INTERVIEW: Tomi Lahren Believes In Freedom, Supports The Trump Administration & Declares She Is Not Racist

Today on The Breakfast Club, Tomi Lahren Believes In Freedom, Supports The Trump Administration & Declares She Is Not Racist. Listen For More!

YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/@BreakfastClubPower1051FM

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Wake that ass up. In the morning the Breakfast Club yeps, well,
the most Dangerous Morning to show to Breakfast Club Shawla,
the God Jess Hilarious. DJ Nvy is off to day,
but we got a special guest in the building, the
host of Tommy Lauren is Fearless on OutKick dot Com.
Tommy Lauren is here. Good morning.

Speaker 2 (00:16):
Thank you for having me. It's been a long time coming.
So I'm so happy that you had me, and I
hope that we can have a nice discussion. I love
the dialogue. As you know, I'm.

Speaker 1 (00:24):
Supposed to be here. Back in the day, day, way
back in the day, was the same day when you
and Trevor Nolan everybody.

Speaker 2 (00:29):
Gives the day after the Daily Show the situation slash
debacle slash milestone. I guess we'll call it that.

Speaker 1 (00:37):
Oh, Tommy, are you a racist?

Speaker 2 (00:40):
I sure am not. Yeah, thank you for asking, though,
I appreciate just coming in hot just right off the bat.
But I'm glad we could clear that up and then
now we can move forward. There we go. You get
that off, you know, not so much anymore. Okay, Yeah,
that the time of me being accused of that has dissipated.

(01:00):
But you know, hey, listen, I appreciate the question. I'm
an open book and I hope after our time together
you will see that for yourself. But thank you for
asking what have you.

Speaker 1 (01:11):
Been up to? That was a question that people were asking.
They was like, you know, where's Tommy.

Speaker 2 (01:14):
Lauren been doing my thing? You know, doing my thing
on Fox. We've been through a couple elections since you
and I last spoke. This one went more my direction,
I would say, as the last one did. When we
know we're talking. Previously, during Trump Edmund one and you
and I talked about, you know, if you would be
open to seeing what the president had to offer. And

(01:37):
you know, now we've got a few years separating that
and now, and I'm personally I'm happy with with everything
that's happening.

Speaker 1 (01:43):
So really honest assessment.

Speaker 2 (01:45):
Now, I promise you this. If there comes a time
where this administration does something that I don't like, I'm
happy to say it. And I don't know if you've
seen over the years, but I've taken a beating for
going against the right, and I was fire for going
against the right. I think that was pre though, Yeah, yeah, yeah,
so I have no problem doing that if I see

(02:07):
an issue, I'll say it. I don't play for a team.
I don't work for the Trump administration. If they do
something I don't like, I'm happy to say, all right,
that's not my thing. Right now, I'm happy we'll see you. Know,
we're a few months in.

Speaker 1 (02:20):
Well, you were fired from the Blaze after saying you
support a woman's right to choose. Did that moment did
you not realize in that moment that the movement that
you promote doesn't really allow true freedom of thought, because
that's what it feels like. It doesn't feel like they
allow true freedom of thought, all freedom of speech.

Speaker 2 (02:36):
Well, I'll tell you this. That particular network didn't like it,
but the network i'm at now definitely supports my right
to free speech. Yeah, there were a lot of people
on the right. They didn't like that I said that.
I'm someone who really believes in freedom. I don't like
government intervention. So when I said I was pro choice,
it was hey, listen, I'm personally pro life, but I
don't like the government telling people what to do in

(02:57):
that regard, and I don't think the government fills that need.
I really don't. I think that's a place for family
and faith and community to come in during that time.
That's hard for women. I don't think the government does
it well. So I don't think the government should impede.
And I was very forthright about that. Some people didn't
like that, and that's okay. But I got eviscerated for that,
you know, and I had to go through a battle

(03:19):
with a network for that. But that's why when I
say I don't play for a team, I don't play
for a side. I'm happy to take the hits from
my side. If I believe in something, I'm going to
say it. So the left of the right, I mean,
I'm kind of a punching bag for both. And that's
okay with me.

Speaker 1 (03:33):
Do you feel like a president should uh hold the Constitution?

Speaker 2 (03:35):
Oh? Absolutely their duty.

Speaker 1 (03:37):
Yes. So when you see him on Meet the President,
he's asked that question. President Trump, he's asked that question
and he says, I don't know. You can't be happy
with that.

Speaker 2 (03:44):
Well, to be fair, when he was asked that question,
it was regarding illegal immigration and what his administration's abilities are.
Now that's gonna end up being decided by the Supreme Court.
We don't have those decisions yet. But to say he's
just not upholding the concert Institution. He's saying, well, the
lawyers are going to tell me how far I can go.
So I respect him when he says that, he's not

(04:05):
saying nope, I know the answer. He's saying, Listen, this
is going to play out judicially, it's going to play
out legislatively, it's going to play out. But I'm going
to do what I can to protect the sovereignty of
our nation and our borders. And we had an invasion
in his mind and in my mind, and we have
to correct that, and the voters voted largely to correct that.
So he when he said that about the Constitution, he

(04:26):
wasn't saying, ah, I don't know. He was saying, listen,
it's going to play out. But then I respect that.

Speaker 1 (04:30):
There is actual due process language in the Constitution though,
yeah to mecause everybody does have the right to do process.

Speaker 2 (04:38):
To me, there's a gray area there, and it depends
on what we're talking about. So the position the president
has in my position is this, it's a privilege to
be in our country. And there were millions of people
who came into our country and they said, I don't
want to follow a process to get in, but now
I want a different process in order for you to
remove me. And what thiseman is is saying, and what

(05:01):
many Americans, including myself feel, is, listen, you need to
follow our laws. You did not follow our immigration laws,
so there's going to be a different process for you
than an American citizen. And if two immigration courts say
you're gang affiliated, if you've beaten your wife and you
have protective orders filed against you, if you're accused of

(05:21):
trafficking people around this country, which is a major issue
human trafficking and sex trafficking, then you no longer have
the privilege of being in this country. And by the way,
you also came in illegally, So the whole due process conversation,
that's where I stack up on that. Now, Listen, I
don't believe people should just be rounded up with, you know,
just because they see you and they say, oh, get
out of here. But if you came to this country legally,

(05:42):
you aren't up for deportation. You came here.

Speaker 1 (05:44):
Illegally, yes, but the still says you're allowed to process. Now,
I'm not even saying that I disagree with you know
that stance. I'm just saying you still have to abide
by what the constitution says.

Speaker 2 (05:56):
But why did nobody take any issue during the Obama
administration when he deported three million people without that due
process of yes, you're in here illegally. Yes the court
says you're here illegally, but we're going to deport you
because you're in the country illegally. There was no extra
due process for those three million under Obama, and nobody
had an issue with it. So now my question is,

(06:16):
why now is there another level of due process besides
an immigration court saying you're here illegally, you have a
notice to be deported.

Speaker 1 (06:24):
I've always asked that question as to my knowledge that
those people that because Obama deported more more people than
any president ever, but those people still were deported, you know,
via due process, Like they didn't just grab them and say, hey,
what's shipping you off the announce ound.

Speaker 2 (06:37):
No, but an immigration court said yes, you're up for deportation.
But the Obama administration didn't give them this extra due
process or you get a trial, or you get but
if you go through the courts, that's due process exactly,
an immigration court, which that's what President Trump is also doing.
It's not just oh, they've never been in front of
an immigration judge.

Speaker 1 (06:55):
The guy from Maryland didn't go go go through due process.

Speaker 2 (06:58):
Two courts actually not only said that he was gang affiliated.
The local PD said he's gang affiliated. A informant says
he's gang affiliated.

Speaker 1 (07:08):
But that has nothing to do with due process all that.

Speaker 2 (07:11):
But two courts already said you're gang affiliated and you're
an illegal immigrant. I mean, there's no dispute that he's
an illegal immigrant, and there's no dispute that the courts
say he's gang affiliated.

Speaker 1 (07:19):
But that has nothing to do with his due process.
I'm with you, but that has nothing to do with
his due process. That just means that he has committed
some crimes, but he's still allowed due process. And I
think that's where a lot of Democrats are getting caught
up in. They're so focused on defending his character or
what he may or may not have done, But we
should just be talking about the due process that has
allowed people within the constitution.

Speaker 2 (07:39):
So do you want him to go in front of
another immigration judge? Then I guess that's my question, is
that he's been in front of immigration judges. He's in
the country illegally and has been for many many years. Right,
not only came to this country illegally, but then since
then you have protective orders against you. Your wife says
she's scared of you. You're wife's ex husband said, Hey,

(08:01):
I'm worried about my kids because my ex wife is
dating a gang member. And you got caught on bodycam
footage allegedly trafficking people across my state of Tennessee. So
at some point, it's like, how much more? How many
more judges need to say this cat needs to leave?
And I would also ask this, there are Americans who
are accused of being gang members all the time, and

(08:23):
I feel that they get less benefit of the doubt
than someone who came to this country legally, and that
should infuriate Americans that there are people sitting in jail
right now who I feel probably get less attention, less advocacy,
and they're riding in jail than someone who came to
our country legally and then continued to break our laws
and endanger people. So that's my perspective. And then I

(08:44):
get what you're saying about the due process.

Speaker 1 (08:45):
I understand that's literally the only conversation. I'm not saying
that he shouldn't even you know, I'm not saying that
he should not be deported. I'm just simply saying he
should have to go through due process. That's it. I
think that. You know, the people like just keep saying, well,
he committed this crime. He committed that crime that has
nothing to do with the due process that he's allowed
within the constitution. What do you think about Donald Trump
taking the plane? Constitution also says you can't do that either.

Speaker 2 (09:08):
That's another again, that's another great area. I'm not a lawyer,
is that well, because here's the deal, I understand and
I'm not. I'm not fully saying I even support it.
I see the present position. Hey, if they're going to
give us this plane, otherwise taxpayers are going to pay
for it. We need a new air Force one and
they don't have it ready for us. They were supposed
to have it ready for us. They don't have it
ready for us. If Katar is willing to give us

(09:30):
this plane and it can save us some money, maybe
we should do it. Save the people some money. Donald
Trump doesn't look at things like a typical politician. He
looks at it like maybe your average person would say, hey,
you're gonna give me this and I don't have to
pay for it. Okay, I'll take it. And I understand
there are many people on prohibits that there are many
people on my side of the aisle who also agree

(09:52):
with you, Like, hey, what are they getting in return?
And I need to know that as well. So I'm
not saying that I don't. I'm just like, yes, take
the plane. I would prefer you didn't, But I understand.

Speaker 1 (10:02):
Do you prefer he didn't tell me?

Speaker 2 (10:03):
I don't want to be beholden to potentially hostile nations
in the.

Speaker 1 (10:07):
Middle least, And you know it's unconstitutional.

Speaker 2 (10:10):
I understand your point on that. I don't know if
I don't know if it is unconstitutional, it is.

Speaker 1 (10:15):
The US Constitution prohibits, it's it's textbook unconstitutional. All I want,
regardless of party, is a president who upholds the Constitution
at all times.

Speaker 2 (10:24):
Do you feel like President jow Biden did that?

Speaker 1 (10:26):
Uh? No, probably not in all cases. But that's why
I said, regardless of the party, I want a president
who upholds the Constitution at all times. I don't think
the Constitution should be flexible.

Speaker 2 (10:37):
Yeah, well, you know there are some on the left
that want the Constitution to be flexible when it comes
to the Second Amendment and you know, other parts of
the Constitution. So some people say it's a living document.
It changes with the times. Other people say, listen, it's
the original intention. And I think there are times where
we probably agree on different points and disagree on others.
I take your point, though, about the plane, I'm not

(10:59):
cheering for like, I'll be honest about that. I'm like, hey,
if we can avoid that, let's let's avoid that. Let's
just not even go into the gray area. I would
prefer that. But I see the President sees it as
let's save some money for the American people. I think
he really does care about that. I really do believe
that he sees things like a business and that's his
perspective on it. And I think that he appreciates the gesture.

(11:23):
But I don't. I don't love it.

Speaker 1 (11:24):
It's still unconstitutional and it could be a national security ASKM.

Speaker 2 (11:26):
I understand that I don't disagree with you on that point.

Speaker 1 (11:28):
It could the plans probably, but it could be a
bomb all we know.

Speaker 2 (11:31):
I'm I don't disagree with you on that point. I
would need to know more as well.

Speaker 1 (11:35):
Is that you get a grandchout of immigrants.

Speaker 2 (11:38):
Well, I think most of us are grandchildren of immigrants.

Speaker 1 (11:41):
Yeah, because because you said, America's just stop being a
dumping ground for other countries' problems, right, correct, So at
what point did your family's journey stop being noble and
start being disposable to you?

Speaker 2 (11:54):
Well? Point take and what you're trying to do with that.
So here's my thing. We are a nation of immigrants.
We once had a process for it, and then it
became a free for all. We have to know who's
coming into our country, the days of coming into this country,
and we can agree to disagree on who came in
and how they came in, and I'm happy to have
the conversation. But when my family or my lineage came

(12:17):
into this country, they didn't come into this country and
they didn't get a four horse hose, our hotel room,
they didn't get all their meals paid for. They didn't
get lodging and health care and schooling and everything that
the legal immigrants that are coming in now are afforded,
and they're sucking up the resources from people who really
need it. It's really hard for people like me and
on my side to rationalize and I think many people

(12:39):
that don't have a party affiliation to rationalize importing millions
and millions of people into this country, allowing them to
use all of our services and allowing them to stay
even though they didn't follow the process to get here.
So that's the point. We want immigrants. There's nothing saying
we don't we need immigrants. We need them, we love them,
we need them, we need a process. We do it right,
just do it the right way. And if we didn't

(13:00):
have so many that came in the wrong way, we
could allow more people to come in the right way.
And we want to foster that. And I don't think
President Trump is anti immigrant. He's married to an immigrant,
you know, Jade Vance is married to someone who's come
from a family of immigrants from India. Like, we're not
anti immigrant, just come the right way. And it's really
hard when I see the people in New York City
or the people in Chicago or in la and you

(13:20):
see people that are struggling that they can't afford their
daily life, and then you see illegal aliens in a
force our hotel and you see them getting their needs
taken care of, and you see Americans falling by the wayside.

Speaker 1 (13:34):
You want to see me. Pushed back on that one,
I agree with that you are.

Speaker 3 (13:37):
Often classified as like controversial, that's how people describe you.
How much is that of that is intentional or in
how much of it is really you standing on business
of what you believe in.

Speaker 2 (13:51):
I would say I'm much like you two in that regard.
I don't go out of my way to be controversial.
There are a lot of people that have found this
new media and on the right that they say things
to be controversial, and they say things to get attention.
I don't do that. I really just have a perspective
and I'm happy to say it, and it's meaningful to
me and it's well thought out. I don't just say things.

(14:12):
I think about it and I say it and then
I stand by it. But I don't say things just
to be controversial. And I like having conversations with people.
I really do. I really do believe that most of
us in this country want what's best for this country.
We have different ways of going about it, but this
is America. That's why we talk. And for too long
we just didn't talk to each other. And I think
now the barriers are starting to be broken down in

(14:34):
that regard, and I'm really happy to see.

Speaker 3 (14:35):
That is your bolton. Do you feel like your boldness
is mis understood sometimes?

Speaker 2 (14:40):
Sometimes I think maybe less over the years because I've
taken so many hits from the right. Maybe you know
there are people that will no matter what, they will
stand up for Mega and Trump and whatever, and they
will stand up for the side and they will die
in the hill of the side. I don't do that,
and I think that that lacks integrity when people do it.
Happy if people disagree with me on either side, because

(15:02):
at least you know that what I'm saying is actually
what I feel and you cannot like it, but it's
not something that I'm saying to just bat for somebody.
So I hope that at least there's some respect for that,
and I think that there is now, and I think
things are changing, and I think that podcasting and more
people having platforms has added to that, which I'm happy
to see.

Speaker 1 (15:21):
I want to go back to the immigration thing real quick,
Like this is a hypothetical question, like you know, the
legal immigration process can take like twenty plus years. Sometimes
would you wait that long if your children were, say,
fleeing a cartel of violence or war, right, you know
what I mean.

Speaker 2 (15:37):
So I understand your point, and I really do empathize
with anybody who doesn't live in the US that wants
to get here. This is the greatest nation on the
face of the earth, and I understand that. Now, the
part about immigration and illegal immigration is this those people
that are coming out of this country. When you're seeking
genuine asylum or you're an actual refugee. First of all,

(15:58):
you got to show up to your asylum hearings, and
you got to show up. Ninety plus percent don't that's
a problem. But coming here because you want better economic opportunities,
that's not asylum. And many people that have come over
in the last four years they want better economic opportunities,
and I don't fault them for that, but that's not asylum.
I would also say this, if you're coming over because
you're fearful of your government, or you're in a war

(16:19):
torn country, or you're in a country that's run by cartels,
paying those cartels, then to smuggle you into our country
does not help your country, because you don't come over
here without paying a cartel. You're paying ten thousand, fifteen thousand,
twenty thousand, and if you're a special interest alien who's
coming for nefarious purposes. You're paying more, so you're not
helping your country if you're coming from Honduras or Guatemala

(16:42):
or Nicaragua and you're funding the very organization that's destroying
your country. So that's why we have to get a
grip on it for a lot of reasons. I want
those countries to thrive. They're never going to thrive if
people are paying the very organizations that are destroying them.

Speaker 1 (16:55):
What about people who are fleeing those countries just because
they want a better life. You have cos empathy for
an inlet, of course, I have.

Speaker 2 (17:01):
Empathy for everybody. But there's still a process, because there's
no reason that somebody should go through the process and
pay a lot of money legitimately and wait five or
ten years because they want to be an American so
badly and then watch someone skip over them.

Speaker 1 (17:14):
But you can understand if the process is literally life
or death. Depending on his process's life or death. I
got to get my kids out of here now, I
got to get out of here now. My whole family's
going to die.

Speaker 2 (17:24):
Yeah, well, that's why we have the asylum process, and
that's what it's intended for. Unfortunately, so many people have
taken advantage of it that the people that need it,
they're the ones that fall through the cracks, the ones
that are like, hey, I really am fleeing this. My
family is in danger. That's why we have asylum. But
when you have people coming over here and lying about it,
you can't have that. And that's what we experienced in
the last four five years. And it's unfortunate because all

(17:47):
that does is hurt the people that need it the most.
And that's where I stand on that issue, and I
have empathy for everybody. By the way, it's not a
matter of I don't like you, I don't want you here.
It's just follow the process so that we can have
a process, because why would anybody wait in line if
they can just do it the wrong way. That's really
the point we're trying to get at.

Speaker 1 (18:06):
You do have empathy with Angel The other day, I
think I think she's a First of all, I think
she is a hater.

Speaker 2 (18:14):
That's okay, like maybe we're all haters. I think that
she deeply hates Kaitlin Clark, And I.

Speaker 1 (18:21):
Think did you feel that before three said no?

Speaker 2 (18:24):
Oh yes, excuse me? So I've seen it since way
back in the college days. They don't like each other, right,
I think Caitlin Clark doesn't display if she doesn't like
her dislike for Angel Rees. I don't think Caitlin Clark
displays it. I think Angel Rees, I think she likes
to be the villain too. You know, it works and

(18:45):
it works well, I don't. Well, maybe it works for
you too. I mean, I think that Angel hates Kaitlin Clark,
and it's okay.

Speaker 1 (18:56):
She is such a strong word. Why can't it just
be competitive? Like we don't I can't think of too
many times we've said that with guys, you know what
I mean, Like they hate each other just because they're
super competitive on the court.

Speaker 2 (19:07):
Well, I think that there's always been a rivalry and
a feud in sports and in boxing and all of this.
But I think when you see Angel reason the way
she reacts to specifically Caitlin Clark, I think it's hard
to dispute that she dislikes Caitlin Clark. And it's okay
if she does, Like, you're not gonna like everybody.

Speaker 1 (19:24):
Well, last night the Fever played. I think they played
the Atlanta Dream. What did the dream let me make
sure it was the dream. I just know her and
Ryan Howard got it was a dream. I think, so, yeah,
it was a dream. And she got into it with
Ryan Howard and they had words back and forth and
they had to hold Ryan back and Caitlyn said, I'm
not scared of you. That's just competitive nobody. There's no
narrative this morning that Ryan hates Caitlin. I just think

(19:47):
it's the rivalry thing between Caitlyn and Angel and we're
just not used to seeing that in women's basketball.

Speaker 2 (19:52):
We're not. And maybe it's good for the sport. It's
bringing eyes to it. So finally women get you know,
women I have been dumped on, in my opinion for
the last five years and had sports hijacked, and they've
you know, they they haven't had their their due, and
now they're being talked about. So you know what, if
Angel Reese is playing it up to get eyeballs, good

(20:13):
for her speaking.

Speaker 1 (20:15):
Of that, because you know, we just talked about both
of us being villains. Do you have a worry that
your brand depends more on outrage than solutions?

Speaker 2 (20:21):
No? No, maybe early on we evolve, We all evolve.
I think I don't think any more people would say
that about me. Maybe some would, maybe you would, but
I don't think so anymore. I don't try to outrage people.
I just have conversations and I say things that I'm thinking,
and not everybody likes it, but welcome to what we

(20:42):
do for a living. You know, if you have an
opinion and you stand by it, there are gonna people
that don't like it. But I don't think I do
it to outrage people. And I also, to my side,
I don't do it to appease people either. So I
think we're all probably in that boat in doing what
we do.

Speaker 1 (20:55):
We'll not find interesting about conservative media, especially the people
they call conservative fire brands. They do offer solutions, it's
just that the solutions you usually offer calls outreage because
people don't agree with the which said solutions. So what
do you say to that, Well.

Speaker 2 (21:10):
On the other side, wouldn't it be the same thing, Yes, yeah,
So I think it's it's both ways. People are not
going to like the way you go about things every time.
That's why we have two different parties and we have
a party in the middle. Nobody's gonna like everything Democrats
do or Republicans do. Someone's gonna be mad, But it's
better to do something than to do nothing. And I
think that's my whole thing with the Trump administration. People
might not like what he's doing, but he ran on

(21:30):
it and he's doing exactly what he said he was
going to do, and you might not like it, but
he's not doing anything different than what he's explicitly said,
I'm going to do this, and now he's doing it.
And the status call wasn't working. People were not happy
with it, So maybe we're going to do something different
and people aren't gonna like it. But I think the
worst thing is just doing nothing at all.

Speaker 1 (21:48):
But there was a lot of people who said he
never really do these things, like he would never implement,
you know, these tariffs, he would never do these mass depotations.
Like there was literally people who would hear him say
these things and didn't say, no, he's not really going
to do that.

Speaker 2 (22:01):
They didn't learn the first time that he's gonna donna
what he said he's gonna do.

Speaker 1 (22:05):
When somebody shows you who they are, believed him.

Speaker 2 (22:07):
Yeah, And some people don't like it, but I like it.
I like the fact that I voted for someone and
they're doing exactly what they said that they were going
to do. When people voted for Joe Biden. I don't
think they voted for Joe Biden thinking I'm going to
open the borders and allow ten to maybe fifteen million
people come into this country unvetted, largely unvetted. I don't
think people would have voted for that. You know, like,

(22:28):
be honest if you're going to run on that, and
you're like, hey, I respect democrats that are like open
the borders, that's what I want. Okay, well, at least
people can vote on that, but don't tell me you're
going to do something and then do the complete opposite.
Joe Biden ran as a moderate. He was anything but moderate,
so he fooled a lot of people. I would argue,
Trump's doing exactly what he said, and if you didn't
believe him, like, maybe that's on you, But I did you.

Speaker 1 (22:48):
Know, you talk about women's rights and you say you
support women's rights, but the conservative movement actively works the
script reproductive freedom. So what rights do you believe women
actually deserve?

Speaker 2 (22:59):
Well, I would like women to be able to play
their sports without men hijacking them and taking away their
accolades and their accomplishments. So it's hard for me when
the when the left talks about women's rights and they
only want to talk about abortion, but they don't want
to talk about women's sports and spaces. We can have
both conversations.

Speaker 1 (23:16):
I think Wade is way more important women's sports, even
though I don't want men playing in women's sports. But
I think that a woman's right to choose should always
be a woman's right to choose. That shouldn't be scripted
away from the well.

Speaker 2 (23:26):
Do you notice that the left have been very quiet
about Trump's abortion bands since he was elected. Wasn't that
the big concern before he was elected is that he
was going to take away abortion. I haven't heard anything
about that. In fact, there are more abortions now than
there were under Roe v.

Speaker 1 (23:40):
Wade because people can't afford to have kids cause the Trump.

Speaker 2 (23:45):
Four months he's made everything unaccordable. He came in everything,
and then four months later everything's gone down.

Speaker 1 (23:51):
Those have the economy up, Tommy, we got it. Some
things we have to admit because they're right there in
our faith.

Speaker 2 (23:58):
I say, trust the process on tariffs, and if they
don't work, we'll have that discussion.

Speaker 1 (24:03):
But how long is the process, like and to your point,
you know, Donald Trump and Elon Musk both said there
was going to be a lot of pain right because
of these things that they were going to implement. But
people can't afford that, Like you got sixty percent of
the country is living check the check. So how long
is this process is going to be? Well a lot
of hand I can hand it, but most people can't.

Speaker 2 (24:24):
Well, there there is a pause on the tariffs, so
we worked out a deal with China. There's going to
be more deals to come. Here's my thing. President Trump
is saying, we've been getting screwed by the rest of
the world, ripped off, and we're not going to get
ripped off anymore. So countries are coming to the table
and they're going to make deals that are better and
they're not going to be one hundred and fifty five
percent tariffs. They're going to make deals and then it's

(24:45):
going to be more fair for everybody. We're going to
bring down the cost of prescription drugs, which is going
to help people right now, the big beautiful bill, no
tax on tips, so and extending the Trump tax cuts
which benefit eighty percent of Americans. So there are going
to be things within this administration, they're going to alleviate
some of the short term pain that tariffs would cause.
This president is dedicated to that. I've never seen somebody

(25:06):
who cares more about the middle class, working man and
woman than President Trump. He is willing to piss off
Wall Street, big Pharma, everybody to try to benefit the
American people. I respect that, and a lot of people
say they're going to do it, and they haven't done it.
The prescription drug thing, how many people have told us
we're going to get down the price of prescription drugs,
and they did not want to piss off big farmers,

(25:27):
so they never did it. And that goes to our
members of Congress as well. They never did anything. And
Trump said, oh, why are we paying this and this
country's paying this when the companies that are making it
are in our country. No, we're not doing that anymore.
I got to respect that he's looking out for the
American people, and that's everybody who's paying way too high
prices for prescription drugs.

Speaker 1 (25:44):
I would like for all of this stuff to work,
but I disagree that he's looking out for the middle
class and the working class because he literally tells the
middle class and the working class that you know, hey,
you're going to have to do it out for a while,
and you know your kids are going to have to
have less toys. He doesn't say that to the rich
at all. The rich kid, big tacitly at Wall Street?

Speaker 2 (26:01):
Do your point on tariffs? Like the people that were
I understand that there are a lot of people that
have their four own case the retirement that we're really
worried about Wall Street, But primarily the Wall Street folks
that he really pissed off with the tariffs. Those are
really wealthy people, so he wasn't afraid to piss them.

Speaker 1 (26:14):
I think that's what makes him back off. I think
is those people. I think when they get mad at
him is when he decided, oh I don't think.

Speaker 2 (26:19):
He cares at all. I do. I And when you
say the short term pain, I understand what you're saying,
but it's the honesty. You know, during the Biden years,
they told us it's actually not that bad, the prices
actually aren't up, you're actually not struggling, And people were
offended by that because they're like, no, we are struggling.
President Trump is saying because of these tariffs and me
trying to completely rearrange our economic system. There's going to

(26:42):
be some short term pain because other countries are going
to try to be big and bold for a few
minutes here, but they're going to come to the table
because they need us more than we need them. So
what he's not saying is like, oh, screw you, I
can handle it. You can't. You just pay higher prices.
He's saying, let this work, and if we would all
join together and let it work. These countries China can't

(27:02):
sustain this trade war. They can't. They need us more
than we need them. So he's putting the pinch on them.
They will come to the table, and I am very
confident we will end up something better than we started with.

Speaker 1 (27:14):
For the American people, that sounds good. But when a
person has rent due and they can't pay it and
they get evicted, what are they going to do? Where
are they going to go? Like all of this stuff
sounds good, but we're talking about people who have immediate
needs that need to be met right now. They can't
even afford a little bit of pain, and there's not
a relief to, you know, help get through that. While
we have to weather this.

Speaker 2 (27:35):
Storm right why And I understand that point, and I
understand what you're saying, and I think he's doing ever
he can to try to help people. I'd also say
this the no tax on tips thing, that's going to
help a lot of people, No tax on social Security,
no tax on overtime. He's doing what he can to say. Listen,
I wanted those people that, by the way, didn't start
struggling four months ago. They were struggling for years when

(27:55):
we shut down the economy over COVID, and people never
really got back up on their feet, and their kids
were in remote learning, and people were just struggling to
keep their businesses afloat. Nobody was really putting the pressure
on the Biden administration. Then when we arbitrarily shut everything
down for COVID.

Speaker 1 (28:09):
Oh yes, they were. People was out here raising hell.

Speaker 2 (28:13):
You think so they got some flying They weren't going
and getting their shots and wearing their masks.

Speaker 1 (28:17):
No, No, I'm talking about people were raising hell. That's
to me, that's one of the reasons that they lost.
They lost because they weren't paying attention to what people's
everyday need were. They weren't paying attention to what people
didn't have in their pocket. That's to me, that's the
main reason they lost until your point telling people, hey,
everything is fine, the economy is fine because the the
stock market is up. The people I'm talking about don't

(28:37):
have no stocks.

Speaker 2 (28:38):
I agree with you, now, I would also say this,
there was such a stress too with millions and millions
and millions of people coming into this country. That stress resources.
So when you've got homeless shelters being turned into migrant facilities,
when you've got migrants staying in the Roosevelt Hotel, and
you've got people sleeping on the streets and people, like
you said, who can't afford rent and all that, like

(28:58):
that's infuriating. And part of that is these people. I'm sorry,
we feel for you, but we've got to feel for
our people first, Like we've got to help our people first.
And there's a lot of talk about medicaid and social
Security and all this and that Trump wants to take
all this away. Trump has been very clear, I am
not taking this away from people who need it, but
the people that are abusing it, oh yeah, they're gonna
lose it so that the people that need.

Speaker 1 (29:19):
It have it.

Speaker 2 (29:19):
There.

Speaker 1 (29:20):
I haven't seen them be surgical about stuff like that yet,
meaning that you know, they never go in with a
fine tooth comb and cut where you know they're supposed
to cut. They usually just go in with a chainsaw
literally and just start cutting everything. So it's hard for
me to believe that they're going to be surgical when
it comes to medicaid.

Speaker 2 (29:37):
Doesn't it infuriate you though, when people say we're going
to start cutting, We're going to cut things we have to,
and then nobody has the balls to do it.

Speaker 1 (29:44):
I want the right things cut. Like See, that's the
thing that even with Dolds, right, we've seen in this
country the right way to do what Elon Muskin Dolge
was attempting to do, and that was with Bill Clinton
in the National Partnership for Reinventing Government in the nineties.
They did it the right way. They went in there,
they were surgical, They met with other federal workers, people

(30:05):
that worked in the federal government. They met with you know,
people who who people who understand understand what was going
on in government, and they cut the right things. They
didn't just go in and just start firing people.

Speaker 2 (30:17):
Yeah. Well, Trump did offer people, hey, listen, if you
don't want to come back to work, we'll pay you
through September.

Speaker 1 (30:23):
That's like taking a chain sort of thing, like you
got to be surgical. Like that's why they were cutting
things that they need, like they were actually cutting people
from the federal government that they need. Like we have
a shortage of aviation worker, isn't that.

Speaker 2 (30:33):
Well we've had a short of shortage of aviation workers
for many, many.

Speaker 1 (30:36):
Years and they got worse Underdults.

Speaker 2 (30:38):
Well, a lot of the people they were cut and
I know Shann Duffy personally, the people that were cut
through there. They were not people that are your air
traffic controllers, They were not your pilots, they were not
people in charge of that. They were extra workers. Now,
nobody wants to cut anything, like nobody wants to take
someone's job away. But the fact of the matter is
is we are going to go bankrupt unless we cut something,
so at least be honest with people, like we got
to cut something, and people aren't going to like it,

(30:59):
Like some one's gonna lose something. That's just the nature
of the beast.

Speaker 1 (31:02):
But when you cutch something, they realize, oh, shoot, we
actually need those people and try to hire those people back.

Speaker 2 (31:08):
That's an f up and you got to you got
account for that, and Elon Muskas and I'm I'm not
sitting here being an apologist for Elon musk either. By
the way, I do think things should be more surgical.
But when there's so much waste, fraud and abuse, and
they go in and they look at this and it's like,
oh my god, we're walking into the house and it's
probably a demo mission here, and you try to just
fix one little thing at a time that like this

(31:29):
is this is so bad that we might need to
shut these entire departments down and we can reinvent them
and we can reopen them, but it's so bad right now,
and the drainage is so bad on our resources. We've
got to, you know, cut our losses at some point
and then we got to figure out what we're gonna
do next. But there was so much abuse and people
go into concerts and government workers renting out stadiums and

(31:52):
caesars and like just getting away with it.

Speaker 1 (31:54):
Wait, then they better to measure twice, so you only
have to cut once. And once again we have history
that's show us this can be done the right way.
And that's not a party thing. I'm just simple pointing
not that Bill Clinton al gored they did it the
right way. Yeah, and Elon even said one time he tweeted,
what I'm doing is no different than what Clinton did
in the nineties. Not true.

Speaker 2 (32:13):
Well, the extent of the waste fraud and abuse in
the nineties is not what it is today, so there's
a much different beast to tackle. It's gotten considerably worse
because people realize they get out of their hand in
the cookie jar and no one was looking, so it
got way, way worse. I agree with you, though, there
does need to be a methodical process. I think that
that has in the last month. I think that's been
more so the stance. You're not seeing Doge doing what

(32:34):
Doge did on the outside. They came in very zealous
and very excited. And I think they've dialed it back
because Elon.

Speaker 1 (32:41):
Got the fuck out of it because he realized it
was affecting his real bility. That's what he's still doing it.

Speaker 2 (32:45):
He's just not his outward on it. But I think
they've dialed it back.

Speaker 1 (32:48):
They named a new president, right, the guy who created
Project two thousand and threey five is the new head
of DOTS. We got his name, though, I.

Speaker 2 (32:55):
Don't think so. Elon Musk is still there. I'm still
working in dough. She's just taking a step back from
the limelight. Yeah.

Speaker 1 (33:02):
Yeah.

Speaker 3 (33:03):
We recently broke down new evidence in the Tory Lane's case, right,
and you highlighted a Republican congresswoman for pushing up for
his release. What do you think about conservative stepping into
things like that, like the high profile celebrity cases.

Speaker 2 (33:16):
Yeah, well, there needed to be another look into that
case and the new evidence that they found, and some
of the evidence.

Speaker 1 (33:23):
That was that it's not really evidence, it's hearsay. Well,
it's literally like if I was driving a car with
Tommy Lauren and I say I heard what her Tommy
Laurence say that she's racist and she wants everybody that's
black and bron to be sent to another country. That's
That's literally what this is like.

Speaker 2 (33:41):
But Charlie Mane, I'm really confused because if Tory Lanes
actually didn't shoot at Meghan this Sallian, wouldn't you be
the first person to be like, hey, this person is
in jail for the wrong reason and if there's more
evidence that could exonerate him.

Speaker 1 (33:56):
But this is my point is this isn't evidence, but
it's not.

Speaker 2 (33:59):
Here when her best friend is given immunity, and the
whole thing is that the friend is actually the one
that was shooting the gun and he hit her hand
down and then that's why the gun fired at the
ground and hit feet. If that really happened and the
person that maybe actually did it was given immunity, there's
a problem.

Speaker 1 (34:20):
And listen, I'm not saying the course get it right
all the time, all of that went through court already.
Here's my problem with this, with this situation, and it's
had nothing to do with Tory, make any of these
people involved. It's just simply when something is presented in
the court and there's actual evidence in testimony right that
says this happened, why do we put hearsay? Why do

(34:41):
we give hearsay more weight than we give that.

Speaker 2 (34:43):
I think you just have to take it into account.
And I would think you'd be the first person to
be like, hey, if somebody's in there wrongfully and there's
more evidence to possibly exonerate them, we need to take
a look at it.

Speaker 1 (34:51):
Why didn't we take it into account during the tryout?

Speaker 2 (34:53):
A guy I can tell you exactly why, because George Gascon,
who is the now. He was facing two recall attempts, right,
and he was desperate to show that he could do
a big, high profile case. And if you put Tory
Lanes behind bars with enhancements for ten years, you look
good and it's like all and especially when you're doing
it on behalf of a mega celebrity like Megan the

(35:14):
Stallion who has a much bigger following than Tory Lane's
and much bigger profile. So George Gascon who doesn't want
to put anybody in jail. By the way, then slap
is a ten year sentence on Tory Lanes and you
give immunity to the friend with a jury.

Speaker 1 (35:27):
It was a jury, a jury, a jury, a jury
decided Tory Lanes feed, not just the judge.

Speaker 2 (35:33):
Well, but there was enhancements by the DA so and
enhancements are unheard of. But what I'm saying, I don't
know when you enhance the crime ten years for what
he's accused of, When you when you add extra onto it,
and you add enhancements do to the nature of the crime,
and you're not willing to do that in many other cases,
it's like, what are you throwing the book at this guy?

Speaker 1 (35:52):
I didn't think that was throwing the book at him.

Speaker 2 (35:54):
He threw the book at him.

Speaker 1 (35:56):
For shooting, if he did, if he threw the s
at him.

Speaker 2 (36:00):
And first of all, it's hard to go to jail
in LA And the whole thing on this is this
you need to everyone involved because it all actually is here,
Shay at the end of the day, isn't it If
you're at a house party and it's like, well, she
said that he shot, and he said, if you have listen, if.

Speaker 1 (36:16):
Tory Lanez didn't do this, I'd pray he comes home.
But when you have actual evidence, you know him making
a phone call from jail apologizing for whatever happened that night.
You know eye witnessed that said they saw him do it,
plus the person who got actually shot saying he did it,
finding the gun in the car. The DNA was inconclusive,
right because they said it was a male DNA and

(36:37):
female DNA on the gun. If you have all of that,
you can see.

Speaker 2 (36:41):
Why do anything conclusive? Though? Isn't there some room for
doubt there if there's both DNA on that gun and
he and his story is listen, this other person is
shooting and I'm hitting their arm and this is what happened.
He's not saying that nobody. You know that he wasn't
at fault at all.

Speaker 1 (36:57):
Why not tell that story in court? And the driver
that's that they overheard Kelsey say that during the trial.
Why didn't that driver say something then? And what reason
would Torri have to protect Kelsey? And what reason would
Meg have to protect Kelsey? Why wouldn't Megan.

Speaker 2 (37:10):
Say a friend not after you shoot me?

Speaker 1 (37:13):
Yeah, but that's your friend right there. If he shoots you,
you telling yeah?

Speaker 2 (37:16):
But maybe if there's a dispute there. And I don't
know because I wasn't there, like obviously Tommy wasn't there.
But my thing is, if there's more evidence, let's take
a look at it, because we don't need an innocent
person rotting in jail who was nearly killed two weeks ago.
If there's evidence to suggest that we miss something here,
let's take a look at it.

Speaker 1 (37:35):
Is he say evidence though? If you're in the car
with a driver today Tommy and a driver says I
overheard Tommy Lawrence saying X, Y and Z. How much
creedi should we?

Speaker 2 (37:44):
Why were we not? Why were we not testing for
gun reside? On everybody's hands why And if the DNA
is inconclusive and there's two sides of a story here,
I don't I think the whole thing ends up being here,
say doesn't it? So let's take a look. And I'm
not saying that I can tell you he didn't do it.
I wasn't there. But if there's more to take a
look at, I don't think that someone should be riding
in jail for ten years getting stabbed and possibly killed.

(38:06):
If there's more evidence, let's just take a look at it.
That's all. That's all we're saying. And I actually think
that a Republican stepping into that void and saying there
could be a man in jail that shouldn't be and
saying I want to take a look at it and
put eyeballs on it. Republicans aren't really known for doing that,
So congratulations to her for doing it, right, I think,
just take a look at it.

Speaker 1 (38:28):
Has anybody ever told you that your commentary endangered in
real life?

Speaker 2 (38:32):
Not in real life? People say a lot on the internet.

Speaker 1 (38:35):
Yeah, if so, what responsibility you think you would be
it for that?

Speaker 2 (38:40):
Do you think that your free speech that you should
be held accountable for everything that everybody does? Because they
hear you say something. Depends Yeah, I can't think of anything,
and maybe I'm wrong that I have said that would
endanger somebody. I've never called for violence against anybody. I've
never you know, if people don't like what I say, okay,
But and if people agree with me and then they're

(39:02):
deranged and they do something, that's not on me anymore
than it would be on you if someone agreed with
you and then they wanted to carry out something because
they heard you say something and they're deranged and took
it the wrong way. I don't think I say anything
to endanger people. And if I've ever said anything that
I take back, I will apologize for it. I have
no pride in like if, hey, if I said something
and I set it off the cuff and I was

(39:24):
really heated at the time and it was taken out
of context, I'll be happy to say, well, let me
correct the record on that, or let me take a
step back on that. I'm want so prideful that I'm like, Nope,
I'm right all the time, and everything I say is gospel.
I got that's ridiculous for any of us to say that.

Speaker 3 (39:39):
It's my last question, how do you protect your piece, right,
because when people see Tommy right, they can just see
the commentator right, and they like the controversial part of you.
But you're still a person first, like just a person first?
How do you protect your piece? Do you ever get
stressed out in that way that people only see some
people can't look fast who you are, you know what

(40:01):
I mean, like on your show or like what you're
known for. Does that have a bother you or people
who don't? They just see you for what you do,
like the commentator, the fearless, the boldness. How do you
protect your piece with that?

Speaker 1 (40:16):
First of all? Do you get stressed?

Speaker 3 (40:17):
And then if so, how do you protect your piece?

Speaker 2 (40:20):
Sorry, you gotta have a thick skin. You know it,
you know it. You can't be in this business and
be fragile. No, you just can't. And people are some
people are just not going to like you. And I
could sit here and I could say anything, and I
could do anything, and people some people are just not
going to like me, and I have to accept that,
and that's okay. But I really have learned and not

(40:41):
care so much what people think, especially if they've never
met me before. That's my take on it. If you've
met me and you're like, I don't like her, she's
a bitch. Okay, But if you've never met me, just
take the chance. And some people are never going to
get the opportunity to understand that nobody's ever going to
meet you and have their personal opinion. I like to
think and I believe that if people meet me like
we're doing today, that they can be like, oh, you
know what, I disagree with her, but she's not like

(41:02):
this monster. I wish we could talk more to each
other because I think if we stop villainizing people based
on what they do for a living or the opinions
that they have, I feel like we could come together
as a country and just say, yeah, we agree to disagree,
but I don't hate that person. I don't wish bad
things on that person. I hope we're getting there, and
I think more conversations like this help us to get there.

Speaker 1 (41:22):
Do you think I only got a couple more questions?
Do you think like the conservative movement, even the liberal
movement more so? I guess on like cable news network.
Do you think they're more concerned with influencing policy or
just going viral?

Speaker 2 (41:34):
I think there are people that are interested in going viral. Sure,
people are making money off of it now, Like when
I started doing it, I wasn't making money off of it,
Like I wasn't getting ad share revenue off of it,
and I wasn't on X trying to do the engagement
farming so I could get my check from X every month.
So I was just doing it because I really felt it.
There are people now that realize there is money in it.
So you can say crazy things and you can get

(41:55):
a lot of clicks and people will talk about you,
But you got to live with yourself at night if
you're doing it for that reason, and if you're just
doing it to get the attention, and people can see
through it. I think people are so good at detecting
bs at this point, and they can tell when someone's
not genuine and they're just saying it to say it
or to go viral. But I don't feel the people
that I work with at Fox are very meaningful with

(42:15):
what they say. And I feel that the.

Speaker 1 (42:18):
People that I want, some of them are just funny.
Jesse Watter is just entertaining.

Speaker 2 (42:22):
He's fun.

Speaker 1 (42:23):
But do I believe Jesse believes the things he says? Yes?

Speaker 2 (42:27):
I do.

Speaker 1 (42:27):
Yeah, but I think he's just up to being entertained.
I know Gutfield is just being entertain but.

Speaker 2 (42:31):
They're having fun and that's okay. But I don't think
that specifically the people that I work with, I don't
think they're doing it to go viral. I really don't.
And and at Fox it's like the people that have
been doing this for twenty years, they don't want viral.
Is like they know what it is, but they're not.
You know, Sean Hannity's not like, let me go viral.

Speaker 1 (42:50):
Yeah, I don't think Sean's trying to go viral, do you.
You said you were doing it at one time, though, No.

Speaker 2 (42:55):
I said when I was going viral, I wasn't making
money off of it. It wasn't like let me say
this so I can go viral and make money or
get influenced. I was saying things that I felt and
it went viral. But I never did it like let
me say this to go viral.

Speaker 1 (43:11):
Today, I think when you know that when you commentate
on certain aspects of the culture, especially black culture, you
know that it's gonna cause a lot of people to
start engaging with you.

Speaker 2 (43:21):
Sure, but engaging is fine. Starting a dialogue is fine.
I think we should start it out. That's why we
do what we do. If nobody's having a conversation based
on what you say, you probably shouldn't do this for
a living. Like if you just go on and you're like,
I'm just gonna have a mediocre day today, and I'm
just gonna say things that are right down the middle
and not piss anyone off, you probably shouldn't be in

(43:42):
the talk show business, or the radio business, or any business.
But I don't say things. I guess the point I'm
trying to make is I've never said anything that I
don't believe for the purpose of going viral or making
a headline or a SoundBite. I've never done that once.
And I've taken real it's from my side of the
aisle for things that I've said that didn't go along

(44:03):
to get along, So I take it from both sides,
and like there's a for me. There's not a calculation
that goes into it.

Speaker 1 (44:09):
Have you ever changed your mind?

Speaker 2 (44:12):
Sure, I'm sure I've changed my mind. I go valls
on things absolutely. You know, and when you you're in
this business and you're in it for long enough, like
you realize, oh, Wow, some of the stuff that I
said when I was twenty four, you know, maybe I
wouldn't say today at thirty two. You just you learn
and you grow in the business.

Speaker 1 (44:30):
Have you ever had to alter your personal choices and
beliefs to protect your image from a base that judges
women harshly?

Speaker 2 (44:39):
Well, people say really nasty stuff to women. So it's
not fun when people pick on your looks or they
pick on everything about you or oh you you know,
I'm not going to sit there and correct everyone that's like,
oh you had a nose job. I didn't have a
nose job. But if you want to think I had
a nose job whatever. I mean, it's if women take
it just in much different way than men. Like they
don't pick on what men wear, they don't pick on

(45:00):
how they're just women. It's like, oh, yeah, this is
why is she wearing this? She's ugly? Why you know,
why is she wear that? Or why is her makeup?
Like that's fine.

Speaker 1 (45:09):
I guess I'm saying conservatives. A lot of conservatives I hate,
I really do hate saying conservative liberal, But I really
feel like a lot of conservatives feel like women have
a place.

Speaker 2 (45:17):
Do you think so? Yeah, absolutely, I would say there
are a lot of women in the Trump administration right
now that are in very high roles that are not
in the place that maybe old conservatism would say that
they would be in because they're running things like women
are really running this administration.

Speaker 1 (45:31):
I think, do you think conservative media elevates fewer women
the real power?

Speaker 2 (45:37):
Not at all? When I most of the people at
my network are women in high places. Are CEO is
of woman a woman?

Speaker 1 (45:44):
Yeah? Yeah, and she's okay. So what about like I
guess for prime Time, like Lourer Ingram is the only
one that has the show on.

Speaker 2 (45:50):
Well lour Ingram, but I mean if you if you
look at our lineup, I mean on right now would
probably be Harris Faulkner, who has her own show, and
then I'm gonna go sit with her and Outnumbered and
that's all women and one man. And then after that
is America Reports co anchored by a man and a woman,
and then you go into you know, Will Caine, and
then you go into The Five, which is mixed group
of people, and then you go into Brett Baer, and

(46:13):
then you go into Laura Jesse and Sean Yeah, like
we don't say, oh we need women here and women,
but we have like a very good mix and at
my network. When you walk in the people that are
running the things, whether the producers senior, they are women.
I promise you they are women. Women get things done everywhere,
but it Fox women get things done absolutely.

Speaker 3 (46:31):
Do you feel like you fell under the radar a
little bit because the people who now have a candie owns, Oh.

Speaker 1 (46:38):
That's a good question.

Speaker 2 (46:40):
See, but I don't. Maybe we're motivated by different things.
I don't know what she's motivated by. I couldn't tell you.
We're not friends more more than not friends. We're not friends.
We're not friendly. You don't fuck with her, you don't
like her, We're not friendly. I haven't spoken to her
in years and years and years.

Speaker 1 (46:55):
I did speak before, well in the.

Speaker 2 (46:57):
Business we have, but we've never been friendly. Got her
and I have never been friendly. I don't know she's
gonna do her thing.

Speaker 1 (47:04):
It was like a Caitlin clark Ain's Oh I don't
think so.

Speaker 2 (47:07):
I just we just are not we're not friendly. We're
just not friends and that's fine. And she says some
crazy stuff sometimes that I really disagree with. I don't
like a lot of her commentary. I like some of it,
you know, I like some of your commentary, and I
don't like others whatever. But my motivations are very I
think my monovations are different. I don't know, because that's
that's her motivations are hers. I can't tell you what
they are. I would never claim to know what someone's

(47:28):
intentions are. I don't say things to be controversial for
the purpose of being controversial, to go viral, to say
things that and maybe she'd and she probably does, believe them.
I'm not saying she doesn't believe them. I don't do that.

Speaker 1 (47:42):
You feel like she does though what you're saying, I don't.

Speaker 2 (47:45):
I don't know why she does it, Like I really
could not tell you. And I would never sit here
and say, well, I know why someone does something, because
I don't know, and I haven't spoken to her in
many years. Off her and I were sit down, I'd
be like, hey, do you and she would ask me
probably the same thing, Hey do you believe everything you're saying? Yes?
I do, And I asked her, she'd probably say yes,
I do. You know. There could be many women that
have platforms. By the way, I think that there's this
notion that there can only be like two women in

(48:08):
conservative media. I want there to be one hundred women
in conservative media with large platforms, and in liberal media,
and in between media and people who don't do politics
and media. I want everybody to have a voice, and
the more voices that we have, the more choices people have.
So I think that that's all part of the conversation.

Speaker 1 (48:26):
Well, Tommy Laurence, make sure you check her out on
Fearless on OutKick dot com. When does fear Let's come
on every day? Yeah, one pm Eastern, one pm Eastern
every day on OutKick dot com. And you can check
your commentary out on Fox. Yes, sir, all right, Tommy,
thank you for joining us, Thanks for having me. It's
the Breakfast Club. Wake that ass up in the morning.
The Breakfast Club.