>> And God bless America.
Thank you very much.
>> There's a lot of media attention on Nancy Pelosi and how she ripped up Donald Trump's
speech at the very end of his State of the Union address.
And some are calling it a disgrace, others are screaming yas queen on social media as
if she's done anything that actually leads to real resistance against Donald Trump's
disastrous presidency.
But what I do find fascinating, and what I do, I will admit, enjoy is watching right-wingers
wine and cry and lose their minds over something so incredibly irrelevant.
Let's start off with Vice President Mike Pence going after Pelosi.
>> I didn't see her do it.
I found out just a few moments later and I think it was a new low.
I wasn't sure if she was ripping up the speech or ripping up the Constitution.
I mean, it's clear, the contrast here was a president who spent an hour and a half making
the speech about America.
>> Right.
>> And Nancy Pelosi in the final moments tried to make it about her and I think the American
people see through it.
I just have a strong feeling that she's gonna be the last Speaker of the House to sit in
that chair for a long time.
I've been to a lot of State of the Union addresses as a member of Congress.
And now, this was my fourth as a vice president of the United States, and there's always a
basic decorum and a basic respect.
But to have her stand up and tear up that speech really dishonored the moment and I
really thought it was beneath the dignity of a joint session of Congress.
>> Beneath the dignity of- >> I enjoyed that.
>> Joint session of Congress.
There's some points in that.
Again, while President Trump is sitting in front of everyone lying, that's not beneath
the dignity of the joint session of Congress.
Bringing up aggrieved families and then congratulating yourself off of the deaths of their family
members.
That's not beneath the dignity of the joint session of Congress.
None of that is.
If you have a piece of paper with someone's speech on it that was full of lies, that's
beneath the dignity.
They don't care.
It's the way it's always worked.
This is not a political moment.
If you could hear into the planning rooms, cuz as he even admitted there, Pence didn't
even see her do it.
And there was someone who said, hey, hey, Pence, hey Mike, we have an opportunity here.
Nancy ripped up the paper.
Let's say that we're aggrieved and upset about it.
Let's say that it was a undercutting of democracy.
Let's say there was a great moment and Donald Trump had just unified the country, and she
divided us again.
He said everything but the unity part, cuz that would have been a little bit too far,
cuz there's nowhere near anything in that speech that Trump said was unifying.
But when a democratic president gets up there and they say, how dare he didn't unify the
country?
He had a perfect opportunity to unify the country and he didn't do it.
Where's that criticism coming from now?
>> Let's get one thing out of the way moving forward and it's gonna apply to every story
that we do, okay?
No one in the country is interested in unity, no one.
No politician, whether they're on the left or the right, is interested in unity.
No one, no one, no one, no one.
The people who cry about unity the most are the ones who have the least interest in unity,
right?
And look, I'm not even interested in unity.
This is what I'm interested in.
I'm interested in a just system.
I'm interested in fixing a rigged economic system.
I'm interested in economic equality.
Those are the things that we should be focusing on.
But instead, they throw out these vague phrases or words like, yeah, we want unity.
No, no, there is a party in this country that has been a complete and utter disaster for
everything that we're supposed to stand for, for our Constitution.
They've been a complete and utter disaster when it comes to the working class in America.
They've been a complete and utter disaster when it comes to law and order.
So no, I don't want unity with them, I don't, okay?
So anyone who claims that they want unity.
First of all, they're full of it.
And secondly, who do we want unity with?
Do we want unity with a group of criminals who are running amok in this country?
Or do we want unity with people who actually want to protect democracy?
>> We like to say we don't negotiate with terrorists.
But who the onus on unity always is, it's always Democrats.
They said, when we talk about impeachment, this has been a partisan impeachment process.
It would be bipartisan if you accepted the truth.
Why is it that we expect people like Joe Manchin, who takes the call every time, to be the ones
to be like well, we'll reach out, we'll see your point of view.
When's the last time you've had any anchor ask any substantive Republican, hey, how come
you guys don't try and please the majority of the country who votes a certain way?
The majority of the country is progressive, is democratic, is somewhere in the middle.
They are not right wing.
When are you gonna start accepting that the majority of the country doesn't agree with
you?
No one will ask that question because it's offensive.
And it's not offensive to ask Democrats, hey, how come you won't give up the facts and just
go with these guys, because they're whining and crying?
No, no, no more, we're not gonna do it.
And then when you don't do it they call you radical.
They call you angry and they call you divisive.
>> Can you imagine, though, if Nancy Pelosi really were the resistance?
And I'm not just talking about rhetoric, I'm talking about rallying Democrats to ensure
that they vote against increasing Trump's military budget.
Working with Democrats to make sure that there's consensus on voting against Donald Trump's
tax cuts for the wealthy.
Rallying Democrats to ensure that they vote against Donald Trump's rebranding of NAFTA,
which essentially handed him something that he can campaign on in his re-election campaign.
If she did all of those things, right, and more, and then on top of it ripped up those
papers, I would be yas queening her all day and night.
But she hasn't been doing that, right?
So make no mistake, the only upside of what Nancy Pelosi did is that it got under Donald
Trump's skin.
He retweeted more disdain about or toward Nancy Pelosi than he did about any other thing
that happened during the State of the Union.
And so the fact that he's sweating, he's like a sweaty-toothed madman over this, right?
I enjoy that, but it does nothing to improve the lives of Americans.
It does nothing to actually legitimately resist what he has unfortunately accomplished for
the Republican Party during his tenure.
>> This is, I'm sorry, go ahead.
>> No, no, that's- >> This is the problem with not sticking to
policy whenever you have something to say.
Like you said, if she continues to stick to policy and do things that are for the American
people and then not be distracted by what Trump does so much.
Then when you do rip up a paper, there's something that backs it.
So now all this turned, again, she's gonna get under his skin, cuz he hates women that
have any kind of position of power.
So she knows that.
That's what she's really good at, because he's easy to get to with that.
But you have to continue, if you stick to policy, people will go, man, there's something
behind that rather than these are two grown folks who are having a fight.
One of them's whining and the other one is making him whine more.
And I mean, like you were saying, it's satisfying to see him upset, but it doesn't mean anything
>> It doesn't mean anything.
It doesn't improve our lives.
There is one other upside to what Pelosi did.
It led to an opportunity for Charlie Kirk to embarrass himself yet again, and I always
love laughing at Charlie Kirk, everyone does.
Whether you're on the right or the left, he is mocked constantly for situations like the
one I'm about to read.
He tweeted the following, it's hilarious.
US Code prohibits the destruction of government records.
Nancy Pelosi may have just committed a violation of 18 USC 2071, Section 2071(a) when she ripped
up President Trump's State of the Union address.
This violation is punishable by up to three years in prison.
>> Yeah.
>> Okay, well, many social media users pointed out that you can't go to prison for destroying
a document copy, and that the government shreds many copies of documents a day.
>> There's no way he didn't know that.
>> No, are you kidding me, I don't think he did know that.
>> That wasn't especially since it was on Twitter.
I mean, I'm totally willing to believe that point of view, cuz he's not a smart person,
but that's one of those things where you try to get enough attention.
When you tweet something like that and you give the emoji.
You're like I just need some attention.
I need some responses.
I need people to go, yeah.
That's all he was looking from there because he knew that's nonsense.
Nobody really believes that.
He doesn't really believe that.
>> But who would wanna be Sideshow Bob?
I don't understand people who are willing to be Sideshow Bob just for attention.
>> Unprincipled people do cuz he has nothing to stand on.
All he's got is attention.
>> Look at that face.
>> His rent is paid with attention.
If people don't give him attention, or if his supporters don't see him still as the
biggest a-hole they can find.
Then they'll be like, well, Charlie Kirk has, we have no more use of Charlie Kirk.
He can't help us push the stupid vote anymore.
That's his usefulness.
That he's serving his purpose right there.