Ep. 1333 - Trans Spokesman For Ukraine Threatens Violence For "Propaganda"
Schumer changes the Senate dress code because PA Sen. John Fetterman can’t figure out how to wear a suit, Biden spends almost $6 million on improving journos’ self-esteem, and Russell Brand gets accused of rape.
Ep.1333
- - -
DailyWire+:
Become a DailyWire+ member to gain access to movies, shows, documentaries, and more: https://bit.ly/3jJQBQ7
Get your Jeremy’s Chocolate here: https://bit.ly/45uzeWf
Get your own Yes or No game here: https://bit.ly/3X6tlKY
- - -
Today’s Sponsors:
Birch Gold - Text "KNOWLES" to 989898 for your no-cost, no-obligation, FREE information kit: https://birchgold.com/knowles
Hillsdale - Enroll for FREE today at https://www.hillsdale.edu/knowles
- - -
Socials:
Follow on Twitter: https://bit.ly/3RwKpq6
Follow on Instagram: https://bit.ly/3BqZLXA
Follow on Facebook: https://bit.ly/3eEmwyg
Subscribe on YouTube: https://bit.ly/3L273Ek
John Fetterman, the alleged senator from Pennsylvania, is apparently so incapacitated that Chuck Schumer has formally changed the rules of the US Senate to allow him to show up on the floor in t-shirts and flip-flops.
Members of what was once called the greatest deliberative body in the world are now apparently not even expected to dress like adults as they pass laws in what was once considered the greatest nation on earth.
Florida governor and presidential candidate Ron DeSantis rightly took umbrage.
So I don't did you guys hear the US Senate just eliminated its dress code because you got this guy from Pennsylvania He wears like sweatshirts and hoodies and shorts and that's his thing so he would campaign in that which is your prerogative, right?
I mean if that's what you want to do But to show up in the United States Senate with that and not have the decency to put on proper attire, I think it's disrespectful to the body.
And I think the fact that the Senate changed the rules to accommodate that, you know, I think looks, speaks very poorly to how they consider that.
Look, we need this country, we need to be lifting up our standards in this country, not dumbing down our standards in this country.
And this is an example why.
That's a great point.
Very under-discussed point.
Some people are saying that there are plenty of political reasons to criticize Fetterman, but we shouldn't be focusing on something so superficial as how he dresses.
But how you dress is political, and it is significant, and the way that you present yourself is not necessarily superficial.
It's also a sign of how you view yourself, and it's a sign of respect or disrespect for your office.
And the people you work with, and the people you represent.
The Founding Fathers did not wear t-shirts and shorts to the Continental Congress or to the Constitutional Convention.
Americans at our nation's height wore suits and neckties to baseball games.
It used to be fashionable to look respectable.
What do you know?
People used to behave more respectably.
Now it's fashionable to dress like a bum.
And what do you know?
People behave more like bums.
George W. Bush, whatever you think of the man, had this point right.
He always made a point to wear a suit and tie in the Oval Office.
In eight years in office, as far as I can tell, he only ever broke that rule on one occasion.
He dressed for the office because he knew that it wasn't really his office.
It was the people's office and a symbol of the nation.
Faux populists who wear hoodies to the floor of the U.S.
Senate aren't doing so out of some great respect for the people.
Quite the opposite.
They do so because they view the people's houses, the temples of democracy, as the libs like to call them, as nothing more than their own private living rooms.
I'm Michael Knowles.
This is the Michael Knowles Show.
Welcome back to the show.
Russell Brand has been accused of rape.
I don't even really know who Russell Brand is.
I'm aware of his existence, but don't follow his work.
But we'll get to that.
I still have opinions, nevertheless.
We'll get to that in a moment.
First, though, speaking of inappropriate behavior and sex crimes, I guess, my friend Lauren Boebert is being threatened with prosecution for sex crimes.
Because of this footage in the dark theater where she was inappropriate with her male companion and apologized for it.
Well, that's not good enough for Colorado.
Some Democrats are arguing that she should be prosecuted under 187301 of the Colorado Criminal Code.
Which goes after lewdness in public.
Okay, this according to Newsweek's Nick Mordwanek, who says the law stipulates, quote, public indecency is a petty offense sex crime.
And it does carry lighter penalties, such as 10 days in jail and or up to $300 in fines, in addition to potential probation, community service, or mandatory counseling.
And, they argue, There is an outside chance that someone could receive a sex offender designation because of getting a little handsy in a dark theater.
Okay.
Okay.
Great.
I'm all for enforcing public indecency statutes.
I think that's a great idea.
We haven't done that in a long time.
I'm all for going after material and behavior that appeals to the prurient interest that could be obscene.
I think that's a great idea.
I don't think they're going to get Lauren on this.
I don't think the camera in the theater, I don't think it really rises to that level.
But I have noticed that there are a lot of Republican counties in Colorado.
Denver is very blue, but there's a lot of Republican counties.
And those Republican counties have Republican DAs.
And I've noticed a lot of counties in Colorado have Drag Queen Story Hour.
Google Drag Queen Story Hour Colorado, you will see pages and pages of events come up.
And I think that if Colorado all of a sudden wants to get serious about prosecuting lewdness in public, public indecency, well that's great.
Then those Republican DAs should arrest every single one of those Drag Queen Story Hour performers.
I also noticed that there are a lot of pride parades in Colorado.
And I've noticed that those pride parades are pretty lewd.
They're pretty indecent, aren't they?
Guys dressed up in leather doing weird stuff to each other on floats and in the street.
So I think this is good.
Colorado wants to start getting tough on lewdness.
I'm all for it.
Then all of those Republican DAs should start arresting and prosecuting every one of those attendees at the pride parades, which are extremely indecent and extremely lewd.
Drag Queen Story Hour and Pride Parades are much worse than anything Lauren Boeber did in a theater.
Much worse.
In part because of the extreme behaviors that they engage in there, but in part because what they do at Drag Queen Story Hour and the Pride Parades, unlike what happened in the theater, is unnatural.
So it's all bad stuff, but those are particularly bad.
Those are particularly perverse and unnatural and should be prosecuted.
That's my view.
But even if your view is it's all the same and there's no distinction at all between what a normal Guy and a girl doing a theater caught on a hidden camera, and what the drag queens do in the elementary schools and the libraries, and what the weirdos do at the pride parades.
If you say it's all the same, well, that's fine too.
If we're going to start prosecuting people for lewdness, then what's good for the goose is good for the gander.
What a great way to find a silver lining in a storm cloud of a ginned-up Republican political scandal.
Great idea.
Now, you got silver linings, and sometimes you gotta focus on gold, which is why you gotta check out birch gold.
Right now, text NOLS, K-N-O-W-L-E-S, to 989898.
Vladimir Putin called the U.S.
dollar's drop in dominance, quote, objective and irreversible, as Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa formally agreed to use local currencies in trade instead of the U.S.
dollar.
As demand for the dollar weakens, the buying power of the dollar weakens.
That is why birch gold is busier than ever.
Investors and savers are looking to harness the power of physical gold held in a tax-sheltered IRA.
You can, too.
You can protect your IRA or 401k by diversifying with gold from birch gold.
As the U.S. dollar continues to receive pressure from foreign countries, digital currency, and central banks, arm yourself with information on how to protect your savings.
Learn if gold is right for you, too.
Text Knolls, K-N-W-L-E-S to 989898.
They will send you a free info kit on gold.
With an A-plus rating with the Better Business Bureau, thousands of happy customers, and countless five-star reviews, I trust Birch Gold to help you diversify into gold.
If a central bank digital currency becomes a reality, it'll be nice to have some gold to depend on.
So text Knolls, K-N-W-L-E-S to 989898.
Speaking of transvestites, Can I keep any of my show on social media today?
Is there any part of my show that I'm going to be allowed to keep on certain social media platforms?
I don't know.
There is an American transvestite who is the spokesman for the Ukraine military for some reason.
This person, Michael Cirillo, came to the fore and I did this very long Twitter thread Explaining who this person is, what his background is.
No one had really dug into it before I did this.
It went viral.
Some other people started to dig into him then.
And then all of a sudden this guy comes out and he says that he's going to kill, he's going to murder anyone spreading anti-Ukraine Putin propaganda.
And the timing of his announcement did have me thinking, do I need to get the locks checked?
I might need a new alarm system in my house, because the spokesman for the Ukraine military would seem to be threatening to murder me, because I raised some questions about why this guy is doing what he's doing.
So, in any case, US Senator J.D.
Vance, Republican from Ohio, has just sent a letter to the Secretary of State, Secretary of Defense, and the Director of National Intelligence, saying, quote, In recent days, a video has circulated of an individual who claims to be an English-speaking spokesperson for the Ukraine military.
In the video, this individual, Sarah Ashton Carillo, born Michael, looks directly into the camera and threatens physical violence to anyone who circulates Russian propaganda.
A number of reports purport to offer additional information, much of it unconfirmed, regarding Ashton Carillo.
I assume my Twitter thread being one of those things.
I've seen claims this individual is an American, a former intelligence operative in the U.S., and an employee of the Ukraine government.
Others have argued that he's pulling an elaborate prank, but J.D.
gets to the point.
He says, I worry American resources could be supporting violence or the threat of violence against people for speaking their mind.
Notably, any critic of America's incoherent policy in Ukraine has been slandered as propagandists, including multiple presidential candidates and American journalists.
While we can debate the merits of these accusations, engaging in protected speech should not invite threats of violence.
Otherwise, the First Amendment means nothing.
So, I really appreciate this from Senator Vance for inquiring to some of the highest level people in the American government whether or not I am on this psycho's kill list.
The psycho, for his part, has responded.
The Russian propagandists and war criminals who are spreading lies and pushing false narratives are not journalists.
They are information agents in an extension of the Putin progrossion effort to spread chaos and wreak havoc across the globe.
In Ukraine, we do not seek vengeance, only justice.
Because of this, these enemies of freedom and democracy will have to answer for their crimes in a court of law.
Senator Vance recently asked the U.S.
Director of National Intelligence, along with the Secretaries of State and Defense, if I was working in some capacity for the American government.
Simply put, I'm an American serving as a Ukrainian infantry soldier and combat medic who was brought from the zero line and assigned to the TDF's media team in the dual role of spokesperson and Russian disinformation analyst.
The remaining speculation surrounding me is disappointing.
While in Ukraine we are fighting for global liberty and the ideology of victory, too many in Moscow and across the world are still caught up in focusing on the tired trope of gender chaos.
Is he referring to what he is doing as gender chaos?
Because if so, that would be extremely self-aware.
Notice, though, he never really answers the question from JD.
He doesn't really go into his background, what sort of connections he might have, who among us he's trying to kill.
But in any case, I'm glad we're finally looking into this.
A lot of people are asking, why is this crazy person, the spokesman, this American crazy person, the spokesman for the Ukraine military?
And the answer is either that the powers that be are just trolling us, as they often do, or perhaps that Ukraine realizes that they've lost American conservatives.
That American conservatives view this war as incoherent, as J.D.
said, as not particularly serving the American interest.
As having no end in sight as possibly leading to a third world war.
And so we want an off ramp.
We're not saying give up territory to Vladimir Putin, but we're saying we need a way to wind this war down before it actually does become World War Three between nuclear superpowers and former superpowers.
And so Ukraine realizes that its support is going to come from Democrats and from liberals.
And how do you appeal to liberals?
You slap a wig on a fella and that goes a very long way.
Speaking of wasting money and the Biden administration, Joe Biden has just announced a plan to spend $5.7 million on psychological support for liberal journalists who are trolled online.
Liberal journalists, it's almost repetitive.
But I repeat myself.
The Biden administration has approved almost $6 million to George Washington University to create a program that will provide psychological care to journos who believe they're targets of misinformation-driven harassment campaigns, which is just a slogan to be used to make liberal journalists seem like victims.
My only take On this is in fairness to Biden, I do agree that liberal journalists could use a lot of psychiatric care.
They could stand to benefit from that.
$6 million is not going to go nearly far enough.
That will be a drop in the bucket to the kind of psychological correction that liberal journalists need.
And this reminds you That the supposed fourth estate, the brave independent journalists speaking truth to power, are nothing but.
They're mere propagandists, they're mere mouthpieces for the ruling establishment, so much so that when ordinary people push back on them and say, hey, you guys are jokes, you guys are hacks, you guys are shills, then the supposed Power to whom the journalists are speaking the truth.
They come out and they say, hey, I'm sorry, Washington Post.
Hey, I'm sorry, New York Times guy, do you want a teddy bear?
Come on, come over here, we'll give you some hugs.
And then you can go back out and carry water for us.
Speaking of the media, there's a big media campaign now to say that Russell Brand is a rapist.
There was an accusation made, it wasn't made in a court, Primarily.
It wasn't made through a prosecutor's office, primarily.
It was made in newspapers from multiple women who say, back in the day, Russell Brandt raped me, or he was otherwise abusive, or he's a no-down, dirty, rotten guy.
And I read the report, it came from the Times, and in it, the women say, I didn't want to speak out until I was approached by journalists, and then I decided to tell my story.
So this really is a media-created thing.
We've got the story here.
It's a very long story.
Very ugly stuff.
And some people are going to be tempted to say, I don't believe any of it.
Some people are going to be tempted to say, I believe all of it.
And what I am tempted to say, not knowing Russell Brand, not having ever watched any of his work, this is not a knock on Russell Brand.
Maybe he does really great work.
I just haven't seen his stuff.
There's a lot of good books to read out there, a lot of good movies to see, a lot of good shows to watch, and I'm just not really familiar with his stuff.
I am aware of his existence, I know he is a British actor who dresses kind of funny, but that's all I know about Russell Brand.
And so I don't really have a dog in this fight.
And my gut tells me, in this extremely detailed report, I don't know if he committed any crimes, But I am pretty confident that he did a lot of weird, depraved, very nasty, immoral sex stuff for a long time.
And in part, I'm confident of that because apparently Russell Brand has admitted all of that.
He's written about it.
He's talked about it before.
The big Russell Brand fans were quick to point my attention to that.
And so my big takeaway, is Russell Brand guilty or not?
I don't know.
I'm all for tightening up.
Lewdness laws and obscenity laws, everything we were talking about at the top of the show.
I'm all for that.
You can't do that retroactively.
You can't have a culture and a law that says, hey, do whatever you want with all sorts of weird sex stuff, and then later on comes back and says, oh, actually, that was bad, so we're going to change the law 20 years later and throw you into prison.
So we'll see.
Maybe he'll go to trial.
Maybe he'll have a fair trial.
Maybe he'll be convicted or not.
I don't know.
My main takeaway from this, though, is There is a reason why the elite institutions encourage a lot of weird sex stuff.
There is a reason.
That Hollywood is called Gamora by the Sea.
Okay, there is a reason why there are all sorts of weird orgies and trading sex for jobs and all sorts of weird stuff in Hollywood.
There's a reason why there are elite underground sex clubs in every major city in the world.
One of which we found out about because of the Hunter Biden investigation.
Hunter Biden was apparently a member of one of these in Los Angeles and it involved a lot of big people, a lot of big politicians, a lot of big movie stars.
You remember Dominique Strauss-Kahn?
The big financial muckety-muck.
This was a scandal going back 15 or 20 years ago.
And he was accused of some sex crime and he said, no, I'm not going to orgies.
I only went to six or seven of them this year.
You know, this thing is pretty pervasive.
If you've ever lived in a big city and rubbed shoulders with any muckety-mucks, you know, there's like weird sex stuff is all over the place.
I mean, the greatest example is Jeffrey Epstein.
Where the wealthiest, most powerful, most prominent people on earth were actually going down to a Caribbean island and doing plenty of weird sex stuff.
The reason that that happens is not just an accident.
It's not just because these people are a little decadent or something.
It's a feature of how the elite works.
Because what happens in these elite circles is they encourage you to do all sorts of degrading, immoral, often weird sex stuff.
And then, 15-20 years later, if you ever start to question the ruling power, if you ever start to maybe speak out against it, as Russell Brandt has, start questioning some of the narratives.
Again, I haven't even watched the stuff, I've just heard that he questions the narratives, he's moved a little bit away from the left.
Then they've got you, because then what they've got is kompromat.
Kompromat is the Russian term for what the Soviets used to do, which is they'd get some dirt on you, and they'd hold that over your head, and they'd say, tow the party line, or 20 years later we're going to blackmail you.
And it's not going to be about whatever you did.
We're the ones who encouraged you to do it.
We're the ones who arranged the laws, or at very least the social norms.
We're the ones who arranged the parties.
So we encourage you to do all this stuff.
But if you ever turn on us, man, we got it.
We got tapes, we got pictures, we got stories in The Times.
You have to educate yourself.
When you want to educate yourself, you've got to check out Hillsdale.
Are you a few years, maybe even a few decades, out of school and wondering, what did I even learn?
And what was the point?
You might think to yourself that you don't have time to learn something new.
Well, if that's you, then know this, you're not alone.
It's not too late.
Since 1844, Hillsdale College has been providing education in faith, freedom, and character.
They've taken some of the core classes they teach on campus and made them available for free online for anyone who wants to learn.
That's right, for free!
There are 39 free courses to choose from, ranging from the U.S.
Constitution, the Book of Genesis, to free market economics.
They're easy to follow.
They're self-paced, so you can start whenever you want.
In fact, you can start right now.
It's everything you need.
All in one place, no long-term commitment.
Let Hillsdale College be your guide.
As all of the universities around America collapse, Hillsdale is one of the very few beacons of hope.
Learn what you want, when you want.
Go to hillsdale.edu slash Knowles, K-N-W-L-E-S to enroll.
There's no cost.
Very easy to get started.
hillsdale.edu slash Knowles to register.
hillsdale.edu slash Knowles.
When Dr. Jordan B. Peterson made the decision to join Daily Wire Plus, it was a major win for those who champion intellectual debate.
With one year of unparalleled output, his contributions have set new standards and remained unmatched by any other platform.
DailyWirePlus now has the vast array of exclusive Jordan content.
Offering hundreds of hours of captivating content that you won't find anywhere else, Jordan has created thought-provoking works that reshape your perspective on life, which include Vision and Destiny, Marriage and Monsters and Men, and there's so many ands that I don't even know how many shows that is, and there are more to come.
Additionally, you can immerse yourself in discussions that nurture your spiritual side, like Logos and Literacy.
In Jordan's groundbreaking series on the Book of Exodus.
That's only the beginning.
There's also his Beyond Order lecture series, his extensive archive of lectures and podcasts.
There's even more exclusive content on the horizon.
By becoming a DailyWirePlus member, you will embark on an unforgettable experience that will fuel your thirst for knowledge and inspire personal growth like never before.
Go to dailywire.com slash subscribe to become a member today.
Speaking of the Brits, British Prime Minister Rishi Sunak has vowed to ban American pit bulls from the soil of the motherland.
The American Excel bully dog is a danger to our communities, particularly our children.
I share the nation's horror at the recent videos we've all seen.
Yesterday we saw another suspected Excel bully dog attack, which has tragically led to a fatality.
It's clear this is not about a handful of badly trained dogs.
It's a pattern of behaviour and it cannot go on.
While owners already have a responsibility to keep their dogs under control, I want to reassure people that we are urgently working on ways to stop these attacks and protect the public.
Today I have tasked Ministers to bring together police and experts to firstly define the breed of dog behind these attacks, with a view to then outlawing it.
It is not currently a breed defined in law, so this vital first step must happen fast.
We will then ban the breed under the Dangerous Dogs Act, and new laws will be in place by the end of the year.
These dogs are dangerous.
I want to reassure the public that we will take all necessary steps to keep people safe.
It's a great idea.
I know, look, this is going to be my controversial take of the day.
I know it's, I'm, hey.
Good.
Good.
I'm glad.
First of all, I want to borrow this term from the UK because XL bully dog is much funnier than Pitbull.
So that's, and the point is correct.
The dogs are bred to chew up little infants.
That's what they're bred for.
It's not about the owner, it's not about they were abused, it's not about, oh, I have the greatest pit bull ever.
Yeah, maybe you do.
But the breed is dangerous.
And communities have the right to set standards on safety.
They totally have that right.
Nowhere in the Constitution, nowhere in Magna Carta, is there enshrined the individual right to have a dog that is responsible for most of the dog attacks every single year.
It's not the dog's fault.
I don't think we should put the dog on trial.
That's the point.
The dogs are not rational.
The dogs are not conscious.
The dogs are just doing what it is their nature to do.
Human beings have instincts and appetites, but we also have a rational will so that we can Deliberate about concepts of abstract justice, and then tamp down our bad appetites, and say, okay, I really want to maul that little child, that toddler at the park, but I'm not going to do that because I'm rational.
Dogs don't have that ability, and so we've got to take measures as a community to stop that, or else it will be terrible for everybody.
Very, very good stuff on the bully dogs, Rishi.
Speaking of, This is a horrible transition.
Speaking of people's penchant for killing infants, Donald Trump had this interview on Meet the Press, and the Meet the Press lady was just champing at the bit to promote abortion.
She really, really wanted to promote abortion.
Donald Trump was trying to sidestep the question on abortion, which got him in some trouble.
But the most notable part of the interview to me was when this interview lady on NBC Made the audacious claim that the Democrats don't really support late-term abortion.
Roe v. Wade, for 52 years, people, including Democrats, wanted it to go back to states so that states could make the right.
Roe v. Wade, I did something that nobody thought was possible, and Roe v. Wade was terminated, was put back to the states.
Now, people, pro-lifers, have the right to negotiate for the first time.
They had no rights at all.
Because the radical people on this are really the people, the Democrats, that say after 5 months, 6 months, 7 months, 8 months, 9 months, and even after birth, you're allowed to terminate the baby.
Mr. President, Democrats aren't saying that.
I just have to say, Democrats are not saying that.
Does it bother you, though, that women say their lives are being put at risk?
Do you feel you bear any responsibility?
Because as you say, you are responsible.
What's going to happen, this is an issue with Hillary Clinton.
When we had the debate, I made a statement, rip the baby out of the womb in the ninth month.
You're allowed to do that, and you shouldn't be allowed to do that.
Again, no one is arguing for that.
That's not a part of anyone's platform, Mr. President.
The Democrats are able to kill the baby after birth.
Nobody wants that.
Democrats don't want that either.
Democrats don't want that.
That's not true.
Stop saying that, Donald Trump.
Stop.
No, Democrats don't.
We don't want late-term abortion.
Democratic Senator Ben Cardin of Maryland, what do you think about abortion up until the moment of birth?
So you've signed on to a Senate bill called the Women's Health Protection Act of 2023.
Critics say it goes far beyond Roe, and it actually codifies what the former vice president was saying there.
So what is the Democrats' position?
Where do you draw the line?
Well, we support Roe v. Wade.
We thought that was established law.
It was established law for almost 50 years.
The Supreme Court decision was a radical decision that reversed the rights of women to make their own health care decisions.
Well, what about the states where it's actually legal up until the due dates?
Is that something Democrats support?
We support the right of women to make their own decisions.
This is a personal decision made by women with the advice of their doctors and their family.
And we don't think we should try to tell women when they can make those decisions.
Is there a cutoff for you before that point?
No.
No, there's no cutoff right up until the moment of birth.
You heard it from the horse's mouth.
You heard it from one end of the horse.
I'm not sure if it was the mouth.
But what about Donald Trump's claim that Democrats, prominent Democrats, support abortion even after birth?
When we talk about third trimester abortions, these are done with the consent of obviously the mother, with the consent of the physicians, more than one physician, by the way.
And it's done in cases where there may be severe deformities, there may be a fetus that's non-viable.
So in this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I can tell you exactly what would happen.
The infant would be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the physicians and the mothers.
Then a discussion would ensue.
You want to kill the baby or you want to keep the baby?
Infant was delivered, it's on the table, he's comfortable over there, we got him a cup of coffee.
Yeah, we got him a cup of coffee, maybe a little blanket.
And then, so what do you want to do?
You want me to kill him for you?
He's been born, but we could kill him for you if you want.
Every claim Donald Trump made in that clip with that NBC lady is true.
Representative, or Senator rather, Ben Cardin of Maryland, when he said, I support abortion up until the moment of birth, he was describing the Women's Health Protection Act, preposterously named act, That was voted on in the House of Representatives.
Do you know how many Democrats voted against it?
One, Representative Quellar, who's effectively a Republican.
He's a conservative Democrat in Texas.
The rest of them voted for it.
To legalize abortion as a national law up until the moment of birth.
All of them.
This isn't some fringe position.
Senator Cardin, Governor Northam, they're not the fringe, extreme, crazy part of the Democratic Party.
That is the mainstream position.
That's virtually the unanimous position of the Democrat Party.
And that journo on NBC, whatever that lady's name is, she just lied.
She just totally lied.
So, the part of this interview that's been focused on in the media Is Donald Trump going after Ron DeSantis and saying, oh, a six-week abortion ban, it's a terrible, terrible thing.
And obviously, the only thing terrible about a six-week abortion ban is the six weeks.
That's the terrible thing, that abortion is permitted for six weeks.
But then, in the rest of the interview, Donald Trump says, I'm the greatest pro-life president ever, I got Roe v. Wade overruled, it's gone back to the states, and you guys want to kill babies up until the moment of birth.
That was all the rest of it.
And so, why did Trump say the terrible thing line?
Well, I suspect it's because, as Donald Trump does when he campaigns, anything his opponent does is bad.
He has to paint anything that any of his opponents ever do at any time as bad.
And that's a general rule in politics, and Trump probably takes it to an extreme.
But what is Trump's point here?
Is Trump saying that he's going to pass a national abortion law that allows abortion up until a certain moment?
Maybe that's what he's saying.
I don't think that's true.
I don't think that's what he's saying, given the context of the clip.
But even if that were what he was saying, first of all, you're not going to have an abortion law at a national level that works.
And the reason you're not going to have it is, one, I don't think you could just ever get anything passed out of the House or Senate and signed by the president, period.
But even if you could, the Supreme Court, in the Dobbs decision, said, we are returning this question to the states.
So there are pro-life advocates who believe that the Supreme Court should have just outlawed abortion entirely using 14th Amendment jurisprudence and equal protection under the laws.
But the Supreme Court very intentionally did not do that.
And the Supreme Court didn't return the question to the Congress and didn't return the question to the Senate.
The Supreme Court returned the question to the states.
And so what I suspect Trump is doing there is he's just trying to brush the issue aside, highlight democratic extremism, and move on.
And you might say, well that's a stupid strategy.
He should be as vocally pro-life as possible.
Eh, maybe.
Just like when Trump whiffed it on the what is a woman question.
They said, well, you know, I don't know.
A man is a man and a woman's a woman.
I don't know.
Men can't give birth.
And he totally whiffed the answer.
You might say, well, politically, not to say nothing of morally, it would be better if he just said a man is a man.
A man is not a woman.
A woman can't become a man and been really straight about it.
Okay, and you can make that political argument, too.
But I suspect what Trump is doing here is just trying to sidestep these questions, push them to the side.
I don't think he's saying, I'm suddenly pro-trans, or suddenly saying, I'm suddenly pro-abortion.
I think he's trying to push it to the side.
And maybe you say it's a good political strategy, maybe you say it's a bad one.
But I will point out, that is the political strategy that was pursued by all of the Supreme Court justices who actually overruled Roe v. Wade.
All of those Supreme Court justices, when they were brought up for their confirmation hearings, they were asked directly about Roe v. Wade.
And not one single one of them ever said, I think Roe v. Wade is an evil decision, it's constitutionally incoherent, and you're damn right I'm gonna overrule it.
Not one of them said that.
What did they do?
To a man, to a woman, they all sidestepped the question.
And they said things like, well, Roe v. Wade is the settled law of the land.
Statements that are true.
They didn't lie.
At the time they said them, it's true.
Roe v. Wade was settled law.
Until it wasn't.
Until it was unsettled law in the Dobbs decision.
They said things that were true, but they sidestepped the question.
One could debate the political wisdom of this strategy all day long, but it is simply a fact.
We are called to be wise as serpents and innocent as doves.
And we are dealing with some people who are made up of the kind of, not just wisdom, but character of serpents right now.
We're dealing with people who are innocent as serpents and very often wise as doves when we're dealing with people on the other side who are openly advocating killing babies up until the moment of birth and then lying about it on national television.
Which is not even the summation of their political agenda.
It's just part and parcel of it, of a broader political agenda, to upend our entire society, to upend everything that we think is normal, and to just invert it onto its head.
A lot of that focuses on the family.
Speaking of the family, we'll get to a family story in just a second.
First though, my favorite comment yesterday comes from Chad534 who says, funny that a theater has more security footage than the White House did when trying to find the cocaine bandit.
So true!
It's amazing.
Maybe the White House should call up that random theater in Colorado and ask about their security camera system because when someone snuck coke into what is supposed to be the most secure place in the entire country, No one ever found that footage, did they?
You know what?
Also, the jail that was housing Jeffrey Epstein, they ought to call that theater in Colorado.
Because, you know, the jail that had Jeffrey Epstein, the cameras just broke.
Oops!
They went out.
We don't have any footage of when Jeffrey Epstein totally killed himself, right?
If only they had hired the management company of that random theater, by golly, we'd figure out what happened by now.
Kind of convenient.
The cameras only seem to work when it redounds to the disadvantage of Republicans.
Really, really strange.
Okay, speaking of the family, this is a Hollywood story.
Again, that I don't really care about that much in itself, but I care about the political implications.
Hugh Jackman and his wife are divorcing after 27 years of marriage.
I really like Hugh Jackman.
I think he is a tremendous Not only actor but performer generally.
I've seen this guy on Broadway.
He's just he's just a tremendous performer.
And he's always struck me as a nice guy compared to the demons running around Hollywood.
He seems relatively normal and grounded and sort of nice and he's just all around seems like a decent fellow.
And so it's very sad.
That this guy, one of the things that really spoke to his character is that he had been married for 27 years.
By Hollywood standards, that is an eternity.
That is the longest marriage ever.
And now, sadly, it seems they're going to split up.
And here's the statement that they made.
We have been blessed to share almost three decades together.
Our journey now is shifting.
And we have decided to separate, to pursue our individual growth.
This is what I can't stand about it. - And you hear this again and again in modern divorce statements.
They say, well, we're so happy.
What a wonderful time we've spent together.
But now we're going to have a conscious decoupling of that time.
It's so wonderful to pursue what really matters, which is, of course, our individual growth.
And so that's really great.
And it's so happy.
No, it's not happy, man.
It's a tragedy.
It's a tragedy any time a marriage breaks down.
And you should be deeply sad.
We should all be deeply sad about it because it's a public matter.
Because when you get married, you take a vow before a minister and the public and God, and you enter into society because the fundamental unit of society is the family.
And I get that marriages break down.
And I get that there's been divorce for a bit.
Very, very long time.
There's been divorce for all of history.
Sometimes it's been illegal, and so the state has clamped down on it, and it happens less frequently.
In our culture, you can get divorced because you don't like the way the wind is blowing that day.
We have no-fault divorce.
But any time it happens, it's a tragedy.
So even if you accept the fact that it will happen, at the very least, you should say, this is sad.
We're sorry this happened.
But no, we can't do that anymore.
No, it's actually good.
It's good.
Because we're going to do the most important thing, which is pursue our individual growth.
What is conducive to your individual growth is remaining married.
That's what's conducive to it, because you're not just a free-floating atom in outer space.
You're part of society.
You're the social creature and the political animal.
And so what did they say?
Why did it break down?
A spokesman for the Jackmans Say that the writer's strike has contributed to it because they've been stuck around at home a little bit more, I guess, and the pandemic, the lockdowns.
And this is really, really sad, too, because I wonder, of all of the terrible things that came out of those completely unnecessary lockdowns that were politically necessary for the liberals, They were financially beneficial to the biggest corporations on earth.
The lockdowns represented the largest shift in wealth from the lower classes to the upper classes ever in human history.
But they were, from a standpoint of public health, completely unnecessary.
And what happened as a result?
People didn't get to see their loved ones before they died.
People didn't get to bury their loved ones.
People put off weddings.
People put off their school.
People lost their graduations.
People lost prom.
And I wonder, how many marriages broke down because of this?
How many?
When you upend all of the norms and routines of society, things are going to break.
Things did break, economically, politically, but all the way down to the family.
How many marriages broke up because the Democrats wanted to lock the country down because there was an election the next year?
Among perhaps other reasons, but I think that's probably chief among them.
How many?
Speaking of breaking up, Republican Congressman Nancy Mace, who is a liberal Republican, but sometimes she takes the right sides on political fights, she has gone on ABC News and she has raised the prospect of replacing Kevin McCarthy as Speaker.
So you've seen Matt Gaetz come out, not just Matt Gaetz, but him most loudly and prominently saying that he's going to push to oust McCarthy, a motion to vacate.
Could you see yourself under any circumstances supporting a motion to vacate?
It hasn't happened yet, and I'm not going to, you know, comment on conjecture here.
Either he's going to file it or he's not.
If he's going to do it, put his money where his mouth is.
I do hear that some votes might be up for grabs because people were made promises that have not been kept.
What about your vote?
Is it up for grabs?
Could you support that effort?
We'll see how it turns out, but I will tell you, I'm one of those members who have made certain promises.
I've worked on women's issues.
I've worked on issues, you know, related to gun violence that I feel are very important.
And, you know, it's fallen on deaf ears.
And if I give a handshake to someone, I expect them to follow through with it.
Wow, so you don't rule out supporting that, do you?
I might.
You know what?
Everything's on the table at this point for me.
Good honor, good honor.
I kind of like her siding with the more conservative members here and trying to get a little bit of leverage on the House Speaker.
I generally have thought McCarthy is fine.
I thought he's a lot better than John Boehner.
Until I heard that story that I mentioned yesterday that has not been reported anywhere else, that McCarthy seems to be pushing the vulnerable members of the Republican caucus to lay off the Bud Light boycott.
And I heard that story, and then I heard some of the evidence for it.
I heard about the way he was doing it through the supposedly private sector, and I thought, I hope that's not true.
I certainly hope that's not true, and it's a miscommunication, and they just give it up.
That started to weaken my general feelings of goodwill for Kevin McCarthy.
But the reason that I can't go all the way with the hardcore, far-right-wing, extreme Republicans On Kevin McCarthy's speakership is my question, which is, who follows him?
Who follows McCarthy?
Do I think McCarthy is some rock-ribbed, right-wing conservative?
No, I don't.
But he's better than the last few Republican speakers we've had.
And my question is, who else is it going to be?
Remember, they challenged McCarthy for speaker.
The conservative members did.
But then nobody wanted it.
Some people said, maybe Jim Jordan will do it.
Jim Jordan didn't want to do it.
Nobody wants that job.
It's probably the most thankless job in Washington.
Very difficult to wrangle a caucus like the Republicans, which is very diverse.
Unlike the Democrats, which other than one or two representatives like Quell are, you know, who are a little more conservative, they're all just progressives.
They're all just leftists.
In the Republican Party, you got some liberals, you got some conservatives, you got some more populist-type candidates, you got some more nationalist-type candidates, you got some more globalist-type.
So, that's hard to wrangle them.
Who comes next?
This is always my question when the libs talk about how they want to assassinate Vladimir Putin.
So, you want to take out Putin?
Okay.
Who's next?
Who's next?
You don't even know anything about who's next.
You don't know anything about Russia.
You just know Putin's the bad guy, so you want to... But sometimes the devil you know is better than the devil you don't.
Remember Saddam Hussein was the devil?
Then what happened?
When he left, it wasn't necessarily an improvement.
Same thing with Muammar Gaddafi in Libya.
Certainly the same thing with Hosni Mubarak, who was actually an ally of ours in Egypt.
Who comes next?
That's the question.
We'll see.
But if McCarthy keeps playing games like this, keeps trying to loosen the Bud Light boycott, I don't know, the pressure to boost him out of office might increase.
Okay, we've got so much more to get to, man.
Oh, I really want to get to all of it, but we don't have time.
So, we'll get to that tomorrow.
The rest of the show continues now.
It is...
Trans Tuesday, where we can talk about things I can't talk about on the online version of this show on certain social media platforms.
