All Episodes
Previous Next
March 27, 2019 - The Michael Knowles Show
43:47
Ep. 321 - The Search For Jussie’s ‘Real’ Attackers

Crooked Cook County drops charges against Jussie Smollett, AOC encourages senators not to vote for the legislation she wrote and they co-sponsored, and David Brooks draws a moral equivalence between Russia hoaxers and the Russia hoaxed in the New York Times. Date: 03-27-2019 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Cook County prosecutors abruptly and bewilderingly drop all charges against hate crime hoaxer Jussie Smollett, who now, like OJ, will no doubt go on the hunt for the real attackers.
We analyze how this miscarriage of justice happened.
Then, speaking of fakers, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez encourages her Democrat colleagues not to vote for the Green New Deal.
And finally, David Brooks Draws a moral equivalence between Russia hoaxers and the Russia hoaxed in the New York Times.
I'm Michael Knowles, and this is The Michael Knowles Show.
The hoaxes strike back today, Jim.
Jussie Smollett, the Green New Deal, even Russia, they're all striking back.
Fantasy is trying to reassert itself against reality.
Let's see how that works.
But first, let's make a little money, honey, with Mint Mobile.
There are a lot of things in life that aren't right.
Carpet in showers?
Eating dip with your fingers?
Paying too much for your phone bill?
Those things are not right at all.
Thanks to Mint Mobile, you don't have to overpay for wireless anymore.
With Mint Mobile, you can cut your wireless bill down to just $15 a month.
They've reimagined wireless making it easy and online only, which means they can pass the savings on directly to you.
You can save over $1,000 a year with Mint Mobile without sacrificing quality service.
$15 a month means $15 a month.
How do they do it?
It's because right now you are overpaying for unlimited internet and data that you're never going to use, and they are gouging you for this to say nothing of all those hidden fees.
With Mint Mobile, you choose between plans that have 3, 8, or 12 gigabytes of 4G LTE data, and you stop paying for unlimited data you'll never use.
If you're not 100% satisfied, Mint Mobile has you covered with their 7-day money-back guarantee.
Ditch your old wireless bill.
Start paying a fraction without sacrificing quality service with Mint Mobile.
Get your new wireless plan for just $15 a month.
Get the plan shipped to your door for free.
Go to mintmobile.com.
K-N-O-W-L-E-S. That's mintmobile.com slash Knowles.
K-N-O-W-L-E-S. Cut your wireless bill down to $15 a month and get free shipping on your Mint Mobile plan at mintmobile.com slash Knowles.
The empire strikes back.
The hoaxers strike back.
Jussie Smollett walks free.
A true miscarriage of justice.
I gotta tell you something, folks.
I'm starting to have a little hunch that maybe Chicago is corrupt.
I don't want to be telling tales out of school.
I don't want to be running my mouth if that isn't true.
But I'm just, I don't know what it is.
Something about Chicago just doesn't seem quite right.
And so now Cook County prosecutors over there have dropped all charges against friend of the Obamas, Jussie Smollett.
Guy who smiles in photos with the Obamas, Jesse Smollett, who also comes from Chicago.
Now, what are the terms of this?
He has to surrender his bond.
So, when he was arrested, he posts a $10,000 bond.
And he has to do 16 hours of community service.
So, less than one day of community service.
And he surrenders his bond, and then he goes free.
This is what the state attorney said.
Quote, We looked at all the facts and circumstances of the case, the resources that we have, our priority of addressing violent crime, Smollett's criminal background, his lack of criminal background.
He didn't have any felonies or violent felonies in his background.
Based on all those facts and circumstances, this was a just outcome in the case.
Here's what Jussie Smollett says about it.
First of all, I want to thank my family, my friends, the incredible people of Chicago and all over the country and the world who have prayed for me, who have supported me, who have shown me so much love.
No one will ever know how much that has meant to me, and I will forever be grateful.
I want you to know that not for a moment...
Was it in vain?
I've been truthful and consistent on every single level since day one.
I would not be my mother's son if I was capable of one drop of what I've been accused of.
This has been an incredibly difficult time.
Honestly, one of the worst of my entire life.
But I'm a man of faith and I'm a man that has knowledge of my history and I would not bring my family, our lives, or the movement through a fire like this.
I just wouldn't.
So I want to thank my legal counsel from the bottom of my heart.
And I would also like to thank the state of Illinois for attempting to do what's right.
Now I'd like nothing more than to just get back to work and move on with my life.
But make no mistakes, I will always continue to fight for the justice, equality and betterment of marginalized people everywhere.
So again, thank you for all the support.
Thank you for faith and thank you to God.
Bless y'all.
Thank you very much.
Where to begin?
He says he's been truthful since day one of this whole ordeal.
If he's been truthful, why does he have to surrender his $10,000 bond and do community service?
If he's done nothing wrong, why does he still have to be punished?
I mean, look, there are so many reasons here why it's obvious that the guy did it, but Just in the first place, if he actually were innocent, I mean, if he actually were innocent, you wouldn't have signed checks from him paying off the people who attacked him.
You wouldn't have him getting caught in obvious lies.
You wouldn't have had any of this.
But even if that were the, let's say he actually were innocent, then he would go out there and say, this is a miscarriage of justice.
I'm not surrendering my $10,000 bond.
I'm not doing community service because I did nothing wrong.
And I'm going to fight hard.
Of course he doesn't do that.
Because this was a crooked deal, and he got let off the hook because he's a famous rich guy, because Chicago is super-duper corrupt, and because he plays the racial and sexual victim.
And so he gets let off the hook.
And it's just the arrogance.
I guess he's pretty good on that show, Empire, but he's giving a terrible performance here.
He gave a terrible performance on TV when he was first being interviewed about the attack.
He says, I would never do this.
I would not be my mother's son.
Well, I don't know.
I guess it's a wise man who knows his own parents or something because this guy obviously did it.
And then I would never let the movement down like that.
What movement?
What movement are you letting...
I don't even know.
I don't know.
Because he plays the victim as a gay guy.
He plays the victim as a black guy.
He plays the victim probably as an actor, the most oppressed group of people of all.
And yet he did it.
He's obviously guilty.
And what's so awful about this is the state attorney's office While forcing him to take this punishment is, in a sense, forcing him to acknowledge guilt.
But they're not explicitly forcing him to acknowledge guilt.
So he gets to go out there and say, I'm perfectly innocent.
Here's my $10,000.
Yeah, I'll do community service for some corrupt organization.
But okay, there you go.
There you go.
Doesn't even have to acknowledge it.
You know this is bad because...
Even left-wing former Chief of Staff to Barack Obama, Mayor of Chicago, Rahm Emanuel, is coming out strong against these actions.
Where is the accountability in the system?
You cannot have, because of a person's position, one set of rules apply to them, and another set of rules apply to everybody else.
In another way, you're seeing this play out in the universities, where people pay extra to get their kids a special position in universities.
Now you have a person, because of their position and background, who's getting treated in a way that nobody else would ever, sorry about that, don't get near my sermon here, that would ever get close to this type of treatment.
He makes a good point, but what he's doing is relating this to the injustice in that university scandal.
Saying there's one set of rules for rich, famous people, and there's another set of rules for everybody else.
But you even see this in the relation to the Russia hoax.
Because the hoaxers are unrepentant.
This is the problem.
I mean, this is why conservatives, once we finish celebrating that this two-year narrative from Democrats completely fell apart over the weekend, now we're a little bit angry.
Because you've got people who have been pushing this lie for two years.
They're unrepentant.
Say, no, yeah, no, never mind.
La, la, la.
Don't care about reality.
La, la, la.
I didn't do it.
I would never do this.
La, la.
Two giant Nigerian anti-black racists that I'm friends with and that I paid thousands of dollars to attack me because I'm a black gay guy.
La, la, la, la, la, la, la.
That's what they're doing.
It's Russian collusion all over again.
And the question is, how is this going to be remembered?
At least Rahm Emanuel comes out there.
At least Rahm Emanuel says this is a miscarriage of justice.
But how is already this is being spun by CNN, by people who watch CNN, which I guess is just sort of people walking through airports, but by people who read the New York Times, by people who pay attention to the mainstream media, by people who are listening to gossip mills on social media.
They're saying, gosh, well, I guess Jussie didn't do it.
They let him off the hook.
I guess he didn't do it.
Even Wolf Blitzer on CNN is saying, well, come on.
I mean, maybe he didn't do it.
And Rahm Emanuel goes on CNN just so that no one thinks he's mincing words and lays it out in excellent detail.
Let me ask you this, Mayor.
Was the full picture painted by the evidence perhaps not as compelling as what was presented to the grand jury?
It was compelling enough.
Wait a second.
The evidence presented to the grand jury is what brought the charges.
But did new questions arise in the subsequent weeks from more evidence that might be out there?
That's not what the state's attorney just said today.
They said, in fact, the police did a good job, and the evidence holds up, and he actually did commit the hoax.
They're saying $10,000 and two days of community service is good enough.
And I don't believe, not only is it not good enough, especially when he's walking around thinking that he is actually innocent, not guilty, and B, he's innocent not only legally, And a criminal justice sentence?
He is also guilty, in my view, of a moral crime, which is to use the hate crimes to advance his own career for selfish reasons.
And that, to me, is where there's a moral violation and a rip.
Because he went out and spoke on ABC to the country.
He was an African-American and a gay man about being a victim of a crime.
And then what comes forward, and what we actually now know to be the case, and even the state's attorney today acknowledge, is the fact that that was all a hoax.
He says it very well.
Rahm Emanuel, a smart guy.
He's a partisan.
He's a Democrat.
He is what he is, but he's making a clear point here.
And so you have to ask yourself, why...
Is Rahm doing this?
I mean, Rahm is as much a party man as anybody else.
He worked for the Clintons.
He worked for Obama.
He's the mayor of Chicago, the most corrupt Democrat city in the country.
So why is he coming out so strongly against this intersectional example of politics?
Why is he coming out so strongly against this hoax?
He's doing it because it's so...
He's doing it because it's indefensible.
If it were defensible and it would help him, he would probably defend it.
But it's indefensible.
It's pure corruption.
And Rahm Emanuel doesn't want to be lumped in with this.
If the Cook County prosecutors want to debase themselves, I mean, I don't know if it's possible even to do that to people who are so degraded as Cook County prosecutors.
But He doesn't want to be lumped in with them.
He has national ambitions.
This guy wants to run for president.
He doesn't want to be a part of this.
Even the Chicago Tribune says that this is indefensible.
They write, quote, It's an indefensible decision, a deal hashed out in secret with, this is outrageous, Smollett not even required to take ownership of his apparent hoax.
It is outrageous.
We know that.
But why else?
Why else are these people coming out against it?
Why else is maybe this not over?
You've got the empire actor strikes back.
You've got the fantasy striking back against reality.
But Jesse Smollett might still face federal charges.
Because actually, the more serious crime than faking this 3 a.m.
during a polar vortex, carrying a subway salad, getting attacked by anti-black Nigerians, wearing MAGA hats or whatever nonsense he pretended happened, hoax.
More egregious than that is that he sent a hate letter to himself and reported this as a hate crime and as a threat.
That's a federal matter.
That's not up to Cook County prosecutors.
That's not up to Chicago.
That's not up to whatever corrupt machine Jussie Smollett has access to.
That's up to the feds.
Something tells me that the federal government is not going to take too kindly to this.
They might take a harsher approach than these crooked prosecutors.
Something tells me, Jussie Smollett, we have not heard the last of him.
And so, now the question is, is he going to go back to Empire?
Empire, of course, wants him back.
They've got this plausibility in defending him now.
He's gotten a lot of attention.
The ratings will increase, so they kind of want him back.
Apparently, the cast is split on this.
Half of them think that he did it, and half of them are idiots.
Right?
I guess that's the breakdown.
And so they're kind of split.
They don't know what's going to happen.
Empire would be very unwise to take this guy back.
They would be wise in the short term because they'll get better ratings.
They'd be very unwise in the long term because this federal matter isn't over.
And doing 16 hours of community service for some fake, bogus, crooked organization in Chicago and surrendering a $10,000 bond ain't going to cut it there.
And the hoax is going to reassert itself.
We've got to get to the Green New Deal, speaking of hoaxes, but first, let's make a little money, honey, with bowl and branch.
Bowl and branch.
Oh, you know, I've been on the road a lot over the last few weeks going to do campus speeches, and all I dream about when I'm able to fall asleep on the road is just getting back to my bowl and branch sheets.
Oh, how I love them.
They feel so much better than everything that I had slept on for my previous bachelor days.
You don't need...
To take sleeping pills you don't need.
If you want a good night's sleep, you just need to change your sheets.
That's why you should check out Bowl& Branch.
Everything they make from bedding to blankets is made from pure 100% organic cotton, which means they start out super soft and they get even softer over time.
You can buy directly from them, so you're essentially paying wholesale prices.
Luxury sheets can cost up to $1,000 in the store, but Bowlin Branch sheets, just a couple hundred bucks.
Everyone who tries Bowlin Branch sheets loves them.
That's why they have thousands of five-star reviews.
Forbes, Wall Street Journal, Fast Company are all talking about them.
Even three U.S. presidents sleep on Bowlin Branch sheets.
Shipping is free.
You can try them for 30 nights.
If you don't love them, send them back for a refund.
But I doubt that you'll want to send them back.
There's no risk, no reason not to give them a try.
Right now, my listeners will get $50 off your first set of sheets at bowlinbranch.com.
Promo code Michael, M-I-C-H-A-E-L.
Do it.
You will not regret it.
These things are fabulous.
Bowlinbranch.com for $50 off your first set of sheets.
B-O-L-L and Branch.com promo code Michael.
BollandBranch.com promo code Michael.
We got another hoax.
Not just Jussie Smollett.
We've got the Green New Deal hoax.
So, you know, Cocaine Mitch, master of the Senate, comes back and schedules a vote for the Green New Deal yesterday.
He schedules this vote and...
AOC, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, wrote the draft legislation.
All of the Democrats in the Senate who are running for president didn't just endorse it.
They co-sponsored that legislation.
They co-sponsored this Green New Deal.
So Mitch McConnell said, okay, let's vote on it.
You're all co-sponsoring it.
Let's vote on the Green New Deal.
And they went nuts.
Do you know how many Democrats voted for it?
Zero.
Zero Democrats vote.
Now, they couldn't vote no on it either, because then they would be totally exposed as hypocrites and frauds.
So instead, what they did, at Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez's encouragement, is they voted present.
They didn't vote for the legislation that she wrote and they all co-sponsored.
Here is Maisie Hirono, senator from Hawaii, senatrix from Hawaii, on the Judiciary Committee, trying to explain this bewildering action to MSNBC. On the Green New Deal, there was a procedural motion today.
Why did so many Democrats vote present on it instead of voting yes for it?
Because this was just a sham so-called debate by Mitch McConnell.
He wanted to divide the Democrats.
And the bottom line is that the Green New Deal is an aspirational document that says we recognize the science behind climate change, unlike Trump and the Republicans and all of the climate deniers who want to stick their heads in the sand.
Well, and this and that, and look, is that a butterfly?
And hey, look over there, right?
It's just a Maisie Hirono-shaped hole in the wall.
She's trying to change the subject so much.
Just to clear up, though, what she said, is she was supposed to answer the question, why did you not vote for this?
What happened yesterday in the Senate was there was a vote for the legislation.
And Maisie Hirono said, this is a sham.
This is not a debate.
Right, it's not a debate.
That lady on MSNBC didn't ask you about a debate because there wasn't a debate yesterday.
It was a vote.
Why do you want a debate?
The reason that you have a debate, AOC said this too.
She said there were no committees, there were no debates.
The reason you would have a debate is if someone proposes legislation and then someone objects to voting on that legislation.
You need the objection there to have the debate.
It would be like me saying, I go up to the candy shop and I say, okay, I want a piece of fudge, I want a piece of taffy, and I want a bar of chocolate.
And the person says, okay, here you go.
I say, what, you're not even going to debate me?
No, sir, you asked for those things and now I'm giving them to you.
Yeah, but you're not even going to have a committee to debate?
Come on, that's a sham!
Sir, you asked me very explicitly for something.
You told me exactly what you wanted, and now I'm offering it to you.
Why won't you take it?
Because I want a debate!
And a committee!
Obviously, that's the sham.
This was Mitch McConnell's brilliance.
Because, of course, for so much in the Senate, you know, one side wants something, the other side says, no, I won't give you that, and then they get into a negotiation, and they try to come to some compromise.
But on this, the Green New Deal is so absurd on its face, it's so impossible.
$93 trillion, destroys every building in the entire country within 10 years, and then rebuilds all of them, eliminates 88% of the American energy industry, gets rid of planes, trains, and automobiles, totally...
Upends.
Gets rid of most of our political liberty.
Institutes socialized medicine 100%.
Institutes a universal basic income.
It's all of these crazy things.
It's such a joke that the Democrats propose it.
They co-sponsor it.
They say we're in 100%.
And then Mitch McConnell says, cool.
Aren't you going to debate me?
Nope.
No, let's just vote on it.
But we need committees.
No, we don't.
No, you, okay, you made your case.
We will not oppose what you're doing.
We won't call for a debate.
There you go.
You're the dog that caught the car.
You're going to vote for it?
And then they don't, because they don't mean it, because they're hoaxers.
So now Maisie Hirono has to answer for the indefensible, and she just tries to change the subject.
And make believe that climate change is not happening and all of the growing number of natural disasters that are taking people's lives and costing our cities, our businesses, our people billions of dollars, which, by the way,
even as we speak, we are going to be dealing with the disaster relief package because of all of these many, many disasters, natural disasters that are hitting us more frequently and with greater Okay, so your thesis is, we're having all of these natural disasters that are happening really, really frequently.
We'll examine whether that's true or not in a little bit.
And all of these natural disasters are being caused by global warming.
We'll examine that in a little bit.
But okay, those are your premises.
And therefore, we're not going to vote to stop global warming.
That's it.
Everything's going horribly because of global warming.
Therefore, we're not going to vote to stop global warming.
And then she starts talking about a disaster relief package, which is a different piece of legislation.
But we're not asking you about that piece of legislation.
We're asking you about the central piece of legislation that all of you guys are co-sponsoring that you then didn't vote for.
Very difficult to defend that.
The other point she's making here, though, is she's saying we're having all of these natural disasters because of climate change.
Now, it's so funny, because when Amy Klobuchar goes out and announces her presidential campaign, and she says, the central pillar of my campaign is going to be global warming and fighting global warming, and she's standing in five feet of snow, and she's got snow pouring down all over her head, and then Donald Trump points out, he says, it's kind of funny to be talking about global warming while you're covered up to your head in snow.
What does the left say?
The left says, but weather isn't climate.
You can't point to weather events and say that they're evidence of climate change or not evidence of climate change.
Okay.
All right.
Okay.
I accept that premise.
Except you only do that when it's convenient for you.
The minute that you can point to some disaster, you say, that was caused by global warming.
Amy Klobuchar getting covered in snow while she's declaring her president, that's not global warming, but that is global warming.
Everything that's convenient for me is global warming, and everything that's inconvenient for me is not global warming.
Weather is not climate, except when it's convenient for Democrats.
And then, you know, honestly, MSNBC... Is being honest.
For a little bit.
I never use the words honestly in MSNBC in the same sentence, but they are being slightly honest here.
They are pushing her.
They're saying, why wouldn't you vote for it, though?
And she stammers and stammers.
But it's not an argument that you just made to vote yes for it.
I mean, McConnell may be trying to make it a show vote, but if you signed on to this, you're one of the co-authors of it.
If you believe that this is something that even if it's aspirational that needs to get done, why not take a stand and vote yes for it?
And here's what the Democrats stand for.
We don't care that it's a show vote.
It seems like you're trying to have it both ways, not be hung by it politically, but also not say that you don't support it.
I disagree with you, Katie, that why should we engage in the kind of sham shenanigans that Mitch McConnell is really good at?
He's really good at offering to let everyone vote on the thing that you guys wrote and co-sponsored?
This is like what happens.
I mean, good on her.
Good on this MSNBC lady for actually trying to be somewhat honest and consistent here.
And obviously Maisie Hirono has no answer to that.
But this is like when you say, I was in Michigan the other day, and I was talking to some of the protesters at Ben's speech.
And they were all talking about how we have to all accept transgenderist ideology.
And I said, okay, but don't you think that this creates a problem because it ultimately erases the category of women?
If men can be women and men can define femininity and men can be the arbiters of what is or what is not womanhood, then don't you diminish, if not outright eliminate, women's agency?
And they said, yeah, that's a bad faith question.
You're not arguing in good faith.
That's a gotcha question.
I'm asking a perfectly logical question that follows from your premises.
I'm just...
What else could I say that you would say is in good faith?
Here, we have a clearer example of this in the Senate.
They all say, we want to vote on this.
We want to co-sponsor this.
We wrote this.
And Mitch McConnell says, okay.
And they say, these are dirty tricks.
The dirty tricks of letting you do what you say you want to do?
That's a dirty trick?
Then who's the dirty trickster?
You are!
She then goes on, you have to hear the end of this.
You have to hear, and then you've got to hear the best, the pièce de la résistance, the best part of yesterday, which is that Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez had to argue against her own legislation.
But first, we've got to say goodbye to Facebook and YouTube.
Go over to dailywire.com.
$10 a month, $100 for an annual membership.
You get me.
You get the Andrew Klavan Show.
You get the Ben Shapiro Show.
You get to ask questions in the mailbag.
Coming up tomorrow.
Get them in.
You get to ask questions backstage.
Coming up tomorrow, 7 p.m.
Eastern, 4 p.m.
Pacific.
Our next episode of Daily Wire backstage.
Daily Wire God King Jeremy Boring, little old me, Ben Shapiro, Andrew Klavan.
We'll be sipping whiskey, smoking stogies, and laughing our way.
Through politics and pop culture, as always, only Daily Wire subscribers get to ask the questions, so make sure to subscribe today because, of course, you get this.
And you talk about extreme weather events that keep happening because of global warming.
I think the extreme weather events are happening because of the total breakdown of the leftist narrative, and that's why you're seeing waves and waves of salty tsunamis.
The only way to survive them is to get your leftist tears tumbler.
Go to dailywire.com.
We'll be back with a lot more.
So she keeps changing the subject.
She keeps saying, they say, why didn't you just vote for it, though?
Okay, you're saying Mitch McConnell wasn't going to vote for it.
It wasn't going to pass.
Okay, but why wouldn't you vote for it?
Okay, maybe Mitch McConnell isn't doing it because he thinks the Green New Deal is good or serious or going to pass the Senate.
But you guys co-sponsored it.
You guys wrote it.
Doesn't it just prove Mitch McConnell's point if you don't vote for it?
Why not vote for it?
And this, finally, is the best she can muster.
So he's going to keep doing this kind of thing that his goal in life is to try and divide the Democrats.
He said that.
Meantime, he's just shoving as many of the totally ideologically driven judges through court packing that he can.
He's already said that, too.
What?
First of all, he's not court packing.
The Democrats are the ones advocating court packing.
Multiple presidential candidates for the Democrats are now entertaining the idea of and endorsing the idea of adding justices to the Supreme Court.
That's not what Mitch McConnell's doing.
Mitch McConnell is just bringing up judges for positions that already exist, as is his job and as is the president's job.
What does court packing have to do with this?
What are you...
Actually, if Mazie Hirono is saying that Mitch McConnell's agenda in the Senate is so awful, if he's able to...
I mean, she's using stupid language that isn't true, which she uses the language of court packing, but even to say he's bringing up all of these judicial nominees for confirmation votes, and that's really bad, and that's terrible for the country, then shouldn't you hamper his agenda by voting for a legislation that you ostensibly want?
If she's right, if she says, I don't want to allow Mitch McConnell to enact his agenda, oh good, then try to enact your agenda.
He's giving you the opportunity.
It's probably the only time he's going to give you the opportunity.
Shouldn't you all vote for it and then tie up the Senate and debates and committee hearings and negotiations with the president?
Isn't that what you should do?
No, because you don't believe in it.
Because obviously you don't believe in it.
He's offering you what you want and you don't really believe in it.
He called their bluff and they don't want it.
Here is the best that the author of the Green New Deal, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, here's the best that she could muster on the subject of this vote.
Science should not be partisan.
We are facing a national crisis.
And if we do not ascend to that crisis, if we do not ascend to the levels in which we were threatened at the Great Depression, when we were threatened in World War II, if we do not ascend to those levels, if we tell the American public that we are more willing to invest and bail out big banks than we are willing to invest in our farmers and our urban families, then I don't know what we're here doing.
I don't know what we're here doing.
Ma'am, do you know what the word ascend means?
Yes!
Congresswoman, what does the word ascend mean?
Some people say it means an old, old wooden ship.
Ma'am, that...
No, ma'am, that's a line from Anchorman.
That's not what the word ascend...
I don't know what the word ascend means.
It sounded really good.
I don't...
beyond her lack of familiarity with the English language, beyond her lack of facility with the English language, she also is making a point that doesn't make a lot of sense, which is that she has told us the world will end in 12 years which is that she has told us the world will end in 12 years if we don't pass
Not just if we don't pass environmentalist legislation, not just if we don't cap carbon emissions or stop producing certain vehicles or whatever.
She says the world will end in 12 years, all of life on earth will be dead if we do not pass her Green New Deal, a radical revolution, all of society, all of our political system, a mobilization, nothing short of what we saw for World War II. a mobilization, nothing short of what we saw for World Those are her words.
Thank you.
And then Cocaine Mitch says, okay, let's vote on it.
And what does she do?
She encourages all of those senators who co-sponsored her bill to vote present.
I've been saying this for weeks.
I gave this speech last night at the University of Redlands.
The Green New Deal has nothing to do with environmentalism.
None of these people really believes that the world will end in 12 years.
None of the people co-sponsoring the bill, none of the people writing the bill, none of the people talking about the bill with weird language like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, none of them really believes that the world will end in 12 years.
Because the Green New Deal is not about the natural environment.
The Green New Deal is about socialism.
It's about bringing about socialism through the back door.
It's about enacting the progressive agenda that the left has wanted for 100 years.
Socialist health care, universal income, universal job guarantees, massive redistribution of wealth along racial and sexual lines.
A massive grab of political and economic liberty from the people to the bureaucrats, to the people.
to committees that can pass any other program that they want to, according to the Green New Deal.
That's what it's all about.
Nothing to do with the environment.
And they know that it's a political loser for them to do it now, so they don't think we're going to die in 12 years, or I guess now, what, 11 years and 11 months since she said that?
They're just going to wait and try to affect their horrific and poisonous agenda another way.
But the premise is dead.
The premise was a hoax.
There is no way...
To more clearly demonstrate that they don't believe the nonsense that they're spewing than this Green New Deal vote.
It was a political masterstroke by Mitch McConnell, and he won and the greatest week ever continues.
Speaking of fakes, frauds, and hoaxers, is there anybody less genuine on planet Earth than Joe Biden?
Is there anybody more disingenuous and unctuous than Joe Biden?
Joe Biden thinks he's going to run for president.
He tried it in 1988, and he was a faker.
He was a plagiarist.
He had to drop out of that race.
Tried it again in 2008.
The only reason he got vice president is because Barack Obama hated Hillary Clinton so much.
So he managed to worm his way into VP. And now he thinks he's going to run again.
Here is how he's decided to launch his campaign.
The question is, is he going to run as a centrist, or is he going to run as a far leftist?
I think we've got our answer.
We see him do something.
It's also because 28 years ago I chaired the Senate Judiciary Committee in a hearing, the first of its kind, the Clarence Thomas hearing.
The appointment of a lifetime appointment at the Supreme Court.
And a brave lawyer, a really notable woman, Anita Hill, a professor, showed the courage of a lifetime, talking about her experience being harassed by Clarence Thomas.
We knew a lot less about the extent of harassment back then, over 30 years ago.
But she paid a terrible price.
She was abused through the hearing.
She was taken advantage of.
Her reputation was attacked.
I wish I could have done something.
I opposed Clarence Thomas' nomination.
I voted against him.
But I also realized there was a real and perceived problem the committee faced.
There were a bunch of white guys.
No, I mean it sincerely.
A bunch of white guys.
Hearing this testimony from the Senate Judiciary Committee.
So when Anita Hill came to testify, she faced a committee that didn't fully understand what the hell it was all about.
So, I think the one thing that Uncle Joe might have forgotten in his old age is that if the problem is that there was a committee of white guys who couldn't possibly understand what black people and women are going through, and therefore it was unfair for black people and women to go before a panel of white guys, Clarence Thomas is a black guy, you dolt!
The argument you've just made is that Anita Hill didn't have a fair hearing when she baselessly accused Clarence Thomas of improper behavior because she's a black woman.
Clarence Thomas is a black man, so he got an unfair hearing too.
Where's that?
Where's that about?
So Joe Biden, I've never thought Joe Biden is going anywhere.
I think it's a joke that he's running in 2016, or 2020, rather.
What you hear is, oh, Joe, he's going to be the threat to Trump.
Joe, he's, Joe Biden is nothing.
Joe Biden is a joke.
He's a punchline.
That guy is going nowhere.
Who knows?
I could always be proven wrong.
I'm just looking at the track record, 1988 to present.
He ain't going anywhere.
And so he thinks his best hope is to downplay the moderate, downplay the centrism, downplay good old Uncle Joe from the Rust Belt, or whatever he thinks he can affect.
And he is going to run to the intersectional left.
He thinks that's going to work for an old white guy.
And it doesn't just stop there.
It doesn't just stop with Anita Hill, which was another huge hoax and miscarriage of justice.
And luckily, Clarence Thomas was able to get through, but it was awful what they did to him.
It was a high-tech lynching that Joe Biden presided over.
And I can't wait.
I can't wait until Joe Biden runs for president to bring that up.
That he conducted a high-tech lynching for uppity blacks who in any way deign to think for themselves.
And he made it clear that if you don't kowtow to an old order, you will be mocked, humiliated, and caricatured before a committee of the U.S. Senate rather than hung from a tree.
Clarence Thomas's words, not mine.
But then he goes more radical.
He gets way more extreme.
He questions the Anglo-American...
This is English jurisprudential culture.
A white man's culture.
It's got to change.
English jurisprudential culture.
Equals a white man's culture.
That's his claim.
English jurisprudential culture.
And he doesn't just mean English, he means Anglo-American, because we take our system of justice and jurisprudence from the English.
And he's saying, our criminal justice system is fundamentally racist and sexist.
It is fundamentally bigoted and It is fundamentally illegitimate and we need to get rid of our entire system of jurisprudence.
That's the most radical statement that any potential 2020 presidential candidate has made.
That's probably the most radical statement that any presidential candidate has made in my lifetime.
Now the thing about Joe Biden is that he frequently says stupid things and then he contradicts them later on.
So probably that's what's happening here.
Also, he frequently makes outrageous race-hustling claims.
He did this in 2012.
Do you remember when Mitt Romney was running?
And he said, Mitt Romney, he wants to put you all back in chains before an entirely black audience or a mostly black audience.
What is English jurisprudential culture?
It's equality before the law.
It's the presumption of innocence.
It's due process.
It is the most just jurisprudential culture in the history of the world.
It's the only reason that we even have a sense in our legal system of non-discrimination, fairness, equality.
That's why, because of English jurisprudential culture.
He says, that's got to change.
And he's saying that in a calculated way because the left does want that to change.
The left hates the presumption of innocence.
The left hates that Clarence Thomas, that there wasn't evidence against him and that he got to go to the Supreme Court and they couldn't just lynch him.
The left hates that certain groups aren't given special privileges.
The left hates that Brett Kavanaugh couldn't just be smeared with constantly changing, contradictory, nonsense accusations.
They hate that.
They want to see special privileges for favored racial and sexual groups.
They want Jussie Smollett to get off the hook because he's a well-connected, famous black gay guy.
That's what they want.
So what does this mean for 2020?
This means Joe Biden is not going to run as a moderate.
What this also means is that Joe Biden, who has been plotting his presidential run since 1988, certainly, 1987, 1986, and he's been plotting this next run since he was vice president, he felt that he couldn't take on Hillary in 2016, so now he thinks he can take on the field.
This means he thinks he can't run as a moderate.
He thinks it ain't going to work.
And he's probably right.
The only reason I think he's probably making the wrong bet here is, let's say there's a 97% chance that the Democrat nominee is some far leftist, which is why virtually all of the candidates are jumping over themselves to prove themselves the most radical leftist.
They're all co-sponsoring the Green New Deal, even though they don't vote for it.
Let's say they're all trying to jump.
We want reparations for slavery.
We want $107 trillion worth of new social programs.
We want all these things.
There are certain polls that show that Democrat voters think they've gone too far.
That maybe they want more of a moderate, more of a centrist.
Not the loudest voices, not even maybe the donors, but the majority of the country, especially in states that they want to win.
And Joe Biden is not going to be the most far-left candidate.
He simply can't be.
Because inherent in this radical leftism is the sort of Identity, racial and sexual identity politics that Joe Biden is trying to embrace here.
But he can't embrace it because he's an old white guy who's been in Congress and who's been in the Senate since the 70s.
This guy's been in the government for most of his life.
It ain't going to work.
He cannot do it.
The only chance he has is to run for that 3% centrist, moderate, can relate to the Rust Belt kind of vote.
And he seems not to be doing that, because while it might be his best chance, he doesn't think it's the best chance to get the nomination.
Which means he's probably going nowhere.
Which means the best week ever continues.
We'll get to David Brooks and Cardi B tomorrow.
I know, talk about a cliffhanger.
Get your mailbag questions in.
In the meantime, I'm Michael Knowles.
This is The Michael Knowles Show.
See you tomorrow.
The Michael Knowles Show is produced by Robert Sterling.
Executive producer Jeremy Boring.
Senior producer Jonathan Hay.
Our supervising producer is Mathis Glover.
And our technical producer is Austin Stevens.
Edited by Danny D'Amico.
Audio is mixed by Dylan Case.
Hair and makeup is by Jesua Olvera.
Production assistant Nick Sheehan.
The Michael Knowles Show is a Daily Wire production.
Copyright Daily Wire 2019.
Hey everyone, I'm Andrew Klavan, host of The Andrew Klavan Show.
You know, Chicago has a reputation as a corrupt Democrat machine town because it's a corrupt Democrat machine town.
We saw that yesterday in the Jussie Smollett case.
We saw it for eight years during the Obama administration.
It's not a question of Al Capone.
Where Democrats gather, it's Al Capone.
I'm Andrew Klavan.
▲
Export Selection