Download Subtitles for Are Trump Voters Having Second Thoughts? Video

How much of Donald Trump's speeches were

about the person he's endorsing and how

much was it about him himself?

>> That's what I'm saying.

>> 99% about him, right?

>> It was all about we got it. I want you

to vote. I just I just vote for me. I

>> vote for me. Vote for me.

>> Danny's a great guy, but it's about

Trump.

>> Hey, I'm Parker and I'm a liberal.

>> I'm Mason and I'm a leftist.

>> I'm David and I'm a conservative.

>> I'm Austin. I'm a Christian populist.

And you are watching Roundt. Let's get

into it.

>> The Justice Department released more

than three million pages of Epstein

files, which CNN reporters are still

going through, but there are some early

takeaways. President Trump's name shows

up a lot, ranging from investigative

documents to emails and news clips.

Trump has never been accused by law

enforcement of any Epstein related

wrongdoing, and he is denied engaging in

any. But there were some mentions that

stood out. One email shows someone who

appears to be Gain Maxwell, Epstein's

then girlfriend, who was later convicted

of child sex trafficking. The email

reads, "I thought you said not to

involve Donald." And came from an

account labeled GMAX. The details of the

emails match the account of Epstein

accuser Virginia, who is allegedly

recruited by Maxwell. The newly released

documents could create problems for some

prominent Trump allies who have tried to

distance themselves from Epstein, such

as Elon Musk. The documents show Musk

trying to coordinate trips to Epstein's

island in 2012 and 2013, despite Musk's

claims that he rejected Epstein's

attempts to invite him. There are also

multiple mentions of former President

Bill Clinton, who has also denied

wrongdoing related to Epstein and denied

visiting Epstein's island.

>> The latest Epstein file release fails to

substantiate allegations against Trump

and offers no smoking gun.

>> Can we just start by like saying how

funny it is that Elon made a big stink

about Trump being in the Epstein files

and then he's like the damn literally

>> he's like, "Can I please party with you?

Can I come to the island,

>> please? Please let me on the let me on

the island, please." Okay. Uh, one point

I wanted to make because I I think this

is a great way to start the conversation

is like uh in terms of like the

allegations really one of the main

allegations I think is important is the

fact that they're protecting pedophiles

within the Epstein files. Yes. Right.

And like there are explicit examples. I

have multiple files I have written down

where they redacted the person who sent

emails to Epstein or who Epstein sent

emails to where they're explicitly

talking about criminal acts. So they're

literally redacting people who committed

these particular actions. So to me that

substantiates and is a smoking gun

towards the allegations that they're

protecting pedophiles within the Epstein

files. Now does that necessarily mean

that every single allegation has been

substantiated through the context of the

court system or whatnot? No. But at

least from our own understandings, it

substantiates the idea that they're

protecting pedophiles and they're doing

things that we consider horribly bad and

are condemnable on either side. If a

Democrat's doing this, put them in

prison. If a Republican's doing this,

put them in prison. we need to do as

Americans stand against this because

it's the American thing to do or what

should be designated as the American

thing to do to stand against people who

commit these acts of violence.

>> I I would just say this that uh there

was there was one section of the files

um where I was look I just searched

Trump's name and his name appears about

4,300 times in the in the 3 million f

first of all for his name to only appear

4,000 times out of three million files I

actually take that as a win. However,

however, I have to caveat that by saying

that what I saw wasing egregious. Now,

if I'm going to make this statement, Mr.

President, if you are guilty of doing

anything with children, I pray to the

living God that you end up in jail.

However, as we know now, there is no

smoking gun. If there was, Trump should

have been impeached already. He should

have been thrown in jail. And I think

that we did see a case of lawfare

against the president previously. So, if

he was guilty, I think something should

have already been brought up. if if it

hasn't already.

>> But what you're confusing right now is

individual guilt with his Trump doing

things with kids um versus like Trump's

culpability with protecting those that

we know have done things with kids.

>> I don't know that he's see there's a

reason why there is such a slow roll out

of these files is because they're

intentionally protecting those that are

perpetrators of these child sex crimes.

>> But how can we pin that? My question

>> said they fired too many people from the

federal government where they can't

fulfill all the redactions necessary.

They're also redacting Trump's face and

they're not redacting victim's bodies in

some circumstances.

>> How do we know that? How do we know

definitively? So, this is the

>> because there's a reason why Trump for

months has said, "It's a hoax. Don't you

need it?"

>> No, my question is they're intentionally

hiding those that are perpetrators.

>> No, my question is this. How do we know

definitively that Trump is telling

people to redact him? Where's the proof

of that?

>> I'm walking you through it right now.

What you're doing is a a a trick where

you're trying to separate deductive

reasoning from inductive reasoning. Yes.

Inductively, we can see if somebody

says, "We're this is a Democrat hoax.

Don't talk about the Epsian files.

There's nothing there. This is a

Democrat problem.

>> No, the Democrat the whole campaign

little and then the whole campaign is

him saying, "We'll release the Epsom

files. We'll be the most transparent

government in American history." The

Democrat hoax he No, the Democrat hoax

was that he was visiting little.

>> So, you're saying it wasn't it wasn't a

complete disaster that he had

conservative influencers fly to the

White House and hold up fake binders of

the Epste.

>> I said that on the first round table I

was in that that that specific the files

Pam Bondi had given those influencers

was [ __ ] I'm didn't say I'm not

saying and I still can't say

definitively because that is the most

serious charge to me. It's one of the

most serious charges you can lay on

another human being is that they molest

children. Right. But so I'm saying

without definitive hardcore proof of

Trump committing these heinous acts. I'm

not going to say that there is a smoking

gun. If there is, I would absolutely

advocate for him to be thrown in jail.

And we know that this was the most hated

I don't care what anybody says. Donald

Trump was the most hated politician of

my lifetime. If there was actual

tangible evidence that he was guilty,

why was it not brought up already? Why

was he not impeached, accused, tried,

thrown in jail?

>> Because the DOJ is working with the

Trump administration. They're not

releasing all the files when legally

obligated to release every single one of

the files with all the

>> No. What about before his

administration? What about

>> before the administration? I have a few

things. One, the DOJ was acting

independent from the Biden Harris

administration. Two, they did release

some of them in terms of the flight logs

they did have access to. Three,

something that is relevant to the case

in terms of uh whether or not they even

had access to it is there wasn't a legal

obligation for them to release it. There

were co-conspirators that were being

investigated all all through 2025 here.

Uh the co-conspirators with Glenn

Maxwell. So there's a limitation in

being able to release them. So with all

those facts in consideration, there's

obviously a different case in terms of

the Democrats and how they're going to

be treating with the Epstein files

comparative to the Republicans. Now, if

the Democrats knowingly were like

limiting this information from coming

out, condemn them. Don't vote for them.

That's exactly what I'm saying as well.

any Democrat that was affiliated with

that was organizing with that and was

trying to limit the release of them to

protect PDFs, they should be in prison.

They should not be able to do stuff like

that. And it's the same thing goes for

any Republican. Now, the point I'm

making is that why was Marjorie Taylor

Green literally canled by Trump called

Marjorie Trader Green because of the

fact that she wanted to release the

Epstein files if he wasn't trying to

prevent them from being released.

>> I want to say one thing though before we

get too in the weeds of left and right.

the Epstein entire controversy or entire

conspiracy and it being hidden would

have not been able to happen if it was

just Republicans or just Democrats. This

is so clearly um both parties in bed

with the worst people on the actual

planet. So I think the more that we try

to point the finger of who's more to

blame on the left or right, clearly

Trump has a lot of accountability. He is

the president right now. Yes, he slow

rolled the release. I'm not thrilled

with that. That was one of the biggest

things I was upset with Trump about is

not just not releasing the files, but

also talking down to his voters for even

question uh having questions about them.

But I swear to you that the people that

actually get off on this stuff and have

been involved in this stuff and are

continuing to do this stuff, they love

nothing more than for all of us to try

to like pin it on each other where I

think we should have accountability.

Absolutely. But it's like we're so going

to miss the point if we think it's just

a Democrat Republican thing. most

indicative thing here is that there's a

two-tier justice system for those that

are the wealthiest among us and those

that are average citizens, right? If

there if there were working-class Somali

inside the Epstein files, they would be

literally like strung up in front of the

American people. But the reason why so

many of these people are getting hidden

and there's so much redaction that's

happening towards the names of the

perpetrators is because they belong to a

wealthy class that shields them from

that.

>> And the world of money is the root of

all evil religious

>> that is both Democrats and Republicans.

Um I'm not going to sit here and defend

the Biden administration. I think a big

reason why they didn't expedite these

releases was because there are

co-conspirators within them that are

culpable as well. And if Bill Clinton is

accountable for these crimes, I want to

see him in prison. I want to see him

behind

>> wait for I can't wait for him to go to

that congressional hearing.

>> If the DOJ was acting independent under

the Biden administration, we can't hold

the same accountability to an

independent DO or like them being

associated with an independent DOJ

versus how Trump is affiliated with the

DOJ and instructing them to act in

certain ways. Again, I want to repeat

the statement. I think that's the most

demon DNC argument though like what do

you mean wait what do you mean elaborate

agree the DOJ do you agree the DOJ was

independent under the

>> what does that mean what does that mean

so what he's saying is the legal

philosophy under Biden and Harris was

they didn't want to touch the DOJ they

didn't they didn't want to have

dayto-day sort of problems that were

happening

>> I think I think even I think even then

it's the most it's the most focus tested

like

>> I don't know I think it's like the only

way that they're like how can we go so

hard on making this like a campaign for

future Democrats against Trump while

also not seeming like hypocrites cuz we

didn't do anything about it when we were

in like for me I just I think that's

like just I think you guys are being a

bit ridiculous here. You understand that

with one they're actively trying to

limit it and instructing people within

Congress to actively limit it. In the

other case you have literally no basis

and evidence that they saw any of these

files that they were overlooking them at

all. Were there people that could have

been involved with the DOJ listen could

there be people on both sides that were

involved with the DOJ that were

specifically trying to limit the release

of them? So, Democrats and Republicans

involved. Absolutely. When the when the

DOJ's independent, you would expect

that. But to say that, for example,

to say that Kla Harris and uh Joe Biden

were specifically themselves involved

with the day-to-day tasks in terms of

the DOJ is not substantiated. Evidence,

you have to have evidence.

>> I got one question. Wait, wait. Hold on.

I got one I got one real great question.

>> Were there other Democrats involved?

Absolutely. But you cannot establish

that it was Biden or Harris. Were they

working with the DOJ or were they

conveniently also ignoring the DOJ when

Trump's house was raided by the FBI?

Were they working with the DOJ when they

were when they actively practiced

lawfare against President Trump? That is

fair.

>> Yeah, the the lawfare term is such

loaded.

>> Russia, Russia, Russia. Do I have to

remind you of Russia investigation?

There's no

point. My point is this.

>> You're not asking us questions if you

keep talking.

>> Okay. So, let me All right. So, let me

make a statement then and then respond

to it. There is no excuse for the Biden

Harris administration who ran one of the

greatest smear campaigns against a

political opponent in American history.

For them to say now that the DOJ was

acting independently, if these files

existed and they did nothing, that is

categorical [ __ ] as that's pure

[ __ ] There's no excuse for you

disagreeing independently. They should

have had more oversight with it. But to

say

>> it wasn't independent. They said I'm

saying it wasn't the question

relies upon evidence which you don't

have. You're making an assumption based

on lack of evidence. I just want to say

one thing and then I think you can go

more in detail on like the lawfare that

he's claiming. So what I say it's very

convenient that the DNC is like oh like

we had no idea about these Epstein

things but now we really want him out

totally. I think that that's weird but

also to Parker Disg

but for Parker's point I think that

absolutely we see a different

coordination when it comes to the

executive branch and the DOJ with Biden

Harris versus Trump. Trump is involved

in almost every decision in the DOJ.

He's literally texting Pam Bonnie to

prosecute certain uh attorneys and they

get prosecuted the next day.

>> Because he was more active while Biden

was asleep while running the country.

>> Wait, wait, no.

>> It's not proactive.

>> Wait, wait. It's not proactive for the

executive branch. Independent from the

DOJ does not mean he was asleep. That

just means they believe there shouldn't

be political bias targeted within the

DOJ so that they can use lawfare. So you

try to say lawfare, but then Trump is

the one actually engaging in lawfare.

What was the specific lawfare that the

Democrats like Biden and Harris engaged

in themselves?

>> They put it I I'm going to say this.

They were well aware of the fact that

the FBI raided his house.

>> They raided Melania's panty draw

>> and her panty drawer. Right. So I'm And

you're not going to tell you I'm You're

not Biden's house.

>> You're not going to tell me that the

president of the United States was

unaware what was going on with the deal.

If he was, that proves even further that

Biden was

>> Wait, that's an assumption. That's an

assumption. I will say you're saying

you're saying an independent DOJ could

not have made a determination that they

wanted to go after Trump.

>> What I'm saying is there's no way he

didn't understand what's going on.

>> How do you know? How do you know that?

>> Either if he didn't, you are the

president of the United States. The

president the president wakes up in his

the president wakes up in his brief

every morning. That is that stand that

>> not with not with every single thing

that the DOJ is doing.

>> Here's the thing with with Biden. This

is one thing that I'll agree with Parker

on. Like I think that Biden's fickleness

and his lack of political power really

bit them in the butt. No, no, no. The

fickleness here is the Supreme Court

said that the executive branch has full

jurisdiction under their executive

order, article 2, to to get relieved of

whatever crimes they commit. That was

something that was done in 2000 or 2024,

2023. Do you remember that Supreme Court

decision when everyone was up in arms

because like what the hell? This is

going to make Trump like completely

immune for all the crimes. He won't be

held accountable.

>> It was like 203.

>> Yeah. So Biden could have right then

arrested Donald Trump. That would have

been like one the most egregious form of

lawfare if he wanted to specifically

target Trump. And two, I think that he

was a for not doing that because the

Supreme Court just gave you complete

orders in order to do it. And the fact

that he didn't do it because he's like

we're going to do things the civil way.

Now we have another Trump administration

where we're seeing immense federal

crimes. We're seeing the coordination

between the judicial system and the

executive branch which completely

erodess all checks and balances. It's

just complete disaster. And in my

opinion, I think it's just cuz the

Democrats didn't go hard enough.

>> Wait, I could I could agree with you

that I wanted the Democrats to go harder

there, but that does not mean that

they're implicated in knowing that this

was the case and they were trying to

prevent them from being released. That's

a completely separate point that you

need actual evidence to substantiate,

which we do not have. If that same set

of evidence existed for Trump, everyone

would laugh that off and be like,

"That's not evidence that Trump was

affiliated with trying to limit the

release of them." But for some reason,

whenever it's Biden and Harris, we can

just assume it because we feel like it.

I understand. I have many critiques of

the Democratic Party. I am very strong

in my critiques of the Democratic party.

I definitely don't agree with them on a

lot. But to make this argument, you need

evidence and we do not have evidence

here to substantiate. They were knowing

of these particular things and then

tried to limit them because of that.

Hell, they're not in the files. If Trump

had the ability to release them, did

release some of them, and they're not in

any of the files that were released,

doesn't that give you proof and evidence

that they specifically weren't in

>> or that they got or that they got rid of

evidence while they had the chance to or

>> So then Trump got rid of all the

evidence applicable to him when it's

>> very possible. Again, I agree with you.

It's very possible. I This is Let me let

me

>> these are assumptions. Like we're just

making assumptions.

>> No, no, Parker. That's the That's the

that unfortunately that's where we're at

with I can say that about Trump. Trump

was on island because I can just assume

that

>> we don't we don't know. The best we can

say here's the dispute. We don't know

this. To your point, I'm not

disagreeing, but what I'm saying is

believe whatever you want.

>> What?

>> No. What I'm saying in substance is I

find it extremely freaking hard to

believe that they had no knowledge of

what was going on. They had no knowledge

of the files and or or who was in them.

And if they did and they chose not to

release it, that is freaking

>> we're spending so much time at pointing

the finger towards specific individuals

when I think this is a clear example

again that the wealthy class in this

country operate under a different

framework of a judicial system. I think

that that should be the main point. I

think we're all in agreement and I think

we're quarreling over certain things

because we want to defend some people or

we don't want to defend some people. I

get

>> I'm not defending I'm not pedophile. I

didn't even say either. I just said in

general I just said apologize. I just

we're getting caught up in a little lot

of emotions here. Let's all take a

breath. I think we can all agree rich

people bad.

>> I don't know about

>> Not all of them. Not all of them, but

but love of the love of money is

definitely the root of all evil and an

escape from accountability in many

instances. That I will say

>> we all agree pedophiles are bad. Uh

>> they should all go to hell.

>> They can all burn. We agree that rich

pedophiles are even worse. Um

>> well well

I don't think the money that you

>> um basically we have to acknowledge that

there wasn't a direct smoking gun to

Trump but there really isn't a direct

smoking gun to many of the files because

of all the redactions. Um and we

discussed whether Trump or Trump's

trying to stop the release of the

Epstein files in comparison to what

happened with the files under Kamla and

Biden and Parker made some fair points.

Um, but overall I think the consensus is

the more we think that this is like a

leftwing or a Democrat issue or just a

right-wing or Republican issue, the more

we distract from the actual evil. Um,

and there's a lot of it. Surrounded is

now casting people who are currently

dealing with depression. This is not a

debate, but an honest and vulnerable

conversation with a psychiatrist about

depression and mental health. Whether

you've been in therapy for years or are

curious about expanding your

understanding of your own mental health,

we'd love to hear your story. If this is

you, apply using the link in the

description.

Outrage is growing over the fatal

shooting of Alex Prey by a federal agent

in Minneapolis. Homeland Security

Secretary Christy Gnome said Prey was

brandishing a gun, but video from the

scene shows Prey on the ground, the gun

removed from his waistband, and then an

officer firing on him as he lay down.

Video evidence so far shows he never

drew or even reached for his weapon. The

Trump administration declared almost

immediately the shooting was justified,

but Minnesota law enforcement says

they've been shut out of the

investigation. Trust has broken down so

badly between state and federal

officials that Minnesota officials have

been granted a restraining order banning

federal authorities from destroying or

altering evidence related to the

shooting. They will move to extend that

today and also tried to convince a judge

to halt the deployment of federal agents

into the state. After the killing of

Alex Prey by federal immigration agents

in Minneapolis, ICE has no place in our

cities and Christy Gnome should resign.

Yeah, I mean I think that you will have

to contend with the clip to say

specifically about like Christy Gnome

not resigning. That kind of explained

the entire argument. The fact that a

federal judge had to block ICE agents

from destroying evidence relating to a

federal crime, that should tell you

everything with how this organization

views accountability. And if Chrissy

Gnome, somebody who Republicans have

called to resign, we're looking at Lisa

Marowski in Arkansas, Tom Telis in North

Carolina, there's bipartisan support for

Christine Gnome to leave her position.

she's incompetent and she is not

qualified to to run an agency that sees

this type of aggression.

>> I mean, I wouldn't disagree with lots of

the criticisms of Christine Gnome, but

the beginning part of that saying that

ICE has no place in our cities, I think

that's dangerous. Absolutely. Plus, not

every city is going to be Minneapolis.

Minneapolis has a very strong political

history of protests, especially since

2020. And there has been organized, some

may even call insurgency like

organization against federal officers.

And if Minnesota or Minneapolis

officials cared about the safety of

their people as much as they say they

do, they should cooperate with federal

officers because the lack of police

cooperation locally is creating these

situations. So I think that there's

blame to go all the way around, but I

just wouldn't be able to say that ICE

has no place in our cities. I would only

say this very simply that uh I Christy

Nome is the head of the Department of

Homeland Security. So she ICE is not the

one of she manages multiple different

things. What I saw in that video was

flat out wrong. Every single one of

those officers needs to lose their job.

They need to be charged to the highest

degree. But I would treat this as you

should treat any federal incident as an

as an individual case by case basis. I'm

not going to make a unilateral claim

that ICE has no place in our cities.

They have been given a mandate to deal

with illegal immigration. However, what

each of those officers did uh was flat

out wrong. It doesn't take multiple

shots to uh take the life of an

individual. And it also doesn't take a a

single bullet to disarm somebody that

they weren't brandishing a weapon.

That's clear. The he was not he was not

a threat. There is no excuse for those

ICE officers. They need to be punished

to the highest degree of the law. And

for the president of the United States

to say that that shooting was justified

and that's the first statement that he

makes, it's flat out wrong. The

president's wrong there. There is no

excuse for that. And I'm not going to

make one for him.

>> Yeah. So, I think that we all believe in

border enforcement. We want to go after

the worst of the worst, the violent

criminals, the murderers, the rapists,

the pedophiles. I think we all agree on

that. No one's going to disagree there.

I think the main point of contention is

what ICE and how it's structured in the

government allows for the executive to

get away with in terms of lack of

accountability that I think would have

greater accountability if it was if it

had to be changed by Congress rather

than being able to be changed by the

executive. I think it just grants the

executive too much power. So, if we want

border enforcement, we want

accountability. I just don't see how we

can have that existing when it has when

essentially the executive has so much

power over how ICE operates.

>> I have contention with what it is that

you said a little bit. Um I don't think

that I should even be going after

violent criminals. I think that we

already have agencies in place to handle

those types of crimes. When it comes to

drug trafficking, which a lot of

Republicans say is the justification for

ICE, we have the DEA. That's the whole

point of the DEA is drug enforcement and

accountability. When we see people that

are murderers or violent criminals,

that's what the FBI's job is for. ICE

specifically acts as a secret militia

and a police for the federal government.

It is specifically utilized as a fear

apparatus, which is why we didn't have

ICE until 2003. Most people watching

this are older than the agency of ICE,

which means it it's not a necessary

institution of the United States. We

already have law enforcement agencies

that handle the crimes that ICE claims

to do, especially when over 70% of

people that are detained by ICE have no

violent criminal record. So, I don't

want to hear [ __ ] about how ICE is

protecting us from violent crime or drug

trafficking when we already have

agencies whose sole job is doing that. I

mean the fact is that is a very valid

argument but I would simply just say

that ICE was brought into being by

Congress in 2003. So what you're asking

for would just require would would not

just it would require a amendment to

that law

>> 100%. The question is would we get

enough bipartisan support to get rid of

ICE and I don't think the current

administration would allow for that.

>> I don't think right now but why was I

made in 2003?

>> I was a child. You'd have to tell me. I

don't know.

>> Okay. So ICE was made 2003. There

there's a lot of events that happened

prior to that most notably 911. So

that's why we see agencies like the TSA,

Department of Homeland Security, ICE.

All three of those were done in the high

highest paranoid era of the United

States when the federal government,

which I don't know if y'all are fans of

Bush, but I know a lot of Republicans

now say Bush was a huge overreach, a

huge neocon.

>> It was terrible.

>> Fantastic. I love this. So that was

Bush's baby. ISIS Bush's baby. It is the

federal government using an agency as a

fear apparatus to specifically stoke

fear in political dissidence. And while

Muslims were targeted mostly in 2003, it

has now changed to mostly central and

Latin America.

>> Okay. But what about So obviously there

is since the last election, there is

been a strong mandate from the people to

get more serious about immigration,

border enforcement, those kinds of

things. Obviously, if all those agencies

that are supposed to be taking care of

the violent, criminal, illegal aliens

were working the way they were supposed

to, we wouldn't have such an uproar from

people. Uh, Americans losing their lives

to people that shouldn't be here in the

first place, been arrested multiple

>> time. Your argument hinges on public

opinion, right? Because you're saying a

majority of the people wanted ICE to to

act. No, no. What I'm saying, what I'm

saying is that if all of those agencies

that you said were working

as they were meant to be working, why do

we have such an increase in violent

crime, drug trafficking, and all of

that. Like I feel like they could

probably use some help. I'm not saying

that the way I is going about it is

perfect, but I want you to jump in. But

real quick, I really loved what you said

there. There was a mandate by the

political people because Donald Trump

won on two big issues. running on

affordability, which was saying that the

Biden Harris economy was not helping

people's material needs, and he ran on

stricter border enforcement. Those were

like the two biggest issues of MAGA 2.0

or that that campaign specifically. I

agree with you. I think that he won the

popular vote for a reason. People wanted

that. If you look at public polling now,

do you know what the the favorability is

for abolishing ICE? I'm not even talking

about ICE reform. I think it's about 54%

last time that

>> 74% of Democrats want it, which I know

you guys say whatever the Democrats

want, they want criminals or whatever,

but for independents, 52% of

independents are comfortable with

abolishing ICE. This is unprecedented.

And this is momentum that specifically,

I mean, we would argue that Democrats

can utilize in order to win more public

office and show people that they're

serious. But also, Republicans are

getting more comfortable uh with even

having this conversation. Thomas Massie,

Rand Paul, these are all people saying,

"What the hell? We're supposed to be

limited government conservatives. Why

are we allowing a federal agency to kill

civilians without any accountability?

>> I mean, if you ask me, this is like I

mean, Democrats couldn't pay for better

PR when it comes to like some of these

ICE raids. I haven't been thrilled with

them. Obviously, they're all going to be

replayed non-stop up until the midterms.

So, yeah, there there definitely have

been failures and I don't like this like

shock and awe on our own people. Um, but

obviously there's been a failure by

either government agencies or whoever

hasn't been taking care of the criminal

illegal alien problem and maybe ICE has

overreached, but there needs to be some

reaching because what's been going on is

>> Yeah. So, the point that I would make is

that the way that they're acting limits

their ability to go after the violent

people, the people who have committed

the worst crimes because it creates the

public response and the lack of

reputation that they need within these

communities to be able to actively

address those uh worse people. So the

the way that I say it, and this is

disagreeable amongst many conservatives,

is we should focus on providing mass

amnesty for those that have not

committed violent crimes and bad crimes

to provide an incentive specifically so

that they can stay in the country and

they can work in the country and they

don't get exploited under our systems

while simultaneously allowing for uh

agents specifically in terms of border

enforcement to focus on those that have

committed on violent crimes and bad

crimes so that they're focused on those

rather than focusing on specifically

people who have not committed violent

crimes and bad crimes and are just here

for a better life. because when they're

under the threat of mass deportation,

they're going to take below market wages

which could obviously have negative

impacts in terms of the market on other

sort of wage uh wages for uh US citizens

alongside the fact that if we provide a

legal pathway to citizenship, they'll

pay more into the tax systems. They'll

also uh be able to speak out if they

witness a crime. Uh right now under the

threat of mass deportation, they don't

have an incentive to do that.

>> Can I allude to that last episode,

Mason, when I said we have to look at

the why question as to why someone is

doing that? Why someone

>> No, I think you really articulated the

reasons why most people come here, which

is because there's a necessity. They

have no other choice.

>> Real colonial real colonization. Yes. Uh

so that one, Parker, I I can't even

disagree with you there that that's a

very logically put argument. I mean that

there has to be an amnesty program would

make a lot of sense. I think that we've

seen enough instances where ICE has

overreached. But I would also throw this

in and of course we're going to disagree

here, but to some degree we have to

understand the protesters. There are

instances where these protesters are

antagonizing these officers in the

performance. that that is also just as

provable as horrendous incidents like

Renee Good and what we saw with Alex. Um

and I don't know any situation where

violence uh ends without violence. We

don't we we have this country has a

history of demonstrating that the best

way to protest is to use the non-violent

method. Shout out to the civil rights

movement. You know, I think that there

are many instances where you have to

balance uh the problem with the method

of protest. What I will say is if we see

people in communities watch people in

unmarked vans rip their neighbors from

their homes, kill civilians in the

street, it be marked as a homicide by

the medical examiner and then no

accountability takes place where zero

people go to jail. People are going to

get pretty pissed off. So what I'm going

to say is if you want to deescalate the

violence or deescalate the tension in

these communities, let's stop shoving in

ICE agents where these communities are

demanding them not be there and actually

hold people accountable when they commit

federal crimes.

>> Okay. And then let's say maybe also like

Democrat leadership shouldn't be

encouraging their voters to put their

life at lives at risk by interceding on

uh police uh police

>> if Democratic lawmakers are telling

people specifically to interfere with

these operations.

>> Oh uh walls who is the it was

>> well what's have both explicitly said

you should use your right to protest

that doesn't mean that you can stop

arrest you know your rights. They

literally are sending out information.

I'm not saying that they're not like

slick enough to use the right words so

they can't be held accountable for

encouraging violence. But

>> you don't think that encouraging people

to use their first amendment should be

something that a leader does?

>> No. AB: Absolutely. Yeah, I would

support that. But when you're when

you're seeing violence and targeting of

ICE agents, leaking like doxing of

information, leaking family members

information, you have to understand this

is like a self-fulfilling thing. It's

like ICE agents overreach and then it

scares the people and then the people

will start doxing ICE agents and then

they come come into their job more

paranoid and maybe more trigger-happy.

It's like everyone could probably take a

page out of like, you know, treating

each other with a little more humanity.

>> I'm sorry, but you're not going to be

able to rip people from their homes in a

humane way. We've seen video after video

of people without a warrant. They're

specifically doing right now

administrative subpoenas. Can you guys

explain what that is? If not, it's not a

trivia question. I just generally don't

know if you know. So, an administrative

subpoena is typically used when there's

like a high uh target person who's

probably committing a terrorist act.

This was also a part of like post 911 uh

anti-judit or overjudicial extrajudicial

actions that are committed by the

federal government. But basically, it's

when you don't get a warrant from a

federal judge. Uh you don't actually

have to go through the proper channels

in order to break into someone's home.

And you're just saying they have full

access to do that. That that is

completely unlawful. And anybody that

believes in a limited government should

want the proper channels to have checks

and balances to ensure that wrongdoing

is not taking place.

>> That's valid. And I think that because

of the energy of people being so excited

to get deportations and immigration

enforcement going, there are probably

some, you know, eyes undotted and tees

uncrossed, maybe some people that are

really trigger-happy joined that

shouldn't be in the organization. That

is all valid. But I think we have to

acknowledge that there is an organized

resistance to this even before or even

before good uh those cases there has

been organized resistance and I know

Antifa is kind of like a trigger word

now but Antifa like something like that

it doesn't actually have to be Antifa

but there has been a dangerous organized

revolutionary type force going up

against uh federal law enforcement. The

one sentence I'll say is if people don't

see their government holding

institutions accountable, they're going

to get in the street to protect their

neighbors.

>> What do you mean by dangerous though?

Cuz like for example, what Renee Good

was a part of ICE watch. Is that

dangerous in any way? That's

specifically like they're trying to

highlight what these agents are doing or

trying to get video of it. I don't think

that's necessarily engaging in violence

or promoting harming any agent.

>> Yeah, I I I I can I can understand that.

But I think that there's a difference

between like maybe watching an arrest or

taking notes or something and then

creating a spectacle, creating a crowd.

everyone's gonna act different when

they're all being watched that way and

it creates tension and unnecessary

tension.

>> That's true. But let me throw this out

there. As a police officer, you are

called to the highest standard of

customer service possible. So, you

should know, you should be well aware

that there will always be cameras on

you. You should be well aware that the

public may intentionally antagonize you.

That is the ultimate test of common

sense and competence. As a police

officer, you do not get you don't have

the freedom by nature of the job to do

things outside of the book. And so we

you have to be aware of that. That's

where self-awareness comes in. If you

don't want to do the job, if you don't

have the stress capability, if you don't

have the the what I'll call the gusto,

>> you don't need to be that you don't need

to take that job.

>> It would also probably help if they had

local law enforcement there helping them

and, you know, guiding them on how they

should be doing this because

>> but if you're f but if you are federal,

there's a reason that there's a

difference between city police and the

FBI. There's a higher standard of metric

that's supposed to be used. So if you

are a federal agent that means you

should but in theory you should have

gone through more rigorous psychological

testing. You should have gone through

more rigorous preparation for a more

difficult task. There is no there is no

higher form of authority in the United

States than the federal government. So

we have to be honest here. Whether

you're conservative, liberal, doesn't

matter. If ICE acts improperly, then

maybe Mason and Parker have a point to

start examining the federal government

to say who the hell gave these people

this authority. Why is it being misused?

And that's why I'm saying this is a

fault. This is a fault of the

administration. We have to be honest

here. I could I I can't.

>> Your only contention for it being read

is you're not saying that all ICE should

be out of all.

>> Exactly. That's all I'm saying. That's

the only reason.

>> You agree that this is obviously a clear

injustice. That is

>> You're damn right it's a horrendous

injustice and it's absolutely

unjustifiable.

>> I agree. It's an injustice too. I just

can't agree with kicking ice out of all

of our American cities.

>> Yeah. I think that the reason why we're

seeing such a large propensity of

protests is again if people just kind of

sit back quietly or like they'll post

social media memes or whatever they want

to do and allow the federal government

to continue this injustice, nothing

changes. The reason why Minnesota is a

national focus right now, the reason why

we're seeing escalated tensions from ICE

agents is because people are revealing

the inherent violence that's within this

agency. the the reason why the the

federal government is committing even

more authoritarian tactics is because

the people are highlighting what happens

when you do disagree with what the

government's doing to your own people.

If you do try to protect your neighbors

in whatever capacity you do because

institutions won't, what will the

federal government then respond with?

And right now we're seeing repression,

which you guys both just said are

unexcusable acts and complete tragedies.

>> Okay, say for example during 2021 and

2022 the arrest of January 6ers. What if

there were a bunch of Republicans trying

to prevent the arrests of Jixers? I know

it's not a perfect example, but think

about that like impeding with the

investigation or the address or or the

arrest. Sorry.

>> Like they were recording officers.

>> Yeah. Like they were recording officers

are making like a spectacle, making

scenes and kind of impeding the

investigation, throwing throwing stuff

at uh at at cars, uh blocking traffic. I

mean, this isn't just the difference

with that. You can go ahead. Well, I

just want to be clear like let's look at

how each of our party responds to how

our how our sides operate that way. On

January 6, Donald Trump pardoned the

violent riders who beat police officers

on that day. Whereas Democrats

unequivocally will condemn any of the

violence, will condemn any of the

agitation specifically that is unlawful.

We're saying ICE should act lawfully

when they're not using warrants, when

they're kidnapping people, when they're

detaining US citizens just for having an

accent. Right? These are unlawful things

that we're saying if they're acting so

lawlessly without accountability, we're

going to have an organized response to

that because we're not going to just sit

there and let it happen to us. Okay,

that's what's going to happen. State

sanctioned violence leads to organized

resistance to that. Okay, we're not

saying violence, but we're saying there

is going to be an organized protest.

There's going to be organized first

amendment right used against that

because we're not going to just let it

happen to us when the state is unjustly,

right, engaging in violence towards us.

I I think that we had a really

productive conversation about the

harmful implications that certain

federal agencies can engage in in the

lack of accountability in these

situations that does exist. And I think

that uh our opponents, the

conservatives, advocated to maintain

organizations such as ICE to maintain

border enforcement and to go after

people who have committed bad crimes and

violent crimes and to ensure the the

mandate by the Trump administration in

terms of border enforcement. while we're

advocating specifically for a sort of a

new approach to border enforcement. Uh

and it seemingly there was also some

agreement in terms of mass amnesty there

as well. So it seems like there was a

lot of agreement and also an

acknowledgement that the state has acted

unjustly with Alex Py's death um in

general.

>> Oh my god, dude. Are you okay? You've

been limping like that since Monday.

Yeah, I was at the gym and the cable

machine snapped mid rep and landed

straight on my knee. Classic gym fail.

Oh, that's not just a gym fail. That's

really dangerous. Yeah, but I signed a

waiver. So, I didn't really think there

was anything I could do. No, injuries

like that are serious. There's a reason

injury law firms exist, just like

there's a reason Morgan and Morgan, the

sponsor of today's video, is America's

largest injury law firm. Morgan and

Morgan specializes in a wide range of

personal injury cases and have won

thousands of big cases. Just recently,

Morgan and Morgan has secured verdicts

of $12 million in Florida and $26

million in Philly. That's up to 40 times

the highest insurance offer. I'm telling

you, your case can be worth millions.

The best part, it's all free unless you

win your case. If you've also been a

victim of a personal injury or any other

serious accident, you can visit

www.forthepeople.com/jubile

forthepeople.com/jubile

found in the description below to start

your free claim today. Oh, cool. I'm for

sure going to check them out. Thanks to

Morgan and Morgan for sponsoring this

portion of the episode. Now, let's get

back to the video.

>> Song of the year. Congratulations, Billy

Isish. Wow, that is a Grammy that every

artist wants almost as much as Trump

wants Greenland, which makes sense. I

mean, because Epstein's Island is gone,

he needs a new one to hang out with Bill

Clinton. So, oh, I told you it's my last

year. What are you going to do about it?

>> President Trump responded to Noah's jab,

writing on True Social, "The Grammy

Awards are the worst. Virtually

unwatchable. CBS lucky not to have this

garbage litter their airwaves any

longer. The host, Trevor Noah, whoever

he may be, is almost as bad as Jimmy

Kimmel at the Low Ratings Academy

Awards. Noah said incorrectly about me

that Donald Trump and Bill Clinton spent

time on Epstein Island. Wrong. I can't

speak for Bill, but I have never been to

Epstein Island nor anywhere close. And

until tonight's false and defamatory

statement, have never been accused of

being there. Not even by the fake news

media. Noah, a total loser. Better get

his facts straight and get them straight

fast. It looks like I'll be sending my

lawyer to sue this poor, pathetic,

talentless, dope of an MC and suing him

for plenty of money. Trump is right to

sue Trevor Noah for recklessly spreading

false claims tying him to Epstein

Island.

>> First, I want to start by saying that's

crazy. It took three slides to show the

whole truth. Like that's unhinged as

>> I'm just going to say this. Um, people

have to learn you cannot talk about bad

about the president and have a large

platform. ABC paid him a couple million

dollars. He's suing. Who else was he

suing? We talked about this two episodes

ago. uh when when he was suing somebody

for the false claims about Russia,

Russia, Russia.

Yeah. Yeah. He's technic he's

technically right. Whether you like it

or not, he's right.

>> Wait, is it a joke though? Is he is he

being serious? Is it Is it with complete

disregard of the facts? Because he's

clearly joking.

>> See, you're technically You're right. He

is. He's obviously making a joke.

>> Hey, can we make comedy legal again?

>> But Trump is not

>> Trump is not going to take it as that.

And we we've we've seen him sue people

before. Like this is not we we should

have Trevor Noah knew this was coming.

He he he knew that Trump wasn't going to

take lightly to this and that's that is

a disgusting that doesn't make it right.

>> We're just asking is he right to sue

though? Like and I and I don't think so

because it's a joke.

>> Was he was he being serious when he was

claiming that? Like do you guys actually

think he was serious that he was on the

island or do you think that Bill Clinton

has grounds to sue him?

>> Technically speaking Bill want to sue

you.

>> Oh my god.

>> Okay. Well, I mean I don't think Bill

would be right to sue him to win.

>> But it's just it's dumb, dude. Like I

think it's so sad that like our country

has to watch the most powerful leader in

the world have such a small ego that

he's going after a two-cond joke of a

comedian at the Grammys. Don't you think

he should have more important things to

do? How many times was Joe Biden

ridiculed by the right? Did Joe Biden

ever sue any of those? Joe Biden fan.

>> They claimed completely false things

about Hunter Biden, Joe Biden. Yet he

didn't advocate to sue people who had

large platforms who did that.

>> Qanon called him a pedophile. Joe Biden

didn't go after any Joe Biden is not

Donald Trump and Donald Trump is nobody

else. We we've never seen a president

like him before.

See one like him again.

>> It's really sad that he's so shy.

>> We're asking if he's right with doing

it. We're not and we we apply the same

standard of right to both Joe Biden and

Donald Trump. Correct.

>> Technically speaking, technically

speaking, I would say that Trump is

right to sue him if because of the way

that Trump is interpreting it because

that's all what this is going to

>> What about your interpretation? Would

you sue

>> doesn't matter to about Trump?

>> But can I just ask yours? Like if

somebody made a joke about you, would

you like get in a twist and sue them?

No, but that again my interpretation

doesn't matter here. My interpretation

>> I would I I would say like as Trump,

yeah, it's a little different because

this doesn't happen in a vacuum. He's

constantly he's been uh I mean he's had

literally everything thrown at him and

he's been accused of everything from the

Russian hooker pee to like all like

killing little girls and all that stuff.

So as him I can see why he did it. Would

I if you would ask me? No. I like do

standup comedy. I don't think jokes

should be I have a sense of but again I

I I I wouldn't do that but for putting

myself in his shoes this didn't happen

in a vacuum and yeah he can be a little

thin skinned but he's also relentlessly

attacked all the time so it's like this

vicious

>> like can can we can we for just a second

can y'all just put yourself in the shoes

of a man that has been legally attacked

viciously attacked in the media for the

past eight years you I don't know I

don't give a damn how thick your skin

would be there comes a limit And then

let's think about this. This is still

Epstein Island. Certain [ __ ] you

shouldn't joke about. And I'll be

>> in this scenario. Did I also commit the

crimes that Donald Trump committed?

>> Being on Epstein Island is he wasn't

there.

>> No, you just said like if if people were

attacking me relentlessly for years and

years and years, like am I also the same

president that like committed the same

crimes that Donald Trump did or is it

just

>> We're not talking about crimes. We're

specifically talking about Epstein

Island. Stop.

>> The reason why he's attacked is because

he does shitty things. That's the

reason. It's not specifically stick to

the subject of Epstein Island. Would you

sue somebody for saying that you on an

island having sex with children when

you've already been attacked from

multiple different angles legally? Can

you answer that different?

>> If I'm the most powerful person in the

United States and a comedian says that

in two seconds, no, I'm not going to be

so shallow that I'm going to think of

that instead of all the responsibilities

that I have as a president.

>> Not just that one comedian. There are

literal people that are claiming in his

mind falsely because we don't have proof

that he was there and I'm going to stand

by him on that one until I see evidence

that he was there. He wasn't there.

There's certain [ __ ] you don't joke

about. I if there I'll be honest. If

somebody cra it depends on the context

of the joke like you know you know who

was one of the great you know who was a

great a good comedian Don Rickles. Don

Rickles was a great insulting comedian

but there's certain [ __ ] even Don

Rickles wouldn't say.

>> Wait this

>> you could say he shouldn't have made the

joke but is he right to be sued for

making

>> in the mind of Donald Trump? Absolutely.

>> Wait. No. No. I'm not saying in the mind

of Donald Trump.

>> That's what we're talking about.

>> In your mind. No. No.

>> My mind doesn't matter.

>> It does because we're talking about our

opinions on it. What are you talking

about? Your mind doesn't matter. We're

having a conversation about your

opinion.

>> And I'm looking at my opinion is I'm

taking not my mind into account here.

I'm looking at how Trump is examining

this. People have repeatedly put this

man on Epstein Island and he has not

been there. There has been no definitive

evidence that he was.

>> This is a dispute based upon where he

was located or the actions he committed.

Because I think there's a lot of good

evidence indicate he's engaged in

actions like the stuff that we're

talking about in terms of Epstein

Island. Whether it be him bragging about

walking into the changing rooms of naked

women while they're changing without

their consent where an 18-year-old came

out said there were four girls as young

as 15 years old in these changing rooms

or the 26 plus people that accused him

of sexual misconduct or Egene Carol

holding him accountable in a civil court

for sexually abusing her or him saying

that a 10-year-old he would date in the

future. Yeah. Like in 10 years have sex

with his daughter. Come on.

>> So again what what we're speaking on and

again y'all are not y'all are not

directly addressing what I am. I'm

looking at within the confines of this

specific prompt in the mind of Donald

Trump. He is correct to sue Trevor Noah.

Do I agree with him is a different is a

different question. That's not what

we're

>> Do you agree with him suing is the

question I would ask you.

>> Do I agree with him suing? No, I would.

>> Okay. Well, your honor

would be waiting. Can I agree with you

real quick? I think Trump in his own

mind thinks that he's right for suing

Noah. That's all I'm saying. That's not

Wait. Okay. No one disagrees with you

there. Right. What we're disagreeing

with you on is that or actually we're

not disagreeing. agreeing is that

actually we think that he shouldn't have

done this. We think that he's not right

from our own position. That's what we're

saying. So you agree with us.

>> Trump has the legal right to sue, but

that doesn't mean that it's the right

decision. And I think that's what we can

all agree.

>> Well, let me let me Okay, let me

>> Well, no. He thinks in his own head that

he he has the right to sue, but we don't

think he has the right to sue.

>> No, no, no. Let me be more specific.

>> Well, he does have the right should he

should not he has the right to right in

suing if that makes sense. Sorry. It's

not It's not Yeah, I got what you meant.

You're fine. It's not that he should do

it. It's not that it's a proper use of

his time, blah, blah, but again, I'm not

looking at this from my because one,

I'll be damned before you ever put me on

an island having sex with kids. So

that's why I I have to take my own mind

out of this. There's no way in hell that

I would ever be in a situation like

that. Um

>> I think if you didn't do it, the

ridiculousness of it would be like, why

would you even acknowledge it?

>> Okay, Grant. Granted, but again, we're

not we obviously, no one at this table,

I don't get the vibe that any of us at

this table are have as narcissistic

personality tendencies as Donald Trump.

And I mean, love him or hate him, the

man is a narcissist. But he is brash

enough to I mean, we know this, Parker,

that's not a revelation. Trump is a

>> I know, but it's like it's not common

that I get a conservative to like admit

that. Like, genuinely, it's not common.

>> He's a narcissist. Like, we know.

>> He totally is. I totally agree.

Narcissism is tied to America's success,

>> right? Like I'm not rich people success

in America, not the average American.

>> I mean, you know, that's you know, but

again, in in Trump's mind, that's why

I'm Austin has to pull himself out of

it. I can't I'm not I can't I couldn't

answer that question from my frame of

mind because I'll be damned before you

put me on Little St. James.

>> I think you're just you're like

stretching the bounds of the question so

much. It's really just about our own

opinion. Like, should Donald Trump do

this or should he not? And it's really

as simple as that. In my opinion, we

have to like add all of these like

mental gymnastics to like to properly

answer that question. I have to do it

because to me

>> then you better stretch before it's a

lot of mentality.

>> He's Well, you know, some people's only

exercise is stretching the truth to jump

to conclusions. You know, I I don't I

stopped doing that a long time ago. Um

but the the the point is with him, he

has actually won money off of suing

people before. He won money off what did

ABC pay him? Was it like 30 Was it 30

million?

>> 20 30 million.

>> 20 $30 million. So technically speaking,

he's

>> you you bit you bit the hand like he's

going to get you. like there's an active

like investigation or whatever going on

with the whole Epste thing. So, it's not

just like a random throwaway joke cuz I

was trying to think back to when Ricky

Jerves hosted the Oscars and he talked

about Epste. He's like, "Well, he's your

friend. I'm blah blah blah." You know,

>> but it also it is a little different cuz

it would be like, you know,

>> during the freaking everyone watching TV

of the OJ scene of OJ fleeing against

the pleading the cops, then you say

like, "Oh, by the way, this person might

be in his car." You know, it's like a

little different. It carries a little

bit more weight because everyone's

looking.

>> It's still an open investigation, too.

the files are still coming out. So I

like I said

>> and if you were a socialite in New York

City or Palm Beach in the last 25 years,

you would absolutely have some kind of

association. That's also why it's really

important to look No, I'm not I'm not

defending it that way. What I'm saying

is that there people are trying to bring

up that he worked for Putin because

Putin's name was in the Epstein files

and Putin's name is in the Epstein files

as an adversary to what they were like

doing. Again, I'm not trying to defend

Putin, but I'm just saying it's like we

should be cognizant of just because a

name appears in the files doesn't give

us the context to how it appears.

>> But I think the context of this, you

could line up every president. I don't

think any of them would sue a comedian

except for Donald Trump. And I think

that that's kind of like the crux of

what we're all done some of the [ __ ]

>> Do you think to any of the people that

went to these parties, do you think that

they're to be condemned?

>> Talking about what party like did

parties or what?

>> The Epstein parties.

>> Hell yeah. They speak depending

>> about Todd Blank. Yeah, I thought I was

I was going to bring up like

>> depends what they I've I've been to a

person who's a I've been to a person who

was a friend of Epstein. I found out

later. I mean, but like just cuz I was

in that person

Island party.

>> Oh, well. Okay. Yeah, that's a little

different.

>> Okay. So, Todd Blanch, which is one of

the lead attorneys in the Trump

administration, went on live television

and said, again, you can look this clip

up. There's no there's nothing criminal

about going to a Jeffrey Epstein party

and partying with Epstein.

>> That is crazy. That is crazy. Crazy,

isn't it? That's like saying ain't

nothing wrong with going to a dinner

party when it

>> what he's trying to say. He's basically

saying there's nothing illegal. If you

witness sex crimes but you don't

participate in them, like it's totally

Jesus Christ.

>> Yeah. Uh that's like saying, "No,

there's nothing going wrong. I I left

the Diddy party before they brought up

the baby oil." [ __ ]

I'm going to say something really quick

because I didn't get to say this on the

other point and it's actually a good

time to. I I feel like some people on

the left should acknowledge that certain

Democrats spent years gaslighting people

about what was going on in Epstein

Island and all that connection. They

literally said

>> uh I mean even just the media ones when

the when the Sound of Freedom movie came

out, they said it was a right-wing

brainworms movie made for QAnon people

and all this.

>> Oh, you talking about like the Joy? It

was like that was like the border sex

trafficking argument because they were

arguing that just because there were

quote unquote missings people or like

that we didn't have DNA uh testing at

the border that somehow means we were

sex trafficking. So that that was

because of those claims not because of

like the Epstein file

>> and it wasn't to like limit like the

crime of human trafficking. I think that

should be like a universal issue.

>> But I I think I think it would be

undeniable to say since ever since the

time of let's say 2015 2016 like pizza

gate era that like it has been the right

that has been looking into this more so

and been more honest. That's why the

right should hold Republican politicians

accountable because they they commit sex

crimes more than any other.

>> I ain't going to say more. I'm just I

don't know. I don't want to know who

commits more. I just hope all

ambassadors go to jail.

>> I would say the people that commits the

most sex crimes are the ones that can

facilitate it through all of their

wealth and connections and uh

>> yeah hiding it.

>> To be totally honest with you, I think a

lot of the leftwing people have those

conspiratorial beliefs about Epstein and

held those like beliefs in terms of like

the particular types of rings. It's just

they weren't as prominent on social

media like people like Alex Jones and

whatnot in terms of spreading those sort

of beliefs, but like there are there's a

huge conspiracy element of the left. I'm

not disputing that. I think that's

actually important for us to acknowledge

in this conversation. So that did exist

and people were still wanting to have

the Epstein files released. I guess it

just wasn't like broad in the

conversation. I don't I think that was

true on the other side too. I don't

think the typical conservative was

advocating for the Epstein files to be

released. I think it was a hyper niche

community on the internet.

>> I think what happened to to that point,

Parker, that is a great in the

beginning. Yeah, it was

>> you say it was more conservatives on the

internet, but not necessarily like via

polls to demonstrate like conservatives

more than liberals thought

>> because at one point you brought up a

very interesting name. I love Alex

Jones. Shout out to Alex Jones.

>> Actually, wait, what? No. I No, I listen

I I am

>> You think he's like a good source of

information? Just that's cool.

>> Hell yes, he is

>> within within within constraints. Yes,

he is. Absolutely. Um because So, was he

lying about the Federal Reserve? Was he

lying about the Bilderberg Group? Was he

lying about the frog?

>> Was he lying about Sandy Hook? Was he

lying about the frogs being

>> I said constraints?

>> No, he wasn't lying about the frogs. The

>> freaking strong conraint.

>> I said within constraints. I'm always

careful with my statements, Mason. I'm

real careful.

>> Okay. Do you think Candace Owens?

You know, one of his best friends is

Nick, right? I have two words for that.

Nick Fuentes, three words.

>> Wait, do you think Candace Owens is

reliable in

>> You're right. I should have said him. I

should

>> do you think Candace Owens is reliable

for for giving information quote unquote

within

>> sometimes.

>> Okay. So, I mean, if you're saying that

technically anyone can give out valid

information within constraints, well,

that's technically applicable to anyone.

I just think that's you have to put more

constraints on with Alex Jones and

practically any typical person you'd

ever meet in your life because he was

saying the frogs are turning gay.

>> Well, I mean, he also admitted turns out

>> Parker, that was pretty good. Uh, but I

mean, listen, Alex Jones, Alex Jones,

>> it's hard. It's really hard.

>> Alex Jones was Listen, I'm not

>> Make yourself feel like a frog.

>> I'm not Well, the problem was this. No,

but no, Alex is uh I I like Alex Jones.

All of the stuff that he says, there's

some stuff I'm like, "Hold the hold the

hold the phone." So crazy.

>> Pause.

>> Some

>> uh 911. Go watch his 911 documentary.

>> Are you an inside jobber?

>> Raises a lot of questions.

>> No, I didn't say that. I didn't say I

didn't say what I am. I'm just saying he

raises a lot of questions,

>> man. You and all your purity test. He's

like, "Wait, do you believe that?

>> It's just blowing my mind. I just

>> So, let me ask. So, so we have to go

back to the prompt." The point is, the

point is that I think that the joke that

was made, was it in was it in bad taste?

He's a comedian. We get it. But Trump is

Donald Trump. He has demonstrated a

history of suing people that talk [ __ ]

about him. So if I were Trevor Noah, I

wouldn't have done it. So within the

confines of that statement,

>> Trump is probably going to win. Not only

is he going to sue him, obviously he's

probably going to win. And Trevor Noah,

get ready to cut the check.

>> I I don't think he's going to win.

>> I disagree. You'd have to prove what the

intent of of Trevor No was to accuse him

of going to FC9. Clearly not.

>> I I got I got

>> Do you think South Park writers would

would get uh like in trouble for saying

he had sex with Satan? Satan was a

parody. They did say that's what I'm

saying. And Clark was a master debater

too on on South Park by the way.

>> I said that can't that can't be

defamation cuz it's true.

>> Well, pause. Well, I didn't see it, but

Stormy Daniels did talk about how it

looked like

>> Oh, this is information.

>> I could have lived the rest of my life.

I could have lived the rest of my life

without knowing that. No, he said it. I

didn't say 30 seconds ago.

>> That didn't happen.

>> Today, ballots reflecting how thousands

of people voted in the 2020 election

have left the Fulton County, Georgia

election office where they were stored

and are now in the hands of the federal

government. It's the latest escalation

in President Trump's repeated and false

claims that he won the state of Georgia

in 2020. President Biden's win was

confirmed by a full statewide audit and

a hand recount. The FBI had a warrant to

enter the Fulton County election hub.

ABC affiliate WSB obtained the warrant,

which states agents were looking for

documents that include all physical

ballots from the 2020 election in Fulton

County, all tabulator tapes for every

voting machine in the county, and all

voter roles from the 2020 election.

Democrats are criticizing the move,

calling it a political stunt meant to

intimidate election officials ahead of

the midterms.

>> Trump's FBI raid in Fulton County,

Georgia, sets a dangerous precedent for

the upcoming midterm elections.

Yeah. So, I think the what I would like

to establish at least is that we want we

think that Joe Biden won the 2020

election. There's really no reason to go

and do this again given that that's

true. I honestly typically don't have an

issue with investigations if it's just

an investigation looking into it. I just

don't really see a point or reason to do

that when there was already so much

investigation, when there were already

audits, when there were already recounts

by hand. Like, what else would should we

do at this point?

>> And as a Georgia resident, you know, the

Georgia state legislature has a super

majority. There was a bipartisan

investigation into the true account of

the election and it was ratified. Brian

Kemp, if we look at go look up Brian

Kemp's campaign ads, this is a Trump

person through and through and he said,

"Dude, I can't just steal an election

for you. I'm sorry I can't find those

11,000 votes that you're begging me to."

>> So, I'll tell you that as a Georgia

resident, I I saw the story when this

broke. Um, there were 377,000 ballots

that were seized by the FBI. And the

reason that they were seized or at least

the reason that they stated was that the

voter the ballots were all improperly

filled out by the poll workers. Now, I

am not claiming to know anything about

election integrity to the degree of

those individuals, but apparently those

all 377,000 ballots were votes that were

cast for Joe Biden and they were

improperly filled out by the poll

workers. Now, assuming that that is, let

me correct myself before I make that

statement. Assuming that there's any

degree of of truth to that statement,

Donald Trump is justified in conducting

that type of investigation.

If 377,000 ballots, again, guys on

YouTube in the comments, I said if. I

didn't say it happened. I said if. If

there is legitimate evidence that that

is the case, then Trump is absolutely

justified in conducting that

investigation. I cannot wait to see what

happens. As of right now, will I say

Biden won the 2020 election? Absolutely.

Trump, you lost. You lost. I told you I

was going to finish the investigation. I

told you I was going to finish it.

However, again, however, if there is

evidence that Trump is telling the

truth, I Oh god, I can't wait for those

court cases. I don't I would love to see

what

>> Can we establish that? Like, do we

believe the 2020 election was stolen?

Can we just go in line?

>> I don't believe it was stolen.

>> I don't believe it was stolen.

>> I don't believe it was stolen, but I

don't believe it was totally fair

either.

>> I believe I don't I exactly what David

said. I don't think it was stolen. I

think Trump lost, but I also think that

some funny [ __ ] happened there.

>> Let's try something again. A little

funny [ __ ] Do you think the 2024

election was stolen?

>> No.

>> I think it was perfectly judgment.

>> Uh, no.

>> I think the same thing. I think there

was evidence of fraud.

>> I think there was evidence of

about Elon's space laser changing voter

tabulations from

that's blue. Would you say that's blue

on there's a lot of lips out there like

Pennsylvania?

>> Technically speaking, elections in this

country haven't been all the way by the

books since 2000. Hello, Florida. Um,

because there's always Gore. I like

that. No. God, no. Absolutely not. Don't

ever, Mason. Don't ever.

>> I mean, it seems like you got what you

wanted

>> system and then whenever like

>> But so what I'm saying is there's

there's irrefutable evidence of voter

fraud in every single US election from

2000 to present day. So technically, no

election is 100% by the book. So that's

why I can't concede that one.

>> But even the Heritage Institution, the

Heritage Institution, which is the 2025

developers, everyone talked about that

the whole election cycle. They found

that there's not sufficient evidence for

the election fraud that happens to

overturn any elections. Yeah. And that

was in 2016 and in 2020. They looked

into both of those and they found

instances of election fraud, but none

that was substantial enough to like show

a coordinated rigging for the the

election.

>> What I what my bigger concern was cuz I

wasn't really concerned with like actual

votes being changed perhaps or any of

that. Like one of the biggest things was

the um New York Post, the Biden laptop,

the Hunter Biden laptop story. So many

people post their vote said that they

would have actually changed their vote

if they knew that that story was valid.

And that story was completely suppressed

by media, by Zuckerberg, by all these

people that was coordinated. And we have

emails from the Joe Biden and his

administration trying to stifle that

story. So that is like crazy.

>> But you could say the same thing about

2016 with Russian emails that tried to

put up dirt on Hillary.

>> I mean, and also like the for example

the the uh falsification of business

records, right? One of the predicate

crimes was election interference because

he was trying to limit this information

coming out about him paying hush money

towards De Storm Daniels.

prostitute has nothing to do with

>> wait let me clarify let me just let me

just finish the point I'm saying is that

he falsified business records to hide

that payment so that's actually could

you could also be saying he's hiding

trying to hide information where people

could have voted differently based upon

seeing this information now in terms of

the Biden investigation

>> Trump's been

you actually think people they might as

well vote for Trump when they know Trump

be been clapping cheek decades

>> to Parker's point like

>> at a different time obviously I think

that things coming out at that time when

he was first running were going to

affect his campaign to a greater extent

than they're going to when when it's

right now after he's been held civily

liable of sexual abusing women 26 plus

people have accused him of sexual

misconduct. He's associated with Epstein

on countless different occasions, right?

Literally said that Epstein was a great

guy, terrific guy, likes beautiful women

as much as he does, many of them on the

younger side. So now that we all know

this, yeah, obviously the Trump

supporter that hears about it now

probably won't change their mind, but

back then it would have. That's why he

tried to falsify the business records to

do so. Now,

>> yeah, but that but that wasn't

coordinated with the administration and

the government. So, even with the Hunter

Biden laptop, Rudy Giuliani provided the

Hunter Biden laptop to a judiciary. They

found nothing that was culpable of of

arresting uh Hunter Biden. Do you know

what they tried to charge Hunter Biden

with?

>> It was not having a proper

>> gunarm.

So, that has nothing to do with the

Hunter Biden laptop. There was nothing

in there that was culpable.

>> Do you think he could have been charged

for more? And do you think that maybe he

was protected being the president's son?

>> Rudy Giuliani presented that to a

Republican court.

>> Sure.

>> So, yes. Well, I

>> Why would the Republican court not want

to

>> Yeah, but at the same time though, he's

still the son of the president and this

is a man that wrote that got a

preemptive pardon from his daddy. So I I

mean I

>> He got a pardon for what?

>> Establish what were the reasons why

people the gun charge not for the Hunter

Biden story because there was nothing in

the Hunter Biden story.

>> Did you read the pardon that Biden?

Right. Did you read the p the pardon

that Biden signed? Probably it might now

that one might have been the autopin.

That one was probably the auto pin. But

>> like January 6 violent writers that

Donald Trump pardoned with the autopin,

>> none of them should have got pardoned.

Any one of them that assaulted cops

should have stayed. I'm just saying auto

pen as well.

>> Well, no, he actually Trump signed his.

I don't know if Biden signed.

>> He actually auto. It's like me walking

to being like, "Hey, this is what you're

signing by the way. Can you sign this

real quick?" Yeah. Yeah. Cool. Cool. The

presidents read stuff before they sign

it. They don't have someone like tell

them what they're signing. Going back to

the the prompt, the if there's evidence

suggesting that 37 Can we admit could

could you guys could Could I ask if

377,000 ballots all come in and all of

them were votes for a one specific party

over another? That doesn't seem just a

little bit odd to you.

>> What I will say is

>> and they're not properly filled up by

>> What I will say if that was the case,

Brian Kemp would have been the

Republican of the year. Donald Trump

would have made him vice president if he

actually showed that. because he didn't

he ruined any political opportunity he

had to further his career because it

didn't actually happen.

>> You don't we don't know. They just they

just

>> they did an audit. Brian Kemp, who is

literally one of the most staunch

Republican conservatives, said that the

election was completely legitimate.

>> Talk about what just happened. What just

happened is the FBI just went into

Fulton County, grabbed 377,000 ballots

that were improperly filled out by pole

workers, according to them. I'm asking

you if that comes out to be true, would

you concede that there was high degrees

of fraud in the state of Georgia?

>> Well, there there would be cause for

concern, but not enough to say that

there was an overturning of the election

because of this because you have to look

at how many of those specific uh uh uh

ballots that were casted were improperly

filled out by Republicans and compare

the rate that it was done so by

Republicans compared to Democrats to see

if it was off trend and also compare it

to prior years to see if it's off a

trend. specifically. Okay. But but off

of that, could we all agree could we all

agree that like learning more about this

or investigating further or getting more

information would make everyone feel

more comfortable?

>> No, we did this with the audits already.

That's my point. They've already done

these types of investigations. Already

gone through you guys are saying, I

mean, I just want to be clear. You guys

are both saying that if it does in fact

come out, again, the key word here is

if. If it does come out, that 377,000

ballots were improperly filled out and

these all happen to be votes for Joe

Biden, you still wouldn't concede that

there is some high degree of fraud that

took place in the state of Georgia and

by extension the 2020 election.

>> Well, think about it. It doesn't

necessarily indicate fraud because they

misproperly filled out a a ballot

>> 377,000 times. Parker,

>> let me let me please finish. You have to

compare it to prior elections in terms

of what was the rate in which the uh the

ballots specifically right were going to

be improperly filled out. You have to

take into consideration are there

different types of ways that they're

conducting these ballots like with

mailin ballots. Is there a difference

because of the situation with COVID and

the pandemic that's leading to more

people improperly filling out ballots?

What's the comparison in terms of

Republicans? Are there more Democrats

proportionally speaking that are doing

this comparative to Republicans? All

questions that are relevant to ask. All

questions that are relevant to an

investigation. All that are questions

that are relevant to an audit. Didn't we

already do this? We don't know that

there were any misfilled out for Trump

and it doesn't necessarily matter

because one

>> make a determination of whether or not

it was fraud. That's my point.

>> But you don't find that just a little

just the least.

>> I said it was concerning but it's not

determinations of fraud. Do you

understand the distinction between

concerning?

>> I get I'm very aware of the distinction.

But you

>> It's also interesting that they're only

highlighting the supposed Democrats that

are misfilled out and not any of the

Republicans just like what Parker shows

specifically politically.

>> Well, in this case it would be target

Florida.

Why is Tulsi Gabbard Why is Tulsi

Gabbard at the election poll as well?

Why is the director of national

intelligence there with the raid that

happens at an election center? Do you

not find that a bit alarming?

>> Why couldn't she be?

>> Because that's not her department.

That's not her jurisdiction.

>> So, you're saying Okay, so let me let me

rewind for just a second here.

>> But but why is that like a negative?

>> Yeah. Why is that a negative? Like it's

not a

>> The director of national intelligence

should not be there for politically uh

purposed raids.

>> That's a If what they're saying is true,

that's a crime. But it has no reason for

her to be there.

>> You can't be there. We don't know that,

>> right? We don't know based on what you

said. We don't know that.

>> We can just plead ignorance for

everything and just like allow the Trump

administration to completely do things

that are unprecedented. We have never we

have never retroactively gone back into

elections and say, "Hey, look, actually

all of the audits that have taken place

here, all of the bipartisan judicial

systems that have said that this is

legitimate, let's actually question that

again for

hell."

>> But unprecedented doesn't mean illegal.

It doesn't mean wrong. It just means it

hasn't been done. But also, we haven't

ever had such a distrusting voter base.

We haven't had

>> 30% of the country that distrust it. And

those are only Trump loyalists.

Independents overwhelmingly say that the

2020 election was legitimate. Democrats

90%

hold

say what you're saying is true. What do

you want to do with those 30%? Just

completely like excommunicate them from

sitting.

>> Those people recognize that peaceful

transfer of power is an essential

bedrock of the American democracy.

>> So yeah, it's a problem that they have

to work out. I'm not going to sit here

and say we have to investigate every

single thing every week of the year

simply because we have 30% that are

crying about an election that they lost.

>> Yeah. Like if 30% of the Democrats were

doing this right now, would we have to

relitigate the 2024 election?

>> No, I'm not saying relitigate it, but at

least throw them out. Democrats

>> we're relitigating this right now when

Trump decides to go and look for that.

He's trying to determine all I'm

advocating for is for more transparency.

So, I've seen so many people that were

politically active and politically

civically engaged that have completely

dropped out of politics in the last 5

years because they don't trust anything

that happens.

>> Are there election deniers?

>> That's gut-wrenching to me. And no, not

all of them. They're not all just

Republicans. Trust me,

>> I don't dispute you there. I totally

agree with you. Like, I actually agree.

There is total distrust that we need to

build back up. I just don't think this

is the way to build backup trust. I

don't think this does build backup trust

any at all. Like, do you see any Trump

supporters think

it's rigged or something?

>> Yeah. Yeah. The maybe the way it's being

done isn't great. isn't the greatest,

you know, optically going and rating

like there's they're hiding Bin Laden in

there. But I still think that it's

important because listen, we have to you

can't have civic engagement. You can't

have a civic society without trust. And

our trust is at like zero, especially

after all these leaks and everything. I

mean, I have one question. Is it by not

releasing the Epstein files against the

law?

>> Listen, you know what I mean?

>> I have I have one question for both of

you. Does do you not take any pause that

the president of the United States

called up the Secretary of State in

Georgia and said, "I just need 11,000

votes. Find them for me." Does that

cause you? Yes, I took pause.

>> I think he said 11,000.

>> No, it was 12. He needed 12. He said 12.

>> Okay. Well, does that cause

>> I just said I took pause.

>> Yeah, sure.

>> Okay. Well, I think that's why it's

indicative for us that this is

politically motivated. When he says

something like that, that's just clearly

unjust as a president. And now he's

investigating that exact same

>> within context though, you have to

understand that if we're putting it in

his space, he was thinking that this is

literally trying to get stolen from him.

So, it's not like he was saying

>> he admitted on Lex Freedman he lost the

election. Go look up Lex Freedman and

Donald Trump. He said he lost the

election by a whisker. So even he knows

that this is at that time his own at the

time that he made that call. We don't

know his own. You can't say that when

take that in context when he's saying

the reason he said I lost by a whiskey.

I lost by whiskey. He's saying that from

a suspicious standpoint of thinking I

won and I lost by a small margin. So we

got to find votes. We got to get that's

why he's asking for the votes. He didn't

actually admit the one thing he did not

do.

>> He has I I have to give him credit. if

he believes his own if if he's lying, he

believes his own lies and he sells them

well. He believed that he didn't lose,

which is why he said that. Remember when

he did his MSNBC interview when the

young lady that was interviewing him, I

forget her name.

>> What your point is, he flip-flops on the

issue. Lex Freeden asked him to his

face. He said, "Donald Trump, you're

losing support in independence because

he refused to take the L on the

election. Don't you want to change that

perspective leading up to the 2024?" He

said, "Look, I lost by a whisker. I got

the most votes in history except for Joe

Biden." You can look up the clip right

now.

>> But when he got inaugur Okay. Okay.

Yeah. We great. Trump's a flip flop

because I was going to say when he got

inaugurated the woman from from NBC

interviewed him. Are you now willing now

that you're president are you willing to

concede you lost to? No, I didn't lose.

>> Exactly. It's not just a flip-flop on

like a marginal issue. The integrity of

the United States election.

>> Yeah, but the lost by whisker. You're

taking that statement out of context.

He's not saying that as in I

legitimately lost. His ego is speaking

saying

>> how does the boot taste right now?

>> Did you just call me a boot licker?

>> Yes. You're you're saying the president

of the United States flip-flopping on

election integrity is absolutely

justified, which it is not. It is

absolutely not justified.

>> You know, makes it you got a habit of

saying outlandish [ __ ] What I'm what

I'm saying what I'm saying is that cuz I

don't lick anybody's boots. I mean,

>> you're licking the president right now.

>> [ __ ] What I'm saying is that that

Donald Trump, his ego was speaking when

he made that statement that he lost by a

whisker because he genuinely believed,

narcissistic or not, narcissistic as he

may be, that he won. He didn't

flip-flop. So, I think we all have

interesting thoughts on election

integrity and how that should be

properly enforced by those in authority.

Um, I think that we all agree that the

2020 election was not stolen, but you

all are a little bit more willing to

continue investigations than Parker and

I are because there have already been

audits and there's already been

investigations. Y'all want more of them?

We think that it's been sufficient.

>> No, I don't think I want more. I think

>> Well, you're comfortable with this,

right?

>> Yes. I'll say I'm comfortable with it.

Former CNN anchor turned independent

journalist Don Lemon appeared in federal

court this afternoon to face charges

related to a live streaming report he

did at a protest during a church service

in St. Paul, Minnesota. Here's what he

told reporters afterwards.

Last night, the DOJ sent a team of

federal agents to arrest me in the

middle of the night for something that

I've been doing for the last 30 years,

and that is covering the news. The first

amendment of the constitution protects

that work for me and for countless of

other journalists who do what I do. I

stand with all of them and I will not be

silenced. I look forward to my day in

court.

>> Arresting independent journalist Don

Lemon for covering a church protest

violates the First Amendment right to

free press.

>> 3v1.

>> Yeah, I just wanted to be interesting. I

just wanted to be unique. But no, I mean

sure there might there is an argument

for that. Sure. But to say that he was

just there as an observer, he was uh

giving advice to the protesters on what

to say, what not to say. He was

essentially helping them organize. I

know they keep denying that, but I mean,

we have the footage of him talking to

them and strategizing with all of them

around it. He didn't ask a single tough

question of any of the protesters. So,

if he was there actually covering the

event, you would think that he would, I

don't know, maybe interrogate the

protesters, too, and not just the

pastor. He was there trying to cause a

problem. I mean, the uh the pastor

barely brushed up against him and he

said, "Please don't touch me." And then

literally over the course of the next 10

seconds moved closer to the pastor. So,

he was there under not in good faith

whatsoever. And the only reason I'm

actually mad about this is because this

is probably the best thing that's

happened to Don Lemon's career in the

last 5 years. So, I don't think he

deserves it. He doesn't deserve this

press. You saw him out there looking

like thinking he's like Maya Angelou out

there. Like, I still rise. Like, get

over yourself. this is the best thing

that's happened to him.

>> Look, I'm not a big fan of of Don Lemon.

Um there's a lot that I disagree with

him specifically on like Democratic

strategy and the type of people that he

wholeheartedly endorses. But to like we

can't say that the quality of his

interview skills grants him either press

qualifications or he deserves to get

arrested, which it sounds like your

argument was saying, well, you said he

didn't push the protesters hard enough

or he didn't ask them tough questions or

he was too mean to the pastor. Like

saying that like the quality of his

interview skills or his impartiality

does not determine whether or not

somebody gets first amendment rights.

This should be something that's

guaranteed regardless of what type of

>> but what what he did in that moment kind

of alters the definition between him

being a reporter or him being an he was

there to film the events that happened.

We have literal press

>> investigating the events that happened.

>> Did he clearly establish that he wasn't

a part of the protest while there?

>> Uh I think he may have tried to but

there's also footage of him strategizing

and planning with the same people. So I

don't know. I feel like that's him

trying to cover his ass.

>> Here's the problem with this. Let me

make this abundant clear. I cannot stand

Don Lemon. I do not like Don Lemon. But

the freedom of speech and the first

amendment exists specifically for the

people that I don't like and I can't

stand. It's exactly why the first

amendment exists. I there's nothing

about Don Lemon that I like at all. Um

>> some Christians do.

>> Well,

he's you do know you do know Jesus said

I did not come to bring peace. But no,

I'm telling you, you may be. But the the

God that I worship did not say he came

to bring peace. He literally said, "I

came not to bring peace, but a sword."

Literally, that's what the man said. So,

I worship the carpenter from Nazareth.

I'm going to take his words at face

value. But the fact is, the freedom of

speech exists to protect people that I

can't stand. It's not about whether or

not you agree with somebody. And

unfortunately, I didn't see any footage

of where Don Limon did anything illegal.

So, as much as I don't like him, I I'm

going to quote Peter Griffin from Family

Guy. While I may not agree with what you

say, I'll have to defend to the death

you're right to say it. And that's just

the reality of it. So, I mean, you I

have to stand by Don Limit in this

instance. I think that his First

Amendment rights were unfortunately

violated. I don't like that they were

violated. So, Don, you'll have your day

in court. I actually want to see you

win.

>> Yeah. So, I I guess like my position on

this,

>> you got to be the Don Lemon liker now. I

mean, I I'm I'm not like even very

familiar with Don Lemon. Like, I'm not

like I haven't watched Don Lemon very

much.

>> To be totally honest, I've seen him very

vaguely on the internet. Now, like in

general, my point is that like I just

don't think there's a threshold met here

of like he was violating any of the

First Amendment rights of the people

there. What about the people who were

there specifically who were a part of

it? You could argue that they violated

the Face Act. That's totally like a

legitimate argument. I just don't think

that would extend a Don Lemon. And I

think if I did, it would just literally

eviscerate journalists ability to get

true information out there regardless of

the which side you agree with.

>> Do you know what the DOJ is using as

justification to arrest the organizers

though?

>> What?

>> It's a it's anti KKK stat.

>> Yeah, that's right.

>> I'm sorry. Wait, what?

>> So, if you haven't heard about this,

everyone can look this up at home. on

this.

>> What?

>> You like it?

>> I think it's hilarious. It's a troll.

>> It's It's stupid. Wait a minute. The

federal government is using an anti KKK

statute

>> to arrest.

>> Yes. So So this statute was utilized

specifically because white supremacists

would invade black churches uh in the

south. It wasn't even in Minnesota. And

they're using this as justification to

arrest Don Lemon and the organizers. It

is stupid. It's political theater.

Exactly what you said. I agree with you.

It is a spectacle. It's a troll. That's

what this administration thinks of our

legal code. They are trolling you. They

do not give a [ __ ] about what your

rights are

>> because like to be total I've read the

Face Act like based upon the Face Act,

it does obviously they were interfering

in the scenario. Now, one point I could

bring up that would be like relevant is

uh was their intention specifically to

limit the free expression of a certain

religious belief or was it specifically

to protest a political belief? And

that's also like an important thing that

could be bring up be brought up, but I

don't know if that would legally qualify

whether or not they violated the Face

Act. just like an important thing to

like take into account when we're

considering whether or not they had the

right to protest in that scenario

because obviously we could think of

scenarios where limiting people to

religiously express themselves is

obviously an atrocious thing and a bad

thing and obviously the face act should

apply in that circumstance.

>> But to also be fair too I do want to

make sure that this is out there.

There's from what I read that the pastor

of the church that they were protesting

at was I think an ICE officer also.

>> I think you worked with DHS or border

>> something like that. One of those.

>> So like a political disagreement,

>> right? they had a political disagreement

and now I don't know if there's a

statute that they could charge him where

maybe that was t some form of targeting

something like that a pastor is entitled

to have a job I mean that that I mean

>> and political beliefs

>> and political belief exactly so if there

could be evidence presented that Don

Lemon specifically targeted that church

purely because of the fact that that

pastor also was an ICE agent then I

would say we have a case there but again

within the performance of his duties

it's a very very now that we know the

statute that they're using it's a

horrendously bad statute to to try to

charge somebody with. But again, if they

could prove it, okay, they have a case.

But this is to me fairly cut and dry in

my opinion.

>> Yeah. I I think I was claiming it for

not people like not Don Lemon. I was

claiming it for the other people that

were involved in the protest. And like

also like I think that it's being

overblown on the internet. It's not like

this was a situation where they like

were assaulting people or violating

officers. So I think that it's just

being overblown. And to threaten to

arrest a journalist simply for doing

that, I think in of itself is like very