Build The Ballroom; America’s Lost Moral Code | On Balance Full Show 4/28

Added: 2026-05-03

[00:00:00]Chris, great show. Friends, welcome to the program. Nothing unifies Republican voters like an assassination attempt.

[00:00:08]And they are now spending that newfound motivation on a ballroom. In a moment, Dan Tarantine, Laura Brownstein, Jack Sobeek on why Trump is giving Democrats a pass. Plus DOJ deja vu Shan Woo Barrett Burgerer on today's second indictment of former FBI director James Comey and why it proved a theory we told you about when Pam Bondi was fired. First, our why it matters segment tonight. Donald Trump has gone from build a wall to build a ballroom. The third attempt on Trump's life completely changed the political conversation in Washington as well. It should have. Finally, we could have had an honest conversation about the dangerous rhetoric from Democrats. More importantly for the White House, the Washington media stopped talking about the economy or the war in Iran, two things that were terrible for Donald Trump. Then Republicans decided to screw it all up and demand a ballroom. We can debate later if the White House needs a ballroom or not. You want a ballroom, build a ballroom. The security argument is really weak, especially considering the number of UFC fights Trump attends.

[00:01:20]And that's the problem. This kind of Washington two-step is usually used to escape a problem by changing the subject. When there's bad news like ICE raids in Minneapolis, you do something to change the conversation. In this case, the White House is creating a new problem. Americans feel worse off financially than any time in the past 25 years. Today, gas prices reached their highest level since the war began. A war, by the way, that shows no signs of ending. We're going to get to that later in the hour. That record high stock market, well, despite what the administration says, it is not doing much to calm the economic anxiety of most Americans. So, losing the House 6 months from now appears to be a foregone conclusion, unless there was some really significant way to change the conversation.

[00:02:10]Democrats getting a majority in the Senate is a real possibility. Former House Speaker N Gingrich told the New York Times, quote, "If the election were held in May, Republicans would lose, urging his party to get ready to get reality a little better and get communications a hell of a lot better."

[00:02:26]Well, that's what we're talking about right now. The numbers back that up. If his approval ratings were the outside temperature readings, you would need a winter coat. Nobody cared about the ballroom when it was privately funded.

[00:02:38]Now, Republicans say we taxpayers should foot the bill.

[00:02:43]>> We're going to introduce legislation that would authorize $400 million to be spent to secure the pre to build the presidential ballroom.

[00:02:54]Underneath there will be a lot of military stuff. There will be a secret service annex.

[00:03:00]Uh and we've paid for it by offsetting it with custom fees.

[00:03:06]Republicans have successfully taken all the attention away from the assassin, what Democrats and podcast hosts inspired him, the refusal of Democrats to change or take responsibility for their rhetoric. We are no longer talking about any of that. Now, every Republican in a swing district is going to have to answer for a ballroom. With us now, Dan Turentine, former Democratic adviser, co-host of The Huddle. Laura Brownstein, Democratic strategist, former spokesperson for the Hall's Whereis campaign. Jack Soek, Turning Point USA contributor, host of Human Events Daily.

[00:03:39]Jack, I'm going to start with you on this because I just think about the American people sitting around at night, husband and wife, talking about how they're going to make end meets for the m for the month. And the husband turns to the wife and says, "Well, don't worry, honey. Um, Trump is going to have his ballroom and therefore everything is great in America." How is this not massive political malpractice?

[00:04:01]>> You know, I was actually thinking about this, Leland, as you were going through the monologue there, and I actually think you're right. I think that this is the wrong conversation to be having right now. This is the wrong move to be making this all about a ballroom. And by the way, I support the ballroom. I think the ballroom is fine. I think security is a is an absolute concern for it. I think that having it be publicly funded is obviously the wrong move. optically it's just obviously bad politics on the face of it. I don't know why Lindsey Graham is pushing this right now. But ultimately what we need to keep the focus on is on political violence.

[00:04:35]Political violence regardless of where it's from. But we've seen now three assassination attempts of the president.

[00:04:40]We saw the assassination of Charlie Kirk, my friend. And so we know what can happen. That's where the focus should be. And you're absolutely correct that all of this talk about the ballroom detracts from that.

[00:04:52]>> Okay. I'm going to stay with you for one second. And we're going to get to the Democrats in a second. Help me understand why this is happening. Why Republicans when given this opportunity to, as you point out, focus on something just cannot help themselves.

[00:05:10]You know, it's actually a really good question and I' I've made a few phone calls about this this bill and including to um some high level members of the administration and you know, people coming to me saying they hadn't even heard about it yet and weren't even read into it yet. So, still trying to figure out exactly where the push is coming from on this. That's just my personal reporting what I've done on that. Um, I think in many cases DC likes to just push for the lowhanging fruit and they think, "Hey, it'll be so much easier for us to say that we want to get this ballroom and we want to have this appropriation and, you know, knowing the Republicans, who knows, or knowing Congress, I should say, maybe they'll slide some other stuff in a bill if it's not a cleaning bill or a skinny bill or something like that." But I think it's the wrong route. I think it's completely the wrong route.

[00:05:56]>> And I'm guessing you two now agree on this. Somehow we have a panel of two Democrats and Jack and they're all agreeing on the same thing.

[00:06:03]>> Yeah. I mean, look, and I I think it's not just the ballroom. Think about if you're a Republican on Capitol Hill.

[00:06:08]You've had a circular firing squad on the Save Act, right? John Thun saying, "Please don't do this. We don't have the votes." And Democrats ought to be on the defensive about DHS being shut down. But again, it's a circular firing squad.

[00:06:20]Republicans cut a deal. And now they're all fingerpointing at each other. No, you backed out of it. You you you're not honoring the deal. and the American people say, "Hey, my life, none of this is about me."

[00:06:31]>> Yeah, Laura, that said, as I'm seeing it, Democrats have not been able to get out of their own way either on this because they continue to make everything about Donald Trump.

[00:06:44]>> Well, Donald Trump is central to most of these stories. I don't think we can deny that. But we are winning every special election. The Democrats, while when you look at approval numbers, they might not be quite where we want them to be, we've won every special election, everything is trending towards winning in the midterms. And I think when Americans are looking at these numbers at the pump and at the same time hearing how much their tax dollars are going to the ballroom, it's awkward.

[00:07:14]>> Talked about throwing ice in jail, talked about fighting Donald Trump um various ways, locking up other administration officials. Dan, again, this to me is the Democrat's version of a ballroom.

[00:07:25]>> Yeah. I mean, look, I I think one of the things that, and I wrote about this today, whenever Donald Trump does something like on Christmas Day, he puts his message out about the radical left scum, we all roll our eyes and say it's part of the Trump show. The Democratic show now is never give an inch, never apologize. When Don Jr. puts a a thing up about Paul Pelosi and says for Halloween, you know, a picture of a hammer and underwear, we all just say, "Well, it's the Trump show." Democrats are like, you know, we can play this game, too. We are not going to apologize. Hakeem Jeff was utterly defiant yesterday. All all the only thing that was missing was the press are the enemy of of the people from our side now because we don't care what they say.

[00:08:05]>> Yeah. Interestingly enough, evidently Pritsker at the end of that interview and lectured everybody about turning the temperature down >> [laughter] >> um >> like like Lemit today. Yes, like like every like every I mean yesterday. But uh Jack, this is this is the question.

[00:08:19]Where is the President Trump who understood where the American people were? And I said it at the top of the show and kind of got a chuckle I think from everybody when I said we went from build a wall to build a ballroom. Build a wall people understood. It helped them. It made sense. Build a ballroom seems now given what most Americans are dealing with so trivial and so selferving.

[00:08:41]Where is that president? And for people like you who I know who have supported him and in lock step with him, what are you saying and talking to about the White House about this? Look, what I what I've said publicly is that the conversation and the push all up towards midterms has got to be about the domestic issues. It's got to about be about those kitchen table issues for regular Americans, working Americans, Americans with families out there saying this is what we're doing to help lower costs, to help make things better for you, and to help make the quality of life in America uh just better, better, more improved. That is absolutely going to be the uh what this election is all about. It goes back to the uh the James Carville, right? It's the economy. Well, James Carville certainly has gone a long way from it's the economy uh stupid in 1992, but he he right then. I don't agree with him.

[00:09:32]>> Yeah, he was he was definitely he was right then. Um speaking of James Carville, there is this wing now of the Democratic party uh that has become so vitriolic towards anyone associated with President Trump. I don't know how they think they can come back from this.

[00:09:53]We'll put up video of what happened. It pretty clear that Steven Miller was trying to defend or at least protect her husband. Laura, where are the women of the Democratic party being appalled at this kind of discussion about other women?

[00:10:09]>> I think we're really busy being appalled about not having reproductive rights.

[00:10:14]And [laughter] >> no, >> honestly, I think we're really >> That's the best you could do.

[00:10:18]>> Yeah. I think we're really busy wanting people wanting better health care, better child care, better reproductive care. I don't think >> I think it go it goes it goes to Jimmy Kimmel. Everyone defends Jimmy Kimmel despite the fact of how terribly he's treated him. Everybody's No, no one has any problem making fun of making No, nobody nobody >> Well, there's some videos out there.

[00:10:40]Nobody has any problem with Jennifer Welsh speaking about and you're nodding along here. speaking about a pregnant Katie Miller this way.

[00:10:49]>> I I I do think times. Look, the Democratic party at some point does have to stop. I mean, I wish we would not call him Hitler. We wouldn't call Steven Miller a Nazi. Like, I I I I worked with Steven Miller. It's not my cup of tea.

[00:11:01]We were on the opposite sides a lot. But when the party does that, I think we kind of fail common sense tests a lot because the average person just says, "I don't like it when Trump does this, but I like his policies, so I hold my nose."

[00:11:12]They don't necessarily like our policies. If we go down the same road, we are going to get in trouble at some point with voters who say enough.

[00:11:18]>> Yeah. I just the the language towards women, especially women in MAGA by women on the left is >> and the shaming of of Mrs. Hegth for her dress because she only paid $40. First off, she looked beautiful, but secondly, she did look beautiful.

[00:11:32]>> Who cares how much you spend on something?

[00:11:33]>> Yeah. And the the the talk about [laughter] women in my circle are talking about how upsetting it is that there have been three women let go from the Trump cabinet. Well, he hired him in the first place, but we'll do that [laughter] later. Uh, Jack, Dan, Laura, thank you very much. President Trump promised no forever wars. That doesn't mean he can avoid one in Iran.

[00:12:02]Iran might well become Trump's forever war, whether he likes it or not.

[00:12:07]Clearly, Trump wants out of Iran. On True Social today, he wrote, "Iran has just informed us that they are in a state of collapse, quote unquote, they want us to quote open the straight of Hormuz as soon as possible as they try to figure out their leadership situation, which I believe they will be able to do."

[00:12:23]To be fair, Iran has informed President Trump of many things. Few of them have come true. No question Iran is feeling the dire effects of the Straight of Hormuz blockade, just as they felt the effects of getting blown to smitherreens for the past two months. As we've told you though many times before on the show, the Islamic regime views pain as proof of its righteousness. Iran knows the United States feels it too.

[00:12:48]President Trump has to set set for elections or stand for elections.

[00:12:51]Republicans do. The Ayatollah does not.

[00:12:53]Today, gas prices jumped to their highest point since the war began.

[00:12:56]Trump's no forever wars earned him enormous political support. Now he is looking for a way out. Maraputo argues that Iran could even be the next cold war, a nightmare scenario for any candidate with an R next to their name come November. Axio's White House correspondent Mark Caputo with us now.

[00:13:15]Mark, always a pleasure. What does your reporting show about what the White House views as its options?

[00:13:22]>> There's essentially two and one of them is not retreat. President Trump is sort of vacasillating between whether to intensify the pressure by military means or continue on with the maximum pressure sanctions campaign that he has. Uh incidentally, it's not that we're heading to a cold war with Iran. The conflict with Iran is in a cold war phase now. Now, how that long that lasts, we're not sure, but it looks like it's going to be a bit of a while. How long, again, we don't know. But don't expect gas prices to drop anytime soon.

[00:13:58]>> What is the White House more concerned about? The forever war moniker that somehow the US is in in this conflict or the economic issue of gas prices brought about by the conflict.

[00:14:14]>> The second one more than likely, I haven't asked him that specific question, but this White House revolves around the president. And so what the White House and the people working in it are most concerned about is how the president feels and what he thinks. And right now the president doesn't want to back down. He wants to win the conflict.

[00:14:32]He wants to get uranium from Iran. He wants to stop its nuclear program. He wants to open the straight of Hormuz.

[00:14:39]That's the ball game, >> right? And that ball game gets won almost certainly by military victory or by capitulation. I would argue it's not going to happen by um some kind of deal.

[00:14:51]trying now to watch the administration say, "Oh my god, the people in Iran are really radical." When they're the ones who created what the government is in Iran now, has its its own irony. But what does the US expect to change if what Marco Rubio says is true and you're saying the maximum pressure campaign is still an option for them?

[00:15:16]They believe that if there is enough pressure brought to bear that these more reasonable voices in the view of the United States will come to bear and we'll make a deal. Not sure that's going to happen. The history of the United States with Iran is long and fraught.

[00:15:33]Starting with the 1953 overthrow of Muhammad Mosedc and leading on through the 1979 revolution, the 1980s when the United States armed Saddam Hussein who invaded Iran and used poison gas on them. Not a lot of love lost between the US and Iran.

[00:15:50]>> Yeah, that's fair to say. US military action in Iran will make America more safe, less safe. U more safe only 25%, less safe, 48%, not much impact, 24%.

[00:16:02]Is there any effort in the White House to resell I or perhaps sell because they didn't sell the war the first time before they started it, but to try and sell this concept of why a war would be necessary before launching this next possible bombing campaign?

[00:16:21]>> I haven't detected much of an interest in doing that. Now, Secretary Rubio going on Fox News is notable. It's partly notable because Rubio is good on his feet with any sort of media outlet.

[00:16:36]So, the fact that they have dispatched him to a more conservativeleaning outfit or a a media enterprise that is watched by conservatives more sort of sends a message that they're trying to shore up their own base. And the reality is is to your point, the Trump White House, Trump did not sell the war quote unquote beforehand. They haven't done much since. Outfits like the Foundation for Defense of Democracy, Mark Doubleitz, who's the head of that. They've done more to sort of say, "Hey, in their view, the Iran war has been a success.

[00:17:11]We've done a lot. We have seriously weakened Iran, caused great trouble for them. this is a win even if they don't have the uranium yet. And nevertheless, that is not being said from the podium.

[00:17:26]It is not being said from White House official accounts, nor is it being said from Rubio, from the president. So, there's certainly a disconnect between the things that proponents of the administration or supporters of the administration, proponents of the war say are good things to communicate and the utter lack of communication by the official side on it. Well, to be fair, there have been times that Trump has said, "We already won." So, it it kind of goes both ways.

[00:17:49]>> It's more than just a few times. I [clears throat] think he says it every two days and then there's going to be a deal, then there's not a deal. So, it's tough to keep track of.

[00:17:56]>> Well, that's why we have you, Mark Caputo of Axios. We read your exclusives on a daily basis. The moral code of America is breaking down. The new democratic argument [music] for violence to save democracy.

[00:18:21]Back then, and even more so today, Ronald Reagan warned the greatest threat to American freedom was not from a foreign foe, but from the left. His warning is becoming reality. The left wants the government to control more and more. And it's seemingly okay with violence to get there as long as it is in pursuit of saving democracy. Just read the manifesto of the man who tried to shoot and kill President Trump Saturday. The Wall Street Journal headlines. The year of the Molotov cocktail. American anti-government violence hits a 30-year high. For the first time in 20 years, they are coming from extremists on the left in greater numbers than the right. We've been warning about this for a while. Yet, for some reason, the New York Times is okay debating what level of shoplifting is acceptable. Here are just some of the recent pieces they've put out. The rich don't play by the rules, so why should I? And would you steal from Whole Foods?

[00:19:17]Well, Graham Wood from The Atlantic will join us a few minutes. His new piece is titled, "Something is happening to America's moral code." writing, "6 years ago, the New York Times opinion editor lost his job for publishing an op-ed by Senator Tom Cotton because he advised invoking the Insurrection Act to quell the riots. This same publication today recommends listening to the podcast about the sunny sides of chaos." At first, we were told New York's mayor is Orhan Mandami, well, we were told he was an extremist and therefore was the exception. Now, he is a moderate. Didn't take long. Abdul Acad is a Hamas enthusiast and leading Senate candidate in Michigan. For those keeping score, Elsa currently leads Democrats in the Michigan Senate race. That's according to the Real CL Clear Politics Average.

[00:20:04]Graham Wood, uh the author of The Atlantic Piece is with us now. Graham, good to see you. Thank you. You make the point in the piece, I think, that some of these wannabe revolutionaries are kind of soft. Um, is that mean they're just the new generation of limousine liberals?

[00:20:24]>> Yeah. What it means is that they're intellectually soft. I mean, there is a long intellectual tradition of leftists of of people who think that uh private property is bad. These people don't know anything about that tradition. It's as if what I say 200 years of leftist R&D has been trying to figure out how labor can can, you know, negotiate on fair terms with capital. And you could be a leftist, you could not be a leftist. But these people seem to have adopted the terms of the left without any of the knowledge of what the left has figured out. And instead, they just think that to be a leftist means just shoplifting from Whole Foods and having a somewhat positive uh view of just shooting people in the street because they are the CEOs of healthcare companies.

[00:21:07]>> All right. So, we we had a lot of pictures up there. One of them was a guy named Hassan who thinks u Hamas and Israel, well between the two, Israel um may be the more evil um of the two. U this is Hassan uh who was on the New York Times podcast talking about what to do with the rich. If they're intellectually u weak or flabby as you say, does that make them any less dangerous?

[00:21:34]Well, I think the first thing to notice about Hassat is he comes up from a gaming community. So, when he says kill, I don't know, maybe he doesn't understand how serious the word kill is.

[00:21:44]Uh, when you kill in a game, then you respond, your enemy respawns. But we're talking about human beings and we're talking about people who who are receiving threats and, you know, in at least one case the receiving end of bullets. So I find it very serious when someone who has a platform as large as his is speaking in these terms which you know that way ends in in in bloodshed which is exactly what it sounds like it's it's aiming for in the first place.

[00:22:09]>> Well and what someone tried to do on Saturday night to the president. Your your point, I think, would be more intellectual if it wasn't so deadly serious or I should say more more esoteric in that there's large and important voices in American politics who are defending even if it's an intellectually weak argument. All right, we're two days to Mayday. uh just looking at the calendar, but I I'm sort of getting these vibes of the the sort of intellectual revolutionaries in West Germany who sat around in coffee houses and and spewed spew the revolutionary language that no one really listened to.

[00:22:48]Now there's a lot of Americans as Roana says uh very well listening to this stuff.

[00:22:53]>> I think there's a lot of people who don't remember where this has led in the past. Uh in the past it has led to uh groups like butter minehoff. led to waves of terrorism in the 1970s. Um I'm I was I'm not old enough to have remembered that firsthand, but man, it was it was not an easy time to be around and it was not a time whose whose politics was was forgotten by the people who had to experience it. So, I think there's a lot of of especially young people now who don't know what it would actually mean to live in a society without laws, who don't know what it would mean to live in a society where political assassination was a regular feature of of of political life. And on the left and the right, by the way, I think there's a lot of of willingness to embrace these people because they have big platforms. when in fact when someone says that violence toward their political opponents is a good thing, we should take that seriously and and really those people should should um should be dishonored by their own speech.

[00:23:53]>> Yeah. And I would also argue uh we should be thoughtful of those who think that the government um from either side should be the one who decides who gets to speak, which is increasingly a dangerous thing. Graham Wood, thank you very much.

[00:24:09]A grand jury sitting in the Eastern District of North Carolina returned an indictment against James Comey on two counts. The first count is that on or about May 15th of last year, he knowingly and willfully making a threat to take the life of and to inflict bodily harm upon the president of the United States. Okay, that's Todd Blanch, the new acting attorney general, announcing an indictment against former FBI director James Comey for posting a photo of seashells on the beach spelling out 8647.

[00:24:43]Officials say those were a direct threat on the president's life. For those confused by this indictment against the former FBI director, 86 is slang for getting rid of something, and Trump was the 47th president. A grand jury in North Carolina agreed. Comey, of course, says he was thinking something else.

[00:25:03]Okay, today's indictment proves what we've warned you about a few weeks ago.

[00:25:07]The Democrats would ru the day former Attorney General Pam Bondi was ousted and replaced by Todd Blanch.

[00:25:14]Democrats are popping champagne over Trump firing Pam Bondi. If I were Democrats, I would be terrified right now. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanch, will now serve as acting attorney general. Blanch is a lot more effective than Bondie ever hoped to be.

[00:25:32]Bondi, like Christy Gnome, was enthusiastic but not that effective, which made her a great punching bag for the left. But now, the new Todd Blanch, as we can see, seems much more capable of doing all the things Democrats hate. With us now, former federal prosecutor Shan Woo Barrett Burgerer, former assistant US attorney for the Southern District of New York. As the only non- lawyer here, I'm going to ask a lawyerly question.

[00:25:58]Can we all stipulate that this indictment is complete junk? Right.

[00:26:01]Neither of you think it has any merit.

[00:26:03]Merit. Okay.

[00:26:05]>> Right.

[00:26:06]>> I wouldn't want to bring this case to trial. Let's put it that way.

[00:26:09]>> Okay. As a former assistant US attorney, I don't think um anybody would. That said, the idea that Blanch has gotten this through and is willing to sort of act in this way to me shows that he's a lot more effective in doing things that Donald Trump wants than Pam Bondi.

[00:26:28]Barrett agree.

[00:26:30]>> Yeah. I mean, they got a grand jury to indict him on a case that made many people when they first saw this completely roll their eyes and say, "Is this a joke?" But yet, they got a grand jury to indict it. And as we've seen this year, it's not a given that you can get the grand jury to indict people.

[00:26:46]Even though there's that famous joke about they'll indict a hand sandwich, um it's not the case. So they clearly had some evidence he was able to push it forward. Um he's showing that he is effective as you said.

[00:26:56]>> Yeah. I'm trying to debate whether there's some joke to be made about whether the ham sandwich should be either replaced or insulted by seashells, but I don't know what they are. Uh, Jean Woo, this is Todd Blanch today saying that no one is allowed to threaten the president.

[00:27:16]>> You are not allowed to threaten the president of the United States of America. That's not my decision. That's Congress's decision and a statute that they passed that we charge multiple times a year. And so whether whether there is a defense as you just described, maybe maybe there is, but but the government will have evidence. I am not going to talk about the evidence that we have.

[00:27:36]>> Is he bluffing Jean about other evidence or what would Comey's lawyers or Comey who is a lawyer be worried about?

[00:27:47]>> Uh I doubt they're very worried at all right now because unless they had some kind of evidence that has Comey saying he actually intends to harm the president, no amount of evidence is going to help them here. So, I mean, if they have something, I'm pretty sure he already would have put that forth because it would help him publicity wise. And just to go back for a moment, I just want to say I in this context, I'm a defender of Pam Bondi. I'm not so sure that Blanch is going to do a whole lot better than her. After all, he has her experience to go on places that she failed. But, you know, let's not forget she tried multiple times to indict people. She did indict some people. Some grand juries declined. And so the mere fact that he's taking this case forward and manages to get an indictment, I don't think that means he's going to be far more effective than Bondi. You know, he's certainly going to be as much a loyalist, if not more, since after all, you know, he professes his love for President Trump. I I guess Barrett, I wasn't saying so much that he was going to be more effective in getting uh convictions, but that his ability to pull the levers inside the DOJ and do so without stepping on the landmines that Bondi did that were both so obvious and also so distracting for for team Trump seems to be apparent.

[00:29:01]>> Yeah. I mean, one of the things that Bondie had trouble with was she ran into issues having career prosecutors not wanting to take on some of these political retribution cases. She had people leaving very publicly US attorney's offices in lie of having to actually prosecute this cases. Who knows what will come out about this indictment, but so far we haven't heard anything about that. So, they got a US attorney to bring the case to a grand jury in North Carolina. The grand jury indicted. I mean, again, aside from who the defendant is and sort of the nature of what these charges is, it is proceeded exactly like, you know, the run-of-the-mill case has. I I think the real difference here is counter to the many, many other threat cases that both this administration has brought and that we've seen brought in the last decade.

[00:29:48]You know, this one does not seem to have any apparent threat on its face the same way that we've seen in other cases that have been brought.

[00:29:56]>> All right, so Shen, what happens next?

[00:29:58]Comey gets arrested or booked again and then he gets bailed out. Can the a judge just throw this out?

[00:30:08]>> Uh yeah, there'll be a motion to dismiss. I think um legally versus factually I I agree is very who would want to try this case? But just on the pure legal aspect, you know, we had this Supreme Court president uh dating back to the LBJ era where a Vietnam war protester said, "If you give me a gun, if you draft me, I'd like to have LBJ in my sights as the first man." That got dismissed as political speech.

[00:30:30]>> You know, this doesn't even come close to being that targeted. So, I think there's a good chance it gets dismissed legally.

[00:30:35]>> All right, Shan Woo, Barrett Burgerer, thank you both very much. I was correct in my prediction about how this was going to work out for Democrats post Bambi. I'll give you one other we can come to me on screen here. I will give you one other prediction uh that may happen going forward which is that you get Blanch to do all the most outrageous things that will make him extraordinarily popular inside MAGA and almost impossible to confirm in the Senate. Very tight. And they want to make Todd Blanch go from acting attorney general to the actual attorney general.

[00:31:09]And it would allow them to appoint somebody like a Lee Zeldon who has been much more, shall we say, deaf behind the scenes and effective to then slip in as the attorney general. First wrote about this in warnotes, including that your chance for an inside look at the show every day. It is free at warotes.com.

[00:31:27]I'll sub you can subscribe and I'll see you on social media at leandvitter.

[00:31:33]The British prime minister, to borrow a English phrase, I won't do the accent, has made a dog's dinner of his relationship with President Trump. Can the king repair the damage done?

[00:31:55]The pomp and circumstance of a state dinner at the White House tonight. The British are crawling their way back into President Trump's good graces. Ties between the UK and America have been strained almost to their breaking point, at least among the politicians. Each side disparaging each other. Prime Minister Kier Starmer's relationship with Trump is frosty at best. So, well, they sent in the big guns, that being Prince Charles, to or King Charles, forgive me, I'm getting all sorts of dirty looks here, uh, on the on the set, who spoke in front of Congress today, calling the unity between the two nations something indeed still special.

[00:32:39]>> 1776, in our minds, we can perhaps agree that we do not always agree. Ours is a partnership born out of dispute but no less strong for it. Our two countries have always found ways to come together.

[00:32:56]And by Jo, Mr. Speaker, when we have found that way to agree, what great change is brought about.

[00:33:04]I'm not sure what all of that means, but that's what the king had to say. Richard Kay, Daily Mail senior editor at large.

[00:33:10]Hillary Ford, royal commentator and former head of global business development at KPMG. Good to see both of you. Richard, start with you. The idea here from the royals, your sources say they have achieved what they wanted to achieve in this visit.

[00:33:29]>> I think they have, judging by the reaction of President Trump and and the administration towards what the king had to say in Congress and the and the general way they've been treated uh since they got to DC. Hillary, how do we explain the difference between how President Trump treats the prime minister versus how he treats the king?

[00:33:53]>> Oh, it's a vast difference, Leland.

[00:33:54]Thank you for having me back again because remember that one of President Trump's earliest memories was being on the knee of his mother and watching the Queen's coronation. Um, he speaks of that so fondly and that his mother being Scottish, love the royal family, love the queen. And so he has this affinity actually which is very much in contrast with President Obama because remember he actually removed the bust of Winston Churchill from the White House which was very controversial controversial and said to the British that um with the Brexit vote that you'd go to the back of the line with any trade deals if you vote for Brexit. So President Trump has this huge affinity for the royal family.

[00:34:28]Now with regard to your question about the difference, Sakir Stalmer of course heads the Labor government and that's just like the Democrats and he's diametrically opposed on literally every single policy left of woke absolutely the antithesis of everything the president stands for. That's the issue.

[00:34:46]>> Well Karma the Labor Party has basically become owned by the Muslim population that doesn't want to assimilate um in the UK. Richard, can the Royals keep amid this fracture of the special relationship between the United States and the UK? Can they keep above politics? I >> I think not only can they keep above politics, they can actually do something to mend the relationship. It's not probably special any longer, but they can do something to try and put the pieces back together again. And I think we saw a bit of that today. I mean, Trump, we got to remember why Charles is here. He's here to to celebrate America's 250th anniversary and also to commemorate to the enduring bonds of affection that between our two nations, but also to try and see what he can do to try and repair the relationship just a little at least.

[00:35:37]>> Hillary, I guess you got to give them points for coming over to celebrate a war that they lost.

[00:35:42]Well, yes. And I thought it was rather amusing that um actually King Charles did make levity on that when he actually talked about the fact that I don't want you to think that I'm here as sort of like here as subvertively to to reach >> to relitigate that conflict.

[00:35:57]>> Yes, he actually made fun of that and he also talked about he did he did make a little dig when he said 250 years ago or as we say um in in in Britain we say just the other day. So he did make some [laughter] great points there. Very well well said.

[00:36:10]Hillary, Richard, thank you both very much. When we come back, one thing we can all agree on.

[00:36:29]America is divided about many, many things. One thing does unite us, or at least unites most of us, and that is our pets. New survey out shows that 81% of Republicans, 82% of Democrats say that pets are part of the family. Now, the question is, who are the 18% of Americans who don't think their pets should be part of the family? And what should we do with them? Katie obviously thinks Gadston's part of the family. I think Dutch is part of the family. They are looking for these people to go on a one-way mission to Mars.

[00:37:03]>> I I guess so. This is your amazing. So cute. Dutch labs are the best. And there's Gadston rolling his eyes at me uh with my antics about making him wait for treats. So there you go.

[00:37:14]>> Yeah. You see, I think the 18% should go on the Mars mission.

[00:37:17]>> I think so, too. And pets are part of the family. They take over the house.

[00:37:19]So, >> yeah. Or they run the family in our house.

[00:37:21]>> Indeed, they run our house. So, we're part of that that 80 plus percent.

[00:37:24]Great. Great show. Talk to you soon.