Dave Rubin dissects Sunny Hostin's appearance on 'The View,' correcting her claims about James Comey's "86 47" post and defending the Supreme Court's redistricting ruling against Democratic accusations of reviving Jim Crow. He highlights Florida's new map as a Republican victory while criticizing former Democrats for their sudden right-wing shift. The episode also features Pete Hegseth's aggressive defense of Trump's mental stability and military strategy, noting Iran's 98% currency drop, before addressing Ilhan Omar's citizenship fraud and promoting an upcoming Miami Beach event with Ron DeSantis and Ben Shapiro on June 11th. [Automatically generated summary]
As I said at the top of the show yesterday, there's just a lot going on right now.
We had a month where obviously we were mostly focusing on war stuff, and that is largely at pause at the moment.
While we have this blockade on the Strait of Hormuz, which we'll hit for just a second towards the end of the show.
But there's a ton of stuff happening domestically right now.
And right before the show, I just want to make note of this.
I was doing a little comedy lesson with the guys here, trying to teach them how to be funny.
And I think we may have done something where I have Joseph working on something right now that, if I did it correctly, will be very, very humorous.
And we will see in just a little bit.
So you keep working over there.
Let's dive in.
We are starting with the view.
I warn you, but it's not just because they said stupid things.
That's kind of.
Standard par for the course kind of stuff.
But they had Trump's former lawyer, counsel, Alina Hababa, on, and she got into it with the most racist woman on television, although this is not specifically about race.
This is more about the Comey situation, Sonny Hostin, of course.
They got into it about whether Comey should have been indicted by the federal grand jury, which just happened over the last 24 hours or so.
Okay, so first off, let me just address the 86th thing for a second.
Let's put aside whether he should or shouldn't have been indicted for a second.
The 86th thing, for any of you that have worked in a restaurant, I've worked in many restaurants, I've been a bartender, done all of those things back in the day.
And if they did not have the filet mignon, when they get rid of that last filet mignon, the last table got the last filet mignon, they say 86 the filet.
It's gone.
It's gone.
We don't got anymore.
So when you say 86 47, it's fairly obvious what the implication is.
Now, I am not inside Comey's very cold, small heart.
So, I don't know.
Did he look at that on a beautiful day walking down the beach and was like, I will post this and it will signal to people to kill to 86 to get rid of the president?
I don't know exactly.
But let's put it this way if it had said heart in shells, you can make a heart via shells, Trump, he certainly wouldn't have posted that.
So, I suppose that gives you a little insight into this guy.
Now, that's separate than whether there should be a federal indictment.
But the point.
Here is, there is a federal grand jury that looks at this stuff and decides what cases to move forward.
We'll have more on that in just a second.
Let's just jump back to what happened right after what we just showed you right there, because here's Sonny completely making up that Donald Trump posted death to Democrats.
I will tell you in just a second what he actually did post, but she says death to Democrats.
Alina's basically like, I'm not sure what you're talking about.
The audience, she says, Well, it's up.
And the audience applauds like, Yes, it is up.
We all know it is up.
Well, once again, they are just little applauding.
Where's my fish?
We have this from Grok.
No, Donald Trump did not post death to Democrats.
The exact phrase does not appear in any of his known posts on Truth Social or on X. Claims that he did are a misleading paraphrase or exaggeration pushed by critics often on shows like The View.
What happened in November of 2025?
In response to a video from several Democratic lawmakers, some with military and intelligence backgrounds, urging U.S. troops and intelligence officers to refuse unlawful orders, Trump posted on Truth Social.
He accused them of seditious behavior or seditious behavior at the highest level that is punishable by death under the law for treason and sedition.
You guys all remember this story, right?
This was Mark Kelly and a whole bunch of other high level Dems telling soldiers to ignore Trump's orders.
Trump did.
We read it on the show.
He did say this is sedition and what is the punishment for sedition?
That is wildly different than calling for death to Democrats.
So Sonny Huston Lied about it.
And this is what I find so fascinating about The View.
And actually, I have a little mild correction to make from yesterday's show.
On yesterday's show, I think I said that The View is now categorized in the entertainment division at ABC, but it actually is in the news division since I think you told me 2014, right?
So for the last 12 years, when The View started, it was considered entertainment.
12 years ago, they moved it to the news department.
At the news department, you're going to have slightly different rules and regulations as it comes to telling the truth, which is why often on the show during commercial break, they hand Sonny Hostin something and she has to correct herself.
Happens to Joy a lot too, and it's happened to Whoopi because there are different standards if you're just an entertainment show versus if you're an actual news program.
There's FCC rules, et cetera, et cetera.
But in this specific case, it's a completely made up thing.
She completely made it up.
Somebody handed her a paper and said, Donald, like, so who did that?
That to me seems like, if you're Sonny Hostin, you look like a complete idiot right now.
So I, if I was Sonny Hostin, and I know some of the ladies, at least behind the scenes at The View, you watch this show, If I was Sonny, I would say, Who handed me this piece of paper that said Donald Trump said death to Democrats?
Because that person made me look like a complete idiot, made our own audience look like complete idiots because they all applauded it, and you have to be fired.
That would be basic, basic stuff.
If one of my guys handed me something that they told me was an absolute quote from somebody and it was completely wrong, well, I don't know that I fired them on the spot like that.
Well, if anybody knows anything about crime, they know 86.
You know what 86 is?
It's a mob term for kill him.
You know?
You ever see the movies?
86 him.
The mobster says to one of his wonderful associates, 86 him.
That means kill him.
I think of it as a mob term.
People think of it as something having to do with disappearing, but the mob uses that term to say when they want to kill somebody, they say, 86, the son of a gun.
It's sort of irrelevant what Donald Trump's feelings on this are, right?
It's sort of irrelevant whether Donald Trump feels it was legit or not.
By the way, the term 86, which, you know, as I said earlier, it's become a restaurant term for the most part, but he is right.
It's really a mafia term because what it really means is eight miles out, six feet under, right?
So if you kill a guy, you don't bury him in your backyard.
Generally, not thought of as a great move in a mafia movie.
You're going to go at least eight miles out, and then you bury him six feet under.
Sort of, if you were to think of that great scene in Goodfellas, you know, they bury the guy out in, you know, somewhere upstate New York, and then years later the property's sold, so they have to dig him up, and that's, yeah, you know the scene.
So, again, his feelings on this are separate, but what else could Comey have meant?
What, 86, 47, he decided to, he made a conscious decision in the political atmosphere that we are in to post that.
Interesting.
Okay.
Let me show you this from CNN.
They had this guy, Kamel Foster, on.
He's a podcaster on the left.
Saying that the indictment is petty.
And then former New York Congressman Joe Borelli, they got into a watch.
I think for the administration, they really need to take a clear-eyed look at what they're doing here.
This is a circumstance where they are consistently, reliably going after their political opponents using the apparatus of the federal government to do that.
It doesn't just look bad.
It's petty, it's vindictive, it is gross.
And I think it is a crass violation of our civil rights.
She can't even pretend, like, lady, just pretend to be a little bit brighter.
It's not that hard, my God.
Okay, first off, let me address what the guy with the white hat, the black guy with the white hat, said, which was that this is freedom of expression.
Well, I can get on board that, right?
Like, I actually don't love the idea of indicting this guy and maybe bringing Comey.
Putting Comey in jail because of this.
I think it's a little bit messy.
He sent a horrible signal.
Again, we don't know what's in his heart.
So they start talking about intent.
I don't know exactly what's in his heart, but as I said earlier, if it had just been, if he had been walking down the beach, as he claims, and just saw a bunch of shells, and it was heart Trump, he never would have posted it.
In this case, he saw something.
He's the head of the FBI.
He knows what 86 means in a mafia colloquial term, right?
So it's pretty obvious he knew what he was doing.
But let's leave that there.
That this guy, Kamel, whatever, that he's like, well, it's freedom of expression.
Let's try it the other way.
Imagine if it was a Republican.
Give me a generic Republican.
Let's do Rand Paul, Ted Cruz.
Pick your Republican.
You pick your own Republican.
Imagine if a Republican in office right now was walking on the beach, this is 10 years ago, and they saw a bunch of shells and it said 86 Obama.
Do you think that Kamel Foster, there or any of the, or what's her name even, Abby Phillips, like these people, why do I have to know all these names?
It's annoying.
I'm very good at 80s references, but like you give me these CNN hosts, they're just a dime a dozen.
Do you think they would be like, well, it's freedom of expression and we don't know what the intent was?
No, they'd be like, jail the guy, throw away the key, blah, Now let's get to a little more on the specifics of the indictment.
Here is acting Attorney General Todd Blanch talking about the specifics around the threat.
I have to say, although he's just acting Attorney General, Todd Blanch is pretty good.
Like, you can see he understands the law.
He's trying to explain the process there to Major Garrett.
Now, there's a couple interesting things here.
First off, the grand jury sees the evidence, right?
What he's saying is, because you can see what they're trying to do there is they're trying to take Posobic, who I am no fan of whatsoever, but they're trying to basically say, He did the same thing.
Now, Pasobic is a private citizen.
He's not working for the government or anything else.
Well, it's not working for the government as far as I know.
At least, you know, whatever.
But the point there is when they do a grand jury investigation, they're looking at this specific instance with this specific person.
Now, if Major Garrett or a bunch of other people want to somehow punt, you know, clearly they want to move up what Pasobic said and he didn't delete it and whatever else.
I do think there is a fundamental difference, although I'm no fan of Pasobic, there's a fundamental difference between a private citizen putting up something like that.
And a, well, quite literally, a former FBI director, right?
Like, there's some difference there.
But as I keep saying here, I think there is some gray area here, and we will find out a little bit more.
You said at the time, supposedly serious people were bringing unserious charges and warping the language and the facts and the law because there was a political imperative beyond that.
Are you telling the American people this morning that this is a serious case and this is a serious set of charges and that?
Laws and facts are not being warped to carry out a political agenda.
And if you think, if anybody in this country thinks, especially what happened over the past couple years with respect to President Trump, that it is okay for anybody to threaten the President of the United States, that it is okay to threaten the President of the United States and then have the media or others say, well, that's not serious, then we have a bigger problem than I even imagined in this country.
Of course it's serious when you threaten the President of the United States.
Do you agree with the strategy of focusing on the oath keepers and focusing on prosecuting that group of individuals first in order for it to be a deterrent?
Well, those are your words when it came to a bunch of people who I don't want to rehash January 6th, but a lot of Well, first off, they were definitely feds in the crowd that were instigating these people.
They moved barriers out of the way.
There were quite literally grandmothers who had no criminal record, who just walked through the hallways and didn't do anything violent.
Yeah, there were a couple of people that broke windows and somebody sat at Nancy Pelosi's desk, probably stole a pen.
But largely, these people were not what you guys want to make them out to be all domestic white supremacist terrorists and everything else.
So you wanted to throw the book at them and send a message to them.
It seems if we were going for who.
Who did more of a direct call for violence?
Is it the random grandmother wrapped in American flag who wandered into the Capitol that day, took a drink from the water fountain, said, I love Trump, and walked out?
Or is it the former director of the FBI who just happened to be wandering down the beach, saw a message in shells that implied to kill Trump, took a picture of it, and posted it?
Let's talk about Tax Network USA, and then we'll jump over to a SCOTUS decision yesterday that was rather interesting.
Do you owe back taxes or have unfiled returns?
No matter how it started, the problem's only going to get worse.
Penalties grow, interest adds up, and the IRS is already taking action through wage garnishments, bank levies, and more.
That's where Tax Network USA can help.
With over 15 years of experience, they specialize in resolving back taxes and unfiled returns.
They've handled thousands of cases and resolved over $1 billion in tax debt nationwide.
Right now, they're offering a free investigation call with the IRS to review your situation and create a clear path.
To get you back on track.
Don't wait for another IRS notice or worse.
Call 866 685 6604.
That's 866 685 6604 or visit tnusa.comslash Dave.
Okay, so there was a major Supreme Court decision yesterday related to the Voting Rights Act.
Let me get you caught up.
This is from Fox.
The Supreme Court on Wednesday limited the scope of a key Voting Rights Act provision that redistricts, or sorry, that restricts how states draw districts affecting minority voters.
Constraining states' use of race as a factor when drawing congressional maps ahead of the 2026 midterms.
Justices ruled 6 to 3 that Louisiana's 2024 congressional map, which was redrawn to create a second majority black district, constituted an illegal racial gerrymander.
The court's decision sharply narrows states' use of race as a factor when drawing their congressional districts, effectively watering down Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act in question designed to protect minority voters.
While Wednesday's ruling does not overturn the Voting Rights Act or Section 2, It's likely to narrow how minorities' representation influences multiple states' congressional maps and trigger a new wave of legal challenges over congressional boundaries.
It will also make it harder for plaintiffs to challenge the maps in question, as it requires them to prove a racially discriminatory motive.
Okay, before I comment on this, and I think you can broadly see that I'm in agreement with the Supreme Court because they are removing racism from the system.
We shouldn't draw congressional maps based on race.
How you end up hating people based on, oh, they live in that neighborhood.
Here's Donald Trump's feelings on the matter.
Today's 6 3 Supreme Court decision in the Callas case was a big win for equal protection under the law as it returns the Voting Rights Act to its original intent, which was to protect against intentional racial discrimination.
Thank you to the brilliant Justice Samuel Alito for authoring this important and appropriate opinion.
Congratulations, President Donald J. Trump.
So the idea here is that the way we were doing it before certain states, and this Specifically, it is about Louisiana, but now obviously it's been hit by the Supreme Court, so the states are going to have to fall in line with this.
You can't just look at an area and be like, black people live over there, white people live over there, we're going to draw the map right down the middle, and that in essence will keep the black areas Democrat and probably keep the white areas Republican.
Like, you just can't do that anymore.
And as Trump references, equal protection under the law.
We shouldn't be doing, we should have nothing in the system.
That is about race.
It is the only way to make the playing field equal.
And the hope would be that ultimately your race should have nothing to do with your voting habits, right?
And the irony is the Democrats, we'll have more on this in a second, the Democrats who get something like 90 plus percent of the black vote, well, if you just vote for a party as a monolith, eventually, no matter what the party does for you, even if the party's harming you, which I would argue the Democrats.
Through big government programs for decades now have really harmed the black community.
They will do nothing for you because they're like, oh, we don't have to do anything for these guys, no matter how bad we screw them, they're going to vote for us.
What a bunch of clowns.
Here's Fox talking about Clarence Thomas on, well, take a look.
I would go further and hold that Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act does not regulate districting at all.
The dissenters, Justices Kagan, Sotomayor, and Jackson, warn they fear Section 2 is essentially, quote, a dead letter following today's decision.
The consequences are likely to be far reaching and grave.
If other states follow Louisiana's lead, the minority citizens residing there will no longer have an equal opportunity to elect candidates of their choice.
And this really, in some sense, is like, boy, everything we've been fighting against for the last 10 plus years with wokeism and the hyper racialization of everything.
It's like the only way you get to a fair system is to ignore color.
And the very people who've been telling us.
That we're all racist.
They're obsessed with color.
What the Supreme Court just decided was color will not play a role in how congressional maps were drawn.
I'd like to get back to that quote, though, that they just showed right there from Kagan.
Listen to this, really.
The consequences of this decision are likely to be far reaching and grave.
If other states follow Louisiana's lead, the minority citizens residing there will no longer have an equal opportunity to elect the candidates of their choice.
What does that last sentence mean?
You can vote for whoever, they will no longer have an equal opportunity to elect the candidates of their choice.
That's completely wrong.
I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but that's completely wrong.
Anyone can run regardless of color of their skin.
And anyone, regardless of color of skin, can vote for them.
The equal opportunity remains.
That's the thing that you're promised in the United States.
What you're not promised is to be treated better based on the color of your skin.
And we are removing the racial element from this.
So I guess I should probably send a letter to Elena Kagan explaining basic constitutional law to her.
Here is Timu Obama, Hakeem Jeffries, and he didn't get a win here.
Kids are playing basketball, like high school kids are playing basketball, and as someone's about to shoot a free throw, you get like a random guy to yell, That's my man!
So they hate the courts when the courts don't make decisions they like.
Look, if the Supreme Court made a decision that I didn't like, I would be critical of the Supreme Court.
I would, no, it's not even that I'd be critical of them.
I would just tell you what I think.
And then I would hope that over time the better idea would work.
But what they want you to think is the court is illegitimate.
And then repeatedly, I mean, how many times did he say extremists there?
This is, we're not even five days, I think we're literally five days off the third assassination attempt on Trump.
And you're trying to make it seem like the court, the court, it's just so idiotic.
What you're saying is every time the court does something that you don't like, they're Trump's court.
Had they gone the other way, would they be Trump's court?
Like sometimes they go the other way.
Actually, some of the, you know, like John Roberts actually.
Is kind of wishy washy on some of his decisions, and even Amy Comey Barrett, who everyone thought was going to be like hardcore, hardcore conservative.
So when they do things you want, then they're okay.
And when they do things you don't want, then they're extremists and everything else.
But what this is really about, put aside the court for the moment, what this is really about is that the Democrats are losing the argument when it comes to the hyper racialization of everything.
For 10 years, they have pushed this on all of us.
They put, well, for many, many years, they pushed affirmative action.
Then it morphed into DEI, they wanted everything to be racialized, they literally wanted quotas.
The people who were supposedly against racism wanted quotas.
They discriminated at colleges against Asians and Jews and whites.
We know all this stuff, and it's disappearing.
And here is Timo Obama admitting that it's disappearing.
And now we're at a point where affirmative action is gone, diversity is gone, equity gone, inclusion gone, racial tolerance gone, the Voting Rights Act largely gone.
That is, if you haven't seen Coming to America, the second one sucked.
You remember that one?
They put that out on Amazon or something a couple of years ago, but the first one is just everything great about Eddie Murphy and the 80s and the soup joke at the end.
Oh, it's just perfect.
Chuck Schumer, another guy I'm not a huge fan of, you're not going to believe it.
We see the need for it just today in today's Supreme Court decision.
Which was a despicable decision that is a return to Jim Crow, taking decades of hard work, sweat, blood, and tears, and even people dying for the right to vote, to prevent racial discrimination in the right to vote.
We see what they're doing in the SAVE Act, which would disenfranchise 20 million people.
And we are fighting that every step of the way.
And as I said, today we're ramping up our efforts.
You get me a black guy in Louisiana on the phone right now, and I want to find out if they can.
Zion Williamson.
And they're on the Pelicans over there in New Orleans?
Okay, the New Orleans.
Get me a New Orleans Pelican who's black, and I want to find out if he is able to vote.
It has nothing to do with voting rights.
They are removing the racial component because if you just district based on black people live there, give them a district, well, okay, yes, I suppose you might get more black representatives because people do have a weird thing where they want to vote for people, I guess, who are the same color.
I don't even think that's true.
But that's not how America, equal rights, equality under the law.
Here's Chuck just comparing everything to Jim Crow.
In early voting, to Jones' point, Does begin on Saturday in Louisiana.
This Saturday, the overseas ballots have already been shipped out.
So that explains the timing here.
And I think it's important to look at this in a couple different ways the short term effect and the long term effect.
And Joan is absolutely right.
There is no doubt in years beyond this is going to majorly change representation, largely across the South and elsewhere, likely opening the door for more Republican seats, certainly in Southern states.
So what you're saying is if we remove race from districting, Republicans will win more.
My guess is that's probably true because it seems to.
But if you were a, let's say you were a black person in one of these districts in Louisiana that is now going to be redistricted in essence because they're going to remove the racial component related to this, I'm going to guess that you don't think the government's doing that much for you.
I'm going to guess you don't think the Democrats are that great.
You vote for Democrats, but if they'd be doing that much more for you, if that's what you want the government to do, Then you'd probably be much better off.
So I would probably argue here that Zelensky, Zelensky, Zelani, whatever your name is, you're probably right.
This ends up, if you de racialize everything, if we just have equality, I think more people will realize that the ideas of limited government and lower taxes and having a border, blah, the general ideas that happen to be Republican these days will lead to more people voting Republican.
So this is probably, in the end of the day, going to be good for the very black people that you're.
Purporting to defend here.
Let's take a look at this.
This is a potential map of the South if we remove racial gerrymandering, which is seriously interesting.
So, the way most of this stuff is gerrymandered right now does have to do with race.
Now, the court's decision is as it relates to Louisiana at the moment, but if you removed that, that is a pretty freaking significant swing.
Now, to the backdrop of all of this, you might be thinking, you know, on election night, this is what I was thinking this morning.
On election night, when they get, you know, they get on CNN, they get the guys up there with the big freaking map, and they're always, and then it's like, you know, in this district in Ohio, which is white, whatever, and then they're like, and over here where it's black, and they They make everything about race.
Why are we doing this?
Why are we doing this?
Well, Scott Jennings asked that very question on CNN yesterday.
I mean, the definition of it would be we're going to divide ourselves up by race and say only a black congressman can represent black people, only a Hispanic congressman can represent Hispanic people.
It's not only illegal, it's immoral and it's counter and antithetical to everything that this country was set up on, right?
And I love how the woman, you know, he mentions who was it, the South Carolina senator, Tim Scott.
He mentions Tim Scott, and it's like, That's one, that's one.
Okay, so how many would make you happy?
Like at the end of the day, is that what you're saying?
That in every district that previously to this was majority black, should they only elect black people?
How is it that America, a predominantly white country that you guys aren't big fans of, how did we vote Barack Obama in to be president twice?
So we are trying to remove racism from this.
Now, interestingly, this case feels very similar because we're talking about redistricting.
Redistricting to what happened in Virginia last week, where they had a referendum.
They previously, before the referendum on redistricting, had the fairest map in the nation, as Scott Jennings pointed out, because they're basically a 51 to 49 state.
They're as purple as you can get, and their map was 6 to 5 Democrats to Republicans.
So it quite literally was the fairest congressional map in the entire nation.
The referendum passed, which then would have put it at 10 to 1 Democrats, which was psychotic.
It's suddenly hung up now by a judge in Virginia court, so we'll see where that lands.
But in response to this, and this is the position that I think Republicans all over the nation are being put in right now, will you sit back while everywhere Democrats have power, they try to take more power?
You know, I read a tweet from Clay Travis a week ago that Indiana, which is red, red, red, they didn't do redistricting and all this.
So if the red states are just going to sit back and just, well, we like to play by the rules because we think that Constitution's pretty darn okay.
And we're, you know, we're more conservative, so we don't like doing a lot of crazy things.
You will lose because they are on the march.
That's what Timu Obama and Chuck Schumer and the rest of them are telling you constantly.
One place that we don't just sit back and take it is right here, the free state of Florida.
And listen to this from Town Hall.
Breaking the new Florida map has passed in the state Senate.
It now heads to DeSantis' desk to be signed into law.
And look at those teeny tiny little blue pockets of nothingness.
Basically, I think that's Fort Lauderdale down there, and a little bit outside of Disney where all the furries go when they're done working.
And yes, DeSantis will likely sign this thing today.
Do we have any info on that?
I mean, I'm guessing he will probably sign it maybe by the end of today's show.
Who knows?
And what happens when we push back against leftist lunacy here in Florida?
Well, we do have a couple Democrats in this state, and they're always screaming, and sometimes they have a bullhorn.
Here is House member Angie Nixon.
unidentified
I'm our democracy.
Representative Persons Mullica has waived closed.
The question now recurs on final passage of HB 1D.
The clerk will unlock the machine and the members will proceed to vote.
Have all members voted?
Have all members voted?
The clerk will lock the machine and announce the vote.
Like, I'm sorry, we are we have a super majority, we are the reddest state in the nation.
We got 2.3 million people since COVID, many of them former Democrats who I can damn well tell you because I meet them all the time.
They are the most red pilled right wing lunatics.
They were half of them, it doesn't even matter what their thoughts are on abortion or anything else.
They got down here and they're like, this place is free.
And safe, and we're going to keep it that way.
And DeSantis, who, what's the line I always use?
DeSantis always says it decline is a choice.
He refuses to let this place decline.
We just checked.
He is expected to sign it today.
I would love if it happens in the next 15 minutes or so.
That would be great.
And just as a quick reminder, why not?
I will be up in Miami Beach on June 11th with Ron DeSantis.
Do we have an image?
Put up an image, and Ben Shapiro will be there, and Adam Carol will be there, and Jillian Michaels will be there.
DaveRubin.com slash events.
And we will try to make this red state even more red.
Here's a bit more from Scott Jennings explaining to these people that you don't have to think about everything in black or white terms, literally and figuratively.
All one race in a whole state in one district and say, we're going to allow you to operate here and we're going to operate outside of you everywhere else.
So, the percentage of black people who voted for Kamala in 2024, 83%.
So, if you are black and you are upset about whatever the government is or isn't doing for you, you might want to think, why is it that when I keep voting in for these people, so say Chicago for the last 80 plus years has had Democrat mayors, and then it gets the murder rates, the general crime, black people being killed, blah, blah, blah.
Why is that?
Like all the blue cities and states, why is it that when you If one group votes as a monolith for a party, they don't do more for that party.
And it's obvious.
If someone is basically willing to follow you no matter what you do to them, you offer them some crumbs every now and again, and they'll just keep taking it.
Thank you, sir.
May I have another?
You realize you don't have to do anything for these people.
Now, in general, I don't want the government doing anything specifically for black people or white people or anything else.
I want the government treating us all equally, which is exactly what we are trying to do here.
But his point, what Scott's point is, okay, he's talking about.
That area right outside Orlando.
That, I guess, is the predominantly black part, let's say, of Florida.
That might be right, but what Scott's saying is it's the voting habits that they're.
It doesn't matter that there are black people there.
It doesn't matter.
Black people might want to think about why they are voting for Democrats in such large numbers.
If the map wouldn't have been redrawn that way, if it wasn't so obvious that this is what is happening right now 83% to Kamala Harris.
Explain that to me.
Explain that to me.
But now I want to focus a little more on the positive side of some of the things that are happening here, because yes.
Democrats are going nutty.
But as I've been illustrating for quite some time, the Republicans are doing pretty damn good right now.
And they are competent and they are trying to do good.
And they're doing it in the face of an awful lot of endless insanity.
I saw this clip yesterday.
I was like actually annoyed.
It really takes a lot to actually get me annoyed.
But I had never heard of this woman before.
She is California representative.
I think it's from the San Diego area, Sarah Jacobs.
And they're at a congressional hearing.
And here she is asking Pete Hegseth if Donald Trump is mentally stable.
unidentified
Do you believe that the president is mentally stable enough to be the commander in chief?
And I won't even engage with the level of disparagement that you're putting on the commander in chief, who indeed is, I mean, every, I mean, Mr. Secretary, every single day.
Mr. Secretary, he's the most insightful commander in chief we've had in generations.
And you want to compare, I mean, you want to ask that question after you and your fellow Democrats defended Joe Biden, who could barely speak in the middle of the day?
Mr. Secretary, as you know, he governs with an auto pen.
I've got a Secretary of Defense who went AWOL for a week.
And man, did that illustrate what I have said for two plus years about Pete Hegseth or what?
What were they afraid of?
Pedigree and ability to communicate.
And that question was ridiculous.
He did not play by, he didn't just sit there and take it.
He pushed back.
Look, you buffoons.
And you frauds what you did with Joe Biden, who was basically, in effect, an autopen and truly did not know what day it was and everything else, right?
That's one part of it.
But then Donald Trump, who's out there every day, no matter what, flying all over the world, taking press conferences on the plane, doing off the cuff QAs, doing the rallies, leading this war, fighting with NATO.
Like the guy, whether you agree with all the things he is doing or not, the idea that he is somehow not mentally fit while he is fighting for the American people is completely absurd.
And that is just A plus stuff out of Hegseth right there.
Here's a little more from Hegseth.
This is to Massachusetts representative Seth Moulton.
People should read the history of how Germany elected Hitler.
Read that history and just try to understand the analogies.
And I think that's important at this time.
I'm not saying that Donald Trump is necessarily Hitler.
I'm not saying that.
But you ought to understand how an unbelievably educated, advanced society can elect a demagogue and how bad it can get as a result.
I think we've got to be really concerned when someone, regardless of his stature as a reality TV star or whatever else, says things that are fundamentally opposed to our values and to who we are as Americans.
unidentified
For several million reasons, the comparison to Hitler is a pretty inflammatory one.
I'm curious if you think that if he were elected president, he would be capable of doing the same kinds of things that Adolf Hitler did.
The way you stain the troops when you tell them two months in, two months in, Congressman, you should know better.
Shame on you calling this a quagmire.
Two months in.
The effort, what they've undertaken, what they've succeeded, the success on the battlefield that creates strategic opportunities, the courage of a president to confront a nuclear Iran, and you call it a quagmire, handing propaganda to our enemies, shame on you for that statement.
And statements like that are reckless to our troops.
Don't say I support the troops on one hand, and then a two month mission is a quagmire.
That's a false equivalent.
Who are you cheering for here?
Who are you pulling for?
Your hatred for President Trump blinds you to the truth of the success of this mission and the historic.
Stakes that the president is addressing, which the American people support.
Iran's been at war with us for 47 years.
You want to talk about a forever war?
For two months, this president has stared them down.
He's going to get a better deal than anyone ever has and ensure that Iran never has a nuclear weapon.
Hey, John, well, today is the 16th day of the U.S. blockade on Iranian ports, and President Trump now says that he's going to extend that blockade until Iran agrees to a deal that ends its nuclear program.
President Trump telling Axios just moments ago, quote, the blockade is somewhat more effective than the bombing.
They are choking like a stuffed pig, and it's going to be worse for them.
They can't have a nuclear weapon.
Iran's economy is tanking since the start of the war 60 days ago.
So far, 2 million jobs have been lost.
Half of Iran's jobs are at risk.
The value of Iran's rial currency has dropped 98% to a record low.
Annual inflation is up 67%, with the price of chicken up 75%.
We took out their military, we took out their political leadership.
We're negotiating with the third tier guys.
The new Ayatollah, who supposedly is a closeted gay, has his leg blown off or something and one eye.
And not only did we win militarily, what they just showed you right there is we are exerting pressure on their economy right now so that the regime will have less.
At some point, there's just nothing.
We don't have a military.
Our economy sucks.
Everybody hates us.
Maybe we got to negotiate with this guy.
And Trump, who still has a sense of humor, despite I don't know, the third assassination attempt this week.
He put up this yesterday.
That is the Trump, that is the straight of Trump.
And I wouldn't put it past him.
I wouldn't put him past him.
You know, we've got the Gulf of America now instead of the Gulf of Mexico.
And it's like, you know what?
Maybe at the end, Trump's going to be like, they're going to finally come in.
You know, these Iranian guys are all going to limp in there into the meeting in Pakistan, all banged up, one guy without the leg.
And they're going to be like, all right, all right, we can't take it anymore.
We have no military.
And, you know, we got no money.
And we're just screwed.
We'll sign the deal.
And then JD is going to be like, oh, there's one other thing.
It's going to be the Strait of Trump.
Like, it would not surprise me.
It really wouldn't.
Here's National Treasurer John Kennedy on what's going on with Iran.
And that's why, for the 40 days of the war, when there were certain pundits on the right who loved Trump before, and then suddenly, oh my God, he's horrible.
How about he has balls and he has a consistent track record for.
40 years saying what he's going to do, and he's doing exactly what Obama said he was going to do, and Kamala said she would do, and Biden said he would do, and all of it, right?
Like this has been going on forever, and Trump just has the balls to do it.
That's true.
Let's just do a bit more here, because I just told you there's just a ton going on right now.
You know, one of the things that's happening right now, of course, is we closed the border, we've got the deportations, but we are going to have to deal with people who came here legally, who I would say there's two versions of.
One, they are holding deeply anti American beliefs and they're out on the streets, you know, protesting and supporting terrorist groups and everything else.
That's one version of, let's say, an American citizen, someone who became an American who is here doing anti American activities.
And the other version of it is people who were naturalized citizens, so they became citizens of the United States, like first generation people, who then are operating, I don't know, fraudulent learning centers, fraudulent hospices, they're involved in money laundering and a whole bunch more.
That we are going to have to start going after some of these people too, which, if you think they started freaking out when we went after illegals, that was one thing.
When we start denaturalizing people, they're going to go bananas, but here's JD saying we're doing it.
We know, for example, as you mentioned with the Quality Learning Center, that much of this was located within the Somali community in Minneapolis.
Could the law lead you to a place where we'd see accountability in the form of denaturalization or deportation from people that come to this country, legally or illegally, and take advantage of America?
And that's one of the angles that we're looking at is the people who committed immigration fraud against our system and how do we denaturalize those people and send them back to where they came from?
I think that is an important statement right there.
He is now officially saying if you committed fraud, we will denaturalize you.
We will boot you out of the country.
Now, you may remember a couple weeks ago when he was in an interview with Benny Johnson and he said that we know that Ilhan Omar committed federal fraud.
A federal violation of immigration law when she married her brother.
Nobody's perfect.
Here's an image of that marriage license, and yeah, she married her brother.
So, Ilhan, I'd watch out because it's not just the money laundering that you did there with the Somali community, and it's not just your tax return, which is off by $30 million, and your fraudulent winery and everything else.
You also married your brother, and JD is looking at you, lady, so you may want to watch out.
So, how do we wrap this whole show together?
Because there really was a little bit of everything here.
Well, might we turn to the words of Donald Trump?
He wrote a book in the 80s called The Art of the Deal.
It explains his philosophy on absolutely everything.
It is why, when he says things that are a little over the top, I don't freak out.
It is why I'm able to analyze a lot of this stuff with clear eyes because he told us what his map is.
He told us what his plans are.
He told us how he thinks about things.
And he's moving things along in a very positive way, and it has all the worst people completely apoplectic about everything.
Might I offer you a quote from page 98 of The Art of the Deal?
My philosophy has always been that if you ever catch someone stealing, you have to go after him very hard, even if it costs you 10 times more than he stole.
That strikes me as what Donald Trump is doing right now.
He knows there is a high cost to closing the border.
People will call you a racist.
He knows there is a high cost to sending ICE into the cities.
People will call him Hitler and everything else.
He knows there is a cost to looking at the Somali community, specifically in Minnesota, where fraud is running rampant and people will say all of the worst things.
He knows that if he Goes into Iran, people will say he's a warmonger when he ran anti war.
He knows all of those things, but he's hitting, he's not only doing those things, he's hitting them back ten times harder.
He is showing we will not play by your rules anymore, and that's why they hate him.
I, however, love you guys, which is why we do a post game show every day at the end of the show, and we'll be doing one today in thirty seconds at Ruben Report.
Locals. com.
I thank you for watching, and don't forget, Dave Rubin. com slash events, me, the Gov, Ben Shapiro, Adam Carolla, Jillian Michaels, June eleventh, Miami Beach.