#0020 Donald Trump - Part 1

Ever notice how ads always pop up at the worst moments?

When the killer's identity is about to be revealed.

During that perfect meditation flow.

On Amazon Music, we believe in keeping you in the moment.

That's why we've got millions of ad-free podcast episodes so you can stay completely immersed in every story, every reveal, every breath.

Download the Amazon Music app and start listening to your favorite podcasts at free, included with Prime.

You want your master's degree.

You know you can earn it, but life gets busy.

The packed schedule, the late nights, and then there's the unexpected.

American Public University was built for all of it.

With monthly starts and no set login times, APU's 40-plus flexible online master's programs are designed to move at the speed of life.

You bring the fire, we'll fuel the journey.

Get started today at apu.apus.edu.

On this episode, we cover the Joe Rogan Experience episode 2219 with Donald Trump.

The No Rogan Experience starts now.

Welcome back to the show.

This is a show where two podcasters with no previous Rogan experience get to know Joe Rogan.

Joe Rogan is one of the most listened-to people on the entire planet.

His interviews and his opinions influence millions.

He's regularly criticized for his views, often by people who've never actually listened to Rogan.

So we listen and then, where needed, we try to correct the record.

It's a show for anyone who's curious about Joe Rogan, his guests, and their claims, and anyone who just wants to understand Joe Rogan's ever-growing media influence.

I'm Michael Marshall.

I'm joined by Cecil Cicerello as ever.

And today we're going to be covering Joe's October 2024 interview with presidential candidate Donald Trump.

This interview has been viewed 58 million times on YouTube alone.

So Cecil, how did Joe introduce Trump in the show notes?

He says, Donald Trump is currently

the 2024 presidential candidate for the Republican Party.

He previously served as America's 45th president and is also a businessman and media personality.

Okay.

And is there anything else we should know about Donald Trump?

Well, if you don't know who Donald Trump is, I can't, in a short paragraph, explain enough that would sufficiently capture it.

So I think people know who he is.

People know.

pretty much most things about him.

Even if you live as far away as Marsh, you know who Donald Trump is.

So I can't really tell you you much other than that.

No, I think that's fair.

And I think it is worth pointing out pretty early on here, you and I are obviously not fans of Donald Trump.

We've made that pretty clear across multiple things that we've done, including episodes of this show.

And so we are coming at this with a bias.

And we're going to make absolutely no secret about that bias.

But that's actually a good thing because Donald Trump is one of the most divisive and polarizing political figures of the last century, easily.

So if anybody tells you that they have no opinion either way of Trump and that they have no bias, that they're completely unbiased, they're probably lying to you or to themselves or to both.

But while we're going to be critical of Trump, this isn't going to be us taking pot shots.

We're going to try to be objective.

We're going to try to be fair.

We're going to try to be as factual as possible, right down to declaring these biases up front.

There's a lot of people out there who'll rely on being able to just dismiss any criticism of Trump as liberal cope or orange man bad, because that allows those people to ignore legitimate criticism and then not have to deal with any of the issues that have been raised.

So if you're somebody who's watching this or listening to this and you are fond of Trump, we're just asking for you to hear us out and that you approach this with as much objectivity and open-mindedness as we're going to try to have here.

Now, obviously, our biases might be different, but our goals should be the same, which is to understand what's true and what's really going on.

So hopefully you'll continue to join us throughout the show with that in mind.

So with all of that in mind, Cecil, what did Joe and Donald Trump talk about?

So they talked about the election, which was coming up in November.

This was recorded in October.

Lots of issues surrounding that election and how the media is very biased against Trump and how everyone should understand that this is a coordinated effort.

by the media to discredit and attack him.

And then they sort of

veer briefly into the UFC and Trump tries to turn it around and talk about Joe for a few minutes, but Joe does not like that and immediately stops that focus and pushes back towards Trump.

But that's really mostly what happens in the show.

It's pretty much 100%

election focused.

Yeah, I'd say so.

And so our main event this week is going to be looking at the fact that Joe, before this interview and since this interview, has said he hadn't really made up his mind about Trump until he spoke to him for this interview.

So this was a turning point that made him want to vote for Donald Trump.

And we're going to look to see whether there's any indications in this interview as to how true that is or whether there's something else going on.

That's what we're going to focus on for our main event.

But before we get to that, we want to say a thanks as ever to our Area 51 all access past patrons.

Those are 11 Gruthius, Chunky Cat in Chicago Eats the Rich, Fred R.

Gruthius, Darlene, Laurel Williams, No, Not That One, The Other One, Martin Fidel, Am I a Robot?

Capture says no, but maintenance records say yes, stoned banana, and definitely not an AI overlord.

They all subscribe to patreon.com forward slash no rogan.

You can do that as well.

Every one of our patrons get early access to episodes.

They get a special patron-only bonus segment every single week.

And in the bonus segment this week, we're going to be talking about Starlink tariffs, Area 51, and how attractive Trump finds men in military uniform.

So you can check it all out at patreon.com forward slash no Rogan.

But now it's time for our main event.

It's time.

And a huge thank you this week to our veteran voice of the podcast.

That was Jacob announcing our main event.

Remember, you too can be on the show.

You can just send in a recording of you giving us your best rendition of It's Time.

You can send that to no Roganpod at gmail.com.

That's K-N-O-Wroganpod at gmail.com.

And remember to tell us how you want to be credited on the show.

So we're going to do the main event this week, and it's going to be looking at Joe's belief in Trump.

Is Joe actually as unbiased about Trump?

Or is Joe maybe running some amount of cover and some amount of rehabilitation of Trump's reputation?

Because as I say, the narrative that Joe tells and that others will then subsequently repeat is that Joe wasn't pro-Trump until he met him and sat down with him.

And he was really impressed with him in this interview.

And this is what swung Joe's mind.

But if you you actually listen to this interview, listen closely, you'll see I don't think that narrative really holds up.

I think you'll hear Joe working pretty hard during the course of this conversation to present Trump as as likable as possible and as a good choice electorally, right from the off.

Yeah.

And

to

sort of focus on that for a second, I want to mention that throughout this episode, there is a lot of mention about the media and how the media has, throughout many, many years, made a concerted effort to manipulate the public on Donald Trump's image.

And I want you to stop and think about that and wonder, is Joe doing the same thing?

Is Joe doing what he's accusing the media of when you listen to this?

That's just keep an open mind and think like that.

All right, now I want to mention also, very important, we all did not alter these clips in any way in this episode.

Often, we will cut little pieces of the

silence.

So when people speak, sometimes there's pauses.

And those pauses can sometimes be quite pregnant pauses on Joe's show because people have been talking for a while.

They're thinking about what they want to say.

We can have,

we had 39 seconds of pauses or something with Peter Thiel in the past.

So those pauses sometimes get edited, most of the time get edited out.

And I also speed the clips up just a bit because sometimes people speak very slowly i decided not to do that at all on this these clips are kept in their raw form just so we could try to be as objective as possible and you can hear the actual sound cadence speed at which trump speaks without any alteration yeah there's no manipulation here normally when we do uh justice clips it's just to make it easy for you to listen to now but we say you can go listen to it on the main show here there's just no manipulation or or editing at all with each of these clips all right so we're going to start with our first clip this is a joe opening of the show, Joe talking about Donald Trump on the view.

I wanted to play this, but we decided we shouldn't play it because it could get copyright struck, and we don't want to get the episode,

we don't want anybody to have any sort of a way to get it down.

But it was the episode of you when you're on the view.

And I think it was 2015 or 2016, like when you were running for president.

Right.

And

you sat, you got introduced as our friend Donald Trump.

That's right.

Whoopi Goldberg gives you a big hug and a kiss.

Joy Behar gives you a big hug.

Barbara Walters gives you a big hug.

They all loved you.

They were all talking about how

you might be conservative in your financial positions, but you're very liberal socially.

They were talking about you in such a favorable light.

The audience was cheering.

And then you actually started winning in the polls.

And then the machine started working towards you.

Yeah.

But it's, there's probably no one in history that I've ever seen that's been attacked the way you've been attacked and the way they've done it so coordinated and systematically.

And when you see those same people in the past, very favorable to you, like Oprah, when you were on Oprah show.

Very.

So.

This, I think, is a very great illustration.

That point that I just made right at the start there, that Joe, from the very off of this interview, this is the first, this starts 20 seconds into the interview.

So this is the first thing that Joe is raising.

He's very clearly engaging in portraying Trump in a very particular light.

Because bear in mind, this is the former president of the United States.

It's not just a guy who's running to be president.

He's a man who ran the country for four years, who's dominated the political landscape for a decade by this point.

But this is what Joe chooses to open with.

This is what's important to him.

Liberals used to like you until you started winning, and then the machine kicked in against you.

This doesn't feel like somebody who's got no opinion, no horse in the race, no biases here.

This feels like part of a structured attempt to paint Trump in a very certain light.

Think of all the many other ways this conversation could have started.

Think of all the priority questions you might have had if you were interviewing Donald Trump, the kind of questions Joe should have had or could have had when he sat down to start this interview with Trump.

Yeah.

And I also want to mention too that just even the framing of this, just stop and think about it for a second.

He's saying, He's saying nine years ago that they had on Donald Trump.

Now, this is before he ran for president, is what Joe remembers.

Joe remembers it was nine years ago.

Here's the thing.

Can something happen in nine years that might change your mind?

We'll get to that in a second.

But I also.

This also tells you that Joe just can't imagine someone changing their mind about someone.

Seeing

a flow of information come in in nine years, a lot can change in nine years.

And so you could easily change how you feel about somebody, especially someone as polarizing as Donald Trump and as polarizing as he has tried to be.

So you might change your opinion in those nine years, but Joe just sees it as they loved you then.

They should love you now.

Yes.

Yeah, absolutely.

And Joe says he wanted to play the clip from the view, but he says he couldn't for copyright reasons.

Now, that strikes me as a little bit odd because those reasons haven't stopped Joe in the past.

We've even talked on the show where he's played clips, extensive clips from Piers Morgan's show.

And from other shows that he's cut it.

Like what he's saying is we can't play it because we'll get a copyright strike.

But as someone who has a YouTube channel, they send you a message and say, hey, this is copywritten.

We'll probably just demonetize it.

Or if it's a bad thing, they'll say, you have to cut this segment out or

we won't post it.

He could have just cut the segment out, but he doesn't even want to do that.

Yeah, he could.

And no,

to be fair to Joe here, maybe he didn't want to demonetize it because he knew this would be a massive interview.

Maybe he didn't want to go back and re-edit it because then he'd be criticized for editing the show.

So maybe there are some very good reasons for this.

It's such a high-profile target, a high-profile episode, it's going to be, that it could be a real target.

So he's got to be extra careful.

So, okay, fair enough.

Those could be good reasons not to actually show the clip.

What's interesting to me is that I went off and found the clip.

The clip they're talking about when Trump was on the view, it's not from 2015, like Joe says.

It's from 2011 when he was actually running to try and stop Obama getting in for a second term.

So this, so Joe's already wrong on the framing.

Okay, mistakes happen.

When Trump gets announced, Joe portrays this.

If you listen, he's saying, oh, it's a big love-in.

They all curve up and give him a big hug, a big kiss, described him as a friend, really kind of

really warm embrace is what Joe's painting.

What we actually see is Whoopi Goldberg, when Trump's name is mentioned, giving an incredibly flat look to the camera that she holds the entire time.

It's hard to see.

I mean, we'll put the image up if you're watching this on YouTube.

She's got this look on her face that she subsequently has said, I was not impressed.

And that's pretty clearly me not being overjoyed about seeing him.

And okay, they give him a kiss on the cheek or they accept a kiss on the cheek from him, but that's just the politeness of trying to make a dear time TV show.

That's the convention.

They're not going to, like, they're not going to shout and scream when his name is mentioned and holler at him and those kind of things.

But then we can ask, well, did the show really, did the view really show them loving Trump?

Did it show him, you know, Joe says he talked about nothing but a positive light is what they're kind of talking about here.

They talked about you in such a

favorable light that the audience was cheering for you.

Is that true?

Well, we've got that clip, and we can actually play a bit of that interview now.

And you can judge for yourself: is Joe accurate in how he's portraying how that went down in the view?

Now, this is a clip that's going to introduce.

It's going to start with Joe talking.

Whoopi's going to mention it for a second, and then it's going to go right into the old version of the view.

They're talking about you in such a favorable light.

Honey, Joe, I think you missed this part.

Take a look.

I want him to show his birth certificate.

There's something on that birth certificate that he doesn't like.

Oh my gosh,

I'm telling you, he was straight pants.

Darn, I love you.

I'm telling you.

I love you too.

I think that's the biggest pile of dog mess I've heard in the ages.

The president needs to shop and I'll show it, right?

There's something on his birth certificate he doesn't want to show.

It's not

like

you were.

I take the way any white president asks to be shown the the birth certificate when they become a president of the citizens of America.

Okay, let you know that he's American.

I'm saying that's BS.

So, again, is that really fair to depict as that he was talked about in such a favorable light on the view?

Is that really fair to depict as the audience were cheering for him?

I heard the audience applauding, but they were applauding the points made against Trump, the points that were criticizing him.

So, that isn't at all how Joe was depicting it.

And it's unfortunate then that he chose not to show the clip, that he felt it was too high risk to show the clip because the clip would actually have said, would have shown completely the opposite to what Joe was talking about.

So the question we then have is, why does Joe want you, the viewer, or his viewers, to think this was such a positive experience and that everyone loved Trump at the time, especially when he's not showing you the clip?

And I'm not saying he's deliberately trying to mislead you.

What I'm saying is that at the very, very least, Joe said he watched this clip and he came away with the impression that the panel loved Trump and were good friends.

If he did come away with that impression, that's an expression of his bias towards Trump that he had before this interview.

He's either trying to mislead you or he has misled himself because he was already so all in for Trump by this point.

Yeah, absolutely.

Yeah.

I

want to focus a little bit on what I mentioned earlier, which is, can there be something that happens in the last, now Joe depicts it as nine years.

We subsequently found out it's 14 years, right?

So 14 years ago, he appears on the view.

Is there something that could have happened in those 14 years that could change someone's mind about Trump, right?

Like he's making it seem like, well, you were loved on the view, so you should be loved by everybody, I think is sort of his argument.

And then also that there's sort of a

coordinated attack against him by the media.

Well, how about we talk about his on January 6th, he gave a speech, and right afterwards, a group of people

in, I would say,

in influenced by his words, left and went down to Congress and tried to

make it so the election wouldn't be certified.

Yeah, that's a very nice way of saying there was a riot at Congress and they broke in and they smashed things up and they assaulted a bunch of police officers and they worked their way through Congress.

And Congress had to stop its session and flee from protesters.

And that was all started because Donald Trump not only planned that event, but also talked to people outside.

Yeah, absolutely.

And the thing is, even if you were a Trump supporter and you think he did nothing wrong on that day, which, you know, we're obviously going to disagree about because we come from different biases.

Isn't that still a more important question for Joe to be talking about, a more topic, a more important topic for Joe to be raising than whether Whoopi Goldberg used to like him in 2011?

Because in the whole course of this interview, January 6th will not come up once, not one single time, as far as I could tell.

If Joe was genuinely interested in who Trump is and what he's about, and Joe really was the curious guy that is just there trying to get to know candidate Trump, because I've not made my mind up, wouldn't that be an important question to ask?

Aren't discussions about plots to overthrow democracies usually very interesting to Joe?

You know, if there's a sniff or something like that, Joe's very interested.

He's not interested at all during this conversation.

Yeah, he can't stop talking about the one that happened in Ukraine.

That's for sure.

Yeah, exactly.

He talks about that one.

Also, let's bring up another thing.

Trying to subvert the 2020 election.

Trump talked and spread massive lies about voter fraud,

and he tried to create fake electors.

He did this.

uh and he did this for months and has not stopped saying that he won the 2020 election even though every bit of evidence he brings doesn't show that that's true at all so he is this is something that you know if you're an outsider somebody who's not in Trump's inner circle, like Joe clearly is, if you're somebody outside, you're like, hey, man, you tried to lie to the United States.

That might change my opinion of what I think about Donald Trump.

I also think like, you know, we're going to talk about him interfering with foreign aid for personal gain, profiting off the presidency, the phone call to Ukraine when he got impeached.

All those things might sway your opinion on Donald.

Yeah.

And the things that should be brought up here.

And again, think about what we've already covered on from Joe Rogan's show just this year alone.

Joe's very upset by things like USAID, which he sees as people getting,

he sees as corruption using the public purse or people getting rich off their position in government.

He won't raise anything here about that.

Or, for example, the times that Trump was...

was charging secret service agents three times the going rate for staying in his resorts when they were there to protect him.

So he stayed specifically in his properties and he charged the Secret Service three times what was the standard rate because he knew they had to be there.

And I'll put a link in the show notes to a Guardian article explaining that.

Joe isn't interested in Trump using his influence to get Ivanka Trump's product sold in Chinese markets, to get her a trademark in Chinese markets.

There's a link in the show notes about that.

He's not going to be interested here at all about

Jared

using his connection to Trump,

as his son-in-law, to get a $2 billion deal with Saudi Arabia, Jared Kushner.

Those are the type of things Joe would normally feel very strongly about.

They'd be very valid things to ask Trump about here.

They don't come up once.

Instead, he's talking about the view and whether Whoopi Goldberg likes him.

Yeah, and throughout the interview, he's had opportunities.

He had opportunities to talk about all of Trump's criminal cases, including the one where he was accused of stealing classified documents and then lying about it.

Then that one got dismissed by a judge, but a judge that has been shown to be pretty clearly favorable toward Trump.

So these types of things, you know, again, collusion, government, people in the government colluding with each other to try to help each other and to try to manipulate things behind the scenes.

That would be normally very important to Joe.

Joe would normally jump on something like that.

He doesn't even talk about it in this interview.

So Joe really genuinely has a narrative that he wants to keep repeating.

Trump was loved by the Democrats before he ran, and it was the traditional media that tried to bring Trump down.

He starts out this entire interview with a conclusion, and he just keeps repeating evidence that he thinks points to this conclusion throughout the entire interview.

This is a way for him to absolve Trump of any wrongdoing whatsoever of his previous presidency and when he ran before, and the years he was out of the presidency, and in the public eye.

Yeah, absolutely.

Next up, this is a discussion on choosing people that work for you in the government.

So you're kind of stuck in in a position we have to pick established people.

And then the problem with established people is established people are already indoctrinated into the system.

And they're stiffs in many cases.

Stiffs.

Stiffs.

They're survivors.

I find that, you know.

What do you mean by stiffs?

When you say stiffs.

Stiff.

They don't have nothing.

They have nothing.

Or

they're smart and survival.

One little thing.

So there was a congressman years before I ran.

And I was very close to him.

And I needed a license on something, and he was very important in getting the license.

But it was a little bit controversial to license this particular thing that was being licensed.

But I was close to this guy and helped him and everything else.

And I went to him, I said, I'd like to have your help.

And he said,

let me take a look at it.

I said, oh, that's not too good.

But I really hope you're going to help.

Anyway, he tapped me along for a long period of time and ultimately didn't do it.

And I said, you are a stiff.

You could have done this thing so easy, et cetera.

But it was controversial.

He was in Congress for many years, like 28 years.

And, you know, there's a reason when somebody's there for 28 years, you got to be sort of smart.

Right.

You know, you have all survivors.

And I realized he was a survivor.

And so they never do anything controversial.

They never take any chances or speak their opinion that's outside of the.

Yeah.

Yeah.

What do you mean by controversial here?

Do we mean break laws or give someone preferential treatment because you know who they are?

Like, I don't want a system that works like that.

I, why does Joe want a system like that?

Why does his, why do his listeners want a system like that?

We don't want just a very rich person being able to say, hey, I know this congressman and I can grease the wheels just because I know him.

I want him to run through all the same processes all the rest of us would have to run through.

Especially for things that are controversial, whatever exactly we mean by that.

Yeah, it's fascinating to me that Joe doesn't ask about that because you've got a billionaire.

Let's leave aside the fact that he's a politician.

Let's just remember before that he was just a billionaire, admitting that when he wanted wanted to get a license to get stuff done, he tried to use his personal connections to a politician to get around the law in a way that the rest of us couldn't do that.

Joe would normally be really concerned about political corruption.

We talk about it all the time when it's in Ukraine.

Why is that concern completely absent here?

What is it about this conversation or this guest that makes him just nod this through like it's actually a good thing?

All right.

So we're still on appointments.

We never actually talked about appointments in the previous segment.

He did a little weave, which again, we'll get to in our toolbox section.

And now he's going to go back to those appointments now.

You're in there.

You have 10,000 appointments you have to make.

So you're getting advice from people.

And at one point in time, did you have a moment in time where you realize

these are bad choices?

Like some of these people I shouldn't have had in there?

Oh, yeah.

I think.

So the one question that you'll ask me, that I think you'll ask me, that people seem to ask, and I always come up with the same answer.

The one mistake, because I had a lot of success, great economy, great everything.

Everything was great.

The military, we rebuilt it, biggest tax cuts in history.

All this stuff.

We had a great presidency,

three Supreme Court justices.

Most people get none.

You know, you pick them young.

This way they're there for 50 years, right?

So, you know, even if a president is there for eight years, oftentimes they never have a chance.

I had three.

It was sort of the luck of the draw.

But

I will say that it always comes back to the same answer.

The biggest mistake I made was I picked some people.

I picked some great people, you know, but you don't think about that.

I picked some people that I shouldn't have picked.

I picked a few people that I shouldn't have picked.

Neocons?

Yeah, neocons or bad people or disloyal people or.

People that were just

bad advice.

So from the start here, this is actually a pretty good question from Joe.

So give him some credit there.

You appointed 10,000 people.

You can't do all about yourself.

You're going to take advice from others.

Did you realize that some of the people you were being appointed, you're being advised to appoint were bad choices?

Pretty reasonable question if it's an attempt to get a president to be accountable for his mistakes.

So, okay, that could be fine.

Sure, except Joe gives Trump an immediate off-ramp from blame for all bad decisions.

This is a guy that, okay, look, presidency is someone who spends, they will spend,

what is it, 24 months begging the country to do this job.

They travel all over the country and say, pick me, pick me.

I'm the best person to do this work.

Please, please, please.

Here's my resume.

Here's who I'm going to work with.

Please, please, please pick me.

That's a 24-month job that that job interview that they do.

So he picked the wrong people.

We know that because he went through so many cabinet members, more cabinet members than most presidents.

Yeah, he absolutely does.

So Donald Trump had more turnover

in his administration than any president

since that was starting to be measured by the Brookings Institution in 1980.

92% of his A team

left the role after he'd appointed them.

Another 45% of his second hires for the same team also left the role.

That turnover rate in his first year was double the rate of the next highest president since Reagan.

And people have suggested that the high turnover rate essentially stemmed from Trump's insistence on having loyalty over competence.

That was his criteria.

If you're loyal to me, you get the job.

And that's kind of why people had to keep leaving the job for not being good enough.

And he keeps letting Trump off, suggesting that he was given information that was bad and then he followed it.

Look, Trump sought out that information.

If he got bad information, the blame for that doesn't roll downhill.

The blame for that rolls

uphill.

He should be better at picking people to help him.

He was bad at it.

He was bad at it because he had no experience.

What he does is he asks him why, you know, look, oh man, you failed in this one section.

But then he just starts presenting people to blame to him.

And that is the off ramp that he offers Donald Trump.

Yeah, absolutely.

And the job of president is that you take accountability for what happens under your administration.

If you appoint somebody and they do something terrible, it's your fault for appointing them.

That's the nature of the presidency.

We don't get to say, well, look at all the good things that I did, look at all the good people I hired, that outweighs it.

That's not kind of the job.

All right, this next clip is talking about the assassin.

It starts talking about the assassination attempt on Trump.

Imagine if there was assassination attempts on Biden, how hard people would be attacking the right.

How they would be trying to get guns taken away from people.

They would try to ramp up gun laws.

They would try to figure out some way to blame you.

If there was attacks on, if Biden got shot in the ear, we would have never heard the end of it.

But I think he's in good shape because it's only consequential, presidents.

If you take a look at what's happened, look,

I'm for having countries pay us billions and billions and trillions even dollars.

I took in hundreds of billions of dollars from China.

Nobody took in 10 cents, not one other president.

I do things that make it, I mean, that don't necessarily make me so popular.

I just do what's right.

Trevor Burrus, Jr.: Okay, so.

First off, I want to address what Joe brings up, which is, you know, Biden wouldn't have been, it wouldn't have been the same if Biden

had an assassination attempt.

But the problem here is that the both the people here who wanted to assassinate Trump, they were both on the right.

They weren't on the left, right?

So that's why I think there wasn't a lot of political hay made about it in the news is because there just wasn't anything that there couldn't be a this side versus this side thing that could be played up in the news.

Instead, it was like, one side doesn't like the same side and that doesn't play as well.

And no one, and since there wasn't that for Trump to drag, to grab onto or for the Republicans to grab onto to say, look, they want to kill us, they just let it go too.

Nobody really talked about it after it happened.

Yeah, absolutely.

But the reason I was so clean to show this clip was it feels like there's a really serious edit point in the middle there.

Because as you say, Joe is saying, you know,

they blame Trump if there was an attack on Biden, if Biden was shot in the ear.

And Trump's answer is, I think he's in good shape because it's presidents.

if you look what they've done, I've had countries pay us billions and billions.

It feels like there's a major edit in the middle of that there because

Trump's answer doesn't remotely relate to the question in ways that are even more jarring than at other points in the interview where it's clear he is answering the question, but not answering it directly.

So in this long and unfiltered conversation, did Joe and his team edit something out?

I can't be sure of that, but it certainly sounds like that's a pretty clear edit point.

And that's fine.

Interviews get edited all the time, except Trump specifically calls the editing of an interview with Kamala Harris election interference.

You can't, how dare you edit this in order to make her look smarter than she is.

This is election interference by the media company.

But you can hear pretty clearly to my ears at least.

Joe is editing this interview here.

Yeah.

And if this isn't a cut, let's just make like,

to me, it sounds like a cut to Marsha.

When I hear this, it sounds like somebody cut something in.

Perhaps maybe he said something negative, really, really negative about Biden there, right?

Maybe he said something, maybe he even made a joke about someone assassinating Biden off the cuff and they had to cut it out of the interview.

Maybe that's possible, right?

Yeah.

That could be.

But if it's not, let's just presume that Joe is being truthful and this is a completely unedited, 100% unedited podcast.

Look, if that's the case, then that answer.

doesn't even match up even close with the question.

So if this was uncut,

this to me would say, if this was Biden sitting in that seat, Joe would, I think, 100% say Biden is unfit to be president because he can't even follow a simple question like that.

That would be proof to him that he is senile,

his age has gotten the better of him, and there is no way that he could be trusted with the presidency.

So either he cut it or there is clearly something happening here.

I don't know.

I mean, man, if you answer that question with that answer, you weren't listening at all.

Yeah.

All right.

We're going to take a short break.

We'll be back right after this.

Hey, it's Ryan Reynolds here for Mint Mobile.

Now, I was looking for fun ways to tell you that Mint's offer of unlimited premium wireless for $15 a month is back.

So I thought it would be fun if we made $15 bills.

But it turns out that's very illegal.

So there goes my big idea for the commercial.

Give it a try at mintmobile.com/slash switch.

A prompt payment of $45 for a three-month plan equivalent to $15 per month required.

New customer offer for first three months only.

Speed slow after 35 gigabytes of networks busy.

Taxes and fees extra.

CMintMobile.com.

Today, we'll attempt a feat once thought impossible: overcoming high-interest credit card debt.

It requires merely one thing: a SoFi personal loan.

With it, you could save big on interest charges by consolidating into one low-fixed-rate monthly payment.

Defy high-interest debt with a SoFi personal loan.

Visit sofi.com/slash stunt to learn more.

Loans originated by SoFi Bank NA, member FDIC.

Terms and conditions apply.

NMLS 696891.

Okay, welcome back.

Let's jump right back in.

Okay, so again,

we're going to roll back to the narrative that people loved Trump.

You don't tend to.

I just assume because people loved you on The Apprentice, they were going to love you as a president.

It would be so easy.

You know, it's just a lot of people.

Well, it probably would have been if the media didn't attack you the way they did, if they didn't conflate you with Hitler.

I mean, even today, like

Kamala was talking about you and Hitler.

They're going to take what you said about Robert E.

Lee.

Oh, Donald Trump wishes the South one.

That's right.

He loves Robert E.

Lee.

They love to take things out of context and distort things.

They don't even have to take them out.

They make them up entirely.

They do that too.

But, you know, it's interesting when you mentioned the,

I was very popular, and all those people loved me.

I mean,

some of these women,

they're so stupid.

And a joy.

Every time she'd see me, like I'd be in the theater or something, and she's, you have to be on the show again.

Come on, come on, let's go.

We have to go.

She loved you.

To love me.

That episode where we'll be.

People should watch that episode just to see what we're talking about.

Like I said, we don't want to get a copyright strike, so we're not going to put it up.

But if you watch the episode, it's bananas.

It's like an alternative universe.

And it's only

nine years ago.

Whoopee loved you?

Loved you.

Gives you a hug and a kiss.

So again, a few things here.

Donald Trump, they're saying he was so loved by everybody during the apprentice and before the apprentice.

Donald Trump wasn't universally well liked prior to The Apprentice.

The character of Biff Tannen in Back of the Future 2, very clearly the bad guy of that movie, was explicitly based on

Donald Trump.

I've not seen the American version of The Apprentice, but the point of the show here in the UK is that the business guy is intimidating and removed and he belittles failure.

It's hardly a role that screams well loved.

That's not the point of The Apprentice.

Yeah.

And again, listen to what Joe is saying.

He's pushing a narrative that someone that people liked Donald Trump nine, it's actually 14 years ago, before he was president, before he committed multiple crimes that he was charged with.

And now they don't like him.

So Joe's pushing that they had it off for Trump and they are trying to sell this.

They're trying to sell it to their audience.

And Joe is in turn trying to sell this to his audience.

Yeah, absolutely.

And again, when you listen to it, who's working harder to make Donald Trump seem likable here?

Is that Donald Trump himself or is it Joe?

Because here, Joe is the one who introduces the idea of how loved Donald Trump has been and was.

Donald Trump isn't the one saying, I was loved.

Joe keeps bringing that up himself.

And he's once again describing this episode of The View, saying, which is why we spent so long earlier talking about it.

It's a major thing for Joe to keep coming back to.

And in my eyes, to completely misrepresent.

He says it's nine years ago, which we know it wasn't.

He's saying Whoopi Goldberg gave Trump a big hug and a kiss.

We've seen the clip.

The only alternative universe that I can see is the one where whatever Joe is describing must have happened in because it didn't happen in the one that we can see.

And again, either Joe is misleading you as to what the clip shows and then hoping you don't bother go away and check it for yourself or, and I think this one might be more likely.

He's viewing everything through Raw's tinted glasses because of the bias he has at this point in favor of Trump.

Before the show starts, he's got a bias in favor of Trump.

He's got a bias in favor of the narrative that liberals will love you until the machine tells them to turn on you.

I want to talk about the language Donald Trump uses here for a second, where he says, he says, some of these women are so stupid.

And the way he says that, there's a little bit of venom dripping off his voice there.

But then he describes Joy Behar from The View asking him to come on the show, saying, oh, you should come on the show.

That's not being stupid.

That's being duplicitous.

That's not the same thing.

And I'm only bringing this up because Trump multiple times

has attacked women, both physically, because he has to pay a million dollars and millions of dollars in a judgment, but also verbally.

He has verbally attacked women multiple times in the past.

And he says he calls women nasty.

He calls them stupid.

He calls them awful.

And he says this constantly.

And you'll notice that he doesn't say that about many males.

He says that mostly about females.

So

it's something that you should notice about Donald Trump and how he treats women.

And in this case, again, it doesn't, she's not stupid at all if she's asking you to come on the show.

It doesn't make any sense.

He's just saying that to be be mean and demeaning.

Yeah, it sounds like she's just being a bit showbiz.

If you do bump into someone who's been on your show, when you say, oh, we should have you back sometime, it's just the thing that you say in that social situation.

Or it could be that she's smart enough to know that it's good ratings, but that doesn't make her stupid.

Yeah.

Okay.

So now Trump is going to be talking about the debate that he had with Joe Biden.

And he's going to be discussing one of the answers that both of them gave about crime.

Well, Joe, when I said crime is soaring, he said, no, no, crime has gone down.

I said, where did he hear that one?

Crime has gone down.

I mean, I'm debating with this guy, but I've had that.

Well, there was amended FBI statistics that came out after that that showed that crime had gone up substantially.

And by the way, the statistics were a fraud because when they put out the statistics, they didn't include some of the worst places.

They didn't include some of the worst cities, some of the most deadly places.

But when the real numbers came out, I turned out to be right.

But I haven't.

You turned out to be right, but then there's another problem, unreported crime is way up because Because people have lost

the morale that the police department has in a lot of these cities where they've done this defund the police bullshit.

The morale of these poor cops, it's fucking horrible.

It's the dumbest idea of all time.

But what they've done is they've made these cops feel terrible, like good cops.

I think cops are just like everybody else.

Most of them are great.

It's like everybody else.

But if you run into one carpenter and he does a shitty job in your house, you say, carpenters fucking suck.

But they don't suck.

Most of them are great.

And that's the key thing with cops.

But the point is, like, they

did all of these things in this very foolish way.

And these cops are suffering the consequences of it.

And so subsequently, what happens is a lot of crime is unreported.

A lot of crime, like you call the cops, they're too busy.

They can't even get to you.

Oh, your house got broken into.

Sorry.

You know, it doesn't even make a report.

There's a lot of people that they just give up.

So, yeah, again, so much to unpack here in terms of crime statistics, but let's actually look at crime statistics.

So this is the Pew Research Center from April 2024.

So, obviously, four months before this conversation, or six months, in fact, before this conversation happened, they said that using FBI data, violent crime rate fell 49% between 1993 and 2022, with large decreases in the rates of robbery, which was down by 74%, aggravated assault was down by 39%,

and murder or non-negligent manslaughter was down by 34%.

FBI data also shows a 59% reduction in U.S.

property crime rate between 93 and 22, and 2022, and big declines in the rates of burglary, which is down by 75%, larceny or theft by 54%, and motor vehicle theft, which is down by 53%.

So crime rates are falling.

That is factually true according to numbers.

So why does Donald Trump or why do other people think otherwise?

Well, again, from the same report, Americans tend to believe that crime rate is up even when the official data shows that it's down.

In 23 out of 27 Gallup surveys conducted since 1993, at least 60% of U.S.

adults have said that more crime nationally, said there's more crime nationally than there was the year before, despite the downward trend in crime rates during most of that period.

However, notably, what's interesting is most people are likely to say that crime rates nationally have gone up higher than they have gone up locally.

because people can see what's happening around them and what isn't.

So you're not going to say that the crime's gone up locally, but you can say, well, the crime must be going up around the country because I keep reading about it.

I want to add, Americans tend to believe that crime is up even when official data shows it's down is actually marsh American exceptionalism.

I just want you to know that.

Okay.

Yeah.

So like, why is it that Americans think the crime is going up?

Why do they have this exceptionalist idea to American crime standards?

Maybe because it's such an easy button for politicians to keep pressing when they're campaigning.

Look at the bad thing.

The bad thing's getting worse.

I'll make the bad thing better.

It's a very simple, very easy narrative to sell, even when the data absolutely doesn't back it up.

But Joe introduces this idea that the FBI statistics a week, came out a bit later that showed a substantial rise.

And actually, it was completely wrong.

Well, here's a BBC report that was last updated in October 2024, a week before this Rogan episode, but was first published in September.

The BBC said, in 2023, the FBI recorded a rate of 363.8 violent crimes per 100,000 people, down from the 2022 rate of 377.1 violent crimes per 100,000 people.

The agency revised the violent crime rate between 2021 and 2022.

Previously, the figures showed a 2.1% fall over the period.

Now the agency said there's a 4.5% rise.

The FBI didn't publicize this change, which has led to some criticism.

So that sounds like what Joe is referring to.

Joe's part of that criticism.

So it sounds like the FBI were wrong with their statistics.

Trump has said the statistics were faked and stuff.

Was there really a substantial rise?

Well, from the same report, the latest FBI crime data shows it fell last year.

The much anticipated report, which was released in September, shows declines across several serious crimes, including rape, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault.

The number of murders saw the largest drop in 20 years, according to the FBI.

So when Joe says, yeah, those statistics, they released new ones afterwards that updated it and showed that they were wrong, it does not show a substantial rise in crime at all.

It shows quite the opposite.

Let me address the defund the police argument that Joe is making.

I found an article that said that overwhelmingly, cities, counties, and police departments across the country are not being defunded in any way, and many of them have increased their budgets.

And so the ABC did an analysis of this and found that the Los Angeles Police Department had upped its budget by 9.4% since 2019.

Chicago,

the police spending is up by 15% since 2019.

And in Houston, where the homicide rate has nearly doubled in both 2020 and 2024, before starting to subside this year, local government officials have increased police spending by nearly 9%, almost 80 million from 2019 to 2020.

So the idea that this defund movement has sort of swept the nation, that's not true.

It hasn't.

This idea that it changed

how much law enforcement was available for the country isn't, it's just not backed up by any

data.

And also, I just want to point out too, like, you know, this article talks about the morale of police and treating them like victims, sort of the police are slowing down on their jobs.

And, you know, in a lot of ways, we could say maybe the police are slowing down on their jobs to sort of contribute to this perception to how defunding is sort of hurting them or how the talk of defunding is hurting what they work when that's not really happening at all.

So I think like that's something to keep in mind too, because police officers are the ones who sort of control the floodgates here.

They're the ones who can who can make a decision on whether or not to arrest people or whether or not to pursue things.

And so you've got to keep that in mind too.

Is there something behind them maybe not reacting as quickly when they hear this negative defund, this negative idea of the defund movement maybe coming to perhaps even come after their jobs?

Think about that.

You know, your job might be on the line.

Might you want to try to change and show that your job is actually very important?

Might be something to think about.

I know Joe would definitely think about that if it was another profession.

Now we're going to talk about, again, defund the police.

It's also this very irresponsible thing where people say defund the police, get rid of the police.

You know, even Kambala Harris was a part of that.

It's a very stupid way to look at it.

What you should do is fund the police.

You should have better training.

You should have cops that feel more appreciated.

You should have something that helps mitigate this PTSD that all of them suffer through.

Go ahead.

She was a big part of Defund the Police.

That was a big thing for her, Defund the Police, always Defund the Police.

Well, it's a political idea.

But anybody with that political thought, I don't think, should be running for president.

Okay.

They keep on talking about defund the police, defund the police, but defund the police was not a movement to get police not to respond to police calls.

It was a movement to get police not to respond to police calls they weren't actually qualified for.

That was the key, right?

They routinely shoot people who are having mental breakdowns.

So instead, maybe we could have professionals handle that particular situation and other situations where the police are, you know, they're being sort of spread thin.

They have to fulfill a whole bunch of roles.

Why don't we find specialized people for those roles instead of just asking the police to handle every situation?

They shouldn't have to be trained on how to handle a mental breakdown.

We should have someone out there who can handle that sort of situation instead of a police officer.

Yeah, and you could argue that

some of this downstream is the effect of a branding issue.

Because when you say defund the police, people might hear that what you want is for police officers to have fewer resources and therefore make their jobs more difficult or more dangerous.

And what it actually means is giving some of those resources to other agencies that, as you say, are better equipped to deal with certain challenges and then giving those agencies the responsibility to handle those challenges instead of making the police a catch-all for everything that might go wrong in society.

And I think if you're able, if the movement had been able to brand itself in a way of saying, essentially, stop putting everything on the police,

stop making the police responsible for everything, give the police more support, it might actually have avoided some of the confusion.

Although I don't think that it would have fully avoided the confusion, because it's again that thing that it's an easy thing for politicians to campaign on.

You can hear Trump doing it here, tying Kamala Harris closely to defund the police.

Now, I know she's made some statements about defunding the police and how that movement has some good ideas to it, but it's not like she was the leader of the calls to defund the police.

It's not like she was, as Trump says, constantly everywhere all about defund the police.

I don't think that's true of Kamala Harris at all.

In fact, people who had criticisms of Harris, some of those criticisms from the left came from her background as a prosecutor that maybe she wouldn't be as good as

progressive on criminal justice.

So I think that idea of tying your political opponent to this politically toxic idea is a very effective political strategy, but it's ended up causing this idea to have more toxicity.

And the problem with all of this is this is a really complicated conversation.

It's very easy for people to misunderstand what's being called for when there are people who profit from keeping you misinformed and keeping you confused.

And Joe and Trump here, they're in that latter category.

Even if one or both of them might be sincere about their misinterpretation of what defund the police is, they are profiting from spreading the idea that it's all about removing resources and penalizing police officers and making their job harder and more dangerous.

They profit from that by getting attention.

They

profit from it by getting the power,

by, with Trump's case, being able to turn people away from his political rival and towards him by selling this lie that Trump may well believe or he may well know is nonsense, but doesn't matter.

Either way, it's expedient to him.

This next clip is them talking about mining in California.

But here's the other thing.

We don't have...

Well, we do actually.

It's being held.

You know, we have certain areas where we have great raw earth material, and we're not allowed to use it because of the environment.

And we have areas in California that have incredible raw earth and they're not allowing.

And I'm going to open it up.

I'm going to let them use it.

But how do you do that?

China.

How do you do that and protect the environment?

Because the environment is going to be protected.

You can do it.

You can make a lake out of it.

Okay.

We'll put back a lake.

I mean, something nice about lakes, you can do things magnificently.

You just have to do it carefully and responsibly.

Absolutely.

You have to do it carefully.

Okay.

So Joe asks a pretty challenging question here.

How can you do that and protect the environment?

And then he immediately bails them out by saying, well, you could just do it responsibly.

Yes.

Yeah, absolutely.

100%.

How you mine for vital resources without harming the environment is a major issue.

It's a really difficult thing to answer unless you don't prioritize the environment at all, at which point it's an incredibly simple issue.

And what Trump is suggesting is evident that he is in the latter camp.

Yeah.

And he talks about oil in exactly the same way earlier in this conversation.

He talks about how environmental protections just stifle businesses from being able to build whatever they want, wherever they they want, whenever they want.

So, Joe has asked a good question.

And if he really did, if his goal here was to really get to know candidate Trump and what makes him tick and what is he about, this could be a good question.

It could also be something to press on, to ask follow-up questions, to not get away with just, well, you can do it while protecting the environment.

He could be saying, how?

Tell me how you actually do this.

Give me

something substantial, something concrete, something specific.

He doesn't do any of that.

He doesn't engage that curiosity that people talk about Joe Rogan having.

Instead, what we hear is him helping Trump out of a sticky situation because being liked by Trump and having his viewers like Trump is more important than getting an answer here for Joe.

Yeah.

And he doesn't answer the question, right?

So he 100% doesn't answer the question.

He says he could just make a lake.

I have no idea what that means.

Joe doesn't know what that means.

That doesn't answer any of the questions on how you mine and you protect the environment.

He just said, you can do it.

And then Joe immediately was like, yeah, you could do it.

I'm sure you could do it.

Yeah, I'm sure you, I'm sure you'd find a way to do it.

Yeah.

And that's why we both came away from watching this with the impression that Joe is trying to run cover for Trump here and he's trying to launder Trump's reputation to Joe's audience.

This isn't a person who had no biases at all.

And what's interesting is in many of the episodes that we've seen since and in lots of ones we haven't seen, Joe's talked about how he lost respect for Kamala Harris when she refused to do an interview with him.

He tried so hard to make it work and

she couldn't make it work and he he lost respect for her and that's what that's when he decided that she wasn't, she definitely wasn't for him.

People have even said it's a mistake for her not to have sat down with Rogan.

I even found myself swayed by those arguments, thinking maybe it would have been a good idea for her to talk to Rogan's massive audience.

You know, this video right here with Donald Trump has 58 million views.

Maybe Kamala Harris, who's a smart person who's got, who is able to coherently talk about some quite big ideas, maybe she could have reached some of those.

But then when you see this interview, it's absolutely impossible to argue that Joe just wanted to get to know both candidates in a totally unbiased way.

He's just a neutral guy looking to understand because he hasn't made his mind up yet.

Because right here, he's asking a tricky question and then he helps Trump off the hook.

Now, do we honestly think for a moment if he was asking a tricky question in an interview with Kamala Harris, he'd help her off the hook in the same way, that he'd back off in the same way?

I can't for a moment believe that that would be what would happen.

So the more that you sit and you watch this interview, the clearer it becomes that Joe is working Trump defense here, which makes me think that the reason he actually wanted to interview Kamala Harris was so that he'd work Trump offense too.

Yeah, it's a great point.

Now we're going to talk about election fraud.

It's crooked stuff.

There's a lot of crooked stuff.

And I wanted to talk about that too, because one of the things that people

talk about with you is the denial of the results.

And I think J.D.

Vance did a brilliant job the other day when he was being interviewed, and they asked him, did Trump lose the 2020 election?

And he turned it around and said, was there legitimate election interference in suppressing the Hunter Biden laptop story on social media?

And was that a concerted effort?

Well, they say it made a 10-point difference, and I lost by

one

tenth of a point.

They say it was 22,000 votes.

But look, it was much more than that.

And I appreciate J.D.

Vance saying that.

And by the way, I think he was a great pick.

Do you like J.D.

as a lot of people?

I like him a lot.

You're allowed to say that.

No, I do.

I like him a lot.

I think he's a brilliant guy.

And I think his ability to talk like a normal human being.

You did my friend Theo Vaughan's podcast, and he just did it.

How did he do it?

He did great.

He just talks like

a normal human being.

Is that why you called me to do that?

No, no.

He was in that.

Once they shot you, I was like, he's got to come in here.

It's all about timing.

It's all about the timing.

I think timing's perfect.

What I will say is I actually quite like Trump needling him and joking and teasing about, oh, you only got me on because I talked to Theo Vaughan and you got me on for this now.

I actually didn't mind that.

I actually thought that that's the kind of thing that Joe having a conversation with a candidate is totally legitimate for.

So I've got to give credit there.

That is, that is not, that's not particularly bad.

But in the rest of this, what we hear is Joe doing some cover work.

When JD Vance was asked about whether Trump lost the election, he refused to answer the question as to whether the last election was stolen.

He answered a completely different question.

And Joe accepts that and even promotes that as a good answer.

But for it to be a good answer, you'd have to believe that the Hunter Biden laptop story cost Trump the election.

This makes no sense at all because Hunter Biden's hard drive didn't show evidence of Joe Biden committing any crimes.

So had that been widespread and actually the contents of it wide known,

what we really would have got was not a great deal about Joe Biden at all.

It wouldn't have boosted Trump beyond the value of making images of Joe Biden's son's penis widely available on the internet.

That's about the extent that it would have harmed Joe Biden or helped Trump, but it wouldn't have swung the election.

And also, the Hunter Biden story suppression wasn't particularly effective because it was a massive story before the Volkswagen story.

I mean, bearing in mind,

on October 14th of that year, Trump himself tweeted about the actions taken by Facebook and Twitter to limit the story and threatened to repeal the safe harbor provisions of Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act as a result of it.

So that's October 14th before the November election that Trump said was stolen because of the impact of that story being suppressed.

So could the suppression of a story that was still all over the news a month before any votes were cast really have cost him the election?

I just don't see it.

I don't buy that at all.

But what is interesting is Joe is right.

The timing for this interview was absolutely perfect.

This is three, three and a half weeks before the election now is the time to drop in many ways the october surprise was joe going all in on trump and getting this out to tens and tens of millions of americans yeah and and uh i just want to point out too that even if this is true what jd vance is saying is true that's a that's a two quo quay argument right so just because there was something happening on biden's side during the election to you know and i'm using air quotes here to influence the election that has nothing to do with trump's denial of the 2020 election results, right?

That's what the original question asked about

asked to J.D.

Vance.

And then J.D.

Vance said, well, Hunter Biden's laptop is actually the election interference.

But

this is genuinely sort of covering up for something that Trump was indicted for, right?

So Trump was indicted for this sort of misinformation, creating fake electors, saying that there was massive voter fraud.

You know, these are, these are things that people have criminally charged Trump with.

And so for Joe to just hand wave that away with a question that was asked to J.D.

Vance where he uses a logical fallacy to get around it, that's a terrible interviewer.

Yeah, absolutely.

All right.

Now more election denial stuff.

One of the things that was fascinating also was the denial of the election results is a pretty common thing.

Hillary Clinton famously denied that she called you an illegitimate president and she said that Russia put you in place.

Even though she conceded.

Yes.

Even though she conceded the night of the election because she was beaten.

Trevor Burrus: Yes.

And it was a thing that was pretty common for people, especially Democrats, to deny the elections.

There's been many of them.

The Bush administration, the

dangling Chads, all that stuff.

Well, look at these guys in Congress, all these sleazebags in Congress that are Democrats.

They're still denying 2016.

But now they don't so much because they try and pin it on me.

You don't hear them say that.

But here's my point.

But they denied it right up until the end.

end.

My point is this idea of election fraud is a forbidden topic and you get labeled an election denier.

It's like being labeled an anti-vaxxer if you question some of the health consequences that people have had from the COVID-19 shots.

Oh my God,

you're an anti-vaxxer.

So denying the outcome of election isn't really a common thing.

Not at all.

I think every other candidate in history has accepted the results of the election.

I think no other candidate has claimed to have won the election years, literally years after the election was settled.

The fact that Joe thinks this is perfectly normal raises very serious questions about where did he get that impression?

Because denying elections is the kind of thing that dictators do, not the kind of people who believe in democracy.

Now, Hillary Clinton never doubted the results of the election.

She did call Trump illegitimate.

That is true.

She didn't dispute that he got the most votes.

She said that he was helped by Russia, that he was kind of put in there by Russia, that Russia had a hand in it.

She claimed there there was massive interferences, things like Comey announcing an investigation to her right before the election, which the investigation then found nothing.

But by the time that it said we found nothing, it was too late.

What she didn't do was say, it isn't true that he won the election and I actually won it.

I got the most votes.

She didn't refuse to concede.

She conceded on the night.

Even Trump says as much.

That isn't denying the election.

And she didn't then encourage her followers to gather at the Capitol and try and stop the certification of the election.

So

everything that Hillary did is is nothing like what Trump is doing.

But even if it was, this is another two-core queer fallacy because Hillary calling Trump illegitimate says nothing as to whether he's denied that he lost the 2020 election to Biden.

He's definitely done that.

Even if we were to say that Hillary completely denied the election, what we've got here is two people who have a dangerous approach to democracy.

It doesn't make the second one any better.

I've got, and I'd be fine with saying that Hillary Clinton, had she said, I don't believe Trump actually won that election.

I believe I actually won that election.

I'd be fine with calling her out as well.

I've got no love for Hillary Clinton.

I've got no warmth for Hillary Clinton.

I'm very happy to point that out.

If she'd won the election, I'm pretty positive I would have had plenty of criticisms of her, though I can't imagine to the same degree that we've had cause to be critical of Trump, given how many things have happened from your country under his regime.

But the idea that Hillary called him illegitimate, all that can tell you is that Hillary called him illegitimate.

It says nothing about Trump's claims, the validity or commonality of Trump's claims that he won that election and that the election was stolen from him.

Yeah.

And this is, again, when we look at this, it's hard not to look at this in any other way than Joe trying as hard as he can to reputation manage Trump.

He's basically saying people were out to get him.

This is a man who tried to change the results of an election.

And that's a huge difference from what he's suggesting even Hillary did at her worst, which is saying something shady swayed the election.

That's a totally different thing than trying to, like you suggest, change the results of the election and lie about the results of the election.

Yeah, exactly.

And then, you know, Joe brings up Bush and that election.

Again, I've got no love for George Bush.

I've not got a great deal of interest.

I'm not American.

It doesn't particularly affect me.

But what's interesting or what's important here is a question of scale, because Bush contested specific ballots in a specific county and was able to do so because he had evidence, not good evidence,

but something he could point to at least.

He could say these particular bits of the ballot haven't been fully stamped out and therefore these ones should be illegitimate.

He's pointed to something very specific.

And we can argue about the validity of that at that point, but we're arguing about the validity of something solid at that point, something concrete.

Whereas Trump had rumors and a long succession of lies that he brought court cases about and lost every single one of them.

I think barring one and the one that he lost, the one that he won was about how close people were able to stand while watching the

election or something like that.

I can't remember exactly what.

He definitely won only one, but it wasn't substantial essentially.

We're going to take another short break now.

Remember, patrons get every episode ad-free.

We'll be back right after this.

It's that time of year again, back to school season.

And Instacart knows that the only thing harder than getting back into the swing of things is getting all the back-to-school supplies, snacks, and essentials you need.

So here's your reminder to make your life a little easier this season.

Shop favorites from Staples, Best Buy, and Costco all delivered through Instacart so that you can get some time back and do whatever it is that you need to get your life back on track.

Instacart, we're here.

Hey, this is Dan Harris, host of the 10% Happier podcast.

I'm here to tell you about a new series we're running this September on 10% Happier.

The goal is to help you do your life better.

The series is called Reset.

It's all about hitting the reset button in many of the most crucial areas of your life.

Each week, we'll tackle a topic like how to reset your nervous system, how to reset your relationships, how to reset your career.

We're going to bring on top-notch scientists and world-class meditation teachers to give you deep insights and actionable advice.

It's all delivered with our trademark blend of skepticism, humor, credibility, and practicality.

10% happier is self-help for smart people.

Come join the party.

Okay.

We have returned.

All right.

So now we're going to talk about more about election fraud.

If you say, and what I say publicly, and I've said this a lot, it's not 0%.

So if you ask me, what is the amount of election fraud in this country?

Is it 0%?

No one thinks it's 0%.

I've never met one person, not a super liberal, progressive, far-left person, or a right-wing conservative.

Not one person thinks it's 0%.

They think when you have human beings, and also you have a lot of weirdness that was going on during the 2020 elections, particularly with mail-in ballots.

And you had legislatures that had to approve, and they didn't approve, and they went out and did it anyway.

And you had ballot, you had old-fashioned ballot screwing.

I mean, you had

people going up and dropping in phony votes.

You had unsigned ballots, et cetera, et cetera.

There's certain people that think you just have to.

And the rhetoric is also that you're Hitler and that in order to stop Hitler, you have to do whatever it is.

That was okay, yeah.

Yeah, and this is, I mean, you're hearing this now.

Kambler compared you to, said your love of Hitler yesterday.

So I don't buy this either.

This is another fallacy introduced at this point by Joe as part of his ongoing project here to rehabilitate Trump and to excuse him, because the number of incorrect, the number of even fraudulent ballots doesn't have to be zero for an election to be fair.

The question is whether there are sufficient questionable ballots to change the outcome of any part of the election.

And if there isn't, it's just a rounding error.

So nobody, he's right, nobody is saying that there isn't one single ballot that is illegitimately cast.

What they're saying is those numbers don't total up high enough to overturn, to count as more than a statistical outlier

across any one given part of the election, let alone the entire election.

And we know for a fact, for example, there were some illegal votes.

And there's a story in the AP

where a Pennsylvania man illegally voted for Donald Trump on behalf of his long-dead mother in the presidential election.

He was sentenced to five years of probation.

So we know that's an illegal vote.

There was election fraud happening.

That one particular one was in favor of Donald Trump.

We also know that Donald Trump called for an investigation into voter fraud about whether citizens were registered to vote in more than one state or not.

That's one of the things he was raising as a sign of

election integrity issues.

But as U.S.

News pointed out, at least one member of his family and one of his senior aides and the cabinet nominee have all been found to be registered in at least two states.

So we know there are things that Donald Trump would point to as election fraud, but they're committed by people either in his team or fans of him.

And finally, a Washington Poll story here.

Jared Kushner, president, Trump's son-in-law and one of the closest White House advisors, is registered both in New Jersey and New York.

Sean Spicer, the press secretary, is on the roles in Virginia and in Rhode Island.

Their dual registrations offer two more high-profile examples of how common it is for voters to be on the rolls in multiple states, something that Trump has claimed is evidence of voter fraud.

So Trump is raising all these different issues of voter fraud.

There are some instances of some of the things he's talking about.

There are instances of people who are voting for him or who are on his team.

But even then, these are rounding errors.

Even if Jared Kushner did vote twice, which is no evidence that he did, although he was registered twice, even if Jared Kushner had voted twice, that wouldn't be sufficient to say this is a dodgy election because these individual votes don't add up to anything when you're talking about a country with hundreds of millions of voters.

Yeah.

And most of the time,

what would sway the election is tens of thousands of votes in a certain space.

At the very least, right?

When we're talking about Georgia, it was 11,780 votes.

It could sway the election one way or another.

So you would need a lot more of these people than just ones off.

And, you know, I think that there has been plenty of time for Trump to do what he suggests, which is prove massive voter fraud, right?

One-off things doesn't prove anything, like Marsh just suggested.

You need to prove massive voter fraud.

There needs to be a concerted effort across an entire state to change the ballots, at least

11,780 in the case of Georgia in 2020.

That would need to be a concerted effort that would have to take place across the entirety of Georgia.

There's been no proof of that whatsoever.

All that we have is Donald Trump saying there is proof and then never demonstrating that in court.

That's not how we prove things.

That's not how things are decided that they're real or not, just because somebody said it happened.

We don't take that in other cases.

We shouldn't take that from Trump.

And this is, again, Joe trying to legitimize and trying to do everything he can to legitimize what Trump says.

Yeah, during an interview that, again, Trump, Joe keeps talking about how during this interview, he had no specific feeling in either direction.

He hadn't made up his mind.

He had no biases.

I think we're demonstrating that just is not true.

All right.

Now they're going to switch to the topic of Robert F.

Kennedy Jr.

Do you have anyone that is pressuring you to not work with him?

Have there been people?

RFK Jr.

Yes, I would imagine.

Because financially, he can put it down.

I would say that,

and, you know,

I think in many ways they've done a good job, in many ways they've done a bad job.

But I would say that the

big pharma wasn't thrilled when they heard that, you know, I have a relationship.

I've actually always gotten along very well with him.

I've known him a long time.

He's a different kind of a guy.

He's very smart, great guy.

And he's very sincere about this.

I mean, he really is, you know, he thinks we spend a fortune on pesticides and all this stuff.

And then you end up with, that chart is a terrible chart, the one previous.

It's such a bad chart when you look at where we are compared to other countries that don't spend 10 cents.

So, you know, and you save a lot of money.

But, yeah, I've had some people that aren't exactly thrilled.

You can imagine, right?

Sure.

That's a good question, actually.

Well, certainly if there's some pharmaceutical drugs that have been prescribed that have negative consequences that these people have been profiting off of.

And then you have a guy like RFK Jr.

who spends an enormous amount of time highlighting those things.

You could say how they've been very reluctant to have you support him.

I would say that's an understatement.

So listening to this, it sort of feels like Trump wasn't particularly clear why he's being asked this what he's being asked exactly he sort of feels around for different responses to see which one is the one that joe's expecting him to give what what is joe looking for rfk jr oh um he's a good guy i've known him for a long time he's very sincere we as a country spend a lot of money on pesticides I brought in a chart that says our health come out, our health outcomes are bad.

Some people I'm not going to name aren't thrilled about it.

And then there's a pause.

And then

Joe comes in and makes it clear that that's that's what he was being asked in the first place, but he still hasn't named any of those people.

He hasn't said anything.

It just feels like he's scrabbling around trying to understand what Joe wants from him here.

Yeah.

And also, Joe, I think, very clearly wants him to answer Big Pharma by the way he even frames the question.

He says, I would imagine because financially he could damage people, et cetera.

He could financially,

he seeds the question with, there are people out there who don't like RFK because they can be damaged financially, wink wink.

Who do you think that could be?

And then, of course, he answers,

he answers Big Pharma.

And then he just doesn't, he doesn't let him really explain it.

He just rushes in to explain it for him at the very end to say, yeah, they could lose a lot of money.

They could be a whole bunch of money because he already had the answer.

He wanted Trump to say.

He just wanted to use Trump as a puppet for a talking point that he's been pointing out for at least, you know, years on his show.

Yeah, exactly.

And you can hear at the end of Trump's answer when he's starting to run out of different directions to go, he sort of laughs and says, That's a good question.

And there's this pause.

And I think that's why Joe comes in to fill it because eventually Trump has said he realizes what Joe wants him to say.

And he says that.

And then I think Joe realizes

Joe's going to have to do the legwork on filling in the gaps here because Trump doesn't really fully know what direction he's trying to, he's trying to make him go in.

All right.

So now

this is talking about a chart that

he was given.

So he was given a chart by Trump.

He walks in.

Joe's sitting there, and there's

a chart that he hands across the table to him.

We only see this chart very briefly on the screen.

What's on the chart isn't as useful, I think, as to their discussion about it.

Well, when you look at that chart,

they just gave me that chart because they said you may want to discuss this topic, which I know is a big topic for you.

And when I looked at that chart and I looked at how unhealthy we are as a nation, that's a pretty big thing.

How are you so healthy?

Is it golf?

No, it's genetics, I believe.

You know, I'm a big chart.

Genetics is a big factor.

I really am.

I mean, my father was.

Unfortunately, it is a big factor for health.

So I think it's really interesting that Trump has bought this graph because people have told him it's what he should be talking to Joe about.

It's the kind of thing that Joe likes.

So bring this chart and talk about this chart.

But then Trump's way of dealing with that is to just hand Joe a printout of a chart like it's a token offering like it's a crow leaving something shiny outside of your door

I thought of it as as you sending your kid to kindergarten with a note pinned to them you know like so like you pin the permission slip to them so they don't lose it he walks in and he has to sort of undo the safety pin that his aide put on him to give Joe the actual document that he had I just think it's so I also want to say to this question that he comes into with how how are you so healthy?

How are you so dreamy?

How did you get to be so amazing?

That is so embarrassing.

What an embarrassing question to ask somebody.

Don't, don't let Joe lie to you, man.

Come on.

How biased do you have to be to ask somebody, how could you possibly be as healthy as you are?

It's the kind of question that interviewers ask when a movie actor is doing the rounds promoting their latest movie.

And it's just a way of like, could you just speak on camera for a while so we can mention the name of your film?

But the thing he's promoting is, I want to run your country and be in charge of your military yeah that's a little there's also a bit later on where trump has brought in a second chart that he hands to joe and it's great joe doesn't even look at it he just sort of takes it and then puts it to the side and they don't refer to it at all

it's amazing all right so now we're going to talk about propaganda i don't think i became president of the united states

I did great the second time.

I did much better.

I don't want to get you in any disputes, but I won that second election so easy.

And not just because of the- But let me get to that.

I want to talk to you about it.

But here's the thing.

I did that, and now I've gotten the nomination again.

And don't forget, to get these nominations, you go against very smart people.

Ron DeSantis was hot, got to go through him.

Nikki Haley was hot.

Got to go through her.

I went through everybody.

Record time, right?

Record time.

I got three nominations in a row.

Won the first time, did much better the second time.

You know, I get millions of votes more the second time, and now I'm doing it a third time.

And it's an incredible thing.

I never get a good story.

I only get bad press.

Now, I will say this: it's a lot easier if you're a Democrat.

If I were a Democrat, you'd get a lot of positive press.

I would get a lot of positive press.

No, it's a creepy, corrupt business.

And the media, to a large extent, acts as a propaganda arm for the Democratic Party.

It's not even believable.

So Joe agrees that if Trump was a Democrat, he'd get an easy pass in the press.

So first of all, that's ignoring the fact that here's Trump on Joe Rogan's podcast with 58 million YouTube viewers alone, claiming at various parts of his conversation that he won the 2020 election by a long way, and Joe does not.

pick up or push back on that at all.

As you've seen, this entire conversation has been an exercise in managing Trump's image and his likability.

This is the easy pass in the press that Trump is saying he never gets and that Joe is saying no one ever gives him.

And now consider do democrats really get nothing but good press from across the mainstream media this is the 2024 election this is october the month before the election they're already talking about how he's up against kamala harris that's because kamala harris was brought in to replace biden as a candidate The replacement didn't happen in the context of an unbroken string of positive press stories about Joe Biden.

There was a lot of negativity in the press about Biden's suitability, his capabilities, in a way that the right-wing press were not given the same scrutiny at all to Trump.

There was more scrutiny, unquestionably, to Biden.

Maybe that's because he's the incumbent.

There's lots of reasons why it could be.

He's older than Trump.

There's all sorts of things in there.

But to say that Democrats get nothing but good press is just alien to what was actually happening in America at this time.

Well, and then think about the press that Kamala Harris got, right?

We're talking about the constant stories lamenting not having a primary.

There was opinion piece after opinion piece and factual pieces written about not having a primary and how this is odd and how this is something that the American people maybe should be questioning, et cetera.

There's also tons of stories about linking her policies to Biden policies, her separating from Biden on different policies and how that's bad and how it shows that Biden is bad because she's trying to change how Biden did things.

Stories of her support for Israel, story of Biden support for Israel and how that links to her, linking her to immigration, saying she was the immigration czar.

There's all these bad press items that were popping up during the election season.

There was all this stuff that was popping up about her.

So to paint it as if there's just these rose-colored glasses, they're going after her just as much as they go after Trump.

That it's pretty obvious to see if you read any newspaper.

Yeah, absolutely.

I also want to point out, too, just for our audience, that the closed captions in here referred to Ron DeSantis as Ronda Sands.

And I know how mad he would be if someone misgendered him.

So I just wanted to say that it is Ronda Sands in the closed captions.

Yeah, absolutely.

And I'd say that Ronda Sands was his drag name, but he's definitely banned that.

He's definitely banned that.

But the thing is, as well, if you going back to what we're saying here about the coverage, if you you have to bear in mind that in America, I think the most watched cable news channel in America is Fox News, which again can hardly be said to go easy on the Democrats while holding Republican feet to the fires.

And Joe, if we're being charitable, Joe might honestly believe all of this.

And if he does, that would have to be because the media that he consumes and the people that he's friends with have pushed him in this direction, have led him to believe this.

Or he doesn't believe this, but he recognizes that it's expedient to paint this picture.

But if we pause and just consider for a moment, what he's saying here is just

so so completely out of touch with how the media actually operate that it feels like he's trying to sell this to his viewers

because they would not accept this if it wasn't someone like Joe saying this is what the media really is like.

Okay, so now Joe's plea to

young people that being Republican is being punk rock.

I think young people.

It's had a huge impact.

Young people are rejecting a lot of this woke bullshit.

Young people are tired of being yelled at and scolded.

They're tired of these people that they think are mentally ill telling them what the moral standards of society should be today.

And people are upset.

There's a big difference now, but even in just a couple of years, I was shaking hands with people.

They're young.

The rebels are Republicans now.

They're like, you want to be a rebel?

You want to be punk rock?

You want to like fuck the system?

You're a conservative now.

That's how crazy.

And then the liberals are now

pro-silencing criticism.

They're pro-censorship online.

They're talking about regulating free speech and now regulating the First Amendment.

It's bananas to watch.

I just want to point out that the Republicans very recently just literally withheld funding to universities that were structuring things around inclusion and diversity.

So

let's talk about who's trying to censor who when we look at this government and the things that they're actually doing versus the things that they claimed before they won.

Yeah, absolutely.

I mean, not to be funny about it, I literally can't visit America right now because tourists who've criticized Trump online are being detained at the border, sometimes for days, and then deported home.

There was a story where French officials have expressed dismay after a French scientist was denied entry into the United States because immigration officers found text messages containing a personal opinion about the Trump administration and its policies on scientific research.

And they weren't allowed in the country.

I would have been visiting America in September.

I'm not doing it anymore because it isn't safe for me to do that because partly this short and partly because otherwise I'm critical of Trump.

So when we talk about censorship, this is what we should really be talking about as the major issues.

Germany and Britain, my country, has even issued travel warnings about going to America, about how it may not be safe given the American approach to immigration at the border.

And it updated its travel warnings as a result of what's been happening in the last couple of months alone.

Yeah.

And look,

this is Joe, in my opinion, selling to all his young male listeners that it is punk rock to be Republican and you should go and vote for this guy in particular.

This is a sales pitch to his listeners to buck the system.

Yeah, absolutely.

And it's coming two hours 13 into this interview, which I think the interview is about three hours.

So this is before we get through to the end of the interview.

We have to hit the sales pitch hard.

We need to make sure we get this in here, I think.

All right.

This is our last clip.

This is talking about 2020.

And you can go into the ballots where they wouldn't give you access to the ballots.

You could go into the ballot harvesting.

You could go into $500 million for the lockboxes.

But just in terms of narrative, so there's two things, right?

There's the Russia hoax.

There's the collusion with Russia that was never proven, right?

That's one.

Well, no, it was proven it didn't happen.

Right, right.

But

they talked about it on television.

It was two and a half years to prove.

But not only that, but it was a constant narrative on television.

Sure.

That's a constant narrative that gets into people's minds, especially low-information people that are just watching the news, that you're in collusion with Russia.

So that's one.

So that changes the narrative.

And then you have the 51 former intelligence agents that work with the original Twitter and get them to remove links.

You can't share it on DMs.

You cannot share that story.

They swept that story because they said it was Russian disinformation, even though they knew it was not.

100%.

So that's two examples that are real examples.

Now, anyone who considers himself a legitimate objective observer of American politics, if you really want the best person to win, you would want people to not lie.

And the only reason why they got away with this lie was because they continually labeled you as this horrible threat to democracy and Hitler.

They kept saying you're going to be a dictator, ignoring the fact that you weren't a dictator for the four years where you were actually the president.

I was actually the opposite of a dictator.

I was a very straight guy.

But look, those three things, you take those three things.

Each one of them by themselves causes the result to be different.

It does.

And then you can go into a hundred other things.

There are so many.

So again, Joe came into this telling us he had no biases.

He had no horse in the race.

He hadn't made a decision.

It sounds like he's got some very specific facts and figures about what changed the results of the election.

He's talking about 51 foreign intelligence officers.

He knows the specifics of this.

So he clearly has some investment.

I would say that Joe didn't so much press Trump on the big lie of the stolen election as help him tell the big lie.

That's what we're seeing in this interview.

Yeah, absolutely.

Joe asks him to explain how the election was stolen.

Trump stumbles, and then Joe swoops in with all the answers for him, and he lies and distorts it.

And then within the same breath, we'll tell you that legacy media is the one that's biased and has propaganda.

So that's it for the show this week.

But we'll be back with another bit of Donald Trump next week because we've only covered the main event and we still need to do a toolbox section.

And we also have a special undercard next week.

So come back for a second part of the Donald Trump episode next week.

If you're a patron, you're going to get this whole episode this week.

So we're going to actually have two full episodes that are released this week for patrons.

And then we're going to spread it out so that next week there'll be a full episode that covers, like I suggest, the toolbox and the undercard.

Patrons will have access to all that stuff right away.

Remember that you can access more than half an hour of bonus content each week.

And this week it'll probably be a full hour since we're plugging it both together or the entire gloves off will be together.

And you can do that for as little as a dollar an episode by subscribing at patreon.com slash no Rogan.

Meanwhile, you can hear from more from me at Cognitive Dissonance and Citation Needed.

And you can hear more from Marsh at Skeptics with a K and the Skeptic Podcast.

And we'll be back next week for a little more of the No Rogan experience.

If you love the show, please rate and share it.

If you want to get in touch with us, become a patron, or check out the show notes, go to knowrogan.com.

K-N-O-W-R-O-G-A-N.com.

It seems everyone gets a tip these days.

Deliver food?

Get a tip.

Drive around town?

Get a tip.

Serve a drink?

Get a tip.

But here's one tip that can help you find a higher-paying career.

Merit America can help you get the training and support to find and succeed in an in-demand job, like data analytics or HR admin or supply chain planning.

It may be the last tip you ever need.

Learn more at meritamerica.org.

If you love chilling mysteries, unsolved cases, and a touch of mom-style humor, Moms and Mysteries is the podcast you've been searching for.

Hey guys, I'm Mandy, and I'm Melissa.

Join us every Tuesday for Moms and Mysteries, your gateway to gripping, well-researched true crime stories.

Each week, we deep dive into a variety of mind-boggling cases as we shed light on everything from heists to whodunits.

We're your go-to podcast for mysteries with a motherly touch.

Subscribe now to Moms and Mysteries, wherever you get your podcast.