Overtime – Episode #674: Tim Alberta, Laura Coates, Buck Sexton

This episode is brought to you by Progressive Insurance.

Fiscally responsible. Financial geniuses.
Monetary magicians. These are things people say about drivers who switch their car insurance to Progressive and save hundreds.
Visit Progressive.com to see if you could save. Progressive Casualty Insurance Company and affiliates.
Potential savings will vary. not available in all states or situations.
Welcome to an HBO podcast from the HBO Late Night series, Real Time with Bill Maher. All right, here we are, a staff writer at The Atlantic whose latest book is called The Kingdom, The Power and the Glory, Tim Alberta.
She is CNN's chief legal analyst who anchors Laura Coates live on CNN. Laura Coates.
And he hosts the nationally syndicated radio program, the Clay Travis and Buck Sexton show. Buck Sexton.
All right. Okay.
Here are the questions from the people. What did you think of Obama's comments on the campaign trail that black men should get over their reluctance to vote for Kamala? Will that be effective? Yeah, he was pretty scoldy.
You don't usually see him like that. You usually see him kind of take the opposite end.
I think Wall Street Journal and the New York Times poll most recently has overall black support for Trump. Over 20%, by the way.
I think it might have been his last... That's just men.
I'm sorry, men. But we're speaking about the Obama speaking to the issue of black men and their support of Kamala Harris.
So Trump is making inroads with that demographic voting-wise. He oddly does better each time with immigrants, minority groups, people of color, the people who you...
Maybe it's not so odd. I mean, it tells me that the Democrats are a little bit nervous.
When you're losing 4-1, you're still losing badly. You are.
Come on. It's just relatively, yeah.
I mean, Democrats seem perhaps there's anxiety, but there's also the realization that I think people are criticizing Obama because there is blame to go around for why people choose not to support a particular candidate.

It might be sexism, it might be racism, it might be other factors as well.

So I think to single out a particular group has ruffled some feathers.

Having said that, if you're part of the group that believes you should not vote for someone on account of those factors,

then perhaps the scolding could be doled out more diplomatically, but you should hear it as well.

But what is the attraction? To Obama? I can... Well, hold on.
No, no, no. To Trump.
Machismo. Yes.
Thank you. Yes.
He's a baller. Success.
Alpha dog. The whole thing.
That is the appeal. And, I mean, every time people have this, it's like, the guy was...
He's a billionaire. He's a global celebrity.
He's been president. He's married to a supermodel.
Democrats need to stop thinking that this is some big shock. Who doesn't want to commit crimes and not go to jail? We didn't even talk about lawfare.
We didn't even talk about lawfare. But you do realize, just think about where we are as a society, that the criteria for being the president of the United States, where we dare to say the leader of the free world, our president, is somebody that you are drawn to simply because of bravado.
Not because of policy, not because of what they can do for you, not just your neighbor, but they can do for you and beyond. That's a devolution of what we think about in terms of what she looks like.
On the sexism, racism thing, which we're going to start hearing a lot as the polls get worse for Kamala, the Democrat Party, overwhelmingly... Democratic Party.
I'm sorry. Sorry.
Democratic Party. I don't know why that's such a burn.
I don't know. It's not a burn.
No, but all Republicans do that. I don't know why they think that's such a burn.
Democrat. I've never heard anyone who cared about it before.
This is the first time. Really? Yeah.
Really? Yeah. It just seems so...
Your listeners haven't... I feel like maybe a few here and there, but it's kind of a potato-potato situation.
I know, but it just seems... I don't give a shit.
Okay, but can I... Yes, of course.
The point I was trying to make is, the Democrat part, it is possible... Sorry.
The Democratic Party, it is possible that Kamala Harris just is not good at this.

And Democrats recognize that in 2020.

And to say racism, sexism right now after the performance she's put on is just preposterous. And many people are voting for the Republic Party for that reason.

That's funny.

What did you make of Melania's new book

where she indicates that she is pro-choice?

I didn't read that about her book.

I read a few things about her book.

I don't know why she's putting out a book.

I thought she was super private.

I don't care what first ladies think about policy as a rule.

And I don't mean that.

Democrat, Republican, first lady, very nice, hope they do some good charity work, or first husband, Doug Emhoff. No, it's true.
They're not elected officials. I don't care what they think about it just because they're married to somebody who's been given a lot of power to represent people.
So I would just say it doesn't matter to me. There's a lot of scuttlebutt in the news this week about Doug.
Believe all women, except when it comes to one who says that someone hit her across the face. Right.
Well, of course, we don't know if that's true. She says that it happened.
I'm not saying that it happened. I'm just saying that the standard used to be believe all women.
If people don't know what is going on, the Daily Mail is reporting that three women that she talked to contemporaneously, which has been the standard very often in these cases, that she said back in, I think, 2011 or something, they were at the Cannes Film con film festival he slapped her he thought she was flirting with the valet and he knocked up the nanny right that's confirmed that's that's confirmed yeah he definitely knocked up the nanny yes that's you know i mean but no i i don't know nobody knows masculinity okay what i'm saying is if this becomes more credible and we don't know yet i, a lot of the conservative outlets still aren't reporting it. So I wouldn't go after anybody for not reporting it yet because these things have to be checked out.
But if it becomes more credible, certainly on the level of Brett Kavanaugh, which was that kind of thing, was reported by everybody pretty quickly. Does the liberal media keep ignoring it? Yes, they will.
Absolutely. Wouldn't that make it look worse? Well, first of all, I think that, I mean, just to your point, yes, it is prudent to be cautious about any story that's reported until you have the supporting details so that the audience is able to effectively judge the veracity of a statement.
I think it's fair to investigate and look into matters that involve allegations of assault or otherwise. I think that's fair to do so.
What I don't think is fair is to, and I'm consistent on this on all accounts, is to tar and feather without more. I think you have to give information to people and you have to actually do your homework and background.
I don't think by not reporting, and again, I'm not familiar with all of the allegations that are involved here, but I think it is appropriate to investigate, as it is appropriate to be cautious before you simply put something into the ether that has no substantiation. Just be clear, though.
Yeah. I mean, let me ask you.
Just politically speaking, this is a problem for the Harris campaign, in large part because she is so ill-defined. We see that in poll after poll after poll for months now, right? Americans are trying to fill in the gaps around her, around her family.
This is an issue for the campaign that they're going to have to deal with now in the last, you know, four or five weeks of the election. And I'm just saying, regardless of whether more people come forward, regardless of what's confirmed or not confirmed, I think that there is now a little bit of blood in the water.
The nanny thing was the first drop, and now there's some more. And it's not going to be long now.
I can guarantee you that there are investigative teams at the Times and the Post and elsewhere that are looking into this. The Daily Mail also had that he was basically the worst kind of office sexist predator guy.
Daily Mail reported on that based on interviews that is law for people who work as law firm. So again, these are allegations.
I understand this. I do think it's very convenient that allegations, you know, demand more study, demand more evidence when it's really important for a Democrat that we don't all say, hold on a second, this guy seems like a huge jerk, and he is being used as a surrogate on the campaign for masculinity and talking about great things are.
But, you know, again, to be perspective here, he is not going to be president, and the guy on the Republic side who's running for president did these things himself. I mean, certainly was accused by Warren...
I mean, there was so many women who said he did. But yeah, you know, he had, in part, at least in one instance talking about, due process in a court of law.
It was a civil matter in one instance. It was a criminal matter in another, and you have more pending.
So it's not as if that only that grace,

so to speak, is afforded to a Democrat.

That's part of what the process has been

when you're looking at, as you call,

lawfare of someone like Trump

and many other Republicans and Democrats alike

who have had accusations floated

and have had to confront them.

Welcome to Peloton,

where change is a six-letter word that starts with you.

But don't just be the change you wish to see. Work at it, run at it, lift at it, and even keep at it.
With Peloton's all-access membership, you don't ever have to dip out on a workout, unless you're squatting. Track your progress, set pace targets, and if you're ready to lift, download the Peloton Strength Plus app.
Okay, this is the fun part. This is fitness, but personal.
So see you on the Peloton T at onepeloton.com find your push find your power peloton well i mean for example there were all it was there was mountains of evidence against hunter biden we were told hold on hold on hold on i mean the guy broke a whole bunch of different laws and actually should have gone to prison for a long time but he was joe biden's son no he stood trial after the political pressure was ratcheted up so much when they had already let a number of the most serious crimes, including money laundering, lapse from the statute of limitations. But on the lawfare thing, because this is important, we didn't get to this at all today, what is more likely that Donald Trump went almost 80 years of his life never once having a criminal indictment because he's a guy who...
He was president. Things changed.
Well, I mean, all of a sudden, he's never committed a felony, and then he's running problems again. And then he becomes president, and the circumstances are the same? No, they were going after things that were long before he was president.
But okay, fine. If you don't like that argument, there's one other argument.
They held all of these charges until the election. It is clear manipulation.
All of the charges... All the indictments, I mean.
Until the election year. All of the charges, except the dressing room, right? Which they extended the statute of limitations, and then she was funded.
The whole thing was a hit. But all the other ones have to do with he was in office.
He was the president. He asked for civil trial for Trump.
I mean, there was a civil thing with the Trump founding. There are so many that it's hard to know.
The future of the investigations dealt with factual allegations that surrounded his term in office and beyond. Yes, there is a reason he was never investigated for having interfered with the presidential election because he wasn't running.
You also can't have it both ways because when the House moves to impeach Trump on January 13th, the cry from the right is, where's the due process? Why are you moving so fast? What's the deal? But then when Merrick Garland chooses to take his time and be deliberate in bringing these indictments, Republicans are saying, oh, you're dragging your feet now to wait until it's election season. I hope you do sports betting or something, because the idea that a number of these different cases, none of these, all of these charges involve conduct that was, what, I mean, all of them, there's all these four different criminal cases, at least four years ago.
You're going to tell me that all this had to wait until the election year to bring the charges? You're going to tell me that Jack Smith, Jack Smith, for those who don't know, was moving at lightning speed with the help of Judge Chutkin in D.C. They were moving, ask any federal

prosecutor, ask anybody who has actually

looked at how long, I'm just talking about timelines

by the way, the whole thing was meant

to kneecap him before he could actually

get to election day and it was

meant to destroy him for political reasons

in an election year. And yet it's only helped him.

And yet it's only helped him. I hope it is the biggest

own goal the Democrats have ever had

in their lives. Buck, let's ask the federal prosecutor.
One's here. One of the reasons why this was delayed, in part, was not simply a matter of proactive or affirmative motions by the prosecution.
There was a defense team in multiple different jurisdictions who were filing motions to then delay and ask for delays and delay after delay. If the calendar had been such that what the prosecution alone wanted, you would have had earlier resolution, at least in the form of trial, not necessarily a conviction, but he's filed motions to defend himself.
And that has also delayed the calendar. I don't know.
Hold on. There are four different criminal proceedings against Donald Trump.
Okay. Four of them.
And there's New York, there's D.C., there's Atlanta, there's Florida. Florida's been tossed out, by the way.
So that's what a great case that was. By a real Trumper of a judge.
Well, I mean, but you know, but you can't have it both ways. I mean, Judge Chudkin clearly hates Trump and was sending January 6th, some of them nonviolent detainees, into the prison system for like 18 months.
Can I ask you a more philosophical question? Because there are people who are watching this who, I know people, because I live in Los Angeles and Hollywood and all that, and they will say, why are you even talking to him? And I just, I have no patience for people like this. They can kiss my ass.
I will talk to you all day. First of all, half the country agrees with you.
Are they all going to self-deport if one of the people... No, and honestly, could I...
First of all, thank you for that. And I just would add to it, like, for people who are saying that he's Hitler and the country's going to end, it's not true.
It's going to be okay. He's already been president.
If he becomes president again, you'll probably have a Democrat who comes around in four years. It's not the end of the Republic.
Let's start placing bets. It could be.
You want to start... It could be I mean? It could be.
We'll place some money on this one? I know you've got a bankroll, buddy. I hear stories.
I do. I do.
That's my mess. Okay.
Well, first of all, he could. Absolutely.
He's too erratic. There's just no way you can say he's not going to do this or not going to do that.
He's not going to destroy the country. He's going to do a great job, actually, but you don't agree with me on that.
What's your definition of destroying the country?

Is sabotaging the peaceful transition of power the hallmark of American democracy? Is sabotaging that not in service of destroying the country? I mean, how else would you define it? Joe Biden became president and has had four years, and the country has marched on, and everything has been fine. And the January 6th, which we didn't talk about I know there's a lot lot of things to talk about.
But, you know, there's a part of this that's left out. You know, I do have a lot of Democrat friends and Democrat people that I talk to.
I have co-hosted... I'm going to throw them under the bus.
I have co-hosted shows with Mark Lamont Hill. No, but I'm just saying.
I was going to say something nice about you. No, I was just going to say...
No No, look, these people who don't want me to talk, and they don't want you to talk to anybody who they don't already agree with who isn't on this side. And, first of all, you have done more for this country than I have, than all of those people have, and I appreciate it.
Thank you very much. Anyone who fought for this country? Well, CIA, but I tried to help out over there.
CIA is pretty rough. We do lose people.
It's a real thing. It's not the PTA.
Yeah, it is not the PTA. But thank you for that.
Yes, absolutely. But the frustration people have, though, to be fair, is not your mere presence.
I'll never get this question. I'm sorry to say that.
I just thought in like one minute. I was like, oh.
Only because he asked. Because this is part of the frustration.
Tim asked you a question. You didn't answer it.
I was about to, actually. No, no.
No, I mean, I can't. That was the frustration.
He asked you what was your definition of destroying the country. Is there a certain standard? I mean, that's a pretty broad question, to be fair.
Well, welcome to the land of broad. Right, yeah.
And that's the frustration. Sorry, though.
What I was going to say is that January 6th is held into context. First of all, I condemn January 6th as it happened, every day since it's happened.
The people who broke laws and hurt people and committed federal crimes should pay the price for that. I've never waved from that.
It's absolutely the case. Should he? I don't believe Donald Trump broke any laws.
What is the law that Donald Trump broke? And by the way, whenever I say this to people, they look at me and they say... That's a problem, perhaps, with the law.
And I'm not even talking about January 6th itself. To me, that was never...
That's a bit of a red herring. The thing that he did so wrong is the thing he still does every day.
He still has not conceded that election. He did not concede that election.
And you are fomenting something in this country that is unprecedented. So here's the context.
And this is where I'm trying. I swear I'm trying to come around to your point.
And that is that the 2020 election cannot be taken out of the context of a 2016 election that Hillary at different times absolutely did not concede. that some of my, unfortunately, former bosses in the intelligence community working with the Democrat Party decided to bring this absurd...
The Russia collusion investigation was insane. Nothing came out of this.
There were no charges out of this. The whole thing was a scam.
And Hillary didn't accept that she had lost the election in the early days afterwards. Except she showed up to the inauguration.
No, she showed up to the inauguration.

She showed up that night.

Before the cop crowed, she conceived.

But there was also, in 2020...

Good reference.

In 2020, there is a...

I got your boy in there.

In 2020, January 6th was a riot.

Riots are bad, riots are illegal.

That should not happen.

It came after months of riots

that were effectively a Democrat mobilization

Thank you. January 6th was a riot.
Riots are bad. Riots are illegal.
That should not happen. It came after months of riots that were effectively a Democrat mobilization of the BLM party.
Well, I mean, I lived on my, I was on my block and people came around and they shattered all the windows. They stole stuff.
And yeah, this is for social justice. And then there were people who were boarding up their stores because they were afraid that if Donald Trump won that election, then in cities across America, there would be rioting.
So the election was effectively held under a degree of duress to begin with, and Democrats were all in favor of the riots. Not only in favor of the riots that were going on, but we had the public health experts during COVID saying, oh, it's so important that we had these lunatics running around breaking things and lighting them on fire, that all of a sudden the public gathering statutes or public gathering events don't matter.
When did Fauci make that comment? I mean, when are these experts you're talking about... This absolutely happened.
I mean, any of you can go check it out. Mayor Bill de Blasio said it.
I mean, this absolutely... One of the things that's exhausting, frankly, is that, and this is real, is that over-talking does not make your argument more persuasive.
No, that's what's happening here, Buck. I'm not over-talking anybody.
I'm running every interview. Yeah, no, you're absolutely not over-talking right now.
Exactly. That was sarcasm.
Oh. No, no, no.
My response to you weren't over-talking me was sarcasm. My point is this.
You are saying all these different aspects of it, of how, you know, you're conflating January 6th with BLM, with health experts. And you actually just said that the election was held under duress.
Yeah. In what specific ways was the election held under duress? Because people were concerned about the trajectory of America and they felt that they had to turn out.
Duress is actually a legal term. And you know this quite well in terms of how it be used from your background in the CIA and otherwise, to suggest that our democracy, that people were turning out simply because they were under duress, that's the kind of fomenting of dishonesty that makes people, A, feel very disenchanted with the entire process, B, make them frustrated by the lunacy of simply bald assertions with no substantiation.
And C, wonder where you're getting your information from. All of those are valid points that you have to address before you go out and just say, this is all happening and everyone sees it when everyone does not see what you're seeing.
Well, I may respond. What you said ignored everything that I said before you started talking, which is that there were riots all through the summer of 2020, and there were business owners who were...
And there are photos of this. You can see this.
This is very obvious. This isn't like I'm coming up some conspiracy.
That were boarding up their businesses, because God forbid if Donald Trump wins. There was psychic damage done to the American people by a combination of the covid hysteria, which it was hysteria in a lot of context.
By the way, we don't have time to get into everything covid here right now. School should have been schools absolutely should have been open.
The mask mandates were bullshit. The lockdowns were absolutely pointless.
This was all total garbage. Beyond that, there was a sense that the left gets to riot and Kamala Harris raises money for them when they're supposed to get out on bail in Minnesota.
They burned down Minneapolis. Why? By the way...
I'm sorry, I'm not clear on what any of this has to do with sabotaging the transition of power. How did we get to this point? You just changed.
You just changed. No, stop.
I was talking about the election. I'm talking about the election.
You're talking about what happened on January 6th. I'm talking about what happened leading up to November.
I'm talking about November 3rd through January 6th. I've studied election law in all 50 states.
I know better than either of you, no offense, what happened in the election and what didn't happen. I wasn't talking about anything after November.
I'm talking about the election hell. I mean, it's like...
There's lots of important things to get to.

Do you think the Menendez brothers deserve to be paroled?

Here we go.

Catch all new episodes of Real Time with Bill Maher

every Friday night at 10.

Or watch him anytime on HBO On Demand.

For more information, log on to HBO.com.