.
00:09:21.000 How do I know?
00:09:22.000 Well, I'm a customer.
00:09:22.000 I use PeerTalk.
00:09:23.000 Make the switch to PeerTalk the same way I did.
00:09:25.000 It's the cell phone wireless company I'm proud to stand behind because they actually stand behind us here at Daily Wire.
00:09:30.000 PeerTalk's U.S.
00:09:30.000 customer service team helped me make the switch in as little as 10 minutes.
00:09:33.000 I was even able to keep my phone number.
00:09:35.000 Head on over to puretalk.com slash Shapiro for your free Samsung Galaxy when you sign up for unlimited talk, text, and unlimited data.
00:09:41.000 That is puretalk.com slash Shapiro.
00:09:43.000 Again, Pure Talk, wireless for Americans by Americans.
00:09:47.000 Okay, so back to this conflict between Tucker Carlson and Fox News.
00:09:52.000 And this is going to decide the future of whether Tucker can go to, say, Newsmax or go to, say, Daily Wire or go to any place else and launch a competitive show.
00:10:00.000 Again, Tucker's lawyers are trying to argue that Fox breached its agreement with Tucker, and this now frees Tucker to do whatever he wants.
00:10:05.000 Carlson is claiming that Irene Briganti, Fox's longtime communications and PR chief, attempted to, quote, undermine, embarrass, and interfere with Carlson's future business prospects, which he maintains would constitute another breach of his employment contract.
00:10:17.000 The letter says, make no mistake, we intend to subpoena Ms.
00:10:19.000 Briganti's cell phone records and related documents, which evidence communications with her and all media, including, but not limited to, the New York Times.
00:10:26.000 Now, again, the cell phone records are not really gonna demonstrate anything, I would assume.
00:10:30.000 Briganti is the head of communications at Fox News.
00:10:31.000 I assume she speaks with people at the New York Times.
00:10:33.000 The real question is gonna be written communications.
00:10:35.000 Which, by the way, as a lawyer, I will now be my audience's legal advisor.
00:10:38.000 Guys, don't put stuff in writing.
00:10:40.000 This is just like a general rule.
00:10:41.000 Things in writing, bad idea.
00:10:43.000 Text messages, emails, verbal communica- Here's legal advice from me to you.
00:10:48.000 It's gonna save you a bunch of money and a bunch of time in the future.
00:10:51.000 Say things over the phone.
00:10:52.000 Because things that are said orally are then not permanently memorialized.
00:10:57.000 Okay, but I assume that Irene Breganti knows this, presumably if she was leaking this stuff
00:11:01.000 to the New York Times, there probably won't be any record of it,
00:11:04.000 but they're claiming that she wasn't leaking this stuff to the, again, Megyn Kelly, with whom I'm friends,
00:11:07.000 she says that it's pretty frequent practice for Irene Breganti to do exactly that.
00:11:11.000 I don't know the truth on that, but that is the controversy.
00:11:14.000 Carlson's lawyers add that because Carlson is considering litigation against the network
00:11:17.000 to resolve these disputes, Fox News must take all immediate steps
00:11:20.000 to preserve all existing documents and data relevant to Fox's relationship with Carlson,
00:11:23.000 including correspondents between top executives and several media outlets.
00:11:26.000 Now, it is quite possible that all of this is designed by Carlson's lawyers, by Tucker's lawyers, in order to pressure Fox to just release him from the contract.
00:11:33.000 In other words, all this goes away If you guys just release him from the contract and let him fly like a butterfly wherever he wants to go.
00:11:40.000 And Fox, which is a very large company, will have to decide, do they wish to continue to litigate this thing out with Tucker in order to preserve Fox News from competition in which Tucker goes to another network?
00:11:50.000 Just on a business level, you see exactly why Fox News would do this.
00:11:53.000 Tucker had a huge audience.
00:11:54.000 The audience in prime time on Fox has dropped by 50% since Fox left the network, since Tucker left the network,
00:12:00.000 because Tucker, again, is very talented at what he does.
00:12:02.000 Now, I assume that Fox's long-term plan is you rebuild the audience.
00:12:05.000 They also had significant audience drop off, and it took like several years for them to rebuild it,
00:12:09.000 even with Tucker, after they got rid of Bill O'Reilly.
00:12:12.000 Bill O'Reilly dropped, they lost like half their audience, it took them a couple of years, they rebuilt the audience.
00:12:17.000 And one of the things that Fox is saying is that their ad dollars are now coming back
00:12:21.000 because there were a lot of advertisers who were afraid of Tucker, which again,
00:12:24.000 is part of the problem for a company like Fox News that is a major publicly traded corporation.
00:12:29.000 If you're a publicly traded corporation, one of the things you have to do is maximize shareholder value.
00:12:33.000 If you're Daily Wire and an advertiser decides that they are going to boycott you, they don't like you because of something one of your hosts says, we launch like Jeremy's chocolates and Jeremy's razors in order to fight people.
00:12:43.000 We're perfectly happy to do that.
00:12:43.000 Fox isn't doing any of that sort of stuff.
00:12:45.000 So the fact that advertisers have dropped off Tucker's program and that now some of those advertisers feel safer coming back in, they're saying, we're not actually losing money on this thing.
00:12:54.000 So we're perfectly happy to prevent Tucker from going elsewhere and presumably drawing people away from Fox Nation, shifting their subscriptions over from Fox Nation somewhere else.
00:13:02.000 So the real question for Tucker now is whether what he is doing online, just restricted to Twitter, Makes him as prominent in the culture as it otherwise would.
00:13:12.000 I mean, he was, again, one of the biggest, if not the biggest voice in sort of conservative media because of that 8 p.m.
00:13:18.000 slot on Fox News.
00:13:20.000 Without that 8 p.m.
00:13:20.000 slot on Fox News, does he have the same sort of impact?
00:13:23.000 Now, Tucker, his videos on Twitter are getting extraordinary numbers of views.
00:13:26.000 I mean, you're talking about 12, 15, 20, in some cases 40 million views on the last couple of videos.
00:13:32.000 Is that something that's going to maintain?
00:13:33.000 Is it going to play the same way online that it plays in terrestrial media?
00:13:37.000 And the fact is, a lot of the Fox News viewers are not people who are on Twitter.
00:13:40.000 Only 2% of the population of the United States is regularly on Twitter.
00:13:43.000 When it comes to Fox News, there's not a huge crossover between the Fox News audience, which is disproportionately elderly, and the Twitter audience, which is disproportionately younger.
00:13:51.000 This doesn't mean that Tucker isn't going to have outsized impact.
00:13:53.000 He definitely will, but that impact is going to change over time.
00:13:55.000 That's probably what Fox News is counting on.
00:13:57.000 It's all pretty fascinating, but suffice it to say, Tucker is not going to go completely absent in the debate, and he's not going to allow himself to go completely absent in the debate over the course of the next couple of years.
00:14:07.000 This was just the first shot, so anybody who thinks this is like the end of Tucker's relaunch, that is incorrect.
00:14:12.000 It is not the end of Tucker's relaunch, but also, this is not a cooperative venture between Tucker and Elon Musk.
00:14:18.000 Which means, again, that there are going to be other shoes to drop here.
00:14:20.000 This is not like the final stage of Tucker's redevelopment deal.
00:14:23.000 That's not what this is.
00:14:25.000 Meanwhile, CNN is doing exactly what CNN does.
00:14:28.000 And they say, of course, that Tucker is a right-wing extremist.
00:14:31.000 This is literally how they report now.
00:14:33.000 This is the reporting from CNN.
00:14:35.000 They say, right-wing extremist Tucker Carlson announced Tuesday he will relaunch his program on Twitter, which he praised as the only remaining large free speech platform in the world after Fox News fired him late last month.
00:14:46.000 So again, they call him a right-wing extremist because this is what CNN does.
00:14:48.000 This is Oliver Darcy reporting over at CNN.
00:14:51.000 This presumably is one of the reasons why Tucker is so popular.
00:14:53.000 It's because the media insists on going overboard on literally all the things.
00:14:58.000 Worth noting here that CNN, which supposedly hates the right-wing extremists, and they really, really hate Donald, like really hate Donald Trump, they'll be hosting Donald Trump for a town hall style event tonight.
00:15:08.000 So, for all these people, we cannot give a voice to the right-wing extremists, particularly Trump and the MAGA-ULTRAMAGA movement.
00:15:14.000 Also tonight, on our network, for ratings and money, we present Donald Trump in conversation.
00:15:20.000 Yeah, man.
00:15:21.000 Your media.
00:15:22.000 Corrupt as the day is long.
00:15:23.000 Okay, in just one second, we'll get to President Trump, who's now been hit with a $5 million defamation and assault verdict.
00:15:29.000 We'll get to that momentarily first.
00:15:31.000 If you own a business, past few years have been a very bumpy ride.
00:15:33.000 You could probably use a break.
00:15:34.000 Innovation refunds can help.
00:15:36.000 Innovation refunds knows the value of your time.
00:15:38.000 This is why they made it easy to apply for the Employee Retention Credit, or ERC.
00:15:41.000 Go to GetRefunds.com and get started in less than eight minutes.
00:15:44.000 See if your business qualifies for ERC assistance.
00:15:46.000 Your business could be eligible for a payroll tax rebate of up to $26,000 per employee kept on payroll during COVID-19.
00:15:52.000 Innovation Refunds has already helped clients claim over $3 billion in payroll tax refunds through the ERC.
00:15:57.000 They might be able to help your business as well.
00:15:59.000 There's no upfront charge.
00:16:00.000 They don't get paid until your business gets its refund.
00:16:02.000 Don't miss this opportunity because the payroll tax refund is only available for a limited amount of time.
00:16:06.000 Go to GetRefunds.com.
00:16:07.000 Again, that's GetRefunds.com.
00:16:09.000 Go check them out right now.
00:16:10.000 GetRefunds.com.
00:16:12.000 If your business paid too much money into the tax system, and you can get some of that money back, Why wouldn't you do that?
00:16:17.000 The government is seeking to screw you as often as humanly possible.
00:16:19.000 Why not get some of your money back if you overspent on giving them money during the pandemic?
00:16:23.000 Go to getrefunds.com.
00:16:24.000 Once again, that is G-E-T-R-E-F-U-N-D-S dot com.
00:16:27.000 Getrefunds.com.
00:16:29.000 Go check them out right now.
00:16:30.000 Okay.
00:16:31.000 Meanwhile, a jury in New York has now found President Trump in Not guilty, because it is a civil trial, but they have now found him liable for sexual abuse and defamation in the E. Jean Carroll case.
00:16:45.000 Now, we've not followed this case particularly closely, because I'll be frank with you, I don't find E. Jean Carroll to be a credible witness.
00:16:51.000 I think that she, her testimony, she's a very flighty, strange person.
00:16:56.000 She makes Christine Blasey Ford, the lady who testified against Justice Kavanaugh during his judicial hearings, she makes Christine Blasey Ford look as sober as a judge.
00:17:05.000 She makes her look incredibly credible.
00:17:07.000 E. Jean Carroll made the allegation that sometime, sometime in 1996, sometime, like in the entire year, Donald Trump took her into a room at Bergdorf Goodman, a fitting room, and then raped her.
00:17:23.000 This was her allegation.
00:17:25.000 Now, the jury has not found that Donald Trump was responsible for rape.
00:17:31.000 Instead, they found that he was actually responsible for sexually abusing and defaming her.
00:17:37.000 So, how exactly do they find that he was guilty of some sort of sexual abuse but not rape?
00:17:42.000 It seems kind of weird, right?
00:17:43.000 It does.
00:17:43.000 It seems kind of weird.
00:17:45.000 And the reason it seems kind of weird is because, again, the thing that she was alleging was rape.
00:17:49.000 I mean, if you go back to her original piece in The Cut, which was at thecut.com, this is back in June of 2019, she describes what happened, she says, with Donald Trump.
00:18:02.000 She says this, Before I discuss him, I must mention there are two great
00:18:05.000 handicaps to telling you what happened to me in Bergdorf's.
00:18:07.000 A. The man I will be talking about denies it, as he has denied accusations of sexual misconduct made by at least 15
00:18:11.000 credible women, and then she lists off a bunch of names.
00:18:14.000 The White House at the time said this is a completely false and unrealistic story surfacing 25 years after allegedly
00:18:19.000 taking place and was created simply to make the president look bad.
00:18:22.000 And B. I run the risk of making him more popular by revealing what he did.
00:18:25.000 His admirers can't get enough of hearing that he's rich enough, lusty enough, and powerful enough to be sued by
00:18:29.000 and to pay off every splashy porn star or playboy playmate who comes forward.
00:18:32.000 And then she continues along these lines, she says, And she says.
00:18:35.000 Bye.
00:18:37.000 Back at this time in the 1990s, she was a sex advice columnist.
00:18:39.000 She says, early one evening, as I'm about to go out Bergdorf's revolving door on 58th
00:18:43.000 Street, and one of New York's most famous men comes in the revolving door, or could
00:18:46.000 have been a regular door at that time, I can't recall.
00:18:49.000 He says, hey, you're that advice lady.
00:18:51.000 And I say to number 20 on the most hideous men of my life list, hey, you're that real
00:18:55.000 estate tycoon.
00:18:56.000 Okay, so first of all, immediate question marks.
00:19:00.000 She can't remember what kind of door is being used, so she's already saying that her memory is hazy of this.
00:19:06.000 She says, I'm surprised at how good looking he is.
00:19:07.000 We've met once before, and perhaps it is the dusky light, but he looks prettier than ever.
00:19:11.000 This has to be in the fall of 1995 or the spring of 1996, because he's garbed in a faultless top coat, and I'm wearing my black wool Donna Karan coat dress and high heels, but not a coat.
00:19:20.000 So, point of doubt number two, she can't even name the year.
00:19:24.000 Okay, so she's starting in 1995 or 1996.
00:19:26.000 Now, If you talk to people who have survived rape, the kind of general presumption that people block out the memories, that may be true in some cases.
00:19:37.000 In many, many cases, women who have been abused, anybody who's been abused, children who have been abused, they remember like exact details, exact details, because it's so unbelievably traumatic.
00:19:45.000 People who suffer from PTSD typically remember the exact details of the things that happened to them.
00:19:50.000 In this particular case, she remembers what they were wearing, but she can't remember what kind of door was being used.
00:19:54.000 She can't remember even the year.
00:19:56.000 She can't remember the season, right?
00:19:57.000 The fall of 1995 or the spring of 1996, which again is a weird dating because there is a season in between, right?
00:20:06.000 I mean, there's winter also that lies in between those.
00:20:08.000 So you're talking about like, it's either September of 1995 or like April of 1996.
00:20:16.000 So I'll continue with this account in just one second.
00:20:18.000 And this is, again, why I haven't paid a lot of attention to the E. Jean Carroll case because, again, I do not find her to be a particularly credible witness.
00:20:24.000 We'll get to that momentarily first.
00:20:26.000 As you know, as everyone knows, I am, like, top-notch dad.
00:20:28.000 I'm, like, amazing at the dadding.
00:20:30.000 I'm so good at it.
00:20:30.000 And one of the things that I do as a dad, we have these giant pillow fights.
00:20:34.000 On my bed.
00:20:35.000 With all three of my kids.
00:20:37.000 And I let them win, but let's be honest about this.
00:20:39.000 I'm much bigger than they are.
00:20:41.000 And, you know, there comes a point where you have to take control.
00:20:44.000 You gotta start, you know, hitting kids with the pillow.
00:20:46.000 That's the way it works.
00:20:47.000 But my kids are always comfortable falling on the bed.
00:20:49.000 Why?
00:20:50.000 Because we have bowl and branch sheets.
00:20:52.000 As you can imagine, being an incredible dad, it also makes me really tired.
00:20:55.000 I like to sleep on those sheets.
00:20:56.000 Bowl and branch sheets are great.
00:20:57.000 Bowl and branch sheets are made from the finest 100% organic cotton threads on earth.
00:21:00.000 They feel buttery to the touch.
00:21:01.000 They're super breathable.
00:21:02.000 They are perfect for both cooler and warmer months.
00:21:05.000 Their signature hem sheets were made with threads so luxurious, four U.S.
00:21:07.000 presidents have slept in them.
00:21:09.000 Bull and Branch sheets actually soften with every wash cycle.
00:21:11.000 They're made without pesticides, formaldehyde, or other harsh chemicals.
00:21:13.000 Best of all, Bull and Branch gives you a 30-night risk-free trial with free shipping and returns on all orders.
00:21:17.000 You're not going to want to return them.
00:21:19.000 Get a better night's sleep with Bull and Branch right now.
00:21:21.000 Get 15% off your first order when you use promo code SHAPIRO today at bullandbranch.com.
00:21:24.000 That's bullandbranch, B-O-L-L-A-N-D, branch.com.
00:21:27.000 Promo code SHAPIRO.
00:21:28.000 Exclusions apply.
00:21:29.000 Seaside for details, by the way.
00:21:30.000 I'm just telling you, Bull and Branch also, they make, like, amazing blankets.
00:21:33.000 Like, their blankets are so—they have an afghan that's so good that, literally, when I travel, I bring it with me.
00:21:36.000 That's how good it is.
00:21:37.000 Bullandbranch.com.
00:21:38.000 Go check them out right now.
00:21:40.000 Okay, so, back to this E. Jean Carroll account.
00:21:42.000 This is the original account that she spilled in 2019.
00:21:44.000 She says this is 1995, 1996.
00:21:45.000 This is 2019, so this is 23 years later, minimum.
00:21:50.000 She says that she met Trump walking into Berg... She was walking out, I guess, of Bergdorf and he was walking in.
00:21:57.000 "'Come advise me,' says the man.
00:21:58.000 "'I gotta buy a present.' "'Oh,' I say, charmed.
00:22:00.000 "'For whom?' "'A girl,' he says.
00:22:01.000 "'Don't the assistants of your secretaries buy things like that?' I say.
00:22:04.000 "'Not this one,' he says.
00:22:05.000 Or perhaps, he says, "'Not this time.'"
00:22:06.000 I can't recall.
00:22:07.000 It's like the third time in five paragraphs she says, I can't recall.
00:22:10.000 He's a big talker.
00:22:11.000 From the instant we collide, he yammers about himself like he's Alexander the Great
00:22:13.000 ready to loot Babylon.
00:22:14.000 As we're standing just inside the door, I point to the handbags.
00:22:16.000 How about, no, he says, making the face where he pulls up both lips
00:22:19.000 like he's balancing a spoon under his nose and begins talking about how he once thought
00:22:22.000 about buying Bergdorf's.
00:22:23.000 Or a hat, I say enthusiastically, walking toward the handbags,
00:22:26.000 which at the period I'm telling you about, and Bergdorf's has been redone two or three times since
00:22:30.000 then, are mixed in with and displayed next to the hats.
00:22:33.000 She'll love a hat.
00:22:34.000 You can't go wrong with hats.
00:22:34.000 Why does she keep hedging this way?
00:22:36.000 Presumably because the editors were saying to her.
00:22:39.000 I mean, you have to imagine this is what happened.
00:22:41.000 The editors of her book.
00:22:41.000 They're like, you say that the hats were next to the purses, but I've been to Bergdorf's and the hats aren't next to the purses.
00:22:45.000 So what happened?
00:22:46.000 So you're adding all of these qualifiers and provisos in the original story, right?
00:22:50.000 Maybe the door has been changed since then.
00:22:51.000 I don't know what season it was.
00:22:53.000 The hats used to be next to the purses, but they're not anymore.
00:22:56.000 And I don't really know.
00:22:56.000 It's gone over a couple of makeovers, right?
00:22:58.000 They're getting rid of every detail that would actually lend credibility or verifiability.
00:23:04.000 Forget about credibility, verifiability to her story.
00:23:07.000 I don't remember what he says, but he comes striding along, greeting a Bergdorf sales attendant like he owns the joint, permitting a shopper to gape in awe at him and goes right for a fur number.
00:23:13.000 Please, I say, no woman would want to wear a dead animal on her head.
00:23:17.000 What he replies I don't recall, but I remember he coddles the fur hat like it's a baby otter.
00:23:20.000 How old is the lady in question, I ask.
00:23:22.000 How old are you, replies the man, fondling the hat and looking at me like Louis Leakey carbon dating a thigh bone he's found in Olduvai Gorge.
00:23:28.000 I'm 52, I tell him.
00:23:29.000 You're so old, he says, laughing.
00:23:31.000 He was around 50 himself.
00:23:32.000 And it's at this point he drops the hat, looks in the direction of the escalator, and says, lingerie.
00:23:35.000 Or he may have said, underwear.
00:23:37.000 So we stroll to the escalator.
00:23:38.000 I don't remember anybody else greeting him or galloping up to talk to him, which indicates how very few people are in the store at the time.
00:23:43.000 I have no recollection where the lingerie is in that era of Bergdorf's.
00:23:46.000 Again, this is like the fourth time in the same story in which she's saying, I don't know where anything is in the store.
00:23:51.000 Nothing.
00:23:52.000 No verifi- Because, here's the thing.
00:23:54.000 Under cross-examination, all of that could easily fall apart.
00:23:56.000 If she said, I looked at the hats that were next to the purses and that was five steps away from the lingerie.
00:24:01.000 All it would take is somebody coming up with a schematic of a floor plan from Bergdorf in 1996 to say that's not true.
00:24:06.000 Right, it turns out lingerie is on the other end of the store on a different floor.
00:24:08.000 So she's removing all of the verifiable details so that nobody can doubt the story.
00:24:13.000 It seems to me it is on the floor with the evening gowns and bathing suits, and when the man and I arrive, my memory is now vivid.
00:24:18.000 Now it's vivid.
00:24:18.000 No one is present.
00:24:20.000 There are two or three dainty boxes and a lacy see-through bodysuit of lilac gray on the counter.
00:24:23.000 The man snatches up the bodysuit and says, go try this on.
00:24:26.000 You try it on, I say, laughing.
00:24:28.000 It's your color.
00:24:28.000 Try it on.
00:24:29.000 Come on, he says, throwing it at me.
00:24:30.000 It goes with your eyes, I say, laughing and throwing it back.
00:24:32.000 You're in good shape, he says, holding the filmy thing up against me.
00:24:34.000 I want to see how this looks.
00:24:35.000 But it's your size, I say, laughing and trying to slap him back with one of the boxes on the counter.
00:24:39.000 Come on, he says, take my arm.
00:24:40.000 Let's put this on.
00:24:41.000 This is going to be hilarious, I'm saying to myself.
00:24:43.000 And as I write this, I am staggered by my stupidity.
00:24:46.000 Well, I mean... Yes.
00:24:49.000 I mean, yes, I... No one is responsible for their own rape.
00:24:54.000 Also, going with men that you don't know to a lingerie section and trying on lingerie for those men, that's a little flirtatious.
00:25:02.000 And that doesn't mean that he raped... that she wasn't raped.
00:25:04.000 Doesn't mean he was justified in raping her.
00:25:06.000 But...
00:25:07.000 This is not, like, smart behavior, you would say.
00:25:10.000 As we head to the dressing rooms, I'm laughing aloud and saying in my mind, I'm gonna make him put this thing on over his pants.
00:25:15.000 There are several facts about what happened next that are so odd I want to clear them up before I go any further.
00:25:18.000 Did I report it to the police?
00:25:20.000 No.
00:25:20.000 Did I tell anyone about it?
00:25:21.000 Yes.
00:25:21.000 I told two close friends.
00:25:22.000 The first, a journalist magazine writer, correspondent on TV morning shows, author of many books, begged me to go to the police.
00:25:27.000 He raped you, she kept repeating when I called her, he raped you, go to the police, I'll go with you, we'll go together.
00:25:32.000 So the fact that, first of all, obviously she didn't think of it as rape at the time.
00:25:37.000 She has a friend who keeps saying that he raped her and she didn't go to the cops.
00:25:40.000 My second friend is also a journalist, a New York anchorwoman.
00:25:43.000 She grew very quiet when I told her, then she grasped both my hands on her own and said, tell no one, forget it, he has 200 lawyers, he'll bury you.
00:25:49.000 Do I have photos or any visual evidence?
00:25:50.000 Bergdorf's security cameras must have picked us up at the 58th street entrance of the store.
00:25:55.000 We also would have been filmed on the ground floor in the bags and hats section.
00:25:57.000 Cameras must have captured us going up the escalator and into the lingerie department.
00:26:02.000 However, even if it had been captured on tape, depending on the position of the camera, it would be difficult to see the man unzipping his pants because he was wearing a top coat.
00:26:09.000 The struggle might simply have read as sexy.
00:26:11.000 The speculation is moot anyway.
00:26:12.000 The department store has confirmed it no longer has tapes from that time.
00:26:15.000 So there are no tapes, even though there are cameras present.
00:26:18.000 And even if there were cameras present, it wouldn't have been clear what exactly was going on, according to her.
00:26:22.000 So again, this all goes to verifiability.
00:26:25.000 Why were there no sales attendants in the lingerie department?
00:26:28.000 Bergdorf's perfections are so well known.
00:26:29.000 It is a store so noble, so clubby, so posh.
00:26:31.000 It is almost easier to accept the fact that I was attacked than the fact that for a very brief moment, there were no sales attendants in the lingerie department.
00:26:37.000 Inconceivable is the word.
00:26:39.000 All I can... She says, sometimes a person won't find a sales attendant in Saks.
00:26:43.000 Sometimes one has to look for a sales associate in Barney's or Bloomingdale's or Tiffany.
00:26:46.000 But 99% of the time, you'll have an attendant in Bergdorf's.
00:26:50.000 All I can say is that I did not see an attendant.
00:26:52.000 And the other odd thing is the dressing room door was open.
00:26:56.000 So, what?
00:26:59.000 Why haven't I come forward before now?
00:27:00.000 Receiving death threats, being driven from my home, being dismissed, being dragged through the mud, joining the 15 women who have come- So she says she was scared.
00:27:05.000 That's why she didn't come forward.
00:27:07.000 Okay, and then she talks about what happened.
00:27:08.000 She suggests that the moment the dressing room door is closed, he lunges at me, pushes me against the wall, hitting my head quite badly, puts his mouth against my lips.
00:27:14.000 I'm so shocked, I shove him back and start laughing again.
00:27:16.000 And laughing again.
00:27:17.000 He seizes both my arms and pushes me up against the wall a second time.
00:27:21.000 And as I become aware of how large he is, he holds me against the wall with his shoulder and jams his hand under my coat dress and pulls down my tights.
00:27:27.000 She says, I'm astonished by what I'm about to write.
00:27:28.000 I keep laughing.
00:27:30.000 The next moment, still wearing correct business attire, shirt tie, suit jacket overcoat, he opens the overcoat, unzips his pants, and forcing his fingers around my private area, thrusts his penis halfway, or completely I'm not certain, inside me.
00:27:40.000 It turns into a colossal struggle.
00:27:42.000 I'm wearing a pair of sturdy black patent leather 4-inch Barneys high heels, which puts my height around 6'1".
00:27:46.000 I try to stomp his foot.
00:27:47.000 I try to push him off with my one free hand.
00:27:49.000 For some reason, I keep holding my purse with the other.
00:27:51.000 I finally get a knee up high enough to push him out and off, and I turn, open the door, and run out of the dressing room.
00:27:55.000 The whole episode lasts no more than three minutes.
00:27:59.000 Okay, so that is the...
00:28:01.000 She says she's never had sex with anyone else again.
00:28:03.000 This is a lifelong trauma.
00:28:05.000 Okay.
00:28:05.000 So, the reason I don't find her particularly credible is because there are a bunch of lack of verifiable details in this particular story.
00:28:13.000 It is now 20-some years later.
00:28:16.000 And this is also beyond the statute of limitations for any sort of real rape trial.
00:28:21.000 This is well beyond the statute of limitations for rape because the law generally presumes that 25 years on, it's going to be extraordinarily difficult to actually convict somebody of something like this.
00:28:31.000 And you could easily see a defense like a he-said-she-said defense.
00:28:34.000 She was laughing the whole time.
00:28:37.000 She told me to get off, I got off.
00:28:38.000 That would not be Unimplausible.
00:28:44.000 If you saw this in a criminal case.
00:28:45.000 But it's not a criminal case.
00:28:45.000 It's 23 years later in a civil case.
00:28:48.000 And E. Jean Carroll did not immediately, upon writing the story, file a civil suit.
00:28:52.000 It took like several years.
00:28:53.000 It's now 2023.
00:28:54.000 The story came out in 2019.
00:28:56.000 It took her a couple of years to file a civil suit.
00:28:57.000 When it was filed, it was funded by Reid Hoffman, who is a big Democrat donor.
00:29:02.000 So there's some real credibility issues in all of this.
00:29:04.000 And again, the biggest problem here is that E. Jean Carroll is a strange person.
00:29:08.000 So here is E. Jean Carroll on CNN talking about the supposed rape.
00:29:13.000 You don't feel like a victim?
00:29:14.000 I was not thrown on the ground and ravished.
00:29:17.000 The word rape carries so many sexual connotations.
00:29:21.000 This was not sexual.
00:29:24.000 It hurt.
00:29:27.000 I think most people think of rape as a violent assault.
00:29:32.000 I think most people think of rape as being sexy.
00:29:36.000 Let's take a short break.
00:29:37.000 Think of the fantasies.
00:29:40.000 We've got to take a quick break.
00:29:41.000 If you can stick around, we'll talk more on the other side.
00:29:44.000 You're fascinating to talk to.
00:29:45.000 Most people think of rape as being sexy.
00:29:48.000 What in the?
00:29:49.000 Even Anderson Cooper is like, I don't know.
00:29:51.000 What is the story with this lady?
00:29:52.000 Like, this is super duper weird.
00:29:53.000 OK, so she's a bad witness.
00:29:54.000 So how exactly did this case go against Donald?
00:29:57.000 So what the basically what the jury found is that they don't believe her on the rape, right?
00:30:03.000 They clearly don't believe her on the rape.
00:30:05.000 They believe that he assaulted her.
00:30:08.000 So what?
00:30:08.000 That he pushed her up against a wall?
00:30:10.000 Now why do they believe that?
00:30:11.000 Why do they believe not the rape?
00:30:13.000 Because she's not a super credible witness.
00:30:14.000 But they believe the assault.
00:30:15.000 And the answer to why they believe the assault is because basically this trial was a referendum on Donald Trump's p-word tape.
00:30:23.000 Right?
00:30:23.000 On the grab him by the p-word.
00:30:25.000 And that is...
00:30:26.000 That's what this trial was.
00:30:28.000 This trial was a referendum on Donald Trump having said to Billy Bush, on a hot mic, on Access Hollywood, years ago, that when you're very famous, you get to grab women by the bleep, and they're fine with it.
00:30:40.000 Because when you're famous, people let you do anything.
00:30:43.000 And then there were a bunch of witnesses, like women, who came forward and said that that's what Donald Trump did, that he assaulted them.
00:30:49.000 That he forcibly kissed them, or he forcibly grabbed them, or he forcibly touched them, or whatever.
00:30:54.000 And so, even though Eugene Carroll is not a good witness, as evidenced by the fact that even a New York jury would not actually say that Donald Trump raped her, what they're basically saying is we believe Donald Trump.
00:31:03.000 When Donald Trump says that he would grab women this way, then we believe that.
00:31:07.000 And we believe that many of the women he was grabbing were not super happy with it.
00:31:11.000 Donald Trump's original quote is that women will let you do that, which obviously implies consent.
00:31:17.000 When people let you do a thing, this implies consent.
00:31:19.000 So from Donald Trump's perspective, yeah, I grab women all the time and they're fine with it because I'm famous and rich.
00:31:24.000 And from the perspective of the jury, Donald Trump grabs women all the time, and they're not fine with it.
00:31:28.000 And here's a list of 15 women who are not fine with it.
00:31:32.000 Now, this, again, came back to bite Trump personally, because Trump did do a deposition on tape.
00:31:39.000 And so here is Donald Trump on tape talking about the grab-em-by-the-bleep comment.
00:31:45.000 In this video, I just start kissing them.
00:31:48.000 It's like a magnet.
00:31:50.000 Just kiss.
00:31:51.000 I don't even wait.
00:31:52.000 And when you're a star, they let you do it.
00:31:54.000 You can do anything.
00:31:56.000 Grab them by the... You can do anything.
00:31:58.000 That's what you said, correct?
00:31:59.000 Well, historically, that's true with stars.
00:32:02.000 It's true with stars that they can grab women by the... Well, that's what... If you look over the last million years, I guess that's been largely true.
00:32:10.000 Not always, but largely true.
00:32:13.000 Unfortunately or fortunately.
00:32:16.000 And you consider yourself to be a star?
00:32:21.000 I think you can say that, yeah.
00:32:23.000 Okay, so again, not amazing testimony and a lot of lawyers are like, oh no.
00:32:30.000 Again, this is why being Donald Trump's lawyer is actually one of the hardest jobs in the
00:32:32.000 world.
00:32:33.000 Because the main job of a lawyer is shh to your client.
00:32:35.000 Shh, don't do it.
00:32:36.000 Shh, stop.
00:32:37.000 Donald Trump's like, well, yeah, I mean, I guess you could.
00:32:40.000 You could say that.
00:32:41.000 Now, again, what Donald Trump should have said in that deposition is, when I said that, I mean that people let you do it.
00:32:46.000 I literally said that in the tape, that it's consensual.
00:32:48.000 And so I deny that these women did not consent to what I was doing.
00:32:52.000 And I did not.
00:32:53.000 But this is essentially what happened because Trump said that, because Trump said in that testimony, in deposition, that you can, if you are famous, grab women by the bleep.
00:33:03.000 Then when a woman claims that you grabbed her by the bleep, then the jury's like, okay, well, that's credible.
00:33:08.000 It's credible that he grabbed a woman by the bleep.
00:33:10.000 Which is why even the Fox News legal analysts, they were like, yeah, it turns out that
00:33:14.000 testifying against yourself is really not a brilliant idea.
00:33:17.000 Here's some of the Fox News legal analysts talking about this yesterday.
00:33:20.000 So Andy, what do you think the impact was of these pieces of tape on this process?
00:33:25.000 Yeah.
00:33:26.000 Martha, I think with something like that, I mean, I think the impact was devastating because of the way, not only what he said, but the way that they presented it.
00:33:36.000 We've seen the Access Hollywood tape up till this point mainly in the abstract.
00:33:42.000 I think one of the most effective things that the Carroll lawyers did was to introduce the tape to the jury In the course of the testimony of Natasha Stoynoff, who was one of the women who claimed that she had been sexually assaulted by former President Trump.
00:34:01.000 So it was not a situation where it could just be sort of dismissed as locker room banter in the abstract.
00:34:09.000 Right, so basically, this reified Trump's statements before.
00:34:14.000 Now, Trump is mad as hell about this, and he has a right to be.
00:34:17.000 He wrote on his social media platform, quote, This is why it's not going to harm him electorally.
00:34:26.000 The reason it's not going to harm him electorally is because it does look like this was concocted in a laboratory, in this case.
00:34:31.000 It looks as though there was a person who almost read his Access Hollywood comments and then was like, What if I just allege that he did that to me because he's already admitted he does that to women and then I say it wasn't consensual and then I sue him and I go to a New York jury and then they fine him.
00:34:42.000 Like five million dollars.
00:34:44.000 And that's kind of what the jury did here.
00:34:46.000 Because if the jury actually believed that Donald Trump had raped E. Jean Carroll, then presumably they would have found that he raped E. Jean Carroll, but they didn't find that.
00:34:53.000 Again, what they are basically saying is we don't believe E. Jean Carroll's story.
00:34:56.000 We don't believe.
00:34:57.000 Like, we believe everything up to what?
00:34:59.000 The penetration?
00:35:00.000 Like, what exactly did they not believe in her story?
00:35:02.000 It sounds like what they're saying is we actually don't believe your whole story, but we believe that all these other women Had experiences verified by Donald Trump on tape talking about grabbing women, and therefore we're going to fine him.
00:35:12.000 And so for everybody else looking at this, they're like, well, I mean, he did say that he did that, and there's nothing new here because there have been allegations that he does this to women a lot.
00:35:22.000 And now they're going to give Eugene Carroll like a bunch of his money from a New York jury, which is just looking for an excuse to punish Donald Trump because they hate Donald Trump.
00:35:30.000 So is this going to affect Donald Trump electorally in any way?
00:35:31.000 I have a hard time believing it's going to affect Donald Trump in any way.
00:35:35.000 And again, I think it's even I think when he says this feels like a witch hunt, it kind of does.
00:35:40.000 I mean, it looks as though they are now litigating.
00:35:43.000 In an allegation that Donald Trump made about himself in 2014 or whatever it was with Billy Bush, and they found the world's least credible witness, E. Jean Carroll, to talk about this on tape 23 years later.
00:35:55.000 And then the trial wasn't even about E. Jean Carroll.
00:35:57.000 The trial was really about Donald Trump.
00:35:59.000 So what does it look like?
00:35:59.000 It looks like a trial of Donald Trump, about Donald Trump, by a New York jury, and they wanted to find him.
00:36:03.000 That's what it looks like.
00:36:04.000 And so for his supporters, they're like, OK, come on.
00:36:06.000 I'm not going to vote for him based on a New York jury doesn't like him.
00:36:09.000 Really?
00:36:10.000 And based on the fact that he supported his own statements that he said on a hot mic?
00:36:14.000 And which he's already said that he agrees with?
00:36:16.000 We'll get to more on this in a second.
00:36:18.000 First, let's talk about the fact that when you are figuring out your career, you really have to build a skill set, then you have to build a resume, and then you have to find a good job.
00:36:25.000 And that's kind of hard.
00:36:25.000 And if you're an employer and you're looking for a good employee, hard to find the right employee for that job.
00:36:29.000 Well, we have the greatest job matchmaking site of all time.
00:36:32.000 This, of course, would be ZipRecruiter.
00:36:34.000 ZipRecruiter helps you find the most qualified people for your roles fast.
00:36:36.000 Right now, you can try ZipRecruiter for free at ziprecruiter.com slash dailywire.
00:36:41.000 ZipRecruiter's matching technology helps you find the most qualified candidates for a wide range of roles.
00:36:45.000 If you see a candidate you like, you can easily send them a personal invite so they're more likely to apply.
00:36:49.000 Their user-friendly dashboard makes it easy to filter, review, and rate your candidates all from one place.
00:36:52.000 Let ZipRecruiter help you find the best people for all your roles.
00:36:55.000 Four out of five employers who post on ZipRecruiter get a quality candidate within day one.
00:36:59.000 See for yourself.
00:36:59.000 Go to ziprecruiter.com slash dailywire to try ZipRecruiter for free.
00:37:03.000 Again, that's ziprecruiter.com Slash dailywire.
00:37:05.000 ZipRecruiter is indeed the smartest way to hire.
00:37:07.000 We've been using ZipRecruiter here at dailywire for literally years and you should do the same.
00:37:11.000 It'll make your employee base better.
00:37:12.000 If you're an employee looking for an employer, go to ZipRecruiter as well.
00:37:15.000 Find your next great job.
00:37:16.000 ZipRecruiter.com slash dailywire.
00:37:19.000 It is the smartest way to hire.
00:37:20.000 Also.
00:37:21.000 Despite the lackluster economy, the Dailyware continues to thrive.
00:37:23.000 We are hiring right now.
00:37:24.000 We're looking for a video editor to join our fast-growing post-production team.
00:37:28.000 This person will get the opportunity to work on a variety of content, including our daily podcasts, long-form interviews, YouTube videos, and shows like mine, Debunked, and documentaries from Jordan Peterson and more.
00:37:37.000 Four plus years of professional video editing experience.
00:37:39.000 Familiarity in working at a very fast-paced environment with low turnaround times is required.
00:37:43.000 Bonus points for experience working on viral YouTube content.
00:37:46.000 This is the perfect role for somebody who can expertly follow standardized video editing formats while also possessing a strong creative skill set.
00:37:52.000 A link to your reel is required for consideration.
00:37:54.000 The position is based in Nashville, Tennessee.
00:37:56.000 For more information and to apply, visit dailywire.com slash careers.
00:37:59.000 That's dailywire.com slash careers today.
00:38:02.000 Okay, meanwhile...
00:38:03.000 So does any of this actually affect Donald Trump?
00:38:05.000 The media are treating the Trump $5 million defamation verdict as though this is some sort of serious obstacle to him running.
00:38:11.000 That's ridiculous.
00:38:12.000 It is absolutely not.
00:38:13.000 It'll be interesting to see how Trump responds to questions about this, I assume, on Wednesday night, because he is supposed to do a town hall forum on CNN with Caitlyn Collins.
00:38:23.000 Presumably she's going to ask him about all of this and he's going to do the exact same thing that he did in his testimony.
00:38:27.000 He's probably going to say, it's true when you're famous that you can do whatever you want and also Eugene Carroll is a liar.
00:38:33.000 And that's fine.
00:38:33.000 He can do that.
00:38:34.000 Is that going to have any impact?
00:38:36.000 I assume that it will not.
00:38:37.000 The only thing that's going to have an impact on Trump legally, it's not going to be this.
00:38:40.000 It's not going to be the Alvin Bragg idiot case with regard to campaign finance violations and Stormy Daniels and all of that.
00:38:47.000 The only thing that is going to affect Trump legally speaking are just the drip, drip, drip of indictments.
00:38:53.000 It may come a point at which voters are like, yeah, this guy's under so many legal cases.
00:38:56.000 But it's also true that if it feels like, you know, a cartoon where all guns
00:39:01.000 are trained on Bugs Bunny, you start to root for Bugs Bunny a little bit, right?
00:39:04.000 That's kind of what it's going to feel like.
00:39:06.000 There's an indictment watch in Fulton County from Fannie Willis investigating efforts by Trump
00:39:10.000 in Georgia to affect the 2020 election post-election.
00:39:13.000 You still have an upcoming trial in a New York civil case against the Trump organization.
00:39:18.000 There's still the federal probe from Special Counsel Jack Smith about Trump trying to subvert the 2020 election.
00:39:24.000 And there's a federal probe on the handling of classified documents.
00:39:26.000 The problem is each one of these cases in isolation looks really weak.
00:39:30.000 And so when you have a bunch of weak cases in isolation, it looks like exactly what Donald Trump wants.
00:39:34.000 This is actually, all of this can be seen as a giant in-kind contribution to Donald Trump's primary campaign.
00:39:39.000 Every time he feels targeted, the Republican base rushes to his defense.
00:39:42.000 So it all helps him in the primaries.
00:39:44.000 Now, does it help him with the general population?
00:39:46.000 I think not.
00:39:46.000 I don't think there's anybody out there who was kind of an independent like, well, now that he is being targeted by everyone, I like him more.
00:39:53.000 I don't think there are tons of people like that.
00:39:54.000 But the idea that it's really going to be like a serious bar to Trump running, I think is ridiculous.
00:39:59.000 This is why there's an article in The Washington Post.
00:40:01.000 It's titled right now, Sexual Abuse Verdict Renews Republican Doubts About Trump's Electability.
00:40:05.000 Listen, I think if you had doubts about Trump's electability, and I have doubts about Trump's electability considering he already lost to Joe Biden.
00:40:11.000 And that he had to pull a rabbit out of a hat to beat Hillary Clinton.
00:40:13.000 Like, again, I have doubts about his electability, but not because of this.
00:40:17.000 Because Trump is Trump, and people have their opinions on Trump.
00:40:20.000 Now, the notion that this is going to be some sort of kill shot with regard to his campaign is obviously incredibly silly.
00:40:26.000 It just doesn't make any sense.
00:40:27.000 Meanwhile, George Santos, Republican congressperson from New York, he has now been arrested on 13 charges of wire fraud, money laundering, theft of public funds, and making materially false statements.
00:40:36.000 It's always the ones you least suspect, guys.
00:40:37.000 It's, you know, it's like the butler did it.
00:40:40.000 George Santos, who lied about literally all the things.
00:40:43.000 It turns out that he probably also lied about money and public funds and how he was using the money and all the rest of that sort of stuff.
00:40:51.000 This provides a sort of conundrum for the Republican Party because, again, their majority in the House is extraordinarily slim at this point.
00:40:57.000 Right now, their majority is like four seats, five seats.
00:41:00.000 222 is their majority.
00:41:03.000 Now they're down to 221, I would presume.
00:41:05.000 And the way that it works is that he would presumably be replaced by the governor of New York.
00:41:08.000 The governor of New York, of course, is Kathy Hochul, who's a Democrat.
00:41:10.000 So that means that the Democrats will appoint someone to fill that seat.
00:41:13.000 That was a swing district that Santos had won.
00:41:15.000 And so the large-scale probability here is that the Republican majority will decline by one.
00:41:22.000 Which is a problem for McCarthy because, again, he does have this kind of solid core of people who are gadflies and who vote against everything that he brings up.
00:41:30.000 That would be Matt Gaetz, Lauren Boebert, Marjorie Taylor Greene, and the like.
00:41:34.000 It doesn't always include MTG, by the way.
00:41:36.000 MTG very often will vote with McCarthy, actually.
00:41:38.000 She seems to be more rational in terms of her legislative priorities than, say, Matt Gaetz.
00:41:42.000 It does mean that his majority shrinks a little bit, and that's a problem for the Republicans.
00:41:45.000 Meanwhile, I guess that he's being indicted because he is slightly more of a liar than all the other members of Congress.
00:41:50.000 But, you know, here's the good news.
00:41:51.000 There are plenty of liars left over in Congress.
00:41:53.000 That would include the irrepressibly stupid AOC.
00:41:55.000 So she's also a pathological liar.
00:41:57.000 Yesterday, she pathologically lied about Jordan Neely.
00:41:59.000 Jordan Neely is, of course, the mentally ill and career criminal black man who died on a New York subway after a Marine put him in a submission hold in an attempt to stop him from attacking the other passengers.
00:42:10.000 She tweeted out, So the real problem is that New York doesn't provide any of the resources necessary for people like Jordan Ely.
00:42:23.000 There's only one problem.
00:42:25.000 As Thomas Chatterton Williams, a writer for The Atlantic, who is not a conservative, pointed out, she says Jordan Ely was killed because he couldn't access mental health support.
00:42:33.000 That's a lie.
00:42:34.000 According to the actual New York Times reporting, he was arrested not all that long ago, and he was supposed to go from court to live at a treatment facility in the Bronx and stay clean for 15 months.
00:42:44.000 13 days later, he abandoned the facility.
00:42:46.000 We talked about this at the Times.
00:42:47.000 This idea that this is about underfunding in New York City, it's not about underfunding.
00:42:50.000 It's about the fact that there are no consequences for simply going out and living on the street and then abandoning your drug rehab facility.
00:42:56.000 But AOC wants you to be able to abandon your drug rehab facilities, an aspect of freedom to live on the streets, according to people like AOC.
00:43:02.000 And pathological lies exist all over Congress.
00:43:04.000 Only George Santos is really being targeted over his pathological lies.
00:43:08.000 Meanwhile, the immigration crisis on our southern border gets worse and worse and worse.
00:43:11.000 According to the Wall Street Journal, officials in New York and Chicago have now declared states of emergency after Texas Governor Greg Abbott resumed busing migrants to northern sanctuary cities ahead of the expiration later this week of Title 42.
00:43:23.000 Busloads of migrants, mostly from Texas, began arriving in cities hundreds of miles from the border last year.
00:43:28.000 Officials have been trying to provide housing and services for those new arrivals in Chicago, New York, and Washington, D.C.
00:43:33.000 Lori Lightfoot in Chicago, she says, we have hit the breaking point.
00:43:36.000 She is still the outgoing mayor of Chicago.
00:43:38.000 They've taken in like 8,500, 9,000 illegal immigrants over the course of the last year.
00:43:42.000 Meanwhile, you have 10,000 illegal immigrants arriving on the border like every single day.
00:43:47.000 And all those people are just being schlepped to the streets of El Paso and left there.
00:43:50.000 But Lori Lightfoot is in a state of panic because some busloads of people are entering a city of millions.
00:43:55.000 Here is Lori Lightfoot talking about it.
00:43:58.000 Last week, I sent a letter to Governor Abbott when we learned that he may be sending more migrants to our city via bus to try to reason and explain to him that yes, of course we are a welcoming city and we will always do what is right by our immigrant and refugee communities.
00:44:14.000 But we've reached a breaking point in our response to this humanitarian crisis primarily manufactured by him for cynical political purposes.
00:44:25.000 Oh, it's super cynical for Abbott to send people to cities where they want to go.
00:44:30.000 You know what's not cynical, though, apparently?
00:44:31.000 What Eric Adams is doing.
00:44:32.000 So Eric Adams is the mayor of New York.
00:44:34.000 He's also claiming that it's very cynical to send people to New York City as a destination.
00:44:38.000 So what is he doing?
00:44:39.000 It's hilarious how undercover this is.
00:44:41.000 What exactly is Eric Adams, the mayor of New York City, doing with all these illegal immigrants?
00:44:44.000 So Eric Adams' plan is, I'm going to whine about people being sent to New York City, one of the biggest cities on the planet.
00:44:49.000 to send migrants to their towns for shelter.
00:44:51.000 This is ABC News reporting.
00:44:52.000 So Eric Adams' plan is, I'm going to whine about people being sent to New York City,
00:44:55.000 one of the biggest cities on the planet.
00:44:57.000 And I'm going to take those people and I'm going to send them to Rockland County.
00:45:01.000 I'm gonna just schlep them to the suburbs and leave them off next to the school.
00:45:05.000 That's my plan.
00:45:06.000 So, bad when Greg Abbott sends busloads of illegal immigrants to New York City.
00:45:11.000 Good when Eric Adams takes those busloads of immigrants and unloads them in Rockland County.
00:45:16.000 Rockland County's top official declared a state of emergency on Saturday in response to Adams' plan to send 340 adult male migrants to live at an Armani Inn and Suites in Orangeburg, New York for four months.
00:45:28.000 I mean, honestly, oh darn, it's the consequences of my own actions.
00:45:33.000 Oh no, here they come.
00:45:35.000 Rockland County had declared itself a sanctuary city in December of 2016, or apparently Rockland County did not.
00:45:42.000 So New York City declared itself a sanctuary city, mainly to virtue signal to their left.
00:45:45.000 And Rockland County's like, guys, we didn't do that.
00:45:47.000 Why are you schlepping them here?
00:45:49.000 The county executive Edwin Days of the city declared itself a sanctuary city in December 2016, committing itself to supporting undocumented individuals.
00:45:55.000 This county has not.
00:45:56.000 We're one-tenth the population of New York City.
00:45:58.000 We're not capable of receiving and sustaining the volume of undocumented migrants Eric Adams intends to send over.
00:46:04.000 Rockland County is 40 miles northwest of New York City.
00:46:06.000 It is close to the Hudson River.
00:46:09.000 So, on Friday, Adams announced he was sending migrants to neighboring New York counties in response to the rising numbers of asylum seekers in the city.
00:46:16.000 So now, this is good.
00:46:17.000 DeSantis sends people to Martha's Vineyard very bad.
00:46:20.000 Eric Adams says he's going, we'll take you in.
00:46:23.000 We love you guys.
00:46:23.000 Come on in, illegal immigrants.
00:46:24.000 This is a sanctuary city.
00:46:25.000 We're not even going to help the federal officials effectuate immigration policy.
00:46:29.000 We're not going to deport any of you.
00:46:30.000 You get to stay here.
00:46:31.000 Also, you're not staying here.
00:46:32.000 You're staying actually in Rockland County.
00:46:34.000 Adam said at a press conference, despite calling on the federal government for a national decompression strategy since last year, and for a decompression strategy across the state, New York City has been left without the necessary support to manage the crisis.
00:46:45.000 With a vacuum of leadership, we're now forced to undertake our own decompression strategy.
00:46:50.000 Man, I love this.
00:46:51.000 I love that Eric Adams is going to escape scrutiny for now schlepping people to the middle of nowhere after declaring that he was going to help everybody.
00:46:58.000 Meanwhile, immigrants continue to pour over the borders.
00:47:00.000 This video from Matamoros, Mexico is absolutely shocking.
00:47:04.000 This is just people who are pouring over the border here.
00:47:11.000 Look at this.
00:47:13.000 It's unbelievable.
00:47:15.000 That, of course, is people pouring across the Rio Grande.
00:47:21.000 Men and women and children by the hundreds climbing up the banks of this river.
00:47:26.000 Things are going great, guys.
00:47:27.000 And the good news is Joe Biden has all of it under control.
00:47:30.000 In fact, Joe Biden doesn't even have to answer any questions.
00:47:32.000 Yesterday, he did a presser and by a presser, I mean he answered no questions and then smirked as reporters were let out of the room.
00:47:38.000 We're gonna solve all the world's problems.
00:47:40.000 Okay?
00:47:42.000 Thank you so much guys. Thank you so much.
00:47:44.000 Thank you so much.
00:47:46.000 There he is, smiling.
00:47:47.000 Oh, this is fun, guys.
00:47:49.000 I'll see y'all later.
00:47:50.000 Yeah, that's right.
00:47:51.000 I made giant jackets.
00:47:54.000 Bye, guys.
00:47:55.000 I don't answer questions.
00:47:56.000 I'm just the president.
00:47:57.000 Bye.
00:47:58.000 That, of course, was during a session, including Hakeem Jeffries, Kevin McCarthy, and Chuck Schumer to talk about the budget crisis.
00:48:08.000 But there'll be no questions to Joe Biden.
00:48:10.000 Joe Biden did have a comment, by the way.
00:48:11.000 He just keeps smiling like a weirdo.
00:48:13.000 He's such a weird old Cesar Romero Joker type.
00:48:16.000 So weird.
00:48:16.000 Anyway, here was Joe Biden yesterday on the border.
00:48:19.000 His comments were less than edifying.
00:48:22.000 I spent close to an hour with the Mexican president today.
00:48:29.000 We're doing all we can.
00:48:31.000 The answer is it remains to be seen.
00:48:35.000 We've gotten overwhelming cooperation from Mexico.
00:48:38.000 Oh, it'll be chaotic for a while.
00:48:40.000 Guys, don't worry about it.
00:48:41.000 setting up offices in Columbia and other places where you can,
00:48:46.000 or someone seeking asylum can go first.
00:48:50.000 So, but it remains to be seen.
00:48:51.000 It's going to be chaotic for a while.
00:48:53.000 Oh, it'll be chaotic for a while.
00:48:56.000 Guys, don't worry about it.
00:48:57.000 It'll be chaotic.
00:48:58.000 By a while, I mean for the rest of your life.
00:49:00.000 That's by a while.
00:49:02.000 And by chaotic, I mean like millions of illegal immigrants crossing the border, being caught, and then released.
00:49:06.000 She's like, are you kidding?
00:49:07.000 We can't even get this guy to string two sentences together.
00:49:09.000 address Americans on the border.
00:49:10.000 Christ, like, are you kidding?
00:49:11.000 We can't even get this guy to string two sentences together.
00:49:13.000 No way.
00:49:14.000 About Title 42 share message that New York is given or, you know, you know, something
00:49:21.000 to that effect.
00:49:22.000 Well, we hear from the president on.
00:49:23.000 Well, I would say you heard from the president just this past Friday.
00:49:26.000 He did an interview, a sit-down interview, with one of the networks and talked about Title 42, talked about immigration, so the American people did hear directly from the President on this issue.
00:49:37.000 I don't have anything else to share in the next couple of days about the President's schedule, so I'll just leave it there.
00:49:48.000 He did talk to MSNBC, guys.
00:49:50.000 But there is good news.
00:49:51.000 Corrina Jean-Pierre says we have top men on this.
00:49:54.000 Just like the Ark of the Covenant.
00:49:55.000 Top men.
00:49:57.000 And by top men, she means Kamala Harris.
00:50:00.000 I don't know how anybody finds this satisfying.
00:50:02.000 She says, yeah, we got a border crisis, but you know, Joe Biden is talking to Kamala Harris, who will presumably be supplying electric school buses and Venn diagrams to all of the illegal immigrants.
00:50:11.000 Will the Vice President be involved in today's meeting since she'll be here in the country while the President is away?
00:50:17.000 So the President has been closely consulting with the Vice President on this.
00:50:22.000 They have had several conversations on this issue.
00:50:26.000 And so again, when it comes to issues that matter to the American people, they're very much partners.
00:50:33.000 Yeah, mmm.
00:50:34.000 And probably Kamala Harris is like, mmm, yeah.
00:50:36.000 I mean, uh-huh, yeah.
00:50:42.000 Good stuff from Kyle.
00:50:46.000 I'm sure she's fixing all the problems.
00:50:47.000 She's done an amazing job on the border so far.
00:50:49.000 Remember, he deployed her to solve the border crisis two years ago, and it's been going swimmingly.
00:50:53.000 And by swimmingly, I mean literally thousands of people swimming across the Rio Grande to enter the United States.
00:50:57.000 That's exciting stuff.
00:50:58.000 Meanwhile, the Biden administration doing yeoman's work on blowing up the budget as well.
00:51:02.000 So there's been no breakthrough on the debt ceiling.
00:51:04.000 There was a all for show meeting yesterday between President Biden and House Speaker Kevin McCarthy.
00:51:08.000 But according to the Wall Street Journal, they remain at loggerheads after a meeting at the White House on Tuesday.
00:51:12.000 They have made little progress in averting the first ever default by the federal government.
00:51:15.000 Again, You know, I am not one for conspiratorial thinking.
00:51:19.000 However, it occurs to me that Joe Biden, knowing that the economy is not in amazing shape right now and that there will probably be a recession, him finding an excuse to blame Republicans who are not really in charge of the government might actually be in his wheelhouse.
00:51:32.000 He might be looking for a way to blame Republicans for an economic downturn.
00:51:36.000 And maybe that's why he's not negotiating, because there's no other reason not to negotiate at this point, considering avoiding the debt ceiling is not all that tough.
00:51:42.000 Kevin McCarthy's proposal, which is to, again, not lower spending, but to stop the trajectory of spending from rising in the same way, has been outright rejected by the White House.
00:51:51.000 He just wants to go back to 2022 levels of spending.
00:51:54.000 And yet there is no movement, none whatsoever.
00:51:56.000 Here's Kevin McCarthy yesterday announcing, yeah, we sat in a room and Joe Biden stared at the walls and ate oatmeal, and it was real weird.
00:52:03.000 We can lift the debt ceiling.
00:52:05.000 And find a way that we can curve this increasing debt that is affecting every American family with inflation.
00:52:11.000 And now three banks of our fourth largest banks are closed, are in a debt problem.
00:52:18.000 Nothing has changed since then.
00:52:20.000 The only thing that has changed is the House has raised the debt ceiling and passed the bill.
00:52:26.000 That's why we had a meeting today.
00:52:28.000 Everybody in this meeting reiterated the positions they were at.
00:52:32.000 I didn't see any new movement.
00:52:34.000 The president said the staff should get back together, but I was very clear with the president.
00:52:39.000 We have now just two weeks to go.
00:52:42.000 OK, meanwhile, the Democratic playbook here is we just can't default under no circumstances can we default.
00:52:48.000 We're not cutting anything, but we definitely it's so important.
00:52:51.000 We cannot default.
00:52:52.000 We must pay our we must pay our debts.
00:52:54.000 Also, we're not negotiating under any circumstances.
00:52:56.000 Here's Hakeem Jeffries doing that dance.
00:52:59.000 Under no circumstances should the United States default on our debt.
00:53:04.000 America must always pay our bills.
00:53:09.000 A default would be catastrophic for everyday Americans, for small businesses, for people all across the land.
00:53:19.000 He refused.
00:53:20.000 President Biden said he would.
00:53:21.000 Leader Jeffrey said he would.
00:53:22.000 Of course I said I would.
00:53:22.000 about the small businesses all across the land that you shut down for two years.
00:53:25.000 And well, well done on that.
00:53:26.000 You know, Chuck Schumer, he's doing the same routine.
00:53:29.000 Look at these terrible Republicans.
00:53:30.000 Chuck Schumer has all these terrible.
00:53:32.000 It's just amazing.
00:53:33.000 They won't they won't do what we want them to do.
00:53:35.000 And it's just awful. It's awful.
00:53:36.000 He refused.
00:53:39.000 President Biden said he would.
00:53:41.000 Leader Jeffrey said he would.
00:53:42.000 Of course, I said I would.
00:53:44.000 But he wouldn't take it off the table.
00:53:46.000 And instead of him giving us a plan to remove default, he gave us a plan to take default
00:53:55.000 hostage.
00:53:56.000 Thank you.
00:53:57.000 you.
00:53:58.000 Take default hostage?
00:53:59.000 He passed a bill that raises the debt ceiling.
00:54:01.000 It's you guys who refuse to even negotiate so much so that Joe Biden now says he's thinking of just violating the Constitution and he's going to, you know, consider the 14th Amendment a basically blank slate to spend whatever he wants to spend.
00:54:14.000 You said you're certain there won't be a fall.
00:54:17.000 Are you willing to take unilateral action, like a vote in the 14th Amendment, to make sure that doesn't happen?
00:54:23.000 Well, I have been considering the 14th Amendment.
00:54:26.000 And a man I have enormous respect for, Larry Tribe, who advised me for a long time, thinks that it would be legitimate.
00:54:33.000 But the problem is it would have to be litigated.
00:54:37.000 And in the meantime, without an extension, it would still end up in the same place.
00:54:42.000 You see how much fun that is?
00:54:44.000 It's really fun that Larry Tribe can plant an op-ed in the New York Times talking about how he's now in favor of reinterpreting the 14th Amendment, and then Joe Biden can go out and cite that and pretend that he has legal precedent for this, which he doesn't.
00:54:54.000 Joe Biden was asked about the fact that he's not negotiating, and then Biden got real chippy with the reporters.
00:54:58.000 He started getting real mad at the reporters.
00:55:00.000 Why are you even asking me this stuff, man?
00:55:02.000 Why?
00:55:02.000 Don't you know that I'm going to get sabotaged and the gamut is going to go to shab?
00:55:08.000 We've got a specific answer.
00:55:09.000 We've got a specific answer again today.
00:55:12.000 You didn't listen either, so why should I even answer the question?
00:55:15.000 So is there a specific answer?
00:55:17.000 We got a specific answer again today.
00:55:19.000 Which is what?
00:55:20.000 The first, you didn't listen either, so why should I even answer the question?
00:55:25.000 We cut the deficit by $160 billion.
00:55:30.000 B-I-L-L-I-O-N dollars on the Medicare bill.
00:55:35.000 No, you didn't.
00:55:37.000 What's he proposing?
00:55:38.000 Did he tell you?
00:55:40.000 I'm not being facetious.
00:55:43.000 Did he tell you what he's proposing?
00:55:45.000 He was talking about the bill.
00:55:47.000 Yeah, but what does it propose?
00:55:49.000 Do you know?
00:55:50.000 I'm not being a wise guy.
00:55:54.000 You are, though.
00:55:54.000 It's in English on the web.
00:55:56.000 You can read the bill.
00:55:57.000 It talks precisely about the cuts that he wishes to implement.
00:56:00.000 What are you talking about?
00:56:01.000 What in the world are you talking about?
00:56:03.000 It doesn't matter.
00:56:03.000 This is why, again, I think the Democrats, Joe Biden and company, they may want to run the economy directly into the ground.
00:56:10.000 And they may want to do so just so they can blame Republicans.
00:56:12.000 I mean, it really is an incredible thing.
00:56:14.000 I mean, that's what Karine Jean-Pierre tried yesterday.
00:56:15.000 She was like, Republicans are threatening recession and 8 million jobs.
00:56:19.000 Are they or are you?
00:56:20.000 You won't even negotiate.
00:56:21.000 Like, if you guys would negotiate and you'd say, here's our position, and then the Republicans are like, here's our position, then maybe you could find a middle position.
00:56:27.000 But when your position is, we will not negotiate ever at all, who looks more unwilling to raise the debt ceiling?
00:56:35.000 Kevin McCarthy, who passed a bill to raise the debt ceiling, or you, who are doing nothing?
00:56:41.000 It's not about the President.
00:56:41.000 It's about the American economy.
00:56:43.000 It's about the American people.
00:56:45.000 That's what the President views as success.
00:56:46.000 That's the way that it should be done.
00:56:49.000 Regular order.
00:56:49.000 This is regular order.
00:56:51.000 What House Republicans are saying is that they want to potentially, if they get their way, threaten the country's first default.
00:57:00.000 Something that has never happened before.
00:57:03.000 That's what they're threatening.
00:57:04.000 Again, could lead to trigger a recession.
00:57:07.000 Eight million jobs potentially lost.
00:57:10.000 That is what they are threatening.
00:57:14.000 That's what they're threatening?
00:57:14.000 That's what you're threatening?
00:57:16.000 Joe Manchin, Senator from West Virginia, he's like, you know, it's unreasonable that Biden isn't even negotiating.
00:57:20.000 Yeah, Joe, that's correct.
00:57:22.000 Senator Joe Manchin, who has been calling on the White House to sit down and have these discussions with Republicans, indicating that they need to agree to some spending cuts.
00:57:31.000 Otherwise, the consequences, he warned, could be drastic.
00:57:38.000 It's just, it's not rational, it's not reasonable, and it's not practical.
00:57:42.000 And it's something that, it's hypocritical to say that we're not going to do it now when we've done it every time that there has been a split in the party.
00:57:49.000 The only time that I know there hasn't been big discussion is when one party, whether it be Republicans, have the President, the House, and the Senate.
00:57:57.000 Or the Democrats have all three.
00:57:59.000 Plain.
00:57:59.000 Well they're saying no, no cuts, nothing, tighter.
00:58:02.000 That's not, that's not, I think that's not reasonable.
00:58:07.000 Yes, it is not reasonable.
00:58:08.000 By the way, that's a member of Joe Biden's own party, and with Dianne Feinstein absent, it means they don't actually have a majority in support of Joe Biden, even in the Democrat Senate.
00:58:16.000 That's what that means.
00:58:17.000 But Joe Biden doesn't care, because that's the way this works.
00:58:20.000 He's hoping the media will cover for all of his foibles, and It's probably not wrong.
00:58:23.000 And meanwhile, on the international front, there are a couple of major stories brewing.
00:58:27.000 One, of course, is actually in Pakistan, which we don't pay attention to a lot.
00:58:30.000 We really should.
00:58:30.000 It's a country of 230 million people with nuclear weapons.
00:58:33.000 And nobody ever pays any attention to Pakistan, despite the fact that Pakistan is generally in a widespread, decades-long battle between radical Islamists and people who are slightly more moderate, between military dictatorship and a democracy that may go radical.
00:58:47.000 So Imran Khan, who is currently the most popular leader in Pakistan and tends to be on the more extreme side of Pakistani politics, has now been arrested, which could lead to mass unrest by his supporters.
00:58:59.000 According to the New York Times, Imran Khan, who is Pakistan's ousted prime minister, was arrested on corruption charges on Tuesday in a major escalation of a political crisis that has engulfed the country over the past year and that raises the prospect of mass unrest by his supporters.
00:59:10.000 The arrest intensified a showdown between the powerful Pakistani military and Khan and brought the country into uncharted political territory.
00:59:17.000 Pakistani leaders have faced arrest before, but never has anyone like Khan so directly and with mass popular support challenged the military, which for decades has been the invisible hand wielding power behind the government.
00:59:27.000 And this is what should scare people.
00:59:29.000 And again, it demonstrates pretty full scale that sometimes there's a conflict between democracy and, you know, the interests of the West.
00:59:36.000 One of the great lies about American foreign policy is that American foreign policy in all circumstances must cut in favor of sort of formalistic democratic arrangements as opposed to American interests.
00:59:47.000 And it's a fool's game.
00:59:48.000 Because the reality is that if the military in Pakistan were no longer in charge of the nukes, but Imran Khan were, this would be a significantly Less stable region.
00:59:56.000 It's already an unstable region.
00:59:58.000 Political tensions have been building for months as Khan, a former cricket star who is extremely populist, has accused the military and the current government of conspiring against him.
01:00:06.000 Both the military and government officials deny those claims.
01:00:10.000 His supporters are ransacking the official residences of army commanders.
01:00:14.000 Hundreds of protesters have gathered outside army headquarters just outside Islamabad.
01:00:18.000 In the port city of Karachi, the police are firing tear gas to disperse crowds.
01:00:23.000 Again, the fact that Pakistan has nuclear weapons is one of the least covered, most dangerous parts of world politics.
01:00:30.000 Pakistan is in an unbreachable conflict.
01:00:35.000 I mean, it's just an intransigent conflict since 1948.
01:00:41.000 Nobody pays any attention to that.
01:00:42.000 Really, no one pays any attention to the fact that Pakistan has been in a series of conflict with India for seven decades.
01:00:51.000 And that Pakistan is constantly in danger of falling directly under the sway of radical Islamists.
01:00:56.000 Nobody pays any attention to that.
01:00:57.000 Instead, they pay attention to Israel killing terrorists.
01:00:59.000 So this is the other story that's on the table today, is that Israel launched something called Operation Shield and Arrow, killing three high-level Islamic Jihad leaders.
01:01:07.000 Islamic Jihad is a terrorist group by every available metric.
01:01:09.000 It is backed by Iran.
01:01:11.000 Islamic Jihad, just last week, launched 102 rockets, 104 rockets, into Israel.
01:01:17.000 And Israel retaliated by killing three Islamic Jihad leaders.
01:01:20.000 They did so in extremely targeted strikes.
01:01:23.000 And the international community, they always treat a targeted strike as though it's an act of egregious war crime violation.
01:01:29.000 It's insane.
01:01:30.000 Israel will literally take out, not apartment buildings, apartments, like single apartments in terror-occupied areas with the intent of killing as few human beings as possible.
01:01:41.000 You can see the pictures of it.
01:01:42.000 They'll take out like a room in an apartment.
01:01:44.000 And it'll turn out that the terrorists have been trotting their kids around with them, specifically in order to deter Israel from killing them.
01:01:50.000 And Israel will call off strikes.
01:01:51.000 I mean, I've seen footage of them doing this.
01:01:53.000 They literally call off strikes if there are too many civilians in the area, but they have to make a call sometimes.
01:01:57.000 Do I kill the Islamic Jihad leader, even though he's hiding behind his kids?
01:02:00.000 And it's on him.
01:02:01.000 Because you know what people of any level of decency don't do?
01:02:04.000 Hide behind their children.
01:02:05.000 I have three children of my own.
01:02:06.000 You think I would trail them around with me to deter someone from killing me?
01:02:10.000 That's insane.
01:02:11.000 That's insane.
01:02:12.000 So Israel kills these three Islamic Jihad leaders and this has led to mass rocket attacks that across Israel, including in Tel Aviv, the videos are
01:02:20.000 very easy to find.
01:02:22.000 You can see people being evacuated on the roads.
01:02:24.000 They're literally driving to Tel Aviv on a main highway, and the sirens will go off,
01:02:27.000 and suddenly Israelis have to run off out of their cars onto the side of the road,
01:02:31.000 where there's no bomb shelter whatsoever.
01:02:32.000 And then you will see rockets being shot down by the Iron Dome.
01:02:36.000 An Iron Dome, which by the way, is opposed by people like Rashida Tlaib,
01:02:39.000 who's a terror supporter.
01:02:40.000 the the It's total madness.
01:02:43.000 I mean, there were pictures that were emerging of El Al flights, like, these are civilian airliners, flying into Ben Gurion Airport, and rockets being shot down not all that far from the jets.
01:02:53.000 No country worth its salt can tolerate this.
01:02:56.000 If this were America, let's say that Mexican drug cartels started using Matamoros, Mexico as a launching point, a staging point for hundreds of rocket attacks into Brownsville, Texas.
01:03:05.000 Let's say that started happening.
01:03:07.000 American Marines would be sitting in Mexico City tomorrow morning.
01:03:11.000 Tomorrow morning.
01:03:12.000 Entire areas of the Mexican border would be free of humans.
01:03:16.000 Because you know what the American military does not do?
01:03:19.000 Play around.
01:03:19.000 And you know what else they don't do?
01:03:21.000 They don't worry so much about what the UN Security Council is going to do.
01:03:24.000 The fact that Israel is criticized when it has to kill terrorists and those terrorists hide behind their families, but that terrorists can shoot hundreds of rockets into a sovereign state and Israel is expected to absorb it, is totally insane.
01:03:35.000 The Israeli government should do whatever it has to do to stop the terrorism.
01:03:37.000 Yes, up to and including taking controversial military actions to kill as many terrorists as possible and stop these sorts of attacks.
01:03:44.000 You can't have a country that's living half underground.
01:03:47.000 Total madness.
01:03:48.000 Absolute madness.
01:03:50.000 Okay, let's get to some things I like and then some things that I hate.
01:03:53.000 So, things that I like today.
01:03:55.000 So, MrBeast has put out a new video.
01:03:58.000 He's the most popular YouTuber.
01:03:59.000 He's put out a new video.
01:04:00.000 In this video, he helps 1,000 deaf people hear again.
01:04:05.000 He pays for cochlear implants and stuff, helping deaf people to actually hear again, or hear for the first time.
01:04:13.000 That's pretty awesome, right?
01:04:15.000 I mean, here's some of the video.
01:04:18.000 This is the first out of a thousand deaf people that we're going to help hear again.
01:04:21.000 And she hasn't heard her mother's voice in four years.
01:04:24.000 Can you hear?
01:04:29.000 I love you.
01:04:32.000 Next, we helped Kaylee, Sudie, and even entire families hear their loved ones again.
01:04:38.000 But they are only a few of the 1,000 people that we are going to help hear again today.
01:04:43.000 We got our hands on over $3 million of cutting-edge hearing technology that, unlike old hearing aids, analyzes people's specific hearing needs, allowing them to hear again without causing any damage.
01:04:54.000 Can you hear me talking now?
01:04:56.000 Yes.
01:04:56.000 Oh, my God.
01:04:57.000 Wait.
01:04:58.000 He can hear it.
01:04:59.000 I'm going to cry.
01:05:02.000 Okay, like, that's great, right?
01:05:04.000 Nothing bad about that.
01:05:05.000 Oh, don't worry.
01:05:05.000 In the world of the internet, everything is bad.
01:05:07.000 Everything is terrible.
01:05:08.000 So, a bunch of people have now come out ripping on Mr. Beast.
01:05:12.000 Okay, so, the Redditors, they have decided there are many reasons why they are very, very upset at Mr. Beast.
01:05:21.000 So, some people will say, well, you know, when he gives charity, when he gives charity, he's just covering for the failures of the systems.
01:05:26.000 This is sort of the Bernie Sanders attitude toward charity.
01:05:28.000 Which is that if you help your neighbor, this is bad.
01:05:30.000 Because really, the government should be helping your neighbor.
01:05:31.000 And you should pay taxes to the government, you jerk!
01:05:34.000 Stop helping people, it's bad!
01:05:36.000 The problems caused by capitalism are the real- Okay, so let's be real about this.
01:05:39.000 Those hearing implements do not exist without capitalism.
01:05:42.000 End of story.
01:05:43.000 So one of the people on Reddit was like, this came to a head with the recent stunt of paying for a
01:05:47.000 thousand blind people's medical treatment to help them gain sight. Looking at that, it's a
01:05:50.000 very nice thing for somebody to do, but at the same time, it highlights there are many people
01:05:53.000 going without things like available medical treatment only because they lack the resources to
01:05:57.000 pay themselves, and there is no broader societal mechanism to help them. Wait, so me doing
01:06:00.000 a nice thing for my neighbor is bad because there's no broader societal mechanism for those
01:06:05.000 people to be helped by the government?
01:06:06.000 So unless you're a full-scale socialist, you shouldn't give charity.
01:06:09.000 And also, even when you're a full-scale socialist, you shouldn't give charity because your money should go to the government.
01:06:12.000 These people are morons.
01:06:13.000 Also, apparently they say he's a for-profit charity because he presents himself as a philanthropist when in reality he's a CEO whose business model is turning people in bad situations into a profit.
01:06:22.000 So first of all, let's say that that were true.
01:06:25.000 Let's say that he put ads on this.
01:06:26.000 So?
01:06:28.000 So?
01:06:29.000 So you mean advertisers want to be associated with a good thing?
01:06:31.000 And then they want to pay him and then he's going to use some of that money to do more good things?
01:06:35.000 Oh no!
01:06:36.000 He's going to use his money to do nice things for people?
01:06:38.000 Whoa!
01:06:39.000 That's terrible!
01:06:40.000 I, on a personal level, thank God, have very good cash flow.
01:06:44.000 And I spend a lot of my money on charity.
01:06:47.000 But according to these morons, if I make a lot of money and give a lot of my money to charity, that's bad because I shouldn't be making a lot of money.
01:06:52.000 And Mr. Beast, if he's making money off of people getting the warms and fuzzies from this sort of stuff, that means he's a bad person.
01:06:59.000 That means you're a bad person if you object to this.
01:07:02.000 Gotta be honest with you.
01:07:03.000 Also, he has specifically said that on these videos he does not monetize them.
01:07:07.000 He does not try to make money off of these videos.
01:07:09.000 Now listen, I would have no problem if he did try to make money off of these videos because some of that money is going to go to more videos like this where he's helping a thousand people here!
01:07:15.000 But apparently, he doesn't want that sort of controversy, so he's not even monetizing these videos.
01:07:20.000 So then they go to the indirect route.
01:07:21.000 Oh, well, you know, this is making him more famous.
01:07:23.000 And when you click on his videos, it makes him more money.
01:07:25.000 And then, he's using that money to help people, and that's making him richer.
01:07:30.000 Okay, let me ask you a question.
01:07:31.000 Here are the alternatives.
01:07:32.000 The alternatives is, a rich person helps people, or you make him poorer and he doesn't help people.
01:07:38.000 Those are the choices.
01:07:40.000 There's no choice where you randomly make him poorer, and then he spends all that money helping people.
01:07:44.000 Because that's not how the world works.
01:07:46.000 That's ridiculous.
01:07:48.000 And then finally, the last criticism is, are selfless acts truly altruistic if you film it and want people to know that you perform the selfless act?
01:07:55.000 And this would be sort of the Kantian argument is, oh my god, what's his intent?
01:07:58.000 The intent is really the thing.
01:07:59.000 Did he intend to be charitable?
01:08:00.000 So first of all, you can intend to be charitable and do it publicly.
01:08:05.000 It's actually kind of an important thing.
01:08:07.000 Maimonides has a hierarchy of the best types of charity to do.
01:08:11.000 Number one type of charity you can do is give somebody a job.
01:08:13.000 If you give somebody a job, according to Maimonides, this is the best type of charity.
01:08:15.000 Number two is giving anonymously.
01:08:17.000 And the reason that giving anonymously is the second best type of charity is because then you know you're not doing it for the credit.
01:08:22.000 And then you get into giving charity but having your name attached to it.
01:08:25.000 But there is a proviso.
01:08:27.000 If you putting your name on a charitable endeavor causes others to give more charity, that's a good thing.
01:08:33.000 So when we give charity, my wife and I, we like to give anonymous charity.
01:08:35.000 Because frankly, we don't care if our name is associated with it.
01:08:38.000 We're not doing it for the claps and the giggles.
01:08:40.000 We're doing it specifically because we want to give the money and we feel duty bound to do so.
01:08:46.000 Okay, but there have been situations where we specifically will give public charity because it encourages other people to give the charity.
01:08:53.000 If you've ever been to a charity fundraiser, this sort of stuff happens all the time.
01:08:56.000 I've emceed many charity fundraisers.
01:08:58.000 When you emcee a charity fundraiser, very often what you do is you'll do a fundraise at the end.
01:09:02.000 You'll get up and you'll say, listen, it's time to give to X organization.
01:09:05.000 It's for school scholarships.
01:09:06.000 It's gonna be a great organization.
01:09:08.000 And I, as a famous person, I pledged that I'm giving $10,000 to this organization.
01:09:12.000 How much is Bob giving?
01:09:13.000 And then it turns out the people in the room are like, oh man, Well, I mean, if he's giving 10, then maybe I'll give 10.
01:09:18.000 If he's giving 10, maybe I should give 15.
01:09:20.000 So if Mr. Beast goes out there and does a charitable thing, maybe it will cause other rich people to do charitable things.
01:09:25.000 That would be very bad.
01:09:26.000 Can't do that.
01:09:27.000 Now, the reality is the reason so many people are hating on Mr. Beast on this particular score is because when people are very rich and very successful, there are a lot of people who hate them.
01:09:35.000 That's number one.
01:09:36.000 But number two, there is now ingrained in a lot of young people this weird idea that helping your neighbor on a personal level is a betrayal of the need for systemic change.
01:09:46.000 The reason they think this is because so much of our philosophy now is driven by the idea that if you say that people can individually change their situation or change the issues of others, then this means that you will be redirecting energy from the system itself.
01:09:58.000 This is the Bernie Sanders take.
01:09:59.000 You give charity, well you should be spending all the time and money that you're giving to the charity.
01:10:03.000 You should be spending that on political activism to change the entire system.
01:10:08.000 Well, maybe I don't think that the system is bad, number one.
01:10:11.000 And maybe, number two, even if I were an activist, I could do both.
01:10:14.000 But I've noticed that there's a weird sort of reversal, which is that Bernie Sanders gives virtually no charity, that Democrats overall give very, very little charity.
01:10:21.000 By every possible study in the United States, Red state people who vote red give way more charity as a percentage of their income than people who vote blue.
01:10:30.000 Why?
01:10:30.000 Because people who vote blue are like, well, I gave it the office.
01:10:32.000 And people who vote red are like, well, no, actually, my money doesn't even belong to me.
01:10:35.000 It belongs to God.
01:10:36.000 And that means a certain percentage of my money needs to go to people who can't take care of themselves.
01:10:40.000 So which are the better people?
01:10:42.000 The people who are like, I gave it the office because I made Bob give the money, and that was really the big thing.
01:10:46.000 So I forced Bob to give the money.
01:10:48.000 Or the guy who's like, you know what?
01:10:49.000 I'm giving of my own accord.
01:10:51.000 Much of that, you want to get to the Kantian?
01:10:53.000 You know, the sort of Kantian intent of it?
01:10:56.000 Who is the better person?
01:10:57.000 By Kant's standards, the person who says, I'm giving money of my own accord because I think it is good to give money, or the person who forces the other guy to give money, or says, I'm giving money because I'm forced to by the federal government and this makes me superior.
01:11:10.000 Again, this is all insane.
01:11:11.000 I fail to understand anything remotely like why Mr. Beast should be criticized over this sort of stuff.
01:11:16.000 He tweeted out, So first of all, I don't pledge to give away all my money before I die because I want my kids to have my money.
01:11:21.000 I promise to give away all my money before I die, every single penny.
01:11:23.000 Twitter, MrBeastBad.
01:11:25.000 So first of all, I don't pledge to give away all my money before I die,
01:11:29.000 because I want my kids to have my money.
01:11:30.000 I am not pledging, I pledge to give away a large chunk of my money.
01:11:36.000 Before I die.
01:11:36.000 Which I will, because I give away a significant chunk of my money every year.
01:11:40.000 I give away a lot of my money.
01:11:41.000 Not all of it.
01:11:42.000 Not 50%.
01:11:44.000 I give a lot of money.
01:11:45.000 And you know what?
01:11:46.000 Good.
01:11:47.000 Doesn't make me a saint.
01:11:48.000 Makes me like a normal charitable person.
01:11:50.000 And that's a good thing.
01:11:52.000 If Mr. Beast wants to give away more than that, good for him.
01:11:55.000 But the fact that this is even controversial.
01:11:57.000 What a gross society looks like is this.
01:11:59.000 I mean, truly.
01:12:00.000 A gross society looks like, here's a guy who's curing a thousand people of their deafness.
01:12:04.000 What a jerk!
01:12:05.000 What a jerk.
01:12:06.000 Well done, guys.
01:12:07.000 Okay, time for a quick thing that I hate.
01:12:12.000 So this is actually two separate things that I hate.
01:12:15.000 So, first of all, Disney and their deep and abiding desire to apparently trans the kids is very weird.
01:12:23.000 So apparently, Melissa McCarthy, who is the voice of Ursula in the new live action, or she plays Ursula in the new live action Little Mermaid, she showed up and had a heartwarming run-in with iconic drag queen Nina West.
01:12:37.000 Oh, so iconic.
01:12:38.000 Like Einstein iconic.
01:12:40.000 Like Moses iconic.
01:12:41.000 The two met on the red carpet and began bowing to each other and chanting, it's everything I ever wanted.
01:12:46.000 McCarthy graft West hands told her her dress was perfection and invited her to breakfast.
01:12:51.000 Oh, look at that.
01:12:52.000 Look at the beauty of a woman bowing to a man dressed as a woman at the Disney premiere.
01:12:57.000 It's so nice.
01:12:58.000 I'm so glad that Disney invited this very giant male drag queen to a premiere of a children's movie.
01:13:06.000 It's so nice.
01:13:07.000 According to Yahoo News, the pair seemed to have an instant connection, even broke into song with an impromptu version of Rosemary Clooney's Sisters while they wrapped their arms around each other's shoulders.
01:13:17.000 So nice.
01:13:18.000 Sisters forever.
01:13:20.000 Here's a little bit of the video of Melissa McCarthy talking about her heartwarming moment with a dude dressed as a lady.
01:13:25.000 I had no idea that the original Ursa was based off the late great divine.
01:13:31.000 No idea.
01:13:33.000 I know, that's incredible.
01:13:33.000 And you have your own personal history with Drag Queens.
01:13:38.000 I have loved Drag Queens since I was in high school.
01:13:40.000 I think it's one of the most joyful, irreverent, funny, fantastic sources of entertainment.
01:13:47.000 We've been doing it since we've been telling stories.
01:13:49.000 It's since the beginning of time.
01:13:52.000 And I have such a love of John Waters films.
01:13:55.000 It's like we just watched them on a loop all through college.
01:13:58.000 And so when Little Mermaid came out, and there was no...
01:14:01.000 It was before the internet, guys.
01:14:03.000 I'm that old.
01:14:04.000 But there was no way to kind of... I didn't know how to find out, but I was like, I am positive whoever created her look and created this character was a fan of Divine.
01:14:15.000 I was like, I know it with my whole heart, and now I know it to be true, and I was like, of course!
01:14:21.000 Of course!
01:14:21.000 So the idea is that the original Ursula in the animated film was based on Divine, who's a drag queen.
01:14:27.000 Okay, that's true.
01:14:28.000 Also, nobody knew that at the time and no one cared.
01:14:30.000 And the reason no one cared is because Disney wasn't actually attempting to trans the kids back in 1989, when The Little Mermaid came out in 1990, whatever year it was.
01:14:38.000 But it is amazing.
01:14:39.000 So Disney, this is what Disney wishes to try it out.
01:14:42.000 Like, slow clap for these geniuses.
01:14:43.000 So you morons have undercut your own value by pushing all of the social leftism in movies for kids.
01:14:50.000 And the way you're trotting out Little Mermaid, which is gonna be one of your big live action remakes
01:14:54.000 of the animated film, is not only by pushing the woke notion
01:14:58.000 of racially neutral casting, except if there's a black character,
01:15:01.000 which never ever can be cast as white.
01:15:03.000 Not only are you gonna do that, you are also going to now promote
01:15:08.000 and continue to facilitate drag queen story hour amongst the children at the Little Mermaid.
01:15:15.000 By the way, gotta love the fact that it's Rachel, what's her face, Rachel Lindsay, the bachelorette, everybody is racist lady, who's interviewing.
01:15:23.000 That is like a singularity of woke idiocy right there.
01:15:26.000 Genius.
01:15:26.000 By the way, I will note that The Little Mermaid looks absolutely terrible, just on an aesthetic level.
01:15:31.000 I've never been a fan of Disney remaking all of its animated films as live action films.
01:15:35.000 In fact, the entire purpose of animation is to not be live action.
01:15:38.000 But now they are remaking it and it looks hideous.
01:15:40.000 And just on an aesthetic level, this movie looks terrible.
01:15:44.000 It looks... Again, forget about all the wokeness for a second.
01:15:47.000 Look how bad this looks.
01:15:49.000 Like, it looks as if... I don't know why they're going for some sort of realism as though you're actually at an aquarium.
01:15:55.000 As opposed to, you know, it being colorful and bright.
01:15:58.000 I don't know why they are going for, you know, 1940s film noir look in color live-action The Little Mermaid, but here we go.
01:16:07.000 No, this looks so terrible.
01:16:09.000 Okay, so it's an empty sea, and her floating around in creepy uncanny valley territory.
01:16:15.000 Sebastian looks awful.
01:16:17.000 Okay, so it's an empty sea and her floating around creepy uncanny valley territory.
01:16:25.000 Sebastian looks awful.
01:16:28.000 It's creepy and weird.
01:16:33.000 So instead of him being a cute and interesting crab, he now looks like an actual crab that's
01:16:36.000 singing to you in extremely creepy fashion.
01:16:40.000 Also, the ocean is completely empty.
01:16:42.000 This looks terrible.
01:16:46.000 My goodness.
01:16:49.000 Finding Nemo looks way better.
01:16:50.000 That's not even a question.
01:16:51.000 Producer Zack says Finding Nemo... Yes!
01:16:53.000 I mean, this is not even remotely the same.
01:16:55.000 Finding Nemo looks like it would be fun to live under the sea.
01:16:57.000 This looks like you're basically living in a mausoleum underwater.
01:17:01.000 Look at, like, where is it?
01:17:02.000 This is a fun song, by the way.
01:17:03.000 Where is the fun?
01:17:04.000 She's in an empty sea and he's singing to no one.
01:17:08.000 Like, that's... If you... Honestly, I'd wish to go back and juxtapose that to the original Little Mermaid animated scene.
01:17:16.000 Not even remotely close.
01:17:17.000 So, I don't know what Disney's doing, but it is certainly stupid.
01:17:20.000 Alrighty folks, the rest of the show is continuing right now.
01:17:22.000 You're not going to want to miss it.
01:17:23.000 We'll be getting into Chris Pratt being ripped up and down for, you know, being a Christian.
01:17:27.000 If you're not a member, become a member.
01:17:28.000 Use code SHAPIRO at checkout for two months free and all annual plans.