Lefties Losing It: Katie Couric skewered for Jeffrey Epstein links

It's time for Lefties Losing It. Let's start with some weapon-grade crazy before elevating to something a little more sophisticated. But first the crazy. This next clip features Katie Couric. That's the former NBC anchor,

you know, the gal who thought it was a good idea to dine with Jeffrey Epstein after he was convicted, after it became clear that he was a filthy pedophile. Well, here is Katie with Gal Pal, MSNBC anchor Jen Psaki.

More and more of the questions in there are by sycophants, are by people who are not asking about news that the American people cares about. You know, putting out conspiracy theories. They're people who, and they are getting a lot of the questions.

Conspiracy theories, she says, like the Russian collusion hoax, you and the Democrats, other propagandists in the media pushed relentlessly for four years. Imagine how crazy and warped your view of the world is

if you think Donald Trump is getting an easy ride from the media. Now let's hear the ladies turn up the hyperbole.

That's a huge, huge problem because it's becoming more of a Kremlin-esque press corps.

Right, and they've invited a lot of reporters from very right-wing media outlets and you're right, they usually say, I forget there was one example, like, did you ever believe that you would be the peacemaker?

God forbid that the White House press corps would be representative of the country and not exclusively filled with hard-left activists. And I love that the most egregious examples you can find of a terrible question is one about Trump being a peacemaker. Katie, the man did oversee eight peace deals in his second term. It hasn't even been a year. Now let's hear from two other young ladies who display similar intellect and judgement to Jen and Katie.

You seem very misogynistic, realistically.

So what is misogynistic? So why are you using words that you don't even know the definition of?

No, no, that's not what I meant.

I think you are misogynistic though.

What does misogynistic mean?

Um...

Like, just so I know what you're calling me.

OK, so the reason I said it is, just again, based on the...

..the...

Because you hear it on the internet?

Nah, bro, are you stupid?

The nerve to call him stupid after that performance. The American education system has failed those two. Maybe if they read a book or two instead of watching Mel Robbins videos on Instagram, they'd be a little bit smarter. Talking about Mel Robbins,

she made an appearance on Bill Maher's program and sadly she is a typical ill-informed awful. That's affluent, white, female, lefty.

Like, I see so many people are upset about him building a ballroom. I could give a ****. I don't give a **** about a ****ing ball.

We're paying for it, whether you voted for him or not.

No, we're not. No, we're not paying for it.

She really should stick to giving terrible advice to sad girls on the internet because she clearly knows nothing about politics. How did she miss the most pertinent fact about the borough? That it's not taxpayer funded. And let's stick with Bill Maher who gave this blistering assessment of Larry David,

the once funny, once genius comic who has allowed his Trump

derangement to run amok. This is so childish, so purely emotional, the people who got all butthurt because I had dinner with them, you know, because he's Hitler. Except he's not. So unhelpful and dumb. Trump is the most supportive president Israel and the Jews ever had. You know, every year I used to ask Larry David to do real time and he'd always say, Bill, I can't. I'm not smart enough about politics to do your show.

Yeah, I get that now.

You know what? Bill Maher is proof that there is a cure for TDS. He was among the worst offenders, folks. He would sit right there with nutbags like Robert De Niro, give them a platform to spew their nonsense and he would back it up. He would make the most outrageous claims about Trump. But though he remains a lefty and he's also a Democrat still, he's no longer raving like

a lunatic. So, growth. Now to a video that has caused all sorts of uproar because the president correctly labeled it seditious. Here we have Democrats calling for members of the military to break the chain of command and disobey orders. I'm just gonna play you ten

seconds of this nonsense. Right now the threats to our Constitution aren't just coming from abroad but from right here at home.

Our laws are clear. You can refuse illegal orders.

You can refuse illegal orders. Now, typically CNN anchor Jake Tapper has joined the Democrats in claiming that Donald Trump is giving illegal orders to the US military and that individuals could be charged for following those orders. And of course, he's far more upset by Trump reacting to the sedition

than the sedition itself.

President Trump's wildly inappropriate and potentially dangerous call for six members of Congress to potentially be executed or hanged because they issued a video reminding members of the military that they do not have to carry out illegal orders, glosses over the fact because Trump's reaction was so out of control that this issue of illegal orders is not a new

one. There's this new movie out starring Russell Crowe called Nuremberg.

I just love that after having a mass meltdown about a so-called insurrection, Democrats are now campaigning for an insurrection, quite openly too. And what about Jake Tapper referencing Nuremberg, the movie, because his dim audience doesn't know the actual history. Let's hear now from one of these Democrats who called for members of the military to commit treason essentially. Here is Elissa Slotkin. I wonder if she can name one illegal order that President Trump has issued. Do you believe President Trump has issued any

illegal orders? To my knowledge I am not aware of things that are illegal, but certainly there are some legal gymnastics that are going on with these Caribbean strikes

and everything related to Venezuela.

What did she say? To my knowledge, I'm not aware of things that are illegal. There you go. But she and her treasonous collaborators felt the need to create a very well produced video calling on members of the military to disobey lawful orders, to break the chain of command.

And it gets worse. When she's pressed for examples, she claims she was just talking broadly. And then she really loses it and starts scrambling. She mentions Nuremberg, and even a Tom Cruise film.

It does imply that the president is having illegal orders, which you have not seen.

I think for us, it was just a statement widely, right? I mean, look, if you go back to Nuremberg, right, that, well, they told me to do it, that's why I murdered people, is not an excuse. If you look at popular culture, there's like, you watch, you know, a few good men. Like we have plenty of examples since World War II in Vietnam where people were told to follow illegal orders

and they did it and they were prosecuted for it.

But you just said that President Trump had not issued any illegal orders. That would be the key point. Joining me now is Newswork Senior Editor-at-Large at Article 3 Project Senior Council Josh Hammer. Josh, this whole campaign by the Democrats has now been

turned around to attack Donald Trump because he said what they did was seditious, tantamount to treason. How do you see this? Well Rita, there's a lot to unpack

here. First of all, can we forever dispel the notion that Alyssa Slotkin, Mark Kelly, and these other notable Democratic elected officials are anything other than essentially indistinguishable from Jasmine Crockett, AOC, and the most radical left flank? You know, they were sold, Senators Kelly of Arizona, Senator Slotkin, who we just saw in Michigan, they were sold as moderate statesmen there. They're not. These are radicals.

They're, with very, very, very few exceptions. John Fetterman comes to mind, but they are really few and far between. Their party is from soup to nuts, from top to bottom, filled with revolutionaries, with genuine Marxist-style Western revolutionary insurgents

who are here to topple the established order. And that is what this insane video, this utterly insane propagandistic video is attempting to do. It absolutely is incitement to insurrection. That's what I called it on my show because that's exactly what it is.

They are telling you not to follow the chain of command. The chain of command, Rita, is the sine qua non of every military. In a Western style democracy, the chain of command is what separates an active military, ultimately subordinate to plainclothes officials.

In America, that would be the commander in chief. That's what separates us in civilization from the barbarians. And they are cutting at the very core of that. They are playing with absolute fire here. Now if they actually had one or two examples that they could point to and say, oh, according to our well-detailed legal research, according to this Supreme Court case, according to this precedent, blah, blah, blah, blah, blah,

this actually is illegal. Fine, maybe, let's have that conversation. I'm a lawyer, I'm very happy to have that conversation. But you just heard her, she can't name a single one. She literally cannot name a single possible order here. So what are you doing?

You're literally encouraging the armed men and women of this country in our volunteer military to disobey the chain of command, to get court-martialed or potentially worse for that, and then you're not going to have your back because you can't even think of an example in the first place. This is so insanely crazy, Rita. And I guess the final point that I'll end this filibuster on is I will say this. Ever since the Butler, Pennsylvania near assassination of Donald Trump that happened almost a year and a half ago now. We've been waiting for the radical left to tone down their comparisons

about how Trump is a Nazi, Trump is Hitler, Trump is Stalin. In that clip, she's talking about Nuremberg. Oh my God. I mean, how, she's literally making the Nazi comparison. They've learned nothing.

They have learned absolutely nothing. And most menacing to me as an American patriot, they are putting our armed men and women in our armed forces in harm's way by telling them to commit insurrection without having their back. It's disgusting, disgraceful. And at bare minimum, they should be expelled from the Senate, frankly, these these reprehensible hacks, if nothing worse than that.

And I also miss the point that if you actually did live, live in a fascist dictatorship, which they think they do, you wouldn't be able to produce that video, you wouldn't be able to post it all over social media and get mainstream media coverage and much of the mainstream media coverage has been positive for those Democrats. What do you say to the likes of say say, Jake Tapper, who has joined them in suggesting that members of the military are in danger of committing crimes by following illegal

orders? He also mentioned Nuremberg and Vietnam. He seems to be mirroring the same arguments and putting this suggestion that the US military right now is committing some sort of war crimes or illegal acts.

Yeah, look, Jake Tapper is a quintessential Trump-Durain syndrome left-wing commentator here in the United States. This is someone who once upon a time was maybe center-left. Jake Tapper once upon a time was not quite as far left as let's call it a Mehdi Hassan or a Joyless Joy read

or someone like that there. But Jake Tapper drank the TDS Kool-Aid with every ounce of what the TDS Kool-Aid consists of. And at this point, he's basically indistinguishable from that. It's sad because Jake is a man who really ought

to know better. But if Jake didn't know better, what he would realize is that the actual crime that could happen here is if you were in the chain of command and you simply do not follow the chain of command. Again, I cannot emphasize this enough. I did not serve in the US Armed Forces,

but literally all my veteran friends who did, emphasize time and time again that the chain of command from the commander in chief to the chairman of the joint chiefs, the generals, all the way on down, this is how the military functions. And you play with absolute fire when you start to play with that.

If there is an order that you are ordered to do, that for whatever reason, you genuinely feel like you cannot do, there are remedies available for you. You can seek a court martial, you can go to a military court,

we have military law, military tribunals, there are various options to you. What you cannot do is to just say, oh, my hands are tied because you are illegal. You are not in a position to do that. We have military judge do that there. If Jake Tapper knew a damn thing about the law,

then he would know that.

Now let's talk about California. Who's going to take over the reins from Gavin Newsom? It's gonna be a Democrat, we know that. It's a one party state. We've had the front runner, Katie, get out of my shot, Porter.

Take a loose, get out of my shot.

She imploded a few weeks back during a friendly CBS interview. It was quite an extraordinary performance. And we've got another big name contender, Josh Eric Swalwell. He has some bold ideas of his

own. I want us to be able to vote by phone I think every California vote by phone yeah if we can do our taxes do our you know our make our health care appointments you know make essentially your do your banking online you should

be able to vote by phone. Josh, could it work? I've heard dumber ideas, maybe not today, but I've certainly heard dumber ideas. Could Americans cast their

vote on their phone? Rita, Eric, Eric Swalwell is someone whose IQ is one and a half standard deviations below the mean on a good day. On a worse day, it happens to be worse than that. He's also quite possibly a Chinese spy. Let's not forget the Hong affair, Fang day. On a worse day, it happens to be worse than that. He's also quite possibly a Chinese spy. Let's not forget the home affair, Fang Fang. Yeah, Fang Fang is a name that many of us here have not forgotten.

This was the Chinese honeypot that Eric Swall was found to be romantically involved with a number of years ago, and that has stuck with many of us ever since then. He has never offered a square explanation for that entire scandal. I have no idea what the heck Eric Swalwell thinks that he has accomplished to put him in a position

to run for governor of the most populous state in the country. But then again, ditto Katie Porter, and frankly ditto virtually all these other candidates who are putting their hat into the ring. As far as notion of voting by phone,

frankly, I think that America's elections are insecure enough as it is. I would not be one to necessarily want to add an additional layer of insecurity. I think that there are enough legitimate concerns. And if you look at the polls, there are enough people who say that they do not necessarily fully

trust that their votes are going to be cast and tabulated there. I mean, what could possibly go wrong by relying on AT&T and Verizon and the various mobile cell phone providers to cast your vote. I mean, I can think of approximately a million to 2 million things that could possibly go wrong with that picture there.

So no, that strikes me as yet another quintessentially really, really stupid Eric Swalwell idea, which again is par for the course because he's a pretty dumb man as the case may be.

I just can't believe he's in the running. You would think the entire Fang Fang affair, the fact that he was in a serious relationship with a Chinese Communist Party spy, would disqualify you from any sort of public office for life. But no, here he is, he's still wanting to be governor of California.

Now, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said earlier today that he was very optimistic that negotiators could reach a deal to end the war between Russia and Ukraine. Rubio had met today with delegation from Kiev in Geneva and he said the issues that must be resolved were not insurmountable. Now I want to hear from President Trump. He's got a 28-point proposal but he has a number of provisions that Ukraine has

previously rejected.

We're trying to get it ended. One way or the other we have to get it ended.

I do want to continue.

Well, then he can continue to fight his little heart out.

Josh, you said if President Zelensky rejects the plan, then he can continue to fight his little heart out and he wants an answer from Kiev by Thursday.

Yeah, look, so based on what I've seen from this plan, Rita, the broad outlines of it are something that I could see myself getting behind. There's one thing that I'm less confident of, but Ukraine's going to have to give up territory. Okay. I've been saying that bluntly for at least two years now.

Many of us have been saying that bluntly for years now. Ukraine is not going to, in a post-war world, how you can convince Russia to simply give up territory that it has actually acquired over the past couple of years. So that to me seems like a non-starter. You have the typical hacks in the left-wing media,

the New York Times, MSNBC, the hardcore Slava Ukraine crowd. They're all saying, oh my God, this is a Putin plant plan. They're giving away, no, I mean, Trump is a realist. He lives in reality. So that is what's going on here when it comes to some territorial concessions from Ukraine in the Eastern Ukraine region of the Donbass,

the Crimean Peninsula, and so forth. The part of the plan that I am not certain of yet, and it's going to depend on the details, details is this NATO Article 5 style security guarantee. Now, the part that I think I could be willing to get behind personally is that, if I understand it correctly, there is a 10 year time limit on it for now.

It's not a perpetuity commitment, if I understand it correctly, similar to NATO Article 5. However, if Russia were to actually then invade in the next 10 years, which they probably wouldn't, to be clear, if that guarantee were in place, but if they would there then you're committing US troops, British troops, French troops, I mean that's potentially a very

serious thing there right so I would like to hear more details about that before I offer it my enthusiastic support but based on what I can see right now I think that is clever and it does broadly speaking map out with what I've been thinking a possible peace deal could look like for the past couple of years now.

Now let's talk about the Epstein files and House Republicans, including James Comer, have ordered Bill and Hillary Clinton to testify next month about their ties to the convicted pedophile and, it was a staunch Democrat as well, Jeffrey Epstein, we forget that.

Josh, the Clinton's legal team has earlier this month said their clients were willing to make a written statement. What are the chances that they will actually appear and testify in person?

Oh, I think close to zero. I think they're going to plead the fifth until eternity, frankly, on this one. I don't think Slick Willy wants anything near a microphone when it comes to ask point blank, why were you on Jeffrey Epstein's plane, the Lolita Express over 30 times? I mean, I don't think Bill Clinton

will get anywhere near a microphone. Hillary Clinton has been making some of the media rounds here recently, for God knows what reasons. I don't really know exactly what she's trying to do other than to maybe grift yet another multimillion dollar book deal or something like that.

But maybe there's a world in which Hillary could appear before the microphone because she just has an utterly insatiable appetite, even at this late stage of her feckless career to sit before the cameras and preen. But I put the odds there pretty low as well, to be honest with you. I think they will plead the fifth. They will do some statement there. But your broader point is important. Jeffrey Epstein was a hardcore Democrat.

He was a hardcore Democrat. He hated Trump, by the way. That's why he was texting Stacey Plaskett, the U.S. Virgin Islands Congresswoman, during that 2019 Michael Cohen hearing. He was literally texting her,

get Trump talking points in real time. He despised Donald Trump because Donald Trump kicked him out of Mar-a- Lago because Donald Trump became a very successful person without getting involved in horrific pedophilia and child sex trafficking operations, unlike Jeffrey Epstein there. So he was a hardcore Democrat there. And frankly, if Chuck Schumer, Hakeem Jeffries and Ro Khanna, all these Democrats had a morsel, an ounce of intellectual consistency there, they will be asking all the questions 10 times

as much when it comes to Bill Clinton as they are with respect to Donald Trump.

Absolutely, and Michael Wolff was also a vehement anti-Trumper. He said in a recent interview that Jeffrey Epstein believed that Donald Trump may have been the one who first alerted authorities to what was happening at his property, and he hated him ever since.

So this whole narrative and the fact that he chucked him out of Mar-a-Lago back in 2008. But you mentioned Hillary Clinton, she does have an insatiable appetite for attention and she did another appearance and she explained that she's been daydreaming

about a goodbye Trump announcement.

You know what this reminds me of is I wish that there could be like a huge national sound system and we would all wake up and they'd say attention, attention, we have found the problem and we have solved it, he is gone.

She is still around but is she still a force to be reckoned with? We hear from her a lot. We don't hear much from Bill Clinton these days. Why are these appearances happening? Do the Democrats think she still has some sway with the American electorate?

It's a very good question. I don't claim to fully understand the phenomenon myself. I have been subjected to the various tortures of watching the Clinton crime family do these interviews for my entire adult life, Rita, and I can't get them off my TV screen quickly enough. I suspect that there are many folks here

in the United States who feel the same way that I do. Now, the Clintons were a famously moderate democratic family. They have moved considerably far to the left as the party has moved further and further to the left just to try to fit in with the times.

They must clearly think that Hillary offers something, I guess, superstar power, if nothing else there. I mean, Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama, I suppose to this day, are the two most famous Democrats alive, right? I mean, I'm not sure who else would be.

It's definitely not Joe Biden, that's for sure. So, I mean, those are the two who I guess still offer some semblance of quote unquote star power, but look, Rita, I mean, the Clintons had been dealing with crimes here for almost a half century, literally going back to whitewater in Arkansas in the late 1970s.

I mean, there are so many skeletons in that family's closet. And I think as the American people especially start talking about Epstein a little more, a lot of this Clinton related Epstein drama is gonna start to percolate more and more to the service there. So maybe I'm naive, maybe I'm a little Pollyanna-ish, let's say, but I think that there's a chance

that the Epstein thing coming as front and center as it is about to come here in the United States could lead to Hillary entering stage left and boy could that not come soon and quickly enough. That could just be wishful thinking there, Josh, but we'll watch and see.

Josh Hammer, thank you so much for your time. Welcome back. Joining me now is celebrity and royal commentator Kinsey Schofield. Kinsey, Meghan Markle has come under fire for recreating Diana's famous cross-legged photo shoot for Harper's Bazaar. And Kinsey, this isn't the first time she has recreated some of Diana's most iconic looks.

I don't know what she's playing at.

Oh, yes you do. You know, when someone lacks a clear sense of identity or direction, they start to lean on imitation. And Meghan is such a polarizing figure. She must think cosplaying Princess Diana will help her absorb some of the warmth people still feel for Di.

But Meghan's Harper's Bazaar spread doesn't feel like inspiration. It feels like replication. The parallels to Princess Diana's vanity fair shoot are so deliberate that they come off as vulgar. And it raises real questions about how Prince Harry copes with seeing his wife recreate images tied to his mother's final years.

Meghan still has not established an identity of her own. You know, without a strong inner compass, it becomes much easier to borrow someone else's legacy instead of building your own. And the Harper's Bazaar piece underscores a large running issue with Megan's public presentation.

There is no sense of purpose, no clear message. It feels like someone sharing something, it feels less like someone sharing something meaningful and more like someone trying to stay in the spotlight for the sake of it.

I tell you, if Diana was around, none of this would be happening. and more like someone trying to stay in the spotlight for the sake of it.

I tell you if Diana was around none of this would be happening. I think she would have nipped this Meghan Markle business in the bud early on. She would have seen her coming from a million miles away and it seems like the late Prince Philip maybe saw her coming. He allegedly gave Prince Harry a warning about getting married to Meghan Markle ahead of the wedding in 2018. The interaction was detailed in Royal biographer Andrew Lowney's book entitled,

The Duke of Edinburgh allegedly told Harry, one steps out with actresses, one doesn't marry them. Kinsey, that would be hilarious if it was accurate and I've got a feeling it is accurate.

Yeah, I've heard that from multiple sources. And according to royal author Ingrid Seward, Prince Philip privately referred to Meghan as the Duchess of Windsor, comparing her to Wallis Simpson. And, you know,

she stresses that Prince Philip warned the Queen to be cautious of Meghan. There's also the royal butler, Grant Harold's, account of Philip saying to Queen Elizabeth, think F that's over as they left Terry and Meghan's wedding. So, I mean, I think it's pretty confident

that Prince Philip wasn't a fan.

Now we're hearing more about what went on at Jeffrey Epstein's infamous party at his New York mansion in 2010. Former embassy anchor, Katie Couric, sat around a table with Epstein for cocktails and lasagna, yep, choosing to break bread with a convicted sex offender.

And they apparently talked about international politics. Of course, they did. Kinsey, what else can you tell us?

Yeah, she also was teasing Prince Andrew at the time Andrew Mountbatten Windsor now about William and Catherine's wedding asking if she could have a cell phone number so she could call him during the ceremony. I mean, to your point, I just want to remind everybody to remember that visual of Katie Couric cozied up to Jeffrey Epstein every time she

lashes out and makes allegations against our president. Katie has been so hostile about Trump's relationship with Epstein when all of Epstein's victims have said Trump was nothing but kind to them and there was no inappropriate behavior.

You know, Katie claimed ignorance about this event and about these people, but former Vanity Fair editor, Tina Brown, was astute enough to turn down the invitation. now calls it the Predators ball. Wow that's got a ring to it. I just can't

believe anybody let alone someone who's got the sort of profile Katie Couric had at the time would accept an invitation from a pedophile. A 2008 conviction, and this dinner was in 2010, this meal. A 2008 conviction was for paying for sex with a 14 year old. Now, in my mind, 14 year olds can't consent. So that to me is rape, but however you wanna characterise it,

it was against the law, he pleaded guilty. That was 2008, and 2010 he's got all these famous people sitting around his table. Give me a break. Now Wicked, we've talked about this film before, people have flocked to see the new Wicked movie, it was released last week. The cinema goers were shocked to see a trigger warning before the film started. Kinsey, what's that about?

Yeah, it warns the audience to prepare themselves mentally, to see characters who cast magical spells on one another.

Oh dear.

I mean, not only was Wicked wildly successful on Broadway, it's the sequel to a blockbuster film. Shouldn't we already be mentally prepared? And do we really need a warning? I think Harry Potter is even insulted in this scenario.

And the incessant crying from the leads continues. I saw another interview where it was actually more members of the cast. It wasn't just Ariana Grande and Cynthia Erivo. And they were all crying again. I mean, there is something wrong about that movie

or on the set, something has happened because these people seem changed and perhaps not changed in a way that's improved their mental health.

Well, I don't like to comment on people's physical appearance, but just look at how thin both of the actresses have become. It's been to a point of being concerned about it. So I think you are asking some fair questions as to what's gone on mentally over the last few years

since they began filming this movie.

They're just all over each other. They're crying. Their reactions are so off. The affect just all over each other, they're crying, their reactions are so off, the affect is all off. Now before you go, one of Keith Urban's fans has told TMZ that he got the inside scoop about the singer's divorce from our Nicole Kidman weeks before the rest of the world. How did Keith let it slip,

Kinsey? So yeah, Keith met his doppelganger in Canada and they joked that the only way to tell them apart was Keith's tattoos and wedding ring. And as Keith told the fan goodbye, he noted that the next time they saw each other, it might just be the tattoos,

alluding to the fact that he wouldn't have his ring on. I mean, that's a dead giveaway.

Ooh.

That is a... That is a giveaway, but sometimes, you know, people take off their rings, they get them cleaned. I still think there's a lot to be told about that divorce. I have a fear that our Nicole was hard done by, and I say our Nicole, because it's also our Keith, isn't it?

We can't really, it's not like the Tom Cruise divorce with Nicole Kidman, where we could demonize him as an American hurting our girl but I think we're going to hear a lot more about this as the divorce finalises. finalises. Kinsey Schofield, thank you so much for your time tonight.