Transcript

Jack Smith DEFENDS Trump Prosecutions (Plus: ICE Story SPLITS GOP, Dems) | RISING

From The Hill · Episode page · Watch on YouTube

· 47 min · 9,173 words · 94 timestamped sections

This is the full, timestamped transcript of "Jack Smith DEFENDS Trump Prosecutions (Plus: ICE Story SPLITS GOP, Dems) | RISING", an episode of The Hill published January 23, 2026 (47 min, about 9,173 words). It mentions 26 people, works and ideas, including Donald Trump, ICE, Jack Smith, Don Lemon, Attorney General Pam Bondi.

What this episode is about

The main topic discusses Jack Smith's defense of the investigations into Donald Trump, highlighting the arrests linked to anti-ICE protests and polling data indicating widespread disapproval of Trump's handling of various issues among the American public. It also touches on the implications of recent SEC guidance on late-night television.

Key takeaways

  • When poll results clash with reality, attacking the data won't fix the underlying issues. Just ask the grocery bill.
  • Trump's poll paranoia echoes a losing strategy: avoid governance while targeting journalism isn't a winning play.
  • Americans feel economic pain, yet the solution isn’t found in lawsuits; it’s in policy and tangible results.
  • As snowstorm preppers stock up, voters are left wondering: where's the prep for economic storms brewing?
  • Polling trends predict trouble for Trump: when optimism crumbles, even a blizzard won't cover his governance gaps.

Who speaks in this episode?

What is discussed, and when

  1. – 5:00: Donald Trump, Jack Smith, Attorney General Pam Bondi, Don Lemon
  2. – 10:00: Jack Smith, Brook Rollins, Costco, Joe Rogan
  3. – 15:00: Donald Trump, Jack Smith, Jim Jordan
  4. – 20:00: Don Lemon, Jack Smith, Attorney General Pam Bondi, Naima Levy Armstrong
  5. – 25:00: Don Lemon, ICE, DHS, Adrien Alexander Kaneo Arius
  6. – 30:00: Renee Mlin Good, Ilan Omar
  7. – 35:00: Jimmy Kimmel, Don Lemon, Renee Mlin Good
  8. – 40:00: Jimmy Kimmel, Donald Trump
  9. – 45:00: Renee Mlin Good, Amanda Ana Samova, Koko Goff, Taylor Fritz

Notable quotes from "Jack Smith DEFENDS Trump Prosecutions (Plus: ICE Story SPLITS GOP, Dems) | RISING"

  • Oh, it doesn't. Coming up on Rising, Attorney General Pam Bondi has announced that multiple people have been arrested in connection to the anti-ICE protests inside a church. Former CNN host Don Lemon, however, might be off the hook.
    about Attorney General Pam Bondi · at
  • From the president on Truth Social. He followed that up with another post that read in part, quote, Fake and fraudulent polling should be virtually a criminal offense.
    about Donald Trump · at
  • Among independents, 71% say ICE has gone too far with enforcement. That's not a messaging problem. That's a governing problem. Now, Trump argues Republicans are fixing an economy damaged by.
    about ICE · at
  • Case, January 6th case specifically, Smith did not hold back. Let's take a listen. Our investigation revealed that Donald Trump is the person who caused January 6th, that it…
    about Jack Smith · at
  • Former CNN anchor Don Lemon was also there documenting the incident. The Justice Department apparently attempted to charge Lemon as well, but a federal judge blocked the effort. Lemon posted.
    about Don Lemon · at
  • DHS has vehemently denied that version of the story. They took to social media Thursday, writing, ICE did not target a child. The child was abandoned. On January 20th, ICE conducted a targeted.
    about DHS · at
  • Anything coming from federal officials surrounding Minnesota due to the fact that we know after Renee Good was killed, there was an immediate action plan to call her a domestic…
    about Renee Mlin Good · at
  • He shared this story about how his minions at the FCC are planning to make it difficult for shows like ours and The View to interview politicians they don't align with. For real, we are once again getting threatened by the FCC. I might.
    about Jimmy Kimmel · at

Who and what is mentioned in this episode?

People

  • Donald Trump — Person · Primary political figure discussed · 8 mentions · first at
    Central subject across segments: polling/lawsuits against media, immigration enforcement controversy, and Jack Smith testimony about Jan. 6 and classified documents.
  • Jack Smith — Person · Referenced legal official / hearing witness · 7 mentions · first at
    Former special counsel testifying before House Judiciary; defended integrity of investigations into Trump (Jan. 6 and classified documents).
  • Don Lemon — Person · Referenced journalist at center of legal/protest segment · 8 mentions · first at
    Discussed as a journalist who livestreamed an anti-ICE church protest; DOJ allegedly attempted to charge him but a judge blocked it.
  • Attorney General Pam Bondi — Person · Referenced government official announcing arrests · 3 mentions · first at
    As Attorney General, announced arrests tied to an anti-ICE church protest in Minnesota and publicly framed it as an attack on a place of worship.
  • Jimmy Kimmel — Person · Referenced media figure reacting to FCC guidance · 8 mentions · first at
    Discussed in context of FCC equal-time guidance potentially affecting late-night/daytime talk show political interviews.
  • Renee Mlin Good — Person · Referenced victim in immigration enforcement controversy · 5 mentions · first at
    Her death (described as being shot by an ICE officer) is invoked by protesters and later discussed as shaping public sentiment about ICE operations in Minnesota.
  • Naima Levy Armstrong — Person · Referenced arrestee/organizer in protest segment · 1 mention · first at
    Named by Pam Bondi as allegedly organizing the coordinated church disruption tied to anti-ICE protests.
    Arrest in Minnesota. So far, we have arrested Nikima Levy Armstrong, who allegedly played a key role in organizing the coordinated attack on city's church in St. Paul, Minnesota.
  • Jim Jordan — Person · Referenced congressional leader in hearing · 1 mention · first at
    As House Judiciary Committee chair, framed Jack Smith’s work as politically motivated and part of a long campaign against Trump.
    It was always about politics, and to get President Trump, they were willing to do just about anything.
  • Zena Stenvik — Person · Referenced local official/source (name uncertain) · 1 mention · first at
    School superintendent quoted describing the ICE incident involving a 5-year-old; her account is contrasted with DHS denial.
    Superintendent of the district where the boy attended school. Now, according to the AP, Superintendent Zena Stenvvic told reporters that immigration enforcement took Liam Cano…
  • Adrien Alexander Kaneo Arius — Person · Referenced subject of ICE operation (name uncertain) · 1 mention · first at
    DHS statement claims ICE targeted him for arrest and that he fled, leaving a child behind; central to dispute over whether a child was used as 'bait.'
    Thursday, writing, ICE did not target a child. The child was abandoned. On January 20th, ICE conducted a targeted operation to arrest Adrien Alexander Kaneo Arius, an illegal…
  • Ilan Omar — Person · Referenced lawmaker reacting to ICE incident · 1 mention · first at
    Quoted condemning ICE detention of a 5-year-old, used to illustrate political backlash and messaging conflict around enforcement tactics.
    Are voicing their outrage. Minnesota Congresswoman Ilhar Ilhan Omar posting to X ICE just detained a 5-year-old child. Don't tell us this is about quote the worst of the worst. That's a lie.
  • Nate Cohen — Person · Referenced expert/source · 1 mention · first at
    NYT chief political analyst quoted summarizing the poll’s findings about unfavorable views of Trump’s performance.
    Threatening legal action every time the data is inconvenient does not change the data. The Times chief political analyst Nate Cohen summed this up plainly, writing that, quote…
  • Brook Rollins — Person · Referenced administration official in economy messaging critique · 1 mention · first at
    Cited for a viral 'struggle meals' comment used to argue the administration’s economic messaging is tone-deaf.
    You just have to explain bidenomics to them and then they'll get it. And there was that big gaff by Brooke Rollins, the a secretary who was talking about the $3 struggle meals.
  • Leticia James — Person · Referenced legal/political figure in 'lawfare' comparison · 1 mention · first at
    Mentioned as an example of perceived political overreach in prosecutions/investigations, used to argue both parties engage in targeting opponents.
    They think this is one of them, then disprove it. But they've done it on the Democratic side, too. we can look at what's happening with Leticia James. They weren't able to get…
  • Amanda Ana Samova — Person · Referenced athlete in sports/media-politics segment (likely mis-transcribed) · 1 mention · first at
    American tennis player discussed for refusing to engage with a reporter’s political framing about representing the U.S.; name likely refers to Amanda Anisimova.
    American tennis star Amanda Ana Samova dismissed a reporter's question at the Australian Open after the reporter questioned how she felt about representing America. Let's listen.
  • Koko Goff — Person · Referenced athlete responding to political question · 1 mention · first at
    Used as contrast to Samova: offered a more personal/political response about being a Black woman and fatigue discussing politics.
    Meanwhile, the reporter asked American tennis star Koko Goff about how she felt about the state of the US one year into the Trump second Trump administration.
  • Joe Rogan — Person · Referenced commentator/podcaster · 1 mention · first at
    Cited as an example of podcasters discussing that immigration enforcement may be going 'too far,' reflecting broader public mood shifts.
    People, and we heard Joe Rogan and other podcasters speak about this, but are moving towards a place where they're Well, maybe this is too far or maybe some of the policies are too far.
  • Taylor Fritz — Person · Referenced athlete in press-conference controversy · 1 mention · first at
    Cited as another American player asked political questions; used to illustrate athletes’ concern about answers being taken out of context.
    Pretty clear what his motivation is. And I actually feel for the players in this situation. Taylor Fritz's response was really interesting because he basically said, No matter what I respond to this, it's going to be taken out of context.
  • Katarina Synova — Person · Referenced opponent in match result (name uncertain) · 1 mention · first at
    Mentioned as the Czech player defeated by 'Ana Samova' at the Australian Open; likely refers to a Czech tennis player but name appears mis-transcribed.
    Anna Samova on Tuesday won over Czech star Katarina Synova in the Australian Open in Melbourne. Reactions poured in on social media following Ana Samova's statement. Former NCA star and a.
  • Jessica Pugula — Person · Referenced athlete in press-conference controversy (name misspelled) · 1 mention · first at
    Named among American players asked political questions; likely refers to Jessica Pegula.
    Every American player at the press conference the same exact question. So, in addition to Anna Samova and golf, he also asked Madison Keys, Jessica Pugula, Taylor Fritz, and…
  • Madison Keys — Person · Referenced athlete in press-conference controversy · 1 mention · first at
    Named as one of the American players asked the same politicized question by a reporter at the Australian Open.
    Every American player at the press conference the same exact question. So, in addition to Anna Samova and golf, he also asked Madison Keys, Jessica Pugula, Taylor Fritz, and…

Companies & orgs

  • ICE — Company · Government agency · 1 mention · first at
    Discussed in the context of protests and enforcement actions, including the arrest of a 5-year-old child in Minnesota.
  • FBI — Company · Government agency · 2 mentions
    Mentioned in the context of arrests made in connection with anti-ICE protests at a church in Minnesota.
  • DHS — Company · Government agency · 1 mention · first at
    Mentioned in the context of ICE operations and the arrest of a 5-year-old child in Minnesota.
  • Sienna University — Company · Educational institution · 1 mention · first at
    Collaborated with the New York Times on a poll showing disapproval of President Trump's policies.
    Grappling with what voters are actually saying, that's a problem. This week, the New York Times and Sienna University released a poll showing that a majority of Americans…
  • Costco — Company · Retail company · 1 mention · first at
    Mentioned in passing in the context of economic discussions and rising grocery prices.
    All week. It's people are really struggling. They're not making up these costs. there's a back and forth about products costing more because of some of the tariffs, possibly…

Full transcript with timestamps

Good morning and welcome to Rising. We have a great show for you today. I always know it's a good day when I see your face because that means it's Friday.

Friday. We love a good Friday. Any weekend plans? Well, snowstorm. Oh, yeah. We We're doing major prep. We've got soups. We've got firewood. We've got gallons of water. We are ready. Don't you think it's like a little bit dramatic like the grocery store shelves being empty and everything?

Normally I would agree, but they are predicting like a foot and possibly foot and a half of snow. DC shuts down when we get like 3 in. So I think it also my husband is a little bit of a prepper. So I'm I'm letting him do his thing. It makes him happy. You know,

maybe coming from Denver I have be been desensitized because of how much snow we get there. But I'm going to see how DC handles it.

Oh, it doesn't. Coming up on Rising, Attorney General Pam Bondi has announced that multiple people have been arrested in connection to the anti-ICE protests inside a church. Former CNN host Don Lemon, however, might be off the hook for now.

Plus, former special counsel Jack Smith testified on Capitol Hill to defend the integrity of his investigations into then presidential candidate Donald Trump.

And late night host Jimmy Kimmel told his audience that he might need their help again over new SEC guidance that could affect his show. But first, Lindsay, what's in your lens?

Let's talk about it. So, when a president threatens pollsters instead of grappling with what voters are actually saying, that's a problem. This week, the New York Times and Sienna University released a poll showing that a majority of Americans disapprove of how President Trump is handling the economy, immigration, foreign policy, and affordability. 51% say his policies have made life less affordable. Nearly half of voters, that's 49%, believe the country is worse off than a year ago. Now, those numbers don't just disappear because the president doesn't like them.

Instead of addressing the substance of the concerns, Trump took to two social to attack the poll itself. The Times Sienna poll, which is always tremendously negative to me, especially just before the election of 2024, where I won in a landslide, will be added to my lawsuit against the failing New York Times. That's a quote from the president. Our lawyers have demanded that they keep all records and about how they computed these fake results, not just the fact that it was heavily skewed towards Democrats. They will be fully held responsible for all their radical left lies and wrongdoing. Another quote from the president on Truth Social. He followed that up with another post that read in part, quote, "Fake and fraudulent polling should be virtually a criminal offense.

Polls are not crimes, Mr. President. Journalism is not sabotage and threatening legal action every time the data is inconvenient does not change the data. The Times chief political analyst Nate Cohen summed this up plainly, writing that, quote, "Voters have an unfavorable view of Mr. Trump's performance on almost every issue tested in the poll." He noted that the numbers closely resemble polling ahead of Trump's 2020 loss. And the warning signs go beyond the economy. Immigration, a pillar of Trump's 2024 campaign, is now underwater. Just 40% approve of his immigration agenda. 58% disapprove.

Among independents, 71% say ICE has gone too far with enforcement. That's not a messaging problem. That's a governing problem. Now, Trump argues Republicans are fixing an economy damaged by President Biden. But Americans don't live in talking points. They live in monthly bills. Inflation's up 2.7% year-over-year. The typical household is spending $184 more per month than last year and $590 more than 3 years ago. According to Moody's analytics, not me. Grocery prices haven't meaningfully come down. Energy, medical care, coffee, and ground beef all cost more. This is not theoretical. It's everyday life. Trump already sued the New York Times for $15 billion. federal judge dismissed it, calling the complaint legally empty. The New York Times says the revised lawsuit is can be looked at as an imitation intimidation tactic meant to silence independent reporting and generate PR attention. Well, good luck with that

because suing pollsters and attacking the press won't lower grocery prices, won't stabilize energy costs, and won't make life more affordable. Governing will. And right now, voters are saying clearly they want less outrage and more results.

All right. So, I actually agree with a lot of what you said. Um, primarily the idea that Trump is using his time and focus and energy to attack polls and media reports as opposed to actually fixing issues. And I think one of the problems that people have had in really the past three months of the administration is that they haven't seen the first three months where it was very actionoriented. It was very policydriven. Now it seems that there's a lot of grievances being addressed by the president and that doesn't translate well when people are still feeling the pain of a slowly recovering economy postco. Um, and so I do think that the president is really wasting time on trying to sue media outlets as opposed to doubling down on fixing the actual issues. And the lawsuit to me is one part of it, but the bigger part is that a lot of people say like when people are critical of the president that it's just

like, you know, blame it on mainstream media or an unfair criticism. Um, but polling, whether it's New York Times poll or a variety of others, have shows that there's been like a steady decline of support for the president, most particularly around how the economy is being handled. And so that bleeds into everything else. Like as you ask people how they feel about foreign affairs or immigration, I'm sure there's a connection to the fact that they can maybe agree with some of the policies. Like I said, it's great that he's on this phase two of Israel and Gaza and trying to figure out how to quell that situation. But people at home were like, "Wait, you were the businessman and chief and just looking daytoday." Uh, the only thing that's down is pretty much gas. Which again, I will point that out that that is down from a year ago.

But it's still like where is the person that supposed to be handling the issues that Biden was failing so miserably at. And then when you get into the actual issues that he's handling, even though he does have a large swath of Republican support with immigration, I think the public view is starting to sway with the major incidents in Minnesota. And you're seeing new polling that's showing that people, and we heard Joe Rogan and other podcasters speak about this, but are moving towards a place where they're like, "Well, maybe this is too far or maybe some of the policies are too far."

And so, I'm just trying to figure out where he has like a core uh a core policies that his whole entire base is supporting because it looks like the country, even the independents that got him in office or the people that maybe didn't like his antics but like some of his policies are now like, "Well, I don't even like the policies anymore." Yeah, I think the immigration question is complicated because in polls where they ask about do they think the Trump administration has gone too far, most people agree, but then there was a Plymouth Union uh poll that came out that found that people do uh disagree with the anti-ICE protests as well, right? They say that ICE should be able to do their jobs unimpeded, that they broadly support Trump's idea of doing mass deportation and getting illegals removed from the country. And so we see a lot of disperate numbers depending on how the questions asked. And so I do

think on the immigration question specifically that we don't have a full clear picture yet. But I agree that the economy is is more obvious in that consistently across a number of polls. No matter what the question is, if it's economic related, people are dissatisfied. And I think when we saw the president in Davos give a speech basically touting how um how much we've progressed economically specifically and then how people feel um I think it's a fair criticism to say that it's similar to the tactic that was happening during the Biden administration is that oh these polls say we're doing better we are doing better but people feel differently and you're trying to convince them they don't feel what they feel.

You just have to explain bidenomics to them and then they'll get it. And there was that uh big gaff by Brooke Rollins, the uh a secretary who was talking about the $3 struggle meals.

Oh my gosh, that's still going viral. I know. It's like even if you could I mean she she doubled down on it because she went out and she said, "Well, look, if you buy this, this, and this, then you can do, you know, three meals a day for $3 a piece and it's totally fine." But the answer there is not to do the math and try to convince people. You should have never gone out in the first place. and insinuated that the problem is that people are just not basically being uh judicious or frugal enough with their shopping habits. That never goes over well from a political messaging standpoint when you're dealing with economic issues. And so to me, it just seemed very tonedeaf.

I think they need to have some more communication like what's the messaging because even with Biden, there were small wins that I think his team could have pointed to to show how progress is being made. But just telling people you shouldn't feel how you feel, I think is a ridiculous stance to take. And that lands really well with people who are like, "Okay, groceries are really expensive, but you're telling me I should eat crackers." You know what I mean? And be full or like, you know, figure out how to make this turkey last all week. It's like, you know, people are really struggling. They're not making up these costs. I mean, there's a back and forth about products costing more because of some of the tariffs, possibly this Costco in the middle of suing the administration. So, there's a lot of reasons why people feel economically even tighter than they did a year ago. And I think the president

has to address it. Yeah. and he needs to do more creative things like the ending institutional investors owning single family homes. That type of creativity and bipartisan solution, I think, is what people want to see. Up next, former special counsel Jack Smith was testifying on Capitol Hill yesterday and there were some fiery moments. We'll be right back with some of them. A heated hearing on Capitol Hill Thursday as special counsel Jack Smith, the man who twice indicted President Trump, testified before the House Judiciary Committee.

Now, those two indictments came from his investigations into Trump's handling of classified documents and Trump's alleged role in the January 6th insurrection. And when asked about his findings in the case, January 6th case specifically, Smith did not hold back. Let's take a listen. Our investigation revealed that Donald Trump is the person who caused January 6th, that it was foreseeable to him, and that he sought to exploit the violence.

Now, while Democrats spent much of their time defending Smith in his investigations, Republicans maintain that he was part of a conspiracy to take down President Trump. Here's committee chair Jim Jordan.

It was always about politics, and to get President Trump, they were willing to do just about anything. Democrats have been going after President Trump for 10 years, for a decade, and the country should never ever forget what they did. Over the next few hours, we're going to hear a lot of yelling and screaming, I assume, from the other side. But we should never forget what took place, what they did to the guy we the people elected president twice. Republicans also honed in on the Arctic Frost investigation in which the phone records of several high-ranking Republican members of Congress were obtained and then allegedly hid from those members of Congress that prompted this fiery exchange. Let's take a listen.

Why is it that no one should be informed, including the judges, as you went in to spy on these people?

My office didn't spy on anyone. Wait a second. I The question I asked you, Mr. Smith was pretty straightforward. Did you withhold that information from an article 3 judge in the process of of taking the records of the speaker of the house?

We complied with department. Did you hold Mr. Chairman? Would you please instruct the gentleman to allow the witness to answer the question?

It's not your time. I' I'd like my time back. Mr. Chairman, you've repeatedly done that in the past. The witness has the right to answer the question. Unsurprisingly, the president was watching the hearing and cheered on the Republicans on Truth Social, writing, "Deranged Jack Smith is being decimated before Congress. It was over when they discussed his past failures and unfair prosecutions. He destroyed many lives under the guise of legitimacy." Trump continued, "Hopefully, the attorney general is looking at what he's done, including some of the crooked and corrupt witnesses that he was attempting to use in his case against me. The whole thing was a Democrat scam. A big price should be paid by them for what they have put our country through.

Uh, you know what? I thought that Jack Smith was very poised, held it together, and kept his uh his temper in what could be a contentious situation. He has um an opportunity to finally say his piece and say that some of this wasn't a wish. Now, to be very clear and transparent consistently on social media everywhere, I've been saying that I didn't think they should continue to look into the president as many times as they did. the classified documents case to me could go away. I think January 6 was worth looking into. Um I think that you know they're telling the president in that moment that nobody is above the law and if he felt strongly that there was a connection to the president and feels still strongly that they had enough evidence um to keep moving forward in that particular instance. I don't think that they should have strayed away from it. If you know the job of some of these organizations and government is to

oversee one another. And if they feel like the president had done something that is against the law, well, I mean that's that's what they did. And so I think that was his purpose is to say, you know, he's going by facts and law and doing his job. Maybe sometime he overreached, which I said in the classified documents case, but in this in the January 6 specific, I don't think that he felt that he overreached. And a lot of some of the country also agree with him. So, I think it's just this back and forth where people are trying to pull through the political vendetta of it all and what actually uh egregious acts happened that are worth looking into and prosecuting.

There were a few cases in the January 6 investigation where I do think he went too far which suggested some kind of political motivation. One of which was this Operation Arctic Frost that we've been talking about where he subpoenaed the phone records of various members of Congress and also conservative nonprofits. uh he for example hid the subpoena on Kevin McCarthy, the speaker of the house's phone records while the speaker of the house has a constant security detail. His movements are public, right? And so the idea that he would be a flight risk and that Jack Smith had to uh not let him know that he was under investigation because of that just doesn't make any sense. Not to mention the fact that a lot of the conservative groups that were looked at and who had their records seized didn't even exist when January 6 happened.

Right? So for example, the America First Policy Institute wasn't created until well after January 6. So what was the explanation for tracking their phone records or asking the phone companies to turn over their call logs, etc. And then the other issue that was uh brought up during this hearing was the use of the witness Cassidy Hutchinson who was a former aid to the president who claimed that he had grabbed the wheel of the beast to try to go to the capital on January 6. An account that was disputed by all of the firstirhand witnesses. She actually received this information via hearsay from a third party. And when questioned about this during this hearing, Jack Smith said that he had not ruled her out as a witness even though she was again operating based on hearsay and her account was disputed by multiple firshand witnesses. And so the fact that he wasn't able to say clearly well I wouldn't have put her on the stand

because her account wasn't credible doesn't speak well I think to the way he was handling this investigation in eventual prosecution. I think Republicans main goal has been to delegitimize the prosecutors as opposed to disprove the crime. And so if the president didn't do anything criminal in their minds regarding January 6th, that should be just the obvious laidout information. I mean, they understand on both sides of the aisle that people do these political prosecutions. Um, and if they think this is one of them, then disprove it. But they've done it on the Democratic side, too. I mean, we can look at what's happening with Leticia James. They weren't able to get her on one criminal charge and now they're trying to connect her to her hairdresser and you know far-reaching suggestion that she gave her some funds that were not owned by the hairdresser that she's defrauding people and somehow

that has something to do with Leticia James. And so I think we see on both sides of the aisle that there's a lot of overstepping trying to persecute your enemies. I don't believe that January 6 was overstepping because we saw our capital in disarray. So looking into every possible option and even combing through the records of some Congress members might have to happen if we want to figure out how to never let anything like this happen again. Um and and see how much these different members of Congress or the president was connected to having anything to do with this. Was there any and if there was any inkling of connection that person should be charged. I think that that's what uh that's what the job of prosecutors are.

And I think we have to make sure that we're having checks and balances on even the most powerful people in our country. I guess I suppose the question though with January 6 is not did Jack Smith think that Trump was involved, but what evidence did he have or what evidence did Attorney General Merrick Garland have to appoint Jack Smith to investigate? What was the connection?

Smoking gun. Well, what was the connection between Trump and January 6 besides his speech on the Ellipse? Like in what point did he call for people to to engage in this behavior? And that should have been the impetus for an investigation, but instead it was based on a hunch or a feeling.

Yeah. And I think when you review the speech, it's like about how you look at it. So he said peacefully at one part, he said fight like hell at another part. And I think that if they start there and that he feels confident that he has a strong case against the president, this is going to be an ongoing argument because the point is not to rewrite history. We don't want January 6 to ever happen again. And so if there's anybody that is linked to having that happen, then they should be prosecuted.

All right, we'll leave it there. Arrests have been made in the aftermath of a viral protest at a church in Minneapolis, but journalist Don Lemon is not among those charged. Don't go anywhere. Hear all about it. Attorney General Pam Bondi announcing Thursday that multiple people have been arrested in connection with the anti-ICE protest at a church in Minnesota earlier this week. The AG took to X, writing, minutes ago at my direction, Homeland Security and FBI agents executed an arrest in Minnesota. So far, we have arrested Nikima Levy Armstrong, who allegedly played a key role in organizing the coordinated attack on city's church in St. Paul, Minnesota.

Listen loud and clear. We do not tolerate attacks on places of worship. Armstrong is a lawyer who was also a prominent activist in the George Floyd protest back in 2020. Bondi followed the announcement of her arrest up with more posts saying two other people allegedly involved in the disruption are also in custody. The group of protesters entered the church in St. Paul, Minnesota on Sunday and accused one of the pastors of being affiliated with ICE. The group chanted ICE out and justice for Renee Good, referring to the 37year-old who was fatally shot by an ICE officer earlier this month.

Former CNN anchor Don Lemon was also there documenting the incident. The Justice Department apparently attempted to charge Lemon as well, but a federal judge blocked the effort. Lemon posted this statement from his attorney on social media, saying, "Should the Department of Justice continue with a stunning and troubling effort to silence and punish a journalist for doing his job, Don will call out their latest attack on the rule of law and fight any charges vigorously and thoroughly in court."

Yeah, I think with Don Lemon, if you want to start there, um, specifically, a judge said absolutely not. I mean, he was doing his job. He wasn't in there chanting. I was watching the live stream. He's like, "Here's what's happening." He's breaking it down. I think if we accept Nick Shirley as a citizen journalist, surely we can accept Don Lemon, who's been a journalist for 20 plus years, as a citizen journalist now that he works on his own and believe that he was there actually reporting the information he saw. A journalist doesn't have to come in the form of working for a major network. We know that now. It's about providing facts to the people and allowing people to do their due diligence to comb through them. Now, whether you're trained, how much expertise you have, that's all up in the air. But trying to charge Don Lemon, I think, was a complete overreach.

I think it's a little more complicated than that, just because of the way that Don Lemon had been with the group from the early stages of this conspiracy to interrupt the church service. On the early part of his live stream, he was talking about this sort of secret operation that they were going to undergo. He was embedded with the group for hours at a time, went with them into the church, uh then proceeded to actually defend their motivations on his live stream while interviewing the pastor. And so to me, it seemed like he had more decided that he was part of the group and being their deacto filmmaker as opposed to engaging in a journalistic exercise. It's one thing if you see something in action and you decide to film it, right, or show the public what's happening, but I I sort of liken this to if someone is planning to rob a bank and a journalist catches wind of the fact that they're going to rob the

bank and they decide that they're going to put on the catsuit with or with the with the bank robber and they're going to go in through the window with them and watch as they um as they steal money. Is that still journalism or have you now crossed the line into criminal conspiracy?

Well, I think if the person follows the people robbing the bank and just has the camera behind them as the police come and captures the whole thing, that's totally different than putting on the catsuit. So, I think with Don Don Lemon's incident, he's not actually going there. He didn't refuse any orders. Um, he interviewed people and streamed as it happened. He was with the group earlier and he said the group said they were going somewhere and he followed them and he continued to follow them as they didn't tell him exactly where he was going and he ended up at the church and kept filming it. I know, but that's what he's saying. And so if we believe again like we're taking Nick Shirley's word for it that he is saying all these daycarees are closed even though we don't have any real information about when funds were coming to these places or how long they've been closed or if they took funds or if they

actually had people in them just because he says so. We surely can watch a live stream and say okay Don Lemon was recording these people. He also we watched him interview people. He was there all day capturing multiple things not just this one group of protesters. And so I think trying to criminally prosecute him it's not up to me. a judge said, "No, I'm not even taking this seriously." And I think that was a big deal because he documented a protest, not participated in a protest.

Well, I mean, one other problem where he gets caught up, I think, is when the pastor requested that he leave the property and he refused to do so. um citing his first amendment rights, but of course his first amendment right to be a member of the press does not trump the first amendment rights of those individuals in the church to participate in their religious activity, which is precisely why those other individuals who helped organize this were charged for violating things like the Face Act and the Clan Act.

And we're going to keep talking about this. I know we have to go to break. Um but the pastor also, you know, his connection to being a director reportedly for a chapter of ICE. And so if you're somebody who preaches the word of accepting all, but then also

it's irrelevant when it comes to the law though. I know. But if if faith if your faith is your faith and you're the pastor and also the head of ICE in your town, I mean that's a little bit strange as somebody who has these policies being pushed forward.

I completely disagree, but unfortunately we don't have time to get into it. Those are on those on the left are expressing outrage over reports that ICE arrested a 5-year-old in Minnesota this week. Stick around. Outrage on the left after reports this week that a 5-year-old boy was arrested by ICE in Minnesota and was allegedly used as bait to capture his father. That allegation coming from the superintendent of the district where the boy attended school. Now, according to the AP, Superintendent Zena Stenvvic told reporters that immigration enforcement took Liam Cano Ramos from a running car in his family's driveway shortly after arriving home from preschool. Stenvik said officers then knocked on the family's door to see if anyone else was inside, quote, essentially using a 5-year-old as bait.

She went on to say Ramos's father told his mom, who was inside the house, to not open the door, and that the agents refused to leave Liam with either another adult who lives at the home or an official from the school district.

DHS has vehemently denied that version of the story. They took to social media Thursday, writing, "ICE did not target a child. The child was abandoned. On January 20th, ICE conducted a targeted operation to arrest Adrien Alexander Kaneo Arius, an illegal alien from Ecuador, who was released into the US by the Biden administration. As agents approached the driver, Kaneo Arias fled on foot, abandoning his child. For the child's safety, one of our ICE officers remained with the child while the other officers apprehended KJO Arias. A lawyer for the family told the AP that he assumes Liam and his father in a family holding cell, but says he has not been able to have direct contact with them.

Now, Liam isn't the first student in that community to be detained by ICE. Superintendent Stenvik says two 17-year-olds and a 10-year-old have also been taken by immigration enforcement. And after this incident, some lawmakers are voicing their outrage. Minnesota Congresswoman Ilhar Ilhan Omar posting to X ICE just detained a 5-year-old child. Don't tell us this is about quote the worst of the worst. That's a lie. Absolutely vile. And fellow Minnesota representative Angie Craig posted this vote video to social media. So now ICE is using a 5-year-old boy. A five-year-old boy. They took him and used him to lure his father out. And now they've detained them both. This is not humanity in Minnesota, folks. If you can look at this 5-year-old and actually with a straight face, still support and be silent in the face of what the Trump administration and Christine Gnome is doing, I just can't even believe this is

America. If you can't speak out about this, then you've got no humanity left. But Republicans are pushing back. The RNC research account responding directly to Congresswoman Craig writing, "This child was abandoned by his father who fled to evade ICE agents. The spreading aborant lies about ICE officers make you feel good about yourself." And even some Democrats are starting to concede that the initial reports of using Liam as bait were likely false. Former Minnesota Congressman Dean Phillips, who has been a critic of ICE's operations in his state, wrote in his own post, "Since I hate misinformation, I acknowledge the little boy was abandoned by his father who fled ICE agents. I witnessed great compassion from CBP agents towards abandoned children when I visited the southern border a few years ago, and this little boy is in good hands."

However, Phillips did end the post by writing, "What's happening in Minneapolis, St. Paul is a stain on all of us as the rights of Americans are being shredded.

All right. So, kind of difficult here because we basically have he said, she said situation. We don't have video. Um the account from the superintendent I find a little bit curious because it doesn't say whether or not she was there. There was a neighbor who apparently claimed that they wanted to take custody of the child, which typically ICE would not allow a random stranger to take. they would try to keep the child with the parents. So, if the uh wife or the mother of the child is refusing to open the door and take the child in and the dad is going to a detention facility, I don't think it's absurd to say that the child should stay with the father. Now, ICE also suggests or DHS suggested that the father requested that the child stay with him.

So, it's hard for me to comment, you know, on who's in the right in this situation because I just don't think we have enough information yet. And I also agree with that, but I feel like what is the incentive for us to believe much of anything coming from federal officials surrounding Minnesota due to the fact that we know after Renee Good was killed, there was an immediate um action plan to call her a domestic terrorist and some of the information. So, I know that there have been ICE officers trying to target schools and that's why people were whistling in Minnesota and really trying to protect the school as a place that's supposed to be, you know, let's say a sanctuary where people hopefully are not pulling parents out of cars or stopping them as they pull out.

And so to think about the fact that another or Minnesota officials are saying like a 10-year-old, a 17year-old, and now a 5-year-old are all just products of them trying to get migrants out. I think that uh a lot of Americans would not want to see many kids being involved in this disastrous way. I think there's two things can be true. People think that immigration needed to be better handled in this country and many Democrats even finally admit towards the end of Biden's term that he did a poor job at immigration policy. Um but at the same time, we don't have to lack humanity like some of these Democratic Congress men and women are saying in our immigration policy. And so in one month um to have Renee Good's death to see local leaders be completely iced out of the investigation to have our vice president go to uh Minneapolis and not even connect with Mayor Fry or Governor Wals knowing that he's saying the

temperature is turned up the same way that Walsh says it's turned up. Bring it down. If you guys have the same message, why has there been no uh coordination? know because you both on both sides would rather public accolades that you're screaming at top of your lungs about differences. I think it's just really letting everybody down because nobody wants a child, any mom could look at this, any person could look at this and say, "I don't want them caught in the middle of this." Whether his father ran, whether ICE was detaining him and doing it wrong, we don't know who to believe. And I think part of it starts with some of the highest officials in our country and in Minnesota being adults and figuring out how to have a different conversation than the ones they've been having. Well, it's hard to have a conversation though with people who are telling ICE to leave Minneapolis entirely. Um, they are there to execute

legal federal immigration enforcement procedures and the local police and local officials have refused to cooperate. And so, if you're JD Vance, you're the vice president, you have been elected under the campaign uh mantra of executing a massport deportation operation. You're going there to support your ICE agents and tell them to keep keep pushing on. You're not going there to try to pacify Mayor Fry, who has made very clear where he stands on this issue. And on this question of children, you know, it is complicated because we don't know, for example, on those other instances of children being pulled out of school, were their parents detained?

Were did their parents ask for their children to be deported with them? Because there was a misinformation story earlier in this administration where people were claiming that American citizen children were being deported and then we found out that the real story was that the mother was an illegal alien. She was deported. She requested that her children who are American citizen be able to go with her. And so they weren't deported, they were kept with their mother. And so to go from the first Trump administration where people were very upset about the quoteunquote family separation policy to now raising hell because uh ICE is actually and DHS are allowing children to leave with their parents. That's not a consistent principle.

Well, I think um for the vice president to go to Minnesota and not talk to local leaders is childish. I don't think that because you think it's pacifying Fry or Wals, that's not what politics is about. And I think when you talk about how the president's administration looks as a whole, that New York Times poll, whether people want to accept it or not, saying 50% disapprove of the immigration agenda at this point, look at the country. These are not just Democrats. These are people that are stressed out by watching this policy, these policies take place and watching people die. It doesn't matter if people thought Renee Good was in the wrong or the ICE officer. When you watch that instance, you're like, surely there's a better way we can handle this. And so, as the vice president of the country, whether you like people or not, that's the job.

That's the name of the game. You need to go there and reach out to people. It doesn't matter if you think it's contentious. That's the that's part of the job. Vice president of the whole country.

It's not about liking them or not. It's what they've made very clear about their policy priorities. If Jacob Fry is publicly saying no ICE in Minnesota, no ICE in Minneapolis, and Tim Walls has repeatedly referred to ICE as the new Gestapo, what conversation are they going to have that's

Well, I'm sure they can have the same one that the president and mom Donnie had who said similar things about one another. start there and that he feels confident that he has a strong case against the president. This is going to be an ongoing argument because the point is not to rewrite history. We don't want January 6 to ever happen again. And so if there's anybody that is linked to having that happen, then they should be prosecuted.

All right, we'll leave it there. Arrests have been made in the aftermath of a viral protest at a church in Minneapolis, but journalist Don Lemon is not among those charged. Don't go anywhere. He hear all about it. Jimmy Kimmel told his audience on Wednesday that he might need their help once again as he faces new guidance from the Federal Communications Commission. Let's take a listen.

President took time from 6,000 miles away to continue his war on talk shows. He shared this story about how his minions at the FCC are planning to make it difficult for shows like ours and The View to interview politicians they don't align with. For real, we are once again getting threatened by the FCC. I might need your help again. Okay.

The FCC's media bureau issued a public notice on Wednesday stating that it will not exempt late night and daytime talk shows from requiring to provide equal airtime to opposing political candidates. The notice said it is important that both broadcasters and legally qualified candidates understand the FCC's equal opportunities regulations and how they can result in broadcasters offering opposing legal qualified candidates comparable time and placement. The FCC has not been presented with any evidence that the interview portion of any late night or daytime television talk show program on air presently would qualify for the bonafide news exemption. Moreover, a program that is motivated by partisan purposes, for example, would not be entitled to an exemption under long-standing FCC precedent.

Well, I think um they should be separated. Like if we talk about the View and Kimmel, let's just look at ABC because that's the example we have. The view seems more like the FCC might have a reasonable argument there, right? They should pro provide equal air time. Most of the show is about politics. I think when you talk about Kimmel and shows similar to that, they've been under the entertainment divisions of their companies for like more than 20 years in that capacity, meaning that they don't even look at those as news shows. And the FCC hasn't for more than 20 years look at things like Jay Leno or Colbear as news shows. And so to put this onus on it, uh, late night talk show to now become a news show. Although I think that they should invite candidates from both sides of the aisle and not even just be a political show. People with different perspective, podcasters, actors that have all different

perspectives and maybe they should not get into politics as much. I'm actually over some of the jokes about President Trump is constant and and continuous. Um, but I don't think that we should start to nitpick at some of these late night shows because now we just have the FCC or Trump adjacent people deciding what should be satire, deciding what comedy should be. And I think that's like a step too far. Now, the view is not comedy. The view is usually political or entertainment. And I think that that might be a different conversation. Yeah, it's a bit nuanced here because the reason this exemption uh came into place was because in 2006 Jay Leno had an interview portion of his show where he would have polit where he had Arnold Schwarzenegger, the governor of California on and that was buil as a bonafide news interview, which is why he didn't have to adhere to the equal time clause. But the argument is that if

Jimmy Kimmel has an interview section that is more entertainment driven, isn't a bonafide news interview, and he's only applying those time slots to Democrat politicians or people of the left, you know, just looking through recent YouTube clips, he's had Rachel Madowl, Eric Swallwell, uh Pete Buddha Judge, etc., Kla Harris, then that would might not qualify for the exemption. And so maybe he needs to reapply for that to see whether or not this actually qualifies under the FCC statutes.

And if we continue to politicize the FCC, then I think that conservatives are aware of this when you have a different leader of the FCC in place that aligns more with whomever the next Democratic president is. Like this turns right back on conservative radio hosts or talk shows. And I think that they probably wouldn't want

Well, only if they're on broadcast, right? Well, I pro and you wouldn't want that. CBS owns an entire slew of radio content, you know, like these are the same companies that produce, you know, the same hold themselves to the same standards and have entertainment programming that kind of leans into news a little bit and will continue to create this. I mean, major companies that are outside of the big three or four networks will continue to create broadcast content. The Hill is owned by NextStar that will continue to create content. So we start to comb through every single thing. I mean this can go both both ways where they start to criticize well this is not does not looking equal under the guise of somebody who works or aligns themselves with whomever the next president is as Democratic.

Yeah. I mean this would apply specifically to the late night and entertainment shows though, right? Because the radio programs that we're talking about already classify as bonafide news interviews when they have a politician on. Same with something like CBS nightly news or one of those um evening or morning news programs. Those already qualify for the

Well, Jimmy Kimmel mentioned The View, which is not late night. It's a daytime talk show and all talk shows.

Yeah, like I said, late night talk shows and entertainment shows. I would view say The View is more entertainment because they have, you know, their shopping segments or they have lifestyle type segments, pop culture, as opposed to just politics. They like to talk about politics a lot, but I don't think it classifies the same way that a morning news program would, like Good Morning America for example. And so I do think it's a little bit cloudy and muddy there on where exactly they classify and whether or not they qualify for this bonafide news exemption. And so I think it's reasonable to try to clarify what exactly those categories of interviews fall under because if they don't qualify for that exemption then they would have to satisfy that equal time requirement.

The criticism also comes from the timing. I mean we know what just happened with Jimmy Kimmel. We know how that entire uh saga played out for him which is what he kind of made light of. But I think that both sides of the aisle almost came together in the issue. True. I mean, there were people on the outskirts that were saying, "Yeah, take Kimmel off air, maybe because you don't like his personal show, but don't think the FCC should have been involved." So, for this to come on the back end of that, it feels targeted and intentional and uh adding to this crusade against media that we talked about a little bit earlier um like suing the New York Times for the polling or recently suing CBS.

So, it's natural for people to question why all this is happening now after 20 years of precedent where there wasn't any issues with some of these late night shows.

I do think it's understandable to question the motivations. I do think looking back at Brennan Carr's public statements even before he took over the FCC, it was pretty clear that he wanted to be a more active member of the FCC. um that he wanted to revisit some of these classifications and guidelines that the FCC has been operating under sort of on sleepwalk mode for the past 20 to 30 years. And so even though the Jimmy Kimmel specific inclusion does seem like it could be targeted by political motivations, it's also not out of bounds from what he has previously promised to do even before there was this issue with Trump and Kimmel.

Yeah, we're going to have to keep watching this to see what else they come up with. Up next, an American tennis star refused to denounce the US after a reporter tried to nudge her to do it at the Australian Open. We'll be right back after this. American tennis star Amanda Ana Samova dismissed a reporter's question at the Australian Open after the reporter questioned how she felt about representing America. Let's listen. Yeah, I mean I was uh born in America, so I'm always proud to represent my country and yeah, a lot of us are doing really well and it's great to see a lot of, you know, great athletes on the women's side, on the men's side. So, yeah, I feel like we're all um doing a great job representing ourselves.

And sorry, do you mind if I follow? Sure. Sorry. Um just to clarify a little, I mean, sort of in the context of the last year of everything that's been happening in the in the US, does that complicate that feeling at all? I don't think that's relevant.

Meanwhile, the reporter asked American tennis star Koko Goff about how she felt about the state of the US one year into the Trump second Trump administration. This was her response.

At this point, I feel a bit fatigued talking about it just because of the fact that it is hard. But also, I think being a black woman in this country and having to experience things even online um and seeing your marginalized communities being affected um and knowing that I can only really donate and speak out and I try my best to do that. But yeah, I just hope that as time continues that we can reach a state where we're not currently in and we keep moving forward.

Anna Samova on Tuesday won over Czech star Katarina Synova in the Australian Open in Melbourne. Reactions poured in on social media following Ana Samova's statement. Former NCA star and a contributor to TPUSA Riley Gaines wrote on X in part, "Liberal sports media is the most insufferable arm of left-wing media. This activist should never be allowed in another press room." Another ex user said, "I don't know if this is a hot take, but if Russian players had to be subjected to these questions, I don't see why American players shouldn't, too.

There's so much hypocrisy in these comments. Look, I think both responses are okay. I I I think the questions obviously the reporters are trying to go there with like some juicy answer that'll be the headline of their week and that they had this American star answer the questions in this way. There's like some um international I can say this because I studied abroad like interest in American what's going on in American politics um over overseas in a different way than we interest ourselves in foreign politics. I find that people know a lot what's going on in our day-to-day internationally. Um, and I think that they're fine to ask the questions and keep pushing on it. I don't know that I would make that my top question at a sports event um, in the middle of a major experience. I don't know that I would keep pushing, but I also don't know if that's the only question that reporter had. I didn't watch the entire

press conference, but I do think that both responses are fine. Like, and I if you don't feel like answering it, that's not what I came for. You don't have to. And if you want to answer in the style of Coco Goff where you actually have a grievance to share or an experience to share, that's also fine.

Yeah. I mean, this reporter, his his name is apparently Owen Wilson. He's there on behalf of The Athletic as a freelance uh reporter, which The Athletic is a property of the New York Times. Now, he was asking basically every American player at the press conference the same exact question. So, in addition to Anna Samova and golf, he also asked Madison Keys, Jessica Pugula, um Taylor Fritz, and it's like very clear that he's trying to get some viral headline out of right and like these people are in the middle of a major. Um this is a huge deal for them. People want to hear about the tennis. it just seems uh a little calculated and like pretty clear what his motivation is. And I actually feel for the players in this situation. Taylor Fritz's response was really interesting because he basically said, "No matter what I respond to this, it's going to be taken out of context.

People are going to write misleading headlines about it and that's going to be a distraction from what I'm here to do, which is to try to win this tournament." And so them having to navigate this like really tricky political question when they're mentally trying to stay on the court and what their next match is going to be makes me kind of frustrated on their behalf.

And I'd love to know I thought the point that was raised about not asking Russian players their stance. I mean there's an entire huge war that Russia has started in Ukraine. You know what I mean that's still ongoing. And if there are Russian players and mind you you're way more well versed in tennis. So if I'm out of bounds in any way here please jump in. But the fact that they're not subjected to these questions at every let's say major sporting event or every like why not why not but they probably are by some people but for now that you're saying the connection with the New York Times and the Atlantic like obviously there was an attention about the stories and sometimes you know athletes are put in this position where they have to be even we saw this at the Golden Globes um actors were all asked about current Minnesota um the shooting with Renee Good and wearing the pins and Bill Maher

kind of got was it Bill Maher or uh got in trouble a little bit, criticized it.

Yeah. Said, "I don't want I'm not going to wear a pin about it, but I don't like it." I think that

people in the public eye are expected to have a take. And sometimes we say we criticize them as well for having that take.

Well, I guess like in this case, none of these people um well, Koko go a little bit different because she has spoken publicly about politics, but a lot of them have not and they are not even I mean, they're representing the US because they're from America, but this is not a team event, right? This is an individual event where each player is uh participating under the American flag because like Anna Samova pointed out, I was born here. Like I didn't choose to be an American. I just am and I'm proud of that. Um but uh there are mixed doubles events or or team doubles events uh for men's and women's where players are actually on from different countries. Like you'll have a doubles team where one person is from America and another person's from Switzerland.

And so it's not like the Olympics where everybody is there with like the team USA flag on. So, that's another reason why I thought the question was a little poorly posed.

Oh man. Well, hopefully we can get some sports questions next. That does it for us on Rising Live. Look out for more exclusive YouTube content coming your way. Be sure to like, share, and subscribe to The Hills YouTube channel so you never miss any content. And for those of you who like to listen on the go, you know, we're available wherever you listen to podcasts. We'll see you next week.

Questions about this episode

Who speaks in "Jack Smith DEFENDS Trump Prosecutions (Plus: ICE Story SPLITS GOP, Dems) | RISING"?

Lindsay (Guest), Jack Smith (Guest), Pam Bondi (Guest), Don Lemon (Guest).

What is "Jack Smith DEFENDS Trump Prosecutions (Plus: ICE Story SPLITS GOP, Dems) | RISING" about?

The main topic discusses Jack Smith's defense of the investigations into Donald Trump, highlighting the arrests linked to anti-ICE protests and polling data indicating widespread disapproval of Trump's handling of various issues among the American public. It also touches on the implications of recent SEC guidance on late-night television.

What is mentioned in this The Hill episode?

26 people, works and ideas are mentioned, including Donald Trump, ICE, Jack Smith, Don Lemon, Attorney General Pam Bondi, FBI. Each one on this page links to its own page with every episode that mentions it.

How long is "Jack Smith DEFENDS Trump Prosecutions (Plus: ICE Story SPLITS GOP, Dems) | RISING"?

The episode runs 47 min; the transcript is about 9,173 words in 94 timestamped sections.

More from The Hill

About this transcript: the episode's spoken words as captioned on YouTube, split into timestamped sections. Reclip.Me locates every person, work and idea in the text, keeps the time it is first named, and quotes the words around it verbatim. Last updated January 24, 2026.