John Cardillo examines the "victim industrial complex," where Parkland activists like David Hogg—now 18—pressured Publix into halting political donations after ties to NRA-backed Adam Putnam, despite Hogg’s alleged extortion tactics under Florida law. The episode contrasts Roseanne Barr’s canceled show (29M premiere viewers) over a deleted tweet with left-wing figures like Joy Reid or Jimmy Kimmel, who faced no consequences for similar remarks, framing it as ideological censorship. Cardillo also critiques Ted Deutsch’s misleading claims about AR-15 laws and Florida’s 2018 elections, predicting Republican wins while urging Trump to commute Matthew Charles’ 35-year drug sentence (21 years served) to prove fairness in criminal justice. The protests and Barr’s firing reveal a coordinated effort to silence conservatives, distorting policy debates and undermining bipartisan trust. [Automatically generated summary]
Today, on Off the Cuff Declassified, ABC cancels the Roseanne Show after Roseanne Barr tweets something highly offensive about Obama advisor Valerie Jarrett.
Deep State is amping up its efforts to go after President Trump.
I'll tell you all about it.
South Florida political reporter and congressional candidate Javier Menares joins me to discuss the latest protest by David Hogg and the far-left Parkland kids.
I'm going to tell you about a case in which I think President Trump should intervene and commute a federal prison sentence.
ABC cancels Roseanne Barr's show, The Roseanne Show.
Incredibly, incredibly highly watched.
Something like 29 million viewers for the premiere because of an offensive tweet Barr leveled at former Obama advisor Valerie Jarrett.
Now, I found the tweet vile.
I found the tweet reprehensible.
But did the punishment fit the crime?
Now, what Barr tweeted on Twitter, the tweet has now been deleted, is she tweeted, quote, Muslim Brotherhood and Planet of the Apes had a baby equals VJ Valerie Jarrett.
Look, a lot of people, now Barr is claiming, I'm going to tell you what she's claiming.
She's claiming on Twitter that she did not know that Valerie Jarrett was black.
She thought she was white Iranian.
And many people think that.
Valerie Jarrett is, in fact, black.
She's just light-skinned.
She's from Chicago.
Her parents worked in Iran.
Her dad was an executive and working with the Diplomatic Corps for some years over in Iran.
There are plenty of ways to attack Valerie Jarrett.
There are plenty of ways to attack the left.
Race should always be left out of it.
Valerie Jarrett has ties to Louis Farrakhan.
She has ties to Linda Sarsor, to the Muslim Brotherhood, to some very, very bad actors.
And Roseanne and conservatives in general would be far better served dispensing with the stupidity, the racist undertones, and attacking on the merits.
The Democrats give us such solid ammunition and we waste it.
We throw it away.
But to this story.
So Barr is now apologizing.
Now, I don't know Roseanne well, but we know each other.
We interface on social media.
She's a conservative celebrity.
I've been on conference calls with her.
I've spoken with other groups of conservatives in the media industry on those calls.
She's been present.
So we're not friends.
We know each other.
We know of one another.
I don't find Roseanne to be a racist.
I don't find Roseanne to be a bad person.
I was highly offended many years back when she gave that terribly disrespectful rendition of the national anthem.
And she's reinvented herself as a conservative in Hollywood.
And I'll admit, maybe it's hypocritical.
I'm willing to forgive some past transgressions because we need to win the culture war.
And when we have megastars like Roseanne with these cult followings through the decades, and they're finally on the right, they've left the left, they're on the right.
We need to embrace them.
We really, really need to embrace them.
We need it.
So it's highly disappointing for me that Roseanne did this.
But does the punishment fit the crime?
We're going to get into that.
We're going to get into that with people like Joy Reed and Keith Olbermann and Jameli Hill from ESPN.
Things they've said, things they've done, rappers and their lyrics, how highly racist and misogynistic and sexual and calling for rape and murder and using the N-word indiscriminately.
We're going to get into the double standard.
But first, let's talk about ABC's response.
ABC immediately moved to cancel Roseanne.
Now, I don't believe it was over one tweet.
I think that ABC Disney has put ideology over profits.
I believe that when Roseanne became too conservative, constantly siding with President Trump on Twitter and Facebook, the subject matter of her show, clearly her character anyway, pro-Trump, pro-conservatives, pro-conservative economic message, the powers that be at ABC, the liberals in Hollywood, were aghast, and they needed to rein that in.
And I truly believe, even if it's subconsciously, they needed a reason to get rid of Roseanne despite 29 million premier viewers and consistently high ratings each episode.
Now, Roseanne did an immediate meaculpa, and she apologized, and she said she didn't give it much thought.
I was reading one of her tweets just a little bit before the show today.
She said, I really genuinely thought Valerie Jarrett was white.
I believe that.
Roseanne wrote, I apologize.
I am now leaving Twitter.
But she came back on and I and many others said, do not leave Twitter.
You made a mistake.
She said in a series of late-night tweets, she was blaming Ambien, the prescription sleeping pill, Ambien.
And she also criticized ABC for what she says is network hypocrisy.
And I'm reading from a Fox News article, but these are Roseanne's verbatim tweets.
She said, quote, guys, I did something unforgivable, so do not defend me.
It was two in the morning and I was Ambient tweeting.
It was Memorial Day 2.
I went too far and do not want to defend it.
It was egregious and indefensible.
I made a mistake.
I wish I hadn't, but don't defend it, please.
Thank you.
No, I agree with that.
I agree with Roseanne tweeting that.
I will also tell you this.
There was a time when I had trouble sleeping.
My doctor prescribed me Ambient.
And it was one prescription.
And I asked my doctor to never give me Ambient again because Ambien, I hallucinated like it was bizarre and unsettling on Ambien.
So do I believe that if she took an Ambien, it was possible she did this?
I do.
And did it inadvertently?
I do.
But do I also agree that it was indefensible?
And Roseanne's a grown woman, very wealthy, very intelligent.
I agree with that as well.
But I don't think she should have been fired.
Now, the rebooted episode, it says the episode attracted more than 18 million viewers.
The Drudge Report actually reported worldwide 29 million.
Let's go with the low estimate of 18 million.
Those are still earth-shattering ratings.
I mean, it is just earth-shattering.
She then tweeted, I think Joe Rogan is right about Ambien, Joe Rogan, the comedian, the MMA guy, and especially on Netflix.
I think Joe Rogan is right about Ambien, not giving excuses for what I did, parentheses tweeted, but I've done weird stuff while on Ambien, cracked eggs on the wall at 2 a.m.
I will tell you a quick story.
I took an Ambient in 2003.
I remember this vividly.
We're talking 15 years ago.
Had that much wine before bed, and I woke up and I was at a friend's home up in the mountains.
It was a nice home, but they had some deer heads on the wall.
And I vividly remember those deer heads talking to me.
That is how much Ambien messed me up.
I never wanted Ambien again after that.
It is a very, very strong sleeping pill.
And she doubled down, appearing to blame Ambien again.
She then said, don't feel sorry for me, guys.
This is Roseanne tweeting.
I just want to apologize to the hundreds of people and wonderful writers, all liberals and talented actors who lost their jobs on my show due to my stupid tweet.
I'll be on Joe Rogan's podcast Friday.
Now, Viacom then went a step further and pulled all of the old Roseanne shows.
Roseanne also, Roseanne also issued a statement, and her statement was as follows.
I deeply regret my comments from late last night on Twitter.
Above all, I want to apologize to Valerie Jarrett as well as to ABC and the cast and crew of the Roseanne show.
I am sorry for making a thoughtless joke that does not reflect my values.
I love all people and I'm very sorry.
Today, my words caused hundreds of hardworking people to lose their jobs.
I also sincerely apologize to the audience that has embraced my work for decades.
I apologize from the bottom of my heart and hope you can find it in your hearts to forgive me.
Now, what Valerie Jarrett could have done was immediately said to ABC, do not fire her.
I laughed it off too.
We're all political figures.
We punch each other because the left has been vicious to the right.
ABC could have spanked Roseanne on the wrist, suspended the show for two weeks.
Now, obviously, the show was taped.
It's all been filmed, but the optics of it, Roseanne's going to be off the air for a month or two weeks.
Roseanne could have issued a series of apologies during that month or two weeks.
She could have gone to diversity training and sensitivity training and held a workshop.
The whole thing would have blown over.
Hundreds of people would have retained their jobs.
I don't believe ABC wanted Roseanne on the air any longer because she was a conservative.
Now, the bigger problem is, the bigger problem is the double standard.
Let's talk about ABC.
Jack Murphy on Twitter at RealJack tweeted.
Good tweet.
Kimmel mocked Melania Trump's accent.
Jimmy Kimmel, true.
Joy Beher on The View called Vice President Mike Pence mentally ill for having a strong Christian faith.
Bill Maher makes racist comments left, right, and center.
Keith Olbermann has used effing this and effing that and called the president and all of his supporters effing Nazis.
Nick Short, our good friend Nick Short, a really good political and national security reporter, did an incredible graphic.
And I've retweeted it on my Twitter page at John Cardell, my Twitter timeline at John Cardello numerous times, where he took headlines of all of the times Keith Olberman has gone on unhinged rants and used pejoratives.
Jamila Hill over at ESPN went on racist rants.
She called the president of the United States a white supremacist.
Joy Reed over at MSNBC has a history of blogging, homophobic, anti-Hispanic, anti-Latino, anti-Semitic content.
It's all been uncovered.
Joy Reed still has a job.
Jimmy Kimmel still has a job.
Bill Mayer still has a job.
Joy Bahar still has a job.
Keith Olbermann is hired by ESPN, a subsidiary of ABC Disney.
The same week Roseanne is fired for one tweet.
Kimmel, Bahar, Olbermann, Jamela Hill, ESPN, Joy Reed, MSNBC, all of them, a history.
Comment upon comment upon comment, tweet upon tweet, blog post upon blog post, Facebook post upon Facebook post.
Racist, vile, insulting.
They all have jobs.
They faced no problems.
Roseanne, one tweet, one tweet.
Her show is canceled.
Hundreds of people are fired.
Again, not excusing the tweet.
Not excusing it.
The tweet was vile, but her apologies are sufficient.
Now, Valerie Jarrett said, make Roseanne's racism controversy a teaching moment.
And Jarrett, coincidentally, was slated to appear.
It was a pre-taped MSNBC town hall.
He said, quote, I think we have to turn it into a teaching moment.
I'm fine.
I'm worried about all the people out there.
I don't have a circle of friends and followers who come right to their defense.
Jarrett should have been a little more stand-up than that.
Now, Disney is suffering.
Solo, their film about Han Solo, did very poorly at the box office.
And with this cancellation of Roseanne, Disney shares, ABC Disney, obviously, the parent company of ABC Networks, that Aaron Roseanne, their shares dropped 2.4% on this news.
This is indicative of a much larger issue, though.
And like I said earlier, I believe, I truly believe they're putting their political agenda over their prophets.
I don't believe they care about prophets.
They needed to silence Roseanne.
Now, we've seen some archived blog posts of Joy Reed over the years.
Let me read you a couple of things Joy Reed has written on her blog, The Read Report.
Quote, you believe the Jews were oppressed.
Why should the Palestinian Muslims have to pay the price?
You oppressed them.
This is her siding with former Iranian leader Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, a guy that called for a second Holocaust.
You oppressed them, so give a part of Europe to the Zionist regime so they can establish a government.
We would support it.
That's Joy Reed.
She also accused Wolf Blitzer, CNN's Wolf Blitzer, of being too Zionist, of being too friendly to the Jewish people.
She also attacked Mexicans.
She attacked homosexuals.
And then Joy Reed wrote on Monday, April 4th, 2005, it's good to be a celebrity because you can be really, really disgusting and still have a shot at keeping your job.
And that was on Reed blog, the Reed Report blog, her blog.
He also defended Mike Tyson after he was accused of rape.
So she's, she's, um, she's been vile, vile.
Now, here's another blog post in which she attacks Jews and Latinos.
It's just that there is a tremendous taboo in the United States about saying anything even remotely negative about Israel or about implying dual loyalty when it comes to a Jewish American.
It simply isn't done because it would expose the speaker to charges of anti-Semitism.
Latinos have not gotten to the place yet where they are essentially immunized from overcriticism.
But keep in mind that those who criticize the waving, blah, blah, blah.
And she goes on and basically saying that Latinos are now becoming such a large part of the population that we'll soon be able to criticize them as well.
Joy Reed has a history of things far worse than Roseanne.
Joy Reid has consistently been given a pass.
He'd been given a pass.
She even lied and said it wasn't my blog.
And then people pulled the web archives and they proved that it was her blog.
Double Standards Attack00:03:24
And then forensic analysis said, no, nobody went in and changed anything.
It was your blog.
You wrote it.
And then her lame excuse was, oh, maybe I did.
I don't remember writing it.
Yeah.
But you know what?
A liberal.
She's an African-American liberal, so she gets a pass.
She gets a pass.
Roseanne, though, is excoriated, shamed off air, and hundreds of people who worked on her show are fired.
There is a glaring, a glaring double standard.
Now, like I said earlier, it was very stupid of Roseanne.
The racist connotation was clearly there.
And there were so many things on which to attack Valerie Jarrett.
Valerie Jarrett is a terrible woman.
She hates the United States.
Attack Valerie Jarrett on her long ties via the Chicago Democratic machine to be vile, racist Louis Farrakhan, a terrorist.
Attack Valerie Jarrett for holding a woman's breakfast to which every year she invites Linda Sarsour, another radical Muslim, to which she invites black activists who support cop killers.
There are so many things on which you can attack Valerie Jarrett legitimately.
Not on her looks, not on her race.
That's stupid.
It's stupid.
It's inappropriate.
It makes us look bad.
We on the right lose when we get into the gutter like that.
What we do is we prove all of the false allegations the left levels at us.
I don't say we prove them because they're false, but we validate them and we shouldn't.
We're not racist on the right.
The right is probably the most open-minded movement on the planet.
We want everybody to do well.
Nothing would make me happier as a conservative than everyone of every race succeeding.
Because if everyone of every race succeeded, we'd have more money in our economy.
Our GDP would be 34 trillion, not 17 trillion.
No one in the world could touch us.
I would love to see every African American in this nation making well over the median national income.
I would love to see graduation rates for black Americans at 100% from high school and college.
Who wouldn't?
I would like to see that for every race.
It only makes our nation stronger.
Crime would be reduced.
Poverty would be eradicated.
Little kids wouldn't go to sleep hungry.
They wouldn't be dying of diseases because they don't have adequate health care.
They can't get to the doctor.
Their parents would know better.
They'd be able to support them.
That's of every race, of every race.
Liberals don't want that.
Liberals want to keep people of color on the public dole.
They want them to have as little as possible, as little as possible, to barely scrape by, but really not.
They want to also have them dependent on government to give them that handout, give them that handout, eat them just enough, make their kids hungry, then make them beg for that handout again and give it to them.
Liberalism is a sinister philosophy, a sinister philosophy.
Couldn't have Roseanne out there preaching conservatism.
You couldn't have Roseanne portraying a working-class family, not a wealthy family, a working-class family that supports conservatism.
Trump Asks Sessions to Retain Control00:11:09
You can't have that.
And that's what I believe in the end, the cancellation of her show was really about.
The public shaming of her was really about.
It wasn't about one stupid tweet to which there were a million different ways to punish her and have her do a meat culpa that the audience would have been fine with, forgotten about in three days.
No, no, no.
was all about a grand scale attempt to shame and silence conservatives.
The left is salivating with their stupid cries of obstruction of justice again.
But even worse, it appears that Donald Trump was right when he said that Mueller and his 13 angry Democrats are going to meddle in the midterms and the 2020 presidential election.
Because we now see what's being touted as a scoop by Michael Schmidt of the New York Times and Julie Hirschfeld Davis of the New York Times.
Title is: Trump asked Sessions to Retain Control of Russia Inquiry After His Sessions Recusal.
And this is somehow indicative that Jeff Sessions, a major witness in the probe of obstruction of justice against Donald Trump.
Let me read this.
Washington, by the time Attorney General Jeff Sessions arrived at President Trump's Mar-a-Lago Resort for dinner one Saturday evening in March 2017, he had been receiving the presidential silent treatment for two days.
Mr. Sessions had flown to Florida because Mr. Trump was refusing to take his calls about a pressing decision on his travel ban.
When they met, Mr. Trump was ready to talk.
Not about the travel ban.
His grievance was with Mr. Sessions.
The president objected to his decision to recuse himself from the Russian investigation.
Mr. Trump, who had told AIDS that he needed a loyalist overseeing the inquiry, berated Mr. Sessions and told him he should reverse his decision.
An unusual and potentially inappropriate request.
Mr. Sessions refused.
Now, A, I don't believe any of this, but B, there is nothing remotely improper or illegal about a president having a dinner with his attorney general and saying, I'd like you to recuse.
I'd like you to unrecuse.
And the attorney general saying, I can't do that.
And the president saying, okay.
Not like he said, I'm ordering you.
I'm firing you.
Hey, Jeff, what do you think about unrecusing yourself?
I really want you to oversee this thing.
I'm sorry, Mr. President.
I can't do it.
The rules say I have to stay recused.
All right, I'm disappointed, but that's what it is.
That is not obstruction of justice.
That is not remotely improper.
That is not remotely illegal.
The bigger problem here, the real story here, is that Mueller team is leaking to the New York Times.
That's what's unprecedented.
Now, how do we know that Mueller's leaking?
Well, the conference from the New York Times, the confrontation, which has not previously been reported, is being investigated by the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, as are the president's public and private attacks on Mr. Sessions and efforts to get him to resign.
Mr. Trump dwelled on the recusal for months, according to confidants and current and former administration officials who described his behavior toward the Attorney General.
Probably Reince Priebus' crew leaking this and some of Mueller's people.
This is, again, proof that Donald Trump should never have brought deep state RNC loyalists, establishment hacks into the White House.
But again, this is not Robert Mueller's mandate.
There is nothing illegal about Donald Trump mulling or dwelling on something for months.
We don't have thought police in this nation.
That's something you see in Saudi Arabia, the Sharia police.
We don't have thought police.
We don't penalize a sitting United States president because he dwelled on something.
This is ridiculous.
Now, Giuliani, Rudy Giuliani, said that if Mr. Trump agreed to answer the special counsel's question, an interview is a subject of continuing negotiations.
He should not be forced to discuss his private deliberations with senior admin officials, including the attorney general.
It would set a bad precedent for future presidents.
There's executive privilege, something Barack Obama and Eric Holder invoked without problem during the Fast and Furious scandal.
The Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, was interviewed at length by Mueller's investigators in January, which in and of itself is disgraceful.
Now, Giuliani is saying there's a story in the Washington Post today where Giuliani is saying he will not.
Let me read you that.
He will not.
Let me find this story for you because he's saying that he will not speak to Mueller unless he has all, all of the spygate testimony.
The Giuliani, Giuliani is saying, here's the Washington Post story, I found it.
Giuliani says Trump won't sit for Mueller interview unless all FBI source documents could be reviewed.
And I think that is highly necessary because I don't trust these FBI spies.
So the FBI and Mueller are going to use a spy in the campaign who could make something up.
They're going to ask Trump a question, and then they're going to say, we believe our spy, not Trump.
Trump lied.
Trump would have to be insane to sit with Mueller without knowing what the Spygate documents say.
He would have to be insane.
And Giuliani is 100% right.
And Giuliani says about interviewing Trump that Mueller's interview with Trump would be a final step.
They reserved the possibility.
They might have to interview a few people as a follow-up, but they said they had pretty much finished.
This was four weeks ago.
Giuliani said, quote, I don't think they would have asked to interview him unless they are pretty much finished with everything.
And they're only going to get one shot at him.
They know that.
You look pretty amateurish if you interview him and you don't have all the facts gathered.
This is just an absolute travesty, what we're seeing go on here with Mueller.
Now, another guy that I've complained about that you all know I don't like is Trey Gowdy.
I think Trey Gowdy is an establishment hack.
I think he's McCain's puppet.
I've never trusted Trey Gowdy.
I've never been one of those people.
Oh, they're going in to be questioned by Trey Gowdy.
Watch out.
You don't want to be questioned by Trey Gowdy.
Yes, you do.
Trey Gowdy's an establishment guy.
Trey Gowdy gets up there and he screams and yells and hems and haws and Hillary smirks.
Do you know why?
Because he's like this with McCain and Lindsey Graham and Marco Rubio.
He ran cover for Hillary in the Benghazi hearings.
That's what nobody realized.
Trey Gowdy ran cover.
Now Trey Gowdy is out there bucking for a network job.
The FBI was right to deploy an informant into the Trump campaign, Trey Gowdy says.
This from a political story.
He said, quote, I'm even more convinced that the FBI did exactly what my fellow citizens would want them to do when they got the information they got.
No, Trey.
No, we didn't want that.
Gowdy has been great at dog and pony shows.
Gowdy has been great at getting up there and screaming and yelling and delivering zero results.
People call him a chihuahua, all bark and no bite, because I've known a couple of little nippy chihuahuas.
So I wouldn't even give him that, but it's true.
He's all bark.
He's no bite.
He runs cover for the establishment every single chance he gets.
He runs cover for the establishment every chance he gets.
Now, going back to the Sessions recusal story, why is Jeff Sessions remaining recused?
He doesn't have to.
He's been cleared of all wrongdoing with anything related to Russia.
There is no reason for Jeff Sessions to remain recused.
I don't want to hear the 4-D chess.
He's doing things behind the scenes.
No.
His silence is deafening, and it's hurting the country.
Not just the Trump administration.
It's hurting the United States of America.
Americans need to know.
I told you this last week.
They need to know that their attorney general is running their Department of Justice, not Robert Mueller, not Rod Rosenstein, who we all feel is compromised.
Sessions needs to get at the podium and say to America, look him in the eyes and say, very sensitive things going on.
I'm working very hard.
Can't tell you much, but rest assured, I am in control of the Department of Justice.
Justice will be done fairly and ethically.
Jeff Sessions needs to stand on a podium and say it.
Instead, he puts his glasses down, he buries his face, and he talks about MS-13 and immigration.
And he was out of the country at the last MS-13 roundtable.
Rod Rosenstein was there.
Jeff Sessions wasn't even there.
What is the man doing?
What is he doing?
Where is he?
He's obviously out there testifying to Mueller.
Jeff Sessions, to me, was the worst appointment Trump made.
When Trump is wrong, I admit he's wrong.
I say he's wrong.
Jeff Sessions was far and away the worst appointment this White House ever could have made.
But now with Trey Gowdy, you know, running cover for Mueller and spies in the Trump campaign, Mueller and former White House aides leaking to damage the presidency, and Mueller still demanding that sit down with Trump while refusing to disclose the exculpatory evidence, something that Mueller's team seems to not want to do.
They don't want to follow the rules of federal criminal procedure and disclose exculpatory evidence, evidence beneficial to the defense.
I were Trump, I would not go within a thousand miles of Robert Mueller's interview room.
Tell him no.
You're the president of the United States.
Tell him no.
But I think it is long past time for Jeff Sessions to make a decision.
Is he going to do his job as Attorney General of the United States?
Because if he's not, he needs to step aside.
At this point, I don't think Trump can fire anybody.
Political fallout will be too great.
But Jeff Sessions needs to step aside for the good of the United States of America.
NRA Protesters' Anger00:06:46
So David Hogg and the liberal faction of the Parkland students are at it again, this time launching what they're calling die-ins, actually laying on the floors of Publix supermarkets.
And they did this, well, they did it on Memorial Day weekend, really not seemingly caring about the people who were shopping for their families, those people potentially veterans, families of veterans, families and friends of veterans killed in action, but didn't seem to stop what I'm beginning to call Victim Inc., the victim industrial complex.
People like David Hogg, but more importantly, his liberal masters, groups like Michael Bloomberg's anti-Second Amendment organizations, and George Soros' Open Societies Foundation, unions like the Service Employee International Union, far-left groups that are funding, and I feel unfortunately using these kids as pawns.
Here to discuss it with me is Javier Menaris.
Javi is the publisher of the Floridian and Shark Tank, two of the most prominent Florida-based political sites.
He's also a U.S. congressional candidate, a Republican, Republican for District 22.
It is Javi, correct?
District 22?
Yeah.
Which covers Parkland.
You're looking to unseat as a Republican, the Democrat, Ted Deutsch.
Thanks for being here.
Thanks for having me.
All right, let's talk a little bit about this die-in.
I saw it in the news.
I rolled my eyes.
David Hogg and his crew apparently are laying down on the floors of public supermarkets to protest Publix, giving Florida's Secretary of Agriculture, Adam Putnam, now a Republican gubernatorial candidate.
He's in the primary.
They're protesting them donating to Putnam because the NRA also donated to Putnam, correct?
Correct.
So they staged this die-in.
Did they do it at one Publix or multiple?
Actually, he did it in Coral Springs.
I went to the Publix in Parkland where he did it, where they conducted it as well.
Oh, you were there.
So you were actually at one of the locations.
Right.
What, how many?
All right.
First of all, how many students, activists showed up?
Was it primarily students or were there adults in the mix as well?
Right.
I counted about 10 to 15.
One adult, and that adult was an actual priest.
Wow.
Wow.
And about 10 to 15 protesters.
Right.
Now, what was the real general consensus of the customers?
I know what they would say on the cameras.
They would want to seem to be supportive of the kids, but person to person, when the cameras weren't rolling, when the media attention was off, were the people supportive, the customers in Publix, or were they basically rolling their eyes as well, saying, okay, this is now ridiculous.
I'm just trying to buy groceries.
Well, for the most part, when I walked in, they had just laid down and the actual customers didn't seem to care.
They just ignored them and they walked right, looked at him, walked away, walked out.
Same with the employees.
It was more like a nuisance.
The look on their faces were they were annoyed over this because at the end of the day, I think most people think like I think maybe you think that this was just a simple mockery of the entire shooting.
I'm calling it a dying for God's sakes on, like you said, on Memorial Day weekend.
But for the most part, what's worse is that they did it to emulate exactly what happened on February 14th.
And I think it was a slap in the face to all those families and the 17 victims that died.
And as a matter of fact, yesterday I was at my, you know, my better half is pregnant.
And I was taking the elevator to my doctor's office.
I ran into Anthony, the last child released from the hospital.
He was actually going up to the sixth floor of Broward General to see his orthopedic surgeon, who happens to be one of my close friends and supporters, Dr. Cross.
What's the doctor's name?
I'm sorry?
Dr. B.J. Cross, Brian Cross.
Wow.
And so because I see kids like Kyle Khashov and others who want no part of this, the Pollock family has been incredibly dignified in the way they've handled it.
Hunter Pollock, Meadow Pollock, of course, who has tragically murdered her brother, has been very vocal on social media, condemning these, really, basically saying, let's stop trivializing this.
Let's have bipartisan common sense solutions here, but let's stop with this far left agenda-driven.
Really, this is, to me, anyway, this is stunt activism, isn't it?
It was just a big gimmick.
And I've said it before.
I think I told, I confronted one of the girls there and I said, look, what you guys are doing is a mockery.
This is a gimmick.
It's disrespectful to the families, to everyone that was affected in the community and around the country.
And I asked her, would it be any different if Adam Putnam received a B rating or a C rating?
And she had no answer for it because they don't have an answer.
They're just spewing talking points that they were handed to them by, like you said, leftist groups like the Soros of the World and the anti-gun lobby.
I'm glad you brought that up because that's such a critical distinction, right?
So what they're protesting is the fact that Adam Putnam received money from the NRA.
And my show is a conservative ben, so the audience knows for the most part that the NRA does ratings of politicians.
Putnam has consistently had an A rating.
He's been very good on the Second Amendment.
But you're right.
I don't believe these kids know the difference between an A rating, a B rating, a C rating.
I would venture a guess the majority of them don't even know the NRA rates politicians.
They just heard NRA bad, left-wing groups good.
Putnam got money from NRA.
So Publix gave him money as well.
NRA bad, ergo, Publix bad.
I think it's that simple.
Right.
The NRA is giving money to individuals who have B and C ratings because their opposition has a DMF rating.
I don't think they understand because, again, they're just, they are pawns, as you said, to a bigger element.
And this element doesn't care.
They're using these kids to further their agenda.
And people like Mr. Hogg, I say I call him Mr. Hogg because he's no longer a kid.
He's an adult.
He's 18, right?
Yeah.
And he needs to put his big boy pants up and deal with the criticism that's coming at him because he can't hide behind his age.
He can't hide behind the fact that he was a victim on February 14th.
The fact of the matter is, I support what he does in the sense that he's expressing his First Amendment right, his right to do so.
But at the end of the day, what he's done is alienated half of America.
And instead of taking, let me stop you there because we have some time to go and everything.
It's really not his First Amendment rights inside of public.
That's a private venue, a private business.
Why did Publix management, in your opinion, put these activists ahead of the convenience of their customers who were spending money?
Well, they simply got bullied.
And what are they going to do?
Cause a scene was, there's some press there.
And have these kids escorted out or kept from walking in the store?
I mean, or have police physically remove them, that would cause a bigger uproar and they would look bad on public.
No, I get that.
I get that.
But maybe Publix should have issued a statement saying something to the effect of that.
While we didn't want the police to remove misguided young protesters, we have to apologize to our customers who are going to take steps to ensure this doesn't inconvenience our paying customers again.
Because look, I read, here's what bothered me about what David Hogg did.
Path To Power00:10:21
And you're right, he's an adult.
The protest was one thing, invading a private business is another.
But then he started shaking publics down on Twitter, demanding they double the donations to his group that they've given to Putnam and the NRA.
Man, I also posted an image of the Florida extortion statute on Twitter alongside David Hogg's tweet, and he was dangerously close to that line, if not crossing it.
Well, I mean, this is what we expect from them.
I mean, I've had a confrontation with him before, and at the end of the day, he has sold his soul to whomever is paying him or has promised him the world because he had an opportunity to be this great uniter on this issue.
And he chose a different path.
And it's going to, down the road, it's going to, it's a second amendment violation if what they're trying to do here.
It's basically he's taking a different path.
That path is not the right path.
And eventually it's going to be egg in his face and all the Democrats, including George Soros.
Yeah, and I wanted to have you on today because, like I said, you're running in District 22.
It covers Parkland.
It's Ted Deutsch's district.
You've been one of the, I would say, the most prominent reporters, literally at ground zero on this issue.
You've been at Parkland.
You've been meeting with the victims.
You've been to the Pollux events at their homes.
You've been an institution down here as a conservative reporter for quite a while.
But you've been reporting down here since like 1953.
You just look really good for your age.
But no, you really have been with Shark Tank and now the Floridian.
You've been an institution down here on the conservative side of journalism, but you also live in Broward.
You're running in that district.
And you're a law and order guy because you just got a big endorsement.
Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi just endorsed your candidacy for your candidate for Congress.
I mean, that's a pretty damn big endorsement in this climate, especially in light of the Stoneman Douglas shooting.
Right.
And listen, Pam has done great for the state.
I mean, she's her record is impeccable.
It's beyond reproach.
I'm honored to have her support.
And wait, I want to say something before we go on.
I have been very vocal about saying, because she's turned out in November, and I'm a fan of Pam Bondi, I want her to be the second special counsel.
Just wanted to throw that out there.
I'll relay the message.
Please.
No, but keep going because she has been very good for the state.
She has been a law and AJ.
And listen, I'm honored to have her endorsement.
She rarely dishes out endorsements.
And for her to endorse me, and she called me yesterday to tell me that she was proud of endorsing.
It meant a lot to me and to what we're trying to do.
And listen, she's been the top cop for eight years.
And her, like I said, her record is impeccable.
It's beyond reproach.
And listen, you had mentioned running for Congress.
It's true.
But it's unfortunate with a lot of readers don't know, a lot of people do not know yet is that after the shooting, my Democrat opponent, Ted Deutsch, for whatever reason, and we probably know what it is, he started exploiting this shooting.
First, he lied about living in the district.
He stated on Twitter, you can't make this up, that he lived in Parkland, that he was home in Parkland, which he lives five or six miles away in Boca Tony in a different city.
He's been getting hammered for that over the years.
I've noticed that Deutsch, whenever something happens in Lower Broward County, in Upper Broward County, Northwestern Broward County, he claims he lives in that area and it always comes out.
Well, no, he doesn't.
He lives in Boca on the Palm Beach County side.
Yeah, but if you look at his Twitter feed, his Facebook ad nauseum, he's exploiting these kids.
All he does is pass out pictures or hold up pictures, throw out their names.
I mean, it's like, it's like, I'd never seen anything like it before.
I've seen exploitation.
Well, listen, Javi, I listened to him.
I went to Stoneman Douglas on President's Day.
Right.
The memorial was up and then they held that rally over in Coral Springs about four minutes from the school at the performing arts center there.
I listened.
That's right.
You were there, but I think we were there at different times.
And were you there when Deutsch spoke?
Yes.
Okay, I didn't see you in the room.
I was in the back.
Okay, I heard him lie when he lied, when he said that the Republicans made AR-15s legal again in 2004.
He flat out lied to the crowd about AR-15s being illegal during Clinton's assault weapons ban.
There were minor accessories that were deemed illegal.
He lied to a room of several hundred people.
I mean, a sitting congressman on camera lied.
But what more can you expect from Ted Deutsch?
He's got like the Democrats, his party, they have no message.
They have no, all they have are talking points that are anti-American, pro-socialist talking points.
They have nothing else to say.
There's no message there.
So all they have to do is, all they do is revert back to their talking points and their lies, which are one and the same.
Now, let me, the reason I brought up Bondi's endorsement of you is that I know Pam has taken this.
Pam Bondi, your attorney general, has taken the Parkland shooting very seriously.
I mean, it really hit home for her.
When you speak to cops around the state, they say she's one of the best partners they've ever had in the attorney general's office.
Federal, state, and local cops will all tell you that.
But she wouldn't have endorsed you lightly, which says a lot to me and should say a lot to the constituents.
Now, moving from that, what do you think the next move is for David Hogg and his far-left cronies?
Because I don't believe they're going to stop at Publix.
Publix, I think there were unintended consequences, right?
Publix decided as a result of the protest to shut down all political donations now, even to Democrat and left-leaning organizations.
Well, listen, I think the next step is that they're going to start targeting candidates and people who are like they already have, but I fully expect them to target me and some of my advertisers and go after people like that and try to damage families and homes because they don't care.
You know, David Hogg, David Hogg may be 18 years old, but he's far from being a man in the sense that he doesn't, I don't think he understands the concept of what he's doing and how we could affect families directly.
He doesn't get it.
He just doesn't know yet because right now he's still he's still wallowing in his 15 minutes of fame and his handlers are propping him up that to do this and do the other.
And he doesn't get, I think down the road, eventually he will get a taste of his own medicine somehow by some person and maybe it'll dawn on him there.
But right now he just doesn't get the kind of damage he has done and could do to other Americans.
Regardless.
Hey, Hobby, you've been digging into this story.
Who's paying David Hogg's bills?
Who's paying for the travel, the buses, the chauffeur-driven SUVs, the television appearances, the PR, the clothing?
Who's paying the bills?
Listen, your guess is as good as mine.
There's a ton of liberal Democrat groups.
Listen, what they stand to lose, the amount of money they stand to lose in this election is unprecedented.
Hundreds of millions of dollars they stand to lose in special interest if they lose.
If let's say I beat Ted Deutsch and retain the control of the House and the Senate because it moves into 2020, and if we win the governor's mansion, there's a pretty good chance President Trump is going to get re-elected.
Let's go to that for a second.
Put on your political blogger hat.
Take off your political reporter now hat with the Floridian.
Take off your congressional candidate hat.
How do we not win the governor's mansion?
We have good candidates in both Putnam and DeSantis, depending on who wins the primary.
And Gwen Graham, the presumed Democrat front leader, is now running on the platform of raising taxes.
In fact, I had a text conversation.
I won't say the name of the mutual friend of ours who's a political operative in Tallahassee.
And we compared Gwen Graham's platform to Walter Mondale's in 1984.
They're nearly identical.
They're nearly identical.
I mean, how does she, how do the Democrats in Florida expect to be competitive if they want to raise taxes in a state that people move to because of our advantageous tax rates?
Right.
But again, listen to what you just said.
All she is doing is spewing a talking point that makes sense for her liberal basis.
Poor, remember, she needs to get past the primary.
She's going up against three other uber liberals in Levine, in Gillam, and in King.
She needs to out-liberal rights.
Right.
Isn't Philip Levita?
Philip Levin, the former mayor of Miami Beach, far-left guy.
I would argue, you're on the ground more in Florida than I am these days, but I would argue that he and Graham are probably the two primary frontrunners for the Dems, no?
Right, they are because they have the most name and the most money.
Right.
Levine's platform has become uber far left, right?
Well, that's what they're going after this.
They're trying to garner the same voting block, the uber leftists, these supporters that will go out and throw firebombs at you.
These are the type of people they need to win over to win that general primary election.
And I'm sure they'll pivot back and they'll flip-flop on these issues because listen, if when you're for tax raising taxes, that's a losing proposition.
That's a losing issue.
And most Democrats, every Democrat in the U.S. House of Representatives voted against the historic tax reform bill that President Trump signed.
So raising taxes is not a good campaign strategy.
It's never worked.
You know, I remember being a little kid, there was an old Saturday Night Live skit mocking Walter Mondale as being the only candidate in history to run on raising taxes, even including those running for like unincorporated school board.
I mean, it was a joke back then that even the liberals mocked it back then, you know, that raising taxes.
So I personally feel, I feel we keep the governor's mansion in Florida, Red.
I feel that Governor Rick Scott waltzes to an easy win over Bill Nelson in the U.S. Senate.
What do you think?
I tend to agree with you.
I look at the numbers.
Senator Nelson has never faced this kind of candidate.
The kind of money that's going to be thrown at him and against him, I don't think he's going to be able to recover because I think the Democrats are, they won't admit it, but I think they're willing to concede this seat because they're not willing to spend all these millions of dollars to defend one seat when they have to try to defend others and they're trying to win over other seats.
But they'll spend millions.
I don't think they'll spend the hundreds of millions that it's going to be needed to.
I mean, Javi, I've seen estimate, we're running out of time, but I've seen estimates that our Senate race could be a $200, $300 million race.
Well, I say this is that in my seat, I think I'm going to be sandwiched between $3 to $5 million, $100 million from a gubernatorial standpoint for the Senate standpoint.
I think in my district, I'll be sandwiched between all that money.
Yeah, no, I think you will be.
You know, it's funny.
Your district has become far more competitive than it was even six months ago.
Conventional wisdom was a Republican couldn't win Florida Congressional District 22.
21 Years for a Crime?00:04:59
People now aren't so sure.
No, because listen, it takes a unique candidate to win this district.
You have to thread that needle.
Our campaign, the message is transcending across political lines and demographics.
You can't just be just a regular guy who thinks you want to run and not be able to connect with the most of the electorate because it's a very diverse district.
You have to be able to have, you have to have a message that everyone can agree with and everyone can relate to.
Javi Menars, publisher of the Shark Tank and the Floridian, also a Republican candidate for Florida's 22nd congressional district and a good buddy of mine, Javi.
Thanks very much.
It really appreciates it.
Appreciate it.
Normally, I'm pretty tough on criminal justice cases, but not this one.
I want to tell you the story, if you haven't seen it, of Matthew Charles.
Now, Matthew Charles is a guy who served 21 of 35 years federal prison for a non-violent drug dealing conviction.
Now, look, I'm a hardline on certain crime, but 21 years for drug dealing, I'd say that's more than adequate, probably a little severe.
I've seen armed, I've seen murderers, armed robbers get five years, seven years.
21 years for a serve 21 years of a 35-year sentence is a bit insane, is a bit insane.
And Matthew Charles, two years ago, is released from prison.
Since his release, Matthew Charles has been fully employed.
He's become very religious.
He volunteers.
He's in a serious, stable, romantic relationship with a woman who's gainfully employed.
He finally found himself a small apartment.
It's decorated and he's got photos and he has roots.
And he's doing all of the things a person does who typically isn't a recidivist offender.
The guy had enough.
He had 21 years in prison.
He's going about his life, not bothering anybody.
He's not looking to get rich.
He's not looking to score big.
He just wants to live his life in peace.
Well, it turns out because the federal government screwed up bureaucratically, because they screwed up bureaucratically, the government appealed his release on a technicality.
This man might be sent back to prison, possibly, to serve the remaining 14 years.
And I have a problem with that.
And this is one case where I think President Trump should step in and commute Matthew Charles' sentence because society is not served.
Justice is not served.
The public is no safer putting this man back in prison.
All we're doing is engaging in draconian punishment of somebody that's proven over two years.
Listen, if this guy were going to reoffend, he would have done it in two years.
He would have done it in the first two months, but he didn't again.
Got a full-time job, in a stable relationship, got a place to live, a small apartment.
He could afford it.
And I say small, he's not living above his means.
He's clearly trying to live his life properly.
And I think this would be a very good way for Donald Trump to dispel the myths of racism that plague his administration.
He pardoned a boxer, Jack Johnson.
And I think the president, not a pardon, nobody's asking for a pardon for Matthew Charles.
He committed the crime.
He did the time.
But I do think the president should commute his sentence and say the 21 years served is sufficient.
This guy does not have to go back to jail.
And many, many conservatives agree.
This is a story from the Federalist.
And they outline all of the risks for the president and the rewards for the president.
And the rewards for the Constitution far outweigh the risks.
Let me read you the last paragraph of this Federalist.
Prisons serve at least two important purposes.
One is to punish, another is to rehabilitate.
Charles has been subject to both.
Matthew Charles has been subject to both.
21 years in prison is a quarter of a lifetime and a heavy price to pay for selling drugs.
I agree.
He emerged a positive member of society.
This should be celebrated, not reversed, and I'll add not punished.
In this case, Charles and so many others, Donald Trump can do what he does best, which is to act independently, decisively, and strongly.
He alone can right this and so many other wrongs, and there is every reason to believe he has the courage to do it.
I believe that.
And I think the president of the United States should step in and help this guy.
Because what message are we sending to those people who are in prison?
And again, you know I'm a hardliner on criminal justice.
But if there are people in prison who truly, when they get out, say, man, I screwed up.
I am done.
I'm going to go get a job.
I'm going to live my life productively.
I'm going to toe the line.
I'm going to do everything right because I never want to be back there.
What message are we sending to them by saying, well, even if you did your part and you were released and we unlocked the doors, we let you out.