November 6, 2025 • 46 mins
The 2025 Election did not go so well for Republicans in blue and purple states, but there were some positives in red areas. Jesse Kelly breaks it down and what it all means alongside Mike Cernovich. Plus, the Supreme Court just heard a massive case revolving the Trump Tariffs. Alex Swoyer of the Washington Times provides a breakdown of what went down.
I'm Right with Jesse Kelly on The First TV
Choq: Visit https://choq.com/jessetv for a 17.76% discount on your CHOQ subscription for life
Beam: Visit https://shopbeam.com/JESSEKELLY and use code JESSEKELLY to get our exclusive discount of up to 50% off.
Masa Chips: Visit https://MASAChips.com/JESSETV and use code JESSETV for 25% off your first order.
Follow The Jesse Kelly Show on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@TheJesseKellyShow
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Let's talk about that election last night. I'm going to
tell you my thoughts on it. Cernovich is here to
break it down for us. What do we have to
worry about if Democrats take power again? And Supreme Court stuff,
all that and more coming up. I'm right, Okay, we
(00:26):
had an election last night. Elections last night all across
the United States of America. You were obviously well aware
of this. We had them in New York, we had
them in Jersey, we had them in Virginia, we had
them in South Carolina, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Texas, California, on and
on and on it goes. And we'll get to what
happened last night in a moment. We'll talk about New
(00:48):
York City and other things. But I wanted to explain
something and get ready because you me, we're going to
have this conversation probably after every single election in the country.
It's important to understand some things. So first, let's cover
this part of it. In life, in all walks of life,
(01:12):
there are some things you can control and there are
some things that you can't. They're bigger than you, bigger
than me. We don't have the power to control them.
So before we get into the other parts of elections.
Let's discuss this part. The party that is out of
(01:35):
power nationally traditionally does really, really, really well in off
year local state elections. And it's very understandably understandable why
when we were looked not long ago, we were in
Biden's presidency, the mid term elections and local elections and
(01:58):
state elections and those things like that, how motivated were
you to get out to the polls. Did you need
somebody to poke you in the ribs and say, hey, get.
Speaker 2 (02:08):
Off the couch, get off to the polls.
Speaker 1 (02:10):
No. No, you were very angry about the direction of
the country, the open border, everything else. So even if
there was an election for dog catcher in your area,
something that didn't have anything to do with Joe Biden,
you were still there at the polls. You had an
extra motivation the people in power didn't have. Traditionally, it's
(02:35):
just human nature. The people who are out of power
do better in these elections. And while we can try
to fight against that, we can try to mitigate this
or that, and believe me, I'm going to get to more.
Look it's not all sunny, right. I'm not trying to
make you feel better, but I'm just explaining, it's New Jersey,
(02:55):
it's New York City, it's California, it's Virginia. These are
not blood red areas. We were already swimming against the tide.
Didn't go our way. Sucked, It sucked. It was a
bad night. I'm not saying otherwise. It sucked, But come on,
should you wake up today and you were stunned that
(03:16):
New York City elected a communist, which we get to
in a moment. Okay, So I wanted to get that
out of the way. There are big, national, thirty thousand
foot view things that you're powerless to stop. The motivation thing. Now,
let's talk about other parts of elections. First, you and
I we want to believe something. We will always be
(03:37):
this way. We want to believe that the people we
share a country with, the people on the sidewalk outside
right now, the people driving next to us, the people
in our children's school. And it worked, But we want
to believe that they share our value system, at least
some of it. Maybe we're not going to align exactly.
You and I don't align exactly, but they share some
(03:59):
of it. Right, But that's not the history of the world,
and that's not how it works when you look at
things like the election in New York City. But this
is pretty consistent across the board. You know who picked
the communists overwhelmingly. You know who picked the communists? Foreigners
and young single women. Foreigners and young single women, over
(04:20):
and over and over again, young miserable, mentally ill liberal
women in this country collaborated with hostile foreigners to burn
your country to the ground. If you look at the
breakdown of the exit polls of all these races, when
you look at normal people, married couples, men, people born
in America, they didn't vote for Mamdani in New York City.
(04:42):
They didn't want spam Berger in Virginia. Okay, So what
does that mean. It means that you and I have
a lot to overcome. We have to overcome young single,
miserable women and foreigners. The young single women part we
can get to another time. But you realize that half
that coalition can be taken care of. Deport them, stop
(05:04):
allowing mass immigration into the United States of America, legal
or illegal, and the ones who are here, deport them,
send them at home. Do you have any idea how
many problems, including electoral problems, disappear like that if we
send foreigners back home, disloyal foreigners whose loyalty can be
(05:25):
bought with a welfare check, with a CDL, just support them. Okay,
there's that aspect of it. We have hostile interests, some
foreign some domestic inside of the country who don't share
your values, they don't share my values, and we will
always have to overcome that until we solve those problems.
(05:47):
So that's a big thing. Another big thing to keep
in mind with elections. I've learned this after being probably
twenty years now. I've been involved in politics twenty years.
Every race has its own story. What we want as
human beings, I'm the exact same way. What we want
(06:09):
is a simple give me the bumper sticker, give me
the simple headline. Why do we lose? And you want
it to be one sentence. We lost all these races
because of blank. It's because of Trump or tariffs or
I So we want simple. But each in every race, Virginia,
(06:30):
New Jersey, New York City, everywhere, each and every race
had its own candidate, its own campaign, its own story
to tell. For instance, in Virginia, I personally, as I
told you before, I like when some earl Sears. I
(06:50):
find her personally very appealing. I think she's talented. But
they didn't have a primary. She didn't do well race money.
Therefore she didn't do well getting out the vote. The money,
the organization was not there. Abigail Spanberger raised a bunch
(07:10):
of money. Her people were out in the streets. And
so these are nitty gritty things. Unless you're in Virginia,
you don't know these things. You look and you say,
Virginia's communist. Maybe we caught lightning at a bottle last time.
Maybe we didn't run quite the race we were supposed
(07:31):
to run this time. What's the opposite of that. You
want some good news. I live in Texas. Now, if
you don't live in Texas, maybe this isn't good news
to you, but it'll show you trends in Texas. There
were I believe seventeen constitutional amendments that the people got
to vote on. We got to vote on them here.
I disagreed with a few, but for the most part
(07:51):
they were absolutely wonderful. We're talking about certifying parents' rights
and getting rid of the death tax, and forcing these
commedy judges to get the criminals in jail. A lot
of things you like, they all passed sixty seventy percent approval.
Beyond that, in my local community, here's another aspect of
elections we don't think about. In my local community, they
(08:14):
were trying to increase taxes for various things. That four
or five things. They were trying to increase taxes. But
you know what the language read on the ballot, big
bold letters, this is a tax increase, and then then
explained what it was. Sounds simple, sounds small. The language
on the ballot matters. All those things were shot down.
(08:38):
You see, every race, every candidate, every campaign has its
own story to tell. When you're supposed to come up here,
I'm supposed to show up on television this time and night,
and I'm supposed to tell you all is lost, all
is one. We lost because of A. We didn't lose
because of B. But things are complicated now. Beyond all that,
(09:02):
let's just touch on this aspect of it. As long
as I brought up the young women and foreigners. Did
you catch any of Ma'm Donnie's victory speech last night
New York?
Speaker 2 (09:14):
Tonight you have delivered.
Speaker 3 (09:18):
A mandate for change, a mandate for a new kind
of politics. We will prove that there is no problem
too large for government to solve and no concern too
small for it to care about. I speak of Yemeny
bodega owners and Mexican abuelas, Senegalese taxi drivers, and who's
(09:44):
beck nurses, Trinidadian line cooks and Ethiopian aunties. I am young,
despite my best efforts to grow older.
Speaker 2 (09:57):
I am Muslim.
Speaker 3 (10:01):
I am a democratic socialist, and most damning.
Speaker 2 (10:09):
Of all, I refuse to apologize for any of this.
Speaker 1 (10:19):
It's not a message for you. And you know, to
his credit, he didn't even attempt to talk to you
or about you. He didn't mention America or Americans. He
didn't mention your race, your religion, because that's not who
gave him power. Young miserable American women on anti anxiety medication,
(10:45):
combined with the foreign hordes, flooded into New York City
and they put him in the mayor's house. American born
New Yorkers did not vote for Mandonni. They overwhelmingly rejected Mandannie.
You know who knows that, ma'am Donney. My point in
bringing this up is, really this is my central point.
(11:07):
A couple things. I actually want to wrap this up
because we have so much we want to get to tonight.
Couple things to remember. I told you this after we
want in November. You've heard me say something similar to
this several times before. We have before us, in the
interest of saving the country. We have before us, not
one race, not one year, not one battle, ten thousand
(11:30):
of them. For the rest of your life, there will
be elections, critically important elections, local, state, federal, ten thousand
battles still to fight. And I am going to make
you a promise right now. We are going to win
some of those battles, and we're going to lose some
of those battles. And on the night we went like
(11:52):
last November, we can be happy and should be happy.
We should not ever stand up and say, finally the
devil who's been defeated, all as well, We're good to go.
I'm gonna go sit on the couch. Doesn't work that way.
And on nights like last night, wiped out in Virginia, Pennsylvania, Georgia,
(12:14):
New Jersey, California, wiped out, we should not wake up today.
While we can be sad, we can be mad, we
should not wake up today. It's all that's lost. What's
coming doing in doesn't work that way either. Ten thousand battles,
some we will win, some we will lose. And look,
(12:36):
if you watch, I'm right you kind of knew about
things like Virginia already. Sean Spicer told us yesterday.
Speaker 4 (12:44):
I like Wins personally. I've did an event with her
a couple of weeks ago. She has not run the
greatest campaign. She has not raised the money that she
needs to. She has not put the operation together that
she needs to her team. I think in a lot
of cases has let her down, but she's been vastly outspent.
I've talked to a lot of perennial Virginia donors who
(13:05):
say they were never even contacted. So I don't think
this has been the best effort put forward.
Speaker 1 (13:14):
The final lesson is just watch this show and you'll
be better prepared to handle the winds and the w's now,
Mike Cernovich does have some hard things to say to
the GOP, probably very valid things. He's pretty down on
last night, and we're going to talk to Mike about
all this. In just a moment before we talked to Mike,
(13:35):
you know what we need for ten thousand battles energy focus.
You have to feel good. How could I be sitting
here after a bad night still have a little smirk
on my face ready to go? Couldn't wait to come
to work today because I take a male vitality stack
from chok every day. I have natural herbal supplements in
(13:55):
my life that make my mind work well. My body
feels good better at home, at work they have male
vitality stacks and female vitality stacks. You want to start
your day off with all the vitamins and minerals they
have chok lit powder. Go find out what chalk can
do for you. How much better your life is going
to be Chalk dot Com, slash Jesse TV. We'll be bad.
Speaker 5 (14:29):
It was, you know, not expected to be a victory.
It was very democrat areas. But I don't think it
was good for Republicans. I don't think it was good.
I'm not sure it was good for anybody. But we
had an interesting evening and we learned.
Speaker 1 (14:41):
A lot interesting. Certainly wasn't good. I just reemphasized what
I said in the open that it was bad. We've
had bad nights before. I'm not sure that it spells doom.
Mike Cernovich, who my friend Mike Seravic is joining us
right now. Thinks that we are in some trouble if
(15:02):
some things don't change, and I think he deserves the floor, Mike,
the floor is yours. Well.
Speaker 6 (15:08):
I felt that way the minute Trump won I posted
November eleventh, twenty twenty four. Somebody could find that tweet
that we need to worry about the midterms. So here's
here's the thing that everybody, all the not you, but
the consultant class misses. They go, well, Trump drives Democrat
turnout when he's on the ballot, but Sherberty drives Republican turnout.
(15:30):
So if you look at twenty sixteen, Trump ones, GOP
has a trifecta, twenty eighteen Trump's off ballot blue wave,
twenty twenty Republicans Remember, in twenty twenty, Republicans were supposed
to lose the Senate and the House, right, that was
the prediction. No, the only person who lost in twenty
twenty was Trump, right, which is why a lot of people,
(15:53):
myself included, Even if you didn't buy the really kooky
theories of all the Stone election, you did say, well,
how is it that the Senate stay Republican? But somehow
Trump lost Okay, special elections, Trump's not on ballot, Georgia
loses two sentences, twenty twenty two, what happens twenty twenty four?
Speaker 7 (16:14):
What happens?
Speaker 6 (16:15):
So what the GOP does not exist. It is the
Trump Party, it is Trump's GOP. So even if last
night hadn't happened, I was already worried about the midterms.
I was worried about the midterms the week Trump won,
I was like it, I'm always like the Cassandra. I
tried to be like a Debbie Downer because people who
know me know that I'm a pretty upbeat guy. But
(16:38):
what's our plan to win in twenty twenty six? But
Trump off the ballot? And then of course last night was.
Speaker 7 (16:43):
A bad night.
Speaker 1 (16:46):
Okay, Mike, So what is it about the GOP voter
that is uniquely motivated to vote for Trump? To your point,
but when Donald Trump's name is not on there, he's
just not interesting. He cares about these issues when Trump
is on the ballot, but doesn't when he's not. Helped
me understand sure.
Speaker 6 (17:06):
Actually, I was getting coffee and I was sort of
thinking what we talk about, and I was going to
ask you the question if your job weren't politics and media.
Would you vote in the twenty twenty six mid terms?
Speaker 1 (17:23):
I would, but I vote in every single election because
I think it batters. I think it's extremely important. Of
course I would.
Speaker 6 (17:31):
But you had a pause. You're just like, it's not like, well,
of course I would. Why wouldn't I Why wouldn't I
be hyped?
Speaker 1 (17:38):
Right?
Speaker 7 (17:38):
Trump voters are hyped to vote.
Speaker 6 (17:41):
If I said a week before twenty twenty four, you're
gonna vote, You're like, what.
Speaker 7 (17:45):
Kind of stupid idiotic? Quite?
Speaker 6 (17:47):
Of course, obviously, obviously I'm going to vote, right obviously
in twenty twenty six. It's like, well, intellectually I know
that it's important and there are real problems if I
don't vote, and you run it through your head, but
you don't feel it right, you don't feel in your heart.
And that's everybody for just being honest. It's like, if you,
(18:09):
we're honest, not you. But I'm just saying, like the collective,
the royal wee right, if we're all being honest, we
would say, I mean, yeah, I get it, you gotta
vote Republican because look at what Schumer did. But people
who don't live in politics and media don't go vote
because of that right, they don't go vote because of that.
They need to feel a calling, They need to feel
(18:29):
an energy and a momentum to go out and vote,
and that doesn't.
Speaker 7 (18:34):
Happen with Trump down on the ballot.
Speaker 6 (18:36):
So then to be positive, how can Republicans draw out
more voters?
Speaker 7 (18:42):
Well, they could do They could.
Speaker 6 (18:44):
Do Republican things like I'm seeing right now Ted Kruz,
who by the way, I'm ninety percent pro Ted Kruz.
When Ted Cruz had a close race with Betto, obviously
I was like, this is crazy. You have to vote
for Ted Cruz and everything. But I'm against this trend
of people and the Senate being podcasters and influencers. Right,
you're in the Senate, I can post about things, Jesse Kelly,
(19:07):
we can be on Twitter all day, you know. And
I know that they have to do some kind of media.
So I'm not saying some media, but we do things
in the Senate that make people want to vote. What's
Mike Johnson really doing? They always have an excuse, Oh,
we need sixty votes, we can't do anything. Ah, But
in twenty twenty four, they were gonna have sixty votes
for Annesty because you couldn't close the border without remember that.
(19:30):
This is this is why I'm tired of being gas
lit by Mike Johnson and Ted Cruse and everybody. At
twenty twenty four, Lindsey Graham and Langford fun Fool foo Fool,
whatever his name is, they all said, we can't shut
the border unless we can do amnesty.
Speaker 7 (19:45):
It's only only way to do it.
Speaker 6 (19:47):
But we better come out in twenty twenty six because
because why because why?
Speaker 1 (19:53):
Right? Okay, So let's talk domestically, Mike, because you've been
making this point, and I'll be honest with you. I'm
looking at a stack of I don't know how many emails,
and there are a lot of these emails from people
who make the point that you have been ranting about
online about a domestic focus from Trump and the GOP,
(20:15):
that that that people they're even fine with, you know,
go drop some bombs on and ran sounds fine whatever,
But they don't care about that deeply. They care that
they can't afford to go see their mother on vacation,
they can't afford groceries, they can't afford a pound of burger,
and they don't see a lot of movement on those things.
Speaker 7 (20:35):
No they don't. They don't see no.
Speaker 6 (20:37):
And I'm having people texting me like Chuck roast is
expensive now, which which goes to show what people are
thinking about economically. They're they're not focused on the foreign stuff.
The foreign stuff. This the deal, the deal that was
struck in twenty twenty four that should have been struck
was Hey, look, people like me, I don't care about
(20:58):
is Reel, I don't really get my opinion on Israel
would probably get me canceled because it's pretty it's not
anti Israel. It's probably so pro Israel that it would
make me look like a ghoul.
Speaker 1 (21:10):
You know.
Speaker 6 (21:11):
But you got to carry your own weight, you know.
Israel's got to wrap this stuff up. They got to
wrap it up. I'm not here scolding you or doing
the moralizing. This is what war looked like. We've just
never had a live stream. But you can't do propaganda
for the other side every day. You can't give them
more video footage every day. You gotta wrap it up,
and then we gotta go domestic. That was the deal,
(21:33):
stated and unstated, and yet here we are. You're after
Trump's election, and if you asked the average man on
the street, not the DC policy wonk. If you ask
the average man on the street what has Trump's priority
been over the last year, they're gonna say, well, a Ukraine, Israel,
the Nobel Peace Prize. That's what they're gonna say. And
it sounds like that's what your audience is saying.
Speaker 1 (21:54):
To a lot of your audience, it is. I hear
a lot of it, Mike, And this is what has
concerned me with the Venezuela stuff. The normal person. I'm
not talking about the normal comedy who trumps the Devil
all that stuff, And I'm talking about normal people, the
people that I talked to in my life that don't
hang around with political people. When they brought up Venezuela,
(22:16):
everyone likes a little video on their phone of a
drug boat getting incinerated. No one's crying for those dirt balls.
But I got asked a lot, Mike, why why why
are we down there? Why are we messing with it?
It's not that it's not a righteous cause.
Speaker 2 (22:30):
I got a lot of well why do I care?
Speaker 1 (22:33):
There's a lot of that.
Speaker 6 (22:36):
Especially when we know that Fittanel's not coming primarily from Venezuela.
Speaker 1 (22:40):
Right.
Speaker 6 (22:40):
It's another instance where yeah, I'm I'm the same way.
I think we shouldn't have gone to the Middle East.
I think that we should have taken over most of
Latin America and Southern America and run as part of
the Roman Empire. That's that's my view. But now people
have no appetite for regime change, war another side quest,
(23:02):
another foreign policy. Okay, we got Ukraine, we have Israel o,
ky fine, can we do domestic issues?
Speaker 7 (23:07):
No, we're gonna do regime change.
Speaker 1 (23:08):
We're now.
Speaker 6 (23:09):
I know that there's gonna be a lot of people,
myself included, who could counteract my argument by listening everything done.
Speaker 7 (23:16):
And my answer to that is, I understand.
Speaker 6 (23:18):
That I'm not saying this is my personal belief. I'm
telling you that what we know is not what the
average person and the voters who come out for Trump,
they're not experiencing the same thing because they don't have
all data monitor this stuff.
Speaker 7 (23:33):
Right.
Speaker 6 (23:33):
You gotta look at people are busy, people got stuff
going on. Times, they're tough, a lot of people are
working two jobs. What information is getting filtered down to them,
and it's almost it's almost nothing. Even though me, I
could I could list off, I could make the case
for why Trump is the best president of my lifetime.
I could do that standing on my head while also
(23:54):
thinking we're gonna lose the mid terms unless we turn
this around.
Speaker 1 (24:00):
Can we turn it around by the midterms, Mike, Can
we make the necessary adjustments and get the things done
to get it done? Or is this, you know, fighting
the ocean? Is it inevitable?
Speaker 6 (24:12):
It's not inevitable. We got a year of mondami, so
we got mandami for a year. We got a lot
of things that can go bad for the Democrats over
the next year. Right, A lot can happen any year.
How's the quote go, Nothing happens in a year, and
then year's happened in a decade or decades happened in
(24:33):
a year? Something something like that could happen. But the
Venezuela thy could go sideway. The problem with Venezuela. Even
though I'm again I'm not opposed to regime change wars,
I'm probably I have a very Roman mindset about a
lot of this stuff.
Speaker 7 (24:48):
I just think that if we're gonna go over there,
you have to run it like a colony.
Speaker 6 (24:51):
You have to colonize it, which is why people forget
we won. People say, oh, we lost the war in Afghanistan.
It's like the military didn't lose. It was an occupation
because people are afraid to be colonized as so I'm
not some anti colony woke guy, but a lot can
go wrong in the Venezuela thing.
Speaker 7 (25:09):
And what can go right?
Speaker 6 (25:11):
We already got the oil deal that we need. So
what exactly is the win versus American troops could die? Well,
then we're gonna have to retaliate. Are we going to
be in a hot war with Venezuela? What in the
world right? What's our upside here? That's kind of what
people are seeing. And if Trump doesn't come home, so
(25:32):
to speak, then we are looking at a Democrat midterm win,
and we are looking at more impeachment and we are
looking at a.
Speaker 7 (25:39):
You know, a repeat of the hell of the Adam
Schiff era.
Speaker 1 (25:44):
Gos Mike as always, thank you, brother, I appreciate you.
All right. If if Democrats do come back to power,
what are we in store for? What should we be
thinking about? What is our motivation to get out there
and dig in for the midterms? Talk about that briefly
(26:05):
in a moment before we talk about that. Maybe last
night you had trouble sleeping. Maybe you stayed up all
night rage looking at your phone, getting mad about the elections.
I get it, I've done it. That's why you need
Beam in your life. That's why you need dream powder
from Beam in your life. Doesn't it sound lovely? It
is because it's hot chocolate. I'm a hot chocolate guy.
(26:28):
Always have been. Hit me around a campfire cup of
hot chocolate. I'm a happy man. I now have hot
chocolate in my possession. That makes me sleep like a
little bit of baby, not with drugs. A bunch of
natural stuff in this dream powder puts you to sleep.
When you wake up, you're not all groggy with one
eye half open. You feel dead, feel great because it's
(26:52):
natural stuff. You want to try it, try one bag
Shopbeam dot com, slash Jesse Kelly, We'll be back. Okay,
So that was a lot. I told you it's not
(27:14):
the end of the world. Happened last night, and it's
not my ex Cernaivis just came on here and told
you that we should be concerned about the midterms. And
you know what, he's right too, we should be. So
maybe you're sitting there thinking, oh boy, what do I do? Well,
allow me to give you just a little bit of motivation.
It's going to spend a few much give you a
little bit of motivation. You know how terrible you remember,
(27:37):
of course, how terrible it was under the Biden administration,
not just talking about policies, how truly evil the government became.
These people just turned all the guns of the government
and aimed them at you, aimed them at me, and
them at Trump. Just deployed the government against their political opponents. Truly,
truly you. But I want to remind you of this.
(28:01):
These people aren't sorry to this day, and I have
asked for this several times. I have asked for emails,
I've asked friends. To this day, I have not heard
of a single Democrat in the United States of America,
not just people on TV, a single Democrat that has
(28:22):
expressed that maybe arresting Trump with a bunch of bogus
felony charges was wrong. Not one has come out and
said that was probably the wrong thing to do. They're
not sorry. This is James Comey on MSNBC.
Speaker 8 (28:41):
I know Republicans these days aren't big in thinking about
principle or precedent. They're going to be deeply sorry that
that disappears because someday there will be a democratic president
and there'll be investigations of Republican officeholders. If i'm them,
I sure would want these career people in place making
sure that it's done in the right way. Look, I've
(29:02):
long thought that you could shrink the size of some
of the Department of Justice headquarters units. But this is
like burning down the house and then standing in front
of the pile of ashes and saying, yeah, we really
did need to retile the guest path.
Speaker 1 (29:13):
Right.
Speaker 8 (29:13):
This is destroying the place at a cost that's going
to take years and years to rebuild.
Speaker 1 (29:22):
They're coming back harder if we give them power again.
Eric Holder, he's out there on the podcast circuit. Here's
what he said.
Speaker 9 (29:31):
It pains me to say this. I think the Supreme
Court is a broken institution and it's something that has
to be I think a part of the national conversation
in twenty six and in twenty eight what are we
going to do about the Supreme Court? And I think
that we have to think about again talking about the
acquisition and the use of power. If there is a
democratic trifecta in twenty twenty eight, and I think the
(29:54):
possibility of that is pretty good. Supreme Court reform is
something it has to be considered. Term limits, I think
at a minimum, potentially expanding the court is something I
think that also should be should be considered.
Speaker 1 (30:11):
What we saw under the Biden administration was the warm
up act. Maybe you're recalling four years of evil when
you're saying to yourself, who can't believe we live through that?
Thank goodness, that's over. We never have to deal with
it again. No, no, no, no. The only lesson the
(30:32):
communists learned from last time is he didn't hit you
hard enough. The only lesson these people learned is they
didn't do enough evil things. They didn't shred the constitution enough.
They didn't jail enough of their political opponents. That's the
only thing they learned. Last night. We took it on
the chin. I got that sucked the midterm elections. Maybe
(30:58):
they'll go our way, maybe they won't, But we have
starting right now, we have time to begin fighting back
you personally, me personally. Are we going to get involved?
Are we going to knock on doors? We're going to
phone bank for candidates? If we have money, are we
going to donate to candidates and causes? Are we going
(31:22):
to do the blocking and tackling necessary to ensure we're
not wiped out at the midterms. That decision gets made now.
I know everybody's licking their wounds today. I got it.
Let's decide now that we're not going to let these
people ever back in power again. All right, all right,
(31:43):
when you make that decision, I want you to reward
yourself with some massive chips. Let's look, you deserve it.
You deserve a massive Chips reward. But Jesse, I don't
want to be unhealthy. I like chips too much, but
they're bad for you. No, no, no, no no. I didn't
say any chips. I said massive. I know you've already
heard of them. Maybe you have friends who've already eaten
a bag. They're freaking amazing and you can eat them
(32:08):
guilt free. I am such a massive Chips fan because
I'm a chips freak. And oh the huth chips I've
ever tried my life have been garbage, massive chips, three ingredients,
multiple flavors, got blue, ones, hop and narrow. They got
more than I can list for you. Here, get yourself
a bag of massive chips, a little bottle of hot sauce,
(32:30):
massive chips dot com, slash JESSETV. We'll be back, all right.
I hate to step away from everybody get in the
vapors about the election last night. But there are some
(32:50):
fairly important things happening at the Supreme Court today, and
as you are well aware, I'm too dumb to tell
you about any of these. That's why we need Alex
in here joining me now. Alex Sawyer, author of the
book Lawless, Law Fair, also with the Washington Times. Okay, Alex,
before we get to what you heard what you saw today,
What even is this tariff case?
Speaker 10 (33:12):
Okay, good, We need to set this up, all right.
So what the tariff case is basically is some small businesses,
toy makers, a wine distributor. I like wine. Gotta give
them a shout out. They have challenged President Trump's tariffs
that he is imposed on various countries. They say that
the power to lay tariffs and impose those who belongs
(33:34):
to Congress, because Congress is the one that has the
ability to lay and collect taxes. And they're basically saying
that tariffs are a tax. The President, though in his administration,
has cited federal law, basically arguing that he has the
power to in emergency situations impose tariffs on foreign countries
(33:56):
when he sees fit. He is basically two reasons he
has given for this national emergency. One is the flow
of fentanyl. He says that he needs to lay tariffs
on some countries that are pouring fentanyl into our country.
And then the other aspect is the trade deficit. That
that's a problem, you know, of course, that he's trying
to make up. The law he cites is the International
(34:19):
Emergency Economic Powers Act, and within that law, it basically
does say the president has the ability to regulate imports.
The question is does that include issuing tariffs? And that's
what the Supreme Court is going to decide.
Speaker 1 (34:34):
Okay, Alex. Before we get to what happened today, I'm
going to ask you a couple of really really dumb questions.
But I need to understand this. Trump says, it's an emergency.
I got that. Are there rules? Surely there are rules
around what constitutes an emergency. Right. I can't come home
and tell my wife where we have to go to
Red Lobster because it's an emergency. She's going to ask
(34:56):
for an explanation. What's the emergency?
Speaker 10 (35:00):
Yeah, so that is one aspect that's being explored in court,
and there's president basically about what would constitute an emergency
or not. When can the court second guess the executive
on what is an emergency? That was something they kind
of dove into, and you would think there would be clear,
bright line rules Jesse like you're asking about, but there
really isn't. That prompted actually, Justice Sonya Soto Mayor to ask, well,
(35:24):
what about climate change? Could President Biden have said climate
change is a is a national emergency. I'm going to
use this same law and start, you know, use it,
she said, to for example, to forgive student loan debt.
I'm not sure why that is connected to climate change,
but that's what she chose. And then it was just
(35:46):
kind of interesting because even Justice Corsi, you know, obviously
not on the democratic wing of the court, but he
jumped on that same narrative about, well, if the government
were to win here, would climate change be a national
emergency or an emergency that the president and could cite
in imposing tariffs on other countries? Would that now be next?
So yeah, I think that the question that you're asking
(36:07):
is very pointed, and hopefully the court will give a
little bit of guidance on that, but it doesn't seem
like there's a bright line rule about what would be
an emergency and what isn't.
Speaker 1 (36:17):
That's freaking wonderful. Okay, now let's go to what happened today.
I know you even made for us a cheat sheet
of some kind before it yours.
Speaker 10 (36:26):
I'm going to give you a little sneak peak. So
whenever I go in the court, you cannot have electronics,
so you're in there without your computer, your handwriting notes.
These are all my little notes I brought for you
on my little legal pad. It's pink, but I like
to keep track of where the jets might fall, so
you can see I kind of like have their names
kind of listed. So I left you guys really thinking
(36:47):
that the administration had a harder day in court. The
start of the arguments from the Solicitor General were met
with tough questions not just from the Chief Justice, but
also just a scorsicch just to bear it. You know,
those that we tend to think are the swing justices.
We already know where the three liberals are going to vote.
They're going to vote against the administration. So the fact
(37:08):
that they are there's three. I guess you could call
them moderates or the GOP appointees that I think could
end up on the liberal side. Tells me that it
was President Trump's administration that had the harder day in court.
I mean, at one point, I even have a quote
the Chief Justice said, he goes the statute doesn't use
the word tariffs, telling Jackson, Justice Jackson, who we all
(37:32):
love all the time, to quote. She did actually go
into the legislative history and noted that when Congress was
creating the law the president is citing, they were really
worried about more property interests and that the president should
have ability to protect property interests from foreign governments, especially
during a time of war, for example. And she said,
you know, there was no evidence that when Congress was
(37:53):
putting the statute together that they were thinking about tariffs.
So all of this, you know, tells me there seems
to be some between the GOP wing of the court
and the liberal wing that it could be the Trump
administration loses this. I'm not sure they could come up
with a ruling where they somehow split split it up.
I'm not sure if they're able to say, well, some
(38:14):
of these tariffs constitute emergencies, some don't. We'll have to.
Speaker 1 (38:17):
See, Okay, Alex and you can bat this right back
at me if we don't have the answer to this yet.
But I understand Trump. Every time we turned on the news,
he's flying over to some foreign country and signing a
trade agreement here to a trade agreement there. If this
doesn't go our way, which sounds like a possibility, does
(38:37):
that put all those pieces of paper in the paper
shredd or does it blow all that? What does this do?
Speaker 10 (38:43):
No? I don't think that it would destroy any sort
of new trade deals that the President has been able
to accomplish. And that was one thing the Solicitor General
pointed out. He said that these tariffs that the president
is imposing to regulate and retaliate basically are helping him
renegotiate trade deal and he kind of listed a few
different countries off the bat. So no, I don't think
(39:03):
they would go away those trade deals that have been renegotiated.
And I do think the administration has already been looking
at people smarter than me are looking at ways that
they can go around this law and maybe come up
with another way to support these tariffs. The President has
already done.
Speaker 1 (39:19):
Okay, let's shift gears away from this for a moment.
Let's talk about Prop fifty California. Obviously, it was big
in California. It didn't get a ton of national interest.
This was California jerrymandering out the last of their Republicans.
Essentially sounds like something that should land before the Supreme Court.
Speaker 10 (39:37):
Is it going to I think it could. I think
you're right, and I would love to cover it. So basically,
a Proposition fifty was Gavin Newsom's push to redistrict California,
and voters seem to have supported that and accepted that.
I can get into the numbers why I think that is,
but basically, what it would do is it would force
Republicans in Congress to lose about four five seats. This
(40:01):
was a push that he, Gavin Newsom, was making after
Texas moved to redistrict. It's kind of like a red
state blue state war, right, And one of the reasons
I think this was successful was the amount of money
that was poured into the effort, which you know is
kind of how these things work with elections. I saw
one article that the side advocating for this had about
one hundred and twenty million to support this proposition, while
(40:25):
those against forty four million, you know, very much outspent, outworked. Now,
you know, Newsom's claiming victory on this, and he's calling
for other Blue states Virginia, Maryland, New York, Illinois to
do the same. So yeah, this wouldn't just have an
impact for California with less Republican lawmakers representing them, but
it would have an effect you know, nationally with a
(40:48):
shift of balance in Congress.
Speaker 1 (40:51):
Okay, so Red states, can we not match this? Is
it not in our ability or do we not have
the will?
Speaker 10 (40:59):
So that's something that's very interesting. Texas has tried to
do that, right and it's tied up in court right now.
So when you asked about could California's situation end up
at the Supreme Court, I think it's very likely that
you have Red states trying to do this. Blue state's
trying to do this. Lower courts rule how they will,
and then it eventually works its way up to the
justices and so you know, we'll hear from them exactly
what can be done. I tend to think the Court
(41:21):
would say this is you know, these people are elected
your state wilemakers are elected to do as you know,
they run on. So maybe this is a political question
that they don't want to dive into. But we'll have
to see.
Speaker 1 (41:32):
Tell me about Jack Smith's report.
Speaker 10 (41:36):
Okay, So the latest with Jack Smith's report out of
the Southern District of Florida is basically Judge Eilen Cannon
has been ordered by the Eleventh Circle Circuit Court of
Appeals to consider in the next sixty days motions to
release Jack Smith's report related to his investigation of the
classified documents being kept at mar Lago. Everyone, I'm sure
(41:57):
remembers that that case was dismissed back when President and
Trump won the election in November. There's DOJ guidance that says,
you know, not to prosecute a sitting president. So that's
why the Jack Smith petitioned the dj to get right
of the case, and they did. The one thing I
note in my book though, is that this was dismissed
without prejudice, which means some of these charges could actually
be resurrected. I think there's some statute of limitations in
(42:20):
the charges that are like eight years. So let's say,
you know, a very very aggressive democratic administration comes in
next they could try to resurrect this case. That's one
reason I don't think the report should be released publicly.
But of course there's First Amendment groups that are trying
to claim that we have as the public, have access
to see Jacksmith's work.
Speaker 1 (42:38):
James call me. Evidence is starting to be released. Yeah,
tell me about this case. Is this something substantial? Did
you read it in your eyes popped out of your skull? Yeah?
Speaker 10 (42:50):
I wish I could read his handwriting a little better,
because I think that would be more helpful. He's kind
of like scrivels a lot, but some a couple of
things that pop out to me. So he's trying to
argue that the DOJ has come after him in basically
a political prosecution, of vindictive prosecution. So I think there's
actually going to be a hearing on that later this month.
If the I remember reporting on this, I think it
was a November thirteenth. That date sticks out to me.
(43:11):
Don't quote me, but around then. Long story short, this
the US attorney, so Lindsay Halligan, responded to the claim
of a vindictive prosecution and basically included exhibit that show
that Comy was working with his friend, that law professor
Daniel Richman about leaking to the media, and that's exactly
what he's being charged for, right He's being charged for
(43:33):
lying to Congress saying that he wasn't part of leaking
to the media when it looks like there's actually emails
showing that he was, or he was at least in
part doing so. Like okay. For example, Exhibit five shows
that he's talking to his law professor friend about media
and says that his decision, So I don't know whatever
that decision is, but quote would be one president elect
Clinton would like. So what you know, why is he
(43:56):
making decisions thinking a president elect Clinton would like it?
The other thing, Exhibit seven shows him praising his friend's
media appearance, and then he also says in the email
quote well done, my friend, who knew this would be
oh so fun? And then lastly, there's another one that
my friend Mike Davis shared Exhibit thirteen. There's seems to
be handwritten notes which are kind of hard to you
(44:17):
can see him right there on the screen, hard to
kind of zoom in on, but there's one line in
there that says, HRC plan for hit Trump. That's what
I read. So why is he worried about Hillary rod
and Clinton's plan to hit Trump. It just seems extremely political.
It does show he was in on, you know, his
friend's media appearances for whatever that might be. In one
(44:38):
of the emails, the friend actually offers, I think to
write an op ed or do some sort of defense
of Comy and the FBI. And it looks like Comy says, well,
you know, not right now, but that at least shows
that he's being you know, asked. Maybe this was a practice.
We'll have to wait and see more when this hearing happens,
but you know, it looks like this US attorney definitely
came armed with evidence.
Speaker 1 (45:01):
Oh so fun. Kind of a dude talks like that.
That's how women talk. It's very weird. Anyway, Thank you
so much, Alex. I appreciate you. Lighten the mood next,
(45:22):
all right, it is time to lighten the mood. And look,
some kids are just cool. That certainly wasn't me. Some kids,
some kids make you jealous about what a dork you
were when you're a kid. Look at this stud on
Halloween night. It's gotta throw in reverse. What is the
(46:14):
let's see him up?
Speaker 7 (46:17):
Mm hmmm, m
Speaker 1 (46:21):
M h m hmm.
Let's talk about that election last night. I'm going to
tell you my thoughts on it. Cernovich is here to
break it down for us. What do we have to
worry about if Democrats take power again? And Supreme Court stuff,
all that and more coming up. I'm right, Okay, we
(00:26):
had an election last night. Elections last night all across
the United States of America. You were obviously well aware
of this. We had them in New York, we had
them in Jersey, we had them in Virginia, we had
them in South Carolina, Pennsylvania, Georgia, Texas, California, on and
on and on it goes. And we'll get to what
happened last night in a moment. We'll talk about New
(00:48):
York City and other things. But I wanted to explain
something and get ready because you me, we're going to
have this conversation probably after every single election in the country.
It's important to understand some things. So first, let's cover
this part of it. In life, in all walks of life,
(01:12):
there are some things you can control and there are
some things that you can't. They're bigger than you, bigger
than me. We don't have the power to control them.
So before we get into the other parts of elections.
Let's discuss this part. The party that is out of
(01:35):
power nationally traditionally does really, really, really well in off
year local state elections. And it's very understandably understandable why
when we were looked not long ago, we were in
Biden's presidency, the mid term elections and local elections and
(01:58):
state elections and those things like that, how motivated were
you to get out to the polls. Did you need
somebody to poke you in the ribs and say, hey, get.
Speaker 2 (02:08):
Off the couch, get off to the polls.
Speaker 1 (02:10):
No. No, you were very angry about the direction of
the country, the open border, everything else. So even if
there was an election for dog catcher in your area,
something that didn't have anything to do with Joe Biden,
you were still there at the polls. You had an
extra motivation the people in power didn't have. Traditionally, it's
(02:35):
just human nature. The people who are out of power
do better in these elections. And while we can try
to fight against that, we can try to mitigate this
or that, and believe me, I'm going to get to more.
Look it's not all sunny, right. I'm not trying to
make you feel better, but I'm just explaining, it's New Jersey,
(02:55):
it's New York City, it's California, it's Virginia. These are
not blood red areas. We were already swimming against the tide.
Didn't go our way. Sucked, It sucked. It was a
bad night. I'm not saying otherwise. It sucked, But come on,
should you wake up today and you were stunned that
(03:16):
New York City elected a communist, which we get to
in a moment. Okay, So I wanted to get that
out of the way. There are big, national, thirty thousand
foot view things that you're powerless to stop. The motivation thing. Now,
let's talk about other parts of elections. First, you and
I we want to believe something. We will always be
(03:37):
this way. We want to believe that the people we
share a country with, the people on the sidewalk outside
right now, the people driving next to us, the people
in our children's school. And it worked, But we want
to believe that they share our value system, at least
some of it. Maybe we're not going to align exactly.
You and I don't align exactly, but they share some
(03:59):
of it. Right, But that's not the history of the world,
and that's not how it works when you look at
things like the election in New York City. But this
is pretty consistent across the board. You know who picked
the communists overwhelmingly. You know who picked the communists? Foreigners
and young single women. Foreigners and young single women, over
(04:20):
and over and over again, young miserable, mentally ill liberal
women in this country collaborated with hostile foreigners to burn
your country to the ground. If you look at the
breakdown of the exit polls of all these races, when
you look at normal people, married couples, men, people born
in America, they didn't vote for Mamdani in New York City.
(04:42):
They didn't want spam Berger in Virginia. Okay, So what
does that mean. It means that you and I have
a lot to overcome. We have to overcome young single,
miserable women and foreigners. The young single women part we
can get to another time. But you realize that half
that coalition can be taken care of. Deport them, stop
(05:04):
allowing mass immigration into the United States of America, legal
or illegal, and the ones who are here, deport them,
send them at home. Do you have any idea how
many problems, including electoral problems, disappear like that if we
send foreigners back home, disloyal foreigners whose loyalty can be
(05:25):
bought with a welfare check, with a CDL, just support them. Okay,
there's that aspect of it. We have hostile interests, some
foreign some domestic inside of the country who don't share
your values, they don't share my values, and we will
always have to overcome that until we solve those problems.
(05:47):
So that's a big thing. Another big thing to keep
in mind with elections. I've learned this after being probably
twenty years now. I've been involved in politics twenty years.
Every race has its own story. What we want as
human beings, I'm the exact same way. What we want
(06:09):
is a simple give me the bumper sticker, give me
the simple headline. Why do we lose? And you want
it to be one sentence. We lost all these races
because of blank. It's because of Trump or tariffs or
I So we want simple. But each in every race, Virginia,
(06:30):
New Jersey, New York City, everywhere, each and every race
had its own candidate, its own campaign, its own story
to tell. For instance, in Virginia, I personally, as I
told you before, I like when some earl Sears. I
(06:50):
find her personally very appealing. I think she's talented. But
they didn't have a primary. She didn't do well race money.
Therefore she didn't do well getting out the vote. The money,
the organization was not there. Abigail Spanberger raised a bunch
(07:10):
of money. Her people were out in the streets. And
so these are nitty gritty things. Unless you're in Virginia,
you don't know these things. You look and you say,
Virginia's communist. Maybe we caught lightning at a bottle last time.
Maybe we didn't run quite the race we were supposed
(07:31):
to run this time. What's the opposite of that. You
want some good news. I live in Texas. Now, if
you don't live in Texas, maybe this isn't good news
to you, but it'll show you trends in Texas. There
were I believe seventeen constitutional amendments that the people got
to vote on. We got to vote on them here.
I disagreed with a few, but for the most part
(07:51):
they were absolutely wonderful. We're talking about certifying parents' rights
and getting rid of the death tax, and forcing these
commedy judges to get the criminals in jail. A lot
of things you like, they all passed sixty seventy percent approval.
Beyond that, in my local community, here's another aspect of
elections we don't think about. In my local community, they
(08:14):
were trying to increase taxes for various things. That four
or five things. They were trying to increase taxes. But
you know what the language read on the ballot, big
bold letters, this is a tax increase, and then then
explained what it was. Sounds simple, sounds small. The language
on the ballot matters. All those things were shot down.
(08:38):
You see, every race, every candidate, every campaign has its
own story to tell. When you're supposed to come up here,
I'm supposed to show up on television this time and night,
and I'm supposed to tell you all is lost, all
is one. We lost because of A. We didn't lose
because of B. But things are complicated now. Beyond all that,
(09:02):
let's just touch on this aspect of it. As long
as I brought up the young women and foreigners. Did
you catch any of Ma'm Donnie's victory speech last night
New York?
Speaker 2 (09:14):
Tonight you have delivered.
Speaker 3 (09:18):
A mandate for change, a mandate for a new kind
of politics. We will prove that there is no problem
too large for government to solve and no concern too
small for it to care about. I speak of Yemeny
bodega owners and Mexican abuelas, Senegalese taxi drivers, and who's
(09:44):
beck nurses, Trinidadian line cooks and Ethiopian aunties. I am young,
despite my best efforts to grow older.
Speaker 2 (09:57):
I am Muslim.
Speaker 3 (10:01):
I am a democratic socialist, and most damning.
Speaker 2 (10:09):
Of all, I refuse to apologize for any of this.
Speaker 1 (10:19):
It's not a message for you. And you know, to
his credit, he didn't even attempt to talk to you
or about you. He didn't mention America or Americans. He
didn't mention your race, your religion, because that's not who
gave him power. Young miserable American women on anti anxiety medication,
(10:45):
combined with the foreign hordes, flooded into New York City
and they put him in the mayor's house. American born
New Yorkers did not vote for Mandonni. They overwhelmingly rejected Mandannie.
You know who knows that, ma'am Donney. My point in
bringing this up is, really this is my central point.
(11:07):
A couple things. I actually want to wrap this up
because we have so much we want to get to tonight.
Couple things to remember. I told you this after we
want in November. You've heard me say something similar to
this several times before. We have before us, in the
interest of saving the country. We have before us, not
one race, not one year, not one battle, ten thousand
(11:30):
of them. For the rest of your life, there will
be elections, critically important elections, local, state, federal, ten thousand
battles still to fight. And I am going to make
you a promise right now. We are going to win
some of those battles, and we're going to lose some
of those battles. And on the night we went like
(11:52):
last November, we can be happy and should be happy.
We should not ever stand up and say, finally the
devil who's been defeated, all as well, We're good to go.
I'm gonna go sit on the couch. Doesn't work that way.
And on nights like last night, wiped out in Virginia, Pennsylvania, Georgia,
(12:14):
New Jersey, California, wiped out, we should not wake up today.
While we can be sad, we can be mad, we
should not wake up today. It's all that's lost. What's
coming doing in doesn't work that way either. Ten thousand battles,
some we will win, some we will lose. And look,
(12:36):
if you watch, I'm right you kind of knew about
things like Virginia already. Sean Spicer told us yesterday.
Speaker 4 (12:44):
I like Wins personally. I've did an event with her
a couple of weeks ago. She has not run the
greatest campaign. She has not raised the money that she
needs to. She has not put the operation together that
she needs to her team. I think in a lot
of cases has let her down, but she's been vastly outspent.
I've talked to a lot of perennial Virginia donors who
(13:05):
say they were never even contacted. So I don't think
this has been the best effort put forward.
Speaker 1 (13:14):
The final lesson is just watch this show and you'll
be better prepared to handle the winds and the w's now,
Mike Cernovich does have some hard things to say to
the GOP, probably very valid things. He's pretty down on
last night, and we're going to talk to Mike about
all this. In just a moment before we talked to Mike,
(13:35):
you know what we need for ten thousand battles energy focus.
You have to feel good. How could I be sitting
here after a bad night still have a little smirk
on my face ready to go? Couldn't wait to come
to work today because I take a male vitality stack
from chok every day. I have natural herbal supplements in
(13:55):
my life that make my mind work well. My body
feels good better at home, at work they have male
vitality stacks and female vitality stacks. You want to start
your day off with all the vitamins and minerals they
have chok lit powder. Go find out what chalk can
do for you. How much better your life is going
to be Chalk dot Com, slash Jesse TV. We'll be bad.
Speaker 5 (14:29):
It was, you know, not expected to be a victory.
It was very democrat areas. But I don't think it
was good for Republicans. I don't think it was good.
I'm not sure it was good for anybody. But we
had an interesting evening and we learned.
Speaker 1 (14:41):
A lot interesting. Certainly wasn't good. I just reemphasized what
I said in the open that it was bad. We've
had bad nights before. I'm not sure that it spells doom.
Mike Cernovich, who my friend Mike Seravic is joining us
right now. Thinks that we are in some trouble if
(15:02):
some things don't change, and I think he deserves the floor, Mike,
the floor is yours. Well.
Speaker 6 (15:08):
I felt that way the minute Trump won I posted
November eleventh, twenty twenty four. Somebody could find that tweet
that we need to worry about the midterms. So here's
here's the thing that everybody, all the not you, but
the consultant class misses. They go, well, Trump drives Democrat
turnout when he's on the ballot, but Sherberty drives Republican turnout.
(15:30):
So if you look at twenty sixteen, Trump ones, GOP
has a trifecta, twenty eighteen Trump's off ballot blue wave,
twenty twenty Republicans Remember, in twenty twenty, Republicans were supposed
to lose the Senate and the House, right, that was
the prediction. No, the only person who lost in twenty
twenty was Trump, right, which is why a lot of people,
(15:53):
myself included, Even if you didn't buy the really kooky
theories of all the Stone election, you did say, well,
how is it that the Senate stay Republican? But somehow
Trump lost Okay, special elections, Trump's not on ballot, Georgia
loses two sentences, twenty twenty two, what happens twenty twenty four?
Speaker 7 (16:14):
What happens?
Speaker 6 (16:15):
So what the GOP does not exist. It is the
Trump Party, it is Trump's GOP. So even if last
night hadn't happened, I was already worried about the midterms.
I was worried about the midterms the week Trump won,
I was like it, I'm always like the Cassandra. I
tried to be like a Debbie Downer because people who
know me know that I'm a pretty upbeat guy. But
(16:38):
what's our plan to win in twenty twenty six? But
Trump off the ballot? And then of course last night was.
Speaker 7 (16:43):
A bad night.
Speaker 1 (16:46):
Okay, Mike, So what is it about the GOP voter
that is uniquely motivated to vote for Trump? To your point,
but when Donald Trump's name is not on there, he's
just not interesting. He cares about these issues when Trump
is on the ballot, but doesn't when he's not. Helped
me understand sure.
Speaker 6 (17:06):
Actually, I was getting coffee and I was sort of
thinking what we talk about, and I was going to
ask you the question if your job weren't politics and media.
Would you vote in the twenty twenty six mid terms?
Speaker 1 (17:23):
I would, but I vote in every single election because
I think it batters. I think it's extremely important. Of
course I would.
Speaker 6 (17:31):
But you had a pause. You're just like, it's not like, well,
of course I would. Why wouldn't I Why wouldn't I
be hyped?
Speaker 1 (17:38):
Right?
Speaker 7 (17:38):
Trump voters are hyped to vote.
Speaker 6 (17:41):
If I said a week before twenty twenty four, you're
gonna vote, You're like, what.
Speaker 7 (17:45):
Kind of stupid idiotic? Quite?
Speaker 6 (17:47):
Of course, obviously, obviously I'm going to vote, right obviously
in twenty twenty six. It's like, well, intellectually I know
that it's important and there are real problems if I
don't vote, and you run it through your head, but
you don't feel it right, you don't feel in your heart.
And that's everybody for just being honest. It's like, if you,
(18:09):
we're honest, not you. But I'm just saying, like the collective,
the royal wee right, if we're all being honest, we
would say, I mean, yeah, I get it, you gotta
vote Republican because look at what Schumer did. But people
who don't live in politics and media don't go vote
because of that right, they don't go vote because of that.
They need to feel a calling, They need to feel
(18:29):
an energy and a momentum to go out and vote,
and that doesn't.
Speaker 7 (18:34):
Happen with Trump down on the ballot.
Speaker 6 (18:36):
So then to be positive, how can Republicans draw out
more voters?
Speaker 7 (18:42):
Well, they could do They could.
Speaker 6 (18:44):
Do Republican things like I'm seeing right now Ted Kruz,
who by the way, I'm ninety percent pro Ted Kruz.
When Ted Cruz had a close race with Betto, obviously
I was like, this is crazy. You have to vote
for Ted Cruz and everything. But I'm against this trend
of people and the Senate being podcasters and influencers. Right,
you're in the Senate, I can post about things, Jesse Kelly,
(19:07):
we can be on Twitter all day, you know. And
I know that they have to do some kind of media.
So I'm not saying some media, but we do things
in the Senate that make people want to vote. What's
Mike Johnson really doing? They always have an excuse, Oh,
we need sixty votes, we can't do anything. Ah, But
in twenty twenty four, they were gonna have sixty votes
for Annesty because you couldn't close the border without remember that.
(19:30):
This is this is why I'm tired of being gas
lit by Mike Johnson and Ted Cruse and everybody. At
twenty twenty four, Lindsey Graham and Langford fun Fool foo Fool,
whatever his name is, they all said, we can't shut
the border unless we can do amnesty.
Speaker 7 (19:45):
It's only only way to do it.
Speaker 6 (19:47):
But we better come out in twenty twenty six because
because why because why?
Speaker 1 (19:53):
Right? Okay, So let's talk domestically, Mike, because you've been
making this point, and I'll be honest with you. I'm
looking at a stack of I don't know how many emails,
and there are a lot of these emails from people
who make the point that you have been ranting about
online about a domestic focus from Trump and the GOP,
(20:15):
that that that people they're even fine with, you know,
go drop some bombs on and ran sounds fine whatever,
But they don't care about that deeply. They care that
they can't afford to go see their mother on vacation,
they can't afford groceries, they can't afford a pound of burger,
and they don't see a lot of movement on those things.
Speaker 7 (20:35):
No they don't. They don't see no.
Speaker 6 (20:37):
And I'm having people texting me like Chuck roast is
expensive now, which which goes to show what people are
thinking about economically. They're they're not focused on the foreign stuff.
The foreign stuff. This the deal, the deal that was
struck in twenty twenty four that should have been struck
was Hey, look, people like me, I don't care about
(20:58):
is Reel, I don't really get my opinion on Israel
would probably get me canceled because it's pretty it's not
anti Israel. It's probably so pro Israel that it would
make me look like a ghoul.
Speaker 1 (21:10):
You know.
Speaker 6 (21:11):
But you got to carry your own weight, you know.
Israel's got to wrap this stuff up. They got to
wrap it up. I'm not here scolding you or doing
the moralizing. This is what war looked like. We've just
never had a live stream. But you can't do propaganda
for the other side every day. You can't give them
more video footage every day. You gotta wrap it up,
and then we gotta go domestic. That was the deal,
(21:33):
stated and unstated, and yet here we are. You're after
Trump's election, and if you asked the average man on
the street, not the DC policy wonk. If you ask
the average man on the street what has Trump's priority
been over the last year, they're gonna say, well, a Ukraine, Israel,
the Nobel Peace Prize. That's what they're gonna say. And
it sounds like that's what your audience is saying.
Speaker 1 (21:54):
To a lot of your audience, it is. I hear
a lot of it, Mike, And this is what has
concerned me with the Venezuela stuff. The normal person. I'm
not talking about the normal comedy who trumps the Devil
all that stuff, And I'm talking about normal people, the
people that I talked to in my life that don't
hang around with political people. When they brought up Venezuela,
(22:16):
everyone likes a little video on their phone of a
drug boat getting incinerated. No one's crying for those dirt balls.
But I got asked a lot, Mike, why why why
are we down there? Why are we messing with it?
It's not that it's not a righteous cause.
Speaker 2 (22:30):
I got a lot of well why do I care?
Speaker 1 (22:33):
There's a lot of that.
Speaker 6 (22:36):
Especially when we know that Fittanel's not coming primarily from Venezuela.
Speaker 1 (22:40):
Right.
Speaker 6 (22:40):
It's another instance where yeah, I'm I'm the same way.
I think we shouldn't have gone to the Middle East.
I think that we should have taken over most of
Latin America and Southern America and run as part of
the Roman Empire. That's that's my view. But now people
have no appetite for regime change, war another side quest,
(23:02):
another foreign policy. Okay, we got Ukraine, we have Israel o,
ky fine, can we do domestic issues?
Speaker 7 (23:07):
No, we're gonna do regime change.
Speaker 1 (23:08):
We're now.
Speaker 6 (23:09):
I know that there's gonna be a lot of people,
myself included, who could counteract my argument by listening everything done.
Speaker 7 (23:16):
And my answer to that is, I understand.
Speaker 6 (23:18):
That I'm not saying this is my personal belief. I'm
telling you that what we know is not what the
average person and the voters who come out for Trump,
they're not experiencing the same thing because they don't have
all data monitor this stuff.
Speaker 7 (23:33):
Right.
Speaker 6 (23:33):
You gotta look at people are busy, people got stuff
going on. Times, they're tough, a lot of people are
working two jobs. What information is getting filtered down to them,
and it's almost it's almost nothing. Even though me, I
could I could list off, I could make the case
for why Trump is the best president of my lifetime.
I could do that standing on my head while also
(23:54):
thinking we're gonna lose the mid terms unless we turn
this around.
Speaker 1 (24:00):
Can we turn it around by the midterms, Mike, Can
we make the necessary adjustments and get the things done
to get it done? Or is this, you know, fighting
the ocean? Is it inevitable?
Speaker 6 (24:12):
It's not inevitable. We got a year of mondami, so
we got mandami for a year. We got a lot
of things that can go bad for the Democrats over
the next year. Right, A lot can happen any year.
How's the quote go, Nothing happens in a year, and
then year's happened in a decade or decades happened in
(24:33):
a year? Something something like that could happen. But the
Venezuela thy could go sideway. The problem with Venezuela. Even
though I'm again I'm not opposed to regime change wars,
I'm probably I have a very Roman mindset about a
lot of this stuff.
Speaker 7 (24:48):
I just think that if we're gonna go over there,
you have to run it like a colony.
Speaker 6 (24:51):
You have to colonize it, which is why people forget
we won. People say, oh, we lost the war in Afghanistan.
It's like the military didn't lose. It was an occupation
because people are afraid to be colonized as so I'm
not some anti colony woke guy, but a lot can
go wrong in the Venezuela thing.
Speaker 7 (25:09):
And what can go right?
Speaker 6 (25:11):
We already got the oil deal that we need. So
what exactly is the win versus American troops could die? Well,
then we're gonna have to retaliate. Are we going to
be in a hot war with Venezuela? What in the
world right? What's our upside here? That's kind of what
people are seeing. And if Trump doesn't come home, so
(25:32):
to speak, then we are looking at a Democrat midterm win,
and we are looking at more impeachment and we are
looking at a.
Speaker 7 (25:39):
You know, a repeat of the hell of the Adam
Schiff era.
Speaker 1 (25:44):
Gos Mike as always, thank you, brother, I appreciate you.
All right. If if Democrats do come back to power,
what are we in store for? What should we be
thinking about? What is our motivation to get out there
and dig in for the midterms? Talk about that briefly
(26:05):
in a moment before we talk about that. Maybe last
night you had trouble sleeping. Maybe you stayed up all
night rage looking at your phone, getting mad about the elections.
I get it, I've done it. That's why you need
Beam in your life. That's why you need dream powder
from Beam in your life. Doesn't it sound lovely? It
is because it's hot chocolate. I'm a hot chocolate guy.
(26:28):
Always have been. Hit me around a campfire cup of
hot chocolate. I'm a happy man. I now have hot
chocolate in my possession. That makes me sleep like a
little bit of baby, not with drugs. A bunch of
natural stuff in this dream powder puts you to sleep.
When you wake up, you're not all groggy with one
eye half open. You feel dead, feel great because it's
(26:52):
natural stuff. You want to try it, try one bag
Shopbeam dot com, slash Jesse Kelly, We'll be back. Okay,
So that was a lot. I told you it's not
(27:14):
the end of the world. Happened last night, and it's
not my ex Cernaivis just came on here and told
you that we should be concerned about the midterms. And
you know what, he's right too, we should be. So
maybe you're sitting there thinking, oh boy, what do I do? Well,
allow me to give you just a little bit of motivation.
It's going to spend a few much give you a
little bit of motivation. You know how terrible you remember,
(27:37):
of course, how terrible it was under the Biden administration,
not just talking about policies, how truly evil the government became.
These people just turned all the guns of the government
and aimed them at you, aimed them at me, and
them at Trump. Just deployed the government against their political opponents. Truly,
truly you. But I want to remind you of this.
(28:01):
These people aren't sorry to this day, and I have
asked for this several times. I have asked for emails,
I've asked friends. To this day, I have not heard
of a single Democrat in the United States of America,
not just people on TV, a single Democrat that has
(28:22):
expressed that maybe arresting Trump with a bunch of bogus
felony charges was wrong. Not one has come out and
said that was probably the wrong thing to do. They're
not sorry. This is James Comey on MSNBC.
Speaker 8 (28:41):
I know Republicans these days aren't big in thinking about
principle or precedent. They're going to be deeply sorry that
that disappears because someday there will be a democratic president
and there'll be investigations of Republican officeholders. If i'm them,
I sure would want these career people in place making
sure that it's done in the right way. Look, I've
(29:02):
long thought that you could shrink the size of some
of the Department of Justice headquarters units. But this is
like burning down the house and then standing in front
of the pile of ashes and saying, yeah, we really
did need to retile the guest path.
Speaker 1 (29:13):
Right.
Speaker 8 (29:13):
This is destroying the place at a cost that's going
to take years and years to rebuild.
Speaker 1 (29:22):
They're coming back harder if we give them power again.
Eric Holder, he's out there on the podcast circuit. Here's
what he said.
Speaker 9 (29:31):
It pains me to say this. I think the Supreme
Court is a broken institution and it's something that has
to be I think a part of the national conversation
in twenty six and in twenty eight what are we
going to do about the Supreme Court? And I think
that we have to think about again talking about the
acquisition and the use of power. If there is a
democratic trifecta in twenty twenty eight, and I think the
(29:54):
possibility of that is pretty good. Supreme Court reform is
something it has to be considered. Term limits, I think
at a minimum, potentially expanding the court is something I
think that also should be should be considered.
Speaker 1 (30:11):
What we saw under the Biden administration was the warm
up act. Maybe you're recalling four years of evil when
you're saying to yourself, who can't believe we live through that?
Thank goodness, that's over. We never have to deal with
it again. No, no, no, no. The only lesson the
(30:32):
communists learned from last time is he didn't hit you
hard enough. The only lesson these people learned is they
didn't do enough evil things. They didn't shred the constitution enough.
They didn't jail enough of their political opponents. That's the
only thing they learned. Last night. We took it on
the chin. I got that sucked the midterm elections. Maybe
(30:58):
they'll go our way, maybe they won't, But we have
starting right now, we have time to begin fighting back
you personally, me personally. Are we going to get involved?
Are we going to knock on doors? We're going to
phone bank for candidates? If we have money, are we
going to donate to candidates and causes? Are we going
(31:22):
to do the blocking and tackling necessary to ensure we're
not wiped out at the midterms. That decision gets made now.
I know everybody's licking their wounds today. I got it.
Let's decide now that we're not going to let these
people ever back in power again. All right, all right,
(31:43):
when you make that decision, I want you to reward
yourself with some massive chips. Let's look, you deserve it.
You deserve a massive Chips reward. But Jesse, I don't
want to be unhealthy. I like chips too much, but
they're bad for you. No, no, no, no no. I didn't
say any chips. I said massive. I know you've already
heard of them. Maybe you have friends who've already eaten
a bag. They're freaking amazing and you can eat them
(32:08):
guilt free. I am such a massive Chips fan because
I'm a chips freak. And oh the huth chips I've
ever tried my life have been garbage, massive chips, three ingredients,
multiple flavors, got blue, ones, hop and narrow. They got
more than I can list for you. Here, get yourself
a bag of massive chips, a little bottle of hot sauce,
(32:30):
massive chips dot com, slash JESSETV. We'll be back, all right.
I hate to step away from everybody get in the
vapors about the election last night. But there are some
(32:50):
fairly important things happening at the Supreme Court today, and
as you are well aware, I'm too dumb to tell
you about any of these. That's why we need Alex
in here joining me now. Alex Sawyer, author of the
book Lawless, Law Fair, also with the Washington Times. Okay, Alex,
before we get to what you heard what you saw today,
What even is this tariff case?
Speaker 10 (33:12):
Okay, good, We need to set this up, all right.
So what the tariff case is basically is some small businesses,
toy makers, a wine distributor. I like wine. Gotta give
them a shout out. They have challenged President Trump's tariffs
that he is imposed on various countries. They say that
the power to lay tariffs and impose those who belongs
(33:34):
to Congress, because Congress is the one that has the
ability to lay and collect taxes. And they're basically saying
that tariffs are a tax. The President, though in his administration,
has cited federal law, basically arguing that he has the
power to in emergency situations impose tariffs on foreign countries
(33:56):
when he sees fit. He is basically two reasons he
has given for this national emergency. One is the flow
of fentanyl. He says that he needs to lay tariffs
on some countries that are pouring fentanyl into our country.
And then the other aspect is the trade deficit. That
that's a problem, you know, of course, that he's trying
to make up. The law he cites is the International
(34:19):
Emergency Economic Powers Act, and within that law, it basically
does say the president has the ability to regulate imports.
The question is does that include issuing tariffs? And that's
what the Supreme Court is going to decide.
Speaker 1 (34:34):
Okay, Alex. Before we get to what happened today, I'm
going to ask you a couple of really really dumb questions.
But I need to understand this. Trump says, it's an emergency.
I got that. Are there rules? Surely there are rules
around what constitutes an emergency. Right. I can't come home
and tell my wife where we have to go to
Red Lobster because it's an emergency. She's going to ask
(34:56):
for an explanation. What's the emergency?
Speaker 10 (35:00):
Yeah, so that is one aspect that's being explored in court,
and there's president basically about what would constitute an emergency
or not. When can the court second guess the executive
on what is an emergency? That was something they kind
of dove into, and you would think there would be clear,
bright line rules Jesse like you're asking about, but there
really isn't. That prompted actually, Justice Sonya Soto Mayor to ask, well,
(35:24):
what about climate change? Could President Biden have said climate
change is a is a national emergency. I'm going to
use this same law and start, you know, use it,
she said, to for example, to forgive student loan debt.
I'm not sure why that is connected to climate change,
but that's what she chose. And then it was just
(35:46):
kind of interesting because even Justice Corsi, you know, obviously
not on the democratic wing of the court, but he
jumped on that same narrative about, well, if the government
were to win here, would climate change be a national
emergency or an emergency that the president and could cite
in imposing tariffs on other countries? Would that now be next?
So yeah, I think that the question that you're asking
(36:07):
is very pointed, and hopefully the court will give a
little bit of guidance on that, but it doesn't seem
like there's a bright line rule about what would be
an emergency and what isn't.
Speaker 1 (36:17):
That's freaking wonderful. Okay, now let's go to what happened today.
I know you even made for us a cheat sheet
of some kind before it yours.
Speaker 10 (36:26):
I'm going to give you a little sneak peak. So
whenever I go in the court, you cannot have electronics,
so you're in there without your computer, your handwriting notes.
These are all my little notes I brought for you
on my little legal pad. It's pink, but I like
to keep track of where the jets might fall, so
you can see I kind of like have their names
kind of listed. So I left you guys really thinking
(36:47):
that the administration had a harder day in court. The
start of the arguments from the Solicitor General were met
with tough questions not just from the Chief Justice, but
also just a scorsicch just to bear it. You know,
those that we tend to think are the swing justices.
We already know where the three liberals are going to vote.
They're going to vote against the administration. So the fact
(37:08):
that they are there's three. I guess you could call
them moderates or the GOP appointees that I think could
end up on the liberal side. Tells me that it
was President Trump's administration that had the harder day in court.
I mean, at one point, I even have a quote
the Chief Justice said, he goes the statute doesn't use
the word tariffs, telling Jackson, Justice Jackson, who we all
(37:32):
love all the time, to quote. She did actually go
into the legislative history and noted that when Congress was
creating the law the president is citing, they were really
worried about more property interests and that the president should
have ability to protect property interests from foreign governments, especially
during a time of war, for example. And she said,
you know, there was no evidence that when Congress was
(37:53):
putting the statute together that they were thinking about tariffs.
So all of this, you know, tells me there seems
to be some between the GOP wing of the court
and the liberal wing that it could be the Trump
administration loses this. I'm not sure they could come up
with a ruling where they somehow split split it up.
I'm not sure if they're able to say, well, some
(38:14):
of these tariffs constitute emergencies, some don't. We'll have to.
Speaker 1 (38:17):
See, Okay, Alex and you can bat this right back
at me if we don't have the answer to this yet.
But I understand Trump. Every time we turned on the news,
he's flying over to some foreign country and signing a
trade agreement here to a trade agreement there. If this
doesn't go our way, which sounds like a possibility, does
(38:37):
that put all those pieces of paper in the paper
shredd or does it blow all that? What does this do?
Speaker 10 (38:43):
No? I don't think that it would destroy any sort
of new trade deals that the President has been able
to accomplish. And that was one thing the Solicitor General
pointed out. He said that these tariffs that the president
is imposing to regulate and retaliate basically are helping him
renegotiate trade deal and he kind of listed a few
different countries off the bat. So no, I don't think
(39:03):
they would go away those trade deals that have been renegotiated.
And I do think the administration has already been looking
at people smarter than me are looking at ways that
they can go around this law and maybe come up
with another way to support these tariffs. The President has
already done.
Speaker 1 (39:19):
Okay, let's shift gears away from this for a moment.
Let's talk about Prop fifty California. Obviously, it was big
in California. It didn't get a ton of national interest.
This was California jerrymandering out the last of their Republicans.
Essentially sounds like something that should land before the Supreme Court.
Speaker 10 (39:37):
Is it going to I think it could. I think
you're right, and I would love to cover it. So basically,
a Proposition fifty was Gavin Newsom's push to redistrict California,
and voters seem to have supported that and accepted that.
I can get into the numbers why I think that is,
but basically, what it would do is it would force
Republicans in Congress to lose about four five seats. This
(40:01):
was a push that he, Gavin Newsom, was making after
Texas moved to redistrict. It's kind of like a red
state blue state war, right, And one of the reasons
I think this was successful was the amount of money
that was poured into the effort, which you know is
kind of how these things work with elections. I saw
one article that the side advocating for this had about
one hundred and twenty million to support this proposition, while
(40:25):
those against forty four million, you know, very much outspent, outworked. Now,
you know, Newsom's claiming victory on this, and he's calling
for other Blue states Virginia, Maryland, New York, Illinois to
do the same. So yeah, this wouldn't just have an
impact for California with less Republican lawmakers representing them, but
it would have an effect you know, nationally with a
(40:48):
shift of balance in Congress.
Speaker 1 (40:51):
Okay, so Red states, can we not match this? Is
it not in our ability or do we not have
the will?
Speaker 10 (40:59):
So that's something that's very interesting. Texas has tried to
do that, right and it's tied up in court right now.
So when you asked about could California's situation end up
at the Supreme Court, I think it's very likely that
you have Red states trying to do this. Blue state's
trying to do this. Lower courts rule how they will,
and then it eventually works its way up to the
justices and so you know, we'll hear from them exactly
what can be done. I tend to think the Court
(41:21):
would say this is you know, these people are elected
your state wilemakers are elected to do as you know,
they run on. So maybe this is a political question
that they don't want to dive into. But we'll have
to see.
Speaker 1 (41:32):
Tell me about Jack Smith's report.
Speaker 10 (41:36):
Okay, So the latest with Jack Smith's report out of
the Southern District of Florida is basically Judge Eilen Cannon
has been ordered by the Eleventh Circle Circuit Court of
Appeals to consider in the next sixty days motions to
release Jack Smith's report related to his investigation of the
classified documents being kept at mar Lago. Everyone, I'm sure
(41:57):
remembers that that case was dismissed back when President and
Trump won the election in November. There's DOJ guidance that says,
you know, not to prosecute a sitting president. So that's
why the Jack Smith petitioned the dj to get right
of the case, and they did. The one thing I
note in my book though, is that this was dismissed
without prejudice, which means some of these charges could actually
be resurrected. I think there's some statute of limitations in
(42:20):
the charges that are like eight years. So let's say,
you know, a very very aggressive democratic administration comes in
next they could try to resurrect this case. That's one
reason I don't think the report should be released publicly.
But of course there's First Amendment groups that are trying
to claim that we have as the public, have access
to see Jacksmith's work.
Speaker 1 (42:38):
James call me. Evidence is starting to be released. Yeah,
tell me about this case. Is this something substantial? Did
you read it in your eyes popped out of your skull? Yeah?
Speaker 10 (42:50):
I wish I could read his handwriting a little better,
because I think that would be more helpful. He's kind
of like scrivels a lot, but some a couple of
things that pop out to me. So he's trying to
argue that the DOJ has come after him in basically
a political prosecution, of vindictive prosecution. So I think there's
actually going to be a hearing on that later this month.
If the I remember reporting on this, I think it
was a November thirteenth. That date sticks out to me.
(43:11):
Don't quote me, but around then. Long story short, this
the US attorney, so Lindsay Halligan, responded to the claim
of a vindictive prosecution and basically included exhibit that show
that Comy was working with his friend, that law professor
Daniel Richman about leaking to the media, and that's exactly
what he's being charged for, right He's being charged for
(43:33):
lying to Congress saying that he wasn't part of leaking
to the media when it looks like there's actually emails
showing that he was, or he was at least in
part doing so. Like okay. For example, Exhibit five shows
that he's talking to his law professor friend about media
and says that his decision, So I don't know whatever
that decision is, but quote would be one president elect
Clinton would like. So what you know, why is he
(43:56):
making decisions thinking a president elect Clinton would like it?
The other thing, Exhibit seven shows him praising his friend's
media appearance, and then he also says in the email
quote well done, my friend, who knew this would be
oh so fun? And then lastly, there's another one that
my friend Mike Davis shared Exhibit thirteen. There's seems to
be handwritten notes which are kind of hard to you
(44:17):
can see him right there on the screen, hard to
kind of zoom in on, but there's one line in
there that says, HRC plan for hit Trump. That's what
I read. So why is he worried about Hillary rod
and Clinton's plan to hit Trump. It just seems extremely political.
It does show he was in on, you know, his
friend's media appearances for whatever that might be. In one
(44:38):
of the emails, the friend actually offers, I think to
write an op ed or do some sort of defense
of Comy and the FBI. And it looks like Comy says, well,
you know, not right now, but that at least shows
that he's being you know, asked. Maybe this was a practice.
We'll have to wait and see more when this hearing happens,
but you know, it looks like this US attorney definitely
came armed with evidence.
Speaker 1 (45:01):
Oh so fun. Kind of a dude talks like that.
That's how women talk. It's very weird. Anyway, Thank you
so much, Alex. I appreciate you. Lighten the mood next,
(45:22):
all right, it is time to lighten the mood. And look,
some kids are just cool. That certainly wasn't me. Some kids,
some kids make you jealous about what a dork you
were when you're a kid. Look at this stud on
Halloween night. It's gotta throw in reverse. What is the
(46:14):
let's see him up?
Speaker 7 (46:17):
Mm hmmm, m
Speaker 1 (46:21):
M h m hmm.
Host
Jesse Kelly
Popular Podcasts
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.