Ep. 2417 - HUGE WIN For Trump SCOTUS

True self-reliance begins with taking control of your health. Our sponsor, Armour Calostrum, harnesses nature's original blueprint for resilience. Our bodies face constant pressure from toxins, processed food, processed, bovine colostrum that's sustainably sourced with a commitment to calf-first sourcing. With over 400 bioactive nutrients, it fortifies your entire gut wall system, and strengthens your immune system from the cellular level up. This means balanced immune health, better digestion, less bloating, and support for healthy metabolism and fat burning from the inside out. Elite athletes have been using colostrum for years because it enhances nutrient absorption, builds lean muscle, and speeds recovery. But the benefits go way deeper. Cellular level support for hair, skin, energy, everything. This isn't processed or manipulated. It's pure, potent, and natural. Your body's blueprint for rebuilding itself the way it was designed to function. When you invest in your health, you invest in your ability to show up fully. Think clearly and stay in control no matter what comes your way. We've worked out a special offer from my audience. Received 30% off your first subscription order. Head on over to armor.com slash Josh Shapiro or enter Josh Shapiro to get 30% off your first subscription order. That's A-R-M-R-A.com slash Josh Shapiro. Been in an accident? Call the bros, brough. Skinner, accident, and injury lawyers, don't guess your next step and don't let the insurance company rush you. The bros help protect your claim, handle the hassle, and fight for what's fair. 540 8888888. If you were injured in an accident, get help now from the best. Call 540 8888888.

A lot of people these days on the supposed right are deeply unhappy with President Trump. Some of them are even saying they regret their vote for President Trump. These people are idiots. On the basis of President Trump's astonishingly great Supreme Court alone, they are idiots. Obviously, President Trump has done a lot of great things. He shut the border. He arrested Venezuelan dictator Nicolas Maduro, wiped out DEI in the executive branch, went after the trans movement, attacked Iran's nuclear and missile capacity and a lot more. But... His greatest legacy by far, his most lasting legacy by far, will be the astounding Supreme Court that he put into place. They overturned Roe v. Wade. They allowed states to ban the transgender mutilation of children. They've stood for religious freedom. And now, in yet another amazingly courageous decision, the Supreme Court has ruled that courts cannot force states to draw racist congressional districts. And Democrats are fighting mad. Surprise, if you say we should not draw a congressional district based on race. Then you must be the racist. We'll get to all of it. Plus, Erika Kirk directly taking on Candace Owens at long last and the Democrats embracing their Nazi standing Senate candidate in Maine. This is The Ben Shapiro.

So President Trump's greatest legacy will be the Supreme Court, Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh and Amy Coney Barrett. This Supreme Court is the most constitutionally protective Supreme Court in modern American history by far. And they showed it this week when they ruled that courts can't force states to draw racist congressional districts. So Hakeem Jeffries, the House Minority Leader, finally got it right for once by accident. He says this is the Trump court. It's not the John Roberts Court, which is true because when John Roberts was appointed, Three of these justices were not on the court. Here is Hakeem Jeffries. He's giving full credit to President. He means to blame President Trump, but he is right. This is President Trump's court. He's the one who created it. And this court is great. That doesn't mean they always rule for President Trump. They don't. But it does mean he gets credit for the fact that this court is fabulous. Now, when this decision came out earlier today, it's an unacceptable decision, but not an unexpected decision. Because this isn't even really the John Roberts court. It's the Trump court. Yes. And what we would expect from the Trump court is an effort to continue their scheme to suppress the vote and rig the midterm elections and beyond. Okay, this is ridiculous and Democrats are going nuts. See, here's the thing. Democrats think that Americans, by and large, are racist, the white Americans are racist. So the government must force white Americans not to be racist by creating racist district. Get it? I didn't think so. Basically, they are arguing that if you don't want the government discriminating on the basis of race, you are the real racist. In fact, you must draw congressional districts that are majority minority. You have to do it, or you're doing Jim Crow 2.0. This is what Chuck Schumer, the Senate Minority Leader, was saying just yesterday. This is somehow a return to Jim Crow. Again, they are saying that if you don't create a congressional district based on race, that's Jim Crow. If you don't create a segregated district, that's Jim Crow. And today we're ramping up our efforts. We see the need for it just today and today's Supreme Court decision, which is a despicable decision that is a return to Jim Crow. taking decades of hard work, sweat, blood, and tears, and even people dying for the right to vote, to prevent racial discrimination in the right to vote. We see what they're doing in the SAVE Act, which would disenfranchise 20 million people. And we are fighting that every step of the way. Honestly, this is conspiratorial nonsense. The idea that white people are trying to stop black people from voting in the United States is ridiculous. First of all, take Virginia, for example. The white candidate, Abigail Spanberger, won 90% of the black vote. The black candidate wins some Sears won 90% of the white vote. So it turns out the American people not nearly as racist as Chuck Schumer wishes they were. So he tweeted out, this decision upends half a century of precedent, defies the spirit of the American civil rights movement, and reverses generations of progress toward racial justice. And it shows that Democrats hold 24 seats in a variety of southern states. And after redistricting, Republicans will gain 12 more seats.

And then he added, by some estimates, this decision could lead conservative state legislatures to draw as many as 19 additional seats that favor Republicans in the House. Okay, that is telling on himself. The reason he's upset is not because he believes that black people are discriminated against. It's because black people are disproportionately Democratic voters, and he believes that Democratic seats are going to disappear. That's called normal gerrymandering. Now again, gerrymandering has been a part of our process since the very beginning. There is truly no great substitute for gerrymandering, political gerrymandering, where the state legislature or state commission or another body draws the district within a state. And there's nothing wrong with that. This is why I wasn't complaining when California decided to redistrict. Texas just did it. Florida is going to redo it or just did. And this is the way that states work. And there's nothing illegal about it. It may be a bad thing, but there is no alternative to it. Every alternative that has been tried is a giant fail. But according to the Democrats, if you are not drawing specific black districts, right, they're the ones who want to take race into account. If you are not drawing specific black districts, this means you're a racist. And again, Democrats are just telling them on themselves. They believe that government must discriminate on the basis of race to stop those racist Americans. This is their baseline belief system. Americans are racist, just as racist as they were in 1964. And therefore, we must have government-promoted policies that benefit black people at the expense of other people. This is why Hakeem Jeffries yesterday was suggesting that affirmative action, equity, inclusion, and also racial tolerance are all going. Those are not the same thing. Racial tolerance is very, very high in the United States, which is why you don't need specific government policy in order to promote black people over the racism of white people. Here's Hakeem Jeffries. In the aftermath of the 2008 election, they've tried to do everything that they can to eliminate and erase our journey, our struggle, our march in this country toward a more perfect union. And now we're at a point where affirmative action is gone, diversity is gone, equity gone, inclusion gone, racial tolerance gone. The Voting Rights Act largely gone. But guess what, extremists? We're still here. And we're not going anywhere. Okay, by the way, by the way, the fact that black Democrats are still there demonstrates that America is not in fact particularly racist. Actually, there's something like 26 majority black districts in the United States. 24 of them are represented by a black person in those districts as their elected representative. But there are well over 60 black representatives in Congress, which means a lot of white people are voting for a lot of black candidates. I mean, that does not bespeak tremendous American racism. Barack Obama, of course, a beneficiary of the white vote. He comes out and he says, quote, today's Supreme Court decision effectively guts a key pillar of the Voting Rights Act, freeing state legislatures to gerrymander legislative districts to systematically dilute and weaken the voting power of racial minorities so long as they do it under the guise of partisanship rather than explicit racial bias. And as we'll explain in just a second, he's lying. Basically, what the Supreme Court ruled is that you can do normal partisan gerrymandering. You just can't decide that you're going to hurt black people because they are black.

Obama says, this serves as just one more example of how a majority of the current court seems intense on abandoning its vital role in ensuring equal participation in our democracy and protecting the rights of minority groups against majority overreach. The good news is such setbacks can be overcome, but that will only happen if citizens across the country who cherish our democratic ideals continue to mobilize and vote in record numbers. Now again, his tweet is self-defeating. If it turns out black citizens can mobilize and vote in record numbers, you do not have systemic barriers to voting in the United States, do you? which is what the VRA was designed to stop, the Voting Rights Act. All right, coming up, Kamala Harris sounds off on the Supreme Court ruling. Plus, Candace Owens, getting slapped down by Erika Kirk, and we get to Graham Platner. That's the Nazi tattoo guy being embraced by the Democratic Party a lot to come first. Let's just be honest for a second. Paying 70, 80, 90 bucks a month for wireless. That is absurd. It doesn't make any sense. It's bloated pricing from companies that assume you're not going to bother to look elsewhere. Meanwhile, my wireless company, Pure Talk, is offering unlimited high-speed data for just $34.99 a month. That's not a gimmick. That's the actual price. Here's what makes things really interesting. That same unlimited plan used to start at $55. But Pure Talk keeps pushing in the opposite direction of the big carriers. They are trying to give you more value, not less. So now it's $34.99. If you checked them out before and passed, check again, the math has now changed. Again, I'm a long time Pure Talk user. Their coverage is excellent. Call clarity is great. They're using the same tower networks as the big guys. If you're skeptical, totally fair, just try it. You get 30 days, no contract, no cancellation fees. You're not locked in. You're not gambling. You're just testing a better option. Switching takes about 10 minutes, and if something goes wrong, you're talking to a U.S.-based customer service team that actually picks up the phone and helps you. So, here's the deal. Head on over to puretalk.com slash Josh Shapiro. Get unlimited high-speed data for 3499 a month. That's puretalk.com slash Josh Shapiro. Stop overpaying. Switch to Pure Talk, America's wireless company today. Meanwhile, Kamala Harris again. There is a conspiracy theory on the right that suggests that voter fraud is deciding our elections. There are millions of people who are voting fraudulently, which is not true. And there is a similar countervailing conspiracy theory on the left that vast voter suppression is happening in the United States. And that is also not true. In fact, in several elections in the recent past, the black turnout rate was higher than the comparative white turnout rate. But here is Kamala Harris doing this routine also. Again, everyone's a victim. No, they have had an agenda that has been in place for decades to get to this very moment and beyond, which is to make it so difficult for the people to vote that they won't because they know the people are not stupid and see the corrupt, incompetent, callous administration that is in the White House right now.

And they're so damn scared. They're so damn scared of losing the midterm. And by the way, we should mention that the biggest beneficiary of racialized voting in the United States was and is Kamala Harris. Right now, Kamala Harris is the most likely candidate to win the Democratic nomination. Why? I mean, she just lost to Donald Trump. She's a terrible candidate. Why? The answer is, as everyone knows, that she is going to wildly outperform with black voters in South Carolina. That is racialized voting. That is what it is. I mean, she does this routine where she kind of goes into a particular way of speaking. She's kind of cosplaying and then she'll drop out of it. Here we go. I'm a black woman in America. So, I mean. I mean, some people are just like, oh, but you're a congresswoman. I'm a black woman first. And so, you know, the level of disrespect that is continuously lobbed against us as black women, you know, for me, I'm like, wait a minute now. I am one of the 535 most powerful people in this country. And for some reason, you think we're on the same level, but you're going to disrespect me. Like, it's not going to happen. It's not going to happen. It's not going to happen. Okay, she is not lacking respect because she's a black woman. She's lacking respect because she was a terrible candidate. I should point out at this point that her district in Texas was only 40% black and she ended up as a representative anyway. And actually when she was running for Senate, she won 45% of the predominantly white counties. So clearly America is deeply racist. Rashida Tlaib, again, another demonstration of how terribly racist America is that we can have a terror stand like Rashida Tlaib in Congress. She wants to expand the court and impeach the justices. You know, Governor J.B. Pritzker, he's saying that Republicans are incapable of winning majority, so they're making it harder to vote. The Supreme Court just gutted the Voting Rights Act. I'll just say it. Donald Trump and Republicans can't win majorities at the ballot box this November, so they're going back to a playbook as old as this country, making it harder for black and brown Americans to vote. On every front, Trump and his allies are assaulting the institutions of our democracy. Enough is enough. Okay, so what exactly did the Supreme Court do here that is totally setting off the Democrats? Why are they going so insane? Why are they going so nuts? Okay, in order to understand what was the actual case here, there was a redistricting that was forced by a court in Louisiana. And that redistricting is insane. So, I want to show you some maps. Okay, the first map here was the original map of Louisiana's districts. Okay, this is the map of Louisiana's districts. And what you see here is that there were six congressional districts here in Louisiana. And what you have is a first district that is sort of disparate and a second district that is sort of disparate, a sixth that is somewhat more cohesive, a third that is cohesive, a fourth and a fifth that are somewhat cohesive. That's what you're looking at when you look at this map.

It was sort of salamander-like majority black district. That would be the second congressional district in Louisiana. That was Louisiana's map from 2013 to 2022. Then a court ruled that they couldn't use that map. So they drew another map. And that map again, the congressional districts look pretty cohesive. What you have there. And again, the way that the congressional districts are split in Louisiana is fairly even. The Louisiana district? It's not like all six districts are represented by Republicans. That's not the way that it works. But even if it were to work that way, that would be a partisan gerrymandering. Now we get to the actual map. This is the map that was mandated by the court. The map that was mandated by the court is totally crazy. Because here you have a congressional district that stretches all the way from New Orleans to Shreveport, which is like 150 miles away. It spans basically the entire width of the state. The district looks ridiculous and crazy. It's not cohesive at all. It carves all the way through the heart of the state, like through the middle of the state in order to unite black populations in places that are 100 miles apart. And they did that because the court said you must have a second majority black district. So you must discriminate. So some white voters sued. And they said this violates the equal protection clause, right? The equal protection clause says you're not allowed to discriminate on the basis of race. And the Supreme Court said, that's right. You're not allowed to discriminate on the basis of race. If you draw a district just to get black voters in it, you can't do that. And the defense against that was, no, no, no. The Voting Rights Act says that you must do that in order so that you're not watering down black votes. So there were basically three interlinked questions here in this particular case. First, did that 2024 congressional map violate the Equal Protection Clause as a racial gerrymander? And the court found yes. Can compliance with Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act be a compelling interest that justified intentional race-based redistricting? And the answer is yes, but only very narrowly. So Section 2 has to be very narrowly applied. Like when there's intent to draw a congressional map to harm black people and it's the open intent of the thing, then you can invoke Section 2. When does Section 2 require redistricting only when circumstances create a strong inference that intentional discrimination occurred? So, Samuel Alito is writing. He was joined by all the conservative justices, Elena Kagan dissented, and she was joined by Sotomayor and Jackson. So, again, just to go through the decision, the 15th Amendment provides that the right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any state on account of race, color, or previous condition of servitude. And section two of the 15th Amendment authorizes Congress to enact appropriate legislation to enforce that amendment. Okay, so the 1965 Voting Rights Act comes about. And there are a couple of sections that theoretically implicate redistricting and how districts are drawn. One is section five. So section five originally had rules. about what was called preclearance. If you were in a historically discriminatory part of the United States, the Jim Crow, part of the United States, you actually had to preclear your maps with the federal government in order to show that you weren't discriminating. And in 2013, in a case called Shelby County v. Holder, the Supreme Court found, hey, look, at the calendar, it's now 2013. It is no longer 1965. And therefore, many of the qualifications that were being used to say which parts of the United States had to engage in preclearance.

they were no longer appropriate. And so Section 5 preclearance was no longer forced. Now, what you will notice is that in the aftermath of Section 5 going away, there were still a lot of black representatives in the United States from the South, right? That map that Chuck Schumer was showing earlier of the map of congressional districts in 2024 showed a lot of Democrat political districts in the South. That was after Section 5 of the VRA was basically ruled to be non-applicable. Okay, so now there is an attempt to invoke Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act. So section 2 of the Voting Rights Act says, no voting qualification or prerequisite to voting or standard practice or procedure shall be imposed or apply by any state or political subdivisions who deny or abridge the right of the United States to vote on accounts of race or color. So as you may notice, there's nothing in there about redistricting. What that's really talking about mostly is things like poll taxes or literacy tests or things that are designed to get black people not to vote. And again, the Voting Rights Act was necessary because from the end of the Civil War to basically the Civil Rights Revolution of the 60s, there are heavy attempts by various Jim Crow states to stop black people from activating politically. And that included discriminatory tests designed to stop black people from voting. That's why the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act were passed. And so that set up some elements of the law in both the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act that would seem to be facially violative of the Constitution of the United States. It's a point Christopher Caldwell has made convincingly, in my view. And there are elements, for example, of the Civil Rights Act that pretty clearly discriminate against private business owners, for example, in a way that would be unconstitutional, but the CRA basically overrules that. And the VRA gets involved in what normally would be state matters in order to enforce the 15th Amendment. Okay, so how about redistricting? So there is a case called Gingles from 1986, which set out a four-part test to prove vote dilution. Okay, so vote dilution is the idea that the voting rights act can stop redistricting that dilutes the black vote. So the example that Elena Kagan uses is let's say that you have a circle-shaped black population in terms of its sort of demographic location. inside a square-sized state. So you have the circle and then you have the square. And inside that black circle, you would have a group of people voting for a particular candidate. And so what the state does in order to water down the black vote is they say, we don't want black people to have that much autonomy. So we are just going to carve the state into four separate parts and we are going to dilute the black vote so that 25% of each part of that circle goes into a broader square. That would be vote dilution. Well, according to the Gingles precedent, you have to show that a minority group is sufficiently large and geographically compact and politically cohesive. And that that's why it's being divided. They must also demonstrate the white majority votes sufficiently as a block to defeat the minority's preferred candidate and that the process based on the totality of the circumstance is not equally open to minority voters. Okay, well, those factors are not actually present in this particular case in Louisiana. First of all, The district that is being drawn, again, stretches like 150 miles. It is certainly not geographically compact and politically cohesive. And if the idea is that just because black voters vote disproportionately Democrat and white voters in Louisiana vote disproportionately Republican, that you must therefore draw districts for Democrats or you're racist, no, that is just called political districting. So Samuel Alito wrote the opinion of the court.

He says section two of the VRA was designed to enforce the Constitution not collide with it. Unfortunately, lower courts have sometimes applied this court's section two precedents in a way that forces states to engage in the very race-based discrimination the Constitution forbids. All right. He's saying here is that sometimes a court will force you to draw a black majority district, which is in fact racist and violative of the equal rights amendment of the Constitution. 15th Amendment. Right? That you are, if the court is forcing you to draw a majority black district, that is in fact racist. And that violates the Constitution. So the court held that Section 2 imposes liability only when the evidence supports a strong inference that the state intentionally drew its districts to afford minority voters less opportunity because of their race. When a state defends a districting scheme on the ground, it was drawn for partisan purposes, plaintiffs have a special burden to overcome. To prevail, the plaintiff must disentangle race from politics by proving that the former drove a district lines. So, in other words, if you draw districts because you want to maintain Mike Johnson's district in Louisiana, that's fine. And if it turns out that maintaining that district meant a not majority black district, okay, that's normal. That's how politics works. And again, one of the things that Samuel Alito points out is that the calendar says 2026, not 1966, quote, vast social change has occurred throughout the country and particularly in the south where many sections who suits arise. At the time of the act passage, the nation had faced nearly a century of entrenched racial discrimination in voting, an insidious and pervasive evil which had been perpetuated at certain parts of our country through unremitting and ingenious defiance of the Constitution. So things have changed. Black voters now participate in elections at similar rates as the rest of the electorate, even turning out at higher rates than white voters in two of the five most recent presidential elections nationwide and in Louisiana. Also, a full-blown two-party system has emerged in the states where Section 2 suits are the most common. Gingles arose, the original Supreme Court case you mentioned, in the context of a one-party system in which black and white voters had starkly different voting patterns despite their affiliation within the same party. In the area involved in Gingles, an overwhelming majority of white voters did not vote for any black candidate in the Democratic Party primary elections, which for all practical purposes selected the candidates who would ultimately obtain office. And in the general, white voters in heavily Democratic areas, often ranked black candidates last among Democrats. Such intra-party disparities showed black voters had less opportunity to elect their preferred candidate because of race, not because of partisanship. So you're saying those were intra-democratic fights. Okay, so the majority decision says, that basically section two has become obviated by racial progress in the United States. Clarence Thomas, being the most strict constructionist on the bench, says basically section two of the voting rights act should not have applied to districting at all. He says, as I explained more than 30 years ago, I would go further and hold that section two of the voting rights act does not regulate districting at all. The relevant text prohibits states from imposing or implying a voting qualification prerequisite to voting or standard practice or procedure in a manner that results in denial or abridgment of the right to vote based on race. This does not include a state's choice of one districting scheme over another. Okay. So Elena Kagan, in her dissent, she says, no, no, no, this is racism. And she says, this part's pretty funny, actually. She says,

In the states, where that law continues to matter, the states still marked by residential segregation and racially polarized voting, minority voters can now be cracked out of the electoral process. Now, I'd just like to point out at this point that if you're talking about residential segregation, it turns out that actually, actually, some of those segregated parts of the United States are in areas that Elena Kagan would leave alone under the VRA. Here is a map. from the left-wing Brookings Institute. Brookings is a liberal institution of the most and least segregated areas in the United States. Areas of low segregation are predominantly located in the southwest and in places like Texas and some of the rest of the south. Some of the places that have the highest levels of segregation are the northeast in the Rust Belt. which are presumably not the areas that Elena Kagan thinks are racist. In fact, according to William Fry, demographer, Atbrookings, the most segregated city in the U.S. is Milwaukee. The next most segregated, New York, Chicago, Cleveland, Detroit, Buffalo, Philadelphia, Cincinnati, and Pittsburgh. The most segregated city, by the way, between whites and Hispanics is, wait for it, Los Angeles. So what's actually happening here is that Democrats, as per their usual arrangement? are trying to claim that normal politics is racism. And what they're really upset about, of course, is that more and more people are moving to the south, which means more southern congressional districts, which means more Republicans. Here is a map of projected 2030 congressional reapportionment. This is based on population trajectory. And what you see is massive gains in the South. You see Texas picking up another four seats and Florida picking up another three. You can see North Carolina picking up another two. The Southwest picks up some. California loses four. The areas that are bleeding votes are the Democrat areas. The places that are gaining votes are the Republican area. So total numbers. Red states are likely to gain eight to ten congressional seats by 2030. That also, by the way, means another 10 electoral votes in the presidential election. So what's actually happening here as per usual arrangement is Democrats are claiming that them losing politically is America being racist or the Supreme Court being racist. And they insist that we impose actual racist top-down policy in order to protect them politically. That's what's actually happening here. Now, what's really amazing here is that President Trump, who again has been widely derided by the left. Remember, Trump is trying to do Jim Crow 2.0, according to the Democrats. Well, it turns out that Trump's approval rating among black Americans is actually at an all-time high. Doesn't mean that he has 40%, but these numbers are pretty astounding. I think what we're seeing right now in the numbers is President Trump and the Republican Party are chipping away at the long-term advantage that Democrats have had with black voters with African-Americans. You can see it right here. Look, Trump's approval among African-Americans at this point in term one, he was at 12%. You know, he's been losing ground with a lot of people. He's gaining. He's gaining ground with African-Americans. He's up to 16% at this point. And you say, this isn't that big of a shift.

But I will tell you, Republicans absolutely love the shift that's going on because Democrats have had such a long-term advantage. The fact that he's actually gaining ground versus where he was in term number one, this has major implications. So it turns out Democrats shouting racist, racist over and over and over, is not actually winning over additional black voters. It's alienating some black voters. That is not a shock representative Wesley Hunt of Texas, a Republican. He was asked about the supposedly racist. Supreme Court here. And he's like, listen, I'm not here because I'm black. I'm here because I'm good. Which, by the way, is how we ought to think as Americans, shouldn't we? There's been a lot of talk about there won't be any black Republican members in the new term. Yeah. Yeah. What are you making that? Nothing. I don't understand how that's relevant. Is it a problem like recruitment? I don't think it's a problem with anything. I'm not here because I'm black. I am here because I'm qualified representative for Congressional District 38 and the American people choose who they want to choose. And the one thing I don't want to get into is this game of race bait all day every day. If there's four, if there's 10, if there's none. What we are talking about is who is the best person that is best qualified to fill a seat regardless of the way that they look. I mean, that is absolutely right. And that's what Republicans think. But Democrats, of course, think that if not enough people of a particular melitman level are in Congress, that somehow this is reflective of deep and abiding American racism. Okay. Now, again, there are many Republicans right now, not a huge number, but some who are off the Trump train. for a variety of reasons. But let me just remind you, none of this good stuff would be happening absent President Trump, none of it. You'd have preferred Kamala Harris? Is that what you'd prefer? One person who apparently would have apparently is Candace Owens. All righty, coming up, we'll get to Erika Kirk finally tearing into Candace Owens. Plus, we'll get to all the latest in the congressional races and, you know, pretty much everything else. First, here's the thing. If you own a business, you probably have no idea how many brokers it actually takes to ensure that business. That is a problem. You got policies scattered everywhere. Applications. They keep asking for that same information. No real picture of how it all fits together when something goes wrong. And that's a problem for you. It's going to cost you time. It's going to cost you money, either on the front end or on the back end. Our sponsor, SuperShort, is built to blow all that up. It's one brokerage for your business coverage with a licensed super agent and account team that actually works your account year-round, not just a renewal. Instead of wondering who to call, you have one place, one team, one platform to keep your policies organized in a single insurance vault. If you've ever stared at a policy and thought, I speak English, this doesn't look like English. SuperShore's fine print facts tool translate the legalese into plain language so you can finally see what you have, what it covers, and what it does not. And that's the most important thing. You need to make sure that you need the coverage that you have the coverage that you have the coverage that's what you need to do. Right now, head on over-sure.com, get a full report on your current policies, no obligation. Find out if you're overinsured, underinsured, somewhere in between. Go to supershore.com slash Josh Shapiro. One superagency, one powerful platform, all your policies in one place. Go to supershore.com slash Josh Shapiro. That's supershore.com slash Josh Shapiro. paid for by Super Shore Insurance Agency, LLC, a licensed insurance agency. Also, our sponsor Balance of Nature's whole health system makes it simple to get a wide variety of whole food ingredients into my diet, all while maintaining a busy lifestyle. Balance of Nature's supplements are incredibly versatile and easy to work into your daily routine. The fiber and spice supplement blend smoothly into your favorite drinks. The fruits and veggies capsules can be swallowed or sprinkled on your favorite dishes. Each supplement is packed with 47 ingredients from 100% real whole fruits, veggies, spices, fibers, everything from flax seed to cinnamon.

turmeric, mango, pineapple, wild, blueberry, spinach, kale, and so much more. Whenever I'm traveling, I rely on Balance of Nature to keep me healthy. You should do the same. Save over 30% when you subscribe on Balance of Nature.com, join hundreds of thousands of customers in one simple routine that's changing the world. So Candace, she has said that she regrets for Trump. Listen, we all have some regrets in life. But in today's news surrounding Candace Owens, Erika Kirk has now come out. and condemned Candace directly after months of Candice implying, openly stating that Erica was complicit in Charlie's death. Finally, Erika Kirk came out and said something. And by the way, I have to say, as somebody who was saying from literally the first moment, this sort of crap started circulating, that it's garbage and terrible and horrible and evil, what people are doing to Erica. As somebody who laments the fact that that's somehow a controversial statement in some right-wing circles and that where are her allies? The fact that she has to come out and defend herself here from this nonsense is indicative of a moral collapse on the part of the pseudo-right. It's disgusting that Erica has to somehow come out and defend herself from bizarre charges that she's involved in a cover-up of the murder of her husband. She's the mother of his kids. It's disgusting, disgusting that she has to do this. Well, yesterday in a much noted internet moment, she called out Candace Owens for her disgusting conspiracism. Here she was. Every morning I wake up to a new headline lying about me. I have comedians dressing up in whiteface. I have people saying I'm not fit to be CEO, and I have Candace Owens claiming I murdered my husband. And the list goes on and on and on. And as she points out, she is now under a security threat because of this sort of stuff, which of course is true. I mean, by the way, I know this kind of stuff is true because I know are my security threats come from as well. Here is Erica saying that if you keep stripping people of their humanity, then this is where you end up. In this culture we're living in, absorbs disagreement as a form of personal betrayal. It turns having an opposing viewpoint into a moral crime worthy of punishment. And here's what I've realized through all of this, truly. Having lived through quite literal hell these past seven months, if you strip someone of their humanity long enough, you will arrive at the chilling conclusion that they don't deserve to exist at all. So Erica finally spoke out. And then Candid's Tonight Everything. because she's a coward. So she put out a tweet, quote, very uncomfortable to watch, painful prompt to read, a speech clearly written by someone else, objectively terrible. So they will now pay for people to tell us otherwise. Also, everything I've ever said about Erica, she chooses to respond to something I never said. They always lie. I'm not sure there's a bigger liar in American life than Candace Owens. I mean, truly, an astonishing liar. So it turns out that a person named Aubrey Leach was texting with Candace Owens.

And Andrew Colvin released these texts. And in the text, she literally accuses Erika Kirk of murder. So this person, Aubrey Lange and Candace were texting each other during the, you remember part of the saga is when Erica was forced, basically, to go and sit down with Candice while she was making these crazy accusations. This is just before the TPUSA event at the end of last year. And, uh, And this person wrote, I assume she's coming to you. This is actually so wild. And Candace said, and she has apparently been preparing since yesterday evening. And this Aubrey Lage person said, been preparing explanations for all the lies they have told, I assume. If Colvitt and her have any common sense, they see the online narrative and understand that their support is fading very rapidly. And Candace said, she is coming here. And yes, absurd they need to prepare. And then this Aubrey Lage person wrote back, geez, that's actually crazy. I'm so intrigued to hear how it goes. I got your back. Go Max. And she wrote back, I'm asking everything. First question, why did you murder your husband? So, yes, Candace is a liar. And here is Candice making a wild series of accusations ranging from complicity of Erica in the murder to all sorts of other accusations surrounding Erica. She is truly an awful human being. And honestly, If you are an audience member of Candace who foments this sort of evil, because she makes money off of you. The way she makes money is by spewing trash into the public sphere, and then she makes money off it through advertising. That's how she does it. So if she's monetizing your gullibility, then you are complicit in this nonsense. Here is Candace. That right there. is why it is impossible for me to think that Erika Kirk is not complicit somehow. Straight to jail, straight to jail for questioning at least, Erica. I have seen enough, ladies and gentlemen. I've seen enough. Erika Kirk should be dragged into a police precinct for questioning, like I said, the amount of evidence that is now piling up, uh, I would say against Erika Kirk. is almost akin to an NBC Dateline episode. I don't want to say anything that's controversial. She did it. But I don't want to. It just screams at me that this was an inside job. It reeks of an inside job. That is how I feel. Hmm. But she never said any of that. She never said it. By the way, she lies about a lot of stuff as it turns out. Most recently, she lied about the fact that her husband. was allegedly arrested for a DUI in August 2023. She said it wasn't true. It turns out that there was a police report showing that her husband George, who is a British immigrant who now has dual citizenship at the time I don't believe he did, that he was found on the side of a highway. More alcohol than human. Apparently his blood alcohol level was 0.261, which is 3. Three times the legal limit somewhere in that neighborhood. He's also wandering on the side of the road in possession of a firearm. She lied about that too. She said that never happened. Apparently that police report is now widely available. Also, a member of Charlie's security team, the head of his security, has now filed the defamation lawsuit against Candace for saying that he and Erica conspired to murder Charlie.

According to the lawsuit, quote, Candace Owens, a wealthy influential and well-known conspiracy theorist with a massive social media following, falsely accused Brian Harpole of conspiring to assassinate Charlie Kirk. She did so in coordination with Mitchell Snow, who fed Owens, a completely and obviously fabricated story that Brian Harpole met with Army intelligence officers and Erika Kirk, Charlie's now widow, at Fort Kuwachuka, to plan the murder. Unsurprisingly, this lawsuit follows. There are six counts in the lawsuit ranging from defamation. to false light invasion of privacy, to civil conspiracy to defame, to aiding and abetting defamation, he's demanding a jury trial. Again, the fact that Erica has been forced to now defend herself, the fact that there's a lawsuit about all of this, it doesn't just show that Candace Owens is quite a terrible human being, which clearly she is, it also shows the absolute, unbelievable cowardice of so many people who have been hugging her for the last eight months. True cowardness. And if you think that the sort of vile, toxic garbage that she's been spewing into the public sphere has no impact, know that the left has picked it up as well. Jennifer Welch, who again is sort of, I have no idea why this person is in some way popular with the left, but they pick weird models for sure. Jennifer Welch dressed up like Erika Kirk to tell Erika Kirk that she is a racist fascist. Because Erika Kirk, you know, is pursuing the great crime of defending herself from charges that she murdered her husband or is complicit in a cover-up of said murder. Make sure you like and subscribe. Make sure you pre-order my book, which I would like to dedicate to one Erika Kirk, not today fascist. And Erica, the person that I'm talking about today, fascist, is you. you. You were the racist, fascist about whom I am talking to, the work that your husband's company and that you were doing to America's youth to make them racist, narrow-minded, hateful, and bat crazy is an absolute disgrace. And thank you for the outfit, hashtag inspo. Thank you very much for that. It's been a lot of fun. Make sure you subscribe to our channel. Make sure you pre-order my back. God, be a fascist. Ponce, you're welcome for your... Ugly caddiness, but you're making money off of it. I'm serious. Disgusting. Disgusting stuff, obviously. The FIFA World Cup is here, and you can now feel the thrill of the pitch in FIFA World Cup Launch Edition on Netflix, a fast and fluid football game where your phone is the controller and the TV is the stadium. Play for your country in 16 different stadiums with up to four friends, all included in your membership. Scroll to the Games tab on your TV and play FIFA World Cup Launch Edition now only on Netflix. Hi, Ryan Reynolds here for Mint Mobile. Are you looking for a beach read this summer? May I suggest your big wireless bill? It's got suspense, mystery, a slightly flat, emotional arc, and a shocking twist where you realize you've been overpaying the entire time. Fortunately, though, Mint's story is better. Every plan, $15 dollars a month a month, even unlimited. That's it. Happy ending, zero tears. Give it a try at mintmobile.com slash switch. Up front payment of $45 for three months, $90 for six months, $1,000 per month plan required to $50.5.5 may slow when network is busy.

see terms. But this is also who the Democrats have become. So one of the factors that that's fascinating about the midterm elections is that apparently while President Trump's approval is down, Republicans remain somewhat steady with likely midterm voters as well as GOP voters according to a brand new Harvard Harris poll. Again, what you see here is that while President Trump is at 42% overall, and again, that is not some sort of kind of gigantic shock. He's been in the mid-40s for months and months at this point. This is his lowest point, but it is not wildly lower than he has been previously in this Harvard Harris Bowl. It turns out that when it comes to midterm voters and GOP voters, he's basically where he was. Nothing has really changed all that much. And part of that is because Democrats are largely disliked. It's also because Americans... actually agree with President Trump about our interests in the Middle East. So they're upset more about inflation than they are actually about, say, the war in Iran. 48% of Americans say that inflation and affordability is their number one issue. Foreign affairs is 2%. So naturally, if they believe that foreign affairs is impacting inflation, they're not going to like what's going on, but to pretend that they are somehow on the other side of the war is wrong. They are not. According to the same, Harvard Harris Poll, 74% of Americans believe that it's in America's interest to stop Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon. 66% of Americans believe it's in America's interest to restrain the global influence of China and Russia. Meanwhile, in the primaries, JD Vance still has a strong lead. Among Republicans, he's clocking in at 48% to 18% for Donald Trump Jr., who, of course, is sort of just a proxy for President Trump. Marco Rubio at 16% Ron DeSantis, Governor of Florida, and 9%. Tucker Carlson stuck down there at 4%. Meanwhile, among Democrats, Kamala Harris, is up to 50%. Gavin Newsom at 22%. Pretty astonishing numbers there for the candidate who lost to Donald Trump. Now, the Democrats have decided that the only way to win is to go more and more radical, which is totally insane. John Favro, who you'll remember just a couple of weeks ago. I know John, he's a likable enough fellow, but I don't know what he thinks he's doing here. Aside from hanging out with Hasan Piker, while Hasan Piker was hugging Hamas, now he is grilling the DNC chair, Ken Martin, suggesting that the Democrats have to move further and further and further to the left. That's the only way to win, apparently. I understand there are lessons, but those are not the full report. Why not release the full report? What's in the report that you wouldn't want? Well, first off, there's no smoking gun in the report. And I know that's what everyone's so eager to learn. I think the smoking gun. Guess what, John? But if there's no smoking gun, why wouldn't you just release it? Because we want to keep the focus on the lessons. Because what ends up happening here is that people, of course, want to weaponize the report in a way to look backwards, to point fingers, place blame in a way that actually doesn't keep us focused on the upcoming election. But instead, the naval gazing of focusing backwards actually takes us backwards. We're 189 days from this election, John.

Okay, so what is John Favreau's actual recommendation that the Democratic Party needs to join up with the Hasan Piker and also with the Graham Platner? So you'll remember that Graham Platner is the main Senate Democratic candidate with the Nazi tattoo, like the actual literal Nazi tattoo, who had appeared on Nazi podcast as well. Well, now Janet Mills, who had been basically talked into running for the Senate by the Democratic Party in order to take out Susan Collins, she suspended her campaign for Senate on Thursday. Graham Platner, who cosplays is a blue-collar dude. He is now going to win that primary. And John Fabro is pleased with this. Graham Platner isn't just our best and only chance to beat Susan Collins. He's a good, decent man who's struggled and grown and is always trying to do better. Oh, that's what a Nazi tattoo is. Struggled and grown, is it? By the way, that Nazi tattoo was on him until literally this race. He was fine with it until like this precise moment in time. I hope everyone with reservations takes a little time to get to know the real-life version of him, not what the algorithm throws in our faces. Clearly, that's what so many people in Maine have done from all different walks of life and political persuasions. I'm just going to point out now that John Favro in 2002 literally tweeted, let me know when a far-lefty candidate appears with a Nazi sympathizer and we can chat. I'm letting you know right now, John. I'm going to let you know right now, actually, like this moment. Meanwhile, here was Graham Platner. That's in 2022. Meanwhile, here is Graham Platner saying that the DNC has not contacted. And John Stewart being like, no, the DNC must contact you. You are our future. You are our future. Here's the thing. The same Democratic Party that thinks that white people are racist, this is one of the reasons they think that Graham Platner is like the white people talker. They think that he is the spokesperson or Democrat white people. Because if white people are kind of Nazis, then maybe if we run some dude with a Nazi tattoo who cosplays a gene-wearing blue-collar dude, even though he's kind of wealthy, then maybe that'll win over the white people in Maine. Susan Collins is going to retain this seat. That's my prediction. Susan Collins will continue to maintain the seat and Graham Platner will lose. But the Democratic Party will keep digging down this rabbit hole. Here is John Stewart. Past couple months, though. There has been more reach out from, I would say, more kind of like establishment folks. However, however, and this is the important part, not from like the, not from like the DSCC, not from the DNC. Like the, like nobody in the places of power remains interested. But they're lost, dude. Like there. It's so bad. They're lost. And the thing that bothers me the most isn't like, I'm not, I'm not asking for you to like be my friend. I'm just, but you should be curious because I'm pulling 40 points ahead. I mean, we know why you're pulling 40 points ahead because primary voters tend to favor the more extreme candidate with the more colorful rhetoric. That would be the reason. Meanwhile, mainstream Democrats continue to try and hug Graham Platner with the most, I mean, it's awkward hugging, really awkward. Senator Chris Van Hollen, truly a dullard from Maryland.

He says that Graham Platner is going to grab the attention of blue collar voters because he wears a sweatshirt, gang. In my view, we need somebody who will shake things up. And Graham Platner has clearly proven himself to be somebody who can, you know, grab the attention of a lot of voters and not just Democratic primary voters. You know, we're talking about blue collar labor voters. We're talking about some of the tribes up in Maine who have not been happy with the way things are going. So, you know, Graham Platner, you know, for all his sort of... you know, ups and downs and, and, well, let's talk about those edges has been somebody who connects him. You know, he's blue collar. I mean, never mind the fact that he's the, he's the grandson of a Manhattan architect. His dad is a lawyer. His mom is a restaurateur whose business caters to summer tourists, and he went to the Hotchkiss School. Silver spoon. He's really blue collar. You know, you know how he can tell he's blue collar? Because he has a Nazi tattoo. Actually, it's demonstrative of how he can cater to those terrible blue collar voters who generally like President Trump. The way to get to those guys is the dude with the Nazi tattoo. Chris Van Hollen says, you know, he went through a rough period, a rough period when he got a Nazi tattoo. Oh, goodness gracious. The dude hasn't had a Nazi tattoo. I mean, let's be clear about what's going on here. I mean, is that, how do you view that? I mean, it seems to be at least somewhat disqualifying and traditional. Certainly, historically. I mean, let's take a couple issues, including the comments he's made in the past. I mean, he's been very clear that he went into combat on behalf of the United States. He went through a really rough period, PTSD-type period. And he is himself said. There are lots of things he's done and said that he completely regrets. And I do believe people should have second chances and that people can learn from their mistakes. And I think he's been doing that. Oh, he's been learning from his mistakes. Let's be real about this. The reason that he's popular is because of the Nazi tattoo and the pro Hamas comments. This is why moral derelict Hasan Piker. literally praises him for his praise of Hamas in 2014. It's a feature, not a bug for the Democratic Party. Dude, are you unironically saying Janet Mills is better than Graham Platner? Please, dude. He was pro Hamas, okay? He was giving Hamas credit in 2014. Okay, what more do you want? What more do you want? He's great. He's great. And if Hasan Piker says you're great, then you're great. By the way, you want to talk about Cartier communists, mansion Marxists over here. What a pretentious douchebag Hasan Piker is truly. He took a picture of himself reading what is to be done by Vladimir Putin Illich Lennon on a train.

Honestly, watching him read, it's like those pictures of LeBron James where you'd go into the locker room and LeBron had read one page of a book. And people were like, I'm not sure he read that book. First of all, the fact that he did... This guy. This one. The guy can barely make his way through one fish, two fish, redfish, bluefish. And he's sitting there reading Lennon. Well, he wears Cartier jewelry. He's just, what a... But this is that... I was asked... Somebody was asking me yesterday, actually. We were talking about this, and they said, I don't understand. How does he get away with that? You don't understand. That is the draw of the Hasan Piker. The transgressive nature of wearing very expensive, capitalist-driven jewelry while reading Lenin is the draw. It is a nihilistic, hypocritical draw. That's what it is. Anything that is destructive of systems and that appears to be sort of campy. is what the Democrats are looking for, which is why they're fine with Nazi tattoo guy. Once again, the only voice of reason in the Democratic Party is Senator John Fetterman of Pennsylvania. Here was his comment on Graham Platner. Quote, Democrats really, really like Graham Platner in Maine, but the Republicans effing love him. If Maine wants an a-hole with a Nazi tattoo on, it's just they got him. in John Fetterman, the only rational person in the Democratic Party at this point. Summer means firing up the grill, getting together with friends, and making the most of the weekends. Total wine and more is my first stop, whether it's seltzers and ready to serve cocktails for the cooler or a good bottle of bourbon. Everything I need is at Total Wine. With the lowest prices, it's easy to stock up for whatever the weekend brings. And I can get everything I need in one stop. Shop total wine and more and get ready for your next summer party. Spears are not sold in Virginia or North Carolina. Drink responsibly must be 21. Meanwhile, over in Los Angeles, the mayoral race is heating up. Spencer Pratt has now cut a pretty viral ad regarding the failures of Los Angeles leadership contrasting the homes of the people implementing crappy policy with the actual living conditions of a lot of Angelinos. This is where Mayor Vass lives. You notice something? Or here where Nithya Raman's $3 million mansion sits. They don't have to live in the mess they've created where you live. This is where I live. They let my home burn down. And he shows. It's a trailer. It's a failed leadership are. That's why I'm running for mayor. For my sons and the rest of us, Angelinos, that want to stop these corrupt politicians from destroying our city. We are going to get the golden age of Los Angeles back. So again, contrasting their nice houses in the middle of L.A. with the trailer where he has to live because his house burned down because of bad fire policy. So meanwhile, one of the other L.A. mayoral candidates is an L.A. City Council member named Nithya Raman. And she is as far left as possible to be, which means that she is welcome to Potsave America, of course. How radical is she? Well, she blames stolen catalytic converters, and people stealing parts out of cars. Not on the crime policies. She blames it on Toyota. It's the fault of the car company.

We have a company, you know, the Prieta, who makes the Prius, that essentially has a device on their cars, which is super easy to remove. It's basically the value of a MacBook, right? That is put in a place that is incredibly easy to access in your car. And then the thefts related to this issue have essentially all of the costs of that are given to us to bear instead of them having to manufacture a car that actually is not so easy to be stolen. And this person says the fault of the car company that the car is stolen, not the fault of crime policies in Los Angeles. By the way, she also voted against the law that prohibited encampments on sidewalks and parks, schools underpasses. Here she was explaining that. Like, I don't think a kid's going to be safer because a tent is 500 feet away from a school. People making fun of her even in the town hall meeting. So she's one of the candidates. Things are going well in America's major cities run by Democrats. In Seattle, Mayor Katie Wilson is saying that she's fine with billionaires packing up and leaving her state. Well, we'll see how that goes for you when you have no tax base, gang. I think the claims that millionaires are going to leave our state are like super overblown. And if, you know, the ones that leave, like, bye. So.

Yay. Yay. Bye, taxpayers. It's all going to be fine. By the way, this is always the approach of Democrats until they run out of money. Yeah, you taxpayers, you can leave. We don't even need you here. We don't need. Please come back. Please, we need your money, please. So Zohran Mamdani and Mamsani is now being forced to extend a budget deadline because of a crisis. So everything will be free. Don't worry. Everything will be fine. Five minutes later, we're out of money. Sorry, we got no money. It turns out all the free stuff costs money. Here is Zohran Mamdani, the pathetic mayor of New York City. New York City faces a budget crisis of a historic magnitude. We inherited a deficit larger than any since the Great Recession. Years of mismanagement and chronic under budgeting alongside a structural imbalance between what New York City sends to the state and what we receive in return have taken a toll. We cannot close this deficit with savings alone. We need new revenue, and we need a structural reset in our relationship with the state. That is the only way to meet our legal obligation to pass a balanced budget, and to do so without imposing a financial burden onto the backs of working people. I'm glad to partner with Speaker Menon as we call upon Albany and deliver a balanced budget. Together... We are extending the executive budget deadline from this coming Friday until May 12th because the crisis of the scale cannot be solved without state action. Oh, they ran out of money. The socialist ran out of money. Wow. There's a gigantic shocker. I can't believe it. All right, it's a Friday. So I want to bring back something we haven't done in a while. Things I like and things I hate. And because, you know, it's a Friday. So let's enjoy. So my father sent me a recording. last night that I wanted to share with you. It is amazing. I had never heard of this pianist before. He is astonishing. This is probably the most astonishing performance of any piano piece I've ever seen in my life. The pianist's name is Mark David Hamlin. He's Canadian American. He teaches up in the Northeast. It just demonstrates, by the way, that there are so many areas of life where people who are legitimately like the best in the world and maybe in human history at their craft. They're just not world famous. It's kind of amazing. Like, I'd never heard of him. My father, who's a professional pianist, had never heard of him. He's unbelievable. Here is an excerpt of him playing, the Hungarian Rhapsie number two by Franz List, which you will recognize from all the Bugs Bunny cartoons.

He's an unbelievable dynamic touch, by the way. But wait until the cadenza he plays here. So cadenza is a part of a classical piece that's basically written by somebody who's not the original composer to demonstrate the skill level of the player. Here's some of that. It's... It's ridiculous. The speed of which is playing some of these octaves is just ridiculous. Just insane. Okay, so go check out the entire performance. It's ridiculous. Okay, time for a thing I hate. So there's a story that went totally viral on the internet over the course of the last 48 hours. It was about a very good-looking woman at J.P. Morgan who supposedly was sexually harassing a younger man. Okay, now these sorts of stories go viral all the time online where there's a good-looking woman who is having sex with a 17-year-old student and then everybody's like, ah, ha, ha, ha, ha, ha. Okay, in this particular case, the idea was that there was a former J.P. Morgan staffer who had been sexually harassed by a higher-up at J.P. Morgan, who's a very pretty woman. And this thing went viral because the Daily Mail reported it. So first of all, I hope she sues the living hell out of the Daily Mail and I hope she sees the living hell out of this former J.P. Morgan staffer because now it turns out it was a lie. Which is gross, truly disgusting. According to the New York Post, a former J.P. Morgan staffer, whom sources identified as Chirayurana, has been accused of making fabricated sexual harassment claims against a high-ranking executive at the bank after an internal investigation found no evidence of wrongdoing. Multiple sources told the post that 35-year-old Rana, now a principal at investment firm Brigal Sagemount, is the man who brought a bombshell lawsuit against Lorna Hajdini earlier this week. Rana's suit filed on Monday under the pseudonym Jondo accused the 37-year-old executive director of turning him into her sex slave by drugging him with Rohypnal and Viagra and threatening to slash his bonus if he did not comply. The British tabloid quoted the now deleted court papers and reported that Hajdini, the executive director at J.P. Morgan's leverage finance team even turned up unannounced at Renauds apartment and forced him to have sex. Okay. And so, of course, the entire internet was like, oh man, I'd love his job. Oh, man. I hope she sues him into the absolute dust. I hope she destroys this guy financially. What a terrible thing to do to anyone, truly. How gross. And how gross of the Daily Mail to run with the allegations without even going and getting a response from her or from her lawyers or from the bank? You know, what people want to for clicks. Truly what people want to do for clicks. Okay, coming up, we're going to get into the latest in Iran.

There is a fair bit of action, and it's possible that we may be seeing some more kinetic action sometime in the near future. Remember, in order to watch, you have to be a member. If you're not a member, become a member, use Code Josh Shapiro. Check out for two months free on all annual plans. Click that link in the description and join us.