Speaker 1: This is the US Report with James Morrow. Good evening
Speaker 1: and welcome to the program. Here's what's coming up tonight.
Speaker 1: War on Antifa. It's been a long time coming, but
Speaker 1: now Donald Trump has a new terror target in his sights. Plus, blimey,
Speaker 1: Donald and Malania takes the UK by storm. We'll see
Speaker 1: how he was received. And what are they teaching kids
Speaker 1: in schools? Well, apparently that political assassinations are a okay
Speaker 1: by the times of home schooling. Hey, but first, the
Speaker 1: censorious cancel culture left the same tribe of people who's
Speaker 1: spent the last decade or more telling us that words
Speaker 1: are violence, that feelings are more important than reason, and
Speaker 1: that the right should be censored for all their hateful
Speaker 1: hate speech have suddenly become dyed in the wool free
Speaker 1: beach First Amendment die hards. Why well, because late night Comedian, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I know, but that's the official title. Late Night Comedian
Speaker 1: Jimmy Kimmel has been pulled from the airy airwaves over
Speaker 1: a joke, or an attempted joke about Charlie Kirk. Have
Speaker 1: a look at. Hold on to your sides here, because
Speaker 1: you might split them from laughing.
Speaker 2: He hit some new lows over the weekend with the
Speaker 2: Maga gang desperately trying to characterize this kid who murdered
Speaker 2: Charlie Kirk as anything other than one of them and
Speaker 2: do everything they can to score political points from it.
Speaker 1: Well, there was more to his routine. But this is
Speaker 1: the bit I really wanted to show you, because it
Speaker 1: is not just a bad joke, but it is a lie,
Speaker 1: a lie about which I'll have a lot more to
Speaker 1: say a bit later on in the program. But there
Speaker 1: is a lot to unpack here beyond the stupidity of
Speaker 1: claiming that Charlie Kirk's alleged shooter was Maga, and it
Speaker 1: goes to the heart of questions about free speech, government overreach,
Speaker 1: and political sensitivities. Now, on one level, and I say
Speaker 1: this as a near absolutist on free speech, I get
Speaker 1: why people are concerned about broadcasters seeming to tow the
Speaker 1: line to the Trump administration or really any administration. And
Speaker 1: I can see why people think Kimble's bosses might have
Speaker 1: read the room politically and given Jimmy the flick. After all,
Speaker 1: speaking about Kibble's routine, the head of the FCC, Brendan Carr,
Speaker 1: He's the guy who regulates the airwaves in the US
Speaker 1: said that quote, this is a very very serious issue
Speaker 1: right now for Disney, the parent company of Kibble's broadcaster.
Speaker 1: We can do this the easy way or the hard way,
Speaker 1: he said, So just to take him at his word there, well,
Speaker 1: there was a clear implication that there was a broadcast
Speaker 1: license on the line, and critics have left upon this
Speaker 1: as proof that Kimmel's suspension was simply political. But you
Speaker 1: know what, I say, not so fast, because I am
Speaker 1: old enough to remember all the far more direct censorship
Speaker 1: the Democrats and the left have engaged in, like that
Speaker 1: time CIA contractors colluded with the Biden administration to block
Speaker 1: the Hunter Biden laptop story, arguably interfering in the twenty
Speaker 1: twenty election, or when the Biden administration had a literal
Speaker 1: hotline into Facebook and the social media giants where they
Speaker 1: could call up and get any posts they did not
Speaker 1: like taken down. And of course, who can forget when
Speaker 1: Jack Dorsey, the head of Twitter before Elon Musk Talk
Speaker 1: took over, literally banned the president's candidate, Donald Trump because
Speaker 1: he didn't want him to have the reach. So spare me, please,
Speaker 1: everyone who's now complaining about Jimmy Kimble losing his gig.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, but you know what, You set the rules
Speaker 1: and now you've got to live with them. This idea
Speaker 1: that Kibble has somebody had his First Amendment rights violated
Speaker 1: is when you dig further, really pretty laughable. Almost as
Speaker 1: laughable as the left, which used to celebrate when people
Speaker 1: on the right lost their jobs, and now they're suddenly
Speaker 1: crying victim. I mean, back in twenty twenty three, the
Speaker 1: left was cheering over a book called The Case for
Speaker 1: Cancel Culture, saying it was good for democracy. In twenty
Speaker 1: twenty two, Squad member Ilhan Omar was tweeting that just
Speaker 1: because you had freedom of speech did not mean you
Speaker 1: were insulated from the consequences of said speech. Your opinions
Speaker 1: have consequences like everything else in life, she said, speaking
Speaker 1: of Squad members, what do you think Alexandria Okazi Cortes
Speaker 1: had to say when Tucker Carlson lost his gig at
Speaker 1: Fox News?
Speaker 3: Tucker Carlson is out at Fox News.
Speaker 4: Couldn't have happened to a better guy.
Speaker 1: And while we're on the subject, here's Jimmy Kibble himself
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty three on that very same subject. And
Speaker 1: listen to the crowd go wild.
Speaker 2: Fox News has severed bow ties with Tucker Carlson.
Speaker 1: After all these.
Speaker 2: Years, they are parting ways, which means he was fired.
Speaker 2: I mean, that's really what parting Waites made Tucker. Tucker
Speaker 2: couldn't be reached for comment. He's already on a plane
Speaker 2: to Moscow to meet with his manager. But what a shock,
Speaker 2: I mean, what an absolutely delightful shock.
Speaker 1: This is Well, what's the old saying turn about his
Speaker 1: fair play and payback is? I think you know the rest. Now,
Speaker 1: there is more to this too, because this decision by
Speaker 1: Kibble's bosses would surely have had a commercial angle to
Speaker 1: it as well. Kimmel's ratings were let's just say, not
Speaker 1: so hot, and in the first quarter of this year alone,
Speaker 1: his ratings had doubled by twenty four percent. Now I'm
Speaker 1: no network boss, but all I can imagine is that
Speaker 1: ABC chiefs saw this as a convenient excuse to give
Speaker 1: the flick to a money losing proposition that was, oh yeah,
Speaker 1: also alienating half of the network's potential audience. But let's
Speaker 1: go back to what Kimmel said, Because, to use the
Speaker 1: left's own language, he was spreading misinformation, disinformation if you like,
Speaker 1: about the alleged killer of Charlie Kirk and his motivation.
Speaker 1: Kimmel said that it was a mega guy who was responsible. Now, yes,
Speaker 1: it is still before the courts, but all the evidence
Speaker 1: suggests that this was a lie. And Kimmel's not the
Speaker 1: only one pushing this line. It's become a massive part
Speaker 1: of the information ecosystem, deflection, redirection, and even sympathy for
Speaker 1: an alleged killer. Here's an American ABC reporter, Matt Gootman,
Speaker 1: describing what came out and You're gonna love this year.
Speaker 1: What came out of the press conference where authorities revealed
Speaker 1: text messages between Charlie Kirk's alleged killer and his roommate,
Speaker 1: slash Lover.
Speaker 5: Also, it was very touching in a way that I
Speaker 5: think many of us didn't expect, a very intimate portrait
Speaker 5: into this relationship between the suspect's roommate and the suspect himself,
Speaker 5: with him repeatedly calling his roommate, who is transitioning, calling
Speaker 5: him my love and I want to.
Speaker 4: Protect you, my love.
Speaker 5: So it was this duality of someone who the attorney said,
Speaker 5: not only jeopardized the life of Charlie Kirk and the crowd,
Speaker 5: but was doing it in front of children, which is
Speaker 5: one of the aggravating circumstances of this case. And on
Speaker 5: the other hand, he was speaking so lovingly about.
Speaker 1: His partner, touching really Montell Williams had something very similar
Speaker 1: to say on CNN check this out, talking about a.
Speaker 6: Love torn child, a kid. This is probably his first
Speaker 6: real relationship and somebody was disparaging the person that he loved.
Speaker 6: He sat on that building for thirty minutes before he
Speaker 6: took the shot. Why do you wait until the first
Speaker 6: word trance came up? Then he took the shot.
Speaker 3: You think he heard it?
Speaker 4: He could hear I think he could hear it.
Speaker 6: I think he also. I don't believe he was motivated politically.
Speaker 6: I think this was motivated emotionally. I think this was
Speaker 6: an emotionally stunded person who literally, I want to say
Speaker 6: it this way, just hear me, tried to defend his
Speaker 6: significant other.
Speaker 1: No, it wasn't political at all. It was a crime
Speaker 1: of passion, a crime of the heart. Because, of course,
Speaker 1: who among us has not avenged an insult against a
Speaker 1: lover by blowing a hole in someone's neck from a
Speaker 1: rooftop two hundred yards away. Absolutely romantic. Personally, I'd rather
Speaker 1: say it with flowers or better yet, martiniz and Steak.
Speaker 1: But that's just me. Yet, this effort to retell the
Speaker 1: story from the left's perspective, to turn it from a
Speaker 1: political murder to a crime of innocence and passion, is
Speaker 1: creating an ecosystem of lies, an ecosystem of lies that
Speaker 1: is starting to bear fruit. Now, despite everything you would
Speaker 1: know about this case, a Yugo of poll found this
Speaker 1: week that of those in America who had an opinion
Speaker 1: either way, more people thought a Republican shot Charlie Kirk
Speaker 1: than a Democrat. So you can see why we have
Speaker 1: a problem here. The lies have a consequence, and they
Speaker 1: are showing up in public opinion. But for the final
Speaker 1: word on this, this question of late night hosts and
Speaker 1: comedians being political, let's go I want to play this
Speaker 1: for you here. Let's go to Johnny Carson, once the
Speaker 1: king of late night comedy in America and the absolute
Speaker 1: pioneer of the form. Let's have a look at what
Speaker 1: he thought about the idea of him using his own
Speaker 1: comedic platform as a jumping off point to get into politics.
Speaker 7: Tell me the last time that Jack Benny Red skeleton.
Speaker 7: Uh Benny comedian used his show to do serious issues.
Speaker 7: That's not what I'm there for. Can't they see that?
Speaker 7: But you're and I do they think that just because
Speaker 7: you have it tonight's show, that you must deal in
Speaker 7: serious issues. That's a danger. It's a real danger. Once
Speaker 7: you start that, you start to get that self important
Speaker 7: feeling that what you say has great import and you know,
Speaker 7: strangely enough, you could use that show as a form,
Speaker 7: you could sway people, and I don't think you should
Speaker 7: as an entertainment.
Speaker 1: All right. Thrilled to be joined now by former White
Speaker 1: House Chief of Staff and senior advisor at Bondi Partners,
Speaker 1: Mick mulvaney. Mick, we got to talk about this culture
Speaker 1: war that has erupted over Jimmy Kimmel. Let's play a
Speaker 1: little bit more of what he had to say about
Speaker 1: Charlie Kirk and Donald Trump and the reaction to the murder.
Speaker 2: But on a human level, you can see how hard
Speaker 2: the President is taking this.
Speaker 8: Don't just have a lot of your friend Charlie Kirk
Speaker 8: as sir, personally, how are you holding up over the
Speaker 8: last day and a half third?
Speaker 1: I think very good? And by the way, right there.
Speaker 1: You see all the trucks.
Speaker 9: They just started construction of the new Baurough for the
Speaker 9: White House.
Speaker 2: This is not how an adult grieves the murder of
Speaker 2: somebody called a friend. This is how a four year
Speaker 2: old morn's a goldfish.
Speaker 1: Mick's so funny. I forgot to laugh as the saying goes.
Speaker 1: But you know, as I was just saying here, I'm
Speaker 1: a real free speech guy. But when the left makes
Speaker 1: these rules about censoriousness and cancel culture, it's hard not
Speaker 1: to hold them to it. Mick mulvady, your take on
Speaker 1: the Jimmy Kimmel affair.
Speaker 10: Yeah, well, the left lacks a lot of credibility here, James,
Speaker 10: You're correct. I mean I was wondering where all of
Speaker 10: this concern was about free speech back when Obama's Internal
Speaker 10: Revenue Service was coming down hard on Christian conservative groups
Speaker 10: and other conservative political groups. So, look, I'm sympathetic to
Speaker 10: the arguments about free speech. I'd love to have a
Speaker 10: discussion about free speech. But a lot of folks on
Speaker 10: the left gave up the moral high ground and then
Speaker 10: a long time ago because they were perfectly happy for
Speaker 10: it to happen to us.
Speaker 4: Look, I don't think Jimmy Kimmel is funny.
Speaker 10: Apparently not a lot of people do because his ratings
Speaker 10: are terrible, But that doesn't make any difference.
Speaker 4: He obviously doesn't like the president.
Speaker 10: The president said today that ninety seven percent of the
Speaker 10: stuff that's said about President on the show is negative.
Speaker 10: That doesn't make any difference. Here's what matters. The law
Speaker 10: in this country is that.
Speaker 4: If you were going to use the public airwaves.
Speaker 10: Now there's a different thing if you want to go
Speaker 10: out on street corner and talk or do whatever. But
Speaker 10: if you want to use the public airwaves, there are
Speaker 10: laws that apply to that, and one of them is
Speaker 10: you can't make false statements about crimes that would be
Speaker 10: injurious to the public. And I think that's what the
Speaker 10: FCC came down here and said, Look, Jimmy Kimmel was
Speaker 10: implying that this guy was a Republican.
Speaker 4: That's false.
Speaker 10: They know it's false, and it's harmful to people because
Speaker 10: they end up thinking that Republican party is somehow responsible
Speaker 10: for this. That's the issue here, whether or not it's negative,
Speaker 10: whether not his ratings are bad.
Speaker 4: Yes it's negative, Yes his ratings are bad.
Speaker 10: But if you violated the law, then This is not
Speaker 10: censorship in any way, shape or form.
Speaker 1: Yeah. And I mean also though, even in those areas
Speaker 1: of American society that aren't regulated by commercial broadcast Codes
Speaker 1: the FCC, these sorts of regulatory bodies, like the Internet,
Speaker 1: for example, like comedians. I could give you a long
Speaker 1: list of comedians in the last ten years who were
Speaker 1: cashiered for all sorts of reasons, who were canceled, who
Speaker 1: were driven off of the stage because they said something
Speaker 1: that was a bit too edgy, you know, Shane Gillis,
Speaker 1: Roseanne Barr, all sorts of people like that. And so
Speaker 1: this just seems like incredible hypocrisy that they don't want
Speaker 1: their own rules to apply to them.
Speaker 4: They don't.
Speaker 10: Again, they were fine when Roseanne Barr got canceled, Fine,
Speaker 10: when everybody I got canceled.
Speaker 4: See I got fired from CBS for some of the
Speaker 4: same some of.
Speaker 10: The same things we're talking about here, essentially just being
Speaker 10: a Republican and not always being anti Trump.
Speaker 4: So yeah, that's why I say they lack credibility. But
Speaker 4: I think there's a difference. James.
Speaker 10: Look a lot of Republicans that he said, Look, it
Speaker 10: was okay for Disney to fire the Disney the Walt
Speaker 10: Disney Corporation owns ABC, which owns the show, it's okay
Speaker 10: for him to fire Kimmel.
Speaker 4: That's absolutely right.
Speaker 10: It just is if ABC makes the corporate decision our ABC,
Speaker 10: not yours, that his what he says does not represent
Speaker 10: their brand. Well, they have the right to fire him,
Speaker 10: just like CBS had the right to fire me. I
Speaker 10: didn't like it, and I'm sure Jimmy Kimel doesn't like it.
Speaker 10: But it's not illegal. And I want to know where
Speaker 10: all the all the Democrats who are now claiming is
Speaker 10: a free speech violation for Disney to do this when
Speaker 10: I got fired for the same reason.
Speaker 1: Well, exactly right, Mick. And I mean, you know, you
Speaker 1: talk about your ABC versus our ABC. I'll bet our
Speaker 1: ABC tries to give Jimmy kimmele a gig. But you
Speaker 1: know this whole idea too, that Donald Trump somehow is
Speaker 1: introducing this fascist, anti free speech kind of you know
Speaker 1: environment so on. Well, I just found this clip from
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris, who could have been the next president, the
Speaker 1: current president of the United States, and not too long
Speaker 1: ago she was calling for censorship, even more censorship of
Speaker 1: her own have listened to.
Speaker 11: This we will hold social media platforms accountable for the
Speaker 11: hate infiltrating their platforms because they have a responsibility to
Speaker 11: help fight against this threat to our democracy. And if
Speaker 11: you profit off of hate, if you act as a
Speaker 11: megaphone for misinformation or cyber war, if you don't police
Speaker 11: your platforms, we are going to hold you accountable.
Speaker 1: And we all remember the way the Biden administration worked
Speaker 1: with social media companies to censor what people could say.
Speaker 1: I mean, the idea that somehow Trump is an outlier
Speaker 1: on this seems pretty laughable.
Speaker 4: You know what I heard there?
Speaker 10: If you distilled all down was what she said, is this,
Speaker 10: if you traffic and misinformation, we are.
Speaker 4: Going to hold you accountable.
Speaker 10: That's exactly what just happened to Jimmy Kimmel. So I
Speaker 10: don't know what Kamala Harris is so upset about. Look,
Speaker 10: the difference is this. We all know what the difference is.
Speaker 10: You might as well say it out loud. When she
Speaker 10: says if you traffick and hate, that means if you
Speaker 10: support Republican ideas.
Speaker 4: That's what it means. It's code for being Republican.
Speaker 10: So that's why I say, Look, I want to have
Speaker 10: a debate about free speech in the country, and if
Speaker 10: this allows us to do it, that's great.
Speaker 4: Okay, I'm a huge civil libertarian. I need too, But
Speaker 4: I won't sit and listen.
Speaker 10: To Democrats who think that it's okay to do it
Speaker 10: to me but not do it to them.
Speaker 4: That you lose credibility in the debate when you have that.
Speaker 10: And I'm looking for some Democrats who are defending Republicans
Speaker 10: when they were being canceled, and they're sort of hard
Speaker 10: to find.
Speaker 4: Right now.
Speaker 1: Before I let you go, I want to ask you
Speaker 1: too about this big trip to the UK. The President
Speaker 1: first Lady have been in the UK for a state visit,
Speaker 1: welcome by the royal family and lots of pomp and
Speaker 1: pageantry at Windsor Castle. Look personally, I think it's pretty
Speaker 1: amazing for a guy who was driving a garbage truck
Speaker 1: just eleven months ago to now be being received in
Speaker 1: Windsor Castle. But seriously, though, a big, big, big state
Speaker 1: banquet here. What do you make of this trip? Why
Speaker 1: has Trump put so much attention? This is a second
Speaker 1: state visit over to the UK nearly as many months.
Speaker 1: What is all coming out of this between the US
Speaker 1: and the UK and Keir Starmer and Donald Trump.
Speaker 10: I think here Starmer donald Trump get along fine, which
Speaker 10: it just goes to show you, by the way, that
Speaker 10: if Donald Trump doesn't get along with that Anthony Albanezi,
Speaker 10: it's not because of Albanese's politics, it's his personality. Trump
Speaker 10: doesn't care about your politics. I mean, he wants to
Speaker 10: do business with people that he likes, and he likes
Speaker 10: Kear Starmer. I think they've just announced here in the
Speaker 10: last couple of hours an initiative, a joint initiate between
Speaker 10: the two countries that on artificial intelligence. I'll be looking
Speaker 10: for more of that in the next coming days what
Speaker 10: actually comes out of this meeting. But one of the
Speaker 10: reasons I thought it was so successful is just that
Speaker 10: it's very similar to the US. In Australia, there are
Speaker 10: cultural similarities, there's ties here that it's almost like family.
Speaker 10: And for some reason the UK has been able to
Speaker 10: sort of tap into that and the Albaneze government has not,
Speaker 10: to its own detriment, and that's a.
Speaker 1: Shame, absolutely right McKay. Finally, just one more thing for
Speaker 1: you here. I've noticed this story about the thing that
Speaker 1: they say never happens, yet it seems to keep on happening.
Speaker 1: A man in South Texas has been put in a
Speaker 1: police custody accused of running an illegal ballot harvesting scheme.
Speaker 1: Now all allegations at this stage, but it involved over
Speaker 1: sixty five voters, and it runs a bit counter the
Speaker 1: narrative that all of these so you know, mail in
Speaker 1: ballots and other sorts of ways to vote rather than
Speaker 1: just going to a polling booth, you know, are all
Speaker 1: perfectly safe. What do you reckon You've been around elections
Speaker 1: a fair bit.
Speaker 4: Yeah. In fact, I harken back.
Speaker 10: I think you and I may have talked about this
Speaker 10: a couple of months back when the Minnesota Democrats had
Speaker 10: their primary yes at a convention, and then the next
Speaker 10: day the guy that laws claimed there was a fraudulent
Speaker 10: you know, ballot interference and so forth.
Speaker 4: So look when they know it exists. The bottom line
Speaker 4: is this is it.
Speaker 10: Does happen in this country.
Speaker 4: It's not an issue.
Speaker 10: I don't think James of people voting three and four times,
Speaker 10: I really don't think that happens that often. But ballot
Speaker 10: harvesting is real and it is illegal in most places,
Speaker 10: including Texas. By the way, there are some states where
Speaker 10: it's not illegal. And in some states it wasn't illegal
Speaker 10: during COVID. It was a one off type of situation.
Speaker 10: But look, there are thousands of lawyers in this country
Speaker 10: who make a living doing nothing but election law. Elections
Speaker 10: have consequences, and elections have complications, and they're never ever
Speaker 10: going to be perfect. We voted, I think you know,
Speaker 10: almost one hundred and fifty million people here in the
Speaker 10: last election. That the election is run mostly by volunteers.
Speaker 10: There's always going to be fraud and we're always going
Speaker 10: to be able to do better next time. And I
Speaker 10: hope stories like this convince both sides that we need
Speaker 10: to focus on that.
Speaker 1: Hey man, Mick mulvaney, thank you so much for your
Speaker 1: time this week, and we'll see you next time. Now
Speaker 1: joining me is John Heinerecher. You know him well as
Speaker 1: well from the Center for the American Experience. Huge news
Speaker 1: week here, John, and I want to talk about something
Speaker 1: that hasn't gotten a huge amount of trouble here, but
Speaker 1: you've written about it on your power Line blog, which
Speaker 1: I urge everyone to go and check out. Because the
Speaker 1: New York Times, or as Donald Trump might say, the
Speaker 1: failing New York Times, is in some hot water with
Speaker 1: the President announcing a fifteen billion dollars that's billion with
Speaker 1: a b lawsuit against them. Trump said that he is
Speaker 1: the great honor. He wrote of bringing a fifteen billion
Speaker 1: dollar defamation in the line of a lawsuit against The Times.
Speaker 1: Tell us about this and his accusations at the Times
Speaker 1: is a virtual mouthpiece for the Democrats. I thought everybody
Speaker 1: knew this.
Speaker 12: Well, James. That's true, and most people do know it.
Speaker 12: This is actually a very interesting case. The Times has
Speaker 12: smeared Trump thousands of times, but this case is very
Speaker 12: specifically focused. It is focused on a book that was
Speaker 12: written by two New York Times reporters, and he sued
Speaker 12: the Times. He sued Penguin Random House, which published that book,
Speaker 12: and two other people who wrote op eds in The
Speaker 12: Times that repeated some of the representations in that book,
Speaker 12: as well as the two Times reporters who wrote it.
Speaker 12: The book is called Lucky Loser, and the claim in
Speaker 12: that book is that Donald Trump is an incompetent businessman
Speaker 12: who has never achieved anything in life through his own
Speaker 12: skill or heart work, and any success that he has
Speaker 12: ever achieved is entirely due to either inheriting money from
Speaker 12: his father or to dumb luck. They've read this entire
Speaker 12: book trying to prove that Trump is a complete incompetent.
Speaker 12: So if you look at the complaint in this case,
Speaker 12: there are probably fifty or sixty or seventy specific statements
Speaker 12: in the book or in these op eds in the
Speaker 12: New York Times that Trump claims are false. And some
Speaker 12: of them are not statements of opinion which are not actionable,
Speaker 12: but clearly our statements of fact, like Trump had time
Speaker 12: ties to the mafia, or Trump committed tax fraud. I
Speaker 12: think they alleged that a couple of times, and so
Speaker 12: you know, this could be a very explosive case. The
Speaker 12: conventional wisdom is that it's almost impossible for a public
Speaker 12: figure to recover in a defamation case, but that's not
Speaker 12: necessarily true. Trump brought this case in federal court in Florida.
Speaker 12: He may wind up with a judge who is reasonably sympathetic,
Speaker 12: a jury who is reasonably sympathetic. And the overall theme
Speaker 12: of that book that Trump is an incompetent businessman who
Speaker 12: has never achieved anything, who his own efforts, is clearly false.
Speaker 12: And so I think this is a case that is
Speaker 12: very much worth following.
Speaker 1: I think it's fascinating. That's why I wanted you to
Speaker 1: break it down for us, because I didn't have all
Speaker 1: of that nuance in details, and I think probably our
Speaker 1: viewers didn't either. So thank you for that because it
Speaker 1: also leads into this broader issue too, because there's a
Speaker 1: lot of complaints after the Jimmy Kimmel affair this week
Speaker 1: that somehow Trump is cracking down on free speech. Now,
Speaker 1: I spoke a little while ago about you know, I
Speaker 1: think it's great to enforce the left's rules on them,
Speaker 1: but I was also a bit concerned about something that
Speaker 1: Pam Bondi, the Attorney General, spoke about earlier, and that
Speaker 1: was usually hate speech laws against the left. Have a
Speaker 1: look at this.
Speaker 10: Do you see more law enforcement going after these groups
Speaker 10: who are using hate speech and putting cuffs on people?
Speaker 10: So we show them that some action is better than
Speaker 10: no action.
Speaker 6: We will absolutely target you, go after you if you
Speaker 6: are targeting anyone with hate speech.
Speaker 1: Now, John, I was happy for Jimmy Kibble to get
Speaker 1: the flick because of course that's the cancel culture rules
Speaker 1: just turning around on the left. But I was concerned
Speaker 1: about this, and I want your opinion as a lawyer
Speaker 1: why would Pam Bondi go out and she later walked
Speaker 1: it back, but why would you go ahead and frame
Speaker 1: this whole thing in the terms of hate speech, which
Speaker 1: would seem to be the worst case or the worst
Speaker 1: sort of lefty framing to use to do what they're
Speaker 1: trying to do.
Speaker 12: James, this was from outer space. The liberals for decades
Speaker 12: have been trying to create a hate speech exception to
Speaker 12: the First Amendment, And of course, hate speech is whatever
Speaker 12: they say it is. You know, this is not any
Speaker 12: kind of a legal term or a term of art
Speaker 12: that has been uniformly rejected by the US Supreme Court.
Speaker 12: In twenty seventeen, there was a unanimous decision of the
Speaker 12: Supreme Court that again said no, there is no hate
Speaker 12: speech exception to the First Amendment. And that's always been
Speaker 12: a liberal theme, not a conservative theme. For Pam Bondy
Speaker 12: to say that, even though she then walked it back
Speaker 12: the next day after there was quite a bit of blowback,
Speaker 12: it's frankly almost inexplicable.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, how do you rate Pam Bondi's performance
Speaker 1: as Attorney General? Because a lot of people I'm talking
Speaker 1: to in the United States are saying that she may
Speaker 1: be the weakest link in this cabinet.
Speaker 12: Well, I didn't think that going in, James. But she's
Speaker 12: had two significant missteps so far. That was one, and
Speaker 12: the other was when she really over promised on the
Speaker 12: Jeffrey Epstein case, acting like they had all this dynamite
Speaker 12: information and they're going to make it public. And then
Speaker 12: it was this kind of pop gun you know, that
Speaker 12: had like no significant follow up. Both of those instances
Speaker 12: put her in kind of a bad light. The jury
Speaker 12: is still out, the administration is young, but those were disappointing.
Speaker 1: Hey, I wanted to ask you about Epstein. So I'm
Speaker 1: glad you mentioned that because FBI Director Cash Pttel was
Speaker 1: at a fiery House committee hearing this week grilled about
Speaker 1: the Epstein case from the Democrats. How a look at this.
Speaker 8: Have you released all of the stuff that the FBI
Speaker 8: has seized from Epstein's house, the computers, the emails, the
Speaker 8: file cabinets, the documents, and what about the financial records?
Speaker 8: Have you released all of.
Speaker 5: That everything the court has allowed us to which order
Speaker 5: you're talking about, Three separate.
Speaker 4: Federal courts have come in and said.
Speaker 8: We're talking about the evidence you've got, It's got nothing
Speaker 8: to do with what those courts have.
Speaker 4: We're talking about how the law works. Do you want
Speaker 4: me to break the law in a federal judge's order?
Speaker 8: No, I want you to.
Speaker 4: Follow your own word, Director Patel.
Speaker 8: You said up there it was under the direct control
Speaker 8: of the FBI director.
Speaker 1: Now, John put aside the bizarre idea that now the
Speaker 1: Democrats want the Trump administration to ignore a court ruling,
Speaker 1: which is pretty funny and ironic. You've got a really
Speaker 1: interesting essay on your parall lined blog about the Epstein
Speaker 1: case and your thoughts about why actually a lot of
Speaker 1: the stuff people think might be there might not be there.
Speaker 1: Tell us about that.
Speaker 4: Yeah, it's really interesting, James.
Speaker 12: This was really based on a piece in the magazine
Speaker 12: First Things that raised some points that I was not
Speaker 12: familiar with. I wrote about him on my website. There
Speaker 12: were twelve young women involved in this scandal down in Florida.
Speaker 12: Epstein was down in Palm Beach and one of them
Speaker 12: came to the law enforcement. They investigated. Ultimately, there were
Speaker 12: twelve young women who gave evidence against Jeffrey Epstein. But
Speaker 12: the interesting thing is that none of them mentioned any
Speaker 12: other men being involved in this situation other than Jeffrey Epstein.
Speaker 12: It was only him. And then, of course we had
Speaker 12: the prosecution of Gislaine Maxwell, who was his confederate, who
Speaker 12: recruited young women for him and so on, and she
Speaker 12: was only prosecuted. She's now in prison, but in that
Speaker 12: prosecution she was accused of procuring young women for only
Speaker 12: young women for only one man, Jeffrey Epstein, no evidence
Speaker 12: about anyone else. And it turns out that this whole
Speaker 12: theory about this pedophile ring and Jeffrey Epstein, all his
Speaker 12: influential friends who like underage girls, and maybe intelligence agencies
Speaker 12: being involved, and this whole thing is very likely a
Speaker 12: fantasy that came along quite a few years after the fact,
Speaker 12: and it turns out that there is very little, if any,
Speaker 12: evidentiary support for it. And so the idea that Epstein
Speaker 12: had this black book, you know, with all these politicians
Speaker 12: and celebrities in it, you know, it just isn't true.
Speaker 12: Pattel was asking that same hearing I believe that about
Speaker 12: that so called black book, which people are eagerly waiting for.
Speaker 12: He said, well, no, we released that. It's it's called
Speaker 12: the Decks. You know, when you look at the list
Speaker 12: of documents, But there's nothing in it, and so I
Speaker 12: think that this whole Epstein thing has taken on an
Speaker 12: aura of myth.
Speaker 1: Indeed, well, John, that's a really interesting perspective on that.
Speaker 1: Thank you for sharing that with us, and check out
Speaker 1: more of John's stuff on the power Line blog. Now
Speaker 1: put your trade tables up. It's time for quick break.
Speaker 1: But first, if you know anything about air travel in
Speaker 1: the US, you know about Spirit Airlines, which has a
Speaker 1: reputation for being the home to all in brawls, both
Speaker 1: in the air and even at check in. But listen
Speaker 1: to this one off Spirit Airlines. Pilot's just got told
Speaker 1: off for coming too close to Air Force one. Check
Speaker 1: out this exasperated air traffic controller.
Speaker 13: Bear wing thirteen hundred turned twenty degrees right immediately question
Speaker 13: pay attention thirteen hundred traffics off. You're left wing by
Speaker 13: six or eight miles seven forty seven. I'm sure you
Speaker 13: think who it is the fightable three zero, maintain three
Speaker 13: three zero. I'll keep an eye off for me, White
Speaker 13: and Blue. Pay attention, get off the iPad, Get.
Speaker 1: Off the iPad? What is going on up there? Was Spirit?
Speaker 1: Who knows anyway? Fashion your seatbelt because there's a lot
Speaker 1: more us important to come up with Andy No on
Speaker 1: Antifa terrorism. Next. Welcing back to the program now in
Speaker 1: a moment, I'm going to bring in my next guest,
Speaker 1: Andy know, who I think is America's foremost expert on Antifa,
Speaker 1: the loosely organized, supposedly anti fascist outfit that came to
Speaker 1: prominence during the twenty twenty Summer of Love Rights and
Speaker 1: whose ideology has been tied to the Charlie Kirk shooter.
Speaker 1: Now Donald Trump is vowed to go after Antifa, calling
Speaker 1: it a terrorist organization. Who are they and where's.
Speaker 14: The money coming from?
Speaker 8: Is it foreign entity?
Speaker 15: You're going to find out, and we're going to find
Speaker 15: out in great detail. And it surprised me that Biden
Speaker 15: wouldn't have done because it really became hot over the
Speaker 15: last three or four years. It surprised me that Biden
Speaker 15: wouldn't do it. But then as I got to know him.
Speaker 1: First of all, he.
Speaker 15: Didn't call the shots, he wasn't going the shots.
Speaker 1: But as we got to see.
Speaker 15: What was happening in Biden's group, Antifa plays perfectly for them,
Speaker 15: you know, absolutely perfectly. But it's a terrorist organization in
Speaker 15: my opinion, And we're.
Speaker 4: Going to find out, all those questions are going to
Speaker 4: be answered.
Speaker 1: Look, I think Donald Trump's absolutely right here, and I
Speaker 1: have a feeling my next guest will agree. Journalist, documentarian,
Speaker 1: author of On the Mast, the book all about Antifa,
Speaker 1: and senior editor at the Post Millennial, Andy no joins me. Now, Andy,
Speaker 1: welcome back to the program. Great to have you back
Speaker 1: on Sky News. Now, first of all, before we get
Speaker 1: to the Charlie Kirk killing, I want to just get
Speaker 1: everybody on the same page. But Antifa, tell us about
Speaker 1: your experience with this group. I know you've had death threats,
Speaker 1: and it's Donald Trump on the right track here.
Speaker 16: So since the statement that was released by President Trump yesterday,
Speaker 16: the gas lighting from the media has begun and they
Speaker 16: are saying that Antifa is a figment of the far
Speaker 16: right's imagination. Well, I can speak that there weren't phantoms
Speaker 16: who beat me severely in twenty nineteen, to the point
Speaker 16: where I was bleeding out of my ears and from
Speaker 16: my eyes and suffered a brain bleed. Those injuries were real.
Speaker 1: Tell us Andy, more about Antifa, Who is behind it?
Speaker 1: How does it organize? Because one of the things that
Speaker 1: I hear people on the left says, oh, well, it's
Speaker 1: just an idea, and you can't fight a war against
Speaker 1: an idea because it's just an idea. But is there
Speaker 1: some more actual, coherent organize organization to it. I know
Speaker 1: there are cells out there, there's all sorts of different groups.
Speaker 1: Explain a bit more about the organization.
Speaker 16: Well, first, their ideology and their methods and tactics. It's
Speaker 16: all meant to the public. They want people to believe
Speaker 16: that to be part of Antifa simply means to oppose fascism,
Speaker 16: which is why you see lies from journalists say things like, well,
Speaker 16: the soldiers who fought against a fascism during the Second
Speaker 16: World War, they were Antifa, and that is part of
Speaker 16: the deception. Antifa in the contemporary form, the modern form
Speaker 16: is a far less violent, extremist, anarchist, communist movement, ideology network,
Speaker 16: all of the above, and their agenda is specifically for
Speaker 16: the abolishment of the liberal democratic order, and at the
Speaker 16: head of that is to target the US, which is
Speaker 16: why in particular it goes after really attacking the Constitution
Speaker 16: and freedoms like speech and even democracy itself. They attack
Speaker 16: all these institutions with the hope of revolution. And so
Speaker 16: what's important to recognize is that in addition to the
Speaker 16: street militancy and being them being domestically in the US,
Speaker 16: they also function internationally. I'm sure many of the viewers
Speaker 16: and listeners may be familiar with the violence by Antifa
Speaker 16: in Melbourne, which happens, you know, and there's Antifa in Europe,
Speaker 16: and these groups are connected through networks. And the next
Speaker 16: thing that needs to happen after this designation from President
Speaker 16: Trump is that the State Department needs to get involved
Speaker 16: and officially designate international Antifa as a terrorist entity and
Speaker 16: to sanction individuals who are involved in that because there
Speaker 16: is information, tactics flow, and training that is going in
Speaker 16: between the US and Europe.
Speaker 1: Canada and Andy, I want to take this back to
Speaker 1: the Charlie Kirk assassination from last week, because you know,
Speaker 1: there are do seem to be connections between the ideology,
Speaker 1: as you suggested already, between the Kirk killing and Antifa ideology,
Speaker 1: but you've also revealed that one Antipha chapter has actually
Speaker 1: put out a report saying that the killing makes things
Speaker 1: more difficult for them. Tell us about this.
Speaker 16: Yeah, So in the immediate hours, in first two days
Speaker 16: after the assassination, all of the antifah all around the
Speaker 16: world were celebrating, and they were celebrating not just that
Speaker 16: mister Kirk was assassinated, but that somebody was his views
Speaker 16: was killed, and therefore they felt that it was emblematic
Speaker 16: or he was representing the views of people maybe like
Speaker 16: you and I. However, I don't. From reading that after
Speaker 16: action report out of an antiphah group in Oregon, they
Speaker 16: were surprised at the unity in the backlash in anger
Speaker 16: at what happened, and they did not expect, for example,
Speaker 16: that people who posted support for the assassination on social
Speaker 16: media or wherever were then fired from their positions. They
Speaker 16: didn't expect that previously a political institutions, businesses issued some
Speaker 16: of them statements of support for mister Kirk's family. They
Speaker 16: really thought that this would be just another killing that
Speaker 16: would just be either ignored by the media or that
Speaker 16: people could continue celebrating it, celebrating it on the left
Speaker 16: and nothing would happen. So they're quite concerned and they
Speaker 16: are discussing ways for how to sabotage right, sabotage the
Speaker 16: right right now because they really fear that the pendulum
Speaker 16: changing and that they've been able to thrive an environment
Speaker 16: for years where they can dehumanize the opposition, call the
Speaker 16: Nazis fascists and therefore worthier death. And they've had that
Speaker 16: tool empower with unfortunately support from rhetoric from Democrats, and
Speaker 16: they're afraid of losing that.
Speaker 1: And finally, Andy, and I think you're absolutely right about
Speaker 1: that because I think from you know, the Obama administration
Speaker 1: at least on, you know, there was always this rhetoric
Speaker 1: dehumanized and pop on the right, and so who's surprised
Speaker 1: where this is all land but landed? But finally, I
Speaker 1: just want to ask you more about the FBI investigation
Speaker 1: into some of the potential links between Charlie Kirk's alleged
Speaker 1: killer and some other groups and some of these radical
Speaker 1: queer groups and so on. I know the FBI is
Speaker 1: looking at Discord users who may have known about the killing,
Speaker 1: would they have had connections to Antifa? And what is
Speaker 1: this discord platform that I think maybe people you know
Speaker 1: who just sort of know X and Facebook aren't familiar with.
Speaker 16: It's an app where you can communicate with people. There
Speaker 16: are a lot of gamers on it, and you can
Speaker 16: create private channels where you can invite people in. And
Speaker 16: it's not public. It's not like posting something on Facebook
Speaker 16: or ax where everybody can see it. This is people
Speaker 16: who join the group are invited and it's curated within
Speaker 16: the channel. So from the leaks to the press about
Speaker 16: the chats and at least one of the known discord
Speaker 16: channels the suspect was in that one was mostly a
Speaker 16: political It is about Geeming. We don't know the full
Speaker 16: extent of which other channels he may be a part of.
Speaker 16: And my overall sense of the picture thus emerged in
Speaker 16: mister Robinson, is that he was a lone wolf type
Speaker 16: figure and actually that is this ideal candidate for anti
Speaker 16: FILTI radicalized.
Speaker 1: Andy, We're gonna have to live with there. Thank you
Speaker 1: so much. You're a great fighter for the truth and
Speaker 1: you've really put yourself on the line on it on this,
Speaker 1: and you've got a great book out at the moment,
Speaker 1: a New York Times bestseller, as I said, called Unmasked,
Speaker 1: all about Antieva's radical plan to destroy democracy. Go out
Speaker 1: check that out and take a look at Andy's substack
Speaker 1: as well. Thank you so much for your time. Andy.
Speaker 1: Now don't go anywhere, because we've got a new face
Speaker 1: on the program coming up next to talk about just
Speaker 1: how radicalized some college students are in the US. It's
Speaker 1: pretty terrifying. But meanwhile, let's go back to the UK
Speaker 1: and see how the Brits feel about Donald Trump's visit
Speaker 1: to the UK. Well, if he comes down here today,
Speaker 1: Trump is a legend.
Speaker 14: And absolutely here to support him. He's wonderful. He's not
Speaker 14: a politician and that's why he's doing so well in America.
Speaker 14: He's a businessman and honestly, I wish he could do
Speaker 14: the same here that's happening in America because he's saving
Speaker 14: the people there.
Speaker 1: Yeah, you want to see that on the BBC. I
Speaker 1: thought the British hated Trump, Maybe not so much now.
Speaker 1: You know, you're not going to believe what they're teaching
Speaker 1: the kids these days. After the break, welcome back to
Speaker 1: the program. Now joining us now, a new guest to
Speaker 1: the US support is Miami Republican Committee woman and political
Speaker 1: columnist Angie Wong. Angie, welcome to the US Report, and
Speaker 1: I want to talk about ideological indoctrine nation on college
Speaker 1: campuses university campuses. Now, we've known this for a while,
Speaker 1: but the Charlie Kirk assassination has exposed just how bad
Speaker 1: it is getting in some places. Take a look at
Speaker 1: this student, and I believe Oberlin College saying we need
Speaker 1: to bring back political assassinations.
Speaker 17: So the day after Charlie Kirk died, I was in class.
Speaker 17: My teacher said, I'll give you five minutes for hot
Speaker 17: takes about Charlie Kirk. I was the only person who
Speaker 17: raise their hand. I said, I've been saying we need
Speaker 17: to bring back political assassinations. I don't feel bad, and
Speaker 17: I don't think that everyone deserves the right to free speech.
Speaker 17: I think some people should be afraid to express their
Speaker 17: opinion in public.
Speaker 1: Angie, I'm a little disturbed by this that you've got
Speaker 1: university students running around saying, hey, political assassinations if people
Speaker 1: are on the right, are okay? Do I need to
Speaker 1: be careful when I go hang out near a university
Speaker 1: campus in America these days?
Speaker 18: Yeah, And note that most of these kind of woke
Speaker 18: talkings and teachings are happening at liberal arts colleges. It's
Speaker 18: not happening in trade schools, that's for sure.
Speaker 16: Yeah.
Speaker 18: No, it's almost like as if you go to college
Speaker 18: or university these days in the US, you get a
Speaker 18: license to talk like this. And you know there's been
Speaker 18: this kind of it's almost fashionable to be more woke
Speaker 18: than your colleagues. And I think that's what you're seeing here,
Speaker 18: is like who can be more woke? Who can you know,
Speaker 18: say the most outrageous things? And social media certainly propels
Speaker 18: this because social media rewards those who do extreme things
Speaker 18: and say extreme things, and the algorithms awards you both
Speaker 18: likes and rage clicks. So that's, you know, another problem
Speaker 18: we're seeing. No, this cannot be tolerated in colleges. I've
Speaker 18: gone to some of the most woke colleges in New
Speaker 18: York City and I saw this happening throughout the riots
Speaker 18: of twenty twenty four, and it's it's celebrated, unfortunately by
Speaker 18: the professors and some of the board members, and that
Speaker 18: whole culture is trying to you know, President Trump is
Speaker 18: trying to get rid of, certainly with pulling some of
Speaker 18: the federal fundings of Harvard and other institutions like that.
Speaker 1: But Angie, what is it about social media too that
Speaker 1: is created a permission structure for people on the left
Speaker 1: to think it's perfectly okay to post these things on
Speaker 1: our side, whereas we say about people on the right.
Speaker 1: And this gets into the little Jimmy Kimble thing. Oh no, no, no, no,
Speaker 1: we'll cancel you. But our guys are okay. There's a
Speaker 1: real double standard here.
Speaker 18: Yeah, And a lot of the times is because when
Speaker 18: you have a social media handle, you're masked, right, you
Speaker 18: don't know who is on the other side speaking to you.
Speaker 18: So they've been given double permission to speak the most
Speaker 18: hateful things. And you know, social media companies won't police this.
Speaker 18: And we do have this thing called the First Amendment
Speaker 18: here in which we enjoy.
Speaker 4: Is the privilege.
Speaker 18: But do you have the decency? I think that is
Speaker 18: where we're looking for the line of where the decency is.
Speaker 18: You know, when Charlie Kirk was assassinated, the social media
Speaker 18: lit up with cheers. It wasn't a universal outrage, and
Speaker 18: I just thought to myself, this is a really, really
Speaker 18: dark time in America.
Speaker 1: Yeah. No, I had one of my screens on my
Speaker 1: desk just going with all the social media and it
Speaker 1: was a sewer, that particular screen that whole twenty four
Speaker 1: hours afterwards. But let's move on to other things here.
Speaker 1: Because we've had the President in the UK for this
Speaker 1: historic state visit. We played a little bit of that
Speaker 1: earlier but there's some important stuff that's come out of
Speaker 1: this as well, a landmark technology Prosperity deal supposedly meant
Speaker 1: to propel the US and UK special relationship for new
Speaker 1: heights for the technological age. Here's Donald Trump speaking about
Speaker 1: this with Keir Starmer before.
Speaker 9: The ties between our countries are priceless, and it's really
Speaker 9: an inheritance. It's a beautiful inheritance. Today we're making those
Speaker 9: ties closer than ever before. We've done some things that
Speaker 9: financially are great for both countries, and we work together
Speaker 9: and it keeps us together.
Speaker 1: Now we know Trump's a massive anglophile. He loves the
Speaker 1: British people and the government of the King and all
Speaker 1: of that. But there seems to be something more developing
Speaker 1: here with this technological partnership. Tell us about this.
Speaker 18: Yeah, I've never had to use the term special relationship
Speaker 18: more than in the last three days. And it's been
Speaker 18: wonderful watching President Trump conclude a supersized state visit. I mean,
Speaker 18: I think it was a successful visit for all sides.
Speaker 18: Kier Starmer, King Charles, everyone got the headlines they wanted.
Speaker 18: It was a great, great three days of celebration between
Speaker 18: our two nations, and it's also a display of how
Speaker 18: two nations can work together, especially with someone like Trump.
Speaker 18: And I think that was a really nice way of
Speaker 18: symbolizing our strong special relationship with the AI. I mean, look,
Speaker 18: China just announced a few weeks ago that it is
Speaker 18: mandating AI teachings in all of their elementary to college
Speaker 18: level education. And then, of course, days after that, Milania
Speaker 18: Trump first Lady also said well, we're going to do
Speaker 18: something similar. We're going to start promoting AI here in
Speaker 18: the US, and we know that is going to be
Speaker 18: the future, and we need our kids to be educated
Speaker 18: and have that language of AI. We're so far behind
Speaker 18: in this it is still very young. So I'm happy
Speaker 18: to see the thirty one billion pound investment from US.
Speaker 17: Firms going into the UK.
Speaker 18: I think that was a nice gift for Trump to
Speaker 18: bring with him along with Tim Cook and other tech
Speaker 18: titans to impress the royals. So I think this is
Speaker 18: a great step forward, and it also shows the world Okay,
Speaker 18: the US and UK we're gonna be working together in
Speaker 18: our special relationship to fight other world powers that may
Speaker 18: take over an AI.
Speaker 1: Absolutely fascinating, Angie, thank you so much, and I just
Speaker 1: wish that our leaders in Australia had as much of
Speaker 1: a passion for big tech and cheap energy as some
Speaker 1: other leaders. Angie Walk, thank you so much for your time.
Speaker 1: Now don't go anywhere because Only in America is coming
Speaker 1: up next. But first, it wasn't just the King of England.
Speaker 1: Donald Trump was palaling around with little amazing concession the
Speaker 1: President got out of Prime Minister Keir Starmer.
Speaker 3: Let me be really clear about how us our terror
Speaker 3: organization who can have no part in any future governance
Speaker 3: in Palestine. And what happened on the seventh was the
Speaker 3: worst attack since the Holocaust.
Speaker 1: Atta boy, Kir, I know that was tough. Anyway, Only
Speaker 1: in America is next, and now it's time for a
Speaker 1: little segment we like to call Only in America. Well,
Speaker 1: for the past week, we've been mourning the death of
Speaker 1: Charlie Kirk, whose murder has rocked American and global politics
Speaker 1: in ways no one could have anticipated, and as conservative
Speaker 1: comedian Ryan Long points out in this skit, it's created
Speaker 1: a bit of a minefield for left wing performers trying
Speaker 1: to post about Kirk's death with enough qualifiers to make
Speaker 1: sure no one thinks they agreed with him. Have a
Speaker 1: look at this.
Speaker 12: As someone who disagrees with him. Obviously I disagree with
Speaker 12: him on everything, although we.
Speaker 10: Didn't see eye to eye someone with a differing opinion
Speaker 10: almost everything.
Speaker 4: Should I get specific with the things I disagree with
Speaker 4: them on.
Speaker 9: So what I want to do is make my post
Speaker 9: that people shouldn't be killed for their opinions.
Speaker 10: But figuring out the perfect amount of qualifiers to include
Speaker 10: has been near impossible.
Speaker 4: Political violence on the all sides needs to stop.
Speaker 12: Like, essentially, I want people to know that I'm good
Speaker 12: because I'm against murder, but I'm also good because I disagree.
Speaker 4: With them guns are bad.
Speaker 1: Ah, It's something that says I care, I have empathy.
Speaker 12: But also if you disagree with them on anything, that's
Speaker 12: not a live business, you know, Like do we know
Speaker 12: anyone with empathy?
Speaker 4: What did they put the way?
Speaker 10: Disagree with them on ninety percent of thas?
Speaker 4: You don't wait too long even.
Speaker 12: I mean, I'm not touching Israel stuff with a ten
Speaker 12: foot poll. Now the rights figured out how to get
Speaker 12: people fire too, which is adding another layer of complication.
Speaker 4: What are you post? What you actually?
Speaker 13: What you grow?
Speaker 18: God?
Speaker 3: What do you The goal on social media is to
Speaker 3: say the least amount possible.
Speaker 10: Well, also not not saying something when you're supposed to
Speaker 10: say something once you talk to me, when you understand
Speaker 10: social media.
Speaker 1: It's a pickle, all right. And that's all the time
Speaker 1: we have tonight, so see you next week. Bye bye,