k that's what she learned from Joy Reid: to just call everybody racist all the time. You don't have to do anything else. That's the entire game.

And when you only have that one speed, the only thing that you do is call everything racist. You know that's going to get turned against your own company, right? There wasn't any way that that wouldn't work out poorly. Even on paper, if I said to you, all right, here's the deal. There's going to be this network, and the people in the network are going to call everybody and everything racist. Here's what I would have warned the network: You know that's eventually going to be turned on you, right? You can't hire a whole bunch of people who only have one speed. That's racist. It's racist. It's racist. It's racist. It's racist. And then expect that when you make a change that they don't like, that they're not going to call you a racist. Of course they are. Of course they are. It doesn't matter what reasons you have. Doesn't matter at all.

Anyway, one of the things that Rachel Maddow probably is suffering from now is that as long as Joy Reid still had a job, Rachel Maddow felt safe because Joy Reid was even crazier. So it made Rachel Maddow look sort of moderate. But once Joy Reid is gone, now Rachel Maddow will look like the craziest one on the network. And it's going to make her feel like she might be next. And I'm surprised she wasn't, just because of her pay.

How did other people take it? Well, Angela Rye, who's a black woman, which is important to the story, she was a former CNN commentator, and she calls for a boycott of MSNBC because they fired Joy Reid. And I guess that makes them racist. I don't know.

And then Keith Olbermann, you know, my mascot Keith Olbermann, he said in a post, "Breaking: MSNBC racist purge escalates." He names the people who were out. So the left is getting attacked by Keith Olbermann for being racist. Are we supposed to enjoy this as much as we are?

Now, I never like to say only negative things, so I want to say one positive thing. One of the things that Rachel Maddow said in her little speech about what happened is that Rachel Maddow is 51 years old. And I thought to myself, damn, whatever you're doing for skin care is working. Does she look 51? I think I would have guessed 40. That's pretty impressive. But whatever she does for health, it sure works on camera. Anyway, so good for her.

All right. Do you want me to make everybody mad? All right, now I'm going to make everybody mad.

You all saw the story, and you want me to talk about it, where Dan Crenshaw was caught on an open mic saying about Tucker Carlson, quote, "If I ever meet Tucker Carlson, I'll effing kill him. I'm not joking."

Now, this of course caused everybody to say, you crazy, you crazy, unhinged, out-of-control person. How crazy can you be?

And Tucker cleverly invited him to come on the show to see how it turns out. I don't think Tucker was too worried.

Now, you should probably know that Tucker has been quite a critic of Crenshaw. He's called him unstable in the past and says he needs help. I don't know about any of that.

But I had to ask ChatGPT to remind me why it is that so many MAGA people don't like Crenshaw. And it said generic stuff. Tell me if this sounds right. That Crenshaw is more what they called — now remember this is just AI, this is just ChatGPT — said that Crenshaw is more traditional conservative as opposed to a MAGA populist. And he has sometimes wanted to do bipartisan things that the MAGA people didn't like. And he has sometimes criticized Trump, which the MAGA people don't like.

Now, I don't know. Is there more to it? Probably. That sounds kind of generic.

But here's my take, and I'm going to be consistent with past takes about leaked audio and video. Here's my take: The person who's to blame is the person who leaked it.

Now, this is what I always say with a leaked video, because you have to recognize that people say things in private that are perfectly fine in private. As soon as somebody changes the context from private to public, which is what the leaked video did, they turned it into a completely different message. Because when it's private, it's just the way people talk, right? Have you ever said you want to kill somebody privately, and whoever you're talking to knows you don't want to kill them? It's just something you say when you're talking privately. It's like, "Ah, I would kill that person." I mean it.

Now, he also added, "I'm not joking," but that doesn't change it. Of course he's not joking. He's just saying that he doesn't like him.

So my rule is this: If something would be perfectly ordinary in private, and then somebody, some weasel, some weasel decides to drop that video to destroy your life, it's the weasel's fault. So I'd like to know the name of the weasel, because the weasel is who I have all of my hatred for right now. I mean, I hate that guy or woman, whoever it is. Whoever leaked this is just scum. It's despicable, because they knew it would have this effect. And I'm sure they knew that he didn't mean it seriously.

If you'd like to test whether he meant it seriously, I would apply what I call the "really" filter, where you say, "Really? Do you really think that if Crenshaw and Tucker Carlson were in the same room that Crenshaw would really slay him? Really?" Do any of you believe that? No, none of you believe that he would really slay him. So it's just talk. And the things that you say privately.

Now, I think it was a mistake to assume it was private. So there's definitely an error here. And I think Crenshaw probably learned from that. If you've got microphones and people standing around, you don't say that kind of thing if there's a microphone within 100 feet. Like, that's the lesson. So Crenshaw is not guilt-free. I would say that would be a public person error.

Now, I've made the same errors myself. I've definitely said things in places where probably there was a microphone, and maybe I should have been smarter. But, you know, not if it really hurt me.

So I have severe hatred for who leaked it. And don't take this as me supporting everything that Crenshaw wants to do policy-wise or everything he said or everything about his whole life. I don't know too much. But this really pisses me off, the fact that we would treat Crenshaw as the bad guy when the bad guy is the leaker.

Oh, the bad guy is the leaker. Does this sound familiar? Sometimes you can just grab them by the... If that had been private and stayed private, it was just two guys talking, and one of them didn't take it seriously and the other one probably didn't mean it seriously. It really had no impact if it stayed private. As soon as somebody leaked it, it changed the context, because our brains are such that we just imagine it as a public statement because it is public. But it wasn't originally public. Whoever changes the context is responsible for the message, period. Because that's not the original message. The original message is two guys talking. Completely different. Completely different.

If you've never heard two guys talking privately, maybe you wouldn't understand that.

Anyway, so yeah, I hav