2 Liberals vs. 1 Conservative: BAR FIGHT | Sisson & Chris Mowrey
In Bar Fight, Harry Sisson and Chris Mowrey clash over Donald Trump’s alleged Epstein cover-up, with Sisson insisting unredacted files reveal deeper criminal ties while Mowrey cites congressional pressure and eventual 3.5M-file release. They debate ICE’s lethal raids—Alex Predi’s execution and Renee Good’s death—accusing each other of misrepresenting facts, with Sisson defending his claims amid accusations of dangerous rhetoric. The episode pivots to immigration, contrasting legal pathways (e.g., Louisiana Purchase, Hague Convention) with delays (8–9 years for visas), while mocking Maura Healy’s call for citizens to house undocumented immigrants. Ultimately, the debate exposes partisan divides on accountability, executive power, and immigration reform, leaving unresolved tensions between rhetoric and reality. [Automatically generated summary]
Joe Biden was one of the most productive presidents in modern American history.
We got to boot him out.
I think most Americans agree with him.
I only enforce the law when I want to.
What happened to no king?
You voted for a while.
You voted Belle Belling.
She was shot into the floor of the House Freddy right time when cops were being beaten and your daddy pardoned the cop eaters.
Well, welcome to Barfight.
I'm Michael Knowles.
I'm joined tonight by two guests.
That's just raw.
That's just law.
He is the Roy to Harry's Siegfried, Chris Mowry.
Joe Biden signed more fiscal legislation into law.
Hold on.
Did he sign it?
And I saw you get walked by Adam Modler on this.
Can you be quiet?
the crown prince of left-wing social media, Harry Sisson.
Now here is how it works.
We will be debating three of the most controversial topics of our day.
The bell will ring.
We will duke it out for that round.
And then our friends in the crowd can come up to the microphone to pick a fight with any of us.
Anyone who comes up to the mic can win special prizes and a seat at our VIP table sponsored by Redneck Riviera Whiskey.
Gentlemen, are you ready?
Let's do it.
Round one.
Hey!
It's now round three, I think, actually.
Harry, it's your topic.
Oh, we're going to meet you.
What's your claim?
My claim is that the Trump cover-up of the Epstein files is one of the worst scandals in American history.
Okay.
All right.
What's your argument?
I mean, look, what we've seen from Donald Trump in the past, whatever, how six months or ever since he got into office has been nothing short of gross.
And this is a serious, we're having fun, but this is a serious topic, right?
We're talking about kids, women, and even some men being abused.
You know, he never wanted the files to come out.
When there was the discharge petition, he was calling up Lauren Boebert and all the Republicans and telling them, don't put your name on it.
And he was threatening them, essentially.
And that's even what Lauren Bobert said.
She's still in Congress.
She's still in his good graces.
And even when the files are out, it's kind of been a trickle, right?
We've had some and then some and then some.
And even the files we've all seen now, which they're claiming all of them are not.
Some redactions are there that make me a little nervous, make me uncomfortable.
And I think they should unredact everything that they can within the law.
But there's emails out there where they're pretty clearly talking about committing crimes and it's still redacted.
I think the American people deserve to know who those names are.
And I think Donald Trump should have to answer for his involvement with Jeffrey Epstein, which goes much deeper than I think the right likes to let on.
You disagree?
I'll talk to you.
Let's have a conversation.
Okay.
So your claim really has two claims.
Sure.
The first is that Trump has covered up the Epstein files.
And then the second claim is that that is the worst scandal in American history.
It's one of the worst.
Yeah.
One of the worst.
Okay.
I think you are impressively wrong on both counts.
I'd love to hear that.
The first being the fact that Trump not only has not covered up the Epstein files, but he has, in fact, to date, released 3.5 million Epstein files, which is the single largest declassification in American history.
And it's not even really.
Why did he do that?
Did he want to?
He did it.
Oh, but did he want to?
Did he try to stop it?
Well, he released some files along the way, but he arrested Jeff.
He tried to stop it.
He redacted some of the files and he opposed the release of all of which is child and he was calling up Republicans telling them not to vote for it.
But if he wanted the files to come out, why was he telling Lauren Boebert not to do it?
The claim that you made is that Trump covered up the Epstein files.
That's part of my claim.
That's part of the cover-up, right?
Him telling me.
That is your claim.
Yeah, right.
So him calling up members of Congress, telling them not to release the files, not to vote to release the files.
We have to establish the first fact before we get to the sec.
Sure.
The first fact is you're claiming he covered up the Epstein files, but then you are admitting that Trump not only released all of those Epstein files, Joe Biden didn't release a single Epstein file.
Well, Donald Trump, Donald Trump released 3.5 million of them, which is the single largest release of classified information in American history.
Attempting a cover-up, that's still a cover-up, right?
So Donald Trump just failed.
He got pressured by the law and Congress, but he still tried to cover them up, don't you think that him calling Lauren Boeber, telling her not to put her name on the discharge petition is concerned?
Well, I actually do agree that not all of those files should be released.
I think some of that is a little bit reckless.
I think it undermines certain principles of American justice, like innocent until proven guilty.
I think a lot of those claims have been debunked which we saw in the files, and I think some of it is actually child sexual abuse material which obviously should not be released.
We know that there are still more documents out there like no no no, aside from claims that have been uh, disproven even in courts, even by judges.
So obviously those names shouldn't be released.
Nevertheless, on the first point, there is no arguing, it is the largest release ever in American history.
Therefore, he didn't cover it up to the second point that that if it were true that he had done the opposite of what he actually did, would that be one of the worst scandals in American history.
And I can think of a few others.
I'll try to go through them quickly.
Uh, Aaron Burr, former vice president of the United States, uh tried to establish a brand new country in America.
That seems to me like a bigger scandal.
Uh, Teapot Dome.
Do you remember that one from you remember from social studies, Teapot Dome, where the?
Uh secretary of the Interior went to jail because he took bribes to sell navy oil.
I'm thinking of another one, more recent.
Uh, let's say, stealing classified documents.
The which classified stealing classified documents?
Oh, the documents that he stored at a, in a lower degree, in less egregious ways than Joe Biden, where he had them next to his cracking son found no intent on Joe Bid's behind one of the worst.
Yeah, but just a couple others that come to mind.
A few others come to mind, uh, U.s Grant, 100 people went to jail over a scandal that also implicated his private secretary.
That's probably a bigger scandal.
Uh, Bill Clinton using his intern as a human humidor in the Oval Office and then perjuring himself about it.
I think that's a bigger scandal.
And then what about Trump actually assaulting women?
Hold on for yourself.
We'll get to that one second.
The last scandal i'll mention is when a sitting Democrat senator uh drunk, drove his mistress into a pond and then left her there to drown and remain the lion of the Senate.
I think all of those and many others are much bigger than the supposed scandal of Trump uh, not declassifying the Epstein documents, which he would have been well within his rights to do.
I actually might have favored some of that, but regardless, he didn't do it because he declassified freedom.
So everything you just mentioned in terms of scandals, I agree that those are bad.
That's why I said it's one of the worst, but it's not worse than president Trump hypothetically not releasing criminal.
We're talking about rich, powerful men connected to the government, connected internationally, abusing children, trafficking children.
I think that's a pretty bad scandal and I think covering that up and protecting the men who did it, which he did, is a bad scandal.
What which he obviously didn't do, what Donald Trump not protecting them?
So we'll cover it up.
So we just.
We just found an email in the Epstein files of somebody.
Their name is redacted.
We don't know who it is.
It's sent to Jeffrey Epstein saying, last night was fun, your littlest girl was a little naughty.
Should that be unredacted?
Uh, the whoever is implicated in that should be prosecuted.
I agree with that.
Okay great, but they're not doing that the name is redacted.
We don't know who it is.
Why, if that's, if it's not a cover-up, why?
Why is the name redacted who?
Who do you think in the Epstein files?
Who do you think we should prosecute?
Oh no no, i'm asking about this in particular, this name that's redacted right because we don't know who it is.
I can't give you an answer in terms of this specific email.
So should that be redacted?
Is Donald Trump wrong for redacting the question about the redactions or not redacted?
Can you talk about the specific email?
Well, I could talk about the specific email.
The question is, is there sufficient evidence of a crime, and have there been investigations?
Do you think that's sufficient evidence of a crime?
Not necessarily, because there are a lot of false claims.
Really?
You mentioned that Trump emailed to Epstein's personal email saying your littlest girl was a little naughty.
You don't think that's evidence of a crime?
It certainly could be evidence of a crime.
Do we think that's evidence of a crime?
Does anybody disagree?
Okay, good.
We have some people agreeing.
How about the Republicans?
I see a MAGA hat there.
Do you guys think that's evidence of a crime?
Harry, let's say.
No?
Come on, guys.
That's a bad position to take.
Let's try to bring it to a tangible question.
Sure.
You said Trump's all over the Epstein files.
What are the charges?
What are the claims?
Do you think they should be prosecuted?
I mean, we don't have all the files.
So maybe there is something in there that indicates Donald Trump.
Well, what we know, I think the behavior is morally abhorrent.
And it's not just information that's contained in the Epstein files.
We got a Wall Street Journal article that was published December 30th of 2025 that talked about how Donald Trump in the 1990s and early 2000s would send young girls to Epstein's house to give him massages.
That is only a perk that was given to members of Mar-a-Lago.
Epstein was not a member of Mar-a-Lago.
He specifically made an exception for Epstein to get massages at his house.
And everybody in the spa knew that Epstein was creepy.
Donald Trump continued to send them.
I'll rearrange my question there.
Wait, wait, wait.
I'm not done yet.
Marla Maples, Donald Trump's wife at the time, even confided in Donald Trump, said that Epstein is creepy.
You shouldn't hang out with him.
He continues to be a bad person.
Will you answer my question, though?
Is there any evidence of a crime that Donald Trump committed that you alluded to that you think he should be prosecuted?
Well, I mean.
Well, you mean what?
I'll let you answer if you're not.
Okay, perfect.
In the Epstein files we have so far, because there are still millions out there, I don't think there's enough evidence to prosecute Donald Trump.
However, when you're looking at Donald Trump, if he had knowledge that he was sending young girls to Epstein's house to be abused, do you think he should be prosecuted?
That's a big if.
If wishes were given, we have Wall Street Journal.
We have dozens.
No, no, no, not an op-ed.
It was fact-checked by the entire Wall Street Journal department fact-checking.
Do you think that if Donald Trump was found and we have all these Mar-a-Lago employees saying that?
Well, this is what I'm asking you.
What is the evidence of a crime that he committed?
Okay, so that Wall Street Journal article, if Donald Trump was- What is the specific crime?
He knew that Epstein was creepy and he was actively sending young girls.
Knowing someone's creepy is not a crime.
What is the crime?
Wait, wait, wait, wait.
So wait, Hold on, hold on.
If he's sending young girls.
Trust me, there's going to be a lot of prosecutions if we could go after everyone we think is.
But wait, wait, wait.
Okay, sorry.
If he's sending young girls, you said in this article, sending young girls to Jeffrey.
Is that a circumstance?
How old is it?
Is that not facilitating sex trafficking?
It's all based on hypotheticals.
The details of the selling issues.
Which neither of that agree with the hypothetical.
Older girls.
Everybody in the spa.
When did it happen?
Wait, it doesn't, if they're 18 and getting abused, it's still a crime, right?
So it doesn't, like, they could, the age of 10.
What do we mean by abuse?
You're assaulted.
Assaulted.
Virginia Jufre was picked up from Mar-a-Lago and assaulted by Jeffrey Epstein.
What claims did Virginia Jufre make?
I mean, she was, it was awful.
I mean, it was rape.
It was everything.
Against whom?
Against Jeffrey Epstein.
Against Jeffrey Epstein.
And Gilane Maxwell and Prince Andrew.
And who else?
I mean, I don't know.
Who else?
There was a very, the biggest case involving Virginia Jufre involved Alan Dershowitz.
That's one of the biggest guys in the world.
Roman jail.
Right.
Now, here's one of the problems for this, and it's one of the problems for all the claims you guys are making.
She retracted that claim.
In the case of the allegations about Donald Trump, there's a case in which they say that a 13-year-old girl decades ago was raped by Donald Trump.
So you say, well, we should look into that if that really happened, shouldn't we?
And then when we look a little deeper, we find, oh, actually, this has been adjudicated.
There was not only one court case, there were multiple court cases.
They went through California.
One second.
One in California where it was dismissed by a judge.
Two other times she brought it up, represented by Lisa Bloom, and both times she retracted her lawsuit.
You're not arguing against what I'm saying.
I'm bringing up this specific.
I'm saying these are unsubstantiated claims.
And you say, well, I've got a lot of people who are the Wall Street Journal making big.
We have the Wall Street Journal talking about the Wall Street Journal.
Talking to multiple Mar-a-Lago employees, not just random people.
Okay, but we can't name any crimes.
Very interesting.
I think that's a crime.
What is the crime?
I just asked you.
Okay, great.
You wouldn't prosecute it.
Facilitating sex trafficking.
You just said you wouldn't profit.
Facilitating sex trafficking.
Okay, on what occasion and what circumstance?
I just told you, in the 1990s and early 2000s, Epstein was actively having young girls come to his house from Mar-a-Lago Spa.
They were a variety of ages.
Give me some numbers.
There were a variety of ages.
Okay, if you know the ages, what are the ages?
There were some kids.
Virginia Duffrey was a kid when she worked at the Mar-a-Lago Spa.
But she didn't.
She retracted her claims.
That's the point of that.
Do you think that Virginia Duffrey lied about the assaults from Epstein?
She said that she lied about that.
Oh, wow.
Okay.
Wow.
Do you have questions?
I'm just trusting her.
I believe all women.
What's the problem?
Well, then you're supposed to agree that Donald Trump's a rapist.
All right, Harry, I have a question for you.
Let's establish one fact first.
Jeffrey Epstein died in 2019.
Joe Biden became president in 2020.
The liberal media will do anything to hate on Donald Trump, whether he solve world hunger or even find peace in Gaza or something crazy.
It's not peace and gossip.
So they'll do anything to hate on him.
If Biden could find something in the Epstein files to have against Donald Trump, why would he not release those?
Happy to answer it.
He had four years to do it.
Why didn't he do it?
Happy to answer that.
Four years.
I heard you the first time.
Unlimited access to these documents and he didn't release them.
What's that about?
I heard you.
We were just so a lot.
Ghelaine Maxwell's case was still working the way through the courts, right?
She was still appealing.
There was still a lot going on there, which does restrict certain documents from being released because that's DOJ law.
If they're part of an active criminal investigation or prosecution, they can't be released.
But Kamala Harris was actually asked this question on Jimmy Kimmel recently.
She said, you know, Kimmel said, why didn't you release the Epstein files?
And Kamala Harris said, we had an independence between the presidency and the DOJ, which has disappeared under Donald Trump.
So Joe Biden nor Kamala Harris went to the DOJ and said, well, we'll release all the Epstein files because we want to hurt Donald Trump.
They respected that independence, which should exist, but no longer exists under Donald Trump.
The same thing, that's a very good point.
Wait, wait, hold on, the same DOJ that terrorized people that they shouldn't have, the same DOJ that Biden militarized, that same DOJ that got independent.
I don't want to lose the point because you make a very good point.
You say, well, hold on.
It would have been inappropriate for Joe Biden to intervene with the DOJ and to encourage them to release these files.
But weren't you just criticizing Donald Trump for not releasing the files?
Which he actually did in the middle of the morning.
You're misunderstanding my point.
You're misunderstanding.
You're very confused.
You're misunderstanding my point.
There was an act of law working its way through Congress, and Donald Trump got involved in that.
And he's obviously been communicating with the law.
He laughed to mandate this unprecedented release of classified materials.
I agree, which I'm circumspect about myself.
I think there were plenty of good reasons to keep it in the middle of the moment.
He was actively involved in this.
He was actively taking a role in it.
Joe Biden took no role in releasing the Epstein files.
He let the DOJ do its own thing.
So if the DOJ under President Trump decided not to release the Epstein files, you would support that.
Donald Trump regarding the release of the Epstein files to following a law.
No, listen, you're misunderstanding my point.
The president should not take a position in this.
Donald Trump's Interference00:15:10
They should be independent.
So Donald Trump took a firm position of no files released.
Joe Biden took no position, said, hey, you guys are the lawyers.
You're the experts.
You're the DOJ.
We don't want to be in the middle.
So you would prefer if President Trump had never voiced an opinion on this hot political matter, you would prefer if you were to wait.
I would prefer Donald Trump not interfere with the press.
You would prefer if the DOJ did not release a single document under DOF.
I would prefer Donald Trump on this point in particular, DOJ independence.
I would prefer Donald Trump not take a position in being wrong.
Therefore, you would prefer the DOJ not to release a single document.
Well, I mean, they're mandated by law to do so.
So if the DOJ passed the law that President Trump did.
Well, I would say that's the same thing.
I would want the DOJ without a law to release the files regardless.
But once the law is passed, once the law is passed.
Hold on, hold on.
Hold on.
Hold on.
Can I interject you?
Maybe you can interrupt.
Can I interject you?
The federal government right now is set up in a way that is unprecedented for modern American history.
For all of modern American history, these three-letter agencies, the DOJ, the FBI, the CDC, they have been largely independent from the presidency, shielded from political pressure.
Donald Trump ran on the idea of unitary executive theory outlined in Project 2025.
The idea, it's true, the idea- Unitary executive goes a little further than Project 2025.
No, of course.
Of course, it's been a theory forever.
But conservatives have been arguing.
Conservatives have been arguing that the president should have sole control over these agencies for decades.
Donald Trump, on his first day in office, signed Schedule F, giving him the ability for the first time ever to mass fire civil servants at these three-letter agencies.
That's not the same thing.
It's been dumbed up for the first time ever.
I mean, the civil service has existed for a long time.
Of course, but the idea that he could, without any reasoning, fire whoever he wishes at these agencies and fill hold on and fill these agencies with loyalists.
Now the DOJ does whatever Donald Trump wants him to do.
And so if the DOJ.
Hold on, they just released all those documents.
But you said that Trump didn't have to do it.
They released all the documents after he needed a political offer.
So the DOJ doesn't.
Hold on, hold on.
The DOJ does what Congress wants them to do, or the DOJ does what Donald Trump wants them to do?
Congress is useless because it's a bunch of, uh...
But I thought you said the documents were only released because of Congress, not because of Trump.
Hold on.
But then you said that.
No, they were forced by the law because Trump and all his Republicans' friends in Congress who listened to whatever he says needed a political off ramp.
He's getting killed on this issue because he said, I'm going to release the files on day one.
He can do whatever he wants, he can force his DOJ to release all the files.
Then Pam Bondi says I have the files on my desk.
Then the files don't exist.
Then the whole thing's a hoax and we want to stop talking about the blacklist didn't exist, which it doesn't, but but for weeks it was, oh, we don't want to release these files.
The files don't exist.
They may exist and politically he's getting murdered on this issue.
So his friends in Congress passed the law and he's forced.
He's forced at that point.
So the problem with Trump is that he didn't release all the files and he did release all the files.
I think the problem I don't know, I think the problem.
I think the problem is the premise of the question.
To the person over there who asked, Biden had these files for four years.
It's just.
That is a gross misunderstanding of how the American government works.
The Department OF Justice was largely independent from the presidency through all of modern American history up until right now.
So Joe Biden and Kamala Harris were not going to hyperpoliticize.
You think the DOJ was independent and not politicized?
Who was spying on Catholic churches under Joe Biden, that's?
You think it was not political?
Actually actually, actually.
You think the DOJ was independent of Barack Obama when they were suing millions?
Actually yes, and to that person's point, well then, we got to clear out the DOJ.
I'm glad Trump did it.
No, no to the person no, no to the person's point.
It's like they're almost there.
They say oh, if Joe Biden had the file, if the DOJ was hyperpoliticized, they threw all these charges on Trump.
Then you know he didn't release the files because he didn't care.
It's like you're almost there.
Actually, the DOJ indicted Trump not for political reasons, because Donald Trump committed crimes.
The DOJ went after the groups you're referring to because there is right-wing extremism in the United States.
It's one of the largest domestic terror issues of our time.
What was that crime that Trump committed?
These are just Donald Trump.
Donald Trump falsified business records in the first degree.
That well, that was the case in New York.
you're talking about.
What's the federal case?
Oh, the classified documents case.
The classified documents.
We have another question over here.
Did you mind to store those classified documents?
Yeah, hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on.
Next question.
The intent was completely different.
The intent was completely different.
Where's Harry?
Who the hell is this guy?
Who the hell is this guy?
Oh, baby Harry, sweet Harry.
You've been talking about scandals, about obfuscation.
Oh, yeah, we call it good.
Fighting and cover-ups.
Nice.
Brother in Christ, brother in Molotov.
We didn't have a president for four years.
And you covered it up.
How is that not worse?
You didn't go the direction we thought you were going to.
So.
Where'd you think he was going to go?
We had a man in severe cognitive decline for four years.
Yeah.
Not running the country.
You talked about the DOJ as independent because it was.
Yeah.
Because there was no head of state.
How is that not worse?
Okay.
Are you done?
Yeah, no.
It's hard to make that argument when Joe Biden, and you're going to hate this.
Joe Biden was one of the most productive presidents in modern American history.
Hey, hey.
Go ahead.
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
Oh, I want to talk to you right there.
You.
I'm going to sit back.
Go to that.
I'd love to.
I bet you and I. I'm going to let you start.
You and I could go back and forth on legislation.
We go bar for bar.
I just want to, hold on, hold on.
Before Harry goes, I do want to point out.
Joe, regardless of if you hated every piece of legislation that was signed into law under Joe Biden, hold on.
Joe Biden signed more fiscal legislation into law.
Hold on.
Did he sign it?
Hold on.
Can I finish?
Can I finish?
I want to point something out.
Can I get you some of that?
I'm speaking.
I'm going to let you speak.
More fiscal legislation into law than any president in the last 70 years.
Up to this point, Donald Trump, who many of you voted for, his huge mandate.
He has better lines in Congress.
Republicans control the House.
Republicans control the Senate.
Republicans control the presidency.
Up to this point, Donald Trump has passed less legislation than any president in 70 years.
In 70 years, Raymond Trump is absolutely.
Hold on.
So just to clarify, this is sort of a new, I wish this were its own debate.
I submitted it.
Joe Biden is the most productive president in recent American.
He did it all.
By the way, by the way.
By the way, Donald Trump is taking credit for some of Biden's policies.
So everybody's like booing it.
Like, he's taking credit.
You're cheering for it then.
Can anybody name a piece of legislation Donald Trump passed in his first or second turn?
I want to hear his point.
Who said that?
We'll talk about that in a second.
This guy.
Defending the incredible efficacy of the Democratic legislature is not a defense of the state.
Really?
When Joe Biden passed the largest infrastructure bill in American history that rebuilt roads and bridges and removed every single lead pipe.
Wait, be quiet, please.
Removed every single lead pipe in America so everybody has clean drinking water.
Just to be, everybody's against lead pipe removal.
Dude, everybody, dude, dude, dude.
No, no, okay.
All right.
Excuse me.
Hey, hey, we over there.
Let Yelson.
I want to hear Harry's.
Michael says he wants to hear.
You listen to him.
It's too good to miss.
Yeah, exactly.
When Joe Biden passed the PACT Act, which invested in healthcare for veterans who were exposed to toxic burn pits abroad, who's against that?
Anyone?
Okay, right.
So nobody's against that.
Who loves the Candy Public Act?
What about Candy and Public Act?
When Joe Biden passed the Chips and Science Act to invest in these little chips we have on our phones and these microphones, everything you're looking at, to make them here in America, not abroad.
Anybody against that?
That wasn't an executive order.
It was a bill.
It came from Congress.
Wait, be quiet.
Be quiet.
What?
When do they do that?
Right after the debt pack.
He's saying 80%.
Intel laid off 18% of the workforce right after that act.
And has that?
How is that, Harry?
Has that trend continued or slowed or gotten better?
Has that trend continued or gotten better?
It's only going to get better from it.
And the economy continues to get worse under Donald Trump.
You're talking about mass layoffs.
Look at Donald Trump.
You're talking about all-time stock market highs.
You're talking about inflation still.
Gas prices are going up and bringing you back.
Wait, wait, wait.
How many factors under Donald Trump?
How can tax inflation being eradicated on the manufacturing confidence has gone up?
We've lost manufacturing jobs for 14 straight months under Donald J. Trump.
It's hard to do.
He ran on a manufacturing.
He's going to rebuild manufacturing after 50 years of DNO.
So wait, wait, wait.
Joe Biden did it.
He created 800,000 manufacturing jobs in his four years.
Yeah, the thing is, when you shut an entire economy down, artificially restarted.
Who was president?
Unfortunately, unfortunately, President Trump allowed it.
Unfortunately, President Trump allowed the Democrat governors to destroy the economy.
That's true.
Okay, that's all right.
It's a Democrat somehow.
Hold on, hold on.
Is Donald Trump?
Wait, can we just point out, though, that I just named three of Biden's biggest policies?
Not a single person in this room, except that dude with the weird hat back there objected to the policies.
You all like it.
Yeah, because you're an easy policy.
Wait, so what is it?
Wait, wait, wait.
Hold on, let's protect ourselves.
Hold on, hold on.
These are 2011.
These are not easy policies to get done.
Donald Trump said it was infrastructure weak his entire first term.
He didn't get in any infrastructure bill passed.
The razor-thin Republican majority in the House does make it totally different.
Joe Biden had a smaller majority.
The executive orders have been excellent.
And it's not for the smaller majority, and he got it done.
Joe Biden had a smaller majority and got it done.
Because the Democrats are in lockstep and the Republicans are like Republicans voted for it.
All of these are bipartisan.
They're all by Republicans voted for it.
So are you against any of those bills?
Are you against any of those bills?
Yeah.
Why?
Because the infrastructure bill had a ton of pork in it.
What was the pork inefficient?
What pork?
You're talking about like individual bridge projects?
Yeah.
People being able to drive is a pretty good thing.
Not only with the infrastructure bill.
Not only the infrastructure bill and the Inflation Reduction Act.
The problem with those bills is that they passed a lot of nonsense spending that damaged the economy brought to you.
Wait, wait, what are you doing?
Damaged the economy?
What specifically?
It increased inflation to 9% under 9% inflation.
What's the connection?
Where's the top?
Even Bernie Sanders admitted that the inflation reduction is available.
I don't ask me Bernie Sanders.
You don't like Bernie Sanders.
What is the connection?
I agree with him here because he agrees with the Republicans.
So when all the years, I'll give it economics 101.
When you spend a bunch of money on nonsense over a 10-year period, Donald Trump has spent a bunch of money.
Donald Trump spent more money than Joe Biden did.
Under which law?
Under his entire term.
Hold on, but which law?
His first four years?
His first four years?
Because you were previously criticizing Trump for not doing anything.
Yes.
But then when it was convenient for you, you criticized him for doing a lot of taxes.
When you have the tax cuts, when you reduce revenue, you spend more money.
There's more debt, right?
So under Donald Trump's first four years, he spent more than Joe Biden did in his four years.
You're talking about because of the lockdowns or because of the tax cuts.
Oh, recalling the tax cuts.
Joe funding.
Tax cuts, cut, spend it.
He cut taxes for people, and that is spending time.
And he tax cuts for wealthy people.
I don't think there's any billionaires in the crowd.
Hey, Mark.
Hey, Michael, long time listening.
What's going on, man?
Long time listener.
You're a first-time caller.
Yeah.
First of all, I want to say, Chris and Harry, thank you for coming here.
Like, it genuinely to face people that you know disagree with you and some may hate you, that really takes balls.
Speaking of balls, the First Lady of France.
No, I'm kidding.
I'm kidding.
Good night, everybody.
I do have an actual substantive question.
You talk a lot about subverting democracy and the will of the people, but you endorsed a candidate who was nominated to be president without a single vote casting.
Wait, that's wait, wait, wait, wait.
How is that not subversion?
I don't know.
Okay, you guys.
Can I respond?
Yeah, well, a couple of things here.
Who, first of all, with Joe Biden, with Joe Biden dropping out, there is nobody else at that point in time, the moment Kamala Harris announces that she's going to run for president, there is nobody whose primary is Kamala Harris.
People say, why was there not an open primary?
Why didn't we get to vote?
Because nobody ran against her.
Everybody immediately got their, you know, through their support, all Democrats threw the support behind Kamala Harris.
Joe Biden threw support behind Kamala Harris.
And again, we actually did vote.
We technically, well, the delegate process wasn't in Chicago, but to make it simple, we as registered Democrats got to vote for delegates who then went to Chicago and every single delegate voted for Kamala Harris to be the nominee.
So that's not subverting democracy.
That's absurd.
If Democrats wanted a primary process, then somebody has to primary Kamala Harris.
Nobody primired Kamala Harris.
Why not?
Because she was just such a great candidate.
She was a good candidate.
Wait, wait, wait, wait.
I think to Harry's point, the Biden-Harris administration was incredibly productive.
They did a lot of good things.
Yeah, that's just wrong.
That's just fucking bullying.
That's just wrong.
That's not true.
Passed more fiscal legislation than any administration in seven decades.
They showed for the first time in a long time that with bipartisan support, you can get things done.
So yes, Kamala Harris was a very good person.
With bipartisan support, you can make eggs cost $11.
Wait, so they're so true.
What did Joe Biden do?
Wait, Yeah, two things.
You answered the question.
Exactly.
What did Joe Biden do?
You guys talk a lot about the Christian.
Wait, wait, wait, wait.
How do you do that?
Wait, wait, wait.
Hold on.
I want to display it because you talk about, oh, we could vote on delegates.
The DNC and the RNC, for that matter, are private clubs.
So they can make the rules.
They can do whatever they want.
And there is no actual democracy in those private clubs.
They can pick whoever they want.
They can change the rules to be like, oh, if Joe Biden falls down the stairs, then Hillary Clinton is automatically the domineer.
She would push him.
I agree, Michael.
But it's not really a democratic process.
Wait, but I don't understand that.
Then what's the question?
Like you say, we talk about the question.
Hold on, because we're talking about subverting democracy.
I mean, Donald Trump lost an election, knew he lost an election, spent months perpetrating the lie that he won the 2020 election.
Hold on.
He went, really?
He lost it.
He stolen his side.
Hold on, hold on.
Hold on.
We're going to.
Hold on.
We're going to.
You're an idiot.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
We're going to come back to that.
But again, Donald Trump, Donald Trump spent months perpetrating a lie that he won the 2020 election when all of his advisors told him that he lost.
He still believes he lost a 2020 election.
We're witnessing the largest expansion of executive authority in our entire lifetimes.
Okay, Donald Trump is interested in nothing but power.
I don't understand.
How is he expanding his face?
Wait, wait, wait, wait.
But to this person's point, I don't understand how that relates to like Kamala Harris being the nominee.
He's saying that you guys say you're such lowercase D Democrats and power to the people and more involvement for more people is good.
And you don't even want voter ID.
You want that many people to be involved.
You don't want to discourage anyone.
And yet then out of the other side of your mouth, you say, no, it's great.
These parties are private clubs.
And if they just pick the nominee, that's fine.
I don't think we've ever said it's great, right?
Like they make great.
You're defending.
That was the, I think that was.
No, no, What I was defending is that people say, why was there not a primary?
And I just say, there literally can't be a primary when there's nobody else running.
If Democrats want a primary, someone else has to run.
Kamala Harris will be.
She was just too good.
She's just too good.
Okay.
So the question.
Who wins the VIP round?
Who gets to go to the table?
I hear number one.
I hear number two.
Mr. Davies, I can't.
I don't.
At the mic, who was it?
Who votes for Kirk?
Who votes for two?
Who says it was.
Who says it was Mark?
I don't know.
Who do we say?
Z-Biotics Pre-Alcohol: Barfight Solutions00:02:20
Mark.
It's like Mark Lynch.
All right.
Hold on.
Can we do a recount of the votes?
Yeah, can we get a recount?
This is some Bush B. Gore stuff.
Lady.
Over here.
So, this is very exciting.
You are going to be drinking Redneck Riviera Bourbon.
We're all having our drinks up here, but you know what you have to have first?
It's called Z-Biotics.
You got to go to z-biotics.com slash barfight.
Go there right now.
After a night with drinks, you know, I'm an old man now.
I'm not as young as these two fellas.
I don't bounce back the way I used to.
I have to make a choice.
I can either have a great night or a great next day.
That is until I found Z-Biotics Pre-Alcohol.
Z-Biotics Pre-Alcohol probiotic drink is the world's first genetically engineered probiotic.
It was invented by PhD scientists, not those fake scientists like Dr. Joe Biden.
This is how you can tackle rough mornings after drinking.
Here's how it works.
When you drink alcohol, it gets converted into a toxic byproduct in your gut.
Now, the buildup of this byproduct, not dehydration, is actually what is to blame for those rough days after drinking, which I had no idea about until I looked into the pre-alcohol product.
Free alcohol produces this enzyme to break the byproduct down.
So you're actually addressing the root cause.
Now, just remember, to make free alcohol your first drink of the night, or my third, I guess in this case, drink responsibly.
You will feel your best tomorrow.
I love it.
I love it so much.
I don't know if you guys are going to attempt it.
We're attempting our nails.
Cheers.
It's very well sealed.
Cheers, it's well sealed.
Cheers.
We're attempting.
There you go.
We're attempting.
I just fucking got nails.
Delicious.
Are you ready to try it?
Go to zbiotics.com slash barfight right now.
You will get 15% off your first order when you go to barfight, code barfight at checkout.
It's backed by a 100% money-back guarantee.
There's no risk.
Subscriptions are available for maximum consistency.
Z-Biotics docking is the longest dad ever.
Zbiotics.com slash Barfight.
Code Barfight at Checkout for 15% off.
It is time for round two.
We tried our best.
I actually liked anything.
Oh, you can just twist it.
Oh.
All right.
We're nowhere late to it.
We're going to be slamming it.
Cheers.
Cheers.
Chin Chin.
JD Vance's Political Motives00:15:06
Nice.
I poisoned it.
No, I didn't.
Wouldn't that be crazy if I did not?
Okay.
Chris, what's your topic?
My topic is Trump's ICE raids respect no limits.
No limits.
No limits.
Okay.
What's your argument?
Look, my argument is this.
Donald Trump, especially with, again, the expansion of executive authority that we have seen, there are mass agents running around our communities to obviously the dismay of the American people for political gain.
Okay.
These people at ICE, the actual individuals within ICE themselves, are not qualified to be ICE agents.
A lot of them are being hired with few little oversight, I should say.
The organization itself lowering the requirements for ICE agents.
They're running ads targeting people who show up at specific bars, who are interested in certain conservative ideals.
They're hiring people who are.
We got to get on the list for this show, I think.
We got to get some ICE agents.
They're hiring people who are pro-Trump, who are very conservative, and they can, frankly, do whatever they want.
They have the backing of the federal government.
We saw two U.S. citizens executed in broad daylight on video.
And though the DOJ was not interested in investigating those cases, Donald Trump backing it up and saying, I love it.
There's no limits here.
Michael, they do.
Okay, a few points here.
One, there are no investigations into the officer involved killing.
Renee Good.
There's no federal investigation.
No, I think if we're being good faith, there is no investigation.
Immediately after what happened with Alex Predi, the DOJ came out and they said immediately, Pam Bondi said, this guy's a domestic terrorist.
The administration, JD Vance, said he's a domestic terrorist.
He was there to do all this horrible stuff.
It's pretty clear they immediately laid the groundwork for we don't need to investigate this.
And as far as I'm going to say, a very factual question.
Are there investigations?
I am not aware of the DOJ currently investigating the shooting, the actual officer himself involved in Alex Predty's shooting.
What about Renee Good?
There are investigations in the world.
I think that the DOJ, my understanding is that the DOJ is more interested in investigating what happened as opposed to potential wrongdoing.
They're more interested in investigating if Renee Good is a criminal.
People resigned from the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, like eight or ten prosecutors, because the specific division that's used to investigate police shootings said that they were not investigating it.
Yeah, I would say that as many people as can resign from those civil rights offices is probably for the better.
And Michael knows everybody.
It often is liberal.
You're discriminating against it.
Do you have any experience of that?
That the civil rights office is places are.
Yeah, well, here's some evidence.
And this actually does relate to another recent case, which is that on the topic of like the FACE Act, which is a version of a civil rights law, it's only ever applied to protect abortion clinics and virtually never applied to protect churches, including the church that was at issue in Minnesota.
Wait, wait, but that's not your claim is that there's like this almost consistent.
My claim is that the civil rights regime tends to only track left and doesn't actually protect the rights of people on the right.
That's my claim.
However, it's a slightly side point.
The chief topic you're making, or the chief claim you're making, is that Trump's ICE respects no limits.
How about the differences between how ICE operates in red states versus blue states?
In red states, the majority of people that ICE picks up are already in prison, have already been arrested.
Why is that?
Hold on, no, is it because in the blue states, the governors and the mayors will not cooperate with ICE to hand over the criminal illegal aliens?
No, no, they don't care about ICICICINECIAN.
I don't care about crime.
You don't care about crime.
I do care about it.
You know, you voted for a convicted felon.
Yeah, I care about the real criminals.
That's a real crime.
It went to a jury, got convicted of falsifying business records in the first degree.
He was also indicted in three other jurisdictions.
What's the penalty?
Well, he didn't get a penalty because he got elected president.
Hold on.
And well, the civil penalty.
What's the civil penalty for that?
What do you mean?
It was a criminal case.
In the case of falsifying business records, there was a penalty to be paid, which had a dollar number on it.
Oh, yeah.
I mean, there's a fine or a possible jail time.
But they didn't get any of that.
And why, even before he was elected president, why would the penalty have been reduced by the judge?
Why would the penalty have been reduced?
Because it was excessive, but it was obviously penalized.
No, it depends on a variety of factors.
If he's a repeat offender, for example, that's why they might reduce or increase a penalty.
But Donald Trump, the reason that Donald Trump is not sitting, and they're going to hate this one as well, the reason that Donald Trump is not sitting in prison right now is because he got elected president of the United States.
That's the truth.
I mean, in the case of the, we're getting a little far afield here.
I'm sorry, Ali.
In the case of the falsifying business records, it is interesting that a judge actually weighed in and said this is an excessive penalty for what's basically a bogus crime.
No, that's it.
Just a side point.
We'll get back to that.
So, yeah, Jackson's point.
Again, they're clearly operating.
Can you name the instances?
I mean, we're clearly seeing the majority of ICE agents in these blue states.
It's clearly for political gain.
I mean, Donald Trump is sending ICE agents into places like Minnesota, which is historically close to the Southern Arts.
That's right there, isn't it?
And furthermore.
Hold on, just to the point.
These blue states and these blue cities are openly declaring themselves sanctuary cities and states.
They are saying we want illegal aliens to come here.
And you're shocked that the Border Patrol and ICE will go in and say, well, maybe we'll arrest those illegal aliens where they say that they are.
Wait, wait, so you believe that the role of the federal government is to enforce federal immigration.
Wait, Even against the will, even against the will of states and against the will of the United States.
Yes, it's federal law.
Even if it's a supremacy clause in our Constitution.
And so I care about federal.
I also want to point out that, like, again, this actually goes back to the premise, the idea that you, for some reason, believe that illegal immigration, and Donald Trump believes that illegal immigration is this massive problem that requires a lot of people.
Yeah, there are like 20 million of them in the world.
No, no, first of all, there's not 20 million.
There was a maximum of 10 million border encounters under Joe Biden.
Obviously, if Border Patrol encounters somebody, illegal immigration, illegal immigration.
I mean, that is a shocking number, but illegal immigration actually predates Joe Biden, believe it or not.
It actually goes back to the bottom.
Hold on, hold on.
But my point being here is that why are we demonizing these communities and demonizing?
Because they're criminals and they have no right to be here.
Hold on.
You voted for a criminal.
You can't get away from it.
Hold on.
Besides the fact, besides the fact that they entered the United States illegally, why do you not, why do you think that this is such a big problem?
That Donald Trump needs to be sending federal agents into cities.
Yes.
Militarizing our city.
Because many decades ago, the United States Congress passed a law about him.
Hold on.
Let me just answer your question.
You say, why do I care that people are violating our basic laws and coming into our country and committing crimes and using our resources?
No, That's what you're asking.
That's what they're doing.
So, my answer is: because many moons ago, the American people elected legislators to Congress and Congress passed laws about our immigration system.
And they said some people can come in, some people can't stay here.
There's a way to come in.
And there is a federal law.
That's how our democracy is supposed to function.
Because of that, people elected Donald Trump with the popular vote in 2024, specifically to deport the illegal aliens who are here.
Both parties agreed on this until very, very recently, well up through the Obama administration.
So you spoke up when- So that's why I care, because I want the law to- When Kilmar Obrego-Garcia was illegally deported, which, by the way, the Trump administration admitted in court themselves.
And the Supreme Court ruled 9-0.
When the illegal alien shed a single tear.
Oh, Kilman shed a single tear.
Michael, so you see, you pick and choose and you care about federal law.
No, no, no.
He got deported.
Well, but it's against federal law.
The Supreme Court ruled against Donald Trump.
Was Kilmar Brego-Garcia an American citizen, a legal resident, or was he illegal alien?
You're taking a simple question.
No, no, no.
Simple question.
No, no, no.
You're misinterpreting.
Very simple question.
You think.
You won't answer it, though.
Wait, what was it?
Killed Garcia an American citizen or was he an illegal alien?
He was here legally.
Kilmar Obrego-Garcia was not here legally.
Yes, he was.
He was not here legal.
He absolutely was.
He was absolutely.
He had humanitarian parole.
There we go.
Which is legal.
That's a legal.
That's a legitimate thing to talk about anyway.
Hold on, Michael.
Michael, you can't claim to care about federal law.
You can't claim to care about federal law while also endorsing Donald Trump, ignoring a 9-0 Supreme Court ruling.
Yeah, I would say that when we have people who've entered this country illegally, whether they have a temporary protective status, whether they are on their path to becoming an American citizen, if they are people who are not good for our country, who have no legal right to be here permanently, We got to boo them out.
Do we think that JD Vance or Gavin Newsom has a better chance?
And is Gavin Newsom telling the truth when he says that he doesn't really support men and women's sports?
That's a fascinating question.
That is a fascinating question.
Actually, I got a question.
I appreciate it.
We raise the caliber with Mary Margaret.
That's nice.
That's a great question.
But look, you want to take it first or you want me to go?
Yeah, yeah.
Let me start with the first question.
You got it.
Which was: Gavin Newsom or JD Vance, okay?
The Trump administration is historically unpopular.
They are underwater in every single issue that got them elected.
I know, hold, hold, it doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter.
You're losing out, bro.
Because I know how we all feel about polls, right?
But the polls that got him elected have flipped on their head.
A CNN poll from October, hold on, from October of 2020.
No, no, I know, I know.
Hold on.
Hold on.
Don't cry.
Hold on.
A CNN poll.
This is just one example.
A CNN poll from October of 2024.
From October 2024, Donald Trump was plus 11 on inflation in the economy.
It's why he won the election.
That same poll right now, he's underwater 27 points.
A Fox News poll showed that like 68% of Americans felt like ICE was going too far in the things that they were doing.
They're historically unpopular.
JD Vance sucks.
He doesn't believe in anything, okay?
At least.
No, no, he does.
Hold on, How many of you, how many of you, how many of you like Donald Trump in this room?
Okay.
Okay.
Pause, pause, pause.
So in 2015, when JD Vance said that Donald Trump was America's Hitler, that he was an awful guy, did he just stop believing that what happened there?
He was persuaded by evidence.
Like my friend Ben Shapiro.
Ben Shapiro was very persuaded.
No, no, no, He wasn't persuaded by evidence.
He lost all of his values and his morals because he got to be vice president of the United States.
And in the Republican Party and in the Republican Party, you cannot be an elected official and not bow down to Donald Trump.
Are you accusing Ben Shapiro of losing his values and morals?
Are you accusing Glenn Vance?
I'm not suggesting.
No, no, that's not that.
Because you know he's a political strong.
Wait, wait, no, no, that's a straw man.
I'm just saying.
I've changed.
I've changed their minds.
Men's changed their mind.
Hold on.
I've changed my views over time.
I'm just, in this particular instance, JD Vance obviously.
I don't apply the same standard when JD Vance could become vice president of the United States.
You're a political political.
No, no, his entire career.
His entire career depends on him loving Donald Trump, just like all these other Republican elected officials who hated Donald Trump previously, who we know they probably still hate him now, but they don't have a choice.
Why did the other Never Trumpers change their minds?
Why did what?
Yeah, what Never Trumpers changed their minds.
Ben Shapiro and Glenn Beck.
Okay, I would.
Because he became the Republican nominee.
They're going to vote for him out of the way.
So now you're changing your opinion.
Now you say we were just cynical.
No, no, no, no.
I mean, I feel like you're trying to.
I'm just trying to clarify.
No, you're applying a different standard to JD Vance than you are to everyone else.
Because I think that JD Vance, it's just a one unique person who's in a unique spot to be vice president of the United States.
Everybody else might have their different reasons.
I agree.
You're nervous.
No, Hold on, hold on, hold on.
Has JD Vance, has JD Vance ever explained what caused him to change his mind?
Many times.
Yes, but I've never heard a good answer for President Trump's performance in office.
I just want to point out.
I just want to point out, we didn't go from, oh, I don't love Donald Trump to I like him.
He said, quote, Donald Trump is America's Hitler to apparently loving him so much, he's now the vice president of the United States.
Turn that he wasn't Hitler.
It was actually pretty good.
Well, Harry, before we go, you had a point you said you're not afraid of.
Oh, no, I'm not afraid of JD Vance.
And on her question, nobody should be afraid of J.D. You sound a little afraid.
I'm not afraid of JD Vance.
I think Gavin Newsom has a better chance.
If you're just looking at it from a data standpoint, you can boo all you want.
The data doesn't lie.
If you're looking at it from a data standpoint, Gavin Newsom, I believe, has a better chance right now.
And then what was the follow-up?
Was that it?
Whether it was going to be Newsome or Vance, Mary Margaret, what was the follow-up?
Did we answer everything?
Oh, women's sports.
Oh, yeah, that's right.
I think he's telling the truth.
Yeah, I think he's telling the truth.
So hold on.
The truth about what?
What is Newsom's current claim?
You asked, does Gavin Newsom agree with men not playing in women's sports?
Is that right?
Oh, it's not her?
Oh, where is she?
So I'm so sorry.
I'm so sorry.
I'm flattered that he thinks I marry Margaret.
So he says, Gavin Newsom now says men shouldn't be in women's sports, but he previously did not say that.
We were just talking about changing.
Well, the question is, do you think that was a sincere change of heart?
I do think it's a cynical political category.
I do think he's telling you.
Why did Gavin Newsom just a few weeks ago say he wants to see more trans kids?
I think, I mean, well, what was the context of what we're talking about?
He was asked.
I don't remember this.
Okay, well, that's okay.
So that's a big problem.
If you don't remember the context, I think it speaks for itself.
I want to see more trans kids.
You know what probably the context is?
Should more people feel comfortable coming out as who they are?
Okay.
He's probably saying.
But they shouldn't be able to play sports.
What do you mean, boo?
Hold on.
But Harry, so they should come out as trans, and he wants to see more of that, but he just doesn't want to let them play sports?
Well, those are two different topics.
I mean, they're just pretty related, I would say.
No, they're not pretty related.
They're two different topics in two different debates.
Here's my question.
Sure.
Building on Mary Margaret's question.
Gavin, you believe Gavin Newsom is sincere when he flipped his opinion on transgenderism in sports and says that he no longer wants to see men in women's sports.
But Gavin Newsom at the same time says he wants to see more trans kids.
Therefore, we must conclude, Gavin Newsom does not want the trans kids to be able to play sports.
Do you really think that Gavin Newsom wants trans kids to stay out of all sports?
Like, you can't play soccer if you're trans.
No, he doesn't believe that.
So, David is lying about changing.
You're saying that Gavin Newsom said that trans kids shouldn't play sports, period.
Well, that's a very important situation.
Well, don't throw her under the bus.
She's lovely.
That's what you agreed with, though.
No, no, no.
Gavin Newsom is saying that trans people should play sports, but the role of trans men or trans women going into a different sport of the sport that aligns with the gender that they've now chosen, that's where he takes issue.
But I do think he's going to play.
You're going to say the trans women have to play in the women's board?
I think Gavin Newsom holds a similar position to mine, which is let's let these independent sporting agencies make the rules.
I don't think the government should be involved in the world.
And by the way, Michael supports men and women's sports.
Harry, you can't have it both ways.
Wait, wait, wait, no, no, no.
Gavin Newsom's a governor.
He's saying the government shouldn't legislate this, right?
And so I would say he doesn't support men and women.
Can I finish briefly?
Gavin Newsom is saying he doesn't want the government involved in this.
Party of small government over here now wants the government everywhere.
I like appropriate government.
Well, no, you advocate for small government now.
You want bigger government.
I don't advocate for small government.
You don't?
You want big government.
No, I advocate for smaller.
Christian Zionism Clarified00:04:43
Okay, so you asked me why.
Okay.
Anyway, Gavin Newsom is taking the position.
That's a nice department.
All right.
All right.
Wow.
Enough torment for Harry.
No, you're right.
We got to go back to the mic.
Question.
All right.
Hello, Michael.
I'd like to engage in a little bit of friendly spiritual tete-a-tete with you.
I have, I'll admittedly say that I skimmed your article about Christian Zionism, and I've heard your comments about Israel.
Yeah.
And as a Protestant, I have slightly different views toward the state of Israel and the Jewish, well, not the Jewish people, the Israeli people.
I like the Israeli people.
I think we might share that view.
How do you reconcile this anti-Christian Zionism might be an extreme way to put it with the biblical truth that we are grafted onto as Christians, the Jewish faith, essentially, and the fact that Jews have had Israel as their ancestral homeland for thousands of years?
And can you acknowledge that the, again, anti-Israel seems very extreme, but that's the phrase I'm going to use.
Rhetoric that's starting to come from the right has contributed to the rise in anti-Semitism in recent months, recent years.
Well, and the last point, I think it can coincide.
Anti-Israel and anti-Semitic sentiment can coincide.
Not necessarily so, but it can.
So that's true.
I don't know that one is the cause of the other.
Probably the cause would go more likely in the other direction.
When it comes to ancestral claims from indigeneity, the reason that I reject that is really more an historical and political opinion.
It's because I don't think that just because a people was in a place a long time ago, it means they have a right to it now.
If that were the case, we would have to give the Mount Rushmore back to the Lakota Sioux, which is arguments that maybe some of my liberal friends would make them.
Maybe not.
A lot of people on the left do.
But I reject that.
I don't really think that's a basis for international law.
So I reject it as that matter, of course.
To the point on Christian Zionism specifically, that is a religious position that's a relatively modern one.
It really comes from the 19th century.
It's a specific subset of Protestantism.
Obviously, I'm not a Protestant.
I'm a Catholic.
I'm a mackerel snapper.
Many Protestants don't hold that view either.
But that's a specific view that argues that because God gave the land to the Jews in antiquity, they have a divine right to it now.
Now, this is contrary to the traditional Christian perspective shared by Catholics and Eastern Orthodox and some mainline Protestants, which holds that the church is the spiritual Israel, is the new Israel.
And so we like the Jews.
They're great.
You know, they're wonderful.
And we all want to follow God.
However, the specific land claims that are figured in the Old Testament are really fulfilled in the New Testament.
So we don't focus on those specific land claims.
Then there's an added problem, which is the issue of Zionism, which begins as a secular ideology, though it's difficult to separate the religious from the secular when it comes to the Jewish people because they're a tribe.
But the origins of Zionism really are secular, and it arises with nationalism, like in the revolutions of the 1840s and the ideology that is really a 19th century ideology that I find a little bit modern.
I don't believe that the only proper form of political order is a nation-state.
I think empires have a lot to recommend them.
And so for all of those reasons, I guess I would say I reject every single aspect of what undergirds Christian Zionism.
But I'm very phylo-Semitic and I'm generally pro-Israel.
So I'm actually in the worst position of anybody.
I seem to be taking the bullets from all sides here.
But that's why.
This view, which is prevalent among American evangelicals, has predominated in recent decades.
But it's really not the historic view of Christians and it's not the majority view of Christians worldwide.
And so I would make one prudential argument to people who support the state of Israel, which is it probably would behoove them to give people an opportunity to support the state of Israel for practical reasons, reasons of international law, reasons of alliances that do not require them to adopt a novel theological view that's really a minority view.
I think probably practically that is much better for even the state of Israel in the end.
Okay.
That was a little off topic for me.
I thought we were going to say we weren't expecting it.
What do you guys think about Zionism?
Hey, that's all you, brother.
Come on.
Hello.
Defending Legal Carry00:08:00
My question is for Harry Sisson.
I'm a huge fan of you.
I actually follow your Twitter pretty accurately.
And I just want to go back to the ICE topic that we were on a bit earlier.
It's a great topic.
Because Harry Sisson has some interesting tweets about Alex Preddy specifically, accusing him of, sorry, I want to apologize.
He accuses directly Nick Shirley of being responsible for the death of Alex Predi and Renee Good for his reporting on Minnesota.
And so then, you know, I just want to be super clear here that once again, Harry Sisson has lied repeatedly about ICE.
He said that the ICE shot Renee Good said that she was a f ⁇ ing bitch right after he shot her.
That actually was another ICE officer, completely different ICE officer.
Oh, so much better.
Wait, oh, so much better.
So watch your colleague execute somebody live on camera and be like, wow, what a wonderful conversation on motivation.
My question is for Harry.
When an ICE officer gets killed because of your lies and your rhetoric, are you going to feel bad?
Are you going to have issues sleeping at night like you accused Nick Shirley of being?
That is absurd.
That was a really, I think that was a really bad question.
Like, genuinely, I think that was a bad question.
So Chris actually tweeted something similar as well regarding Nigeria.
Maybe you don't want to answer.
Yeah, that's a bad question, but he said it too.
No, But we both agree on it.
We both agree, and I'll stand by this, that Nick Shirley, his lies about fraud in Minnesota caused a surgence of federal agents into the state.
And if that surgence of federal agents into the state never happened and he never lied about these learning centers, these child daycare centers, you're saying that we wouldn't be in a position.
No, that's not what he said.
No, no, no.
But hold on.
Well, hold on.
What's your claim?
Wait, wait, wait.
Hold on, I'm responding directly.
So if that never happened, whatever.
If that never happened, Renee Goode and Alex Predty would still be alive today, 100%.
And they were murdered in broad daylight.
And anybody, I think everybody in this room should be able to look at Alex Predty, who didn't take out a gun.
He was tackled by eight ICE agents.
Are you anti-Second Amendment now?
Hold on.
Wait, so wait, wait, so you should be executed for just having a gun, even if it's holes.
He was legally carrying it.
He had a permit to carry.
He's not threatened.
So, wait, wait, does it say therefore he should be executed for the first time?
Hold on.
He had a legal permit to carry.
He never took out the gun.
So, wait, what do you mean?
So, he wasn't a threat to anybody.
He wasn't a threat to anybody.
How come he wasn't a threat to anybody?
He was tackled by eight ICE agents on the ground and then shot in the back of the head nine times.
Hold on, Harry, Harry.
What are you talking about?
What are you talking about?
Harry, you just said that Renee.
I don't want to hear from you.
Hold on, wait, one second, Mark.
You just said, You just said, Harry, that Renee Goode was murdered by an ICE officer.
Do you not think that being hit by an SUV is a justification for using deadly?
If you're looking at the footage frame by frame, and I saw you get walked by Adam Machler on this, can you be quiet?
Oh my God.
What was how did I get okay?
How did I get walked?
Well, I'm up here.
You're over there.
I'm meant to be talking.
Harry, here's a question: Did Renee Good?
Did Renee Goode hit the officer with her SUV?
Wait, wait, wait.
If you look at the frame by frame, you don't need a pair of people.
Michael, Michael, this is a more nuanced yes or no.
You would agree that this is a more nuanced story.
I would not agree with that.
Did this woman hit the officer?
Her SUV bumped the officer, which still does not justify.
Bumped him with a SUV.
Michael, Michael, Michael, if I tapped it deadly for his tapped you on the shoulder right now, can you shoot me in the face?
If you tapped me with your SUV, I probably would.
Yeah, what if she's going three miles an hour?
What if she's going three miles an hour?
Do we have any more questions?
Do we have no more?
Okay, here we go.
We got to figure out who won that round.
Who did we give it to?
I thought your colleague actually asked a really good question.
So are we?
Mary Margaret, she comes.
Do you want?
Do you want to hurt her?
She's going to let her hand go to the VIP.
I defer.
I defer.
I thought she asked a good question.
I am going to.
Maybe I'll separately buy that fake Harry fan out there and drink afterward, but Mary Margaret gets to go to the VIP.
By the way, Mark, I interrupted you.
You had a point to make.
Yes.
I had several points.
Whoa, So the Alex Predi shooting, you're saying he was legally carrying a gun.
Minnesota state law requires you to carry your ID and a permit.
I see you over there.
I see you over there.
They're not based like Tennessee, where you can have constitutional carry.
Thank you.
So that's not legally.
But you're saying it wasn't legal.
He wasn't legally carrying it.
That's a good point.
But also, as a responsible gun owner myself, you basically are drilled into you that if you always carry a gun, that's fine.
But if you only carry a gun in certain situations, it seems like you're looking for trouble.
And I know personally, if I'm out carrying a gun, I'm the biggest in the world.
Like a hundred.
Because someone talks great.
If someone takes it, if someone talks to me, I let it go because literally anything, what you're carrying.
Because ICE agents can't.
There is a huge responsibility because anything can become a deadly encounter.
So it was incredibly irresponsible of him to go into that situation.
Hold on, really quickly, really quickly, two things.
You can start to talk about the nuance of whatever the specific law is in Minnesota about how you carry.
But again, I still don't believe that that if you could prove to me right now without a shadow of a doubt that Alex Preddy, who was, again, taking care of our veterans as a nurse, if you could prove to me without a shadow of a doubt that he was Satan on Earth, I still don't believe that that makes it justifiable that he's executed in broad daylight.
It's an important point, though.
Hold on, hold on, hold on.
And so, I do want to point out, although I appreciate, and you may be correct on the Minnesota law about whatever he was required to have, even if you could prove to me right now that he was illegally carrying, I still don't believe that that then somehow justifies, even if he's looking for trouble, him being executed in broad daylight.
The gun was taken out by another ICE officer, so he is unarmed with, what, five or six ICE officers?
Did he aim the firearm at any ICE agent?
I don't think that was 100% clean.
Did he aim the other firearm at any ICE?
There was a lot of stuff happening in that time, but also talking about rhetoric and Hitler, the left is just constantly dragging.
So you don't wait.
Donald Trump said that Kamala Harris.
Wait, wait, wait, wait.
Hold on.
Wait, wait.
Donald Trump said that Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are fascists.
So, if you're using the same, Donald Trump called Kamala Harris a fascist.
They called him Hitler, and then right after he was in the case of the United States.
So, wait, then in your view, they must be equally guilty.
In your view, they must be equally guilty then.
Can you name?
Yes or no?
Guys, listen.
All right, all right.
We can't let Mark gang up.
Mike, answer me a question.
Can you name what's the one prominent political figure right now who called on a stage Donald Trump Hitler?
That would be J.D. Vince, his vice president, who called him America's Hitler.
There's been no elected Democrats.
I've got a lot more people who called Trump Hitler.
I just want to point out if we're putting blame on calling him Hitler.
Hang on.
Mark, this is Mark.
Calvin Newsom didn't call him Hitler.
He did.
The Newsome press team just referred to the Trump administration.
Mike, give it to me.
We love Mike Torrey.
Some love to Mike.
We love Mike.
They don't want to die.
They love Milan.
I love listening to conservatives lecture liberals about gun rights.
And the way you ditch the Second Amendment so quickly when it's not convenient for you is unbelievable to me.
I am.
Oh, stop it.
I'm a gun owner.
I have my concealed carry license.
I have the right to carry a gun in the Constitution, same as everybody else.
Alex Predty left his house.
He's protested ICE.
He's recording ICE.
He didn't brandish the gun.
He didn't need it.
They threw him to the ground.
They shot him.
He didn't need it.
He didn't use it.
He didn't brandish it.
They threw him to the ground.
They beat him.
They shot him three times.
If that happened to a conservative, you would be in Mona and you'd be absolutely right to.
And I heard conservatives.
Conservatives don't obstruct law enforcement generally.
Oh, no, they just raid the Capitol.
He wasn't raided the Capitol.
They just take selfies in the capital.
They just raided the Capitol and then they beat police officers.
To say that Alex Predty was obstructing law enforcement.
Bro, he kicked in the real, the taillight on a federal list.
Therefore, he deserves death.
And then he deserves death.
No, I'm just saying he obstructed law enforcement.
I'm just making a very modest point and he's denying for some reason.
Well, let me make a modest point for you, Michael.
Ashley Babbitt shooting Mark over there.
You guys complained about Ashley Babbitt, who was trying to bank into the Capitol.
And she deserved to die.
Many Laws, Many Opinions00:14:58
She did.
Okay.
Yes.
I just agree.
I don't like to hear that.
Don't act shocked.
You were just defending the shooting of Alex Freddy, right?
You're right.
When cops were being beaten, your daddy part of the cop beaters.
So don't lecture me.
I'm not lecturing you.
Let's go, Mike's back.
You weren't lecturing us just somewhere.
He just retired processing.
Yeah, I just did it.
We'll just go out there.
Did you try to come up there?
No.
Yeah, but basically, I'll just sum this up.
To sum this up, to quote the great little John, don't start no shit, won't be no shit.
Great point.
Great philosopher, little John.
So you agree with me?
You agree with what happened to Ashley Babbitt filming Ice Agent design death sentence.
You agree with what's going to happen, correct?
It is time.
We already picked the VIP.
It is time for rounds of batteries all over Clinton.
My favorite time of the night is my topic.
And my topic is: America isn't stolen.
Billie Eilish is wrong about that.
But even if it were stolen, we would deport the illegals just the same.
So Billie Eilish makes a claim at the Grammys.
She says no one is illegal on stolen land, which is not true.
It's not true because if you're on stolen land and you murder somebody, that's still illegal.
That's still a crime.
You can't murder people or rape people, even if it's stolen land.
But the second reason that her claim was false is that America is not stolen land by any measure, any way that we think of international law or history in anything resembling a global standard.
By that standard, America is not stolen.
So before I even go on with my diatribe, you guys are relatively more moderate, slightly more reasonable, maybe.
Do you think America is stolen land?
I think two things.
I think that the phrase, no one is illegal on stolen land, shouldn't be.
I think it's an issue when you take it so literally.
I think the point is that obviously America was founded on, or we were all immigrants.
We came over here.
We were not old.
Hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on.
Let me finish.
So I just disagree with that.
No, okay, okay.
Okay.
We're all immigrants.
We traveled over here.
We killed a bunch of people.
We took land.
I mean, all land is technically stolen land.
All countries were founded.
I agree with that.
Hold on, hold on.
All countries were founded on some amount of sin.
I think the more important point of this is that I don't understand to the latter half why the demonization of illegal immigrants.
The point of the first thing.
It's not a demonization.
We just want to enforce the law.
Okay, but why?
You saw me answer that question from earlier.
Why?
Because it's the law.
Okay, okay, but there's a lot of laws we don't enforce.
Hold on, there's no.
We should enforce them.
Okay, well, there's a lot that we don't.
Give me a, why do you believe, besides it just being a law, it should be enforced?
I'll answer that if you'd like me to.
Please.
Because a nation is defined geographically by its borders.
The most basic right that defines a political community is the right to define who is part of it and who is not part of it.
So it is beyond the laws passed by Congress that are supposed to be enforced by the executive, that are upheld by the judiciary.
It is a basic tenet of any political community that you get to determine who's in and who's out.
If we do not enforce that most basic law, we would cease in any meaningful sense to be a political community.
Both parties agreed on that totally.
I don't believe that there's anybody advocating for not at some level enforcing immigration law.
You don't think anyone's like advocating open borders?
I don't think there is a problem.
I don't think that there's a single prominent government.
No one's saying that no one is illegal in stolen land.
But hold on, no, no, no, no.
But the second point of this is that everybody believes that at some level we should have better immigration reform.
We're just going to disagree about how to do that.
Should we deport the illegal?
But hold on.
No, because the point there is no.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, hold on, hold on, hold on.
I believe that undocumented individuals in the United States are generally a net benefit currently for the American people.
No, no, no.
People are going to laugh.
The Cato.
Hold on, hold on, hold on.
The Cato Institute.
The Cato Institute.
It's a right-wing think take.
Let me point out that it's a libertarian.
Okay.
The Cato Institute this week, this week, released a study that since from 1994 to now, undocumented people have paid the federal government roughly $10 trillion in taxes.
Wow, that's some zillion.
Hold on, hold on.
Hold on.
$10 trillion in taxes, and they have used benefits from the U.S. government of about $6 trillion.
That's a $4 trillion surplus.
And they analyzed why economically are they a net benefit.
Yeah.
Libertarians like open borders.
Hold on, hold on.
No, These numbers are wrong.
Why are they wrong?
Why do you think they're not?
Because they actually are net takers.
And if you don't want to look at the businesses.
You can look at the Center for Immigration Studies.
One is pro-mask migrant.
One is anti-mass migrant.
But it's evading the question because we're talking about the law.
Do you think that the American people have the right to enforce the laws duly passed by Congress to have their own borders and define who's in the country?
Yes or no?
Hold on, hold on.
No, no, no.
Because I think it's a dishonest premise.
There's a simple law.
There are so many laws to this.
I think that we should.
I'm not asking about so many laws.
I'm asking about this one.
Can I just say something really quick?
Can you answer the question?
Right now, right now in the United States, we do not have enough native-born.
I'm just giving one example before you speak.
We do not have enough native-born U.S. citizens to work every single job.
If every single undocumented person right now was deported this instant.
Hold on, hold on.
One second.
I'm going to bet you in the front row $20.
I'm going to bet you right now $20 that he will not answer my question.
I'm going to answer your question.
No, I want to tell you.
No, no, fair enough.
No, no, no.
I'm going to answer your question.
I'm going to answer.
I'm going to take the opposite.
He's going to answer it.
Okay, you're going to have to go to the next step.
I will just please quickly.
Again, there's clearly, like that example I just gave, if every undocumented person was deported from the United States tomorrow, our economy, just as one example, would fall apart overnight.
Simple question, John.
I am going to answer.
You promise me that for about six minutes now.
Very clear that in the current setup of the United States, we should allow undocumented people to have a process to find, get legal immigration status, and we should pass immigration reform to increase security at the border and make it easier to get into the United States legally.
I think the premise, the answer to my question, you owe me 20.
No, I got it.
The answer is that we should enforce laws in a civil way.
And currently, the civil way is to enforce them.
It's not the same thing.
I disagree, and there's so many examples.
It's literally what it's called.
There's so many laws.
There's so many good examples of U.S. laws that we don't enforce all the time.
Yeah, yeah.
Will you answer my question or is Harry paying me 20 bucks?
Should we deport the illegals?
I don't, I disagree with the premise of the question.
20 bucks, buddy.
No, no, I believe I'm not.
I believe.
No, Easiest money I'm going to do.
No, no, no, no.
I believe, I believe, actually, that might be the same.
That was a little harder.
Hold on.
I believe we should deport undocumented individuals who have committed violent crimes.
Yes.
That is why I say that the illegals just.
No, I think, I think.
That is an answer to 20 bucks.
I believe we should deport undocumented people who have committed violent crimes.
Yes.
So I think there are a lot of undocumented immigrants in this country who have lived a general question.
Hold on, I don't think your general question is in good faith.
It is in good faith.
It's not in good faith.
But the more Democrats can tell like violence.
No, no, no.
You would concede that this is.
It's simple, but I don't want you to think I'm stealing your 20 bucks.
Oh, my God.
You know what we deported?
Should we deport the illegal aliens in America?
I just answered that.
Yes or no?
I don't think that's an answer.
Yes or no.
Wait, Michael.
20 bucks.
I don't think the answer is yes or no.
Michael, Mike, it's a nuanced question, right?
Yes or no.
Bill Clinton knew how to answer it, Barack Obama even when he ran knew how to answer it.
Wait, wait, wait, wait.
You might find some people in here who would agree that somebody who's been here for 30 years has never committed a crime.
Do you want to support the illegals?
Wait, wait, wait, Michael, let me finish.
I think you might find, maybe not in here.
I don't know.
But Republicans generally, you might find some people who argue and would agree with me that if you've been here for like 30 years, you've paid your taxes, you've never committed a violent crime, even if you have a speeding ticket, whatever.
If you've given back to your community, why would we deport that person instead of giving them the pathway to citizenship?
If they're giving back to America, which is exactly what we want from immigrants, why would we deport them?
Because it's the law.
You voted for a felon.
I don't care.
You voted for a felon.
You can't talk about them being undocumented and breaking a law if you voted for a felon.
Yeah, I saw Michael right there.
Right, you right there.
I see you.
Really quickly, if he's trying to save his money.
He's a criminal.
No, no.
I do want to point out.
To your point, you said it's a simple yes or no question.
You voted for a criminal.
You talk about them breaking law.
You don't care about Donald Trump being a convicted felon.
He has not had one sip of his tequila.
And he is belligerent right now.
He is belligerent.
Okay, we need to figure out.
Do we have another question at the mic?
We do.
Okay.
Really quickly.
Sorry, Michael.
We're not getting his money.
I just want to point out.
I just want to point out.
Even Obama had a nuanced take on this.
His take.
Hold on, hold on.
Regardless of how, let's say, Obama's immigration policy was enforced, he obviously had a setup where he wanted to only be focusing on people within like 100 miles of the border because he believed that if you were within 100 miles of the border, you just came across the United States.
He believed we should focus on criminals.
But if you were, let's say, in Minnesota, for example, and you were undocumented, it was far more likely that you were here with a family, you had built a life.
And so he first wanted to focus on within 100 miles of the border.
So if you ask, you know what I remember?
You know what I remember from you?
Just about answering your point.
Obama said that executive amnesty would be unconstitutional, and then he did it anyway.
So I remember, you're right, he did have nuanced views in as much as they contradicted themselves.
Yeah.
Okay.
I just, to your question of should we deport the illegals, even Obama would say that's a dishonest framing.
What did Bill Clinton say?
It's a nuanced question.
I don't care what Bill Clinton.
I don't know.
I don't care what Bill Clinton said.
I was born in 2002.
Like, I don't know.
We don't care what Bill Clinton said.
We're a different party, and we have a nuanced take.
Different Hillary less than 10 years ago.
Yeah, I would argue that Hillary in 2016 was different than Bill Clinton in his presidency.
Hillary Clinton was not calling for social services to be defunded.
But we in the Democratic Party have a nuanced view of immigration that is far better for the United States than you, who is just like, should we deport everybody or not?
Your view is not an absolute.
I'm going to enforce the law when I want to.
That's not happening in the middle.
You voted for a victory.
You voted for Victor Belly.
You voted Belly.
You voted for a felony.
Sorry, sorry.
I'm back this time for you boys.
Ah, okay.
Early on, I think it was Harry, but it could have been either one of you.
They all look the same.
They do look the same.
It's all generic white guys.
Generic white guys do look very similar, yes.
But you made the claim that right-wing political violence is more prominent than left-wing political violence.
Which is an insane claim to make when in September, Charlie Kirk was assassinated on a Pollock campus, debating people in a friendly debate.
And since then, we have only seen a rise in left-wing violence.
We see them openly chanting for people to be killed, including Donald Trump.
Oh, violence, speech is violence now?
People, including Nick Shirley, went out in some cases, but not that.
To do journalism, independent journalism.
Nick Shirley's not a journalist.
Yeah, he's not a journalist.
He's an idiot.
They told him he would get kirked.
Okay, wait.
Hold on, hold on.
I'm going to let Harry answer this.
I want to let Harry answer this.
I just want to say two things briefly.
What happened to Charlie Kirk was absolutely abhorrent and wrong and terrible.
I want to point that out.
Number one.
Number two, Nick Shirley is not a journalist.
Okay.
I'll explain.
I'll explain if you let me.
Please look at these people freaking out.
He's not a journalist.
Does he actually break it?
No, there's nothing.
Nothing.
Nothing.
Nothing about what Nick Shirley, the stupid video, nothing was uncovered, right?
We've been going after this fraud in Minnesota for a long time.
The Biden, hold on, the Biden DOJ literally brought charges against like 55 different people in Minnesota relating to political violence.
I know, I'm just, I just, quickly, Nick Shirley didn't expose anything that we didn't already know, and it was full of lies, hate, and racism.
That's all I'm saying.
Look, it's a truth.
Here, here.
Look, we, both Chris and I, first of all, on a serious note, the day that Charlie Kirk was shot and murdered, we both got out there on every platform and said it is horrific.
Horrific.
We condemn it.
I am not accusing you.
We agree with all political violence is bad.
Political violence is bad.
We disagree with it.
We still disagree with it.
We don't make jokes about it.
We don't laugh about it.
It was horrific.
We all saw it on our timelines.
It was awful.
Right.
Great.
Now, on the topic of political violence, Melissa Hortman in Minnesota was murdered by a Trump supporter who told the New York Post he was a Trump supporter.
And when Donald Trump was asked, why didn't you lower the flags for Melissa Hortman?
Why did you do it for Charlie Kirk, not her?
He said, who?
When Nancy Pelosi's husband was beaten over the head with a hammer, Donald Trump Jr. posted a photo on Instagram mocking it.
Donald Trump also mocked it, saying, How's Paul Pelosi doing right now?
Might I add, January 6th was the largest example of political violence in modern American history.
Harry, Harry, wait, wait, it wasn't even the largest example of political violence at the Capitol.
It's the largest example of political violence in modern American history.
What about when the Portuguese nationalists shot up the House floor and shot five members of Congress?
That's bad.
What about when the political question is?
What about the Wayne Ronda Brown settlement?
Let me answer in the capital.
Let me answer a question.
I'm just saying, I'm happy to talk about it.
I'm not going to condemn all of it.
That was the largest example of political violence in recent American history.
And what happened to those people?
They beat police officers.
They got prosecuted by a proper DOJ.
And then Donald Trump pardoned them.
By the way, many of them have been convicted again or charged again on serious crimes like child pornography possession.
Right?
So you want to talk about political violence?
Look at your own side.
Donald Trump mocks political violence, whereas we condemn all of it.
Whether you're a Democrat or Republican, you should be able to say what you want when you want.
Do Democrats condemn all of it?
Yes.
Because there was a very interesting article in a magazine I very rarely read called The Atlantic, which pointed out that as of last year, contrary to previous trends, political violence became predominantly a left-wing phenomenon rather than a right-wing phenomenon.
Now, this was based on evidence from a generally more left-leaning institute, obviously in the Atlantic, which is left-leaning.
And what's funny about it is, even using their own data, their data which exclude instances of left-on-right political violence, including one that I experienced myself when Antifa showed up and threw an explosive at a building when I was on stage.
It was great.
It was okay.
We survived.
A poor cop was injured, but she made it out okay eventually.
That wasn't even counted in the data sets of political violence.
The BLM violence, which killed dozens of people, wasn't counted in the data sets of political violence.
Hold on, the point I'm making is even using data sets, which by and large exclude left-wing political violence, even the Atlantic magazine admitted that today political violence in America is predominantly a left-wing, not a right-wing phenomenon.
But there's data undercounted on both sides, I'm sure.
I've had political violence against me by Republicans in the streets.
It was awful, and obviously I'm fine.
I made it.
But that was not counted in any of these studies.
Condemning January 6th Violence00:03:30
If I may ask.
You can ask.
Well, it was funny.
We were in the bar in New York City.
My friends and I were walking around.
These guys came up to me.
They're like, oh, Harry Sisson.
They shoved the phone in the face.
They threw a beard.
We threw some punches.
It's fine.
I've never talked about it before.
Are you breaking news on me?
No, But you and I have also both been slaughtered.
I've been swatted.
I've had the FBI sent to my, or the, yeah, I guess the FBI sent to my house, my school, all that crap.
It's been bad.
But do you condemn what Donald Trump did by mocking Paul Pelosi's assault?
Yeah, I wouldn't mock Paul Pelosi's.
Okay, great.
Hold on.
But that wasn't an awesome question.
Wait, hold on.
Do you condemn it?
Do you condemn?
Yes or no.
Do you condemn Donald Trump pardoning the police officers?
Donald Trump, he's the greatest president of my lifetime.
Well, that's the thing.
So that's the difference.
That's right.
Hold on, hold on.
Michael, Michael, Michael, Michael.
And then I'm going to ask the crowd as well.
Do you condemn Donald Trump pardoning people who beat police officers?
Which people?
Like the people on January 6th?
No, on January 6th.
Do you condemn it?
You do condemn Alex and Renee Goode in their political views.
Do you condemn the people who beat police officers on January 6th?
I think that January 6th was one of the things that I'd like to say.
One of the most mild?
Do you condemn?
Do you condemn Donald Trump?
Do you condemn Donald Trump pardoning people who beat police officers?
I don't.
Can I, wait, I want to ask the crowd.
Wade, Wade.
I don't know.
Wait, hold on.
I'm going to ask the crowd as well.
Do you guys condemn Donald Trump pardoning people who beat police officers almost to death?
I don't care about you.
Yes or no?
Yes?
Out of borders.
I want to point out.
You want to point out, wait, wait.
Listen, this guy over here said who died on January 6th.
I want to point out there's been four Capitol police officers since that day who have taken their own life in relation.
Hold on, can I finish?
That's not the question.
Hold on, hold on.
In relation to that event, because they had a bunch of MAGA people telling them that they were part of a deep state conspiracy.
They had nowhere to go.
They had families.
They took their own lives.
So that's number one.
I don't think it's reasonable to say that the only suicide is.
You're now expanding the dimensional political violence to ignore experts.
I'm not.
I'm not.
He made a claim.
No, he made a claim that the only person who died at January 6th, for example, was Ashley Babbitt.
That's correct.
I think it's dishonest to not talk about the police officers who have PTSD and then took their right office.
You don't condemn it.
And furthermore, Michael, you don't fully condemn political violence.
And I also want to point out political violence.
I don't fully condemn political violence in as much as Y'all agree with that?
No, I don't.
I mean, someone could work and could justify it.
Okay, okay.
Political violence is not publishing criminals in certain cases.
That's just the death penalty is justified.
Okay, two weeks ago, two weeks ago, a man named Andrew Johnson, who was found guilty of assaulting a police officer on January 6th, he had a prison sentence of, I think it was two or three years.
He had not started his prison sentence yet.
He was pardoned.
God damn.
It's so loud.
He was pardoned by Donald Trump.
He was pardoned by Donald Trump, so he never served his sentence for assaulting a police officer on January 6th.
Who's just arraigned in court because he molested an 11-year-old boy three times with subpoena text messages of him telling this 11-year-old boy, quote, I was a January 6er.
I'm going to win a bunch of money because I'm an American hero.
I'm going to leave it in my will for you.
And he was basically trying to, you know, obviously, he was a predator, right?
And so my point being is that Donald Trump pardoned this guy.
This 11-year-old boy.
He didn't pardon him for child abuse.
He pardoned him.
He's going to pardon us.
It's almost as if someone completely disingenuous.
Because if somebody is willing to assault a police officer on January 6th, it's almost like they are more likely to commit violent crimes within all of our communities.
This 11-year-old boy.
No, this is.
Talking Donald Trump00:03:51
I'm talking about.
And you don't want to deport him.
That's why I won 20 bucks for you.
I'm telling you.
I wanted 20 bucks on that.
He answered the question.
I'm talking about a Donald Trump.
I'm talking about a Donald Trump supporter.
The guy who's talking about a Donald Trump supporter who, at the direction of Donald Trump, showed up to the Capitol, beat a police officer, got pardoned, and then molested an 11-year-old boy.
And we're defending it.
What are we talking about?
I don't think Alan's defending it.
Why do you defend his pardon?
Do you believe that boy would not have gotten molested?
Hi, is this question about stolen land and immigration?
I think it was supposed to be.
You can ask whatever you want.
There's a hard question on that that I really, really want to ask.
So I come from the great land of the chieftain, Elizabeth Warren.
And I would like to know.
Hey, first of all, please describe to me the agreements that the Puritans had with the natives that were there that was not stolen.
And B, probably even more important, and this goes right to you, Harry.
What I want to know is Maura Healy is our governor and she has asked citizens of Massachusetts to take illegal immigrants into their homes and house them because they don't have enough housing for all of them.
So I just want to know, answer my question first, not only on the stolen land.
And second, Harry, are you willing to house the illegal immigrants that you want to have in this country?
Please answer both questions.
Well, I'll start with your latter one.
You're going to have to repeat the first question again because I we do not live on stolen land completely because we have had agreed.
I'll just answer your question and we'll the last question for him.
What's the question for Harry?
The question is, are you willing to do what Maura Healy asked the citizens of Massachusetts to do and house illegal immigrants in your own home?
Because she asked us to do that.
I wasn't willing to do that, but I was wondering with you and your grandmother.
And that's exactly the point I'm about to make.
You don't, you're very easily entertained.
You and the wife are very easily entertained.
So you're making the point I was about to make, which is it's voluntary.
She's asking citizens to step up if they want.
Nobody's forcing you.
And by the way, we already have programs.
Be quiet.
You right there.
Be quiet.
The question is, William.
I know.
I'm getting to it.
I'm getting, I'm getting, just be quiet.
I'm getting to it.
If you listen, if you'd listen, if you'd listen.
He says he's going to get to it.
You'll leave him for now.
Okay.
So you don't have to.
It's voluntary.
By the way, we already have programs where people have sponsors in the United States of America.
Those are programs that existed under Donald Trump and Joe Biden, now Donald Trump.
So you can have a sponsor.
This is nothing new.
What your governor is talking about is nothing new.
So I don't know why you're taking particular objection to that.
Because she's encouraging it.
She's calling on people to do it as an active measure.
It's voluntary, correct?
It is.
Okay, great.
No problem.
So the government's not infringing on you.
The government's not infringing on you whatsoever.
It's voluntary.
And unfortunately, I will not be taking anybody in because I have a one bedroom in New York City.
It's very expensive.
Hold on.
You have a one bedroom?
Yeah.
You don't have a studio.
No, I do not.
A lot of New Yorkers have studios.
Well, it depends on where you live.
It depends on where you live.
But if you live, where do you live?
Well, you don't have a studio.
I don't want to take diets.
I could say.
But you have a one-bedroom.
Yes, I do.
A lot of people have studios in New York, so you have an extra room.
No, I'm sorry.
Unfortunately, I don't unfortunately I don't have any space.
Unfortunately, for now, I don't have any space.
But if you have space in your home and you want to play into a program that we've already had for a very long time, you can do so, but nobody's forcing you to take anybody in your home.
Nobody's forcing you to take anybody or in your home.
Wow, to hear I live in a one bedroom in New York and I don't have any space.
That's a density.
Well, you're from New York.
You know New York.
There's no space in New York.
My one bedroom's a shoebox.
You know that.
Okay, man.
I don't think that's it.
We've never seen it.
I don't think these migrants, I don't think they need a lot of space.
You know, you give them a nice little bed anyway.
Do you have another question?
Fellow Americans Aside00:11:52
Is it technically stolen land?
Can you speak out here?
Yeah, is it technically stolen land if you can't protect it?
If you can't protect it.
Yeah, great.
Okay.
And this actually ties in with the previous question.
So, yeah, I totally reject the point you made even at the top of this, that we're all immigrants and all the land is stolen and it's all sin.
And I don't really agree with any of that.
Some of our ancestors are immigrants.
Some of them were settlers.
There's a distinction between those two things.
The land was acquired in America through a variety of ways.
The question was about the Indians and the Pilgrims who came on the Mayflower, which is a great cigar company, by the way.
So some of my ancestors were on there.
And I think that the narrative from the left that the Pilgrims came, the English came, and they just ran roughshod over the poor, sweet little Pocahontas.
I think that actually does a great injustice to the Indians because these were real men.
They were real statesmen.
They formed alliances.
The English Pilgrims actually helped the Wampanoag Nation, Chief Massasoit in particular, to create a great political polity.
Massasoit allied with them against the Massachusetts when the Massachusetts wanted to wipe the English out.
Unfortunately, it all fell apart in King Philip's War when the Indians made a mistake.
But these are real people.
So we acquired that land through treaties, through some wars, treaties that followed wars.
But wars are doing a lot of heavy land.
I don't know if you guys are history buffs.
The Indians also acquired their territory through the war.
That was part of my original position.
Most places were founded through some amounts of sin.
But I don't think that's sin necessarily.
Wars can be justified.
And this goes back to the past.
I know I think it can be justified.
So the American country was founded through treaties, through wars, through purchases.
Obviously, we doubled the size of the country in the Louisiana Purchase.
And it is recognized by any way you slice international law, including the law of conquest, which is recognized all the way up to 1907 in the Hague Convention.
It's recognized through the doctrine of discovery.
It's recognized through the United Nations, the United Nations Charter.
So there is actually no way.
I mean, it's kind of a funny thing to debate Billie Eilish, but some of the libs very seriously claim this is stolen land.
Well, if we're going to have landscapes, we're not going out there and saying stolen land.
Yes.
But we believe, I fundamentally believe on this topic of Billie Eilish that there are probably more important issues out there than what Billie Eilish does at the Grammys.
I think maybe we should be focusing on housing prices and grocery prices and things like that.
You'd rather talk about Billie Eilish.
No, no, no.
Or the Epstein files.
Well, we talked about that.
I don't want to double program it.
I would love to.
The point is, it's not just Billie Eilish.
Many Democrats.
In fact, I think who claims that he's thinking, do you think this is a majority position?
I'm a president Omar.
Do you think this is a majority position in the Democratic Party?
I think it is a growing position, and I think it's a broad position.
Look, as somebody in the Democratic Party, America's not stolen land.
I'm not of the view.
I'm not going to go around saying that America's stolen land.
So you don't think it's stolen land?
I'm not going to go around saying that.
No.
I'm not asking what you're saying.
Okay, no.
You don't think it's stolen land?
No.
Do you think America's stolen land?
I don't know.
Here we go.
You say it's not a mainstream view.
Half of you.
He just said he doesn't know.
That doesn't mean he's taking the view.
He doesn't.
He doesn't.
I do want to point out.
I do want to point out to the question, the point I made earlier is that when I see that, I don't, again, take the position so literally.
I think the point of saying no one is illegal on stolen land, again, comes back to at least some of our roots are based as a very, very basic.
Some of our roots are based in immigration, and we shouldn't be demonizing a bunch of people just because they don't look like me who came to America just to have a distinction between legal and illegal immigration.
Is there a distinction?
Yeah.
Yes.
Okay.
I think then you just made a disingenuous point because you tried to conflate illegal immigration, which is what people take issue with immigration work.
No, no, no, I think the point is.
No, no, I think the point was it matters why people come to the United States.
And if some of us in our past came looking for a better life, we were at least some of America was built off immigration.
We should remember that based on the American dream, even though we would probably agree that our immigration system has been broken for a long time, we need some massive reforms.
We want people here the right way.
And legally, right now, because that system is so broken, it has caused people to be here either on expired visas or word is broken.
It caused illegal immigration.
Part of what's, I mean, well, part of that is that if you request a visa, like if you request a visa, it may take, you might have a court date in eight to nine years.
When you're in the years, we don't take enough people.
Wait, that's not what I said.
Hold on, you're claiming what's broken about it is we don't take enough people, but we've been taking legally a million people a year.
I don't wanna know.
I didn't say too many people.
I didn't say it's that we don't take enough.
I said that it takes so long.
Even if you have a justifiable reason and you want to follow the American dream, like we all supposedly believe in.
So we shouldn't take more legal immigrants.
I believe that we should increase.
Joe Biden.
So you do think we should take more.
I do believe we should take more illegal.
Jesus Christ.
I do believe we should take more legal immigration.
Joe Biden tried to pass a massive immigration.
I was just confused because you just said you weren't.
Hold on, hold on.
Joe Biden tried to pass a massive immigration bill that would have increased the amount of legal immigrants.
I know, I'm glad that I was a bipartisan bill.
Bipartisan enough.
It was written by a Republican.
Hey, quick question.
So throughout this entire time.
I love this guy.
I love this science.
Sorry, guys.
Who's up there?
Oh, no.
Yeah, no, I love him.
Go ahead.
So throughout this entire conversation of immigration, I keep hearing from Chris and I believe Harry as well that we need to deport only violent criminal illegals.
Yeah.
It is insane that on a public platform, you would be willing to put your fellow countrymen aside for foreigners who do not have any right to be here.
And this is the reason.
This is the reason I say that.
This is my reasoning.
My reasoning is I'm sick and tired of seeing articles of like Trenda Aragua rapes a woman in this state.
MS-13 rapes a man in this state or a woman or whatever it be.
They're freaking crazy.
My issue is all of these people, you can't say violent criminal aliens because we didn't know they were violent before we looked into them.
We have no idea who these people are.
They've been there for 30 years.
Hold on, great point.
Hold on.
I like this guy.
He's a bad point.
I want to say two things.
You say, like, cast your fellow Americans aside.
I think at all levels, immigration helps American citizens.
I thought that this Cato- Focus on this point.
I will focus on this.
Hold on, hold on.
I will focus on this point.
Because undocumented- No, we don't.
Who said that?
Who said Lake and Riley?
Who's Molly Tibbetts?
Exactly.
Because she was a woman killed under Donald Trump.
So you pick on the woman that was killed under Joe Biden.
Wait, wait, wait.
By an illegal.
By an undocumented immigrant.
So she was, she was.
Listen, listen to what I'm saying to you.
Listen to what I'm saying to you.
The illegals didn't all just dismantle.
Hold on, Michael.
Hold on, Michael.
You specifically.
You know Lake and Riley's name for a political reason.
I ask you, who's Molly Tibbetts?
A woman who was killed.
You don't know her because it happened under Donald Trump, and you don't care if it happens under Donald Trump.
In fairness, President, the question is.
And I want to ask Lolly.
We don't know who she is.
We don't know who she is.
It's disgraceful.
To this point.
Oh, we don't care that she was murdered.
You don't care that she was murdered.
Well, there's a federal law.
You just said I don't care.
So do you care or no?
Well, you don't know you don't care enough.
Excuse me.
You don't care enough.
You don't care enough because you didn't know her name.
Regardless.
You didn't know her name.
Regardless.
Okay, but disgraceful.
It's disgraceful.
It's disgraceful.
I'll answer.
So many Americans are killed by illegal immigrants.
Undocumented immigrants commit significantly less crime than native-born Americans.
It's not even a crime.
That's my point, regardless of the economic data that shows that undocumented people support the United States fiscally for a variety of reasons.
It's also, through two separate studies, undocumented individuals are less likely to commit violent crimes than native-born U.S. citizens.
Okay.
Hold on, two things.
I said violent crime, number one.
I said violent crime.
So sure, if they're in the country, which is what we should be focused on.
You talked about how people are dying.
People are talking about Lake and Riley.
We obviously all think that violent crime is unacceptable, but undocumented individuals are less likely to still laid down.
Are less are less likely to commit violent crimes than native USborn citizens.
We're doing a lot of dumb business right here.
Don't even think about it.
Jacob's question is: why would you throw your native fellow Americans under the bus?
Because you say we should deport the violent criminal native, hold on, illegal aliens, but we only know that they're violent criminals once they have committed the crime.
And the premise here is that none of these crimes, not a single one of them, would have been committed if the illegals had simply been deported in the first place.
You voted for, I want to, that's the point.
It's mind-numbing to me that you keep bringing up certain crimes by certain people, but you again voted for a conviction.
Because they have no right to be here.
We have to defend it.
You voted for a convicted felon.
You clearly don't care about violations of the law that much.
That's what's wrong with the point.
It's important.
It's a philosophical view.
Focus in on this point.
It's a philosophical view.
But we're talking about a specific issue.
We have to deal with the American citizens who commit crimes.
We can't just deport them.
We have to deal with them.
The illegal aliens who are here who go on to commit more violent crimes, we don't have to deal with them.
So every single violent crime that an illegal alien commits is unnecessary.
And to Jacob's point, as he's asking you, why would you allow, why would you open yourself up and your fellow Americans up to even one of those violent crimes, rapes or murder, when you don't have to, and it's against the law.
Wait, you were part of the people that opened us up to the crimes of Donald Trump.
You're trying to distract because you're not.
It's not because we don't give a shit at the beginning of the beginning.
The beginning of the crime is not a problem.
Totally ridiculous.
The beginning of the question is: why would you open up your fellow Americans to this, suggesting that illegal immigration or immigration as a whole is this massive disservice?
I disagree.
Speaking about illegal immigration.
I disagree with the premise.
I disagree with the premise of the public.
What's the premise?
The premise being the suggestion that illegal immigrants are somehow much more likely than violent criminalism.
That's not your strongmanning that.
No.
I just told you the premise.
The premise is any crime that is committed by an illegal in America is unnecessary.
Why would you therefore support illegal immigration?
Because that's the premise.
Do you disagree with that?
Wait, we don't support, we don't want people to come in illegally.
We don't want illegal immigrants.
So you want to support the illegals.
No, no, no, but listen.
Michael, this is why it's nuanced, right?
We want everybody to come in legally.
Follow the law.
We actually care about the law over here.
Follow the law, come in legally.
We don't want people to come in illegally, but we recognize that the immigration system right now is broken.
There are people who are facing gang violence in their respective countries that want a better life for their kids.
I'm sure that everybody in this room could put themselves in the shoes of an undocumented immigrant who's being targeted.
Their kids are being targeted, and they would do anything to say.
Are you going to answer Jacob's question?
It's nuanced.
That's why I'm explaining it right now.
It's all going to answer.
Just to be clear, we want legal immigration.
We recognize the system is broken.
We wanted to fix it.
Joe Biden introduced a bill.
Donald Trump shut it down.
You're right.
That bill would have exacerbated.
I think it does.
How so?
I think it does.
Because it would have given more illegal aliens a path to citizenship in the United States, and it would have encouraged more mass migration.
So encouraging people to become legal citizens is bad now?
Yes.
Wait, so now, okay, so we don't want to reward the crime and create money.
You just hate them.
You just hate all immigrants, legal or illegal.
Is that my understanding?
Where did you get that from?
Well, you just said that we shouldn't bring, we shouldn't give undocumented immigrants a pathway to citizenship, making them legal.
So do you have to do it?
Right, we should not reward their crimes, and you don't fix a problem by just redefining the problem.
If they didn't put that law in the future, if they've been given, if they've been in the United States for 30 years, they've given back to their community by working in a job, they haven't committed a crime, why shouldn't they be rewarded citizens?
They can go back and apply to become American citizens.
With the broken system as it stands right now?
What are they going to go face gang violence?
They're all facing gang violence.
Man, we got a lot of hypotheticals here, huh?
We shouldn't force hypotheticals.
Wait, Didn't your hypotheticals start with if there's an undocumented person here and they happen to commit a violent crime, then therefore it's an atrocity?
Yeah, that was the question that neither of you will answer.
Okay, because again, I did.
I disagree.
Okay, you won't answer it.
I give up.
Who won that round?
Do we believe it was the liberals?
Thanks, Mike.
Thank you, Mike.
Thanks, Mike.
We didn't even get the other one.
That's great.
Okay, and who thinks it was the conservative side?
Okay.
All right.
Are we going to pick a VIP for it?
Are we going to get a VIP over there?
Who Lost the Hardest Tonight?00:01:18
I defer.
Jacob wants it.
Who gets it?
Who gets it?
I want.
Oh, he didn't have it.
Oh, I got to go with my guy in the, I forget his name, baseball cab.
I'm sorry.
Jacob, right?
Jacob.
Is that Jacob?
Jacobs.
I'm sorry, Jacob.
I'm talking to you.
I should remember your name.
I apologize.
Jacob was very nice to us all day.
Yeah.
He was nice to you?
He was nice.
I gave him explicit instructions to be a huge jerk.
Okay.
Jacob, even great.
Come on.
In my opinion, nobody wins a bar fight.
They're only losers.
So the question is: who lost the hardest tonight?
Which is related to who's buying the next round, which is not related to, but it is coincident with when is Harry giving me my 20 bucks?
Now, who thinks the biggest loser was Harry?
It was rigged from the start.
It was.
Okay, who thinks the biggest loser was Chris?
Wow.
Okay.
Unbelievable.
All right, man.
Who thinks the biggest loser was me?
Come on.
Whoa, and they have microphones, so it's kind of loud.
Okay, I guess it was Harry.
That was, I knew it from the minute he walked out.