♪ ♪ >> 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]

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) ♪ ♪ (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) ♪

we've never spoken. but you've told us many things. that you love stargazing, hate parallel parking, and occasionally, your right foot gets a little heavy. the lexus es didn't begin in a studio — it began with you. ♪♪ popeyes new chicken wings make no sense! marinated in louisiana spices, hand battered and flipped- and then we have the audacity to call all six flavors fast food?! someone should say something or ahem...order something ♪(love that chicken from popeyes)♪ people couldn't see my potential. so i had to show them. i've run this place for 20 years, but i still need to prove that i'm more than what you see on paper. today i'm the ceo of my own company. it's the way my mind works. i have a very mechanical brain. why are we not rethinking this? i am more... i'm more than who i am on paper.

her uncle's unhappy. i'm sensing an underlying issue. it's t-mobile. it started when we tried to get him under a new plan. but they they unexpectedly unraveled their “price lock” guarantee. which has made him, a bit... unruly. you called yourself the “un-carrier”. you sing about “price lock” on those commercials. “the price lock, the price lock...” so, if you could change the price, change the name! it's not a lock, i know a lock. so how can we undo the damage? we could all unsubscribe and switch to xfinity. their connection is unreal. and we could all un-experience this whole session. okay, that's uncalled for. why would i use kayak to compare hundreds of travel sites at once? i like to do things myself. i can't trust anything else to do the job right. kayak... aaaaaaaahhhh kayak. search one and done. we're talking about practicing-- practicing good financial strategy. ...by cashbackin. what'd you think i was talking about? -not a game. -not a game. -talking about cashbackin. -cashbackin. cashback like a pro

with chase freedom unlimited. how do you cash back? when it comes to your wellness routine, the details are the difference. dove men body wash, with plant based moisturizers in harmony with our bodies for healthier feeling skin. all these details add up to something greater. new dove men plant powered body wash. her uncle's unhappy. all these details add up to something greater. i'm sensing an underlying issue. it's t-mobile. it started when we tried to get him under a new plan. but they they unexpectedly unraveled their “price lock” guarantee. which has made him, a bit... unruly. you called yourself the “un-carrier”. you sing about “price lock” on those commercials. “the price lock, the price lock...” so, if you could change the price, change the name! it's not a lock, i know a lock. so how can we undo the damage? we could all unsubscribe and switch to xfinity. their connection is unreal. and we could all un-experience this whole session. okay, that's uncalled for. [bacon sizzles] ♪ [electronic music plays] ♪ [bacon sizzles] ♪ [electronic music plays] ♪

woo! [keyboard typing] [clock ticking] librarian: you're playing with fire, kid. ♪ laptops aren't made to handle all that... ♪ multiple apps, big files. you think it won't crash. ♪ you're a hot dog in a hurricane. ♪ student: it's a mac, it's running fine. [clock ticking] librarian: oh... that's a weird fork man.

[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.