Loading summary
Transcript102 lines
- [00:01]
A
What if a few minutes with God could change the direction of your entire Day? With pray.com you can begin each morning with powerful daily prayers, inspiring Bible stories, and messages created to strengthen your faith. Whether you need peace, encouragement, or a fresh start, pray.com helps you make prayer part of your everyday life. Download thepray.com app today. Well, good evening, everybody, and welcome to Wired In. I'm Cabot Phillips, coming to you live from Daily Wire hq. We've got a stacked lineup today. I am very excited. So let's get to it. Dr. Anthony Fauci appeared before Congress today to face questions about his diary entries which proved once and for all that he lied to the American people. Now, most people, men at least, don't call it a diary. They call it a journal. But Fauci used the word diary, so we're gonna use that as well. We'll also talk with a senator who grilled him today and hear what comes next. President Trump is threatening to bomb the blanking blank. You can guess what he said out of Iran after a surprise attack on US Forces in the Middle East. We'll get you the latest on that front. We'll also talk with the man running to be the next governor of California and hear about how new allegations that tens of thousands of migrant children went missing under his opponent's watch are shaping the race. We've all heard about wine moms. Well, we're going to talk with a psychoanalyst about the new trend replacing wine moms. Weed moms. As always, stick around until the end of the show for our live listener Q and A. If you're a Daily Wire member, get those questions in the chat now. If you're on Apple or Spotify, go sign up now@dailywire.com subscribe. And if you want to help our show grow, please consider giving us a follow wherever you get your podcasts. Our entire team appreciates it. Team. Do you guys appreciate it?
- [01:50]
B
We do.
- [01:51]
A
They do. Yeah. They all do. I don't know if you can hear that, but they would very much appreciate it. All right, let's get to some news. Roll that graphic. And just a reminder, Wired In Live is now streaming live at 4pm Eastern Monday through Thursday. Catch. Get your daily coverage of the news happening right now, hear why it all matters, and talk with experts who are actually in the story. Become a member and join the live chat@dailywire.com subscribe. And on the live chat note, drop some questions in for some parenting advice. Cause we're have that psychoanalyst parenting expert on the show at the end. So get your parenting questions in. All right. We start things off though, in D.C. where Dr. Anthony Fauci was brought before Congress to testify about new revelations from his private diary, which was again obtained and released this week by Senator Rand Paul. Here with the highlights from what was a wild day on the Hill is Daily Wire D.C. bureau Chief Tim Rice. Tim, great to have you, as always. First, just give us some context on what Fauci was actually doing on Capitol Hill today.
- [02:58]
C
Sure. Great to be here, as always. Cavett, you basically hit it in your introduction there. Senator Rand Paul last week revealed that his committee had accessed Anthony Fauci's private diary. Private I put in strong quotation marks because this is a diary that he kept on his work computer while an employee of the federal government, which everyone, myself included, who's ever done any time in the federal government knows is rule number one. If you put it on a government computer, it can come back. It can come back in a foia, in a subpoena, or in a congressional committee. So a lot of what today's hearing was about was Republican senators grilling Dr. Fauci about the revelations from this diary, which were largely just confirming things that people already knew at this point. Things like the exaggerated efficacy of things like masks and social distancing, his strong partisan leanings, his disdain for President Trump and congressional Republicans, and most embarrassingly, his obsession with the fame. He loved being the most important man in Washington. In one of his diary entries, he says that the most recognizable health official in the world, he was a giddy that he got invited to events with the Kardashians. He was excited to have all these magazine covers. So it was really a truly embarrassing exercise for Dr. Fauci of his own making, but also an opportunity again to continue to discuss and debate this important topic of what exactly went wrong with the coronavirus pandemic.
- [04:24]
A
If there was one government official whose diary you could gain access to, who would it be?
- [04:32]
C
Oh my God, that's a great question. I mean, probably Marco Rubio, just cuz he has the most going on.
- [04:37]
A
Wrong answer. Donald Trump. I mean, you don't wanna read Donald Trump's diary. That's the correct answer.
- [04:44]
C
I think I have read Donald Trump's diary. It's called his truth social feed. Fair enough.
- [04:49]
A
Okay, so let's get to some of the actual testimony. What was the main line of questioning and what were some of the highlights that you pulled for us?
- [04:59]
C
Well, the main line of questioning, I will say it proceeded in two ways. Republicans, I will say, for as infuriated as many of these Republican members are, and we look particularly at Senators Bernie Moreno and Ashley Moody, two people who began their careers in politics by protesting and fighting against Moreno as a businessman, Moody as the Attorney General of Florida, fighting essentially Foushee and his lockdown regime. They were very impassioned. The rest of the lawmakers, which is not to say they were bad, but Ron Johnson, Rand Paul, James Lankford, these folks were pretty measured. They were really using this as an opportunity to read into the Congressional record and remind Americans what happened. How Foushee lied, how the NIH lied, how the Biden administration lied. And they had ample opportunity to do this because Anthony Foushee did not answer a single question. He read a brief, snippy opening statement and then proceeded to take the fifth 111 times. So it was truly even more one sided than congressional hearings usually are. And for the most part, other than Rand Paul at the beginning, lawmakers just sort of, again, kind of took for granted that he wasn't going to answer the questions and use this as an opportunity to say what they wanted to say. Except Missouri Senator Josh Hawley, who confronted or attempted to confront Foushee face on about his refusal to answer questions. And I believe we have that clip.
- [06:22]
A
On the advice of counsel, I respectfully
- [06:24]
C
decline to answer based upon my rights
- [06:27]
A
under the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. Let's just get one thing straight. You don't have any rights under the Fifth Amendment because you've been pardoned, as you very well know, as the Supreme Court has been clear for a century and more. Brown versus Walker, 1896. When he has been pardoned, he may not stand upon his privilege. You know that. Your lawyers sitting behind you now, shifting nervously in their chairs, they know it. This isn't about the Constitution. This isn't about the law. This is about contempt. Contempt for this body and contempt for the American people. But I think I know why you're doing it. It's because you don't want to answer questions. It's because you did all kinds of terrible things. It's because during the pandemic, you got rich, didn't you? You got rich while people were dying. Hundreds of thousands of Americans, over a million in the end. And you were getting rich. And not only were you doing that, you were using federal employees with taxpayer money to apply for and solicit cash prizes for you personally. Cash prizes totaling over a million dollars. You did all of that during the pandemic, didn't you, Tim? Senator hawley there mentions Dr. Fauci's lawyers who are with him. There was a remarkable moment involving Senator Paul and Fauci's lawyer. Tell us about that.
- [07:45]
C
Yeah, so this happened right at the beginning. This lawyer, for context, is a notorious or a well known, I should say defense attorney for people who have definitely done something wrong. He was most recently seen representing former Democratic Senator Bob Menendez is currently in jail for accepting bribes in the form of gold bars from Egyptian businessman. So this guy came and sat next to Fauci at the table right in front of the in the Senate chamber. And we eventually learned that he was not supposed to be sitting there, but they sort of allowed him to do so until the lawyer tried to talk, tried to essentially testify on behalf of his client, which he was not invited to do, at which point Senator Rand Paul took matters into his own hands. Let's play that clip.
- [08:35]
A
But the attorneys are not recognized.
- [08:38]
D
In fact, the attorney was told not to sit at the table and he's not obeying that recommendation. There's a row behind you, sir.
- [08:44]
A
That's where you were told to sit and you're not. And now you're disrupting the proceedings.
- [08:49]
D
And so look, this is the way
- [08:50]
A
Anthony Fauci wants to be remembered for a lawyer not listening to the rules. That's the way you want to be remembered, and that's what you're going to do. You are not recognized, sir.
- [09:01]
D
Security, please remove him from the room.
- [09:20]
E
I just.
- [09:31]
A
As a guy who has been kicked out of many classrooms as a child for talking too much, I know that move that the lawyer pulled where he stands up and pretends like he's not embarrassed. He slowly puts everything back in his bag, slowly walks out just to kind of cause even more of a scene, not surprising stuff. Tim, we're going to bring you back on tomorrow to talk about the fallout from what really was a remarkable day in the Senate. But we appreciate you giving us the highlights as always, man.
- [10:00]
C
Of course. Great to see you, Kevin.
- [10:02]
A
That was Daily Wired D.C. bureau Chief Tim Rice. The second part of Rice and Beans here on Wired in. All right, let's jump across town and bring on Daily Wire opinion editor Ben Domenech. Ben, great to see you. I want to hit a few topics, but first, let's start with Fauci. What did you make of his appearance before the Senate today?
- [10:22]
B
Well, you know, I think this has been something that's a long time coming. The American people have demanded and really, I think it's been underestimated how much this is A lightning rod issue. They've demanded accountability for the experience of living under the decisions of the Fauci led regime. And those ramifications have unfortunately been very few and far between. You know, other than really the consequences that we've seen that have played out. When it comes to some of the tech companies, the people who are actually making decisions from positions of power, including Anthony Fauci, have really skated. And the thing that I think we need to understand is that there's kind of two levels of this right now. One is the legal questions that are involved. The reason that Anthony Fauci was taking the fifth, as he was advised by his attorneys, is not so much because of what the federal government can do to him at this point, especially given the sweeping pardon that he was given under Joe Biden, which the President says, President Trump says that he will respect. The truth is that there's a lot of state level lawsuits that could play out in the future where Fauci will have negative consequences and he will be dragged into court in lots of different ways. Does this end up in any way in him behind bars or something like that? I think that's extremely unlikely. Though I do think that clearly today qualified as something where he should be found in contempt of Congress. By the way, contempt of Congress is something that the Congress has the power to enforce to a great degree, but they choose not to. It's been one of these things that they've employed in the past. You may recall that they employed it, for instance, against Obama era officials in response to the gun running mechanism that they used when it came to Mexico. But they never really, you know, actually put any of the people involved in that case. It was the most prominent, Eric. Was Eric Holder in jail or anything like that. But then there's also the public damage, and I think that that was what you really saw play out today. Anthony Fauci is clearly someone who cares a great deal about the way his public image is presented. His entire diary is an indication of that. I've never seen someone more obsessed with their appearance who wasn't a teenage girl. And I have to tell you that this was something that I think is gonna be far more damaging in terms of his reputation, in terms of the way that he has thought about in the past, and in terms of the way that he thinks about himself than anything that we saw from these senators today. While I think that their questions are significant and important, the truth is that the reason that I think Foushee seems so agitated is he knows that after people have seen the way that he thinks about himself in his own words, the way that he lied to the American people about the people who are trying to tell the truth about the origin of COVID That's something that's gonna stick with him for the rest of his career and his life.
- [13:07]
A
Ben, from a political perspective, I've heard some Democrats and even some folks on the right say, why are Republicans intent on relitigating Covid? Do you think it's a mistake for them to use political capital on this topic five years after lockdown's ended, or do you think this is a good use of power?
- [13:23]
B
I absolutely think that this is within their. Within their oversight power. And I think that Senator Paul, frankly, made a good case in front of the media after the hearing of the different questions that he was specifically asking, questions that get to the core of the decision making process that was involved here. Look, we can't pretend like this was the last pandemic that we're going to experience. I mean, knock on wood, Cabot, that we never have to go through anything like this again. But it's important to actually look at the concerns that people raise, understand what they are and be guarded against them in the future to make sure that these types of things don't happen. That the lack of transparency is something that, that no longer is accepted from these bureaucrats who thought that they knew better. And that only happens in a realm where the Congress use its oversight power, even if it's just to embarrass the people who are involved for the decisions that they made. I think it's absolutely worthwhile to spend time on this because I don't think we should operate under the assumption that this is the last time that these types of decisions are going to be made at the highest levels of government. And we should be prepared and so should the citizenry for the next time that something like this. Again, hoping nothing, nowhere near as severe ever comes to pass.
- [14:30]
A
Gosh, I would love to see Ben Domenech in one of those chairs in the Senate grilling Dr. Fauci. That would have been a lot of fun. All right, let's get to Iran. There was a surprise attack targeting US Forces in Jordan last night. President Trump this morning threatening to beat the effing blank out of Iran. That's a direct quote. Your thoughts on what President Trump should do right now?
- [14:53]
B
I think that the president, and this is something that I think he really has been running into. I think the president needs to make a decision about whether he's going to f. Things up or cut bait. You know, like, it's a very basic, I think, question for him. And unfortunately, I think that he's kind of caught in between where there are Republicans who definitely don't want him to ramp things up the way that I think that he would like to, especially in response to, you know, Americans being targeted and being killed. This regime, though, is. Is increasingly. It's clear from the intelligence that we have and from the reports of verifiable, you know, media outlets, they're rebuilding at a much greater speed than I think a lot of people thought possible. Which goes back to a question we've talked about before, Cabot, which is whether the intelligence that we had based on the assumptions going into this initial conflict was actually accurate or not, whether we knew how much material they actually had to throw at us. And my general assessment is that we got that wrong, though. I think that we can say that that's something where, you know, there. It might have been impossible just given the lack of human intelligence we have on the ground to know that. But we have. We have serious problems now. The munitions that we have to use against the various Iranian weapons is increasingly diminished. You know, that is stuff that takes a while to spin up. You can't just, you know, order them and have them show up like they're being delivered by Amazon Prime. And so I think that this is a situation where the President needs to make a decision. Do you go big? Do you go bold? Do you actually follow through on this stuff, or is it just an example of bluster? And I think that for the President's own reputation and for, you know, the. The reputation of the United States of America, that's something that he should not entertain. He should not just go down the road of saying, I'm gonna fire off some tweets and we're gonna have a couple more pinprick strikes. We're gonna pretend like we've done something significant, but the rest of the world is gonna know that we didn't.
- [16:44]
A
It is a bit of Groundhog Day, where we've had this conversation multiple times over the last few months of the Iranians did something. President Trump threatening this. What should he do? And I don't mean to be repetitive, but that's just the cycle that we're in right now. Now.
- [16:58]
B
It is. It is. And Kabba. And just quickly, I would say that part of that is just due to the general lack of, I think, analytical intelligence when it came to the. The regime and its capabilities. I think that we legitimately, the American authorities, the military authorities, the intelligence authorities. I think that they thought they had a better aim on what the Iranians could do, what was potentially possible for them than it turned out to be. That's a big mistake. And I hope that ultimately talk about oversight, this is something where there should be some ramifications in terms of changes.
- [17:31]
A
No, there's no doubt, Ben, that this war is increasingly unpopular with the American people. And I think there's an idea that that must mean that folks would prefer Democratic leadership on the topic of Iran. But there was a fascinating poll that came out this week, I believe, from YouGov, where they asked people, which party do you trust more in dealing with Iran? Republicans still hold a two point lead on that question. Is that surprising to you?
- [17:57]
B
I actually think that that just speaks to the fact that the Democrats have no foreign policy agenda that is in any way consistent other than at this point hating Israel, which seems to be the dominant force within their coalition. Look, I don't think that the American people, just because they dislike the president's foreign policy as it relates to Iran, and I think they do dislike it, that is still not a sign that they want to hand things over to a bunch of Democrats who sound increasingly crazy when it comes to world affairs. Do you really think that AOC or Gavin Newsom are going to be better options for you? Do you think that, you know, Hakeem Jeffries knows a bit about what he ought to do when it comes to foreign policy? No, they're just reacting, acting in a knee jerk way. And look, I think that that gives the president a window of opportunity to win a lot of those voters back and to win them over by actually achieving a victory which has to be, again, defined clearly by the president. It can't just be true. Social Posts.
- [18:52]
A
Ben Domenech, always great to have you on the show, man. We appreciate it. Anytime we can get you. Thanks so much.
- [18:58]
B
Great to be with you.
- [18:59]
A
That was Daily Wire opinion editor Ben Domenech. Guys, we've been talking all day about Dr. Fauci's appearance before the Senate this morning. So let's get over to Capitol Hill and hear from one of the men holding his feet to the fire. It's Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson. Senator Johnson, it's great to have you on. Thanks for having me on a whirlwind morning and afternoon. What did the American people learn today during this hearing?
- [19:24]
D
I think they learned who Anthony Vaucher really was. This is where accountability for all the lies he told, all of the actions he directed that were so Devastating to people's lives, to our economy. This is where it all began. And he really was in a difficult position because if he told the truth, if he testified and told the truth, he'd further incriminate himself. If he lied, he put himself into greater legal jeopardy and couldn't try to defend his position, but he really couldn't. I mean, I think the release of the diaries was devastating to him. I mean the fact that, you know, one thing I pointed out, maybe a small point, but he literally lied to his own diary, I guess to be able to promote that lie later on in a self serving book. But again, I think Chairman Paul did a great job in his opening statement just laying out exactly how corrupt and what a big lie the whole sprung from nature narrative was. I think Josh Hawley just devastated him when talking about the fact that Anthony Fauci used his government devices, his government position, his influence, his staff members to solicit awards that were worth over a million dollars to him while people were dying from the coronavirus, that his gain of function funding probably produced and dying and being permanently injured by the experimental gene therapy that he, that he ended up mandating through Biden to so many people or coerced him into or convinced him to taking.
- [20:57]
A
Senator, a number of your colleagues today argued that because Dr. Fauci was granted blanket immunity by President Biden, he no longer has the right legally to plead the fifth. Do you agree with that assessment?
- [21:08]
D
I do. That's why we'll hold a markup and hold him in voting him in contempt of Congress next week in the committee. Now the Democrats won't join in that they were still praising us, saying Fauci, they're just not looking at the evidence. They're not looking at reality.
- [21:22]
A
And I want to get to a topic that you also grilled him on today, and that was Dr. Fauci's efforts to sabotage alternative Covid treatments like hydroxychloroquine and ivectamin or ivermectin. I can remember times during COVID when there were people punished for sharing studies about the application of these drugs on social media. They were censored for doing that. And now we know that Dr. Fauci was working behind the scenes to undermine any positive conversation about those treatments. Tell us what your committee has uncovered on that front.
- [21:55]
D
Well, first of all, doctors careers were destroyed if they had the courage and compassion to treat COVID patients with things that worked. There's one attorney that started advocating for families who loved ones were basically held prisoner in hospitals. Right. They're being forced to take remdesivir, put on ventilators and dying. So these families go, would you please, would you just please try some of these alternate treatments, like ivermectin, like hydroxychloroquine, like brunesonide. And the hospital just said, no, not going to do it. Here's our protocol dictated by, basically, Fauci, other people in these federal health agencies, a protocol that was killing people. So of the cases he won, approximately 50, only two people died. They were too far gone. And the cases he lost, every one of those cases, a loved one lost. We're going to hold a public event on those hospital protocols. I'm starting to read the testimony. They are heart wrenching, they are gut wrenching. They're just horrific. The way hospitals, doctors treated, particularly if you're unvaccinated. I mean, multiple times, different states, different hospitals, somebody come in unvaxed, your dad's going to die. What'd you expect? He's unvaxxed and shuffled him off. Shuffled him off and put $3,000 worth of remdesivir in his veins, knocked out his kidneys, put him on a vent and just watched him die slowly over the course of weeks and probably billed the government and insurance companies for 3,400,000 bucks in some cases.
- [23:25]
A
Senator, there are millions of Americans who are grateful that we're finally getting some form of public accountability towards Dr. Fauci. But legally speaking, we know that he is immune. And President Trump has said he will uphold that pardon given by President Biden. And so there are folks on the right who say this is all grandstanding. The hearing is nice. It's good for us to embarrass Dr. Fauci because he deserves it. But is anything actually going to come out of this hearing? What do you say to those people?
- [23:52]
D
This hearing and our investigations are hugely important. So much of our society just wants to move on from COVID not learn the lessons from COVID They are going to, at some point in time, have another pandemic they're already trying to spoil right now with hantavirus, monkeypox, Ebola, so they can scare us again into taking some kind of experimental injection, take away our freedoms, close down schools, close down our economy. So it's extremely important that we examine exactly what happened, what Fauci was actually saying to his diary, behind the scenes versus the exact opposite in the public. And accountability. Exposing the truth is the number one form of accountability. The guy's 85 years old. Do I need to See him go in jail? No, But I don't want to see him go down history as saying Fauci. I want him to go down history accurately as the infamous villain, the despicable individual he truly is. To me, I think that's the most important thing. And we, you know, took a big step in that direction, that level of accountability today. I don't know how anybody with an unbiased eye could take a look at that hearing and not come away going, man, this Fauci was a bad dude. I mean, this guy needs to be held accountable.
- [25:13]
A
Yeah, there's no doubt about that. This hearing today, obviously dominating the conversation on the Hill. But many Americans are also very focused on the Save America Act, President Trump included. If you look at polling, voter ID is one of the only thing that people in both parties agree on. 77% of Americans support it, even 62% of Democrats. So why has the Senate yet to pass this legislation? In your view, what is the sticking point?
- [25:38]
D
Because there's a 60 vote threshold to pass legislation like this. You can't do full Save America act through reconciliation. Just doesn't pass parliamentary mustard. And Democrats are utterly opposed to any kind of election integrity measure that would be existential to their game plan of turning America into one party nation. They need to be able to cheat in elections. They want to cheat in elections so that they are going to resist anything that would restore confidence in our elections. So it's Democrats are preventing us from doing that. And listen, I've come out very early on saying, I mean, the Senate is so broken, we are eliminate the filibusters so we can start doing some of these good things for the American people. But we've got a lot of my Republican colleagues who have legitimate concerns that if we end the filibuster, Democrats will use it to pass nation destroying type of legislation. And I think they'll do it anyway. A lot of my colleagues just don't believe Democrats will end the filibuster when they have the opportunity. So that's kind of the divide. The Republican Party in the Senate. Again, it's a legitimate concern on the part of my colleagues who disagree with me about eliminating the filibuster. But the reason we can't pass Save America or any election integrity measure is because Democrats are universally opposed to doing so. It's not because Republicans, we support election integrity. We wanna make it impossible to cheat, easy to vote, hard to cheat. Democrats wanna make it easy to cheat.
- [26:57]
A
Yeah, you answered my next question. Because one of the common refrains I hear from Republicans who I respect, but they will say, well, if we do this, Democrats will use that power against us. And I think you're absolutely right that if we've learned nothing else from the past decade or two, it's the Democrats will use power against Republicans whether Republicans do the same or not. Before we let you go, I want
- [27:17]
D
to get, I tell my colleagues, do you really think a party that opened up our border to millions of unvetted individuals, including transnational criminal organizations, violent gangs, human sex and drug traffickers, you think they'll hesitate a moment to eliminate the filibusters so they can turn D.C. into Puerto Rico, into states and pass the Supreme Court? Not a chance.
- [27:39]
A
Yeah. Senator, before we go, I want to get your take on the governor's race taking place back in your home state of Wisconsin. We still have to have the primary, but based on the polling, it looks like Democrats are about to nominate Francesca Hong, a self avowed socialist who has in the past advocated for abolishing the Senate altogether. What does it say that a woman like that is about to be nominated by the Democratic Party in a state like Wisconsin where you wouldn't expect this sort of thing? I think
- [28:05]
D
it's a very sad commentary on our education system and our general news media. Listen, I can understand where socialism after the Great Depression, somebody looked at laissez faire capitalism, we got to look for something else. But after more than 100 years, or 100 years of watching socialism, communism destroy nations, destroy economies, result in tyrannies and the deaths of tens of millions of people, you gotta face facts. And socialism is a really bad thing and it will never work. But we don't educate our kids along those lines. We push class warfare. And of course on news media, a bunch of fellow travelers, bunch of radical leftists as well. So it's a very sad commentary that any of these Democrat socialist candidates have even a chance. But they have a chance because we're just simply not educating our population properly.
- [28:57]
A
Senator, thank you so much for your time. You're always welcome here. We appreciate your work. And we will stay tuned on the follow up to this explosive hearing today.
- [29:06]
D
Have a great day.
- [29:07]
A
That was Senator Ron Johnson from the great state of Wisconsin. Let's get to another state that Republicans are trying to make great and that is California. We have the man running to be the next governor. There it is, Republican Steve Hilton. Steve, thank you so much for making time for us.
- [29:25]
E
Of course. So great to be with you. Thank you.
- [29:27]
A
We always love having you on, Steve. Obviously the economy and Crime are huge issues in your campaign. But lately, the topic dominating your race has been your opponent, Javier Becerra, and his role in overseeing migrant camps during the Biden administration, where he served as DHS secretary. Now, there was explosive testimony from a DHS whistleblower recently who says that Becerra oversaw migrant child abuse camps. There are some terrifying details from this whistleblower. Tell us about these allegations.
- [29:56]
E
So these are really shocking. And the more we dig into it and the more whistleblowers come forward, the worse it is. I mean, the headline is very straightforward and unbelievable, actually, when you think about the fact that he's not been held accountable for this. Javier Becerra. During his tenure as HHS secretary, Becerra turned America's Department of Health and Human Services into the largest child trafficking operation in history. There's no other way of looking at it. And let's just look through the facts here to establish why that is. First of all, during the Biden Becerra years, we had, of course, the open border crisis, as you're just discussing with Senator Johnson, you had whatever, 11 million people, more probably come across the border. 479,000 unaccompanied children came across the border. That's the number. Every single one of them was in the care, if you can call it that, of Becerra, his agencies responsible for the unaccompanied children. So he set up camps, emergency camps all over the country, three of them in California, San Diego, Long beach and Pomona. The whistleblower that came forward to our campaign worked in the Pomona camp. The stories she told was not only of the abuse that was going on in the camps, sexual abuse and horrific treatment of the children in the camps, totally contradicting what Becerra says in terms of them being well looked after. She described how, on Becerra's instructions, the vetting that was in place to make sure when the kids left the camps, they were in the care of a responsible adult who would look after them and take care of them, was completely dismantled. Why? Because Becerra, for his own personal political reputation, didn't want the images of kids in camps in their thousands. So he told them to speed up the release of the children, dismantle, get rid of the vetting and just get the kids out as quickly as possible. And that's how you end up in a situation where we now know that the number, the total number of children that went missing on his watch is 319,000. Now, the Trump administration has been working hard to find them. And has actually found 180,000 of them. That means there are 140,000 still out there missing. 100,000 of them are under 13 years old today. They're still missing. And we know from the stories that have been reported by the New York Times, among others, that these children, in their thousands, were sent directly into the clutches of child sex traffickers, used as child labor, exploited viciously. Stories of young children having their arms ripped off in industrial accidents, deaths. This is horrific. It is entirely his responsibility. It's incredibly important that we don't just allow this to be swept under the rug or put down to incompetence. He was deliberate. And if this man can do such harm to so many children in order to try and save his political reputation, that is completely disqualifying for any public office, let alone governor of California.
- [33:15]
A
Has he addressed these allegations?
- [33:18]
E
Yeah, he denies it and deflects. He says it has nothing to do with him. Everyone was well treated if things that happened after the camps were not his responsibility. In any case, it's all Trump's fault. Trump. Trump. Trump. That's all they have to say. And the truth is there's been zero accountability for him. His Democrat opponents in the primary for governor actually tried to raise some of these concerns. He blew them off and said, oh, it's just MAGA talking points. That's what he said repeatedly in debates when his opponent said, what are you talking about? This is in the New York Times. They broke the story. But since the New York Times broke the story, that's three years ago, more and more details have come out. Even since our event on Monday, which we held in one of the locations of the camps where we played the whistleblower testimony, more whistleblowers have come forward. And so we are just at the beginning of exposing what he did and the consequences. And if he thinks he can just get away with this by putting out ridiculous statements and hoping that we move on, we're not gonna let him get away with that.
- [34:24]
A
It is such an important story. And I've already seen some in the Legacy press claim that Steve Hilton is echoing conspiracy theory claims from the MAGA universe. And I think it's indicative of how far they're willing to go to try and suppress this information from getting out. We're glad that you are promoting the claims that are important from these whistleblowers. Steve, you mentioned President Trump earlier. I wanna look big picture at your race. Obviously, if you're going to win in California, you're going to have to be able to win over folks who did not vote for President Trump. And you had an ad recently where you explicitly spoke to people who might not consider themselves Republican or might not consider themselves MAGA on why they should vote for you. What is that message?
- [35:07]
E
Well, there are millions of moderate Democrats, independents in California don't like the President, that's no secret. But who are desperate for change right here in our state. They cannot cope any longer with the highest cost of living in the country, the highest gas prices, utility bills, housing costs. It's so hard to run a business with the endless ridiculous rules and regulations, the crime, the homelessness, the fact that our public schools are among the worst in the country, even though we spend nearly the most everything you look at. We've just been rated 50th out of 50 for public safety. U.S. news and World Report just this week ranked California 50th out of 50 states for opportunity. So on and on. The failure after 16 years of one party rule is so apparent. And so I'm saying directly to those people who may not like President Trump, you can still vote for me and be anti Trump because the things that we're talking about, $3 gas, cut, utility bills in half, your first 150 grand, tax free starter homes for young families, these are positive, practical things. They're not ideological. Everyone can get behind them. I don't want to tell anyone how to live their life. I just want everyone to be able to live the life they want in California. And that's the message. I think that will speak to the majority of Californians who say in every poll it's around 60 odd percent who say the state's going in the wrong direction and it's time for change. That's how we actually pull off what I know is considered to be an improbable, but I'm confident we can pull it off in November.
- [36:37]
A
And one of the ways you can pull it off is by just simply reaching voters. And you've been doing that with a number of viral campaign ads. I want to play a clip from one of your latest ads just so our audience can see it.
- [36:50]
F
As long as the machine rules California, nothing will ever change.
- [36:55]
G
The homelessness problem continues to worsen in California.
- [36:58]
A
Gas prices in the state have reached a record high. Another local favorite has closed down in Santa Monica.
- [37:04]
E
Things have just gotten so expensive.
- [37:06]
G
I don't know if we can continue living here.
- [37:08]
F
We just want someone, anyone to hear us.
- [37:14]
A
Okay, we've got to figure out this governor thing. I'd do it forever, but it's my turn to be president. Adam Schiff wants that video banned. He's saying it's a threat to democracy. Why is that?
- [37:26]
E
I know. Because they don't like creative ways of bringing to people's attention the corruption and failure of 16 years of one party rule. Anytime there's any challenge. This is the attitude, the mentality you get with one party rule. You were talking about communism earlier. My parents are Hungarian refugees from communism. I know what it's like to live in a state where one party's in control of everything. And that's the kind of attitude you get where any kind of challenge is just crushed and squashed and they try and silence you and they don't like the criticism. And that's why they've come out with these ludicrous statements. What are you talking about? Threat to democracy? The threat to democracy is having no checks and balances. One party in control of everything for so long. But we're gonna keep going. We got a lot more where that came from.
- [38:22]
A
Yeah. Again, I would encourage folks to go watch the full video. It is something I have to ask before we let you go. The question that I'm sure is on the minds of a lot of folks, a lot of Republicans especially, and that is the election integrity within California. We just saw the La Merrill race where they were counting votes for in excess of a month. Do you have confidence that folks can trust the results in California's election system?
- [38:48]
E
Yeah, I do, actually. I mean, I want to be really clear about this. That ad that we just saw a clip of is called the People versus the Machine. And we are up against a very powerful, corruptly financed machine in California. You saw a few glimpses of that there. Those characters representing the government unions and taxpayer funded nonprofits. So for years they've been bending the rules to favor themselves in elections. The universal mail in ballots, sending ballots out to everyone, even though the voter rolls are massively wrong and out of date ballot harvesting, where those nonprofits, and we know that this happens, you know, go out and collect votes on a massive scale and do it without the people necessarily even knows knowing who they're voting for. All of these things have been documented. But they're legal. That's the point to bear in mind, they are legal. And so the only responsible response from a Republican is to say, right, let's beat them at their own game. That's why we're fighting so hard. We've got to raise a lot of money, we've got to build our own operation to get the vote. Out to do ballot harvesting. And that's exactly what we're doing. Because actually if we get a Republican turnout that's really big in California, that will get us a long way towards victory. The last number I will leave you with. Apart from the 60% of all Californians who want change, there's another number, very important one. We think that the number of votes that I will need to win in November is about 6 million. That's based on past turnout in midterm elections in California and in the primary this year, President Trump in California in 2024 got 6.1 million votes. So if we get that big turnout, and by the way, voter ID you were just discussing that is actually on the ballot in California. We have a ballot initiative that we help qualify that will bring in voter ID in California that is very motivating for Republican voters. So if we just really put the effort in and organize a strong grassroots turnout, then I think we can beat this machine. They've totally failed. A majority thinks that we need change. We just got to have a strong campaign to show that now there really is a positive, practical alternative.
- [41:02]
A
Well, I would just like to interview the 40% of Californians who believe the state is going in the right direction. And just to hear, where did that come from? Steve Hilton, it's great to have you on. You're welcome back anytime. We're going to be talking about your race quite a bit on this show.
- [41:16]
E
Thanks so much. Great to see you. See you soon.
- [41:19]
A
Absolutely. That was Steve Hilton, Republican candidate for governor in California. All right, it's time to check in on the economy. And for that we turn to our good friend Carol Roth, former investment banker and New York Times best selling author of the fantastic book you Will Own Nothing. Carol, it's great to see you. How are you doing?
- [41:37]
D
I'm doing well.
- [41:38]
F
Always nice to see you. Kabbat.
- [41:39]
A
Yes. It's been a bit since we last spoke, so I want to start big picture. Just gauge where you're at right now. How are you feeling these days about the state of the U.S. economy?
- [41:49]
F
Well, I think you've heard of Tale of Two Cities. I think there is a tale of two economies. It depends on if you're an asset holder or not. If you have a 401k, if you have a home and you have benefited from inflation in that assets, your net worth has probably gone up and you're probably feeling okay. However, if you do not have a lot of assets, you have then been dragged down by cost of living inflation and that means you are treading water for trying to keep up with everyday expenses, whether that be food, whether that be rent and housing, whether that be insurance, property taxes or whatnot. So it's a very different set of outcomes, and I think that it's left a lot of Americans very frustrated.
- [42:36]
A
Carol, we're going to get the next PCE inflation report tomorrow morning. What do you think it's going to show? Are prices going up or are we going down?
- [42:46]
F
It's an excellent question. The expectation is that it's going to continue to go down. We know that the big driver of inflation has been the conflict with Iran. And so it's not that it's a good thing because obviously that affects everybody's pocketbooks today, but it's something that has bounced around a lot and over the last month, from a trend line perspective, even though from day to day it may look different, seems to be a little bit better than it was the previous month and so on and so forth. So I do think that it's going to be a little bit better, but a little bit better still means a lot of inflation and a lot of additional costs when somebody goes to the grocery store, tries to, you know, basically go through the everyday cost of living.
- [43:33]
A
Let's get to the market on that front. We've got The Dow tumbling 2.1% today, S&P 500 down a point and a half. Nasdaq 1.74. Not a good day. But overall, if you look at the last few months, there has still been solid growth on Wall Street. How much of that growth do you think was based on optimism that an end to the war in Iran was imminent, the strait would open soon. And what do you see the markets doing if it becomes clear that this war is going to drag on into the fall?
- [44:02]
F
Yeah, I mean, you could see the market, you know, going up and down depending on, you know, what the latest is in that conflict. I kind of feel like it's Ross and Rachel from Friends. You know, they're on a break, they're off a break, and depending on what's happening, if they're on or off a break, that's what the market tends to be doing. So that is a big driver. And you're going to continue to see dips as that gets sorted out or not sorted out. The other thing that happened today that was a big driver, too, is that we had a Fed meeting and they decided to hold rates constant, which theoretically is a good thing. There was some projection, a small amount of projection, that there could be a rate Hike. But we did have three members of the FOMC who dissented, saying that they would have preferred a hike. So I think that that concerns the market, that maybe instead of going in the direction which we thought we were going to be in at the beginning of the year, that we'd get more rate cuts, that now we're in a position where interest rates might be going up further. And as we know, that impacts the costs of lending throughout the economy, whether it's your credit card bills, whether it's the cost of businesses and small businesses getting loans and intensive tends to slow down economic growth a bit. So I think that was one of the big factors why we saw that big drop off today.
- [45:18]
A
To that point, Trump is publicly, routinely calling on new Fed Chair Kevin Warsh to lower interest rates. But today, again, fifth consecutive meeting where they held steady. Do you think that was the right call, holding steady?
- [45:32]
F
I do. I think that, you know, first of all, you don't want to surprise the market, particularly as a new Fed chair. And so if you are going to, to do something whether it's lower or raise, you should be signaling that far in advance. And since they hadn't, I think it would have been odd for them to, to actually go in one direction or another. Inflation, as I said, we know what the driver is, right? We know that the primary driver right now is this conflict. And I don't think that there's a lot that the Fed has in its toolkit that will change that. Plus, if the Fed were to, let's say, hike rates, for example, you know, they could then impact the, they could impact jobs, they could impact global financial markets. And so I don't think they really have the tool to combat inflation. And there's a lot at risk. So I do think that the right call was made.
- [46:26]
A
All right, we've talked about some macroeconomics. Let's get to some microeconomics, some personal economics, if you will. You have a great piece this week in Fox. It's a topic that has long enraged me and made me feel like kind of a jerk, because I am a good tipper. However, it's gotten out of hand. And you wrote about what you called rewarding service to fee insanity. Let's hear your take on tipping culture today.
- [46:53]
F
Yeah, I feel like we've gotten to the tipping point on tipping, and I'm like you, Kevin, I actually love to tip. I love to tip. Well, I tend to tip above what is suggested for outstanding service. It's something that makes me happy. But that, that's Supposed to be my signal. I'm supposed to give it to somebody after they've done a great job. And you know, that's sort of my way of having this, you know, special handshake with the person and thanking them. But has become a bit of an obligation, right? You go to order coffee before you even know what the service is, they turn a screen to you and they say, okay, here's a tip. You don't even know that it's going to the person who you had the interaction with. And on top of the direct tipping, now you have all of these places adding in service charges and fees. Instead of raising their prices, they're trying to non transparently kind of nickel and dime the customer, which doesn't create loyalty. So this is something I've been hearing a lot of frustration with. And certainly, you know, we want to have that price signal and that market signal. Somebody gets rewarded for doing well, but they've taken that away from us, Cabot. And I think we need to reclaim
- [48:01]
A
and I agree with you, that is a form of cultural socialism taking place of saying, hey, let's just have equity of outcome and make sure that everyone, everyone's getting the same tip regardless of service. I'm glad that you are with me and that you're risking being labeled as a curmudgeon because sometimes you have to do that to maintain sanity. I would encourage everyone go read Carol's piece up on Fox this week about tipping culture and follow her commentary on the economy on X. It is fantastic stuff. And go read her book, you will own nothing as well. Carol, great to have you on. We really appreciate it.
- [48:37]
F
Nice to see you.
- [48:39]
A
Well, if you're watching Wired in live on the Daily Wire plus app, thank you. If not, that's where you should be. That's where you get push alerts when we go live, breaking news as it happens and the latest smart investigative reporting team. The Daily Wire app is free and available now on the App Store, Google Play, Apple tv, Roku, Samsung LG and more. Well, as the father to a six month old and a two and a half year old, as I've talked about on this show, you guys know I'm always looking for parenting advice anywhere I can find it. But a lot of times what I hear contradicts my own personal beliefs or it just lacks common sense or even any scientific backing. But our next guest has been encouraging and inspiring millions of parents through her books, blogs and commentary, offering parents of all ages straightforward advice and at times some tough love which is needed. It's psychoanalyst and parenting expert Erika Comisar. Erika, it's a pleasure to have you.
- [49:32]
G
Thank you for having me.
- [49:34]
A
So, Erica, I first became aware of your work through my wife, who has sent many of your Instagram posts my way. And since I've read your work in the Institute for Family Studies and elsewhere, I'm excited to talk to you. I have a million questions, so if you'll just indulge me and let's jump around a bit. Let's start with a fantastic piece you just wrote called Wine Moms Switched to Weed, But Their Wounds have Not Changed. Tell us what you wrote about there.
- [50:01]
G
Well, I just. I wrote a piece about how women are isolated when they have a baby and they bring their baby home. They really are not supported in society. They're not supported often by their families. They often can't find other moms who are mothering because 25% of families sorry, 25% of families in America leave their children in daycare at two weeks of age. Either babies are in daycare or they're left with babysitters. So there aren't that many mothers that are actually mothering. And it's basically mothering, which was elevated at some point and admired work, is now deprioritized and devalued. And so what's happening with those women is they're coming home and they're getting depressed. It's leading to postpartum depression. It's also encouraging them to go back to work sooner than they even have to because they're really just isolated and alone. And I started a nonprofit called Attachment Circles for that purpose because I was trying to create community for women who have children and trying to elevate mothering again to a status that, you know, that helps mothers to feel that they're doing valuable work in society.
- [51:21]
A
And the line that stuck out to me most in this piece was, quote, we have sold an entire generation of mothers the same quiet proposition that the way through the difficulty of raising a young child is to feel less of it. Can you expand on what that means?
- [51:37]
G
Yeah, I mean, I think that in general, the younger generation has not been taught that discomfort is part of pleasure. I mean, in an interesting way, that much of the pleasure of sacrifice and responsibility involves some discomfort. I mean, it's interesting is when it comes to things like exercise and fitness and, you know, the younger generations have been taught, including my generation, that, you know, some discomfort is how you get to pleasure. But for some reason, with having babies, I don't think we're teaching young people that some of the discomfort that comes with being responsible with sacrificing for your children actually leads to a great deal of pleasure because those children end up being very healthy and there ends up being a great deal of love and connection with them. But it is uncomfortable. I mean, having children is uncomfortable. It means giving up a great deal. It means not sleeping as well for a while. It means doing less. It means, actually I use a term which is lending your children your narcissism in those early years, meaning you get it back when they're older, you know, when they're grown up, you get it back. It's not like you give it away forever, but you do lend them your narcissism. What that means is that you have to give up a lot to have healthy children. And so, yeah, I mean, I think that it's not an article that blames mothers. It's actually an article that tries to get to the root of what the issue is, which is that society has a problem. It doesn't value mothering, it doesn't prioritize mothering, it doesn't admire mothering. And that leads young women to be very confused about whether they even want to be mothers, which is why there's so few young people that want to have children. So that's society's messaging, you know, tearing women apart inside, telling them that they should go back to work, you know, just weeks after they have had a baby and their bodies aren't even healed. But there's also the issue of young people today are also struggling with their own self orientation and their own difficulties about what it takes to raise healthy children is some sacrifice and responsibility. So I think it's an article that tries to be balanced about what is really at the root of the unhappiness in society and I suppose the unhappiness around parenting because there's a lot of complaining, there's a lot of unhappiness, there's a lot of deciding not to do it. And it wasn't even questioned in my generation that having children was the most significant part of life and probably one of the most important things you'll do in your life if you choose to have children. Being a good parent and having mentally healthy and loving children who are productive citizens and, and give to the world and are loved by others, that was the most important thing you could do. Much more important than how much money you made or how much material possessions you had or how successful you were in your career. This generation is questioning all that.
- [54:38]
A
And You've talked a bit about this, but can you just elaborate on what are some of the challenges that you think mothers face today that are unique to this generation?
- [54:46]
G
I mean, I think the greatest challenge they have is the confusion that they feel that they're not supported, that there is no community when they, you know, it used to be you brought a baby home three generations ago and you were welcomed into a community of other mothers who were mothering. And you had, you know, you had this wonderful kind of community of women who are raising children too. And now women come home with their babies and there are no other mothers around. There are babysitters and nannies or children are put in daycare. So there's none of that kind of community oriented. So that's very hard. And also, women are the messaging, the narrative is that mothering is unimportant work. And therefore going back to work and making money and being important outside in the world is much more important. And that's really doing our children in. That is really, it's contributing to this rise in mental illness in children because children have irreducible needs. And some of those needs have to do with attachment, security, and having that one person who makes them feel safe and secure in the world present physically and emotionally in those first three years, that first critical period of brain development. But to be honest, throughout childhood, I mean, you don't have to be a full time mom. You can work. But if you're prioritizing your work and the way, you know you're prioritizing your work is the number of hours you spend there. You know, if you are really spending more hours a day than you know with you, with your work than you are with your children, you work outside your home than your children, then you know what you're prioritizing. You know, and I'm not insensitive to the financial needs of families. There are some families who really, really need two incomes. And you know, there are even ways and choices that mothers have that would improve their ability to be more present for their children. But, you know, listen, I am neither a conservative nor a liberal. I'm sure you've heard me say that over and over again. And I will say that without having living in a country that doesn't have paid leave and support all mothers in that first year gives the messaging to mothers that it's not important work. I mean, that is the message. If you don't provide paid leave like every other country in the world to those mothers, you're basically giving a message to those mothers. That this is not important. This is not important work.
- [57:13]
A
Now, one of the things that you've been quite outspoken about has been daycare. And I said at the top that you often offer tough love. And this is a topic that does understandably evoke a lot of emotions from parents. And I don't think you talk about this issue trying to guilt anyone. And I appreciate how loving and gentle you are in this way. But what are the tangible side effects of daycare? What do the numbers, what does the data say about how that impacts the attachment for young kids to their parents?
- [57:41]
G
Well, I mean, again, very young children under the age of three are neurologically fragile. When you bring a baby home, they are not just physically fragile, they're neurologically fragile. And they have these irreducible needs. They feel frightened. So I'll put it in very simple terms. They feel frightened. They feel in need of the protection and the security of their mother's bodies, which is why in many parts of the world, mothers wear their babies on their bodies for the first year. And so our country doesn't really allow mothers to do that. And so what we're doing is we're pushing families to use daycare, which is an institutional setting. And you're right, I am a little tough about it. I call them day orphanages. I often call them warehousing children, which is the truth. I mean, you're basically taking a neurologically, emotionally, physically fragile baby and you're handing it over to strangers. And that baby's level, stress levels, their cortisol levels go up and that's not good for their brain. So one of the things that mothers do is they regulate babies emotions from moment to moment by soothing them when they're in distress with their bodies, but they also buffer them from stress. So babies in parts of the world where those babies are worn on their mother's bodies, they don't cry very much because they don't go into states of distress. And that's the way it's meant to be. Babies are not meant to be in much distress in the first year. What we're doing is we're putting babies into a distress state and forcing them into sort of a survival mode. You know, we say the survival mode is the fight or flight mode. When human beings feel threatened, they go into survival mode. They either fight the predator or run from the predator. And so what's happening is we're seeing younger and younger children who are devastated by this daycare system, which is that they are either becoming very aggressive at a very early age or they are becoming. Or they're being diagnosed with adhd, which is the flight mode. Right. So if you think what is fighting versus fleeing attentional issues are the flight of fight or flight. So we're basically stressing out our baby's brains when they're not supposed to be stressed. And that can become a permanent feature of that child's personality, which is what's happening. So what we know is that when you take a mother, when you separate a mother and a baby in those early days, you're elevating the stress in both the baby and the mother. It's neither good for the baby nor is it good for the mother.
- [60:12]
A
I have an hour's worth of questions I could ask you, but we only have time for one more. And I'll ask a personal question because I see all sorts of conflicting advice. It seems every year there is a new parenting trend on what you have to be doing when it comes to this topic or that. What is a parenting trend that's all the rage right now that you think is going to age poorly?
- [60:34]
G
Oh, that's a very good question. I suppose this idea of free range children, sort of children just roaming around like chickens, free range. I think what happens is the pendulum swings from one way, in a very extreme way, to another. And the truth is that children used to have more independence, which was good for them. They used to be able to ride their bikes around the neighborhood and not be on their mother's phone like, find my child every single minute. And I think the idea that we are not giving children any sense of independence to explore on their own, I think is not a good thing. But I think what's happened is the extreme of that has become sort of, you know, let them run wild. And I think that there's a happy medium, which is that parents, you know, there were no good old days. Just to be clear, the good old days never existed. Parents struggled back then, too, you know, 75 years ago or whatever or before that. But. But the idea is that I think this. This trend of, you know, let them run free is gonna. It's gonna get old because children need supervision and they need. They need guidance, but they also don't need you to hover and they don't need you to know what they're doing every single moment and be on top of them, because that doesn't help them to develop a sense of independence.
- [62:03]
A
I can't wait to get home and implement some of this with my kids. Erica, thank you so much for your insight here in this conversation. It's just so appreciated and I would encourage everyone to go follow Erica, go read her work. It's been very helpful for me and my wife. I know. And I encourage everyone to do the same. So thank you again for your time today.
- [62:26]
G
Thank you for having me.
- [62:27]
A
That was Erika Comisar, Just fascinating. I'm fascinated by her work, so I'm excited to get to talk to her today. And this was Wired in, guys. If you're on Apple or Spotify, I will see you tomorrow. If you want to keep the show going, you gotta go right now and sign up on DailyWire.com subscribe so you can join our live member Q and A. I will see all of you tomorrow. What if a few minutes with God could change the direction of your entire Day? With pray.com you can begin each morning with powerful daily prayers, inspiring Bible stories and messages created to strengthen your faith. Whether you need peace, encouragement or a fresh start, pray.com helps you make prayer part of your everyday Life. Download the Pray.com app today.