Projects
![]()
No projects found
Investors
New
DAO Treasuries
DATs
Lend / Borrow APRs
Chains
Categories
Spaces
π¨LIVE COVERAGE: TRUMP CNN TOWN HALL
Recorded: May 10, 2023 Duration: 4:41:09Space Recording
Short Summary
The town hall with Donald Trump covered a range of topics, including his stance on the 2020 election results, immigration policies, and foreign policy, particularly regarding Ukraine and Russia. Trump emphasized his achievements during his presidency, such as energy independence and economic growth, while criticizing the current administration's handling of various issues. The discussion also highlighted the media's role in shaping public perception and the challenges faced by political figures in addressing complex issues like national security and international relations.
Full Transcription
Hey, Trash, how are you?
Hey, good, Mario.
How can I be taken seriously, guys?
I don't, it's just going to work this way.
I can't have a co-host that's a raccoon and a main speaker that's a dog.
There's three people on stage.
One is a raccoon, wants a dog.
You be quiet, Mario.
My dog is amazing.
My dog is 210 pounds.
I'm talking to an amazing dog.
Does that sound professional to you, Benjamin?
Yes, I can put my profile picture up.
I'll just put a picture of George Santos up.
Okay, let's keep a dog.
I've been able to successfully brand this America's raccoon stick.
It actually works now. People dig it.
I mean, not everybody, I'm sure, but whatever.
Yeah, of course, man. When I talk to investors or high-profile guests,
when I talk to Peter Schiff, the recruiter and the dog helped me get such speakers.
They got to listen to the spaces, Mario. It's quality, quality, sir.
All right, let me get the invites up.
Should I start putting this music?
Let me, I can't remember how to put the music.
Let me know if I should put that intro music.
Let me try it now.
You can only do it before you first unlock your microphone.
So as soon as you unlock your microphone,
let's try, hold on.
No, watch this magic.
Okay, you didn't hear anything, did you?
Okay, great, all right, well, there's the magic for you.
All right, let's give it another couple of minutes.
Slyman will sing for us as I invite more speakers
as I get the panel ready.
I don't do the small talk business, bro.
That's why I got trash up here.
I didn't tell you to do the small talk business.
I told you to sing.
I don't sing as well.
Don't do none of that nerdy stuff.
All right, man.
I think that I'm trash is a standoff.
You've seen your dance moves, bro.
Maybe you should be busting out some grooves.
I like trash's handle, the wood chipper.
Kudos.
Mino Mario, I got a hand it to you.
You can dance.
I'm actually surprised.
I saw that clip of you.
I'm thinking, what the heck is somebody in Dubai dancing like that?
I mean, but you know what?
You got groove.
You got moves.
I take my head off to you.
I don't expect you to be so racist.
How dare you, Benjamin?
Benjamin.
Well, this wouldn't be the first time I got labelled the racist from somebody in this case.
Guess what movie got me to start?
So I started dancing in Australia when I used to live there.
Dirty dancing.
Anyone that guesses the movie, you could be the host of the next show.
Or we could do whatever.
Like, I'll do.
There's no way anyone's going to guess the movie that got me into dancing.
It was magic mic.
A scent of a woman.
Sentable woman.
All right.
Trash, you're a stalker.
You're a stalker.
And now I know it.
Okay.
You saw me comment it somewhere.
No, that tango scene.
It's legit.
Son of a bitch.
You actually didn't see me comment it and you guessed it?
I really did.
Yeah.
It actually got me into that.
It actually got me in that music.
I actually thought about doing it as well because of that movie.
So that was my guess.
Holy fucking shit.
Yes, it is that movie.
Anyone hasn't seen something of woman you're missing out.
It's an incredible movie.
It's a blind general, former general that got me into dancing or in a movie.
Okay.
Um, now, Al Pacino, whoa. It's incredible. And, and, and, and, and, and the, well, I'm glad first not Slyman guessed it, because I don't he'll wish for something fucking crazy. But yeah, I owe you, I owe you one wish trash. You could use it as, use it wisely. Um, I'll hit you up next time and then Dubai. I haven't been since 2019, so.
Um, cool, man.
Yeah, I'll probably still be here.
Um, all right.
Let's kick it off.
It's, it's been a, uh, a crazy fucking week.
Um, and it's been, um, um, no, crazy, not crazy.
Especially last 48 hours, I've been insane.
I've been, insane.
Now, I want to kick it off with the shooting that we saw on the bridge.
I asked censored man, he told me Mario, it's nothing too major.
Can anyone give us an overview on, on that shooting we saw on the, uh,
on the border between the US and Mexico,
the video that is...
Yeah, a few of us have three years.
Yeah, so...
We were doing an immigration space earlier, and I had AllSource come in, because he obviously, you know, he had the video he posted it.
He said it was basically like, it's kind of like the Mexican Army and like cartels, but it's actually what the video was there was two different like factions of organized crime.
And they were kind of going after each other.
And he said, what he said was funny about it was that they were heading the direction towards the river.
So if they were trying to get away from somebody, they weren't going to get too much further at that point.
So he's not really sure how it ended.
He was going to give me some updates, but I haven't had any.
But.
It was basically just two rival gangs fighting.
Okay, and is that relatively common?
I'm not sure if anyone has more experience on this.
He said it's happened three times at that bridge.
Three times in general, in total, or three times in recent?
Yeah, total.
Okay, so it's not that common.
Yeah.
Okay, all right, cool.
Oh, that's got an update on that.
The other thing I would like to do is say, man, Ian, good to have you.
I'm glad you didn't come to the last space because I think you would have just gone crazy at everyone.
It was pretty heated.
But we talked about the Biden, oh, did you see the Biden?
Did you see the Biden?
um press conference the one related to the to the to the by the
no i wasn't really paying attention to that i wasn't really paying attention
all right so so simen maybe you can give us a quick overview on what because i know you did a
thread on it um what were the key takeaways from a press conference you did say in the space
earlier that it's it's important yet it didn't add much that we didn't know it just started adding
more evidence is that correct
Oh, no, no.
I said added more stuff, more content, more information.
But in terms of the, like...
Not more allegations, but more context and more evidence based on the existing allegations.
Even more allegation for the same stuff.
So, like, for example, Biden, we know Biden was in cahoots with China and Ukraine,
but also we got that he was basically in Romania and 17 out of the 18 payments that were made were made while he was a vice peer.
It was a 16 out of 17.
So, sorry, what the Biden family made.
I mean, as much as people want to black this and make it look like, it's not about Biden.
Like, if every single member of his whole dynasty is getting money, like, come on, what's going on, bro?
Like, I get it, you're going to black it, but.
And what was your out of it?
It's like not even the children.
It's like even the grandchildren.
And what was your, what was your conclusion after listening to the, to the space and the debate?
My conclusion is the guy's bent, he's been getting money,
and it's just about whether they can find it or not.
I'll find it to him.
The interesting thing, guys, is that they're setting up the entire family down to the grandchildren to take money.
It's like Walter White with the A1A car wash in Breaking Bad.
They're finding a way to wander this money every way, even through grandchildren.
And it's just, it's all starting to come out.
I mean, the question is going to be, really, for me,
are they going to be able to link it to Biden?
Because that's going to be the...
Joe Biden, was there anything to indicate that it is linked to Joe Biden?
Because from what I've seen, that was one of the main arguments made.
That wasn't anything linked to Joe Biden.
Not a thing.
Well, actually, it doesn't matter if they can link it to Biden
because the damage to the U.S. has already been made, according to me.
Because what has happened in the U.S., the last six months of...
You know, Trump, then now we have the Biden.
What the world sees is that the U.S. has corrupt leaders.
So regardless, if they can connect it to Biden, it clearly shows why he had all of these
shell companies
is very clear why
yeah it shows that hunter did
it doesn't show that Joe did
so I think that's important
I mean if they're going to
yeah
sorry but I'll let you finish
but like the thing I want to say if you sorry is that
Both are bad, but if there's a direct...
The smartest person I know, according to Joe Biden.
Thank you, thank you. I appreciate it.
But what I want to say for you, sorry, is if they link it directly to Joe,
and listen to me, because Ian just called me the smartest person he knows,
if they're linking directly with Joe Biden,
and Joe Biden was directly involved,
that's significantly more serious corruption than Hunter Biden leveraging the Biden name.
Both are bad, but one is, in my opinion,
significantly more serious.
Yeah, one would be questionably legal.
You know, like if he's just leveraging his name and selling his services as a consultant or a lawyer based on his name,
you can't really say that's illegal unless there's something being given back by government.
And I haven't seen anything like that yet.
That doesn't mean it doesn't exist.
But I think it's important that we...
Yeah, but Brian, what I mean is not...
if it can be shown if it was legal, not legal, it's not that important,
because many things that, let's say, Putin does,
you cannot show it that he's doing something illegal with many stuff he does,
but the world knows that he is a crook.
And what I'm meaning is, hold on, what I'm meaning is that the picture
that the US leaders have shown,
the last years is that
US leaders are not
that much better than
let's say Putin.
I'd argue with that.
Yeah, but
you understand what I mean.
You're saying that we're saying that we're
from how
how US have been
portrayed, the leaders, you know,
It's starting to get more or less the same level as, let's say, leaders of the Balkans.
I mean, everybody knows that they're...
I mean, would, like, real question, like, legitimate.
This isn't like a trap or anything.
Like, would we ever have a scenario where Putin, I don't know, family members
that receive money to essentially impact policy in Russia?
Yeah.
No, I think that if you can show that it was impacting policy in the United States, that's one thing.
That would be a major crime.
No, no, but in Russia, in Russia, like, would we have that?
We would never have that, would we?
Would we have evidence that, yeah, I'm not confused.
Can you ask you question again, please?
Yeah, yeah.
So, actually, let me...
Are you, so you're suggesting that in Russia,
there would never be a scenario
where a member of the Putin family
would receive money for policy?
No way, it's requested.
No way he's mentioned.
No, no, I'm asking the question that,
would you have that scenario where Putin...
directs his policy solely based on his family members,
receive money.
Of course he'd be receiving money for various things,
but would he re-change his policy
just to receive financial wealth from a foreign country?
I mean, I would argue that he does that all the time.
I mean...
Based on what, would you argue that?
Based on what?
Based on what?
That he's known to be a...
Do you know anything about Russian politics and how they pass?
This is what I mean, mine.
Listen, I think if you ask U.S. intelligence
whether he is pocketing money based off his policies
and if his family's getting wealthy off his policy,
I think the answer would be a resounding yes.
I don't have...
Based on what?
This is what?
You're biased?
Based on U.S.
Intelligence.
how laws are passed in Russia.
This is what I'm sorry.
So let me,
okay,
I don't know what you meant,
but let me read out.
So the Panama papers in 2016,
the release of the,
In 2016, I'm reading it as I see it, so I haven't read this.
Could contradict whoever's point.
In 2016, the release of the Panama Papers revealed the network of, before I read this, just so you know, the audience,
we do have the Trump town hall starting in an hour and 15 minutes.
We'll be discussing Trump, very shortly a few minutes.
We'll be discussing what we're expecting that town hall.
And then we'll be streaming it and discussing it live on stage.
So, man, you'll tell us why this is such a big event and why you're pretty excited for it.
But let me read out what I just found now and Ian will probably butt in for this one.
In 2016, the release of the Panama Papers revealed the network of offshore accounts and shell companies linked to Putin's inner circle, including his childhood friend, Sergei Rolduggen.
The document suggested that Roldugin Roldugin may have acted as a frontman for Putin's personal financial interests.
Russian oil and gas industry, Putin has been accused of using his power to benefit
its personal financial interests in Russia's oil and gas industry.
in particular he has been linked to the state-owned oil state-owned oil company rossfnette
and its CEO igor satchen who is widely seen as a close ally of Putin
satchen has been accused of using rossnet to enrich himself and puttins in a circle
last one is put a personal wealth puttins personal wealth was difficult to estimate
but some estimates place it into the billions of dollars while it's not clear how much of this
wealth is directly linked to his position as president some are speculated that it's
So there's nothing, there's no direct evidence.
Yeah, and what I wanted to add,
so that's just some things out right now.
What I would add to it,
I don't expect there to be anything other than speculation
because I don't expect there to be much getting leaked
from the Kremlin.
But even speculation, Mario, none of it is like,
I'm not denying that any of these guys will be getting cuts for certain things and making sure their wealth.
Like that'll definitely be happening.
I'm not even saying that's not happening.
Like, they're definitely all being wealthy.
Yeah.
But your point, making policy based on personal gain, I think, I think it's different levels of China.
They're paying you.
You're the vice president.
Like, come on.
What?
Yeah.
It's China.
It's China.
So, for example, one of the countries that the payment was received from was China.
China is the United States number one rival.
That money went to, let's not say Biden directly, but went to his children, his grandchildren.
So from who?
Yeah.
But you have every single, well, not every single, 99% of every Fortune 500 company is making money from China.
It's not abnormal.
I'm making money from China, bro.
One of my.
I want to my comments.
Me too.
I input products from China.
I mean,
the difference is my,
you don't know much.
You don't know much.
Let me teach you business 101.
There's no business.
You cannot run any commerce business without China.
So China manufactures products.
So they have things called factories.
Mario,
Mario,
what was...
I'm just messing with you.
Let me ask you,
let me ask you a question.
No joke.
I'm just joking.
Let me ask you a question.
I want to understand.
I was just joking.
What was Hunter doing then?
What was this e-commerce?
I don't know,
because I'm just joking.
So I'm telling you,
you're countering a joke.
My serious question to you is,
who paid him the money?
Because I haven't looked into it
as much as you have.
So I'm genuinely curious.
And this is concerning.
Like, if there's money coming in from the CCP
to Biden's son,
definitely a point of concern.
Obviously...
Brian, you'll jump and say there's nothing illegal.
It's a bank of China.
It's a bank of China.
And why did they, what do we know about the money?
Why did the Bank of China give money to Biden's son?
Do we know?
Supposedly to give it the Hunter to provide them with, you know, legal services
because they were supposed to be like a go-between with American investment companies.
It doesn't make a lot of sense because he is not an expert on energy policy.
He's not an expert on law.
that's why it's extremely fishy that he would get this deal at all his company at seneca hold on hold on Ian that not an expert in law the guy's a graduate of Yale law school I think that would qualify yeah but he was fucking high the whole time
I mean, you get that.
Yeah, but he's...
Present, right?
Ian, I just want to...
Being high doesn't mean he's not an expert.
It just means he's...
Okay, okay, sure.
Yeah, you want to minceworths, it's fine.
But, you know, he's rubbish stamping his stuff, right?
He's not in charge.
He's not...
He doesn't know what's going on.
He's fucking high.
Fucking hookers the whole time.
And you're telling me that, you know, they hired this guy
for what reason exactly?
Because they wanted his expertise.
Benjamin.
Yeah, but Ian, I just...
Yeah, I just want to, I mean, listen, I agree with you, Ian, but I mean, I think any lawyer will tell you there are a lot of lawyers that get high and a lot of lawyers that have sex with hookers, right?
Sure, but none of them, their names are not, Hunter, goddamn Biden.
No, no, no, this is, nothing.
He didn't refer to Biden.
He said, you made the particular argument, why would they hire him if he's hiring his fucking hookers, which I don't know how fucking, I don't know.
I don't, hold on.
I would get it.
I would understand, I would, I would, I would, you know, but like, we're talking.
Hey, yeah, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, I would.
I would have gone, hold on, where's Fiji?
We have a perfect example.
Let me chime in for a second.
Are we like pretending that Hunter Biden is not an important person that he...
No, so I agree with you.
I mean, I'm...
Listen, clearly, I mean, if you have a lineup of people with great credentials, right, Ian, you just happen to pick Hunter Biden.
That's not by coincidence.
Now, keep in mind, I'm not saying Biden, you know, I even took any of the corruption.
I think that the Chinese, right, they gave money to Hunter, thinking that they would get access to the government.
I don't know if they necessarily got it.
There's no evidence that they did, right?
So, yeah.
So just so I said, I think you're both right, Benjamin, I'll let you answer, but you're just both making sense.
Like Benjamin, you're saying that him fucking hookers, and let me finish Ian, him fucking hookers and him taking drugs, is not enough reason that to hire him doesn't make it completely incompetent.
And then Ian, you're arguing that yes, but the fact that he has Biden in his last name,
I'm sure played a key role in him getting hired.
And then Brian will probably...
If I can respond,
let me finish off.
And then Ben, you'll respond.
Ian, you can add on to it.
Brian, you'll probably jump in here because you did earlier and say yes.
But just because he has Biden.
His name does not make it illegal.
If someone has Trump or Biden or whatever in their name...
ethical or not, it's not illegal for them to be hired just based on that class.
And I agree with you that this happens all the time.
And I've seen it happen around me in business the whole time.
People have a nice cool last name, they get hired.
Or they can charge that premium because they have that last name with those relations,
even the relationships.
But then the God linked to Slamans point saying yes,
but this is actually a big concern that to have the CCP and the, is it the central bank of China
or some Chinese bank,
pay money, and I'm guessing it's large amounts of money, to the son of the president, shows serious conflicts of interest.
And then link it to the final point, because I'm going to link it to what was said early on the space,
and I want to slowly move to Trump in the next five minutes.
Link it to the final point that, yes, but this doesn't mean things like also, so I remember talking about Biden's comments on Taiwan, et cetera.
Such amounts of money and these things will not...
I don't think there might impact policy in small bits and pieces.
There might be a small loophole and a regulation that none of us will be able to spot.
They benefit some bank that someone will eventually spot.
That one makes more logical sense.
But general policy, if China invades Taiwan, I'm sure the Bidens will not say,
yeah, take Taiwan just because thanks for paying us at $10 million.
I think this is...
It's a step too far.
In fact, he said the opposite.
He said, yeah, but Andrew, on that point as well, I'm contradicting all points pretty much.
But on that point, I'll kind of add on to it last thing.
Also, it's like, yeah, but Biden said we will protect Taiwan.
Again, that does not show policy.
That's just rhetoric.
If there is any impact on policy, which I wouldn't be surprised, I think it would be something in the fine print in one of the bills passed that might benefit some financial institution.
That for me seems like the most plausible, the most possible explanation, which is not right, but that's like to me that makes the most logic.
Ben, you were going to add to it?
Yeah, just very quick.
So I agree with Ian, right?
I mean, clear, there are many people with, you know, phenomenal law degrees,
phenomenal experience, commerce, finance.
I mean, it's not just coincidence that they have to pick Hunter Biden.
My question is this.
So is there any actual tangible documentation that was provided today?
Because I watched bits and pieces of the presser that we have, right,
aside from just theories and statements, right?
Is there anything that's been released that's concrete, number one, and number two is,
when was this information uncovered like was this information in possession of
of the Trump White House for example like when did all this allegedly take place
So first of all, there is direct proof.
There is direct permission.
There's nothing directly linked to Biden,
just every single person of his dynasty, as I said.
And in terms of the way it's been framed,
it's not basically an issue with nepotism.
This is a scenario where they received,
for example, Rob Walker for the Biden received $3 million
through State Energy HK Limited.
And that,
State Energy H.K. Limited is linked to the CCP.
We know there were...
So is this...
We know there was significant change...
Oh, not significant.
We know there were some changes in the policy.
I mean, some of the things I mentioned earlier in the space were reduction in tariffs and so on and so forth.
So there was policy changes.
What the depth and breadth of that is that someone needs to look into that, investigate.
So, yeah, all of this is highly problematic.
Okay.
Now, the last question is, so is this the same situation in which
Jamie Comer was talking about with Pamela Brown about a week and a half ago on CNN when she directly asked him,
do you have any evidence that suggested the president
either the president or the vice, you know, when he was the time as vice president,
committed any crimes.
And his answer was, well, we found a lot of things that should be illegal.
Is this the same investigation or is this another one?
So look, they're doing the investigation right now.
Just think about it.
In March, about four weeks ago, I think, or it was in March,
they released the previous House Oversight Committee document, which showed
his connection to China, Ukraine.
Now they've got Romania.
They've asked for Sabina from the FBI.
So obviously, FBI are not willingly given this information.
So they're having to try and get them.
get the different people. So essentially
they're still investigating but what they know
is obviously that's going to be the whole question
was Biden good enough not to get
this link back to him? Because it's clear
I mean anyone with a bit of logic
I know people get on pilot anyone with a bit of logic knows
he's basically paying everyone plus his
grandchildren and nearly every single person's dynasty
it's obviously for him
Yeah. So what I'm going to do is this.
I'm going to wait until this unfolds
until actual tangible evidence is released,
you know, that that's verifiable.
Only because I remember for four.
No, hold on.
No, let's let's let's let's let's let's let's spin a narrative.
That's good.
I just, I don't know if you know you, no one heard anything you said
because you're speaking at the same time as Ben and Fidge.
You're not sure if you realize, but someone's.
I realize. I realize.
I realize. I just probably need my point across.
Oh, cool.
I just want to say this.
So just because, you know, for four years, I heard the Democrats talk about
while the walls are closing and we're going to get him, right?
This is it.
He's two weeks away from indictment.
He's two weeks away from being charged.
I heard that for four years.
So I'm going to just bite my tongue and wait until see if anything actual tangible shows
up that shows criminal liability on a part of Joe Biden.
Look, distasteful, of course.
I think everyone in this room can agree with that, right?
But.
I'm just so sick of hearing on both sides.
Let me ask you a question.
Ben,
Ben,
Ben,
we have, so for liberals,
Trump is being,
is facing legal issues for a lot of things that he did.
For conservatives,
the Bidens are under the microscope
and they're facing legal issues
for things they've done.
Could we say that the imperfect,
keyword imperfect,
so I don't want Slam had to jump in
and start telling me how imperfect it is
because I know it is.
But the imperfect legal,
Putin is not facing any legal issues,
nor is Xi Jinping,
But we're seeing that in the US political spectrum,
different policymakers are facing legal hurdles.
So while it's imperfect, it's working.
At least it's working.
Is that a fair statement?
I think it's a fair statement.
The only thing I would say is this, and this does not leave a pleasant taste in my mouth, right?
Again, I have been waiting and waiting and waiting.
uh basically for the evidence to come out that suggests that okay Donald Trump is this
mastermind criminal he did this and he did that and thus far even though I'm not a Trump
supporter right what we have is the Manhattan DA which charges you know I they're a little bit
it's far-fetched for me that's just me and we have a 30 year old uh sexual assault
liability case right so I'm just I will wait and see but again if this is it you know if if
If the next round of indictments, which I do believe will happen, you know, out of Georgia, potentially Mar-a-Lago, if this, if it's going to be of the same caliber as what we saw in the Manhattan DAs, I mean, I'm going to start to say, well, maybe he is the most persecuted men in history.
Maybe it is a witch hunt. And that's a very hard thing for me to say. I'm going to state that out, you know, right out the bat.
You know, it's, yeah, I'll leave it at that.
I don't agree with Ben.
I don't agree with Ben.
I'll let you respond.
Do you mind after you respond to Ben,
if you can also add to it regarding the town hall,
I'd love to get your thoughts and trashes thoughts
on what we can expect in today's town hall.
And let's do the basics of what is a town hall,
what is a CNN town hall?
Talk a few examples in the past,
historically what we've seen.
Yeah, sure.
Sorry, I'll give it too trash to give it some right.
But yeah, I don't agree with Ben's point because it's basically minimizing what happened.
I get that you're...
But I don't know what happened.
I don't know what happened.
And either do you.
Nobody knows what happened, right?
We won't know what happened.
What are you on about, Ben?
Let me just explain my point without you interrupting.
I know it's hard, right?
So essentially, what I'm trying to say is,
We obviously, the scenario is we have got evidence as much as Ben is trying to make it look like this not.
We've got the bank statements.
We've got the evidence of this money going from someone linked to the CCP to the entire generation of the Biden family.
What we don't have is the direct link to Mr. 10%.
That's what we need to.
That's what we haven't got.
So let's be clear about that.
Right.
I just, you know, before we start counting things that are released by Jamie Comer as concrete evidence and factual, right?
They have to be verified.
Right.
There are many...
Hold on, Suluam.
There are many, many cases in which bank statements can be fabricated.
They can be looked at through a different lens.
So...
Everybody, he's going to actually release the bank statements as well.
So, again, I'm going to wait...
I'm going to wait.
What I'm...
No, no, I didn't say...
I said, listen, I'm...
No, Suleiman.
Suleim.
Can you let it finish men?
So there's a discussion.
Right.
So what I'm saying is...
So what I'm saying is this, right, until there is tangible evidence that you can say, yes, absolutely is more likely than not that Joe Biden committed a crime.
All we have right now are theories and, you know, linking evidence, sure, we have a lot of circumstantial evidence.
I agree with you on that. However, you said we have evidence of, and I like to know what do we have evidence of in relation to Joe Biden.
Can you see how Ben keeps changing the position?
Let me be clear.
Well, no, I don't keep changing.
Let me repeat myself for the fifth time.
I've said we have bank statements.
We have evidence that money from State Energy H.K.
At least just this is one example of $3 million went from there to Biden's entire family,
even his grandchildren.
I'm sure they're really good legal experts as well.
But they are.
They are.
Yeah, yeah.
I'm sure.
They got,
they went to Yale,
you know?
Five-year-old.
Yeah, yeah.
The youngest person in Yale.
So they're all brilliant legal experts as soon as they're born,
soon as they're.
But essentially,
all of that we have,
that is substantial evidence.
And then I said,
we don't have any evidence of what?
I said,
we don't have anything that directly.
And then you keep saying everything's second.
second
I'm making it look like
maybe I didn't
maybe I didn't post my question
properly
no you pose your question really well
but Slaman has a
this is common with me
what so what crime
let me ask you
let me ask you
let me ask you a tonne with them money
to the grandchildren
What when when when Ben can you ask a question?
Can you ask a question without you doing without you can I ask you the question without you can I ask you the question that you doing personal attacks towards Ben?
Because you know he's been a panelist on a regular basis here bringing a lot of value.
I'm literally I don't know why everyone saw like very.
Okay.
Can I ask you someone?
Let me ask you the question.
Ian, let me ask you, let me ask you a question and he can jump in afterwards.
So I think what Ben,
Ben, correct me if I'm wrong,
but what you're saying is that there's a lot of evidence that points
towards potential shady shit going on
and conflicts of interest,
preferential treatment because of their last name
and things that I think we all agree is not right and shouldn't happen.
But Ben, your question is,
what is, in terms of the evidence that you've mentioned to Laman,
which aspect of it is...
Like, do we have anything to implicate the, not Joe Biden, but the Biden family in an actual crime, at least yet?
Or do we just have things pointing to a potential crime?
Saman, does that question make sense?
I think you'll agree, Simon, with Benjamin.
I think you guys agree.
But I'll let you answer the question.
I think Ian wants to jump in as well.
Yeah, I mean, I've been very clear.
Yeah, obviously, they've not been charged.
Obviously, we can't say they've been charged.
But like we said, this is what happens when people who are on panels do that.
But that's why I always say when you get a regular person who just looks at this from a logical perspective and is like, you know what?
Obviously, all this is money going to all his family, including his grandchildren, like what is going on, $3 million going from state energy through.
But what's the crime?
What's the crime?
It's just fucking God.
It's not a crime.
It's evident.
Not crime.
Fraud.
Okay, Ian, I think your answer, Ian, your answer is pretty accurate.
I think there's no crime, it's a smoking gun, and there's likelihood that we will see a crime as the investigation.
Exactly, yeah.
I think, okay, perfect. Benjamin, so Benjamin put 100% emoji, so did John, and say, man, do you agree with that statement as well?
There's a smoking gun, there's smoke.
and there's a likelihood we'll see fire.
Fidgen will disagree, so we'll see why, but is that face-time?
I think it's more than smoke, like basically,
obviously they're not being charged, so that's the point, yeah, I agree.
They haven't been charged, so it's that, from that perspective, I agree, but if...
No, but yeah, yeah, sure, but also we haven't seen...
There is more.
There's more.
Like, it's not just the bank records.
It's a suspicious activity reports, the SARs and the Treasury.
There's now what was like 20 to 25 we heard now today, during the press conference,
I said well over 100 suspicious activity reports in the Treasury,
which means these are transactions between parties through the banking system that's flagged as suspicious.
So, I mean, there is evidence there.
Now, that's going to require investigation to that point,
but it's more than just bank records that are fabricated.
This is through the U.S. Treasury.
Banks, because of U.S. law, banks flag any number of things as suspicious because they have to, because if they don't flag something as suspicious...
and regulators go back and see something that should have been flagged the bank can get fined so
I was going to I was going to add that one like I've seen that Andrews it happens a lot like
I'm in the AI space I'm in the web three space yeah I mean it's pretty common you're in business
and you get a big transaction it's going to be flag the suspicious you explain it now it's up to
taxes I mean it's
They have to explain it.
They got to explain it.
Also, the thing is you don't, as a bank customer, you don't necessarily know that the bank is the bank is flagging your your transactions.
Because they don't, no, they don't always tell you now.
They don't always tell you.
Regally they're supposed to tell you.
They're supposed to ask you what the hell's going on.
Not necessarily. A lot of it is just a lot of the stuff is just C-YA.
But based on what are you saying this, I don't believe that's true.
I think that the American banking system is one of the most incorruptible in the world, right?
There's a reason for that.
It's like almost as good as the Swiss.
You can't like get away of money laundering.
This is the reason all these systems are in place.
You don't want money launders to get away with stuff.
George Santos allegedly did.
He's being charged with money laundering.
Yeah, exactly.
He's been charged, right?
And that's a big deal.
So, you know, like right now we've got to wait and see, you know, like the banks obviously
are going to be investigated.
They're going to see what the transactions are.
They're going to look deeper into it.
I mean, that's what we're going to look out for, right?
I mean, maybe it's nothing, right?
Maybe it's completely innocent.
Who knows, right?
I'm not saying the...
I'll let you comment and then and then Andrew right after you comment if you don't mind maybe you and Ian could give us just an overview of what we can expect in 45 minutes or 55 minutes.
I have no idea.
I'm going to go ahead.
All right.
All right.
So one thing I just wanted to jump in on was I forget who was talking about seeing somehow suspicious that money was going to different relatives of President Biden.
And from what I understand from the documents that Comer released today, a lot of these transactions date to 2015 and
He was specifically talking about transactions to Hallie Biden and two of her children.
And around that same time is when Bo Biden, Hunter's brother, the president's eldest son, died.
And Hunter was dating Hallie Biden after that.
It's going on an affair.
Yeah.
No, Hallie Byn wasn't married, so it wasn't an affair.
Her husband was dead.
Yeah, okay.
And anyway, anyway.
Creepy.
Yeah, a little bit.
Very creepy.
Who does that?
Jesus.
I mean, what widow goes out on dates again after their husband dies?
Yeah, I'm saying, so I didn't know what to do.
What's creepy about someone who's got their husband or wife has passed away?
Why is it creepy?
Why would you date your sister-in-law, you know?
Her husband just died.
Oh, okay.
Ask Jacob.
That's Jacob.
Ask Jacob, the son of Isaac.
The creepy part is the sister-in-of-Isaac is right, yeah.
Go ahead, Andrew.
Anyway, so Comer was talking about how, you know, these transactions show some sort of shady intent.
But if you look at the timeline, that doesn't really make sense because when those transactions were taking place was when Hunter was dating Hallie.
And it wouldn't be out of the ordinary for him to be, you know, helping to support her.
and her children who were, you know, his, his nieces and nephews. So I think, you know, Comer has been
talking about those, those things for months. He's not answered questions about why he thinks
it would be unusual for Hunter to be transferring money. He's,
he's gotten to the woman that he's dating or or you know who happened to be his I don't even
how you describe her at that point but his brother's widow who's his brother's widow who's also
his girlfriend so guys guys I have a I have a question Andrew and Ian do we have and then I want to
move to the to the Trump town hall the CNN town hall but I wouldn't be like
Is it just me or is, like, have we seen cases of corruption or the Clinton family benefiting from Clinton's last family name or the Bush family benefiting or obviously we've talked about the Trump family?
It's not right. I just want to be clear. I'm not saying it's right. But I'm saying it's like, for me, it's like,
Yeah, I'm not surprised that happens.
Now, we've never, if we link it to direct policy,
certain aspects of policy,
the policy decisions that were made that would benefit the family.
And I'm talking about major policy decisions.
Say that again?
I said you really don't want to jump to Clinton.
There's a lot to go over what he did in Arkansas.
But you were taking money from the CIA.
They were cartel money.
It's very complicated.
And how about the examples in the Bush family as well, Ian?
No, not to my knowledge.
They're pretty incorruptible.
Yeah, except they're taking a war with weapons of mass destruction to the aid for a nation.
I mean, you can go over that.
But then, just on your, let me ask, yeah, let me add, Dan, is it, what did they have,
did the Bush family have any investments in Iraq or, no, they're probably, have any investments
that benefited from the Iraq.
There's more Cheney than anything else.
He benefited from being, you know, having stocks in Halliburton and then, you know,
making a ton of money in Iraq.
Look, Ian, I'll, I'll say this.
Like, I do business around the world and, like, the,
Like, the US system is fucking solid.
Like, it's tough.
Like, businesses that want to do,
like businesses that want to do corrupt shit.
Businesses that want to be scabmy.
Yeah, they don't.
They leave the US.
Any criminals leave the US.
They know what they die to come to the US.
I 100% agree that.
There's a lot of flaws.
That Hunter, that Joe and Hunter did this.
You know, I'm assuming they did.
And I'm glad, and I'm glad, and I'm glad, I'm glad, that we're taking it so serious.
Like, I think things like this.
I don't like the fact that this is a political thing.
It shouldn't be a political thing, right?
I think that when anyone tries to, you know, get above the law and use it to their own advantage, take money from foreign governments.
I think that is something that should be prosecuted.
Absolutely.
Doesn't matter for the president.
What's your thoughts on Trump?
What's your thoughts on Trump in this context?
Same thing.
Same thing.
You know, like I would investigate all that.
Fantastic.
Fantastic.
Yeah.
I'm all but standard.
All right, beautiful.
So let's move to the CNN Town Hall.
Who could give us an overview?
Maybe Trash, you can kick it off, of what we can expect in the town hall.
How does it work?
What's the structure like?
And what should we be on the lookout for?
Yeah, so it's going to be, I mean, obviously, since CNN's hosting it, right, a lot of the questions are going to be loaded.
Sometimes they take questions from, like, the crowd, you have a moderator who's moderating it, and it's kind of like it's not a debate, but they're more or less standing up and they kind of answer questions and talk about it.
It's a little bit more free flowing than say like an official debate.
It should be interesting.
I would suspect just my guess that Trump's probably going to try to take it over in his usual style, but we shall see.
Yeah, you're pretty much right on the format.
CNN has given, I don't know if they had tickets or however they, but they chose the audience from people who are either Republicans or Republican-leaning independence because...
This is theoretically for the primary and they would be voting in the Republican primary.
The moderator is Caitlin Collins.
I know Caitlin.
She covered the White House for the daily caller for the first bit of the Trump administration and then CNN hired her away from the daily caller.
She's very good, very fair.
She's moderate, which is important.
Yeah, I don't really know her politics, but that's if you want to say she's moderate,
that's, you know, one way to put it.
That's fine.
I think that's a plus.
What I would say is she has big brass balls and does not take shit from anyone.
And so I think she's probably the best person they could have, they could have picked for this.
I would be inclined to agree, yeah.
There's a lot of griping from liberal circles and other networks about how, oh, CNN shouldn't have, they shouldn't platform Donald Trump.
I can see both sides of that, but like it or not, he's probably going to be the Republican nominee for president. And you got to put people in front of the voters. And I think one thing that people aren't really talking about is that
I have a strong suspicion that the Donald Trump you're going to see tonight is not the guy that we last saw on a debate stage a couple years ago.
He's been in Florida.
He's been isolated.
He hasn't been sparring with reporters on an almost daily basis.
And I don't think you're going to see a Donald Trump who is as sharp as he was when he was president.
If you want to, if I'm doing that order.
A question, Trash, as you just comment on this, first, I just found out someone messaged me, someone who always messages me during spaces.
Hunter Biden was married when he dated Bo's wife.
um so i think that's what you're saying yeah okay okay whether or not it's an affair it's weird it's weird
either way but anyway it would be an affair yeah it means it yeah i don't yeah for yeah for me an affair
one thing but this is just odd when it's your brother's wife anyway going back to trash it's
it's biblically accurate you're supposed to according to the bible there's a whole list
there's a whole list of biblical things that sound weird as hell so
I'm just trying to acquiesce the Slaylon and Ian.
I don't know what you're doing.
I don't know what we're...
I don't know what weird...
Sorry, I muted you in vaccine, but I don't know what weird cheat you to Fiji
and you're trying to warrant it with this comment.
Let's go back to Trump.
Ian, I'm going to go to Trump, that's okay.
And trash you go first and Ian and then and John.
Guys, like a very simple question.
Whether you like Biden or you like Trump or you hate either one of them, I just don't understand.
How is Biden going to be able and maybe actually want trashed and then Brian to go on that one or Sarah, sorry, have your hand up perfect.
How will Biden be able to debate Trump?
It's going to be very difficult.
Well, yeah.
And so far the language is being used is that Biden won't be actually β
debating which
which is ridiculous and it should be done regardless
of what you're going to vote for.
So that should be done
Yeah, wait, can I just correct that?
No, no, that was within the Democratic Party.
That was within the Democratic Party, not in general.
Yeah.
Well, that's possible.
So we'll see how that goes.
But one thing I wanted to go back on what Andrews said.
So I paid very close attention to his first,
Trump's first speech at Mar-a-Lago when he came out and he did that speech.
And it was a very different Trump, right?
It wasn't a...
It wasn't a rally Trump.
It wasn't a very, very moderate, moderated Trump.
And he's going to have to answer some questions for voters that even want to vote for him.
He's going to have to answer questions probably about abortion.
He's probably going to have to answer questions about COVID.
He's going to have to answer some questions that I think that Trump voters want to hear.
I think it's going to be, this town hall is going to be a lot more important than people are giving it credit for, I think.
So I did kind of want to talk about it.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Just a small...
It's going to say, there's...
Andrew, just...
Let's go to Sarah, then, Andrew...
Yeah, go ahead, quickly, and then we'll go to Sarah.
And I'm just...
I think we'll set the stage for what we're going to see later on.
Yeah, just slight correction about Biden and Trump not debating.
That's a general election thing, but it's very possible that there may not be any general election debates
because the Republican Party has thus far...
pulled out of the commission on presidential debates that has run those general election debates for for many, many election cycles.
So why did they pull out?
Because like always, they gripe about being unfair, but it's the best system we've had except, you know, the worst we've had system we have except for all the others.
So there's, it was basically they're pissed because the moderators aren't, you know, fire breathing conservatives.
But that never happens.
You don't get fire breathers on either side.
But if any.
If either side, you know, is saying they're not going to debate, it's the Republicans who've said they're not going to participate.
The Democratic Party is not holding primary debates.
The Republican Party did not when Donald Trump was in the White House.
Traditionally, the incumbent does not debate in the primary.
So I just want to go. I want to say, not go, but I want to say that I think we're going to see, you know, like what trash it, we might see a different Donald Trump here. I think he's going to try to appeal to moderate voters. And it is going to be more important than people are giving credit for. I think that they're going to ask a lot of a.
questions about, you know,
wedge issues, right, like abortion,
things like that, right?
Like immigration and so on.
And his answers have to cater to a moderate audience,
and it really depends on, you know,
how this is going to play out for him in the primary.
If he,
if his answers to two,
moderate or you know not conservative let's even lean liberal about the trans
issues for example
and he has said in the past that he would have no problem with uh... women using
girls uh... sorry trans women using girls locker rooms restrooms etc
you know if they bring that up and his answers are consistent with his previous
liberal positions on these issues
that is going to have a major, a very significant impact for him in the primary,
because DeSantis would be able to use it against him, right?
They would say, hey, he's not a real conservative, he's just a liberal,
and look at what he's just said here at the CNN Town Hall.
And it really depends on whether, you know, I would see the MAGA influencers will be spinning it.
It'll be like, well, he had to tell liberals that they were going to do something,
but he was tricking them, he's playing five-dimensional chess.
I don't believe so, right?
It really depends on how, what he says, and he has to be very careful here.
He can't...
afford to alienate the moderates, but at the same time,
he can't afford to alienate his own base, right?
Conservatives are the people who are going to vote for him.
So if he pisses them off too much by being too liberal,
he's going to have a serious issue.
Sarah?
Thank you.
I think that, I think first off,
I think they'll address the E. Jean Carroll defamation suit right off.
I think they'll try to get that out of the way right up front.
I think it would be smart.
And I think of Trump,
is measured in his responses and is calm because the moderates are looking for an excuse to not vote for him.
So I think he's very measured and calm in his response to not only what's going on in New York,
but with the E. Jean Carroll case, I think it could be very helpful to him.
But Ian's right. He can't be seen as being too moderate or going too liberal.
He has to, his base...
is very conservative and he has to play to that base.
But I think if he's measured and he's calm and he addresses things and doesn't,
he tends to go off the rails, especially when he's doing his rallies.
If he doesn't go off the rails, I think the conservatives will consider it a win.
Just a note on that, he also tends to go off the rails when he gets questions he doesn't like, particularly if it's from a woman.
That was something that, you know, being in the White House press corps, we all noticed during his time in office when it was a female reporter confronting him.
And in some cases, it was Caitlin. He got very, very pissed off. So I think that,
you know, that's going to be a factor potentially,
depending on how his team has prepped him for this.
Do we know,
so John,
I see your hand up.
So just quickly,
Heathland Commons.
Just quickly, I saw, I haven't looked into it.
I don't know what the source is, none of that.
So someone can give me context.
There was someone that worked at the White House while Trump was president,
making allegations that Trump was sexually abusing other people in the White House.
Did I read that before I sleep or did I just dream about this?
Was there anything like that?
Harassi, not abusing, and it was Stephanie Grisham.
Okay.
And there's no evidence.
There was two women.
There was another woman.
It was harassment, though.
It wasn't abusive.
Harassing, not abusing.
What's the difference?
The thing I wanted to mention here is
We have to, in general...
John, just before you jump in...
Sorry, John, I wanted to give you the mic.
But I think there's a difference between harassment and abuse.
Like, harassment is very broad and vague, so it just allows it to be...
I'm not saying it's right.
Just want to be clear.
But it just allows people to kind of use it to...
Harcman is me telling you.
I think you have a nice ass.
Abuses me grabbing your ass.
Like, I harassed Slyman on a daily basis, for example.
That is actually not the legal differentiation.
Yeah.
That is literally not.
Okay, then I take back my comment.
Can you tell me?
You're trying to separate assault and battery.
Assault is the reasonable fear of physical violence or impact.
Battery is the action of that impact.
Harassment and assault is not that differentiation.
Assault just implies more of a direct impact,
often with sexuality that is also a subset of harassment.
John, jump in. I'm just looking at the definition of both in the meantime.
Yeah, so I was just saying before we were discussing how so many people have an issue with CNN giving Trump a platform.
And we've been seeing this in politics more and more. And it's very prevalent on the left that.
People like AOC saying getting Tucker Carlson off television and de-platforming being so, and such an effective tool, this is exactly why there's such a partisan crack down the center here.
is we're not allowing politicians to talk across the aisle.
We're not allowing them to reach different audiences,
and it's all to just continually manipulate the people.
And it's literally the biggest bullshit attempt to keep control.
And I think more and more with Twitter spaces like this
and different ways people are getting the news,
it's starting to break.
And that is why we're seeing such a mad dash and blitz
to try to silence people.
Isn't this the opposite?
Yeah.
Yeah, you know, you know, I agree.
I was just going to say, I agree.
That's something I disagree with the left on is them saying,
attacking CNN calling for a boycott on CNN because they're going to have a Trump town hall.
I mean, it's just like, why are you going to silence him?
Let us hear what he has to say.
I mean, yeah, a lot of us aren't going to like what he has to say, but.
That doesn't mean it's going to be a good thing for Republicans.
I think that it could also backfire on him.
And if we hear him tell a lie and we can fact check it and say it to lie, that's not a bad thing.
So I don't know.
I don't think the boycott is necessary or even called for at all.
And Sarah, I mean, do you think that in terms of the way the interviews are going to be conducted,
it's not going to be one where they're going to throw softballs of Trump?
Well, I don't think so because...
I'd like...
Oh, I'd like...
Sorry, I was going to say, I'd like to hear Trump on CNN,
and I'd like to hear Biden on Fox.
I don't want to hear Biden on CNN.
I don't want to hear Trump on Fox.
I agree.
I'm just saying what I'd like.
Go ahead, Sarah.
I want Biden on Fox.
I want to see...
If he could measure up to...
Well, neither will Trump.
Yeah, we don't want him on Foxx.
Trump actually has half a brain left.
We don't want Biden who's a walking...
I love Democrats.
I love Nids.
I love libs.
But that motherfucker can't actually hold a conversation.
We don't want them on anything.
But I think that when people start saying we don't want to see a conservative on liberal media, I think that that is where it gets very dangerous.
We have to see these people.
It's kind of creepy, right?
Like the fact that, you know, you have a president who refuses to speak to half his constituents, whether they voted for him or not.
Doesn't matter, right?
They're still Americans, right?
The fact that he doesn't want to talk to them is so scary.
I mean, it's like, what the fuck has happened to America?
I mean, Ronald Reagan spoke to liberals, you know, George Bush spoke to liberals.
Oh, so Biden, hold on, Biden doesn't want to speak to conservative media?
Well, I mean, technically, I would say no, because they tend to ask the harder questions.
You know, liberal media wants him to look a little better.
So I think that I don't know, because I've read that Caitlin Collins is a very conservative journalist.
I don't know if anybody can fact check that.
That's just what I've read online.
I think that she has the potential to be tough on him.
And I don't think that.
Any of them should be let off the hook. I think that the questions need to be tough. Also, just as a, I would love to see politicians come on to spaces. I would love to be able to have a conversation with a presidential candidate. Put Biden up on this space. Put Trump up on this space. I have heard questions asked.
by speakers and moderators of these spaces that are tough.
You got Matt Gates and Thomas Massey to come to spaces.
Oh, really?
I've never seen.
Next time you see one, I want to, yeah, throw me.
Yeah, it'd be great.
Yeah, because.
Yeah, Matt Gates is awesome.
Really?
Yeah.
Really?
Yeah.
I mean, he's willing to answer questions, right?
And without a monitor, without some guy that's saying,
oh, you can't answer that question, you know?
He just takes questions.
I mean, he's a guy you can just talk to.
That's awesome.
Where do you like his politics or not?
You've got to appreciate that.
That's what we need.
Same thing that's nasty.
Because, you know, it humanizes them a bit.
I would love to be able to say to Donald Trump,
listen, what about this?
What about that?
And get him in real time where he's talking.
to real people. We're not paid to do them, you know.
So, so Ben, I want to ask you a question. I know I've got your hand up.
So you want to say something else. Obviously, in 2015 and 2016, when it came to Trump, there was a lot more rhetoric in his statements.
This time, it seemed like there's not, but then now it seems, it does seem like he is going back into that phase again.
Do you think you're going to see a lot of rhetoric in the CNN suspense?
Yeah.
Probably not. I think he's going to be a little bit more tame and subtle, which is probably a good thing, right?
I mean, everyone's aware of his fiery temper and his, you know, excuse me, excuse me, excuse me.
So, you know, probably the people around them as advisors and said, look, let's, you know, let's take a little bit of a different strategy this time around for this interview, for this audience, especially just considering of the E. Gene Carroll's.
decision and so forth but I wanted to ask Brian I have been meaning to ask him this
for a while it's a little bit off topic but
Do the people on the left actually believe, like Biden supporters, do they believe that he is indeed mentally competent and of sound mind, you know, going into the 2024 election cycle?
Or is this just basically, you know, you could put a shoe up there and we would vote it simply because we don't want, we're terrified of Donald Trump.
And I say that with all honesty, right?
That's not a, that's not meant to be a rude question.
It's just, I don't like Donald Trump, right?
I don't like Biden either.
I'm probably more in the DeSantis camp.
However.
You know, even, it's just very hard to see Joe Biden, well, you don't really see him interact with people all that often, right?
It's just, is that not concerning to you where...
You know, there seems to me, and I'm not a physician, but there's clearly something, you know, well, he's old, right?
And let's just, that's a natural course in the person's age.
Yeah.
So, like, first, I think that's definitely a fair question.
I mean, he's going to be 86 at the end of his second term, if he wins.
I think he's of sound mind.
I think he's definitely slowing.
I think that that his speech is slowing.
He has his speech impediment, and as he ages, it's getting worse.
His, it's,
I don't think that means that he's not thinking clearly or anything like that.
I don't think there's any evidence of that.
But I think it is a concern.
I think it's a concern that he's going to be 86.
I will vote for Biden over Trump for sure.
Do I think that there's possibly better people that could be running younger people that I would prefer?
Yeah.
I think there definitely is.
Newsome.
I appreciate that answer.
I think Newsom, I like Newsome.
I think he's a little bit too far to the left to maybe, I think we need somebody more in the middle.
to go against Trump.
So you can pull the moderates.
Otherwise, you're going to have people not voting or you're going to have people.
I mean, you look at his policy.
No, no, he isn't.
No, no, I don't think he is.
He's clearly moderate.
I mean, I know a lot of, like, Republicans hate the guy and he shit on him.
But, like, I look at his actual policies.
Look what he actually says when he does in California.
It's not that crazy.
I mean, it's, you know, San Francisco and Los Angeles notwithstanding.
He doesn't run those cities.
You can't blame him for those.
And just, if I had you picked two alternates, my two alternates would be, well, I actually have three that I would,
be happy with and that is that is newsome newsome would be one of my top three it would also be
Pete mayor Pete Pete Buttigieg uh I think that the fact that he's gay that would hurt him though
and with with a lot of people unfortunately it shouldn't be that way uh and then I I like John
Ossov uh as well as Shapiro from Pennsylvania but
I wish they had a chance, but I don't think it's obviously that they're not going to get one.
And I appreciate that answer, Brian.
Just, you know, the one thing about, just the one thing about Donald Trump, you knew that, you know, whether it was.
whoever he was meeting with her wanted to get something done,
it was clear that he ran the show.
Like you could see he didn't take orders from anyone.
That's just my opinion.
And with Biden,
just simply because he's not able to, you know,
carry on a coherent two-way conversation,
I have to wonder, like,
who is really making the decisions behind the curtain, right?
It's just, I don't know that that man is capable of, of,
Making any decision?
Well, do you remember when Trump had first taken office?
He talked about how he wanted to go in, drain the swamp, and do all of these great things.
And then he gave a speech shortly after, and he said, you know what, everyone?
I went into the Oval Office, and some guys with black sunglasses and briefcases came in, and they let me know it was up.
And, I mean, that's just the kind of...
the way that it is. The president's really just a face.
They may be able to make some final decisions,
but really we need to be looking at, like you said,
who is giving the decisions to the presidents that they need to make.
Well, he said that.
Dunn.
Solomon, do you agree with me?
Did Trump actually say that there's some black people with suits came in?
No, not black people.
Not black people.
I think he said, man.
People with,
let me refresh.
Sorry,
I had some food in my mouth.
Did you...
Did Trump actually say that men in black suits came in and told me what's what and then I had to listen?
No, no, he did not say that.
I don't think he said that.
I've never heard that.
And that would be concerning, right?
I've never heard that ever.
That's ridiculous.
That's not Donald Trump.
And tonight, you will see a very similar Donald Trump.
He's not going to, as much as he might.
be told to stay controlled and try to stay controlled.
It's not what he does.
It's not who he is.
And he's uncomfortable when he's asked to become something else.
He is who he is.
Like, I've met this guy.
I spent some time with Gavin Newsom last week.
They got extremely charismatic, powerfully charismatic.
And he will become more central or middle, left left, if he actually runs for president.
I'd like to ask the room, does anybody think that the negative media that Biden's getting right now has anything to do with the establishment simply wanting Trump and Biden both out of the way?
100%.
Yeah, 100%.
Like Biden's too old.
He's possibly compromised.
You can have much better leaders, younger leaders, more charismatic leaders, people that you can actually get behind.
Right.
I mean, or they got their guy or gal, you know?
Right.
They're going to slip in 12 or 13 months before the election.
You know, Grant, I would like to see Newsom.
I think he's more centrist, more moderate, and, you know, he's in control, you know,
regardless of what you think of the guy's politics, whether it's, you know, too progressive or something.
At least he's uncontrolled.
He's in charge.
You know who's there, right?
You know, Greta, it's so, like, I'm suggesting something a little more sinister.
It won't be with time to run.
They'll set it up to bounce Biden out.
and to slip somebody in.
I don't think it'll be Kamala,
but somebody that they could push through
that would not get a lot of scrutiny,
maybe because that person doesn't want the scrutiny,
Michelle would be like it would be the enthusiasm that would shift over there and the distraction that that would that would create would be phenomenal and probably not cost a lot and it'd be organic and natural and I think she wants a lot of cover if she were to run and she wouldn't want she would she wouldn't want to do it for two years.
You know, Grant, I always thought that, and I have no legal basis for suggesting this,
but when the Biden classified documents hidden in the garage popped up,
I always thought that maybe that was somebody around Biden trying to give him a signal,
you know, it's time for you to bow out.
So I take what you say.
Yeah, I think it's very possible.
Yeah, that sounds.
I'm still trying to digest Brian saying that he doesn't think that,
Biden has lost his cognitive abilities beyond just increased stuttering.
That's astonishing to me.
What can he point to what can you point to that says that other than him stuttering?
Well, didn't he shake hands with a ghost?
Didn't he like shake hands with somebody who wasn't there?
Brian, he doesn't know what side of the stage to exit from.
He doesn't which door to walk into the White House.
I mean, I mean,
that stuff's not exactly fair.
I mean,
I can point to that stuff.
I mean,
Brian,
Brian,
Brian's just troll in the room when he says that stuff, guys.
Come on.
but Brian,
let me ask you,
do you,
I mean,
is it really that he's actually losing his mind,
or do you think this is like,
again,
propaganda?
I don't know.
I don't think he's losing his mind.
I think that there's a lot of,
I think that there's a lot of out of context videos or images of him.
And, yeah, I mean, when he turns the wrong way and walks on the wrong side of stage,
I think.
I think people read into that too much.
You have probably four different guys telling him
to do different stuff.
The president is directed most of the time
where they're going and what they're doing.
They're not just wandering around.
What about him calling upon a dead reporter?
or the other, when he went to shake hands with somebody who wasn't there.
I mean, and I'm not criticizing the man.
Yeah, what about when he was in Ukraine?
They had to tell him where to stand because, like, he was confused as to where he could even stand.
It's like, obviously, Stanix is a lesbian, right?
They put a red dot on the ground.
It's like, stand here, stand here.
It's like, really?
Like, who needs that?
Like, if you're, you know, an adult, you're going to figure out where to stand.
You're not going to need directions.
This is insane.
I mean, I could see myself walking on this stage.
and not knowing where do you stand
amidst all these cold.
Would you need like a pointer
to be like that stand here?
Brian, I get it.
Even bigger.
Brian, have you ever had a lid day?
I mean, consider this.
He has lid days where it's like he just can't come out and deal with people.
He had that during his campaign.
We don't hear about them now that he's in office.
But for anyone to think that he's actually making any serious decisions rather than a circle of people around him
who are making all decisions and using him as a puppet...
I can't understand how rational people genuinely really believe that.
I mean, if you want to tell the public that because he's the face of the franchise,
I understand that.
But to say in good conscience, I really think this guy is on top of these making decisions.
I think that he has a good team around him that helps him make decisions just like most presidents do.
I think something Trump did do is that he took a lot into his own hands that most presidents wouldn't have.
So I think comparing to Trump, it's apples to oranges, compare him to a Bush or Reagan.
And I think that you're going to have more similarities.
Brian, it's easy to criticize Trump.
And everybody here, even the people that support him say, yeah, dude, the guy goes too far.
He's petty.
He says crazy shit.
You never, ever say your guy ever does any weird shit.
And when he stumbles around the stage, hang on second.
When he stumbles around the stage over and over, these aren't videos, these are live interviews where he doesn't know where to go.
I mean, if I invite you to speak on my stage.
and you didn't know where to go when it was over,
I'd be like, bro, let's not have him back.
Unfortunately, we got this guy for four years,
and he's asking for another four.
Yeah, I mean, and the comment about me,
The comment about him asking for ice cream, right, after the killing of the kids, right?
I'm Joe Biden, I'm looking for ice cream.
Now, look, I am not a, again, I don't, not a Trump guy, not a Biden guy, but you have to admit.
I mean, either that's cognitive decline or just a lack of empathy.
I mean, who does that, right?
I'm Joe Biden, I like ice cream.
Why don't you first start saying, my God, my heart is broken, this tragedy has unfolded,
but I came down to find ice cream.
That's problematic, Brian.
So I agree that he stumbles around a lot.
I agree that he stutters and makes gaps a lot.
I think that that's very clear.
And I think that is a part of him being an older man.
He's 80.
At the same time, the left claim the same about Trump.
And when Trump was drinking water or walking down a ramp or, you know, like I think both sides, they take incidences and...
Blow them up because it's the president.
And Ben, I didn't see the ice cream gaffe, so I can't comment on that.
I'm going to actually go back and look at it.
When the kids died, he, I was like, I'm down here for ice cream.
That is what he said, right?
I've got the right.
Yeah, okay, yeah.
I'm going to look that up.
I check that out.
Brian, Brian, the difference is when people, you know, trash on Trump, it's not about his age.
It's about his character, decision making, character default, a flaws.
With Biden, we're attaching it to.
Hey, can he run? Can he lead? Who's in control? Who's telling him what to do? That's, I think, what I'm hearing the room say they're concerned about.
Yeah, so if you remember, and if you go back and you Google it, you'll probably see, there were numerous people saying that Trump had Alzheimer's, and it was ridiculous.
Like, like, obviously he didn't, right?
But there were psychiatrists that came on and said he had all kinds of mental disorders.
And it's just, it's just taking small glimpses of their life and blowing it up when they, when they make a,
stutter or make a make it do something stupid like you have the former white house physician right
who treated both Obama and Trump saying you know that that Biden clearly has a cognitive
failure right I mean he needs to be tested wait wait who said that what which which position
That was Ronnie Jackson.
Ronnie, Ronnie Jackson.
Yeah, but he wasn't Biden's doctor.
He was Trump's doctor.
Yeah, I know.
He was Obama's doctor, and he has, you know, the ability to diagnose.
Yeah, but he's obvious.
I mean, he's a Republican in Congress.
Sure.
Yeah.
I mean,
his medical opinion
that has nothing to do.
I would rather hear somebody
that doesn't have a political leaning
say that.
And I believe it.
If I heard that from somebody
that was actually working with Biden,
Biden's doctor said the exact opposite.
Biden broke his ankle.
So his walking is not great.
That doesn't mean he can't lead.
He stutters.
That doesn't mean he can't lead.
I think that some of these gaps I think probably shouldn't be happening.
And I think it's definitely a sign of aging.
But that doesn't mean that he still can't do his job if he has a good team around him.
Brian, he doesn't remember what question was asked when he's 30 seconds into the answer.
He starts drifting into answering a completely different question.
I mean, seriously.
But if you go back, go back 15 years.
You're going to the same thing.
Yeah, but he's calling on people when he was answering the question.
He mentioned the lady's name who had been dead for several years, right?
I mean, that's concerning, is it not?
I mean, these are not just little gaffs.
Stutter has nothing to do with it.
Yeah, you know, his age is one thing.
But again, just for me is a, and again, who am I?
I am no one, but...
You know, just the lack of coherency and cognitive abilities.
It's concerning for me, right?
It just is.
Brian's not concerned by it.
He trusts those people, those invisible people that control him.
So my granddad.
Grant, I guess I'm never going to be invited on a stage at your convention.
Dude, not if you walk on a stage and you don't know which way to go when you get off.
It's weird, bro.
So my granddad, he had Alzheimer's before he died, right?
Stages have one way on and one way off.
There's not like...
And like, the thing I noticed about my granddad and Biden is, you know, it's sad.
Like, I don't laugh at what Biden's going through.
I know it's very difficult, you know, like having a personal experience with my granddad, having Alzheimer's.
very similar, you know, like gazing off into the distance, not knowing what's going on.
Sometimes he's lucid, you know, sometimes he was lucid.
Biden's the same way, right?
There are those moments of lucidity, but then, you know, there are moments where he's sundowning.
He's not really sure what's happening.
He can't answer questions.
I mean, I see the exact same thing in Biden.
I mean, it's anyone who experienced, you know, someone in the family member who's on Alzheimer's, knows this.
They recognize.
I mean I look at Diane Feinstein right people are being respectful even Democrats are saying listen you've done one you even tweeted out right you have done a wonderful service to the country but it's time for you to step aside so at which point at which point is your hatred for Trump you know kind of take second stage and just say look for the best of the country and for the Democratic Party it's time for someone who can have a two-way conversation
So just for the audience,
Brian, hold on, but I'm going to say something
and then get your thoughts on it.
First, the stream will start in 15 minutes.
So just giving the audience a heads up.
We'll be streaming it here live and commenting afterwards.
But Brian, let me articulate something and let me know your thoughts.
So if I tell you the following,
Biden's cognitive ability has diminished.
To an extent where you don't want him to make decisions,
deciding the path for the world's most powerful country
and the world's biggest economy.
Yet that's not necessarily an extremely bad and concerning thing.
I'm not saying it's good, but it's not a bad thing.
As long as he gives away those decision-making abilities to his cabinet, to people he trust.
No, no.
I'll finish my statement and I'll let you get your thoughts.
Because we've seen a lot of companies, and I'm just thinking out loud,
we've seen a lot of companies that are led by a CEO or a founder who owns 100% of the shares or majority of the shares.
And they're in their 90s and they pass away owning most of the shares,
but they just give the decision-making.
Samsung's one of many examples.
So they give basically debt.
Yeah, yeah, exactly.
So let me give the, let me give the statement to Brian get his thoughts on it.
So we've seen these executives very old, that the company continues operating well,
hitting great profits, because they're given their decision-making powers to people
that are cognitively in a better shape.
Is that a fair statement or you disagree with it?
Because I think he disagreed.
Yeah, so I don't think Biden's at that point. I don't think he's lost significant cognitive ability and he can't lead the nation. I think that if that came, if it came to that, I would hope that he would step down. And I would not be surprised if he won re-election, if he was to step down halfway through. And
not not because he lost cognitive ability but because he realized that he is slowing and he doesn't have the energy anymore
I'm not saying that an old 84 year old 86 year old should be president I I don't really think they should I think that there's younger Democrats that they could be running and and
probably should but I also think that Biden's earned the
the ability, the right to run again.
And if they think he's the best shot, then I'm all for it.
Has there been any cognitive tests done on Biden that we know of?
Yeah.
So the White House doctor every year, he has a physical.
The report came back and it said that he had no all-timers or no cognitive, whatever you want to call it.
Come on, man.
But yeah.
I've done, but how trustworthy, I've done a similar test.
Come on, Mario, Mario, you know.
I know, I know, but I've done a similar test on Slame Man, man.
It came out, you know, all aces.
So I know that you cannot trust these.
Yeah, exactly.
I mean, I can show you 50 people that they would pass it, and we all know they're fucking nuts.
I would hope that if it came back, if the doctor said,
hey, man, you got a problem that Biden and the people around him would recognize that
and ask him to step down or say, hey, don't run again.
That hasn't happened.
I trust that if that was the case, that that's what would happen.
Come on, Brian.
I mean, I don't see why not.
You're so dishonest with the room, though, man.
No, no, I mean, why wouldn't they do that?
What would what would be the damaged cause?
I prefer a younger candidate.
I think that Democrats that think that that happened,
if the White House doctor thought that happened,
I think they'd be honest with him.
And I think it would leak out that this is the case.
And so I don't know.
Ryan, Ryan, if what you're saying is true
that there's a circle of people, a great team,
a great team around him.
Don't you think it's in that great team's interest
in trying to help him win re-election
because they're basically serving
as if they're the president of the United States
and he's a figurehead.
So would they not want to have controlled messaging
to ensure that Biden's health is as little an issue as possible?
I mean, there's people around him that don't have
have a political standing family members and, you know, like all those, and Kamala Harris.
She could be running right now if she wanted to.
You don't think Barack Obama is one of the people who's around him.
If she wanted to.
Do you not think Barack Obama is one of the people who's very close in that circle as far as influential in what's happening here?
I do. I do.
Okay.
So, yeah.
So don't you think that Barack Obama, who probably, if he is in that circle,
we have to assume that he is the dominant player there,
because who the hell is going to stand up to Barack Obama?
Let's face it.
I mean, Susan Rice, no one else around is going to be standing up to Barack Obama.
So if he is the one with his hand up figuratively,
Up the crack of the puppet and making all decisions.
Don't you think it's in his interest to make sure that Kamala is not the one who's an ex-president because he won't have as much control or anyone else, but that it's actually helpful to have puppet Joe up there?
I don't think Obama gives a crap about control anymore.
Oh, sure, he does.
No, I mean, why?
He retired president.
What does he care?
He has expressed.
Why did he move to Washington, D.C.?
Why would he move?
No president has ever done that?
Why would he move there?
He has foundations.
He has charities.
He has his library.
I mean, I don't, I don't think political ambitions.
I mean, I didn't hear you talk.
Sorry, go ahead, Doc.
No, I mean, all that is in Chicago.
His library, which still isn't built is in Chicago, all of his papers are there in Chicago.
Are we really going to ignore the fact that the guy is a traitor and a pedophile?
And what's happening on the border?
I mean, do those issues become something that we talk about?
I mean, I'd be happy to talk about the competency of Joe Biden.
Yeah.
I'd be happy to talk about the border.
I'm actually curious what Republicans think the solution is other than building a wall.
Well, we've got a space on it tomorrow, so we will discuss that tomorrow, Brian.
Well, we showed the wall didn't really work and it was a waste of money, didn't me.
Hey, Mario, if you don't mind, Mario, I threw a poll up in the nest.
I'd love to see, my brother actually asked me to do this.
I'd love to see how much of the room thinks Joe Biden, contrary to whatever Brian's talking about,
thinks Joe Biden is mentally competent.
Meaning 100%.
So Grant, let me ask you.
Brian, even if he's not mentally confident.
Grant, let me ask you a question, right?
So Grant, I understand that it does look like he's got dementia, right?
But how much of that do you think is, again, a bit of propaganda from the right?
Oh, definitely.
Zero?
No, no.
No, there's never, it could not be not even possible that it would be zero.
Some of it is definitely played and propaganda and pushed and promoted.
But it doesn't mean...
The stuttering doesn't bother me.
It's, I don't know where I am.
Like, when you're, this is your job.
Your job is to go to a podium, do a presentation, and walk off.
It's not fucking complicated.
It's not a, it's not a four-way stop sign.
Like, it's not figure out directions.
Just go outside, do the podium.
That's all he does, guys.
You guys don't think he's doing more than that, do you?
And when you mess that one thing up,
And repeatedly, I don't know where I'm going.
I'm shaking hands with people that aren't there.
I'm mentioning people in a room that aren't in the room.
In fact, they're dead.
Those are signs.
Those aren't mishaps.
If you did it one or two times, one thing.
There are strings and strings of these.
And he's not the same guy he was 20 years ago.
And nobody said smart 20 years ago, by the way.
I think he watched this about 20 years ago he was very very coherent you know I mean it was articulate he believed very strong speaker very charismatic I mean he's the guy people who call it America's uncle I mean people looked up and they were like yeah look back to his debate with with Palin right I mean he was coherent he was strong he was poised and it just we don't see that anymore
I mean, Sarah, another question to you is just a link to what everyone's saying is when it came out last week, I mean, people knew it anyway, but just the blatant obviousness from the pictures where essentially the reporter had the predetermined questions and he had kind of like a chart of the picture of the reporter and what questions they were going to ask.
And essentially it was all scripted.
Do you think that's again another problematic where you literally don't, everything scripted, you can't trust the journalism even when it comes to Biden?
Sarah?
Yes.
You know, I'm listening to everybody talking about, you know, mental competence.
And we've seen it.
We've seen it with Donald.
They're both old.
We've seen it with Donald Trump.
We watched him get off a plane and to a waiting car and wander off.
We've watched him wander off out of a conference room where he was supposed to sign documents.
We've seen it.
They're both, in my opinion.
Yeah.
not mentally capable of running for office.
And yet this is what we are left with.
We are left with two senior citizens that, in my opinion,
I mean, why are we not having presidents in their 40s and 50s?
You know, I'm 40.
Well, say, why don't you just vote for Robert Kennedy or?
Oh, God.
Okay.
There are alternatives.
This is a primary.
Andrew Yang, I'm all for you.
And I just wanted to say to Sarah.
Sarah, listen, I remember those images, right, of Trump seeming to be wanted off.
But you have to remember, Trump wasn't a statesman, right?
Those surroundings were new to him.
And, you know, yes.
We can't have this conversation unless we are being very, very honest.
We both, we know that they are both.
That there are some mental limitations.
No, it's not even that, you know, it's not even the confidence.
I disagree with you, Sarah, because we...
Issues that matter to date and pressing issues like, E.I.
I mean, neither...
I would agree with me is.
Let's see.
Guys, like three people are talking.
Go ahead, Sarah.
Thank you. I would agree with you, Ian. There are things that are happening today and like you said with AI. I'm not that old, but I don't understand it. How could, how could Biden understand that? How could Trump understand the needs of today and how technology is changing?
Yeah.
And I'll reference.
Remember when they had Facebook and Twitter execs before Congress,
and suddenly you saw like somebody's grandpa asking questions about their own Twitter account.
It was laughable.
We...
I think there could be a whole conversation had about what is too old to run for office.
But then again, that would be considered ageism, right?
And I'll let you go here in a second.
You know, I'm 48 years old.
I noticed it in my 40s that I was starting to decline.
I spent 20 minutes looking for my glasses, which were on my head.
We all know it, Benjamin.
We all know that...
as we age, our mental acuity is not what it is.
Now, I couldn't find my glasses for 20 minutes on my head.
Could I still do my job?
Yes.
No, I agree with you, right?
I mean, but I...
And...
I think there is a difference, though, between being able to do your job and then having to have the Easter Bunny point in which direction to go to, right?
So one thing about Trump, you saw his interactions, right, with the press.
Whether you liked his answers or did not like his answers, I tend to not like them.
He was able to engage them and respond, right?
And, and...
Look, we'll see what this interview tonight, right?
Let's see this interview with Kate Ellen Collins, and we'll see how sharpest faculties are.
Then I would like to see an interview with Joe Biden that's a similar format.
And again, you were right, right?
So because, you know, I'm not that old either, but because you can't find your glasses,
it doesn't mean that you're not able to do your job by any means.
However...
you know, if you're starting to have cognitive decline, you know, you may have your driver's license taken away from you, right?
If it's severe. So at the same time,
You know, you have to say, is somebody who, I believe, has severe, maybe cognitive issues,
do you really want that person either run in the country or figuratively running the country, right?
It's a bad image, in my mind.
And Biden has said that he...
There's nothing to do with that.
So, Yola...
Just two sex, sorry, Joe, don't interrupt you.
By the way, congratulations on your new teeth, Joe.
Trash, you're there.
You've got the stream ready.
It starts in a couple of minutes.
I'm here.
I'm ready.
I've got one, guys.
I'm not.
I got wrong guys. Thanks for the great shout as always.
Cool, cool.
Guys, just anyone that has to jump off, just jump off guys.
No need to say by.
Mario, are you guys just streaming?
It's not an airport.
Are you streaming?
Hold on Sarah.
We will stream it here, yes.
Yes, yes, yes.
Trash, all good.
Is all ready?
Yep, ready to go, man.
I'm here.
I'm set up.
Cool. All right, let me know when it starts. You can just interrupt us and start streaming it as soon as it starts. Okay, I think it's just a few minutes away.
Can I ask Sarah a question?
Well, it starts in like one minute, so.
So real quick question.
Yeah, all good. We'll just interrupt you guys when it starts. All good.
Does it concern you at all that Biden has already said he will not debate other Democratic candidates?
Absolutely. I'll answer that. Absolutely, it does.
And isn't that a sign of his cognitive decline?
Isn't that a confirmation?
I wouldn't say that's possible.
Well, it's the norm, though.
It's the norm.
I wouldn't say that.
I wouldn't say that that is.
Yeah, it is for an incumbent.
No, it's not.
There have always been presidential debates.
The candidates on both parties have always participated.
Did Trump?
To your point, Doc, does it concern you that RFK is still going on about chem trails?
Well, I, you know, I like Kennedy for a couple reasons, but I'm not going to vote for him, but I admire the fact that he's running, given the history of his family.
I don't agree with everything that he says, but I agree with his concerns about the deep state, and I agree with his concerns about the vaccine in a way that was pushed on us.
Those two things make him a more credible candidate, in my opinion, for the Democrats.
I think he would be more competitive with Trump, who I assume is going to win the Republican nominations.
So, yeah.
Let me go to Brian.
Brian,
how was it different?
How is it different?
So typically...
In a, typically, there's no inner party debates for an incumbent.
Trump didn't do it last time.
Obama didn't do it.
If somebody runs against the incumbent, there usually is not a debate.
It's not all the time, but usually within the party, there isn't a debate.
So that doesn't mean I don't want him to debate.
I think he should.
I think everybody should.
But typically, that's not the way it works.
So Doc's question to you then based on my Brian said,
if Trump didn't do it, why do you want Biden to do it?
Well, I don't think anybody was actively running against Trump as an incumbent.
Kennedy clearly is.
So is Martina, what have?
There are other candidates, and there should be other candidates for the Democrats,
just given the conversation in this room.
I mean, Ben certainly isn't a MAGA Republican.
And listen to what he's saying.
I haven't heard from Kim, but I bet Kim thinks that it should be a debate as well.
The reason you did the basis is supposed a cognitive decline.
Absolutely, Doc. And you know I'm not a mega republic. I'm more on the DeSantis camp.
But no, absolutely. I 100% agree with you.
They're important, right?
They're important not so much for the voters that will vote for their party and candidate regardless.
You know, they have somebody picked out already, but it is for the undecided voters.
And they're important questions that need to be asked.
And you're able to gauge a lot by how that potential leader would act not on the domestic stage, but the world stage.
Of course they're important.
Totally agree with you.
Trump's being introduced on stage right now.
Yeah, we'll be streaming.
He'll be starting to start playing.
Yeah, he'll be starting playing in a minute.
Go ahead, Simon.
Yeah, actually, give them a job.
Joe, I'll speak.
So, Joe, I'll let you jump in.
Yeah, it's just about the poll.
Like, if the polls show that someone's a real candidate,
like RFK, which I hope does go up in the polls, or he already has good numbers for just announcing,
then I think it should be debated. And about cognitive decline, you know, you look at someone like
Richard Branson in his 60s or even Elon now in his 50s, I don't see a decline. It has more to do
with personality than it does anything else. And there's a lot of studies on it. People who continually
like to learn and challenge themselves continue to stay sharp. People who don't,
Don't. Do I think Biden's still sharp? No, I don't. I think the fact that Biden keeps refusing to negotiate with Russia and Ukraine, I think it's a mistake. I think if China is able to implement this peace deal, Biden is going to damage the entire Democratic Party. He's going to look like an idiot. And he should move out of the way, to be honest. And I'm a single issue voter. I'm against CBDCs. So DeSantis or RFK, I'm fine with either one.
All right, we'll be kicking this off any minute.
We're just setting up the stream.
Brian, anything you'll be looking out for in today's...
He's doubling...
I'm watching it.
He's doubling down on the election claims.
Okay, streaming on the YouTube live, so on my account there's a YouTube live.
Can anyone stream it from an audio perspective, Joa or Benjamin while we fix it on trash aside?
Benjamin, if you've got it, can you put it on the speaker while trash...
Well, I'm just watching it on TV.
It's on CNN.
All right, can anyone stream it, guys?
Yeah.
So I'm setting it up.
Yeah, the issue I'm having is I don't have a TV provider, so I signed up for CNN.com, but it's not letting me log in.
So I'm trying to find a side stream.
Is it?
Or is it, isn't there a YouTube link that streaming it?
It's not being streamed on YouTube?
Let me get it sort of from my end.
If anyone else has a link where they can type it.
Benjamin, if you're watching it on TV, can you just put your speaker up to the TV?
Well, my name is.
Yeah, I can try. My speakers are on my headset though. Can you hear it? Hang on. Because if you look at what's gone to our country, can you hear it?
Can you hear it?
Our borders are bad.
Yes, perfect. Yeah.
A no turn has been bad. You look at the taxes. You look at inflation. What's happened to inflation, it's just destroying our country.
We've really become, in many ways, a third world country.
And it's very sad what's happened in this administration, and it's something that we'll
turn around on day one.
We were energy independent, now energy is at a level that we've never had to pay before.
Nobody can afford to continue to pay what's happening with energy.
But we were energy independent.
We were getting out of Afghanistan with strength and with dignity.
And instead we got out and we looked like fools.
Probably the most embarrassing moment in the history of our country.
We have a lot of questions about the economy and foreign policy tonight.
But what you just said there, Republican officials debunked those claims about fraudulent ballots.
We want to give you a chance tonight.
Who?
Who?
Who?
Who?
Who?
In every single state?
There is no, your own election officials, Mr. President.
So we wanted to give you a chance.
We're afraid to take on the issue, but we have a big problem in this country.
We have elections.
We have elections that were horrible.
If you look at what happened in Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, if you look at what happened in Detroit, Michigan,
if you look at what happened in Atlanta...
millions of votes and all you have to do is take a look at government cameras.
You'll see them.
People going to 28 different voting booths to vote to put in seven ballots apiece.
Mr. President, I have to stop you there because there is no evidence that.
Your own election officials testified to that and have said that.
Republicans in these states did this in Georgia, there were multiple recounts including a hand recount.
We have questions about
the claims that you're making tonight from voters on this topic. I want to bring in Scott Dustin from
Concord. He works in insurance litigation. He's an undeclared voter. That's what they call independence
here in New Hampshire, as you know. He did vote for you in 2020. Scott, what's your question for
the president? Hi, President Trump. Welcome back to New Hampshire. Thank you.
Will you suspend polarizing talk of election fraud during your run for president?
Will I suspend, excuse me, what?
Will you suspend polarizing talk of election fraud during your run for president?
Yeah, unless I see election fraud.
If I see election fraud, I think I have an obligation to say it.
And you know what we went through a short and while ago has really put our country in a big problem.
I hope to do that. I hope we're going to have very honest elections.
We should have voter ID.
We should have one-day elections.
We should have paper ballots instead of these mail-in votes.
But the answer is yes, and I hope that it's going to be very straight-up,
because if it's going to be straight-up, we're going to win the election.
So you will suspend talk to his question about the 2020 election on the campaign trial?
Well, I guess we're going to just win.
We're at a point now.
We're getting so close.
Let's just win it again and straighten out our country.
One other question on this.
When you talked about the 2020 election results in the past, you once suggested terminating the Constitution.
Do you stand by those comments?
I don't know.
You were able to do certain things.
I'm not talking about terminating the Constitution.
I'm talking about cherishing the Constitution.
The Constitution says it was supposed to have legal and well maintained and well looked at elections.
And we didn't have that.
I cherish our Constitution, but we have to live up to the Constitution.
We weren't living up to the Constitution.
I was just saying there's no evidence of that election fraud.
You didn't once tweet...
I'm supposed to say that, but I'm glad you say that.
But look, that was a horrible election.
That was a horrible election.
And unless somebody's very stupid, and I know you very well, you're not stupid at all,
but you perhaps are given an agenda or you have an agenda.
Look...
We have to have honest elections in our country.
We have open borders.
So Trash, I'll let you stream it from your end.
Go ahead, man.
Yeah, so the TV is also, for anyone that wants to watch the video, it's on my account as well.
You can go on my profile.
You can watch it there if you want the video.
Go ahead, Trash.
Well, so the TV's ahead.
So, you know what?
I'm just going to start it right here, okay?
Yeah, oh good.
The Constitution.
I'm talking about cherishing the Constitution.
The Constitution says it we're supposed to have legal and well-maintained and well-looked-at elections,
and we didn't have that.
I cherish our Constitution, but we have to live up to the Constitution.
We weren't living up to the Constitution.
I was just saying there's no evidence of that election fraud.
You did once tweet.
You're supposed to say that.
I'm glad you say that, but look, that was a horrible election.
That was a horrible election, and unless somebody's very stupid, and I know you very well, you're not stupid at all,
but you perhaps are given an agenda or you have an agenda.
Look, we have to have honest elections in our country.
We have open borders.
Thank you.
We look at what's happening.
I mean, we have elections, we have open borders.
Look at what's happening on our southern border.
Millions and millions of people are coming in.
They're being released from prisons.
They're being released from mental institutions.
And we have millions of people pouring into our country, and now they're getting rid of Title 42, which I put on, which kept people out that were sick.
And Mr. President, we have a lot of questions about immigration to get to tonight.
Obviously, that's a big topic, especially given what's expected to happen tomorrow.
But I want to talk about...
the influence you have over your voters. It's very clear that you are very influential over them.
You have a lot of impact. I've been to many of your rallies and seeing it up close,
which raised a lot of questions about the influence that we saw that you had on them on January 6th,
and your supporters when they attacked the Capitol. Do you have any regrets about your actions on January 6th?
Well, you know, January 6 was, again, we go back to it, but January 6 had to do with the fact that hundreds of thousands of people, and you don't see the pictures very often.
A lot of the people here probably were there. January 6th, it was the largest crowd I've ever spoken to.
That was prior to the walk down to the Capitol building.
I don't think, and I've spoken to.
hundreds of thousands of people.
I've never spoken to a crowd as large as this.
And that was because they thought the election was rigged.
And they were there proud,
they were there with love in their heart.
That was an unbelievable,
and it was a beautiful day.
And what I was asked to do, I wasn't involved in it very much, I was asked to come in when I make a speech.
I made a speech.
I said, walk peacefully and patriotically, you know, many different things.
In fact, I brought a list of things I don't want to bore the audience, but we can go sentence after sentence after sentence of things I said and things I put out.
Right.
uh... one of the big problems was that nancy polosi crazy nancy is i
affectionately called
crazy nancy pelosi and the mayor of washington were in charge as you know
of security
and they did not do their job
You're in charge of the National Guard.
I said, we'll give you soldiers, we'll give you National Guard, we'll give you whatever you want, and they turned me down.
You're acting the Defense Secretary.
She turned me down in writing.
They turned me down.
But you're acting Defense Secretary, Chris Miller at the time.
He says you never gave a formal order to deploy the National Guard.
But when it came to that day...
Just the opposite.
Ms. Miller wrote a book.
and he's a fantastic guy, and he was ready to go.
They turned him down.
If you look, the mayor of Washington, D.C., lovely lady, she said, we don't want to.
We don't like the look.
Nancy Pelosi said, oh, we don't like to look.
If they would have had just, I offered them 10,000 soldiers.
I said...
It could be 10, it could be more, but I offered them specifically 10,000 soldiers.
If they would have taken 500 soldiers, you wouldn't have the problem.
They turned it down.
And if you look at the Inspector General report, he says they turned it down.
They made a terrible mistake.
Well, Chris Miller was your acting defense secretary.
He says you never gave that order.
But back to what happened.
on that day. He did not say that. He has testified that, Mr. President. But you said you weren't
very involved that day. You did tell your supporters to come to Washington. You tweeted about it
about that speech that happened on the rally. Am I allowed to say that? When they went to the Capitol,
and they were breaking into the Capitol, smashing windows, injuring police officers,
why did you, why did it take me three hours to tell them to go home? I don't believe it did.
Oh, let me pull with that. I have. So if you look at...
On January 5th, the day before, I said, please support our Capitol Police and law enforcement.
They are truly on the side of our country. Stay peaceful. Stay peaceful. This was the day before,
and this was in the form of Twitter. Now use truth, truth social. I think it's far superior.
Okay. I hope everybody's on truth. If you look, January 6th, before 2.30.
I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol to remain peaceful.
This is right after as it was happening.
But what happened is took it down.
I don't know why.
I think they took it down because it was so good.
They didn't like it being up there.
I am asking, this is, and we didn't know until I got it back,
because now I have 90 million people waiting for me to go back,
but I'm on truth, and I'm staying on truth.
Listen, I am asking for everyone at the U.S. Capitol Remain Peaceful.
No violation.
We want no violation.
We want no violence.
Remember, we are the party of law and order.
Respect the law and our great men and women in blue.
Thank you.
That was at 2.30.
That was very early.
Mr. President, I looked at the same timeline that you did.
No, no, but you didn't report that. You know what? Because it was taken down. I was reporting that thing. But when it was clear to you, they were not being peaceful. You saw that brushing the Capitol, breaking windows, they were hitting officers with flagpoles, tasing them, beating them up. When it was clear, they weren't being peaceful. Why did you wait three hours to tell them to leave the Capitol? They listened to you like no one else. You know that. They do. I agree with that.
So why didn't you tell you the House soon?
Nancy Pelosi and the mayor are in charge.
I assume they were able to do their job.
They weren't.
But Pelosi is not in charge of capital security.
And if you remember, I made a video right outside the Oval Office in the Rose Garden.
And I'm very proud of that video.
I didn't have a script.
I don't need scripts like a certain person that's in there right now.
What type of the video?
Yeah.
It was a beautiful video and it said, I mean, I don't want to read at all, but you have, you have to go home now.
We have to have peace.
We have to have law and order.
We have to respect our great people of law and order.
We love the people of law and order.
We can't play into the hands of these other people.
We have to have peace.
Please go home.
I said that.
You know what they did?
They took that down.
And you know, to this day, it hasn't been put up.
And the reason is it's so good and so conclusive that all of this nonsense and all of that
tens of millions of dollars that have been spent.
are just wiped away with this one.
And they've never put it back up.
They had another one that they did this name.
But that video that you referenced there,
it wasn't posted until 4.17 p.m.
They breached the Capitol at 2 p.m.
That video was posted.
4-7-20?
Yeah, actually a little bit before that.
Right.
So that's my question.
In that three hours, over 140 officers were injured.
It was posted after the first one I just read, though, and that was at 2 o'clock.
But I think the reason the timeline is so critical here, because going back to your influence,
in that three hours, over 140 officers were injured that day.
And a person named Ashley Babett was killed.
Yes.
You know what?
She was killed, and she shouldn't have been killed.
And that thug that killed her, there was no reason to shoot her.
At blank range, cold blank range, they shot her, and she was a good person.
She was a patriot.
There was no reason there.
There was no reason.
And...
He went on television to brag about the fact that he killed her.
The officer was not bragging about the fact that he killed her.
But one person who was at the Capitol that day, as you know, was your vice president, Mike Pence,
who says that you endangered his life on that day.
I don't think he was in any danger.
Mr. President, do you feel that you owe him an apology?
No, because he did something wrong.
He should have put the votes back to the state legislatures,
and I think we would have had a different outcome.
I really do.
The need doesn't have the authority to do that, as you know.
The vice president does not have the authority to reject those election results.
Let's have this one.
Just now because it's interesting, right?
I like Mike Pence very much.
He's a very fine man.
He's a very nice man.
He made a mistake.
His lawyer said, you cannot move.
I called him the human conveyor belt.
I said, even if the votes, you mean, I talked to his lawyer, even if the votes are
absolutely fraudulent, he can't.
Yes, sir, he can't send him.
And the Democrats played it and the rhinos played it.
And then the election was over.
They told him he couldn't do it.
And Mike said to me, I can't do it.
The lawyers told me you can't do it.
They can't do it.
But the lawyers were wrong.
Because right after the election, they all met the rhinos and the Democrats.
And they worked out a plan to make sure that future vice presidents don't do.
what I said you could do.
That's not what happened.
You're referring to the Electoral Account Act.
I've read that.
There is no authority.
Legal experts, including Republican legal experts,
say that he does not have that authority.
But I want to move on.
Why did they change the law then saying that you can't do it?
They didn't change the law.
They strengthened the law because they were worried about president.
Oh, they strengthened it.
You could do it.
It's not what it means.
Thank you.
They strengthened the law.
Mike had the right to do it.
They...
convinced him he didn't and it was a horrible thing for our country.
If you would have sent those votes back to Georgia, Pennsylvania,
and other states, Wisconsin, which if you look at Wisconsin,
they virtually admitted now that the election was rigged.
If you would have not admitted that, Mr. President.
Many of those states, they would not come back in the affirmative.
And remember what I said.
And you just said it pretty much.
You admitted what I said was right.
They said he didn't have the right to do it.
And he did have the right to do it.
And that's why they changed the law, taking that right away.
I should note that your campaign paid for a recount that happened in Wisconsin.
It actually had more votes for President Biden by the end of it.
But I want to move on to Wayne Beyer.
He's a retired attorney from North Conway.
So many illegal votes were cast in Wisconsin.
And if you look in Milwaukee, Wisconsin, they had so many illegal votes.
They didn't even know what to do with them.
You're absolutely wrong about that.
There weren't any fraudulent votes in Wisconsin.
I do want to get to the audience.
So we have questions for you from the audience.
Wayne Beyer is a retired attorney from North Conway.
He has previously served in Republican administrations.
He volunteered for the Republican Party in the 2022 midterms.
He voted for you in 2020.
What's your question for the president?
Wayne.
Thank you for coming, Mr. President.
Thank you, Wayne.
My question to you is, will you pardon the January 6th?
rioters who were convicted of federal offenses.
I am inclined to pardon many of them.
I can't say for every single one because a couple of them
probably they got out of control.
You know, when you look at Antifa, what they've done to Portland,
and if you look at Antifa and there are so many other places.
Look at what they did to Seattle and BLM.
BLM, BLM, many people were killed.
These people, I'm not trying to justify anything,
but you have two standards of justice to this country.
And what they've done, and I love that question,
because what they've done to so many people is nothing, nothing.
And then what they've done to these people,
they've persecuted these people.
And yeah, my answer is I am most likely, if I get in,
I will most likely, I would say it will be a large portion of them.
You know, they did a very, and it would be very early on.
And they're living in hell right now.
So when it comes to pardon.
And they're policemen and their firemen and their soldiers and their carpenters and electricians and they're great people.
Many of them are just great people.
Mr. President, one of the people who was convicted was a former policeman, but he was convicted of attacking a police officer.
I should note.
But when you said you are considering pardoning a large portion,
of those charged with crimes on January 6th.
Does that include the four proud boys members
who were charged and convicted of seditious conspiracy?
I don't know.
I'd have to look at their case,
but I will say in Washington, D.C.,
you cannot get a fair trial.
You cannot.
Just like in New York City, you can't get a fair trial.
Speaking of New York, I want to...
ask you about a significant verdict that was reached yesterday. I know this is something you want to
weigh in on as well. Manhattan jury found that you sexually abused the writer E. Jean Carroll
and defamed her. You've denied this. But what do you say to voters who say it disqualifies you
from being president? Well, there aren't too many of them because my poll numbers just came out.
They went up. Okay. I think I'm
I'm the only person in history who had a charge like that.
And usually you leave office.
You say, I'm sorry, but I'm going to back home.
I'm back home to my family and everything.
I'm going to be resolved.
My poll numbers went up.
And they went up with the other fake charge, too.
Because what's happening is they're doing this for election interference.
This woman, I don't know her.
I never met her.
I have no idea who she is.
I had a picture taken years ago with her and her husband, nice guy, John Johnson.
He was a newscaster, a very nice man.
She called him an ape, happens to be African-American, called him an ape.
The judge wouldn't allow us to put that in.
Her dog or her cat was named Vigina.
The judge wouldn't allow it to put that in.
All of these things.
But with her, they could put in anything.
This was a jury of nine people who found you liable of sexual abuse.
Do you think that that will deter women from voting for you?
No, I don't think so.
Because I think the whole thing, just so you understand, ready?
Okay.
I never met this woman.
I never saw this woman.
This woman said,
I met her at the front door of Bergdorf Goodwin,
which I rarely go into,
other than for a couple of charities.
I met her in the front door.
She was about 60 years old.
And this is like 22, 23 years ago.
I met her in the front door of Bergdorf Goodman.
I was immediately attracted to her.
And she was immediately attracted to me.
And we had this great chemistry.
We're walking into a crowded department store.
We had this great chemistry.
And a few minutes later, we end up in a room, a dressing room of Bergdorf Goodman,
right near the cash register.
And then she found out there locks in the door.
She said, I found one that was open.
She found one that was open.
What kind of a woman meets somebody and brings them up?
And within minutes, you're playing hanky-panky in a dressing room, okay?
I don't know if she was married then or not.
John Johnson, I feel sorry for you, John Johnson.
Mr. President, can I...
Can I ask you this?
No, but think of it.
I know you're...
You know, you're recounting with two days, but Mr. President.
Let me just, if I could, because you asked a question.
Just so you understand, if I was walking in a department, because I was very famous then,
and I owned the Plaza Hotel right next door, and I own buildings around it,
I'm not going into a dressing room of a crowded department.
Then I say, if she was being raped, and by the way, they said she wasn't raped, okay?
That was her charge.
They found that you sexually abused her.
her. Say what? They
said he didn't rape her.
I didn't do anything else either. You know what?
Because I have no idea who the hell she is.
But Mr. President, can I ask you, given your
recounting your version? I don't know who, and I tell
you this. Are you ready? Can I
Can I ask you because? I swear on my children which I'd never do.
I have no idea who this woman.
This is a fake story, made up story.
We had a horrible Clinton appointed judge.
He was horrible.
He allowed her to put everything in.
He allowed us to put nothing in.
Mr. President, you're recounting your version of events here right now to the audience.
You referenced the trial.
You did not go to the trial and actually testified.
Do you wish that you had testified?
No, I wouldn't have made a difference.
This was a rig deal.
This was a, my lawyer said...
Sir, you don't have to do it.
I actually said, I think I should it would be respectful.
They said, sir, don't do it.
This is a fake story, and you don't want to give it credibility.
One thing you did do this.
And I swear, and I've never done that, and I swear it.
I have no idea who the hell.
She's a whack job.
You did not testify in person in this trial.
There was a tape deposition of you from October in it.
You defended the comments that you made on that excess Hollywood tape about being able to grab women how you want.
Do you stand by those comments?
I said if you're famous and rich or whatever I said, but I said if you're star, uh,
You are and I said women let you.
I didn't say you grip.
I said women let.
You know, you didn't use that word.
But if you look, women let you.
Now, they said, will you take that back?
I said, look, for a million years, this is the way it's been.
I want to be honest.
This is the way it's been.
I can take it back if you'd like to.
But if you're a famous person, if you're a star,
and I'm not referring to myself,
I'm saying people that are famous, people that are stars,
people that are rich, people that are powerful.
They tend to do pretty well in a lot of different ways, okay?
And you would like me to take that back?
I can't take it back because it happens to be true.
I said it's been true for one million years, approximately a million years, perhaps a little bit longer than that.
So you stand by those comments?
Well, I don't want to lie.
Mr. President, we have a lot of questions.
Mr. President, let's get to the audience.
A rich and famous person has no advantage over anyone else.
Well, you do have an advantage.
And I say, unfortunately, but...
that's the way it is.
You said fortunately or unfortunately.
Well, fortunately or unfortunately for her.
Questions to get to tonight.
I want to go back to the audience.
We've got Daniel Rieger.
She works as an oral surgery assistant.
She's a Republican activist from Derry.
She's a New Hampshire delegate for you in 2020.
What's your question?
Thank you so much for coming to New Hampshire to answer our questions.
My question is regarding the economy.
Over the past two years, we have seen the prices for everything skyrocketed.
From food to gas to utilities and insurance costs, many people's bills are up several hundred dollars a month, including mine.
If elected president again, what is the first thing you would do to help bring down the cost to make things more affordable?
Drill, baby drill.
We were energy independent.
We were soon going to be energy dominant.
And nobody had ever done what I did.
We got oil down to $1.87.
Actually, it fell lower than that in some cases.
We had to save the oil companies that the price was getting.
So we were doing incredibly.
We had the greatest economy in the history of our country,
probably the greatest economy in the history of the world.
We were energy independent, soon to be energy dominant.
We were going to be bigger than Russia,
And Saudi Arabia put together times two.
We have more liquid gold under our feet than any other nation, any other nation.
And these stupid fools ended it.
And energy went from a dollar 87 and even lower for gasoline for car.
They went from $1.87 to $5,6, 7, 8, and even $9.
And your electricity bills went through the roof, your heating bills went through the roof.
And that's what started inflation.
And it hasn't stopped because people are paying now for bacon and for eggs and for the two and three times what it was just a little while ago.
We created the greatest economy in history.
A big part of that economy was I got you the biggest tax cuts in the history of our country,
bigger than the Reagan cuts, bigger than any...
Thank you.
And also, as you know, we got the biggest regulation and regulatory cuts.
This place was rocking.
And then we were given a gift from China.
And China paid a big price.
And let me tell you something.
I took in hundreds of billions of dollars in taxes from China.
But prior to COVID coming in, and then I rebuilt the economy again, a second time.
But we had prior to COVID coming in as from China, from Wuhan, which I said, it came
from Wuhan.
Everybody said, oh, you're right.
wrong about that. You're wrong. It came
from Wuhan. I said it right from day one.
So we had the greatest economy
in the world. Here's the story.
They made energy so high.
And energy is all invasive.
It is massive as an industry
and as a cost. It lifted
everything. If you made donuts,
if you made, no matter what you did,
And we had inflation, the likes of which, I guess we haven't had, say, you said, for 52 years, but I think more than that.
We had no inflation.
We had the lowest energy prices we've had in decades.
This country was rocking and rolling.
And by the way, we had the most secure border in the history of our country.
But Mr. Redo, wait a lot.
economy. I want to make sure we get to all of those. As you know, the U.S. right now could be just three
weeks away from defaulting on its debt. That could be millions of jobs lost, people not getting
their Social Security payments. People believe it would put the U.S. economy into a recession.
On that topic, I want to bring in Marta Servaya, a student here at St. Anselm. She is an
undeclared voter who did not vote in 2020. Marta, what's her question? How
Hi, Mr. President.
Hi, thank you.
Such an important question.
So we're at $33 trillion, a number that nobody ever thought possible.
When we had our economy rocking and rolling just prior to COVID coming in, like literally,
we were making a fortune.
And oil, we were going to make so much money from oil, we're going to start paying off
But then with COVID coming and we had to do other things, we had to keep this country alive because it was so serious.
But we have to get the country back.
We have to lower energy prices.
We have to lower interest rates.
Interest rates are through the roof.
Energy has to come down.
It all has to come down.
And we have to start paying off debt.
But...
When we have a debt limit, and they used that very seriously with me, they came in, Schumer came in with Nancy Pelosi, and they were using it, we'll violate it, we'll do whatever.
They talked a whole lot different than they do right now.
I say to the Republicans out there, Congressman, Senators, if they don't give you massive cuts, you're going to have to do a default.
And I don't believe they're going to do a default because I think the Democrats will absolutely cave because you don't want to have that happen.
But it's better than what we're doing right now because we're spending money like drunken sailors.
So just to be clear, Mr. President, you think the U.S. should default if the White House does not agree to the spending cuts, Republicans are demanding.
We might as well do it now because you'll do it later.
because we have to save this country.
Our country is dying.
Our country is being destroyed by stupid people,
by very stupid people.
You once said that using the debt ceiling
as a negotiating wedge
just could not happen.
You said that when you were in the Oval Office.
So why is it different now that you're out of office?
Because now I'm not president.
Because now I'm not president.
The U.S. defaulting would be massively consequential for everyone in this room for all of you don't know.
It's psychological. It's really psychological more than anything else. And it could be very bad. It could be maybe nothing. Maybe it's a, you have bad week or a bad day. But look, you have to cut your costs. We're spending $7 trillion on $7.
Much of it are nonsense.
$7 trillion on nonsense.
I actually said, get all of that money that was wasted, and frankly, the Senate should have never approved it, get all that money that was wasted.
And if they don't get rid of that, you'll have to default.
Mr. President, we've got another voter here tonight.
And by the way, you're going to default eventually anyway, but it's going to be much messier.
I don't think you'll have to default.
I think if the Republicans hold strong and they say we want five years,
Let's say we won $5 trillion off.
I really think the Democrats have no choice but to do it.
And if I win, they're going to be doing the same thing to me in two years.
I guarantee you that.
They're going to play a very hard ballgame.
And they did that before.
Bobby Petrino has been waiting very patiently.
He's a student at St. Anselm.
He's a member of college Republicans.
He's an undeclared voter right now.
He supported you in 2020.
Bobby, what's your question for President Trump?
Hi, thank you for coming.
This is a bit of a pivot.
With gun violence and mass shootings in the news cycle recently,
I'm worried that state governments and the federal government
are going to act to repress gun rights.
Under your administration, you instructed the Department of Justice
and the ATF to ban bump stocks.
If elected president again, how would you act not only to defend our Second Amendment rights,
but to restore rights that have been taken from us, such as, by example, recently,
the ATF's ruling on the pistol stabilizing braces.
As you know, the bump stocks are actually a very unimportant thing.
And NRA, I went with them, and they said it doesn't mean anything.
It actually all they do is teach you how to shoot very inaccurately.
So we did that.
There's been nobody that's protected the Second Amendment, as you know, like I have.
I protected it.
through thick and thin, not easy to do.
But we have a very big mental health problem in this country.
And again, it's not the gun that pulls the trigger.
It's the person that pulls the trigger.
And we have to protect our second.
We have to protect our second.
You dealt with a lot of mass shootings when you were in office.
This year, there have already been more than 200 mass shootings in 2023.
If you are re-elected, are there any new gun restrictions that you would sign into law?
I would do numerous things.
For instance, schools, we would harden, very much hardened.
And I also, I'm a very believer.
I believe in teachers.
I love teachers.
I think they're incredible.
And they love the children, not quite like the parents,
but they love the children in many cases almost as much.
Many of these teachers are soldiers, ex-soldiers, ex-policemen.
They're people that really understand weapons.
And you don't need.
5% of the teachers would be more than you could ever have
if you're going to hire security guards.
But in addition to that have security guards.
You have to harden your entrances.
You have to make schools safe.
And you can make other places safe.
But it is a big mental health problem in this country, more than anything else.
And remember, we have 700 million guns.
700 million.
Many people, if they don't have a gun, they're not going to be very safe.
I mean, if they don't have a gun, it gives them security.
Now, you need them for entertainment.
You need them for hunting.
You need them for a lot of different things.
But there are people that if they didn't have...
The privilege of having a gun in some form, many of them would not be alive today.
You know, there's a certain country that had a very strict policy on guns, very, very strict.
Which country?
Brazil, okay?
Brazil, very strict.
And the former president of Brazil's sales and the...
The killing was incredible.
They were walking into people's homes and killing people.
They had no protection.
He said, go out and buy guns.
People went out and bought guns.
And it went way down.
The numbers went way down because they had security.
If you look at Chicago, Chicago has the single toughest gun policies in the nation.
They are so tough you can't breathe.
New York too and other places also.
All of those places are the worst and most dangerous places.
So that's not the answer.
No new restrictions that you would sign if re-elected, Mr. President.
I want you to meet Julie Miles, a registered nurse from Mary Mack.
She's a Republican who voted for you in 2020.
Julie, what's your question for the president?
Thank you, Mr. President.
Thank you.
I appreciate you answering this question this evening.
How do you plan to appeal to women voters in New Hampshire who are concerned about the Dobbs decision
and how states may change their laws?
It's such a great question.
And it was such a great victory, and people are starting to understand it now.
You know that they wanted to bring it back to the States,
but that was probably the least important part of that victory.
Getting rid of Roe v.
was an incredible thing for pro life because it gave pro life something to negotiate with pro life had
absolutely nothing being stuck in row v way to negotiate with and now what's happening and i see it all
over uh deals are being made deals are going to be made and look everybody that was president
wanted to get rid and tried to get rid of roe v Wade you mean for 50 years everybody
Republicans. For 50 years, this has been going on, actually a couple of Democrats, but for 50 years, this has been going on. I was able to do it, and I was very honored to do it. But by doing it, things are happening that are very, very positive. And
I happen to believe in the exceptions,
the life of the mother, rape, incest.
Like Ronald Reagan believed in the exceptions,
but I happen to believe that.
I think it's frankly important to do that,
but a lot of people are, you know,
against that, a relatively small,
relatively small number.
But the way I look,
I think it's very important to say this.
I consider the other side to be radical
because the other side under Roe v. Wade and other things,
the other side, they're radical because they will...
Remember the debate with Hillary Clinton?
They said, rip the baby out of the womb at the end of the ninth month.
They will kill the baby in the ninth month.
If you look at that crazy governor of Virginia from the former governor,
Well, he said, no, the baby will be born, and then we'll decide, essentially, whether or not to execute the baby.
But Mr. President, can we talk about what you would do if you are, if you are the radical people.
It's not the pro-life people that are out.
But if you are re-elected and you're back in the Oval Office and you get legislation to your desk, would you sign a federal abortion ban into law?
What I'll do is negotiate so that people are happy.
But the fact that we were able, I was able, I'm so proud of it, we put three great justices on the Supreme Court.
We have almost 300 federal judges.
Thank you.
So you, since you were clear, Mr. President, you would sign a federal abortion ban into law.
I said this. I said this. I want to do what's right. And we're looking. And we want to do what's right for everybody. But what's right. But now for the first time, the people that are pro-life have negotiating...
capability because you didn't have it before.
They could kill the baby in the ninth month or after the baby was born.
Now they won't be able to do that.
But I think this is a really important question for you to answer because this is something
every Republican, including those who are running against you for the nomination
or being asked about is would you sign a federal abortion ban into law?
And many of them are going to give you the same answer as I.
I am, first of all, I am honored to have done what I did.
And a lot of people said, they said, in 150 years,
he's now the most consequential president
because he saved so many lives.
And I'm honored to have done it.
And because of what I've done, we now have a great negotiating ability.
That's what I do in life I negotiate.
We have a great negotiating ability, and I think we're going to be able to get something done.
But what do you mean negotiating ability?
Because the question that Republicans have, and some of your allies on Capitol Hill,
say that they want to introduce legislation when it comes to banning abortion,
if they send it to your desk, would you sign it?
Some people are at six weeks.
Some people are at three weeks, two weeks.
President Trump is going to make a determination what he thinks is great for the country and what's fair for the country.
But the fact that I was able to terminate Roe v. Wade after 50 years of trying, they worked for 50 years.
I've never seen anything like it.
They worked.
And I was even, I was so honored to have done it.
We are in a very good negotiating position right now only because of what I was able to do.
And remember this.
Again, you talk about radicalism.
People that will kill a baby in the ninth month or the eighth month or the seventh month or after the baby is born, they're the radicals, not the pro-life.
I just want to give you one more chance, though, because you did not answer whether or not you signed a federal abortion ban or how many weeks into pregnancy you believe.
abortion should be banned.
Yeah, but I've given you the answer probably four times already.
Which one is it, though?
I'm looking at a solution that's going to work.
Very complex issue for the country.
You have people on both sides of an issue,
but we are now in a very strong position,
pro-life people are in a strong position
to make a deal that's going to be good
and going to be satisfactory for them.
If you weren't able to get rid of, you wouldn't even be having a discussion, if you weren't able to get rid of Roe v. Wade, which put pro-life in a dead position, a horrible position.
They could kill the baby at any time they wanted to, but we did something that nobody thought was doable.
And other Republican presidents, and others, by the way, they wanted to get it out.
They also wanted to bring it back to the states.
But bringing it back to the states is a less important issue than the issue that we just talked about.
You did not say yes or no to that.
It depends what the deal is.
Lindsay Graham's a good man.
He's got an idea and a lot of other people have an idea.
And I look at all the different ideas.
And a lot of people will be curious what your idea is on that.
President Trump, we've got more questions to come for you tonight.
We'll be right back in just a moment.
Holy shit, Trump is killing it, guys.
This is, yeah, this is a, this is a big question just before.
It's a simple question.
Will you ban abortion?
He's like, well, well, hot, no.
It's hot.
It's not.
Customers can't make payments.
Oh, it's an ad.
It's an ad.
Slayman, you want to mute?
Yeah.
I was just, I thought.
Yeah.
So anyone that wants to watch the video,
like watch a stream video, it's pinned above,
so you can watch it there.
But Andrew Yang just posted, I'll message him now
if he wants to jump on, but he just posted the following.
This is a clear win for Trump.
And no, this CNN town hall is shaping up to be a clear win for Trump,
certainly in the Republican field and probably overall.
I totally agree.
They love him or hate him.
He's just well-spoken.
I'm happily surprised that he didn't, you know, become moderate, right?
Except for the last question, which he didn't answer.
Well, which is why she asked him repeatedly, would you ban abortion?
I have thoughts on that, Ian, right?
I get it.
I actually wanted him to answer it too.
and answer it either one way or the other.
But the reason that I voted for him is not because I have like these strong traditional
conservative values.
And you guys know my position on many things.
But the deal making is why I voted for him.
So that's kind of in the same vein.
That doesn't really affect me.
But I would be interested to hear in more traditional conservative is what they thought about
that answer because I bet it's going to vary.
But didn't he say you could kill the baby on the ninth month or even after you're born?
So the governor did come out and said...
I think he mispoke, no, no, no.
That's not him that said it.
He was quoting the former governor of Virginia.
He did say that.
Who was the one who said it?
He said it.
Trump was not the one who said it.
Trump actually condemned it.
Yeah.
He said even if the baby's born then...
And just for the record, Ian, you're a dissantis guy.
So just to...
coming from a person that's not a supporter of Trump.
Guys, what do you think that is?
Mario, isn't it refreshing that you have a president
who can actually answer questions
and engage in a debate
and just be completely aware
where he is and awake to the questions
and actually giving not only smart answers
but also having a sense of humor about him?
You don't have that with Biden at all.
He's got a point, right? I mean, we were talking about this earlier. I mean, Kim has a very, very valid point. We're talking about Biden's ability to answer and engage.
Whether or not you like Trump, you have to admit he's doing a pretty freaking good job.
But he's doubling down on lies.
He talked about Pelosi and that Pelosi rejected the National Guard,
which is at complete bullshit because he wasn't even in charge of the security on January.
So, Joe, what he said was, and I'll be clear about this because I've gone down this.
So he said, Caitlin said that,
Laineauos who's not in charge of the Capitol Police.
The Speaker of the House does have that authority of the Capitol Police,
but Muriel Bowser is the one that turned down the National Guard.
That's correct.
So just to take a step back, guys, Slaman, just jump in, mute everyone and start the stream when the town hall continues, which could be any minute.
Allsource, your thoughts.
Look, I've heard a pretty, pretty, you know, pretty good town hall so far.
Like, Trump is doing well from what I've heard.
All source, anything that I missed, any flaws, any concerns that you heard?
So I think quickly, because I think I seen it's going to do it.
And I'm not talking, I'm not talking from a, I'm not talking, sorry, I'm not talking from a policy perspective, just how well he performed.
So, so I think this is...
I think this is kind of what Joe, I'd be, but I think the focus on this, and this is just the first rounds, Republican primary, Republican primary, Republican primary.
You know, we got to go back to, like, looking again at the Trump-Biden debates when those happens is the first one was kind of very disastrous for Trump and that.
But what really matters of this is the first shot of the Republican primary, ironically on CNN, and I think that kind of shows a problem with Fox News.
But I think this is, I think this is the huge focus, really, in the two frontrunners, Trump and DeSantis.
And it's important.
And it's important.
Mr. President Trump, I'd like to meet Jennifer Simmons.
She is a stay-at-home mom and former town selectmen from Wendom.
She's Republican and she voted for you in 2020.
Jennifer, what's your question tonight?
Good evening, Mr. President.
Title 42 is expected to expire tomorrow.
Our southern border and now our northern border are experiencing record migration.
We learned on May 2nd that the Biden administration plans on deploying 1,500 troops to the southern border.
Do you agree with deploying troops to the border and how will a Trump administration slow down the rate of migrants coming across all our borders?
Sure.
Very fair question, especially since tomorrow is going to be a day of infamy.
You're going to have tens of thousands of people pouring into our country.
Even the judge, you know, the judge overrule them when they wanted to terminate it early.
And he said, you know that you better extend this thing.
The judge in Texas said, I hope you're going to extend this.
But this is my policy that they're letting terminate because they lost in court.
They wanted to go earlier.
You're going to have millions of people pouring into our country right now at a level that nobody's ever seen before.
These people are sick.
Anybody that wants this to happen to our country,
they're destroying our country,
and this should not be allowed to happen,
how they're not going to do a version of Title 42,
or my Title 42, which was tough.
If people are sick and have infectious diseases
and lots of other problems...
We don't want them being into our country.
We have enough problems right now.
We have problems like we've never had in the history of our country.
But Mr. President, our country is being destroyed.
The reason it's ending is because the health policy, the COVID-era pandemic emergency, is coming to an end.
That's what Title 42 was.
You put it in place because of COVID.
When it comes to big questions about what your immigration policy would look like if you are re-elected,
Some of your Republican rivals have criticized you for not fulfilling the promises that you made on the campaign trail, like finishing the border wall.
So how did voters know that you would get those done if you're reelected?
I did finish the wall.
I built a wall.
I built hundreds of miles of wall.
And I finished it.
And then I said, we have to build some more because there are areas like water going through a dam.
There are some areas where a lot of people are coming.
You close up one and they come into another.
And we started...
another hundred miles of wall.
In fact, I said to my people,
if we start this and don't finish it,
and then we had a rigged election.
I'm sorry to say it.
The election was not rigged, Mr. President.
You can't keep saying that all night long.
And so then they took over and they decided not to finish it.
It would have taken them three weeks.
I built hundreds of miles of wall.
If we didn't have it, it would be hard to believe it could be any worse.
They're just letting people flow into our country.
Look, a country has to have borders.
There's never been anything like is happening to our country right now.
You feel about 52 miles of new wall when you were in office, Mr. President.
It wasn't the complete wall.
One other thing that with immigration, with your immigration, it was only about 52 miles of new wall.
This is what she does.
I built hundreds of miles.
Some of the wall was up there and would be laying in the ground, rusted rotten steel,
rusted rotten wood.
And what the radical left crazy Democrats did, if there's a piece of wood laying down,
they consider that a wall.
I built 30-foot walls that go down seven feet into the ground.
If there was a little piece of wood sitting in the ground, they said, oh, he's not building a wall.
We already had a wall.
Because this is the game.
They're a party of disinformation.
It's not a game, Mr. President.
It's about 52 miles of new wall.
One of their immigration policy you have when you were in office.
I built new wall.
52 miles.
For hundreds of miles.
CBP, Mr. President.
What I did is I replaced other wall that was laying down.
that was up and rotting into ground for 30 years.
Some of it was steel that you couldn't even see.
It was only about 52 miles of new wall.
But moving on, another immigration policy you had was the zero tolerance immigration policy
that separated families at the border.
If you are reelected, are you ruling out instituting that?
Well, when you have that policy, people don't come.
If the family hears that they're going to be separated, they love their family.
They don't come.
So I know it sounds harsh.
But if you remember, remember they said I was building prisons for children.
It turned out that it was Obama that was building prisons for the children.
But would you re-implement that if you're re-elected?
We have to save our country, all right?
So it sounds like that's a yes.
When you say to a family that if you come, we're going to break you up, they don't come.
And we can't afford to have any more.
Look at New York City.
Look what's happening.
They're living in Central Park in New York City.
The city is being swamped.
Los Angeles is being swamped.
Iowa is being swamped.
Our whole country is being destroyed.
Millions of people are coming into our country.
And you know what the number is going to be, in my opinion, by the end of the year?
Not the four million that you hear, the three million.
I think it's going to be 15 million people.
And in these people, they have no idea where they come from.
They come from 129 different countries so far.
120, not just the board that we talked.
Just to put a button on that, it sounds like what you're saying is that you're not ruling out re-implementing that immigration policy.
I want to get to another voter.
Caitlin Wausenow is a student here at St. Anselm College.
She's a Republican. This will be the first election that she has voted in.
What's your question for the president, Caitlin?
Hello, President Trump. Thank you so much for coming.
Thank you.
The current administration has made it clear that we should continue to provide military equipment to Ukraine
so that they can defend themselves.
Do you support this decision?
And how would you deal with the increasing threat posed by Vladimir Putin?
First of all, thank you very much.
It's really nice.
And it's an important question, so important, because we're giving away so much equipment.
We don't have ammunition for ourselves right now.
We don't have ammunition for ourselves.
We're giving away so much.
But here's the thing.
I have to say it to start off, no longer matters.
If I were president, this would have never happened.
And even the Democrats admit that.
Putin knew it would have never happened.
And his pipeline would have never happened.
A lot of things would have never happened.
But this would never have happened.
And all those dead people, both Russian and Ukrainian, they wouldn't be dead today.
And all those cities that are blown up and disintegrated right to the ground, that wouldn't have happened.
Okay.
Now, here's the problem.
We've given so far $171 billion.
They've given, meaning they, meaning European Union, which is approximately the same size altogether as our economy, they've given about 20.
So we're at 170, let's say, and they're at 20.
You don't have to know too much about history to realize, or geography, to realize that...
They're a little bit more affected than we are, okay?
So they've got to put up a lot more money
because they've taken advantage of us like every other country did.
That's why I ended NAFTA and replaced it with the USMCA and Mexico.
But on this issue, Mr. President, I should know,
I don't know any Democrats who have said they don't believe Putin would have invaded if you were president.
But her question is, would you continue to give Ukraine money and weapons if you're elected?
What's the answer?
I have a very good relationship with...
President Zelensky, because as you know, he backed me up with the phony impeachment
impeachment hoax number one when he said, the president didn't do anything wrong.
So I happened to like, so I happened to like, yeah, that's right.
And it was, I was totally exonerated, by the way, just a waste of time and money.
You were impeached over that.
You're a piece for that, but let's stay on topic here, Mr. President, because the question is, would you give Ukraine weapons and funding?
I was impeached by a crazy woman named Nancy Pelosi.
But the question here is, would you give Ukraine weapons and funding if you are...
I would sit down. Let me just put it a dash away.
If I'm president, I will have that war settled in one day, 24 hours.
How would you settle that war in one day?
Because I'll meet with Putin. I'll meet with Zelensky.
They both have weaknesses and they both have strengths.
And within 24 hours, that war will be settled.
It'll be over. It'll be absolutely over.
Do you want Ukraine to win this war?
I don't think in terms of winning and losing.
I think in terms of getting it settled so we stop killing all these people and breaking out.
Thank you.
What do you...
You said you don't think in terms of winning and losing...
Mr. President, can I just follow up on that because that's a really important statement that you just made there.
Can you say if you want Ukraine or Russia to win this war?
I want everybody to stop dying.
They're dying.
Russians and Ukraine.
I wanted to stop dying.
And I'll have that done.
I'll have that done. I'll have that done.
You need the power of the presidency to do it.
But you won't say that you want Ukraine to win.
You know what I'll say?
I'll say this.
I want Europe to put up more money because they're in for $20 billion.
We're in for $1.70.
And they should be equalize.
They have plenty of money.
They should equalize.
I got with NATO, when I sat down, I got them to put up hundreds of billions of dollars
that they weren't paying under Obama and Bush.
and all of these other presidents,
that's why they're able to help them
fight the war because of the money I got.
But I want Europe to...
Excuse me, I want Europe to put up more money
because they're laughing at us.
They think we're a bunch of jerks.
We're spending $170 billion for faraway land
and they're right next door to that land
and they're in for 20.
I don't think so.
When it comes to what's happening there,
when you were in office, you said that you respected President Putin.
Do you still respect him today?
He made a tremendous mistake.
He was a smart guy, you know.
I remember I said he was smart, she was smart.
They said, he said President Xi of China, right?
It's smart.
Okay, 1.5 billion people.
He's the rule of 1.5 billion people.
He said, he's a smart guy.
How dare he say he's smart?
Of course he's smart.
They want you to say he's a stupid person.
Okay, he's not a stupid person.
He's very smart.
He's very cunning.
And Putin made a bad mistake, in my opinion.
What was his mistake?
His mistake was going in.
He would have never gone in if I was president.
We used to talk about it, too.
What?
Do you believe that Putin is a war criminal?
What?
He's responsible for the deaths of thousands of...
Well, I think this.
I think it's something that should not be discussed now.
It should be discussed later.
Because right now we have to get a war.
If you say he's a war criminal, it's going to be a lot tougher to make a deal to get this thing stopped.
Because if he's going to be a war criminal, where people are going to go and grab him and execute him,
he's going to fight a lot harder than he's fighting, you know, under the other circumstance.
That's something to be discussed at a later date.
Right now, we want to get that war settled.
Isn't it important to call it what it is?
And I'm not talking about the money either.
I'm talking about all the lives that have been.
The number of people being killed in that war is far greater than you're hearing.
When they blow up a city and those buildings come pouring down and they say two people were injured.
No, no.
Hundreds and thousands of people are being killed.
And we have to get that war settled.
We have more with former President Trump.
Right after this, we're going to take a quick break and then we'll be back.
We'll go.
Well, solid answers on a Ukraine thing.
It's definitely not a simple issue, right?
I mean, she's trying to distill it into, are you for Ukraine or Russia?
I mean, it's a stupid question.
I mean, I get that she's asking that because they need to.
No, it's a stupid answer.
No, why is it a stupid answer?
No, he nailed the key, which is to make peace and stop the dying.
That makes absolute sense.
I agree.
I think he answered it really well.
Everyone knows I don't like Trump.
He answered that really well.
It's not a simple issue. It's not, oh, let's fight until Ukraine wins.
Nonsense. That is wishful thinking. Trump is a realist.
And this is where I like Trump. I fucking endorse this. This is good.
This shows that a man understands geopolitics.
It's a much more sophisticated answer than you're simple, oh, Ukraine must win Zelensky number one.
That's nonsense.
Sophisticated answer is people stop dying?
That's a sophisticated answer?
Yeah, because anyone can take good team sport.
It's not a team sport.
It's not a team sport.
This idea that we need to treat this like a team sport that is one country versus another.
It's as simple as that. It's not simple.
It's not simple.
They have to be concessions.
So everyone needs to understand that hundreds of thousands of people,
hundreds of thousands of people would not have died in this war
if Joe Biden would have accepted Putin's proposal to agree that Ukraine does not join NATO.
That's all Joe Biden had to do.
He was arrogant.
He didn't do it.
And hundreds of thousands of people died.
That would not have happened under Trump.
Well, and not, I agree, right?
Not only that, right, because...
So go ahead.
Trash, Brian and Ben, go ahead, yes.
Thanks. I appreciate it.
So actually one of the questions was very, very important, the war criminal question, right?
I mean, I understand God to try to pin him on an answer, who do you want to win,
because they're thinking in the dichotomy of win and loss, who's the Russia, Ukraine.
And my argument, and now Trump's argument, it seems, has always been, I don't want this to happen, period.
But the specific rhetoric around calling Putin a war criminal, I thought he answered that very well...
and because that's something that I have complaining about.
It's like, how do you get somebody to negotiate
when the countries have united against you
are calling you a war criminal
and want to send you to a tribunal?
Like, how do you negotiate it with that?
Yeah.
Exactly.
We're moving the off-cramp, right, for the guy.
You want an off-ramp, and calling him a war criminal takes that away,
and Trump is not taking that away.
He's giving him back.
He's putting it back there, and that's what we want.
This is how you establish peace.
You call the guy a war criminal, that's off the table then.
There's no more peace because it's like, okay, at that point,
he's just going to fight harder and harder.
Because why would he want to be tried for war crimes, right?
Let's go, Brian and Benjamin.
Go ahead, Brian.
I mean, not necessarily.
Yeah.
It could also be used as leverage.
Hey, we're not going to go after you if you do pull back.
Stephen Biden agrees with me.
Yeah.
Look at that.
No, no.
I'm not totally agreeing with you.
By the way, if Putin is a war criminal,
then every U.S. president is also a fucking war criminal.
I agree.
Yeah, every single British president,
when he Blair in particular, you know, he's a war criminal.
Yeah.
Right, Jimmy?
Yeah, so Zeno down there, I just want to make sure that we heard the Trump's answer, right?
So when she asked, you know, do you want Ukraine, do or whatever, do you want Russia to win,
I believe he said, I don't want them to, when I want them to settle it.
Is that not what he said?
That's essentially what he said.
He wants peace.
Yeah, I mean, that is, I have to admit, right?
Like, I am not a Trump guy, but that's a pretty goddamn good answer.
I mean, that is pretty good, you know, and it goes back.
There's a seat, doc.
I would like to say, yeah.
Does anyone, actually, let me ask questions for the audience and someone that hasn't spoken yet.
Does anyone think that this coverage, this town hall is not helping Trump's re-election chances?
Does anyone think it's not helping?
Well, you know, I think Republican presidential town hall with more President Trump.
President Trump, you, we have a lot more.
So, man, we can't hear.
We talked about others at the top, but the special counsel's investigation into classified documents that were found at Marlago.
Why did you take those documents with you when you left the White House?
I had every right to under the Presidential Records Act.
You have the Presidential Records Act.
I was there and I took what I took and it gets be classified.
Biden, on the other hand, he has 1850 boxes.
He had boxes sent to Chinatown, Chinatown, where they don't speak even English in that Chinatown.
We're talking about it.
And I got to stop you right there.
Nobody talks about it.
They talk about us.
Just so you understand, I had every right to do it.
I didn't make a secret of it.
You know, the boxes were stationed outside of the White House.
People were taking pictures of the GSA of the various people.
I got to stop you right there, because the Presidential Records Act, which is not well known to a lot of people.
I read it.
It does not say that you can take documents with you.
It says actually that they are the property.
It says you talk, you negotiate.
You make a deal.
It's not criminal, by the way.
It does not say you can negotiate.
It's not criminals.
And just so you know,
you can negotiate to take the documents with you.
Can I tell you?
Just so you understand,
the Presidential Records Act is not criminal.
I took the documents I'm allowed to.
You know who else took them?
Obama took them.
Nixon took them.
Obama's not taking documents.
Oh, he did?
He didn't?
He didn't?
The difference here that I'd like to know.
Reagan took them.
Even Jimmy Carter.
Even Mike Pence had some documents,
and he's a very honorable guy.
You referenced Biden.
But you know who took him more than anybody is Joe Biden.
He has 1,800 boxes.
And nobody even knows really.
And nobody talks about him.
Mr. President, it's not a back.
And they put a rough guy on us.
And they, in the meantime, they have nobody.
I think it's important, Mr. President, to actually set the record straight here.
They took documents, including Vice President Pence, when they realized they had documents,
they turned them back over.
The difference is that you waited to turn yours over.
And it was a year and a half effort that included a subpoena.
with those documents. One question about what happened when you had those documents.
That's what it included. They didn't raid. You'd gotten a casino and they had not been turned over yet.
They didn't raid Biden's house. You know what he happened? They put him in the house. That's the one with the
Corvette where the documents were laying all over the floor. That was fine. And you know who happens to be at Maralago?
Secret service and they're phenomenal.
I have secret service. He didn't have secret service. The other thing, the vice president cannot declassify.
He didn't have the right to declassify. He has documents from when he was a senator.
And even Democrat senators say, I can't believe it. No, I went by the Presidential Records Act.
And we were negotiating with NARA. That's not what it says.
And NARA has red flagged a thing called the Constitution of the United States and the Bill of Rights because
They considered them dangerous documents.
And I should note that there is a special counsel investigating your document situation,
also President Biden's document situation.
When it comes to your documents, did you ever show those classified documents to anyone?
Not really.
I would have the right to.
By the way, they would declassified after.
Not that I can think of.
Let me just tell you, I have the absolute right to do whatever I want with them.
I have the right.
I was negotiating with NARA.
You know what NARA is?
The National Archives.
Extremely left a group of people, extremely left.
And I was negotiating with them.
All of a sudden, they raided my house.
They didn't raid the House of Joe Biden.
They didn't raid Obama.
Joe Biden did ignore a subpoena to get those documents back like you did.
But that's the question.
But that's the question.
that investigators have, I think, is why you held onto those documents when you knew the federal
government was seeking them and then had given you a subpoena to return.
Are you ready? Are you ready? Can I talk? Yeah, what's the answer? Can you mind?
I would like you to answer the question. Okay, it's very simple to answer. That's why I asked it.
It's very simple to you're a nasty person, I'll tell you.
Can you answer why you held on to the back?
I was negotiating and we were talking to NARA, that's Washington,
to bring whatever they want.
They can have whatever they want.
When we left Washington, we had the boxes lined up on the sidewalk outside for everybody.
People are taking pictures of them.
Everybody knew we were taking those boxes.
And the GSA, the government service, the GSA was the one taking them.
They brought them down to Mar-Lago.
We were negotiating with NARA.
All of a sudden they raid our house.
When Biden has his documents, he won't give back the 1850 boxes.
And you're going to find some real gems in there.
But it was Biden who awarded them that he had the documents.
The National Archives reached out to you to get your documents back.
Why did you not turn them over when you got a subpoena asking for you to turn them
We were negotiating with them as per, as per the Presidential Records Act.
We were negotiating with NARA.
That's not what the Federal Records Act says.
But they've got to love our Constitution a little bit more.
And they shouldn't red flag it, by the way.
Very nice people.
We were negotiating with NARA.
And that's what the Presidential Records Act says, because Richard Nixon, surprisingly, had problems.
And he had a lot of problems dealing with NARA.
And they ended up passing legislation called the Presidential Records Act, just for this kind of a thing.
We would deal with them.
My last question on the subject with the president.
We were talking to them.
We would have done it.
But all of a sudden they raided the house.
Now, why hasn't the FBI raided it?
But I just explained to you why.
It's because he said it alerted the government that they had those documents and had them come and get the documents from his house.
A question for you, though, when it comes to documents, do you still have any classified documents in your possession?
Are you ready?
Do you?
No, no, I don't have anything.
I have no classified documents.
And by the way, they become automatically declassified when I took them.
No, you have to declassified them.
Let me ask you a question.
Why is it that Biden had nine boxes in Chinatown?
And he gets a lot of money from China.
Why is it?
There's no evidence of that, Mr. President.
No, you can understand.
There's no evidence of that, Mr. President.
And why don't they put this guy, Jack Smith, that his group of, and his group of thugs.
Why don't they put him in charge of that?
I need to stop you right there, because there's no evidence of what you just said there.
What you're referring to there is an office that he had after leaving the vice presidency.
No, no.
He had a temporary office, but I want to ask you about another investigation that you're facing.
You don't know the subject.
I do know the subject.
He had one at University of Pennsylvania, but he also had nine boxes in Chinatown.
Which is the one that's happening in Georgia where they are investigating there, your efforts to overturn the election results in the state of Georgia.
At the center of that, let me finish my question.
At the center of that is that call that you had with the Secretary of State, Brad Raffensberger.
Given the fact that there are indictments expected to come in that case this summer,
is that a call you would make again today?
Yeah, I called questioning the election.
I thought it was a rigged election.
I thought I'd had a lot of problems.
I had every, I guess he's Secretary of State.
I called, listen to this.
There are like seven lawyers in the call, many of them from there.
We're having a call.
We're having a normal call.
Nobody said, oh, gee, he shouldn't have said that.
If this call was bad, I questioned the election.
You asked him to find you votes.
I didn't ask him to find anything.
We've heard the audio text, Mr. President.
There's an audio of you asking him to find you 11,000.
I said, you owe me votes because the election was rigged.
That election was rigged.
And if this call was bad, why didn't him and his lawyers hang up?
How dare you say that?
This was a perfect protocol.
They were clearly concerned enough.
They recorded the call, and I should note that, of course...
This was a call that was made...
question the results of election.
And when we can't make a call
to question election results,
then this country ought to just forget about it.
You weren't just questioning the election results.
I was questioning the election.
We're asking to find your votes, and I should note that
There is no evidence of fraud.
There is no rigged election in the state of Georgia.
I want to get back to the audience now, Mr. President,
because those are false claims you're making about what happened in Georgia.
John Jordan Sullaburger is here.
He's an undeclared voter from Hollis.
He voted for you in 2020.
Jordan, what is your question for President Trump tonight?
Thank you, Mr. Trump.
Thank you very much.
I'm 26. I'm a veteran.
I help manage a private aviation company.
You want a job?
I'd love one, yeah.
I'm looking for somebody very good.
I'm not for mandator government interference in private business, but I've seen Republicans
going after us like DeSantis after Disney.
Right.
What would you do as president to protect us from government interference?
Well, I'm the one that really wants to protect you.
All of these fake investigations of me are about election interference.
They think because I'm leading Biden by 11 points, seven points, nine points.
I'm leading the sanctimonious by a lot.
By 40 points or 45 points.
I think he ought to just relax and take it easy and think about the future because right
now his future is not looking so good.
I will tell you this, we are really putting it to Biden, but he's putting it to himself because
the economy stinks, inflation is horrible, and the border is a disaster.
And by the way, the way he got out of Afghanistan was the single most embarrassing moment
in the history of our country.
Mr. President, I have one more question for you here tonight, and I think
While we're in front of the voters here in New Hampshire, this is a fundamental question for you.
You are running in the 2024 race.
If you are the Republican nominee and you are in that 2024 race, will you commit tonight to accepting the result of the 2024 election?
Yeah, if I think it's an honest election, absolutely.
I would.
Will you commit to accepting the results of the election regardless of the outcome?
The woman answered again?
If I think it's an honest election, I would be honored to.
And right now we are so far ahead of both Democrat and Republican.
And you know what?
If I don't win, this country is going to be in big trouble.
It's so sad to see what's happening.
But no commitment there on the accepting the results regardless of the outcome.
If it's an honest election, correct.
Okay, so not committing to accepting the 2020 or election results.
I want to thank you for coming here tonight.
This is an important conversation with voters to hear and to have.
Thank you to our audience and to our host, St. Anselm College.
CNN's coverage, simply news.
He went into the lion's den to CNN, and he fucking owned it.
That's absolutely amazing performance.
Well,
well done,
well done.
Caitlin Collins had been harboring this for years, right?
So if you guys remember back,
I actually shared the clip back in the press pool.
He constantly shut her down, said enough, enough, because she was going after him.
So I think she's been harboring this.
She did well.
I think she did well.
As an interviewer, she did fantastically well.
You know, I mean, regardless of what you're doing performance.
When.
When we're talking about this town hall, though, and I think this is where the lens I think it's really important.
And I think, Ian, this is where I think it's very important from your perspective is one, this was a Republican primary town hall, right?
So Republican-leaning, you know, Republican voters, Trump voters, Republican-independent, conservative independence, right?
So that politics for people who are going to vote in the Republican primary.
And what I think it proves, right, at least this town hall is,
is that Trump is the front runner.
And if DeSantis, with all reporting coming out that he's going to run,
it would be extremely interesting to see a next, you know, okay, a DeSantis town hall, similar to this.
And again, I find it crazy that he went to, that CNN is the first to do this for Trump, right?
And not Fox News, which you would expect.
But boy, I think the biggest loser, I'm sorry to say it, is DeSantis.
Because everybody else, I don't consider them as serious contenders.
It's Descent.
I mean, Desantis, I don't know how he's going to turn this around.
I want to see the next poll numbers after this.
I want to see the next poll numbers because this is an audience that, you know, watching CNN that is primarily hostile to Trump.
And he's been doing so well in this country.
pound hall and the mood
of the audience was great.
Dude, just stop making it up.
They filled it with fucking Republicans in the audience.
To balance.
That's a joke.
It's not a balance.
So can I,
can I speak?
Well, Andrew Yang had thought it was great.
He said he thought this was good for Trump and the Republicans.
Enough,
enough.
Enough.
They filled the audience with Republicans.
Enough.
Enough.
How are you the judge is what's right to God?
Enough.
Give me a question.
All right, guys, Satira, you wanted to jump in?
Sure. Thank you. So if the question is whether Trump did well, the answer is yes, he was
vital, he was on point, he wasn't hideously mean, which sometimes he can be. If the answer
is whether he told the truth, of course the answer is no, frequently. Okay, so the question
becomes whether you care. So,
So, for example, no, he didn't build the whole wall.
You might not care about that, but he didn't build the whole wall.
That was a lie.
The thing about Northam, the governor of Virginia, is a lie.
Sorry for people who say that he said you could kill babies after they're born.
He didn't say that.
He said, in the rare cases of third trimester issues, if the baby is born, we will try and make the baby,
when the baby is non-viable, we'll try and make the baby comfortable,
and we will have the discussion with the mother and the doctor.
Right.
That is a far cry from we're going to wrench babies out and kill them after they're born, but nobody seems to care about context or nuance.
If, as Kim.com said, he was wrong about that, frankly, that was not, Russia was not just saying that NATO in December of 2021, Russia prepared some points.
It was like eight points, right, but they wanted in order not to invade Ukraine. One of them was that Ukraine shall not.
enter NATO, but the other was that NATO shall pull back all of its troops and all of its, I think
it was just as weapons from anything that was not in NATO in the borders that were there in
1997, as well as the fact that NATO shall do no more Eastward expansion. So if you think that
NATO is basically going to say, okay, fine, we're just going to go back to 1997, that is a bridge
too far, and I believe that. Okay, so there's a lot of stuff that Trump said. Now, let me just,
NATO needs to stick to it.
promises, you know, like the idea of the
defense of alliance, and yet
it's a expanding.
Well, Tyra, unfortunately
you are wrong because there was a
promise by the United States government
and Europe.
That was never memorialized, Kim.
No, it was.
No, it was. No, it was not
a website.
Not memorialized.
There's a website that provides all the evidence about what has been said and promised to Russia.
And all these facts are they know.
Can I finish or no?
Is this like just guys night out?
I want to finish.
Unfortunately,
unfortunately you need to accept that I rebut
and you say something, Arf.
No, you have...
Sorry, guys, so, Tira,
let Tira finish and Kim, you'll jump in right after, please.
Go ahead, Tira.
I'll let you finish the point.
Okay, so if you look at a lot of what he said,
there were clearly he was...
Now, the Presidential Records Act
was really one of the worst things that he said.
No, it doesn't get...
He doesn't have the right to just declassify anything
whenever he wants.
He can't do it in his head.
Even Sebastian Gorka said that
one night on this stage, okay?
He can't just do it.
He can't keep everything with the presidential records, which does not have a criminal.
That's true. It doesn't have criminal penalties. The penalties arise under other acts and
provisions. But what it says is the
the president is entitled to personal records,
but everything else belongs to the U.S. government.
And no, Obama did not take documents.
Obama had an agreement with NARA.
Okay?
So all of that stuff that he was saying about,
I had a perfect right, all this stuff,
that's just nonsense unless he's somehow claiming
that all those records there were all his personal records.
But I should point out that some of them,
as far as we know, have been identified as records
that even predated his presidency.
So if you're telling me that Donald Trump's personal records
included records,
that were there when he got into office. That is once again nonsense. Thank you.
And don't forget he admitted on live TV that he shared those records with people.
Dan, right? Let's go for Kim.
Go ahead, please.
Yes, so first of all, the promise that the United States and Germany and the UK made to Russia is well documented.
They gave Russia their word that the NATO alliance is not going to extend eastwards in exchange.
for Russia allowing the reunification of Eastern Germany with the West,
so that we now have this new...
Germany that has reunited.
And this is well documented.
Their websites,
and I'm going to put the link to that website up in the nest,
and then you can all verify if what Tyra has said is correct
or of what I'm saying is correct.
Allsos.
I know me and Kim are going to disagree on this because they're going to show up declassified memos from the National Security Council of conversations of people that had in certain space and times of about NATO expansions.
But let's be abundantly clear.
There is no signed agreement between NATO, the United States, Europe, whatever, or Russia on this.
Number one, that clearly states that there will not be an extent.
Thank you.
And number two.
And number two, the only act that the U.S. and NATO signed was the 1997 NATO-Russia Foundation Act,
in which it clearly stated every country had their own right in decision to determine their own security policies,
which implied if you wanted to join NATO, you were free to do so in the European continent.
The 1997 NATO Russia Foundation Act is the key.
I want to go to Ian before going to Benjamin and John.
Ian, I've got a question for you.
Do you, what is your biggest concern after listening to Trump today?
Do you think he spoke well, he was directing some points.
I think he answered many questions really well.
Do you think he twists or exaggerates the truth at times?
Is that a concern you have?
Yeah, 100% he does that.
I don't think anyone on the stage or even off the stage can deny that.
There are parts where he does manipulate certain events, but it's not like no one else does.
Straight lies.
Not manipulate, straight lies.
Just acknowledge that you know he's a scam artist, but you accept the scam because that's what you want the outcome to be.
I think there's a difference between scam artists.
Don't put words about that.
Yeah, I think scam artists.
I'm sorry, one second.
Ian, is he not a scam artist?
Yes or no?
Is he not a scam artist?
Trump Stakes, Trump College, Doc, be quiet.
Ian, is he not a scam artist?
And also at the wall.
He never completed it.
No, no, no, no.
Yes or no.
Is he a scam artist?
You just asked me if I think he lied on the stage.
I said, yeah.
No, I did not.
I said, do you think he's a scam artist?
Do I thought to be quiet.
Ian, I'm asking a question.
Do you think that Trump is a scam artist?
I do believe he is a quote unquote businessman and he, you know,
did he not pay hundreds of thousand dollars for construction?
Is he not a scam artist or not?
Like, why?
Just answer.
Why are you attacking me on this?
I'm not a Trump supporter.
What?
All right.
So, Ian, I'll let you answer the question.
Yeah, I don't know why you're like grilling me on this.
I'm not a Trump supporter.
What a hell?
Like,
That's not what I asked you.
I asked you in terms of scam artists.
You're asking me if his scammer.
I'm telling you how he scam people.
I'm telling you that he's full of shit when he comes to the wall.
I'm telling you he's full of shit.
It comes to J6.
I'm telling you he's full of shit.
And he makes all these promises.
But he does have a lot of redeeming values, right?
Like when he talks about foreign policy, that's something you can bank on
because he has delivered every single one of the campaign promises that he made when he was in office or before he was in office in trade 16.
So there are things that he does deliver on.
He did make the economy better.
Let's look at that.
So what you're saying is...
So...
What you say?
A single soldier died when he was in office
and then the instant Biden comes in,
13 soldiers died.
Why is that?
No, but that's the point.
We're talking about Biden being a ship person
and I agree.
He's an old relic ship person,
but does that affect the decisions
and the outcomes that he makes?
And that's what we're talking about.
We're saying, you agreed.
He's a scam artist, but...
But you like what he did.
He's a fucking scam artist or not.
It's an irrelevant question.
Exactly.
Bullshits a lot.
So what?
He doesn't have a lot.
He doesn't have a lot.
He doesn't he.
So, do you, so, so, anyway, I take it at your point.
I don't agree with B and R digital because, like, I just want to say, like, you know, if you want to, if you want to call Trump a scam artist, Biden's the same way.
Now, you can't call dissentance to that because dissent is not a liar, but Biden 100% is as much of a scam artist as, moving, I mean, I have curious.
I mean, just coming back on to it.
I can go ahead.
Yeah, look.
At the end of the day, it's not about Biden being bad because you've seen it.
Let's just take one example, Ukraine and Russia war.
You saw in the interview how childish she wasn't, but she represents the left.
She represents the liberals.
She represents the neocons.
Where essentially, like, who do you want to win?
It's like a game.
Ukraine or Russia.
This is the media doing the...
He gave an excellent answer.
for that regard.
An answer that will cause world peace.
Exactly.
I guess when it comes to the left,
they don't mind people dying as long as you don't think.
the question is the person or the outcome.
Sorry,
just two six,
two seconds.
What is that?
Saman, I don't know why you had to twist that.
I agree with everything he said people on the left don't care about people dying.
Yeah, cause to do.
No, no, you have to be straight.
No, they do care.
They want the war to continue.
When they're saying, we want Ukraine.
The Taliban, hold on, let's say, man.
Now, Ian, Ian, Ian, Ian, just saying.
Mario, let me ask you a question.
Like, please be honest as possible, right?
When someone is saying, I want Ukraine to win.
And you want to fight until the last man.
What does that mean?
What happens to the people?
Salaman, it's the establishment.
It's both left.
People, people, look, Islaman, Saman, Saman, you ask your question.
Let me answer.
This is fucking, this is fucking human nature.
In every country, people are killed because people are egoistic.
People are selfish.
People make decisions that benefit them, benefit their pocket.
For you to paint it as the left are criminal.
Ask your question again, bro.
So my question to you with this is very simple.
When they are saying the Liberals and the Neocons and the rhinos,
when they want Ukraine to fight till the last man, till they win,
what happens to the humans in Ukraine?
Then humans die.
Humans die.
How's that for an answer?
That's the stupidest question.
Of course, great.
Doesn't make your point that you say, and that pisses me off, especially coming from
you, that doesn't make your point.
And if someone on the left says the right don't care about people dying, I'd answer
the same thing.
The left or the right, people make decisions where innocents die.
I agree, Mario.
People on the left did that, people on the right did it.
To make a statement, let me finish.
Let me finish.
Okay, then you can fix you what he said, because I'd like you to do that.
If they say people on the left don't care about people dying, or for anyone to say people on the right, don't care about people dying, no.
There are people that don't care about people dying and they care about their pockets more than they care about people in Ukraine or people in Africa.
Yeah, it's not really a left or right issue.
What I said, Mario, what?
You made it a fucking left issue.
Neocons.
I said the liberals, Newarkons and Rhinos.
Rhinos are the Republicans, right?
No, both of you made it a left issue.
Both of you did.
I did it a left issue?
No, you both said.
Let's, let you, Saman, I let you, Saman, take it.
I'll give you the mic.
Yeah.
Yeah.
He's up.
I can give him
like to this.
I never blame left for this.
I'll let you clarify what he said
and then we want to move on
to Ben who's been waiting for a while.
Go ahead, man.
Yeah, yeah.
So it's the entirety of the left
and then from the,
it's the New York cons.
And then from the right,
it's not everybody.
So it's the rhinos.
At least the maggas
and the people from the Trump's people.
Fuck off, dude.
Right? Okay, great answer, Fidgettel, right?
But essentially, what you literally said you didn't say the left and said the left again?
It's okay, let him, it's okay, sir, Fijia.
I think he'll correct him.
They can say misspoke or misunderstood.
It's all good.
He's not going to, he's going to repeat the left again.
I can make this same argument backwards.
What is hard to understand when I said liberals, neocons, and rhinos?
What does rhino mean for digital?
Maybe you don't know if that's probably the problem.
But essentially, these guys want the war to continue.
And let's be honest, we have to call a spade of spade.
When you want the war to continue, when you say, I want Ukraine to fight until the last month,
you want death, you want people to die, and you want nuclear war.
It's time to say a call it.
Or you want to protect Ukrainians from being killed, maybe, Soleim.
Bro, you're saying.
You can make the theme one.
You can make the thing more.
So Simon, Simon, Simon.
You're simplified.
No, so Simon, Simon, Simon.
So the argument of saying that you'll fight to the last man.
I mean, it's kind of still.
Hold on, Ian, in.
Please, guys, guys.
Ian, Joe, Fiji, guys.
It's so relaxed.
So I want to say, can I move on from this point
so we can go to people.
Yeah.
I'm just saying continuing the war.
It's not going to end it, Mario.
I mean,
yeah, true.
Ian,
I just said,
Ian,
Ian,
Ian,
I know,
man,
look,
Kim,
John,
Ben have
their hands up.
But just,
it's
same,
man,
on that point.
So saying
that you'll
fight until the
last man
and actually
fighting
to the last man
are two
different things.
So I would agree
with you
that actually
fighting to the last man
or saying it
and actually,
you know,
your actions
showing that
that's obviously
it's never the right decision.
There's always you've got to negotiate,
you've got to negotiate a peace deal,
and it's got to be somewhere in the middle.
So I agree with you there.
I agree with you as well.
So it's the left and the right,
just people in power,
New York, cause, whatever term you want to use.
I think it's just, you know,
it's just happened throughout history
and all around the world.
So I'm glad we agree on that one.
I do want to go to Benjamin,
if you don't mind Slime Man,
and then go to Kim and John and other speakers.
Benjamin?
Yeah, I mean, look, I tend to agree with Kira, right?
I mean, he doubled down on what I believe are some falsehoods, but that was expected, right?
I mean, I don't think anyone expected him to say, well, yeah, the 2020 election was safe and secure and so forth.
But I will give him credit, right?
So the answers that really mattered, the economy, the border crisis, Ukraine, whatever your views on it,
Look, he gave pretty logical, clear answers, and I have to give him credit for that, right?
And it goes back, I want to say, to our earlier conversation regarding Joe Biden
and his communication abilities and cognitive abilities.
You'd be hard-pressed to find Joe Biden doing an interview like that, right?
Unscripted, unprompted, and facing the questions from the audience.
So, although I'm not a Trump supporter, I got to tell you, I think he did a really, really good job,
and the answers that he gave, not in relation to...
2020 and his trials and so forth.
I mean, what's he going to say?
Yeah, I was wrong.
No, he's not going to say.
That's not who he is.
But he gave pretty good answers, right?
And I think that the answer he gave that resonated with me is, I don't want them to win.
I want them to settle.
That is a very powerful statement, which I think he deserves credit for.
I think his answer relating to the Ukraine, well, I think we all agree is a pretty good answer.
In terms of how the question was framed, it's the should have.
Okay, so again, man, let's move on, bro.
I don't know if you notice I'm trying to move on because there's a lot of points to cover.
I do want to agree as well.
The person asking the questions, who's surprised that's going to be gotcha moments?
That's the whole purpose of media getting clicks.
Gotcha.
And furthers their agenda.
It happens on, again, most mainstream media.
Kim, the mic is yours and then we'll go to John.
Yes, I'd just like to make one quick point here.
Will not be long, but try not to interrupt me, please.
Okay.
So a couple of people on the panel here said that the promise
to Russia about not expanding NATO eastwards.
It's not documented.
It is not real.
It's not a real agreement.
I posted a link up there.
It's in German.
The tweet, but the link goes to an English website.
It's actually the National Security Archive.
It's run by university.
And you can find all the declassified...
Just a second.
I'm not done yet.
you can find all the declassified documents.
I said I posted a link as well, Kim.
Don't have to get mad at me.
Yeah, I just wanted to finish what I'm saying.
Why are you interrupting then?
Thank you.
So what it says here, it's all the declassified documents,
and they show security assurances against NATO expansion
to Soviet leaders from Baker, Bush, Genscher, Kohl, Gates, Mitterin,
Thatcher, Heard, Mayor and Werner.
And all of these documents are there for everyone to see,
and for anyone who's claiming here,
that this wasn't somehow a valid document
not a valid promise because it wasn't put in writing.
This website completely debunks that.
It is in writing.
All the things that have been said are well documented.
And this is what Putin asked for that Ukraine does not join NATO
and that Europe and the United States should fulfill the promise that they have made to Russia.
Yeah, so there's, and I agree, I think there's not explicit formal agreement, but there's a lot of discussions or indications.
And I think we'd all agree that, and I think even all sorts would agree that even if there's no formal agreement, there are reassurances made.
There's a logical reassurance.
That's why I was corrupting you. You don't have to get fucking mad at me and trying to help you out.
Well, maybe you should stop swearing and maybe you should just respect what I asked for not to be interrupted.
I don't care. I'm helping you out. I don't need your help. I clearly don't need your help.
Yeah, and you're saying my link is in German. My link is in English.
So let me let me let me let me let me let me let me let me let me let me let me let me let me let me let me let me let me let me let me talk about. I mean. So just shut the fuck up here. And why are you even talking?
Okay, guys. So I want to go to John just very briefly.
John, I know you've been waiting for a while.
You had a few comments to make moving away from NATO and Russia.
John, you want to get there to mic before All Source jumps in?
Yeah, how you doing?
So my overall perspective on what I heard is this is a lesson on how to lose a general election.
And this is my problem with Trump.
I just don't think he's going to win the middle.
I think he's got major problems.
He did give solid answers.
The answer on energy was very strong.
The foreign policy question, you know, the Ukraine questions were good.
But by and large, I just, I thought this forum was going to be.
You know, we're kind of ignoring the primary and going after Biden and picking on a forum to kind of mainstream himself.
I just don't, I don't see this message at all resonating with the general election people.
And if you put it with an independent candidate, which we're definitely going to have, and this is why we had...
President Clinton, not because we didn't like George Bush.
It was because of Ross Perot.
And the reason we had George Bush instead of Gore was because of the third-party candidate
and the Green Party.
So third-party candidates are extremely powerful, and he's going to have to do more to
appeal to a larger group of people.
I just thought it was...
I mean, there was some strong parts to it, but his duplicity throughout is just kind of
weaved within.
And I don't know how a neutral and objective observer can just ignore that and go on.
Joe.
Joe.
You blanked out.
I don't know if you were calling on me or?
Yeah, I was, man.
I was.
Yeah.
Yeah.
I mean, I think John brings up a good point.
It's, it's.
He's using the same rhetoric he's used in the past, expecting that this time he'll win when he didn't win last time.
On top of it, if you have two brain cells, he says, I built thousands of miles of wall, but we have a border issue.
So...
The wall is supposed to stop the border issue, but we have three times the amount of migrants, although you spent billions of dollars to build the wall.
It doesn't make sense.
It didn't work, but he still uses it as a badge of honor.
And anyone with two brain cells can be like, okay, so then why'd we spend all that money?
It's just like-
Because they only have one brain cell, Joe.
And they double down on lie after lie after lie.
Like, it's just constantly.
I hope the bar is not, our president speaks well, so he should be president.
I really hope that's not the bar, because from what I'm hearing from the panel,
he spoke really well.
I mean, one of the bodies is that.
It is a bar.
You have, like, a guy's relatively well, the guy who's fucking senile, right?
That is literally the bar.
Yeah, that is a problem.
Welcome to American politics.
Right.
Hey guys, if you don't mind, General Flynn was listening for a while.
We were trying to get him up and the team was actually DMing with him.
And he actually made a comment and we do have permission to read that on the stage.
I would actually like to give your guys his feedback on this because I do find it very, very compelling.
Mario, do you mind?
No, no, no, no, no, go ahead, man.
Okay.
So, well, two things.
First, before I get to that, let me just read the statement real quick from Trump campaign.
So May 10th, Mar-a-Lago, Florida, Donald J. Trump for president campaign.
Tonight, President Donald J. Trump laid out his vision to reverse the Biden decline.
So that's going to be the talking point, the Biden decline.
Starting on day one, Joe Biden has turned everything into a disaster, inflation, the economy, the border, crime, energy, China, Russia, and wokeness in schools.
President Trump will save the economy, bring down inflation, secure the border, crush the deep state, and prevent World War III.
President Trump is the only one who can stop the forces from destroying our country.
Anyone else will be ripped in shreds.
Okay.
Okay, expected that.
Okay.
But this is what I wanted to ask the panel.
So General Flynn, his comment is interesting, and I thought about it for a minute.
And towards the end of this, I kind of had the same feeling.
So he says, tonight's whatever you want to call it.
It was a lose-lose for Donald Day Trump and CNN both lost.
It wasn't a debate.
It was an argument.
The biggest loser was America because the moderator was undignified and unprofessional
and Trump wasn't able to address more questions with the audience,
the true reason for the reason he was there.
It's a really interesting take.
Because I got a different feeling out of it.
Towards the end, though, it did seem a little bit more personal and stopped kind of going to the crowd.
But I do find that interesting.
I don't know what you guys thought about that.
I saw Brick come up.
And Dr. Gorka, thank you for joining us, by the way.
Did you guys have feedback on that?
Yeah.
So I think it's...
Oh, go ahead.
Yeah.
Sorry, could you tell me where you read that?
Was that General Flynn?
Yeah, we were talking to Jennifer Flynn in the background.
We were asking him to come up, and then I asked for permission to read that quote that he sent us.
That's fascinating.
That's a very fascinating take.
So a couple of things.
A woman was on about 10 minutes ago.
Utterly misquoted me.
A couple of people have DMed me in shock.
I never said anything of the kind referring to the president.
No, no, no, no, no.
They got it wrong, sir.
What I said was, and I want to be really clear because I corrected what the person had said.
What I said was when we asked, if you could, when someone asked you on this stage, if you could declass, the president could declassify in his head, you said something like, that's ridiculous.
No, I never said that's ridiculous.
The president makes the decision, but it has to, it has to be.
In his head, was the operative phrase.
No, I never would have said anything of the nature that that's ridiculous without having some kind of communication verbally or in writing.
And I'd like you to be quoting me accurately.
So it's declassified at the point of which it is communicate, communicating in any way, shape or form to witness or in writing.
With regards to the debates of my life.
Interesting take from my former colleague General Flynn.
It was a disaster for the moderator.
Caitlin Collins dripped, disdain for the president,
didn't act like a moderator, acted like she was debating him.
And somebody, some leftist said about half an hour ago,
oh my gosh, they packed the room with Republicans.
That person clearly...
some IQ problems.
That was me, Sebastian.
It was even CNN.
It's not,
Sebastian, it's not dripping.
It's not dripping.
Shut up.
Okay.
Really?
Shut up.
It was advertised.
It's not dripping if there's contention.
As a Republican town hall.
CNN advertised it as a Republican town hall.
Republican town hall.
It was meant to be Republican voters.
So maybe you should read the words on the
Chiron when CNN is actually advertised.
I won't tell you shut up then.
That's okay.
Oh, you're such a big boy.
So when it comes to the debate overall,
the point somebody made earlier was sound
that this wasn't,
an exercise in winning over the undecideds. This was four Republican voters in New Hampshire.
The president performed well, especially on the energy answer. It made Caitlin Collins look bad,
but the one real positive, of course, will be CNN's ratings. I think, you know, this will get a
huge boost for a channel that's slowly dying.
So, Sebastian, the comment that was made by a trash just reading General Flynn, but that was a comment made by John earlier that both Trump and CNN lost.
I would love your thoughts on that.
Yeah, it depends what the objective is set for the event.
If you're thinking that this is the event to win over the middle, yes, but that's not how it was staged.
Even CNN.
The only way they got to do this with Mar-a-Lago is to say this is an event for Republicans, with Republicans in the room.
Therefore, this target was Republican voters, not the middle-over-the-road, average CNN voters.
So it was a very strange setup that you have a rabidly anti-exam.
Trump outlet hosting a Trump event. I mean, look at what MSNBC did today. Look, look at the way they were
lambasting CNN all day saying, how day you platform this dangerous man. He's a threat to democracy.
But CNN needs, I mean, they crave.
some kind of salvation given what's happened with with their ratings in the last few months.
They've gone from 600,000 viewers in peak hours in the evening to less than 400,000 viewers in prime time.
So I think that's why they agreed to it.
For them, I think it's a win for them in terms of viewership, in terms of Caitlin Collins.
Caitlin Collins will be trashed by her honest colleagues in tomorrow's press.
And for President Trump, it's a win from the perspective of his voters who need reassuring,
but from everyone else and from the middle and the 20 to 25 percent undecided.
I don't think it moved the needle in any positive direction.
Alls force.
No, I mean, I think, again, like this is, I mean, Sebastian Gorka said it perfectly.
This is a Republican primary debate.
So who's the audience?
Republicans. This is the definition of this whole thing. It's the conservative movement within America as the Republican voters who are going to decide the 22-04 candidate for president of the United States, right? And I will go back with everything that's gone on. And I think we've seen the shit, right, because we kind of debate back and forward maybe sometime last year, oh, is...
DeSantis going to be the 2024 nominee.
And then the whole shenanigans with that and then his polling job.
Like, again, I think the biggest loser, because you just have to really focus on the Republican Party, the biggest looters there are here is DeSantis.
The question is,
once he announces that he's running,
because I think that's just a win, not an if,
once he announced,
how does he then get into,
how is he able to challenge Donald Trump
within either the MAGA movement
or just the Republican voters in general?
And I think it's going to be very hard.
Yeah, this is a fascinating point.
So the,
the,
Think about what happened at the end of last week.
Thursday and Friday, it was leaked, or rather it was rumored,
that the Santis is going to announce on Monday.
It's already Wednesday night, and he hasn't announced.
So there's this strange analog situation whereby, you know...
the left is debating how do they get rid of Biden and it's almost impossible to get rid of an incumbent
unless he voluntarily steps down. DeSantis is in a very similar situation. You know,
President Trump right now is the incumbent leader of the opposition and the longer he waits,
the harder it's going to be to make any kind of dent. One more thing and um
I appreciate Kim posting that information.
So on NATO, I was the NATO desk officer in the Hungarian Ministry of Defense after the Warsaw Pact fell.
And I worked on getting hungry into NATO.
After that, I was the first Hungarian Partnership for Peace Fellow at the NATO Defense College in Rome.
So let me be very explicit on what happened and what didn't happen.
Yes.
Yes.
verbal commitments were made
which have no weight in international law.
Why, NATO is a collective defense organ.
Paradoxically, every single ambassador
at the North Atlantic Council has the same power.
Each one has one vote.
Even if you're Luxembourg, you have the same voting power
as the United States,
which means any such commitment to a NATO member
or an outside country would require the universal consensus
of the then 12 member nations of NATO.
No such proposal was ever, ever brought to the North Atlantic Council,
and no document was ever signed.
There was the Russia Joint Act with NATO, has nothing,
no stipulations with regards to expansion or non-expansion.
So it's classic politics, it's cowardly politics,
assertions were made by individuals who had no right to make those assertions and who are too
cowardly to take it to the knack in Brussels to have a vote on it. So while these things may have been said
or not said, it's really irrelevant to the official stance of NATO with regards to expansion.
I just want that to be on the record.
If I can ask Dr. Gorka one question very, very briefly.
It's nice to see you again, doctor.
Thank you for speaking with me.
You made sort of the, of course this was advertised as a Republican town hall,
but I think this may have moved the needle with some dissatisfied Biden supporters.
And the reason I say that is, I mean, you know, not only group chats,
but I have a whole bunch of family that are dissatisfied Biden voters.
And I'm sort of, you know, been texting back and forth.
And, you know, even the most ardent anti-Trump people within my family within the United States are saying, look, you know, he did a pretty good job.
And the answers that he gave are preferable to the non-answer that Biden is giving.
So I absolutely take your point that this was clearly a Republican audience, a target audience, but I'm not.
I am not a, you know, statistician, but I think it might have moved the needle for some people.
I'm seeing, yeah, Go-Qa before, Sebastian, before you respond, I was going through the comments as well.
It's similar sentiments. So obviously, Trump supporters are praising this speech as having destroyed,
destroyed any chances of Biden being elected or DeSantis being the nominee.
But then you see people that oppose Trump and they still don't like Trump, but they're like, you know, Mario, not Mario, but they're putting in the comments.
despite, and there was someone making a few panelists making statements before,
about Trump over-exaggerating the truth or even lying in some cases,
they're like, yes, we think he's lying, we think he's over-exaggerating,
and all these things are being debated here.
But despite that, at least he's answering questions directly.
I think he's articulating his answer as well,
and there's a lot of good point he's made,
despite the exaggerations that they see.
And these are people that oppose Trump.
So I'm seeing a similar sentiment in the comments about,
But I'm curious, like I want to hear more because this seems to be the sentiment by most.
I'm curious to hear more from people that think, including the comments,
anyone that's listening, if you can put a comment on why you think that Trump did not perform
out or that's not going to help his chances of becoming the next president.
I'm curious to get more takes on that.
And John, I've sent you an invite to come back up because I know you had, you were making it such an argument.
but Dr. Cook, I'll let you...
Yeah, look, I'm fascinated by what Benjamin just shared.
Somebody who's on this space is right now,
just the end me and said,
I think Trump did appeal to middle and moderate voters.
I really do.
He is being compared to Biden,
and everyone wants common sense.
Look, I...
I don't know. I mean, I'd like to hear from other people. I live politics day and day out. I do a, you know, a MAGA-based radio show for three hours a day. So, you know, I don't hang out with Biden voters or undecided, you know, conservative bloodstream is where I'm at. But if he kind of appeal to people in the middle or people who are disaffected with Biden, that's fascinating. The question is he's got to maintain that now for 19 months.
If he were to keep up what he did today, maybe he would, right?
Because I am not a Trump supporter.
You know that very well, Dr. Gorka.
But you know what?
But I got to tell you, you know, of course he doubled down on what we talked about earlier, but...
I sort of maybe won me over a bit.
We have to hear what the Santis has to say, but I don't even know if that's relevant at this point.
I mean, this is why it's so embarrassing what Caitlin did today.
Oh, you built three meters of wall, not 5,000.
It's kind of be relevant when six million illegals have crossed the border in two years.
People aren't going to be judging on the discrepancies on the length of border wall built or not built.
They're going to be talking about, you know, illegal aliens coming over in literal horde,
come tomorrow afternoon.
So that's, I think, the far more interesting question.
Will people react?
Was the wall good investment?
Dr. Gwarka, I'll put you in a Biden group chat with me.
I'd be fascinated.
You can hear their opinions.
Yeah, absolutely.
I'll send you an invite.
Joa, yeah.
Joe?
No, just asking Sebastian if the wall was a good investment then.
No, I think it had to be done, and I think that's why he was elected. No, absolutely. Absolutely. The way we crushed illegal immigration down to a trickle, especially after Title 42, was good for all Americans and good for illegal immigrants as well. Why do people want women and children to be raped and sexually abused? I don't get it. I don't get it where the party who says, we're for the small guy, we're for minorities, is fine when the UNHCR,
says upwards of 60% of women and young girls are raped by the cartels when they're trafficked.
It's like if you have a heart, build a stinking wall and don't let anybody cross.
I mean, this is what I don't understand.
The wall didn't help.
The other cynicism.
The wall didn't help.
People are crossing right now.
The wall did help, though.
Of course it did.
What if the wall didn't stink?
How did it help?
What do you mean how did it help?
Look at the figures.
Look at the figures for illegal.
This isn't a debate I'm prepared to have because it's absurd to tell me that six million people.
It's three times higher now.
I get that.
Yeah, it's three times higher now because the Biden administration is not deporting people.
It's basically just letting them in.
Keep in mind.
But they're climbing the wall.
Are you missing the ones?
They're climbing the walls.
Seriously, you're blind.
Have you not seen the footage of people walking across the border?
Have you not seen the footage of people walking?
I went down to the border and I actually saw it for myself.
Sebastian, regardless, if they're getting through that door,
they're still climbing the walls.
It was a stupid investment.
Yeah, let's have nothing.
Like the walls do nothing.
Yeah, let's have nothing.
That proves that the walls do absolutely nothing.
That works.
That's how every other country in the world does.
No, I'm not saying let's have nothing.
There's other ways that you could invest.
Maybe you could have restructured, spent that money on technology.
Yeah, that's right.
To keep...
The walls are not just a fiscal wall.
There are drones there.
There are sensors that tell the CBP where to go.
That's what the wall is.
It's not...
The wall is a funneling device.
You're absolutely right.
It's a funneling.
You have no idea what you're talking about.
Go to the border and get back to me.
Yeah, the wall is a way to get his buddies.
Guys, too many people are talking.
Joe, go ahead.
Joe, yeah.
Joe, go ahead.
No, you, he, forget on mute.
Well, why are we on Joe?
Real quick.
He's making a left on the wall.
The wall was a way to give his contractor buddy's money that he owed him.
That's what the wall was.
Really?
Because the wall doesn't do anything.
You don't need the sensors on the wall.
You can put sensors on the ground without putting up huge, you're not.
Like, I'm not the biggest fan of Trump, but that is conjecture, you know?
You got a-
It's not conjecture.
Look at who got the contracts.
The same people that he's stiffed for Taj Mahal.
Are you kidding me?
Okay, so you asked if it was a good investment.
It was $1.4 billion that was allotted to it.
We've sent $171 billion over to Ukraine.
I mean, I thought there's other investments.
Why are you making a comparison?
I'm asking, is the wall good enough?
I'll be clear.
Joe, Joe, that makes complete sense.
Continue with that analogy.
That correlation.
That's good.
Keep on going.
What we're saying about wasteful money.
But second of all, it is nothing.
That's a nonsense discussion, homie.
Nonsense discussion.
Let's pay attention to the point.
How much wall was actually built?
I watched Trump say that there were,
no, no, no, I watched Trump say that there were pieces of the wall that fell down,
that they put back up, that correlated, you can actually bring in Dustin.
Dustin actually did the initiative for the wall.
Yeah, and how many, how many feet of wall?
I'll tell you.
How many miles of wall did he say he did?
Digital.
Pidge of 458 was built out of a thousand.
That's a lie.
That's a lie.
That's a lie.
This is pointless.
This is pointless.
People are really feisty today, huh?
Like, no one's telling you.
Yeah, I guess.
We're all calling each other names.
We're all being fucking assholes.
You know, like, even people like each other.
It's like we're just yelling at you today.
Yeah, yeah.
Trash.
Go ahead.
I like everyone here.
You know, like, I apologize, Kim.
I did interrupt you.
So that was my best.
I appreciate it.
I was being an asshole.
Thank you.
Yeah. I should have just kept quiet and I would just let you speak, right? Because we came to the same point of Benchell as being an asshole and then I got a little fired out.
Yeah, because I'm getting tired of being in space where people just constantly talk over each other. There's no structure. There's no moderation. It's so unprofessional. And I think the audience would want to hear people say their peace and not have this bickering and fighting the whole time. It's so unprofessional people.
Yeah, it seems as a Jerry Springer.
I don't like it either.
Jim, what would I say?
Ian can help with that.
Jim, what would I was say?
Right, one second, guys.
We can help with that because the same people complain are the ones interrupting.
Trash, go ahead.
You were going to say some out.
Yeah, so I agree with Dr. Gorka. It is a non-argument. It is a funneling device. It was it was being monitored correctly
The the Border Patrol under Trump. They had orders. They were deporting people. There was no message that it was open that therefore there was no incentive to have droves of people coming up. That is not what's happening under this administration, right?
Look at the nest. Look at the nest. Look at the nest.
What are you showing me?
Like some parts where people are scaling it in one specific area?
That's not several hundred thousand.
You can see thousands of pictures of people scale on the wall.
The wall does nothing.
It's a stupid idea.
And I don't know how people can't just say, yeah, it's a stupid idea.
You can put sensors on the ground and get the same effect.
I don't get it.
I mean, like, okay, Israel has a wall.
uh hungary has a wall uh Poland has a wall between Belarus and Poland right it stops illegal
immigration why is that oh it's because they work when you actually apply they don't have the
board no they don't work and they don't have the amount of the wall standing by itself it's not just
the wall standing by itself you have recon you have soldiers patrolling the place and that's what
exactly yeah exactly that's why didn't
Took all of that away.
He scaled back CBP.
And now all of that standing is parts of the wall built up there.
It doesn't do anything, obviously, because there's nobody to guard it, right?
The wall is basically a funneling device.
Thank you.
That's my point.
There's no one to guard it.
So you have to have a wall.
It's not a funneling device when people climb the wall and it's easy to climb.
Like, okay, so your house.
The vast majority of 458 miles of the wall was already constructed,
is literally in the pentuate.
They were short, and it was easy to scale.
Oh, thank you.
So, right?
Your house has a door, right?
Your house is a door, correct?
It's a door, correct?
It's got a gate or it's got a door.
Now, if you want to leave the door open, people are going to walk in, right?
You've got to close it.
You've got to make sure it's got to lock, right?
That's what the wall does.
It's basically like a door, but if you don't guard it, if you don't watch it, yeah, people are going to scale it.
It's useless at that point.
Right.
But the point is you have that there is a security barrier.
It is a layer.
It is one of several layers.
You have recon.
You have surveillance.
You have drones.
This is the modern Tower of Babel.
You guys are hilarious.
No, it's not even that expensive.
It's what?
$1.6 billion.
How much have you sent to Ukraine?
He said it was thousands of miles.
Thousands of miles clearly over $1.6 billion.
The funny thing is, Ian, you could build the Chinese wall with the money the US government has sent to Ukraine.
Right?
Yeah, that's true.
That's totally true.
It is insane.
This is a pointless argument.
This is a pointless argument.
Let me just go to Brick.
Brick, on the show, she claimed that he'd only build 56 miles of wall.
He said there was hundreds of miles.
Do you have any information on how much of the wall was actually built?
Because that's really what the contention is,
whether what Trump was saying was accurate or not.
Well, the figure of actual wall constructed was around 450 miles.
She is correct that in segments where there was previously no wall, that is a much lower number.
However, you need to look at the fact that some of the wall that was originally in place
and replaced with the new version of border fencing was really not doing anything effective.
And one thing that nobody here has mentioned is that much more of the wall,
the critical sections in some places to complete sections that were built,
contracts were already signed, roads were already graded, labor was on site, material was stored at the border,
and it had already been budgeted and paid for, and yet when Biden came into office,
he stopped construction on the wall sections, the fencing sections, that had already been arranged for.
Now, does that mean we saved any money?
No, we continued to pay those contractors up to $6 million.
$6 million.
dollars per day to sit on their butts and not build the wall with all the materials that we had
already paid for and staged at the border. So if you want to look at the whether or not it was a good
investment, yes, because it was never intended to stop all cross-border traffic. It was intended to be,
you know, it was intended to be something that would lessen human trafficking and drug smuggling
into that regard. It was successful.
and Biden,
Biden didn't allow
key finishing aspects of some areas
to be constructed,
notably in Yuma,
there's some areas in Texas
where there's miles of border fencing
and then a gap
and then miles of border fencing
because they wouldn't let them finish the construction.
what really has driven the increase in people crossing the border is not the fact that the wall wasn't,
the fencing wasn't completed where planned. It's the change in the policy of the Biden administration
towards accepting illegal aliens into the United States. And one last thing I want to mention
on a completely separate subject because it's going to come up a lot.
is the question was asked of President Trump if he will accept the results of the next election.
He answered perfectly well.
Yes, if it's a fair election.
Nobody asks a lawyer before a trial.
Will you accept the verdict of this trial?
Because the answer is always, we're going to appeal it if we feel there's something to appeal.
And, you know, Trump is exactly right to say he'll accept the results of a viable election.
It's hard to argue with that logic.
I mean, yeah.
I agree with everything you said.
I think Biden's another idiot.
I think Biden's another idiot, to be honest.
Like, that's not the issue.
But you're saying the one point I disagree with you on is you said it was effective.
If it was effective then, it should be effective now because it's a wall.
It didn't go anywhere.
No, it's not.
And they're not.
That's not exactly true because it was effective as part of a system.
And when you change the system by increasing the incentives for people being allowed to cross the border
and converting border patrol from people who actually patrol the border to now being like Uber patrol to pick up illegal aliens who are walking across the border
and then just taking them to distribution centers where they're flown wherever they want to go into the United States.
that's what you converted border patrol.
I want to be very clear.
The wall was ineffective because of the other systems.
The walls weren't effective because of the other systems.
I agree.
I just said Biden's an idiot, right?
Right.
So the other systems aren't in place, which is what was stopping people crossing the border, not the wall. The wall is not effective. That's my whole point.
Why are we discussing this? Why are we discussing this?
It's just a major point that he kept going to be talking about this in 19 months time. They're not going to be talking about how big was the wall, how long was the wall. They're going to be talking about the literal millions.
that have crossed the border and have created absolute disasters for those living across the border
and for those where they are being shipped to.
That's going to be the issue.
You've got to think of it in terms of politics.
What is the disasters?
What is the disasters?
What is the disaster?
Ask the angel mothers.
I'm asking you what the disasters are.
No, no.
Ask the people, for example, who are living in the colonia,
who had five members of their family murdered by a person
who had been deported previously.
Ask them what a disaster.
And what about the 10,000 more people that are natural citizens
that cause more harm?
Than that, like, what is the harm you're talking about?
That is the most stupid thing I've ever heard in my life.
No, it's literally, that's actually,
out of me yelling at fucking fences versus walls,
that's actually the most base question I'm asking.
You should ask Eric Adams what he thinks of legal immigration.
I mean, New York City is suffering right now.
Who's suffering?
The city. It can't afford to keep all these guys.
Who is suffering, Ian?
The city.
What city?
New York City. I just said, ask Eric Adams.
He's fucking speaking out against this right now.
I'm in Los Angeles and New York. Nothing. We're fine.
No, it's not going. And we will pay the taxes to organize.
No, no, no, no, no, no.
Just because you say it's not?
Just, you're going to yell over me?
You're going to yell over me?
You're just going to yell over me?
He can't handle it.
Right, guys.
You're doing the very thing
that you were basically complaining about.
Fisich should go first,
finish your point, and then you'll go.
Everybody who doesn't live in California yells and cries about California taxes.
Everybody doesn't live in New York, yells and cries about New York taxes and living.
We live in California and New York because we choose to.
Don't tell us we have the problems that you think we have when we don't say we have those problems.
That's why a record number of people have left New York. Is that right?
No problem.
No problem. That's why California is the fifth or sixth largest economy in the world,
and New York is the seventh to ninth largest economy in the world. That's not a problem. If you
want to live in Texas, and then you want to cry about the problems that we allegedly have in
California and New York, that is not an astute or honest conversation. We live in these states because
we choose to accept the realities of these.
People...
How is that not complicated?
So then you leave California.
So then you leave California.
So then you leave New York.
We're not arguing about it.
The fact that people are leaving the place, and they love the place, they love the state, right?
They love the cities, and yet they're leaving because there are these problems, and they're not being addressed,
and the longer they stop being addressed, the worst they're going to get.
Tell me a California or a New York person that's arguing about paying the taxes or paying for the, it's an amazing...
That's what you live in San Francisco.
It's an amazing proposition, Ian, it's an amazing proposition to tell us.
It's an amazing proposition to tell us we live here.
We're the ones paying the taxes.
They're complaining about it.
I live in California and I complain about it.
Maybe you're not, but fucking people on Twitter all, you know, I know a lot of people in San Francisco, they're complaining about it.
And a lot of them are Asians, by the way.
They're complaining about the lack of policing.
They're complaining about the illegal immigration, the homelessness.
These are real issues.
So then why, Ian, why did they stay there?
It's because the upside of the...
They can't afford to leave.
What did you say?
They can't afford to leave.
No, no, no, the first part.
The jobs are there.
The jobs are there.
Their jobs are there.
And they pay high taxes and they want some safety.
Are they not entitled to it?
Like, I mean, if you live in an expensive city and you pay a crazy amount of taxes,
you're at least entitled to basic safety, correct?
Ian, could we at least...
say could we at least confirm that New York City is not one of the most dangerous cities in the country.
In fact, but per capita, it is a safe city. I didn't say it was. I didn't say it was. I didn't say it was the
most interesting. But you're saying you mentioned New York to be a dangerous city and it should be safer.
It should be safer. Compared to, compared to St. Louis, New York does not hold a candle to
Yeah, I'm not even calling it St. Louis.
Okay, I'm saying it's unsafe compared to what it could be, and it used to be a lot safer.
Ian, this is the same conversation I have with, Ian, this is the same conversation I have with my mom.
My mom complains about taxes.
A mom complains about a democratic, and my response, my mom is, go to another state.
And then she says, well, I like the state.
She says, I like the state.
I like my job.
This is a tradeoff.
Why does this have to be a tradeoff, though?
Why?
It does not explain to me.
It's like, okay.
We're not complaining about, we're not complaining about illegal aliens.
You are.
You don't live in California.
You don't live in New York.
You have no, you have no jurisdiction or standing to talk about,
you have no jurisdiction or standing to talk about our opinion.
I'm in San Diego and I'm complaining about one out of time, guys.
Go ahead, Brick.
I live in San Diego. I live in California. I'm complaining about illegal aliens. It's a tremendous
burden on the state. We're a sanctuary state. We don't deport people, even when they're identified as criminals,
under existing federal law.
Counties in California violate federal law on a routine basis.
If you want to talk about people leaving the state,
we have to include all the businesses in downtown San Francisco
who are shuttering their doors and closing because of rampant theft,
in part because of domestic drug policies,
but also because of the rise.
Downtown San Diego is already a dying little area.
No, I said downtown San Francisco.
I said downtown San Francisco.
I did not say San Diego.
I live in San Diego, but San Francisco last I checked is in California, which is still my state.
So people are, businesses are leaving downtown San Francisco, widely reported because of the problems there,
much of which is because of the sanctuary nature of San Francisco as a sanctuary city,
and the drug trade that comes in there.
And to say that unchecked droves.
of illegal aliens crossing the border don't depress the wages of the honest hardworking
American citizens in every state is to ignore the fact the actual impact that all of these people have
in our country so when you say who gets hurt by it every single working American has fewer
dollars in their paycheck because
of the unchecked supply
of cheap,
because of the people
that hire them.
Because of the people
that hire them.
Don't blame the people
coming in.
Blame the people
that hire them.
Blame the people
that leak profit
by hiring those people.
I absolutely do not blame
anybody who wants to try and enter America illegally to better their financial situation or the situation of their family.
I do not fault them for that.
I understand that.
And I actually, on some level, I respect them for that because they want something better for themselves.
But as Americans, we cannot take in everybody from the world who wants to get into our country and...
and still have our country.
We need to have reasonable immigration.
And just allowing anybody who can pay the cartels to get them to the border so they can wait across a river is not a valid immigration policy.
If they don't get hired, does that argument...
Hold water?
No, no, no, just just here for a second.
If they don't get hired, does it hold water?
I'm definitely in favor of E-Verify,
and that is something that would allow that to not happen.
But we know that there's a shadow economy.
And you're absolutely right.
Hiring of illegal aliens is a problem that needs to be addressed.
Right.
But part of the reason it's a problem.
Brick, if they don't get hired, would they come here?
Brick, if they never got hired, would they come here?
There's a multi-layered problem.
Yeah, I don't know.
Simple.
If they didn't get hired, would they come here?
And we have to.
There are still plenty of jobs that they can get without being hired at major corporations.
And in addition, major corporations, if they didn't get hired, would they come here?
You know what?
If they don't get jobs and they're here, well, they get paid anyways.
They get paid by the American government.
Would they come here if they knew they could never get a higher?
Yes, they would.
They would still come here.
Their life in America without a job on the taxpayer dime is still infinitely better than many of the countries from which they are arriving here.
And I want to be clear here.
I'm not talking about just Central American illegal aliens.
We're getting them from all over the globe.
We're getting them from China.
We're getting from Africa.
We're getting them from South America.
We're getting them from Europe.
It doesn't matter.
I don't care where they come from.
I don't even want illegal aliens from Canada coming here illegally.
illegally.
All right. It has nothing to do with where they're, you know, in many cases, these people,
it's such a huge step up for them to come into America and to be supported by the American taxpayer
that even if they did not have a job, they would still come as long as we are allowing them to enter
and enticing them with the benefits.
Here's the problem. The Republican Party, unfortunately, is about 60 to 40 to 60 years behind
in terms of accepting evolution. It is not they or them or us.
Right.
The borders don't mean anything.
A dollar that controls,
a dollar that controls tax ecosystems
or human flow ecosystems
does not sustain.
Like, so we can sit here
and we can love oil,
and we can love fossil fuels.
But all you're doing is literally,
you're doing, is literally,
ignoring the fact that AI is going to take over in certain degrees,
and ignoring the facts that certain skills will become irrelevant.
And so we consider and plant our chairs, our...
Capri Sons are Savignon Blancs, but that does not avoid the fact that the reality is AI will change the landscape of our employment systems.
Influx of quote unquote aliens that you're saying is irrelevant.
This is all literally vestiges.
These are vestiges of your grandparents.
And until you guys accept that...
Go ahead.
It's going to exist.
There is no illegal immigration in the long term.
You have to compete against a legal alien.
You can have much of your job.
One second, guys.
Brick, I've got a question for you.
You know what you said in terms of,
and I really genuinely asking.
So in terms of what you said,
in terms of illegal immigrants,
negatively impacting the economy
to the extent where basically people can't get jobs
or whatever your argument was,
I'm paraphrasing.
Where's the evidence of that?
I'd like to see it.
Well, if you look at the first three years of President Trump's administration,
when there was a curtailment of the amount of illegal aliens crossing the border,
real wages for Americans rose, consistent on a consistent basis.
And that trend has reversed.
And on a surface level...
Even just...
It wasn't a factorial brick.
I understand.
I mean, I thought some great things with economy.
He made so many moves.
So none of that had an impact.
It was just his immigration policy.
Well, the immigration policy is part of that
because they've been a tight labor market
because of fewer people who were able to work
who were non-citizens.
in a compacted, you know, in a constricted labor pool, wages go up.
So, you know, obviously it's multifactorial.
But if you eliminate, if you just want to look at it, if you just change that one variable,
higher availability of labor will lead to lower wages.
So even just on that one sense, that's broadly true.
But you're absolutely right.
It's multifactorial evidence.
Well, I mean, do you want me to send you the photographs from my area Home Depot that's about a mile and a half from where I live and the vast number of casual labor to an evidence?
Well, I'm just saying, I mean, these are people who displaced legitimate contractors who are working, you know, who could be getting jobs because they're basically illegal alien day laborers who are encamped in America and work under the table, off the records for cash and, you know, without insurance in most cases, without benefits.
And yet they're taking jobs away from Americans in that category.
And I don't want to say like the illegal aliens are stealing our jerbs, you know, like that, that meme.
But.
Do you have any stats of the people who are hiring them?
There's not something.
I'm willing to bet.
Unfortunately,
some of the biggest hirers are like meatpacking, like chicken, you know,
I mean,
there's a vast industry.
We have a 3% unemployment rate.
Whose jobs are they taking?
Well, would you, would you, would you, would you, would you, would you, would you, would you,
a job let's let's let's look at.
Let's let's look at.
What would you, would you, uh, would you agree with me that the definition of employment
unemployment has been changed? Well, you may not agree with me, but it's the fact that it has.
And to fidgetal's point about AI, um,
I agree with them.
AI is going to change a vast majority of the landscape, the working public.
Maybe America doesn't need to import labor in quite the way we used to in the pre-AI era.
No, no, we need to, we need to put, guys, just pause.
We need to import efficient labor.
and what we are talking about, what you're talking about is inefficient labor.
And to sit here and say...
Well, I agree with that.
So just let me finish my thought.
Totally not in favor of uncontrolled immigration.
No, the opposite.
How did we become the leaders in technology and in science?
We imported...
quote unquote foreign labor.
We brought in Germans.
That's what we did.
That's how we got our leg up.
So we're not importing these people,
but what I'm trying to say is to try and artificially create
borders and barriers does not last the test of time.
And it's the same arguments of,
okay, we're going to switch to solar.
And all of a sudden,
a bunch of people who climbed into fucking caves to get oil,
all of a sudden don't have jobs.
And then do we redistribute or re-educate then to find out,
can I have an AOL account?
Can I have a, my,
like, the fact is, as technology advances,
we're going to,
People get lost in the sauce.
It's just a fact.
And to try and sit there and say, we are going to try and create CBDCs and try and create borders and control borders.
And then say on the flip side that people are coming and they're stealing jobs.
They're only stealing jobs because we're giving them jobs.
If there were no jobs to give, they would not be coming in.
And so it's a really base analysis of trying to understand where we're going to be in two, three, five, ten years.
And it's sad, but it's true.
Fundamentally, I would say, is it fair to...
Rick, I'm going to come to you back to here, bro.
Let me go to go to him.
No problem.
Kim, go ahead.
Yeah, guys, I'm going to check out soon.
I just wanted to say...
that the biggest point that Trump has scored tonight, to me personally, is the most urgent issue in the world right now, and that is the war in Ukraine.
That war keeps escalating. It may escalate to involving NATO troops, and then we have a hot war
between NATO and Russia, and that can end tragically for the whole world. So for Trump to be up there
on stage and say that, you know, not taking any side, neither Ukraine nor Russia, and saying that his
primary objective would be peace to.
to end the killing and to prevent people from dying.
That to me is the single most important issue that he has raised and answered really well.
And I applaud him for that.
You all know I'm not a big fan of Trump because, you know, he missed the mark.
He made a lot of promises from draining the swarm to, you know, appointing people that are,
dealing with the deep state
unfortunately not much of that
has happened but
In that single issue, he's made the most important point tonight.
And I just wanted to point that out before I'm leaving.
It's not about the fucking wall.
It's not about illegal immigration.
Of course, these are major issues in the United States.
But that's a regional issue.
We're talking about a global issue that may lead to nuclear war between nuclear powers.
And that is the most urgent matter that the world should focus on.
Thank you for that, Kim.
And let me just go to Ian on that, and then I'll go to AllSource.
Ian, one of my issues with DeSantis was basically his comments about Russia and Ukraine,
and then it adds to this idea of him being, you know, a rhino, New York, or whatever it may be.
Do you think he'll be as resolute as Trump was today in terms of the Ukraine-Russia issue?
I would hope so.
That would be my response.
I don't know if he will, but I would certainly hope so.
I think that he should...
watch this over and over again, watch it multiple times,
see where Trump went wrong and where Trump went right.
And Trump definitely nailed the Ukraine answer.
I think it was very statesmanlike for him to give that answer.
It's very nuanced, but it's something that I think a lot of people need to listen to.
And you can criticize Trump for a variety of reasons.
You can call him a scam artist, you can call it whatever, right?
But that doesn't matter.
What matters, I think, as Kim said, is World War III.
You know, that is a pressing issue.
And right, now it looks like we're on the brink of it.
And Trump may be the only one who can stop that from happening.
And I would like DeSantis to actually step up because I think he's a much better administrator.
He's better at implementing his policies.
You know, he's better at fighting the deep state, like in his own state.
Or China will do it, Ian.
Yeah, and then we won't have to be talking about this.
Who knows?
Yeah, and then imagine the way America looks to the rest of the world.
Looks terrible.
And again, more decentralization of, not decentralization, more denitalization.
The de-dollarization, I believe, will occur if that happens.
Yeah, so it's better for America to step up, you know, be a leader in this and not be a bunch of idiots and saying, hey, we need to send more money to Ukraine because it's clearly not fixing the problem, right?
We love to talk about, you know, a lot of people have to talk about how you want Ukraine to win. It's an invasion, blah, blah, blah. That's irrelevant, right? That's not how to worldviews this. The world views this as a much more complicated issue. It's not team A versus team B. It's not team red versus team blue.
Trump understands that, and I hope that DeSantis understands that too and that he won't be playing to his rhino base.
I know he has a huge base of people who don't like Donald Trump or very establishment types.
I get it.
I don't think he himself is establishment.
He is very firmly established that.
He's not a member of the establishment.
Why do you think he understands that?
Because from my perspective, hear me, hear me up.
Syria, he pulled out of, gave it to Russia.
Afghanistan pulled out, knowing they were going to give it to China.
All I've seen from his actions during while he was in term is he pulled away, gave territory to, quote, unquote, the enemy.
and I feel like that's exactly what you would do here
because I agree with what Biden's doing
Biden's completely wrong
because we need to get to a peace deal completely
and I think he's going to jeopardize
the way America looks in the world
but from Trump's past actions
they won't answer that
just real quick
because there was one wrongful information in the year
It's not true that Trump handed Syria over to the enemy.
There are hundreds of U.S. troops.
They're controlling the oil supply of Syria and stealing Syrian oil right now.
And they have been doing this.
They have been doing this for years.
And what right do they have to be in Syria and steal the oil of the Syrian people?
Whoa, whoa, whoa.
Kim, Kim, are you telling me when to Syria and Iraq for other reasons?
That's crazy.
If you look it up, Kim, we pulled out of northern Syria.
We left millions of barrels of oil for Russia and the pipeline.
You got a dozen bases there still.
We went and protected U.K. and U.S. company...
Joe, I got to stop you, dude.
So, Joe, I got...
Most of our wars are to steal oil.
Let's just be honest about it.
It's for us to steal oil and to steal resources.
It's just a fucking fact.
So let's just be honest across the board.
Right?
Immigrants are not taking jobs that we're not paying for.
And mostly Republicans are paying for.
We did not go into the Middle East to make diplomatic democracy across the globe as if it, like...
it means something to us.
We were stealing resources.
We continue to steal resources.
We will continue to steal resources,
but we're fighting against China
that is also stealing resources
and reinvigorating the Silk Road
that is stealing...
infrastructure and trade.
So this is a large word and pretend anything else is nonsense.
That's what you're saying.
What you said just now?
Kim?
Kim?
Which part?
Let me answer.
Which part?
The road and belt initiative is making infrastructure
investments in the countries that are partnered with
with you,
with you jurious terms,
can you just be respectful for a moment?
I'm trying to answer.
China is investing over a trillion dollars in markets that are participating in the Belt and Road Initiative.
These are harbors, highways, railways, major infrastructure investments that are helping these countries to connect to more markets and generate more revenue for those countries.
So to say that China is stealing.
And Kim, how many ports did they take over in the last year?
22 ports they took over.
Well, what does that have to do?
You're supposed to believe China is a charity.
You're supposed to believe common to China is a charge.
No, what China is building is infrastructure that allows for more trade.
And China, of course, is doing this because they have a vulnerability in the South China Sea.
And they want to circumvent that by having more rail and road traffic into Europe and into other nations.
and that is a very good investment that's a very good thing that helps a lot of countries and to present
I'm not done yet towards it okay yeah and that is a very good investment that a lot of countries are very happy for because not only does it
create jobs in their economies.
It creates the infrastructure that allows these countries to grow and advance.
And what has the U.S. done in comparison?
It went into those countries and stole the resources, like you said.
So there's a big difference between what China is doing and what the U.S. has done for decades.
I think Sri Lanka would make the difference.
I think that Sri Lanka would beg the difference.
It is, go and talk to the people of the African states where that's happening.
And you find out instantly, Kim, that they see this as neo-colonialism.
You're making it sound like communist China is helping these people out.
They're getting 50 or 100-year deals on natural resources that will suck these countries dry.
You really want us to believe that China's doing this for humanity.
Come on.
Me and Sebastian
almost never agree.
Is that better than doing it with military?
They're just two different strategies.
One's doing it by placing them in debt
for a century
versus going in with military
and destroying their livelihoods.
I mean, I don't know which one's better.
I don't know.
Just take Afghanistan and Iraq, for example.
The US went there, destroyed everything, and now China is the country that is building
hundreds of schools in those countries.
How much of the supply chain do China privatize?
Unilaterally at the end of COVID.
How much?
Are you going to say that they don't have a meat and produce shortage?
Anybody who knows anything about supply chain knows that they are suffering dramatically from meat and produce shortages, and they privatized most, I think about 60 to 70 percent of their supply chain infrastructure.
They literally took it from private markets. Are you going to deny what I'm saying right now?
What I'm denying is that China is destroying. China is...
No, no, I asked you a question.
China, yeah, and I'm answering your question the way I want.
Did they, my answer is that China is building where the U.S. has been destroying.
That is the big difference.
And I want to answer Joe's question.
You know, earlier you asked me, why did America pull out?
You know, Trump, what did he pull out?
And how is that beneficial given that, you know, okay, so here's the thing.
It's a sunk cost.
What did America have to gain in these places?
It didn't have a plan.
There was no order.
They were dying.
Soldiers were dying.
Right.
People, civilians were dying.
There was no point in being there.
If you don't have a real plan, if you don't have a plan to reconstruct the country after
you invade it.
and you don't fulfill it, you know, if you just send BlackRock in, and they're just going to, like, disappear all the money that's intended to feel the country.
Yeah, yeah, exactly, yeah.
It's like, what happens, right?
What happens afterwards?
It's like, obviously, you're going to pull out because there's nothing to be gained.
Why pull out of Syria?
Why pull out of Afghanistan?
I agree, but is it a national, I agree with your point, Ian.
It's true what you're saying.
But doesn't that now become a national security interest?
Because you're strengthening your enemies, right?
Your enemies have expanded.
They now have access to more energy.
They have now have access to more trade.
You know, like, guys, I'm not going to be that dude.
But all source and Benjamin have had their hands up for like literally 30 minutes while I've been yelling.
Yeah, sorry.
Let's go to all those.
Go ahead.
So I don't know.
Are we doing geopolitics or are we doing immigration?
I had a hands up because of immigration.
Well, it's the same thing.
Whatever you want.
What are we doing?
What are we talking about?
We have got a space on Title 42 tomorrow.
But anyway, go ahead.
Also, let's talk about whatever you want.
No, yeah.
So just quick, the reason why I had my hand up, just to really back, I guess, to the Trump is specifically the comment about the border wall.
I did want to share in the nest and the jumbotron of what people talked about and is up there.
It kind of goes, I think, to the point of what Joe and Fidgeta we're making.
And I'm not trying to say one way or the other, the border wall is it effective or not.
I think it makes sense.
But the issue that I have is kind of this, it's a political statement, right?
I mean, it's a campaign pledge, but like actual things on the ground are,
You know, there requires a lot more.
And I think what people forget to realize this.
So the video I shared basically shows within the border wall, actually on the mechanism side, you know, migrants are drug mullers.
They basically opened the border area and then they ran across to do whatever they needed to do.
And the reason why I say that is.
It's not just also like then the response is like, oh, we need more agents.
Well, it's more complex than that because what people will talk about, what are the agents that has agencies in the federal government that actually has the most amount of corruption investigations is actually the border patrol, right, in ties to human smuggling and cartel activities.
So there's actual WhatsApp groups out there that is not that hard to find if you know where to look that actually talk about how to go in specific areas of the border walls.
to get into the United States, to go in, open it, and they actually kind of know the times and they
recommend it. And there's only two implications, either one, because they know border patrol's not there,
or two, they know when Border Patrol won't be there, right? And they have some sort of that inside
knowledge, right? And so it just kind of highlights that if we're going to talk about the border
and border security, it's a lot more than just,
throwing more money at it or building more wall.
It's a lot more complex.
It talks about government corruption, et cetera.
And this is a very complex issue that it's not just a simple campaign pledge I think is
going to be enough to solve it.
Benjamin, go ahead, bro.
Yeah, it was a question to Joa.
Like, Joe, you seem, to me, you seem to be, like, one of the most pragmatic people I've ever heard speak, and I really like that.
My question is this.
Are you happy with the general, like personalities of Trump and Biden aside, are you happy with the direction of the country, and do you want another five years of the current trajectory of the country?
Like, honestly.
Like, do you think the country would be better, you know?
Under Biden, policy-wise, and that's both domestic and geopolitical or Trump.
Yeah, I appreciate the comment.
You definitely didn't read the comments in the thread because a lot of the audience thinks otherwise,
but I don't want either.
If you force me to choose one, I would say Biden.
But I don't want either of them.
Right. I said early on, I am a single issue voter. I do not want CBDCs. I do not want crypto to stop.
I think the denationalization of money is the only way that governments will stop to control people the way that they do.
Joe, can you explain to the committee what a CBDC is? I don't think they understand what it is.
The central bank digital currency, which basically...
you know that those $5 you give to like your niece or nephew on Easter and things like that you that would even that they would the government would now know so like those truckers in in Canada because they're protesting they could block all all money all cash right there would be no cash right there would be no cash right
That is a problem when a government has that much control.
And there's a famous economist, a Nobel Prize winning economist, who said there will be no good government until there's a denationalization of money.
And I think that's what crypto promised.
And I think CBDCs is increasing on the nationalization of money because they will know everything you do and be able to control every move you make.
And...
There's things going on in Carolina's that I'm trying to really figure out, and I can't get much info on it.
But supposedly they're testing CBDCs, and they're looking at, do you spend your entire salary?
Because if you don't, we'll just reduce your salary if you don't spend all of it.
So I'll go crypto clear real quick.
What Joa is saying is...
Yeah, I was just going to say China.
No, they don't yet.
They're on their way there.
It's starting with WeChat.
And it's probably starting with...
It's probably starting with X-F.
And don't...
So we have 8,000 people in here.
And I want to be clear.
You can think about what...
You can think what you want about crypto.
If I give you a dollar, you do not know where I got that dollar from.
With crypto, if I give you a crypto, you can trace that crypto back to its source origin.
What Joa is saying is,
Whether it's AI or UBI or CBDCs, which is all probably connected in one way or another, the government is going to be able to control and understand exactly where you got your money, how you spent your money, and you're not going to decide how you pay taxes.
They're going to decide how you try to reduce your taxes.
But they'll know where you went.
They'll know who you sent money to.
They'll know the brothel you went to.
They'll know the train you purchased.
They'll know everything about you.
And that is probably, if you think AI is scary, if you think AI is scary,
CBDCs as a core proposition, it is the scariest thing that you as a human
as an American will deal with not in the next 10 years in the next two or three years.
So if you lose your job to AI and then you get offered a nice little cushion of,
oh, here's another stimmy, but you just need to download this little US government wallet
and we'll send you to $3,000 a month of, this is just free money for the government.
That is the end of our democracy.
in my opinion.
Yeah, because then if you don't spend your,
if you don't spend your universal basic income,
then they'll just reduce it because the system will depend on you spending all of it
for them to be able to manipulate the economy and how much growth there is
and how much inflation there is.
So they're going to control,
they're only going to give you what will drive the economy,
but you need to spend it all.
You can save nothing.
Yeah, that would be like every other government.
And while you're afraid of...
Like with the military.
No, it's not anything.
I'm talking about like if the military or the FBI doesn't spend the money that they get,
they lose it in their budget.
I'm just using that as an analogy to what you guys are saying.
Just think about this.
You guys are...
We're sitting here for an hour crying about whether illegal immigrants will come in.
Imagine if it doesn't make a difference of illegal immigrants come in.
Every single moment of your efficiency...
is controlled and hedged.
That's where we're heading.
If you want to fight anything,
don't be fighting whether there's a wall,
whether it's 45 miles or 460 miles.
Wonder about whether when you go to bed at night,
the government knows when you went to bed at night.
But it'd be nice if Caitlin Collins asked Trump
about what he thinks of CBDCs.
Well, he's anti-grip, though.
There's only two candidates right now that are anti-CBDCs, which is DeSantis and RFK.
Yeah, that's...
And DeSantis has been more vocal on it than...
And Andrew Yang.
Yeah, there would have been a lot of questions she could have asked.
She spent the entire time arguing.
I waited a long time to get on, so there was something you guys mentioned earlier, which I don't know if anybody mentioned this.
I was in and out.
But it was supposed to be only 20 minutes.
I don't know why.
Yeah.
So one of the things, I don't know if anybody mentioned this,
but I guarantee you the conversation behind the scenes was our viewers are all liberals.
They're going to hate us.
They're going to think we're evil for platforming Trump.
We could already see the articles and the op-eds everywhere.
The only way we're doing this is if you go extra hard and fact-check him on the spot
and try to be like Glenn Kester on the spot with much less community notes.
That was the ultimate goal.
And that's why she went as hard as she did.
I think that was pretty obvious.
She was in a position where she had to because it was CNN and the hierarchy told him what she had to do.
Why do you think calling him on his shit is going hard against him?
No, because he was spitting nonsense.
Okay, but this literally.
Some of the things you guys said that he lied about, he didn't lie about.
You already covered the wall thing, right?
Where you're talking about semantics, where he said we build hundreds of miles and she's like, no, you built 40-something miles.
He said he finished the wall, sir.
No, no, okay, no.
I understand.
It doesn't matter.
It doesn't matter.
That's semantics.
He's saying that he did part of the wall, whatever.
The part that you guys were arguing about was the specific distance.
What he was trying to say to clarify was that when I say hundreds of miles,
I'm including the small portion of new wall and the replacement wall.
And you guys got into that wall.
I wasn't on.
You already discussed that.
So that was the semantics area
where he tried to make that clarification.
And then actually...
No, what I'm referring to is you saying that she was being...
either pedantic or aggressive when she was just actually asking questions what are you saying
he didn't lie about what he was talking about with the presidential records act and with declassification
you're wrong about that because the presidential records act isn't what he was talking about
with declassification what he was talking about is what's his personal records and you were
right about that tier when you said that is he saying that those are all his personal records
because they're not they belong to the federal government you were right about that that's what's
governed by the presidential records act
What he was talking about beyond that with declassification, the president is the chief executive.
So there's no law that governs when he can or can't classify or how he has to go about doing it.
That's done by executive order.
Yes, he has to be president.
He has to communicate this in some way and he has to be president.
Can I finish explaining it?
Okay, that was executive order 13526 under Obama.
That's the executive order that governs the process and it doesn't apply to presidents.
It applies to everybody under the president.
The president does not have to follow previous executive orders.
Unless he's not the president.
No, he's saying that he declassified it when he was on his way out the door and there's no process.
Where did he classify it?
No, Darth, the problem was what I was speaking of is seemingly what he was saying was that he did it.
He could do it anyway at any time.
He can.
Like in his head, which is what he claimed before.
He cannot do it in his head.
The only, okay.
The only document governing a process that says you have to write something down is the Obama executive order.
But I have never said there's a process, sir.
What I said was you can't just do it in your head.
It must be communicated to someone.
Donald Trump seems to believe that he could do it in his head.
He said that numerous times.
And tonight he basically.
There's no document affirming what you're claiming right now.
There's no, there's...
Literally, there's no document.
That's a point.
Yes.
He didn't do that.
He is the chief.
He's no longer president.
No, no.
My definition, no, no, my definition.
Let me finish it.
Nope, he didn't do anything while he was president.
Okay, he's saying that when he was president, all he had to do was take the documents with him and want to declassify them.
And if he wants them, declassify it, and he takes them with them, they're declassified because that's what he wants.
There's nothing that can challenge.
It requires our, it requires an affirmative action.
The only,
so let's not take any affirmative action.
Look at the language.
The only thing that, guys, guys, let me just.
Wait, guys, wait, wait, wait.
Guys, like, Hannah was talking.
Yeah, so let me make up a quick.
I don't want to go into the semantics of this argument because this is like a rabbit
haulers not needed to be.
So let's talk about fact-checking what he said specifically.
And I'd like to add on to this because Caitlin Collins was trying to like double down and try to pin him into a corner.
And he said, we were complying.
We were negotiating.
We were doing everything we were asked.
One thing that's never brought up is that they were actually coordinating with the Secret Service and actually placed a special lock that no one else had access to on these documents within Mar-a-Lago.
They were actually going along and complying.
This was just a snap raid before the mid-trial.
They were already at Mar-a-Lago, dude.
Like, don't lie to this fucking group.
I'm not lying to the panel.
You're lying.
Then you're not listening.
You cannot decide post facto that you said that they were not classified.
So we had to remove them, right?
So we had to have taken the presidential papers to Mar-a-Lago, yes?
So while he was there, you guys are still not showing me a process where so they actually have to go through what person has to approve it.
The point I'm making that was being made in that town hall was he was saying we were completely complying with Nara.
We were completely complying with everything we had to do.
It is known that they had to put a special lock on this where the documents were.
They were complying.
The raid.
was simply a political move.
And frankly, I have no problem.
Trash, trash, trash, hang on.
It's worse than that.
We have multiple witnesses who have been deposed
that when the FBI came with the NARA officials
and originally and the lock was requested to be put on,
the lawyers, the attorneys of President Trump said,
is there anything else...
The records office or DOJ wishes to take now, and they said no.
Only after they said, we're leaving with everything that is desired, did DOJ authorize the raid.
That's how political this is.
They were asked, is there anything else that you want to take now, and the agents and the NARA representatives are
said no. That's before the raid. That's how egregious it was. Just a little detail.
Fidgett, you, I just want to clarify this. You're calling me, you called me a liar, right? Okay.
Okay. I said to you, you said there needs to be an affirmative action, okay? Where is the requirement that says a president needs to have an affirmative action and can't just decide something's declassified in his own head? Where is that?
Let me enter this. Let me enter this, Fitzgerald. I'll answer this door. Yeah, also, I'll just add to our doubt, because we had a space on this and.
Nearly at that point, because we had a lot of lawyers on board from both sides, they all said that there wasn't a procedure.
But if you guys know one, then let's the executive order.
So let me, let me, daughter, I think there's a misconception.
So there's a, yes, there's an executive order, but there's also there's a, and I had to go back because I know this was in a previous space.
There was a court ruling on this.
And let me explain why.
This is where it matters.
The president of the United States is not bound by classifications.
Right. Donald Trump can say, I just conducted a secret, a mission on Afghanistan that was at the highest classification level.
And the president of the United States can say, we just did it. We killed this most wanted Russian mobster because he was threatening America's, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, we did it.
Right? Nobody's going to hold the President of the United States accountable because of that.
That classification does not apply to the president.
When we're talking about declassification is literally everybody else, right?
Because if a document, and this is where it goes into court.
Right. And this is what the court was saying when they ruled that there needs to be a process of declassification.
Because by definition, if a document is declassified, it means it's for public release.
I can grab that document and I can submit it to court or I can upload it on the internet.
I can grab that document and say, see, the line is crossed off.
No, that's a stretch. No, that's a stretch you just made.
There's a difference between, there's a difference between admissibility.
And classification.
That is a fallacy, dude.
No, no, I'm making it.
I'm just, okay, I'm signing the specific court case that they said.
But it goes to the point, it's not necessarily the president.
It means, like, let's say, Fidgitil that you're involved in classified information
with the president of the United States.
The president can talk about it all he wants.
That doesn't mean you can.
You're still bound by a non-disclosure agreement that you cannot comment in any way, shape, or form about that classified information.
Because even though the president publicly talked about it, it does not give you the authority to talk about it because it's still classified.
Actually, it does.
No, it does.
If it's disclosed?
Third party public information?
No, the president can talk about, it's not, disclosure does not mean declassification.
The documents that were uploaded on Discord are still classified.
That's literally the fact.
Bingo.
You have a security clearance and you talk about classified information.
Are you telling me that if Trump talked about classified information,
that the public could not then re-discuss?
There's a different.
If Biden himself posted that stuff on Discord, it would be declassified because he has the authority to actually.
No, no, no, no.
There has to be a process.
Because the declassification applies, literally talk to anybody that has ever had a security
clearance in the military.
The president of the United States is not bound by classification.
He can say whatever he wants.
Declassification means for everybody.
I don't understand their claim.
I mean, so the New York Times and the Guardian and the whole bunch of the newspapers,
they all published parts of that leak, right, the Pentagon leak of top secret files that
were talked about.
What happens then?
Are they all now liable under the...
No, because we have first protection amendment.
Press is for people that have classified access.
Okay.
Okay.
Look, this is what it means.
This is what it means.
I still have my clearances.
Okay.
So when the story broke of the Discord leaks, I had to discuss it on my radio show,
but I couldn't discuss the content of what was disclosed.
Any one of my guests could, but I still have a clearance.
And I could.
Oh, okay.
But Sebastian, if you disclosed it, I could speak about it, right?
If I disclosed it, if you don't have a clearance, yeah, but I'd be the one on the brink.
No, no, no, no, no.
If you discussed it, could I discuss it afterwards?
Yeah, you don't have a clearance. It doesn't matter.
You have a clearance. I'm asking you, all sorts. You're literally contradicting yourselves.
Sebastian, if you had private...
uh uh let's say you're the fucking let's say let's say you're the fucking president and you did discuss
confidential private the point the point also could i discuss it afterwards
Sebastian i'm asking question could I discuss it afterwards
I don't understand your question.
Sebastian, if Donald Trump in the bathroom.
Do you have a clearance?
Fitzgerald, do you have a clearance?
It doesn't make a difference.
That's the only thing that's the whole point.
Are you telling you?
No, no, no, okay.
Let's just pause.
Are you telling me I didn't have clearance?
And you told me private confidential information that I'm not allowed to repeat that?
Do you not understand the First Amendment?
No, you are.
You don't have a clearance.
When you get a clearance, you can.
He signed a thing.
He signed a thing.
You didn't sign a thing, so you don't have to abide by any of this.
So I can talk about it.
The whole panel on here can talk about it, but Sebastian cannot talk about it because he signed.
He has a clearance, right?
So he cannot talk about it.
Now, if it's the president, it's a different story.
The president can do whatever the fuck he wants.
But can we go back to documents?
I don't know what we're talking about here.
In terms of...
In terms of documents, okay, the president can declassify.
I do not believe, nor do most lawyers that I've talked to do not believe there is an actual procedure.
Obama put into place a procedure, but that doesn't mean that Trump had to follow it.
However, Donald Trump cannot do it in his head.
It must be communicated in some fashion.
Can we stop this discussion?
Can we stop that in your head thing?
You just said there's no procedure.
You just said there's no procedure, but he can't do it in his head.
So you're saying that there's no procedure, but the procedure that you want there to be?
Because that's crazy and you know it.
You're contradicting yourself.
No, I am not.
Yeah, there's no procedure, so why can't you in his head?
What I'm saying is there's no official procedure, but there has to be some.
The only procedure is communicated.
Okay.
Okay.
Okay, guys.
Too many people.
Too many people talking.
And I think I'm a problem is.
The territory, did you finish a point?
Well, still right.
What I'm saying is if you went to court and said that as a president, I did it in my head.
I do not believe there's any court in the country that would be like, oh, okay, great,
we believe you.
Because you're asking totally on trust.
You must communicate in some way.
Thank you.
But really quick, can a judge make that determination when there's no law?
Garth.
One second, please.
So I believe you're getting hung up on the fact of, okay, I'm President Trump and I'm saying,
release all the UFO files.
There's a process for that, right?
Because those records are requested.
He doesn't have those in his possession.
He's got a call up for those records.
He's got them.
But he can also instruct them to release all top secret confidential documents on aliens, right?
But if he has documents in his possession, he already has the documents in his possession.
He can declassify those as he see fit.
There is a fundamental difference.
No, I'm not, I am not being confused.
You're the one is being confused.
Donald Trump took documents with him, right?
If he's claiming that he declassified them before he left the presidency,
then he can't just say, I did it in my head.
I do not see how that would fly with anybody.
Here's the president of time.
here you're saying there's no there's no no document no legal requirement that he does anything
but a judge who would have to follow the law and
and analyze and rule based upon his perception of the law would say all that doesn't make any sense.
Whether or not you think it means.
No, his perception of the law is irrelevant.
No, okay.
Ignorance of the law is irrelevant.
Okay.
Ignorance of the laws.
No, no, no, no.
Those are your words.
Okay.
That's what you're trying to say.
I can see the point.
I'm an idiot.
That's besides the point.
Well, the point that I meant to make, I shouldn't have said that.
I'm sorry.
The point that it meant to make, just to stay on topic, I don't want to go on a fun of tangent.
We do that a lot.
The point I was trying to make was you're saying that, well, that doesn't make any sense.
And a judge would say, well, that doesn't really sound logical.
Then tell the legislature to pass some sort of law or to a mental constitution.
I'll tell you right now why.
I'll tell you right now why.
Law would not be relevant because we're saying that the president cannot be bound by such a law.
No, no, no.
Here's the difference.
That's why I sent an amendment constitution.
No, Darts, Darts, this, okay?
This is the stupidest conversation I've ever participated in.
Okay, it's completely pedantic.
It's pointless.
Surely not.
It is pointless.
So here's the issue, Darts.
Here's the issue. Trump, when he was president, he could take anything.
The president of the United States can grab top secret documents, take him wherever they want.
Nobody is going to bound the president of the United States to anything on how to handle classified information.
He's the president of the United States.
The nuclear codes walk with him everywhere.
He was the president of the United States.
Okay.
Right.
The moment President Trump left office and was no longer president of the United States,
those constitutional guarantees left with him, those constitutional powers he had left.
If he did not go through the, if he says, I declassified in my mind, here's the problem,
dark, just as a president can declassify something, a president can classify something.
So then Biden can say, well, then by that, I classified those documents in my head
The moment I came into office, that's not how the process, the declassification, the reason why it goes through a process is to let everybody know in America, the courts, people who are signed NDAs are not, the public, everybody can then access those documents because then they become public record.
They declassette. Look at what a Kim did.
He posted from the National Security Archive documents that are now in the public record because in the past, those were classified.
They're not now.
So everybody can study it, analyze it and debate it for historical or this amazing Twitter space that we're all having.
That's what's called declassification.
Disclosure and declassification are two separate conversation.
And unless you've had a security clearance and had to go through all the stupid training that we all had to do mundane and tedious, it doesn't make sense to the common folk.
But for people who had it, it's like, no, like declassification has a very specific meaning that does not mean in your head the president can do it because that doesn't mean I can talk about it.
I don't know I could talk about it.
It has to be public record.
Rick, go ahead.
But there's no, there's no policy.
Let me just go to break now.
Break, go ahead.
Yeah, I was, you know, I've been listening to this and it's a valid point that people
are trying to make here.
We're nitty-gritty here trying to determine it.
But I think, you know, I'm thinking about the town hall.
And what I keep coming back to is not the nuances of this point on classification.
I'm just impressed with President Trump's stage presence.
I think he came across extremely well.
And, you know, I think that this is really what people are going to take away.
They're not going to be...
Can I ask you something, Brick?
Yes.
Because I agree with you except for one thing,
and I'm curious if you see the same way,
because you've been at every flipping event.
I've never been at many, many more.
Body language at the beginning was not ideal.
Do you agree?
I agree that it was probably not ideal, but I think that, you know, if you're looking for perfection, it's rarely going to be achieved.
But I think that overall, on balance, the performance strength was...
I agree. Overall, he crushed it.
But at the beginning, that's slightly leaning forward away from her, not looking at her, that could have been better.
Stipulated. I'll go with you on that. Absolutely.
Thanks.
But I think that people are going to come across from this, you know...
They have not seen President Trump in this format in a very, very long time.
I think he excelled at it.
I think his ability to handle questions in a, from, let's be honest, a fairly hostile interviewer and interlocution, you know,
effort against him, you know, it was not really sympathetic and kind of,
And, you know, really, really off-putting, I think, to a lot of people.
I think a lot of people will not be happy with the performance of Caitlin.
But I think that he showed that he can still not just take the punches,
but he's still himself.
He's still authentic.
He's not capitulating.
He's still the President Trump that we knew.
And I think it's a complete victory for him tonight in the public stage.
And think of this.
Think of this.
This is the man.
Yeah.
who less than two years ago,
everybody said was politically done and finished.
After January 6th, he has no future.
He's being platformed by CNN.
And AOC is tweeting this.
CNN should be ashamed of themselves.
They have lost control of this town hall and are being manipulated.
When AOC is pissed at CNN, big victory for President Trump.
If the left could make being President Trump illegal, they would.
They would.
They would make it illegal, but they can't.
He continues to fight for America.
He continues to fight for all the citizens of the United States.
And he's not going to be stopped.
He is a force to be reckoned with.
And it's just an amazing victory for him tonight on the public stage.
So I was another question for you.
Hard to leave in the world, you know, because he's the only one out there saying that he wants peace between Russia and Ukraine.
And he's the only one actually good answer.
And telling me, trash was exactly on point when he talked about the reticence to declare Putin a war criminal while the conflict is underway.
It's just so I named that the Biden administration and Kamala Harris in particular have already used that label so many times because it's so much harder to settle that conflict.
When you have Putin stipulated as a war criminal, it's just unbelievable that we, that that's already happened with the current administration.
Yep.
And Brick, from the other side, one second, one second.
Brick, from the other side, I know people are attacking the interviewer,
but if you look at it from her perspective, it's CNN, they brought in Trump,
and she has to go in hard, and she went, she did go extremely hard,
but if she did anything less, I mean, CNN would have been slaughtered even more than they are.
Now, what's your thoughts on that?
And it just shows how well Trump handled it, that essentially he went, she went on an onslaught and he still handled it well.
But from her perspective, she did the best she could under the circumstances.
Well, I think, I think this.
Absolutely, I'm not, President Trump is not afraid of pushback.
He certainly did not expect to get this type of softball questions that are lobbed at Biden with regularity.
So he had to know that there was going to be, you know, an adversarial interviewer.
You know, I don't know, honestly, because I'm unsure how much of the questions were being fed to Caitlin via an earpiece, via producers, or the team off stage.
So, I don't know.
Was he really having a discussion with her?
Or was he having a discussion with her as the mouthpiece for the production team that was off camera?
And maybe that's part of the reason that she seems so disjointed,
because maybe she just doesn't have the intellectual tools to debate with President Trump on an equal footing without prompting.
Well, Rick, to that point.
Who is denying that she was being?
Hold on. Real quick, Darth, please.
I'm going to go to Dr. Gorkers. I saw him on my mute.
So actually, so I remember Caitlin Collins.
I remember Caitlin Collins being in the press pool.
I used to make a bunch of memes and a bunch of gifts out of Caitlin Collins and Trump telling her enough because she was shouting down everybody, talking over everybody, Jim Acosta style.
I believe that she actually had some personal animus that went back.
And whether where she was trying to hit point for the base, I don't know.
But there's a lot of personal animus there that she's been holding on to, Dr. Gorka. What do you think?
Yeah, I didn't see an IFB. I'm sure she had an IFB in her right ear that wasn't visible.
I looked at, you know, she was constantly referring to that big wadge of papers she had in front of her.
I don't think she was getting fed stuff, but...
It was, I mean, seriously, I mean, to say repeatedly, there wasn't one fraudulent ballot in Wisconsin and acting that, you know, this did not happen. That didn't happen. The animus was clear, especially at the end. You remember after there was only two breaks in the whole show. After the second break, they were standing. They got up from the seats.
It was like a cage match, and she looked like she hated the man.
And it was slated to go for 75 minutes.
It went under time.
This was Duran style.
They threw in the towel.
I really think they did.
I think that they threw in the towel, and they called it early.
It kind of reminded me of the Elon Musk interview with BBC.
That's what it reminded me of.
The fact that they ended in early showed that they were losing.
They lost control of Trump.
They could not control the narrative.
And I'm, you know, one of Trump's probably louder critics here on Twitter.
And I think he performed exceived.
extremely well, right? I was very impressed with his answers, the fact that he handled a very
hostile interviewer. I'm not saying she did a bad job, but I think they threw in a towel,
and it was clear at points that she was getting fed some facts, right? Like, for instance,
with the wall, like how did she memorize that one thing, for instance? I don't think she had
that information in front of her, but she certainly, you know, knew to bring it up about, I don't
know, five minutes after. So that seems like, okay, yeah, she's being fed information, and that's fine.
I mean, she kept on it, it shows there was lack of flexibility.
but here are whether whether or not guys everyone keeps interrupting she talked to speak like five times go ahead
to hear her thank you whether or not she was fed answers it's possible that they were telling her
some facts or etc um i i guess my view of this was i and i said it and i don't support president
trump at all he did very well
I don't think her approach was worked well with him.
Let's just say it might work well with other people, but not with him because he's he's really good at, you know, he's just good at this type of adversarial thing.
He's great at insulting.
He's graded turning the turning to a different topic, etc.
I do feel, as Ben said earlier, that there might be some Democrats looking at this program who thought, gee, Trump did a really good job.
And I'm a little, I guess my confusion is why did CNN, why were all the question as Republican?
Why was this a Republican town hall on CNN?
Normally, when we have town halls, they're, you know, multi-sided.
You have questioners from different political spectrums.
I'm not quite clear what CNN, why they even did this, but why it's...
It's a primary.
Not just that.
CNN is trying to cater to a more broader demographic.
They realize that, you know, their ratings are bottom, right?
Rock bottom.
They've lost probably three-fourths of their ratings since Trump left office.
They need to cater to...
Ian, do you think they're trying to get Fox's audience as well?
But, Ian, this was...
This is part of it.
Ian, to me, this was not going to help either.
There's not going to happen at all.
I'm not like, it doesn't matter like what you think, what you think, but this is their strategy.
And right now, you're trying to cater to a moderate audience.
This is the new leadership that's in CNN.
They fired a lot of their talking heads like, like, like what's it, Jim Acosta.
They got rid of him, right?
They got rid of Don Lemon.
They got rid of a fucking potato man, right?
They got rid of Potato Man.
He's probably the Bryant Seltter, right?
And these guys are like the most extreme voices on CNN when it came to partisan politics.
They got rid of them because the new leadership at Time Warner CNN doesn't like these guys.
He thinks that it's divisive and it's true.
They are divisive.
They're part of the reason why the left and right are so divided.
And CNN wants to be part of that healing process.
You know what?
I'm fine with that.
Like honestly, give more Republicans to stage.
Let them speak and be fair to them.
And I think this was fair because, you know, Trump can handle himself, right?
So even if you think the interview was hostile, I say Trump handle himself, and so it was fair, right?
Okay, but from a business standpoint, I think this doesn't work at all because the people who are Democrats watching this are probably pissed that Trump did well.
Do they even watch CNN, though?
Well, I don't watch CNN, but I assume that many of them are Democrats.
They don't. They really don't. It has dropped.
Like I said, three-fourth of their viewership has just declined.
And right now, if you have this opportunity.
Ian, Ian, let Tira finish, please.
You thought it was complaining to Jerry Springer before.
Tito, go ahead.
Yeah, Tira, you're on mute.
Then I'm going to go to Ian and then I'm going to go to Tom.
Tira, go ahead.
Okay, I couldn't unmute.
Sorry.
The people who are conservatives are not going to go back to watch CNN just because Trump appeared on it.
I mean, this seems to be a foolhardy strategy in a way, right?
Or at least this was not the line.
Why is it foolhardy?
The Trump campaign has to normalize him.
This is a guy who's been banished, who's even on a silent censorship ban on Fox.
and CNN is desperate for viewers and relevance.
It's a win-win for both sides.
It's completely logical.
Well, it might be a win tonight,
but I can guarantee you that many of the CNN viewers
are not going to be happy with what happened.
It doesn't matter.
When you've got to have advertisers,
you've got to show the Nielsen metrics.
You've got to show, yeah, we actually went from 300,000 to 600,000 in one night.
That's what they need.
They are a dying, dying brand, and they need advertisers.
You can't have advertisers with 300,000 viewers out of 330 million.
I don't think one night is going to be enough to convince advertisers to come back.
They hope.
They hope.
Yes, maybe this is a strategy.
I don't see this as a winning strategy, but we'll see.
It could be a long-term strategy.
Just to start, right?
You need Trump to kick it off.
Go ahead.
Yeah, Trump kicks it off.
It's the first big name, you know, that they've had in ages when it comes to conservative politics.
Usually it's all liberals.
And this normalizes the stage of future Republicans.
I mean, they could do one Ron DeSantis.
Who knows, right?
And this would be a great way to bring it back.
And for, you know, for them to rebuild their reputation as being, instead of something that is synonymous with fake news, they become a real news platform.
And, you know, honestly, that's cool.
That's...
Like, you know, as much as I want Twitter to be number one, I do like the fact that they're trying something.
They're trying something different.
They're trying something that's non-partisan.
And I want to see more of it.
I think this is very healthy for the discourse of politics, not just in America, but for the whole world.
I mean, I think we're all tired of the divisions, right?
I mean, look at these spaces.
We have people in the left, people in the far left, people who are liberal, people who are libertarian, people.
So many different views.
I mean, just on the topic of Syria alone, we all disagree with each other.
And that's wonderful.
I like that.
Tiny details.
And to have that kind of conversation, to see that on CNN, I think that's a good development.
And, you know, probably wouldn't have happened if Twitter wasn't as open as it is right now.
And I think they're taking notes here.
I'm disturbed by having the neighbors agreed with me on China tonight.
I find it very disturbing.
Well, there you go, right?
It's good to have these conversations.
So I want to see more of it.
Honestly, it may not work for them.
Who knows?
Maybe it's too far gone for CNN to salvage its reputation as a fair and balanced channel.
Maybe it's too late for them.
But you know what?
I like seeing it.
I think it's a good try, and I want to see more of it.
That's my take.
It may not be successful.
Who knows, but I want it to be.
Yeah, so I'd love to see DeSantis in the same situation because I do seem as being quite robotic.
So if he was able to basically spy in the similar manner, that would change my perspectives on one aspect of him.
Tom, thank you.
What's your initial thoughts about this interview?
Thank you.
Good morning or good evening, everybody.
You know, obviously Trump brought, you know, the old Trump on stage and with a lot of energy and such.
And I think politically, he benefited from highlighting, you know, why the American people don't trust the media.
You just had someone who wanted to argue with him using partisan and ideological talking points that were often wrong and false on the issues.
And, you know, I think these so-called fact checkers make the mistake of thinking that people care.
about the so-called facts they're concerned about, where they'll say, oh, no, it wasn't six people, it was five, and they think they got you.
When Trump generally is right in all material arguments, he's making, you know, he's materially right.
You know, he may be specifically wrong and irrelevant detail that the media gets focused on.
And so he always wins those arguments.
But to be more specific, though, he was exactly right on the documents.
Right.
He's being abused terribly by the Justice Department.
He's completely correct on the law.
He had every right to have those records.
He deserved under the law all deference.
The archives had no business other than trying to negotiate with him
to get anyone to go in after those records.
And his mere...
possession of them after he left office, the presumption had been previously, because we had
litigated the infamous Clinton's soccer case. The Justice Department came in in that case and told
the judge in our case at the hearing, they said, well, if Clinton has these records after
he leaves office, they're presumptively personal. Of course, they did a 180 when it came to Trump.
So he's stating the Justice Department's prior policy on this, the archives prior policy on this,
And what I would call the controlling legal authority on this, the most persuasive and significant court decision on the Presidential Records Act, at least in recent memory.
So he's exactly right that they changed the rules to go after him.
And I think the application of the rules to Pence and.
and are ridiculous.
But, you know, that's the bed that the Justice Department has set up.
But, of course, he's right also about how Biden has no defense for having classified records as a senator.
None of that would provide any protection to Biden.
Did they not explore after the presumption?
Did they not what?
Did they not explore the application of the presumption after presumption was applied?
You know, the answer is yes.
Well, you know, they had to all of a sudden,
They all knew Biden had records at the time they were harassing Trump and treated Biden differently.
And Trump is right on that.
And his lawyers, Trump, Biden's lawyers, played games with the acquiescence of the Justice Department,
which were much more significant and dishonest than anything Trump's alleged to have done.
And, you know, no raids, no grand juries, I can tell.
going after Biden. So, you know, this is just another example of, of Trump being abused by the system.
And he's right to raise it. And, you know, he's righter than right. And if the Republicans in Congress had any backbone,
they'd be defunding Jack Smith's special counsel investigation into him.
So I asked you a fairly simple question. Was there an investigation after the presumption was applied?
I don't know what that means.
It does,
it was fairly simple.
Those are your words,
dude.
Those are your words.
You said the presumption was applied,
and therefore the presumption that wasn't applied to Trump is a misappropriation of,
of justice.
Right.
And I'm asking you, after the presumption was applied, to then investigate whether the presumption was accurate and determine whether the documents that were presumed to be protected were protected afterwards.
The answer, by the way, is, no.
I frankly don't understand your question.
I've got another question, Tom, so it would be a bit simpler.
How do you think I was asking it, but I didn't know, I was muted?
How do you think motorists would respond to the town hall we saw today?
That's number one.
And number two, how do you think the scientists would fare in a debate with Trump?
Oh, I'm sure it would be a good debate.
I think the Santa's answer to the second question would be, you know, it would be a good debate.
I think, you know, a Republican debate with Trump, you're going to get a lot of strong back and forward.
I think Trump...
You know, Desantis has benefited from, you know, having done things recently as governor, right?
And gotten credit for the good things he's done from many conservatives.
But, you know, Trump's going to be in a position to talk about the good things he's done as a president.
And, you know, many, frankly, conservatives have forgotten about all his policy achievements,
which were, frankly, much more substantial than any modern Republican president.
So it's going to be a good debate.
Assuming it ever happens, you know, I guess DeSantis is running, but I don't know if it's a certainty at this point.
And it seems to me it's less of a certainty, the longer this agony as to when the run goes on.
Yeah.
And that's one of the frustrating things, Tom.
Like, so you guys know where I will vote.
I've told you where I vote.
You guys know I lean, you guys know I lean right.
Biden, yeah.
Yeah, yeah.
You're lean right, you're far right, extreme right, but you've got to vote Biden this time around.
I don't know why, though.
Not this time.
I'm done with the ice cream man.
No, but no, I voted for Trump.
And I'll vote for him again as well.
But the fact that if.
going to have number one like Republican debates. We're not going to have democratic debates.
We're not going to have oral debates. That is completely unhealthy for this country.
So I would love to see a DeSantis Trump or whoever is going to try to primary with Trump.
I mean, Nikki Haley, I suppose. She's still in it. Vovac, I think would be a good one. He's
interesting. I think he'd be great for a cabinet position.
but at the end of the day,
like we have to have debates
if the issues are not being discussed.
And then what is it?
What's ever being presented to us?
And as an American public...
Well, he doesn't have to have a debate.
I mean, there's no rule.
It's not a law.
I mean, you know, politically,
he's,
it's becoming what's interesting
about the way the race is developing
It's kind of just setting as one would expect it to set.
Trump is slowly but surely becoming the equivalent of an incumbent president running in his party's primary.
Exactly.
So his challenges are facing much more significant hurdles than I frankly thought they would.
And, you know, they're kind of these old truums about politics.
He's still the incumbent, practically speaking.
So I don't think he has to debate the way...
he would in the traditional open primary.
So, you know, I'm not quite sure
if he's going to debate or not. I'd be happy
to moderate a debate.
Should I be happy to moderate a debate
for either Republicans or Democrats.
We do a better job than the dishonest media.
People like Caitlin Collins should be
nowhere near presidential candidates.
Cool.
Trash, I'm going to, I think,
wrap up the space. There's an incredible discussion,
incredible 48 hours from the
finance space we did with Peter Schiff to the
to the press conference on the Biden revelations.
Tom,
you would have loved that space to be on there
because I know you've talked a lot about the
Biden family and the corruption there.
Oh, yeah,
the international racketeering operation.
That's been sure you would have had,
you missed the space, Tom.
Sorry, we can't get your thoughts on it.
You missed the space.
You've got to be there next time.
I'd love you.
We're going to be covering it again.
We don't have to look at any more,
so you don't have to worry about that.
Yeah.
Can I ask a question about the Romania payments?
I never got to bring that up earlier.
No, no, no, no.
We'll re-to another discussion.
I do want to wrap up this place, getting late,
and we've done like nine hours worth of spaces today, Paul.
But it's a pleasure to have you, man.
I brought you up just to you.
It's all good.
Thank you.
And, yeah, Slayman.
Not at all, ma'am.
Cool.
Slayman, any final quick words?
No, not. Just thanks for the...
Cool. Great summary. Thanks, thanks, man.
Yes, great summary, bro.
I enjoy the disservice you guys.
I'm really glad Trump raised the prospect of pardons and commutations
for the targets of the January 6th investigations.
At this point, the Justice Department can't be trusted to fairly administer justice
on any sensitive political matter that ranges from January 6th to Trump.
to what's his name, George Santos.
We should just presume they're all compromised.
And honest president should act accordingly
when evaluating the investigations
of prosecutions and sentences and such.
I have a response to this, Tom,
but I know it will trigger a new debate.
So I'm going to wrap up the space.
Really appreciate it and appreciate all the special guests.
Kim.com, Seb Gorka, Tom, and everyone else.
Thanks, everyone.
Thanks, everyone. Really appreciate it.
Bye-bye.
Peace. Thanks, guys.
Speaker
πΉπππ
from
BUZZ
