Russell Brand's Lengthy Sentence, Trump's Shock Immigration Deal Comments, and Disgusting Charlie Kirk Attacks, with Emily Jashinsky, Dave Aronberg, and Viva Frei | Ep. 1437

Welcome to The Megan Kelly Show, live on Sirius XM channel 111 every weekday at NEAST. Hey everyone, I'm Megan Kelly, welcome to The Megan Kelly Show. Happy Monday, lots of news, let's do this, including President Trump giving his assessment of the Republicans midterm wipeout on 60 minutes last night and this morning, once again claiming it was a mess with election. Can you, can we not, can we, can we just be like really honest about what actually, this is so fucking pointless. Like we're going to do that again, we don't trust the vote, we do. We do, no matter what you, you know, as Tostilla phrase, too big to rig, that's what just happened to your party. First, though, we start with breaking news from across the pond where a judge just sentenced Russell brand to 10 and a half years in prison. Good Lord, 10 and a half years in prison. He grabbed a boob, he kissed the lady, he sniffed a lady and he had back door sex with a woman who licked his back door before she was even introduced to him. He is going to prison for 10 and a half years for that. This is insane. This is a country that led, led how many, how many of these immigrants who would come into their country rape young white girls with impunity for years? They did nothing for the vast majority of those child rapists and now Russell brand for grabbing boobs, kissing, sniffing and having that kind of sex with a woman who consented to vaginal sex with him seconds beforehand and also had clearly been joking with him and talking with him about having anal sex and had given him the equivalent on their first meeting for that he's going to jail for 10, this is an outrage, this is an obvious double standard. And if you needed any further proof that this is a political witch hunt against Russell brand that judge just gave it to us. Good gracious, here's how the judge opened the proceedings. 20 years ago, Russell brand, you were becoming famous, you were clever and in many people's eyes funny and charismatic, you had also become a sexual predator. Our status protected you until 2023 when journalists collected and published the allegations that were broadcast as a channel for documentary and in articles in the Times newspapers. Those public declarations that you were a sex offender empowered a number of women to come forward until their stories of your activities many years before. Okay, so it wasn't just the judge, it was even the defense lawyers that were using language that presumed Russell's guilt, which at this stage of the proceedings is appropriate since he's been found guilty just so you know that's why you'll hear the judge and the defense lawyer talk about Russell as though he's done all the things that he was found guilty of. But this judge made no doubt, I mean throughout the entire proceedings whose side he was on, he absolutely had a finger on the scale he clearly didn't like Russell and neither does the press because if you were to read the articles about Russell's case, his verdict and his sentencing over the past three days, it is clear that they are treating him like he is one of the most prolific sexual predators ever to roam the earth. Where's the moment Russell learned his fate? I pass a sentence of imprisonment for nine months for count three, 18 months for count five reduced from two years to allow for totality and eight months for count seven. Those sentences are all concurrent to one another to further allow for totality but consecutive to the sentence for rape. The sentence I pass on count six, rape is nine years imprisonment. So the total sentence is one of ten years, six months. The few days you have already served will count, you will serve two thirds of that sentence, then be released on license and will be liable to be recalled into custody if you breach its terms. On your release you will also be indefinitely subject to the notification requirements on the Sexual Offences Act 2003. As you heard there, brand was sentenced to nine years, nine, for allegedly raping the woman identified in court as complainant five. She's the one who allegedly performed oral sex on Russell brand's anus shortly after meeting him. No, she didn't, she didn't meet him. They walked her into the dressing room. She dropped down on her knees and shoved her tongue inside his rear end. This is our nine year in prison Russell brand victim. This is ridiculous. She later admits she consented to vaginal sex with him before she says brand anally raped her. This is the one who when the press first contacted her about her exchange with Russell said, you know, I was just a stupid young person. I was just as responsible as he was. Okay. Great. She did not show up to read her victim impact statement, possibly because she knew we would all be rolling our eyes on this made up claim, a prosecutor read it. She said she was so emotionally damaged by that incident that she had to leave her job and return to live with her parents for an unspecified period of time. From her statement quote, it's something I carry with me every day and it often feels never ending. I don't believe you. Just before handing down a sentence, the judge commented on the bravery of the women who came forward against brand. Finally, before passing sentence, I paused to pay tribute to the determination and bravery of all the women whose evidence I have been recounting. I do not increase your punishment because of it, but all those women had to face being confronted and being told they're lied or twisted the truth and or they'd agreed to your sexual demands. That was all done because of you on your instructions. I also commend the Metropolitan Police for their hard work in gathering evidence and taking great care of all the women who testified. According to the Daily Mail, Russell's wife Laura fell forward and cried as the judge handed down the sentence. Again, this could have been as low as around four. We expected between five and ten and he's given him ten. He's basically given him the maximum within the guidelines, though he's allowing it to run concurrently as opposed to consecutively. So he got that one bone thrown to him. The mail also reported that Russell's father, Ron Brand, looked shaken upon hearing this insane sentence. Take a look at these reporters. I mean, never. But, Mara, I was just last week saying that the sentence of Elizabeth Holmes should be commuted at this point. It's ridiculous. She's in jail for longer than Russell's going to jail for, like all these relative sentences are insane. She got an 11-year sentence. He got ten for rape, alleged rape and three sexual assaults. She got 11 for defrauding some of the most sophisticated investors in America like Rupert Murdoch, like whatever. Some should commute the sentence of Elizabeth Holmes and this sentence is an outrage when you've got all these migrants running around the UK having faced zero justice for raping young girls. It was, there was a racial thing. It's been well documented. They were Muslims. They were immigrants. They were brown skinned. They were raping young white girls and the authorities didn't want to prosecute them because of political correctness, wokeness, racial sensitivities, choose your brand that you want for what they did. But it was absolutely disgusting. And now, they suddenly found a conscience when they found their first white conservative man. Now, it's time. Now, we're going to crack down. Okay. Great. Great. We really appreciate that. Great. Just in time, to save these adult women who consented to every sex act under the sun with Russell, except possibly maybe not that one, according to this jury, which nobody believes. I mean, please, she was so horrified about the thought of backdoor action. She did it to him within the first 10 seconds of meeting him. Stop it. This is absurd. Speaking of Russell's father, this is, look, watch this. Okay. This is him outside of the courtroom being confronted by these rabid reporters. Is it the type of man that you raised? Leave them now, little boy. Don't go and answer the question to them. Do you have a message to the victims? The victim. What vessel? Not Russell. He's the ghost, you mean? You chased him. He was convicted by his parents. I don't care. I don't care. He's a system. We don't believe the justice system. I don't believe it. On the basis of what I just want. You see I've got social media, it's easy to find a right to do it, don't waste but and see what you're supposed to do. You're saying the jury is crafty? Well, I'm sorry. It's possible. Are you saying it's not possible? I believe in the justice system, doesn't always, but I believe in it. Are you saying you couldn't go on social media and look at what people are saying and find people who are attacking us or when? Are you saying that? Or do you understand you could? Do you think your son will be able to come to prison? I'd be at least strong. This is incredible. And look at the dad, actually saying something quite reasonable, right? Look, are you saying the jury was corrupted as if no jury ever has been? I believe in the justice system. You do in the UK, why? I wouldn't. You shouldn't. There's a lot of evidence of a two tiered system in which the white guys, never mind if you're conservative, have one standard of justice and the brown skin men who are from other countries entirely get a totally different system of justice. Joining me now for reaction are former Palm Beach County state attorney and M. K. True Crime Show co-host Dave Ehrenberg and Viva Fry, former litigator and rumble creator. Good news. Birch Gold has extended the Veterans Day silver offer through November 11th. That's only two more days. So act now to get a free, one ounce silver coin for every $10,000 purchase. This silver coin features the American flag and Gadson flag and is a reminder that you saw the writing on the wall and did something about it. You realized we cannot afford the interest payments on our national debt. You realized inflation is still a challenge and that it's time to diversify into gold and silver. Text MK to the number 989898 today and speak with the Birch Gold precious metals specialist. They will help you convert an existing IRA or 401k into an IRA in gold and silver. And then you'll receive a free one ounce silver commemorative coin for every $10,000 you spend. But this offer ends on November 11th, diversify into gold and silver and get free silver. Text MK to the number 989898 that's MK to 989898. I'll start with you on it, Viva. I think this is an outrage. I genuinely think this is an outrage given the circumstances that I just outlined. I said one thing that innocent or guilty, this was a show trial set up for a conviction. I can appreciate those people out there who think that Russell Brand is a known beyond womanizer, sexual predator, fine. This was set up for conviction regardless when you're dealing with charges or accusations that are 15 years old at the most recent 20 some odd years old for some of them. This is not a system where you can actually successfully maintain your innocence when silence is deemed to be, you know, something to be used against you. And you're simply incapable of proving innocence after that period of time. You listen to what that judge said. And if you changed the language to North Korean, it would be no different than the judge thanking the state for the, you know, good prosecution of auto-warme beer and congratulating them on a job well done. That is not a judge who's administering justice. As a judge who is thanking his co-conspirators for setting up and allowing this manufactured conviction of Russell Brand so they can set an example to everyone else out there. We will tolerate your debauchery because at the very least it was a debauchery until you become politically inconvenient. Then we will prosecute you and we will have a show trial and we will send it to you just like they did to auto-warme beer in North Korea. Yeah, that's how it feels to me. Dave used to prosecute cases like this for a living. So what's your take? Well, I wouldn't call it a show trial, it's going to be back with you Megan and Viva, you don't see him. The jury acquitted him on almost half of the counts. So if the court had orchestrated some show trial designed to ruin him, the jury would have found guilty across the board. The judge did not sentence him consecutively, he did it concurrently. And it wasn't just that he said, she said, yes, these are old allegations. But when it comes to the evidence, they did have text messages and other evidence. So this wasn't, he said, she said, so I'm not willing to go far. Can I just say something to you about that because there's a story going around on the internet that complainant five, the alleged anal rape gal, had a text message of Russell saying that he was sorry. It's not true. She testified that she received such a text message, none was ever introduced in a trial. And that was the critical text message. There's misinformation about this. So there is reason to question this woman's account, given what I just told you. She said to the press about how, you know, I was young and stupid. I don't even know why they're coming to me about my story. And yet, there is a common belief that they sort of had Russell dead or rights in some text message there. And well, you know, when it comes to the main account, you're right that there was consensual encounters. And she willingly had sex when before she agreed to have vaginal sex on that night. That's all part of the record, but the findings were that brand moved the condom and forced a different act. And then kept going after she told him twice to stop. And so whatever they did the first time they met, a jury can conclude and the judge can conclude that it was not reasonable for him to keep going after she told him repeatedly to stop. 10 years in prison, Dave, 10 years on something she didn't come forward over for 22 years. This is crazy. I mean, come on, let me, let me, let me tell you something Dave, look at this. I had the team pull a couple of examples, David Lyons in the UK, 44 years old. What did he do? He pleaded guilty to the manslaughter of his autistic neighbor, Philip Quinn, who was 54 years old. He launched a violent, sustained assault on him, kicking and stamping his autistic neighbor with learning difficulties to death. He got less than Russell got today. This guy got nine years and six months in prison. Maybe it was a long time ago before they actually decided to get the tough on crime. No, it was April of 2026. That's just one. Here's another guy, Harper Dennis, 19, convicted of manslaughter. He killed a man by fatally stabbing him five times in the chest over a money dispute. He will be, he was sentenced to prison for less than, than Russell bread. He got 10 years, which all in is six months or more, less than Russell bread. Murderers, Dave. Yeah. Yeah. No, I get it. I get your, your outrage on that. I just, I just want to clarify though, when it comes to rape, the statutory maximum here is actually life. Category one ranges up to 15 years, right, and the prosecution asked for category one. The judge gave nine years, so it's not as much as he could have given. I'm not willing to say that this was a show trial or this was the system against them. I mean, he had the trial, he had the best lawyers in the entire country. He had a jury that found acquitted him on about half and then he had a judge who decided to cut him a break and not run the sentences consecutively. So it could have been a lot worse. Yeah. I don't think that's the indication that it wasn't a show trial. I think the indications that it was a show trial is that these women come out with accusations after the channel for documentary, damn near two decades later, it is, unfortunately, I appreciate there's some corroborating evidence like, okay, her friends were completely said that she was complaining about soreness. So it is, unfortunately, he said, she said, and you're dealing with a woman now. I don't know if you have the clip where the judge basically admitted that the woman has a history of mental illness and a history of drug addiction, which is related to her. We do. Hold on. Let me play it and then you take it. Watch. In her victim impact statement, she wrote of struggling to eat and sleep of taking two to three months off from work and of abandoning the career she had embarked upon. Although the rate was 17 years ago, she still finds it affects her ability to form new friendships and to know when she can trust people. From her evidence at trial, I also know she developed an alcohol problem partly as a result of your attack on her. I will not detail the victim's lengthy mental health and addiction problems here as they might have a tendency to identify her, but the harm was significant and long lasting. It could be seen as severe, though she told the police with an openness that characterised her evidence that there had been other issues in her life that contributed to those later difficulties. No, just to go ahead and clear. This is not a question of victim blaming and saying, oh, she's a drug addict and she got what she deserved at all. No, this is a question of your dealing with someone with a drug addiction, mental illness, a long history of it related to other things other than the alleged, now, I guess, adjudicated rate. It is, I hear, say, he said, she said, where a woman who was engaging in a number of types of sexual activity, then saying, I didn't consent to that. Dave, there's a difference between used and raped and there's zero question that Russell Brand used a lot of women and the moral of the story is, we use more women than you can remember. Chances are one of them is going to come back and remember something that might not be accurate or might be their accurate memory of what happened. To use enough women, something's going to come back to haunt you. That being said, whether or not she felt used, it's a difference between being used that she might have been raped and 15 years later, you'll forgive the world for saying, I don't know who is right and who is wrong. But if you wait that long, I don't accept that word though, even that he used them. They used him. I'm going to take a risk and say on behalf of every female audience member listening to this right now. Not a one has stuck a tongue in a man's in advance. with intense seconds of meeting him. F that term used. This woman was begging, begging to be used by Russell Brand. She was obsessed with him. You teach people how to treat you. It's not that she invited rape by that behavior, but she clearly was telegraphing to Russell Brand that she was fine with backdoor action. And he testified that they actually did explicitly discuss it before they did it and she consented and what she said to him was be gentle. Obviously the jury rejected that, but I'm just saying that was, it was a, he said she said on that particular sex act. It was admitted what she did to him within moments of meeting him. And here's another thing that I, that I was just saying her, she, her friend testified, testified that she suggested to this complainant that she should speak to this, this journalist, Ross Irwin, who's behind this entire case. And the alleged victim complainant five replied to her in a message. I'm not sure my story has much in it. I was an idiot, young and stupid, probably as much to blame. Nine years for this woman's newfound testimonial come to after she saw the so-called documentary. It's just, and here's the other thing, Dave, she's up there given the witness impact statement, not she personally, but it was read for her, saying, as a result of all this, I doubt my ability to make good decisions. Yeah, you should. You should, because you're the one who chose to go backstage with him and engage in a threesome within seconds. I no longer trust my instinct the way I did. You shouldn't. It steered you entirely the wrong way. And then you willingly had vaginal sex with a man, you know nothing about. You didn't know his character. You didn't have any reason whatsoever to believe that he cared about you or would treat you well at all. Like, this is obviously a woman who said yes, yes, yes, yes to everything. And I think it's zero problem to believe. She said yes to this as well, who then felt gross and she didn't feel like he treated her very well when it was over. I'm shocked. Shocked. Well, Megan, I don't think it's fair to say that she was silent for 15 to 20 years and then all of a sudden suddenly disclosed this to a jury or to prosecutors. And prosecutors called multiple independent witnesses, friends, housemates, colleagues who took the stand to confirm that she and not just she, but others. The women who are victims here told them about the assaults at the time that they occurred in the 2000s. So it's not more than it's just delayed reports. Here's the evidence on that. I'm not disputing that she said something to friends, not rape. But here's what she said this summer after the alleged incident. She allegedly told a friend that she had asked Russell to stop multiple times. But he didn't. She said that woman five told her complain five, she fell humiliated and violated. That Russell scolded her for making a mess of the bed. That's not illegal. That's, I mean, if it's true, she said stop and he didn't, that would be illegal. But that business about she felt humiliated that he wanted to clean up the bed. To me, that's actually probably, that maybe that, that did happen and she felt angry. And it could be the basis of this entire claim. A colleague said in the days after the alleged incident, woman five came to her office looking ill and Ashen quote, I asked her if she consented, she said, no, I did not consent to that. I said, you have to tell the police. She said, no, they won't believe me. And then there was another friend who said she was distraught when she came home. She was in physical pain. The friend said she told woman five, she was told that they had consensual sex. And then Russell said he wanted anal sex, woman five said, no, they started to have consensual vaginal sex. And then he turned her over and he raped her anally. That was the friend's word. But so this woman was telling the story about having gone through the back door, but she was not saying rape until she saw that documentary many years later. Well, you know, you had six different women who testified about separate events across multiple years. They didn't know each other when the offenses took place, but they had these sworn accounts that independently describe virtually identical behavior. And that's where it really was very powerful, I think, for the jury. The under the laws of evidence, you know, when you have multiple unrelated people who come together and say pretty much the same thing without colluding with each other sort of destroys a defense theory of coincidence or misunderstanding. That's that's problem. As far as I mean, why was that allowed, Dave? We just had the Harvey Weinstein reversed in New York City, New York State because of this very kind of testimony that was introduced against him with our court of our our appellacore, which is no left leaning court saying, this has got to be thrown out. This was unfair to him. Yeah, I think it was close in the appellacore. It wasn't like four to three, but yes, every state, and I can speak to the United States law, not necessarily UK laws and expert, but just about every state has what we call in Florida Williams rule evidence, which is if you can show a pattern, if you could show an M O, then you can bring in these prior bad acts, not to show propensity evidence, but to show that this is his fingerprint. This is what he does and all these cases and you can bring it up. But the prosecution of the Harvey Weinstein case went too far and it went into propensity evidence. He's a bad guy. He must have done it here, convicted him in the appellacore in a narrow vote decided to throw it out. Well, in a particular case, Russell wrote the book. He basically documented his own. I will call it exploitation, but there is legal, consensual exploitation, which results from bad judgment and groupies wanting to give a BJ to a celebrity, which can lead people feeling so used and so exploited that they 10 years later say, "Oh, you know what, it really wasn't that consensual." Much like the Cornell University girl, two years later saying, "You know what, it wasn't that consensual. It was degrading. It was demeaning. I am living with the consequences of this now." And so I'm going to, you know, it's not very hard to reframe something as not consensual when it was so damn exploitive in the first place. When it comes to this, Russell Brands sort of explained his own MO and I said they were going to do it and they ended up reading passages from his own book to him on the stand. He made it that type of evidence and he made it easy for a non-sympathetic jury to say this man is such an sexually exploitive pig that I'm going to give the, you know, the doubt to the victims or the alleged victims and not believe him that it was all consensual. He was so high on drugs and so high on his own fame that he didn't even realize that it wasn't consensual. But he made it easy and if you live a life of sin like that, you know. He was, he was clean and sober by 2009 when the alleged rape happened. But exploitation is not unlawful, you know, and honestly, like to, to, to pay him is exploiting complainant five, the alleged rape victim here is ridiculous given the way she behaved toward him within seconds of meeting him. She clearly wanted it. Then after that interlude in the dressing room where her friend belated him as she took care of the backside, then he called her and said, hey, let's get together again. And she knew, she knew she was going over to his house for sex. She was cheating on her boyfriend. She wanted sex with Russell Brand. And we're supposed to believe he said they talked about doing it this way, whatever, we've been over that. But I'm just saying, I don't see this as exploitation at all. Exploitation is like when there's a clear power imbalance, just because he's famous and she's not, doesn't mean there's a power imbalance. It means one person's famous and one person is not. A power imbalance speaks to a lawyer and a client, a psychiatrist and a patient, so a teacher and a student, a boss and an employee, those are positions of fiduciary where you actually have an obligation as one party, not to exploit the other star and star fucker. No, it doesn't exist. This is ridiculous. This woman, three, who said he kissed me at the bar without my consent and then he dragged me into a bathroom stall and forced me to orally filate him. The jury said no to point two, we don't believe you, they rejected her rape allegation on that. But they said yes to, he forcefully kissed you at the bar. This woman, like it's unbelievable what she told the court today, she takes, she actually insisted that she be there personally to read her own victim impact statement. So she wanted her moment on the stand. She was initially she said in shock and turmoil after the attack. Now let's keep in mind, this victim impact statement should be to what happened when he kissed her at the bar and allegedly grabbed her boobs. That's what's in issue, that's what Russell's being sentenced for, not for an alleged oral rape. So she wants the jury to know she was in shock and turmoil. She says she quote literally lost any love for myself for a long time, thinking I was damaged goods. She felt quote physically sick seeing him in the press. I didn't have any respect for myself, this really affected how I viewed myself. I got into situations with toxic men as I didn't have any self worth seeing the front pages of the newspaper talking about what happened to me caused me to have the only panic attack I've ever had in my life. This is truly terrifying experience, this is ridiculous. I'm sorry, Madam, you're a complainant in a criminal trial where a man could be going to jail for life. You're going to have to take the stand and yeah, that may be an issue of panic, but it's allowed to be listed as one of her like damages here. Even more terrifying was seeing my character being torn apart on social media by people believing all of us women were making it up. This is ridiculous. Her name has been kept anonymized. She will have that anonymity for life. This is all going into the mix of why Russell got 10 plus years, Dave. That's ridiculous. I hear you, Megan, when a victim is speaking afterwards on the penalty and then conflates the count that was acquitted with the count that was convicted. But you're allowed to electrocute. You're allowed to say what happened, and in her mind, even if the count was not believed by the jury. And then it's up to the judge to make that determination to say, okay, we're only sentencing him on the kiss, not the rape 'cause that was acquitted. And I think the judge did that. The judge focused on those counts where he was acquitted and gave sentences that were within the sentencing guidelines in the UK, just wasn't on the top of his head, just wasn't because he hated Russell Brand. If he did really hate him, he could have given on the maximum, and then made it consecutive, which he didn't. - He got nine months, nine months for the grabbing of the breasts by that complainant, who's like playing it up. And he got 18 months in jail, Viva, for complainant number four. Here's the BBC describing her testimony about what he did that he just got a year and a half in prison for, and sat two, one, two. They were inside a small room and came out into a smaller holding section when, quote, he just leapt on me. They described how Russell Brand lunged forwards and began to kiss them. They said, quote, it was a flash of lightning. They said he wasn't alone. There was a woman with long dark hair with him and three other men. When they were asked to describe the kiss, they said it was frenzied, it was hard. It was very, very hard. I would say it was sloppy and it was wet. He was kissing all down my neck and his hands were all over me. He touched my bum, my breasts, my waist. He was pushing his body against me and I was up against the wall. Again, they clarified, it was rough and then said, quote, it was violent. At one point, they said they managed to put their hand up between them and Russell Brand and push him off and tell him to fuck off. At which point, he lunged backwards and in a laughing way went ha ha and looked at the other people who were around. Complainant number four told the jury that not one of the other people, the women or the three men that they said were there stepped in or said anything during the time they all edged, they were assaulted by Russell Brand. Right, so the question was raised, how traumatic could this have been if all these people were like, it's a nothing burger? Then she testified via paper statement that was read by the prosecutor. This has had a lasting impact on my life. A lasting impact. The incident impacted my work when dealing with stories of sexual violence that affected my relationships with some of my male colleagues. She was advised to seek therapy for serious anxiety and on and on, he grabbed her to bar and started kissing her violently, whatever that means, and it allegedly feeling her. And for, he's going to jail for 18 months for that Viva. I mean, I'm sorry, but these are just so out of whack. And just to highlight again, she said no, even by her own testimony, he backs off and stops and laughs it off and stops. The issue is this, it happened so long ago, a proper defense is virtually impossible. And I'm not sitting on a fence here. I'm just saying, guilty or innocent, this was set up for a conviction. You cannot isolate this trial and this conviction from the broader UK system. I don't like comparing it to the Muslim Pakistani men, rape gangs, 'cause that sort of equates Russell Brand's behavior to that. I sort of more equated to what just happened to Tommy Robinson. You somehow can't find justice for actual criminals in the UK. And they literally lock up, say, white Christian men who are protecting their nation or conservative for years. Remember what happened to Tommy Robinson? Contemptive court tried convicted and sentenced to 13 months in jail within five hours of the alleged violation. The system is broken. And whether or not it results in people who might otherwise have been found guilty, questioning their guilty, when they get found guilty. It is a third world country that is more commensurate with the legal system in North Korea than that of the United States. Yes. And so the issue is, we don't know and we'll never know if he was innocent or guilty. That's what happens when you wait to bloody long to avail yourself of your rights if you're a victim. We know the lifestyle that he lived. We know what he's admitted to publicly. And we know what these women have admitted to publicly. But the system is fundamentally broken in that hellhole of a country. And everyone who's there should notice this. Leave if they can and sure sell not go back for trial if they can avoid it because it won't be a fair trial. Here's the other one, Dave. This is complainant six who worked with him and was allegedly asked by somebody to give Russell's shoulders a massage, which she says she did. Listen to her testimony. I just want you to know for this that you're about to hear, Russell Graham was sentenced to eight months in prison. Listen, this is the BBC describing it. And then she was told at one point by his production staff that he wouldn't continue unless she gave him a massage. They said that complainant number six thought this was a joke and said no. But then she realized that they were being serious. And then she was concerned that if she didn't do everything in her power to get this project over the line, she would end up in trouble. She said the prosecution told the jury that Russell ran and reenters the room drops to his knees in front of complainant number six and buries his face in her groin. They said that complainant number six could fill his breath on her genitals. And he was saying, come on, do it as in give him the massage. And they said that complainant number six ultimately got her fingers and prodded them into his upper shoulders and made a remark like, oh, you're so bony, which made the other men in the room laugh. They told the jury that Russell brand did not like this and then began to remake a disparaging remarks. Like, you have a deep voice. Do you have a dick or a funny? They went on to tell the court that complainant number six reported this to her line manager that it went up the chain, but that ultimately it wasn't taken seriously enough. Eight months in prison for that, Dave. Eight months in prison. If they had ever tried to bring a case just based on that incident alone or based on the alleged violent kissing at the bar alone, there is no way these kinds of sentences would have been handed down. - Yeah, I think that is probably the strongest point here. I think that for a massage that was an unappreciated or unwanted, eight months does not seem proportionate. But apparently the eight months did not add any time to brand sentence because the judge ran that concurrently. So I would just say that that I would agree that that's a lot for that charge. But because the judge ran the sentences concurrently, it's not gonna add a day to his present time. - I get your point. I see your point because he got nine years for the alleged rape. He got eight months for the sniffing. He got 18 months for the kissing and grabbing her bum and her breasts at the bar. And he got nine months for the kissing at the bar before he brought that woman into the bathroom where they did not find he raped her. But here's the story. Let me just give you this. I read you some of the statements, some of the sentences they've given to murderers, murderers in the UK, less than what Russell got. Let's just look at some of the rape sentences that have come down. Here's one, 2025. Men who abused a vulnerable teenage girl, including Ibrar Hussein. Hussein was jailed for six and a half years. For not one, but two counts of rape. He gave the girl heroin, a teenager heroin, and raped her twice. This guy got less of a sentence than Russell did for this alleged rape of a teenage girl, six and a half years he got. This is insane. One other, Darius Andrew Leonis, 46, deemed a dangerous man who raped a woman in a late night stranger danger attack near a gas station. He came up next to her, he sat next on a wall, then he dragged her in a nearby bushes, she begged him not to rape her. He placed his hands on her mouth and neck to stop her from screaming, leaving her in fear for her life. She tried to reason with him. He continued the attack. She only managed to get away after he had raped her. That guy got seven years. Seven and Russell gets nine and a half. So I don't give any credit or points to the judge at all for saying over 18 months and then the nine months and the eight months are going to run concurrently with the nine and a half, which was a bullshit sentence to start with Dave. >> Well, I'm not as familiar with these other cases, but I would hope that sexual assault rape would be treated seriously by the system and people wouldn't get a slap on the wrist. >> You know, as a former prosecutor. >> If Dave Ehrenberg were in charge, that would be happening in all cases. This I know, but that's what so outrageous about this. In the UK, it's made international headlines that they're not doing it that way. Go ahead, sorry. >> Well, also, I agree with Viva. That was upset. It was a Tommy Robinson case at the way that was handled. That was totally a miske where they treated the victim as the perpetrator and the perpetrator as the victim. And it was done based on whatever their training was, which has to be dramatically revamped because they were too quick to listen to a guy because he was, I guess, wearing a turban to claim that he was the victim when it was the opposite. But when it comes to this case, and I did have a lot of evidence and the jury reviewed all the facts. And you know, the jury system may be imperfect, but it's the system that we have and the UK has. And they're the ones who are there every day reviewing the evidence and decided that he was guilty on some counts, not guilty on others. And then the judge gave a sentence that was commensurate with the sentencing guidelines and made it concurrent. >> I want to add. >> What do you make of it, Viva? >> Well, you know, the idea that at least it's concurrent so no biggie, it's another feather in the cap of everybody who wants to say he's been convicted three or four charges now, and nobody's gonna distinguish between the bogus weak convictions and the big one. And, you know, to go back to what Dave said earlier and Dave, this is not the pounce on you at all. There were a lot of witnesses and the judge, The jury found him not guilty. on three of the six charges or half of them. That's what the purpose of a gish gallop is in an argument. You throw so much against the wall and you just hope that one or two things stick. You know, finding these victims, I'm not putting them, you know, victims now coming out years later with from ranging, from innocuous nothingness to serious if true. And you get the serious if true. The question is had you had one trial on that main charge of anal rate alone. Would there have been a conviction in the absence of five others, two of which get dismissed or not found guilty, tainting your perspective of the big one. And it's the tactic and it succeeded because, you know, you throw enough out there, you make them look bad enough with lesser transgressions of sexual deviancy. You're more prone to come to a finding of guilt on the big one, which is all that they ever wanted in the first place. But the bottom line, it was just the passage of time is the injustice here. And unfortunately, after a certain period of time, I appreciate there's no statute of limitations. Another reason to avoid the system. They exploited all of that to come down hard on a political rival in the, but that that's why there's no sexual limitations. It's because these are very under reported crimes. And you had someone who did speak to several people at the time it occurred. And then yes, waited to speak to the authorities until about 2023. By delayed reporting is normal. It's fair to the man. It's, but it's so unfair to the man. I understand it's normal. But as a woman, you understand sitting around doing nothing for two decades may undermine your ability to bring a claim later in time, either civil or potentially in this country anyway, criminal. Because we have due process because we have fairness both to the accuser and to the accused. And it just, it's, it's impossible here. And then you have the press, which is responsible for this whole thing. They're responsible for this entire thing. That documentary with actors, Dave, actors playing the parts of the alleged women, which is just so inappropriate. Right? Like, there's no chance to assess the credibility of the actual accusers who got this whole thing rolling in this so-called documentary. You have a professional actress saying the lines. Of course, she's going to be better at it than the actual victim who may or may not be telling the truth. And right, right up to the moment that we watched as Russell's father was leaving the courtroom, Ron. Is this the kind of man you raised? What the F? What kind of a question is that from someone who is supposed to be an objective journalist? Well, that's the press. And that's another conversation for another day. But when it came to that one journalist, it wasn't the journalist that was the first one to talk about it. The reason why the journalist got the information was because Russell Brande had, excuse me, the victim had spoken to enough people that one of her friends went to the journalist and said, hey, here's this story. Here's what happened. And that's what led the one journalist to write about it. And that's what put everything. But Dave, I get it. But they talk, but many people talked about how Russell's behavior was quote, an open secret. An open secret. And he's got defenders right now who are disputing that. But the complainant's side was saying that it was an open secret, what he was doing to women in Hollywood. And so it's like, okay, if it was an open secret, why wasn't the press interested in him? I'll put it to you, Viva, back when before he was a conservative, back before he was basically the UK's Joe Rogan. There was absolutely no sniffing around whatsoever. Nor any in-depth documentary with actresses, playing his alleged victims know that all happened after his politics changed. >> Well, there's zero question about that. But I also do wonder about when people say it was an open secret, much with Harvey Weinstein, what people understood as the open secret is that women would exchange sex for stardom. And that that's part of the deal with the devil that a lot of people make in Hollywood. And that people said it was an open secret. Not that necessarily Harvey Weinstein was a serial rate pissed hiding in alleyways, but that he was a serial exploiter who would exploit women who would exchange sexual favors for stardom in Hollywood. It was a constant kissing from trigonomaches. We all knew it was an open secret with Russell Brand and we warned women accordingly. The question is, what was the open secret that he was a sexual deviant, a sexual pervert, a hyper-sexual the aggressive within the bounds of law? He wrote a book about it. That's if the secret that everyone knew about was that he was a serial rapist of the criminal order and they all covered it up. I mean, that's what an hell of an admission that they were basically tolerating criminal behavior. Or reality, it were tolerating what they knew is degeneracy because they weren't ready to use it against him at that time. As immoral and debatuous and degenerate as it was, it wasn't crossing the threshold to illegal. And 10 years later, it's a whole hell of a lot easier to apply today's morals and standards to behavior from 20 years ago, which everyone knew about back then and knew wasn't illegal back then. That's why nobody reported it to apply today's standards and sensitivities to that in order to facilitate a conviction 20 years later. I mean, that's my view. I brand led a sinful life that facilitated this type of conviction right or wrong as it is. But the bottom line is the mirror. Yes, he behaved recklessly. There's no question. There's no question. And as a man, you've got to be damn careful about that because it's women who come back in a ledge rape. It's never the men. He's going to jail for 10 years. He is going to have to serve, well, he's going to have to serve two-thirds of that. So it's basically going to be seven years. Seven years. He's going to have to go to jail and actually serve the next seven years. He's 51 years old. He has three kids, 10, eight, and three. His little boy will be 10 the next time they get to spend time outside of a prison together. And they may not be done. The prosecutors, I told the audience on Friday, are talking about possibly charging him with two additional counts. They really don't want this guy to see the light of day. Again, the reports out of the UK press on his first weekend in jail because he was not allowed to be released on his own reconnaissance pending sentencing were very, very dark. He's had some prison called Wandsworth, though he may not be staying there. They write that as a sex offender, he's kept apart from the other convicts. He's assessed by officers. Prison bosses have carried out a cell-sharing risk assessment on him. They've opted to house him on his own amid safety fears. They've blocked him from mixing with the others to keep him safe. A source told the UK son that his first day in jail was a real shock to his system. In a wake-up call, he looked shaken. He was quiet, a horrible, noisy and dirty jail like Wandsworth is a world away from his glamorous Hollywood lifestyle. He would be expected to serve two-thirds of his sentence, correct? And then he has to register as a sex offender. There was chanting inside the jail by the other inmates. There's a brand new nons on the wing. A brand new nons. Brand you see word, you ain't so effing Larry now. There's a lot in there that I didn't understand. Nons, I guess, is a word in the UK for a child molester. Larry means behaving in an unpleasantly loud, overly confident or slightly aggressive way. Right now, the Daily Mail says it's only been verbal abuse because they are keeping him away from the other inmates. The quote in here by one was, they've got to get their amusement somewhere. So they've made brand the object with hundreds of prisoners shouting the chant. Brand only leaves his cell to collect his food at mealtimes before returning. He is going around like a shadow when he came into court. Today, the court called the clerk at 11 o'clock, 11 o'clock 11 a.m. calling him in eight minutes later. He came in with two guards. He answered to his name. He noticed his wife Laura sitting behind the dock where he sits and mouths. Are you okay? She nodded. He says it'll be okay. I don't know how, but it will to his wife as he takes a long look at his family and associates sitting behind him in the public gallery. His wife says, I love you. Laura Brand said, Oh, God, as her husband walked into the dock and then said, I love you to him after he turned around to face her. This is just so dark. It's just so dark. And he is being treated truly like he is the worst of the worst, like a truly dangerous serial rapist, Ted Bundy type. If you read the press about him, it's almost universal and very few of these people has any idea about what was actually testified to at this trial in terms of the facts on Russell's side, the things that were not in dispute even. Like I testified to about what this woman did when she met Russell. It's just, it's deeply unsettling, have to say. And I kept, I keep thinking of this one exchange Russell and I had when he came here. It's kind of funny. I mean, to me, I laughed, but it's not as funny now. I don't know. Here it is, it's quick. Sat two, three, three. I'm worried about your criminal trial. I don't think that you're going to get a fair shake in Great Britain. Oh, no. They love to put people in jail. Oh, no. I don't want to go to jail. That's my strong preference to not go to jail. Back then, it still seemed, you know, not like a joke, but like something we could laugh about, like it might not happen. And now he's faced with a very stark reality. So you tell me, Dave, is there any chance of getting out before the two thirds? Is there any chance given what's happening to him in prison that they will do something on a humanitarian basis for Russell? Generally, what they do is they put them in supervised, like, cussy. It's called the shoe in the United States, the special housing unit. We see this with the tape brothers who then complain that they're in isolation, but you're in a special area so that the others don't come after you. It's interesting. I saw a bunch of social media posts talking about that quote. You mentioned using the word nons and they would like put dashes like this was the most horrible word. I didn't know what they meant. I was like, what? I don't know what that word is, right? Yeah. I've heard the word lay there. >> Yeah, but you know, this does, it is interesting because this has become, everything is politicized, but this has become so politicized. Harvey Weinstein was a big supporter of liberals and Democrats, and then when he went down for his crimes, he didn't hear much about it from conservatives, and now you hear this when it comes to Russell Brands. So it shouldn't be political. It should be everyone, you know, should appreciate our civil rights and civil liberties. Your minds may be old joke that a conservative is a liberal who's been mugged, but I would counter that a liberal is a conservative who's been arrested. >> Make it up. My asses. >> Go ahead, quickly, Viva. >> Tommy Robinson in a predominantly Muslim prison because they wanted him to get killed, but they want Russell Brands to either kill himself or get killed, and that's what they're setting it up for. And I think it's patently obvious. This is what they do to political business. >> He's got our prayers and certainly hope he finds his way. Be right back. You might already own a firearm, but what if you could start with less lethal methods to avoid the financial and mental repercussions of pulling the trigger? That's where Berna comes in. It's B-Y-R-N-A. Berna's less lethal launchers are equipped with tear gas and also kinetic ammunition, and designed to incapacitate an attacker for up to 40 minutes. And Berna is excited to introduce the all-new compact launcher. It's sleek, slim, and it hits like a sledgehammer. The same size as a smartphone, allowing women to conceal carry everywhere comfortably and with confidence. It fires at 400 feet per second. That's a lot of power to stop aggressors in their tracks. Their pistols are American-made and hand-assembled in Fort Wayne, Indiana, with over 80% of the components in the compact launcher being sourced in the USA. Berna is legal in all 50 states, requires no background checks, and can be shipped directly to your door. And Berna is trusted by hundreds of police departments too. Try before you buy. Visit Berna.com to find a Berna dealer partner near you. That's B-Y-R-N-A.com. Want to get to the rest of today's headlines, including President Trump sitting down with 60 minutes to discuss the Republican's decimation last Tuesday and a possible amnesty that he's getting ready to issue. What? Yes. Joining me now, Emily Gisinski. She is the host of After Party on the MKMedia podcast network. You can go and subscribe at AfterpartyEmily.com. She also hosts our rep-up show on Series XM channel 111 right after we air live there from 12 to 2. She's 2 to 3. Emily, great to see you. Welcome back. So unbelievably, he sits down with Ross Dutat. No one knows how to pronounce Ross's last name, but it's pretty close to that. And like the whole thing to me seemed like an exercise in President Trump trying to be likable. He was, you know, this wasn't the combative President Trump. This was the like, gee, I'm super likable. Let me remind you of why so many of you used to like me and I'll, I will charm you. And in that context, he gave away the farm unamnesty. Like, my jaw dropped when I saw this. Like, if you wanted, like, if you were sitting around the White House, like, what could we do? We're very angry at the Republican base for not voting for us. They, they, they feel betrayed on Epstein. They feel betrayed on the Iran war. They feel betrayed on all the corruption that we've been guilty of when we haven't been thinking about their problems. What could be a way to drive around, drive out the last few standing? What, well, how could we get rid of the last fans we have within the Republican base? Try this answer. Sat one. So you think your deportation policy went too far. It was too tough. I think it might be too tough, yeah. What would happen? What does the deal look like with the Democrats? Ultimately, that hurt me. Well, the deal would be we would work something out and I think it's something, I think that's something that's actually doable. Doable to create. Some kind of, some kind of legal status for the Landscapers and stuff. Yeah. When you go into a hotel and you have a woman that's worked there as a, you know, as a maid, as a cleaner, as a this, as a that, as a waitress, a lot of good things. Great job. And all of a sudden, they're being taken out of the country. It's tough. It's a tough thing. But there's a group of people that I would say on the sort of pretty far right that would like everybody taken out. Do some of the group of people do any of those people work in your administration? Are they in the building with us right now? No, no, well, there are a lot of those people. Then there's also people that are more modified on that. In other words, get the killers out, get all the rough ones out, get the drug dealers out, but let the people that are here. And in some cases here for 10 and 15 years, work a deal for them. Okay. Now there's no question what he was talking about. The deal would be we'd work something out, legal status. Yes, we'll work out a deal. There's just no question what he was saying. I mean, the question was explicit. Do you mean the Landscaper will get legal status? Yeah. Yes. That's what he said. Then you had this rapid response 47 X account, which we believe is affiliated with his campaign, not the official White House immediately puts out in response to an X post by the blaze that read Trump says he may work on an amnesty deal with Democrats. They put out wrong. The word amnesty was never even said in this entire exchange. Right. But that's exactly what working out a deal to allow legal status to illegals is and everyone knows that even a 60 year old can understand that. So the campaign understanding the political jeopardy he just created for the last few Republicans standing tried to lie about what the president said. But we have eyes and ears and he said it over and over and over. In just in case you thought the deal was we'll work on a deal that they'll all leave and then we'll make it easier for new ones to come, etc, which isn't what happened at all. But there's no wiggle room. Ross specifically said, do you mean legal status for the Landscaper that Trump raised someone who's been here illegal? And he said, yeah. So what do you make of that? Well, legal status for that Landscaper would also then involve in all likelihood people who have committed other crimes after crossing the border illegally. It's very hard to be an immigrant in the United States and not to be fudging the system in one way or another whether it's with Social Security. Yeah, right. But I mean, it is genuinely really common whether it's with work fraud, those types of things, fraudulent documents. It is really genuinely hard to do that. So you end up creating a giant carrot program for people who have been here, they get amnesty, they get forgiveness for other things that they may have done and that incentivizes other people to just try to get into the country. That's one of the major problems with these types of deals that have attempted to vent struck. James Langford, not long ago, Mitch McConnell worked with congressional Democrats on the Senate side to get a bill like that passed. And it was atrocious. I mean, I remember reading through it several years back. This was right before Biden's re-election that became a Kamala Harris election. And it was a disaster of a bill. That is the last deal that Republicans and Democrats were able to work through. And it was a total carrot. It ended up being something that would just attract more and more people. Yes, it's important that he's closed the border. But on top of that, you can't have policies that once people are in the United States because they've claimed asylum or other things, they then end up staying. That's a huge, huge problem. So I'm not entirely surprised that he's floating this because one of the frustrations that immigration hawks have had with this administration is that they're actually not going after employers. And what Trump just recited to Ross was a lot of the sort of frustrations that employers have had with hawkish immigration policy, right, that you have this person that's worked with them as a landscaper at a hotel and Trump went into detail because you know he's been hearing from those people who have far -- And he is one of those people. Exactly. Exactly. And that's exactly why hawks have said you could have avoided what looked like a lot of cruelty in Minneapolis and other places. You could have avoided all of those optics by starting to crack down on employers first. Do e-verify. Just do e-verify. You don't have to run around hunting down Hispanics in the streets. He's right that I'm sure that did hurt him with a certain subset of the population. There's certainly independence, maybe not as many hard-line Republicans. But just do e-verify. Then they can't work. It makes it impossible for them to collect a paycheck in the United States. And they self-deport. That's the most humane way of doing this. Right. And again, people have been saying that forever. I mean, there are ways to crack down on banking that immigration hawks are frustrated with this administration for not going far enough on e-verify as a huge one. And it just hasn't happened yet. And so that's where Rhonda Santos last week comes out on election day swinging against Christy Nome and says, you know, when everybody kind of knew but was just kind of not talked about enough openly on the right, which is that this was a circus. It was a show to get headlines that endeared her to Donald Trump. And yes, obviously he switched leadership at DHS and they have been hitting record numbers of deportations month after month. But we had a record level, a historic surge. That's according to the New York Times, David Lee and Hart. He had at a low estimate about 8 million people came into the United States. Non-citizens came into the United States in about a three-year period. It is a bigger surge than the peak of Ellis Island. And so even record number of deportations are not going to reverse that. So it's a, if you're Donald Trump and you want to deal with this intractable difficult situation, you can do the hard thing that's going to get you in trouble with a lot of donors, a lot of people you know and it is going to be on a different side of an issue that you've been on for. you've been on for a long time, or you can do the easy thing and try to cut a deal with Democrats. Like he did back in, I think it was 2018 or 19 with Nancy Pelosi. They were sitting down and talking about DACA at that point in time. So I get, I'm not surprised. Now that Stephen Miller is White House Chief of Staff, I think that interview with Ross was taped before. Stephen Miller was named White House Chief of Staff. I might be surprised if something gets past Stephen. He'll be kind of the goalie on this, but I don't know. I mean, Trump would do it. I mean, but the truth is, while this Chief of Staff is considered the president's alter ego and somebody who sets agenda in the White House, not with this president. That's true. This president sets his own agenda. There is, Stephen Miller is a hard liner on immigration. But if the president himself is saying, I want to cut a deal, Stephen Miller's going to have to cut a deal. He's not actually the president. So, I mean, while I would normally feel heartened by the appointment of Stephen Miller, who I actually am a fan of, I don't, because I just heard the president himself say over and over again, the deal would be we'd work something out legal status. Yeah. And once again, talked about a deal on 60 minutes. This is not a throwaway on a tarmac. This is a sit down interview with 60 minutes, which he knows is going to make news. Deeply disturbed. This is not going to help. They tried it. Reagan gave three million illegals amnesty. And what happened? We got a whole lot more. It is an incentive to additional illegals. And President Trump is not going to be president forever. He's going to leave. The next president could be a Democrat who is almost certain to loosen the border restrictions that Trump put in place at the border. And if we also have an incentive on amnesty that the Republican president just worked out, God only knows what we're going to be asking for. When Mitt Romney lost the election in 2012, I was at Fox News when the Republicans convinced themselves it was their rhetoric around immigration. And I was there when Roger Ailes told the staff, we're going to have to loosen up with the Republicans of cut a deal on immigration. We're going to have to change our rhetoric and go back and look at the Sean Hannity clips from 2012 after the Romney lost. It was like the invasion of the body snatchers. He started going from like hard line immigration talk to being like, maybe we need a deal, you know, maybe we just have to be humane about finding a solution for those who are here. And then Marco Rubio was the person who like penned the whole proposal, which circled the drain as they watched how Republican voters reacted to that, including Hispanic voters who didn't want that at all. And by the time we got to 015, 15 and a half and 16, who was the dominant Republican talking about immigration in a winning way. Donald Trump whose whole platform was no amnesty, no crack, only cracking down, build the wall, which to this day remains his greatest approval line. So like, this is insane that even he now is falling back into these old traps, being like brow beaten by the left into thinking his problem with Hispanics was the immigration crack down as opposed to the economy. But he is not, he is not wrestling with anything having to do with what, what he did to drive this vote. In fact, he's honest about the fact that people didn't like the war, but he's still convinced it was the fact that he wasn't on the ballot. Here's his analysis of the midterm losses, stock two. Well, number one, I was not on the ballot, but I campaigned hard for some people. And I think if I was on the ballot, it would have been a much different situation because you saw the level of popularity and love, there was love, you had massive rallies, you had to transfer those voters, however, to candidates that they didn't like. But there's something beyond that. They didn't like the war. They didn't like the fact that gasoline went up, because they had it down at a low. And there's a great dislike, incredibly, for Israel. Let's go through those then, one by one. Start with the candidates, right? You said it was tough to transfer your own appeal to candidates. But in a lot of cases, you picked the candidates. You endorsed Ken Paxton. In Texas, he had a tough time. You endorsed Darlene Graham and South Carolina. One would have lost also. Darlene, I did that in honor of a man named Lindsey, who was a friend of mine. And she fought hard. So we're going with candidate quality. And he will. He'll say the thing about the Iran War. They were against the Iran War, but then he'll say, but it was worth it. It was worth it. It was the greatest decision ever. You know, we had to do it. I stopped them from having a nuke, which may be a reference to June of 2025, but absolutely is a fake reference to what happened in March of 2026. But there's not real reflection here, Emily, of the then to say it was a candidate quality issue that cost the Republicans. We don't even, how many seats is it in the house? Like 40 plus seats and maybe seven to nine seats in the US Senate. I mean, yeah. Like I have, I posted on acts like the day before that I predicted the conversation was going to be about candidate quality because it was so obvious that that was going to be a cope for trying to get away from the overall environment. And it's not entirely untrue that Darling Graham was a bad candidate, but a bad candidate that was foisted on the public by Donald Trump. She won her primary by like four points. It was very much a Trump bump over Ralph Norman. So no question that he had a hand in picking some of those people. He's probably right that cordon would have lost too. But anyway, all that is to say. I'm glad. But by the way, just to hold that thought because another thing on that is like, oh, but I did it for my friend Lindsey Graham. What? Why are we doing favors? Like Lindsey Graham is dead. He doesn't have to live the consequences of these decisions. You and I do our children do just the absurdity of that. And that that was an adequate explanation for who would serve out the remaining four months on Lindsey Graham's term. But that who should actually run for the six-year term. And he is the reason that Darling was chosen. And here you have him dismissing it as like did it for my friend Lindsey who's dead and buried. Yeah. And also I think it's pretty clear that wasn't a favor in the end. So Lindsey Graham because the Lindsey Graham legacy is now tarnished by the fact that Darling Graham lost and lost the state of South Carolina to any Andrews who was like resistance posting her way through the pandemic. If people haven't seen the videos that she posted around the pandemic period, they have to go look them up online because it's incredible. And also, that's, forgive me. Just one of the, it's up to now an 80 seat majority in the house. Not, not 40. 40 is what the Dems beat the Republicans by and Trump's first term and the first midterm where they retook the house. It's up to 80 and he wants us to believe it was a candidate quality issue. Emily because he wasn't on the ballot. These are lies. This is spin. It does absolutely no one any good to not be totally brutally honest about why the Republican Party was eviscerated a week ago. This is what's actually been driving me crazy over the course of the last week. It is that people are welcome to disagree with me on tariffs. They're welcome to disagree with me on the war. They're welcome to disagree with anybody. They're welcome to believe the war was a good idea and that tariffs were a bad idea. That is, I think, a perfectly fine conservative position. I completely disagree with both of those positions, but they're welcome to have those positions. I would never deny that tariffs were a serious problem in the election. They're clearly were campaigned against in Kansas and Iowa and Texas. They were a factor. Of course, they were. But what you see on the charts of gas prices and diesel prices is a complete surge right after February 28th that continues until election day. The tax foundation estimated this year that tariffs were going to cost the average American family about $820. It was about $1,000 the year before. Obviously, the record decisions that intervened in the years since. But on top of that, Mark Zandy of Moody's Analytics said that the Iran war had already cost the average American family $2,000 and that is directly showing in his approval rating, which you can see. David Shore, the polling analyst, said it's a structural shift in public opinion in Donald Trump when the Iran war happens. And you can see it in all the charts. They've been putting people who are anti-tariff and pro-war and putting this chart that's going everywhere that shows Trump's approval rating going down starting at Liberation Day. That's what they say the chart shows. No, it shows Trump's approval rating going down on these charts that they are posting when he gets inaugurated. That is the point that which is approval rating starts dropping. So what happened after Liberation Day was continuing a trend that pre-existed Liberation Day. The Iran war continues it. But prices were high right now. It went up when JD Vanstein, the Memorandum of understanding that the Trump's approval went up when that happened and then fell again once the war resumed. Yes. And that is a very difficult point for people who say it was the MOU that cost the alike. I mean, I can't understand how people are saying this stuff aloud and taking themselves seriously. There are mountains of evidence to the contrary. They're lies. It's bad. But I don't even know if they are taking themselves seriously. They have an agenda. You know, I mean, it's still very obvious they have an agenda. They don't want you to say, "Oh, you're Israel. First, what you are." If you are, you don't have to be Jewish. There are a lot of these Christian conservatives, evangelical types who are very, very pro-Israel, who like the main thing is that we protect Israel. No. The main thing is that we protect the United States of America and American voters and workers. Mark Teeson is out there trying to suggest that that President Trump was not saying that the Iran war had anything to do with the election. Like again, he did. And even Don Jr. was like, play the whole sound bite. Mark, what are you saying? Like the whole sound bite of Trump has him saying, yes, the Iran war was in fact to blame. But the president goes on to say, but I would do it again. You know what I mean? Because the president is never going to say I did the wrong thing. That's not really the way Trump operates. And now you've got Mark Levin out there. Okay. So you would think that Mark Levin, who was one of the chief, one of the chief cheerleaders for the war and one of the main reasons why President Trump was goaded into doing it and continuing it. So did he have a "Come to Jesus" moment? Well, I guess maybe that's not the right phrase. Did he have a "Let's Get Honest Moment" where he was ready to reflect on what he did? No, listen to this. This is Sunday night, last night. The only way we can defeat the Marxist Islamist threat, and it is a grave threat. The threat to our country is if we are united, clear-headed, mission-oriented, and mission-focused, and become the Tea Party type activists of the recent past. And today that means a few major immediate objectives, starting with the war with Iran. First, defeat the Iranian regime. No more back and forth. End it, destroy it. Arm the Iranian people, the Reagan doctrine, ensure that this genocidal, seven-century terrorist regime can never have a nuclear weapon. Because if it survives, it will. That means it must no longer exist, whether the isolationist, Democrats, or those who cheer for our enemies like it or not. This is the only way to end it. He'll never listen. The Neocons will never stop pressing for more war, annihilation of the entire regime. Okay, he already got his bomb on the Ayatollah and the top emissaries. But you want to talk about eliminating the entire regime. That's all of the revolutionary guards. That's hundreds of people that would require boots on the ground. He wants a full-scale ground war in Iran right now. That's what he wants. And he's still very close to President Trump. I just want them to be honest about that. I mean, seriously, please be honest. I either say he's extremely brave because he made Trump his extremely brave because he made a politically unpopular decision that might have cost him the midterms, or just say, honestly, this is a decision that has cost us the midterms. But they want to have it both ways, right? They want to say Trump was courageous. He did something despite public opinion going against him, despite the risks to his own legacy and career in the short term, because he's a long-term thinker. On the other hand, they want to say, "Oh, no, no, it was all the tariffs." Like, I just want you to be honest. That they were massive political consequences to this. And I don't know if you saw Megan over the weekend, viral clips of John Kennedy on Theo Vaughan going around. That was from July. And Marco Rubio said the same thing that John Kennedy said in that clip, which was the claim intelligence showed that Iran was building its ballistic missile capacity up so much so, that they would be passed a point of immunity when we wanted to strike and take out further nuclear enrichment and all weapons and those sorts of things. Marco Rubio said that within two days of Trump going into Iran, and then, yeah, John Kennedy repeated it on one of the most popular podcasts in the country. And people were re-upping these clips over the weekend and saying it was just the messaging. It was just the messaging. Well, that is bullshit because both of those messages reverberated around the country over and over again when they were made. Again, Theo's podcast is one of the most popular in the country. Marco said that and it was viral immediately. The problem for them is nobody buys it. Nobody buys it after Iraq and Afghanistan. Nobody is buying this intelligence studies. And also because Tulsi Gabbard, who was the DNI at the time, was simultaneously saying we assess that they are not close to getting a nuclear weapon, and this is not a concern at all. And President Trump himself, in June of 2025 told us all, we've annihilated their nuclear capacity, annihilated it. So where exactly were they getting the ability to build a nuke from? Because what you put on the tip of that missile is a nuclear weapon. The missile is the delivery system. A bomb is the nuke and President Trump told us they decimated their ability. We, in June of 2025, so which is it? Because we had a DNI saying there was no threat. We had President Trump saying there was no threat. We had the Mark Levin's of the world saying there was one. And they and BB Netanyahu were in President Trump's ear and managed to get him to do it, suggesting this could be another Venezuela, which everyone knows now it wasn't. It was far from that. This guy will not stop and listen to him now. Listen, the more lies here in South-Six. As for this war, it's not really a war. Are we storming the beaches? Are we parachuting the 82nd Airborne into Iran? Are there ground troops? Are there tanks? Are there constant and ongoing military actions? Are there massive amounting casualties like past wars? This is a military operation. And yet, listen to the nay figures. What would they have said during World War II? What would they have said during World War I? What would they have said during the Civil War when Lincoln was under pressure to make peace with the South of the Confederacy? What would they have said? These people don't represent America. They want you to believe that we lost the election because we decided to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon and from killing Americans. Oh my lord, no one believes you. It's not why we lost the election. If this military operation had any role in it whatsoever, it's because it's not completed. Oh my god. Still with the lies. So first of all, are there any ground troops? You have to have ground troops in order for it to be a real war. Why are there no ground troops? Because we all objected. Because so much of President Trump's base revolted when he launched this war without our approval, without the majority approval in the United States. Never mind the U.S. Congress. That it would be a lot more kinetic than it already has been. If it weren't for the strong stamp of disapproval and the pushback the president got from members of his own party when he did this. But second of all, that doesn't mean it's not a war. The Secretary of War, Pete Heggseth, and President Trump himself, the Commander-in-Chief, have called it a war numerous times. And then the nerve to suggest that, you know, these same people would have objected to World War II and the civil war to talk about apples to oranges. We had decimated the nuclear program and Iran was a problem in the Middle East, but didn't have the capability of hurting the United States. If they had the capability of hurting the United States, they would have unleashed it after we attacked them and killed 170 girls in their girl school. By the way, Mark Levin, does that count as war? Do we count that? 170 dead girls in Iran by our Pentagon's decision for which we still have not apologized or even taken responsibility, which is un-American. Anyway, and he's still peddling the same bullshit that it wasn't this conflict that drove any votes in the midterm elections at all. Yeah, and by the way, 21 dead Americans. Like, it's so offensive. I don't know. I was listening to that. I was like, this is deeply offensive to the sacrifice that has already happened for the stagnancy in the state of Hormuz that we've seen over many, many months now that is being brought at enormous cost to the US military. And so it's inconsistent. His argument doesn't make sense. And just like some basic honesty. I mean, to have that tape, I know you played it last week with Ben Shapiro and Mark Levin like in September saying they believed the Iran war wouldn't be an issue in the election and then to look at the election results and have zero, zero humility about their political prognostication. That's not just a competence issue. I mean, it should be a massive competence issue. It's the type of thing that Fox News should actually make you address and apologize for. If you're Mark Levin, I haven't seen that he did that. Maybe he did. But any news network, I think if you have something that is that flagrantly embarrassing within a couple of months of happening. I honestly think they should make him address it or apologize for it on air, explain why he got it so wrong. Yeah, they won't. They won't because he speaks for them. It's a credibility problem clearly, but it's also a character problem. I mean, how do you say something like that in front of millions of people watching you? I don't know if his audience has a million. It's probably around a million. But how do you say something like that? If that's right. How do you say something like that? No, and also say it. What's with the like reading, reading in front of him? He's got like a script, a paper script on his desk. He's looking down. I completely can't manage the teleprompter. But it's like, this is all you talk about. Why can't you look into camera and say what's on your mind? Why do you have to have your little pre-printed script that you've got to read off of your desk to make your points which you want us to believe our heart felt? And you clearly spend day and night thinking about them. I don't, I actually genuinely don't understand that. He also says the Iran war is not why we lost the election. That's not what President Trump is saying. President Trump is defending JD Vance's commentary saying we lost because of the war. Here he is. And it's not for. Has JD Vance's comments about Iran questioning some of those decisions? Has that impacted your relationship at all? No, not at all. But a lot of people didn't like his comments. But not me. He was right other than one thing he should have made, one other statement. One statement that I think is very important. If you had it to do again, would you do it again? The answer is yes. I can tell you if I had it to do again. This historically, for history, we'll go down as one of the best things we ever did. Because if they ever had a nuclear weapon, they would blow up the world. You know why? Because they're crazy. So that's Trump doing what you were asking these other Republican pro-war pundits to do, which is be it, be honest, 74% said it was the critical or a major factor in their vote, the war. But he's saying it was worth it. To me, it was worth it. Okay. That's, that's at least somewhat honest. We can actually work with that, but you can't deny reality like Shapiro and Levin and Tason are doing, which is to deny that the Iran war itself. The decision to do it and then what was done there actually did drive vote. 74% of the electric voted on it. You can't work with these people because to deny that makes you a dishonest hack. Just look at gas prices. Look at gas prices alone and look at diesel prices. Diesel prices control so much inflation throughout the economy. All you have to do is look at the before and after and see how high both of those prices went after the Iran war and that's it in a nutshell. That is your answer. And the reason again, I think so many of these people are absolutely unwilling to be honest in a way that Trump at least was coming out and say it. I mean, you see how Trump frames it as part of his legacy that he's brave, that he did this because it had to be done and other people didn't like that's one much more honest way to do it. But the reason I think a lot of other people don't is because they see this ultimately about as being about the battle for the soul of the Republican Party and they see it as about being about JD Vance because they believe that he's the threat to taking the Republican Party in a more populist direction and a direction that is, yes, a little bit more protectionist and a little bit less interventionist. And that to them is what this is really all about at the end of the day, which is why they're not making the honest moral argument, even if you and I disagree with it. That's why they're making the political argument. That is why they're absolutely wedded to the idea that what they describe as vansism and sometimes they won't even come out and say that they're really talking about JD, but a lot of times they do is politically toxic. That's what they want to say. Mike Pence came out and said that voters rejected economic populism. That is insane. This Teleriko was running on economic populism. So many of these candidates, Richard O'Jedda in North Carolina, was running on economic populism. I mean, so many of the high provost, I'll say, yeah, money in your pocket, money out of politics, Medicare for all. Gina, he knows. It's just economic populism across the board and Republicans, number one issue according to a Wesleyan study on ads towards the end of the election was taxes. So they were running on tax cuts. So that is why they're obsessed with this political reading of the shellacking as something that is about actually the toxic political implications of populism. It's all about trying to control the future of the GOP. Mark Tyson is out there saying, if you have something that you want to say about the Iran war and so on, stop blaming the pundits around President Trump, have the nerve to say it was Trump's decision and it's on him. I don't know who he's talking to, certainly not this show because it is Trump's decision and it is on him. And most of us who have been complaining about this from Tucker to yours truly to many in the right wing sort of podosphere have had absolutely no qualms whatsoever about blaming the commander in chief Donald Trump. It's 100% his fault. But the analysis for any smart person doesn't stop there. You have to figure out who convinced him, who told him this would be a good idea. I don't know what world Tyson operates in, but in my world, which is the real one, there are advisors around a commander in chief who tell him, this is a good idea, this is the plan, this is how you'll execute. And those people include you, Mark, my old friend from Fox News, include you, Mark Levin, who now denies the ever-advised President Trump. Even though he knows full well President Trump, first of all is addicted to that stupid dishonest show. Second of all is tweeting about it all the time demanding everybody watch it or you're not MAGA. Third of all was in Mark Levin's nougie elbow with basically the hands of the knuckles rubbing against his head by Mark Levin, who tried to dominate him and has succeeded in doing so. And General Jack Keane and of course chief among them, BB Netanyahu, all of which you weren't allowed to say or you were considered an anti-Semite. But as far as I know, Mark Tyson is a Christian conservative. I think General Jack Keane is too. It's not about Jewish as nothing to do with Jewishness. But however, that's something Netanyahu and Israel's defenders use to try to shut you up. Same way as if you criticize Sharia law, they try to throw Islamophobia at you. Well that didn't shut me up either so everyone could fuck off. We're only dropping truth bombs on this show. That's the way it's going to be. I mean, one of the reasons I especially blame President Trump is the reporting from inside of the White House at that time, John Swan and Maggie Haberman. John Swan is an excellent Trump reporter. They reported that everyone was lukewarm except for like one person in the president's inner circle was lukewarm at best and many including Marco Rubio, including Marco Rubio, lukewarm at best about this decision, if not totally opposed to it and casting doubt on the intelligence he was given by Netanyahu at the time Trump's own inner circle was not counseling him to do this with maybe one or two exceptions and so yes, there had to have been a very convincing message coming from others and it would be, we would be remiss not to note that Ron DeSantis who again came out on election day before he even knew that Florida was going to be so close and the rest of the country was going to be a blood bath for Republicans. He came out and said it was the war. Ron DeSantis is very close to Israel. He is very close to Netanyahu. He is very hawkish. He has been very hawkish throughout his entire career and even he is pointing to this and but even he is willing to say he thinks that I know he's willing to say it. But I have to say it's a bit much to watch DeSantis try to position himself as like the Godfather of Republicanism and he's going to come out and he's going to judge everybody. He's going to tell us what's real. He's even got a thoughts on how the media ought to cover it like the, you know what, take a seat. Okay, you won Florida. Good for you. You were a disaster in the GOP primary, a disaster. I was there. You didn't get any votes. No one was into you. You weren't even a strong second. You're not a strong retail politician. Okay, so like I think you should tread a little lightly because he's got criticism for every single Republican and every Republican media. He wants to be the new boss of the media. It's a no sir. Learn how to work the media and perform in front of a camera and then maybe he will start listening to you but we don't answer to you. And honestly, this like whole business of like, oh, you know, this about the, he's going to be honest about the Iran War. Thank you. But you're as close to BB Netanyahu as any GOP politician in the country. So where's your disavowal until I hear something that's a lot stronger on how the country needs to put our own interests ahead of Israel's and you're not going to be beholden the BB's wishes. I don't really want to hear from him. I don't want to hear from any politician who's up the ass of a foreign leader. At the very least, Rhonda Santos should, well, I mean, at the very least, it's a, it's a smarter argument than what we're hearing from Mark Tason and Mark Lovan. I'll put it that way. Like, if you're trying to persuade people, I agree with that. At the very least, he's doing so that's what also kind of drives me insane about this is that they're counterproductive to their own cause and they're too smug and insulated to realize that they're hurting their own cause over and over again. Every single strategy they attack or they come to it is like counterproductive repeatedly. Is it like one of the things I was thinking about as you were just talking is that making you were like fairly supportive of midnight hammer as we're most conservatives. They were mostly supportive of midnight hammer. And then everybody's patience was tested. But people went out on a limb and said, yeah, we think this was the brave thing to do. We think this was the right thing to do. And we're not, you know, there was there was no question of people's loyalties to the president or people's like, nobody was doing nobody was playing this game. And then suddenly people say, that's a little bit too far for me. And everything explodes after Iraq, Afghanistan, like is just constantly making people distrust the side that is pushing more and more. They couldn't be doing themselves more of a disadvantage with the strategy. Yes. Yes. And then you have this from President Trump today. Does anybody really believe that this election in air quotes was honest? Well, he's using actual quotes. How could the polls be so wrong? Some early voting dumps were so large that it was impossible to win, no matter how many people went to vote. It's all about the machines, which are far more important than the voter. And DJT. So once again, trying to suggest that there's something wrong with the election. You are misled, sir. You are fed little gold nuggets by a bunch of sick of fans who work for you, like Natalie PARP, not to tell you the truth, but to make you feel good as you put your head against the pillow at night. That's your fault. That's your fault for having people around you, like Susie Wiles reportedly, who wouldn't tell you the truth because they were too afraid of you, because they were too worried about their own back sides getting fired. They were too mad about you getting angry. That's why you were fed those little bullshit sweet nothings whispered into your ear day after day, though Jonathan Swan and Maggie Heyberman are reporting that he was told at least the week before the vote what the polls were showing. And he refused to believe it. He's the power of positive thinking guy. He refused to believe that it's real. And so now we've got to go back down this ridiculous lane of the election was dishonest. Just stop. Stop. We're not doing that. Nobody believes that shit. No one. The pet food industry will not tell you that the real story is in the ingredient panel, not the front of the bag. Sundays for dogs made a deliberate choice, real human grade meat, no fillers, no synthetic vitamin mixes, and nothing unpronounceable. Sundays for dogs is real food suitable for human consumption. The recipes contain 80% all natural meat, roughly twice the meat content of leading frozen brands combined with nutrient rich ingredients like kale, ginger, and blueberries. Instead of exposure to high heat, the ingredients are gently air dried, founded and formulated by Dr. Tory Waxman to meet the high standards of both a veterinarian and a dog parent. The process is effortless. No fridge, no freezer, no prep, and no mess. With over 100,000 dogs now eating Sundays, many pet parents report shinier coats and better digestion. Consider switching to Sundays. Go right now to Sundays for dogs.com/megan and get 30%. 30% off your first order or you can use code Megan at checkout. That's 30% off your first order at sundaysfordogs.com/megan or just use the code Megan at checkout to get your discount. He's appealing to what's left of like his core core supporters who are under his spell. And that number is shrinking exponentially by the second. He's still thinking, you know, if he could just, you know, reach into that pocket and like throw them a couple of nuggets, he can make the reindeer fly again, Emily, and it's not going to happen. Yeah. I mean, it might work with a small fraction of the Republican party. Maybe something like 20% that trust Trump over literally everybody else. But one of the reasons the polls were wrong is that they were overweighting for rural Republican leaning voters that they had often had a hard time connecting with in the Trump era. And I think one of the big reasons that those polls were off is that those were exactly the voters that they were waiting overly on the Republican side. Those were exactly the voters that flipped or stayed home. And so the polling actually missed that some of the Trumps. I mean, what we're seeing in Patrick Ruffini, right, of center pollster put together a great report showing shifts. And if you look at the mega coalition, rural voters shifted double digit to Dems. Men shifted, independent shifted like 13 points like core components, not college. Yet core components of the Trump coalition. And so that's actually one of the best explanations for why the polling is wrong is that the people that were being weighted heavier because they weren't, they felt in places like main pollsters felt they couldn't get in contact with. So like that's why Susan Collins polling was wildly off in 2020. This is what pollsters came at the time to recognize as they were not getting in touch with enough of those specifically rural Republican leaning voters in the Trump era. And that's the best explanation for it is actually a lot of people who may have voted Republican in the past ten years. They might not have voted Republican before Trump, by the way, which is an important part of this. They actually turned out for Democrats this time. And that's why some of the charts that are going around, the polls that are going around that look weird to people. They're actually explicable by the kind of Obama Trump crossover voters going against Trump this time. Yeah, they left you that the polls, they weren't wrong. They were wrong. Anything against the Democrats, they undercounted the support for the Democrat candidates because it was your core voters leaving you. Like listen, your only obligation now is to listen to them and help them instead of living in denialism about, with the polls were wrong and it wasn't an honest election. Good luck. Good luck Republican Party. If our Republican on Capitol Hill, I would say the classic, it's over for Donald Trump. We have to forge on without him. That's it. We've got to forge on without him. All I can think of is when I moved to Chicago as a young lawyer, I was about to start my legal career and we traveled across country, my mom, my stepfather Peter and my boyfriend and I. And it was a crazy drive. It took, you know, 18 hours. We were from upstate New York to Chicago. We tried to do it in one fell swoop. It was like some of us were in the cab, four of us were in the cab, then two of us would sleep in the back. It was like I had a, I had one sofa, a love seat, a couple of crates and a bed, but U-Haul had run out of the small little units that we had this huge like 18 wheeler situation. Anyway, by the time we got to Chicago, our nerves were shot, we were stressed out, we were tired and we got to try to, to the apartment building to try to like back this enormous truck in and my stepfather Peter had had it. He was like, beyond and my then boyfriend Jason comes in and my mom and I are in the elevator holding all these things and Jason says his last name is Kerwin. He goes, Kerwin's no good to us anymore. We're gonna have to forge on without him. Let's go. We're gonna have to abandon my step and I'm sorry. That has to be the motivation for this next scene by Republicans in Congress when it comes to Donald Trump. This shit about stolen elections is not gonna help anybody and the same for this shit about amnesty. I mean, like, let's kill off the very last of our supporters with nonsense like this. My friends forge on without him. Well, I just can say imagine the incentives for a senator in a place like Kansas or Texas that just flipped really blue. The incentives for a Republican senator in those states are no longer to follow in locks up with Donald Trump, even a Republican senator that has all changed South Carolina. When you see mandates, maybe you're up in two years. Look at Ron Johnson and Wisconsin. He's up in two years. The political incentive to walk in locks up and he's criticizing. Yes. Exactly. And so the political incentive not to upset the hardcore Trump base now that it's diminished a bit, but especially now that Trump's power appears to be diminished. The political incentive for those senators to go along with every single thing Trump says is gone. And that's going to be an interesting thing when votes, potential impeachment votes come up when investigations come up in the next couple of months or the next six months over some things corruption wise that are actually very serious. Those senators, if you are now a senator from Texas and your co-worker is James Talleriko or South Carolina, Tim Scott and your co-workers, Annie Andrews, you have a difference out of political incentives now because voters in your state just turned out lopsided for Democrats by double digits in some cases. Yeah, Ron Johnson was out there last week calling out the corruption in the administration. In this Trump administration, Ron Johnson, Republican of Wisconsin. And he's been very active in the Maha world. The big news over the past three days was Cali Means, friend of this program, spent on many times when on tour with us calling out the corruption in the administration naming names in particular Susie Wiles. As the main reason he says, Maha has died. Maha can't get through. She, he says, is why glyphosate, this ridiculous fertilizer that's poisoning all of America made by bear was the subject of an executive order, giving bear immunity from lawsuits and is, you know, just as robust and ubiquitous as ever under the new Maha administration, the special pass for glyphosate, for Pepsi, for sugar, for ultra-process foods, he's putting it squarely at the doorstep of Susie Wiles, who's now the departed chief of staff. She's pushing back as so is her top dog, who's also left the administration. That's just one of the many things in the news today. We're going to pick it up. I'm going to take a break. Emily and I are going to keep going. The Russell brand news set us back a bit on hard news coming out of Washington. We've got that and we've got the vile, vile, Jennifer Welch, the disgusting. Angry lady hosting the far left podcast, who's getting her own just desserts now after having founded hilarious, that Charlie Kirk, leader of a national movement, father of two toddlers, and husband was assassinated with a bullet to the neck that we all watched. We watched the blood spew out of his neck, which she thought was so funny. Guess what? She's not laughing today. We have all heard those radio ads about owing money to the IRS. They try to scare you and push you into calling at a fear. But tax relief advocates takes a different approach. If you owe the IRS $5,000, $50,000, or even $500,000, TRA has real solutions to fix your tax problem. Don't lose hope. TRA can often reduce or completely eliminate what you owe. Their focus is taxes and helping people and businesses resolve IRS problems. They have more than 1,000 five star Google reviews and an A+ rating from the Better Business Bureau. You no longer have to fear the IRS. Generous relief programs exist right now that can give you a clean slate, so act today. Go to tra.com route. That's tra.com, or call 800-575-6845. Again, 800-575-6845, tax relief advocates. Real solutions for real people. We've got a couple of minutes before we have to take our last break in the hour for serious XM, and then we'll come back and pick this up on the back end with Emily Gisinski. Kali means left the administration, which is, I have to say, a devastating blow. I mean, there isn't someone who is more at the heart of the Maha movement than Kali means. I include RFKJ in that. This was the brains behind the whole thing. He is weirdly brilliant. He's one of those geniuses who you kind of just got to sit back and watch his mind work, and he says he can't do it. He says it can't be done because the admin is not committed to getting it done. They are committed to lining the pockets of the big industries who are behind ultra-processed foods, big sugar, etc. Here's a bit of what he told Joe Rogan last week on Friday, Saturday 11. The system of DC does not want any change to happen, and the fact that we had a voter coalition and could use that and say this coalition, you, other people are going to be pissed off if we don't get things done. You were able to get things done, but the simple reality in why I left is that there is a very concentrated group of people in the Trump administration that are antagonistic to what people voted for, and are frankly, and I think it's very clear, doing things for other reasons, particularly in many cases, to enrich their families. Susie said the moon. many times, we need money for the midterm scally. We need money for the midterms. So when you convince yourself that money is the most important thing for the midterms and for the future political dynamics, and this was the narrative in the Trump administration by Susie from almost the beginning, then you can justify almost anything. And what Tony for Breeze did with this polling is that people don't really care about the food, it's just keep you little early care about the past side issues, people don't really care about the taking on farm or whatever. So that's the big shell game I think that happened. Is everything in the political strategy was based on getting enough money for the midterms, not actually doing the things that within energized voters enough? Yeah. So well said, this is so sad to me. I do think it's the death of Maha. And I just don't even know how they'd even begin to tackle it without him there behind our KJ. We'll pick it up there and go back to the hideous Jennifer Welsh in one minute. Don't go away. [music] Back with me now, Emily Jashinsky. She's hosted after party. You can find it every Monday and Wednesday on YouTube and all podcast platforms carry it as well. So Emily, what do you make of Callie means? Leaving? Oh, so sad. And sounding the alarm that for all intents and purposes, Maha is dead. Yeah, I mean, Maha is such an important part of the Trump coalition and there are so many people inside of the Trump administration that do really, really care about Maha. They have been totally converted to Maha diehards that I have to believe there will still be some inside agitation for Maha goals within the administration. On the other hand, I checked in with some sources myself just to get a picture of what Callie was saying of whether what Callie was saying was accurate. And yeah, it appears at least from my source saying that it's a relatively accurate picture of what was happening inside. I think Donald Trump appointing Susie Wiles who's a very, very successful lobbyist to the White House chief of staff position that goes back to Donald Trump. I mean, it doesn't, you can blame Susie Wiles, but at the end of the day, you also have to blame Donald Trump. You have to delegate when you're president of the United States, all kinds of tasks, information flow, those sorts of things to a chief of staff. And to put somebody who's a very powerful lobbyist in that position is obviously going to have consequences when you're in Washington, you're on a drain the swamp platform. I don't think we can understate how important that was to Trump's success in 2016, also in 2024. But just since he came down the escalator, drain the swamp was so hugely intertwined with his brand. It was such an important part of his brand. And if you look at the lobbying registration disclosures for Ballard, which was where Susie Wiles used to work, they have exploded since Trump came into office because all of these massive corporations, including Bayer, which obviously merged with Monsanto as Mahat people who have been following this closely. No, they got exactly what they wanted. They lobbied. They got what their clients paid for out of Ballard. Ballard did the job. It was paid millions of dollars to do, which was to successfully get the administration to be more friendly to Bayer. They got that, as Kali talked about with Joe Rogan had big carve-out on a national security basis for freaking glyphosate, like it's completely insane. But they paid millions of dollars and they got it. And on the lobbying disclosure, Brian, I went and looked at it after Kali posted that I verified it. Brian Ballard is listed on the lobbying disclosure and they say they were lobbying people in the administration. So yes, that's how Washington works, but Trump was supposed to be the person whose administration resisted the way Washington worked. And it's just such a good example of how MAGA was was really captured by K Street and the swamp here in DC by bullshit. That's I'm mad at myself because I did buy the maha promises and they were bullshit. They were fucking bullshit. Like Marty McCarrie did a good job at the FDA to the extent he could. You know, we got some food dye out of certain products and that was a plus. And I think Bobby Kennedy's rearrangement of like the food pyramid and his pushback on some of the vaccine mandates and so on have been a good thing. But they haven't accomplished what they set out to accomplish at all. Like the fact that they provided this blanket protection for glyphosate was such a thumb in the eye to every maha activist who backed them. And means calling it out like he's he's saying Susie Wiles in this ballard are way too comfortable. And that Susie Wiles has a daughter who was effectively a grifter too. And here's him explaining some of that in slot 13. Susie's daughter became a lobbyist. And I don't know if you have the graph continental strategies. But this is really interesting. Susie's daughter went to a lobbying firm and it was an open discussion in the White House. If a company hired Susie's daughter, then that was getting a high priority. And there's this chart that shows continental strategies. The group Susie's daughter worked for had almost zero revenue before the Trump administration shot up to 30-ish million dollars a year in revenue. So if you're a special interest and you want to get something done, the secrets out you pay Susie's daughter. And it was openly discussed when they had a client. So this is what happened to continental once Susie's daughter worked there. And then Susie worked at a firm called Ballard Partners. Ballard Partners has become the highest revenue generating lobbying firm in history. If you hire Ballard, you get a meeting with Susie and you can get things done. It's so gross. It's just really disgusting. He's now trading barbs with Susie's top guy named James Blair. And James Blair is saying that Cali's lying. He's saying he tried to speak to Cali like privately and that he's not returning or answering his calls. He's saying he says, "Cali, your poor me act is tiring and embarrassing for a grown man who launched a smear campaign. I've been countering your factual inaccuracy all day. You thought I was going to lay down and take it. I do this for a living. I've been called worse things by better people than you. And I haven't even gotten started." Means meantime, Cali writes, "In light of suggestions that Susie Wiles and James Blair may pursue legal action over my Joe Rogan interview, I am publicly requesting that she Ballard Partners, continental strategy and other relevant parties immediately preserve all potentially relevant records and communications, including comms between Susie Ballard and their representatives about lobbying access, meeting policy decisions and corporate clients, all communications involving Bair Monsanto, Ballard Partners and White House officials, concerning glyphosate, et cetera, the sugar industry, political contributions, Tony Fabrizio, the pollster, food industry representatives, White House officials, concerning Maha initiatives. It's on Emily." To quote a few good men, you fucked with the wrong Marine here because he's not going to go quietly. There's zero chance of that. And definitely not. And there's clearly a market for it. I mean, he goes straight to Joe Rogan. I'm sure this episode is going to blow up. It's been absolutely everywhere. People are fascinated by how the sausage is made here in Washington and furious about it. And they should be. You could go to one of my favorite newsletters actually. It's called Politico Influence. It's every weekday. And they had a one, this was like last January, I just pulled up the headline. It was Trump 2.0 unleashes a gusher on K Street. And they break down the Ballard numbers. They break down the other lobbying firms with people who have been either in the Trump administration or very close to the Trump administration. You actually don't need to follow the tit-for-tat personnel disagreements between Callie, James Blair, and Susie Wiles. You can literally just look at the lobbying disclosures. Their corporations are not funneling millions of dollars to lobbying firms for nothing. And in this case, Politico reported that Susie Wiles did meet with Bayer. So all of the receipts are there. I mean, you just have to put one plus one together and say it equals two. Like, you can, people can follow this stuff. People are smart. And this is exactly how Washington DC works, arguably on another level. I mean, other places, it's happened with Maha. It's happened with crypto. It's happened with banking markets. It's happened with all kinds of different industries. Certainly in the Pentagon side, this is continued to happen under Trump. And it's in a way, but almost more transparently corrupt because Trump sort of says he's a deal maker and put like Jared Kushner getting $2 billion from the Saudis into affinity partners. And then going back into the White House and negotiating our Middle East deals like he's not trying to hide that he got all the money from the Saudi. So some of it you see happening out in the open. But with the Maha stuff, I think it's going to be so profoundly disappointing to people the more and more they see what was happening behind the scenes because it is really gross. And those corporations are not going to go quietly into the good night. They are going to put up a fight with every bone that they have in their body with every million of dollars that they can spend on the lobbyists. And those lobbyists get paid to do really, I think, awful work. Marty McCarrie reportedly left FDA because they were pressuring him to approve or to fast track fruit flavored vapes, which honestly is a huge issue for moms across America. Never mind Maha moms because they're very appealing to kids and it gets them hooked on something that's very bad. for them. And he did not want to fast track them. He did not want to put any stamp of approval on them. He did not think that they were good for children or teenagers or should have any sort of FDA blessing or assistance whatsoever to the point where he quit rather than do it. And this is one of the things that Callie is talking about. These flavored vapes and how much pressure there was within the administration to fast track them and to approve of them. He actually talked about the sugar industry and talked about how Trump's chief polster, this guy Tony Fabrizio, takes tons of money from Pepsi. And Callie knows about Pepsi because he used to work at Pepsi. In fact, before I play you what he said about Pepsi, let me play you what he said to me on the tour. He was one of our tour guests last fall. And back then, he had a much rosier picture that he was presenting about Maha and the admin. And we talked about Pepsi among other things. And here's what he said back then, sat 10. And they came into the White House and they said this is hurting jobs to take food stamp funding away from soda. They said we need because we're good building new factories. We need to keep ultra-process food in school lunches because the Trump administration is taking a sledgehammer to school lunch, to crappy food in school lunches and getting fresh food in schools. They said that it is completely inappropriate that the FDA is finally studying the chemicals in our food. We have 10,000 more chemicals in our food today than Europe. And the FDA actually has a gall with the NIH to study them and they said that's going to hurt our business. And the administration said, no thanks, you can get out of this office. And that has never happened before. And I'll just say the reason I fired up is because this is what is happening on every single front. This administration is taking on big messy conversations on every single level. They are putting warriors in there to go up against entrenched interests. Okay, so they're much more hopeful, optimistic, specifically speaking to the soda industry trying to keep that kind of product in kids' lunches. Listen to him on Joe Rogan. We're going to do two sound bites back to back. Let's play 16 and then 15. Tony Fabrizio is one of the most powerful people in the country. He's Trump's chief pollster. Very good friends with Susie. He is on the outside the whole time. And every single policy issue goes through him because he tells the team whether it's politically appropriate to do or not based on his polling. He takes money from Pepsi. He takes money from pharmaceutical companies. He takes money from almost every single industry we're fighting against right now to this day. So he's taking money at the same time. I don't even know if President Trump fully knows that. But as we were fighting things like school lunch reform and getting an ultra-processed food definition, 90% of the country wants us. We're going to define ultra-processed food, 70% of a child's diet is ultra-processed food. We need to define it. We need to figure out what to do there. It's a widely popular promise from the administration. He is getting paid by Pepsi and giving political analysis that the juice isn't worth the squeeze on doing policies like that as simple as school lunch reform. As you might know, the FDA up until we just closed it did not know it's in our food. It doesn't know. It's been a full self-policing from the food industry where they are able to self-sertify both in the ingredients and importantly the amount of the ingredient having an impact or not. So you have all these things marketed kids with high sugar. They're actually legally responsible for having studies showing how the amount of sugar that they're recommending for daily use for kids actually doesn't harm kids. I would imagine they don't have that. They're legally required to have that. This would open up the door to start that conversation, getting the truth out. Not nothing regulatory. We did a 60 minutes. We got full White House approval. We went through the interagency process and we were going to do a big initiative on basic food safety asking whether the amount of sugar in a children's diet was appropriate. That's where Susie told me we can't do that. I need the sugar and sugar money. So depressing. I believe every word. I believe Cali. I think he's a straight shooter. So I say it's dead. Mahasdeh. They want. They're in exactly the same boat. Every other administration has been in. The money from Big Pharma or Big Ag or Big Sugar is more important to them than the voters. They're more interested in saving their own electoral hides because the corporations have all the dough. Then they are in actually changing things for the better in the country. That's what Cali's trying to say. If you could actually make headway on some of these initiatives, the voters would show up for you. They would show up. You could unite them, but you refuse. You keep selling out for the quick buck. Thinking if you get another 100 million in your war chest, you can put together another whole host of ads that are really going to take down Tallahfrico. That's not what happened. The voters had their say this time saying, "Fuck off, we see how grifty you are. Corruption was rated higher than any other issue." More people said that that was their top, their critical or most important issue than any other issue. I think it even beat cost of living or at least tied. It was 90%. It didn't work. They're not going to learn. They're not going to say, "Okay, now we will reject the money from Pepsi." No, they're not, especially with Cali gone. Yeah. Big Sugar has been a problem for Republicans. Actually, it's been a sugar daddy for Republicans for years and years of the Fondual Brothers. It definitely influences our policy towards Cuba, Tim Carney, Peter Schweitzer have done good reporting on this stuff from the right for very many years. But I think what happened with Maha is that we have this width lash. I love that you played those clips back-to-back because it just took me back into that moment early in the administration, especially after Donald Trump won in November of 2024 through January 2025. I think about that picture of Trump getting inaugurated with all of these CEOs behind him, mostly tech CEOs, but he had Bezos, you have all these guys, Elon, they're all behind him. I think the message then from Donald Trump was, "I have conquered these oligarchs." The question for me was always, was it like that or was it the other way around that they were conquering him? I feel like more and more were getting the answer that he was the one that was conquered. One of the reasons I have a hard time voting anymore, I'm not telling people not to vote, but one of the reasons I have a hard time voting is that I've been here long enough. I just don't know that anybody, and I've sound as jaded as Callie does there, but I don't know that anybody can resist the structural incentive system here in Washington, DC. What you need is somebody who runs on a platform, like, during the swamp and makes it their mission to structurally reform the way that the administrative state works, the way that money and politics works, but that feels almost impossible. I have to say, I'm not blowing smoke on Tucker, but I do think the Tucker, Joe Kent, Thomas Massey, MTG thing that's happening would resist it. I do. Maybe I'm being naive, but I do think there's a collection of people that are so angry about the Iran war and the corruption and this bullshit that if they could somehow rise to power with donations from, you know, individuals, five and ten dollar donations, that kind of thing, and possibly have independent wealth, they could do it. I don't, I just don't think that group, Thomas Massey's proven he can't be bought and paid for. You know, I just, Joe Kent, no way. His wife was killed in one of these foreign wars. Like, he is not going to bend the knee to the military industrial complex, and he quit after Trump launched that war. Tucker, he's independent wealthy, and he could do it. Like, I just think there is a group that's bubbling up right now that is to quote the movie Matt is hell, and they're not going to take it anymore. And I've been told by every pundit who's come on here that I need to write them off that they can't do it. And I've told all of them, I just, I wouldn't be so sure. Just think the mood of the electorate is much more with those guys than it is with any of the traditional parties. Oh, it totally is. I mean, Gallops polling has found a record number of people identify as independent in this country. It's like 45% of the country. And identifies as independent, according to Gallops polling, which they've done over many, many years. And so I wonder actually like the whiplash between 2024 and 2026. I wonder also if we look back in at 2028 on 2026, where you have Democrats riding this wave and feeling like they've now initiated a vibe shift and saying like, make you jokes about woke being back and all that sort of thing. If we look back in 2028 or 2030 and Democrats are once again feeling like they got left out in the vibe shift because people right now are totally open to new discussions and ideas and the old gatekeepers are their power is like totally waning. People can circumvent them with information like Callie and Joe Rogan. I mean, yes, he went on. I think he also went on CBS and made this message, but it doesn't come across like it does in a free flowing two-hour conversation with Joe Rogan, which was I think a very, very powerful glimpse inside Washington. The only solution is to limit government, not to change government. Changing the party from one to the next is not going to do much. It's going to accomplish very little. The only real solution is to limit the power these fuckers have over us so that they're not in a position to exploit it to the extent both of them have. That's truly our only option at this point and to hope that private industry can come up with innovative solutions that we can get behind. You know, like we can find answers from geniuses who are in the private sector who's incentives are known, declared and trackable, you know, as just as opposed to what we're seeing in government because we've been betrayed by both parties. They both grift. They're all interested in lining their own pockets. It's as opposed to in helping actual suffering Americans. The presidency has gotten way too big. The executive branch is way too big. It's bloated and it's disgusting, like Shrek the Ogre. That's what the executive branch looks like right now. It is always meant to be small and humble and limited. Congress, they've been so feckless that all the bombs got thrown out and we'll see. The new bombs are likely to be just like the old bombs, just with a different grift. Sorry to be so blackpilled, but that's really the truth. So the answer is to try to take as much out of their hands as humanly possible. Pray for gridlock. I'm in favor of that and to shrink the executive, to elect somebody who promises to shrink the executive and its branches and to be a humble governor of the people. Okay. I want to keep going because I almost never talk about this woman because she's so disgusting and hateful. Emily, I've got to say, you know, you and I do this all the time and there are a lot of hateful characters on the left in particular when it comes to things we care about. And I cannot think of one, not a single one, not this Jennifer Welsh, not one whose death I would celebrate, but truly, I cannot, I don't really have that in me. I have it in me to celebrate the death of like a heart and criminal who's murdering or attempting to harm my children, you know, like that I could. But like just a pundit who has different political views from my own, even ones I find quite hateful or, you know, really objective, I just, I am never incapable of seeing their humanity. I don't, I genuinely don't understand what's happening on the left with this assassination culture thing and this dehumanizing people on the right whose views they disagree with. You know, all their bullshit about feeling dehumanized by a remark about Santa being white, which actually was said to me. Classic. Right? Like, that's such utter bullshit. And this stuff is actually dehumanizing what they're doing, you know, celebrating the murder of right wing pundits. Like, it's very, very dark and I wish I had some great insight on it, but I don't. I know it's absolutely despicable. And that's what this woman's been since she really emerged on the national scene. So her name is Jennifer Welsh. We usually just call her the angry podcast lady, but that is her name. She's got a side Kipney kick named Angie Sullivan, who's just as gross. And they made this so called joke about Charlie Kirk on their podcast on November 5th. Ted Moro says we're digging up Charlie Kirk and doing it again. I'm zooming into the fox. No comment. No comment. No comment. No comment on that. Other than he was shot by somebody that was super mega fan, he was shot by a mega person. Right. So, right. Do that with what you will. White person, white mega family. So they're disgusting pigs. They're like pig horrors, just trying to laugh it up to get clicks with their audience. And I have absolutely no use for either one of those total fucking twists. But now they're getting their just desserts because advertisers are starting to leave them in droves. I mean like scores of advertisers. And the reason the advertisers are leaving is because this wasn't a one off. It wasn't one thoughtless moment. I mean, it wasn't even just one moment. They laughed for how many seconds there. They were hysterical. They could barely get themselves back under control. They genuinely thought it was hilarious to laugh about the assassination of a young man who's the father of two young babies. It's because this is their brand. This is their bread and butter. This is a day ending in why for these two. On the very same show, this is what that Jennifer Welsh said, sought 28. I have so much more hate to give towards him. I've barely even tapped into it. I would say out of my potential of hating him 100%, I only 10 to 15% there. I still have 85 more percent to realize in these next two terms. You have seen nothing yet. If you think our measly 10 to 15% of hate for this guy, you've never seen anything like it, sit down and get your fucking popcorn fat ass because we are just getting started. I can't even begin to tell Sean Hannity how much untapped hatred I have for Donald Trump and the MAGA movement at large. I feel like I feel invigorated. I feel like my god, I can go, I'm going to go, here's 5% more hate here. There's three more percent there. I will hate this motherfucker forever and ever and everybody that voted for him. I want you to have health care. I want you to have all this stuff. If you voted for Trump, I fucking hate, I hate you. And this is why we call her the angry podcast lady. Trump derangement syndrome really, it corrodes you from the inside. It's very, very poisonous. It's really, really disgusting. It eats away your insides, your internal organs. It starts with your heart, moves on quickly to your brain and then you can see, obviously, it eats part of your face and makes your outside match your inside. And the next thing you know, you're saying shit like that, like openly about your fellow Americans. Then came the backlash because turning point started to tweet a lot about what she had said and so did many of us. And then they started to lose advertisers, one after the other, after the other, after the other. And now they've lost 25 advertisers who want nothing to do with this disgusting toxic brand. And here was her follow-up statement after she tried to issue a paper statement quote, apologizing. It was a lie. It wasn't a real apology. It was she didn't mean to make light of gun violence. She didn't mean to make light of gun violence. Nothing about Charlie's humanity, nothing about how genuinely rattling and disturbing that was to most sane Americans never mind the right wing who loved Charlie, but just absolutely no thought for people's humanity and what this is actually doing, not to mention Erica Kirk and his children. And then she must have heard from her little hateful minions who watched that show and decided to come out like, I'm a badass now, everyone can fuck right off. And this was the follow-up message we got in slot 29. All right, there's a huge online cancellation campaign from all the titty babies over at Turning Point, Andrew, we're never ever going to sit down and listen to you. When we apologize for laughing at a joke on our podcast, that wasn't for you. That was for us because somebody I love very much died from gun violence two years ago. And I just didn't feel good about that. I don't expect you to understand this because at Turning Point, you all laugh at violence all the time. For you to think that apology was for you just exemplifies how out of whack you are with where the American people are right now. Let's grow this thing and show Turning Point how irrelevant they are. Okay, so I don't think that her podcast is going away. I think she'll plug it in and get subscriptions. What I am concerned about is that there is an audience for this, that this is scratching the itch of some number. I don't know. They're never ranked anywhere. I have to be honest. I watch the podcast ranks. You're never up there sweetheart and you never will be with this brand. But some collection of leftists is getting off to this. And that I do find deeply disturbing him. She gets a lot of big interviews and has really fashioned herself as more than a podcaster, but also an activist and agitator for the party to go in a much more progressive direction, which I mean, it's all it's odd. It's a lot of it is her anti-Israel sentiment that she tries to channel into these interviews with major politicians, but she is not just a comedian, right? Like she's not Chapel Trap House. She's somebody who's trying to actually be an activist within the Democratic Party in a serious political commentator that gets really big interviews. So I think there's a significant difference. If you're part in the political ecosystem, the ecosystem of the discourse is a comedian, that's one thing. If you're part in the ecosystem of the discourse is to be a serious podcast commentator/activist trying to nudge actively the politics of the Democratic Party in an ideological particular ideological direction. If you're part of that movement and you are seen as a significant part of that movement by the politicians who sit down with you, then yeah, you're going to have to reap the consequences of this type of thing and I just like, I don't like the idea of pressuring companies to make speech-related decisions. I just don't like it. I've seen it too many times. I understand why that's happening. In this case, particularly, it's not because somebody said that, you know, a biological woman is not a man. This is over a joke about a political assassination from somebody who wants to see herself as sort of like the tip of the spear for the Democratic Party going in a further left direction. It's just so sad. I mean, even her bringing it. I think it's not for you Andrew. It's for us. it's about me. It's because I like it is all just profoundly sad. She has built her personality around anti-Trump politics, around anti-conservative politics, going back to their days at Bravo, their entire stick was being anti-conservative Christian, anti- even gelco-Christian. They have built their entire lives around that brand and it has to be it has to be so painful and exhausting and sad. I feel like you can see that they would never admit to it publicly but you can just see it. It's sad. It's sad. They need something more fulfilling and positive to center their lives around than this because going off about how bitterly you hate your fellow countrymen, how bitterly you hate people who are also just trying to do the right thing but disagree with you like to have that much hate in your heart. Man, that's just a terrible way to go about life. That sucks. I'm gonna pray for her tonight because that's awful. Yeah, same honestly because that that level of commentary, I feel about that level of commentary, those words, those sentiments, that messaging the way I felt during COVID when we would walk around the streets of New York and occasionally you would see a pile of human excrement on the sidewalk. Just look away. Like get away and look away and try not to think too much about it because it's just obviously something happened there that is the Dregs of Society and a sign of like serious societal decay and like she's she's obviously not a complete idiot. You know, like she's got some thoughtful things to say, I imagine. I don't know. There's just a way she articulates her thoughts, suggests to me she's not a complete moron and could potentially be actually using those powers for good but has just gone to the most abjectly abject hateful place one can go. I actually do feel sorry for her and and for the weird little sidekick. That's what I call the only one. Resistance, diamond and silk. That's what they're really doing. Yes, I see it too. Yes, exactly. The Timo, like the cheap one off version of the real deals. Sadly it's not limited to the no name podcasters who literally nobody's ever heard of Dave Chappelle was out there this weekend in an absolutely disgusting display and he's far more powerful than these two losers. Also celebrating the murder of Charlie Kirk. He was at Madison Square Garden on Friday and here's what he said, sought 23. I feel fucked up saying it's scary being a public speaker. And I, I mean look, ever since that guy Charlie Kirk got murdered and I shouldn't say this publicly but I feel better. I know I should say it but it's just a feeling. I didn't know. So just in case you didn't think he meant it or was out of context there he is following up saying Charlie's looking up at us laughing, meaning he's in hell. So it's clearly a joke about Charlie. He meant it. And he's openly saying it mean the irony that he began with it's scary to be a public speaker. His fright came from he was about to say something controversial. Charlie was a public speaker and got his fucking neck blown out. So Dave Chappelle should take a moment to sit back and think about what fear actually looks like because it's people on our side of the aisle who now genuinely have to worry about that shit. Not you Dave Chappelle. You were wanted like you were going into a presidential event before you went into Maddoxinsons square garden to see him. Guess what? I'm sorry to break it to you but it's our people who are being gunned down who are literally being shot at political events, including pundits, not just presidents, not just their supporters but random pundits out there speaking and having respectful debate with people across the aisle from them like Charlie. So you can fuck yourself Dave Chappelle. Go fuck yourself. I'm so disgusted with him. What a pig. He's a pig. I dare him to come on this show and say it. Come on. Let's let's go. Say it to somebody like me. You can call me a racist. You can say whatever you want to say. Come on my show and have the balls to say it to somebody who will fight back and who will tell you what it felt like to love the man who had his head blown off. You fucking asshole. It's unbelievable. His supporters first tried to come out and say it was taken out of context. It wasn't taken out of context. When you hear the so so called context, Emily, it makes it worse. He went on and on talked about what a great mood he's been in every time he thinks about Charlie getting his head blown off. What an asshole. I'm sorry to just resort to ad hominem swear words, but it's I just don't what else conveys the level of anger that that makes you feel. I don't feel sorry for Dave Chappelle. I actually feel just nothing but anger. He's had nothing but gifts from this amazing country. The people there you could hear even they were groaning. They weren't there were a couple of laughs, but there was a lot of groaning going on in the woman filming was like, come on. That's not nice. And he doesn't care. Like he thinks he's banking on being applauded for that level of hate. And yes, dehumanization and he knows full well. Charlie's got two babies at home wondering where their father is. There's something wrong with Dave Chappelle and these others who are continuously celebrating the political assassination of a fellow American. Well, right now polling shows it definitely is there's definitely more inclination to say or to agree with political violence being justified to justify political violence, especially on the young left. And so that is a real thing that people can go look up. There's research that shows that is most prevalent in that cohort. You know, with Dave Chappelle, if I'm not mistaken, he actually was attacked on stage when he was in this phase of his career where he was pushing back on the list and Charlie defended him. If I'm if I'm remembering this day, they Charlie defended him over. Yes, that happened, which is the correct, which is a correct position. Like nobody, I don't think it would be right to, you know, call up Netflix or Madison Square Garden and say stop hosting Dave Chappelle. I guess I'm curious to hear the set. I've been a fan of Dave Chappelle. That's where he was attacked. Yeah. And so it's like, well, I mean, for me, it's kind of a character question. Like what point is he trying to make with this joke? Is he making a joke that he actually feels relieved at somebody's political assassination that it actually led off some type of pressure relief inside of him? Because that's mystifying. I mean, that's actually definitely hard to understand. And I think it does speak to also how the myth of Charlie Kirk that was really attempted to be set by the left after his assassination has taken hold in so many people's minds that he was something that he actually wasn't at the end of his life, that he was a person that he was a caricature, that he, you know, when he was assassinated, the man was taking questions from people who disagreed with him. He said, send your best lips to the front of the line. And he was making a concerted effort to engage in dialogue and discourse with people. And he was actually defending people like Chappelle. So I mean, there's, it just to me, that's another part of that part about this that's sad is the legacy of Charlie is is in and of itself, you know, part of our micro culture that if you're in one silo, you're totally resistant to some of the truth and the reality about what he was doing when he was killed. I mean, actually, even in the angry podcast lady clip you played, they're still saying that it was a mega person who did this. They're still applying that there was potentially some mega motives because the story is just, it's been completely, the narrative has been set for so many people on the left in a way that's just out of touch with reality. I do wonder if Dave Chappelle is going to fall subject to the same stadium cancellations that Ed Sheeran had to face when Macklemore opened for Ed Sheeran and made some comments about what's happening in Gaza. He got cracked down on by Robert Kraft at Gillette Stadium. You're not allowed to say that. It needs to be banned. Whatever. The blowback wound its way on to Ed Sheeran, who was really just trying to stay out of it, but was, you know, had hired Macklemore as an opener. Is this okay? You're allowed to say this. I just like, I wonder, does the next stadium in Ohio just allow more of this? Do we, do we just, it's fine? We're just going to platform this and we're going to allow because conservatives do go to see Dave Chappelle. I'm like, I'm sure there were a lot of people there who were not expecting anything like this level of discourse. And he just behaves with impunity. Why? Because he's a black man in America. Well, fuck off because you should be held to the same standards of decency as everybody else. You're disgusting. You're pathetic. And that is actual dehumanization to have so little care for the grieving relatives, for the grieving millions, for the grieving millions. Charlie led a movement. Charlie was important to a lot of us. And honestly, to, to celebrate his murder. It's just in a league of its own in terms of depravity. It really is. It's just, because of course what you celebrate, you know, what you permit, you promote. That's what you're doing. You are promoting additional political assassinations and effectively taking the blood on your hands of what this murderer unleashed. And then to the nerve of starting it with, it's scary being a public speaker or what a risk you're taking Dave Chappelle. What a risk in saying something controversial, as opposed to somebody like Charlie, who actually went out there trying to advance dialogue with the other side and gave his life for it. Like the fucking nerve, the irony, like the cluelessness, an alert for somebody. Maybe he's not as smart as I previously suspected. Well, I think he might genuinely be reflecting a sentiment like we were talking about earlier that is real. And one of the reasons that, well, we know it's real. We've seen other people, you know, show us clearly that it's real. And I think that's one of the reasons I don't like the idea of stadium boycotts. Like I don't want to give Robert Kraft more power over our over-ten window of political discourse than average people. And that to me is what's like most, I don't know, sad or interesting about all of this. It's just that we have millions of people who are our fellow countrymen to persuade that dehumanizing your political enemies and justifying political violence. Like I go back to that clip of Hassan Piker after, as the actually, as he learned that Charlie Kirk had been assassinated and he has shock jawed, he's paling the face, slack jawed and paling the face and saying, yeah, this is not good. This is not going to be good for us. And I think obviously he's moved on from that moment, but that moment is just really important to hold on to because when it happens, it's not funny when it happened. Nobody was laughing except for some true sickos, like teachers and nurses who were laughing within like the first 24, 48 hours. But like, there are millions of people around the country who now do have this justification in their hearts for political violence and that's setting the stage for something that we need to deal with because if we do not deal with it, it is going to bubble up to the surface and we will find ourselves in a very like actually violent situation here in the United States on a daily rolling basis and God forbid it gets to that point. But we clearly have a lot of work to do at polling some of our fellow countrymen back from the brink. I think about what we saw at like Jimmy Carter's funeral. You know, we're like Obama and W were joking around with each other. And it's like those moments where you see presidents from either side come together and like yuck it up in glad hand, notwithstanding political differences are so good for the country. They really are. They may infuriate the most diehard partisans. But what they show you and especially that's one of the reasons why the peaceful transition of power is so important and why it was disgusting that Trump didn't let it happen in 2020. But in any event, that's really important because what it shows the populace is we all fight very hard for the politics that we believe in and the policies we believe in. We fight very, very hard and politics is a rough and tumble sport. But at the end of the day, we come together, we're fellow Americans and we understand that a lot of that stuff is part of a game when it comes from the politicians, when it comes to ads and slogans and things like Tala Frico. It's part of a game. It's not a pretty game. It's not a nice game, but it's part of a game. And while the policy battles are heartfelt, like you mean them, you know, like take the life issue. Like there's a genuine disagreement between the two parties on that one. It doesn't make you hate your fellow American that they disagree with you on it. Like we were still Americans first. That's the way it's been for the majority of my lifetime. And these people, these creeps are letting that slip away. They're taking it too far. It's not just like the demonization of their adversaries. It's the genuine hope that they'll be murdered in the most disgusting, violent, upsetting, fashion possible. And that is something new. That is something evil. And you're right. The timeline is we should pray for them. So I, okay, I will pray for Dave Chappelle too. You should pray for him because if he comes on this show, it's not going to go well for him. I'd love to see it. I would love to see that. Oh, he's, oh, he's not man enough to do it. Are you kidding? Hill, he would claim, oh, it's whatever it's beneath me. I'm not going to go on this, whatever, you know, terrible person from Fox News' show. That's not why. He doesn't have the balls. He is too afraid. He will never say yes. Too bad, too. You're right. Must see TV. Emily, great to see you, my friend. Thanks a lot. All right. We are back tomorrow. We'll see you then. Thanks for listening to The Megan Kelly Show, No BS, No Agenda, and No Fear.