Ep. 696 - National Games
Episode Stats
Words per Minute
182.52353
Summary
Serena Williams and Caitlyn Jenner are the greatest athletes of all time, but who is the greatest female athlete? Michael thinks they are the same. He also talks about the impeachment of Donald Trump and why we should all vote for him.
Transcript
00:00:00.000
Did you know that over 85% of grass-fed beef sold in U.S. grocery stores is imported?
00:00:05.240
That's why I buy all my meat from GoodRanchers.com instead.
00:00:08.900
Good Ranchers products are 100% born, raised, and harvested right here in the USA from local family farms.
00:00:14.600
Plus, there's no antibiotics ever, no added hormones, and no seed oils.
00:00:21.280
Best of all, Good Ranchers delivers straight to your door for added convenience.
00:00:24.760
So lock in a secure supply of American meat today.
00:00:26.980
Subscribe now at GoodRanchers.com and get free meat for life and $40 off with code DAILYWIRE.
00:00:32.420
That's $40 off and free meat for life with code DAILYWIRE.
00:00:37.700
As Tom Brady put on his seventh Super Bowl ring, many people began calling him the greatest athlete of all time.
00:00:47.320
They argue that Serena Williams, the tennis player, has won more championships.
00:00:52.200
And therefore, she is the greatest athlete of all time.
00:00:55.220
Now, I think it's ridiculous to compare male and female athletes to one another.
00:01:00.780
But even just looking at the female athletes, have these people never heard of Caitlyn Jenner?
00:01:07.740
Not only did she win the decathlon, but she even beat all the men doing it.
00:01:25.980
My favorite comment yesterday from Trey Best, who says the fact that Liz Cheney says that the fact that Trump was impeached in a bipartisan fashion is just her saying the fact that I voted for it is the reason that we should now listen to her.
00:01:43.300
Liz Cheney comes out and she says, look, the impeachment of Trump, it was bipartisan.
00:01:49.700
It seemed like it was like 211 Republicans voted against it and like 10 of you voted for it.
00:02:06.200
But that is her argument because I am working with the Democrats.
00:02:10.440
Therefore, we should all work with the Democrats because I am more liberal.
00:02:17.300
And unfortunately for now, it seems to have worked.
00:02:19.800
We need some security against these sorts of machinations and politics.
00:02:25.320
One great way to get security is with LifeLock.
00:02:27.360
This year saw many cybersecurity attacks, including data breaches, network infiltrations, bulk data theft and sale, identity theft and ransomware attacks.
00:02:36.200
The largest shift of employees working remotely has coincided with an increase in attacks.
00:02:41.540
A recent study suggests that remote workers have become the source of up to 20% of cybersecurity incidents that occurred in 2020.
00:02:50.920
LifeLock is a leader in identity theft protection.
00:02:53.520
LifeLock detects a wide range of identity threats like your social security number for sale on the dark web.
00:02:58.240
If they detect your information has potentially been compromised, they will send you an alert.
00:03:11.560
No one can prevent all identity theft or monitor all transactions at all businesses.
00:03:15.660
LifeLock can see threats that you might miss on your own.
00:03:18.940
Join now and save up to 25% off your first year.
00:03:25.340
That is LifeLock.com slash Knowles for 25% off.
00:03:31.580
When you go online, make sure you are using LifeLock.
00:03:37.540
Did I say something wrong with regard to Serena Williams and Caitlyn Jenner?
00:03:45.100
Because I have been told time and time and time again, I was just told this by the ACLU, we'll get to it in a moment, that trans women are women.
00:03:55.380
I've just been told by the Biden administration that trans women, you know, who maybe they look like men, maybe they have a bit of a husky voice, maybe they've got an Adam's apple and other male appendages.
00:04:05.900
A very pronounced, you know, I won't get into it.
00:04:14.660
So if that is the case, then Caitlyn Jenner is the greatest female athlete of all time.
00:04:22.460
Serena Williams couldn't beat all the men in the decathlon.
00:04:25.180
Now, the left believes, they say that they believe that, that men can become women, right, that trans women are women, but none of them believe that we should call Caitlyn Jenner the greatest athlete of all time.
00:04:39.880
And by the way, you might, you might say, this is, this is one objection I've heard, but only from knuckle dragging conservatives.
00:04:45.000
They say, well, no, no, no, Caitlyn Jenner didn't win the decathlon.
00:04:47.760
Bruce Jenner won the decathlon, but now Bruce Jenner no longer exists and Bruce Jenner is Caitlyn Jenner.
00:04:54.720
Read the Arthur Ashe Courage Award description that, that Caitlyn Jenner won.
00:04:58.960
They believe, the left and the transgender ideologues believe, that Bruce Jenner never really existed.
00:05:07.820
He was always a woman trapped in a man's body and therefore those accomplishments go to, to Bruce.
00:05:13.480
Now, the reason I bring this up at all is a Democratic congressman, very radical guy from New York, Jamal Bowman, listed trying to attack Tom Brady.
00:05:22.480
He says, you know, kind of forget about Tom Brady.
00:05:25.020
The greatest athletes of all time are one, Muhammad Ali, two, Serena Williams, three, Tiger Woods.
00:05:36.740
I won't, I won't take issue with Muhammad Ali or even Tiger Woods at the moment, but I will take issue with Serena Williams.
00:05:41.660
She's obviously not the greatest athlete of all time because men are better athletes than women.
00:05:47.400
Doesn't mean that, that women's tennis can't be an interesting thing to watch, especially when Serena Williams is screaming at the referees.
00:05:52.920
But it's just to say that the men are stronger, they're faster, they're bigger than women.
00:05:59.920
We know that this is the case because Serena Williams herself, in the late 1990s, had a battle of the sexes where she said she thought she could beat a man who was ranked outside the top 200.
00:06:09.160
So, very famously, a player named Karsten Brosh, who was ranked, I think, 203 or 208, decided he would play Serena Williams.
00:06:18.020
Before their match, he prepared by playing a round of golf, smoking a bunch of cigarettes, and tossing back a few adult beverages.
00:06:25.340
He then beat one, he actually played back-to-back games with both Williams sisters.
00:06:43.020
Even though now we're having these debates about the transgender games, and you have even many feminists coming out and saying,
00:06:51.220
wait a second, these men who now identify as women have an unfair advantage.
00:06:56.120
Well, the ACLU is here to tell you that's completely fake.
00:07:01.260
This is the ACLU of South Dakota, apparently not the cleverest ACLU chapter.
00:07:06.220
They have an article out debunking the myths fueling anti-trans legislation.
00:07:12.280
This is because South Dakota lawmakers are trying to ban men from playing in women's sports.
00:07:18.760
So, they have these myths that they're busting and these facts.
00:07:24.400
The participation of trans athletes hurts cis women.
00:07:29.040
Including trans athletes will benefit everyone.
00:07:37.120
It's kind of interesting, too, in this article.
00:07:38.600
They put the fact first because they want you to read that top line.
00:07:41.760
So, it looks, it's very confusing because it seems that they're, it says that we're going to debunk these things.
00:07:46.720
And they say, debunking, including trans athletes will benefit everyone.
00:07:49.780
It sounds like it's kind of actually the opposite article than it is.
00:07:51.820
Because, again, more evidence that they're not the brightest bulbs in the pack there.
00:07:55.520
Because their evidence is, many who oppose the inclusion of trans athletes erroneously claim that allowing trans athletes to compete will harm cisgender women.
00:08:03.520
This divide and conquer tactic gets it exactly wrong.
00:08:09.580
It invites gender policing that could subject any woman to invasive tests or accusations of being too masculine or too good at their sport to be a real woman.
00:08:19.840
Further, this myth reinforces stereotypes that those who identify as women are weak and in need of protection.
00:08:25.340
And then it kind of follows that down a little bit, too.
00:08:28.120
Now, they're making, they're kind of highlighting all of these talking points, these left-wing talking points.
00:08:33.760
But, it, they never address the actual claim, which is that the, the trans athletes are stronger, faster, bigger, right?
00:08:45.560
They never address that anywhere in the debunking aspect.
00:08:50.160
Trans athletes do not have an unfair advantage in sports.
00:08:52.980
This is answering the myth, according to the ACLU, that trans athletes' physiological characteristics provide an unfair advantage over cis athletes.
00:09:02.620
Women and girls who are trans face discrimination and violence that makes it difficult to remain in school.
00:09:07.660
According to the U.S. Trans Survey, 22% of trans women who were perceived as trans in school were harassed so badly they had to leave school because of it.
00:09:17.400
The idea that women and girls have an advantage because they are trans ignores the actual condition of their lives.
00:09:24.440
Nobody is saying, the, the myth they're debunking is not that men who identify as women aren't bullied.
00:09:30.540
Indeed, the myth they're debunking, allegedly, is that the, the men are physically stronger.
00:09:38.060
The rest of the article goes on in exactly the same way.
00:09:41.180
It's very, very strange to me that anybody could possibly believe this ideology.
00:09:50.660
You know, I gave, a couple of years ago when this really was cropping up, I had a speaking tour.
00:09:55.900
And one of the speeches on the tour was men are not women and other uncomfortable truths.
00:10:00.560
And I was, I was physically attacked because I gave this speech.
00:10:03.660
And, and at the time it didn't make sense, but it's starting to make sense to me.
00:10:07.760
It's starting to make sense because the, the problem is, well, one, you have to not believe
00:10:16.100
To believe that like Billy, you know, who now goes by Bethany is, uh, not physically stronger
00:10:26.400
Um, but the other reason is because these two aspects of leftist ideology contradict one another.
00:10:32.380
On the one hand, uh, the, the LG part of LGBT, we're told you are born with certain sexual
00:10:48.260
But, uh, you know, because sex and sexual orientation is immutable, therefore we ought to tolerate
00:10:54.680
sort of homosexual attractions and relationships.
00:10:59.000
But then at the same time, they say, also, there's no such thing as sex.
00:11:04.720
Nothing is immutable and men can actually become women.
00:11:09.840
If there's no such thing as immutable sex, innate sex, then there is no such thing as L or G.
00:11:19.060
Andrew Sullivan, a gay guy, wrote an essay about this just a few years ago.
00:11:23.020
Now, how on earth will we resolve this problem?
00:11:27.600
A lot of conservatives say that the transgender activism is, is going to sort of finally awaken
00:11:34.980
many leftists to the incoherence of some of their ideology.
00:11:41.640
I don't think that's true because I was, I was recently rereading George Orwell and, and
00:11:49.260
He says at the heart of the regime, the dystopian regime that he's describing is double think.
00:11:56.160
And what double think is, is the ability to hold two contradictory ideas in your mind at
00:12:05.540
Western philosophy is going all the way back to dear old uncle Aristotle is based on the
00:12:11.320
idea that you can't do that or that, or rather that the, you know, a thing cannot be what
00:12:16.820
it is and not what it is at the same time, non-contradiction.
00:12:21.220
But double think in the dystopian regime of George Orwell is this idea that actually a
00:12:26.560
thing can be one thing and it's opposite or, and something different at the same time.
00:12:30.520
And this is how they maintain power because what we are told by Orwell is that if you have
00:12:38.320
double think, if you're holding two contradictory ideas at the same time, then you are unwilling
00:12:43.240
or un, and unable to think very deeply about a lot of ideas.
00:12:48.560
I think that is what the left is, is banking on.
00:12:51.320
Now, I, I, I don't think that this contradiction is, is a bug of political correctness or of
00:13:03.580
I think it is a way to undermine our confidence in reason or to undermine our confidence in
00:13:09.800
This is, this is what the left has been pushing for a long time.
00:13:12.100
Do you remember when the Smithsonian Institution put out a flyer about a year or so ago saying
00:13:19.400
that rational thought and objective reality is a characteristic of whiteness and we need to
00:13:26.860
And here is sort of an offensive flyer that they put out, but it, but it's all part and
00:13:35.340
I'm, I'm no longer confident that leftism, political correctness, wokeism, whatever you
00:13:41.180
want to call it, is going to undo itself on, on its own contradictions because the
00:13:51.380
We're still dealing in the realm of logic, but what, what these kinds of ideologies are
00:13:55.040
doing is trying to under, undermine our confidence in reason and logic, which makes me just want
00:14:04.180
One great way to do it is with your rad power bike.
00:14:06.840
Whether you want a new way to get around town or get out of town, get out in nature, even
00:14:11.080
with the kids in tow, you've got to try rad power bikes.
00:14:14.420
It is a cross between a traditional bike and a moped, but it doesn't require a special
00:14:21.140
Go up to 20 miles per hour without pedaling so you can get out and about without getting
00:14:30.920
Rad power bikes start at just $999 and most are under $1,500.
00:14:37.480
Rad power bikes has dedicated US-based customer support.
00:14:40.940
I love that, US-based customer support, one of the sweet privileges when you can find
00:14:52.120
For a limited time, Rad power bikes offers flexible financing for as low as 0% APR, plus
00:14:58.720
Bikes are going super fast, so make sure you order right away.
00:15:01.620
Text NOLS, K-N-W-L-E-S, to 64000 today and get free shipping.
00:15:16.020
Speaking of leftist double think, Jen Psaki, our favorite White House press secretary of
00:15:22.320
the Biden administration, the only White House press secretary of the Biden administration,
00:15:28.740
Only from one reporter, Peter Doocy, who's clearly a little more right-leaning.
00:15:33.220
Joe Biden promised before the election that he would not destroy union jobs.
00:15:39.120
Then his policies have already destroyed a lot of union jobs.
00:15:42.440
Joe Biden promises, don't worry, you're going to get better jobs.
00:15:46.200
You're going to get super duper jobs sometime in the future.
00:15:49.460
Peter Doocy asks Jen Psaki to explain just when those jobs are going to show up.
00:15:53.600
Fossil fuel industry workers, whether it's pipeline workers or construction workers,
00:15:58.940
who are either out of work or will soon be out of work because of a Biden EO, when it
00:16:04.840
is and where it is that they can go for their green job.
00:16:08.180
Well, I'd certainly welcome you to present your data of all the thousands and thousands
00:16:15.320
Maybe next time you're here, you can present that.
00:16:17.400
But you said that they would be getting green jobs, so I'm just asking when that happened.
00:16:21.280
Richard Trumka, who is a friend, longtime friend of Joe Biden, says about that day one
00:16:26.360
keystone EO, he says, I wish he, the president, had paired that more carefully with the thing
00:16:32.180
that he did second by saying, here's where we are creating the jobs.
00:16:36.860
So there's partial evidence from Richard Trumka.
00:16:44.280
So how about this? The Laborers International Union of North America said the keystone decision
00:16:49.340
will cost 1,000 existing union jobs and 10,000 projected construction jobs.
00:16:54.900
Well, what Mr. Trumka also indicated in the same interview was that President Biden has
00:17:00.220
proposed a climate plan with transformative investments and infrastructure.
00:17:04.360
OK, there's a whole lot there. There's no answer. At no point does she answer the question.
00:17:08.740
But there is a whole lot there to dissect because Peter Doocy asks the simple question.
00:17:15.860
Biden is costing people, costing these sort of workers at least 10,000, 11,000 jobs,
00:17:19.980
probably more. When are they going to get the jobs that are going to replace them?
00:17:23.680
And Jen Psaki gives this glib answer because she's, she's just known for her glibness,
00:17:29.640
for sort of brushing it off, dismissing things. Oh yeah, Space Force. Yeah,
00:17:32.940
it's the air flight of the future. Ha ha ha. No, we're asking you serious questions.
00:17:36.360
So the question is, when are they going to get their jobs? She says, well,
00:17:39.940
if you want to prove to me that they're not going to get their jobs, maybe you can do that next time.
00:17:46.080
Peter Doocy says, that's, that's not at all, at all what I asked. The premise of my question is not
00:17:51.280
that they're never going to get the jobs. I'm asking you, the person responsible for communicating
00:17:55.480
this policy, when they will get the jobs that you have already promised. He says, you know,
00:18:02.020
even the head of Richard Trumka, the head of the AFL-CIO, the biggest labor union in America,
00:18:10.060
he's, he is saying, you know, where's the jobs? Now then she, because she at least remembers the
00:18:16.000
Trumka quote, she says, well, did you finish the quote? He says, yeah, you know, the jobs haven't
00:18:22.560
materialized. She goes, no, but the rest of the quote, Peter, is that he knows that Joe Biden has a
00:18:28.340
plan. And so at the end of all of that, we've got, how long was that answer, that back and forth,
00:18:33.060
that whole exchange? We have no answer. The, the, the starting point of the question was,
00:18:39.180
Joe Biden says he has a plan, but when is that plan going to materialize? The ending point after
00:18:45.200
all that little back and forth debate is he has a plan. What's the plan? When's it going to happen?
00:18:54.320
So this, this was not a conversation. This is like just a blather, masquerading as conversation.
00:19:03.040
So do see, to his credit pushes it one more time. He tries to get an answer out of Jen Psaki.
00:19:07.320
There are people living paycheck to paycheck. There are now people out of jobs. Once the Keystone,
00:19:12.040
out of jobs, once the Keystone pipeline stopped construction, it's been 12 days since Gina McCarthy
00:19:17.660
and John Kerry were here. And it's been 19 days since that EO. So what are these people who need money
00:19:22.040
now? When do they get their green jobs? Well, uh, the, the president and many Democrats and
00:19:28.680
Republicans in Congress believe that investment in infrastructure, building infrastructure, uh,
00:19:33.960
that's international interests, uh, and the boosts the U S economy creates good paying union jobs here
00:19:38.800
in America and advances our climate and clean energy goals are something that we can certainly work on
00:19:43.660
doing together. And he has every plan to, uh, share more about his, uh, details of that plan in the,
00:19:48.540
in the weeks ahead. Oh, good. He's got a plan to announce the plan and look, infrastructure,
00:19:54.540
infra infrastructure. What, what are you talking about? You're just saying words. You're just,
00:20:00.320
it's a very specific question. Where are these union energy jobs going to, what's going to happen
00:20:04.360
with them? Uh, uh, you know, um, plans, strategies, plans, no answer. Uh, this is in part because Jen
00:20:15.120
Psaki is actually worse at her job than her predecessors. And probably Joe Biden should
00:20:19.800
have picked, uh, TJ Ducklow, his, uh, communications guy from the campaign trail. I don't just say this
00:20:25.000
because we bear a passing resemblance to one another. Uh, but Psaki's really, really given
00:20:29.120
weak sauce here, but it's not entirely Psaki's fault. Uh, the Biden administration also has no answer.
00:20:33.780
Now, speaking of paychecks and policy, I, something very strange has happened over the past few days.
00:20:42.860
Mitt Romney has proposed legislation. First of all, very few senators actually propose any
00:20:49.440
legislation anymore. Mitt Romney has done it. And in a way the legislation is quite conservative and it,
00:20:56.660
it does have to do with how to get paychecks to people who need it right now. Uh, I want to be a
00:21:03.620
little more nuanced about my view of Mitt Romney's legislation because some conservatives are furious
00:21:08.840
at it. Some very conservative people are thrilled about it. What the legislation does is it's called
00:21:15.960
the Family Security Act. And what it proposes to do is basically pay people to have kids.
00:21:23.680
It's not quite that simple, but the, the Family Security Act would provide a $350 per month check
00:21:30.600
to families with a child under the age of six and a $250 per month check to families with a child
00:21:37.660
under the age of 17. So it goes down a little bit as they get older. In total, a family could receive
00:21:43.040
up to $4,200 per year, uh, per child under the age of six and $3,000 per year per child, uh, older than
00:21:51.060
six, but younger than 17. Payments could start up to four months before the baby is due. So a lot of
00:21:59.040
conservatives are very afraid of this. One, because it comes from Mitt Romney and we're all skeptical.
00:22:02.580
This is the man who invented Obamacare, but, uh, also because this involves direct payments.
00:22:07.960
So you're telling me you're gonna have the federal government just start cutting checks to people.
00:22:11.060
Uh, some conservatives, especially more social conservatives who don't care as much about
00:22:18.100
the market stuff, uh, are thrilled about this. They say, good. Finally, we've got a, a serious policy.
00:22:25.060
The conservatives are going to get serious about promoting families. I think the reality of this
00:22:30.440
policy is somewhere in the middle. You know how much I hate being in the middle. I think if you
00:22:33.820
stand in the middle of the road, you're going to get hit by a truck, but I, I don't think we should
00:22:37.960
jump onto board with this policy right away, but I also don't think we should dismiss it out of hand.
00:22:42.540
The good things about this policy are that it would encourage people to have babies. We need to do
00:22:49.440
that. We have a dying population in this country and a lot of our problems stem from that.
00:22:52.940
Or it's a little bit of a chicken in the egg because a lot of our social problems are causing
00:22:59.040
the decline in birth rates, but the decline in birth rates are causing a lot of other public
00:23:02.780
policy problems like the need for mass migration just to keep the economy afloat, those sorts of
00:23:07.440
things. Uh, this sort of policy has been tried before, notably in Hungary or Bonn. The leader there
00:23:14.000
in Hungary has tried this. Uh, he's gone even further though. He's, he's offered people like
00:23:18.220
massive loans just to have kids. And then if they start, if they have like more than three kids,
00:23:23.000
they don't even have to pay back the loan. Uh, in a way I kind of prefer that policy to this policy.
00:23:29.200
There are some pitfalls here though. One, Mitt Romney says that this policy is going to be
00:23:33.820
deficit neutral because it's going to, we're going to fix up some other, you know, welfare programs.
00:23:38.820
And therefore you're not going to have to pay an extra penny for it. That's just not how these
00:23:41.880
programs tend to work. Generally speaking, you end up spending a lot more money, but you don't make
00:23:46.940
the cuts that you need to make. But the other issue here is Hungary and the United States are
00:23:52.420
different countries. Hungary is a much more conservative country in many ways than the
00:23:56.060
United States. Uh, here in the United States, I can see this opening up a whole slew of problems,
00:24:01.760
namely who gets the credit. In Hungary, you've got to be married. You've got to, you know,
00:24:06.460
there's a very specific definition of marriage in Hungary. Uh, there, it's a much more socially
00:24:12.320
cohesive sort of country than the United States is at the moment here. Could, could a policy like this
00:24:18.840
encourage out of wedlock births, you know, encourage people basically not to get married.
00:24:26.020
Uh, could a, could this involve, uh, encourage single mothers to just have children on their own
00:24:30.860
by going to a sperm bank or something like that? Would this policy be applied the same way to
00:24:37.300
a traditional marriage as it would to say a monogamous same sex couple, or let's say a
00:24:44.380
throuple or let's say a commune or let's say, I don't know. I mean, I'm being a little outlandish
00:24:49.600
here just to show the point that our very definition of family and marriage is completely
00:24:54.900
in flux. It's hotly debated. So a fam, a family security act is going to have to, uh, answer that
00:25:01.080
question first. Uh, you could see this exacerbating certain social questions as well. And then
00:25:07.140
there's also this problem of getting people hooked on the government, which is a very real problem.
00:25:12.580
I'm, I'm not a free market purist in the sense that I don't think free markets are the be all
00:25:17.740
and end all of politics. I think they're a wonderful instrument for human flourishing and for, for other
00:25:21.840
great things in politics. But, uh, you do risk something here of getting people hooked on the
00:25:26.800
government and hooked on what would be an early version of, of UBI, universal basic income, which is
00:25:31.440
very, very bad and inhuman sort of policy. So all of that to say, I'm, I believe it or not, I'm actually
00:25:37.840
kind of interested in this thing Mitt Romney is saying, but we need to be very, very careful here.
00:25:42.300
We need to sort out the details and we can't assume anything on, on the cultural level. And we need to
00:25:48.180
be very wary of getting us hooked on these kinds of economic programs that can funnel in a lot of bad
00:25:53.160
cultural stuff as well. You know, Matt Walsh is going to be talking about all sorts of, all sorts
00:26:00.680
of matters of family culture from a very right-wing perspective. So make sure to check that out live
00:26:06.180
at 1 30 Eastern only at dailywire.com. The all access membership is our most elite membership base
00:26:11.740
here at the daily wire. Our all access members receive two leftist tears tumblers. When they sign
00:26:15.840
up, they get access to all the great daily wire content. I can't, I couldn't even begin to describe
00:26:21.160
all of it. We keep adding more and more each day and week. Sometimes they tell me, you know,
00:26:25.260
you've got to do this extra show. You've got to do that extra show. You say, wait a second,
00:26:27.800
you haven't even given me an extra tumbler yet. Well, we want to publicly thank all of our all
00:26:31.860
access members for their commitment to the daily wire to show our appreciation. We are mailing out.
00:26:38.000
This is very, very cool. A special anniversary tumbler for all renewing all access members this year.
00:26:44.740
On, uh, on the front, you've got the classic leftist tears tumbler, hot or cold with the daily wire
00:26:49.720
logo on the back. You have all of our John Hancocks, me, Ben, Drew, Matt, Jeremy, along with a, a quote
00:26:57.760
kind of summing up our, our view of things here at the daily wire. Uh, just a thank you to all of
00:27:02.480
our access members in particular, uh, for supporting us on this five year journey. Uh, thank you very
00:27:07.040
much. Cheers. Guzzle up those tears. We'll be right back with a lot more.
00:27:19.720
We should take Mitt Romney's pro family bill seriously. We really should, but we have to
00:27:29.560
work out the kinks. I think there are a lot of potential pitfalls right now. And you know,
00:27:34.840
if you, if you pass a, a flawed bill with this kind of an ambition, you, you could really shoot
00:27:41.840
yourself in the foot. So, you know, take it seriously, but we got it. We got to really debate
00:27:45.180
the details here. A vote that we don't really need to debate too much that I really want us to
00:27:49.620
take immediately is from, uh, comes to us from Tom Cotton. Senator Tom Cotton wants Democrats to go on
00:27:56.040
the record on the question of court packing. Mr. President, last year in certain fringe quarters
00:28:01.980
of the democratic party, it seemed popular to call for packing the Supreme court for expanding the number
00:28:07.240
of justices on the court because you don't like their political rulings. Now, obviously all Republicans
00:28:12.480
oppose such a radical idea, yet many democratic politicians to include Joe Biden, to include
00:28:18.680
a few senators in this chamber tonight, contorted themselves to avoid taking a position on this
00:28:24.100
issue, twisting themselves into pretzels on the campaign trail to simply say we ought not pack the
00:28:29.880
Supreme court because we don't like their rulings. So I offer a simple amendment, an amendment that is
00:28:34.900
backed by famous liberals like Ruth Bader Ginsburg, that we should not pack the Supreme court.
00:28:40.300
Now I understand the Democrats are going to raise a point of order saying this is not germane,
00:28:45.860
yet more contortions to avoid taking a simple stance on this issue. So I would invite my democratic
00:28:51.820
colleagues who have said they don't want to pack the court, simply waive this point of order and
00:28:55.900
let's have an up or down vote on one of the most fundamental tenets of the rule of law that you do
00:29:00.720
not pack the courts because you don't like the way they rule. I yield back my time and I encourage
00:29:05.600
your support. So if, if you're wondering why Tom Cotton is bringing up this vote on whether or not
00:29:11.920
to pack the Supreme court seemingly at random, it's because, uh, without going too much into detail,
00:29:18.180
this was part of, of a very complicated Senate process whereby the Democrats get a lot of things
00:29:23.780
that they want, but it opens up the floor to all sorts of amendments. And because the Republicans are,
00:29:28.820
are not in power right now, all they can do is force Democrats to take votes they don't want to take.
00:29:32.960
And so a lot of Republicans were doing this and this is, this is the vote that Tom Cotton was
00:29:38.220
pushing for. Uh, this is very important to know whether or not the Democrats are going to pack
00:29:44.900
the Supreme court because we were promised before the election promised by Joe Manchin. We were
00:29:50.860
promised by Joe Biden, you know, leaks that came out of the Biden campaign. Oh, Joe's not interested
00:29:56.280
in that. Joe doesn't want that kind of radical policy. He wants unity and healing. Remember that unity
00:30:01.620
and healing. Joe Manchin, no, we're not going to pack the court. Don't worry. Don't worry about us.
00:30:05.880
Well, since Joe Biden got into office, he has signed off on the most radical executive orders
00:30:14.000
he could have. There has been no moderation. There has been no unity and healing.
00:30:20.420
Joe Biden then institutes a, uh, commission to study reform to the Supreme court,
00:30:26.860
all of which is a way to slowly, slowly, patiently, gradually try to pack the court.
00:30:34.000
This is what Democrats do. They're much better at it than Republicans. Democrats play a much longer
00:30:38.920
game. And by slow walking things and going gradually and gradually and building consensus,
00:30:43.600
what do they do? They radically, uh, overturn so many of, of our institutions and rituals and so
00:30:51.680
much of the old order. Uh, obviously they're, they're not going to get this vote, but we,
00:30:56.220
we do need to keep the pressure up on them. We, we really need to get these guys on the record
00:31:00.280
because the, the whole point of having this commission is to start the process now so that
00:31:06.380
by the time they do pack the court, no one's going to remember it. No one's going to pay attention.
00:31:09.900
Much better to get them on the record. Speaking of trials, by the way,
00:31:13.260
we have this impeachment trial this week. I'm going to be flying actually to DC to participate
00:31:19.960
in this, not, not to participate. I'm not going to be, uh, you know, presenting any evidence or
00:31:24.380
voting or anything like that, but, uh, we will be there. We're going to be covering it with verdict,
00:31:28.360
uh, which you'll recall my podcast with Senator Cruz actually began last year during the last
00:31:33.420
impeachment trial. But now a year later, it's deja vu all over again, groundhog day again,
00:31:38.320
and they're impeaching Trump, except maybe they're not. Maybe they're not. Cause there
00:31:43.300
was an impeachment vote in the house goes to a trial, but Trump's no longer president.
00:31:48.480
So is it an impeachment trial or is it not? Republicans have been arguing this is
00:31:52.820
unconstitutional, doesn't meet the constitutional standards for impeachment. So far Democrats have
00:31:58.580
kept a unified front, but democratic Senator Chris Murphy on one of the Sunday shows on Chris
00:32:04.000
Wallace's show actually had to admit that maybe this trial is not constitutionally legit.
00:32:10.360
I think we have a constitutional responsibility to hold this trial. And I think you laid this out
00:32:15.860
for Senator Paul. There is clear precedent for the Senate moving forward on impeachment trial,
00:32:20.980
once being sent articles, even after an official has left office. And so, you know, my analysis here
00:32:26.100
sort of begins and ends with what is my constitutional responsibility. I don't think our job ends just
00:32:31.680
because the president has left office in part because impeachment comes not only with a provision
00:32:36.040
to remove an official from office, but to disqualify them for future office. So there is
00:32:40.800
still a consequence to a president Trump if convicted. Okay. So Chris Murphy gets all the
00:32:45.840
Democrat talking points out at the top, right? Yes. We have a responsibility to hold the trial,
00:32:50.240
the house impeached. We have a responsibility. We have to do it. The, the, the impeachment provision
00:32:54.480
of the constitution includes not just removing a president from office, but also preventing him from
00:32:59.660
running for office in the future. You can tell how confident Democrats are that Trump is unpopular,
00:33:04.640
that they are desperately after he's out of office, trying to prevent him from running again,
00:33:09.520
probably because they think that no one would vote for him, right? Yeah. Is that why? Not so sure
00:33:13.620
about that. What he's saying here, by the way, is hotly debated. And I just don't think it's true.
00:33:19.400
What the impeachment provision of the constitution says is you will remove and prevent from running
00:33:26.240
for office in the future, but you can't remove him from office. So if you can't remove him from
00:33:32.140
office, you're not fulfilling the impeachment provision. So it's not legit. So you can't
00:33:36.260
prevent him from running for office in the future. The Senate can't just start taking boats and saying,
00:33:40.320
Hey, yeah, we don't like the cut of Johnny's jib. He can never run for president.
00:33:44.580
They're very specific criteria that need to be followed here. So after Chris Murphy gets out his kind
00:33:49.600
of bogus argument and all of the Democratic talking points, he's pressed further and further and further.
00:33:53.820
And he does have to admit, Hmm, maybe, maybe this isn't quite so constitutional as we've been
00:34:00.400
pretending it is. I will admit that this is of course a matter of first impression. Uh, and so
00:34:06.120
I don't think the case that Senator Paul is making here is a ridiculous one. Um, I come to a different
00:34:12.660
judgment. I think that that clause that gives Congress the responsibility to deny an official,
00:34:18.760
uh, future office, uh, requires us to take this step, even though the president has left office.
00:34:24.840
Listen to those caveats. He says the case that Rand Paul is making, which is the case that all of us
00:34:29.500
conservatives have been making, which is that this is not a constitutional impeachment trial.
00:34:33.280
Yeah. Okay. It's not ridiculous. And then the other caveat right at the top, he goes, well, look,
00:34:37.400
this is, this is just a matter of first impression. First impression, Chris, we've been talking about
00:34:42.460
this for weeks and weeks and months and months. And you impeached the guy last year. Probably,
00:34:45.860
presumably you've thought about the question of impeachment before. Why would you say this is a
00:34:50.600
matter of first impression? Because you know that the argument you're making is bogus and you want
00:34:55.780
to give yourself a little bit of an out. Fair enough. I'm, I mean, I'm glad you're at least
00:34:59.900
admitting that much. It's more than most Democrats will do. Uh, Lindsey Graham, I think described very
00:35:04.980
well what this impeachment is, uh, really going to amount to, which is that it's a farce. It's a partisan
00:35:10.640
exercise and it ain't going nowhere. Well, it's not a crime. I mean, uh, the house is
00:35:15.700
impeaching him under the theory that his speech created a riot. When you look at the facts,
00:35:21.240
many people had already planned the, to attack the Capitol before he ever spoke.
00:35:25.560
Well, the trial memorandum from that, I think was the trial memorandum from the house impeachment
00:35:29.940
managers actually lays out a pattern of behavior. They say it wasn't just the speech. They say this
00:35:34.340
was cultivated over time. Yeah. Well, here's what I would say that if you believe he committed a crime,
00:35:40.860
he can be prosecuted like any other citizen. Impeachment is a political process. We've never
00:35:46.800
impeached a president once they're out of office. I think this is a very bad idea. Uh, 45 plus
00:35:53.580
Republicans are going to vote early on that it's unconstitutional. It's not a question of how the
00:35:59.560
trial ends. It's a question of when it ends. Republicans are going to view this as an unconstitutional
00:36:05.500
exercise. And the only question is, will they call witnesses? How long does the trial take?
00:36:11.660
But the outcome is really not in doubt. Okay. I broadly agree with Lindsey Graham here. He actually
00:36:16.660
kind of undercut his own argument a little bit though. And maybe he was just speaking loosely.
00:36:20.540
I could, I could see some ways in, uh, some different ways to interpret that. But at the
00:36:24.300
beginning, right, he says what Trump did is not a crime. Now this is an answer to the question.
00:36:31.040
Look, Trump incited an insurrection. Therefore, you know, you've got to impeach him, right?
00:36:35.440
And what Lindsey Graham says is no, no. I, Lindsey Graham has said, I think Trump acted rashly. I
00:36:42.060
don't think he should have, he was irresponsible in his language. He shouldn't have said what he said.
00:36:46.480
But you can criticize the president for the things he said between the election and January 6th
00:36:51.600
and still conclude, as I think you have to conclude, he didn't commit any crime.
00:36:57.020
What crime did he commit? First of all, he didn't incite an insurrection. He said
00:37:01.360
before, during, and after the riot, don't be violent, be peaceful. Much more than you can say
00:37:06.320
about Democrats during the BLM riots. But what crime did he commit? So when Lindsey Graham at the
00:37:13.180
end of that says, look, impeachment's a political process. Well, yes and no, it's a political process,
00:37:17.760
but it does have a legal aspect too. Namely, you need to commit a high crime or misdemeanor.
00:37:22.240
And then the political process takes over from there. I don't even know what crime they could
00:37:27.920
accuse Trump of committing. He didn't commit a crime. That's the legal aspect. Then you move
00:37:35.360
on to the political question. There's no way politically the guy is going to get convicted
00:37:39.640
unless something dramatically changes. Some new shocking evidence comes out between now and,
00:37:46.980
and the end of the impeachment trial, quote unquote impeachment trial, you've already got 45 senators
00:37:52.120
on the record saying they're not going to vote to convict. So it's just a farce. So much for unity
00:38:00.760
and healing. Why are they, why are they going forward with this? Because all we can talk about
00:38:05.220
is Trump. One, the Democrats are genuinely afraid of Trump. Two, the establishment needs to have Trump.
00:38:13.300
They love Trump. They need Trump to kick around. They need Trump as this embodiment of evil that
00:38:17.700
they can, they can go after. Even Joe Biden is still, still talking about Trump. They're so afraid
00:38:24.220
of Trump. They're so fascinated by Trump that, that Joe Biden was just asked on CBS whether or not
00:38:29.760
he will extend to Trump the courtesy extended to all former presidents in the modern era to receive
00:38:38.880
intelligence briefings. Joe Biden, uh, he doesn't think that's such a good idea.
00:38:44.080
Should former president Trump still receive intelligence briefings?
00:38:53.820
Because of his erratic behavior unrelated to the insurrection.
00:38:59.700
I mean, you've called him an existential threat. You've called him dangerous. You've called him reckless.
00:39:04.360
Yeah, I have. And I believe it. What's your worst fear if he continues to get these intelligence
00:39:13.740
I'd rather not speculate out loud. I just think that there is no need for him to have that,
00:39:19.020
that intelligence briefing. What value is giving him an intelligence briefing? What impact does he
00:39:24.360
have at all other than the fact he might slip and say something?
00:39:27.460
So, this could be said of any former president, right? Bill Clinton could slip and say something.
00:39:34.600
Think about all of the, uh, irresponsible activities that Bill Clinton has been engaging in
00:39:39.140
since he left office. I'm not just talking about going house to house, you know, along with the
00:39:45.820
milkman in, in Chappaqua. I'm also talking about all of his foreign affairs. You don't think, uh,
00:39:51.800
Bill Clinton, who's a little loose with his behavior, you don't think that's a threat?
00:39:54.860
What about, remember what they said about George Bush, how terrible George Bush was? He's a war
00:40:00.540
criminal. The Democrats were talking about that for years and years. George Bush still gets his
00:40:05.100
intelligence briefings. What is it with Trump? They, they, she asks him, Joe, what, what do you,
00:40:10.920
what's your big fear here? He says, I'd rather not speculate. It's very clear. It's very clear what
00:40:15.720
his fear is. He's, he's afraid that Trump is going to run again against him or against, you know,
00:40:20.920
whoever will be running in 2024. And, uh, they fear that, that Trump could do very well. And, uh,
00:40:28.720
the, the key attack on Joe Biden during the campaign is that he was crooked. He had corrupt
00:40:32.960
dealings in China, in Ukraine, uh, through his son's shell companies. And I have no doubt that Joe
00:40:41.320
Biden is very afraid that Trump is going to receive information that could in some way pertain to that.
00:40:46.580
Uh, we, we know that the, uh, intelligence agencies had information about Hunter Biden's
00:40:54.400
activities. We know, we know a lot of people had information on Hunter Biden's activities
00:40:58.640
and perhaps Joe Biden's activities there too. So he won't speculate. I wonder why,
00:41:03.840
maybe we can speculate why he won't speculate. Either way, not, not a great way to have unity and
00:41:09.220
healing. You know, speaking of unity and healing, there's a, there's an article. I don't want to spend
00:41:14.600
too much time on it, but it's the craziest column I've read in a long time. And I just read the ACLU
00:41:18.380
column, uh, debunking transgender myths today. This column was in the LA times called, what can
00:41:23.740
you do about the Trump bites next door? Where some woman says that, uh, she's a big lib, but she has
00:41:31.740
these Trump supporting neighbors and they, they plowed her driveway. And that's very, very nice thing to
00:41:36.980
do, isn't it? And, uh, so she was thinking, well, I'm grateful to them for doing this, but I still hate
00:41:42.800
them because they're Trump supporters. Then she compared the Trump supporters to Hezbollah,
00:41:46.780
which, uh, quote, also gives things away for free. She then, uh, compared her neighbors to,
00:41:51.720
uh, Louis Farrakhan, who runs the nation of Islam. Uh, she then compared her Trump supporting neighbors
00:41:57.340
who plowed her driveway to the Nazis who, uh, who were sometimes said to be very polite.
00:42:03.640
Nazis can be polite too. And so she, uh, you know, still hates her neighbors,
00:42:08.380
but she's willing to get her driveway plaid. We've said this time and time again on this show.
00:42:15.820
The only way we get unity and healing is if the left wants to have unity and healing.
00:42:20.240
Your, your opponent in politics and war, your opponent gets a say and they, they do not want
00:42:26.920
unity and healing right now, it would seem. And so we're at a stalemate. We can't force it.
00:42:31.740
We can't force it. We just have to deal in the realities that we are living in, no matter how
00:42:36.900
much squishy Republicans want to suck up to Democrats. It's going to be up to Democrats
00:42:41.200
to come and try to unify the country too. Right now they have no desire to do that.
00:42:49.060
You know, I was recently rereading Edmund Burke, Reflections on the Revolution in France
00:42:54.500
and, uh, one of the great, great conservative works of all time. Edmund Burke credited with
00:42:58.560
founding modern conservatism and, uh, Burke's, Burke's, uh, attack on France. There are many attacks
00:43:05.520
he makes on France, but one of them is that the revolutionaries there, they destroyed all
00:43:11.420
the old traditions. They destroyed all the old laws. They destroyed even the old neighborhoods,
00:43:17.560
the old way to sort of the geography to divvy up the whole country. He says, the French revolutionaries
00:43:24.620
treated their own country in the way that other nations have treated conquered lands.
00:43:31.940
The French revolutionaries treated their own people in the way that prior, uh, warmongers,
00:43:41.420
prior conquerors would have treated subjugated peoples, but they did it to themselves. This
00:43:47.220
act of masochism, this act of sort of national suicide. Hard not to see the parallels to the
00:43:54.920
modern left, which deplores our nation's traditions, deplores our nation's history, hates our nation's
00:44:02.620
founding fathers, tears down statues of the great men who built this country, and also deplores the
00:44:08.320
American people themselves. I use deplore intentionally. That's the word that Hillary Clinton used to refer
00:44:15.000
to half of her countrymen. Deplorable, irredeemable. Even when we plow their snow out of their driveways,
00:44:25.100
they call us Nazis. On the pages of the LA Times, this isn't even some fringe lady. I mean,
00:44:31.640
they're behaving like fringe people, but this is a very mainstream person writing in the LA Times.
00:44:35.880
saying, yeah, thanks for plowing my driveway, but you're still a Nazi.
00:44:42.960
Bad state, bad state for the country. And it, it, uh, in, in that sort of situation,
00:44:48.640
reconciliation, coming together, meeting in the middle, probably not a great plan.
00:44:53.540
If you've got two people who, you know, they both love their country. One has one vision for the
00:44:58.900
country. One has another vision of the country, but they both, they both really love the country.
00:45:01.600
They both wave the American flag. Coming together, meeting in the middle, that might,
00:45:06.200
might not be the worst idea. But when you've got one person who loves the country, one person who
00:45:11.220
hates the country, meeting in the middle is a very, very bad idea. That you can't, you actually can't
00:45:15.620
meet in the middle. There is no middle there. There's, there can be no neutrality between you like
00:45:21.740
your country or you hate your country. What, do you just feel indifferent about your country?
00:45:24.920
Not how politics works. Politics does not work on indifference. The, the one way,
00:45:31.600
I, I try when I can to, uh, have a little unity and healing, you know, uh, obviously not on matters
00:45:37.420
of the kind of substantive policy or supporting these politicians, but I actually, I will just,
00:45:42.500
just in that spirit, trying, hoping beyond hope to bring our country together. I will sort of defend
00:45:48.760
Joe Biden in a very, very limited way in a very specific way. Joe Biden just did this interview
00:45:54.460
on COVID and he's being attacked for apparently engaging in sexism. Uh, take a listen to what
00:46:02.360
he said. See if you consider this sexist. Well, are you a freshman at the university?
00:46:08.780
No, no. You look like a freshman. Well, thank you. No, thank you for what you're doing. It really
00:46:20.320
matters. Uh, as I said, uh, to the doc last few moments ago, Dr. Chris. So Joe Biden, he's talking
00:46:28.960
to this nurse and he says, are you a freshman at the university? You look like a freshman.
00:46:32.520
Number of commentators, uh, actually, especially conservatives are calling this exchange sexist.
00:46:40.380
I think that's pushing it. You know, I think what happened here is that Joe Biden, uh, told a woman
00:46:47.500
that she looks young and she giggled and said, thank you. He paid her a compliment. Wasn't licentious.
00:46:56.600
I don't think Joe was trying to pick the woman up. I think he's an old guy and he, and he told
00:47:02.440
a woman that she looks young, which is a nice thing to do. It's nice when men compliment women.
00:47:08.900
It's a good thing. It's kind of nice when women compliment men too. The compliment,
00:47:13.180
complimentarity of the sexes is actually a really nice thing. It's been at the center of
00:47:16.900
civilization for a very long time. If Joe Biden had been sort of licentious or something like that
00:47:22.120
about it, then maybe you could make a case, but he wasn't. He was just saying, to say that this is
00:47:27.800
sexist. I guess in a very basic way, it's, it's sexist because it's saying men and women are
00:47:32.920
different. Men and women, men can compliment women. Women compliment men. Men talk to women
00:47:40.000
a little bit differently than women talk to men. Maybe men use sort of vulgar, crass language with
00:47:44.800
other men at the bar, but they don't use that kind of language with women. Yeah. Men and women are
00:47:48.220
different. Isn't that how we started the show? Men and women are different. Isn't that a central
00:47:52.780
cultural issue of our time? What the left is saying going, actually going back to the
00:47:58.580
feminists, even now we're talking about gender ideology, but going back to feminism too.
00:48:04.060
The premise there is that there is no significant difference between men and women. Yeah. Maybe a
00:48:09.260
couple of appendages look a little different, but you know, basically there's no significant difference.
00:48:15.260
That's the leftist view. The conservative view is men and women are different. Men are from Mars.
00:48:20.340
Women are from Venus. And you know, the difference between men and women is that it's actually a
00:48:24.060
beautiful thing. It's really nice. Something we ought to respect, something we ought to take
00:48:28.220
delight in. It's one of the joys of life. But Joe Biden here, unwittingly, just because he's an old
00:48:34.200
guy and he was paying a compliment, was, was demonstrating that. I don't want to attack him
00:48:37.700
for it. I think it's a sort of a nice thing. He's also just a sort of back slapper politician,
00:48:42.280
right? That's what he does. What, what Joe Biden does is, hey, you're looking great. I love that baby.
00:48:46.780
Hey, vote for me. I'm old Joe from Scranton. Another ridiculous thing that people are upset
00:48:52.420
about. And from another politician who is sort of a nice guy and has an every man appeal is Ron
00:48:57.800
DeSantis. Ron DeSantis was watching the Superbowl and he was not wearing a mask. And so Ron DeSantis,
00:49:05.900
there's some chatter about this. He goes up to a reporter afterward and he says, you're going to ask
00:49:09.260
me why I wasn't wearing a mask. The reporter says, yes. He says, I wasn't wearing a mask because how
00:49:13.280
the hell am I going to be able to drink a beer with a mask on? Got to drink a beer while I'm
00:49:17.300
watching my team win. So sorry, that's the way it goes. Similar kind of back slappy vibe. I really
00:49:27.840
liked that answer. Very practical, very prudent. Of course, that's the case. Ron DeSantis is clearly
00:49:33.720
eyeing the White House for 2024. I'm getting strong Christie 2012 vibes from him. I'm not, you know,
00:49:40.940
people's, if you compare a guy to Chris Christie, people now feel offended. But Christie in 2012
00:49:45.020
was actually a very strong candidate. And this idea was a state politician. He was good. He was
00:49:50.020
tough. He was practical. He said it like it is, you know, he's not going to talk in political
00:49:53.660
gobbledygook. Ron DeSantis would seem to be running in that lane right now. Very practical kind of stuff.
00:50:00.640
You see, uh, the pie in the sky kind of abstract, uh, politics that we've seen on the right for a long
00:50:07.620
time. That has, uh, gone away, I think. I don't think that's the future of the Republican party.
00:50:12.300
I think the future of the Republican party is going to be calling out basic truths running
00:50:15.960
against political correctness in the same way that Trump did, in the same way that Christie
00:50:18.980
did, same way that Ron DeSantis seems to be doing. So it's going to be talking directly to the,
00:50:24.240
the practical concerns of people in the way that Romney, I think, is actually trying to do.
00:50:28.080
That's going to be the future. You couldn't, you couldn't name more different politicians than all of
00:50:32.300
those guys, but they're all seeing that's kind of the way forward. There's something very,
00:50:35.840
very conservative about that. Saying basic truths, talking to the needs of people and being prudent.
00:50:42.640
Now, is that, is that going to sell for us winning forward? I'll have to get prudent about how
00:50:46.840
elections are conducted and have integrity too, but that could be a vision for a political future.
00:50:52.280
I'm Michael Knowles. This is the Michael Knowles Show. See you tomorrow.
00:51:05.840
It's a five-star review and tell your friends to subscribe. We're available on Apple Podcasts,
00:51:11.360
Spotify, and wherever else you listen to podcasts. Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire
00:51:16.520
podcasts, including The Ben Shapiro Show, The Andrew Klavan Show, and The Matt Walsh Show.
00:51:21.520
The Michael Knowles Show is produced by Ben Davies. Executive producer, Jeremy Boring. Our technical
00:51:26.840
director is Austin Stevens. Supervising producers, Mathis Glover and Robert Sterling. Production
00:51:32.500
manager, Pavel Vidovsky. Editor and associate producer, Danny D'Amico. Audio mixer, Mike Coromina.
00:51:39.640
Hair and makeup by Nika Geneva. And production coordinator, McKenna Waters. The Michael Knowles
00:51:44.940
Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2021.
00:51:49.160
A mother confesses that she has intentionally traumatized her young children over COVID. A school
00:51:53.460
system in Maryland hopes to make its students safer by defunding the school resource officers
00:51:57.660
and the mayor of Tampa pledges to hunt down anyone who celebrated the Super Bowl without
00:52:01.800
a mask. All that and much more today on The Matt Walsh Show.