0:00

It's time to take the quiz. Five questions,

0:02

five minutes a day, five days a week.

0:04

Take the quiz every weekday at the

0:06

Quiz.fox and then listen to the quiz

0:08

podcast to find out how you did

0:10

clay share and of course wisdom tooth

0:12

and the quiz at the Quiz.fox. From.

0:21

The heart of our nation's

0:23

capital Washington, D C. Back

0:25

by the trusted voices of

0:27

Team Fox, A clear, fresh

0:30

voice cutting through the noise.

0:32

To tell the truth, it's

0:34

the Guy Benson show with.

0:36

Guy Benson. It's

0:45

Tuesday, May Seven, Twenty Twenty four.

0:47

I'm Guy Benson. This is the

0:49

Guy Benson show Washington D C.

0:51

Very glad you're here. three to

0:53

six pm Eastern time is when

0:55

we air every weekday. Appreciate you

0:57

listening and if you missed a

0:59

moment of the broadcast, there's a

1:01

podcast that the whole show every

1:03

day on demand as soon as

1:05

we're done. Guy. Benson show.com

1:08

Fox News podcast.com or.

1:11

Wherever. You get your podcasts. I'm

1:13

political editor at Town hall.com which is

1:15

where my writing appears. A Fox News

1:18

contributor, I've been very busy lately on

1:20

Tv. Here. On the radio Oldest give you

1:22

a heads up we're going to be. Heading.

1:24

Out of town. Tomorrow.

1:26

Thursday Friday. During.

1:29

The show from a place we've never.

1:31

Done. It from before. So.

1:34

I'm excited to talk more about that. Later.

1:36

On in the week. In the

1:38

meantime here today, great line up. Our.

1:40

First Guess joins us in just a moment. Douglas.

1:43

Murray will be here later on in the our.

1:45

Looking forward to that conversation with him. Byron.

1:48

York in our middle. our Kt

1:50

Mcfarland also joining us to talk

1:52

about foreign policy. Plus.

1:54

Just. The Catastrophe. Of.

1:57

A book tour, From. gov

1:59

christie I'm not sure I've ever

2:01

seen one go worse. We'll

2:04

have some thoughts on that. It's all ahead on

2:06

the show today, but we begin with Andy

2:09

McCarthy, Fox News contributor, longtime federal

2:12

prosecutor, also a best-selling author. Andy,

2:14

we so appreciate you making time

2:16

for us. I know the demands

2:18

on your time are myriad,

2:20

so welcome back and thank you. Guy, thanks so much.

2:24

It beats having a real job, so I can't complain too

2:26

much. You used to

2:29

be in the courtroom prosecuting cases.

2:31

Now you're watching this all play

2:33

out and analyzing what's happening. In

2:35

lower Manhattan, this is former President

2:37

Trump, this now weeks-long trial about

2:40

the hush money payments involving a porn star

2:42

and the way that they were categorized on

2:44

the books, and Alvin Bragg has

2:46

decided to do something that his predecessor in

2:48

the office declined to do, that

2:50

the feds declined to do, which is to say,

2:52

yep, this was a crime, and not only a

2:54

crime, not just the misdemeanor, which

2:57

has lapsed, it's a felony. In

2:59

fact, it's dozens of felonies, and we can

3:01

put them in prison for a very long

3:03

time, and the theory of the case we'll

3:05

come back to because I'm admittedly

3:08

mystified by this, Andy. I

3:11

want to start, though, with some of the testimony

3:13

over the last few days. Hope

3:15

Hicks, the former Trump aide, she

3:17

took the stand. Her testimony

3:20

was widely described as emotional.

3:23

What do you think the actual impact

3:25

of her testimony was, like the big

3:27

takeaways? Yeah, I really don't think

3:29

– if you look at just

3:32

what the charges are in the indictment, I

3:34

think her testimony is close

3:37

to irrelevant. It's

3:39

helpful to Trump in the sense that

3:42

she said some things that would be helpful for

3:45

him to argue that he

3:49

wasn't concerned about the campaign finance laws.

3:51

I doubt, actually, that Trump was even

3:53

thinking about the campaign finance laws. I

3:55

think the only thing he was worried

3:58

about is whether these alleged – sexual

4:01

relationships that he had, extramarital

4:04

affairs in 2006, that the publicity

4:08

about them, whether they happened or didn't,

4:10

he denies they happened, that

4:13

that would be embarrassing for his family

4:16

and that was what he was focused on

4:18

and she gave some testimony that

4:20

was helpful in that regard. But she had,

4:22

you know, I thought the most telling thing

4:24

guy was the last question she was asked

4:26

on last Friday afternoon, which

4:28

is when you were

4:30

down in Washington working in

4:33

the White House, did you

4:35

have anything to do with the

4:37

management and the keeping of the

4:39

Trump organization's business records 200 plus

4:42

miles away in New York City? And

4:44

she of course said she didn't and

4:47

the question was asked precisely because after

4:50

two weeks of testimony that was the

4:52

first time any witness was asked about

4:54

what the case is actually supposed to

4:56

be about, which is did Trump falsify

4:59

his business records in 2017? Right.

5:02

And now we have Stormy

5:05

Daniels and details coming out,

5:08

sordid personal sexual

5:10

allegations. Talk about

5:12

this. I mean it feels like what

5:14

the prosecution, again this is just my

5:17

impression, what the prosecution wants to

5:19

do is get 12 in

5:22

their mind, hopefully Democrats like them into

5:25

a jury box and say look at

5:27

this guy, Donald Trump, you don't

5:29

like him, we don't

5:31

want him to win again. That's sort

5:33

of the unstated part. He's not a

5:36

good person, his character is bad, let's

5:39

not believe him on the affairs and

5:41

just trust us there's a crime here. Let's

5:44

just do the thing. That seems

5:46

to be what they're, shorthand,

5:48

what they're getting at here.

5:50

Bad guy, we're gonna tell you

5:52

there's a crime, just convict because you know

5:55

gut instinct we all know he's probably guilty

5:57

of something. That's

6:00

overstating things. But

6:03

what else is the purpose of really going

6:05

through in really gruesome detail

6:08

some of the alleged sexual acts, for

6:10

example? There's no proper purpose in it.

6:15

To remind your listeners,

6:18

Guy, that the charge in the

6:20

indictment is that Trump

6:23

falsified his business records in

6:25

2017 fraudulently. Bragg

6:30

says to cover up his commission

6:32

of another crime, which he

6:34

alleges to be a federal campaign finance

6:37

violation. Now, even

6:39

if you credit Bragg's version of

6:41

what happened here, whether

6:44

or not Trump had a

6:46

sexual encounter with Stormy Daniels

6:49

is utterly irrelevant to

6:52

the charges in the indictment. Because

6:54

whether he did or he didn't, what the

6:57

case is about is how

6:59

they booked his reimbursement of

7:02

Michael Cohen for a

7:05

$130,000 payment that

7:07

Cohen undoubtedly, inarguably made to

7:10

Stormy Daniels, which was for

7:12

a nondisclosure agreement that

7:14

silenced her and would have silenced

7:17

her regardless of whether what she was saying was

7:19

true or untrue. So the

7:21

encounter is not relevant to the

7:23

charges, and it's not enough

7:26

to say that because the testimony that

7:28

came out today was basically a

7:31

minute-by-minute description of how

7:33

the sexual encounter occurred

7:36

where the only concession prosecutors

7:39

made was that they wouldn't

7:41

elicit testimony about her description of his

7:43

genitalia. But everything

7:45

else was fair game,

7:48

and it was so bad that

7:51

Judge Marchon, who allowed all of

7:53

it to happen over the strenuous

7:55

objections of Trump's

7:58

lawyers, then did it. …

8:00

sent the jury out of the room and

8:02

admonished the prosecutors for doing what Murchon allowed

8:05

them to do. So

8:07

it's just mind-boggling. Why

8:09

would he do that? Just to kind of make

8:11

it seem like he's somewhat fair-minded? He knew what

8:13

he was doing when he greenlit this. Yeah,

8:16

exactly right. I mean, the reason he's doing

8:18

it is it's so obvious to

8:20

anybody who knows this neck

8:22

of the woods that commentators and appellate

8:25

tribunals are going to look at this record and

8:27

say, how did the judge let that in? And

8:30

he'd rather have some seeds in the

8:32

record that he's shown to say that

8:34

maybe the prosecutors misled him. But I

8:36

think you're exactly right. Everybody knew what

8:38

she would say. This is not the

8:40

first time. This is Stormy Daniels herself,

8:42

by the way, right? Stormy Daniels on

8:44

the stand. And she said this publicly,

8:47

and now she's saying it under oath.

8:49

Could the argument maybe be, Andy? And

8:51

I don't know how things

8:53

are sometimes deemed relevant and pertinent

8:55

or not based on

8:58

a certain prosecution of the case, or however

9:00

the judge views things as being fair or

9:03

not. But

9:05

could the argument be that

9:08

you need her on the stand to

9:11

describe these sexual encounters because

9:13

Trump insists that they didn't

9:15

happen, and so to

9:18

discredit his honesty

9:22

and to impugn his credibility on

9:24

other matters, you are proving to

9:26

the jury that he's lying about

9:28

the sex? Could that be the

9:31

reason behind this? That would be one argument

9:33

in favor of it. The problem that

9:35

the argument has, if you're going to

9:38

follow the law accurately, is

9:40

that when a question like that comes up, Guy, what

9:42

a judge is supposed to do is weigh the

9:45

probative value of the testimony

9:48

against the potential prejudicial

9:50

impact of it. And

9:52

here, the government

9:55

has a ton of evidence to

9:57

go after Trump on his credibility.

10:00

that's what their intention is.

10:02

And the thing is, can

10:04

I just say, maybe there are

10:07

Trump supporters out there who believe

10:09

him when he says this didn't

10:11

happen. But I think almost everyone

10:13

absolutely believes that Donald Trump

10:15

had sex with Stormy Daniels and then paid

10:17

her not to talk about it because he

10:19

paid her a huge sum of money that

10:22

he would have no other reason in that

10:25

NDA context to be

10:27

giving someone of her line of work

10:29

in the pornography industry. So like you

10:33

can say, oh he's lying about

10:35

this, it's like an obvious

10:37

lie, a politician lying about sex, which I know

10:39

we were told for a long time didn't matter

10:42

if there was a D next to the name

10:44

of the president, for example. But in

10:46

this case, I think it's

10:48

almost just stipulated by

10:50

nearly everyone that this happened,

10:53

which is why the payment happened

10:55

in the first place. But

10:57

it is a completely different question than

10:59

anything criminal happening,

11:02

which seems like it should be the whole

11:04

point of a criminal trial. Yeah.

11:06

See, guys, the thing is, what you

11:09

just articulated, the key part of that

11:11

is everybody

11:13

knows this happened. Nobody believes

11:15

Trump that it didn't happen

11:17

because the payment happened. And

11:21

the thing is, there's no dispute

11:23

that the payment happened. And

11:26

therefore, whether the sex happened

11:28

or not is irrelevant because the question

11:30

in the case is how they booked

11:32

the payment. And if – So

11:35

all of the sexual details is – Yeah. It's

11:38

all gratuitous. Right. For the purpose

11:40

of getting the jury to be

11:42

like, yeah, see, it's a bad guy. And you

11:44

might say, hey, it's wrong to

11:46

go have sex with a porn star and then pay her off

11:48

with the hush money. A lot

11:50

of people would be offended. Their values

11:53

would not align with that, obviously. That

11:56

is still a bunch of razzle-dazzle. look

12:00

at this bad guy stuff in

12:02

the context of what actually should be

12:04

at issue in the trial which is

12:06

were laws broken, let alone

12:09

felony laws broken and

12:11

can you prove it? Because at

12:13

least from where I sit as just a civilian

12:16

following the trial somewhat closely, it seems like

12:18

they haven't really come close to that yet.

12:21

Let me ask you then relatedly,

12:24

I've heard a number

12:26

of analysts talk about how there's

12:28

like a second crime here that

12:30

the prosecution hasn't even explicitly

12:33

laid out yet. Is that

12:36

correct? How is it possible for there

12:39

to be a second crime which would be

12:41

essential to proving the larger

12:43

case against Trump if the

12:46

public or the defense or

12:49

everyone involved hasn't really been made aware of

12:51

what it is yet? Is it

12:53

being overly simplified described that way? What's

12:56

that about? No, it's,

12:58

you're exactly, the way you've described it

13:00

is accurate and the reason

13:03

people ask with wonder, you know, how

13:05

is that possible is because in the

13:07

United States under the Fifth Amendment, if

13:10

they want to indict you, if

13:13

the prosecutors want to indict you

13:15

for a felony, they

13:17

have to get an indictment from a

13:19

grand jury with indication in

13:21

the indictment that the jury, the grand

13:24

jury found probable cause of every element

13:26

of the crime, which means the indictment

13:28

has to explain to you, put

13:31

you on notice of exactly what it

13:33

is the government has charged you with.

13:35

And even more fundamentally,

13:38

under New York constitutional law,

13:41

a statute, if it's going to be

13:43

used as a criminal statute, has to

13:46

include all of the things that you need

13:48

to do to be guilty under

13:50

the statute. In other words, in New

13:52

York, they don't allow what's called incorporation

13:54

by reference. You're supposed to, in

13:58

a statute, lay out everything that is

14:00

necessary to put somebody on notice. So

14:03

this is not supposed to

14:05

happen in New York or

14:07

America, but that's exactly what's

14:09

happened. The indictment charges falsification

14:12

of business records to commit another

14:14

crime, but Bragg does not say

14:16

what the other crime is, and

14:18

he's hedged even to this point.

14:20

How? How

14:22

is the defense supposed to defend

14:25

against a crime that isn't

14:27

being revealed by the people

14:29

bringing the case? The

14:31

judge has allowed them to do it. What Bragg

14:33

has said is the New

14:36

York statute says another crime,

14:38

which means any other crime I can think

14:41

of, can be the crime that Trump was

14:43

trying to commit or conceal. And

14:46

he says that he doesn't have to

14:48

tell them what it is. He's

14:50

got three different theories of what it could

14:52

be, and what he hopes is

14:55

that at the end the jury will be instructed

14:57

on those possibilities and on the basis of it.

14:59

Trump just throws it out there like, well, it

15:01

might be this other crime, or it might be

15:03

that other crime, or maybe this other one. In

15:06

your mind, whichever one it needs to stick to

15:10

get to guilty, you just come up with

15:12

that jury. That

15:14

is crazy. Is this one of the obvious

15:17

grounds for appeal? I

15:19

think it's the most obvious ground for

15:21

appeal. There are a number of other

15:23

ones, but I think the indictment –

15:25

as I said when it was returned,

15:28

the indictment fails as an indictment. In

15:30

the United States, an indictment is supposed

15:32

to describe for the defendant what he's

15:35

charged with, and the indictment in this

15:37

case doesn't do that. Are

15:39

they violating Trump's constitutional

15:43

rights here? Forget the gag

15:46

order, which he's complaining about. You might have a

15:48

fair point there. Are

15:50

his constitutional rights as a

15:52

defendant being violated just by what you've

15:54

just described? Yes, you

15:56

have a right under the Fifth Amendment

15:59

to be indicted by the Supreme Court. In other words,

16:01

in our country, a prosecutor can't

16:03

just sit down and write a charge against you

16:05

and then take you to trial. They

16:08

have to prove in the grand jury

16:10

that there's probable cause of all the

16:12

elements of a criminal offense. Right,

16:15

and then they've got to give it to you

16:17

and to your counsel so you can defend yourself

16:19

against the crimes that they're alleging that you've committed.

16:21

But in this case, they're like keeping one of

16:24

them secret basically for the purposes

16:26

of this whole scheme. I

16:28

mean, I'm

16:31

not a Trump defender reflexively.

16:34

It is hard to look at this thing

16:36

other than an absolute sham from

16:38

top to bottom, this case. And it's

16:41

the one that's going first, Andy, and we only have like less

16:43

than a minute left. All

16:45

it takes is one juror, right, to

16:47

say enough. This is preposterous. Yeah,

16:50

that's exactly right, Guy, but I think to your

16:52

point, this is why a lot

16:54

of smart, honest Democrats have looked at

16:56

this and said this case

16:58

is a joke, and it

17:01

actually will help Trump undermine

17:03

the more serious cases against him because

17:05

in the public mind, this is the

17:08

face of lawfare. Well,

17:10

what a way to start this Tuesday here on The Guy Benson

17:12

Show. Andy McCarthy, former federal

17:15

prosecutor, current Fox News contributor with us.

17:17

Andy, thank you. Thanks, Guy. So

17:20

much to get to as we just rev our engines

17:22

here. Please stay tuned. We'll be right back. Every

17:39

week, download and listen at

17:41

foxnewspodcast.com or wherever you listen to

17:44

your favorite podcast. Those

18:01

details are just staggering coming out of

18:03

that trial. Meanwhile, here in

18:05

Washington, D.C., at the Holocaust Museum,

18:08

President Joe Biden giving remarks today

18:11

about anti-Semitism and other related

18:13

matters. I agreed with a number of things

18:16

that he said, and I'm glad that he

18:18

said them as president. He

18:20

did include this in Cut 8. My

18:22

commitment to the safety of the Jewish people,

18:25

the security of Israel, and

18:27

the strike to exist in an independent Jewish state

18:29

is ironclad, even when we disagree.

18:33

Ironclad. I think some people

18:35

might take issue with

18:37

that given really the policies

18:39

of this administration and this president,

18:42

even just this week. We'll

18:44

get reaction from K.T. McFarland later and

18:46

Douglas Murray next on The Guy Benson

18:48

Show. New

18:55

talk for a new generation,

18:57

The Guy Benson Show. Douglas

19:00

Murray is a Fox News contributor, National

19:03

Review Institute fellow, author,

19:06

and just a very clear thinker, and we are pleased

19:08

to have him back on the show. Douglas, good to

19:10

have you here. Very good to

19:13

be with you, Guy. I would like

19:15

to play a few sound bites

19:17

for you from MIT on campus

19:19

yesterday up in Cambridge, Massachusetts. They

19:21

had a big to-do

19:24

at one of these encampments, and things

19:26

got very hostile, and these

19:28

were some of the chants, for example,

19:30

Cut 6. No

19:40

Zionists on Boston streets, and then also

19:42

Cut 7. We.

20:04

Are the Intifada. Long.

20:06

Live The Intifada Globalized. The

20:09

Intifada. If. You can just because

20:11

I think some people have just gotten endured to

20:13

this. They all chance things they get in the

20:15

streets. they say various think they've been doing it

20:17

for months. Just bring home

20:19

for us. And unpack

20:22

the meaning behind chance.

20:24

Like know Zionists on

20:26

Boston streets and we

20:28

are/long lives last Globalize,

20:30

The. Intifada. On

20:33

her phone call some subtle

20:35

and I'm not. A

20:39

very, very firmly in the right the

20:41

Jewish people to determine their own suture,

20:43

defend themselves and much more. Am I

20:46

not welcome in Boston? I don't six

20:48

out who the hell these people think

20:50

they are. They. Decide to to

20:52

be on the streets or not,

20:55

it's really easy for people who

20:57

need a. Very. Stern talking

20:59

to and we can just hope

21:02

that there is ignorant as they

21:04

sound. As the intifada

21:06

I think everybody chances to

21:08

be arrested for incitement terrorism.

21:10

They should also managed know

21:12

what into father actually me

21:14

I assume the the. Mormon.

21:17

Kids who is shouting this is

21:19

what are they Twenty one, maybe

21:21

twenty two. Some of the dimmer

21:24

among them will be about thirty

21:26

three. so kind of finish their

21:28

post graduate degree and lesbian damn

21:30

scary but a as they as

21:32

a town for intifada they should

21:35

know. That. The last time there

21:37

was into saw that the second Intifada.

21:40

A solid breakdown of the

21:42

all summer talks and two

21:44

thousand and one Intifada look

21:46

something like this: The.

21:49

Palestinian man who walked to

21:51

a night club called the

21:53

Dolphin Area. The. sort of

21:55

my caught that those students them i t

21:57

and elsewhere would like to go to them

22:00

on a weekend if they took

22:03

any time off their rabble-rousing. And

22:06

the bomber went to the nightclub,

22:08

noticed that there were large groups of young

22:10

women. About the age of

22:12

these students standing outside trying to get

22:14

into the packed Tel Aviv nightclub, and

22:18

he detonated a bomb, killed

22:21

dozens of young people, wounded

22:24

dozens more for life. That's

22:27

their intifada. Their intifada

22:30

is, for instance, a

22:32

young Arab Muslim Israeli shot

22:35

in the head, the stomach, and the

22:37

neck by Palestinian jihadists in

22:40

2001 who thought he was a Jew. That's

22:44

what intifada means. So

22:47

if these people want it globalized,

22:49

then if they were taken at

22:52

their word, then

22:54

they should expect a

22:56

suicide bomber to come and blow them

22:58

up and their fellow students, like a

23:01

bomber did at the Hebrew University in

23:03

Jerusalem in 2001 in the cafeteria. They

23:07

want their intifada

23:09

globalized. Okay, great. Do

23:12

it at your own word. Wait for the

23:14

suicide bomber to come into your

23:16

cafe, your campus of MIT, or

23:19

Columbia, or Berkeley, and

23:22

just see how much you love

23:24

intifada then. I

23:27

presume some of them have no idea

23:30

what it means, and it sounds exciting

23:32

and somewhat, you know, foreign and mysterious

23:34

and dangerous, so they're kind of excited

23:37

by that, and it's almost romanticized to

23:40

them. It's exotic. Ooh, okay, intifada, this

23:42

is what they're telling us to chant.

23:44

We'll just repeat it back. That's some

23:46

of them. Others,

23:48

I'm sure, absolutely know what it means, and therefore

23:51

it, they just assume they would be spared. They

23:53

wouldn't be the ones killed. It would

23:55

be Jews, right, especially the Zionist Jews. They'd

23:58

be the ones killed, and maybe some of them would be killed. other

24:00

Zionists like you and me, but they

24:02

would be spared from an intifada.

24:04

Maybe they'd be the ones partaking in the

24:06

intifada. It's hard to kind

24:09

of absolve them of that, isn't it? Well

24:12

all of these people fall

24:14

into two categories, the sinister

24:17

and the silly. The

24:19

sinister are the ones who actually do love this.

24:22

They love the fact that clearly that

24:25

American students were killed at

24:28

the university in Jerusalem in 2001

24:30

at the cafeteria of suicide bombing.

24:32

Presumably they love that. So these

24:34

are people who love the

24:36

murder and mutilation of American

24:38

students their own age. So

24:41

those are the really sinister ones that

24:43

we're very unlucky to have such

24:45

sick and deranged people on our

24:48

campuses or on our streets. But

24:51

as for the silly, how

24:53

incredibly ridiculous,

24:57

stupid, and mentally impaired do you

24:59

have to be? To

25:01

shout something, you don't know

25:04

what it even means. I

25:07

mean, you know, I reckon

25:09

I'm quite a bright guy. You're a bright

25:11

guy, Guy. If we

25:14

were at an American campus and

25:17

somebody just started chanting some word,

25:19

we didn't know. Would

25:21

we join in? No. Would

25:24

we ask what a word

25:26

meant before we chanted it? What would the googling

25:28

say? The googling on my phone. I reckon so.

25:31

I reckon I'd have a quick look

25:33

beforehand at exactly

25:36

what it was. So how

25:38

incredibly dumb do

25:40

these silly students have to be? What

25:43

ghouls they are, what ill-educated

25:45

ghouls they are, that they

25:48

stand on camera? They

25:50

stand on campus and shout words they

25:52

don't understand. They have no right to

25:54

be on a campus if

25:57

they're that stupid. Nobody,

26:02

nobody with any

26:04

cognitive ability goes

26:06

around shouting slogans they

26:08

don't understand. So I

26:10

find the silly to

26:12

be just as problematic, to use one

26:14

of their favorite words, as the sinister.

26:18

The clips we played for you were

26:20

from Boston or Greater Boston, MIT. Then

26:22

yesterday in New York you had some

26:25

other charming scenes. Some of these people

26:27

tried to disrupt the Met Gala. And

26:30

in the process, well here

26:32

in Cut Five were a number

26:34

of young women in the full

26:36

Muslim headscarves chanting at

26:38

the police, Cut Five. Oink, oink,

26:40

piggy piggy, talking to the police.

26:51

We will make your lives and then a word that

26:53

we can't use doesn't quite rhyme, but they

26:55

can only do so well. That

26:57

is one scene, a handful of them.

27:00

There was another scene nearby, a war

27:02

memorial, a memorial to our

27:04

war dead, where

27:07

they desecrated it with spray

27:09

paint, with Palestinian garb

27:11

and flags, and they also burned

27:13

an American flag in front of

27:15

it. Douglas, I know

27:18

some people say, look, even if we

27:20

support Israel, Guy, you're talking about this

27:22

a lot, it goes so

27:24

much deeper than Israel. It goes so

27:26

much deeper than the well-being of Jews.

27:28

Those are both extremely important to me.

27:31

But it's about people who hate

27:34

our civilization, hate our law

27:36

enforcement, hate what should be

27:38

sacred to this country, our veterans, our

27:40

war dead, our flag. I

27:43

think that's something that instinctively gets a

27:46

rise out of so many Americans, including

27:48

some of the people leading the backlash

27:50

on some of these campuses. Yes.

27:53

I mean, what everybody needs

27:56

to realize is that Israel is

27:58

now, as it has been, for

28:00

many years since the global f decided

28:02

to adopt it as their

28:04

bogeyman. Israel

28:06

is just simply the first country in the

28:09

sights of these maniacs. But

28:11

it's always here in America that their

28:13

sights really are. You know,

28:15

they attack Israel for being

28:18

colonialists. Israel has never

28:20

had a colony. It

28:22

was founded in 1948, and they don't know what

28:24

they're even talking about. And they

28:26

say colonialist about Israel because they

28:28

want to say colonialist about America.

28:31

They claim that Israel is some kind

28:34

of white supremacist society, and I'd invite

28:36

them to go to Israel any day,

28:38

and they'll see that that's

28:41

not accurate, not just not white

28:43

supremacist, but not white, an

28:45

incredibly diverse population. But they want

28:47

to say white supremacist about Israel

28:49

in order to say it about

28:51

America next. And they

28:53

want to ban the Star

28:56

of David. They want to burn the

28:59

Star of David in order to

29:01

burn the flag of the United

29:03

States as America next. They

29:05

want to insult the Israeli people

29:08

and the Israeli army, and they

29:10

want to attack and insult the

29:12

American police and the American army,

29:15

including the American war dead next.

29:18

They really show us what they

29:20

are, these people. They really show

29:22

us, and they show it again

29:24

and again. Anyone who thinks

29:26

this is Israel's problem is

29:29

kidding themselves. It's a

29:31

Western civilization problem. It's

29:34

a problem for civilization as a whole.

29:38

And the problem that we see here clearly

29:40

now is a generation of

29:43

students, some of whom have

29:45

been indoctrinated not only

29:48

into stupidity, but into wickedness,

29:51

a wicked, unforgivable

29:53

stupidity. Thankfully, there are

29:55

some people, including some students, who are

29:57

brave enough to push back against the

29:59

United States. that. And God bless them.

30:02

God bless the students who are

30:04

waving American flags and hanging American

30:06

flags up instead of

30:08

the jihadist flags that the

30:10

students are currently playing with

30:12

and all these cosplay kids

30:15

dressing up as Palestinian

30:17

terrorists. Thank goodness there

30:19

are some smart, clever,

30:21

fast, smarter, far cleverer

30:24

American students who are also

30:27

patriots who recognize what

30:29

these would-be jihadists and these

30:31

cosplay jihadists are and are

30:34

pushing back at them. I

30:37

think even if they're not steeped in the

30:40

history of the conflict, which of course neither

30:42

are these cosplayers, they don't know what they're

30:44

talking about, they're deeply ignorant, but the people

30:46

on the other side say we see what

30:48

they're doing to statues of George Washington, for

30:50

example, what they're doing to our flag, the

30:52

things that they're chanting. We know deep in

30:55

our bones we're against that. That's wrong. They're

30:57

against what we stand for and they're pushing

30:59

back, I think, in a really admirable way.

31:01

Douglas Murray, thank you so much for your

31:03

time. We always appreciate it on The Guy

31:05

Benson Show. Great pleasure. Back

31:10

here on The Guy Benson Show, one

31:13

of the least talented politicians of

31:15

major profile in the United States, I would

31:18

argue, is Kathy Hogle. She

31:20

is the Democrat governor of New York.

31:23

She narrowly won re-election in 2022. She

31:26

had a good opponent, Lee Zeldin, who

31:28

ran a strong race, but

31:31

still such a blue state and she won

31:33

by, what was it, mid-single digits? She's

31:36

not good at this. I

31:39

think to her 180 on

31:41

immigration where she was quoting

31:43

the Statue of Liberty poem and saying, oh,

31:45

all the migrants are welcome here. We'll show

31:47

them what New Yorkers are really about and

31:50

all of that. Come one, come all type

31:52

thing. And then things got

31:54

really ugly in New York and have been

31:56

ever since. And it's

31:58

been a huge fiscal strain. has been crime and

32:00

all of that. And then she's like, you know what,

32:03

on second thought, no, we're

32:05

closed. We're closed. Go somewhere

32:07

else. Can we get some

32:09

one way bus tickets and plane

32:11

tickets out here? Can I ship them up

32:13

to Canada, maybe all of these backpedaling

32:16

moves by a governor

32:19

who's awful. Like she

32:21

couldn't foresee the problem. So she invited

32:23

it. And now she's trying to run

32:25

away from it like she had nothing to do just not

32:27

good, not good at the job on

32:30

substance. Also not good at

32:32

communicating. Which

32:34

brings us to what she said this week, she

32:36

was out on the other coast. She was in

32:38

California, maybe she was like getting some tips on

32:40

how to fail worse. So

32:43

she went to California. And

32:45

she had something to say about equity

32:48

and diversity, because this was the thrust

32:50

of her remarks, she was talking

32:53

about the importance of diversity and

32:55

equity. And in order to underscore

32:57

in her mind, the need

32:59

for more government intervention in pursuit of

33:04

equity and diversity and you know, fill

33:06

in the buzzword. She

33:09

just really demeaned the intelligence

33:13

and life experience of a

33:16

huge number of children in

33:18

New York. And again, she

33:21

thinks that she is doing like

33:23

good racial pandering here, making a

33:25

point as a good white liberal

33:28

about how tough black people have

33:30

it. Instead, it's just like a

33:33

slap in the face and pretty racist cut

33:36

21. Young black kids

33:38

growing up in the Bronx who don't even know

33:40

what the word computer is, they

33:42

don't know they don't know these things. And

33:44

I want the world open up to all

33:46

of them. Because when you

33:48

have their diverse voices

33:50

innovating solutions through technology,

33:53

then you're really addressing society's

33:55

broader challenges. She's

34:00

just a good white lady, liberal,

34:03

progressive white lady, who

34:06

wants to help all those black kids through

34:10

diversity because otherwise

34:12

they just have no idea what the word

34:14

computer even means. Poor little

34:16

children, poor little ignorant, stupid,

34:18

clueless children. They need

34:21

Kathy's help. Every

34:24

kid who's

34:26

been born in what, the last how

34:29

many decades? Knows

34:31

what a computer is. What

34:33

entered her mind to use

34:35

that example? It's just so

34:38

unbelievably patronizing. These

34:42

black kids in the Bronx, they

34:44

need my help and the government's diversity

34:47

efforts or else these ignorant

34:49

dum dums don't even know what a

34:51

computer is. Isn't that sad? Isn't that

34:53

sad, you guys? Obviously

34:57

this did not go over very well with the people

34:59

in those communities who were like, what the hell are

35:01

you talking about? New

35:03

York Post reporting on this. Bronx

35:05

politicians ripped Governor Kathy Hochul after

35:08

she asserted that some black children in the

35:10

borough don't know what the word computer means.

35:13

She was speaking on stage at a forum,

35:16

as I mentioned, in California, and she stuck

35:18

her foot in her mouth while trying to

35:20

explain how she wants to create a diverse

35:23

workforce in new areas like

35:25

AI. Then they quote

35:27

what you just heard there. Lawmakers

35:30

from the Bronx and all across the

35:32

five boroughs quickly tore into Hochul's gaff,

35:35

which she later said she regretted. Do

35:38

better, Assemblywoman Karines Reyes,

35:41

Democrat from the Bronx, wrote on

35:43

X, saying she was

35:45

deeply disturbed by Hochul's remarks. Our

35:48

children are bright, brilliant, extremely capable, and

35:51

more than deserving of any opportunities that are

35:53

extended to other kids, Reyes added. And

35:56

you've got John Zaccaro, a Democrat

35:58

from the Bronx. our children far

36:01

from being underestimated are the epitome

36:03

of brilliance, resilience, and untapped potential.

36:06

Then they all continue sort of laying it

36:08

on thick about how great the kids are.

36:11

That was I think their way of getting

36:13

some pot shots in at a governor who

36:15

is, it's no secret, not terribly popular

36:18

or revered within her own party.

36:21

This was an opportunity not only to stand up for

36:23

the community for a lot of these folks, but

36:25

also take absolutely free

36:27

pot shots at HOKL because

36:30

there's nothing she can say. That

36:32

was an example of ignorant

36:35

kids that went into her head and

36:37

came out of her mouth. I'm

36:39

not gonna sit here and say she's a

36:41

racist. I am gonna say that is not

36:44

a smart way to communicate, but that's very on

36:47

brand for her. It also

36:49

reminds me of the time that Joe

36:51

Biden, our president, said quote, poor kids

36:53

are just as bright and just as

36:55

talented as white kids.

36:58

Ugh. Another cringe moment

37:01

from another good, bien

37:03

pensant, white, progressive Democrat.

37:06

Another hour of the Guy Benson Show. Straight ahead, keep

37:08

it right here. A new generation

37:13

of conservative talk. Right

37:21

here, right now. Fair, fun,

37:24

and backed by the trusted

37:26

voices and reporting resources of

37:28

Fox News. Fox News, you're

37:30

listening to the Guy Benson

37:32

Show. And now,

37:34

here's your host, Guy Benson.

37:45

It is a brand new hour here on the Guy Benson

37:47

Show. Thanks so much for tuning in. guybensonshow.com.

37:50

That's our website. The podcast

37:52

is always free. It's always

37:54

on demand. As soon as

37:56

the show is over, every

37:58

weekday. guybensonshow.com. or foxnewspodcast.com or

38:01

wherever you get your podcasts. I'm

38:03

doing the show from DC today,

38:05

then taking it on the road

38:07

the rest of the week to

38:10

one of the more far-flung places

38:12

we've ever broadcasted from. More

38:14

details on that tomorrow. Looking forward to it.

38:16

We will talk to you then. In the

38:19

meantime, lots of shows still to get to

38:21

today on this Tuesday. And I

38:23

want to begin this hour by

38:25

doing a little bit of a deep dive into

38:27

some election data that I find very

38:29

interesting. And most of

38:31

this that I'm about to tell you, I

38:34

think, is cause for serious concern among

38:36

the Biden team and

38:39

the Democrats. However, there will be

38:41

a caveat at this point, a somewhat familiar

38:43

one to this audience, that cuts

38:45

in the other direction. We'll

38:47

get to that. But let's begin with

38:49

the main source of what I'm talking about,

38:52

which is an analysis done by

38:54

the Brookings Institution, which is a

38:56

left-leaning, non-profit sort of

38:58

think tank here in DC. And

39:02

I wrote about this today at townhall.com, where

39:04

I'm political editor. And actually going

39:06

and reading my piece and looking at the

39:08

chart that I'm going to describe will probably

39:10

make this a lot easier. Because

39:13

using words over radio

39:16

to explain an intricate chart

39:19

is a challenge. When you're looking at it, it's a

39:21

lot easier. So it's right there

39:23

in my post today at townhall.com. It's easy

39:25

to find. You can Google my name, etc.

39:28

But I will do my best as well

39:30

here in this forum, within

39:32

this medium, to explain why I

39:34

think this is so significant. And to some

39:37

extent, it's just obvious. It jumps right

39:39

off the page at you. The Brookings

39:41

Institution looked at

39:43

Pew data from exit polls in the

39:45

2020 election and

39:47

then the latest Pew Research

39:50

national survey of this year's

39:52

presidential race. And

39:54

let's just stipulate, and I'll probably

39:57

revisit this, but let's just

39:59

stipulate. These are not apples

40:01

to apples comparisons because

40:05

post-election analyses of

40:07

exit polls, which actually talk

40:09

to real voters who actually

40:11

cast their ballots, that is

40:13

different than projecting

40:16

ahead to an upcoming election when

40:18

you're not really sure what the

40:20

electorate is going to look like.

40:23

Right? Breaking down who voted and

40:25

how they voted after the fact is much

40:27

more concrete than trying to predict what will

40:29

happen in the future. That

40:32

being said, given the way that the 2020

40:34

election happened in the middle

40:36

of a pandemic and a lot of

40:38

people mailing in ballots, the traditional exit

40:41

polling methods were tweaked to involve some,

40:44

I would say, processes

40:46

and methods that are

40:48

closer to traditional political polling

40:51

than old school exit polling, if

40:54

that makes sense. So again, not

40:56

making a perfect parallel to

40:58

post-election data about what just

41:01

happened versus 2024 predictive

41:04

polling, still months away from the

41:06

actual election itself. But I think

41:09

some of the themes, some

41:11

of the trends, some of the trajectories

41:14

are very much worth considering. And they

41:17

also reflect what we're seeing in other

41:19

polls as well, which is why team

41:21

Biden, team Blue, I think, collectively,

41:24

they're nervous. They're nervous

41:26

about November. Not

41:29

totally panicked. Biden

41:31

isn't cooked. It's not like there's no way he can

41:33

win. I think he absolutely can win for a number

41:35

of reasons. But the idea that he is

41:37

a favorite right now, I don't think so.

41:40

I think at best for him, it's a jump

41:42

ball. And in more likelihood, Trump

41:44

is the slight favorite at the moment. And here's why.

41:47

So it was roughly 51,

41:51

47 percentage-wise Biden over Trump in 2020

41:53

in the national popular

41:55

vote. So Biden won roughly

41:58

by four points. That's

42:00

the result from last time. Looking

42:03

ahead to this time, Pew has

42:05

Trump ahead by one point. And

42:08

this was from late last month.

42:11

So that would be a shift to the

42:13

right, a red shift,

42:15

let's call it, of five points. Then

42:18

you start to look at some of the

42:20

key demographics that represent

42:23

the victory coalition for Democrats.

42:25

For example, like

42:27

men favored Trump in 2020, barely,

42:30

now they favor him by more.

42:33

Women, much more important to the Democratic

42:36

game plan, right? Their path to

42:38

victory runs through women. Joe

42:41

Biden beat Donald Trump by 11 points, according

42:44

to this Pew data, in 2020. So

42:47

it was 55% for Biden, 44% for Trump, an

42:51

11-point double-digit win for

42:53

Biden. Right now, Biden

42:55

is only up by three in

42:58

the Pew polling against Trump. So that

43:00

would be a red shift, let's call

43:02

it, of eight points, right? From plus

43:04

11 to plus three, that's an eight-point

43:07

movement in this data towards Trump that's

43:09

among women. A

43:12

lot has been made about people of color, racial

43:15

minorities. Is that

43:17

reflected in this data? The

43:19

answer is resoundingly yes. So

43:24

among Hispanics, Biden

43:26

beat Trump by 21 points in 2020. 59%

43:30

for Biden, 38% for Trump, that was four years ago. So

43:35

a 21-point margin for

43:38

Biden among Hispanic voters. Again,

43:41

I'm using the Pew exit polling data

43:44

that they published in 2021. In

43:48

the new poll, also from

43:50

Pew, it is now an

43:52

eight-point lead for Biden, 52 to

43:54

44. So

43:57

that's a 21-point win last time. to

44:00

just an eight point lead right now in this

44:02

data. That is a 13 point

44:05

swing towards Trump. A

44:07

red shift of 13 points

44:09

in the Pew data among Hispanics.

44:11

What about Asian Americans? An emerging

44:14

voting bloc. It was a blowout

44:17

for Joe Biden last time. 72% for Biden, just

44:19

28% for Trump. A

44:22

44 point margin among Asians.

44:25

Right now, still a double digit lead for Biden,

44:27

59 to 36, but

44:29

that's just a 23 point lead. Meaning

44:33

a red shift of 21 points. A

44:35

double digit red shift

44:37

among Asians, just like there was

44:40

a double digit red shift among

44:42

Hispanics. And then

44:44

what about black Americans? 92%

44:47

of them in the Pew data went for Biden, 8% for Trump. An

44:51

84 point margin for Joe Biden, 84 point margin.

44:58

Is Trump really cutting into that? The

45:00

answer is yes. In the

45:02

latest Pew numbers, Trump is up to 18%.

45:06

Biden is down in the high 70s. That

45:09

is a 25 point red

45:13

shift toward Donald Trump among

45:15

black voters, looking at the Pew

45:17

data that I'm quoting. So

45:20

you add that all up, Hispanics, Asians,

45:23

black Americans, based

45:26

on this graphic, based on this data,

45:29

which is mined from Pew

45:31

and then analyzed

45:33

and synthesized by the left-leaning

45:35

Brookings Institution, you have double

45:38

digit red shifts across all

45:40

three of those racial groups. Now,

45:44

when you're sort of squinting at this

45:46

big block of information and

45:48

all the little blue and

45:50

red bars and all the numbers, and

45:53

you try to find good news for

45:56

Joe Biden, two data

45:58

points stick out because you've got... little

46:01

blue graph that looks like he's

46:03

made some gains, some maybe substantial

46:05

gains in two groups. And

46:07

let me just give you the spoiler alert, the punchline ahead of

46:09

time. These are typos. So

46:12

the best news for Joe Biden, quote unquote,

46:14

best news for Joe Biden in this whole

46:16

chart, the two pieces of information

46:19

that might be good news for him are

46:21

actually reversed by accident. Human

46:24

error, they actually are good numbers for

46:26

Trump. They just put the wrong color in,

46:28

blue instead of red. Let me explain.

46:30

So among Hispanics, without

46:33

a college degree, it looks like

46:36

Biden has actually gained

46:38

seven points. So there's been a

46:40

blue shift towards Biden among Hispanics,

46:42

no college degree. Actually, they

46:44

just messed up the math. Yes,

46:47

there was a seven point shift, but it was a red shift.

46:50

They just got it wrong on

46:52

the infographic. And

46:54

then this one fascinates me because maybe it's

46:56

a little bit myopic and a little selfish,

46:59

but my age range. So

47:01

let's call it roughly millennials. It's not perfect,

47:03

but roughly millennials aged 30 to 49. In

47:06

2020, that was a double digit win

47:09

for Joe Biden,

47:12

55 to 43% against

47:15

Donald Trump. So plus 11

47:18

or plus 12. Among

47:20

my age group, 30 to 49. And

47:23

you have a lot of people through the years

47:25

saying, Gosh, are the millennials ever going to start

47:27

to move right as they

47:29

get older as previous generations had done

47:31

that had not been the case for

47:33

a while. There are now signs that

47:35

it's happening, perhaps belatedly, including this one.

47:38

So Biden carried that demo by 12

47:40

points last time in the Pew data

47:42

in the new Pew poll among that

47:45

age group, voters 30 to 49.

47:47

Trump is ahead by two points, 50 to 48 over Biden. And

47:55

they've accidentally at Brookings again made

47:57

the same error where

47:59

they've made a 13-point blue shift and

48:01

the bar actually should be red. So

48:05

I'll reiterate the two best pieces of

48:07

news in this whole big infographic with

48:09

tons of numbers on it and

48:12

sort of the bars of red and

48:14

blue showing these shifts between last election

48:17

and this election, the two best-looking

48:20

blue pops on

48:23

the infographic are typos,

48:25

are user error on Brookings'

48:27

part. They're actually

48:29

bad news for Biden and good

48:31

news for Trump. I mean a

48:33

double-digit swing among millennials, that age

48:35

group, towards Trump. I

48:38

think part of that has to do

48:41

with millennials not just growing up and

48:43

trying to buy houses and feeling like

48:45

things are unaffordable and then finally maybe

48:47

they're getting their lives together, then they

48:49

get hit by this pandemic, then inflation

48:51

just hammers them. We're

48:53

mad. I think understandably mad.

48:55

We had the huge financial

48:58

crisis in 2008 that

49:00

disrupted college, post-college for

49:02

a lot of us and

49:05

then everything got delayed a bit, starting a

49:07

family, starting a life the way we had

49:09

imagined and then inflation is taking such a

49:11

big bite out of that. I think that

49:13

there is, frankly, some resentment

49:15

about Gen Z and all the nonsense

49:17

that we see all the time on

49:19

campuses. I think some of us collectively

49:22

might be growing up and saying, �All right, that's

49:25

garbage. We don't

49:27

want to be associated with that

49:29

and being repulsed by that and

49:31

therefore driven rightward.� When you're

49:34

trying to create a

49:36

life and build

49:38

well and you're failing

49:40

and you're slipping and the government seems

49:42

to be causing a lot of the

49:44

problems and prices for everything going up,

49:46

you can remember some of the momentum

49:48

that you might have been feeling back in 2017, 2018, 2019 when a

49:50

certain somebody else was president, which might explain it.

49:57

Look, we'll see. We're so far off all the caveats apply, all

49:59

the assets. We're six months away from

50:01

the election, so many events are going

50:03

to intervene, who knows where the campaign is going.

50:05

But there's been a lot of stability in

50:08

this horse race because it's a rematch of

50:11

two presidents and everyone has feelings about them. I've

50:14

said this before, so that's

50:16

why it's not a waste of my breath here to

50:18

be, I think, doing a deep dive like this and

50:20

talking about it with,

50:22

of course, the humility of knowing that this

50:25

could all be moot at some point down

50:27

the line if major things change. But there

50:29

just haven't been tectonic shifts. There have

50:32

been potentially seismic events that have

50:34

barely been a blip

50:36

in terms of public opinion. So

50:39

if you see a double-digit swing

50:42

among 30-49 year olds towards

50:45

Trump and double-digit swings

50:47

among two or three racial minority

50:49

groups, as this Pew data

50:51

suggests, and a move

50:53

towards Trump among women, whether it's just a

50:56

few points or eight to ten points, that

50:59

is a deep erosion

51:03

of the Biden victory coalition. And

51:06

yes, remember, he won, he won 80, what,

51:09

81 million votes. He

51:11

won by four percentage points fairly

51:13

comfortably in the

51:15

national numbers, but he won the

51:18

presidency pretty narrowly. When

51:20

you add it all together, it's tens of thousands

51:22

of votes in a handful of states

51:24

that if they had gone just the other way, Trump

51:27

would have been reelected even in spite of everything.

51:31

So without big shifts away

51:33

from Trump among his base,

51:36

but real erosion

51:39

and sort of a loss of altitude

51:41

with Biden among key pieces of the

51:43

groups that made him president in 2020,

51:46

you put that all

51:48

together sort of into the computer of your brain,

51:50

just basic common sense, and you say, that is

51:52

going to be a tough reelection road for Biden

51:55

this time, even

51:57

if these numbers are approximately correct.

52:00

They don't have to be perfect. Approximately correct.

52:02

That victory coalition is in real jeopardy

52:04

for Biden, which is why I think

52:06

you're seeing so much of the frantic

52:09

pandering that you're seeing from

52:11

this guy and his team. So

52:14

that is the good

52:17

news, and there's a lot of it there for Trump, and

52:19

it's backed up by a lot of other polling. And

52:21

absolutely, that's nothing to sneeze at. That's a lot of

52:23

good news for Trump. You might be thinking, seems

52:26

unvarnished to me. Well, there's another side of

52:28

it, and I have to explain that

52:30

as soon as we come back. It's important. Stay

52:33

tuned. Not the same

52:35

talking points here, but Guy

52:37

Benson Show. I'm

52:45

Guy Benson. We are back. We just

52:47

sunk our team into a lot of

52:49

data that looks quite good for Donald

52:51

Trump. His position much stronger than it

52:54

was four years ago. That's all real.

52:56

However, this is the

52:59

other shoe to drop. This is

53:01

where Biden and the Democrats have a real

53:03

advantage. ABC has

53:05

a new poll out that I

53:08

think underscores a point that I've been making

53:10

and trying to beat the drum loud enough for

53:12

people to actually pay attention. In

53:14

the ABC News poll, among adults in the

53:17

United States, Donald Trump is beating Joe Biden

53:19

by two points. Among

53:22

registered voters, it's tied.

53:24

It's like a one-point difference. Among

53:27

likely voters, reliable

53:29

likely voters, Joe Biden is up by

53:31

four points. New

53:34

York Times had a big story about all

53:36

the get-out-the-vote, getting ballots into voters' hands, efforts

53:39

that the Democrats are undertaking with

53:41

field offices in all these swing

53:43

states. They're building a ground-game army

53:46

because elections, yes, it's about

53:48

ideas and policies and popularity

53:50

and top-level messaging, but it's

53:52

also about, it's really ultimately

53:54

about who shows up with

53:57

a ballot, drops it into the box, wherever

53:59

it might be. and submits it. What

54:02

is the universe of people that actually

54:04

show up and participate and the Democrats

54:06

are doing everything in

54:08

their power to have an absolute

54:11

well-oiled machine on the ballot front

54:13

and that's what could be the difference between winning

54:15

and losing. I keep

54:18

saying you look at the polling Biden

54:20

is up among people who are definitely going to

54:22

vote. Among people who

54:24

sometimes vote Trump is up big. Among

54:26

people who aren't registered but could be Trump

54:29

is up bigger. He'd

54:31

say well that's great Trump could win by a

54:34

landslide even or at least a comfortable

54:36

margin if those people show up for

54:38

him but that won't happen by magic.

54:42

The Republicans in the Trump campaign have to get

54:44

those people out and they are

54:46

way behind in that

54:48

operation and that game behind

54:50

the Democrats who have

54:53

been perfecting this. They are

54:55

way behind. That is the biggest positive

54:57

piece of information that Biden has going

54:59

for him. Despite everything else

55:02

that I just mentioned and

55:04

ABC News is just the latest in

55:06

a whole conga line of surveys that

55:09

prove Biden has the advantage

55:11

among the likeliest most reliable voters. Can

55:14

the Republicans get their act together and

55:17

mobilize this other universe of voters? If

55:19

they can I think Trump has a

55:21

very good chance of winning. If they

55:23

can't the country might not

55:25

be happy about it mood wise but the

55:27

Democrats might just crank out a victory shirning

55:30

their machine. The

55:32

Guy Benson Show continues with more right after this

55:34

break please stay tuned. A

55:42

fresh perspective on the topics

55:44

of the day. It's Guy

55:46

Benson. Halfway through the Guy

55:48

Benson Show thanks for tuning in. With us

55:50

now is Byron York chief political correspondent at

55:53

the Washington Examiner and a Fox News contributor

55:55

Byron. Hello. Hi Guy good to be here.

55:57

So we had Andy McCarthy at the top

55:59

of the show giving his legal analysis

56:01

of the Trump trial in New York.

56:03

Of course, Andy, a longtime federal prosecutor.

56:06

Neither one of us are lawyers here,

56:08

Byron, but we follow politics very

56:10

closely. And to me, this is

56:13

really almost all about politics, less

56:15

about the law. That's what's happening

56:17

in Manhattan, in my view. Many

56:20

Americans, even non-Trump fans,

56:22

it seems agree to a large

56:24

extent. So on that

56:26

score, I do want to ask

56:28

you about how you are viewing

56:31

this saga so far, this whole

56:33

performance, because we're now weeks in, and

56:36

apparently we might be getting a few more weeks

56:38

of this before everyone rests. Yeah,

56:40

well, first of all, it is dominating

56:43

news in the way

56:46

that we thought that it would.

56:48

It's not the only story there,

56:50

and lots of campus protesters continuing

56:52

Israel-Moss war, but this really

56:54

has been dominating a lot of news coverage, even

56:56

though there are no cameras in the courtroom. You

56:59

know, the cable networks have come up

57:01

with ways to have reporters in there

57:03

in an overflow room texting what's being

57:05

said, and then they put the text

57:07

on the screen. And it's a very

57:09

old-fashioned kind of way of doing things.

57:13

So it has really dominated. My sense is

57:17

the injustice

57:20

of the charges against Trump, for which he faces a

57:22

maximum of 136 years in prison,

57:25

have really—I'm serious.

57:27

It's just crazy. It's

57:29

34 felonies, each with

57:32

a potential four

57:34

years in prison for

57:36

bookkeeping. And

57:38

I think this is coming out some.

57:40

I've been watching coverage today of the

57:42

Stormy Daniels testimony, and

57:45

we've seen all this before. And

57:48

I think it's really coming out

57:50

that this is kind of a made-up

57:53

offense that

57:56

never should have been brought. The

57:59

charges never should have been brought. have been brought. By the

58:01

way, just let me jump in because they

58:03

got Al Capone on bookkeeping because it was massive

58:05

tax evasion. They got him on tax evasion. They

58:07

actually didn't pay his taxes for a number of

58:10

years. Exactly. That's my point.

58:12

The bookkeeping problem and

58:15

they had the bookkeeper in the movie

58:17

The Untouchables come out and sort of

58:19

hang him on that charge because they

58:21

couldn't get him on the other stuff,

58:23

that was tax evasion. That is a

58:25

very clear cut crime whereas this, yes,

58:27

there's a bookkeeping component but they're saying

58:29

it was hush money to this

58:31

mistress and it's all very unseemly

58:34

of course but major

58:36

political and famous figures pay

58:39

hush money settlements. There are

58:41

NDAs. It's part of that

58:43

universe and sometimes people don't write on

58:46

their books, here's the porn star payoff.

58:48

They kind of call it something else.

58:51

That is supposedly the offense

58:54

here that they've blown

58:56

up into dozens of felonies.

59:00

Actually, Trump's bookkeeper testified

59:03

that they had to find

59:05

somebody to categorize these

59:07

payments they were making to Michael Cohen and

59:10

they had a drop-down menu. They have kind of an old

59:13

computer system in the drop-down menu and you

59:15

have like five choices to categorize these payments

59:17

and one of them is legal services. Now

59:19

they're paying for a

59:22

non-disclosure agreement negotiated

59:25

by a lawyer and they call

59:27

it legally expenses and

59:30

that is the heart of the

59:32

crime here. Of

59:34

course, it has to

59:37

have a second crime to be a felony. They

59:40

still haven't revealed, prosecutors still haven't revealed exactly

59:42

what that is. We now think it's

59:45

a violation of the Federal

59:48

Election Campaign Act, that 1971 Act that set

59:52

up the FEC and the whole campaign

59:54

law structure that we have

59:56

today. The feds haven't pursued. The feds

59:58

didn't pursue that. No, the

1:00:00

FBI did not pursue

1:00:02

this, nor did the Justice

1:00:05

Department pursue this. And

1:00:08

we know also neither did

1:00:10

the Manhattan district attorney until Alvin

1:00:13

Bragwe became the district attorney, having

1:00:15

campaigned on pledges to get Donald

1:00:17

Trump. So I

1:00:19

think we're also—what we're seeing is you

1:00:21

asked me about politics. The

1:00:25

trial started on March 15th,

1:00:28

and—excuse me, April 15th. April 15th.

1:00:31

So we've been in its fourth week.

1:00:33

We're now actually seeing a number of polls

1:00:35

that have been taken while the trial was

1:00:38

underway and while this wall-to-wall media coverage

1:00:40

was underway, and it doesn't seem to

1:00:42

have affected anything. Now,

1:00:44

maybe if Trump's found guilty—he could

1:00:47

be found guilty on all the

1:00:49

charges for all I know—maybe that'll

1:00:51

make a big difference. But right

1:00:53

now, you and I

1:00:55

have talked in the past, well, would these indictments make

1:00:58

any difference? Well, no, they didn't. Actually, they may have

1:01:00

helped them in the Republican race. Well,

1:01:03

what about the trials? Will the trials make

1:01:05

any difference? Well, right now

1:01:07

we're having a trial. It doesn't seem to have made any difference.

1:01:09

So the next question is

1:01:12

would a conviction make any difference? And

1:01:14

in this case, with these facts, I'm not sure that

1:01:16

it would. I want

1:01:18

to come back to that in a

1:01:21

second. But before we do, would the

1:01:23

gag order battle back

1:01:25

and forth that seems to be fueling a

1:01:27

lot of the drama and the breathless reporting

1:01:30

out of the courthouse? And Trump's been fined

1:01:32

again. And this judge, who,

1:01:34

by the way, donated to Joe Biden and

1:01:36

his daughters raising a ton of money for

1:01:39

Democrats, this judge has now threatened, I'm getting

1:01:41

tired of all these fines, you might be

1:01:43

incarcerated if you keep blowing through the gag

1:01:45

order and talking about this trial publicly. I

1:01:49

posed this to Senator Shelley Moore

1:01:51

Capito yesterday knowing Trump

1:01:53

Byron, knowing how he

1:01:55

operates politically, knowing how he enjoys

1:01:57

getting and keeping attention. Is

1:02:00

there any part of you that thinks that Trump

1:02:03

might want to dare this judge to

1:02:05

put him in jail for a night? No,

1:02:08

no, I don't think he wants to go

1:02:10

to jail. I mean, I think, personally, I

1:02:12

think Trump is mortified at having

1:02:14

been indicted four times. If you go to

1:02:16

his rallies, listen to his speeches, he

1:02:19

almost always talks about having

1:02:22

been indicted all these times and being indicted more

1:02:24

times than Al Capone, we were talking earlier. He

1:02:27

says he imagines his late

1:02:29

parents looking down on

1:02:32

him, saying, how did our son get

1:02:34

indicted more times than Al Capone? So,

1:02:36

no, listen, I think he

1:02:38

hates this. I think he's mortified by it, and

1:02:40

I do not think that he wants to go

1:02:42

to jail. As a matter of fact, yesterday,

1:02:46

which was the big day of talking about

1:02:49

the gag thing, when he came out, when

1:02:51

he arrived in court in the morning, made

1:02:53

his statement, I thought it was pretty carefully

1:02:55

worded. So as not to

1:02:57

set off any gag order

1:02:59

problems. Now, I just think it would

1:03:02

be such an awful look.

1:03:04

The whole trial is insane overreach in

1:03:06

my mind. So to then actually put

1:03:08

the guy behind bars could

1:03:11

actually benefit him. I can't

1:03:13

imagine anyone wants to spend any time in

1:03:16

jail. I don't doubt that. But I do wonder

1:03:18

if there's just a little bit of gamesmanship there

1:03:20

saying, okay, Your Honor, are you really going to

1:03:22

do this? Biden donor,

1:03:24

it would take the width of

1:03:27

Banana Republic politics and turn

1:03:29

it into a full-blown stench. And

1:03:32

even to a lot of voters who may not be

1:03:34

paying attention saying, really? Now,

1:03:37

you were posing this question, Byron, a

1:03:39

moment ago about whether a conviction might

1:03:41

change things. And it might matter which case

1:03:43

we're talking about. This is the one in front

1:03:46

of us. This is the one that's underway right

1:03:48

now, unclear if any of the other ones will

1:03:50

actually transpire prior to the election. So just

1:03:53

looking at the proceedings

1:03:55

now, one of the ways

1:03:58

that the prosecution, i.e. Brad, might

1:04:00

get a conviction is through

1:04:02

not just a heavily slanted jury

1:04:04

from a very blue jurisdiction but

1:04:07

also by getting

1:04:09

an assist from the aforementioned

1:04:11

Biden donor judge not

1:04:13

allowing the Trump defense to

1:04:16

bring compelling witnesses with

1:04:19

compelling testimony to the fore

1:04:21

to offer certain facts

1:04:23

to the jury. So the jury may

1:04:25

not hear things that at least seem

1:04:27

to be very relevant in my mind.

1:04:29

You wrote about one of these examples

1:04:32

since you also name-checked the

1:04:34

FEC earlier. So this is

1:04:36

a consequential again anti-Trump

1:04:38

decision by this anti-Trump

1:04:40

judge about not just

1:04:43

a pertinent matter in my mind maybe the

1:04:45

pertinent matter. Byron York I want to get

1:04:47

into those details about the column you've written

1:04:49

on all of this highly significant stuff. We'll

1:04:51

do that as soon as we come back

1:04:53

from this very short break on

1:04:55

the Guy Benson show. In the

1:04:57

swamp not of the swamp Guy

1:05:00

Benson. Back

1:05:09

here on the Guy Benson show with Byron

1:05:11

York and Byron we were just teasing this

1:05:13

before the break I would like you to

1:05:15

talk about the Trump defense witness that

1:05:17

they want to bring and how

1:05:19

he is being at least partially

1:05:21

muzzled in advance by this judge.

1:05:24

He's a man named Brad Smith and

1:05:28

George W. Bush appointed

1:05:30

him to the Federal Election Commission. He

1:05:32

was the chairman of the Federal Election

1:05:34

Commission. There was a huge fight over

1:05:36

his nomination because he was opposed to Democratic

1:05:39

style campaign finance reform and

1:05:43

believed that a lot of

1:05:45

our campaign finance structure was

1:05:47

unnecessary. But anyway former chairman

1:05:49

knows about as much as you can

1:05:51

know about campaign finance and he has

1:05:53

strong opinions which are backed up

1:05:55

by a bunch of legal decisions about

1:05:58

what constitutes something that is

1:06:01

done for the

1:06:03

purpose of influencing an election. Now,

1:06:06

as you know, all of the breathless media

1:06:08

coverage of the Stormy Daniels trial has said

1:06:10

that Trump was trying to corrupt the election,

1:06:13

he was trying to influence the election, he

1:06:15

was trying to fix the election, all

1:06:17

of these things. And

1:06:20

Brad Smith would say, and he said

1:06:22

this back when Michael Cohen first got

1:06:24

in trouble in 2018, said, look,

1:06:27

not every expense that a

1:06:29

candidate pays is

1:06:32

done for the purpose of

1:06:35

influencing an election lately. Let's

1:06:37

say he's a businessman, he has a few lawsuits

1:06:40

against him. He's

1:06:42

going to run for office, he knows he's going to run for

1:06:44

office. So what he does is he settles the lawsuits to kind

1:06:46

of get those off the table out

1:06:48

of the picture before he announces his candidacy.

1:06:50

Is that an election? I mean, that's done

1:06:53

for the purpose of making him a better

1:06:55

candidate. It's not an election expense. Let's

1:06:58

say he's the same man. He's

1:07:00

in his 60s and he's never run

1:07:02

for office before. And his wife

1:07:04

says, well, you know, your face is getting kind

1:07:06

of jowly, maybe you could get a little work

1:07:08

done, you know, before you run for office. So

1:07:11

he goes and he has plastic surgery. That

1:07:14

is not an expense for the purpose

1:07:16

of influencing an election. And

1:07:19

in the case of the Stormy Daniels

1:07:21

payoff, we have already gotten testimony that

1:07:24

Trump, I'll use the word

1:07:26

mortified again, was very

1:07:28

unhappy about

1:07:30

the idea of Daniel's story coming

1:07:33

out and his wife finding out

1:07:35

about it. So much so that when it

1:07:37

was reported in the Wall

1:07:40

Street Journal, Hope Hicks said

1:07:43

that he tried to make sure that David

1:07:45

the Wall Street Journal was not delivered to

1:07:47

his wife. So

1:07:50

there are multiple reasons beyond

1:07:53

the election for Trump

1:07:55

not to want this story to

1:07:57

come out, which means this

1:07:59

is simply not a

1:08:01

campaign finance matter. Which

1:08:04

is the whole crux of this alleged crime.

1:08:07

The second crime, the

1:08:09

first crime is just false record

1:08:11

keeping, which is a misdemeanor whose

1:08:13

statute of limitations expired in 2019.

1:08:17

It's over. Five years passed out of

1:08:19

date. You could never bring that case. So

1:08:23

to be able to bring it... And they would

1:08:25

never bring the case anyway. Of course you wouldn't.

1:08:27

It's not a thing. It's a misdemeanor. And

1:08:31

so now they've come up with a second crime,

1:08:33

which by the way is also a misdemeanor, to

1:08:36

turn this all into a felony

1:08:39

that Trump should

1:08:42

have disclosed

1:08:44

this payment to

1:08:47

the FEC and his campaign finance

1:08:50

reports, where apparently there

1:08:53

is a category that says, touch money. And you check

1:08:55

that and you write $130,000 next to it. So

1:09:00

Brad Smith, former chairman of the FEC,

1:09:02

is saying, look, this is a felony.

1:09:05

This is not the way it works. The

1:09:07

law doesn't require it. There's been a lot of legal cases

1:09:09

about this. There was this John

1:09:12

Edwards case where the Justice Department tried to

1:09:14

enforce something like this against Don Edwards and

1:09:16

lost. They had to give up. So

1:09:22

the Trump people want to call Brad Smith as a witness, and

1:09:24

they're going to. But Judge

1:09:26

Marchand has

1:09:28

forbidden, forbidden Smith from

1:09:30

saying a lot of what I was just

1:09:32

talking about. He's forbidden Smith from talking about

1:09:34

it. On what grounds? He

1:09:37

says it's probative of nothing. The

1:09:39

fact that the FEC looked into

1:09:42

this matter and took no action.

1:09:44

And the Justice Department looked into

1:09:46

this matter and took no action.

1:09:49

Smith cannot mention that. He's been forbidden from

1:09:51

mentioning that because the judge said it was,

1:09:54

quote, probative of nothing. He

1:09:57

cannot, Smith cannot talk about.

1:10:00

I'm not a lawyer. I'm not an expert. I'm

1:10:02

just trying to figure out on

1:10:04

what planet that would be probative of nothing. It's

1:10:07

like disproving the core

1:10:09

of the state's case. It's

1:10:12

planet Mershan. I mean, I don't

1:10:14

know. But that's

1:10:16

what the judge said, so the jury will never

1:10:18

hear this from Brad Smith. And as a matter

1:10:20

of fact, he said, he, Mershan, said that Smith

1:10:24

could only testify about the nature of the

1:10:26

FEC and what kind of law it enforces

1:10:28

and all this kind of general stuff like

1:10:30

what floor of the building is the FEC

1:10:33

located on? And to

1:10:35

try to keep Smith

1:10:37

from addressing the actual issues

1:10:39

in the trial. So I

1:10:43

kind of came to the conclusion that Donald

1:10:45

Trump is not the only person under a

1:10:47

gag order in this

1:10:49

case because one of his strongest

1:10:52

potential witnesses, Brad Smith, faces the

1:10:54

same kind of speech restrictions from

1:10:57

Judge Mershan. Because

1:10:59

this guy literally ran the

1:11:02

Federal Elections Commission. He was the

1:11:04

chairman of the FEC. And

1:11:07

a big part of the prosecution's case here

1:11:09

is, oh, what Trump did

1:11:12

ran a foul of SEC regulations,

1:11:14

and therefore that's another element of the

1:11:16

crime that we're going to then parlay into

1:11:19

dozens of felonies with, you know, 100-plus

1:11:21

years of jail time attached to it

1:11:23

or prison time. And here's

1:11:25

the chairman of the FEC who

1:11:27

wants to come in and tell the

1:11:29

jury, actually, no, that's not how this

1:11:31

works and actually know this expense doesn't

1:11:33

fall into that category. And

1:11:35

the judge is saying, oh, yeah, the jury can never

1:11:38

hear about that. I'm just – that

1:11:40

when Trump – and look, this audience

1:11:42

knows, and I hear from

1:11:44

them sometimes, and they get frustrated with me when

1:11:47

I – critical of Trump, certain people in the

1:11:49

audience. I try to call them the way

1:11:51

that I see them. When Trump

1:11:54

yells about things being rigged,

1:11:56

Sometimes he's wrong and

1:11:59

conspiratorial. And myopic

1:12:01

sometimes. He's right. And.

1:12:04

This feels and looks.

1:12:07

Very. Much like a rigged trial

1:12:09

to me, Byron is that overstating.

1:12:12

No, I don't think it's overstating. That's

1:12:14

why are the the polite way to

1:12:16

say it? Is there gonna be a

1:12:18

lot of issues for appeal of of

1:12:21

that. But but out I keep saying

1:12:23

the appeal doesn't matter, they're happy to

1:12:25

lose on appeal. This is about a

1:12:27

utilitarian outcome. In the next six months

1:12:29

this is about it. Was hatching a

1:12:31

label to Donald Trump before the election

1:12:34

in November. That's it. If they lose

1:12:36

down the line they don't care. That's

1:12:38

not the about justice or enforcing the

1:12:40

law. This is about winning. An election.

1:12:43

Year or so correct and if

1:12:46

in every decision the judge Marshawn

1:12:48

makes an even the jury makes

1:12:50

was overturned on appeal, there's no

1:12:52

way it would happen before the

1:12:54

election and you're absolutely right. The

1:12:56

whole idea is to be able

1:12:58

to call down Trump, a convicted

1:13:01

felon and you're human. I were

1:13:03

just mentioned briefly, there are polls

1:13:05

in which people who currently else.

1:13:10

To say they would not. Be

1:13:12

were convicted of a. Felony or they were

1:13:14

second one as they are go

1:13:16

after right there one hundred percent

1:13:19

and that just sort of casting

1:13:21

our minds ahead to the future.

1:13:23

Days. Weeks. If

1:13:25

this, Juri comes back. With.

1:13:28

A not guilty or a hung jury. Despite

1:13:30

the rigging of the trial, That.

1:13:33

Would really be something as they are doing

1:13:36

everything between brag. And. This judge

1:13:38

both partisan democrats. We're.

1:13:40

Doing everything they can to

1:13:42

guarantee that convicted felon label.

1:13:45

We. shall see byron york thanks so

1:13:47

much for your time final hour of

1:13:49

the program is next haiti's it's fallen

1:13:51

on foreign policy Raise

1:14:04

your glass to the

1:14:06

Guy Benson Show Happy Hour, brought to

1:14:08

you by the Finnish Long Drink. Finland's

1:14:11

most popular alcoholic beverage is

1:14:13

taking America by storm. Visit

1:14:16

thelongdrink.com. And

1:14:19

now, here's Guy Benson. That's

1:14:29

the Happy Hour on the Guy

1:14:31

Benson Show, Tuesday edition. Thanks for

1:14:33

tuning in. guybensonshow.com, our online

1:14:35

home. Lots of content there, lots of goodies.

1:14:38

You can also follow me on social

1:14:40

media, at Guy P. Benson, on Twitter

1:14:42

and on Instagram. Follow the

1:14:45

show, both places, at Guy Benson

1:14:47

Show. The podcast is free, on

1:14:49

demand when the show is over. guybensonshow.com,

1:14:52

foxnewspodcast.com, or wherever you

1:14:54

get your podcasts. Join

1:14:56

the show on the road the rest of the week, to

1:14:59

a very far-flung location. Far

1:15:01

far away. We'll tell you more about that tomorrow.

1:15:04

This hour is sponsored by the Finnish Long Drink, no

1:15:06

matter where we are. We love the

1:15:09

Long Drink. It is delicious. It is refreshing.

1:15:12

21 plus only, because it's an

1:15:14

alcoholic beverage. We always urge you

1:15:16

to drink responsibly. Of course, thelongdrink.com.

1:15:19

The longdrink.com, you can find out where they're sold near

1:15:21

you. It really expanded. They

1:15:23

are doing gangbusters. You can also

1:15:25

order online, thelongdrink.com. With

1:15:28

me now is KT McFarland,

1:15:30

former Trump Deputy National Security Advisor.

1:15:33

She has served under four

1:15:35

different presidents. Nixon, Ford,

1:15:37

Reagan, and Trump. KT, it's great

1:15:39

to talk to you. Well,

1:15:42

it's always an honor and a pleasure.

1:15:44

Thank you. Well, we were able to

1:15:46

see each other for about four seconds.

1:15:48

Yesterday in New York, I was racing

1:15:50

from one studio to another with like

1:15:52

no time in between my hits, so

1:15:54

I felt like I shortchanged our exchange

1:15:56

and our interaction, so I apologize for

1:15:59

that. for four seconds. It was very

1:16:01

good to see you. Well, you

1:16:03

know, you're a busy guy and it

1:16:05

makes a lot of sense because you're a really smart guy

1:16:07

and you, I must say, the

1:16:09

observations you have, particularly about American politics,

1:16:12

you're out there by yourself. You know, you're not

1:16:14

just repeating what everybody else says. You really come

1:16:16

at things with a very unique angle and quite

1:16:18

profound. So, good for you. Wow. Well, thank you

1:16:20

so much. I would ask you to go on, but

1:16:23

I want to pick your brain here. So, that does

1:16:25

mean a lot though, especially someone

1:16:27

with your knowledge, your expertise, your

1:16:29

experience, that that's really extremely flattering

1:16:31

and very kind of you

1:16:33

to say. So, thank you. Let's talk about Israel,

1:16:36

Gaza, Rafa specifically.

1:16:39

K.T., maybe I am

1:16:41

missing something. I'm just wondering, can

1:16:44

you recall any time in modern

1:16:46

American history or American history generally

1:16:49

where a president of the United States is

1:16:52

saying with one

1:16:54

side of his mouth that he

1:16:56

has ironclad commitment to a top

1:16:58

American ally and out of the other

1:17:00

side of his mouth he is doing

1:17:03

seemingly everything possible to

1:17:05

undermine that ally and

1:17:08

to basically short circuit that ally's

1:17:10

ability to do something militarily that

1:17:12

that other country is trying to

1:17:14

achieve because that is what he

1:17:16

is doing with

1:17:18

the Israelis right now, in my mind, no question about

1:17:20

it. Have you ever seen anything like that? No,

1:17:22

and remember, this is not about what's best for

1:17:24

Israel or what's even best for the United States.

1:17:27

It's what's best for Joe Biden and how does

1:17:29

he get reelected? And he figures

1:17:31

he's going to play both sides because he

1:17:33

needs the Muslim American vote from a couple

1:17:35

of key states in the Midwest. All the

1:17:38

people who were shouting death to America, death

1:17:40

to Israel, kill all the Jews, they're helping

1:17:42

determine his foreign policy. And so,

1:17:44

he has to appease them and therefore

1:17:46

he has to look like he's going

1:17:48

against Israel. But on the other hand,

1:17:50

Israel is one of America's long-term allies

1:17:52

in the region and a close friend and he

1:17:55

can't really abandon Israel so he's got to look

1:17:57

like he's supporting Israel. So he's trying to have

1:17:59

it both ways. And at the end

1:18:01

of it, he has it in no ways,

1:18:03

because, yeah, I just keep thinking of what

1:18:05

Barack Obama said. When President Obama said about

1:18:07

Joe Biden, he said, never underestimate Joe Biden's

1:18:09

ability to screw things up. And

1:18:12

the situation in Gaza and Hamas and

1:18:15

Israel, the solution would have been

1:18:17

so easy if Biden had just had a little

1:18:19

bit of courage, if he had just gone to

1:18:21

the Israelis and said, look, you're

1:18:24

going to be able to do it. You've got to clear

1:18:26

out Gaza. You've got to destroy Hamas, and here's how we're

1:18:29

going to do it. And he could

1:18:31

have gone to the Palestinians and said, OK,

1:18:33

the civilians in the Palestinians, you're not all

1:18:35

Hamas. We're going to help you get out

1:18:37

of the reed. We're going to have to get out of Gaza,

1:18:39

go into the Sinai, go into Egypt,

1:18:41

stay there temporarily while Israel goes

1:18:43

and cleans out Hamas, destroys the

1:18:46

tunnels. And then once

1:18:48

Gaza is Hamas-free, they could have

1:18:50

let the Palestinians back in. But

1:18:52

no, as you've described it,

1:18:54

he's just sort of screwed everything up. And now Israel

1:18:57

has no choice. It has to go

1:19:00

after Hamas and Rafah. And it's going to

1:19:02

take a while. It's going to be a lot

1:19:04

of civilian casualties. And Hamas thinks

1:19:06

it's already won. I mean, Hamas thinks it's won

1:19:08

no matter what. Hamas thinks it's

1:19:10

won if Israel doesn't

1:19:12

go in, because then Hamas

1:19:14

can regroup, rebuild, re-attack. And

1:19:17

Hamas thinks it's won if Israel does go

1:19:19

in, because there will be a lot of

1:19:21

civilian casualties because of the way Hamas

1:19:23

uses its own women and children as human shields.

1:19:26

And then Israel loses world approval.

1:19:29

Yeah. And at least you

1:19:31

would be Hamas-free at that point. That's the plus

1:19:33

side, of course, of the Israelis. And

1:19:35

I saw there's a puzzling comment to me

1:19:38

from John Kirby at the podium yesterday talking

1:19:40

about a number of different issues being asked

1:19:42

various questions. And he was

1:19:44

saying, well, with Israel's attempt

1:19:46

to eliminate Hamas, he said you

1:19:48

can never fully defeat

1:19:52

a mindset or a worldview. And

1:19:55

I guess that's true. Israel is not going

1:19:57

to end jihadism or...

1:20:00

Islamism in Gaza by

1:20:02

defeating Hamas, but that's not the military

1:20:04

objective. They're not trying to uproot an

1:20:06

entire ideology. They're trying to defeat a

1:20:08

specific enemy in a specific place. I

1:20:10

just found that to be a very

1:20:12

weird kind of shifting of

1:20:14

the paradigm from Kirby to say, oh, well, no

1:20:17

matter what Israel does, they can't achieve this. Well,

1:20:19

they're not trying to achieve that. They're trying to

1:20:21

achieve something else that's pretty

1:20:23

tangible and I think quite achievable,

1:20:25

especially if we had their backs.

1:20:29

Yeah, I mean, I don't understand what John

1:20:31

Kirby is saying. It was the same argument of

1:20:33

the forever war in Iraq, saying, well, you

1:20:35

know, we'll never defeat all this, but we

1:20:37

have to keep fighting. We have to keep fighting.

1:20:39

Well, Donald Trump showed, yeah, you could defeat

1:20:41

ISIS. Look at how quickly we did it.

1:20:43

Look at how quickly they eliminated the key people

1:20:45

in ISIS and how ISIS was a spent

1:20:47

force by the time the Trump administration was

1:20:49

finished. It's almost like John Kirby is saying, well,

1:20:52

Israel, don't bother because you'll never, ever

1:20:54

really be able to be secure. That's exactly what that

1:20:56

message was to me. Don't bother. Yeah.

1:21:00

Well, how can you possibly say that

1:21:02

to an ally, which has got its back

1:21:04

up against the law to say, don't bother

1:21:06

to defend yourself against these evil

1:21:09

people. And then

1:21:11

related to that, we have the story that

1:21:13

broke two days ago, Katie, I'm sure you

1:21:15

saw it, that this administration was withholding ammunition,

1:21:18

a delivery of ammunition to the Israelis,

1:21:20

which was resulting in a lot of

1:21:22

scrambling within Israel. Why is this happening?

1:21:24

Are we going to get that ammo?

1:21:26

The Biden administration saying that they're not

1:21:28

going to comment on it. They're not

1:21:30

confirming or denying those reports, which to me

1:21:33

suggests that those reports are

1:21:35

accurate. Congress just

1:21:37

passed a supplemental to help Israel

1:21:39

and to fund their war

1:21:41

effort. If the

1:21:44

administration is now withholding that

1:21:47

money or some of the ammunition that that money

1:21:49

bought, I'm trying to figure out, is that even

1:21:52

legal in terms of the

1:21:54

constitutional order? Are they trying to

1:21:56

do that to pressure the Israelis not to go into

1:21:58

Rafa saying, all right, actually, we're not. going to

1:22:00

give you what you need and maybe you

1:22:02

can do what we want you to do

1:22:04

for political reasons. I just again

1:22:06

find it astounding that in the middle of

1:22:09

a war of survival against

1:22:11

a genocidal terrorist group right on

1:22:13

their doorstep, the United States of

1:22:15

America is at the very

1:22:18

least playing games like this with

1:22:20

an ally like Israel. Yeah, I was trying

1:22:22

to slow walk it. Slow walking the

1:22:25

resupply of military equipment. Now I

1:22:29

think that the way the administration leaked

1:22:31

this, you know, it wasn't a statement

1:22:33

coming out of the White House press

1:22:35

secretary's office. It was reports saying that

1:22:37

while the administration is sinking of slow

1:22:39

walking or denying equipment to Israel. Look,

1:22:41

the message was received in Israel saying,

1:22:45

basically the Biden administration saying we don't want you

1:22:47

to go into Rafa. We want you, I guess,

1:22:49

the John Kirby version of events. Just give up.

1:22:52

It's inevitable that you're going to be defeated.

1:22:55

And so what's Israel supposed to do? I

1:22:57

mean, Israel has no choice. It's survival is

1:22:59

at stake. And with the little

1:23:01

signals the Biden administration is trying to throw one

1:23:04

way or the other for its own

1:23:06

political ambitions, again, not because of

1:23:08

what's best for Israel, not because of

1:23:10

what's best for the United States, but

1:23:12

what's best for Joe Biden's electoral prospects.

1:23:15

You know, you can't tell a country don't defend yourself.

1:23:18

Right. And they're saying, well, you've done a lot of

1:23:20

defending yourself and we've helped you so far, but it's

1:23:22

good enough. You're ever going to defeat all of them.

1:23:25

You're not going to root them completely out. So let's

1:23:27

avoid the Rafa thing. We've got a problem in Michigan.

1:23:29

I mean, that's what is very obvious to me. Also

1:23:32

there is the Politico story about how so much

1:23:34

of the Biden funding base for

1:23:36

his reelection is bankrolling all of these

1:23:38

protests and encampments in the United States.

1:23:40

So I think they're conflicted on

1:23:43

that front as well. And

1:23:45

then there's this, Katie, this is from Axios. And

1:23:47

the reason why I think it's significant is Axios

1:23:50

has a reporter that seems to be the conduit

1:23:52

from the administration To

1:23:54

the world in their leaks about Israel. They

1:23:57

Go to this guy all the time, whenever

1:23:59

they want to get. their message out so

1:24:01

actually else is reporting in. This just took

1:24:03

my breath away because there's. There's. One

1:24:05

thing. To let's say

1:24:07

hamstring the Israelis at this point and

1:24:10

to string them along and try to

1:24:12

slow walk things and and prevent them

1:24:14

from going into Rafa. And we heard

1:24:16

that Biden told that Yahoo yesterday on

1:24:18

the phone don't go in whenever Biden

1:24:21

says don't. That. Makes it almost

1:24:23

inevitable that is going to happen because no

1:24:25

one listens to him and no one respects

1:24:27

his word, which is a separate problem. But

1:24:30

hamstringing is still different than. Outright

1:24:32

betrayal. And. This Axxeo

1:24:34

report smacks a lot more

1:24:36

of betrayal to me. I'll

1:24:38

just read. Officials

1:24:41

claim that Cia Director Bill

1:24:43

Birds and other by demonstration

1:24:45

officials were involved in the

1:24:47

negotiations. These are the ceasefire

1:24:49

negotiations and they knew about

1:24:51

the new proposal. But. Didn't

1:24:53

tell Israel so this is. The.

1:24:56

Ceasefire. That Hamas quote

1:24:59

unquote agreed to. Yesterday.

1:25:01

The got all whole explosion of press

1:25:03

all around the world. Hamas agrees to

1:25:05

a cease. And the Israelis.

1:25:07

it will hold on just a second. What is

1:25:10

this And they look at the details. This is

1:25:12

now. this is. we never agree to this. This

1:25:14

is not what we had talked about out there

1:25:16

was stuff involving the hostages' that was completely unacceptable

1:25:18

the time I was not acceptable to the Israelis.

1:25:20

and so the Israelis were saying now and then

1:25:23

of course they. they began their operations in Rafah.

1:25:25

The whole goal seem to be a

1:25:27

little bit a pr good press for

1:25:29

Hamas seeming reasonable even though they've reject

1:25:31

all the other ceasefires up to this

1:25:34

point, all the other meaningful ones. And

1:25:36

it was like a bait and switch. a trick. Where.

1:25:39

They said yes to something that Israel

1:25:41

hadn't agreed to. And. Now

1:25:43

Axioms is reporting that this

1:25:45

was orchestrated choreographed by the

1:25:47

United States. With. The

1:25:49

by demonstrations knowledge not giving Israel

1:25:51

even a heads up. That.

1:25:54

this was happening actually reporting quote

1:25:56

the israeli officials also sad the

1:25:58

last touches on proposal were made

1:26:01

on Monday morning in Doha, Qatar with

1:26:03

the Biden administration's knowledge. Two

1:26:05

Israeli officials said the feeling

1:26:07

is, quote, Israel got played

1:26:09

by the U.S. and the

1:26:12

mediators who drafted a new deal and

1:26:14

weren't transparent about it. K.T.,

1:26:17

my question is this. If

1:26:19

Biden is extremely

1:26:21

desperate for a ceasefire, for

1:26:24

his political ambitions here domestically,

1:26:27

does this sound to you like

1:26:29

he told his team, go in there,

1:26:32

don't tell Bibi, don't tell the Israeli

1:26:34

unity government, come up with a

1:26:37

new agreement that Hamas can say yes to,

1:26:40

and then we'll spring it on the Israelis and make

1:26:42

it seem awful if they don't accept it? That's

1:26:45

my hypothesis on this,

1:26:47

and if so, that would be, to me,

1:26:49

a shocking betrayal. What do you think here?

1:26:52

I completely agree with you. And

1:26:54

again, I do think it's the Biden administration looking

1:26:56

for some kind of victory in all this, and

1:26:59

they want to be able to say to the world, well, you

1:27:01

know, we had a deal. Israel just

1:27:03

wouldn't go along with it. We the United

1:27:05

States finally at the 11th hour brokered a

1:27:07

deal that Hamas accepted, and

1:27:09

then Israel wouldn't. So they're setting the

1:27:11

whole thing up that they

1:27:13

can blame Israel. They're always looking for somebody

1:27:16

else to blame never themselves. And

1:27:18

I think, frankly, you know, when we have

1:27:20

presidential elections, we're electing leaders. We're not electing

1:27:22

people who are trying to get reelected

1:27:24

again. And I wish the

1:27:26

Biden administration would take its leadership responsibilities seriously.

1:27:29

Can you reflect just for a moment

1:27:31

on a previous point that I raised,

1:27:33

which is the don't foreign

1:27:35

policy from Joe Biden, because he

1:27:37

and his group around him, that

1:27:40

upper echelon, the brain

1:27:42

trust, they go out there to the cameras

1:27:45

and they say don't to our enemies and

1:27:47

also to our allies when it suits them.

1:27:50

Whether it's on camera or they leak

1:27:52

that they're telling people not to do

1:27:54

something. And then whether it's

1:27:56

an adversary or nominally a friend,

1:27:59

it seems like the opposite happens anyway. That

1:28:01

is, you would think that there

1:28:03

would be some capacity for embarrassment here where they

1:28:06

say, we better stop telling people not to do

1:28:08

things because then they do

1:28:10

them anyway and then we do diddly-squat

1:28:12

in response. It just looks utterly weak

1:28:14

and impotent. Well, there's two

1:28:16

problems with it. The

1:28:18

first problem is they're living in a fantasy

1:28:20

world that the United States no longer dictates

1:28:22

world events. Maybe we did after World War

1:28:24

II, but just because the President of the

1:28:26

United States says, we want you guys to

1:28:29

do this, this and this, it doesn't necessarily

1:28:31

mean countries are gonna do it anymore. The

1:28:33

second thing is that once you start

1:28:35

drawing red lines and making threats like

1:28:37

don't, and then you don't carry

1:28:40

it out, if you don't stand up, then

1:28:42

it's not only have you, do you look

1:28:44

silly, et cetera, but you are far

1:28:46

more weak than if you just did not fit anything.

1:28:48

So to set a red line to make a threat

1:28:50

and not carry it out, how many

1:28:52

other leaders are looking at President Biden and saying,

1:28:55

well, what pretty doll the red lines he's drawn?

1:28:57

I'm China, I'm thinking, he says

1:28:59

stuff about me. I think this is my moment,

1:29:01

I'll press it. Putin does the

1:29:03

same thing, Iran does the same thing.

1:29:05

So it's far worse when they make

1:29:07

these threats and then don't carry

1:29:09

them out. It really puts the United States

1:29:12

in a far weaker position. Well, they

1:29:14

say what, weakness is provocative. This

1:29:17

is encapsulated, embodied in

1:29:19

one man, Joe Biden. Weakness

1:29:21

is provocative and it's dangerous,

1:29:24

not just for Israel, but for all the

1:29:26

other reasons that you just mentioned, just bouncing

1:29:28

around the globe, which just kind of makes

1:29:30

you shudder. And it does throw into stark

1:29:32

relief some of the stakes, I would say,

1:29:35

coming up in November when Americans

1:29:37

will be making choices about the next commander

1:29:39

in chief. K.T. McFarlane has worked for four

1:29:41

of them through the years, Nixon, Ford, Reagan,

1:29:43

and Trump. She's our guest here on the

1:29:46

Guy Benson Show. K.T., as always, we really

1:29:48

do appreciate it. Thank you so much. Thank

1:29:51

you, Guy. And we'll be right back. Same

1:29:53

issues, but with a fresh perspective.

1:29:56

The Guy Benson Show. The

1:30:03

happy hour continues here on

1:30:05

the Guy Benson show. Last night I was

1:30:07

on Gutfeld, which was

1:30:10

fun. What a crew. It was Greg, of

1:30:12

course, hosting. And then Jimmy

1:30:14

Thala, Kat Timp, Tyrus, so

1:30:16

very fun panel. And

1:30:18

at the very end of the show, they had

1:30:20

an installment called Pooh

1:30:23

Detective. And

1:30:25

in that episode of Pooh Detective,

1:30:29

the discussion surrounded a viral

1:30:31

video of our president, Joe

1:30:33

Biden, walking on the South Lawn

1:30:35

and then pausing and looking,

1:30:38

let's say, chagrined. And

1:30:41

the conversation online has been that perhaps

1:30:43

he had an accident in

1:30:45

that moment. I don't

1:30:48

actually believe that's what happened, but

1:30:50

you can at least see why people might believe

1:30:52

that. And so this

1:30:55

was a topic for us. And

1:30:57

at one point, Jimmy Thala stood up

1:30:59

and reenacted it, was describing things. And

1:31:02

I was just sitting there having

1:31:04

a surreal moment where we were talking about

1:31:06

certain bodily functions and the president of the

1:31:08

United States on national television. I wasn't really

1:31:10

sure how I felt about that. So here's

1:31:12

how it went down in Cut 27. He

1:31:15

pooped his pants. And do you want to know how? It's

1:31:18

not because of the stop. It's because not only

1:31:20

did he poop his pants, just to be clear,

1:31:24

this is someone who does it regularly. We

1:31:26

know this. Why? Because he stopped, and then

1:31:28

he leaned in. Why? Because that makes the

1:31:30

cleanup easier, if you get it all the

1:31:33

way out. This is an experienced pandemic.

1:31:35

And that's unfortunate. But

1:31:38

that's what the Democrats did. They could have had news. Somebody

1:31:40

understands this. I just have an inquiry, a

1:31:42

very good inquiry. Can I

1:31:44

be edited out of this segment? And

1:31:49

the answer, apparently, is no. Because

1:31:52

that made it to air. I

1:31:55

am not going to endorse or Reject

1:31:58

the theory of what happened. In that

1:32:00

video involving Joe Biden, I am

1:32:02

just going to stay scrupulously. Out.

1:32:05

Of the speculation, And

1:32:07

I just. Hope. For the best for

1:32:09

him. For. His dry cleaner for

1:32:12

anyone who might have been involved. The

1:32:15

Guy Benson show continues with a happy hour

1:32:17

ride out the disparate. Always

1:32:25

fresh, always fair. That Guy Benson

1:32:27

show The Great Douglas Murray as

1:32:29

a Fox News Contributor, National Review

1:32:31

Institute fellow and author of the

1:32:33

book The War on the West

1:32:36

at Douglas K. Murray on Social

1:32:38

Media and he was our guest

1:32:40

earlier in the program Today, here's

1:32:42

part of that conversation with Douglas

1:32:44

Murray. I presume some of them

1:32:46

have no idea what it means,

1:32:48

that it sounds exciting and. Somewhat.

1:32:51

Be no foreign and mysterious and dangerous to

1:32:53

their kind of. Excited by

1:32:55

that and and it's almost romanticize to

1:32:58

them, it's exotic. Ooh okay Intifada, this

1:33:00

is what they're telling us to chant.

1:33:02

Will just repeated back that some of

1:33:04

them are others I'm sure absolutely know

1:33:06

what it means and therefore at they

1:33:09

just assumed they would be spared. They.

1:33:11

Wouldn't be the ones killed. it would be

1:33:13

jews right? especially design as Tuesday be the

1:33:15

ones killed him. maybe some other side is

1:33:18

like you and me or but they would

1:33:20

be spared. From. It into thought maybe

1:33:22

they be the ones part you know partaking

1:33:24

in the intifada. it's hard to. Kind.

1:33:27

Of absolve them of that isn't as. Well.

1:33:29

As the all of these

1:33:32

people fall into two categories:

1:33:34

sinister and the City. The

1:33:37

students are the ones who actually

1:33:39

do love this. I love the

1:33:42

fact murder. Clearly that American students

1:33:44

who killed. At the Universe

1:33:46

teams do so in two thousand and

1:33:48

one of the cafeteria suicide bombings are

1:33:50

you. They love bad. So the are

1:33:52

people who love. The murder and

1:33:54

mutilation is a match and the students

1:33:57

their own age so those are the

1:33:59

release. Still on the with. With

1:34:01

I'm lucky to have such sit

1:34:04

in the reins people on our

1:34:06

campuses are on our streets. But

1:34:08

as to the silly. How

1:34:11

incredibly. Ridiculous.

1:34:14

Stupid mentally impaired do

1:34:16

have to be. To

1:34:19

shout something you don't know.

1:34:22

What it even means? I

1:34:24

mean, you know, I

1:34:27

reckon quite a bright guy your

1:34:29

by guy die if we were

1:34:32

at an American campus and somebody

1:34:34

just started chanting some words we

1:34:36

didn't know what we join in

1:34:38

no mood we the ask what

1:34:41

a word meant before we chanted

1:34:43

it on the i'm going say

1:34:45

the google and I got home

1:34:48

so. I reckon

1:34:50

I have a quick look

1:34:52

beforehand and exactly what it

1:34:55

was. Somehow incredibly dumb. T

1:34:58

V Silly students have to

1:35:00

be What Do they are?

1:35:02

Ill educated to say that

1:35:05

they that they stand on

1:35:07

campus and shout words they

1:35:09

don't understand. They have no

1:35:11

right to be on the

1:35:14

campus. Is there that? Stupid.

1:35:17

I mean that the is

1:35:19

that nobody? Nobody. With. Any

1:35:21

cognitive ability, Goes.

1:35:23

Around shouting slogans they

1:35:26

don't understand. So. I

1:35:28

find the silly. To

1:35:30

be just as problematic to use

1:35:32

on their favorite words as the

1:35:34

sinister. The. Clips

1:35:36

we played for you were from Boston

1:35:38

or greater Boston M I t than

1:35:40

yesterday in New York you had. Some

1:35:43

other charming seen some of these people

1:35:45

try to disrupt the Met gala and

1:35:47

in the process. Or. Hearing

1:35:50

cut five were a number of

1:35:52

young women in the fall muslim

1:35:54

headscarves, Chanting it, the

1:35:56

police cut five. Oink,

1:36:06

oink piggy piggy talking the police we

1:36:09

will make your lives. And then a

1:36:11

word that we can't use doesn't quite

1:36:13

right, but you know they can only

1:36:15

do so well. That is one seen.

1:36:17

a handful of them. there was another

1:36:20

seen nearby. a war memorial. a memorial

1:36:22

to our war dad. Where.

1:36:24

They desecrated. it was paper

1:36:26

spray paint. With. Palestinian

1:36:29

garb and flags. And they also

1:36:31

burned an American flag in front

1:36:33

of it. Douglas, I know some

1:36:35

people say look, even if we

1:36:37

support Israel guy, You're talking about

1:36:39

this a lot. It. Goes

1:36:41

so much deeper than Israel. It goes

1:36:43

so much deeper than the wellbeing of

1:36:46

Jews. Those are both extremely important to

1:36:48

me. But. It's about

1:36:50

people who hate our civilization,

1:36:52

hate our law enforcement tape.

1:36:55

What? Should be sacred to this

1:36:57

country are our veterans are war

1:36:59

data, our flag. I

1:37:01

think that's something that instinctively gets a

1:37:03

rise out of so many Americans, including

1:37:06

some of the people leading the backlash

1:37:08

on some of these campuses. As

1:37:11

on a new one everybody need

1:37:13

to realize is that Israel is

1:37:16

now as it has been for

1:37:18

many years since the global that

1:37:20

decided to adopt it as their

1:37:22

Bogeyman. Israel is simply

1:37:24

the first country in the sights of

1:37:27

these made jack. But. It

1:37:29

always here in America that

1:37:31

their fights really are. You

1:37:33

know the attack Israel for

1:37:35

being colonialists. Have

1:37:37

never had an hour than it was

1:37:40

founded in Nineteen Forty Eight. And they

1:37:42

don't know what they're talking about, but

1:37:44

they see colonialist about Israel because we

1:37:46

want to say colonialist about America. They

1:37:50

claim that the Israelis some kind

1:37:52

of white supremacists society and I'd

1:37:54

fight them to go to Israel

1:37:57

any day. Mlc Murder. That's not

1:37:59

accurate. They're not white supremacists,

1:38:01

but not white. An incredibly diverse

1:38:03

population. But they want to say

1:38:06

white supremacist about Israel in order

1:38:08

to say it about America backs.

1:38:10

And they want to ban. The.

1:38:14

Star. Of David. They want to

1:38:16

burn the Star of David in order.

1:38:18

To Burn A Flag of the

1:38:21

United States of America. Max My

1:38:23

full interview with Douglas Murray available

1:38:25

online Guy Benson show.com also part

1:38:27

of the free podcast. The entire

1:38:29

show. Some. Word One till

1:38:32

the clothes every day on demand. Absolutely.

1:38:35

Free A Guy Benson show.com

1:38:37

or Fox News podcast.com or

1:38:39

where ever you download your

1:38:41

podcast. When. We come back the

1:38:43

homestretch. Earlier. This our I

1:38:45

talked about something I wanted to be

1:38:47

edited out of on Guts Out last

1:38:49

night. Sort of joking about that or

1:38:51

Cookie has a similar requests. We'll.

1:38:53

See if we can. Granted. When. We

1:38:55

come back. America is listening

1:38:57

to that guy Benson Cel.

1:39:09

Homestretch other Guy Benson show on

1:39:12

this Tuesday for a D C

1:39:14

O be somewhere much farther away.

1:39:16

God willing small for the shows.

1:39:18

up his unit for that Guy

1:39:20

Benson show.com every day that's are

1:39:22

online. Home lot of content there

1:39:24

including the free podcasts The Whole

1:39:26

Show Guy Benson show.com Fox Podcast

1:39:28

dot Com where ever you get

1:39:30

your podcast as we like to

1:39:32

remind you of heatedly so producer

1:39:34

Christine's new hero. Her.

1:39:36

Idol. Gov. Christie gnome of

1:39:39

South Dakota and she's been on

1:39:41

this book tour. Promoting.

1:39:44

Her latest work. And

1:39:46

yeah, she's getting a lot of attention. They

1:39:48

say all publicity is good publicity. I'm not

1:39:51

sure that's always true. Because

1:39:53

this book tour. Kind.

1:39:55

Of feels more like a self

1:39:57

immolation. That. it does anything

1:40:00

approaching positive public

1:40:03

relations. We'll see how the book

1:40:05

does, but in terms

1:40:07

of interviews regarding the book, it is not

1:40:09

going well for the governor. She

1:40:12

was on Face the Nation this weekend. She's doing

1:40:14

tons of interviews. None of

1:40:16

them are successful because these

1:40:18

journalists, sometimes you can blame the press

1:40:20

for cherry picking or being biased. In

1:40:23

these cases, you have all sorts of

1:40:25

different journalists just reading her own

1:40:28

quotes from her own

1:40:31

book written under her name.

1:40:34

She seems like faux

1:40:36

offended that people are doing

1:40:38

this and that they're noticing things that

1:40:40

have really made a lot of people

1:40:42

very angry, particularly about shooting the puppy.

1:40:45

She also killed a goat that she boasts about

1:40:47

in the book. There is also

1:40:49

a whole story about meeting Kim Jong-un, the

1:40:52

dictator of North Korea. That appears to be

1:40:54

untrue, so she's saying that's going to be

1:40:56

edited. She was on with

1:40:59

Jesse Waters last night on Fox, so

1:41:01

not necessarily automatically hostile

1:41:04

terrain for a conservative

1:41:06

governor. Jesse had

1:41:08

some questions. Noam had some

1:41:10

answers, I guess, cut 25. What

1:41:14

happens if you are debating Kamala

1:41:16

Harris? She says, wait a second,

1:41:18

you shot your dog and

1:41:21

you wrote a book about it bragging about

1:41:23

it. How can you

1:41:26

be vice president? That

1:41:28

story was a choice as a mom. It

1:41:31

was the safety of my children versus a

1:41:33

dangerous dog that was killing livestock and attacking

1:41:35

people. This book

1:41:37

that I've written is full of stories of

1:41:39

my past, hard decisions, and I told

1:41:41

the truth. I think that's very different than a

1:41:44

lot of politicians that we have today. Do you remember Grent

1:41:46

telling that story? Do you feel like, oh,

1:41:48

maybe I should have said it. Do you

1:41:50

understand why people don't like that story? Everybody

1:41:52

has known that story for years. That's what most

1:41:54

people don't realize is that in South Dakota they've

1:41:56

used that story to attack me and my political

1:41:58

campaigns for years. people to know

1:42:00

the truth. This dog was vicious, it was dangerous,

1:42:03

it was killing livestock for the joy of it

1:42:05

and attacking people. And I had a choice between

1:42:07

keeping my family safe, I had little kids at

1:42:09

the time, a very public business of inviting people

1:42:12

out to come out and enjoy our hunting lodge

1:42:14

in our business, and I don't pass

1:42:16

my responsibilities off to anybody else. So that story

1:42:18

is in the book because I want people to

1:42:20

know that I'm honest and that I when I

1:42:22

have difficult jobs that I take responsibility of myself.

1:42:24

So you're standing by the dog's story. Well

1:42:27

I'll tell you what, it's the facts. Okay,

1:42:30

well there are reports out there and I've

1:42:32

heard that she has told different versions of

1:42:34

this story in the past. This

1:42:36

is the latest iteration of it. There's

1:42:39

a report also that she had tried to insert

1:42:41

something like this story in a previous book and

1:42:44

the previous publisher and editor said, yeah let's

1:42:46

uh let's not. That's

1:42:48

a little weird, that's very alienating.

1:42:50

So it got pushed off into this book which

1:42:54

is now coming out right in the middle of the Veep

1:42:56

Stakes. I mean I think she's cooked

1:42:59

because she is flailing and

1:43:01

some of the details that she's now insisting, oh to

1:43:04

protect the children, that's apparently