Andrew Wilson VS Brian Shapiro Debate Ice Shootings And Trump Epstein Files

All right. What's up, everybody? Uh, Brian Shapiro here with Andrew Wilson. He was gracious enough to do a live debate with me tonight. This is very unusual for me, although usual for Andrew. Is I usually do a show Monday through Friday. I'm usually not doing these, but, um, Andrew, thanks for doing this. Um, we're obviously going to be talking about the ICE shootings, uh, both ICE shootings of Renee Good and Alex Prey. And then I'm assuming we're going to be getting into Donald Trump. Why I think it's very reasonable that, uh, Donald Trump probably, probably did some illegal things with minors, but we'll get to that. But I want to start with the shootings first. But, um, Andrew, thanks for doing this. I, I, I don't want this to get a little bit personal like, uh, I take my share of responsibility in that and I'm sure you don't want it to go there. I don't want it to go there. So I appreciate you being here. And, uh, would you like to start with some opening remarks about, uh, ICE? Do you want to get that going first? How would you like to start and I'll, I'll give you the choice.

Well, I know you're not much of a formal debater, so it's fine if you want to just dive into the context. We're going to cover the stuff with ICE and then we're going to cover the, um, uh, the stuff with, uh, with Trump as well and, uh, Epstein. Those were the two things that we agreed to. Correct.

So, correct. Yeah. So, so on ICE, you have the affirmative claim here. You're claiming that this was an execution of PR, especially. I wanted to talk about that. So, yeah, let's dive. Let's just dive into it.

I guess execution, which I have said, you're right, is a strong term. I do believe that this was criminal. I do believe that it was a killing. Some would define it as murder. Let's start with Renee Good first since I guess that happened first and then maybe if that's okay and then we can get into the Alex Prey stuff. So I look at Renee Good and I look at all the mistakes starting with the administration. Christine Nome calling her a terrorist, a domestic terrorist an hour after the shooting without even knowing her name. Beyond irresponsible. But let's talk about what took place that day. Um, let's start with officer Jonathan Ross and all the mistakes that they made. If you remember, Renee Good says to the officer, this is the cell phone footage. She says to the officer, "I'm not mad at you, dude." That would have been an opportunity where Jonathan Ross could have started deescalation. Could have spoke to her. Could have said, "Ma'am, we needed to get out of the car." No, he doesn't do that. He's recording with one hand, which is against most protocols. If you speak to current former law enforcement, they tell you, "You probably shouldn't be doing that." Then he then he walks to the back of the vehicle. Again, against protocol. You're not supposed to be walking to the back of the vehicle. Then walks to the front of the vehicle and instead of continuing to walk to the side of the vehicle, stops in front of the vehicle. So, you've broken three or four basic training protocols right there. The other officer, instead of telling her, "Ma'am, my name is officer blah blah blah blah blah. Here's what we're going to need you to do." What does he say? Get the [ __ ] out.

Let's start, let's start with one thing at a time. So, let's start with the first claim. You keep on saying that they broke protocols. What protocols did they break, Brian?

Uh, basic training that any law enforcement officer, whether it be police, Where am I getting this from? Or ICE? Where am I? Yeah. Where are you getting it from?

Yeah. So, I've interviewed multiple law enforcement officials, uh, people that are either current or former in law enforcement. I've also looked up, uh, on the internet, and you can find this yourself, basic training on how to deal with someone that you want to get out of the vehicle. I've looked this up. I've Googled it, and I've talked to current and former ICE officers, people that I've interviewed over the course of the last couple weeks that have experience.

Talk, you talked to who's not a Democrat in law enforcement who's affirming to you that they broke protocols? I don't, I don't ask people in law enforcement that I do interviews with.

Which cop told you, which which police officer told you this?

Uh, Leonard Cardinell is is one officer that I speak to on a regular basis. He's a 30-year officer. Uh, and, uh, I've had probably multiple conversations, uh, with him. I've spoken to a few former ICE officers that I've spoken to as well. Uh, you can go on my YouTube page, you can look at yourself. Um, and basically all of them have told me a couple things from what I just mentioned. You're trained as an officer, whether you're a police officer, whether you're an ICE officer, you are trained that you're not supposed to be walking and and and and staying in front of the vehicle or behind the vehicle. Are you disputing that, Andrew? Are you saying that that's a normal thing for law enforcement to do to record with a cell phone in one hand and to walk behind the vehicle and circular to the front of the vehicle and stop in front of the vehicle? Are, are you disputing what I'm, that claim?

Well, the f first, the first claim is I want to know where you're sourcing your information from. So, you said Leonard Cardinal.

Yeah.

How do you spell Leonard Cardinal?

C A R D I N A L. I believe.

And he's, Are you disputing that?

He's a police officer.

Uh, he's a former lieutenant, 30 years on the force. Uh, are you disputing that, though? I mean, I'm asking you.

Well, I don't know yet. I'm going to look up, I'm going to look this up and see. Um.

How about just look up proper protocols with law enforcement? Are you supposed to walk in behind the vehicle or in front of the vehicle? Why wouldn't you just Google that instead of looking up a name of somebody that I talked to?

Well, because I want, I want to see if he's a Democrat or not.

What does it matter whether someone's a Republican or a Democrat?

Because people have, because people have certain segmented motivations to see things certain ways based on political ideology.

So because of political ideology, you're claiming if I spoke to somebody that leans to the left, they must be lying about their training? No, I'm saying that there's good reason for me to believe that there could be bias there.

So, if I came on here and said, "Well, I've talked to other police officers who claim that that's not true," and then you found out that they were all a bunch of right-wingers. That would be, they wouldn't be suspect to you. Answer my question, please.

Well, who did you talk to?

Would that be suspect? Would that be suspect to you?

Uh, if I have many former former officers in my Discord and current police officers in my Discord and they see it a completely different way, but I wouldn't bring that up. That would be hearsay. So the thing is though is that because they're right-wingers, do you instantly believe that there could be something sus about that?

I don't care what their political affiliation is. And, and I think that's a fundamental difference between me and you in this conversation. If I see someone that I believe is murdered, I ask, I talk about it. I listen. And if you can find me anybody in law enforcement that claims that they didn't break any protocol before, I didn't even get to after the shooting. I could name you multiple other violations that.

Myron Gaines was a former former federal officer. He claims that they were completely justified. Why is he wrong?

Did he say that it's proper protocol saying that they're justified, which obviously I would disagree with. Um, but I think it's also a case of not his political affiliation.

Protocol goes out the window depending on the situation. Brian, protocols are changed all the time depending on what the situation is on the ground.

Andrew, there's also a case of credibility. Okay, you're talking about a guy.

Oh, now there's a case of credibility.

Well, yeah. If you're talking about an, like Mark Furman, for example, I don't know whether Mark Furman's a Republican or a Democrat, but I wouldn't really want to talk to Mark Furman about.

So, so suddenly if he's a, if it's a right-winger, it's suspect. But before when I asked you left of your source, it was like.

Can you find me one right-winger, as you say, that would say it's okay and it's totally normal protocol in any police stop to walk in back of the vehicle with a cell phone in his hand and then walk in front of the vehicle and stop? Give me one right-winger that you've talked to that specifically has said that's proper, says it's fine to do that depending on the circumstances. I heard it.

I don't recall. No. Myron Gaines says he justified the shooting. Myron Gaines Andrew did not say.

How do you know? You didn't, you didn't [ __ ] watch it.

Because I listened to every, because I listened to everything that Myron Gaines has said as he.

Oh yeah. What else did he say about it? What else did he say? Name one other thing he said about the whole, the thing.

As you say, Andrew, let's do one thing at a time.

Yeah. Name one other thing Gaines ever said about this case. I don't think he watched any of it. I think he just made all that [ __ ] up. I don't think he watched any of his breakdown coverage.

Well, you're making my point for me, but Myron never discussed. We're specifically talking about walking to the back of the vehicle and stopping in the front of the vehicle. And you stopped me there because I had a lot more to say. Obviously, we will continue to discuss it. But the point that I was trying to make is any officer, Republican or Democrat, which I don't give a [ __ ] what political party you're in, would tell you that it is not proper protocol, number one, to have a cell phone in your hand. Number two.

I just gave you a former officer who disputes what you said. My.

Gaines. Myron Gaines did not say that it's proper protocol to do those things. What he did say.

He said, justified. No, no, because he said it.

Because I've read his tweets and I've seen what he said about this.

Did you watch his breakdown of the of this?

Yeah. So, did he say that that's proper?

You. Yes, he said to the the protocol can shift depending on what's going on and with the situation on the ground or it can be completely rejected depending on the circumstances.

So, Myron Gaines is defending an officer going behind the vehicle and in front of the vehicle.

If the circumstance, if the circumstance calls for it.

So, here's what I'll say to that. I would like to think.

And you never, you never watched it. Didn't. Hang on. I just want to make sure you were clear. You did not actually watch Myron Gain's breakdown of this, right?

I've heard him talk about it. I've seen him on social media.

Did you watch the breakdown, though?

So, here's what.

You, Brian, just answer the question. Did you watch.

The entire breakdown? I, I don't know which breakdown you're watching.

Did you watch any of it? Did you watch any of his live stream breakdown?

I saw his statements on Twitter. I didn't see a breakdown, uh, of a video.

Right. So, you have no idea what he said. If your hill that you're going to die on is a guy that basically is a Holocaust denier, then I think you're going to lose. Okay. You see how now? Oh, wait, wait. Now it's about credibility. But when I was asking about Myron Gage.

When I was asking about credibility earlier, you said I don't care if they're left or they're right or what their political are.

But now suddenly the credibility is in question if you don't like them.

Isn't that interesting, Ryan? There is a difference, Andrew, between someone that is on the left and the right.

And somebody that is credible. I think there are plenty of people on both sides of the aisle that have been in law enforcement for a long time that are very credible. That is what I mean when I say I don't care. Now I'm asking you because.

The whole being so, so Bri, so Myin, the whole thing that you just said to reject his years of experience as a law enforcement officer is that he has a political position you disagree with.

No, it's not a political position when you say the Holocaust didn't happen.

That's, yes, it is. Yes, it is a political position and it's a historic position. Yes. Yes, it is.

So, if you want to site.

And you reject it because he has that, because he has that view.

You instantly reject it and say he's not credible.

So, Andrew, let me ask you a question.

Too far on the right.

Okay. Well, again, I don't care what, I don't care what your political affiliation is. Um, let's go back to the actual. You can cite Myron G if you'd like throughout this conversation, Andrew. You're more than, you're more than I'm more than glad to let you do that. That's, that's great. Let's get back to the actual shooting and the two ICE that we have. Andrew, do you believe that deadly use of force was sufficient?

Yeah.

And do you believe that John.

In the Renee, in the Renee case?

Yes.

Yeah. Yeah. Of course. She hit him with a car and he needed to stop it before it got to a highway. Yeah.

So, have you seen all the videos?

Have you seen all the breakdowns on all the videos?

Mhm.

Yeah.

You can literally see the guy's feet sliding. That's how you know she got hit by a car.

Did he fall down?

Doesn't need to fall down.

Did he drop his cell phone?

If you attack a person with a 5,000 lb deadly [ __ ] vehicle, they're going.

No. No, she didn't. Okay. So, Andrew, here's why I say she doesn't. I have two eyes. I assume you do as well. As, as well, in this case, I'm not sure you do. You sound like Mr.

Tell me, tell me how his feet, why are his feet sliding?

I'm gonna, I'm about to explain it right now. First of all, as she's backing up her car, and the New York Times did a great job in breaking down frame by frame, as she's backing up her vehicle, before she even puts it forward, she's completely turning her vehicle to the right. Number two, two shot, number two. Shot number three, we're also learning shot number four after the first shot was on the side of the vehicle after she was not a threat to him. And this is a very important point.

She was a threat to the entire public at that point.

Okay. Well, that's insane. But let, let me go back to what I. That's insane.

Now, you just, that's just an assertion. You haven't told me how it's insane.

Okay. You just say it in.

She's on the side of the vehicle trying to leave.

And you take your gun and you point it to her head and shoot her in the face. That is insane. If you try to flee from police officers when you're being detained and you hit one of them with your car and you disobey their orders to stop, you're now a threat to the public. That's how that works.

Okay. Just because somebody, a police officer might feel like she's a threat to the public. I would go back and say officers are supposed to use deescalation techniques and they're supposed to be professional. Do you think that they used deescalation techniques properly?

Yes.

You do. I think that these people went out of their way to agitate. And by the way, let me ask you this. Why would, why is ICE doing this at all? Why is it that you don't have local police officers there? Is it because these mayors are making them stand down? Brian.

One thing at a time. You just said that they did use deescalation techniques. So when the first officer arrives, not Jonathan Ross.

Mhm.

He doesn't say his name. He doesn't say, "Ma'am, here's what we're going to need to do to get out of the car. My name is blah blah blah blah blah."

He says, "Get the [ __ ] out of the car." And he tries to pull on her door. Andrew Wilson says that's proper deescalation.

Yeah. You know, it's really funny. I hear this from libs all the time and it's a stupid talking point.

Go ahead.

Deescalation. Deescalation is not just being nice. Deescalation is not just having it's not just having a sweetie pie voice.

I didn't, I didn't. Hang on. Deescalation can also be an air of authority, right? And you being very commanding and you being even very demanding, that can deescalate situations. Some people respond better to that, in fact, than they do with a sweetie pie voice.

Okay. So, let's go with that theory for a moment. So, when Jonathan Ross has his cell phone out.

Now, this is the same Jonathan Ross that you said looked like a nerd in high school and clearly got bullied and he just wanted to murder people. That same guy.

Do you have any, Did you, can you substantiate that he just wanted to murder people?

Andrew, Andrew, don't spur out. Don't spur out. Let's topic.

Saying that I'm spurring because I'm pointing out what you said is nothing.

Andrew, you're going to. And I'll, I'll gladly talk about that. Let's get back to what we were just talking about. Not a tweet that you don't like. That.

I just want to make sure that that was the same Jonathan Ross.

Andrew, Andrew, I'll respond to that in a moment. I have no problem defending any of my tweets, but let's remain on topic. So, it is your position that when Jonathan Ross goes up to the side of the door and she says, "I'm not mad at you, bro." He doesn't try to engage with her. He walks around her vehicle with a cell phone in his hand. The other officer says, "Get the [ __ ] out," and tries to pull on the door. And Andrew Wilson says that's deescalation.

Yeah. That's called a lawful command.

Why don't you think that's deescalation?

Because when you give a, if I, if I come into a room, Brian, and I want you to get on the ground and I'm doing, you know, something which is dynamic and I kick in your door and I say, if I say, "Would you please get on the ground?" Or I say, "Get the [ __ ] on the ground." Which one's more effective?

So, first of all.

Hang on. Stop. Brian, Brian, Brian, I want you to answer my question.

Depends on the circumstance. Yeah, exactly. Circumstance. So, what happens is is that when you're, when you're talking about deescalation, you guys do this all the time. You conflate.

What this word means. You, you libs. You conflate what these words mean.

I'm not a liberal. You can say things that are not true. You can deescalate. You are li. You can deescalate. Yeah. You can deescalate through, through authority. You can deescalate through the use of harsh language. These are techniques for deescalation. You guys pretend, you especially pretend that deescalation can only be done one way when you know it's not true. It's literally.

Let me just. So, let me just correct the record because I, I don't like it when people say things that are not factually accurate and Andrew seems to do that a lot, particularly with me. By the way, there's nothing wrong with being a liberal. I don't think there's anything wrong with it. But just because somebody like Andrew disagrees with me on this topic or any other topic, he assumes that I'm a liberal.

I'll tell. Okay. Give me your most right-wing position, Brian. I want to hear it, actually. Sure. I, and by the way, we talked about this yesterday.

Yeah. Give me, give me the best, give me your best right-wing position, Andrew.

Okay. So, first of all, I don't. I will give you a few, but I don't need a right-wing position to tell you that I'm an independent who didn't vote for Barack Obama, who didn't vote for Hillary Clinton. I believe in capital punishment. I believe in execution. I've always believed in capital punishment, and I defended George W. Bush when it came to capital punishment. I believe if you rape somebody,

Your junk should be cut off. That's not a right or left-wing position. Well, capital punishment is okay. Capital punishment is, and that's the point. I believe in border security. I believe that that we should have secure borders. I believe people should be, should be coming into this country, uh, legally. Yeah. We just can't remove them, right? I've always. Well, again, you asked me for a right-wing position. I told you I am.

Left-wingers believe in border security. They just don't believe, they just don't actually do it. Right. They claim they believe it, but they don't do it.

You asked me for a right-wing position. Yeah.

I gave you one.

Give me one. Give me one on social issues. You have a single social issue that you have.

So now you want to move the goalposts.

That's the easiest way to delineate. It's the easiest way to delineate right or left on social.

I'm going to help you out, Andrew. Okay. Give me one right.

I've been a registered. Andrew, don't spur it. I've been a registered independent my whole life.

That's not relevant to this conversation. You are defending.

You're the one who wanted to clarify it.

Okay. Well, because you say things that are not factually accurate. I know you don't like it. You don't like. Oh, really? Yeah.

It is.

Yeah. Name a single right-wing social issue that you have.

What am I registered as, Andrew?

Give me a single right-wing social, social issue.

Sure. Sure. Absolutely. I'll even answer that one, too.

And then will you shut the [ __ ] up and get the conversation? Thank you. What is it?

I believe it is despicable. And I said this on Piers Morgan. You just don't do your research. That people that are born men transition to women. I think it's despicable that they are competing with women on the playing field. I have had that conversation over and over again with people on the far left. So, now that I've answered.

But Brian, but Brian, are they women? Are they women?

But are they women?

Never have I said that.

They're not women.

I'm going to. Will you stop and ask? They're not women.

What did I just say? I'm going to answer it again.

Okay.

I believe it's funny how I answer his questions and he looks like a [ __ ] and I'll answer it again. If you're born a man, you're a man. If you're born a woman, you're a woman. I [ __ ] answered that stupid question. You ask.

What?

So men can't be women, right?

I don't believe so. No. Now, can we [ __ ] move on? Now.

That is actually a right-wing. That is actually a a right-wing social.

Shut the [ __ ] up and let's continue the real debate. Can we do that, Andrew? Can you be quiet now? Thank you.

I just wanted to make sure that you were. I just want to make sure you're on record saying that men can't be women. That's all.

Never have I ever said that. So, you don't use proper pronouns and [ __ ] right?

Stupid [ __ ] questions.

Yeah, I'm just making sure. Okay, right. We got.

Like if a trans person comes on, you don't, you're not like, you're not like, "Ma'am, you're not like you don't, you don't say she, you don't do any of that." Right.

Can I continue the debate with.

Blair White came on. I'm not going to find clips of you with a trans person using their pronouns, right? Saying she and her and this and that for a man, right?

Now, you're asking me about pronouns. Did I not just answer your question?

I just want to make sure. Uh, you just want to make sure, Andrew. Did I not just? I'm, I'm gonna try to calm down here. Did I not just answer both of your questions?

I just want. Dude, I just want to make sure that when I go later and I and I research you interviewing trans people that you're not going to be like she and her and they and them and using all these proper pronouns because you believe that they can't be women and they can't be men.

I don't care about pronouns. I really don't care. Doesn't affect my life at all. So practice your question. So in practice, it's different. Okay. Got it. All right.

Uh, I answered your question about capital punishment and then you asked me socially and I talked about transgenders. Can we now get back to the actual topic, Andrew? Is that okay with you?

Yeah.

Thank you. I appreciate that.

You're welcome.

After the shooting, we obviously disagree fundamentally on this first shooting and we'll get to Alex Prey.

The only thing that I have asked for is an independent investigation. And they didn't, they didn't investigate ballistics. They didn't perform an autopsy. I've spoken to.

Wait, we're shifting to Prey.

No, I'm talking about Renee. Good.

Oh, okay. I thought you said.

I've. No, no, we'll do that in a moment. That's what I said, Andrew.

All right.

Um, I, I've spoken to a couple witnesses who were 30 feet away, including the guy who said he was a physician.

They haven't been interviewed by anybody. It, there hasn't been an investigation, Andrew. So, will you agree with me? Can we find some common ground?

It's still under investigation, Brian. Okay. So, Christy Noom, by, by the way, by who?

Uh, by law enforcement officials. I can pull up the investigation right now. It's going to be under investigation for a while, especially by internal affairs. There's going to be an internal affairs investigation. There's been a massive outcry for investigation.

Are they allowing? Is there an independent investigation? Are they allowing? Are they working with state officials?

You mean for the, the investigation on this? We're not sure yet. We're not sure because it's under investigation. We don't know that.

They have blocked, according to Tim Waltz and Frey and local law enforcement, they have said on the record in almost every press conference that they are not allowed to be working with and cooperating with and investigating with. Christine Noom called her a domestic terrorist an hour after the shooting. Do you support that language an hour after the shoot?

I wouldn't say she was a domestic terrorist.

I would have said a suspected domestic terrorist. I would, that's what I would have said.

Does she have any criminal record?

Well, no. That's not what, what I would suspect her. I would suspect her of being Antifa.

And what is your evidence to prove that she is a member of Antifa?

I, I would just suspect it.

And why do you suspect it? What is your evidence that would lead?

Because she was, because she was an agitator at one of these protests who was going out of her way to agitate ICE officials, which is very reminiscent of Antifa-like behavior. So if I went, so if I went to a protest and I said, "Hey, you're a piece of shit." You would suspect that I'm a member of Antifa? That is insane.

I suspect, I suspect that most of these agitators at these protests are members of Antifa.

I see. So who's.

And the reason is, is because we have the signal chats which were released by Cam Higgby and others that show that these are massively organized events by people who want to keep their identities a secret.

And they're members of.

Like the ICE agents. Yeah. Who cover their faces. Yeah. Like those.

Yeah, I would too if I was getting doxed all the time by, uh, protest law enforcement wouldn't help me. Yeah, I would do the same.

Why don't police officers? Why don't police officers wear scarves over their face?

Um, well, sometimes depending on what they're doing, they do.

Oh, really? Where, where do, where do police officers work?

For instance, uh, when you have, when you have cops who work undercover, why is it that they're concealing their identity?

These ICE officers are not working undercover. So that's my question. I'm asking you, when officers are working undercover, why are they trying to conceal their identity?

It is not. You just used.

Why are they trying to conceal their identity? Why?

Okay. If they're undercover, these ICE officers are not under.

Say that they were. I'm asking you a question.

Can you answer my question?

It is not doxing. We have the right to know the name of these individuals because they are not undercover agents. They're not working overseas. There. That is not doxing. We now I don't support giving out their address. That is doxing. I don't support giving out their address or family member.

But that's what happens. But that's what's happening. Here's what, here's what actually happens in real. It's not a crime. And here's what actually happens in real time.

What happens in real time is you can say we have a right to know their names and their faces, which you don't. There is no such right. But let's assume for a second that there was, even though there isn't. Um, what's, what's actually going on is that these Antifa lunatics dox them on multitudes of websites and they, they release their address. They release the address of their family members and do everything they can to incite harassment campaigns against them at the individual level. And so, yeah, I cons, I think that that's part and parcel of a domestic terror group like Antifa.

Okay. But it's not considered doxing to release a name of an ICE agent because he's not working undercover because if you release a name and a face, how hard is it to then get their address and.

Yeah, exactly. Exactly. Do you actually have a right, Brian? Show me the right that you have to know their identity. Show it to me.

Uh, if you are not working undercover.

Mhm.

Then we have the right to know.

Show me the right. Show me that right.

And when they, when they. No, you don't. Show me the right.

Okay. I will, I will gladly give you the right now.

But the point that I am trying to make to you is not going to stop until you give me the right. Show me how, why it is that you think you have a right to know who these people are.

They are public servants. For example, for example, the same reason why when you go up to a police officer, you ask for their name and your badge number. And guess what? They have to give it to you. So, if your argument was correct, your argument would be like, well, no, they don't have to give you their name. They don't have to give you their badge number. That is 100% false. So, now going back to, let's, let's talk about Alex Prey for a moment because you mentioned that Alex Prey, you believe just like Renee Good with no evidence to back it up, by the way, that somehow these are Antifa members when you can't name number one who's funding Antifa. You also can't name the founder who's the leader of Antifa. You made the case that Alex Prey, who I do believe was murdered. You made the case that somehow he's a professional agitator, right, Andrew? Is that correct? I want to make sure I'm getting your, your, your statement correct. Do you believe that Alex Prey?

Yeah. Hang on. Hang on. Before we get to that though, I just want to make sure.

Uh, if, if you have a right to know who these people are.

Uh, yeah. Law enforcement name and badge number, please.

Is that correct? That's, that's if they're stopping you and you've been detained, you have a right to know that they're a federal officer.

So, wait, hold on a second.

But they don't have to face, they don't have to face dogs to you.

Hold on. If you're not, hold on. I want to get this right. So, if a police officer is not detaining you.

You don't have a right to ask for their name and or badge number.

I don't think you do. No.

No. You're wrong. You're wrong. Anybody could look that up. Anybody could look that up.

Show me.

Look it up. You don't know the law.

Bro. Just show me the law. I'm willing to be corrected on this, but I don't think that that's the case.

I cannot believe you don't. It's public knowledge of federal and public employees. How the hell do you not know this? This is.

Show it to me, bro.

Show it to you. Let's move on to Alex Prey. You want me to Google it? I don't see during debates. I don't do what you do. Okay. I don't need to Google things when I know what I'm talking about. You could Google it. If you are a public servant working for the government, the public h unless you're undercover, which we've already established, you have the right to ask for and they must provide you name and badge number. You keep digging yourself into a hole. Andrew, you don't know what you're talking about.

I can't listen. I'm trying, but I can't actually find where it is.

Well, well, I'm sorry you don't know how to Google. Can we move on to Alex Prey, please? Because you've already established.

If you ask a cop if they're a cop, do they have to answer? Answer. No.

If you are a. I didn't ask you. Ask them.

The answer is no. They don't.

I never said that.

If you're a police officer, if you ask them if they're a police officer, they don't have a public servant working for the government, a federal employee. In this case.

Legal requirements for police identification vary widely across jurisdictions, shaped by state laws, department policies, constitutional principles. UN, uniformed officers are generally required to display badges and provide identification when asked when they're in the middle of a detainment.

Not you don't have to be.

Not when they're just walking down the street.

You do not have to be in a detainment. Okay? If somebody's questioning and by the way, you could look this up if you don't believe me. There's videos everywhere that talk about this. So stop distracting and let's get back to.

What do you mean distracting? I'm, we're clarifying. This is the opposite of a distraction.

Right? So, if you go up to a police officer, they're a public servant, just like if you go into a federal building and you're a public servant, you ask them for their name and in this case, if you're an officer, the badge number. You don't have to be detained to get that information. Okay? That is 100%.

Well, wait, wait, wait, wait. You may, you may be able to get the information. They may give it to you depending on the policy. We're asking if there's a legal requirement if you just walk over to a random cop and ask them for identity and to face docks if they have to.

They don't have to give you.

They don't have to give you their first name. They do have to give you their badge number where you will find out their name. That is not.

Well, they don't always have to give you their badge number either. Depends on the circumstance.

Okay. Well, if you could find a jurisdiction where police officers don't have to give you their badge number if they're questioning you or there's some sort of interaction, then please let me know where that is, Andrew. Okay. Please let me know.

In general, no. Police officers do not have to identify themselves even if you ask them.

Even if you ask them.

That's what the law says for. Yeah. So, here's the myth, right? Okay. So, the question is, do police officers have to identify themselves when you ask them for identification.

In general? No. Police officer does not have to identify themselves even if you ask them. Making sick.

So, so Brian, I think you're just wrong on this point. What's your? First of all, I didn't say identification. I said badge. They don't have to show you their ID. That's not what I said. Identification can mean.

No, I'm talking about identifying themselves as a cop at all.

Yeah. If some, if you ask somebody for their badge number, they, they are entitled. Seems to be jurisdiction. That seems to be jurisdiction.

Okay. Well, find me the jurisdiction where that, that's not the law, and I'll gladly have that conversation with you, and we can debate that another time. Let's move on to Alex Prey. Well, I'm just trying to get. Look, I'm just trying to make sure that we have clarity in what we're talking about.

Okay. And, and, and again, it's not doxing when we're talking about the name of someone who is not undercover. Now, Alex Prey, you had said that Alex Prey is a professional agitator. Now, when I use the, when I hear the term professional, that usually means they're getting paid. So, my question to you is, where's your evidence that Alex Prey was getting paid to show up at these protests? Can you please.

You see how you smuggled in? Did anybody say he was getting paid?

What's professional mean then? Give me the definition.

Uh, well, for instance, I'm a professional gunsmith, but I don't do gunsmithing for the public anymore.

So, a professional agitator doesn't get paid, but you label them professional because.

Some of them may, some of them may get paid, but when I'm saying.

Is there any evidence that Alex.

When I say professional in this context, I just mean good at what they do.

Or some skill at what they do.

Okay. So other than him kicking a vehicle, Andrew.

And by the way, I don't condone that behavior. Certainly, it's wrong. I certainly wouldn't do that.

But he did do that, right?

I believe he. What did I just say? Why do, why do I have to repeat it again? Just listen. Andrew.

And he looked, he looked like an iate lunatic when he was out there doing that, too, didn't he?

You know who I think looks like iate lunatics, Andrew? That guy behind their scarf while a man is on the ground and unarmed and shoots him in the back. I think that's far worse than somebody who kicks a vehicle. But let's go back as before I was interrupted to 11 days before I believe he was murdered.

He kicks a vehicle.

Spits at an officer.

Yeah. And everybody on the right, I shouldn't say everybody, a lot of people on the right are using that as a defense to what took place 11 days later.

Why is that relevant, Andrew?

Um, well, it's, as far as the, uh, case of the thing itself is not relevant specifically to that case.

Thank you. Okay, so let's not talk about that then. Thank you for admitting that. Now, let's move on because it seems like 90% of Republicans.

Hang on. Hang on, Brian. It can be relevant to his motivation and mindset and I do think that that can have relevancy, but not relevant specifically to what happened with his shooting.

Okay, so 11 days later.

I'm willing to separate these two.

Okay, let's separate. Let's move on. Uh, and by the way, just for the record, there's no evidence that Alex Prey was a professional agitator. There's also no evidence that he was getting paid to be there like so many on the right claimed.

Hang on. You. There is evidence that Prey was going to these protests and were was agitating on purpose.

That is in fact, that is in fact a case. Right.

So other than this one protest before he was killed.

Where he kicked a vehicle and spit at an officer.

No, no, no. Hang on. Hang on. He kicked out the tail light of the vehicle while he was armed. Hang on. While he was armed.

Yes. Spit at an officer.

No, it's not legal to kick out a tail light while you're armed.

Uh, no. But it is legal to be carrying and he was legally carrying.

But here's the thing. It's interesting is like.

When you're talking about training and protocols, was Prey following the the protocol that a CPL carrier is supposed to follow?

Yeah, I, I'll gladly, I'll gladly answer that. Uh, but I'll start with a preface by saying he didn't take an oath to the Constitution like the goons and the scarfs who you are defending.

Uh, ad nauseam did. So now moving back to.

Oh, so that makes it okay.

Uh, never. The first thing I said was that I don't condone his behavior.

Yeah. See what I mean? Like, well, then why are you making justifications for it at all?

Uh, no, you brought up his firearm which he was legally carrying. I am making the case very simply put that while I don't condone kicking a vehicle and you even admitted this, it is irrelevant.

To what took place 11 days later. But, but can we point something out here that it does seem like it would be relevant to the mindset when you used to make the claims. No, he wasn't he wasn't some kind of like professional agitator. Wasn't somebody who's agitating on purpose that this guy, that this guy was. Yeah. And you're okay, whatever. But anyway, this guy himself was a CPL holder. So, he was trained that he was not supposed to do that. That you're not supposed to carry your firearm and get into engagements like this, especially with law enforcement. So the thing is is like it seems to me that he was ignoring that aspect of his training. Uh, and the, so it seems like why was he ignoring that aspect of his training? Because he wanted to agitate, right? He was trying to be, he was trying to cause problems, right?

All right. So if you want to talk about ignoring training, let's talk about that and what took place 11 days later.

Okay. So 11 days later, Alex Prey is in the street for about 5 to 10 seconds in this video that we saw. You see two women on the side of the road, both being pushed. One was pushed to the ground. Alex Prey the entire time, uh, never reaches for his weapon. He never brandishes his weapon. Did, uh, Christine lie when she said immediately after this shooting that he brandished a weapon? Andrew, was that a lie?

Um, I'm not familiar with what, what.

You're not familiar.

Let me keep you up to date. Uh, let me, let me just get you up to date, Andrew. So, Christy Noom.

Hours after the shooting.

Said, quote, he was brandishing a weapon.

Let me see. Let me see if that's actually the case.

Okay. So, you're not aware of this.

Yeah. I just want to make sure it's actually the case, Brian, because anytime you tell me something's the case and I look it up, it's not actually the case in context.

Okay. I'll tell you what, Andrew, to be fair, go ahead and look it up. That's totally cool.

But if it's okay, I'm just going to continue to make the case of why I think it was murder. Is that okay with you?

Hang on. Let's just clarify. Why do you not want things clarified?

Okay. Well, just to move the conversation along so people don't see you typing.

Yeah, but the conversation, the, it's necessary in the conversation that we're not talking.

My fault that you don't know. Why is it my fault? You're, I mean, Andrew, okay, I'll try to be respectful here because I appreciate you doing this, Andrew. I just find it shocking that you don't even know that Christine said that he brandished a weapon. I, I'm shocked. But go ahead. Go ahead and look it up.

It's a quick, easy Google search.

"All right. I'm just, just making sure."

"Yeah, please do. Please do."

"There's a reason that I do that, right? For the purpose of a debate. So, calm down."

"Please. Please."

"I can't actually find this quote. Where would I find the quote?"

"Why don't you just Google, 'Did Christy say that Alex Prey brandished a weapon?'"

"I did. And nothing came up. So, now you're going to make me do it."

"I can't find a specific quote. Yeah. I just want to make sure I got the specific quote. That's all."

"Interesting. Now, we're wasting time, but that's okay. I'll look up because it's not a waste of time to make sure that we're clarifying that what you're saying is accurate as we're debating what it is that you're saying, right?"

"Okay. We will. I think it's a waste of time because I'm 100%."

"I understand."

"But, uh,"

"But you also have like 12,000 [ __ ] people watching you right now and I think that we want to make sure that we're clear on what it is that your case is."

"I know. I know. Okay, I'm on Reddit. You probably won't like that that um factcheck.org."

"No, I needed an actual quote."

"Factcheck.org. Here it is right here. 'He approached officers with a handgun, violently resist resisted and brandished a weapon.'"

"Okay, that's what she said."

"Yes."

"According to fact."

"Now, now I will I will clarify by saying this. She's been asked about that again and she's been challenged on it."

"And she refuses to say it again because she knows she's wrong. Right."

"And people in the White House like Steven Miller, who, by the way, called Alex Prey an assassin."

"Okay. I would."

"Now we've. Hang on. Now we've clarified she said it, but we haven't clarified she was lying."

"Okay. So, she was wrong. Can we agree on that?"

"Yeah, we can agree she's wrong. Okay. So, so hang on. Where that information from?"

"So, hang on. I just want to make sure that your claim is that she was factually wrong about this, not that she was lying about it. Right."

"There's no evidence to prove that he brandished a weapon. As you know, we both have eyes. We both saw the video. If there was, they would have released that evidence immediately, just like Steven Miller when he called him an assassin. They were wrong. Now, do I think do I know for sure that she was lying?"

"Mhm."

"Andrew, it's impossible for me to know that for sure, but here's what I do know."

"Oh, did you tweet that she was lying? Brian?"

"Uh, I believe she was lying. And here's why."

"So, you tweet but hang on. Did you tweet she was though?"

"Yeah, I believe she was lying. You're asking."

"You tweeted so you tweeted out that she was lying even though now when you're asked about it."

"You're not so sure, right?"

"No, no, no, no, no. I don't know for sure is different than I don't believe. I believe she was lying. Do I know that 100%? No. It's called an opinion. Andrew, here's why I say that, Andrew. Here's why I say that."

"Okay."

"An hour after the shooting, she calls Renee Good a domestic terrorist without having any of the facts. Uh, hours after the Alex Prey shooting, she call uh she says that he brandished a weapon. Now, they try to character assassinate these people without knowing all the facts. So, it's either one of two things. Either she's completely [ __ ] incompetent or she's lying."

"Now, she."

"Or she could have just been wrong on some facts, right?"

"She said she got the information uh she's doing what she's told from Steven Miller and Donald Trump. She did an interview with Axios and now she's putting the blame on Trump and Miller instead of saying, 'Andrew, this I would have accepted. I got it wrong. I got some bad information.'"

"Mhm."

"He did not brandish a weapon. But instead,"

"But so but so but so what what does this have to do with anything? Yeah."

"I'll tell you why. I'll tell you why this is important. Because you have a man who I believe was murdered and you are attacking his character."

"No, you didn't say he was murdered. You said he was executed."

"Yeah. I I think I think you can make the case for that and I will gladly."

"You can't make the case."

"Do you think he's an assassin? Is he an assassin? Steven Miller called him an assassin. Is he an assassin?"

"I I don't think he was an assassin. No."

"Why do you think Steven Miller said that? Don't you think it's irresponsible for members of the Trump administration to make statements like that?"

"I don't know. It could have been hyperbole."

"You don't know."

"Could have been hyperbole."

"You don't know. So you're okay with Steven Miller calling somebody an assassin with no evidence. And you're."

"I want to make sure I want to make sure again."

"You want to Google for one?"

"Yeah. Go ahead."

"Wait, wait. I'm not for one. Making sure that I'm clear on what you're saying. Go ahead and make sure not for one."

"Go ahead, Andrew. We'll wait. Go ahead. Make sure make sure that Steven Miller called him an assassin. Go ahead."

"Okay. And I do find it interesting while Andrew is is googling this, I find it interesting that number one, he doesn't know because this has been all over the news on every network. Even Steven Miller had to walk back what he said a little bit. And number two, to defend people that are blatantly at a minimum factually inaccurate and saying things in a high-profile case where the temperature is so high."

"Yeah. Right now. Listen, Brian."

"The thing is is like you waste the most amount of time in the debate by just not letting us get to the facts of the matter and then we can get to the actual arguments for the matter. So, right now, I just want you to show me or to give me the actual quote where he says that he's an assassin."

"And you say that I'm the one who's wasting time. Okay, no problem."

"That's not wasting time, Brian. Making sure we have the facts in a debate is not wasting time."

"Sure. Did you not Google this, Andrew? Is your computer not working? Huh?"

"I did Google it. Yeah."

"Okay. So, what does it say?"

"I can't find anything on it."

"We're just making sure these are all your claims. We're just going to make sure that they're accurate. I."

"I have it right here. It's right on my phone. I'm reading it verbatim."

"Okay."

"Uh Steven Miller drew intense scrutiny for labeling Alex Prey a Minneapolis resident killed by a a would-be assassin and domestic terrorist."

"Uh Miller claimed Prey tried to murder agents. I'm reading it verbatim. So now that we've cleared that up, is there anything else I need? Can we move on with the conversation? Now."

"You don't agree with. For the record though, Andrew, you don't agree with that. Correct?"

"Correct."

"Okay, good. Do you find it problematic that somebody at that high of a level in the Trump administration would be that irresponsible without knowing all the facts to call an American citizen who was just killed, I know you don't think he was murdered, but he was killed."

"An assassin. Don't you find that at a minimum extremely irresponsible?"

"Well, I mean, if he's operating on the facts that he has is the question."

"Which clearly he wasn't. We can establish that."

"How How do you know that?"

"What facts do you think he got?"

"Well, he was wrong. Let's just start there with."

"That could that could very well be the case. He's just wrong."

"Yeah."

"Okay. So, let's talk about the actual shooting because we really haven't gotten to that yet."

"Um, he was in the street. He never brandished his weapon. We both agree on that. Um, it took uh he was trying to help a woman up and in one of the videos I heard him say, 'Are you okay?' He puts his hand arm over one woman and then he tries to help another woman up who was just pushed to the ground. He's immediately pepper-sprayed while still holding a camera in one hand. He's pushed to the ground and there are five or six agents that are beating him. One of them, you can see punching and kicking him in the head. You hear somebody in that group say, 'Gun, gun, gun.' You clearly see one of the officers take that gun out of his holster. We've seen all angles of it. And then moments later, he is shot in the back, shot in the throat, and shot in the torso a number of times. And then 25 seconds after his motionless body is dead on the street, they're looking for the gun and they say, 'Well, where's the gun? Where's the gun?' What I try to find out is what crime was he committing at that point?"

"He was resisting arrest."

"Okay. So, at what point was he resisting arrest?"

"Uh, when they had him on the ground and told him that, uh, you know, they needed his arms in a certain position, this type of thing, he was resisting."

"Okay. Because maybe maybe what I saw was different than you, Andrew. What I saw are four or five officers that were kicking him and punching him and he was trying to protect himself. It's very difficult when you're in pain and you're being punched and kicked and you were just pepper-sprayed to say, 'Oh, okay. Officer, I mean, emotionally.' So now that we have now that we have the facts of the matter, right? Can you show me exactly why it is that you think that he was just trying to protect himself from punches and kicks from cops instead of being extremely volatile and resisting arrest? Cuz that's what he was doing."

"Sure."

"And it's very obvious that that's what he was doing."

"Sure. And I'll go from the beginning. First of all, he didn't address them. They addressed him first. He didn't confront them. They confronted him first and they got it up to him. That's one. So what?"

"Um uh that's kind of important because it's another lie being put forth by the administration and Bavano that buffoon uh who said that he approached the officers first which was another lie and you can Google that too but for sake of argument what took place there was he was pushed to the ground. He was pepper-sprayed. He was being kicked and punched. Why would it take five or six officers to put handcuffs on him?"

"Because he was a big guy and he was resisting arrest."

"Five or six officers? Yeah. Really? Why did they shoot him when he was unarmed?"

"Well, they they thought he was armed because he was that's why they were asking. That's what Yeah. Well, here's the thing."

"You're using post hoc justification. So, from Brian Shapiro's viewpoint, you say I have the facts after the fact, even though I wasn't involved in. Stop, Brian, my turn. I've let you go for a while. Here's what. And I did see what happened. And here's what happened. There were shouts of gun, gun, gun. They're asking about the gun after the the shooting, too, because they clearly thought that he had a gun on him. That's what they thought. That's why they opened fire. Okay, that is now justified. Now, let me ask you now, and I can explain how."

"True."

"Yes, it is. If somebody has a a toy gun in a Walmart, right, and they get shot because someone yells gun, they get shot by a cop, right? You can say, 'Well, wait a second. That wasn't a real gun after the fact.' That's true. But we're talking about whether or not it's justified."

"Hold on. Can I stop? Stop, bro. Let me finish."

"We're asking about whether or not it's justified if the officers have a clear belief that he is armed and they open fire because he can't get his hands under control because he's resisting arrest. If that would be justified at that point, I would argue that it would be. Yes. Okay. So, first of all, there's a difference. If somebody has a toy gun and they point that gun at an officer, I think most people would say that's probably justified. That is not what happened here. I repeat once again, he was legally carrying. He never brandished the weapon."

"No, no, no. You're missing You're missing the the key point."

"I think you are."

"He has If he has a fake gun, what we're banking on is the officer's belief in X. That's what creates the justification. I believe it was a real gun. I believed he did have a gun and it's reasonable for me to have believed he had a gun because of X. Brian."

"So, first of all, there's a difference between believing he has a gun on him and then him reaching for the gun and trying to use it. There is no evidence and even you agree with this."

"They couldn't get the hands they couldn't get his hands under control. They couldn't do it."

"That's not an excuse. There's no evidence."

"Yes. Look, I think it was justified based on that. Andrew, there's no evidence that he tried to reach for the weapon. Okay. Therefore, there's no justification."

"Actually, it does. It looks like somebody because he had a weapon on his person, which he never. Frame by frame play. It does look like he goes for the holster in the small of his back, but even if it's the case."

"Even if I granted it, there was no weapon to brandish at that point. They had removed it. But the thing that's interesting here, Brian, is that I went through it frame by frame by frame. They could not get this guy's hands under control because he wouldn't let them get his hands under control. Okay. At one point there was only two officers on him when he's retracting his hands back just after they had yelled gun. Okay. And when they opened fire they were asking where's the gun? Because they believed that he was still armed. The officer belief."

"A reasonable rational belief that's going to create justification. And it's a reasonable belief of danger, not whether or not the facts of the matter were X, but whether or not the belief of the facts of the matter were X."

"So, first of all, as I mentioned before, and I mentioned again, just because an officer might have believed that he had a gun on him."

"Is not necessarily justification for taking out your gun and shooting somebody. That's why there needs to be a full. Wait a second. Wait a second to this. Hold on. Now you're."

"Not necessarily but often is. So for instance, if you're mugging me and you have your hand in your pocket or something like this."

"And I have a reasonable reasonable belief that you're mugging me, I'm not saying he's doing it. I'm drawing an analogy so that you can understand why belief here matters so much."

"If somebody's mugging me, if it's not a false analogy, just listen."

"If somebody's mugging me and I think that they have a firearm, I can then say rationally I thought this. That was why I opened fire. That's my justification for this. Would a reasonable person believe under the same circumstances that this person was armed or had a gun? I think that the police officers in involved here, right, saying, 'I have a rational belief that after I heard gun, gun, gun, and this guy was struggling on the ground, we couldn't get his hands under control, right? A shot rang out that this was a problem and that we then were justified in opening fire is completely rational and reasonable.' I I could not I could not disagree with you more and I'm going to go step by step into why I completely disagree with you."

"Okay."

"First of all, he never addressed to those ICE officers. They came to him. Number two."

"So what that hasn't. Number two, I'm talking about because I'm talking about training and protocol. And I find it very interesting that you want to talk about Alex Prey 11 days earlier not using proper training when you have a firearm on you kicking a car. But then when we talk about ICE officers with far more power and responsibility, you say you don't care. Now, please let me finish. At the beginning."

"Finish."

"He is putting his arm around a woman. Another woman falls to the ground. He's trying to help her up. In that specific situation, he is not a threat to officers. Most human beings would agree when you see a woman on the ground, you help her up."

"Wait, wait a second. Wait a second. Hang on."

"Um, hold on. Let me just hang on. I just want you to pull up the video because are we talking about uh you're saying that she just slipped on her own and just fell on the ground? Not that she."

"Exactly. She didn't fall to the ground, Brian. She was intervening. She was struggling. She was trying to intervene with an officer in the line of his duty and he pushed her away. She fell down. He interjected himself. Now he's a threat. An armed threat, by the. He so he helping her up to me is not a plausible reason to pepper spray somebody from 2 feet away. And then seconds later when he puts one hand in the air after he's pepper-sprayed, one hand's in the air. He's not punching officers. He's not kicking officers. He's clearly in pain and probably in shock. He has one hand with the cell phone, the other hand in the air. What do they do?"

"They tackle him to the ground. They start him and they start."

"Just keep narrative building, but you're full of [ __ ]. What actually happens? I saw the video. I'm not."

"What actually happens is."

"She intervenes. The officer pushes her away. She goes down, right? Gets back up. She's She's getting. This guy dives in like Captain Sabaho dives the [ __ ] in, right? He's going to get involved now in the middle of official police functions while he's [ __ ] armed. That's tarded [ __ ] one and two, the fact of the matter is is that after he's pepper-sprayed, they they tell him, 'Get on the ground.' They're trying to push him down. They're trying to get him under control as a threat. That is when this escalates. Prey could have stopped this anytime he wanted by just not being an [ __ ] And really, all he had to do was just not be a [ __ ] [ __ ]."

"Okay. So, so first of all, I wouldn't characterize him that way. I think the [ __ ] are the people who are wearing masks, asking people without for ID, and demanding papers with no Antifa mask. There you go with Antifa. Again, let me finish. Or, you know, kicking down doors without warrants, uh, which we have seen in Minneapolis. So, I would say, see, the guy we're talking about right now is dead. Okay. He had eight bullets in his body. He's dead. Now, if you think he was inappropriate or as you said, tred behavior, just because you have, according to Andrew Wilson, tred behavior doesn't mean you deserve."

"You don't think that was tred behavior. Would you have complied with the office you deserve to be shot whether it's not a matter of deserve it's a matter of justified not a matter of deserved nobody ever gets what they deserve in life."

"But what they do what you do get is you get things which are either justified or they're not justified and here's what happened in this case."

"Okay. There was a struggle. He was resisting arrest. He was obviously."

"That's debatable. That's debatable."

"Man, it's so obvious."

"No, that's debatable."

"What do you mean it's debatable?"

"I pepper sprayed and cops were telling what to do. What do you do?"

"I will explain if you will give me the opportunity. Here's why I don't think he was quote unquote necessarily resisting. He's immediately pepper-sprayed. At that time, he has one hand in the air and literally a second or two later, they push him to the ground."

"He's curled up. They're kicking him and they're punching him. I think most reasonable people would agree that when you have five or six. Hold on a second, let me finish. There are five or six officers on top of you beating you. It's very difficult for anybody to re you're going to have you're going to defend yourself. You're going to you're going to defend yourself. So there's a difference between resisting arrest and when five or six goons are on top of you kicking you and punching you trying to defend yourself when you have the opposite eyes."

"No, this is the opposite. This is exactly the wrong take. What's actually going on is this. Let's say you're a cop, Brian, right? You're trying to get this guy under control and you can't. You can't get his arms under control. You know that there's a gun and somebody's already shouted gun. You're trying to get this dude under control, right? Would you use before they shouted gun? I'm talking about before talking about before they shouted gun. After they shouted gun, he was killed two seconds later."

"Yes. Before that, too. And so the thing is is like they're trying to get him under control. They can't get him under control. Yes, of course they're going to use heavy force in order to get the person under control. That's how that works."

"And that is exactly what they're trained to do is utilize force for officer safety."

"Obviously, you are defending what took place here, which is I'm mesmerized. But here's the bottom line. Here are the facts. The fact of the matter is is that this man has no criminal record. The fact of the matter is is that what happened on that day is he never brandished the weapon and he was legally carrying. What happened on that day is that an unarmed man, indisputable, was shot and killed. And your defense is, well, they thought he had a gun. Let me be very clear once again. He did have a gun."

"Just because you think somebody has a gun on their person doesn't give you the right to shoot and kill them."

"He did have a gun on his person."

"There is a reason why several days after this shooting."

"He did have a gun on his person."

"And he never brandished it and he was legally brand. Is there reasonable? Is it reasonable for officers, okay, when people are shouting gun, gun, gun, right, and even if they glanced and saw that they pulled one off of him and they can't get him under control that he could have a second gun, a third gun. So, let's Okay, let's go with that. Let's go with that. So, the theory that Andrew is giving us now is."

"He might have had a second gun. He might have had a third gun. Uh, so that's justifying."

"Shooting somebody in the back. Give me a [ __ ] break. Worst argument I've ever had in my life."

"I'm very I'm really confused here."

"Do you assume that if you're a cop and you you there's been a gun taken off of somebody."

"Agents."

"Okay. Yeah. Whatever. There you take a gun off somebody. You take a gun off of somebody. You just instantly assume that that's it. There's only one."

"You just assume that. And uh so if you."

"Or isn't the standard protocol to make sure that you pat them down, that they're under control, that they're in hand."

"I'll answer that. I'll answer that for you."

"When somebody takes a gun off of one's person, which by the way, a gun that he never reached for, that is a lie. Never been proven. And that is not factually accurate. I have eyes. When you take the gun off of him."

"On the third frame after it does look like his hand moves backwards."

"He never brandished the weapon. That's completely."

"Say he brandished the weapon. That was not."

"No evidence that he was reaching for his weapon either. So that's also fact."

"No, there is that there is evidence. There's a."

"I saw the same video you did. I didn't see what you saw. So anyway, going back to your question."

"Did you watch each frame?"

"Every by your st Yes, I did. By your stand."

"You want to see that frame I'm talking about?"

"By your by Andrew by your standards."

"Mhm."

"Every officer involved shooting could be justified if an officer tells you, 'We thought he might have had a second weapon or maybe a third weapon. Heck, he could have had a grenade on him. We don't know.' That's insane."

"No. And the reason you have to characterize it that way is because if you characterized it the correct way, you sound insane. Each each and every officer involved shooting is going to have details around that specific case. And each of those specific details needs to be taken into account before you decide to pass judgment on whether or not they were right, wrong, incorrect, or correct. If it's the case that in specific cases they seem to have justification which is reasonable and part of that justification is that this person we believed he had a gun right and we had every good reason to believe that he had a gun then yes I think at that point you create good justification now if it's the case where there is no good justification whatsoever right then I think that that is going to be taken into account too but in this case we have good justification for their belief that he was armed Yeah. So, just because officers believe he might have a gun on him is not justification to shoot and kill somebody in and of itself."

"Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. Let."

"In and of itself. No."

"I interrupt you. Okay. Let Let me finish. Please, Andrew."

"Go ahead."

"Um, now obviously we agree that if somebody reaches for a weapon or points a weapon at officers, you you probably deserve to be shot. He didn't do any of those things. Now, let's just say you're right for a moment. Let's say he was resisting. By the way, completely completely disagree with you. I've given you my reasons why. If I'm being beat in the head."

"Terrible reason."

"Okay. Again, I disagree with you on that."

"He involved involved himself in something that officers were doing that had every reason. Every reason to detain in what law was he breaking? What What law was he breaking?"

"He's intervening. He was intervening during these uh uh officers regular course of duties."

"How did he do that?"

"By going in when they had moved somebody back from the crowd by putting himself in that situation."

"By helping somebody up on the ground."

"No, it's not helping him up by getting involved in their official duty."

"How did he get involved? What did he do?"

"Because he came close to the scene, moved towards this woman. They had every reason to believe that he was a threat at that point."

"They moved towards him. He was on the side of the road."

"No, he moved towards he was pushed to the ground."

"Okay. She was pushed."

"He also moved towards them. You agree with that, right?"

"Okay. So, I don't believe."

"Do you agree that he moved towards them as well?"

"Originally, he walked towards uh the police officers walked towards him."

"After he sees. Let me finish. I'm answering your question. After she was pushed to the ground, the one lady was pushed to the ground."

"Then he goes over to them."

"He took a step. He took a step towards the officer and then the officer immediately pepper sprayed him again."

"Now, okay, so we can say something is a bad move."

"But that doesn't necessarily justify killing somebody."

"They justified for him for them to. They didn't they didn't start with lethal force, Brian. That's [ __ ]. They started with non-lethal force. They pepper-sprayed him and they tried to get him under control. Now, the thing is."

"So by kicking him and punching him, that's how you get them under control. By pushing him to the ground."

"Wait a second. Wait a second. By putting him on the ground, trying to get his hands under control. If you cannot get them under control, what do you do? What would Officer Brian do if you couldn't get your suspect under control?"

"Okay, sir. I'm so glad you asked that question."

"What would you do?"

"I'm so glad you asked that question. I can't wait to hear."

"Let me start with the things that I wouldn't do, and then I'll answer the questions of the things I would do. And by the way, I'm not one of these amazingly trained 47-day professionals with their $50,000, but I'll still answer your question, Andrew. Okay, here's what I wouldn't do."

"After, and by the way, I'm not sure if it's proper protocol to push a woman to the ground, but let's just assume it was for argument sake, right?"

"Mhm."

"If a man is trying to help a woman up, the first thing I wouldn't do is take out my pepper spray and pepper spray him two feet away. By the way, you're also trained, and you can Google this as well. You're not supposed to pepper spray someone at close range. It's very dangerous. That officer did that. So, I wouldn't have done that. I would have said, 'Sir, if you don't back up, we're going to arrest you.' The first thing I wouldn't have done was take out my pepper spray. Why? Because that is not deescalation. Number two, if he disobeys that order and he doesn't obey your command to."

"You don't think that pepper spray is deescalation?"

"Uh uh. Hold on. I'm answering your question."

"And I said the first thing I wouldn't have done is what this first goon officer did."

"Well, hang on. Hang on. But pepper pepper spray is not deescalation to you."

"That's always escalation."

"In some instances, it is deescalation."

"Yeah. Because the guy because the person's blind, right? And now they're in pain."

"In this situation, it was not. I just told you what I would have done. Sir, back up five or 10 feet."

"And if you don't, then we're going to arrest you. Then if he doesn't then Hold on. Then if he doesn't comply, then you take matters to the next step and and and you try to arrest this guy. He didn't do that. This officer immediately immediately at close range, which is you're not trained to do that. Okay, so listen here again. We disagree on this. I'm giving you what I saw, which I guess my eyes are lying to me, Andrew. But here's the bottom line, okay?"

"They didn't put these officers on paid administrative leave until multiple days after. The reason why they did that and the reason why Steven Miller walked back his comments because even Steven Miller disagrees with you Andrew and you could also Google this. Stephen Miller said that he believes those officers probably did not follow proper protocol. So even Steven Miller who once called this guy Steven Miller who once called this guy an assassin said last week that he most likely believes most likely that these officers broke. Do you agree that protocol that protocol is situational?"

"Protocol is situational. Every single police activity warrants a different outcome, but."

"So it's always situational, right?"

"Okay. So, do you disagree with Steven Miller when he said these officers most likely broke proper protocol? Do you disagree with."

"He might think he might think that they did, but the thing is is that protocol is going to be situational."

"Let me ask you a question, Andrew. Who do you think has more information?"

"Stop. Hang on. Let's move back to what we were talking about before. Do you agree that Prey involved himself in an incident that he did not need to be involved in? He did not need to involve himself at all. Do you agree with that?"

"I don't think he was breaking the law."

"Okay, that's not what I asked you. Did Alex Prey need to involve himself in this incident?"

"Uh, did he need to?"

"Mhm."

"What do you mean by need? Meaning that in order for you to live your life, you have to do something."

"Yeah. Like has to do anything."

"If Alex chose to do it."

"Yeah. Exactly. So, Alex Prey decided that he was going to involve himself in this situation while protest. He decided that he was going to do this by the way."

"So, in the course of this action, a woman gets too close to an officer and he does exactly what he should have done and tries to make space from her. She he puts his arm out into the snowbank. She goes, 'I don't think he intended for her to get.' Hang on, hang on, hang on. Stop, Brian. I don't think he intended for her to even fall in the snowbank. He just looked at me like he was trying to get some space from her. She goes down, he involves himself. And when he turns around, yeah, that's a big guy. He He gets [ __ ] pepper-sprayed. And they're fighting for control at that point to get this guy under control. If he had complied, let me ask you, if if Prey had complied, would he be alive? He didn't have the opportunity to. Yes, he did have the opportunity to comply."

"Hold on. Hold on. And by the way, just because for argument sake you don't say comply or put your hands behind your back, I don't think he even had the opportunity or the time to do that. One second he's pepper-sprayed, the next second he's on the ground and he's being beaten. But let me go back to your question. This is why your argument makes absolutely no sense in your defense of this."

"Yeah. Where's all. Hold on. Hold on. Even if it was bad judgment."

"Even if your claim, what you're making is, 'Boy, he didn't have to be there. He put himself in a dangerous situation. He shouldn't have been there.' That still is not a defense for officers shooting and killing him. And again, I go back to what I said earlier. Even members of the Trump administration, plenty of Republicans now want a fullblown out investigation. Stephen Miller disagrees with you. He says that he believes they broke proper protocol."

"No, that's not what he put these off."

"What he said is they may take. He basically said that they may have."

"Hold on. Hold on. Several days it took them to put these officers on paid administrative leave in most situations."

"So what we're talking about whether or not the Prey shooting was justified."

"Yes. And here is the bottom line. Regardless of whether you thought you're talking about whether or not it's justified. You're also making the assumption that these two officers assumed he had a gun because one officer afterwards said, 'Where's the gun?' You don't know what was in the mind."

"No, it was also them shouting, 'Gun! Gun!'"

"Yeah. While he's on the ground."

"On his back lying motionless. There was one officer that put three more bullets in him."

"When he's lying on his back."

"Do you know what panic? Do you know what panic firing is?"

"You know Yeah. Well, Andrew, maybe. Do you know what panic? Do you know what panic had on him or something? I don't know. Well, guess what? Do."

"You know what panic firing is?"

"Yes, I do. And when you're a professional, that is not a defense. Oh, I panicked. That is."

"No, no, no, no, no. I know what panic. You can be completely justified."

"Execute the threat."

"You can be completely justified in taking down a suspect or you can be a highly trained individual."

"And be justified in taking a person out. Okay? And due to the fact that you have sensory deprivation, you can end up ultimately unloading more rounds uh based on the fact that you have some sort of panic or that your your sensory uh perception becomes narrow."

"But in your face."

"That doesn't mean that they were you might be able to make the case that he wasn't justified in the last three rounds, but you can't make the the case that they weren't justified yet."

"Well, here's my opinion on here's my opinion on panic fire."

"Mhm."

"It's for blatant cowards."

"And for blatant cowards. Hold on. Let me Let me finish."

"All the gun fights Brian's been in."

"Let me finish. Let me finish, please."

"Mhm."

"There were multiple shots that were fired after he was lying motionless."

"On his back with his hands. Now, you've already made up your decision, apparently, just like Christy Noem."

"But here's the problem here."

"Wait, wait, wait. I haven't made. Wait a second. Wait a second. I have not."

"Yeah, you're saying they're def. You're defending it. I haven't made a determination. I'm pointing out to you."

"Sure sounds like you have."

"The opposite."

"Is has happened. You are the one who claims he was executed and it was completely unjustified without any without any [ __ ] uh good compelling evidence yet. We haven't gotten all the evidence. Hang on. Stop, Brian. Brian, we haven't gotten compelling evidence yet because the investigation's still ongoing."

"We could find We could find We could. Hang on. Stop, Brian. My turn. We could find out a whole lot about this that we don't know yet. What I'm pointing out to you is not whether or not um it is the case that I've made up my mind on this. What I'm pointing out to you is that you have made up your mind on this even though there's serious qualifiers here that would uh add to justification. And so the thing is is like you're just throw all that out. You're like, 'No, [ __ ] it. I don't care. This guy I know this guy got involved in this. I know he was resisting arrest. All right. I know. I know that he had a gun on him. I hope none of that justifies anything.'"

"No. So, everything that Andrew said, first of all, he legally was carrying a gun. Number one. Uh, number two, I never said uh he assaulted officers. You're the one who made that assumption. I'm not making that assumption at all. Uh, number three, I was talking about the DHS and Christy Noem who made comments that were not true. I read to you verbatim what Christy Noem said about him brandishing a weapon. That was different than us talking about the justification."

"So I watched I watched."

"I don't care about the DHS talking justification of this incident."

"Andrew Andrew I I don't usually respond too kindly with people that use stupid terminologies like DHS. So we'll get back to the conversation but I will respond by saying I believe you have something called TFS."

"I've heard it before. Yeah."

"You've heard it. Okay. Well that's what you have Trump fellatio. So."

"And you have Trump derangement syndrome."

"Okay fine. You have Trump fellatio syndrome. You're a Trump mushroom guy. Move on. Thank you. Okay. Don't play this."

"You don't want to keep bringing up Trump and Trump's administration. We're talking about the justification of this."

"Hold on a second. You just said, 'Do you want to keep bringing up Trump and you just said I have Trump drain TDS?' So."

"I said, 'I don't want to hear about your TDS.'"

"I didn't bring up Donald Trump. You did bring up the Trump administration because you think that Trump was involved."

"You just said I have TDS. I will give you the same energy you give me because you do have TDS. You do have TDS. And I think you wear Trump knee pads 24/7 while smoking."

"But I mean this thing works better. But yeah."

"But I'm just pointing I'm just pointing this out, right, that you're the one actually who's making the affirmative claim. No way it was justified. Brian had you have all the facts. You know exactly what happened. Then why then why is it that you rush? Hang on. Hang on. If you don't have all the facts, why do you rush to judgment and claim it's unjustified immediately? Why?"

"Sure. I'll give you a couple answers. First of all, I've called for Renee Good and Alex Prey. I've wanted an independent investigation, and I've said this on national television that if an independent investigation found that any of these shootings were justified, while I might disagree with it, I would live with it. Number two, I think a radio host's opinion, which would be me."

"Mhm."

"And the leader of DHS and the president of the United States, what they say hours after the shooting is a little bit more important than some uh, you know, different standard than something that I say. Donald Trump, see how you bring up Trump. Hold on, hold on, hold on. You brought it up again. You're TDS again, bro. Let me finish. Let me finish, let me finish. When I make a valid point, all you say is DDS and you go back to the adam."

"Well, you just brought up Trump again."

"Let me finish because he's the president of the United States. You can get a little. What does that have to do with the justification? Because you just said, Andrew, you just said that I'm rushing the judgment. Let's wait. Let's get all the facts. And my retort to that is if you have that criticism for a radio host."

"Why have you not talked about Christy Noem? The leader of the free world may."

"What about Isism? I'm talking to you, not to Christy Noem. And I am trying to tell you that based on."

"Am I talking to Christy Noem or am I talking to Brian Shapiro?"

"I cannot believe I cannot believe that you don't have a difference."

"I cannot believe that you cannot believe that I can't believe about the things that you believe."

"Okay."

"None of us. It's unbelievable."

"Andrew unbelievable. Okay, Andrew. You're not very funny. Okay. I know. See, here's the problem."

"I thought in your last text message you said I was pretty funny."

"So So here's the problem, Andrew. Well, I was being."

"Can't make up your mind."

"I do want to get to the Trump stuff. I do have to wake up early because I'm doing Pierce tomorrow, but here's what I will say in regards to debates with you. And I really mean this, Andrew, and you can tell me if you disagree. And I'm sorry if I'm being graphic. Andrew at the start of this debate could have dropped Trrow and taken his [ __ ] and many of his cult followers would say, 'Andrew just destroyed Brian in that debate.' Now, here's the difference between you and me. I don't give a [ __ ] what people think. If all of your cult followers think you're destroying me in advance."

"What does this have to do with anything?"

"Uh, no. Because it's an ego thing with you. Okay."

"It seems like an ego thing with you."

"So, no, it's not. I'm not here to lose the conversation."

"Yeah. I'm bringing up all this."

"The reason why I'm bringing up."

"You sound insecure. Stop being."

"The reason why, by the way, I mean what I just said. The reason why and and listen in the middle of this debate or at the end of the debate when you always declare victory, I destroyed you. I dogwalked you."

"I haven't done anything, Brian, except engage in good faith in the topic at hand."

"I appreciate that. But."

"I don't know why I don't know why you're freaking out so bad right now. Why are you freaking out? You are, dude."

"I'm not freaking out."

"What does Andrew has cult followers and this and that do with anything?"

"Yeah, you do. Because when you mention something."

"Because when you say something like TDS."

"And ad hominem attacks I can give you the same. Okay. So let's move on from that now. Okay. And let's get back to the actual discussion which."

"That's where I wanted to be. So I'm talking to Brian Shapiro not anybody else. I'm asking why Brian Shapiro has decided."

"That he's made up his mind and that and that he doesn't he has all the facts of the matter. He knows and he knows best and so he has made up his mind that this is unjustified. Period."

"And I will answer. I I will answer. So first of all."

"There's cell phone video and I've seen multiple angles and from what my eyes tell me from what I saw, this was not a good shooting."

"What I saw that they did break protocol, I actually agree with Steven Miller on this. What I saw was a."

man. Whether you agree whether he shouldn't have been there or not is irrelevant because from what I saw, he wasn't breaking any laws. You obviously disagree. What I saw was a man who was trying to help a woman up. What I saw was a man that was not breaking the law. And what these officers did was they pepper-spray him. They they push him to the ground. They start beating him and punching him. And then because he was legally carrying a firearm that he didn't brandish, they shoot him. And Andrew's defense. And that that's my that's what I saw from this video.

By the way, most of America, Andrew, agrees with me. Even MAGA Republicans are saying this is really bad. There needs to be a full investigation. He's not a terrorist. He's not a domestic terrorist. Uh he was never brandishing a weapon. He's not an assassin. MAGA Republicans, many of them agree with me. But you know what I say at the end, Andrew? I want to see a full investigation, right? I believe in the rule of law. And if there is an independent investigation that finds that these officers were justified, while I might not agree with it, I will still respect it. They didn't do that with Renee Good either, by the way. They didn't do that with Renee Good, did they?

>> So, I just want to make sure I got this right. You actually did not tell me why it is that absent investigation, you have already decided uh that this is the this is the case. There is no justification. You haven't heard any of the testimony of the police. You haven't heard anything.

Yeah, exactly. But absent all of this, I have told you Hang on. Hang on. Stop.

>> Absent all of this, you have made the decision. Even though you don't have access to the same evidence, you don't know what it is that they're going to say. You don't know what the justification that they're going to use even is. You have no clue about any of this. You immediately though, Brian, said, "I've already made up my mind. This is already the case. And then I want a a [ __ ] some kind of investigation after the fact and hopefully that justifies my position. If it doesn't well,

>> hang on, Brian. My turn. And if it doesn't, oh well, too bad. I guess I was wrong. All woe is me. But it's like I have I'm the one here with the nuanced position. I haven't made up my mind on this. I'm here to make

No, what I said specifically was you can I can see the case for justification. That's it. not here to defend. Don't need to defend. You're the one with the sure position. You're the one who's making the bold affirmative claim that you got the facts. This is the case and that's it.

>> Yes. Well,

>> yeah. Exactly. Yes.

>> First of all,

>> without any testimony, any nothing.

>> So, first of all,

>> you're just part of a mob. You're part of mob rule, man. You're just saying like, oh, if the the facts are exactly what I think they are.

>> Okay. So, first of all,

>> justice by mob rule. Public court of public opinion. It's a two-way conversation, right? So, first of all, I saw the video, Andrew, just like you did and everybody else. I saw what took place. I saw from all angles.

>> How do you know you've seen from all angles

>> and from the angles that were released, right?

>> So, you have you don't know like you don't so much here. You don't know.

>> Andrew, I've spoken for five seconds. Please let me finish. based on the facts that we have

>> which I have repeated to you over and over and over again.

>> Okay,

>> I do not believe this was a justified shooting. Now, that is my opinion. I have also said

>> in my personal opinion there should be an independent full investigation. The reason why I don't trust DHS in this investigation because they've already made up their minds. Same thing with the Renee Good case. By the way, we haven't even discussed the fact that there has not Todd Blanch has said two weeks ago. No more to investigate here. He said that in the press conference. They didn't even do ballistics, which is very basic stuff when there's an officer involved shooting. They didn't perform an autopsy on her. They didn't interview witnesses that saw what took place. And that is why I don't I guess the the term that I would use is I don't I I I don't trust what's going on here. They didn't fully investigate the Renee Good shooting. I've said investigate it, please. I've also tried to be fair.

>> Oh, why? Why do you even want to investigation? You just believe already.

>> Sure.

>> It's not justified.

>> So, you just already believe that. So, here's the thing. It's so funny is like me, I can have my mind changed on these things and I can have my mind changed easily because I don't I don't formulate but you already formulated a conclusion.

>> Andrew, here's the difference. Here's the difference.

>> Why would you formulate a testimony on an ongoing

>> especially on the the Renee thing and especially on Prey? That one's the most bizarre to me.

>> Andrew, if there's more evidence, Andrew, let me just respond to that. If there's more evidence for it takes you forever to respond.

>> No, it doesn't. You just don't like to listen. You like to hear your takes it just takes you forever. But go ahead.

>> Well, yeah, from the guy who wants to Google stuff, which by the way, I was right. But anyway, um,

>> and nobody was taking any of that away from you investigation. If there's an independent investigation, which there won't be into Renee Good, I doubt there'll be one into Alex, an independent investigation,

>> and if that found real evidence, like for example, if body camera footage

>> Mhm.

>> showed something different, then I would say, "All right, maybe I'll change my position." So why so why hold the position now then if it's here you go you ready based on the video that I saw

>> right

>> and based on people that I know that are in law enforcement that have broken down this video and even people on the right

>> like Leonard like Leonard Cardinal

>> like Steven Miller

>> do you know but also Leonard Cardinal who co-host your show sometimes do you know who Steven Miller is who but you cited Leonard Cardinal and said that you know his politics are, you know, they're they're irrelevant, but you've you neglected the fact that he actually has subbed in for your show, right?

>> Uh-huh. Yeah. And your point, Steven Miller, is he a Democrat?

>> Stephen Well, what is Steven Miller said here that you're referencing?

>> Is he a Republican?

>> He believed that it's most likely that these officers did not use proper protocol. Now, you can also Google that as well, and you can go 0 for three.

>> Do you know what most likely means?

>> Yeah.

>> Yeah. means most likely he believes that they didn't do most does most likely mean he did they did or they didn't or just I think I think right now maybe

>> we're stuck in the we're stuck in the Andrew Wilson word semantics here's the bottom line we have two listen it's super it's super important

>> okay so here's the bottom line we have I don't think there's anything funny about this I hope we could agree on this we have two American citizens that are dead had 3,000 ICE agents deployed out there to Minneapolis which I believe was unnecessary to begin with.

>> If they found out to be Antifa, would you are you going to call him domestic terrorist?

>> Uh, how what's ant who's the leader of Antifa?

>> I'm just asking you if you found out.

>> I'm just asking because I don't know what is you mean anti-fascist. I'm anti-fascist.

>> Oh, so you're a member of Antifa?

>> No, I'm anti-fascist though. So, can you tell me who is funding Antifa and where are their headquarters?

>> Yeah, that's not what a terrorist group. You don't have to have you don't have to have leaders of terrorist groups or organized leaders. So tell me something about tell me who's funding them and who's leading them. Can you

>> So let's start. Yeah, we'll start with all of the NOS's which assisted in No King's Day. I have an extensive list of over 500 of them who assist with the financing of these organized protests. We can move into the signal group chats which show the vast organization between these various protesters, how they're going to agitate, cause problems, burn stuff down, break [ __ ] That sounds a whole lot like organized terrorism to me.

>> Well, well, so so if it sounds like something and you don't know where they're getting funded, you don't know who the leader is.

>> No, no, no. I just told you I know where they're getting funded. Yeah, there's over 500 NOS's I can signing.

>> You said in this conversation that you believe Renee Good

>> was in uh uh Antifa, right? You think

>> you just made that? You just made that up.

>> Okay. Oh, okay. I I thought

>> you just made it up.

>> Okay. So you agree with me then?

>> So you agree? Okay. Then if I misspoke, I misspoke.

>> What was my question? My question was if it's found out that they were members of Antifa, would you then cons have considered them to be domestic terrorists? That's my question.

>> I don't believe uh Antifa is an organization, let alone a domestic group. I think everybody has different intentions. I believe if you show up to a protest and if you're committing a crime, then I obviously don't defend that. I think there's a lot of people that show up to protest that do not commit crimes that are not members of hate groups. Um, so I would

>> No, I agree. Look, I agree with that. I'm asking if we find out that they have direct dealings with known members of Antifa, right, and are participating in signal chats and other things with these Antifa people in order to agitate and possibly conduct some sort of domestic violence or uh break things or start fires or things like this. They're coordinating to do that. Would you then consider them to be domestic terrorists? As you do know that ant you don't you don't think Antifa is domestic terrorist, right?

>> In in in in general terms, here's what I will say to that.

>> Mhm.

>> First of all, there's no evidence to show that. Now, let's be very clear on that. Nobody's shown any evidence to prove.

>> I'm not saying that. I'm asking if it's the case in general. I'm going to speak in general terms. If anybody

>> is working in an organized crime fashion

>> Mhm. to show up at protest and commit crimes or violent acts. Absolutely. Because as I've said from day one, whether you're right or left, it could be a Black Lives Matter protest where you were just there to be an agitator and commit crimes, or it could be January 6th, if you're there to commit crimes, then of I've always called that out. And by the way, I've begged people in Minneapolis to not commit crimes. Peacefully protest. You can you can use your whistle. You can blow your horn and do all that stuff,

>> but don't Well, you can laugh, but that's not breaking the law. Andrew, we're talking about I

>> I didn't say I didn't say that they were breaking the law when they're blowing their whistle. But

>> they have I do think that the coordination which has been now demonstrated through these signal chats is incredible and we're just going to gloss over that and that's fine. We'll just gloss over that. But the thing is is like look, because it's narrow, the debate prop here is narrow. We're talking about justification. I don't think that you've demonstrated that there was no justification only that you kind of just feel that there wasn't based on based on just how you feel

>> based on the evidence and based on uh you don't have the evidence. You don't have the evidence.

>> Okay. Based on did you hear what I just said?

>> Videos the evidence that has been released so far and my own two eyes. No. And I've given you reasons add why I believe I think it's a superior position to make sure that you have the facts of the matter. Okay. Well, again, I go back to what I said earlier. I wish you held that same criticism towards people in our government like the leader of the DH.

>> And I'm happy to dive into those criticisms in a debate where we're talking about that. Can we move on though to because we've we've beaten this dead horse. Can we move on to the Epstein stuff now?

>> Yeah, go ahead. Start. I'll let you start this time.

>> All right. So, the first thing is is I I took some time to go through a bunch of the various complaints by many of the Jane Does. They call them different things, but I'm just for the purpose of this going to say Jane Doe. I'm sure you've read a bunch of these, right?

>> Yes. Yes, sir.

>> And you DM' me and said that you believe these women, right?

>> Um, do you want my position? I'll give you a 30 second synopsis and then you can go from there. Is that

>> You said you think we should believe women. That's what you said. Um, I think

>> I believe the victims. That's what you said.

>> I I I think in Well, I'll give you my basic synopsis of of my opinion here. I'm not arguing, Andrew, that guilt has been legally proven. That's not my argument, Andrew. What I am arguing is that

>> I'm not asking for that.

>> Hold on. Let me just give you my 30 second synopsis here and then go. I'll shut up. I'm arguing that the volume and the consistency and the seriousness of the allegations combined with you I I don't think you disagree me Trump's own documented associations make it reasonable and responsible to question his conduct rather than just blindly dismiss these concerns. I think that's my basic

>> Why did you text me and say that you believe the women? Well, in general terms, I tend to believe victims, you know, like I like I I don't immediately usually say, "Oh, I don't believe that person." In general terms, Andrew, I think if you're a decent human being, you say, "Unless it's proven otherwise."

>> Do you believe these women or not, Brian?

>> Um, again, I go back to what I said earlier. When you look at his history

>> and you look at the seriousness of these allegations and his history, 25 plus women accusing him of rape or sexual assault. Uh I can get into the details of the 20 plus young girls and all the allegations and the calls. We can get into that but

>> yeah so

>> okay

>> I'm not Andrew. Does that make sense? I'm not.

>> So, what you're saying is I just want to make sure I got it right that the core of the position is if you follow sort of Trump's conduct and his history and his past and everything and you kind of put that together, it gives you a more of a belief structure that these things could lean potentially true rather than false.

>> Uh could I think it's reasonable as I said and responsible to question this conduct than to blindly dismiss it. And again, let me let me preface this.

>> Like for instance, hang on. I just want to I want to go through a couple of these just to make sure and these aren't gotchas. I just want to make sure that uh that we're on the same page, right? Cuz some of this stuff is pretty reprehensible that these women are saying. There's no if ends or buts about it. For instance,

>> uh Jane Doe number two, uh you know, she made some serious allegations of rape and stuff like that, right? Like serious allegations. Yes,

>> Jane Doe 12. He said that uh Trump was bragging uh after he called her a [ __ ] That sounds like it's in line with Trump from your view.

>> What? That he might have called somebody a [ __ ] Is that

>> and then bragged and then bragged after?

>> Yeah, but that's not a crime.

>> I know. I know. Uh no, no, no. After Well, he had done these things, but then he said he called her a

>> Yeah. Whether whether he called somebody a [ __ ] or not is not my concern.

>> And then there was another one. This one was interesting and I'll give credit where credit's due. Uh you remember Trump called that reporter a piggy.

>> Yes.

>> Yeah. So Jane Pierce Morgan.

>> Yeah, Jane Doe number 13 uh said um that he called her a pig as well. So that would be in line. Okay. So you would consider that in line as well with Trump's behavior?

>> Again, it's not that's not my concern. Uh calling Would it be in line would it be in line with Trump's behavior from your view?

>> What name calling? I mean, I guess, but I think it's more serious the allegations of sexual assault. Also, you know, multiple witnesses. I think this is important. Uh, you know,

>> well, there was multiple witnesses according to this. There's multiple witness. You know, perjury is a very serious crime

>> and they were under oath. And

>> hang on, let me just get through these. Yeah. to make sure cuz what we're doing is we're calling into question Trump's character here. Um

>> yeah, the name calling is not as important as the sexual uh assault allegations. I think that history is far more important than name calling and calling somebody Miss Piggy or whatever you were referring to.

>> Gotcha. Gotcha. Uh, and then there was another victim and this apparently he said that he was that Trump had called her multiple times and had also contacted her multiple times and he had used a lot of off-color language as well. He called her a [ __ ] also called her a [ __ ] Uh, called her these things. Uh, and a lot of this is you being used as the justification for this is in line with the character of Trump.

>> Do you agree with that? that these things would some some credibility to the character of Trump.

>> Yeah. I'm not interested in in name calling, Andrew. I have to me that's not what's relevant. What's relevant are the sexual allegations, people that have been uh

>> Yeah. But one of the things that lead you to believe that Trump would have engaged in these things.

>> Sure. Sure. Sure. Um I can give you a list, but uh as you know, Trump had a long-standing social relationship with Jeffrey Epstein, later convicted on trafficking minors. Trump publicly acknowledged that Epstein's interest in younger girls. When someone maintains close ties, in my personal opinion

>> with a known trafficker of minors and speaks casually about that behavior, I think that raises uh flags. That's number one. You know, a woman filed a lawsuit uh as you know, Andrew, and we're not going to mention names here. I think that's inappropriate. She says that he raped her when she was 13 years old

>> property. Uh, no. We're talking

>> I'm sorry, the other one. Sorry.

>> I'm I'm happy to talk about Egene Carol with you, but right now we're not doing that. We're talking about Keep going.

>> Um, so the case was withdrawn, but it was not adjudicated. And withdrawn cases, as you know, Andrew,

>> are not proof of innocence. They often reflect fear. I would also say pressure.

>> They're not proof of guilt either,

>> and a lack of resources. Now estab this is important establishing at least in my personal opinion establishing a pattern of sexual misconduct allegations where you have multiple women that have accused Trump of sexual misconduct. You know when credible allegations appear and repeatedly Andrew over and over and over again. I also believe it's reasonable to question whether more serious misconduct could also have occurred. And I think that's I think that's very fair. Sexual abuse of minors is widely under reportported. I think you know that unfortunately I wish that wasn't the case, Andrew, but powerful figures I'm almost done here.

>> Just give me 20 more seconds and I'll land my plane and I'll shut up.

>> Sure. Sure. Go ahead.

>> Thank you. And I promise I will. Powerful figures, as you know, often benefit from NDAs, from intimidation, from statute of limitations. Epstein avoid avoided accountability for years despite as we know all these victims. So in my personal opinion this raises concerns. These are credible allegations. I think it's reasonable to question them. These are patterns of behavior. I'm I'm not asking anyone to abandon due process. I'm asking that we take these allegations involving minors seriously. And by the way, there's three million files that are still not been released. These are the files that we know have already.

>> All right. Can I respond? Can I respond here?

>> Yes. Go ahead.

>> Okay. So, the first question I have is why do you say that Trump rapes kids then?

>> I said I believe in my personal opinion.

>> If you're asking me if I had to go one way or the other,

>> yeah,

>> I personally believe

>> No, no, nobody. You don't you don't have to go one way or the other. But you say emphatically as a matter of fact that Trump rapes kids. you can be in the middle on this issue. I believe that Donald Trump, in my personal opinion, based on what I just told you, in my personal opinion, I believe that there is enough of a history

>> and enough allegations

>> and a man who sexualized his own daughter and bragged about going into teenage girls locker rooms.

>> Can you tell? Yeah. Yeah.

>> I believe that Trump molest I believe the victim I believe I believe the victims in the Epstein files. You take that for what you want. That's the way I'm going to answer that question. You believe that Trump rapes kids like you say?

>> I believe the victims in the Epstein Falls.

>> Okay, that's not what I asked you. So, I'm going to ask very specifically. Your exact quote. Your exact quote was Your exact quote was

>> the You don't SA Trump or kids like Trump does.

>> What are the allegations in the Epstein files? What are these women? What are the

>> depends depends on It depends on which one.

>> They were raped, right? Sexually abused, right?

>> So, can we start with this? Does do you believe that Trump essays kids or not?

>> I'm I'm spelling it out for you and I will

>> I need I need just need a yes or no. Does Trump essay kids or not?

>> I'm going to I'm going to answer it the way I would like to answer the question. Does Trump essay kids?

>> Uh I'm going to answer it.

>> Yes or no? Brian,

>> I need you to pay attention.

>> I need you to say yes. Yes. Okay. He does.

>> Yes. So here's why I feel that way. I believe

>> feel that way. So, I believe the Well, it's an opinion, Andrew, and I I just gave you um I just gave you my opinion, and I just gave you

>> um I'm not saying anybody should abandon due process, like I said before.

>> Uh and I understand that there are no criminal convictions. I I understand that absence of proof, as you know, is not proof of absence. And in the case involving minors, which obviously we have here in the Epstein files and very powerful individuals, as you know, to my knowledge, other than Jeffrey Epste and Maxwell, no one's else really been held to account and there we know that there are a lot of children that were molested. Uh I can't even imagine. I'm not Again, there's no criminal conviction. Uh

>> what's your strongest piece of evidence that Trump ever essay a child ever?

>> Well, uh first of all, um as I mentioned, multiple witnesses that risked possibly. I'd like to pull up their who they are and what their actual allegations are. Which one?

>> I don't have all three million of the files in front of me. I can get you that information if you'd like it or you can Google it again right now. You're very good at Googling. But what I will tell you and if if I'm wrong,

>> so you can't reference a single one.

>> You can call me a liar.

>> You believe that this guy essayed kids, but you can't even name a single case

>> of any of the people who claimed that he did.

>> So just because I can't mention their name, doesn't mean that it's not the Epsy file. So

>> give me the case. Give me just a case. Anything

>> and you can you can call me a liar. Well, in in the case of the 13-year-old that we were talking about, there's one man I don't have his name. I went through a lot of the highlights, for lack of a better term, that were in the files, by the way. I think what three million of files have already been released. There's another three million that

>> stick to the facts of this. Which one did you find which testimony did you find the most compelling from who?

>> I found I found witnesses that testified, particularly the one where the 13-year-old girl, and and I'm not going to say her name, alleged that Donald Trump raped her, graped her. Um, and there was a gentleman that testified as well under oath with the risk of perjury, by the way. I think that's uh up to 20 years in jail. Um, and here's what's most compelling to me in the 20 plus cases here that we've already seen in these files. And there's they've only released like half, which I find pretty incredible, is that I look at a lot of different things collectively of why I come to this conclusion. Yes, of course. As I've said before, I look at the way Donald Trump has lived his life. I look at all the allegations that have come forward before. We can talk about Eugene Carol if you'd like.

>> That would have no bearing on whether or not Trump has kids, right?

>> Um, well, it's funny. It's interesting because you bring up context when it comes to

>> Prey about being a professional.

>> I'm just looking at the Hold on a second. Hold on a second. Hold on a second. I find this interesting. This is important.

>> Okay.

>> 11 days before Prey died, you brought up the fact about him kicking a card. He's a professional agitator. You said

>> actually I separated the two issues.

>> Okay. Hold on. Hold on. Hold on. But you still brought it up.

>> Actually, I don't actually think I did say I'm not sure I did say that on social media.

>> You did. You did on your social media page. You did.

>> What did I say?

>> Um I don't While I don't have the tweet right in front of me, you did call him a professional agitator, did you not?

>> I actually I don't think I did. No, you called him a professional. I'm

>> not saying I didn't, but I don't think I did. Actually,

>> I read it. I read it earlier today. I went in your social media feed. You did 100%.

>> Yes.

>> Are you sure I said you? Yes. 100%. You called him a professional agitator. Um, it was either in one of your tweets or in a DM, but I know you said it and I can provide that for you if you'd like because I'm not making that up out of thin air. So, you you look at that context.

>> I don't think I tweeted that.

>> Someone's behavior. You might have put it in my DMs 11 days before.

>> Mhm. Yeah. I don't care about any of that. But I want to know what's your best evidence is that

>> here's what I care about kids.

>> Well, here's what I care about.

>> What's the proof, Brian? What's your best evidence?

>> I'm I'm I'm giving it to you.

>> Okay.

>> The best evidence I could probably name you a hundred different reasons, but when you see a man who has 25 plus women that have accused him of sexual assault or rape. When you see a guy who was found proved liable for sexually abusing Egene Carol, by the way, the judge in that case defined it as rape. When you see a guy that was best friends with Jeffrey Epstein for 10 years, we learned in the Maxwell trial he was on the flight log eight separate times. We have Jeffrey Epstein on tape calling him his best friend. When you have multiple women,

>> I'm going to grant everything you just said is being correct. I'm just going to grant it. Everything. What's your best piece of evidence?

>> What's your best piece of evidence?

>> I'm giving you an entire list. I'm not.

>> No, I just want I just want the best piece. What's your best piece of evidence that Trump essays kids that you believe you believe that? Remember, you believe he does. What's your best piece of evidence for that?

>> Mhm.

>> The best one.

>> So, I wasn't putting them in order, but I would say quite frankly, the evidence to me that is most alarming is what I read in the Epstein files and what uh witnesses and what uh young girls at the time reported to the FBI. Which young girl was the most compelling to you?

>> Which young? I think all of them are compelling. I'm not

>> All of them are compelling. Even the ones that are anonymous tipsters are very compelling to you.

>> I think the women that have come forward that wrote written statements to the FBI.

>> Mhm.

>> And I think anybody that risked

>> How many women did that?

>> Uh I think I have it uh in my multiple women. I think three or four women

>> uh under the possibility of perjury.

>> And did the FBI say that? Several of those were not credible

>> under oath as young girls. Well, guess what? Here's your here's it's interesting. That's your defense. Other than, and here's why I'm making my you're making my point for me. Other than Jazain Maxwell and Jeffrey Epstein, has anyone else ever been held to account for anything that happened at Epstein Island or around Jeffrey Epste? Andrew was

>> anybody anybody like criminally held to account? Anybody?

>> I don't think so.

>> You don't think so? So, is it fair to say a hypothesis of there's probably some people out there that did some very bad things?

>> Yeah. That has nothing to do with your evidence of whether No, I want your evidence. Trump has been wanting for

>> If you're asking me for DNA evidence, there is no

>> I'm not asking for DNA evidence. I'm asking for even credible witness testimony. Credible. So, you don't think any of these victims are credible?

>> No. In fact, neither did the FBI. For the most part, didn't think any of them were credible. And let's take a look. Let's take a look here at the one that you talked about.

>> So, none of the victims who withdrew withdrew it. Withdrew. And but not only that, let's point this out. Let's point this out, Brian.

>> None of that is good and compelling evidence that Trump has ever asked a kid. None of it.

>> None of it is compelling. So, why do you believe it? Why do you just believe it? Uh, so first of all, Andrew

>> with no evidence it hold on. Andrew doesn't believe it because it was withdrawn. And let me repeat myself once again.

>> Yeah, that's right. I have there's no good evidence.

>> When you withdraw When you withdraw a cause,

>> that is not proof of innocence.

>> It's not proof of guilt. Uh uh. Let me just finish here because as I've said before, it often reflects a lot of fear, a lot of pressure, a lack of resources reflect that they're lying, right?

>> It could. And if you want to make it,

>> if you making that claim that this 13-year-old girl is lying, you have the right to your opinion.

>> No, I don't need to make any claim. I don't need to make any claim except this. Aren't you claiming there's no compelling evidence anywhere that Trump has essayed a kid? What's your most compelling piece? The 13-year-old is not a compelling piece of evidence. What's the most compelling piece?

>> Well, again, that's your opinion. Now, what you're saying is because there's no DNA evidence and because DNA, we would want we would want eyewitnesses. We would want a lot of corroboration. We would want a lot of corroboration. We'd want times. We'd want dates. We'd want specifics. that way that there could be uh justification for alibis, things like this. And many of these were investigated, by the way, these claims, and they were rejected for being unfounded on their face.

>> Right. Well, guess what? I got some news for you.

>> Thing is is like, Brian, what's your most compelling piece of evidence other than I feel like he does that he does?

>> Yep.

>> So, let me just start by saying Jeffrey Epstein avoided any accountability for decades, right? For decades. Avoided any accountability for anything he did. And there are a lot of powerful figures

>> that's tangential and has nothing to do with what we're discussing. What's the best piece of evidence that Donald Trump essays? Because you say that all the time.

>> Again, collectively in my personal opinion, as I've mentioned, probably 20 different reasons why I feel the way I feel. I don't put them 1 2 3 4 5. Now, I wish that people would be held to account. Uh I I fear that that's probably not going to happen here. But when I look at Donald Trump's history, when I look at a lot of substantial claims of sexual abuse, when I look at who he surrounded himself with,

>> well, no, there's not. First of all, on the substantial claims of sexual abuse,

>> Sure.

>> What person who's credible in your opinion based on what you've read about their testimony

>> is has credibly said that as a child Trump essayed them, which credible one can we point to here?

>> All of them.

>> Which one?

>> All of them are credible. Even the ones who the FBI says are not credible.

>> Yep. Even the ones in anonymously.

>> The reason why I say that, the reason why I say that is because other than Maxwell and and Jeffrey Epstein, nobody else has been held to account because I believe these some of these very powerful people have been protected. Now listen, if 3 million more files are released, and keep in mind that's another factor here, only half of the files have been released. And some of these files have been completely redacted. In some of these files, they actually release the name of the victim, which is atrocious. They're not supposed to do that. And then the rest of the page is blacked out. So that's another part of this equation that I think is very important. I look at Donald Trump's behavior after the fact. He calls anybody stupid who talks about the Epstein files. They have done anything and everything they could to block all of these files from being released and they continue to break the law. So when Jane So when when one of the Jane Doe's says that in in one of her complaints because she's very credible that what these guys did was they got around and put their fingers in their vagina to adjust to see how tight which ones were before they sold them as sex slaves on the open market.

>> You think that's credible?

>> Um you you don't think it's credible? Is that why you're asking me?

>> It's not [ __ ] Of course not. But you think it is, right?

>> It's not credible. So So

>> no. The most ridiculous thing I ever [ __ ] heard.

>> It's ridiculous. Do you >> Donald Trump? You think Donald Trump put his fingers in little kids

>> in their insides so that he could determine whether or not they were tight enough to sell into sex slavery? Brian,

>> you believe that? That's I just want to make sure that's credible to you.

>> I'm not going to say that that person was lying. I'm I'm not going to say she was lying. Absolutely not. And I would also say that it was proven that Donald Trump was found liable for penetrating with his fingers eching Carol in a dressing room. The judge characterized as rape. A jury of his peers found that he was liable for sexually abusing Eegene Carol. There's 25 other women that have come forward that have either accused him of rape or sexual assault, including his ex-wife, by the way, in court documents, and then he paid her off for that to go away. She accused him of rape as well, by the way. I don't know if you were even uh aware of that. Uh, so there's a lot of things that we could put in place where I say that's very plausible and I believe the victims and as far as the Epstein files go and all the powerful people and how they've hid the Epstein files and how Donald Trump continue and his administration continue to break the law, my understanding three million more files that have not yet to be released. Uh, yeah, I think these are credible allegations. I disagree with you and I believe based on Donald Trump's past in history of bragging about going into teenage girls locker rooms, knowingly hanging out with Jeffrey Epste and being his friend, knowing, as he said on the record, he likes young girls, spending a lot of time with Jeffrey Epstein. I do believe these victims. Yes, I do. I believe these victims. And if you don't believe them because there's not DNA smoking gun evidence, I look at somebody's history. I look at their background. I I I I track it back, Andrew. And and that's that's how I feel.

>> Brian, I just want to make sure that I got this right. You find you believe this this uh person when they say that Trump was in a room with a bunch of powerful elites and had girls around where they would check their depths before selling them into sex slavery. That's credible to you.

>> I just want Yes or no? That's credible to you.

>> Did that help me understand?

>> Yes. Yes or no? Is that credible? Yes or no? Is that credible to you? want the context of that statement. Was that statement made to the FBI with the threat of perjury? If if

>> it was it was called in as a tip, I believe

>> it was called in as a tip. Was that one of those

>> was that was that one of the allegations that was put on record with the FBI with threat of perjury if they were lying.

>> There was very Okay. But but those those specific

>> No, you said 20. You said 20. You said you believed 20 plus. These were the main ones which were highlighted in the Epstein files. Do you think that that's credible? So, I'm not going to say it's not true. I don't know. Well, here's what I do know. There are a lot of very substantial, very disgusting claims in those files that were already released. Imagine how bad it is for the three million files that have yet to be released. This is what we know. Now, I don't know whether that happened or not, but what I'm telling you is yes, I do believe that Donald Trump did some horrible things in my

>> How many of these complaints have you read?

>> I haven't read every single one of them. How many of them have important ones in my How many have you read?

>> Well, which ones are the most important? I spent well, I spent last night going through a significant amount of them.

>> So, give me something else you think is not credible.

>> Oh, man. Some of these are [ __ ] wild.

>> I don't think this is funny, Andrew. I don't think pull up my list. Well, I'm sure you don't, but I think it's I I think that that's ridiculous, Brian.

>> I think that that allegation is [ __ ] ridiculous. It's ridiculous.

>> You know what I think is ridiculous?

>> Let me point this out. Let me point this out. Back to the debate before you start doing the moral grandstanding.

>> I need you I need you to tell me how many of these complaints you read through. How many?

>> So, I just want to stop real quick and then I'll answer.

>> Please tell me how many. Please just tell me how many then and then

>> I just want to stop real quick and

>> come on, dude. Just answer the question. How many?

>> Andrew, got to give me time to respond. Okay.

>> Oh my god, dude. You're never going to just How many? Brian, can you put a number on it?

>> Stop for a second.

>> Can you put a number on it, Brian? How many?

>> First, first of all,

>> how many, Brian?

>> First of all.

>> Oh my god.

>> I'm going to answer your question, but you got to stop talking.

>> You're a filibuster machine. Just tell me how many. How many? Brian,

>> you're a Trump defending machine.

>> Brian, I just want to know how many. Brian, I just want to know how many

>> how many.

>> I don't have an exact number of these statements that I read. I read through roughly roughly how many roughly

>> I don't know. Maybe a dozen. Maybe a dozen.

>> You read through a dozen.

>> Here's what I want to say. Andrew, I just answer your question. Let me

>> such a lying sack of [ __ ]

>> You didn't read a dozen complaints.

>> Give me details. Yeah. Give me details from four of them. Give me details from four of these complaints.

>> Let me tell you what I think a sack of [ __ ] is because that's what you just called me.

>> Why?

>> I think a sack of [ __ ] excuse me. I think a sack of [ __ ] is somebody that thinks this is funny. We're talking about a lot of underage kids, whether it was Donald Trump who did it or not. A lot of young children and some horrible

>> I don't think I don't think it's funny what happened with Epste. I think it's funny that you believe things that are absurd.

>> Let me finish. Stop interrupting me and stop spuring out.

>> You're the one sping out. You're screaming at the top of your lungs. Calm down.

>> Think that sexual molestation of kids is funny.

>> I don't think there's anything funny about this. Do I think everything in the Epstein files is true? Probably not. But what I do believe is a lot of children were molested. Some horrible things happened. There's a lot of people that uh should be held to account. And here's something else I do know. People like you laugh at this stuff. And you

>> I'm not laughing at the stuff. I'm laughing. You're believing stuff. That's insane.

>> Okay. In your opinion, you're make the affirmative claim that Trump has kids and you have no evidence for you have no evidence.

>> Let Let's talk about Let's talk about what we think is insane. You know what I think is insane? A man who became the president of the United States who's all over the Epstein Falls already. Hundreds of times his name has been mentioned. You know what else I think is insane? He called it a Democrat hoax.

>> What's your What's your best evidence that Trump essays kid? What What is it?

>> I gave you I

>> You gave me nothing. There's no You have You give me no credible evidence whatsoever that Trump has ever essayed a child ever. You give me nothing.

>> Nothing. So, so, so you don't think it's evidence of any substance at all when you have a guy who was number one best friends with him for over 10 years. Number two, who was on the flight log eight times. Number three, you have women who have claimed that he raped them when they were children. Number three, number four, you have a guy that

>> Which one of those do you think are credible?

>> I think every single person every single

>> who has made the claim under oath, anybody under oath with the threat of perjury

>> Mhm. Anybody under oath

>> that has claimed that Donald Trump sexually assaulted them, I find all of them credible. I can't be more clear to you than that. Now, there's a difference between somebody who just calls in something and somebody who's actually under oath.

>> But you said you believe that 20 You said you believe that 20 plus.

>> All right. Well, let me ask you a question. How many How many people uh made statements to the FBI? Not just somebody who just called in, but somebody who had the threat of perjury. Do you know, since you seem to read them all, give me a number. How many people have actually made claims with a threat of perjury? Witnesses and alleged victims. How many?

>> I believe it's less than four.

>> You believe it's less than four? No, it's

>> But I can pull up. I think it is. Who actually committed to something? Yes, I think that's the

case. >> I I believe you're wrong. It's more. It's more than >> How many more? How many? >> Uh I believe it's more than four. I think how many is that? >> So I don't know, but I believe it's more than four. And I would also say that >> towards Trump. You think it's more than four towards Trump? That's what we're talking about. Based on Donald Trump, >> you think it's more than four towards Trump that swore affidavit that Trump did bad things to him? >> Let me ask you a question. >> Hang on. Hang on. I just want to make sure we're clear. >> I think it's more than four, >> dude. That that that swore out affidavit to the police that Trump essayed them when they were kids. >> Uh made statements uh either to the FBI or law enforcement and or witnesses. I think it's more than four. >> Then prove it. >> Sure. Sure. I will gladly send you that information. No, just do it now. Go through it. >> Uh I unlike you, I don't Google and you know I you know if you >> you don't verify your own facts. >> Oh no. Uh I believe it's more than four. You claim that it was only four. So I'll go back and no I think I claimed that it's less than four who actually swore out affidavit. >> So how many people including witnesses and alleged victims made statements to the FBI for Donald Trump's alleged improprieties? How how many? You're saying less than four? >> No, that's not what I said. I was very specific. We were talking about how many went and swore out complaints, some kind of complaint, right? Affidavit. Yes, it was. Brian, >> I said people that are on the record that made statements, either witnesses or alleged victims to law enforcement with the threat of perjury because, as you know, you can't make a statement that untrue. >> I actually don't know how many. How many did that? Well, how many? I believe I believe it's more than four. And we can look into that and we can find out. Andrew, I think you're wrong. Maybe I'm wrong. We will find out. But you are making the case right here that based on Donald Trump's history and his relationship with Epstein and the way that they've treated Jazain Maxwell and the fact they've been so secretive and breaking the law, by the way, and not releasing all the files. Do you know that they've only released about 50%? >> What we're talking about is whether or not is if you have a justified belief that Trump essays kids. I've already answered that question. I've already told you how I feel. I believe Donald Trump is a sexual abuser. >> Yeah. And your evidence. You have no evidence for this claim. You just make it all the time. >> I think most people that have >> No, you don't know. Most people don't think Trump essays kids, dude. That's ridiculous. >> Okay. Well, you know what? You don't speak. Luckily, you don't speak people. >> I think what you're saying is >> they voted him into office. What do you mean? They don't think he essays kids. >> Who voted him into office? Who voted him into office? Millions upon millions of people and he got the popular vote. Bro, what do you mean? >> Did more than did more than 50% of the people that voted vote for Donald Trump? >> What does that have to do with anything? >> Well, you just said they voted for and I just want to find you're making it seem like most of the country support. >> I don't even think most Democrats voted against Trump because they thought he essays kids. I don't even think that's the case, Brian. >> Okay. Well, I guess you speak for all Americans then, Andrew. I didn't know that. Can you show me any Can you show me any compelling evidence that people that that there's some overwhelming consensus that people think Trump essays children? Bro, >> did you think there was a lot of physical evidence that Bill Cosby raped women? >> Actually, yes, there ended up being quite a bit of physical evidence. Yeah. >> What What was it? >> Yeah. Like for instance, the quaude thing, right? >> There was a whole bunch of people who came forward and said that he bought quaudes from him and various things like this. >> Okay, got you. I I agree. There's a whole bunch of people that have come forward that have claimed Donald Trump has raped them. >> Uh, okay. Wait, wait, wait. Hang on, hang on. I'm sorry. I'm sorry. >> There's the When we were talking about Cosby stuff, right? >> Do you agree with me that you need to have credible eyewitness testimony where they can give the time, the place, the events, what they were doing, and then show evidence for that. >> Um, not all the time. Not all, >> but in the Cosby case. In the Cosby case, they did. Right. >> So, I know that's >> Hang on. Hang on. Hang on. In the Cosby case, they did do that, right? >> So, I know a woman. >> Hang on, hang on, hang on. In the Cosby case, they did do that, right? >> Uh to an extent, but not every woman did that. >> Yeah. Not every thing is is like when we're talking about credibility here. >> I need I want credibility. >> We need time, event, >> place, >> corroborating witnesses and evidences. What is the most compelling one of these witnesses that has provided that? But just going back quickly to to what you just said about Bill Cosby, >> it's estimated that he did this to hundreds of women. >> He was only convicted for one woman. I know a woman by the name of Lisa Latte Love. >> Has nothing to do with anything. Has nothing to do with anything. >> It has to do with the fact of you're not always going to have especially when a rape occurred. >> Why can't I just say that about you? Why? What? Like what would make me wrong if I said if I said hang on a second if I went out publicly and started saying Brian SA's kids >> so glad so glad what would your defense be hang on what would your defense be >> so starting with uh I wasn't best friends with one of the biggest sex traffickers on the planet my name is Hold on hold on I'm answering your question >> my name isn't all over the Epstein files nobody's ever alleged that I have sexually you would look at the quality of the evidence I'm not done yet I'm not done yet Mhm. >> I've never bragged about going into teenage girls locker rooms without their permission. By the way, with cooperating witnesses who have said, "Yes, Donald Trump went in there and saw me half naked when I was 15 years old." I've never been accused. >> Again, my teenage daughter, you asked me a question and I'm [ __ ] answering it. Okay. I haven't quality any of these things. I haven't said or done >> any of these things that a man who you can continue >> but that doesn't mean but that doesn't mean technically you didn't do it right Brian >> even if you even if none of that's true about you doesn't technically mean you didn't do it right >> so >> an absence of evidence hang on Brian absence of evidence >> isn't an evidence of absence right Brian >> sure what would we bank on to demonstrate that you didn't do this. >> As I have said and and at least uh what I believe um >> and and and what I've said all along >> is that I'm not arguing that it's already it's been legally proven. >> I didn't say that, Brian. I am asking for your evidence for why you would even believe it and state it as though it's a fact to people including your answer. >> I I have answered that question and I told you and I argued. So, here, let me let me draw a parallel real quick. >> Let me draw a parallel. Hang on. Hang on real quick. Let me draw a parallel. So, let's say I'm in a DM I'm in a DM conversation with like I don't know uh some woman that you know or something. And I'm like, you know, that guy essays kids, right? And she's like, "Well, what do you mean? No, no, he he Well, he says that, you know, he doesn't and uh you know, he's not on the Epstein files and you know, he doesn't do this and he didn't do any of this other stuff that Trump did. And I said to her, "Yeah, but you got to understand the absence of evidence isn't evidence of absence." So I still believe that he just went ahead and kids anyway. >> What would your defense to her be then? >> Well, as I've mentioned over and over again, circular in this conversation is who he was friends with. And by the way, I'm not arguing the criminality. >> Hang on. Hang on. We already established that that that none of this is true of you, >> but is but and I but I just say the same thing. >> The absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. How would you then defend yourself? >> I as I've said a million times, volume consistency and the seriousness of the allegations are why I feel the way I feel and his history. >> Yeah. But can you ask question? How would you then defend yourself in this hypothetical? How would you then defend yourself if I just said If I just said the absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Yeah. After you make the case, but I'm not on the E upstream files and this and that. >> What's your how would you then defend it yourself? >> I would say what's your I would say what's your circumstantial evidence? >> Um I've I've I've already given you mine of why I feel Donald Trump has done some pretty awful things. He's obviously all over the files. We've said that. >> And this is a guy who is already found liable for sexual abuse. This is a guy who sexualized his teenage daughter. This is a guy who bragged about going into teenage girl. >> And do you agree with me? None of that's evidence he's ever essayed a child ever. >> Uh I circumstantial evidence and I >> none of it circumstantial evidence he ever essay a child. >> When you have when you have victims that >> any of that evidence he essayed a child ever? >> Uh I think I think some of some people could use that as evidence. Absolutely. I know I'm not in the call. No, my question specifically is is any of the things you just mentioned evidence Trump ever essay a child? >> Yeah, I think I think some of it is. And I think the problem with this conversation, >> what would be evidence Trump a child? >> Here's the problem with this conversation. Unfortunately, there's a lot of minors and women in society and they never get justice. Unfortunately, there's a lot of rapists out there. I wish, by the way, I wish that wasn't the case. Um, and you're making the case of, well, what's your smoking gun? Do you have DNA evidence? Because you don't have a smoking gun. It couldn't have happened. And I disagree with you. I think it very well could have happened based on all the things that I have spoken about in this conversation. There is no DNA evidence of the proven brought up >> that are tangential to this demonstrate in any capacity or lend any credibility to the accusation that Trump essays kids. None of it. Oh, he cuz cuz I mean the history of when I ask you if when I ask you if I use the same argument like tangentially to somebody that you knew right within a hypothetical how would you defend yourself you would say by attacking by attacking the evidence itself and in this case the lack thereof to say that I have an unjustified belief >> but you don't hold the standard with Trump. Uh so first of all I would say as I've talked to you about earlier in this conversation uh yes I do believe the victims that have come forward and part of the reason why I believe that not just Egene Carol also his ex-wife who said under >> children not children >> okay but when you have a history of sexual abuse in this case his ex-wife >> doesn't mean that you kids there's no there's no evidence of that >> but it certainly doesn't help your defense of it and you're all over the Epstein files. Your best friend. >> Even if I granted that Trump essayed every woman who's ever accused him of that, that's not evidence he ever essayed a kid ever. >> So what is your evidence that you need? You need DNA or video. Is that the only way you would believe it? Help me. >> I would believe it with corro corroborating evidence, right? Based around the circumstances. >> Hang on. Hang on. Stop. Right. I'm telling you that's verifiable. has dates, has times, has things which can be corroborated in the real world. Something that can be corroborated in the real world. Anonymous tips ain't going to do it. That's for sure. On top of that, on top of that, right, >> uh there's some there's a few other things, right? You know that we have evidentiary standards that we utilize. Don't you want to use the best evidentary standards before you call somebody the worst thing on planet Earth? Sure, you could say, "I believe Trump uh, you know, essay women." You could even say that. Okay, fine. At least at least there's something there you have. But you don't do that. You take it a step further and say Trump essays kids. The most horrific thing you could call somebody >> with no good evidence for this at all. In fact, none really. None. No evidence. >> So again, >> why why just why do that? >> Again, I repeat, his name is hundreds of times in the Epstein files. What's important to note is that there has been >> tons of people's names are in the Epstein files. >> Nobody almost nobody other than Maxwell and Epstein that have faced legal consequences for all of these women that have come forward. Now, yes, I do believe that Donald Trump is involved in some kids. >> Again, again, just because you don't have DNA evidence, which is I I think you talk about cooperating asking for DNA. >> Were there no witnesses? Were there actually no zero? There really haven't been any witnesses. The only witness that I know of who's credible in any way, shape, or form, right? Or maybe you could question her credibility, I guess. But the only witness I'm aware of that has something that corroborates her current story with her past story is Glain Maxwell. We have an email from her where she specifically says Trump didn't do that >> and she maintains that story to this day. Now, hang on. Hang on. Hang on. That's actually corroborating evidence. It's corroborating evidence. If she says, "Wait, he didn't do that." And now maintains he didn't do that. And we have an email we can source and look at. >> Let's let's talk about people who are collaborating since you like to use that term as well. Um I remember when attorney Donald Trump's former personal attorney, now in Trump's administration, Blanch, went to visit Maxwell and then two days later after speaking with her, she was sent to a club med facility. Now, unprecedented that one of the biggest sex traffickers of children in the history of this nation was sent to a club med facility with a puppy dog, allowed to play tennis, allowed uh people to show up to say hello to her. They're given free snacks. And the point I'm trying to make here, >> oh, wait a second. How do you know it's >> If you think uh well, you've had wardens and I believe legal experts and and and people who used to be wardens who have done interviews. Mhm. >> that have said this is unprecedented the way that the Trump administration has granted. >> Do you think that Do you think that Maxwell like knew years before Trump would be president that Trump was going to be president and would be able to cut her a deal? And so what she did was she wrote that email hoping that one day if she was caught Trump was president she could look back on that and be like look >> what I believe is the interview that she gave uh days later she was sent to a club med facility. So now let me ask you a question since I've answered. >> Hang on. I just want you that didn't happen, right? She didn't like foresee that Trump was going to be president and then set herself up to go to Club Med. >> Ridiculous question. Let me Why do you think they sent her there? Why do you think the Trump administration >> I think it's because they're I think that there's a continual investigation and they're still trying to get names out. >> That's wrong. Blanch just did a press conference last week. You can do another Google, Andrew, because I cover the news every day. And Blanch in that press conference said they're not investigating anything anymore unless somebody comes forward with some overwhelming evidence. But he said right now there are no open investigations. So you are blatantly wrong in what you are saying. >> Wait, let's back up. Let's back up. >> So when we're talking about what's going on with Gla Maxwell, are you saying that she was moved to a club med facility because you believe that she's covering for Trump? 100%. >> Can you give me any evidence for that? >> Sure. >> Okay. Go ahead. >> A couple days a couple days after >> Blanch spoke with her >> and that full conversation has not been made public. >> She was sent to a club med facility. >> Now, now >> and your evidence that your evidence that she's covering for Trump is >> Hold on, hold on, hold on. >> Your evidence she's covering for Trump is >> Okay. Yep. Yep. Here's the evidence. And I cannot believe you you don't connect the dots here. >> I can't wait >> to have a child sex trafficker, which all in MAGA, >> which rightfully so, I agree with them. Child sex trafficking is is is horrible. One of the biggest child sex traffickers in American history. >> You have Donald Trump's former personal attorney who meets with her. Two days later, she said to a club med facility, and you're saying you don't think that had anything to do with Donald Trump? >> Do you have [ __ ] serious evidence? >> I'm asking you. You have that evidence that Gain Maxwell, right, is covering Donald Trump. >> This is unbelievable. >> Do you have evidence that Maxwell? What is it? >> Yes, I do. >> What is it? >> The evidence is very clear. >> What? >> Cuz Maxwell did an interview that was put on the record saying that Donald Trump did no wrongdoing to her knowledge. And days before she that went public, she was sent to a low minimum security facility where everybody else in that facility, I'm giving it to you. And the fact that you assume that this interview and Blanch meeting with Maxwell and the way they've treated her and where she was sent has nothing to do with her statement exonerating, in her words, Donald Trump is so beyond the pale. You have the blinders on. And I know you're smart enough, I would think, to understand that yes, this has something to do with it. But you say, "No, Andrew, I don't have it in writing." The deal that they made, hey, if you clear Donald Trump, we're going to send you to Club Ed, and Donald Trump will give you a pardon when he leaves office. No, I don't. >> Is it Is it standard is it pretty is it pretty standard operating procedure for inmates who are nonviolent to be sent to low security prisons? uh those that are on 20-year uh 20-year uh convictions and the type of conviction and what she was found guilty of, which is child sex trafficking. It is it is not normal for number one allowing her to have a puppy. >> Then why is there why is there so many cases of these various sex traffickers being sent to low security prisons even though they have these very very long sentences when they're deemed nonviolent? Isn't that because they don't want to overwhelm the prison system? That's one. two, let's point this out, and this is really important. You are once again utilizing speculation, not any evidence whatsoever. You're simply saying that that there must have been some sort of deal which was made between Golain Maxwell and the Trump administration. There can't be any other explanation than that. Your entire The entirety of your evidence, Hang on, hang on, hang on, Brian. The entirety of your evidence is you made it up. You've made the whole thing up. >> So I asked you what was plausible reason why they sent Maxwell to Club Med in the >> standard operating procedure. >> Hold on, hold on. The first thing that you said was >> maybe there's still investigations and she's giving up names. I just told you that that was false based on what Blanch just said in a press conference the other day. In that press conference, he said, "No, we're basically done. There's no more in investigations." Uh, and that's it. That's basically what he said. would have nothing to do with my point, which is your your attempted reputation. >> You just said that they're giving up names that you think she's it's plausible she's given up information names. I think that the Epste is on I think that Epste and Gain Maxwell were part of mass blackmail operations. Of course, I'm not stupid. You're not stupid. You know that that's likely the case. The thing is though here that's really interesting is you're not actually showing us any evidence that she's covering for Trump. Remember, we're specifically trying to figure out why Brian Shapiro has decided that Trump essays kids. And so, I give you all the rope in the world to hang yourself with. You do it every time. >> Haven't hung up at all. The question just becomes this, >> right? >> I think what's Brian's evidence? Oh, yeah. When When have I ever defended pedophilia >> ever? You You defend Donald Trump ad nauseium. Do you believe? >> You have not established Donald Trump as a pedophile. That's the point. You know, this is the funniest part of the bait and speech. >> I haven't established that the things I'm saying are true, but because you say you haven't established the things you said are true, that means that you must be the thing in question. >> What [ __ ] Hang on. Hang on. What kind of ridiculous logic is that that you just said I defend pedophilia? >> Can you substantiate a single time I've defended pedophilia? Do it. >> You don't even think there's any Well, first of all, I'll give you multiple reasons. you've laughed at during this conversation uh when we talk about sex. >> I'm laughing at the absurdity of I find that to be very Hold on. Hold on. Let me just finish. I find that very problematic. When I defend beyond the beyond a reasonable doubt, you can't even say right now with a straight face. >> When have I defended? >> Let me finish the sentence. Let me finish the sentence. You can't say with a straight Why don't you let me finish? You can't even say with a straight face that there's a possibility that Donald Trump might have done some very bad things to kids. That is reprehensible. That >> there's a possibility. You have lots of possible say there's no evidence for it. >> Get this right. Hold on. Hold on. Let me just get this straight. I just want to understand. The guy that's named in the Epstein files hundreds of times that has been found liable for sexual abuse and you're putting me on the same scale as him of the possibility that might have done some bad things to children. Are you [ __ ] kidding me? >> Do you think that because somebody's named a ton of times in files, even though the files themselves don't show him ever having done anything wrong, that's good evidence to corroborate your idea here, that if you just point to his name being in there, that somehow that means he was involved in essaying kids, even though you have no evidence of that. Also, let me point this out, and this is Hang on, hang on, hang on, bro. This is really important. >> You just said, "I defend pedophilia." Can you give me an example of me ever doing that? ever >> when >> yes >> when >> in this conver in this conversation >> when >> so >> in this conversation and I will I will I thought I just gave you a couple of examples >> the example was that I I laughed I laughed and so I'm defending >> PDF just a small part of it no that's just a small part of it so I've given you >> I've given you a history of Donald Trump's behavior some in the courtroom some not the things he said his behaviors the things he's openly admitted to like looking at teenage girls naked in a locker room, right? >> And you mean to tell me >> that you look me in the eye right now and you say there's no chance that he molested children, even though he's in the Epstein Falls hundreds of times, even though his best friend was Jeff Jeffrey Epste. >> I think the chances of it are extraordinarily low. Now, can you answer my question as to when I've ever defended pedophilia ever? >> You you just did just now. You just >> No, that's not how How would that be defending pedophilia? He's saying, "I don't believe this guy is a PDF." How's that defending pedophilia? >> Well, it seems like it seems like you don't believe you are either. If somebody said Brian Shapiro and gave me no evidence that you molest what you want about me. >> And I was like, "Wait, wait, man. Wait, wait a second. >> Uh, I don't think that that's true." And they said, "Well, you're just a [ __ ] PDF protector. Does that is that even logical or rational? Can you explain how it's rational for you to say that if I don't believe a thing based on a lack of evidence, that means I'm defending the action itself? >> Again, what you're saying is not rational because you're comparing apples to oranges. We have >> What apples am I comparing to oranges? >> Uh, we have a man >> Mhm. >> who is not only in the Epstein files hundreds of times, doesn't want you to see the other three million files. He's made that very clear. He doesn't even want us talking about it. This is a man who sexualized his own daughter, bragged about looking at 14 or 15 year old girls in a locker room. I'm sure if it was your daughter, you wouldn't like that very much. And rightfully so. >> Not evidence that he did kids. >> I just told you the man bragged about evidence that he did kids. None of it. >> Are you looking for DNA evidence? We don't have that. Doesn't mean he didn't do it. is talking about strong corroborating evidence with eyewitnesses that have dates, times, things which are rational, reasonable, not we were in a [ __ ] room where they were we were they were acting like we were jealous. >> Let me ask you a question. Hang on, hang on, hang on. You also said you also just said right that I defend pedophilia. Now, why would you say something that horrible to a person when you know for sure that I've never done anything like that? My lack of Let's walk through the logic. Brian, >> Andrew doesn't believe this thing. >> Do you agree with me at Hang on, Brian, do you agree that I really don't believe that Trump is a PDF? That I actually don't believe that? Do you believe that? That I don't believe it? >> No. So, here's here's why I say no. >> Okay, I'm going to give you the reason. Let me answer. >> Um, >> you fail to criticize Donald Trump for almost anything. You failed to hold him responsible for anything that took place on January 6th. You failed to hold him responsible. Hold on. Let me finish. You have a history of defending Donald Trump ad nauseium. >> And I'm not using name calling here. I don't want to do that. >> So what? >> But I believe you are extremely partisan. >> Wouldn't that reinforce my belief? believe. >> Would that reinforce my belief? >> I don't think so. >> I believe you are incapable like so many people on the right. >> Uhhuh. >> You are incapable of criticizing Donald Trump for literally anything. >> Wouldn't that reinforce my belief that he's not that thing? >> Well, you are basically calling anybody that has accused Donald Trump of sexual abuse a liar, are you not? >> No. because saying that the these women are not credible who are making >> they're all lying. >> The the the ones who are alleging that he's essaying children, there's no credible evidence that that's the case. >> So it's not you don't think there's anybody credible that claimed that he raped children. What about raping women that are not children? Do you think they're credible? >> Hang on. Hang on. Hang on. >> Can you answer that, please? Yes or no? >> The entirety of the proposition has no bearing on that. It's about whether or not you asked me about the No, it's your belief is justified that he >> I want to know, Andrew, this is about Donald Trump in the Epstein files. I get that. But I want to know all the women that have accused Donald Trump of rape or sexual assault. >> I don't believe that [ __ ] >> You don't? So all the women that have accused him of rape, >> they're all lying. >> Yeah. Well, the the the ones who are supposedly credible, for sure. I think so. That has no bearing on this. >> 20 Hold on, let me rephrase it. There are over 25 women that have accused Donald Trump of raping. >> I don't believe any of them [ __ ] >> I don't believe none of them [ __ ] Brian. >> They're [ __ ] >> Yeah, you heard what I said. >> Andrew, you are not a serious person. >> How is that not serious? >> You are not a serious person. >> What do you mean? >> First of all, you're going to call all women [ __ ] that have accused Donald Trump of rape. You're an [ __ ] >> Oh, I would do that. >> You You unsolicited my wife in DMs and called her a [ __ ] >> Andrew. Andrew. What do you mean? >> I'm not going to call her a [ __ ] >> Andrew. Andrew. Do you really want to go there, you just called. I don't I'll be honest with you. I don't I don't want to go there. >> Yeah. I don't believe any more than I believe uh what happened with Blasio Ford. >> So, they're all [ __ ] Wait, hold on. Let's go. No, no, hold on. Let's go. >> I think they're a bunch of lying [ __ ] >> So, all the women >> So, all the women that have accused Donald Trump of rape, they're all [ __ ] >> They're a bunch of No, no, no, no. You got to get this right. Lying [ __ ] Because I think that if you lie about a man essaying you, you gotta be a [ __ ] >> You are just an awful person. >> Oh, well, great argument. Great argument. But back to this. Where's your proof that Trump essay kids? [ __ ] nowhere. You call them a PDF file. You got no evidence for it. You're mad at me. I say women who lie about SA are [ __ ] Yeah. Well, you got me, Brian. >> So all the So all the women that have accused Donald Trump of rape, they're all lying [ __ ] Is that is that that's your belief? >> Okay. I don't know how else I can say this. >> No, go ahead. Say it again cuz you say it again. >> Lying [ __ ] >> Okay. Well, I just >> If you lie about a man saying you >> you're despicable, >> then you're a liar >> and a [ __ ] >> Well, I think I think you're a misogynist then when you make a statement like that. And I think >> No, I just think that if you make a false essay claim against a man, you're a [ __ ] >> I don't think that's misogyny. I think most women would agree if I asked them, "Do you think if you made a false accusation of essay against a man that you that that woman's a bitch?" I think that they'd be like, "Yeah." >> So, so they're all lying. They're all not telling the truth. Donald Trump has never sexually all the women that have done national interviews that have never made a dollar from making those claims. His ex-wife, by the way, who claimed that he raped her, who was passed away. She's a lying [ __ ] Uh, Eene, I think she was lying about that. And Eugene Carol especially, >> she was mentally ill. She's mentally ill as [ __ ] She named her cat vagina, dude. So, because you name your cat Vagina, that means you can't be the victim of sexual assault. She was realizing she wasn't the victim of anything except 80 million bucks. That was all she was the victim of. But that aside, >> back to this, >> I just can't believe is your evidence that Donald Trump essays children other than you just really want it to be true. >> I just I just Andrew, I'm just I'm just in I'm a little speechless now. I just I just cannot believe I didn't think you would go down that road. I can't believe you're calling all the women. >> You don't know whether they're telling the truth or not. >> You're calling all the women that have come forward lying [ __ ] >> None none of the none of the complaints that I've heard against Trump when it comes to essay complaints that you have heard >> have I have I ever seen them be credible. Blasio for I well not blasio for sorry Eene Carol I never thought was a credible one ever. >> Well guess what a jury of Donald Trump's peers disagreed with you. >> Yeah. >> In a civil suit he was never criminally liable for nothing. Yeah, but he but but he was he was found liable for >> Yeah. So what the threshold's really low? And by the way, by the way, actually, this makes my point for me. If it's the case that the jury if it's the case that the jury thinks like you do where you can just be like, "Well, I just feel that way with no evidence to me. First of all, there's no evidence. The jury saw more evidence than you and there's no evidence to prove that that's how they made their decision. So you're making a horrible judgment. I wonder, you know, listen, I don't want to bring your family into this and I don't. >> But you're going to But you're going to. >> I want to know. No, I'm asking a respectful question and I'm not asking I'm not asking. >> Are you sure, Brian? You sure you're not? >> Yes, I am. You sure you're not going to call my wife a [ __ ] again? >> No. Are you sure? Do Do you really want to go there, Andrew? You keep bringing it up. Not me. >> Does your wife also think >> that all the women that have come forward are lying [ __ ] That >> Hang on. Let me ask her. Honey, come out here real quick and bring me a shot. I just want to make sure that I get >> I'm just curious. >> I'm going to ask her. I'm going to ask >> I'm wondering how any woman >> Hang on. I'm going to ask her and then she can come. >> Think that way. >> Yeah. Yeah. Hang on. I'll ask her. >> Is that not a respectful question? >> Sure. Sure. I'll ask her. I'll have her bring me a shot and then she can tell you herself. >> Okay, fair enough. >> But yes, Brian, do you agree with me that a woman who makes a false essay claim, if they indeed made a false essay claim, is a [ __ ] >> I wouldn't use that terminology. I think that if a woman and it's proven, if it's proven, I'll give you an example. You ready for an example? I'll give you one. The Duke Lacrosse story. Um I think that woman who obviously was extremely mentally disturbed. >> She was a [ __ ] too. >> She ruined >> I'm sorry. >> She was a [ __ ] That was I mean, you got to be a [ __ ] [ __ ] to do that to people, right? >> I think it's an it's a horrible thing to do >> to accuse anybody, man or woman, >> of committing a heinous crime and lying about it. I think >> so. Calling so calling so calling a person who you are a stupid [ __ ] seems reasonable, right? >> But that was proven. The the Duke Lacrosse story was proven. That woman admitted that she lied. >> Mhm. >> You don't know if all these women are lying, but yet you're making a judgment. >> I not listen a lot of these women that you cite, right? There is no there's nothing credible about anything they say. That's one. And two, I know for sure, Brian, that most of the stuff can't be very credible because you and your evidence threshold is so ridiculously [ __ ] low that you'll call a person a PDF with no evidence at all based on a gut feeling. And I would say a person who does that is an [ __ ] So why wouldn't I call? >> Oh, anyway, >> he wants to know if I think about Hang on, hang on, hang on, I got to ask the wife. feeling. It's not a gut feeling. >> Okay, hang on. Brian Brian wants to know what you think about me calling what I consider the false accusers of Trump calling him uh saying that they they they that he raped him stupid [ __ ] >> Well, all of them. They're all stupid [ __ ] >> They were lying. They're worse than stupid [ __ ] But more than that, I think that men who send me unsolicited DMs calling me piggy and a [ __ ] and a [ __ ] are mentally ill and don't belong. >> That's not the question. That's not the question. Andrew, you did not You did not That's not It was >> Oh, hang on. Hang on. What was the question? >> It wasn't if they Okay, hang on. Hang on. Say that. Hold on. >> And I say because they're lying based on the evidence that I have. Not that I really want to get into a conversation with your wife, >> but Andrew Andrew, hold on a second. Can you tell her to stop talking, Andrew, for a moment, please? >> You told me to get her. >> Let me start the question again because she that's what her answer wasn't. You didn't say if they were lying. You said the question was all of the women that have claimed that they have been sexually abused. And you didn't say if they were lying. You said all of them are [ __ ] Lying [ __ ] You didn't say if they were lying. >> I think they're all liars. >> All lying. >> I think they're all [ __ ] liars. And yes, that they're dumb [ __ ] for lying. >> All of them. Correct. >> Without knowing for sure whether they're lying or not. >> Every [ __ ] one of them. >> Did I [ __ ] stutter? Like am I speaking Spanish? >> Am I speaking Spanish? If you if I think you're lying about SA, if I think you're lying about SA, >> then I think you're a stupid [ __ ] >> Did I stutter? Brian, are you think what are you currently confused about, Brian? I think I think your statement is absolutely despicable. Uh I think >> Yeah, but you could call a guy a PDF with no evidence and that's not despicable. >> Okay. Well, because because you defend Donald Trump despicable >> ad nauseium, you defend Donald Trump. Listen, as I said before, >> false allegations, of course, >> as I say before and I say again, you have a lot of people in your base of supporters. And by the way, I could care less what they think. Like I said, you can take a dump for a debate and they'll say you you destroyed somebody. So, I don't care what they say. But the bottom line here is this. You have a lot of people that support you. When you call every single woman without knowing every case any anything, just making a gross assumption that they're all lying [ __ ] is is insanely ridiculous. >> Oh yeah, that's more that's more ridiculous. >> I don't even know where the conversation of the United States file without any evidence at all. Huh. >> Yeah. Yeah. Why should I take why why would I take your feelings about whether or not these women are telling the truth or not? Insane. Because you defend because you defend Donald Trump. Adnauseium. That's why. Adnauseium. You've never criticized him. >> Well, yeah. His opponents are running around saying he he molests kids with no proof. >> Of course, I'm going to defend that. That's a rightful That's the rightful president of the United States. You say that you say that he's diddling kids with no evidence. Of course I'm going to defend from that. Of course. >> Yeah. So, so, so ridiculous statement. Okay. So, >> by the way, I would have said that about Biden, too. I'd have been like, "What do you mean? You can't [ __ ] What you don't want to do is you don't want to take a term. You don't want to cheapen a term like PDF. That's a serious one. That's a big one. Grape, too. I agree. But [ __ ] but but calling people like you guys do call everybody a [ __ ] pedophile." And it's like, >> I don't call everybody a pedophile. >> It's called, you know what they call that? It's called ped It's called pedtojacketing. The whole idea is you're just trying to bmerge a person and call them this horrible thing with zero evidence because you want to move people's alignment away from them so they're not a pedto defender. >> Okay. So, first of all, I'm not trying to move. Obviously, you've already made the case that it doesn't matter what woman accuses Donald Trump of rape. They're all like if a woman had compelling evidence that Trump actually did not. That's not what you said. And I would believe that evidence said, "Yes, it is. I believe that there's no good evidence from any of the people who have accused you of SA based on based on what I've read about these cases and whatever else. >> Based on what you've read, you don't believe. So they're all lying bitches." >> Yeah. I'll tell you what, if you actually do believe them, right? Name three of them outside of Eugene Carol and his ex-wife. Just three. >> You're Well, first of all, you can't >> outside of name the ones that are media publicized. You care so much. Name [ __ ] three of them. Just name >> I believe all of them. I believe all name three of them though. Just name three. >> Why do I have to name three? I believe all of them cuz you don't care. You never looked into any of the cases. >> You never looked. >> No, you didn't. You can't even name three of these women because you want me. You want me to Trumpate over 20 women. Name three of them. >> You Googled You've Googled like five times in this conversation. You want me to just do a Google? Will that make I just told you? >> I'm just saying you don't care. Honestly, you can't care. You don't even know their names. You don't [ __ ] care. Give me a break. >> So, because I So, because I haven't memorized, let me get this right. Because I haven't memorized all by Andrew's logic, the crucible or whatever you call yourself. Because I haven't named >> And I haven't memorized all the names of the 25 plus women that have accused Trump of rape. >> Not even I don't care. >> How about two? Can you name two? >> I just gave you two. Donald Trump's ex-wife in Egypt outside of the two that are the most media publicized. Can you name two? stupid. I'll tell you what, Andrew, I'll Google it for you. Okay. >> Can you name one other one? Can you even name one other one? >> Just one? >> I'll I'll Google it for you. >> Yeah, Google it. Yeah, you have to. You can't even name another one. >> Make you feel better. >> Will that make you feel better, Andrew, if I >> woman? You care so much you don't know anything about them or their cases or nothing. You don't care. >> So, because you don't [ __ ] care. It's all for political expediency. >> Of the women who are who were raped or claimed that they were raped, that means I don't care about rape. It seems to me like you as a guy who is propagating that you believe I believe these women >> Katie Johnson that

As the guy who says, "I believe their testimony. I believe these women. I believe these women." >> I'm giving you names and I'm saying that I do care. Zervos is >> Okay, so let's start with Summer. Hang on. Let's start with Summer. >> Stacy Williams Kristen. >> Okay. Let's start with Stacy. Let's start with Stacy. Can you give me any details about Stacy's case? Uh, she said she was reading >> Oh, you're reading it with >> You're reading it. You're reading it. >> You're reading it. >> I'm sorry. What's your argument now? >> That What's your argument now? >> That you claim that you think that all these women in their essay [ __ ] is completely credible, but you've never read the [ __ ] complaints. You don't know any of their names. You made it up. You just find it credible. You made it up. I just listed you names. So, hold on. Hold on. Let me get this right. >> I can't read any of these complaints, Brian. >> Let me let me let me get this right. >> Nothing. >> You're saying I don't care about all these women that have come forward. >> No, >> because I can't all their names. That's the dumbest part. >> Because you don't know the details of any of their cases. >> That woman claimed in 1993 that she was groped. >> Yeah, you just read you just read that. Literally, I can see the reflection on your glasses, so I know reading it. >> Actually, the reflection is is is the light and you can literally see the reflection. I don't know why you keep laughing about sexual assault and I don't know why it's funny. You're right. You're at this stupidity. You're right. You're right. They're all lying [ __ ] Andrew. That's a great intelligent take. That's >> intelligent. Hey, who would even get offended? It's not like you know their names. >> Yeah, >> it's a very So, because I haven't memorized all the Let me be very clear to make you memorized any >> Let me Let me make it simple. I'm not familiar with any of >> a simple man like you. Let me Let me make this very simple. Okay, Andrew. I know you think rape is funny. I know. So, >> uhhuh. You think that that moral grandstanding, >> anybody, Andrew, hold on. Don't spur out. Calm down. Any woman who claims that they are the victim or man of sexual abuse or childh >> I take extremely seriously. Now, I might not know all their names. I might not know all the details of the cases. I might believe them anyway. Hold on. I'm not done yet. Mhm. >> I might not know everything or anything about them. Even though I do know people in my life who have been the victim of sexual abuse, I take it extremely seriously. And and I will say this, for you to claim that I don't care about women that have come forward that have claimed sexual abuse because I don't know all the details or I don't know their full name >> or any details >> is so is so [ __ ] stupid and insulting. >> No, it's it's completely rational and reasonable. Your stupid fans will say, "Andrew, you own Brian. He can't name all the names." It's the dumbest argument I've ever heard. >> I couldn't name one. >> First of all, I named you several several following Carol. I followed the Egene Carol. >> I said outside of these two cases, I followed the case of Ivana Trump. I've talked about it on my show at the two highly publicized. >> So, now it's outside of two. Okay. I literally said that 40 times. >> Literally said it 40 times. >> The fact that you would make the case. >> That's [ __ ] hilarious to me. You care so much. You don't know anything about >> I know you think it's I know you think so much about you're not capable of criticizing Donald Trump for anything because there's no DNA evidence. You make the claim that oh no, he didn't rape anybody Carol. They're all lying [ __ ] I think dumb stupid evidence. Anybody who is Right. Exactly. What did you say? I'm sorry. >> I said, "Damn it, that Andrew requiring evidence." That bastard. >> No, you just called them all lying [ __ ] And sometimes when women come forward and they make claims of sexual abuse, they don't always have DNA evidence. They don't always have a >> You know what a rational person doesn't mean they're lying, Andrew. A rational Brian, my turn. My turn. A rational person would evaluate those cases on a case-byase basis, familiarize themselves with the details of those cases, familiarize themselves with the players in those cases, and then they would come to an informed decision as to whether or not to believe them or not. You didn't do any of that. You didn't familiarize yourself with any of the details of any of these cases because you don't give a [ __ ] They're political pawns for you. They're political pawns. You didn't know anything about it. You knew nothing about it. >> To you, it's political pawns. But I can tell you that I believe Donald Trump's ex-wife when she claimed in a deposition under oath that he lied on top of her, penetrated her. >> Mhm. >> Without her consent, and then mysteriously a couple months later, the case went away because he paid her off. I believe Egene Carol. And I believe and I like to believe victims when they claim that they are the victim of a serious crime. Unless they give me reason to believe, >> how would you how would you ascertain the victim? >> How would you ascertain if they gave you reason? Would you like familiarize yourself with the case and the players in the case? >> That is that how you would make those determination of whether or not they're telling the truth or not? >> So, I have familiarized myself >> with none of the cases. >> With the way, >> excuse me, with the way Donald Trump >> none of the cases, right? >> Excuse me. I'm pretty familiar with uh his ex-wife and Eugene Carol and >> I said outside of those two cases. >> So Andrew's argument to all the Crucible fans out there, >> Andrew's argument is basically because you can't recite names and specifics of every single case >> any. >> Then they can't number one, they can't be credible. Number two, you can't have the opinion that you believe Donald Trump is a sexual abuser. That is the dumbest argument I've ever heard in my life. >> Yeah. Okay. Well, sure. I'm sure it is. mine though. Wasn't my argument. >> Insane. It's the dumbest argument I've ever heard. >> Let me just try this. Let me try that. >> And again, >> I want to see if you're honest. Hang on. You got a whole chance to like move the whole goalpost back and throw the whole thing back in my face. And I'm even going to give you the opportunity. >> I think I've already done that, Andrew, but they're all going to give the opportunity to do it. >> Did you [ __ ] Did you >> just tell me the truth on this? Did you actually other than Egene Carol and Trump's ex-wife, did you actually familiarize yourself with any hang on with any of the cases in which there was accusations that Trump essayed a woman? >> Mhm. >> Okay. >> Yes. But not >> Hang on. Hang on. Hang on. Hang on. >> Yes. >> Can you tell me Okay. Can you tell me the one that you're the most familiar with? Well, obviously the two that I'm most familiar with because it's been in the news is obviously Egene Carol and what took place with Trump. Outside of that, one of the answering your question most familiar with. >> I'm answering your question. >> Okay. >> I haven't I haven't talked about these cases in a very very long time. Yeah. >> The last time I talked about these cases outside of Egene Carol and his ex-wife, it's been years. Okay. >> So, I don't remember all the details. But to answer your question, it hasn't been recently, >> but I haven't recently read up on these details. >> Now, I can go back and I could look at it and I could recite to you what happened, but the point that I was trying to make to you, Andrew, is that based, and this goes back to the Epstein files and the entire argument that I am making to you, which is when you look at his history, when you look at his behavior, I tend to believe victims, especially in this circumstance. Now, I know you don't think that's plausible. You don't think that's a fair argument. And again, I I you know, I've been saying this. Okay. Well, I've been saying that, you know, I >> You know what's funny, Brian, is like I've been so willing to be so good faith back and forth with you, especially when we started with what happened with Alex, right? It's not that you have a bad position there, right? I at least understand that position. That position makes sense to me. the position of like look you know according to what I'm seeing right now I can ascertain that I think that this was unjustified blah blah blah blah I can at least I don't agree with that position but I can at least understand it now we've moved into territory that I actually don't understand this is where we move Hang on hang on this is where hang on hang on bro just let me finish >> this is where we move into territory I actually really don't get the first we can have a debate on it was it unjustified is it unjustified who do you think's making a better case. Sure. But in this case, you're actually calling people PDFs. You don't have any evidence for that. You're saying that it's horrible that I say that I think that these women who make these unjustified claims are [ __ ] >> No, that's not what that's not what you said. >> Yeah, I said all of I believe that all of the women who make these claims against Trump that they're unjustified claims and so therefore they're [ __ ] >> Every single woman. >> Yes. But hang on. Hang on. You to my to my credit. To my credit, Brian, and not to yours. You have no leg to stand on to even tell me they're not because you don't know anything about the cases. And that's where we move into the bizarre [ __ ] >> Let's Let's go with that. You're calling all these women and 25 plus, right, >> that have accused Trump of sexual assault as all lying [ __ ] Can you name them? Do you know the cases? >> Brian, that would be my entire point. My entire point would be you have no you have no leg. Why won't you answer my question? >> From I am You have no leg from which to criticize any position. >> So you don't know their names. You don't know anything about their cases. >> That's my That makes my case for me. >> They're all lying [ __ ] and you don't know anything about the case. >> Brian Brian, if I say Brian, if I say I believe every one of these women lied and you say, "How could you ever believe that? That's ridiculous." And then I ask you, "Well, Brian, are you familiar with any of these women in any of these cases?" So, if you're not, what hill would you have from which to criticize my position? Dude, >> what? >> You just made a blatant statement >> that you believe that all these women are lying [ __ ] Anybody that's ever accused Trump of sexual abuse is a lying [ __ ] My question now to you is >> Mhm. >> Do you know who all these women are? >> Every single one of them, Brian. But I'm just not going to tell you. >> Oh, yeah. I think you're a liar. Actually, as I said from the beginning, my argument, my argument, how could you call me? >> My argument from the beginning to your Crucible fans to start this to start this conversation. >> Oh, no. >> Is I made the statement that it's the volume, >> it's the volume, consistency, >> and the seriousness of these allegations that makes me believe the victims. Now, you obviously think they're all lying [ __ ] which I think is reprehensible, and I guess we'll have to leave it at that. I mean, it's really difficult to have a good faith conversation with someone that would make a blatant statement like that that all women are lying [ __ ] that have ever accused Donald Trump of any improprieties, sexual abuse. >> I think >> even if even if it's for the p purpose of an internal critique to demonstrate that no matter what I say, right, you'll always say that this is incorrect. You believe them this and that for political expediency, even if you're not familiar with any of the cases whatsoever. So, even if the p purpose is, hang on. Even if the purpose is to draw out, your position makes no [ __ ] sense. I'm still wrong, right? It's like, what are you talking about, dude? >> You don't even understand what happened. You know what's so funny? You made the case. You don't even understand what I just did because you don't know what an internal critique is. >> Oh, no. I I I do. And there you go again by You know, >> No, you actually don't. You don't know what an internal critique is. >> So, again, you just made the case, right, Andrew? You're just so much smarter than everybody else. You just you just made the case. >> No, that's the thing, man. It's like I'm [ __ ] dumb and that should tell you a lot about the world that I'm talking about. >> I don't think you're dumb, but I think you say >> I don't think you're dumb, but I do think you say I do think you say a lot of dumb things and you make assumptions. For example, when you claim that I don't care about rape, and I'd like to give you the opportunity now to retract something because it's it's it's really awful what you said. Okay? I don't care if you call me names. I don't care what your Crucible fans say about me. I don't care. But you made the case that I don't care about any of these women that have come forward that have accused Trump of rape because right now I can't name their names and I don't know all the specifics in the case. Are you willing to retract that statement now because it's quite offensive when you make because it's not true. I care about any woman or man >> here. Hang on. Hang on. I'll give you an olive branch. Okay. The purpose of what I just did, the internal critique, is to demonstrate there's no grounds from which to ever make a criticism of me regardless of what I say about any of this because the opposition has no idea what they're even discussing because they they didn't read it, they don't know it, they don't understand it. To separate the two issues, do I think that Brian obviously cares if women get essay? Of course I think he does. Of course I think you do, Brian. Do I also think though that you'll utilize this for the purpose of political expediency even though you have no familiarization with the source content? Hang on. Hang on, Brian. Let me finish. Let me finish. I'm trying to delineate to give you the olive branch. >> Do I think that you will utilize that for the purposes of political expediency? Yes. And I just demonstrated it. Which is why we have so little evidence of the Trump essay's kids. We have so little evidence of oh the [ __ ] uh these women they're all totally credible. Let me respond. I'm going to prove to you right now that I am very consistent when it comes to my opinions with high-profile people even when it's political and even when you might think that it's not politically convenient for me. I have been saying now for over 20 years, even before I got into radio and I maintain this position now, that Bill Clinton did some horrible sexual things to women. I do believe he did some terrible things and I do believe that is the one thing that Bill Clinton and Donald Trump terrible things. >> Hold on. Hold on. I do believe that Bill Clinton and Donald Trump have done sexual things to women against their will at one point in their life. I do believe that. And that's why I would never vote for Bill Clinton. It's part of the reason why I didn't vote for Hillary Clinton. This is not political for me. Do I dislike Donald Trump? Not because Donald Trump is a Republican, because I think he's a really bad guy and he's done some horrible things. Do I think Bill Clinton is a bad guy? Yeah. I don't think >> I'm not disputing that I think that you believe that Trump's done horrible things. I agree that you believe that, Brian. What I don't understand is how you could be so willing to call somebody a PDF with such an underwhelming amount of evidence which is almost none. Hang on. Which it it really is almost none. And by the way, Brian, I want to point this out and then morally grandstand that the evidence you are trying to source, which is a pattern of behavior, you don't know anything about. That is why I'm like, dude, this makes zero sense to me and it makes zero sense to the observer because how could it be the case that you would morally grandstand on the one hand you care so much you don't know any of the details of it on the other hand claim he's a thing have no evidence for it and then tell me that I'm being somehow evil because I require a standard of evidence for the claims that you make. >> No. No. Uh, so first of all, I don't think I used the term evil, but I I I think some of the things you've said are reprehensible. As I've said before, and I'll say again, >> how many things have I said that are reprehensible? >> Well, I mean, you just kind of retracted it, but I thought what what you say that all the women are lying [ __ ] All of them. Any woman that's ever made a claim, >> you have no standard from which to criticize that claim. >> None. >> Well, you have no standard by which to say that they're all lying [ __ ] You don't know whether they're telling the truth or not. Yeah, but that's but Brian, you're making again my point for me. I think I'm a reasonable rational human being and I require evidence and st I want stance reasons which are evidence backed >> which are evidencebacked before I make claims. >> The first hang on hang on. The first engagement that we had, >> right, >> you were trying to use uh evidentiary reasoning in order to say this is unjustified. That is a position I can wrap my head around. But the second we move over to this guy who you're politically opposed to, those very same evidentiary standards you would cite in the first debate, you'd abandon in the second. And that's why it's like I don't think that's consistent. I don't think that's intellectually honest. And I think you're bullshitting me a little bit. >> Okay, let's talk about that. Let's talk about intellectual honesty. >> Okay. >> Because I want to know if you're consistent because you said you require evidence. >> Yeah. Is there any evidence that was presented to claim that Donald Trump won the 2020 election? Was that >> Dude, this has nothing to do with anything about things which are relational. >> Why don't you answer my questioning? Yeah. No, here's why I'm asking. >> Because it's a red herring. It's a It's a red because it's you're a hypocrite. That's why. So, when it comes to women, let me explain why. Let me explain why. Let me explain why. Let me explain why if you just give me a moment. Yeah. >> When a woman comes forward, any woman by your standards that has ever claimed that Donald Trump sexually abused him >> Mhm. >> you have to have immediate evidence otherwise you don't believe them. Right. Re, you know, >> but Donald Trump has to this Hold on. Hold on. >> Did Donald Trump have any credible evidence that the election was stolen and rigged and that Joe Biden cheated and the Democrats cheated? >> Even Even if I has that ever been proven? Yeah. But even if I concede this point, that does nothing for you. >> Do you understand that question? Like it doesn't care whether you think it does something for me or not. Answer the question. >> It's a red herring. We're not digging into it. You're trying cuz you're trying to divert away from the >> Was there So when it comes to women that accuse Trump of rape, give me evidence. Hang on. >> When it comes to Donald Trump, >> my claim is this. My claim is this. When it comes to women who accuse Donald Trump of rape, I want evidence. That's the claim. >> Do you have something? Do you have something you want to say about the [ __ ] claim or not? Brian, >> so would you agree that there are women in society, some that have been raped 20 years, 30 years, 40 years ago, >> and they'll make the claim 40 years later that yes, they were the victim of sexual abuse. >> I do think, >> and hold on, hold on, hold on. Let me just finish my question. >> Sure. Sure. Sure. Go ahead. That's fair. >> Because because I think this is an important distinction. Would you agree that some women in society 20 years, 30 years, 40 years later, they say that at one point, maybe when they were a child, maybe when they were in high school, that they were the victim of sexual abuse >> and they don't have any direct evidence to prove it. Are they all lying then by your standard? >> Of course not. >> Okay. So, it is possible that you might not have evidence, but it still could have happened. Is that fair, Andrew? >> Of course. >> Okay. Okay. >> But is it also fair? Is it also fair if I say she said that this happened, but she has no evidence, and until I see some evidence, I'm not going to believe it. >> Is that also fair? >> Um, I don't think it's fair to call them a lying [ __ ] >> Okay, that's not the question I asked you. The question that I asked you was, >> if I say she made this claim, I agree she made the claim, but I've seen no evidence for it, and until I see evidence for it, I don't believe it. Is that fair? Not always. And I'll tell you why. >> Okay. Why? >> Maybe in some cases, but not always. Because as we've just established in the first question that I asked you, there are times where women won't have direct evidence. They might not even remember the day. They might not remember the week. They might not even remember because they wanted in their mind to erase it from their memory because it's a traumatic experience. Someone >> I'm not disputing any of this. I'm not disputing any of this. Andrew, I'm only asking you. >> So Andrew, here's why we here's the difference. Okay, Andrew. Here's the fundamental disagreement that that we disagree on here. I tend to, even if they don't have direct evidence, I tend to believe someone when they claim that they're a victim. It could be rape. It could be, you know, robbery. I tend to, for the most part, agree with someone that claims that they were a victim. And I don't characterize all of them as lying [ __ ] >> Okay. Let me ask you this. Do you believe in the Christian God? >> I'm not a very religious person. >> So, so no. Right. >> I believe in a higher power, but I am not a religious person. I don't religion. >> Do you believe So, you don't believe in the Christian God, right? >> I I don't think about religion like ever. >> Dude, just just I just answered your questions in good faith. Yes. >> Do I believe there's a God? I I Yeah. I don't know what >> Not the Christian God though, right? >> I don't even know what that means. I do. Do I believe? I believe in a higher power. I don't know what the higher power is. I don't know if God is a man. >> Got it. Got it. Got it. Got it. Got it. Okay. >> There's many. >> And I don't want to get into a religious conversation. >> We're not having a religious conversation. I'm just trying to parse out your logic. >> Okay. Fine. >> Do you believe that the Christian God is God? >> Like I said, Andrew, >> no. Right. >> I don't. Nobody knows. >> Okay. >> What God is. Nobody knows. Hundreds and hundreds of millions and billions of people tell you that they had divine revelation where they saw the Christian God and they the Christian God spoke to them, right? Are you going to require evidence before you believe in the Christian God? >> Uh I would say that they're absolute lunatics and they believe in the tooth fairy. >> So you can believe in the tooth fairy. So you can believe in the tooth fairy you like. So, so you can't discount that the Christian God is real by your own admission. But at the same time, even though you can't discount it's real, billions of people having this a similar experience and telling you about the experience, you're going to hang on. You're going to require evidence before God before you confirm that the ex that that God is true. Right? Is that correct? Are you really hang before you [ __ ] me? Just answer this. I'm not trying to answer this. Yes or no? You said that they're all crazy. You said they're all crazy. So, you want evidence, right? You want evidence the Christian God is real regardless of how many people claim that they have met him, right? You want evidence, right? >> I just want to I just want to understand your question. You're trying to compare God to >> No, just answer the [ __ ] question, dude. >> This is insane. >> I'm not comparing anything. I'm doing a critique on the logic. You agree with me? Billions of people believe that they've had divine revelation. Do you agree with that? >> No. >> You don't think that they believe that? >> Um, you can believe in the tooth fairy if you'd like. You >> I know. I'm asking. Listen to what I'm asking you. Not asking you if it's true or you believe it's true. I'm asking you. >> Why you blame the God? >> I'm asking you if they believe it. >> Do billions of people believe >> Yeah. >> believe that they've had divine revelation? Believe it. >> So I find somebody more credible. A woman comes forward and claims. >> Just answer the question, bro. Do Do >> No, I don't think anybody can talk to God. No, I don't believe them. >> No, I'm not asking if it's true. I'm asking if they believe it. >> I mean, there's people that believe in the tooth fairy. I know there's crazy people everywhere. Do at least 100 million people believe that they've had divine revelation. >> I don't know. I mean, there's there's people that believe the earth is >> Do at least 10 people, You don't know if 10 people believe they've had divine revelation? >> I I don't really get a lot of extremely religious people, so I don't know. >> Hang on. Hang on. There's one person you're talking to. >> I've had divine revelation. >> Okay. You believe that I believe that? >> Um I I I mean, I don't know you personally. I don't know if you >> I believe it. I'm not sure. talk to God. >> I'm not saying it's true. I'm asking if you think I believe that it's true. >> There are people that believe a lot of different things. >> I'm not asking that. I'm asking if you if you >> I guess so. I guess so. >> Do you want evidence? Do you want evidence? >> Evidence that what God exists? You want to know that the Christian God exists? evidence that you want to get into a So, we're talking about >> I'm asking if it's the case, would you just believe that I've had divine revelation? Anybody want evidence? >> I think so. What would you say if I said I believe >> Brian? Do you want if I Okay, if I if I say I think they're all lying [ __ ] if I if I said that I think they're all lying [ __ ] what would you think about that, Andrew? >> You find that offensive, right? I think that if it's the case, >> I think they're all lying [ __ ] >> that you have decided that because it's logically possible that a woman could have been essayed many many years ago and then bring the allegations forward later. I'm willing to hang around. I'm willing to [ __ ] I'm willing to concede the point. But if it's the case that you're saying that you should believe it anyway, even absent evidence and you did say that you hang on and then and then you did say you should believe them anyway absent evidence. You wouldn't take that standard with religiosity and don't which makes you the [ __ ] hypocrite, sir. I'm not a hypocrite. I know I know what you're trying to hypocrisy, son. >> No, it's not hypocrisy at all. There is no there is a fine line difference between somebody who thinks that they talk to a a a a being person that doesn't no evidence that they exist then for someone who makes a claim that they were >> there's no evidence that they exist but there's no evidence that this person was essay >> if you believe that God talks to you Andrew anybody that that if I said that you're all lying probably find that offensive right >> do you realize that that's the same do you realize we're talking about the same burden of evidence >> a person who a person yes we Do you realize a woman? Yeah, we are. If a woman comes to you and says, "I was essayed when 40 years ago, but I have no evidence to demonstrate that that's the case." And a person comes to you and says, "I've talked to God. I talked to him 40 years ago, but I have no evidence that that's the case." Why should I believe one but not believe the other? >> Yeah. Let's let's dissect that a little bit. So what Andrew is doing is he's trying to compare somebody who says they talk to God to a woman who claims that she was the victim. >> Can you answer my question? >> So for so for all of the Crucible fans out there that are listening to this. >> Yeah. Can you answer the question? Why should I require evidence for one? >> Well, here's the difference. >> Even though it's based on the same thing, which is eyewitness testimony. >> Hey buddy, because one of them is a [ __ ] crime. That's why one of them is a [ __ ] crime. What the [ __ ] does that have to One of them is faith and belief and the other one is a [ __ ] crime. Can you not distinguish the two? Are you so stupid? You can't distinguish the two. >> So as long as it's a crime as long and having faith isn't a crime, dummy. >> Yeah, but why why does that have any merit on anything? Because you're trying to compare rape to >> No, I'm just trying to compare why it would be that I need to take them on blind faith, but you won't take me on blind faith. >> Andrew, let me try to be calm and explain. Okay. >> When someone says, just shut up for a minute, >> just give me 30 seconds and shut up. >> I can't hear it. When you say that you have a faith, right? When you believe in God or you're talking to God, it's a faith that you have. It's a belief system you have. It It's faith. It's what we call faith. >> It's also an experience. It can be an experience. >> It's also not it's also not a crime. Now, what I say is >> there's nothing what I say is there's nothing wrong with having faith. You can believe in what you want. Claiming that you have a discussion with God or having faith is very different than making a claim that you are the victim of a crime. How the [ __ ] do you not understand the difference? I'll explain it really yourself looking ridiculous. >> I'll use real small words for me, not for you. I know that you're super smart and I'm dumb, but I'm going to use real small words for me and the audience. You >> said something we both agree on. >> Yeah, I know I'm an idiot, but it's like this. You see, if a person believes that they have had revelation, that's an experience. And if a person believes that they've been essayed, that's an experience. What you're doing is you're asking me to take on faith both when you'll only take on faith one. Even though rape even though both >> Yeah. Yeah. Yeah. Rape is an experience. Yes. That's an experience a woman has >> comparing an experience to a crime to having >> I'm comparing an experience to an experience. The only way that you can determine that you serious question is if it was the case. This is a serious serious logical detail to this. >> No one's going to take offense. No one's going to take offense. You're going to go after the family now. >> I'm trying to be respectful. >> Are we moving into the family attacks now? Go ahead, Brian. >> No, it's about you. It's a question about you. Have I attacked your family, Andrew? Have I done that? >> Many times. >> Uh, tonight. Have I done that? >> Uh, not yet. That's true. >> Okay. >> Credits, too. >> So, stop. So, and I don't mean disrespect by asking you this, but this is a really weird analogy. >> Have you been drinking tonight? >> Uh, literally 5 seconds ago. >> I have a mixed drink. 5 seconds ago. >> Okay, fine. So, okay, fine. So, listen. >> How would that help you? believe in God when >> you not being able to understand logic without with with me drinking coffee or whiskey has no bear on you. >> There's no logic in my personal opinion. >> Mhm. >> Comparing faith and alleging to have a discussion with God, which by the way, if that's how you feel, then you have the right to believe it. But it's not a crime. That's not the argument. >> It's not against the law. When you claim that you were the victim of sexual assault, you're saying that you were the victim of a [ __ ] crime. Do you agree? Do you agree with me that a woman would have no way to report that she was essayed if it was the case that she never experienced being essayed? She wouldn't go and of course she had to experience it, right? >> There are there are women Yeah, of course. There are there are women. Yeah. >> So, so the thing is is that if a person says they have divine revelation, they're also experiencing a phenomenon from their perspect I I apologize. Rachel brought you a drink and I shouldn't have. That was like 20 minutes ago. But go ahead. It wasn't five minutes ago. It was like 25 minutes ago. But go ahead. >> Go ahead, Andrew. >> Do you think I got drunk off a shot, Brian? Anyway, it >> seems to me the thing is the thing is Brian experience. We're talking about experience. You agree with me a religious person has is having an experience also. Why is it, Brian, please answer my question, that you require evidence for one experience that has no evidence, but don't require evidence for another experience that has no evidence? Okay. So first of all, if somebody is claiming that they spoke to God, there is no evidence ever that they can prove that they spoke. >> There wouldn't be any evidence that a woman who was sated and couldn't provide evidence would have either. Brian, >> hold on. There are many women >> Uhhuh. >> that in some scenarios can provide circumstantial evidence. They can provide uh witnesses like Eene Carol from there were witnesses. Hold on. Hold on. Because you said you don't believe Egene Carol. In fact, you characterize >> that has nothing to do with what I'm asking you. >> Well, what I'm asking you specifically is a woman. A woman can't prove has no evidence for guy says he has revelation or woman says has revelation. Can't prove has no evidence for. Why am I supposed to believe the one >> but I'm not supposed to believe the other? >> Sure. >> Why? I just finish your shot and I will explain. >> Okay. >> So, first of all, it's important to note that one is a crime and one is not. We've established that. Second of all, there is literally no direct evidence that Bigfoot exists. There is no direct evidence that you could actually have a conversation with a god and a god is talking back to you unless your mind is playing games with you. Now, >> there would be no evidence in this case of an essay either, Brian. >> So, you're talking about a woman. What? Give me a scenario. who makes a claim 34 years down the road. >> Yeah. And has a victim of sexual she has zero evidence for it. Zero. >> She except I experienced Hang on. She says, "I experienced this. >> That's all. But I have no evidence that I can give you to corroborate it." Guy comes down from a mountain, >> says, "Hey, >> I experienced revelation, but I have no evidence at all that I can give you." Why? Hang on. Why do I believe one and not the other? Again, >> here's my response to that. Because I personally believe, and I guess this is where we fundamentally disagree, >> that when someone comes forward and brings up a claim of what I think is one of the worst crimes anybody can commit, which is rape, sexual abuse. >> Mhm. >> Um I tend to believe someone and and the majority of people that they were at one point in their life a victim of this crime and I say to myself, why would you be saying this, you know, if it wasn't true? In some cases, there was >> Why would the religious person? >> Well, I I believe that they probably believe that they spoke to God, but there's >> So, why do you not believe them, but you'll always believe the woman with no evidence? >> Obviously, okay, so first of all, I believe that there are religious people out there that believe all sorts of different things. Okay? They have the right to believe that. Maybe they do believe it, but there's a difference between having a faith and believing in a faith system >> and somebody coming forward saying, "Yeah, you know, when I was a young girl, this happened to me and it was horrible." >> They're both based on I had this experience. >> My initial evidence, what's what's the threshold? >> This has happened to me a couple times in my life where I've I've talked to women who said, "Yeah, this happened to me 30 or 40 years ago." And my initial reaction isn't, "Well, you know what? I really don't believe you because you don't have any evidence, >> but you're not giving me the threshold breaker. Why do you believe the one and not the other? It makes no sense. Why do you demand the standard of evidence from one but demand no standard of evidence from the other? >> Because believing in in a ghost, which is really what we're talking about here, there's no there's where is God? What is God? Is God a >> Where's the essay? Where's the essay? Where's the evidence? Where is it? >> It's the same [ __ ] It's reduced to the same. We are talking about so the two differences here is we are talking about a crime that was allegedly committed. >> Why would that matter when it comes to believing a person based on >> Here's the thing, right? If somebody comes up to me and they say, "Hey, I talked to God." >> Mhm. >> My initial reaction to them, >> okay, you know what, Brian, we'll make it easy. Pass the statute of limitation. So now there's no crime. >> The statute of So now we're talking about the statute of limitations. >> Yeah. So now it's passes to the statute of limitation. So there's no crime. Now one's not a crime and the other one's not a crime. Why do you believe one? You don't believe the other. >> The act of rape is is certainly a crime. Just because somebody doesn't report it within a certain time frame of Bill Cosby, >> there was not a crime. Hang on. Hang on. It's not a crime anymore. It's passed the statute of limitations. So there can't be any criminal, nothing. There's no >> get into a word debate. The act of sexual abuse and rape is a crime. when it happened. When it happened, it was not a crime. It wouldn't be a crime if it passed with the statute of of limitations. I'm not going to get into that. So, I'm just asking Brian, now it's not a crime. No crime. Now, there can't be a crime. >> Andrew, this is a fundamental difference between people like you and people like me. >> So, I'm going to give you two different scenarios of which you're talking about. >> I can't wait. >> Okay. If a person comes up to me that's religious and he says, "Hey, you know, I talked to God and all this other stuff." Even though I might not want to get into that conversation with them, I'm not going to talk down to them and I'm not going to say, "I don't believe you. Show me evidence." Now, on the contrary, yes, you will. >> Also, hold on. No, I've never done that in my life. And >> if somebody told you the Christian God is real, you wouldn't demand evidence. >> I would say the first thing I said to you, what was the first thing I said to you when you brought up religion? Do you remember in this conversation? Uh, you said that you said that I think that those people are crazy and believe in sky. >> No. What was No, that's not the first thing I said. What's the first thing I said to you? >> What's the first thing? >> I said I'm not a very religious person, so I'd rather not have that conversation with >> Yeah, but I'm not having religious conversation. I'm using an Hold on. You didn't let me finish. You didn't let me finish. So, I would not talk down to that person. If I met a total stranger and I talked to God, I wouldn't say, "Hey, you show me proof." I wouldn't attack them for it. They have the right to believe in what they want to believe in, right? And it's not a crime. If a woman comes up to me and says that I know and says or even that I don't know and say, "Yeah, this horrible stuff happened to me when I was a child, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah." >> My initial reaction would never be, "You're a lying bitch." Or, "I don't show me the evidence. Why does Hang on, hang on, but here's the thing. That would the fundamental question. I don't know. Give her a hug. give her a hug and a pet pat on the rear and say I know you don't think it's a big deal but Andrew >> the first thing that I would do is I would listen to her >> and I would believe her >> and I would >> Why wouldn't you do that with a religious person? >> Uh what did I just say? I just said that I'm not a religious person. >> Yeah. So what >> I wouldn't be disrespectful that has no bearing on the conversation. Why wouldn't you just Why would the religious difference because here's the difference. When people talk about a conversation they had with God, usually they're happy about it, usually it's a very spiritual and a pleasant experience. I think most people >> Oh, no. There's tons of people have divine revelation who are miserable. >> Fine. Most people that say they had a conversation with God that that have come to me >> have said it's a very pleasant it's a, you know, a pleasant experience and and it brought me to this or that in my life. Okay. Every single person that has come up to me that has ever said they've been a victim of sexual abuse, it's a very horrible story. Two completely different understand that. >> No, I can't. I can't understand. Where is the threshold breaker? >> I had an experience there's no evidence for. >> I had an experience there's no evidence. Hang on. Hang on. Hang on. Hang on. You just asked me a question. Let me answer. I have experience I have no evidence for. I have experience I also have no evidence for. I believe you. I don't believe them. based on [ __ ] what? >> Fair. Let's put this to the test. You ready? Here we go. >> Okay. Okay. >> So, I had a conversation with God this morning. >> God

told me in a conversation that he believed that Donald Trump. You realize that this is about you. You realize it's going to be Donald Trump sexual.

No, no, no. It was a great experience I had, and God told me that Donald Trump is an orange orangutan, 34-count felon, liable sexual abuser. And Brian, you are correct. And you have to stand by your beliefs, no matter what that Crucible guy says.

Now, it was, it was a great experience that I had, Andrew. Uh, and I'm not— You're right. You're right, Brian. I would require evidence. I know—

It was a— Well, you know, I'm the guy who's consistent on this. And God told me, God told me that Andrew is going to deflect and deny.

And how am I deflecting? I just told you.

Hang on. Hang on. I want evidence of this experience, just like I want evidence of the other thing.

Yes, of course. Yeah. So you think— And by the way, that's a Christian, that's a Christian standard, too. You know, we go out and debunk miracles all the time for a reason.

I know, Andrew. You have amazing Christian—

Told you that that was going to [ __ ] blow up in your face. It was a terrible example.

Yeah. Well, hey, I had that conversation this morning.

Okay.

Um, and that's what God told me to tell you. And I'm standing with my beliefs. My God tells me, my religion, my God tells me that Donald Trump probably did some horrible things to children. My God tells me—

That some of these ICE agents on the streets are committing murder.

Mhm.

My God tells me that at this point, if you still defend Donald Trump—

Every which way, there's something wrong with you.

And now my God tells me when you have a lot of— Hold on. When you have multiple— I just got one question.

My God— I know you can answer. Just one second. Ask me in a second. My God tells me that when my wife hands me a bunch of shots—

My analogies get worse and worse.

A bunch of shots. Andrew, I think you're a little drunk. How many shots have you had? Three or four?

You told your wife to give you another shot.

I had one shot.

You told your wife, "Give me another shot." Don't lie. We have it on tape.

I— I literally have the same glass, dummy.

Did you not say— Oh, so you can't have another drink in the same glass?

No, I don't have— I only had one shot.

So, you didn't say, "Give me another shot." You didn't say that.

I don't know if I— crowd people that are listening, even if you're fans of Andrew. Yeah. Yeah. Andrew's drunk. Whatever.

Okay.

My question is—

Okay.

My question to you, Brian, is—

Should I believe what you just said to me, or should I ask for evidence?

What about my God?

Yeah.

Uh, I don't care.

Should I believe you?

I'm not talking about—

Should I ask for evidence?

There is no evidence that anybody can say.

So, I should believe you. Uh, I think there are people that believe they have discussions with God. It's impossible to believe.

But should I believe you, Brian, or should I ask you for evidence?

Uh, it's not a crime, though. So, I'm trying. Should I believe you or should I ask for evidence? Can you answer the question, please?

You can never provide evidence. Should— Oh, you're— The question is, should you ask me for evidence when I say it had a conversation with—

Governor? No, no, no. I'm asking you.

Why would you ask? Should I believe you that everything you just said to me was true, that you had a conversation with God and this and that, or should I—

Hang on. Or should I, uh, ask for evidence? If you were me, for instance,

Would you believe— Would you believe everything you just said?

Would you believe everything you just said to me, or would you ask me for evidence if you were in my shoes?

Uh, if you're an atheist, you would probably ask for evidence. If you're a religious person, then you probably would not. I think it depends on the person, quite frankly.

Brian, you're in my shoes, let's say, and I just got done saying everything to you that God told me that, uh, actually Trump, I just did it in reverse. Trump isn't this and isn't that and blah, blah, blah, blah, blah. Would you ask me for evidence or would you believe me—

When you're talking about a crime that was committed?

No, no, no, Brian. I'll ask again. So I— So I— I do the same thing you did, except I just say, "God told me Trump didn't do any of this." Would you just believe me or would you ask for evidence?

Uh, when it comes to religion, um, uh, again, we, we keep going back in circles here.

Brian, I'm going to ask again. Yes or no? Would you believe me or would you ask me for evidence?

Would you believe me or would you ask me for evidence? I said, "God told me Trump didn't do any of this stuff."

Would you just believe me or would you ask for evidence?

Uh, I always believe a victim. And I think that's the part of this conversation.

I know. But can you answer my question? Would you believe me or would you ask for evidence?

If you're saying that your God said that Trump never committed any crimes.

Yeah. Would you believe me?

I would say, I would say I believe you and your God doesn't know what he or she is talking about. So, you would believe me?

Uh, if you believe that you spoke to a god, I would, I would, I would respond to you by saying—

"No, no, no. Do you believe that I did—"

Talk to God?

I think your God is a mag. That's what I would say.

Yeah. Would you believe— Would you believe I did talk to God and God did tell me those things, or would you—

I would absolutely— I would— You seem like a believable guy. I would believe you. Yeah.

You just don't want to answer the question. You won't answer the question. So—

I just said I would believe you. Sure, I would believe you.

Okay. Well, then God told me that, uh, you lost this debate. You believe me, right?

Oh, okay. No. Uh, the reason why I wouldn't believe you is because—

What do you mean, no? You decided your contradiction machine.

God tells me that you are drunk and you're spurring out. That's what God just—

Bro, I think that your God and mine—

Andrew, I knew that completely different standards on a few.

Actually, I— We finally agree. We finally come to a consensus. My God tells me to believe victims when they come forward. And my initial reaction isn't to provide evidence. I tend to comfort them and believe them.

So, just so we're clear, my last question, this is my last question. I would like you to actually answer in good faith. And I'll answer your next, yes or no. I answered every question.

I'll answer your next— No, you don't. I just want a yes or no. I just want— I want an actual rape.

I want an actual yes or no. Just like I've been giving you a question. I say yes. And but— And I'll give you a yes or no. But I want your word. You're going to give me a yes or no. If it was the case that, um, that I said, "God told me that Trump did not commit any of these crimes,

And he's never committed any crime. And in fact, he's the most honest person ever. And you just got everything wrong."

Mhm.

Okay. Would you believe me?

I would believe you. No. No. Would you believe I actually—

But I would—

Would you believe I actually talked to God?

Uh, uh. There's a caveat. Let me answer.

Okay.

I would believe you, but I would also call your God an [ __ ].

Yeah. Yeah. Would you believe that I talk to God?

Sure. If you believe that, I believe that you believe that. Sure. Why not? I think your god is a mega cuck. I think your god is a mega cuck. But I would, I would, I would believe you. I'm glad I'm glad I could entertain you. Yeah, that was pretty entertaining, bro. Okay, I'm glad I could. He wouldn't believe me. Okay.

Can I ask you a question? Can we have some fun? Can we have some fun for a moment, bro?

All right, let's have some fun for a moment. That was funny.

I'm glad I made you laugh. I'm glad I'm glad I made you laugh. Can you believe we've gone through—

Holy [ __ ]. Have we been doing this for three hours? Three and a half.

Yeah, that's why I'm wrapping it up. I usually keep—

We do. I have to do Pierce Morgan.

I promised you I would do one more question and I would just answer yes or no. Go ahead. But it can't be loaded. Mine aren't loaded. Like, for instance, that just means you can't be like, "How long have you been gay?" That's a loaded question.

I wasn't gonna ask that.

I know. It's just funny, right? But I'm just saying, as long as it's not loaded, I'll answer it.

I wasn't going to ask that. Um, be honest. Like, like, and I'm not saying this to be mean. It's— It's a real question.

Mhm.

You do drink a lot.

No, I don't.

Is that a fair— You don't. Okay. I'm asking your source. Like, like, what do you have, like four drinks a day or like, what, what's the—

Hardly not even close.

So, so you're not an alcoholic. You would—

Not even close.

Okay. Because every time we— I see these things, you're always drinking and smoking.

I do one, I do one debate a week.

Okay.

And usually at the end of the debate, I'll have a drink or two.

Yeah. I'm going to say this in good faith. Are you ready?

And sometimes, sometimes in a TikTok invasion, near like two hours in, I'll have a drink or two, too. But no, far from out.

You ready for this, Andrew? Are you ready for this?

Go ahead.

Please tell your wife I apologize. If I said anything insulting to her, I do apologize.

I'll let her know, man.

And, um, I don't have anything personally against you. Uh, at times, I am a little crazy on social media. I think we all are at times. You've said some mean things to me. I've said some mean things to you. Your wife said some mean things to me. But it's part of the territory when you're in our business. There are going to be people that are going to say some inappropriate things that are perhaps over the line for lack of a, a better, uh, for lack of a better term. But I'm a passionate person and I believe in what I believe in and I'm willing to have conversations with anybody. I'm willing to debate with anybody that disagrees with me at any given time. Now, there are certain discussions that I'm not really interested in having debates in with you, and we've talked about that. I like talking about current news. I'm not really a live streamer. I do a show every day, Monday through Friday. I talk about the news of the day. And what you do is very different than what I do.

Hang on, bro. Hang on. Don't do a lot of this stuff.

I got to take a leak. Hang on. Hang on. I got to take a leak. I'm going to leave you to entertain the audience. All right. Don't, don't [ __ ] my show up.

I'm not, I'm not.

All right.

I'm not, I'm not. Um, no, I don't think Andrew is a bad guy. I don't, um, I think he has some bad faith arguments, but I don't think, like, I don't know him personally. Um, I've never made that case. Yeah, I, I, I believe a victim. When a victim claims that they were the victim of a sexual assault, I tend to believe them. I think that makes me a decent person. Doesn't mean I'm always going to be right. It doesn't mean, you know, every single person that comes forward that claims they were a victim, um, means that they're telling the truth. But I generally would not do what Andrew did. I wouldn't generally call every woman that has claimed that they've been a victim of sexual assault from Donald Trump a lying [ __ ]. I think that is horrible. And, and I just, I, I think he's wrong for talking like that. I think that's terrible. Um, that's just, that's just my personal opinion. But, um, you know, in this business, people say mean things to each other. You'd have, you have to have thick skin in this business. You know, I had a conversation with Tim P about this. You know, I go on some of these other shows and, and listen, and I mean this, if you're a fan of Andrew Wilson, it doesn't matter what happens in this debate, you're going to say, "Andrew destroyed you. He dogwalked you." If you're a fan of my show, you'll say, "Andrew is an [ __ ]. You destroyed him." That's why I don't get into that stuff. I don't get into, "I won the debate. I defeated you." I'm not into that. I'm not insecure. I don't care what people think. I do my thing. I have conversations. If you're a fan of Andrew Wilson, you're going to say that he destroyed anybody. If you're a fan of my show, you're going to say I destroyed him. That's why I don't give a [ __ ]. I don't care what people think or what people say about a debate. I'm not here, oh, I want to destroy him. I want to win. That's just not what I do. It's not who I am. So, that's just me. I'm not, I'm not in it to, you know, to feel good about myself or to have everyone telling me, "Brian, you dogwalked him." That's just not, that's just not what I do.

Thanks for, um, thanks for holding the stream down for me here. I'm going to get going. It's late.

Literally.

But, and I know you got a Pierce Morgan in the morning, but I actually did appreciate the debate. I hope you have a good night.

When are we going to do Pierce Morgan together?

I don't know. I—

Have you ever done Cuomo?

No.

They asked me to do— I've never done his show either. They recently— Is there any show you won't do?

No.

Really? You would do Nick Fuentes?

Um, well, it's not that it's not a matter of like I'm opposed to it. There's just been like, well, I don't want to get into the details, but, um, no, there's no like, there's no shows that I can think of. CNN, MSNBC, stuff like that I wouldn't do. No.

Myron Gaines?

Yeah, I've done shows with Myron.

Do you think he's a good dude?

Yeah, for the most part, I do.

Do you think that shirt he wore at Amfest mocking Jews who were murdered in the Holocaust is, is something that a good person would do? You don't have to agree with everything that a person does to understand that, um, people can have—

I, I tend to take what people say if I believe that they believe it, right?

You don't think he believes it?

They're at least— No, I do. I do. I at least think that they're being authentic. You know what I mean?

And I actually— Hang on. Hang on. Calm down, man. Let me explain the position. When I talk to guys like you, right, or people like Destiny or others like this, and they're like, "Donald Trump's a fascist." Okay, obviously I don't agree that Donald Trump's a fascist, but I do believe that they believe that. And so that's at least authentic. And so people build worldviews off of things that they believe, right or wrong. So I do think that you can be a very good person and hold really bad beliefs. I do. And I think that that comes out through character. I'm sure that you have. Don't you brag all the time how many friends you have on the right? Don't you think that they hold horrible beliefs? They defend Trump. Aren't they pedophile defenders by your metric?

Not the people that I consider friends. No. The people that I consider friends that are on the right or people that know that Donald Trump's a really bad guy. They admit that to me. And by the way, I won't mention names, but people that people that I would—

Do you have no friends on the right that disagree with you? Well, what define a— No, of course I have friends that disagree with me, but, but I don't allow people in my inner circle that think do that are cultists that think Donald Trump, Andrew can do no wrong. Uh, can you at least love from a human being perspective?

Well, here, like, I'll just put it this way. Let's say that you had a guy, right? Every single day he went and he like fed orphans, right? He took care of the homeless. He was always kind to everybody. He always helped out everywhere that he could. But he didn't believe that the Holocaust happened, right? Is that in and of itself enough for you to say that person, as a person, even though they don't believe this thing, is a horrible human being just by itself?

I would have to have, yeah. I would have to have a personal conversation with them and find out why they feel that way.

Exactly. That's my whole point.

I believe so. And Andrew, I believe Myron Gaines, going back to him, is two-faced. I don't believe that he believes—

He's the least two-faced guy. No, honest. The least.

Okay. Well, I see the way my— Yeah, I have too. Right. I've spent a lot of time—

Different. He's very—

I spent a lot of time with Myron and Myron—

I did as well.

This is my genuine feeling about Myron. He's one of the kindest, actually kind, not nice. Nice is fake [ __ ]. He's an actual kind man. I think that if I called Myron tomorrow and I said, "Listen, man. I'm in deep financial straits, right? I [ __ ] up. Uh, you know, I, I went and gambled and did a bunch of [ __ ] blow, you know, and I, I, I completely crushed my livelihood and I'm just, I'm in bad shape. I think that that guy would do everything in his power to help me. And that to me is not a friendship that I'm too eager to walk away from. Like knowing that that's the case, it's really hard for me. Even if the guy says things I disagree with, it's going to, I'm not disavowing him. I'm not getting [ __ ] that. People like that are so [ __ ] rare that you can barely ever find them, dude. Ever.

So, so Andrew, I hear what you're saying. I think you can have good qualities as a human being and still have some horrible qualities. Um, I don't know how anybody could look in the mirror every day and just spread misogyny, bigotry, and hate, make money off it. I think it's very bad for society. I think he spreads misogyny and bigotry and hate for the most part. I think that especially on the misogyny—

When you say women are second-class, Andrew, when you say women are second-class citizens, which, by the way, they're not. Uh, when you, uh, this is the thing about the Holocaust—

Myron utilizes, Myron utilizes the ideals of force doctrine. He thinks that women have to appeal to the patriarchy in order to try to disassemble the patriarchy. And so from that position, men will always be in the patriarchy. That's what he means that men will always be in the patriarchy. That's what he means when he says second-class. He doesn't think that women are ontologically lesser than men. He doesn't believe that foundationally they're lesser human beings than men. He doesn't believe that.

I mean, he treats them as objects and objects. Uh, well, I can tell you that without getting into a conversation about what Myron really likes, but I, I won't get into that conversation with you. But when you use the, the, the f-word, uh, uh, you know, homophobic slurs when you attack—

Oh, come on, man. That's like the worst. I know for sure, dude. When you were in high school, you were calling your friends—

Yeah, but I'm not— Okay, so first of all, I'm not in high school. He's a grown man. So—

Why? But why was it okay in high school? Why was it okay in high school to be like, "Hey, f-slur"?

Because there's something, because there's something called maturity and respect for others. That's—

You never called your friends like the f-slur. You never say that.

No, I don't. I don't use homophobic slurs because I think it's inappropriate and I think it's very disrespectful.

It's super like when comics, when comics use it. When comics use it or they com— Myron Gaines isn't a comic.

Well, I think that he uses effect.

Okay. Well, uh, yeah. Well, he's he's all about clicks and money. And listen, here's the thing about Myron.

No, he's not. No, no. You know, listen, I'm not going to— Here's one thing I won't do. You can say what you want about Myron. Myron has thick skin. He doesn't [ __ ] care.

I know that.

But I'm not going to let you mischaracterize him. I, I would probably two years ago maybe have thought the same thing. Maybe I, you know, he's all about the clicks. He's all about the come up. He's all about the give me that. I know for sure now that that's not the case. That Myron actually genuinely [ __ ] cares about the human beings in his proximity and will really go out of his way to take care of them. And that's not something I can say about almost anybody in the entertainment.

Maybe the people, maybe the people in his proximity. But here's what I will tell you. I did a live debate in DC with Tim P, Myron Gaines. I talked to Tim yesterday, by the way. He said you're filling in Friday, not Thursday. He told me you're filling in Thursday.

I switched the day.

Friday.

Oh, okay. He told me Friday. Mhm.

By the way, you can't expect me to remember such trivial details, Brian.

You got to lay off the blues, man. It's not good for you.

You know, well, or maybe I'm just so busy going on the largest podcast in the world that I just can't be bothered to remember that.

Listen, I took a lot of [ __ ] for saying a lot of nice things about Tim P and his people. They're very nice people. They've treated me with respect.

Staff is his staff is fantastic and Tim P himself is fantastic. But there's a lot of people on the left that refuse to do his show. I'm obviously not one of them.

That's because they get wrecked.

Well, I, I would not characterize me going on there as getting wrecked. And I think Tim has respect.

Oh, come on, dude. You lost that debate with him. Even you have to admit that you lost the debate with Pool. Like, you at least think that, right?

In what aspect?

Oh my god. Every aspect. He, he rhetorically, yeah. He, he rhetorically beat you. He beat you on the facts. He beat you on every, in every single capacity. On what?

Let's pull— We can pull up the debate and watch it if you want.

I'm asking you. You're making the claim. You don't have to pull it up. Just tell me like how did he—

Yeah.

I think that I think that he used. I think that Tim P, one thing that he doesn't get enough credit for, and I think that people think he's stupid on, and they, they are not correct about this.

Never said he was stupid.

That what Tim P does is he remembers little tiny factoids from like 10 years prior. And he has the unique ability to bring those [ __ ] things up in five seconds. Just like, bam, remember this in [ __ ] 2019, 2018. He can bring that [ __ ] up. It's almost, I don't know how the [ __ ] the guy does it, but, uh, when he does, it's brutally effective.

And I recall there's a lot of people, go ahead. There's a lot of people that, uh, that wouldn't characterize it. But when you went to use the restroom, this is the point that I was making in that if I'm debating anybody, in this case Tim P. If you're a Tim P fan, you're going to say, or you're on his side politically, you're going to say that I got dogwalked. If you listen to me on a regular basis or you lean to the left, you'll say that you destroyed him. That's why I don't really get into the, "I won the debate, I lost the debate." Here's what I will say. The video that went viral, the thing that went viral, Andrew, in that interview—

Mhm.

Was when I called Donald Trump a 34-count felon. And there's context to that. I wasn't saying that they didn't raise it from misdemeanors to felons. Heck, I wasn't even saying that I felt like he was treated fairly. What I did say, and the only thing I said was, he is a 34-count felon, and if you think it was wrong, the jury got it wrong. They overprosecuted him. These were misdemeanors. Okay, fine. I wasn't arguing that point and he flipped out on me. And you know, he doesn't usually scream like that unless he's calling Candace Owens the C-word. By the way, I do agree with him on that. Um,

Bro, I've been in heated— I've been in heated debates with Tim and that's just Tim. Tim, that's the way he—

Apologized to me after, after the show.

Yeah, Tim, Tim's like that. He's a nice guy. But the thing is is like—

He's a nice guy.

When he's when he's debating, he's using an adversarial tone because you're in an adversarial context.

Andrew, Andrew, I don't take that personally. I really don't.

Yeah.

And then afterwards, we were, we were fine. I mean, it's, it's fine. You know, this is, there's a part of this that's a show. You know that. Okay. I don't know how I—

I actually try not to like, I always felt like the me that you get in person is the same me that you get here.

Yeah. Yeah. But I'm not going to go up to somebody wearing a MAGA hat and call them a right-wing buffoon. I mean, come on.

Yeah, I know. But I would go over to a left-wing person and call them a stupid woke feminist [ __ ].

You, you wouldn't just go— No, I don't believe you would do that. Just randomly go up to a stranger? No. Come on. No, Andrew. I do not believe. So, you're telling me you would go up to a random stranger at a bar and if they were wearing like a Kamala shirt, you would just insult them and go up to them? I don't believe you would do that.

Depending on context, but yeah, probably.

I don't think you— Well, come on. No, that's—

I might. You know what? I'd probably do it funny though. I'd be like,

I help me understand a supporter.

Okay, Andrew, I need your help.

Yeah.

Can you help me understand something coming from your perspective? I'm serious. I went to Amfest. I was like the only person on the left.

Were you in—

That they gave a credential to?

Yeah. They gave me a credential.

Yeah. You know, I was out there. I debated Alex Stein and—

I didn't remember if you were actually at Amfest or you just did the debate across the street or whatever.

Well, I did both. Yeah. So, they gave me, so they gave me a credential. So, you know, me and Jack Bobic have had debates on Pierce and Michael Knowles invited me to his cigar party and like these people could not have been nicer to me. I did like 10 debates there and I was actually taken away the people on O and I do them now, right? And—

Yeah, it's the same thing when people show up to debate con. I'll have the entire thing. I'll have a massive audience, live audience. Other than Destiny, I'm one of the few on the right who can just bring in a massive audience and they're always shocked. My debate with, my debate partners that no, it's the opposite. The truth is is that—

The right is full of kind people. I, I made this observation at debate con. I remember Richard Carrier came over and he was like, "This is a blast," and so did my other opponent Craig. He's like, "This is so much fun." Thank you. I paid for everything, right? I had an open bar, invited him to the party. I paid for everything. I took care of everybody who was there. I thought it was the least I could do, especially for the audience who showed up, right? I, I, I paid for everything. And I remember sitting there thinking to myself, you know, it's the difference between us. These guys feel comfortable enough with us that they'll play board games and have a good time and get drunk and [ __ ] they'll stagger on her shoulder up to the room. You don't feel like that when you're out with the [ __ ] left. And I know cuz I've been out with them and you're [ __ ] guarded and they're awful and they [ __ ] they do everything they can to make it as [ __ ] horrific of an experience as they can for you.

I'll give you, I'm going to give you my proof.

My proof that I can give you that you'll have to acknowledge.

Do you remember what happened with Z and Unfuck America? Z—

I do.

Z, we were in negotiations for the debate. Never even had an agreement to a topic prompt, nothing. Immediately, these guys become as hostile as possible. They only wanted me to show up for a 20-minute debate and then do a bunch of [ __ ] Q&A for an hour and a half so that they could dunk on the audience, right? They basically treated us like [ __ ] trash. That whole left-wing organization treated me and Myron like trash. So, we were like, "Fuck you. We're never going to do another event with you [ __ ] people. [ __ ] off." And why? What was the point of that? Like, what did that gain them or gain anybody? And that's what you get with the left. You get them being [ __ ] horrific and horrible. And what you get with the right is you show up to the event and you get the cigar bar and the alcohol.

Let me, let me respond to that. First of all, I mean it when I say I probably have more friends on the right than the left. Um, I have some friends.

Doesn't surprise me.

What's that?

It doesn't surprise me. The only ones who are trustworthy.

Well, there's a lot of people, uh, on the left that some on the right don't want to be a part of. I will also say that I had nothing to do with the communications between you and Z. Um, you dumped on me.

No, no, no. I'm not saying you have nothing to do with pointing out the difference of how right-wingers treat people versus left. It's night and day. I—

Listen, listen, there are plenty of Republicans that are invited to the Democrat National Convention that are treated just fine. I've been to both. I've been to the Republican National Convention. I've been to the Democrat National Convention. I see it both ways. Now you're making a generalization that everybody on the left, they're all just [ __ ] and they're— That's not true. And listen, I think you, while I'm not a liberal, and you disagree with, you know, whatever. I don't want to get into that again. I obviously lean to the left on social issues and I'm very anti-Donald Trump.

There's only two organizations that I've heard—

Andrew.

That even treat right-wingers well. One is the Young—

Dating. Go ahead.

I was just going to say I'm dating somebody who voted for Trump three times. So, you know, all the point I'm not like that.

There's only two organizations I'm even aware of that that treat right-wingers decent as guests that I've heard feedback for. One is the Young Turks.

I've been told that when guests go on there, they treat them extremely well. Like behind the scenes and this and that. So, credit where credit's due and Chankers. That's what I was told. And then—

Listen, the other one, surprisingly for guests, well, I won't even name it, but it was surprising to me. But the point is, is like, that's it. That's basically [ __ ] it, dude. I, everything else I get is feedback of like, it was hostile. They were awful to us.

Andrew, you're— I just feel like you're making a gross, you know, generalization on the entire left. Name the name it like a left-wing, you know, podcast or place that has right-wing guests on that actually treat their guests.

More people, Andrew, I have more people on the right than the left on my show. Every day I have people on.

Yeah, but you're not a leftist, right? I'm talking about left-wing shows.

Andrew, I lean to the left. We all could agree.

Oh, wait a second. Wait a second. Thought you weren't a li, right?

I'm an independent that, Andrew, I'm an independent that certainly leans to the left on social issues. I've, I've, I openly admit that. I've had Caroline Levette on my show multiple times. I've had Robert F. Kennedy Jr. on my show. I've had Vivek Ramaswami on my show. I have regulars on the right almost every day. But you know what it is, Andrew?

Sounds like you're like a [ __ ]. You're a leftist when it's convenient and then not when it's convenient.

No, I don't. No, that's not true. Uh, I've never said anything on the air that I don't truly believe. But Andrew, I will say this. I don't want to interview people that I agree with because I think it's [ __ ] boring.

Do you do you take your guests out to dinner?

Sometimes. Sometimes.

You don't take each one out to dinner?

No. No. Well, here's the thing. Most of them are, most of them are virtual, but when somebody comes to town—

No, in person.

Yeah. Yeah. If they're willing to take the time, uh, out of their, like the Mooch, for example, Anthony Scaramucci came out. We grabbed dinner. I've had some very—

Did you pay for the dinner?

Absolutely. Of course. If they're willing to take the time to do my show,

Of course. Hey, I want to show them a good time. I, I can't name the network. Okay. I can't because I'll get these people in trouble. But I'm on a very right-leaning network on a regular basis. And I was hanging out with some of the guys in Vegas over the weekend from that network. And I treated them nice. I, I—

Well, Yang on. You were hanging out with them.

From their network, right? So, of course. Yeah.

What I'm talking about is when people engage with left-wing networks, they usually get treated like me and Myron did—

Trying to just negotiate an average debate—

With Unfuck America. And so the thing is is like, but you claim you're not a lefty. I'm talking about leftists here.

This is the case that I find. Yeah, exactly. I wish you wouldn't say that you weren't a lefty. But anyway, the point is is that leftists, leftists themselves—

Generally treat the right extremely poorly. And usually when, when we invite people out to our shows, we treat them extremely well. An example, and I went out to Rogan's, right? It wasn't just Joe Rogan who was great to me. Gave me, gave a me and my wife, he was so kind to my wife, unlike somebody I know, but anyway, he was so kind to my wife, right? Gave her all access pass behind, uh, behind the scenes along with me. And we hung out with the guy for hours and hours and hours. He was couldn't have been [ __ ] kinder and more down to earth or any of the comedians back there. Going over to, like Brian Callen, another very famous comedian.

I know. He's done my show.

Very guy.

When I went out to dinner, the first thing he did, and of course we're fighting over the bill, he goes over and this [ __ ] goes and and he [ __ ] took care of the bill. I couldn't even big dog him.

Right. These, these are great people. How many people are friends of yours on the left? This is not the experience we get on the [ __ ] left. Don't get that experience.

How many big lefties have you gone on like their shows or you've become texting with?

How many big leftists even have [ __ ] people on their shows?

I mean, I don't know. I mean, I'm one of them, but—

Very. Well, I don't consider you to be a big lefty or, you know, a big creator.

But Andrew, here's the problem. Here's the problem, Andrew. It's like there's not many lefties that have guests, uh, and do what I do. I get after it with people on the—

Yeah. How are they going to get guests? They treat them all like [ __ ].

Well, listen, I've had some very contentious interviews with some people. Byron Donalds, I got into it with him. Uh, Tatum, you know, I don't, me and Myron had a 25-minute— He did my show and we were respectful to one another.

I mean, um—

Who was—

Myron? Myron Gaines did my show like, like—

Yeah, of course. Myron's a great guy. That just affirms my point over and over.

Listen, look, if you really thought that that Myron was like some horrific [ __ ] snazy or whatever, why are you taking him out to dinner and being nice to him?

Yeah. Well, I didn't take Myron out to dinner and I wouldn't. Uh, he did my show, but not—

Why would you take Myron out to dinner?

Well, here's why.

I thought you took all your guests out to dinner.

He wasn't in person, Andrew.

Oh, if he was in person, would you take him out to dinner?

Probably not. I'd make an exception for him. And here's why.

Well, here's why.

He wasn't in person, Andrew.

Oh, if he was in person, would you take him out to dinner?

Probably not. I'd make an exception for him. And here's why.

So when I did a live debate with him, Tim P and Alex Stein in DC, you know, he made Jewish slurs at me and he said, and his friend Solommani or whatever his name is called me the K-word. And it's like, and then off the stage, he shakes my head, "Hey Brian,"—

Did you did you do— Hang on. Did you do nothing though?

No. Were you like, were you calling him names?

So hold on. Hold on. So I'm, as you know, I match energy of people. I do. You also started sometimes, Brian.

Um, perhaps, but I don't go racial. I don't—

Did you [ __ ] start it with him, though? Did you?

No. So, go back and watch it. So, he called me a drrele spinner and he made some, some slurs about me and then I said some, not slurs, but I, I said some nasty stuff. We both went back and forth. One thing I will not do, and you'll never find me doing this, is attacking somebody because of their religion or the color of their skin.

Yeah, but isn't that consistent for Myron? Like, I know that Myron will use Jewish words.

Andrew, it's just wrong.

But if you call Brian or, I'm sorry, if you call Myron— W, he's not going to lose his [ __ ] over it.

But Andrew, it's wrong. I would never do that. It's just—

Well, hang on. Do you understand though? Found I keep trying to like dive into that. I'll try again though. Do you understand world views are built upon the beliefs which you hold? If Myron is willing to call you every like Jewish slur in the world, but also doesn't give a [ __ ] if you use every ethnic slur against him, that's actually the consistent position.

You know what I mean? That's actually consistent. Whereas, like, I'll take a look at leftists. Leftists will be like, "You should never talk down to women." And then say the most horrific [ __ ] to my wife you've ever [ __ ] heard. It's like, "Shut up, you lying stack of shit." Like, they're the most people, period.

I don't care whether you're a woman or a man. If, if you're mean to me, I'm going to be mean to you. And maybe I need to be better at just walking away. But I don't think that's a defense. If you're just a bigot and you're okay with other bigots, I don't think that's a defense for. Listen, Myron, when we got off the stage and we said, you can look it up. We said horrific things to each other.

And he didn't take—

I was assaulted, by the way. I was assaulted at that event.

And he didn't take it personally, did he?

Yeah. Well, you know, he shook my hand and he was very quiet mannered and I'm like—

He didn't take it personally. So what, what you're saying is that Myron was able to engage with you in the most brutal rhetorical way possible and he was still able to walk off that [ __ ] stage without taking it personally. And man, instead of giving him credit for that or credit's due, I feel like he's a bad guy, right?

I'd rather have somebody be consistent. And I don't know whether he believes. I don't think he believes a lot of the stuff he says and that's phony.

Well, what should he have done? Walk off the stage and punch you in the mouth, you know, like, I mean, I mean, you know, just don't say anything. Um, and, and like, I guess, I guess I want consistency. I think when you're two-faced, um, and yes, I do believe Myron to an extent says a lot of things just for clicks. And I know—

I think it's way more two-faced to upfront put on a persona of like virtue and this and that and then behind the scenes you say horrible things to people. And I see that on the left constantly. So the thing is, like, at least it's consistent when a [ __ ] is a [ __ ] [ __ ]. You know what I mean? And then at the same time, if you're an [ __ ] to him is like, me, well, one could probably say that you could call me a lot of things, you can call me an [ __ ], but at least I'm consistent. You know, I'm, I'm pretty consistent. I treat people the way they treat me. And, uh, I just, I just feel like this is a problem with right-wing grifters, whether it's whether we're talking about Nick Sorter or Cam Igby.

What do you say?

When you say grifter, though, man. Yeah. Like to me, a grifter is somebody who's espousing things they don't believe specifically because they think there's a paycheck in it for him. Like a shill. A shill.

You think Nick Shirley cares about fraud?

Yeah, I do.

Think he cares? You do?

I do.

You think he cares about the war in the Ukraine? Think he cares?

I don't know about that topic with him, but—

He went over to Ukraine. I debated Nick Shirley at Amfest. He, he went over to, uh, Ukraine and he made satire videos.

But wait, wait, wait. But hang on.

Yeah. Regardless of the specific person, let's just grant, let's just say I, I granted this person's a grifter. It's irrelevant. The, the thing is, what a grifter is is somebody who's espousing things they don't believe for a paycheck. That's what a grift is. Or they're like trying to [ __ ] sell you something and then they never deliver on the thing. That would be a grift, too.

Is Candace Owens a grifter? Um, I think that I, I think fundamentally she's wrong about almost—

Everything she says, but I wouldn't go as far as she believes that Israel was responsible for Charlie Kirk's murder.

The problem with really stupid [ __ ] people is they often believe the [ __ ] they're saying. Yes, that's true.

You think she believes that? See, I don't think she believes it, Andrew. I think she just says it to create controversy. I think there's a lot of people.

When you say Trump's a fascist, I believe you. Well, I think it's an absurd position. I think it's nonsense. I think it's non-demonstrable and [ __ ] crazy. But I believe that you believe it.

I haven't said that. And I haven't said the fascist I didn't I didn't finish my sentence.

I haven't said that until very recently.

And without getting into the fascist debate because I've never said anything.

I'm not trying to get into the fascist debate. I'm just saying Exactly. I truly think you believe that. Um, at this point I do, but I haven't I've already I've been attacking people for years, not attacking, but criticizing who who made references to Nazi Germany and called him a fascist. I said, "Let's not go there. It's the ICE stuff that put me over."

So, now there are people I can point to who are legitimate grifters. Meaning, I think that they're espousing things they don't actually believe.

Who do you think is the worst rightwing?

I'm not going to [ __ ] say, but the point is is like, who's the wor Okay, I'll tell you what. Who's the worst leftwing grifter? Let's start with that. Um, I'll answer any question you got. I'm not afraid. Um, the worst left-wing grifter. Man, I haven't really thought about that.

Uh-huh.

Uh, who's the chick on MSNBC? [ __ ] I don't know if she's a grifter. Oh, no. She's not a Democrat. [ __ ] What's her name? Absolute grifter. Uh, why am I forgetting her name? It's driving me nuts. Um, I'd have to find somebody on the left that only does stuff on social media for money.

So, you can't think of any, right?

Um, no. Well, well, I think I like for instance, Isabella Duca on the right, that's a grifter. Tommy Lauren, some grifting going on there.

Like there's a few I can name. Can you name Nick Serter? Nick Sorter.

Nick Sorder is not a grifter.

Really. A journalist. When he when he goes in the front of Tim Hard doesn't matter if there's specific things you don't like about Sorter, you would have to demonstrate to me that there's things he's saying he doesn't himself believe and he's doing it for the purposes of money. That would be the grift, right?

Yeah. I I think I I I that's why I put Nick Shirley in that category.

Uh, I don't think he's saying [ __ ] he doesn't believe. Uh, well, when you say that there's no children in there and uh it's it's locked and closed, but you don't see the sign on the front door that says they don't open till 2 p.m., I think you're grifting. I don't think he cares about fraud. I think he's

That's not grifting, right? Well,

he he genuinely believes that he genuinely believes that there's fraud going on there. You I mean, you agree with that, right?

So, if you care about of course, but if you care about fraud, then you should also Why isn't he investigating the 20 people that Donald Trump has pardoned that? Yeah, but you see how you you're like when you move back to the talking points. You see how that doesn't any griff though. That doesn't demonstrate that he's grifter.

Okay. Who's the swimmer? I debated her on Pierce who's anti-trans in sports. What's her name? Uh you know uh Riley Gaines. Okay. Absolute grifter. Why do I say that? Why do I think Riley Gaines is a grifter? We don't know her because of the swimmer that she was. We know her because she attacks transgenders 24/7. She makes tens of thousands of dollars making the same speech. We get it, Riley. I agree with you. Naturally born men should not compete with women on the playing field. I agree.

Do you think she believes it?

Oh, absolutely. But here's the problem.

And that's not a grift.

No, no, no, no, no. It's a grift because for the last three or four years, she's made the same speech. She's turned it into a Fox News career.

Sure. and she doesn't really talk about real issues uh that I think far more than you believe you believe the things you say, right?

Yeah. I mean, obviously jokes, but

and you make money off of the things that you say and believe, right?

Sure.

She's doing the same thing. You would have to show me that she doesn't believe that speech or that she's she's somehow telling telling you things that she doesn't believe because there's a paychecking and that's it.

Andrew, it's not that she doesn't believe that that transgenders shouldn't be, you know, on the on the playing field. It's not that she doesn't believe that.

I believe the same thing she believes, but it's that for the last four years, she's been making millions of dollars collecting off of the same speech. But yet,

when we do talk about

Well, but when we do talk about sexual abuse, when we do talk about more prevalent issues that affect young women, she doesn't talk about that, but she sticks on the anti-RA. Okay, Jo Matt Walsh, there's another Okay, I'm just going to say

that guy is not a grifter.

An absolute piece of [ __ ] in my opinion.

Maybe. But but maybe you can think that, but how would you how would you say he's a grifter? Matt Walsh, I've always gotten the impression, truly believes what it is Matt Walsh is saying.

So, I guess you can be an absolute racist homophobe and believe it. And I guess, but I get the sense with Matt Walsh because he's not a dumb guy that he spreads this sort of stuff. Like, if you believe Don Lemon should go to jail for 20 years, there's something wrong with you. Okay.

I think he does believe John Lemon should go to jail for 20 years. I don't believe that. No. If No. If you believe you beat police officers on January 6th and you're a hero or a patriot, but Don Lemon, who recorded a church protest, should be in jail for 20 years, then you're probably a racist.

Yeah. But do you see like you can believe that everything the guy says comes from a position of racialism? You can believe that everything that the guy says comes from a position of just plain meanness. Even he's just like, let's just say he's just like a plain mean guy.

You're making money off Yeah, a grifter would be somebody who is telling you things they know isn't true because there's a paycheck in it for him.

Matt Walsh, I never got the impression was saying things he thought was untrue because there was a paycheck in it for him.

All right. Well, let's go with that theory. Uh JD Vance, Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz. I mean JD Vance said that Donald Trump could be the next American Adolf Hitler. Marco Rubio said if Donald Trump didn't receive a half a billion dollars from his dad, he'd be selling fake gold watches in Manhattan. Ted Cruz, you know, called him a bunch of things. A lying scumbag will never, you know, and then all of a sudden when Donald Trump wins, they kiss his ass. I feel like it's the majority of the MAGA Republicans in DC today. They're afraid of Donald Trump because they know if they criticize him, they will lose power. Look,

isn't that what you're saying?

I don't know why you're like preaching to the choir here. Like these are not I'm not big fans of any of these people.

Well, but isn't that great?

This whole idea Yeah. Oh, well, yeah. I mean, like Ted Cruz, I saw Ted Cruz when he was talking with uh Tucker Carlson, and I got the distinct impression that when he was talking about Christian Zionism that he was not being truthful or honest with his real position there, but rather it was a politically expedient one. And so, yeah, if you wanted to say that that's grifting, I don't have any problem with that. I don't think anybody in my audience would have a problem with that. I don't think anybody would

I think that is a majority of MAGA Republicans in Washington DC.

I think it's just the majority of politicians, bro.

I mean, perhaps, but I I look at Marjorie Taylor Green and I think the only reason why she went against Trump is because she knew she wasn't going to win re-election because she knew that Donald Trump wasn't going to support her. So now all of a sudden she's

Do you really think that like AOC is being honest when she's saying that um, you know she wants to get money out of politics and that Elizabeth Warren's being honest when she says she wants to get money out of politics? Do you think Bernie Sanders being honest when he says he wants to move back to socialism? Do you like do you think that that's really honesty from these people?

AOC has is worth around three or 400 grand. I don't think she's worth more than that. Bernie Sanders has been in this game a long time. I think his net worth is around maybe five. if I could be wrong on that. Um, so I think there are people in DC I do believe, even though I don't always agree with AOC. I She's a little bit too far to the left for me, but I do think that she is a genuine person. I do believe she cares about people, especially brown people in this country.

Yeah. Do you think she really wants to get money out of politics, though, or do you think that her and Bernie and Elizabeth Warren have has done everything in their power to capitalize on the monetary system in politics? It sounds they make they make these talking points about this stuff and then when after they make the talking points about it, they go out immediately and they're contrary to their own value structure. It's like that seems a lot like grifting to me. And so the thing is

Elon Omar, what's her net worth?

Okay, listen. I'm not here to defend Ilhan Omar. I've called her out repeatedly. I do believe she's anti-Semitic. I think Rashida Talib is a despicable human being. Is he on Omar a grifter?

Um, I would tend I wouldn't have a problem with somebody calling her a grifter. I don't I disagree with your characterization of AOC. She's worth two or 30 hundred grand. She has not. Now, Nancy Pelosi, absolutely. She's she

she's a grifter.

Uh, absolut. I mean,

it just sounds like it just sounds like there's a lot of [ __ ] grifter.

Yeah. I just don't think I just don't I just don't think AOC is one of them. I think you can disagree with her, but I don't think she's a grifter. I do believe she she believes in what she says. Do you think AOC the stuff she says she doesn't truly believe what she says? I think she's genuine with what she says. You might not agree with it, but I think she's fairly genuine with what she says.

I I guess you could say that, man. Right. But the thing is is um I it's not a it's not a battle or a hill that's even worth dying on. I'm just kind of pointing out that this is such a widespread thing inside of politics because because it's a team sport. It's a team because it's a team sport. You got to play ball.

Andrew, but I understand what you're saying. I'm not a defender of Ilhan Omar, but all these people on the right, they claimed that this was a staged attack. It's like they they want to demonize Don Lemon. I I do I'm not calling everybody on the right racist. Okay, that's not what I'm doing. But I do think some people the first instinct is, "Oh, I'm glad I hope she's okay." No, it's not that. It's It's just a fundamental difference between the left and the right. Remember when Paul Pelosi was attacked with a hammer and you had elected officials that said it was a gay relationship and that he let him in, but then when Mitch McConnell freezes up and has a Joe Biden's the first one to pick up the phone and say, "Hey, are you okay?" Every Democrat out there was, "We hope Mitch McConnell's okay." There wasn't one elected official that ever celebrated the the death of Charlie Kirk. But yet, I hear people on the right always say, "The left celebrating the death." Yeah, there's going to be idiots on social media. I don't condone that. But not one Democrat- elected official celebrated the death of Charlie.

Yeah. But here's the thing that's that's weird about this, right? Is I get what you're saying, but the problem is is like look at the followers though. Like you can say all you want that for the purpose of political expediency, these big leftist politicians, they're not going to come out and be like, "I'm glad Kirk is dead." Of course not. That would be reprehensible and they would just get [ __ ] slammed for it. But if you if you were here for the two weeks of Tik Tok invasions I did after that talking to all of the leftists who voted these people into office, it was reprehensible. I'd be like, "Yeah, you glad Kirk's dead." Oh, yeah. I think it's the best thing ever. [ __ ] that guy. Blah, blah. Well, that's wrong.

These are But these are But here's the thing. The over representation of the followers of these people who believe this stuff lets me know that um they must see something else in these Democrats than I see because they they seem to be moving towards that rhetoric. No problem. They don't seem to have a problem with it at all.

What Democrat is endorsing political violence?

Well, let's talk for instance let's talk for instance. Oh, I I didn't say elected official. In fact, I said the opposite. They can't do that. But let's talk about the mouthpieces. Let's talk about unfuck America. Destiny himself recently put out tweets saying that um Charlie Kirk's death was much more justified than uh than PR's death. He just said that recently. He said a firefighter who was at this place, it was justified that he was killed because he was there for Trump. He said horrible Hang on. Hang on. Horrible over-the-top rhetoric like this. He doesn't give a [ __ ] And he's a spokesman for that organization.

Yeah. Well, I I don't like those statements. I've had private conversations with Destiny about that. Um, I also don't think that Destiny endor, you know, personally wants He said this. He doesn't want violence. He's made some tweets that I disagree with. I've I've tweeted things out and then I've said a couple days later, man, I probably shouldn't have said that. I was wrong. We all make mistakes with some of the things he says, but I can tell you in the private because I know

how many how many [ __ ] tweets?

Listen, I'd have to go back and look at those. I don't think that like 50 Listen, I can only speak for myself. I can tell you I got a cried and I was emotional on the

air. My point I'm not trying to conflate your positions with Destiny's positions. What I'm trying to do is explain to you that yeah, politicians aren't going to come out and be like, "Oh, I'm glad that this [ __ ] this massive political personality who was one of the threats to our institutions."

Sorry to interrupt. I just there's someone on the super chat that said something that is not true. Not that I really read all of them, but I was on with Riley Gaines because we're to stay on topic here. Riley Gaines said on Pierce Morgan that elected Democrats were celebrating the death of Charlie Kirk. That is a bald-faced lie. She didn't say Democrats. She said elected Democrats. I'm not talking about idiots with eight followers on social media. By the way, if anybody was joyous of the death of Charlie Kirk, I called that out. I was emotional on the air. I was supposed to debate Charlie. Yeah.

When did you publicly call it out with Destiny? Uh,

instead you work with the guy, right?

No, no, I talked about it on the air

with him.

I asked him about Yeah, I talked about it with him.

What was the episode?

Look it up. Look up Destiny Brian. You'll find it on my YouTube page, ptl radio show. I've had private conversations with him and I said, "Listen, I disagreed with Destiny. I I disagreed with the stuff he said on Pierce Morgan." Now, I know Destiny does not want violence. I know he doesn't want political violence. And here's where I disagreed with him. Just because Donald Trump doesn't call out things that you want him to call out doesn't mean that we shouldn't call it out. I think that's wrong. Now, I am not going to sit here and celebrate Charlie Kirk's life because I don't think he was a good guy. But what happened to him was [ __ ] awful. It was murder and I hope Tyler Robinson spends the rest of his life in jail. We have to be able to call it out. doesn't mean and listen, Will Chamberlain,

was uh was was Charlie Kirk's death much more justified than than Freddy's?

They're both murder. I'm not going to sit here and categorize it.

So when So when Destiny tweets that out, that's I mean, obviously you're going to disavow and say that that's [ __ ] horrific, right?

I don't think I don't think that's right to categorize murder. I think that's wrong. And I've called him out for that. I think Destiny's a good guy. He's very intelligent. So people can hold different positions with you that are reprehensible and you can still think they're good people, right?

Um, so I'd have to look at the tweet that he said.

Yeah, but people can hold positions that you think are reprehensible.

What happened to

he said that Charlie Kirk's death was much more justified than PR's death.

I don't think either of them are justified.

I understand. Um,

so he can so people can hold reprehensible positions that you think are reprehensible and he'll still be friends with them.

There's a difference between which I disagree with him. I think I've established that of trying to say this is this murder is more justified than this one than flat out just calling somebody racial slurs and just hating people for the color of their skin or their religion. I think there are different levels.

I'm not sure that that's more morally reprehensible. Exactly. I don't that would make it more morally reprehensible.

I think I think there are different levels. And by the way, Destiny has never defended what happened to Charlie Kirk. He's never said that was great. Uh he deserved it. I've never heard him talk like that. Uh if he did,

he said that about the firefighter at the Trump rally. He was like that. That's what he gets. He was there. That's what he gets.

I'll have to take a look at that comment.

He also he's also said things like, you know, if uh that that he supported uh now he said this in a in a uh nuanced way, but that basically he supported the you know, people who were trying to assassinate Trump. He was like, "Oh, you know, if if he got taken out, that would have been problem solved. Great." Blah, blah, blah. It's like these are in fact, I can give you so many of these reprehensible positions. But it doesn't stop doesn't stop Unfuck America for making him the spokesman. Doesn't stop different political organizations on the left from putting him up. They don't give a [ __ ] about that rhetoric. And these are the people with the massive followers. These are the people who are wellknown. Yeah, but I mean the right the right puts up on a pedestal Kyle Writtenhouse and and and the McCloskies and Dana White who's a wife beater and Hulk Hogan who openly used the N-word and we could go both ways.

Yeah, but they're at least not hypocrites. They're at least being like, "Look, here's the beliefs that I have." And the organizations are like, "Yeah, I don't give a [ __ ] if Hulk Hogan said the n-word." The Unfuck America tour and those people are all about like, "Oh, you can never say these horrible things. They're completely unjustified." And then they put him as a mouthpiece for him and it's like what the [ __ ] are you doing? That's not that's completely inconsistent.

I mean, you know, look at the mouth. You can make first of all, I wouldn't put Destiny in anywhere near the same category as some of those other people that I mentioned. Number one, while I disagree with what he said about, and I'll have to go back and look at that the tweet. I disagreed with what he said on Pierce Morgan. I think we should all call out murder no matter what side of the aisle it's on. But let's be clear here, and this is another discussion, but the left did not kill Charlie Kirk. I don't like it when people make those claims. The left did this to Charlie Kirk. The left tried to assassinate Donald Trump. There's rhetoric on both sides. That's not

The left did celebrate it, though. That is true.

Celebrate what?

The death of Charlie Kirk.

There's not There's not one person in my orbit on the left that thought that what happened to Charlie Kirk was great or they celebrated it.

I just told you one who did who thought it was great. His name is Steven Bonell II.

No, he does not think it was. No, you're wrong. Then why is was his death more justified than Py's. Can you explain that to me?

I you'll have to ask Destiny that. But he doesn't think that what happened. He didn't want Charlie Kirk to be murdered. I know Destiny. He did not. It's not

You don't know You don't know these people that well, man. And look, I've been engaging with that guy.

Destiny better than you.

I know Destiny.

I know him better than you.

How do you know?

I've Have you ever gone out to dinner with him and had private conversation with him? Would having a dinner in a private conversation mean anything? I've been engaging with this guy for years

and his community for years. And not only that, Brian, let me just point this out right

when I'm I'm trying to give you the totality of something here. I don't think that Destiny doesn't believe what he's saying. I think he does 100%. But it's you're it's going to be a really hard cell for me to say that the left wasn't celebrating Kirk because I went on TikTok and talked to just I don't know how many and it was just overwhelming how many of them were like, "Yeah, [ __ ] that guy. He had a comment. [ __ ] him. He was a racist. [ __ ] that guy.

We're talking about we're talking about idiots on social media that say all sorts of terrible things.

We're talking about the base of the [ __ ] people voting for the Democrats.

You have to be able to separate somebody that doesn't want to celebrate the life of Charlie Kirk. By the way, I'm one of those people cuz I didn't like him. And then somebody that celebrates the death. Do you understand the difference? Yeah. And I'm telling you, they were celebrating the death of

Well, then that's wrong. You'd have to

But I'm just telling you how [ __ ] many of them I can I man, I can pull up. In fact, those are public record. That's one of the few things I don't put behind my payw wall. I told people to clip all of those invasions. Put it out for to for free to everybody. Clip it all. Watch it all so that you can see firsthand. And man, there was nothing pre-planned. I just jumped into random call after random call and just asked him a couple of questions and these people were just on cloud [ __ ] nine.

But Andrew, there's always going to be crazy people on social media on both sides of the aisle. They're going to

like all of

It's not all of them. Stop it. It's not all of them. There's people on the right that were celebrating the attack on Paul Pelosi, by the way. Elected officials, by the way, who are spreading conspiracy theories. You do know that, right? I mean, there are conspiracy theorists. uh after the uh New Orleans.

Look, I agree. I agree that the left believes there's no conspiracies and the right is too too far to the other side of being conspirators. I agree with this. I think that I think that I think that there should be an an like uh some kind of, you know, reason and logic which is applied. Conspiracies are very real. The government engages in them. All the [ __ ]

What bothers me about this? when they're wrong and they're proven they're wrong like the Paul Pelosi attack, they don't retract. They, you know, they don't say, "Geez, I got that wrong." Laura Loomers of the world. Look at the New Orleans terrorist attack. They said it was an illegal immigrant because of Joe Biden's open border policies when we [ __ ] learned this was a guy who was born in the United States of America.

But I mean, you can't even really blame him for that. The truth is, Andrew, let me ask you a question. in politics. In politics, especially to a leftist, when's the last time somebody came out and said, you know, I got these facts wrong and the left didn't go, see, he's a [ __ ] piece of [ __ ] scumbag, [ __ ] [ __ ] [ __ ] tar, blah, blah, blah. If it's on the right, if it's on the right, if it's on the right, and somebody says, "I got it wrong." You just did this debate earlier with Miller. You were like, "He said he said that, you know, he maybe got the facts wrong or this or that." And then you were roasting him for it. It's like, I thought that's Listen,

Andrew. I'm on the air,

Andrew. I'm on the air. I can only speak for myself. I'm on the air 10 hours a week. After Tyler Robinson committed this horrible act, there were pictures circulating online of him wearing a MAGA shirt. I posted one of those pictures. I thought it was real. I kept it up. And then the next day, I found out it was a superimposed, you know, fake photo. I took it down. I went on the air and I said, "Hey, you know what? I was wrong. I thought that was real and I took it down. But you know, in this day and age, there's a lot of misinformation out there. But here's my problem. People don't retract. They don't say they were wrong. I think this happen. I'm not saying it never happens on the left. It certainly happens a lot on the right. How many Let me ask you a question. How many

Hang on, hang on. I'm confused about I just want to get clarification on something. I want to make sure I don't I don't have this wrong. Um the episode that you did with Destiny, how long ago was that? I've I've had him on 10 times in the last

Have you had him on since Kirk Since Kirk died?

Probably uh seven or eight times. I don't know.

Have you Had him on since Kirk died?

Yeah, probably seven or eight times.

Oh, seven or eight times. Okay.

Yeah. I mean, I know there was one interview that I did with him and I said, "Hey, you took a lot of crap for what you said on the Pierce Morgan show. While I understand what you were trying to say, can you understand why people had a problem with what you said because it comes off the wrong way?" That was the way I phrased the question to him. I don't remember exactly the response he gave me. I've also

You're not exactly taking him to task for these things then.

I understand what he was trying to say. I think he said it the wrong way.

Uh he made the case on Pierce Morgan. Why should I call out what happened to Charlie Kirk when Trump won't call out blah blah blah blah blah? And by the way, later in that episode, he did call it out. But I said we shouldn't have to characterize it as because Donald Trump is so horrible and he's got no empathy that we have to be that same way. I told and that's how I feel. I think he was wrong in doing that. But I can tell you right now, Destiny has said over and over again. Of course he denounces what happened to Charlie Kirk. Of course he thinks it was murder. He doesn't condone political violence. He's he's been on the record saying that there are a lot of people on the right that will not retract anything they've said. Anything whether it's Paul Pelosi,

lots of people on the left who won't as well.

Yeah. But the point is is like do you realize I don't know, man. I feel like we're going going down a rabbit hole and we could [ __ ] do this for another hour. So, look, I got to go to bed. You got to go to bed. But we'll we'll talk another time. Uh or have another debate in the future. If there's anything out else you want to shout out, now's the time to do it.

Yeah. For all the Crucible fans out there that hate me, you can still uh watch my show. Uh ptl radio show on my YouTube page. Uh Facebook, the Brian Shapiro. You monetize everywhere, don't you? You're on how many platforms?

A lot.

You're on a lot of platforms. Uh, tell the guys on the Tim Pool show I said hello. They're good guys. Uh, Phil and I get into it a lot, but I think Phil's a good guy. Um, they're nice people. And uh, I went through an entire um, 4 hours and 17 minutes. Okay, before I let you go, I had a conversation with a friend of mine last night. I told him I was going to be debating you tonight. very far right, a pretty famous right-wing personality who does a TV show. I won't say who it is, but he gave me some good advice and he said, "Brian, you got to stop attacking so many people on social media. Be who you are on your show. Don't change that, but don't personally insult people." So, this is the new Brian. I'm not changing my radio show. I'm still going to call people names. I'm still going to have fun, but when it comes to social media, I'm going to take it down a few notches. So, I got some good advice and I'm going to try to take it and I've started tonight because I've held back a lot. So,

well, we'll see how long the new Brian last. But anyway,

have a good night, man. I'll talk to you.

All right. Thanks, Andrew. Take it easy.

Yeah. Take it easy, everybody. I'll be on the air tomorrow. Um, 12 to 2:00 p.m. PST for those of you that are joining. Um, that actually went a little bit better than I thought it would. That's actually a true story. Um, that was fun. Uh, that was a good time. And uh, I'll be on the air tomorrow, 12:00 to 2:00 p.m. PST. Uh, ptl radio show is my YouTube page, Facebook page, the Brian Shapiro. This is actually a new setup I have here. Doing Pierce Morgan tomorrow, so I really got to go to sleep. Um, but I hope you all have a really good night and uh hopefully me and Andrew will do this again soon. It was fun. I had more fun than I thought I would. Uh, you guys have a good night. Take it easy.