You agree?

Yeah, absolutely.

And I agree also with Governor DeSantis that he said this morning in Tallahassee that this was a close to extinction level event for Republicans.

And this didn't just start with 2024.

I think this was a total vindication of those of us in the process.

primary that said that we needed to move past the Trump era, say he did great in his first term.

But in 2024, we as Republicans wanted a new leader who would have had eight years in office.

You

He was probably secretly telling her when she was sleeping, "Kill the babies." What the hell's wrong with these people, Jenna?

I mean, it's, it's so far outside of the facts of the trial and what the justice system is all about in America.

The justice system only works if we have jurors who understand the law, they understand their role and responsibility, and that it's not about wider activism for all women or for all healthcare or for what, uh, Lindsay Clancy and other women haven't gotten in the past.

I mean, the- these people on Oprah who are suggesting that now, you know, women of color need to be excused also for baby murder.

I mean, they're wanting equality-

Eight months old

... that's the bigger perspective.

It's, it's disgusting, it's horrifying, and there is no way that anyone could look at this and say, "Okay, only 18 minutes.

So what was going through your head when you first heard the news?

Yeah, well, I was actually walking out of a doctor appointment.

And so I'd had my phone on silent for probably the 20 minutes, the initial 20 minutes after it happened.

So I walked out to my phone just blowing up with so many messages and alerts and texts from friends.

And so I immediately...

I texted Andrew Colvette, who is Charlie's executive producer.

And in fact, I had him on this morning on my program to remember Charlie.

And if people don't like it because you're speaking the truth, then guess what? You're probably doing something right, not doing something wrong.

things that went wrong?

No, actually, you praised it.

So I was like, oh, that's a tooth I did there.

Got a little bit embarrassed.

But at the end of that, you actually mentioned the BAPD and what it was about.

And you mentioned about anybody getting in touch if they wanted to be involved.

So I was quite interested in seeing what it was about.

And I'm like, I don't know, where's the pink in it? Look at the

right

um so we have had patients that's turned up within a couple of days of you know and i literally i say hello to them and they say hi and i look at they can see the teeth glowing and i'm like oh have you recently whitened yes i have okay can i ask when you last had your teeth whitened when did you last whiten them and that oh uh Just this Saturday, just gone.

Oh, we've got a problem.

Sorry.

So then I have to explain to them that I can't take the shade.

I can take a shade on the day.

However, it might not be accurate if we go ahead and make that restoration.

what you were saying earlier about you know dealing with patients and and shades and all that kind of thing sounds like you need a fair amount of diplomacy to be able to do your job yeah

We've changed, haven't we?

Yes, absolutely.

And I completely agree with your assessment.

And it's so important to understand these terms, how the founders used them and would have understood them.

That's what originalism dictates, that we don't just have this evolving fluid constitution and set of principles and values also that change and flow with the changing nature of society.

Because as we've increasingly become secular pluralists, which basically means that anyone's belief, regardless of how true or logical or historical it might be, is given just as much validity and weight in society as someone else's.

That's not what the founders understood.

And they can't argue on a term of equality of freedom of religion because that's not what it was about.

Well, what the administration is saying, what the Department of Justice is saying is a transmitted threat across state lines.

Yeah, well, first of all, I completely agree with you and your former caller that Todd Blanche, as the acting attorney general, is already, in his first less than 30 days, is already providing more accountability and what Trump campaigned on, which really was retribution.

I was a little nervous about that characterization, but accountability for these bad actors that have been coming after Trump and his associates, including me, by the way, since 2015.

And so Pam Bondi was really evidenced herself as a swamp creature and sort of one of these, you know, uniparty kind of attorneys general, almost in the same vein as Bill Barr.

I mean, this is somebody who reportedly leaked to Eric Swalwell, you know, what was coming and it engaged you know, the Democrats, you know, a lot more leeway than she should have.

And so Todd Blanche doesn't come from, you know, kind of the political Washingtonian world.

He comes from a defense background.

And I think is it unfair of me to say that the number one impediment to justice in this country for the last 14 months was Pam Bondi?

Our founding fathers and the original intent behind the Constitution and the creation of this republic, I would say it was a whole lot more libertarian than where we've gotten to now.

I would...

I would not agree with that in the sense I would say that it was more conservative than where we've gotten to now.

And the reason for that is because the founders echoed exactly the same sentiments that you did of, you know, look at this outrageous big government that we're seeing.

They're wanting to tax even our tea.

This is ridiculous.

Let's throw off.

But here is an example of I think I'm more on the libertarian side of things where the government had no right to to engage in the 18th Amendment in the first place.

Well, Florida opened a criminal investigation into the Tates shortly afterwards, and the brothers moved on to Las Vegas where they got a decidedly warmer reception. They even sat cageside at UFC after shaking hands with head honcho Dana White. Now, critics on the right say the brothers are immoral, alleged criminals with no place in the conservative movement. Supporters say, "Tough luck, they're back, and they're an embodiment of the free speech-embracing, woke-rejecting movement that just took back control." So who is right? Well, Zach Bonfiglio, AKA The Misfit, uh, Misfit Patriot and host TMP Uncensored; former capo of the Colombo crime family, Michael Franzese; defense lawyer and legal scholar Alan Dershowitz; radio host and senior policy advisor to the American Family Association Jenna Ellis; and Sarah Stock, journalist at slightlyoffensive.com have all joined me to debate this. Um, let me start with you, if I may, uh, Jenna Ellis. What is your... Y- y- you object to the Tates. Given that, at the moment, they haven't been convicted of any crimes, what is your main objection to them?

Yeah, so the problem that I have with conservatives pushing this false dichotomy is that they're making the argument that if the Tates are objecting to some things on the left, then that makes them solidly right. I think that we need to define the contours and boundaries of what a true conservative is instead of pushing this false dichotomy. So the Tates rose to fame, uh, with some really good, uh, influence. At the height of the woke feminization of culture, Andrew Tate was right about masculinity returning, he was right about mass migration. Um, he made some good comments on some other things. But that doesn't mean that conservatives then need to go and treat them with kid gloves, invite them to conversations, and completely ignore all of the other alleged criminal activity. I mean, the Tates are openly saying that they've had sex with 15-year-old girls, that they used young, un-, underage girls on webcams. They made their fortune on pornography. Those are not conservative values, and some of these things are allegedly criminal. So for conservatives to suggest that this is just lawfare, lawfare is a two-sided coin. Because y- yes, it's lawfare if you go after your political opponents, but it's also lawfare if you don't pursue a valid criminal investigation against your political allies. So I think that we need to be more nuanced here. And I think that Governor DeSantis, my own governor in the state of Florida, and the new AG, uh, James Uthmeier are absolutely correct to go after the alleged criminal activity, open an investigation, see where it leads. That's what the law is supposed to do. Yes, innocent till proven guilty, but they're not just completely innocent because they happen to align with conservatives on some narrow issues.

Go.

The presumption of innocence does not mean that you have a- a- a free pass just because you are a public figure or you're a political target against some of these really serious accusations. And for Governor DeSantis and AG Uthmeier to say they're coming to Florida and there's credible evidence that there was a nexus to Florida, that allegedly he's grooming, uh, women that he ultimately used who were minors on his webcam on pornography. I mean, sex trafficking, pornography, those are not political issues when it comes to the law. And so presumption of innocence doesn't mean, again, that he gets a free pass or that this is lawfare, because if we are suggesting that just because we agree with Andrew Tate on some things and that lawfare, uh, does happen in, uh, and- and political targeting, then somehow we're going to shield him as a political ally, then that is also lawfare. And we should not as conservatives support that, because either you are for the rule of law or you are not.