“And Now You Know… the Rest of the Story”

At Walmart, we're helping our associates build meaningful careers. One way we're doing that, investing $1 billion in training and education. Last year, more than 100,000 associates earned promotions. Combined with benefits like 401K matching and paid parental leave, we're proving that Walmart isn't just a place to work, it's a place to grow. Learn more at walmart.com slash grow at Walmart. 33 days, 33 episodes. Join me, Max Rushden and our expert team of soccer journalists every day of the World Cup for analysis, drama and everything in between. World Cup Daily, listen on Spotify now or watch full episodes on YouTube. Have you ever stopped and thought about what's actually powering your day, the coffee you made this morning, the drive you took to get here, even the device you're listening on? I'm Tanner Faust, and that's exactly the kind of thing we're going to talk about on the energy tailgate, a podcast from Chevron. I'll be your host inviting guests to discuss big energy topics and what they mean for everyday life, all from the tailgate of our truck. This is the energy tailgate.

Our heart of our nation's capital, Washington, D.C., backed by the trusted voices of Team Fox. A clear, a fresh voice, cutting through the noise to tell the truth. It's Guy Benson with Guy Benson. April 28th, 2026. I'm Guy Benson. Welcome everyone to Guy Benson. We are here. Together for the next three hours, as we are every weekday, between 3 and 6 p.m. Eastern. And then if you miss any of the show, it becomes a podcast, start to finish, on demand, absolutely free at Guy Benson.com or Fox Newspodcast.com or wherever you get your podcasts. I'm a political analyst at Fox News, a senior columnist at the Washington Examiner. I'll be referencing my latest column, actually, up here in the opening monologue moments from now. But before we get to that, if you were... reminders if you'd like to get in touch with us our email address gbs at fox dot com you can follow us on social at Guy Benson you can follow me personally as well at Guy Benson On the radio today, great lineup. Mary Catherine Hamm joins us this hour. Andy McCarthy in the next hour. There's some breaking news about James Comey facing another indictment. I'm a little skeptical on this one. We'll see what Andy has to say about that. Ken Cuccinelli, former AG of Virginia, is back. We talked to him late last week about the big Supreme Court case in Virginia. So the... Richmond Supreme Court, the Supreme Court of the state, evaluating whether or not Democrats' power grab gerrymandering scheme was even executed legally and constitutionally in the Commonwealth of Virginia. Last week, Cuccinelli told us he thought, that the court was poised to throw out the very narrow referendum victory, quote unquote, for Democrats. And we'll see if he still feels that way. After the oral arguments yesterday, he watched them extremely closely. And then there was a development today that might be. tipping the hand of the justices a little bit that Cuchnelli, I think, believes is a positive sign. We will pick his brain about all of that. National implications in Virginia, of course. And then Josh Holmes of ruthless and beyond. We'll talk politics with him in our final hour just after 5 p.m. Eastern. That is all ahead on the show as it unfolds. As we start today, I want to talk about immigration.

and suicidal impulses, culturally, societally, nationally, and our quote-unquote news media. And the outlet that I'd like to discuss here is a newspaper called the Texas Tribune, which describes itself as a nonpartisan newsroom down in Texas devoted to informing Texans, and I wonder if that's really true. Are they nonpartisan? Maybe a name only. Are they dedicated to informing their audience with real, accurate, meaningful, relevant, contextualized information? That's where I'm not so sure. I will remind you briefly, because we talked about this, I think last week on the show, it was this same newspaper that had a breathless story with a big tweet and headline about how Trump and the Trump administration had detained nearly 300 DACA recipients, the Dreamers, right, who had gotten the DACA ability and sort of paperwork to be in the country quasi-legally brought here as young kids. No fault of their own to the United States. That population of illegal immigrants, a very sympathetic group of people. Some form of a Dream Act is something that I have supported for a long time, although my appetite for, let's say, compromise on these issues is on pause until I see really any good faith. from the other side and getting a handle on some of these immigration problems. Anyway, Barack Obama, the former president, put in this DACA program, and it was supposed to shield these young illegal immigrants who have known really nothing but this country from deportation if they kept their noses clean and followed our laws. And the Texas Tribune was saying, well, look, the Trump administration, these cruel, mean-spirited people, they have now arrested nearly 300 of them. And if you read the story, a lot of tear-jurking anecdotes and photographs of these young people and all of that, a few vague allusions to the notion that they're not allowed to commit crimes and retain their DACA status. But this is all just a big sob story propaganda piece on behalf of these DACA recipients. And it was our colleague Bill Mulugin who pointed out. which was not spelled out in the story, which would be, I think, something you would have to do if you actually want to inform the audience, as the slogan or the mission statement of this newspaper or news organization suggests they want to do, you would think that they would include the fact that based on government data and Malugian actually included it in his tweet. Of the 270 arrests that they were referring to, a few dozen of which were in Texas, 92% of those DACA recipients had criminal charges and or convictions, which then changes the calculus and really the framing of the whole story. Because if you want to focus on the 8% fine, but you better disclose that 92% of the people.

that you're portraying as victims actually have criminal charges and or convictions against them, which even under Obama's rules would render them no longer eligible to keep their protected status. But that was not relayed. Clearly, if at all, to that audience. So this is the news organization, I use the word news perhaps loosely, that we're talking about, the Texas Tribune, which has a pretty significant following on social media, mostly inside Texas, but you see who follows them a bunch of lefties and other journalists. They're keeping an eye on what their fellow Lib journals are doing down there. So that's just a backdrop to an incredible story that I just saw the other day. from this same outlet. And here is how the Texas Tribune framed the story. An Egyptian family of six believed to be the longest held at the controversial South Texas Family Residential Center in Dilley were red detained Saturday after federal judges this week had ordered their release. They were being sent to Egypt on a private plane, according to one of the family's lawyers. So that's the social media post that leads into this news story about this poor, innocent, you would think, Egyptian family, six people being detained and the Trump administration is trying to deport them back home to Egypt, even though some judges had said that they had to be released at first and now they've been red detained. By the way, subsequent to that, another judge said they had to stay, at least for the time being, so they've been released again. And the artwork that accompanies this news story, both on social media and then in the actual online story itself, is a little drawing by one of the children in the family where it's six of them standing there, and it's obviously drawn by a little kid. And this kid is written above the family members portrayed. When will we go home? So they are pulling and tugging at the heartstrings. And they've framed this detention center as controversial, right? So they are basically stacking the deck so the audience knows exactly how they're supposed to feel about all of this. And you might wonder, as I did, why did this family become the longest held family at a quote-unquote controversial facility? Why have they been targeted for repatriation back to Egypt? Is there a reason behind this? And there is, and I'd like you to wait for it, because it is a doozy. But before we got to that, before we got to any reference to the why, in the initial story that was published. And I think this is, again, just another element of the indictment against how the media does its job and why so few people trust them at this point. It is a deserved mistrust, richly earned over many years, especially recent years. The family's attorney is dutifully quoted in the piece talking about this whole episode as a dark moment in U.S. history.

He's referring not to the why, by the way. We'll get to that. He's referring to the fact that this family has been detained and then redetained and might be deported. Very dark moment in U.S. history. The story notes that the family's ordeal has now drawn widespread criticism by congressional Democrats who are very upset about all of this. One of them is quoted in the story calling it outrageous. And that the whole incident and episode, quote, undermines the rights of every American. By the way, these people are not Americans. They are Egyptian nationals in the country for now, and the Trump administration is looking to remove them. Again, I will ask the question, why? Well, that brings us to the 16th paragraph of the story. After all the song and dance and all the sad stuff and the expressions of anger and outrage by lawyers and Democrats and all that, we get to at least in the original story, because the story was updated a few times, but in the original story, several people counted down 16 paragraphs until we got to this minor detail. The family, which came to the U.S. on a tourist visa in 2022 and later applied for asylum, has been detained since June after the father, Mohamed Solomon. was charged with attacking mostly Jewish protesters in Boulder, Colorado, accused of throwing Molotov cocktails at demonstrators supporting Israeli hostages. He allegedly wounded at least 29 people, and an 82-year-old woman died from her injuries. The father has pleaded not guilty remains in federal custody on more than 100 charges related to the incident. Remember this, ladies and gentlemen? We talked about this. It happened in June of last year. Remember the jihadist attack? The globalized the Intifada attack in Boulder, Colorado, where a man, I know it says he's alleged, he's accused, he's on video firebombing a bunch of Jews who had gathered peacefully as they did regularly. to do like a charity walker, an awareness-raising walk on behalf of the, at the time, hostages still being held in the duchins of Gaza by Hamas, including Americans, by the way. Jews from that community would get together and have these peaceful protests and vigils, basically, for the hostages. And the dad of this victim family, the way this is all portrayed in this news story, dad showed up, dad firebombed the Jews, dad murdered a Holocaust survivor. The way that was described was that an 82-year-old woman died from her injuries. That would be first-degree murder, based on the charges, by the way. And that elderly woman who was murdered by this jihadist terrorist,

had survived the Holocaust and then she was killed by another form of Jew hatred. Dad is a firebombing, murderous, Jew-hating, jihadist terrorist. That would be why the Trump administration... would like to remove the rest of the family from the country. They're not Americans. They don't have a right to be here. They came here four years ago on tourist visas. They've since applied for asylum, and I am extremely dubious of the basis for that. They should not be here. And the story then goes on to say, oh, well, they're not accused of crimes. They're not charged with anything. And they're now insisting that they're estranged from dad, the jihadist Jew-murdering terrorist. And I guess some federal judges have decided, well, they're still applying for asylum. So you can't get rid of them. You can't bring them back to where they came from, which is the nation of Egypt. You have a lot of people who abuse the asylum seeking process. Many people claim to be asylum seekers. The large majority of those claims are not valid. I suspect these very much fall into that category. They came here as tourists. They are now in what year four of their tourism. They're trying to say they're asylum seekers. And their direct relative in their immediate family committed a terrorist attack. that killed Americans, killed one American and wounded dozens of others targeted at the Jewish community. A terrorist attack and a hate crime. We are out of our minds. If we send a message that you can come here as tourists and then decide, never mind, we're here on asylum. And a member of your family can kill in a terrorist attack. and a hate crime. And it is then problematic and wrong for the U.S. government to remove the family members from the country. Dad, this is the message. This is the message that a sane country would send. The terrorist will face the full effect and brunt of American law and justice. Because you can't do this in our country. And the family that's with him will go home immediately because you don't get to stay when this kind of thing happens. And yet, reading this story and reading that tweet, which was shared a lot, you would have no idea. about any of the context that I just told you would just think this innocent family of six from Egypt for some reason these meanies in the Trump administration are trying to send them home and you have to go to in the initial story paragraph 16 to find out those details that and here's a throwback as Paul Harvey would have said for many years on the radio now you know the rest of the story which seems rather relevant does it not

And I guess now it's a cause-seleb among certain journalists and elected Democrats and federal judges to keep this family in this country. On what basis one wonders? Absolute madness. And at the very least, we need to know the context. There's the context, ladies and gentlemen. Just getting started on this Tuesday, it's Guy Benson. Stay tuned. America is listening to Guy Benson. Cheers to America's 250th birthday. Get 20% off your first purchase at Fox Newswineshop.com with code FN Radio 20. 20% discount excludes wine club offers and cannot be combined with any other promotion. Expires July 31st, 2026. Must be 21 order to order. Please drink responsibly. I'm Guy Benson. Well, this clip is going everywhere. It is resurfaced. It's Congresswoman Ilhan Omar, Democrat, Minnesota. She was at a press conference. She was reading from something that had been prepared for her. And apparently, she got a little confused by Roman numerals. And the result was this in cut 46. The last time the Alien Enemies Act was invoked. It was used. to detain and deport German, Japanese, Italian immigrants doing World War 11. Yeah, the Roman numeral 2, World War II, Congresswoman. Germans, Japanese, might have been a clue. Also, there's only been two World War I, another clue. World War 11 is how she read that one. which is highly amusing. People, of course, are making fun of her in all sorts of different ways. I have to wonder, was she perhaps educated at the Quality Learing Center, Madam? Speaking of the Learing Center, there was a big raid earlier from the FBI and DOJ of a bunch of... fraud-tainted, at least suspected fraud-tainted businesses in Minnesota, including a lot of them in the Somali community there. And the raids occurred. Governor Tim Walz put out a statement trying to take credit for these federal raids. Kash Patel, the FBI director, tweeting, come again? This FBI and DOJ, with our DHS partners, drafted and executed every search warrant today. But go ahead. Take credit for our work while we smoke out the fraud plaguing Minnesota under your governorship. Ouch. A lot of leering action today, online and in Minnesota. We'll be right back.

Talking about the issues you care about. Guy Benson. Back here on Guy Benson, Guy Benson.com, the online home podcast, always free. And joining us now is Mary Catherine Hamm, best friend of the program, Fox News contributor, outkick columnist, co-author of our book, End of Discussion, at MK Hammer on social. Mary Catherine, welcome back. Hello, how you doing? I'm good. We had like an hour-long phone call about a lot of this earlier, as we often do. I'm like, oh, we'll do some of this on the air as well. I want to start with where you were on Saturday evening at the Washington Hilton at the White House correspondent's dinner, and everything that unfolded, you were in the room. We talked to Jimmy Fala and Brett Baer about this yesterday. What was your experience? Yeah, I was in the room. I was like, you know, fairly close to an exit, which honestly, I know when I go to these events, there is inherent risk. So I'm kind of looking out for where I am in the room. I was a fair ways from the stage, not in the VIP section. And I didn't hear the initial gunshots or commotion. I just heard the back doors of this big ballroom open and then secret service agents start to stream in from each of those doors. And one of those rows of... agents came right by my table. So everybody by then knew something was going on. So I was happy to crouch behind a couple chairs and kind of look out and see what was up. And as soon as I registered that these guys had come in the door, I turned back to the stage because I had been paying attention to the program. The program was ongoing. Everyone had gone from the stage and all I could see was the highly armed cat guys from the Secret Service. And I was like, oh, that's not good. So I kind of hung out there, but it was... eerily quiet. Nobody was panicking. You know, they just sort of like hushed. And you could hear the shouts between Secret Service agents aside from one USA chant on the other side of the room, which I didn't know if that was an additional threat or just support for the president. It was odd. Although I support the chant in general. But I wasn't really concerned for my personal safety beyond about. Two or three minutes because I was surrounded by secret service agents. By the time that happened, it seemed clear that they were looking for possible threats in the room, but that something had happened to precipitate this and that it had been taken care of. And then we started to get reports from outside about what it was. Yeah. Another assassination attempt. a radicalized leftist who shot an officer in the bulletproof vest, thank God, and ended up trying to run through the remaining security to come down into the ballroom. He ended up not really getting that close. He wasn't even on the floor of the ballroom, but he was trying to shoot his way in, basically, was neutralized, was not taken out. I'm still surprised that you survive something like that, especially having shot an officer, but they have him in custody, and he was in court.

He was admittedly trying to kill members of the Trump administration starting priority-wise at the top and then moving on from there. And he was doing so because of a bunch of left-wing reasons. So that's what we know. And here we are on Tuesday following the Saturday incident. And we're having lots of reaction and big arguments over, I think, in some respect, stupid things. I want to play quickly a soundbite. of Chuck Todd, formerly of NBC News, who was on a podcast, talking about how, I guess, traumatizing the whole thing was for him, cut 45. I'm not going to any more events where Trump's at him. I don't feel safe. Wherever Donald Trump... Chaos follows him. Chaos follows him. And you are less safe, right? If you decide to go into his orbit, you have become less safe. Mary Catherine. Chuck Todd journalist has decided that he will no longer be in the same space as Donald Trump because it's not safe enough. And it very much seems like the blame there. implicitly is on the guy that people are trying to kill. He's also, if you're in the room with the president, you are in one of the most secure rooms on planet Earth. But for Chuck Todd, it's just too much for his blessed mental health and personal safety, it would seem. I hadn't heard the victim blaming part of that quote. So bravo for making it worse. The first part about not being in a room with Donald Trump is the terrorist's win argument. Like, I'm going to let them win. I'm going to let this guy have the assassins veto. And I know it hurts the partisans in the press so much to deal with this. But the actual free speech move is to counter the actual free speech attack, which is the ultimate one where someone tries to kill you to shut you up. You counter that by joining with the president against this attack on our democracy and on free speech in the ultimate way. And you join to have events in the future. The president was correct. That was the unifying message that he brought to the press conference and said, we're going to do this again. He was resilient once again and wanting to get back on the stage immediately after this happened. They couldn't make it happen, of course, in that room at that moment. But the unifying free speech move is for press to stand with the president. To say we will not be stopping, having events because people want to kill the president. Not to run away with your tailtuck between your legs and say that somehow it's the chaos of Donald Trump that caused this. No, it's not. It's people who want to kill him. I'm not safe. I'm not safe. It's just, that's a, that's embarrassing, actually. That's a humiliating little snippet there from Chuck Todd. I want to turn to this, the whole Jimmy Kimmel thing. And. I'm annoyed that we are talking about this to an extent because the actual issue here is someone again tried to kill the president. But because Jimmy Kimmel...

had made a Donald Trump is going to die joke right before the third assassination attempt that actually was directed at the First Lady. It has become a whole controversy, and it has been inflamed further by the fact that the First Lady herself and the President of the United States have both called on ABC to fire Jimmy Kimmel, he who is a full-time Democrat operative, part-time comedian, who also will remind you all, lied. about Charlie Kirk's assassination for political reasons, and then tearfully apologized because he was in some trouble then. Now he's making jokes like this, and Kimmel came back after the calls for him to be canned by Trump in the White House and the First Lady. He's like, no, no, this was a joke about the age difference between the president and his wife. It was not by any stretch. a call to assassination. That is Kimmel's defense of himself on his show. And you now have all these various journals coming out of the woodwork to defend the free speech of Jimmy Kimmel. And, you know, Jake Tapper did it on his show on CNN. Here's Gail King on CBS, cut 41. The joke was made before the correspondent's dinner. Jimmy Kimmel's not some crazy person who would wish the president to be killed. He just would not do that. All right. So, you know, we're vouching for Kimmel's character and all this stuff. The thing, again, perhaps annoyingly, Mary Catherine, is that you and I are consistent on the question. In that, while I think we both find the joke to be an extremely poor taste, if not abhorrent, given the two previous assassination attempts on Trump and to then joke that his wife is an expectant widow, you might want to think that one through. before you say it on national television, given the thing that happened twice where people tried to kill the husband, and then it happened again right after you made the joke, I'm not saying it's causal at all, but just in terms of like, you know, propriety and just generally not making light of something that could at least be construed as, you know, assassination humor, given what has happened and then happened again. Bad joke from a sleazy bad person. also not appropriate for the president to be demanding that a network fire the person who made the joke you and i i think are on the same page on that even though i am sympathetic to the trump family having it up to here with a guy like Jimmy Kimmel. Yeah, this is trash behavior from Jimmy Kimmel. He's doing it on purpose. He wants to go to them into having a fight. He's happy to wish widowedum upon a person whose husband has almost been killed several times over. And to do it, by the way, in the context of a fake roast for the Washington, for the White House correspondent's dinner, that's what he was doing. He was goofing saying this is what I would say.

She is well within her rights to be very offended, very angry. And to say something about it, by the way, she's not a public official. She's a public figure, but she's a private citizen who gets this kind of treatment all the time. So she can say what she's like. She's allowed to be mad about it. The president, yes, should not be what in effect ends up jawboning the network by bullying them and saying he should be fired, even though, yes, he's obviously in his rights to talk about this and to be mad at Jimmy Kimmel. Here's the real overarching issue, though, is that the press doesn't want a right-leaning figure to be a victim even when they're literally shot. Okay, so whether it's congressional baseball shooting or Trump in July or Trump in any of the other number of assassinations or Charlie Kirk, they want to turn the page very quickly because they are uncomfortable with the idea that a right-leaning person could be subject to lefty-inspired violence, which would mess with their whole narrative. So to get back on the moral, the morally righteous past. What they do is they turn away and they say that, oh, Donald Trump's behavior is bad. So first it was the ballroom. Oh, he mentioned the ballroom. So there's where he's no longer a victim. We had 15 minutes of Donald Trump being in danger, but no more. And then it was Nora O'Donnell. is the victim because he got mad about her insane question using the manifesto of the person who tried to kill Donald Trump. Yeah, by the way, just to that point on Nora O'Donnell in the interview that he granted to her after this all happened, Axios headline, one uncomfortable question was all it took for President Trump to resume hostilities with the Washington Press Politico headline. Trump lashes out at 60 minutes anchor for reading alleged gunman's manifesto. She's the victim, Nora O'Donnell, reading the deranged ravings. of a homicidal, would-be assassin to the president, basically like, was he right about you? I mean, that was sort of like the gist of the question, and Trump was pissed, rightfully so. Right. And then the third turn is Jimmy Kimmel. Jimmy Kimmel is now the victim. We are now like three offenses past the original story because they want to move on from this and do every time there is an instance like this. And by the way, one of the reasons I think we're moving on so quickly or they are is because in July of 2024, there was really a moment where we all came together as we should and said, wow, this was horrific. I cannot believe. Did this happen? I'm so glad he escaped death. I mean, most of the press corps, the societal reaction was that for a couple of days. It didn't last long. But I think that it...

helped Donald Trump. People felt sympathy for him. And I don't think many want that to happen again. So even though he remains targeted and even though this remains a problem, and it should be, by the way, the decent thing. It doesn't have to do with freedom of speech. It's a decent thing for Kemmel to be like, that was probably not cool. Wishing widowdom upon a woman whose president has, or whose husband has almost been killed several times. Bad, bad form. That's it. But people don't want to be responsible. They want to rile up these kinds of fights. And they want to move on from what I think is the preeminent free speech attack, which is the guy trying to kill people for their political views. Yeah. And there was a Manhattan Institute poll that revealed just recently that 46% of Democrat leftists people who identify on the left in this country, 46%, nearly half of them. believe that the Butler-Pensilvania assassination attempt was like a false flag set up to help Trump politically. He was shot in the ear and someone died. And almost half of the left in this country, based on the poll, believes that it was faked, including, according to CNN reporting today, the alleged shooter from this past weekend. He was one of these deranged leftists who believed this insane conspiracy theory that's actually quite mainstream on the left, it seems, that the first one was fake. So I'm sure they think the second one was fake. So this guy decided, well, with the fakes, let me go and do it and finish the job myself. That is a mainstream belief, that conspiracy theory that was evidently based on public postings held by the would-be assassin from this past weekend. Coming back just quickly to the Jimmy Kimmel thing in free speech, you and I don't like this trying to get ABC to fire Kimmel and the president specifically pressuring them to do so. I think it also makes him more of a martyr and he'll dig in more and he becomes like this greater celebrity. He relishes this kind of thing. It's why he says these things. But others have noted that... The media Mary Catherine has been involved in many cancellation pushes when they don't care about the, quote-unquote, you know, victims. They're fine to cancel people for all sorts of reasons without wringing their hands about free speech, including a host of The Bachelor on ABC. Chris Harrison was fired by this network for a much lesser offense where he was defending one of the contestants for... like going to an antebellum themed party in their youth, that guy got canned from ABC, this exact network. So I think pointing out the hypocrisy of these people. is absolutely fair game as we try to stay consistent on the First Amendment and free speech. It is worth noting that a lot of the people running to the ramparts for Jimmy Kimmel and free speech are absolute flaming hypocrites on these issues. Mary Catherine Hamm, got to leave it there. Thank you, Mary Catherine. Thanks so much. We'll be right back. A fresh perspective on the topics of the day. It's Guy Benson.

Welcome back to Guy Benson. The Democrats, their official Twitter handle at the Democrats, they've had some very strange takes about the new Secretary of the Navy in the Trump administration, a man named Hung Cow, who ran for political office in Virginia and now has that position in the Trump administration because... The predecessor has resigned and Hongkow has been elevated. And he is an American success story. He is an incredible patriot. He's been on this program. His background, his pedigree is so impressive. And there was a photo that was posted of him and former Governor Glenn Youngkin. Duncan's a very tall guy. He played college basketball. He towers over everyone, including me. I'm six feet tall. Hung cow is a little shorter. And the Democrats retweeted the photo with like an emoji making it look like they were making fun of hung cow's height. Like, oh, he's a little tiny like two fingers barely apart. That was the emoji saying like, oh, he's just like this little tiny guy, apparently making fun of his stature, which is petty and ridiculous, especially to be... lobbying that sort of personal insult at an American hero, that eventually got taken down, I guess, the intern or the staffer got reprimanded because maybe you shouldn't make those kinds of digs. Because maybe that's not the kind of dig you want to take at someone like this, who, by the way, also happens to be a person of color. I know they care about that sort of thing a lot, except when they don't, right? In the case of someone like Hongkow, then the update from the Democrats, the new, better, classier tweet was, Trump dragged our country to war, and now this clown is in charge, referring to Mr. Cow. John Gabriel, noting this quote-unquote clown, entered the Navy, enlisted, and earned a commission as a special operations officer from Annapolis. An EOD officer, he led threat missions for special warfare and special forces in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Somalia. He retired from active duty as a captain in 2021. He's a decorated combat veteran, a qualified Navy special operations, EOD and diving officer, a naval parachutist, and surface warfare officer. He has a bachelor's in ocean engineering, a master's in applied physics, and was a fellow at MIT and Harvard. That is who the National Democratic Party, their official social media, decided to label the new Secretary of the Navy, Hongkow, a clown after previously belittling his height. This is not a serious opposition. This is also no way to treat someone like Hongkow whose stature as an American dwarfs whoever's running these social media platforms for the Dems.

And I'm not sure why it bothered me as much as it did. I'm sure it was water off a duck's back for cow himself. He's got more important things to worry about. And he's, I'm sure, very self-assured in his own biography and qualifications and ability to do the job. But it's that sort of just pathetic pot shot stuff from the sidelines. A very nasty look. Unfortunately, not out of character these days for that party. Another hour of Guy Benson coming up next. A story out of Argentina, I want to bring to your attention, plus an update on the Virginia battle over gerrymandering at the Virginia Supreme Court. Former Attorney General Ken Cuccinelli will be here in our upcoming hour. Don't go anywhere. generation of conservative talk right here right now fair fun and backed by the trusted voices and reporting resources of fox news you're listening to Guy Benson and now here's your host Guy Benson it's a new hour on Guy Benson On this Tuesday, our middle hour of three, thank you for tuning in. Guy Benson.com is our online home. The podcast is free every day on demand. We like to remind you of that. And as we slide into our number two, a Fox News alert and a market update with the Dow basically setting today down barely 31 points, 49,136. But with us now is Andy McCarthy, Fox News contributor, longtime federal prosecutor, writer at National Review, and a bestselling author several times over. You can follow him on social as I do at Andrew C. McCarthy. Andy, welcome back. Guy, great to be with you. All right. So I saw some newsbreaking earlier that there's been a new indictment handed down against the former FBI director, James Comey. And... This appears to be connected to that weird social media post of his. He took a photograph at the beach, was it a year or two ago, where there was a collection of rocks that had been arranged in a pattern to spell out 8647 or 8645, whichever one. And people were saying, well, that's a death threat. 86 meaning to kill and then a reference to President Trump's. sort of, you know, line in the succession of presidents, 45th and 47, the president of the United States. I forget which one it was, 45 or 47. And I guess this caught James Comey's attention, and he took a photo of it, and he posted it, and people said that looks like a threat. And now we've got this indictment. This comes on the heels of another indictment that ended up going nowhere against James Comey. I am not a fan of his, to put it mildly. I find him supercilious and obnoxious and unfortunately very political. I also am as a layperson, a total non-attorney.

Pretty skeptical that this would be anything that would be indictable or prosecutable, especially since once he was, based on his telling, made aware what this series of numbers means, that he disavowed it immediately and apologized, basically. Am I missing something here? What do you make of this indictment? No, I think this is even more absurd than the first indictment against James Comey. The first indictment against James Comey. failed because it didn't state a crime. Ultimately, it was thrown out because the prosecutor was improperly unlawfully appointed. This one just tries to manufacture a crime. And it's really, you know, I've been saying for years that lawfare begets more lawfare. So instead of ending it, it looks like this administration is doubling down on it. But first of all, it's not at all clear that 8647 means what the administration decided to take it to mean, which was that James Comey wanted Trump assassinated and was calling for Trump's. assassination. 86 guy is one of those terms like, you know, whack, rub out, off. You can come up with a glossary. Oh, it's also a restaurant term. I worked in restaurants for a while. And 86 means, oh, we're out of. We're out of whatever. You know, 86, kill from the menu, basically. 86, the grilled cheese or, you know, the soup or whatever. Yeah, I got made fun of because in one of my senior moments, I called it 68, and I was referring to throwing something in the garbage so I couldn't get it right. But the point is that... In the narrow parlance of, say, mafia guys or gang members, depending on the context in which it's used, it could fairly be interpreted to be a call for killing or acknowledgement of killing or something. But there's no evidence that James Comey meant it that way. All the evidence cuts in the other direction. As you pointed out, it's not even clear that he arranged this. I think the story at the time, he was in North Carolina. It was 8647. It was last year. He came upon it and took a picture of it and moronically posted it on Instagram. And then, you know, the Kristi Noem at Homeland Security got all spun up that he had threatened to assassinate Trump and, you know, everybody else echoed that within the administration. But it was, you know, look, it was it was overwrought. There's no evidence that factually this even makes out a threat, but more to the point, you know, James Comey not only took the post down and said that he didn't mean it to intend violence in any way, he apparently waived his Fifth Amendment privilege and agreed to talk to the Secret Service. He was interviewed that afternoon, and he personally interviewed the next day.

made a public statement saying that he's against political violence and never intended it that way. The short of it is there's no way you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he committed a crime. No. I think it was dumb. I think it was dumb. I find him disreputable, especially compared to the reputation he thinks he has, part of which I think he's destroyed by his partisan politics. And he certainly has a certain amount of Trump derangement. And I think a lot of this is just basically revenge. That's what I see this as. The law has to mean something. And you can say this was, you know, dumb and foolish of him and people can believe or not believe the apology or whatever. But to turn this into a federal crime and to try to say, oh, yeah, we can prove beyond a reasonable doubt this guy. This was like a call to assassination, even, you know, especially maybe in light of what just happened on Saturday night. It's such a stretch, Andy. And my fear is that there are a lot of people who are big Trump fans who say, maybe even deep down in their hearts, they say, yeah, this almost certainly isn't a federal crime. But James Comey and his ilk put Donald Trump and a bunch of his supporters through this kind of stuff for years. And, you know, we're going to weaponize the law and do the lawfare thing back and make their lives miserable now. You know, eye for an eye type thing. That's my interpretation of what this is. Well, I think that's exactly right, except, you know, the problem is that's not a, that's an explanation of what they're doing. It's not an acceptable rationale. It completely turns a blind eye to what we lose if we lose a criminal justice system that has integrity. Well, especially because, and sorry to interrupt, Andy, but especially because. Trump campaigned on ending the weaponization, which I think is a laudable goal and one that we should have. And I know a lot of Republicans say, well, if it's only one side doing it, then it's unilateral disarmament and blah, blah, blah. And I get some of that frustration on a political level, but there has to be the law beyond politics. On the political side of it, he campaigned against it. You don't end weaponization by doing more of it unless you can somehow justify it and sort of backfill by saying, well, the way that we end it is to burn both sides with it and then there's a mutual climb down. I just don't think, practically speaking, that's how it would work. And legally speaking, it's not how it should work. Well, legally speaking, nobody should do lawfare. Practically speaking, what's going to happen here, let's take two examples. One is what James Comey did, as idiotic as it was, was not as close to the legal line of incitement as President Trump's speech on the ellipse right before the Capitol riot. When that indictment got dismissed... It was dismissed without prejudice because of the Justice Department guidance against prosecuting a sitting president. The next Democratic administration is going to try to revive that indictment unless Trump pardons himself. And this, it will rely on a precedent like this to say that this is a perfectly acceptable prosecution.

Concurrently, down in the Southern District of Florida right now, the Trump Justice Department is conducting an investigation where it's hoping to indict a bunch of Obama, Biden, and Trump-1-era officials, including people like James Comey and CIA Director Brennan under Obama, a bunch of those people, on a theory that they use their official powers to make up bogus cases against... Trump in order to imprison him, prosecute him, and derail his... his candidacy for the presidency. If that rationale is a viable rationale, I have my doubts about it, which is why I think no cases have been brought. But why wouldn't the next Democratic administration go after all the Trump officials, for example, continuing to try to make up bogus cases against James Comey? Including, and not just James Comey, it looks like Jerome Powell, the Fed chairman, you know, when that... investigation was revealed. And he put it out there himself. I said, I'm open to the evidence, right? Let's wait and see. But the evidence was scant to nonexistent. And now they've dropped that investigation, which also just looked, you know, politically retaliatory to me. And I'm sure we're angering some of the audience, Andy. But like, you should either be for lawfare and it's like, let's just do it and escalate this thing until there's a mutually assured destruction or you're against it. And I think the proper legal approach as a non-lawyer is to be against it. And therefore, examples like this, which is a real stretch and the Jerome Powell thing getting dropped, I can't defend it, and so I won't. Andy, I know that you're writing about this at National Review. That'll be up at national review. We're up on a break, so I've got to take it, Andy. But I know this is late breaking news and you've been busy. So thank you for carving out some time for us today. Thanks, Scott. Andy McCarthy. I'm on Guy Benson, and we call him like we see him here, and I think this smells rotten and is rotten, even though I am no fan of James Comey. Turning to another subject as soon as we come back. You're listening to a new generation of talk, Guy Benson.

I'm Guy Benson. We are back. Terrible story out of Africa, headline from G.B. News, ISIS kills dozens of Christians and torches church in sickening terrorist attack. The Islamic State has claimed responsibility for killing dozens of Christians and torching a church in a terrorist attack in Nigeria. The attack in the country's northeast killed at least 29 people, with a group of young people assembling at a football pitch. being targeted. The attack occurred in the Adamawa state, which borders Cameroon, a hotspot for terrorist violence. One local said the dead include youths, including some ladies that were just watching football. Witnesses say houses, churches, and motorcycles were burned in the attack. Footage from a local reporter showed a torch building, upturned furniture, and charred motorcycles stacked on their side. So according to these reports, this was a massacre of Christians, dozens of them, by Islamist radical terrorists, ISIS. It is horrifying. It is unfortunately part of a wider pattern. We have seen a lot of anti-Christian violence and slaughters in Africa at the hands of Islamists in recent months and years. And for those of us who are Christians, it is heartbreaking to see these murders, these killings of our brothers and sisters in Christ. And it is also, I think, rather revealing that this is not a major international news story, at least as far as much of the so-called news media in the United States is concerned. And I think it's worth actually lingering on that point for a moment. Because we have a news media. That was very eager at the drop of a hat to amplify really any claim made by Hamas over the course of years after the terrorist slaughter of October 7, 2023, when Israel fought back to root out the threat that had invaded their country and slaughtered nearly 1,200 people. During that war that Hamas started, Hamas would put out under the auspices of the health ministry, which is just an appendage of Hamas. any number of claims, some of which were just verifiably false against Israel. And the news media would broadcast those claims immediately, uncritically in many cases, and the lies would span and cross the world. digitally in an instant. And it would pop up all over social media, part of this drumbeat of propaganda against Israel. And then sometimes the truth would try to catch up. I was like, oh, actually, no, Israel didn't bomb the hospital. It was an errant terrorist rocket that hit the parking lot outside the hospital. But by that point, members of Congress had already lied about it, the usual suspects, etc., etc. You had journalists chomping at the bit, salivating. to share and quote unquote report terrorist propaganda based on the say-so of terrorists. And there is a whole cottage industry of influencers waiting at the ready.

to claim anything that Hamas would tell them about the Jewish state, about the Israelis. And then when something like this happens, yet another mass murder of Christians in Africa, it's like a shrug or crickets or, you know, page 36 small item or nothing at all. Isn't that interesting? I would also point out that there is a little group of people who at least hold themselves out to be very, very Christian influencers. whose number one goal seems to be attacking Israel and the Jewish state all the time. And what was it just a week or two ago? There was that terrible image that came out of an IDF soldier in Lebanon who was desecrating Christian iconography. I believe it was a statue of Jesus and he was treating it extremely disrespectfully. And that photo got out. And within hours, all of the Israeli political leadership had denounced and condemned it. The soldier was put in jail and punished severely. Israel apologized profusely that one of their soldiers had done this thing and acted this way toward a statue, which was extremely inappropriate. And it was right that there were consequences. The leadership, including the prime minister, were correct to condemn it in very strong terms. But my goodness, these influencers, Christians, it's a group of them, a particular cabal, and of course all the normal Israel haters, they were out in full force. blanketing social media with this story, beating the drum very, very loudly. Look at what Israel does. This is what they think of Christians. And it was the actions of one man that were used to try to smear the entire country, the entire military, even though the military had moved very swiftly to punish the person responsible. That was an obsession of these people to try to demonize and vilify the Israelis. in the name of defending the honor of Christianity. And if you go and look at a lot of those same social media accounts today, you will see nary a peep about actual murders of 29 at least Christians in Africa by Islamist terrorists. That is of far less interest or value or usefulness, I guess, to people like that, than... a mini scandal about poor behavior by one Israeli soldier. They were all over that. That was an international emergency of a news story. Yeah, the Islamists murdering a bunch more Christians yet again in Africa. It happens. Water under the bridge, I guess. Not worthy of virtually any coverage at all. So I am heart sick that this has happened. The Trump administration has actually been very good at pressuring some of these African governments to protect their Christian populations from these savages, much better than they are. And Trump was actually sort of rattling the saber a little bit about this months ago.

He's like, we're not going to ignore the persecution and plight and mass murder of Christians happening somewhere else in the world. I think that's a good thing. It's just interesting how many people are seemingly happy to ignore such things. Or it never crosses their radar. You probably didn't hear about this anywhere else. That's my guess. I wonder why that is. People should ask themselves that question as well. What gets coverage and what doesn't and why? Guy Benson continues after this break. Guy Benson, sponsored by Previgin. Previgin, made for your brain. Just past half time on Guy Benson on this Tuesday. Thanks for being with us. Guy Benson.com. Podcasts always free. We're now happy to welcome back to the show, Ken Cuccinelli, former Attorney General of the Commonwealth of Virginia, with some reflections on the updates in that case, a big day yesterday, and then more developments today when it comes to the gerrymandering power grab that the Democrats have tried to impose in Virginia with their referendum very narrowly passing a week ago today. Ken, welcome back to the show. Guy, good to be with you. And I think the tea leaves are looking better and better for throwing out this referendum. All right. Let's explore why. And let's start with what happened not yesterday during the oral arguments. I want to delve into all of that in due time. But first, what happened today? This was breaking news earlier. Yes. So this morning. So there are three cases dealing with the gerrymandering. Two of them deal with the referendum. One deals with the map. So let's set the map aside. The case... the later case that found one constitutional violation, state constitutional violation, and that the language of the ballot measure was so outrageous that it disqualifies the referendum. That appeal is the later case coming up to the Virginia Supreme Court. It is that case in which the judge enjoined the certification of the referendum. He stopped the counting of the ballots. and he stopped the certification. And the current Attorney General, Jay Jones, appealed that on an emergency basis. And so the news from today is that in that case, the Supreme Court of Virginia denied the Attorney General's request to stay the injunction. They literally left the injunction against counting the ballots and certifying the election in place. And, Guy, what that tells me, is they already have the votes to throw out the referendum, and they're just writing the opinion. Interesting. Well, I will just note as an observation.

Jay Jones' own lawyer's answer, no, it doesn't matter at all. Okay, so hold on, pause for a second, because that's interesting. It's the opposite of the case. that Jay Jones and other Democrats have been making publicly, which is, well, the people spoke. And by the way, they spoke very, very narrowly. This was a right-word shift in the electorate. A lot of people are very skeptical of this. Abigail Spanberger, fake moderate, won by, what, 15, 16 points. Last November, this thing was two and a half, three points and was extremely tight. But if you want to say, well, a bare, bare majority, 51-ish percent of Virginians want to now change the Constitution. and turn the map from something that's fair and equitable into a 10 to 1 partisan bloodbath. But the people have spoken, so that has to win the day. If that's their argument that they're making for public consumption, why would Jay Jones's lawyer at the court say it's actually immaterial, not relevant how the people are voted? Because the most important thing to the lawyer standing in front of the judges is to be correct. That's why. And he knows very well that it's irrelevant. You'll recall, Guy, that this Supreme Court... got this case two months ago and said, we're not going to rule right now. We're going to let the referendum play out. And a lot of people were worried that, oh, they're ducking, what a bunch of chickens, this and that. No, we have over 100 years of legal precedent that says that the vote is part of the legislative process. And the court will not weigh in until the legislative process is complete. It's analogous. It's directly analogous to the governor signing or vetoing a bill. If a bill is unconstitutional, like the assault weapons ban coming in Virginia, that I'm going to sue on. then you have to wait until the governor acts. And she hasn't signed or vetoed it yet. I fully expect her to sign it. But I can't sue today. A court would throw me out because the legislative process is incomplete. And that's a function of the separation of powers and the respect of one branch of government for another. But that process played out. That's why the schedule was in place that when the yes side won, they squeaked by. And to your point, Guy, I think they thought they were going to win by double digits. And then they'd have a real, they'd call it a wave, right? They wouldn't just call it a majority. They'd call it overwhelming and this and that. They really wanted to, in my view, bully the court.

with a big win. Well, and they certainly spent. They spent for a big win. I mean, they blanketed the airwaves with their propaganda, almost without pushback, almost unopposed, really. And then they got what they got, which was not what they were really expecting or hoping for. And now their own attorney, apparently, in oral arguments. The first question is like, actually, the will of the people, quote, unquote, what they voted. is immaterial to the constitutional questions. So that undermines at least their rhetoric. There was another big moment also on this question of when the election technically started, where it seems like the Democrats are trying to say, not just in their own policies, because they've implemented what, you know, election month and a half in Virginia? Because the more voting, the longer this goes, the better. That's their position. The elections go on for weeks and weeks and weeks, and you vote for weeks. That is their policy position that they put into place. They also simultaneously say, forget all the election month stuff that we have implemented and that we support. For the purposes, really only of this specific argument, election day is the only meaningful election, you know, marking point or endpoint or signpost, which is. To me, a little bit bizarre, given everything else that they purport to believe on these things. It is really bizarre. It is really bizarre. Actually, bizarre, we both know, isn't quite right. It's utterly and brazenly hypocritical. Yes, that's right. I mean, it is really more accurate. But you're absolutely right, guy. I mean, everywhere else, if you're against early voting, you're a racist, right? Except... when you're Jay Jones lawyer in a courtroom and you need to be correct. And then the election day is election day and that's it. And that's it. Now, interestingly, again, Justice Russell cornered him on that question. He said, well, what if the General Assembly passed this at 6 p.m. on election day? Our polls are open until 7 p.m. Would that be good enough? And there, the lawyer just ducked. He didn't answer. He didn't have an answer. And, you know, back to the early voting, their lawyer said in response to the challenge you describe on early voting, early voters vote early at their own risk. He actually said that. And if later information shows up, well, that's the risk they took too bad. Well, that's probably a message and a position shared by Jay Jones because a lot of people voted for Jay Jones. Before they discovered it, he had murder in his heart, and maybe they voted for him at their own risk, and it benefited him. But that is a tough argument to make, I would assume, in front of the Virginia Supreme Court when you're talking about this question. And I think the really important piece of this, Ken, and this goes to the broader process. And again, I think other states and other people around the country who don't live in Virginia should be paying attention. We're talking here not about just a basic...

ballot measure, a referendum. This is an effort to change the constitution of the state. And if you are trying to change the constitution, the rules by which you do so, the rules that govern that process are not mere technicalities when you look back having manipulated the situation into the outcome that you want. It's the whole ballgame. If there's ever a context in which to be truly sticklers. about every single rule on how something is done, to me it would be changing the Constitution. And it seems like there are multiple examples here where the Democrats have not done that to rush this snap election to the ballot in order for them to, in their minds, gain four House seats before the midterm elections. That was the overriding priority and... goal in all of this. So if you can just briefly weigh in on that and then explain to us the timeline. I know that you're feeling optimistic and maybe a little polyanish about the tea leaves here. When are we going to know whether or not you're right about all of this? Well, this is one of the fastest moving cases I've ever seen this court handle. I think you're going to know. We'll certainly have a ruling before the end of May. I'd be shocked if it went past that. But I expect to see a ruling before mid-May, which by... State Supreme Court standards is just wicked fast. Warp speed. It is warp speed. But the reality is this court knows we need to know where the lines are. Candidates are trying to run right now. Well, what district do you run in? And if you're an election official, we do petition collection to get on the ballot, where can you get those petitions? You could get them all in Fairfax if the new map is in place, right? But if we have the current maps, that's very, very different. And I think we're going to find that out very quickly. That's why today's news about denying the request to lift the injunction. by the Attorney General is so important because it, in my view, it does send a signal. And by the way, there was an earlier signal in February when they held the case and set a contingent briefing schedule if the yes side won. Because, of course, if we had beaten it, it would have been moved. It's like the governor vetoing a bill. You don't sue over a vetoed bill. They said at that time, we have grave concerns about the very serious issues raised in this case. That doesn't sound like much to people, but for a court to make any comment at all on the substance of a case that it was holding up is very unusual. It could be a clue. Very unusual. These clues.

are adding up you're making a compelling case to that end we'll see how they actually rule in the next couple of weeks and i'll just leave us in this segment with a point i made last night on special report the democrats who have been triumphant on a lot of this stuff Hakeem Jeffries beating his chest saying things like the republicans started these gerrymandering wars but we're finishing them and i would simply say it is extremely debatable that republicans started this for reasons that i've explained but it is very much Not yet the case and remains to be seen whether the Democrats have finished any of this in light of what we're talking about here and in light of now the next front in Florida where the Republicans might be answering what Virginia Democrats have attempted. So stay tuned is all I will say very much up to and including what happens in the 2030 census and beyond far from over. Ken Cuccinelli, former Virginia Attorney General here on Guy Benson. Ken, thank you. Good to be with you. As always, Guy. We'll be right back. Same issues, but with a fresh perspective. Guy Benson.

We are back. Here's a story out of Australia. A collaborative Jewish-Greek choral concert designed to raise money for the Pam Bondi Beach massacre victims' families has been canceled after some members of the choir, the Hellenic Choir of Australia, refused to perform with Jews. The event was titled Concert for Hope and Unity. This was shared online. And there's a whole write-up about it in the Australian press. Apparently there was a vote, and a majority of the choir said they didn't want to perform with the Jews. Although some of them said that because they feared for their safety like there might be a follow-on jihadist attack. And I would say the government needs to go out of its way to ensure that that doesn't happen. You cannot let the terrorists win, which they seem to have done in this case. And then some of it's just good old-fashioned bigotry. Or, as it would be called today, anti-Zionism. This is a manifestation of anti-Zionism. Bigots refusing to sing alongside Jews at a unity concert honoring the victims of a deadly jihadist terrorist attack that was targeted at Jewish people. who were peacefully celebrating Hanukkah, a Jewish holiday in Australia, half a world away from Israel, has nothing to do with Zionism or Israel at all. But they would call this anti-Zionism, which often overlaps almost perfectly with anti-Semitism. Shame on the choir. Shame on the Australian government. and the cowardly prime minister who has pandered and pandered to the bigots for so long. And this is the endgame. We won't sing with Jews in honor of the victims of an anti-Semitic jihadist terror attack. Well, because I'm sure Benjamin Netanyahu or disagreements with the Israeli government, all those excuses fall away. And what's left is something very ugly in all its in glory. Quote, anti-Zionism at work down under. An update there, a factor follow-up on that terrorist attack that we covered when it happened during Hanukkah. Final hour of Guy Benson upcoming, Josh Holmes of Ruthless will join us straight ahead.

Raise your glass to Guy Benson Happy Hour. Brought to you by the Finnish Long Drink. Finland's most popular alcoholic beverage is taking America by storm. Visit thelongdrink.com. And now, here's Guy Benson. Happy hour time here on Guy Benson. Tuesday edition, delighted to have each of you with us. Guy Benson.com is our online home. The podcast is free. It's on demand every day, no charge, at Guy Benson.com or Fox Newspodcast.com or wherever you get your podcasts. Follow us at Guy Benson on social. You can follow me as well, Guy Benson. You can email us GBS at Fox.com. And this radio hour brought to you by our good friends at the Finnish Long Drink. We are fans of their product. It's very good. It is alcoholic, so please drink responsibly, 21 plus only, the longdrink.com. With us now, Josh Holmes, founding partner of Cavalry LLC and co-hosts of the Ruthless Variety Program, a popular podcast. Josh, welcome back to the show. What's up, guy? Happy to be here. A lot of things are up. I want to talk about... this past weekend and another assassination attempt against President Trump and sort of the chaos at the White House correspondence dinner and all the fallout from it, it's kind of bizarre that we're at a point now in our politics where this is a third active. assassination attempt against the president of the United States in the span of 21 months, dating back to the time that he was just about to become the official nominee in 2024. That was the Butler incident. There was another one a few months later in 2024, and now this one here in 2026. And I feel like by early next week it will be maybe not completely gone from the new cycle, but mostly are we getting used to this? You know, it's hard to imagine that we're getting used to it. But I do think that normalizing of violence against this president, conservatives in general, is something that the left-wing media and their acolytes and the activist community across this country have been working on for quite some time. I mean, you just listen to the kinds of things that people like Hasan Piker, who's now a new sort of cost celeb on the left. The it boy, the it boy of the left. Yeah, you know, I mean, we deserve 9-11 talking casually about somebody's got to do it in reference to Donald Trump being assassinated, things of that nature. And then you see him sit down for a long-form interview with the New York Times podcasts, right? And that's a choice. And that's a choice that much of the mainstream media has made to try to normalize. what is absolutely, you know, previously inconceivable in terms of rhetoric. But that's where the Democratic Party is these days. And I think that the more that we try to dismiss that, the more that we're missing how people across this country who are perhaps mentally unstable are consuming it. On that score.

There was a question in the immediate aftermath of this latest episode in which people were doing the thing where they say, gosh, we need cooler heads to prevail. Maybe we can bring the temperature down. And I was on with Trey Gowdy over the weekend on Fox News. And he was asking that sort of question. I don't think naively. I think he was asking it very genuinely. My answer basically, Josh, was that I hope and pray that that would be the case, but that was not my expectation based on lots and lots of available evidence after other. catalyzing incidents even very recently that didn't seem to really change the trajectory in a positive way at all and sure enough just yesterday I think we got a definitive answer on some of this. Hakeem Jeffries, who is the House Minority Leader, the man who would be Speaker of the House, who was asked by a reporter, I'm almost surprised he got the question, but he did, about his rhetoric recently, about redistricting and surrounding those issues. And they were asking him, you know, maybe do we want to back away from that? Do you have any regrets about using that kind of language? And here is how he responded in Cut 36. As it relates to anything that has been said, certainly as it relates. to the comment related to maximum warfare everywhere all the time in connection with the redistricting battle that republicans launched i stand by it you can continue to criticize me for it i don't give a damn about your criticism maximum warfare everywhere all the time i stand by it and don't give a damn about criticism nope okay i mean there it is josh not not going to see many changes i don't think I don't know. I think a big problem here is the total lack of adult leadership within the Democratic Party at any level. I mean, they've had this massive vacuum since Barack Obama exited stage left. And of course, when he shows back up, he doesn't add any... sort of calmness to the conversation is just as bad these things. Well, his tweet, by the way, about this most recent assassination attempt didn't mention President Trump by name and also pretended at the time that we didn't know what the motive was, even though it was very well established at that point. Maybe he didn't like the motive. It didn't mean it didn't exist. Yeah, totally. I mean, look, we used to have elected leaders that I'm careful, they're a Republican or Democrat, who care a hell of a lot more about the country than they did about their political standing. When you see how to Hakeem Jeffries, who, you know, can't lead a two-car parade, is an attempt to try to capitalize and fuel this flame of anxiety amongst the left about this fiction that somehow Donald Trump and Republicans are here to destroy you in your way of life, which of course is not true. The exact opposite is true. But when you convince a huge swap in the American electorate that is, in fact, the case, they're hoping that that's what sweeps them back into power. And that's the only thing they care about. It's a really sad indictment about today's Democratic Party. I've never thought that I would see it get this bad, where you fully were willing to sacrifice the Republic in hopes that you could maybe sit on top of a failing institution. But that, I mean, I don't know any other way to interpret it, guy.

Josh, I want to hit a few different topics, kind of a disparate grab bag here. Starting with this, I'm making my way through Molly Hemingway's excellent new book about Samuel Alito, appropriately entitled Samuel Alito. It's my second Supreme Court book in the last month. I read Sarah Isgir's fantastic book as well, Last Brand Standing, and about halfway through Samuel Alito by Molly Hemingway. And I don't know if you're aware of this, Josh, but there's a little anecdote that Molly relays in her book about the Samuel Alito confirmation process during the second Bush administration, and it involved the now justices mother. and how she was very proud of her son and would be willing to say all sorts of things to anyone who asked, including journalists, during the sensitive period of his confirmation process. And I learned. for the first time that the Republicans in order to sort of keep an eye on Nona Samuel Alito and make sure that the press wasn't going to go around and try to get her to say something that could be problematic. They deployed a young Republican staffer for that very purpose, a man by the name of Josh Holmes. I did not know this before. What was that like? Well, it wasn't needed that was dispatched to her home. It was a guy that I worked with, but I worked on this process. That's hilarious. I didn't know that she wrote about that. But they, look, these were different times where anything you said or did could become problematic. I mean, it seems quaint now when you think about the clip that we just played as Hakeem Jeffries that Mama Samuel Alito could get anybody in trouble. In that day and age, you wanted to keep everything as smooth as possible. And so what happened, Mom Samuel Alito, she was going to defend her son come hell or high water. And a whole bunch of reporters and everybody else wanted to get in and knock on her door and call her phone. Which they were doing. Yeah, they tried to get her to say all kinds of incendiary things, which she was more than happy to oblige and defense of her son. As any one of us would know that our mother would do. And so, yeah, at that time, it was all hands on deck. And I remember there was a guy that I worked with who we sent and actually lived with her in New Jersey for a period of time to try to make sure that we just. So that was not you. You were coordinating the sort of fun little buddy cop experience. Yeah, no, it was all hands on deck. Those were fun times. I mean, I loved Supreme Court nomination hearings and preparation. I mean, that was like the major leagues of politics in that day and age. And I've always sort of loved it. But it was a fascinating time because it was all the Samuel Alito confirmation hearing was pretty significant. It came after the Harriet Myers debacle, which was an incredibly important seat for Republicans and conservatives across the country.

We worked incredibly hard on that one. Yep. And I remember the Senate Democrats were so relentless in their attacks on the nominee, surprise, surprise, that at one point they finally reduced Samuel Alito's wife to tears in the hearing room. And Lindsey Graham jumped into apologize to her, and that became kind of back in that day and age. very much a viral moment that reflected, I think, poorly on the Democrats and helped Samuel Alito get confirmed. Just an interesting little nugget in that book as we think back, gosh, decades ago at this point to that process. And of course, we've seen everything that's come after that, including very much the Brett Kavanaugh Circus. These confirmation hearings and processes are among the most important things that the U.S. Senate does, certainly in the Judiciary Committee. And on that front, let's talk about Ben Sass, the former senator after this break. Same issues, but with a fresh perspective. Guy Benson. Back on Guy Benson with Josh Holmes. And as I alluded to before the break, Josh. Former Senator Ben Sass is giving almost like a round of exit interviews, if you would. On behalf of... principles on behalf of country, on behalf of decency, as he is fighting this very aggressive form of pancreatic cancer that has now metastasized all around his body. And thank God he's been given a little bit of extra time by God and by this, what he calls, miracle drug that has really reduced the number of tumors that he's got in his body. He's in much less pain, he says, than he was even several months ago. But still... His time, his days are very limited, according to the doctors. And boy, is he making the most of them? I played a few clips yesterday on the show of him talking about his family, getting very emotional, and it was a lump in my throat moment watching that discussion with Scott Pelly of 60 Minutes. He also reflected on the job of the Senate and the seriousness of the Senate as an institution and how that is being lost in his view. Cut 44. The Senate needs to be less like Instagram. The Senate needs to be more deliberative. And that means less smackdown nonsense. One of the fundamental mistakes we've made over the last 30 or 40 years is putting cameras everywhere in Washington, D.C. This is not an argument against transparency. We should have reporters around. We should have pen and pad. We should have people recording what's happening. But we should make the Senate less of an institution that is built as a backdrop platform for people to get sound bites. That's not what the Senate is for. The Senate should be plotting and steady and boring and trustworthy.

You retweeted that clip, Josh. You said, this is my theme music, obviously resonating a lot with you. And you and the fellows have a lot of fun on the ruthless program and all of that. But you guys also aren't the United States Senate. And it sounds like Ben Sasse is saying, maybe the ruthless pod should do its thing and the U.S. Senate should do its own thing that is not always pandering on both sides to kind of the content machine. You spent a lot of time in the U.S. Senate working for a very serious person. Your thoughts on this? Yeah, I mean, first off, let me just say Ben Sass. He is a good man in every possible way. I've known him for an awful long time. And I've watched his battle here and talk with him a touch and texted back and forth. But he has given a gift to this country and anybody who consumes news and information by just laying out a bunch of simple truths. And one of them is what he talked about here. And I think it's less about. cameras and more about the idea of political celebrity and the idea that somebody get elected to office to go sell books and go on talk shows and go, you know, be hyperbolic and try to get people's attention. That was never the intention of the United States Senate. The United States Senate was supposed to be a whole bunch of people that are sort of beyond reproach and that they were maybe successful in their own communities and their own states, but they had a longer view on what constituted change. for the better in this country. And so it was supposed to cool down the passions of the day. It was supposed to prevent, you know, just legislating based on a moment in time. And it was supposed to have the protection of this country and its citizenry as its number one goal. And look, I think it's done a pretty good job, all things consider. When you think about the tumult that we've had in this country over the last 20 years, I think it's been a pretty good job. halting a lot of that emotion. But I mean, look, that goes back to the filibuster argument and everything else in that it has to continue to do that. Because can you imagine for a second, based on all the wild political swings that we've had over the last 10 years, really, that every single time a new majority washed in that you just implemented their agenda and then had to deal with it on the back end of... of the fallout. I mean, we would have D.C. and Puerto Rico and states, we'd have probably 16 members in the Supreme Court, and it would change. I mean, we would change every cycle every time you got a new majority. Yeah, the retaliation is an appeal and all the upheaval, right, back and forth. Yeah. And it's not supposed to be popular. You know, I've said for a long time, I mean, the leader in the Senate, I think, is an extremely tough job. You can make your argument about whether the Speaker of the House is a tougher job than the majority of the Senate. But the point is, you can't be popular. If you're a majority of the Senate with an above 40% approval rating, you're doing something wrong. Your job is to make the trains run, and not everybody's going to love that. In fact, vast majority of people hate it.

But you're supposed to protect this country and its citizenry from dumb assery. And that's the job of the Senate. And that's what Ben is talking about. He spent enough time there to realize what the ultimate value of that institution is. And gosh, I just, look, if he did 10 hours of content straight, I would probably listen to all 10 because there's nothing that he's talking about that doesn't make you a better person than a more productive American. You mentioned the Senate Majority Leader, currently John Thune of South Dakota, and the question of whether or not he will remain Majority Leader after the midterm elections is an open one right now. I know some of these prediction markets are saying that the Democrats have moved into a favored category to win back the Senate. I'm sort of on the fence about that, although I do believe that they have a real chance of winning it, depending on how things shake out for the next six months or so. But there's a poll out today, and I'm skeptical of this one, out there being discussed, that shows one James Talarico, a left winger from Texas, the guy who said it got his non-binary and is hard left on every single political issue. You look at his voting record, kind of Jasmine Crockett-type voting record. He, in this poll, is leading. Both would be Republican nominees for the United States Senate. He is in the mid-40s, James Talarico is, and he's up like three or four points over both John Cornyn, the incumbent Republican, Ken Paxton, the guy who's challenging John Cornyn in this bloody, very expensive primary. There was an expectation that Trump was going to get involved and endorse John Cornyn, and then he didn't. And so this thing's just playing out, attacking each other, very, very expensive. When you look at that polling, Josh. What's your analysis? Is this a seat that's in real danger for the GOP? Oh, sure. No, look, there's a couple of things that play here. First is when you're a party in power, midterms are, you have to approach it with a simple idea that anything that can go wrong will go wrong. And your whole job over the off year leading into an election year is just try to mitigate the amount of circumstances that can go wrong. This is one that was not mitigated. It was set up here for the last, you know, 15 months. It's something that ultimately we're seeing come to fruition. in a completely bloody, entirely avoidable primary in a state that Republicans absolutely have to win if they have any hope of retaining the majority. But the second thing is very, very difficult to get a handle on the head-to-head against the Democratic candidate when you're in the midst of a very bloody primary. Yeah, but unfortunately, the bloody primary is going to play out for weeks to come, it would seem, which is an advantage to Talariko. But the question then becomes, does he stay in the mid-40s? Do the Republicans end up rallying around, galvanizing around whoever?

emerges from that process. And does Texas remain red? That is going to be a big, big priority looking at that Senate map ahead of November. And it should be taken at the very least, very seriously to your point. Josh Holmes of the ruthless podcast, a must listen. Josh always appreciated. Thanks so much. Guy, thanks for having me. We'll be right back. Talking about the issues you care about, Guy Benson. In our first hour today, best friend of the program in Fox News contributor, Mary Catherine Hamm joined us. Boy, we had a lot to talk about free speech, hypocrisy, and beyond. Here's part of that discussion if you missed it. I want to turn to this, the whole Jimmy Kimmel thing, and I'm annoyed that we are talking about this to an extent because the actual issue here is someone again tried to kill the president. But because Jimmy Kimmel... Had made a Donald Trump is going to die joke right before the third assassination attempt that actually was directed at the First Lady. It has become a whole controversy, and it has been inflamed further by the fact that the First Lady herself and the President of the United States have both called on ABC to fire Jimmy Kimmel, he who is a full-time Democrat operative, part-time comedian, who also will remind you all lied about Charlie Kirk's assassination for political reasons, and then tearfully apologized because he was in some trouble then. Now he's making jokes like this, and Kimmel came back after the calls for him to be. canned by Trump in the White House and the first lady. He's like, no, no, this was a joke about the age difference between the president and his wife. It was not by any stretch a call to assassination. That is Kimmel's defense of himself on his show. And you now have all these various journals coming out of the woodwork to defend the free speech. of Jimmy Kimmel. And, you know, Jake Tapper did it on his show on CNN. Here's Gail King on CBS, cut 41. The joke was made before the correspondent's dinner. Jimmy Kimmel's not some crazy person who would wish the president to be killed. That's, he just would not do that. All right, so, you know, we're vouching for Kimmel's character and all this stuff. The thing, again, perhaps annoyingly, Mary Catherine, is that you and I are consistent on the question in that, while I think we both find the joke to be an extremely poor taste, if not abhorrent, given the two previous assassination attempts on Trump and to then joke that his wife is an expectant widow, you might want to think that one through. before you say it on national television, given the thing that happened twice where people tried to kill the husband, and then it happened again right after you made the joke, I'm not saying it's causal at all, but just in terms of like, you know, propriety and just generally not making light of something that could at least be construed as, you know, assassination humor, given what has happened and then happened again. Bad joke from a sleazy bad person.

Also, not appropriate for the president to be demanding that a network fire the person who made the joke. You and I, I think, are on the same page on that, even though I am sympathetic to the Trump family having it up to here with a guy like Jimmy Kimmel. Yeah, this is trash behavior from Jimmy Kimmel. He's doing it on purpose. He wants to go to them into having a fight. He's happy to wish widowdom upon a person whose husband has almost been killed several times over. And to do it, by the way, in the context of a fake roast for the Washington for the White House correspondent's dinner. That's what he was doing. He was goofing saying this is what I would say. She is well within her rights to be very offended, very angry. And to say something about it, by the way, she's not a public official. She's a public figure, but she's a private citizen who gets this kind of treatment all the time. So she can say what she's like. She's allowed to be mad about it. The president, yes, should not be what in effect ends up jawboning the network by bullying them and saying he should be fired, even though, yes, he's obviously in his rights to talk about this and to be mad at Jimmy Kimmel. Here's the real overarching issue, though, is that the press doesn't want a right-leaning figure to be a victim even when they're literally shot. Okay, so whether it's congressional baseball shooting or Trump in July or Trump in any of the other number of assassinations or Charlie Kirk, they want to turn the page very quickly because they are uncomfortable with the idea that a right-leaning person could be subject to lefty-inspired violence, which would mess with their whole narrative. So to get back on the moral, the morally righteous path. What they do is they turn away and they say that, oh, Donald Trump's behavior is bad. So first it was the ballroom. Oh, he mentioned the ballroom. So there's where he's no longer a victim. We had 15 minutes of Donald Trump being in danger, but no more. And then it was Nora O'Donnell. is the victim because he got mad about her insane question using the manifesto of the person who tried to kill Donald Trump. Yeah, by the way, just to that point on Nora O'Donnell in the interview that he granted to her after this all happened, Axios headline, one uncomfortable question was all it took for President Trump to resume hostilities with the Washington Press. My full exchange with Mary Catherine Ham available online at Guy Benson.com as part of the free podcast, the whole show every day on demand, no charge. Guy Benson.com. Fox NewsPod. or wherever you get your podcasts. When we come back to the home stretch, producer Christine apparently neglected yesterday to tell us about another incident that she suffered on her vacation resulting in an unsightly leg gash. Isn't that a fun tease? We'll talk about it coming up. Always fresh. Always fair. Guy Benson.

it's time for your favorite segment of the day. Home Stretch. It's basically the only segment I'm on. So I've declared it the audience's favorite segment. Guy Benson. Home Stretch here on Guy Benson. It's Tuesday here. Thank you very much for joining us. Guy Benson.com. Podcast always free. Slated to appear on America's Newsroom tomorrow morning, somewhere in the 9 to 11 a.m. Eastern slot. That's with Bill and Dana. Live TV, things sometimes change, but you might see me pop up there on Fox News Channel. Well, on the home stretch yesterday, we welcomed back producer Christine from her latest vacation in advance of her next vacation. And we talked about a number of the experiences that she had on the trip to Turks and Caicos. And then the show ended. And we did our typical post-game meeting where we go through the show. We talk about how it went. We think about the podcast title and that sort of thing. And we look ahead to the next day and get our ducks in a row. And Christine... realized during that meeting that she had failed to mention an incident on the vacation. that led to sort of her bumps and bruises that were part of this trip. And in fact, she very helpfully sent us some photographic evidence of her bumps and bruises. A leg gash in particular was sent to the group chat. Christine, what did you tell us that it was greener in real life than it looked in the photo? Yes, yes. Yeah, that was very appetizing. Is that a bruise? Was that gangrene? Like, have you gotten that checked out? I have not gotten it checked out. And it seems like, Joel, you want to look? It seems like the green is spreading down to my foot. But I'm not, no, you don't want to. I'm going to vomit what I just ate. Thank you. Thank you for that, Christine. Thank you. I'm not really sure what's going on, but what happened, this is a separate, like you said, separate incident from the bike fall. By the way, can I just point out last week we were trying to book. Dr. Nicole Sapphire for a few different topics, and hopefully we will get her on soon. Maybe we need to book her in studio so she can come examine your green, like, wound or whatever's gone on here? I mean, I could just send her the picture. Trust me, Dr. Sapphire and I have a relationship. I've texted her about a few things in the past. All right, so she would not be shocked to get a leg gash photograph. Oh, that would be nothing. I've sent her blood work before. The poor thing. Was it Carousel's blood? Stop. All right. Anyway, what happened? How did you get? Was this the leg gash or was that from your bike accident? I think the bike accident was the gash and then the bruising. It was all kind of mixed together at the end. But what happened was I was. Bobby's got to be sitting there thinking like people are going to think terrible things.

about our relationship with my bruised and battered wife, but it has absolutely to be clear nothing to do with him. God, no. It's your own clumsiness and accidents. So, okay, so there was a ladder involved in one of these? There was a ladder involved. Also, I do feel bad. This is the one thing that Megan, besides looking exactly like me, Megan is very clumsy as well and falls down a lot. Yeah, it's just. Okay, so that is the one fruit that has fallen directly beneath the tree. Besides being a scholar like her mom. Dylan, I don't think we needed that loud of a laugh for that one. So I was on a mission because in our hotel room, they actually, I didn't realize they had a little kitchenette. So it was like a pretty big fridge and like a little sink and stuff. So I was like, oh, you know what? Let me go to the food store and stock up the fridge with wine and beer, whatever else. Why do you need a kitchenette for wine? To stock up. Okay. All right. So you're going to go, I won't ask any more questions. You wanted wine. That is pretty self-explanatory. Yeah, amongst other things. Yes. So, oh, they have their own vodka there too, but it's not as good as a vodka I have, so I didn't really have that much of it. Just to translate for our English-speaking audience, she's talking about vodka, the alcoholic liquor, most associated with Russia, the clear liquid, VOD. Okay, continue. I'm walking to the back of the grocery store because I don't know if you guys in your states that can you get alcohol in a grocery store where you guys live? It depends. I can get beer and wine at grocery stores, and then there's liquor stores for other liquor. I think it depends from state to state, but this, of course, is a different country. Right, but in New Jersey, you cannot. You can't go to a food store and get alcohol. That's never happened. So I was intrigued by that. So I went to the back of the store, and I'm, you know, looking to see what wine has been chilled already and what the bottles they have, and I was looking at different brands. And then all of a sudden, there was a man. A mean man. He was on a short little ladder, not that short, but he was on the top of it. He fell down and the ladder went right into my leg and literally put a dent in the back of my leg. Wait, so a man at the store was on a ladder and he just happened to fall and collapse the ladder onto you? Correct. Well, you were in search of alcohol. Correct. Had you found some alcohol already, perhaps, if you know what I'm saying? No, no. Oh, I thought you were going to say how to, I had, yes, I had found what I was looking for in the fridge, but no, no, no, I had not. I really didn't drink that much on the trip. Yeah, that's what you keep saying. You're like, oh, I didn't drink. Let me tell you about all my injuries. I swear. all sober. So then he gets up and then I am looking at Bobby. I'm like, oh my God, my gosh. That really, really hurt. I'm like, I think there's a dent in my leg. And he's like, there's not a dent in your leg. And so the man goes, do you want, not even like really, I'm sorry, but basically do you want me to get my manager so you could put a claim in? And Bobby's like, nope, we're good. She's going to walk it off. And I realized later, he didn't want to go somewhere and have to pay out of pocket for me to go to the doctor because I don't think we had the travel health insurance.

I think there was an obvious solution here, which would have pleased both of you, where you could have been like, no, we don't need to talk to a manager, we're not going to file a claim, let's just work this out between the two of us, this all goes away if we leave here with a couple of bottles of mama's juice. I don't think he could authorize that, no matter. Maybe the manager could have. Like, there's a little swap, a little wink in a swap. I didn't need to. You gashed my wife's leg. She gets some pina grigio. Everyone's happy. Yeah, I just, I didn't want to start any problems. Bobby had given me a whole, like, talk before we got to the country. And he's like, we just don't need, because remember. where was I in Mexico when I threatened to burn the hotel down? So he's like, we just don't need any of that where you wind up somewhere that I have to bail you out in another country. He's like, I don't know why I keep taking you to different countries. It is a fair question. So that was one of your other injuries on the trip, which you have also still declared to be a success. There's a big successful trip. but you had like multiple potential trips to the hospital because of falling off bikes and booze ladders and other related things, which is a good transition into, do I need to get some sort of travel insurance for you when we go out to KSRO, our great affiliate in Northern California and Wine Country for the event that we're doing next month? Do we need you like? covered extensively with insurance because you will be in the vicinity of alcohol around the public. Is that something we should consider? I think we'll be fine. As long as I'm, you know, I don't get by somebody with the ladder and you and I are not going to be riding bicycles around Sonoma, are we? Definitely not. You would never go bike riding with me, would you? No. No, I would never go riding anything with you. Certainly not horses. We know how that might end. So I just want to remind everyone if you live in Northern California or want to fly into Northern California and maybe make it a long weekend in wine country, it's absolutely gorgeous. It's May 14th, so we're getting pretty close. We're like, what, two plus weeks away. May 14th is a Thursday night, and so come on out on a Thursday night, and then if you're from out of town, stay through the weekend. We'll be fantastic. It starts at 5 p.m. local, 5 to 7 p.m. We're going to talk. politics and other things it's at the gorgeous paradise ridge winery and you can get your tickets at k s r o dot com it's impossible to miss when you hit their home page their landing page and it's forty dollars per ticket but i also just want to remind people it's not just forty dollars to hear My Pearls of Wisdom, which I think is worth $40, frankly, come, say hi, get a photo, all that stuff. It'd be a lot of fun. But that, crucially, that dollar amount, 40 bucks per ticket, includes two glasses of their delicious wine on property. So it's coming. It's coming soon. Get your tickets now. KSRO.com. Thursday evening, May 14th, 5 p.m. Western time, so Pacific Time.

I got a number of notes from listeners who have bought their tickets and are coming. And a few people were seemingly on the fence, but they wanted to know, is it true that producer Christine, aka Cookie, aka C. Diddy, is indeed coming with me. And I couldn't tell how to answer it. I didn't know what answer they wanted. What do you mean? I want them to come. So if they were concerned that you would be there, I sort of want to be like, oh, we're not sure if she's showing up. But if they wanted you to be there, I wanted to confirm, yes, indeed, she will be joining us. You got some inquiries as well, did you not? I did. Who one lovely, lovely man said that he would be attending, but he wanted to make sure that he could have a glass of wine with me because he remembers the last event. My boss's boss told me that I was not allowed to drink. Right. That was at a brewery in Kansas City with our K-CMO audience. This is now a winery with our Sonoma audience at KSRO. And... The ticket does include two glasses of wine. It has to be 21 plus, by the way. That's the minimum age for attendees for those obvious reasons. But you just want to assure slash threaten the audience that you will indeed be there. I will be there. And everything's going to be fun. And they're telling you that you're not supposed to drink, but you and I both know. Once those corks start popping and you're going to start hoarding drink tickets, I can just imagine it. And by the end of the evening, I mean, we're going to have to pour you into the Uber, not a bicycle. Do you think I'm going to pull Tom Bevin and ask people, you're going to finish that glass of wine over there? I'm not sure if you'll be asking. You might just be sauntering around the event seeing not fully consumed glasses and just knocking them back. I can picture that. So if you want to witness all of this, please come join us, May 14th. Get your tickets now, KSRO.com. Anything else to add cooks? We've got to go. Yeah, do you think that maybe a station could host us if they live near a vodka distillery and we could do something there too? I mean, I'll put that on your plate to figure out. Maybe we could do like a bourbon trail thing in Kentucky. Like, we could just keep doing alcohol-themed station events per your desires. Like, some major event comes to us, some big station. Hey, can you come? And you're like, is there an alcohol facility where this will be held? And if not, the answer is no. That's your gatekeeping. Yeah, I'm just going to say, kids out there, you can make your dreams come true via work. And with that inspirational note, we've got to go. My goodness, back here tomorrow for Guy Benson. Same time, same place. We'll talk to you then. Do you think I'm going to pull Tom Bevin and ask people, you're going to finish that glass of wine over there?

Listen to the show ad-free on Fox News Podcast Plus on Apple Podcasts, Amazon Music with your prime membership, or subscribe wherever you get your podcasts.