Joe Rogan podcast. Check it out. >> The Joe Rogan Experience. >> TRAIN BY DAY. JOE ROGAN PODCAST BY NIGHT. All day. >> U. So, the last time we talked [music]
uh last time I saw you, we were at a cage fight at the White House. >> That's right. That's [laughter] That's >> one of the craziest experiences of my
life. It must have been one of the craziest experiences of your life. >> Oh, yeah. It took me like 2 weeks afterwards to recover just to like go, did that actually happen? That seems It
seems so insane. >> Okay. The most insane part of it, which I guess was was before you got there to to me at least, is you like you come into work every day in the White House,
right? You you know, I have an office in the West Wing. There's the Oval Office in the West Wing. And you look out the window and as this like eightstory complex was growing up, it was the it
was just the most unbelievable thing. I think it's like the south lawn of the White House, but you've got the eighth wonder of the world [laughter] being built up around it. And every day I'd
look at it and be like, it would take me a couple seconds to be like, "What the hell is going on?" And I like, "Oh yeah, it's UFC. It's UF UFC coming in a couple weeks."
>> The whole thing was surreal. First of all, it was crazy that the weather just went around us. >> Like there was a real moment where the fights would have been postponed until
10:30 p.m. to start. >> Correct. And uh last minute the storm just diverted. >> That's right. Well, and uh you know this this uh this book that I have that I'm I
guess we'll talk about a little bit, but the book tour started the next day. So I was flying to New York the next day to talk about it. And all I could think about is every time we got the update
from White House weather, oh it might not start until 10:30. I was thinking to myself, "Holy that means I'm going to go to bed at like 4:00 a.m. I'm going to look like a total crazy person when I
try [laughter] to go talk about go talk about this book." But yeah, it it it amazingly it did work out. Honestly, it actually helped a little bit because, as you know, it was hot as hell out there
and it was super humid, you know, mid June in in in DC. And I think the weather actually helped cool it down a little bit because by about 10:00 or so, I was not thinking it's hot as hell out
here anymore. >> Yeah, it wasn't too bad. But I talked to Justin Gatey about it and he said it was a problem when he was fighting. He said the air was very thick. Okay.
>> Like it like right after the first round, he was like, "Boy, >> like this is rough." Cuz that hot humid air and you know it's >> Yeah. Yeah. No, it's it's it's fine
walking around. >> It's it's I mean it's okay walking around. It still feels it is a swamp, right? That's why people call it the swamp. So, you know, that's obviously
June 14th. That's the president. >> That's not why they call it the swamp. [laughter] >> That's one of the reasons why they call it the swamp.
>> They call it the swamp. >> They call it swamp because of my colleagues, too. >> Cuz it's filled with [laughter] mud and water and gunk and and swamp
monsters. >> Oh, man. So, that's June 14th. So, it's the president's birthday. That's also was that was my 12th wedding anniversary.
>> Oh, wow. and uh my wife. So that's that's the one thing like if somebody runs in here, it's because my wife's going into labor cuz she's like 39 weeks pregnant. But uh I remember we go out to
dinner like right before the UFC fight and we're of course checking the weather report to figure out what's going on. And you know, my wife normally likes to come to the cool stuff of being vice
president. That was the one where she was like, "It's hot. I'm super pregnant and I'm not going to sit sit out there for six hours." So >> yeah, I couldn't imagine [laughter]
Also, it was just there was so much chaos and and the potential for real chaos was always there. First of all, you have the Ellipse. So, the Ellipse has what 85,000
people outside >> and for people that watching at home like we could hear them like when the fights when when something would happen >> in like kind of a delayed way, right?
>> You hear the cheers from the people that were near. So, it was like 3,000 plus people tightly close to the octagon and then you had 85,000 people in the Yeah. >> Yeah.
>> in the background. It was very eerie. >> Yeah. >> I actually loved that. Like I loved the delay reaction to where you know somebody get a good punch in or you know
you get a takedown and then it was almost like the wave, right? Cuz there was the initial center of it and then the people outside of it. >> It was pretty sick.
>> It was pretty sick. It was very [laughter] cool. I think Dana said not once in a lifetime or not once in a generation or once in a lifetime experience.
>> Yeah. I mean, it's once ever. Yeah. I don't see any other president. I mean, if you become president, you're not going to do that, [laughter] right? >> Uh I don't know, man.
>> It's I wouldn't I didn't want to do it. >> Very cool. Get it over with. Do it once. >> It was the only time in the history of the sport where there's been seven stoppages. Seven Seven knockouts. Like
every single fight was a knockout. >> I didn't realize that. >> Yeah. Every single fight. Okay. >> But the thing is like we've had seven knockouts in a card. I think this last
weekend we had 10 10 stoppages. >> But um >> that was different because it was like 14 fights. That's right. >> This is all fights. Every single fight
was a knockout. >> So the last fight. When did you realize that was over >> with Connor? >> Yeah.
>> Um when he fell down the second time I was like this is not good. F the first time I thought he just slipped. It's hard to tell. It's wild. It's in the moment. I thought he slipped and then
when he got up and he threw a kick again, I'm like, "Oh, I don't like how his leg just gave out." That didn't seem like I'm still hoping he's just slipping.
>> Yeah. >> I'm hoping he's just freaking out cuz he hasn't been in the octagon in 5 years. >> And then he started moving around and he he like grabbed his knee and buckled.
>> Okay. >> And there was some conversation that Yeah. There was some conversation going on between him and Max Holloway. And I was like,
>> you know, Max is saying he can't fight. Like something's wrong. and he's saying, "Fight me." He's like, "Get up." And so he lets him up and then his his knee buckles. Then the referee stops the
fight. >> Okay. Yeah. Yeah. There it always So so the the very I think it was the very last fight where the the ref tried to call it at the end of the third round
and then because he was he was saying that there was a concussion issue. I mean I couldn't tell what was going on. >> This the Ilia Tapora fight, the Justin Gate fight at the White House.
>> The Taporio Justin fight. >> He couldn't see. >> Okay. >> He was saying he couldn't see. Well, something was wrong with his right eye.
>> Well, I mean it looks like his whole face was puffed up, so he couldn't see anything, but Okay. So, I thought it was a concussion thing, but it was it was because of his vision.
>> No, they never got they I mean, the concussion thing would only be if someone had been battered. There's a lot of times where fighters are fighting with concussions.
>> Yeah, it happens all the time. You get dropped in the first round, you probably have a concussion. You get back up, you keep fighting, you're fighting on instincts. There's been many times where
fighters wake up in like the fourth round >> and they've fought three rounds and they don't remember it at all. >> God, that's pretty crazy.
>> Not the best way to make a living. [laughter] >> Not the best way to make a living, man. Yeah. No. So, we saw Gachi um at the White House a couple of weeks ago and I
asked him, I was like, "So, are you done fighting?" And he kind of hesitated a little bit and then I think it was his mom was in the Oval Office with her. She's like, "Yes." [laughter]
>> Yeah. But, you know, if they offer him some life-changing money for one more fight after that performance, I have a feeling he'll take it. >> Like, what is what could he fetch for
his next fight? Like 50 more? >> It's a good question. You know, I don't know what his contract is. I don't know how it works. I don't know what the most anyone's ever I try not to pay attention
to that stuff >> because I'm not on the business end of the sport. >> It kind of color your perception a little bit.
>> It can. And it's also it's I mean I want them to get paid the most amount possible. That's my perspective. Yeah. >> But what I'm my job is just to analyze and to see what's going on and to
commentate and try to give color and life to what's happening inside the octagon. And I don't I try not to dwell too much on the money. I just want them to get paid a lot. Yeah.
>> I want them to be able to retire and never have to do anything ever again. >> Sure. >> I don't know if Justin could do that. What's crazy about it to me is just how
much the sport has replaced boxing and like there's still obviously boxing is still a big deal and fighters still get paid a lot of money but like I remember when I was I don't know in high school I
feel like people would get really excited about the big heavyweight heavyweight title bout. Now it's the UFC thing. >> So culturally it's like UFC has taken
over boxing and I don't I mean I don't know how or why that happened. Like I don't know if it's just good marketing or if it's just the fights are so much more real and intense. Like I but it's
it is a crazy shift that's happened in 20 years. >> Well, I've had some I had some friends this past weekend that manage fighters. My friend Josh Dubin and a few other
friends that actually manage boxers come to the UFC and they were all like, "Oh my god, this is so much better than a boxing promotion." Because you c all the fights are exciting. With boxing, most
people are just there for the main event. >> And a lot of people don't even stroll in until like 15 minutes before the main event. Sure.
>> Like all the famous people that sit in the front row. >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Uh in the UFC, that place is packed for, >> you know, five, six, seven fights in.
>> Yeah. >> You know, and there's 14 fights in the night and all of them are amazing. It's like in the beginning it's usually like half full
>> depending on where you are. If you're in a place like Salt Lake City, it's pretty packed like right away because they only get like one event every year or >> so.
>> But um it's just a more exciting sport. There's more ways to win. It's more dynamic. More things happen >> and there's more stars. There's so many stars in the UFC.
>> Yeah. So I'd never seen a fight live before. Like I've watched them on TV, but I'd never been there live. So kind of crazy that it's literally in the south lawn of the White House. But the
thing that I found completely shocking about it was like I would think those those like arm bar takedowns are just done. Like that's it. You're over. But there were a couple of times where
somebody had another person's arm and >> Yeah, that was Josh Hoit and Derrick Lewis. >> Bless you. >> Um and it's like holy
>> Yeah, he >> you're going to have your arm broken off and yet he didn't. >> He wasn't doing it right. >> Okay. [laughter] Josh Hok is a great
wrestler and he's an excellent fighter, but he's not really a submission specialist. I mean, he did get the arm bar, but he didn't do it right. Okay. >> He was basically like pulling on. You
have to elevate your hips and you have to create space so that the arm is bending back this way. His arm is essentially flat to his chest, which is not what you want. What you want is
>> a back arch like this where you see like how it is right there. Yeah. Yeah. >> So, what he wants to do here, what he should do instead of having his hips down, his knees up, what you're supposed
to do is heavy leg curls with the leg and elevate the hips up and pull it way back. So, he'd almost be bridging it. He would be on the top of his shoulders and bridging and then he would have broken
his arm. The other option is you pull it off to the side like this. >> Yeah. >> And you put it to the side of your hip and you can break it that way.
>> Okay. >> But it's just bad technique. >> Okay. So, watching it. No offense, Josh. >> Yeah. Yeah. Watching it, I didn't realize that. I just could not believe
that dude held out for like 30 seconds with his >> Was that more shocking or when he said Michelle Obama is a man? [laughter] Which one was more shocking?
>> Uh, definitely the armbar part. Man, [laughter] I I work in politics. People say crazy stuff all the time. >> Well, he says that every fight, does he? >> Yeah. Yeah, he said it. He said that the
last time I interviewed him. >> Oh, man. Well, it's >> He's like a pro wrestling character. People lost their minds about it. >> I know.
>> Lost their minds about it to the point where again I had the view either the next day or the day after to sort of promote this book. >> That must be fun.
>> It was crazy. It was harder than any anything I've done in politics. But the the the to the point where all of my comm's people, the thing they were most worried about was they're going to ask
you about Michelle Obama being called a man. Like what what are you [laughter] like what are you going to say about it? And I was like, what an amped up fighter told a joke after a fight. Said
something after a fight and that's actually national news. I'm still surprised. I've been in politics now for three or four years. I'm still shocked the that people get really fired up
about. >> Well, I kind of understand it because it's at the White House. First of all, a cage fight at the White House is crazy already. I mean, if he said Michelle
Obama's a man at the T-Mobile Arena in Vegas, it's like, okay, >> less of a story. He what he is is he's a very good fighter first of all and but sometimes that's not enough to get
attention and so what Josh has done is created this persona like this pro wrestling bad guy persona when you talk to him offstage he's like very normal very smart guy
>> it's just like he's decided like look I want to maximize the amount of eyeballs that see me and I'm going to create this crazy person he comes out to the Hulk Hogan song I'm a real American
who has sunglasses on, American flag band. It's, you know, he's >> I mean, I love I love the I love the presentation, but again, I like >> not the best thing to say at the White
House. Michelle Obama's a man is not the best thing to say. >> Fair, but the reaction to it to me was still totally disproportionate. >> Yeah, of course.
>> People say, Dude, people say stuff all the time. And what I Okay, I I live I I I work in a business where obviously people make life decision, life and death decisions all the time. And I'm
always a little bit caught off guard by the culture that just overreacts when clearly the thing what that Josh is trying to get is the overreaction in the first place, right?
>> So you give him exactly what he wants and like the worst you could say is, "Oh, that was an offensive comment." And you get on with the rest of your life. Like that's the worst that you could
say. the people who really flip out about it and kind of lose their minds. I just I don't understand that. >> Well, first of all, I think a lot of it is there is an economy that is
essentially based on getting reactions. >> Correct. >> And there's a lot of people that are just, for a lack of a better term, they're they're not real. They're
they're reactions are performative. Like a lot of what they're doing is just trying to trying to comment on things and get clicks and likes and views. And social media has ruined discourse in a
lot of ways because people >> it has >> people are not having like real conversations about things. is they're reacting to things on Instagram and
Twitter >> and you know they're just they they look at an opportunity like that like oh I found a gold nugget >> they're like this is going to give me
money or this is going to give me attention this is going to give oh I can't wait to have a take on that. >> That's exactly right. So but okay so my response to that is so many things is
like oh he was being funny he was being outrageous and I just move on with my life. What I find very interesting is the people who say, you know, oh, that was a joke. Like when when Kill Tony,
you remember he told like the joke heard around the world in Madison Square Garden during the 2024 election. >> I remember getting into an argument with somebody about this and I may have even
been like in an interview, but >> I don't remember. It could have been private, too. Anyway, I I'm like, he told a joke and then the person's response is, well, it's not a very funny
joke. And my response to that is, you know what happens when somebody tells me a joke that's not funny? I don't laugh and then I move on with my life. This whole industry around outrage,
>> especially getting outraged around humor, I think is actually really hurting the country. >> Well, in that case, first of all, I told Tony a long time ago that joke was going
to get him stabbed. I really did. He even jokes around about it on stage. He talks about me telling him, "That's the one, dude. That's the one's going to get you stabbed." Any good joke at least is
going to run you some risk of getting >> well certainly a a racial joke and that joke being about Puerto Rico. By the way, no one takes a joke better than Puerto Ricans. Puerto Ricans are some of
the best people at telling jokes. Like there it is a culture of joking and and around with each other and talking Like >> they're great at it. So like
>> some Puerto Rican guys in the Marine Corps, man. That's absolutely true. >> They love him still, you know, like even after that joke. What? So you you you advised him not to tell that joke.
>> Well, I was kind of half joking. You know, Tony that's what Tony does. You know what? By I just said that's the one that's going to get you stabbed. But I mean that's what Tony does. Tony is like
the Josh Hokit of comedy. Like he but very talented. You know, he's a really good he's a roaster. >> He's like roasting is is his specialty, but it's also like he's trying to ruffle
people's feathers. That's what he wants to do. He wants to piss people off. That's he likes being a pro wrestling heel. He always he's a huge pro wrestling fan.
>> Well, so well he so Tony I like I'm a huge fan of his comedy. I've only you know met him a couple times. I don't know him particularly well but he's actually like you know more political I
would say than most comedians. >> Do you think that's fair? Okay. >> So um >> well very supportive of like Trump >> like he's on the Republican team. He's
on their 100%. That's because he's experienced so many loony leftwing people in California and that's why he had to move. >> Well, somebody sent me a clip. I think
it was Shane Gillis at a roast where the the joke was they were roasting Tony and they're like, Tony Hinchcliffe is the only dude who would be excited if JD Vance was here. [laughter]
And I was like, one, that's a very good joke. And number two, I feel like I had made it. Like there have been a few moments where I feel like I've made it. When
>> you're the vice president of the United States, I think you made it. >> When when South Park spoofed me, I felt it more than when I got it sworn in as vice president of the United States.
>> That's hilarious. That's very funny. This episode is brought to you by the farmer's dog. Here's a fun fact. Research shows that dogs who maintain a healthy weight can live up to two and a
half years longer on average than dogs who are overweight. Isn't that wild and also kind of obvious at the same time? So, why is feeding vague scoops of ultrarocessed kibble still the status
quo for most dog owners? Healthy alternatives exist, and trust me, I know. I buy one, the Farmer's Dog. I use it for both my dogs. They love it. They eat it up quick. It smells good to them.
It smells good to me. It's human grade food. The Farmer's Dog makes fresh food for dogs, and my dogs love it. Their recipes are made with real meat and fresh vegetables that are gently cooked
to retain vital nutrients. They also portion out the meals to your dog's nutritional needs, which helps avoid overfeeding and makes weight management easier. And isn't getting more time with
our four-legged best friends something every dog owner wants? The answer to that is yes, obviously. So try the farmer's dog today and get 50% off your first box of fresh, healthy food. Plus,
get free shipping. Just go to the farmersdog.com/rogan. This offer is for new customers only. >> Yeah. Tony is uh I mean that's his style like like he loves like being the heel.
>> Get a kick out of it. Oh yeah. Oh yeah. He's one of the first people that moved out here with me. >> Okay. >> Yeah. I mean we've been here for six
years now. >> Yeah. And every time we go back to California, we're like, "We were right." >> Yeah, absolutely. >> We were right. It's falling apart. It
keeps going further and further down the toilet. >> Well, how do how do you feel like Austin is going? Cuz the criticism of Austin, call it five or six years ago, is that
all the like it's a cool town. It's got its own unique culture. It's Texas, but it's also its own thing. But that all of the blue sters moving in, we're going to like totally change the politics and the
culture of Austin. I actually don't think that's happened. >> I think the blue sters that moved here moved here because they recognized that wherever they were living was not
tenable. Yeah, it was falling apart. And all of these places like New York and really California, like especially Los Angeles and San Francisco, they're falling apart.
>> And I have a bunch of friends that are stuck there that can't move. Like maybe they have family there or maybe they have a business there. Y >> and they hate it. And then I
have a bunch of people that are trying to move but they can't sell their house. >> Like it's nuts there, man. I don't think people first of all you get gas lit by Gavin Newsome. I mean he's just
gaslighting everybody about how well, you know, oh the GDP of like the fifth largest country in the world. That's what California is. >> It's like dude,
>> hey bro, it was like that before you were the governor. >> Yeah, exactly. Also, how much does a U-Haul cost if you're leaving California? And how much does it cost if
you're going in California? Because that's the real measure of whether a state's doing well. >> Yeah. The state has more people moving out than moving in. And that has never
happened before. Correct. California's when I moved there in 1994 until I left, it was always every year traffic got worse. Every year more people moved there. Every year. And
>> I loved it. I loved it. I loved it. From the time I moved there, I was like, "This place is great. It's warm all the time. The weather's fantastic. There's [clears throat] so much cool stuff to
do. The people are great. >> Yeah. >> And then politics ruined it. >> That's right. So, my wife's from Southern California, San Diego, and so
we spent a fair amount of time there. And I I just, man, I still feel a certain sense of like heartbreak over LA. Oh, >> because every time I'm in LA, you can
see why this was like the quintessentially American city. The architecture is beautiful. It's got its own vibe going. Like you said, the weather is amazing. And then you drive
through Skid Row and you're like, how could any state or any city let this happen? >> Skidro is now 55 blocks. It was 50 blocks just like a year or two
ago. >> Okay. So my my first experience with Skidro was so Usha used to work at this like very fancy litigation firm in in Southern California. Um you before she
was second lady, she was a corporate litigator. So, there's a Christmas party in downtown LA and you get these instructions from her firm and they're like this really convoluted way of this
is how you have to get to this Christmas party. And I'm like, why do I have to follow these direct directions? Why don't I just put it in Google Maps, right? This is like five or six, seven
years ago. So, we realized that the reason why they gave you these convoluted directions was so that you could avoid Skid Row at night. And so you get to this party, you drive through
Skidro if you follow Google Maps's directions. You get there and it's like this beautiful facility with like fancy food and fancy wine and then there are armed guards outside of it and these
gigantic walls. And I realized when I was there, you know what this reminds me of? This reminds me of going to the US embassy in Porta Prince, Haiti. like super security, crazy wealth and
privilege and status on the inside and squalor and misery on the outside. Like it's the first time I'd ever thought America, like this part of America is actually more like a third world country
than anything that I thought we'd ever become. >> Let me ask you this. >> Yeah. >> Why is it that large population centers
like places like Los Angeles and New York are almost always run by the Democrats? Yeah. >> Like what is it about? First of all, what happened with the last election in
Los Angeles, the just the primary I I think was so super sus. And here's why it's super sus. >> Not just super sus that Spencer Platt, Spencer Pratt, who was in second place,
got overtaken by Nithia Ramen in the mailin ballots, but that the mail-in ballots also passed a tax hike. The people voted to pay more taxes. >> Yep.
>> In a state where you have the highest taxes. >> That's right. >> They're like, "We don't pay enough." [laughter]
>> That is insane. And then when you have direct evidence that they were recruiting homeless people. >> That's right. >> And they were getting homeless people
and giving them cigarettes and cash. There's evidence of this. To use their their address and mail in ballots. >> Yeah. I would have I wouldn't be the Californian Joe who wakes up in the
morning and says, "You know what? I'm going to go and vote for higher taxes. I don't I don't pay enough taxes. >> I I feel like we could fix this if I just%
more taxes." The crazy thing about it, too, is it's that okay, so after the initial ballots all came in, it was Karen Bass was number one, Spencer Pratt was right right behind her, and then
number three, whatever this woman Ramen. Okay. So, you would expect the mail and ballots to be more or less like the original ballots in terms of one, two, and three. I'm not saying Spencer's
going to win the mail and ballots, but it just so happened that the third place person in relative terms did a lot better than the first and second place person
such that the Republican was actually kicked out of the race so that there's not actually a real election in California. That to me was the crazy part. It's like you were designing the
vote share in order to kick Pratt out and put the third person into second place. That to me is like very very bizarre cuz what is the theory of the mail and vote that is somehow like so
much more pro- Nithia relative to Karen Bass? >> Makes no sense. >> Makes no sense. >> Makes no sense. Why would it be? Why why
would it be? I mean Karen Karen Bass was ahead by every metric. >> Yeah. But I mean Okay. So you ask a question. Why do all these blue states or why do all these big cities
population centers end up becoming um end up becoming blue? And I think it's like very complicated, right? So, one thing and you said this a few months ago and like when you said it, I was like
kind of annoyed by it, but then I like thought there's there's like an element of truth to it, which is that Republicans still fundamentally have a cool problem, right? There's something
more charismatic, more cool about the Democrats as opposed to the right. >> And so you you said something about >> there are too many dorks or something on the right.
>> There's a lot of dorks, >> you know. Fair. I'd say there's a lot of dorks on the left. >> There's a lot of dorks on the left, too. It's a different kind of dork.
>> It's a different kind of dork. But the the point is that there's something, you know, like, okay, if you're a pop star, you're a rock star, you're an actor, you're in all these cultural centers,
you're more likely to be left than right. And so I think that a lot of young people who are attracted to these population centers, they sort of move along with the prevailing culture. I
think that's that's one thing that's going on. I think a second thing that's going on is the people who are sort of attracted to a certain kind of right of center politics. They want the suburbs.
They want the single family home. They kind of want to be left alone. They don't want sort of to be able to hear what their neighbors are doing. So I think a little bit of it's just cultural
self-segregation. And that's meant that a lot of these population centers have gone blue. But it's very complicated. I've thought about this a lot. And I also just man I
like I'm not one of these people who says we should just abandon California to the Democrats. Like let them deal with their own problems. I think California is like a quintessential part
of the American dream. Like if you just abandon California, you've like lost something very core to American culture. And I I just I don't want to give up on it. Like I'm not saying we're going to
win California in my lifetime necessarily, but I don't like the idea of giving up on it. Well, it's not just giving up on I mean, giving up on it would be terrible. It's an awesome
state. The the real problem is it's deeply corrupt. >> I mean, deeply deeply corrupt. And what they're trying to do is make it impossible for the other side to win.
Yeah. >> And there should be laws against that. First of all, the idea of mail-in ballots for anybody other than people who are invalids who can't live their
homes or military or people that for some reason they're serving overseas, they're doing something overseas, >> it should not be legal, right? >> And the fact that it became ubiquitous
during co is a giant problem. >> Yeah. So, this raises one of my total segue here, side point, but so if you remember in the aftermath of the 2020 election where there was all this like
debate about was the election stolen, was the election not stolen, all the litigation that moved through, >> there was a case in Pennsylvania that like didn't get very much attention. And
I'm going to butcher it a little bit, but basically it was a guy in a rural area of Pennsylvania saying, "You're underounting my vote because we didn't have the opportunity to do the mail-in
ballots like they did in Philadelphia and Pittsburgh." And like the argument was a kind of disparit impact, right? The cities jinned up all the mail and balloting and the ballot harvesting. You
didn't do that in the country and that hurt sort of our representation. So they take this case to the Pennsylvania courts. And what's crazy is the Pennsylvania courts basically say,
you're making kind of a good point here. Like the ballot harvesting did affect Republicans in a more negative way. It did mean that certain people in the more rural parts of the state were
underrepresented. But then the court conclusion was this is not a problem a court can fix. Like that's a political problem. Change your, you know, local elections leaders, change your laws.
Like that's not a remedy that the court has to fix. And so everybody saw that case and they're like, "Oh, the judge rules against Donald Trump, rules against Republicans for saying that
there was something illegitimate." But no, actually the judge kind of said, "There is something kind of fishy here. We're just the wrong venue to fix it." >> Well, it it's just very disheartening
that you you have to consider the fact that it's really possible that the elections get stolen. And the California one was a big one for me. And why not just have mail in or why not just have
voter ID? >> Yeah, you actually that's insane. Not only did they not have voter ID, you can't show your ID. You're not allowed to show your ID.
>> You can in fact be like prosecuted if you try to force somebody to show their ID, >> which is that seems like you want people to cheat.
>> Exactly. [laughter] >> And is this from the same people that were saying you have to have an ID that shows you've been vaccinated just four years ago to go to grocery shopping or
to go to restaurant? Yeah. No, it's it's definitely that's the part about it that I think makes most people of my political persuasion skeptical of what the Democrats are doing. Like if you
don't want to cheat in the election, then just make everybody actually show an ID. What another thing people don't realize is I didn't realize this until a couple years ago, the voter ID solves a
lot of the mail-in ballot problem because if you have to show an ID in order to get a mail and ballot in order to actually, you know, confirm that there's a real identification attached
to that vote, that solves a big chunk of the problem. >> It's just logical. Like [laughter] I don't I'm not I'm not skeptical. I'm accusing them. I
think they stole the election. >> Yes. And I'm I'm I think it's common and I you know this idea that elections can't be stolen. I always say to people, okay, do you think that the amount of
election fraud is 0%. >> No one thinks that. >> Yeah. >> No one thinks it's zero. There's always some overzealous person that works
somewhere that's doing something. There's always crazy people. They're like, "Blue no matter who, we got to win or red no matter what." There's always people right and left that are going to
try to rig the election because they think it's imperative our n like look we we saw there was people like Oprah Winfrey was saying it like if we don't win this election we you may never vote
again like what the are you talking about [laughter] like why what who's going to tolerate that left or right that's crazy right >> but that attitude allows people to
justify cheating >> correct >> and I think they cheat and I I think they've been doing it forever and I don't think there's any other reason why
you would have no voter ID? And they try to say, "Oh, it's racist to have voter ID." Like, what are you talking about? Do you think other races are incapable of going to the DMV? That's insane.
>> It's it's that's racist. >> It's actually super racist. That's really racist. >> The implication of their argument is literally like blacks and Hispanics
cannot go to the DMV to get an ID. By the way, if you look at the polling, black Americans are as pro- voter ID. Even though they you most black Americans vote Democrat, they're still
pro- voter ID as much as white Americans is. Most Americans are voter. They want voter ID except for operatives. >> So I'll offer on the Joe Rogan podcast this deal as vice president of these
United States that if Democrats really don't think that there's any cheating, give us voter ID. >> I just don't know. >> Give us voter ID and we'll stop talking.
>> Why is that not a federal thing? >> We are trying to make it a federal thing. So, we are right now trying to pass the Save America Act. One of its main provisions is a requirement that
you do voter ID. And we actually have, I think, a majority of the Senate that would support it. But this is just weird Senate procedural There is a subsegment of people who want voter ID,
but won't blow up the filibuster in order to achieve it. And so they're so married to these oldw world Senate procedures that they're going to make it impossible for us to pass Save America.
Now we we are for what it's worth trying to fix that and trying to address these like weird procedural archaic things. It's insane though. Like if you ever Okay,
>> I'm sure you hear people talk about the filibuster all the time. I don't want to go too far down this rabbit hole. >> Here's what the filibuster is. It is a pure Senate rule. It is a creation of
the Senate procedures which basically says that anything that has to do with the budget is a 50 vote threshold and anything that everything else non-budgetary is a 60 vote threshold.
Now, as you can imagine, there's some gray area on things that maybe are count as budget issues and should be 50 or are not budget issues and count at 60. So what we have tried to persuade the
Senate to do is to treat the voter ID as something that can fall within the 50 vote threshold. And there is no law, there's no provision in the Constitution. It is legitimately that
there are senators who are so attached to the idea that budget is 50, non-budget is 60 that they're quite literally willing to prevent voter ID in America.
>> God, it's nuts, dude. It's it's so crazy >> and it's also like the idea that >> somehow or like Kathy Hol had the craziest take on it. Did you
>> She often does. >> Did you see her take on it? >> I have not. >> She was talking about black people in inner cities not even knowing what a
computer is. >> Did you ever see that? >> No, I didn't see that. >> Oh my god, it was so crazy. And then this one comedian, uh, this black
comedian did this hilarious video where he was like circling around a computer, staring at it, like touching it like he didn't know what it was. [laughter] >> It's just like, what are you talking
about? Everyone has a phone. That's a computer. >> So many of these Democratic talking points presume that their own voters are actual idiots.
>> That's actually there there's a big difference between, you know, Republicans, we sort of presume that our voters are adults. And you don't see that with a I'm not saying every
Democrat, of course, I don't want to cast too broad of a brush here, but it's it's like, you know, Gavin Newsome did this speech a few months ago. The president, I think it's the funniest
thing ever because he's like speaking to a group of black leaders and black businessmen, but it's like an audience that is 95% black. And they're asking him about his dyslexia and his struggle
with education. And he basically says, "Yeah, you know, um, I'm not very smart like a lot of you." And it's like, >> I'm like you. I can't read. Can't even read.
Well, there's a ton of interviews where he's [laughter] talking about all the books he reads. Like, he's so full of He's >> He's full of but it's
>> admirably full of [laughter] >> It's It's I admire the the the the sheer tenacity that he has in being full of >> I I It really is amazing. But it it
speaks to the incentives of there's kind of like look, there's a real populism that I'm very much a fan of because I think you should be responsive to people, but there's like a faux populism
of the way that I'm going to appeal to people is by assuming that they're idiots and acting like they're idiots. Yeah. >> And then but but if you if you're
committed enough to that bit, eventually it kind of leaks out what you're doing. >> And I think that's that was sort of what Gavin did there is he told on himself a bit. [laughter]
>> Yeah. Well, it was just it's just he's bizarre. >> I will say I bizarre. >> So, I've only met Gavin I think I've only met him one time in my life and it
was it's such a crazy experience. So, the debate between Biden and Trump during the 2024 cycle and I'm there I'm actually doing an interview for a documentary when the debate starts and
there's this clip of me. The debate starts. I'm in the middle of this interview. There's a big screen behind me as I'm talking to the camera, which is here, and I kind of freeze and I look
back at the the the TV and I'm like, "Oh my god, like this is actually happening. Biden is imploding." Because if you remember, it was obvious from the get-go. So, I go to the spin room
afterwards and that's where, you know, all these reporters and all the surrogates of the candidates, this is before I was the VP nominee and I'm just like, you know, talking about how great
the president did, how bad President Biden did. Okay, I see Gavin Newsome there and he literally looks like he's seen a ghost. Like I've I've never seen a person who, as good of a bullshitter
as he is, who realized there was no selling that performance. Like, but can you imagine like try to put yourself in the perspective of a human being? I always try to, you know, be empathetic
where Joe Biden has just had that debate and you have to go on CNN to talk about how great of a job Joe Biden did. Well, my favorite is Joe Scarboro because Joe Scarro before it was like, you know, I'm
gonna say something and f you if you can't take it. This is the sharpest Biden we've ever seen. Have you ever seen that? >> No, I haven't.
>> Oh, it's amazing. And then after the debate, he's like, "We got to get rid of him. He's [laughter] got to go. He's got to go, hey, hey, hey, what what what did you say? You just said a couple of
months ago, this is the best Biden ever." >> That's wild. Well, it's like I wonder what was going on with that cuz like the debates were earlier than they've ever
been before and it seemed to me it's like there was a concerted effort to hide what was wrong with him. >> 100% >> 100%. Everybody was bullshitting.
Everybody was gaslighting us. We all saw it. I I remember a friend of mine who's >> super progressive, super liberal. You know [snorts] what I I talked about on our podcast. I'm like, "This is crazy.
even if he wins, he's not going to be the guy that's the president. You're going to have his cabinet that are running everything. Turned out I was right.
>> They were saying, "Oh, don't you understand that he has a stutter?" >> And I said, "Where the was that stutter in the 1990s?" Like that's crazy. [laughter] Like a stutter that
only shows up when you're 80. That doesn't make any sense. >> Like this is a lie. You're lying. He's had two brain surgeries like where they have to take the top of your head off.
Literally, they have to take you like a cap. They >> Wait, Biden had two brain surgeries? >> Oh, yeah. >> How did I not know this?
>> You didn't know this? >> I didn't know that he had two brain surgeries. >> He had two brain surgeries. Jimmy, please look this up. Make sure that I'm
right. I'm 99% sure I'm right. But I know he had a refund afterwards. >> Well, it kept [laughter] him alive. It kept him alive. I mean, he here Biden
has not undergone recent brain surgery. He underwent two successful lifesaving >> Oh wow. >> brain surgeries to repair two inter incraanial aneurysms in 1988.
>> Know this? >> Yeah, >> that's pretty crazy. >> His medical professionals have stated that he made a full recovery and
suffered no lasting brain damage or cognitive impairment from these procedures. Oh, it's from the Washington Post, so you know it's accurate and definitely not biased at all. And these
medical professionals, were those the same people that said that the COVID vaccine is safe and effective? Um, it's it's we we live in a wonderful time for It's like because they just
you right to your face. Like he had two brain surgeries, like major brain surgeries, cuz he's having aneurisms. >> I don't care who you are, that's
probably going to do some damage. >> It's going to leave some aneurisms, a real problem. It's a real thing. Your brain people die from aneurysms all the time.
See, that's the crazy thing is I never even knew about that. >> How did you not know about that? That's nuts. I knew about it. Well, it speaks to how constrained our media environment
is that even I had never heard that, >> right? It was not a part of the narrative. Certainly not from the Democrats, but yeah, he's it was clearly I just don't understand why they ran him
in the first place. >> The the whole thing made no sense. And then to have no primary and just stick Kla in there and then all a sudden pretend that she's the best thing ever.
And like this idea, like complete flip of her being the least popular vice president ever, always sticking her foot in her mouth, always saying crazy How dare we say Merry Christmas? You
remember that one? >> Like what the is What are you saying? Like joy is bad. Merry Christmas is bad. >> Legitimately when the campaign
consultants told me, "Hey, we're going to hit this line because Kla Harris came out in favor of taxpayerf funed sex changes for illegal aliens. And [laughter] I and I remember thinking to
myself, come on, you guys. Like, she didn't really say that. It's taken out of context. And then I go and look at it. I'm like, holy she actually said that. And she was she really was
like the very worst version of what the Democrats were producing in 2020. The thing is, it was they were all doing it because that was the incentives of the party. Like if you remember that debate
where it was do you want taxpayer funded Medicare for illegal aliens which like Medicare is the program to provide health care to the elderly that people pay into for like you know your entire
working life. You see your little Medicare tax statement and the idea that we were going to give taxpayer funded healthcare to illegal aliens. It was just insane. It was a 9010 issue but
their party in 2020 got kind of taken over by the radicals. And I I think actually maybe you're seeing a little bit of that happening right now where it seems like the radical organizations,
the nonprofits, the donors are pushing the party in a direction that most of the voters haven't gone in. Like you ask why Joe Biden was the nominee and I'll I'll say something in defense of Joe
Biden. So like was he the most effective politician? No. Had he had two brain surgeries? Yes. And clearly had shown the negative signs of aging. But he was kind of the only candidate, if you go
back to 2020, who could hold together like the reasonable middle class black American in the Atlanta suburbs with whatever is going on on the far left of the Democrat party. And I think this is
sort of the issue their party has. I mean, our like to be candid, our party has its own coalition problems. And it's it's always tough in a two-party system to hold everybody together. Like I think
about this a lot. I think it's really tough on the Democrats because the core of their party, like the most important voting block in the Democratic party is middle-class black Americans, socially
moderate to even socially conservative, maybe a little bit more economically populist on certain business and tax issues. You know, they don't want to give tax breaks to major corporations.
They also don't want to trans the kids. That's the base of their party. But then you've also got like the crazy people and you have to kind of hold that together. I think the argument for Biden
was he was one of the only people who could hold that together even though he was an awful politician in his own right even before he was like old. >> He was he was Obama's vice president.
>> Exactly. >> And you know he's established he's a known name and for the people that were kind of casuals who weren't really paying attention to politics like he's a
proven commodity. >> That's right. He doesn't read as a crazy person to the general electorate >> even though you know >> I got hairy legs [laughter]
>> when he tells stories like I tell you about cord pop. Like what >> the is going on? >> The thing I couldn't get over Biden is is just bad staff work, man. The way
that he ate ice cream. I mean, it's like, you know, we could bring some of this stuff up, but it's like they would get him eating ice cream in the most ridiculous suggestive way imaginable.
>> I never even paid attention. >> Oh my god. Like such bad optics. Okay. So, there's there's a clip I want to say from the 2016 um campaign where somebody is
campaigning in Iowa and like it's the Iowa State Fair is like one of the main things you go to when when you're running for president and they give somebody a corn dog and somebody eats
the corn dog and it becomes like a major news cycle for a long time and I I will never forget in 2024 [laughter] in 2020. >> That's how immature we are. >> I know. I know. You got to have a little
fun sometimes though. But in 2024, somebody is holding up a sign at the Iowa State Fair at I think it may have been Vakes, one of Aakes's event, Vake Rama Swami's events, and the sign says,
"Eat the corn dogs, you coward." And it's [laughter] one of the best the best political signs I've ever seen. >> That's funny. That's funny. Yeah. You You'd have to be a very manly man to be
able to eat a confidently confidently eat a corn dog. >> I don't know that I can do it, Joe. >> I eat them. They're good. >> Yeah, but they taste good. Are you I
love corn dogs. I've been photographed. You've been photographed eating a corn dog. >> I'm sure someone has. >> One of [laughter]
>> I've eaten corn dogs. The odds are >> much more interesting life than I've led. I I try I try to eat my corn dogs. That's between that's between me and my uh my kitchen.
>> I'm not scared to eat a corn dog. [laughter] I just think it's funny that people just they're so afraid of being [snorts] >> anything that looks like a dick.
>> You can't bananas, corn dogs. >> You got to be [laughter] you got to be careful when you're politics. This is an optics based business here.
>> What are those popsicles? The ones that >> Yeah. Yeah. >> Yeah. >> Yeah. I get it. I mean, but it's just like that's how crazy we are. That
that's what weirds people out. The way someone eats a hot dog. >> That's >> like Okay. >> Well, that's that's where we are, man.
>> Yeah. >> I >> It's the the difference between, you know, the crazies and the the the real reasonable Democrats is so stark to me.
I did I and it's also with the right. It's like we're always the parties are always defined by the worst examples of the right. That's right. You know. Yeah. Or or of the left, you know, whatever it
is, whether it's uh Patriot Front or whether it's uh Antifa. >> Okay. So, who do you think is the worst example of our side? Like who who do you read about on our side and your reaction
is, "Holy shit." And don't say JD Vance. This is going to be a very awkward interview. >> Um >> I'm screwed with you. Well, the the
people that you know, one of the thing I had James Tarico on the podcast and one of the things that I think he has a really good point about even though I know you're Catholic and you're very
religious, putting the Ten Commandments in schools um I don't think is the right way to do. And this is a guy Terrico who was in seminary and is very Christian. Mhm.
>> He just thinks that even though he believes in the Ten Commandments, if you're just only representing the Christian faith in these schools, you're forcing your religion into other
people's lives and that this is going to push people away from Christianity rather than encourage them to uh pursue it. >> Yeah. I mean, I think you'd never want
to force things on people. And I I do I think one of the core Christian contributions to Western civilization is the idea of freedom of religion. It's actually very much a Christian idea
because you recognize the dignity of each individual. And part of recognizing that dignity is that each person has to find their own pathway to God. You can't force this on anybody. I don't think
putting the Ten Commandments up in school is like forcing things on anybody. >> But it's public schools. So I mean, if you're going to do that, why not put
Buddhist scripture? Why not put, you know, you Muslims stuff? You could you could you could make an argument why you should have a bunch of different religious tenants in schools.
>> I think in the Supreme Court there actually are a lot of different sort of historical, cultural, legal documents that are up there. And I I want to say that Moses coming down with a tablet is
one of them, but I I think there actually are other cultural and maybe even other religious elements of this like where you recognize that a big part of sort of the lawgiving tradition in
Western civilization is the um is some of these religious texts, not exclusively Christian religious texts. Obviously some Jewish there's like a an important contribution from the Muslim
world in this. So I I don't I I guess I don't think of it as exclusionary while also recognizing that, you know, America is a society. Our founders were people who were very much influenced even if
they weren't Christians, a lot of them of course were, but were very influenced by Christian culture and articulating American law. So my argument would be even if you're not a Christian, like
does seeing the Ten Commandments, let me put it a slightly different way. Does seeing the Ten Commandments force religion on a non-Christian child? I mean, my argument would be no. And I'd
illustrate this by saying, well, there are all of these ways in which you actually could try to force religion on a child, right? Well, it's not the worst way to force religion on a child, but to
have it and not represent any other rel. This is Texas, by the way. Sure. So what he's talking about was that there's these Christian nationalists, these these guys that are very wealthy that
are trying to fund Christian schools and trying to defund public schools or any other kind of religious school and what they want to do and and they passed this to get the Ten Commandments in all
public school classes. and he's fundamentally opposed to that as a Christian because he thinks it's going to force people to have this in their class and it's gonna push people away
from Christianity. >> I mean, I understand the argument. I just don't see it that way. I mean, I I I guess if if I I I hear you, but if I'm a non-religious student and I'm sitting
in there and I see the Ten Commandments, at the very least, I think I can appreciate it. I mean I you know what I thought about this one sort of >> what if you're a Hindu what if you're a
Muslim and you know and you are seeing that represented but not your faith. Well, it's a public school. F >> first of all, I think that you you I mean I I'm pretty sure Muslims I'm not
hardly an expert on Islam, but I I think all of the Abrahamic faiths recognize the Ten Commandments as like a significant thing, but I think if I was a Hindu looking at the Ten Commandments,
I mean, again, it's hard for me to say this right from my my perspective, but I certainly went through an atheist phase in my in my youth. And what I would see that as as a non-religious person or a
different religion is I would say this is like an important cultural element of the western civilization which is the foundation of the classroom that I'm sitting in. And this idea that the law
comes in is sort of above any man even if you don't believe in God yourself. I think that's like an important concept. I mean, if you look at the Ten Commandments, probably eight of them are
something that I would hope that everybody would agree with, even if they're that not themselves religious. >> So, I I guess here's my my view on it. Like, I would not be offended if I sat
in a classroom as a Christian or if my kids sat in a classroom as a Christian and saw, you know, a religious text that wasn't Christian on on the wall. I would encourage them to see that. No, I'd
encourage them to see that as a learning experience to try to understand. >> What if it was from the Quran? What do a bunch of >> I guess it depends on what it was,
right? If it's if it's like something crazy, but but no, I mean, if if if it's if it's something that is like culturally interesting, I I guess I don't I don't have a problem with my kid
reading. >> The problem is it's mandated. Like if you have a classroom and the teacher is Christian and the teacher wants to have it in their classroom, maybe that's one
thing. But if you're mandating that you're going to have the Ten Commandments in classrooms, that's a different thing because now you're you're pushing Christianity on kids. And
this is Terico's position. And as a Christian, he's saying I think this is going to push children away from Christianity. >> So I again I I I understand what he's
saying. I just I think that part of living in a society where you have different people of different perspectives, but you do have I mean Christianity is the majority religion of
the United States. It is the religion that was extraordinary influential to our founding to the constitutional principles. Again, freedom of religion is itself not really a liberal concept.
It was originally derived um from from from a Christian idea about free will and the dignity of the person. I think part of that is that you accept that you're going to have exposure to
different things. And if a if a state legislator in a majority Christian state wants, it's not like they're putting the Ten Commandments in front of these kids and saying, "You have to read this and,
you know, write it 500 times a day." They're exposing kids to something. And I'm comfortable with kids being exposed to a lot of different things. I think that's part of living in a society where
there's a free exchange of ideas. And what I what I worry about with Tallerico's sort of perspective here is is again I'm not saying that I I don't want kids to be exposed to anything that
is outside of the Christian cannon. Like I I I actually want my kids exposed to things. I I write about this in the book that I think it's important to have a grounded enough faith that you can
engage with a lot of different ideas and still ultimately you know sort of hold on to your to your Christian faith. But isn't part of just living in a like pluralistic democracy that people are
going to be exposed to different things? And you know, I I would kind of put it on Tallerico in a slightly different way that for a long time in this country, there were actually Supreme Court
rulings that said that you cannot pray in a school, even a a student organization led by the students, or that you cannot put the Ten Commandments up, even a teacher who chose to do it in
their own classroom. And so I think you're always kind of trying to strike this balance, you know, given that we have the first amendment in this country between allowing the practice of
religious faith in public spaces and possibly forcing religion on other people. I think you have to strike that balance the right way. I guess I just say is the if the Ten Commandments being
in a classroom is the thing that you think is forcing religion on somebody, was he equally offended when the Ten Commandments were like quite literally prohibited from being listed in
building? >> I don't know if he was offended by that or if he was opposed to that. But the idea of being exposed to it is one thing. It being mandatory is another.
And to mandate that in classrooms is a different thing because you're promoting clearly promoting Christianity. And his position is that promoting Christianity in that way is going to have an opposite
effect on children. You're pushing it on them instead. You're not just exposing it to them. You're pushing it on them. And especially if you're pushing it on children who come from a household that
has a different faith. I guess I just think the balance in our country the last 30 40 years has actually been much more in the other direction which is that we try to completely remove
religion from the public square and I think that's that's that poses its own problems because you know people practice their faith in all kinds of ways. We think that that's the
responsibility of churches and and synagogues and where that like if you want and and in the community if you want to promote religion promote it that way. But promoting in public schools
should be just educational. And if you're in a religious class and a a class is teaching about religion, that's a different story. >> Well, you're right. It's certainly the
responsibility of churches and synagogues and mosques and so forth. But I also think that, you know, the the the late Supreme Court Chief Justice William Ranquist sort of said this that if your
approach to religion in public life always and everywhere is to push it out of the public square, then you're actually embracing a religion of your own in the public square, which is
secularism. You're just taking one religion and replacing it with secularism. And I guess what I'm saying is I'm kind of comfortable with people of different faiths sharing the public
square together. But part of that is that if if I'm in a 95% Christian community and my local city council wants to put up a nativity display on on, you know, Christmas Eve, I'm okay
with that. And that was actually like for a long time in our country actually prohibited. Yeah. >> And so what what I think is that we got we we we sort of put ourselves in this
frame in this country where we said every public display of religion is somehow illegitimate. But I I I mean I don't know. I I try to live my faith in a way that's consistent across different
spheres of my life. You know, I don't preach to people. I don't like to walk into the White House tell my employees, you know, you need to be you need to follow Jesus as your Lord and Savior. I
just try to live my life in a way that hopefully makes people a little curious about what you know, what motivates me and what inspires me. But I also don't think that the expectation should be
that we tell religious people they're not allowed to be religious in the public square because I think that's what we've done over the last 30 or 40 years. I guess, you know, we can agree
to disagree. I see the Texas thing as an an attempt to correct that. This episode is brought to you by Fox Nation. Real American freestyle wrestling is exclusively on Fox Nation. Every month
you get every feud, every match, and every belt. And if you're a fan of MMA, you don't want to miss it because RAF is featuring some of the biggest UFC fighters and putting them against the
best wrestlers in the world. On July 18th, RAF11 turns up the heat when Ben Ascrin returns to the mat to take on former UFC champion Bal Muhammad. Then two undefeated RAF stars finally face
off when Arman Sarukian and Kobby Coington settle their score in the main event. No cages, no gloves, no excuses. RAF11, live from Milwaukee, Saturday, July
18th, streaming exclusively on Fox Nation. Go to foxnation.com and sign up today. Well, I think living by example is probably the best promotion of any good way to live your life, whether it's
Christianity or any other religion. I think that's definitely the way to do it. But the the point is that this is being promoted by very wealthy people who are Christian nationalists who who
want this to be uh they want it to what is going on here, Jimmy? What you got? Bible stories become required reading in Texas public schools. Yeah. See? Well, now that's a you're taking it to another
level. So, this is June 26. This is very recently. Um that is that kind of thinking and that kind of mindset is uh what bothers
me the most about some Republicans. >> I see what you mean. Um, and then there's the there's people that again they live their life in a very beautiful way and they follow the teachings of
Jesus Christ and they're very admirable and I think that's very attractive and it makes people very curious about that religion. I think that brings people to Christ and I think it brings people to
religion. >> Sure. But then there's people like, did you read that report uh that came from at the start of the Iran war where uh there was a guy who was an officer uh
non-commissioned officer who was uh at a a briefing and this guy came in and was explaining to them that they didn't need to be afraid because this war was important because Trump had been
anointed by Jesus Christ to bring about his return. And the way they were going to Jesus is going to return is by bombing Iran. [laughter] >> I did not see that report.
>> That sounds pretty far out there to me. >> This is the kind of right-wing I see >> thinking. So here it is. Military commander tells troops bombing Iran is part of God's divine plan. So, we
started getting calls in the wee hours of Saturday morning from people saying their commanders were just jubilant about this, trying to tell people, "Don't worry, it's all part of God's
plan. Uh, they promised a 200 mile long river that is 4 and 1/2 ft deep, filled with nothing but the blood that their weaponized version of Jesus will spill at the battle of Armageddon." Weinstein
said, u what what was the one uh there was a there was an article where the guy was explaining the actual quotes that the the one uh officer was telling him >> the one commander.
Uh yeah, but it's not that there was is very specific. He was it was very specific what he said. Um, I mean, for what it's worth, my my attitude on this stuff is I mean, first
of all, as a Christian, you sort of believe that everything is is part of God's plan, even things that are ultimately very terrible. I mean, you kind of have to make
>> it. Let me let me read the quote. He urged us to tell our troops that this was all part of God's divine plan. And he specifically referenced numerous citations out of the book of Revelations
referring to Armageddon and the imminent return of Jesus Christ. He said that President Trump had been anointed by Jesus to light the signal fire in Iran to cause Armageddon and mark his return
to Earth. >> Okay. >> If I'm in that meeting, I'm like, "Hit [laughter] the brakes. Hit the brakes." What?
>> Well, that's that's where you need some of the psychedelics we talked about at the last Joe Rogan JD Vance conversation. [laughter] >> That would definitely help.
>> I mean, my my response first of all, like obviously, do I endorse that? No. Do I think that it's important that people reign it in a little bit? Because I'm sure you're right. There were a lot
of troops there, probably a lot of Christian troops there who were like, uh, I'm not sure this is exactly right. Right. >> But the the important point is I think
it's important as a Christian leader, as Christians, period. One of the things we have to do is just have humility in the face of of God's plan. There's a lot that we don't understand. There's a lot
that we don't get. And I think especially on matters of war and peace, the approach that I try to take is you try to make the best decisions that you can. You hope that you're on God's side.
You don't assume that God has taken your side. That's a that's a very famous Abraham Lincoln quote. And that's the attitude that I take. So for that, what I, you know, what I would encourage that
NCO to say is, you know what, God is in control. We don't know what's going to happen, but let's pray and try to do as good of a job as we can trusting in God. If I was speaking to a group of
Christian troops, that's what I would say. >> But you're speaking to a group of troops. You don't know if they're Christian. You don't know. I mean,
you're essentially letting these people know that you believe that Trump was anointed by Jesus to bomb Iran so that Jesus can come back to Earth. >> Come back in a firearm.
>> I'd be like, "Can I get the out of here?" >> No, I hear you, man. I hear you. Look, yes. And uh I I uh that's that is the first that I have ever heard of this
particular story. How have you not heard of this and Biden's two brain surgeries? >> Apparently, I live in a bunker, man. [laughter] >> How do you not know about these things?
>> Wild. I Okay, here's the other thing I'll say is is having heard about this for the first time just now. To your point about the media,
>> I do think it's possible, let's be honest, that whatever that dude said, maybe it was good, maybe it was bad, has been misreported by the press. So, I always have a filter on this stuff. Like
I don't automatically assume. >> It's also possible that this is the other thing. He said the commander supposedly had a big grin on his face when he said all this, which made his
message seem even more crazy. >> And I think that's again >> I don't think anybody should have um war is sometimes necessary, but it's never a good thing. And that I think
that's like a fundamental Christian principle is there are just wars, there are necessary wars, but war is always something that you try to avoid, >> right? But saying that this is what's
being referenced in the book of Revelation, >> dude. I think that's I think that is nuts. I also don't know that that, you know, I want to be conf I want to
confirm that it's a person actually said that before teeing off on it because what that sounds to me is like somebody butchering or misrepresenting something that you know somebody that I know might
have said >> quite possible. So you got to be careful. Also quite possible that you got a really looney guy who is a Christian nationalist who is a commander
and who is in this position where he's actually excited because he does think that this is a holy [laughter] war and this is going to bring back Jesus. >> Well, it's certainly possible. I mean,
America's got 330 million people and we've got a lot of people who believe in a lot of things. But I can assure you that we don't encourage people to talk like that. And again, all I can do as a
Christian leader, I'll look into that story certainly, but all I can do as a Christian leader is talk about how I think about questions of war and peace, which is we try to do the right thing.
We try to figure out what it is that is consistent with Christ's moral teaching and we try to, you know, comport our foreign policy with the cause of justice. And that's what we try to do,
recognizing it's always going to be imperfect. But I don't think that we should ever have an attitude towards war like this is a this is a great thing. I'm going to grin and smile about that.
All I'm saying is I'm skeptical that anybody took that approach because the media misrepresents everything. >> Do you think that this the way that you just described it align with our
campaign in Iran? >> Well, I think that the goal is certainly good, which is to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. And I I think that there are obviously
a lot of questions about how best to achieve that. There's both a short-term and a long-term piece of it. I think the short-term piece of it is effectively what's already been done which is you
destroy the nuclear sites and you destroy and eliminate the ability to rebuild the nuclear sites. I think there's a longer term thing which is where like a lot of the debate is
focused on right now which is that building a nuclear program is hard but it's not impossible and it's expensive but it's actually not even that expensive if you look I mean you could
go on YouTube right now and find out how to build an atomic bomb. So part of our Iran policy, and this is where I get frustrated with the people who say you should never negotiate with Iran, part
of our Iran policy is like solving the long-term problem that if we could create the sort of circumstance where Iran would commit not just to not have a nuclear weapon right now, but over the
long term to not try to rebuild that capacity, like yeah, I think that that is a good and valuable thing. >> If it was your call, would you have done exactly the same [laughter] thing?
Well, what did the the president said um publicly that JD was less enthusiastic about it, I think was the exact phrase that he used. >> I mean, my attitude towards this man, as
you know, is the vice president. I'm not a public commentator. Like, my job is to give the best advice I can to the president of the United States. I think he's said a little bit about what that
advice was. Um, but once the president makes a decision, so long as I think that it's, you know, legal and ethical and all that stuff, and I certainly think whether you agree or disagree with
it, what we've done has been has been legal, my attitude towards it is I try to make it as successful as possible. And I've got friends, of course, I think you know, you've expressed some
skepticism of this. I've got a lot of friends both in private and public who've expressed skepticism of this who say, "Well, this is terrible. We disagree with the decision, etc., etc."
I'm not a public commentator. My approach to this is not to Monday morning quarterback a decision that was made three months ago. My approach to it is to try to make it as successful as
possible. Which is why I've poured my heart and soul into these negotiations. Which is why I've tried to make that goal, Iran not having a nuclear weapon, something that's not true both not just
now, but is true in the long term. And that's the way that I try to approach it. So, what is going on with Iran where it seems like the president keeps saying that a deal has been reached,
negotiations have been successful, and then it all falls apart, and we start bombing them again. >> Yeah. So, uh, how long do we have here? Cuz as much as you need So, so, so I
have to explain a couple of things in the background so you sort of fully appreciate, um, people fully appreciate what's going on here. So number one, it's a bit of a simplification, but you
have two elements within the Iranian system. You have and and you sometimes hear hawkish Americans say this that they're all crazy people. They want to bring about, you know, the the 12th imam
and the apocalypse and all that stuff. There are people in Iran who believe that they're also pragmatists. You've got the crazy people, you've got the pragmatists. Okay. So when we struck
thisou and really what theou says, and I've it was misrepresented more than almost anything that I've ever worked on in public life. What it says is Iran is going to open the straight of Hormuz.
The violence is going to stop and then we're going to negotiate to see if we can come to a broader deal on the long-term nuclear issue. That's what we wanted. And what the Iranians wanted, of
course, was long-term economic and sanctions relief. Now, here's here's the problem with where we are right now. And and and I guess my summary view, Joe, is that I of course can't predict the
future. I don't know exactly where this is going to go, but I think fundamentally we are on the right trajectory. It's just going to be really messy and there's going to be a lot of
stops and starts. So what happens the first week after we sign theou, we get 20 million barrels a day of oil out of the straight of Hormuz. That's what it was before the war. The price of oil
comes way down and there are elements, the hardliners in the Iranian system kind of freak out a little bit. They're like, "Oh did we just give away our major leverage point? Screw nuclear
weapons. We just gave away this." So in thisou and so there was this kind of freak out in their system. So they shot at a couple ships we responded and I think that's entirely appropriate of
course if they're going to shoot at ships we are going to shoot at the people who are shooting at the ships or we're going to destroy the facilities that they're using to shoot at ships. So
that happens okay and then the Iranians like oh no no fine that that you're you're right we shouldn't have been shooting at ships. So then they come back to the table and there's a few more
days of negotiation and then the phase they're in right now is the hardliners have really really reacted strongly to all the oil that's coming out of the straight of Hormuz and they've basically
said we're going to try to shut this thing down. We're scared about losing our leverage. Now the pragmatists in their system are saying this was a mistake. Let's keep on talking. And
again do I know how this is ultimately going to shake out? Of course I don't. But what we're doing is a delicate diplomatic dance where we're using economic leverage points. We're using
carrots and sticks. We're trying to talk to the pragmatists. And then of course when they commit acts of violence, we're responding to it. And all those things are happening simultaneously to get us
on a better trajectory. Now that said, yes, right now there's there's shooting right now. Last night they shot at some ships. The but with all that said, is their nuclear program still destroyed?
Yes. Are the straits not necessarily fully pre-war traffic, but are we getting enough oil and gas out of the straight of Hormuz to prevent a worldwide energy crisis? Yes. And all of
these things are happening in the context of the broader negot negotiation over the nuclear program. You never know where this is ultimately going to end up, but that's where we are. And then
the can I just say one other thing about this because [sighs] there are people you know you see Mike Pence who's sort of a superhawk my predecessor who say this there are people you know um who
are super hawkish in the American system who have attacked the deal and and frankly in some ways have tried to derail the deal and what I always say to those people is what is your proposal
what is your actual argument so so just take the straight of horm like the narrowest but in some ways the most important part of this back and forth right now. Straight of Hormuz is a
narrow waterway. To the extent you shut it down, you shut down 25% of the world's energy supply. Okay, Joe, you could take a $100,000 and go buy a bunch of drones on the black market and post
yourself on an island in the Straight of Hormuz near it and you could fire drones at those ships. Okay? Now, what does that mean? some oil and gas is still going to get out because some ships and
some ship captains gonna say screw you. Now, the United States can help that, right? We can shoot down some of those drones. We can shoot down some of those missiles and so we can facilitate the
flow of traffic. But the people who are like, you cannot negotiate with the Iranians. The reason why that's fundamentally idiotic is because so long as you have some person who's willing to
fire off a few cheap drones, you're going to have some ship captains who say, "No, no, no. we're not willing to do this. So, we got to kind of use all tools at our disposal. The military is
one tool, but diplomacy is another tool. And I I'm very frustrated by the Americans and frankly by people in other countries who are like, you cannot negotiate with the Iranians. Well, then
what is your proposal to get people to stop shooting at ships in the straight of Hormuz? You can bomb them. You can take away their radar. You can take away some of their drones and some of their
missiles, but it's just too easy to fire at ships in the straits. So, you've got to actually be willing to talk and to try to figure out the problem. >> What is their proposal? The people that
think you shouldn't negotiate with Iran. >> I think that their proposal is to bomb and bomb and bomb. And the honest view, Joe, is that they they do not actually have a solution. If you actually ask
them, "What do you want us to do? What is the goal that you're trying to achieve?" You know, they'll they'll say things like, "Well, just bomb them to oblivion." Okay, we can do that. We can
drop a lot of bombs, but what does that accomplish if there's still a crazy person who's still willing to shoot a few drones at the straight of Hormuz? What the president has done, I think
very very capably is said, "We're going to use military force in the in this situation when it's connected to something we're trying to achieve." So, if you shoot at ships, we're going to
shoot at the facilities at which you used to shoot at the ships. But we're not just going to do something open-ended indefinitely. We're not just going to bomb and bomb and bomb. We're
going to try to use our military force as one of the many tools that we have to solve the problem. And obviously, like I'm biased, but I think that's exactly the right approach. I I actually think
you have to read between the lines a little bit because if if you look at what Mike Pence or some of the conservative hawks, like people who voted for us, but have been very
critical of me, very critical of the administration, if you actually look at what they're proposing, they just want the military campaign to go on forever. and they
can't actually identify what it is that they're trying to accomplish. None of them can identify what it is they're trying to accomplish. And I and I read two things between the lines. I think
some of them want us to accomplish a complete change in the government of Iran to topple the clerics and to replace that those clerics with somebody who's, you know, much friendlier. But
like look, what is our experience with doing that? >> It's not good. Right? And so, like, if the Iranian people want to rise up and change their government, that's up to
them. But we're not going to send 150,000 ground troops in in order to accomplish a change in a regime unless the people on the ground themselves want to accomplish that outcome. Now, we're
not going to send the troops in regardless, but like to propose sending in the troops, you're basically saying that the US military should do the job for the
Iranian people. We're not in that business anymore. We're just not. And then I think a second outcome that people are are whether they're aware of it or not is what I call the Libya
outcome. So if you look at the end result of our Libya policy after Gaddafi was killed by the Obama administration, by the way, again, a a very stupid decision, what happened? Libya basically
turned into a failed state. You had a refugee crisis. You had people pouring into Europe, pouring into other parts of Asia, other parts of Africa. You had a lot of violence, a lot of terrorism come
from that. I do think that there are people who would like that to be the outcome in Iran. But then I say again, what is in our interest? How is it in the United States's interest to have 94
million desperate people flooding into Europe, flooding into the United States, to have, you know, sort of the the terrorist infrastructure that can get established when you fan terrorists all
over the world? We've run this experiment before. And so our policy right now, what we're trying to accomplish is get the straits open, ensure the free flow of oil and gas,
obviously want to keep the Iranians from having a nuclear weapons program, and using the tools of diplomacy and military power to accomplish that. >> And Libya failing and the collapse of
Libya is a lot of what's fueled the migrant crisis in Europe as well. Correct. >> Exactly. that in Syria, another failed state that was created by bad Middle
Eastern policy. So there is precedent for the United States doing this. Every time that it has happened, it's caused a refugee crisis. It's caused a spike in terrorism. And it's also not
incidentally to the moral considerations. It's led to a lot of innocent civilian deaths. >> Now, what was the the talk about I think the number was like $300 billion in
concessions to Iran to rebuild. Yeah. So, this is another just argument that the critics made against the deal. And and and again, like I just to back up a little bit, this is my own
little hobby horse, but look, we the coalition that Donald Trump piloted to the 2024 election campaign. It was a landslide. We won seven states. It was historic. Nobody, certainly no
Republican had actually led a coalition like that, at least since the days of Ronald Reagan. So, like literally before I was alive. Okay. So, Donald Trump wins this great coalition and look, it's got,
man, it's got hawks and it's got people who hate foreign wars. Okay. It's got people like you and people like Tucker. It's also got people like Mark Leven and others. Okay. I just accept that as a
reality. That's part of the coalition. I don't say that anybody is welcome or unwelcome. I say that if you're willing to sort of help us, you're going to get a lot what you want. You don't get
everything that you want. What has really annoyed me about the the hawkish side of this thing is they attack any effort to negotiate. They attack the president. They attack
me personally. Donald Trump is betraying me. Well, wait a second. I if you if you if you want to have like a hawkish policy towards Iran, the idea that Donald Trump has betrayed you because
he's also trying to negotiate to get a good outcome for the American people is crazy. And so you've seen a lot of these people completely flip on him. And that brings me to the 300 million or the $300
billion point. What we what we did with with theou is is we actually worked not just with the Iranians but with the Gulf Arab states. >> What is the term? What does it stand
for? >> Memorandum of understanding. It's the basic it's the basic structure that we set up for the negotiation. So what what happened here is okay so people sort of
think of of the Middle East as like Iran versus Israel. I think a lot of people do. There's also a massive number of Gulf States that are really important, good allies to the United States. You
know, they and Israel don't always see eye to eye, but we're obviously very close to both Israel and to the Gulf States. And the Gulf States actually came to us and said, "You know what? If
the Iranians are willing, really willing to change their behavior, we'd like to invest in rebuilding their country." Now, whether they change their behavior is
something that's going to be determined over the long term, right? We want to see real changes. We want to see them to stop funding terrorist organizations. And also, of course, none of that money
comes from the United States. But if Iran's biggest enemies in the region are saying, "We'd like to invest if they've changed their behavior. Would the United States let us? Would we release the
sanctions that would make it possible for the UAE and Saudi Arabia and other countries to invest in Iran?" Our attitude was, well, isn't that a victory for us? If Iran's biggest enemies see
that they have changed themselves so much that they're willing to invest in the Iranian economy, isn't that like the definition of a win-win? And then you had all these people saying, "No, no,
no, no. You can't give them $300 billion." It's like, we're not talking about giving them $300 billion. We're talking about letting other countries invest in Iran if Iran has changed the
way that it treats the Gulf Arab countries. It's fundamentally between them, meaning the Iranians and the Gulf Arab countries. So there's this line in theou that basically says that if Iran
meets all of its obligations, then we will permit other countries to invest in Iran. That's it. And that like again, the hawks attacked us and misrepresented this and lied about it and said the
Trump administration is going to give the Iranians $300 billion. And it's totally fake. It's completely made up. and it was done purely in order to politically tank the negotiation. So
there there's been this interesting dynamic here where as we've been trying to negotiate, there have been these extraordinarily wellunded efforts to tank the negotiation to prevent us from
reaching a deal to change American public opinion, which by the way, if you look at the public opinion, people love the idea of actually getting to a final resolution on this thing. Americans do
not they're not game for long-term, you know, open-ended regime change wars in the Middle East. They're okay with us using the military to accomplish discrete objectives. They're not okay
with open-ended obligations. >> What do you think the motivation of the hawks is? Do do you think this is are they influenced by defense contractors? So the influence what is what's the
reason why they're so keen on continuing to bomb? >> I think with with any big group of people you have you know you have a diversity of opinions. So so sure I I'm
sure that you know you have people who are influenced by defense contractors. You know there's a lot of talk about how how much is the Israeli government influencing American politics and uh
there are certainly certain people within the Israeli government who hate the deal. And we we we see exact evidence. There was a Times story that came out yesterday
um that basically there are certain influencers in America who are being paid in order to attack the deal. I think some of it it's just pure political ideology, right? It's foreign
policy perspectives that is that are much different from mine. They think that America should just that we can basically you can wave a magic wand with the military and accomplish whatever you
want. And you know, it's it's not that simple. You actually have to have a very clear objective. Military power can accomplish a clear objective, but you've got to have that clear objective. You
can't just say, "We're going to bomb until something good happens." That never works. The United States has tried that before. So, I think it's a combination of things, but I I
definitely think you have seen this very discreet, extremely well-funded campaign to try to derail the negotiation and try to derail the deal. And you know, there was again there's this time article that
came out yesterday. A friend sent it to me. It's like worth reading because it lists a bunch of people who have quite literally been paid by a former Trump campaign person who
was himself paid by certain elements within the Israeli government. And those people are attacking me viciously for quite literally trying to accomplish the negotiation objective that the president
set for the country. So, >> what is their position? Like, are they're attacking you? How? >> Oh, it's it's social media posts. It's, you know, they're leaking to reporters.
They're attacking me obsessively saying that we should not be negotiating with Iran. We should just keep the military campaign going indefinitely. And that is that is their explicit position. and
coming after me saying that, you know, people have come after me and say that I'm influenced by Qatar, that I'm influenced by foreign governments, that, you know, I take my marching orders from
Tucker Carlson. And there there's just so much out there when what I'm actually trying to do is accomplish what the president of the United States told me to accomplish, which is a settlement
of this that accomplishes our objectives. Iran doesn't have a nuclear weapon. We have the free flow of oil and gas. and and and like I should be clear um you know
like I don't actually mind I don't mind that the you know let's say certain elements of the Israeli government want to criticize the deal or have disagreements about the
deal. I don't even mind an effort to try to influence, you know, foreign governments try to influence the United States all the time. You know, Israel does it, other countries do it. It's
just sort of the nature of the beast. What bothers me is actually when Americans allow, meaning American leadership allows that influence to affect their judgment and to affect what
they are advocating for. That's what really bothers me. People are always going to try to influence the United States of America, whether they're allies of ours or whether they're
enemies of ours. But again, when I open up the pages of Time magazine and I see that there's a literal foreign influence campaign being funded to tank the very deal that I was pursuing and oh, by the
way, many of the people who were receiving that money were actually attacking me in completely dishonest ways. You know, my response to that is, well, go to hell. I'm going to do what I
have to do for the American people. I represent Americans first, and that's the way that I've I've tried to to do this job. And I, you know, Joe, the crazy thing is I'm like, people don't
realize this. I'm actually in this, you know, there's this massive pro-Israel, anti-Israel debate in the United States of America. I'm like the reasonable moderate. And I think that's what so
many people don't realize is, you know, I've been accused of being an anti-semite. I've been accused been accused >> for what reason? uh quite literally for
um I I've been accused of trying to I guess some people say that I've insulted the Jewish religion which is insane. Like I like I have a ton of respect for the Jewish religion. I mean if you talk
about >> What specifically did you say that >> I don't know I've never heard the a good compelling argument for why I'm an anti-semite even though I've been
accused of being an anti-semite by many people. But it's it I what always what I say to these guys is look at public opinion. Look at the way young Republicans versus Republicans over the
age of 65 approach this issue. Like right now, Israel is losing the public opinion battle in the United States of America. It is a simple and obvious fact. Donald Trump has said that
publicly. It's a simple and obvious fact. that is >> well let me finish this point because okay my attitude is towards this is >> Israel is an ally like France or like
the United Kingdom we're going to have disagreements with them we're going to have agreements with them there are areas where we're going to have similar interests and areas where our interests
are going to diverge so my approach to this is to say you know what we're partnered great let's work together and we're not let's just be honest about it and I for that people attack me for
being an anti-Semite or anti-Israel and they don't see the writing on the wall that I'm actually just the guy advocating for a normal relationship with a normal country that's based
around shared interest as opposed to based around, you know, something else. So why why is Israel losing um why is Israel losing American public opinion? Well, the narrative is that Israel has a
very disproportionate effect on American politics. >> Yeah, I see that. I see that narrative. I mean, I actually think that they
look, do they try to influence American politics? Yes. But like I said earlier, a lot of other countries do. I think some >> to the extent that Israel does.
>> I think some are better at it than others. I think the Israel are definitely more effective at it than most. But I wouldn't say that they're the only effective country by any means
that tries to influence American politics. I just think you have to be self-aware about it. I mean, why wouldn't you? It's a country of 9 million people. We have 330 million
people. And so, of course, they're going to try to persuade Americans. They're going to try to move Americans in one direction or another. I think that's just the nature of the beast.
>> But it's more than that. The concern is that they're spying on American politicians. That they're there's there's there's concerns about funding. There's concerns about influence.
There's concerns about whether or not politicians are whether they're aligned with Israel or whether they're aligned with the United States first. >> Well, there's certainly [sighs]
like I definitely get those concerns, but my sense is that the way that all foreign influence works in the United States is people try to manipulate American public opinion and then from
manipulating it public opinion they try to get the outcomes that they want. I this thing is a very good example of this. So, you know, like we know, I'm telling you beyond a reasonable doubt,
we know that the negotiation strategy that the president has asked us to pursue and again with limitations like when the Iranians hit ships, the president has been willing to knock the
hell out of the Iranians in response. This is not just a negotiation. It's negotiation, it's military, it's all these things. But I know with beyond a shadow of a doubt that there have been
people within the Israeli government who are trying to like actually shift us away from that policy because they want to continue the military campaign. And by the way, like there are people within
their government that I love, I have good relationships with. I hope and I don't think that they're part of this. I mean, you know, the the ambassador of of uh Israel to the United States, I think
is actually really good guy. Obviously, he cares about Israel first. I care about America first. But there are some people within their system, we know beyond a shadow of a doubt, who are
manipulating and trying to change American public opinion to keep the war going on indefinitely. Again, not towards any objective, but just indefinitely. So like, does it happen?
Yes. But I guess what I would say to the Americans who sort of see this and are frustrated by it, my attitude would be you should be frustrated at American leaders who are, you know, persuaded by
this, affected by this. Countries are going to do what countries do. I really don't. It doesn't bother me that Qatar tries to influence the United States of America and they do. I like a
lot of the Qataris just like I like a lot of the Israelis. Doesn't bother me that Israel tries to do this. It frankly doesn't even bother me that Russia or some of these other countries do it.
It's just the nature of being a political leader in 2026. What does bother me is when those operations, those influence campaigns actually affect American political judgment
because they shouldn't because we should be thinking what is in the best interest of the United States of America. >> Do you think that Israel is affecting American political judgment?
Um, I mean, I certainly think that there are a lot of talking points and there are a lot of arguments that make
their way into American political discourse. I think there are a lot of social media campaigns that definitely influence Americans and affect Americans. Do I think that it's been
dispositive on any particular issue like like I think that's a much more difficult question. >> Do you think that we would have started this war in Iran without the influence
of Israel? >> I think the president completely separate from any influence from Israel believes very strongly and again I agree with this that Iran should not have a
nuclear weapon. I think he was willing to do things >> bombed them in June. >> Right. That was the initial attack, right?
>> June of last year. Yeah. Midnight hammer. >> Yeah. Right. Do you think he would have continued with the most recent campaign if it
wasn't for the influence of Israel? >> Yes. Yes, I I do. Really? I do. Yeah. >> Look, I mean, I I I I think [sighs and gasps] again, and I see this and I see it even
from people that are in our coalition, and this would be my my flip side to the hawks who have been attacking me or the president mercilessly over negotiation. I would sort of turn this back on some
of the doves or some of the realists who have been attacking the president of the United States. >> The doves. Those are the peace peace people.
>> Peace people. >> That's what you call them. >> Hawks and doves. You never heard that phrase? [laughter] >> I've heard hawks. I've heard hawks. I
don't think I've ever heard doves. >> Hawks and and pigeons. Hawks and I don't know. >> I think it's more doves. >> Doves is good. Right. So
what what I I think a lot of people I've heard this argument >> is is this idea that Donald Trump, you know, was sort of I've even heard people say he was blackmailed into this.
>> Yeah. >> By the not true, dude. It's just it's just not true. I've seen the decision-m up close. Again, whether you agree or disagree with our negotiation or whether
you agree or disagree with the decision to launch the campaign epic fury to begin with, the idea that Donald Trump is being like back blackmailed is crazy to me because again, I I see the way
that he makes decisions. I see the way that he processes this stuff. Like the idea that he picks up the phone with anybody and says, "Hey, like I'm going to take orders from you." No, that's
just not how Donald Trump operates. Can you understand though why people would come to that conclusion especially because the of the Epstein files? >> What do you mean?
>> Well, the Epstein files were supposed to be released. We were and there was a tremendous amount of resistance to those files being released and that concerned a lot of people cuz if if you're talking
about very wealthy, powerful people that were engaged in crimes. >> I see. I So you're you're basically saying like there's a the fear is that whatever's in the Epstein files was used
to blackmail like the administration into doing the Iran thing >> or at the very least the people that were involved in the Epstein files that didn't want them coming out had undue
influence. >> Well again like say this with all cander like we absolutely screwed up the comms of the Epstein files like we just did. But
do I think the reason we screwed up the comms is because we were trying to hide something? No. I think the reason we screwed up the comms of the Epstein files is one, you know, Pam said Pam
Bondi said the client list is on my desk, right? >> Well, see, they had binders. They were they were sitting in front >> but those binders were largely documents
that had already been released, right? So, so here's let me try what was the purpose of that performative display of the Epstein files and and she was saying there's tens of thousands of hours of
film. >> I don't know what the purpose of it was, but I know that the effect of it was to make people mistrust the entire effort. And I think what I think was happening,
look, I I know Pam. I like Pam. I don't think there was anything malicious going on. I think Pam was trying to respond to the political moment. I think she overstated what we had and what we
didn't have. And I think that she, you know, got got roasted for it publicly by a lot of people, including me. Like, you know, you and I have talked about this a lot. I'm like one of the OG Epstein
conspiracy theorists. I've probably gone down every single rabbit hole. We could go down uh most of them today. Look, the original sin of the Epstein investigation,
and obviously I'm biased here, but it was not what Donald Trump and the administration did in 2025. It was you have to go back to 2007208, the original Alex Aosta investigation of Jeffrey
Epstein where he basically dropped the federal charges. I think Epstein ended up getting prosecuted on some sort of local thing. But the original warrant, you go to the original warrant back in
2008. What was he looking for? What was he allowed to look for? What were they collecting? It was not looking at a broader conspiracy. So that happens. Okay. Epstein gets pinched. I think he
goes to prison or maybe this is when he was on house arrest. Mhm. >> But like anything that existed from the 80s and 90s up to 2006, 2007, anything that existed that we didn't get back
then was disappeared. Right? So like when people say has has what you've seen on the inside make you think that the you know that Epstein never blackmailed people or that Epstein never engaged in
broader sex trafficking? No, absolutely not. What I have seen, and I've looked at most of the files, is that there just wasn't dispositive evidence. And if that dispositive evidence ever existed, it
was probably destroyed after 2006, 2007. Now, look, again, in our defense, yes, was there some, you know, bitching and moaning and was there some back and forth? Yes. But there we eventually
collected six million documents as part of the effort. the president. People say the president was forced into releasing the documents. Like again, the idea that Donald Trump could not have killed that
legislation, especially with the United States Senate is a joke. He absolutely could have killed it. What did he do? He actually said, "Nope, we're going to release these files." He thought, you
know, he was annoyed by the story. He was annoyed by the Democrats accusing him of doing things bad. By the way, like do I think there is any I've never seen a single piece of cred credible
evidence that the president of United States engaged in wrongdoing with minors ever. So, like when the president says the hoax, that's what he's talking about is this democratic idea that he somehow
was a was a pedophile. It's absurd. There's no evidence for it. Now, the Epstein docu the Epstein, you know, law gets signed. We find six million documents. We find about 3 million of
them are actually responsive has something to do with the Epstein estate. We release all of them with the exception of a few things that are like, you know, the courts have said that we
have to redact certain things or we can't release certain files. But like we did release all these files. Did it take longer than it should have taken? Yes. But we did release these files. And
again, the problem here is not like anything that's in the files or not in the files. The problem is if you go back to the original investigation, it was
designed in a way that was way too narrow. If there was a broader conspiracy and you know, my view is that there probably was. The evidence that existed in 2007, that was the
opportunity to get. >> So when you say there probably was a broader conspiracy, what exactly are you saying? I think there are a few different options. I mean, look, man, I
like you could you and I could literally do two episodes about this. I've gone on down every rabbit hole. There's this funny New York Times story that's somewhat true, somewhat false, but where
Susie Wilds, the White House chief of staff, says, "Well, we know JD's a conspiracy theorist on this." Like, I am actually. I've I've gone down every every rabbit hole here. Look, so there's
the theory that whether it was American intel or foreign intel that Epstein was sort of using um Epstein was using sort of the the sex ring to blackmail rich and powerful
people. There's that piece of it. You know, I'm I'm I I think there's a separate conspiracy that hasn't gotten covered as much, which is that Epstein actually, okay, if you go back to to the
original Epstein guy was Les Wexner, okay, who Columbus, Ohio was the wealthiest person in Ohio, maybe still is the wealthiest person in the state of Ohio. The thing that everybody in
Columbus, and I lived there for a time, knew about the Wexner Epstein relationship is that Epstein was his tax guy. that Epstein was like the genius at identifying weird tax strategies that
would allow you to not have to pay taxes, but if you were being a little skeptical would also say that it would allow Epstein to either blackmail people or to have a separate nexus of influence
and control on rich and powerful people. And so I think there's an under reportported underexploited story of is EP was Epstein like doing a lot of tax stuff that was not on the up and up and
is that one way in which he gained blackmail. It's it's not opposite of the sexual blackmail story but in some ways it's it's uh you know you could imagine both things being true. Um I also just
think there's an element of he was a scumbag. He was a very sick person. He built relationships with a lot of other rich and powerful people who just didn't have any real moral judgment about the
fact the guy was obviously a scumbag. And again, to go back to defending Donald Trump, I know people don't want to hear this these days, but like who was the guy? People say Donald Trump was
blackmailed by Jeffrey Epste. Who was the guy who narked on Epstein to the Palm Beach police? That's in the Epstein files, right? >> It was Donald Trump.
>> He also kicked him out of Maraago. >> He kicked him out of Mara Lago. It's just >> it's obvious that Epstein was a sick man.
>> Yes. But if people want to say we mishandled the Epstein release, guilty. We did mishandle especially the communications of it. >> What do you think should have been done?
>> I think that we should have just dropped everything at the very beginning and like obviously it takes a little time to review the stuff, to find the stuff, to redact things where you have victims and
so forth, but we should have just done it as quickly as possible. >> But some of the stuff that was redacted, some of the names that were redacted weren't victims.
So yeah, I I I I've looked into this and my understanding of this having looked at a lot of this but not all of it is that it is sometimes hard to draw a distinction between victim and
co-conspirator and like let me highlight this in a very sort of obvious way. Ro Kana, who's been one of the most one of the loudest voices on the Epstein file. Well, he became very loud on the Epstein
files the minute Donald Trump became president. Didn't seem to care about it during the Biden administration. He actually brought one of the Epstein victims, I think, to the State of the
Union last year, or maybe it was the year before last. Well, like that victim, and I'm not accusing, I'm not saying she wasn't a victim. Uh I don't know anything about her particular case.
She was also listed as a co-conspirator in some of these documents. Right? So there's an idea that some of the people who were engaged in the sex trafficking were also, you know, facilitating it as
well. >> So they were incentivized to get more girls. >> Yeah. But but what I but yes, that's right. But the the idea is that it's
it's hard to sort of it's sometimes a little bit of a gray area between, you know, some of the people who were alleged victims were also alleged co-conspirators. And so what DOJ tried
to do was kind of make that judgment as best they could and release as much as possible. But it's clear that he was trying to get in contact with people that he felt were influential. It was
clear that he was trying to get people to get together on the island and meet at parties. So there there was something he was doing where he was trying to either influence people or compromise
people. >> Correct. >> So it's not there's some sort of an operation that was going on. There there is a story there and
you know I I will go to my deathbed believing there's a story there but I can't prove it and I I promise you there's not some document that at least I'm hiding that allows us to prove
exactly what was going on and how >> he was he was also trying to get scientists and this is one of the reasons supposedly why he got that >> okay so
>> branch in New Mexico. So, so a friend of mine has this element, sorry, I should step back. Conspiracy theories. One of the ways you discredit conspiracy theory, I thought about this a lot, is
try to hide it. Another way you discredit conspiracy theories by flooding the zone. So, one of the things I've tried to do when looking at all this stuff is to try to understand sort
of where it fits in and and to, you know, try to separate the real from the fake. But one really interesting element of the whole Jeffrey Epstein saga, okay, so he dies in 2019, right? This is at
the very end of of the first Trump administration. His death coincides very very closely. This is not my observation. This is a friend, but I
don't want to, you know, reveal confidences here. Re it coincides very closely with the end of what you might call the era of censorship in academia. So back in 2019 2020 we reached sort of
peak academic censorship where people wouldn't publish a medical study because it might have sort of disparited impact racial undertones or people were getting fired from academia for not doing land
acknowledgements stuff like that. Okay, I'm not saying that stuff has completely gone away but Epstein we know was funding a ton of scientists. By the way, where did his money come from? He was
funding a ton of scientists but like when he died it's almost like the era of censorship started to break because he wasn't just he was also plugged into a lot of in
academia but also you know he's plugged into the social media companies like this is a dude who knew everybody he knew everybody >> so
look >> so where did his money come from? Well, from given um part of it is suspect tax advice and uh setting up tax schemes for a lot of very very rich people,
>> right? But why was he motivated to influence academia and what what what was the purpose? >> I don't know the answer to that
question. I mean, I I have theories. There's there's of course the >> Well, most people think he was MSAD. >> Yeah. Assad or CIA or some other deep state, whether in America or Israel or
another country or or both. Um, >> you know, look, was he he clearly had connections to the upper the highest levels of American intelligence? He clearly had connections to the highest
levels of Israeli intelligence. In fact, one of the interesting story, one of the interesting things the Epstein saga reveals about and and I try to make this point is one of the reasons why I'm
always careful and I say there are some elements within the Israeli government who don't like our peace process because there are a lot of elements within the Israeli government that actually do like
our peace process. They recognize that this indefinite campaign is not good for them either. And and the Epstein thing is interesting because as much as I know, you know, Prime Minister
Netanyahu, not a particularly popular person in the United States of America right now, Epstein seemed to be connected to the elements of the Israeli deep state that
were left of center. Like I've always found that fascinating. It wasn't like he was super connected to the right of center of Israeli politics. America, he was connected across the board. like he
had Republican friends, he had Democratic friends, he had much deeper connections to the Israeli left of center than right of center. I don't know what that means. I always
>> hanging out with Steve Bannon and Nam Chosky. >> Exactly. He had again in America he had friends across the political spectrum in a way he didn't necessarily have in
Israel. >> I had one of my guests try to get me to meet him. >> Really? >> Yeah.
>> When? >> 2017. See, that that's crazy to me because at that point he'd already gone down for at least one like sex abuse thing.
>> That was my possession. [laughter] >> I'll show you the emails. Okay. It's kind They're kind of funny. I actually read them on stage. >> You want to say Okay, fine.
>> You people could find it. >> Yeah. >> I don't want to have the guy the guy's already ruined. >> Sure.
>> But um but [clears throat] it's >> I Googled it and I'm I'm like what the are you talking about? >> See, but this goes back to my original point.
>> This is part of what he was doing, right? He wanted to get influential people. >> But you go back to the original 2007 warrant on Jeffrey Epstein.
>> Uhhuh. >> All of the really crazy happened from the '9s to 2007. That's when he was at the peak of his power. That's when he hadn't yet gone down on a sex abuse
scandal. Like it's your point, right? Even if you have some scumbags who were willing to introduce him to Joe Rogan in 2017, there are a lot of Joe Rogan, or at least some who are going to say,
"Wait a second. I'm gonna Google this guy and find out that he's a predator. A lot. A lot didn't. >> That was really crazy. >> A lot didn't, but some did. And my point
is that would limit his influence. >> But if you go back to like the 1990s, the early 2000s, that is the stuff I think that is like the black hole of the Epstein saga. We
don't have nearly enough from that era. And >> it was destroyed. I think we had a prosecution that explicitly was so narrow that whatever existed would not
have even been caught up. >> Right. So, they were specifically going after him for underage sex and they didn't look at the full picture of the operation.
>> They didn't even try to they didn't even try to >> Well, that was one of the things about the prosecutor was told that he was above their pay grade. I mean, it was
one of the things that he >> said he [clears throat] was like CIA or something, right? He said he was told he was intelligent, >> right? And yes, I've asked were there
like were there documents connecting Jeffrey Epstein directly to our intelligence agencies or anybody else's? And the answer is no. But if that existed,
it wouldn't exist in 2026. >> What is it like being the vice president? Like how much access do you have to information? [laughter] >> Because
>> so I'll give you another conspiracy. So I have like effectively unlimited access to information. >> Unlimited. But I think that the one of the things that I've learned
about the job is it's you're doing so much on the day-to-day like you're calling senators and trying to get them to pass a piece of legislation. You're meeting with staff about what should go
in the housing bill. You're negotiating with the Iranians or the cutteries or the Israelis about something that's going on in the Middle East. And a lot of it like the UFO thing like
I I've said that I'm going to like I'm going to look into the UFO thing and I've been saying that for a year and a half and I haven't done it yet because I haven't had the time. And so some of
this is like you just have to have the time to actually punch through the walls and to like go to the gatekeepers and say you have to open up that gate because I'm the vice president. And some
of it is just hard to actually get to because I don't have the time to sort of focus on that one issue for any particular period of time. So the answer is you have unlimited access to
information. The constraint is not people tell me no. The constraint is you're just so busy doing other The UFO thing I think would be something that I would want to pursue.
>> Yes. >> I I