HomeVideos

Joe Rogan Experience #2526 - JD Vance

Now Playing

Joe Rogan Experience #2526 - JD Vance

Transcript

5036 segments

0:01

Joe Rogan podcast. Check it out.

0:03

>> The Joe Rogan Experience.

0:06

>> TRAIN BY DAY. JOE ROGAN PODCAST BY

0:08

NIGHT. All day.

0:11

>> U. So, the last time we talked [music]

0:13

uh last time I saw you, we were at a

0:16

cage fight at the White House.

0:18

>> That's right. That's [laughter]

0:21

That's

0:22

>> one of the craziest experiences of my

0:23

life. It must have been one of the

0:24

craziest experiences of your life.

0:26

>> Oh, yeah. It took me like 2 weeks

0:27

afterwards to recover just to like go,

0:30

did that actually happen? That seems It

0:33

seems so insane.

0:34

>> Okay. The most insane part of it, which

0:36

I guess was was before you got there to

0:39

to me at least, is you like you come

0:41

into work every day in the White House,

0:42

right? You you know, I have an office in

0:44

the West Wing. There's the Oval Office

0:46

in the West Wing. And you look out the

0:48

window and as this like eightstory

0:52

complex was growing up, it was the it

0:54

was just the most unbelievable thing. I

0:56

think it's like the south lawn of the

0:57

White House, but you've got the eighth

0:58

wonder of the world [laughter] being

1:00

built up around it. And every day I'd

1:03

look at it and be like, it would take me

1:04

a couple seconds to be like, "What the

1:06

hell is going on?" And I like, "Oh yeah,

1:07

it's UFC. It's UF UFC coming in a couple

1:09

weeks."

1:09

>> The whole thing was surreal. First of

1:11

all, it was crazy that the weather just

1:15

went around us.

1:16

>> Like there was a real moment where the

1:18

fights would have been postponed until

1:20

10:30 p.m. to start.

1:23

>> Correct. And uh last minute the storm

1:27

just diverted.

1:28

>> That's right. Well, and uh you know this

1:30

this uh this book that I have that I'm I

1:33

guess we'll talk about a little bit, but

1:35

the book tour started the next day. So I

1:37

was flying to New York the next day to

1:39

talk about it. And all I could think

1:40

about is every time we got the update

1:42

from White House weather, oh it might

1:44

not start until 10:30. I was thinking to

1:45

myself, "Holy [ __ ] that means I'm going

1:47

to go to bed at like 4:00 a.m. I'm going

1:49

to look like a total crazy person when I

1:51

try [laughter] to go talk about go talk

1:54

about this book." But yeah, it it it

1:56

amazingly it did work out. Honestly, it

1:58

actually helped a little bit because, as

1:59

you know, it was hot as hell out there

2:01

and it was super humid, you know, mid

2:03

June in in in DC. And I think the

2:08

weather actually helped cool it down a

2:09

little bit because by about 10:00 or so,

2:12

I was not thinking it's hot as hell out

2:14

here anymore.

2:15

>> Yeah, it wasn't too bad. But I talked to

2:17

Justin Gatey about it and he said it was

2:19

a problem when he was fighting. He said

2:21

the air was very thick. Okay.

2:23

>> Like it like right after the first

2:25

round, he was like, "Boy,

2:26

>> like this is rough." Cuz that hot humid

2:29

air and you know it's

2:30

>> Yeah. Yeah. No, it's it's it's fine

2:32

walking around.

2:33

>> It's it's I mean it's okay walking

2:34

around. It still feels it is a swamp,

2:36

right? That's why people call it the

2:37

swamp. So, you know, that's obviously

2:39

June 14th. That's the president.

2:40

>> That's not why they call it the swamp.

2:41

[laughter]

2:42

>> That's one of the reasons why they call

2:43

it the swamp.

2:44

>> They call it the swamp.

2:45

>> They call it swamp because of my

2:46

colleagues, too.

2:46

>> Cuz it's filled with [laughter] mud and

2:48

water and gunk and [ __ ] and swamp

2:52

monsters.

2:52

>> Oh, man. So, that's June 14th. So, it's

2:55

the president's birthday. That's also

2:57

was that was my 12th wedding

2:58

anniversary.

2:59

>> Oh, wow. and uh my wife. So that's

3:01

that's the one thing like if somebody

3:03

runs in here, it's because my wife's

3:04

going into labor cuz she's like 39 weeks

3:06

pregnant. But uh I remember we go out to

3:10

dinner like right before the UFC fight

3:13

and we're of course checking the weather

3:14

report to figure out what's going on.

3:15

And you know, my wife normally likes to

3:17

come to the cool stuff of being vice

3:19

president. That was the one where she

3:21

was like, "It's hot. I'm super pregnant

3:24

and I'm not going to sit sit out there

3:26

for six hours." So

3:27

>> yeah, I couldn't imagine [laughter]

3:29

Also, it was just there was so much

3:31

chaos and and the potential for real

3:34

chaos was always there. First of all,

3:36

you have the Ellipse. So, the Ellipse

3:38

has what 85,000

3:40

people outside

3:42

>> and for people that watching at home

3:44

like we could hear them like when the

3:46

fights when when something would happen

3:48

>> in like kind of a delayed way, right?

3:50

>> You hear the cheers from the people that

3:52

were near. So, it was like 3,000 plus

3:54

people tightly close to the octagon and

3:57

then you had 85,000 people in the Yeah.

4:01

>> Yeah.

4:01

>> in the background. It was very eerie.

4:04

>> Yeah.

4:04

>> I actually loved that. Like I loved the

4:06

delay reaction to where you know

4:08

somebody get a good punch in or you know

4:10

you get a takedown and then it was

4:12

almost like the wave, right? Cuz there

4:14

was the initial center of it and then

4:16

the people outside of it.

4:18

>> It was pretty sick.

4:18

>> It was pretty sick. It was very

4:20

[laughter] cool. I think Dana said not

4:21

once in a lifetime or not once in a

4:24

generation or once in a lifetime

4:25

experience.

4:26

>> Yeah. I mean, it's once ever. Yeah. I

4:29

don't see any other president. I mean,

4:30

if you become president, you're not

4:31

going to do that, [laughter] right?

4:33

>> Uh I don't know, man.

4:34

>> It's I wouldn't I didn't want to do it.

4:37

>> Very cool. Get it over with. Do it once.

4:40

>> It was the only time in the history of

4:41

the sport where there's been seven

4:43

stoppages. Seven Seven knockouts. Like

4:46

every single fight was a knockout.

4:47

>> I didn't realize that.

4:48

>> Yeah. Every single fight. Okay.

4:50

>> But the thing is like we've had seven

4:52

knockouts in a card. I think this last

4:54

weekend we had 10 10 stoppages.

4:56

>> But um

4:58

>> that was different because it was like

5:00

14 fights. That's right.

5:01

>> This is all fights. Every single fight

5:03

was a knockout.

5:04

>> So the last fight. When did you realize

5:06

that was over

5:07

>> with Connor?

5:07

>> Yeah.

5:09

>> Um when he fell down the second time I

5:11

was like this is not good. F the first

5:13

time I thought he just slipped. It's

5:15

hard to tell. It's wild. It's in the

5:17

moment. I thought he slipped and then

5:20

when he got up and he threw a kick

5:21

again, I'm like, "Oh, I don't like how

5:23

his leg just gave out." That didn't seem

5:25

like I'm still hoping he's just

5:27

slipping.

5:28

>> Yeah.

5:29

>> I'm hoping he's just freaking out cuz he

5:30

hasn't been in the octagon in 5 years.

5:32

>> And then he started moving around and he

5:34

he like grabbed his knee and buckled.

5:37

>> Okay.

5:37

>> And there was some conversation that

5:39

Yeah. There was some conversation going

5:40

on between him and Max Holloway. And I

5:42

was like,

5:43

>> you know, Max is saying he can't fight.

5:45

Like something's wrong. and he's saying,

5:47

"Fight me." He's like, "Get up." And so

5:49

he lets him up and then his his knee

5:51

buckles. Then the referee stops the

5:53

fight.

5:53

>> Okay. Yeah. Yeah. There it always So so

5:56

the the very I think it was the very

5:58

last fight where the the ref tried to

6:01

call it at the end of the third round

6:03

and then because he was he was saying

6:06

that there was a concussion issue. I

6:07

mean I couldn't tell what was going on.

6:08

>> This the Ilia Tapora fight, the Justin

6:10

Gate fight at the White House.

6:11

>> The Taporio Justin fight.

6:12

>> He couldn't see.

6:13

>> Okay.

6:14

>> He was saying he couldn't see. Well,

6:16

something was wrong with his right eye.

6:18

>> Well, I mean it looks like his whole

6:18

face was puffed up, so he couldn't see

6:20

anything, but Okay. So, I thought it was

6:22

a concussion thing, but it was it was

6:24

because of his vision.

6:24

>> No, they never got they I mean, the

6:27

concussion thing would only be if

6:29

someone had been battered. There's a lot

6:31

of times where fighters are fighting

6:32

with concussions.

6:33

>> Yeah, it happens all the time. You get

6:35

dropped in the first round, you probably

6:36

have a concussion. You get back up, you

6:38

keep fighting, you're fighting on

6:39

instincts. There's been many times where

6:41

fighters wake up in like the fourth

6:43

round

6:44

>> and they've fought three rounds and they

6:46

don't remember it at all.

6:49

>> God, that's pretty crazy.

6:50

>> Not the best way to make a living.

6:51

[laughter]

6:52

>> Not the best way to make a living, man.

6:54

Yeah. No. So, we saw Gachi um at the

6:56

White House a couple of weeks ago and I

6:59

asked him, I was like, "So, are you done

7:00

fighting?" And he kind of hesitated a

7:02

little bit and then I think it was his

7:03

mom was in the Oval Office with her.

7:05

She's like, "Yes." [laughter]

7:07

>> Yeah. But, you know, if they offer him

7:11

some life-changing money for one more

7:14

fight after that performance, I have a

7:15

feeling he'll take it.

7:17

>> Like, what is what could he fetch for

7:19

his next fight? Like 50 more?

7:21

>> It's a good question. You know, I don't

7:23

know what his contract is. I don't know

7:25

how it works. I don't know what the most

7:26

anyone's ever I try not to pay attention

7:28

to that stuff

7:30

>> because I'm not on the business end of

7:32

the sport.

7:33

>> It kind of color your perception a

7:34

little bit.

7:35

>> It can. And it's also it's I mean I want

7:38

them to get paid the most amount

7:39

possible. That's my perspective. Yeah.

7:42

>> But what I'm my job is just to analyze

7:46

and to see what's going on and to

7:48

commentate and try to give color and

7:50

life to what's happening inside the

7:51

octagon. And I don't I try not to dwell

7:54

too much on the money. I just want them

7:56

to get paid a lot. Yeah.

7:57

>> I want them to be able to retire and

7:58

never have to do anything ever again.

8:00

>> Sure.

8:01

>> I don't know if Justin could do that.

8:02

What's crazy about it to me is just how

8:04

much the sport has replaced boxing and

8:08

like there's still obviously boxing is

8:10

still a big deal and fighters still get

8:12

paid a lot of money but like I remember

8:14

when I was I don't know in high school I

8:17

feel like people would get really

8:18

excited about the big heavyweight

8:21

heavyweight title bout. Now it's the UFC

8:24

thing.

8:24

>> So culturally it's like UFC has taken

8:27

over boxing and I don't I mean I don't

8:30

know how or why that happened. Like I

8:31

don't know if it's just good marketing

8:33

or if it's just the fights are so much

8:34

more real and intense. Like I but it's

8:37

it is a crazy shift that's happened in

8:38

20 years.

8:39

>> Well, I've had some I had some friends

8:41

this past weekend that manage fighters.

8:43

My friend Josh Dubin and a few other

8:44

friends that actually manage boxers come

8:47

to the UFC and they were all like, "Oh

8:49

my god, this is so much better than a

8:50

boxing promotion." Because you c all the

8:53

fights are exciting. With boxing, most

8:55

people are just there for the main

8:56

event.

8:57

>> And a lot of people don't even stroll in

8:59

until like 15 minutes before the main

9:01

event. Sure.

9:02

>> Like all the famous people that sit in

9:04

the front row.

9:04

>> Yeah. Yeah.

9:05

>> Uh in the UFC, that place is packed for,

9:08

>> you know, five, six, seven fights in.

9:10

>> Yeah.

9:10

>> You know, and there's 14 fights in the

9:12

night and all of them are amazing. It's

9:14

like in the beginning it's usually like

9:17

half full

9:18

>> depending on where you are. If you're in

9:20

a place like Salt Lake City, it's pretty

9:21

packed like right away because they only

9:23

get like one event every year or

9:25

>> so.

9:26

>> But um it's just a more exciting sport.

9:28

There's more ways to win. It's more

9:30

dynamic. More things happen

9:32

>> and there's more stars. There's so many

9:34

stars in the UFC.

9:35

>> Yeah. So I'd never seen a fight live

9:37

before. Like I've watched them on TV,

9:38

but I'd never been there live. So kind

9:40

of crazy that it's literally in the

9:41

south lawn of the White House. But the

9:43

thing that I found completely shocking

9:45

about it was like I would think those

9:48

those like arm bar takedowns are just

9:51

done. Like that's it. You're over. But

9:54

there were a couple of times where

9:55

somebody had another person's arm and

9:58

>> Yeah, that was Josh Hoit and Derrick

10:00

Lewis.

10:01

>> Bless you.

10:02

>> Um and it's like holy [ __ ]

10:05

>> Yeah, he

10:05

>> you're going to have your arm broken off

10:07

and yet he didn't.

10:08

>> He wasn't doing it right.

10:09

>> Okay. [laughter] Josh Hok is a great

10:12

wrestler and he's an excellent fighter,

10:14

but he's not really a submission

10:16

specialist. I mean, he did get the arm

10:18

bar, but he didn't do it right. Okay.

10:19

>> He was basically like pulling on. You

10:21

have to elevate your hips and you have

10:23

to create space so that the arm is

10:26

bending back this way. His arm is

10:28

essentially flat to his chest, which is

10:30

not what you want. What you want is

10:32

>> a back arch like this where you see like

10:35

how it is right there. Yeah. Yeah.

10:36

>> So, what he wants to do here, what he

10:38

should do instead of having his hips

10:40

down, his knees up, what you're supposed

10:42

to do is heavy leg curls with the leg

10:44

and elevate the hips up and pull it way

10:47

back. So, he'd almost be bridging it. He

10:49

would be on the top of his shoulders and

10:51

bridging and then he would have broken

10:53

his arm. The other option is you pull it

10:55

off to the side like this.

10:57

>> Yeah.

10:58

>> And you put it to the side of your hip

11:00

and you can break it that way.

11:01

>> Okay.

11:02

>> But it's just bad technique.

11:04

>> Okay. So, watching it. No offense, Josh.

11:06

>> Yeah. Yeah. Watching it, I didn't

11:07

realize that. I just could not believe

11:09

that dude held out for like 30 seconds

11:11

with his

11:11

>> Was that more shocking or when he said

11:13

Michelle Obama is a man? [laughter]

11:15

Which one was more shocking?

11:17

>> Uh, definitely the armbar part. Man,

11:20

[laughter] I I work in politics. People

11:23

say crazy stuff all the time.

11:24

>> Well, he says that every fight, does he?

11:27

>> Yeah. Yeah, he said it. He said that the

11:28

last time I interviewed him.

11:30

>> Oh, man. Well, it's

11:32

>> He's like a pro wrestling character.

11:33

People lost their minds about it.

11:36

>> I know.

11:36

>> Lost their minds about it to the point

11:37

where again I had the view either the

11:41

next day or the day after to sort of

11:43

promote this book.

11:44

>> That must be fun.

11:45

>> It was crazy. It was harder than any

11:47

anything I've done in politics. But the

11:49

the the to the point where all of my

11:51

comm's people, the thing they were most

11:53

worried about was they're going to ask

11:56

you about Michelle Obama being called a

11:58

man. Like what what are you [laughter]

12:00

like what are you going to say about it?

12:01

And I was like, what an amped up fighter

12:04

told a joke after a fight. Said

12:06

something after a fight and that's

12:07

actually national news. I'm still

12:09

surprised. I've been in politics now for

12:11

three or four years. I'm still shocked

12:13

the [ __ ] that people get really fired up

12:15

about.

12:15

>> Well, I kind of understand it because

12:18

it's at the White House. First of all, a

12:20

cage fight at the White House is crazy

12:22

already. I mean, if he said Michelle

12:23

Obama's a man at the T-Mobile Arena in

12:26

Vegas, it's like, okay,

12:27

>> less of a story. He what he is is he's a

12:29

very good fighter first of all and but

12:33

sometimes that's not enough to get

12:34

attention and so what Josh has done is

12:37

created this persona like this pro

12:39

wrestling bad guy persona when you talk

12:41

to him offstage he's like very normal

12:43

very smart guy

12:44

>> it's just like he's decided like look I

12:47

want to maximize the amount of eyeballs

12:48

that see me and I'm going to create this

12:51

crazy person he comes out to the Hulk

12:53

Hogan song I'm a real American

12:56

who has sunglasses on, American flag

12:59

band. It's, you know, he's

13:02

>> I mean, I love I love the I love the

13:04

presentation, but again, I like

13:07

>> not the best thing to say at the White

13:08

House. Michelle Obama's a man is not the

13:10

best thing to say.

13:11

>> Fair, but the reaction to it to me was

13:13

still totally disproportionate.

13:15

>> Yeah, of course.

13:15

>> People say, Dude, people say stuff all

13:17

the time. And what I Okay, I I live I I

13:22

I work in a business where obviously

13:24

people make life decision, life and

13:25

death decisions all the time. And I'm

13:28

always a little bit caught off guard by

13:31

the culture that just overreacts when

13:34

clearly the thing what that Josh is

13:36

trying to get is the overreaction in the

13:38

first place, right?

13:39

>> So you give him exactly what he wants

13:41

and like the worst you could say is,

13:43

"Oh, that was an offensive comment." And

13:44

you get on with the rest of your life.

13:45

Like that's the worst that you could

13:47

say. the people who really flip out

13:49

about it and kind of lose their minds. I

13:52

just I don't understand that.

13:54

>> Well, first of all, I think a lot of it

13:56

is there is an economy that is

13:59

essentially based on getting reactions.

14:02

>> Correct.

14:02

>> And there's a lot of people that are

14:04

just, for a lack of a better term,

14:07

they're they're not real. They're

14:09

they're reactions are performative. Like

14:12

a lot of what they're doing is just

14:14

trying to trying to comment on things

14:18

and get clicks and likes and views. And

14:21

social media has ruined discourse in a

14:24

lot of ways because people

14:25

>> it has

14:26

>> people are not having like real

14:27

conversations about things. is they're

14:29

reacting to things on Instagram and

14:31

Twitter

14:32

>> and you know they're just they they look

14:35

at an opportunity like that like oh I

14:37

found a gold nugget

14:39

>> they're like this is going to give me

14:41

money or this is going to give me

14:42

attention this is going to give oh I

14:43

can't wait to have a take on that.

14:45

>> That's exactly right. So but okay so my

14:48

response to that is so many things is

14:50

like oh he was being funny he was being

14:52

outrageous and I just move on with my

14:53

life. What I find very interesting is

14:56

the people who say, you know, oh, that

14:58

was a joke. Like when when Kill Tony,

15:00

you remember he told like the joke heard

15:02

around the world in Madison Square

15:03

Garden during the 2024 election.

15:05

>> I remember getting into an argument with

15:06

somebody about this and I may have even

15:08

been like in an interview, but

15:11

>> I don't remember. It could have been

15:12

private, too. Anyway, I I'm like, he

15:14

told a joke and then the person's

15:17

response is, well, it's not a very funny

15:19

joke. And my response to that is, you

15:21

know what happens when somebody tells me

15:22

a joke that's not funny? I don't laugh

15:24

and then I move on with my life. This

15:27

whole industry around outrage,

15:31

>> especially getting outraged around

15:32

humor, I think is actually really

15:34

hurting the country.

15:36

>> Well, in that case, first of all, I told

15:38

Tony a long time ago that joke was going

15:40

to get him stabbed. I really did. He

15:43

even jokes around about it on stage. He

15:46

talks about me telling him, "That's the

15:48

one, dude. That's the one's going to get

15:49

you stabbed." Any good joke at least is

15:52

going to run you some risk of getting

15:54

>> well certainly a a racial joke and that

15:56

joke being about Puerto Rico. By the

15:59

way, no one takes a joke better than

16:01

Puerto Ricans. Puerto Ricans are some of

16:03

the best people at telling jokes. Like

16:05

there it is a culture of joking and and

16:09

[ __ ] around with each other and

16:10

talking [ __ ] Like

16:11

>> they're great at it. So like

16:13

>> some Puerto Rican guys in the Marine

16:15

Corps, man. That's absolutely true.

16:16

>> They love him still, you know, like even

16:18

after that joke. What? So you you you

16:20

advised him not to tell that joke.

16:22

>> Well, I was kind of half joking. You

16:23

know, Tony that's what Tony does. You

16:25

know what? By I just said that's the one

16:27

that's going to get you stabbed. But I

16:29

mean that's what Tony does. Tony is like

16:31

the Josh Hokit of comedy. Like he but

16:34

very talented. You know, he's a really

16:36

good he's a roaster.

16:38

>> He's like roasting is is his specialty,

16:40

but it's also like he's trying to ruffle

16:42

people's feathers. That's what he wants

16:44

to do. He wants to piss people off.

16:47

That's he likes being a pro wrestling

16:49

heel. He always he's a huge pro

16:51

wrestling fan.

16:51

>> Well, so well he so Tony I like I'm a

16:55

huge fan of his comedy. I've only you

16:56

know met him a couple times. I don't

16:57

know him particularly well but he's

16:59

actually like you know more political I

17:02

would say than most comedians.

17:04

>> Do you think that's fair? Okay.

17:06

>> So um

17:07

>> well very supportive of like Trump

17:11

>> like he's on the Republican team. He's

17:12

on their 100%. That's because he's

17:14

experienced so many loony leftwing

17:16

people in California and that's why he

17:19

had to move.

17:19

>> Well, somebody sent me a clip. I think

17:21

it was Shane Gillis at a roast where the

17:24

the joke was they were roasting Tony and

17:27

they're like, Tony Hinchcliffe is the

17:30

only dude who would be excited if JD

17:32

Vance was here. [laughter]

17:35

And I was like, one, that's a very good

17:37

joke. And number two, I feel like I had

17:39

made it. Like there have been a few

17:40

moments where I feel like I've made it.

17:42

When

17:42

>> you're the vice president of the United

17:44

States, I think you made it.

17:46

>> When when South Park spoofed me, I felt

17:48

it more than when I got it sworn in as

17:50

vice president of the United States.

17:51

>> That's hilarious. That's very funny.

17:54

This episode is brought to you by the

17:56

farmer's dog. Here's a fun fact.

17:57

Research shows that dogs who maintain a

18:00

healthy weight can live up to two and a

18:02

half years longer on average than dogs

18:04

who are overweight. Isn't that wild and

18:07

also kind of obvious at the same time?

18:09

So, why is feeding vague scoops of

18:12

ultrarocessed kibble still the status

18:14

quo for most dog owners? Healthy

18:17

alternatives exist, and trust me, I

18:19

know. I buy one, the Farmer's Dog. I use

18:22

it for both my dogs. They love it. They

18:24

eat it up quick. It smells good to them.

18:27

It smells good to me. It's human grade

18:29

food. The Farmer's Dog makes fresh food

18:31

for dogs, and my dogs love it. Their

18:34

recipes are made with real meat and

18:36

fresh vegetables that are gently cooked

18:38

to retain vital nutrients. They also

18:40

portion out the meals to your dog's

18:42

nutritional needs, which helps avoid

18:44

overfeeding and makes weight management

18:46

easier. And isn't getting more time with

18:49

our four-legged best friends something

18:51

every dog owner wants? The answer to

18:54

that is yes, obviously. So try the

18:58

farmer's dog today and get 50% off your

19:01

first box of fresh, healthy food. Plus,

19:04

get free shipping. Just go to the

19:06

farmersdog.com/rogan.

19:09

This offer is for new customers only.

19:12

>> Yeah. Tony is uh I mean that's his style

19:14

like like he loves like being the heel.

19:18

>> Get a kick out of it. Oh yeah. Oh yeah.

19:19

He's one of the first people that moved

19:20

out here with me.

19:21

>> Okay.

19:22

>> Yeah. I mean we've been here for six

19:23

years now.

19:24

>> Yeah. And every time we go back to

19:26

California, we're like, "We were right."

19:28

>> Yeah, absolutely.

19:29

>> We were right. It's falling apart. It

19:31

keeps going further and further down the

19:32

toilet.

19:33

>> Well, how do how do you feel like Austin

19:35

is going? Cuz the criticism of Austin,

19:38

call it five or six years ago, is that

19:40

all the like it's a cool town. It's got

19:42

its own unique culture. It's Texas, but

19:45

it's also its own thing. But that all of

19:48

the blue sters moving in, we're going to

19:50

like totally change the politics and the

19:53

culture of Austin. I actually don't

19:55

think that's happened.

19:56

>> I think the blue sters that moved here

19:58

moved here because they recognized that

20:00

wherever they were living was not

20:02

tenable. Yeah, it was falling apart. And

20:04

all of these places like New York and

20:07

really California, like especially Los

20:10

Angeles and San Francisco, they're

20:12

falling apart.

20:13

>> And I have a bunch of friends that are

20:16

stuck there that can't move. Like maybe

20:19

they have family there or maybe they

20:21

have a business there. Y

20:23

>> and they [ __ ] hate it. And then I

20:24

have a bunch of people that are trying

20:26

to move but they can't sell their house.

20:28

>> Like it's nuts there, man. I don't think

20:30

people first of all you get gas lit by

20:33

Gavin Newsome. I mean he's just

20:34

gaslighting everybody about how well,

20:37

you know, oh the GDP of like the fifth

20:41

largest country in the world. That's

20:42

what California is.

20:43

>> It's like dude,

20:44

>> hey bro, it was like that before you

20:45

were the governor.

20:46

>> Yeah, exactly. Also, how much does a

20:48

U-Haul cost if you're leaving

20:49

California? And how much does it cost if

20:51

you're going in California? Because

20:52

that's the real measure of whether a

20:53

state's doing well.

20:54

>> Yeah. The state has more people moving

20:57

out than moving in. And that has never

21:00

happened before. Correct. California's

21:01

when I moved there in 1994 until I left,

21:04

it was always every year traffic got

21:06

worse. Every year more people moved

21:08

there. Every year. And

21:10

>> I loved it. I loved it. I loved it. From

21:13

the time I moved there, I was like,

21:14

"This place is great. It's warm all the

21:16

time. The weather's fantastic. There's

21:19

[clears throat] so much cool stuff to

21:20

do. The people are great.

21:22

>> Yeah.

21:22

>> And then politics ruined it.

21:24

>> That's right. So, my wife's from

21:25

Southern California, San Diego, and so

21:27

we spent a fair amount of time there.

21:28

And I I just, man, I still feel a

21:31

certain sense of like heartbreak over

21:34

LA. Oh,

21:35

>> because every time I'm in LA, you can

21:37

see why this was like the

21:39

quintessentially American city. The

21:41

architecture is beautiful. It's got its

21:43

own vibe going. Like you said, the

21:44

weather is amazing. And then you drive

21:46

through Skid Row and you're like, how

21:48

could any state or any city let this

21:50

happen?

21:51

>> Skidro is now 55 blocks.

21:54

It was 50 blocks just like a year or two

21:58

ago.

21:58

>> Okay. So my my first experience with

22:01

Skidro was so Usha used to work at this

22:05

like very fancy litigation firm in in

22:07

Southern California. Um you before she

22:10

was second lady, she was a corporate

22:11

litigator. So, there's a Christmas party

22:13

in downtown LA and you get these

22:16

instructions from her firm and they're

22:18

like this really convoluted way of this

22:20

is how you have to get to this Christmas

22:22

party. And I'm like, why do I have to

22:24

follow these direct directions? Why

22:25

don't I just put it in Google Maps,

22:26

right? This is like five or six, seven

22:28

years ago. So, we realized that the

22:31

reason why they gave you these

22:32

convoluted directions was so that you

22:34

could avoid Skid Row at night. And so

22:38

you get to this party, you drive through

22:40

Skidro if you follow Google Maps's

22:42

directions. You get there and it's like

22:44

this beautiful facility with like fancy

22:47

food and fancy wine and then there are

22:50

armed guards outside of it and these

22:52

gigantic walls. And I realized when I

22:54

was there, you know what this reminds me

22:56

of? This reminds me of going to the US

22:59

embassy in Porta Prince, Haiti. like

23:02

super security, crazy wealth and

23:05

privilege and status on the inside and

23:08

squalor and misery on the outside. Like

23:10

it's the first time I'd ever thought

23:12

America, like this part of America is

23:16

actually more like a third world country

23:18

than anything that I thought we'd ever

23:19

become.

23:19

>> Let me ask you this.

23:20

>> Yeah.

23:21

>> Why is it that large population centers

23:25

like places like Los Angeles and New

23:27

York are almost always run by the

23:30

Democrats? Yeah.

23:31

>> Like what is it about? First of all,

23:33

what happened with the last election in

23:37

Los Angeles, the just the primary I I

23:40

think was so super sus. And here's why

23:43

it's super sus.

23:45

>> Not just super sus that Spencer Platt,

23:47

Spencer Pratt, who was in second place,

23:50

got overtaken by Nithia Ramen in the

23:53

mailin ballots, but that the mail-in

23:55

ballots also passed a tax hike. The

24:00

people voted to pay more taxes.

24:03

>> Yep.

24:03

>> In a state where you have the highest

24:05

taxes.

24:06

>> That's right.

24:07

>> They're like, "We don't pay enough."

24:09

[laughter]

24:11

>> That is insane. And then when you have

24:14

direct evidence that they were

24:15

recruiting homeless people.

24:17

>> That's right.

24:17

>> And they were getting homeless people

24:19

and giving them cigarettes and cash.

24:21

There's evidence of this. To use their

24:23

their address and mail in ballots.

24:25

>> Yeah. I would have I wouldn't be the

24:27

Californian Joe who wakes up in the

24:28

morning and says, "You know what? I'm

24:30

going to go and vote for higher taxes. I

24:31

don't I don't pay enough taxes.

24:33

>> I I feel like we could fix this if I

24:34

just%

24:36

more taxes." The crazy thing about it,

24:39

too, is it's that okay, so after the

24:42

initial ballots all came in, it was

24:44

Karen Bass was number one, Spencer Pratt

24:46

was right right behind her, and then

24:48

number three, whatever this woman Ramen.

24:51

Okay. So, you would expect the mail and

24:54

ballots to be more or less like the

24:56

original ballots in terms of one, two,

24:58

and three. I'm not saying Spencer's

25:00

going to win the mail and ballots, but

25:01

it just so happened that the third place

25:04

person in relative terms did a lot

25:06

better than the first and second place

25:08

person

25:10

such that the Republican was actually

25:12

kicked out of the race so that there's

25:14

not actually a real election in

25:15

California. That to me was the crazy

25:17

part. It's like you were designing the

25:19

vote share in order to kick Pratt out

25:22

and put the third person into second

25:24

place. That to me is like very very

25:26

bizarre cuz what is the theory of the

25:29

mail and vote that is somehow like so

25:33

much more pro- Nithia relative to Karen

25:36

Bass?

25:36

>> Makes no sense.

25:37

>> Makes no sense.

25:38

>> Makes no sense. Why would it be? Why why

25:40

would it be? I mean Karen Karen Bass was

25:42

ahead by every metric.

25:45

>> Yeah. But I mean Okay. So you ask a

25:46

question. Why do all these blue states

25:48

or why do all these big cities

25:49

population centers end up becoming um

25:53

end up becoming blue? And I think it's

25:55

like very complicated, right? So, one

25:57

thing and you said this a few months ago

26:00

and like when you said it, I was like

26:01

kind of annoyed by it, but then I like

26:03

thought there's there's like an element

26:05

of truth to it, which is that

26:07

Republicans still fundamentally have a

26:09

cool problem, right? There's something

26:11

more charismatic, more cool about the

26:14

Democrats as opposed to the right.

26:17

>> And so you you said something about

26:21

>> there are too many dorks or something on

26:22

the right.

26:23

>> There's a lot of dorks,

26:24

>> you know. Fair. I'd say there's a lot of

26:25

dorks on the left.

26:26

>> There's a lot of dorks on the left, too.

26:27

It's a different kind of dork.

26:28

>> It's a different kind of dork. But the

26:29

the point is that there's something, you

26:32

know, like, okay, if you're a pop star,

26:35

you're a rock star, you're an actor,

26:36

you're in all these cultural centers,

26:38

you're more likely to be left than

26:40

right. And so I think that a lot of

26:41

young people who are attracted to these

26:43

population centers, they sort of move

26:45

along with the prevailing culture. I

26:46

think that's that's one thing that's

26:48

going on. I think a second thing that's

26:50

going on is the people who are sort of

26:53

attracted to a certain kind of right of

26:55

center politics. They want the suburbs.

26:59

They want the single family home. They

27:00

kind of want to be left alone. They

27:02

don't want sort of to be able to hear

27:03

what their neighbors are doing. So I

27:04

think a little bit of it's just cultural

27:06

self-segregation.

27:07

And that's meant that a lot of these

27:10

population centers have gone blue. But

27:12

it's very complicated. I've thought

27:13

about this a lot. And I also just man I

27:16

like I'm not one of these people who

27:18

says we should just abandon California

27:20

to the Democrats. Like let them deal

27:21

with their own problems. I think

27:23

California is like a quintessential part

27:26

of the American dream. Like if you just

27:28

abandon California, you've like lost

27:30

something very core to American culture.

27:33

And I I just I don't want to give up on

27:35

it. Like I'm not saying we're going to

27:37

win California in my lifetime

27:38

necessarily, but I don't like the idea

27:40

of giving up on it. Well, it's not just

27:42

giving up on I mean, giving up on it

27:44

would be terrible. It's an awesome

27:45

state. The the real problem is it's

27:48

deeply corrupt.

27:50

>> I mean, deeply deeply corrupt. And what

27:53

they're trying to do is make it

27:54

impossible for the other side to win.

27:57

Yeah.

27:57

>> And there should be laws against that.

27:59

First of all, the idea of mail-in

28:01

ballots for anybody other than people

28:03

who are invalids who can't live their

28:06

homes or military or people that for

28:09

some reason they're serving overseas,

28:11

they're doing something overseas,

28:12

>> it should not be legal, right?

28:14

>> And the fact that it became ubiquitous

28:15

during co is a giant problem.

28:18

>> Yeah. So, this raises one of my total

28:20

segue here, side point, but so if you

28:23

remember in the aftermath of the 2020

28:25

election where there was all this like

28:26

debate about was the election stolen,

28:28

was the election not stolen, all the

28:29

litigation that moved through,

28:31

>> there was a case in Pennsylvania that

28:33

like didn't get very much attention. And

28:36

I'm going to butcher it a little bit,

28:37

but basically it was a guy in a rural

28:40

area of Pennsylvania saying, "You're

28:42

underounting my vote because we didn't

28:44

have the opportunity to do the mail-in

28:46

ballots like they did in Philadelphia

28:47

and Pittsburgh." And like the argument

28:49

was a kind of disparit impact, right?

28:51

The cities jinned up all the mail and

28:53

balloting and the ballot harvesting. You

28:55

didn't do that in the country and that

28:57

hurt sort of our representation. So they

29:00

take this case to the Pennsylvania

29:01

courts. And what's crazy is the

29:03

Pennsylvania courts basically say,

29:05

you're making kind of a good point here.

29:07

Like the ballot harvesting did affect

29:10

Republicans in a more negative way. It

29:12

did mean that certain people in the more

29:14

rural parts of the state were

29:15

underrepresented. But then the court

29:17

conclusion was this is not a problem a

29:19

court can fix. Like that's a political

29:21

problem. Change your, you know, local

29:23

elections leaders, change your laws.

29:25

Like that's not a remedy that the court

29:28

has to fix. And so everybody saw that

29:31

case and they're like, "Oh, the judge

29:32

rules against Donald Trump, rules

29:34

against Republicans for saying that

29:36

there was something illegitimate." But

29:37

no, actually the judge kind of said,

29:39

"There is something kind of fishy here.

29:41

We're just the wrong venue to fix it."

29:45

>> Well, it it's just very disheartening

29:48

that you you have to consider the fact

29:51

that it's really possible that the

29:54

elections get stolen. And the California

29:57

one was a big one for me. And why not

29:59

just have mail in or why not just have

30:02

voter ID?

30:03

>> Yeah, you actually that's insane. Not

30:05

only did they not have voter ID, you

30:06

can't show your ID. You're not allowed

30:08

to show your ID.

30:09

>> You can in fact be like prosecuted if

30:11

you try to force somebody to show their

30:12

ID,

30:12

>> which is that seems like you want people

30:15

to cheat.

30:16

>> Exactly. [laughter]

30:17

>> And is this from the same people that

30:19

were saying you have to have an ID that

30:20

shows you've been vaccinated just four

30:22

years ago to go to grocery shopping or

30:24

to go to restaurant? Yeah. No, it's it's

30:26

definitely that's the part about it that

30:30

I think makes most people of my

30:32

political persuasion skeptical of what

30:35

the Democrats are doing. Like if you

30:36

don't want to cheat in the election,

30:38

then just make everybody actually show

30:40

an ID. What another thing people don't

30:42

realize is I didn't realize this until a

30:44

couple years ago, the voter ID solves a

30:46

lot of the mail-in ballot problem

30:48

because if you have to show an ID in

30:51

order to get a mail and ballot in order

30:52

to actually, you know, confirm that

30:54

there's a real identification attached

30:56

to that vote, that solves a big chunk of

30:59

the problem.

30:59

>> It's just logical. Like [laughter] I

31:02

don't I'm not

31:05

I'm not skeptical. I'm accusing them. I

31:07

think they stole the election.

31:09

>> Yes. And I'm I'm I think it's common and

31:12

I you know this idea that elections

31:15

can't be stolen. I always say to people,

31:17

okay, do you think that the amount of

31:20

election fraud is 0%.

31:23

>> No one thinks that.

31:24

>> Yeah.

31:25

>> No one thinks it's zero. There's always

31:27

some overzealous person that works

31:29

somewhere that's doing something.

31:31

There's always crazy people. They're

31:32

like, "Blue no matter who, we got to win

31:34

or red no matter what." There's always

31:36

people right and left that are going to

31:39

try to rig the election because they

31:40

think it's imperative our n like look we

31:43

we saw there was people like Oprah

31:46

Winfrey was saying it like if we don't

31:48

win this election we you may never vote

31:50

again like what the [ __ ] are you talking

31:51

about [laughter] like why what who's

31:54

going to tolerate that left or right

31:55

that's crazy right

31:57

>> but that attitude allows people to

32:00

justify cheating

32:01

>> correct

32:01

>> and I think they cheat and I I think

32:04

they've been doing it forever and I

32:05

don't think there's any other reason why

32:06

you would have no voter ID? And they try

32:09

to say, "Oh, it's racist to have voter

32:11

ID." Like, what are you talking about?

32:13

Do you think other races are incapable

32:16

of going to the DMV? That's insane.

32:18

>> It's it's that's racist.

32:20

>> It's actually super racist. That's

32:22

really racist.

32:22

>> The implication of their argument is

32:24

literally like blacks and Hispanics

32:26

cannot go to the DMV to get an ID. By

32:28

the way, if you look at the polling,

32:29

black Americans are as pro- voter ID.

32:31

Even though they you most black

32:32

Americans vote Democrat, they're still

32:34

pro- voter ID as much as white Americans

32:37

is. Most Americans are voter. They want

32:40

voter ID except for operatives.

32:41

>> So I'll offer on the Joe Rogan podcast

32:44

this deal as vice president of these

32:46

United States that if Democrats really

32:48

don't think that there's any cheating,

32:51

give us voter ID.

32:52

>> I just don't know.

32:53

>> Give us voter ID and we'll stop talking.

32:55

>> Why is that not a federal thing?

32:57

>> We are trying to make it a federal

32:58

thing. So, we are right now trying to

33:00

pass the Save America Act. One of its

33:03

main provisions is a requirement that

33:05

you do voter ID. And we actually have, I

33:07

think, a majority of the Senate that

33:09

would support it. But this is just weird

33:12

Senate procedural [ __ ] There is a

33:15

subsegment of people who want voter ID,

33:18

but won't blow up the filibuster in

33:20

order to achieve it. And so they're so

33:23

married to these oldw world Senate

33:25

procedures that they're going to make it

33:27

impossible for us to pass Save America.

33:29

Now we we are for what it's worth trying

33:30

to fix that and trying to address these

33:33

like weird procedural archaic things.

33:36

It's insane though. Like if you ever

33:38

Okay,

33:39

>> I'm sure you hear people talk about the

33:40

filibuster all the time. I don't want to

33:41

go too far down this rabbit hole.

33:43

>> Here's what the filibuster is. It is a

33:46

pure Senate rule. It is a creation of

33:49

the Senate procedures which basically

33:51

says that anything that has to do with

33:54

the budget is a 50 vote threshold and

33:57

anything that everything else

33:59

non-budgetary is a 60 vote threshold.

34:02

Now, as you can imagine, there's some

34:03

gray area on things that maybe are count

34:06

as budget issues and should be 50 or are

34:08

not budget issues and count at 60. So

34:11

what we have tried to persuade the

34:13

Senate to do is to treat the voter ID as

34:18

something that can fall within the 50

34:20

vote threshold. And there is no law,

34:22

there's no provision in the

34:23

Constitution. It is legitimately that

34:26

there are senators who are so attached

34:28

to the idea that budget is 50,

34:30

non-budget is 60 that they're quite

34:32

literally willing to prevent voter ID in

34:35

America.

34:36

>> God,

34:38

it's nuts, dude. It's it's so crazy

34:41

>> and it's also like the idea that

34:45

>> somehow or like Kathy Hol had the

34:48

craziest take on it. Did you

34:50

>> She often does.

34:51

>> Did you see her take on it?

34:52

>> I have not.

34:52

>> She was talking about black people in

34:54

inner cities not even knowing what a

34:56

computer is.

34:57

>> Did you ever see that?

34:58

>> No, I didn't see that.

35:00

>> Oh my god, it was so crazy. And then

35:02

this one comedian, uh, this black

35:04

comedian did this hilarious video where

35:07

he was like circling around a computer,

35:09

staring at it, like touching it like he

35:11

didn't know what it was. [laughter]

35:13

>> It's just like, what are you talking

35:15

about? Everyone has a phone. That's a

35:18

computer.

35:18

>> So many of these Democratic talking

35:20

points presume that their own voters are

35:23

actual idiots.

35:25

>> That's actually there there's a big

35:26

difference between, you know,

35:28

Republicans, we sort of presume that our

35:29

voters are adults. And you don't see

35:31

that with a I'm not saying every

35:33

Democrat, of course, I don't want to

35:34

cast too broad of a brush here, but it's

35:36

it's like, you know, Gavin Newsome did

35:38

this speech a few months ago. The

35:39

president, I think it's the funniest

35:41

thing ever because he's like speaking to

35:43

a group of black leaders and black

35:46

businessmen, but it's like an audience

35:48

that is 95% black. And they're asking

35:50

him about his dyslexia and his struggle

35:52

with education. And he basically says,

35:54

"Yeah, you know, um, I'm not very smart

35:56

like a lot of you." And it's like,

35:58

>> I'm like you. I can't read. Can't even

35:59

read.

36:00

Well, there's a ton of interviews where

36:02

he's [laughter] talking about all the

36:03

books he reads. Like, he's so full of

36:05

[ __ ] He's

36:07

>> He's full of [ __ ] but it's

36:08

>> admirably full of [ __ ] [laughter]

36:10

>> It's It's I admire the the the [ __ ]

36:15

the sheer tenacity that he has in being

36:18

full of [ __ ]

36:18

>> I I It really is amazing. But it it

36:22

speaks to the incentives of there's kind

36:25

of like look, there's a real populism

36:27

that I'm very much a fan of because I

36:29

think you should be responsive to

36:30

people, but there's like a faux populism

36:32

of the way that I'm going to appeal to

36:34

people is by assuming that they're

36:36

idiots and acting like they're idiots.

36:39

Yeah.

36:39

>> And then but but if you if you're

36:41

committed enough to that bit, eventually

36:43

it kind of leaks out what you're doing.

36:45

>> And I think that's that was sort of what

36:46

Gavin did there is he told on himself a

36:48

bit. [laughter]

36:49

>> Yeah. Well, it was just it's just he's

36:52

bizarre.

36:53

>> I will say I bizarre.

36:54

>> So, I've only met Gavin I think I've

36:56

only met him one time in my life and it

36:59

was it's such a crazy experience. So,

37:03

the debate between Biden and Trump

37:06

during the 2024 cycle and I'm there I'm

37:09

actually doing an interview for a

37:11

documentary when the debate starts and

37:13

there's this clip of me. The debate

37:15

starts. I'm in the middle of this

37:17

interview. There's a big screen behind

37:18

me as I'm talking to the camera, which

37:20

is here, and I kind of freeze and I look

37:23

back at the the the TV and I'm like, "Oh

37:25

my god, like this is actually happening.

37:27

Biden is imploding." Because if you

37:29

remember, it was obvious from the

37:30

get-go. So, I go to the spin room

37:33

afterwards and that's where, you know,

37:35

all these reporters and all the

37:37

surrogates of the candidates, this is

37:38

before I was the VP nominee and I'm just

37:40

like, you know, talking about how great

37:42

the president did, how bad President

37:43

Biden did. Okay, I see Gavin Newsome

37:46

there and he literally looks like he's

37:47

seen a ghost. Like I've I've never seen

37:50

a person who, as good of a bullshitter

37:52

as he is, who realized there was no

37:55

selling that performance. Like, but can

37:57

you imagine like try to put yourself in

37:58

the perspective of a human being? I

38:00

always try to, you know, be empathetic

38:02

where Joe Biden has just had that debate

38:05

and you have to go on CNN to talk about

38:07

how great of a job Joe Biden did. Well,

38:09

my favorite is Joe Scarboro because Joe

38:11

Scarro before it was like, you know, I'm

38:14

gonna say something and f you if you

38:16

can't take it. This is the sharpest

38:19

Biden we've ever seen. Have you ever

38:22

seen that?

38:22

>> No, I haven't.

38:23

>> Oh, it's amazing. And then after the

38:24

debate, he's like, "We got to get rid of

38:25

him. He's [laughter] got to go. He's got

38:27

to go, hey, hey, hey, what what what did

38:29

you say? You just said a couple of

38:30

months ago, this is the best Biden

38:32

ever."

38:32

>> That's wild. Well, it's like I wonder

38:35

what was going on with that cuz like the

38:38

debates were earlier than they've ever

38:40

been before and it seemed to me it's

38:42

like there was a concerted effort to

38:44

hide what was wrong with him.

38:46

>> 100%

38:47

>> 100%. Everybody was bullshitting.

38:49

Everybody was gaslighting us. We all saw

38:50

it. I I remember a friend of mine who's

38:53

>> super progressive, super liberal. You

38:55

know [snorts] what I I talked about on

38:57

our podcast. I'm like, "This is crazy.

38:59

even if he wins, he's not going to be

39:01

the guy that's the president. You're

39:03

going to have his cabinet that are

39:04

running everything. Turned out I was

39:05

right.

39:06

>> They were saying, "Oh, don't you

39:08

understand that he has a stutter?"

39:10

>> And I said, "Where the [ __ ] was that

39:12

stutter in the 1990s?" Like that's

39:15

crazy. [laughter] Like a stutter that

39:17

only shows up when you're 80. That

39:18

doesn't make any sense.

39:20

>> Like this is a lie. You're lying. He's

39:22

had two brain surgeries like where they

39:25

have to take the top of your head off.

39:28

Literally, they have to take you like a

39:30

cap. They

39:31

>> Wait, Biden had two brain surgeries?

39:33

>> Oh, yeah.

39:33

>> How did I not know this?

39:34

>> You didn't know this?

39:35

>> I didn't know that he had two brain

39:36

surgeries.

39:37

>> He had two brain surgeries. Jimmy,

39:39

please look this up. Make sure that I'm

39:41

right. I'm 99% sure I'm right. But I

39:43

know he had

39:45

a refund afterwards.

39:47

>> Well, it kept [laughter] him alive. It

39:49

kept him alive. I mean, he here Biden

39:53

has not undergone recent brain surgery.

39:55

He underwent two successful lifesaving

39:58

>> Oh wow.

39:59

>> brain surgeries to repair two inter

40:01

incraanial aneurysms in 1988.

40:04

>> Know this?

40:04

>> Yeah,

40:04

>> that's pretty crazy.

40:05

>> His medical professionals have stated

40:07

that he made a full recovery and

40:09

suffered no lasting brain damage or

40:11

cognitive impairment from these

40:12

procedures. Oh, it's from the Washington

40:14

Post, so you know it's accurate and

40:16

definitely not biased at all. And these

40:18

medical professionals, were those the

40:20

same people that said that the COVID

40:21

vaccine is safe and effective? Um, it's

40:24

it's we we live in a wonderful time for

40:26

[ __ ] It's like because they just

40:28

[ __ ] you right to your face. Like he

40:30

had two brain surgeries, like major

40:32

brain surgeries, cuz he's having

40:34

aneurisms.

40:35

>> I don't care who you are, that's

40:36

probably going to do some damage.

40:38

>> It's going to leave some aneurisms, a

40:40

real problem. It's a real thing. Your

40:41

brain

40:43

people die from aneurysms all the time.

40:46

See, that's the crazy thing is I never

40:47

even knew about that.

40:48

>> How did you not know about that? That's

40:49

nuts. I knew about it. Well, it speaks

40:51

to how constrained our media environment

40:54

is that even I had never heard that,

40:55

>> right? It was not a part of the

40:56

narrative. Certainly not from the

40:58

Democrats, but yeah, he's it was clearly

41:02

I just don't understand why they ran him

41:04

in the first place.

41:05

>> The the whole thing made no sense. And

41:07

then to have no primary and just stick

41:10

Kla in there and then all a sudden

41:11

pretend that she's the best thing ever.

41:13

And like this idea, like complete flip

41:16

of her being the least popular vice

41:18

president ever, always sticking her foot

41:20

in her mouth, always saying crazy [ __ ]

41:22

How dare we say Merry Christmas? You

41:24

remember that one?

41:26

>> Like what the [ __ ] is What are you

41:28

saying? Like joy is bad. Merry Christmas

41:31

is bad.

41:32

>> Legitimately when the campaign

41:34

consultants told me, "Hey, we're going

41:36

to hit this line because Kla Harris came

41:38

out in favor of taxpayerf funed sex

41:41

changes for illegal aliens. And

41:43

[laughter] I and I remember thinking to

41:44

myself, come on, you guys. Like, she

41:47

didn't really say that. It's taken out

41:48

of context. And then I go and look at

41:50

it. I'm like, holy [ __ ] she actually

41:52

said that. And she was she really was

41:56

like the very worst version of what the

42:00

Democrats were producing in 2020. The

42:02

thing is, it was they were all doing it

42:04

because that was the incentives of the

42:05

party. Like if you remember that debate

42:07

where it was do you want taxpayer funded

42:10

Medicare for illegal aliens which like

42:13

Medicare is the program to provide

42:15

health care to the elderly that people

42:17

pay into for like you know your entire

42:19

working life. You see your little

42:20

Medicare tax statement and the idea that

42:24

we were going to give taxpayer funded

42:26

healthcare to illegal aliens. It was

42:27

just insane. It was a 9010 issue but

42:31

their party in 2020 got kind of taken

42:33

over by the radicals. And I I think

42:35

actually maybe you're seeing a little

42:37

bit of that happening right now where it

42:39

seems like the radical organizations,

42:42

the nonprofits, the donors are pushing

42:45

the party in a direction that most of

42:46

the voters haven't gone in. Like you ask

42:49

why Joe Biden was the nominee and I'll

42:50

I'll say something in defense of Joe

42:52

Biden. So like was he the most effective

42:55

politician? No. Had he had two brain

42:57

surgeries? Yes. And clearly had shown

42:59

the negative signs of aging. But he was

43:02

kind of the only candidate, if you go

43:04

back to 2020, who could hold together

43:07

like the reasonable middle class black

43:11

American in the Atlanta suburbs with

43:15

whatever is going on on the far left of

43:16

the Democrat party. And I think this is

43:18

sort of the issue their party has. I

43:20

mean, our like to be candid, our party

43:21

has its own coalition problems. And it's

43:23

it's always tough in a two-party system

43:25

to hold everybody together. Like I think

43:27

about this a lot. I think it's really

43:29

tough on the Democrats because the core

43:31

of their party, like the most important

43:33

voting block in the Democratic party is

43:35

middle-class black Americans, socially

43:38

moderate to even socially conservative,

43:40

maybe a little bit more economically

43:42

populist on certain business and tax

43:44

issues. You know, they don't want to

43:45

give tax breaks to major corporations.

43:47

They also don't want to trans the kids.

43:49

That's the base of their party. But then

43:52

you've also got like the crazy people

43:55

and you have to kind of hold that

43:57

together. I think the argument for Biden

43:59

was he was one of the only people who

44:01

could hold that together even though he

44:02

was an awful politician in his own right

44:04

even before he was like old.

44:07

>> He was he was Obama's vice president.

44:10

>> Exactly.

44:10

>> And you know he's established he's a

44:12

known name and for the people that were

44:14

kind of casuals who weren't really

44:16

paying attention to politics like he's a

44:17

proven commodity.

44:18

>> That's right. He doesn't read as a crazy

44:20

person to the general electorate

44:23

>> even though you know

44:24

>> I got hairy legs [laughter]

44:28

>> when he tells stories like I tell you

44:31

about cord pop. Like what

44:34

>> the [ __ ] is going on?

44:35

>> The thing I couldn't get over Biden is

44:36

is just bad staff work, man. The way

44:39

that he ate ice cream. I mean, it's

44:42

like, you know, we could bring some of

44:44

this stuff up, but it's like they would

44:45

get him eating ice cream in the most

44:48

ridiculous suggestive way imaginable.

44:51

>> I never even paid attention.

44:52

>> Oh my god. Like such bad optics. Okay.

44:54

So, there's there's a clip I want to say

44:56

from the 2016

44:59

um campaign where somebody is

45:01

campaigning in Iowa and like it's the

45:04

Iowa State Fair is like one of the main

45:05

things you go to when when you're

45:07

running for president and they give

45:09

somebody a corn dog and somebody eats

45:11

the corn dog and it becomes like a major

45:14

news cycle for a long time and I I will

45:16

never forget in 2024 [laughter] in 2020.

45:19

>> That's how immature we are.

45:21

>> I know. I know. You got to have a little

45:22

fun sometimes though. But in 2024,

45:25

somebody is holding up a sign at the

45:26

Iowa State Fair at I think it may have

45:28

been Vakes, one of Aakes's event, Vake

45:30

Rama Swami's events, and the sign says,

45:32

"Eat the corn dogs, you coward." And

45:35

it's [laughter] one of the best the best

45:36

political signs I've ever seen.

45:39

>> That's funny. That's funny. Yeah. You

45:42

You'd have to be a very manly man to be

45:44

able to eat a confidently confidently

45:46

eat a corn dog.

45:47

>> I don't know that I can do it, Joe.

45:48

>> I eat them. They're good.

45:50

>> Yeah, but they taste good. Are you I

45:52

love corn dogs. I've been photographed.

45:54

You've been photographed eating a corn

45:55

dog.

45:55

>> I'm sure someone has.

45:56

>> One of [laughter]

45:57

>> I've eaten corn dogs. The odds are

45:59

>> much more interesting life than I've

46:00

led. I I try I try to eat my corn dogs.

46:03

That's between that's between me and my

46:05

uh my kitchen.

46:06

>> I'm not scared to eat a corn dog.

46:07

[laughter] I just think it's funny that

46:09

people just they're so afraid of being

46:11

[snorts]

46:12

>> anything that looks like a dick.

46:14

>> You can't bananas, corn dogs.

46:16

>> You got to be [laughter]

46:18

you got to be careful when you're

46:19

politics. This is an optics based

46:20

business here.

46:21

>> What are those popsicles? The ones that

46:24

>> Yeah. Yeah.

46:24

>> Yeah.

46:25

>> Yeah. I get it. I mean, but it's just

46:27

like that's how crazy we are. That

46:29

that's what weirds people out. The way

46:31

someone eats a hot dog.

46:32

>> That's

46:33

>> like Okay.

46:33

>> Well, that's that's where we are, man.

46:36

>> Yeah.

46:36

>> I

46:38

>> It's the the difference between, you

46:40

know, the crazies and the the the real

46:45

reasonable Democrats is so stark to me.

46:48

I did I and it's also with the right.

46:51

It's like we're always the parties are

46:53

always defined by the worst examples of

46:55

the right. That's right. You know. Yeah.

46:57

Or or of the left, you know, whatever it

47:00

is, whether it's uh Patriot Front or

47:02

whether it's uh Antifa.

47:04

>> Okay. So, who do you think is the worst

47:06

example of our side? Like who who do you

47:08

read about on our side and your reaction

47:10

is, "Holy shit." And don't say JD Vance.

47:12

This is going to be a very awkward

47:13

interview.

47:14

>> Um

47:15

>> I'm screwed with you. Well, the the

47:18

people that you know, one of the thing I

47:20

had James Tarico on the podcast and one

47:22

of the things that I think he has a

47:24

really good point about even though I

47:25

know you're Catholic and you're very

47:28

religious, putting the Ten Commandments

47:30

in schools um I don't think is the right

47:34

way to do. And this is a guy Terrico who

47:37

was in seminary and is very Christian.

47:40

Mhm.

47:40

>> He just thinks that even though he

47:42

believes in the Ten Commandments, if

47:45

you're just only representing the

47:47

Christian faith in these schools, you're

47:50

forcing your religion into other

47:52

people's lives and that this is going to

47:55

push people away from Christianity

47:57

rather than encourage them to uh pursue

48:01

it.

48:02

>> Yeah. I mean, I think you'd never want

48:03

to force things on people. And I I do I

48:07

think one of the core Christian

48:08

contributions to Western civilization is

48:10

the idea of freedom of religion. It's

48:12

actually very much a Christian idea

48:14

because you recognize the dignity of

48:16

each individual. And part of recognizing

48:18

that dignity is that each person has to

48:20

find their own pathway to God. You can't

48:21

force this on anybody. I don't think

48:24

putting the Ten Commandments up in

48:26

school is like forcing things on

48:28

anybody.

48:28

>> But it's public schools. So I mean, if

48:30

you're going to do that, why not put

48:33

Buddhist scripture? Why not put, you

48:35

know, you Muslims stuff? You could you

48:38

could you could make an argument why you

48:40

should have a bunch of different

48:42

religious tenants in schools.

48:43

>> I think in the Supreme Court there

48:45

actually are a lot of different sort of

48:47

historical, cultural, legal documents

48:49

that are up there. And I I want to say

48:51

that Moses coming down with a tablet is

48:53

one of them, but I I think there

48:54

actually are other cultural and maybe

48:56

even other religious elements of this

48:58

like where you recognize that a big part

49:00

of sort of the lawgiving tradition in

49:03

Western civilization is the um is some

49:07

of these religious texts, not

49:08

exclusively Christian religious texts.

49:11

Obviously some Jewish there's like a an

49:13

important contribution from the Muslim

49:14

world in this. So I I don't I I guess I

49:17

don't think of it as exclusionary while

49:19

also recognizing that, you know, America

49:21

is a society. Our founders were people

49:24

who were very much influenced even if

49:26

they weren't Christians, a lot of them

49:27

of course were, but were very influenced

49:30

by Christian culture and articulating

49:33

American law. So my argument would be

49:35

even if you're not a Christian, like

49:37

does seeing the Ten Commandments,

49:41

let me put it a slightly different way.

49:43

Does seeing the Ten Commandments force

49:45

religion on a non-Christian child? I

49:48

mean, my argument would be no. And I'd

49:50

illustrate this by saying, well, there

49:53

are all of these ways in which you

49:54

actually could try to force religion on

49:56

a child, right? Well, it's not the worst

49:58

way to force religion on a child, but to

50:00

have it and not represent any other rel.

50:03

This is Texas, by the way. Sure. So what

50:05

he's talking about was that there's

50:06

these Christian nationalists, these

50:09

these guys that are very wealthy that

50:11

are trying to fund Christian schools and

50:15

trying to defund public schools or any

50:18

other kind of religious school and what

50:20

they want to do and and they passed this

50:21

to get the Ten Commandments in all

50:23

public school classes. and he's

50:26

fundamentally opposed to that as a

50:27

Christian because he thinks it's going

50:29

to force people to have this in their

50:32

class and it's gonna push people away

50:34

from Christianity.

50:35

>> I mean, I understand the argument. I

50:36

just don't see it that way. I mean, I I

50:38

I guess if if I I I hear you, but if I'm

50:41

a non-religious student and I'm sitting

50:44

in there and I see the Ten Commandments,

50:46

at the very least, I think I can

50:47

appreciate it. I mean I you know what I

50:49

thought about this one sort of

50:51

>> what if you're a Hindu what if you're a

50:53

Muslim and you know and you are seeing

50:56

that represented but not your faith.

50:59

Well, it's a public school. F

51:01

>> first of all, I think that you you I

51:04

mean I I'm pretty sure Muslims I'm not

51:06

hardly an expert on Islam, but I I think

51:08

all of the Abrahamic faiths recognize

51:10

the Ten Commandments as like a

51:13

significant thing, but I think if I was

51:15

a Hindu looking at the Ten Commandments,

51:17

I mean, again, it's hard for me to say

51:18

this right from my my perspective, but I

51:20

certainly went through an atheist phase

51:22

in my in my youth. And what I would see

51:24

that as as a non-religious person or a

51:26

different religion is I would say this

51:28

is like an important cultural element of

51:32

the western civilization which is the

51:35

foundation of the classroom that I'm

51:36

sitting in. And this idea that the law

51:40

comes in is sort of above any man even

51:42

if you don't believe in God yourself. I

51:44

think that's like an important concept.

51:46

I mean, if you look at the Ten

51:47

Commandments, probably eight of them are

51:49

something that I would hope that

51:50

everybody would agree with, even if

51:51

they're that not themselves religious.

51:54

>> So, I I guess here's my my view on it.

51:56

Like, I would not be offended if I sat

52:00

in a classroom as a Christian or if my

52:02

kids sat in a classroom as a Christian

52:04

and saw, you know, a religious text that

52:07

wasn't Christian on on the wall. I would

52:09

encourage them to see that. No, I'd

52:11

encourage them to see that as a learning

52:12

experience to try to understand.

52:13

>> What if it was from the Quran? What do a

52:15

bunch of

52:16

>> I guess it depends on what it was,

52:18

right? If it's if it's like something

52:19

crazy, but but no, I mean, if if if it's

52:22

if it's something that is like

52:24

culturally interesting, I I guess I

52:27

don't I don't have a problem with my kid

52:29

reading.

52:30

>> The problem is it's mandated. Like if

52:32

you have a classroom and the teacher is

52:34

Christian and the teacher wants to have

52:36

it in their classroom, maybe that's one

52:38

thing. But if you're mandating that

52:41

you're going to have the Ten

52:42

Commandments in classrooms, that's a

52:44

different thing because now you're

52:45

you're pushing Christianity on kids. And

52:48

this is Terico's position. And as a

52:51

Christian, he's saying I think this is

52:53

going to push children away from

52:54

Christianity.

52:56

>> So I again I I I understand what he's

52:57

saying. I just I think that part of

53:00

living in a society where you have

53:02

different people of different

53:03

perspectives, but you do have I mean

53:05

Christianity is the majority religion of

53:07

the United States. It is the religion

53:09

that was extraordinary influential to

53:12

our founding to the constitutional

53:13

principles. Again, freedom of religion

53:15

is itself not really a liberal concept.

53:17

It was originally derived um from from

53:20

from a Christian idea about free will

53:23

and the dignity of the person. I think

53:25

part of that is that you accept that

53:27

you're going to have exposure to

53:29

different things. And if a if a state

53:32

legislator in a majority Christian state

53:35

wants, it's not like they're putting the

53:38

Ten Commandments in front of these kids

53:39

and saying, "You have to read this and,

53:41

you know, write it 500 times a day."

53:44

They're exposing kids to something. And

53:46

I'm comfortable with kids being exposed

53:48

to a lot of different things. I think

53:50

that's part of living in a society where

53:52

there's a free exchange of ideas. And

53:54

what I what I worry about with

53:55

Tallerico's sort of perspective here is

53:57

is again I'm not saying that I I don't

54:00

want kids to be exposed to anything that

54:03

is outside of the Christian cannon. Like

54:05

I I I actually want my kids exposed to

54:07

things. I I write about this in the book

54:09

that I think it's important to have a

54:11

grounded enough faith that you can

54:12

engage with a lot of different ideas and

54:14

still ultimately you know sort of hold

54:16

on to your to your Christian faith. But

54:20

isn't part of just living in a like

54:22

pluralistic democracy that people are

54:25

going to be exposed to different things?

54:27

And you know, I I would kind of put it

54:29

on Tallerico in a slightly different way

54:31

that for a long time in this country,

54:34

there were actually Supreme Court

54:35

rulings that said that you cannot pray

54:38

in a school, even a a student

54:40

organization led by the students, or

54:43

that you cannot put the Ten Commandments

54:44

up, even a teacher who chose to do it in

54:46

their own classroom. And so I think

54:49

you're always kind of trying to strike

54:50

this balance, you know, given that we

54:52

have the first amendment in this country

54:55

between allowing the practice of

54:56

religious faith in public spaces and

54:59

possibly forcing religion on other

55:02

people. I think you have to strike that

55:03

balance the right way. I guess I just

55:05

say is the if the Ten Commandments being

55:08

in a classroom is the thing that you

55:10

think is forcing religion on somebody,

55:13

was he equally offended when the Ten

55:15

Commandments were like quite literally

55:17

prohibited from being listed in

55:20

building?

55:20

>> I don't know if he was offended by that

55:23

or if he was opposed to that. But the

55:25

idea of being exposed to it is one

55:28

thing. It being mandatory is another.

55:31

And to mandate that in classrooms is a

55:33

different thing because you're promoting

55:35

clearly promoting Christianity. And his

55:37

position is that promoting Christianity

55:40

in that way is going to have an opposite

55:42

effect on children. You're pushing it on

55:44

them instead. You're not just exposing

55:46

it to them. You're pushing it on them.

55:47

And especially if you're pushing it on

55:49

children who come from a household that

55:51

has a different faith. I guess I just

55:52

think the balance in our country the

55:54

last 30 40 years has actually been much

55:55

more in the other direction which is

55:57

that we try to completely remove

55:59

religion from the public square and I

56:01

think that's that's that poses its own

56:04

problems because you know people

56:06

practice their faith in all kinds of

56:08

ways. We think that that's the

56:09

responsibility of churches and and

56:11

synagogues and where that like if you

56:14

want and and in the community if you

56:15

want to promote religion promote it that

56:17

way. But promoting in public schools

56:19

should be just educational. And if

56:21

you're in a religious class and a a

56:24

class is teaching about religion, that's

56:26

a different story.

56:28

>> Well, you're right. It's certainly the

56:30

responsibility of churches and

56:31

synagogues and mosques and so forth. But

56:34

I also think that, you know, the the the

56:36

late Supreme Court Chief Justice William

56:38

Ranquist sort of said this that if your

56:41

approach to religion in public life

56:44

always and everywhere is to push it out

56:47

of the public square, then you're

56:49

actually embracing a religion of your

56:51

own in the public square, which is

56:53

secularism. You're just taking one

56:54

religion and replacing it with

56:55

secularism. And I guess what I'm saying

56:57

is I'm kind of comfortable with people

56:59

of different faiths sharing the public

57:00

square together. But part of that is

57:03

that if if I'm in a 95% Christian

57:06

community and my local city council

57:08

wants to put up a nativity display on

57:09

on, you know, Christmas Eve, I'm okay

57:12

with that. And that was actually like

57:14

for a long time in our country actually

57:16

prohibited. Yeah.

57:17

>> And so what what I think is that we got

57:19

we we we sort of put ourselves in this

57:21

frame in this country where we said

57:23

every public display of religion is

57:27

somehow illegitimate. But I I I mean I

57:31

don't know. I I try to live my faith in

57:33

a way that's consistent across different

57:35

spheres of my life. You know, I don't

57:37

preach to people. I don't like to walk

57:38

into the White House tell my employees,

57:40

you know, you need to be you need to

57:42

follow Jesus as your Lord and Savior. I

57:44

just try to live my life in a way that

57:47

hopefully makes people a little curious

57:49

about what you know, what motivates me

57:50

and what inspires me. But I also don't

57:53

think that the expectation should be

57:55

that we tell religious people they're

57:56

not allowed to be religious in the

57:57

public square because I think that's

57:59

what we've done over the last 30 or 40

58:01

years. I guess, you know, we can agree

58:04

to disagree. I see the Texas thing as an

58:06

an attempt to correct that. This episode

58:08

is brought to you by Fox Nation. Real

58:10

American freestyle wrestling is

58:12

exclusively on Fox Nation. Every month

58:15

you get every feud, every match, and

58:18

every belt. And if you're a fan of MMA,

58:20

you don't want to miss it because RAF is

58:22

featuring some of the biggest UFC

58:24

fighters and putting them against the

58:27

best wrestlers in the world. On July

58:29

18th, RAF11 turns up the heat when Ben

58:33

Ascrin returns to the mat to take on

58:35

former UFC champion Bal Muhammad. Then

58:39

two undefeated RAF stars finally face

58:41

off when Arman Sarukian and Kobby

58:44

Coington settle their score in the main

58:46

event. No cages, no gloves, no excuses.

58:49

RAF11,

58:51

live from Milwaukee, Saturday, July

58:54

18th, streaming exclusively on Fox

58:57

Nation. Go to foxnation.com and sign up

59:00

today. Well, I think living by example

59:02

is probably the best promotion of any

59:05

good way to live your life, whether it's

59:07

Christianity or any other religion. I

59:09

think that's definitely the way to do

59:10

it. But the the point is that this is

59:13

being promoted by very wealthy people

59:16

who are Christian nationalists who who

59:18

want this to be uh they want it to what

59:22

is going on here, Jimmy? What you got?

59:23

Bible stories become required reading in

59:26

Texas public schools. Yeah. See? Well,

59:29

now that's a you're taking it to another

59:31

level. So, this is June 26. This is very

59:33

recently.

59:35

Um

59:37

that is that kind of thinking and

59:42

that kind of mindset is uh what bothers

59:45

me the most about some Republicans.

59:48

>> I see what you mean. Um, and then

59:51

there's the there's people that again

59:54

they live their life in a very beautiful

59:57

way and they follow the teachings of

60:00

Jesus Christ and they're very admirable

60:02

and I think that's very attractive and

60:04

it makes people very curious about that

60:07

religion. I think that brings people to

60:08

Christ and I think it brings people to

60:10

religion.

60:10

>> Sure. But then there's people like, did

60:13

you read that report uh that came from

60:18

at the start of the Iran war where uh

60:21

there was a guy who was an officer uh

60:24

non-commissioned officer who was uh at a

60:29

a briefing and this guy came in and was

60:32

explaining to them that they didn't need

60:35

to be afraid because this war was

60:38

important because Trump had been

60:40

anointed by Jesus Christ to bring about

60:42

his return. And the way they were going

60:45

to Jesus is going to return is by

60:48

bombing Iran. [laughter]

60:50

>> I did not see that report.

60:51

>> That sounds pretty far out there to me.

60:53

>> This is the kind of right-wing I see

60:56

>> thinking. So here it is. Military

60:58

commander tells troops bombing Iran is

61:00

part of God's divine plan. So, we

61:02

started getting calls in the wee hours

61:04

of Saturday morning from people saying

61:05

their commanders were just jubilant

61:07

about this, trying to tell people,

61:08

"Don't worry, it's all part of God's

61:10

plan. Uh, they promised a 200 mile long

61:15

river that is 4 and 1/2 ft deep, filled

61:17

with nothing but the blood that their

61:19

weaponized version of Jesus will spill

61:21

at the battle of Armageddon." Weinstein

61:24

said, u what what was the one uh there

61:27

was a there was an article where the guy

61:28

was explaining the actual quotes that

61:31

the the one uh officer was telling him

61:35

>> the one commander.

61:37

Uh yeah, but it's not that there was is

61:40

very specific. He was it was very

61:42

specific what he said.

61:45

Um, I mean, for what it's worth, my my

61:47

attitude on this stuff is I mean, first

61:50

of all, as a Christian, you sort of

61:51

believe that everything is is part of

61:53

God's plan, even things that are

61:56

ultimately very terrible. I mean, you

61:57

kind of have to make

61:58

>> it. Let me let me read the quote. He

62:00

urged us to tell our troops that this

62:01

was all part of God's divine plan. And

62:04

he specifically referenced numerous

62:06

citations out of the book of Revelations

62:08

referring to Armageddon and the imminent

62:10

return of Jesus Christ. He said that

62:12

President Trump had been anointed by

62:13

Jesus to light the signal fire in Iran

62:16

to cause Armageddon and mark his return

62:19

to Earth.

62:19

>> Okay.

62:20

>> If I'm in that meeting, I'm like, "Hit

62:22

[laughter] the brakes.

62:25

Hit the brakes." What?

62:27

>> Well, that's that's where you need some

62:28

of the psychedelics we talked about at

62:29

the last Joe Rogan JD Vance

62:31

conversation. [laughter]

62:32

>> That would definitely help.

62:33

>> I mean, my my response first of all,

62:36

like obviously, do I endorse that? No.

62:39

Do I think that it's important that

62:40

people reign it in a little bit? Because

62:42

I'm sure you're right. There were a lot

62:43

of troops there, probably a lot of

62:44

Christian troops there who were like,

62:45

uh, I'm not sure this is exactly right.

62:48

Right.

62:48

>> But the the important point is I think

62:51

it's important as a Christian leader, as

62:54

Christians, period. One of the things we

62:56

have to do is just have humility in the

62:58

face of of God's plan. There's a lot

63:00

that we don't understand. There's a lot

63:01

that we don't get. And I think

63:03

especially on matters of war and peace,

63:05

the approach that I try to take is you

63:08

try to make the best decisions that you

63:09

can. You hope that you're on God's side.

63:12

You don't assume that God has taken your

63:14

side. That's a that's a very famous

63:16

Abraham Lincoln quote. And that's the

63:18

attitude that I take. So for that, what

63:20

I, you know, what I would encourage that

63:21

NCO to say is, you know what, God is in

63:24

control. We don't know what's going to

63:26

happen, but let's pray and try to do as

63:28

good of a job as we can trusting in God.

63:31

If I was speaking to a group of

63:33

Christian troops, that's what I would

63:34

say.

63:35

>> But you're speaking to a group of

63:36

troops. You don't know if they're

63:38

Christian. You don't know. I mean,

63:39

you're essentially letting these people

63:41

know that you believe that Trump was

63:44

anointed by Jesus to bomb Iran so that

63:48

Jesus can come back to Earth.

63:49

>> Come back in a firearm.

63:51

>> I'd be like, "Can I get the [ __ ] out of

63:53

here?"

63:53

>> No, I hear you, man. I hear you. Look,

63:55

yes. And uh I I uh that's that is the

63:58

first that I have ever heard of this

64:00

particular story. How have you not heard

64:01

of this and Biden's two brain surgeries?

64:04

>> Apparently, I live in a bunker, man.

64:06

[laughter]

64:08

>> How do you not know about these things?

64:10

>> Wild. I Okay, here's the other thing

64:11

I'll say is is

64:14

having heard about this for the first

64:16

time just now. To your point about the

64:18

media,

64:20

>> I do think it's possible, let's be

64:22

honest, that whatever that dude said,

64:26

maybe it was good, maybe it was bad, has

64:28

been misreported by the press. So, I

64:30

always have a filter on this stuff. Like

64:32

I don't automatically assume.

64:34

>> It's also possible that this is the

64:36

other thing. He said the commander

64:37

supposedly had a big grin on his face

64:39

when he said all this, which made his

64:40

message seem even more crazy.

64:42

>> And I think that's again

64:44

>> I don't think anybody should have um

64:49

war is sometimes necessary, but it's

64:51

never a good thing. And that I think

64:53

that's like a fundamental Christian

64:55

principle is there are just wars, there

64:57

are necessary wars, but war is always

64:59

something that you try to avoid,

65:00

>> right? But saying that this is what's

65:02

being referenced in the book of

65:04

Revelation,

65:05

>> dude. I think that's I think that is

65:06

nuts. I also don't know that that, you

65:08

know, I want to be conf I want to

65:10

confirm that it's a person actually said

65:11

that before teeing off on it because

65:13

what that sounds to me is like somebody

65:16

butchering or misrepresenting something

65:19

that you know somebody that I know might

65:23

have said

65:23

>> quite possible. So you got to be

65:26

careful. Also quite possible that you

65:27

got a really looney guy who is a

65:30

Christian nationalist who is a commander

65:33

and who is in this position where he's

65:35

actually excited because he does think

65:38

that this is a holy [laughter] war and

65:40

this is going to bring back Jesus.

65:42

>> Well, it's certainly possible. I mean,

65:43

America's got 330 million people and

65:45

we've got a lot of people who believe in

65:46

a lot of things. But I can assure you

65:48

that we don't encourage people to talk

65:51

like that. And again, all I can do as a

65:54

Christian leader, I'll look into that

65:55

story certainly, but all I can do as a

65:56

Christian leader is talk about how I

65:57

think about questions of war and peace,

65:59

which is we try to do the right thing.

66:03

We try to figure out what it is that is

66:06

consistent with Christ's moral teaching

66:09

and we try to, you know, comport our

66:11

foreign policy with the cause of

66:13

justice. And that's what we try to do,

66:14

recognizing it's always going to be

66:16

imperfect. But I don't think that we

66:17

should ever have an attitude towards war

66:20

like this is a this is a great thing.

66:21

I'm going to grin and smile about that.

66:23

All I'm saying is I'm skeptical that

66:24

anybody took that approach because the

66:26

media misrepresents everything.

66:28

>> Do you think that this the way that you

66:31

just described it align with our

66:32

campaign in Iran?

66:34

>> Well, I think that the goal is certainly

66:37

good, which is to prevent Iran from

66:39

getting a nuclear weapon. And I I think

66:42

that there are obviously

66:44

a lot of questions about how best to

66:47

achieve that. There's both a short-term

66:48

and a long-term piece of it. I think the

66:51

short-term piece of it is effectively

66:52

what's already been done which is you

66:54

destroy the nuclear sites and you

66:56

destroy and eliminate the ability to

66:58

rebuild the nuclear sites. I think

67:00

there's a longer term thing which is

67:01

where like a lot of the debate is

67:03

focused on right now which is that

67:05

building a nuclear program is hard but

67:07

it's not impossible and it's expensive

67:10

but it's actually not even that

67:11

expensive if you look I mean you could

67:12

go on YouTube right now and find out how

67:14

to build an atomic bomb. So part of our

67:17

Iran policy, and this is where I get

67:19

frustrated with the people who say you

67:20

should never negotiate with Iran, part

67:22

of our Iran policy is like solving the

67:26

long-term problem that if we could

67:28

create the sort of circumstance where

67:30

Iran would commit not just to not have a

67:32

nuclear weapon right now, but over the

67:35

long term to not try to rebuild that

67:36

capacity, like yeah, I think that that

67:38

is a good and valuable thing.

67:42

>> If it was your call, would you have done

67:44

exactly the same [laughter] thing?

67:46

Well, what did the the president said um

67:50

publicly that JD was less enthusiastic

67:52

about it, I think was the exact phrase

67:53

that he used.

67:55

>> I mean, my attitude towards this man, as

67:57

you know, is the vice president. I'm not

67:59

a public commentator. Like, my job is to

68:02

give the best advice I can to the

68:03

president of the United States. I think

68:04

he's said a little bit about what that

68:06

advice was. Um, but once the president

68:10

makes a decision, so long as I think

68:12

that it's, you know, legal and ethical

68:13

and all that stuff, and I certainly

68:15

think whether you agree or disagree with

68:16

it, what we've done has been has been

68:18

legal, my attitude towards it is I try

68:21

to make it as successful as possible.

68:23

And I've got friends, of course, I think

68:25

you know, you've expressed some

68:26

skepticism of this. I've got a lot of

68:28

friends both in private and public

68:30

who've expressed skepticism of this who

68:31

say, "Well, this is terrible. We

68:33

disagree with the decision, etc., etc."

68:36

I'm not a public commentator. My

68:38

approach to this is not to Monday

68:40

morning quarterback a decision that was

68:42

made three months ago. My approach to it

68:43

is to try to make it as successful as

68:45

possible. Which is why I've poured my

68:47

heart and soul into these negotiations.

68:48

Which is why I've tried to make that

68:50

goal, Iran not having a nuclear weapon,

68:53

something that's not true both not just

68:55

now, but is true in the long term. And

68:57

that's the way that I try to approach

68:59

it. So, what is going on with Iran where

69:01

it seems like the president keeps saying

69:05

that a deal has been reached,

69:07

negotiations have been successful, and

69:10

then it all falls apart, and we start

69:12

bombing them again.

69:13

>> Yeah. So, uh, how long do we have here?

69:16

Cuz as much as you need So, so, so I

69:19

have to explain a couple of things in

69:21

the background so you sort of fully

69:22

appreciate, um, people fully appreciate

69:25

what's going on here. So number one,

69:26

it's a bit of a simplification, but you

69:28

have two elements within the Iranian

69:30

system. You have and and you sometimes

69:33

hear hawkish Americans say this that

69:34

they're all crazy people. They want to

69:36

bring about, you know, the the 12th imam

69:38

and the apocalypse and all that stuff.

69:40

There are people in Iran who believe

69:41

that they're also pragmatists. You've

69:43

got the crazy people, you've got the

69:44

pragmatists. Okay. So when we struck

69:47

thisou and really what theou says, and

69:50

I've it was misrepresented more than

69:52

almost anything that I've ever worked on

69:54

in public life. What it says is Iran is

69:57

going to open the straight of Hormuz.

69:58

The violence is going to stop and then

70:00

we're going to negotiate to see if we

70:02

can come to a broader deal on the

70:04

long-term nuclear issue. That's what we

70:06

wanted. And what the Iranians wanted, of

70:08

course, was long-term economic and

70:10

sanctions relief. Now, here's here's the

70:13

problem with where we are right now. And

70:16

and and I guess my summary view, Joe, is

70:19

that I of course can't predict the

70:20

future. I don't know exactly where this

70:22

is going to go, but I think

70:23

fundamentally we are on the right

70:25

trajectory. It's just going to be really

70:27

messy and there's going to be a lot of

70:29

stops and starts. So what happens the

70:31

first week after we sign theou, we get

70:34

20 million barrels a day of oil out of

70:35

the straight of Hormuz. That's what it

70:37

was before the war. The price of oil

70:39

comes way down and there are elements,

70:41

the hardliners in the Iranian system

70:43

kind of freak out a little bit. They're

70:45

like, "Oh [ __ ] did we just give away

70:47

our major leverage point? Screw nuclear

70:49

weapons. We just gave away this." So in

70:51

thisou and so there was this kind of

70:53

freak out in their system. So they shot

70:55

at a couple ships we responded and I

70:57

think that's entirely appropriate of

70:59

course if they're going to shoot at

71:00

ships we are going to shoot at the

71:02

people who are shooting at the ships or

71:03

we're going to destroy the facilities

71:05

that they're using to shoot at ships. So

71:07

that happens okay and then the Iranians

71:08

like oh no no fine that that you're

71:10

you're right we shouldn't have been

71:11

shooting at ships. So then they come

71:13

back to the table and there's a few more

71:14

days of negotiation and then the phase

71:17

they're in right now is the hardliners

71:19

have really really reacted strongly to

71:22

all the oil that's coming out of the

71:23

straight of Hormuz and they've basically

71:25

said we're going to try to shut this

71:27

thing down. We're scared about losing

71:29

our leverage. Now the pragmatists in

71:31

their system are saying this was a

71:32

mistake. Let's keep on talking. And

71:34

again do I know how this is ultimately

71:37

going to shake out? Of course I don't.

71:38

But what we're doing is a delicate

71:41

diplomatic dance where we're using

71:43

economic leverage points. We're using

71:45

carrots and sticks. We're trying to talk

71:47

to the pragmatists. And then of course

71:49

when they commit acts of violence, we're

71:51

responding to it. And all those things

71:53

are happening simultaneously to get us

71:54

on a better trajectory. Now that said,

71:58

yes, right now there's there's shooting

71:59

right now. Last night they shot at some

72:01

ships. The but with all that said, is

72:05

their nuclear program still destroyed?

72:07

Yes. Are the straits not necessarily

72:10

fully pre-war traffic, but are we

72:12

getting enough oil and gas out of the

72:14

straight of Hormuz to prevent a

72:15

worldwide energy crisis? Yes. And all of

72:18

these things are happening in the

72:20

context of the broader negot negotiation

72:22

over the nuclear program. You never know

72:24

where this is ultimately going to end

72:26

up, but that's where we are. And then

72:28

the can I just say one other thing about

72:29

this because [sighs] there are people

72:32

you know you see Mike Pence who's sort

72:34

of a superhawk my predecessor who say

72:37

this there are people you know um who

72:40

are super hawkish in the American system

72:42

who have attacked the deal and and

72:44

frankly in some ways have tried to

72:45

derail the deal and what I always say to

72:48

those people is what is your proposal

72:51

what is your actual argument so so just

72:53

take the straight of horm like the

72:55

narrowest but in some ways the most

72:56

important part of this back and forth

72:58

right now. Straight of Hormuz is a

73:00

narrow waterway. To the extent you shut

73:02

it down, you shut down 25% of the

73:04

world's energy supply. Okay, Joe, you

73:08

could take a $100,000 and go buy a bunch

73:10

of drones on the black market and post

73:13

yourself on an island in the Straight of

73:15

Hormuz near it and you could fire drones

73:18

at those ships. Okay? Now, what does

73:20

that mean? some oil and gas is still

73:23

going to get out because some ships and

73:24

some ship captains gonna say screw you.

73:27

Now, the United States can help that,

73:28

right? We can shoot down some of those

73:30

drones. We can shoot down some of those

73:31

missiles and so we can facilitate the

73:33

flow of traffic. But the people who are

73:36

like, you cannot negotiate with the

73:38

Iranians. The reason why that's

73:40

fundamentally idiotic is because so long

73:42

as you have some person who's willing to

73:46

fire off a few cheap drones, you're

73:48

going to have some ship captains who

73:49

say, "No, no, no. we're not willing to

73:51

do this. So, we got to kind of use all

73:53

tools at our disposal. The military is

73:56

one tool, but diplomacy is another tool.

73:58

And I I'm very frustrated by the

74:00

Americans and frankly by people in other

74:02

countries who are like, you cannot

74:04

negotiate with the Iranians. Well, then

74:07

what is your proposal to get people to

74:09

stop shooting at ships in the straight

74:10

of Hormuz? You can bomb them. You can

74:12

take away their radar. You can take away

74:14

some of their drones and some of their

74:15

missiles, but it's just too easy to fire

74:18

at ships in the straits. So, you've got

74:21

to actually be willing to talk and to

74:22

try to figure out the problem.

74:24

>> What is their proposal? The people that

74:26

think you shouldn't negotiate with Iran.

74:27

>> I think that their proposal is to bomb

74:30

and bomb and bomb. And the honest view,

74:33

Joe, is that they they do not actually

74:35

have a solution. If you actually ask

74:38

them, "What do you want us to do? What

74:39

is the goal that you're trying to

74:41

achieve?" You know, they'll they'll say

74:43

things like, "Well, just bomb them to

74:45

oblivion." Okay, we can do that. We can

74:48

drop a lot of bombs, but what does that

74:50

accomplish if there's still a crazy

74:51

person who's still willing to shoot a

74:53

few drones at the straight of Hormuz?

74:55

What the president has done, I think

74:57

very very capably is said, "We're going

74:59

to use military force in the in this

75:01

situation when it's connected to

75:03

something we're trying to achieve." So,

75:05

if you shoot at ships, we're going to

75:06

shoot at the facilities at which you

75:09

used to shoot at the ships. But we're

75:11

not just going to do something

75:12

open-ended indefinitely. We're not just

75:14

going to bomb and bomb and bomb. We're

75:16

going to try to use our military force

75:17

as one of the many tools that we have to

75:19

solve the problem. And obviously, like

75:21

I'm biased, but I think that's exactly

75:22

the right approach. I I actually think

75:25

you have to read between the lines a

75:27

little bit because if if you look at

75:28

what Mike Pence or some of the

75:29

conservative hawks, like people who

75:31

voted for us, but have been very

75:33

critical of me, very critical of the

75:34

administration,

75:36

if you actually look at what they're

75:38

proposing, they just want the military

75:40

campaign to go on forever. and they

75:42

can't actually identify what it is that

75:44

they're trying to accomplish. None of

75:46

them can identify what it is they're

75:47

trying to accomplish. And I and I read

75:49

two things between the lines. I think

75:51

some of them want us to accomplish a

75:54

complete change in the government of

75:57

Iran to topple the clerics and to

75:59

replace that those clerics with somebody

76:01

who's, you know, much friendlier. But

76:03

like look, what is our experience with

76:05

doing that?

76:07

>> It's not good. Right? And so, like, if

76:10

the Iranian people want to rise up and

76:12

change their government, that's up to

76:13

them. But we're not going to send

76:15

150,000 ground troops in in order to

76:18

accomplish a change in a regime unless

76:21

the people on the ground themselves want

76:24

to accomplish that outcome. Now, we're

76:26

not going to send the troops in

76:27

regardless, but like to propose sending

76:29

in the troops,

76:31

you're basically saying that the US

76:33

military should do the job for the

76:37

Iranian people. We're not in that

76:39

business anymore. We're just not. And

76:41

then I think a second outcome that

76:43

people are are whether they're aware of

76:44

it or not is what I call the Libya

76:47

outcome. So if you look at the end

76:49

result of our Libya policy after Gaddafi

76:52

was killed by the Obama administration,

76:53

by the way, again, a a very stupid

76:56

decision, what happened? Libya basically

76:59

turned into a failed state. You had a

77:00

refugee crisis. You had people pouring

77:02

into Europe, pouring into other parts of

77:04

Asia, other parts of Africa. You had a

77:07

lot of violence, a lot of terrorism come

77:08

from that. I do think that there are

77:10

people who would like that to be the

77:12

outcome in Iran. But then I say again,

77:15

what is in our interest? How is it in

77:17

the United States's interest to have 94

77:19

million desperate people flooding into

77:21

Europe, flooding into the United States,

77:23

to have, you know, sort of the the

77:26

terrorist infrastructure that can get

77:27

established when you fan terrorists all

77:30

over the world? We've run this

77:32

experiment before. And so our policy

77:34

right now, what we're trying to

77:36

accomplish is get the straits open,

77:39

ensure the free flow of oil and gas,

77:41

obviously want to keep the Iranians from

77:43

having a nuclear weapons program, and

77:45

using the tools of diplomacy and

77:48

military power to accomplish that.

77:50

>> And Libya failing and the collapse of

77:54

Libya is a lot of what's fueled the

77:57

migrant crisis in Europe as well.

77:59

Correct.

78:00

>> Exactly. that in Syria, another failed

78:02

state that was created by bad Middle

78:04

Eastern policy. So there is precedent

78:06

for the United States doing this. Every

78:08

time that it has happened, it's caused a

78:10

refugee crisis. It's caused a spike in

78:12

terrorism. And it's also not

78:14

incidentally to the moral

78:15

considerations. It's led to a lot of

78:17

innocent civilian deaths.

78:18

>> Now, what was the the talk about I think

78:22

the number was like $300 billion in

78:24

concessions to Iran to rebuild.

78:27

Yeah. So, this is another just [ __ ]

78:30

argument that the critics made against

78:32

the deal. And and and again, like I just

78:35

to back up a little bit, this is my own

78:36

little hobby horse, but look, we the

78:39

coalition that Donald Trump piloted to

78:42

the 2024 election campaign. It was a

78:45

landslide. We won seven states. It was

78:47

historic. Nobody, certainly no

78:49

Republican had actually led a coalition

78:52

like that, at least since the days of

78:54

Ronald Reagan. So, like literally before

78:56

I was alive. Okay. So, Donald Trump wins

79:00

this great coalition and look, it's got,

79:01

man, it's got hawks and it's got people

79:04

who hate foreign wars. Okay. It's got

79:07

people like you and people like Tucker.

79:09

It's also got people like Mark Leven and

79:11

others. Okay. I just accept that as a

79:14

reality. That's part of the coalition. I

79:16

don't say that anybody is welcome or

79:18

unwelcome. I say that if you're willing

79:19

to sort of help us, you're going to get

79:21

a lot what you want. You don't get

79:22

everything that you want. What has

79:24

really annoyed me about the the hawkish

79:28

side of this thing is

79:31

they attack any effort to negotiate.

79:34

They attack the president. They attack

79:36

me personally. Donald Trump is betraying

79:37

me. Well, wait a second. I if you if you

79:41

if you want to have like a hawkish

79:42

policy towards Iran, the idea that

79:45

Donald Trump has betrayed you because

79:47

he's also trying to negotiate to get a

79:49

good outcome for the American people is

79:51

crazy. And so you've seen a lot of these

79:53

people completely flip on him. And that

79:56

brings me to the 300 million or the $300

79:58

billion point. What we what we did with

80:01

with theou is is we actually worked not

80:03

just with the Iranians but with the Gulf

80:05

Arab states.

80:06

>> What is the term? What does it stand

80:08

for?

80:08

>> Memorandum of understanding. It's the

80:10

basic it's the basic structure that we

80:12

set up for the negotiation. So what what

80:15

happened here is okay so people sort of

80:17

think of of the Middle East as like Iran

80:19

versus Israel. I think a lot of people

80:21

do. There's also a massive number of

80:25

Gulf States that are really important,

80:26

good allies to the United States. You

80:29

know, they and Israel don't always see

80:30

eye to eye, but we're obviously very

80:31

close to both Israel and to the Gulf

80:33

States. And the Gulf States actually

80:36

came to us and said, "You know what? If

80:38

the Iranians are willing, really willing

80:40

to change their behavior, we'd like to

80:43

invest in rebuilding their country."

80:45

Now,

80:47

whether they change their behavior is

80:48

something that's going to be determined

80:50

over the long term, right? We want to

80:51

see real changes. We want to see them to

80:53

stop funding terrorist organizations.

80:56

And also, of course, none of that money

80:57

comes from the United States. But if

80:59

Iran's biggest enemies in the region are

81:02

saying, "We'd like to invest if they've

81:05

changed their behavior. Would the United

81:07

States let us? Would we release the

81:09

sanctions that would make it possible

81:10

for the UAE and Saudi Arabia and other

81:12

countries to invest in Iran?" Our

81:14

attitude was, well, isn't that a victory

81:16

for us? If Iran's biggest enemies see

81:19

that they have changed themselves so

81:21

much that they're willing to invest in

81:23

the Iranian economy, isn't that like the

81:25

definition of a win-win? And then you

81:28

had all these people saying, "No, no,

81:29

no, no. You can't give them $300

81:31

billion." It's like, we're not talking

81:32

about giving them $300 billion. We're

81:34

talking about letting other countries

81:36

invest in Iran if Iran has changed the

81:39

way that it treats the Gulf Arab

81:41

countries. It's fundamentally between

81:42

them, meaning the Iranians and the Gulf

81:44

Arab countries. So there's this line in

81:46

theou that basically says that if Iran

81:49

meets all of its obligations, then we

81:51

will permit other countries to invest in

81:53

Iran. That's it. And that like again,

81:57

the hawks attacked us and misrepresented

82:01

this and lied about it and said the

82:03

Trump administration is going to give

82:05

the Iranians $300 billion. And it's

82:07

totally fake. It's completely made up.

82:10

and it was done purely in order to

82:13

politically tank the negotiation. So

82:15

there there's been this interesting

82:17

dynamic here where as we've been trying

82:20

to negotiate, there have been these

82:23

extraordinarily wellunded efforts to

82:25

tank the negotiation to prevent us from

82:27

reaching a deal to change American

82:29

public opinion, which by the way, if you

82:31

look at the public opinion, people love

82:33

the idea of actually getting to a final

82:37

resolution on this thing. Americans do

82:39

not they're not game for long-term, you

82:42

know, open-ended regime change wars in

82:44

the Middle East. They're okay with us

82:47

using the military to accomplish

82:49

discrete objectives. They're not okay

82:51

with open-ended obligations.

82:54

>> What do you think the motivation of the

82:56

hawks is? Do do you think this is are

82:59

they influenced by defense contractors?

83:02

So the influence what is what's the

83:03

reason why they're so keen on continuing

83:07

to bomb?

83:08

>> I think with with any big group of

83:10

people you have you know you have a

83:12

diversity of opinions. So so sure I I'm

83:14

sure that you know you have people who

83:17

are influenced by defense contractors.

83:20

You know there's a lot of talk about how

83:21

how much is the Israeli government

83:23

influencing American politics and uh

83:26

there are certainly certain people

83:27

within the Israeli government who hate

83:29

the deal. And we we we see exact

83:31

evidence. There was a Times story that

83:32

came out yesterday

83:34

um that basically there are certain

83:36

influencers in America who are being

83:40

paid in order to attack the deal. I

83:42

think some of it it's just pure

83:44

political ideology, right? It's foreign

83:46

policy perspectives that is that are

83:48

much different from mine. They think

83:50

that America should just that we can

83:53

basically you can wave a magic wand with

83:55

the military and accomplish whatever you

83:57

want. And you know, it's it's not that

83:59

simple. You actually have to have a very

84:01

clear objective. Military power can

84:04

accomplish a clear objective, but you've

84:06

got to have that clear objective. You

84:07

can't just say, "We're going to bomb

84:09

until something good happens." That

84:10

never works. The United States has tried

84:12

that before. So, I think it's a

84:14

combination of things, but I I

84:16

definitely think you have seen this very

84:19

discreet, extremely well-funded campaign

84:23

to try to derail the negotiation and try

84:25

to derail the deal. And you know, there

84:28

was again there's this time article that

84:29

came out yesterday. A friend sent it to

84:31

me. It's like worth reading because it

84:34

lists a bunch of people who have quite

84:36

literally been paid

84:39

by a former Trump campaign person who

84:42

was himself paid by certain elements

84:45

within the Israeli government. And those

84:47

people are attacking me viciously for

84:50

quite literally trying to accomplish the

84:52

negotiation objective that the president

84:54

set for the country. So,

84:55

>> what is their position? Like, are

84:57

they're attacking you? How?

84:58

>> Oh, it's it's social media posts. It's,

85:01

you know, they're leaking to reporters.

85:02

They're attacking me obsessively saying

85:05

that we should not be negotiating with

85:07

Iran. We should just keep the military

85:09

campaign going indefinitely. And that is

85:12

that is their explicit position. and

85:14

coming after me saying that, you know,

85:16

people have come after me and say that

85:17

I'm influenced by Qatar, that I'm

85:19

influenced by foreign governments, that,

85:21

you know, I take my marching orders from

85:23

Tucker Carlson. And there there's just

85:25

so much [ __ ] out there when what I'm

85:28

actually trying to do is accomplish what

85:30

the president of the United States told

85:31

me to accomplish, which is a settlement

85:34

of this that accomplishes our

85:36

objectives. Iran doesn't have a nuclear

85:38

weapon. We have the free flow of oil and

85:40

gas. and and and like I should be clear

85:43

um you know

85:46

like I don't actually mind I don't mind

85:50

that the

85:53

you know let's say certain elements of

85:55

the Israeli government want to criticize

85:57

the deal or have disagreements about the

85:59

deal. I don't even mind an effort to try

86:02

to influence, you know, foreign

86:05

governments try to influence the United

86:06

States all the time. You know, Israel

86:07

does it, other countries do it. It's

86:09

just sort of the nature of the beast.

86:12

What bothers me is actually when

86:15

Americans allow, meaning American

86:18

leadership allows that influence to

86:21

affect their judgment and to affect what

86:24

they are advocating for. That's what

86:26

really bothers me. People are always

86:28

going to try to influence the United

86:29

States of America, whether they're

86:30

allies of ours or whether they're

86:32

enemies of ours. But again, when I open

86:35

up the pages of Time magazine and I see

86:38

that there's a literal foreign influence

86:40

campaign being funded to tank the very

86:43

deal that I was pursuing and oh, by the

86:45

way, many of the people who were

86:46

receiving that money were actually

86:48

attacking me in completely dishonest

86:50

ways. You know, my response to that is,

86:52

well, go to hell. I'm going to do what I

86:54

have to do for the American people. I

86:55

represent Americans first, and that's

86:59

the way that I've I've tried to to do

87:00

this job. And I, you know, Joe, the

87:03

crazy thing is I'm like, people don't

87:06

realize this. I'm actually in this, you

87:09

know, there's this massive pro-Israel,

87:11

anti-Israel debate in the United States

87:13

of America. I'm like the reasonable

87:16

moderate. And I think that's what so

87:18

many people don't realize is, you know,

87:21

I've been accused of being an

87:22

anti-semite. I've been accused been

87:25

accused

87:25

>> for what reason? uh quite literally for

87:28

um I I've been accused of trying to I

87:30

guess some people say that I've insulted

87:32

the Jewish religion which is insane.

87:34

Like I like I have a ton of respect for

87:37

the Jewish religion. I mean if you talk

87:39

about

87:39

>> What specifically did you say that

87:40

>> I don't know I've never heard the a good

87:43

compelling argument for why I'm an

87:45

anti-semite even though I've been

87:46

accused of being an anti-semite by many

87:48

people. But it's it I what always what I

87:53

say to these guys is look at public

87:56

opinion. Look at the way young

87:58

Republicans versus Republicans over the

88:00

age of 65 approach this issue. Like

88:05

right now, Israel is losing the public

88:08

opinion battle in the United States of

88:09

America. It is a simple and obvious

88:12

fact. Donald Trump has said that

88:13

publicly. It's a simple and obvious

88:16

fact. that is

88:17

>> well let me finish this point because

88:19

okay my attitude is towards this is

88:22

>> Israel is an ally like France or like

88:25

the United Kingdom we're going to have

88:27

disagreements with them we're going to

88:28

have agreements with them there are

88:30

areas where we're going to have similar

88:31

interests and areas where our interests

88:33

are going to diverge so my approach to

88:35

this is to say you know what we're

88:37

partnered great let's work together and

88:40

we're not let's just be honest about it

88:42

and I for that people attack me for

88:45

being an anti-Semite or anti-Israel and

88:48

they don't see the writing on the wall

88:50

that I'm actually just the guy

88:52

advocating for a normal relationship

88:54

with a normal country that's based

88:56

around shared interest as opposed to

88:58

based around, you know, something else.

89:01

So why why is Israel losing um why is

89:06

Israel losing American public opinion?

89:09

Well, the narrative is that Israel has a

89:12

very disproportionate effect on American

89:15

politics.

89:15

>> Yeah, I see that. I see that narrative.

89:16

I mean, I actually think that

89:20

they

89:22

look, do they try to influence American

89:24

politics? Yes. But like I said earlier,

89:25

a lot of other countries do. I think

89:27

some

89:27

>> to the extent that Israel does.

89:29

>> I think some are better at it than

89:30

others. I think the Israel are

89:31

definitely more effective at it than

89:32

most. But I wouldn't say that they're

89:33

the only effective country by any means

89:36

that tries to influence American

89:37

politics. I just think you have to be

89:39

self-aware about it. I mean, why

89:40

wouldn't you? It's a country of 9

89:42

million people. We have 330 million

89:44

people. And so, of course, they're going

89:46

to try to persuade Americans. They're

89:49

going to try to move Americans in one

89:50

direction or another. I think that's

89:52

just the nature of the beast.

89:53

>> But it's more than that. The concern is

89:55

that they're spying on American

89:57

politicians. That they're there's

90:00

there's there's concerns about funding.

90:03

There's concerns about influence.

90:05

There's concerns about whether or not

90:07

politicians are whether they're aligned

90:10

with Israel or whether they're aligned

90:12

with the United States first.

90:14

>> Well, there's certainly [sighs]

90:16

like I definitely get those concerns,

90:18

but my sense is that the way that all

90:21

foreign influence works in the United

90:23

States is people try to manipulate

90:26

American public opinion and then from

90:28

manipulating it public opinion they try

90:30

to get the outcomes that they want. I

90:31

this thing is a very good example of

90:33

this. So, you know, like we know, I'm

90:37

telling you beyond a reasonable doubt,

90:39

we know that the negotiation strategy

90:42

that the president has asked us to

90:44

pursue and again with limitations like

90:47

when the Iranians hit ships, the

90:49

president has been willing to knock the

90:50

hell out of the Iranians in response.

90:52

This is not just a negotiation. It's

90:54

negotiation, it's military, it's all

90:56

these things. But I know with beyond a

90:57

shadow of a doubt that there have been

91:00

people within the Israeli government who

91:01

are trying to like actually shift us

91:06

away from that policy because they want

91:08

to continue the military campaign. And

91:10

by the way, like there are people within

91:12

their government that I love, I have

91:13

good relationships with. I hope and I

91:15

don't think that they're part of this. I

91:17

mean, you know, the the ambassador of of

91:20

uh Israel to the United States, I think

91:21

is actually really good guy. Obviously,

91:23

he cares about Israel first. I care

91:25

about America first. But there are some

91:27

people within their system, we know

91:29

beyond a shadow of a doubt, who are

91:31

manipulating and trying to change

91:35

American public opinion to keep the war

91:37

going on indefinitely. Again, not

91:39

towards any objective, but just

91:41

indefinitely. So like, does it happen?

91:43

Yes. But I guess what I would say to the

91:46

Americans who sort of see this and are

91:48

frustrated by it, my attitude would be

91:50

you should be frustrated at American

91:52

leaders who are, you know, persuaded by

91:56

this, affected by this.

91:58

Countries are going to do what countries

92:00

do. I really don't. It doesn't bother me

92:01

that Qatar tries to influence the United

92:03

States of America and they do. I like a

92:05

lot of the Qataris just like I like a

92:07

lot of the Israelis. Doesn't bother me

92:08

that Israel tries to do this. It frankly

92:10

doesn't even bother me that Russia or

92:11

some of these other countries do it.

92:12

It's just the nature of being a

92:16

political leader in 2026. What does

92:19

bother me is when those operations,

92:23

those influence campaigns actually

92:25

affect American political judgment

92:27

because they shouldn't because we should

92:29

be thinking what is in the best interest

92:30

of the United States of America.

92:32

>> Do you think that Israel is affecting

92:35

American political judgment?

92:38

Um,

92:41

I mean,

92:44

I certainly think that

92:47

there are a lot of talking points and

92:50

there are a lot of arguments that make

92:53

their way into American political

92:55

discourse. I think there are a lot of

92:57

social media campaigns that definitely

92:59

influence Americans and affect

93:01

Americans. Do I think that it's been

93:03

dispositive on any particular issue like

93:06

like I think that's a much more

93:08

difficult question.

93:08

>> Do you think that we would have started

93:10

this war in Iran without the influence

93:12

of Israel?

93:14

>> I think the president completely

93:16

separate from any influence from Israel

93:20

believes very strongly and again I agree

93:22

with this that Iran should not have a

93:23

nuclear weapon. I think he was willing

93:25

to do things

93:26

>> bombed them in June.

93:28

>> Right. That was the initial attack,

93:29

right?

93:30

>> June of last year. Yeah. Midnight

93:32

hammer.

93:32

>> Yeah. Right.

93:33

Do you think he would have continued

93:36

with the most recent campaign if it

93:39

wasn't for the influence of Israel?

93:40

>> Yes. Yes, I I do. Really? I do. Yeah.

93:42

>> Look, I mean, I I I I think

93:46

[sighs and gasps]

93:47

again, and I see this and I see it even

93:49

from people that are in our coalition,

93:51

and this would be my my flip side to the

93:53

hawks who have been attacking me or the

93:55

president mercilessly over negotiation.

93:57

I would sort of turn this back on some

93:59

of the doves or some of the realists who

94:01

have been attacking the president of the

94:02

United States.

94:03

>> The doves. Those are the peace peace

94:05

people.

94:05

>> Peace people.

94:06

>> That's what you call them.

94:07

>> Hawks and doves. You never heard that

94:08

phrase? [laughter]

94:09

>> I've heard hawks. I've heard hawks. I

94:11

don't think I've ever heard doves.

94:13

>> Hawks and and pigeons. Hawks and I don't

94:15

know.

94:15

>> I think it's more doves.

94:16

>> Doves is good. Right. So

94:19

what what I I think a lot of people I've

94:21

heard this argument

94:23

>> is is this idea that Donald Trump,

94:26

you know, was sort of I've even heard

94:28

people say he was blackmailed into this.

94:30

>> Yeah.

94:31

>> By the not true, dude. It's just it's

94:34

just not true. I've seen the decision-m

94:35

up close. Again, whether you agree or

94:37

disagree with our negotiation or whether

94:39

you agree or disagree with the decision

94:41

to launch the campaign epic fury to

94:43

begin with, the idea that Donald Trump

94:46

is being like back blackmailed is crazy

94:51

to me because again, I I see the way

94:53

that he makes decisions. I see the way

94:55

that he processes this stuff. Like the

94:57

idea that he picks up the phone with

94:58

anybody and says, "Hey, like I'm going

95:00

to take orders from you." No, that's

95:02

just not how Donald Trump operates. Can

95:04

you understand though why people would

95:06

come to that conclusion especially

95:08

because the of the Epstein files?

95:12

>> What do you mean?

95:12

>> Well, the Epstein files were supposed to

95:14

be released. We were and there was a

95:17

tremendous amount of resistance to those

95:19

files being released and that concerned

95:21

a lot of people cuz if if you're talking

95:24

about very wealthy, powerful people that

95:26

were engaged in crimes.

95:27

>> I see. I So you're you're basically

95:29

saying like there's a the fear is that

95:31

whatever's in the Epstein files was used

95:34

to blackmail like the administration

95:37

into doing the Iran thing

95:38

>> or at the very least the people that

95:41

were involved in the Epstein files that

95:44

didn't want them coming out had undue

95:46

influence.

95:48

>> Well

95:50

again like say this with all cander like

95:53

we absolutely screwed up the comms of

95:55

the Epstein files like we just did. But

95:57

do I think the reason we screwed up the

95:59

comms is because we were trying to hide

96:01

something? No. I think the reason we

96:03

screwed up the comms of the Epstein

96:05

files is one, you know, Pam said Pam

96:08

Bondi said the client list is on my

96:10

desk, right?

96:12

>> Well, see, they had binders. They were

96:14

they were sitting in front

96:16

>> but those binders were largely documents

96:18

that had already been released, right?

96:20

So, so here's let me try what was the

96:23

purpose of that performative display of

96:25

the Epstein files and and she was saying

96:28

there's tens of thousands of hours of

96:31

film.

96:32

>> I don't know what the purpose of it was,

96:33

but I know that the effect of it was to

96:37

make people mistrust the entire effort.

96:39

And I think what I think was happening,

96:41

look, I I know Pam. I like Pam. I don't

96:43

think there was anything malicious going

96:44

on. I think Pam was trying to respond to

96:47

the political moment. I think she

96:49

overstated what we had and what we

96:51

didn't have. And I think that she, you

96:53

know, got got roasted for it publicly by

96:55

a lot of people, including me. Like, you

96:57

know, you and I have talked about this a

96:59

lot. I'm like one of the OG Epstein

97:02

conspiracy theorists. I've probably gone

97:03

down every single rabbit hole. We could

97:05

go down uh most of them today. Look, the

97:08

original sin of the Epstein

97:11

investigation,

97:13

and obviously I'm biased here, but it

97:15

was not what Donald Trump and the

97:18

administration did in 2025. It was you

97:20

have to go back to 2007208, the original

97:23

Alex Aosta investigation of Jeffrey

97:25

Epstein where he basically dropped the

97:28

federal charges. I think Epstein ended

97:30

up getting prosecuted on some sort of

97:32

local thing. But the original warrant,

97:35

you go to the original warrant back in

97:37

2008. What was he looking for? What was

97:39

he allowed to look for? What were they

97:41

collecting? It was not looking at a

97:43

broader conspiracy. So that happens.

97:47

Okay. Epstein gets pinched. I think he

97:49

goes to prison or maybe this is when he

97:51

was on house arrest. Mhm.

97:52

>> But like anything that existed from the

97:56

80s and 90s up to 2006, 2007, anything

98:00

that existed that we didn't get back

98:02

then was disappeared. Right? So like

98:06

when people say has has what you've seen

98:08

on the inside make you think that the

98:10

you know that Epstein never blackmailed

98:12

people or that Epstein never engaged in

98:14

broader sex trafficking? No, absolutely

98:16

not. What I have seen, and I've looked

98:18

at most of the files, is that there just

98:22

wasn't dispositive evidence. And if that

98:26

dispositive evidence ever existed, it

98:28

was probably destroyed after 2006, 2007.

98:30

Now, look, again, in our defense,

98:33

yes, was there some, you know, bitching

98:35

and moaning and was there some back and

98:36

forth? Yes. But there we eventually

98:40

collected six million documents as part

98:44

of the effort. the president. People say

98:46

the president was forced into releasing

98:48

the documents. Like again, the idea that

98:52

Donald Trump could not have killed that

98:53

legislation, especially with the United

98:55

States Senate is a joke. He absolutely

98:58

could have killed it. What did he do? He

98:59

actually said, "Nope, we're going to

99:00

release these files." He thought, you

99:02

know, he was annoyed by the story. He

99:04

was annoyed by the Democrats accusing

99:06

him of doing things bad. By the way,

99:08

like do I think there is any I've never

99:11

seen a single piece of cred credible

99:13

evidence that the president of United

99:15

States engaged in wrongdoing with minors

99:17

ever. So, like when the president says

99:19

the hoax, that's what he's talking about

99:22

is this democratic idea that he somehow

99:24

was a was a pedophile. It's absurd.

99:26

There's no evidence for it. Now, the

99:29

Epstein docu the Epstein, you know, law

99:32

gets signed. We find six million

99:34

documents. We find about 3 million of

99:37

them are actually responsive has

99:38

something to do with the Epstein estate.

99:40

We release all of them with the

99:42

exception of a few things that are like,

99:44

you know, the courts have said that we

99:45

have to redact certain things or we

99:47

can't release certain files. But like we

99:50

did release all these files. Did it take

99:53

longer than it should have taken? Yes.

99:55

But we did release these files. And

99:57

again, the problem here is not

100:01

like

100:03

anything that's in the files or not in

100:04

the files. The problem is if you go back

100:07

to the original investigation, it was

100:09

designed in a way that was way too

100:11

narrow. If there was a broader

100:14

conspiracy and you know, my view is that

100:16

there probably was. The evidence that

100:19

existed in 2007, that was the

100:21

opportunity to get.

100:22

>> So when you say there probably was a

100:24

broader conspiracy, what exactly are you

100:26

saying? I think there are a few

100:27

different options. I mean, look, man, I

100:28

like you could you and I could literally

100:30

do two episodes about this. I've gone on

100:32

down every rabbit hole. There's this

100:34

funny New York Times story that's

100:36

somewhat true, somewhat false, but where

100:38

Susie Wilds, the White House chief of

100:39

staff, says, "Well, we know JD's a

100:41

conspiracy theorist on this." Like, I am

100:43

actually. I've I've gone down every

100:45

every rabbit hole here. Look, so there's

100:48

the theory that whether it was American

100:50

intel or foreign intel that Epstein was

100:53

sort of using

100:55

um Epstein was using sort of the the sex

100:58

ring to blackmail rich and powerful

101:00

people. There's that piece of it. You

101:03

know, I'm I'm I I think there's a

101:05

separate conspiracy that hasn't gotten

101:06

covered as much, which is that Epstein

101:10

actually, okay, if you go back to to the

101:13

original Epstein guy was Les Wexner,

101:16

okay, who Columbus, Ohio was the

101:19

wealthiest person in Ohio, maybe still

101:21

is the wealthiest person in the state of

101:22

Ohio. The thing that everybody in

101:24

Columbus, and I lived there for a time,

101:27

knew about the Wexner Epstein

101:29

relationship is that Epstein was his tax

101:34

guy. that Epstein was like the genius at

101:37

identifying weird tax strategies that

101:40

would allow you to not have to pay

101:42

taxes, but if you were being a little

101:44

skeptical would also say that it would

101:46

allow Epstein to either blackmail people

101:48

or to have a separate nexus of influence

101:51

and control on rich and powerful people.

101:53

And so I think there's an under

101:55

reportported underexploited story of is

101:59

EP was Epstein like doing a lot of tax

102:02

stuff that was not on the up and up and

102:04

is that one way in which he gained

102:06

blackmail. It's it's not opposite of the

102:08

sexual blackmail story but in some ways

102:10

it's it's uh you know you could imagine

102:12

both things being true. Um I also just

102:16

think there's an element of he was a

102:19

scumbag. He was a very sick person. He

102:22

built relationships with a lot of other

102:24

rich and powerful people who just didn't

102:26

have any real moral judgment about the

102:29

fact the guy was obviously a scumbag.

102:31

And again, to go back to defending

102:32

Donald Trump, I know people don't want

102:33

to hear this these days, but like who

102:35

was the guy? People say Donald Trump was

102:38

blackmailed by Jeffrey Epste. Who was

102:40

the guy who narked on Epstein to the

102:43

Palm Beach police? That's in the Epstein

102:45

files, right?

102:46

>> It was Donald Trump.

102:47

>> He also kicked him out of Maraago.

102:49

>> He kicked him out of Mara Lago. It's

102:50

just

102:51

>> it's obvious that Epstein was a sick

102:53

man.

102:53

>> Yes. But if people want to say we

102:54

mishandled the Epstein release, guilty.

102:57

We did mishandle especially the

102:59

communications of it.

103:00

>> What do you think should have been done?

103:01

>> I think that we should have just dropped

103:02

everything at the very beginning and

103:05

like obviously it takes a little time to

103:06

review the stuff, to find the stuff, to

103:08

redact things where you have victims and

103:10

so forth, but we should have just done

103:11

it as quickly as possible.

103:12

>> But some of the stuff that was redacted,

103:14

some of the names that were redacted

103:15

weren't victims.

103:17

So yeah, I I I I've looked into this and

103:22

my understanding of this having looked

103:24

at a lot of this but not all of it is

103:26

that it is sometimes hard to draw a

103:30

distinction between victim and

103:31

co-conspirator and like let me highlight

103:33

this in a very sort of obvious way. Ro

103:37

Kana, who's been one of the most one of

103:39

the loudest voices on the Epstein file.

103:40

Well, he became very loud on the Epstein

103:42

files the minute Donald Trump became

103:44

president. Didn't seem to care about it

103:45

during the Biden administration. He

103:47

actually brought one of the Epstein

103:50

victims, I think, to the State of the

103:51

Union last year, or maybe it was the

103:52

year before last. Well, like that

103:54

victim, and I'm not accusing, I'm not

103:57

saying she wasn't a victim. Uh I don't

103:59

know anything about her particular case.

104:02

She was also listed as a co-conspirator

104:04

in some of these documents. Right? So

104:05

there's an idea that some of the people

104:07

who were engaged in the sex trafficking

104:09

were also, you know, facilitating it as

104:11

well.

104:11

>> So they were incentivized to get more

104:13

girls.

104:14

>> Yeah. But but what I but yes, that's

104:16

right. But the the idea is that it's

104:17

it's hard to sort of it's sometimes a

104:20

little bit of a gray area between, you

104:22

know, some of the people who were

104:23

alleged victims were also alleged

104:24

co-conspirators. And so what DOJ tried

104:28

to do was kind of make that judgment as

104:30

best they could and release as much as

104:32

possible. But it's clear that he was

104:35

trying to get in contact with people

104:37

that he felt were influential. It was

104:40

clear that he was trying to get people

104:43

to get together on the island and meet

104:46

at parties. So there there was something

104:48

he was doing where he was trying to

104:51

either influence people or compromise

104:54

people.

104:54

>> Correct.

104:55

>> So it's not there's some sort of an

104:58

operation that was going on. There there

105:00

is a story there and

105:02

you know I I will go to my deathbed

105:05

believing there's a story there but I

105:06

can't prove it and I I promise you

105:09

there's not some document that at least

105:10

I'm hiding that allows us to prove

105:13

exactly what was going on and how

105:14

>> he was he was also trying to get

105:16

scientists and this is one of the

105:19

reasons supposedly why he got that

105:21

>> okay so

105:22

>> branch in New Mexico. So, so a friend of

105:23

mine has this element, sorry, I should

105:26

step back. Conspiracy theories. One of

105:28

the ways you discredit conspiracy

105:30

theory, I thought about this a lot, is

105:32

try to hide it. Another way you

105:34

discredit conspiracy theories by

105:35

flooding the zone. So, one of the things

105:37

I've tried to do when looking at all

105:38

this stuff is to try to understand sort

105:40

of where it fits in and and to, you

105:43

know, try to separate the real from the

105:45

fake. But one really interesting element

105:48

of the whole Jeffrey Epstein saga, okay,

105:50

so he dies in 2019, right? This is at

105:52

the very end of of the first Trump

105:55

administration.

105:57

His death coincides

106:00

very very closely. This is not my

106:02

observation. This is a friend, but I

106:03

don't want to, you know, reveal

106:04

confidences here. Re it coincides very

106:08

closely with the end of what you might

106:10

call the era of censorship in academia.

106:13

So back in 2019 2020 we reached sort of

106:17

peak academic censorship where people

106:20

wouldn't publish a medical study because

106:22

it might have sort of disparited impact

106:24

racial undertones or people were getting

106:27

fired from academia for not doing land

106:29

acknowledgements stuff like that. Okay,

106:31

I'm not saying that stuff has completely

106:33

gone away but Epstein we know was

106:36

funding a ton of scientists. By the way,

106:37

where did his money come from? He was

106:39

funding a ton of scientists but like

106:41

when he died

106:44

it's almost like the era of censorship

106:46

started to break because he wasn't just

106:48

he was also plugged into a lot of in

106:50

academia but also you know he's plugged

106:51

into the social media companies like

106:53

this is a dude who knew everybody he

106:55

knew everybody

106:56

>> so

106:58

look

106:59

>> so where did his money come from? Well,

107:02

from given um part of it is suspect tax

107:06

advice and uh setting up tax schemes for

107:10

a lot of very very rich people,

107:11

>> right? But why was he motivated to

107:13

influence

107:15

academia and what what what was the

107:18

purpose?

107:19

>> I don't know the answer to that

107:20

question. I mean, I I have theories.

107:23

There's there's of course the

107:24

>> Well, most people think he was MSAD.

107:26

>> Yeah. Assad or CIA or some other deep

107:29

state, whether in America or Israel or

107:31

another country or or both. Um,

107:34

>> you know, look, was he he clearly had

107:37

connections to the upper the highest

107:40

levels of American intelligence? He

107:42

clearly had connections to the highest

107:44

levels of Israeli intelligence. In fact,

107:46

one of the interesting story, one of the

107:47

interesting things the Epstein saga

107:49

reveals about and and I try to make this

107:51

point is one of the reasons why I'm

107:53

always careful and I say there are some

107:56

elements within the Israeli government

107:58

who don't like our peace process because

108:00

there are a lot of elements within the

108:01

Israeli government that actually do like

108:02

our peace process. They recognize that

108:05

this indefinite campaign is not good for

108:07

them either. And and the Epstein thing

108:09

is interesting because as much as I

108:11

know, you know, Prime Minister

108:13

Netanyahu, not a particularly popular

108:16

person in the United States of America

108:18

right now,

108:20

Epstein seemed to be connected to the

108:23

elements of the Israeli deep state that

108:24

were left of center. Like I've always

108:26

found that fascinating. It wasn't like

108:29

he was super connected to the right of

108:32

center of Israeli politics. America, he

108:35

was connected across the board. like he

108:37

had Republican friends, he had

108:38

Democratic friends, he had much deeper

108:41

connections to the Israeli left of

108:43

center than right of center. I don't

108:44

know what that means. I always

108:46

>> hanging out with Steve Bannon and Nam

108:48

Chosky.

108:49

>> Exactly. He had again in America he had

108:52

friends across the political spectrum in

108:54

a way he didn't necessarily have in

108:56

Israel.

108:57

>> I had one of my guests try to get me to

108:58

meet him.

108:59

>> Really?

109:00

>> Yeah.

109:00

>> When?

109:01

>> 2017.

109:03

See, that that's crazy to me because at

109:04

that point he'd already gone down for at

109:06

least one like sex abuse thing.

109:08

>> That was my possession. [laughter]

109:09

>> I'll show you the emails. Okay. It's

109:11

kind They're kind of funny. I actually

109:13

read them on stage.

109:14

>> You want to say Okay, fine.

109:15

>> You people could find it.

109:16

>> Yeah.

109:16

>> I don't want to have the guy the guy's

109:18

already ruined.

109:19

>> Sure.

109:20

>> But um but [clears throat] it's

109:21

>> I Googled it and I'm I'm like what the

109:24

[ __ ] are you talking about?

109:27

>> See, but this goes back to my original

109:29

point.

109:29

>> This is part of what he was doing,

109:31

right? He wanted to get influential

109:33

people.

109:33

>> But you go back to the original 2007

109:36

warrant on Jeffrey Epstein.

109:39

>> Uhhuh.

109:39

>> All of the really crazy [ __ ] happened

109:42

from the '9s to 2007. That's when he was

109:45

at the peak of his power. That's when he

109:48

hadn't yet gone down on a sex abuse

109:49

scandal. Like it's your point, right?

109:52

Even if you have some scumbags who were

109:54

willing to introduce him to Joe Rogan in

109:55

2017, there are a lot of Joe Rogan, or

109:58

at least some who are going to say,

109:59

"Wait a second. I'm gonna Google this

110:01

guy and find out that he's a predator. A

110:03

lot. A lot didn't.

110:04

>> That was really crazy.

110:05

>> A lot didn't, but some did. And my point

110:07

is that would limit his influence.

110:09

>> But if you go back to like the 1990s,

110:12

the early 2000s,

110:14

that is the stuff I think that is like

110:17

the black hole of the Epstein saga. We

110:19

don't have nearly enough from that era.

110:22

And

110:23

>> it was destroyed. I think we had a

110:25

prosecution that explicitly was so

110:28

narrow that whatever existed would not

110:30

have even been caught up.

110:34

>> Right. So, they were specifically going

110:36

after him for underage sex and they

110:39

didn't look at the full picture of the

110:41

operation.

110:42

>> They didn't even try to they didn't even

110:44

try to

110:45

>> Well, that was one of the things about

110:46

the prosecutor was told that he was

110:49

above their pay grade. I mean, it was

110:50

one of the things that he

110:51

>> said he [clears throat] was like CIA or

110:52

something, right? He said he was told he

110:54

was intelligent,

110:55

>> right? And yes, I've asked were there

110:57

like

110:59

were there documents connecting Jeffrey

111:01

Epstein directly to our intelligence

111:03

agencies or anybody else's? And the

111:04

answer is no. But if that [ __ ] existed,

111:07

it wouldn't exist in 2026.

111:09

>> What is it like being the vice

111:11

president? Like how much access do you

111:13

have to information? [laughter]

111:15

>> Because

111:15

>> so I'll give you another conspiracy. So

111:17

I have like effectively unlimited access

111:19

to information.

111:20

>> Unlimited. But I think that the

111:24

one of the things that I've learned

111:25

about the job is it's you're doing so

111:29

much on the day-to-day like you're

111:31

calling senators and trying to get them

111:32

to pass a piece of legislation. You're

111:34

meeting with staff about what should go

111:35

in the housing bill. You're negotiating

111:37

with the Iranians or the cutteries or

111:39

the Israelis about something that's

111:40

going on in the Middle East.

111:42

And a lot of it like the UFO thing like

111:46

I I've said that I'm going to like I'm

111:48

going to look into the UFO thing and

111:50

I've been saying that for a year and a

111:52

half and I haven't done it yet because I

111:53

haven't had the time. And so some of

111:56

this is like you just have to have the

111:59

time to actually punch through the walls

112:01

and to like go to the gatekeepers and

112:03

say you have to open up that gate

112:04

because I'm the vice president. And some

112:06

of it is just hard to actually get to

112:08

because I don't have the time to sort of

112:09

focus on that one issue for any

112:11

particular period of time. So the answer

112:14

is you have unlimited access to

112:15

information. The constraint is not

112:18

people tell me no. The constraint is

112:21

you're just so busy doing other [ __ ]

112:25

The UFO thing I think would be something

112:27

that I would want to pursue.

112:29

>> Yes.

112:30

>> I I mean just for my own personal

112:32

information I would want to know what is

112:34

going on.

112:34

>> Correct. So the question is, are these

112:38

um special access programs that are

112:40

above top secret and that this is our

112:44

own stuff or is this something that's

112:48

far more bizarre and something that is

112:51

interdimensional from another planet?

112:54

Whatever fill in the blank.

112:55

>> Yeah. Is it foreign? And if it's

112:57

foreign, is it 6,000 mi away or like

112:59

6,000 light years away?

113:00

>> Right.

113:01

>> Yes.

113:01

>> Right. And that is that is I will answer

113:04

that question eventually.

113:07

>> Really?

113:07

>> Yes. I'll get to the bottom of it.

113:10

>> How how are you going to have the time

113:11

to do that? Like what what will be

113:14

eventually I'll have like a few weeks

113:15

where I can just sit down and worry

113:16

about that problem. You said something

113:18

that I thought was very bizarre.

113:19

>> Here's here's the interesting thing

113:20

though. I will say

113:22

that is one of those conspiracy theories

113:27

that

113:30

there are a lot of people in our

113:31

government who are interested in this,

113:32

meaning our current political leadership

113:34

who are interested in this question. And

113:38

it hasn't like nothing has really

113:39

happened yet, which

113:43

makes me a little bit less interested in

113:44

it cuz there are a lot of people with

113:46

access to those files and access to that

113:47

information and nothing has changed

113:49

since Biden left office, which which

113:52

makes me think other people have looked

113:53

into it and they just haven't

113:54

necessarily found something. But anyway,

113:56

I I eventually I promise you I'm gonna

113:59

like sit down and spend a couple of

114:01

weeks trying to figure out what's in

114:02

these files. Actually, haven't done it

114:05

yet.

114:06

>> You said something that I thought was

114:08

very odd.

114:08

>> Okay.

114:09

>> You said that you thought that they were

114:10

demons.

114:15

>> Okay. I did say that.

114:17

>> What did you mean by that?

114:19

Well, [sighs and gasps]

114:20

I

114:23

first of all there not just in

114:24

Christianity but in a number of world

114:27

religions

114:29

there are a number of like

114:32

you know mystical things that happened

114:35

extradimensional

114:36

extra like I I I'm not one of these

114:39

people who's like a hyperrationalist

114:41

like I I think that there are things

114:43

happening in the world that we're not

114:44

always seeing. I you know I believe in

114:46

God. But I think that there is a kind of

114:48

what's what's the word I'm looking for?

114:50

Not extra real

114:52

>> supernatural.

114:53

>> Supernatural. There are supernatural

114:54

things that are happening. Okay. So if

114:58

you look historically

115:00

at, you know, things that are similar to

115:03

the alien phenomenon

115:07

where oh some like strange being. It

115:10

kind of looks like a human being but

115:11

doesn't look like but but not human and

115:14

it shows a particular interest in human

115:17

beings and then it takes the human

115:19

beings and you know like does weird

115:22

experiments on them. I think my argument

115:24

is that's either [ __ ] right? You're

115:26

either talking to a crazy person, which

115:27

I don't like. I'm not saying just

115:29

because I believe in the supernatural

115:30

doesn't believe mean I believe in

115:32

everything supernatural. But if we're

115:35

talking about an extraterrestrial

115:39

being that is humanlike but not human

115:43

that contains effectively infinite

115:45

powers and is torturing human beings,

115:48

you can call it an alien if you want,

115:49

but I think there's a lot of historical

115:51

precedent to call that a demon.

115:53

>> Well, a lot of these uh stories and

115:58

these accounts,

115:59

>> we have one right here on the

116:00

>> demonic. Yeah, that's the mothership

116:02

logo.

116:03

>> [laughter]

116:04

>> Um, a lot of these uh accounts are not

116:08

of

116:09

beings being or people being tortured.

116:12

They're people that are being exposed to

116:15

information like the Travis Walton

116:17

stories of very famous case uh from the

116:20

1970s.

116:21

>> Read about it on the way back though.

116:22

>> It's this guy right here. I got a Travis

116:24

Walton followed. [laughter] He's one of

116:26

the most famous uh UFO abduction

116:28

stories.

116:29

>> Okay. There was a movie um with DB

116:32

Cooper in the uh

116:34

>> and like what is the information that

116:35

they gave Travis Waldman?

116:36

>> Was DB Cooper the that was the

116:38

>> DB Sween

116:39

>> DB Sweeney DB Cooper was the guy who

116:41

stole the money and jumped out of the

116:43

plane. Um Fire in the Sky there's a a

116:46

movie

116:46

>> of course. Yeah, I remember this movie.

116:47

I don't think I ever saw it though.

116:48

>> 1993. Good movie but sensational and and

116:52

Travis Walton says they made a bunch of

116:55

[ __ ] up and that's not what happened.

116:57

But

116:57

>> yeah,

116:58

>> the story was that he was uh a logger in

117:01

Arizona uh and he was uh leaving a job.

117:05

They were all together in a truck and

117:06

these uh these loggers saw this thing,

117:09

this light uh land in this uh forest and

117:14

they went to go investigate. He jumps

117:17

out of the truck and he gets close to it

117:19

and he's hit by some beam of light and

117:21

knocked to the ground. Uh they take off

117:24

and then they realize like we've got to

117:26

go back. we don't know what's going on.

117:28

Like they turn around, they go back to

117:30

get him. They They're freaked out and

117:31

panicked. They go back to get him. He's

117:33

gone. Uh the police interview them. They

117:37

think that they killed him. They they

117:39

you know, there's an investigation. 5

117:41

days later, he shows up uh wearing the

117:44

same clothes. Um and he has this crazy

117:47

story. And uh he had been in this

117:50

spaceship for five days is what he said.

117:54

And that they had fixed him. They healed

117:56

him and then they had communicated with

117:58

him telepathically and he had had this

118:01

very bizarre encounter with these um

118:04

these beings that aren't from here or if

118:07

they are from here they're very

118:09

different than us.

118:10

>> Okay. So I guess my my response to that

118:12

would be extra powerful beings in this

118:15

case communicating telepathically

118:17

helping people

118:19

sounds like an angel. So, I guess my

118:22

point here here's let me let me make the

118:24

like the the steelman version of my

118:26

argument.

118:27

>> It's that

118:29

>> okay

118:31

>> my dog

118:33

there's no real difference between me

118:35

and and God to my dog. I can literally

118:37

walk into a room and turn the light on.

118:39

I can make food appear instantaneously.

118:42

I can transport myself across time and

118:45

space very, very rapidly. If you're a

118:47

human being with intelligence but not

118:48

supernatural intelligence, I I guess my

118:51

point is again, this could all be

118:53

[ __ ] This could all be fake. That's

118:55

a possibility. But if it's real, is

118:58

there really a meaningful difference

119:00

between an angel or a demon and a space

119:04

alien with super technology? I just to

119:07

our perception, they would largely just

119:10

look like the same thing.

119:11

>> I think we're capable of nuance. We're

119:13

capable of understanding that human

119:15

beings are far more complex and evolved

119:18

than chimpanzees. And we could imagine a

119:21

world where if we don't blow ourselves

119:24

up and there's not a nuclear bomb and

119:27

there's not a we don't get hit by an

119:29

asteroid, if we live another million

119:32

years that we would have technology

119:34

that's indistinguishable from magic.

119:37

>> Right.

119:38

>> Exactly. That's that's

119:40

angels and demons. It just means they're

119:43

hyper evolved advanced civilizations

119:47

from somewhere else.

119:48

>> And what I'm saying is the perception of

119:51

those beings to a more simple

119:55

intelligence.

119:56

>> Sure.

119:56

>> There's not a meaningful there's not a

119:58

meaningful difference. So you're you're

120:00

asking you're like talking about what it

120:02

is that these things actually are. And I

120:05

guess what I'm talking about is how

120:07

would a human being with my level of

120:09

intelligence or your level of

120:10

intelligence in 2026 understand what's

120:13

going on,

120:13

>> right? But from a biblical perspective,

120:15

there's a very big difference between a

120:16

demon and a a hyper intelligent being

120:21

from somewhere else.

120:25

>> [sighs]

120:25

>> I mean, a demon or a hyper intelligent

120:28

malicious.

120:29

>> If if demons are real, if there really

120:31

are dark forces in the universe, and

120:34

they're disembodied dark forces, these

120:37

things that exist, these

120:39

>> Yes.

120:40

>> And then there's also powerful light

120:42

forces in the universe

120:44

>> that that they don't have to be mutually

120:46

exclusive to the the concept of

120:48

hyperintelligent other species.

120:51

Absolutely.

120:51

>> When you're looking at an insanely vast

120:53

universe, I don't think they have to be,

120:56

but I think that

120:59

it is interesting to me that for most of

121:02

human history,

121:04

we would have understood supernatural,

121:08

hyper powerful, hyper knowledgeable

121:10

things as sort of celestial or

121:15

celestial. Thought

121:16

>> of a cell phone as being sorcery. I

121:19

mean, it doesn't that doesn't mean it's

121:21

sorcery. [laughter]

121:23

>> Maybe it's not. Maybe it's just

121:25

technology. I just it that argument

121:29

doesn't make any sense to me.

121:31

>> Well,

121:32

>> and this is not discounting the

121:34

possibility of demons or discounting the

121:36

possibility of angels.

121:38

>> Well, I guess I understand your point

121:41

conceptually. I don't dis actually

121:43

disagree with it. So, I don't think

121:44

we're saying something different that

121:47

you know metaphysically there could be

121:49

two separate things going on. There

121:51

could be celest there could be extra

121:55

earth outside of earth space aliens and

121:57

there could also be angels and demons.

121:58

These these could be two totally

121:59

separate things. One could be true and

122:01

not the other. That's I I I totally

122:04

concede and agree with that point. I

122:06

guess what I'm saying is

122:09

it's a distinction that is conceptually

122:12

interesting to me. But if a space alien

122:16

with like superhuman technology comes to

122:19

the earth and has malicious intent,

122:23

I don't know how I'm supposed to tell

122:24

the difference between that and the

122:25

demon

122:25

>> if they have malicious intent. But I

122:27

mean, isn't that also the case with

122:29

visiting people, right? Like you you

122:32

could have a country and you get visited

122:34

by the Peace Corps or you get visited by

122:37

pirates.

122:38

>> Yeah.

122:39

>> You know, and are the pirates demons? Is

122:42

the Peace Corps angels? No, but I think

122:44

we're talking about something much

122:45

different.

122:46

>> Are we talking about something

122:48

different? We're talking about a hyper

122:49

advanced version of that.

122:51

>> We're we're talking about I mean, as I

122:54

understand it, we're talking about

122:56

things that exist outside the United

122:57

States. Sorry, outside of the Earth.

123:00

Okay. And two different types of beings

123:02

that could exist outside I mean, okay,

123:04

maybe

123:05

>> there's a lot of people, you know, Tim

123:07

Bashette thinks that they're they're

123:08

here.

123:08

>> There's Atlantis or there's something

123:10

else. that they're they're somehow or

123:12

another they're survivors of a of

123:15

longgone civilization that live under

123:17

the ocean.

123:18

>> Yeah,

123:18

>> it's just as kooky as living.

123:20

>> Here's here's the way I would put it is

123:21

like there's also a difference between a

123:23

demon and a ghost, right? These things

123:24

are two very different conceptual

123:26

things,

123:27

>> right? But if I'm a human being and I

123:29

meet a malicious ghost, maybe I think

123:30

it's a demon. And and maybe all I'm

123:33

saying is maybe there's some

123:37

there's some point at which the

123:39

conceptually interesting this is such a

123:41

weird conversation. at which point the

123:43

conceptually interesting discussion of

123:45

what it is is separate from how it

123:51

appears to me and how I'm going to

123:52

understand it as a human being in my

123:54

particular social and cultural context

123:56

in 2026. But if you're looking for me to

123:58

concede the point that there is

124:00

something different or could be

124:01

something different between an angel, a

124:03

demon, a space alien, a a supernatural

124:07

but non any of those other things

124:09

beings. Yes, I concede that.

124:11

>> Yeah. The the question is what does

124:15

what do these special access programs

124:18

like what is the information that's

124:20

available like how

124:22

>> my understanding is David Brush and a

124:24

lot of these other people that there

124:26

have been crash retrieval programs.

124:28

>> Okay. And I've I've so I've talked to

124:30

Dave before. I think I called him

124:31

actually after he was on your podcast.

124:33

Um,

124:36

so

124:38

there's like the crash retrieval stuff

124:40

of whether that's that's real or not,

124:42

where is it, etc. There's the videos,

124:44

right? There are all of these videos,

124:45

some of which have been released and

124:47

declassified, that seem to me show some

124:49

pretty weird stuff. And then there might

124:51

be other pieces of evidence as well. I'm

124:53

not saying there is or isn't. I just

124:54

don't know. I I try to keep an open mind

124:56

about this stuff. All I'm saying is I'm

124:58

fascinated by it. I don't have like some

125:00

secret sauce, at least not yet, that

125:03

tells me what's true and what's false.

125:05

I'm just saying this is something that

125:07

I'm interested in. But it doesn't it's

125:10

it's because it's it's like anything in

125:13

life where do I have to figure this out

125:16

this week? No. So, I'm going to do the

125:19

things that I have to like negotiate

125:21

with the Iranians and try to get this

125:22

bill passed.

125:23

>> So, let's imagine a world where the

125:25

Iranian negotiations go swimmingly.

125:28

>> [laughter]

125:29

>> Everything's done. God willing. You

125:31

know, all these Gulf Arab states decide,

125:35

hey, let's invest money in Iran. Let's

125:38

change hearts and minds.

125:40

Okay. Avoided a gigantic apocalyptic

125:44

scenario. What What could be done? Like

125:48

if we have information, who who has this

125:51

information and why are they holding on

125:53

to this information? And what do you

125:55

know the the how put off story?

125:57

>> No. So how put off who used to work for

125:59

NASA um said that he was brought in

126:02

during the Bush administration where um

126:05

they were going they they were proposing

126:09

uh disclosure and they were saying this

126:12

is what we're they were saying they're

126:13

saying we have biological remains and we

126:16

have physical crafts we're proposing

126:20

disclosure and they brought in a bunch

126:22

of a bunch of uh thought leaders uh

126:25

different disciplines different schools

126:28

of thought and they said I want you to

126:30

compile a list of pros and cons and put

126:33

a numerical value on what how this is

126:37

going to affect society how is this

126:38

going to affect religion how's this

126:40

going to affect government how's this

126:41

going to affect economy all these

126:43

different things and when they compiled

126:46

this list every one of them had more in

126:50

the con than in the pro and they decided

126:53

against disclosure because of that

126:56

>> now if that's the case, what are we

126:59

talking about? Like, who has this

127:00

information and what is this

127:02

information? I mean, if that wasn't just

127:04

a thought experiment,

127:06

>> yeah,

127:06

>> if they weren't really just [ __ ] with

127:08

these people, which I don't understand

127:10

why they would do that, but let's assume

127:12

they what is known

127:15

>> and why would they prevent that

127:18

information from getting out?

127:19

>> Well, that's

127:22

that's a big if.

127:23

>> Have you seen the movie The Age of

127:24

Disclosure?

127:25

>> I have not.

127:25

>> Okay. Well, a lot of people um including

127:29

intelligence officers, different people

127:32

in the government are in this

127:34

documentary. And one of the things that

127:36

they're saying is part of the problem

127:37

with all this is if they have had these

127:40

programs going on for so long, that

127:42

means they've been misappropriating

127:43

funds and they've been lying to

127:45

Congress. So all these people that were

127:47

involved in I've heard this argument.

127:49

Yeah, I've heard this argument. Yeah. So

127:50

Lulu Alzando and all these other people

127:52

have said, "Look, what we're gonna need

127:54

is mass amnesty for people that are

127:56

involved in this. It's the only way

127:57

you're ever really going to get to the

127:59

bottom of it."

128:01

>> Problem with that is if you've got

128:04

unlimited money and you've got

128:06

misappropriation of funds and lying to

128:08

Congress, I guarantee

128:11

some of that money has gone to places it

128:13

shouldn't have gone.

128:13

>> 100% 100%.

128:15

>> Like it always does.

128:16

>> Yeah. Yeah. So, like it's always very

128:19

hard to engage in these like super

128:21

generic super general I should say

128:23

hypotheticals because

128:26

you know like yeah if if look we've got

128:29

remains of space aliens and we're hiding

128:32

them then there are a million other sort

128:35

of there are a million possibilities for

128:36

that what would explain it how it would

128:39

have happened I am skeptical that's true

128:42

and the reason I'm skeptical that it's

128:44

true that we have the physical remains

128:46

is not because I don't think that's

128:48

something that like is physically

128:49

possible or that the government like the

128:52

government's willing to do and able to

128:53

do a lot of a lot of crazy stuff in our

128:55

history and the history of all

128:56

governments.

128:58

I am skeptical of the competence. I

129:00

actually made this point to Dave when we

129:01

talked and I I think he's a very

129:02

interesting guy. Um so I don't mean to

129:05

insult him or say I disagree with him

129:07

about everything, but I made this point

129:10

to Dave when we talked. It's like if we

129:11

have literal space alien remains in the

129:15

custody of the United States government,

129:17

there is no way that that wouldn't get

129:19

leaked that wouldn't leak out in some

129:20

way.

129:21

>> Well, it has leaked out anecdotally.

129:23

>> Well, that's I guess that's the

129:24

counterargument, but I think it would

129:28

Jackie Gleason story.

129:28

>> No, I want to hear that. But but like

129:30

with cell phones and every way that we

129:32

have like it's plausible to me you could

129:34

hide that in an era where you have to

129:36

have a giant camera the size of these

129:38

antlers in order to take a photo of

129:40

something. But dude I can take you know

129:42

like you have cameras now that are like

129:43

literally this tiny. That's the part

129:47

that I'm skeptical of that we're hiding

129:50

that. Let me push back against that cuz

129:51

you know that if you have any sort of

129:56

top secret like if you go into a skiff

129:58

>> like there's no way you're bringing

130:01

cameras in there. You're you're Look,

130:04

when I came here to this podcast studio,

130:07

[laughter]

130:07

they had a dog my trunk and it's your

130:10

studio.

130:10

>> Pop my trunk. Yeah.

130:12

>> Like I'm going to blow up my own studio.

130:14

>> Yeah. But okay. So you know what I'm

130:15

saying? But the Okay. The

130:16

counter-argument though is they check

130:17

that stuff on you. They don't check that

130:18

stuff on everybody.

130:19

>> Everybody here. They did.

130:21

>> Everybody here. But I'm saying all you

130:23

need all you need is one official with

130:26

like the highest security clearance.

130:28

Now, okay, you're right. Certain devices

130:30

like give eminate signals that they can

130:32

pick up on Bluetooth and all that [ __ ]

130:34

but like but to have access to go into a

130:37

room where they have these things. If

130:40

they did have these things, I guarantee

130:43

you they're going to make sure no one's

130:45

got anything. They could easily scan you

130:48

to make sure that you don't have any

130:50

kind of electronics, any kind of camera,

130:51

any kind of recording device.

130:53

>> That's not hard.

130:54

>> I mean,

130:55

>> especially if you've got something

130:57

squirreled away at Area 51.

130:59

>> In the next two and a half years, we're

131:00

going to run this experiment cuz I got

131:01

two and a half more years as VP. And I

131:04

swear to you, if there are little green

131:06

men like body remains,

131:07

>> text me, please.

131:08

>> Well, I'm not going to No, [laughter]

131:09

I'm not going to text you. I'm going to

131:11

try to smuggle a camera and get a photo

131:13

of these things. [laughter] Well, how

131:14

would you, the vice president of the

131:16

United States of America, have to have a

131:18

camera smuggled in to do that?

131:21

>> Well, maybe I wouldn't, but again, I

131:22

I've seen it.

131:23

>> Do you think that you have the kind of

131:24

authority like look, let's imagine you

131:26

find out that at Wright Patterson Air

131:28

Force Base, they have some

131:30

secure facility somewhere. Maybe it's

131:33

not there. Maybe it's maybe they've kept

131:34

it under wraps. Maybe it's in the

131:36

mountain somewhere. Yeah.

131:37

>> And you find out that this thing exists.

131:40

Do you think it's as simple as you could

131:42

just go out and tell everybody or do you

131:44

think that you get briefed on the

131:46

implications of what would happen if you

131:49

disclosed all this information?

131:50

>> Well, I would definitely get briefed on

131:51

the implications of what would happen

131:53

>> and they would probably tell you, hey,

131:54

you have to [ __ ] people.

131:56

>> Yeah, but dude, I'm not uh

131:59

>> You're not going to [ __ ] people?

132:00

>> I Well, look, I have I have many skills

132:02

as a politician in some vices, but like

132:04

one of them is I'm just not a a good

132:06

liar.

132:06

>> Well, then they're not going to show it

132:07

to you. You [laughter] just [ __ ] up.

132:08

You just [ __ ] up on this podcast by

132:10

saying that

132:14

what I

132:15

>> show it to the ladies on the view.

132:17

That's [laughter] that's

132:18

>> that's right.

132:19

>> The intellectual leaders of our world.

132:20

>> Trust me, they show it to the ladies of

132:21

the view. It will be said two hours two

132:23

hours later. Anyway, maybe they show it

132:26

to them just so that no one will believe

132:27

it.

132:28

>> I do want to look into this stuff. I'm

132:29

just telling you

132:32

I have not yet seen the evidence that we

132:33

have. Certainly extraterrestrial

132:36

remains, but there's a lot of stuff

132:37

before extraterrestrial remains is also

132:39

interesting. Like the flight patterns in

132:41

some of these videos are super weird.

132:43

>> Um,

132:44

>> well, the Commander David Fraver stuff

132:45

is bananas. It goes from 50,000 ft above

132:48

sea level to sea level in like a second

132:50

>> to what people say, right? Like because

132:53

one of the arguments I've heard, for

132:55

example, is, you know, could this just

132:57

be a visual or on the camera or

132:58

something like that. Okay, that that

133:00

sounds to me plausible. I'm not an

133:01

expert in cameras, but then what the

133:03

pilots their reaction to it, it's not

133:06

like they're looking at a visual lure on

133:08

a camera. It's like they're looking at

133:09

something else that's really, really

133:11

weird and difficult to explain given

133:13

what they know about, you know, physics

133:15

and aeronautical engineering, etc. So,

133:17

anyway, I am fascinated by this, but I

133:19

just don't want to tell people like, oh,

133:20

I've uncovered the the truth or I

133:22

haven't because I haven't looked at it

133:24

yet.

133:24

>> Right. Well, I would, if I was you, that

133:27

would be the first thing I did.

133:28

storm right in there and go,

133:29

>> "Let's talk about tax policy."

133:31

[laughter]

133:32

>> Is that what you want to talk about? No,

133:34

>> we could talk about tax policy.

133:35

>> Way more interesting.

133:36

>> Um, I would want to know. I mean, I

133:38

think the world wants to know. I think

133:40

it would fundamentally change our

133:41

understanding of what it means to be a

133:44

living organ.

133:44

>> Okay. What do you think? Like what is

133:46

your you know more about this than I do.

133:49

>> I don't think we're alone.

133:51

>> But okay.

133:52

>> I don't think we're alone. I just don't

133:53

understand what it is.

133:55

>> Okay. I don't know if it's

133:56

>> So, you don't have like a strong view

133:58

about what it is. You're just

134:00

>> curious. I don't have any data, right?

134:03

So, I don't have any proof. So, I I

134:06

believe Commander David Fraver, I

134:08

believe Ryan Graves, he was a fighter

134:10

pilot. They said that when they upgraded

134:12

their um their equipment on these

134:16

fighter jets in 2014, all of a sudden

134:18

they started seeing these things that

134:20

were staying completely motionless at

134:23

120 knot winds and they were a cube

134:26

inside of a sphere, a black cube inside

134:29

of some sort of

134:30

>> Yeah. Well, okay. So, this is a I know

134:32

you've talked to Eric Weinstein. Yes.

134:34

And um you know, I haven't talked to you

134:36

about this lately, but one of the things

134:39

that Eric sort of kind of persuaded me

134:42

of a couple of years ago was

134:44

>> it's Weinstein. They get very sensitive.

134:46

>> Weinstein.

134:47

>> Okay. U got it. Eric Weinstein. Good

134:49

[laughter] thought.

134:51

Speaking of pedophiles, I guess Harvey

134:53

was a pedophile. He was He was He had

134:55

many sins, but not that one.

134:56

>> Candace Owens says he's innocent.

134:58

>> Oh, interesting. Okay. [laughter]

134:59

>> Or not um

135:00

>> not guilty of everything that they said

135:02

he was. So,

135:04

okay, Eric Weinstein, this is probably

135:06

three, four years ago, persuades me of

135:08

this actually. Not, it's an interesting

135:11

theory. His his argument is in the same

135:15

way that I would say, what's the

135:16

difference between an extraterrestrial

135:19

and an angel or a demon depending on its

135:21

intentions from the perspective of a

135:23

human in 2026? His argument would be

135:26

what's the difference between a space

135:27

alien and a human being but just a human

135:31

being with super advanced technology,

135:32

right?

135:33

>> And so I don't know if this is still his

135:35

view, but he kind of was he was like,

135:38

let's say you had human beings who just

135:43

were super scientifically advanced. Like

135:46

what we know of the laws of physics as I

135:48

understand it is that light speed is

135:50

sort of the upper limit of what one of

135:52

our spaceships could travel. Okay? You

135:54

can't go any faster than the speed of

135:55

light. Well, that's a problem because

135:56

everything else that could support of

135:58

extraterrestrial life is much is many

136:01

many many many light years away. Okay.

136:04

So his argument to me again back in the

136:06

day was if you figured out a new physics

136:10

in the same way that you had an

136:11

understanding shift from Newtonian

136:13

physics to Einsteinian physics. If you

136:15

have a new understanding of physics that

136:17

allows you to travel much faster than

136:19

the speed of light, you could just have

136:21

human beings either from a different

136:23

planet or maybe they went to Mars and

136:25

started their own civilization and then

136:26

that you know that that got old and they

136:28

at this point they are many millions of

136:30

light years away but they can move

136:32

through space and time in a way that is

136:34

quite literally like divine from our

136:37

perspective or space aliens but they're

136:40

just human beings. It could be human

136:42

beings from the future.

136:44

>> If time travel is possible, why?

136:46

>> But it also it also we know that life

136:48

exists on Earth. So if life exists on

136:51

Earth, the Earth is a planet. There are

136:55

hundreds of billions of stars that have

136:59

hundreds [snorts] of billions of

137:00

planets.

137:01

>> We have no idea how many planets there

137:03

are in the known universe that could

137:05

potentially support life. And if these

137:08

things live on these planets and they

137:11

live far longer than we have, like if

137:14

you showed

137:16

a nuclear bomb to someone from a hundred

137:18

years ago, they would say, "That's the

137:20

craziest [ __ ] thing I've ever seen in

137:22

my life." You show them a show them a

137:24

reactor, show them a cell phone, show

137:26

them that television.

137:27

>> It's like my dog with a light switch.

137:28

Right.

137:29

>> Just be able to FaceTime someone in New

137:31

Zealand. Like, how what is that? What

137:33

are you doing?

137:33

>> That's right. now advance that forward

137:36

one million years and then you know

137:39

instead of using propulsion you are

137:42

instead manipulating space time.

137:44

>> So I so that's exactly right and one of

137:47

the things I've talked with Elon about

137:49

this and Elon is obviously a super smart

137:51

dude but I I've never heard like a super

137:53

satisfying answer to this. One of the

137:56

things that worries me like I I want

137:58

humans to be a multilanetary species. I

138:01

want us to go to Mars and set up a

138:02

colony. And you know, like that that's

138:04

sort of I love humanity. I want it to

138:06

continue. And

138:09

the problem with with space travel that

138:13

I have again not heard a satisfactory

138:15

solution to is, you know, when we're

138:17

outside of the Earth's gravity,

138:20

our genes, like our our our actual DNA

138:24

seems to not function as well when it's

138:26

not on Earth style gravity, which makes

138:29

sense, right? we developed

138:31

>> in these conditions with this gravity.

138:34

>> So whenever you have somebody who goes

138:36

to the international space station for

138:37

like three months or six months and they

138:38

come back and they are totally jacked up

138:41

because like literally the cells in

138:42

their body are starting to like

138:44

discombobulate in response to a

138:47

lowgravity environment.

138:48

>> I don't like we have to figure out a

138:50

solution to that problem. that that to

138:52

me is sort of the most interesting part

138:54

of space travel of going to Mars or

138:56

setting up a colony on another planet is

138:59

if you set up a colony on Mars but and

139:02

what it takes you like two years to get

139:04

there and two years to get back or

139:05

something like that, right?

139:07

>> But in that time you've gone from a

139:09

functioning adult healthy to like dead

139:12

if you're in space for four years. that

139:15

that that part of space travel is very

139:17

fascinating to me and I I don't know

139:19

that I've heard any satisfactory

139:20

solution to it yet.

139:21

>> I don't think conventionally there is a

139:23

satisfactory solution. But

139:25

>> if you're talking about manipulating

139:27

spaceime and not traditional propulsion,

139:29

>> you probably could figure that out.

139:30

>> You could manipulate [laughter] you

139:32

could essentially contain this

139:34

environment in exactly the same way it

139:36

is. Yeah. And travel to somewhere else

139:38

with that environment. So this is the

139:40

idea of them living under the surface of

139:42

the the ocean.

139:43

>> I see. I see. How can they live in the

139:45

depths of the ocean? Well, because they

139:47

have a completely contained environment.

139:49

>> Sure. Sure.

139:50

>> I mean, who knows?

139:51

>> Yeah.

139:52

>> It's all just nonsense.

139:54

>> Maybe they figured out how I can eat

139:56

like steak and grater ice cream and have

139:58

the blood profile of eating, you know,

140:00

chicken and salad.

140:02

>> Well, I don't think chicken and salad is

140:03

the way to go. I'm a steak guy. I think

140:06

uh just eat a little bit of ice cream

140:08

every now and then. By the way, ice

140:09

cream is one of the very best desserts

140:12

for you because it contains fat.

140:14

>> It's got a lot of fat and protein.

140:15

That's right. That's right.

140:17

>> A little bit of sugar, but it's all uh

140:19

it's a moderation thing.

140:20

>> That's right.

140:21

>> Yeah.

140:21

>> Yeah. Well,

140:22

>> anybody who want to eat ice cream is a

140:24

communist. [laughter]

140:25

>> There's nothing wrong with ice cream.

140:27

Ice cream. Speaking of communist,

140:28

>> the Democratic Socialists of America,

140:30

that's actually what they do at their

140:31

events is they throw the ice cream into

140:33

the Boston Harbor instead of the tea.

140:34

>> Ah, yeah. Those [ __ ] people scare me.

140:38

>> [laughter]

140:38

>> I I'm really concerned that people think

140:41

that's a good idea and that they think

140:44

that socialism just hasn't been done

140:47

correctly.

140:48

>> That drives me nuts cuz I think a lot of

140:50

like really well-intentioned, really

140:53

kind and empathetic young people think

140:56

that that's the way to go. And I do not

140:58

think they understand the dangers of

141:02

this ideology because it always leads to

141:05

one thing. It leads to a very powerful

141:09

military government that controls the

141:12

population. Period. End of discussion.

141:14

And if you if you play it out, it is

141:16

literally the only way that can get

141:18

people to give up their money. Yes. It's

141:20

the only way they can get them to give

141:21

up their property. And when you're

141:23

hearing like Mum Donnie talk about

141:26

freezing rents and taking bad landlords

141:29

and then confiscating their property,

141:32

you're like,

141:33

>> do you This is step one of [snorts]

141:36

what's happened in every communist

141:38

dictatorship throughout history. This is

141:40

what happened in North Korea. Give the

141:42

government the land and we'll make sure

141:44

that no one ever has to worry about

141:46

food. What a great idea. Look how it

141:48

turned out. So uh I don't I don't know

141:51

who said this but you know the whole

141:53

argument of communism is that you seize

141:55

the means of production but because the

141:57

means of production the most powerful

141:59

means of production is the human mind

142:00

you ultimately have to get into

142:01

totalitarianism. You have to have

142:04

control of that most fundamental element

142:06

of of the human person.

142:08

>> You also take away motivation and

142:11

there's a thing that people don't like

142:13

which is extreme wealth. But you have to

142:15

understand that if it wasn't for the

142:17

motivation of extreme wealth, you would

142:19

not have an iPhone.

142:21

>> So here's

142:21

>> wouldn't have these things.

142:22

>> Okay. So here's here's let me give you

142:24

my uh my my Christian answer to this.

142:26

And it's a good plug for my my new book,

142:28

Communion, Finding My Way Back to Faith,

142:31

>> not to be confused with Whitley Strive's

142:33

book, Communion, which is all about

142:34

aliens. Okay. Did you know that?

142:36

>> No. In coincidence, Joe. Pull up. Pull

142:40

up the the the pull up the cover. Pull

142:42

up the cover of the good drivers. all

142:44

your listeners to buy.

142:45

>> The problem is like you didn't know

142:46

about this book. I would have told you

142:48

to come up with a different title.

142:50

>> Seriously

142:51

book.

142:52

>> There we go. Okay. So, we want that is

142:54

wild.

142:54

>> And then there's another one. My first

142:56

communion. It's about

142:57

>> Okay. That's like a kids book. But yeah,

142:58

we want people to buy the second one.

143:00

The one that says JD Vance on it. But

143:02

okay. So this is one of the things I

143:04

talk about in the book is like there's a

143:06

there is a Christian idea of political

143:08

economy that's actually been lost in

143:10

American politics where it's it's like

143:13

we think of it as libertarianism, the

143:16

hardcore free market versus socialism or

143:19

communism.

143:21

And there actually is a third way that

143:24

has existed in pretty much all Christian

143:26

economic thinking going back 2,000 years

143:28

ago, which is that yeah, extreme wealth

143:31

inequality does create problems, but you

143:34

still got to have private property. You

143:36

still have to have a state that protects

143:37

private property rights. And there's a

143:39

way to balance these things that I think

143:41

we've sort of lost in our in our country

143:43

a little bit. And when I when I like,

143:46

okay, let me play devil's advocate with

143:48

with the DSA because I think that their

143:50

ideas are crazy and I think that you're

143:51

right. They will lead to a very

143:53

totalitarian place. I'm not defending a

143:55

single thing that they say, particularly

143:56

their hatred of ice cream. What I am

143:59

what I [snorts] am saying is

144:02

I and and maybe this is just sort of the

144:04

way my mind works. I tend to be a little

144:06

bit more empathetic. Why are young

144:07

people attracted to socialism in 21st

144:10

century America? One of the best

144:13

interviews that Charlie Kirk ever gave,

144:15

it was right before he died. It was an

144:17

episode that he did with Tucker Carlson

144:19

where he talked about the fact that if

144:21

you don't give young people a stake, if

144:23

you don't give them ownership, if you

144:25

don't give them a sense of the American

144:26

dream and of possibility in the future,

144:28

they're going to become socialists.

144:30

Like, if if you have a zero sum

144:32

environment for a 25-year-old in this

144:34

country, they're going to start to say,

144:35

"The only way for me to get anything is

144:37

to take away from somebody else." So we

144:39

have to get away from like the zero sum

144:41

thinking. I think that's like the root

144:43

cause of this. But I I also think that

144:45

look we've ran an experiment in the

144:48

United States of America and you know I

144:49

think that we have we have undone that

144:52

experiment taken in a different

144:53

direction in the Trump administration

144:55

where ship all the factories overseas

144:58

and let low-wage foreigners make our

145:00

stuff. That was a bad deal for American

145:02

workers. Again, it takes a long time to

145:05

reverse that trend, but I think it's one

145:07

of the best parts of Trump

145:08

administration policy is you do see that

145:10

trend starting to reverse. This idea

145:12

that nobody should own anything. We

145:14

should all become renters, whereas what

145:16

we're trying to do is lowest lower

145:18

interest rates. You actually have seen

145:20

housing costs stabilize in the country

145:21

over the last year and a half, frankly,

145:23

because of immigration. We had way too

145:25

many people going after way too many

145:27

homes. You close the border. This is one

145:29

of the reasons why rent and housing

145:31

costs have stabilized a little bit. So,

145:34

I think that unless you go down that

145:36

pathway of allowing young Americans to

145:40

own something, socialism is the

145:42

inevitable outcome. Do I think that's

145:43

good? No. But I I really do worry, and I

145:46

I see this frankly more in my own party

145:48

than I do on the other side. There is

145:50

this revulsion to socialism that's

145:52

totally justified without enough

145:55

thinking about how did we get here in

145:57

the first place. And if man if we don't

145:59

fix that and I I would say if we don't

146:01

get back to a more Christian sort of

146:04

understanding of of economics socialism

146:07

is the alternative like that that is

146:10

where this goes. People don't own

146:12

anything rigged.

146:13

>> Exactly. And in some ways Joe the game

146:15

is rigged.

146:16

>> Yes. the I mean if if you look at

146:20

>> I mean again I I just I think so much of

146:23

housing because

146:25

you know this happened I think it was

146:26

during the presidential campaign maybe

146:28

it was right before but I was I was

146:30

talking to some family members over

146:32

Thanksgiving and you know just a sort of

146:36

a younger friend of of my wife's they

146:39

were like five or six years behind us

146:41

they were just about to get married and

146:43

this this young woman successful

146:45

engineer makes a higher salary than most

146:48

Americans. She just sort of like tossed

146:50

out there that, you know, when her

146:53

parents' generation was coming up, it

146:55

was like possible to own a house and to

146:58

raise a family and not be worried that

146:59

much about things. And my thought was,

147:02

okay, you're an engineer. You make way

147:04

more money than 75% of people your age,

147:06

maybe 90% of people your age, and you

147:09

think that it is like this ridiculous

147:11

unachievable objective to have literally

147:13

what your parents had, which is a decent

147:15

job, a nice house, and a and a safe

147:18

place like at that literally that same

147:21

that same dinner like another guy

147:23

another friend of my wife was talking

147:24

about this and he you know South Indian

147:27

family grew up you know his parents

147:29

immigrated he was born and raised in San

147:31

Diego and he was like you know when I

147:33

was growing up in Oceanside. This is

147:34

like a suburb of San Diego where there a

147:37

lot of Marines live in Oceanside. It's

147:38

close to Camp Pendleton. Said when I was

147:40

growing up,

147:42

all of my like the kids that I played

147:44

with that I rode bo bikes with, that I

147:46

was, you know, playing street hockey

147:47

with and football with, all of those

147:49

kids were the sons of enlisted Marines

147:52

in Oceanside, California. And then we

147:54

went and looked at like Oceanside,

147:57

California rents. Again, this is a

147:59

couple years ago, rents and housing

148:01

prices. Like every house was north of a

148:03

million dollars on the street this guy

148:04

grew up in. And listen, Marine, frankly,

148:06

most Marine officers could not afford to

148:08

buy a million-dollar house. So, like,

148:10

does the socialism thing scare me? Yes.

148:12

Is it the wrong solution? Yes. But one

148:15

thing I try to persuade my fellow

148:16

Republicans of is socialism is the

148:19

alternative if we don't have a pathway

148:22

to give people a sense that the system

148:24

is not rigged and that the American

148:26

dream is attainable. That's like our

148:29

job. That's what we have to do. I'm not

148:31

saying Rome was built in a day. It's not

148:32

going to be easy to undo some of these

148:34

economic trends. But man, we ran the

148:37

experiment. We ran the experiment of

148:40

offshoring all of our industrial jobs,

148:42

of becoming a services and finance

148:44

economy and allowing Wall Street to come

148:47

in and buy every asset of modern life

148:50

and turn it into an investable, you

148:53

know, line goes up asset. And what has

148:56

that done? It's created a generation of

148:58

kids who kind of are attracted to

149:00

socialism.

149:01

>> We have to fix that problem.

149:02

>> Well, kids that do feel, and you're

149:05

correct, and I I I agree with you, the

149:07

system is rigged. Kids feel like there

149:10

are no options other than to burn it

149:12

down. Yes. And that's the problem

149:14

because they feel very frustrated.

149:16

>> And this is part of our job is to

149:17

provide an option that isn't burn it

149:19

down, but is not just doing the same

149:21

things that we've done for the past. But

149:22

they're also terrified about the future

149:24

because of AI because they feel like

149:26

jobs are going to be taken away and

149:28

there will be no place for people that

149:31

have education in very specific [snorts]

149:35

avenues like very specific jobs are

149:38

going to just be irrelevant.

149:40

>> Yeah.

149:40

>> They're going to be completely wiped out

149:42

by AI.

149:43

>> There is a huge fear over this. So I let

149:45

me kind of give my own my own spin on

149:47

this.

149:48

>> Yes. I was talking to a CEO not of an AI

149:50

company but of a tech company and he's

149:53

one of the few CIO CEOs that's sort of

149:55

right or center and I was like well you

149:58

know what do you think do you think AI

149:59

is going to come and take all the jobs

150:00

and his basic take was the the real

150:03

historical analogy is the industrial

150:05

revolution and you know did the

150:08

industrial revolution displace or change

150:11

a lot of jobs yes it also created a lot

150:13

of jobs that didn't exist before so he

150:15

was like my concern here is not that 50%

150:20

of Americans are going to be unable to

150:21

find a job. There will be some

150:23

displacement, some sort of churn in the

150:25

labor market, but that's not the main

150:27

issue. He said the main issue, if you go

150:28

back to the industrial revolution, is

150:30

that there was a lot of demand for

150:31

workers, but the inequality in the

150:33

country got completely out of whack.

150:37

Like this is the era of the robber

150:38

barons. And then the robber barons in

150:40

both Europe and the United States led to

150:42

fascism. It led to communism again to

150:44

this point about giving people an

150:46

option. if you don't give them a good

150:48

option, then it leads to fascism and

150:50

communism.

150:50

>> Now, there's this fascinating encyclical

150:53

um written by by Pope Leo I 13th. I'll

150:56

send it to you. It's one of the the best

150:57

things that I think has ever been

150:58

written by a Christian leader where it's

151:01

it's written in the late 19th century.

151:02

And the basic argument of it is that in

151:05

the age of industrial churn, there has

151:08

to be a middle way between

151:11

six-year-olds working on the factory

151:13

floor and socialism. And part of that

151:16

solution is to give workers a sort of

151:19

say in what's going on. Give normal

151:22

people some power in this in this in

151:25

this system. And I think that's the

151:27

thing we have to figure out with AI. I

151:28

won't say that I have all the solutions

151:29

because I haven't. But I think the

151:30

fundamental question is how do you

151:33

ensure that normal people have some

151:36

control over this? control over what's

151:39

their kids are seeing, control over, you

151:42

know, the the the economic forces that

151:44

are being unleashed by AI, some

151:47

certainty that they're not going to wake

151:48

up in a world where they can't buy a

151:50

home, but some other guy owns 35

151:52

mansions, right? That that to me is is

151:54

the fundamental challenge of AI is it's

151:57

going to unleash a lot of wealth

151:58

creation, but if that wealth creation

152:00

all goes to some some segment of people,

152:03

you're going to have communism. like

152:04

that that is that is the choice before

152:06

us is a lot of wealth being created

152:08

that's good by the way I like I like

152:09

wealth being created but if if you don't

152:11

ensure that there's some broader

152:14

prosperity from that wealth creation

152:16

like we have run this experiment before

152:18

and it leads to communism

152:20

>> right so if the system is [ __ ] how do

152:22

we unfuck it

152:23

>> so [sighs and gasps]

152:24

>> you have a magic wand

152:26

>> I I mean look I I this is what I'm I'm

152:28

saying I'm being honest with you that I

152:30

I don't have a magic wand I I think

152:31

there are a few things that that that we

152:34

should sort of take from this I think.

152:36

Okay. The first is that we should give

152:40

workers a real say at the bargaining

152:42

table. Okay. So,

152:46

what really worries me about AI is the

152:48

is the fact that private sector unions

152:50

have largely disappeared from the United

152:53

States of America. There are a couple of

152:54

exceptions, but if you go back to like

152:56

why did the United States and Britain

152:58

weather um the industrial revolution

153:00

better than literally every other

153:01

western country? I think you could make

153:03

a good argument. Strong religious

153:05

institutions. Right now, we have very

153:06

weak religious institutions. Number two,

153:08

I think you could say strong worker

153:10

participation institutions and not just

153:13

private sector labor unions. That was a

153:14

big piece of it. But people don't

153:16

realize that, you know, Hollywood major

153:20

studios would actually work with

153:23

community groups and churches to sort of

153:27

help like develop content. Now, this was

153:30

an organic. This was a natural

153:31

cooperation. And this wasn't mandated by

153:33

some law, but where they'd go and say,

153:35

"Help us produce content that actually

153:38

speaks to your membership, that speaks

153:40

to your community." And there was this

153:42

sense of participation in American

153:44

society that I think we've lost. And and

153:47

that's the thing that I think that we

153:48

have to rebuild a little bit. It's

153:50

interesting that, you know, the Trump

153:51

administration, the president

153:52

personally, certainly me have been

153:54

accused of being too pro- labor for

153:56

Republicans. But one of the reason why

153:59

I'm pro- labor as a Republican is

154:02

because, and I'm not saying unions are

154:04

perfect. Some of them have very serious

154:05

problems. Like I'm opened about this,

154:08

like the alternative may very well be

154:10

communism in the United States of

154:12

America. Not next year, but down the

154:14

road, you've got to give people a seat

154:16

at the table. And I think that's that's

154:18

one answer to the question. Um I I think

154:21

a second answer to the question is is

154:22

competition. So if if you go back again

154:25

to what worked and what was broken about

154:27

the industrial revolution,

154:29

hyper monopolist style companies that

154:34

had way too much power. I mean Teddy

154:36

Roosevelt famously talked about how um

154:39

you know some of the steel trusts were

154:42

more powerful than the United States

154:43

government. So you could vote your vote

154:46

didn't matter as much because the

154:48

corporations were more powerful than the

154:49

government. I think reigning that in

154:51

making sure that like how do you what's

154:53

the most obvious way to give normal

154:55

people participation it's democracy but

154:58

if a single corporation has monopolized

155:01

an entire space then you don't have a

155:04

real a real democracy unless you reign

155:07

in the power of that company and I think

155:09

that that is another big risk with AI

155:11

it's that we have a hyper monopouist who

155:14

dominates the space and then influences

155:16

the government influences the nonprofit

155:19

sector

155:19

and then real people are effectively cut

155:21

out of the bargain. So again, I'm not

155:23

going to pretend sitting here that I

155:24

have all the solutions. I think about

155:26

this more than almost anything else

155:27

right now. But it's the solution has to

155:31

be giving normal people actual authority

155:35

over their own lives.

155:36

>> But how can the government get involved

155:38

in those steps? Like what could be done

155:40

on a federal level to implement that?

155:44

Well, [sighs] you know, I I think one of

155:46

the things and and we've we've looked at

155:48

legislation along these lines, we

155:49

haven't yet pushed anything, but you

155:51

know, one problem with the 20 with with

155:53

like the private sector labor union. One

155:55

reason why you Democrats will say you

155:58

private unions are at super low

156:00

participation rates because the

156:02

government is, you know, been anti-UN.

156:05

There's like some element of truth to

156:06

that. But the reality is that a lot of

156:08

workers don't see the utility in joining

156:10

a union because it's like in a lot of

156:12

ways it's a 20th century institution

156:14

when you need a 21st century

156:16

institution. So I think updating the

156:18

modern union to be to make more sense in

156:21

the 21st century I think that's that's a

156:24

part of the story. Um you know I think I

156:28

think antitrust

156:29

>> how would you do that? Well, a friend of

156:30

mine, his name is Orin Cass, actually,

156:31

very fascinating guy, sort of a

156:33

right-of-c center economic thinker. you

156:35

know, his his idea is that 20th century

156:38

labor law presupposes a sort of zero sum

156:41

conflict between the company and the

156:43

union and that where you've seen unions

156:46

actually thrive certain places in

156:48

Europe, it's a little bit more

156:49

cooperative and the the unions actually

156:52

have a little bit more power themselves

156:55

where they can negotiate with the

156:57

corporation with a little bit more

156:59

breadth and a little bit more freedom.

157:01

Whereas in the United States, we sort of

157:02

set a floor. we make we we create a very

157:05

small number of things the union can

157:06

actually negotiate over and so a lot of

157:08

people say well why would I join a union

157:10

why would I participate in it so

157:12

basically making the union a little bit

157:13

more cooperative which requires changing

157:16

the legal form of it I think that's

157:17

interesting I think antitrust is a huge

157:19

piece of the story now it's it's a

157:21

little early with AI because we don't

157:22

yet know which companies are dominant

157:24

but I think one of the big mistakes man

157:26

we made in the early 2000s is we should

157:28

have gone after the big tech companies

157:30

with antitrust like there is like a

157:33

trustbusting mechanism that exists in

157:35

the US government. We just didn't use

157:37

it. We're going to have to be willing to

157:38

use it in the 21st century.

157:41

>> And when it comes to unions, um what

157:46

like what what is wrong with the current

157:48

structure

157:49

um in in terms of what what power the

157:53

unions have to negotiate for for labor.

157:56

So let me look. So there's a concrete

157:58

example that that Orin uses all the

158:00

time. So in in some European countries,

158:03

you have a minimum wage, right? In some

158:06

European countries, the union can can

158:09

actually cut a deal with the employer to

158:11

where you pay a brand new employee less

158:16

than the minimum wage, then you pay a

158:18

more senior person higher than the

158:20

minimum wage. But in order to pay the

158:22

junior employee less than the minimum

158:24

wage, you have to provide them job

158:26

training and better benefits and so

158:27

forth. And so the idea is you turn the

158:30

employ for the first couple of years you

158:32

turn the company almost into an

158:34

educational institution but in order to

158:36

do that the union has to have

158:38

flexibility. That kind of arrangement is

158:40

effectively illegal in the United States

158:42

of America. So it's that you create the

158:45

ability for the union to be more

158:46

flexible in how it negotiates. You don't

158:49

set all the terms for it. You allow the

158:51

union to figure out what's in the best

158:52

interest of its membership. But people

158:54

are opposed like initially knee-jerk

158:56

reaction to lowering wages and even in

158:59

lowering minimum wage. I mean the most

159:02

people feel and I agree that minimum

159:04

wage is almost impossible to live off of

159:06

especially with

159:07

>> 100%. Yeah. That it is but but but what

159:10

these unions are not asking for I mean

159:12

you have to kind of trust the labor

159:14

representation of the people to sort of

159:17

make the right arrangement for them. And

159:20

so it's not, hey, let's create a minimum

159:22

wage or a wage floor that's lower than

159:26

the minimum wage. It's what about taking

159:29

for the first year of a person coming

159:30

into the labor market where, you know,

159:32

they work an internship for zero

159:35

dollars, right, at a at a company. Why

159:38

don't we allow our workers to work

159:39

effectively an internship, get the

159:41

training they need, get the benefits

159:42

that they need, and then join the

159:45

workforce full-time at a much higher

159:47

wage? The the idea is that you trust the

159:49

union to come up with this or or the

159:52

labor organization, whatever you want to

159:53

call it, is you actually give the union

159:56

the ability to sort of negotiate over

159:57

this stuff on behalf of its members. You

160:00

don't assume the way the United States

160:02

we do it is we we basically take all

160:05

that authority away from the union

160:07

itself and we try to settle this stuff

160:10

at the level of the government. But

160:12

again, where unions have been more

160:15

successful, where they actually have

160:16

higher membership and participation

160:18

rates, what you see is the the these

160:22

organizations actually have much greater

160:24

flexibility and that ends up meaning

160:26

that more people want to join. That

160:28

means these organizations have more

160:30

power and then that means they can

160:31

figure out the arrangement that works

160:33

best for their membership. So you kind

160:35

of have to trust people. You have to

160:36

trust that people are willing to do this

160:38

thing um for for their own for their own

160:41

benefit. And you know, so long as

160:44

they've got the right authority and so

160:46

long as they've got the right tools, you

160:48

give you kind of trust people to do

160:49

what's in their best interest in these

160:51

organizations to do what's in the best

160:52

interest of their membership.

160:53

>> Well, the the problem that people would

160:55

have with that is that corporations have

160:57

a responsibility to their shareholders

160:59

and they always want to make the most

161:00

money possible and they have to make

161:02

more money next quarter than they made

161:03

this quarter. And one of the ways they

161:05

do that is by paying people less.

161:08

>> But that's why I think that you have to

161:09

give workers some some seat at the

161:11

bargaining table. There there there is a

161:13

there is a theory of like economics that

161:14

dominated in the late 20th century

161:16

America which is that basically that you

161:20

know the labor market was entirely

161:22

efficient and maybe the corporation

161:25

didn't want to pay their workers more

161:26

money but they would be forced to pay

161:27

their workers more money purely because

161:30

if they didn't do that then they

161:31

wouldn't be able to get enough workers.

161:33

Now, I do think that there's an argument

161:34

for like there are all of these ways why

161:36

we should give workers more bargaining

161:38

power. One of them and we've spent a lot

161:40

of time talking about labor

161:41

organizations and that's important. Man,

161:43

one of the reasons why I'm such an

161:44

immigration hawk is because it is really

161:47

important not to flood the country with

161:49

low-wage immigrants, right? Because if

161:51

you give a corporation a choice between

161:53

a low-wage immigrant and a native worker

161:55

who's going to require, by the way, a

161:57

native worker of any race, they're going

162:00

to be forced to pay the native worker

162:01

more if there's not a pool of low-wage

162:04

workers to to go to. And this is like a

162:06

consistent finding in the economics

162:08

literature, but also just common sense

162:11

that when you flood the country with

162:13

low-wage immigrants, this is why I think

162:14

the DSA types are a little full of [ __ ]

162:16

when they talk about helping normal

162:18

people. If you want to help a normal

162:20

person, don't provide a corporation nine

162:24

low-wage migrants to compete against

162:27

them when they're bargaining for wages.

162:29

You actually give workers more power

162:31

when you have a more restricted

162:33

immigration policy.

162:34

>> Well, this is that's the that that's

162:37

that's where the real con is, right?

162:39

Because a lot of Yeah. You've told me

162:42

that you had a conversation with uh

162:44

someone who was at the head of some

162:46

corporation that was upset that they

162:47

were trying to shut down illegal

162:49

immigration because he said it's

162:50

>> head of a hotel chain.

162:51

>> Yeah.

162:51

>> Yeah. Cuz he said basically I want to be

162:53

able to pay my workers less money and

162:55

it's very hard because the native

162:57

workers expect higher wages.

162:59

>> It's crazy. I mean there there dude

163:01

there's there's this story from a few

163:03

years ago. It was the New York Times. It

163:06

was like unintentionally hilarious. And

163:08

it's talking about a,

163:11

you know, why Apple would choose to

163:13

manufacture in Asia over the United

163:16

States of America. And it's talking

163:18

about how, you know, the American

163:20

workers and it's it's almost kind of

163:22

judgy towards the American workers. It's

163:24

like, well, you know, the American

163:25

workers want to go home and see their

163:27

kids and have dinner with their kids.

163:29

And it's like, by the way, you go to the

163:31

Foxcon factory in Apple in China, the

163:34

Foxcon factory that develops products

163:35

for Apple and China, and what do you

163:37

see? You literally see suicide nets

163:39

around the top of the building because,

163:41

yeah, the workers work 72 hours a week

163:44

and they sleep in little apartments four

163:47

to a bedroom, but they also are so

163:50

miserable, you have to take steps to

163:52

prevent them from killing themselves.

163:54

So, you know, what I want out of

163:57

American life is a little bit more

163:59

dignity, a little bit more, oh, you

164:01

know, yeah, I can I can I can afford to

164:03

feed my family. I can also go home and

164:04

actually watch my kids' baseball game.

164:06

And that balance, I think, if you're

164:08

looking at it from a pure profit motive,

164:11

you know, maybe the corporation isn't

164:13

going to think like that, which is why

164:14

you have to give the people real power

164:17

to push back and advocate for their own

164:18

interests. I think a lot of people in

164:20

this country, if they had to choose,

164:23

especially people that have money, if

164:25

they had to choose between a phone that

164:28

was manufactured in America where people

164:30

were paid a very good wage and had

164:32

benefits and you have an iPhone that has

164:34

a little American flag on the back and

164:36

you have one that doesn't. I think a lot

164:39

of people would buy the one with the

164:40

American flag on the back because

164:42

>> just they would feel better about their

164:44

purchase. They'd feel I feel weird when

164:47

I'm holding a phone [laughter] and I

164:48

know that someone was working in some

164:50

factory in some foreign country working

164:52

15 hours a day and and being paid

164:55

nothing.

164:55

>> That's right. I think that's true of our

164:57

food, by the way, too.

164:58

>> Yeah.

164:58

>> They they'd much rather it be, you know,

165:00

made locally. They're willing to pay a

165:02

little bit more so long as it's it's

165:04

healthier and it's made locally. There

165:06

obviously are exceptions to every rule,

165:08

but I I do again I think that we have

165:11

run the experiment where we just try to

165:14

do everything with low-wage foreigners,

165:18

whether they're in the United States via

165:20

illegal immigration or whether they're

165:22

outside the United States via offshoring

165:25

and outsourcing. And what it has led to

165:28

is I think a society where socialism is

165:31

a bit on the rise. And one of our jobs

165:32

in the administration, I think about

165:34

this all the time, is how do you make

165:37

things I'm not saying we're perfect and

165:39

I'm not saying there isn't a lot of work

165:40

to do because there is like we were left

165:41

in quite a hole by 40 years of bad

165:43

policy. People always talk about the

165:44

Biden administration inflation.

165:47

Yeah, the Biden administration inflation

165:48

was terrible. Got up to 9%. By the way,

165:50

I think today's CPI report is you had

165:52

deflation in the United States. We

165:54

actually had prices coming down which is

165:56

good because the Iran war gas prices

165:58

came down. But like

166:01

>> gas prices have come down now because of

166:03

the Iran war.

166:04

>> No, no, no. Compared to where they were

166:06

a month ago,

166:07

>> right?

166:07

>> So they're they're not down from the

166:09

beginning of the war, but they're down

166:10

from where they were a month ago. So you

166:11

had a good CPI report, uh a consumer

166:13

price inflation report today. My my

166:16

point is, yes, I don't ever get to the

166:19

9% inflation of the B administration.

166:22

Yes, the Trump administration has had a

166:24

much better record on inflation than the

166:25

Biden administration. nothing close to

166:27

9% even in our worst month. But some of

166:30

this stuff is actually much longer term.

166:32

This is 40 years of failed bipartisan

166:35

leadership which has created really a

166:38

kind of shell corporation out of the

166:40

United States of America. We don't make

166:42

enough of our own stuff. We don't have

166:43

enough self-reliance. Our workers don't

166:46

have enough bargaining power. That has

166:48

led in a lot of ways, I think, to this

166:50

kind of socialism fervor. And we have to

166:54

keep fixing these problems. Again, I

166:55

think that we're going in the right

166:56

direction. Maybe people disagree, but

166:58

it's going to take years to fix this

167:01

problem. And if we don't, we are going

167:03

to end up with a socialist president in

167:04

this country.

167:06

>> I think it's also a narrative change.

167:08

And that the the narrative is stopping

167:11

immigration is cruelty. Correct. And

167:14

you're you're you're racist or

167:16

xenophobic and that uh we should just

167:19

instead give these people citizenship.

167:21

And it's it's not a coincidence that I

167:25

mean like what we dealt with over the

167:27

last four years was insane where they

167:30

just opened the border and not just

167:32

encouraged people to come across but

167:34

facilitated it helped them got them on

167:36

Medicaid got them on social security got

167:39

people the they told people do you have

167:42

a bad back okay well you're permanent

167:44

disability and you get free money put

167:47

them in a hotel give them a phone like

167:49

that's crazy and then move them to blue

167:51

states and then you realize that that

167:54

has a direct impact on congressional

167:56

seats

167:58

>> because of the census which is also

167:59

nuts. The census should count citizens.

168:01

>> It should only count citizens but it

168:03

doesn't and that actually steals

168:05

congressional representation away from

168:07

areas that have lower illegal

168:08

immigration, right?

168:09

>> Which is its own its own problem. So

168:12

yeah, it it's it's the thing that I

168:15

don't understand about the Democratic

168:17

Socialists of America. And obviously I

168:19

disagree with a lot of their ideas, but

168:21

like if you go back to Caesar Chavez,

168:23

one of the original like founding

168:25

fathers of the American workers rights

168:28

movement, okay? He was a hardcore

168:31

restrictionist on immigration because he

168:33

thought that the bosses would bring in

168:35

low-wage immigrants to compete against

168:38

his workers and that would drive down

168:40

their wages. And yet the DSA, which says

168:43

they care about the wages of workers, is

168:45

quite literally like an open borders

168:47

organization. So I I tend to think that

168:50

it's it's all BS that they are actually

168:53

pursuing a set of policies that are good

168:56

for

168:57

that are like corporations care way more

169:02

about open borders than they do about

169:05

any other policy the DSA cares about. So

169:07

while these people say that they're

169:08

trying to fight for workers and they're

169:10

trying to fight for the working man, the

169:12

actual end result of DSA policy is to

169:15

flood the country with low-wage

169:17

immigrants which will destroy the middle

169:19

class in this country. In fact, we have

169:20

run this experiment for decades now and

169:23

we have a much weaker middle class than

169:24

we did before it started. And I think

169:27

this is a part of the the problem this

169:30

country has that there's this narrative

169:32

uh Republicans are cruel and they're

169:35

anti-worker and that they're anti- lower

169:38

class people or lower middle class

169:40

people.

169:40

>> Yep.

169:41

>> That narrative has to someone has to do

169:43

a better job of messaging.

169:45

>> I'm trying to, man. I'm trying to. But,

169:46

you know, it's it's one of those things

169:47

that it's it took a long while for it to

169:49

set in. It's going to take a long while

169:50

to to get out of it. But what I just I

169:53

try to remind people is that anybody who

169:55

actually cares about the safety of your

169:58

community is going to care about not

170:00

empowering police brutality, but

170:03

empowering the good cops to do what they

170:04

need to do. Anybody who cares about law

170:06

and order is going to want to throw

170:07

violent criminals in jail, not close

170:10

down the prison. Anybody who cares about

170:11

your wages and your safety is going to

170:14

want to control the border. So I I I

170:17

just all I can think to do is to remind

170:20

people that I'm not saying Republicans

170:22

are perfect and you know I have

170:24

disagreements of course within my own

170:26

party all the time but fundamentally our

170:29

party is right now pursuing a much

170:33

better set of policies when it comes to

170:36

safety of your home, your wages, your

170:38

ability to keep more of your money. I

170:41

just got to keep preaching that message

170:42

and you know the chips fall where they

170:44

may. And if you just look at the result

170:47

of what you see in these cities where

170:49

they don't enforce crime, where they

170:51

don't enforce

170:53

immigration laws, they provide sanctuary

170:56

states, you see disasters over and over

171:00

and over again.

171:01

>> Yeah.

171:01

>> I mean, and I I don't understand

171:03

>> exactly

171:04

>> why people who are voting for these

171:07

things can't see that. They can't see

171:10

that the results have been catastrophic

171:13

year after year. They keep getting

171:15

worse.

171:16

>> And the idea of voting a new better

171:18

person to do the same thing is just

171:20

crazy.

171:21

>> Yeah, it it's it's totally crazy to me,

171:24

too. I think part of it is we haven't

171:27

done a good enough job of actually going

171:28

to some of these places. Part of it is

171:30

that it is shifting and sometimes these

171:31

shifts just take a long time. If you

171:33

look, the Republican party under Trump's

171:35

leadership is way more workingass, way

171:38

more middle class than the Republican

171:40

party of 20 years ago. So these things

171:41

are starting to shift. But the public

171:43

safety thing is very interesting to me

171:45

because like one of the promises of

171:48

America is that every man, woman, and

171:52

child, rich or poor, black or white,

171:55

deserves public safety. Like it every

171:58

rich person ever has had public safety.

172:00

Every rich person ever has been able to

172:02

afford some security guard to make sure

172:04

that somebody who comes and tries to

172:06

steal their stuff or kidnap their kids,

172:08

they're protected against that. What

172:10

America did is we democratized public

172:13

safety. Every person gets to keep their

172:16

property. Every person gets to not be

172:18

stolen from. Every person gets to walk

172:20

down their neighborhood at night without

172:21

being being mugged. And obviously we

172:24

have imperfectly applied that. But what

172:27

the left has done over the last few

172:30

years. Why I think the crime thing is

172:32

it's not just a sort of public safety

172:34

thing. It's also a class thing is they

172:37

have made working people less safe. Like

172:41

if you look at my neighborhood, the

172:43

neighborhood that I my working-class

172:45

grandparents raised me in, it became

172:48

less safe over time. And really

172:52

workingclass neighborhoods had much

172:54

higher rates of violence, much higher

172:56

rates of carjackings and so forth. That

172:59

happened during Biden's administration.

173:02

>> That's not a coincidence.

173:04

>> No. Uh anything else? [laughter]

173:08

>> Anything else?

173:08

>> Go by Go by Go by Communion, Joe, and we

173:11

can we can talk about uh religion and

173:13

faith and the Ten Commandments next

173:14

time. But thanks for having me, man.

173:16

>> Thanks for being here. Appreciate it.

173:17

All right. [music] Wrap it up. Bye,

173:19

everybody. Great.

173:26

[music]

173:30

Hey. Hey.

Interactive Summary

The discussion covers a range of topics, starting with the surreal experience of a UFC cage fight held at the White House, including unique weather events and fight outcomes. It then transitions into a broader critique of outrage culture in politics and social media, highlighting how controversial comments by figures like Josh Hokit and comedians are often met with performative reactions. The conversation delves into perceived corruption and issues within California politics, specifically discussing election irregularities and the debate around voter ID laws. Foreign policy is addressed through the lens of US negotiations with Iran, the complexities of dealing with hardliners and pragmatists, and the influence of various parties, including Israel, on American decisions. The speakers also touch upon theories surrounding the Epstein files, the challenges of transparency, and the potential for blackmail. A fascinating segment explores the hosts' and guests' theories on UFOs and aliens, speculating whether they could be demons or hyper-advanced civilizations, and the government's limited transparency. Finally, the podcast examines economic and societal concerns such as the rise of socialism among young Americans, housing affordability, the impact of AI on jobs, and the role of labor unions and immigration policy in shaping the American dream.

Suggested questions

7 ready-made prompts