Trump's torrent of covfefe has washed away squishy Republicans Bob Corker and Jeff Flake, and the Trump-as-liberal narrative takes another hit. Then, Hollywood culture and blogging icon Perez Hilton offers the inside scoop on Lalaland's downfall. Finally, Allie Stuckey, Erielle Davidson, and Emily Butler join the Panel of Deplorables to discuss an actress so desperate for attention that she accused 93-year-old wheelchair-bound former President George Bush of sexual assault for touching her tuccus, the latest details in Democrats' collusion with Russia, and the Las Vegas shooter's pedophile brother.
Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices
President Trump's torrent of covfefe has washed away squishy Republicans Bob Corker and Jeff Flake, and the Trump is not a conservative narrative takes another hit.
Then, Hollywood culture and blogging icon Perez Hilton offers the inside scoop on La La Land's downfall.
Finally, Allie Stuckey, Ariel Davidson, and Emily Butler join the panel of deplorables.
To discuss an actress so desperate for attention that she accused 93-year-old wheelchair-bound former President George Bush of sexual assault just for touching her tuchus.
The latest details in Democrats' collusion with Russia and the Las Vegas shooter's pedophile brother.
I'm Michael Knowles and this is The Michael Knowles Show.
What a great show we've got today.
We are going to bring on the OG blogger himself, Perez Hilton, in a second.
But first, we can't get to that yet because we have some good news.
We have a sponsor.
Someone is going to keep the lights on here.
This one is Helix Sleep.
They're going to allow us to bring you cool guys like Perez Hilton and tell all of these news stories and analyze all of the covfefe.
Helix Sleep is really good.
I feel like these have all been just falling out of heaven.
These are all very providential sponsors because if you've ever shopped for a mattress, you know it's like the worst experience on the face of the earth.
One, it's hard to find one that you like.
You can never find one that's really custom built to you.
It's very expensive.
You've got to go around to all these places.
Going into mattress stores is not my idea of a good time.
Probably it isn't yours either.
So, guess what?
One size fits all does not work in mattresses.
Helix Sleep offers something that does not exist.
Anywhere else.
There's no other company doing this.
It's a mattress personalized to your unique preferences and sleeping style that won't set you back thousands of dollars.
You can get a personalized mattress, but you're going to have to take out a second mortgage on your house usually.
This is not the case.
Helix is really good at this.
Go to helixsleep.com slash note.
excuse me, slash Knowles.
That's K-N-O-W-L-E-S.
You just go to helixsleep.com slash Knowles, take their two to three minute sleep quiz.
They will build you a custom mattress that will be the best thing that you have ever slept on.
Now for couples, this is really good.
I'm going to have to ask sweet little Elise about this.
They personalize each side of the mattress.
So I like a firmer mattress, Sweet little Lisa likes it to be like feathers floating on a cloud.
Helix Sleep will make one that fits you both.
You know, everyone's talking about it from GQ to Cosmopolitan, New York Times.
They're all talking about Helix.
Once you try it, you will know why.
Now, this is the part I really like.
Their custom mattress is just delivered to you completely free.
There's no shipping.
There's also no risk.
So if you go on there, you'll get a mattress custom made just for you, just for you and your partner, and then they'll deliver it for free.
You get to try it risk-free for 100 days.
If you don't like it, then you can just return it and there's no questions asked.
No, you don't need to...
Explain why you could feel the pee underneath your mattress, you know, or the little carrot or something.
If it's not perfect for you, then you can just send it right back.
So go to helixsleep.com slash Knowles, K-N-O-W-L-E-S, right now.
You'll get $50 toward your custom mattress.
That's helixsleep.com slash Knowles, K-N-O-W-L-E-S, just like my cousin Beyonce.
$50 off your custom mattress.
There's absolutely no risk whatsoever.
No shipping charges.
Plus, you can check out their mattress protector.
Maybe you check out their Helix Foundation.
I don't know.
Go there right now.
You won't regret that you did.
And try it out.
Okay.
Thank you to Helix.
Now we've got to bring on Perez Hilton.
Perez, man, thank you so much for being here.
Hello, happy to be here.
So for those of you, and unfortunately I can't hear Perez right now, so hopefully in the control room they'll figure that out.
Perez Hilton is the most prominent blogger in Hollywood history.
He doesn't need an introduction, but I'll give him one anyway.
Really, he was one of the first bloggers, period.
Certainly the biggest one out here in La La Land.
Now Hollywood is crumbling grope by grope, and we are lucky to have the number one expert on behind-the-scenes machinations.
Perez, my first question.
Is this the end for Hollywood?
I definitely don't think that everything that's happened as the result of this Harvey Weinstein scandal will very negatively impact Hollywood.
You know, Hollywood is a very forgiving town.
I don't think that he will be able to have a comeback.
What I do think will happen as a result of this is we as A world and a community here in Los Angeles are now creating a culture where we're letting women know that it is okay for them to speak out, that they will be supported, that they will be heard, understood, and believed.
Do you think, though—I mean, obviously people are pouring out.
There's this bandwagon now that Harvey Weinstein has been exposed, formerly the biggest guy in town.
Now he's being run out on a rail.
But is it just a bandwagon?
I mean, I notice people aren't naming a whole lot of other names right now.
Does that culture where you're afraid of— Of saying the wrong thing about the powerful people.
Does that still persist?
It's not even a casting couch.
It's way sleazier than a casting couch.
Is this just we kicked a guy while he was already falling out of power?
Or is the culture of Hollywood actually changing?
Well, I pay very close attention to everything happening, and I see the opposite happening.
I've seen, over the last couple of weeks, many other women and men come forward sharing their very personal stories about similar experiences.
You know, there was this very well-known Oscar-nominated director whom recently over 190 women came forward and said, He did all of these inappropriate things to me.
There was a Hollywood talent agent, a man, who was very inappropriate towards his male client and others in that world.
And on a smaller scale, things like this have been happening as well, not just in Hollywood, but in other industries as well.
I don't think this is a problem that is exclusive to show business.
It might not be exclusive.
it's certainly amplified even just because we're all watching it.
You know, I mean, this is an industry where the currency of the industry are people.
You know, when you cast or when you audition for a role, the product is you.
So obviously there's a natural intimacy where lines can be blurred.
But you do.
I mean, you pay as much attention to this place as anybody, probably much more.
Is there another shoe that's going to drop?
Are there other big players that are going to fall, other big institutions like the Weinstein Company?
Is this the end of this scandal, or is it only the beginning?
I definitely don't think it's the end of this scandal.
I think that there will continue to be developments along the way.
I mean, just today, there were reports that the Weinstein company may have to file for bankruptcy, reports which I should add they are denying.
But there have been reports and accusations against Harvey Weinstein's brother.
The Harvey-specific story is one that won't be going away anytime soon.
And the repercussions of that throughout show business, I think, will be continued to be felt for quite some time.
And, you know, I actually give you some credit for all of this.
Obviously, you started doing this over ten years ago, and you were the first big blogger and certainly the first big Hollywood blogger.
But you really shone a light in a way that other tabloids didn't really do.
I mean, you brought this kind of Hollywood scrutiny and microscope into the Internet age and obviously there's a lot of entertainment that goes along with that as well.
Do you take any of the credit or any of the responsibility for ripping open the veil that covered Hollywood for so long?
I would give credit first and foremost to Ashley Judd.
She was the first major player to speak on the record, to be fearless enough to put herself, her reputation and her career on the line in speaking to the New York Times because they had difficulty getting countless women to speak on the record and she did and she really let other women know it's okay to share your story.
It's funny.
You and I obviously probably have different political views.
But when you look, we on the right, we conservatives, we always like to make fun of crazy Hollywood actors and actresses saying wild political activist statements.
But then when you look at what some of these people have gone through in their professional lives, a lot of them since they were children, you get a little bit more empathy, I think.
And you say, you know, this is a pretty weird...
Town and weird profession.
And if it changes your mind and warps your vision of things, you know, there but for the grace of God go I, possibly.
Ashley Judd is an example because all of we conservatives made fun of her political statements for the last two years.
My last question for you, what's the next shoe to drop?
Where is this going, both the industry and obviously this particular issue of the sexual harassment and sexual assault?
I think that it remains to be seen.
I actually am a little bit pessimistic.
I don't know how much of a change it will have, just because By nature, there are bad people in this world.
And I do believe that this will continue to happen just because there are those that get a taste of power and let it get to their head and they will...
I mean, one of the other stories about Harvey Weinstein that also resonated to me wasn't that in addition to him sexually harassing all these women according to them, was that according to other women, he was such a bully that he would bully actresses allegedly to wear his wife Georgina Chapman's clothes.
She's a fashion designer.
You know, there will always be those bullies.
There will always be those higher ups that will treat people beneath them awfully in show business, in politics, across the board.
Well, politics is just show business for ugly people, as you know.
What?
You're right about the bullying, and you see it with, you know, a lot of my friends who are working at production houses or working for big agencies or whatever.
The stories you hear of, like, phones being thrown across the room and having to work 20 hours straight, it is really vicious.
And even more so than I think I've heard from my friends in other high-pressure fields like finance or maybe politics is the only analog.
Is it the...
Is it the narcissism?
Is it the vanity that comes along with show business and politics that makes these egos turn so monstrous?
No.
I think it's the fact that for so long, so many people could get away with so much.
So much was overlooked.
So much was accepted.
Oh, they just do that.
That's been going on like that forever.
Whereas a more corporate environment, a more traditional workplace environment, I would not accept and tolerate behavior that is accepted and tolerated in show business or politics.
There is a permissiveness, that's true.
You wouldn't get it in a lot of other industries where people are a little more grounded in, I make a widget and I sell a widget and then people buy a widget.
This, where you're creating the inner life of characters, you're casting people to go from nothing to have the heights of glamour and fame and power.
That is really corrupting, and it's hard to keep a rein on that.
And it remains to be seen if Hollywood will be able to institute any kind of culture of accountability.
I'm not very hopeful for it, but excellent, excellent analysis.
Perez, thank you for being on.
We've got to bring you back.
You're like the expert on all of these issues.
Thank you.
All right.
Thanks, pal.
We'll talk to you soon.
All righty.
Now we have got to get to the ugly people.
We were talking about how D.C. is just Hollywood for ugly people.
Now let's get to the ugly people.
Senator Jeff Flake will not be seeking reelection.
Here is his grandstanding, conscious of a conservative speech.
The principles that underlie our politics, the values of our founding, are too vital to our identity and to our survival to allow them to be compromised by the requirements of politics.
Because politics can make us silent when we should speak, and silence can equal complicity.
I have children and grandchildren to answer to, and so, Mr.
President, I will not be complicit or silent.
It is also clear to me for the moment that we have given in or given up on the core principles in favor of a more viscerally satisfying anger and resentment.
But anger and resentment are not a governing philosophy.
Let's be perfectly clear.
Jeff Flake is not seeking reelection because he would lose.
That's it.
He's played along with various aspects of the Republican Party and conservatism.
He's played along with Trump.
He's pilloried Trump.
Same thing with George W. Bush.
But the reason that he's not seeking reelection is not some grand moral gesture.
It's because he knows he's going to lose.
Same thing with Bob Corker.
These are two guys who have been very critical of Trump, perhaps recklessly critical of Trump, And they've been a little squishy on their votes.
They're not total liberals.
Some conservatives have said they're far lefties or something.
They're not.
They're just a little squishy.
Nevertheless, CNN is now reporting, quote, any other president would be facing an existential crisis after being accused by two pillars of his own party of debasing the nation.
They are not pillars of the party.
CNN just might not know that because CNN is fake news, obviously, as that video that we released the other day shows you.
So they are not pillars of the party.
They're trying to make a mountain out of a molehill, but certainly they can't.
Matt Latimer, former aide to Mitch McConnell, yes, that Mitch McConnell, the squishy establishment Republican Senate Majority Leader, said, quote, the traditional Republican Party has to decide if they're going to acquiesce to Trumpism or to rebel against it.
Right now, the majority of the base seems to be in favor of acquiescing.
There are very few willing to revolt right now.
What are you talking about?
One must know what part of the party you come from.
This is an aid to Mitch McConnell.
What is the revolt?
The Republican establishment has been giving Donald Trump grief, in many ways hysterical grief, in some ways deserved grief.
But in some ways, utterly ridiculous grief since he opened his mouth.
So, you know, whereas everyone has revolted against him, Trump has managed to outmaneuver all of them, and to pretty good effect, by the way.
We've gotten good stuff out of Donald Trump so far.
Massive deregulation, excellent judicial nominees, and an original Supreme Court justice, and a shift in the culture.
We're no longer talking about transgender bathrooms.
We're talking about jobs.
And on those cultural issues, he's been willing to wage a great cultural battle.
He's said, we need to respect our flag.
I'm not saying we're going to outlaw disrespecting the flag, but we should do it.
This is something we haven't heard in a long time.
People who have led the conservative movement for a long time, Brent Bozell at Media Research Center, have come out strongly against him.
Bozell said, quote, Flake can blame Trump all day long.
The truth is his voters wanted him out.
He was a disgrace.
Conservative Review gives him an F rating on Liberty.
Bozell went on, quote, Flake was our number one target in 2018.
Four America's Arizona members, that's his organization, 148,000 conservative boots on the ground were primed and ready to defeat him.
Obviously, he got that F rating from conservative review.
Heritage Action gave him only a 67%.
We should be a little fair to Flake.
He's very weak on immigration.
That's what accounts for most of those low scores.
He's got top scores on Right to Life and NRA. But you should consider the context of Flake's going rogue.
He waited to go rogue until he knew he couldn't win.
The last time he went rogue was 2006, and he lambasted his party.
It was right before the Democrats swept the country, and it's right when Republicans were at a really vulnerable and low point, and he jumped ship and started criticizing them, too.
Bob Corker also is a bit squishy.
He didn't want to repeal certain Obamacare taxes.
Heritage Action only gives him a 50 percent score.
Club for Growth only gives him an 80 percent score.
I know 80% sounds high, but Republicans need to be pro-growth.
It shouldn't be that low.
Conservative Review gives Corker a 47%.
The issue here, I don't think, is the vote.
You're pro-immigration.
You're anti-immigration.
It's the opportunism.
It's, you know, in Flake's case, seeming like you're trying to save your own skin rather than do the adult thing and risk your political reputation.
Risk looking at yourself in the mirror.
To affect good outcomes for the country.
Here is soon-to-be ex-Senator Bob Corker discussing Trump.
And among the comments you made is that you're concerned his comments, the president's comments, could put us on the path to World War III. Let me put it bluntly.
Left to his own devices, do you think the president is a threat to national security?
I think that there are people around him that work in an effort to contain him.
That would be Secretary Mattis and Tillerson and General Kelly there as Chief of Staff.
Well, that almost seems to accept the premise of the question.
If he needs to be contained?
I do think when you have the kind of issue we're dealing with in North Korea, where we have a very unstable leader there, when you send out tweets into the region to raise tensions, when you kneecap, which is what he's done publicly,
when you kneecap your Secretary of State, whose diplomacy you have to depend upon to really bring China to the table to do the things that need to be done, back-channeling in some cases to North Korea, When you kneecap that effort, you really move our country into a binary choice, which could lead to a world war.
Outrageous condescension from Bob Corker.
That's his answer.
He goes on NBC News, which is a communications wing of the Democratic Party, and he says, yeah, I'll tell you folks, I think that Donald Trump, he's going to get us into World War III, but he says it nice and slow, and he's nice and genteel and political, and isn't he so polite?
And he's accusing the president of getting us into World War III. When, by all accounts, Donald Trump's policy on North Korea is better than any of his predecessors.
Let's not forget, here's a little quick history lesson.
Bill Clinton allowed the Kim regime to get nuclear weapons.
George W. Bush was fighting another war, so he couldn't focus on that.
And Barack Obama used a strategy called strategic patience that got us absolutely nothing.
So Donald Trump, by all accounts, has handled this well.
But there's Bob Corker undercutting his own president, president from his own party, Well, we have the adults there to babysit Donald Trump in the White House.
Absolutely despicable.
And there's that loyalty question.
We've heard for a long time from Trump critics that Donald Trump, he's going to move the country left.
He's going to move the party left.
He's going to get rid of the conservatives.
He's going to sidle up to Democrats, fundamentally change the conservative movement.
It's not what I'm seeing.
I'm not seeing conservatives being primaried out.
I'm seeing squishy Republicans being primaried out.
And I'm seeing more conservative challengers coming in and trying to take their spots.
So I think that narrative has just fallen apart.
Let's not forget this other thing.
Politics is a team sport.
And you can showboat and you can go around and say, look at me, I'm Jeff Flake.
And all of you who are willing to actually accomplish any political good for the country, you guys are sellouts and you're immoral and it's awful what you're doing.
Well, look pal, what have you done for us?
What is all of your showboating getting us?
Perhaps it makes you feel better about yourself.
It makes you feel morally superior.
But in the meanwhile, the adults are going to go out and actually accomplish conservative and liberty-focused policy objectives for the country.
It hints at...
One thing I really don't like, which is I'm a Republican, but not that kind of Republican.
You hear this a lot from college kids.
I see it all the time.
Well, I'm a conservative, but I'm not one of those conservatives.
I don't support this.
I don't support that.
Please, New York Times, please like me.
Oh, Washington Post, please give me...
Give me approval.
And it's something we should avoid.
Who cares what those people think?
You've got to stick by your guys.
If, by the way, Donald Trump did something egregious and you wanted to stand up to him and say, this is moving the party in the wrong direction, we shouldn't do it, be my guest.
There could be some courage there.
But to try to undercut him on petty things like tweets or on his lack of couth, his general impoliteness, let's say, that is really despicable.
And you're putting your own image and your own public image above the good of the country.
Because, again, if Bob Corker is suggesting that Trump's handling of North Korea is awful for the country and we need to move away from it, look at the results that he's had.
He got that American student released.
He's the first one to really take a hard line with North Korea and apparently show some strength after three different presidents of both parties have basically ignored the issue.
So come on, guys, don't be a Republican, not that kind of Republican.
Stick by your guy.
F is for flake.
I'm glad to see this movement in the party and in the country.
But we're going to have to bring on our panel to see if everybody agrees on that.
And before we bring on our panel, we've got to thank our sponsor.
We've got to thank...
I can't believe...
I'm as shocked as anybody, I know Marshall's shocked, that someone is paying to keep this show on.
But the lights are on, the covfefe's in the mug, and that is in part thanks to Stamps.com.
Stamps.com is a really great company.
It's a really good business solution, too, because these days you can get anything you want on demand.
I'm a millennial.
I refuse to my chair, obviously.
I don't get out for anything.
I make people feed me grapes by the vines.
You don't have to go to the post office.
You don't have to wait in line.
Anything that you can do at the post office, you can do from stamps.com.
You can do it right from your desk.
You can buy and print official U.S. postage for any letter or package using your own computer and your own printer.
It never closes.
Me, I like to put things off.
I'm obviously writing my show three seconds before the on-air light goes on, and I never get to stores on time.
The post office closes.
Stamps.com is open 24-7.
Right now, if you use my code, and my code for Stamps.com is, of course, COVFEFE. That's C-O-V. F-E-F-E. You'll get a special offer.
You'll get a four-week trial that includes postage and a digital scale.
Why would you ever turn that down?
You've got to go there right now, really just for the novelty of typing stamps.com slash covefe, C-O-V-E-F-E. Do not wait.
Before you do anything else, when you get to stamps.com, Tap the microphone.
Oh, I'm sorry.
You have to tap the microphone.
So at Stamps.com, type in the code COFEFE. That's how they'll know that we sent you, and you will never go to the post office again.
All right, let's bring on our panel.
We have a very good panel today.
We have from Stanford, Ariel Davidson.
We have from the Blaze conservative millennial, Allie Stuckey.
And we have from the Daily Wire, Emily Butler.
Ladies, thank you for being here.
First question.
Thanks for having us.
I'll do a little round robin here, starting with Allie.
Are we happy that Fleck and Corker are gone?
Is this a good thing for the country and the party?
Yeah, I think absolutely.
And it's a very easy card for them to play the scapegoat card in which they say that they're laying down their political careers for the advancement of some kind of conservative principles.
I think we know, like you noted, that Blake doesn't actually represent any more very conservative principles.
He ran as a Republican and has actually ruled as a rhino.
He has betrayed his constituents when it comes to immigration and healthcare, and now he's trying to say that On no fault of his own, he is leaving his long tenure as a congressman, and it's just not true.
Jeff Flake is unpopular because he is an unpopular senator, has nothing to do with Trump.
Couldn't agree more.
Ariel, what do you think?
I agree with Ali, and I'm going to second it by saying I think there's this weird propensity within the Republican Party, especially to You know, we can agree or disagree about the content of Trump's tweet and what he chooses to talk about.
And the way he does it, I personally sometimes think they're inappropriate, but that's, you know, that's his own, that's his own decision.
I think far too often we see various members of Congress saying, look at what Trump tweeted.
And I say to myself, no, I'm more worried about what you're performing and what you're doing in Congress, which at this point is completely lame duck.
So I think it's become a convenient scapegoat for failing members of Congress, such as Flake and Corker, To turn to sort of Trump's tweets as something that they can fall on and, you know, earn them accolades on Good Morning America and they can conduct interviews.
I'm saying, no, I'm worried about your content and what you're producing as a member of Congress.
It's a little, it's like magicians do.
They hold their fingers over here.
They say, oh, look at the tweets.
Look at the tweets.
Don't look at my record.
Just look at the tweets.
It's a distraction.
It's ridiculous.
I mean, we waited seven years for repeal of Obamacare.
And now we have There's a time and a place for everything, and that place is college.
Emily, what do you think?
Is this a good thing?
And is this about political positions?
I think it's more about branding than it has anything to do with political positions.
Like Ali and Ariel just said, it's something to do with your own personal brand and clearly Corkers and Flakes brands are not doing well.
So this is kind of a last ditch effort to run in and save that brand and, you know, solidify that brand as one of the people against Donald Trump.
That being said, I also think that there is a smaller and smaller percentage of people who were part of the Never Trump crowd who are still against Trump.
And I think, personally, Trump's brand of conservatism works for now.
I think Trump is the president we need now.
I don't know if he is the president who's going to do the best justice for the Republican Party in the long term.
So I don't necessarily have a problem with fellow Republicans calling him out or attacking him on certain things.
I think that it gives President Trump an opportunity to respond in a more mature manner, especially.
I think every single attack on Trump gives him an opportunity to build his brand better or build his brand in a different way.
Of course.
And that president for now is a good point, because I think some people who are ideologues, especially on the left, but there are some ideologues on the right too, they say, well, everything needs to be Abraham Lincoln, basically.
Everything needs to be Abraham Lincoln.
But that isn't how politics really works.
In real politics, you have particular people doing particular things in a particular time and place.
And so, yeah, you might not need your plumber to live in your house with you, but sometimes you need the plumber to come over and fix the drain.
Ali, do you think that loyalty should be a real consideration in politics?
I know a lot of people, they want to say, well, you know, Trump is okay on this.
He's bad on this.
But he's not my guy.
I'll like him when I like him, and I won't like him when I won't like him.
Is there some team loyalty here, some partisan loyalty that we should give to Trump, that we should possibly give him a little raise?
Of course, I think that everyone on this panel would agree with this.
I think we all agree that loyalty to principle is much more important than loyalty to party, and certainly more than loyalty to any politician.
Because if you have a politician that challenges your priorities or your principles, Then you don't have to side and you shouldn't side with that politician.
Politicians change and fade.
We've seen that several times over the course of our history, but your principles essentially shouldn't.
But I don't think it's absolutely absurd for President Trump to ask for some sort of loyalty and for him to appreciate some sort of loyalty.
He's a businessman.
That's kind of how he has run his life and has run his several successful businesses.
I don't think that's absolutely absurd.
And I also think it's human nature.
I think anyone, whether in politics or not, appreciates some sense of loyalty.
What I don't really like, I don't mind the criticizing of Trump by any politician.
I think there's a way to do it tastefully and a way to do it in a way that is not necessarily capitalizing upon this whole anti-Trump resistance.
But when you see people like Corker and you see people like Blake, Blatantly telling lies, and like we said before, acting as scapegoats, not taking responsibility for their own actions and putting the blame on Trump, that's where we have a problem.
It's no longer honest criticism.
It is an inability to take responsibility for their own actions or inaction, and that's what I don't know.
And there's a great distinction you just made between criticizing Trump or being loyal to your principles and being loyal to the people.
Obviously, put not your faith in princes.
But I don't think the criticism of Trump is about principles.
I think the criticism of Trump is because he's uncouth and it isn't really nice to be associated with him when you're in polite, rarefied, elite company.
And so I think these guys are criticizing him over tweets.
And that, I don't think there's any reason to be doing that.
I think it's disloyal, counterproductive.
It puts your own polished image above the good of the country.
Sure, if Donald Trump suddenly wants to raise taxes and says that we need to have an annual or a nightly burning of the American flag at every home in the country, yeah, okay, maybe we should disagree with him and criticize him there.
But I have a point of position with that.
So some of the criticism hasn't only, okay, maybe with Blake and Corker, maybe some of that has been mostly tweet based.
But we have, for example, Sasse has criticized President Trump on threatening to revoke the licenses in the media, whatever that means.
I don't think that means anything.
And so there are some matters of principle that I think some conservatives are calling him out on.
And I don't think that we can fault them for that.
I do think if he were to actually revoke NBC's license, that might be a problem.
But Scott Adams had a great article in the Wall Street Journal the other day about how what Trump does, what he's doing when he's tweeting these sort of things, is he's getting you to go so far that you're already accepting his premises.
So when he's saying maybe we should repeal NBC's licenses, what he's really doing is getting you to accept the premise that NBC is corrupt and a hack for Democrats and presents fake news.
And so I don't know.
I mean, maybe it goes a little too far.
Maybe Scott protests too much.
But I'm really compelled by his theory.
And yeah, if Donald Trump starts shutting down press offices, I think it might be fair enough to criticize him.
Okay, I want to keep talking with my excellent and beautiful and lovely all-female panel of deplorables.
I want you to watch it too, but you can't watch the rest of it unless you go over to dailywire.com.
I want to thank everybody who subscribes already.
It keeps all of my excellent panel filled, my covfefe tears tumbler and leftist tears tumbler filled to the brim, and the light's on in our studios.
If you haven't subscribed, go to dailywire.com right now.
It is $10 a month, $100 for an annual membership.
You get me, you'll get the Andrew Klavan show, you get the Ben Shapiro show, blah, blah, blah.
Here it is.
This is what you get.
The Leftist Tears Tumblr.
What's it made of today, Michael?
This is made of a metal so strong, so powerful, that scientists are afraid to even utter its name for fear of its strength and majesty.
Go to thedailywire.com right now.
You get the Leftist Tears Tumblr.
We've got a lot of excellent vintages pouring out.
Dailywire.com.
We'll be right back.
I'm taking the glasses off.
I'm going to get a little more comfortable for this members-only part of the show.
We need to talk about actress Heather Lind.
Actress Heather Lind.
Never heard of her.
I hadn't either.
But she is now accusing 93-year-old wheelchair-bound vascular Parkinsonism suffering former Republican President George Bush of sexually assaulting her because he allegedly got a little handsy and told her a joke during a photo op.
To put this in context, the pinned tweet on her profile compares Antifa to U.S. soldiers landing at Normandy.
So that gives you a little idea of her ideological background.
Ariel, has this woman no shame?
You know, I think that the one thing that struck me is, first of all, you know, President George H.W. Bush is in a wheelchair.
So just from a pure positioning standpoint of taking a picture, I can imagine he might be in an uncomfortable spot to begin with.
I know sometimes when I think of, you know, gentlemen who are 70 years and older, sometimes they make jokes to connect with younger people and it's a little uncomfortable at times because your sense of humor might just be different.
You know, I'm not trying to minimize any traumas you might have experienced, but I think it's a stretch.
I'm sure it was real traumatic.
I'm sure.
I can imagine.
It's a complete stretch to say that this is, you know, sexual assault.
And I think it also denigrates real, you know, situations that have been discussed under the Me Too hashtag, situations in which women...
We're violently taken advantage of and taken advantage of in completely inappropriate contexts.
And then you have this woman saying, oh, you know, I had an inappropriate joke told and there might have been some uncomfortable touching during the picture quickly.
And I'm thinking this really sort of subtracts from the message that there are women actually out there who are using this platform to discuss Horrific assaults that have taken place.
I made that point in a piece the other day, that it really, it disrespects the victims of the real assaults, I think, that whole Me Too hashtag.
Emily, what do you think about this?
This is not a terribly prominent actress.
She doesn't have a lot of Twitter followers, I learned when I went and looked over her today.
Is this evidence, as Ariel suggests, that Me Too is a navel-gazing enterprise that isn't terribly concerned with actual victims of sexual assault and rape?
Well, you know, I think the hashtag MeToo has probably started in good conscience trying to rally women together to, almost like as Perez said, create a culture that it's okay to speak out.
It's okay to say that this isn't okay.
This behavior is not okay.
And I do think that that goes even beyond rape.
Like, I think that there are inappropriate ways that men talk to women or jokes that men think are funny that maybe are not funny.
I think the...
Staggering, you know, just absolute ability to put it on Instagram.
You're not making an official complaint.
You're not making an allegation.
You're not asking for an arrest.
You're just asking for attention.
And this staggering, like, what is the word?
Conceit.
Vanity in all senses of that word.
Yeah, the vanity, thank you.
The person who's claiming to be a victim here is really just seeking for this attention when all of these other victims need some kind of, like...
I do want to say, like, I think that this is an exact example of how this hashtag goes wrong, basically.
I think that...
Yeah, go ahead, Emily.
No, go ahead, Ariel.
No, you go ahead, Allie.
Oh, go ahead.
You go ahead, Marshall.
I actually do want to hear from Allie on this.
Allie, do you think that – I don't want to be considered insensitive here.
And I forget the author, but there was an excellent writer out of Heritage Foundation who wrote a piece saying, I was roofied by a stranger.
I'm a conservative.
Her name is escaping me in the moment.
But it was a really good piece.
Basically giving the other side of this argument.
Does Me Too, does it trivialize rape?
Does this woman accusing a man who can't move of sexually assaulting her, does that trivialize rape or is it an important conversation that we ought to be having?
Well, it trivializes sexual assault of all kinds.
And as has already been mentioned, sexual assault actually encompasses more than just rape.
But I want to go back to something that you said, this guy that can't move.
And Ariel mentioned this too.
So just logistically, I mean, he was 90 years old when this happened.
This was three years ago.
He was 90 years old.
It would take the guy probably 30 minutes to even reach for this girl.
So what's happening in that time?
That's the mystery that I want to solve.
Is she just letting this happen?
And the article doesn't specify that he actually touched her anywhere inappropriately since he touched her from behind, which is kind of typical in pictures.
So for all we know, he could have touched her ankle.
He could have touched her upper back.
And yeah, he's a grandpa.
Like Ariel said, he might have told an awkward joke.
But the fact that she is jumping on this trend, this is what happens.
During bandwagon syndrome and when sexual assault becomes trendy, we try to go back in the recesses of our mind and scour our memories to try to find something that maybe relates to this hashtag so we can jump on it too.
And that's exactly what she did.
And you know what?
She was embarrassed after she did it.
She knew she trivialized instances of actual sexual assault because she took it down.
And she should have.
It's embarrassing.
A 90-year-old man touched you, maybe somewhat inappropriately, maybe made a funny joke, his wife rolled his eyes, and now three years later you're so disturbed by it that, coincidentally, you are just going to release this harrowing tale at the same time that a hashtag is trending.
Wow.
And that's a great observation.
She never actually says that he touched her tuchus.
That's what I assumed she meant when she said he touched me from behind.
That's what I want you to assume.
Right, but she never said that.
That's true.
He could have touched wherever and made an awkward joke, and now it's a federal case.
Now, this story—all right, we'll move off of President Bush and the tuchus touching and all of that.
This story is genuinely shocking.
The Washington Post broke an actual news story.
We could talk about that in and of itself, but maybe we'll get into the actual story they broke.
The Washington Post broke the story on Tuesday night that the Hillary Clinton campaign and the Democrat National Committee helped pay for the now-famous dossier of research on President Trump, you know, with the hookers and the bodily fluids flying everywhere.
That dossier was paid for by Democrats.
Now, Fusion GPS is the organization that's at the center of all this.
It's a research firm.
That hired Christopher Steele, a former British intelligence agent who was versed in Russia-related issues.
This means that Democrats paid a foreigner to interfere in the election, which is an irony that transcends parody.
They have been accusing Donald Trump of doing this for 11 months.
Turns out we now have hard evidence that they did it.
Also, Fusion has ties to the Kremlin.
So Fusion GPS, the firm that they enlisted, has ties to Vladimir Putin.
It even worked with the Russian lawyers who were present during that big Donald Trump Jr.
meeting that they're trying to hype up and make a big deal over.
The Democrats have not acknowledged any of this, but even their communications firm, the Washington Post, had to admit it in this story.
Ariel.
Are Democrats going to be sorry that they called for this special counsel to analyze foreign interference in the election?
I think they will be.
The one thing I wanted to add, too, is that one of my favorite parts about the DNC releasing a statement was that their current leadership had no involvement.
I'm like, okay, great.
I can't even remember.
I think Tom Perez and Keith Ellison were put into power within the last two years.
So that's not a very large timeframe.
But I'm great they aren't responsible.
That's wonderful.
I'm glad to hear that.
I think what struck me as sort of fascinating, and I think, you know, if you go back to Donald Trump's tweets, going back to his tweets, he actually had a tweet a few days ago before all this was released saying, You know, I wonder who paid for the dossier.
Was it the FBI? Was it the DNC? Was it the Clintons?
And you should see all the responses, people saying, shut up, you're wrong, all of this stuff.
And so I took actually sweet satisfaction from realizing that, you know, Donald Trump was actually correct.
That this stinks to high heaven.
This entire affair stinks to high heaven.
And this is one of the few times that I would like to see more media personalities saying, you know what?
Trump was actually correct here.
And this is one of those times where I don't think he's really getting much credit for that.
What they're going to say, Ariel, they're always going to say, well, accidentally he was right.
Well, yeah, I guess coincidentally he was right.
But he wasn't supposed to be right, and we don't want him to be right, so I don't want to admit it.
But the guy's been coincidentally right a lot, consistently.
Yeah, he has.
So, like I said, I think the Democrats will regret this, as you suggested, and I think we'll start to see this goes a lot deeper than we initially anticipated.
And all the rhetoric they put out there about how Trump was influencing the election and hiring foreign agents to do so, to have this fit back in their face, it's disturbing, but it's also, for all the rhetoric they put out, we kind of deserve it at this point.
The, as you bring up, Trump called this a while ago, the Fusion GPS story has been, popped up months ago.
A buddy of mine who works in a completely unrelated industry, I think he sent me an email about this on July 27th or something, in late July, saying, hey, what's up with Fusion GPS? Emily, why are the media only picking up on it now?
You mean you're asking me why the media dragged its feet in vindicating President Donald Trump?
Yeah, I've just been scratching my head, you know?
I know.
It's a question I'm trying to figure out, too.
Like, why do fish swim?
You know, like, why does the sun shine?
Yeah, I think it's the gills.
I'm not too sure how that works.
Well, obviously, I mean, I don't think the media, even if they have the resources to go in and do investigative reporting and figure out actually the truth, they're not going to send those resources out to the opposite party, out to the political enemy.
They want to do everything they can to cover up, to silence, to, you know, prop up the DNC, to prop up the Clintons.
This is, you know, right during all of what happened.
Well, what did happen, Hillary?
What happened?
Here, what happened in the Clinton campaign?
Like, whatever happened?
The media's never going to ask those questions.
They're going to ask Hillary how she feels, how she feels about losing, how she feels about everything, how she feels about, well, you know, not about being married to Bill Clinton or a rapist, but, you know, those are questions that the media does not ask.
You're talking about my cousin now, thank you very much.
Now, I agree entirely.
Ali, President Trump said on this Russia issue, quote, Now it's turning out that the hoax is turned around.
Is that right?
Is this whole Russian narrative just being flipped on its head?
Well, I certainly hope so.
That would be a great Halloween vengeance surprise for Republicans, certainly.
I don't know if it's being necessarily turned around completely.
I do think that we are going to see Democrats swept up in it.
And like you said, they're probably going to regret appointing a special counsel.
But for those of us who actually care about seeing the truth, whether it's one side or the other, I think this is great.
Even if people from both sides of the aisle are kind of unfortunately involved in this whole collusion scandal, or if no one is.
I'm just ready to see the truth.
I think most American people are ready to see the truth, actually want to know what's real versus what's a narrative.
And so I'm just glad that maybe we're going to have people now on both sides of the aisle ready to see the conclusion of all of this.
You want the truth?
I can't handle the truth.
I can't take any more.
There have just been too many truth bombs today.
I wanted to talk about the Las Vegas shooter, the shooter's brother's weird kiddie porn fascination and why he's been arrested.
But we don't have time.
That's alright.
We'll save the kiddie porn for next time.
That is our show panel.
Thank you for being here.
An all-blonde, all-female, all-expert panel of deplorables.
Allie Stuckey, Emily Butler, and Ariel Davidson.
I am Michael Knowles.
This is The Michael Knowles Show.
Come back tomorrow.
Get your mailbag questions in now so that I can change your life for the better.
