Trump’s Peace Plan: Israel Accepts?

What is Toyota affordability? It's buying smart. Your local Toyota dealer has great deals available today on Rav4, Grand Highlander, Camry, and Corolla with the features in style you deserve. It means driving for less, with hybrid and plug-in hybrid options across the lineup, delivering great MPGs. And it means trading for more. Toyota is known for building long-lasting vehicles, meaning your car will hold its value for years to come. Shop Toyota.com to find out more. Toyota, let's go places. Your team just added its 67th AI tool and also your 67th security blind spot. The good news? The Vanta agent works like a GRC engineer in the background, finding every app your team uses, scoring the risk, and drafting fixes for you. Vanta is the platform used by over 16,000 fast-moving companies like Ramp, Cursor, and Harvey, who are shaping the future with AI and staying ahead of AI risk. Get started at Vanta.com. At farmers, our honesty is contagious. Wait, am I going to catch honesty? Well, when you're with farmers, it's kind of inevitable. Well, how long does it take to... I lied to you when you asked if I knew what a deductible was. I don't know my dad's birthday. I thought umbrella policies were for rainstorms. Actual rainstorms. I have it, don't I? You don't just have honesty. You have farmers. Bump, bum, bum, bum, bum. Learn more at farmers.com. Underwritten by Farmer's truck or fire insurance exchanges or affiliate. Products not available in every state.

From the heart of our nation's capital, Washington, D.C., backed by the trusted voices of Team Fox, a clear, fresh voice cutting through the noise to tell the truth. It's Guy Benson with Guy Benson. It is Monday, September 29, 2025, a new broadcast week kicking off here on Guy Benson from New York City. Glad to have you all along for the next three hours, 3 to 6 p.m. Eastern every weekday, then around the clock for free on demand on our podcast. Skybenson Show.com, Fox News Podcast.com, or wherever you get your podcasts. I'm the political editor at townhall.com. That's where my writing appears daily. A Fox News contributor as well. I'll be guest co-hosting the bottom line. at 6 p.m. Eastern time tonight and tomorrow night, here in New York with Dagan McDowell. That's on Fox Business Network coming up after this radio show today. Our lineup on the radio starts with Eli Lake later on this hour. Andy McCarthy will join us as well. Michael Goodwin, New York Post columnist, will be here. U.S. Senator Marsha Blackburn as well as we have a very busy three hours ahead for you. We begin today's program with a Fox News Alert. A brand new peace plan in the Middle East and specifically Gaza, a deal has been unveiled at least the specific outline of a deal, 20 points in length, as released by the White House. President Trump at the White House right now flanked by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as they are holding a joint press conference discussing this U.S. plan, which has the backing of a lot of foreign countries as well, including in the Arab world. And President Trump making the point that with just moments ago the Israelis agreeing to this plan, all it takes is for the terrorists of Hamas to say yes. and then the plan will begin implementation. If Hamas says no, yet again, to a peace plan, then we got this warning from the president moments ago, cut 33. Israel would have my fallback into finish the job of destroying the threat of Hamas. But I hope that we're going to have a deal for peace. And if Hamas rejects the deal, which is always possible, they're the only one left. Everyone else has accepted it. But I have a feeling that we're going to have a positive answer. But if not, as you know, Benjamin Netanyahu, you'd have our full backing to do what you would have to do. Everyone understands that the ultimate result must be the elimination of any danger posed in the region. And the danger is caused by... Hamas. So this is maximum pressure now on Hamas. Or you have the buy-in of a lot of leadership in the region. You have a yes, a public yes from Israel on this 20-point plan from Trump. The only thing that has to happen now is for Hamas to finally say yes. And the war that they started in an explosion of violence on October 7th, two years ago will begin to wind down.

Will Hamas be able to say yes, finally? Unclear. Now, Trump also made the point that if Hamas agrees, then within 72 hours before anything else happens, really, all the hostages get released. Everyone who's still alive and also the remains of those who have died have been killed in Hamas custody. They've been held in captivity against their will since October 7th of two years ago. And step one would be the release of all of these hostages. And unfortunately, the Israelis would have to give up convicted killer prisoners as well from their end. But often in these deals, there are unseemly components, even for the good guys, in this case, Israel and the West. So that press conference. was occurring at the White House literally until seconds ago. Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu thanked the president for his leadership, accepted this offer, as you'll hear here in just a moment, and then outlined some of the main points of what would be historic if Hamas says yes. Again, President Trump, sounding optimistic, as you heard in that soundbite, he said that we are, quote, beyond very close to getting the deal accepted. And right now, it is all up to the remaining leaders, those who have not been liquidated, the remaining leaders of Hamas, to actually agree to this, or not. As the world waits, here's the Israeli Prime Minister from just a few moments ago. Listen in. Mr. President, first, I want to thank you for graciously hosting me once again in the White House. And second, I want to thank you for your friendship. and for your leadership. From Jerusalem to Tehran, from the Golan Heights to Gaza, you've proven time and again what I've said many times. You are the greatest friend that Israel has ever had in the White House. And Mr. President, you and I both know, it's not even close. While you focus at home on making America great again, Your leadership abroad is changing the world for the better, ending wars and advancing peace. I believe that today we're taking a critical step towards both ending the war in Gaza and setting the stage for dramatically advancing peace in the Middle East, and I think beyond the Middle East, in very important Muslim countries. I support your plan to end the war in Gaza, which achieves our war aims. It will bring back to Israel all our hostages, dismantle Hamas's military capabilities, end its political rule, and ensure that Gaza never again poses a threat to Israel. We would not have achieved this turning point.

without the courage and sacrifice of our incredibly brave soldiers. They fight like lions to defend the people of Israel, and they serve on the front line in the war between civilization and barbarism. Mr. President, when our two countries stand shoulder to shoulder We achieve the impossible. Just a few months ago, in Operation Rising Line and Operation Midnight Hammer, we struck a decisive blow against Iran's nuclear and ballistic missile program. Your bold decision to send those B-2s made the region safer and the world safer. We're taking the next step to win the war and expand the peace. Your plan is consistent with the five principles my government set for the end of the war and the day after Hamas. Everybody asks, what is your plan for the day after Hamas? Here's our plan. Pass it in the cabinet. All our hostages, both those who are alive and those who died, all of them. will return home immediately. Hamas will be disarmed. Gaza will be demilitarized. Israel will retain security responsibility, including a security perimeter for the foreseeable future. And lastly, Gaza will have a peaceful civilian administration that is run neither by Hamas nor by the Palestinian Authority. If Hamas agrees to your plan, Mr. President, the first step will be a modest withdrawal followed by the release of all our hostages within 72 hours. The next step will be the establishment of an international body charged with fully disarming Hamas and demilitarizing Gaza. I appreciate your willingness to lead the body, Mr. President. I really appreciate it because you have a lot of things to do, and this is important. And it reflects the confidence that this will give everyone, that things will be followed up on all the commitments made. The fact that you're taking this on, I think helps a lot to make sure that everything flows in the direction that we want. Now, if this international body succeeds, we will have permanently ended the war. Israel will conduct further withdrawals linked to the extent of disarmament and demilitarization. but will remain in the security perimeter for the foreseeable future. I think we should understand that we're giving everybody a chance to have this done peacefully, something that will achieve all our war objectives without any further bloodshed. But if Hamas rejects your plan, Mr. President, or if they supposedly accept it and then... then basically do everything to counter it. Then Israel will finish the job by itself. This can be done the easy way or it can be done the hard way, but it will be done. We prefer the easy way, but it has to be done. All these goals must be achieved because we didn't fight.

This horrible fight sacrificed the finest of our young men to have Hamas stay in Gaza and threaten us again and again and again with these horrific massacres. So that was Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. He went on a bit further from that. But you got the gist of what he was saying, talking about President Trump's leadership there, and then laying out some of the core portions, pillars, really, of this 20-point plan that has been released by the White House. I tweeted this. I retweeted it on my ex-feed or Twitter feed at Guy Benson. You can see it there. It's available at Rapid Response 47 as well. Sort of the White House. Rapid Response Operation, and this has, as I mentioned, buy-in from a number of countries in the region that are not named Israel, right? A number of key Arab states are on board with this. There would be this outside international group that would run Gaza that would be engaged in the peacekeeping and the demilitarization of Gaza. After Hamas, if Hamas, agrees to this. Israel gets all of its hostages back basically immediately, living and dead. Unfortunately, the Israelis also agree to hand over some hardened, convicted terrorists and killers and others as well. Part of that swap. The Israelis would withdraw their troops from almost all of Gaza, but they would keep a buffer zone in place, quote, for the foreseeable future. That's sort of a vague term. But I think what the Israelis realized was whatever border controls and armaments and protections they thought they had before October 7th, clearly were not good enough, given how they were penetrated in short order. by that invading force of terrorists who then killed around 1,200 people and stole hundreds more. So there'd be this buffer zone that Israel would enforce between the new outermost border of Gaza and Israeli territory. And I'm sure we all wish that weren't necessary, but what we saw on October 7th has convinced the Israelis quite rightly that it is necessary. But this would not be an American peacekeeping force. This would not be Israel occupying the Gaza Strip. But there would be this international force and international organization that would not only bring relief to the Palestinian people. but would make sure that Hamas could not come back and continue with its terrorism. So in some ways, this is a losing proposition for Hamas, but this was a war Hamas was always going to lose. They struck a terrible, deadly, evil blow on October 7, 2023 with their slaughter, the worst single day murder of Jews in world history since the Holocaust.

And then they've been losing ever since. Losing on the battlefield, certainly. Losing for the well-being of their people and any semblance of normalcy or thriving in the Gaza Strip, that's the choice that they've made using their civilians. really as hostages unto themselves, using them as human shields, operating out of hospitals and schools and mosques. It is deeply evil. It feels like one of the only places Hamas has won after October 7th is on campuses in the West and in Western streets with anti-Israel, much of it anti-Semitic fanaticism, becoming the number one cause of the global left right now. across the Western world. That has been a bit of a success for Hamas, as has the Palestinian state pandering from some Western leaders, which Hamas has gloated is a fruit, one of the fruits of October 7th. But it's not going to last. Israel's either going to finish the job, as Benjamin Netanyahu said, the hard way by prosecuting this war all the way to a bloody finish with Hamas stamped out or... Hamas can agree to this internationally approved deal, which the Israelis have now agreed to, saying that it's consistent with Israel's war aims and post-war plans, and now the ball once again is in the court of Hamas. Now, they're a genocidal evil terrorist organization, so I'm not sure that they will say yes, but this is an opportunity to get peace and a ceasefire that a lot of people at least claim to want. Your move, Hamas, and if they reject it, pay very close attention to who reacts positively to once again defend Hamas, which consistently has been the obstacle to peace over and over again, not Israel. So that is breaking news from the White House this afternoon as we came on the air, and we brought it to you immediately here on this program. As we get going a new week, it's Monday on Guy Benson. Thanks for tuning in. Don't go anywhere. We'll be right back. Not the same talking points here, Guy Benson. When it's time to scale your business, it's time for Shopify. Get everything you need to grow the way you want, like all the way. Stack more sales with the best converting checkout on the planet. Track your cha-chings from every channel, right in one spot, and turn real-time reporting into big-time opportunities. Take your business to a whole new level. Switch to Shopify. Start your free trial today. I'm Guy Benson, we're back. I saw this tweet from David Axelrod, Obama guru Democratic operative. He tweeted how to introduce use of the military in American cities in three easy steps. One, send large numbers of masked, heavily armed ICE agents to indiscriminately harass citizens and non-citizens alike. Two, foment protests and messy confrontations. Three, announced that troops are needed to protect ice.

So he's trying to say this is this scheme, a big conspiracy employed by Trump to get soldiers all over American cities and you're doing it through these machinations and these manipulations. Except the reason these ice agents are mass is because they're being doxed and attacked and shot at. They're heavily armed because there are people who would like them dead. They are not indiscriminately harassing people. In rare cases, if that happens, they should be held accountable. They are going after illegal immigrants, specifically criminals overwhelmingly. That's the priority. And I would not describe an 800-plus percent increase in violent attacks on ICE, including were just days removed from an anti-ice mass shooting from a leftist. That is not, quote-unquote, messy, David. So if our federal agents and assets are being physically attacked by leftists while they try to do their job to enforce federal law and locals and state officials, they will not protect our people. Then yes, the federal government will. It's their job. It's a dangerous one. What an irresponsible thing to tweet from David Axelrod. Eli Lake is next. Hey, it's Ryan Reynolds here for MintMobil. Now, I was looking for fun ways to tell you that Mint's offer of unlimited premium wireless for $15 a month is back. So I thought it would be fun if we made $15 bills. But it turns out that's very illegal. So there goes my big idea for the commercial. Give it a try at mintmobile.com slash switch. Up from payment of $45 for three months, $90 for six months, or $180 for 12-1 plan required, $15 per month equivalent. Taxes and fees extra. Initial plan term only greater than 50 gigabytes, me slow when network is busy. See terms. Same issues. But with a fresh perspective. Guy Benson. Back here on Guy Benson, Guy Benson.com, podcast always free. Joining us now, Eli Lake, reporter at the free press, host of the Breaking History podcast, contributing editor and commentary at Eli Lake on social. Eli, welcome back. Thanks so much for having me. So we just heard from the president of the United States at the White House alongside the Israeli prime minister about this 20-point plan that Trump has endorsed to... Bring about peace and Gaza and end the war that Hamas started. Israel has agreed to the plan. Benjamin Netanyahu is saying that it's consistent with Israeli war goals and post-war goals. And Trump said there's been consultations with a lot of the other neighbors as well. It all comes down to whether Hamas will agree to it. Here is in a nutshell Benjamin Netanyahu explaining at least some of the major elements of the plan, cut 35. Your plan is consistent with the five principles my government set for the end of the war and the day after Hamas. Everybody asks, what is your plan for the day after Hamas? Here's our plan. Pass it in the cabinet. All our hostages, both those who are alive and those who died, all of them will return home immediately. Hamas will be disarmed.

Gaza will be demilitarized. Israel will retain security responsibility, including a security perimeter for the foreseeable future. And lastly, Gaza will have a peaceful civilian administration that is run neither by Hamas nor by the Palestinian Authority. So, Eli, to be clear, that was a recitation of Israel's plan, their stated goals. And then what happened today was Israel said the plan put forward by President Trump aligns with those goals and satisfies Israel to the extent that they have now given the green light to this. Now all eyes once again turned back to Hamas. I wonder what you make of all this. Well, I mean, I do think this is a little bit of theater because. Both the Trump plan and the Benjamin Netanyahu plan are, in the end of the day, there's no role for Hamas in Gaza, and they would have to relinquish their political power, which they're gripping to, and they'd have to disarm and they'd have to give up their remaining leverage, which are the hostages, which we know that Hamas will not do. So I think it's only kind of a matter of time before Hamas rejects it. What's interesting... is that the propaganda, the disinformation about Gaza has permeated so deeply in Western capitals that Israel has been blamed for the intransigence of Hamas. And so when they reject this offer again, I mean, we'll see how people respond, but I'm not holding my breath at this point. The idea that there is a, you know, UN meeting to discuss recognition of a Palestinian state, you know, my joke is that I think Trump should recognize Wakanda, you know, is, you know, that is a direct reward for October 7th, and that will, you know, steal the spine of... Hamas in this particular situation. So I, you know, applaud Trump and Benjamin Netanyahu for coming up with a plan to try to end the war. I think everybody would like to see the war ended. But wars end when decide, when when when a side is defeated usually. And the tragedy of the last seven wars between Israel and Hamas. is that they haven't, they've ended in ceasefires that then Hamas will violate. So this has got to be for all the marbles. And, you know, you can put that in a statement saying this is what peace would look like, but it's still asking basically for Hamas to sign a surrender document and they have not shown any indication they will. Ghazi Hamad, who is the remaining spokesperson basically for Hamas, he was on CNN. And was asked a question about the very high death toll that is being claimed certainly by Hamas. And many, many of the people within the death toll are actually Hamas terrorists. Often you hear people internationally talk about the death tolls if it's just, you know, women and children being bombed indiscriminately, which is simply untrue. But if you take their number, 65,000 deaths.

which, by the way, is nowhere close to a genocide. Nothing about this is a genocide, but it's just putting a lie to another talking point. But the question was, has the 65,000 death toll? Has that mark? Has that destruction been worth it to Hamas and starting a war and refusing to release hostages and continuing in a protracted way to insist that the war continue? Is it worth it? It was really the thrust of the question from CNN. And then you'll hear the answer from Ghazi Hamad of Hamas. Cut 25. In your view, 65,000 deaths is worth it in order to achieve what you've achieved. Look, I know the price so high. But I'm asking again, what is the issue? I know the price is so high, but I must ask again, what is the option? Eli, it's like it does not occur to these people or their defenders. that not starting the war with a massacre of 1,200 people, not stealing hostages and refusing to return them for two years, not rejecting every ceasefire and peace offer that comes their way. You'd go down the list. Many things couldn't be done differently. The options are plentiful for Hamas, but apparently they feel like none of those options are attractive to them, and therefore the upshot is, yes. all of those deaths of Palestinian people, Hamas fighters and otherwise, are worth it so long as, what, they continue to resist Israel and the occupation or what have you? This reminds me the moment that we're in right now, and it's pathetic, but it reminds me of a... a hilarious bit from 15 years ago that The Onion did, it was sort of early web video, where they had a fake talk show and they featured some 9-11 truthers who were insisting that, you know, Bush brought down the towers and yada, yada, yada, and then they had another guest, which was Al-Qaeda, a representative of Al-Qaeda saying, no, no, no, we did 9-11. For me, the disconnect between the people in Western countries who are in solidarity with Hamas and what Hamas actually says, and they say all the time. Remember, they were not hiding their massacre. They filmed it and put it on telegram. That's what Hamas did. And we have, and that's either. entirely memory holder, or you have very pernicious efforts, you know, particularly from the left to try to tell you that this was, you know, Israel was killing its own people and so forth and so on. And they, and at no point is there kind of a recognition that, you know, the people who are, you know, wearing their cafes and, you know, doing these encampments or whatever they're doing now on campus are in solidarity with fascist butchers.

and that have no interest in peace. And this is no longer just a question of, like, radical college professors, but it's so frustrating guy is it's now, you know, the British foreign office. It's now the president of France. It's now, you know, we have, it's the government of Australia. And Canada. And Canada, yes, our neighbors to the north. So, I mean, my theory on this is that. 20 years ago, I want to credit, by the way, John Podard, is the editor of commentary. 20 years ago. 30 years ago, the conversation on Middle East policy was, well, we can't push Arab leaders to go so far because they have to worry about the Arab street. And the Arab street is, you know, fanatically moved by the plight of the Palestinians. Now the Arab street is in Melbourne and Australia. It's in Paris. It's in London. It's in Toronto and Montreal. And it's in New York City because they're about to elect Zohran Mamdani. So it's like we now have an Arab, we kind of have an Arab street problem. And I'm not making a point about demographics here. What I'm saying is that the potential and the political pressure that especially politicians on the left feel about this particular issue is kind of irrational and leads people to basically, you know, do the opposite of what they claim to be doing. They say they want peace. They're not going to get peace by recognizing a Palestinian state two years after October 7th when Hamas is still holding, you know. hostages, and they can make, say, all the pretty words they want about how, oh, no, our plan is eventually for Hamas to, you know, they'll have to leave power. But that's a fantasy. The only force in the world right now that is trying to end Hamas's stranglehold on Gaza, which is a crime against the Palestinians, as well as a threat to the Israelis, is the Israeli defense forces, the IDF. Those are the only people actually doing something about it. Everyone else is a fraud and a coward. And I just have had it up to hear the diplomatic tsunami that Israel is facing at this moment based on a big lie. I believe that it is a way to appease elements of the populations in these countries that have been hoodwinked and bamboozled by, you know, for some reason. And, you know, listen, let's just say what it is. It's a convenient way. and a respectable way to say that you hate the Jews. This is the new way to do it. Yeah, well, to hate the Jews and in many cases to hate America and Western civilization, right? It's a big group effort in this dirtbag coalition of leftists and Islamists. You mentioned sort of the domestic, quote-unquote, Arab Street problem that Western leaders are now dealing with. It's less of a problem in the United States than it is in some of those other countries, but it's a problem here as well. We played some... Soundbites a few weeks ago of a big conference in Dearborn, Michigan, where some extremely disturbing things were said openly from the stage. Then we just had an event called Arab Khan, this just happened, where there were many panel discussions, and it went about as you might expect. Here was one of the exchanges on stage where someone asked, like the moderator asked the question, do you condemn October 7th?

Not to try to get a real answer from the panel on that, but as a punchline. And they all laughed because I guess they think it's hilarious when Western media will occasionally ask the question about whether Hamas supporters will actually condemn October 7th. They think it's hilarious. And the answer, by the way, is no. Cut 27. This is in America. Do you condemn October 7th? I condemn Israel and the United States and all oppressions and imperial wars. That's what I'll talk about. Very good. That's an easy answer. And I never ever condemn Palestinian resistance and anyone's resistance around the world. Those who are here and who are around the world, write it up. So that's, in America, Eli, do you condemn October 7th was the punchline, like a big, funny question that they all laughed at. The moderator said, just kidding. And then the activist, Israel-hating Islamist woman pipes up and says she condemns Israel and the United States, and she will never condemn, quote-unquote, Palestinian resistance, i.e. Hamas and October 7th. They are affirmatively pro-terrorism. That nonsense woman, that unbelievably, she is a professor, I understand, that woman is no better than the Hamas leader staying in five-star hotels in Doha Qatar. She is delighted to feel a tingle in her leg. in order to, you know, to feel excitement, to feel like she's sort of taking a risk she is not taking as a group of terrorists treat the people they purport to govern as cannon fodder and pawns. It is disgraceful and she should be morally shamed. And anybody who considers themselves to be interested in so-called Palestinian statehood or Palestinian liberation. should be, first, should be angrier than I am. They should say you are a disgrace to our movement. No, but she was applauded. She was applauded because this is what... And of course she was applauded because these people don't want a Palestinian state guy. Right. They don't want a Palestinian state. They want to kill Jews and they want to feel in their ineffectual bourgeois, boring lives of the thrill of the barricades without the real risk of it. There is nothing more pathetic than these people. and they should be mocked and scorned wherever they go in public. I am so tired of pretending that we have to treat this nonsense poison as with some sort of civility. I believe that we need more civility in the Republic right now, but not for this kind of thing. At a certain point, I don't understand why the universities have been hiring people who think like this now for two generations. It's absurd.

And it's a crisis. And I'm just saying this woman is a, it's a sick joke that this is her position and that this is the popular position in so-called Arab Khan. I would point out, I'm pretty sure that this so-auree, this big comfab, is paid for by the government of Qatar, which is another disgrace. There's another example of this, another big applause line at Arab Khan, was a question from the audience put to Medi Hassan, who is a very dishonest, a vile, anti-Semitic, anti-Israel radical, who has some major platform. And the big applause came from a question to him. challenging him and criticizing him for not being explicitly pro Hamas enough. Cut 28. I personally love when you dismantle and, you know, ruin people on television. You have the best points, best facts, easily. But the one thing that makes us the most is when sometimes you start off by saying, I condemn my seventh or I condemn Hamas, and then you go on to your points completely systematic. So, I'm continually saying this directly as a Palestinian, because I know a lot of folks, whether it be here or people that I know personally that are Palestinian, would you ever get to the point, given everything that we've seen, say, look, people like peers in the eyes, and say, no, I do not condemn our resistance, that is the resistance, but resisting for their freedom. And then that got a big round of applause as well. He loves the work Medi Hassan is doing lying about Israel and the Jews, but he's just upset that Medi will sometimes say that he condemns October 7th and Hamas. And the fact that he was mad at Hassan for giving that little tiny, like not even an olive branch. But that little tiny concession, that was used against Medi Hassan in this question. And that got a huge round of applause. Just quickly 30 seconds, Eli, your reaction to that. Mehdi Hassan is a clown. I would not say that he has a major platform. You know, he was kicked off of, what is it, MSNBC. And, I mean, you can't fault him because he, you know what I'm saying? You can't fault him for the ridiculous question, but it just shows like that's what that, that's where the movement is going. Exactly. That's the point. Yeah, that's the point. And like, you know, okay, if Medi Hassan and, you know, all of his. nonsense hyperbole about Israel is not enough for you and you want to go even further. I mean, listen, why don't you just go over there? Go to Gaza, you moron. I'm just like, I'm so sick of this. This is like anti-Western civilization and it's like...

The failure of the Democrats to like just stand up for it and say, what are you doing? By the way, it's related to the Sada Shakur memorials that we're seeing from Chicago Teachers Union and DSA and all this. To a convicted cop killer. Yeah, there's a large element of the left and a growing element of the left that valorizes and embraces violence and terrorism. That's the reality right now, and it seems like the Democrats don't know what to do about it, so they're increasingly embracing it or indulging it. Eli, we've got to leave it there for now. We've gone long. Eli Lake, free press, breaking history podcast, contributing editor at commentary. Thanks, Eli. Thank you, Guy. We'll be right back. Always fresh. Always fair. Guy Benson. Goldbelly's asking, what's the one food you'd fly across the country for? Maine's famous lobster roll, maybe Chicago's iconic deep dish, or Texas's legendary barbecue? Well, you can skip the flight. Goldbelly ships America's most iconic foods straight to your door nationwide. And here's the best part. Right now, they're celebrating National Restaurant Month with $50 off your first order. That's $50. It won't last forever. Order now on goldbelly.com.

Back here on Guy Benson, our friend Tom Bevin at Real Clear Politics with this catch, Time Magazine, which used to be like a very prestigious respected publication. I guess it still exists. But Time Magazine published a piece this morning that said the motives of the suspect in Charlie Kirk's killing are, quote, not yet being made clear. That's Time Magazine. We still don't know what motivated Charlie Kirk's killing. It's just a mystery. That's Time Magazine, not a few weeks ago. Today, they published that. We know what the motive was. It was left-wing hate from a leftist. All of the evidence shows it. This is Jimmy Kimmel's misinformation problem, too. This has taken deep root on the left. What a problem. Another hour coming up on Guy Benson. A new generation of conservative talk. Right here, right now. Fair, fun, and backed by the trusted voices and reporting resources of Fox News. Fox News. You're listening to Guy Benson. And now here's your host, Guy Benson.

It's a new hour here on Guy Benson from New York City today. Thanks for listening. Guy Benson.com is our website. The podcast is free every day on demand when the show is over just after 6 p.m. Eastern, which is what I will be on the bottom line. Co-hosting with Dagan McDowell, 6 to 7 Eastern Time, Fox Business Network this evening. Fox News Alert as we enter this middle hour, the Dow in the green today, up modestly, up 68 points at the close. The Dow finishing the day at 46,316. Some very good GDP numbers that were revised upward late last week, which at least shows one element, big one of the U.S. economy looking healthier than expected. So a lot of dissonance in the economic numbers, but today the Dow up a bit. Joining us now is Andrew McCarthy. Andy is a Fox News contributor, a longtime federal prosecutor, a best-selling author, at Andrew C. McCarthy on social media. Andy, welcome back to the show. Guy, great to be with you. I will not torture you by asking you. about the New York Metropolitan's and the demise of their season. I'll just say I honestly did not realize they were in any danger of not making the playoffs until very late in the season. I just assumed they were in with all the talent and they were playing really well earlier in the year. I do not relish the collapse. I don't really have a big problem with the Mets. I'm just sort of astounded that it happened. You must not be, though. I feel like seasoned Mets fans often brace for bad things. Well, yeah, they were over the last 90 games, they were, I think there were only four teams, maybe three in the big leagues that had worse records after they were 24 games over 500 at one point. That's probably when I tuned out, assuming that they were a lock for the playoffs. Yeah, yeah. I just think, you know, to put together a $340 million team and forget the part about starting pitching just seems like. Probably not the right way to go. Okay. Fair enough. There's always next year. And look, I'm a Yankee fan. We'll see what happens. My positive vibes are somewhat high because they've been ending the season strong, but I still have my doubts. We'll see. Hey. Go ahead. Look, you get to play them at home. You know, three weeks ago would have looked like the Red Sox were going to be the host. So that's a nice turnaround. That's in the Bronx. So go yanks. We'll see what happens. Andy, I want to get your take on this indictment of James Comey, the former FBI director. And I was actually a guest on my own show last Friday because of a lot of TV obligations. And I talked about it a little bit briefly. You're the lawyer. You're the prosecutor. I'm not. I know you've been very critical. of this indictment. It does seem to be like pretty sloppy and thin in a lot of ways. On the other hand, it does seem like James Comey has been a very dishonest person and arguably, very arguably dishonest under oath as well. And I think a lot of conservatives and Trump fans just think to themselves, you know, they came after Trump on the thinnest of reeds.

They were willing to do whatever it took to throw indictments at someone they disliked. So, you know, why should James Comey or anyone else be exempt from that kind of treatment as well? Walk us through at least part one, the nuts and bolts of the indictment and why, at least so far, you think it looks weak. Well, just to react to your last point, though, Guy, I think that obviously if the objective was just to indict him, then the indictment succeeds because in law there... The process is the punishment. Right, right. So, you know, if that's what they want, I just, I can't go there. I just think that that's the worst thing that we could possibly be. Very unhealthy. It's very unhealthy. But we can come back to that. But let's go to the law. Let's go to the law. So the problem is not, I think people misunderstand this. And in part, this is because of the president's rhetoric. Because I think if you take people who. Not that the indictment is very enlightening. It's written in a very incoherent way. It's hard to follow. You need to understand who the person one is and the person three is and all that jazz. But I think the way the president talks about it, he talks in terms of Russia Gate and the leaking of James Comey's memos, which we know he orchestrated. which were the memos about his conversations with President Trump in the first term. And people hear that, and then they see, you know, somebody like me saying, this is a ridiculous indictment. And the reaction is, so you're fine with James Comey doing what he did in Russiagate and, you know, lying about it? Yeah. And I think the thing is, If that was what the indictment was about, if there was something actionable and all that, nobody would – nobody sensible would complain about that. But if you're going to – when you're going to indict him, you have to read what they've actually charged him with. And when you read that, you see that there's no case because – They were desperate enough to indict James Comey that they needed to get something in that 2020 testimony that reached back to the time that Trump is going after him over, which is like 2016, 2017. And as a result, and that's because of the statute of limitations, you know, the five years which runs tomorrow. Wait, so hang on. Can I ask you a question? Yeah, of course. If the statute of limitations has run its course here, which is why they were maybe grasping its straws to get it more recently to tie it back to that, is that, are you suggesting that James Comey was more dead to rights on lying under oath?

prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations? Like, was there a strong case against him a number of years ago? I never thought there was a strong case against James Comey for two reasons. One is, and President Trump should realize this, but I think he thinks the Supreme Court decision about immunity only covers presidents and nobody else. But when you're dealing with government officials who abuse their powers, unless they commit something like bribery, they're going to have immunity from prosecution for judgment calls that they make, even if they're appalling judgments, using their own power. So a lot of the stuff that James Comey did with respect to Russiagate is along those lines. I think the one place where they had him, where they could have brought an indictment, Attorney General Barr decided not to bring the indictment. And I think he was right about that because I think James Comey would have beaten it. And that's when James Comey leaked his memos of conversations with Trump through Professor Dan Richmond. He was the nexus between James Comey and the New York Times. Columbia professor. Correct. And I should disclose, a friend of mine from the U.S. Attorney's Office for about four years. We started out together. So take that for what it's worth. But the FBI afterwards decided, even though James Comey had tried not to put classified information in those memos, that at least two pieces of information in the memos were classified at a low level. So Barr could have... indicted him for transferring classified information. I think he thought, and I think he was right about this, that the case was a loser because there was enough evidence in the memos that James Comey wasn't trying to put, he was trying not to put classified information. Okay. And I'm willing to buy that, and I think Barr is a smart guy and a reasonable person, and we've had him on the show. I don't disagree with you on that. But hasn't James Comey, I'm trying to figure out how to phrase this, at best? been extremely misleading about his role in the leak, if not openly lying about it. I mean, it does seem like the guy has been dishonest. And I think a lot of people are frustrated saying, like, they can figure out ways to get all these indictments against people that they don't like. And then people that they do like, you know, all of a sudden it's like, oh, well, you know, you got to dot every eye, cross every T. And it's, it's very abusive if the president's saying he wants this. And like, I. Like, I actually share some of those concerns. I just think it's hard for a lot of conservatives to stomach any of these process or even principled concerns from the left, given their behavior and actions against Trump and his coterie for years. See what I'm saying? Yeah, I totally agree with that. But, you know, the thing, the ultimate logic of that position is that we would have to say it's okay for us to do Alvin Bragg type things. to achieve those objectives. And that is the position of some on the right. So I actually want to go into that just a little bit here, Andy. We have a few minutes left. Some people on the right argue, and I don't agree with them, but I'm at least sympathetic, kind of the point, which is if the left is going to abuse its power constantly to target its political enemies and they do it with impunity and nothing ever happens to them, perhaps the only way.

To deal with that is to fight fire with fire and say if this is what you're going to do, if this is how are you going to use your power and abuse it, then when the shoe's on the other foot, guess what? We're going to abuse it right back and it's coming for you. And if you don't do that, then it's one side unilaterally disarming. That's the case that's being made. I get it. I feel a lot of that frustration. I think it's ultimately unhealthy for the country, but how would you address that point? Because I think a lot of like sort of instinctively, or at least in their id, A lot of conservatives are like, yeah, you know, fire with fire. We got to do it. They only understand power. What's your response to that? That I think their definition of impunity needs mending because we're only having this conversation because Trump is president. And the reason Trump is president is because of all the garbage that they pulled in the way of lawfare, among other things, when he wasn't president. So the fact that they went after Trump hammer and tongue in a way that frightened people because they understood from watching it that if they can do it to a politically powerful business titan, they could do it to anybody. That meant that a lot of people in the country who weren't particularly fond of Trump were nevertheless willing to vote for him in order to keep those dangerous people out of office. And I think President Trump seemed to understand that before and around the time he got elected when he said my retribution is winning and being a good president. He was right about that. If he's going to play the same game that the other side played, and you know with Trump, you know, Biden, when he did this kind of stuff, felt like he had to deny that he was doing it, even as he did it. Trump is not that way. Trump is just, you know, he's been doing it blaring what he's doing. But if you play that game, you're going to get the same results. And that's exactly what's going to happen. This frightens people because we need to have. the rule of law with equal protection under the law in order to have a legitimate legal system on which the flourishing of our free society depends. Yeah, or else we're in big trouble collectively. I think that's wise. We'll continue this conversation soon, Andy McCarthy. Thanks so much for your time. We'll be right back after this. Starting a business can seem like a daunting task unless you have a partner like Shopify. They have the tools you need to start and grow your business. From designing a website to marketing to selling and beyond, Shopify can help with everything you need. There's a reason millions of companies like Mattel, Heinz, and all birds continue to trust and use them. With Shopify on your side, turn your big business idea into... Sign up for your $1 per month trial at Shopify.com slash special offer.

I'm Guy Benson, welcome back. We've talked a bit about the races in New Jersey and in Virginia recently. And just one other note out of Virginia, this is the gubernatorial race, where Abigail Spanberger just doesn't want to answer questions of any real import when it comes to some of these gender identity experimentation issues. She has adopted a new talking point. This is in her stump speech. where she tells her supporters to, quote, let your rage fuel you. I'm just not really sure if fueled by rage is exactly the moment that we're in right now. I'm not sure if that's the message you want to give, especially on the left, given all of the raged-filled violent acts being committed. that they keep telling us, oh, we've got to turn down the temperature. That might start with like a leading governor candidate, not adopting the slogan, let your rage fuel you. And even as she says it, I've watched it now a few different videos, it's not like it inspires the audiences in front of her. These are snooze-fast rallies. She is still the favorite to win for sure, but there is not a lot of... thrill or excitement around Abigail Spanberger, who wants to get a microphone and tell all of her supporters to ride that rage like a rocket ship, but then run away from questions about whether or not boys should be competing against girls in sports. And some of these locker room controversies, she... Is on the wrong side of this in terms of public opinion. I think she knows that she's on the 20, 25% side of a lopsided issue. But she doesn't want to really anger the activists with whom she agrees by denouncing them or pretending to. But she doesn't really want to alienate or concern the vast majority of Virginians saying, oh, wait, maybe she isn't this moderate. She's pretending to be. So the answer is word salads and silence. including on a story that is just new, it's not the Loudoun story of the boys getting in trouble for complaining that there was a girl in their locker room, a trans student, identifying as a male, but is a female, who secretly filmed these boys without their knowledge in a locker room, which is a violation of their privacy and school policy and arguably the law as well. They suspended the boys. for their misgendering and their bullying, supposedly, of this girl. That's Loudoun County. There's a separate controversy in Arlington County involving a sex offender, convicted child sex offender, who was just naked and worse in a girl's locker room in front of girls. And this was the Arlington County policy. Couldn't do anything about it. That's a big one. And then the latest one in Fairfax County, we're hitting the trifecta, really of these affected counties, Alexandria being the fourth deep, deep blue northern Virginia County. But in Fairfax, there was a young girl, a freshman in high school out there.

who had a trans-identifying student who was staring at her and other girls, ogling them as they changed in their girls' locker room. And apparently this supposedly trans student just has like full facial hair, just watching them as they change. And so she expressed her concern. The school responded that there was nothing they could do because the policy is he, identifying as she, can just be wherever they want to be. Even if it just means like staring very creepily at these young teenage girls as they change, then the parents got involved and they were reportedly told that the girls could change faster, change their clothes a little faster, or go somewhere else to change, all to accommodate this one person. And what's so sick about it, among many other things, including the obvious, is I said almost half jokingly, but only half jokingly, to a friend, this girl better be careful about complaining about this boy, this bearded boy watching her change, because if she complains too loudly, maybe she'll get suspended. Maybe she'll be accused of harassment and bullying, and they will put that on her permanent record as a mark against her. That's what was done in Loudoun to the boys. That is how upside down it is. Especially in these Virginia counties, for some reason, northern Virginia, it is ground zero of this madness. Glenn Youngkin, the popular governor who can't run for re-election, he's fighting against it. Winsome Earle-Sears, the Republican nominee for governor, she's highlighting it. Will that be enough to get the attention of voters to potentially make this election closer than it currently is? I don't know. Abigail Spanberger is just saying affordability, no questions, please, run away. Maybe blue voters in blue tinted Virginia will think that's good enough. But maybe parents won't. It would be great if she answered questions about it, which she is doing everything in her power to avoid, which I think is also revealing. We will cover it here. On Guy Benson, we'll be right back. Cheers to America's 250th birthday. Get 20% off your first purchase at Fox Newswinshop.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 older to order. Please drink responsibly. Guy Benson, sponsored by Previgin. Previgin, made for your brain. We are halfway through Guy Benson on this Monday from New York City. Thank you for tuning in, Guy Benson.com. Podcast always free when the show is over. With us now is New York Post columnist Michael Goodwin. Michael, welcome back. Thank you, Guy. All right. So over the weekend, an update in the mayor race here in the Big Apple. I know this is a national story for all sorts of reasons. And so some of the twists and turns of that campaign are getting that national attention. The incumbent Eric Adams, who was running as an independent in this race, has dropped out, withdrawn. What's the significance there in your mind? Well, Eric Adams was running forth in a field of four.

So he was not going to win. And his standing had not really improved. So I think the, you know, he's got roughly, say, let's say 10% of the vote so far. And if he were to endorse. one of the remaining candidates, of course, that would be a boost to that candidate. He's obviously no fan of the frontrunners, Aran Zohran Mamdani, the socialist Democrat. And I think that my conversation with the mayor, he is now casting about trying to decide whether he will endorse one of the other two candidates. And so I suspect we'll know very soon because the race is really taking shape. Zohran Mamdani has been building his lead. He won the Democratic primary. But Andrew Cuomo has not really cut into it, nor has the Republican Curtis Sliwa, nor, of course, did Adams. So you've really got three against one if one of the three drops out, as Adams has. you then have two against one. I continue to believe that it's only possible to defeat Zohran Mamdani if there is just one candidate against him, because otherwise you're dividing the anti-Zohran Mamdani vote. I mean, he's clearly the straw stirring the drink in this election. I saw Curtis Sliwa, the Republican, just down the hall earlier today, and under many, many circumstances, I would be supportive of him because I agree with him on many issues. I think he is far better than Zohran Mamdani or certainly Andrew Cuomo, who I find repellent. That being said... As you've noted, if it's a two-on-one race, no longer three-on-one because Adams is out, but if it becomes a two-on-one race, the advantage remains significantly with the frontrunner in Zohran Mamdani. Curtis Sliwa has said he's not going anywhere. He is in third place in a lot of these polls. Andrew Cuomo in second place, but not really moving very much. Do you think it remains a two-on-one situation or might someone else get out here at some point? There's no indication that either Andrew Cuomo or Curtis Sliwa is going to get out. Adams endorses one of them, which I believe he will. It's more likely to be Andrew Cuomo. Adams and Curtis Sliwa ran against each other four years ago, and Adams won handily, basically 70 to 30, over Curtis Sliwa in the 21 election. So, Andrew Cuomo and Adams are both Democrats, although neither is the Democratic nominee in this race. I do think that Adams, despite

his relatively poor showing, especially for an incumbent, his endorsement will mean something. given the assumption that the person who gets it runs a good, strong campaign and can build on it. It's not going to be enough in and of itself, but if it's a momentum changer, that could make the difference so that one of the two running against Zohran Mamdani could pull ahead. I mean, all along it's been clear to me, Guy, that Andrew Cuomo had the best chance of that because... He did run in the Democratic primary. He got 44% of the vote against Zohran Mamdani. And Eric Adams did not run in the primary, although he's the Democrat because he knew he would lose. And there were a group of other Democrats who all ran in law. So I think Andrew Cuomo still has, his name still means something, the family name, his own experience as governor. And the fact that he does very well among black voters. If Adams were to endorse him as the city's second black mayor, that could make a difference among a substantial voting bloc. And Andrew Cuomo, as I say, Andrew Cuomo's name already brings him something. So all the polls show him running pretty comfortably ahead of Curtis Sliwa. It looks like Zohran Mamdani has been sort of pandering to Curtis Sliwa voters trying to cajole, not that he needs it necessarily, but to cajole the Republican to stay in the race. He's saying, look, I don't agree with Curtis Sliwa on much. I saw this is on social media. But we both agree that Eric Adams and Andrew Cuomo are corrupt and we need a non-corrupt leader of New York City. I mean, that seems like pretty naked. political maneuvering, right? He's sort of blowing kisses at Curtis Sliwa. The guy who he disagrees with most, because he's trying to find this common ground, I don't think it's terribly subtle what he's doing there. No, not at all. I think he is, as you say, trying to appeal to a different constituency other than the young, hardcore leftist who made him the Democratic nominee. You know, it's worth noting, too, that there are roughly... There are roughly a million of registered voters in New York City who are unaffiliated, who, of course, haven't voted yet at all. And many of them are under 40 years old, which is the core Zohran Mamdani cohort. So that remains a problem, I think, for the other candidates. How do you tap into that big, deep well of voters? who haven't expressed an opinion yet by voting and uh... or that they're not members of either party so sensibly they don't have any a horse in the race yet but uh... this this is a main group a large group of voters and what they're going to do is really one of the mysteries that i think all the campaigns are trying to figure out

By the way, if that was Eric Adams calling you to tell you about an endorsement, you can take that call and then let us know immediately. Sorry. No, all good. That was earlier, by the way. I did speak to him earlier. Yeah, he was calling you back. So there was this moment. I just saw this yesterday, a reporter asking Zohran Mamdani about... Hamas and Gaza, this is a huge issue from Zohran Mamdani. He is part of this pro-Hamas hate mob. And I don't know what else to call it other than that because he has refused to denounce globalize the Intifada, which is an explicitly really genocidal, a terrorism slogan that a lot of his supporters have embraced. He... is a leading figure within that violent movement, sort of putting a smiling, grinning face on a very ugly movement and agenda. He was asked by a reporter if he would, Zohran Mamdani, condemn Hamas. The Islamist terrorist organization that slaughtered 1,200 people on October 7th. We're getting close to the two-year anniversary of that attack. And here was the question from that reporter cut one. Some New Yorkers say that they don't hear you as often. condemn Hamas or talk about bringing the hostages home so today do you agree with Mr. Benjamin Netanyahu's statement that Hamas is a terror organization that needs to be destroyed and if you could speak the way he did on loudspeakers today to the 20 living hostages what would your message be okay so basically will you condemn Hamas and do you agree with Benjamin Netanyahu that it's a terrorist organization that must be destroyed? And if you could speak to the remaining hostages who are still being held in these dungeons by Hamas, those Israeli hostages, what would you say to them? Here's how Zohran Mamdani began his answer in cut to. I am not going to echo the words of Benjamin Netanyahu. I can, however, share my own words and say them right here, which is that... My politics is built on a universality, and I can think of no better illustration of that than from the words of the hostage families themselves. Everyone for everyone. It is something that they have said for months. It is something that they have called for in not only understanding that those hostages must be released, but that this is intertwined with the end of this genocide. He went on for quite some time, Michael, where he took a lot of shots at Israel and attacked Benjamin Netanyahu and claimed that the Israeli leader was using the hostages to continue the war, which Hamas started, by the way. And he went on and on, attacked Eric Adams for complimenting Benjamin Netanyahu. The question was about condemning Hamas and his message to the hostages. And he spent almost all of his answer condemning...

Israel. He never condemned Hamas in the answer. And he basically said, well, you know, we want to make sure that all the hostages get out on both sides. I'm paraphrasing. And that is, as you heard, they're intertwined, quote unquote, with the end of this genocide while Michael, he tried to speak for the families of the hostages, which takes some, you might say, Hutzpah, your reaction to what was included in Zohran Mamdani's answer and what was. very clearly excluded from his answer. Well, it's consistent, and I think that's the tragic thing here, that should he become the mayor of New York, I believe and have said repeatedly that he's an anti-Semite. I mean, if you can't condemn Hamas, if you have ever said globalized the intifada, he said that he would arrest Benjamin Netanyahu or the International Criminal Court. warrant. He would exercise that if Benjamin Netanyahu came to New York while he was mayor. He's a socialist. He doesn't believe in capitalism, although his family is quite wealthy, thanks to the ruling family of Qatar, apparently.

That's just fine for him, but for others, you're just going to have to pay more taxes and town on government to give you more free stuff. We're going to empty the largest jail, Rikers Island. We're going to have free buses. We're going to have government-run grocery stores. And we're going to decriminalize prostitution. And we're going to decriminalize most misdemeanor crimes, such as shoplifting, things like that. So this is a wrecking ball, disguised as a nice kind of happy-go-lucky young man. He does have campaigning skills, but his ideas are extremely dangerous. And I have to say, Eric Adams, whatever he does next in terms of endorsements, is very much committed to making the case against Zohran Mamdani. I mean, to hear Adams talk about Zohran Mamdani and the Democratic Socialists of America, he says they hate our way of life. They are not patriots. They hate families. He sounds very much like a middle American who has... seeing the light about the far, far left. And I think Adams can be pretty effective perhaps as a surrogate for the person he endorses because he clearly has a following, but he speaks incredibly powerfully and direct. about the dangers of a Zohran Mamdani mayoralty, and he thinks there's a lot of people who are underestimating the damage that a mayor can do. He says the mayor's position in the state constitution, in the city's charter, is a very powerful position. It has a lot of things it can do unilaterally. Yes, there's a city council, and of course there's a state legislature, but he is very concerned that people are underestimating. the amount of danger Zohran Mamdani can do. And he is wholesale committed to stopping that. And I think he's going to make a choice about endorsing one of the other candidates based largely on who he believes has the best plan to defeat Zohran Mamdani and who can make the argument the best. That is his cause right now, defeating Zohran Mamdani. You mentioned Globalize the Intifada, and I think it's just important to underscore again. Intifada. as has been practiced by terrorists in recent decades, is the act of murdering Jews. That's what it is. So when you call for globalizing the Intifada, that means spreading that around the world. And we've seen that here in the United States in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania, in Boulder, Colorado, in Washington, D.C., allegedly recently, in New Hampshire as well, people taking up this violent Palestinian cause. and murdering people as a result, or at least attempting to. That is globalizing the Intifada. That is the rallying cry of this violent movement. And it's something that Zohran Mamdani has refused to condemn because these are his people. Finally, Michael, I'm not sure if you saw this, but one of the top lieutenants to Randy Weingarten.

who is one of the top union bosses, teachers union bosses in the country, a really toxic figure in my mind. But apparently in internal conversations that have leaked, one of the top advisors or lieutenants to Weingarten has expressed concerns about Zohran Mamdani's ability to actually govern in a place like New York City. He's never run anything in his life. Now he wants to run the biggest city in the country. And they're in damage control mode because they are saying things differently publicly where they are very much on board for socialism and all the radicalism. Whereas privately, it seems like there are misgivings that now they are running away from and seem embarrassed that they've seen the light of day, that the public is now aware of this. Is that insight significant to you? We have a little more than a month until Election Day, even less with early voting. But I think when Democrats see the light about this, I think they should speak up. You know, Guy, I think that's been one of the problems with the National Democratic Party is that they tolerated Ilhan Omar and Rashida Tlaib when they're what I call the anti-Semitic caucus in the Democratic Party. And that caucus is growing. as a result. And I think the leaders of the party dropped the ball. And so when you have ordinary Democrats calling this kind of stuff out, I think it's progress. I think it's a good thing. It's come, it hasn't come often enough in New York on Zohran Mamdani. I mean, Chuck Schumer hasn't said anything. Hakeem Jeffries, the two leading Democrats in Washington, both from Brooklyn, neither one has said a word. uh, condemning Zohran Mamdani for any of his, any of his language, any of his policies. So I think that the Democratic Party must begin to fight this, this poison that's coming in through the socialist or they're going to find themselves swamp by it. Yeah, I mean, I think he's a communist. I think he's a smiling. bigoted communist, but he's the parties smiling bigoted communist. So either they're embracing him like Kathy Hochul or they're just kind of bearing it and moving forward and not speaking out against him because their base loves him and selected him to be their standard bearer in New York City. Michael Goodwin, New York Post columnist here on Guy Benson. Michael, thank you. Always a pleasure. Thank you, Guy. We'll be right back. A fresh perspective on the topics of the day. It's Guy Benson. As I mentioned yesterday, the FBI is investigating this as an act of targeted violence, and we are continuing to work to determine a motive. Back on Guy Benson, FBI official today in Michigan. announcing what many of us suspected this shooting yesterday at a church, LDS, Mormon Church in Michigan, was in fact targeted specifically, but they don't have an exact motive yet. It is horrifying to see what happened. Four people killed in that attack. The place burned down. The attacker was shot dead by authorities, so he was neutralized on site. An ex-Marine, apparently. Absolutely senseless and disgusting and evil.

We don't know why he did it. Maybe we will find out we need to know. I did see a prominent Democrat Eric Swalwell sharing on social media a doctored image of the shooter with a Trump shirt. It's not real. That is a very reckless thing for a congressman to do, but that's what Eric Swalwell did today. Our thoughts are with everyone in that community, especially in that congregation, and to my Mormon LDS friends around the country, some of the nicest human beings you will ever meet. This is frightening for them. I know the leader of their church just recently passed away as well. We just want to comfort you and stand with you in a very difficult time. Final hour of Guy Benson coming up next. U.S. Senator Marsha Blackburn will be here when we come back. 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 on this Monday. Guy Benson.com is our website. The podcast is free every day on demand. No charge at all. Guy Benson.com, Fox Newspodcast.com, or wherever you get your podcasts. This radio hour is sponsored by the Finnish long drink, which is delicious, very refreshing. was hanging out with one of my buddies who started the long drink over the weekend. Doing really well because of many of you. Thelongdrink.com for more info. You can see where it's sold near you. Thelongdrink.com. 21 plus only please drink responsibly. Tune in in the next hour. Top of the 6 p.m. hour eastern time to the bottom line. Fox Business Network. I will be co-hosting that show tonight and tomorrow with the great Dagan McDowell. Well, here on the radio, joining us now is U.S. Senator Marsha Blackburn, a Republican of Tennessee. Senator, welcome back to the show. I'm delighted to join you. Thank you so much. So I want to start with a conversation about this government partial shutdown that appears to be barreling in our direction. The countdown is on. The Democrats have made it seemingly pretty clear that they are... perfectly eager actually to shut down the government because they have a bunch of demands that are unrealistic. The Republicans in the House have passed a clean funding bill, which is what Democrats usually insist upon in these fights. They've gotten that, but the Democrats are saying, no, we want more. So it looks like a shutdown is coming. As you view this showdown, what do voters need to know? What they need to know is the Democrat demands are really ridiculous. They are wanting a commitment on $1.5 trillion in additional spending in order to have a clean CR that gets us to November 21st. Now, that would allow us to go through the rest of our appropriations bills and move to an actual budget and get off a CR. But, Guy, they don't want that. They want to shut down the government. in order to get all of this additional spending. What we know is Democrats have learned absolutely nothing from last November's election when Donald Trump got a mandate. And it was not only the electoral college, it was the popular vote in the American people, said, let's do a few simple things. Let's get crime under control. Let's get the border under control. Let's rebuild our military, and let's stop this ridiculous out-of-control spending. Well, the Democrats have gone so far left. They think it's nothing to ask for an additional $1.5 trillion in spending. I don't know who they think is going to pay for it. And the American people are just stunned that they would ask for such an astronomical number.

I want to read to you, Senator, a comment from former President Barack Obama. He tweeted yesterday about this battle and the looming shutdown, the Chuck Schumer shut down, because it would be on the Democrats. This is a choice that they're making. The Republicans are not the ones precipitating this. It is absolutely unequivocally the Democrats who are pursuing this strategy. I think because their base wants a fight. They don't care if it's a winnable fight and what actually happens. This is just an opportunity for Chuck Schumer to signal to his people. Oh, look, I'm not rolling over. I'm resisting Trump. All right, I mean, good luck with that. But Barack Obama apparently has decided that he's on board with this strategy. He tweeted Republicans would rather shut down the government than help millions of Americans afford health care. Now, setting aside the reality that part of that is taxpayer-funded health care for illegal immigrants, not Americans. We can just put that off to the side. I seem to remember, and you might recall this too from your time in the House, Senator, back in 2013, when your party, the Republican Party, precipitated a government shutdown over health care policy, while Democrats were just saying, let's keep it only on funding the government. Let's not muddy the waters with any health care. This was then President Obama's position on that gambit, cut 11. At midnight last night, for the first time in 17 years, Republicans in Congress chose to shut down the federal government. Let me be more specific. One faction of one party in one House of Congress, in one branch of government, shut down major parts of the government, all because they didn't like one law. So once again, I urge House Republicans to reopen the government. restart the services Americans depend on and allow the public servants who have been sent home to return to work. It's only going to happen when Republicans realize they don't get to hold the entire economy hostage over ideological demands. They don't get to hold the entire economy hostage over ideological demands. He was talking about that Obamacare fight, which ended up not going well for Republicans. He was indignant about it at the time, saying you can't shut down the government over this. You can't hold the economy hostage, all these workers, et cetera. Now, Senator, he's on the other side of this. He's saying, actually, yes, the Democrats should hold the entire economy hostage over their ideological health care demands. I find that interesting, don't you?

I find it so very interesting. And as you said, a lot of it, they're trying to make it a fight over health care. But as you said, a big part of this is they want to be able to continue to provide health care to those illegally in the country and have you, the hardworking taxpayer, pay for what they want for their sanctuary cities, big blue cities, and states like California. Now, what we are saying and what Republicans are saying is, hey, let's take a look at these enhanced premium support payments. that are there on Obamacare. And those cost about $350 billion. Well, the enhanced premium support is something that went into place when we had the American Rescue Plan during COVID. They were to be there for about a year and a half to help people through the pandemic. Temporary. Well, temporary. And then in the Inflation Reduction Act, the Democrats said, oh, let's extend this temporary program to 2025. Now they want to make it permanent. And as I said, the enhanced premium, not the premium support, but the enhancement portion is $350 billion. And what we're saying is it's time to get the fiscal house in order. When you've got $36 trillion in debt, you have to do something to begin to curb the spending and getting rid of some things that are temporary by design and focusing on basics might be a really smart step to take. This is why so many conservatives are... often skeptical and suspicious of temporary deals, temporary benefits, because often the people who always want to spend more and expand government and tax more, they take temporary wins and try to then bulldoze them into permanent. political victories and therefore so much more spending which has to get paid for by someone namely us the taxpayers are borrowed money which is a huge problem with with our national debt of course i think what president trump's been saying is look we're happy to have a conversation about this health care policy but it can't be part of the conversation when it comes to shutting down the government we're just going to fund the government in this flat, clean way, which is what the Democrats almost always demand, except these days, right? They're now adopting basically the mirror image of the Republican position in 2013, which all the Democrats and the whole media condemned as this, you know, arson behavior, hostage-taking behavior is what it was called over and over again. They were dead set against it. There's the height of recklessness. It's not how you run a government. And now they are doing it.

themselves, and I just wonder, do they have an end game here? Are they okay with a bunch of federal employees getting furloughed or maybe positions eliminated? Is there a plan beyond let's fight and resist for a while to tell our people that we did it? And it would appear they have no plan. And as Newt Gingrich would say, there are 80-20 issues. And the Democrats have chosen the wrong side of every 80-20 issue. And this is another one of them because there is not a win for them in having a shutdown because we already know the Office of Management and Budget is planning to completely remove some positions from the Federal Register if we go into a shutdown. And they have the guidance over the executive branch. And, of course, they have the ability to eliminate some positions and really kind of skinny up the federal government. So if that's what the Democrats want to see, then go ahead with the shutdown. If instead, they would like to come to the table, pass this. CR, clean CR, continue to work on our appropriations bills where they actually can have a say in what the government is going to spend, then I would encourage them to do that. We have 53 Republican votes. We need 60 votes in order to get cloture and proceed to the document, which we can. pass the CR with 51 vote. So I would encourage the Democrats to grow a little backbone and to stand up to what Chuck Schumer and the radical left is wanting to do and to avoid the shutdown. Yeah, which they have said is their highest priority when it comes to government funding battles for a long time. Avoiding a shutdown is, or at least was. the overarching Democrat priority. So what you're asking them to do is not even growing a backbone. It's like, hey, will you guys simply say yes to the thing that you always demand? They are being offered their own demand, and they're saying, no, we want more, right? It's sort of amazing. That's right. That's right. These are budget numbers they've already voted in support us. Right. Right. It's the previous levels. Yeah. You've got to mention that, of course. These are very inconvenient facts and reminders from the Democrats' perspective. Marsha Blackburn, standby. When we come back, I want to turn to a few other major issues around the country, including in your neck of the woods. That's next. New talk for a new generation, Guy Benson. We're back on Guy Benson with U.S. Senator Marsha Blackburn. I want to turn to this in your home state of Tennessee. President Trump talking about the National Guard going into the city of Memphis, right? We've seen it in Washington, D.C., with a lot.

And you've been arguing in the last couple of days that it's more urgent than ever to take that up and support legislation like that in light of what happened last week in Dallas, the terrible shooting from an anti-ice left-wing extremist trying to target and murder ICE officers. He ended up murdering detainees by accident. But he was trying to kill ICE. He left a note behind saying he wanted to instill terror in the hearts of ICE officers. He apparently was obsessed with the Charlie Kirk shooting video. This was another example of left-wing violence. In this case, targeting federal law enforcement, which we're seeing across the country. I mentioned Portland. That's another example of it. Tell us about your legislation and how it plays into this. Yes, and this is something that I drafted once we had our Nashville mayor's office. begin to out and docks law enforcement, federal law enforcement. And we realize that ICE and federal law enforcement are not in the covered persons list unless they are working undercover. And we said, hey, wait a minute. This needs to be when they are in full rule of law full stop. period. They need to be protected. So we have this legislation. We are moving it through the Judiciary Committee. It should be a criminal act to docks any of these law enforcement officers. And with the Dallas case, you know, guys, this man was using one of these doxing apps to actually follow. our law enforcement officers. And how horrific is that? So he knew where they were and where to go to carry out the shooting and to try to instill this terror. And there's just no place for this kind of political violence. It is robust, respectful, bipartisan debate that has kept this nation free for 250 years. and the political violence needs to stop. The attacking and doxing and violence against our law enforcement officers needs to stop. Marsha Blackburn is a U.S. Senator from the great state of Tennessee, a Republican. She's running for governor of that state in the midterm elections next year. Senator, always good to have you on the program. We look forward to next time. You got it. Take care. Guy Benson Happy Hour continues after this break. Don't go anywhere.

In the swamp, not of the swamp. Guy Benson. Earlier in today's program, Andy McCarthy joined us, Fox News contributor, longtime federal prosecutor, talking about the James Comey indictment and that whole controversy. Here's part of the discussion we had with Andy. I want to get your take on this. indictment of James Comey, the former FBI director. And I was actually a guest on my own show last Friday because of a lot of TV obligations. And I talked about it a little bit briefly. You're the lawyer. You're the prosecutor. I'm not. I know you've been very critical. of this indictment. It does seem to be like pretty sloppy and thin in a lot of ways. On the other hand, it does seem like James Comey has been a very dishonest person and arguably, very arguably dishonest under oath as well. And I think a lot of conservatives and Trump fans just think to themselves, you know, they came after Trump. on the thinnest of reeds, they were willing to do whatever it took to throw indictments at someone they disliked. So, you know, why should James Comey or anyone else be exempt from that kind of treatment as well? Walk us through at least part one, the nuts and bolts of the indictment and why, at least so far, you think it looks weak. Well, just to react to your last point, though, guy, I think that... Obviously, if the objective was just to indict him, then the indictment succeeds because in lawfare, the process is the punishment. Right. Right. So, you know, if that's what they want, I just, I can't go there. I just think that that's the worst thing that we could possibly be. Very unhealthy. It's very unhealthy. But we can come back to that. But let's go to the law. Let's go to the law. So the problem is not. I think people misunderstand understand this, and in part, this is because of the president's rhetoric, because I think if you take people who, not that the indictment's very enlightening, it's written in a very incoherent way, it's hard to follow, you need to understand who the person one is and the person three is and all that jazz. But I think the way the president talks about it, he talks in terms of Russia Gate and... the leaking of James Comey's memos, which we know he orchestrated, which were the memos about his conversations with President Trump in the first term. And people hear that, and then they see, you know, somebody like me saying, this is a ridiculous indictment. And the reaction is... So you're fine with James Comey doing what he did in Russiagate and, you know, lying about it? Yeah. And I think the thing is if that was what the indictment was about, if there was something actionable and all that, nobody would, nobody sensible would complain about that. But if you're going to, when you're going to indict him, you have to read what they've actually charged him with.

And when you read that, you see that there's no case because they were desperate enough to indict James Comey that they needed to get something in that 2020 testimony that reached back to the time that Trump is going after him over, which is like 2016, 2017. And as a result, and that's because of the statute of limitations, you know, the five years which runs tomorrow. Wait, so hang on. Can I ask you a question? Yeah, of course. If the statute of limitations has run its course here, which is why they were maybe grasping its straws to get it more recently to tie it back to that, is that, are you suggesting that James Comey was more dead to rights on lying under oath? prior to the expiration of the statute of limitations? Like, was there a strong case against him a number of years ago? I never thought there was a strong case against James Comey for two reasons. One is, and President Trump should realize this, but I think he thinks the Supreme Court decision about immunity only covers presidents and nobody else. But when you're dealing with government officials who abuse their powers, Unless they commit something like bribery, they're going to have immunity from prosecution for judgment calls that they make, even if they're appalling judgments. using their own power. So a lot of the stuff that James Comey did with respect to Russiagate is along those lines. I think the one place where they had him, where they could have brought an indictment, Attorney General Barr decided not to bring the indictment. And I think he was right about that because I think James Comey would have beaten it. And that's when when James Comey leaked his memos of conversations with Trump through Professor Dan Richmond. He was the nexus between James Comey and the New York Times. Columbia professor? Correct. And I should disclose a friend of mine from the U.S. Attorney's Office for about four years. We started out together. So take that for what it's worth. But the FBI afterwards decided, even though James Comey had tried not to put classified information in those memos, that at least two pieces of information in the memos were classified at a low level. So Barr could have... indicted him for transferring classified information. I think he thought, and I think he was right about this, that the case was a loser because there was enough evidence in the memos that James Comey wasn't trying to put, he was trying not to put classified information. And I'm willing to buy that, and I think Barr is a smart guy and a reasonable person, and we've had him on the show. I don't disagree with you on that. But hasn't James Comey, I'm trying to figure out how to phrase this, at best,

been extremely misleading about his role in the leak, if not openly lying about it. I mean, it does seem like the guy has been dishonest. And I think a lot of people are frustrated saying, like, they can figure out ways to get all these indictments against people that they don't like. And then people that they do like, you know, all of a sudden it's like, oh, well, you know, you got to dot every eye, cross every T. And it's, it's very abusive if the president's saying he wants this. And like, I. Like, I actually share some of those concerns. I just think it's hard for a lot of conservatives to stomach any of these process or even principled concerns from the left, given their behavior and actions against Trump and his coterie for years. See what I'm saying? Yeah, I totally agree with that. But, you know, the thing, the ultimate logic of that position is that we would have to say it's okay for us to do Alvin Bragg type things. to achieve those objectives. My full interview with Andy McCarthy available online at Guy Benson.com. Part of the free podcast. It's every day. It's on demand. Absolutely no charge at all. Guy Benson.com, Fox Newspodcast.com or wherever you get your podcasts. When we come back, the home stretch, an interesting, unique experience for me over the weekend. Tell you all about that coming up. Miss a minute. Miss a lot. Guy Benson.

And now it's time for your favorite segment of the day. Home stretch. I fear I failed as a producer. Guy Benson. It's the Monday home stretch here, Guy Benson.com. Podcast free when the show ends minutes from now. I'll be skedaddling over to the bottom line. Guest co-hosting with Dagan McDowell tonight and tomorrow night 6 p.m. Eastern Fox Business Network. So the New York football giants got their first win of the season yesterday. They started the kid finally at quarterback, and he did well enough to win. It was dicey, though. My Northwestern Wildcats won on Saturday, beat UCLA in Evanston at home. UCLA's hot garbage. Now 0 and 4. Northwestern looked great in the first half. I was watching a little bit on my phone. And then basically stopped. Like, okay, yeah, we're up 17-0. We're good. They won. They hung on, but did not score again. 17-14. Still got to make some improvements there, I would say. But happy to get the W. And then the New York Yankees in the playoffs, tied for the division with Toronto. But Toronto won the crown because of the tiebreaker. Yankees couldn't beat him this year. So congrats to the Blue Jays. Yankees host the Red Sox in the Wild Card series starting tomorrow here in New York. So I'll be rooting for the Yanks. Not sure, not sold. I am sold on Aaron Judge's MVP. It's not even close. It's ridiculous that people are pretending like that's a debate. It's not. Aaron Judge is a L MVP, period. End of story. And hopefully he has a better postseason than he did last year. If he has a good postseason, the Yankees can really do something. We'll see. Never know. Never know. But I'm not, as I've said, not really confident in this year's group for a number of reasons, but they're hot at the right moment. Can they stay hot? I don't know. That's my little sports roundup. Going into two points. Number one. Cookie, a team from New York, an NFL team, not named the Bills. They're the good New York NFL franchise. But the other two, who actually play in New Jersey, had been winless going into yesterday. The Giants get a win at home against the Chargers. And now your jets are trying to find their first one of the season in Miami. This is maybe the start of their march. to clinching the playoffs before Justin's wedding and so you don't lose your bet to me? How confident are you about tonight? Getting in the win column. Oh, very confident about tonight. Oh, why? Just, it's a hunch. Okay. I have a feeling. I have sources. Of course I'm going to watch. And I've had sources tell me that they're going to win. Sources. Mm-hmm. Okay. Sports sources. Sports sources. You have inside information that they're going to win tonight. Some of the dads at the Megan's volleyball game yesterday told me it was a good chance. All right, they think. And the dolphins aren't any good. So it's a winnable game, I'd say, for the Jets, for sure. Now, I'm not really confident on my bed. Let's be honest. No, you shouldn't be. They're 0 and 3, and I've almost already won. Well, it's, I mean, besides the fact that I was completely tricked. You're not tricked. Yes, totally.

bamboozled. You proposed the bet, which I accepted. Yeah, I didn't know the dates. That's your fault. That's not you being tricked unless it's a little very tricky, cookie self-trick. You tricked yourself. I probably could. Yeah. So the bet's on, I think probably mathematically we could have someone run it for us. There's a chance you're already... eliminated from winning the bet well the bills are four no so if the jets go to oh and four for them to solidify winning the division by week 15 feels pretty impossible yeah but it's not maybe technically impossible yet so you're you're still alive in the bet christine now over the weekend i mentioned this last week i got invited to go to the rider cup out on Long Island here in New York on Saturday. And it just worked out that my TV schedule allowed me to do it because I had Kaylee McEnany's new show in the morning, Jimmy Phala's show at night. But right in between there, prime time for the golf. So I headed out. Cool group of people had a great time except Team USA. So this is a team sport version of golf. I'm not a big golf guy. USA versus Europe. And Team USA was just awful. They were very bad on Friday, even worse on Saturday, and were getting clobbered going into the final day. Yesterday they made this frenzied comeback and almost pulled off an incredible come from behind victory, but they fell short because they had dug such a deep hole for themselves over the first two games of the tournament. because I don't care that much and because USA was playing so badly, I pulled a cookie. I used the opportunity not to really watch any golf. I was just smoozing and boozing. chatting with people at this hospitality tent and taking full advantage of the double wristband free open bar and buffet. So I just hung out and ate and drank a fair amount of some day drinking. And I watched, I believe, two strokes of golf with my own eyes in front of me the entire five hour time I was there. Christine, are you proud of me? I think you should have watched a little more golf, but I have a question, were you schmoozing and boozing with my Matt Mowers? I was, yes, and Matt is sometimes a guest on this show who you have booked. He was there, and a whole crew of them was really a lot of fun. Did he do a tequila shot with you? We weren't doing shots. We were not doing shots. And I took it fairly easy. Like, I didn't go crazy, but I was trying to follow the Yankee game and the Northwestern game, not really as much. the golf because i don't care that much luke donald i guess was the team captain of team europe he's a northwestern guy so i'm sort of happy for him the controversy apparently and this kind of goes beyond sports the american fans us

Or I guess like a little too rowdy. This is known as a rowdy golf event where there's heckling and all sorts of stuff. Apparently the Europe guys felt like the American fans went too far. And I guess in some of the examples, they might have a point. I guess there was like a drink thrown that hits someone's wife. Like, don't do that. Don't do that. There were some other heckles that were quite funny that got a laugh out of almost everyone. I know Rory McElroy is. The one who was most outspoken about this saying like it's unacceptable, I generally agree with the points he was making. Was it his wife? Yes. Who got hit with the drink? Okay, so I would be defensive of that as well. I do not fault him at all for that. That being said, I know some of the other Americans were saying, yep, some people went too far. And McElroy did say it was just a small number of people who went over the line. He did specify that. But other American fans saying, yep, some people took it too far, but also Rory's a bit of a whiner, apparently, like a little crybaby. Is that part of his reputation? I stand on the take that he's a little bit of a crybaby. I believe it was a... Four years ago, the last time the Ryder Cup was in the United States, there was a problem with him getting to the venue. He was arguing with people in the parking lot. Like, he's just known for having a flair for the dramatic. And he would flip off fans and stuff too, I think. Or like, you know, shouted back. So he's kind of giving it and taking it. Whatever. He lost his one-on-one yesterday. To Scotty Sheffler, that was Scottie's only point of the weekend. Yeah, one of many Americans who finally played well yesterday when it was too late. I'm talking about this like I know what I'm talking about or care. I truly do not. You're doing good, though. Thank you. I'm like faking it pretty well. Fake it until you make it. And then my friends were texting me like, did you have access to Sunday, too? Could you have gone on Sunday? The answer is yes. I had tickets offered for Sunday. I just. didn't really want to go because I had stuff to do. I had some work to do. I wanted to go to the gym. I had a lot of things to take care of. I didn't want to do like the four hour round trip car ride again for golf. They're like, oh, but it's so much more exciting. I'm like out and back in that tent drinking again. I don't need a second straight day of that. I'm getting too old for that sort of thing, but that has never stopped, Christine. I mean, schmoozing and boozing is my jam. Shmozing and boozing is fun. How come you didn't offer me a ticket? Well, I did have one of our sponsors come with me, which seemed like a pretty good call. Yeah, I think so. And then Sunday was just like, I wasn't going to be there. So you don't want to send me on my own? No. No, I think that was just for all purposes. That was a good decision. Next thing you see me on camera trying to play. No, there would have been another American fan accused of going way too far. Like now, it appears to be a woman. Now, folks, we're going to have to blur this. Right. Who knows what you would have done? Who knows? Any closing thoughts, Cookie? No, it sounds like you had a blast, and hopefully if somebody or anybody is listening that has tickets for next year, cooks would like to go. You know what? Want to make a bet real quick? I'm going to bet that you will not go to next year's 2026 Ryder Cup. Why would you say that? I'm just, I'm betting. Oh, is it not here in the United States? No. The next Rider Cup is in Europe.

It's not every year. That's correct. Is it what like the Olympics every four years? Every other year. Every other year. So, see, you're learning. You didn't just jump onto a bad bet. And that time I was trying to trick you. But tricky cookie could not be tricked this time. She always learns. She does not. Sometimes. Almost never. Bottom line, 6 p.m. Eastern Fox Business heading there now. Back here tomorrow for the radio. We'll talk to you then. Have a great night. That's not you being tricked unless it's a little very tricky, cookie self-trick. You tricked yourself. Were you schmoozing and boozing with my Matt Mowers? I mean, schmoozing and boozing is my jam. Best thing that's ever happened to you financially. Go. Easy. Sold my car on Carvana. Amazing offer. Really? I hit 200 on a scratcher. Did the scratcher come to your house and hand you a check? No. How many scratchers did you hit to get that? I hit a button on Carvana.com once. Okay, that's fair. It's like the lottery, except you always win. Not like the lottery at all, actually. Exactly. Inexplicably good. Offer's worth bragging about... Sell your car today on Carvana. Pick up these may apply. 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.