that's what i said. that's what she said! [chewing loudly] that's what who says? i never know. [chuckling] i just say it. i say stuff like that, you know, to lighten the tension when things sort of get hard. that's what she said. [snorting] hey! nice! really good. bravo, my young ward. ♪ ♪ >> announcer: from the most trusted journalists at comedy central... it's america's only source for news. this is "the daily show" with your host, jon stewart! [cheers and applause] ♪ ♪

[cheers and applause] >> jon: i drew a picture! hello! [cheers and applause] welcome to "the daily show!" my name is jon stewart. what a fabulous program we have for you tonight. now listen. it's been rough for me. now that my knicks and rangers are out of the playoffs, i'm ready to focus on the world. and there's a lot going on. today, dr. anthony fauci testified in front of congress today and ironically contracted rabies. terrible. but his testimony was obviously about whether or not the

pandemic was a lab leak. i guess we'll never know! don't say it, stewart. also, bibi netanyahu has been invited next week to come to lie to congress. i'm sorry. [audience reacts] [cheers and applause] what did i say? coming to address congress... through the art of lying. and mexico has just elected its first female and its first jewish president. so i'm very much looking forward to npr's coverage of it. because they're always very careful to pronounce names authentically. so i'm sure it will be like, "turning now to the newly elected mexican president, [speaks in a mexican accent] claudia [speaks in a yiddish accent] sheinbaum."

but of course, the biggest story continues to be the reaction to former president trump's trial convictions. for the left, the conviction was an exercise in concealed glee. many took the opportunity to over-demonstrate how they took no pleasure from this day that they had been dreaming about since childhood. >> it was a somber and sad day for america that we have now seen a former president convicted on 34 felony counts. >> i would hope we could all agree that this is a sad moment. >> the justice system had an honorable day. our country had a sad day. >> jon: and ferris bueller had the day off. perhaps nothing personified the delicate high-wire between glee and gravitas more than president biden's cheshire cat press conference encore. >> mr. president, can you tell

us, sir, donald trump refers to himself as a political prisoner and blames you directly. what's your response? >> jon: no, don't stop! don't! don't! stop! why can't they tell him? just [bleep] keep walking! whenever he's out in public, and he stops, no bueno. okay, go. >> sir? do you think the conviction will have an impact on the campaign? we'd love to hear your thoughts, sir. [laughter and applause] >> jon: why does everything have

to be so [bleep] weird? why? you have something to say about it, say it. if you don't got something to say, don't say it. but you just going to stop and hit 'em with some kind of '70s sitcom freeze frame? "mr. president, what do you think of the conviction?" ♪ ♪ [sitcom theme music] [cheers and applause] why? so for democrats, of course, the challenge is, how do we exploit the moment politically without giving the impression that this was your plan all along? republicans needed to employ a slightly different strategy. >> this was a sham, rigged political show trial from the very beginning. >> this is the most outrageous travesty i've ever seen. >> this was not law. this was not criminal justice. this was politics.

this was a political smear job. >> i guess we all need, what, to shop at banana republic from now on, because that's what it feels like. yeah, a banana republic. >> jon: after this trial, we need to shop at old navy, because our country is a sinking ship." it was a sham! a sham! this trial, a sham, i say! [applause] it was a sham! "i am shopping at old navy!" the trial was a sham. yes, we empaneled grand juries, and submitted evidence, and cross-examined witnesses, but how was donald trump or his family not allowed on the jury? outrageous! i guess in america now, we need to start shopping at bonobos, because our country is getting [bleep] at both ends!

you see, if i may, bonobos are highly sexual apes who frequently engage in activities with multiple partners. oh, i'm going to be a big hit on primatologist tiktok. but maybe our justice system wasn't a sham, but certainly applying our justice system to donald trump was. >> this is the weaponization of the justice system against their political opponent. this is a justice system that hunts republicans, while protecting democrats. >> jon: oh, my god! the justice system hunts republicans while protecting democrats? well, somebody should mention that to such unprotected democrats as senator robert menendez and congressman henry cuellar, both facing corruption charges brought by our department of justice. not to mention, hunter biden was facing jury selection in a [bleep] today! it's why you probably noticed everyone on "fox & friends" this morning using pillows to cover

their boners. it was -- but now you've done it. the rules for your sham weaponization, the denizens maga-tania have been pushed too far. >> be ready, because on january 20th of next year, when he's former president joe biden, what's good for the goose is good for the gander. >> "the daily wire"'s matt walsh said trump should, quote, "make and publish a list of ten high ranking democrat criminals who he will have arrested when he takes office. >> these democrats will rue the day they decided to use law fare to stop a presidential candidate. it won't be hunter biden the next time. it's going to be joe biden. it could potentially still be barack obama. it could still potentially be hillary clinton. of >> jon: "it could be barack obama?"

first of all, why is she broadcasting in front of georgia o'keefe's vagina? and second, perhaps it's time for those on the right to begin to examine what it would be like to investigate hillary and william clinton! or perhaps, to do it continuously and relentlessly for the last 30 years. but to admit their own political gamesmanship, their own attempts at weaponizing justice, their own relentless pursuit of opponents, their own dehumanizing rhetoric towards the left would be to allow a molecule of reality into the airtight distortion field that has been created to protect maga-donians from the harsh glare of actuality. it is a place where a moment such as this next one can pass without so much as a gasp of, "what planet do you

live on, for it is clearly not ours?" >> you famously said regarding hillary clinton, "lock her up." you declined to do that as president. >> i didn't say "lock her up," but the people said "lock her up, lock her up." [laughter and applause] >> jon: what the [bleep]? you never said "lock her up!" i think i remember you saying it to her face at a debate! >> it's just awfully good that someone with the temperament of donald trump is not in charge of the law and our country. >> because you'd be in jail. >> jon: to be fair, i apologize. you didn't say the words

"lock her up." he only used a phrase synonymous with locking her up. >> [crowd chanting "lock her up"] >> jon: again, apologies. you didn't say "lock her up," you merely gave the thumbs up to thousands of others chanting "lock her up!" but that doesn't mean he literally said "lock her up!" although, to be fair, he literally said "lock her up" all the [bleep] time. >> so crooked hillary -- wait. crooked -- you should lock her up. i'll tell you, for what she's done, they should lock her up. lock her up" is right. lock up the bidens, lock up hillary. [applause] [cheers and applause] >> jon: and the "fox & friends"

b-team is just [bleep] sitting tanned and fit healthy -- and so [bleep]. how did they get so [bleep]? a good-looking bunch! but there's three of them! one of them didn't remember? i could believe two of them didn't remember, but three of them? and that, ladies and gentlemen, i present to you, is why we need courts. whatever flaws the american justice system has, and they are legion, especially for non-billionaire former presidents, it appears to be the last place in america where you can't just say whatever the [bleep] you want regardless of reality. trump knows this better than anyone. >> now, i would have testified. i wanted to testify. the theory is, you never testify because as soon as you testify for anybody, if it were george washington, don't testify because he'll get you on something that you said slightly wrong and then they sue you for

perjury. you would've said something out of whack, like, it was a beautiful sunny day, and it was actually raining out. >> jon: yes, our jails in america are filled with incompetent weathermen. "i'm telling you, officer, i thought there would be thundersnow! 20% is still a chance!" don't take me away!" this is why the law and order right hates court procedures when applied to them. courts are the last remaining guardrail that has a standard of evidentiary presentation. it is the last place where you have to prove what you say. and you see the difference in what they say out of court versus in court. here is trump on the 2020 election, out of court. >> this is a fraud on the american public. we know there was massive fraud.

it was a rigged election, 100%. >> jon: here are his lawyers in court! >> this is not a fraud case. we are not alleging fraud in this lawsuit. we're not alleging that anyone is stealing the election. >> jon: here is rudy giuliani, pleading before the court of seasonal landscapers, it was a mix up. he is pleading but not in the actual court. >> it's a fraud, an absolute fraud. >> jon: and what does he say about that in court? >> if we had alleged fraud, yes, but this is not a fraud case. >> jon: it's not a fraud case in in court, where i would need evidence. it's only a fraud case out there, amongst the sod and the mulch, where i can say whatever i want! fox news says that dominion

voting machines rigged the election for biden, out of court. >> they were flipping votes in the computer system or adding votes that did not exist. the whole situation was carefully calculated and created to steal the election from president trump. >> jon: did you notice, as the fraud trial went on, sidney powell turned into michael jackson? is that -- [applause] probably ended that segment with woo-hoo! but that's what y you can say out-of-court! but in court, fox was forced to pay $787 million for false statements. [applause] the difference between in court and out of court is that in court, someone can say, "prove it." and the problem is that most of

the time, our political leaders are not in court. they are here, on tv. where the news media has decided that there's really no such thing as reality. >> we now live in two utterly different universes. >> these two americas are living in two different realities. >> we are living in two different realities. >> americans are living in for the most part, two very different realities right now. >> jon: no! you are thinking of the multi-verse. we are all living in one reality! and it can be your job to -- the news media's job to litigate the parameters of said reality. what the courts do really well is look backwards and reconstruct the realities of what happened. the news media could do the same. but what they do instead is look forward and wildly speculate on

the future. >> if donald trump is the nominee and if he is convicted of a crime, could you support him? >> if he is a convicted felon, if he is the republican nominee, does that mean you're still going to vote for him? >> he could be convicted before november. would you still support him then? >> will you commit to certifying the 2024 election results no matter who wins? >> let me look forward. will you accept the election results of 2024, no matter what happens, senator? >> jon: "no matter what, senator? voting irregularities? ant overlords? voting machines that suddenly transform into fighting robots? "voting booth powers, activate!" will you still certify? who [bleep] cares! no one knows what the future holds! ask this person what it was about the 2020 election that they found objectionable and then litigate the realities of their objections to them in front of them! so when they say to you, "i never said "lock her up," you can say, "i object!"

[bleep] do that! [cheers and applause] what is wrong with you? [cheers and applause] what is wrong with you? [cheers and applause] and you know what, here's the deal. you really want to ask speculative questions that nobody can answer, we will create a show just for that. we'll tighten it down to a half-hour and call it "no one [bleep] knows!" put all the polls and horse race questions in there! then, with the other 23-and-a-half hours in the day, the other seven days a week, you can present the evidence for our shared experience. because court should be the option of last resort for our defined reality, not the only option. for our defined reality. so listen up, media: we'll give you a little gavel, and you can study all the evidence, no matter how tedious, and reach a conclusion, and then you can present those conclusions. and the audience, us, we'll be

the ones doing jury duty, willingly, without penalty of law, or without trying to come up with any excuse to avoid having to do jury duty -- i think i'm seeing the flaw in my argument here. either way, it's better than what we have now! when we come back, ken buck will be joining us. so don't go away. [cheers and applause]

when you're hungry you need a big box... you need an even bigger box. now for only $20. two great ways to save at popeyes! love that chicken from popeye's! [thinking] someone smells "too fresh." did she take my old spice total body deodorant with 24/7 freshness and use it on her pits? toes? and down below's? how could you?

♪ (old spice whistle) ♪ [peaceful music plays] [soft cymbal crash] [ growl ] ready for the road trip. [peaceful music plays] everyone comfortable. yep, there's plenty of space. i've even got an extra seat. wait! no, no, no, no, no. [ gasps ] [ indistinct chatter ] [ sigh ] let's just wait them out. the volkswagen atlas with three rows of seating for seven. everyone wants a ride. [ snoring ] ok, get in. [ speaking minionese ] yippee! and see "despicable me 4" in theaters july 3rd. rated pg. [cheers and applause] >> jon: hey, everybody! that's our show for tonight! before we go, let's check in with your host for the rest of the week, mr. ronny chieng! ronny chieng! tell the people what you got lined up for this week. >> well, jon, i'll be looking at international stories, because i figure at least one of the 37 hosts of this show should be thinking about places besides america. speaking of which, hey! new president of mexico. mazel tov! l'chaim! >> jon: "mazel tov"? why are you mazel tov'ing me? >> oh, because she, you know... she's got -- you know, eats the challah. she's the chosen one. >> jon: she's jewish? >> whoa, whoa, whoa. you said it, not me.

okay? >> jon: that's not a slur. you can say jewish. >> not with the hard "ish." i'm just saying, hey, if an asian dude won president of mexico, i'd be hyped. i'd throw a big party for my staff and maybe give everyone sitting next to me a hundred bucks. >> jon: i'm not giving you $100. stay tuned for ronny chieng this week. and check out my new podcast, "the weekly show with jon stewart," starting this thursday. here it is, your "moment of zen" >> using the justice system to engage in a politically driven prosecution and now conviction of a major political party nominee running for president, especially on the charges brought against donald trump, showed gravely concerned every member of this body as well as every american across our country, whether they be republican or democrat, for donald trump or against him.

>> sorry.

oh-lay's) ♪'s ♪ (oh-lay's) ♪ ♪ (oh-lay's) ♪ ♪ (oh-lay's! oh-lay's oh-lay's oh-lay's) ♪ ♪ (oh-lay's oh-lay's) ♪ ♪ (oh-lay's! oh-lay's oh-lay's oh-lay's) ♪ (cheering) goal! (cheering) ♪ (oh-lay's! oh-lay's oh-lay's oh-lay's! oh-lay's) ♪ ♪ (oh-lay's! oh-lay's) ♪ ♪ (oh-lay's) ♪ ♪ (oh-lay's oh-lay's oh-lay's oh-lay's) ♪ old spice gentleman's super hydration body wash. (whispered) vanilla and shea. 24/7 moisturization with vitamin b3. (knock on the door) are you using all the old spice?

oops. ♪ (old spice mnemonic) ♪ -electric for short trips... -hmmm? ...gas for long. hmmm? quite the paradox... -it really is both. -hmmm. the lexus rx plug-in hybrid. ♪

[indistinct chatter] professor: first class of the day. ♪ [brooding dramatic music] ♪ and no charger? you're playing a dangerous game... ♪

[chair squeaks] but i guess battery death is just a part of battery life. you get used to it, grow numb to it... student: it's a mac - the battery lasts all day. [laptop shuts] see ya next week. [chair squeaks] i hate these chairs. [door shuts] [cheers and applause] >> jon: welcome back to the program. my guest tonight is a republican who used to represent colorado's fourth district in congress for nine years until his resignation in march. please welcome former congressman ken buck. sir! [cheers and applause] ♪ ♪ [cheers and applause] how are you? >> good. >> jon: for those of you who might not know, sir, you are a

congressman for nine years, conservative bona fides, i mean, in fact, impeccable. and yet not strong enough in fealty to the trump world that you were immune from the pressure and the penalties that they might place on you. >> well, donald trump is not a conservative. >> jon: exactly. but now you are the rhino. you, and you and i probably disagree on most things. >> hopefully everything. >> jon: [laughs] [laughter and applause] well done, sir. well done. but what is the pressure like? you know, i see so many republican stalwarts who are on the record as saying, this man is a con man. this man is not worthy of the highest office of the pres presidency.

this man defiles our great country. i am supporting him in 2024. what is the mental process of that? >> well, it is really pretty simple. >> jon: . >> jon: yes. >> in order to get elected, you have to get 51% of the vote. so there is this combination of wanting to do the right thing, so you run for office, and then you need to be popular in order to win. and the republican party now, a majority of republican primary voters, are maga supporters so you don't want to make the man matt who is really in control og the maga voters. so those folks are making a calculation. they want to stay in office. >> jon: in your mind, what is the percentage of that? how much is a cynical calculation and how much of it is people like yourself leave and they are filled in by real ideologues who believe in that message? the message of, it is really whatever trump wants, having nothing to do with conservative principle? >> well, i think there is 100%

of the folks who are running for office who recognize that if they are going to win a republican primary, they need to be trump supporters. >> jon: right. and that is what is happening. was there discussion behind the scenes in congress where people would say, i want this to end? do they feel hostage to that? >> and both parties, honestly. in both parties, there is a real problem with the folks over at the head of the ticket. >> jon: right. >> obviously dean phillips felt that way on the left. >> jon: sure. i was a big phillips to support it. really thought he was going to go all the way. remind me again. who is dean phillips? now but you have said -- see you have watched this process play out with donald trump. would you say it is fair that it literally drove you from congress? >> i would not win a primary in the next election, or if i won a primary, it would be because they were so many people who wanted to run against me that they split the vote. >> jon: and what was the crime you committed? because your positions had a change. so tell me the crime you

committed. >> i don't know that it's a crime -- now that we are talking about verdicts and stuff like that, trying to stay away from whatever crime. >> jon: you are not under oath in any way. >> whatever crime i committed, the statute of limitations probably hasn't run so i want to make sure i am clear there. but my goal in leaving congress was to leave undefeated and unindicted and i have accomplished that goal. so i am very happy about that. >> jon: you got to aim higher next time. you got to. you do have a frustration and complaints about the process of this donald trump trial. i think you called it shameful precedent? no. shameful precedent? is that correct? >> what? >> jon: a shameful precedent? >> i think it is a bad precedent. i was a prosecutor for 25 years. >> jon: why do you think it is a precedent? >> it is a bad precedent because lady justice, blindfold, scale, sword, the image of lady justice -- >> jon: we went out in the '70s. i'm very familiar. >> okay. in this case, the blindfold came off.

the blindfold was on because people shouldn't be targeted, and the system is flawed. i'm not saying that doesn't happen. people shouldn't be targeted because they are white or black, man or woman, republican or democrat, rich, poor. the blindfold came off and donald trump was targeted. >> jon: now how was he -- i'm curious how he was targeted. >> so cyrus vance was the previous d.a., declined this case. >> jon: okay. >> alvin bragg brought a case where the misdemeanor had that -- the statute of limitations had expired. found a felony to extend that statue of limitations and brought the case. >> jon: found a felony or there was a felony? for the previous >> well, there wasn't a felony for the previous district attorney. >> jon: many times, district attorneys will say i don't think the evidence get set standards but another district attorney might say, that is a felony. he is doing that in order to manipulate an election. that is a felony. >> so this district attorney declined the case, alvin bragg declined the case and then

brought the case. and there were significant political pressure to bring the case. that is something that our justice system needs to be insulated from. at the federal system has done a fairly good job of being insulated. you got hunter biden, you've got special counsel appointed on -- >> jon: but hunter biden wouldn't be up against charges if he wasn't hunter biden. he would be just some dude who brought a gun somewhere. he wouldn't be facing the charges he's facing. >> well, we probably disagree about that. hopefully, hunter biden -- >> jon: you think hunter biden would be facing, rather than a rehab stint or something along those lines -- you think the intent attention on hunter biden would be occurring whether his e was hunter biden or not? >> i prosecute hundreds of gun cases, some of them because drug dealers -- drug users, drug addicts had purchased a gun, yes. >> jon: but doesn't that say more about this country's view on drug cases and how we prosecute them and how we excuse white-collar crime? we basically have a bargain with white-collar crime, where we

say, how about you give us 5% of it and everything will be fine? like, isn't that not speak to political targeting, but the way that we would diminish white-collar crimes? i mean, 2008, the financial system collapsed and one dude went to jail for, like my three months. i think martha stewart did a longer stint. >> which was a white-collar crime, by the way. but yeah, i think -- i w was a white-collar prosecutor for much of my 25 years, absolutely. a black kid walks into a bank, robs a bank to my 20 years. a white guy at a bank steals millions of dollars, compared to $1200, gets off with probation or goes to a camp in florida for a few months. absolutely inequitable, absolutely. >> jon: so couldn't you look this is actually not a shameful precedent but an unbelievably positive step in sending a message that the low level of corruption that seems to be the center of our political life is

unacceptable? [applause] [cheers and applause] i was not a prosecutor. i didn't think that was coming. i apologize. >> you all get bonuses. >> jon: yes, exactly. >> so it is a dangerous precedent, in my mind, because when we start charging former presidents, we -- and i'm not saying -- look. i think what donald trump did in atlantic city with the casinos and other things, there was fraud and it may be went beyond civil fraud here there are plenty of things people can look at and say that is a criminal case. >> jon: sure. >> i think that when you look at a former president and he has gone up, how many civil cases now on four criminal cases? >> jon: but let's be clear, donald trump didn't come into office a boy scout. he was probably one of the most sued individuals in new york state history.

his first lawyer was roy cohn. you don't hire roy cohn and say come i want to make sure everything is done on the up and up. roy cohn i think was donald trump's lawyer and satan's lawyer. and fire member correctly, even satan would say to him, take it down a notch, roy. >> did satan pay his bills? >> jon: he did not pay his bills. my point is, this is a continuation of a process. so the targeting aspect of it -- look, a healthy country would have viewed what donald trump did from the election date through january 6th, the way that he meticulously and relentlessly pursued all avenues to overturn a democratic election, that is what a healthy country would deal with. but a healthy country also looks at other aspects of what seemed to be fraud. if you have a home office and you put it on your taxes but you don't really have a home office, that is a problem for you, is it

not? >> yes. >> jon: they say it is just a bookkeeping error of $130,000. donald trump colluded with his lawyer and a publisher of a major tabloid to buy and fairy stories -- >> not a crime. >> jon: that he would deem hurtful to his election, and then use the finances that he paid for those stories and put them down as not that. that is a crime, is it not? >> he didn't put them down -- he put them in a ledger is not a payment for -- but what he -- well, you can falsify your own books. you just can't falsify your books when you submit them to the irs. >> jon: oh, so when he submitted them -- >> he said it was a legal expense. it wasn't a campaign expense. >> jon: i -- i understand the point you are making -- so here is where this takes us, i think. i don't believe donald trump is

the sole threat to our democracy. i truly don't. i think he is a symptom of a dissatisfaction that people have with the democratic system, where, if you have money and you are powerful, you can go, it was on my ledger as a legal expense. it is not a real -- it is not a legal expense, it is not for my election, it is -- i think they see that his prescription of our system is correct. the system is rigged. and people's dissatisfaction with that is what leads to donald trump being able to command that dissatisfaction. where i would disagree with him is, i don't think he wants to drain the swamp. i think he wants the deed to the swamp signed over to him so that he can turn america into just another subsidiary of the trump organization. [applause] but i don't know -- so my question to you would be, why is

it bad precedent to pursue that case legally? donald trump, if he pursued the election fraud cases through the courts, and they impaneled a grand jury, and it went to a trial with a jury of peers and they decided on it, that is not illegitimate. and so why is this illegitimate? by the way, that is my lawyer calling right now. with a -- first of all, is that really your ringtone? like, is your ringtone "baby go nappy?" sorry. getting back to our democracy. look, i just find all this really disingenuous. the prosecutor ran on getting donald trump. well, he is the d.a.

he runs on weeding out corruption, right? >> can i answer you? >> jon: please. >> i was a prosecutor -- >> jon: white-collar crime. >> i ran three separate times. i ran on, we have got to combat violent crime. we have to go after repeat offenders. never ran on, i'm going to get that guy. >> jon: but you could run on i'm getting ay i'm going to get trump. what he said was, i'm the most qualified. this guy has a record in new york, decades long, of corruption. and i think it is -- look, if you were dick tracy and he wanted to do the thing, wouldn't you be like them i'm going to gget to scarface over everyone f the guys was? this was a guy pulling that in the second point to that is this, and 2016, what was one of the platforms that donald trump ran on? "let's get crooked hillary." thinks god is not a prosecutor. >> jon: i understand! what do you get my point? the point is, this guy ran on

hillary is crooked and i'm going to put her in jail. and then with biden, he said the biden crime family is crooked and i'm going to put them in jail. and then a prosecutor in new york said, i have evidence you have committed a felony so we are going to put you on trial and he is like, what? how dare you, sir! what are we talking about? [cheers and applause] what is this? what are we doing? i'm about to go to jail, aren't i, sir? >> respectfully. >> jon: please. >> apples and oranges. >> jon: why? >> because you've gotpolitil syw many people in america believe what a politician says? [audience reacts] [boos] >> jon: no, no. k. tickets are free. i will throw you out of here, respectfully. we are having a conversation. this is not rome. >> a prosecutor walks into a

courtroom and tells a lie, and that prosecutor loses a law license and probably goes to prison. >> jon: exactly. >> so the difference between alvin bragg saying, i'm going after that person and donald trump saying, that person should go to prison is two different forums. >> jon: who has the more power? >> a candidate? >> jon: no, the president! and someone running for president. this is kind of a crazy argument you are making. >> no, no, no. let me finish. bill barr, great attorney general. merrick garland, great attorney general. merrick garland appointed special counsel and then put the report out that says that joe biden should not be prosecuted because he is a kind gentleman with a bad memory, something to that effect. >> jon: right. that's not what he said, but okay. >> it is close. >> jon: what he said was, he would present to the jury as a kind old gentleman, which means, i don't think we can win this case because i think he is too sympathetic a figure. >> okay. >> jon: very different. >> apologize.

i'm not trying to slander -- >> jon: objection sustained. objection -- what's the -- >> i don't know. it was a long time ago. >> jon: [laughs] but my point being that, if a candidate says, i'm going to get this person, then that is all alvin bragg was at that time was a candidate. so why aren't you holding donald trump, who was running for president to the same standard that you would hold alvin bragg? and not only that, when donald trump was president, he did impanel a special prosecutor to go after the russian pollution hoax that john durham panel, and that was there, to try and get charges against hillary clinton? you can't be mad of the democrats for committing murder just because your team only committed attempted murder. like, that just doesn't fly! they were successful in their prosecution as opposed to those other cases where you just tried to get her. >> so donald trump never had the authority to request a search warrant, put handcuffs on

somebody, prosecute somebody. that is always done by an independent department of justice. >> jon: right. >> on the other hand, alvin bragg ran for office to get that authority to do those very things. it is two separate situations. >> jon: not solely, and also, those things come with a process. he can't just go in there and go, "arrest that guy." this isn't navalny. a grand jury was impaneled abnormal new yorkers, not alvin bragg come and he presented his evidence, and they came back and said, there is a case here. so they impaneled the jury. both sides got to choose. >> you can indict a ham sandwich. that is at a jury is good for. >> jon: okay, but generally, you wouldn't convict a ham sandwich because at some point, 12 new yorkers would say, that is a ham sandwich. [applause] >> and we will see what an appeals court does. you are putting me in an unenviable position of defending donald trump. i've been a long time -- >> jon: no, i'm putting you in

position of defending the process that he was put through. that process has standards. you said it yourself. an appeals court is going to look at this. there are many safeguards within our legal system and he is getting the benefit of almost all of them, in a way that poor new yorkers will never get a sniff of! >> agree. >> jon: so he is getting due=ier process than anyone has ever gotten. just because you don't like the result of the election, our elections are a fraud and a third world country. he doesn't like their result of a criminal case, records or fraud. what would make them better? if they did what i wanted. that is not our system. that is a monarch. >> i think what would make them better in his mind if they did not convict him. >> jon: that is my point! >> but i don't think he wants justice in this country. i don't think he is standing up and saying, we need justice. >> jon: agreed. >> he is saying the election is stolen so let's see if we can

overturn it. >> jon: let's break it for me. >> i didn't win in the courts so let's go to congress. i want him to certify those lectures, by the way. >> jon: you walk out here and you said to me, this is just 15 minutes ago, i promised i wouldn't do this -- you said to me, i bet we don't agree on anything, and yet, sir, here we are! agreeing! detente! if we can do this, sir -- >> i retract my previous comments. >> jon: [laughs] i will have the stenographer note those. how do we -- my point in the first segment was, the courts have been a really important stopgap. i think our courts -- there is a two tiered system and poor people without access get screwed. but i do think it has played an important role in holding up certain things in terms of corruption. i think the news media has forgotten that i can be part of

their role. is that something that you think could bring a sense more of an established reality, and earned authority from the media that could create some parameters that we could all sort of agree on? is that something that you think would be possible? >> i appreciate the question. i'm no longer a defense attorney. now i can go to -- so i think we went from walter cronkite and dan rather to entertainment. and i think the problem -- >> jon: why are you looking at me? i had nothing to do with this. >> i think the problem right now is, everybody gets their news sources in silos, and they just keep getting reinforced with certain ideas. i went to a neighbors house the day after the 2020 election, their flag was upside down. >> jon: you were next to the alitos?

that is crazy! [applause and laughter] >> i knocked on the door and asked them, your flag is upside down. i thought they made a mistake. >> jon: oh, gosh. but they were sending a message. >> it is a crazy message. they were canceling across the street. there was gas in the tank, food in the refrigerator. >> jon: you thought it was a dystopian, like "the last of us," they were falling apart. i wonder too, if the algorithm, you know, has played a role. people can say, they are in their silos. but i think also, the algorithms on social media incentivize you to more and more radical content. they want to keep you engaged. in the same way that the news media needs kind of fear and urgency, i always say, it is built for 9 9/11, but in the absence of 9/11, they have to make you think that it is 9/11. and i think the algorithm, you know, plays a role in that as well, driving ice into those

holes. lacking perspective. i don't know what you do about that. >> one, you create more competition. facebook should have five facebooks they compete with and hopefully there would be a point where -- >> jon: what they do is a buy anything that even resembles a budding facebook and stick it in their facebook drawer. >> right. >> jon: that at the top part. >> oh, it's -- >> jon: do you miss congress in any way? do you feel it was a job left undone for you? do you feel -- what are your ultimate thoughts about leaving the way you did and the unfulfilled potential of a government that is completely disconnected from the needs of its people, allowing demagogues like donald trump to rise? >> well, i left because i couldn't tell the lie. the 2020 election wasn't stolen. january 6 defendants aren't political prisoners. on and on. and so -- >> jon: that is him saying that, not me.

i just want to make that clear. [applause] if i ever decide to run for congress as a republican, i just want to make sure that that is ken buck saying that, not me. continue. >> so not telling -- not agreeing to the party line -- >> jon: right. you are a victim of cancel culture. >> well, i am -- one, i'm not a victim of anything. i am absolutely blessed beyond belief with six grandkids and plenty -- >> jon: six grandkids? >> six and a half grandkids. one on the way. >> jon: oh, god! i'm sorry. i immediately went to the wisdom of know, you're not supposed to do that. >> but there is a lot of life out there besides -- >> jon: yes. >> besides arguing about nothing and telling lies.

so i made a choice to go enjoy what i've got left. >> jon: what will break this fever in washington? >> one, america does great with a crisis. 9/12, america came together, and we were unified country. >> jon: for, like, seven ho hours. >> i hope we don't get to that crisis point. but i think that there is a leader out there that will unify and help unify america and it it is somebody who has great morals -- >> jon: i believe that. >> someone who has great leadership skills. a john f. kennedy. you know, i probably wouldn't have said this 20 years ago but he was a great hero, but you look at what john f. kennedy did in terms of bringing the country together during the cold war, moving us forward. there is somebody there that will help america heal and move forward. >> jon: you wouldn't happen to have a name, would you? [laughs] >> i know, it is not ken buck. it is not one of the two candidates leading the country

in the polls right down. >> jon: right. i very much appreciate you coming by and having the discussion with us. come back and see us again. much appreciated. wish you the best. former congressman ken buck. we're going to take a quick break, but we'll be right back after this. [cheers and applause] when that tostitos hint of lime flavor hits, it changes things. it takes your snack game up a notch. with a tangy, zesty crunch that's ready to dip. tostitos. get to the good stuff.

norman, bad news... i never graduated from med school. what? -but the good news is... xfinity mobile just got even better! now, you can automatically connect to wifi speeds up to a gig on the go. plus, buy one unlimited line and get one free for a year. i gotta get this deal... i know... faster wifi and savings? ...i don't want to miss that. that's amazing doc. mobile savings are calling. visit xfinitymobile.com to learn more. doc?

and i saved hundreds. with all the money i saved i thought i'd buy stilts. hi honey. ahhh...ooh. look, no line at the hot dog stand. yes! only pay for what you need. ♪liberty, liberty, liberty, liberty.♪ popeyes big box is back for just $6.99. captioning made possible by comedy central - ♪ i'm going down to south park ♪ ♪ gonna have myself a time ♪ both: ♪ friendly faces everywhere ♪ ♪ humble folks without temptation ♪ - ♪ i'm going down to south park ♪ ♪ gonna leave my woes behind ♪ - ♪ ample parking day or night ♪ ♪ people spouting "howdy neighbor" ♪ - ♪ headin' on up to south park ♪ ♪ gonna see if i can't unwind ♪ - ♪ [muffled] ♪ - ♪ come on down to south park ♪ ♪ and meet some friends of mine ♪ with so many choices on booking.com there are so many tina feys i could be. so i hired body doubles to help me out. splurgy tina loves a hotel near rodeo drive. oh tina! wild tina booked a farm stay to ride this horse. glenn close?! with millions of possibilities you can book whoever you want to be. that's my line! booking.com booking.yeah [crickets chirping] [truck engine revving] [wind blowing] [electrical crackle] - gwargk! honk! guack? [honking] [doorbell rings] - hello, ma'am. we're going around town and offering snow shoveling service. would you like your driveway and sidewalk shoveled for $8,000? - oh, well, i certainly could use some little snow shovelers, but $8,000 seems a little steep. how about $10? - ooh, ouch, ma'am, please, let go of that tight grip you have on my balls. $10, you're breaking my balls, ma'am. - how about $15? - it's a deal. all right, guys, let's get to work. yeah, that was totally awesome. craig crapped his pants when he saw it. yeah, sweet. so what's going on over there? yeah, that's pretty cool. no way! he did not! aw, dude, that is so weak. what? - you've been on your [bleep] phone since we started. - dude, i'm taking a break. - a break from what? you haven't done anything! - kyle, how many times do we have to go through this? i'm the negotiator. i negotiate our price with the customers. - all you ever do is talk about your balls. - it works, doesn't it? did i not just get us an extra five bucks? - if you want your share of the money, then you're gonna shovel snow like the rest of us! - hey, don't boss me around, you [bleep] jew! i will kick your ass! [doorbell rings] - ma'am, do you have a rag and some bandages? - oh, goodness, what happened? - shoveling accident. - oh, no, come on inside.