Speaker 1: From the Skying New Center. This is Paul Murray Live
Speaker 1: a Wednesday at the start of winter one for the
Speaker 1: hard course tonight. Thank you very much for watching wherever
Speaker 1: you're happy to be. Thank you so much for Sharry.
Speaker 1: See her again same time tomorrow night. Now, big news
Speaker 1: today in the war on censoring the Internet. As we
Speaker 1: know the stabbing that took place in western Sydney a
Speaker 1: couple of months ago. We all know what the result
Speaker 1: of that was. We know the national conversation that we
Speaker 1: had to have about whether you could or could not
Speaker 1: look at the crime, the alleged stabbing. I have to
Speaker 1: say that because someone's before the courts and we were
Speaker 1: told of the time for our own good, it must
Speaker 1: be censored from the Internet, particularly from the platform formerly
Speaker 1: known as Twitter.
Speaker 2: It is vital that we don't use social media as
Speaker 2: a tool for division and fear, but instead as an
Speaker 2: instrument of solidarity and social cohesion. Online spaces should be
Speaker 2: safe for everyone, no matter a person's culture, faith or background.
Speaker 1: Now this conversation should have also been accompanied by a
Speaker 1: national chat about radicalization. In the space of a couple
Speaker 1: of weeks, ten teenagers were arrested by police on the
Speaker 1: assumption that they had been radicalized by barsadized version of Islam.
Speaker 1: But no, that would be too difficult a thing for
Speaker 1: this government to have to deal with. So instead it
Speaker 1: was a pile on Elon Musk because he thought that
Speaker 1: Australia's rules should only extend as far as Australia.
Speaker 3: We're seeing mego maniacs like Elon Musk going to court
Speaker 3: to fight for the right to show terrorist content, alleged
Speaker 3: terrorist content on his platform.
Speaker 4: Its just shaws his arrogance.
Speaker 5: This is an egotist, totally out of touch. He clearly
Speaker 5: sees this as a vanity project for himself.
Speaker 6: Elo must has no social conscience or conscience whatsoever. Quite frankly,
Speaker 6: the biker should be jailed the power that that man
Speaker 6: has because that platform that he's on, it's got to stop.
Speaker 6: That bloke has no conscience. He is an absolute freaking disgrace.
Speaker 6: And there's nothing else to say about Alel Musk.
Speaker 1: So of course it all went off to court. They
Speaker 1: got their early win, but then X started to fight back.
Speaker 1: They won an injunction and now today we learn that
Speaker 1: the e Safety Karen is no longer going to be
Speaker 1: pursuing the matter. The matter is now done. X wins,
Speaker 1: the video stays, and the e safety Karen says this
Speaker 1: is the reason why her fight must end for now.
Speaker 2: After considering multiple litigations, the prudent use of public funds,
Speaker 2: and the faylanks of lawyers that ex Corp Has lined
Speaker 2: up in the Federal court, we thought it made the
Speaker 2: most sense to have an independent test and of a
Speaker 2: merits review through the aat of why we issued the
Speaker 2: class one notice don't you love this?
Speaker 1: Or the prudent use of taxpayer funds? This is an
Speaker 1: instrument of the same government that spends six hundred thousand
Speaker 1: dollars on a speech writer. This is the same government
Speaker 1: that spends forty million dollars on advertising of tax changes.
Speaker 1: This is the same government that will buy not one,
Speaker 1: but two brand new private planes for the Prime Minister. Yes,
Speaker 1: ordered under the previous government, but not canceled by this government,
Speaker 1: had more than four hundred million dollars. Perhaps the ultimate
Speaker 1: reality is that they knew the case wouldn't stand because
Speaker 1: while the powers exist in Australia, you cannot expect the
Speaker 1: rest of the world have to take this thing down now.
Speaker 1: I very much believe that videos celebrating crime should be
Speaker 1: taken down as soon as possible. But the heavy handed
Speaker 1: approach here had the attempt of the government to change
Speaker 1: the subject from the real one, which was the radicalization
Speaker 1: of teens serves as a message of priorities, and the
Speaker 1: priority wasn't the video. The priority was the other stuff
Speaker 1: on the internet that sends teenagers kids born here nuts
Speaker 1: in the name of a bastardized version of their religion.
Speaker 1: Now today we had to put up with the nonsense
Speaker 1: spectacle that apparently the Labor Party is drawing a line
Speaker 1: about the behavior of the Greens. Now today both sides
Speaker 1: of major party politics, Well, they turned on the Greens
Speaker 1: because in part they had said that they had had
Speaker 1: enough of what the Greens have been saying when it
Speaker 1: comes to Gaza, the sort of stuff that ends up
Speaker 1: giving apparent moral justification to lunatics who have been vandalizing
Speaker 1: the officers of Australian politicians. Now you do notice that
Speaker 1: none of these things were being said automatically in our parliament,
Speaker 1: when it wasn't the MP's officers that were being attacked,
Speaker 1: when it was just members of the public and a
Speaker 1: bit of back and forth. Well, you know, it's all
Speaker 1: part of free speech right well now that it's hit home,
Speaker 1: particular for Labour Party MPs. We got the scenario today
Speaker 1: where both sides of Parliament agreed the Greens are terrible
Speaker 1: in this area and they use the lowest of issues
Speaker 1: to make political points in this country. First, Peter Dutton.
Speaker 7: We stand as one in this chamber, or we should
Speaker 7: stand as one to make sure that we condemned the
Speaker 7: unacceptable levels of antisemitism that we see playing out on
Speaker 7: our streets.
Speaker 1: It has no place and we.
Speaker 7: Will take everything, every action we need as a chamber
Speaker 7: to make sure that we condemn those acts of antisemitism
Speaker 7: in our country.
Speaker 1: And the Green's.
Speaker 7: Political party today is properly and rightly condemned.
Speaker 1: Albow in response.
Speaker 5: It is unacceptable that misinformation has been consciously and deliberately
Speaker 5: spread by some Green senators and Mpece have engaged in
Speaker 5: this damn'sts outside offices and online.
Speaker 1: And then of course the Green's got to respond and
Speaker 1: point the finger at anyone but themselves about the behavior
Speaker 1: that has got out of control in the country since October.
Speaker 3: I will not be lectured to about peace and nonviolence
Speaker 3: by people who back the invasion of Gazo.
Speaker 8: Children are dying children are dying because the Israeliami has
Speaker 8: engineered a famine and instead.
Speaker 3: Of talking about the victims of Burron, Minister wants to
Speaker 3: make it about himself.
Speaker 1: Now, interestingly, the Green's leader is not alone in his worldview.
Speaker 1: We know that about some of the things that have
Speaker 1: been happening on the streets. But tonight there's a story
Speaker 1: which is broken on the front page of the Australian
Speaker 1: newspaper that apparently there are members of the Defense Force,
Speaker 1: people who are in the Australian Defense Force who are
Speaker 1: signing anti Israel petitions. We're talking about people from the
Speaker 1: Human Rights Commission, we are talking about the people who
Speaker 1: supposedly understand the limits of military power. Now, again, whatever
Speaker 1: your view on whether the state of Israel and the
Speaker 1: government of Israel has gone too far, the idea that
Speaker 1: people inside the Australian Defense Force are trying to side
Speaker 1: not but the people of Palestine. But of course the
Speaker 1: military force of Hamas is a disgrace. But of course
Speaker 1: I don't buy any of this stuff from the Labour Party.
Speaker 1: That are the Greens. They're terrible, aren't they awful? Aren't
Speaker 1: they terrible? Because of course, mathematically the Labour Party basically
Speaker 1: doesn't exist in the Federal Parliament without the Greens. Now,
Speaker 1: they won seven seats on their own outright, seventy of
Speaker 1: their seats went to preferences, of which the Greens preferences
Speaker 1: were the ones that got them over the line. Seventy
Speaker 1: of the seventy seven members of the Federal Parliament that
Speaker 1: are there on the behalf of the Labour Party are
Speaker 1: also there thanks to the preference of the Greens. So
Speaker 1: I will truly believe that the Prime Minister has had
Speaker 1: enough of the behavior of the Greens when he decides
Speaker 1: to put them last. But of course he won't do
Speaker 1: that because there's this cozy little arrangement where the Greens
Speaker 1: get to protest yet support the actions of the Labor Party.
Speaker 1: The Labor Party gets to have a crack at the
Speaker 1: Greens but takes their preferences in the Senate. They can't
Speaker 1: get anything done without the Greens, and potentially, in a
Speaker 1: minority parliament, they would not be able to even form
Speaker 1: a government without them. Now, we've had conversations over the
Speaker 1: years about which political parties are deserving of going last.
Speaker 1: I do not see how anyone could suggest that the
Speaker 1: Greens should be anything but last for every major political party.
Speaker 1: Now there are people inside the NP in certain states
Speaker 1: who think that it's clever to send preferences to the
Speaker 1: Greens because it's a way of denying the Labor Party seats.
Speaker 1: This is not acceptable. The Greens are the worst possible
Speaker 1: choice for Australian politics, no matter what they peddle and
Speaker 1: what polls tell you that they are the voice of
Speaker 1: younger generations for obvious reasons. If you are serious about
Speaker 1: the threat that the Greens pose, then you should be
Speaker 1: willing to put some of your own skin in the game. Yes,
Speaker 1: maybe even seventy seats worth of it. But at some
Speaker 1: point the Labor Party should preference the Liberal Party, and
Speaker 1: the Liberal Party should preference the Labor Party before we
Speaker 1: get to options like the Greens. And again another example
Speaker 1: about the double speak that comes out of the O
Speaker 1: SOO sanctumonious Greens. Now they constantly tell us that we
Speaker 1: need more housing, and we do need more housing in
Speaker 1: the country. Best money in building hundreds of thousands of
Speaker 1: good quality homes to be sold and rented at prices
Speaker 1: people can actually afford.
Speaker 3: In a wealthy country like ours. Everyone should have a
Speaker 3: roof over their head and.
Speaker 8: One of the key things that governments could do to
Speaker 8: bring down rantsom make sure housing is.
Speaker 3: More affordable is built more public housing.
Speaker 8: Everyone has the right to.
Speaker 3: Have a roof over their head, especially a wealthy country
Speaker 3: like Australia, and so until we build more, the problems
Speaker 3: is going to get worse than work worse.
Speaker 1: But guess which MP from which political party is opposing
Speaker 1: the building of more units in their electorate. Well, that's right,
Speaker 1: the Greens. The Greens who say we need more housing.
Speaker 1: But if it's in their backyard and they don't like
Speaker 1: how big it's going to be, then it's time to
Speaker 1: come out and oppose it. Talk about having your cake
Speaker 1: and eating it too, but it'll obviously have to be
Speaker 1: vegan and gluten free. Now, the latest economic numbers you've
Speaker 1: heard by now that if Australia was getting its pulse checked,
Speaker 1: they'd have to double check that we had one. Why
Speaker 1: because according to the latest GDP, we are a heartbeat
Speaker 1: away from a recession. Have a look at economic growth
Speaker 1: since this government came to power, almost one percent, then
Speaker 1: suddenly became point one percent, point eight, became point six
Speaker 1: point four, point two point three and now just zero
Speaker 1: point one percent. Technically growing. But it's like your car
Speaker 1: idling at the lights, and if it's a little bit
Speaker 1: out of tune, you take your foot off the break
Speaker 1: and it starts to ever so slightly hinge forward. That
Speaker 1: is the problem that we have at the moment. But
Speaker 1: of course, the per capita recession, the one that you
Speaker 1: and I are living, is one that has now gone
Speaker 1: on for five quarters in a row. This has gone
Speaker 1: on for the best part of a year and a bit.
Speaker 1: Now we are in a serious situation at the moment
Speaker 1: where the Australian people go backwards. The government idols idols.
Speaker 1: But of course the Treasurer says, this is my plan.
Speaker 1: It's all working, trust me.
Speaker 9: These national accounts, so we got the budget settings right.
Speaker 9: They justify our approach to fighting inflation and repairing the
Speaker 9: budget without smashing the economy when growth was already sought
Speaker 9: and the people were already under pressure. They completely vindicate
Speaker 9: our strategy.
Speaker 1: Ridiculous. This guy will think that every single statistic just
Speaker 1: backs in his worldview. The country is not even sputtering
Speaker 1: zero point one percent. Every three months, the numbers go
Speaker 1: down and down and down and down and down. Now,
Speaker 1: of course, in the next three months if we start
Speaker 1: to go backwards, you have to wait another three months
Speaker 1: after that, and it would seem unlikely that we get
Speaker 1: into some technical recession. But if the majority of Australians
Speaker 1: in there are in a per capita i e. Normal people,
Speaker 1: a per capita recession, you are already living one. But
Speaker 1: of course you can't possibly admit that in the world
Speaker 1: of Canberra, because that would say you'd have to accept
Speaker 1: some level of responsibility. Meantime, the Reserve Bank, now remember
Speaker 1: this government has already tried to rig the process. How
Speaker 1: many times they meet, they will eventually try to rid
Speaker 1: the process about who is going to be deciding whether
Speaker 1: interest rates go up or not. But in the meantime,
Speaker 1: Michelle Bullock, who is of course the Preserved Bank governor,
Speaker 1: she has said today that she will not hesitate to
Speaker 1: raise interest rates if she believes that inflation, which is
Speaker 1: currently nowhere near between two and three percent instead is
Speaker 1: between three and four percent, that if that continues, despite
Speaker 1: the fact that the joint is going backwards in terms
Speaker 1: of per capita and only just rolling forward on the
Speaker 1: official statistics, she would still increase interest rates. I look
Speaker 1: forward to talking about this with Stephen Conroy and with
Speaker 1: Rob and Bishop in a couple of moments time in
Speaker 1: a ding dong here on this Wednesday night. Megan Kelly
Speaker 1: will join us as well from the United States. Now,
Speaker 1: as we know, the Prime Minister and Peter Dutton do
Speaker 1: not see iday on how we should keep the lights on.
Speaker 1: The Prime Minister believes that we should spend tens of
Speaker 1: billions of dollars the cso of course, saying it's anywhere
Speaker 1: between halfer and one trillion dollars to actually move from
Speaker 1: the grid that used to work to the one that
Speaker 1: fingers crossed might work. For his position, Peter Dutton says, yes,
Speaker 1: while it's expensive, Yes, while it takes a little time
Speaker 1: to get going, nuclear energy is the best way to go.
Speaker 1: And put simply, the best idea is to use existing
Speaker 1: coal fire power sites which are currently being planned to
Speaker 1: be turned not into energy generators but in terms of
Speaker 1: energy storage things like batteries, But that would not be
Speaker 1: the case. Instead that power plants would go there. And
Speaker 1: Albow well, he believes he's under a winner here. He thinks,
Speaker 1: despite the fact that now six out of ten Australians
Speaker 1: support it as a way of getting our power and
Speaker 1: getting emissions down, that he's able to scare everyone that
Speaker 1: you're living in the Simpsons and your kids will turn green.
Speaker 1: Not voting, but literally.
Speaker 5: Nuclear power is the most expensive form of new energy
Speaker 5: that certainly doesn't help with climate chain.
Speaker 1: Heart of the scare, he decided to take this to
Speaker 1: the Internet today and believe it or not, had actually
Speaker 1: got a misinformation strike among other things from tit it Today.
Speaker 1: Prime Minister put this tweet up saying what do these
Speaker 1: beautiful parts of Australia have in common? They're at risk
Speaker 1: of a nuclear reactor in their backyard under Peter Dutton.
Speaker 1: Australians have waited six hundred and seventy three days for
Speaker 1: details on Peter Dutton's nuclear plan. He still won't say
Speaker 1: which cities, which towns, and he decided to put a
Speaker 1: whole bunch of photos out there to help scare people
Speaker 1: about what may or may not be happening. Places like Newcastle, Anglesea,
Speaker 1: the w Sundays, the Barossa Valley, Bridey Island, Gippsland and
Speaker 1: the Hunter Valley gets a second little shout out from
Speaker 1: the Prime Minister trying to scare people, but well under
Speaker 1: the Daily Mail because they had a look at some
Speaker 1: of the people who replied to the Prime Minister's tweet
Speaker 1: before it got a misinformation strike from x Here's some
Speaker 1: of the responses as people have turned around and said,
Speaker 1: you realize that renewables are covering every blade of grass
Speaker 1: in some parts of Australia. Someone says, funny, I prefer
Speaker 1: a nuclear reactor over thousands of kilometers of your government
Speaker 1: green lighting areas to be turned into solar Another one.
Speaker 1: What do these beautiful places have in common? They're all
Speaker 1: at risk of being cleared for solar panels and wind,
Speaker 1: but filling up thousands of acres of solar panel farms
Speaker 1: is perfectly okay. What a hypocrite you are, Prime Minister
Speaker 1: car Waite finnuculear. Have you've seen the scars of wind
Speaker 1: and solar? Another one? What's so beautiful about these things?
Speaker 1: And what do they have in common? There are at
Speaker 1: risk of solar panels and wind turbines in their backyard.
Speaker 1: Under Alba good point, you see lefties belief that they
Speaker 1: can have it both ways, that they can save the
Speaker 1: planet in their parts of Australia by ruining the literal
Speaker 1: land in regional Australia, and because regional Australia generally speaking,
Speaker 1: doesn't vote for the current government. Well, bugger you again.
Speaker 1: This is one of the central problems that many people
Speaker 1: have had in a long time about the transition to
Speaker 1: renewable energy is that when we start to see places
Speaker 1: in the cities having to bear the same scars that
Speaker 1: they do in regional areas, then surprise, surprise, the same
Speaker 1: issues where locals don't want it in their parts of
Speaker 1: Australia would be echoed by those who push it in
Speaker 1: city areas. Where is the suggestion that the local dog
Speaker 1: park in Marrickville is about to be covered in solar panels.
Speaker 1: Where is the suggestion that in the teal seats there's
Speaker 1: any plans for a wind farm anytime soon? Oh know
Speaker 1: that all goes to the bush because firstly who lives
Speaker 1: there and secondly they don't vote for you. So the
Speaker 1: Prime Minister and the collective brain that says renewables only
Speaker 1: effectively says bug you. Now I have to ask the question,
Speaker 1: how have we come to this as a great, modern,
Speaker 1: wonderful country. We've got to the state where discipline in
Speaker 1: our schools is now so widely out of control that
Speaker 1: they are teachers among us who are now starting to
Speaker 1: think about the introduction of cameras to the classroom. Let
Speaker 1: me explain. Of course, schools, according to the OECD, have
Speaker 1: become major battlegrounds. I say battlegrounds because disruptive schools puts
Speaker 1: us in. Some of the most disruptive schools in the
Speaker 1: world according to the OECD. The qoreyam Mar says there's
Speaker 1: a six million dollar sturge in assaults on teachers and
Speaker 1: school staff. They go on to say that in the
Speaker 1: twenty two to twenty three financial year, there were six
Speaker 1: hundred and ninety eight classroom assaults that were lodged in
Speaker 1: the state of Queensland and there were assault claims which
Speaker 1: resulted in the best part of about five million dollars
Speaker 1: being paid. The MP shadow Education spokesperson said the data
Speaker 1: showed the state government is losing control of classrooms. So now,
Speaker 1: what's a suggestion from some teachers in Queensland Body cameras
Speaker 1: the same stuff the police wear, so they're able to
Speaker 1: show who the aggressor is. And he said she said,
Speaker 1: or he said he said, or she said she said,
Speaker 1: or have they said he said, or have they said that?
Speaker 1: You get my point? Altercation when a student assaults a teacher. Now,
Speaker 1: we have spent billions of dollars trying to turn around
Speaker 1: what have been very bad education results in our schools
Speaker 1: for longer than a decade. The one thing that has
Speaker 1: continued to get worse no matter how much money is
Speaker 1: spent is classroom discipline. Yet where is the plan to
Speaker 1: deal with it? Where is the plan to give teachers
Speaker 1: greater rights to intervene in poorly behaved students instead in
Speaker 1: places like Queensland, now indigenous students and neurodiverse students will
Speaker 1: be able to appeal their suspensions if they are involved
Speaker 1: in things like assaults on teachers. How have we got
Speaker 1: to a place where teachers would like the same equipment
Speaker 1: that the police use. We're having a look at Fortitude
Speaker 1: Valley every Friday and Saturday night meantime. As you know,
Speaker 1: the ABC is morally better than everyone else in the
Speaker 1: Australian media. Just pick any one of their number of
Speaker 1: shows who try to poke at the media that they
Speaker 1: don't work for as of course, being either intellectually or
Speaker 1: definitely morally inferior to the great ABC. Well, today we
Speaker 1: got an incredible piece of information about just how much
Speaker 1: problems there are at the ABC and not from twenty
Speaker 1: years ago, not from ten years ago, but in fact,
Speaker 1: in the past two years. How's this? The ABC is
Speaker 1: failing to meet its own standards when it comes to
Speaker 1: bullying and sexual harassment. The managing director has said that
Speaker 1: an internal survey found thirteen percent of respondents to the
Speaker 1: National Broadcaster's News division, so this is only the News
Speaker 1: division said that they had experienced sexual harassment sexual harassment
Speaker 1: of the ABC in the past two years. Now, again,
Speaker 1: no organization in the country does not have this problem,
Speaker 1: but the ABC takes great joy in pointing out the
Speaker 1: moral failings of every other organization. What about and look
Speaker 1: at their own backyard. And this is on top of
Speaker 1: the ABC of course having to back pay to the
Speaker 1: tune of what thirty million dollars. I think it was
Speaker 1: because they underpaid their staff. But what sort of work
Speaker 1: environment when this force is the public service. Now they
Speaker 1: may think there's something magically different about broadcasting, but it's
Speaker 1: the same rules as the tax office. Back to the survey,
Speaker 1: one quarter of respondents said they had experienced bullying at
Speaker 1: the ABC, with the most common types reported as intimidation,
Speaker 1: but littling and humiliating comments. Now I'm not sure exactly
Speaker 1: what's being said, and I don't know if it's a
Speaker 1: whole series of snowflake behavior, but supposedly they're better than
Speaker 1: everyone else. The seven hundred and forty five employees, jeez,
Speaker 1: that's a few who took the survey, So that's not everyone.
Speaker 1: In the news division, ninety seven people reported as having
Speaker 1: experienced sexual harassment. Sixty five percent of the respondents were women. Now,
Speaker 1: there couldn't be a more friendly, friendly workplace to the
Speaker 1: current attitudes than supposedly public broadcasting. But twenty nine percent
Speaker 1: of the staff in the division turned around and completed
Speaker 1: the survey. So if that's the numbers of the people
Speaker 1: that were actually willing to fill out the forms, imagine
Speaker 1: what the reality might be, including of the people who
Speaker 1: are actually the victims. For his part, the boss of
Speaker 1: the ABC turns around and says, if anyone doesn't understand
Speaker 1: or accept this, the ABC is not the working environment
Speaker 1: for them. There will be consequences for those staff who
Speaker 1: are found to have behave in an unacceptable manner, no
Speaker 1: matter what their role is of the ABC. Geez, you,
Speaker 1: I reckon that'll be the case, because if you are
Speaker 1: a blessed member of the ABC, they'll pay your private
Speaker 1: legal fees when you say tofamatory things on the internet,
Speaker 1: when you clearly breach editorial standards, when you're free wheeling
Speaker 1: at writers festivals, etc. They'll find ways to say, Look,
Speaker 1: we've canceled you, But she's amazing, isn't she wonderful? Isn't
Speaker 1: she incredible? Clearly the organization is one that, like many
Speaker 1: media organizations in the past, not pretending that this is
Speaker 1: exclusively an ABC problem. There is a hierarchy, and clearly
Speaker 1: there is a hierarchy of people who are known and
Speaker 1: unknown to us as the viewers, listeners or readers of
Speaker 1: the ABC, who think they can get away with it.
Speaker 1: Why because they keep doing it now, I, like anyone else,
Speaker 1: understand that what was okay ten years ago is not
Speaker 1: OKA five years ago, is not OKA two years ago,
Speaker 1: and definitely is not okay today watch this space because
Speaker 1: the ABC, rather than looking at itself, I would suggest,
Speaker 1: will now start an investigations unit into every other person
Speaker 1: who's ever criticized the ABC as opposed to the ABC itself,
Speaker 1: where clearly they've got just the same problems as everyone else.
Speaker 1: Now it's important to follow up on stories, and we
Speaker 1: don't really do that enough in the media, but certainly
Speaker 1: I wanted to do it when it comes to one
Speaker 1: of the things that many of us felt straight after
Speaker 1: the stabbings in Bondi a few months ago. While people
Speaker 1: wanted to turn it into a gendered example of violence,
Speaker 1: the reality was that it was an example about how
Speaker 1: the mental health system has completely collapsed, where people fall
Speaker 1: through the cracks who should be in institutions when they
Speaker 1: don't take their meds and they don't see anyone, well,
Speaker 1: the worst of possible things can take place.
Speaker 10: Now.
Speaker 1: Many people like myself, straight after what happened in Bondi
Speaker 1: focused on this as a need for something to be done.
Speaker 11: If they improve and they get a bit better their
Speaker 11: discharge from the vital services that they need, which are
Speaker 11: in incredibly short supply through state of governments since the
Speaker 11: closure of the Metal hospitals. They haven't done their job
Speaker 11: in providing a safe and environment for the states that
Speaker 11: they operate in the community metal health system is very
Speaker 11: modest and is overwhelmed with demand.
Speaker 1: Well, he's proving himself to be the best premiere in
Speaker 1: the country. Chris Mins, Labour's premier in New South Wales. Well,
Speaker 1: he along with his mental Health Minister Rose Jackson, who
Speaker 1: I know is absolutely committed to following through not just
Speaker 1: saying things of press conferences, actually announce some more money
Speaker 1: for exactly this type of thing. They know it's not
Speaker 1: the end of the road, but it is a very
Speaker 1: big step, and I wanted to give him a yay
Speaker 1: for the day for actually following through on what he
Speaker 1: said at press conferences as opposed to his colleague in Cambra.
Speaker 12: There's a linkage of course between homelessness, housing, the New
Speaker 12: South Wales health system and their interactions with New South
Speaker 12: Wales Police. And if we can make an early investment
Speaker 12: with new initiatives that are actually working in the community,
Speaker 12: then not only can we save money when it comes
Speaker 12: to other parts of spending for the New South Wales government,
Speaker 12: we can make a difference with someone's wife who's going
Speaker 12: through a terrible experience and maybe suffering from crippling mental
Speaker 12: health diagnoses.
Speaker 1: In the States, Hunter Biden remains in court multiple charges
Speaker 1: all in and around a gun that he should have
Speaker 1: admitted that he was not supposed to have. Why because
Speaker 1: of a series of mental health issues that came as
Speaker 1: a result of drug abuse. But you may remember that
Speaker 1: at the height of the twenty twenty election, we were
Speaker 1: not allowed, allegedly to tell you about the existence of
Speaker 1: a laptop, one that apparently had been left by Hunter
Speaker 1: Biden that explained not just his drug use, but also,
Speaker 1: you know, the big guy, all the payments and the
Speaker 1: rest of it. He was referred at the time by
Speaker 1: intelligence officials as Russian disinformation. Well guess what was produced
Speaker 1: today literally as evidence in the case against Hunter Biden
Speaker 1: in court. Yep, the laptop that apparently never existed.
Speaker 13: Opening Stevens today in the trial of President Biden's son
Speaker 13: Hunter on federal gun charges. Prosecution telling jurors he lied
Speaker 13: about his drug use on a government background check to
Speaker 13: buy a gun, and they introduced evidence from his laptop.
Speaker 1: You mean it was always true? Well done a Miranda
Speaker 1: Devine and the New York Post who never never gave
Speaker 1: up on the reality of that laptop. Funnily enough, though,
Speaker 1: the other evidence it's on the laptop not to be
Speaker 1: used for anything, just this one thing in relation to
Speaker 1: the gun charge. As for the fight between Hunter's father
Speaker 1: and Donald Trump for the presidency coming up in November,
Speaker 1: the next big event is going to be the debate,
Speaker 1: which will take place towards the end of this month.
Speaker 1: It'll be on CNN for coverage here in the lead
Speaker 1: up and post here on Sky News. I wanted to
Speaker 1: show you the latest polls though. These are the ones
Speaker 1: that have happened after the court case. But there are
Speaker 1: not many that have happened after the court case, So
Speaker 1: these numbers may bounce around. But Trump nationally forty one
Speaker 1: thirty nine, and because Kennedy is writing at the best
Speaker 1: part of ten percent, there has not been a big
Speaker 1: change in the overall mix. Remember that's the national picture
Speaker 1: of fifty states. Well, what about the seven states that
Speaker 1: most matter? Again, the most recent poll these that have
Speaker 1: been dated in the past seven days. So Trump winning
Speaker 1: in Arizona, in Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania, North Carolina, and Georgia.
Speaker 1: If that all comes true, he gets to two seventy votes,
Speaker 1: nice and easy. Nevada, which previously people had said was
Speaker 1: in Trump's column by five points, is now back to
Speaker 1: a tie. Now Wisconsin would be expected to go back
Speaker 1: to a tie as well, so it is getting tighter.
Speaker 1: But if the numbers aren't moving even after the court case,
Speaker 1: that will be fascinating to see. Independents, however, have said
Speaker 1: supposedly by a significant number of about six out of ten,
Speaker 1: that they would think very strongly about voting for Biden
Speaker 1: because Trump is now a convicted felon. Of course he
Speaker 1: will hope to appeal that, but that will not be
Speaker 1: done before the next election. But perhaps the reason why
Speaker 1: the number is not really moving back Biden's way is
Speaker 1: because of what is the top issue for voters. Well,
Speaker 1: of course it's cost of blooming and the economy. But
Speaker 1: the number two and clearly number two issue that is
Speaker 1: driving people all around the country is.
Speaker 14: It was just one percent of voters who said that
Speaker 14: it ranked fifteenth on the list of most important problems
Speaker 14: in the United States. Look at where we are today
Speaker 14: May of twenty twenty four, the last Paul conducted by
Speaker 14: galp It's up to eighteen percent.
Speaker 1: And who do they trust on the issue?
Speaker 14: Because back in June of twenty twenty Biden was actually
Speaker 14: trusted more on the question of border security and immigration
Speaker 14: by a single point. Look at where we are in
Speaker 14: May of twenty twenty four. My goodness, gracious, look at
Speaker 14: this huge jump that Donald Trump has gotten. He is
Speaker 14: now ahead on this issue by twenty seven percentage points.
Speaker 14: So it's not just that immigration is more at the
Speaker 14: top of voters minds than it was four years ago.
Speaker 14: It's that who they trust on the issue has tanged tremendously.
Speaker 1: So Joe Biden today I picked up the same pin
Speaker 1: that he used to reverse many of the Trump border
Speaker 1: decisions and put many of them back, not all of
Speaker 1: them back. And apparently, of course it will only kicking win.
Speaker 1: Two and a half thousand people have passed eight and
Speaker 1: every day. That means nine hundred and twelve and a
Speaker 1: half thousand people will be allowed to cross the border,
Speaker 1: and then his rules will kick in, something that reporters
Speaker 1: who've been watching the southern border for years say is
Speaker 1: going to be a problem.
Speaker 15: You have to focus on the true details here. Yes,
Speaker 15: he is going to limit and restrict asylum to some
Speaker 15: people who cross the border illegally in between ports of entry.
Speaker 15: But he's going to continue bringing in tens of thousands
Speaker 15: of migrants per month using this CBP one app and
Speaker 15: flying them into the country.
Speaker 1: Via these parole flights. So the illegal.
Speaker 15: Crossing numbers may go down a little bit, but he's
Speaker 15: bringing more people into the country through quote unquote lawful pathways,
Speaker 15: which are just programs He's created at the executive level.
Speaker 16: Guys.
Speaker 1: So he says he'll slam the door if on anyone
Speaker 1: two and a half thousand people cross the border illegally.
Speaker 1: That of course will turn out to be three point
Speaker 1: six million people should he be re elected over the
Speaker 1: next four years. And he's sculping it from the Lift,
Speaker 1: who of course the weakest part of the Democratic bise
Speaker 1: at the moment, because of what's happening in Gaza. He's
Speaker 1: going Trump.
Speaker 17: I think the President could have handled this differently. I've
Speaker 17: told him that directly, and I think that we have
Speaker 17: to lean in as Democrats to an inclusive vision of immigration,
Speaker 17: and we really have to make continue to point out
Speaker 17: all the differences that we have with Donald Trump, who
Speaker 17: is theenophobic racist, has said terrible things about immigrants.
Speaker 18: I know that is not who President Biden is, but
Speaker 18: using the same tools that Donald Trump used is actually
Speaker 18: a big problem for Democrats to be able to continue
Speaker 18: to show those differences and keep our base with us.
Speaker 1: Nothing to say here, all right, quick break back when
Speaker 1: well plent need to talk about everything from the grains
Speaker 1: in a whole lot more. Broman Bishop versus Stephen Conroy,
Speaker 1: Stephen Conroy versus Bromwin, Bishop ding Ding, get ready for
Speaker 1: the big battle this Wednesday night, Megan Kelly, before we're done. Oh,
Speaker 1: I'm so excited. Let's get straight into it right now.
Speaker 1: They can hit as hard as they want. Nobody will
Speaker 1: be sent to the sin bin. There is no HIA
Speaker 1: rules that exist on debate television. Brom and Bishop is
Speaker 1: here carry out a champ is always on a Wednesday
Speaker 1: night and trying to take a crown each and every week.
Speaker 1: But Alas he always finishes just that inch short. He's
Speaker 1: none other than the wonderful Stephen Conroy who's here to
Speaker 1: help from the Labour Party. So Bromwin. Today we saw
Speaker 1: fire and brimstone from the Prime Minister about the disgrace
Speaker 1: that was the Greens. Okay, fine, let's all just agree
Speaker 1: to put them last. Isn't that the ultimate test?
Speaker 10: Absolutely? But I saw him read a speech. I saw
Speaker 10: Peter Dutton speak from the heart and with passion, good
Speaker 10: point and the comparison was riveting. And then of course
Speaker 10: we've seen all the footage of albo is. Yes, our
Speaker 10: fat elbow speaking as he doesn't change his spots, he's
Speaker 10: still elbow the trot.
Speaker 1: Well, certainly, by the way, I love that yes, apparently
Speaker 1: hasn't been able to get access to his office since January.
Speaker 1: Why are we only hearing about this in June? All right?
Speaker 1: Unless it was all sort of partially time towards today.
Speaker 1: But Stephen again, I understand the mathematical problem for the
Speaker 1: Labor Party right, which is you can't win every seat
Speaker 1: on primary, so at some point you're going to need preferences.
Speaker 1: At some point you need to do how to vote,
Speaker 1: and there is a safety that comes with the number
Speaker 1: that comes from the Greens. But are we really supposed
Speaker 1: to believe that Labour's really blowing up with the Greens
Speaker 1: when you need the Greens and unless you're going to
Speaker 1: put them last, it's all a bit of a pantomime,
Speaker 1: isn't it.
Speaker 16: Well, look, I mean, just so I've got some historical
Speaker 16: context here, Adam Bant is in Parliament as a member
Speaker 16: for Melbourne.
Speaker 1: Because the Liberal Party, and it's a disgrace Adam band.
Speaker 16: So just what made sure that.
Speaker 1: I said it in the editorial? I completely tell you my.
Speaker 4: Advice spot don't do it.
Speaker 19: But there you go.
Speaker 16: And I believe that Broman, I absolutely very believe that.
Speaker 16: So both parties have a challenge on this less so
Speaker 16: for the Liberals, because I think I suspect they will
Speaker 16: actually do follow Bromin's advice this time. Labor they've got
Speaker 16: a range of candidates that they put last, usually ahead
Speaker 16: of the Greens. I mean Pauline Hanston.
Speaker 4: Right wing far right wing.
Speaker 16: Groups usually get put last, so Labor always has to
Speaker 16: balance up between the ideological extremes. I think there's a
Speaker 16: case building that the Greens shouldn't get Labour's preferences. I
Speaker 16: think their behavior, their blatant anti semitism, is making.
Speaker 1: It harder for Labor.
Speaker 4: To deal with this.
Speaker 16: And I think the increasingly extreme views that have emerged
Speaker 16: from the Greens over the last twelve months on these
Speaker 16: issues means.
Speaker 4: Labour's got to have a very very good look at
Speaker 4: what it does.
Speaker 16: In many circumstances well surround the country on that issue.
Speaker 10: But Stephen, the Green's anti semitism was on show as
Speaker 10: early as twenty eleven, I mean when they had their
Speaker 10: whole policy which was to ban boycott Jewish businesses. It's
Speaker 10: been there, bubbling away and under the surface.
Speaker 1: But it is fair to say we are where we
Speaker 1: are now, and it is interesting to hear somebody who
Speaker 1: understands numbers, like Stephen saying like, I think we're kind
Speaker 1: of getting to that point in the same way as
Speaker 1: I said, at some point in time, the Liberal Party
Speaker 1: has to say, of all of the options, you know what,
Speaker 1: labor's the least worst and vice versa. Instead, when it's
Speaker 1: just this sort of fight to the death and you know,
Speaker 1: as long as you die, then I'm okay, Well, it's
Speaker 1: much worse for the country.
Speaker 4: Isn't it.
Speaker 10: Well it is. I mean the Greens are an absolute disgrace.
Speaker 1: Absolutely.
Speaker 10: They deserve to be bottom of everybody's voting ticket, no
Speaker 10: matter who they prefer with you, they really are. When
Speaker 10: I saw bat rise in the Parliament having been worn
Speaker 10: by the Speaker what rising on indulgence means, and then
Speaker 10: he sets out to try and debate it, which is
Speaker 10: you know, and I know has to be done by
Speaker 10: a different mechanism at a different time in the parliament.
Speaker 1: His face it was just so full of hate. It
Speaker 1: was just dispiriting. I just want to get off the
Speaker 1: ticket here for a moment, because I quickly want to
Speaker 1: talk about what the Reserve Bank bosses had to say
Speaker 1: amazingly today with us just barely sputtering along this is
Speaker 1: what she says about interest rates. Have a look, if.
Speaker 20: We think we're on the narrow path, we can stay
Speaker 20: basically pretty much where we are, not ruling anything in,
Speaker 20: ruling anything out.
Speaker 1: But if it.
Speaker 20: Turns out, for example, that inflation starts to go up again,
Speaker 20: or it's much sticky than we think, we're not getting
Speaker 20: it down, then we won't hesitate to move and raise
Speaker 20: interest rates again.
Speaker 1: Now, Stephen, I know you're such a fan of the
Speaker 1: Reserve Bank, especially it's most recent decisions to go up,
Speaker 1: But preparing us again when growth is zero point one
Speaker 1: percent and we're in a pick capita recession, that's matt
Speaker 1: it is.
Speaker 4: It is extraordinary.
Speaker 16: For ten years, they've got their wage forecasts wrong. They
Speaker 16: predicted wages up here, wages have been down here, and
Speaker 16: that's been the reason why we've got to have interest
Speaker 16: rates at various levels. Then don't forget it's not that
Speaker 16: long ago. Michelle bullergaself tried to say, it's got too
Speaker 16: many people having haircuts going to the cinema, that sort
Speaker 16: of stuff. I mean, they keep trying to cherry then
Speaker 16: it was services inflation. They keep trying to.
Speaker 4: Cherry pick one statistic out.
Speaker 16: Of twenty to try and justify their completely ludicrous positions.
Speaker 16: They are driving the economy into the ground. It is
Speaker 16: time to start backing off before you send this country.
Speaker 1: Into a recession.
Speaker 16: It's already as everyone's talking about a capita recession, and
Speaker 16: that is having serious impact and consequences.
Speaker 10: Steven, we haven't had a full on recession since Paul Keating.
Speaker 10: The recession we had to have it took us ten
Speaker 10: years to recover. Now we've got a treasurer who thinks
Speaker 10: everything's wonderful, it's going swimmingly. He's a snake oil salesman.
Speaker 10: I just pull him the snake jarma. But basically what
Speaker 10: he's saying is all our policies have been great. What's
Speaker 10: he done. He's forced up wages, which has forced up inflation.
Speaker 10: It's chasing and chasing and.
Speaker 4: Chase up wages.
Speaker 10: Yes, forced up wages which now buys less. So what's
Speaker 10: the point you wors off petrols up excises up the value.
Speaker 16: You economically illiterate. I've never actually considered to be economically
Speaker 16: illiterate until well the point you've just made.
Speaker 4: Not Stephen, not so grow wage growth, chasing inflation.
Speaker 10: You're in trouble, and everybody.
Speaker 4: Knows the Fair Work Commission.
Speaker 16: The Fair Work Commission is generally considered this week to
Speaker 16: have struck.
Speaker 4: The middle ground between its still over.
Speaker 10: It's still over the inflation rate didn't it, So it's
Speaker 10: still chasing. But the bottom line is that the government
Speaker 10: is stimulating. On one hand, says it's.
Speaker 4: These are the lowest flame made workers we have.
Speaker 10: We have got the insane energy policy, which means that
Speaker 10: everything goes up because everything is touched by the cost
Speaker 10: of electricity. There is nothing this government has energy made
Speaker 10: it better.
Speaker 4: For the energy relates were better.
Speaker 1: Let you all lo elected.
Speaker 10: They're better off before your lot were elected.
Speaker 4: No matter what they have falling real wages under you.
Speaker 10: Every person is suffering because of your policy, your body's policies.
Speaker 1: Now maybe it's the life of Brian.
Speaker 16: What are the Romans done for us been apart from
Speaker 16: roads or apart from aqueducts.
Speaker 4: It's like the life of Brian. Real wages going down.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I'm not going to be cheering the wages or
Speaker 1: going up.
Speaker 10: There is nothing that this government has done. Nothing, nothing
Speaker 10: makes well.
Speaker 1: Look, I think too little texts, I think too little,
Speaker 1: too late. When it comes to the practical side of
Speaker 1: the tax stuff. Of course, you know the idea of
Speaker 1: every mansion in the country getting bill relief. I'm so
Speaker 1: pleased that that's going to be one of the true
Speaker 1: labor legacies of Snake. What was Snake Chairman? Snake Charman?
Speaker 1: All right, cool? I like it. Thank you guys, out
Speaker 1: of time. We'll do it again next week, I promise longer.
Speaker 1: It means I have to shut up earlier in the show,
Speaker 1: so there's more of you guys every wedding. Stay, yes,
Speaker 1: I get the emails, so just get a little focused
Speaker 1: on the news. All right, quick, right back with more,
Speaker 1: including the wonderful Megan Kelly. Next, our favorite time of
Speaker 1: the week to talk to our favorite person in the world,
Speaker 1: not on than the one and only Megan Kelly. Megan,
Speaker 1: how are you? My love?
Speaker 19: Great to be here now.
Speaker 1: Hunter Biden is in a trial right now. It's three
Speaker 1: felony charges. He's in a world of pain. How do
Speaker 1: you think it's going.
Speaker 19: He's going down and he's going down hard.
Speaker 21: His best chance is that he's being tried in front
Speaker 21: of a Delaware jury. I mean, he's in federal court,
Speaker 21: but it's still Delawareans and they love the Bidens in Delaware,
Speaker 21: and Jill Biden is sitting front and center in the courtroom,
Speaker 21: and so you know, she's beloved by pretty much everyone,
Speaker 21: and there she's telegraphing this is a loving family. Everyone's
Speaker 21: had a drug problem in their family. This is a
Speaker 21: disease that's affected everyone. And really it's just poor, helpless hunter.
Speaker 21: But the reality is they have him dead to rights
Speaker 21: on the actual charges. There's no question that he filled
Speaker 21: out the form falsely and that he had a gun
Speaker 21: that he was not authorized to have.
Speaker 19: He's going to argue possession.
Speaker 21: Did he really have it or was it really just
Speaker 21: under the control of his dead brother's widow who he
Speaker 21: was having an affair with. Okay, none of that's going
Speaker 21: to work unless we just have jury nullification, you know.
Speaker 21: And the jury nullification is when the jury knows they're
Speaker 21: supposed to find one way and they just won't.
Speaker 19: They just say, I'm not finding him guilty.
Speaker 21: I don't care, I don't care what this verdict form
Speaker 21: has tells me I have to do, because really, his
Speaker 21: defense so far seems to be on the possession charge.
Speaker 21: I really didn't never hold it that much. Philly's kind
Speaker 21: of halle Biden not me. How did it get magically
Speaker 21: from the gun store to your house? Why are you
Speaker 21: pictured with it in your waistband in all your weird
Speaker 21: drug photos. But okay, let's give him that one. How
Speaker 21: is he going to get out of the fact that
Speaker 21: he lied on the application form by saying he wasn't
Speaker 21: an active user and he wasn't an addict? Now, he
Speaker 21: might say he's been arguing an open air opening statement
Speaker 21: that he wasn't using like at that moment, so he
Speaker 21: wasn't sniffing cocaine as he was filling out Hunter Biden
Speaker 21: on the forum, and that he thought, I guess he was,
Speaker 21: you know, somehow sober because he'd recently.
Speaker 19: Been to rehab. But his book contradicts all of those claims.
Speaker 21: His book makes very clear he was an active addiction before, during,
Speaker 21: and after the application. So his best hope again is
Speaker 21: during nullification. And if I were Hunter, I'd have Jill
Speaker 21: Biden sitting in the front row too.
Speaker 1: Now, one of the things that I've mentioned a couple
Speaker 1: of times when people just don't think is true, can
Speaker 1: you please confirm to us that Hunter Biden, after his
Speaker 1: brother died, ended up hooking up with his dead brother's wife.
Speaker 19: It's a lot, it's a lot to take in. So
Speaker 19: it's just what you thought.
Speaker 21: Hunter Biden couldn't couldn't get any creepier when Bo Biden,
Speaker 21: I think was easily the best Biden. It's very sad
Speaker 21: that he died at a young age. I actually think
Speaker 21: he would have had a great future in democratic politics,
Speaker 21: and as far as I can tell, he wasn't a
Speaker 21: dirtbag like the brother. He was the Attorney General of
Speaker 21: the state of Delaware, and he had a great future
Speaker 21: ahead of him. And I think the old man Joe
Speaker 21: had put most of the family's lockstock and trade into
Speaker 21: the first son, Bo, but tragically he died. He did
Speaker 21: serve in Iraq, and Joe Biden says he is exposed
Speaker 21: to the chemical burn pits there, which caused a brain tumor.
Speaker 21: He did not die in Iraq, but he died supposedly.
Speaker 21: I haven't seen the reports on this myself, but from
Speaker 21: that experience, but in her grief, Hallie Biden, Bo's widow,
Speaker 21: I think was taken advantage of by Hunter Biden, who,
Speaker 21: without question, I'm sure was grieving the loss of his brother,
Speaker 21: but who expresses that grief by going over and stopping
Speaker 21: the grieving widow of your dead brother. I mean, especially
Speaker 21: because you know, I don't know, like I kind of
Speaker 21: give her a pass because she's so grief stricken. This
Speaker 21: is probably the closest thing she has to bo Biden.
Speaker 21: And I'm sure she was. I mean, no person in
Speaker 21: their right mind was sleep with Hunter Biden, so it's
Speaker 21: obvious she wasn't a right mind. And yet you know,
Speaker 21: he was in the midst of his constant, ongoing drug thing,
Speaker 21: and nobody in the family had the good sense to
Speaker 21: stop him, including Joe Biden. So yeah, that's what happened.
Speaker 21: Not surprisingly, it didn't work out.
Speaker 1: Of course, everything last week was about Trump being found
Speaker 1: guilty on old counts. Do you think he's actually going
Speaker 1: to get sent to gile Although found some other wise
Speaker 1: of punishing the former president just a couple of days
Speaker 1: before the Republican Convention.
Speaker 21: You know, I've been surprised at the amount of buzz
Speaker 21: over here amongst legal scholars.
Speaker 19: I really respect that.
Speaker 21: He's likely to I mean, we all know he may,
Speaker 21: and I think I thought almost all of us predicted
Speaker 21: he will not. But more and more I'm seeing amongst
Speaker 21: very credible legal and political observers a prediction that he
Speaker 21: will be sentenced to jail. Now, even those people are
Speaker 21: saying the odds are it will be a suspended sentence
Speaker 21: where the first time you get in trouble with the law,
Speaker 21: maybe they say a year in jail or two months
Speaker 21: in jail or two years in jail, but you don't
Speaker 21: actually have to serve it unless you get in trouble
Speaker 21: again during that time and then it kicks right in.
Speaker 19: You've got to go serve the whole bit.
Speaker 21: But even just the sentence like that he would have
Speaker 21: to go to jail suspended or not, would be an earthquake.
Speaker 19: I mean, it would be.
Speaker 21: An absolute earthquake. And I still remain convinced that this
Speaker 21: judge won't do it. The theory boils down to yes.
Speaker 21: While virtually no falsification of business records cases get jail
Speaker 21: time unless somebody's falsifying records to cover up like a
Speaker 21: violent felony, you know, it has to be something bad,
Speaker 21: really bad, not federal election law violations or whatever the heck.
Speaker 21: The jury came to the conclusion this was on the
Speaker 21: underlying frame. But the argument is that what he's really
Speaker 21: been found guilty of is conspiracy to steal an election,
Speaker 21: and that I mean the Democrats think that warrants at
Speaker 21: least the political death penalty and certainly some time in jail.
Speaker 21: We've got James Comey, the former FBI director, going on
Speaker 21: TV saying he can be put in jail. We'll get
Speaker 21: him a double wide with the double white trailer and
Speaker 21: he can sit in the prison yard. So what they're
Speaker 21: saying is that Trump has to go serve prison time
Speaker 21: in solitary confinement, which is arguably the worst punishment you
Speaker 21: can give any prisoner for who knows how long. Because
Speaker 21: he wrote down legal expenses instead of hush money payment,
Speaker 21: it makes sense, right, perfect, But.
Speaker 1: Dount Democrats dream of him in the orange jumpsuit, the
Speaker 1: image of him somehow being alone and crying himself to
Speaker 1: sleep in a gile cell.
Speaker 19: Well, he is a rabid partisan.
Speaker 21: And I say that not only because he donated thirty
Speaker 21: five dollars to Biden and has stopped the far right
Speaker 21: con Spiracy subgroup. It was a crazy title that he
Speaker 21: earmarked his money for. That showed he really loathes the right.
Speaker 21: But I say it because he ruled I mean overwhelmingly
Speaker 21: for the prosecution in that trial.
Speaker 19: It was so bias.
Speaker 21: Somebody called him a prosecutor in a judge's robe, you know,
Speaker 21: like the secret prosecutor on the bench. I think that's
Speaker 21: exactly right. So I make, you know, no excuses for him.
Speaker 21: He's capable of it. But I also think he's astute
Speaker 21: and he might be feeling how that would play on
Speaker 21: the other side as well. You know that in the
Speaker 21: same way the Trump mugshot is now invaluable.
Speaker 19: It's everywhere. His supporters love it.
Speaker 21: They're running around with T shirts and actual coffee mugs
Speaker 21: and so on. I think the judge realizes what a
Speaker 21: risk that would be. And if I had to put
Speaker 21: money on it, because I still silly me have some
Speaker 21: belief in the judicial system, I would say he's going
Speaker 21: to do what he would do in any other case.
Speaker 21: And that's why I am one of the people who
Speaker 21: believes there will not your jail sentence