Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Feb. 9, 2021 - Louder with Crowder

04:27:31

Crowder's Impeachment SHAM Livestream! | Louder with Crowder

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	I'm going to play a little bit of this. So, if you want to see the full version of this, you can go to the link in the
	description.
	I'm going to play a little bit of this. So, if you want to see the full version of this, you can go to the link in the
	description.
	So, if you want to see the full version of this, you can go to the link in the description.
	So, if you want to see the full version of this, you can go to the link in the description.
	I put on my handling, my buttons were undone, and I can't do that next to the Hodge Twins.
	You did it on purpose.
	I cannot do that next to the Hodge Twins.
	I'm hearing some little echo of something here right now.
	Alright, welcome to the MP... How are you guys doing?
	Doing good, man.
	Don't worry, man.
	I'm not homophobic.
	What?
	Why would you...
	You can let that...
	You can let...
	You can introduce some buttons.
	Why don't you start the show like that?
	This was a wonderful start.
	Alright, listen.
	Not sure that's what he meant.
	We didn't want to cover the impeachment trial, but we feel like we have to at this point
	because no one else is going to be debunking the crap that is going on.
	We're going to be covering the impeachment trial.
	So we'll be live fact checking this.
	We didn't plan on doing a drinking game, but we will be doing a drinking game.
	But first, you can use a promo code.
	I'm hearing some echo back here.
	I don't know if it's the speaker that's on or something.
	But first, you use the promo code FIGHTLIKEHELL at lotterworthcrowder.com slash mugclub and you get $30 off because they consider that incitement to violence... I don't!
	Are you supposed to fight any other way?
	I don't know.
	I don't know what they do.
	I don't know what they mean by Churchill and when they used to say things.
	It's just everything is an incitement to violence.
	I will tell you, look, look, and also the hashtag is Crowder Impeachment Trial.
	We'll be covering this.
	We'll have my half-Asian lawyer Bill Richman to talk about what's going on in the proceedings, the legalese, the boring stuff.
	You all need to fight like hell.
	Listen, you all need to fight like hell.
	And what I mean by this is not a call to violence, but you need to fight like hell to make sure that we have election integrity moving forward.
	You need to fight like hell to make sure that we follow rules and regulations and precedent.
	You need to fight like hell.
	Right now they're calling for unity while taking an unprecedented action trying to impeach a private citizen.
	Look, you have to make a decision.
	Either impeach a sitting president or make it a criminal trial if it's a private citizen.
	Why not?
	Go for the crime.
	Make it a criminal trial.
	I think they don't want to do it because it's a higher standard.
	It's a higher burden of proof.
	You mean they need evidence for that, right?
	What is this echo that I'm hearing?
	I'm hearing something echoing.
	Is it TV on?
	You guys hear this?
	I don't hear nothing.
	It's annoying.
	It's annoying the hell out of me.
	And I'm just compromising in all kinds of ways.
	OK, we've got the Hodge Twins, conservative twins.
	It's their YouTube channel.
	We've got Gerald here, Gerald A. How are you?
	I'm well, sir.
	How are you?
	And we have some drinking game rules.
	I know it's the middle of the day, but it's the only way you can handle this impeachment trial.
	That's normal for me.
	What are the drinking game rules there, Court of Black Garrett?
	Drinking game rules are...
	Insurrection, hate speech, subverted democracy, terrorist, or QAnon.
	Subverted?
	Introverted?
	Bonus, if someone says, incited the erection, you've got to finish your drink.
	You've got to finish that drink.
	There you go.
	So a couple of things to notice here.
	So let's kind of tell you what's going on right now.
	Congress triggered impeachment, right, without a trial, with no witnesses, with no evidence.
	They didn't actually agree on the terms of this trial until I believe yesterday, which we'll talk with Bill Rischman is kind of unprecedented.
	But here's something else.
	I spent all night wanting to commit suicide because I was reading the brief and I was reading the counter briefs.
	Did anyone here actually read that?
	The counter briefs?
	Did anyone read all the briefs?
	No.
	Here's the thing, if you actually read it, a lot of us want to expect that people in authority, like the FBI, right?
	We think, oh they can break into anything because they just have like a thumb, you know, fake skin on their thumb and they can break into it.
	And then when you work with the FBI, you realize, oh they're totally inept, right?
	We infiltrated Antifa.
	They were like, how'd you do it?
	We're like, I don't know, it was an encrypted app.
	They're like, what's that?
	We're like, ho ho ho, we feel safe.
	So, you'd also like to think that you're journalists.
	You'd like to think that your politicians are held to a higher standard.
	You would like to think it would impeachment, right?
	You think it's more than, ah, he said something mean.
	Right.
	Did you look at the sources, the evidence?
	The evidence.
	I have this here.
	This is, it reads like a Vox article.
	Half of the evidence, the sources, and this is available at lateralistcredit.com, are op-eds from the New York Times or Washington Post from known Trump haters or just random tweets.
	See, we say he did something wrong, so he did something wrong.
	Yeah, so let me read you a couple here.
	Gerald, you can kind of give your thoughts while I find some of these.
	My thoughts are we're not going to find a whole lot out about what's going to happen today, right?
	They're just going to get up and tell a bunch of sad stories and say we should be able to impeach President Trump because we don't like him, because the newspapers that we have on our payroll said that he did something wrong.
	I think that's exactly what's going to happen today.
	Right.
	OK, here's one.
	Here's one.
	This is from the brief, right?
	This is the proof that they brought.
	In that dimension, we'll talk about the people, Ted Lieu, My half-Asian lawyer, Bill Erskine, will be on later.
	I'm so sorry.
	He misrepresents that entire race of people.
	Eric Swalwell.
	I would say it reads like swamp creatures.
	It's like the cast from Creature from the Black Lagoon.
	So this is one right here.
	This is in the brief.
	It says, reflecting an ominous pattern that recurred many times over the weeks that followed, President Trump's attacks on Raffensperger sparked threats of death and violence.
	One such message warned that the Raffensperger should be put on trial for treason and face execution.
	You know what their source is?
	It's Business Insider.
	It's not even an original source.
	This is in the brief.
	It's Business Insider, which is a clickbait rehash of a local Fox 5 source that included a random tweet!
	What did they do?
	Send, like, an intern online to Google stories about the insurrection, quote-unquote?
	Here's one.
	Barr announced on December 1st that the DOJ had uncovered no—this is the evidence they brought forward, by the way—had uncovered no evidence of widespread voter fraud that could change the outcome of the 2020 election.
	Barr reportedly told President Trump at the time that his claims of election stealing were bullshit.
	Um, did you confirm this conversation?
	Did you ask anybody?
	Because the only source is an op-ed from the Hill!
	Oh, wow.
	I hope they did the research.
	Here's another one.
	Again, go read the review.
	It's all at lottowithcrowder.com.
	I hate our country for this.
	Not all the country, just the people running it right now.
	And I don't hate... Yeah, you don't hate.
	I do, I do, I hate.
	I'm a hater.
	I'm what the hip-hop generation calls a hater.
	Here's one.
	Through these and other statements, President Trump went the weeks preceding his rally, doing everything in his power to persuade attendees that their votes and the election itself were going to be stolen away in the joint session.
	That is, unless they somehow stopped it by making plans to, quote, fight like hell and fight to the death against this act of war by radical left Democrats.
	Bullshit!
	He was actually saying that Democrats would rather fight, they would fight to the death if you didn't fight like hell.
	If the shoe was on the other foot, he was saying Democrats would fight this to the death.
	He never said you need to fight these people to the death.
	What's their source?
	Their source is an article from NBC News and an article from ABC News.
	Nothing from Fox. Wow. Here's one of their sources. They list is a John Goodman, right? And his source
	is the incitement timeline. This is a guy who published articles in Washington Post against
	Michael Flynn. The guy was talking about the Logan Act.
	Here's another one. Maggie Haberman is someone they cite. She's a CNN political analyst. The
	Podesta emails were dropped by WikiLeaks, and they showed that she was a Clinton operative.
	So when you actually look into the people who wrote these sources, which shouldn't be counted
	as legitimate evidence because they're op-eds in Washington.
	Post, New York Times, The Hill, you also realize that these people are all leftist activists.
	Not to mention the people who are trying to commit this sham impeachment trail. Every
	single one supported the Russian impeachment, which we know was a hoax. Why don't we impeach them? Why don't we impeach
	them?
	They just lie about everything!
	We know that Russia was a hoax.
	We know that it was false.
	And then they're so flagrant in disregarding any accountability that they said, oh, you guys brought the former articles of impeachment that we now found out were factually incorrect.
	And if anything, Hillary Clinton and the Steele dossier, you know what?
	Let's put them in charge of this impeachment of a private citizen after he left office.
	Are they starting right now?
	I think it is.
	They're starting very late because they're politicians.
	I think they're doing the pledge.
	Hashtag.
	Oh, are they doing the pledge?
	Let me see.
	I think so.
	You know what?
	Let's do the pledge because they don't want us to hear their pledge, apparently.
	So, uh, let's do the Pledge of Allegiance, Gibbon.
	Do you have that ready?
	Alright, let's do this before we start.
	Back there.
	Back there in the corner.
	That's a way to honor this country.
	I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the republic for which it stands, one nation, under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all.
	That was pretty good, I gotta say.
	The Pledge of Allegiance.
	Richard Stans.
	Alright.
	No, I'm not laughing.
	Hey, look!
	It's the white ball.
	The cue ball.
	In the middle of the screen there?
	Let's hear what they have to say really quickly and then I want to go to everyone's thoughts.
	While the Senate of the United States is sitting for the trial of the article of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives against Donald John Trump, former president of the United States.
	That's what the J is for!
	John!
	That's kind of boring.
	So all they're arguing today is the constitutionality of going forward with this.
	By the way, it's completely unconstitutional, but that's what they're going to be arguing about and then decide if they want to go forward with impeachment of a private citizen tomorrow.
	So we just, listen, I wish we didn't have to do this, but here we are.
	They wanted to be able to claim that they impeached Donald Trump twice.
	Before they go on, you know what?
	I'm going to have to boot one of the Hodges because my half-Asian lawyer, Bill Richmond, Is here, and I would like to ask him some questions to fill you in on the proceedings.
	So, everybody please welcome my half-Asian lawyer, Bill Richman.
	Come on in, come on in.
	Y'all gonna do me like Rosa Parks, huh?
	No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
	We're letting you sit in the front.
	Alright.
	Bill, what's going on here for people who don't know?
	So, as you said correctly, yesterday we finally got the rules.
	You sound surprised.
	No, no, no.
	Look, yesterday they finally agreed on the rules.
	They exchanged a lot of those pre-trial briefings that I don't know why you tortured yourself by going through them, but you did.
	And so, now today we've got the four-hour session.
	They've officially started 1 o'clock Eastern, noon Central.
	They've started the house managers, kicked it off, and they're moving forward through four hours of debate.
	Now this is different because they only have to have a simple majority to decide whether or not it's constitutional or unconstitutional.
	Everything could end today, but I think more likely than not we're going to see this move to tomorrow.
	So Wednesday and Thursday is when we're going to have 16 hours of each side presenting their case.
	Prosecution.
	Defense.
	Now, they don't have to use it all, and any trial lawyer will tell you the best part of valor in a trial is knowing when to sit down and shut up and have left with a good impression.
	I'm going to imagine that the prosecution is going to use every single minute to trot out, what was it, Haberman, ABC, NBC, ABC, The Hill, Washington Post, I think Vox.
	I believe some transgender male-to-female from Slate.
	I heard the Animaniacs were maybe gonna come, but I think there'll be a surprise turn of co-witness for the defense.
	Just watch.
	Dot's Poetry Corner.
	It's gonna be amazing.
	This isn't just for show.
	Like, anybody's mind is actually not made up going into this, this four-hour, like, camera zone-in thing for them.
	This is like, this is going into every one of their campaigns next year.
	That's it.
	That's all this is, right?
	This is exactly what this is.
	You're gonna see an amazing clip fest that comes out from every single person in the opportunity to say something.
	Yeah, like Swalwell.
	That's what he did running for president.
	He knew he had no chance, but he just wanted to get his profile a little bit higher, raise some money, maybe get a cabinet position.
	That's what happens.
	These people don't run for president expecting to win.
	They run to sell books.
	And so Swalwell was like, I accuse him of the Russia collusion.
	Oh, that's bullshit.
	Doesn't matter.
	The media's not going to hold me accountable, so I'll get some more airtime.
	Pretty much.
	I'd love him to get some airtime off a cliff.
	Figuratively!
	On to a big pillow, a big my pillow, in fact.
	Figuratively.
	So, we've got instead of Senator, or excuse me, instead of Chief Justice Roberts presiding, we now have our longest-running, oldest 80-year-old Senator, who's a Democrat, who will be a witness and a juror.
	And why is that?
	Explain to people who don't know, because it should be Chief Justice Roberts.
	That is one of the interesting things.
	The Constitution only has four express requirements.
	And one of those requirements is, you know, you have the Senator, and then you have that it's going to be presided by the Chief Justice when it is for a sitting President.
	And that's why we're even having the debate today about whether you can use the impeachment for someone who is not in actual office.
	And so the person who is doing it is Patrick Leahy?
	Yes.
	He's a well-known Democrat, and I think he's 104, so he's not present for a lot of health reasons, but this is something people don't understand.
	Without Chief Justice Roberts, when you have basically Patrick Leahy presiding, he's both juror and judge.
	And a witness.
	And a witness.
	On top of that, he is also being alleged witness.
	Phil, how is this allowed?
	You're a lawyer, he's a lawyer.
	How is that allowed?
	How can you be a witness?
	Did that happen anywhere else?
	Well, no.
	And the reason, this is a very important distinction.
	People are often going to say, well wait a minute, we've created a criminal system that has a higher standard than in a civil court, beyond a reasonable doubt.
	It has additional rules, all kinds of things that are meant to preserve fairness.
	Most of those rules don't apply in an impeachment.
	That's why Getting into this particular moment is going to allow them to get evidence, testimony, procedure, the time frame.
	All of it is geared towards putting on more of a show than you would normally have in a real criminal trial, which is why they're trying to avoid that entirely.
	If they knew they had a criminal case, they'd go do the criminal thing.
	Right.
	But they know they don't.
	So they're going to have to move through this procedure.
	I'll give an analogy, right?
	So you have your military courts or your Guantanamo base, right?
	And the whole complaint there from the left is, well, you know, these folks, they're not citizens, or they are, but they committed domestic terrorism.
	You should still treat them and put them in the criminal justice system.
	But when it comes to the former president of the United States, they go, no, no, no, we shouldn't put them in the criminal justice system and actually follow the rules that we espouse.
	So that's why they're going to have this particular procedure and that's why it's unfortunate because we're going to see a lot of testimony.
	You're going to see a lot of evidence and folks are going to go, I've seen SVU.
	I know you can't let that in.
	You're going to be able to get it in here.
	It's not the way that it normally works in a trial.
	Unfortunate, but.
	I find the most interesting thing is when you look at every single article that's come out talking about the procedures, the final bipartisan agreement, Leahy being in charge, the 16 hours, the fact that on Thursday there will be a written Q&A session where they'll write questions down, read them aloud, and have them answered by both sides.
	What is this, Reddit?
	Yeah, kind of.
	It's an Ask Me Anything.
	But at the end of every article is the statement... I have a question.
	Why do you suck?
	Why do you suck so much?
	You should put that question in.
	I should put that.
	Why do you suck so much, Patrick Leahy and Eric Swalwell?
	Everything about this is just shit.
	This is the thing.
	They want you to be afraid to say, fight like hell.
	You mean to tell me that everyone takes fight like hell, especially when taken in tandem with make your voices heard peacefully, that that means you're calling people to violence?
	This is what is happening with big tech.
	You can say that there has been voter fraud.
	You can say there are voter irregularities.
	You cannot say on YouTube that it affected the outcome of the election.
	Otherwise, you'll get banned.
	And this entire basis of this impeachment is he incited people to violence by drawing attention to voting irregularities because that causes unrest, that it caused the insurrection.
	We'll go through the timeline.
	The insurrection that happened in the Capitol was before his speech even ended.
	Even if they left midway through, 1.8 miles, they would have had to beat the world record mile time.
	And that's why I think Lindsey Graham said you don't want to call all the witnesses.
	Usain Bolt was there.
	He ran all the way down to the Capitol.
	I heard.
	He was the first one in the Capitol building.
	It took him five minutes to get there!
	He's tall, he has a long stride.
	Ultimately, we're going to see a process that I think reveals the true intentions.
	This isn't about, certainly not unity, certainly not about healing the country, certainly not about justice, it's not about trying to actually hold someone accountable, it's about scoring political points, creating good moments that you can then replay over and over and over again.
	And I think it's going to ultimately backfire.
	I think it is actually already at this moment.
	A lot of folks are like, what's going on?
	On both sides of the aisle, they're saying, what is really going on here?
	I thought we were moving on.
	So it'll be really interesting, both the four hours we have today and the 16 hours on each side that we got to do for all of that.
	Here's the thing.
	We have a perfect case.
	We have a perfect precedent.
	Not just legally, but what should happen here.
	Nixon resigned.
	They didn't impeach him.
	Because, at that point, a lot of people weren't necessarily thrilled with it, but because he saw it as the only way to unify the country, to heal and move on, Ford gave him a pardon.
	And a lot of people were upset by it, but if you look back now at historians, even liberal historians, they say that was the right thing to do.
	Right now, we have a president who committed no crime, who didn't call anybody to violence.
	This is paper thin, even thinner than the Russia collusion.
	Well, I guess not, because that was fraudulent when you actually take it into account.
	And they're calling for unity while impeaching someone who's not even in office.
	These people don't want unity.
	Don't find common ground on a lie.
	Fight like hell.
	Fight like hell by posting on social media the dishonesty here.
	Fight like hell by posting everywhere you can the voting irregularities that are verifiable, not conspiracies.
	Make sure you do your due diligence.
	Fight like hell in doing your due diligence and getting that information out there.
	And if it gets removed, fight like hell in exploring your legal options.
	And then if those are exhausted and they say they're not going to let you back on, fight like hell and claim that you're gay or do a 23andMe, find some ethnicity in you, and declare it a hate crime.
	Fight like hell to make sure that these people feel that they at least have some eyeballs on them going into the next election.
	I know a lot of people want to say, what happens in this country if your vote didn't matter here and they do this forevermore?
	Listen, there are ways to correct.
	If they could change the law right before the election in unconstitutional ways, which were ruled in some courts, by the way, like Pennsylvania, change it to mass voting.
	without any kind of standards in some states. Change it to the day of the
	election, the deadlines. If they can change those within the week of the election,
	your voice can hold these people accountable if you fight like hell.
	Doesn't mean that I want you to blow anything up, okay? If that is considered, well then I guess
	color me violent by saying fight like hell with your words and information and making sure that
	you do your due diligence.
	This is absurd.
	And here's the thing, too.
	You can tell me, Bill, if I'm right about this.
	If it goes to a criminal court, if it's no longer an impeachment, then it's even more of a First Amendment issue.
	So you definitely would involve First Amendment issues when you come to what was said, how it was said, what was the intent behind saying it.
	But without a question, you don't even get that far because of the procedural hurdles.
	Regularly, you have prosecutorial discretion where the prosecutors go, huh, do we want to waste taxpayer money on actually prosecuting a case that we don't think actually has a chance of moving forward?
	Because these prosecutors aren't usually there just for, the average prosecutor is not there for just media stunts.
	You mispronounced unity.
	I'm sorry.
	I mean hate and division.
	our dollars burn for the next three days in a process that every single article
	Unity.
	left and right admits is unlikely to result in any kind of conviction except
	just more fighting over the same thing. So you mispronounced unity. I'm sorry I
	mean hate and division. Unity. And I love you know they could be doing better
	things with their time and a number of people have brought up this argument and
	I have seen so many... Figuratively they could. Sort of.
	But keep in mind they're politicians so they don't know how.
	That's difficult, and a number of Democrats have been like, well look, we can walk and chew gum at the same time, and I'm like, no.
	No you cannot.
	No you cannot.
	History has proven that you can do neither one of those things.
	Period.
	Not much less at the same time.
	I've never seen you be able to do it, yeah.
	You guys have COVID that you think is just ravaging the world in ways that we've never seen before, even though that's not completely accurate.
	I understand it.
	It's a big problem that we have to deal with.
	You just spent $2 trillion, most of which was unnecessary to help for COVID, and you have a game plan of sending it— Hey, my people in China needed that money, okay?
	Yeah, well, they did, yes.
	All right, thank you.
	And your game plan is having Joe Biden— Those labs aren't going to build themselves.
	Joe Biden signed executive orders.
	Hopefully he knows what's in them.
	That can't be your game plan going forward.
	You actually have to get to work.
	And until you move on from Donald Trump, you can't.
	Final point on this.
	What do you think would be the worst?
	Like for Donald Trump, what is the worst thing to happen to him?
	Can we hold on?
	I want to go to them really quick because I know you guys tuned in for this, but of course we're furious.
	And so right now it got the better of me.
	I need to calm down a little bit.
	Had too much coffee.
	My heart probably doesn't thank me.
	Let's hear what they're saying.
	And then let's ask that question again.
	If you wish.
	Mr. Raskin, you're recognized.
	Is this Raskin?
	Raskin.
	Thank you very much, Mr. President.
	Distinguished members of the Senate.
	Good afternoon.
	My name is Jamie Raskin.
	It's my honor to represent the people of Maryland's 8th Congressional District in the House and also to serve as the lead House manager.
	And Mr. President, we will indeed reserve time for rebuttal.
	Thank you.
	Because I've been a professor of constitutional law for three decades, I know there are a lot of people who are dreading endless lectures about the Federalist Papers here.
	Please breathe easy, okay?
	I remember well W.H.
	Auden's line that a professor is someone who speaks while other people are sleeping.
	You will not be hearing extended lectures from me because our case is based on cold, hard facts.
	It's all about the facts.
	No, it's not.
	Hey, can you bring up Raskin?
	This guy, bring up his craziest Russia tweets.
	So keep in mind, this guy right now didn't learn his lesson.
	There you go.
	Look, talking about perjury.
	Why is there no accountability for him when he accuses someone of perjury?
	Why is there no accountability for him when he charges people of serious crimes, of federal crimes?
	He's back here doing the same thing.
	This is the problem.
	You want to know what the problem is with Washington, D.C.?
	There's no accountability for this guy.
	He can commit crimes and he doesn't feel that he's accountable.
	He doesn't feel that there's anyone looking over his shoulder.
	For the same reason they feel that they can prosecute a private citizen at this point.
	It's all politics.
	The law doesn't apply to them.
	And he looks like a dick.
	I don't think he actually knows what a fact is.
	I don't think he knows what hair transplants are.
	I don't know why he's looking like little John from Robin Hood.
	He doesn't need to.
	He has the money.
	our money. All that damn comb over action. The framers of the Constitution rejected a
	Okay, what else do we have?
	He does.
	Alright, I'm getting back to the law books.
	Reunite these twins.
	I'll be back with questions.
	Sorry, sorry, but Gerald asked you what the worst thing would be to happen to Donald Trump.
	So, and it's almost a rhetorical question.
	It's not being impeached again.
	It's for people to stop paying attention to him.
	He craves attention and so if the Democrats really wanted to piss him off, they would
	And stop talking about it.
	This is going to be another opportunity to rehash the same battles.
	If it really was about moving on, they would actually just move on.
	But it's not.
	It's about political points.
	It's about making a theater.
	Presentation, Broadway, win a Tony Award for what happens over the next two or three days.
	And instead, the country could have been focused on doing other things.
	Whether or not politicians could actually solve anything.
	But truly, this is what it's come down to.
	It's feeding the news cycle with more and more of this show instead of actually just getting back to it.
	And hey, I actually, this is why I'm excited about the next couple of days because you can't hide how much it is just a show when you actually go through it.
	Because I almost imagine that The Democrats kind of want to lose today on the constitutional question, because then they can say, well, we never even got to the merits of the impeachment.
	He would have been impeached if we had gotten there.
	But, you know, that pesky Constitution always getting in the way of actually being a real American.
	That sounds kind of like where conservatives were with a lot of the voting regularities, only the difference is they actually wanted to present evidence.
	Exactly.
	Hey, if we could have gotten to the phase of actually admitting evidence like, here's
	several thousand voters who don't live in the state, here's a dead guy, here's a death
	certificate and conservatives, Republicans complained it was never admitted into court.
	In this case, they want to be able to claim, ah yeah, but we couldn't move forward because
	of the Constitution, but we would have.
	You know what we're going to hear if they lose on the constitutional question is, well,
	we got to just get rid of this thing.
	It's a living document.
	I was hoping you were gonna say the sound of self-induced tense twine as their legs dangled from themselves.
	Themselves.
	Not someone else.
	Themselves.
	They could do the world a favor by just removing themselves from office.
	By any means necessary.
	Resigning.
	Yes.
	Resigning and going over the Rainbow Bridge.
	Is this Mario Kart?
	No.
	All right, bye, half-Asian lawyer Bill Richman.
	Let's bring back, which one are we bringing?
	I love that thing.
	Are you Kevin or Keith?
	Kevin.
	Do you just mess with people and just tell them the wrong name like you did to us the other day?
	Appreciate that.
	All right, the hashtag is, of course, Crowder Impeachment Trial.
	We are here with you so that you don't feel lonely.
	And the promo code is FightLikeHell.
	Come at me, bro!
	YouTube and Facebook.
	I don't really give a rat's ass anymore.
	You get $30 off if you join MugClubLivewithCrowder.com slash MugClub.
	Oh, let's watch this now.
	now. They're showing videos in the Capitol steps.
	I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to do that. I'm not
	going to do that. I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to do that. I'm not going to
	You're off the screen!
	Hey, can they write that on CNN?
	That's hate speech.
	It is.
	They didn't even put a star in there.
	Maybe I can get Half-Asian Bill to sue CNN.
	CNN.
	Can you be a little more volume, guys?
	I think we can all agree these people are idiots.
	In that case.
	When their attempt, they showed up, and their attempt to get in was effectively the wolf in the piggy's house built out of straw.
	Let me in!
	They just start blowing.
	It's not working!
	Daryl, what the hell are you doing?
	I read this in a movie once!
	You read a movie?
	I don't know, I've been on some message boards.
	You're like, it's a double standard they're showing.
	Everybody knows what happened at the Capitol building, but they failed to show all these riots and they aired it on television like they're airing this.
	Yeah.
	Well, they aired it and they said it was mostly peaceful and then they were like, ignore this flaming Datsun behind me.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Well, the Dotson kind of deserved it.
	Outlived its usefulness a little bit.
	How are you attacking the police?
	You got a thin blue line flag.
	You know what they just did right there?
	President Donald Trump ends his speech.
	The last part's bullcrap because he never urged violence.
	No, he hadn't ended his speech.
	No, no, no.
	What I'm saying is they just showed that the protesters had started rioting prior to him ending his speech.
	Yeah.
	He was in the middle of his speech and he didn't say anybody go there and do anything violent.
	He said, peacefully and patriotically, let your voices be heard.
	Hmm.
	Interesting.
	Where is that exact timeline given in the thing here?
	Because this thing is just all kind of disorganized.
	We have the exact timeline of when his speech ended and when they made it there.
	This is crazy.
	Freaking idiots.
	Got that on page 5.
	Sorry folks, obviously we're scrambling a little bit here.
	Oh no, Rachel Levine.
	It's Mitch McConnell.
	You don't like Ms.
	D. Mitch McConnell or Rachel Levine?
	The answer to both is no.
	Trick question.
	Trick question!
	They're both dicks and they both have them.
	You need the timeline is what you're saying?
	That is not the timeline.
	I'm looking for the timeline on when he started his speech and when they invaded the Capitol.
	Gibbon, we're supposed to have a table of contents here.
	Was it 1.10 and then they were there, his speech ended at 1.11?
	They started the siege a minute before he ended his speech?
	It looks like it.
	CNN was even making that.
	This is actually a great video.
	Alright, let's bring this up while I look for this to make sure I have it right.
	Massive scale.
	It would have tipped the entire election.
	Trump's mob.
	Trump's mob!
	Bad t-shirts.
	Well, he's just a bunch of people in spats with fedoras.
	They're calling the sign revolt. Thank you so much, Gal.
	Oh, my God.
	Yeah, it was 110.
	What the hell is this old man doing?
	What's he doing with that rope?
	Let's say that Donald Trump, by the way, he explicitly called for supporters to be, you know, peaceful, right?
	To let their voices be heard peacefully and patriotically make their voices heard.
	I see the confusion because the left hears patriotically and they hear not silly.
	Violent is what they hear.
	That's their patriotism.
	But let's assume that he called for violence.
	Let's assume that.
	He didn't!
	Let's assume it.
	1.10pm they began.
	This is when they started grappling with the Capitol Police.
	1.8 miles away.
	We can bring this up with Google Maps.
	Trump's speech ended at 1.11pm.
	And the FBI affidavits, right?
	The left loves them when they're convenient for themselves.
	Of course.
	They said that this was planned long before Donald Trump's speech.
	And so what do they do?
	That's why we go to these sources that come from like Ted Lieu's op-ed in the Washington Post saying Donald Trump, long before the Capitol, was inciting violence by saying that there were voting irregularities.
	This is what's so scary about this.
	If this were actually in a criminal court.
	It's not.
	It's an impeachment sham.
	If someone could actually be tried criminally or civilly for inciting violence simply for questioning election results, Al Gore would still be somebody's bitch in prison.
	Yeah.
	And do you remember when Chuck Schumer was on the steps of the Supreme Court?
	He'd be Alcatraz's everlasting gobstopper.
	On the Supreme Court, when Chuck Schumer said, you have no idea what kind of whirlwind you're bringing.
	Talking to the Supreme Court justices, to a group of people right there, saying that if you don't vote our way, essentially, you have no idea what you're calling down on yourselves.
	Let's just assume, okay, fine, if you think that that is inciting violence, let's bring that up.
	What about the people who invaded the Wisconsin capitol, the teachers unions that invaded that building, and sat in the building for days?
	Nope, nope, same thing.
	Not at all.
	Maxine Waters, none of that.
	Nancy Pelosi, nope.
	What about Bernie Sanders, the guy who went after Scalise?
	I don't think this... I mean, this is kind of off subject, but I think that guy had my shirt on.
	That's not something you want to point out.
	There's no such thing as bad publicity.
	That would qualify.
	A marketing team sent us this picture.
	The dude was in the Capitol building.
	You could see the H. Are you serious?
	Yeah, it's like three pictures.
	Yeah, and it didn't help that as he punched out a copy, the turn of the camera went... Alright, let's watch this a little more.
	They're trying to build up some drama here because they want you to associate all of this with Donald Trump
	Despite the fact that his speech was still going on Okay
	What a bunch of idiots Yeah.
	It's not going to change anything.
	What you're doing, it's not going to change anything.
	And it's not how we do things.
	Yeah.
	At all.
	Look, I understand the frustration.
	Look, he's got my hat on!
	Can you rewind that?
	No.
	Can't rewind it.
	It's right there!
	We can't rewind it, and we don't want to, but congratulations.
	That's pretty cool.
	Again.
	That's a pretty good job, yeah.
	Yeah.
	Fight like hell.
	No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no.
	Not at all.
	I mean, that's why I didn't go to this event.
	Because you're not a criminal?
	Yeah.
	Because it only takes one bad apple to spoil the whole bunch.
	And it's also, by the way, the same reason that people used to ask me, like, why don't you show up at these, what's the name of the Charlie Kirk?
	Like, Turning Point, stuff like that.
	Why don't you show up?
	And I said, because I don't want anyone to be accountable for the crazy stuff I say, and I don't want to be held accountable for something someone else says.
	Notice I don't really do a whole lot of publicity outside of what we manage and control.
	There's no reason to anymore, but this is the problem with a mob mentality.
	Look, I understand the frustration of people seeing their politicians, their elected officials, betraying them.
	I understand that, and I think that it, and I'm not, and I'm condemning the violence, of course.
	But when you compare it to two billion dollars worth of damages and countless people, not countless, dozens of people dead, hundreds of officer casualties in the summer, and that was just aimed at some general systemic racism, so we're going to burn down local businesses, it's much more understandable the train of thought if people are mad at their elected officials to direct their ire toward elected officials.
	This is the wrong way to do it, of course, Neither scenario would warrant this kind of violence, and it's stupid, but you can understand that if you're going to voice your opinion, and march, and protest, and you know, even a Molotov cocktail or two, where I'm just saying we're using a low standard here because of the Black Lives Matter protest, don't do it to the local Walgreens, don't do it to the local theater.
	Dude, it's crazy.
	He's got guns drawn.
	That's when that lady got shot up there.
	Actually, Babbit is.
	And that's terrible.
	That's horrible.
	Absolutely.
	Yeah, what the hell?
	She was just standing there.
	I know.
	That's why I don't get no one's talking about it.
	She was just standing there.
	Well, she was standing beside the dude trying to break in.
	Right.
	The bullet was missing.
	Now, here's the thing.
	They're going to show you this, and then in the, if you read the brief, it says, and then we heard that Donald Trump was positively delighted by the chaos.
	There's no way he could have seen any of this, by the way.
	He was still giving his speech, and even when he came off the stage, if they said, hey, I don't know if you heard this, there are people who have tried to breach the Capitol building, they would have whisked him away, and he would have been taken to a secure location.
	There's no way anyone could know that Donald Trump was delighted by this, and there's no way that that actually could have happened, and that's in the brief.
	Thanks, Ted Lieu.
	Thanks for... How do you pronounce it?
	Lieu?
	Is the I silent?
	Damn, he took his down.
	It's funny, the whole case against the president is all disinformation.
	No one's fact-checked.
	It's like the fact-checkers only go against the conservatives to throttle down their reach.
	Because all the evidence they presented is basically opinions.
	Yeah, well we, by the way, and I know some people are mad that we didn't do the Nevada stream because, you know, my heart, but we actually have an intern right now still going down to all those addresses to verify them because we have, I mean, hundreds of addresses.
	Addresses that don't exist.
	People who voted and empty lots.
	And I was even told by my half-Asian lawyer, he said, well, you still can't claim that unless you personally go.
	I'm like, look, I've confirmed it to the voter rolls. I've confirmed it through Google Earth.
	And he goes, so he said, okay, we're gonna send an intern on it.
	So he has a few hours, we'll pay for his gas and he'll be taking pictures of himself with today's paper.
	Nice!
	And then we still might go and do it. But you know what? No evidence. That's never been admitted.
	None.
	None.
	Man, this is crazy.
	This is absolutely crazy.
	But it has nothing to do with Donald Trump.
	That doesn't look like peacefully and patriotically.
	It looks like retardedly.
	For them to continue to show this, it has nothing to do with the president.
	Well, but this is the MO for the media and for them.
	Okay, here you go.
	Over two hours after insurgents breached their Capitol, President Trump tweets a video.
	Take it away from all of us.
	From me, from you, from our country.
	This was a fraudulent election.
	But we can't play into the hands of these people.
	We have to have peace.
	So go home, we love you, you're very special, you've seen what happens, you see the way others... So are they going to try and twist it that he said we love you, means he loves violence, when he said we need peace?
	He's obviously saying we love you to the people who are there, who are protesting, not to people who are being violent.
	Correct.
	This is something that matters when he says there has to be peace.
	He's been very clear throughout all of this.
	He's not saying, he condemned the actions of violence.
	That's the perfect Christian example.
	Condemn the action of violence and then tell the people, who aren't committing violence, which by the way was the vast majority of people in DC, that we love you, go home.
	You think that those people are more likely to go home?
	How do you think this works with a hostage negotiation?
	Do you think if he goes down and he goes, you piece of shit, I'm going to bring in the squad team, they're going to come out shooting.
	No, you want to keep the hostages alive.
	What do you want, man?
	I understand.
	Please be peaceful.
	We love you.
	Go home.
	What do you think he should have said?
	We're going to hang all of you for trees in the moment you're out of there, so you better make it count.
	Yeah.
	No, he said the right thing.
	Including AOC who was nowhere near there.
	Yeah.
	She was learning how to mime.
	I was up against the wall, and then I saw a great ship!
	Okay, here's our source.
	These are the things and events that happen when a sacred landslide election victory is so unceremonious and viciously stripped away from the patriots who are going to go home with love and peace.
	Remember this day forever.
	So look, is someone not allowed to say that this was an election with irregularities while simultaneously calling for peace?
	What did Al Gore do?
	Keep in mind, Al Gore only wanted a recount in three counties because he knew that he would lose if they recanted the whole state.
	They made documentaries about that for years.
	Keep in mind that all of these people, right?
	This guy right here, Raskin, accused Donald Trump of colluding with Russia.
	They said the 2016 election was stolen.
	And that was verifiably false.
	And these people aren't held accountable.
	Right, so they don't believe that.
	If they're going to hold themselves to their own standard, they said the election was stolen, and they don't consider that a call to violence.
	How much money do you spend for that?
	The Russian collusion?
	I don't know.
	How many?
	Hundreds of millions, I would assume.
	Yeah, a lot.
	I would assume, I mean, can we have at least, what, $20 million to investigate?
	Alex just 20 million. 10 days that's all they had. 10 days to take a look.
	Billy Negro.
	And we're banned again.
	That's all it took. I'm a little confused though. I thought Raskin was supposed to be making the case for the
	impeachment of Donald Trump because everything that he just showed me go home in peace, get out of here.
	How many times does he have to say that?
	I understand that you're mad but go home. That actually makes a case to not.
	Let's hear what he's saying right now to try and color the video.
	Every historian will tell you that. We just saw it in the most astonishing way.
	We lived through it.
	And you know what?
	The framers of our Constitution knew it.
	That's why they created a Constitution with an oath written into it that binds the President from his very first day in office until his very last day in office and every day in between.
	Under that Constitution, and under that oath, The President of the United States is forbidden to commit high crimes and misdemeanors against the people at any point that he's in office.
	What high crime or misdemeanor did he commit?
	Correct.
	Yeah, exactly.
	You committed a high crime and misdemeanor by accusing him of colluding with Russia!
	And your party was colluding with Russia!
	You know it!
	The Steele dossier!
	We know it now!
	We know it now!
	You are more guilty of that crime than Donald Trump!
	With the rule of mobs, These powers must apply even if the President commits his offenses in his final weeks in office.
	In fact, that's precisely when we need them the most, because that's when elections get attacked.
	Everything that we know about the language of the Constitution, the Framers' original understanding and intent, prior Senate practice, and common sense confirms this rule.
	Let's start with the text of the Constitution.
	Yes, Les.
	Which in Article 1, Section 2, gives the House the sole power of impeachment when the President commits high crimes and misdemeanors.
	We exercised that power on January 13th.
	Which are?
	Give us an example.
	The President, it is undisputed, committed his offense while he was President.
	And it is undisputed that we impeached him while he was President.
	There can be no doubt that this is a valid and legitimate impeachment.
	Congress has no jurisdiction over private citizens, but they're claiming that they impeached him before he left office.
	Okay, so they triggered it.
	The Senate is supposed to try it.
	Right.
	Why is there no Chief Justice Roberts, by the way?
	Why is Patrick Leahy going to be witness, juror, and judge?
	It's everything that Donald Trump said was true, saying the system is rigged?
	Well listen, I don't know that I can say this, but what more clear of an example could you see of a rigged system outside of one man being the shitty trinity of being witness, juror, and judge?
	Judge Dredd.
	He's getting triple pay for his roles.
	Guilty.
	There's no due process, by the way, for an impeachment of a private citizen.
	That's important to know.
	Congress is acting right here.
	They're acting as judge and jury, and they do not have the legal authority to do so.
	Here's something that's really important.
	Constitution, they won't talk about this.
	Article 2, Section 4.
	That it clearly states impeachment is for the removal from office.
	The president shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
	The party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment trial law if a president is convicted and removed.
	Not either or.
	Meaning you cannot convict without removal because they didn't expect shit this crazy.
	You think the founding fathers would have stood for this?
	They were throwing people overboard for taxing their breakfast drink!
	What?
	Overboard you go!
	And again, there's also the intent of the law.
	There's no purpose to remove a sitting president outside of a criminal conviction.
	They didn't remove a president.
	And now they're trying to impeach a private citizen.
	And then saying that you should unify.
	What unity means is obey, is kneel.
	And I don't know if you could tell, but I'm not gonna.
	I don't think this is going to change your view on that.
	By the way, so if they really wanted to, they could bring criminal charges.
	We talked about that.
	They're not going to do that.
	So really what this comes down to is the show, right?
	Because this is valuable for their supporters and campaign ads and things like that.
	But it also comes down to them being afraid that in 2024, Donald Trump will come back.
	The specter of Donald Trump will return.
	This is hanging over their heads like he's some Voldemort in the background waiting to return and reclaim his throne.
	And this is the way to prevent them.
	But I asked Stephen before this, I don't know, I haven't found anything on this but I'd love it if somebody had something or we'll do some more research.
	Is there a time frame with which you have to exercise impeachment?
	So let's say that Donald Trump did this and he was guilty of this.
	Could they wait until he runs again, wins re-election, and is put in office to then impeach him for this action?
	Is there some sort of statute of limitations on that?
	That's the question that I don't know, but if that was the case... What, do you mean legally, or do you mean for Democrats in 2020?
	No, no, no, no, no, because law doesn't really matter here.
	This is all about feelings, apparently.
	They can do whatever they want.
	They can do whatever they want.
	They can just impeach him at that point, so why not wait?
	They can accuse you of inciting a violent riot that started a minute before you finished speaking.
	Absolutely, but so listen... It's a beautiful country.
	Follow my logic.
	It's like the tenet of bullshit.
	It's like these people watched a Christopher Nolan film on acid, got inspired, and said, we can do that.
	So if you were 100% sure that he's guilty and that you would be able to convict him in the Senate and impeach him, why would you not hold that in your back pocket until he potentially won again?
	That would be your silver bullet against Donald Trump forever, to keep him from ever running for office again because the minute he won, you would just impeach him.
	Speaking of which, this guy could use a little bit of Wolfman hair growth on his chromedome there.
	I don't know what happened there.
	There's a hair in a can.
	It's a shame.
	Don't we have a drinking game, isn't it?
	Every time they say impeach, isn't that on the drinking game?
	Oh, well we've said it a few times.
	Isn't it?
	They've been saying it like 50 times.
	You guys have to take a drink.
	I need a beer!
	Thank God this is not alcohol.
	Let's show the rules again here.
	Vodka.
	Oh, we don't have impeachment in there?
	Well, it should be.
	Insurrection, hate speech.
	I don't think we wanted to do that to ourselves.
	Alright, let me listen to him a little more.
	What?
	even confined impeachment only to officials who had already left office.
	This confirms that removal was never seen as the exclusive purpose of impeachment in
	America.
	The goal was always about accountability, protecting society.
	No!
	By the way, what's the only thing they can do if they find him guilty?
	The only thing they can do?
	Remove him from office.
	Right.
	That's it.
	Period.
	That's it.
	Done.
	And then you would have to... The criminal courts would have to start from zero.
	Right.
	He thus emphasized that the President is even more accountable than officials in Delaware, where as I noted, the Constitution clearly allowed impeachment of former officials.
	And nobody involved in the convention ever said that the framers meant to reject this widely accepted, deeply rooted understanding of the word impeachment.
	Hey, what's your deep understanding, since we're going on the Constitution, of right to bear arms and shall not be infringed?
	They're looking to ancillary documents to try and prove their case here, and they couldn't care less about the Constitution.
	By the way, if you're putting this in the Constitution for former presidents... Oh, look at this.
	This is their quote.
	That doesn't mean that you can impeach him while he's out of office.
	That just means they're concerned that a guy might run again.
	Yeah, exactly.
	You're showing your hand.
	You're concerned.
	You don't have any legal argument to impeach him.
	Right now is the time for a criminal trial if you think that Donald Trump committed a crime because he's a private citizen.
	100%.
	Y'all actually think Trump's going to run again?
	No.
	I don't know.
	I wouldn't.
	I hope not.
	He should be tired by now.
	He should just go off and make a living.
	Since the moment he got elected they've been going after him and his family.
	It's gotta be exhausting on him and his family.
	Can you imagine having to meet with these assholes every day?
	Yeah, it's like... Suck your soul out of your body like a poddling in Dark Crystal.
	I think that's why he was so in their faces, because he saw clearly what they were doing, and he hated it.
	Not only coming after him, but the things that they do for, quote-unquote, the American people.
	And he's like, you guys are worse than Wall Street!
	I thought it was around the worst of them!
	Let's impeach Jamie Raskin.
	Let's do that.
	Let's impeach Jamie Raskin for spending American taxpayer dollars on what turned out to be The Democrats colluding with the Russians.
	How about that?
	Falsely accusing the President.
	Let me bring up for people who don't remember, just so I have this right exactly, the Russia thing.
	Just for the timeline.
	It's been a while.
	So let me give you a timeline on Russia that this guy actually pushed.
	Of course, Donald Trump was exonerated right in late 2019 over what they were alleging, remember, was the Ukrainian thing, trying to put pressure.
	The House claimed when they impeached him, remember, this seems almost like deja vu, they had uncovered a month-long effort by President Trump to use the powers of his office to solicit foreign interference on his behalf in the 2020 election.
	The truth is, after the trial, and there was a bipartisan report by the Senate Intelligence Committee, they found that there was nothing.
	They found that the investigation into the Russian interference relied on disinformation from the Steele dossier.
	Where did the Steele dossier come from?
	Who worked with the Steele dossier?
	This is the Democrats, by the way.
	So really, they were actually... This is why it's more sinister than that.
	What we found out about Russia was that they were accusing Donald Trump of doing what they were doing.
	They were colluding with foreign entities to try and... Now, not just to steal an election, but to dig up dirt on Donald Trump, who was running at that point.
	We know that, beyond any shadow of a doubt.
	You think all of these Democrats didn't know that when they were going out there tweeting to the public?
	I think that there should be an investigation into that.
	Did you know about the corruption that occurred within your party in the relationship with Russian interference?
	If you did, then I think you and your little monk's cap need to get your ass out of our representation.
	It's crazy man, they actually accuse him of colluding with Russia while they actually colluded with Russia.
	To get him on collusion with Russia charges, yeah.
	And then in October, remember the declassified notes, this was from former CIA Director John Brennan.
	It showed that the CIA was aware of Clinton's disinformation campaign.
	Here's a quote.
	So she accused him of colluding with foreign powers while she was doing it herself.
	26th of July of a proposal from one of her foreign policy advisors to vilify Donald Trump
	by stirring up a scandal claiming interference by the Russian security services.
	So she accused him of colluding with foreign powers while she was doing it herself.
	She was at that point arguably the most powerful Democrat, you know, really in the United States
	when running for president.
	Absolutely.
	And you mean to tell me that nobody else knew about it?
	These same people had no idea?
	Why don't we have an investigation into that?
	Because guess what?
	That is treason.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	Trying to remove a president or keep somebody from being able to win the presidency.
	Well, I guess it's not treason because he wasn't president yet.
	Yeah, it's in the process.
	Just kind of shitty.
	Just take all the people that's been attacked for just wearing MAGA gear and you take Nance Pelosi, what's that lady like James Brown?
	Maxine Waters.
	Nobody would do that, right?
	It's the same thing.
	They're doing the same thing just like before.
	They're putting him on trial for violence.
	Let's hear from Joe Ngu, Joe Ngu, Joe, Joe no good at presenting arguments.
	And that makes sense.
	Because the text of the Constitution makes clear- It looks like he should be in an all-state commercial.
	There is no January exception to the impeachment power.
	Look at that damn tie he got on.
	Nobody's asking for this, by the way.
	Presidents can't commit grave offenses in their final days.
	They're just like, trust us, we're- This is good.
	We can do it.
	I don't have anything.
	It's a straw man.
	That's not how our constitution works.
	Well of course, don't surprise, he supported the first impeachment.
	So he supported the first impeachment after he was just elected to Congress in 2018, when we knew better.
	He was late to the game though, so he had to support it.
	People talk about, look, I'm a conservative, I'm not a centrist, I don't think that we find common ground in the center if it's not honest, but this is just the Team Jersey Party politics here, where people look at it, there's Democrats line up, and then Republicans line up outside of Susan Collins and one other wiener or two, and nothing's going to happen.
	This is political theater, it's a waste of American taxpayer dollars, and these people don't care about the Constitution.
	Oh, we're going to William Bloom!
	Let's hear what he has to say, because I'm ready for that one.
	Ultimately, President Adams caught him.
	He turned over the evidence to Congress.
	Four days later, the House of Representatives impeached him.
	A day after that, this body, the United States Senate, expelled him from office.
	So he was very much a former official.
	Despite that, the House went forward with its impeachment proceeding in order to disqualify him from ever again holding federal office.
	And so the Senate No, the truth is he actually resigned mere hours before that.
	And the Senate failed, of course, to achieve the two-thirds majority that they needed.
	So again, nothing happened.
	He resigned moments before they did it, and they didn't actually have the Senate get the majority.
	So they're just, they're grasping at straws here.
	If you were to go back then, you know, and find whoever was, you know, I assume it was a stenographer, something like a Flintstone, you know, like a pterodactyl with a pen who goes, this jab sucks!
	Chiseling it down.
	Back then, you had plenty of people going, you can't do this, guys.
	You can't do this.
	He resigned.
	So it would be like people looking back now on this, right?
	Let's say a hundred years from now, looking back on this when they try to impeach a private citizen then saying, well, they did it to Donald Trump.
	Without the context of, no, no, no, no.
	It was political theater.
	The Democrats in Congress did it and the Senate didn't do anything.
	Of course, right now we're all arguing about how it's unconstitutional.
	They want to present to you as though it was unilaterally agreed upon in, I think it was 1878, when the fact is, he resigned first and there were all kinds of arguments being made against it.
	That's why the Senate didn't convict.
	We have a more recent example.
	Nixon.
	He resigned.
	They didn't impeach.
	Also different.
	You should go into the details.
	You should go into the details.
	You really should.
	The House discovered that he was involved in a massive kickback scheme.
	Hours before the House committee that discovered this conduct released its report documenting
	the scheme, Belknap literally rushed to the White House to resign, tender his resignation
	to President Ulysses Grant to avoid any further inquiry into his misconduct.
	And of course, to avoid being disqualified... I'm sorry, that's Osama.
	I thought they were talking about Belknap before I came here.
	They must have been talking about Blunt?
	Blunt.
	Okay.
	They weren't talking about Belknap.
	Oh, okay.
	Thank you.
	Okay, thank you very much.
	Why are you here?
	Okay.
	Oh, geez.
	That guy.
	Okay, thank you very much.
	Why are you here?
	Um...
	Okay. Oh, geez.
	Belknap made the exact same argument That guy.
	that President Trump is making today.
	No, he didn't.
	That you all lack jurisdiction, any power to try him because
	he's a...
	But why did two-thirds of Senators not vote to convict?
	Dummy!
	You dumb piece of shit!
	when they heard that argument, literally they were sitting in the same chair as you all
	are sitting in today. They were outraged by that argument.
	Really? Hold on.
	But why did two-thirds of senators not vote to convict? Dummy, you dumb piece of shit.
	This would be like going back in time being like, and someone a hundred years from now
	going, and there were, there was a Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, who was so outraged
	at the crime committed, and people going like, wow, really?
	Everyone was outraged?
	No!
	No, not everyone was outraged.
	Just the crazy bitch with the blowout during COVID.
	It wasn't everybody.
	This is the problem.
	As far as Blunt, by the way, there's no historical context as to why the Senate didn't convict.
	Right now it's talking about Belknap.
	The reason why is because of what we're talking about today.
	Yeah, so Belknap, he went from like a 5,000 foot view, like let's get some details, and he went up to 30,000 feet and said, these are the same things.
	No, they would be the same things if Donald Trump, the day that this happened, after telling people to go and riot at the Capitol and break in, resigned as president and left office trying to avoid being impeached.
	He didn't do that.
	He stayed there and said, ah, didn't do anything wrong, prove me wrong, and then went out of office like he said he would, peacefully, so we had a transition of power.
	These are not the same things.
	They're trying to equate them, but they're not the same.
	Cherry picking.
	It's lies!
	It pisses me off because our institutions have to be about more than this.
	If you're telling me that there's enough evidence to convict, but you're only going to be able to convince five or ten people on the other side of the aisle to vote for conviction, That's not a trial.
	That's people voting for their guy.
	Right now, this is abusing our system of government for political theater because they're upset that Donald Trump said our system of government is rigged for political theater.
	Exactly.
	He hated this very thing.
	It's like he was saying, you can't trust what they say.
	They lie for their own political gain.
	They go, oh, what we need to do is lie about Bill Cabell now.
	Yeah, exactly.
	For our own political gain and make our case.
	It'd be like going back in history and acting like Brett Kavanaugh was guilty.
	They can yell until they're blue in the face.
	Do black people get blue in the face when they yell?
	No, purple.
	He can yell until he's a slightly darker shade in the face.
	And it doesn't change the fact there is no historical, there is no precedence here.
	I'm sorry, I think that was a little racist.
	You said purple.
	I think that was racist.
	For you to say it?
	You didn't have enough of a pass.
	You know what's sad?
	Everything what y'all said is true, but people on the left, they believe every word that's coming out of his mouth.
	Yeah.
	Well, I mean, again, it's just there are people out there who hate Donald Trump so much that this is helping them think they're bringing unity to the country.
	They already won the battles.
	As long as they're getting to them emotionally, these people don't even think.
	Yeah.
	And I can't remember, Stephen, if you made this point or if Bill did, but this is actually backfiring against Democrats right now.
	The only people that love this are the people that were already Democrat supporters through and through.
	People in the middle, and even Republicans who are mad at Donald Trump, are looking at this and going, OK, you had me for a minute.
	They say the majority of Americans support impeachment.
	Really?
	The same polling that told us Ohio was a toss-up?
	Get out of here, you silly bitch!
	I'm not sure we trust you wholly.
	I was so convinced.
	I was like, OK, these polls are totally wrong.
	Remember that night?
	I almost screamed at Ben Shapiro.
	I was like, are you out of your mind?
	I would be more surprised if he lost Ohio than if he lost Texas.
	There's no way.
	And people bought it.
	People want to buy that most Americans want impeachment right now, but then they have the same poll that says most Americans want unity.
	Well, which is it?
	Which is it, State Farm guy?
	Yeah, because this doesn't provide unity at all.
	It doesn't help anybody.
	If a crime was committed, a criminal trial and putting Donald Trump in prison for crimes he committed would maybe help people a little bit.
	Maybe.
	All right, let's listen to them a little bit.
	Sorry guys.
	He issued a public letter stating, our carefully considered views of the law lead all of us to agree that the Constitution permits the impeachment, conviction, and disqualification of former By the way, here's the bait-and-switch they just did, right?
	They just showed you something from the Federalist Papers that didn't say that because they watched Hamilton a couple of times with their queer party friends, and now they show you something definitive that comes from a self-picked panel of people in 2021.
	That's not a historical document.
	No.
	That's just like their sources here.
	Ted Lieu's tweets, for crying out loud.
	That's evidence to them.
	He was confirmed by this body unanimously.
	Senator Hatch, many of you served with, he had this to say about Judge McConnell.
	That he's an honest man.
	He calls it as he sees it.
	And he's beholden to no one and no group.
	Well, what does Judge McConnell have to say about that?
	Did I just hear that... Did I just... Did I just hear that Mitch McConnell's an... Did they just say that Mitch McConnell's an honest man?
	I think so.
	Some bitch did it.
	Neither one of you are ex-cons, right?
	No.
	So you're allowed to conceal carry?
	Shoot me in the face!
	Shoot me in the face!
	Someone with compassion.
	No one believes that Mitch McConnell is an honest man unless they're accidentally mistaking him for Rachel Levine and they're only saying it because they don't want to be accused of a hate crime.
	No one thinks that Mitch McConnell is an honest man.
	This is right now what Democrats do, right?
	It's like what they did, they trot out, they effectively trot out the corpse of John McCain, who they accused of being a Nazi when he ran for office with Sarah Palin, and then when he dies they go, we need more Republicans like John McCain.
	You said he was a Nazi!
	Literally!
	They made that joke in Family Guy where they had an alternate reality and Hitler has taken over the world and they have a McCain-Palin pin.
	You accuse John McCain of being a Nazi and now you want us to be like, well, listen, if he says that Mitch McConnell agrees with him, there's some unity.
	I guess, if you're just talking about a merry band of assholes.
	Yeah, right.
	By the way, this is in a court of law.
	He basically said Mitch McConnell said this guy is trustworthy.
	This guy said that Trump should be tried.
	Okay, wait a minute.
	I'm sorry.
	Is that supposed to be again, Evans?
	And here's a rap from Juan Manuel Raimundo.
	We need to impeach.
	Gotta impeach today.
	What's gonna happen if I say he suck?
	All right, let me see this.
	He described it as a corrective measure that helped the system regain legitimacy.
	He didn't resign.
	The highlighted part.
	He wrote another article.
	He didn't resign.
	He's written several on this topic.
	This one was actually a 146-page study, very detailed.
	And in that study, he said, quote, that the decision in Belknap was correct in its view that impeachment historically had extended to former officials, such as Warren Hastings, who you heard Lead Manager Raskin describe.
	In fact, as you can see, Presser Turley argued that the House could have impeached and the Senate could have tried Richard Nixon after he resigned.
	Why didn't they?
	His quote on this, very telling.
	Why didn't they?
	No, no, no, not his quote.
	Why didn't they?
	This is like what Bernie Sanders does, right?
	Bernie Sanders will take something where it's true.
	There's some concrete truth to it.
	He'll say, you know, student debt has gone up, right?
	The ratio of income to student debt has gone up.
	Okay.
	And then he goes, therefore, we must follow the polls that show a majority of Americans want free college for all.
	No, no, no.
	A poll is not the same as a policy.
	It's not the same as justification for a policy.
	The fact that Mitch McConnell knows someone's best friend's boyfriend's cousin's girlfriend who saw this guy who knows that Donald Trump passed out of 31 flavors last night is not a legitimate form of evidence or an article for impeachment.
	This is what they do.
	They take some historical document, they take a highlight out of context, and then they add to it conjecture.
	That's what we've seen every single time.
	Please, I encourage you, the most effective thing you can do to know that this is a sham is go to ladderwithcreditor.com.
	We have the PDF there of their entire, what is it, 80-85 page brief?
	Yeah.
	Go read the sources.
	Link in the documents below.
	Look, I just opened it up to random, the source for their evidence here.
	Source 31, Michael Schmidt, bar hands prosecutors the authority to investigate voter fraud claims.
	This is a guy who recently published a book titled Donald Trump versus the United States.
	Inside a struggle to stop a president.
	So this is one of the sources that they use right there.
	You just look, and it's buried in the sources.
	And you don't know, because in college, you read those things, and you know, it's a bibliography.
	So you think, like, I don't know, that must be some source from Darwin and the Galapagos, right?
	It's official.
	Otherwise, why would they put that shit in there?
	Because they don't expect you to check them on it.
	They don't.
	FightLikeHell is the promo code.
	And you get $30 off.
	Considered Twins on YouTube.
	The Harsh Twins on Facebook.
	Don't tell them Facebook.
	That's being censored.
	So what?
	They fitting to fall off, don't they?
	They got strikes against us.
	They've been on that for nine months.
	Really?
	You want to take them down?
	Well, no, of course I won't take them down.
	Screw them.
	You're not the right kind of black.
	I applied for that black leadership program.
	It didn't work.
	No one ever got back to me.
	Guess I ain't black enough.
	The trucker hat was kind of a giveaway.
	Unless it's like ironic, like Pharrell, I think that means they're probably not urban enough.
	It's got a flag on their hat.
	Plus I got bangs.
	Doing like a black man will bang.
	Alright, let's see what this guy is saying still.
	By the way, we'll be taking your chat.
	My half-Asian lawyer, Bill Rickman, will be taking your legal questions in a little bit after the hour when I can take a urination break.
	We also have Thomas Finnegan coming up.
	We also have Thomas Finnegan coming up who's on the ground in Washington, D.C.
	for us.
	Investigating impeachment.
	Gonna be talking about impeachment.
	And in fairness, I can't think of any convincing response.
	Right there, yeah.
	Just move on.
	Closing it up.
	Now perhaps they will have something to say today about it, but
	they did not yesterday.
	There's another provision worth mentioning here.
	Because there's a lot of confusion about it.
	Without witnesses or actual evidence, you didn't even agree to the rules by yesterday.
	Now we all know the Senate imposes a judgment only when it convicts.
	Up on the screen, you'll see Article 1, Section 3, Clause 7.
	So with that in mind, the language says that the Senate convicts, the judgment shall not extend further than removal and disqualification.
	And disqualification.
	That's it.
	Not more.
	Not or.
	or now as i understand
	president russ argument
	they believe that this language somehow says that disqualification
	can only follow removal Because it says and!
	Because it doesn't say or!
	It says and!
	That's the word and!
	Minor discrepancy.
	The whole case is disinformation.
	Wait!
	They're pointing it out!
	You can scratch it out?
	Well, it's a living, breathing document, so let's just... Are you in good hands?
	Go fuck yourself.
	How about that?
	He's basically saying that's what we're trying to say.
	Let's recap this really quickly.
	They just showed clips from the insurrection, from the breach that was going on, while Donald Trump was still speaking, as evidence that they did so in response to his speech.
	And then they just brought up their strongest argument from the Constitution, which required that they scratch out the most pivotal word and add their own.
	That's a damn shame.
	I can't believe Niggas did that.
	That's insane.
	A little red line.
	Alright, let's hear how he justifies it.
	Let me go back and read that.
	That's in the negative, though.
	Because I have the quote in front of me somewhere.
	Of course they're going to do both if they impeach him.
	If they find him guilty, they're going to remove him.
	The and.
	Well, I mean, why are you doing that?
	The argument he just made was saying that you're not supposed to do certain things and you list them.
	It doesn't mean that you're not supposed to just do one and not the other.
	It's like, you're not supposed to kill somebody or light them on fire.
	Or and light them on fire.
	Right.
	You're not separating any of those.
	those are bad things that you shouldn't do. He's reading a quote out of Convicted
	and Removed and then he takes a quote I don't know exactly where he took that
	quote, Edmund something saying it shouldn't preclude people from doing two
	things but here's the thing if one if one necessitates the prior for it to be
	legitimate That's what matters in other words.
	It's like Okay, if someone claims that I went and I took a shit on your front step, but I was inside the house the whole time Obviously I couldn't do it.
	He went outside and Then took a shit on your front step.
	Someone just says well, we don't need to prove that he went outside.
	We know he's in but He took a shit on the front step.
	Well, I couldn't do it if I didn't go outside.
	Here's the thing.
	Convicted and removed.
	You cannot remove unless convict.
	It's and because the two go together.
	And that's the argument that Trump's team is making.
	And I think what they were doing, Steven, crossing out the and, was saying this is what Trump's team is saying this means and this is what we're saying it means.
	So maybe going backwards on it.
	But they're still trying to make the point that it's and meaning either or.
	They did that elsewhere in the Constitution.
	I bet you this guy's a real fan of rock or roll.
	That would have ultimately limited impeachment trials to current officials.
	But instead, they used broader language.
	We're just not as funny, I guess.
	be tried by the United States Senate. Which is not as funny I guess. So who could be on trial
	rather for impeachment other than civil officers? Who else could a person or a party be? Well really
	there's only one possible answer, former officers. And again that actually might explain why during
	the Belknap trial Senator I can't stand politicians.
	I know.
	I think everyone feels that way.
	It's slimy.
	They all have the same mannerisms.
	the United States. He sat right where Senator Carper is sitting now.
	I can't stand politicians. I think everyone feels that way.
	It's slimy. During the trial, he concluded that the Constitution must allow the impeachment and
	trial of people and parties who are not civil officers. And the only group that could possibly
	encompass was former officials like Belknap and of course here, like President Trump.
	And just so we're clear, by the way, which of course would mean, did they say that?
	No.
	Did they say that?
	Did they say that?
	Or they said non-civil officials?
	What did they say?
	Well, of course it means I don't want to get your opinion, Mr. And.
	It's like the common sense gun reform.
	By the way, Stephen, correct me if I'm wrong, but in England, when they brought this impeachment over from England, this was a principle that they brought over.
	You could impeach somebody who was not a public official, I believe.
	There was a little bit more of a lax rule, at the very least, on who you could impeach and who you could remove.
	Well, back there, you also could arrest people if they weren't following the Church of England and spent a little too much time in Gin Alley.
	Oh, well, that's true.
	So, you know, we kind of left them for some reasons.
	Well, but if you're looking for context, wouldn't what they originally pulled it from give you some context as well?
	And what they chose to leave out and what they chose to include would tell you a little more about what they're thinking.
	Exactly.
	What they chose to change.
	Yeah, exactly.
	For example, it would be like saying, well, actually, if you look at this, and they bring up some lawsuits, you don't need representation for taxation.
	Kind of important.
	That's the reason we had what some might call a schism.
	Yes.
	We invaded a ship.
	It actually looks like we have Thomas Finnegan.
	Actually, our impeachment correspondent, it is time to go to Thomas Finnegan, who is there at the impeachment.
	Thomas Finnegan.
	All right, Thomas Finnegan, can you hear me, sir?
	Hi, Steven.
	Yes, I can.
	All right, what do you got there from the ground of the impeachment?
	Well, I thought it would be helpful to start with some fast facts.
	Thank you.
	So, as you know, the peach is known as a stone fruit.
	It's originally from China.
	And what I like about it, on a personal note, is it's delicate yet firm.
	Yeah, we're talking about impeachment.
	Where are you, Thomas Finnegan?
	Atlanta?
	Where are you right now?
	I'm in Atlanta.
	Why are you in Atlanta?
	The impeachment is going on in Washington.
	Alright, you know what?
	Go on down to Washington.
	We'll check back in with you, Thomas Finnegan, from Washington.
	That's enough.
	Tom's finished.
	Okay.
	Nice little afro going.
	Doesn't reflect well on this production.
	Alright, let me hear him for a couple of seconds and then I'm gonna have to urinate like a racehorse and we'll bring in a half-Asian Bill to answer some legal questions.
	Again, the promo code is FIGHTLIKEHELL.
	You get $30 off if you join Mug Club because we're gonna do all the fighting we can.
	Unfortunately, we don't hold public office where we are held to no accountability and suckle up to public teat.
	But we're funded by... we're not funded by a foreign caliphate.
	Mugs!
	Which they had to have known, because it's in the article that they cite in the brief, is that removal is, quote, not the sole end of impeachment.
	Actually, in that same article, he describes the view, advocated by President Trump's lawyers, as having deep flaws.
	And again, you do not have to take my word for it.
	Thanks, LeVar Burton.
	You can take Professor Kaut's word for it.
	The professor they cited in their brief, filed yesterday.
	Because he tweeted about it.
	Oh, a tweet!
	Good!
	Let's take his word for it from the brief yesterday.
	Let's take his tweet for it.
	Out of context.
	President Trump's brief cites my 2001 article on late impeachment a lot.
	But in several places, they misrepresent what I wrote quite badly.
	There are multiple examples of such flat-out misrepresentations.
	They didn't have to be disingenuous and misleading like this.
	Well, you know what, listen, I think we all do have a problem with being disingenuous and misleading, like claiming that Donald Trump colluded with Russia, when you did it!
	That doesn't count.
	We didn't even bring in the peeing hookers thing.
	Yeah, remember that?
	They said Donald Trump, they said there was videotape.
	Remember they also said there was videotape of Donald Trump dropping the n-bomb?
	That was a big thing.
	It was gonna come out any day, any day.
	Yeah, it was gonna come out any day, along with his mixtape.
	That is a disappointment.
	They just lie about everything.
	It's just they throw so many lies and want to make it stick.
	And the reason it didn't stick for most is because Donald Trump had the ability to communicate right with the people.
	This is what's so important here.
	Donald Trump had the ability to communicate straight to the people.
	He didn't need CNN.
	He didn't need Fox News.
	That's why they don't see the irony here that they're citing tweets because Donald Trump added some legitimacy to that.
	Why?
	Because Donald Trump didn't give interviews to their legacy outlets and so what they had to do was pull his tweets.
	And so now that sort of made it, I guess, some form of admissible evidence.
	But what happened is, while he was in office, this couldn't stick because he could fight back, right?
	We found out that it was the Democrats who were behind the Steele dossier.
	We found out that Fusion GPS was contracted by them.
	We found out that there was nothing they could find on Donald Trump as it related to Russia.
	That was a false impeachment.
	These people haven't been held accountable.
	Donald Trump was able to fight back and now after he is out of office as a private citizen, they remove him from all social platforms and the town square so that they can try and make an example of him when he can't fight back.
	Let's be really clear about what this is here.
	Look, they can argue until they're blue in the face about historical... they cannot show you a case.
	Where a former president was convicted and impeached.
	They won't be able to bring that up.
	The most recent example we have is Nixon, right?
	Who resigned and he wasn't impeached and said he was pardoned.
	That's what you do if you want the country to heal.
	They don't want healing right now.
	What they want to do is, it's for the same reason that before Donald Trump was in office, They said they were going to impeach him.
	It's for the same reason that before Donald Trump had served out the first year of his first term, they said that he wouldn't hand over power peacefully.
	They were trying to set up this house of cards so they could tell you beforehand that this man was an illegitimate president because he was an outsider who went to Washington and they really didn't like the fact that he toppled over the apple cart.
	And they want to make sure that any of you out there who aren't part of the Washington DC insider elite, that you think twice That's what this is right now.
	This is a warning shot to all Americans who've thought of entering into these races.
	you guys are the proletariats, right? You have no role there and they want to hang him up.
	And anyone who supported him, like Spartacus on the cross, to make sure that all good Americans
	don't represent their own constituents, but professional politicians and lobbyists.
	Make them a say. That's what this is right now. This is a warning shot to all Americans who
	thought of entering into these races. They want you to see that they'll destroy your life if
	you're an outsider. Yeah, absolutely.
	We're getting some breathing over there.
	Yeah, we're getting a lot of breathing over there.
	Oh, I got too much breathing.
	You're just all up on that mic.
	You were just like, Steven, go, yeah.
	Who's this guy?
	As I hope is now clear from the arguments of Mr. Raskin and Mr. Neguse, impeachment is not merely about what we just said about the law firm.
	Fundamentally, impeachment exists to protect our constitutional system.
	We actually have a live fact check from Rodigan on that State Farm guy, Neguse.
	Yeah, so this comes from Jonathan Turley.
	He just tweeted this out.
	Rep Neguse just said in my Duke piece and said that I was an advocate until just a couple weeks ago for retroactive trials.
	I appreciate the citations, but it's not true.
	That article was 21 years ago, and then he links the article.
	Oh!
	Fact check!
	It also ensures accountability for presidents who harm us or our government.
	So, what just happened to him is what he tried to quote the other guy who tweeted?
	That's not the guy who he quoted in the tweet, was it?
	It was one of them.
	That's almost as bad as Kavanaugh when, not Swetnick, but Ford was like, well, you know what?
	This happened.
	Ask these people.
	And they're like, no, that never happened.
	Never mind, don't ask those people.
	Well, hold on a second.
	Her therapist said that it was at this house.
	Like, yeah, it's not a house.
	That's actually not even a street.
	But it used to be.
	Well, you know what?
	Better run it on the media.
	Better run it on news anyway.
	Put it on the Chiron.
	No one's going to know.
	That's exactly what just happened.
	Thank you.
	Thank you so much.
	And team more of that because I can't necessarily bring up the fact-checking.
	Can you bring that up again?
	That is hysterical.
	And here's the thing.
	Not that just conjecture matters.
	They're citing people of different opinions.
	You can find people of different legal opinions on almost any issue.
	But they consider that to be irrefutable proof by look this guy said that Donald Trump misrepresented him and this is the exact proof used against him.
	From 21 years ago.
	I love it.
	He used the My Cousin Vinny defense.
	He said, yeah, uh, excuse me, everything that guy said is bullshit.
	Thank you.
	Next.
	Absolutely.
	Well, I want to go back to a point you made, that Donald Trump went around the media, and the minute that they figured out, oh my gosh, he's resonating with people, they stopped covering his press briefings.
	Do you remember that?
	When he did the COVID briefings?
	Oh yeah.
	And here's what they did.
	Because before that, they were condemning him that he wasn't doing daily press briefings.
	Exactly.
	So that's bad enough, but they also said, all right, instead of just not showing him, we are going to mischaracterize everything that he says in this briefing that we're not showing you so that you can make up your own mind.
	Right.
	That's the modern media that we have.
	And these guys just did the same thing.
	This professor right here was an advocate right up until just a couple of weeks ago.
	And then the guy's like, actually, the article you just quoted from was 21 years ago.
	Yeah.
	I've gone the other way on this.
	By the way, it's not like that's the end-all be-all of authority, because you can find some professors who believe you should give six-year-olds puberty blockers.
	Absolutely.
	I call those professors child abusers.
	You could find Barack Obama, for example, who was against homosexual marriage.
	Right.
	To be fair, he was still smoking crack with convicted domestic terrorist Bill Ayers at the time, so, you know, it slipped his mind.
	Brother got a party.
	Brother got a party.
	And listen to Tupac, or no?
	Hey, didn't that dude suck him off too?
	Oh my gosh, what?
	What are you talking about?
	Y'all didn't see that?
	The white guy said he sucked off Obama?
	I don't know, we can't confirm that.
	Allegedly.
	Don't make us like them.
	Allegedly.
	We can absolutely confirm that he smoked crack with domestic terrorist Bill Ayers.
	Convicted domestic terrorist.
	Not some guy who wrote an article saying he should be.
	Convicted domestic terrorist Bill Ayers.
	If he's gonna do all that, he can get sucked off too, by the way.
	Don't put us on the hook for that.
	That's not too far of a stretch.
	I'm not saying it's physically impossible.
	Right.
	I'm just saying that I can't lay claim to that fact.
	Yeah, I just saw a video.
	The dude was... You saw a video?
	You saw a video of Rob Bob being sucked off?
	No, no, no!
	That's a big video.
	Share that.
	He was getting sucked off.
	The dude claimed that he was getting cracked smoking with him and then after that he would suck him off too.
	I sure hope you're using our sponsor ExpressVPN because the DOJ certainly has your IP address.
	They know you.
	Y'all can edit all this out, huh?
	Okay, that's live.
	Live.
	Yes, live.
	Not live to tape.
	They thought this was just gonna be live-ly.
	Enthusiastic.
	Y'all gonna do this on like a 20-second loop?
	We need to have a Hodge Twins delay built in.
	Alright, do we have some legal questions chat for Half-Asian Bill Richmond?
	Uh, yeah, I think Bill's looking at him right now.
	Okay, because I have got to use the restroom super badly.
	Super bad.
	So let me know when I can do that, because I feel like one of those kids from Christian Children Funds with the bulging stomachs.
	With the bulging stomach?
	Do you want to run a commercial, or do you want to have Bill come in and do that?
	Uh, let's, uh, let's have Bill come in before we run a commercial and answer some of your legal chats.
	Again, the promo code is FIGHTLIKEHELL.
	You get $30 off at LetItStart.com.
	Oh, hold on a second, they're bringing up a Donald Trump tweet.
	Oh, it's the same tweet as earlier.
	Hold on a second.
	Doesn't he say, go home with love and peace?
	By the way, that tweet could have been written by Gandhi.
	I mean, he wouldn't have had the energy to do it.
	A little frail.
	But the point is, saying that something was... This is something people don't understand about Gandhi.
	Gandhi was supportive of peace, and Gandhi said that of all... I believe he said of all the British Empire's acts, robbing an entire nation of people of arms will be the blackest.
	I don't know why you can't say, hey, we need reform.
	This system isn't working for us right now.
	This system has no accountability.
	Go home in love and peace.
	And those things can't be true.
	Didn't Barack Obama run on the idea of change?
	know why you can't say, hey, we need reform.
	This system isn't working for us right now.
	This system has no accountability.
	Go home in love and peace.
	And those things can't be true.
	Didn't Barack Obama run on the idea of change?
	What does that mean?
	Change everything?
	Hope?
	Meaning what?
	That the previous administration was hopeless?
	It's the same thing.
	Politicians run on it all the time.
	The only difference is that Donald Trump is the first person to actually live it in office, and they don't like that.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	You have to be able to use that kind of vocabulary, too, right?
	Fighting like hell, like we've talked about before.
	Really fighting.
	You're supposed to be passive in how you push your ideas, right?
	And how you run for office and how you try to affect change.
	How about this?
	Were you supposed to be passive when you're trying to fight systemic racism, quote-unquote, in the police force?
	Is that what you were supposed to do?
	Just be very passive about it?
	Hold on, hold that thought, because right now, hit music, because you know he's coming in.
	He's coming in!
	It's my half-Asian lawyer, Bill Richman, while I go take a tinkle answering Your legal questions.
	Ah, my knee!
	It hurts so much when I get up!
	Everybody's a fan and you think they're gonna... This is absurd!
	Oh, everybody's a bandit.
	Oh, why this is terrible?
	I feel like I gotta go piss.
	This is absurd.
	Get the door, please.
	Drop it a load.
	My gosh.
	Big guys, small bladders.
	Alright, so we've got a couple of questions.
	Yeah.
	You know, this is a very unusual proceeding, but some of the questions that folks are asking are really great questions.
	They're the kind of questions a normal person would be asking during an unusual type of procedure.
	So, let's go to the first one.
	Neil Meyer asks, Hey Bill, can Biden be impeached for failure to enforce immigration laws?
	He's technically aiding and abetting, right?
	Well, there's a lot of wishy-washiness when it comes to the standard for impeachment.
	That's why there's so much question and so much outcry over when we decide something is treasonous, when they're aiding and abetting a foreign enemy, or a domestic enemy for that matter.
	And the definitions are not entirely clear.
	One, we have a civil law system that's based on precedent.
	The precedent itself changes, it grows.
	It's like a glacier or like a stalactite that has different layers that grow over time.
	And so when you ask whether or not Biden can be impeached for failure to enforce immigration
	laws, I think the question you have to ask is, is Biden the one actually enforcing those
	laws?
	And a lot of the times the immigration laws themselves are subject to prosecutorial discretion.
	It's the canon of law and practice that has been around not only in Europe prior to America but throughout American history that says prosecutors are the ones that decide are they really going to try and take you for that you know quarter ounce of doobie that you've got or are they going to say let's go focus on more important things.
	Now clearly the senate for democrats they have decided that they want
	to go after what just is clearly just a bunch of non-fun gummies um that you you need to get
	through what is going to be another terrible year and so i would say no most likely a president or any
	official won't be impeached for not enforcing the laws particularly given that biden is not the
	one who's actually enforcing these laws themselves so no could have been the answer
	I don't get paid by the hour by just saying no, Joe.
	I know, that's a very lawyerly response.
	Duh.
	You are a lawyer.
	Go sell wine.
	All right.
	Quick Draw Shirts asks, question for Bill, why isn't the Supreme Court halting this proceeding?
	Because there is no Chief Justice presiding over this trial.
	So there's a lot of power you have in the Supreme Court when you actually have some ground to stand on.
	As we've seen throughout the election questioning, and we've seen throughout the presidency of Donald Trump, when the Supreme Court doesn't have solid ground to act on, they simply don't act.
	Here, we know that one of the four tenets under the Constitution says that when there is a president and he's being impeached, or she's being impeached, someday in the future, Kamala, I'm looking at you, next month, so when you have the president being impeached, it's very clear under the Constitution that the Supreme Court Chief Justice of the United States would be the one who sits in.
	The actual rule does not say anything about having anyone else being impeached and requiring the Chief Justice.
	The history in the Senate itself is very common, that when you have non-presidential impeachments, which do occur from time to time, you often have the President Pro Tem of the Senate.
	That is the longest-serving Senator.
	Here, that's Patrick Leahy, all of 80 years old.
	Spry?
	No.
	So he's the one who's actually going to be presiding.
	There's definitely some furor over whether that's happened, but even historically, sensitive votes have been presided over by the President pro tem.
	Not that unusual, but really it comes down to the Supreme Court.
	Have they really been doing a whole lot right now?
	Not a whole lot.
	Not surprising that they're sitting this one out.
	Bill, I got a follow-up to that.
	Go ahead, Gerald.
	Yes, please interrupt.
	So what they're saying is that we are This is the continuation of proceedings of President Donald Trump, right?
	Right.
	Right, and so we're removing him.
	So wouldn't the argument be then, okay, well, you're making the argument that this is not
	a private citizen, this is just the continuation of a trial of the president, so wouldn't that
	necessitate having the Supreme Court justice be sitting in that chair instead of the Senate
	pro tem?
	Shockingly a great point, Gerald.
	No, that really is actually one of the arguments that folks are making is, wait a minute, if
	you're saying it's a continuation of what happened while he was president, so that's
	why you can get over the unconstitutional objection of impeaching a non-sitting president,
	then you should have followed the rules from when he was president.
	Because it's a president, still, that you're impeaching.
	Exactly.
	So now folks have even raised the question of whether or not, let's say you even get to a conviction, that any kind of conviction would be subject to judicial review by the Supreme Court as having not followed the rules.
	And that's, again, the part that shows that this is more about the theater than anything else.
	It's about saying, oh hey, can we get this guy on the stand?
	Can we get his cronies on the stand?
	Can we get our cronies on the stand?
	Can we get some free air time from CNN who's breaking away from every other moment of coverage to give you the most boring thing I've ever seen in my life.
	I mean, there's a whole world going out there and all they want to do is talk about this impeachment.
	And now, of course, we have to talk about it.
	If it wasn't for us, you wouldn't be able to watch this.
	You'd fall asleep halfway through this without us.
	Well, you know, because Biden created the vaccine, I heard.
	So, you know, he's the reason I have it, right?
	That's true, yeah.
	That's what I heard.
	That's what he was doing in his basement instead of running for office like most politicians do during the elections.
	He was back there with beakers and stuff.
	You guys thought the lid was just, you know, sealing in the vaccine he was creating for us.
	Good for him.
	Working hard for us.
	All right, final question and I'm going to get out of here.
	Benjamin Hill asks, what would be the pros or cons of having Trump testify at his own trial if the trial proceeds?
	Now, clearly Benjamin Hill does not watch Law & Order or any other kind of show of the law because everyone knows that when a criminal defendant or an impeachment defendant decides to take the stand, they're going to have to testify about all kinds of things.
	They're going to have to They're going to waive any kind of Fifth Amendment privilege.
	They're going to waive other kinds of privilege or confidentiality.
	They have the right to not testify in their own defense, but once they do, you've got to start answering questions.
	And sometimes, just the act of asking the question, and seeing their eyes dart back and forth, or them go, and not answer the question, is going to be problematic.
	So most defendants, most criminal defense lawyers, I don't practice criminal defense, but my friends in the criminal defense world, say you're not likely to go up there and say anything even if you're
	innocent even if you have really great evidence because of the fact that it opens you
	up to so much.
	So I think that the pros are definitely outweighed by the cons here but there's no
	question that having a direct commentary from the former president would without a doubt answer some questions.
	Answer questions for both sides and to really see what was done here.
	But we know that we have the words of the President from January 6th.
	We know what those words actually say.
	For those who have actually read through those words and looked at them, you can understand why, again, every article talking about this goes, it's going to be really, really, really, really hard to get that two-thirds majority for an actual conviction.
	You know what we would have more of?
	We would have more of his words if Twitter hadn't banned him, if Facebook hadn't banned him.
	We would be able to hear him say, no, no, no, you guys are idiots, and underline the word, go home in peace, and underline the word, peacefully make your voices heard.
	Yeah, he would say that too.
	He would do that!
	He would come out of his own defense and be like, these guys, I can't do the voice, Stephen's the only one that I know.
	He is very good at the voice.
	Trump's voice!
	He'd be like, see, I told you!
	See, I told you, these guys are exactly who I told you they were!
	Pretty good.
	Drink some more.
	So I'm gonna say, you know, we can't see you back there so it's okay.
	So I'm gonna say, you know, yeah, we can't see you back there so it's okay.
	Good, good.
	I'm not drinking Wild Turkey 101.
	Allegedly.
	I'm the president of our country.
	But you heard.
	On that note, let's get back to the host with the most 101 in him.
	I first heard this song on, what's that movie?
	I first heard this song on um, what's that movie? Kingpin?
	Did Gerald just leave?
	Kingpin?
	Yeah, he did.
	Was he going to the bathroom?
	He just left me.
	Alright.
	Hey, by the way, that air went up to 75, so Tim the Toolman might need to look it up.
	It started getting hot, even for you guys.
	I feel great.
	It feels great, Adam.
	That's because you're colored.
	Colored?
	They come from a different climate.
	Why is colored racist, but people of color isn't?
	I don't know.
	It's just semantics.
	What do you prefer to be called?
	African American?
	I actually prefer to be called Negro.
	Why don't you answer a question honestly once?
	I'd rather just be known as an American.
	I don't even call myself black American.
	I'm just an American who has African descent.
	Right, but if I were describing you in a lineup...
	He looks like Osama's kid.
	He's got the same skin tone, he's got the beard going.
	I'm a light-skinned American.
	Hey, by the way, bring back up the drinking game rules there, Quarterback Garrett, and you're going to have to be the one on top of it, because I can't, I don't remember these.
	Insurrection, hate speech, subverted democracy, terrorist, QAnon, and hate speech is already there.
	Wow, that Wild Turkey 101 really hits you.
	And the bonus!
	Insighted the erection.
	Insighted the erection.
	Gotta finish that drink.
	Insighted the erection.
	Or if Chuck Schumer happens to have an erection, but we don't expect any six-year-olds to be there on the fourth.
	That's an extra bonus.
	How could you even confuse those two words?
	It'd be easy if you're Asian.
	Insighted the erection.
	Insighted the insurrection.
	Insighted the erection.
	It's a Freudian slip.
	He's thinking about erections.
	Alright, again, the promo code is...
	Fight like hell.
	Fight like hell.
	You get $30 off, and Half-Asian Bill will update us some point in the future on the lawsuit with Facebook, and of course the hashtag is Crowder Impeachment Stream.
	We need to get the Hodgetwins some beer so that they get a little bit more chatty.
	All right, let's see.
	Look at all these things that are being presented!
	It's tweets!
	They're tweets.
	It's tweets!
	Here's what's beautiful about this.
	Evidence.
	Put it this way.
	You know how you guys have been fact-checked by Snopes, you know, because black conservatives make them nervous?
	I mean, I think black people make nervous and jittery.
	They get sweaty palms.
	Especially conservatives.
	Yeah.
	Their faction is saying this isn't legitimate news, right?
	Well, hold on a second.
	Why are they saying that we're... Who do we cite?
	We cite, usually in our show, again, all of our sources are available at lottocredit.com.
	This is our general rule.
	We try and start with original sources, right?
	What do we mean by that?
	Things like, if it's a medical claim, a clinical trial from PubMed.
	Or if it's some kind of a legal claim, we actually go to the amicus brief.
	Or if it's something from the Constitution, we go to the Constitution.
	That's what we always try and do.
	And then, outside of that, we try and use what are determined to be liberal sources from PolitiFact, Southern Poverty Law Center, even though we know that that's not true, right, because they declare half the churches to be hate groups because they believe that two dudes shouldn't be married.
	But we use those just so that YouTube and Facebook can't claim we aren't using legitimate news sources.
	But what do most of those people use?
	Tweets!
	So when they try and say we need to stop mainstreaming alternative viewpoints and we need to start pushing into the algorithm authoritative news sources, these people, the elected officials, again, who you would want to think have some kind of an inside lane that you don't, their sources are tweets.
	This is a perfect example of what happens, right?
	This is a perfect example of the incestuous relationship between Washington D.C.
	and the media.
	What happens is Washington D.C.
	says, well, we need to impeach him because look at these pieces of evidence that we see from anonymous sources completely uncorroborated by the media.
	And they go, so we're going to impeach.
	And then the media goes, this is the only president who's been twice impeached.
	And it's a circular loop.
	And the only person to point it out was Donald Trump.
	I have never been so wrong in my life.
	When I said that if Republicans run Donald Trump in 2016, we deserve to lose.
	I said those words.
	I am stuffed with Crow.
	I couldn't take another bite.
	Okay?
	Because he was the guy, for that period in time, to point out the unholy alliance of media and the elites in Washington, D.C.
	I don't think anyone else could have done it.
	I think Ted Cruz would have made a good president.
	I think there were other candidates who would have made good presidents.
	But I think they would have played too nicely.
	So the fact that Donald Trump does have an ego, that he is a little bit bombastic, is also exactly what we need because the guy lining up on the other side of that fence is Chuck Schumer with a raging erection.
	Right.
	And by the way, nobody has done more than Donald Trump to tear down their power base and their structure of power, right?
	Nobody else has gone in there like he has and said, I don't care if you like China.
	I don't care if you like Iran.
	I don't care if you like how these systems are set up.
	This isn't helping the American people.
	And so we are not going to do it this way.
	And by the way, media, I don't need you.
	I've done this before you.
	I'll go around you and go talk directly to people on social media platforms.
	And I think he threatened them so much that now they're going for their pound of flesh.
	Like you said, this is a cautionary tale.
	Never again come after us and our power structures.
	Yep.
	I think you're absolutely right.
	Let's go back to the guy with the, what is it with Democrats and hair plugs?
	And by the way, I say this, I say this just so you know.
	I will absolutely get hair transplants if I go bald because I have a weird egg-shaped head.
	But I'll let you know if I ever have to do it.
	I'll let you know.
	That's a hair piece?
	No, plugs.
	Are you sure?
	I'm not gonna lie.
	Look.
	Don't trust me when I said homonym attacks.
	I make stuff up.
	I know that you guys have been burned by white people in power and so I don't want you to judge them by my misbehavior.
	I just like to make stuff up.
	It makes me feel big.
	Hey, speaking of tweets, we have a bunch.
	No one was speaking of tweets.
	Well, you were just a little while ago.
	We have a bunch from Rep.
	David Cicilline.
	Still a little shell-shocked from Nagasaki there, Tocanalan.
	This guy talking right here, we have a bunch of tweets from Russia.
	We got here.
	Russia?
	Wrong.
	Maybe our country's democracy was robbed when Russia tipped the scales for real Donald Trump.
	Russia's getting a great return on their investment in the 2016 election.
	Is anyone really shocked that we now have even more proof that the Trump campaign was open to colluding with Putin's Russia?
	People believe this?
	Donald Trump has invited Russia to commit cybercrime against American citizens in an effort to influence the 2016 presidential election.
	This is this guy.
	This is Mr. Pluggs.
	What does Russia have to gain from Donald Trump?
	This is the dumb, short sidekick of the criminal in the Flintstones.
	I thought he colluded with Russia, boss!
	You idiot!
	You're supposed to go down to the Water Buffalo Lodge!
	That's what he looks like, this guy.
	The Water Buffalo Lodge?
	He looks like Al Capone's body double who they send out first in a convertible.
	Yeah.
	Ciciline.
	Wow.
	Is he Sicilian?
	There's a black man hiding behind his woodshed somewhere down the genetic line.
	True romance, watch it.
	Do you know what they used to do, by the way?
	For the same reason I have a problem with QAnon and people who make these predictions that are verifiably false.
	I know, you think Donald Trump's still in charge from Mar-a-Lago.
	Fine.
	This isn't the show for you.
	They used to kill false prophets.
	Do you know what they used to do for people who would falsely accuse people of treason?
	They used to kill them for treason!
	So there used to be some kind of accountability, right?
	This guy accused Donald Trump of treason with the first impeachment, and Russia.
	Why has there never been accountability?
	Why isn't a counter-trial, that's what we lawyers, I'm a lawyer, call a counter-offer?
	Why didn't they file complaints, file charges against these people?
	I guess it would be hard to prove that all of them were in on it, but at least someone, go up to the top.
	You pick the Scud Farkas, you don't go for the toady.
	Pick whoever started it from the top down, that concerted disinformation campaign.
	And by the way, it's not even close to what the Democrats did in this election, according to Time Magazine.
	Yeah.
	The most evidence that they had was some people in Russia spent $3,000 or $10,000 on 3,000 Facebook ads, something like that.
	You guys made sure that the unions, the media, the elected politicians, that there would be no coverage of voting irregularities, that it would be banned from big tech.
	You made sure that they changed their voting laws and their mail-in laws after the constitutional deadlines.
	All of it!
	Talk about free advertising!
	If you were to add up the billions of dollars in free advertising.
	Oh, it's insane.
	That you would get.
	Think about this right now.
	They're running a sham impeachment trial.
	They didn't run.
	CNN decided not to run the White House press briefings amidst what they claim is the worst pandemic since the Spanish flu.
	Yeah, because he said hydroxychloroquine might actually help.
	By the way, it turns out it does!
	It turns out it does, but only in some certain cases.
	I was kind of paranoid when we got COVID.
	So I got, you know, you go, yeah, I was like, I was freaking out.
	I thought I was going to die.
	But anyway, you know how you can set up an appointment with a doctor online?
	Yeah.
	I did that.
	And I was like, yeah, I got COVID.
	I want some of that hydroxychloroquine.
	I want some zithromaxone and all that stuff to get the president.
	He said, well, the CDC, I can't give you any of that.
	Right.
	Just take Tylenol or Motrin for headaches and just... Good luck.
	Good luck.
	That was it.
	I said, you can't give me anything.
	People's actually dying from this.
	He's like, well, how old are you?
	I'm like, I'm 46.
	He said, well, it looks like you work out.
	You'll be just fine.
	That's what he told me.
	Yeah.
	No, no, no, no.
	I'm just black.
	It just looks that way because of the tan.
	Haven't you seen Mr. Olympia?
	They'll just slap on a fake tan.
	A tan covers a million mistakes.
	I'm a fat son of a bitch.
	Give me the drugs.
	I'm going to get all this beer up in me.
	Don't do it that fast.
	No, please.
	Chug, chug, chug, chug.
	I don't think we have cider.
	I know you guys typically like cider.
	It's good.
	Oh, you do?
	You like it?
	I remember last time they called it white guy beers.
	They were like, oh man, I feel that white boy beer.
	Why is it a white boy beer?
	Because it's high ABV.
	Although really, you guys like Colt 45, doesn't it work every time?
	Colt 45, man, that is pure liquid garbage.
	Take it up with Billy Dee Williams!
	Old English?
	Oh my god, that is pure poison.
	And black people drink that shit like it's Kool-Aid.
	Really?
	Yeah.
	Odie?
	I thought they drank Kool-Aid like it's Kool-Aid.
	Both.
	Forties?
	Swisher Sweets?
	Oh yeah, that's true.
	My culture is doomed!
	All because of these damn rappers Country music hasn't necessarily been accepting you guys
	with open arms either outside of hoodie. Let's Let's see what this guy said.
	Lifted up from the agony, and I won't forget their tenderness.
	And through the tears I was working on a speech for the floor, when we would all be together in joint session, and I wanted to focus No shit.
	unity. Oh, when we met in the house. Oh, really? Okay. How you gonna focus on the famous 1838 Lyceum speech where he
	said that if division Republican and destruction ever come to
	America, it won't come from abroad. No **** It'll come from a man. It'll come from within from the Democrats. So, got
	it.
	And in that same speech, Lincoln passionately Yeah.
	Afford mob violence.
	Oh, you have a problem with mob violence now.
	Yeah, all of a sudden.
	Hey, can we impeach Kamala Harris?
	Can we do that where she said, you should get used to this, and you're going to have more of these riots?
	This is what happens.
	Here's the thing.
	Only they can do that, right?
	If you're a business who lost your entire life savings and ability to provide for your family, all because some bitch from BuzzFeed boldly, with a crew cut, decided she wanted to burn this mother down, there's no recourse for you.
	Only these people can do it, right?
	It's the Summer of Love, they said!
	Well, when is Republicans going to start doing the same responding?
	Like, they got evidence of what Hillary Clinton did, and there's nothing.
	Yeah, well, that was one of the first QAnon predictions, I remember, when it said Hillary Clinton was going to be hauled out in cuffs.
	And I was like, oh, OK.
	Well, that didn't happen, so this is clearly a lie.
	And then they were like, no, no, no, no, it's the next, trust me, we've got her right where we want her.
	Trust the plan.
	Really?
	Free?
	With no repercussions?
	Well, yeah, that was a brilliant plan by God.
	It's like, look, if you have a prophet going around saying, thus saith the Lord, and it doesn't happen, kill them.
	Don't just kill them.
	They're done.
	They don't get a second chance.
	They're done.
	Kill a prophet who prophesies in my name, and it doesn't happen.
	And by that, you mean just don't listen to them.
	No, I mean until they're dead.
	Stone them.
	No, don't kill people out there.
	You don't mean people out there.
	Son of a bitch, Gerald.
	It's like I'm giving you a lifeline and you're like, I don't want to!
	No, you're assuming I need a lifesaver.
	I don't need a lifesaver.
	I can swim.
	I went to Goldfish Swimmers when I was five.
	Gerald, stop.
	You're drowning.
	I'm not saying to go and kill anybody.
	He put an accountability measure in the process.
	And that's what you're saying that we don't have today and that's why it's so important for the media to not be biased.
	They have to go after both sides equally so that you can't get away with this crap.
	We don't want people killed, obviously, right?
	I'm just saying that there was accountability.
	If you wanted to put yourself in this position to make claims, you knew at the end of the day, if rain doesn't come tomorrow and I say rain comes tomorrow, something's gonna happen, right?
	This is gonna be bad.
	We don't want the same thing to happen, but we do want you out of office.
	We do want you removed from your position of power.
	Whenever we don't get rain, I just blame the pagans.
	Well, they just didn't kill him.
	That shuffling around dancing doesn't come in so handy, does it?
	Turn to Jesus.
	This would be a better place if the media did their job, though.
	Yeah, both sides on it.
	Let's go back to listen to this guy, see if he's crying yet.
	It looks like it.
	Who's 24 and a brilliant algebra teacher in Teach for America?
	A hero.
	I told her how sorry I was, and I promised her that it would not be like this again the next time she came back to the Capitol with me.
	And you know what she said?
	She said, Dad, I don't want to come back to the Capitol.
	Give this dude a reward.
	She didn't because your job is so boring.
	Again, he's not including the whole quote.
	The rest of the quote from his daughter was, Dad, what exactly do you do?
	This was take your daughter to work day.
	What do you do?
	That's crazy.
	You could tell it's totally fake.
	To spear and pummel one of our police officers ruthlessly, mercilessly, Tortured by a pole.
	What?
	With a flag on it that he was defending.
	Why's that smirk?
	Yeah, well that's a little weird.
	He can't hide the evil no matter how hard he tries.
	He's like, tortured with a pole.
	He's trying to cry but he can't help himself, smiling like the Grinch when his heart grew three sizes that day.
	That's when you hit the X button.
	Doubt.
	Three fingers that day.
	All terrible.
	We all agree, of course, that any Capitol police killed.
	What does this have to do with Donald Trump?
	And again, he's a private citizen, so if they wanted to press criminal charges, guess what?
	The burden of proof is higher, and there's discovery.
	That's why they ain't gonna pursue it, man.
	That's all bullshit.
	Remember, Lindsey Graham said, if they really want to call everyone as witnesses, I don't think they're gonna like how that one turns out.
	Because this was obviously, the FBI said this was planned before Donald Trump spoke.
	And that's why they're trying to bring up tweets, which include the words, peacefully and patriotically.
	Yeah.
	Well, if it was planned before he spoke, well, okay.
	Then none of his tweets matter from that day, other than obviously telling people to go home.
	Fine.
	But none of his speech matters that day because it was planned before they got there and it didn't matter what they heard.
	They were going to do what they were going to do.
	So let's bring up the evidence from before.
	Tell us what he said before that was inciting violence.
	Right.
	Because all he said was it's fair to question an election that has irregularities.
	It's fair for me to go, hey, I only lost by 10,000 votes.
	I am sure we can find 12,000 people that voted illegally in Georgia, which is basically what he was saying on the phone to the Georgia Secretary of State, saying, hey, help me out here.
	Do the right thing.
	Don't turn the election for me.
	But make sure they're counted fairly.
	Saying, count the paper ballots.
	Yeah.
	Which they did not.
	Exactly.
	And everybody wants to hang him for that phone call, and it's like saying, oh, he was trying to overturn a fair election.
	By the way, do you see fair election every time they talk about the election?
	Fair election.
	They were saying a fair election on November 2nd.
	Hey, let me ask you about this.
	I don't know if I can pay for this.
	Hey, could the Dominion voting machines be hooked up to the internet?
	We were told They were not capable, it was not possible for them to be hooked up to the internet, right?
	That's the claim.
	Now, I'm not saying that they were hooked up to the internet the whole time.
	That's something I can't verify.
	That's why people were saying, well, why don't you... Listen, all I'm saying is that Mike Lindell, for example, has gone out with claims that I couldn't possibly verify, and so I won't make those claims.
	I won't make those claims, I would have to go to court.
	Here's something that I can 100% verify.
	Dominion said, and still says, that their machines, the voting tabulation machines, don't hook up to the Internet.
	They do.
	Except for the Ethernet port in the back.
	Right.
	We don't know where they were hooked up, we don't know how long they were hooked up, but there are still official statements out there saying they cannot be hooked up to the Internet.
	Okay, what's going on right now?
	Are they taking a break?
	Okay.
	Hold on.
	Okay, so she's talking.
	Alright, so listen.
	They are taking a break and they're lazy so we will take a quick potty break because I know that some people here have to tinkle.
	Let's make it a two-minute break.
	We'll be right back.
	It is the promo code FIGHTLIKEHELL because all of you need to fight like hell.
	Don't expect it to just be us or be your elected officials.
	The good news is all of you have a voice and that's why we're doing this right now so you don't have to watch this by yourself and stab your own eyes.
	We'll be right back.
	Use the promo code LetalScout.com slash MugClub.
	Fight like hell.
	We'll see you in two minutes.
	You're going to be alright.
	We have help on the way.
	Where are you?
	Uh, I think I'm okay.
	I just want to get out of here, you know?
	Okay.
	Well, is anything broken?
	My leg is stuck, but it's not really like... No, no, no.
	That's not going to work.
	I said no journey.
	What?
	Don't worry about it.
	We're going to be here.
	We're staying right here with you, okay?
	So just listen to the sound of my voice.
	Earth, wind, and fire.
	Perfect.
	That'll work.
	Alright, are you still there?
	Are you still there?
	Can you hear me?
	I think I kind of sprained it pretty bad, not gonna lie.
	But, I mean, I can move it, so it's like... Wait, what was that?
	What's up?
	Guys?
	Guys!
	Ah!
	Oh!
	Here goes nothing Click for topic
	Music Yeah, right in there.
	I . Yeah, I think he got it. Yeah, right there. I did it.
	Millions of pieces, pieces for me. Millions of pieces, pieces for me.
	LOWER YOUR NOISE!
	lmao BYE!
	Millions of pieces!
	Pieces for me!
	Yes!
	Millions of pieces!
	Pieces for me!
	Jackass!
	Millions of pieces!
	Pieces for me!
	This is for me!
	What?
	Incredible!
	Well, it's got a little bump on the extra outside.
	What are you talking about?
	It was shorter.
	The extra shortened it a little bit.
	The extra was shortened?
	I had no time whatsoever.
	Geez.
	Alright, I'm going to have to go to the bathroom after this.
	That was Spartan Armor, right?
	Was that what we ended on?
	Yeah.
	Spartan Armor.
	A lot of people get scared of body armor.
	They do.
	Because they think, well, why would I need it?
	It's defensive.
	So you don't even have to use it.
	You just put it there and then do nothing.
	And then be confident.
	And then be confident.
	Spartan's the best, bro.
	And protect your neck.
	So, Spartan Armor, you can go to SpartanArmorSystems.com.
	Use the promo code PROUD to get 10% off.
	Here's a video of their stuff.
	It's actually NIJ certified, so you don't really know what you're getting with a lot of the armor out there.
	Just like, NIJ equivalent.
	What does that mean?
	We don't really know.
	I don't know if I feel confident when I go into the line of fire.
	Well, listen, you probably won't, but then why would I buy armor?
	Well, we have to make a living, too.
	So, SpartanArmorSystems.com, use the promo code CROWDER and you get 10% off.
	Let's see what they're talking about on CNN, because the Hodgetwins are drunk.
	What's the origin of mulligan and is it anti-Irish?
	they're just saying we should just give him a pass for this one thing.
	A mulligan.
	That's just literally one Republican Senator Mike Lee called it a mulligan.
	Let's just move forward.
	They keep talking about this idea of unity.
	What's the origin of mulligan and is it anti-Irish?
	Is she talking sense?
	Jamie Raskin and other impeachment managers are put on the table today that is it doesn't
	require you to be a lawyer or an attorney to understand.
	It is that if you are the president of the United States, if there is such a giant loophole
	in the Constitution that allows you to get away with whatever you want in the final weeks
	of your term.
	That is something that is a profound problem for this country.
	No.
	He has not got away with anything.
	Y'all have actually con...trucked him with stuff he didn't do.
	Yeah.
	No, I know.
	Made up extra stuff.
	Hold on.
	The point she's making here is that all presidents can just do anything they want the final couple weeks.
	You have a criminal system!
	That is the next step.
	The only thing that you have to do.
	So tell me, the president commits murder and he's impeached.
	And you're like, ha ha!
	We've done our job.
	He can't run for office again.
	Is that where it stops?
	No.
	You would charge him with a crime and try to put him in prison.
	That's what you should do right now if you are so confident and you think it is so important that a president can't act outside the concerns of the American people in the last two weeks.
	put him in prison then. Well this accomplishes their goal twofold okay so they don't have to go
	to a criminal court and that's important because in a criminal court would be a first amendment
	issue right people say well you can't yell fire in a crowded theater well okay of course you can
	yell fire in a crowded theater if there's actually a fire yeah exactly the problem is lying and
	encouraging people to acts of violence so they would have to prove in a criminal court that he
	deliberately knowingly incited and encouraged people to commit acts of violence which of course
	would be very difficult to prove considering that he repeatedly said peacefully and patriotically
	so they know that they wouldn't have any standing so what they can do to the american public however
	who don't understand what is going on they can present this to them as though it's some kind
	of a criminal charge the impeachment process and at the same time make you scared to speak out
	right this Because what does this say?
	If any of you think, hold on a second, did my vote really count?
	You're inciting violence.
	That's what they want you to think.
	They want you to be afraid to speak up.
	By the way, I still don't know what happened with my family's votes in Michigan.
	We talked about that?
	Yeah, we did.
	It's a big mystery.
	We didn't always get an answer.
	No.
	You should be getting an answer.
	That's inciting violence, I guess.
	It says my wife didn't vote.
	And she did.
	Or my grandmother.
	I don't know.
	There was one we got an answer on, and then there was one that we didn't, because I have a lot of relatives in Michigan.
	I think, is there something that we have half-Asian Bill Richman, is it half-Asian Bill Richman has something he wants to talk about?
	Alright, listen, we have a few more chats from my half-Asian lawyer Bill Richman here, because he's going to answer some of your, why are you laughing?
	Can you call me half-black?
	No, I can't call you half-black, because you're more than half-black.
	I don't know, but you're drunk.
	You make me nervous.
	My great-great-grandfather was whitest from Ireland.
	Real?
	Can you call me half-black?
	Half-Irish.
	But together, you're full black.
	Yeah.
	Together, you make up 100% black.
	You count as one black man and one white man.
	Can we just ignore the white part?
	I got the DNA results, man.
	Yeah, didn't it say we're like 56% black?
	Yeah.
	54.
	That's more than half!
	Hey, take the extra 2%.
	That's for you.
	That's more than Elizabeth Warren was.
	Didn't stop her from going on ayahuasca trips.
	I kind of like being black, too.
	It's got this kind of stigma to it.
	You guys can get away with a lot.
	Use it.
	Get away with it.
	If I were you, I would just all the time be taking stuff, telling white people they're racist, that they stop me.
	Reparations.
	I'd be much better off, man, honestly, if I was white.
	What are you talking about?
	These black people won't be attacking me in my interview.
	Oh yeah, that's true.
	I guess you're saying you're more afraid of black people than white people.
	If I was 51% white, I'd be cool right now.
	Yeah, I don't really know if that's the case.
	Hey, why don't y'all give him beer?
	When I drink, I turn into Socrates, man.
	Really?
	Hold on a second.
	You mean Socrates the ancient philosopher, not the rapper?
	Yeah.
	I feel like there probably is a rapper who's also named Socrates.
	All right, listen, really quickly, because I have to go alleviate knee pressure right now.
	I'm getting tapped.
	My lawyer, Bill Hirschman, is going to come in to take some of your legal chats.
	Here he is.
	You know that sound!
	That music is iconic.
	Thank you.
	You know what's iconic?
	It's three Halsey's all in a row.
	You know what?
	Three Halsey models, and most importantly, we're not a quarter like... or...
	There's two quarters up there in the production booth.
	Three halves is over here.
	You gotta be at least half to get down here.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Look, I don't even want your crap.
	I don't want your seat.
	I'm sitting over here.
	Why do you think we busted Steven's knee?
	He's got half a good set of knees.
	That's true.
	It was a Tonya Harding incident for sure.
	Otherwise he wasn't gonna be Nancy Kerrigan.
	I'm just kidding.
	I want your crap.
	When he was in the middle of doing it.
	What you didn't see was me behind him pulling the rug as he went to kick.
	Did y'all laugh at that photo?
	Yeah.
	Are you kidding?
	I was like, this is so messed up, but I just thought it was funny.
	I love the little motion.
	Yeah, the motion.
	His face!
	It was...
	Every time he doesn't call you half-black, that's why you guys are like, oh, this is the moment.
	He's got payback.
	It's my time to burst.
	Got him.
	Alright, well we've got a couple more legal questions.
	I definitely want our Hodge twins to get in there and answer some of these as well.
	Can I turn the questions to y'all first?
	I'm going to give you my unprofessional legal advice.
	Perfect.
	Okay, first question from Kim.
	I have asked this a few times and never gotten a clear answer.
	What is the difference between overthrowing a tyrannical government and insurrection?
	Alright, Kim, Chloe, which one of you wants to answer?
	Can you read that one more time?
	Yeah, read it slower, too.
	I have asked this a few times and I've never gotten a clear answer.
	What is the difference between overthrowing a tyrannical government and insurrection?
	Ooh, that's a good one.
	I'm gonna have to pass that to somebody else.
	A tyrannical government is a corrupt government.
	I mean, if citizens are opposing a tyrannical government to overturn because what they're doing is illegal and is corrupt, that's justified and everybody's eyes are right.
	Insurrection is you don't have justification to do what you're doing.
	You just simply disagree.
	You're doing it against the law.
	Your government has not been proven to be tyrannical.
	Shut up.
	Why don't y'all give him beer, man?
	More beer.
	Her question was this.
	Anybody can have an insurrection.
	It depends on if the insurrection is justified, if the government is tyrannical.
	But who says, who qualifies the government as being tyrannical or not?
	I know.
	Just the big people?
	So really the answer to the question has to be it depends on if you win or not.
	So certainly the answer could be, there's no right answer.
	So I apologize for posing a question.
	Well if the government is tyrannical, it's going around killing people.
	Then an insurrection is needed.
	An insurrection is needed.
	Yeah, but what if the government is saying the people that we're killing are actually people that are committing crimes to try to overthrow the government and so therefore our actions are justified?
	Yeah.
	Okay, let's take a vote.
	Who wants to punch Gerald in the face?
	No, no, no.
	So, Gerald, you raise a really good point, which is the subjective nature of this question, and really what it comes down to, in my personal view, that there is no difference between overthrowing a tyrannical government and insurrection, because by saying, I am going to overthrow a tyrannical government, you are saying, I no longer want to follow the laws that you have set out, because a higher power is telling me that these things are wrong, whether it's human rights, whether it's you know, American values, whether it's, you know,
	God and biblical values or whatever it may be. But you have to acknowledge that
	you are willing to break the law of the land in order to overthrow the government. That's why by
	definition overthrowing tyrannical government
	is insurrection, at least in my book. It is, yes.
	Okay, so the next question is from Stormy Shores, a big fan of Donald J. Trump.
	The question, at LWC, will they have to prove that the people who actually breached the Capitol actually were Trump supporters?
	How can they do that when there were confirmed BLM and known Antifa people arrested, as well as press inside?
	Okay, do you guys want to take a shot?
	I mean, they made an arrest.
	The dude was known, Antifa, Black Lives Matter supporter, but I mean, a majority of those people that... They were Trump supporters.
	But only takes when, if you can read all the philosophy books, they say whenever you have an insurrection, it only takes one bad apple to destroy the whole bunch.
	So I think the majority of those people were actually Trump supporters.
	Yeah, and it's too much footage of them just doing stuff they shouldn't have been doing.
	Right, and so my thought on this is the act of proving that they actually were Trump supporters is irrelevant.
	Whether they were Trump supporters or not Trump supporters is irrelevant to the question of did the president incite people to jump in?
	Oh, Gerald got smart!
	Funny.
	Good looking.
	The computer wore tennis shoes today.
	Nice.
	So, you know, when you look at if there's BLM, Antifa, are those folks in there?
	That is actually evidence that there was not an incitement because you have folks who were in there not at the president's behest.
	They were in there because they just wanted to do some bad shit.
	And similarly, when you look at the number of folks... These are legal terms.
	We need not concern ourselves with them.
	Well, they're in the statutes.
	Did you look at all the statutes?
	I did.
	You didn't look at all the statutes?
	I did.
	I thought that said defecation.
	Baloney.
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	Malarkey!
	Malarkey.
	Okay, so, if a person, like, think of all the people who are outside of the Capitol.
	Think of all the people who never even made it onto the Capitol grounds.
	Right.
	Maybe they were or they weren't Trump supporters.
	Probably a lot of them were.
	But the difference about why people went inside, that's really what this comes down to, is what were the people doing inside and were they incited by the words of the President when he said, Go home.
	I think that's fair.
	going to try and claim that right because they know depending on the prosecutor if it
	actually comes down to them and criminal charges if it's a left leaning prosecutor they can
	say Donald Trump made me do it so then doesn't there have to be some kind of standard of
	proof of what did Donald Trump yeah yeah Kevin or Keith?
	Can I say something?
	I think it's very important to determine if they are Trump supporters or not.
	I agree.
	I agree.
	Everything they label about the insurrection is Trump's insurrection.
	If they can find out that a lot of people are not actually Trump supporters, this could
	throw their whole narrative.
	It's certainly relevant because if someone was not a Trump supporter, if they were an
	Antifa member and they were in there, then the idea that Trump caused them to be in the
	Capitol and to cause destruction goes right out the window for that individual.
	So that's why it's certainly relevant.
	But here's the thing.
	Think about all the arguments we're making right now.
	They're about whether or not a crime occurred.
	The drunk guy had another question.
	Go ahead.
	Yes, sir.
	I'm telling you, when y'all give me that bill, man, I turn to Socrates.
	You're too lean.
	You're too lean.
	It goes straight to your head.
	If you find that, say, one third of the bunch was Was not actual Trump supporters and you combine that with the fact that you see police officers waving people in.
	It looks more like a conspiracy by the Democrats to say that this was a Trump insurrection when it was when they actually planned not securing the building properly and waving people in and putting people inside that to pose as Trump supporters.
	Yeah, even if that was the case, Trump supporters were like, yeah!
	You're right!
	Let's go in!
	And this is why I think it's relevant, but it's certainly not a determinative fact.
	If someone was a Trump supporter and they did something inside the building that was unlawful, the question is, did they do the unlawful thing because Trump incited them to do it?
	And that's where I think, and even all of the folks in the commentators on the left are saying, I don't think the evidence is quite there, and we haven't even gotten to the evidence yet.
	That's because there is no evidence.
	Well, I don't like your facts.
	I don't like my facts either, but you know, this is one of those cases where maybe evidence could actually be admitted.
	I'm looking at you, Georgia.
	I'm looking at you, Wisconsin.
	If you want to tell us there's more to your state than cheese, then give us something more than cheese.
	Hang him for jabs.
	Oh wow, that's loud.
	Oh my goodness.
	You're going to see a lot of this coming up over the next two days.
	We get to the 16 hours on each side about who was actually there, why were they there, and were they let in, and what did they do, and what caused them to do the actual bad act.
	Was it because they thought, oh, Donald Trump told me to smash this window in, go into Pelosi's office, and take a shit in the top drawer?
	I just don't think I saw that in Trump's speech.
	See, that would be worth the impeachment.
	Well, if someone took a dump in the top drawer, where she hides her indentured servants.
	I mean, the worst part is he opens the drawer to do it, and he's like, it's already full of shit.
	What am I doing here?
	That's my third deep freezer with ice cream.
	Well, this whole, like, if this was a criminal...
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	they wouldn't be showing this footage over and over and always kind of be like inciting
	violence or inciting injury because they like like if we were in a murder trial and they
	keep constantly consistently talking about how the victim the person who died how she
	suffered if they keep saying that over and over.
	Because of copycat killers.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	You don't want copycat assholes with a capital.
	Well and here's here's the focus is again it's what did these individuals do.
	And let's say of however many, a couple hundred people who got inside the Capitol itself, let's say of those about half committed a crime.
	Because actually being in the Capitol, if you were invited in, remember, there was press that was invited into the building, on camera, showing their press pass, being said, come on in, come on in.
	We've seen the videos of different people being let into different areas, and we know without a doubt, some people committed of analysm. And then some of the original footage from
	Elijah Schaeffer was removed. Exactly. When he was in there. That's the problem. It's they want control
	over the narrative. They want only their press to be in. They don't want citizen journalists
	to be in. And that's why the guy who's on that board behind you, Andrew Breitbart, he said,
	I remember the speech, the Tea Party speech, he said, everybody hold up your phone. He said, you
	are all now journalists. And that was the shot heard around the world where everyone at CNN
	and mainstream institutions.
	It took them a few years, but they said, oh, we got to make sure we got to make sure this doesn't happen because now we have competition and we have competition with people who might actually tell the truth.
	Right.
	And being able to have that democratization of who's actually got the cameras, it's no longer $10,000 systems held by one or two or three news stations.
	And that's all you've got on the tube.
	You've got a lot of other folks who are on the ground being able to create the kind of evidence.
	Why did they invite people in?
	It only took less than 24 hours for folks to start seeing those videos of people being let in and and that's
	ultimately the question Did did Trump incite the Capitol Police to have a small
	force that invited people into parts of the building?
	Did they did did President Trump?
	Why did they invite?
	Buffalo man did they give any argument as to why they invited people in or is it just because it's the People's
	House and people Are always invited in we haven't heard
	We haven't heard from these Capitol Police to be able to talk about it.
	I have to think that, you know, the majority of cops are conservative.
	They probably disagree with what's going on too, so they just waved them in.
	Well, part of the question would be is these are areas that are actually usually open to the public.
	So, you know, if you don't have a clear instruction, imagine this is how it goes.
	Oh, hey, we need to make sure that dangerous crowds don't get onto the Capitol grounds.
	And you're a cop and you've got a bunch of, you know, old people and like, you know, randos who are like, I think they're pretty loose with letting people in.
	Congress no, you know, we want to go on the grounds and they're like, well, my
	instructions don't say I can't let you on.
	We just have these barricades and I guess it's not that big of a deal.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Come on in.
	Yeah.
	I don't understand how they was totally not prepared for this event.
	Well, you know what?
	I think they're pretty loose with letting people in.
	I saw schoolhouse rock.
	They let some guy in dressed up as a bill.
	It was ridiculous.
	He was horrendously unstable.
	Exactly.
	Oh, I hope and pray that I will, but today I'm going to kill Bill.
	Wait, hold on a second.
	You're going to kill Representative Bill?
	Oh, yes!
	I mean, they're going to say that.
	They're going to start saying that.
	We'll be like, oh, we're going to kill this Bill.
	What are you doing?
	What's wrong with you?
	You're going to kill the bill on the Senate floor?
	Who's going to kill the bill?
	That's terrible.
	That's horrible.
	And then they're going to say, Quentin Tarantino, we need to impeach you.
	He's like, I wouldn't even be president.
	You have the twisted face you deserve, Quentin Tarantino.
	That's the face of an evil man.
	You're in defeats.
	A gross man.
	So one other point I saw was a question we had on Twitter was about some of the language actually in Article 1 that relates to who can try.
	So let me just Let me just be very clear.
	Section 2 of Article 1 of the Constitution says the House is the sole power of impeachment.
	Right.
	Section 3 says the Senate is the one who tries all the impeachments.
	It then goes on to say in one of the clauses right before Section 4 that when the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside.
	So that's where there's this just lack of clarity as to who's supposed to be presiding at this particular moment.
	And this is that contradiction you pointed out earlier.
	Well, wait a minute.
	If you guys are saying this is just a continuation of an impeachment, that's why we can impeach a non-officer holder, then you have to still follow the rules and you should have had Chief Justice Roberts.
	I'm actually kind of concerned by your laziness that he's representing me.
	You forgot the subclause that says, or Patrick Leahy.
	Well, he is a very old man.
	Provided that he's over the age of 90 and won't be able to appear due to health reasons,
	will allow an exception.
	This whole thing, I mean, is this something, does Big Tech ban us if we say this is a sham?
	I mean, that's a sham when you go, you're not even following your own rules.
	They want to bend the rules, they want to bend the rules as to even setting the rules
	and what happens with Congress.
	Then they want to bend the rules when it comes to the Senate.
	They want to bend the rules when they see who's presiding.
	And now we have someone who is, like you said, he is a witness, Patrick Leahy, a witness, a juror, and a judge, and this is a guy who of course perpetuated the false narrative that Donald Trump was a secret Russian foreign agent.
	Patrick Leahy's pretty high up on the DNC totem pole.
	How did he not know about the Steele dossier?
	How did he not know about Fusion GPS, right?
	Are we supposed to believe that they're all so stupid they don't know that that was planned from the beginning and they were the ones who should be held accountable for colluding with foreign powers?
	Patrick Leahy shouldn't be serving in any capacity to the Democrat Party.
	He should recuse himself.
	Well, you know, all of this, the fact that there are so many questions surrounding this is what I think, when you step back, all of those questions raise the ultimate question, which is, what in the F are we doing right now?
	Why are we in this procedure?
	Why are we doing what we're doing right now, given everything that's happening in the world and in the country?
	Why are we doing this?
	This is like a Pennsylvania Redux of changing the rules.
	So much unity.
	All right, I'm out of here.
	I hate the word unity.
	Every time we say unity, it makes me upset.
	Unity, unity, unity!
	That song is iconic.
	I think a majority of problems is wrong with this country.
	You could look at one party.
	Bruce Castor Jr.
	Okay, let's see what he's saying right now.
	Something really bad happened and that is a natural reaction of human beings.
	It's a natural reaction of human beings because we are generally a social people.
	We enjoy being around one another.
	Meh.
	Even in DC.
	Debatable.
	We recognize that people all the world over, and especially Americans who share that special bond with one another, love the freedoms that this country gives us.
	And we all feel that if somebody is unsafe when they're walking down the
	street that the next person that's unsafe could be you, your spouse, one of your children.
	I don't think any of us feel unsafe outside of a, you know, going to places like Baltimore and Detroit and, you know,
	New York City.
	So you'll never hear anyone.
	Liberal cities, yeah, pretty much.
	You see the skyrocketing crime wave here this year?
	Yeah.
	Record high homicides.
	They're setting records.
	And again, you can see throughout all of Donald Trump's presidency, consistently, it was going down until the moment that the riots hit.
	And that's something nobody wants to talk about either.
	They want to tell you it's all because of COVID.
	Look, listen.
	There may be some petty crimes that are being committed because people are bored with COVID, but there isn't a scourge of first-time homicidal maniacs.
	No.
	What's happened is you have people who are in neighborhoods where there's a reduced police presence.
	They feel as though they have carte blanche to go around and intimidate people who live in those neighborhoods.
	Ironically, the people who Democrats usually claim to want to help, impoverished neighborhoods, neighborhoods of color.
	And so now you have repeat offenders who are committing crime without any concern for repercussions.
	They're acting like politicians almost!
	Yeah, absolutely.
	And by the way, he was showing so much concern for the next person, right?
	Whoever the next person could be, except when it was probably Rand Paul.
	Actually, unlike AOC, in the midst of a mob that wanted to kill him most likely, they had to be protected by police, and his wife and his family were threatened with no guarantee that they would be just fine.
	And you know the people who started that, right?
	The BLM protesters, and Antifa, and Maxine Waters supporting them, and Kamala Harris.
	Like, we didn't go after them.
	We didn't say, hey guys, you incited violence, and Rand Paul almost paid, potentially, physically, with his life.
	He's already been the victim of one tragedy before.
	We need not make him a victim of another.
	He got his ass kicked by his neighbor, too, right?
	Well, that's probably true, too.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Why?
	Because he's Rand Paul.
	Yeah.
	It's just too nice.
	That hairstyle just sets people off.
	This is some guy like, hey, you look like a damn toilet hairbrush.
	What?
	Bam!
	Bam!
	Well, listen, you could say that about maybe some other toilet brush head, but not me.
	Not me, man.
	Not me.
	On really the unconstitutionality of your fist as it enters my facial cavity.
	I love Rand Paul.
	I love Rand Paul.
	I just wish he didn't come across so catty.
	Like a lover scorned.
	Like, you expect Rand Paul to show up, and you show up like, what's cooking?
	And he's just boiling your pet rabbit like, well, you told me you loved me, but it turns out that your wife's more important than me.
	And by the way, just so you know, I know this guy's probably making the case for Donald Trump, but I know every one of, he was setting them up with that line like, you guys are fearing that you could be next, right?
	Alright, let's hear what he has to say.
	Let's hear what his defense is.
	Your wife can testify to what you said, because even though it's technically hearsay, it's an exception because it's the event living through the person.
	Why?
	No opportunity for reflective thought.
	There's all sorts of examples that we recognize in the law for why people immediately desire Are you going somewhere with this?
	It's being dramatic.
	He's like the public defender in My Cousin Vinny.
	I'm doing better!
	Just pray to God his hair dye doesn't run down his face.
	That was crazy, man.
	This dude is sweating black.
	They're scaring the black out of him.
	I saw that and I was like, oh my God.
	Is that his hair dye?
	In suburban Philadelphia, my parents were big fans of Senator Everett Dirksen from Illinois.
	And Senator Dirksen recorded a series of lectures that my parents had on a record.
	And we still know what records are, right?
	On the thing you put the needle down on and play.
	Okay, shut up.
	Oh man, you suck.
	Can somebody storm the building just to take him out of there?
	Don't actually do it, though.
	Don't actually do it.
	In Minecraft, do it.
	Just skitballs.
	It's the most commanding, gravelly voice that just oozes belief and sincerity.
	Must have been a phenomenal United States Senator.
	I don't call this debate.
	No, no, no.
	When your anecdote is longer than your argument, you're a crappy lawyer.
	It's like, I knew this one lady who used to always like, she would go, she would say, oh, well, I guess I'm kind of going down a rabbit trail, but you know, Andy.
	And then I'd be like, no, I don't.
	And she would continue down the rabbit trail.
	Typically, when you say, I guess this is kind of a rabbit trail, you have the common courtesy of allowing said person to get off of the rabbit trail.
	Yeah, you pivot.
	But it was like torture for her.
	She was trying to tell you, look down there.
	It's a rabbit trail.
	Guess where we're going.
	You're like, no, no, not another one.
	I guess it's a rabbit trail.
	Let's go.
	It's like this guy stepped us through a cosmic space hole of unfunny, uninteresting, and untalented.
	You could do that.
	They're just men and women like you are.
	His suit hasn't been tailored.
	Well, then Everett Dirksen tells us that they're not.
	He went and said, uh, can you give me the Gomez Adams look?
	That shit like a blanket on him.
	Yeah.
	When they're country.
	He's got a burrow chest, I don't know.
	He was in a Kings of Comedy phase.
	He had the worst suits.
	There's a little big JCPenney suits.
	I have been around United States Senators before.
	Two of them in this room from Pennsylvania, I like to think, are friendly toward me, or at least friends of mine, when we're not politically adverse.
	Hey!
	No one cares!
	Right.
	Get to the point!
	And I have been around their predecessors, and one thing I have discovered, whether it be Democrats or Republicans, United States Senators are patriots first.
	Well that's not true.
	Patriots first.
	That's absolutely not true.
	Patently false.
	They're lazy public taxpayer teatsucklers first.
	Self-interest seekers first.
	Self-interest seekers first.
	There isn't a member in this room who has not used the term, I represent the great state of fill-in-the-blank.
	That's because they have to.
	Why?
	Because they're part of the job.
	And I'm willing to bet.
	This is just an aside here.
	You all took an oath.
	Leave!
	Leave us now!
	He's supposed to be making the case for Donald Trump, I think.
	It says former President Trump.
	Oh, okay, so he is his current lawyer.
	I thought it was former lawyer, which I was like, oh thank God.
	Nope, nope, this is our defense.
	There's no way this guy has ever had a conversation with Donald Trump.
	There's no way he held President Donald Trump's attention.
	Donald Trump's like, tweeting, eh, whatever.
	Yeah, totally paying attention.
	Mr. Trump, what are you doing?
	I'm tweeting how much this conversation sucks.
	I heard Trump's on Gab now.
	You'd get on anything to get away from this guy.
	guy.
	Not so much.
	This sounds like a guy who would be teaching Sunday school right before he touches me.
	They absolutely feel that connection of pride.
	Terrible.
	I'm probably pissed at.
	That's the only time I called that.
	My senator screwed me!
	me of Pennsylvania. That's my senator from Pennsylvania. I'm probably pissed at
	Right?
	that's the only time I called that my senator screwed me right like come on
	when people are calling their representatives yeah yeah why would you
	like because my senator sucks yeah it's like yeah hello yeah doing a bang up job
	Just wanted to say keep it up.
	Yeah, that phone call never happens.
	Does that crap actually work?
	Call your senators.
	It does.
	Not a letter.
	It does.
	It does?
	Yeah.
	No, it doesn't.
	And it's dessert.
	It does.
	No, it doesn't.
	Their reputation for cool-headedness being erudite.
	Oh no.
	Not the studio.
	Yeah, man.
	I know why you're storming.
	It's burnin' this motherfuckin' ass.
	Storm has arrived.
	Yeah, watch that fuckin' post.
	I'm surprised.
	Shouldn't you be in a holding cell?
	Yeah.
	Why do you have a hockey stick?
	I was there for a bit, but it's not jail time, it's storm time.
	Is it storm time?
	Yeah, man.
	Yeah, that's what I'm talkin' about.
	Damn, that's what I'm talkin' about, man.
	What is he?
	He's a foreign national.
	He is.
	Yeah, you don't get to start an insurrection if you're Canadian.
	Well, that's an invasion.
	That's a different thing.
	It's not an erection.
	Just so you know, this was not planned.
	This is how boring Trump's defense attorneys are.
	Trying to dress it up a little until he gets to the point.
	We're not storming right now.
	Just take a break.
	No, just grab a sandwich out later.
	Yeah, I'm loving it.
	Just make sure you, you know, refresh your rub-on tattoos.
	Yeah, it looks real, though, doesn't it?
	Is that raccoon, or are you fox?
	Yeah.
	Alright, thanks.
	Are you a connoisseur of furs?
	We appreciate the storming.
	I like your raccoon fur.
	Is this guy still talking?
	...tells us is the topic of the day.
	Okay, finally, the topic of today.
	Here we go.
	Here we go.
	That was a long lead-in.
	So senators are patriots.
	SON OF A BITCH!
	SON OF A BITCH!
	STOP IT!
	I don't know, drink for that.
	Everybody drink, it's the only way we're going to make it through.
	I already drank all my beer.
	I already drank all my liquid poison.
	Alright, we need some more drinks for the Hodge twins.
	And try and make them not too white guy beer-ish because they can't handle it.
	It's because you're too lean.
	Oh man, I'm fat as hell right now.
	Oh yeah, really?
	Look who you're talking to.
	I got some good action going.
	Look at this, look at this.
	I got some Crowder going.
	That's fair.
	I deserve to be fat shamed.
	I made the mistake of doing a strength cycle where I was putting on weight and then blowing out my knees so they had to put me on immune steroids at just like 240.
	That's part of the cycle.
	You put on weight, then you put on more weight.
	I put on weight, then I put on more weight.
	Looks like I'm storing up fucking nuts for the winter.
	Looks good on you, man.
	Thanks for coming.
	Well, thank you.
	Looking sexy, man.
	I appreciate it.
	You're looking massive, man.
	I'd be interested in you guys, too, if you did some squats.
	All that machine work's kind of a turn-off.
	I got a bad back, man.
	I know that you could never love me as much as Hammer Strength.
	They roll over and they're looking at their phones.
	The leg press is just as good.
	Yeah, yeah, for those who attend the Folsom Street Fair.
	He rolls over, oh, it's leg day, put it back down, go back to bed.
	Alright, please tell me this guy is giving some... Listen, this is... we took a risk in broadcast.
	We knew that this could be really boring.
	Let's see, this is the guy who's supposed to be defending Donald Trump.
	If nothing else, listen, Donald Trump should be held accountable for hiring morons.
	Yeah, wow, that's true.
	All right, let's hear him.
	In our system of government, and if you read the Federalist Papers, we're very fortunate because the Federalist Papers were authored as an explanation for why it is the states... Okay, all right, Thomas Finnegan, he travels quickly, so now Thomas Finnegan, hopefully, we'll be talking about our on-the-ground impeachment reporter.
	Let's go, Thomas Finnegan.
	♪♪ All right, our on-the-ground impeachment reporter,
	Thomas Finnegan, can you hear me, sir?
	Hi, Steven.
	I'm in beautiful Washington State.
	Glad to be with you.
	Tom.
	Okay.
	How the hell did he get there so fast?
	You know, it's the only state to be named after a president.
	Yeah.
	Which is fascinating.
	Well, that is fascinating.
	Which one?
	I'll get back to you.
	The highest point in Washington is Mount Rainier.
	It's also a volcano.
	Thomas Finnegan, Thomas Finnegan.
	You're supposed to be our impeachment reporter on the ground in Washington, D.C.
	Washington, D.C., Thomas.
	Thank you.
	Thank you.
	Impeach me in Washington, D.C.
	And I don't want you to invoice me in petty cash or do per diem for you screwed up the travel, okay?
	So, we're going to check back in with you later.
	You understand that Washington, D.C.
	is on the other seaboard.
	I'll get a flight.
	Okay.
	Thomas Finnegan everybody Looks like
	The Hodgwins are talking during the stinger.
	They have no idea.
	People can't hear you.
	Oh, they can't hear me?
	Thomas, you suck, Thomas!
	That's racist.
	That's a hate crime and it's unnecessary.
	Promo code is FIGHTLIKEHELL because, look, That's what everybody has to do out here.
	Look, I think if nothing else, this makes it very clear that you expect the next guy to fight like hell.
	This is President Trump's lawyer, for crying out loud.
	This guy isn't even slapping like a bitch, let alone fighting like hell.
	This guy would get his ass kicked at an 8th grade girl slumber party!
	Well, and I believe this was not his first choice for representation here.
	I really think that a U.S.
	Senator should be up defending him right now, but none of them really have the balls to get up and say it.
	The thing about U.S.
	Senators is they're patriots.
	First.
	Alright, okay, why don't you tell us more there, Mr. Eric Metaxas.
	Alright, let's see.
	Alright, Lumberg, what do you got?
	Throughout history has always, and without exception, fallen Because of fights from within.
	Because of partisanship from within.
	Because of bickering from within.
	And in each one of those examples that I mentioned, and there are certainly others probably that are smaller countries that lasted for less time that I don't know about off the top of my head.
	Then why mention it, you dipshit?
	Shut up!
	Look behind you!
	That's your 15 minutes!
	Can someone get a Muppet cane and pull him off by the neck?
	I thought you were going to say, look behind you, that's Patrick Leahy dying of old age.
	Wasting away.
	Let it never be said that I'm not bipartisan, because I would throw eggs at this guy if I had them.
	As representative democracy.
	And you guys, you know, on Mug Club, you can chat, let me know, or you can tweet me if you want us to cover this tomorrow, because it's going to be another four.
	I really don't want to, but we'll see what you guys think.
	It's so paper thin.
	I feel as though I can do that because...
	And you guys, you know, on Mug Club, you can chat, let me know, or you can tweet me if
	you want us to cover this tomorrow, because it's going to be another four...
	I really don't want to, but we'll see what you guys think.
	I mean, there's...
	There's...
	This just...
	It's so paper thin.
	This just goes to...
	There is value in showing you that there's nothing here, but it's also really hard to
	watch nothing here for four hours.
	I get it.
	I get it.
	...the Constitution, the concepts of liberty that we think are critical.
	The very concepts of liberty that drove us to separate from Great Britain, and I can't
	believe these fellas are quoting what happened pre-revolution as though that's somehow of
	value to us.
	Good.
	That's a good point.
	We left the British system.
	If we're really going to use pre-revolutionary history in Great Britain, then the precedent
	is we have a parliament and we have a king.
	Good.
	He's warming up, he's getting there.
	It only took him nine rounds to get warmed up.
	He's like Rocky, getting his ass beat the whole fight.
	That our liberties are enumerated in the Bill of Rights.
	It's not an accident that the very first liberty in the first article of the Bill of Rights is the First Amendment which says Congress shall make no law abridging freedom of speech, etc.
	Congress shall make no law.
	The very first one.
	The most important one.
	The ability to have free and Robust debate.
	Free and robust political speech.
	He just pulled a Swalwell?
	He did.
	And a Biden.
	Something that... Did you just have to look down for that?
	Mr. Raskin and his team brought up is that... Let me check my notes.
	A suggestion from former President Trump's team that when various public officials were Not denouncing the violence that we saw over the summer.
	That that was somehow the former president equating that speech to his own.
	Not at all.
	Exactly backwards.
	I saw a headline, representative so-and-so seeks to walk back comments about I forget what it was.
	Something that bothered her.
	Oh my god!
	I saw something representative so-and-so walk back something about I don't remember what it was.
	What value do you provide as a human being to your fellow man?
	Almost none right now.
	Donald Trump's got to be at home right now going, he's blowing it!
	Pull him!
	Rudy!
	Get in there, Rudy!
	They're gonna think I was pissing on Russian prostitutes for sure now!
	And anybody who agrees should be permitted to say they agree.
	I mean, I get his point.
	He's a good point.
	He didn't need to be specific to make that point.
	He was saying she shouldn't have to walk back her comments no matter what she was saying, but she supported it.
	He should have.
	It would have helped.
	Consider it like a cartoon, where it's just like, if I just do this, you can just see images of me stabbing myself at my computer yesterday for six hours.
	You know what's funny though?
	He had to check his notes to realize he didn't have a specific story to tell.
	He's like, crap, I don't have any names.
	Checks his notes and it's like, did you leave dryer on?
	Question mark.
	That's pretty clever.
	Looking for your next job because I don't think you'll be at this post for too long.
	government takes action against that state representative or that US
	representative who wants to walk back her comments, the government takes
	action against her, I have no problem going into court and defending her right
	to say those things even though I don't agree with it.
	That's pretty clever, looking for your next job because I don't think you'll be at this post for too long.
	By the way, if anyone here needs my business card...
	Has anybody slipped in?
	I'm selling t-shirts in the back.
	I would like to request that CNN please, in the Chiron, put up my LinkedIn profile.
	If you or a loved one has mesothelioma, please contact me.
	Starts rolling on head on roll on headache cream.
	Someone brings him some notes.
	Oh, just my reverse mortgage.
	Ah, there we go.
	Let me adjust my catheter.
	Self-lubricating catheter.
	Oh, man.
	Self-lubricating, huh?
	It's something you put up your pee hole, because you can't pee anymore.
	Pretty much.
	Oh, my God.
	Yeah.
	I'm sorry, there's something in my pocket.
	We watch a lot of CNN.
	It's your future, isn't it?
	Yeah.
	I'll just put a gun to my head.
	You gotta stick something through my pee pee.
	My life's done.
	I don't know that they stick it up your pee pee hole.
	I feel like someone jammed something up my pee hole right now.
	I don't think it's got to, that's the whole point.
	My wife would want me to know this.
	It's like the old Chinese torture where they would stick glass rods up and go like, oh that hurts, smash, smash, smash, smash with hammer.
	We'd break it, don't worry.
	That's what this guy's doing right now.
	What I am saying is Bruce Castor Jr.' 's speech
	Feels similar to if a Chinese military war leader jammed a rod of glass up my urethra and smashed it with a hammer.
	Specifically.
	The two are almost indecipherable from one another on the pain index.
	Above that is broken femur.
	Okay, let's go back to it.
	Prosecutors have an ethical requirement that they are not allowed to charge people with criminal offenses without probable cause.
	You might consider that.
	And if we go down the road that my very worthy adversary here, Mr. Raskin, asks you to go down, the floodgates will open.
	It's one thing to have a pause for dramatic effect, and it's another to be like, where was I going here?
	I wish we had TiVo for this so we could fast forward the pauses.
	I wish I'd have written down bullet points instead of my Trader Joe's list.
	Son of a bitch.
	Oh, toucan O's.
	Ooh, ooh, they have the mango in now.
	It's seasonal.
	Now that I think about it, I did leave the dryer on.
	Bruce, did you just color in all the O's on your sheet?
	This chamber and the chamber across the way will change one day.
	And partisan impeachments will become commonplace.
	You know, until the impeachment of Bill Clinton.
	I've seen live, non-sped up, photosynthesis time lapses that were faster moving than this.
	That's just his style, man.
	He's slow.
	He's methodical.
	He trusts the plan.
	He's making love to the TV.
	impeachment. Now most of us have lived trust the plan. He's
	making love to this is supposed to be the ultimate safety valve.
	The last thing that happens the most
	fucking treatment
	and session where this body is sitting as a court of
	I'm so sorry.
	Look, to all the Trump cultists out there who think that we're... No, listen, I want Donald Trump to have a better defense than this guy.
	Yeah.
	Not somebody who goes, that this should be the most... I'm sorry, I'm sorry, I sleep with my eyes open.
	I feel like this is Joe Biden and he just gets stopped right in the middle of a sentence.
	What'd you say?
	Makeup of the United States House of Representatives and maybe a change in the makeup of the United States Senate.
	The pressure from those folks back home, especially for members of the House, is going to be tremendous.
	Because remember, The founders recognized that the argument that I started with that... A million years ago?
	In the pre-Cambrian era?
	When Jordan Peterson is dunking on you for talking too slowly, you have a problem.
	It's like when you can measure his speeches not by an hourglass, but the geo strata layers.
	And the people represented by the members of the United States House of Representatives
	become incensed.
	And what do you do with a federal issue if you're back in suburban Philadelphia and something
	happens that makes the people who live there incensed?
	You call your congressman, and your congressman, elected every two years, with their pulse on the people of their district, 750,000 people, they respond.
	And boy do they respond.
	The congressman calls you back, a staffer calls you back, you get all the information that they have on the issue.
	Sometimes you even get invited to submit a language that would improve whatever the issue is.
	Well, when the pendulum swings, perhaps the next person that gets impeached and is sent here for you to consider is Eric Holder, during Fast and Furious.
	Attorney General of the United States.
	Or any other person that the other party Give specifics.
	Look, this is why Donald Trump said fight like hell.
	Because Republicans, conservatives, don't.
	I'm sorry.
	The other people came out and they condemned Donald Trump's character.
	They made condemnations of his supporters.
	They got personal right away.
	They got dirty right away.
	And this guy is not only not fighting dirty, he doesn't need to fight dirty, but he needs to fight concentrated, at least targeted with an effort.
	Use specific names here.
	Use specific examples.
	Connect with the American people.
	Understand that this is all taking place in the court of public opinion.
	It's not a real trial!
	We know that, right?
	We've talked about that.
	And this guy, maybe he's under some delusion that they actually want unity and he's trying to play nicely?
	They're accusing your guy of a crime punishable by death!
	Do you understand that?
	Where's the urgency, sir?
	That's why Donald Trump says, fight like hell, because of p-p-p-p-p-p-p-p-pussies like you!
	I can't believe this guy has a job!
	Well, in a court of law, this may be fine to a judge.
	You may be making a salient point that needs to be made.
	But for public opinion, that's why you need a senator up there.
	Somebody who understands how to talk to the people and refute an argument.
	Not a lawyer.
	No, this man, I guarantee you, is a crappy litigator.
	Well, he could be that too.
	I don't know.
	But he doesn't get the disposition of power by being terrible.
	Half-Asian Bill Richmond could litigate circles around this guy.
	Probably.
	And he would be like, huh?
	Is that an oval?
	There he goes!
	Interesting thing about polygons.
	It's not interesting, and I don't like you.
	Nothing you say is interesting.
	Shut up and leave now.
	Chex Notes finds nothing interesting about polygons.
	I wish his hair dye was running down his Muppet jawline, because at least we'd have something to pay attention to.
	Saying that this is worse than watching paint dry would be an insult, in fact, to paint that is drying.
	And those who watch it.
	All right, let me see.
	The political party was complaining about the decision he made as a United States Senator.
	You know, it's interesting because I don't want to steal the thunder from the other lawyers, but Nebraska... I think stealing thunder should be the least of your worries.
	You have stolen zero thunder.
	You know, some people have told me I'm a little too much of a firecracker.
	Really?
	Was that your wife while she was with another guy?
	Well, at least there's going to be other people coming up to make the case.
	Hopefully one of them is like, well, sorry about the first guy, but we let off with our worst.
	Hopefully the next guy comes up and goes, listen, the thing you have to understand about Bruce Castor Jr.
	is he's retarded.
	Yeah, let's go.
	to me come on every bring on don't you come on come on bring on someone who can
	bring some heat here there's no someone needs to come in and go hey that guy was
	a part of the collusion with Russia and Donald Trump of being so hey there's the
	bitch who said she wanted to impeach him before he had even held office hey look
	there's the asshole who is sending dick pics to everyone in the Lower East Side
	hey you sure you want to go forward with this that's what someone needs to do
	coming out here by the way isn't interesting that you use constitutional
	arguments really you took it out of context and then cited some trans male
	who wrote some opinion piece and then cited a tweet do you guys really want to
	have this conversation right now hey how about this I dare you guys to bring us into a criminal court because he's a private citizen.
	Let's have a motion for discovery and see what kind of evidence we have on you guys, right?
	You wouldn't even want us to see what's in your iPhone cloud picture storage.
	Someone needs to come in here and put up a damn fight!
	Yeah, I want somebody to come in there and walk in with this overlay from Chuck Schumer, right?
	Chuck Schumer, the first person to speak, if he was a little bit closer I could tell you exactly what he said, but he's saying, you have no idea what kind of whirlwind you have called down, what is going to hit you, right?
	And he's saying this to the Supreme Court, right?
	Words that you would think, oh my gosh, this is inciting violence.
	If you guys keep doing this, you have no idea what kind of whirlwind you're calling down and what's going to hit you in the face.
	That's what the first guy that spoke today, that opened up our proceedings said at Supreme Court.
	Right.
	To the Supreme Court Justices.
	Basically threatening them and saying, if you don't do what we want you to do, you have no idea what's going to happen to you.
	Don't have to read into that very much to know that those words could be taken just the same way.
	And this guy, who's supposed to be the defense lawyer, goes, well I hear what you're saying there, but interesting story.
	That reminds me.
	Talking about whirlwinds.
	One time I was at Applebee's and they didn't have seats in the foyer so we had to sit at the bar and the air conditioning wouldn't stop blowing on you.
	And I asked the server if we could move seats and do you know who the server was?
	Do you know who the server was?
	Interesting story.
	Oh no.
	He was actually a friend who I hadn't seen in 45 years and then just someone has... even the plastic forks just go... Alright, let's see if this guy... I'm sorry guys, but I just... I hate seeing this as our representation.
	This man is bad at his job.
	He's really, really bad.
	that.
	Said that, said that, said that.
	Okay, here.
	He's this far from going, uh, Chuck Schumer staring contest.
	You always win.
	Ah, Chucky.
	You might have seen that we wrote that in the answer.
	It might have been a little Wait, hold on a second!
	Can you recognize those strategies?
	to opine on very much but there is some significance. The house managers, clever
	fellows that they are, they cast a broad net. They need to get 67 of you to agree
	their right. And that's a good strategy. I would use the same strategy.
	Wait, hold on a second. Can you recognize those strategies?
	Use it!
	I apologize on behalf of white people.
	We're not all this boring.
	I feel like this is every black comic, like white guy voice, like, interesting story, really, when you think about the Constitution.
	We don't all sound like this.
	You have to agree that every single aspect of the entire document warrants impeachment, because it's an all-or-nothing document.
	You can't cut out parts that you agree with, warrant impeachment, and parts that don't.
	Because it's not divisible.
	It flat out says in the Senate rules it's not divisible.
	He's acting like it's a court of law.
	Now, previous impeachments, like President Clinton, said the president shall be found guilty of high crimes and misdemeanor for engaging in one or more of the following, and then gives a list.
	So all he had to do was win one.
	But they do that here.
	Has to be all or nothing.
	Some of these things that you are asked to consider might be close calls in your mind.
	But one of them is not.
	The argument about the 14th Amendment is absolutely ridiculous.
	Are you looking for the 14th Amendment?
	He should have it marked ahead of time.
	Are you shitting me?
	Are you shitting me?
	He's got a lot longer time than the other douchebags.
	And here's what the 14th Amendment says.
	Finally found it, yeah.
	Oh my god!
	No person shall be a senator or representative in Congress or elector of president and vice president or hold any office civil or military under the United States or any other state who having previously taken an oath as a member of Congress or as an officer of the United States or a member of any state legislature or as an executive or judicial officer of any state to support the Constitution And shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same.
	Insurrection.
	Or giving aid or comfort to the enemies thereof.
	But Congress may vote by two-thirds of each house to remove such disability.
	Now, it doesn't take a constitutional scholar to recognize that that's written for Can we call for recess?
	fought for the confederacy your previous military officers are in the government
	and of the confederacy and it doesn't take a constitutional scholar to require
	that they be convicted first whoa whoa he got a little passionate there for a second
	I think he crapped himself too so that question can never be right
	he just stopped and went aww
	can we call for recess he just does what little kids do just like
	hey what are you doing You also didn't bring that.
	What the 14th amendment applies here is ridiculous.
	And if you come to that conclusion, then because the managers have not separated out the counts,
	any counts within the article of impeachment, the whole thing falls.
	I didn't write that.
	They are married to that.
	You also didn't bring that.
	I wrote it out in individual responses.
	You didn't even print it out so you had it at the ready.
	The cast the wide net effort.
	And fortunately, Senators, sometime in the past, realized that you can't do that because you passed a rule that says, hey, you can't do that!
	So, that's why it's flawed.
	It's flawed in other ways, too, and my colleagues will explain that.
	Hopefully better than you.
	Why don't you send out one of them?
	Yeah, let's talk to them then, yes.
	Send out one of the colleagues.
	Anybody.
	Send in the colleagues.
	Has Pumper's got a dream team?
	I don't know.
	God, I hope so.
	I hope they're starting out with their worst.
	If it goes downhill from here, we're screwed.
	Yeah.
	When I'm closing the case, I thought they were brilliant speakers and I loved listening to them.
	They're smart fellas.
	He loves using the word fellas.
	Yeah.
	Because that makes him seem like he's folksy.
	Right now he's going, everything about this man is measured where it's like, he's fellas, and then, because that's what it says!
	Like he's trying, it's like you can't, because he's clearly not passionate about any of this.
	He's just a guy for hire, and he's just spouting what he thinks he's supposed to.
	This isn't some, I mean, if he is passionate, then he's done one hell of a job at covering it up.
	Yeah.
	But he has a few kind of tells.
	He goes, these fellas, these fellas.
	And then he tries to go, okay, he probably has written down like show enthusiasm.
	Oh shit, I haven't done.
	So let me ask a stupid question.
	There are no stupid questions, only stupid answers.
	And stupid people who ask the questions.
	Go ahead.
	This is probably gonna be pretty stupid, but did Trump actually appoint him to be his attorney?
	Or did the government appoint him?
	Trump.
	Trump did.
	Yeah.
	Well, he had a team, and I think they all quit.
	Some of them did quit, yeah.
	And what we heard was that some of them quit because he wanted to discuss, again, matters of the election.
	And they were saying they didn't want to do that at the impeachment.
	It was not a winning strategy.
	But that happens all the time, by the way.
	No, no, no.
	People leave legal teams for a lot of reasons.
	Right now, it doesn't matter if Trump is 100% right.
	If you represent him, you could be ending your legal career right now.
	Right.
	People will just put you on a list of people not to hire for any position ever again.
	Right.
	I see.
	So it sounds like this guy didn't have any opportunities at the moment.
	I feel like, well, no, this is the thing.
	That's his opportunity.
	Perfect.
	All the great ones aren't going to represent you.
	This is your moment to shine.
	You're the backup and you're putting the game and you screwed it up.
	Yeah.
	He's blowing it.
	You combined Ben Carson with somebody who's barely intelligible.
	And you pause a lot!
	Right.
	Oh my gosh.
	Why are they afraid of the very people that sent them to do this job?
	The people they hope will continue on that?
	Why are they afraid that those same people who were smart enough to pick them as their congressman aren't smart enough to pick somebody who is a candidate for president of the United States?
	Why fear that the people will all of a sudden forget how to choose an administration in the next few years?
	And in fact, this happens all the time.
	Oh my gosh.
	When there are changes in administrations from one term president to other.
	With the foam on his lip, he looks like, and this is something I thought I would never see, a boring epileptic.
	One and a half.
	Drink it.
	Wait.
	Nixon to Ford, Ford to Carter, Carter to Reagan, Bush 41 to Clinton.
	It happens. The people get tired of an administration they don't want and they
	know how to change it and they just did. Wait. So why think that they won't know
	how to do it in 2024 if they want to?
	Or is that what the fear is?
	Is the fear that the people in 2024, in fact, will want to change and will want to go back to Donald Trump and not the current occupant of the White House, President Biden?
	Because all these other times... That's actually a great point.
	It's a good point because think about it.
	We had eight years of Barack Obama where average American wages, I think we can bring this up, average American wages went up $1,000 in eight years.
	And in the first three years of Donald Trump, the average American income went up $5,000.
	We had record low unemployment.
	So there were eight years of Barack Obama.
	People experienced it.
	Donald Trump for three years, and there was COVID, of course, which was a pandemic that was largely exaggerated and exacerbated by Democrat policies and really global government policies.
	And then they're going to have Joe Biden, who eliminated more jobs than anyone in his first week of the presidency.
	And here's the thing, Americans are going to be able to go, hold on a second, hold on a second.
	Now we've got 16 years, right?
	12 of them were complete, absolute, utter shit.
	And three of them were record prosperity.
	They're going to have a contrast.
	Democrats don't want that. They'd rather have another Republican who they can
	tar and feather however they want and some new person right and be like well
	you don't know about X candidate I sound like him right now because I don't know
	who that can't it's not in the past it's in the future that's where it's
	appropriate to say I don't know the exact name. If it's in the past and you're
	presenting your legal case you should know the name whereas people who don't
	really care that much about politics the average American maybe the AFL-CIO maybe
	the Carpenters Union maybe the people who work in pipelines maybe the people
	who work in coal maybe the people who saw their wages go up are going to say
	what there were there were three years where things were going pretty well for
	us yeah what what was different You know what?
	I'm gonna go with that guy.
	They do not want the possibility of Donald Trump to run again.
	And not only that, they also, again, they want to send this message because if there's someone who is Trump-like, someone who's in the school of Trump, someone who is not a Washington insider, they want to be able to say, look, this person, this person, he's the incarnate of Donald Trump.
	You really want that?
	That was a president who we impeached.
	This is all designed to send a message to you.
	This is not a government for the people, by the people, representing the people in many cases.
	And they don't want you out there.
	Maybe there's that little ember of a fire saying, hey, you know what?
	Maybe I should run.
	Maybe if Donald, if a reality star can do it, if people who don't have experience in an industry, really, and that's what it is, an industry, government, where you can gain experience nowhere else and it becomes this vicious incestuous cycle, maybe there's an ember telling you you want to run and they want to say, look, we are going to destroy your life.
	We are going to find everything you've ever tweeted, everything you've ever posted, everything you've ever said.
	We will ruin you.
	And even if you didn't do it, guess what?
	We're going to make it up, like Russia collusion, like pissing on Russian prostitutes, like all kinds of business corruption that never actually occurred.
	And even if we can't make that stick, then we are going to impeach you by saying that you incited violence when you said, let your voice be heard patriotically and peacefully.
	This is meant to be a public execution, not to scare Republicans, but to scare you.
	From ever trying to create a government representative of the people.
	Who is that?
	You.
	Do you really think Nancy Pelosi represents you?
	Do you really think Chuck Schumer represents you?
	It's ironic that the billionaire playboy who was in Home Alone 2 had his thumb to the pulse of the American people more than anyone in Washington D.C.
	because that's how out of touch they are with the American reality.
	Everything that is happening right now is designed to intimidate you.
	That 70 plus million Americans, they want you all to be afraid.
	And against that, you have to fight like hell or you will not have a country anymore.
	Do not allow yourself to be intimidated.
	Do not allow yourself to be silenced.
	If you think you can run for office, run for office.
	Everyone in Florida, run for dog catcher for all I care because DeSantis is going to create some new law where then Facebook and Twitter can't ban you.
	They can be fined $100,000 a day.
	Here's what they want you to think.
	You're alone.
	You're not.
	There's over 70 million of you and they can't stop us all.
	And I don't mean a violent insurrection.
	I mean making your voices heard and letting these people know that you are not afraid.
	This is a public execution.
	Don't let it scare you.
	That was beautiful.
	Sorry, I'm mad.
	It was beautiful.
	It's just because this guy has no- he's low energy.
	Yeah.
	Article... Oh my god, he's going back to the top of your application.
	He's flipping again.
	...says judgments in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office.
	and disqualification to hold any office of honor, trust, profit under the United States,
	colon, but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial,
	judgment and punishment according to law.
	He's trying to refute that and thing real quick.
	I want to hear if he has a good argument.
	President Trump committed a criminal offense.
	And let's understand, a high crime is a felony and a misdemeanor is a misdemeanor.
	The words haven't changed that much over time.
	After he's out of office, you go and arrest him.
	So there is no opportunity where the President of the United States can run rampant in January at the end of his term and just go away scot-free.
	The Department of Justice does know what to do with such people.
	And so far, I haven't seen any activity in that direction.
	And not only that, the people who stormed this building and breached it were not accused of conspiring with the prisoners.
	That's what you do with the prisoners in Gitmo.
	You just send him in and leave a loaded pistol on the table.
	Judgment, in other words, the bad thing that can happen, the judgment, in cases of impeachment, i.e.
	what we are doing, shall not extend further than removal from office. What is so hard about that? What
	of those which of those words are unclear shall not check notes extend further than removal
	from office. President Trump no longer is in office. The object of the Constitution has been achieved.
	He was removed by the voters.
	Mr. Schoen, are you ready?
	Mr. Schoen!
	Mr. Schoen!
	Now that I've taken all of his time... Uh, just drink because, uh, it's the only way you can pad the pain.
	Mr. Schoen!
	Thank you, Mr. President.
	Grace!
	That's recess?
	No, no, it's not recess.
	They're going to the next speaker.
	So hopefully it's more alive.
	I'm gonna suck.
	It's a beautiful building.
	Come on, let's get some music in there or something.
	Come on, man!
	We need like walk-up music to get him going.
	Yeah, some pump-up music.
	Oh my gosh.
	For crying out loud.
	Is this guy talking yet?
	No.
	It's just silence.
	I think he's organizing his papers.
	How long does he take to speak?
	It's like the Harry Potter hat.
	Did you not know where your mark was?
	Did you not know that the last paragraph was like when you're supposed to be getting ready?
	Oh, is the mic on?
	Excuse me.
	I stand before you on what I have always thought is the hallowed ground of democracy.
	In this room, American lives have been changed so dramatically in just my lifetime through so many of your legislative initiatives, from the Civil Rights Act when I was a child, through most recently the First Step Act.
	Laws that have provided major opportunities for Americans to move forward I like this dude.
	He's got energy, man.
	He's got some fire in him.
	Yeah, I like that forehead action, too.
	deposits and withdrawals. I've seen the changes these laws have made through my clients every day.
	I like this dude. I was waiting for you to do this. He's got energy man. He's got some fire in him.
	Yeah I like that forehead action too. Yeah.
	It's God's work man.
	I stand before a group of 100 United States Senators who have chosen to serve your country
	from all corners of this great nation giving up all sorts of professions
	Time with family.
	You act like they had jobs before this!
	No, not a lot of them, no.
	Why are you appeasing them?
	I don't understand that.
	You should go in and say, I stand before many United States Senators who have never held private office because you are incompetent.
	Yeah, who have never signed the front of paychecks and have no idea what it is to get a $2,000 check and no job because of coronavirus shutting your business down.
	Oh my gosh.
	Man, I gotta piss.
	Go ahead!
	Go, go, go, go!
	No, no, no.
	Go right there.
	You're fine.
	Nobody will judge.
	Either one of you have to go.
	I got it.
	It's not like you're going to miss anything.
	My overriding emotion is, frankly, wanting to cry.
	For what I believe these proceedings will do to our great, so long enduring, sacred Constitution, and to the American people on both sides of the great divide now characterizes our nation.
	Esteemed members of the Senate, going forward with this impeachment trial of a former President of the United States is unconstitutional.
	Tell us why.
	set out in our brief, some of which we'll focus on here.
	Wrong.
	And as a matter of policy, it is wrong, as wrong can be for all of us as a nation.
	We are told by those who favor having these proceedings that we have to do it for accountability.
	But anyone truly interested in real accountability for what happened at the Capitol on January
	6th would, of course, insist on waiting for a full investigation to be completed.
	Indeed, one is underway in earnest already, intent on getting to the bottom of what happened.
	And by the way, the investigation, we already know from that investigation that they were planning this before Donald Trump's speech.
	Right.
	Had nothing to do with Donald Trump's speech.
	But more than willingly wait for the actual evidence, especially with new evidence coming in every day about pre-planning, about those who are involved, and about their agenda bearing no relationship to the claims made here.
	They say you need this trial before the nation can heal, that the nation cannot heal without it.
	I say our nation cannot possibly heal with it.
	With this trial you will open up new and bigger wounds across the nation for a great many Americans see this process for exactly what it is.
	A chance by a group of partisan politicians seeking to eliminate Donald Trump from the American political scene and seeking to disenfranchise 74 million plus American voters and those who dare to share their political beliefs and vision of America.
	They hated the results of the 2016 election and want to use this impeachment process to further their political agenda.
	These elitists have mocked them for four years.
	They've called their fellow Americans who believe in the Constitution.
	We have this source from Just the News.
	The attack was planned well in advance of Trump's speech.
	As described below, evidence uncovered in the course of the investigation demonstrates that not only did Caldwell, Kroll, Watkins, and others conspire to forcibly storm the U.S.
	Capitol on January 6th, they communicated with one another in advance of the incursion and planned their attack.
	Turns out they weren't all that inspired by election voices be heard peacefully and patriotically.
	Why is he holding his head?
	He must have thought he had his hair piece on today.
	He's there!
	He's there!
	Where did we get these people?
	Yeah, what is going on?
	He thought his head was going to fall off.
	He's like, let me hold my head on.
	Let's see if he does it every time he goes for water.
	Please.
	left out of the nation's agenda as dictated by one political party that now
	let's see every time he goes for one please please but they're proud
	Americans who never quit getting back up when they roll And they don't take dictates from another party based on partisan force-feeding.
	This trial will tear this country apart, perhaps like we have only seen once before in our history.
	And to help the nation heal, we now learn that the House managers, in their wisdom, have hired a movie company and a large law firm to create, manufacture, and splice for you a package designed by experts to chill and horrify you and our fellow Americans.
	They want to put you through a 16-hour presentation over two days, focusing on this as if it were some sort of blood sport.
	And to what end?
	For healing?
	For unity?
	For accountability?
	Not for any of those.
	For they surely they are much better ways to achieve each.
	It is again for pure, raw, misguided partisanship that makes them believe playing to our worst instincts somehow is good.
	They don't need to show you movies to show you that the riot happened here.
	We will stipulate that it happened and you know all about it.
	This is a process fueled irresponsibly by base hatred by these House managers and those who gave them their charge, and they are willing to sacrifice our national character to advance their hatred and their fear that one day they might not be the party in power.
	They have a very different view of democracy and freedom from Justice Jackson.
	Flips through notes.
	Who once wrote.
	This guy's actually pretty good though.
	But freedom to differ.
	Just a baby.
	Is not limited to things that do not matter much.
	That would be a mere shadow of freedom.
	The test of its substance is the right to differ as to things that touch at the heart of the existing order.
	They have a very different view of democracy and freedom.
	This is nothing less than the political weaponization of the impeachment process.
	Pure, raw sport, fueled by the misguided idea of party over country, when in fact both will surely suffer.
	True.
	I can promise you that if these proceedings go forward, everyone will look bad.
	You will see and hear many members of our Congress saying and doing things they must surely regret, but perhaps far worse than a moment of personal shame in a world in which history passes from our memories in a moment, our great country A model for all the world will be far more divided and our standing around the world will be badly broken.
	Our arch enemies who pray each and every day for our downfall will watch with glee.
	Glowing in the moment as they see you at your worst and our country in internal divide.
	Let's be perfectly clear.
	If you vote to proceed with this impeachment trial, future senators will recognize that you bought into a radical constitutional theory that departs clearly from the language of the Constitution itself and holds, and this is in their brief, That any civil officer who ever dares to want to serve his or her country must know that they will be subject to impeachment long after their service in office has ended, subject only to the political and cultural landscape of the day that is in operation at any future time.
	This is exactly the position taken by the House managers at page 65 of their brief.
	unprecedented, radical position.
	Wow.
	They unabashedly say so.
	Imagine the potential consequences for civil officers you know and who you believed served
	so honorably, but who in the view of a future Congress might one day be deemed to be impeachment
	worthy.
	Imagine it now, because your imagination is the only limitation.
	The House managers tell you a correct reading of the impeachment power under the Constitution
	is that it has no temporal limit and can reach back in time without limitation to target
	anyone who dared to serve our nation as a civil officer.
	Now add that to their demand that you members put your imprimatur on the snap impeachment they returned in this case, and can do again in the future if you endorse it by going forward with this impeachment trial.
	This is an untenable combination that literally puts the institution of the presidency directly at risk.
	Nothing less.
	And it does much more.
	Under their unsupportable constitutional theory and tortured reading of the text,
	every civil officer who has served is at risk of impeachment if any given group elected to the
	house decides that what was thought to be important service to the country when they served now
	deserves to be cancelled. Let's see does he hold his head here we go here we go here we go wait for
	okay AHHHHHH!
	Oh, hold on, hold on.
	Is this a religion?
	We need to look this up.
	Is there some kind of religious significance to this?
	Because he touched it afterwards.
	I hope we're not, like, being rude to some man.
	Religious thing.
	We need to look it up.
	I don't know!
	Yeah, we just brought all assholes. I don't know. I mean you touch your head after drinking. Maybe they call Ben
	Shapiro Regardless, it's hilarious. I don't know
	Is there a religious thing?
	Look it up.
	I have no idea.
	Touching your head while drinking water.
	He's like a baby.
	He's got to figure this out.
	Trying to cover us a little.
	Perhaps my friend put the situation simply and sharply into focus last week on his radio show.
	My friend is a distinguished lawyer who served as an ambassador to former President Obama and has friends among you.
	He described himself to his listeners as a dyed-in-the-wool, lifelong Democrat.
	But he said, the idea of a hundred people in these circumstances deciding that tens of millions of American voters cannot cast their vote for their candidate for president ever again is unthinkable.
	And it truly should be.
	We need to know.
	I will discuss today several reasons this matter should not and must not proceed.
	Why the Senate lacks jurisdiction to conduct this trial of a former president.
	Hey, President, no longer in office and now a private citizen.
	Any single reason in our trial memorandum or discuss today suffices.
	But I want to start with a discussion of the fundamental due process lacking from the start.
	And that would last through the end if this goes forward, because it is this irretrievably flawed process and its product, a dangerous snap impeachment that brings us here and threatens to send a message into the future that we will all regret forever.
	He's deep in research.
	And that stain, this body, which up to now our founding fathers believed was uniquely suited for the most difficult task of conducting an impeachment trial, as Mr. Hamilton wrote in Federalist 65.
	These aren't just niceties.
	I make no apology for demanding in your name, in the name of the Constitution, that the rights to due process guaranteed under the Constitution are adhered to in a process as serious as this.
	I don't see anything yet.
	Still looking.
	of due process in this case of course starts with the House of Representatives.
	In this unprecedented snap impeachment process the House of Representatives
	denied every attribute of fundamental constitutional due process that
	Americans correctly have come to believe is part of what makes this country so
	great. How and why did that happen? It is a function of the insatiable lust for impeachment in the House.
	If it is a religious thing, listen, we mean no offense, but it's silly.
	But we can't find anything on it.
	It must be like a very weird...
	I don't respect this president and I will fight every day until he is impeached!
	Those are grounds to start impeachment proceedings.
	Yes, I think that's grounds to start impeachment proceedings.
	Yeah!
	Kink alone!
	Kink alone!
	Stop it!
	Those are grounds to start impeachment proceedings.
	Yes, I think that's grounds to start impeachment proceedings.
	I rise today, Mr. Speaker, to call...
	Is that James Brown?
	For the impeachment of the President of the United States of America.
	I continue to say, impeach him!
	Impeach 45!
	Impeach 45!
	Someone bring me my cape!
	On the impeachment Donald Trump, would you vote yes or no?
	I would vote yes.
	I would vote.
	I would vote.
	Because we're going to go in there, we're going to impeach the mother******.
	But the fact is, I introduced articles of impeachment in July of 2017.
	If we don't impeach this president, he will get re-elected.
	Miles requires me to be for impeachment, have an impeachment hearing.
	He needs to scrawl an eye on his chest.
	Representatives should begin impeachment proceedings against this president.
	It is time to bring impeachment charges against him.
	Bring impeachment charges.
	My personal view is that he richly deserves impeachment.
	I'm here at an impeachment rally and we are ready to impeach the...
	Nobody said it!
	No, there's nobody there.
	That's why.
	It's like five people.
	The relevant timeline in the House reveals the rush to judgment.
	On the day following the January 6th riot, the House leadership cynically sensed a political opportunity to score points against the outgoing then-President Trump, and the Speaker demanded that Vice President Pence invoke the 25th Amendment, threatening immediate impeachment for the President if Mr. Pence did not comply with this extraordinary and extraordinarily wrong demand.
	Four days later, on January 11th, 2021, the instant article of impeachment was introduced in the House.
	Speaker Pelosi then gave the Vice President another ultimatum, threatening to begin impeachment proceedings within 24 hours if he did not comply.
	to the nine impeachment managers would be, and on January 13, 2021, just days after holding a press conference to
	announce the launching of an inquiry, the House adopted the article of impeachment.
	Completing the fastest impeachment inquiry in history, and according President Trump's own personal opinion, the House
	rejected Speaker Pelosi's demand, favoring instead adherence to the Constitution and the best interests of the nation
	over a politically motivated threat.
	And that's why I'm here.
	Over strong opposition, based in large part on the complete lack of due process.
	To say there was a rush to judgment by the House would be a grave understatement.
	It is not as if the House members who voted to impeach were not mightily warned about the dangers to the institution of the presidency and to our system of due process.
	They were warned in the strongest of terms, from within their own ranks, adamantly, clearly, and in no uncertain terms, not to take this dangerous snap impeachment course.
	Those warnings were framed in the context of the constitutional due process that was denied here.
	Consider the warnings given by one member during the House proceedings, pleading with the other members to accord this decision the due process the Constitution demands.
	This is Representative Cole of Oklahoma.
	With only one week to go in his term, the majority is asking us to consider a resolution impeaching President Trump.
	And they do so knowing full well that even if the House passes the resolution, the Senate will not be able to begin considering these charges until after President Trump's term ends.
	I can think of no action the House can take that is more likely to further divide the American people than the action we are contemplating today.
	Good point.
	Where's the Great Uniter Biden?
	Why doesn't he say, come on?
	Yeah, done.
	Stop it.
	Let's move on.
	He doesn't want to move on.
	No.
	He was part of the administration who blamed the previous administration more than any president in the history of mankind.
	Barack Obama blamed all of his misdeeds on George W. Bush.
	And then, by the way, tried to take credit for Donald Trump's economy until COVID hit and then tried to blame it on Donald Trump.
	Again.
	Interesting how that goes, right?
	And this other claim we cannot verify as well.
	I was looking for that video.
	I must have dreamed it or something.
	Yes, you did.
	How would one search for that video and not find it?
	That's when I typed in oil and cracked Obama.
	It was on CNN, wasn't it?
	What?
	I doubt it.
	It was some video or something.
	Probably Fox News.
	It wasn't a news clip.
	Just some video.
	I've lost interest completely in impeachment.
	I just want to see him drink water.
	Yeah, we're just waiting for the water.
	I'm like, please, do it again.
	on one side or on the other. In such cases there will always be the greatest
	danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparator.
	I've lost interest completely in impeachment. I just want to see him drink water.
	I'm just waiting for the water. I'm like, please do it again.
	Yeah.
	Prescient thinking by Mr. Hamilton, as we see often.
	And what I say to you is a proof of this He did some better.
	He's a better litigator, I guess.
	He's got some arms on him.
	All that head padding.
	I'm gonna get rid of this.
	Tired of this guy. He's got some arms on him.
	Meet all that head padding.
	Shoulder raises.
	Let the existence of every man engaged in the administration of public affairs speak for themselves.
	This, too, in Federalist 65.
	Now back to the House and the warnings against this rushed judgment in this case.
	Mr. Cole of Oklahoma again.
	In the name of healing, a path forward, he said, our people so desperately need, he warned that, quote, the House is moving forward erratically with a truncated process that does not comport with the modern practice and that will give members no time to contemplate They won't.
	No.
	Not likely.
	I don't think we're gonna stream all this stuff.
	No, we can't.
	We can't.
	We can't.
	Well, we can maybe like clip the best arguments.
	Yeah, we can clip the best ever, maybe like on the final arguments.
	And discuss it.
	But there's just nothing, this just goes, there's nothing here.
	No.
	No.
	Not likely.
	I don't think we're going to stream all this stuff.
	No, we can't.
	We can't.
	We can't.
	Well, we can maybe clip the best arguments.
	Yeah, we can clip the best of or maybe on the final arguments.
	And discuss it.
	But there's just nothing.
	This just goes to, there's nothing here.
	There's nothing here.
	That's a big reason why we wanted to show this to you, because guess what?
	They're going to be running this on cable news probably in perpetuity until the end of it.
	Absolutely.
	Yeah, that's all they're gonna run.
	Yeah, exactly.
	Trump team makes boring case.
	To discuss all the evidence, to listen to scholars, to examine the witnesses, and to
	consider precedence.
	He's noted further, this is not the type of robust process we have followed for every
	modern impeachment.
	And the failure to do so...
	Because cable news was saying Donald Trump still has access to the nuclear codes and he is crazy and he is going to turn the military on us and do you guys remember that from CNN?
	People like Amanda Carpenter and Jake Tapper and those guys were out there saying we've got to get him out of office right now and by the way saying that you should invoke the 25th amendment That's treasonous to say, take him out of office because I disagree with him.
	Invoke the 25th Amendment.
	You're fine with treason as long as it's against the guy that you disagree with.
	Yeah, because after all, we should be most concerned about the man with access to nuclear codes who has started no new war.
	Yeah, and drawn down troops.
	The only president to do so in modern American history.
	Yeah, exactly.
	More concerned that Joe Biden would fall asleep on them.
	No, no, no, I didn't mean to!
	You know what the worst thing that Donald Trump did on Inauguration Day for Joe Biden?
	He just refused to go.
	You guys said that he wouldn't leave office, that he would have to be forcibly removed, and what he did was basically like, nah, I don't want to be at the party.
	That was his worst thing.
	He was like, I don't know.
	He ghosted him.
	Yeah, that's it.
	That's all you're concerned about.
	Even if Trump has to coast, can he just walk into Oval Office and push a button?
	It's not that simple, right?
	No, no, it's not that simple.
	It takes multiple parties though.
	Not one for a rushed political process.
	But that was their justification for rushing.
	Seriously, I'm not kidding.
	They were like, we've got to do this right now.
	He's got a week left.
	Red button and I just push it.
	It's done.
	I've seen it before.
	It's just a red button.
	You can push it.
	Right next to Diet Coke.
	Right next to Diet Coke.
	It's confusing.
	It shouldn't be there.
	Yeah, it's like when you're robbing a bank, you just push a button.
	Yeah, yeah, exactly.
	What do you think?
	I'm some idiot.
	I've seen the Home Depot commercials.
	Easy.
	Trump's like on Twitter live streaming.
	You see this button?
	Right here.
	Diet Coke.
	Yeah, I got you.
	I'm gonna blow this bitch up.
	The red button is the nuclear button, the blue one's the one that makes Biden shit his pants.
	Formalities of the criminal justice process is a hybrid of the political and legal, a political process moderated by legal formalities.
	This is a quote Richard Broughton.
	What is that behind them, like marble?
	It looks like marble.
	It's marble, yeah.
	Very expensive.
	It's black marble.
	I think we should cut back on all their costs.
	That should be a nice Formica.
	Yeah.
	Look, we can have nice things.
	I want it to be nothing but Formica and green pool table carpeting.
	That's all they get.
	It should be a place you don't want to go.
	You don't want to run for office.
	This isn't a cool gig.
	By the way, push all the power back down to the states except for the common defense, maybe the mail, and we're done.
	I don't think we need the mail anymore.
	Not really.
	Really, we don't need the post office anymore.
	Not so much.
	I understand at one point.
	Not anymore.
	Now?
	Now.
	Who wants to argue that we need the post office now?
	I don't think I've gotten, no I don't, I don't get anything via the mail.
	Junk mail.
	Right, junk mail.
	I mean they send things occasionally.
	Everything else is coming from FedEx, Amazon, UPS.
	You mean faster and cheaper?
	Yeah.
	He did it!
	He did it!
	that ignore constitutional restraints. Here comes the water.
	Here it comes. Everyone get your drinks ready. Oh! He did it. He did it. That's gotta be a thing. Somebody out there,
	please.
	It's gotta be a thing.
	Please let us know.
	I think it's got something to do with his combo badge.
	What is going on?
	So far, all I've found is this is turkishculture.org.
	Apparently, if he's Turkish, left hand is put on the head while drinking water.
	Well, that's his right hand.
	Really?
	So that blows that out of the water.
	That's his right hand.
	Yeah.
	And he's not Turkish.
	That's the closest thing I've found so far.
	There's gotta be something.
	Wait, wait, wait.
	Hold on a second.
	Is this man a Turk imposter?
	Like, that's what he tells chicks at parties.
	He's like, oh, sorry, I ignore my whole Turkish thing.
	Oh!
	No, I'm sorry.
	I thought I read something about having to do with maybe having a stroke.
	You touch your head.
	Nope.
	Okay, I'm gonna look again.
	Like he's having a stroke right now?
	No, no, no.
	Maybe if he was Jewish and he was wearing his little cap, you know?
	Yeah.
	But he's not wearing a little cap.
	I need to know this.
	I really need to know this.
	I think it's his hat.
	We'll see if anyone in the chat lets us know.
	That's what I'm saying!
	We need your help.
	We have a system there.
	If it is a thing and someone doesn't get it to us, we'll fire somebody.
	Okay.
	I feel like I'd be first, so maybe we should play a different game.
	Yeah, we've got to figure this out.
	different.
	No, no, you won't be hurt.
	A civil case or a case of impeachment.
	A 1974 Department of Justice memo suggested the same thing.
	I'll be right.
	I'm just going to yell out and ask the control room.
	Yeah, we've got to figure this out.
	I don't want to wait for another water break here with this guy,
	but I kind of do.
	Yeah.
	Conducting an impeachment proceeding.
	More specifically, as the Hastings court described it, one of the key principles that lies
	at the heart of our constitutional democracy.
	Again, fairness.
	OK, no, he's just crazy.
	Is he just crazy?
	No, apparently there's nothing.
	Okay, nothing.
	Then again, that's exactly what an anti-Semite would say.
	Somebody text Shapiro.
	of a constitutionally protected interest.
	Somebody text Shapiro.
	It is also true that in any proceeding that may lead to deprivation of property requires
	fair procedures commensurate with the interests at stake.
	Impeachment proceedings plainly involve deprivations of property.
	and liberty interests protected by the due process clause.
	I tell you what, I don't want to, because he's better than the other guy.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	But if I were Donald Trump, I would disqualify him based on the water drinking thing.
	Well, here's the thing.
	The audition is like the first guy and it's like, oh geez, he's really smart probably, but he's terrible.
	And then this guy comes in and be like, oh, revelation.
	What?
	He needs water.
	What the hell is he doing?
	And the assistant's like, I do find it peculiar, sir, that he touches his head with his right hand when he drinks water.
	He's autistic.
	That means he's even smarter.
	He can do better jobs in his head.
	I don't even need my calculator.
	Put him on rotator!
	He likes it!
	I hope this isn't like part of a disease or something.
	It could be!
	Left hand is Turkish, that's not quite a disease.
	Could be.
	You have no idea.
	I wonder how many people now just fall asleep to all of this.
	water left hand is Turkish that's not quite a disease the Dasani disease
	could be you have no idea that would allow the chief executive and commander
	in chief of the armed forces to be impeached based on a process how many
	people just fall asleep to all of this yeah I know I would that the common law
	No.
	And it shows you how boring CNN's daytime programming is.
	They're like, can we get a guy on there that no one's going to like?
	That's going to be better than Poppy Harlow.
	care about the constitutionality of it.
	And it shows you how boring CNN's daytime programming is.
	They're like, can we get a guy on there that no one's going to like?
	That's going to be better than Poppy Harlow.
	Right.
	Right now Anderson Cooper's enjoying his time off just banging some guy in the green room.
	Right.
	Jesus.
	Jesus.
	Some guy that's an intern.
	CNN green room right now is nothing but coke and male strippers.
	Those interns have a rough shot.
	Plants everywhere sheltering in place.
	Are they going to do the vote live today, Tocanawan?
	They have to vote, right?
	Yeah, I read that they're going to do the vote at the end.
	Right, they're going to do the vote at the end.
	So four is, theoretically, when they said, right?
	This is taking forever.
	This is taking forever.
	Oh my gosh.
	Man, just imagine the hours they put into this.
	I bet he drove them crazy.
	The other guy didn't prepare.
	No, no.
	That other guy's like, I think I'm ready for this.
	I was born ready for this.
	The guy steps on stage not ready for this at all.
	But imagine, like, they act as though, like, if they could sway somebody, if this was an impartial pool of jurors, that they could sway their vote, then yeah, this makes sense.
	Put on the case.
	Nobody is changing their vote.
	I guarantee you right now, what did we call it?
	It was the two Republicans that we think are going to cross the aisle.
	Susan Collins, and what's the name of the other guy?
	I might have a Susan Collins, and I can't remember the name of the wiener.
	Yeah, we've got them on here.
	But no one else is going to change their mind.
	Yeah, someone get up to me.
	It's Susan Collins and one other Republican.
	Yeah, they've already made up their minds.
	They already know how to go.
	Yeah, absolutely.
	Just a waste of time.
	There's no way.
	That's okay.
	We can have them in the research team.
	They can look it up.
	We wrote it all down.
	Just trying to find it.
	It's some name like Bloont.
	But not Bloont.
	But not Bloont.
	But it's like Bloont.
	Not Blunt, but not Blunt.
	But it's like Blunt.
	This is an aside about Blunt sounding names.
	As the New York Times recently reported, there were no witness interviews, no hearings, no committee
	debates, and no real additional fact finding.
	House managers claimed the need for impeachment was so urgent
	that they had to rush the proceedings with no time to spare for a more thorough investigation.
	Just have someone search the document.
	Susan Collins.
	And it's right next to Collins.
	I guarantee you it will show up right next to it.
	It shouldn't take two minutes to find.
	Someone no longer works here.
	Collins!
	Rob Portman.
	Rob Portman!
	From Ohio, right?
	That Rob Portman?
	Turns out it wasn't in my document, yeah.
	Uh-oh.
	Uh-oh.
	Yeah, she brought him in.
	Get that kid going.
	There he goes!
	There he goes!
	because we have this life hack check from uh, Louie.
	Uh oh.
	Yeah, she probably did.
	So this weird thing, um, it's probably more likely that he's Jewish than Turkish.
	It says, for those actually interested, observant Jews say blessings and cover their heads while
	eating a sandwich.
	There he goes!
	There he goes!
	Oh, he missed it!
	Oh, he missed it!
	I thought it was Jewish.
	I was like, what is it?
	Bring it back up.
	Observant Jews, what?
	I was like, there you go.
	Yeah, I was gonna say, that's what's so weird about it.
	Lessons in cover heads before while eating and drinking usually they have head coverings like a yarmulke, but I
	guess he okay So they're going to do something that's what's so weird
	about it an observant Jew and he's not wearing the the yarmulke.
	Yeah That was what I was thinking. That's why I was cautious
	Look, it's still funny.
	I don't think you've ever seen it with an observant Jew who's not wearing a religious head.
	Yarmulke?
	Yarmulke, Kippa, I don't know.
	I can't pronounce it correctly.
	Yarmulke and Kippa, I think it's effectively the same thing.
	Is it called a Yarmulke?
	Yeah.
	There's black Jews too?
	There are?
	Yeah, I've seen them.
	Is your race?
	No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, It's like black hockey players, there are a few of them.
	Same thing with the Jewish people, there are some black Jewish people.
	There's like a little band, right, that keeps the hat from falling off?
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	It's like a little clip.
	Clips on the inside, yeah.
	I know that because I did a show when I was either 17 or 8 years old, a stand-up show that they did annually at a synagogue.
	17 or 8?
	I was 17 or 18.
	Oh, or 18, sorry.
	That's a swath there.
	I misheard you.
	You couldn't fill in the blanks?
	You're like that guy who has to bring out his pocket constitution.
	Hold on, let me just... I clearly said...
	And why would I go in reverse order?
	17 or 8?
	Well, if you play the tape back, you said 17 or 8.
	I would say 8 or 9.
	That's why I was confused.
	I'm crying out loud.
	Instant replay.
	Just trying to help you.
	Anyway, I was doing it at a synagogue, and they gave me one, but they didn't tell me how to use the clip.
	So the problem is, if you don't use the clip, it just creates a barrier between the yarmulke and your head, and while I was doing stand-up, it just kept falling off on the floor, which is disrespectful.
	It's a disrespectful pretend to be.
	Well, they were actually pretty cool about it, so what I did was like, I'm sorry, I've never performed at a synagogue, and I just put it on the microphone.
	I kept talking to him.
	And they thought it was really funny.
	It was kind of like when I opened for Bruce Bruce, it was like 400-pound black comedian.
	It was black boy, two eyes, Bruce Bruce, and myself.
	And I realized, so I performed Thursday night, it was one show.
	Didn't do very well.
	And then Friday night...
	So Friday night, by the time I got to the second show, I realized, oh, they're only going to laugh if I make racist jokes against white people.
	Like how white I am.
	And I did the same thing with those people in the synagogue that night where I just had the guy with a little microphone with a yarmulke talking about what a Gentile I was.
	And I killed.
	And they invited me back the next year.
	But I bombed the next year because I didn't have the material because now I knew how to put it on.
	You gotta just, like, do the same act.
	No, I just, well, it didn't help that I painted a little Jew on my hand and said, so right, so right!
	Stop with the joking!
	They thought it was stereotypical.
	Did you put a yarmulke on your hand?
	I used lipstick.
	Hey, hey, what kind of racist jokes you tell when you say that?
	Oh, I just, you know, about how, like, we can't dance and, you know, how white people got no butts.
	That was about it.
	But not you, though.
	I mean, you broke the stereotype.
	That's not true about me.
	No, no, no, no, no.
	But the point is, and I remember, too, Bruce Bruce coming out.
	He's really funny, by the way.
	And when he was coming out, he had a whole entourage, like a botcher.
	So I'm like, you know, I'm used to a certain rhythm, right?
	Ladies and gentlemen, Bruce Bruce!
	And there's nothing.
	I'm like, uh, Bruce, Bruce!
	And you're like, boom, boom, boom, boom.
	And the beat, and these lights.
	And I think it was like, I remember when, I remember when, I remember when.
	And he's coming, he's walking out with like five people.
	It's a Gracie train.
	And I'm just sitting like, Bruce, Bruce, ladies and gentlemen.
	Something fun about that day.
	Come on!
	Bruce Bruce!
	Make it to the stage, buddy!
	And it took forever, and then he came up, and he didn't say thanks for the introduction, he just walked up and put his hand out.
	Oh, he wants me to give him the microphone.
	And he didn't even look at you either, he just like, really?
	Yeah, he just handed it to me.
	You know what?
	I don't know when this was, but if someone looks up, because I remember in the green room, the night that I performed was the night that Rashad Evans headkick knocked out Sean Salmon.
	So whatever year that was, that was the year that I opened up for Bruce Bruce, and that was a year and a half late because I was supposed to open for him because I won a MySpace comedy contest.
	They're like, you won, it was on the front page of MySpace called So You Think You're Funny.
	I was like, I won, what do I get?
	They're like, you get to fly yourself to Tampa and open up for Bruce Bruce!
	And I was like, I don't have the money!
	So then when he was somewhere in Texas, like the improv, they put me up with him for a weekend.
	You get to fly yourself!
	Terrible accommodations provided by you.
	And that was in 2011.
	2011.
	Okay, so that was 2011.
	So I would have been, maybe I was 22.
	How long did you do stand-up?
	I started, yeah, I started in my teens.
	Teens?
	Yeah.
	I started in my teens.
	Just for Laughs up in, uh, Canada?
	Just for Laughs, I was 18, yeah.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	Uh, oh, wait, he's got his thing.
	He's got sticky notes.
	Hold on.
	He's got props.
	See, this is what you do.
	You put sticky notes in.
	It is a document unique in all the world.
	It is a foundational part of what makes the United States a beacon of light among the
	other nations of the world.
	He could have found smaller sticky notes, but...
	It not only has room for tremendous variety of perspectives on the philosophical and political
	direction our country should take, it encourages the advocacy of our differences.
	But we have long held that fundamental to its health and well-being, and therefore to
	ours as a nation is its insistence on due process for every citizen.
	The emphasis on the right-to-do process long ago was recognized as its life breath.
	Does he mean for people to see those sticky notes?
	I think so.
	That's what I'm saying, like in legal, we'll talk to Bill about this later, but the legal ones, there's little small little arrows that point in.
	He didn't have those.
	It just looks like he stopped by the used bookstore on the way.
	Can I have the bright neon green?
	Oh no, I forgot my constitution!
	Well, at least he's not like the other guy who was looking it up.
	And the 14th Amendment, if I can find it.
	A wonderful amendment, I love.
	But, a little story about the 14th Amendment.
	Let me just find my app here.
	Oh, ain't face idea, bitch, let me tell you.
	I feel like he's looking for Nehemiah in the Old Testament, like, I have no idea where to go.
	Yeah, that previous guy shows up to give a toast, he looks down at his notes, and he looks up and everyone's hung themselves.
	Alright, let's listen to his closing statements, and then we will have half-Asian Bill Richmond come in and take your legal questions, because I don't feel they've been proficiently answered by these folks.
	Promo code is FIGHTLIKEHELL.
	You get $30 off at lotterworthcreditor.com slash MugClub.
	We've got a lot coming on the pike for you, including some hopefully new Change My Minds as we go.
	Snap decisions that remove political figures are the norm.
	Maintaining their systems depend on it.
	That is not our way in America.
	So I feel like I like to say fellow, and this guy likes to say snap decisions.
	Snap.
	Uh oh.
	He's going for the warning.
	Choose an America that lives by our constitution.
	He's putting the props away.
	It's not funny.
	It's still a little funny.
	It still is funny because it's like he's decided that he's sticking with the practice of touching his head, but he can't be bothered to wear the yarmulke.
	I mean, maybe you're not supposed to.
	Sweetheart, when you leave, why don't you put on your kipper?
	Now!
	No!
	When I drink water, they'll know!
	Don't touch my hair!
	Every.
	Single.
	Day.
	It is far too dangerous a proposition to countenance and you must resoundingly reject it by sending the message now that this proceeding, lacking due process from start to finish, must end now with your vote that you lack jurisdiction to conduct an impeachment trial for a former president whose term in office has expired and who is now a private citizen.
	Oh! There it is!
	I think it's Tacoma!
	You know, you guys are right. Not quite as good.
	Geez!
	Not now that I know that he's doing it for Yahshua.
	I think it's Tacoma. Yahweh. Yeshua.
	We should ever lower our vigilance to the principle of due process.
	It's better than the Islamic tradition where they take a drink of Turkish tea and blow people up.
	Well, they cut off other people's heads.
	They don't touch their head.
	They go like this and they just throw out a dagger.
	Oh, cool!
	That's a skill, though.
	It really is, yeah.
	Oh, yeah.
	This is good.
	Yeah, that's true.
	Bill of Attainers is basically where there's no actual... Somebody explain what that means.
	Well, actually Bill can explain what that means, but we have it actually right in here.
	Yes.
	That's where, if I'm not mistaken, Bill of Attainers is where there's no actual, like, basically true due process.
	Right.
	And that's the problem, because you end up with gray territory.
	We end up with an impeachment process for a private citizen.
	If you're a private citizen, you're entitled to due process.
	It's different standards for impeachment than it would be for a criminal trial.
	It's a legislative act that imposes punishment without a trial.
	Punishment without a trial.
	Well, I was close enough with due process.
	See?
	I spend all this time reading this stuff.
	And then I forget it because a guy taps his head while he takes a sip of Aquafina.
	That's all you can think about.
	I think that was just up there.
	Ex post facto.
	We'll have to ask Bill what that means.
	Ex post facto means retroactively.
	Stop it!
	I wanted him to do Latin.
	Okay, I'll let him do Latin.
	He's leaving.
	As the Supreme Court explained in United States vs. Brown, The best available evidence, the writings of the architects of our constitutional system, indicate that the Bill of Attainder Clause was intended not as a narrow, technical, and therefore soon-to-be-outmoded prohibition, but rather as an implementation of the separation of powers, a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function.
	More simply, trial by legislature.
	The bill of attainder reflected the framers belief that the legislative branch is not so well suited as politically
	Right.
	independent judges and juries.
	And boy did they get that right.
	When the senate undertakes an impeachment trial of a private citizen, as it clearly understands to be the case
	here, supported by the facts that the chief justice is not providing and Mr. Trump is not the president, it is acting
	as a judge and jury rather than a legislative body.
	And this is exactly the type of situation that the Bill of Attainder constitutional provision was meant to preclude.
	It is clear that disqualification from holding future office, the punishment the House managers intend to seek here, That really is what it's like.
	It's like Dark Knight when Scarecrow comes back and says your punishment is death or exile.
	Right.
	And either way it's death.
	Exile, walk across the river.
	Good luck.
	Walk across the river.
	Yeah.
	That's exactly what this is.
	In other words, well, it's impeachment because you were sitting in office, but now you're not in office.
	So we don't really have to do the same kind of process as an actual legal process with a judge and jury.
	And we're also not going to, even though we're saying that you acted criminally, we're not going to file criminal charges and do it in criminal court.
	By the way, the same guy who's going to be presiding over this is also a witness and a juror.
	So you know what?
	You're kind of screwed.
	Your choice is death.
	Or death.
	Your choice is being publicly humiliated or publicly humiliated.
	And again, the goal for that is to make sure that all of you are afraid of facing the same fate.
	Don't run for office.
	That's for people like the Pelosi's of the world.
	That's for people like the Schumer's of the world.
	That's for people like even the AOCs of the world, you know, who's never really had a private job outside of being a bartender.
	That's for people who want to be career politicians.
	That's for people who have the right friends.
	It's not for people like you.
	They'll dig up everything you've ever had and then your choice will be guilty or guilty.
	Yeah.
	You sure you want to go into office and represent your constituents?
	That's what all this is.
	And basically we've replaced the she's a witch with he's a racist.
	When do the Salem witch trials get old?
	It's like the same exact thing.
	Oh, we don't like what you say, you're a racist.
	We can prove it because we have video that's been edited to make it look like you're a racist and all the TV networks are going to say, yeah, yeah, exactly, he's a racist.
	A duck!
	What floats?
	The power of the legislature over the lives and fortunes of individuals is expressly restrained.
	And so now let's turn to the text of the Constitution.
	I'm not a witch.
	There he goes.
	Yeah.
	It's hard when you don't put the... We didn't know and I had a moment of pause, thankfully.
	You're already a Nazi Jew, we don't want to confuse anybody any further.
	I'm a Jew to the people who hate Jews and then I'm a Nazi to the people who also hate Jews.
	Much like Paul, you're all things to all people.
	I'm all shitty things and all shitty people.
	They just copy-paste anything they don't like onto me.
	It's like actual alt-right neo-Nazis.
	Stephen's a Jew.
	Tall Jew, but he's a Jew.
	And then you have liberals who are like, he must be an anti-Semite.
	One of those anti-Semites who supports Israel.
	Well, he's that fascist that kind of hates fascism as well.
	Totally free speech fascist.
	I think that's a thing.
	I'm Hitler and waiting.
	I've got them right where I want them.
	I'll make them think that I want the Jews to have the right to exist, and I will do it my whole life without changing my opinion, and then that's all.
	I'll die.
	That's how I feel.
	So there's no twist?
	No, that's all part of the plan.
	I'll let them go out, drink their water, tap their head, and look silly.
	Are you sure?
	The Chief Justice clearly is not presiding.
	And the conflict of interest wouldn't necessarily just arise as a substitute for the Vice President.
	It's the appearance of a conflict of interest and the prejudgment that we've discussed.
	In this case, as we say, the Chief Justice clearly is not presiding.
	The Senate President pro tempore is presiding.
	It appears that in the leader's view, unnaturally joined by other senators, this is permitted by the Constitution because the subject of the trial is a non-president.
	As such, it is conceded, as it must be, that for constitutional purposes of the trial, the accused is a non-president.
	The role of the Senate, though, is to decide whether or not to convict and thereby trigger the application of Article 2, Section 4.
	The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
	At least he didn't say erection.
	From which office shall a non-president be removed?
	Treason, bonery, bribery.
	He's better to listen to because he's kind of hitting the points.
	under the law. He had a fair before this, it's fine. Removal from office of the person
	under the impeachment attack. The house managers contend.
	This dude feels like he's been talking for days. I know. He's better to listen to because he's
	kind of hitting the points. He's got more information. Yeah, but this is not going to change
	anybody's minds. No, I know.
	Do developments so significant?
	He knows he's on TV.
	But I will say that of everyone who's presented cases, this is the only guy who has for sure
	presented the most solid constitutional case.
	Why go with the fresh guy?
	He's actually referenced the Constitution and then stopped.
	Not like, well there's this in the Constitution and so I defer to my friend who tweeted in
	2021.
	He has an egg in this picture but he has totally put a picture up since then.
	Like, well we know from the Federalist Papers that this was written and I also would like
	to quote Eugene Levy's son from Schitt's Creek who said, this is like totally bullshit, Donald
	Trump is a Nazi.
	And, well, I rest my case.
	Followed by, ew, David!
	Ew, David!
	Nobody watch Schitt's Creek here?
	Come on.
	I watched it.
	What the hell?
	I got annoyed.
	It's pretty funny though.
	It's the whitest show imaginable.
	I'm not surprised I didn't watch Schitt's Creek.
	It's really funny though.
	I've been meaning to watch it.
	It's good?
	Lots of white people left.
	You know what's actually funny about that?
	There's so much representation with gays and trans and I don't think I remember a black person on that show.
	Nary.
	Oh no, the woman.
	One black woman.
	She's a lesbian.
	Powerful POC.
	We only make up 15% of the population.
	Not in this show.
	Not in a Canadian show.
	Not in this show.
	Not in a Canadian show.
	But like 20, probably 35% are gay.
	You know, I look at a lot of Netflix and it's like, I don't mind gay people, but it feels like it's not genuine.
	It's like they're forcing it.
	I was looking at Ozark.
	I love that show.
	I said, man, if I see another gay scene, I'm turning the TV off.
	And it's a rough gay scene too.
	It's not tender loving.
	No, Brokeback Mountain was tender.
	Oh, was it?
	That was Ang Lee.
	He's probably afraid of the rough stuff.
	He's a little guy.
	Get overpowered.
	Might hurt himself.
	Yeah, no, that's really rough.
	Yeah, same thing like I was watching Nurse Ratched.
	There's like four lesbian couples.
	All of them are lesbians.
	They're either lesbian or Filipino.
	That's it.
	It's an interesting mix to pick from.
	Lesbian or Filipino.
	Sometimes I can't tell them apart.
	I have to go by the stick fighting.
	Is he stick fighting?
	Filipino.
	I'm going to give us another three minutes and then I'm going to let half-Asian Bill Richmond come in and answer some legal questions because he's far more qualified than I am.
	I can't wait to hear his music, his walk-in music.
	He is not the president in one.
	He is not the president in the other.
	No sound textual interpretation.
	I emphasize textual.
	Assuming you can read.
	No sound textual interpretation principle permits a contrary reading.
	In the words of the Supreme Court, it is a normal rule of statutory construction that identical words used in different parts of the same act are intended to have the same meaning.
	Unwittingly or unwillingly as it may be, Senate Democrats in their announcement that Senator Leahy is presiding have already taken their position on this matter.
	The accused is not the President.
	The text of the United States Constitution, therefore, does not vest the Senate with the power to try him and remove him, a factual nullity, he can't be removed, or disqualify him, a legal nullity, as if he were the president.
	House managers contend the Senate has jurisdiction over this impeachment because despite the fact that he's no longer the president, the conduct that the former president is charged I feel like he started off stronger and now he's too close to the forest to see the trees because it's like, look, what people need is if you're going to change any minds here, it's not going to be the textualist.
	He started off stronger and now he's too close to the forest to see the trees because it's
	like look, what people need is if you're going to change any minds here, it's not going to
	be the textualist.
	You need to slap people in the face.
	Go look, what are you doing?
	We just had the most violent riots across our country this summer.
	Billions of dollars in damages.
	Hundreds in officer casualties.
	We now have record high crime rates across the country.
	Homicide rates that we haven't seen in decades.
	And by the way, largely in African American communities and communities where we have immigrants and people of color.
	This is not going well for the United States of America because you've been fanning these flames.
	Do you really want to continue that by impeaching?
	A non-sitting president?
	Do you understand what this is?
	This is not going well for us.
	If you want unity and you want to move on, look, they've got to have the Ebeneezer Scrooge, Marley moment here.
	Change your ways.
	People have been killed all throughout what you guys have called the summer of love.
	People can now see through it.
	Now you're calling for unity and you want to do something which by your own admission is completely unprecedented.
	Cut shit out.
	This is your last chance.
	Turn back or we're going to go down a road that once we're going you can't stop it and we're going to do this with you.
	I hope you remember this next time you have anyone in office and we have control of the House and the Senate.
	Stop now.
	We're going to give you... Come on guys.
	Unity?
	Is that just speak, or do you understand that most Americans, at least at this point, want this to be over with?
	They're like, nah, just keep going.
	That's the difference between reading legal briefs, and you do have to, especially since this is taking place in the public square, appeal to people emotionally, and at least make Democrats emotionally accountable for the turmoil they're trying to put the American public through.
	Well, exactly, and I think what you would do is you would rightly place blame where it belongs.
	Right!
	Donald Trump didn't fan the flames of division.
	He didn't come out against himself, right?
	You can go and look at the videos of all the things that they have said against him that were not accurate just by expanding 30 seconds either way, right?
	If they want to know who to blame for the outrage at the Senate and at Congress, Look at yourselves.
	You're the guys that went out there to CNN and said Donald Trump was a racist.
	You're the guys that went out there and said these are the kind of protests that you can expect when you oppress people even though the facts that you were quoting weren't facts.
	Right.
	Right?
	That's what you expect to happen.
	You guys are the problem.
	Even when the riots happened this summer, they weren't even able to blame it on Trump.
	They really weren't.
	They were like, oh, it's systemic racism that's been going on for a long time.
	But the race is tied.
	Systemic racism.
	And there's a racist in the White House, and so these cops feel like they can do whatever they want.
	Never mind the fact that you're more likely to be shot by cops if you're white than if you're black.
	He's the only racist who's a fan of Arsenio Hall.
	Also, the only fan of Arsenio Hall.
	The last one.
	He's a holdout.
	He really is.
	I tell you what, when Donald Trump had Arsenio Hall win Celebrity Apprentice, that almost made me racist.
	This is the first time that the United States Senate has ever been asked to apply the Constitution's textual identification of the President in the impeachment provisions to anyone other than the sitting President of the United States.
	Maybe they think he still is the President.
	And of course most significantly from a textual approach.
	Maybe!
	Double secret tricks.
	Oh my gosh.
	And there can be only one president, the incumbent at a time.
	He's saying maybe Democrats think that.
	Judge Bloddy relies on this...
	Of course we would never say anything like that on the show.
	We would say that there were some voting irregularities which you can go back to our actual live election stream which we covered for two days in live real time which is the only reason I think it wasn't removed because it was so screwed up that we were covering it as it was coming in that at that point YouTube didn't even have an excuse for it but that being said we would never say that that affected the outcome of any election.
	Dead people voting.
	Just like we would never say that any elections in Russia were illegitimate.
	We have no right to because we have to apply the same standards.
	And we couldn't do that.
	He is a legitimate president and man of the people.
	Free and fair elections were held in Russia and dissidents were killed so that they couldn't vote.
	No, no, no, no, no.
	That never happened.
	Oh.
	Stop it.
	I thought they were poison.
	You keep saying dangerous things.
	Stop it.
	Okay.
	They weren't.
	YouTube, it never happened.
	We understand that Putin... clean as a whistle.
	I mean, it was like Hunger Games, but it got through.
	No, no.
	Unless you mean a blockbuster premiere of one of the Hunger Games films where everyone was filled with joy because they're Den of the Orcs fans.
	And sure, yeah, that's what the election was like in Russia.
	I mean, if that's what you mean, yeah.
	Count me in.
	I love the Hunger Games.
	Experts have opined on this.
	Why not think of it as a broad reading of other terms, such as terms like...
	They want you all to be... Exactly, exactly.
	That's exactly what they want.
	They want you to believe that if we say, This voter's dead.
	That that's an insurrection to violence.
	Yeah.
	This person doesn't live in Nevada anymore.
	How do you know?
	Because I have an address here in Ohio.
	Well, that doesn't mean anything.
	Then after he moved to Ohio, here's his death certificate.
	Well, you don't have any evidence.
	Well, because it wouldn't be admitted in court, but here's the paper trail.
	Here's his mom crying at his funeral.
	Contrary to the express language, leading to clearly unintended results.
	Alright, this is boring.
	I'm gonna bring in my half-Asian lawyer, Bill Richmond, while I go take a tinkle!
	he's my asian p-break man that con that song is iconic
	Havzies, unite.
	Alright, so I like David Shellman.
	Still don't make a hole.
	He's great.
	Hey, we make more than a hole.
	Captain Planet, except I'm that little bowl cut kid who does Earth.
	Oh, really?
	No, no, that's the black guy.
	That's Hart.
	Hart.
	Hart.
	What was his name?
	Who cares?
	Somebody look it up.
	So I gotta tell you, we've got a lot of legal questions that have come through A fair amount of them are pretty stupid, so I didn't pick any stupid ones.
	Have you been drinking?
	That's good.
	No, I haven't.
	I've just been in there writing legal briefs and winning.
	Nice!
	Alright, so let me go to our first question.
	Avery S. asks, question for Bill.
	Do you think that the House or Senate would benefit from adopting more aspects of the judicial system?
	And I'm going to guess the criminal justice system, evidence, procedure, etc.
	Gents, what do you think?
	I would say yes.
	Yeah, because it's just partisan at this point.
	They got the numbers, so they do it.
	If they didn't have the numbers, they wouldn't be going.
	I would say, too, because both parties is no longer objective.
	I would say, hell yeah.
	So it sounds to me like you do not like how this shit show is already going.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	So here I'm going to push back a little bit, and I'm going to agree and disagree, which is a very lawyerly answer.
	Of course.
	Perfect.
	Absolutely, this would be less of a shitshow if they actually followed procedure.
	Could you imagine any criminal defendant going, oh hey, so we found out the rules on Monday, also arguments are tomorrow, also, yeah, it says Wednesday, Thursday, and good luck, there's a Q&A at the end.
	It's insane, right?
	We need a speedy trial, but that would be an absurdly speedy trial.
	No way to be able to actually prepare a defense.
	You would know that this was a sham trial.
	In fact, over the course of history, that's how you did sham trials!
	Yeah, pretty much.
	You made the rules up at the last minute, you brought people in.
	But, the reason why I pushed back on this question is because I think it's very similar to asking whether or not, you know, you need jet engines and wings on a Ferrari.
	I mean, that's a yes.
	If he didn't hear that, we heard yes.
	But the question is, can I get this Ferrari into my garage?
	Okay, non-lawyers.
	It depends on how big your garage is.
	Can I get my Honda Civic into the garage?
	So what are you trying to say?
	My point is that, listen to what Shon was talking about.
	This impeachment procedure is specifically limited to people who are in office.
	To remove them, to banish them from the office, and that's why we have the Bill of Attainment.
	That's why we have due process.
	It's because there's an entirely different system for when you were deciding whether or not to punish private citizens.
	Everyone agrees that the former president, or maybe again like Gerald pointed out, maybe Democrats think he is still the president.
	that he's a private citizen. So the whole point of our entire justice system is
	that you aren't saying oh wait we're gonna just impeach random private
	citizens because they happen to be the former president because that's not
	what's supported by the Constitution. So it's about it's what really what is the
	purpose of this particular tool.
	And here, the purpose of the Ferrari is to go fast.
	The purpose of the impeachment is to get someone out of office.
	The purpose of it is not just add a whole bunch of other things.
	Yeah, I want a panini maker, but driving 200 miles an hour while eating paninis?
	Not that good of idea.
	In the same way of trying to fit a square peg in a round hole of an impeachment against a private citizen.
	When you have to continually twist and mend and just mix up all of the different words to fit your argument is how we get into trouble.
	And Democrats have been making the point that we need this to heal.
	I've been watching CNN.
	Again, like Stephen says, you kind of want to gouge your eyes out, but you're watching it, you're seeing this, and like, we need this to heal.
	We can't just move on.
	Whatever happened on January 6th can't just go away.
	First off, nobody says what happened on January 6th should go away.
	People are being put in prison for what they did.
	Rightfully so.
	If they threaten officials with bodily harm, if they shoot somebody, if they break into Capitol grounds, they should pay the penalty for that.
	Nobody here supports what they did.
	So now, can we at least just say, okay, so that's been satisfied.
	What's your objective?
	This is like Brett Kavanaugh all over again.
	There's no evidence of any crime whatsoever, but somebody's feelings are hurt, and we're going to put on a public display because it's politically expedient for us.
	We hate Donald Trump so much we feel like we need one more punch at him.
	What's scary is if they had the votes in the Senate.
	He would be convicted.
	Absolutely!
	There would be no doubt.
	That's the reason why I said, man, this needs to be more like a judicial system, but... Well, and I do understand that part, right?
	And look, I've talked to folks across the political spectrum who are very much against the show, and that's Democrats and Republicans, progressives and conservatives, who said, if there's a real crime, punish him.
	Really?
	A progressive said that?
	Y'all, let's move on.
	Well, hold on.
	If there's a real crime, charge him.
	Yeah, criminally.
	That's where you would show your hand.
	If you have the balls to say that Donald Trump incited a riot or an insurrection or an erection, depending on who you ask, then charge him.
	And I guarantee you what they will say.
	If they come out of this and they say, Donald Trump wins, loses, either way, right?
	Then they'll go and say, OK, are you going to charge him as a private citizen with a crime?
	Because that is a crime, punishable, like Stephen said, potentially by death if it's severe enough.
	They'll be like, well, no, for the unity and the healing of the country, we need to move on.
	So now's the time to move on because we can't make the case.
	We just wanted to censure him, but we didn't really want to punish him because it actually is all we need for our Instagram feed.
	Exactly.
	We have our 30 second feed.
	We're on to something else.
	So we have another question here from Trevor that actually relates to what we were just talking about, which is, it says, legal question for Bill.
	We've seen video of some of the Capitol Police pretty much inviting some of the protesters into the building.
	Would those people be prosecutable?
	Because isn't that entrapment?
	So I guess the question is, would you really not prosecutable?
	It's really, would they be charged?
	Would they be found guilty?
	And the answer is, Actually, I think entrapment is a legitimate question, but only if someone actually said, hey, you should come on in and then let them in and then told them it was fine, right?
	So that's where the elements really matter.
	So every state has a different law for entrapment as a defense.
	The federal justice system also has its defense, but you have to create the idea as a law enforcement
	officer and plant it in their mind.
	This is literally like Inception is how it reads.
	And then you have to induce them into doing it.
	So there are different ways in which you could get someone to do it, but here's the interesting
	part.
	The Capitol Police, from those videos, no one thought that there was a crime.
	That's what you're seeing, is that you're seeing Capitol Police.
	It doesn't seem to me as though the Capitol Police were like, oh, I can't wait for these guys to cross over the line.
	I can't wait for this guy to sell me this illegal gun, right?
	Yeah, exactly.
	They're going, I don't know, they seem fine.
	Come on in!
	I mean, normally we let people in.
	I've seen a scene where they actually opened the door and the cops stood to the side and the people just walked in.
	Right.
	It's like an usher.
	But I never understood that crime entrapment.
	Entrapment?
	Yeah, like, how can a woman stand on a corner and pretend to be a prostitute?
	You know what I'm saying?
	If you watch out, whoa!
	She must be working!
	And you goes like, hey!
	I mean, it was hair!
	Look, after the sixth time you tried that defense, you should have given up.
	Clearly you didn't understand it.
	What if it's Beyonce or Jennifer Lopez?
	You can't resist that.
	That's not fair.
	That's not a crime.
	Yes I can.
	My gosh, that's an American obligation.
	We're talking about the Constitution.
	That's Article 2, Section 3.
	The Beyonce.
	The Queen Bee section.
	Okay, so.
	Alright, so.
	Hannah.
	What the hell's the matter with you?
	What in the hell is the matter with you?
	What is wrong with you?
	What do you mean what's wrong with him?
	I'm a man!
	We're Americans here!
	I'm the toxic male!
	He's a terrible, awful, wonderful person.
	Okay, Hannah asks, what happens if the insurrectionists just say the Democrats rhetoric is actually what invited them?
	Incited, maybe?
	Well, it says invited, so I know I read Gerald, but thank you.
	But did she mean incited?
	I don't know.
	Could have been either one, right?
	Invited, incited, etc.
	That's actually, that's good evidence to say, you know, that it wasn't actually Trump, because this is what it comes down to.
	Did Trump incite these people to commit these criminal acts?
	Or was it the Democrats calling his supporters white supremacists who had pissed him off?
	Everything that Republicans have did for the last four years is Pretty much been reacting to what the left has been saying.
	I mean, the left started all this.
	Bill, is there a legal kind of hurdle or a bar to clear, I should say, for incitement?
	Yeah.
	What is it?
	So, well, are you asking, is there like a specific word, like, okay, if you yell... Or a phrase or something.
	That'd be explicit, right?
	Right.
	You have to expressly have called someone to commit a criminal act.
	There's a couple of different ways, different states and different federal laws have what the actual elements are, but you can't just be like, well if someone was just gonna go over there and shoot that guy in the face for me, that'd be great.
	I mean, you know, you gotta be very, very, very express.
	Nothing implied.
	Right, so you have to be very specific.
	Has Donald Trump ever been specific?
	Of course!
	Trying to incite violence?
	He incited all this shit!
	No, no, no, so you can't have it both ways, that's the thing.
	Like, you can say he incited this, that's fine, but then you also have to back it up and say, you know, saying that you believe.
	If he truly believes that the election was stolen, which his comment, not mine, That's not inciting anybody to anything.
	He's just saying this is what I believe.
	That's actually the wrong question.
	That's the wrong question.
	And I mean that respectfully because this is a confusing point for a lot of different folks, especially those who went to Notre Dame.
	It's a question of... I got that.
	I see what you did there.
	It's a question not of whether he believed what he was saying.
	It's regardless of whether he believed it, did he invite expressly these people to commit the criminal acts?
	No, I was giving you that point.
	I was giving that point away.
	Because they can't make that point.
	I know that.
	You know that.
	There's no record of him saying, Go and raid the house and kill Pence!
	You know, like, string him up.
	Didn't say it.
	But what they are saying he did is said that this election was stolen.
	And that was an inciting.
	He was using language that incited violence against the people stealing the election.
	That should be covered under the First Amendment.
	And what we're going to see is how laughable that argument will be over the next couple of days.
	I mean, if you're saying that because I said something that was not inviting someone to crime, and then they decided to go do something criminal, I mean, if you go into Cleveland and you say, oh, hey, the Browns are going to the playoffs, nine people will be dead.
	That's just how it goes.
	So are you going to kill the messenger over that happening?
	Buffalo, how many tables will be killed because of the fact that the Buffalo Bills went to the playoffs?
	Just because you're saying the facts and someone goes and does something is not incitement at all.
	And yet I think that's what you're going to see a conflation of those points.
	I want to make a question.
	A. With your legal expertise, if I take a video of a politician saying that a particular item represents white supremacy, and then people wear that particular item or something very similar to that gets attacked because they're wearing it, No.
	and they were told and was led to believe that that was a symbol of white supremacy
	and that person actually caused harm to another person because they heard that politician
	expressly say that. Is that inciting violence? No. Fuck!
	That's close to saying the hat was the new KKK.
	I built by the hour and I still have a simple answer.
	Right here.
	I either hit a three in the NBA like every player does or I'm a racist.
	Are you serious?
	Or you're playing the game like kids play in high school where if you look you get punched for it.
	It's like come on.
	That's a racist symbol?
	It's so underground, nobody knows it!
	I mean, I don't, I don't, when I see black people attack people, I get where they're coming from.
	They believe everything they see on TV.
	Exactly, yeah!
	And they attack somebody, how can you not hold that person accountable for it?
	Well, I get your point, too, and we even covered this in Portland.
	There was a guy who was like, yeah, we got a Trump supporter right here!
	Bam, gunshot, dead.
	Right, yeah.
	Right?
	Right.
	If the realm of accountability goes past what we've known it to be, inciting violence specifically, then everyone is getting put in jail.
	All of the politicians are getting put out of office.
	I don't think they understand what they are doing because it's just like them getting rid of the filibuster.
	They will not be in power one day and it will come back to bite them.
	The same thing is happening here.
	That's not what they're betting on.
	They're not betting on that someday these rules will come back to haunt them.
	They're betting on no one will.
	We have a constitution that sets out what the procedure is.
	If you really have a crime, go do it.
	numbers. We have this is why we have to call it out. This is why you have to be
	able to say it. I mean if you're going to you have to live a life in which you
	know that the rules are being applied equally to everyone and that's why the
	corner the cornerstone of the argument that Sheldon's making right now is we
	have a Constitution that sets out what the procedure is. If you really have a
	crime go do it. Treat it like a private citizen. If you really thought it was a
	crime you should have tried to get it done while you could have and the
	procedure didn't let it happen that's fine.
	But if you use the wrong means to try and achieve the right result, you've lost before you even got to the right result.
	And that's what we're saying.
	America is built on a constitution that says, hey, we're going to try and get the right results whenever we can, but if we follow the correct process, we have stuck to our values, even if it doesn't go out.
	It's like when you stand there and you go, I could really use this food and I'm not going to steal it.
	Right, yeah.
	I can understand from a moral perspective, from a practical perspective, and you may
	even decide you don't want to do it, but that's still a wrong thing.
	But you can't then say, this is a right thing.
	No, maybe it was a justifiable wrong.
	And in this particular moment, is there a justifiable wrong to create a show, to bend
	the rules, to punish a private citizen in rules clearly only designed for a sitting
	president?
	No.
	The ends don't justify the means in almost any case.
	And they've used that logic.
	They've used that logic this entire time.
	Trump is a racist.
	He's somebody who's out to destroy America.
	He's got his finger on the button to send the nukes.
	We have to get him out of office right now.
	And that has been the justification from day one.
	This is my point.
	Lots of people said it and I'll leave us with this.
	You don't vote dictators out of office.
	No!
	He's the worst dictator in history!
	He allowed himself to be voted out!
	How did he get voted out?
	How did he get voted out?
	Do we know that there are questions?
	Absolutely.
	Is there vigilance that needs to happen not only now but in the next set of elections and every set of elections?
	Absolutely.
	But you don't vote out dictators.
	We don't need to bend the rules.
	We don't need to change the core of America in order to create the theater that we're seeing.
	Right.
	Absolutely.
	Nice job.
	Get out of here, Bill.
	Hit the music.
	Where's the music?
	There it is!
	I was actually authorized by Mr. Crowder.
	He's the owner.
	I'm here to just field any questions you have.
	What's uh...
	Why are you here?
	Shouldn't you be arrested?
	No, I was actually authorized by Mr. Crowder.
	Oh.
	He's the owner.
	So, no, no, he's saying that...
	I'm here to just answer any, field any questions you have.
	So, so, um, you know, what was it like to break the law so brazenly and then to be punished for it?
	And give interviews afterwards like you had a brain in your head?
	I don't operate under normal human law, so in my view, nothing was illegal.
	Hey, can I ask a question?
	Are you religious?
	Again, human religions, it might be a little over your guys' heads.
	Have you had sex with a woman?
	Define woman.
	Well, a woman can be anything.
	A woman can have some testicles, can have breasts, a woman can... It's 2021.
	Let's go with biological woman.
	Yeah, I'll say it.
	Yeah, human.
	I've slept with humans before.
	Shit.
	Really?
	You don't know what it was?
	So you're painting your face, what is the get-up?
	People think you're crazy, rightfully so, but what is the reason behind the get-up?
	What are you trying to tell people?
	Other than you're crazy.
	I wouldn't call the get-up as...
	Let's say outfit, you know, this kind of like, it's just, you know, battle, battle attire, basic battle attire.
	Battle for what?
	Yeah.
	This is mostly for comfort.
	The helmet is obviously for the battle portion.
	Protecting hard objects.
	Did his girlfriend like it?
	She liked the fur?
	I like the fur too.
	It's comfortable.
	Is it the fur?
	It's kind of gay to me.
	The fur is the least crazy thing about you.
	What about the paint?
	The paint is, that's mostly for theater.
	Theater?
	Really?
	It's like putting fear into your opponent.
	Do you wear it to work too or just like when you, during insurrections?
	Uh, mostly just insurrections.
	What about, what about, and I'm gonna quote Schumer, what about erections?
	Erections?
	Uh, I can honestly tell you guys I did not have an erection during the whole time.
	The whole time though.
	Approximately the whole time.
	That's really good to know because Donald Trump was said to have caused the erection and you're saying it didn't happen.
	Uh, not at the date that was shown.
	Not at the 6th.
	But you're leaving room for Donald Trump causing that at other points in time?
	Yeah, he could cause erections at other times.
	I don't see where people would think you're a nutcase.
	What about the hockey stick?
	I usually like to have a staff with me.
	Like Moses.
	Takes pressure off your legs and you want to save strength.
	I bet you Steve would be there right now.
	It shows people you mean business, too.
	Yeah, it shows people you mean business.
	It has sex appeal to it, too.
	You can walk longer distances with a cane than without.
	I like to walk more than... I don't like to walk.
	I like to drive.
	This is a personal question.
	Did you finish high school?
	In a sense.
	What does that mean?
	Just details, maybe, a little?
	I went to a non-public high school.
	It was more like a private school?
	I'm going to take a guess.
	It's more like in the mountains.
	This is only a guess.
	In the mountains.
	Were there padded walls?
	Oh no.
	We didn't live indoors.
	During my high school years I wasn't in what you would call a building.
	Did you have homeschooled?
	Homeschool, yeah, yeah.
	Did you play sports in school?
	Yeah, we played, you know, regular sports.
	Kickball?
	All the ball sports.
	Hey, your cheerleaders.
	Were the cheerleaders cute?
	What's your sister?
	She was homeschooled.
	I don't have any siblings.
	I'm sure you didn't sleep with a sister.
	I'm an only child.
	You are?
	Do your parents approve or disapprove of your illegal, illicit behavior?
	My parents obviously approve.
	They do?
	Yeah, well look at you. There you go. My parents obviously approve. They do. Yeah, they were. Are they still alive?
	Yeah.
	So the other question is when you're brought to justice, which is in the works right now, will they visit you in prison?
	That's highly debatable.
	Highly debatable.
	The insurrection at the Capitol, was it mostly peaceful?
	I mean, got the footage yourself, it looks peaceful.
	Yeah.
	right up until you just a few bad apples by the way have you ever you know been trained in media
	i mean i saw you giving an interview right after to somebody who is obviously
	setting up with question after question rightfully so you're more on but
	nonetheless did at any point you say
	i'm breaking the law Oh.
	This might not be good to go on camera.
	Again, any of this breaking the law, I don't understand.
	You don't know that.
	Do you believe in laws?
	Man's law?
	No, not human laws.
	But yeah, it looks like this was times about.
	Oh, okay.
	I would like to say this whole charade, it's all just, you know, it's not right versus left, it's more about Trump and the rest of the team revealing the ultimate truth.
	Oh, really?
	About the shape of the planet we're on.
	Yes.
	Wait, hold on.
	I don't think that's... What do you mean by that?
	No, no, no.
	It's not as, what you would call, round as we have planned.
	That's fetch!
	Fetch!
	Cross the line there with that one.
	That guy's the real winner.
	Real winner.
	Faint of the show, though.
	A bit more intelligent conversations with Joe Lewis.
	I like his hat.
	Oh my gosh.
	That Wild Turkey 101 hits you hard.
	Alright, the promo code is...
	Hey, by the way, I just got word they're voting right now.
	We are going to have Senator Ted Cruz on Thursday.
	There will be no show tomorrow because we are all exhausted.
	There's a lot of prep that went into this, but we will have Senator Ted Cruz on Thursday talking about the legal standing for all of this.
	We love Ted Cruz.
	We got some questions.
	Listen, if you're going to be in public office, you have to be able to answer some hard questions.
	Right.
	We still love you, but we tough love you.
	Does your undercarriage resemble that of a mannequin?
	Or, you got little dangly ones.
	Yeah, you don't know.
	I was in the pool!
	I don't know, he's been in the pool for a long time.
	For a while.
	No, listen, I just think, I really do think, if anything, like, here's the backlash right now.
	Democrats, they claim they want to call for unity, and now they're doing this, and what does it make people like me?
	No unity, and I want to see Republicans and Conservatives grow some balls, and a backbone.
	I want to see them resist more than they have.
	Because right now what I see is some people on the right allowing themselves to be steamrolled by people who have no respect or consideration for rule of law and precedent.
	And by the way, Donald Trump is not there to carry your water anymore.
	He's not going to be the guy that pushes back on the system that you guys would like to change.
	You have to pick that ball up and run with it.
	Yeah.
	Maybe you have to do it a little bit better.
	Maybe you have to have a little bit more finesse in certain ways.
	Stay off Twitter sometimes.
	But you have to have the balls to go out and actually affect change.
	Make like Pete Butt Gig and grab the ball.
	Oh boy.
	Zzz.
	Oh.
	Are they actually voting?
	Like a roll call?
	Like presents?
	It says, but I don't see a count.
	Let me see.
	Are they talking?
	Let me see.
	Are they talking?
	Mr. Warren.
	Ah.
	Mr. Whitehouse.
	Oh, they are.
	Mr. Whitehouse.
	Ah.
	Mr. Wicker.
	They're about to be done.
	Mr. Wicker.
	No.
	Mr. Wyden.
	Mr. Wyden.
	Ah.
	Mr. Young.
	Mr. Young, no.
	Mr. Moran.
	Mr. Moran, no.
	It sounds like an anti-American speaking spell.
	Mr. Young, no.
	Mr. White, yes.
	Destroying our constitutional republic. Yes.
	Can we find what the vote roll was?
	See if we see or somebody or not.
	Is it volume, sir?
	No, no, no.
	I mean, who actually voted what?
	Yeah.
	I know they're not saying anything anymore.
	What I'm saying is, can we find out if those two people who we thought were going to vote for it, what was it from Ohio?
	Perlman.
	Susan Collins.
	And Susan Collins.
	Not Perlman.
	Portman.
	Portman.
	Yeah.
	I want to find out if they actually voted.
	Like, what the actual voting was.
	Like, C in whatever.
	Yeah, were any Republicans convinced to toss in yes with impeachment?
	C-SPAN.
	They'll have the actual votes.
	Will C-SPAN?
	Usually they do.
	They have them on the screen.
	Yeah, they do.
	They do.
	By the way, I love seeing that there are people there who are clearly wearing cotton masks that are not double... Oh, look!
	That one guy has a double mask!
	Do you see that?
	That one guy has a double mask!
	What an idiot.
	Apparently he didn't have a private meeting with Fauci.
	Freakin' asshole.
	They can't even keep... Here's the thing.
	When everything is situational ethics, when everything is moral relativism, when everything is fluid, they can't even agree on their own rules.
	Some of them still think double masks... Here we go.
	In pursuant to S.S. 47, the Senate having voted the affirmative on the foregoing question,
	the Senate shall proceed with the trial as provided under the provisions of that resolution.
	We lost a majority of the vote.
	Five or six?
	I ask unanimous consent that the trial adjourn until 12 noon tomorrow, Wednesday, February 10th.
	And that this order also constitute the adjournment until the 7th.
	Because I have a very large boner.
	Without objection, we shall stand in adjournment until noon tomorrow.
	Let's do the vote.
	Oh.
	Do we have a roll call of who voted what?
	Is that available?
	Well, we do actually have Thomas Finnegan.
	Oh, okay, before we go, as we wrap this up, one last time with our impeachment on the
	ground reporter, Thomas Finnegan.
	All right, Thomas Finnegan, can you hear?
	Oh, that looks like progress.
	Can you hear me, sir?
	Hi, Stephen.
	I'm at the Vatican.
	I thought that was D.C.
	Well, historically, the D.C.
	architecture is based on what you'd find at the Vatican.
	Yes, but it would have been easier to just go to D.C.
	They have direct flights.
	It's known for St.
	Peter's Square, which was made famous by Tom Hanks and Sean Connery in the book about the Holy Grail.
	That's not how it was made famous.
	It's its own country with its own distinct architecture and the biggest drinker of wine per capita.
	Yeah, well, that doesn't really help us very much.
	It's the most militarized country in the world.
	Washington, D.C.
	Hey, Thomas Finnegan, why didn't you go to Washington, D.C., brother?
	I had an issue with the flight.
	Did you book the wrong flight?
	Alright, Thomas Inigun, ladies and gentlemen.
	Need easy...
	Yeah, the rough day.
	He had a rough day, but you know what?
	I still would rather have him on retainer than that guy, Jake Tapper.
	Right, exactly.
	Never let it be said that you aren't a charitable man.
	So here's something that I think is important for everyone to know.
	I guess we lost a couple Republicans.
	It looks like we did.
	Yeah, who?
	Do we know who did?
	Those people need to absolutely be voted out.
	I have an overlay here.
	We got Mitt Romney, Susan Collins, Pat Toomey, Bill Cassidy, Ben Sasse.
	Oh, Ben Sasse, of course.
	I'm not surprised by Romney.
	Oh, Portman isn't on there.
	Ben Sasse from Nebraska?
	You know that Mitt Romney, there's a stat that he's far more supported by Democrats in Utah than by Republicans, which is tough to do in Utah.
	When you're a Mormon.
	Like that's a feat.
	That's a feat of assholeism.
	I really don't like you.
	If you're a Nebraska Republican right now, do you really think voting for Donald Trump to be put... I think he's Nebraska, right?
	No, he's Utah.
	Sass.
	Oh, Sass.
	I thought Sass was from Nebraska.
	I could be wrong.
	But he's a Midwest Republican.
	I don't think I've ever heard of a more poorly named man.
	Just, that's a bad idea.
	He should be called Ben Flacid.
	Yeah, he should be voted out.
	Ben Tepid.
	Vote them out.
	Ben Lukewarm.
	Ben Assuming Room Temperature.
	Ben Uninteresting.
	Ben Pedestrian.
	Ben Mediocre.
	That's what I think it is.
	Ben Mediocre.
	I mean, what does this get you?
	I don't understand.
	As a Republican, what does this get you?
	Well, apparently that little teaser cut together by Michael Bay convinced some Republicans, so let it never be said that they don't stand on principle.
	Look, this is what's so scary about this here, is you see that you have a party and you have some Republicans who are willing to basically criminalize you, although really it's not criminal, we know that.
	Basically they want to publicly punish you for saying something unpopular.
	This is about punishing someone publicly for questioning the systems in place with the election.
	That's what this is.
	Make no mistake, this is a message being sent to everyone out there.
	And I know everyone is afraid right now.
	Everyone is afraid to speak on social media because you know that you get banned if you talk about the election results.
	And it's really murky.
	With YouTube you can talk about individual incidents of voter fraud, you can talk about voter fraud occurring even on a significant level, but you cannot in any way imply that that might have had any impact on a national election when some states were won by 10,000 votes at all.
	You're not allowed to, or you face the evil big tech corporate overlords removing you.
	And this is what happens when you have a party, by the way.
	It was the same basis.
	For the riots that caused two billion dollars in damages this summer.
	It's, guess what, a conservative speech, right?
	Hate speech, what they say, and then they define hate speech.
	Hate speech is saying there is no systemic racism, that is the same as physical violence.
	I know this because I've faced this.
	I've been banned from campuses.
	We've had students weep at TCU because we said that rape culture isn't a thing.
	saying that that is the equivalent to violence and some people have wanted to sue me for speech.
	Here's the thing, the barrier, right, the standard of proof in suing someone who's a civilian,
	which Donald Trump is, goes far beyond, well, he actually rationally justified why...
	rape culture isn't a culture in the United States. He actually rationally
	justified why hate speech isn't a real thing or he actually any of the change
	my mind. We've had students complain we've literally had students complain
	and say that I am inciting violence by showing up and having change I'm pro
	life change my mind as opposed to you know you've been there you know we've
	had people crying. They want to apply that standard now to be used to impeach
	a non-sitting president.
	This is not an attack on Donald Trump.
	Donald Trump has just been an example.
	He's been a symbol that they've tried to use.
	They want to make sure that you all know you are not free to speak.
	Well, sure, sure, in this country, and we're the only country where we have the First Amendment.
	I know this because I come from Canada, where we have pastors who are jailed for saying that they won't marry two men in their church.
	They face jail.
	You can look at pastors like Stephen Besson and other pastors or Christians who've owned bed and breakfasts.
	Of course, you know the bakeries here in the United States.
	You can find situations like this here in the UK.
	I have friends who are comedians like Mike Ward who faced a human rights tribunal and a $50,000 fine for telling a joke.
	The United States is the only country left with the First Amendment where free speech is absolute and they try to chip, chip, chip away at it.
	It starts with banning you from college campuses.
	And you say, well it's a private college, they can do whatever they want.
	Hey, freedom of speech.
	But when they have pressure exerted on them by student unions and by bodies that have no respect and frankly no consideration for the First Amendment, well now it's no longer an equal playing field.
	Just because conservatives won't use those tools against liberals since we actually believe in more speech.
	And then when it happens on the big tech platforms.
	Right?
	Where they say, well, hold on a second, you can't say biological male, you have to say she, or you're going to be banned.
	Or in our case, laughing at a transgender, male to female, though it was still a male with a short haircut and a letterman's jacket, he just happened to be wearing bell-bottoms and high heels, and YouTube said, we're gonna demonetize you for laughing at this person when he committed assault against you.
	Remember he threw the hobos lunchbox?
	They said, well, we don't know, we respect free speech, but you can't laugh at a trans male-to-female who's committing assault, because that is also hate speech.
	So, you have free speech, but you don't really, if you want to speak freely on a college campus, you don't really, if you want to speak in the digital public town square, Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, Google, we're going to make sure that we throttle it, and now they're saying, you don't really have that speech, even if you're a former president of the United States, and you said something unpopular, even if you went out of your way to stipulate peacefully and patriotically.
	Look, look, let me tell you something, okay?
	If you are not free, as a former holder of office, to say, the system is rigged, I believe that the system is unfair, which by the way, Democrats did for years, with Russia.
	Bernie Sanders did that with the primaries.
	If you are not free to say, the system is rigged, and we need to examine our elections, and you need to fight like hell, or you won't have a country anymore, make your voice peacefully and patriotically heard.
	If you are not free to speak that, You are not free to speak.
	And that's what this is about.
	And we just had, what, 54 people say, who gives a rat's... It's not just about the Constitution and the articles of a former sitting president, of a former president.
	These are charges being brought against a private citizen for speaking freely, and he included the caveat Peaceably.
	Peacefully and patriotically.
	And they're saying, no, no, no, no, no.
	You still can't say that.
	We're going to come after you.
	Constitution be damned.
	And that's why we're going to be here this Thursday.
	That's why we're going to be here forevermore.
	That's why we ask that you sign up.
	Join at Mug Club.
	You know, lotteryoffcutter.com slash mug club.
	You enter in the promo code.
	Fight like hell.
	You get through.
	Hello, Joe Lewis.
	Did you come to say goodbye to everyone?
	Hello.
	And Joe Lewis, now he's tired.
	He needs some food because I've got to take care of him.
	Look, look, he's going.
	Oh, hello.
	That was pretty funny, though.
	What?
	That uh, trans running in those high heels.
	Oh yeah, it was really funny.
	How can you not laugh at that beautiful female?
	Beautiful and brave.
	Who galloped out.
	Alright, Joe Louis as well.
	Look, see Joe Louis.
	Both his names.
	Hey, by the way, just in case you thought that we couldn't bridge any divide.
	Remember how afraid the Hodge twins were?
	Yeah.
	How they were of Hopper when he first came in, now look at them playing with Joe Louis.
	Don't get me wrong, I'll use the secret German code word and he'll attack them after the break, but for the time being, they feel secure.
	So listen, this is not, I just want you to understand this, this is not about the President.
	This is not about the former President.
	This is not about Section 3, this is not about Section 3, Article 14.
	This is about the First Amendment and what is happening right now in our country.
	Look, I think it's crazy for people to say that Joe Biden was going to be arrested on Inauguration Day.
	The QAnon people say that.
	I think it's crazy and I think it's stupid.
	And I still think you shouldn't be banned from the public square for thinking something crazy and stupid, just like I don't think Al Gore should be banned from the public square just because he was demanding that three counties be counted so that he could win the 2000 election.
	I think it's crazy for Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton to say that Donald Trump was a Russian pawn and that he needs to be impeached.
	I think it's crazy, but guess what?
	I still don't think they should be banned from social media.
	Because what happens if we allow everyone to speak and the truth to play out ultimately when this is about the institutions that be, meaning big tech, media, and those in the political establishment wanting to prevent the truth from playing out before the public eye?
	And it's a brilliant charade.
	It's, hey, we're going to get to the bottom of this.
	Well, they don't need to present evidence and there's no standard of proof.
	What they really want to do when they say get to the bottom of this is ensure that a former president, someone who was voted for by 70 million Americans, is not allowed to express the views shared by 70 million Americans.
	It's not about Donald Trump.
	It's about 70 million at least!
	of you out there and your ability to speak freely.
	Make sure you understand that and you have that clear and hopefully you know that you have some people in your corner including a couple of biracial twins which hey that would have been news to all of us about five years ago they were doing nothing but fitness videos and now we got them on our side it's like they're our secret weapon We're gonna see you on Thursday with Senator Ted Cruz.
	Ask him some tough questions and get a legal opinion on that.
	Hodge Twins, Conservative Twins on YouTube, thank you so much for being here.
	We're gonna get you some coffee and a cold shower.

▲