Loading summary
Transcript131 lines
- [00:00]
A
Hey, it's Ryan Reynolds here for Mint Mobile. Now. I was looking for fun ways to tell you that Mint's offer of unlimited Premium Wireless for $15 a month is back. So I thought it would be fun if we made $15 bills, but it turns out that's very illegal. So there goes my big idea for the commercial. Give it a try@mintmobile.com Switch upfront payment
- [00:22]
B
of $45 for three months, $90 for six months or $180 for a 12 month plan. Required $15 per month equivalent taxes and fees Extra initial plan term only greater than 50 gigabytes. Me slow when network is busy.
- [00:30]
C
See terms Oregon Oregon Summer but what makes an Oregon park? Well, Oregon lottery gameplay helps no matter the game. Megabucks video lottery or keno funds from lottery games help support parks projects across the state, ensuring they stay safe, accessible and open for all. In fact, Discover State Park Scratches are in stores now. It's the perfect way to put a little bit of Oregon's parks in your pocket. The Oregon Lottery Together we do good things. Must be 18 or older to play. Lottery games are based on chance and should be played for entertainment only.
- [01:01]
A
Well, good evening everybody and welcome to Wired In. I'm Cabot Phillips, coming to you live from Daily Wire hq. I hope you guys all had a wonderful Fourth of July weekend. Our family had a fantastic time at the beach. I'm happy to report that my wife and I survived a 10 hour car ride with a toddler and a 4 month old. Though I must confess, a little piece of my soul has been left behind somewhere on the highways of Alabama. It was a battlefield in that minivan, but we survived and we are back and ready to catch you guys up on all the news that went down since we last aired. And there is plenty to get to up in Maine, Democratic Senate nominee Graham Platner's campaign is on life support after credible accusations of rape surfaced over the weekend. Now far left leaders are rescinding their support and just begging him to drop out. We'll tell you what we're hearing, who might replace him and what it means for November. We'll also get you up to speed on President Trump's high stakes meetings with NATO today in Turkey and fill you in on the latest developments in the Charlie Kirk murder trial where prosecutors presented new evidence today against Tyler Robinson. And as always, stick around until the very end of the program for our live listener Q and A. If you're a Daily Wire member, get those questions in the chat now and throughout the next hour. If you're listening on Apple or Spotify, go sign up@dailywire.com subscribe and get in on the action. All right, let's get to it. Roll that graph. And just a reminder, Wired In Live is now streaming live at 4pm Eastern Monday through Thursday. Get daily coverage of the news happening right now. Hear about why it all matters from experts who are actually in the story, not just sitting around talking about it. Become a member and join the live chat@dailywire.com subscribe. All right, we've been monitoring the trial up in Utah where Tyler Robinson, the man accused of murdering Charlie Kirk nearly one year ago, is appearing in court for a preliminary hearing. Here with the latest on what we've heard from Robinson's defense and what new evidence we've seen from prosecutors is Daily Wire reporter Lyndon Blake. Lyndon, great to have you on.
- [03:09]
D
Great to be here, Cabot.
- [03:10]
A
So a lot of people have been waiting for this legal process to get going in Utah. First, tell us what happened because this actually started Monday. So tell us what we saw yesterday.
- [03:20]
D
Yeah, so this is the preliminary hearing and I've been saying to our viewers all day who've been tuning in, this is not a trial. It is where the prosecution will present some of their evidence. It is where the defense will heavily cross examined the witnesses the prosecution calls and ultimately the judge is going to decide a probable cause if Tyler Robinson goes to trial for the murder of Charlie Kirk. So two witnesses were on the stand on Monday. You had Officer Christopher Bagley and you had David Hull, both being police officers there that worked the scene that day at uvu. Christopher Bagley was a UVU police officer and he was questioned heavily on security measures and just his familiarity with the UVU campus to establish his credibility, so to speak. So the people understood that when he. This is this, this is that. That he has some type of like foundation for the university. And then the big things that yesterday that we haven't seen before is the obvious. Erica Kirk was there alongside Charlie's parents. They were there. Erica got up several times on Monday to leave the courtroom when there was graphic evidence shown. She is allowed to do that as a victim's family member. She can leave the courtroom, come back, leave again as she pleases. Don Jr. Was also there alongside his wife. We know Don Jr. Was really close with Charlie. And on day one, you really got an idea of the lack of security there was on the day that Charlie was murdered there on UVU's campus. Only six police officers from UVU were working the event alongside Charlie's private security. And then you also started to get an idea of what was found and firsthand accounts from the officers. Officer Bagley talked a lot about how he heard the rifle shot and knew it was a rifle shot because of how the sound lasted and how loud it was, versus the little pop of a handgun. We also got to see, from Officer Bagley's point of view, what he saw on the rooftop. He described it as a sniper's pad with the indentions. There's a lot of talk about the screwdriver that was found on the rooftop there. And then on day one, it ended with David Hull being on the stand and discussing the surveillance video. Whether or not the public was going to see it. There was a lot of debate. And so that's when they left yesterday. But that led straight into today with some big evidence to start off the day, which is that UVU surveillance footage that the public was able to see.
- [05:40]
A
Yeah. And again, I want to reiterate, this is not the actual trial taking place this week. This is the preliminary hearing that's going on. But today we did get to see some of that surveillance footage. The defense was trying to keep it from being made public, but ultimately the judge did allow it to be played in court and shown to the public. What did we see in that surveillance footage?
- [05:59]
D
Yeah, and just so you're aware, the defense is going to probably object almost every single video that is put up just to start creating their record book in case this does go to trial. But the surveillance footage put what officers identified as Tyler Robinson on UVU's campus hours before the shooting, hours after the shooting. And you got to see cars pull into the parking garage, where officer says that car was Tyler Robinson's car. That was Tyler Robinson who got out of the car. He was first wearing a different outfit. The officer that gave the testimony on the surveillance video, Officer Hole, was saying that Robinson left the campus, came back to the campus, left the campus again, went to the woods, came back, ate chick fil a near the campus. And one thing that really stood out, and this was not press as questioning. Officer Holt did say on the witness stand that when Robinson first got to campus, that he allegedly went and interacted with TPUSA staffers. That wasn't clarified. I took it personally as Robinson went down to where the rally was happening, because people were already gathered there at the point that he went down there, you know, that morning. But that was never clarified. So that was just something that you. You haven't heard, that Robinson was there and Amongst the TPSA rally, the event that was happening, and then eventually hole. And we were able to see it on video. The person he identified as Robinson come back to campus, dress in that outfit that is most familiar with the public. The blue jeans, the black shirt, the hat, and the weird gait. And the officer was able to talk about how that limp was weird and it was very noticeable. And then we went on throughout the video, and Officer Hull was able to identify Robinson on the roof. He said he was able to tell that Robinson was concealing something on the roof, specifically when he got to a certain point on the roof. And then what else I found very interesting about the new surveillance video and Officer Hull's testimony was, was Robinson interacted with another officer on campus. And again, Officer Hull can say this during a preliminary hearing because it is hearsay evidence. It is admissible in Utah. So I can say this person told me this, and you can say that in court. So Officer Hull said he was speaking with another officer in the early morning hours of September 11th. So after midnight there after the day after the shooting. And the officer said, yeah, I interacted with Robinson a little after 6pm and
- [08:24]
A
this was before he had been identified,
- [08:25]
D
as this is before he's been identified and ran license plate on the car that the officer stopped. And the license plate came back to a car registered to Tyler Robinson and Amber Robinson. And the officer said, yeah, there was a man there, Tyler Robinson.
- [08:38]
A
Yeah, a few things there. Just for our audience. We've been playing some of the footage on the screen of Robinson walking through that parking garage. And that gate is a big part of the, you know, the conversation today in the courtroom. Prosecution saying, look, he's walking that way because we believe that that was how he was bringing the rifle in. And that is why he had almost a limp. And you can actually see as he's walking up the stairwell in that parking garage, there's one leg that he's clearly trying to keep from bending. And so again, the state seeming to say that there was a gun under there. And the other big part of the evidence that we learned today, as you just said, is that Robinson did have an interaction with police, and for some reason, that officer thought that there was something strange about that interaction and ended up writing down his license plate, which I'm sure if this does go to trial, we will hear a lot more about as the trial proceeds. I want to get a little bit more on the defense response. What have they been saying and they've been doing? Have we gotten any indication of what their strategy is going to be.
- [09:39]
D
So I've spoken with several criminal defense attorneys from across the country, especially after yesterday, because today the hearing is still going on right now. But I asked them about yesterday and both the people that I talked to did say the defense was making some headway. And that's not to say that they are saying rah, rah for the defense team. They're saying that the defense is supposed to come into a preliminary hearing aggressively and try to poke holes in the story in case the sets go to trial. You hold the witnesses accountable. And so the defense has been able to bring up points today when they were cross examining agent Hole. They were noting some discrepancies or just some things that he had not made explicitly clear in a prior statement regarding some of the video that was shown, specifically a ring camera video. So for example, this is one of the things that Kathy Nestor, one of the defense attorney was doing. She was asking Mr. Hole, do you remember the people that handed over that ring camera footage? Do you remember them saying that they originally said there was three people in the vehicle that is allegedly Robinsons that was caught in their ring camera video. And Hull said, yes, I do. They did say that originally. And then he didn't say that in his first statement, so to speak, when he was being directly questioned by the prosecution. And so the defense, what they're doing, they're trying to create doubt, they're trying to poke holes in the story. And they're doing it through many avenues, doing it through cross examination and also through ways of what they object and what they are asking to not be admissible as evidence. For example, another thing where you saw the defense trying to just create a hole. There was a lot of talk about the banner behind the tent. If you remember that day at the rally, there was a tent, the banner behind it, and the defense was asking officer Hull, could you see through that banner? Did you see anyone standing directly behind that banner? Who did you see standing beside the banner? And then you had the prosecution come back and they were asking the same questions. You said specifically, you can't see through that banner. Can you see through the tunnel? Basically trying to counter the defense's argument of could the shot have come from somewhere else? You have the prosecution making their case that no, clearly you couldn't see Charlie Kirk through the banner. The clear line of sight was from the LOSI building, which is that rooftop where the prosecution says Tyler Robinson fired the shot. So it really is fascinating if you've never watched a preliminary hearing to See how the evidence that is currently being laid out is being interpreted and how they're going at it. Because a lot of experts say prosecution, they're not going to show all their cards right now. They're not calling their best witnesses ever.
- [12:19]
A
Yeah, that's what I want to get to walk us through this strategy here from the prosecution. Why would they withhold their best evidence or their most compelling evidence, I should say, during this part of the preliminary hearing?
- [12:32]
D
I mean, to put it simply, they have the lowest burden right now. They only have to prove to Judge Tony Graf that Tyler Robinson probably is the one that committed a crime on September 10th that killed Charlie Kirk. So when you have that low burden, you were just showing what you can. I mean, people are saying you could show one little piece of evidence that puts Tyler on campus with this gun. And they're like, oh, well, you know, that's probable cause. You're not trying to convict someone here. The judge is not looking at innocence or guilt. He is just looking. Is there evidence that probably Tyler Robinson was involved to take this to trial? So the burden's really low. Someone was saying yesterday when the experts that I was walking, that that's been in so many trials is saying unless the prosecution team just doesn't show up to the courthouse, they should send this to trial based on the evidence they're presenting. So they're going to keep some of the stuff close to their chest, and you're going to see the defense just start to build it as if they're already thinking towards the trial that will happen, how they are going to make sure the witnesses they are being shown in the preliminary hearing are held to their word when and if that trial comes?
- [13:41]
A
Just before we started the show, we were hearing a little bit about the forensic evidence that was coming in. Do we have any sort of indication of what the prosecution is going to bring, evidence wise, that they are withholding currently when it comes to the DNA evidence and things of that nature?
- [13:59]
D
I have no idea what they are expecting to show. The last thing I heard when we were about to come on air was they were asking Jennifer Fabulina, who is now the current person on the stand, about who processed what evidence. So you have the rifle going to, you know, first the FBI and they turned it over to the atf, and then you have the screwdriver that was found on the roof being turned over to the FBI. And from what I'm learning, the screwdriver's important from like a DNA evidence perspective that they're trying. And so Those are the things that they're laying the foundation for. But that hasn't been presented yet. But there are. The person that's on the stand right now is expected to have 50 exhibits. So think of that as 50 pieces of evidence that she is going to be asked about. So she could be on all day tomorrow, too. So I expect more evidence. I don't want to say bombshell and use those words, but just evidence that we haven't seen before, like this surveillance video that clearly puts what the officers say, is Tyler Robinson on campus before, during, after that shooting that the public hasn't seen before.
- [15:01]
A
Well, it is a somber day to see this happening, but an important one nonetheless, and one that a lot of our audience is very interested in for good reason. Lyndon, thank you so much as always, for tracking this. Everyone go listen to Lyndon's podcast. That's so criminal. And keep up with all of her coverage of the Tyler Robinson trial. Lyndon, thanks again.
- [15:20]
D
Thanks, Cabot.
- [15:21]
A
Well, guys, it is the dog days of summer for many Americans, but in D.C. the political battles are still raging. We've got the fallout from last week's birthright ruling, a bipartisan housing bill, the SAVE act, and more all on the table. And who better to break all of that down than legendary commentator and bestselling author Ann Coulter? And I don't break out the word legendary for just anyone. So thank you for being here.
- [15:46]
B
Thank you. Absolutely. I'm happy to be here.
- [15:49]
A
The dust, it's starting to settle following the SCOTUS ruling on birthright. I have been keeping up with your takes on this, so I'm just gonna tee you up. Okay. What are you feeling right now following this birthright ruling from the court?
- [16:04]
B
There's no decision. I would want less. I'd give them Dobbs back. I'd give them, say, Obamacare was brilliant. I mean, this has all the ingredients to really put the final death knell for this country. And what I think people don't understand, at least from what I've read in the New York Times about how Americans and even Republicans support the idea of birthright citizenship. I've been insisting on this from the beginning. It's a lie to call it birthright citizenship. That sort of puts the cart before the House horse, as if it's a right that comes from the Constitution. Birthright citizenship, I mean, I think that 1898 case, Wong Ark Kim, I think it was wrongly decided, but really, who cares? Congress would probably pass that law and that is that the children born to legal, as Trump says it, legal Immigrants are citizens. That's not the point. The question is, and this isn't birthright, it's about anchor babies. I mean, there's a reason the media goes crazy whenever Trump would say the phrase anchor babies. There's nothing offensive about anchor babies. It's not racial, it's not sexual. It describes what we're talking about, and that is an eight month pregnant woman runs across the border, evades border control, drops a baby and says, ha, ha, ha, you can't do anything about me. My child is an American cit. That's what we're talking about. And what was striking about Robert's majority decision was he seemed to be completely unaware that that's what we were talking about. That is the key issue. Obviously, it came up in oral argument, it came up in the dissents that you have these massive birth tourism outfits, 500 of them in China, hospitals advertising here, there's a hospital down in Texas. Governor Greg Abbott, I just read today, is investigating. They're advertising, come to America, have a baby, and your baby will be a citizen. I mean, apart from changing the demographics and the nature and the culture of our country, which is what I care about, there's also the little issue of, I don't know, bringing in jihadists, Chinese spies, and they don't even have to live here. I mean, it's weird with the dreamers. The left's argument is, oh, this is the only country they've ever known with the anchor babies. They get born, they go home to China or, you know, Saudi Arabia or whatever, and then they can just reappear at any time, even though the only country they've ever known is China. It's just, you know, however we can get the third worlder here, let's bring them in now.
- [18:45]
A
Ann, the response of many defenders of birthright has been quoting Chief Justice Roberts saying, essentially, you know, the times change, but the Constitution doesn't. I know you've been outspoken on this point. You feel that argument isn't applicable when you take in the historical context of the 14th amendment. So can you just elaborate on that for us?
- [19:03]
B
Yes. Well, it is really elaborated on in the blessed Justice Thomas dissent in the case. Not surprisingly. I'm sort of appalled that Ketanji Brown Jackson didn't go along with him. The reason they're called the Civil War Amendments is because they came after a bloody civil war. The bloodiest civil war, the bloodiest war this country's ever fought that was over the issue of slavery. What do people think these amendments were about? It was 100% about recently freed slaves as about 20 Supreme Court cases. Oh, liberals go on and on about precedent and precedent, at least when they're trying to keep baby killing in the Constitution. Okay, we had, I don't know, 50 years of very clear precedent, including by justices who were alive when these amendments were argued and passed. And over and over again, the Supreme Court said, these amendments, the 14th amendment, it's not about anything but freed slaves. Now, the reason it's phrased strangely, you might ask yourself, why didn't they just say freed slaves born here? The children to freed slaves are citizens the moment they're born. The reason it's not phrased that way is not only the framers of the Constitution, but the framers of the Civil War amendments, they were horrified by the existence of slavery. They were embarrassed by it, and they didn't want this eternal document. And contra what the New York Times said on July 4 this weekend, it is an amazing sacred document by people blessed by God to give us both the Declaration and the Constitution. They didn't want that document to even reference the fact that this country had slaves. So there are a very paltry number of references to, you know, freed, free or slave, that kind of thing. Or, you know, when black men got the vote 20 years before women. And I think that was a good decision, by the way. No, I think it was like 40 years before. It refers to, you know, she'll not, you know, be discriminated on the basis of race. But by and large, they are avoiding mentioning slaves, slavery, the existence of the institution. And that's why it refers to being citizens of the nation and the state in which they reside and the state that has jurisdiction over them, as Alito describes, I think, very clearly and concisely in his dissent. There are two different types of jurisdiction. There's jurisdiction in terms of whether the government is protecting you, whether they will fly in and rescue you if you are kidnapped in Qatar or something, whether you're voting that sort of jurisdiction, as opposed to, can we prosecute you for crimes? Well, we can prosecute kids on student visas here for crimes, but that isn't the sort of jurisdiction we're talking about. Like, we will protect you if you're hitchhiking in Afghanistan. Never understand why people do that. But that has come up. And okay, an American we're gonna go and save. We have. We, the government, the people. We have a responsibility to our fellow Americans. We don't to somebody who', visiting, much less somebody who's broken in illegally to our country. I mean, it is such a lawless decision. As I've said before, there has to be an ulterior motive for this. Justice Roberts is being blackmailed or he's worried about Democrats packing the court. He's trying to signal to them, no, don't worry, I'll give you the stuff you really care about. And good luck. No matter what he gives them, they're gonna try to pack the and we've got to do everything to stop it. But it's a stunningly bad decision. And I don't think Roberts is a stupid man, so I don't know why he would write such a stupid opinion.
- [23:17]
A
You're having me reconsidering.
- [23:19]
B
It was five to four, I think. I'm sorry to interrupt you. I think it's really important to keep pointing out it was five to four because I'm sick of basically, since 2015, everyone, the Wall Street Journal, Bill O'Reilly, everyone on Fox News. It's in the Constitution. It's in period, period. It's in the const. No, it's not in the Constitution. And it was five to four. And the four people who are always right were on one side, and the three who are always wrong, plus the two who are frequently wrong are on the other side.
- [23:52]
A
Well, my big takeaway from your answer is that I should cancel my plans for fall break to go hitchhiking in Afghanistan, because that's where I was gonna go. And I will not be doing that, although it is good to know that the United States would hopefully rescue me because I'm under the jurisdiction thereof. And I wanna get your take on another. Congress is supposedly going to be addressing birthright, and we could talk about that, but I'm more interested in your take on something else going on in Congress. This is the much lauded bipartisan housing bill. President Trump initially said this was historic. It was going to open up homeownership for many young people. Congress patting themselves on the back for this. It's yet to pass because President Trump is not signing it, hoping to get the Save America act through. But what do you think of this bipartisan housing bill that we've heard a lot about?
- [24:39]
B
This is so important, and I'm telling you first because my column on the issue doesn't come out until as quickly as I can get it up tomorrow. My column usually comes out on Wednesdays because if Trump doesn't veto it by the end of the week, it just becomes law. And so we really need him to veto it. This is an absolutely disastrous bill. There are a few Good provisions. That's not what I'm talking about. The provisions that repeal other stuff Congress has done, you know, stupid regulations. The key thing is it expands Section 8 housing. And if you don't know what Section 8 housing is, it is an unmitigated disaster. It is a destroyer of neighborhoods. And it rewards, you know, sleazy slumlord landlords who have decrepit apartments they can't rent. So poor people on welfare, single mothers, highly criminal prone neighborhoods, they get vouchers to spend in nice neighborhoods. We're bailing out landlords who have crap ass apartments. And every section 8 housing unit is like a one unit crime wave. Every town these section 8 vouchers are used in. It explains Ferguson and Michael Brown, who was in a hotbed of Section 8 housing. Ferguson used to be a really nice middle class town. Middle class people from both black and White, from St. Louis and Chicago and move out to Ferguson and then they move in section 8 housing and it becomes not a very nice town. It's unbelievable that this is what Republicans. That's why it's bipartisan. Democrats love the expanding. Sending people from badass urban ghettos out to nice suburbs. Not suburbs like the Hamptons or Chappaqua where the Clintons live. Oh, no, no, no. These will be working class and middle class neighborhoods. To expand this as opposed to ripping it out root and branch, this housing bill has got to be vetoed.
- [26:49]
A
So my final question is, why is the President, up until last week, again, he's turned on it. But President Trump was, was hyping up this measure for quite some time. Why is President Trump and why are Republicans on the Hill so gung ho on this thing then?
- [27:06]
B
I don't know. As usual, we'd have to check with their therapists, but I think they're probably scared of the affordability thing. And look, we're giving you housing. No, you're moving dysfunctional neighborhoods into what were once nice neighborhoods. At least that's what Section 8 does. And they expand Section 8. So I think they're a little worried about the affordability. Oh, they wanna be seen as bipartisan. Bipartisan. And some of them, in their defense, they like the stuff where we roll back regulations and maybe they don't know what Section 8 does, but they better learn fast because they're about to destroy a lot of middle class and working class neighborhoods across the nation.
- [27:45]
A
All right, all right, let's get to our next guest. A therapist for members of Congress. No, I'm just kidding. We don't have any therapists. And maybe you could take on, I know you wear like a million different hats. Could we add therapists? And maybe you could incognito, get some of these senators to start venting to you.
- [28:02]
B
Oh, man, I would love that.
- [28:05]
A
Okay, let's get the paperwork filed. Let's get you credentialed, because I think America would be a better place with Ann Coulter as therapist to the lawmakers of Capitol Hill. Just something to think about. I'm just throwing it out there, Ann.
- [28:19]
B
Absolutely. The country would be so much better off.
- [28:22]
A
At least it would be more entertaining. But, Ann Coulter, thank you so much for joining us. We really appreciate your time. You're welcome back anytime you want.
- [28:29]
B
Thank you.
- [28:31]
A
All right, that was author, commentator, and future therapist Ann Coulter. Guys, let's get back to the story that we've been tracking all day here at Daily Wire. If you've been on DailyWire.com, you've seen our live blog coverage and our livestream of the Tyler Robinson trial. And today, again, the preliminary hearing for that case is taking place in Utah. So let's get some more context from the legal perspective on what we are seeing so far and what we expect to see in the coming days. So let's now bring on defense attorney Darrell Cohen. Darrell, thanks so much for being here. We appreciate it.
- [29:06]
E
Thanks for having me. By the way, Ann can be my therapist anytime and all the time, but it's good to be here. Thank you.
- [29:13]
A
I think a lot of people would sign up for that. Darrell, just to start, can you give us a little bit more context? We were talking at the top of the show about this preliminary hearing. I think a lot of folks just assume that what's taking place today is the trial. So what is the big difference between a preliminary hearing and an actual trial?
- [29:30]
E
So a preliminary hearing legally is probable cause. I've never defined it that way. I've defined it as possible cause. Did it possibly, perhaps happen? And if so, if it did, did the person or persons charged possibly perhaps do it? And that's it. There's been a lot of talk, a lot of maneuvering, a lot of legal maneuvering. There's not that much to a preliminary hearing. It begins the process. And there's a legal process that we always go through, regardless of what the evidence may be or may not be. And to many, the name Tyler Robinson is very similar to what Japan was in 1949. Excuse me, 1941. This name will live in infamy, but it's a process. Did he do it? What is the Evidence that the state has, they don't have to show all of their evidence. Never have to do that. Just enough to convince the judge that there is enough probable cause to move the case on so that it is officially charged. Now, he's not issued. He's not said, I'm not guilty. He's not issued a plea. That means nothing, means nothing at this point.
- [30:47]
A
So I'm sure you've been watching this preliminary hearing the same way we have, but just watching it through a legal lens. Given your work as a defense attorney, what has jumped out to you so far? What have been your big takeaways from
- [30:58]
E
what we've seen that the evidence is overwhelming, whether it's the forensics, whether it's the visual, all of the evidence that they have, the state has in Utah is overwhelming. And so the defense is looking for a way to go through that, to make that just sort of disappear. But it's not going to disappear. So the defense has got to find a way to get around this at some point. And they will not find a way. I know what I would do if I were advising Tyler Robinson, but I'm not, so I don't have to worry about that.
- [31:37]
A
I have to ask you a follow up on that. What would your advice be to Tyler Robinson if you were defending him?
- [31:44]
E
If I were defending Tyler Robinson, the first thing I would do is have him seen by a battery of psychologists and psychiatrists to set up a defense of some sort of mental incompetence. Not guilty by reason of insanity, but diminished capacity. And I would try to have him say, I am so sorry. I didn't mean to do that. I was forced to do it. There were voices in my head. Everything that I did was not me. And even though it appears that he planned this rather meticulously for a period of time, I would try to have him say, and not go to trial, try to avoid trial. Because in my view, if the death penalty stays there, he is going to receive the death penalty and he may not. Juries make crazy decisions sometimes that are predictably unpredictable. But I would try to set up a defense of not, he didn't do it, but he did it because of X, Y and Z.
- [32:52]
A
You bring up the death penalty. All 12 jurors would have to rule unanimously for that penalty. So with that on the table, what do you think the odds are that this thing does not even go to trial and that some sort of plea deal is reached beforehand?
- [33:07]
E
If I were representing him or had any input, that is exactly what would happen. Now the state may say, we are not going to accept a plea of guilty to anything less than death. And they can't do it that way. So as a result, it may have to go to trial. And this will be one of the most universally watched trials, and I use the word universally because it will be watched internationally. As to how it happens, snippets here and snippets there will come out. But if I were representing him, I would say, kyd, bms, keep your damn big mouth shut. Let us do what we need to do and portray you as somewhat of a victim that became a horrible defendant.
- [33:54]
A
Now, we've all seen, Darryl, the online chatter about this case. We know that there are all sorts of conspiracy theories, people saying that the evidence against Robinson is flimsy at best. There are prominent voices questioning if he was even on this campus when the shooting took place. Based on the evidence that you've seen so far, do you think there's any question that Tyler Robinson was on campus and committed this act?
- [34:20]
E
In my mind, there is not a scintilla of evidence that shows he was not there. Not a scintilla of evidence that shows he did not commit the murder, actually assassination, in my view, conspiracy theories always abound. I don't care what it is because of social media. There's always going to be conspiracy theories. He did it, he didn't do it, someone else did it.
- [34:44]
C
It.
- [34:45]
E
But that's not what the evidence is going to show. It's not what the evidence has shown so far. And we're just seeing a small piece of the evidence at the preliminary hearing. If this goes to trial, it's a lengthy trial, and it's going to be meticulous, piece by piece by piece. And it's not going to look good for him. As a matter of fact, it'll be, as a friend of mine used to say, a disaster.
- [35:10]
A
Now, we've talked, Darrell, we've talked a bit about the defense strategy. What do you expect to see from prosecutors? What have you learned so far about their strategy? Based on what we've seen in these first two days of the preliminary hearing,
- [35:22]
E
what I've seen from the prosecutors during the preliminary hearing, which, and by the way, in my view, has gone on way too long. I would never have had it this long. But I'm an old prosecutor, not a new one. Everybody does things their own way. I think the defense strategy is going to be, you have to prove it, and they're going to try to cut through all of the evidence of the prosecution has and try to show that it is not really what it seems. What you see is not what you're getting. The reality is the prosecution is going to go straight down the line as to what happened at the time prior to the time of the murder, the assassination, and they're going to continue to move forward in a very straightforward way where the defense is trying to throw to the left, left, try to throw the right, anything but what really happened. Take your eye off of the ball.
- [36:17]
A
One final question, Darrell. You said just now that you would not want, if you were the prosecution, you would not want this preliminary hearing to be going as long as it has. Why is that?
- [36:27]
E
Because my view of a prosecution is less is more. Now, that's a philosophy that I have. There's no reason for the prosecution to go on and on and on because the more you go on, it's more. A defense lawyer, a prosecution assistant da, it doesn't matter. You ask a question, you get the answer you want. The smart lawyer says, thank you very much, and he or she sits down. This lawyer who's not so smart goes, aha, I got the answer. I want it. Now I'm going to go on and on and on and ask more questions, giving the witness the opportunity to redeem him or herself and to come up with a valid reason for what they said, other than the initial response. Less is more.
- [37:13]
A
Well, we will leave it there. Darryl, thank you so much for your insight into this case and this trial. I'm sure we'll be having you back on as this thing kicks off. We're gonna be keeping a very close eye on this case, and we really appreciate you joining us.
- [37:27]
E
I appreciate it very much. Again, I'm glad to have her be my therapist.
- [37:31]
A
I will pass on the news to Ann. All right, guys, let's get now to the big political news of the weekend. And we've been talking for months now about Graham Platner, the fake oyster farmer with a penchant for Nazi tattoos, Communism, porta potties, and, as we're now learning, abusing women. The New York Times reported last month about Platner's, quote, troubling behavior, including on the record comments from a past girlfriend who alleged that he was physically abusive. But Maine Democrats still nominated him, and party leaders mostly stood by him believing Platner when he told them that the stories were false and that there were no more skeletons in the closet. That turned out to be yet another lie. On Monday, Politico ran a story with on the record comments from another ex girlfriend, this time with detailed and corroborated allegations that he had broken into her home five years ago in a drunken stupor and raped her. That story prompted a flood of statements from Democratic leaders across the far left, including Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Zoran Mandani. There are new ones coming out every hour. They're all calling on their progressive poster boy to drop out of the race. Platner posted a video saying that the allegations were false, but that he was taking time to, quote, reflect on the best path forward for his campaign. But he's yet to drop out. Here with more is Sunny Joy Nelson, former White House Director of Media affairs and special assistant to President Trump. Sonny, it's great to have you on.
- [38:53]
F
Hey, thank you for having me.
- [38:55]
A
So let's start big picture. What was your first reaction when you saw this story on Monday? Just the latest piece of news dropping
- [39:01]
F
on Black Friday, man, you know, this guy cannot stay out of the news. So it seems he has allegation after allegation coming up against him. You can take all of that aside, let's look at his past. He's anti cop, he's anti military, pro Communism, pro Nazi tattoo. And now all of these allegations coming on on top of him. Why are Democrat leadership just now starting to distance themselves from him? And you really have to ask yourself this question. You know, in the beginning, some, some common sense Democrats came out. John Fetterman said, this guy, he's not the guy. We got to get rid of him. But it took Bernie Sanders just now, today and some others, as you were just mentioning, Elizabeth Warren, ma', am, Donny, just now calling on him to step out of this race. And it took another rape accusation against him for us to get to this point. It's very concerning. And you ask yourself, why is it like that?
- [39:57]
A
This.
- [39:57]
F
It's because they're more obsessed, the Democrats are more obsessed with obtaining power this November than they are with putting up candidates that will actually do a good job for the American people.
- [40:08]
A
So, Sonny, do you think he drops out? He's yet to. And he's given that statement of saying, well, you know, we're going to assess the best path forward, which usually in political talk is, I'm dropping out. But he still hasn't.
- [40:18]
F
Right.
- [40:19]
A
Do you think that he tries to just stick it to the establishment, stick it to the left, and say, you know what? Screw it, I'm not dropping out.
- [40:25]
F
You know, he might try to stay in. It's hard to say at this point when you've gone through so much and you've stuck in it this long. But now with some of the Democrat leadership turning their back on him, I think he might have an off ramp here, which I would encourage him to take if he chooses to stay in. That's his decision. Of course. This is America. But it opens up a lane for another Democrat candidate to come in and try to, you know, sweep away some of those votes. But I think ultimately what all of this chaos and drama is going to lead to is Susan Collins getting reassured.
- [40:57]
A
Yeah, that's what I want to get to. If Platner does drop out, there's a New York Post report today claiming that he's only going to drop out if he's allowed to hand pick his successor, which would be a whole different piece of drama for the Democrats. But if he does drop out, the Democrats, they do have time to replace him. Do you think that actually makes it harder for Republicans to win if Platner's not on the ticket?
- [41:19]
F
That's an excellent question. And I actually kind of find it funny that he says he's only going to drop out if he can handpick his replacement. Who does he think he is? Why does he think he has that kind of standing and that kind of credibility to say, I'm not dropping out unless I can pick my replacement? That's crazy behavior on top of everything else. But, you know, ultimately the Democrats are gonna end up putting up someone that is far left, embracing these crazy left radical ideologies. If it's not Graham Platner, it's gonna be someone else. As we've seen over the last couple weeks with these primaries, Democrats are running as far to the left as possible. They're embracing these Democratic socialist ideas. We see what happened in New York, we see what happened in Colorado. It's very unfortunate that these policies are not just being contained into big cities like New York. They're spreading out across the country. And the Democratic Party has a really big problem on their hands.
- [42:16]
A
I'm interested in the Democratic strategy of turning on him. As you were saying, why are they doing it now? Why weren't they doing it when these initial very substantial allegations are coming out against him? Do you think they would have turned on him if he was still leading in the polls? Because if you look a month ago, he was leading Susan Collins in the polls by a pretty significant margin over the last month. He's now essentially tied or within the margin of error or down slightly. Do you think if he's still winning by eight points, we'd still have Bernie Sanders coming out telling him to drop out.
- [42:47]
F
Probably so. Because as I mentioned earlier, I think that the Democrats main priority this November is obtaining power. It is not putting forth good America first policies or good America first candidates that are really going to have the backs of their constituents once they get into office. To me, they're more obsessed with taking back control and taking back power and trying to make President Trump a lame duck president than they are with actually doing things that will help the American people. So, you know, it's tough to say exactly what they would do with hindsight being 20 20, but my gut is that they would keep him in there. They would keep him in there if he was leading.
- [43:24]
A
Yeah. I wanna get to another topic that you've been outspoken on. This is Trump accounts. Everyone knows now at this point, hopefully everyone knows if you have a young kid, you can sign him up for a Trump account, get $1,000 in there, get him investing, get some matching going with a few banks. I'm interested. You're no longer at the White House, but you played an integral role there for some time. What was the process like for starting this idea of Trump accounts? How did this come about?
- [43:49]
F
Well, that's an excellent question. And I would say that Secretary Scott Bessant and the President are both excellent businessmen, as we have seen in their previous lives before they became public servants. So I can't say to the intricate detail exactly what the process was like in starting this wonderful program. But I know it's something that has been part of the administration's priorities from the very beginning. You know, it's been in place since the big beautiful bill just over a year ago. And it's wonderful. I mean, this piece of this program is so bipartisan. It has bipartisan support, except for, you know, the few crazies on the left that want to fight anything the President does. If he cures cancer, they don't want any part of it. But this program sets up children for economic prosperity, economic freedom, economic literacy, things that, that things we didn't have growing up. We didn't have this type of opportunity. So I'm so grateful that I have a two year old son. He's enrolled in it. I guess this baby I'm having in October has an advantage because he'll get the thousand dollars from the government. So I'm going to have to try to make it up to my older son somehow.
- [44:58]
A
You mentioned your son and your new one on the way. I was talking earlier on the show about taking my 2 year old and our 4 month old on a road trip. This weekend. You can imagine, harrowing experience. You've been outspoken about being a mom working in the White House. Before we go, I just, I want to hear about that experience of balancing those two things, this super demanding job and also being a young mom.
- [45:21]
F
Well, thank you for asking about that. I will say that it definitely was the hardest thing I've ever done, but by the grace of God and by an absolute wonderful group of people around me, I was able to do it. You know, there are so many young moms, so many young parents in the Trump admin. And you know, I would bring my son to work with me all the time. He spent his second birthday in my office because I didn't have childcare and no one ever made it feel like a burden that he was there. I brought him into my 10 o' clock meetings in the Roosevelt Room sometime because I didn't have childcare. And from Susie Wiles, Caroline Levitt on down, everyone really made it an environment where moms and dads, it's hard for dads too, but specifically working moms could flourish, could really serve their country, could do what they felt called to do, but also do their most important role, which is being a mother. And you know, you are replaceable everywhere except for in your home as a parent. And luckily the administration maybe be able to do both.
- [46:22]
A
I'm just imagining the bragging rights that your 2 year old had when he's hanging out with his friends on the playground. Like you sat at home watching Bluey yesterday. Well, I was in the Roosevelt Room.
- [46:32]
G
That's kind of the question.
- [46:33]
A
Coolest thing ever. Sunny, thank you so much for coming on. We really appreciate it.
- [46:38]
F
Thank you for having me.
- [46:39]
A
All right, that was Sunny, Joy Nelson. Guys, if you're watching Wired in live on the Daily Wire plus app, thank you. If not by now, you should know that's where you got to be. That is how you get push alerts when we go live. Breaking news as it happens and the latest from our 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.
- [47:02]
G
I did it.
- [47:02]
A
I finally closed my eyes and I was able to memorize all the places. Long time coming. I'm proud. All right, let's turn now to some foreign policy, because President Trump is currently on the ground in Turkey, meeting with NATO allies for a high stakes summit. The meetings come amid the ongoing war in Ukraine, peace talks with Iran, and following a year in which the President has threatened to leave the alliance entirely and ruffled more than a few feathers across the pond. Here with the latest is Justin Logan, Director of Defense and Foreign Policy at the Cato Institute. Justin, thanks for coming on, man.
- [47:34]
H
Thanks for having me back.
- [47:35]
A
So let's start big picture here. What are the biggest storylines you're tracking as this summit kicks off?
- [47:42]
H
Yeah, I mean, the President has been consistent in a lot of ways about his positions on NATO since the Iran war started. He's been very unhappy that the Europeans did not contribute to that effort. He's been a skeptic of the war in Ukraine and thinks it needs to be ended rather than pursued indefinitely. And he's a skeptic of the US Contribution to European security. If you look back in the 1980s, it was in 87 or 88, Trump took out an ad in the New York Times saying, we're being taken for a ride by our allies. And so this is a long standing lament of his that I happen to think is correct. If you run the figures for the US Contribution to European security in the present day, it's about 100 billion bucks a year, which even in Washington is real money. And the country at this point is $40 trillion in debt. We're adding to that debt at the rate of $2 trillion a year. And so saving on something that we're spending on on behalf of the Europeans would be something pretty smart if you can pull it off.
- [48:40]
A
You mentioned President Trump's gripe that the Europeans have not contributed enough to the defense of NATO. Earlier this year, he was threatening tariffs for countries that did not ramp up their percentage of GDP spending on defense. We saw a number of commitments from European states saying, okay, we're now gonna commit to spending 3 or 4% on defense. Have they followed through on those commitments
- [49:04]
H
in very halting and spotty ways? I mean, the history of European commitments on paper to spend more on defense is not a happy one. The Europeans made commitments at the Wales summit in the early teens to spend 2% of GDP. And that was about worth the paper that it was written on. Right. Some of the countries, particularly the smaller Eastern Front countries, did do that, but they also happened to have small GDPs. So 5% of something small is less consequential than 2% of something very big. And so it took Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine to really set in motion a sea change in the way Europeans think about their own contribution to their security. Then, a couple of years after Putin invaded Ukraine, Trump returned to the White House with a team that was more inclined to want to follow through on his policies vis a vis Europe than was his team during the first Trump administration. So I think it's that combination of a large war happening as we speak on the European continent. And President Trump, who's held these views in earnest for decades and been very clear about them, is once again the commander in chief.
- [50:16]
A
On the topic of Russia and Ukraine, I saw a comment in our live chat, and it seems kind of silly in how simple it was, but also I think it's something on the mind of a lot of Americans. They just said, where are things with the United States and Russia and Ukraine? So I'll give you that question. There's so much conversation. President Trump saying, hey, they're gonna end the war. There's gonna be peace. Obviously, that's not happening. President Trump saying, we're gonna stop. Stop sending all of our dollars over to Ukraine. But that seems to be happening still. Where do things actually stand with US Foreign policy towards Ukraine?
- [50:47]
H
It's a very fair question. It's one of those questions that's so basic that it sort of brings it back down to brass tacks. So I appreciate it. So the way the president has changed US Policy on Ukraine has been to say the Europeans are going to pay for the weapons that the Americans are supplying, instead of the United States paying for the weapons that the Americans are supplying. And so that, in a sort of accounting sensibility, is a good approach. So US Weapons are still going to Ukraine. The problem is that it's less about the expenditures, although it's well into the tens of billions of dollars per year, and more about the fact that many of the most important munitions that Ukraine needs to continue this fight are in extremely short supply. We've been at this game in Ukraine for over four years. The wars in the Middle east have been going on in earnest, particularly over the past year, but even more so since the terrorist attacks in October of 2023. And in particular, air defense missiles, Patriot interceptors in particular, are in very, very short supply. So it's true that the Trump administration has Europe now paying for these weapons, but they're dwindling to an extent that the question is less who is going to pay for them and more how are we going to restock these very sparsely populated shelves.
- [52:08]
A
Now, President Trump has routinely, again threatened to leave NATO entirely. His argument's basically, you need us a lot more than we need you. Do you think that's actually feasible? Is there any world where the US Actually withdraws?
- [52:22]
H
So there's been a lot of hue and cry. About this question of leaving NATO. And I, you know, over my career have made various arguments about this, but I think think leaving NATO or not leaving NATO is less important than the material US contribution. So right now, we have over 80,000 troops on the European continent. If we had 10,000 troops on the European continent, Europeans would have to behave differently whether we're in NATO or not in NATO. And similarly, I think there's been this almost religious fervor that's arisen around Article 5, the Collective Security part of the North Atlantic Treaty. And you hear it from time to time from officials in the transatlantic community. They say the United States is committed to defend every inch of NATO territory. That's not what the treaty says. What the treaty says is that we will treat an attack on any member of NATO as an attack on ourselves and take such measures as we deem appropriate. The United States in the late 1940s lawyered up the Washington Treaty for good reasons, which was that we wanted to preserve our freedom of action and take what measures we decided to take if and when the balloon went up. So I think if President Trump went up to a podium and said, hey, Article 5 doesn't say what everybody says.
- [53:39]
G
It says.
- [53:40]
H
It says we'll contribute in some form or fashion, and another clause of the treaty says, in accordance with our own constitutional procedures. But this business about the American Americans being on the hook for defending every inch of NATO territory is crazy, and it's not part of the treaty. Were he to do that, that would fundamentally transform the US role in Europe.
- [54:00]
A
On the topic of Article 5, there's reportedly a plan tomorrow for member states to come together and to reaffirm their commitment to Article 5. What do you see President Trump doing when it comes time to reaffirm on that front? If he's still there, I believe he's gonna be heading back tonight. But how do you see the US Handling that?
- [54:18]
H
Yeah, the Europeans are playing with fire here.
- [54:21]
E
Right?
- [54:21]
H
Their one incentive is to try to slow everything down, to outlive the President of the United States, at least his term in office. If you will say he's going to be there in political terms for another two, two and a half years. If we can just slow this thing down enough, we can come out. And maybe if you heard Alexandra Ocasio Cortez or Gavin Newsom at the Munich Security Council conference, which I don't know why a normal person would have heard that, but I heard it, they had a sort of Bidenish restoration story that America will be bad. You know, Trump is an aberration. We're gonna go back to the good old days when the Democrats take power. And I think the Europeans may be trying to tell themselves if we can just slow walk this enough, we can get past it. And so I think what they're trying to do is to get to go back essentially to the Biden administration. But I think whether they wind up with Democrats or Republicans in the medium term, the US Commitment to Europe is going to transform because we've run out of money and weapons.
- [55:18]
A
Yeah. Well, it's a fascinating chess match. Thank you for breaking it all down for us, Justin, for coming back on. We'll have you again in the future. Really appreciate your time.
- [55:27]
H
Thank you, Kevin.
- [55:28]
A
All right, that was Justin Logan from Cato. And we turn now to Brent Scherr from the Daily Wire, Editor in chief in studio. So we're both looking pretty tan, Brent.
- [55:38]
G
It's been a good July 4th week.
- [55:41]
A
I think we deserve a little credit for not getting sunburned. Although you don't really seem like someone who would sunburn, given your beautiful Mexican heritage. Not something that happens to you.
- [55:51]
G
I'm in.
- [55:51]
A
You're tougher than the sun.
- [55:53]
C
Correct.
- [55:53]
A
One person who their toughness is really being tested right now, electorally speaking, politically speaking, is Graham Platner. We were talking earlier on the show about this, this political story that came out and I mentioned how the first kind of domino to fall with his treatment of women was the New York Times story. You have been pointing out that this New York Times story actually kind of exposes or the political story exposes the New York Times for something they didn't cover. Can you talk more about that?
- [56:20]
G
Yeah, I mean, completely exposes and embarrasses the New York Times. First of all, the new accuser, Jennifer Racicot, is, I think, how you pronounce her last name. She was mentioned in that New York Times story and she actually alludes to this incident that she's now calling a rape to cnn. She didn't get all the way into it because, of course, these things are very hard to come out with. But she was so disgusted with the New York Times story she told Politico and how they handled the write up and going into our friend Lindsey Fifield's story and making half the story about whether Lindsey could be believed even though
- [57:03]
A
she's a Republican, implying she was politically motivated.
- [57:05]
C
Mm.
- [57:06]
G
Jenny is the opposite of politically motivated. She actually told Politico that one of her big reservations to coming forward was that politically she's aligned with Graham Platner. She agrees with his far leftist opinions, but ultimately she saw how the New York Times treated Lindsey and treated the whole story. Kind of protecting Graham a little bit. We've kind of called it. We talked about this before, how the New York Times story kind of read like a catch and kill operation. They were trying to take in this story about sexual assault allegations against Blattner and make it a little less politically damaging for him. Her reading that made her want to tell her full story. And what I think the big tell is, she didn't go back to the same New York Times reporters that she had talked to. She went to CNN and she went to Politico and tried to find new people to talk to because she clearly didn't feel like she could trust the Times to tell her story. And to me, that means that women shouldn't believe that they can trust the Times to tell their story if it's gonna hurt a Democrat.
- [58:17]
A
Yeah. And I believe the New York Times, in their initial reporting, when they mentioned this latest accuser, they said, well, her story could not be corroborated. I believe is what the New York Times said. It now seems pretty clear that Politico was able to corroborate it, and it seems quite damning.
- [58:32]
G
Yeah, the New York Times didn't want to corroborate it. And Lindsey Fifield, the first accuser, said kind of the same thing. Lindsey offered even more ways to corroborate her stories about her ex boyfriend, Graham Blattner, and New York Times didn't even want to see them. And then they kind of did that half reporting on it and like uncertain reporting.
- [58:56]
A
Well, Brent, every time I refresh my computer, I'm waiting to see a headline that says, Graham Platner dropping out of this race. That seems to be the general consensus in D.C. people expecting him to cut ties. If he does drop out, who at this point do you think is most likely to replace him?
- [59:13]
G
Well, I think the if is a big. We have this July 13th deadline, and I heard Sonny Joy, who's great on your show, by the way, talk about this. And she was like, he's being wild, even suggesting that he wouldn't drop out. But what we need to calculate here, he needs to decide to drop out. He already won the primary. The main Democrat Party, the national Democrat Party, they cannot kick him out. He needs to do the responsible thing because for all intents and purposes, he has no way of winning. Now. The Democrats have pulled their money. The Senate Super PACs for the Democrat side have pulled their money. He's pulled his ads off the Internet. So obviously, to win the Senate election, it's a good thing for him to pull out if he cares about that. But they need to convince Graham Platner to do this and Graham Platner alone. So what he is trying to do is get his two cents in the decision of who takes over. The front runner, from what I'm reading, if Platner has any say, is a guy named Troy Jackson, who is endorsed by Graham Platner for the governor primary, also endorsed by Bernie Sanders, who's one of Platner's closest allies. But Troy got third place in that governor primary, so. So not exactly the best candidate, but he's very much cut from the same Platner cloth. You know, he's a logger. He has the same political opinions as Graham Platner.
- [60:46]
A
Is he my kind of guy? According to Elizabeth Warren also.
- [60:49]
G
I mean, you'd look. He looks like he is. You know, he's that same identity of blue collar up in Maine. But again, he got third place in the gubernatorial primary. And this has been my point all along, you know, Graham Platner was irreplaceable because he had the support of the people. Now they're gonna yank him out and try and place somebody else in. And even if it's this guy who's aligned with Platner, convincing the diehards who love Platner and probably will be very upset that he drops out is gonna be hard. One candidate, though, who might unite everybody. I saw it leaked that actor Patrick Dempsey is McDreamy. Yeah, McDreamy from Grey's Anatomy. If anybody can unite the women of Maine, probably McDreamy.
- [61:41]
A
Yeah. That would certainly be entertaining, to say the least. I have no response to that because I was not expecting you to say Patrick Dempsey. That is not where I saw that answer going. Brent, on some other very sad news, we have to Talk about the US getting just dog walked by Belgium yesterday. 4 to 1. I am not the biggest soccer fan in the world, but I am a big fan of America, so I was recklessly patriotic watching this match. How are you feeling about the U.S. men's National Team?
- [62:11]
G
I'm very disappointed. It was such a letdown. I am a soccer fan again, probably the World Cup's what I care about most when it comes to soccer. It's very hard for the American fan to, like, get really into European clubs and all that, but we like seeing our American men do really good and, like, be beating the hell out of these other international teams. Yesterday was just a kick to the gut. I'd say the worst part was after their kind of, like, last minute, just icing on the cake goal, them doing the Trump dance, that, that was really, really painful. And I'd say for U.S. soccer and the way forward, they really just looked like an amateur team out there. Like, they were not ready to face these European heavyweights. And I don't know how they come back from this. Pulisic didn't look like he was ready for the big stage and to be that big guy who could take on a team like Lionel Messi did today. They're down two goals with 10 minutes left, and he's like, yeah, yeah, I got this. We'll score three in 15 minutes. Us isn't there?
- [63:20]
A
Brent, I have on good authority that you have the direct cell phone number of President Trump. I would like you to pull out your phone and to text him and say, president Trump deny the travel visas for all of the Belgian soccer players because they insulted you. Can we get them? Let's get them kicked out of the country. I'm in. Okay, All Stars, our team did text
- [63:42]
G
President Trump suggesting that he do something about that red card.
- [63:46]
A
Okay, good.
- [63:46]
G
And I don't know if it was us, but it worked.
- [63:49]
A
I'm also sorry for outing you if you did not want anyone to know that you had Donald Trump's phone number. That was just a joke.
- [63:54]
G
I want everybody.
- [63:55]
A
Okay, good. Everyone can know.
- [63:56]
G
That's really cool.
- [63:57]
A
Brent is very important.
- [63:58]
G
Probably the coolest thing about me.
- [63:59]
A
I will be trying to swipe his phone if he leaves it in the green room of this studio. Brent Scher, Daily Wire editor in chief. Thank you very much, man.
- [64:07]
G
Thanks, Kevin.
- [64:08]
A
All right, guys, thank you so much for tuning in to Wired In. I will see all of you tomorrow if you're on Apple or Spotify, if you're a Daily Wire member. We're going to keep the show rolling right now with our live listener Q and A. See you guys tomorrow.