Destiny Debates AJW, MAGA Journalist And Lauren Southern In Impromptu 3v3 Panel

did Donald Trump threaten democracy with the way that he tried to choose who was going to win the presidency I want an answer from both people no didn't work democracy still exists do you think the vice president trying to change the results of the election do you think that is a threat to our democracy do you think that's Democratic I never said that it was again I never I didn't ask I didn't say good you're on the last I'm asking you with a vice president being told by the president to pick him as the leader again to make him win the election is that an attack on our democracy or would that be why you lying Lauren Southern has just messaged the staff here even if the president were to flip the election and stay in office democra so what would be the counting of ending democracy to you then does it do we have to show that it's going to be like an apocalypse I mean presumably there would be another election it's a 3v3 now can we agree on this then Hitler was not a threat to German democracy because they went back to being a democracy can you agree with that they completely changed the government over there no but they went back no no wait wait wait Germany went back Germany had a dictator that Rose to power and degreg the Democratic systems that the country previously had he's not you're not even right Hitler did not rise as a dictator Hitler didn't rise a dictor can we just go into the next thing go the next you don't know you don't know any history Hitler didn't start off as a dictator why are we letting the conservatives Gaslight us into this drinking terms that uh hello everybody uh my name is Cam Higg I'm an investigative journalist and undercover journalist for company called today's America and also do political commentary and debates thank you very much uh for coming last second I do appreciate it and I hope the viewers at home consider the fact that this is a last second appearance for Mr cam Higby uh we're going to throw it over now now to Hutch uh welcome everybody it's nice to meet you Sean uh thanks for subbing in so quickly cam look forward to having the conversation with you and uh congrats on bringing hippie dippy back Dylan thank you very much always happy to come to the depths of twitch poll and see where I can make my coin I'm going to now throw it over to Destiny what's up I'm also an investigative uh political guy uh investigate Wikipedia and thanks for having me happy to have Wikipedia's top researcher here today we're now I'm going to throw it over to Sean Fitzgerald also known as actual Justice Warrior uh what's up I'm a YouTuber I focus mostly on crime stuff and the reason Lauren couldn't make it is due to the fact that we can't work together it's my fault I take all the blame for it damn you can't work together yeah irreconcilable differences wow I had no clue well there you go breaking news from Sean Fitzgerald irre irreconcilable differences whatever those were now we're going to go into the topic for today uh the topic is is democracy on the ballot in 2024 it's a big topic from the left you hear a lot that Donald Trump is anti- democracy he's authoritarian that he tried to overturn the results of the election and so many Democrats are fearful that if he wins that he's going to end democracy as you know it he's going to do damage to our institutions on the right you hear a lot about the political persecution of Donald Trump through the justice system picking on him and going after him legally in order to try to under mind his presidential Ambitions or is it all just nonsense and everybody needs to stop being so hyperbolic is democracy on the ballot in 2024 we're going to start today with you know what actually let's go with actual Justice Warrior all right great thank you so the question of is democracy is on the ballot is honestly a bit ridiculous in my opinion it is not on the ballot for this election and if my opponents are going to argue the contrary they're going to have to explain exactly why the mechanism or why the mechanisms of our government are going to be overthrown if presumably Trump gets elected the fact of the matter is our government is the longest consistent government currently going in world history at this moment in time we have been through a bunch of different controversial elections we have been through a trump presidency already so these guys are going to have to explain what would be different about Trump winning in 2024 that was different from him winning in 2016 okay uh I'm going to now throw it over to Hutch I actually wrote out kind of a lengthy opener is that okay or do you want it more concise um to two minutes under two minutes is usually where we go two 2:30 I'll allow but like don't go like excessive okay let me let me just try to get through as much as possible so I do in fact think that democracy is on the ballot in 2024 even if the threats it faces aren't necessarily immediate I would like to focus on what lies do to a democracy it's impossible to have a healthy functional democracy if the electorate is aggressively misinformed when you have a misinformed electorate that are angry enough about the lies they've been told events like January 6 become more and more likely one person in particular has misinformed his voters more than any president that has ever come before him everybody on this panel knows that every politician lies to one degree or another uh Omission exaggeration embellishment and hyperbole are all standard practices for any politician but Trump is not your average politician and the brazenness of his lies put him in an entirely separate Universe he lies about the weirdest most unnecessary easily disprovable things such as he started his presidency with a lie about his crowd sizes he claimed that the clouds parted and it stopped raining as he started speaking at at his inauguration he used a Sharpie pen to elongate the projected path of a hurricane claims that windmill noise causes cancer he lied about being Michigan's Man of the Year here these are just the silly lies but I think they give you a sense of who he is he's clearly demonstrated that he has no regard whatsoever for the truth is Instinct every time he opens his mouth is self-aggrandisement and to that end he is willing to do and say whatever pops into his head at any given moment for any given topic the truth simply does not matter to him at all the spirit of democracy is a government of the People by the people for the people and if the people are angry confused and misinformed you are throwing about 10,000 wrenches into a system that was designed with bipartisan efforts in mind it's simply impossible to work together with a group of people that live in a totally different reality crafted by their chosen leader I add more to that but I'll let I'll just cut it off there we'll get through it uh during the conversation uh we're going to throw it now over to cam Higby yeah I I don't think that Trump is capable of nor do I think that he has the influence to overthrow democracy or disintegrate it in this country um and yeah that's pretty much going to be my over my opening statement I think he's you know done plenty of things he's tried to do plenty of sneaky things and it's not worked each time so okay we're going to now throw it over to Destiny I think democracy is on the ballot I think we are a democratic constitutional republic I think Donald Trump stands opposed to every single part of that system Donald Trump does not like democracy he wants to rule as the single executive as the king who can make decisions that circum convince Congress or decisions that are uh beyond the courts why he asked for criminal immunity uh from the Supreme Court it's why he tries to do immigration policy and other policy through executive order he doesn't value the legislature I think that we are a constitutional republic we have a constitution that all of us are supposed to answer to Donald Trump says that when he needs to he will terminate the Constitution if he needs to find voter fraud if he needs to hunt political enemies he says that he can suspend the Constitution or terminate it and go after those people and we are a republic where the power is vested in our Representatives uh to make decisions for us we are not a monarchy we are not ruled by one man we are supposed to have an entire legislative branch and Donald Trump's entire political career is all centered around only Staffing the government with siant is only centered around trying to get people in Congress who will worship Him and who will help him circumvent responsibility and the law in any way SI shape possible uh like when he avoided his conviction in the senate for impeachment because people for some reason in the Senate thought that you can't impeach a non-sitting president which is ridiculous so yeah I think that Donald Trump stands opposed to every single foundational idea about our democracy and he stands opposed to the very reasons that Sean mentioned that our democracy is the one of the longest living ones on the planet thus far okay so from there we're going to leave it to be open for you guys to go back and forth who wants to grab it first uh I I can grab it I love grabbing things okay um yeah I think there was a very very simple question posed initially um I think Sean said that uh if we're going to say that Donald Trump represents some existential threat this time as last time uh what's changed and the thing that's changed is that Donald Trump didn't understand how any part of the government worked last time this time he's got a slightly better understanding so he's only picking people that will go along with him uh for his illegal plots instead of assuming they'll go along with him for his illegal plots like he did last time so I think picking people like JD Vance who has signaled that he would back him on any attempted coup stuff like what he tried for January 6th I think is a good example of a meaningful change in Trump's next Administration as opposed to his last one okay we're going to throw it uh I want that was a response to actual Justice Warriors so you think you could take that yeah so I mean you bring up January 6 which is unsurprising you've been doing a million billion zillion hours of streaming on this specific issue so I understand that that's your go-to point but my question is is that gr January 6 you know if we take it in its worst reading was a plot involving the electors if Donald Trump is elected the 47th president of the United States that will be his second term in office which according to the 2016 I'm sorry the 22nd amendment he is not eligible to run for president again so how are you going to site this plot that's not even possible if he wins as a mechanism for him to remain in power when he can't put himself on the ballot as per the 22nd amendment again you have to demonstrate that Donald Trump is going to be able to end democracy with the methods that are available to him do you think he's going to overthrow the 22nd amendment that Republicans are going to gain enough in the house and the Senate and State wide in order to get rid of that so he can serve for additional terms like how is this plot that you're imagining in your brain going to actually work two very simple things one he said that uh he doesn't like the Constitution so he can terminate it at will he's already said that once I don't think he actually could do that but the second thing the nice thing about Kings is they always have children to run their Kingdom for them after they're gone he could very easily do the same type of plot but instead do it to get Trump junr in office instead of himself so he's going to pass it to Trump Jr non- electorally like how how exactly is that going going to work I'm just the same way that he tried to pass it to himself non- electorally where he got people to lie and say they were electors and then try to get the VP to certify the vote in Congress okay again but that had to do with him being on the ballot and an elector scheme and like we we all understand that son be on the ballot next election cycle well he wouldn't be on the ballot for the 2028 presidency like so he's he can't run for the presidency in 2028 oh his son is going to run so if his son is elected and he wins like I how is that ending democracy it's not democracy if he wins it's if they try to make win when he didn't win like he tried to do in 2020 oh okay I see so you think he's going to hand it off to Don Jr like that's the line that you're going with I mean he could I don't know why not he tried to he tried to Il legally hand it off to himself last time why wouldn't he do it to his son next time who knows I think all the arguments to try to prove that like democracy's going to end if Trump wins the election this year it's just going to be based on conjecture like uh I think the arguments about like Trump appointing people to government uh specifically in like courts and stuff that worship him and that will follow him into the depths of Hell to get him reelected is just like not true like the courts repeatedly when he tried to like claim election fraud and stuff like that repeatedly rejected to hear uh claims they repeatedly rejected to hear appeals even the Supreme Court with a with a six conservative super majority rejected to hear anything about it um so like if it wasn't achievable last time I I highly doubt with all of these people that are allegedly loyal to Trump in the government even right now I highly doubt he would ever manage to pull it off so I think there's a couple things here I think like we're talking about the risk to democracy in an immediate sense I don't think we need to limit it to just that uh we can talk about ways that he could sort of chip away at democracy and lay the foundation for uh democracy being stress tested in the future but um I guess my question to the my my two conservative co-panelists here are what what what is the logic around like first of all do you acknowledge that he stress tested democracy in 2020 and what if you do what would be the logic of uh allowing him a second chance to try to stress test it in way that maybe we haven't even thought of yet also as a quick thing before that question answer just his response to that what was just said first of all the courts didn't reject him he got more criminal immunity than he even asked for number one number two uh JD Vance is a person that he would put in that would go along with him further than Pence did so that's an example picking somebody that would help him and then number three when we say every single judge ruled against him they didn't the election fraud case but um judge cannon in Florida basically tossed his entire case in Mar Lago and at the very least has succeeded in delaying it past the election so that's not true either yeah yeah so you could argue that they sided with him on like presidential immunity stuff but that's literally written into the Constitution literally not it's literally not written I promise you it's not to rule upon the Constitution but when you look at like actual rejection of election related cases in December 11th uh according to BBC they uh federal courts refused to hear his cases AP in February 22nd 2021 they refused to hear his cases uh NBC reported on March 8 2021 that the final election challenge was rejected by federal courts all Trump appointees by the way uh in addition nine uh judges that he appointed in 2020 also refused to hear uh specifically um like ballot disputes right on Election FR yes but for the criminal immunity that's not in the Constitution the Supreme Court invented that for Trump for Donald Trump but but again your argument seems to be that our institutions are strong enough to withstand someone like Trump but my question is why how do you justify allowing someone to come in and and check those institutions and actually stress them and see how far these checks and balances actually go to constrain him well first of all prior prior to your question you were like well I'm not saying democracy is going to end I'm just saying it's going to be chipped away so you got to kind of commit to your argument because if you're saying it's not going to end then you kind of agree with me in that regard that the institutions are well like well suited to hold up to whatever challenges real or imagine that Trump will bring up so it seems a little weasy for you to back off of the premise of the debate by saying like oh well he might chip away at our institutions I mean you could argue that Prosecuting your political opponent is chipping away at our institutions You could argue that using new interpretations or setting up test cases in order to set up for a future prosecution against a former president is a chip at our institutions and at the Norms that we're typically used to in the United States of America you know the things that ultimately ended up leading to that immunity decision from the Supreme Court that's not really the end of democracy I don't think that our system was destroyed over the last four years under the Biden Administration so like I think you got to either commit like Steven actually is to some kind of crazy plot that Trump's going to overthrow our entire system of government or not also hold on Prosecuting political opponents uh Biden is not Prosecuting political opponents I don't know what that has to do with I think that uh we have a system of criminal law in this country and upholding the system of criminal law is one of our institutions the judicial courts courts are part of the institutions of the United States is one of the three branches of government so the idea that a court or a prosecutor saying that Donald Trump's committed crimes and then having him stand trial in court is an upholding of our institutions it's not a violation of them I also I I also reject your absolute esake here you're you're saying that there's no middle ground that u i I like I will tell you during the Trump era my faith in our institutions actually went up it made me appreciate our institutions in a way that I didn't before because they so sufficiently check him what I'm saying is that you don't necessarily need to make the case that democracy itself is going to end on you know January 20 2025 if he's elected I'm saying he can do sufficient damage to our institutions during his time in office such such that it would be the case later on that it would be even easier to Chip Away um at a later date I don't understand why the agre to you agree to a pre the premise of this debate is is democracy on the ballot meaning this election will decide whether or not democracy continues that's a premise of this debate that you agreed to that's a strict interpretation of what we're talking about here I think you can make the case that democracy is in Peril with someone like Donald Trump taking office even if it means what it could potentially mean down the line Prem I I don't I don't interpret that premise the same way that you do no I'm saying democracy can be on the ballot and you can make that case by uh pointing to the many times that he stress tested our system and the fact that he will do it again I'm Fu I mean it seems again it's like democracy is not on the ballot but it is on the ballot when it's convenient in this way it's like I I I don't know what exactly I don't know if it's going to be like literally end of democracy but we know that he tried to end it his first time I have no idea like what he has in mind in terms of what he wants to do down the line I know that he tried to end the Democratic project the first time he was in office so I'm not saying that's entirely off the table I'm saying that is possible but there's also these considerations over here how do you two justify seeing what he did I I you you both seem intelligent informed how do you justify watching what he did in the months leading into January 6 and watch what he did on January 6 and decide to yourself you know what I'm okay with like giving him another chance to do something similar should he want to do that how do you justify that I think the premise of the debate is not are we voting for Trump or not I think the premise of the debate is is democracy on the ballot which puts the burden of proof to prove that democracy is on the ballot to you right we're not claiming that like uh we justify what Trump did or we're not trying to justify what Trump did right we're not saying that all of these things you're talking about that Trump did were great or good things uh I actually think that a lot of them were bad things but that doesn't mean that democracy is on the ballot there's no way that our institutions won't withstand whatever uh like Trump throws at them right we have checks and balances in the country and anything he tries to do to deteriorate away from those checks and balances I believe will be checked by those very checks and balances okay well you're well just hold on real quick democracy is on the ballot and you are definitionally incorrect we've lost some of those checks and balances one of them is the criminal prosecution of the president of the United States uh most people would agree most the reason people would agree the president probably shouldn't be able to commit crimes while he's office because criminal law is important and the public has an interest in not seeing criminals committing crimes especially the president the United States the Judiciary is a check that we have lost essentially on the president so that's one check that's completely gone Republicans have shown that they are willing to sycophantically support Donald Trump in basically whatever he wants to do that's why on January 6th he had 11 Senators plus I think Jim Jordan a representative that was willing to go along with his contesting the election the contesting the certification of the results so that shows that the legislature is somewhat compromised as well and then you've got the president of the United States who is going to be or who would be Donald Trump who believes I guess in in the unitary executive Theory where he thinks he can go and he can talk to whoever he want and whatever Department he wants and fire and hire whoever he wants in order to get them to do whatever he wants so it kind of seems like he wants to just be one man that rules everything so in terms of checks and balances existing seems like those aren't doing too hot right now with the way that Donald Trump wants to run things and if you talk about the Constitution which should be your ultimate check Donald Trump says that he wants to terminate the Constitution when it's convenient to him so I don't see how we're so confident that our checks and balances would survive another term of trump when he already succeeded in eroding like one and a half of them yeah Destiny do you seriously think that Trump is going to terminate the Constitution and be successful in doing that I wouldn't have seriously thought that Donald Trump would try to rig the election and I wouldn't think that 75% of Republicans today would still believe that the last election was stolen so I mean I wouldn't think the other those things too but Desy that's not the question I asked you like do you actually believe that Donald Trump is going to like resend the Constitution successfully I think he would want to yes would he have the ability to do so I'm not sure I don't know right now well that's the question is like is would would would Trump have the ability to like overthrow democracy in the country that's the entire premise of the debate again like even you're not sure that he's going to resend the Constitution but you keep citing it over and over again as like a talking point against question is is democracy on the B with with with Barack Obama closing guantan Bay was on the ballot yes but he didn't do it I mean because he wasn't able to do it what is the question you're not asking me something on the ballot you're asking can you say with 100% certainty that in the future this particular thing will happen nobody knows that about what's on the ballot that's not how voting Works what do you mean the Guantanamo Bay thing that you're talking about right like this was like a stated presidential goal yes y okay great so is overthrowing democracy a stated presidential goal from Donald Trump yes really yeah okay okay actually well the Constitution thing sure uh it's not a state like it's not he's not running on this though you know what I'm saying like yes is no he's not when the President says that I I would I would arrest people uh for for burning the flag it's a violation of the First Amendment the amendments are part of the Constitution by the way when the president said he would suspend the Constitution he would terminate the Constitution uh in order to you know go after voter fraud that's kind of an attack on Democracy yes he said he would do that he be a dictator on day one like how am I supposed to read that we have we have to get past the election we have to get past the election first do do my co-panelists do my co-panelists here are you guys 100% confident that he's not going to engage in some kind of similar scheme to 2020 are you guys confident that he's not going to try to influence election officials all over the country to uh circumvent the will of the voters like he did in 2020 are you guys 100% confident he's not going to do that again you're changing the parameters of the debate but that's fine but to Steven point about oh he wants to arrest people for he said he wants to arrest people for burning the American flag he said that in 2016 he like when he was running then he said that for long periods of time in his life and when he was in office he did absolutely nothing to forward those goals and you also say oh this presidential immunity it doesn't exist people don't want you to people don't want the president to commit crimes and all that well I happen to remember when Barack Obama actually murdered an American citizen abroad Abdul uh Abdul alaki and Eric Holder his attorney general our top law enforcement officer looked directly into the camera and he said due process doesn't necessarily mean judicial process so unlike Bill bar who didn't side with Trump in that particular instance Eric Holder absolutely did and yet our government still stands despite the fact that Obama not only did that for him who by the way very likely he was a propagandist for Al-Qaeda very likely betrayed our country although you could try somebody in absentia Obama didn't bother to do that but then again his son who was 16 years old was also killed an American citizen in another country by Obama and again it was under the same justification that due process doesn't equal judicial process the difference between your flag quote and Eric Holder and Obama's actions is that Trump was in office he did nothing about the American flag but what we saw from the Obama Administration is that they did claim and receive that power to kill Americans abroad that they deem to be terrorists and again even this is not enough to be so hyperbolic and say oh my God democracy's quite literally on the ballot for our side one uh Trump did try to do things to further those goals he just didn't realize how any part of the government works because Donald Trump's a [ __ ] [ __ ] so initially he thought that he just appointed people that were strong Republicans that supported him that they would support him in basically doing whatever he wanted them to do that's why so many people resigned in the final days that's why he thought that he could get bar to go along with any plot that he wanted to and bar who was a trump loyalist through and through eventually had to call it quits and ended up resigning when you talk about comp ing Barack Obama uh trying to see if he can assassinate an American citizen or not the question was was does the president have the ability to order uh certain types of military strikes or assassinations on US citizens the process that Obama went through wasn't going to the Supreme Court saying I need criminal immunity in case I want to commit crimes it was going to the office of legal counsel and it was seeing if he thought that the president of the United States had the authority to do this and if it was in the legal clear he never said that I'm beyond judicial review he never asked for any amending to the Constitution and he certainly didn't ask Congress to to protect him and shield him from the liability of any of his actions so no it's not even remotely comparable if Donald Trump would have gone to he just presumed that he had the he just presumed that he had the ability to do that like presum when you talk about legal counsel those are his lawyers to come up with you're dead wrong you're completely wrong you're you misunderstand completely the structure of government the olc the White House councils those are not his personal lawyers personal lawyers would be people like juli lawyers they're not they're not they not his lawyers are the president of the United States lawyers and but there an important distinction for instance when you say Donald Trump's lawyers like Sydney Po and juliani and Eastman these people aren't affiliated with government these are his personal lawyers that serve it his personal pleasure for his personal gain and benefit when Barack Obama goes to the office of legal counsel when he confers with his attorney general for the doj he's ensuring he's trying to ensure that he's doing his best to stay within the bounds of the law Donald Trump wants to change the law Barack Obama didn't go to the Supreme Court and ask for permission to kill somebody Donald Trump went to the Supreme Court and asked for criminal immunity so they can do what he wants but you actually should change the law and he didn't ask for criminal immunity to do what he wants he asked he petitioned for criminal immunity because he was faced with prosecutions after he left office he wasn't in power when he did that Obama used the White House Council to justify granting himself new powers like you said without changing a law without consulting the judicial branch and he just did it he invented it whole cloth and there was presumed immunity when he did it CU he never feared any kind of prosecution for that this I can kill this it's so easy you said Barack Obama didn't fear any kind of prosecution then why even go to the olc to get some kind of basic legal justification wait wait why would he need a justification you never the fact that you're saying this and you're smarter you know this you went to school for criminal law right why would I go and talk to a lawyer if I never thought that I would ever be criminally liable you wouldn't do that lawyers to do everything like Trump talked to lawyers before he did like what you're uh the January 6 stuff he consed with lawyers he he asked lawyers to help him scheme and plot and they said that it wouldn't work and so he found other ones that would say he would Barack Obama didn't go to the olc get a disfavorable opinion and then find a new lawyer to tell him otherwise is absolutely not even remotely comparable well his his White House lawyers gave him whatever paper thin justification he needed right from the gump so he didn't have to get a second if the justification was paper thin then why didn't anybody with standing bring a case to the Supreme Court and have it overruled or why didn't Congress legislate and create a new statute to limit the powers of the executive if they felt like it was over the line it seems like every other branch of government disagrees with you so I don't know I don't know what your evidence is for the fact that the justification wasn't good I mean the justification is that he didn't have to seek any due process try somebody in absentia like we have precedent for this if you're going to accuse somebody of treason which is providing Aid and comfort to our enemies that's actually a crime in the Constitution that you would actually have to prosecute he just executed this guy he the guy wasn't on American soil he didn't just execute the dude uh full stop he was operating in His function as the commander chief the Supreme Court has ruled that the constitution goes wherever the US government goes also we are getting off the topic at hand which is of course you presenting the case that Trump is going to end democracy yes he tried to end democracy he failed generally because Pence stood between him and democracy and now he's picked a vice president a new one not the same one that he had before who wouldn't stand between him and democracy but he'd help him he'd be his crony so yeah I think that's pretty scary I like I would like to go back to the question that I asked before because I do think it's relevant I do think it's relevant to the topic sorry sorry cam what I was asking Destiny how he knows that JD Vance is gonna like follow him into the pits of hell and like contest elections with him because JD Vance said explicitly that he would have gone with him in his 2020 plot and refused to certify the electoral vote where did he say that when when did he say that uh I think a couple weeks ago or maybe even before that yeah does any I hate to contribute to the debate but he said it during the uh VP like race process he went on one of the channel news stations and he asked and would you do what VP like Pence wouldn't do and he said yes he would going going back to the question that I asked before you you said that it was changing the parameters of the debate for me to ask the question of are you confident that Trump isn't going to try to uh scheme and try to subvert the will of the voter again in 2024 but I don't think it's um moving away from the the topic whatsoever if he is ultimately successful in doing that that will be the end of democracy if he subverts the will of millions of Voters if he somehow finds enough loyalist to get it done this time that would be the end of the American Democratic experiment and who the knows where we go from there so I think the question is relevant do you feel confident that he's not going to try to do something similar we don't have to prove that to like be on the winning side of this argument the burden of proing is on you to prove that democracy is on the ballot okay that seems to be Destiny has no problem staying on that topic apparently you are the only one who wants to deviate from it okay to tr steals you have to prove that he's gonna be successful in doing something if Trump if Trump steals this election would that be the end of American democracy if he steals the election uh yes sure yeah yeah I mean I guess if he gets VP he's not president though he's not not certified the election then you know I guess we're talking about corruptly influencing election officials all over the country we like you have no idea like how many loyalists have been installed in counties and districts all over the country why didn't they why didn't they come through for him in 2020 then a lot of them tried to sto them lot of them tried to didn't work didn't work if you're honest with yourself if you're honest with yourself you would say like he yeah he's he probably gonna try to do something again and the fact that you guys don't going to telling you that I don't need to prove that he's not going to to win this argument you have to prove that he's going to and he's going to be successful to win this argument how is that even possible like democracy's on the ballot but also like even if you vote for Kamala then democracy's at risk cuz he's scheming so even in that scenario it's not really on the ballot because you're saying it's the outcome from both scenarios also like is it your contention that if like Trump's you know plot to De not certify the election throw it to the House of Representatives would have occurred that that would be like the end of American democracy like this is like the unprecedented thing that would obliterate our system nobody know knows the risk was there though no nobody has any idea what would have happen nobody has any idea what would have happened if Pence went along with his scheme nobody knows absolutely it would let's say he went along and and didn't certify they throw it to the House of Representatives and the House of Representatives ends up voting that Trump won the election like do you think that's the end of our Democratic I think that yes the American democracy that has been meaningfully and forever altered that a president was able to choose himself entrench his own power and circumvent the actual will of the people and the vote of the people yes so like it's unprecedented never happened before like definitely would end our system for sure I if the it would it end our entire system I don't think that life would end I don't think the planet would be destroyed and the country democratic system if if we consider electing like the president is one of the cornerstones of our democracy then that thing has been severely damaged and potentially ended sure yeah but of course a Cornerstone it's of course a pillar of democracy yeah no it's important for sure but like what if Trump was able to like successfully send like Republicans to various swing States and then get them to throw out ballots from Democrats because of Fraud and flip those States in order to be in his camp like what if he did it to like four states I mean if he actually if he found actual fraud bull frud well I know like whether like you know like it was Republicans that went down and what should have been a nonpartisan process like if he was able to do that would that have like definitely like ended our system that that would end the American Democrat ratic project as we know it and it would be something else after that and and it that doesn't mean that it would like get rid of every Democratic aspect moving forward but that would be the end of the current project that we're in right now do do you disagree with that uh yeah definitely 100% disagree with that because like that already yeah that already happened in the haze election like three Republicans the uls Grand's government send down their own people to toss out ballots from four states in order to get hay certified as the winner of the election and then there's the hay compromise which is quite famous in our country where the Democrats ended up giving up the presidential election that they likely would have won in order to get Union troops being pulled out of the government so we're still considered a democracy up according to you guys up until now and that was the election of 1876 so I'm guessing even that wouldn't destroy our system okay I'm going to calling it as a w here then if so that because now the debate shifted to democracy is on the ballot but is there a 1% chance or 100% chance that it would add if we're just if we're going to argue over like the percentage chance I mean we're never going to be able to agree on that but like I'm content with like if this is where we're at was like yeah he would definitely threaten it there's definitely like a huge risk we just don't know like the percentage chance of him being successful I'm I don't know what he's gonna do without even the powers of the president well the question would be do we do we agree that he threatened democracy on on his last ter do we agree with that I think he tried to scheme in order to get the election and he went further than we've seen in a very long time and it was not great hold on wait wa hold on wait wait I want to hear I I have to hear I'm going to call moderator I want an answer to that from both people did Donald Trump threaten democracy for his last electoral term with the way that he tried to choose who was going to win the presidency I want an answer from both people no oh my God as well sure yeah I mean I think that he deployed some like esoteric like legal [ __ ] uh and it didn't work and um democracy still exists uh so and I think that as Sean pointed out uh like random esoteric legal schemes like this have been deployed in the past and democracy continued to exist we're not shifting the debate to a different topic we never conceded that Trump is like yes yes or no democracy we're still holding you to like you have to prove that he's going to overthrow democracy obviously it's premis the debate wait okay so do do we think he did or he didn't like was he with threat did he threaten democracy and his last presidential term or no no no no no no I say absolutely not okay so we both say no okay so we think that it was okay you both think you're both on board you think it was okay it was within the bounds of what's acceptable in our system a good faith interpretation of our laws of our structure of our order for Donald Trump to try to illegitimately insert false electors and have the vice president switch the results of the election we think that that's an okay thing like like a you're just like deploying a false dichotomy on us right we never said that because it wasn't a threat to democracy that it was necessarily a good thing right neither of us actually I think I actually I say a good thing when I say good good okay when I say good good and it comports with the best faith interpretation of our system do we think we don't have to agree to that either we can say that that it's a bad faith interpretation of the system but that doesn't mean that it's a threat to democracy saying that it's not a threat to democracy does not imply that we think it's a goodfaith attempt okay wait do you think do you think the vice president do you think the vice president trying to change the results of the election do you think that is a threat to our democracy do you think that's Democratic wait wait I never I never said that it was again I never didn't ask I didn't say good you're on the last I'm asking you with the vice president being told by the president to pick him as the leader again to make him win the election is that an attack on our democracy or would that be acceptable yeah I mean again again I don't have to like say that it's not an attack on Democracy but as Sean pointed out that it's happened in the past and democracy still exists democracy that's what I'm asking that that specific attack as you put it did not overthrow democracy if it was successful it wouldn't have overthrown democracy we would have still had democracy and like you can you can talk about like bad faith like Pol politicians act in bad faith all the time no they don't no not like this you're wrong H yeah they do nope absolutely they do the inflation reduction Act is bad faith that absolutely oh my God don't even go there you have no idea you're I don't to deflect I don't want to deflect different I I will say ajw Hutch did try to interject first so I do want to give him a chance to talk then we'll go back to you and then I have a question for everybody well I was going to say to cam when you say like he deployed some esoteric what what what exactly did you say there yeah like uh I'm going to think that he probably did pretty much the same thing they did to him that but he did it first right he he deployed some like esoteric legal Theory and tried to like find a loophole so that he could remain in office I don't have to you say when you say that he did the same thing that that was done to him are you referring to people that were in the Congressional Halls on January 6 in 2016 when when Biden was certifying the elect what are you what are you equating that with what do you mean what am I equating that with you said this they he's he did the same thing to them that they did to him what do what do you mean by that I think that I think that Democrats like in their own states have deployed like esoteric legal theories against Trump yeah for sure but that's just a passing comment right I don't have to like like I don't know what you're saying why why you well when have you ever seen a a Democrat uh uh politician engage in the months-long sort of scheming that Trump was in a multi-pronged effort in like several swing States uh and then incite a mob to storm the capital and then watch them for 3 hours before asking them to leave have you ever seen a Democrat do anything like that before so I'm going to fundamentally reject the idea that he incited the mob first of all uh second of all like I don't I don't need to like show you that Democrats have done this to like the same extent right but Democrats have actually absolutely contested elections uh Al Gore did it in 2000 John krey did it in 2004 why you lying those contested elections those happened in the Supreme Court the Supreme Court said no and then it ended that was it wait wait wait wait no no no I'm not I'm not talking about like legal proceedings I'm talking about like rhetoric like John no one cares about rhetoric we're talking about Donald Trump scheming involving officials involving unofficial people yes that was part of what happened on January he incited a riot yes that's what happened yes he didn't inite a riot he did not inci a entire campaign was run on uh uh like look at the BLM people they're rioting and we're you know we're the we're the party or the the ticket of Law and Order yeah that didn't happen yeah but what happened on january6 that wasn't Law and Order was it it was an inter it wasn't Law and Order Destiny nobody said that it was Law and Order but you have to prove that that's what Trump wanted them to do you can you can just look at his action the evidence while it's happening is Donald Trump sat and watched TV he didn't do anything to call any of the people he wouldn't make a tweet to tell the people to go home all right let's go let's go go let go theel let's go through the timeline real quick let's go through the timeline 12:53 p.m. 19 minutes before Trump ended his speech Riders overran the perimeter at 2 p.m. the capital went on lockdown as the first riers breached the building at 238 Trump tweeted please support our Capital police and law enforcement they are truly on the side of our country stay peaceful this was 2 hours after the perimeter ran but only 38 minutes roughly according to CNN after they first breached the building okay around 2:4 do you think do you think wait wait wait wait wait wait hold on wa wait you want to go through hold on wait wait do you want to go through the timeline or not wait wait do you want do you want to go through do you want to go through the timeline do you want to go wait wait wait wait wait let's go through the timeline hold on why would you tweet why would you tweet please support our Capital police and law enforcement they are truly on the side of our country stay peaceful if they're not peaceful they haven't been peaceful for an hour and a half encouraging them to be peaceful well they're already rioting what are you talking about they're not peaceful they've already escalate Destiny no no if the goal was to deescalate why waska why was his son why were lawmakers why was everybody calling Donald Trump saying please call these people question you you ask me a question now I'm gonna answer the question so why might Trump tweet remain peaceful and respect our law enforcement while his people that he has immense influence over are actively like fighting against police officers and being violent because he's trying to take advantage of the violence he wanted them to do Sor I can't I can't hear anything I would like to have Destiny respond uh and then do want to go to actual Justice War because he's been waiting patiently he they he wanted them to be violent also you very conveniently skipped over that at around 2:15 people were outside saying hang Mike Pence hang Mike Pence as they were already broken through the the restricted Zone and then at 2:24 Donald Trump tweeted Mike Pence didn't have the courage to do what should have been done to protect our country and our constitution giving States a chance to certify a corrected set of facts the USA demands the truth do you agree that that tweet was encouraging the violence that was already going on no do you do you have any evidence that Trump knew about the the like hanging thing and also and also if I were if I were if I one second one second also if I put on um I don't know a kamla Harris 2024 hat and I go and put up like a like a Gallows of of uh of uh you know JD Vance did that immediately implicate kamla Harris no but if kamla Harris saw it and she was if KLA Harris saw it and she was sitting there watching it on TV as it was happening and she sat and watched TV for 3 hours while BLM people broke into the capital building and when people came up to they were begging her to call them off or begging her to make them stop she was like you know what maybe they deserve it then I'd say you know what kind of seems like she does want that to happen the connection that actual justice has been waiting for a little bit so I do want to throw it over to him yeah nobody disputes that there was a actually I shouldn't say nobody nobody here disputes that there was a riot on the capital on January 6 but the idea that trump inited it by telling him to go over and peacefully protest he never said that okay well at the end of his speech he did but he did he said that 20 minutes into the speech he said I know you'll be marching peacefully that wasn't anywhere near the end of his speech the spe an hour and 15 minutes long it is whatever because the last things he said we we're going to fight like hell you win greatest factoid award I know being factually correct isn't really popular with conservatives but we kind of like do it sometimes I know fine whatever that's fine anyway so yeah the plan was again for anybody who wasn't paying attention and it's a dumb plan it was based on an insane interpretation of the Electoral count Act was for these people to protest at the capital and put pressure on officials to not certify the election so that it could be kicked to the Congress which they would then vote based on one vote per state and the Republicans had more majorities in more States in order to give him the election the idea that the plan was to for them to Riot and like threaten to kill people and all that is just not true it's ridiculous and at if Trump's goal was to take the government by force he probably wouldn't send a bunch of absolute idiots into the capital to do so he might think about using his power as commander-in-chief to order the military to do that so yeah like he encouraged people to protest he encouraged them to advocate for an insanely stupid interpretation of the Electoral count act we haven't even gotten into his interpretation of how you can do alternate electors which were fraudulent electors all of that was horrible stuff for sure just be clear there was noal his legal team and he should not have done that that being said this was not the end of democracy and the idea that he planned to have them steal Nancy Pelosi's Podium to take the presidency is ridiculous nobody's saying nobody's saying that that he specifically wanted them to break into Nancy Pelosi's office what we're saying is and cam you left something out of your timeline he arrived at the White House at 1:20 p.m. he went into the White House dining room at 1:25 p.m. he did put out two tepid tweets as cops were being brutalized and they were uh breaking into the capital he put out two tepid tweets saying uh stay peaceful during a riot while people were literally dying and it took him almost three hours to come out with a took him almost three hours to come out with a statement asking them to go home and this was after he had several AIDS and family members begging him to make a post asking them to leave he refused to do it for three hours so wait before before we go oh to anybody responding uh Lauren Southern has just messaged the staff here and apparently she wants back in she wants back in but because of course she dropped out and now she wants back in I need to ask the people on here uh because it's your guys' show since you're the guest do you want her back I'm fine with that I'm okay I'm fine with that cam sure okay uh danab you heard him you guys can continue we keep saying interpretation of e also this was wasn't interpretation of the ECA it was saying we don't think the ECA is legal so we're just going to ignore the ECA that was the quote unquote interpretation okay no the interpretation was that the vice president can certify it therefore he can like not certify the election and then throw it to the Congress that was the whole point no the whole point was him saying that the ECA is not legal we don't believe in the ECA that was the whole point that's why every time they say constitutional constitutional they refer to the 12th Amendment they were saying that they think that the 12th Amendment supersedes the ECA and the ECA is unconstitutional that's why they that's why Pence had his own White House Council that told him you cannot do this this is not an option and Pence tried to communicate this to Trump over and over and over and over again and it just didn't get through Trump was asking him to do something that TR Pence's own lawyers were telling him this is unconstitutional you do not have that option also hold on just by definition just Che definitionally if Trump would have succeeded and would have stayed in office and then now he's about to leave office would you be saying then that like it wasn't a threat to democracy and democracy didn't end yeah that's what I said for the haze election it didn't end okay wait so then so then so so we can say that even if the president were to flip the election and stay in office democ so what would be the counting of ending democracy to you then does it do we have to show that it's going to be like an apocalypse I mean presumably there would be another election in that scenario like I mean a lot of people argue that Gore won Florida and that Bush was installed by the Supreme Court with a ridiculous decision that they said was not presedent didn't my question withold that it's probably be like precedent that like there's not elections in the future Trump is choosing who gets uh to be uh you know elected or that like executive members of the government are choosing who gets elected I've heard you call Trump a dictator like 100 times in your stream because he says things because he talk dictator yeah because he says things like a dictator right when Trump says a massive fraud of this type of magnitude for the termination of all rules regulations and articles even those found in the Constitution that's dictator talk and when Donald Trump says I would be a dictator on day one that's dictator talk oh come on Destiny J and you know before wait I I do want to ask I've been waiting to ask this question I I hate to cut off here but this is something that's been uh that's been on my mind so there seems to be a divide about one side saying like you have to prove 100% that they're going to that this election is going to be the end of democracy if democracy is the ballot then you know Trump wins democracy's over that's what we would have to prove the other side seems to be saying well we can't prove that 100% we can't know the future but that it's at risk uh CU if there was like say some other country and there was a person who got elected and then they degraded institutions and then further elections it got worse and worse and worse Would we not say that that election where that person started that process was a threat to democracy I know you look back but the question is does it have to be an all or nothing for he's about to say move the goal post no no no I'm happy to move the goal post if we want to talk about like threats to democracy rather than democracy ending and democracy being on the ballot I'll take like a like a point blank concession from everybody on the panel okay wait so just carries let's say Donald Trump finds a way to appoint his son as the next president but like everything else continues as normal would we say that the Democracy ended or is it still democracy if if he he appointed his son the next president yeah yeah then that would be the end of our like electoral system what's the difference between him appointing his son versus him like flipping and choosing himself as the winner after January 6th well and if you're doing like a contested election where we have a process for it which but again I don't buy it wasn't a contested election and the process was exhausted that's not what happened first of all it was literally like did Trump have a good case no but was it contested yeah that's all settled no and they were settled it was over there was no big contestment okay all right well we're going to argue over the definition of contested but that's different from saying my son is the president after me like do you do you not understand that no I don't at all explain it to me what's the difference Donald Trump lost the election fair and square the Americans and the states voted against him and he tried to change that outcome in the Congress why would it be different if he did it for him or for his son if you appoint your son oh you're saying if he does if his son was on the ballot and then he lost and then they had like the same argument and then they ended up using this technique to get his son you're Focus too much on the technique I'm you seem to be saying that even if if the president was elected illegitimately he if he appointed himself the next ruler you're saying democracy isn't over so that case I'm just wondering what the specifics matter if you if you if you violate the election and you choose unilaterally to make yourself the next president or make somebody else the next president you're saying democracy isn't over it it depends on what so you're saying if Don Jr runs like Trump did and ends up in the same situation and then they that that plot actually works is that what you're asking or you just saying he comes into like he just appoints his son the next president I'm saying let's say let's say he's president this time let's say that his son runs and let's say that his son loses the election but he he runs the same scheme and he manages to make it so that the um so that his son actually wins because this time JD Vance goes along with it is that like the end of democracy or what is that okay quickly uh We've also added pondering in order to balance it out because hippie dippy is supposed to have a balance 3v3 if it's you know cam Higg and actual just you know that the reason why he's here explaining welcome in here brother what up Lauren nice to meet you we've never spoke hello hello everybody nice to meet you do you have do you have any thoughts I haven't been listening I've been trying to figure out text and catch up on what's going on but I'm sure all the Liberals are incorrect here I'm happy you could make it I'm happy I'm happy we're we're getting man it's a 3v3 now now it's an even bigger event huzzah what is our I'm just curious what is the minimum threshold then from the other side since apparently the president unilaterally deciding that he's going to remain president that's not destroying democracy what is like our minimum threshold that we're looking at here for like major threat to democracy sorry can I just can you explain since I just got in here what do you mean by the president unilaterally deciding he's going to remain president so Sean and cambi seem to be of the impression that if the president were to find a way to remain president and circumvent the will of the voters that that wouldn't actually be the end of democracy or threat to democracy so we're trying to figure out like what exactly is the what would we have to this is this is like a hyp itical yes not okay yeah he's just trying to establish the threshold what constitutes a threat to democracy wait can Sean what's your argument there because I think first of all they keep saying threat to democracy but they're the ones who are saying democracy's on the ballot that it's going to end if Trump were to win now Steven's asking this question but he won't clarify exactly how like his son is supposed to be the president if he hands the the presidency like a throne to his son then yes that would be a monarchy and that would be the end of democracy so so I could be talking out my ass I don't know if Dylan sent you wait hold on no no wait hold on wait I'm sorry wait wa hold on wait I'm sorry I need to clarify I don't the process doesn't matter the question is very simple no no no no hold on the thing is is if the leader chooses the next leader in opposition to what the people choose it doesn't matter how we're assuming some extra legal manner okay so if the leader chooses the next leader against the will of the people you seem to be saying that that's not really a threat to democracy as long as like the presidential election the next time goes back to normal well the the end of democracy so what so what do we have to prove here that democracy is ending if democracy is on the ballot I want to know what the method that Trump's going to overthrow democracy is because you're saying January 6 January 6 but he can't even you're avoiding you're a you're not we're not talking about the method ask me a separate question and now you're like you're avoiding this other point when I just wa wa I want to I want to to the moderator Dylan tell me okay because now it seems like we have an unpassable bar because we've we've said that what if the president finds a way to in power and they're saying oh well even if that would happen that doesn't seem to necessarily be a threat to democracy even if he does it with extra legal whatever means as long as it goes back to normal afterwards so I don't even know what the threshold is of what we're trying to prove now um well I mean are you asking me like what the question what was my intent with the question is that them clarify yeah okay would you like to Define it and then after we're going to go to pondering who are you talking to Dylan I was I was ask I was asking actual War has everybody that's just you that's just you Sean he was talking to you he says do you want to Define it oh Define what I wasn't listening the end of democracy oh so first of all yes like in terms of a threat which is not what we're talking about yes this would be a problem because it could become a norm but again this strategy actually worked and you talk about handing it over to the next guy this happened in the election of 1876 like it led to the haze compromise which is absolutely disastrous where they ended up sacrificing the civil liberties of black Americans in order to get the presidency in an election that was incredibly sketchy that most historians still say that they can't determine who won but because that didn't become a pattern then our system was able to endure it so yeah it's a risk it's a threat but again you're saying democracy is on the ballot it is going to be ended if Trump won what where does that follow see that's where I'm confused unless Dylan sent some sort of like clarifying email out that when I say is democracy on the I mean if Trump is elected with 100% certainty democracy ends as in there no more elections that is a ridiculous okay wa hold on let me suggest let me suggest wait wait let me suggest let me suggest I can't hear I can't I can't hear anything I can't hear anything pondering you want to say that one more time one person to respond to it again I wasn't an initial like invite to this so maybe there was like an email clarifying what the hell ballot democracy on the ballot means but uh just that phrase does not at all imply that if Donald Trump is elected it's 100% guaranteed that there will be no more future elections it's ridiculous Steph gave you an example all the way back to the verying beginning about how uh President Obama campaigned on closing Guantanamo Bay airgo you could say that guantan Mo Bay was on the ballot it's still here even though Obama was elected twice so it's just a ridiculously bad faith interpretation because you you can I you know you can't defend that Donald Trump where's campaign M that's what you just cited you said that it has to be a f Lawrence sou you wanted to respond to it and you haven't spoken yet so I wanted to throw it to you yeah I appreciate that no I was very clear uh it was counterpoints uh Connor that reached out to me to join this debate when he initially told me the subject um whether democracy was on the ballot or not which to me seems like a pretty clear question but I asked for clarification to him cuz I said you know I'm not sure there's going to be much disagreement here unless it is literally a black and white question of they think democracy is going to come to an end if Trump is elected and he said yeah that is the debate that we're having so that was the impression I was under when I came into here I imagine Sean and I had a conversation yesterday about this conversation and we were like man that's a pretty bizarre position but I guess that's what they're taking but if you're not taking that then we are absolutely happy to have you see the at this point that democracy is not in fact your interpretation well hang on I'm sorry just real quick can you clarify that was that your interpretation of the prompt because I don't think either of you will say with 100% certitude that Donald Trump will end democracy if he is elected well okay can I well the the thing can I clarify I mean I I wrote the question I guess I should clarify what I what I meant if this wasn't communicated um I I didn't necessarily mean that we know for 100% certain that Trump is going to end democracy at least that's what I wrote it that couldn't have been communicated um I just generally meant that like democracy the issue of democracy like could it be genuinely affected by this election for example like uh the institutions that hold up our Democratic uh world like our Democratic institutions being crippled or undermined making it own why are we doing this why are you explaining this this is [ __ ] using their no hold on using their definitions and they would all agree with this if you would elect literally God emperor resurrected Stalin Hitler and he were to destroy American democracy for one year and then we were to come back and and survive and be okay they would say oh then that did that wasn't a threat that didn't destroy democracy that didn't destroy democracy this is [ __ ] Stalin God Hitler is gonna come back and like destroy democracy for a year like we reject that that's going to happen right so like if I say abortion is on the ballot this year what does that mean to you to me abortion on the ballot means that there's one party who is promising that they will ban abortion and there is one party that is promising they will make it accessible to people abortion is on the ballot uh depending on who you vote for you will have different abortion access if I say democracy is on the ballot what that means to me is that if I vote for the wrong candidate democracy will cease to exist do you think wait wait wait do you think democracy wait on a second I just want to ask to just clarify for for definitional reasons would that mean if somebody said abortion is on the ballot that means like the options is abortion is gone this election or I don't know how much there's too many people here obviously not he and he he kind of tacitly conceded that if abortion is on the ballot it doesn't guarantee that if a certain person is elected that abortion will become federal law of the land or will be outlawed he [ __ ] knows it which is why he moved the goal poost a bit okay sure running that's exactly what they're running on but mad there's also Myriad pieces of legislation that could serve as like a middle ground between those two uh possible outcomes that you're not even like like here's the question does abortion does abortion does abortion only mean it is completely illegal in every single circumstance or uh it's fullterm 9month right up until the baby's completely out of the vagina you can shoot in the head it's a okay or there a whole midle when they say abortion they're obviously talking about elective abortions right so what you do when you when you say that is you're creating a dichotomy that one party will give it to you there's not even a dichotomy of the democratic party what are you talking about you think the entire Democratic part no there it's not a concession you're being no no I know it's do you think hold on let me hold on do you think that do you think that abortion is do you think that there is a dichotomy on the issue of abortion on the issue of gun control do you think there's a dichotomy on that when we talk about abortion colloquially we're obviously talking about elective abortions by and large So when you say abortion on the ballot talking about elective abortions abortion this is actual retardation oh my God I want to I want to pull back this abortion thing for a second all right so like my issue and I gave you guys a way easier out than like prove 100% is GNA well I mean you kind of do no we don't your interpretation is ridiculous and this is what we got so like [ __ ] guy who created the prom Sean disagrees with you that's the thing youal to Lauren I can to the guy Au It Anyway wait let me like okay I just want to clarify that was how I wrote the question like you can still argue like hey Trump 100% needs to end democracy you need to prove that and that's the standard I want to hold but that's what I meant when I wrote I receipts I have the receipts from counter points maybe but counter points might have interpreted my question incorrectly but that's I was can we not entertain this argument that whether or not something is on the ballot means it's a binary Choice nobody in the real world believes this these people don't believe this like nobody believes why are we why are we letting the conservatives Gaslight us into this stupid it's so [ __ ] intended when he wrote the question just concede that Trump that you do not know that Trump is going to be a dictator and let's move on if somebody says that immigration is on the B does that mean that you either have open Borders or no immigration is that what it means when immigration is on the ballot it's either open Borders or no immigration this is so stupid the lady talk rude okay Lauren Southern I literally was like I'm down for the debate but I just want to clarify the topic is definitely in quotes if Trump is elected it is the end of democracy correct um and he said we went back and forth yes I will solidify this and then Dano is democracy on the ballot 202 4 so it was just I was just reiterated the same thing yes is democracy on the ballot but I went and I was like hey I just want to clarify I might go to sleep I got other [ __ ] I can do tonight I can't my blood pressure is too high this is this is actually [ __ ] it's the thing that's triggering the most about this conversation is that Dylan is even taking it seriously in there's no issue in the history of all of mankind where a thing being on the ballot means that it's a binary yes or no gun control is on the ballot that doesn't mean that we ban all guns or guns uh immigration is on the ballot that doesn't mean that we ban all immigration or allowall immigrate like this is the dumbest interpretation of anything I've ever heard in my entire [ __ ] life this is so stupid I don't know why I like I don't want to have this this this debate right now is not real the fact that we're debating this prompt is so [ __ ] [ __ ] like holy [ __ ] just [ __ ] wasn't th air we asked for clarification but also I will point out that clarified I asked I asked for yeah after the fact after I'm in the van but uh I just pointed out I asked for like a plausible scenario of like how he was going to do this and you guys all screamed at me like I think scenario the pl scenario I was being really nice about that wait let's let's let's start the question then on a Level Playing Field and let me ask it like this because this is a question ajw had is there because let's say you could say Okay Donald Trump has some anti-democratic Tendencies but what we have strong institutions what is the plausible scenario that he could actually hurt American democracy so much that it could cause its end yes I think the previous topic first uh no when the question is is democracy should I resolve the topic I can't resolve can we get a resolution like can they concede and then we can move on to the next we're not conceeding no absolutely not right so then why are we moving on the when somebody says it's democracy on the ballot the question is meaning obviously will if we elect a person is there going to be a significant departure from what our currently understood Democratic Norms are that's what we're talking about right that's what it means that's what everybody understood that question mean that's what any reasonable human being understand that question mean okay so then the question is is Will Donald Trump do things that we would consider a significant departure from American Democratic Values okay and the answer we would say is yes when when I get asked to a piano recital I ask where do I sit what do I need to do and that's what Lauren did for this conversation so when there's confusion you ask for clarification then we receive clarification on it and now you're mad at us for going based on the information that we were told when we were lured into the back of your van so like I don't know why you're getting all mad cuz you didn't for clarification okay my bad can we agree on this then Hitler was not a threat to German democracy because they went back to being a Democrat democracy can you agree with that they completely changed the government over there no but they went back no no wait wait wait but Germany went back Germany went back Germany's fine today right do you agree that Germany's fine today answer that I need an answer to that I need an answer to that no no no no no don't don't no no don't pivot don't pivot answer that question answer that question he's PIV let me know when he's done I'm the same question said it cam you can answer the question and then you can ask your question that you wanted to ask and then I want to actually come back to the question I asked because I posed it and it is a question okay great okay so in the case of Germany Germany had a dictator that Rose to power and degreg the Democratic systems that the country previously had he's not you're not even right Hitler did not rise as a dictator Hitler didn't rise as a dictator can we just go on to the next thing go the next you don't know you don't know any history Hitler didn't start off as a dictator you don't know what you're talking about just go to the next question he establish he doesn't know what he's talking about something Desy okay great so it took a regime fall for democracy to return to Germany and several like Decades of uh Western occupation in Germany for that uh like democracy to be restored to Germany okay so uh that's not what happened in the the ruford B Hayes case that Sean cited earlier uh where this exact thing that you're claiming will overthrow democracy happened and it resulted in uh uh democracy continuing on to today clearly you agree that democracy exists today otherwise you wouldn't be arguing that it's on the ballot democracy in Germany exists today you just proved Destiny's point the idea that democracy is only threat if permanently ended is [ __ ] stupid now now you're moving the gold post again if there's there's a decades long Gap in between democracy and dictator yeah all right so do you do you think that there's a meaningful difference I'm just going to ask you of having external governments overthrow your dictatorship and then install a de a democratic I'm so good on this guys the other half do you think there's that and then an election that's like contested that has this stupid electors thing and then a corrupt compromise that's one of the stains on American history but then the next election functions as normal do do you do you understand that there's a difference okay I understand there's a difference so there's no threat then do you agree that the Civil War wasn't a threat to democracy because that was in another country right is the Civil War that's actually an interesting question no it's not they weren't another country they weren't they didn't have the legal rights sued just cuz you say you do doesn't mean you do democracy if these people like wanted to succeed to succeed and then like the they they ended up going to war with the other half of the country nope wasn't another country you defined it as external country external occupation a conflict from within the country about whether or not you could break apart like is that like that's that's actually an interesting question no no no no no it's not hold on no it's very easy to solve we came back immediately after you reconstruction everything we're good boom so it wasn't a threat right admit say that the Civil War wasn't a threat to democracy it didn't end democracy it was it was yeah yeah but what you're failing to realize is no I hear the answer that the Civil War didn't end democracy say that the Civil War didn't end democracy right it's not analogous why no I it doesn't matter it doesn't have to be didn't end democracy matters you're posing an analogy it has to be analogous holy [ __ ] I'm just saying if it fit your definition milary Uprising Trump attempted to do this in a civil manner uh you manipulating laws in the United States as Sean pointed out again it's happened before if Trump wanted to overthrow the government with a military like what happened in the Civil War he would have done it but he didn't that's not true there's a whole number of reasons hold on wait wait I need you to accept that the Civil War didn't end democracy so democracy was never on the ballot when it came to the Civil War because it didn't end democracy well that that's why it's an interesting question because after the Civil War there was an occupation of the South by Union troops to suppress their uh their Democratic Ambitions because they wanted a bunch of crazy stuff so like I think the Ridiculousness and bad kind of cut off the it really did kind of cut off this like popular movement to separate from the country like it was definitely a threat to the country but like I'm not like that's why it's an interesting question because these people wanted to leave the nation and like theoretically if they voted democratically they might have like gotten their way if it was based on a ballot initiative if we were having a debate before the Civil War if we were having a debate before the Civil War and somebody would have say do you think we had a civil war would that be a threat to democracy would your answer be yes or no depends on the nature of the Civil War if you're fighting over like voting to leave the country like is it undemocratic to force them to stay like I think it's the right thing to force them to stay even though it might be undemocratic that's why I have to think about it is Russia a democracy no why not they vote don't they okay yeah so Russia is a democracy so nothing Putin's done is a threat to democracy where they kill the they kill the opposition people like rigged elections wait so do rigged elections make you not a democracy careful you know where I'm going with this if you well I mean well yeah if you rig an election like consistently to get like this 97% or whatever wait wait so then if there's a new president if there's a new president after Putin then we would say that all along it was it was a democracy because it went back right as long as there's a Democratic president elected at some point in the future if they have a new dictator after he dies no no no no let's say it's a Democratic elected president after Putin dies so then it was it was just a temporary departure it's not a Dem or it goes back to being a democracy right so in 91 Putin and everybody else like that democracy was never on the ballot I couldn't tell you if the Russian Federation was like legit democracy to start out with or not like like I'm not that read up on Russian history but I would assume like it depends on the structure of their government if they like turn into a democracy then they're a democracy if that makes sense not of this makes sense the next guy gets elected but if he gets elected and then like he's the president for like two decades or whatever like then that's probably not legit I would From perspective of someone who engages engages in politics from like a liberal perspective it's been frustrating to watch right-wing pundits come up the best defense that they come up with for Trump was that yeah he may try to like stress test democracy but our institutions will hold and to people like myself I and I'll think I'll speak for Destiny and Josiah that just seems like completely untenable why would you even allow someone to to have that opportunity in the first place yeah the thing we hear all the time is that the guard rails hold and it's like this idea that you have a friend who drives his Ford F-150 into the guard rails on a highway and then you talk awesome a fresh set of [ __ ] keys ah the guard rails held that's not the argument we're making that that's the premise of the debate and we're holding you to it we're not we're not we're not that's not our only defense of trump right I mean me personally like I I came into this like literally 30 minutes or not 30 minutes but I was I was warned three hours in advance uh so like yeah I don't have like an elaborate uh like defense of trump that I'm going to deploy against Destiny right now so I'm holding to the standard of the debate can I am I allow to hop in here sure may I be permitted woman you pered okay so obviously there's been a lot of talk about the electors Scandal here and I get that you know we can concede that was a stress test to democracy probably naughty um but what what would Trump like realistically in this upcoming term like he could not run again afterwards what is your guys's argument for how he will deconstruct democracy if he were to win an election this upcoming Trump could pressure every single part of his cabinet Administration to launch fake uh investigations into his political opponents because now the Supreme Court has granted him full criminal immunity from any conversations he has with his cabinet about things that might result in their firing so that could be one big thing we also have to talk we also have to talk about Trump reshaping the GOP In His Image like he's been really successful at pushing out politicians who don't bend the knee and sort of like bend their will to him so the very isn't this just a problem theeran system then if that's something the president is able to do wouldn't that something the president wasn't supposed to be able to do it but the the but because of the weird Supreme Court now for some reason he's able to I Biden wants to can do that as well so is it really a question of whether democracy is on the line or is it already lost in your opinion well the difference is is that when Democrats do bad things they don't go to the Supreme Court and beg for criminal immunity or go in front of aiv a civil court say we that as if it's a given for every Democrat that will ever exist in human history obviously because we haven't seen one abuse it yet because Donald Trump pardoned every single crony that worked with and Biden is literally watching his son get convicted yet doesn't mean it won't happen implicit respectfully he'll probably pardon Hunter Biden for being honest when the election is over you think he will you think he'll pardon his son I think that's quite likely okay he could have pardoned his son from the beginning he could have fired basic go down the roadd UNP pardons happen when you're a lame duck uh and the it's the end of the election like that's obviously what goes down so yeah but so he had he had like or just for democracy Prosecuting your political opponent like and by the way the thing he didn't prosecute his political opponent what are you a special Council for the classified documents there is no evidence that Biden was involved at any step of the way in any of these special counsil in any of the true no evidence involved that nobody said that so the special you w hold on wait Civics where did the special Council come from wait no NOP I just it's too much I can't I can't hear anything because everybody's talking at the same time okay so the question was I saw something post posted by ajw but let's finish the conversation first about the feasibility of trump attacking democracy before we move on to the idea of Or democrats Prosecuting Trump and is that an attack on Democracy so first the feasibility Destiny you were hitting on this earlier and I wanted to go to Hutch because he hasn't had much time to speak about what feasible plan could Trump employ that makes you scared about our democracy yeah I already said it he could pressures cabinet officials to do whatever they can in their capacity to arrest and jail political opponents and fabricate charges for if he wants to Hutch I mean to expand on that I like Donald Trump he is a full-on cult of personality there there if you do not swear loyalty to him in the Maga movement he will do everything in his power to make sure that you don't win your next election and you don't belong in the Republican party anymore and we've just seen that more and more the the the house if we just look at the chaos in the house ating their speaker for the first time in history and you have characters like margorie Taylor green who are elevated to extreme positions of influence within the party she's one of the party's highest fundraisers she's on two subcommittee hearings and she is [ __ ] insane so like I don't know if you can necessarily say that there's like this grave immediate threat but the impact on the legislative branch over time of it being corrupted by trump-like people who rise to prominence because of him uh who knows what that leads to in the future I don't even think it's on me to tell you like a really detailed specific plan of what I think is going to happen to like corruptly influence uh things moving forward I can just speak pondering before we go to the conservatives for respons conservatives right-wingers Libertarians whatever you define yourself uh pondering well because even the plan that he tried to enact in 2020 was I mean just primma fascia ridiculous which is why so many people in his own justice department was like this is [ __ ] stupid so even even any like sort of plan that we could potentially devise would sound categorically ridiculous but it didn't stop him from attempting in the first place these institutions are not divinely crafted they're not divinely enforced this isn't The Little Mermaid it's not Supernatural these institutions are comprised of people part of Trump's mission in a second term is to staff these institutions with people who are more more loyal to him than the Constitution and then the other thing I want to say implicit to Lauren's question way back like 10 minutes ago is this assumes that there is a system of government which is bad faith proof there's just not the fact of the matter is like when you said oh so if if this is permissible for a president to do doesn't that mean the democracy is already dead no every system of government is subject to bad faith they're they're fungible right and so if you get a sufficiently motivated bad faith actor who is not checked by his party by other institutions that poses a great threat and and that's the issue with Trump he wants to deliberately stress test these institutions and eventually break them to his benefit that's not a weakness of the American system it's a weakness of every [ __ ] system now before we go to the conservatives rightwing Libertarians whatever to respond I do want to quickly say that we're 15 minutes from our scheduled stop time we can go over if anybody wants to go over but for those who want to ask questions now is the last time to donate because we're going to Rapid Fire through the questions once we got the moment before letting these fine people go um now who wants to take it off ladies first I would just say like I'm good probably until like 7:30 at the most okay Lawrence other are you ladies firsting me I'm still putting my thoughts together here Sean you go right ahead all right well then other guy go cam okay great yeah so I want to respond to something uh Hutch said uh right we're just doing responses I guess um yeah so you said that like you basically went off conjecture like who knows I you know I don't have to prove what his plan is I don't have to outline a plan that he's going to act on well it's my position that KLA Harris is going to use the exact same immunities that Donald Trump gained in the Supreme Court to install another president after her of her choice right like if you're not going to outline a plan like I can just as as well make like baseless uh allegations based on conjecture like I can just as well do that why did they say they wouldn't outline a plan I'll outline a plan never saw try to do anything like that we will outline a plan though we did I gave a plan go answer my plan answer my plan yeah so again and then also jaiah said that uh Trump's just going to like line the government with uh officials that are loyal to him it seems like he pretty much tried to do the same thing from 2016 or sorry 2017 to 2020 and didn't look like it worked most of his people abandoned him so yeah no wait a minute so no Donald Trump when he was president before before I I do want to let you guys respond but it was one two three I do want to give them a little bit more time because you know dyl you got to be fair I mean when we ask for like a plausible plan it's like doesn't have to be super detailed it's just I'm curious for other two didn't want to go like because the method that he tried before didn't work and again you don't really have that option as a first pres in addition to that like you guys are alleging that he's going to prosecute his political opponents stuff I mean Steven cited that he said he was going to be a dictator he forgets that that was said he's going to be a dictator for one day like Clos the border and I forgot what the other promise was but this guy already ran on explicitly lock her up and he didn't even he didn't even investigate Hillary Clinton in the way that many people who wanted that investigation wanted him to do so so like hold hold on just interrupt when I'm talking like I did for you oh wait I didn't past behavior is normally a predictor of future outcome and Trump hasn't shown himself confident enough to to actually have a successful coup to actually have sick of Fant like Eric Holder that are serving him in the Justice Department on top of that our institutions did hold that's a good thing and he is currently being prosecuted by the opposition party through a bunch of cases that are first ofit kind cases or we just just establish a precedent that this is even possible right before there was a 14th Amendment case where they tried to force him off the ballot all of this crazy stuff that again are chipping away at the Democratic process the norms and all that but even then I still don't believe that those actions by the other party are a threat to democracy in the way that you guys are portraying this nebulous plan that you can't quite Define from I can't believe I let these two walk away I think it's insane to give Trump credit for not Prosecuting Hillary Clinton when presidents don't do that they cannot like according to the Norms that have been in place since like the 70s we they don't have the authority to just direct the doj to go after their political opponents that didn't stop him from trying he openly publicly go ahead let's just actually wait wait let's just we have a specific plan Donald Trump will tell everybody in his cabinet okay to go after political opponents launch fake investigations fabricate throw them in jail if he wants to because he knows that he can do that now without any criminal overview whatsoever and you said that past Behavior was a predictor of future Behavior that's what he tried to do in the past but he picked the wrong people this time he's picking different people because he knows he needs to that's why he picked Vince who said he would have gone along with the plot in 2020 when Pence said that he wouldn't so we've got past Behavior predicting future Behavior we've got a change in action so that it can affect his outcome before and we have a particular plan that's now protected by the Supreme Court and it wasn't before you'll have attorney general Rudy Giuliani day one you'll have some unscrupulous gu now they're going to grab on to they're going to grab onto Hut and ji's comments and they're not going to respond to that I'm going I do I P's been waiting but Lauren Southern have you finished Gathering your thoughts or should I throw the P please just answer not going to answer my questions not toarch that I wanted to mention I can throw to some going to answer they're not going to answer they're not going toou things yeah so a couple of things yes Donald this idea that because Donald Trump used his executive power to make appointments in his first term means that he will follow the same sort of appointment process in his second term is ridiculous the entire point is he has publicly said that he was betrayed by rhinos people like Bill bar Jeff sessions and others oh never mind good job conserved people who were for all their faults more loyal to thetion than to him he would have the same discretion at his disposal as president of the United States he would just pick different people he would pick mat Gates he would uh Rudy Giuliani or whoever and even at the Senate let's say you well they've got to be Senate confirmed no he could just make them acting uh Secretary of Defense acting attorney general uh so there are loopholes that uh Donald Trump could exploit Shawn gave the whole game away when he's like you know past Behavior as a predict his because you just the game away that he'll try to do it again in a second ter these institutions are fungible and they are exploitable correct you have offered nothing other than that Trump tried and failed the first time Shawn's a crime guy I imagine that Shawn would say that an attempted murderer is still a threat it's still a big [ __ ] deal when you try to murder somebody and fail and if someone said well hey this murderer this attempted murderer wasn't a threat because they failed in the murder attempt and you need not fear any future attempt because they failed in the first attempt absolutely categorically ridiculous you know your position's ridiculous Absolut being a trump supporter in this position is just wildly indefensible true about about the acting um about the acting position or appointing people in that way the Senate has a very easy method of avoiding that and it's actually been adjudicated they just have to say that they're in session even when they're not in session so even those cabinet level appointments do have checks thank you for reminding me of that so yeah the institutions hold and yes Trump ran a ridiculous elector scheme and theoretically I guess if he could run for a third term then maybe that would be something we would be worried about after he ran for his second term but he can't run for a third term like he's even more locked out of extending his Reign beyond that which was the point that I was trying to make what does the sen wait wait what does the senate have to do efficient solution to the 22nd amendment issue what what what does what does the senate have to do with the question here of having an acting AG or having an acting or temporary the Senate can the senate cannot be in session as like a little tricky trick in order to block those kind of appointments wait wait the you can still have an acting member though without a senate confirmation right doesn't the acting part mean that they just they don't yeah so you can have you can have an acting by the way we don't even have to guess would he abused an acting attorney general because he almost fired his last acting attorney general uh Rosen because Rosen wouldn't go along with a plot to persecute uh yeah political opponents and to have to lie to States about finding voter fraud so he's already done exactly this with acting with unconfirmed with non- Senate confirmed uh acting AGS he's already done this and this by the way this this also generously assumes you know if there's a Republican Senate which is very possible I mean my God we have to defend like eight different seats in in combing elections there's no guarantee that a Republican Senate would Senate would do anything other than cow to him wait hold on also we don't hold on don't you don't have to Grant the argument because they already said past Behavior is predictive of future behavior for past Behavior there were 11 Republican Senators that were willing to go along with the desertification of the election so he's already got enough people in the Senate that are loyal to him to go through with whatever he wants so how do you escape the idea of Donald Trump will abuse his cabinet to go after political opponents directly in whatever way he possibly can knowing that he's tried it in the past knowing that he now has criminal immunity and knowing that he'll appoint better people this time it won't be attorney general juliani it'll be attorney general Sydney pal or attorney general uh I'm sorry it won't be attorney general uh William bar it'll be attorney general Rudy juliani or Sydney pal or Eastman I mean kind of interesting how threatening Democrats in particular find the idea of the Trump Administration actually stacking officials and people in charge of administrations and bureaucracies with individuals she's going to trigger the [ __ ] out of me oh my God she's going to look at the data they came out with a study just last year going over all having likeed people does matter it's about having people willing to break the law it's about having people willing to break the LA it's about having people willing to break the law it's not about ideological terms thatat up their administrations a lot more quickly and with significantly more of their own likeminded people than Republican presidents in fact during Republican administrations they significant number of democrat hold on just real quick to off this point wait just real quick none of us care about Staffing it with like-minded people it's about people that are willing to engage in criminal Behavior those are the people we're talking about because the people staff by President Clinton in 1997 still turned power over when George W bush the Republican won in 2000 same thing when Donald Trump beat Hillary Clinton in 2016 Barack Obama was the Democratic president of the United States Hillary Clinton didn't scheme with Obama and then Vice President Joe Biden stealed the election from Trump maybe Democrats are just more reliably dependent in terms of honoring democracy in Democratic Norms in the Republican saying that as long as he's not appointing like-minded people that would go along with an elector scheme or any criminal Behavior any criminal Behavior so the idea that he could just put anybody in this acting position is not correct I mean it sounded like it was made up nonsense to me but I looked it up we actually have a law governing the vacancies so he would still have to pick somebody that is already in a high level of whatever department for at least 90 days so if his goal is to throw somebody as the acting attorney general day one they would have to be in the Attorney General's office under Biden and this is according to I always hate these abbreviations uh the federal vacancies Reform Act which was passed in 1998 POS probably to restrain Bill Clinton by the Republicans if we're being perfectly honest so again he can't just appoint anyone he has to appoint somebody who's in the office in a highlevel position I'll look for the exact definition of highlevel we can get okay so okay that's well that okay so that's fair then so that would basically completely destroy our argument unless we could possibly site to an example where he literally did exactly the same thing where he found the environmental head lawyer guy Jeff Clark who he was going to appoint to the acting head position and do the exact thing that we were accusing him of potentially doing in the future which he exactly did so none of this matters the doj is a massive Department there's like 50 different branches of potential heads of inferior officers that you could choose from he could find one to follow through on his scheming he already did once again past Behavior predicts future beh about the EPA one second I just want to say we're closing supers if you're donating on either the website or on YouTube we're closing it off in the next 5 minutes we're going to try to wrap this up and since we're trying to wrap this up I want uh justice Warrior to ask answer that question and then I want to ask about the thing that uh uh Sean keeps bringing up which is the possible political persecution of Donald Trump using the justice system is that an attack on Democracy which is often a conservative counter over to you AJ ajw yeah um I don't know what he said I don't know which department he was referring to can I just get a clarification are you talking about filling the EPA Noe I'm talking about in the doj there's like um in the sub it's underneath the Assistant Attorney General I think underneath the acting or underneath the Attorney General after the the deputy General there's another guy and there's beneath that I think there's like the Environmental Protection the environmental something the environmental office or whatever [ __ ] of the doj and Jeff Clark was the head of that and he tried to make him the acting attorney general as well um there's plenty of people in the doj there's a ton of different people what did that work did no because half the doj threatened to quit when he was going to do it because they realized that he was trying to destroy the government I don't know if that position is qualified all right I just was trying to clarify cuz you said environmental and I wasn't sure if the EPA was covered under this act nope I'm talking about Jeff Clark and I'm talking about what he tried to do he's already tried to do all these things fine fair enough uh what was the question again the other question why would we would do the same thing oh God oh my question had to do with uh political persecution you brought up a few times Sean uh that the uh Democrats and the government is going after Trump legally trying to go after him for these uh uh crimes or supposed crimes depending on your perspective um I wanted to ask the room is that an example of an attack on Democracy the political persecution of an opponent or is it a bunch of hogwash I mean it's an attack on let start let's start with Sean because he's been bringing it up on night it's an attack on the Norms in our institutions I mean trying to remove Trump through the ballot through the 14th Amendment I mean you could argue that that's an attack on our democracy but are institutions held in those particular cases but I mean if you look at the these different coure cases now granted I will like point out that they're not even all remotely Federal one is even a local one the Alvin Brad case what you're seeing is like weird new interpretations first time ever used interpretations in order to Target Trump I mean the brag case where it's a money thing falsifying business records those were enhanced to felony charges based on the fact that he was trying to influence the outcome of an election now that's fine that you could say that that's what you know that's what you're trying to go for but those falsifications occurred after the election so it was even on its face that's like a very like odd upgrade to felony charges especially from a guy who ran on and downgrades more felony charges than anyone in the history of the Manhattan District Attorney's Office you have the Georgia case where they actually prosecuted as a test case widely reported Young Thug under the RICO statue in order to have a case more similar than the Georgia teacher Statute in order to prosecute Donald Trump and was described by the media as a test case it's still ongoing and again that's very unusual to try a completely different defendant in a new way just so you have precedent in order to try your political opponent who by the way you ran on Prosecuting so yeah like these are problems but do they necessarily rise to the point of overthrowing our democracy no I think that is a heavy burden I think it can change the norms and honestly I know a lot of people on the left are worried that Trump might win again and he might follow suit with what the Democrats have demonstrated that they will do when they're in power so I don't think it's at the end of the day you demy that at the end of the day you still have to identify a crime you still have to file charges you maybe convene a grand jury and you have to convince a jury of your peers and we're talking about the same doj that successfully prosecuted Bob Bob Menendez he just they just secured a guilty going after they're going after Texas representative quar they successfully prosecuted Hunter Biden so I'm sorry I'm just not buying this yeah the whole allegation that the Justice Department's been weaponized under Biden is absolutely Preposterous they appointed a special counsel to investigate him Robert her released an incredibly politically damaging report about the president um they bent over backwards to accommodate Trump May Garland We have reporting that he dragged his feet for a [ __ ] year uh with the uh classified documents case didn't the FBI and the National Archives uh play footsie with Trump behind the scenes begging him to send the documents back because they didn't want to prosecute him uh quar Menendez Hunter Biden Biden could have snapped his fingers and made that case go away usually us attorneys resign when a new president uh enters office because they're political appointees of the previous administration Biden specifically asked David Weiss the Trump appointed special counsel to remain to investigate his son Donald Trump would never [ __ ] do that that was actually an act of superhuman ethics on Joe Biden's part thus proving his moral super superiority over Donald Trump objectively cool I'll answer the question too yeah so I don't think it's I don't think it's a a threat to democracy I think it's a bad and corrupt thing to do but I don't think it's a threat to democracy democracy will not cease to exist if you vote for Alvin brag who explicitly campaigned on going to court with Donald Trump uh and also Hutch you it seemed that uh sea said almost the exact same thing and then you attacked him as if he said the inverse uh again STW Manningham which seems to be your primary tactic throughout the entire debate no he accused he accused Biden's doj of political persecution against Biden's like political opponents I've heard Shan throughout this debate that Biden's not involved like several times wa wait wait wait Biden's not involved in what wait wa wait wa clearly wait Biden's not involved in what like Prosecuting Trump he's not Biden is not involved in Prosecuting Trump yeah exactly Destiny that's the point we're making like we I think Shawn and I both have conceded that Biden's not involved but it seems that Hutch keeps attacking Shawn for the exact inverse of everything he because Trum even though nobody said that Biden was involved because he used language talking about uh political persecution using clarified that they were state even local officials then I went specifically to Alvin brag who is a local official I talked about them running on these like were you not familiar I said even if they run on them also I also want to point out that you're like Garland dragged his feet yeah it's true the federal prosecutors all dragged their feet on this up until Trump was announcing he was running for election and this is is a criticism I've heard from people on the left and the right that once it was clear that he was going to run that's when they decided that they were going to prosecute I mean Jen yuger screams about how mer Garland should have went after him the the the entire time came out of office so you are accusing the Biden doj of political prosecution right let me finish my point so he says he should have went after him as soon as he got out of office you had the special Council bring charges on the classified documents case but it would have been probably less political to go after him early when you weren't sure he was going to run rather than later but it seems like they went after him and they put all these cases on the ballot and again most of it is not federal officials or the special counsel it's local politicians that ran specifically on Prosecuting Trump and remember normally you have to have evidence of a crime before you start an investigation not as a campaign promise run on finding a crime to charge somebody with but again even then like people did vote for this I find it to be disgusting I don't think it is a threat to democracy it shakes the faith in the judicial system but I don't think it overthrows our democratic system because that's just a heavy burden even if he did touching on what Cam said touching on what what Cam said you are saying that the Biden doj under Meritt Garland is engaged in political prosecution right I don't know if the special Council directly answers to mer Garland like I no but you said that mer Garland specifically announced the charges when he knew that Trump was going to be I said that didn't charge Trump and people have criticized him for dragging his feet until Trump I get a clarification if it was or wasn't political persecution Sean I think there's definitely a political element to it there's a reason okay for Alvin BR even if even if Alvin even if he did run on the idea of Prosecuting Trump couldn't he have done it because he thought that Trump committed a crime like this was a criminal case he got a grand jury we got a grand jury to agree to an indictment and then it was tried in in open criminal court and a jury of of peers convicted Donald Trump the crime so even if it started off as like well I hate it politically or whatever he went through the entire criminal court process in order to secure that conviction at the end of the day so he literally admitted that he didn't hold on I I want to get the standard out I want to get the standard out if Trump orders an investigation into his political opponents and then they find a crime when they're digging into him in order to look specifically for a crime they didn't have evidence before they started the investigation but they go through the whole trial phase like you know they try um they try whatever political opponent in a I don't know a county that voted 80% you have to have evidence to get an indictment you have to you need evidence for an indictment convict him like that's fine as long as you present some evidence when you're of the norm that the president doesn't direct the doj that would violate that attor prute presidents don't prosecute that's one of the major differences doj serves under the president like this weird idea that departments under the executive branch are like somehow above the ex they're not wait a minute they're not above they're not above the executive branch but the president by by way of Norm is not supposed to be involved with the day-to-day prosecutorial decision so the attorney the attorney general serves at the pleasure of the president he is the the the president is his boss but the the the thing is that they shouldn't be directing you prosecute this person you don't prosecute this person it's like broad uh like Hey we're going to uh reschedule uh marijuana we're going to focus more on these sorts of cases than this not you're supposed to uh prosecute this person or not no one is saying that the Attorney General is totally independent of the president they serve at the president's pleasure the president's just not a prosecutor the way a district attorney is I never said the president was a prosec I said he got his computer to go after them yeah but wait wait wait wait wait so the president did wait wait so the president wait wait so the president did get prosecutors in the doj to go after Trump no I asked you hypothetical that if this were the case but they went through the normal legal process you would be fine with that that's the standard no because in order to make it comparable it have to be like the governor of New York running on trying to sure a local da that's very prot Trump 90% Trump category finds an official charges him with the crime that he campaigned on charging him with they present evidence in front of a grand jury it's enough for an indictment very low standard by the way and they secure a conviction that's like totally legit EV crime think they committed a crime hold on especially as a New Yorker you don't think people have ever run on cleaning up crime on getting rid of like the mob or the mafia or run as a DA on doing things to get rid of you're not answering the question the direct answer is I can't hear both at the same time U Sean so you're not answering the question which is a very direct question and now you're pivoting to okay I'll answer the question yeah the question running on PIV on being tough on crime and Prosecuting criminals in general it's not in general it's not just general thing people want to go after particular criminals if you think a guy's committed a crime and a DA runs on that he's like I think that this guy's a criminal when I'm the da I'm going to go after this guy I'm going to make sure that you the evidence of the crime was already out in the public space at that point Michael Cohen had testified in front of Congress to these crimes he had been criminally charged and convicted on these crimes so it's not like there was it's not like there was some fishing Expedition there was already strong evidence of these crimes out there in the open that had been reported on and adjudicated for years okay Michael Cohen was prosecuted by federal authorities am I right or no no but it was for the same it was for the same it was for the same like uh he was prosecuted federally but the crimes were related all right but can I also get my question answered so it would be fine if like a TR can we make this the last question so we can get to some of these donations guys because if a district attorney thought that somebody yes if a district attorney thought somebody had committed crime and he runs on that I'm going to hold them accountable for this crime that I think this person has committed yeah and they go through the ordinary process and not break rules or anything yeah I think that's fine I think everybody would agree with running okay so running on I'm going to find a crime to prosecute them that's totally fine did Alvin say that I'm going to find a crime yeah he said he what what was the exact quote um uh what you call it cam you you were talking about it earlier that he said he was going to he was running on seeing Trump in court oh yeah yeah yeah he like specifically said that he was uh the person that had the most experience in the ballot with dealing with Trump in court okay was it what did he say he was gonna find a crime uh he didn't specify what crime he was going to prosecute him on when he was asked so he didn't say this then so you just completely made that up so you completely fabricated that to be clear right hold on Sean you ad that you totally just made that the [ __ ] up right was going to find a crime right it didn't say he said as an exact quote he's going to find a crime but he ran on finding a crime to prosecute on how do you know he did that if he didn't say it exactly though I thought we I thought we were going by exact quotes a detailed uh Manifesto of exactly what somebody's going to do just inserted that in there and pretend and you hope that your audience won't notice if there's already Federal prosecution of people around Trump or Cohen for these exact types of behaviors why wouldn't we assume that Alvin brg is running on the idea of going after Trump because they he knows that Trump was in the state of New York when these crimes are being committed why couldn't we just assume that I'm looking for the uh quote that he uh what you call for his campaign also check the timeline in all seriousness I I thought that Trump was already under some sort of preliminary investigation by Bragg's predecessor wasn't he that's the other thing too I I I can't remember but you may want to double check that too okay can we use this as a stopping point and Sean during The Question period if you find something maybe we can retouch on it again okay fantastic uh thank you guys for being here for this we're going to go through some questions because a lot of people have questions we got a lot of people watching happy to see it uh let me read through these quickly okay um uh uh his to conservatives historically do most failed democracies fail due to soft erosion of guard rails over time or due to hard power takeovers does anybody want to take that me and like hard power takeover does that mean always exter but always another country or internal I would say hard powerered takeovers okay proceeded by proceeded by Soft erosion yeah I would say chances are generally probably strong democracies don't generally just get CED or fail there's probably some erosion of norms or things that cause [ __ ] to be kind of wacky and then eventually it makes it more susceptible to either external or internal pressure but I mean it would depend if you're talking about like a full-on [ __ ] invasion like I mean it doesn't matter if you got a strong weak democracy the other country is bigger than you they probably just blow your [ __ ] up right okay uh if Hitler had failed to seize power would it have still been fair to say democracy was on the ballot when he was running for election didn't he win election wasn't it stuff he did afterwards that like allowed him to become the furer I believe he got like in third place and then later he won he lost yeah no he lost lost he lost against a coalition government and then they appointed him Chancellor oh well yeah but the question is like assuma counterfactual where he was unsuccessful in his despotic ends would it still have been fair to say that he was a threat to democracy or democracy was on the ballot but he lost like like is that that's what you guys just said also wait no it's a hypothetical hypothetical is appointment talking about literal I mean his appointment was what like installed him into that position so it wasn't on the ballot it was honestly out of the hands of the citizens no I understand what the guy is asking for is an unsuccessful dictator still a threat to democracy that's how I interpret the question if the person is unsuccessful in their dictatorial ends are they would it still be fair to say that they were a threat to democracy or the democracy was on the ballot when they initially ran for election I'd say yeah I'd say Obviously but I mean look it's Hitler like obviously he's a threat to like all sorts of norms so it's kind of bited into the question feel like you're right there you're like right there you know also can I just clarify so the the brag statements earlier were quote we need a DA on day one who has this who has this 360 degree experience let's talk about what what's waiting for the new DA so there was already an investigation subpoenas and everything by the prior da into Trump's business dealings relating to these cover so this the investigation already been going on number one okay and then we know there's a trump investigation I've investigated Trump and his children and held them accountable for their conduct with the Trump Foundation I also sued the Trump Administration more than a 100 times for uh deferred action for childhood arrivals the travel ban separation of children from their families at the border so I know that work I know how to follow the facts and hold people in power accountable and the second quote is I'm the candidate in the race who has the experience with Donald Trump I was the chief Deputy in the Attorney General's office we sued the Trump Administration over a 100 times for the Muslim travel ban for family separation at the border for shenanigans with the census so I know how to litigate with him I also led the team that did the Trump Foundation case so I'm ready to go where the facts take me and to inherit that case and I think it'd be hard to argue with the fact that that'd be the most important most high-profile case and I've seen him upfront and seen the lawlessness that he could do so it seems like he's he said exactly the opposite of what you implied do you understand that those quotes seem like the exact opposite ofan he ran on holding him quote uncount accountable I'm reading through his quotes right now I might have the same page as you okay so if he ran on holding him accountable wouldn't isn't that what a DA is literally supposed to do isn't that his job Stephen come on just because there was already an investigation just because Trump had a history of corruption I mean there that's basically the same as Locker up you get that right Stephen come on that the same investigation and he's not the only one Leticia James also campaigned on PR we're not talking about Leticia James well we are when it's convenient for them wait so wait hold wait do we agree that that brag statements here seem to be the exact opposite of what you implied right the statements the statements that you read just now were not like the bad ones that I'm referring to I'm looking through his stat stats during the campaign but Laticia James ran on on going after Trump for the massive fraud that Michael Cohen testified to in front of Congress she wasn't just finding it out of nowhere it was something that was established in the Public Square you guys got a third name brag James is there another one okay gar F and I okay so call her got a few more questions if we're done with that back and forth um uh was there any was there wasn't there something you wanted to touch back on earlier ajw I kind of forget this was it we just touched on it yes oh you just I'm looking for the brag thing so okay we'll just give you more time I'll ask some more questions um for the righties if Trump loses and retires will the right stay Maga revert back to the right pre-trump or something new W Dylan this was based thank you yeah obviously I personally am not going to support Trump after like his like legally legal legally allowed term right obviously I'm going to like support somebody else I I mean obviously I am Canadian which I did ask Connor why I was partaking in this despite being Canadian and he said for the thrill for the flares so here I am but I don't think just obviously observing it all and even in Canada it seems that a more populist right is always going to be the choice at the moment and probably going forward at least for the next while I mean the conservatives in Canada tried to run a more moderate conservative that supported gun control vaccine mandates this kind of stuff and Trudeau wiped the floor with him and now they've had to replace him with a more populist candidate for Canada Pier PV so even in Canada and you look at the UK Nigel farage is now the opposition because the conservatives were voted out for being too moderate I don't think you're going to see a reversion to a more previous neocon right in the Republican party I don't think that the voters want that or the base want that anywhere in the Western World at the moment whether you like that or did you foresee any meaningful changes between that future populist candidate and Trump that's a genuine question like if they're if if they're also going to be a populist would you see like a major departure in any respect from Trump I I I couldn't I mean Trump is a pretty unique personality it would be hard to replicate a trump personality in any future candidate and I think any attempt to do so would seem a bit you know fake and weird so there is going to be that difference I don't think you're going to probably have the TV star aspect in a future candidate but you know look at someone like JD Vance I thought that was a pretty surprising pick and he's definitely more of from the more esoteric autistic rightwing spheres than we've ever properly seen in kind of mainstream politics I think that you are going to have a very um very different candidates coming up especially as Millennials start to enter the race for uh leadership um but yeah not going to be the same kind of TV star personality As Trump I can't imagine that would be the case I think we're witnessing the uh collapse of the Republican party I think Trump is I mean if he loses I think trumpism is not going to go away and I just don't think they can help themselves and they seem to be getting more and more extreme the more they lose and the more they lose the more extreme they get and it's just a vicious cycle and it's just the question was would you support Trump if he tries to stay past his second term was that the question mega mega politics no no it it was uh like if Trump if Trump takes a big fat L like what's going to happen to Mega politics is it going to like die what's going to Happ to Republican party Etc I mean in like in reality what people like is Winners in politics like the reason that Biden won the Primary in 2020 is because Obama Nostalgia the reason that Hillary Clinton won the Primary in 2016 was because of Clinton Nostalgia so if Trump takes a second loss like that's it it's like pretty much over for him like those people still exist they'll still want a candidate that speaks to those issues but it's like it's pretty much over for him also he's kind of like a really old guy so it's I don't know though I mean like 2020 2022 was was pretty brutal for republicans and they that's a midterm we're talking about presidential elections like typically people don't like the the feel of a loser and Trump kind of escapes some of that because he like says that he didn't lose and enough people believe it and also like the Biden term was so bad that they feel like they could win again but like if he loses again then it's pretty much over for him in my opinion like I I don't like I don't see recovering from two presidential election losses yeah I'm interested by the chat they're all saying um JD Vance is a horrible pick how could you not realize he's a horrible I don't think JD Vance was a good pick personally I think he probably should have gone with a woman in my opinion but a lot of right-wingers disagree with me there that's that's my opinion though um woman just because any a woman any woman no um no somebody who could stand to be close to Trump all the time so not his wife jeez true D my point my point was my point wasn't like you have to like this Direction people my point is that is where it is going people are kind of getting really sick of the lack of change in I mean like I said all over the Western World whether it be the UK immigration policy even even with Trump I mean Destiny you've made some pretty good critiques on Trump shooting she say Mass migration what do we think Mass migration just want people that are actually going to do something and is sometimes that a lot more rhetoric than it is actually action yeah sometimes but people are listening to rhetoric they want someone that seems like they're going to push harder on immigration policy the getting progressivism out of schools all these issues that are kind of in their day-to-day periphery the inflation issues and once again this whether you like the candidates or not whether you hate the right-wing whatever that's just the direction I think it's going to go more and more populist okay um we've got two more questions the next one is uh do you guys think that uh JD Vance saying that he would uh overturn uh the election results on national TV was a problem or is concerning that was for the conservatives little bit you repeat that uh it had to do with JD Vance went on TV when he was going for the VP pick and the question came up about like what Mike Pence when he had the choice between like you know is he going to like send it back to the states or not and jie Vance said that he would uh is that concerning at all yeah if if JD Vance said that if that quote is legit then yes that's concerning that's idiotic and it's a good way to land yourself in federal prison because and I honestly if he did say that he's pandering to Trump which you know I mean I get that all everybody panders to the nominee I get that's a thing that happens but yeah it's a stupid move like you should not do that it was a terrible it was a terrible plan plus I mean it's just it's part of like the overall like Trend we're seeing from prominent Republican politicians who won't commit to accepting the results of the election they'll say things like I am fully confident that Donald J Trump will be elected the 47th president of the United States and I'm looking forward to that yeah but but no matter what the outcome is I Am pro you know I'm confident that Donald J Trump will be the 47th president multiple Republican Senators I think Lindsey Graham Tim Scott certainly JD Vance among others uh it's extremely dangerous I think that a good test for Republicans should be um hey before we answer that question would how would we feel if a prominent Democrat said something like that perhaps the vice president currently kamla Harris who would be presiding over the certification of the next election what if she said I am confident that Joseph robinett Biden is going to be elected the 47th president of the United States to every answer about will you accept the results of the election last thing I'll say on that is actually going all the way back to the Eastman memo when they were scheming to to try to justify Pence uh tossing out the ballots I can't remember and Stephen might remember I think it was Pence's Chief of Staff or Pence's Council was like okay so could Al Gore have done it in 2000 and Eastman's like no of course not okay could uh Joe Biden have done it in 2016 no of course not could vice president Harris do it in 2024 no of course not these people are unprincipled [ __ ] losers who deserve nothing but your public contempt by the end uh Greg Jacobs testified I'm pretty sure that when he was arguing with Eastman over How likely do you think this would be to survive in the Supreme Court the first answer that Eastman said is we'd probably lose 72 and then after talking for a little more like yeah i' probably lose nine and0 like that was yeah a absurd Theory yeah so uh I uh did you have something to say on this cam I was just going to answer the question yeah um yeah sure okay I was going to say yeah like agree with Sean if he said this then yeah it's bad of course um and not good but I think uh something that we kind of uh miss when we're looking at like all these Trump loyalists being appointed to government is I think uh we miss the fact that a lot of the times they're doing these things like Sean said to Pander to the nominee right like I think that when JD Vance that said that like who knows if he would have actually done it it seems like he was probably doing it to Pander to Trump and get Trump's support and like continue to have Trump support and whatever and also like energize Trump's base and like make Trump's base support him right now because he's having obviously troubles with that um but on top of that like these people all have their own interests at heart right like uh who who's when it when it really comes down to the line like are they going to sacrifice their own can can I ask that follow-up question just personally uh do you think JD V there's ever wait wait wait can he can he follow can he do the end of that would were you about to say would they really list their or risk their political life there are multiple lawyers that have been that on in the process being disbarred right now what kind of a question is that the majority of trump appointees the majority of Trump's appointees abandon him for their own personal interests um so yeah like I'm I'm just not going to I don't I don't understand of the TV people cam cam give me a second I just want to get to the core of this and move on because we do got to wrap this up because people got to go um uh do you think that there's any risk that JD Vance have given like the instructions to like do what like send it back to the states that he would do it anybody here I think there's always like risk that that like people are going to do certain things right we don't know for certain wait wait there's always risk that certain people are going do certain things wait what was that answer yeah of course there's risk if he said he would not what I'm saying a lot of wait wait wait wait wait guys don't don't let let him answer okay every time I open my mouth everybody else starts talking crazy so anyway yeah what I was trying to say was it Destiny come on man that was jiah not me don't blame me [ __ ] stop it okay great okay so anyway uh so yeah what was getting at was it seems like a lot of these people like just Pander to Trump so they can get support from his base um and win elections right but like when it comes down to like actually losing their jobs it seems like the majority of them are not going to sacrifice their jobs to like help Trump in his like crazy like esoteric legal theories like I said before and you cite like all these people you guys have been setting all these like crazy people that like continue to support Trump and all his Antics and it seems to be like all the crazy TV people like margorie Taylor green and Matt Gat like of course those people who are looking for popularity on television are going to Pander to Trump's base wait we're talking about JD can I just say real quick is that not a tcid admission that the Trump Administration would be a threat to democracy yep it feels like you acknowledge that there would be a risk of JD Vance doing something similar to January 6 yep he said the opposite yeah that he would choose him his own personal political career over yeah but if his personal political career relied on approval from Donald Trump which Donald Trump makes clear to every single person he talks you I help these guys get elected I he said that on the ab that's a phenomenal question can you point to me a major Republican whose political career depended on them actually challenging Trump because it seems to me that's a death sentence in the Republican Party more often than not but Vance as the VP like if he was the VP and again nobody explains how he would be in the position of trump but whatever as the VP has the same issues that Mike Pence had where there's nowhere to go when you're the VP except to the presidency and you risk going to jail if you try this and the court tosses it out so like it's not in his self-interest in that moment to do that remember Mike Pence was one of the biggest hypen for Donald Trump up until he asked him to do something that would compromise not only his own career but his own Freedom well but now you can just get you can get pardoned what do you mean federal crimes president just pardon you I mean he theoretically yeah sure he could pardon you but again so that just defeated your entire AR why would it not work not it's not going to work though like the court is going to invalidate it cuz even the lawyers that came up with this said it was a 7 to2 the wait the Court's going to invalidate a pardon no not the pardon the actual act to keep Trump in office well maybe the court will invalidate you don't know who knows right yeah we have a pretty good idea when they rejected all Trump's election cases that they weren't interested in it but then they granted him but then they granted him criminal immunity that the president of the United States has never had in the history of all the presidencies being prosecuted by opportunistic political actors and it got kicked up to the Supreme Court they sought to have a standard for actions while the president was in office like you act like he just got granted immunity out of nowhere he did it came out of nowhere yes nowhere in the Constitution it was because of case after case where the court had to examine this specific claim what specific claim I okay immunity okay he doesn't the court invented that for him but also wait did we find the the Alvin Bragg's quote or I know that Alvin Bragg actually so you had two attorneys that ended up leaving the case in 2021 to give you an idea of the political nature of this and they both entered written statements saying that brag decided not to prosecute and then all of a sudden when Trump is saying that he's running for office this case ends up coming back so this like I said was dead and buried when people didn't know Trum can okay wait wait that's okay that's good but can you admit that what you said is nowhere to be found from what brag said brag didn't say anything what you said and what he said was the exact opposite of what you implied right brag didn't say I'm Direct going to find the crime to prosecute Trump but he ran on Prosecuting Trump he said he ran on continuing the already started investigation and he said he was going to follow the facts many quotes about yeah can you give me can you give me a single one single quote that shows what you were saying you just spent all this time looking for it right one single quote that shows timeline of the case okay so you have so to be clear then what you're saying you have no quotes for this and every quote that we've both seen so far is the exact opposite of what you said the exact opposite so we're relying on there being the ex the exact oppos him saying that I'm going to follow no wait where did he say where did he say that I'm going to go after him or did he say I'm going to follow the facts oh my God he's Paras also also I just think it's hilarious he's not no no no wait wait stop hold on he's not paraphrasing paraphrasing implies that you are accurately summarizing the underlying material he's not paring he's misquoting and heting wait wait wait we we're going to let Destiny finish his point and then we're gonna have Sean respond because these this is the back and forth uh we don't need the I don't think the side commentary here is that important I just what is a single yeah yeah after after they're done can I uh can I be permitted to leave yeah we're we have one more we have one more Rabbit Hole question and then we're done okay I promise promise you okay I got a final goodbye message but okay got you yeah okay one second accidentally turned on some music oopsy doopsy so back yeah no Stephen ask the question Sean respond and my final point was that it seems like every single quote from brags showed that he was going to follow the facts he was going to be careful and follow the law and he was continuing the investigation that had already begun which is a Stark and Stark contrast to Shawn accusing him of saying he's running on going on a fishing Expedition and he was going to prosecute him no matter what so I'm like for a single quote around his campaign he was running that demonstrates he was planning on doing that or at least made that intention public again the entire campaign for Manhattan district attorney H was about this go watch the Democratic debates for the Manhattan district attorney who are going to win on top of that he specifically was referring to in a lot of the quotes that Steven cited the campaign Finance prosecution which he did not actually prosecute in him uh didn't prosecute him for and also according to CBS News Alvin Bragg dropped this case in 2021 and then ricked it up according to the Special Assistant district attorneys that he had on board so like yes there was a political motivation for this now as far as the specific quote that Destiny is asking for it does not exist he gave caveats he's smarter than then what you go he's smarter than uh than I gave him credit for in my paraphrase so if you want to take that that's fine okay so just to be clear everything you just said was you keep saying there's a political motivation you have zero evidence of that you said go watch all of the debates or all the campaign but okay okay where show me literally where like in the campaign he's talking about Prosecuting Trump in the campaign what in the what Starcraft 2 campaign and the campaign for what campaign for Manhattan district attorney that would be the office that he holds Stephen okay so was is it a speech was it on social media is it published anywhere maor Med he gives the caveat at the end of it that's like true he did give his caveats if you want to say that's fine then that's fine I mean they're fine for Trump when Trump says go peacefully and patriotically one time in a [ __ ] speech that that changes the Ten of everything no we reached we reached the Starcraft references I think that's enough my last uh Rabbit Hole question then we're going to do closing so everybody can go um do you guys think that with JD vanis like he's only been the senator for like like two years what background can we go off of to like like educate ourselves on whether he would make that decision to you know go and send it back to the states or he would say no Trump I stand with the Constitution or whatever you guys would think he would say what because he doesn't have like a extensive history in politics who was that to I mean that that was I mean I guess it's the conservatives okay I don't care yeah I true it's almost like a rephrase of the same question that we it's almost like conservatives have no [ __ ] platform have no plug like engagement with the political system whatsoever and the defense of Donald Trump is actually a [ __ ] joke and every single thing around him is actually a [ __ ] giant meme that's but which is fine no we all meme it up sometimes that's good okay I'm here for it wrap it up yes thank you I had a moment a brief moment of wisdom where I told Connor I couldn't join this because I said I I didn't have enough time to do research before it because I've had a hectic month I've told a few of you guys about it but it's just been ridiculous um Believe It or Not Destiny audience Pisco and I have been going over the indictments for hours we've spent good time on it but I definitely need more time to go through it I do not think that they are simply cut and dry Trump is going to end democracy and was about to I don't think it's that simple so far but I have a lot more reading to do uh Lauren should have left 5 minutes when she came in I should have I absolutely should have but I will also have you you know Connor told me that someone on the hippie dippy stream was crying screaming and throwing up if I didn't show up so I left here I showed up at my studio to join and contributed absolutely nothing so I apologize to a ajw and everyone else for that but uh next time when I'm done this with Pisco I will have a excellent conversation so thanks for having me happy to have you you have a great one cheers go to everybody else for closings you made monolith very happy he was crying and screaming see the one crying and screaming in the chat all right bye okay let's stop milking and let's wrap it up let's start with ajw what what are we doing now we're wrapping up uh outros cling statement all right so I mean we got a little off track but it was fun it's not about like what you achieve it's about the friends you make along the way now during the course of this debate which was pitched to us as Trump is going to end democracy throughout the course of it these guys presented no plausible scario in which that could happen instead they threw out this random thing or that random thing talked about how he could erode some norms and all that which honestly is like what you could argue about any candidate and it's like really more opinion based and I was hoping for a plot that could circumvent the 22nd amendment from any of these people but unfortunately I did not get that and that's honestly quite sad Ian I am quite upset about that now as for the evil orange man being not the best best guy I think we can all understand that he's not our favorite person in the whole world unless he absolutely is and you know like he he he definitely has some some some sketchy Tendencies if I'm being perfectly honest I mean look at the color of his skin but I think what we can all say as we came together is that through the course of this conversation we became more than just a debate panel we became a family and if you guys can't realize that I'm ready to go to the bathroom then I don't know what to tell you but it was nice I hope you guys are very well in your lives it's nice meeting all of you you're all good friends and I'm out of damn he he deleted himself basically damn okay sending you over to Destiny then uh oh um yeah I don't know the I think the conservative defense for Trump is a meme uh because Trump is a meme and because his whole platform is a meme and I think that it is literally impossible I think it's kind of been demonstrated over the past few weeks impossible to seriously engage with any conservatives when it comes to defending Donald Trump's behavior um they instantly become basically like LSD you know skitso ridden delusional insane people who have to like pull to the ends of the Earth um like I think I would say that the highlight of the debate for me tonight was watching the conservative side seriously consider whether or not the Civil War was a threat to American democracy I think that was the highlight of this debate to me and I think it illustrates how far you have to go to justify any defensible position of Donald Trump and the way that he conducts his his uh Behavior while he's in office okay we're going to set it over to Hutch um yeah I I thought I I I this is something I run into a lot I engage with conservatives a lot on social media and the cope that I see over and over again and we saw it on full display tonight was you know we had our two co-panelists acknowledge that Donald Trump uh tried to subvert the will of millions of Voters and simultaneously say that that's not a threat to democracy uh they both acknowledge that uh JD Vance saying that he would commit to actually sending those electors back if he was in that same spot uh they don't seem to acknowledge that that is a threat to democracy I don't know what to do with that you can find me on Twitter at hudgson on Twitch HUD Dylan thanks for having me and it was nice to meet my uh fellow panelists for the first time here awesome and we're now going to send it over to cam Higby hey yeah so uh firstly uh thank you Dylan for having me on and thanks Dan uh Dano for reaching out um furthermore I'd like to pretty much say the same thing Shan said in that I think that the at least to us the way that it seemed was and that's I think nobody's fault other than the interpretation that both sides had um that basically democracy being on the ballot meant that democracy is going to cease to exist if Donald Trump wins the election I I don't think that that's true um obviously and I posited like several times that we could just move on from that topic and uh you know maybe look at a more nuanced version of this discussion that talked about uh like threats to democracy as opposed to democracy ceasing to exist if we got concessions from people but we never got concessions from people so we continued to go in circles the entire time uh furthermore I'd like to say that uh Destiny says the conservative side uh seriously considered If Civil War was a threat to democracy I don't think anybody did that on here I told you as soon as you said it that it was a non-ag analogous example or analogy it wasn't a good metaphor for the situation obviously because there was a military coup as opposed to like um you know somebody trying to like use or manipulate laws to keep themselves in power obviously it's fundamentally different so yeah okay and now we're going to send it over to pondering to wrap us up yeah so appreciate this last second edition um is great interacting with ajw Lauren wait one second I do want to throw a really big shout out to cam for coming last second with very little time to prepare I really do appreciate it basically it was uh it was nice meeting you guys uh I learned a lot from this conversation uh number one uh that threats to democracy are when military uh nothing is ever on the ballot uh democracies never end they're just temporarily inconvenience it could be for 10 years it could be for centuries uh the Roman uh Republic never ceased to exist because Italy still exists I I don't understand the thought process uh there is no good faith defense of Donald Trump he is an authoritarian narcissist a pathological liar um a betrayal of genuine conservative principles um and this idea that simply because he failed in his first attempt to thwart democracy therefore he will fail in his second attempt categorically ridiculous you would never apply that logic anywhere in any any other aspect of life if you have a girlfriend or a spouse and again they drive their car uh into a guard rail on a highway and they don't careen over the cliff you would never say hey go [ __ ] try it again you're you were never in danger categorically ridiculous make sure you vote for the Democrats in every [ __ ] election until the a republican wing of politics dies until you're dead politically and that is that thank you to everybody for coming out and spending so much time with the show I thought it was I think it was a good relaunch I think it went well true lot of bumps but the bumps just became you know good theater I guess good job Dylan we appreciate you buddy yeah thank you so much you all you guys have a good one I'm going to be very busy this weekend bye-bye everybody bye everybody be careful thanks man appreciate you see you guys later hi what's up buddy all right chat [ __ ] you then HUD [ __ ] piece of [ __ ] I'm so glad he left I hate that [ __ ] guy and Call of Duty sucks I don't think there's any I don't think there's any serious way that you can defend any of these things the brag stuff is so dumb [Applause] was the Civil War first episode one is uh I should have just asked that Pisco was a [ __ ] when Pisco said you should ask um uh you should ask Greenwald if Fort Sumpter counted as an Insurrection I shouldn't have asked that I should have just asked was the Civil War did that count as a rebellion apparently Civil War wasn't even a threat to democracy I should just be asking these questions like guess what the [ __ ] how do we say like what like it's so funny they accuse the Liberals of doing like the mental gymnastics like what level of of unburdened has your mind become when well [ __ ] was was the Civil War was the Civil War a civil war well War usually implies two separate enemies and and civil implies some level of Civility civil and War are are directly at odd with each other it doesn't make sense if we really if we truly think about it like I love you guys be careful don't die okay whatever you do