All Episodes
Previous Next
May 21, 2025 - Louder with Crowder
01:08:31
🔴 The "N-Word" Fallout: Why Piers Morgan Censored My Interview - GUEST: Nancy Mace
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Glad to be with you.
Welcome to the Rumble Live lineup.
Weekdays, 9 a.m. to 4 p.m. Eastern.
You don't need to change that digital channel.
Same digital time, same digital channel.
Well, many times.
One channel.
Of course, we welcome the Bongino Army, now coming in from Vince, which comes from the name Vincente in Latin.
All the Romance languages are based in Latin.
And that translates to roughly...
Are those real?
So, on the show today, we do have...
Nancy Mace to discuss the presentation yesterday of the nudes at the congressional hearing.
There are a lot of questions that people have.
We're going to try and be fair, but we have some questions.
Pierce Morgan.
Pierce Morgan.
I was on there yesterday, and it should be called Pierce Morgan Censored because there was a conversation surrounding the N-word, language, cancel culture.
Yes, I am still sick as a dog.
I apologize.
And then they censored the words.
Which, if you look at the reaction in context, no one is seemingly offended about it all.
So we're going to discuss that and discuss what words mean and discuss what this victim culture has created and this black fatigue and this backlash.
We didn't fully expect the reaction that we've gotten.
Also, James Comey went on Colbert to promote his book.
And also pushed a hoax regarding seashells in the sand.
And Sean Ryan and Tucker Carlson talked about Bongino, the FBI, all that and more.
This just came together at the last second.
Nancy Mace is going, the real Nancy Mace on this show.
Let's go.
You should act more your age, my wife nags.
Then pain hits me out of nowhere.
CB distillery break.
CB distillery break.
Ah, my shoulder.
Get natural relief from CB Distillery.
Multiple scientific studies show it's proven to relieve pain and relax sore muscles, so you can get back to beating your kid at everything.
You're only as young as you feel, right?
Gerald, that was very nice.
You want some of this stuff?
Why, I'm not hurt.
Not yet.
Ow!
Ow!
Gerald, you clearly crippled me!
I'll never walk again!
Get pain relief today by visiting cbdistillery.com and take advantage of their massive Memorial Day sale.
That does feel better.
Is it?
Almost done.
Is there a discount?
Now through Saturday, save up to 40% site-wide when you use code RUMBLE.
Visit cbdistillery.com today.
Music by Ben Thede
Music by Ben Thede Glad to be with you.
We're in a little bit of a hustle and bustle here because Representative Nancy Mace agreed to be on the show.
Yeah.
That should be illuminating.
Good conversation.
And we're going to be talking, like we said, James Comey on Colbert Live weekdays, 11 a.m. Eastern.
Josh Feierstein is going to be at Good Nights Comedy Club, Raleigh, North Carolina, May 23rd and 24th.
Mr. Feierstein, thank you.
Yeah, this weekend.
For being here.
That's right, this weekend.
I always have my notes and I write them down.
We have them by dates.
Just say this weekend.
This Friday and Saturday.
This Friday and Saturday.
Buy tickets first.
This Friday and Saturday.
Forget the numbers.
Silly.
You can't count anyways.
Spend your money.
Come see me.
Hey, come on.
That's not fair.
You don't know every single person watching.
Captain Morgan, CEO.
You good?
I'm good.
Yeah?
Yeah.
How's your leg?
What was that laugh?
Yeah, I don't know.
I don't like it.
We are going to have Mazie Hirono, Representative Hirono, on the show a little bit later on.
But we do have, of course, Nancy Mace in the flesh.
Right off the top here, because we're in a little bit...
I saw you smile.
You know what I mean.
Come on.
If she's a Republican, she must have a sense of humor.
And I didn't even mean it.
The jokes write themselves.
They do.
So...
I wish we had a twinkle sound on the sound.
We're like...
Now...
How do you expect us to handle the topic of nudity?
What do we do here?
We're children.
Alright.
I like the lady.
So yesterday, it aired, but I taped this two days ago.
Piers Morgan.
I was on, I believe it's Uncensored with Piers Morgan, the show.
And it should be titled Censored with Piers Morgan.
Now, I'm going to be really clear here.
I know that in many ways I shouldn't.
For whatever reason, I kind of like Piers Morgan.
He's also, you know, been a pretty gracious host.
There are some things that he does that I disagree with.
But I always answer for any of my insults or backhanded compliments.
But this was a pretty important conversation that we had.
And it was titled, I'm going to say it, N-Word Debate with Stephen Crowder and Mark Lamont Hill.
Now, here's the thing.
I did say, in context, there has been no reaction of offense from anybody.
And this is important.
There's a conversation.
We're not talking about wanting to go out and denigrate black people with the N-word.
What we are discussing right now in this country is people being silenced and terrified of losing everything, even if they say the wrong word in the right context where they are condemning prejudice.
It's a political weapon, and it's used selectively.
And I chose my words carefully.
The language was very deliberate.
And then, of course, it gets silenced.
So we'll get to that sort of fallout in a bit.
And after this, I want to ask you now, what do you think the issue is when you get that gut feeling of this victimhood culture, where someone claims they're a victim and you're going, no, hold on a second.
This doesn't seem right.
This seems like you're using it.
I am going to lay out exactly why you feel that way, give you a litmus test.
And the reason for it.
And the point.
And that's what I am rallying against.
So, on to Censored with Pierce Morgan.
By the way, Mr. Morgan, you are welcome to come on this show.
I would very much welcome it and will host you graciously.
This is the version they ran, they pre-tape, titled, I'm going to say it, N-word debate, I believe with Mark Lamont Hill, and censored it out.
When we're talking about this new song...
And as a comedian and as a linguist, I'm going to say the word here so that everybody knows, and that's what you're going to clip.
We're looking at words that are offensive, a song that is offensive, but one is a boogeyman word.
We have one noun, a verb, and a noun.
Okay, we have a noun by itself, contextually.
That's bad.
Shouldn't say it, but it's not imbued with any power outside of historical context.
The last noun, Hitler, is imbued with the power of the verb that precedes it.
Hail, to praise, to venerate.
That'll get clipped, even though I'm condemning the song as anti-Semitic and not one person here who would be the victim of a more severe call to action.
Is going to say it's anti-Semitic.
I think we're in a silly point in this country when we're pulling this clip to condemn the anti-Semitism here at the studio and people going, hey, can I get a second cut of that N-word?
Hail Hitler!
That's the point.
I know many of you think, oh, thank goodness, you know, he didn't bleep it out, but he silenced it out.
You know, I dodged a bullet.
So here's the actual clip and what I actually said.
We're looking at words that are offensive, a song that is offensive, but one is a boogeyman word.
We have one noun, a verb, and a noun.
Okay, we have a noun by itself, contextually.
Nigga, that's bad, shouldn't say it, but it's not imbued with any power outside of historical context.
The last noun, Hitler, is imbued with the power of the verb that precedes it.
Hail, to praise, to venerate.
Actually, after the show, naturally, Pierce changed the name of his show to N-Censored.
Yeah, look, it doesn't necessarily have the same...
It was really close.
Maybe that was our fault?
I don't know.
Sorry, right graphic.
And here's the fallout in this.
This isn't about drama.
This is about something that affects all of our lives.
And you're seeing polling changes.
I talked about Gen Z voting patterns.
And I talked about this fatigue that people have.
It's not people just bitching about political correctness or cancel culture.
It's people now frustrated that they can't have an honest dialogue.
And particularly white men being painted in.
If you move in, it's gentrification.
If you leave, it's white flight.
Sit down and shut up, but silence is violence.
You can't go to empirical data like crime, neighborhoods, urban environments, Democrat mayors, but you also can't go back to the anecdotal, hey, I'm in an interracial relationship where I have black friends.
There's no winning, and so the only way is to not play, and now we're not having these conversations.
So after this, we reached out here on My Ex and said, hey, Pierce Morgan, I thought your show was called Uncensored.
Can you explain why you felt the need to literally censor my words?
And he responded, you said the N-word, and we don't allow that on our show.
It's not about censorship, but about respect for black people.
Okay?
Here's my problem, Pierce.
And this is my problem where I said, this is disingenuous.
Allow me to make my case.
Pierce Morgan brought on what he said was a self-avowed racist.
Challenged her to say the N-word repeatedly in front of a black man.
She didn't.
Two black men.
Two black men, I believe, or at least one and a half.
She didn't.
And then said, see, that's the thing, it's cowardly.
I went on and used it in context of my own volition, rightfully so, and I stand by it, the point that I was making.
He challenged me again, asking if I would say it, if Dr. Mark Lamont Hill was on, I said yes, and then it's censored out.
That, to me, is disingenuous.
It's a challenge for clicks.
You're not actually trying to have a conversation.
Challenge accepted.
You issued it.
And the point was, we're not just talking about here, to be clear.
We're not just talking about words and going, I want to say the N-word, I want to say a joke.
No.
What we are talking about, and this is the thing, the conversation has been, I want to be able to say the N-word just because I want to use it in a racist context.
No, no.
We actually have lost the ability to have discussions about words, their meaning, in context as adults.
We have lost that as a society, and that is not a good place to find ourselves.
There are not throngs of people in this country going, I can't believe that I can't yell the N-word at a black person, but there are a lot of people going, hey, wait a second.
If I'm addressing something very specific in a quote, I want to make sure, I just don't want to lose my livelihood.
And so people check out, and you're not having a conversation anymore.
There are real consequences to this, and that's what we are discussing, and you are going to see a backlash.
The pendulum swing back the other way, where people just say, you've called me a racist so long, you know what?
I guess I am.
There are quantifiable results, consequences, of this language policing, and you can see it in the laws.
In places like the UK and in Canada.
But you can see it culturally here.
People are afraid of losing everything for saying the wrong word, even if in context they are condemning prejudice.
And Pierce, by the way, his censorship didn't just stop at words.
And I get it.
He'll say, hey, you bleep things out in sketches because we edit for the bleep.
It's funny.
And if you're watching a clip...
Maybe on YouTube.
But live, we have the YouTube dump button.
So, also, we're allowed for comedy.
It's not the same thing as a word that we deem offensive after challenging someone to say it.
He's also gone as far as to cut out some inconvenient sounds, because I know that interruptions take place a lot there, and that's not really the game that I want to play.
And here's what you saw, and you wouldn't know this unless I told you.
Hold on a second.
You say that every single person who is giving to that is the equivalent of the person yelling the N-word at a five-year-old.
No, I didn't say that.
No, no, no.
Hold on, hold on, hold on.
No, I didn't say that.
That's the interruption.
I said they're wrong to do it.
I'll be done in 20 seconds.
20 seconds.
Would we also say, then, that the people giving to Anthony, Carmelo Anthony, support the wanton stabbing of white kids who die in their twin brother's arms?
Now, that would seem silly to go, hey, what's happening there?
Here's the actual clip, and this isn't the first time that this has happened on Piers Morgan.
Hold on a second.
You say that every single person who is giving to that is the equivalent of the person yelling the N-word at a five-year-old.
Would we say the same thing?
Hold on, hold on, hold on.
That's the interruption buzzer.
Hold on, let me finish my point.
I'll be done in 20 seconds.
20 seconds.
That last little one.
It's a little childish and stupid.
Then again, so is editing out a boogeyman word when used in context.
Especially because it's not a buzzer.
It's one of those smokers.
Yeah, it was our Val Kilmer thing.
And here's the thing.
This has happened in the past.
And this is why I don't like going on a lot of programs.
Not because I'm not willing to.
I do change my minds and talking with people in the street, black and white and the gray issues.
It's that a lot of people are scoring points and it's disingenuous.
Things get doctored a little bit.
We believed that this has happened in the past.
The last time I was on Pierce Morgan, I had a bell.
Where I did not interrupt once.
And I said, I will yield the floor.
And this was a mechanism to point out whether someone is arguing in good faith.
It didn't make air.
You couldn't hear it.
And he told us that actually it was something to do with the microphone and the gate, which would not apply there.
It couldn't possibly apply to that buzzer.
And so I apologized right here on the show.
I said, okay, my bad.
Should have given you the benefit of the doubt.
It's petty.
I rescind my apology because I now think that there is foul play.
Here is the bell in question from that last appearance.
Was that deliberate?
Is he trying to sabotage it?
Thank you.
Again, I'm really going to avoid ad hominem, which is really tough because it seems to be coming from the other side of this panel here.
Well, I will note for the record that you have not gone ad hominem.
And Tim, to be fair, all you've done is abuse Stephen on a personal level.
I actually would like to rise above that.
His whole career is all he's done is attack gay and trans people.
Now he's getting offended.
And no ad hominem from me like he did the walk of shame after a night with Brian Bointano and stole his puka shell necklace.
And the reason the bell was important.
It was a gift.
Yes.
It was to point out, look, hey, I'm not going to do that, but these are the kinds of people who are often being hosted.
They're not arguing in good faith.
It's all ad hominem.
That thing is a little bit of conditioning.
For you to go, oh, I see what the left is doing.
You may not agree with it, but it's important.
Here's the actual clip that didn't make air.
Is he trying to sabotage it?
Thank you.
Again, I'm really going to avoid Ed Hamer, which is really tough because it seems to be coming from the other side of this panel here.
Maybe.
It was certainly...
I will note for the record that you have not gone ad hominem.
And Tim, to be fair, all you've done is abuse Stephen on a personal level.
I actually would like to rise above that.
His whole career is all he's done is attack gay and trans people.
Now he's getting offended.
They said it was a technical issue.
I don't buy it.
Here's the thing, and I'll get to why this affects everybody, and there's something that you're feeling in your gut that you may not necessarily know how to articulate.
A lot of Americans feel this way, including, by the way, black Americans and certainly Hispanic Americans.
But back to Pierce.
This is actually someone who censors himself all the time or does post-filming edits to make himself look better.
All right, Stephen Crowder.
You're giving it to me.
I think I'm the...
The whole saga here.
I'm just the one sitting here listening to a very, very unpleasant young being deliberately unashamedly wants us to think she's admits to being and when you talk about context of using the N-word, she is using it in Wow.
Yeah.
By the way, he doesn't just stop at censoring guests.
And I know people say it's not censoring because it's not government.
Shut up.
He's not just censoring guests.
He even has gone so far as to rotoscope physical things out of the filming process to save himself embarrassment.
Well, Andrew Wilson's apparently ecstatic wife, Rachel, got in touch on X and told me she'd like to participate in our next debate.
And so she will.
She'll be joining us alongside an all-new panel of...
You don't need to.
You don't need to.
Edit it out.
It's preference.
It's okay.
Just be proud, bro.
Come on, man.
It's not your fault.
Fire with that camera guy.
He should have had a panoramic lens.
That was a big boom mic.
And then Nancy Mesa's going to be on the show.
Sorry.
It's a comedy show.
You are invited on the show, Pierce, and of course we will be very respectful in hosting you and give you the floor.
And I believe Dr. Mark Lamont Hill will be on the show.
He was actually a gentleman.
I haven't heard him accuse me of racism.
And certainly not.
If you look at the comments section, you can go and watch their version on Pierce Morgan's channel.
Here's what I want to point out.
You've heard me talk about how fake victimhood creates real victims.
If you find yourself, and comment below if you've felt this, and I'm going to explain why I believe you have this guttural reaction.
When you hear someone say, no, no, hold on a second, I'm being victimized.
I can't believe this will irreparably damage me.
And you're going, ah, that doesn't pass.
Something seems off here.
I think you're using this as a cudgel.
Here's why.
When people do that, they're invariably victimizing.
Someone for real.
Let me give you an example, a few examples here.
And then, I would like for you to comment if you can name one exception.
Someone saying, using the N-word, even in the context of condemning racism, but discussing language as an adult, irreparably harms my soul because of that word.
What's actually happening is people are being victimized by losing their livelihoods, by losing their jobs.
By being ostracized from society.
And all of society losing their right to freedom of speech.
And again, I mean freedom of speech as adults.
No one here is having a debate that you should go out and insult someone using a racial epithet.
But there has been a conversation going on for a long time in this country.
Yeah, but I shouldn't lose everything.
And I shouldn't be accused of racism if I use a word that you don't like in context to make a point.
And while we're talking about that...
The argument falls apart when they say, well, the N-word is the one word with historical context that has been imbued with power because they were oppressing slaves.
Great.
Okay.
Now do Hail Hitler.
I get that you will say Hail Hitler is not the same as a racial epithet.
For example, if at any point I condemned the use of the word kike or Shylock.
Again, I wouldn't be accused of being anti-Semitic because people are adults and can have that conversation.
But if the N-word is so impermissible because of the power historically, give me one historical context where Hail Hitler is anything other than worse.
I made the point.
I called that they would include the Hail Hitler, which I said not one, but like 19 times.
They had no problem with it.
Here's another example.
Not allowing me to compete!
Victimizes me.
You're taking away my rights.
The reason you're going, that doesn't seem quite kosher is because women are actually being victimized in having to compete against men.
It's COVID.
Hey, hold on.
It's COVID.
If you're putting me at risk, I'm immune compromised.
You don't care.
You are victimizing all of us.
Why won't you put on a mask?
Why won't you socially distance?
Well, the people being victimized are the businesses that are shuttered.
They'll never, ever, ever open back up.
Children.
Whose educational process, experience, their childhood itself, they will never get back.
Hey, you can't say that.
That's actually sexism.
That's misogyny if you say that men and women are biologically different.
Take any buzzwords here.
Hold on a second.
No, you're actually victimizing women who agree with that, women who understand it, and the nuclear family, which is by design.
The destruction of it.
Patriarchy.
You heard it from Hillary Clinton?
Black Lives Matter?
And every single Marxist professor out there in the country.
Give me one exception.
Give me one exception today where when people are claiming victim status in trying to eliminate or silence your opinion, they are not actually acting as a predator, victimizing someone in real life.
I want you to use that litmus test going, whether it's trans, Whether it's misogyny, sexism, whether it's racism, whether it's homophobia, any of it.
Use that test and tell me I'm wrong on a single example.
If there is a fake victim, there is a real victim, and in every scenario, the fake victim knows it.
What do we call that?
We call that manipulation.
Mr. Morgan, you're welcome on the show, and as well as a...
Dr. Mark Lamont Hill.
For people who want to see conversations like these and more that are actually, I don't want to say uncensored, but unfiltered, right?
We're not on YouTube, so we actually can have these conversations.
Hey, none of this happens without you.
Click right there.
Join Rumble Premium.
You get everything ad-free.
You get 100% more show.
$99 annually or $9.99 a month, but monthly you don't get the hand-etched mug and you get the entire lineup there.
I believe that we do have her on.
Let me just set some context here.
I want to run the clip and then we will have Representative Nancy Mace.
Yesterday, Representative Nancy Mace dropped some private footage as part of, I believe it was, it was congressional testimony to push for passing some anti-voyeurism legislation.
Exhibit one.
Behind me is a screenshot from one of the videos I found of myself.
The yellow circle.
This.
Naked silhouette is my naked body.
I didn't know that I had been filmed.
I didn't give my consent.
I didn't give my permission.
And this particular video that Patrick Bryant recorded of me on his secret camera, he saved for over three years without my knowledge.
I didn't pick this fight.
I don't even want to be here today and discuss this.
Please welcome to the program, Representative from South Carolina, Nancy Mace.
And you can follow her on X, and I say her in the biological sense, Rep.
Nancy Mace.
Representative Mace, thank you for being here.
And thank you for having me and bringing attention to this very important issue for women and girls all across the country.
Okay, I have some follow-up questions.
Could you, the floor is yours, explain to people who may not be familiar with this, what is this important issue and what are you looking to achieve?
We're talking about peeping Toms and voyeurism, voyeurism being those individuals who film other people in compromising positions, intimate, nude, that sort of thing.
And I shared some examples of upskirt shots, nude imagery and videos yesterday in my hearing because I myself have...
Just recently been through this over the last year and a half and uncovering all these videos I found, I identified some other potential victims, other potential women, and it's had devastating consequences for them.
And I've learned so much about federal law and also state law.
You know, Democrats tout the Violence Against Women Act as being this holy grail for victims like women of this kind of situation.
It actually does nothing for them.
And so I've drafted a couple pieces of legislation like the Sioux Warriors Act that...
It creates a civil right of action or a civil tort for those who've been victims of voyeurism or peeping toms because there is no civil right of action at the federal level.
And then also, it's not criminal to do this at the federal level under Title 18. It's only criminal in certain maritime jurisdictions, think cruises.
Or tribal lands.
And under state law, state law in South Carolina is much weaker.
Like the screenshot you just showed of that clip of my naked silhouette on the screen there, first offense is a misdemeanor and a $500 fine in South Carolina, which is appalling that it's that little.
It's disgusting.
It should be far worse.
The penalty should be far higher than that.
Can I ask you, has anyone been charged with misdemeanors or fines in South Carolina where this took place?
Not in this particular case yet because there's still an ongoing investigation.
And that's part of some of the victims' frustration is that this thing has gone on for more than a year and a half.
These people are walking free.
But also in the last couple of months, you know, in working with these victims, I'm uncovering all kinds of cases that are not getting the justice they deserve in the county where this crime, these potential wrong, this potential crime crimes to place.
We have pedophiles that are walking free.
I've shown some cases of those.
We've got a guy in this same county who had 1,900 images of kids as young as three being raped by animals and adults.
And the guy got one day served in jail.
It was time served.
He's on the streets of South Carolina walking free.
We have, there's a murder case up the road where a guy was chasing some other man nine miles down the road and shot him 15 times in the back and hasn't been, no trial.
So what I've learned from this experience We have a really broken criminal and justice system in this country.
Well, okay, so I want to get to, and of course I know that you've faced some criticism for this, and I want to give you a chance to respond to those.
Obviously, in this case, I would imagine, since you presented that video, you have this video and you've turned it over, that would be significant evidence, and it would be kind of surprising if nothing is being done about that, because that in tandem with some of the, well, I guess I have to say claims, or the statements that you made yesterday, Are really serious, and I want people to see those so that they know what it is that was stated.
Starting on November 5th, 2023, I discovered my former fiancé, Patrick Bryant, had filmed women without their knowledge, without their permission, and without their consent.
He's able to rape other women, film them.
This is one of the rape victims that I discussed in my February 10th floor speech.
As you can tell, She's on the couch, and she's unconscious.
Passed out, blacked out.
I think she was roofied.
We don't know.
We never will know.
And the tape of her being assaulted by the business partner of Patrick Bryant, John Osborne, this rape tape was saved for years.
Patrick Bryant allegedly raped at least three women.
And obviously it's a very specific name and very specific crimes.
Claims, right?
Raping at least, you know, three women, drugging, roofing.
I also heard the word underage there.
One of the criticisms is that you are relying on congressional immunity where you make these accusations, right, as opposed to in a court of law or especially in the post-Me Too era.
What do you say to those people that that's the only place you've made these claims definitively?
Well, it will not be the only place I make these claims.
I don't even consider these allegations.
I mean, to me, this is a fact.
This is what I witnessed, what I saw, what I stand by, and I stand by every word, both of my February 10th floor speech and what I stated yesterday in my hearing.
I will have a chance and an opportunity to say this under oath in a court of law, hopefully sooner than later, and I won't get into too many details, but that's already in motion.
And, you know, I dare these folks, these predators, to sue me.
Because I very much look forward to discovery and the depositions that will come along with it.
Well, one of them is, though, right?
What's that?
One of the men in question is suing you.
Yes.
There is already one case, and that falls under the Speech and Debate Clause, or the Westfall Act is the way that I interpret the Constitution.
But I will absolutely have an opportunity.
And everything I've stated publicly, I have also stated to investigators.
Privately.
And so I've sat down with investigators, I believe, three times in the last year and a half.
And then, of course, in my speaking with other potential victims, I've uncovered more potential wrongdoing, more potential victims, more potential information that validates my experience and the experiences of other women.
And so it's also, for me, the reason I did the floor speech and the reason I did this hearing is because I've learned how much failure there is in the system at the federal level.
Which is where I, as a member of Congress, have a say.
Whether it's the Violence Against Women Act, whether it's men in women's spaces, I am vehemently opposed to men being in women's bathrooms, showers, locker rooms.
And part of that vehement anger that I have about men being in private spaces is because of the experience that I just went through, this trauma a year and a half ago when I uncovered all these things.
You can imagine my shock and awe to discover, holy shit, this guy, this monster, I had videos of me undressed, and he saved them for over three years.
I had no idea.
I didn't have any knowledge of it.
I didn't give my permission.
There was no consent.
And then the fact that he saved these videos of me for over three years was really terrifying.
And sometimes I feel hopeless.
And then I meet and talk to all these other potential victims.
I do have two questions.
Sorry, I just want to...
Are any of those other victims...
Pressing charges.
Are they going through the court process?
And to be clear, you are standing by the claim that Patrick Bryant raped three women and some were roofied and underage.
Well, that's the assumption in some of the cases.
So with some of the women, it seems a lot like roofing.
And I said yesterday, I believed one of them and actually probably more based on women that I've spoken to now.
Some of the women who are victims are too afraid to come forward.
And I'm going to be their voice.
Others have come forward.
And I encouraged women yesterday who think or believe they may be a victim within this group of individuals to call the state law enforcement division.
And then or we have a tip line with our office that we will provide their information confidentially to the appropriate law enforcement.
Officials.
But, like, if I went to law enforcement and falsely reported a crime, that is a crime.
And, you know, it's something I have never done and would never do.
But I've sat down with them three times.
I'll sit down with them again if I have to.
And then I will testify under oath to the same exact statements I made, both in the hearing and in the floor speech.
And I expect to be able to do that.
I expect I will have an opportunity to do that.
Right.
Is it sometimes a complication?
Because I know this being on air all the time, where if you are planning on pressing charges and going through that process, speaking publicly in a separate form can be a problem.
Since this investigation has been going on since 2023.
And I wanted to ask, so you're saying women have come forward against these specific men?
So there are other women who are claiming to be victims and pressing charges?
Correct.
Yes.
Multiple women.
Okay.
And there's our...
Roofied?
Raped?
Are any underage?
Or is it voyeurism?
I would say the allegations are all of the above.
Including, you know, potential CSAM or child sexual abuse material, that allegation.
I've not been able to verify that, but that is an allegation that a few folks have come forward with.
And, you know, time will tell.
I think one of our frustration, my frustration...
But was it on the tape?
Because you implied that there was underage sexual abuse in the tapes.
Not yesterday, I didn't.
I didn't say anything about CSAM yesterday.
Okay, but in your speech, there are some people who have come forward about potential CSAM with one of the individuals mentioned in that speech.
Let me ask you, I want to ask this, did this man or these men, I think there's four or five, right, who are included in, I don't know, is it four or five?
It's four, but it's various locations, at different locations, different, it's complex because they're different people, different.
Locations, different victims, different potential wrongdoing and crimes.
It's a complicated case.
But there are no charges or convictions yet?
None yet.
And that's part of the frustration.
Like, I went to authorities in December of 2023.
And if you saw the whole hearing and saw my introduction, to me, it's very cut and dry.
It's black and white.
Like, the threshold for probable cause is so very low.
And if you add on top of it, I brought a witness forward, witnesses.
I brought victims forward.
I brought footage forward with metadata, date and time stamps, file names, folders of where these things were saved, the devices where they were saved.
You know, most investigations, when you have someone come forward, you just have some hearsay.
You just have, hey, I saw this.
I did a lot more than that.
I literally delivered on a silver platter.
Here is evidence that...
You can use right now to go make the arrest and they haven't done it yet.
And, you know, that's why, you know, I'm so passionate about this.
Why do you think they haven't, though?
Because that is not normal in these cases.
I mean, especially after Me Too, where we have men who were accused and, you know, you have to balance.
I have a son and I have a daughter and I'm very worried about her with predators, but I'm equally worried about him being falsely accused.
We've seen men be railroaded and it turns out they didn't do anything.
So if there's all of this evidence, why do you think there have been?
No charges, no convictions, and it doesn't seem like there's going to be anytime soon.
Well, I think that SLED confirmed this week that they were going to provide whatever their investigative file is over to the solicitor at some point.
But this is the problem with South Carolina.
It is a completely corrupt system.
So one of the attorneys, for example, one of the predators in this case, headlined a fundraiser for the solicitor who's taken this case by hand, handling it herself.
So her last fundraiser before her re-election last year was headlined by one of the attorneys for one or more of these men.
It says the conflict of interest is massive.
The attorney general who should be championing this case is going to run for governor.
I might run for governor.
You know, when you have these conflicts of interest, there's a political bias, I believe, underneath.
And then when you look at all the cases of rape or assault of women, domestic violence in South Carolina, I've talked to so many women who've gone to law enforcement or gone to the authorities for these kinds of cases, and then they just tell you, well, there's nothing we can do for you.
And I hear that over and over and over again.
I know you mentioned the AG, and that was a thing, right?
That was a little bit of a controversy because you said that he was dragging his feet.
And I do know that he said, hey, I hadn't heard anything about this until the public statements.
And you have his cell phone number.
You've gone to a lot of events.
Since you have access to him personally, did you bring this up to him personally before the public testimony?
My attorney did.
One of my attorneys brought it up to him at an event.
But here's the thing.
My speech was in February.
It's now almost June.
And instead of saying, hey, you're right, this is such an egregious case, instead of saying, you know, let's let's get justice for these victims.
Let's change our state laws in South Carolina because they're so weak for women.
Instead, he's attacked me as a as a victim.
He's attacked me for coming forward.
Well, you kind of attacked him first.
I mean, I just want to say I want to be because this is a very complicated issue.
You did say he was dragging his feet and that almost makes him seem like he's aiding and abetting rape systemically.
If I was, I probably wouldn't be thrilled about that either.
I go, well, that's not true.
I only saw it when.
You're out there publicly on C-SPAN.
Well, he is letting pedophiles walk free, and that's a fact, and I've been putting that information out there as well.
That's fine, but then he's not attacking you, right?
You're both attacking each other.
I think that's important, because we need to be better on the right than doing the victim thing, either him or you.
Yeah, no, I hear you, and I hear that loud and clear from folks, but here's the thing.
I waited 11 months to get a victim's rights advocate in my case.
11 months.
And do you know how I got the victim's rights advocate?
I got it through his office.
So I knew he was well aware.
There's no way, with as high profile as an individual as I am and as an elected official, there's no way in October of last year, when I got my victim's rights advocate through his office, that he had no idea.
I mean, either you're incompetent or you're ignorant.
And that's the only answer there.
Yeah, well, I mean, it could also be, you know, this is not really their job, obviously, to go forward, like, from the base level.
It would need to come from the police department first.
So I think maybe there's a miscommunication there where maybe he didn't know, and then maybe he felt attacked, and then he kind of came back at you.
So, you know, I hate to see that kind of infighting, especially over something as serious as, you know, underage rape accusations.
And I really don't want this to get muddied when truth is paramount in all of this.
And I know that you are running against him.
Potentially people talk about this as governor.
Let me ask you this when you get because I wouldn't know about this unless you came forward.
Sounds to me like you're saying this is to raise awareness because the justice system has not been very just.
Did Mr. Bryant at any point threaten to use this, disseminate this material?
Did he give it out to anyone else?
I have no idea.
And I hope that the investigation will shed light on that because I have no idea where this material went.
So I just don't have those answers.
And that's, again, another frustration I have of knowing this person carried this around for years.
What did he do with it?
Why did he have it?
Why did he save it?
Why did he catalog it?
Why did he store it?
And what was he going to use it for?
Or what had he used it for?
But also the experience has informed me legislatively.
On all these bills, whether it's about rape kits.
I'm filing a bill this week that would prohibit rapists from suing their rape victims.
Can they sue if it's a false allegation?
Because I think we need to have an equal punishment for...
I think that's fair.
And I have a son, like you, I have a son and I have a daughter.
My fears are the same.
My fears for my daughter are the same as your fears for your daughter.
My fears for my son are the same as your fears for your son.
I've had to have very frank conversations with my son about...
About false allegations, because that is a problem.
And the women that come forward and make false claims do a great disservice to real victims when they come after or come later, because women aren't believed, generally.
You know, that's tough.
And so that has to be, you have to tamp down.
Well, one second, that sounds like covert women are very much believed.
I mean, we have example after example in the Me Too era.
The problem was the proliferation of falsehood.
Democrats don't believe women.
No, no, no, no, no.
That's the opposite.
That's the opposite.
Aziz Ansari had a bad date, for crying out loud.
I mean, you look at a guy like Chris Hardwick.
He's a Democrat.
I was in defending people.
I'm going, well, this is not the same as rape.
You went over to his hotel room at two in the morning.
There are plenty of sex out there.
Mattress girl, the guy at Columbia never got to graduate, go to graduation.
And it turns out she was sexually assaulting him.
So I would disagree with that premise that women are not believed.
She should be charged with a crime and should face jail time.
Women that do that should face jail time.
Yes, but the problem I have with the premise is that right now in today's society, women are often believed, and there's the court of public opinion that often takes priority over the actual courts, which is why I think you can understand, as you said, if you have a son, people being...
Skeptical here.
If this man didn't go out and disseminate it, is it possible?
Because it looked, I will tell you this, when I look at it, it looks exactly like the security camera that I have in my living room.
Is it a security camera that existed in the house that you knew was there or you both knew were there and then it stores automatically to the cloud?
Because that would be the same of every sort of ring camera, as it were.
Well, I found the brand of the camera and provided that information, the serial number and the screenshots that I showed yesterday.
I provide all that evidence over to law enforcement.
Again, these are questions that I have.
I don't know if it was on the cloud.
One would presume because a lot of them are on the cloud.
I don't know how long they save it.
Like as soon as I found out about this, you know, I reached out to the camera company to find out when it's deleted.
Does it stay on the cloud?
Because oftentimes once it's deleted, it's gone.
That was hard to hear, too.
So a lot of my questions can't be answered until I see what the investigation turns up, because I'm not an investigator.
I'm not a detective.
I'm just this person who accidentally found these files and was like, "What the hell?" And I identified some of the women.
And some of the victims I talked to clearly didn't know they were being recorded, whether they saw the camera or not.
And they were told they were not being recorded.
And then let's just say, quote, it is a security camera and was used for security.
But there were no security cameras on the outside of that property, which is odd.
You'd think if you had security cameras, you'd have cameras all over the place, inside, outside, wherever, and that wasn't the case.
And so even if it was a security camera, why would you just save the naked videos of women?
Why would you save only the naked videos of women and nothing else?
Is it only the videos of naked women of these crimes what was saved, nothing else?
That's what I saw.
I didn't see any security camera footage.
I saw footage of women who were naked.
Lots of it.
Video after video after video.
And I was able to identify several women on that camera and other cameras.
I found up to four recording, potentially four recording devices.
And this stuff that I found spanned almost a decade.
Long before I ever met my former fiancé, this was years in the making before I ever knew him.
But I was able to identify several victims, and I provided all that information, of course, to law enforcement.
What was the brand of camera?
It was an Arlo brand camera.
You can see that on the screenshot, I believe, one of the screenshots I had yesterday.
That particular device at one point had 10,633 videos on it based on the screenshot I had.
But they're not usually hidden cameras, Arlo's.
Like, it's one of the brands that they set up.
I mean, especially when I had new, when my children were very young, I had these cameras out there in case, you know, something happened.
The excuse has been, oh, it's a security camera.
Okay, well, why did you only have videos of naked women on it?
I don't know, you know, that doesn't scream security camera to me.
If there are only videos of naked women, yes, that's basically a modern-day pair of binoculars.
But if that's not the case, I mean, again, I know many people, most people here who have, some of us have Arlo's.
I was going to, you said this footage goes back 10 years?
I have footage going back, it was at the time when I found it roughly 8 years of upskirt photos of women's genital areas.
Photography, images, videos.
I saw almost a decade worth of stuff.
How did you get this, by the way, since you had this before an investigation?
How did you come upon this footage?
We went to couples counseling, and the couples counseling said, hey, you know, to rebuild trust in your relationship, you need to give her access to your phone.
So he put my thumbprint on his phone, so my biometrics were on there, and I was allowed to go on his phone at any time.
And that's when I accidentally uncovered it all.
I just wasn't expecting that.
It wasn't something I was looking for, wasn't expecting it.
It was a real shock to the system.
And when I found it, I took a couple of screenshots and I handed everything over to law enforcement.
Again, this is not my job to be investigator or detective.
It is law enforcement's job to do that.
And I hope and pray that they're doing an extensive investigation and that justice is brought for all these victims and that at the same time we reshape federal and state law to do better.
So you're going through couples therapy and he gave you the passcode or the biometric unlocking mechanism to his phone while you guys are, I assume, in somewhat dire straits and didn't delete non-consensual footage on the phone that you had access to?
He definitely was transferring footage.
And I showed a screenshot yesterday of files that were being transferred off his device.
He got a second device, I said yesterday, like I saw a second device hit our Wi-Fi like that same day.
It was the Tiramisu operating system.
A couple weeks later, he would replace his Android S22 with an Android S23.
And there's some indication of data indicating that he may have been transferring terabytes of data, terabytes and terabytes and terabytes of data, which would indicate lots and lots of photos and videos, thousands of files potentially.
Okay, wow.
Yeah, that's...
Terabytes, that's a lot, especially if you're going back eight years where it's pre-HD.
That's many, many hours.
But you did get this while you two were still in a relationship is when you found the footage.
Yeah.
I mean, I got the hell out as soon as I found out about it.
It took me about a week.
I wanted to just get all my ducks in a row.
I had children.
You know, I had a tumor that month as well, and I had to have surgery.
And so I had all these things going on and took me about, I don't know, a week to 10 days to make sure I had all my...
Things in order to be able to leave.
I fled.
Let me ask you this.
How do you balance, because you just said you had a son, and I don't know if, Gerald, you had a question that you wanted to ask, but how do you balance, like you just said, being concerned for a son and a daughter, due process, obviously post-MeToo, which was spearheaded by Democrats, where it was a witch hunt, and obviously protecting victims of actual rape and sexual abuse?
How do I balance that?
Yeah, with this legislation, how do we balance those things?
Because, you know, I disagree with the premise that women are not believed.
So, for example, that legislation that you proposed, would it still permit or would it allow, I should say, victims of false accusations of rape to sue their accuser or have equal criminal penalties?
Like, how do we balance this out?
It doesn't have to do with false allegations.
It has to do with real crimes and convictions.
It doesn't have to do with false allegations, number one.
Number two, when I talk about my Sue Warriors Act, that is creating a civil tort at the federal level.
When Democrats did the Violence Against Women Act, there was no civil right of action.
Women couldn't sue federally.
They will be able to do that with the Sioux Voyeurs Act.
With the Stop Voyeurs Act, we expand the federal prohibition against voyeurism.
So it's only illegal federally to film women in this manner in certain maritime jurisdictions or tribal lands.
And so this would expand that very narrow definition to make it a crime under Title 18 of the federal U.S. Code of Laws for voyeurism.
And so those two specific things are...
Or what I've done federally.
I've also worked with state lawmakers to draft a bill to strengthen South Carolina state law because it's a misdemeanor and a $500 fine on first offense.
That particular bill would make it a felony and make the financial penalties significantly higher because we want to deter these people as much as we can on the very first offense and then it gets worse from there.
And so I've been working with state lawmakers and then of course I have my own legislation at the federal level based on the experiences I uncovered with all of these women.
Sure.
And I appreciate you giving us your time.
Gerald, I know you have a question.
And by the way, everyone out there, you can follow her and send her your questions at repnancymace on X. Yes, Gerald.
Yeah, so again, thanks.
And we're on the same page here.
Like, bury the pedophiles under the jail.
You know, like, these guys should be getting long prison sentences if what we're claiming is true.
I think the question that I had for you is I've had a theory about this that I'm really worried about.
We've seen people tried in the media before.
I'm not saying that's what you're doing, by the way.
I just want to set this up because you're somebody who's experiencing this.
And I think your opinion would be very valid.
I am of the mindset that to balance this out and make sure that justice is served and people aren't taken like Brett Kavanaugh, taken through the media, basically just to smear his name.
We shouldn't be making names public and accusations this.
This dire, I mean, these are very serious accusations that somebody has been raped and some people's privacy has been violated at the very least.
There's a lot of very serious allegations here until a legal process has gone through.
And I wonder what your opinion is on that because I understand that there are problems potentially with that because we want to hold people accountable.
Sometimes the justice system doesn't do us justice, essentially, or takes so long to do justice that justice is really delayed and that's kind of denied.
But at the same time, haven't we seen so many people's lives ruined?
You cannot unring the bell.
It doesn't matter how many times you go out and tell people that Johnny Depp didn't do what Amber Heard said.
He's still not working.
He's still not getting that time back.
He's still not getting the contracts back for Trevor Bauer.
You're still not having Brett Kavanaugh's kids not think that, hey, did something happen with my dad where he was drunk and raped somebody?
So shouldn't there be some more protections here to make sure that everybody is protected in the system and it doesn't swing one way or the other with allegations being made in public that are very specific when cases haven't been tried yet?
Well, I think that in this particular instance, I am exposing what is completely shattered and broken and corrupt in South Carolina's court system and justice system.
If I had not spoken up...
There would be no investigation.
And in fact, one of the rape victims didn't get her victim's rights advocate until the day of my speech on February 10th, six months later, after she came forward.
And that's appalling, and I agree.
And pardon me for interrupting, but could that also have been done without saying names, is my question.
And it's a genuine question.
I just want to clarify.
Hasn't there been an ongoing, you just said, police investigation since 2023?
So that would be before your statements, right?
But she didn't get the advocate until six months.
This other person, but I mean for yourself.
Different victims have come forward at different times of the investigation.
Now, remember, I didn't know who all the women were right at prime.
I had to go find some of them and identify them.
I did that because our law enforcement, state law enforcement, wasn't doing that.
Six months into the quote investigation, to my knowledge, they hadn't contacted any victims.
That was a real problem for me.
Yeah, I mean, so...
But what about your, but for you, why do you, because you made your claims, right?
You can't, some victims may not, like you said, want to come forward, but yours, that's been open since 2023, before you came out and stated his name publicly.
Like, let's say, because this is the question people have, and I know that, and I appreciate you allowing us to be fair.
There could be a universe in which Nancy Mace and this Mr. Bryant had a very ugly falling out.
You got these while you were together and then used it against him, and the investigation reveals that there is actually no crime.
Like, if that happens, should he be able to sue you?
Well, hey, it doesn't really matter.
Let's just say there was a very nasty breakup.
Let's just say it was the worst in the world.
That doesn't negate that I was filmed without my knowledge, without my permission, without my consent, and those videos were saved for years.
And that is not okay.
Not by any standard.
It didn't really matter, you know, that part of it.
But on top of that, I find all these other potential victims and all this potential other wrongdoing and to see really nothing happening.
And only because of the public attention is the investigation moving forward.
I don't expect, honestly, I expect very little out of this because that is very typical of South Carolina.
And the justice system.
I mean, there's a case in Myrtle Beach where the guy was chased nine miles down the road, shot 15 times in the back, no charges.
And when, you know, now the feds are stepping in.
I am going to ask the feds to step in on this and provide some oversight because there's been, I believe, obstruction of justice by the solicitor and other issues that underscore the political bias and the unfair way that Some of the victims have been treated.
Some of us feel like we've been treated like criminals, and the criminals treated like victims.
And that's not the way the system is supposed to work.
Victims have rights.
They're supposed to be protected.
Their identity is supposed to be protected.
Witness intimidation is not supposed to be allowed by law, and the solicitor will not prosecute for witness intimidation.
And there have been numerous examples of it over the last couple of months.
And so when you see the system break down in the way that it has, this is the only recourse we have.
You're right.
That is unconscionable that that stuff is still out there.
And I 100% agree, but I want to laser in on the point.
I agree with you.
More attention has to be brought to this.
That's that public pressure.
Good.
Make sure this stuff gets changed.
Did his name have to be used to accomplish that?
Because it's a bell that cannot be unrung.
You may be 100% right in this case, but what about some of the other cases we've seen in the past and yet future where maybe a name gets dropped in public and people drag them through?
The social media hellscape that happens after that and the media hellscape?
You can't unring that bell.
Did his name have to be used for you to be able to make this point?
A hundred percent.
The hellscape that these women...
I agree.
I agree with the women.
But we're all on that same page.
I'm trying to be very fair.
I'm a hundred percent...
Bury these guys under the jails.
Well, the guys who actually commit rape.
Yes, the guy who's committing rape and disseminating these pictures are the worst of the worst.
We would kick their ass if they were in front of us.
All of us agree on that.
But...
You do understand the jeopardy we have where people's lives are being ruined by this.
How do we balance that when public accusations include people's names while an investigation is going on?
Is there a better way for us to accomplish all of it, to keep women safe, but also to make sure that men are not just going to, with no recourse.
Like, I sue the lady who accused Trevor Bauer, but you're not going to get any money from her.
She's just going to declare bankruptcy.
You lost a $100 million contract.
That happens a lot, and I want to make sure that neither one of these things happen.
That the rape doesn't happen, that the voyeurism doesn't happen, and that the men's names, if they don't have to be used, and I don't see a reason why they do yet, maybe there is one.
Well, let's, Representative, why did the name specifically, because you said they revealed your identity, and again, I didn't know about this until you started speaking about it, so if they did that, that's horrible, and that would be the answer, but why did the name have to be used?
I believe that there is a present danger, particularly at some of the locations I mentioned in my speech where underage children are.
I wanted to be sure that families and parents, that I don't know that the general public knew that there are certain locations that I would not advise your child to go to because of some of what was being filmed or allegedly or being done at those locations with cameras.
To me as a mom, I didn't have a choice.
And as I went through the process of the last year and a half, and I learned about all these other allegations and potential wrongdoing from parents who were aware of things being filmed about with underage children, potentially, you know, all of that.
To me, this is a clear and present danger.
At one of the properties I mentioned in the speech.
And so, for me, this was like an immediate clear and present danger to my constituents, not only just to women, potentially underage girls as well.
And, like, you know...
I felt like I was doing my civic duty to protect my constituents.
And then on top of that, I'm obviously doing the legislation, working with state lawmakers.
I've got dozens of federal bills, too.
But, like, this was an immediate, holy shit, oh my god, there are kids over at this property.
Things are being allegedly filmed at this property, including potentially really bad things.
That, to me, was like, we don't have time to waste here.
What really bad things, though?
Because I would imagine if children are any property right near theirs, you'd have security camera footage to make sure that everything is kosher.
Is this what we're talking about?
Child rape at these properties with this Mr. Bryant?
I'm not saying child rape.
I haven't said that.
I have not said that.
Sexual abuse.
I would say that things I would qualify as CSAM.
Yeah.
Potentially.
And that...
Again, these guys deserve every single ounce of punishment that we can get.
But that moment was in 2023 when you found that information, right?
That is the holy shit moment.
Well, yeah, but over the course of the last year and a half talking to potential victims, I've learned so much more and I'm informed by other potential wrongdoing and crimes.
But then even since my February speech, I've had parents come forward with some claims and they're really damning.
And kids are at risk.
As long as these certain individuals, at least one individual that I spoke about in my speech, if he's still free, kids are in danger, and they should not be at that location.
And so just, you know, for me, it was like, I didn't have a choice.
This is clear and present danger.
I want to protect kids.
I want to protect women.
This is what I have to do.
And I stand by every word I said in my floor speech.
I stand by every word I said in my hearing yesterday.
This can't go on and I'll run through a brick wall if I have to to protect my constituents and to protect kids and protect women across South Carolina and all across the country, really.
I stand by everything.
Well, I hope that, and thank you for clearing some of that up, I hope that justice is served.
It looks like it's going to go through this process.
With that amount of evidence, it would seem like there will be some people put in prison for life.
Representative Nancy Mace, we appreciate you taking the time.
I know it must be very difficult, and thank you for giving the floor to people who are giving you some tough questions.
I appreciate it.
I appreciate the tough questions.
I like the calliloquy, so thank you.
Thank you very much.
Representative Nancy Mace, everybody.
All right.
And, uh, yeah.
Yeah.
By the way, this is the first time I've ever...
It's way more complicated.
I have this light, but we don't really have to get the brakes.
Yeah, sorry.
I was like, let her answer.
No, no, no, that was my fault.
I just wanted to get that point of using names.
None of it seemed like it really answered the question, except for the case she was trying to make was, well, there's a clear and present danger with children.
And I'm like, well, that was in 2023, that there was a clear and present danger when you found that out.
So if it was a holy shit moment, I have to do this right now to make sure these kids are safe.
That would have been in 2023.
And I'm not making an accusation.
What I'm saying is, that does not seem like the defense that I would say, oh, that makes sense.
She said the investigation wouldn't start.
It started in 2023.
There was just no, there was just nothing coming of it, which, considering the evidence that we've been told exists, is odd.
Yeah, they need to look into that.
And look, she answered some of the hard questions, but I really do think, like, you've got to balance these things out.
You can't run guys' names through the mud and just...
Run away when something doesn't come to fruition.
There's no conviction or even facts come out that contradict your story.
Not in her case, but in these other cases.
So it's like, listen, I disagree with naming this person.
This person could be the worst person on the planet.
Could have child porn.
Could have raped children.
And I want this person to literally be buried under the jail, whether alive or dead, doesn't matter to me, if they did it.
If they did it.
If they did it.
No, 100%.
But if it's something where they were going through couples counseling and she had a thumbprint, she accessed readily available footage that wasn't deleted, that was security camera footage in a house where both of them were naked, and this is part of a rough breakup.
Look, the criticisms are legitimate because a lot of guys, you know, a lot more people who've gone through something like that than people who've been raped or have been subject to a roving rape group, which...
If it's true, awful.
Seems to defy some of the logic when you look at the timeline.
And I see why people are being critical.
I don't like the idea that women aren't believed.
That was a pushback.
That's just not true.
The exact opposite is the truth.
And I think that's a big reason that she came forward, because women are believed.
And this guy would have to be an idiot.
I'm sorry, you'd have to be an idiot if you're like, oh yeah, we're already going to couple therapy because things are rough?
Here's my phone with crotch shots.
Yeah.
That's bad.
I mean, listen, I'm not defending in any way the actions if they turn out to be 100% what she said.
Not at all.
In fact, the very opposite.
I'm questioning the methods.
Because the methods matter in this case.
It matters for all of us.
It matters for my three sons that I have going forward.
It matters how we handle this stuff as a society to make sure that women are protected, but also to make sure that men who have no recourse in these situations...
Don't lose everything over an allegation that is not true.
Do you think you'll ever have a sperm and egg that turns into a lady?
It's just men for you.
I do what I can, and apparently what I can is blonde-haired, blue-eyed, super tall.
Boy.
One of whom is a serial killer, without a doubt.
Not yet.
Yeah, well, every time I see him, he tries to kill me.
It's a rock.
It's a frying pan.
He has instincts.
I can't turn that off.
Jerry will be talking about, yeah, hold on, what?
He had a rock.
He was going to hit you over the head with it.
What?
What is he doing?
You guys comment.
Hey, let us know your thoughts here.
We want to be as balanced as possible.
Call balls and strikes.
Yeah, hey, if this is the case, awful.
If it's not the case...
And what the hell's going on in South Carolina that they're not getting to the bottom of this stuff that she's talking about?
Get it done.
Get it done.
Find out what the facts are and either dismiss it or go.
By the way, I also have a problem with the idea that you can simply make it on a federal level if there's no crime.
It's like, yeah, yeah, so it could turn out that there was no crime, but I can still sue you civilly.
And that can be a problem.
I mean, for example, OJ...
It's difficult.
OJ was not guilty.
And then he was guilty.
Love don't fit, you must acquit.
The two don't necessarily parallel.
And also, I do know that later, I do know that if you are not right now, download the Rumble app.
Whatever.
Click the Rumble.
What do you mean, whatever?
I was saying, well, because I realize we've gone late.
Yeah, we did.
Rumble Premium, you can click, you can join right there and continue.
We're going to go for another hour here on the show.
Hey, I think...
I keep getting this call.
I've been dismissing it.
Do you want to accept this call?
Really?
From who?
You know what?
Let me put it on.
Sorry.
Okay, that's weird.
Who's that?
Who's on?
Hello, Steven.
Oh, no.
Why?
Steven, as a guest on this show, it is my responsibility to ask you the following question.
Have you ever attempted to have sexual relations with a woman with or without consent?
We've gone over this, Representative Hirono.
No.
No better time than the present.
What?
Check your phone, Steven.
What?
Check your phone.
What even is that?
Turn it sideways.
Oh, God, no.
Come on, that's just...
Now you will never have that on me.
What are you talking...
I never had anything on you, Hirono.
I didn't even have these pictures ever until just now.
You're welcome.
Answer to FaceTime, Stephen.
No.
No, I'm not doing it, Senator.
I'm not hearing an answer to my FaceTime.
Tim, please cut it.
Please cut it right now.
Stephen, I'm holding...
No.
No!
We're going to talk about James Comey on Stephen Colbert.
I need to go take a shower.
Let's hit it.
It's a weird show when you have a big old black wiener on Piers Morgan's face and then Nick Corona shows up and Nancy Mays.
There's a theme.
Good show.
Let's make one more statement.
Real quick.
Sure.
And then we'll go to James Comey.
I know you want to get to James Comey.
James Comey, homie.
Hey, it's my homie, Comey.
What's up, fool?
Can I still be an informant?
86 that bro, come on.
Your governor needs kidnapping, bro.
8647 was my gang title.
That was my inmate number.
No, it's the last four of my social bro.
I had a tattoo on my neck like Dark Angel.
8,647 was the number of people I killed.
Oh, wow.
Man, that's a lot.
That's a high body count.
That's impressive.
What's your statement?
A lot of us had this thought yesterday when she put that out, Nancy Mace, where she basically said, like, hey, I'm going to show my naked body.
We have better footage of Bigfoot than what we saw yesterday in the hearing.
I'm not saying that that wasn't her, necessarily.
It was just, I think there was a lot made of this, and a lot of attention was grabbed by this.
A lot of times we talk about, especially with Dan Pongino and those guys, we've talked about stuff where it's like, listen, you've got to make sure you nail these wins.
When you go out and do stuff like that, when you say you're going to release the Epstein files, you've got to do that.
When you say you're going to turn the FBI into a museum on day one, you've got to do that.
Or don't say it, and then you're fine.
It's somewhat of a better proposition.
In this case, it was like, a lot was made of this, and then there's a lot of questions.
There's a lot of questions.
▲
Export Selection