Biden Reveals His Biggest Lie Yet
01:36:38 Share

It became apparent to people there was a conspiracy that we were a part of to hide the president's health. Now we want to throw out another medical diagnosis to try to get out from hiding the president's health which is like now you have doctors being like there's no way it's just popped up all of a sudden. You've made the situation far worse. You've made everyone

Far more questioning of your motives, what you knew, what you didn't know. People are pulling up these video clips of Biden saying two years ago, I've got cancer. Right. And then that was at the time being told, oh, no, that's a stutter. Like, what is happening here? Right.

He's Donald Trump's number one enemy in Congress, Chicago Senator Dick Durbin. And now Dick Durbin has a new scheme, a government takeover of your credit card. Today, consumers have thousands of choices in credit cards, all with equal, strong security. But Durbin's plan is less competition and less security.

And that means more risk for your credit and your identity. Tell Republicans in Congress, stop Dick Durbin's takeover of your credit card before it's too late. Ladies and gentlemen, your attention, please. Keep the faith, hold the line and own the lips. It's time for our main...

Good Tuesday to you and welcome back to the Ruthless Friday program. A lot of fun to be had here this week. I'm Josh Holmes along with comfortably smug Michael Duncan and John Ashbrook. Left to right across your radio dial as always. Fellas, a real humdinger of an episode. You keep thinking you're going to run out of content and then every week it turns out we're going to do a little bit better than we did the episode before. It's like climbing a mountain in many ways. It's really something. I mean...

And it seems like every news cycle bleeds and transforms into the next one. Like first, it's like, OK, well, how long did people know that Joe Biden's health was extremely poor? And then you get another announcement. It's like, what is happening here? It is truly amazing. We're going to talk about that. We've got obviously the diagnostics that were done on Joe Biden that rolled out over the weekend. We've got some thoughts on that.

Turns out Hannah Trudeau that we covered here for the last couple of weeks is somebody that, well, I think many of you got a kick out of last week. It hasn't gone away. She decided to reengage at the end of last week. She did. And we have a few more questions for her, which I think are pertinent to this larger discussion. The fact that she wants to keep talking about it, well.

Well, fellas do too. We love talking. We love to talk. We do it for a living. We love to talk. We got a reconciliation update. What that means to you is like, what are you paying in taxes? Where is all of that? That is the one fight in Washington, D.C. that everybody's got their eyes on and probably set aside almost all of the other debates in terms of a federal government discussion. Like this is the preeminent discussion. Probably will be for the next couple of months. We're just going to recap sort of where we're at. We're not going to

dive into the nitty gritty today, but I think that the recap will set the table in a way that you'll find very appealing as an American taxpayer. We've got some variety, including a nudist resort. Boy, that's

Smug, how do you feel about that? Well, you know, you got to give the people what they want. And then we got a great guest, Harmeet Dhillon. She's the United States Assistant Attorney General for the Civil Rights Division. You can only imagine the task of having to go into that operation and actually perform research.

real civil rights law after what it has become under a Biden administration, Obama administration, and really sort of like going generations back and what the left is trying to do. She has like,

provides great clarity into what it is that they're working on. Yeah, what I love about what she's doing is everybody thinks about like this deep state in government in D.C. and they think of maybe the intelligence apparatus, right? Or maybe like, you know, unsavory people at the Pentagon who are stopping. But like,

If you actually really think about what the deep state is, there is a permanent bureaucratic class in all of government that works to our disadvantage as people who want to believe in limited government. Yeah. You know? Yeah. And so we're at a disadvantage, like from the beginning, right? That there's this permanent bureaucratic class that exists in government that never wants to leave. And nowhere is it worse than where Harmeet is now. Oh, it's like it's their beachhead. Yeah. Really the cornerstone of the left. Yeah.

Anyway, she gives us all of that. And then we're going to tell you.

Remember the Tappers? We rolled this out last week. If you didn't watch the episode on Thursday, do it. I mean, first of all. Pure cinema. It's pure cinema. But we had an award for what we call the Tappers, which is an award for the greatest efforts to conceal the condition of Joe Biden from the American people. And we had a number of nominees. We're going to give you the winner. You all voted. Thousands.

Thousands voted. We tallied it up. We're going to give you the winner in this very episode. With all of that, fellas, let's jump right in. So look...

We said on Thursday with the President Trump being overseas and doing deals in Saudi Arabia and Qatar and everything else that the domestic news media needed to focus on something. They started focusing on the Tapper Award. But they started focusing on that new book that he and Alex Thompson wrote, which is basically that everybody was well aware of the decline of Joe Biden.

But nobody was willing to say it, and they took efforts to try to conceal it. And what is the inner office? They basically cast blame upon those around Joe Biden, exonerating themselves in many ways from the active efforts of the national news media to just go hick line and sinker into whatever it was that Jean-Pierre...

And their cover up of Joe Biden did not start after he was sworn in. Remember, this is a guy who campaigned from his basement in 2020 because he was incapable of running a traditional presidential race. And they were like, oh, you know what? He's in his basement because of COVID. He's not giving speeches because of COVID. He can't get out there and talk to the people because of COVID. It had nothing to do with the guy's inability to operate.

So this is the only topic of conversation that was happening in Washington, D.C. last week. And there was a whole bunch of efforts to try to get out from underneath it. And you saw Joe Biden go on The View with Dr. Jill, which we talked about a little bit, in an effort of the Biden and former Bidens to get out from underneath their precarious situation.

which made the announcement that I will tell you about so much more wild in terms of its timing, in that according to FoxNews.com and almost every other outlet in the English-speaking world, Biden is battling, quote, the most aggressive type, unquote, of prostate cancer with bone metastasis, medical expert says. Okay. So, look.

I hate to be cynical about this, but there are many pieces of what Joe Biden was trying to convince the American people of going back to his initial 2020 run that forced his supporters and people who are sympathetic to him.

to be in a situation where they were trying to explain to the American people that their own life experiences on things didn't exist and that they were just witnessing something that they alone were experts on would tell you exactly what it was that was happening. In the context of the first four years, it was all about like, you don't know what mental decline looks like, right? Like nobody who's listening to this has ever had a 75-year-old

a relative who's become 80 and noticed a decline or noticed a health problem or noticed sort of what end of life looks like, despite the fact that it is not an American issue. It's a universe since God graced this great planet with human life, something we've experienced. And they're telling us like, you're not, don't believe your lying eyes. Like we don't, we don't see any of that. And now what they're trying to tell us is, well,

In the last, what is it, 120, 140 days? Six months. Yeah, six months since this guy has been out of office that Joe Biden has contracted prostate cancer. That is the most diagnosable and preventable form of cancer on planet Earth that every man at some point as a septuagenarian will either contract or

Yeah, I saw University of North Carolina had a study that said 80% of men who reach the age of 80 will have prostate cancer. You get it. So like you learn at some point in watching parents and grandparents, that it's just a thing. It just comes along with being a man and growing old.

And prostate cancer is just one of those things. It's why they give you, when you start doing physicals in your 40s, PSA tests. I got mine early because it runs in my family.

They give you a test, a blood test that monitors a level, PSA they call it, that if there's any changes, it shows that you have an increased chance of developing prostate cancer. If that number moves around, like you really start to investigate that. Now the people who develop the aggressive form of this –

More likely than not are people who just don't go to the doctor, right? And they've developed another symptom or something that they're being treated for that ultimately they find out that this has been going on for quite some time. The president of the United States and Joe Biden presumably has the highest level of medical care of anybody on this planet.

Like I've talked to people who've worked in the White House at a senior level who have had to get similar care, not the same as the president, but similar care because of the same thing. Like you're trying to insulate and make sure that people can pass stress tests and things like that because they're operating sensitively in the highest levels of the American government. And they've said that like they're paying higher life insurance policies because they're subjected to tests that you never would be subjected to. Interesting. Yeah.

under just an ordinary care. Like, even if you're being super responsible. But they want to be careful. They want to be careful. So these are like...

impossible to ignore fact patterns that this president is, former president, is claiming all of us to believe that somehow they missed all of this during four years of presidency. Yeah, he was president for four years and then six months later he has prostate cancer that has metastasized to the bone. Which, look, I'm not a doctor, but prostate cancer typically is pretty slow growing. And you notice it over years. And it's

maintained or you try to reduce it in size, it doesn't typically metastasize to the bone in six months. And it wasn't discovered until a week after he made a fool of himself on The View in the context of this book from Jake Tapper and Alex Thompson. The timing is predominantly.

The timing is predominant. I hate to be cynical about the whole thing, but let's be honest. There's nothing to be cynical about because let's also be honest. This guy has lied to us over and over and over throughout his administration. And I have, you know, I thought it would be interesting to look back at some of the big lies that Joe Biden has told us through the years just to go down memory lane. Remember when he said he was a professor at the University of Pennsylvania? Yeah.

He never taught a class. He had a figurehead job. Remember when he said the border was secure? Remember when he said that he never met Hunter Biden's foreign clients? Remember when he said that the Hunter Biden laptop wasn't real?

Remember he said inflation was transitory? Remember when he said he wouldn't pardon Hunter Biden? Remember that? Remember when he said he funded 700,000 construction projects all across the country, broadband and everything else? Yeah, right, Joe. Remember when he said his old uncle Ambrose Finnegan was eaten by cannibals after being shot down over New Guinea in World War II? Yeah, he said that. Yeah. Yeah. He said he confronted some guy named Corn Pop at a swimming pool. Remember that one? Yeah.

Remember when he said his house burned down and nearly killed his wife from a kitchen fire? He told people Mitt Romney would re-enslave them. This is a guy who has been lying his entire life, and I don't know why we need to start believing him today. Well, I just—look. I would point out Ashbrook says that as a man who has had cancer himself. I have. Yeah, and here's the deal. It goes back to the lying eyes preface that I—

My dad's had prostate cancer for a decade. He had surgery. They treated it as it often the case with prostate cancer, the aggressive kind that they're talking about here reconstitutes itself. But with PSA tests, like you understand when it's doing that and when it does that, you have to deal with it in a different way. But there's a run up, you know, in the case of my own family, like you've known for a lot of years,

how it works its way through and you treat it along the way. It doesn't just show up. Right. The idea that this has just happened right now is complete fiction. I don't believe it for a second. But you don't have to take it from the Ruthless Variety program. Look at clip one. Let's play that.

You believe it is likely if this prostate cancer has spread to the bone that he could have had it for up to a decade, but certainly it's likely, would it be fair to say it's likely to have had this for at least several years?

Oh, more than several years. You don't get prostate cancer. I just want to stop you. So this is not speculation. If you have prostate cancer that is spread to the bone, then he's most certainly, you are saying, had it when he was president of the United States. Oh, yeah.

He did not develop it in the last 100, 200 days. He had it while he was president. He probably had it at the start of his presidency in 2021. Yes, I don't think there's any disagreement about that.

Okay, so that's Dr. Zeke Emanuel. That name might sound sort of familiar. Is that Rahm's brother? Rahm Emanuel's brother. Is that really? He was the chief salesman for Obamacare back in 2009. I remember his other brother, the one who's in the entertainment industry. Ari. Yeah. Which is making a fortune. Yeah, so he's a hardened partisan Democrat.

There is no reason for... He's on Morning Joe. Exactly. He's on MSNBC stating the obvious. Right. I mean, like, really, do not believe us. Believe that doctor. If they're willing to say that on MSNBC, we're right. But, like, look, this is what the President of the United States were talking about.

It's not some senator. It's not some congressman. It's not some private citizen. It's not anything else who's got HIPAA laws and a right to privacy and all these things. The reason you do annual physicals for a president of the United States is in part to make sure that he is OK. The other part is to communicate to the American people and honestly the world that somebody doesn't have a health problem. To abuse that, to ensure that you're not telling the full story.

And then to everybody to watch this diminished, I mean, honestly, think about if you just had full open kimono and like, look, I hate to speculate about this shit because it is what it is. It's like, he's now in a precarious situation. It's a human life. And I hate to be sort of like cynical and shitty about it, but they put themselves in this situation, not us. And the idea that you just sort of decide to not disclose cancer is

of an American president, I'll tell you why it matters. It's not that like it affects his day job, even if it did. Like the biggest issue is what we're seeing in the precipitous decline could have been related to the treatment that this guy was on or wasn't on. It could have been.

For those of us who experienced this firsthand, I can tell you, when they start doing radiation treatment and hormone therapy and all the things that they do to deal with advanced age, advanced prostate cancer, it changes you. Brain fog.

Yeah, it just changes. At a minimum, it wears you out. 20 years ago, I had radiation treatment for cancer, and it wears you out. It builds up over the course of about a month. And at the end of that month, you're just dead tired. It's like you'd run a marathon every single day. It wears you out. And there is no reason to believe

what they are saying now. I'm telling you, what Zeke Emanuel is saying has got to be exactly right. Well, he's not the only one. I mean, if you look at graphic one, Dr. Drew, to be fair...

beginning with the finding of a nodule and then discovering advanced disease does not pass the sniff test. Someone not receiving adequate or routine health care, which is basically what we just said, this would make some sense, but it does not fit the level of medical supervision given to a president of the United States. Yeah. Of course. I mean, look, you tune into the Ruthless Variety program in large part because we're just going to tell you what it is, right? And this is just what it is. Like, a whole bunch of people on media will be like, well, I mean...

very sympathetic to this extraordinary situation, skeptical about the surrounding. Yes, we are all of that, but we might as well just tell you what it is that we think rather than the whole preamble.

Every year, America's freight railroads invest $23 billion of their own capital, not taxpayer money, to maintain the world's most productive freight network. That massive scale is key. It enables railroads to move goods with unmatched efficiency, driving down costs for American businesses and consumers. From energy and agriculture to retail and automotive, freight rail serves every corner of the real economy, and it's essential to America's reindustrialization.

Put simply, manufacturing depends on rail. Freight rail is America's engine, built on private investment, driving the nation forward. Learn more at aar.org.

Was it Axelrod who was like, I think this is a moment where everyone should stop discussing this horrible book and just focus on. It's like, whoa. Whoa. Yeah. Relax. All of a sudden, you're just like telling everyone, yo, shut up about that thing they're trying to get out from under. Well, it's the permission slip. I mean, quite obviously. And look, again, if you want us to cut through this shit, I will tell you my cynical view is they had a horrible, the worst week since the loss of the election in terms of the Biden's.

Last week and everybody blaming each other for concealing his demise and then him coming out and providing zero comfort for those that did.

And then they're like, OK, we got to get out from underneath this. Throw the diagnostic out there. Let's make sure that we, you know, now hopefully we garner some sympathy because this is a serious case that, you know, you could be looking at an end of life situation. Obviously, nobody is like looking forward to him being in this situation that goes without saying. Like, of course, you don't want a president of the United States suffering with cancer and all that stuff.

But the point of this only reaffirms the conversation that everybody was having last week, that they just weren't being truthful and honest with the American people. And now you have actually, it's not conjecture. It's no longer like, you didn't notice he couldn't finish his sentences. Now it's like, well, he didn't tell us he had cancer. I mean, talk about making a bad situation worse. Yeah. Yep. I mean, the thing is, there's our like,

So it just became apparent to people there was a conspiracy that we were a part of to hide the president's health. Now we want to throw out another medical diagnosis to try to get out from hiding the president's health, which is like now you have doctors being like, there's no way this just popped up all of a sudden. You've made the situation far worse. You've made everyone worse.

far more questioning of your motives, what you knew, what you didn't know. People are pulling up these video clips of Biden saying two years ago, I've got cancer, right? And then that was at the time being told, oh no, that's a stutter. Like, what is happening here? And then you hear this tangentially about coming out of this book of like, they were hiding cancer

information from Biden himself, his handlers. His doctor was like, you people are going to kill this guy. Like, now you've got a real mess. Now you've got, okay, what all was being hidden not just from the public, but from Joe himself himself.

Which makes things so much scarier because then it's like, so who is running the auto pen? Right. Who is actually making these decisions? Dude, this is the most important thing about the Biden situation is that it's like the cover-up is continuing.

They do not want Congress to investigate everything that they did to cover up his inability to do his job and what all of the Elizabeth Warren staffers were doing behind the scenes without the light of day to take advantage of the situation. They don't want Congress investigating that. It's also an indictment of already poorly regarded media, which.

Which considers itself the great check and balance, right? That's the fourth estate, as they refer to themselves, and it's always about bringing truth to power. And they will tell you the story that you don't necessarily want to hear but is happening behind the scenes because it's in the interest of the American public.

Well, no more is that less the case than this particular episode. Can you imagine if we find out that not only were they covering up the diminished capacity and there's hundreds of people who are contributing internally to try to shield the American people from all of this, but then he also had cancer and nobody asked the question? I mean, to me, that's...

one of the biggest things is like perfect example Ash Brooks best man J-Mart what article is he writing he's writing he wrote an article in the New York Times about how you know the Pope's brother is on Facebook posting some pro Donald Trump stuff we confronted him about it it's like are you for real this is what you guys are covering you're not covering that the president pretty much is hiding that he had a cancer diagnosis

Unbelievable. Yeah. No, I mean, look, I'm going to do this before we go to the break. The Axelrod thing that you talked about, Smug, can we just play clip two? His medical condition now, his announced medical condition now, do you believe that silences or delays a lot of conversations about his, you know, last year and a half of his presidency for now?

Yeah, well, I mean, I think those conversations are going to happen, but they should be more muted and set aside for now as he's struggling through this. No, no, no. It's grotesquely cynical to suggest we have to stop asking questions about how you covered up this old man's poor health. Yeah. Like, like, I'm sorry.

I'm sorry that he has cancer. But using that as an excuse for us to have to stop asking questions is so grotesque. I don't even know when to start. They've weaponized our empathy against us for so long. I'm sick of it. You don't get that pass anymore. Like you're putting masks on kids, making them cry, and you were having a ball doing it. You were calling us idiots when we said to stop. Not for nothing, but like we've learned through some of the reporting of this Jake Tapper, Alex Thompson book that,

that Joe Biden couldn't remember the name of Jake Sullivan, his national security advisor. Yeah.

Yeah, it seems important. Seems important. Like maybe if you get in the Situation Room. Yeah. Like Joe Biden, who didn't know the difference between, you know. He's also worked with him for 25 years. The president of Egypt, he called the president of Mexico. Like we end up bombing the wrong country because Joe Biden doesn't know. That ain't a stutter, folks. That ain't a stutter. That ain't a stutter. With all this in mind, it seems to me that this might be a good question of the day for the Ruthless Listener.

You got to like and subscribe on the YouTube channel. And when you do, when you submit your question, we'll read them all. We tally up your responses to our question of the day. But this question in particular, should Congress investigate this cover-up?

It doesn't seem light. You know, it's one thing when you're just sort of concealing a truth. It's quite another when you're concealing a truth that might have had material impact on the lives of Americans. Is this something that Congress should deal with?

be interested in your responses. Yeah, I mean, I don't know. White House doctor saying he's fit to serve in all of those physicals. Right. No reference to any elevated PSA levels or anything. How can that... How is that possible? I don't know how that's possible, given everything that not only we've said, but the doctors that we showed in the earlier segment said. It's just impossible. It seems like it. I mean, there's a million cynical questions. I saw people online who were asking...

Did they even hide this from Joe? And was the plan that, well, if Joe gets reelected, then we get our first one president. I mean, we already know from that Tapper Thompson book that there was discussions of putting him in a wheelchair for the second term. Well, they're concerned that he would survive. Why would you be concerned that he would survive if you didn't have reason to be? And-

And like, if he can't remember Jake Sullivan's name, how are we supposed to believe that he understands the pardons that are being put in front of him? Bingo. All of the presidential orders and everything that's being put in front of him on a daily basis. I do not believe he understood those things. Congress needs to investigate. Yeah, I don't think talking about a guy who has prostate cancer is nearly as cynical as exploiting it for four years so you can get your agenda done. Good point. Good point. Well said.

That's our question of the day. When we come back, the latest from Capitol Hill as Republicans attempt to pass the great, big, beautiful bill that President Trump has in mind dealing with your finances right after this.

Qualcomm is designing and developing the next generation of AI, connectivity, and low-power, high-performance computing right here in the U.S. We support President Trump's call for America's industrial revival, an agenda focused on restoring strength, scaling innovation, and securing our competitive edge. Our partnerships with Aramco Digital and Humane reflect that mission, putting U.S. technology to work, transforming global industries, and proving that American leadership still sets the standard.

Qualcomm. Engineering human progress.

Hardworking Americans know when it's time to roll up our sleeves and get the job done. Now is the time to unleash our nation's energy to create jobs, secure our future, and make life better, more affordable, and full of opportunity for all Americans. That's the power of America's oil and natural gas. Learn more at LightsOnEnergy.org. Paid for by the American Petroleum Institute.

All right, so we talked a lot about taxes lately, but this has kind of taken over the world, and we're going to probably end up talking about this for a couple of months. Our apologies. We'll do our best to make it entertaining, which I think we can do because it's taken many forms and facets. But there's a bill dealing with your tax levels.

attempting to preserve them at the rate that they're at. Recall that if they do nothing, that they will go up substantially in every income bracket in the United States, including a whole bunch of subsidiary credits and things like that. Your taxes are going to go up. You're going to go up big time. Ways and Means, Jason Smith, we had him on here as they were marking all that stuff up earlier. They did their job. They got things out of the Ways and Means Committee in the House. The House is kind of the biggest...

issue here because the narrow majority and you've got a huge ideological differences between like chip roy and then the salt caucus the salt caucus they're concerned about state and local tax deductions they are from states that tax the shit out of their people which i'm entirely unsympathetic towards however those are the people that ultimately make up what

what is now a majority. Without them, you have no majority in the U.S. House of Representatives. And if you look at the map, it's not going to happen anytime soon without those folks.

So you got to take their concerns seriously. Can I give a quick footnote? Yeah. Folks, this is why you need to pay attention to things like redistricting. And when Eric Holder gets parachuted into districts across this country to sue and sue and sue on behalf of the left-wing dark money group that pays him to get lines drawn favorably for Democrats, they smoked us.

in the last round, and that's why we're stuck in this situation. Yeah, so it's now heading to the Rules Committee. I mean, you've got to understand, this is a complicated parliament. I'm not interested in educating you on every facet of how a bill becomes a law, but it's going to another committee, which is difficult.

And ultimately what happens out of that is that there's going to be some kind of what they call a manager's package that is dealing with all the concerns that have been expressed since this thing has made the light of day. And you've got holdouts on one side that are demanding cuts. It's largely in Medicaid reforms. And I want to clarify that for a minute. I think there has been a really bad –

job of characterizing what it is that Republicans are attempting to do on Medicaid, because you've got folks who don't have the political skin in the game largely messaging it, right? They don't have populations on Medicaid. They're not in a blue district or a purple district, red district. And they're like, yeah, this is all we talk about. Medicaid cuts.

The reality is they're not talking about Medicaid cuts at all. They're talking about reforms, things like work eligibility. Like, is it too much to ask that a 28-year-old dude who's sitting on his couch rather than going out and getting a job attempts to try to go out and get said job in order to qualify for full medical treatment?

on behalf of the American taxpayer. We're talking about part-time work requirements. We're talking about 20 hours a week. I mean, it's just the lowest hanging fruit. And I would mention, like, you could be in school for 20 hours a week or you could be volunteering for 20 hours a week and still qualify for Medicaid through these work requirements for Medicaid. The idea that you could somehow characterize this as a cut is

Because what? We're supposed to accept in the United States of America that people who are able-bodied, who are 18 to 65, can just sit on their couch and never do anything? This is the United States of America. Like, go live in fucking Europe. Right. Go live in Europe if that's the way that you think about the world. But we don't here in this country. Like, I...

I'm sorry, but that is not a cut to Medicaid. That is expecting people to do the bare amount of civic engagement into our country. It's reform. We have to say that a million times. Don't let the Dems get it because the Dems want to call it cut.

because they want to scare you. They want to be like, oh my God, people who need this are getting... This is a reform to the system because as we see, the system is not working well and it's heading towards bankrupting the entire country. And not only that, it's politically incredibly popular. I don't know if you remember that Supreme Court race we had in Wisconsin. Yes, in Wisconsin. Not the most recent one, but the one previously also on that ballot was work requirements...

for Medicaid. Yep. And it passed. Yeah. As as Republicans lost that Supreme Court race by, yeah, 20 points or whatever. It passed. It is incredibly popular among the American people that there be a base level civic engagement in this entire country. You can't just sit on your couch and collect from Medicaid. If you're able bodied with no dependents, you're not disabled. None of these things. It's just insane that we've allowed them to sort of

you know, change all of this rhetorically into some sort of cut. It's not. It's just accountability. We're cutting the waste, the fraud and abuse out of the system. Well, I will tell you, you brought up Jason Smith and what he has done. And after some of the tweets that we've talked about here on the Ruthless Variety program with these House members who were like, yeah, maybe we should raise taxes on X, Y and Z. You got to tip the cap to Jason Smith because he has resisted

all of that up until this point. He has prevented the tax hikes that people have asked for without any understanding. I don't understand why they're asking for it. I don't know how a Republican enters a debate about taxes in this country and offers up the idea that we might raise taxes.

Before we even get to a debate on the floor with Democrats, you're just going to go ahead and offer that up? I mean, have you read the art of the deal? You're just going to give up all of your leverage and decide that maybe on the table is raising taxes? Are you a fucking Republican? Exactly, exactly. Hey, I saw this multiple billion dollars Doge found that our country wastes in our federal government. And my first thought is, no.

Somebody ought to pay for that. I guess we got to pay for that. Somebody ought to pay for that. You know? Yeah. Exactly. And it's like you have these Republicans who are adopting Elizabeth Warren policies and pretending like this is the right thing to do. So Jason Smith, he didn't raise taxes on carried interest. He didn't raise taxes on small business owners. He didn't raise taxes on job creators out there. And I think you got to tip the cap. Well, so, I mean, I think our poster child this week, and listen, Ruthless Friday program, we do this regularly.

without regard to what team you're on, but this is a Republican congressman from New York, Nick Lolota. Lolota shit from what I can tell, but this is what he has to say. The one big beautiful bill has stalled and it needs wind in its sails.

allowing the top tax rate to expire, returning from 37 to 39.6 for individuals earning over $609,000, married couples over 731, breathes $300 billion of new life into the effort. It's fiscally responsible move that reflects the priorities of a new Republican Party to protect working families, address the deficit, fix unfair SALT cap,

Hold on. Let's asterisk that for a second. And safeguard programs like Medicaid and SNAP without raising taxes on the middle class. Okay. All right. Listen, dude, I have, I've had it. I've absolutely had it. You heard about the work requirements that we're talking about with Medicaid. If you know anything at all about the way that the Democrats work in this system is you create entitlement programs for people,

pretty sympathetic populations. Then you expand the eligibility over time. What you do is you find the oldest and the poorest amongst you and you create something called Social Security. Then you say, well, they need health care too. And you start Medicare.

And then you expand the eligibility for that over time until they become entitlements for anybody who is even close to retirement age. And then you keep trying to expand that. Then you create one where you say for the poor. We'll call it Medicaid. Because at this point, what we'd like to do is just send it as a slush fund to the states to make them manage it. But we'll just not really watch the bottom line on that. And we'll start one for kids. We call it S-CHIP.

Poor kids. Then we expand the eligibility for that. Pretty soon when you expand the eligibility of all these things, which you saw under Obamacare, and let me make that clear. What Obamacare was was basically doing absolutely nothing with your care or with your coverage. It just expanded Medicaid. It expanded the number of people that qualify for this Medicaid situation.

It also threw you into a situation where you had to figure out how your health insurance works. And by the way, it's gone up at a higher rate than it did before.

This is their plan. This is what they do. It gets even worse. Then they sprinkle in some politics into it where they're like, OK, why don't we expand it to non-citizens? Why don't we expand it to anyone that we can let in the border because we think they're going to vote Democrat? As is the case with what's the Cal one called?

Medi-Cal. Medi-Cal. They basically said in their state they would let any illegal alien qualify for Medicaid. And so the federal government taxpayer, whether you live in Kentucky or Georgia or whatever, is on the hook for funding millions of people who are not citizens in California as a result of these decisions. Made worse by the fact that during COVID, we expanded the pot.

to make sure that all of this money would never run out under enhanced medical problems, a time of great uncertainty. We've got to make sure the states have all of it. And what states have done, because they have to balance their budgets every year, is take that money and use it basically as a slush fund to enable them to do a whole bunch of other budget ingenuity to not actually balance their books because the federal government is picking up the back end in these block grants schemes.

in the Medicaid program. So obviously they don't want, you're sending money to us. Don't change that. Don't change that. The constituency winnows, right? Even Republican governors, you're in states, you're like, man, that's a lot of money. Like, don't change that. Keep that here. Problem is between Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security, there is 75% of your federal budget that Congress never votes on at all. And the reason they never vote on it all is it's on autopilot. And unless you make changes to that, it will go away entirely.

You're now $36 trillion in debt. Your ability to finance all of that shit comes to an end when somebody calls their cards to the table. What the House Republicans are trying to do, and I'm with the Chip Roy's of the world on this, is actually make reforms that would continue to serve the targeted population for Medicaid, but put work requirements in it. And then you get guys like Nick Lolota

Who are like, I got an idea. Let's raise taxes on 50 states of small businesses in this country in order to ensure that I don't have to wither democratic attacks about a clearly fraud ridden system of Medicaid. And like, here's the thing, man, like that just on the baseline is.

We just went through a couple months of getting headlines of like, Elon Musk found out that USAID was spending $50 billion on educating trans people in Venezuela. It's like we've gotten story after story about how the government has been lighting the money we send them on fire. Right. And his takeaway is,

We got to send the government more money. Yeah. What? And I'm not under any illusion and none of you are under the illusion that somehow if we made all of those Doge cuts statute that we would somehow eliminate the national debt. I don't think that. None of us think that. No. It's part of the false. Right. That's part of the whole false thing. We're not voting on 75 percent of the budget. Right. Like it is. Don't pretend like we are. Right. Don't pretend that we are.

But in that tweet, what he's saying is this is going to breathe new life with $300 billion into this discussion. None of that is a discussion of actually tackling that debt. No. It's about paying for a SALT deduction.

for his rich people in his district. And so every small business around the country and every other state has to pay for a higher deduction for his constituents. And I understand the politics of it. Who happened to, by the way, elect a government that thinks it's perfectly appropriate to take 50 some odd percent of your constituents' money? Right. Like that's where they live and that's what they do. And God bless them. I understand the politics of it. These people elected you.

I get it. And to your point earlier, we have a very small majority that is built on people in these high tax states that make up part of this Republican majority. I get it. From a policy standpoint, it doesn't make any sense. It's garbage. And it's definitely unfair. It's garbage. And it's especially...

It's especially insulting to wrap it in the language of this other stuff you're talking about, about protecting a new Republican working class majority when that is not what SALT deduction is. Let's be honest. You can look at the tables of how this benefit actually goes out on a percentile basis to taxpayers. Newsflash. It's not to working class Americans. Also, imagine telling.

The vast majority of the 70-some-odd million that voted for President Trump last year when he talked about tax deductions and...

preserving tax cuts and all of those things, that the new Republican Party stands for codifying and expanding entitlements in this country on the backs of small businesses, and that the only thing that we really care about is the revenue flow in which to do so. Do you think that that Republican majority would look the same? Like, of course not. That's not a Republican Party any of us signed up for. Like, the crazy thing is either you believe...

That this is taxpayer money that the government is fortunate enough to deal with and you ought to ensure spend it wisely or you don't. And the you don't part of it is where Democrats are. That they just think that this is their money one way or another. You're fortunate enough to live in the United States of America. We do as you see fit and we'll tell you what the rules of the road are later. Those are the two differences between this party. When you muddy that water, you are creating –

An inability to ever win elections at any point ever again, because I understand that people, there's social conservatives, there's fiscal conservatives, all kinds of things that have brought you into this tent. And I agree, the working class component, very important to what President Trump has brought. But let's not mistake that for a buy in to a Democrat light agenda.

That is everything to do with expanding entitlement state, living in a socialist country, because that's what it is, by the way. That's what this is. Socialism. Expand entitlements, tax unsympathetic characters in order to pay for it, run up massive debts and then turn around and be like, ah, you know, we did what we could. We did what we could. That's what socialism is. That's how the decline of every socialist nation that we've ever seen in this country is.

Like that's not what the Republican Party stands for. It has to be an adult in a room at some point to be like, yeah, I'm going over this ledger here. It's 75 percent of the shit that we're that we are dealing with. We're not voting on. Maybe we should take a look at that.

Maybe it is that the American taxpayer deserves a little bit more out of the already 36% that small businesses are paying or what have you. Not to mention the fact that we've got the biggest chasm in

in the most progressive tax code in the history of the world, in that you've got the top 10% paying 65%, 70% of the taxes. The top 50% pays 98% of our federal income taxes. Yeah. I mean, just look at this stat, right? Right.

Okay, what we're doing here is trying to figure out how people who don't pay taxes pay fewer taxes. Like, are we just paying people? Yeah, we're dividing zero by zero. That's what we're doing. So now we're just figuring out how to pay people to not pay taxes. Right, and there's 7 million American males that are working age that are not disabled that are out of the labor participation force in this country. Like, have some fucking pride in your country. Pick up a fucking oar and rope.

Like this is not the shit that I ever thought of with the Republican Party, where you're like, well, let me think of the most sympathetic audiences to get to. And let me let's throw them a tax. I understand they're paying zero into our collective good. But let me make sure that we codify our political support by making sure that they pay negative two thousand five hundred dollars a year.

Pick up a fucking oar and row. Either we're in this together or we're not. That's the only winning message the Republicans have ever had. And believe it or not, as is evidenced by the Wisconsin election you pointed out from years ago, people appreciate that because vast majority of you out there are watching the deduction on your taxes. You're wondering where the hell it went and you're putting in a hard goddamn day's work to earn it.

And it just evaporates. So you get guys like this who are like, yeah, it's okay. They don't have to work. I don't want to take the political heat. Yeah.

It's just pathetic. It's tough. I don't blame, first of all, I don't blame the speaker and Jason Smith and those folks who are trying to get this past the finish line. They have to entertain all this insanity because they don't have anything to lose. I think they've done a really good job to get it to this point. I hope they can move it forward. But the reason we're so animated about this is not because of this bill. I think they're going to get this bill done. I think it's going to look good.

It's that you can't have a foothold in a Republican Party, a conservative party that thinks that it is the government's money. You can't have it because then you'll have two parties that have it. And I can tell you for your kids, if you look at them, they're 10 and under.

They're not going to enjoy the country that we've enjoyed. They're going to be stuck with all the mistakes that we made. They're going to try to bail their asses out like all the socialist countries that have been failed states before us. Like that's the end of the story. Anyway, when we come back, we're going to lighten it up.

Well, we do. There's one thing I want to raise before we go to break, and that is this guy who's been nominated to run NASA. Another Capitol Hill item. Yeah. Have you heard about this guy, Jared Isaacman, by the way? Yes. This guy is an absolute badass. He comes from the business world. He's got all these jets. He's been to space a couple of times, and President Trump has nominated him to run NASA in the way that President Trump is running the government. So you have...

a business guy who's bringing a business mindset to a gigantic government program and hopes to improve it. And I know you guys have heard about him.

He's been nominated. Hopefully the Senate will take him up and vote on him this week. Is this for NASA? A lot of tech folks like him. Like Elon likes him a lot too, right? I think that was what I thought. I think that's right. Talk about an operation that need a little bit of reform. Yeah. Right? I mean, when you've gotten to a point where you have to outsource everything. Elon's like, I need help, man. Overrun. Right, right. I mean, it's...

It's the picture of that. I mean, you get this giant bureaucracy that's getting outpaced by private industry over and over and over again, and yet they have the ability to do great things. We saw what they did in the 60s with the Moon program and everything else. That's right.

They can do great things, but they need the right leadership. Also public-private partnerships and things like that, like thinking outside the box. You're not a bureaucrat that sort of pushes paper around. I would just like them to not strand astronauts in space for a very long time. That would be awfully nice. That would be great. That would be something to celebrate. If we can fix that, that would be great. Yeah. What's his name again? Jared Isaacman. Coming up this week? Hopefully. We need the majority leader to put him on the floor this week. Okay. All right. Well, that's a good flag. When we come back, we're going to get to the winner.

of the Tapper Award after this. You did all the right things. You worked hard, you worked your way up, and you invested your money in a 401k or other retirement plan. Your future is all set, right? Wrong. The retirement system as we know it is currently under attack from misguided policymakers in DC. The Trump tax cuts are set to expire this year. Renewing them will be a big fight in Congress. Right now, the tax code protects 401ks, IRAs, and other plans that help you save.

Some people want to change that. Your representatives in Congress must protect the tax advantages that more than 100 million Americans rely on to save for retirement. You deserve policies that build on the current retirement system to secure your financial future, not jeopardize it. If Americans know one thing, it's resilience. To stay resilient, we need immediate action from our leaders.

Head to helpusretire.org to take action and reach out to your representatives in Congress today. Help Us Retire is sponsored by the Investment Company Institute, representing asset managers, serving individual investors. Ladies and gentlemen, the winner of this year's Tapper Award for Excellence in Concealing Biden's Decline is Joe Scarborough.

Well deserved. I mean, what a victory. I was looking at the votes as they were coming in. It was a landslide. It was a real blowout. We tallied it up. The crack team here, led by Spaghetts and Wolf, tallied everything you had to say on YouTube. My God.

90.5% had Scarborough winning that joint. Drubbing. Yeah. It turns out when you have your whole segment be, Hey, cut this tape. This is the best Joe Biden we've ever seen. You know, the theatricality of the entire exposition that, that Scarborough had sold clip. He sold it and he sold it. And clearly he over, oversold it. He definitely did. Uh,

So we've taken the liberty of thinking about how we would present such an award. We're open to suggestions on that. We understand that Jake Tapper is trying to sell a book. He's reached out with some interest in coming on the Variety program. We've contacted his bookers to see if that's a likelihood. Perhaps we could present him with an award that he could bestow.

upon morning jail. Wouldn't that be nice? Oh, fantastic. It would be nice. I just think it's a nice gesture for all the hard work that they've done. Okay, guys. Hannah Trudeau. Hannah Trudeau. Um...

For those of you who weren't with us, we highlighted a story about a journalist turned Democratic politician. She had a whole lot to say about how she understood the Democratic Party and they were all letting their constituents down. She could do it better. She described herself as working class. We questioned some of that and at which point she engaged us and said, well, I'd be happy to come on the show and discuss the specifics. So we gave her two weeks and we reached out and reached out and reached out.

And she was nothing. So we decided last Thursday to do a show that highlighted some of the questions that we had in her absence. Right. Knowing that, you know, if again, she has a change of heart, she can come on and just discuss all of that.

She didn't. And so we did the show, which was, by the way, very good. Excellent. It was very good. If you didn't catch that last Thursday, you should tune in. But she responded not to our inquiries about her coming on the show, but to the show again itself. And I thought that was interesting. Yeah. It's an approach. Graphic four, if you don't mind.

She first starts by, "Too young women who are thinking about running for office. We know how this goes. I reached out to the Ruthless podcast about policies that impacted my family growing up here in New Hampshire. They chose personal attacks on my look, style and dating." Okay. So that didn't happen. Everything she describes was an absolute lie.

And like to instantly catch herself as the victim being like to young, especially single women. Like this is a misogyny play. Right. So it actually made me think she'd maybe qualify for a Democratic primary. Yeah. I would point out that what she's describing as attacks on on her, none of those were levied.

until she ghosted us for two weeks and we were merely working with the material that we had. The questions that seemed to contradict her message... Yeah, she makes it sound like she sent us a white paper of all of her policy positions and we ignored her, which of course is not true. She had no contact with the Ruthless Variety Program in the intervening two weeks. She offered to come on the show, discuss her policies. We reached out multiple times, gave a lot of time, kept asking,

And then we're like, OK, let's go through some facts. Yeah, it's like. And she's like, I am being attacked for being a single young. No, you're not being attacked for being a single young woman. You're being attacked because you're saying you're running for Congress in New Hampshire. You live in D.C. You have a Ferrari to sell in Miami. And a place in Manhattan. And a place in Manhattan. I mean, those are those are legitimate questions that anybody in the media should ask you. Personal attack on my looks. I don't remember saying anything about it.

looks. Well, that was a lie. I mean, we didn't say a single thing, but she can go off. Go off, lady. I like to paraphrase President Trump. There's plenty of material to work with on that, but we didn't. We didn't do that. We didn't do that. Her style. Well, if your style is having a Ferrari...

If that's style, I guess. You know, what I hear is that she didn't deny that the Ferrari was hers. Yeah. Well, she. That was to me the funniest part of all of this. She seems to acknowledge that the Ferrari is hers. It's like we were being extra careful because we're, you know, extremely highly trained journalists.

And how we just provided what we have seen. We didn't know if the, what was the name of this website? Luxie. Luxie was her profile. Luxie claims that they do research and they check identification and everything before they let profiles be posted. She essentially just acknowledged it's all real. Okay. So all of our reporting was completely true. Yeah. Yeah.

Yeah. So, you know, she ingests all that and tries to reframe it, which, you know, that's why she's a politician. And just to keep with the truth, Luxie says that it is not a sugar daddy website. They have definitively said that. They say that. They told everyone. Right. It is not. So it's important to add that disclaimer. Yeah, that's important that we know and you know as a listener, it is not a sugar daddy website. But so then she wasn't done with that.

She came back with yet another because we invited her on again, basically said, not only are you welcome, like we renew our efforts and we'll valet your Ferrari. Yeah, we offered to valet the Ferraris. Yeah. Thoughtful of us. She came back with that on Graphic 5 saying, sorry, gentlemen, I like fashion and Medicare for all. Oh, interesting. $15 minimum wage.

You can try to shame me into not running. No, no, no. We're not trying to do that, ma'am. Oh. Let me be very clear. I want you to run. I have no interest in shaming you out of running for New Hampshire. One, because you hate progressives, but not for being a fabulous woman. Live free or die. Hashtag NH politics. So she's like, it's really good.

I want to add something real quick. Go ahead, Josh. I was just going to say, it is a shame she decided not to come because I know Spaghetti would have loved to valet that Ferrari. I mean, he would have given anything to just drive a car that was made by his countrymen. Made in his homeland. Really sort of the pinnacle of Italian power in a lot of ways. Right. So this is another little tired thing. We all showed you guys these images.

And for her to be like, sorry, gentlemen, I like fashion and Medicare for all $15 minimum wage, Medicare for all. She's running as like the people's champion, fighting for the working class. Like she's, she says that over and over and over and over again. Where would she get the idea of this? Like Medicare for all that, like someone should pay for all her stuff. Where would you get this idea? Can we get graphic sex?

Oh, boy. The caption says, thank you for buying me 20 Birkins and Kellys in less than one year because you said I, quote, had to have them.

For not playing the Hermes game and for paying twice the retail to get the colors I want. I wish you could see this. You would smile and laugh. The exotics were your favorite. You named every piece. This is our working class champion. So for people... I mean, like, why can't everyone just, you know, pay for my stuff? Yeah, and we can't see it, and we are smiling and laughing. Well, I just want for people to understand this if maybe you aren't familiar with the handbag game.

Josh, can you describe what it is to get a Birkin, a Birkin bag? Look, purses in the highest end of quality have a limited availability and no more so than Birkins and Kellys. They live in an Hermes family.

as one knows, but they're not available in an Hermes store. In fact, you need to be what they would consider a high-end customer, somebody who's purchased tens of thousands of dollars of retail in order for them to even discuss whether they have them in the store at all. Like they don't, you can walk in to a Birkin store or to a Hermes store and say, let me see the Birkins. They could have a hundred of them in the back. They'll say no.

Like they have to know you and then they'll like offer you the chance to observe. And so what happens is these things, I think they retail from like $15,000 to $18,000. Holy, for a purse? But what happens is in the aftermarket, which is what she's talking about I think here, is that they're like double that.

because you don't have access to exactly what it is you want. So people who actually obtain them put them for sale. Yeah, but to put a finer point on it for our audience here, you're looking at a closet of 20 Birkin and Kellys, so you're looking at a retail value, conservatively, of like a quarter million dollars. We had an expert evaluate and they anticipated it's well over $300,000 in handbags for our working class champion who

doesn't understand why everyone can't just buy you stuff. Why can't someone else just pay for your stuff? It makes sense. How else is she going to transport her hammer to the mill? Yeah.

You know what I mean? Like she needs something to hold it in. She needs something to hold her tools. You can't just walk from your Ferrari to the mill and carry all your tools. You got to have a bag. She started as just like a human interest story and then she engaged us and so we're like, all right, we got stuff to say. And now she's like the perfect depiction of your modern day Democrats.

Yeah, the limousine liberal. Where she's like, yes, I want you to pay for health care for absolutely everybody, but I am going to enjoy $400,000 worth of handbags, a Ferrari. And as you can see from our next post. There's more? In Graphics 7.

A palatial townhouse in which she says she's thanking a significant other of hers. My understanding is not the significant other that we framed up in the first episode that we did on this last Thursday, but a different one. Thank you for giving me my dream home. She got a house? Got a house. She got a house. Got a house. You're telling me she has $300,000 worth of handbags and a free house? Yeah, and a Ferrari. Okay, hold up. So...

Maybe you do want the kind of person who can finesse houses and quarries. Imagine the deal-making skills right here. No, I mean, it goes – honestly. Finessing. You want to talk about somebody who can get a deal? This is somebody. She's limited in her utility. On a journal salary, bro. But what she's got to work with, boy, is she may pay it off. I mean, this is amazing. Oh, my God. This is, again, like – Millions. Millions.

the perfect encapsulation of what the left is now. It's people with mansions in Manhattan and Ferraris and half a million in clothes and purses being like, I'm the champion of the middle class and the working class. This is amazing.

I mean, so, you know, but here's the thing, Hannah, if you're listening and I know you are because you've responded to each thing. Come on in. We can discuss all of this. I think you can tell we have a sense of humor about it. I think everybody would enjoy it. If you don't, you just want to kind of chirp off the sidelines and do kind of what you've been doing already. We got more.

We can keep doing this as long as you want. We have not hit the bottom of the barrel of the stuff that we're working on. Let me just tell you, it gets even more interesting than we've already done. So, like, you want to keep playing this game, deal. Let's do it. Let's do it. Or you can come in and, you know. It's a lot easier. Be like a leader about it. Yeah. All right. So that's our Hannah Trudeau. You guys want a little bit of variety? Absolutely. Yes.

So there's some folks in Carolina. So this is a Carolina thing? So when someone says Carolinas, it's probably from South Carolina who tries to like launder their horrific reputation. It is South Carolina. You were right. I called it. Smug called it. It is South Carolina. Every time. Spartanburg, to be exact. Spartanburg. This is from the Post and Courier.

where they report that a nudist resort sits in a rural corner of South Carolina. It's naked 5,000 offers. It gives you a glimpse inside. It's a 5K. Yeah. Oh, yeah. It's a 5K. Okay. So you can go anywhere and do a 5K, but you can't go anywhere and run a 5K naked. You can do literally a 5K run completely naked. Okay.

My first question is, why would anyone want to do that? Well, it's a nudist colony. I think it comes with the territory. But we're all familiar with the human body. Yeah. There are some serious, shall we say, restrictions to comfortably running 5Ks without clothes on. Mm-hmm. Yeah.

You know, both male and female. Right. Like it's not, it's not a... You need some support. Well, apparently they've figured out how to do this. Track suits are out, birthday suits are in. At least that's the prevailing vibe at Carolina Foothills Resort's Buck Creek Streak.

on June 14th. So you may not be too late to sign up for this thing. It's a couple of short weeks away. The clothing optional race at the Dudas Resort in northern Spartanburg County has recorded 161 people that are signed up so far. My guess is this is not your typical marathon runner. No. Oh.

If you go to the turkey trot and drop your drawers, you're probably going to get arrested. Not so at the Buck Creek Streak. They've got a nice little...

Like New York Post style. Yeah, they do. Which takes place entirely within the confines of a private community and away from the public eyes. Folks can sign up until the day before the race, but race day sign up is limited to folks who have been there before and have already had their background check. Yeah. You know, if they have to have a background check that tells you the whole thing should not be happening. Yeah.

But you prepared the clothing optional nature of the resort doesn't extend to the pools in the hot tub. So there's no optional part of the pools of the hot tub. You have to be completely naked for those activities. Nudity is mandatory. Right. Nudatory. I hope there's a shower after the 5K before the hot tub.

also like in general never use a public uh uh pool or a public hot like in general you just want to sit never use a public pool human soup with other people who you don't ever use a public never use a public pool why would you do that there's chlorine man sit in human soup with people you don't know disgusting dude that's horrible

Think about that. Think about that. And this is, of course, I called it right off the bat. It's South Carolina. They found the one thing more disgusting than their barbecue. Monster based sauce. Dude, you're taking some territorial shots here, but I just want to like functionally understand what that. Imagine just as a, you know, a man, unless you're really not a blessed individual running 5K without any source of support. You're going to hurt yourself.

It strikes me as a really bad idea. I mean, you're going to hurt yourself. Everyone's going to hurt themselves. Big pain involved in that. But, I mean, that's the thing is this is clearly just sick people. This is sick people. If you have any familiarity with this particular run or any nudist run, we'd be interested in how people take care of this sort of thing. Like, is there— Bring back shame. In so many parts of life now, bring back shame. So many problems. I mean, you're just going to be bruising your danglers.

Hard. Bruising your danglers. It's just going to be all over. Let's put a fine point on it. Dangerous for a man. And imagine that mess. You know they have those volunteers that stand out and they have to give you water along the raceway. Can you imagine all that mess coming at you? Think about what you've got to see. No one's winning this race. Everyone's a loser. 5K is a little over three miles, right? Yeah. 3.1. So three miles plus with a helicopter, something's going to get turned around in there.

You're going to have a problem. Somebody is leaving this race with testicular torsion. Just like beanbags everywhere. I mean, how do you even...

You know what makes it worse is, I got to say, like 99% of the time these news colonies are just old people too. So it's just like now you're really. A lot of jiggling. It's just the worst situation for everyone. There's a lot more elasticity as the older you get in that particular region. Just a nightmare. Yeah. Now women are not immune to this either. They've got their own set of issues involved. Yeah, certainly do. She's Swiss.

Well, that's a great hard transition. I'm not even sure how one does this because I'm attempting to.

to introduce an interview that is somebody of great moral clarity and upstanding and very significant figure within the United States government. Somebody who's doing us a great good. Hard to do after that story, but I'm going to give it my best shot. Listen, you've heard her here before. She's absolutely terrific. Somebody who has fought the good fight for a long time and is now doing it on the inside for the first time here, Harmeet Dhillon.

I want to welcome to the program somebody you've heard here before, but she's now...

You got a pretty impressive title here, fellas. Something that is core to what Americans were talking about in terms of turning directions on a Biden administration to a Trump administration. She is the United States Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Division, Harmeet Dhillon. How are you? I'm great. Thanks for having me. Listen, a big undertaking. And for those of you who don't know, I'm

When the libs are in control of the Department of Justice, they basically insulate themselves and try to use it as an arm of their social agenda. There's probably no division where that is more present than the one that you're currently heading up. Yeah, I would agree with that. People have written in former Republican administrations how tough a nut to crack the Civil Rights Division has been because it is a part of the—

executive branch. So you would think when administrations change, the policies change and the career people will go along with that. And nowhere is that less so in the entire federal government than the Civil Rights Division, where you find people who've spent their entire careers there doing their social justice agenda, and they're not very happy to be told that the policies have

have changed. And so it's been quite an interesting several weeks since I got sworn in. You've had an incredibly long and distinguished career in the legal community.

You've also been a huge part of the larger conservative movement over the years. Confluence of those two things and your work in civil rights and all of these pertinent issues that you're working on now gave you the qualifications to be a part of this. First of all, we're all glad that you're there because we've seen this come and go with administrations in the past where you're right. The Civil Rights Division in particular is used as basically an enforcement arm of the liberal left and

to try to get people to cow to things like DEI policies. I imagine day one, you step into this joint. It's pretty daunting to try to figure out how to navigate all of that in a system that's literally built, in large part, to try to resist what it is that you're up to. Well, so there's a few interesting themes going on here. One is that the right lawyers—and I gave a speech about this at the Federalist Society last week—

Conservative lawyers, they've got good credentials. They go out and they have their loans and they decide the best way to make a living for the most part, successful ones, is to join a big law firm where you're basically doing defense work. You're not doing plaintiff civil rights work. So there is a dearth of lawyers in our side that is willing to go for the jugular and file lawsuits that advance the law.

agenda of the conservative movement, sort of originalism, restrained, adhering to statutes, and sort of protecting law enforcement for all people and not just for one side. Like seeing a career as basically an activist rather than sort of a career as a monetary value. Correct. Right. So that's a thing. Now, I have happened to do that, as you say, for my 32 years of my law practice.

Since day one, I've gone to court to protect religious liberties and girls in sports, religion at the United States Supreme Court, winning three cases there during COVID and suing governors. So that's sort of a mindset of using the law as a tool on our side. And

Luckily, what I've been able to do is find a number of lawyers who have also come into the government who have the same viewpoint as I do and the skills to back it up. And what we found when we came on to our job was, as you can imagine, a number of, you know, you've seen those pictures when the Obama DOJ, not the DOJ, but the White House turned over. You saw all these officials standing there like that. It was like that in the DOJ. A lot of crossed arms. A lot of crossed arms, a lot of furrowed brows, a lot of resistance.

resistance theater yeah and so um i made it you know i had to do a bunch of hr training and ethics and you know very important how to use the government credit card and all of that for the first week so you know sort of eight days and i'm like okay let's get to work and i wrote a memo for each of the 11 sections of the civil rights division saying okay a little bit of just guidance here want to make sure everyone's on the same page of what your job is now

And it started with what the statutes are that we enforce. So let's say the housing statute, we enforce the Fair Housing Act or if it's employment, Title VII or sports, Title IX. And then I said, these are the president's executive orders that pertain to these subject matters. Get rid of DEI and get rid of...

whatever it is, you all know what the president has ordered out there. And this caused shockwaves.

How dare we enforce the law? The Department of Justice. The Department of Justice. And, you know, we also had some backlogs in some areas that some people didn't want to really, maybe wasn't being done efficiently, FOIA and some other things. So what we did is, you know, the areas where we were sort of shifting resources to others, we kind of shifted some of the managers to those areas like...

Like call it customer service, responding to FOIA requests, which is citizens asking what's going on in my government. I think that's important. It was a six-month backlog in that section. There's no transparency. There's also a Complaint Adjudication Bureau. So we transferred some people to that. And all in, over 220 lawyers, which is about half the department, quit the Civil Rights Division. Wow.

You're like, well, mission accomplished. Moving on. So look, I am assuming the best with others, and we are working hard. As you can see on social media, I hear about something happening. I mean, as we're speaking this afternoon, we've opened up an investigation into the mayor of Chicago's statements over the weekend that look like real

racial preferences and hiring there of a particular background, which is illegal. And so we're opening up an investigation to see if that's indeed happening. And so things are happening in real time. You have a head of the Civil Rights Division who's in touch with social media. A lot of

information comes to me that way and then we open investigations. We work with the EEOC in cases like this one I just mentioned. We work with Department of Health and Human Services, the GSA and Department of Education in cases of higher education discrimination, anti-Semitism and DEI. These are joint investigations that we're doing because those agencies give grants and so the grant making is at risk.

when they fail to follow the law. This is how it should be. Yet, you know, again, this is sending shockwaves through higher education that the money that they get from the federal government is associated with a promise to not break the law. So that second part is problematic for some of these schools. I'm curious on two parts of this. Like, number one, how do you deal with that issue in higher ed, in particular with DEI, where you've got some of these universities who are now –

doing DEI by a different name and sort of like relabeling these officers who would have been a DEI officer is like, now I'm an enrichment officer or whatever. And then how do you deal with the issue? I'm curious at DOJ, because we've seen this across the Trump administration as he sort of tackles this bureaucratic morass of like this idea of malicious compliance when it comes to some of these issues where you see these bureaucrats who are

Trying to actually screw up the agenda of the president by pretending they're actually complying with it. Are those issues you're dealing with? 100 percent all day long. So on the first one, we are relying on whistleblowers in these institutions as well as great journalists.

One of the beauties of Elon Musk owning X has been to really galvanize citizen journalism. And so we don't have to get stuff filtered through the nightly news. And now we can actually get direct information. Chris Ruffo has done some great journalism. Yes, no question.

I'm in touch with him whenever I see a journalist out there that is interested in sharing information. We use that as a starting point. We have to do our own investigation. Agencies like EEOC have subpoena power over certain areas. And so we are very focused. And even as I just mentioned with the

less staff, we're highly motivated to get to the bottom of this. So we're working hand in hand with the White House and others on that. On the malicious compliance, this was flagged for me before I even got sworn in. Political appointees at a high level have some training that the White House does. And so among that, there's a public post on LinkedIn of a former government lawyer saying, this is how you mess up and throw sand in the gears of the new administration.

If someone gives you a direct order, you send 20 emails asking for clarification. You basically require them to break it down for you like you're really stupid. And then you write a long memo saying why you can't do it. And we've experienced this. Just this morning, I had a staff meeting with some of my colleagues, and one of them recounted an instance of that. So how you deal with that is once you realize who's doing it,

you make it very clear that you view that as obstructive and insubordination and they kind of, of course each of us has to follow our ethical precepts. If you don't like this job, you can certainly quit like people did, that's fair. That's what I would do if I were given orders at work all day that I absolutely for some moral reason couldn't do. But what they're doing is taking the money and taking the job and keeping it and trying to undermine. That's insubordination, it's not tolerated.

Government workers have certain protections. So you have to document what's going on and give them a direct order. And if they refuse to follow it, then job consequences follow. But it's not as fast as in our workplaces where if this happens, you're like...

Employment at will. Sorry, you're fired. Here's a box. Get your stuff. Don't let the door hit you. This is not how things work in the government. So luckily I do have a background in employment law, as does my chief of staff. So we are familiar with how to do this. Well, Michael asked about higher ed, and obviously anti-Semitism has been rampant.

rampant on these college campuses over the last couple of years. I know you guys are doing an awful lot to try to crack down on that. I wonder if you could tell everybody what you're doing. You know, it's really troubling. My alma mater, University of Virginia, has gotten two letters from my department and one of my deputies about this. And so

What you're seeing all over, and it's just really shocking to me, actually. I mean, last week I gave a speech at the DOJ on the 80th anniversary of American troops liberating people from the concentration camps. And, you know, our country has been a leader in these issues, and yet on college campuses, and I think turbocharged by foreign influence and foreign money. You know, other elements of our government are looking at this. But...

professors are openly blocking access of people who are visibly Jewish from getting to classrooms. You saw the lawsuit in Columbia of janitors who were held hostage. They aren't even Jewish. They just happen to be held hostage by these Hamas protesters. We're giving visas to people who hate America, and they're surprised, and all these nonprofits and the ACLU are suddenly surprised when you get deported or on a deportation order for nothing.

violating the terms of your visa. So we have to enforce our laws. Our laws are actually pretty good, but people have gotten used to a lack of enforcement. And it is illegal in America to discriminate against people on the basis of their religion.

It breaks my heart to hear of Jewish students on campuses, Northwestern and some others. Their parents have told me at events, their child who wears a yarmulke feels unsafe crossing the campus. That is shameful. It is shameful for all of us in the United States. And we're putting an end to it at the Department of Justice and the Rights Division. It's really, really well done. I mean, look,

If you take a step back, part of the reason why this job is so difficult and why previous administrations have been unable to actually get their arms wrapped around it is you've got the whole political connotation that's with the civil rights division. And the Democratic Party's insistence through the mainstream media that they sort of have a codlock understanding.

on what civil rights actually are. And so they therefore then have all of these organizations that sort of dictate what that is. And it's always a leftist agenda. But you have a background in all of this. You've fought this your entire career. And so you kind of see it coming. You know what you're there to expect. And when you walk into a place like this and you see all of this stuff is just sort of a political mask to try to get this far left progressive agenda through, you

I've got to imagine the weight of your entire career gives you a significant amount of viewpoint on how you go about undercutting what it is they're trying to do here. Well, it's interesting. So at the level of assistant attorney general, in prior Trump administration, prior Republican administrations, including the first Trump administration, you have people coming in and

Their goal is really to, it's like, call it 10 out of 10 bad. We want to slow it down to 6 or 7 out of 10 bad and not really mess with these career people. It's a hassle. And just slow it down. There's no concept of weaponizing it in the other direction or just enforcing the law even-handedly. Let's start with that. I'm a little older than some of the ones who have done this job before, and I do have a long career. And so I think an important superpower when you come to D.C. and

too many judges and people who serve in administrations don't have this, is you have to not crave being liked. You have to not care about... You're singing our rap sheet right here. I don't care about being invited to cocktail parties. I don't care if people like me or not. I'm a plaintiff's trial lawyer. That's my superpower. I do not care. And that is a necessary. And so I've surrounded myself with people like that as well. We want to do what is right. We don't need to be liked by the rank and file or by the plaintiff's part.

And so, yes, during my hearing, every single civil rights group in the United States came out against me. She's not qualified. She doesn't know civil rights. Uh,

I have won tens or hundreds of millions of dollars for my clients in civil rights cases using the civil rights laws for them, but from a different perspective. It's not a leftist perspective. It is not a leftist perspective. The United States Supreme Court, those cases where we challenged the shutdowns of people of faith to be able to pray, those are civil rights cases. The cases of parents who are denied the right to control their children's children's

transgender indoctrination behind their parents' backs in the schools. Those are civil rights cases. And cases of people being fired for their political views under California law and the laws of some other states, James Damore, his case when he sued Google, that's a civil rights case. And so, yes, we can use civil rights for the good. And I'm proud to say today where there was no such job where you could do it 32 years ago when I got out of UVA Law School, today there are non-profits,

that do this work every day. And so where priests, penitent priest privilege is being threatened in Washington state, there are civil rights groups that are pro-First Amendment that are stepping up to help. And so the world has changed and we need to change with it. I think the larger point that I'm sort of wrapping my head around is it's not just about the current policy of the president

So much as it is this larger redefinition of civil rights back to its original intent of what civil rights ultimately is, we joke all the time on our show about how

This era sort of post-George Floyd and DEI and all of these things will go down as one of the more racist times in American history. Obviously pales in comparison to slavery and some of the civil rights activity in the 1960s, for example. But in modern day context...

racism is just racism. That's right. Right. And being able to just cut through the vernacular, the modern day definition that is entirely formulated by the left to go back to the original intent of what civil rights law ought to do is at least part of the remit here. It absolutely is. And today that, look, we do have a history of racism in our country. We have a

Shameful time periods where blacks were enslaved and then they were considered to be less than fully human. And then there was segregation even in our lifetimes. And today in 2025, like I said, we've been dismissing some consent decrees, ancient consent decrees that are 50 years old. We did one a few weeks ago.

Look, if I see some segregated school district in the United States today that is disadvantaging people of color, that's a problem. But I'm not seeing that. What I'm seeing is the opposite. I'm seeing special advantages for certain minorities, not others, and disadvantages. I mean, we've seen this in San Francisco where, gosh, there are too many Asians getting into the elite magnet school. So let's stop that. Let's shut that down and let's impose busing instead. Bussing in 2024. Yeah.

The United States Supreme Court wrote in Students for Fair Admissions that Harvard couldn't get away with doing this anymore. That's the law of the United States. And so what you're seeing, to your point of they're simply changing the title of the DEI into something else, or here's what they're doing. It's very transparent. Everyone has to now do a personal statement statement.

that has them describe how they have overcome difficulties in their lives, and if they have, and how they've helped other people overcome difficulties. And I saw this in UC Berkeley's application for chemistry graduate student admissions. Describe what difficulties you've overcome in your life. I mean, organic chemistry, does that count? I mean, that's a difficulty for me. I remember that when I was pre-med at Dartmouth. But no, it's irrelevant to being a good student.

chemistry PhD. And so that's how they're doing it. They're openly defying, Harvard is openly defying this administration. This administration is taking away billions of dollars.

And it's all going to shake out at the end of the day that you can have whatever discrimination you want in your admissions. You can't get federal money. And everybody except for Hillsdale is taking federal money in some way or the other in America. So those are the those are the facts of life, guys. It's going to be painful and they're going to learn that lesson. Does it?

Look, I try not to be surprised by anything that the left does these days, but you've been involved in this area of the law for an awful long time. You've seen the evolution of it. Do you ever, is it ever just jarring to get to a point where you've seen, you know, sort of a feminist movement that worked hand in hand with, you know, people right, left and center to get things like title nine across the finish line that now a feminist movement is working on

To ensure that women have to compete against men. Did you ever imagine at the beginning of your career when you're dealing with civil rights law, you're now sitting in this position that you are in, and the same people that were arguing for equal rights, for fair representation, have also now gotten to a point where they're like, no, no, men in women's sports.

Well, so what's interesting is that's actually one of the areas where I'm seeing a very interesting pendulum swinging in the opposite direction. So Canary in the Coal Mine was an interesting case where I represented my first radical feminist client many years ago. I sued Twitter before Elon owned Twitter, and it was called Twitter. And this radical feminist, she calls herself a radical feminist from Canada, was objecting to a dude going into an address, going into the women's locker rooms and...

In this case, it was a man going by the name of Jessica Yanov. Jessica would bring shakedown cases in British Columbia, forcing largely immigrant women doing waxing in their homes to present as a woman, and he would, you know, surprise, take off the dress, and please wax my male genitalia. Horrific. I thought bake the cake was bad. These women were like,

Yeah, we're doing waxing in our homes because we don't want to touch your junk. And so this feminist was standing up for these women and their right to determine their own businesses and what they were willing to do in their homes. And she referred to Jessica as a he on X and was bounced. And X's rules did not allow you to be bounced for misgendering at the time. It wasn't even a thing.

thing, and they just changed their rules, they breached their contract with their users, and they did. I sued X, and I lost Twitter at the time. And I lost, and the judge said, you know, under communications decency act, which I'm sure you guys have talked about in some other episodes. So we lost, but that was it. I said, oh, there are feminists out there who are willing to stand up for real, old-fashioned women as God defined them. And now you have...

journalists, you have sports figures, Martina Navratilova, JK Rowling is a champion in this movement in the UK. To great personal expense and harassment even of these thankless actors and actresses whose careers they made. And the UK, the Supreme Court granted a case of these Scottish women who wanted women defined as

biological women, and they're ahead of the United States on that. And so it is actually a space where women, traditional older women, are taking back the space. And my nonprofit, before I started this job, we represented a lady in her 80s

who objected to a guy in the girls' locker room at the YMCA in Washington State saying, and she asked, do you have a penis? Awkward thing to have to say in the girls' public. This person was helping a child, was adjusting a child's bathing suit, and the woman's instinct was to be protective. And so that's an ongoing lawsuit in our country. But I think the pendulum is swinging on that issue, and I think that

with what you're seeing redefined in our military today. I think ultimately we're going to look back on this trans trend, and we haven't even gotten into the grooming and mutilation of children in our country. I think we're going to look back on that as being an era like we do of lobotomies and other disgraced medical practices in our country. It's not going to be viewed as a thing that is admirable in 10 or 20 years. 100%. I think.

Yeah. Yeah. So I wanted to ask you about anti-Christian bias, as you've seen it at the Department of Justice. I look back to something that

Like Obama suing, you know, the Little Sisters of the Poor and fighting them in court on the, you know, abortion mandate and Obamacare as like a seminal moment in this fight as it relates to, you know, Christians having objections to our federal government. I'm curious, you know, fast forward now, all these years later, what is it that you're seeing in that area? Yeah.

Yeah, so the president signed an executive order on the weaponization of the government against Christians. So we have a Christian task force, anti-Christian elimination of bias task force. And we had a meeting at the DOJ, I think in my second week, and many cabinet heads came there and told stories of how in their own agency, for example, in the military, Christians

Christian priests were told not to, you know, be so overt about their Christianity. You know, there was widespread thousands of people lost their jobs, including throughout the federal government, for refusing to take the COVID shot on the basis of their faith.

and so many other examples where faith, and particularly the Christian faith, has been marginalized. And we're ending that in this government. We as a federal government, we don't have jurisdiction over everything, but we certainly have jurisdiction over the hundreds of thousands of government employees, and ending that bias is important. And faith is important to our country. It's literally the basis on which our country was founded. And so we are making that front and center in DOJ civil rights,

And other agencies are doing that as well. Yeah, man. Well, I can't thank you enough for doing it. Also pretty wild to think you'd invite a priest in with the collar and be like, hey, can you tone it down a little? You know, right? Well, it's sort of what I do. It's kind of the job description that God gave me and my church gave me. So, no, we want people to be...

We don't prefer one religion over the other as a matter of law in the United States. That's what the First Amendment means. It doesn't mean we ban and expel faith. And...

You know, faith is so important to providing so many resources in our country. The left would like us to believe that the government is our mother and our father. The government provides you all the resources. It's a form of communism. That's right. And in fact, it is faith institutions of all faiths that are the first on the ground in instances of the flooding in North Carolina and in providing resources to people who are homeless and hungry, adoption services for unwanted children.

And so that faith is important to actually living a better and safer life in the United States. And countries that have eliminated that have seen a degradation of their quality of life. You see that in Europe as faith has become marginalized. And so it's great to see that resurgence here in the United States. Really, really well said. In pursuit of actual civil rights for the first time in a long time within the Department of Justice. Harmeet Dhillon, thank you so much for joining us. Thanks for having me today.

Man, she is so smart, and we're lucky to have her in that job. She's obviously working very hard, and she has a ton of issues in front of her, and it seems like she's knocking them down one by one. And anybody from the DOJ, if you happen to listen to our nudist colony segment, please do not arrest the Ruthless Variety program. Arrest them. We didn't do anything. We did nothing. All we did is report. We report judiciles. Exactly.

Oh, I love it. Remember to like and subscribe here on the YouTube channel. Give us your comments for the question of the day, which is should Congress investigate the ultimate cover up that the Biden administration did? Maybe even some journals. I know that that's a little touchy, but...

Hey, it's worth talking about. Put your thoughts in the comments. We'll read them here on Thursday. With that, fellas, I think we did it. I think so. Absolute banger of an episode. Gentlemen, thank you so much to Harmeet Dhillon. Thank you so much to our dear listeners. Remember, if you have not yet subscribed to the YouTube, it's more fun and video. So until next time, minions, keep the faith, hold the line, and own the libs. We'll see you Thursday. Stay ruthless.