0:15

Welcome to Big News Wednesday. Welcome

0:17

one and all to,

0:20

in fact, another

0:26

Big News Wednesday with me, John Arulla and

0:28

Sharon Reed. It's going

0:30

great, happy to be here. Glad

0:33

to have you here. You were asking before we

0:35

went live, when's the hair going to be purple? And

0:37

I am still trying to make

0:40

it happen, scheduling wise. I'm working hard at it.

0:42

But look, I'm sure if it

0:44

doesn't happen, people are going to be

0:46

super okay with that, I'm sure, right?

0:48

No, go to Party City, at

0:50

least get the temporary spray or something. No,

0:53

no temporary. I'm trying, like just we had a

0:55

perfect person, but the only place they could do

0:57

is very far away and with a kid, I

0:59

can't drive an hour to do it. It's just,

1:01

I'm working on it though, I'm working on it,

1:04

okay? I'm trying to talk to someone working

1:07

on it. We're going to make it happen. And we're

1:09

going to even a little update on the Draganov-thon in

1:11

just a sec about that. I did want to remind

1:13

people because I totally forgot to mention on

1:15

yesterday's show, we didn't have a

1:17

Monday show, which is normally when we record

1:19

and release our bonus members content. I still

1:22

did some yesterday. So coming out of Memorial

1:24

Day, Marjorie

1:27

Greene had posted an acknowledgement of her

1:30

50th birthday with one of

1:32

her live, laugh, love captions to

1:34

a photo, which was a

1:36

bikini photo of her that I'm sure the

1:38

posting of which had absolutely nothing to do

1:40

with the interaction with Jasmine Crockett and AOC.

1:43

But anyway, I gave my thoughts about

1:45

the way she is sort of

1:47

trying to pick up the pieces from that little

1:49

tiff, and that is now available for the members.

1:51

It's out there, so if you're a member, you

1:53

already have it. Go check the YouTube, and if

1:56

you'd like to become a member, you

1:58

might become a member actually as a result of giving. gifting

2:00

because there has been a lot of gifting going

2:02

on. And we've absolutely

2:04

blown away all the stretch goals. Everybody

2:06

knows that. Let's check in with our

2:08

leaderboard. Dear God,

2:12

first place, you know, Gabby

2:14

Mathis, 650. That is so many. Second

2:17

place, the Poetic Kit

2:22

at 400. Third place, Lady F

2:24

and T at 380. Jeez, all three

2:26

of you. So many, so many

2:28

gifts. Fourth place,

2:30

Joe Gouthière. Thank you, Joe. Fifth place,

2:32

Enbronco at 120. Sixth

2:35

place, Keyday at 101. Thank you. Seventh

2:37

place goes to Anthony McClendon at 100.

2:39

Thank you, Anthony. Eighth

2:41

place, Witte and Dragon at 81. Thank you.

2:43

Ninth place, Jen Welch at 78. Thank

2:46

you so much. And in tenth

2:48

place, still, Moon Dragon at 55.

2:51

As always, much appreciated. Thank you.

2:53

We're working on the hair. It's

2:56

gonna happen, okay? Don't worry about

2:58

it. We're gonna make it happen.

3:00

And you're gonna hate it. But that, I

3:03

leave to you, okay? I have a long

3:05

history of regretting decisions I've made. You're all

3:07

about to experience the same thing. So

3:10

anyway, with that said, you

3:12

ready to do this thing? Born

3:14

ready. Yes, I'm ready. Ready. I'm glad you're

3:16

born ready. You know what we're ready for

3:19

in addition to the news? Apparently, we can

3:21

once again reward comments, super chats, tweets with

3:23

Blue Apron gift cards. So get

3:26

those in and we'll announce one for today. But

3:28

with that said, let's jump into the

3:30

big story, the big development of the day.

3:33

Yesterday, both the defense and the prosecution in

3:35

Donald Trump's New York Hashimani trial made their

3:37

closing arguments. And with that,

3:39

and with the instructions to the jury by

3:41

the judge this morning, we are now in

3:44

the critical period. The

3:46

period that will determine once and

3:48

for all minus appeals. What's

3:51

gonna happen with this whole thing? The jury

3:53

is now deliberating. They've got the evidence. They've

3:55

got time. Maybe a little bit of

3:57

it. Maybe a ton of it. We don't

3:59

know. They could come out with

4:01

a decision literally any minute or sometime

4:04

two weeks from now, we don't know.

4:07

But we did think that while we're waiting

4:09

for the decision to come back, let's talk

4:11

a little bit about some of the blow

4:13

ups that immediately preceded this critical juncture. And

4:16

I think the best example of this from yesterday's

4:18

closing arguments has to do with Donald Trump's lawyer

4:21

getting yelled at by the judge. So

4:23

it started when Todd Blanche, Trump's lawyer, the

4:25

one presenting the defense's case in the closing

4:27

arguments, reportedly made a request to

4:29

the jury to quote, not send his clients

4:32

to prison. Which sounds

4:34

to a layman normal enough,

4:36

but apparently you're not supposed to do

4:38

that, okay? So before he concluded, he

4:40

asked the jurors to not send his client to prison.

4:43

Now with the jury excused Joshua Steinglass, the

4:45

prosecutor who will give his side's closing arguments,

4:48

that was before the prosecution stands up and

4:50

says that was a blatant and wholly inappropriate

4:52

effort to call sympathy for their

4:54

client. And apparently the judge was even

4:56

more angry than the lawyer for the

4:58

prosecution and reminded Blanche, now for the

5:00

first time, that he was a prosecutor.

5:02

He'd been one for a long time

5:04

and he should know that that statement is

5:07

out of bounds, saying, I think

5:09

that was outrageous, Mr. Blanche. Someone has been

5:11

a prosecutor as long as you should know.

5:13

It's hard for me to imagine how that

5:16

was accidental in any way. Making

5:18

a comment like that is highly inappropriate.

5:20

It is simply not allowed, period. It's

5:22

hard for me to imagine how that

5:24

was accidental. And so one

5:26

of the reasons that they're not supposed to say

5:28

things like that is that

5:30

the jury is not supposed

5:32

to consider the punishment

5:35

in this. So that is going to be up

5:37

to the judge in the end. They're supposed

5:40

to determine whether Trump is guilty. They've

5:42

heard the arguments, they have the evidence,

5:44

they've been instructed by the judge on

5:46

how to interpret those things, how

5:48

to determine if someone is guilty or not. But

5:50

that's it. They're not supposed to be

5:53

like, well, I really think he did it, but

5:55

prison, that doesn't seem right. That is exactly the

5:57

sort of thinking that's not supposed to happen. So

5:59

I get why the judge would be so mad,

6:02

I get why the prosecution would be really mad.

6:05

The issue here is, you

6:07

can tell the jury to like forget that

6:09

he said that, but he said it

6:11

and they heard it. And maybe

6:13

some of them will feel sympathy

6:16

for Donald Trump. I mean, I think that

6:18

he's done a lot of work over the

6:20

years to make himself seeming unqualified for sympathy,

6:22

but there could be some people

6:24

whose hearts are really big. Sharon, what do

6:27

you think? This was

6:29

the guy who was mumbling and cursing under his

6:31

breath once trial got underway. He

6:33

hasn't done the work to earn some kind

6:35

of, I don't know, isn't it called jury

6:37

nullification or something, where they just say a

6:39

decent person will let them off. It's not

6:41

going to happen and absolutely it

6:43

was on purpose, okay, Mr.

6:46

Blanche, Trump's attorney. But I was

6:48

listening to some of the coverage

6:50

since for some reason New

6:52

York is still preventing us from seeing

6:54

this historic trial. And they

6:56

talked about how when Trump's attorney sat down

6:58

after what, almost three hours of talking,

7:02

Trump was looking that way, his attorney sitting right next to

7:04

him was looking that way, and

7:06

there was no interaction. So

7:10

Donald's not happy. No,

7:13

you want to get, like as a lawyer, you want

7:15

to get the clap on the back or something or

7:17

like, good job, his stupid thumbs thing. But apparently he

7:20

didn't like it, and I guess he shouldn't look.

7:23

I cannot directly really evaluate

7:25

the strength of the defense's

7:27

closing arguments. I'm not an

7:29

expert on this. I haven't seen enough, I

7:31

haven't absorbed enough. But from what

7:33

I have heard from people who do follow this sort

7:35

of thing,

7:37

it wasn't great. It could work, but

7:40

it wasn't great. It really seemed to rest

7:42

on a couple of claims that I

7:44

think just, I don't think most people are

7:46

going to buy unless they're already in the tank, in which

7:48

case there's no point in even discussing this, he's

7:51

going to get off. Saying Donald Trump

7:53

doesn't pay attention to the checks he

7:55

signs, the dude constantly says that he

7:57

does, it's going to be very hard to convince people.

8:00

He's just not paying attention or whatever. Trying

8:03

to imply that he wouldn't have been involved

8:05

in this, there's so many examples of him

8:08

being involved. It's not a claim that I

8:10

think anyone is going to buy. The claim

8:12

they make that theoretically people could buy is

8:14

Michael Cohen is a big

8:16

fat liar. You shouldn't listen to

8:19

him. And because the prostitution of

8:21

the case entirely rests on what Michael Cohen

8:23

has said, then you gotta quit him. Now,

8:25

I don't think that their

8:27

case does entirely rest on what Michael Cohen

8:29

has said. But it's possible

8:31

that someone could buy that. And they

8:33

could buy that Michael Cohen is a liar because

8:35

he is a liar. It doesn't mean that he's

8:38

lying about this, but he's definitely a liar. I

8:41

don't know. I don't know. There were

8:43

a couple of instances in which I

8:45

think the defenses attempts to sway people

8:48

on certain pieces of evidence fail. There

8:51

was assertions by Michael Cohen about a phone call that

8:53

he had had with Trump that make clear that Trump

8:55

knew what was going on. And they were like, the

8:57

call is too short. You couldn't have actually done that.

9:00

So the prosecution did something very clever where

9:02

the lawyer, I believe it was sign glass.

9:05

He ran a timer on his phone

9:07

and he acted out the conversation that

9:09

is purported to have happened at

9:11

a totally normal pace. And he

9:13

wasn't even halfway through the actual length of that phone

9:16

call when he was done with it. I thought that

9:18

was very clever. I like the theatrics of it. But

9:20

a lot of this could, it could come down to,

9:22

do you think Michael Cohen's a big

9:24

liar? And do you just love Donald

9:26

Trump and want to get him off? And it is

9:29

possible that one of those dozen people could

9:31

believe one or both of those things,

9:33

Sharon. Sharon You know, I mean, anything is possible.

9:35

I do think perhaps

9:38

the judge's very instructions may have given

9:41

from his biggest opportunity, if you will,

9:43

to walk out of that courtroom. It's

9:45

so cold when the judge informed them

9:47

that you can't base any

9:50

conviction solely on Michael

9:53

Cohen has to have corroborating evidence. But

9:55

there's plenty of that. The other thing

9:57

that his lawyers didn't do according to.

10:00

the reporting was addressed things like, I

10:02

call it the confession note where his

10:04

CEO is writing, and

10:07

then we're going to carry the one and we'll

10:09

gross up Michael Cohen's payoff. I mean, they just

10:12

didn't need to address it. And how can you

10:14

do that? And the fact that they said

10:16

sex with Stormy didn't happen, I don't know why you're

10:18

saying that. Why are you still saying that? Mm-hm,

10:21

nobody buys that. Nobody buys that. I mean,

10:23

there's like now, not that

10:25

you need it, but there's a

10:27

contemporaneous like golfer that golfed with

10:29

him that apparently since 2006 has been saying

10:32

that Trump bragged about that. Like,

10:34

again, nobody actually believes it didn't

10:36

happen. Everybody knows, some people are

10:38

lying, but everybody knows that it

10:41

happened. But

11:00

I wanna turn, now you talked about Trump leaving the courts,

11:02

I wanna turn to that right now and

11:04

how he might have reacted to the defense. How

11:07

is Donald Trump feeling as the jury begins

11:09

their deliberations? Well, he's feeling a lot of

11:11

things. So right after the judge

11:14

finished giving instructions to the jury, Trump finally

11:16

gets to leave the courtroom. He can't leave

11:18

the courthouse. I guess he's

11:21

still stuck there potentially for weeks. But

11:23

he doesn't have to be in the

11:25

courtroom. And normally, what he would do

11:27

is he would talk to

11:29

the reporters for quite a while. We had

11:31

a little bit of that. Earlier, as he was

11:34

going in, he totally just bought, he didn't take

11:36

the opportunity, which he normally would. But

11:38

he told the reporters there, Mother

11:41

Teresa couldn't beat the charges.

11:44

Well, first of all, Mother Teresa has

11:46

not been accused of this. She's been

11:49

accused of some things, do some Googling.

11:51

But there are so many things that

11:53

I think we have been, I don't

11:55

even wanna say fair in acknowledging, just

11:58

rational in acknowledging. There are a

12:00

lot of things that theoretically could lead to

12:02

him not being found guilty or if

12:04

even that he's found guilty that he won't go

12:06

to prison. I think I would say it's probably

12:08

a 60 to 80% chance

12:11

that he doesn't even found guilty necessarily

12:14

let alone goes to prison. So

12:16

I don't know if this is an honest

12:18

representation of how pessimistic he feels right now,

12:21

or if this is a continued effort to just

12:24

fire up his base, I don't know. He

12:26

followed up the Mother Teresa thing by calling

12:29

the judge again corrupt and conflicted. He complains

12:32

that he would love to

12:34

prove how the judge is corrupted, conflicted,

12:36

but he can't because of the

12:38

gag order, which I think is hilarious.

12:40

Because the gag order not only wouldn't

12:44

stop you from demonstrating evidence of corruption,

12:46

that's not what it's about at all.

12:48

The gag order also doesn't protect the

12:50

judge. Trump can talk about

12:52

the judge literally all he wants. Does

12:54

he think that we don't know what the

12:57

gag order does? Can't

12:59

testify gag order, okay? Would it

13:02

let, who can't prove he's corrupt

13:04

and conflicted gag order? Sorry,

13:07

Eric, can't talk on the phone gag

13:09

order. It doesn't actually stop those things,

13:11

you just want it to. But

13:13

I want to give you a little bit more

13:15

feeling. I'm not even going to read the whole

13:17

things, but his social media activity has been deranged

13:19

even for him. He's

13:21

talking about I didn't have a

13:24

fixer, I had a lawyer.

13:27

Okay, he's saying the gag order's

13:30

unconstitutional. I don't know who he thinks that's

13:32

going to convince. His

13:35

most recent thing, if you haven't been following

13:37

his appearances in the media, is

13:39

that he was not allowed to use

13:41

the defense of counsel defense, I guess,

13:43

which I'm not even sure how that would be a

13:46

defense in this case. Since he's asserting

13:48

that none of this happened, he wasn't aware of it. I

13:50

don't know how it could be a product of the defense

13:52

of counsel, or like, well, whatever.

13:55

But more importantly, they could

13:57

have used it. They declined to use it.

14:00

didn't want to use it. It

14:02

has nothing to do with the gag order, it has

14:04

nothing to do with the judge.

14:06

That was the decision of your legal

14:08

team. He also says he was complaining

14:11

about the fact that they filibustered for

14:13

five hours. He said it was

14:15

boring as it was going on. It

14:18

was a filibuster. It was

14:20

five hours of bullsh. And

14:23

look, I get that it's Trump. I get that I

14:25

should know that. Can you

14:27

imagine if Obama had faced charges

14:29

and he is just whining. Bullsh,

14:31

filibuster, boring. Have some dignity in

14:34

your final moments. You don't have

14:36

that many more years and you

14:38

haven't lived with any dignity. Could

14:40

you fit in a little bit

14:42

before the end? Maybe some people

14:44

will falsely remember you actually being

14:46

that way if you were to

14:48

do that. What do you think, Sharon?

14:51

Yeah, he doesn't have any and he's not

14:53

going to do that. And to think that

14:55

even when his children were there during the

14:58

closing arguments, Nati Vanka,

15:00

of course, his favorite

15:02

daughter-in-law. Where's Kimberly Guilford, by

15:04

the way? I haven't seen her in

15:06

a long time. Maybe she's not permitted

15:08

to sit with the family anymore. But

15:11

this is who he is. He was closing his

15:13

eyes. He was glaring at the judge again. They said

15:15

he had his head cocked

15:18

back and just kind of lazily like

15:20

that. Anything he could do to show

15:22

disrespect. He did also complaining

15:24

that, why did they get five

15:27

hours? It's unfair. There

15:30

was no time limit. Yeah. People were upset

15:32

about it. They said, why didn't the judge impose

15:34

a time limit on both sides? That's

15:36

all. There's nothing more that your lawyer could have said.

15:39

It's over. That's a wrap. And seen.

15:42

Okay, that's done. Isler

15:45

could have talked for two more hours. What

15:48

were they going to say? They

15:50

brought two witnesses. There was really

15:52

no case. Their case was Michael

15:54

Cohen's a liar. That's

15:56

what they have. I'm shocked it took him

15:58

three hours to say that. So

16:00

again, Trump is just like this

16:03

isn't the Trump derangement syndrome thing

16:05

to point out that Trump either

16:07

doesn't understand anything about

16:09

this trial, about his own

16:12

defense, about how trials work, or

16:15

he's just lying. And again, it

16:17

doesn't really matter to me, I already think he's a liar

16:19

and I think he's a moron. I don't care which it

16:21

is. But if you're a

16:23

MAGA person, there's no good out from

16:25

this. Why is he so

16:27

stupid and why does it bother you? But

16:49

anyway, I

16:52

think we both agree he's probably not gonna go to

16:54

prison, that's how we feel. No,

16:57

and he's not gonna pay enough and find,

16:59

I mean, I mean, find is irrelevant.

17:01

It's ridiculous. It was $100 million a

17:03

matter. Yeah, exactly. So,

17:06

but that doesn't mean that Fox isn't worried

17:08

about it. Fox and friends actually spent like

17:10

a solid five minutes talking about what would

17:12

happen if Trump gets hauled off to jail,

17:14

which again seems super unlikely. We wanna go

17:17

to a little bit of their discussion. Even

17:19

if you say he is guilty, let's say

17:21

you're that one in a million person that

17:23

says that the prosecution came up with

17:25

a crime. Even though there's no evidence. Even though there's

17:27

no evidence, but let's roll with it for a second.

17:30

You got people that are carjacking

17:33

people in this city, pushing people in

17:35

the subway, and

17:38

they're back on the street. So

17:40

how can you justify putting the

17:42

former president in prison for

17:44

40 years when you have a city that is in

17:46

utter chaos? So

17:49

look, they probably won't. This

17:51

is Lawrence Jones. Let me reassure you,

17:53

Lawrence Jones, they're probably not gonna do

17:56

that. I know that you think

17:58

that we're all a crazy liberal. lock

18:00

him up here. No, we don't

18:02

think that that's going to happen actually.

18:05

And I can make that case without

18:07

having to go scorched earth on the

18:10

concept of New York, a place

18:12

where you work and maybe live

18:14

but seem to despise as a

18:17

term of your contract with Fox News. You

18:19

have to despise the place you've

18:21

chosen to live. She's

18:25

probably not going to go. I

18:27

don't think that it's likely. I think that

18:29

even if in the end, he was sentenced,

18:31

there would be appeals and all of that.

18:33

It's just it's unlikely to happen. And

18:36

Trump's crimes have nothing to do with other

18:38

crimes. And I know if they had done

18:40

what Trump said he was going to do and they

18:44

all wanted him to do, which was to lock up

18:46

Hillary Clinton, would they

18:48

be talking about the subway muggers and

18:50

all that and like, you can't lock

18:52

up Hillary Clinton, there's people

18:54

who peed on the subway. It

18:57

is just, why are we cursed

18:59

in this way Sharon, where we have to

19:02

be fair and level headed. But these

19:04

people who are in fancy studios

19:06

being paid millions of dollars

19:08

can just play act their way through

19:10

all of this. Saying things, I'm

19:13

not even criticizing Lauren Jones here. I think it

19:15

was probably McEnany or whoever it was next to

19:17

him said, with

19:19

no evidence by the way. Yeah, there's no

19:21

evidence. It does. We can't let five seconds

19:23

go by without saying there's no evidence. They

19:25

paid her, she got the money. He

19:27

was reimbursed. Trump signed the

19:30

checks. They logged

19:32

them as legal expenses. You can say

19:34

that that's not compelling evidence or you

19:36

can say that that doesn't prove intent

19:38

or you can say that he's

19:40

so deranged that he just signs checks for

19:42

hundreds of thousands without knowing what they are.

19:44

You can say those things and I'm offering

19:46

that up because again, I have this

19:49

curse of being fair. You can't say

19:51

it's not evidence, okay? Well,

19:53

all the contextual evidence that they had

19:55

the affair. You don't have

19:57

to like the evidence for it to be. evidence

20:00

but again these are fully grown millionaires

20:02

who just openly lie to the people

20:05

who found themselves in the unfortunate position

20:07

of trusting what they say. Yeah,

20:10

don't forget Hope Hicks, the beautiful

20:13

Hope Hicks. More

20:15

evidence. She was so sad but

20:17

she even said he's a liar, he lied

20:19

to me and she

20:21

said it, David Pecker, his friend.

20:24

And by the way, the characters on Fox

20:26

News aren't the only ones who are, you know,

20:29

upping themselves through life. I mean, there were people

20:31

on the street yelling at Robert De Niro. So

20:33

I mean, that was, I

20:35

would have picked the venue or set

20:37

up microphones there, but he did and,

20:40

you know, all they did was shout

20:42

insults and he gave

20:45

it right back in the New York way. But this

20:47

is just the world we're living in. And if someone

20:49

wants to say make it stop, I can tell you

20:51

it's not gonna stop. It's not

20:53

gonna stop. So you can keep being fair. Remember

20:55

De Niro said the Democrats, they're trying to be

20:58

decent or gentlemanly

21:00

or something, I forget, but it was something

21:02

along those lines. Yeah,

21:04

look, I don't know if I'm a gentleman,

21:06

but I do try to be fair and

21:08

I don't know why. I guess I was

21:11

raised wrong. I don't know,

21:13

like clearly they're doing better economically. They

21:15

have big audiences. I guess you should

21:17

just lie to people like when you

21:19

spit in their face rhetorically. That's what

21:22

they want. Now,

21:25

let's be fair again by acknowledging that

21:28

while Trump loves to throw around claims

21:30

of judges being conflicted when they're, you

21:32

know, I guess, allowing a case to

21:34

go forward against him. Oddly

21:37

silent about other judges, Eileen

21:39

Cannon, the Trump appointed judge,

21:42

of course, overseeing his classified

21:44

documents theft case, has

21:46

now denied Jack Smith's attempt to put a

21:49

gag order on Donald Trump,

21:51

okay? But that wasn't enough.

21:53

It actually goes farther than that. So

21:55

in this case, the decision was made solely

21:57

on the procedural grounds that prosecutors working for

21:59

the special counsel had failed to properly

22:01

inform Mr. Trump's lawyers before making their

22:03

request. Trump's lawyers filed a counter motion

22:05

seeking to have the prosecutors request stricken

22:08

from the record and have sanctions imposed

22:10

on Mr. Smith and his deputies for

22:12

failing to follow the procedure. The judge

22:14

denied them as well. Hey, look, we're

22:17

acknowledging that the judge is being fair

22:20

in that respect. But

22:22

like she accused them of

22:24

being impolite to the Trump

22:26

lawyers. She says the court finds

22:28

the special counsels pro forma conferral to be

22:31

wholly lacking in substance and professional

22:33

courtesy. It should go without

22:35

saying that meaningful conferral is

22:37

not a perfunctory exercise. Sufficient time needs

22:40

to be afforded to permit reasonable evaluation

22:42

of the requested relief by opposing counsels

22:44

and to allow for adequate follow up

22:48

discussion is necessary about the specific factual legal

22:50

basis underline motion. Do you know why that

22:52

sentence reads the way it does? She could

22:54

have just written, you were supposed to tell

22:57

them first and you didn't. Instead, she thesaurus

22:59

a whole bunch of stuff and made it

23:01

1000 words long. You know why? To

23:04

make the whole process take longer.

23:07

This is how you drag something out for

23:09

literally months. And look,

23:11

is she wrong in this case? I don't

23:13

know. And honestly, I don't even care about

23:16

gag orders anymore. I just want

23:18

the case to go forward. But

23:20

regardless, if you're a Trump fan, this

23:22

is him once again getting what he

23:24

wants. From Eileen Cannon.

23:26

This is a judge who was

23:28

literally put on the bench by him, giving

23:31

him what he wants, delaying the trial for months

23:33

and months. I have not

23:35

seen one indication that she's conflicted from Trump,

23:38

from Fox News. They don't even talk about this. Because

23:41

even like, you

23:43

might want as Fox News to cover this,

23:46

because then it's good news about Trump and the

23:48

base like that, right? Except that

23:50

it also presents an image of the

23:53

justice department or the justice system, I

23:55

should say, as not being wholly against

23:57

Donald Trump. So there's no incentive to

23:59

acknowledge. that there's a judge who's totally

24:01

in the bag for Donald Trump and giving

24:03

him effectively everything he wants. And again, don't

24:05

even care about the gag order. But

24:07

this thing with the gag order

24:10

allowed her to drag it out even more weeks.

24:12

And we are no closer to actually having the

24:14

case. What do you think? Yeah,

24:17

it's really silly to even talk about gag

24:19

orders, particularly if you violate them and nothing's

24:21

really gonna happen or the fine is not

24:23

gonna hurt you. Alien canon,

24:25

judge canon understood the assignment, so

24:27

to speak more than perhaps any other jurist,

24:30

she understood the assignment. I don't even

24:32

think she wrote that opinion

24:34

to extend the case cuz I don't even think

24:36

she wrote it. I actually

24:39

believe that Trump's legal

24:41

team passed their notes

24:43

and she just lifted the copy, put

24:45

it down and then said here's my

24:47

opinion. Because it reads as if one

24:49

of his advocates had to

24:52

have written it and it's not

24:54

the first time. Yeah, yes,

24:56

it's hardly possible. If

24:59

I were to take like, you're supposed

25:01

to tell them first and you didn't, so

25:03

I'm denying it. And if

25:05

I asked chat GPT, make this

25:07

sound lawyer-y, I wonder if

25:09

it would spit up exactly that. Someone check

25:12

her computer, okay, her search history. Anyway,

25:15

with that said, we're gonna take a short break. When we

25:17

come back, we're gonna turn from the legal stuff to some

25:20

of the takes on the consequences, the stakes in this

25:22

election after this. At

25:53

the least, that's just not a patriotic thing to

25:55

say. I don't believe that. He absolutely said that.

26:01

We should suspend the Constitution to overthrow the results

26:03

of election. He said it on Truth Social, then

26:05

said he didn't say it. So I read Project

26:08

25. I'm one of those guys that's like, I

26:12

don't know if he would necessarily leave.

26:16

Yeah, I think those are very, very understandable

26:19

concerns to have. And he not

26:21

only said he has these concerns,

26:23

he cited evidence for these concerns.

26:25

And I'm sure you like me,

26:27

we're just waiting for Gutfeld to look it

26:29

up. That's gonna be a

26:31

game changer. Actually, I'll save him some

26:33

time cuz I know he's not gonna

26:35

do that. Charlemagne appears to be referencing

26:38

this tweet that Donald Trump had sent

26:40

out. So with the decept, revelation of

26:42

massive and widespread fraud and deception in

26:44

the blah, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,

26:46

blah, blah, blah, blah, a massive fraud

26:48

of this type and magnitude allows for

26:51

the termination of all rules, regulations and

26:53

articles, even those found in

26:55

the Constitution. A great founders, which he

26:57

put in quotation marks, so I guess

27:00

he doubts that they were the founders, seems

27:02

unpatriotic, did not want and would

27:05

not condone false and fraudulent elections.

27:08

So he said termination of all rules, regulations

27:10

and articles, even those found

27:12

in the Constitution. That

27:14

was super clear. That was actually

27:16

after the 2022 midterm elections that

27:18

he said that. It was less

27:20

than two years ago that he said,

27:23

no, just if they steal the

27:25

election, which I'm gonna determine based on whether

27:27

I lost or not, the rules don't count,

27:29

the laws don't count, the articles don't count,

27:31

even the Constitution. Now I know that if

27:33

Greg Gutfeld actually sees that, it's not gonna

27:35

have any effect on anything because Greg Gutfeld

27:37

is not a thinking human. He is not

27:40

coming to all of this with anything within

27:42

a country mile of an open mind. He

27:44

doesn't care. He's perfectly happy with the Constitution

27:46

being suspended. He just wants to sit in

27:48

the stands and make jokes about it or

27:50

whatever. But I think that Charlemagne has very

27:53

real fears. I know he

27:56

had a really rough reception by the

27:58

ladies of the view for not being

28:00

sufficient. efficiently supportive of Joe Biden or

28:02

whatever. But don't let that make you

28:04

think that he's like a fan of

28:06

Trump. He's incredibly clear. He

28:08

liked the DeNiro appearance that most people I

28:10

think are pretty critical of. And

28:13

so I think it was a great appearance. I

28:15

don't know if it's gonna get through to any

28:17

of Greg Gutfeld's audience, Sharon, but what do you

28:19

think? Well, he was booked

28:21

by accident. Even the bookers on Fox

28:23

News underestimate a black man. They figured

28:26

because he does not like Joe Biden,

28:28

that we can have him on. And they didn't even dig

28:30

deeper into the complexities that he's

28:33

raised, the truth that he's spoken.

28:35

So as you said, the examples

28:37

that Charlemagne cited. So I

28:40

think it was like a surprise attack. I don't know when

28:42

they'll have him back or they'll be ready to cut his

28:44

mic. And I don't know that it'll

28:47

get through to some of the Fox people.

28:49

I think some of their audience probably wrote

28:51

in or thought on through social and said,

28:53

why have this guy on? Okay. And

28:55

Greg Gutfeld note, it was in the

28:57

news cycle for all of 15 minutes,

29:00

which is an eternity. Of course, Trump

29:02

said he wanted to suspend the Constitution.

29:04

I mean, that's what he said. So

29:07

I don't know what somebody, they're

29:10

always forgetting. They're always forgetting these

29:12

landmark that their dear leader does.

29:15

Yeah, but again, it's like you

29:17

could print it out. You could shove it in their face.

29:19

They're not gonna care. Remember, that was not the only piece

29:21

of evidence that Charlemagne brought up. He tried to

29:23

overthrow the results of the election. He just did. He did with

29:26

a legal scheme with aid of the senators and

29:28

with a violent mob. He tried

29:30

to do that. It's really, it is

29:33

frustrating when there is

29:35

evidence that something could happen and

29:37

you warn people about it and they

29:40

don't pay attention or they don't care. That

29:42

is frustrating. But that's got nothing

29:44

on when the thing already happened

29:47

and nobody cares. You can

29:49

point to that thing that happened when

29:51

he did that thing and nobody cares.

29:53

That is very frustrating. And

29:55

look, he's being very clear about what he wants to do

29:57

in the future again. I'm gonna be a dictator for one.

30:00

one day, which he has said now repeatedly,

30:02

Sean Hannity tried to give an out, he didn't

30:05

take it. He loves the idea of being a

30:07

dictator, he loves dictators in general. 74%

30:10

of Republicans say that he should be a

30:12

dictator, at least for a day. So why

30:14

wouldn't he? There's no downside to doing it.

30:17

And he's got people like Steve Bannon that are

30:19

saying again, referencing the Project 2025 that again,

30:22

Charlemagne mentioned. Yeah, I agree,

30:24

maybe they underestimated him, it's

30:26

possible they'd want him anyway just because

30:29

he's famous, he draws a lot of attention. But

30:31

yeah, they probably saw him on the view and

30:33

they were like this guy's critical of Biden. I

30:36

had a similar sort of thing happen on a

30:38

much lower scale, where I was very critical obviously

30:40

of Hillary Clinton during the 2016 primary. And

30:44

Tommy Lauren brought me on to her show to

30:46

talk about that, and I criticized

30:48

Hillary Clinton. And then

30:50

I tore Trump apart because there's

30:52

this weird thing where you're only

30:54

supposed to dislike or criticize one

30:56

side. And I get why she

30:58

was blindside by that, because it's

31:00

a thing where especially people

31:02

who used to be leftists and

31:05

are critical rightly of the Democrats decide

31:07

that, well now if I muddy the

31:09

waters by criticizing the Republicans, it's not

31:11

a pure brand. I'm not interested in

31:14

that stuff. And so Charlemagne is not

31:16

interested in that stuff. He's a thinking

31:18

human being who can have complex, nuanced

31:20

thoughts about things, multiple things that

31:23

don't all have to point in the same direction.

31:26

But anyway, I want to turn back to the De Niro

31:28

side of it. Gufheld was

31:30

not the only one who during that appearance

31:32

was Charlemagne, referencing Robert De Niro being outside

31:34

of the Trump trial. It was also brought

31:37

up yesterday in Fox on Outnumbered, take a

31:39

look. Remember, Biden promised that

31:41

in his campaigning where he said it'll

31:43

be the adult in the room, he's

31:45

shown anything but and to me this

31:47

absolutely displays not only a panic, but

31:49

it's sort of devolving of any type

31:51

of class, right? And you contrast them

31:53

trotting out De Niro, whose speech by

31:56

the way, whose comments were radically outdated?

31:59

exactly, I do think that Robert

32:01

De Niro appearing outside of the

32:04

trial shows a loss of class.

32:06

I think our politics has always

32:08

been defined by class and Campanio

32:10

there. Obviously, she appreciates class in

32:12

her politicians, which is why she

32:15

supports Donald Trump, who has been

32:17

exposed to the person who non-consensually

32:19

raw dogs, Stormy Daniels. Class, really,

32:21

class, Florida ceiling, okay?

32:24

And De Niro is taking down that

32:26

level of class. We're gonna play a little

32:28

bit of De Niro so that we can see that on

32:31

display. A

33:00

person like

33:03

Trump who

33:06

will eventually run

33:08

the country, that does not work and

33:11

we all know that. So

33:14

look, I don't necessarily think that they should have

33:16

sent Robert De Niro or Robert De Niro should

33:18

have gone and had this appearance. I don't think

33:20

it's necessarily necessary, but I don't

33:22

think that anything he's saying there is deranged

33:24

or out of bounds or offensive

33:27

or whatever. You are at least

33:29

as of today still allowed to

33:32

criticize public figures. I'm sorry, Emily

33:34

Campanio if he was being politically

33:37

incorrect by criticizing Donald Trump. But

33:40

anyway, as we're gonna get to,

33:42

she has a lot of issue with

33:44

the way the Biden camp is communicating around

33:46

this. It's incredibly disingenuous. Take a look at

33:48

this. So when

33:51

he's talking about the violence under Trump, we

33:53

didn't know what he was talking about because

33:55

we personally have experienced a spike in violence

33:57

during Biden's administration, not Trump. He

33:59

was bringing up some violent imagery of the blood

34:01

on his hand, he's never taken a punch.

34:03

That is so outdated and it really, I

34:06

think, gives everyone a poor taste in their

34:08

mouth right now when so many families are

34:10

dealing with the violence of drug overdoses, drug

34:12

poisonings, the violence on the streets and all

34:15

of these den led cities under Biden's watch.

34:17

So for them to pretend to be more

34:19

graceful and better than us at all times,

34:21

and then sort of come out with this

34:24

January 6th also nonsense. While President Trump is

34:26

the one that sticks to exactly what Americans

34:28

want to hear about, because that's what

34:30

they're feeling. He's not saying disregard what you're feeling,

34:33

I'm gonna tell you what to feel and think.

34:35

He says, yes, we are all feeling this right

34:37

now, taking advantage of every moment. Yeah,

34:40

and she's very consistent on that. Robert

34:43

De Niro obviously should be held to

34:45

the same standard as the President of

34:47

the United States or the potential next

34:49

President of the United States. And that's

34:51

why Campania went on ad nauseam day

34:53

after day saying that Trump's, they're poisoning

34:55

the blood of the nation talk was

34:57

classless. We don't need that sort of

34:59

thing. Let's just talk about the substance

35:01

and everything. It was obviously ridiculous. It's

35:04

not even consistent with their own narrative, okay?

35:06

I know she wants to say that the

35:08

violence that comes out of the pandemic or

35:11

whatever, which is already abating and we can

35:13

go to those stats if you want. That

35:15

according to not only the FBI, but also

35:17

CDC information, a variety of different state level

35:19

metrics crime is significantly down over the last

35:22

year. As you would expect it to be

35:24

since the structural issues that

35:26

were causing it have started to abate.

35:29

But they were talking in 2020 about all the

35:31

chaos, the cities on fire and all that. No,

35:33

of course that wasn't Trump's fault, but it was

35:35

still happening. Now, forget all that. Forget

35:38

the insurrection and all of that

35:40

violence. People literally died. Again, none

35:43

of what actually happened matters. The

35:46

things that Robert De Niro says

35:48

matter. That's how we should prioritize

35:50

things in politics, Sharon. What do

35:52

you think? Sharon Youn I

35:54

think she's gotta either get some better

35:56

glasses or just close her eyes completely

35:58

and go to sleep. We

36:00

all know what's going on and well, maybe

36:02

she doesn't. I mean, when I think of

36:05

violence and chaos, I think of that handy

36:07

interview, I think we had it right here

36:09

where you saw Curtis Silva's guys in the

36:11

background causing chaos and beating up perhaps

36:14

an innocent man. So this

36:16

whole thing where there's this equivalency

36:18

Robert DeNiro Trump who goes outside the

36:21

microphone every day and he talks about

36:23

how the judges corrupt and everyone's corrupt

36:25

and crooked Joe Biden and Hunter and

36:27

everything else. And then

36:29

Robert DeNiro shows up, they deliver

36:31

the lines perfectly. No, they think we should

36:33

have recorded it, put it on one of

36:35

those big LED screens on the side of the building. I

36:38

mean, if you really want to do something and then

36:40

loop it, you know, like they do in the subways

36:42

with the gas station pumps nowadays, that probably would have

36:44

had a better message. But yeah, was

36:46

it the worst thing? No. No,

36:49

no, 100%. And if

36:51

you have a problem with it, say that it's

36:53

a distraction or say or whatever. Yeah,

36:56

classless, seriously, it's

36:58

Donald freaking Trump, the golden

37:00

toilet guy. Don't give us

37:02

lessons on class. Anyway,

37:05

we're going to take our second break of

37:07

the show. When we come back, we're talking

37:09

about corruption, some of the promises that are being

37:12

made in advance of election day. Don't go anywhere,

37:15

we'll be right back. Okay, one and all, let's

37:17

jump into a story near and dear

37:20

to my heart. So let's go

37:22

ahead and jump right into

37:24

the next one. So let's go ahead

37:26

and give that

37:28

story to my heart, to my heart. If you care

37:30

about corruption, it's probably time to start paying attention, because

37:33

recently we showed you one of the most obvious quid

37:35

proquos, I think, in American politics. People

37:37

throw that sort of phrase around a lot. But

37:40

I think this one, there's a case to be

37:42

made when Donald Trump talked to a group of

37:44

oil and gas executives and told

37:46

them that if they give him a

37:48

billion dollars to win the campaign, he'll

37:50

give them far more in

37:52

tax breaks, protection from regulation, active deregulation,

37:54

and all that. But the big story

37:57

drew a lot of attention shockingly

37:59

and a very good- glad that it did. But

38:01

it turns out that was part

38:03

of a pattern actually that has been developing over

38:05

time and has in fact even been getting worse.

38:08

According to great reporting in the Washington

38:10

Post by Josh Dawsey, Trump has been

38:12

doing this sort of thing unstintily on

38:15

the campaign trail. And if you're

38:17

an oil and gas executive, don't think

38:19

that you're special, okay? He may smile at you

38:21

or whatever, but he ain't thinking about you the

38:23

next day. No, he's going to other wealthy people

38:25

and getting them to give him huge sums of

38:28

money on other topics. One

38:30

of the big ones being tax

38:32

cuts. So he says the tax

38:34

cuts all expire for wealthy and

38:36

poor and middle income and everything else. But

38:38

they expired another seven months and he's not

38:41

going to renew them, which means taxes are

38:43

going to go up by four times, which

38:45

is just not based in anything in the

38:47

actual facts. But that's what he's saying. You're

38:49

going to have the biggest tax increase in

38:51

history. So whatever you guys can do, I

38:54

appreciate it. And before

38:56

he made his ask, he made clear what

38:59

he would appreciate. He wouldn't appreciate anything. This

39:01

isn't Bernie Sanders and give me your 27

39:03

bucks or whatever. He told the

39:06

group of donors that a businessman had

39:08

recently offered a million dollars to have

39:10

lunch with him. He said, I'm not

39:12

having lunch. You've got to make it

39:15

25 million. I just want to

39:18

pause for 25 million. Remember, Trump

39:20

hates the elites. He's

39:23

of the common man and

39:26

true populace love Donald Trump, a guy

39:28

who won't have lunch with you unless

39:30

you give him $25 million. Another

39:35

businessman, he said, had traditionally given two

39:37

to maybe $3 million to Republicans. Instead,

39:39

he told the donor that he wanted

39:42

a $25 million or $50 million contribution,

39:46

or he would not be very happy. He

39:49

is going to these people who

39:51

already flood the system

39:54

with money. Whatever speech you think you

39:56

have, the free speech that the right

39:58

is always talking about. Utterly

40:00

worthless compared to the Death Star

40:02

sized bullhorn that you get when

40:05

you donate two to three million

40:07

dollars. Or sorry, when you

40:09

would have given that because that's not enough

40:11

anymore. Now he wants 25 or $50 million.

40:15

By the way, there is a very strong case

40:17

to be made that this isn't even legal. Technically,

40:20

you are only allowed to appeal for

40:22

the maximum individual contribution of So

40:27

what you might think, well then how is he gonna get $50

40:29

million? Well, he's gonna get $50 million because they

40:32

don't donate that to him. They

40:35

donate that to a super PAC

40:37

that technically can't coordinate with him.

40:40

And that is such a paper thin barrier

40:42

between the two. Our

40:44

entire campaign finance legal infrastructure makes

40:46

a complete mockery of the law.

40:49

These are brides. Trump is more brazen

40:51

than most politicians. And so he doesn't hide

40:53

it in the way that they normally do.

40:56

He says, you give me 25, $50 million, I'll do

40:58

what you want. You

41:00

want tax cuts or whatever that also affect the poor's?

41:03

I'll give it to you, you have to give me

41:05

$50 million. You want deregulation for

41:07

oil and gas? Sure, you can have that, I

41:09

want a billion dollars. If

41:11

Joe Biden did one millionth

41:14

of this, it would be

41:16

all Fox ever talked about for the rest of their lives.

41:19

But Trump is traveling around the

41:21

country telling every rich person he

41:23

sees this sort of messaging. And

41:25

it's apparently mostly legal, and he's gonna get away with

41:28

it. Sharon, what do you think? Yeah,

41:32

because what's ethical has changed. And

41:34

I mean, even using the word ethical when

41:36

it comes to politics and our so called

41:38

leaders is probably not the best

41:40

choice of words. He will get away

41:43

with it, he'll keep doing it. The

41:45

call was perfect. Susan Collins was wrong. He

41:48

wasn't gonna learn a lesson. I mean, this thing

41:50

can go as far as it

41:52

can go on and on and on when

41:54

you don't have anything internally

41:57

or perhaps pressure from your peers.

42:00

that'll say, you know what, let's pump the brakes, we've

42:02

done enough. So, sky's the limit

42:04

until this whole thing goes to hell. Imagine

42:09

what our politics would look like if

42:11

you could not spend unlimited money

42:13

affecting elections. And this is

42:16

not some wild hypothetical from one of my sci-fi

42:18

stories. Many countries operate this way. They

42:20

have relatively brief elections that you cannot spend

42:22

infinite money on, many of them publicly funded.

42:26

Back at work. And

42:28

I don't understand why that it's

42:31

obviously a hard sell to the right. Why

42:33

would it be? They say,

42:35

they pretend that

42:37

they don't want the elites to drive

42:40

our politics. They don't want the deep state, they

42:42

don't want the establishment. The establishment,

42:44

the deep state, the elites, the rich all love the

42:47

fact that they can give a couple billion dollars to

42:49

the president and get what they want for four years.

42:52

Why would a poor MAGA person

42:54

agree with that? Well, the answer is not

42:56

hard to figure out, it's Fox News, obviously.

42:59

But when the topic of getting rich people's money

43:02

out of politics comes up, and

43:04

Jesse Waters defends it, why

43:07

does the poor conservative not say, hey, wait,

43:09

that doesn't make any sense. We're

43:11

not supposed to want our politics to be entirely driven

43:13

by what the rich want. And

43:16

yet they're fine with it, they're fine with it.

43:18

They would be angrier at the person that tried

43:20

to create a level playing field where a billionaire

43:22

could talk about politics, they could try to influence

43:24

people in the same way that someone making $30,000 a

43:27

year does. But

43:29

the right would never allow it, they would never allow it.

43:32

God, I hate the sham that is populism

43:34

on the right. Okay,

43:37

I'm just gonna briefly mention too, just because I love

43:40

the idea at least that corruption could

43:42

become a big factor in this election.

43:44

I wanna remind everyone that people do

43:46

care about this. So after the oil

43:49

and gas executive thing came out, six

43:51

in 10 likely voters surveyed said they were concerned

43:53

about a second Trump term as a result of

43:55

that. Not like that they

43:57

were concerned about a Trump term, but that hearing about

43:59

the fact that he said he was going to

44:01

undo these climate policies in exchange for a billion

44:04

dollars made them concerned. And it should, it should

44:06

be 100%, but I'll take it. And

44:09

by the way, many furthermore say that

44:11

companies, fossil fuel companies should be legally

44:14

held accountable for their contributions to climate

44:16

change. 62% of voters

44:18

said yes, that is a strong majority. That's

44:21

84% of Democrats, 59% of independents, and even 40% of

44:23

Republicans. It

44:27

seems incomprehensible that they would accept

44:30

climate change at all or

44:32

accept regulations on oil companies, let alone

44:34

that they would accept legal

44:36

consequences for the companies that they apparently

44:39

buy are contributing to climate change. That

44:41

is a great development, and I would

44:43

love to see some politicians try to

44:45

build on that. Any

44:47

final point on that before we move on? You're

44:51

talking about something very reasonable,

44:53

something that I would think

44:56

many of us could get behind, most of

44:58

us could get behind, except for the one

45:00

percenters who are trying to prevent the rest

45:02

of us from participating. But

45:04

what it's really become, what

45:06

you're discussing is utopia. It's

45:08

just, that's what it is. And it's

45:11

not going to be, I shouldn't sound so

45:13

hopeless, but until I

45:15

see something moving, just inching

45:17

towards that direction, you know,

45:22

I am hopeless right now

45:24

about that. On

45:27

the pre-port, we talked about two kids that

45:29

figured out a way to use ultrasonic waves

45:31

to filter microplastics from water. That

45:34

gave me a little bit of hope today. In

45:36

any event, I want to end perhaps with

45:39

a bit of hope. So let's jump into

45:41

our final story of the first hour. Uh-oh,

45:44

some bad news for Lauren Boebert, an

45:46

internal poll that has been conducted by

45:48

one of the three Democrats that could

45:51

be her challenger for Congress if she

45:53

wins her primary at all. This is

45:55

Ike McCorkle, shows him leading her by

45:58

double digits in Colorado's fourth congressional district.

46:00

And I have to be specific there because

46:02

you might not know on a weekly basis

46:04

which district it is that Lauren Bober supposedly

46:06

cares so much about. So he's

46:08

a Marine veteran, he's making his third run

46:10

for the sea and in this poll, he

46:12

led 41% to 27%. Now we

46:14

have to be fair, not only was

46:16

one third of those polled not

46:19

sure about who they would vote for in that case.

46:21

So there's still a lot of uncertainty there. Also

46:24

just in general, I am always way

46:26

more suspicious of internal polls than other

46:28

polls. But I

46:31

also care about the way that it's

46:33

conducted. So not all internal polls are

46:35

equal. And I actually think that there's

46:37

some interesting ways, other information that

46:39

came from this internal poll that perhaps

46:41

makes it a little bit more credible.

46:43

So one thing in that is that

46:46

that poll showed Donald Trump 10 points

46:48

ahead of Joe Biden in the district.

46:51

So it's not like it was so

46:53

stacked with Democrats that there was no

46:55

way that Boebert could win, Trump won.

46:58

So it seems to be more a thing

47:00

of individual personalities. And in fact, if

47:02

I remember correctly, the distribution of partisan

47:04

ID in the poll was something like

47:07

35% Republican, 19% Democrat. There

47:09

were more Republicans than Democrats, even in

47:11

this internal poll. And still

47:13

Boebert was shown to be trailing.

47:16

And not only that, but an

47:18

earlier poll conducted by McCorkle two

47:20

months ago showed Boebert

47:24

losing by seven points there. So the

47:26

gap seems to have increased a little

47:28

bit over time. So an internal poll

47:30

isn't necessarily as credible as an external

47:32

poll, but you can compare two internal

47:34

polls conducted by the same organization over

47:36

time. So maybe something to be a

47:38

little bit worried about if you're Lauren Boebert. I do

47:40

want to remind everyone though, she's not

47:42

necessarily going against Ian McCorkle. She still

47:44

has to get past the five other

47:46

Republicans running in the primary. And if

47:48

I had to put money down right

47:51

now, I would say that I

47:53

think that she will prevail there. She has

47:55

the name ID and she has some money. But

47:57

even once that's done, now apparently there's an

47:59

even bigger hurdle coming after that? Sharon, what do you

48:01

make of it? I'm

48:03

smiling because any difficulty

48:06

that she has in staying front

48:08

and center, I

48:11

like it. I think her

48:13

chances are good though. And I think

48:15

that cable news would prefer

48:17

that she stays and

48:19

gets to come and go to DC

48:21

and maybe even Marjorie Taylor Greene these

48:23

days. I know they bicker a

48:26

lot, but they had this kinship. So

48:28

I think her chances are

48:30

decent, but I

48:34

hope it doesn't happen. Yeah, I'm

48:36

very curious to see. The primary is

48:38

June 25th, so we are now less

48:41

than one month away. Bear

48:43

in mind, if you're in Colorado, it's

48:45

a double primary going on,

48:47

or actually it's a replacement

48:50

for $10 in that district.

48:52

And then also a primary to choose who's going

48:54

to serve a full term as a result of

48:56

the election in November. So it's a little bit

48:58

of a complex situation, throwing maybe even a little

49:01

bit more chaos into the choice. But

49:03

we're definitely going to keep watching. We also

49:05

have to see with the Democrats, Ian

49:07

McCorkle is releasing this potentially to buttress his

49:09

chance of winning that primary, showing that he

49:12

would be the best candidate to go against

49:14

Lauren Bover. We have to look into his

49:16

politics as well, but definitely something to think

49:18

about if you're Lauren Bover or if you're

49:20

in her camp. And as

49:22

unfortunately all the time we have for the first hour of the show, and I thank

49:25

you everyone for joining us as the first

49:27

hour proceeded. There's more to come in the aftermath, though. I'll

49:29

be there, Sharon will be there, so you won't want to

49:31

go anywhere. We'll be right back.