2 Liberals vs. Michael Knowles: BAR FIGHT | Mike Nellis & Michael DeFeo
Mike Nellis and Michael DeFeo clash with Michael Knowles on Bar Fight, debating Alex Preddy’s fatal shooting in Minneapolis—where an ICE agent’s altercation led to three bullets in the back—while Nellis ties it to Trump’s Second Amendment contradictions, including Waco-era rhetoric and ATF rollbacks. DeFeo exposes Epstein’s unprosecuted "cabal" (Clinton, Trump, Wexner) amid DOJ redactions shielding alleged traffickers, contrasting with victim details. Knowles counters, citing Trump’s 2008 arrest, 3.5M released documents, and systemic immunity over a decade later, framing Epstein as a corrupt influence peddler rather than a Bond-style spy. The episode reveals how legal loopholes and political narratives obscure accountability, whether in gun rights or child trafficking cases. [Automatically generated summary]
You should be pissed off that the federal government is lying to you like this.
Did we say military-run camps?
Military camps force people to be straight.
I like that.
That's a strong idea.
And I want to know why you expect to be taken seriously in a political debate when you showed up to the debate in equity.
It's called Bar Fight.
Well, welcome to Barfight.
I'm Michael Knowles.
I'm joined tonight by two guests, co-founder of White Dudes for Heron, senior advisor to Kamala Harris's presidential campaign, Mike Mellis.
They've lied, we should take nothing that this administration says at face value.
And now our next guest, he's a liberal content creator who spends most of his time complaining about the Democrat Party, which is something that he and I actually have in common.
And that is Michael DeFeo.
Thank you so much for it.
Here is how this show works.
We will be debating three of the most controversial topics of our day.
The bell rings.
We duke it out for that round.
And then our friends in the crowd can come up to the microphones and pick a fight with any of us.
And anyone who comes up to the mic can win special prizes.
And a seat at our VIP section sponsored by Redneck Riviera Whiskey.
Mike, Mike, are you ready to begin?
Michael, am I ready?
I am ready to begin.
It's round one.
I love this.
Now, Mike, that Mike, you kick us off.
What is your topic?
My topic is Alex Predty's death proves Trump hates the Second Amendment.
All right, make your case.
All right.
So to the crowd for a moment, raise your hand if you ever heard of the siege of Waco, Texas.
Few people, right?
Did somebody woo that?
We're all too weird.
I don't know what side they're on.
So after the siege of Waco, Texas, there was a massive increase in sponsorship and membership of militias and paramilitary groups here in the United States.
It skyrocketed after 1993 through 2000 and then skyrocketed again in 2009 through 2012.
I wonder what happened in those four years.
So during that time, people began to be concerned about American military operations here on our own soil in something called Jade Helm 15, where Obama was using special forces to do training in Texas.
Governor Abbott said that he was mobilizing the National Guard to defend the Second Amendment, property rights, and civil rights of Texans.
They made it a whole thing on Fox News.
They called it the Texas Takeover, as if we need to take over Texas.
It's already part of the United States.
And Alex Jones made it as mainstream as humanly possible because the United States was under siege from its military and its government who was going to take away its Second Amendment rights.
Wayne Lapierre made jackbooted thugs a popular term with the NRA for years about masked agents of the state coming to take away your Second Amendment rights.
Alex Predty was exercising his Second Amendment right in Minneapolis with a registered firearm, a concealed carry permit.
He never unholstered the weapon, and he was still killed by masked agents of the state.
My question is, is this not the exact nightmare that Alex Jones pushed, that the NRA pushed for decades on us?
Now, Alex Jones has said that his death was not a horrible accident that deserves investigation.
He said he deserves it.
Donald Trump said that you should not and cannot have guns in protests.
You cannot have guns around federal agents.
Even the D.C. attorney said you cannot have firearms in Washington, D.C., legal or illegal.
So my question is, how is it possible that Donald Trump is the most pro-Second Amendment president in history when the exact right-wing fever dream that we were fed for 25 years has come to fruition under his presidency and he is the one who has the words coming out of his mouth saying you cannot legally carry a firearm around federal agents.
If that came out of Barack Obama's mouth, I mean, you all got very mad with the tan suit.
Imagine how you would react to those kinds of words.
I thought the tan suit was fashionable.
I'll take that in order.
So you claim that Alex Predty's killing would prove that Donald Trump hates the Second Amendment.
Now, it's worth pointing out that Trump said that he objects to the killing of Alex Predty.
He was sad to see it.
Some of us think it was totally justifiable.
It's always kind of sad, but I'm not losing sleep over it.
I'm sorry.
Is this the same Donald Trump who said that he's an assassin?
No, Trump didn't say it.
Well, Trump said he was sad.
Some members of his administration.
James Francis called him.
But we're talking about Trump.
So Trump says he was sad to see it.
He didn't want it to happen.
So right off the bat, it would be hard to arrive at the conclusion from that that Trump hates the Second Amendment because he didn't justify the killing of Alex Predty, though I would do so.
Furthermore, though, on the point of the Second Amendment, specifically with Trump, not Alex Jones, not Waco, Texas, not the 90s, Donald Trump, I think we would all have to agree to a handful of facts.
One, Donald Trump, in his second term, rescinded some of the ATF regulations that Joe Biden had put on the gun stores.
So that's very pro-Second Amendment.
Trump took us out of the gun-grabbing UN arms trade treaty, very pro-Second Amendment.
President Trump has, broadly speaking, supported our traditional constitutional rights, all.
Broadly speaking, with a few caveats.
No, I'm giving you specific examples of this.
But broadly speaking, he's been consistent for 10 years on the Second Amendment.
On a few things, he's backed off it, like he banned bump stock.
Some of the Second Amendment guys don't love that, but most of the liberals were totally fine with it.
In any case, we've always had circumscription.
We've always had some limits on the Second Amendment.
The question here, since you bring up Alex Predty, is, was the killing of Alex Predty justified?
Whether or not he had a gun.
That's the question we're asking.
The question is whether or not his killing and the reaction to it from Donald Trump, she did say he was sad about it, but that doesn't mean that he doesn't, that doesn't mean that he supports the Second Amendment around federal officers because he has said he does not want people having guns around federal officers.
It's a very different question than, am I upset that a man was killed?
I think it's entirely reasonable to be empathetic to someone being killed like that, but do you support the Second Amendment or do you not in all circumstances when you call yourself the most pro-Second Amendment president in history?
Yeah, but I guess in some of the examples I've just cited, President Trump overwhelmingly has a pro-Second Amendment policy agenda, albeit with some caveats like the bump stocks and the tightening up the background check.
And no guns around federal officers at present.
Well, that was a point he made, which is a prudential point.
And I think this is the key here.
Because if we say that Alex Predi was carrying a weapon and therefore an officer shooting him is a violation of his Second Amendment rights, I think that fundamentally misunderstands what's going on.
Alex Predty had a concealed carry permit.
That's right.
His parents told CBS News that he never actually used it.
He never carried the weapon until recently.
I wonder why.
Well, right, why did he bring it?
Why did he bring a gun that was fully loaded with two magazines to obstruct law enforcement?
That he never did that.
He never unholstered it.
He never unholstered.
Yeah, wait, I want to jump in here for a second because let's define the facts of the video and the facts of the case of the murder.
And I believe it's a murder of Alex Predty.
Okay.
Standing on the sidewalk, goes to help a woman who got pushed down by an ICE agent, doesn't brandish the weapon, doesn't touch it, doesn't use it in any meaningful way.
He gets thrown to the ground.
That part's debatable.
No, that part is not debatable.
Go watch the video.
There are questions on the video.
There's going to be an investigation, but it's unclear whether it's true.
I'm sure this administration is going to lead with quite the investigation.
Jesus.
Sorry, the cheers came out a little bit for me.
Look, he was dragged to the ground, beaten by like eight ICE agents, shot in the back three times.
They had already taken his gun at the time that they shot him.
But the question.
Just let me finish my point because there's no reason for him to be dead right now.
There's none.
And then the reaction from the right is that, oh, he died because he brought a gun to a rally.
No.
And by the way, it wasn't even a protest.
He was standing on the side.
That's not really the reaction as a card-carrying member of the right.
The question is: was the officer justified in shooting Alex Predty?
And so then the question there would become: what would be the cause of that?
The cause would be, according to federal law, the imminent threat of bodily harm to the officers or to anyone around him.
What would a reasonable officer have perceived that when a guy shows up to obstruct law enforcement to commit a crime?
He did not have a gun.
That's not true.
He was a good man.
Hold on.
He's already beaten up.
Let me just finish the fact.
Since we're establishing the game, he's beaten since you're not establishing the facts.
He's beaten on the ground.
They've taken his gun.
They shot him three times in the back.
But you're only beginning from when he's on the ground.
11 days earlier, he assaulted a statement.
11 days earlier is irrelevant to what happened.
He assaulted a law enforcement.
What happened when they murdered him?
You can try to filibuster, but we're not going to establish the facts.
You are filibustered.
Make a shit up, Michael.
Guys, if we're going to establish the facts, 11 days, 11 days prior.
I'll just finish this establishment, then we can talk about it in the comments.
11 days prior, he had assaulted a law enforcement vehicle while obstructing ICE.
He then showed up again to obstruct law enforcement.
He had a loaded gun with two full magazines, and a reasonable officer, a reasonable officer, while he is committing a crime, certainly could believe that he was in imminent threat.
Can I give you my last point?
Well, all that can be debated, but my point is that my point that Donald Trump is anti-Second Amendment because of this event, Americans should not face death at the hands of the state for just carrying a registered firearm.
What about carrying a registered firearm and obstructing law enforcement?
That is not a death sentence.
What if you pose a threat to officers?
He did not already on the ground.
He was not even obstructing law enforcement.
I don't think it's absolutely possible to shoot that.
Is there any evidence that Alex Predi would assault law enforcement?
There is.
He had done it 11 days prior.
He kicked a car 11 days prior.
Like, really?
Come on.
Questions?
Outside of Twitter, this is an 80-20 issue.
Like, this is ridiculous.
Okay, I have a question for Mike number three.
You know, on the right, it's the one on the way right.
On the right, people believe that Kyle Rittenhouse, like, he had a right to carry the gun to that protest, but I think we all can agree that that was unwise because of what happened.
How is what Alex Predi did any different?
I think under the law, he did have the right to carry that gun.
What he did with it was what I take objection to.
He protected himself from a pedophile leftist terrorist.
I take objection to him shooting people with the gun that he did legally have the right to carry.
What if they shoot him first or shoot after him?
So are we going to get to that now?
Because the ICE agents were not, there was no gun out.
First of all, Kyle Rittenhouse had his gun out and brandished.
Alex Preddy did not have this guy.
I thought Alex Preddy had been disarmed.
He had been disarmed.
I'm saying.
So was the gun out or the gun was in?
No, I'm telling you.
He did not brandish the gun out of his.
He did never brandish his gun.
He didn't know he had a gun.
When they got him to the ground.
They are federal law enforcement.
Was the gun in or was it?
The first thing that a federal law enforcement is.
This is Schrödinger's gun.
It's been a long time.
Hold on.
No, no, no, no.
Listen, my father was a 34-year veteran of the FBI, three-time Trump voter, huge Republican.
I've talked to him about, woo!
All right.
Can we get him up here?
I'm on him up.
Oh, he'd be happy to do this.
But he would, he would, what happened to me?
So what happened to you, he says?
I travel.
I tell you, I took after my mother, but she's more conservative than my father.
All right.
All right.
This is a good family.
My dad will tell you this is a bad shoot.
And I've talked to, I've never heard my father say any law enforcement shooting was bad until this one.
At the time that six ICE agents have beaten Alex Preddy, got him to the ground, the first thing they're going to do is check for a firearm.
And that's what they did.
And one of them took it, and then another one shot him three times in the back.
I'm sure your father is a very respectable guy with a nice long history serving America, and he voted for Trump, which I love.
He voted for him in all three elections that Trump won.
However, however, two out of three is good.
I think you will find that even the subjective judgment of one law enforcement officer or another is not going to overcome the law.
And even liberal lawyers seem to agree that the predicate here for using force was totally mad.
Alex Preddy will not go to the forest.
He did a good job getting to whether or not he deserved to die when the question was, is Trump still supporting the Second Amendment by what he said.
I thought we had resolved that.
Because again, again, I'm certainly happy to defend the shooting of Alex Predi.
Trump doesn't really do that himself, right?
So that's my question.
Trump called him not a domestic terrorist over the weekend.
The Trump administration.
No, no, Donald Trump himself on Truth Social posted that he was a domestic terrorist like Williams.
Was it a retruth?
No, it was him in his.
Interesting.
Well, okay, I didn't.
I mean, it was in lowercase.
He wrote a lot of people.
He's defending the shooting of Alex Predty even more than he had been.
Do we have another question?
Do we have time?
No.
I would like to go back to the original claim of Michael III.
Are we establishing one, two, three?
Yes.
Okay, great.
I'd like to go back to your premise, which is you're saying that his description of not or request not to bring firearms around federal agents.
Can you describe why his request for people not to do that because it's dangerous is him being anti-Second Amendment?
He didn't request.
He said you can't do it.
And that decries to me a second, a bias against the Second Amendment because he doesn't want people who he doesn't like to be around law enforcement with weapons.
And that is a concerning, slippery slope because as soon as you start saying only certain groups cannot practice the Second Amendment to the whole thing.
Well, it wouldn't be groups.
It would be certain situations, certain circumstances for any group.
It would be protesters, anti-ICE protesters, likely anti-Trump protesters.
Yes, I agree.
Criminals should not bring guns around cops.
I guess the First Amendment right doesn't make you a criminal.
But obstructing law enforcement is not a protest.
It's all right.
You show me in the video where he obstructed justice and that incident where he was killed.
Don't talk about it.
Don't talk about him kicking a car because it's irrelevant to the story.
Well, that is a good example.
It's not.
It's not an example.
It was a lot of example because at the moment he was a good person.
It's a good example for premeditated murder if they knew who he was prior to killing him.
I want to just add something a little bit broader to Michael's point here, which is that I believe that Donald Trump's support for the situation or for the Constitution is completely situational.
He wants the Second Amendment for him and his people.
He wants the First Amendment for him and his people.
Doesn't want it for anybody who stands up to him.
And so they blame Alex Preddie.
What's your evidence for that?
What's my evidence?
Other than say Alex Preddy.
They talk about being a First Amendment absolutist, but he's got no problem using the power of the FCC to silence a comedian that he doesn't like.
He's got no problem.
How did he do that?
Which comedian?
Jimmy Kimmel got him taken off the air.
Is Jimmy Kimmel off the air?
He was off the air.
He was off.
He doesn't need any work.
He was off the air.
How long was he off the air?
Hold on.
He was off the air for a few days, but it came to the point where guys like Ted Cruz had to come out and say what Donald Trump did was wrong.
I adore Ted Cruz.
He's a good friend of mine, but we had a disagreement on that.
Second And First Amendments Debate00:03:25
Okay, I mean, then your support for the Constitution is situational too.
No, because I'm a First Amendment absolutist.
Well, I'm not a First Amendment absolutist.
I believe in the First Amendment, but I'm not going to free speech.
Come on.
But no, but it's embarrassing.
Network television is licensed through the government.
So the government has a right to make it a good idea.
It's okay for them to shut down a comedian because they made a joke that Trump didn't like.
Yeah, basically.
At least you're honest.
I just also want to note that earlier Michael was talking about how we have to have gun regulations, but if I were to suggest we do something about school shootings, be like, oh, my God, it's horrible.
Like, come on.
What would I say?
What would I say in this hypothetical situation you've invented for yourself?
Oh, hypothetical situation like school shootings that happen every single day in a moment.
No, the hypothetical is the conversation that we had in your head about the school shooting.
No, because earlier you were talking about how there has to be limits on guns.
Yeah, there are limits to all rights.
I know.
Yeah, I understand that.
So what was the hypothetical?
Well, if I was to come out and say, hey, we got to do something about school shootings, you and the.
Okay, what should we do?
We should have more armed guards in schools and we should arrest more criminals.
Can we also make it harder for people to get a firearm?
We should also, I'll give you a good example.
There have been a lot of people who suffer from mental illnesses, especially the transgender delusion, who have shot up schools and churches, and they should be put into psychiatric care and not be given firearms.
He's talking about one person.
I'm talking about more than one person.
By the way, the NRA had to come out and rebuke conservatives like Michael here for saying that transgender individuals shouldn't be able to own firearms.
Constitution protects them too.
Well, hold on.
Situational for guys like you.
No, I just don't think that the NRA is the infallible authority on that and trans.
Someone say trans.
Trans?
No.
Are you?
He asked if he's trans.
All right.
All right.
That's enough.
Can we get that guy here's your question for you all?
Seems like he needs it.
Okay.
That's success.
Which questioner goes to the VIP table?
Number one or number two?
Which number two.
Number two.
Number two.
It's number two.
Number two, you're going over to get some delicious redneck Riviera Bourbon, some nice Mayflower cigars.
And you know what I'm going to do before I drink anymore?
You know what I'm going to do?
I'm going to look at my beautiful Z Biotics.
That's right, folks.
Go to zbiotics.com/slash barfight.
After a night with drinks, I'll tell you what, I don't bounce back the way that I used to.
I'm an old man now, and I have three little children.
It's hard.
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.
I'm an honorary doctor, but these are like the real PhD ones.
They tackle rough mornings after drinking.
Here's how it works.
When you drink, alcohol gets converted into a toxic byproduct in the gut.
Now, it's a buildup of this byproduct, not dehydration, that is to blame for rough days after drinking, which I had no idea about until I looked into it.
Pre-alcohol produces an enzyme to break this byproduct down so that you are actually addressing the root cause.
Just remember to make pre-alcohol your first drink of the night.
Drink responsibly, and you will feel your best tomorrow.
I love it.
And I would guzzle more of it right now, but I have to finish my drink first.
Ready to try it?
Go to zbiotics.com slash barfight.
You get 15% off your first order when you use bar fight at checkout.
Plus, it's backed by a 100% money-back guarantee.
There is no risk.
Subscriptions are also available for maximum consistency.
Remember, head to zbiotics.com/slash barfight.
Use code barfight at checkout for 15% off.
It's time for round two.
Epstein Files: Separating Claims00:14:59
A giant Polish man has just moved me sitting in my chair.
It's time for round two.
Mike, what are we talking about?
Is that a fetish of yours?
Not until now.
I think you keep that to yourself.
This is a family-friendly crowd.
Apparently.
All right, my claim here is Trump's failure to prosecute Epstein's associates reveals the rot in our federal government.
Okay.
All right.
What's your case?
All right.
So look, there is a cabal of very rich and powerful individuals, and it extends beyond party politics and partisanship or anything like that.
I'm sorry, what, sir?
The evil cabal is in Minnesota.
So fair enough, there is an evil cabal there, too.
I agree.
Evil cabal everywhere, apparently.
But these guys of these rich and powerful men think they can do anything they want with impunity.
And it includes potentially Bill Clinton, most likely, based on the files.
It includes Donald Trump, who's been credibly on the record from people who have signed, like done interviews with the FBI on the record under threat of perjury that Donald Trump threatened a 14-year-old girl.
And you've got, look, there's a ton of Democrats, ton of Republicans in there.
And at the end of the day, nobody's been prosecuted.
And even just for a second, set aside the powerful celebrities that we've seen, the powerful politicians that we've seen.
How is it possible that a thousand young girls and a thousand young boys have been trafficked and only one person's ever gone to prison?
It's Jelaine Maxwell, and she runs herself a minimum security prison.
And Epstein.
And Epstein, who killed himself, which I don't buy at all.
And I think that Trump is a huge part of it.
Trump is mentioned more times in the Epstein files than Harry Potter is in the entire Harry Potter series.
Okay.
And so Donald Trump wants to look at the American people and say, I don't know Jeffrey Epstein.
I had nothing to do with Jeffrey Epstein except he met his wife at an Epstein party.
He partied with Jeffrey Epstein.
He's talked about being friends with Epstein.
Well, no, he says that they cut ties.
Well, he says he knows him.
He says he knows him.
He never said he was.
They partied all over the 90s.
There's a million photos.
Yeah, I'm just saying the claim you just made isn't true.
Said he says he doesn't know him.
He totally says he doesn't know him all the time.
Just the other day in the Oval Office, he was like, I don't know anything about Jeffrey Epstein.
We should move on.
Like, it's ridiculous.
Like, there is a group of wealthy and powerful people who want to pit everybody in this room against us.
They want us to hate each other so that they can get away with abusing little girls and little boys.
And I'm sick of this shit and I want to talk about it with you guys.
Okay, so I think that you have just accidentally undercut your whole debate premise right off the top, even without my.
Are you going to defend what happened in the Epstein files?
I'm not.
I'm going to talk about the thing that you brought up in your debate.
So you said Trump's failure to prosecute Epstein's associates reveals the rottener federal government.
I should add, by the way, Joe Biden's failure too, because they didn't prosecute this when Biden was in office.
Sure.
I'm just going to point out, and that actually plays into it as well.
I'm going to point out you've undercut your whole debate premise because you have admitted immediately that actually the two top people in the Epstein operation, namely Epstein and Delaney Maxwell, have been prosecuted.
And weirdly enough, they were arrested and charged by Donald Trump, not by Barack Obama, not by Joe Biden.
It was by Trump.
And so right off the bat, the premise is false.
But then let's go down further because I think a lot of people want to see more prosecutions in the Epstein case.
Or any prosecutions at this point.
Sure, other than the top two, sure.
Yeah, but they moved Jelene Maxwell into a minimum security prison and promised her a pardon.
Sure.
I mean, she's serving a 20-year sentence, but I'm not sure if you're a little bit more.
She's going to get pardoned by the conditions.
Listen, but here's my question.
How many people think Jelene Maxwell is going to get pardoned at the end of Trump's term?
Like, come on.
Nobody thinks that.
Really?
Come on.
Nobody thinks so, of course.
She's not going to be in prison at the moment.
You can pull this up.
The question then becomes, though, because, okay, we agree.
The premise is wrong, but the thrust is fine.
We want more prosecutions.
Okay, who would you prosecute and on what grounds?
Yeah, so I would start here.
One, I don't believe that the DOJ has taken this case seriously at all.
And just separate out the names for a second.
How can they traffic a thousand young girls and a thousand young boys without other people who help them do that?
Who helped them recruit those girls, move them around?
I'm asking a direct question.
Who would you prosecute?
Because that's the problem.
You say, we have to prosecute.
So you think it was a moment?
Hold on, hold on.
You think it was a mom-and-pop sex trafficking operation in Florida?
You're inventing a bunch of things I've never said.
I'm not asking you questions that you've been answered.
You may not answer them.
You made a claim.
You said Trump needs to prosecute the DOJ needs to prosecute.
And I said, okay, who is the DOJ?
Who do you want?
Well, listen, they're distinct, but they work for the adaptation.
That's how John Lemon got arrested on Friday.
I'm sure it's because they're very separate.
You're trying to avoid the question.
You said Trump needs to prosecute more people.
I said, great.
Who do you want to prosecute?
And you said, Herder, I don't know.
That's not at all what I said.
Who should he prosecute?
I said, how is it possible?
You're avoiding the question.
Okay, I don't have a specific name because guess what?
I'm not in the FBI.
You shouldn't prosecute Bill Clinton.
Start there.
Prosecute.
Okay, on what grounds?
I don't like Bill Clinton.
Whatever the FBI has in those files is have you looked at the files?
Have any of you?
I have looked at the files.
Okay, on what grounds are you going to ask you to say?
I didn't say for Congress Clinton.
But on what grounds are you going to prosecute Bill Clinton?
On what he tells Congress when he comes in to testify in public.
You're going to prosecute him for something he hasn't done yet.
Yeah.
Okay.
Who would you prosecute?
Look, again, I want to find the co-conspirators who trafficked these kids.
Okay.
So if you're asking me for their names, and by the way, I am asking you for their names.
I don't know who I don't know the names of most of the perpetrators because the DOJ blocked them out.
They had no problem releasing the private information of the victims of Epstein's crimes, but they had a huge problem releasing the names of people who preyed on little girls and little boys.
That's not true.
It is true.
I could give you plenty of names.
Adriana Ross, Nadia Marcinko, Sarah Kellen.
These are the closest associates around Jeffrey Epstein, who we have firm facts, because I actually have gone through a lot of the files.
We know that they were trafficking the girls.
Those are the ones you'd want to prosecute.
All women, by the way, weirdly enough.
You know why we can't prosecute them?
Because they're protected by a 2008 non-prosecution agreement long before Trump entered the scene.
Which was by a Republican that Donald Trump put in his cabinet.
Who else do you want to prosecute?
And the labor secretary.
Who else do you want to prosecute?
Do you want to prosecute Les Wexner on what grounds?
Sure, maybe on what grounds?
Do you want to prosecute Alan Dershowitz on what?
A claim that was made and then retracted by the claimant?
You want to prosecute Bill Clinton on what?
You say he went after a 14, 13-year-old girl.
That case was already brought to court multiple times.
A California judge dismissed it, and then the claimant dropped it twice.
So, who are you going to prosecute?
You can't do it.
Cause they dropped it twice.
You're saying Trump's a bad guy for not prosecuting anyone.
I say, Great.
Who do you want to prosecute?
You said, I have no idea.
What I am trying to say is that there is a powerful group of people in this country who think they can get away with anything.
And right now, they're getting away with abusing little boys and little girls, and they're getting away with it because multiple presidential administrations, Democrat and Republican, sir, have refused to take these allegations seriously and investigate it.
And right now, if you go look at the documents that they dropped on Friday, the names of the perpetrators of the crimes are blacked out.
That's not true.
It is.
I named a bunch of the associates.
I just named.
No, I'm talking about the people who are abusing little girls.
Yeah, me too.
No, no, no.
You're talking about the people who trafficked.
You had their names.
I'll give you credit for that.
Congratulations.
I'll go further than that.
There's still things made against them.
Bill Clinton, Alan Dershowitz.
They are blocking out the names and they're not.
But they've never seriously investigated the claims that have made.
And again, it's not just Donald Trump's fault.
In the files, you can see the investigations.
You just cited it because you were talking about the claims made by the women to the FBI.
So you yourself admit they believed it.
But you don't believe the claims is what you're saying.
Well, in some cases, the claims not only were deemed not credible by the FBI across multiple administrations, but in some cases, the claims were retracted by the accusers themselves, as in the case of Alan Dershowitz.
But again, we know that this is a real thing because Julie Maxwell, do we?
You're not giving me any names.
What was Jelene Maxwell found guilty of?
She was of conspiracy to traffic minors.
Yes.
Yes.
She's also a registered sex offender.
So why is she in a minimum security prison after Todd Blanche?
That's part of the problem that we don't know.
We do not have a lot of these redacted names.
And so we don't know.
And that's part of the big problem here.
Maybe.
We have a lot of the names without redactions.
And you guys haven't given me an argument as to why we would go after them.
And you haven't named anyone else to go after.
It isn't about me wanting to go after them.
It's that they're going to take it off.
Okay.
Question?
Michael, I tend to agree with Mike too this time that the whole situation is foobar.
Did you say foobar?
Yes.
I love that word.
I agree with that.
My favorite word.
Before I get into the question for you, well, actually, both questions are for Michael.
I just want to start with, Michael, where's a good place locally here to go get a Mayflower and sit down and enjoy it?
I have like five good answers for you, and I will tell you after this show.
Fantastic.
Let me know.
But I don't want to blow up my spots on air.
Absolutely.
So you two, you're not getting it.
If you want to know the good spots in Nashville, you got to show up to barfight at John Rich's era.
He's saying he wants to tell them to have money, I think.
Now, with regard to the Epstein issue, and your position, Michael Knowles, that we know all we're going to know, I'd like to know how you suggest we react when, as Mike too said, the situation is so foobar, not accomplishing anything other than distractions.
What do we do with this situation?
What do you recommend or prescribe?
Yes.
Okay.
And to articulate my view, which you alluded to, my point, which I've said from the beginning, I've been vindicated every step of the way is just like Donald Trump, totally vindicated.
I have been totally vindicated on this.
There are two possibilities with Epstein.
Either Epstein is what the mainstream narrative tells us, just like a kind of eccentric rich guy who was a sex freak and had no connections to intelligence or no associates or just forget about it, move along, move along.
Either that's true or Epstein was something else.
He was a little bit more than that.
In either case, we are not going to get any more information.
If it were the first mainstream narrative, which I don't believe, then we obviously already know everything we're going to know.
If it's the second narrative, which is that this guy was mobbed up with like everybody with intelligence services all over the place, people cite the CIA, the United States, or Israel, or Russia has come out in this tranche of documents, or the Arabs, or MI6, or the list goes on and on and on.
It seems like this guy was mobbed up with everybody.
And so we're probably not going to get much more information on it.
In terms of the radical transparency that we have, we have millions and millions of documents that were released by Donald Trump.
When you look at any of the potential prosecutions, no one has been able to bring one because there is not sufficient evidence.
And in the cases where there are, in those four people that I mentioned, they're already protected by a non-prosecution agreement.
So I'm not telling you this to say it's like a great thing and how wonderful it is that all but two people got off the hook in the Epstein scandal, but I'm mentioning that because that's reality.
And sometimes people don't want to hear the truth, but it's a fact.
And when people go on and tell you that Trump didn't prosecute Epstein's associates, one, that's a lie.
And when they tell you that this is Trump's fault or something like that, it's totally ridiculous.
If there were something for the White House to do, I promise you they would do it.
This is politically radioactive for them.
The problem is there was nothing to be done.
And the idea that there would be, after well over a decade of this, what is it, 15 years of this, some smoking gun document that has survived all of the intelligence agencies up until now that's finally going to blow the lid on it.
If you believe that, I got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.
So I'd like to report that, if that's all right, please.
Because let's talk about how we got here.
Like you say, Donald Trump released these files as if there hasn't been like a year of a cover-up in place by Pam Bonte and the DOJ at, I believe, Donald Trump's award.
Trump's the one who arrested Epstein.
Let's remember that was in the first term.
We're talking about the first time.
That's right.
We're talking about how long it took for them to release the last Trump files.
Well, let's listen to all of them.
Michael's been consistent on his show about his position.
But my question for you, Michael, a little deeper was how do either we as normies, as a public, respond to the situation at this point, or how should the administration change anything, handle anything differently?
Because the whole thing is just a botch job from end to end.
I agree with you, and I want to talk about why it's a botch job because nobody should forget that right after the 4th of July on a Sunday night, the DOJ announced they were done with the Epstein investigation.
After throughout the entire Trump campaign, they were promised to release every document to prosecute every single person that they could.
They said there was nothing, that there was no files.
And it took no time.
No, they said no, Claire.
No, they said there was nothing.
There's no list.
There's nothing done.
We've reviewed everything.
We've got nothing for you.
And after, by the way, embarrassing the shit out of libs of TikTok and other influencers by making them wave binders.
And I thought that was super damn embarrassing.
I wasn't at that meeting.
I got that was an embarrassing.
Yeah, can we agree that was embarrassing?
I'm glad I didn't get a binder.
Yeah, I think that's good enough.
You have a better sense than libs of TikTok.
But look, it took Democrats and Republicans coming together with a discharge petition to get that bill to move forward and to create the political conditions for Donald Trump to be so scared of the public's reaction that he was forced to sign it.
And I want to remind people that according to Thomas Massey, who's a Republican conservative member of Congress, he was threatened by the FBI to have his staff brought up on fraud charges if they didn't stop pushing the Epstein files.
So this administration is pushing hard to make sure you never see it.
And my reaction to the gentleman, he's no longer there who asked his question is: your reaction should be anger.
You should be pissed off that the federal government is lying to you like this.
That's it.
And what should they do about it?
Well, you can't vote him out.
The same thing Trump did, I guess.
Trump hasn't done anything.
Come on.
Other than arrest Epstein, arrest Maxwell, unlike any Democrats, and then release 3.5 million files.
Other than that, I know you got to protect your daddy, but this is the facts truthfully in circumstance.
Next question.
Hi, Michael.
This question is for you.
So Trump has said that he thinks it's time to move on from the Epstein files.
Do you agree with him?
And what should we do about it?
Well, it's time to move on from the Epstein files in the sense that he released the files.
I mean, the remaining files, there are like many legal reasons why they can't be released, some of which is that a lot of it's child.
But he's released three and a half million of them.
We know a lot, you know, and there are redactions for all sorts of reasons.
But I agree, it's time to move on from the files because the files part has been accomplished.
What I want to know with Epstein is a consistent question, which is, I don't need to know all the lurid details.
I would like for there to be justice for the victims, if there can be.
I want to separate the credible claims from the false claims, some of which have been proven.
But what I want to know is who was Epstein working for and for what purpose?
And even that is not a simple answer.
Some people want to say, he was, you know, like a super spy for Mossad or for the CIA or for now the story is the Polish prime minister saying he was a super spy for Russia and for this group and that group.
And the reality is there's evidence to back up like all of that.
And it's very unclear what his actual mission was.
Furthermore, the claim that he was a spy makes people think that he was James Bond, you know, training at Langley or something, you know, on a mission to report.
But I don't think that's really what he did.
I think he was a dodgy influence peddler who collected connections and greased the wheels of government and business and politics around the world.
And so I want to know what that is.
I want to know the machinery of the corruption more than I want to know the lurid details.
That needs to be pursued.
That we need to continue to follow.
However, I'm open to suggestions on how to do it because he obviously ran a very sophisticated operation and no one's been able to come up with answers yet.
Lost Influence Peddler00:06:25
Can I jump in here with two points?
The first is they have not released all the Epstein files.
That is something they continue to lie about.
Should they release all the child?
If it's actual.
It's not necessarily to the public.
Not to the public.
It shouldn't be to members of Congress.
But like, look, I don't buy their claim that there's just a bunch of child there.
It feels like it's not.
You don't think there's child parsing?
I'm sure that there is, but I think the idea that the remaining files is all children.
Given the number of times that they've lied, we should take nothing that this administration says at face value.
The second thing is, oh, and on that first point, they still haven't released the names of everyone who's been accused of violence against little boys and little girls in the Epstein files.
They are concealing those names.
And the question is why.
Now, number two.
Again, I let you talk.
Can you let me finish, please?
Thank you.
And you can tell me why I'm wrong in a second.
Happily.
But like, the second point I want to make is you've brought up multiple times, like I see a massad agent.
What's this, you super spy?
Like, what is he?
And that's a very clever thing that MAGA-oriented influencers are doing right now because they want you focused on that so that you can be like, ooh, was he working for Putin?
Ooh, was he working for Benjamin Netanyahu?
Instead of going, how is it possible that nobody is being prosecuted for these crimes?
How is it possible that they're concealing these names and this information?
I just explained that.
Look over here.
Don't look over here.
I just explained it to you because you can't name the crimes or the people to prosecute.
I can't because I don't have all the information.
There you go.
They're concealing the names.
They're concealing the names.
How am I supposed to tell you the names of the things that are concealed?
Is it possible that the names that are concealed are it could be concealed because there's an active investigation against those names and that creating or leaking those names out to the public could create a public just outcry against those people that would jeopardize the trial?
Yes, that is another reason that it would be irresponsible to release just any name willy-nilly that's had an accusation is because it would undermine the bedrock principle of our system of justice, which is that people are innocent until proven guilty.
We already know Alex Preddy, though, he deserved to die.
Well, Alex Predi, again, that's a little bit.
You said it was a good shoot.
Yeah, it was a good shoot.
Yes, people who are actively obstructing law enforcement with guns and double mags are putting themselves in danger and unlike things are not alike.
I agree with that.
But to your point on why they might conceal some of the names.
Yeah, you can't just air totally unfounded accusations, especially accusations that have been investigated and been found, including by judges in some cases, to not be credible.
That would be reckless and would undermine the bedrock principle of American justice.
Okay, any other questions?
Over there?
Do we have any questions?
Hello?
Yes.
I have a question for the man in green.
It's a very simple question.
I want to know why you expect to be taken seriously in a political debate when you showed up to the debate in a hoodie.
Wow.
Wow.
You want to talk about shots fired, justifiable shots fired?
Wow, that's a lot.
I'm at a bar.
Like, It's called Bar Fight.
I showed up to drink.
By the way, they asked me a week ago what beer I wanted.
I said Guinness, and then suddenly at the last minute, the Guinness tap broke.
I know.
So it was rigged.
It was a rigged beer raid.
Like, look, I don't like the president of the United States wears a long red tie and wears a suit two sizes too big.
Like, who cares what people wear?
Like, focus on the content.
Like, Michael's got a nice suit on.
Michael's got, I don't know, a bomber jacket on with a nice gold watch.
Like, whatever.
You either like me or you don't.
I don't give a.
He doesn't care.
Yeah.
He's had a few non-Guinness beers in him.
He doesn't care.
Hey, bartender, three shots at Tequila, one for each of us.
Hold on.
I got to do another show later.
Hold on.
I got to do.
Who do we think won the VIP?
Who do we think won?
It was one.
It was one.
That's consensus.
Number one won the VIP.
You're my man.
You are getting Redneck Riviera whiskey.
And now, folks, it is time for the most important part of the night.
This is round three.
Round three is my topic.
And my claim is that Mamdani's warmth of collectivism just killed 16 bums in New York.
Oh, hey.
You probably want to watch this debate how Mamdani just froze 16 New Yorkers to death, don't you?
That's probably what you thought you were going to get.
But you're not.
Unless you subscribe to Daily Wire Plus.
Sorry.
Sorry, buddy.
It's expensive to pay for all my drinks at Barfight.
So I need to separate you from your money so that we can continue to put on these great debates.
It was a great debate.
You want to see.
I know you want to see what happened.
It's me and the mics.
Just three mics up there debating Mamdani.
Peace be upon him.
Download the app, Daily Wire Plus, on your phone, on your iPad, on your television, on your piano.
Download the app, subscribe, give me your money, please.
Thank you.
I appreciate that.
And then you get to see the rest of the show.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Do we have any more questions?
No, we have to find out who's the VIP from that round.
Two.
It was two.
It was two.
Two is our lady friend, right?
Yeah, okay, great.
I love that.
I love that.
Okay.
Please enjoy some Redneck Riviera while we get to the most important part.