say don't hate on cucumbers. >> that guy is running for governor, i don't know about that. god bless texas. thanks, abby. and thanks for watching fox news prime time, going to be back here tomorrow night at 7:00 in my book how i save the world still available, go get it. tucker carlson up next. ♪ ♪ >> tucker: good evening and welcome to "tucker carlson tonight." people are totally absorbed in the kyle rittenhouse trial and you have to wonder why is that? why's it so fascinating? part of the reason it's so interesting as the facts are so different from what we've been told for more than a year, completely different. and it's shocking to compare reality against a version of reality we've been forced with. here's one example, just days

after rittenhouse was first arrested back in august of 2020, a pro-censorship organization published what it called a fact-check of the case reared in a posting on its web site, politifact claimed that kyle rittenhouse had committed a crime by carrying a firearm in the state of wisconsin. here's the quote. "it is against the law for someone under than 18 possess a dangerous weapon period. you'll notice in that statement complete unwavering certainty and this is common for politifact which issues facts like they are from god itself. they use them as a pretext to censor any speech online that contradicts the official line of the democratic party, the so-called narrative so politifact disagrees with what you're posting, then you are by definition spreading this information and you must be silenced. that's how it works. so naturally, other media organizations echoed this position immediately.

kyle rittenhouse, 17, was not old enough to legally carry the assault style rifle he had. just stating it as fact and then the entire national media followed suit and told us the same thing. the problem was, it was a lie. in fact, under wisconsin law which apparently no one in any newsroom in america even bother to check, 17-year-olds are allowed to carry rifles as long as their barrels meet the minimum length requirement and kyle rittenhouse is rifle met that requirement. so no, kyle rittenhouse did not violate wisconsin's gun laws. today, even the prosecution of the trial was forced to admit that and so immediately, the judge dismissed the firearms charge. >> was illegal? >> it is not a short-barreled rifle, yes. >> either by barrel or by overall length? be my correct. >> dismissed. >> tucker: that couldn't be

clearer. the prosecution is admitting in open court that it was legal. he had not committed a gun crime and that means that for more than a year, big tech have spread misinformation about kyle rittenhouse. that's embarrassing. what are they going to say? they're not going to admit it, though make certain you don't learn about it. just minutes after a judge in the case dismissed the gun charge, youtube censor the video streams of several independent legal experts who were commenting on the trial in real time, many of them were critical of the obvious weaknesses in the prosecution's case. hundreds of people were watching those streams the moment they were canceled. they might conclude that kyle rittenhouse is innocent, youtube shut them down citing "policy violations." in other words, god forbid people think for themselves. that's not allowed anymore. you want to know what's happening in your world, you've got msnbc to tell you. >> here we have a 17-year-old

kid under age, he appointed himself a militia member and goes around unloading 60 rounds. >> tucker: he is blond now. of all the people you can find a comment on the killing, it's interesting who they chose. but just listen to the words, consider how totally dishonest this summer you just heard is, virtually every word is alive. kyle rittenhouse wasn't a militia member, he was a lifeguard. kyle rittenhouse didn't fire 60 rounds, not even close to that. he was not underage. he was in legal possession of his gun the most amazing is the claim you're hearing right now that kyle rittenhouse is bad because he drove across state lines. think about that for just a second. so the very same people who have told you for years that borders are by definition white supremacy now claim it as some

kind of moral offense for an american citizen to enter a contiguous state. making it sound like kyle rittenhouse snuck into a foreign land under cover of darkness to murder people. that's not quite what happen. take a look at this nap, this is kyle rittenhouse is drive to kenosha, wisconsin. the map says 21. i was sent 17 miles. either way, shorter than your commute to work every morning. as kyle rittenhouse explained on the stand last week, when mobs set fire to kenosha, he had every reason to want to defend the city because his father lives there. >> you decided you need to run because of the fire? >> yes. >> like you might what was so urgent? >> it was a fire. >> why did you feel you should go around off the property and put out fires? >> to make sure my community didn't get burned down.

>> you say your community. you mean kenosha? >> yes. >> again, you're from antioch, you're not living in kenosha at that time. >> my dad lives in kenosha. >> tucker: how dare you put out fires. my dad lives in kenosha. but you didn't know that, but you hadn't heard it on cnn nor are many of the people hyperventilating about crossing state lines, the blm writers in the antifa groups to come from around the country to burn kenosha down as many of them did. haven't even addressed that, it's kind of weird. we could go on but if there's one thing this trial has taught us, it's how completely dishonest and totally misleading so many of the news accounts of what kyle rittenhouse did have been. we've known for more than a year for example kyle rittenhouse first encountered convicted child joseph rosenbaum, multiple

witnesses said that, most of it is on. he had just been released from a mental hospital and for some reason decided to join the riot so first, he lit a fire, then he began to swing a chain like a weapon. when he saw kyle rittenhouse, he threatened to kill kyle rittenhouse, then chased him in a full sprint, cornered him and try to snatch his gun from his hand. it was at that point that rittenhouse fired. who wouldn't fire at that point? you try to turn himself into police but he couldn't because of a mob howling for his death chased him down a city street. one writer then knocked kyle rittenhouse to the ground, another smashed in the head with a gate board and one pointed it in his face. so what no point was kyle rittenhouse the aggressor in the sequence of events him every move he made was defensive. that's not our interpretation of it, that's what came out in court. none of these facts are disputed.

they all happens. so that's a very tough problem for the prosecution. with facts like those, what exactly do you say? what they said is really interesting so today, the prosecutors tried to argue that mental patient joseph rosenbaum his criminal record you could read online and you should just to get a sense of who they are defending, that this guy had threatened to murder kyle rittenhouse in front of witnesses and yet, he was not a threat to kyle rittenhouse and to prove it, the prosecutor showed this video. >> here is the defendant in between those parked cars slowing down and you can see just how close or rather how far away mr. rosenbaum was when the defendant shot him. >> tucker: just how close -- just how far away he was. right, yeah. everyone his eyes were open could see it because you just played the tape. apparently, the prosecution is helping the jury had its eyes closed for that part of the proceeding. that whole thing is ridiculous and i got more absurd as the day

progressed. what that prosecutor that she was writing these names anyway? explained that if you take steps to defend yourself, you have by definition given up your right to self-defense. >> they have to convince you that joseph rosenbaum was going to take that gun and use it on the defendant because they know you can't claim self-defense against an unarmed man like this. you will lose the right to self-defense when you were the one who brought the gun. >> tucker: who was writing the rules here? let's just pause for a second and go through what he said. there's no such thing as self-defense against a man who has no gun. really? according to the federal government's own statistics, for more people in this country are beaten to death than are killed by ar-15s. so that is by definition a ridiculous claim. an ex-con with a history of

violent crime informs you he is going to murder you and then attempts to grab your gun from your hands, you are allowed to respond and infect them you have to respond because it would be suicidal not to obviously. as a legal matter, reasonably believe that his life was in danger and of course, he believes that, why wouldn't he? you would believe that if you were him. but it's the second part of the prosecutor's lie that tells you the most about how these people think. you lose the right to self-defense when you are the one who brought the gun. really? so no one with a conceal and carry permit is allowed to defend himself? what's the point of having a gun if you can't save your own life with a? that's exactly what they're telling you. they're telling you you don't have that right, you've no right to resist. that's the whole point of this whole proceeding so the next time blm sweeps into your town to make your neighborhood coming your house to burn and loot and

brandish weapons, you had better not try to protect yourself or your family. do that we will charge you with murder and while we are attic and we will have the national media call you racist. >> and the of public opinion them and they arguing that white men with a gun are allowed and have the space to defend and protect the country and a social order that keeps them at the top and a country that they stole from indigenous folk and built with black people's labor. the media is participating perpetuating the charade. the only reason why any of this is allowed but is because the whiteness of it all. >> tucker: so who emptied the gender studies department and put them all on television all at once? how destructive is this to the country? seriously. you are wondering can they initialize anything? the answer is yes, they can. in this case, there is, to restate the obvious, no racial angle to the story.

and if you're looking for prove, consider the fact everybody involved in the story is the same color. and in fact, the only bigot on the scene appears to have been joseph rosenbaum. for some reason, and it's on video, rosenbaum kept screaming the n-word and yet it is kyle rittenhouse who joe biden accused of being a white supremacist on the basis of no evidence whatsoever then let's hope at some point he gets sued for that. now they are calling the judge the same thing. >> let's hope the asian food isn't on one of those boats in long beach harbor. >> yes, that was the judge making a joke about asian food during a murder trial but i want to ask you how unusual is the judges conduct currently? >> i think some of the things her way out of line. the comment about the asian food, for example.

>> tucker: that's racist. but it's only racist if you are exercising your right to self-defense or if you're trying to conduct a fair trial. you don't inject equity into the trial and judge people on the basis of their skin color rather than what they actually did. you dare to do that in this post equity country, you are by definition of racist. so they won't admit to the public that they lie to all of us, this is all they have left, you are racist. msnbc is by far the worst offender. it is shocking if you look at it carefully but it's not the only offender. cnn's so-called race and equity team, can you imagine what those people are like? published a piece entitled "judge in kyle rittenhouse trial makes inappropriate asian food joke, inappropriate being the favorite word of people who want to attack someone's reputation. but according to the piece as it gets more specific, the judges

joke about supply chains and food puts asians "in the crosshairs of micro-aggression as well as actual physical violence." so if you make a joke about chinese take-out which by the way if you were a bigot you wouldn't be eating in the first place but if you dare to make that joke, you're dangerous. you're the judge and you haven't already unilaterally given him the death penalty for offending msnbc and joe scarborough, then your physical threat to asian people. these people are demented in their dangerous and that kind of talk grades the social fabric faster than everything. but if you're looking for true crazy, no one beats the race lady over at msnbc. >> earlier today, a teenager accused of murdering two men last year took to the stand in his own defense. in the circumstances are almost built for an actual crt course.

the white now 18-year-old faces an almost entirely white jury of his peers with the exception of one black man. could any child of color, young person of color ever do that on a stand and get away with it? >> you already know, joy. this is white privilege on steroids. >> tucker: again, there's no racial angle here. everybody the same color. so if a white guy shooting another white guy is an example of racism, maybe you should tell us how. this is insane. just so you know. candace owens is the host of kansas and lots of ways to interpret this case from a progressive perspective, never imagine that they would tell us this is an example of racism because i don't think a normal person would think that for one second because there's no racial

component here. what am i missing? >> you're not missing anything and this has been stunning. this has been a course in media brainwash, something we will look back and say we are actually watching the effects of real-life propaganda when they say something enough times. the watching and that's my assessment and he will walk away innocent as he should and people are writing back to me calling me a race traitor. calling me a traitor to my race saying how dare you because he's white. i'm being serious, some people were not even trying to be malicious. they thought kyle rittenhouse shot and killed two black people because the media refused to acknowledge who were the alleged victims they were claiming he shot them i didn't talk about who joseph rosenbaum was, didn't talk about the fact he was convicted forgot to mention that both of these men were white. this case, and i want to be very

clear here for everybody watching has nothing to do with black america. it has nothing to do with race. we can sit this one out for once the media was incessant and what is interesting as you go back and look at that timeline, just ahead of the election, there were people saying that literally kyle was radicalized by trump and there it is, the freudian slip. this is what it's really about. the media was obsessed with the race narrative, they took anything including an innocent white teenager who had an incident that occurred with two white convicted felons. just because of this parasitic beast of white supremacy that they needed to foster to all of american. >> tucker: if you have a kid who shoots a convicted who was screaming the n-word and the kid is a white supremacist, and wonder at a certain point does

this attack just lose all power? it's so stupid it doesn't work anymore. >> you would hope it doesn't work anymore but welcomed the clown world, this is what they say over and over again. this has to do with white supremacy and racism. this factually speaking has nothing to do with white supremacy or racism and it is sad when you have people in the media willing to defend -- i never thought they would stoop as low. willing to defend the convicted pedophile. why was he out? because criminals like to run around a black lives matter rides and know the entire media's going to defend them no matter what they do including chasing and attacking a 17-year-old. they know all you have to do is there warm this blm t-shirt and a matter how despicable and individual i am, this i think i had a record of domestic abuse and false imprisonment of a woman, no one cares because it is blm night. put on your t-shirt and run around and commit crimes, no one

will say anything to you. >> tucker: you understood it and they tried to pull you off tv, i remember that so well but you were right. candace owens, thank you very much. the prosecutor in the rittenhouse case referred to the mob that was torching downtown kenosha as a crowd full of heroes, was actually in the crowd that night, a senior writer at town hall, watch the city burn. it's not been rebuilt, no one cares but joins us tonight to react to this. so you were there, you watched when they wrecked this little town that did nothing wrong and didn't deserve it. it will never be rebuilt, destroyed forever nine here the prosecutor referred to as heroes, what is your response to that? >> not going to lie to you, got pretty heated because i was out there that night and to call this mob of rioters heroes is an absolute live. he think about it and he called

this mob heroes when they were attacking the place where he works at. since how ridiculous this trial has gotten and i think it just highlights the fact they never had a strong case to begin with but they to throw everything they can to try to save what case they have because throughout this entire trial, their own witnesses and suppose it video evidence only serve to bolster rittenhouse's claim of self-defense and is someone who was there that night, it's very aggravating to see someone lie to the jury in hopes to try to save his case and potentially his career. >> tucker: here you have a prosecutor, a government lawyer glorifying violence in the middle of a trial supposedly about punishing violence. you were there, but seemed to me like that was in extended spasm of violence in those rights.

>> they absolutely were and i just want to highlight the fact that none of this would've happened in terms of the case if the local and state authorities actually done their jobs. after the first night of rights, 125 national guardsmen were called out which is not nearly enough so in the absence of law and order and a people who are actually trained to handle these situations, bad things are going to happen so hopefully when the verdict comes down, nothing more bad happens to this town because they've been through enough that we will see what happens. >> tucker: thank you for saying that. kenosha, wisconsin, does not deserve it is getting, that's for sure. thank you very much. so somehow, kamala harris wound up as a vice president of the united states but what exactly do you know about this person, what you know about her? we've got some amazing footage for you next that fills in,

you've got to stay for this breed you can come see us in person on florida on wednesday, the patriot awards along with a ton of other people, laura, sean, brian kilmeade, judge you janine.

>> tucker: the one thing we know for sure about kamala harris' we should all be very grateful to have her because she's historic for reasons that no one ever explains but there's a lot we don't know about kamala harris. she grew up in canada, where she went to high school. she's not from this country in that sense, didn't know that, doesn't mean she's not going to be a good vice president but why haven't we heard that? but how did someone who clearly is not liked by the people around her and clearly is in very good at her job get so high up? we know for first meaningful job in politics was given to her by her boyfriend at the time who is married, willie brown, the most powerful democrat in california, we know willie brown is not the only powerful person she dated. we are not exactly sure what to make of it but it turns out

kamala harris also stated the tabloid tv show host montel williams always doing shows about people's weird lives which we know because of his video, watch. >> long before she dated doug emhoff, met some prominent men like former talk show host montel williams. back then, he was the famous one and had to introduce her to the paparazzi. >> tucker: we know montel williams called herself, but that's kind of all we know. so what was that relationship like? we would love to talk with montel williams about his torrid relationship with kamala harris because that would be a blank we'd like to fill in. he is always welcome on the show. meantime, we know kamala harris is having some problems as vice president. cnn just publish this report and spent a long time telling us how

great she is and how thrilled we should be to have her but not telling us exasperation and dysfunction inside, the harrises frustrating start as vice president. in other words, it was kind of a disaster. i wish they told us that earlier. speaking of disaster, beto o'rourke, remember him? once ran for senate in texas and lost, the guy who told us he was going to take our guns away and not surprisingly was not elected, then ran for president and told "vanity fair" he was born to do it but once again he lost and you'd think for a normal person, why don't you go get a job and do something useful but this never occurred to beto o'rourke who was the living embodiment of privilege in case you're looking for someone to embody it and now he is running for governor of texas and in a new campaign ad, announces his platform. >> they are not focused on the things that we really want them to do like making sure that we have a functioning electricity

grid or that we are creating the best jobs in america right here in texas or that we have world-class schools or that we make progress on the things that most of us actually agree on like expanding medicaid or legalizing marijuana. instead, they are focusing on the kind of extremist policies around abortion or permit list carrie or even in our schools that really only divide us and keep us apart. >> tucker: a little correction. a minute ago, we suggested that kamala harris was the least impressive person in american politics, obviously we meant to say beto o'rourke but that's not stopping him either. the editor in chief of outspoken and happy to have him tonight. thank you so much for coming on. are you glad or sad that it turns out we hadn't seen the end of beto o'rourke? >> no means no, beto. what it is about these democrat men that don't understand that no means no?

want to prove that they are actively seeking work, that might be what's behind this, seems to be part of this new -- you've heard of the gig economy, it is a candidate economy so much like bill de blasio, doesn't seek to run things, just wants to run for things. this is how he makes a living, this is his livelihood or sometimes these people don't even have to run for things they just threaten to run for things like stacey abrams. it's a humble way to make a living but they are working very hard at it. >> tucker: what will it take? i'm sure there are things that beto o'rourke is possibly good at, hackensack or whatever and possibly other things but clearly, nobody wants him to run anything. how many losses as a going to take for him to acknowledge that, i wonder? >> i keep hearing he is a fairy so maybe that's why he wants to get rid of hunting rifles but i don't think he's ever going to learn his lesson, he seems to really enjoy losing.

i think this is just his gig now and we are probably going to be seeing him for a long time running late for things and not actually winning. >> tucker: never overlook masochism, good to see you. we will be right back, much going on in the news and we will tell you what it is in just a second.

>> tucker: the essential promise of america's equal treatment under the law. we are all citizens and we are judged equally for what we do. it is the most important thing we have and it's going away and if you need more evidence, consider this. one of the biggest investment firms in the country announced it would impose strict racial discrimination in its hiring. state street global advisors has informed its managers they will need to express permission before hiring white men not because white male applicants are qualified to do the job but because they are white and they are male.

so it state street global advisors, your color can disqualify you from employment. it's worth remembering in addition to being a moral, this is illegal under federal law. you have any questions about that, check the mandatory labor law poster that hangs in every break room in every office in america and it will tell you it is the legal to discriminate on the basis of race, federal law could not be clearer about that and here's the amazing thing, the so-called civil rights division has not said a word about this and they're never going to. they are too busy forcing boys onto girls soccer teams and making sure no one puts jemima back on the pancake syrup so now state street will not face a felony charge is it badly deserves. you've got to wonder if white men are so bad you need new rules to keep them out of your workplace, then why is the parent company run by one of them? that man's name is ronald po hanley and as you can see from the picture on your screen, he

is both pale and male. we took a look at his official bio this afternoon, technically inaccurate and that it does not describe him as a racist buffoon but it does concede he was once a partner and he is deeply involved in industry efforts around climate, corporate governance, diversity and inclusion and has also led several initiatives on gender equality needless to say is if the parity couldn't be more perfect. we also learned he is an avid offshore sailboat racer. he has his own race boat with his own captain to sail it. keep in mind that this is the guy telling your son who's done nothing wrong with just wants to work that he can't have a job because he was born the wrong color which happens to be the same color that ronald po hanley is. it's all pretty amazing so here's our challenge and we hope you soliciting tonight. you're going to start building

apartheid in this country, you go first. quit your stupid job and give it to a woman of color. transfer your entire personal portfolio including your multiple homes to the black lives matter foundation, give your sailboat to it observing family of haitian immigrants and then start over from scratch at zero under the rules you are now imposing on this generation of young people. and we will see how you do. that would be equity. so one of the people you hear the most bad things about is called robert f. kennedy junior, you hear he's crazy, and anti-vaxxer, hates all vaccines, it turns out the reality is is so often the case is precisely the opposite. it is actually one of the smartest people in the country. not against all vaccines and definitely is one of the bravest people speaking in our country and that's why they're trying to make and be quiet. one of the last great defenders of our constitution. our conversation with him in

just a moment. it's not too late to watch patriot purge, just go to tuckercarlson capsoff.com. earn ,

the more questions we have. the biggest question now, what's next? what will covid bring in six months, a year? if you're feeling anxious about the future, you're not alone. calhope offers free covid-19 emotional support. call 833-317-4673, or live chat at calhope.org today.

>> tucker: if you want to know what's actually going on in this country, a pretty good way to understand it is figuring out who they spend the most time trying to censor. very few people have been censored more than the man we just spoke to, bobby kennedy jr. he's a kook, he's crazy, no, he's actually one of the smartest and most articulate chroniclers of the erosion of our civil liberties in this country, he has written an amazing new book and we are grateful to sit down and talk at length for a brand-new episode of tucker carlson today. he is part of it. >> that's why we have the revolution so that we could criticize the government and we put that first and yet it's gone. in the next thing, they go after the other half of the first amendment, freedom of religion. closed every church in this country for a year and they keep the liquor stores open without

any hearing, without showing any science, no discussion, no debate. keep the liquor stores open as essential businesses. i have no problem with that, but the liquor stores are not in the constitution. the churches are and we shouldn't be able to close those lightly without having a debate about it. it then they go after property rights. they close 1 million businesses without due process or just compensation. it was just a doctor who has never treated a covert patient saying one week masks don't work and a month later, everybody putting them on and not citing one study to justify that change. it was government and so during that first year, we literally

got rid of every amendment of the constitution except the second amendment, the only ones left and what i tell people is we have to love our freedom more than we fear a germ. we have two. and i would even remind people even if this was a deadly disease as they say it is, they were worse things than death and there was a whole generation and this may sound cold and people get mad at me for saying it but we are lucky there was a whole generation of americans in the 1776 who said it would be better to die than to not have these rights written down. and they gave us that. they gave us that gift of that bill of rights and in one year

at the bidding of a doctor because he is telling us need to do this and orchestrated fear and all of the weird stuff they did with the numbers which is not what public health is supposed to be doing and all of those rights have been taken away from us. >> tucker: one of the most moving and enlightening conversations we've ever had, went on for over an hour and very much what we are listening to, his new book is about anthony fauci. that's amazing. just can't recommend it highly enough. that's all on foxnation.com. there's still a lot to assess from the kyle rittenhouse trial, the judge dismissed a weapon charge today, professor jonathan turley has been watching that trial carefully and joins us with reaction.

the great and highly fashionable, it's shop.

>> tucker: the prosecution said most of the rittenhouse trial undermining its own case. the closing arguments were no different. the prosecutor pointed an ar-15 directly at the jurors with his

finger on the trigger. the closing arguments from the defense not perfect but went more smoothly. mark richards explained kyle rittenhouse has a right not to be molested by joseph rosenbaum. >> he has as much right to go there as anybody else in the city of kenosha and be unmolested by joseph rosenbaum, kelly and grosskreutz. >> tucker: professor thanks for coming. we learned today that it's legal in wisconsin for 17 years old to have a long gun as rittenhouse did. why did we not find that out until the last day of the trial? the charge stood until today. >> that's an excellent question. i wrote a column that questioned

why this was allowed into the trial. i am baffled how the prosecutors got an indictment on this count. this has no applicability to the case. this is not a short barrelled weapon determined by a simple measurement. i am not sure what the prosecutors said that got the indictment. the court did eventually throw that out. part of the problem is an opening statement is like an oral contract with the jury. they take it seriously. when you say you will show us something, they expect you to show it. they said that rittenhouse chased down rosenbaum and shot him in the back they expected to see it and they didn't. >> tucker: there was a super

weird moment where the prosecutor said look, rosenbaum didn't do anything but set fires and screamed the "n" word. why would the prosecutor remind the jury the guy was setting fires and screaming racial slurs. >> the prosecution could not be working harder for acquittal. you have a jury from kenosha and you are mocking the notion they set a few fires and rioted a little. during questioning he made fun of the fact they were throwing bricks at police cruisers. saying they didn't hurt those cruisers. you can imagine what it's like to be a kenosha jury and saying who are you representing here? >> tucker: kenosha is already a forgotten town. it will never be rebuilt.

this is not a small thing. what do you think will happen with this jury? >> well, i think the prosecution reduced the range of possibilities between a hung jury and out right acquittal. the problem sumake yourself an issue. that's what binger has done -- he contradicted his statements and presented evidence that was understand born out. i would be surprised if they could get a single conviction on this rather appalling record. >> tucker: that's the way it seems to me. jonathan turley, thank you very much. we are out of time. our full interview with robert f.kennedy junior is up now on

fox nation. we will be back tomorrow. the sworn enemy of lying, pomposity, smugness and group think. we have a surprise for you, ladies and gentlemen. the great sean hannity rips the reins from our hands and rides off into the 9 p.m. >> sean: thank you. welcome to "hannity." tonight the biden white house is imploding. the blame game and the finger pointing is in full gear after a disastrous 10 months in office. joe and kamala harris are turning on each other. it's very ugly. we will bring you the latest in fighting out of the biden white house. plus the low lights from another awkward and embarrassing day for the cognitively struggling president and his incompetent environment. -- vice-president. but first