Ep. 2100 - BREAKING: Russell Brand Gets 10 Years In Prison

This episode's brought to you by Cardiff America's favorite small business lender with over 12 billion funded since 2004, applying under three minutes for same day funding up to 500,000 at Cardiff.co/nolesCanadaWLS. The first articles of impeachment since the Democrats' big election win have already been filed, and they come to us by way of a Republican sort of. We will get into the libertarian Thomas Massey's transformation into a resistance lib and whether or not Pete Hig set is going down. Then Dana White actually becomes the White House press secretary. Guess there's a lot of personnel news today, at least briefly the press secretary. And Russell Brand gets 10 years in prison for a possibly non-consensual sex act amid a melange of indisputably consensual sex acts with groupies 17 to 22 years ago. I'm Michael Noles, this is the Michael Noles show. Welcome back to the show. We have Mr. Benjamin Shapiro coming on later to talk about his new movie, which is hitting theaters tomorrow one night only. The movie is marvelous. It pains me. It hurts deeply to say nice things about Ben. The movie is terrific. So we'll get into that also kind of funny that arguably the most famous Jew in the world, including BB Netanyahu, is making one of the most Christian films that's ever been made. So anyway, we will get into that in a moment first, though, we turn to this impeachment. We knew that the minute the Democrats won just the House, which a lot of people were predicting that he would win the House, then some of us who were a little more doomer about the election started to say, I think they're going to win the Senate too. Actually, it's looking pretty bad. But even just if they had won the House, you knew that there was going to be this real push to impeach Trump and everyone around him. And if the Democrats were smart, they would resist that impulse because I don't think that's actually going to help them. Certainly impeaching Trump, but they can't resist. They have to do it. It's just history is thrusting them toward that inevitability. What some people did not foresee, though, is that the impeachments would start flying before the Democrats took office. Election day happened last week. The Democrats don't actually take office until January. So how are we already getting an impeachment with a Republican House and a Republican Congress? We get it from a quasi-Republican congressman, Thomas Massey, who has just filed articles of impeachment, not against Donald Trump. Doesn't have the Gouliens for that. He files articles of impeachment against Pete Hickseth. Since we saw the Secretary of Schedule, his own press conference, that they're going to let him deliver a rebuttal. And to that point, I hope he addresses the eight articles and doesn't get up and misquote the Bible in Quentin Tarantino fashion and do some pull-ups and, you know, call everybody fat and gay like for being for this impeachment. Like I may have just given you half his speech. I don't know, but I would like to see him go through the eight articles of impeachment. Just make the argument from a podium. You can use notes. Get the lawyers to help you. Tell us why you are not guilty of each of these eight articles of impeachment. I hope that's what he does. And so that's my answer to your question. When do I suspect this going to be? I suspect this not going to be tonight or tomorrow before that, before the Secretary speaks. Let me keep going. And with that, the transformation is complete. Thomas Massey is now more or less a pink hat wearing resistance lip. Though some of us saw that coming for a long time. Some of us have always been pretty skeptical of libertarianism. Libertarianism, which has some good expressions, albeit with a mistaken anthropology, but the libertarians often just try to curry favor with the lives. Practically speaking, whether you're talking about that guy in your freshman dorm or you're talking about a member of Congress, very often the libertarian is the kind of conservative, the kind of Republican who wants the approval of the dominant liberal culture. You know, I'm a Republican, but I'm not that kind of Republican. No, I'm a cool Republican. I smoked pot. You know, no, it's cool, man. I like gay stuff. I'm, no, I'm a cool, I'm a cool Republican man. So that's what you're getting here. And there's a real political take away from Thomas Massey's transformation. But before we get to that, let's just get into the articles of impeachment. Because in that meandering press conference for the liberal press corps, Massey says, "Well, I want Pete Higgseth to respond to the actual articles." Okay, so what are the articles of impeachment? You're going to look them up. They're already up there. The first article of impeachment is overwaging war in Iran. You might not like the war in Iran. I don't like the war in Iran. But an article of impeachment does not simply posit that a government official is doing something that is unpopular or even unwise. An article of impeachment suggests that the government officer has committed some crime, some high crime or misdemeanor, as the Constitution says. So what's the crime here? The first article of impeachment filed by the pseudo Republican Massey says that it's illegal to wage war in Iran. It's against the war power's resolution. But it's not. The commander-in-chief has the right as the leader of the armed forces to do basically whatever he wants with the troops for at least a limited period of time. And the war power's resolution of 1973 clarifies this, says that the commander-in-chief can deploy the military for 90 days, but then it actually can re-up it a little bit. And actually, if the war stops and then some new conflict begins again, as occurred in the case of Iran, then the war power's resolution probably resets. And even beyond that, the war power's resolution doesn't really have any teeth because commanders-in-chief of both political parties have deployed the military for much longer periods of time, whether we're talking about Obama and Libya, whether we're talking about Joe Biden with the Houthis. There are all sorts of complaints about the war power's resolution with George W. Bush. So this doesn't have teeth for two reasons. One, the White House has every right to deploy the military for the conflict in Iran. According to the war power's resolution, beyond the war power's resolution, they have every right to do it. There's a ton of historical precedent for it. Just as an issue, that article of impeachment doesn't make much sense. But then the object doesn't make much sense either because it's Trump as the commander-in-chief who's deploying the military. It's not Pete Hegseth. Pete Hegseth is managing the Pentagon. Pete Hegseth didn't start the war. Pete Hegseth isn't even really managing the war all that much. That would be the joint chiefs of staff. That would be the commanders in the field. That would be up to President Trump. Pete Hegseth's in the room, but it's totally incoherent. Why would you file these articles of impeachment against Pete Hegseth if what you're upset about is that the president is supposedly violating the war power's resolution? Well, the real reason is that Thomas Massey knows he just doesn't have the juice. He doesn't have the mojo to actually impeach President Trump. He knows that if he didn't impeach President Trump, he would look even more ridiculous than he already does. He's going for the second best thing he can get, which is going after Pete Hegseth. It weaks us. What's the second article of impeachment? Basically the same thing. An allegation of a violation of the war power's resolution. Totally ridiculous. What's the third article of impeachment? Just another way of reiterating this supposed violation of the war power's resolution. Okay. What's the fourth article of impeachment? The fourth article of impeachment is about collateral damage because one of the strikes in Iran killed a bunch of civilians. It was very, very sad. It seems to kill a bunch of schoolchildren. So that's awful. Horrible. But why would that be illegal? If the United States were targeting schoolchildren, if the United States were committing an act of terrorism in order to kill civilians and to thereby instill fear and try to affect political change, that would be a crime. There is zero evidence that the United States did that. There's no reason that the United States would do that. We call it collateral damage, which is a euphemism that in times of war civilians are killed. But this is even possible in a just war assuming that the civilians are not targeted. There's no evidence the civilians were targeted. So that's nonsense. The fifth article of impeachment. Now we move past Iran. Massies going after Pete Hegseth because the Trump administration has blown up drug boats, drug runners in the Caribbean. And we're not allowed to do that apparently. We're not allowed to enforce American law. We're not allowed to protect Americans from being poisoned by the drug traffickers, by the international cartels, groups that have been designated foreign terrorist organizations in the Western Hemisphere, over which we have declared a kind of a sovereignty from the rest of the world since the Monroe doctrine in the early 19th century. That's it. Now that's what conservatism is. We're not allowed to blow up drug boats from foreign terror organizations in our own hemisphere. Give me a break. Six article of impeachment. He's really upset at Pete Hegseth for threatening to prosecute or at least hold to account, according to the military standard, Senator Mark Kelly, Senator Mark Kelly, who called on troops to be insubordinate. So now, now, time is messy. At one time ranked to be the most conservative member of Congress. Because of a skewed view of conservatism, because people conflated conservatism and libertarianism, an error for which we have been paying for 60 years, one time he was right, the most conservative member of Congress, a friend of mine, who's another member of Congress, complained to me once. He said, "I'm only the third or fourth most conservative member." Thomas Massey, that jerk is the most conservative member. So that guy now is upset that he's white nighting for a Democrat member of Congress who called on U.S. troops to be in subordinate to the commander-in-chief, and he's going to impeach Pete Hagsetz for that? What? This is where libertarianism falls into anarchism, but I don't even think it's that ideological for Massey. I think he just hates the Trump admin because the Trump admin went after him. Seventh article of impeachment. He's really upset at Pete Hagsetz for arresting Nicholas Maduro. Nicholas Maduro, who had arrest warrants out in the United States, who the U.S. Department declared to be the illegitimate leader of Venezuela, backed, mobbed up with all of our foreign adversaries, stealing American products. We go in and arrest him. We don't even assassinate him, which we easily could have done, which we and every other polity on earth has done for a long time. We didn't even do that. We arrested him. We put him on trial. We're not allowed to do that. To be a conservative, according to Thomas Massey, is to support the communist dictator of Venezuela, who's mobbed up with our adversaries like China and Russia and Iran, okay? And then the eighth article of impeachment, he's going after Hagsetz because the Trump administration is striking the Houthis. The Houthis are the Iranian militia. So what I take away from this is anytime the United States does anything to upset our adversaries, either the Islamists or the communists. That is beyond the pale and they need to be removed from office. How does a guy get here? This is what's, this is totally ridiculous from Massey. But what's more interesting, I get it, he's a jilted lover. He had political ambitions and then he kept going against Trump and he kept siding with the Libs and he kept cutting deals with Rokhan and the Democrats. And eventually Trump said enough, this guy's useless. He might vote with us 90% of the time, but on all the crucial matters, he sides with the Libs and the Democrats. Liz Cheney votes with Trump even more. Liz Cheney would vote with Trump what 94 and 95% of the time, but on all the really crucial matters where her vote actually counted, she would side with the Democrats. So she's as good as a Democrat. So Massey is real upset about that and he lost his political statue and he lost his seat and he lost his whole career. So now he's reacting against Pete Hegseth for some reason. But the political takeaway that I think is really important here is that we think of politics primarily as being about ideology. I'm touching on ideology too. The difference between libertarianism and conservatism and liberalism and this and that. But it's not primarily about ideology. Politics is primarily about relationships and you hear eggheads and wunks and losers. They will sometimes lament this fact and they'll say, no, politics should just be about ideas. It's so sad that politics is about relationships. It's wrong. There's something perverse about that. No, no, no, no. At the basic level, politics is about how we live together. That's what politics is. It refers to the polis. It refers to society. How do human beings live together in a way that is conducive to their flourishing? So this, therefore, touches on aspects of justice. It touches on aspects of the common good. It touches on economic flourishing. It touches on security. It touches on all of these different areas. But what it is fundamentally about is how we all live together, which means that politics is fundamentally about relationships. And so when people have really strained relationships, when they struggle to maintain relationships, when they betray their benefactors, when they can't be a team player, when they do all of these things, what that tells you is that they have a fundamentally off, fundamentally perverse view of politics. This is totally incoherent. And look, if Massey wants to flip and become a resistance lib, if he feels that his ideology, in as much as that matters, his ideology ultimately leads to a kind of liberalism, which I think is true of libertarianism. Libertarianism is just a variety of liberalism. If that is true, and he feels that there's some great principle here that he needs to defend, that's fine, but then have the guts to go all the way. Your problem's now with Pete Hegseth. Your problem is with Trump. You don't want to remove Pete. A removing Pete Hegseth isn't going to change anything about the Iran War or arresting Nicholas Maduro. Pete Hegseth was involved in the arrest of Nicholas Maduro in as much as he runs the Pentagon. But that involves the State Department. Why aren't you impeaching Rubio? That ultimately goes to President Trump. It involves the DNI. It involves all these different offices. If Massey wants to be the big tough guy, then actually do it. I guess is my point. I think it's stupid to impeach Trump or members of the administration over this. But if you're going to do it, if you're now just like fully MSNBC pilled, then do it. Go ahead and impeach Trump. He's not going to do it because it would be laughed out of Washington. It would go down in flames. He might be able to price some votes to impeach Hegseth because they want a sacrificial lamb for the midterm losses. But that's not really what this is about. It's not going to change a damn thing. It just drives me nuts. It drives me nuts especially. Disloyalty among politicos irritates me a lot. Siding with the libs on anything irritates me a lot. Rank opportunism and cynicism irritates me a lot. But the thing that really makes it unbearable is when these weasels do it in the name of some great principle. When they preen, when you get this sanctimonious kind of screed in the impeachment articles or pressers or what have you, they say they're so much holier than now. What's the principle here? You don't even have the courage of your convictions to take the impeachment all the way. You want to impeach Trump? Go for it. See what happens. You think this is your real opportunity to really strike at the president of the United States because of a bruising midterm loss? Then go do it, Massey. But he can't do it. So this, look, he might get a scalp here. I guess there's a chance Hegseth goes down. There's some reporting out of Capitol Hill that the votes are there because Republicans want to place the blame on someone that is not Trump who can still damage their careers, but someone who they can just kind of brush to the side and make the scapegoat and upon whom they can cast all their sins and sends out into the woods. So it might work. Don't tell me it's principled, not even close. Okay. Now, the hour is very, very late for the conservatives. Things are looking very, very tough. There's a lot of upheaval, especially in the White House. When you want to know what time it is, I strongly recommend you check out original grain. Look at this cool watch. Look at my cool new watch from original grain. There's a lot more to say. First, though, go to originalgrain.com/michaelMICH8EL code Michael. There are plenty of watches that tell you what time it is. Your phone does that, too, that's your pocket watch. So if you're going to wear a watch, it might as well be something interesting. I love watches. I have a fair number of watches. Some are kind of fancy. Some of them are very, very cheap. Everything running the whole gamut, some are sentimental. Some I bought myself. I love a good watch. I don't know. I love a nice watch. And I especially love original grain. Original grain makes watches using stainless steel and reclaimed materials, including the probably most famous for their wooden watches. So they use Kentucky whiskey barrel wood or guitar wood or oak that's been aging whiskey or whatever. I mean, really, really cool stuff from where Jack Daniels or from Taylor Guitars. They have really, really cool ones. I opted to get one of their stainless steel watches, which has this kind of cool malachite finish on it. A nice automatic movements. Got an open case back. It's very cool. This is, I've got smaller wrists, so I need them more 40 millimeter size. They get something a little bigger. Original grain was founded by two brothers, one of them is a Marine Corps veteran. They also support military families through military collection. Go check it out, especially with the holidays coming up. Remember, you deserve a watch that is as unique and rugged as you are. Go to originalgrain.com/Michael, use code Michael M.I.C.H. AEL for up to 47% off, plus an extra 10% off your order. That's our best deal of the year when you go to original grain.com, slash Michael code Michael for an extra 47% off on top of 10% off with my code Michael M.I.C.H.A.E.L. Democrats are getting ready for a much broader persecution than than we're looking at from Pete Higgseth on Capitol Hill. We're looking at from, sorry, from Thomas Massey against Pete Higgseth on Capitol Hill. Here is Democrat Jamie Raskin saying, the Dems are not just going to go after Trump and his cabinet and his staff and his supporters. And as Alyssa Slikin said, the teenage boy who might want to volunteer for the Republican campaign, it's not just them. They're going after private corporations who did not attack Donald Trump for the last two and a half years. We will not hesitate to go after the private corporations that are collaborating in all of the lawlessness with Donald Trump. And we've done it before and we will absolutely do it again. The law firms, you mentioned, we know that there were many heroic law firms that have stood up against all of the law breaking and then the attempt to shake them down for the time of their partners and their young associates and yet there are major law firms in America. America, including Paul Weiss that have capitulated to these coercive tactics by Donald Trump and have basically surrendered and made all kinds of outrageous concessions. We've sent a number of letters to those law firms and they have been not forthcoming up until now, but when we have the power of Sapina and we have the power to conduct oversight, we believe a lot of these law firms are going to be coming forward and telling the truth. Otherwise, they are law firms that have no respect for the rule of law and we're going to make sure that they comply with the congressional Sapina. It is the exact same legal force as a judicial Sapina does. Sapina means under the power or under the penalty of law. I have very little sympathy for some of these massive corporations, especially because I have been the target of some of their censorship and some of their shenanigans for years. Let's not forget Facebook nearly destroyed the daily wire. It's very best to do so, but we survived it. So many big tech companies, when after conservatives dominated our public square, totally changed our politics against the Constitutional Order and the will of the people and all the rest of it. So I have very little sympathy for them and yet Jamie Raskin is almost making me sympathize with them because you think about it, Paul Weiss. Think about that little sympathy you want to have for these big corporate law firms, but Paul Weiss, a left wing law firm, Paul Weiss supports all the libs and all the Democrats. Comes into the cross here as a President Trump. President Trump says, you better start playing fair, you better start, you better knock it off or you're going to have big problems, you're going to lose a lot of government contracts. And Paul Weiss says, okay, okay, okay, we'll play ball. We won't unfairly target or exclude conservatives. Okay, fine. That's all they say. Jamie Raskin now says, hold on, Paul Weiss, you wouldn't, you wouldn't go after the conservatives. You would be willing to even have a conversation with President Trump. Okay, now we're going to destroy you. This, I remember I was talking to a buddy of mine who is a financial guy, he's an investor. And this was right around the time of Elon Musk's IPO with SpaceX. And I was talking to him, I called him, I said, hey, should I get in on the IPO? Should I try to buy some SpaceX stock? Because Elon's a genius and his companies are really impressive and maybe this is a good investing opportunity. Should I put, should I put a few pennies behind SpaceX? And he said, oh, probably not. So why not? Elon's a genius. His companies are great. He goes, yeah, no, that's all true. That's all completely true. But the problem is, we all know Republicans are going to lose the midterms. This was many months ago. We all know Republicans are going to lose the midterms. And the left hates Elon Musk because Elon Musk helped President Trump. And he supported him. He was one of the few big businessmen in America who supported the Republican. And he actually helped clean up the government a little bit. Because the Democrats are going to try to destroy him. And they're going to go after him, not based on the fundamentals of the company, not based on his entrepreneurship, not based on, they're just going to politically persecute him. And they're not even hiding it. It would be one thing if they hit it. If they, you know, hypocrisy is the tribute vice-paste to virtue, says La Roche Foucault. But here they're just being overt about it. They're saying if a private business or public business, if any business, if anybody, even outside the government, in any way plays ball with the duly elected president of the United States, we're going to try to destroy them. Which means that if the economy was the driving factor in the midterm elections, and if the shaky economy was driven by the Iran war, for which now the Libs and the libertarians are trying to impeach PTAG Seth, if all of that was true and people have a lot of economic concern right now as well as should, it's only going to get worse. Because the Democrats are now going to exact revenge on the economy, and they're going to try to blame Trump for it. Now speaking of prosecutions and persecutions, I have to get to one of the biggest stories has nothing to do with American politics. Russell Brand has been sentenced to 10 years in prison for a sexual assault that allegedly took place over 10 years ago, 15 years ago, up to 22 years ago, I think. Some of them will get to the conviction in the sentencing of Russell Brand first, though, I want to tell you about policy genius. There's a lot more to say first, they'll go to policygenius.com/noles. The year is winding down, reproaching Thanksgiving, and then we'll get to Christmas, we think about what we're thankful for. Think for most of us, especially those of us with a family, the family is pretty close to the top of the list. So are you protecting them? Are you doing the responsible thing? This is basic stuff, and it's in the back of your mind, and it's going to just worry you on low summer for years or decades, don't let it. Go take care of it right now, go check out policygenius. Policygenius is a free online marketplace, but you can bear quotes from some of America's top insurers side by side. Their license team answers questions, handles the paperwork, helps you find an affordable policy that meets your needs. Make a smart move today to help protect your family's tomorrow, okay? It's so easy. It's one of those things you can just put off forever, don't, one, because you're going to be seriously damaging your family when the time comes. But two, causing yourself unnecessary stress, don't do it. With policygenius, you can see if you can find 20-year life insurance policies starting just $276 a year for a million dollars in coverage, go to policygenius.com/noles. Canada, VLAS, to compare quotes now, that's policygenius.com/noles. Russell Brandt, the 2000s movie star who used to be a huge lib and he got off the hook for all sorts of bad behavior when he was a huge lib. Then he became not even a conservative by any means, but he became a little more normal. He opposed the extremes of the left. He purportedly had a conversion to Christianity. And all of a sudden, all this bad behavior from the 2000s comes back up and he is prosecuted in the UK. What exactly happened? A jury found Russell Brandt guilty of one count of rape and three counts of sexual assault after a four week trial. For this, Russell Brandt has been sentenced to more than 10 years in prison. His alleged incidents took place one in 2009, another in 2004, and what took place exactly. I've read the reporting out of the court. This is a family show, so I'm going to try to clean it up a little bit as best I can. In 2009, Russell Brandt was doing a show. He invited his groupies to come backstage and do weird stuff with him. Some lady comes backstage and within moments of meeting him begins performing an unspeakably nauseating act on him. An act that I am not only not describing for your benefit, but also for my benefit because I don't even want to think about it. It's that disgusting and degrading for the woman she voluntarily does this within moments of meeting him. While her friend is committing another more speakable but also obscene act on Russell Brandt, immediately upon meeting him. Russell Brandt then invites the first woman to his flat for some more romps around the hay. All of this is consensual. They're doing all sorts of consensual naughty activities that they shouldn't do. At one point, there's a little bit of a he said she said here, "Russell Brandt performs a particularly gross kind of act on this woman." It's a little unclear. She may have agreed to it at first, but then she disagreed with it or disagreed with the way it was carried out or what have you. It's all gross and yucky. That was that in 2009. Just nauseating, glad we got through that without too many details. Seventeen years later, Russell Brandt is going to prison for ten years because of this action that at the time the woman did not seem to think constituted a crime, that in the intervening years this woman did not seem to have brought up as a crime, that eventually the media started talking to this woman. I guess she changes her view on it a little bit. It's a 17 years later, he's sentenced to prison for ten years. Some of the other sexual incidents that go back even further, 22 years, now to 2004, is Russell Brandt kissing a girl at a bar, grabbing a girl, groping a girl at a bar. And then, doing weird stuff with the girl consensually. But because he kissed her or grabbed her whatever first, without getting a signed affidavit of her consent or whatever, that now adds to his prison sentence. What are we to think of this? Everything Russell Brandt did back in the day, totally gross, much of it probably should be illegal, even if it is consensual, like I'm a conservative, right? I don't believe that consent is the sole criteria of moral order. I think there are many other things that should be punishable by the law. So no one's defending all the gross stuff or hanging out with groupies. I'm sure if you're big celebrity, it's hard to resist the groupies, but he had a lot of groupies. And he did a lot of weird stuff. Okay. Russell Brandt later kind of becomes more conservative. Put that aside. He's not actually conservative. He's much more conservative than he was in the 2000s. Put that aside. Russell Brandt says that he converted to Christianity. Some people doubt his conversion. Put it aside. I hope he did convert to Christianity for his own soul. But just put that aside for a second. Put all of that aside. All of the things that Russell Brand may or may not have done that have curried favor with conservatives and with Christians that were debating whether or not they were sincere just put all of that aside. Let's say it never happened. Do we really think that a guy should go to prison for 10 years for a possible crime that he may have committed 17 years prior? Something that was allegedly a crime, amid very, very similar acts, some of which were more disgusting and egregious, that at the time everyone agreed were totally consensual. But then one of them was like maybe not consensual or it started out consensual and then the woman withdrew consent or, we really think a guy should be able to go to prison for 10 years, 10 and a half years for that for something that happened 17 or 22 years ago, which no one at the time considered to be a crime. I don't think so, without weighing in, I don't know Russell Brand personally. I think he was supposed to appear on the show one time and then didn't work out and one time we were speaking together at a TPSA event. I don't even think we said hello. I don't know Russell. I have no personal connection to Russell Brand and I think that much weird sex stuff should probably be illegal and people should probably be prosecuted for it. But they shouldn't be prosecuted ex-post facto, especially when the acts broadly speaking are not even illegal today. Can I just, my whole takeaway from Russell Brand is, statutes of limitations are good, actually. That's why I take away. And I haven't seen people really focus on that aspect of it. That is the egregious aspect. Even if Russell Brand had committed clear, serious, horrific crimes with no doubt, with no, he said she said, with video cameras and eyewitnesses, should you really be prosecuted for those sorts of crimes 20 years later? I guess the first question you have to ask is, why do we have statutes of limitations? What is the purpose of statutes of limitations? The purpose of a statute of limitation, they arrive in the, they arrive in ancient Rome and then you see them really crop up in medieval England. So we've had statutes of limitations for a very long time. What is the purpose of them? The purpose of them initially was to protect property. It's kind of like what the lives do today where they say, the Mount Rushmore actually belongs to the Lakota Sioux because they lived there in 1753. And they actually didn't even live there in 1653, but they took it from the Cheyenne. And then they lived there in 1753, but then we took it from them in 1776. So anyway, we need to give it back to them. And statutes of limitations initially existed for property, to say, you know what, if you've had property for a really long time and no one's really challenged it, it's yours. If you committed some crime or are accused of committing some crime really, really long ago when memory has degraded, when the facts are a little bit blurry, when then you actually can't be prosecuted for it. That's the idea of a statute of limitations. And the Me Too Mania got rid of all of that. And so no, no, no, no, no. People are gonna be prosecuted for things they may or may not have done 50 years ago. Brett Kavanaugh might not become a Supreme Court Justice because some crazy lady says that he pushed her onto a bed 50 years ago, certainly didn't happen. Without statutes of limitations, you have no stability in society, you have no certainty. There is a perpetual uncertainty that your entire life can be upended at any time for any reason. That is a grave threat to our sacred democracy, to our political order, to everyone. And certainly to the rights of the innocent. This is bad. Some people wanna go further and defend Russell Brand as a conservative or a Christian or say he definitely didn't do anything wrong or say that consensual acts are all fine. I don't, I don't know about any of that. And I don't think that all consensual acts are fine. But don't we all have to agree 10 and a half years for whatever this is 20 years ago, it seems a little odd, at least it seems a little odd. And if it seems a little odd, why does it seem odd? It seems odd because basic aspects of our law and our political order have been totally upended by radical leftists. This is what they do to Thomas Jefferson. You know, Thomas Jefferson, one of the great Americans, they say, no, he actually had children by one of his slaves, maybe. That's actually still a little unclear, but let's say he did. They say, therefore we gotta tear down his statue. We gotta tear down Christopher Columbus. He didn't discover the new world. He wasn't some great pioneer, he wasn't a great Christian. No, no, no, he was a enslaver, a colonizer, a genocider. They do this. They retrospectively rewrite history and they hold people to account according to the dictates of our time rather than their own time. But now they're applying that same principle to people within their lifetimes and none of us is safe from it. Even if you weren't a rock star with groupies doing weird sex stuff, it could be anything. But just the principle is what is so wrong here. Okay, speaking of speedy trials, speaking of timely prosecutions, I do wanna get to this Charlie Kirk story because they've now set the trial date for the man accused of murdering Charlie Kirk. And it's in 2028, 2028. We'll bring on my friend Mr. Ben Shapiro to discuss that first though. I wanna tell you about balance of nature. There's a lot more to say first, they'll go to balanceofnature.com. These promo code NOLs, Canada V, L, E, S, when you're a kid. Eating your vegetables is one of the most important responsibilities you have. Then you become an adult. Suddenly, mom is not checking in anymore. Are you eating your veggies? Be honest. Look at me. Are you eating your vegetables? You're not. Getting a good variety of fruits and vegetables into your diet actually matters. It's one reason I love balance of nature. Their whole health system contains 47 ingredients from real fruits, vegetables, spices, and fibers. It's a simple way to supplement your diet with more whole food variety, especially when life gets busy. This is not a replacement for eating real food. It's just an easy habit to add to your routine. Check it out right now. Daily wire absolutely loves balance of nature. These hyenas wanna grab any of it that they possibly can. It's very simple, especially for me. I'm on the road a lot. Makes it very easy to mix in with all of the trash and garbage I'm eating at fast food and airports. Right now, go to balanceofnature.com, subscribe to the whole health system. Use promo code NOLs, Canada V, L, E, S, or 35% off your first subscription order. That's 35% off at balanceofnature.com, code NOLs. My favorite comment yesterday is from Genesis McElroy, who says, "How did the picture end up in prison?" It was framed. How did the picture end up in prison? It had sex with a group of 20 years ago. Also, it was framed. Do you get it? I'm a sucker for a good pun. It's a good pun. Speaking of our system of law and order, this Charlie Kirk story is enough to make your blood boil, and so I will bring on commander data to just focus on the facts and not so much the feelings, also because he went to Harvard Law School. Mr. Ben Shapiro, Ben, thank you for being on the show. Hey, good to see you. Okay, so I want to get to your movie. Confession is coming out. The most famous Jew in the world, possibly including Netanyahu, has written one of the most Christian films ever in the history of the cinema, called Confession in theaters tomorrow night, one night only, go see it. I said at the top of the show, it pains me. It causes actual physical distress to say something nice about you, to compliment a work you have done. Everyone has to go see it. Great cast, great story. We'll get to it. The Charlie Kirk story. We've been waiting for the guy who has accused of murdering Charlie Kirk. I'm waiting for him to face the guillotine or a firing squad, but at the very least to be sentenced, which requires him to be convicted, which requires there to be a trial. Now the judge says that the trial of Tyler Robinson will begin on June 21st, 2028. I didn't go to law school. I'm but a humble cigar salesman. I don't have a law school education. Is that right or normal? I'm not aware of timelines being that long, generally. When you're talking about a criminal case where the grand jury has already come in, where it's been very obvious the evidence presented, I'm not sure why we are delaying from, I checked the calendar, November of 2026, all the way to the middle of 2028 to get to trial. It's not as though there's an enormous amount of new data that's going to be gathered between now and 2028, an enormous amount of new evidence that's going to be get, like the prosecution is ready to go today. If they declared that they were ready for trial next month, then we would just be in trial. Maybe the judge is citing some sort of backlog here, but I don't know what special circumstance would justify a year and a half delay before you even get to the trial. It's pretty insane, honestly. There's a backlog, do we need to get through some more speeding tickets before we can get to the most high profile political assassination of our lifetimes? The defense attorney is one of this to go on longer. They were proposing delaying this until the end of 2028. If not, no, sorry, the defense team was proposing late 2029 for the trial to begin. Charlie was murdered in September of 2025. And the judge says, okay, well, we'll find a middle ground here. By the way, ton of evidence in, nobody's really disputing the evidence. I think the evidence is pretty persuasive though it's stuff that we've seen so far. And so all the defense team has done thus far is delay, delay, delay, delay, delay. How is this justice? I mean, that is their job, right? That offense team is always trying to delay because the longer they don't. play the better a chance that a witness drops out or that evidence changes. Or frankly, that their client doesn't end up in a maximum security prison on death row, right? I mean, like that, that is the purpose of it. So the defense is doing what the defense is supposed to do. What this really does speak to overall is that the American justice system is replete with cases that last way too long. And so you'll see a criminal trial of somebody that's happening five, six years after the original events. And then, you know, people rehashing it for years. And then you'll see people on death row for 30 or 40 years before they're not executed. And the entire American criminal justice system is deeply flawed. And it is, in fact, a denial of justice, right? I mean, there is an old sort of saw that that justice delayed is justice denied. And I think that that is particularly drew here. Of course, you know, even the death penalty debate that we've seen and much more recent Catholic popes, beginning a little bit with JP2 and Benedict, but especially really gaining steam with Pope Francis and Pope Leo. They've made this argument that the death penalty is basically always wrong. And that would seem to be an innovation in the Catholic tradition. You know, the people states had an executioner, for instance, blessed Pius IX personally oversaw the execution of some 500 people and refused a grant of clemency for the very last ones that I cannot do and I do not want to. Anyway, we don't need to rehash all of that. My only bit of, I guess, openness to such an innovation is whatever we call the death penalty in America, that probably is cruel and unusual. It actually is probably cruel and unusual that we wait for 30 years and then we inject these people with seven shots of poison to make us feel better about not seeing their heads locked off and then they wake up halfway through their execution and then they go to like this lady in Tennessee and then they have to go to the hospital to recuperate before what we kill her again. I don't, that whatever that is, I think clearly is cruel and unusual. And then the best argument against the death penalty in the United States is you say is the way that death penalty is applied, which is unevenly sporadically and certainly just definitionally, unusually, right? Because you receive a death penalty and the vast majority of people who have received the death penalty in the United States will never actually be applied to death penalty. The vast majority of them will probably die in prison at some point or be granted clemency by some sort of left-wing governor who decides like Gavin Newsom just decided to in California to simply decide that these are now all life sentences. So, yeah, I mean, the case for the death penalty and this is true biblically whether you're talking with injuries and more than Christianity was once you're convicted, you pay a penalty, right? The speed of the penalty is the justice that has to be done. And if you delay this stuff by years and years and years and years, remember the original purpose of having a body that was given the power to adjudicate decisions like this was to prevent tribal warfare. I mean, if you go all the way back to the beginnings of sort of impartial justice, the idea was that if I murder a member of Nolz's family, then Nolz's family now gets to remember my family. And so instead of having this kind of constant cycle of revenge, this sort of, yeah, exactly. Instead of having that, we sort of delegate the power to that to the state, which now has the power of policing and the universal capacity to use force. Well, if they don't do that, if they never actually apply justice, well, then we're just going to go back right to tribal warfare because if you feel that you've never been actually given justice, then you end up with a feeling again that our systems are broken. It's just another arena of American life in which the institutions are failing. I think that's what Jamie Raskin is currently promising, actually. And Elizabeth Latkin and all the rest of them. Okay, now speaking of crime and punishment, I do want to get to this movie. We've talked about it a fair bit. We've got a, there's going to be a friendly fire show on this. We talked about a little bit on election night. But the movie, the movie's terrific. I'm actually very, that's it. No more sincere compliments. I'm done for the next 10 years, but it's terrific. It's deeply Christian. It's evocative of and alluding to a lot of Russian literature. It has, it has overtones of the 20th, great 20th century novel, darkness at noon by Arthur Kessler. It's this kind of classic story that you're riffing on here, which is a play on words. There's the confession being extracted by the Soviet state and also the confession that Christians make every mass and every day of their lives where we confess our faith in Christ and the movie plays on both of those things. So my question is which parish have you been attending secretly for the traditional Latin mass that is giving you this view of Christianity? I mean, obviously, you know, contrary to public opinion on acts, I am quite pro-question as it turns out, which is why, you know, three-quarters of our staff is apparently Catholic. But, you know, the, the reality is that when it comes to, you know, the, the writing of a film like confession, which is supposed to embody deep themes about the power of the state versus the power of the individual or belief in God versus belief in an overarching authoritarian state that's capable of molding men, right? That, that sort of battle historically has taken place in the context of Christianity. And, and this is why, you know, when you look at the way that we are taught in our schools today, you can't even read properly American literature of a hundred years ago or Russian literature, certainly. You can't read any of this property without understanding the basis for all of it. If you read Dusty Avsky and you don't understand Christianity, you're not understanding Dusty Avsky. And the same thing is true for the vast majority of great literature, the vast majority of Shakespeare. I mean, if you read Shakespeare and you don't understand the Bible, you're not going to see all the biblical illusions, you're not going to understand even what you're talking about. And so when, when I'm writing confession, when I'm writing those characters, the characters are supposed to, they're not stand-ins for me, right? It's not me just channeling me through a bunch of different characters, right? Each character is supposed to have their own individual life and they're supposed to believe in the truth of what they're saying. So in the same way, the villains, I think one of the beautiful things about the film is that the villains are given the strongest version of what they're supposed to say, right? It's not that they're idiots who are just messing up. They actually are saying things that are intelligible and intelligent and convincing from a particular point of view. They're wrong. But again, when I'm writing, for example, Rob's character, who's obviously a person of Christian faith, I'm going to write it in a way that the character believes what he is saying. He's not going to walk in there with skepticism about the New Testament. That's not what his character would do. And we have to acknowledge that the vast majority of Christians over the ages who have been willing to stand up to the authoritarian state are people who believed in the divinity of Christ. I mean, that's just a reality of history. And so failing to acknowledge that and failing to recognize the power of that would be to deny the power of Western civilization itself. And so I think one of the things that's sort of beautiful about the film is that it takes all these arguments incredibly seriously. I think people are going to be astonished by the quality of the film in just the put aside sort of the narrative. And when we're in conservative media, we tend to talk about quote unquote, the message of the film. And yeah, the messages here are very, very strong. It's a great reminder of what Soviet Russia was. It's a reminder of why you should be grateful to live in a free country like the United States and why my elections don't go your way. Yeah, it's terrible and it's bad. But also you don't live in Soviet Russia. And so like we still get to like, it's the week after the election, you and I still get to talk freely about our opponents. As you say, for now, it is a reminder of the fact that it doesn't have to be that way that there are people who would if they had the ability up end the entire system and put in place something significantly more oppressive. But I think that, you know, the thing that's different about confession, then really anything else in the history of conservative media. I think it's fair to say this, is that it is definitely a quality first production. I mean, this is a, this is a movie that is directed by a Venice Golden Lion nominee in Voslav Marhul. It is a movie that has among the cast assembled seven Oscar nominations, right? It's got a cast of, I think, 16 Golden Globe and Emmy nominations. It is chalk filled with great performances. It is, you know, again, I hesitate to praise a film that I wrote and I'm an executive producer on. But I think that if you put down your phone and you watch it, it is an experience. It's a, it's a real experience and it's a spiritual experience and intellectual experience. It's something different that has been attempted by anybody. Yeah, so I hope so. And I think that it's certainly more ambitious than anything that's ever been tried and conservative media before. And it, to your point on, on steel manning the characters, even I do find myself, when I listen to James Franco's character, who's the Soviet interrogator, I do find myself getting where he's coming from, you know, and it, obviously, I don't end up agreeing with him. But it's the way I think conservatives should engage with Marx, which is, like, I really engage with Marx. I've read a fair bit of Marx, you know, I've thought fairly, fairly deeply, at least, about Karl Marx. And I see what he's, where he's coming from. I'm ultimately, I think he basically sold his soul to the devil and his father also agreed with me on that. But like, I, it's like, it's kind of like the IQ bell curve meme. It's like, it's like, Marx is wrong. And you can, but you, you, you, you want to understand why Marx is wrong. Like, it's not like Marx isn't just wrong because he wants to take your house away from you. And because there isn't food at the grocery store, he's wrong because he's in rebellion against God. And you have to, you, it actually, it deepens your convictions to engage seriously with what he's saying. And anyway, the, the film does that very, very well. It's in theaters tomorrow. Where can people get tickets? And then when can they see it? If it's not near a theater, in a theater near them, where can they see it on daily wire? So if you're a member, if you're an all-access member, then you get one free ticket and then you can get additional tickets from members of your family. I think we're, we're almost sold out at this point. It's in 100 theaters, one time only on November 11th. And so you can go check that out at dailywire.com. Otherwise, you should subscribe. And then you can stream it at daily wire. Obviously, I think that it's, it's a project that I think everyone at daily wire not just I, but I think enormous number of people are proud to be associated with. And Michael, you've seen, you've seen a lot of other entertainment projects. So I think you can speak better to this than I can because you've given your honest opinion of a wide variety of entertainment projects we've put out before. I think it is fair to say this is easily the best thing that we've ever put out. >> Yes, there's no point. Other than the scene, the scene starring that news anchor in Lady Ballers, which I thought was the single best piece that we've ever put, it's been to go with the mustache. Other than that, other than that one scene, it's just, it's just marvelous. And it's, it's different, too, is the other thing. It's not, you know, there, there are all sorts of great products we should put out. The documentaries, conservatives love documentaries. And that's great. We should put out more documentaries and comments. and this and that and the other thing, but this is a very specific type of very thoughtful film that is kind of like watching a play, it's a throwback to older kind of films that will not only make you think about things, but it will make you see, it will make you see things differently. I remember Joseph Conrad's take on art very similar to that. So anyway, do it. I said there would be no more praise. That's it. I put an end to it. No more, but you have to go see it in the meantime. I end theaters tomorrow and then on Daily Wire Plus. Ben, good to see you. See you later. You too. I had to see it. Okay, it's T.E. Tuesday. The rest of the show continues now. You don't want to miss it. Become a member of UseCodeNolesCanadaVLAS. I said check out for two months free and all annual plans. Well, there I used to feel Christ. I cannot feel anything here. They take me out of my bed and they brought me here and they tell me nothing. What have I done? Article 58. Count the revolutionary activity. That is all I know. They have to deal with so many enemies of the state, all of whom claim their innocence, who protest, who cry. There are no answers here. Other than the ones they put in the mouth, you'll break. Today is your opportunity to demonstrate your loyalty to the people. I'd like to know why I'm here. Of course. But you already know, don't you? You must believe in something greater than the party. You will remember your duty. I told you I don't know. The ground like a fair all animal. You stink of failure. You want me to lie. Still a drunk damn you. They all break. Maybe.