I watched the California governor’s debate between Steve Hilton and Xavier Becerra, and let me tell you something.

This is exactly why debates matter.

Forget the commercials. Forget the consultants. Forget the perfectly edited campaign videos. Put these people on a stage, ask them questions and make them defend what they actually believe.

That’s what happened Wednesday night when Hilton and Becerra stood across from each other on CNN.

And the contrast was obvious.

Becerra repeatedly tried to connect Hilton to President Donald Trump. Hilton repeatedly tried to connect Becerra to the government record he has spent decades building.

New York Post columnist Joel Pollak described the debate much more aggressively, arguing that Hilton “ran circles around” Becerra and that Becerra seemed unable to adequately answer questions about his record. That’s Pollak’s assessment, but several exchanges explain why he reached it.

“Like Voting Democrat”

One of the best exchanges of the night came when Becerra tried to use the old definition-of-insanity line against Hilton.

You know the line.

Doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results.

Hilton immediately fired back:

“Like voting Democrat.”

Come on, man.

Whatever you think about either candidate, that’s a debate moment.

And Hilton’s broader argument was simple: Democrats have controlled California’s state government for years, so voters unhappy with affordability, housing, taxes or the business climate should ask whether continuing the same governing approach will produce a different result.

Becerra’s response was that Hilton’s tax agenda amounts to Trump-style economics that would disproportionately benefit wealthy Californians and potentially reduce funding available for schools, health care and housing.

That’s a legitimate policy disagreement.

But Hilton kept forcing Becerra to defend the status quo instead of simply attacking Washington.

Hilton Kept Asking About The Record

Pollak highlighted another exchange over housing.

Becerra said he wanted to cut red tape and make it easier to build. Hilton challenged him to identify an example from his long career in government where he had actually done that. Pollak’s assessment was that Becerra failed to provide one.

Then came artificial intelligence.

According to the Post, Hilton challenged Becerra over his relationship with major AI companies and asked about campaign money connected to OpenAI and Anthropic. Becerra responded by pointing toward tech companies he had previously sued rather than directly engaging Hilton’s framing of the question.

Again, this is what debates are supposed to do.

Don’t just tell me you’re going to cut red tape.

Show me when you’ve done it.

Don’t just tell me you’re going to stand up to powerful companies.

Show me your record.

That was Hilton’s strategy throughout the night.

Then Immigration Got Personal

The immigration exchange was probably the most heated.

Becerra, the son of Mexican immigrants, argued for immigration reform while attacking federal enforcement policies. He then told Hilton, who immigrated from Britain, that Hilton appeared to welcome immigrants who looked like himself while wanting to deport immigrants who looked like Becerra.

Hilton immediately called the remark “disgraceful” and argued that Californians wanted solutions instead of personal political attacks. The exchange then moved back toward immigration enforcement and Becerra’s tenure as secretary of Health and Human Services.

Hilton accused Becerra of failures involving unaccompanied migrant children and sponsor vetting during his time at HHS. Becerra dismissed the allegations as recycled Trump talking points.

Some of Hilton’s specific numbers and characterizations are disputed and should not simply be accepted because they were delivered forcefully in a debate. But federal watchdogs have documented serious shortcomings in the government’s sponsor-screening and follow-up process for unaccompanied children.

So there was a substantive issue underneath all the yelling.

And Hilton wanted Becerra to answer for his record.

Even Susan Rice Made An Appearance

Then Hilton pulled out something I wasn’t expecting.

He brought up former Biden administration official Susan Rice’s reported private criticism of Becerra, including her calling him an “idiot” and using an even more colorful insult.

Hilton asked why somebody who worked alongside Becerra in the Biden administration would describe him that way.

Becerra responded:

“Since when do I have to respond to politicians?”

He said he was running for the votes of Californians, not politicians in Washington.

That’s certainly one way to answer it.

But Hilton’s point was clear. He wasn’t quoting a Republican criticizing Becerra. He was bringing up criticism reportedly made by somebody who served in the same Democratic administration.

Trump, Trump, Trump

Eventually Hilton called out what had become Becerra’s recurring strategy.

“All you ever say is Trump, Trump, Trump.”

Becerra responded that Trump was relevant because Hilton actively sought and received his endorsement. That’s fair political context. Hilton argued that constantly returning to Trump avoided the problems Californians were actually asking their next governor to solve.

And that was really the divide on the stage.

Becerra argued that Hilton would import Trump-style policies into California and that his proposals would threaten programs working families depend on.

Hilton argued that California’s current governing model is already failing too many working families and that Becerra represents more of it.

Even CNN’s post-debate panel reflected some of that tension. Contributor Lulu Garcia-Navarro said Becerra had not made the case for Democrats’ accomplishments particularly strongly, while also saying Hilton’s change argument wasn’t especially convincing to her. Another panelist said Becerra’s answer on improving education seemed equivocal.

So you don’t have to take my reaction or Joel Pollak’s reaction as gospel.

Watch the exchanges yourself.

California Got A Clear Choice

Hilton ended the debate talking about what he called California’s “rebel spirit.”

He argued that Californians can build, grow, invent and create almost anything, but that the state’s bureaucracy and cost of living are crushing that spirit. His closing argument was that voters should try something fundamentally different.

Becerra’s argument is different. He says his experience matters, that government investment protects working families and that Hilton’s approach would move California toward policies associated with Trump.

That’s the choice the debate put in front of Californians.

But the moments that stood out to me were the moments when Hilton stopped talking in broad campaign language and made Becerra defend specifics.

What have you done about housing?

What happened under your watch at HHS?

What are you going to do differently about California’s cost of living?

That’s what I want to hear in a debate.

Not another campaign slogan.

Not another canned answer.

Put your record on the table and defend it.

Wednesday night, Steve Hilton came ready to do exactly that.

I need somebody to explain this A’ja Wilson situation to me, because I have watched the video from multiple angles and I still don’t see what she says happened.

During the game, Wilson got into an exchange with a fan sitting behind the basket. She was assessed a technical foul, and the fan was initially removed from his seat. Afterward, Wilson explained why she reacted the way she did.

Her explanation was basically this: you are going to respect me.

Wilson said she saw a man taking steps toward her and pointing at her, and she wasn’t going to tolerate it. She did apologize to her teammates for getting the technical foul, but she stood behind confronting the fan.

There’s only one problem.

Watch the video.

Who Was Actually Approaching Who?

This man is behind the basket.

A’ja Wilson is on the basketball court.

From the angle we watched on the show, the fan appears to stand and point toward the court while Wilson moves in his direction. That’s why I kept asking the same question while watching it:

What did he actually do?

Pointing at a professional basketball player from the stands is not some extraordinary act. Fans yell. Fans complain about calls. Fans point. Fans boo. That comes with professional sports.

Now, if this man threatened her, used a racial slur, tried to enter the court or did something that violated arena rules, that’s a different conversation.

But nothing presented in the footage we watched established that.

Even Stephen A. Smith looked at the video and described Wilson’s reaction as appearing to be an overreaction. He said that based on the footage and the arena’s subsequent investigation, the fan apparently did not do anything that required his removal.

That’s pretty important.

Because Wilson’s description makes it sound like some man was aggressively approaching her.

The video doesn’t appear to show that.

Sometimes You Just Have To Say, “I Overreacted”

This is the part that bothers me.

Everybody loses their temper.

Professional athletes lose their temper. Police officers lose their temper. Parents lose their temper. I lose my temper.

The question is what you do afterward.

If A’ja Wilson came out after the game and said, “Look, I thought this guy was coming at me. I reacted. I watched the video afterward and maybe I read the situation wrong,” I would respect that.

Instead, she doubled down.

She said, “I guarantee you, you will respect me,” and repeatedly described the fan as stepping toward her and pointing at her. She acknowledged the technical hurt her team, but maintained that the fan’s behavior was unacceptable.

Come on, man.

You play professional basketball.

People buy tickets to sit near the court. Some of those people are cheering for you. Some are cheering against you. They’re going to react to what happens during the game.

That doesn’t give fans permission to threaten players or cross physical boundaries.

But players don’t get to treat every ordinary fan interaction as a threat either.

Accountability Goes Both Ways

This is bigger than one technical foul.

Accountability means being willing to admit when you were the problem.

The broadcast initially acknowledged that nobody knew exactly what the fan had said. Later commentary cited the arena’s investigation and witnesses as finding that the fan had not violated the code of conduct and did not need to be removed.

If additional evidence comes out showing this man threatened Wilson or said something outrageous, I’ll look at it.

But based on what we actually watched, I don’t see a fan charging A’ja Wilson.

I see a fan standing behind the basket and pointing.

I see Wilson moving toward him.

And I see an altercation that appears to have escalated because a professional athlete took exception to what a spectator was doing from his seat.

Sometimes the answer isn’t complicated.

Sometimes you got mad.

Sometimes you misunderstood somebody.

Sometimes you overreacted.

And sometimes the strongest thing you can do is admit it.

Let me start here because I don’t want anybody twisting what I’m saying.

If these young men sexually assaulted this woman, put them in prison.

I don’t care who their parents are. I don’t care what university they attended. I don’t care what fraternity they belonged to. Sexual assault is evil, and anybody who forces themselves on another person deserves to face the consequences.

But accusations are not convictions.

And after actually looking at the history of what has become known online as the “Cornell Seven” case, there is a major part of this story that people seem to be skipping.

The account Jane Doe gave authorities in 2024 and the allegations contained in her new lawsuit are significantly different.

That matters.

What She Alleged In 2026

Earlier this month, a former Cornell student identified as Jane Doe filed a 101-page civil lawsuit alleging that seven members of the Chi Phi fraternity drugged and sexually assaulted her inside the fraternity house on October 19, 2024. The lawsuit alleges she was incapable of consenting and describes an hours-long assault involving alcohol and ketamine.

The lawsuit also contains disturbing Snapchat messages. According to the complaint, one fraternity member allegedly sent a message to a group chat advertising “free” sexual access to Jane Doe while other fraternity members entered the room. Her attorney has called the messages a critical piece of evidence.

Those messages are disgusting.

But then you have to look at what Jane Doe reportedly told authorities in 2024.

That is where this case gets complicated.

Her Original Statement Told A Different Story

Tompkins County District Attorney Matthew Van Houten says Jane Doe’s original statement did not allege that she unknowingly took drugs or was forced to engage in sexual activity. He says her statement described voluntary alcohol and drug use and consensual sexual encounters. According to the DA, whenever she asked for sexual activity to stop, it stopped.

According to the account discussed on the show, Jane Doe described herself as around a five out of ten intoxicated when she arrived at the fraternity house. She reportedly said she agreed to an initial threesome. When she later told one participant they needed to stop, he stopped. At another point she rejected another participant. Later, she reportedly agreed to take ketamine and eventually participated in another threesome, which she said ended when she said she was tired and wanted to stop.

Then there are messages reportedly exchanged shortly after the incident.

According to the reporting discussed on my show, Jane Doe allegedly wrote that her memory was clouded and everybody had been heavily intoxicated, but also said that “none of the sexual stuff was illegal.” Her attorney’s position is that she was traumatized, in denial and attempting to understand what had happened to her.

That explanation deserves to be heard.

So does the original statement.

You don’t get to throw one away because the other one fits the narrative you already chose.

Why Cornell And Prosecutors Didn’t Initially Bring Criminal Charges

This is the part everybody screaming that Cornell simply “covered it up” needs to understand.

Cornell police did investigate. According to the DA, Cornell police contacted his office in November 2024 and asked prosecutors to review Jane Doe’s statement specifically because they had questions about consent. Multiple prosecutors and investigators reviewed the account and concluded that the facts presented at that time did not establish a crime.

That doesn’t mean the new allegations are false.

It means prosecutors had to work with the evidence and statements they had at the time.

There are also legitimate questions about that original investigation. Jane Doe’s attorney argues investigators should have conducted additional interviews and says the Snapchat messages were provided to authorities. The DA says his office did not initially receive those messages and acknowledged that his office did not conduct an independent investigation beyond Cornell police’s work.

Cornell separately conducted a Title IX investigation that resulted in sanctions including suspensions and expulsions, and the Chi Phi chapter remains barred from campus.

Now prosecutors are reopening the criminal investigation and intend to present the case to a grand jury. The DA says the purpose is to determine whether new evidence exists that wasn’t available in 2024.

Good.

Investigate it.

Accusations Are Not Proof

What bothers me is watching the internet jump from “these men have been accused” to “these men did it.”

Those are not the same sentence.

At least some of the accused are publicly denying wrongdoing. One attorney said his client never sexually assaulted or even touched Jane Doe. Another accused student acknowledged participating in the Snapchat conversation but denied participating in sexual activity or drug use.

That is precisely why an investigation matters.

As I said on the show, “It’s okay to want accountability. It’s okay to want people to be investigated. It’s okay to be disgusted by the messages that you saw, but also you need to know the full story.”

That is my position.

If evidence shows that one, two or all seven of these men sexually assaulted this woman, prosecute whoever committed a crime.

If new evidence proves she was incapacitated and unable to consent, follow that evidence.

But if evidence shows that some of these men had nothing to do with an assault, their lives should not be destroyed because their photographs went viral before the investigation was complete.

You can take an allegation seriously without declaring somebody guilty before the evidence has been tested.

That’s not defending sexual assault.

That’s called due process.

And in a case this serious, everybody deserves the truth.

I have said this from the beginning about the Nolan Wells case: follow the evidence wherever it goes.

If somebody murdered Nolan, I want to know who did it. If somebody lied to me, I will come on my show and say they lied. I have no allegiance to anybody in this case. My allegiance is to the truth.

That is why I watched today’s press conference expecting new evidence that might change what we know.

Instead, I walked away with even more questions.

Ben Crump’s team presented a forensic examination of Nolan’s phone. Their expert explained that investigators used forensic tools including Cellebrite and Magnet AXIOM, reconstructed Snapchat data and analyzed more than one million digital artifacts. Most importantly, he said there were interactions with Nolan’s phone before it reached his family and that data had been deleted after Nolan last used the device.

That sounds explosive.

But slow down.

Give Me The Timestamps

The expert specifically said phone logs can show whether applications were open, whether they were running in the foreground or background, when the device was powered on and off, and other activity.

So my question is simple:

When were the deletions made?

Who physically possessed the phone at that time? When was the phone unlocked? What exactly was deleted?

Those details matter because the forensic presentation also tracked the phone geographically. The phone traveled away from Horn Island, eventually reached a boat ramp and then traveled to a residence. The expert said the presentation continued until Nolan’s parents retrieved the phone at roughly 3 a.m.

If you have GPS timestamps and device-activity timestamps, put them together.

Show me: the phone was here, this person had it, and this deletion happened at this time.

Without that, “things were deleted” is a fact that sounds sinister without necessarily telling us who deleted them, why they were deleted or whether those deletions had anything to do with Nolan’s death.

Even the forensic expert made an important distinction. He said he could establish that a user action deleted data, but he could not determine intent.

That distinction matters.

The Phone Evidence Also Confirmed Something Important

There was another part of the presentation that people should not ignore.

The phone’s GPS movement appears consistent with the account I was previously given about the boat leaving Horn Island and the phone traveling with it. The presentation showed the phone moving over water, arriving at a boat ramp around 7:24 p.m. and then traveling on land to a residence.

The expert also described group messages that continued syncing onto Nolan’s phone after his death. But in the material discussed during the press conference, no confession or message establishing that somebody killed Nolan was identified.

That doesn’t prove Nolan drowned.

It doesn’t prove nobody harmed him.

It means we still don’t know.

And that is something people need to become comfortable saying.

The Autopsy Still Leaves Questions

The press conference also highlighted that the medical examiner reported no fluid or debris in Nolan’s airways and an empty stomach. That sounds significant, but it does not automatically exclude drowning. The same discussion acknowledged that Nolan’s cause and manner of death remained undetermined.

There were also internal contusions discussed during the presentation. Those injuries deserve answers.

But an unexplained injury is not automatically proof of homicide.

You still need evidence connecting an injury to a person, an event and ultimately Nolan’s death. As I said on the show, if somebody killed this young man, find the evidence and prosecute them. But we cannot invent the missing pieces because we desperately want an answer.

That is where I stand after this press conference.

Show me the complete phone timeline. Show me exactly what was deleted. Show me when it was deleted. Show me who had the phone when it happened.

If that evidence proves somebody lied, I will say they lied.

If it reveals evidence of a crime, investigate it.

But until then, I am going to do what I have tried to do throughout this entire case:

Follow the evidence, not the emotion.

WATCH MY FULL BREAKDOWN OF THIS PRESS CONFERENCE HERE

I have said from the beginning that I have sympathy for Christine Wells and her family.

I am a father. I cannot imagine sending my child out one day and then finding out he is never coming home. I cannot imagine living with unanswered questions about exactly how my son died.

That is why I started covering the Nolan Wells case. I wanted answers too.

But sympathy does not mean we stop asking questions. And after watching Christine Wells’ latest interview, I have a very serious question:

How can you say this was never made about race?

Because that is exactly what she just said.

During the interview, Christine was asked whether Nolan had ever told her he felt racially targeted by his friends. Her response was remarkable.

“At no point in time have we ever made this a racial thing.”

She acknowledged that the “optics” of the situation opened the door to conversations about race, but insisted the family itself had not made Nolan’s death about race.

That statement deserves scrutiny because we now have months of public statements and developments to compare it against.

You Cannot Have It Both Ways

In that same answer, Christine immediately began discussing race.

She explained that because of her family’s “lived experience,” she and Nolan’s father had difficult conversations with their children about race and the history of Black Americans. She described teaching Nolan to judge people by their character while also understanding that his experience as a Black person could affect how he moved through the world.

There is nothing inherently wrong with parents talking to their children about race. Parents can teach their children whatever lessons they believe will protect them.

But this is where the contradiction becomes difficult to ignore.

In an earlier clip played during my show, Christine explicitly talked about teaching her children how to move in spaces around people who “do not look like you.” She specifically addressed Black mothers and said these conversations were necessary to hopefully keep their children safe.

Now put that next to what happened after Nolan died.

Ben Crump became the family’s attorney. Al Sharpton became publicly involved. The case became the subject of intense racial speculation online. And the district attorney has now publicly stated that there was no evidence Nolan’s disappearance or death was racially motivated.

You can believe race is an important part of your family’s experience. You can believe Black parents need to have conversations about race.

But when you say, “At no point in time have we ever made this a racial thing,” people are allowed to compare that statement with everything else that has happened.

Christine Still Does Not Accept The Grand Jury’s Conclusion

Christine was also asked about the grand jury’s decision not to bring charges.

She said she was “mortified” by what she described as a lack of empathy and grace toward the family, particularly because she says they were not given enough time to process the grand jury report before it became public.

But she also said she was not surprised.

According to Christine, she believes the direction of the case was established early when authorities initially discussed accidental drowning and said there was no evidence of foul play.

I understand why a mother would question everything when her child is dead.

But investigators cannot manufacture evidence because a family wants a different answer.

No suspects were identified. No witness has been presented saying Nolan was murdered. And according to the grand jury findings we discussed yesterday, witnesses placed Nolan on Horn Island after the friends who became the focus of online accusations had already left.

That matters.

Even Nancy Grace, while expressing serious questions about Nolan’s injuries, acknowledged that the young men who had been under suspicion had been cleared and referenced information indicating multiple witnesses placed Nolan on Horn Island after they left.

That is a major piece of this story.

What About The Bruising?

This is where I think people need to be careful in both directions.

Christine’s side continues to point to the injuries found on Nolan’s body, particularly the blunt-force injury to his head, as a reason to question the drowning theory.

Nancy Grace made essentially the same argument. She discussed bruising on Nolan’s back, shoulder and buttocks and questioned whether all of those injuries could be explained by an accidental drowning.

Those are fair questions.

But questions are not evidence that another person killed him.

The grand jury report included testimony from a witness who said Nolan awkwardly slipped from a boat earlier that day. The witness could not say whether Nolan struck his head, and Nolan reportedly got back up and continued socializing afterward.

Could that fall explain some of the injuries?

Could some injuries have occurred later?

Could something else have happened?

Those are questions investigators and medical experts have to answer based on evidence.

What we cannot do is jump from “Nolan had bruises” to “somebody murdered Nolan.”

Those are two completely different statements.

There Is Nothing Wrong With Saying “We Don’t Know”

This has been my biggest problem with the Nolan Wells story from the beginning.

People hate uncertainty.

Everybody wants the movie ending. They want the villain identified. They want the motive. They want the conspiracy. They want somebody dragged away in handcuffs.

Sometimes the evidence does not give you that.

Right now, there is no criminal charge. The grand jury did not find evidence sufficient to indict anyone. Witnesses reportedly placed Nolan on the island after the friends who were accused had left. At the same time, Nolan’s family continues to question the circumstances of his death and points to injuries they believe deserve additional investigation.

Those things can all be true at the same time.

And if somebody comes forward tomorrow with credible new evidence, investigate it.

Absolutely.

But you don’t destroy people’s lives while you’re waiting for that evidence to appear.

Nolan Should Be The Focus

One part of Christine’s interview that I do agree with was her insistence that Nolan was still her child.

The interviewer referred to him as a young man, and Christine corrected that characterization. Nolan was 18 when he died, and she said that regardless of what the law considered him, he was still her child.

I understand that.

A mother doesn’t stop seeing her son as her baby because he turns 18.

And that is exactly why this entire conversation should come back to Nolan.

Who was he?

What happened during his final hours?

What evidence do we actually have?

What evidence don’t we have?

Those are the questions that matter.

Because Nolan Wells deserves the truth.

His family deserves the truth.

And the young men who spent months being accused of involvement in their friend’s death deserve the truth too.

But truth cannot change depending on which version makes the better headline.

You cannot say evidence matters when it supports your theory and then ignore it when it doesn’t.

And you cannot allow a case to become consumed by race, surround it with some of the most prominent civil-rights figures in America, repeatedly discuss the dangers of Black children moving through “White spaces,” and then act surprised when people ask whether race was made part of the story.

I have been covering the Nolan Wells case from the beginning.

I went to Mississippi. I sat down with the young men who were being accused. I went to Horn Island. I talked to witnesses. I looked at timelines, videos, phone evidence and boat movements. And I did all of that for one reason.

I wanted to know what actually happened.

Not what social media wanted to believe happened. Not what generated the most clicks. Not what fit the most convenient racial narrative.

I wanted the evidence.

Now a Jackson County grand jury has completed its investigation, and what it found matters.

The grand jury returned a no true bill, meaning nobody will be indicted in connection with Nolan’s death. It found no credible evidence that the people who traveled to and from Horn Island on the three boats committed a crime related to his death. It also found no evidence that Nolan’s disappearance or death was racially motivated.

That is significant.

But what District Attorney Angel Myers McIlrath revealed afterward may be even more important.

The Racial Narrative Was Not Supported By The Evidence

From the beginning, one version of this story spread all over the internet: three White boys went to an island with a Black teenager, the White boys came back and Nolan didn’t.

There was just one problem.

According to the district attorney, that narrative was false.

Nolan traveled to Horn Island with a larger group of friends, connected with more people while he was there and chose to remain on the island when others left. McIlrath said there was “not a scintilla of evidence” contradicting that he chose to stay. She also said there was absolutely no evidence his disappearance or death resulted from racial hatred or violence.

The grand jury went even further. Its report said the accusations against the occupants of the Triton, Palm Beach and Tideline were “not based in truth” and resulted from “public clamor and private malice.”

Think about the weight of that statement.

These young men didn’t just get criticized online. Their names and faces became connected to allegations surrounding the death of their friend. Their families received threats. Their reputations were damaged. Attorneys representing the young men now say they intend to pursue accountability against people they believe spread false allegations.

I interviewed these boys.

Before I ever put them on my platform, I asked questions and looked at evidence because I wasn’t going to defend somebody simply because I liked their story. If the evidence had pointed toward them, I would have said that too.

But it didn’t.

And now the grand jury has said the same thing.

Then The District Attorney Dropped A Bombshell

Here is where this story gets even more serious.

According to McIlrath, on August 13, 2026, after the family’s independent autopsy had been conducted and hundreds of tips had been received, the Crump legal team told her office that they had no evidence a crime had been committed against Nolan Wells.

Read that again.

No evidence of a crime.

Yet according to the district attorney, the public narrative continued.

McIlrath specifically pointed to a later meeting involving Nolan’s family and a congresswoman where Nolan was reportedly characterized as another Black boy who had been murdered. The district attorney responded publicly that this was wrong and emphasized that the meeting occurred after the Crump team had told her office it had found no evidence of a crime.

Ben Crump disputes the state’s decision to close the case. He argues that unanswered questions remain, particularly concerning bruising and injuries documented by the family’s independent pathologist, and he has called for the Justice Department to investigate.

That disagreement should be reported.

But so should the timeline.

Because you cannot tell the public one thing while withholding information that fundamentally changes how people understand the story.

The Phone Story Changed Too

Remember all the questions about Nolan’s phone?

People suggested things had been deleted. There were accusations that authorities weren’t cooperating with efforts to examine it.

The district attorney gave a very different account.

McIlrath said Nolan’s family had possession and control of the phone from the early morning of July 5. She said her office agreed to participate in a mutual examination and remained willing to work under conditions imposed by the family. According to her statement, private examiners eventually conducted their own extraction instead.

And then came one of the most important details.

On August 28, the Crump team reportedly provided the district attorney with a preliminary report indicating the phone had not been accessed by anyone other than Nolan’s family and nothing had been deleted since Nolan’s last use.

McIlrath says she never received the promised complete extraction data, although a 282-page selection of phone reports was later provided to the grand jury.

That doesn’t answer every question about Nolan’s final hours.

But it directly addresses one of the biggest suspicions surrounding that phone.

The Independent Medical Examiner Was Given Access

There was also a public perception that the family and its experts were being stonewalled.

Again, the district attorney disputes that.

McIlrath said she invited the family’s independent medical examiner, Dr. Roger Mitchell, to Mississippi. He spent several days there, was given access to the investigative file, visited Horn Island and examined Nolan’s internal throat structures at the state forensic laboratory. Additional histology slides he requested were prepared and sent to him, and Mitchell ultimately testified before the grand jury.

Both the state medical examiner and Mitchell ultimately left the cause of death undetermined, and both recognized drowning as a diagnosis of exclusion. The grand jury nevertheless found that the condition, location and circumstances surrounding Nolan’s remains were consistent with drowning.

There was bruising on the back of Nolan’s head. That is real and shouldn’t be ignored.

But the grand jury found that injury was not fatal. A witness also testified under oath that Nolan had slipped awkwardly from a boat earlier that afternoon, although the witness could not say whether that fall caused the bruising. Nolan reportedly continued socializing afterward and did not appear injured.

So there are still unanswered questions about precisely how every injury occurred.

An unanswered question is not evidence of murder.

That’s the distinction I have been trying to make from the beginning.

Nolan Deserved The Truth. So Did His Friends.

The tragedy at the center of all of this cannot disappear.

Nolan Wells was 19 years old. He went to Horn Island on July 4 and never came home. His remains were discovered two days later at the northwestern end of the island.

His family deserves compassion. They deserve every legitimate answer investigators can provide.

But compassion for Nolan does not require condemning somebody else without evidence.

That’s where people lost their minds in this case.

The internet decided it needed villains before investigators had finished investigating. Race became part of the story before evidence established race had anything to do with Nolan’s death. People who questioned that narrative were accused of defending racism instead of simply demanding proof.

And now we have a grand jury report.

No indictment.

No evidence of racial violence.

No credible evidence Nolan’s friends committed a crime connected to his death.

And a district attorney publicly saying that people with access to important information allowed false narratives to continue while reputations were being destroyed.

That should bother everybody.

Because justice cannot mean deciding who is guilty first and searching for evidence second.

Evidence has to come first.

That standard protects Nolan Wells.

It protects the young men who were accused.

And one day, it might protect you.

I have been waiting to talk about this Converse controversy because when I finally saw what everybody was supposedly outraged about, I couldn’t believe this was a real conversation.

My first question is simple: How did we get there?

Because if you have to manipulate the image, change the context and explain the historical connection before everybody understands why they’re supposed to be offended, maybe the racism isn’t actually in the advertisement. Maybe people are bringing their own interpretation to it.

Look At The Actual Ad

This is what drives me crazy about controversies like this. People stop looking at what is actually in front of them and start looking for what they can turn it into.

In the show, we compared the original Converse image with versions circulating online that emphasized the tree and reframed the imagery to make the supposed lynching connection more obvious.

But that’s not the same thing as proving Converse intended that message.

The people in the campaign weren’t being depicted as lynching victims. They were posing in a stylized fashion advertisement. The campaign wasn’t even centered around Black models or Black history.

Yet somehow we ended up with people crying on social media because they saw what they wanted to see.

At some point, you have to ask whether we’re responding to what happened or responding to what we imagined happened.

Outrage Has Become Its Own Industry

Here’s the bigger issue.

Outrage is valuable now.

Somebody sees something potentially offensive. They make a video. Somebody else stitches the video. Then another person posts a screenshot. Then everybody starts arguing. Before you know it, millions of people who never would have seen the advertisement are staring at Converse shoes.

That’s free marketing.

I even said on the show that if a company wanted to manufacture attention, the formula would almost be genius. Make something ambiguous enough for the internet to argue about, wait for everybody to share it, then issue the inevitable statement saying you hear the concerns and will do better.

I’m not claiming that’s what Converse intentionally did. We don’t have evidence of that.

But look at what happened.

The people furious about the advertisement became some of its biggest distributors.

I didn’t find out about this campaign because I follow Converse advertising. I found out because people were outraged about it.

That’s the irony.

There Were Black Executives At Converse

One of the arguments you immediately hear whenever something like this happens is that companies need more Black people “in the room.”

Well, according to the material we discussed on the show, Black executives already held prominent global leadership positions at Converse, including in global marketing and footwear design.

That doesn’t automatically prove who personally approved this specific creative or what conversations took place behind the scenes. But it certainly complicates this simplistic idea that the controversy happened because nobody Black could possibly have been involved in the company’s creative process.

And that’s why I keep coming back to intent and evidence.

If somebody can demonstrate that Converse deliberately designed this campaign to invoke lynching, show me the evidence. If somebody involved says that was the intention, then we have a completely different conversation.

But “this reminds me of something racist” is not the same thing as “this was created to be racist.”

Those are two very different claims.

We Are Training People To Search For Offense

There is real racism in the world. There are real problems facing Black Americans. There are families dealing with violence, struggling schools, fatherlessness, poverty, addiction and children growing up without the structure they need.

Those are issues worth our attention.

But instead, social media can consume an entire weekend arguing over whether people and lighting in a Converse advertisement were secretly a reference to lynching.

How does that improve anybody’s life?

This is what happens when people are trained to view everything through the lens of race. Eventually you don’t need actual discrimination anymore. You just need something that vaguely reminds somebody of discrimination.

A photo becomes a dog whistle.

An advertisement becomes oppression.

A pair of Converse becomes another national conversation about racism.

And meanwhile, the problems actually hurting people don’t disappear.

Stop Giving Outrage Free Advertising

There is another lesson here that people need to understand.

Every time you rage-share something, you are still sharing it.

Every time you quote-post an advertisement to tell everybody how terrible it is, thousands more people see the advertisement. Every reaction video sends another wave of people searching for the original.

Companies understand attention.

Social media understands attention.

The outrage economy understands attention.

That doesn’t mean people should never criticize something offensive. If something is wrong, say it’s wrong.

But before turning an advertisement into evidence of some massive racial conspiracy, maybe we should ask a few basic questions.

What actually happened? What was actually depicted? What evidence do we have about intent? And are we reacting to the advertisement itself or to somebody else’s interpretation of it?

Because sometimes racism is real and deserves to be confronted.

And sometimes it’s just people wearing Converse.

Colin Kaepernick is still talking about the NFL.

Almost a decade later, he’s still talking about being blackballed, still talking about collusion, still talking about race and still talking about what he believes the league cost him.

In a recent interview, Kaepernick said the NFL’s actions were “irregular,” accused teams of colluding against him and estimated that losing his NFL career ultimately cost him more than $150 million. He pointed to the grievance he filed against the league, which ended in a confidential settlement, as part of his case that what happened to him went beyond football.

But here’s the part of this conversation that I think gets ignored.

What if NFL teams simply decided Colin Kaepernick wasn’t worth everything that came with Colin Kaepernick?

Talent Matters, But So Does Everything That Comes With It

People sometimes talk about Kaepernick like he was Patrick Mahomes in his prime and NFL owners collectively decided they would rather lose football games than sign him.

That’s not what his career looked like when this happened.

Kaepernick had absolutely experienced success. He helped take the San Francisco 49ers to a Super Bowl and came within one game of returning the following season. Nobody can erase that.

But by the end of his time in San Francisco, he wasn’t playing at that level anymore. The 49ers went 2-14 in his final season, and Kaepernick opted out of his contract in March 2017.

Then you add the controversy.

This is professional sports. Teams aren’t only evaluating your arm. They’re evaluating your age, health, salary, production, fit, locker room, media attention and everything else that comes with signing you.

That’s why I’ve always talked about the talent-to-drama ratio.

If you’re one of the greatest quarterbacks on Earth, teams will tolerate an enormous amount because winning football games makes people money. NFL history is filled with players who created controversy, faced serious allegations or brought enormous headaches with them and still found jobs because teams believed their talent justified the risk.

If you’re viewed as a backup quarterback and signing you potentially turns every press conference into a national political debate, teams are going to calculate that differently.

That isn’t proof there was no collusion.

But it also means being unsigned isn’t automatically proof that there was.

Kaepernick Says The League Colluded Against Him

Kaepernick filed a grievance in 2017 accusing NFL owners of colluding to prevent him from being signed. The NFL denied that allegation. The case survived an effort by the league to have it dismissed and eventually ended in a confidential settlement in 2019.

That distinction matters.

The settlement did not produce a public finding that the NFL had colluded against Kaepernick. It also didn’t publicly resolve every question surrounding what individual teams were saying or doing behind closed doors.

Kaepernick still believes he was blackballed.

He said in this interview that the grievance process was his avenue to challenge what happened, but because the process was confidential, the documentation wasn’t exposed publicly in the way he originally expected.

So people can argue about what happened behind the scenes.

What I don’t think makes sense is jumping from “NFL teams wouldn’t sign Colin Kaepernick” directly to “therefore the NFL is racist.”

Those aren’t the same statement.

Then Race Gets Brought Into It

This is where Kaepernick loses me.

While discussing Jay-Z’s 2019 partnership with the NFL, Kaepernick recalled telling him, “You’re selling the culture out to a bunch of racists.”

Okay.

Who are the racists?

Are we talking about particular owners? Particular executives? Particular statements or actions? Or are we labeling an entire league racist because Kaepernick believes it mistreated him?

Those details matter.

The NFL has made generations of Black athletes extraordinarily wealthy. Black quarterbacks have become franchise players, MVPs and Super Bowl champions. Teams aren’t doing those players a favor. They’re paying them because they believe those players can help them win.

That doesn’t prove racial discrimination has never existed in professional football. It doesn’t prove every NFL owner or executive has treated every player fairly.

It does mean you need more evidence than “they didn’t hire me.”

You cannot use racism as the automatic explanation every time something doesn’t go your way.

Even Kaepernick Says There Was A Missed Opportunity

One of the most interesting parts of the interview came when Kaepernick looked back at the movement itself.

He said players collectively missed an opportunity to create “significant institutional change.” He believes there was a moment when enough attention and momentum existed that players could have organized together and pushed harder, pointing to what athletes did during the summer of 2020 as an example.

That tells you something important about how Kaepernick sees his football career.

This wasn’t just football to him.

He wanted football to become a vehicle for activism.

He’s entitled to believe that. Players don’t stop being American citizens when they put on shoulder pads, and they have every right to care about issues outside the game.

But NFL teams also operate businesses. Coaches are trying to win games. Owners have billions of dollars invested. Fans buy tickets and television networks spend billions because people want to watch football.

There is inevitably going to be tension when a player wants to use that platform for something the people running the platform believe is hurting the product.

That tension alone doesn’t establish racism.

At Some Point, You Have To Ask The Football Question

This is why I keep coming back to the same thing.

How good was Colin Kaepernick at that point, and how much baggage did a team believe came with signing him?

That’s the question.

Not whether you liked the protest.

Not whether you hated the protest.

Not whether you agreed with his message about policing.

Not whether you thought kneeling during the national anthem was courageous or disrespectful.

Was an NFL team willing to dedicate a roster spot to the player and everything surrounding him?

Kaepernick’s position is that teams collectively prevented that opportunity. The NFL denied collusion, and the grievance ultimately ended with both sides settling confidentially.

Without the complete evidence becoming public, people are going to continue arguing about exactly what happened.

But one thing should be clear: not every setback involving a Black person is automatically racism.

Sometimes discrimination is real and should be confronted.

Sometimes business decisions are exactly that.

And sometimes the uncomfortable question isn’t whether somebody else kept you from succeeding.

It’s whether you gave them enough reasons to keep you around.

I don’t understand why everything has to become political.

If I buy a ticket to see Ed Sheeran, I want to hear Ed Sheeran. I don’t care whether the opening act is a Republican, Democrat, conservative, liberal, Christian, atheist or anything else. Play the music. If I wanted to attend a political rally, I would buy a ticket to a political rally.

Apparently Macklemore didn’t get that memo.

During his opening performance on Ed Sheeran’s tour at MetLife Stadium, Macklemore stopped the music and told the crowd that one reason he joined the tour was to stand on stages across America and say, “Free Palestine.” He praised the Columbia University students involved in the pro-Palestinian encampment movement, accused Israel of apartheid and genocide, called for a “Free Lebanon,” “Free Cuba,” “Free Congo” and “Free Sudan,” and then called ICE a terrorist organization.

This wasn’t a Macklemore political rally. It wasn’t even Macklemore’s tour.

He was opening for somebody else.

And now there are consequences.

Ed Sheeran’s Tour Became A Political Battlefield

After Macklemore’s performances, multiple venues told tour organizers they would not host upcoming shows if he remained on the lineup. Robert Kraft, whose Kraft Group owns Gillette Stadium, said Macklemore’s participation there would “cross the line,” citing what Kraft described as a broader history of antisemitic rhetoric and imagery. Macklemore was subsequently removed from the remaining dates. Sheeran has said the decision was made by the promoter after venues objected, and that he personally tried to find a resolution.

Then the entire thing exploded.

Finneas, Lukas Graham, Aaron Rowe and Beoga withdrew from upcoming dates in solidarity with Macklemore. An Irish radio station announced it would stop playing Sheeran’s music for the “foreseeable future,” and pro-Palestinian groups planned a protest outside Sheeran’s Philadelphia concert.
Think about how ridiculous this has become.

People bought tickets to listen to music, and now the entire tour has turned into an international political controversy.

This is exactly why Sheeran said he doesn’t use his professional platform for politics. His audience includes young people and families from every background, and people coming to his concerts aren’t necessarily signing up for a political forum.

That actually sounds reasonable to me.

Free Speech Doesn’t Mean Somebody Owes You A Stage

Now people are screaming censorship.

Stop it.

Macklemore has every right to express his political opinions. He can make songs about Palestine. He can criticize Israel. He can criticize America. He can criticize ICE. He can rent his own venue, sell his own tickets and spend three hours talking politics if that’s what his audience wants.

But freedom of speech doesn’t mean Robert Kraft has to give you Gillette Stadium.

It doesn’t mean promoters have to keep you on their tour.

And it doesn’t mean Ed Sheeran’s audience has to become your captive political audience.

That’s not censorship. That’s other people exercising their freedom too.

Macklemore can speak.

Robert Kraft can say he doesn’t want him performing at his stadium.

Other artists can quit the tour because they disagree.

A radio station can stop playing Ed Sheeran.

Everybody is making choices, and choices have consequences.

Pink Said Something Important

Singer Pink, who is Jewish, responded to the controversy by explaining why Macklemore’s performance bothered her. She said Macklemore stood before a stadium filled with families, displayed violent imagery from the war, dedicated a song to the movement he supports and then told Jewish people in the audience that his message wasn’t about them.

Her response was basically: you don’t get to decide how Jewish people experience that.

Pink also made something else clear. She said Hamas is a terrorist organization while Palestinians deserve a future that respects their humanity and innocent life should be protected everywhere.

See how that works?

You can care about Palestinian civilians without pretending October 7th didn’t happen.

You can be horrified when innocent children die in Gaza while also recognizing the murder and kidnapping of Israeli civilians by Hamas.

You don’t have to turn human suffering into a team sport.

Macklemore Has History Here

This controversy also didn’t appear out of nowhere.

Back in 2014, Macklemore performed wearing a costume that included a large prosthetic nose, black wig and beard. The outfit was widely criticized as invoking an antisemitic stereotype. Macklemore apologized at the time and said the resemblance was unintentional. Pink referenced that controversy when explaining her reaction to his latest performance.

That history matters because Kraft has said his objection wasn’t simply to somebody saying “Free Palestine.” He specifically cited Macklemore’s broader record of imagery and rhetoric that Kraft believes has been offensive to Jewish people.

Macklemore rejects the accusation that his criticism of Israel is antisemitic. During the concert itself, he explicitly told Jewish audience members that his criticism of Israel and accusations of genocide were not criticism of them.

That’s the disagreement.

People can look at the same speech and reach very different conclusions about where political criticism ends and antisemitism begins.

But private venues still have to decide what they’re willing to put on their stages.

Nobody Is Stopping Macklemore From Speaking

This is the part that gets lost.

Macklemore wasn’t arrested.

The government didn’t shut him down.

His music wasn’t outlawed.

In fact, he’s still talking. He announced that he would donate $1 million in net earnings from his time on Sheeran’s tour to organizations assisting Palestinians, and he challenged Kraft to match it. Kraft subsequently said Sheeran had already asked him to commit $2 million in humanitarian aid to the region, which Kraft agreed to do.

That’s America.

Macklemore speaks.

People criticize him.

A venue owner decides he doesn’t want him there.

Other musicians quit because they disagree.

Fans decide who they want to support.

Nobody is entitled to applause, and nobody is entitled to somebody else’s stage.

Sometimes People Just Want To Hear The Music

This is where I’m at with all of it.

I’m a political guy. I talk politics for a living. And even I don’t want every part of my life turned into politics.

If I go to a concert, play the song.

If I go to a football game, play football.

If I go to a comedy show, make me laugh.

There is a time and place to have serious conversations about Israel, Gaza, terrorism, war, civilian casualties, immigration and American foreign policy. Those conversations should happen, and people should be free to disagree.

But when you’re invited onto somebody else’s tour and use their stadium-sized audience to deliver your political manifesto, don’t act shocked when the people responsible for those stadiums decide they don’t want to participate.

Freedom of speech protects your right to speak.

It doesn’t guarantee you the microphone.

And it definitely doesn’t guarantee you the opening slot on Ed Sheeran’s tour.

I have to admit something.

When this story first came up, I told my wife I didn’t think we needed to talk about it. Then I watched the video.

I was wrong.

Because the issue here isn’t whether Muslims should be allowed to practice their religion. Of course they should. This is America. You have the right to worship how you want, just like I have the right to worship Jesus Christ.

The question is much simpler: Do the rules apply equally to everybody?

One Driver Gets A Ticket. The Others Apparently Get A Pass.

In a viral video, Nate Friedman approaches a New York City traffic officer who is ticketing one vehicle while several taxis appear to be double parked nearby.

Friedman asks the obvious question.

Why is that vehicle getting a ticket while the double-parked taxis aren’t?

According to the exchange captured on video, the traffic officer says the vehicles are permitted during the time of salat, or Muslim prayer.

That’s where I have a problem.

Not because they’re Muslim.

Because the law shouldn’t care whether you’re Muslim, Christian, Jewish, atheist or anything else.

If double parking is illegal, it’s illegal. If New York City has created a legitimate exemption, show everybody the exemption and explain exactly how it works. But you cannot have one citizen watching somebody else apparently receive special treatment because they’re attending religious services while he gets a ticket.

That isn’t religious freedom.

That’s unequal enforcement.

Religious Freedom Has To Work Both Ways

The video goes further. Friedman claims this isn’t isolated to one location. He says his team has observed similar scenes outside other mosques, including vehicles parked around prayer times and NYPD traffic personnel nearby.

He also alleges that at another location people were removing license plates because they had previously been told a vehicle without a plate couldn’t be ticketed.

Those are serious claims, and they need to be verified before anybody treats them as established fact.

But the underlying question is legitimate.

What is the actual policy?

If New York City has decided that parking laws can be relaxed around houses of worship, then that policy needs to apply equally to churches, synagogues, mosques and everybody else who qualifies.

If there is no exemption, then city employees shouldn’t be inventing one on the sidewalk.

You don’t achieve tolerance by creating different standards for different religions.

Then There’s The Call To Prayer

A video also captures the Islamic call to prayer being broadcast publicly through loudspeakers.

Now this is where people immediately get emotional.

My position is pretty straightforward. Muslims have constitutional rights. Christians have constitutional rights. Everybody does.

But religious liberty isn’t supposed to mean that government gives one religion privileges it wouldn’t extend to another.

If New York allows amplified religious broadcasts under its noise rules, then the standard should be neutral. A mosque shouldn’t receive special treatment because it’s a mosque, and a church shouldn’t receive special treatment because it’s a church.

Same country. Same rights. Same rules.

That’s the standard.

And if Christians want to practice their faith publicly within the law, they shouldn’t be ashamed of that either. Religious freedom doesn’t require Christians to disappear from public life so everybody else can feel comfortable.

The Most Disturbing Part Of The Video Had Nothing To Do With Parking

At another point, Nate Friedman says someone inside the mosque threatened to pull a pistol and shoot a member of his group in the face.

His video included in the show today appears to capture a threat along those lines. Friedman later attempts to ask someone associated with the Islamic Cultural Center about what happened, but the conversation quickly turns to whether he has an appointment.

If somebody made a genuine threat involving a firearm, that should be investigated like any other threat.

Again, the standard doesn’t change because we’re talking about religion.

I wouldn’t defend a Christian threatening to shoot somebody who walked into his church asking questions. I’m certainly not going to excuse somebody else doing it.

This Isn’t About Hating Muslims

This is where I think people get scared.

They think criticizing something involving Islam automatically means you’re attacking every Muslim in America.

No.

There are millions of people with different beliefs living in this country. That’s one of the defining features of America. We coexist because the Constitution protects your ability to believe differently than I do.

But coexistence requires a common civic standard.

You don’t get one parking code for Christians and another for Muslims.

You don’t get one noise standard for churches and another for mosques.

You don’t get to threaten somebody because you don’t like his questions.

And you don’t get to hide legitimate criticism behind accusations of bigotry.

Equal treatment isn’t discrimination. It’s the opposite.

America Doesn’t Need Separate Rules For Separate Groups

What bothered me most watching this wasn’t simply seeing people pray.

Pray.

Worship.

Go to the mosque.

Go to church.

Go to synagogue.

Don’t believe in God at all if that’s what you choose.

You’re in America.

What I don’t want is a country where government officials become so terrified of offending particular groups that they stop enforcing neutral rules.

If the traffic officer in this video accurately described an official New York City policy, then New York should explain that policy and demonstrate that it applies neutrally.

If he was giving certain drivers an unofficial pass because they were attending Muslim prayers, the city should address it.

That’s the story.

Not Muslims versus Christians.

Not one race versus another.

One law for everybody.

Because the moment government starts deciding that some Americans deserve exceptions that other Americans don’t get, religious liberty stops looking like liberty and starts looking a whole lot more like favoritism.

So I’m thinking, what in the world did Sydney Sweeney do?

Then I watched the ad.

Yes, it’s sexualized. Sydney is barely dressed, covering herself with footballs and sports equipment while promoting Novig, a sports prediction market platform. I’m not going to sit here and pretend otherwise. I wouldn’t participate in the gambling, and I’m not personally interested in promoting the sexualization of women.

But we live in America. Sydney Sweeney can do the ad, and you can turn it off.

My problem isn’t that women criticized it.

My problem is the hypocrisy.

Suddenly Everybody Is Concerned About Sexualization

Four-time Olympic gold medalist Ariarne Titmus said she was “infuriated” by the commercial and questioned why monetizing a woman’s body is still happening around women’s sports. British sprinter Amy Hunt responded after a race by saying, “Sydney Sweeney, this is what women in sport look like,” pointing to the muscles, sweat and hard work involved in competition.

Former U.S. gymnast Gracie Kramer said female athletes have spent years fighting against being reduced to their bodies. Chinese-German rugby player Sofie Fella called the commercial disrespectful to female athletes.

Okay.

They’re allowed to believe that.

But where has this outrage been for the last couple of decades?

Sports culture has been sexualizing women forever. Cheerleaders have been part of professional sports for decades. Sports magazines have featured women in revealing photo shoots. ESPN literally published its annual Body Issue featuring nude and semi-nude athletes.

And that’s exactly what Sydney Sweeney pointed out.

In response to the criticism, she posted old ESPN covers featuring athletes including Serena Williams and Ronda Rousey posing nude or semi-nude.

So what’s the rule?

Is sexualizing a woman’s body bad, or is it only bad when Sydney Sweeney does it?

The ESPN Defense Makes No Sense

The View tried to explain the difference. The argument was essentially that when an athlete poses nude, we’re appreciating her athletic body and muscles, while Sydney Sweeney is an actress who took a job to make money.

Brother, what?

They’re both using their bodies to sell something.

You can argue one presentation is more tasteful than another. You can personally dislike Sydney’s commercial. But don’t pretend nudity magically stops being sexualized because the woman has an Olympic medal hanging in her house.

If you’re going to establish a principle, apply the principle consistently.

That’s my entire issue with this controversy.

The Outrage Made The Advertisement Bigger

One woman reacting to the controversy actually made a great point. She argued that thousands of women thought they were resisting the campaign by criticizing it, sharing it and making response videos.

Instead, they became the distribution network.

The algorithm doesn’t care that you’re furious. It sees comments, shares, views and engagement.

I probably never would have watched this commercial. I don’t gamble. I’m not Novig’s customer.

You know why I saw it?

Because everybody complaining about Sydney Sweeney made the commercial impossible to avoid.

That’s marketing.

The outrage didn’t destroy the advertisement. It amplified it.

Women In Sports Deserve To Be Taken Seriously

Now, there is a legitimate argument underneath all of this.

Women working in sports should be respected for what they actually accomplish. Female athletes train their entire lives. Female coaches, reporters, trainers and broadcasters shouldn’t have their knowledge dismissed because they’re women.

I understand that argument.

But if you’re going to argue that society needs to stop reducing women to their bodies, then that standard can’t begin and end with Sydney Sweeney.

We live in a culture where women can make enormous amounts of money displaying their bodies online. Social media rewards revealing content. Sports media has published nude athletes. Female sports themselves sometimes market athletes heavily around appearance.

You can’t participate in that culture and then act shocked when an advertiser realizes that sex gets people’s attention.

Pick a standard.

And Let’s Talk About Personal Responsibility

There was one point on The View that I actually thought was more interesting than the sexualization debate: using sex and celebrity to market gambling.

I don’t like gambling. I wouldn’t recommend it.

But Sydney Sweeney being half-naked in a commercial isn’t responsible for whether I gamble.

I’m responsible for me.

At some point, adults have to take responsibility for their decisions. An attractive woman in an advertisement doesn’t remove your free will. If you have a gambling problem, that’s serious, but Sydney Sweeney didn’t reach through the television and place the bet for you.

We have become way too comfortable blaming advertising, celebrities and everybody else for decisions grown adults make themselves.

Stop Pretending This Started With Sydney Sweeney

That’s ultimately what makes this entire controversy ridiculous to me.

Sydney Sweeney didn’t invent sex in advertising.

She didn’t invent revealing sports photography.

She didn’t invent female athletes posing nude.

She didn’t invent the male gaze.

She participated in a culture that has existed for decades, and suddenly everybody discovered a moral objection.

If you believe women should dress modestly, I’m actually with you. If you believe society sexualizes women too much, there’s a legitimate conversation to have.

But apply it consistently.

Don’t celebrate one woman posing nude as empowerment and then condemn another woman for doing essentially the same thing because you don’t like the context.

And whatever Novig paid Sydney Sweeney for this commercial, they got their money’s worth.

Because the people who hated the advertisement couldn’t stop sharing it.

They thought they were protesting the marketing.

They became the marketing.

Twenty-five years ago, America changed forever. I was in middle school on September 11, 2001, and I remember watching it on television without initially understanding that this was happening in America. I saw people jumping from buildings. I watched the towers collapse. I watched our country experience the worst terrorist attack of my lifetime.

But I also watched America come together. For all of our differences, people remembered that we were Americans first. Twenty-five years later, I wish we remembered that lesson a little more often.

Mamdani Said All The Right Things

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani released a polished tribute marking the anniversary, and I’ll give him this: the speech sounded good.

He called September 11th a “horrific act of terror” and remembered the 2,753 people killed in New York that day, along with those who later died from illnesses connected to their work at Ground Zero. He talked about New Yorkers donating blood, opening their homes and workers going back into the towers to save strangers.

Mamdani said that 25 years later, New Yorkers have a “sacred obligation” to care for one another the way people cared for strangers that day.

That’s a beautiful sentiment. But anybody can read a good speech. The question is whether the principles behind that speech match the politics you practice the other 364 days of the year.

You Cannot Separate 9/11 From What Caused It

September 11th wasn’t a natural disaster or an accident. It was an Islamist terrorist attack against the United States of America.

That distinction matters. We can condemn radical Islamist terrorism without condemning every Muslim in America. Those are two completely different things. But I’m tired of politicians becoming uncomfortable the moment we start talking honestly about the ideology that motivated the terrorists.

You don’t honor history by sanitizing it. You honor history by remembering what actually happened.

Patriotism Is More Than A Video

This is where I struggle with Mamdani. You can put up the podium, play the somber music and talk about sacrifice, courage and New Yorkers running toward one another. But what does America mean to you when September 11th isn’t on the calendar?

Mamdani’s political vision is rooted in democratic socialism, while New York became one of the greatest cities on Earth through entrepreneurship, private enterprise and people willing to take enormous risks to build something.

You cannot celebrate the greatness of New York while attacking the system that helped make New York great.

Then there was the memorial ceremony itself. Footage appeared to show Mamdani and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez laughing together during the reading of victims’ names.

I said this on the show and I’ll say it again: if that footage was misleadingly synchronized or presented out of context, I’ll disavow the criticism. But if it happened the way it appeared, have some decorum. Families are standing there listening to the names of people they lost. You can laugh later.

One 9/11 Widow Said What Needed To Be Said

One of the most powerful moments didn’t come from a politician. It came from the widow of Tom Strada, who was killed on September 11th.

She demanded answers about what she described as Saudi Arabia’s role surrounding the attack and accused successive administrations of failing families seeking accountability. Then she delivered the line that mattered:

“Stand with the families. Stand with the survivors. Stand with Americans.”

That’s what I want to hear. The families deserve truth, transparency and accountability wherever the evidence leads.

Never Forget Has To Mean Something

September 11th should remind us of something bigger than politics. There were Americans running into burning buildings while everybody else was trying to escape. Firefighters, police officers, first responders and ordinary citizens put their lives on the line. People donated blood. Strangers opened their homes. Americans looked at each other differently because suddenly the petty divisions didn’t seem nearly as important.

That’s the America I want back.

We don’t have to agree on everything. But beneath those disagreements should be an understanding that we love this country and want it to succeed.

So don’t give me patriotism for one day. Show me that America comes first every day.

Twenty-five years later, remember the people we lost. Honor the people who ran toward danger. Tell the truth about the evil that attacked us. Demand accountability.

And above everything else:

Never forget.

John Fetterman needs to just go ahead and come out of the closet.

The political closet.

Brother, just admit you’re a Republican.

I’m joking, because Fetterman continues to insist he’s a Democrat. But this week he did something that would have been almost unimaginable when he was elected to the Senate in 2022.

He appeared by video at a Republican Party convention in Dallas.

And what he said probably gave Democrats a heart attack.

“I’m a common-sense Democrat. I’m always going to stand with America.”

Then he went even further.

“I’m always going to reject the extremes in socialism and that anti-American way of life.”

Now we’re talking.

Fetterman Showed Up For A Republican

Fetterman wasn’t there to attack Republicans.

He appeared to introduce Pennsylvania’s Republican senator, Dave McCormick.

Fetterman called McCormick a “great American” and a “great senator,” described him as a friend and said the two would work with President Donald Trump to defend Pennsylvania’s steel industry.

Think about how unusual that is in today’s political environment.

A Democratic senator appeared before a room full of Republicans to praise his Republican colleague and talk about working with a Republican president.

And you know what?

I love it.

Not because Fetterman suddenly agrees with me on everything. He doesn’t.

I love it because he apparently had enough courage to say, I’m going to support what I believe is right even when the person standing next to me has an R behind his name.

That’s what politicians are supposed to do.

Democrats Don’t Know What To Do With Him

This isn’t just about one convention appearance.

According to the Associated Press, Fetterman’s relationship with his own party in Pennsylvania has deteriorated dramatically.

He has supported Israel while progressives revolted against him. He voted with Republicans to end last year’s government shutdown. He supported multiple Trump nominees. He’s criticized Democratic Socialists. He’s developed a friendship with McCormick.

Now Pennsylvania Democrats reportedly don’t even want him campaigning with them.

The polling tells you everything.

According to an August New York Times poll cited by the AP, only about 2 in 10 Pennsylvania Democrats viewed Fetterman favorably.

Among Pennsylvania Republicans?

73 percent viewed him favorably.

That’s hilarious.

This man is a Democratic senator who Republicans apparently like more than Democrats do.

Maybe Fetterman didn’t change as much as the Democratic Party did.

The Left Has A Purity Test

This is where Democrats are making a gigantic mistake.

Fetterman still votes with Democrats much of the time. He still supports labor unions. He still supports LGBT rights. He has explicitly said:

“I’m not going to be a Republican.”

But that’s apparently not good enough anymore.

You can’t just be a Democrat.

You have to be the right kind of Democrat.

Question socialism?

Problem.

Support Israel?

Problem.

Work with Trump?

Problem.

Praise a Republican?

Apparently that’s a problem too.

And this is exactly how you push normal people out of your party.

Fetterman Is What Democrats Used To Call Moderate

I said it on my show and I’ll say it again.

Republicans have become the middle of the road on a lot of these issues because Democrats have gone so far to the left.

Fetterman calling himself a “common-sense Democrat” is revealing.

Because what did he actually say that was supposed to be so outrageous?

Stand with America.

Reject socialism.

Work across the aisle.

Protect American steelworkers.

Work with the president when it benefits your state.

Which one of those things is radical?

None of them.

But in today’s Democratic Party, apparently saying those things at a Republican event is enough to make people wonder whether you’re about to switch parties.

Even The View Accidentally Made The Point

The reaction on The View was exactly what you’d expect.

Some of the women couldn’t understand why Fetterman would even appear at a Republican event.

But during the conversation, one point actually made sense: Democrats should be careful about ideological purity tests.

Fetterman may vote with Democrats most of the time, but because he doesn’t agree with them on everything, some Democrats would apparently rather push him away entirely.

We already watched something similar happen with Joe Manchin in West Virginia.

You keep telling moderates they aren’t liberal enough.

Eventually, don’t be surprised when their voters decide they aren’t interested in Democrats at all.

Pennsylvania Is Exactly Where Democrats Should Be Worried

This isn’t happening in California.

This is Pennsylvania.

It’s one of the most important political battlegrounds in America, and according to the AP, Democrats have major races there this November while Fetterman has become increasingly isolated from his own party.

Yet instead of asking why a sitting Democratic senator is suddenly more popular with Republicans, they’re angry at the senator.

That’s backwards.

Maybe ask yourselves:

Why are Republicans applauding a Democrat for saying things Democrats used to say?

Maybe ordinary Americans don’t want socialism.

Maybe they don’t want every issue turned into an ideological war.

Maybe they actually like seeing politicians from opposite parties work together.

Maybe common sense still sells.

He Doesn’t Have To Become A Republican

I joke that Fetterman should become a Republican.

But he doesn’t have to.

In fact, maybe it’s better if he doesn’t.

Maybe Democrats need somebody inside their party willing to tell them when they’ve gone too far.

Fetterman has said becoming anti-Israel would be a “red line” that could force him out of the Democratic Party. Republicans have already made clear that if he ever decided to switch, they would welcome him.

But the bigger story isn’t whether John Fetterman eventually puts an R behind his name.

The bigger story is why simply rejecting socialism, standing with America and working with Republicans now makes a Democrat look like a Republican.

Fetterman may be politically homeless inside his own party.

And if Democrats keep moving further away from common sense, he won’t be the last one.

I told y’all from the beginning.

Stop blindly defending people because they look like you.

Karmelo Anthony was convicted of murdering Austin Metcalf and sentenced to 35 years in prison. His attempt to get a new trial failed. Now, material that was reportedly excluded from the original trial by agreement between the prosecution and defense is beginning to surface publicly.

And some of it is ugly.

So Are We Going To Talk About These Messages?

Messages attributed to Karmelo contain derogatory comments about Black women, including one in which he allegedly says he despises them. Other messages shown on the program appear to mock Black women over their hair.

Now wait a minute.

Where are all the people who made this entire case about Blackness?

Black women were some of the loudest people supporting this young man. They stood outside the courthouse. They defended him online. People donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to support his family.

And now you’re looking at messages allegedly written by the same young man disparaging Black women.

Are y’all going to keep that same energy now?

Because you made race the standard. You told everybody this case was about standing with a young Black man.

Okay.

Use your own standard.

And It Doesn’t Stop There

Other messages attributed to Karmelo contain derogatory comments about gay people. Another message appears to express support for Donald Trump, particularly for business-related reasons.

Let me make something very clear.

None of these messages prove murder.

Karmelo Anthony wasn’t convicted because of offensive text messages. He was convicted after a jury heard the evidence surrounding Austin Metcalf’s killing.

But these messages matter to the public conversation because people turned Karmelo into something bigger than a defendant in a criminal case.

They turned him into a symbol.

They picked teams based on race before all the facts were known, and anybody who questioned that narrative was attacked.

That’s the problem.

Then There Are The Guns

Photos have also surfaced allegedly showing Karmelo posing with firearms. Brandon noted that people online have disputed whether one of the guns pictured was real, while he described another as real. He also referenced previously excluded information alleging Karmelo had been caught taking a gun to school.

I’m not saying posing with a gun makes somebody a murderer.

It doesn’t.

But maybe instead of immediately making excuses, we should ask why a young man with opportunities, athletics, school and his entire future ahead of him was allegedly behaving this way.

That’s the conversation I want to have.

Because one young man is dead and another young man is going to spend decades in prison.

Nobody won.

This Is Bigger Than Karmelo Anthony

I don’t want another Karmelo Anthony.

And I don’t want another Austin Metcalf.

Instead of learning something from this tragedy, people turned it into another racial battlefield.

I want somebody to ask why young men with opportunities are being attracted to a culture that glorifies guns, violence and destructive behavior.

We have to talk about music.

We have to talk about culture.

We have to talk about parents.

We have to talk about what young men are being taught masculinity and respect look like.

Because pretending none of that matters isn’t compassion.

It’s abandonment.

Justice Doesn’t Have A Skin Color

This is exactly why I refused to blindly jump on the “Justice for Karmelo” bandwagon simply because he’s Black.

I’m Black.

That doesn’t require me to defend every Black person accused of committing a crime.

If a white man murders somebody, prosecute him.

If a Black man murders somebody, prosecute him.

If somebody acted in lawful self-defense, follow the evidence.

Justice doesn’t have a skin color.

Karmelo got his day in court. A jury heard the case and convicted him. He was sentenced to 35 years, and his effort to obtain another trial was rejected.

Now we’re learning more about the young man people were so quick to turn into a racial symbol.

Stop Making Heroes Before You Know The Facts

That’s the lesson here.

Stop choosing heroes based on melanin.

Stop deciding guilt or innocence based on which person looks like you.

Stop attacking people for asking questions.

And stop turning criminal cases into racial loyalty tests.

I don’t celebrate Karmelo Anthony going to prison.

I look at this entire case as a tragedy.

Austin Metcalf lost his life. Karmelo Anthony lost decades of his. Two families will live with the consequences forever.

The question is whether we’re willing to learn anything from it.

Because eventually the evidence comes out.

The messages come out.

The pictures come out.

And the narrative you created has to face reality.

Truth doesn’t care what color you are.

And neither should justice.

I watched this CNN panel with Jemele Hill talking about capitalism, and Kmele Foster absolutely cooked this conversation. What I liked wasn’t that he yelled or tried to perform for the cameras. He did something much more dangerous in modern media. He asked people to explain what they actually meant.

We live in a time where somebody can say capitalism is oppressive, capitalism is white supremacy, capitalism doesn’t work, and everybody is supposed to nod their head like those words automatically mean something. Kmele basically said, okay, explain the connection. And that’s when the argument started falling apart.

What Does Capitalism Have To Do With White Supremacy?

Kmele described capitalism through the basic ideas associated with Adam Smith: private property, free exchange and the ability to make a profit by creating something another person voluntarily wants. These are basic economic freedoms that have helped create more wealth than any other system in human history.

Then the conversation turned toward this idea that capitalism is fundamentally connected to white supremacy. Kmele’s response was exactly what it should have been: How? Explain it.

He pointed out that slavery existed long before modern capitalism. If you’re going to claim white supremacy is somehow intrinsic to private property and voluntary exchange, you need to actually articulate the connection.

That’s the problem with so much modern victimhood language. People make enormous accusations and then act offended when somebody asks them to explain what they’re talking about.

Jemele Hill Says Capitalism Isn’t Working

Jemele’s argument was essentially that capitalism might sound good in theory, but the version operating in America today isn’t working for ordinary people. She compared the economy to a Monopoly board where one person already owns all the hotels. You can work hard, get an education and get a job, but you’re still destined to lose because the system has become something closer to “predatory capitalism.”

Are there problems in America? Absolutely. Inflation is real. Housing is expensive. Health care can be ridiculous. Some wages haven’t kept up with the cost of living.

But saying capitalism has problems is completely different from saying capitalism doesn’t work.

America is evidence that it works.

Their Health Care Example Actually Hurt Their Argument

The panel tried to use health care as an example of capitalism failing, arguing that insurance companies can prioritize shareholders and profits over the people paying them for coverage.

Then Kmele and another panelist pointed out the obvious problem: American health care isn’t some pure free-market capitalist system. The government is one of its largest financiers, and the industry is heavily regulated.

So if your best example of capitalism failing is one of the industries with enormous government involvement, maybe you haven’t proven what you think you proved.

That’s what happens when people start with the conclusion and work backward. They say capitalism is bad, find something bad happening in the economy and automatically call it capitalism.

That’s not analysis.

America Didn’t Become America By Accident

The United States didn’t become one of the most prosperous nations in human history by accident. People came here because there was opportunity. You could own something, build something, create a business, take a risk, hire people, improve your life and make money doing it.

Does everybody become a billionaire? Of course not. That isn’t the standard.

Capitalism doesn’t promise everybody the same amount of money, the same house or the same lifestyle. It gives people the opportunity to compete. You make choices. You develop skills. You work, save, invest and take risks. Some people succeed more than others.

The left increasingly looks at unequal outcomes and automatically concludes the system must be oppressive.

Equal opportunity and equal outcome are not the same thing.

Personal Responsibility Still Matters

Here’s the part people really don’t like hearing. Not everybody living paycheck to paycheck is there because capitalism attacked them.

Some people are genuinely struggling. I understand that. But plenty of Americans also make horrible financial decisions. They finance cars they can’t afford, run up credit cards, don’t save, don’t invest and increase their lifestyle every time their income goes up.

Then they say the system failed them.

Sometimes the system didn’t fail you. Sometimes you made bad decisions.

Personal responsibility doesn’t disappear because we’re talking about economics. Your money may not go as far today because of inflation and rising costs, but that doesn’t mean the entire economic system suddenly stopped working.

The Opportunity Is Still Here

One of the biggest reasons I reject this idea that capitalism doesn’t work anymore is that people still come from all over the world to participate in the American economy.

People arrive with almost nothing, find work, build businesses, buy homes and create better lives for their children. Why?

Because opportunity still exists here.

If capitalism were the completely broken and oppressive system these people describe, why are so many people desperately trying to participate in it?

America isn’t perfect, but the opportunities and abundance available here still exceed what people in many parts of the world could imagine. That doesn’t mean struggling Americans don’t matter. It means we need some perspective before declaring the entire system a failure.

Kmele Forced Them To Make An Argument

That’s ultimately why I liked what Kmele Foster did. He wasn’t arguing that America has no problems or that every corporation is wonderful. He simply forced people to separate legitimate criticism from ideological nonsense.

If you’re going to say capitalism is tied to white supremacy, explain how. If you’re going to say capitalism doesn’t work, define what “working” means. If you’re going to use health care as your example, acknowledge how deeply government is already involved in that system.

Don’t just throw emotional language onto the table and expect everybody to surrender.

You can criticize capitalism. You should call out corruption, bad corporations and unfair practices. But you also have to acknowledge what free enterprise has produced: innovation, technology, jobs, wealth and opportunity.

Capitalism isn’t perfect because people aren’t perfect.

But Kmele Foster exposed the weakness in this entire argument by simply asking the panel to explain itself.

Once he did, the slogans stopped sounding so impressive.

Capitalism doesn’t guarantee that everybody wins equally. It gives you the freedom to compete.

What you do with that freedom is up to you.

I’ve been telling you for months that the Nolan Wells case has become about something much bigger than simply asking what happened to Nolan.

People crossed a line.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with asking questions about the death of a young man.

What happened to Nolan Wells?

How did he disappear?

How did he end up dead?

Was there foul play?

Those are legitimate questions, and I’ve spent months asking them myself.

But there’s a gigantic difference between asking questions and publicly accusing people of murder, covering up evidence or refusing to cooperate when you don’t have the evidence to support those claims.

Now some of the people who made those statements may have to answer for them.

And that includes Al Sharpton.

Al Sharpton Said “Sue Us”

Sharpton previously addressed the possibility of being sued over statements surrounding the Nolan Wells case.

His response wasn’t exactly subtle.

“Sue us.”

He argued that people were simply asking what happened and said his attorneys would be in contact so he could be served.

Well, according to information discussed on my show, attorneys representing the young men apparently took him seriously.

Attorney Tyler Cox and his team have been pursuing the matter, and Sharpton now reportedly has counsel who has agreed to accept service on his behalf.

That reportedly includes service related to the original demands as well as a potential lawsuit if the parties cannot reach a resolution before litigation.

So when Al said he welcomed court?

It looks like somebody may be preparing to take him up on the offer.

Nobody Is Suing You For Asking Questions

This is the part I want people to understand.

Sharpton framed this as though people were threatening to sue him simply because he asked:

“What happened?”

That’s not what this dispute is about.

You can ask questions all day.

You can say:

We don’t know what happened.

We want answers.

We want investigators to examine everything.

We want everybody involved to cooperate.

There’s nothing wrong with any of that.

But according to the demand discussed on my show, attorneys for the young men say statements went much further.

They contend accusations were made involving murder, hindering prosecution and evidence tampering without an evidentiary basis.

That’s not a question.

There’s a legal and moral difference between:

“Did these guys have something to do with Nolan’s death?”

And:

“These guys had something to do with Nolan’s death.”

Words matter.

Especially when you’re broadcasting them to potentially millions of people.

The Demands Are Pretty Straightforward

According to the supplemental demand discussed on my show, Sharpton is being asked to take several actions.

The attorneys want him to publicly apologize to the young men.

They want the allegedly defamatory statements retracted and deleted.

They want him to publicly acknowledge that those statements were false and agree not to repeat them.

And importantly, they want him to state that allegations involving murder, hindering prosecution and evidence tampering had no evidentiary basis.

They also want those corrections published in substantially the same manner as the original statements.

I think that’s reasonable.

If you’re willing to make a serious accusation publicly, you should be willing to correct it publicly if you can’t substantiate it.

You don’t get to whisper the correction after screaming the accusation.

These Young Men Have Already Paid A Price

This is something I’ve learned firsthand while covering this case.

I’ve gone to Mississippi.

I’ve interviewed people involved.

I’ve talked to the young men who were Nolan’s friends.

I’ve talked to their attorney.

I’ve spoken with people involved in the search.

And I’ve reviewed material that the internet didn’t have when many of these accusations started spreading.

These young men have had their names dragged through the mud.

People online have treated allegations like established facts.

And once the internet labels somebody a murderer, it doesn’t matter how many times you explain that law enforcement hasn’t established that allegation.

The accusation follows them.

That’s why defamation law exists.

Your platform doesn’t give you the right to destroy somebody’s reputation because a particular narrative generates clicks.

The Boat Audio Is A Perfect Example

One of the biggest pieces of supposed “evidence” online has been disputed background audio from a call involving the boats.

People circulated interpretations claiming you could hear statements involving Nolan, death and even accusations about somebody killing him.

But there’s a problem.

When I listened to the audio, I didn’t hear what people claimed was there.

I’ve also reviewed footage showing the boats during the relevant period.

And the idea that somebody can create a transcript telling you what you’re supposedly hearing and then use people’s interpretation of that audio as proof is incredibly dangerous.

That’s confirmation bias.

If I give you unclear audio and tell you beforehand:

“Listen closely. He’s saying Nolan is dead.”

Your brain starts searching for those words.

That doesn’t make those words real.

And when we’re talking about accusations this serious, “I think that’s what I heard” isn’t good enough.

Evidence Has To Matter More Than The Narrative

I’ve said this repeatedly throughout the Nolan Wells case.

I don’t know everything that happened to Nolan.

That’s why you investigate.

That’s why you interview witnesses.

That’s why you examine phones, boats, timelines, medical evidence and forensic evidence.

You follow the facts wherever they lead.

But what you don’t do is decide:

White guys. Black victim. Therefore racism and murder.

Then reverse engineer every piece of information until it fits the story you’ve already chosen.

That’s not an investigation.

That’s activism.

And when you start publicly identifying real people as participants in serious crimes without evidence, you may eventually find yourself answering those allegations somewhere social media outrage doesn’t matter.

A courtroom.

Sharpton’s Attorney Is Fighting Back

According to the information discussed on my show, Sharpton’s attorney has cited the Mississippi Litigation Accountability Act and Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 11, raising the issue of frivolous litigation and potential attorney’s fees.

That’s his right.

If Sharpton and his attorneys believe any lawsuit is frivolous, they should fight it.

That’s what courts are for.

But that’s exactly why I don’t understand the bravado surrounding this.

Al said:

Sue me.

Now attorneys representing the people he discussed appear prepared to potentially do exactly that.

Fine.

Let both sides present what they have.

Let the statements be examined.

Let the evidence be examined.

Let the lawyers argue whether those statements were protected opinion, legitimate questions or actionable defamation.

That’s infinitely better than trying the entire case through social media.

This Could Get Bigger

And I don’t believe this conversation necessarily ends with Al Sharpton.

There have been a lot of people online making extraordinary claims about the Nolan Wells case.

People have accused young men of killing their friend.

People have promoted supposed evidence.

People have repeated claims without verifying them.

Some have continued even after information emerged contradicting portions of the original narrative.

Freedom of speech is incredibly important.

But freedom of speech doesn’t mean freedom from responsibility for knowingly or recklessly making false factual claims about identifiable people.

If lawsuits are eventually filed, that’s where these distinctions will matter.

Ask Questions. Don’t Manufacture Answers.

I want justice for Nolan Wells.

I’ve wanted that from the beginning.

If evidence emerges showing somebody committed a crime, follow that evidence.

If somebody lied to investigators, expose it.

If somebody covered something up, prove it.

And if somebody killed Nolan, prosecute them.

But justice isn’t achieved by falsely accusing innocent people either.

You don’t honor one person by destroying somebody else’s life without evidence.

That’s the lesson people keep missing.

Ask every question.

Investigate every possibility.

Demand transparency.

But don’t manufacture an answer because it fits the racial or political story you wanted from the beginning.

Al Sharpton said he welcomed a lawsuit.

His attorney has now reportedly agreed to accept service.

So if these parties can’t reach a resolution, we may finally see these accusations tested somewhere that requires more than viral videos, speculation and outrage.

In court, you’re eventually going to need evidence.

I saw the viral video of an Arkansas State Police trooper pulling a man out of a vehicle by his dreadlocks.

And if that’s the only part you watch, I understand why people react emotionally.

You see a Black man.

You see a police officer grabbing his hair.

You see the officer punch him.

And immediately people start yelling:

Police brutality.

Excessive force.

Racism.

But here’s the question nobody ever seems to ask:

How did we get here?

Police officers didn’t randomly appear and decide to drag somebody through a car window.

Something happened before that clip.

And once you see it, the situation looks very different.

This Started With A 130 MPH Chase

According to the police report, Trooper Teddy Henderson clocked the vehicle going 82 mph in a 60 mph zone.

He attempted to stop it.

Instead, the driver accelerated and reportedly reached 130 mph.

The vehicle drove over spike strips and kept fleeing.

Police eventually used a tactical vehicle intervention to stop it.

This wasn’t a normal traffic stop anymore.

It was an extremely dangerous high-speed pursuit.

The Driver Was Allegedly Drunk

Police identified the driver as Adonerus Johnson.

According to the report, his breath test came back at 0.17, more than twice the legal limit.

He was charged with offenses including felony fleeing, reckless driving, DWI and resisting arrest.

That’s what officers were dealing with when the car finally stopped.

A vehicle had allegedly been running from police at 130 mph.

The driver had refused to stop.

Police had no idea what the people inside were going to do next.

Washington Was Told To Get Out

The passenger at the center of the viral video was Tedrick Washington, a former NCAA basketball player.

Trooper Henderson ordered him to exit the vehicle.

According to the report, Washington simply stared at him.

The officer couldn’t open the door, so he broke the window with a baton.

Then he repeatedly told Washington to crawl out.

And this is where people start playing games with words.

Washington putting his hands toward the window is not the same thing as getting out.

The command wasn’t:

“Put your hands outside.”

The command was:

Get out of the vehicle.

Then Came The Hair Pull

Trooper Henderson grabbed Washington’s wrist and a handful of his dreadlocks and began pulling him toward the window.

It looks rough.

It is rough.

But police work during a felony arrest isn’t supposed to look pretty.

According to Henderson’s report, he was trying to gain control of Washington after repeated commands had failed.

The officer still did not know whether Washington had a weapon or whether somebody else inside did.

That’s completely different from an officer randomly grabbing somebody’s hair during a peaceful stop.

What About The Punch?

The officer later punched Washington once in the face.

According to Henderson’s report, Washington pulled away and then “postured up” in a way that made him believe Washington was preparing to strike.

I watched the video.

Sitting here with replay, I’m not convinced Washington was definitely trying to punch him.

But I can understand how the officer could have believed that in the moment.

Washington rises up.

He turns toward Henderson.

They’re already in a physical struggle.

Police officers don’t get slow motion.

They have seconds to make a decision.

Henderson delivered one punch, then continued trying to get Washington under control.

Another Passenger Showed How This Could Have Gone

One of the most important facts is that another passenger was also inside the vehicle.

Police told him to get out.

He complied.

He exited with his hands up.

And according to the report, he was later released without charges.

Nobody pulled him by his hair.

Nobody punched him.

Nobody had to wrestle him down.

Why?

Because he complied.

That matters when people try to make this entirely about race.

Where Is The Outrage Over The Chase?

The viral footage prompted criticism from the NAACP and others questioning the officer’s use of force.

Fine.

Review the force.

But are we also outraged about the vehicle allegedly traveling 130 mph?

Are we outraged about the driver allegedly having a 0.17 blood alcohol level?

Are we outraged about innocent families being put at risk?

Those actions endangered Black people, white people, children, police officers and everybody else on the road.

That has to be part of the conversation too.

Stop Starting The Story At The Consequences

This happens constantly with viral police videos.

People begin the story at the exact moment the suspect starts experiencing consequences.

They don’t show you the fleeing.

They don’t show you the resisting.

They don’t show you the commands.

They show you the ugliest five seconds and ask:

“Why would police do this?”

Maybe we should start five minutes earlier.

The officer didn’t make the vehicle flee.

The officer didn’t make the driver allegedly get drunk.

The officer didn’t make Washington refuse repeated commands.

If we’re going to talk about accountability, it works both ways.

Use Of Force Is About Reasonableness

The standard isn’t whether force looks comfortable.

The question is whether it was reasonable under the totality of the circumstances.

What did the officer know?

What had just happened?

Was the person complying?

Did the officer reasonably perceive a threat?

Those questions matter.

The Gosnell Police Department said its officers’ use of force was justified and that its policy was not violated.

If the Arkansas trooper’s actions need further review, review them.

But don’t pretend the case begins with dreadlocks in an officer’s hand.

Young Men Need To Hear This Too

Instead of only telling young Black men that police are the problem, maybe somebody should also tell them:

Don’t ride with a drunk driver.

Don’t run from police at 130 mph.

Don’t resist arrest.

Don’t turn a traffic stop into a felony chase.

And when armed officers are giving you commands after an extremely dangerous pursuit, comply.

Tedrick Washington was a college athlete.

He had opportunities many people would love to have.

Now his name is attached to a viral police confrontation.

That should bother us too.

Context Changes Everything

You can think the hair pull looked aggressive.

It did.

You can ask whether the punch was necessary.

That’s fair.

But you don’t get to erase everything that happened beforehand.

This was the aftermath of an alleged 130 mph police chase involving a suspected drunk driver, repeated commands and resistance.

That’s the story.

Not five seconds.

The whole story.

And once you watch the whole thing, the narrative that this was simply another rogue officer brutalizing an innocent Black man becomes much harder to defend.

Maybe the officer wasn’t perfect.

But based on the totality of what happened, I don’t see police manufacturing a confrontation.

I see police dealing with the consequences of decisions these men had already made.

There are plenty of issues in America where we’re going to disagree.

Republicans and Democrats are going to fight.

The left and the right are going to argue.

But there are certain things that should unite every decent human being in this country.

Protecting children should be one of them.

Florida officials just announced that 163 missing children were rescued in a five-day operation.

Think about that number.

163 children.

Some of these kids were allegedly trafficked. Some were abused. Some were neglected. Some came from unsafe situations.

And the youngest was reportedly just a few months old.

This is evil.

But for 163 children, somebody finally came looking.

163 Children In Five Days

According to the report discussed on my show, the children ranged from only a few months old all the way to 17 years old.

The recoveries included:

46 in the Tampa Bay region.

41 in Miami.

32 in Jacksonville.

21 in Orlando.

12 in Fort Myers.

8 in Pensacola.

3 in Tallahassee.

And although Florida organized and led the operation, investigators reportedly located or recovered children in six additional states, Puerto Rico and 12 other countries.

This wasn’t one type of missing-child case.

Officials said the circumstances included runaways, custody disputes, unsafe foster-care situations, abandonment, neglect, abuse and suspected human trafficking.

That distinction matters.

Because when people hear the word “runaway,” sometimes they stop caring.

I don’t.

Don’t Write Off The Runaways

I dealt with runaways when I was in law enforcement.

People sometimes look at these kids and say they’re just bad children.

They’re disobedient.

They’re troublemakers.

Sometimes children absolutely make terrible decisions.

But you know what else I saw?

Trauma.

Kids whose mothers didn’t want them.

Kids who didn’t know their fathers.

Kids bouncing through the system.

Kids running into the arms of some boyfriend or somebody else pretending to care about them.

Kids getting involved with drugs.

Kids getting pulled into prostitution and dangerous situations because they’re minors wandering around without protection or supervision.

These children are vulnerable.

A 15-year-old who runs away from foster care doesn’t suddenly become an adult because somebody puts the word “runaway” next to their name.

They’re still a child.

And predators know exactly which children are easiest to exploit.

“They Are No Longer In The Hands Of Evil”

One of the Florida officials speaking about the operation put it perfectly.

Many of these children, he said, had suffered tremendous abuse.

Some appeared to have been trafficked, neglected, exploited or abused.

Their lives may never be exactly the same.

They’re going to need support.

They’re going to need prayer.

They’re going to need people around them who genuinely care about what happens next.

But he said something else that stood out to me:

“At least they are no longer in the hands of evil.”

Amen.

Finding these kids isn’t the end of the story.

For many of them, healing is going to take years.

But you can’t begin healing a child until you get that child out of the hands of the people hurting them.

Florida did that 163 times.

Then One Official Said What Every Leader Should Be Saying

There was another official who spoke at this announcement, and I loved what this man said.

Because he wasn’t interested in giving some polished political speech.

He basically said:

163 isn’t enough.

Why?

Because while we’re celebrating these children being rescued, there are other children somewhere right now waiting for somebody to find them.

Then he made another important point.

When people imagine the person hurting a child, they picture some obvious monster hiding in a dark alley.

That’s not always reality.

The bad guy can look normal.

He can have a career.

He can have a family.

He can be a grandfather.

He can hold public office.

Evil doesn’t always walk around wearing a sign announcing itself.

And then this official delivered the line that every predator in America needs to hear:

“If you touch kids, we’re coming. Florida’s coming.”

This Shouldn’t Be Political

I don’t care whether you’re Republican.

I don’t care whether you’re Democrat.

I don’t care whether you’re Black, white, Hispanic, Asian, rich, poor, Christian, atheist or anything else.

You hurt children, we’re coming after you.

That should be unanimous.

Every governor should believe it.

Every attorney general should believe it.

Every prosecutor should believe it.

Every police chief should believe it.

Every sheriff should believe it.

And every parent in America should demand it.

Law enforcement needs the resources, personnel and support necessary to find these children and pursue the people exploiting them.

Because imagine what happens if we don’t just do this for five days.

Imagine what happens if this becomes the standard.

Give Law Enforcement The Ability To Do Their Job

The official speaking in Florida made another point that I think people need to hear.

Let the cops do their job.

Law enforcement officers are trying to find missing kids.

They’re investigating traffickers.

They’re tracking predators.

They’re going into situations most Americans would never want to see.

And when they identify somebody victimizing children, society should be standing behind those officers saying:

Go get them.

Not making excuses for predators.

Not worrying about whether we’re being too judgmental.

Not turning everything into politics.

Find the children.

Arrest the people hurting them.

Prosecute them.

And hold them accountable under the law.

It’s really not complicated.

Some Crimes Deserve Our Strongest Condemnation

I’m a Christian.

I believe in forgiveness.

I believe Jesus Christ can forgive sins that human beings cannot even comprehend forgiving.

But there’s a difference between God’s forgiveness and earthly accountability.

Forgiveness does not mean somebody escapes the consequences of what they did.

And when somebody traffics, sexually exploits, abuses or intentionally destroys the life of a child, I believe our justice system should bring the strongest lawful punishment available.

Children cannot defend themselves.

That’s why adults have a responsibility to defend them.

That’s why police have a responsibility to find them.

That’s why prosecutors have a responsibility to pursue these cases.

And that’s why judges and juries have a responsibility to hold guilty people accountable.

Now Find The Next 163

Florida deserves credit for what happened here.

Law enforcement deserves credit.

Everybody who spent those five days tracking these children deserves credit.

But I keep coming back to what that official said.

There are another 163 somewhere.

Maybe more.

Some child is sitting somewhere right now wondering whether anybody is looking.

Some teenager everybody dismissed as a “runaway” may be trapped with somebody exploiting them.

Some child is living through something no child should ever experience.

Go find them.

And when you find the people responsible for hurting them, make sure they understand something:

We’re not looking the other way anymore.

163 children were rescued.

Thank God for that.

Now go get the next 163.

I’ve been following the Lindsay Clancy case, and my wife and I have talked about this case more times than I can count.

Because I’m going to tell you something that apparently you’re not allowed to say anymore:

Two things can be true at the same time.

Postpartum depression is real.

Postpartum psychosis is real.

Women can experience intrusive thoughts, hallucinations, depression, anxiety and serious mental health problems after having children.

I believe that.

I also believe our society does a terrible job supporting mothers after childbirth. We expect women to have a baby, recover, take care of the child, take care of the house, maintain their marriage, go back to work and somehow act like nothing happened.

We need to take that seriously.

But none of that automatically answers the question sitting at the center of this case.

Was Lindsay Clancy legally responsible when she killed her three children?

That’s what the jury has to decide.

And after hearing some of the evidence presented by the prosecution, I don’t think this case is nearly as simple as some people on the internet want it to be.

Empathy Is Not The Same Thing As Innocence

I understand why so many women feel empathy for Lindsay Clancy.

Some mothers hear about intrusive thoughts and recognize something they experienced themselves.

Some understand what severe postpartum depression can feel like.

Some know what it’s like to feel overwhelmed, exhausted and mentally unlike themselves after having a child.

That empathy is understandable.

But there’s a gigantic difference between saying:

“I understand how serious postpartum mental illness can be.”

And saying:

“Therefore Lindsay Clancy cannot be responsible for killing her children.”

Those aren’t the same statement.

Three children died.

So our responsibility isn’t to pick a team based on emotion.

Our responsibility is to look at the evidence and determine what was happening inside Lindsay Clancy’s mind when those children were killed.

The Question Isn’t Whether She Was Mentally Ill

One of the most important things about this trial is that both sides reportedly acknowledge that Lindsay was suffering from serious mental illness.

That’s not really the dispute.

The question is whether her mental condition reached the point where she could not understand that what she was doing was wrong or could not control her actions.

That’s a completely different question.

The jury was given several possible outcomes, including different degrees of criminal responsibility depending on what they believe about her mental state.

And I think that’s appropriate.

Because mental illness isn’t an on-and-off switch.

Somebody can be mentally ill and still understand right from wrong.

Somebody can be severely mentally ill and still make decisions.

And yes, somebody can also become so detached from reality that they are legally incapable of understanding or controlling their actions.

The jury has to determine where Lindsay Clancy was on that spectrum.

The Prosecution’s Evidence Raises Serious Questions

This is where the case becomes difficult for the defense.

According to the prosecution’s argument presented in the transcript, Lindsay’s husband Patrick was sent out of the house to make multiple stops.

Prosecutors argue that created a window of roughly 18 to 20 minutes when Lindsay would be alone with the children.

They say there was evidence of planning.

According to the prosecution, she contacted CVS to make sure medication was available before Patrick went there and then continued to another stop.

The prosecution’s argument is essentially this:

She was making decisions.

She allegedly created the window.

She allegedly selected where this would happen.

She allegedly moved from child to child.

And during that same period, Patrick called home.

Lindsay didn’t initially answer but reportedly called him back.

Patrick testified that she sounded normal enough during that conversation that he had no idea what was happening inside the house.

That’s significant.

Because prosecutors are asking the jury to consider how someone allegedly experiencing a completely uncontrollable psychotic episode could simultaneously function socially well enough to return a phone call and carry on a conversation without alerting her husband that something was terribly wrong.

That doesn’t automatically prove murder.

But it is evidence the jury has to wrestle with.

Then There Is The Question Of The Voice

Lindsay reportedly said she heard a voice telling her she needed to kill her children.

According to the account discussed on my show, she said the voice told her she had to do it then or she wouldn’t have another opportunity and that her children needed to see her in heaven.

She reportedly said:

“Go to God, baby.”

That is horrifying.

But the prosecution raised another important question.

According to testimony summarized in the transcript, Lindsay had undergone extensive mental health treatment and psychiatric hospitalization, yet prosecution experts said she had not previously reported hearing this particular voice.

There were also questions raised about when she said the voice began.

And according to the prosecution’s argument, the voice apparently stopped after the killings.

Again, I’m not telling you what happened inside this woman’s head.

I wasn’t there.

Neither were the people making TikToks declaring her innocent or guilty.

That’s why we have trials.

The Medical Testimony Matters

One of the strongest pieces of evidence discussed against Lindsay came from medical professionals who interacted with her before the killings.

According to the trial summary played on my show, Letitia Dukes treated Lindsay four times in December 2022 and documented anxiety and intrusive thoughts but reportedly did not observe psychosis or mania.

Even more importantly, a psychiatrist who reportedly saw Lindsay the day before the children were killed also did not observe signs of psychosis or mania.

That’s difficult evidence.

These weren’t simply people hired years later to build a prosecution theory.

These were people evaluating her mental condition around the time everything happened.

The defense, however, has argued that Lindsay’s mental health was severely deteriorating, that she repeatedly sought help and that prescription medications contributed to her condition.

Jurors even asked to examine bags containing medication bottles as well as the knife Lindsay allegedly used during her suicide attempt.

So clearly they’re taking that part of the case seriously.

They should.

The Medication Argument Isn’t Simple Either

One thing I don’t like about the public conversation surrounding this case is how people talk about the medications as if the number alone settles everything.

The defense has emphasized that Lindsay had been prescribed numerous medications during her mental health treatment.

But according to prosecutors, she was never taking all of them simultaneously. They argued she was generally taking only two or three at once and had stopped taking most of them weeks before the killings.

The judge reportedly instructed jurors that they could consider whether prescription medication impaired Lindsay’s mental state when determining her criminal responsibility and the appropriate level of any conviction.

That’s exactly the kind of nuance I’m talking about.

Maybe medication played a role.

Maybe postpartum illness played a role.

Maybe those factors significantly diminished her responsibility.

Or maybe the evidence ultimately demonstrates that she still understood exactly what she was doing.

Those possibilities have to be decided by evidence, not sympathy.

Social Media Has Already Picked A Verdict

This is the part that concerns me.

I’ve watched women online rally around Lindsay before the jury has even reached its conclusion.

Some women identify so deeply with the postpartum component of this case that it almost seems impossible for them to separate their own experiences from Lindsay’s actions.

I understand identifying with postpartum depression.

I understand wanting society to take mothers’ mental health more seriously.

I’m with you on that.

But Lindsay Clancy isn’t standing trial for having postpartum depression.

She’s standing trial because three children are dead.

We cannot turn a murder trial into a referendum on whether society adequately supports mothers.

Those are two separate conversations.

And if your personal experience with postpartum depression means Lindsay automatically has to be innocent, you’re no longer evaluating evidence.

You’re projecting your experience onto hers.

The Other Extreme Is Wrong Too

But I also see men and others online going completely in the opposite direction.

They say postpartum psychosis isn’t real.

They say a mother could never lose control of her mind like this.

They say anybody even discussing mental illness is making excuses for murder.

I don’t agree with that either.

There are women who experience severe postpartum psychiatric disorders.

There are people who genuinely become detached from reality.

And there are cases where mental illness can become so severe that somebody does something horrific while operating in a state that most of us cannot comprehend.

That possibility cannot simply be dismissed because the crime is horrific.

That’s why this case is difficult.

If you’re looking for me to tell you Lindsay Clancy was definitely an innocent mother overtaken by psychosis, I can’t tell you that.

If you’re looking for me to tell you she’s definitely an evil, calculating murderer who fabricated everything afterward, I can’t tell you that either.

Not yet.

Three Children Deserve The Truth

There’s something getting lost in all the arguments about Lindsay.

Three children are dead.

They deserve more than hashtags.

They deserve more than viral videos.

They deserve more than people turning their mother’s trial into some larger cultural battle between men and women.

Their deaths deserve the truth.

Maybe the truth is that their mother experienced an unimaginable psychiatric breakdown and completely lost touch with reality.

Maybe the truth is that she was mentally ill but remained capable of understanding and controlling her actions.

Maybe the truth lies somewhere between those two extremes and the appropriate verdict reflects diminished, but not eliminated, criminal responsibility.

That’s what the evidence has to determine.

Let The Evidence Decide

The jury deliberated for two days without reaching a verdict before being dismissed for the weekend.

That doesn’t surprise me.

This is a complicated case.

And complicated cases should make jurors uncomfortable.

They should wrestle with the evidence.

They should question the experts.

They should examine the medications.

They should scrutinize the timeline.

They should ask whether Lindsay was capable of planning.

They should ask whether she understood right from wrong.

They should ask whether the voice she described was genuine evidence of psychosis.

And then they should reach whatever verdict the evidence supports.

Not because they’re mothers.

Not because they’re men.

Not because TikTok decided Lindsay is a victim.

Not because somebody on the internet decided she’s a monster.

Because that’s what justice requires.

I believe postpartum psychosis is real.

I believe mothers need more support.

I believe mental illness can fundamentally alter what somebody thinks, sees and does.

And I also believe three dead children require us to ask the hardest possible questions before removing responsibility from the person who killed them.

Those beliefs aren’t contradictory.

That’s called having enough maturity to understand nuance.

And until this jury comes back with a verdict, I’m going to do something apparently revolutionary in 2026.

I’m going to wait for the evidence to decide.

I watched this Good Good Golf commercial after hearing about all the outrage, and I genuinely thought somebody had shown me the wrong video.

This is what everybody is furious about?

Good Good released a commercial promoting a co-branded Callaway driver. In the skit, a woman reaches toward the prized golf club, one of the guys rushes toward her, and the scene is edited to make it appear as though he knocks her down.

That’s the joke.

It’s intentionally dramatic. There’s spooky music. It’s exaggerated. It’s a commercial.

And according to Good Good’s own explanation, the woman wasn’t actually tackled or pushed down at all.

Yet somehow this turned into a controversy about sexism, domestic violence, violence against women, and even “femicide.”

I’m sorry.

We have lost our minds.

Watch The Commercial For Yourself

The commercial isn’t subtle about being a joke.

A woman approaches the new driver.

One of the guys yells:

“Do not touch my new driver.”

She keeps approaching it. He runs toward her. The camera cuts, and she’s on the ground.

Then everybody reacts dramatically.

That’s it.

You would think from some of the reaction that Good Good uploaded surveillance footage of somebody actually assaulting a woman.

Good Good later explained what actually happened during filming. According to the transcript, the woman in the commercial, Alexis, was told to approach the driver while Garrett would perform a fake tackle.

Garrett explicitly said:

“I didn’t actually tackle Alexis.”

He said it was a skit, that he would never actually tackle a woman, and that the scene required multiple takes.

So we’re outraged over pretend violence in a comedy sketch.

Are we canceling movies now?

Television?

Every commercial where somebody gets knocked over?

Where exactly does this standard end?

Good Good Apologized

As the outrage grew, Good Good removed the commercial and released a statement saying the video depicted actions that were not aligned with the company’s values.

They apologized and reiterated their commitment to making golf inclusive.

And I disagree with them on one thing.

I don’t think they needed to apologize.

Explain the commercial? Fine.

Tell people nobody was actually hurt? Absolutely.

But apologizing as if you’ve committed some moral atrocity only validates the premise that this harmless commercial was somehow dangerous.

Then Good Good CEO Matt Kendrick issued a much more extensive apology.

Kendrick said the commercial was intended to parody a scene from the movie Obsession, but acknowledged that the execution “missed the mark.” He said Good Good would change its creative review and approval process and personally review future marketing content.

He concluded:

“We got this wrong. We’ll learn from it, we’ll be better because of it.”

I respect somebody willing to take responsibility.

I just don’t believe this required the level of repentance people were demanding.

Then Callaway Took It To Another Level

Here’s another important part of this story.

Callaway had approved the video before it was posted.

In its first statement, Callaway CEO Chip Brewer acknowledged that while Good Good produced the video, Callaway approved it before it went live.

Brewer said that approval should never have happened, apologized, and announced internal and external investigations.

But apparently that wasn’t enough either.

Callaway eventually announced that it had ended its relationship with Good Good effective immediately.

And then came this:

Callaway committed $1 million to organizations working to prevent violence against women, support survivors, and advance education and awareness.

One million dollars.

Over a fake tackle.

In a golf commercial.

Where the woman wasn’t actually tackled.

I’m sitting here thinking, what are we doing?

The Outrage Became More Extreme Than The Commercial

Here’s where this story goes from ridiculous to genuinely disturbing.

While people were supposedly standing up against violence toward women, Alexis, the woman who appeared in the commercial, started receiving vicious messages.

Good Good publicly addressed some of them.

One person allegedly told her:

“I hope someone beats you after you’re around.”

Another message told her to get off the planet and said she was no longer welcome among women.

Good Good said there were hundreds of messages and comments directed toward her.

Do you see the insanity?

People are supposedly outraged because a woman was pretend tackled in a comedy sketch, so their response is to send that woman hateful and threatening messages.

That’s not standing up for women.

That’s a mob looking for somebody to punish.

And the woman you’re supposedly protecting became one of your targets.

We Can’t Have Equality And Treat Women Like Glass

There’s another part of this conversation people don’t want to have.

We constantly hear that men and women should be treated equally.

Okay.

Then why does a staged scene involving a woman suddenly become untouchable?

Comedy has always involved exaggerated physical humor.

Men get tackled.

Men get slapped.

Men get thrown through walls.

Nobody watches it and assumes the commercial is endorsing violence against men.

But put a woman in the same kind of staged joke and suddenly we’re discussing domestic violence and “femicide”?

You cannot simultaneously demand equal treatment and then insist women must be treated as such a protected class that even pretending to knock one over in a commercial becomes a corporate crisis.

Compare This To What We Already Accept As Entertainment

I played old commercials on my show to demonstrate how absurd this standard has become.

Remember Terry Tate, Office Linebacker?

The entire joke was a giant football player running through an office and absolutely destroying employees who weren’t following the rules.

Men.

Women.

Everybody could get it.

People laughed because everybody understood something incredibly basic:

It wasn’t real.

It was comedy.

That’s the same distinction we’re apparently losing today.

Good Good didn’t advocate domestic violence.

They didn’t encourage men to assault women.

They didn’t actually tackle this woman.

They made an exaggerated joke about somebody touching a golf club.

You can think it wasn’t funny.

You can think it was immature.

You can even think it was in poor taste.

But there’s an enormous difference between “I didn’t like that joke” and treating the people who made it like they’re responsible for violence against women.

Good Good, Stop Apologizing

Good Good, I’m telling you right now:

I support you.

I think you should have explained what happened, defended Alexis from the disgusting attacks she received, and then moved on.

The more companies bow to internet mobs, the more power those mobs gain.

Because there will always be another outrage.

There will always be another person offended.

There will always be somebody demanding another apology, another investigation, another donation, another firing, another partnership terminated.

At some point you have to decide whether you’re running your company according to your actual values or according to whoever is screaming the loudest on social media.

We Have Become Way Too Soft

That’s ultimately what this story represents to me.

We’ve become incapable of separating fiction from reality.

A staged commercial becomes “violence against women.”

A fake tackle becomes a corporate investigation.

A joke becomes a terminated business relationship.

And somehow a controversy over a golf driver ends with a $1 million commitment to organizations fighting violence against women.

Meanwhile, the actress who willingly participated in the commercial gets hateful messages from people claiming to defend women.

Make that make sense.

You don’t have to think the commercial was funny.

You don’t have to like Good Good.

But we should still be capable of looking at something with common sense and proportionality.

Nobody was assaulted.

It was a skit.

Good Good made a commercial.

The internet turned it into a moral crisis.

And from where I’m sitting, the reaction was far more ridiculous than the joke ever was.