Return to Transcripts main page

Smerconish

Devastation In Gaza As Israel Wages War On Hamas; U.S. Report Investigates Whether Israel Violated Int'l Law In Gaza; Prosecution Could Rest By The End Of Next Week; Tom Brady Roast: Foul Play Or Fair Game?; Michael Smerconish's 2024 Commencement Speech. Aired 9-10a ET

Aired May 11, 2024 - 09:00   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

BETTY YU, CO-FOUNDER, CHINATOWN ART BRIGADE: He has the power to really change hearts and minds. And for U.S. to him sort of putting a lens on the human story, the human impact story is really, really important.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

VICTOR BLACKWELL, CNN ANCHOR: The Chinatown Art Brigade will be hosting films and discussions on May 19 and June 2. For more information, visit Chinatownartbrigade.org. And thank you so much for joining me today. I'll see you back here next Saturday at 8:00 a.m. Eastern. Smerconish starts right now.

[09:00:38]

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN ANCHOR: Tension between the U.S. and Israel over the war with Hamas. I'm Michael Smerconish in Philadelphia.

On Friday, the Biden administration said that it is reasonable to assess that U.S. weapons have been used by Israeli forces in Gaza in ways that are, quote, "Inconsistent with international humanitarian law." But they stopped short of officially saying that Israel violated that law. The report drafted by the State Department said investigations are ongoing but that the U.S. does not have complete information. This followed Israel's security cabinet approval of an expansion of the area of operation of the shelling in Rafah after President Joe Biden threatened to withhold U.S. weapons if Israel were to carry out an all-out offensive in that city. The increased military operation and Rafah has put ceasefire for hostage talks on pause to U.S. officials told CNN.

All of this follows a turning point in U.S.-Israel relations this week when President Biden's previously unwavering public support began to waver. The highly visible pro-Palestinian campus protests have been threatening to splinter Biden's fragile Democratic coalition. In a sit down interview with CNN's Erin Burnett, Biden threatened to halt some weapons shipments the first significant conditioning of U.S. military aid to Israel since the start of the war. But Israel's Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says that to avenge Hamas's October 7 terror attacks, quote, "If we need to stand alone, we will stand alone. I have said that if necessary, we will fight with our fingernails."

Joining me now to discuss is Thomas L. Friedman. He's a three time Pulitzer Prize winning columnist for "The New York Times" where his latest piece just out is titled "Biden's Real Mistake in Pausing Military Aid to Israel." And his many bestsellers include the National Book Award winner "From Beirut to Jerusalem," which has a new audio forward.

Tom, always great when you're here. What will be the impact of this State Department report that said, Israel most likely failed to protect civilians in Gaza, but did not find specific instances?

THOMAS L. FRIEDMAN, COLUMNIST, "NEW YORK TIMES": Gosh, Michael, I don't think it's going to have much impact whatsoever. I think what matters is what's happening on the ground right now, particularly in and around Rafah. And around the limited embargo that President Biden has imposed on Israel to drive home the point that if it's going to go into Rafa, it has to do so in a way that simply does not cause mass civilian casualties as its entrance into Gaza City and Khan Yunis (ph).

SMERCONISH: So in your most recent posting for the times on that subject, here's part of what you wrote. You said, "Netanyahu's policies have not will not produce a sustainable victory in Gaza, cannot secure Israel against his greatest existential threat, Iran, and are endangering world Jewry and undermining America's broader Middle East strategic needs and goals." So, what should Israel be doing then about Hamas still in Rafah?

FRIEDMAN: So, it really -- we have to start at 30,000 feet, Michael. And that is my belief that if Israel decide that it had to go into Gaza for strategic and moral reasons to dismantle Hamas. The only way it could do it is if it had three things, it needed time, it needed resources, and it needed legitimacy. Because given the fact that Hamas had buried himself in these tunnels under a civilian population, there were always going to be heavy civilian casualties no matter what.

Now, the -- what that meant is from the very beginning, Israel had to be seen as at war with Hamas and not with the Palestinian people. That was central. And for that to happen, it needed to have a Palestinian partner, it needed bail to say to the world to itself, to Gazans, we want to dismantle Hamas but we want to replace them with a with the Palestinian authority in the West Bank, which has embraced the Oslo peace process. Instead, what Netanyahu did was say, we're going to war against Hamas, and we're going to stay at war with the PA so we have -- with the Palestinian Authority, so we have no Palestinian partner. Message to the world, we're not at war just with a Hamas, we're at war with the Palestinian people. And because of that Israel has not had the legitimacy it needed for this kind of war.

[09:05:09]

SMERCONISH: President Biden's response, and I made reference to it in your introduction was to have a sit down with Erin Burnett and to threatened the pause of additional weapons. In this most recent column of yours, you question that approach. It seems like you think there needs to be a more broad policy statement offered by the White House. What would your counsel be? How should President Biden be using his leverage with Netanyahu? FRIEDMAN: I would have loved to see him actually give a full blown speech, basically saying, here's why we're doing this weapons pause, but it's in a much broader context. You Israel are fighting a war with diminishing -- actually with virtually no anymore legitimacy, because it's a war that is perceived as being a war against the Palestinian people. You can't be at war with Hamas in Gaza, and then be pursuing and reinforcing an occupation in the West Bank. That just doesn't work. You've got to have a Palestinian partner.

A Palestinian partner for you is key, first of all, to be able to say to the world, we are going to remove Hamas, but we're going to replace it with a legitimate decent Palestinian government. It's the key to having a regional lines that you need against Iran, because Israel's moderate Arab partners are not going to sign on to protect Israel, if it's perceived as trying to destroy the Palestinian people and not just Hamas. If Israel had a partner with a PA, that would make it much easier for UAE, Jordan, Egypt, Saudi Arabia to partner with Israel against Iran. Its Palestinian partner, stupid. It's the keystone to everything.

If Israel does not have that, Michael, it has no exit strategy for Gaza. It has no way of building a regional alliance against Iran. It has no plan for the morning after. It will have no international legitimacy.

SMERCONISH: This subject of future governance has been a consistent concern of Thomas Friedman since 10/7. Here's what most recently you wrote on it, "Together, about 7 million Israeli Jews would be permanently controlling about 5 million Palestinian Arabs in two occupied territories, which would be a moral economic and military overstretch that would delight Iran because it would hasten Israel's descent into being a global pariah."

My question, is it too late for a deal with the Saudis that which had been in the works up until 10/7?

FRIEDMAN: Was an important question, Michael, and the Saudi deal has two components. It has an American Saudi component that revolves around a mutual security treaty, a civilian nuclear program, and weapons transfers. But to get that U.S. Saudi component passed by the U.S. Congress, to facilitate that Saudi Arabia actually offered to normalize relations with Israel, provided Israel would provide some kind of Horizon or pathway to a two state solution for Palestinians. Netanyahu government is refusing to do that. So the administration while tying up the Saudi deal is now trying to figure out do they take the more limited deal to Congress and try to get it through where they promised from Saudi Arabia that it would normalize with Israel if and when an Israeli government came along, ready to do that?

Or does this just, you know, scotch the whole deal? I think that's all in discussion right now.

SMERCONISH: Final question, I want to put polling data from American youth on the screen, it raises the question of what Thomas Friedman thinks about the campus unrest. I don't know if you can see the screen, but take my word for it. The issues that college students are most important, most concerned about coming in last ninth of nine, the conflict in the Middle East. Your last column said that the protests on campuses are getting something wrong. What's the takeaway you want to leave us with?

FRIEDMAN: Well, you know, Michael, if you're only condemning Israeli violence against Palestinians and you're ignoring what Hamas did on October 7, you're not morally serious. If you're for a ceasefire now, and not for a return of hostages now, you're not morally serious, it seems to me. And if you're not talking about a two state solution but you're talking about a Palestinian state from the river to the sea, you're not morally serious. OK?

There's only one solution here. And that is two states for two indigenous people between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean. And if you're not for that, if you're not for ending the violence, and for a hostage release, if you're only condemning one side and not the other, you're not morally serious. And you're not going to be at all productive and helpful, because there's only one way out, two states for two people.

SMERCONISH: Let me read aloud a social media reaction and see if Tom wants to respond. Go ahead, Catherine (ph), put it on the screen. I'll read it aloud. Biden is making so many mistakes, it's disheartening. Tom Friedman you've written that he's the most pro-Israel president that we've ever had. Defend that view

[09:10:07]

FRIEDMAN: Well, you know, Joe Biden was the first president to actually pick up and go to Israel after this kind of violent attack, you know, from Palestinians. He did everything to give his Israel the military equipment it needed. He's stood up to defend Israel, at the United Nations. But the problem for Joe Biden, Michael, is he's actually a very decent, straightforward guy. He has not built, you know, to deal with a kind of sinister, cynical character like Benjamin Netanyahu, who is ready to use America, ready to use Biden to secure what is his top priority, the political survival of Benjamin Netanyahu, which he has put ahead of Israel's national interests.

Because Israel's national interest is to have a Palestinian partner. And Netanyahu refuses to do that, because he's in a cabinet that he formed with a bunch of right wing lunatics who refuse to consider any kind of Palestinian partner. And as long as that is the case, Israel cannot win in Gaza. It cannot win in the U.N., it cannot win on college campuses. It will not win.

SMERCONISH: Tom Friedman, thank you so much for coming back.

FRIEDMAN: Pleasure.

SMERCONISH: Up ahead, depending on who you ask, the Netflix Roast of Tom Brady was either way too raunchy and offensive or totally hilarious. I happen to be in the latter category. And I think people need to get their senses of humor back. But I want to know what you think. Go to my website at smerconish.com. Here's today's poll question inspired by a recent interview that Jerry Seinfeld gave to the New Yorker, Seinfeld blames extreme left PC crap and people worrying about offending for the lack of comedy on T.V. Do you agree with Jerry Seinfeld?

Plus, it was a dark and stormy week for Donald Trump in his hush money trial as adult film actress Stormy Daniels took the witness stand. But are the prosecutors successfully proving he's guilty of the crime that he's actually charged with falsification of business records? It's the subject of one of this week's exclusive editorial cartoons from my daily smerconish.com newsletter Jack Ohman. The Pulitzer Prize winner drew this for us.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:16:46]

SMERCONISH: It was a stormy week at the Trump hush money trial mixed in with much lower key forensic accounting of business ledger's and phone records. Adult film actress Stormy Daniels spent two days on the witness stand testifying and then being cross examined about her 2006 encounter with Donald Trump that led to the hush money payments just before the 2016 election. After the defense repeatedly tried to cast doubt on Daniels' story, character and motivation, she provocatively tweeted, "Real men respond to testimony by being sworn in and taking the stand in court. Oh, wait. Nevermind."

Trump's legal team tried to get Judge Juan Merchan to modify his gag order so that Trump could respond but the motion was denied. The jury finally saw a chart of those 34 business records that prosecutors allege were falsified, 11 invoices, 12 vouchers, 11 checks, which is why the indictment has 34 accounts. The prosecution despite saying that they would need six weeks to present their case now say they could wrap up next week, which will be the fourth week of testimony. So what's left, former Trump Attorney Michael Cohen. Joining me now is CNN Senior Legal Analyst and former federal prosecutor Elie Honig.

Elie, OK, I'm convinced. They convinced me, he wore the silk pajamas and he was not wearing something else that perhaps he should have been wearing. But having sex with an adult film star that's not illegal, nor is paying her for her silence. So, where are we on the important matter of Trump's intent?

ELIE HONIG, CNN SENIOR LEGAL ANALYST: So Michael, the key thing to keep in mind here as you say, wearing silk pajama is not a crime, having sex with a porn star, not a crime, paying hush money, not a crime, but knowing about paying hush money, not a crime. The charged crime here is falsification of business records. And to that end, I think prosecutors have made slow but steady progress, but they're not quite all the way there yet. And the person who is going to need to get them all the way there as Michael Cohen.

And here's what I mean. I think it's quite clear, based on the evidence we've seen so far, A, that stormy Daniels was paid $130,000 hush money. No question. B, that Donald Trump was aware of that. C, that Donald Trump knew he was reimbursing Michael Cohen over the subsequent months. But what you have to show is that Donald Trump was in on a plan to falsify business records.

Let's set this up. Let's structure the internal accounting on this to hide it to make it look like legal fees as opposed to a hush money payment, that's where the prosecution hasn't quite driven at home. That's what they need Michael Cohen to deliver for them this week.

SMERCONISH: So perhaps you are now about to school me as a criminal litigator. My expertise is in the civil realm. Lots of salacious information came in relative to Stormy Daniels. I don't understand it. And two times, Judge Merchan would not grant a mistrial.

But in his second explanation, I'm going to put up on the screen what was said at sidebar, Judge Merchan to -- here it is, to Ted Blanche, "In your opening statement you deny that there was ever a sexual encounter between Stormy Daniels and the defendant. Your denial puts the jury in a position of having to choose who they believe, Donald Trump who denies there was an encounter or Stormy Daniels who claims that there was.

Elie, an opening statement is not evidence. Is it appropriate for Judge Merchan to say, well, in your opening, here's what you said therefore, you open the door?

HONIG: So you're right. I think the statement by Judge Merchan is actually legally incorrect. The prosecution carries the burden of proof beyond a reasonable doubt always and forever. And for the judge to say this is going to come down to a contest of credibility before the judge -- before the jury who's telling the truth, Stormy Daniels or Donald Trump, that's just not correct. That if Donald Trump doesn't take the stand, and I don't think he will take the stand, it's not for the jury to say, well, who do I believe more?

[09:20:22]

It's for the jury to say, has the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Let me put that in another way to you. A lot of people have said, well, Michael Cohen, maybe he's a liar, but Donald Trump's a liar, too, so what? If the jury concludes, they're both big fat liars, which might be the case, guess what the verdict is, not guilty. So I actually think the judge misstates the burden of proof in that excerpt you just showed us.

SMERCONISH: OK. And you anticipated my next question, because when Judge Merchan talks about whose accountant do we believe, Stormy Daniels or Donald Trump? I think he's saying it's a case about sex. It's not a case about sex.

HONIG: Right, so this is a difficult line for prosecutors to walk here. I do think they needed to call Stormy Daniels not as a technical matter, but as a human matter, as explaining the case to the jury. I think it would have been really conspicuous if they had not called Stormy Daniels.

Now, when they got too deep, I think into the salacious details of the sex, and the judge did sustain several objections from Trump's team about the details, I guess the upside is the more details that Stormy Daniels gives tends to make her more credible, right? If she just said, well, I had sex with them in a hotel room in 2006, and that's it, that's not all that credible. But if she says, oh, I remember the magazine he was holding, I remember the pajamas, you tend to believe it more.

The downside for prosecutors though, is you get away from the ball, you get away from the ballgame here, which is falsification of business records. And the more time you spend in silk pajamas in that hotel room, the more the jury may be wondering, wait a second, the charge here is accounting, essentially. So, why are we spending so much time in detail in this hotel room? It's a tough call for prosecutors. I think they were right to call Stormy Daniels but I think they went too far into the nuances of it.

SMERCONISH: How much of this now rests on the shoulder, the successful prosecution, the rests on the shoulder of Michael Cohen?

HONIG: I wouldn't say virtually all of it, Michael. And I want to say this --

SMERCONISH: Wow.

HONIG: -- Michael Cohen is a unique witness, right? He has a history of lying unlike any witness that I've ever seen. He has a personal hatred for Donald Trump, beyond what I've ever seen from any witness taking the stand against a defendant. I mean two days ago, he did a video where he's wearing a goofy t-shirt showing Donald Trump in an orange jumpsuit behind bars, that's going to come back to haunt him.

But on the other hand, prosecutors have done a really good job. I think I coined the term this week, pre-corroborating Michael Cohen, a lot of what he's going to testify about. Not all of it, but a lot of it. They've already heard, they've already seen checks. They've seen handwriting on the internal accounting documents.

They've heard from other witnesses. And so a lot of what they're going to hear from Michael Cohen and prosecutors will argue just this in closing, they're going to say, folks, you don't need to take Michael Cohen at his word, because virtually everything he says is backed up. But the key point, did Donald Trump know, hey, we're going to falsify these records. We're going to call them attorney's fees to try to hide them. That little nuance is going to be the difference and the game changer and the one that should determine the verdict.

And I think that in isolation can only come from Michael Cohen.

SMERCONISH: Can I say you've been excellent. I've been watching the -- all of the commentators have been excellent, I'm -- your happen to be my personal fave. But I just think that the insight that has been provided in difficult circumstances, because we don't have cameras in the courtroom, and we ought to, but I think that CNN is doing the next best thing. So, keep it up. And thank you.

Oh, wait, stick around. Social media reaction in case I need to lean on you for this. What do we have, Catherine?

HONIG: Yes.

SMERCONISH: Waste of time and we look like a banana republic says a conservative with some tweaks. Elie Honig replies what?

HONIG: I disagree on both of those. I think there's a fair art -- I disagree that it's a waste of time, and I disagree that we look like a banana republic. I think there are fair criticisms which I have voiced of the judgment decision that Alvin Bragg made to bring this case. I think this case can certainly be criticized for dealing with old conduct, with conduct that the feds passed on with conduct that's marginal, especially when put against Donald Trump's other conduct, the January 6 and the classified documents. But I don't think that makes us into a show trial, I don't think this makes us into a banana republic.

What we're seeing, Michael, is a fair trial. The judge, generally speaking, I have some criticisms of him, I just voiced one. But by and large, he's running a fair and efficient trial. The lawyers for both sides have done a good and professional job. We have a jury that appears to be a fair jury.

Let's let this process play out. I don't personally care what the verdict is, I will respect the verdict from this jury. I think we've had a good fair and efficient trial. And I think it's a good statement about our judicial institutions.

SMERCONISH: OK. And I'll simply say that I almost stumbled on the teleprompter as I was reading the intro when I got to the part that said that they had this encounter in 2006. I think that's what it said.

[09:25:00]

HONIG: That's -- yes.

SMERCONISH: I'm like, 2006, this is 2024 like we're having this conversation now, really?

Elie, thank you.

HONIG: Yes. I have -- thanks, Michael.

SMERCONISH: Up ahead, still to come. Hey, I was disinvited from delivering a commencement speech this year. Have you heard? So instead, I'm going to deliver it here.

Also, why is this man smiling? The Tom Brady roast on Netflix scored major points as the platform's number one top show millions of watch. But my next guest argues the three hour comedy special was cruel. Here's one of the jokes by Nikki Glaser.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

NIKKI GLASER, AMERICAN COMEDIAN AND ACTRESS: You were tired, then you came back and then you were tired again. I mean, I get it. It's hard to walk away from something that's not your pregnant girlfriend. It's tough.

Hey, to be fair, he didn't know she was pregnant. He just thought she was getting fat.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: I want to know what you think. Go to my website at smerconish.com. This is a unique question. Jerry Seinfeld blames extreme left PC crap and people worrying about offending for the lack of comedy on T.V. Do you agree with Jerry Seinfeld? Go to smerconish.com and vote.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:30:47]

SMERCONISH: So, did the greatest roast of all time for retired quarterback and NFL legend Tom Brady cross a line, or were the jokes fair game?

The three-hour Netflix special pulled in more than 2 million views on Sunday when it streamed live, featuring some the biggest names in sports and Hollywood taking jabs at the seven-time Super Bowl champion and three-time MVP Tom Brady. The roast took more than two years to prepare and currently ranks as the number one show on Netflix in the U.S.

Despite its massive success, critics argue the roast should have never streamed live due to several punchlines targeting Brady's ex-wife, Gisele Bundchen.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

KEVIN HART, COMEDIAN: (EXPLETIVE DELETED) coach. But let me tell you something, people. Let me tell you something. That's what you got to do to maintain your happiness. You understand? You sometimes got to (EXPLETIVE DELETED) your coach. You know who else (EXPLETIVE DELETED) their coach? Gisele, she (EXPLETIVE DELETED) karate man.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Tom appeared to be a good sport for most of the night. Things took an awkward turn when comedian Jeff Ross made a joke about New England Patriots' owner Robert Kraft, involving an incident at a massage parlor back in 2019.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

JEFF ROSS, COMEDIAN: That scrawny rookie famously walked into the owner Robert Kraft's office and said, I'm the best decision the organization has ever made. Would you like a massage? I love Robert Kraft.

TOM BRADY, NFL LEGEND: Never say that shit again.

ROSS: OK. OK. (END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: The vice president for stand-up and comedy formats at Netflix defended the special saying, quote, "Nothing is off limits. That's what makes it must-see television."

Even Travis and Jason Kelce, the Kelce brothers, who of course are NFL players found the roast entertaining.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRAVIS KELCE, KANSAS CITY CHIEFS PLAYER: That was unbelievable. First off, everybody involved, hats off. I had been in tears the whole, like, last, like, day just watching the clips and everything. That shit had me rolling because of how at everybody's neck people were going.

JASON KELCE, FORMER NFL PLAYER: I mean, it was pure entertainment and I'm really happy they did it. But I do not -- I just do not get the roast. I don't understand why people do them. Like --

TRAVIS KELCE: Because it's comedy.

JASON KELCE: Maybe I take myself too seriously.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Joining me now is Sally Jenkins, columnist for the "Washington Post." Her latest piece is called "The Tom Brady roast was a Super Bowl of cruelty."

Sally, welcome back. I get that the jokes viewed in a vacuum. They do seem cruel. For me, it worked because the humor was an equal opportunity offender. Like it got everybody by the end of the night. Why was that not enough for you?

SALLY JENKINS, COLUMNIST, THE WASHINGTON POST: Well, because the person who is really roasted was not Tom Brady. It was his ex-wife, primarily. That is number one.

Actually, people didn't really lay too much of a glove on Tom Brady. He came out pretty unscathed, number one. Number two, it just wasn't that funny. I mean, Kevin Hart's not that funny. None of the ball players were especially funny. Peyton Manning was funny.

SMERCONISH: No.

JENKINS: Peyton Manning was funny. Bill Belichick was pretty funny. Peyton Manning was funny. The rest of them not so funny.

SMERCONISH: OK. Admittedly, you are talking to someone whose sense of humor in movies is a debate as to whether Caddyshack, Animal House, or Slap Shot are the best movie of all time. So, I cap (ph) to all of that.

(CROSSTALK) JENKINS: Me too. Timeless classics, all three. Those are funny. Funny is Wanda Sykes.

SMERCONISH: OK.

JENKINS: This would have been great -- this would have been a great line for Tom Brady. Funny is Wanda Sykes saying, stop calling men dogs. Men aren't dogs. Dogs are loyal, right?

You don't find women's panties in a doghouse. That's funny. Wanda Sykes is funny.

SMERCONISH: That's good.

JENKINS: (INAUDIBLE) funny. Kevin Hart -- Kevin Hart, not funny. It was -- look, just screaming profanity into a microphone is not funny. There has to be some wit and some point to it.

The point of the comedy too often was Gisele Bundchen or Bridget Moynahan. That was just stupid and cruel and pointless.

[09:35:01]

Peyton Manning basically saying to Tom Brady, you know, talking smack about Tom Brady in our house is called thanksgiving. That was funny.

SMERCONISH: By the way, I thought -- it's interesting that you say this. I thought Drew Bledsoe was great, perfect self-deprecating, and I love it. I want to roll some Gronk. Let me roll Gronk for Sally Jenkins, then you can respond to him. Play it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

ROB GRONKOWSKI, FORMER NFL PLAYER: But, Tom, I really am psyched tonight that we got you and Bill here tonight. Everyone thinks you guys hate each other.

But I saw firsthand, you two are exactly alike. You're both hard asses that hate fun. You both live and breathe football. Neither of you are married anymore. You're both even divorced from football, and both of you take full credit for the dynasty.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: I thought that Gronk was as much a target as was Gisele. What did you make of him?

JENKINS: I did. Actually, Gronkowski was still one of the few football players on the stage who actually had a sense that stuff wasn't that funny. He actually looked quite uncomfortable about some of the jokes directed at Gisele, which I found interesting because he was targeted all night as like this dumb, you know, ape (ph) kind of a guy which also wasn't that funny. So, I thought Gronkowski was one of the few guys who actually showed a little taste and discernment about comedy.

SMERCONISH: What do you -- what do you make of Seinfeld's comment? I'll put it on the screen and I'll read it aloud, not said with specificity to Brady, but I see it as relevant.

It used to be that you would go home at the end of the day, most people would go, oh, "Cheers" is on. Oh, "MASH" is on. Oh, "Mary Tyler Moore" is on. "All in the Family" is on. You just expected there'll be some funny stuff we can watch on TV.

And then he said, well, guess what -- where is it? This is the result of the extreme left and PC crap, and people worrying so much about offending other people.

Can you buy into that?

JENKINS: I can. I actually don't disagree with that at all. I mean, I'm a free speech absolutist. You know, I'm not -- I'm not saying, oh, you know, take the roast off the air.

I mean, look, I miss that kind of comedy too. I just think that the dumbing down of comedy is the problem here. And some of it comes from the right and some comes from the left. I think its equal opportunity cancel culture going on.

But I agree. I think the great comedies of the 70s and 80s, I really miss them. Yes, totally.

SMERCONISH: Can I also -- can I also say -- I don't mean in Sally Jenkins' defense because you don't need a defense. But what I appreciated about your column, even though we see this differently, is that you gave us some lines, like, here's what funny is. And they were ribald. It's not as if you're a prude. You get the final word.

JENKINS: No. I mean, look -- look, I grew up with Dan Jenkins who is one of the most (INAUDIBLE) writers of --

SMERCONISH: Semi-tough.

JENKINS: -- (INAUDIBLE). So, you know, can I -- can I stake a claim and say, look, I know funny. I grew up with funny. So, I think I'm a pretty fair arbiter about funny.

Robin Williams, one of the funniest men who ever lived. Richard Pryor, you know, when he said -- when Richard Pryor says, you know, I'm not addicted to cocaine. I just like the smell. You know, I mean, that was funny.

A lot of great comedy -- a lot of great comedy is self-directed. Chris Rock's comedy can be very, very self-directed. Wanda Sykes makes fun of her own family. It's not like they're off limit targets. It's just that it better have a point and it better have some real wit behind it. Otherwise, it's really just --

SMERCONISH: Thank you.

JENKINS: -- crudity. And crudity is simply stupid.

SMERCONISH: Thank you, Sally. Appreciate it. It's a great conversation. JENKINS: My pleasure.

SMERCONISH: All right. Still to come, hey, I was disinvited from delivering a commencement speech this year. So, instead, I'm going to deliver it to all have you in just a moment. And don't forget, vote on today's poll question at Smerconish.com. It is exactly what I was just talking about with Sally Jenkins.

Jerry Seinfeld blames extreme left, PC crap, and people worrying about offending for the lack of comedy on TV. Do you agree or disagree?

Sign up for my free daily newsletter. You're going to get exclusive editorial cartoons from the legends. Rob Rogers drew this. I love it.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:43:42]

SMERCONISH: As you may know, I was disinvited from delivering a college commencement address after some students objected to a book that I wrote 20 years ago in the shadow of 9/11. My social media tells the entire story if you want more detail.

But here's the abridged version of what I would have said to the class of 2024. First, congratulations. COVID robbed you of pomp and circumstance when you were in high school. And now the tumult of college campus protests has denied some of an orderly graduation ceremony. Your experience is itself confirmation of the complex world that you're now entering.

We're post-pandemic. All you've ever known is a climate of political dysfunction. Our economy is beset by inflation, and the cost of your education was staggering. Climate change poses an existential threat. War rages in the Middle East and Ukraine. And whether the benefits of artificial intelligence outweigh the potential harm is the subject of robust debate.

It's a lot. And still, none of it is the most important challenge we face as Americans. Instead, it's the fraying of our national fabric. We've been told so often that our differences define us that we're starting to act like it. And we can't count on politicians to provide us the necessary leadership.

[09:45:00]

They're a large part of the problem. Like media influencers, the status quo is well-suited to their self-preservation but not ours. This polarization has been building for a while but was made worse by that which is often labeled connectivity. Instead, technology has disconnected us.

Don't get me wrong, like you, I'm dependent upon Google, and Uber, Waze, and Open Table. But we're spending too much of our time staging our lives for digital sharing without experiencing them shoulder-to- shoulder in real time. Speaking of which, I've been a guest of Bill Maher on several occasions. You probably know that he ends each program with a pithy often ribald commentary. Well, two years ago, he said something that stuck with me.

He said, quote, "Our real division isn't between red and blue, it's between the people on both sides who aren't willing to mingle with Americans outside their political tribes, so that they have no idea what they're really like."

It's so true. As Bill Bishop noted in his book "The Big Sort," the internet has made it too easy to spend time among the like-minded and segregated from contrary opinions as well as those who hold them.

What we lack most is common experience of the sort that our parents often enjoyed and our grandparents took for granted. Places where we can congregate and commune with those of diverse interests, backgrounds, and perspectives.

Robert Putnam saw the demise of all of this coming when he wrote about social capital in a book of 2000 titled "Bowling Alone." He was referencing the glue that binds our communities and, hence, the nation. When those bonds don't exist, we're not there to help one another, and the less fortunate suffer the most.

Economist Raj Chetty's research proved that. He showed that cross- class friendships have a stronger impact than school quality, family structure, job availability, or even a community's racial composition. It turns out the people, you know, open up opportunities, and the growing class divide in the United States it closes them off.

All this division, enabled by technology, has been linked to an alarming spike in mental health problems faced by your generation in particular. Surgeon General Vivek Murthy has called loneliness the crisis of our time.

The good news is that we're not as divided as you've been led to believe. Data shows that we still hold core American values in common. There's been no monumental shift in our issue positions in the last half-century. So, it's time for a national coming together. We have to surrender our superficial differences and re-establish social and economic connectedness.

So, as you embark on your careers, please give added consideration to citizenship. Ask yourself, how will you serve your neighborhood and your nation? Maybe it will be volunteer work or supporting youth athletics, student exchange programs. Become a big brother or big sister, or otherwise, figure out how you can be a mentor.

Don't discount organized religion if you are a person of faith, whatever that faith might be. And support local media. The opportunities are unlimited.

Here's one more book recommendation "The Good Life." It details a multi-generational study that began in 1938 and continues today. Every two years, the participants, they have to answer lengthy intrusive questionnaires. Every five years, they surrender their medical records. Every 15 years, they're interviewed face-to-face.

What's the goal? To unlock the age-old question of what makes a good life. So, what did the researchers learn? Well, some surveys today say that your generation has aspirations of being rich and famous. That's understandable. But neither is the key to a good life.

Instead, the key to a good life is social fitness. Good relationships keep us happier, healthier, and help us live longer. People who are most satisfied in their relationships at age 50 were the healthiest mentally and physically at age 80.

Building meaningful, satisfying, personal relationships it's in your best interest and that of the nation. When we're together, we tell each other our life stories. We practice empathy, we build connections, and we strengthen our social fitness. And we build a foundation to solve the significant problems that we face as citizens.

Dickinson College Class of 2024 and all other graduates, go forth and mingle. Thank you.

Still to come, more of your best and worst social media comments. And don't forget to vote on today's poll question at Smerconish.com. Jerry Seinfeld blames extreme left, PC crap, and people worrying about offending for the lack of comedy on TV.

[09:50:05]

Do you agree or disagree? And while you're there, be sure to sign up for the free daily newsletter. You're going to get exclusive content from political cartoonists like two-time Pulitzer Prize winner Steve Breen. Check that out.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SMERCONISH: There's your poll result on today's poll questions, so far, at Smerconish -- two-thirds agreeing with Jerry Seinfeld.

[09:55:02]

That's pretty, pretty interesting. Social media reaction. Catherine, what do we have on today's poll question?

Seinfeld is refreshingly candid and correct. Now, let's see if he gets canceled.

I have to just say relative to Brady and the Netflix special, I met Tom Brady for the first time a month ago. What do you say when you meet Tom Brady? In my case, I shook his hand and I said, loved you in "Ted 2," which tells you just how juvenile my sense of humor is.

One more social media reaction. What do we have?

Admiral Stavridis, former NATO supreme allied commander. I love it. I'm not even going to read it aloud. He's like embracing my speech and saying that the college who canceled me missed an opportunity. And, of course, I agree with that. One last thought and it is this. To my mother, your mothers, my wife, happy Mother's Day. Have a wonderful day tomorrow. Thank you for watching.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)