WTW100: The TP USA Event That Was More Important Than Your Freedom of Speech
We return for an update to our ACTUAL-THREATS-TO-FREE-SPEECH series for our 100th episode! Lydia shares what's been happening with the various cases we discussed in Episodes 98 and 99, and then she walks us through some "highlights" from Auburn University's Turning Point USA event that seemed to be in the middle of the termination of one of our cases. **If you enjoy our work, please consider leaving a 5-star review! You can always email questions, comments, and leads to lydia@seriouspod.com.**
What's so scary about the woke mob, how often you just don't see them coming?
Anywhere you see diversity, equity, and inclusion, you see Marxism and you see woke principles being pushed.
Wokeness is a virus more dangerous than any pandemic canster is here and it's coming for everything.
Everything, everything, everything.
Instead of go-go boots, the seductress green Eminem will now wear sneakers.
Hello, welcome to Where There's Woke.
It's episode 100.
Episode 100.
Episode 100, is that?
Episode 100.
Though, according to you in the last episode, this episode means nothing.
Yeah, we're almost to a very long time I take back my pew-pee-pew.
How dare you?
I take it back.
You can't.
You can't take back your pew-pee-pew.
This is not allowed.
It's against the rules.
Well, we've got it on the record.
I'm not letting her take back her pew pee-pew.
Never.
Hashtag something.
I don't know what.
Free the pew-pew.
I don't know.
No, it's episode 100.
I'm excited.
We're celebrating with more free speech crisis.
The real kind.
Yeah.
We got you all a free speech crisis.
Hope you enjoy.
But I think what's going to be interesting about this episode is we don't have new cases to talk about here, but since some time has passed since we initially did that deep dive, I actually have some updates on what's been going on in these cases.
It was our plan to not release anything that we definitely should have released, everybody.
Oh, part of the plan.
And then we'll close out with the event that I had brought up as being potentially implicated in Kevin Court's situation out of Auburn.
That was the landscape supervisor we talked about at the end of the last episode.
And I had mentioned that Turning Point USA was scheduled to have an event at Auburn in the following weeks.
That happened.
And so we're going to spend some time doing that because I watched the whole thing more than once for certain sections too.
And it's like two to three hours.
Holy crap.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I forgot about the whole thing, the whole event that they were probably partially having in mind when they were violating free speech rights.
Yep.
Yep, exactly.
So we'll get into that at the end of the episode.
But first, I think we got to take a little break.
All right.
Well, with that teaser in hand.
Celebrating 100 episodes, everybody.
It's kind of meaningless because there's so much bonus content and other stuff.
And who knows?
And there's a part three.
It's a weird one to do 100 on, but you know.
Yeah.
100 episodes where as well.
Good job, everybody.
Yeah, good job.
We won, too.
It's totally, we've won the Culture War.
The woke have won, yeah.
Yeah, definitely.
We're in a great position.
That's the timeline we're in, sure.
Yep.
Doing awesome.
Everything's great.
We'll need a million more episodes to win.
So watch this space.
Yes.
Including right now after this break.
We're going to get into it.
So support the show, patreon.com slash where there's woke.
I've decided what I want for my 100th birthday is a pledge at patreon.com slash where there's woke.
Please support the show.
Thank you so much.
Alrighty.
So you ready for some updates?
Yeah, this is the reunion show.
Yeah.
Where are they now?
I went through case by case.
I'll get our first one out of the way, which was Professor Hook out of South Dakota.
We don't need an update because we know how that ended.
We talked about it in the first episode.
There was some sort of agreement and he got his job back.
No information related to any sort of attorney's fees or anything like that for wasting his time.
But the point was that he got his job back.
It's what he wanted.
And so we knew the resolution of that case when we talked about it.
But the other five, we didn't.
So let's get into it.
The Georgia high school teacher that you talked about, Mickens, no update there.
I've been keeping an eye on that case.
And I think it's just a timing thing, honestly.
It's mostly, you know, notices of appearance.
There's no movement on either the plaintiff's side or the defendant's side.
I've been trying to keep an eye on both of those things.
Similarly, nothing on Felicia Branch, who was the law professor, where there wasn't yet a lawsuit.
I'm still not seeing a lawsuit.
I'm holding out hope that there's going to be something there, but I haven't seen anything yet.
I would be surprised.
I've got to think that she's going to be pursuing something.
What it sounds like is she had appealed her decision.
The appeal panel recommended that she not be fired, and they fired her anyway.
Right.
So that's kind of what we know there.
And it sounds like because she went the appeal route, to me, I feel like we know lawyers, like she's probably exhausting those administrative remedies.
And that was just, you know, mid-October when that happened.
So we might see a lawsuit pretty soon.
I would be surprised if she didn't.
But we do have some movement on the other three cases we talked about.
Melissa Crook was the high school teacher out of Iowa.
We knew that she had a temporary restraining order that was granted, and there was like an extension as part of the docket at that point in time.
There was a preliminary injunction hearing scheduled and it was continued to December 11th.
So that's kind of the point we're at right now, where there's going to be a hearing in the next month or so, and maybe there'll be some more activity on that docket.
As of right now, though, the judge has ordered that by December 5th in advance of that hearing, both parties, the defendants and the plaintiffs, need to file witness lists, exhibits lists, and exhibits, exchange all witness affidavits and exchange and provide to the court their hearing binders.
They also need to file their briefs by December 9th in advance of the hearing on any disputed issues between the parties, noticing of stipulated facts and objections to the opposing parties' witnesses or exhibits.
That seems like that's going to be moving quickly to me.
I mean, I guess there's always a chance that it gets continued again, but I don't know.
And maybe I'm just, my mind is warped because of the lively Baldoni case covering on Gavil Gows.
I never heard of that.
But that process has seemed like so incredibly long and drawn out and much like what we expect the justice system to be.
So when I saw all of that from the court, I was like, oh my gosh, they're getting to it.
So just as a brief reminder, this is a high school English teacher out of a school district in Iowa.
And when the judge had granted the TRO in the ruling, it said that, you know, that she found Crook is likely to succeed in showing Stender took adverse action against her in response to the superintendent to exercise her First Amendment rights, likely to succeed on the merits of her First Amendment claim, and that she spoke as a citizen on a matter of public concern when posting her Facebook comment.
That she had responded to and discussed the murder of a public figure, and her subsequent longer post clarified her intent.
So, you know, kind of tackled all of it within, you know, a day.
So why are we here?
Yeah.
So that the TRO is still in place.
But as I said, the hearing that's coming up, again, not a law show, but still was surprising to me, the volume of material that the judge is expecting at this point.
So maybe things will move towards settlement there as a result, too, because that's a lot of work.
I guess we'll know in a few weeks kind of how that all shakes out.
Now let's get into some of the more interesting ones because we have answers from defendants in two of our cases.
The first one we're going to talk about is Suzanne Swartz.
This is the one that was profiled in the New York Times.
This is out of Ball State University.
And Suzanne Swartz worked as the director of the Office of Health Promotion and Advocacy.
So a non-faculty role at Ball State University.
And she is being represented by the ACLU out of Indiana.
As you know, because you've been exposed to this a lot, when we get answers from defendants, oftentimes it's just going paragraph by paragraph saying admits, denies, no information to assert, no conclusion of law, blah, I don't want to necessarily go through all of that piece by piece because that's going to be boring, but there are some interesting things in here that I thought were worth talking about.
To be fair, I want to introduce their answer with their introductory statement so we can hear from their perspective what this actually was.
Take it with a grain of salt.
Defendant admits that plaintiff worked for Ball State University and that plaintiff made the statements reflected in a copy of a social media post depicted in paragraph 19 of the complaint.
Defendant denies the remaining allegations contained in paragraph one.
Answering further, defendant states that on or around September 10th, 2025, plaintiff published a social media post related to the assassination of Mr. Charlie Kirk to more than 1,000 social media followers.
Okay, remember, this is on Facebook, so it's just her friends.
Somebody had a face, her family and her friends, including other members of the Ball State community.
They don't specify who.
They don't specify what roles.
It could be just another colleague.
Yeah.
In part, plaintiff's post stated, let me be clear.
If you think Charlie Kirk was a wonderful person, we can't be friends.
That's the only part they quote.
That's the only part they quote.
That's the worst part.
You're not allowed to not be friends with everyone.
Yeah.
As a Ball State University employee, you must be friends with everybody.
Part of the look of the handbook.
Like Michael Scott is the manager there.
Plaintiff's social media post was reshared with the addition of plaintiff's Ball State University job title and Ball State University photo.
By September 17th, 2025, plaintiff's social media post was viewed over 3.2 million times.
And, you know, they're using that X view count, which we all know is inflated.
And also it's because of the right-wing trolls that did that.
Right, exactly.
That's not her fault.
Ball State University students, parents, employees, alumni, prospective students, and parents of prospective students were among those who viewed plaintiff's social media posts and expressed their concerns to the university about plaintiff's post.
The university also fielded a deluge of other complaints, comments, inquiries, and communications from members of the public and the media.
The university's vice president for student of affairs reviewed information related to plaintiff and the social media post, including the distinctive nature and trust involved in plaintiff's student-serving leadership position in the university's division of student affairs and the instruction regularly given to senior staff in that division, including the plaintiff, about the care and caution that is necessary when making statements on social media.
The university's vice president for student affairs also considered the unprecedented level of disruption to the university, including the immediate negative and substantially disruptive impact of the plaintiff's social media post on the university's students, employees, prospective students, and other constituents.
I don't see any specifics about what that disruption actually is ever.
I feel like that's a pretty striking complaint to make the actual like filing this is again in the lawsuit.
Like what's this supposed to be doing?
This is the answer to the plaintiff's complaint.
So this is the introductory statement as part of that.
Just, you know, they have to answer within X number of days.
They are meeting that legal obligation.
And I just think that their framing of this is so interesting.
And so I wanted to make sure we heard that.
In light of all of this information, as well as information that plaintiff was afforded an opportunity to provide and did provide to the university, why do you frame it like that?
The vice president for student affairs.
Like probably to get due process kind of thing.
Oh, yeah.
The vice president for student affairs recommended that the university terminate plaintiff's employment.
Based on that recommendation and defendant's own review of the relevant information, defendant decided to terminate plaintiff's employment.
Defendant's decision to do so complied fully with the First Amendment to the United States Constitution and all other laws.
So there you have it.
That's from their perspective.
It does seem weak.
So they do offer like little nuggets as they go paragraph by paragraph and admit or deny things.
So I highlighting a couple of those things here.
When they're talking about her role, it says, you know, answering further, defendant states that as director of the Office of Health Promotion and Advocacy, plaintiff worked in close proximity to students serving as graduate students within the Office of Health Promotion and Advocacy and in close proximity to undergraduate students serving as peer wellness ambassadors.
Okay.
Answering further in paragraph 10, defendant states that plaintiff regularly and routinely interacted with students and that plaintiff worked in a student-facing role.
They're really hanging their hat on like, yes, it's true she wasn't faculty, but it wasn't like she was in the billing department of the university.
She still interfaced with students to a significant degree, both as a supervisor and then also potentially in wellness programs to students themselves.
So we get, you know, just a lot of like denies the allegations and this paragraph admits, blah, blah, blah, blah.
And then we get some affirmative defenses towards the end.
Defendant asserts the following further defenses to plaintiff's complaint.
First defense, plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
Typical stuff.
Yep.
Second defense, plaintiff's interest in speaking as a citizen on a matter of public concern was substantially outweighed by defendant's interest in preventing disruption to Ball State University's operations and educational mission and providing efficient and effective services to employees, students, alumni, and others.
I don't think that's going to work.
No.
Third defense, plaintiff did not engage in constitutionally protected speech.
Absolutely she didn't.
Yeah.
Fourth defense, plaintiff was not subjected to adverse action by the defendant that would chill a person of ordinary firmness from engaging in constitutionally protected speech.
I find that hard to believe.
Yeah, that what?
How are they?
Yeah.
Because I don't understand how they're trying to make that claim.
That seems crazy to me.
Yeah.
And I didn't really see anything in their answers that back that up necessarily either.
Because again, I still see that nexus that, you know, she said something that led to people calling the school and the school didn't like being bothered by phone calls, I guess.
And so they fired her.
Like, I still feel like even in their own document, I don't see that that's disputed at all.
It's just that they're hanging their hat on the speech that she engaged in is not constitutionally protected.
How do they even make that argument?
I don't know.
Oh, they don't say.
They just are asserting the defense or whatever.
Yeah.
There was no substantial causal relationship between any constitutionally protected activity and any adverse action.
They can only say that because they're saying her speech was not constitutionally protected.
So it's interesting because there have been other elements here.
And I think we'll see it in court rights, the answer from the defendants there where they take a different approach.
So keep that in mind.
And sixth defense, no constitutionally protected speech was a motivating factor in plaintiff's discharge again because they believe that that speech was not constitutionally protected.
Not that they didn't use that speech as a motivating factor in her discharge.
They just don't believe it was constitutionally protected.
Hard to believe.
Yeah.
Their seventh defense is a huge old paragraph where they kind of reassert what she did.
Plaintiff published to more than 1,000 people a social media post.
Okay, you have a lot of followers on your Facebook.
Me?
Yeah, I have more than a thousand.
Mine's kind of locked down though and pretty private.
But I know for a fact, not everybody who follows you as a friend or whatever sees your post.
100%.
Like they're not going to see it.
So this idea that you just take somebody's friend count and you've published.
Can't see how this would possibly matter.
Very weird.
Plaintiff's decision to post inflammatory comments to over 1,000 people, including members of the Ball State University community, carried a clear risk of amplification and of undue disruption to the university.
The social media post thus predictably and rapidly circulated within the university community and beyond, including among current students.
Post is fine.
It doesn't matter.
Parents of current students, yada, yada, yada.
It also shaped public perception of plaintiff, plaintiff's role as a student-facing employee who occupied a position of trust at the university, public perception of the university itself, and plaintiff's social media post unduly disrupted the university's operations.
All right.
Yeah, it just seems weak.
And then we get some like qualified immunity defenses here.
Yeah.
And then a defense regarding damages because the claims for damages from their perspective are speculative and uncertain, which is a weird thing.
And maybe, maybe that's normal.
Well, yeah, I mean, they're going to defend.
When you defend yourself against a lawsuit, you throw everything at them.
Everything yeah.
We can't really fault them for doing all this stuff.
I mean, this is, they shouldn't be in this situation, but they're going to do all the defenses they can.
Now, the 10th defense, again, I'm sure, yeah, throwing everything at this, but this one's just funny to me.
Plaintiff's claims are barred in whole or in part to the extent that plaintiff failed to mitigate plaintiff's lost pay and any other alleged damages, for example, by failing to make reasonable efforts to obtain alternative employment.
That's like crazy.
Like your landlord tries to get rent and you're like, you got to find a different tenant to mitigate that.
Mitigate your losses.
Yeah.
I mean, I get how much did she ask for?
I don't think it's enumerated in her lawsuit.
I think it's back pay.
I can't recall off the top of my head, but I'm pretty sure it was, you know, essentially back pay, attorneys fees, kind of the typical things you would see.
And they're saying, well, that's your fault that you don't have a job and we're not going to be responsible for your lack of wages.
That seems crazy.
Yeah.
Like, how fast could you even be expected to get another job?
Uh-huh.
Yeah.
Also, why should she have to get another job?
Exactly.
The 11th defense punitive damages are barred on the grounds that defendant took no action with malice, evil motive, or intent, or reckless or callous indifference to the plaintiff's First Amendment and other federally protected rights.
Indeed, defendant at all times endeavored in good faith to comply with the United States Constitution and all other laws and reasonably and correctly believed his actions were entirely lawful.
Doubtful.
And then we get that defendant is a state actor and has not waived sovereign immunity.
Okay.
So plaintiff's claims are therefore barred on sovereign immunity grounds.
I don't know.
And then their 13th defense is that the claims are barred in whole or in part by the 11th Amendment to the United States Constitution.
And who knows what that is?
Yeah, I don't know.
Matt's not here to tell me.
So I don't know.
Women's right to vote.
So that's their answer.
There is additional information on the docket, though, that I've been piecing together.
There was a, and let me just say, the way that this works in terms of accessing the court documents, they're not free.
Somebody's paying for them.
And nobody is paying for these.
It's me.
So if anyone goes on court listener and wants to follow along, these are all publicly available now because of our PSAR count.
That's where we get the funding to buy niche court records.
Yes, niche, exactly.
And so it means that like we're following this closer than even like the local news is in Indiana, I guess, at this point.
Take that local news in Indiana.
Because they haven't poked around there yet.
But some additional information on the docket, again, something that I spent money on.
There was a motion to modify a settlement conference date.
And that kind of like piqued my interest a little bit.
Yeah, it was a motion to modify, is what it was named.
And I was like, oh, I wonder what that is.
I clicked through and I charged our card and it was a request for a settlement conference date that had a particular date where she would be traveling.
And so it was a request to the court to allow them to be able to do that.
That's money well spent in the Smith household.
Thanks.
Yeah, it was like $2.30.
Anyway, patreon.com slash further slope.
Please.
Well, I know that she's traveling.
So I don't know.
Like my curious mind is like satisfied by that scorecard.
She's traveling.
That's cool.
She's going to Detroit for that period of time.
You're worth it.
If someone's like, I'll charge you $2.50 to know that a woman we don't know is going to Detroit.
You'd be like, I've taken guys are going to be destitute within months of this new spending habit.
So I'm not sure if that is a way that they're going to work things out in December or potentially December, maybe January.
I don't think they've agreed to do that.
I mean, California requires you to do settlement stuff.
I don't know about the state, but it doesn't mean that they're not going to be able to do it.
I don't know either yet.
But it's possible.
And so we won't see anything, any movement really until post-the holidays, I guess, on that case.
But still, just kind of interesting watching this is President Mearns of Ball State University and the position that he's trying to take on some of these things.
Yeah, the lawyers are just lawyers.
Yeah, of course.
Yeah.
Okay.
Now I want to talk about Kevin Couright, the case that we closed with from our previous episode.
This is the landscape supervisor, and we have an answer of the defendants here as well.
Shaping the minds and shrubberies of tomorrow's youth.
Yeah.
So keep in mind with Suzanne Swartz, they insisted, you know, even though she's not faculty, she does interface with students.
Are they going to say the same thing for Kevin Cortwright, landscape, you know, supervisor?
Yeah.
I don't know how they would.
And this is the one where they had the conference thing coming up, right?
Yes.
This is the one where Turning Point USA was scheduled to have an event at Auburn, obviously post-Charlie Kirk's death and everything, because this is why we're here.
But where the slated group of speakers were Benny Johnson, Eric Trump, and Laura Trump, potentially motivated by concerns with the event going well.
And we had an idea that that's what happened because specifically the security office had asked his wife, what if there was a turning point table at campus?
What would he do about that?
You know, garden around it.
Mow the lawn so the table would sit appropriately.
So he had sued, just as a reminder, he had sued the president of Auburn University, Christopher Roberts, Jim Carroll, the vice president of facilities management.
So, you know, his chain of command kind of thing, and Lauren Wynne, the facility's human resources director, suing them in their individual capacities.
So I have the answers here, and they don't have an introductory statement in this one like we had in the last one.
They jump straight into their answers to the numbered paragraphs.
I get a lot of things in this document about defendants are without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief about the truth of the avert averments?
Averments.
Yeah, like of averments.
Averments, yeah, as to what beliefs plaintiff subjectively holds, yada, yada, yada.
Don't care.
So we're going to skip through all that stuff.
They admit that the security officers met with his wife, that they questioned her about the plaintiff, and that she attempted to assure them that plaintiff was not a threat.
So they do agree with those statements.
They also admit that Kim Courright stated that there was nothing to be concerned about with plaintiff because he was a good man.
That is something she said, that he would never hurt anyone.
So basically, his version of the story so far is like, it's right.
And, you know, this is to be expected, but also, again, this is the first time we've ever seen any of these stories that were real.
Normally, this is all bullshit.
They'll be like, we don't even know what you're talking about.
This never happened.
You know, like, that's what normally happens with these fake free speech bullshits.
Yeah, yeah, exactly.
It's interesting to see a real one and be like, yeah, no, that all happened exactly how this plaintiff said.
Then we get kind of like a chunky denial on one of the paragraphs, and they offer further information.
They say, for further answer, defendants state that the decision to terminate plaintiff was made not based upon the content of any particular post, posts, or reposts, but instead based on a thorough, holistic assessment of plaintiff's threat potential that took into account his overall posting activity on September 10th, along with other relevant information.
In addition, or in the alternative, defendants state that even if plaintiff's speech enjoyed constitutional protection due to the nature of its content, there was no causal connection between the content that warranted such protection and plaintiff's termination.
So I had mentioned in the Swartz answer where they're saying that she was fired because of her posts, but they were not constitutionally protected.
Here they're saying they did not fire him because of his post.
They're almost like recognizing.
Well, I think this is just the best way to try to defend it.
To be like, well, it wasn't any one thing.
Cause I obviously these cases are super fucking simple.
Right.
You have a First Amendment right to that.
I mean, it's in the same way that if you fired someone for being black, you'd be like, well, it wasn't, it was, it was their behavior around, you know, like, yeah, obviously your defense is going to be something else.
You know, this wasn't that.
It was, it was more like the totality of their, you know, whatever.
Yeah, it's just interesting the two different strategies that we saw in each of those.
They also admit in here that in his role as a landscape supervisor, plaintiff had no direct control or influence over the academic process.
Yeah, no shit.
Admitted that plaintiff may have published statements about Kirk that would be constitutionally protected, but denied that any published statement or statements that were considered in the threat assessment that informed the decision to terminate plaintiff enjoyed constitutional protection.
Ah, convenient.
So which ones did you use to fire the person?
Well, none of the First Amendment ones, just like just the overall vibe of the thing.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Good luck.
I mean, this one, now remind me, it did seem like he had shared or said something that was like, kill somebody or something.
Something was a little bit like Dicey, one fascist downhill movement ago.
Was that that one?
I do think that was that one.
It was like indicating, you know, taking down the movement, but you know, maybe some people interpreted it as taking down the people of the movement.
But, you know, court rights, lawyers got ahead of that.
I think when we read through that, they specifically said, like, even odious speech, like, that's what the First Amendment is designed to protect.
Right.
That's when you need the First Amendment.
Yeah.
And they're really hanging their hat on what I read earlier about for further answer, you know, that it was a holistic assessment.
Multiple times throughout the rest of this answer, they say for further answer, see response to paragraph 42.
So that's really going to be the crux of their defense.
So then if I skip ahead to additional and affirmative defenses and see if there's anything good here, we do have some qualified immunity stuff kind of up front, basically saying like the defendants that are named in their individual capacities are protected from imposition of money damages.
The usual.
Yeah.
Even if plaintiff engaged in speech on the matter of public concern, plaintiff's interest in commenting upon such matters does not, under the circumstances, outweigh Auburn University's interest as an employer in promoting the efficiency of public services it performs.
Like that had any effect.
I don't slow down the efficiency of your landscaping.
Yeah, a lot of the other ones, I guess they can at least point to like, well, we got a lot of angry phone calls.
This one, I don't really remember.
No.
I don't remember a whole lot of that, but I know there's a lot of cases, so I could be blending things.
But I don't think there was a whole bunch of like, well, the landscaping has really slowed down because of this.
I do not think there was any phone call campaign or anything like that.
Yeah.
And I just hope it's abundantly clear that I have way more respect for people who do that kind of work than the assholes who are firing them.
It's just joking about landscaping is that they would think this is some free speech thing they'd need to do because he was affecting the students or the whatever.
So just to clarify, that's what's not to at all belittle landscaping or actual hard work jobs that are way more important to our society than a lot of the bullshit people that we're talking about here.
But it's just like the idea that that person in a landscaping position is a big threat to like how the school's going and how the function of the students and the teaching and the blah, blah, blah.
It's just absurd.
And the last thing I want to read from this is one of their affirmative defenses here.
Even if plaintiff engaged in constitutionally protected speech, that was a motivating factor in the decision to terminate him, which defendants deny, he would have been terminated regardless for legitimate reasons having nothing to do with speech that enjoyed constitutional protection.
So like what?
Yeah.
They don't have to tell us now.
They don't have to tell us now.
That's basically where I guess.
And that sucks because that probably, I mean, that'll probably get you through early stages of litigation if you're going to say like, no, it's fact dependent.
We'd have to actually look into these causes.
We don't can't tell you what, you know, what they are, but if we're permitted to go forward, then we will be able to make the case that there's these other reasons.
And I don't know.
I mean, there's definitely limits to that.
Yeah.
So that's where we're at with Courtwright.
Could be a lengthy battle ahead.
That's all I've seen.
And we'll see how far that fire money goes in supporting it.
Oh, wait.
Oh, wait a second.
Yeah.
Nowhere.
No.
Yeah.
And I still haven't seen anything about them taking on cases.
Might have missed something, but I seriously haven't seen them involved in the Charlie Kirk.
Oh, you're in the biggest actual free speech emergency of our lifetimes.
And they're like, well, we put out a statement that we're not fans.
Yeah.
Yeah.
You don't care because it doesn't serve your actual right-wing purposes or actual anti-left purposes, I'll say.
Yeah, yeah, exactly.
It's like the people who they want to cater to don't care that these people got fired.
Yeah.
So they're not going to spend their money on it.
So now I think what we should do is we should pivot to this turning.
We've had a lot of vegetables.
I want, I want a treat.
I'm ready for a nice Halloween slash hundredth episode.
Yes.
Episode 100 treat.
And I'm going to give it to you.
This is interesting.
Benny Johnson's crazy.
So that's my first takeaway from this.
I think he's also realized that there's just no fucking consequences to anything.
When you get busted for being a paid fucking Russian misinformation agent.
Yeah.
And then like nothing happened.
Well, actually, what did fuck?
What did happen with that?
I mean, he was definitely implicated, but it was, well, I guess he wasn't really getting in trouble so much as the people who ran the thingy, huh?
Right.
Yeah.
The people who were the company.
Like ran that company.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So, I mean, it's like if you can be paid a lot of money, outed as a Russian operative and no one gives a shit, it's like, oh, there's no, it's the same with Trump.
Like no one gives a shit.
There's no consequences.
You keep pushing.
They're children.
They're the same.
I mean, and they're just self-interested.
Like they're going to push.
They're going to push.
They're going to get away with whatever they want until we stop them.
And we're just not stopping them.
Yeah.
Ah, man.
Well, you ready to hear some crazy things he has to say?
Yeah, right.
Okay.
So I'm going to skip through the video I watched.
It wasn't just the Turning Point USA event.
It was also like, I wouldn't call it like man on the street exactly, but it kind of was.
It was like this reporter, you know, tuning in from the Turning Point USA event, walking the line of students waiting to be let in.
And from the right, or is it someone trying to out them as stupid?
No, this is, this is from the YouTube channel Right Side Broadcasting Network.
So they think it's beautiful.
He says some like weird, gross stuff about like, oh, you guys are all so attractive to a group of girls.
It's strange.
It's very strange.
But I'm going to skip to Benny Johnson.
Tommy Tubberville is also there.
He's so boring.
He's so boring.
Yeah, that guy is such an idiot.
He's mainly just dumb.
Yeah, exactly.
And I'm going to spend the end of our speech here very quickly dispatching and destroying the single most evil lie that has been sold to you by the corporate press, by the Democrat Party, and by corrupt institutions, that you are on the wrong side of American history as young people who believe in America first and America only.
America only?
Ladies and gentlemen.
Not only are you American history.
You are American history.
You are the inheritors of American history.
And I can prove it.
Let's do it quickly.
What is America?
America, as defined by our founders, is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
And you are the ones who embody all of those things.
Let's talk about them in order.
Well, this big, beautiful red map.
Where are we at?
Hold on.
Where are we at right now?
Right around, right around here?
Yeah?
Okay.
Land doesn't vote.
He's showing classic maps.
Yeah, here, possibly.
Not the blue area, though.
Yeah, what he's showing is the county by county.
You know, the right loved this in the Trump election where it shows, you know, all these particular counties that are red and then like the counties that are blue and there's counties in there that have five people.
Yeah.
To be fair, they did really well in that election and that fucking sucks.
But it's still like land doesn't vote.
Right, right.
Cows don't vote.
And then I just have to call this out because it's so funny.
He's like saying, okay, where are we right now?
Right around, right around here.
And he's like pointing to the completely wrong spot and people are like shouting at him that he's wrong.
And he has to adjust.
He's like, oh, okay, no, here.
And then he's like, wait, but not in the blue counties, right?
All right, you can continue.
It's funny.
If I was going to do this bit, I would find out where the fuck I was.
Exactly.
Ladies and gentlemen.
Sweet home, Alabama.
So cringy.
Alabama loves life.
Yes.
Because God created life.
The first book of Genesis, you don't have to look farther than that.
God also created life.
God created life.
We believe that as Christians.
That God marked us and stamped us with the sign of the creator.
That we are all made in God's image, so life is precious.
93% of the red parts of this country, Republicans, believe in a creator, believe in God.
Are you one of them?
Yes.
Now I'll just answer the party.
You know, as Democrats, you know, as Democrats, that's only 50%.
And that defines the entire problem right there.
There's no way.
At 50% of their party, that's a coin flip.
If you don't believe in God, then you can't believe in America.
Because our founding documents, the first line says we are endowed by what?
Our creator.
All right.
All men are created.
So could I be a Muslim and then I'm there?
You're cool with that?
Yeah.
As long as I believe in a creator.
Someone created it.
I mean, like, I can also say that like my mom created me.
My mom and my dad created me.
They are my creators.
Thomas Jefferson was talking about his mom.
Exactly.
It's really into his mom.
I mean, who knows?
But this, I felt like, was really shocking because like we know Turning Point USA is incredibly conservative and also incredibly religious and Christian.
But like just hearing it myself and kind of experiencing this one thing and how popular this event was from what I could tell, it really is that the future that the right wants is that these things are one and the same, that there is no distinction between Christian and conservative.
Like those things are hand in hand.
Or even Christian and American.
Yeah, exactly.
Exactly.
And that you cannot be considered an American if you do not believe in God.
And just hearing it there and like the guy who accepted Russian money to do propaganda.
Yeah.
Telling me about like what it takes to be an American.
Yeah.
Can't be an atheist, but you can't be a Russian fucking stooge.
That's fine.
Yeah.
And like, honestly, unironically at this point, I think that's kind of where we are with MAGA.
Like they don't care.
They flipped on Russia.
It was the weirdest thing.
Why don't you continue on?
Because there's some more good stuff that I'm good in quotes.
Well, if you don't believe in a God, then you can't even believe in America.
Am I right?
Yes.
Yes, I love it.
The Democrat Party has a real problem.
All right, yes.
Don't answer.
With just the first thing, life.
You were also the inheritors of life because Republicans are the ones who create families.
Republicans are the ones who want to be fathers.
Yes, I know.
When we decided to have our family, we had to go find the nearest Republicans.
Yeah.
Like, hey, can you help make our kids?
We don't even know how.
No, we had them like forge documents so we would be allowed to like have a family.
Yeah, we're like, we keep getting pregnant.
We just have elective abortions because we don't understand how it works.
Like that we're just saying.
What is family?
Where does the babies come from?
I keep the abortion doctor doesn't give me any.
Yeah, this is my routine medical procedure that I just do annually.
And to carry forward our beliefs in our value system and our nation to make more Americans.
In fact, when Gallup did a poll of young Trump supporters, they broke them out men and women.
Do you know the number one thing that young men wanted in their lives was to become a father and to become a husband.
That was the number one priority.
Young men on the left who voted for.
For Kamawa, we call them women, actually.
I don't know what their priorities were.
I don't even know.
Fatherhood was dead last, finding a new kiddo, like a kitty litter box to pee in because I identify as a cat.
I don't know.
Maybe that's the priority.
I'm not sure.
I don't know.
I know this, that that is the legacy of Charlie Kirk.
That's enough of Benny Johnson.
But he says at the beginning of that clip that I had you play was like, we're going to go through this quickly.
It does not go through quickly at all.
He loves the sound of his voice.
He loves it so much.
That's why he answers his own request.
Exactly.
That's why he keeps saying yes when he asks the audience a question.
I've never seen that before.
That way, yes, yes.
He's too nervous that he won't get an audience response or something.
Yeah, exactly.
And the other thing I want to say before we move on from Benny Johnson, we're going to get some more of him too, because he's the one that interviews Eric Trump and Laura Trump.
But the other thing was Tommy Tuberville talked a lot about Zoran Momdani.
Can I do a kids book real quick?
Tommy Tuberville talked to.
Yeah.
He talked a lot about Momdani's win because this was the day after the election.
I'm wondering on did anyone pronounce it right?
Because I cannot get over.
I know a topic for another show.
Yeah.
People can't pronounce or say his name right.
And I don't even want to say it's not.
No, actually, it's not pronouncing it.
It's not like they're saying ma'am Danny or something.
They're saying Mamdani almost every time.
It drives me fucking insane because it's not different than like there's nothing about the letter M versus the letter N that's harder for an English speaker or whatever.
Like it's, it's just, I don't even think it's intentional.
I think it's just pure not giving a shit about brown people because it's not even hard.
That's what drives me nuts.
I have a sympathy for like not being able to pronounce stuff right, you know, in an earnest way when you're trying and you don't understand.
Like, yeah, but like this isn't hard.
Mom Domi is not the name.
This is not what it is.
Mamdani.
It's not, it's like fucking Cuomo.
It's the guy he's running against.
I know it's incredibly disrespectful.
It's not even like the thing where they're trying to do the comma.
They're complete.
Like that was all bullshit, intentional crap.
This is like, I don't even think Cuomo knew he was doing it.
Like, it's just so staggering to behold.
So, what's the over-under on saying Mom Domi versus Mamdani?
That's a good question.
I think I might have just been so overwhelmed by everything that was happening in it that I maybe nailed it.
We'll see.
Pay attention to it.
We'll have to see.
So, that is a big point that's talked about throughout this event.
But Tommy Tubberville said, you know, we have a really big problem on our hands because we have, you know, this socialist that was elected to be the mayor of New York.
And then Benny Johnson says there is a literal communist elected as New York City mayor.
Wow, did we get two mayors?
This is in the legacy of Joseph Stalin and the legacy of Mao, who slaughtered in the hundreds of millions their own people.
We mustn't let communism win in this country.
Look, Mom Domi only wants to slaughter 10 million people.
I don't even know what they're talking about.
Yeah.
Oh my God.
Let's skip ahead to the interview with Eric and Laura Trump.
There's some fun stuff in there.
Man, it's just reminding me of the Bill Maher thing.
I hope we cover.
God, fuck.
The red scare stuff that they do that just is just not going to be effective.
That's the thing about the Charlie Kirk thing: it is the youths.
Like they did make an impact with the youths in a way that was pretty unexpected.
I think caught the left by surprise.
You know, we've been through all that discourse.
But like, I just don't think this socialism scare stuff is going to work at all.
Like, nobody, nobody cares, you know, they don't even, to the point I said earlier, where it's like they flipped around on Russia.
Like, I think the youngins will be confused that there was ever a problem with Russia.
So they try to do this thing where Russia's fine, but also they bring it up as the scare of communism still.
But I don't, I just don't think that really is going to exist.
That fear, you know, it's just not going to work in the coming year or now.
You know, it's just like, I don't think the younger generations give a shit about whatever that was.
Yeah.
Okay.
So let's go ahead and skip over to 20606.
Cool They're just so cool.
What a sick AI-generated beat.
How's everybody doing?
Fascists.
Do we not love this man right here?
Yeah.
Yeah, so I know.
This guy is truly one of the greatest fighters.
And guys, we love this state and we love this university and we love all of you.
Oh my God, it's so Donald Trump-esque.
It's that same thing.
Yeah.
Yeah.
By the way, the Hillary eclipse had me laughing.
I haven't seen that one in a while.
I'm glad you pulled that out of the archives, if that makes sense.
You were in the audience, right?
I was back watching it on the TV.
During the Hillary, we were doing the audience.
Absolutely.
What happened?
Well, you should have seen Bill Clinton's face, by the way, right?
So that's the night my father got all of Bill Clinton's accusers, right?
And he told everybody, he goes, We're going to have this practice, you know, a debate session.
I want all the media to come to it.
And they all walked in and it was all of Bill Clinton's accusers.
And honestly, he sat in this little penalty box during the debate and his jaw was still on the ground.
I'll never forget it.
It was like the greatest troll in the history of political trolls.
And then he knocked her out of the entire race with that, with those three famous words.
So that was an amazing night.
All right.
Pause there.
And I was there too.
I love you.
No, they're referencing earlier in Benny Johnson's.
No, I know.
What three famous words did he knock her out of the debate with?
No puppet.
No puppet.
You know, like, I don't even know what would he be saying.
You'd be in jail.
I think that's what he's trying to get is like because you'd be in jail, which is not three words.
So I guess.
Yeah.
Be in jail.
That wasn't a good point.
Yeah.
They loved it at Auburn, though.
They were all cracking up.
They thought it was great.
So they do a lot of share some stories from the campaign trail and blah, blah, blah, blah, you know, give us some insight.
And, you know, how did you two meet?
And a lot of stuff that I just don't care about.
But I will say Lara Trump is far more dynamic than Eric Trump is.
She, I think she has.
Yeah, I know.
But I think she knows better how to engage the audience and how to tell stories and stuff.
But I want to share when they had a surprise guest.
Yeah.
They're surprised guests, each more surprising than the last.
So to lead up into this, we're going to talk about, you know, that he lost when he lost the 2020 election.
They're actually going to talk about that, huh?
Yeah.
So let's go to 212-29.
I mean, we all know 365 days ago was the greatest comeback in the history of American politics, right?
And what's very interesting about the comeback is that we all probably remember as well another election four years before that in 2020.
I can tell you this, nobody fought harder to win an election than those of us in our family.
And no one was more upset when things turned out a different way than we all wanted than those of us in our family.
Now, here's what I'll say: 81 million people were not so inspired by a guy who campaigned out of his basement that he got more votes than anyone in the history of America ever had.
I don't know why you would ever need ballots in a suitcase, but okay.
Now, here's what else I'll say.
We left the White House on January 21st of 2021, and it was very sad.
It was a very dark time.
It was a very depressing time.
And you guys in here probably all felt it as well.
But what we didn't realize then that I think everyone in here can agree with is that things don't always happen on our time.
They happen in God's time.
And the incredible things that this president, our 45th and our 47th president of the United States, Donald Trump, has been able to do this term in office would not have been possible with two back-to-back consecutive terms.
We needed the four years.
He needed the four years.
America needed the four years because we saw what you get with the other side.
And America said, absolutely not.
Hell no.
America first.
Bring Donald Trump back.
And we got him, guys.
How's his approval rating doing?
Yeah.
We're not going to need four years to fucking see how much he sucks again.
Yeah.
Our country is dumb.
Our country is dumb and has bad memory.
And very quickly went back to fascists.
And then we're like, oh, wait, we actually hate that.
I mean, not all of us, but enough of us in the middle.
That were like, what?
Yeah.
Like, his approval rating is in the toilet.
Yeah.
Keep playing so we can get our special guest.
What he's doing right now.
Should we try calling him?
Oh.
Does anyone have his number?
Can we call Trump?
Should we call it?
Kenny Johnson's like, yeah, I have his name.
It's going to be like a pre-recording.
He says Dad POTUS on his phone, just so you know.
Dad POTUS.
Yeah.
We're like, boop, boop, boop.
Hello.
Like an impersonation.
So we have the most beautiful crowd of people, thousands of thousands of people at Auburn University.
They are incredibly enthusiastic and they absolutely adore this country.
They adore God and they adore you.
You start conversations with you gradually.
And Auburn's a special place.
I've been there many times.
I know many people from that area, number one, and from that school.
It's a great school.
And we love Alabama.
We want Alabama by 45%.
He should just hire James Austin Johnson to do stuff like this for him.
Charlie and Erica, these are two incredible people.
And Erica spoke to Laura often.
She's just a spectacular person.
And she's going to start where Charlie left off.
And we should never.
He doesn't miss him at all.
One of the greatest people we've ever known and was so responsible for our win.
And we love Charlie.
He's looking down on us right now, all of us.
And Erica, you just, you're there someplace and you just take care of yourself.
I don't think she's there, actually.
She wasn't at this event.
I heard speaking to you.
I don't know.
And I love you all as presidents.
She's busy hugging JVM.
I love you all.
And our country is doing great.
We've never been in a position like this.
The investments being made, all of the money coming in.
Yeah, that's what 20-year-olds care about.
It's possible that our great Charlie, I'll tell you what, he was the first in line, always the first in line to help.
So I just want to pay my respects to Charlie and everybody.
And we love you all.
Thank you very much, everybody.
And Eric, you better do a good job.
These are smart people.
They know if you're not doing a good job, they're going to report back to me.
Good luck, everybody.
Good night, Buffs.
We all love you.
Incredible.
Okay.
All right.
Wow, incredible.
You're related to the president.
Yeah, exactly.
And they totally set this up beforehand because there's no way that Eric Trump would just call President Trump offhand.
Trump had to get a burner phone for it.
That's why it says Trump POTUS.
He didn't have his name.
Dad POTUS in.
Oh, boy.
How pathetic.
Yeah.
So we get a lot of Benny Johnson trying to do an interview with Eric.
And you can hear in the recording how important it is that the landscaping was done by somebody who doesn't stupid.
I don't know.
I can't do it.
Can't do it anymore.
Before we get into a little bit of the Q ⁇ A that I want to highlight, I just want to go towards the end of this interview where Laura Trump talks about the mug shot and the night that the mug shot came out.
Wow.
Good times.
Well, here's what I'll say.
This isn't a campaign trail story, but this is a story from in between the campaign.
You put up a picture of what I'll argue is maybe the greatest mugshot in the history of America, Donald J. Trump's mugshot.
Yeah.
So that night that he got that mug shot taken, I was actually seconds away.
I was all mic'd up to go on TV for something.
And my phone rings and it's my father-in-law calling me.
And I'm like, oh my God, he just left getting the mug shot taken.
And so I pick up the phone and I was like, hi, I'm about to go on TV.
So I'm all mic.
So I didn't want to say something, you know, don't want everybody in the world to hear.
And he goes, okay, honey, that's okay.
You go ahead.
And I was like, but wait, how are you?
He was like, isn't it crazy, honey?
It's just freaking nuts.
And then he stops and he goes, but it's also really cool.
That is who our president of the United States is, guys.
That's amazing.
That's not crazy.
Why is that?
I was like, what a badass.
Like, he just doesn't even care.
And he goes, and then he goes, and you know who else has a mugshot?
Elvis.
He would say the Grace Lions.
He'd be age.
Is it the first time that getting indicted was politicians' polls?
So now getting into the QA, there's just, I think, one I want to play from here because I don't think they can actually answer this.
And so they have to sort of dodge it.
And I think it's kind of an interesting setup and a chance to observe sort of the machine at play a little bit.
24616.
Geez, you really did watch this whole fucking thing.
Yeah, I did.
Some spots more than once.
Mr. Johnson, Mr. Trump, Ms. Trump.
What the fuck is it?
I'd like to ask about your father's relationship with Israel.
He's taken over $230 million from pro-Israel groups.
During the summer against Iran, even though he advised against it, Israel still attacked Iran and the U.S. still bombed on behalf of Israel.
Your father's frustrations with the Netanyahu have been made clear when he cursed on national TV over the situation.
Israel has not been a great ally to the U.S. all the way since 1960 when they bombed the USS Liberty.
Israel is a nation where Christians are constantly under attack.
This guy's probably just anti-Semitism.
We talk about America first and defending Christians.
And pausing, that's what's so interesting about this is because this also could, I mean, we almost covered the, and I don't know if we still might, but the Tucker Carlson interview with Nick Fuentes and talk about anti-Semitic.
I mean, it's really interesting that this isn't like what's interesting hearing this guy is this isn't like, oh, awoke kid, got on the stage.
It's like, no, this also, this guy, I mean, I don't know, but like this guy could entirely be coming from just that other faction of the right that's still Trumper, but is like, why are we supporting Israel?
It's really, it's just interesting to think about.
Like, who knows?
You can't really be sure where he's coming from.
It's not like some crazy leftist grabbed the mic.
It's like, no, they, they also, you know, one of the things that's just really anti-Semitic, and it's, it's, could just be that, you know, it's kind of interesting.
Yeah.
And like, yeah, some applause.
Interesting.
There's no question my father's had frustration.
In fact, I think he's had frustration throughout the whole conflict with both sides at the same time.
Make no mistake.
You have a nation that is chanting death to America every single day on the streets of Tehran.
You have a nation that will develop a nuclear weapon and you have a nation that will use that nuclear weapon against the Western way of life.
There's no question about it.
You have a nation that will use proxies around the world, whether it's Yemen, whether there's a lot of other ones, to inflict serious, serious harm on the station.
And they don't hide it.
They don't hide it.
In fact, you know, it's really interesting.
About a year ago, maybe a little over a year ago, they put out the Ayatollah and Iran put out an emoji, like a little short video clip of a drone hovering over my father's head as he came.
Did he say an emoji?
An emoji, yeah.
A little short video clip.
Yeah, yeah.
Do you mean a gif, I guess?
Golf.
This was literally posted on the Ayatollah's Twitter page, following my father around a golf course with a crosshair right on top of him, as if they wanted to assassinate him and as if they wanted to hurt him.
Guys, Iran wanted to destroy our way of life.
They wanted to hurt us.
They wanted to inflict real pain.
What I can tell you about my father is in terms of Israel, he wants a peaceful Middle East.
He wants peace around the world.
He wants to end the killing.
He did that with India and Pakistan.
He did that, obviously.
You saw what he did with Cambodia and Thailand.
He's tried to stop every conflict because he's sick and tired of the death and destruction.
So there have been times that he got mad at Netanyahu.
There's plenty of times where he's gotten mad at Putin.
There's times where he's been mad at Zelinsky.
And he uses all of that as a tool to stop pain and destruction and death of people that are our age, you know, your age in most cases, who have become political pawns and who have been marched into literally trenches and killed by the millions.
And that's what my father wants to see end right this second.
And that's why he's worked so hard for peace around the world.
In fact, Donald Trump is the only president in the United States history that's never brought America to war.
And I hope he keeps following in that crusade.
Yeah.
So isn't that like, like, isn't that a strange response?
I thought it was strange because I don't think it necessarily trying to manage that very politicians' answer kind of split that we that I was talking about.
It's kind of interesting.
And the other observation I guess I just have on all of this is like, it's not like this is the first time this has happened, but thinking about the parasocial relationships and the way that Eric Trump uses that kind of language throughout here and Laura Trump as well is, you know, us, our family.
Those things then as an audience member.
Yeah, exactly.
Like now an audience member psychologically, they hear our family.
They are part of that family now.
So it deepens that loyalty, deepens that commitment to these people who don't give a shit about them at all.
All they care about is power and money.
That's it.
And so I was just, you know, watching a lot of that rhetoric over the course of this interview and the Q ⁇ A and everything.
And knowing that getting out of this and getting anybody back to being reasonable consumers of politics and media that have otherwise, in my opinion, have been brainwashed by Trump and the Trump family is like, now you have to unpack this subconscious familial tie that people have developed with these people that they don't actually know, that don't know them.
It's so deep.
And that's going to be a real challenge, I think.
Oh, yeah.
And just the, I mean, negative partisanship is the biggest driver of the politics.
I mean, it's just hating the same people.
And you notice that the tactic they use to try to bridge that gap about the Israel thing is, well, look, but these other people hate America.
They're so bad.
They hate.
They say death to America.
It's like trying to deflect to like, oh, wait, hold on.
If you hate this other group, the quickest way to get you over to my side is if I tell you if we hate the same people kind of thing, if I can get you hating somebody else.
It's all politics of hatred.
That's entirely what it is.
Yeah.
Yeah.
And just, you know, before we go, just one little note that they also talk about the 2028 hats.
And Eric Trump said it was all, you know, a joke and meant to troll and that he liked that people were getting angry about it and worked up about it.
And so then he would like, you know, dig in deeper to try and make people more upset.
Yeah.
Because they're children.
Yeah, exactly.
That's who we're dealing with.
That's this family that everybody wants to be a part of, apparently.
So yeah.
So that was the Turning Point USA tour at Auburn University.
And there, as far as I can tell, nothing went wrong.
Plants were in play.
All the lawns were mown.
Yeah.
And, but still, Court does not have his job back, even though this event is over.
So we'll see.
Wow, Lydia watched Benny Johnson and Eric Trump for you guys.
Like, come on.
If that can't get you to support the show.
You know, it's funny is like Eric actually, I think he has such a chip on his shoulder that he's like, he doesn't do a terrible job.
I think, like, he also, I think, knows his place more than, like, you know, Don Jr. thinks he's the next fucking Jesus.
Yeah, exactly.
There isn't Eric's more willing.
Yeah, he's more willing to just kind of do his job a little bit.
So it's like, it's not quite as cringe as Don Jr. is.
It's kind of funny.
Yeah.
On to the next.
I'm sure I'm going to be watching more terrible stuff.
Yeah.
That's my job.
I thought you meant on to the next Trump presidency.
Trump kid.
No.
Baron.
No way.
Can you imagine?
No one will vote for an incel fucking kid.
There's no way.
Was that our fun hundredth episode spectacular?
I don't know how fun it was, but yeah, I don't know that I had fun.
I hope you guys had fun and that you got a little taste of this turning point USA event without having to watch the whole thing.
Yeah.
Jeez.
That's what all the fuss was about, everybody.
Yes, that was it.
That was the entire reason this landscape supervisor lost his job.
This guy's life turned upside down because of this stupid fucking event that they needed to have go off without a hitch.
Exactly.
All right.
Well, thanks so much for listening.
Hey, thanks for being with the show for 100 episodes, everybody.
If you have, or if not, either way, like thanks for one way or the other.
We've gotten here and we really appreciate you.
We wouldn't be anywhere without listeners.
And got a lot of stuff, fun stuff coming this month in the chunk system that we will try to slowly trying to de-chunkify as we go.
