Return to Transcripts main page

Smerconish

What Do The Wars In Ukraine & Iran Have In Common. Interview With Allen Media Group Founder, Chairman And CEO Byron Allen. Aired 9- 10a ET

Aired May 16, 2026 - 09:00   ET

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

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:00:33]

MICHAEL SMERCONISH, CNN ANCHOR: Battered both ways. But as the Brits say, bang on. I'm Michael Smerconish in the Philly burbs. I'm prepared to be in the minority again, but it doesn't dissuade me.

In many media quarters, the most notable aspect of President Trump's two day visit to China are what he said on the way over and what he said on the way back. And both were portrayed as faux pas. But both made complete sense, at least to me.

Just before boarding a flight to China for that summit with President Xi Jinping, a reporter asked whether Americans financial pain was motivating him to make a deal with Iran. And he gave an answer that people are still talking about.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: When you're negotiating with Iran, Mr. President, to what extent are American financial situations motivating you to make a deal?

DONALD TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES: Not even a little bit. The only thing that matters when I'm talking about Iran, they can't have a nuclear weapon. I don't think about American's financial situation. I don't think about anybody.

I think about one thing. We cannot let Iran have a nuclear weapon. That's all.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Not even a little bit became the headline. Talk shows, social media exploded. Can you believe he said the quiet part out loud? He doesn't give a damn about the American people.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And he literally is saying, I'm not worried about you. I don't even think about you. I'm worried about an endless war. UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: The truest thing he may have said ever, ever in his life, I've never heard him be so honest, I literally don't think --

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Don't care. Yes.

UNIDENTIFIED FEMALE: -- about the American people.

JOY BEHAR, "THE VIEW" HOST: Because now he's at the point in his mental disorders that he is now speaking the truth.

HARRY ENTEN, CNN SENIOR ANALYST: Oh my goodness gracious. The American people are hearing what he's saying about the cost of living in their finances and they think it's one of the dopiest things they have ever heard come out of Donald Trump's mouth is what he said today. And it comes at a point in which his net approval rating on the economy, according to our new CNN poll, is 40 points underwater.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: I'm sure not even a little bit is going to star in plenty of Democratic midterm ads. But here's the truth. President Trump gave the only answer he could have given. Yes, the economic pain is real. Inflation hit 3.8 percent in April.

Gas prices sky high. A CNN poll showing 70 percent of Americans disapprove of his handling of the economy. Seventy-seven percent including majority of Republicans say that his policies have driven up the cost of living. But the people stomping on Trump for that answer are missing the point entirely. He wasn't talking to us, he was speaking to Iran.

Think about it. The president is just about to be wheels up for Beijing where his single most important agenda item is persuading Xi Jinping to help squeeze Iran on its nuclear program and end the war. Here's the president last night with Bret Baier.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: When you tell somebody you're going to have to pay a little more, not that much more, a little more for gasoline, for a very short period of time because we want to stop the threat of being blown to pieces by a lunatic, by a crazy person and they are crazy, using nuclear weapons. Everybody says that's fine. And that question was a fake question and they didn't put my full answer. I totally care.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: The strongest remaining weapon in Iran's arsenal, it's not their navy or missile systems, it's American impatience. If President Trump had stood at that microphone and said, boy, I sure hope we can keep this up for a little bit longer because the economy is really taking a toll. That would have been a gift wrapped signal to Tehran that we're looking for a way out.

And this isn't new with Trump. When the war began, he posted apocalyptic warnings on social media. Surely you remember, "Open the effing straight, you crazy bastards." People said oh, he's lost his mind. They talked about invoking the 25th Amendment.

I sat here and I argued that what Americans weren't understanding is they weren't the intended audience. Iran was. Same thing here. And then it happened again, this time on the way home when the president was asked about Taiwan. At the summit, Xi Jinping called Taiwan the most important issue in U.S.-China relations and warned that mishandling it could push the two countries toward collision or conflict.

President Trump spoke about Taiwan on the way home.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

TRUMP: We discussed arms sales too.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: And what's his request?

[09:05:00]

TRUMP: We discussed the Taiwan, you know, the whole thing with the arms sales was in great detail actually and I'll be making decisions, but, you know, I think the last thing we need right now is a war that's 9,500 miles away. I think that's the last thing we need. We're doing very well.

UNIDENTIFIED MALE: Will the U.S. defend Taiwan, if it came to it?

TRUMP: I don't want to say it. I'm not going to say that. There's only one person that knows that. You know who it is? Me.

I'm the only person. That question was asked to me today by President Xi. I said, I don't talk about that.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: So now Trump's unwillingness to confirm arms sales to Taiwan, that became the story. That and his refusal to say whether the U.S. would come to Taiwan's defense in the event of a China attack. Arguably, the bigger story was Trump's revelation that Xi had directly asked Trump whether the U.S. would defend Taiwan if China attacked. Think about that for a moment. The leader of China flat out asked.

The question alone tells you everything about where Beijing's head is. If Xi really said that to Trump, it suggests that Xi is looking to invade Taiwan and he's looking for a green light from the United States to do so. That's a monumental admission of an intention to go to war. And it's an undiplomatic none of Xi's business question to Trump.

According to the New York Times, Trump gave Xi no response. I said, I don't talk about those things. That's not a dodge. That's not a weakness. That's a long standing U.S. policy of strategic ambiguity and the only answer that keeps China guessing. And still critics pounced again. Taiwan itself issued a statement reaffirming Trump's long standing commitment to their defense. But what kind of diplomacy would it have been had Trump, just after leaving China, just having been solicitous of Xi's involvement in ending the war in Iran, instead said, yes, we're going to arm Taiwan to the teeth. It would have destroyed any prospect of achieving his larger objective.

For China, the summit was all about Taiwan. But for the US it's all about Iran. So people can clutch their pearls all they want. On both occasions, Trump said exactly what the moment required, not for our consumption, but for the audience that really mattered, Iran, a country that needs to be kept from getting a nuclear weapon.

And by the way, there are plenty of other things for you to criticize President Trump for saying legitimately. You can start with him calling David Sanger of the New York Times treasonous, that was out of bounds.

None of this is to sidestep an important question that looms now that he's home. And it's this. Should the United States sell arms to Taiwan for its self-defense? Go to my website at smerconish.com and vote on today's poll question.

My next guest, Richard Clarke, says there's a larger lesson here. In a new op-ed that we published at smerconish.com titled "Gulliver's Defeats," he writes that just as Russia discovered in Ukraine, superpowers can still find themselves stymied by smaller, more adaptive adversaries. He joins me now.

Richard Clarke, of course, served for 30 years in national security roles in the U.S. government, including 10 years in the White House under the three American presidents. He's the CEO of Good Harbor Security Management.

So, Richard, two big wars at the same time, started by two big countries but not finished. What are the parallels that you see?

RICHARD CLARKE, FORMER WHITE HOUSE COUNTER-TERRORISM ADVISER: Well, there are about five. First of all, Russia and the United States both started these wars. These were wars of choice. They both assumed that they were attacking a weaker, much weaker power, at least on paper, and therefore they could win. They're now in a stalemate, both of them.

They're both being hurt. The leaders are being hurt politically at home and their economies at home are being hurt. And they're both talking about how the war will be over soon. It's clear they both want to find a way out. And I think the thing they have most in common is they failed to anticipate what the enemy would do.

SMERCONISH: In the case of Iran, do you think that the U.S. didn't anticipate, didn't war game or strategize for the possibility of the closure of the Strait of Hormuz?

CLARKE: Well, it's possible that the military did, but it's unlikely that that word got up to the president in the clear bright lights. It should have if anybody had done a war game. And by the way, Michael, we've been doing this war game now for over 40 years, fighting Iran in the Persian Gulf. If anybody had done a war game, they would have realized that Iran's immediate response would be to try to close the Straits of Hormuz. The fact that the U.S. military had nothing in place to deal with that contingency suggests to me that they either didn't do the war game or if they did the war game, they ignored the results.

[09:10:09]

The key in fighting a tabletop war game to prepare yourself for the real thing, is to empower the enemy to win. The team of Americans who are playing the enemy in the tabletop war game have to be allowed to be creative, innovative, and to win. Only if the enemy wins in the war game do you learn something valuable. You learn how they could do it, and then in the real world, you adjust your plan so they can't do it, or if they do, you'll have something to deal with it.

SMERCONISH: With regard to Iran, Brett Baier asked the president a question last night as to whether we'd underestimated pain endurance on the part of Iran. I want you to watch and then comment. Roll it.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

BRET BAIER, FOX NEWS HOST: So why are we where we are? Did you underestimate the pain tolerance that Iran has for their --

TRUMP: I didn't underestimate anything. We hit them unbelievably hard.

Look, we left their bridges, we left their electricity capacity. We can knock that all out in two days. Two days, everything. We left Cargill, and other than I said hit it except for the valves, where the oil comes out.

(END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: Richard, I'm sure what he says is true. What occurs to me, though, is for Iran to, quote, "win," all they have to do is not lose. Will you untangle that?

CLARKE: Well, that's right. And we're not dealing with a democracy here. We're dealing with a dictatorship that killed 35 or 40,000 people in a weekend because they were protesting, killed them. So this is not a country where the leadership has to really worry about what the people think. And therefore, the president's right when he says he probably did anticipate that they have a high pain tolerance.

What he didn't anticipate, or the U.S. government didn't anticipate, more accurately, the intelligence community, are two things. One, the size of their ballistic missile inventory. They have about half of their ballistic missiles and launchers left, even after the 13,000 attacks we staged on the country. And two, how they would go about closing the straits. The administration says a lot that we've sunk their navy. They no longer have a navy. That's true. They also don't need a conventional navy. They're doing asymmetrical warfare. They're playing by a different set of rules than we are.

They're using small boats, speedboats, things you would go out fishing with. They're using mini submarines that we didn't find. It didn't blow up. And it only takes, Michael, one or two mines going off, blowing up a U.S. ship, blowing up a tanker to stop all the traffic through the straits. So somebody didn't anticipate that.

Somebody underestimated the enemy.

SMERCONISH: Is this the new norm post-World War II in that wars don't end decisively? I'm thinking about Vietnam, I'm thinking about Iraq. I'm frankly sitting here spitballing and I'm hard pressed to identify a conflict that there was a decisive victor post-World War II. Enlighten me.

CLARKE: Well, I'd like to thank the George Herbert Walker Bush. Bush 41 --

SMERCONISH: OK. The first Gulf War.

CLARKE: -- had a very decisive victory --

SMERCONISH: Yes.

CLARKE: -- in the first Gulf War. Extremely decisive.

SMERCONISH: Right.

CLARKE: We specified the goal very precisely. We didn't exceed that goal. We didn't keep on the road to Baghdad, which we thought about, but that would have been the mistake. And he won extraordinarily decisively, and that rebounded to American prestige throughout the world.

This stalemate is doing the exact opposite. When you are a superpower, part of the power comes from what people think you can do. When you then prove that you can't do it, your power diminishes. And right now, we have proven that we cannot beat Iran at its own game.

SMERCONISH: Richard, we appreciate your expertise. Thank you for the essay that you allowed me to publish as well.

What are your thoughts at home? Hit me up on social media. I'll read some responses throughout the course of the program. You can find me on YouTube, you can find me on Facebook, you can find me on X.

I am not going to go to war to fight China over Taiwan. We need to make our own chips and stay out of that deal.

OK, Lane, so therefore I don't know that we're prepared. I don't know that the nation is prepared. That's this notion of strategic ambiguity. But to your point, what then? I'm defending the President's strategic ambiguity en route home from China in the same way that I'm defending, as you heard me said, what he said on the way over, relative to American pain, endurance.

But what then should he have said on the way home other than the way that he did handle it, which was to leave some mystery surrounding exactly what the U.S. position is. If our position is the same as that response, we're not going to go carry their water. We're not going to fight for Taiwan. He shouldn't have said that, right? And he didn't.

[09:15:16]

And he didn't. That's my point.

I want to know what you think. Will you please go to my website at smerconish.com and answer today's poll question, should the United States sell arms to Taiwan for its self-defense?

Up ahead, nearly 1/3 of Americans, how can this be? Nearly one third of Americans believe that at least one of the three attempts on President Trump's life was staged. I'm going to explain why today's conspiracy theories may be more dangerous than the old ones.

When you're voting on the poll question, sign up for my daily newsletter, it's free, it's worthy at smerconish.com. You'll get the work of the likes of Eric Allie.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

SMERCONISH: Nearly a third of Americans believe that at least one of the three attempts on President Trump's life was staged. That's the finding from a stunning new survey by NewsGuard and YouGov. Respondents were asked about each incident individually. The Butler rally In July of 2024, the golf course in West Palm beach that September, and then the White House Correspondent dinner last month.

[09:20:10]

And with regard to each of the three incidents, respondents were asked to reply to each claim with a response of true, false, or not sure. And for every single one of the three attempts, a majority of Americans answered that it was either staged or they weren't sure, averaging 54 percent across all three incidents. In each case, Democrats were far more likely to believe the conspiracy than were Republicans. Forty-two percent of Democrats think the Butler shooting where Corey Comperatore was murdered and two others were critically wounded was staged, while only 7 percent of Republicans agree.

And the Trump assassination attempts are hardly the only conspiracy theories that seem to have gotten automatic and widespread acceptance from both parties in recent years. I found an explanation about this in a book published in 2019 before any of the assassination attempts, but it explains the acceptance of conspiracy.

This week on SiriusXM, I interviewed Russell Muirhead, professor of democracy and politics at Dartmouth College, co-author with Harvard's Nancy Rosenblum of "A Lot of People Are Saying: The New Conspiracism and the Assault on Democracy." Their argument, in short, conspiracies has traveled from the margins to the mainstream. Today, no official action is immune to being labeled a conspiracy.

And while conspiracism is nothing new, what is new is conspiracy without the theory. Think about that. Conspiracy without the theory. Unlike the conspiracy surrounding something like JFK's assassination, where people actually constructed elaborate alternative explanations, today there seems to be little interest in explanation at all. Lazy conspiracies thrives on vague assertion alone.

It's enough to say the system is rigged. It's enough to say the election was stolen, no backup required, just repetition. And it runs the risk of delegitimizing democracy itself.

(BEGIN VIDEO CLIP)

RUSSEL MUIRHEAD, CO-AUTHOR: "A LOT OF PEOPLE ARE SAYING": Absolutely. It used to be that, you know, conspiracy theories were real theories. People worked hard on them. As you said, they weren't lazy. They were like investigative journalists or scholars.

They probed, you know, anomalies in official explanations, things that didn't make sense. And they looked for alternate facts or facts that were being hidden, shrouded by the official account.

And look, sometimes their accounts were far-fetched. The term conspiracy theorist is almost a synonym for somebody who's, you know, not -- whose cognitive capacities are kind of in a runaway loop. But hey, every once in a while, and maybe more than once a while, they got it right. Because of their hard work, they're able to hold power to account and reveal betrayal. Today's conspiracy theorists just dispense with the theory.

They're not doing any real research, they're not doing any work, they're just asserting things. And because of our new communications technology, when I go on X and assert something, millions of people can read it, I can share it with the whole world for free. And so anyone else who doesn't like reality, anyone who wants to make their own reality, can tap in to my latest -- to whatever the latest conspiratorial assertion is that's out there in the world.

SMERCONISH: Today all you got to do is hit the send key.

MUIRHEAD Yes. It's actually -- totally. I mean it's -- I'm still, as a -- as an old guy, I'm totally flabbergasted. Even though we've been with this technology for over a decade. It used to be really hard to share your thoughts with other people.

And you had to get them past a producer. And one of the things that producer would ask is, hey, is this true? Is this corroborated? Is there evidence to support it? If the answer was no, you weren't going to get on the radio, you weren't going to get on T.V., you weren't going to get column inches of a valuable, you know, newspaper space.

Now you can say anything to, you know, anyone -- everyone in the whole world for free. And that, you know, has eradicated the sort of, you know, the function of producers and editors and asking, hey, is this true? So yes, we're in a new world. (END VIDEO CLIP)

SMERCONISH: I've got an illustration that makes this concrete. The Kennedy assassination has been the subject of endless speculation for more than half a century. So I reached out for Gerald Posner. He wrote the bestseller "Case Closed" supporting the Warren Commission's Conclusion that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. In other words, not a conspiracy.

And Posner told me that he believes that more than 2,000 books have been written embracing some form of JFK conspiracy. Wikipedia puts the number between a thousand and 2,000. And the source for the higher figure is a 2007 academic study by a University of Mississippi history professor named Peter Knight. That number includes self-published titles and everything with an ISBN identifier. And more books have been published since then.

[09:25:00]

So let's call it over 2,000. Now compare that to the stolen 2020 election. How many books have been written arguing that the election was stolen? Almost none. Almost none.

There's Mollie Hemingway's "Rigged," Christina Bobb's "Stealing Your Vote," and Peter Navarro self-published three volume series. Beyond that, search Amazon and you mostly find parody, blank page joke books with titles like all the proof the 2020 election was stolen. That's not a coincidence. That's the entire point.

The JFK conspiracy literature, 2000 books over six decades represents the old conspiracism. It built arguments, it named suspects. It marshaled evidence however flawed. Debate has flourished about the Zapruder film, the man on the grassy knoll, Oswald's skill as a marksman and his meeting at the Cuban consulate and the Soviet embassy in Mexico City. The stolen election claim needed none of that.

It spread through tweets and rallies and T.V. appearances. "Rigged" doesn't require 300 pages. It just requires repetition or someone to say, a lot of people are saying.

Let's see what you're saying on social media. Hit me up during the course of the program, maybe I will read your reaction.

He was bleeding, which would indicate damage, but there's no scar or missing section of his ear.

OK, you know what, this is incredible. And my producers don't know I have makeup on, so you might not see. You might not see. I cut my head shaving this week. It was a -- it was a beast.

The head bleeds. It's somewhere like right here. OK. Now you might not see it now because it healed, but I was bleeding profusely into the sink on Wednesday morning, 5:00.

I want to remind you, go to my website at smerconish.com and answer today's poll question, should the United States sell arms to Taiwan for, for its self-defense?

Still to come, more of your social media reaction. And then in 1979, he was an 18-year-old overnight sensation. The youngest comedian to ever perform for Johnny Carson. Now, 34 years to the day after Carson's final show, Byron Allen is making his own late night history. The media mogul's remarkable story and his disciplined mission to put comedy front and center.

You'll hear that in a moment. Be sure to sign up for my newsletter at smerconish.com, you'll get the work of illustrators like Steve Breen.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:31:40]

SMERCONISH: Hey, follow me on X or YouTube or Facebook, all the usual places, if you'd like your voice potentially heard during the course of the program.

Smerconish Trumpsplaining again. Justifying the lunacy. It must be -- it must be Saturday morning on CNN.

Yes, it certainly is. OK. JD, I'm going to take you seriously now. And we're going to have this conversation. So, Smerconish is Trumpsplaining again.

What is Smerconish saying? Smerconish is saying that Trump was unfairly criticized for his comments when he was headed toward Beijing, when he was asked about the impact of economic pain here at home relative to his negotiations with Iran. And he said he doesn't take it into consideration.

I would have said it differently, but what he said is entirely defensible. What's the alternative? Yes, I'm really worried about Americans and their grocery prices and the price at the pump et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. And I may have to fold our tent on Iran as a consequence.

You want to telegraph that kind of weakness? I mean, here's what I would have said if I were President Trump. I would have said, I think -- you know, I'm sympathetic. I'm empathetic to Americans who are paying higher gas prices. But I think Americans are willing to pay more at the pump so as to avert Iran ever having a nuclear weapon.

And then on the way home, when he's on Air Force One, and now he's asked about Taiwan having, I imagine, just tried to cajole Xi into using his influence over Iran to end that war and to limit their nuclear capability. Now, he's asked about Taiwan, and what's he supposed to say? I'm going to arm Taiwan to the teeth and piss off Xi, who he's now hoping is going to do him a solid relative to Iran? It makes no sense.

OK, so that's Smerconish Trumpsplaining for Trump. But did you miss the part where I said there are plenty of legitimate things that you can criticize the president for? And let us start with him saying that David Sanger was treasonous. That comment was outrageous. You know, and I got to say, you watch that tape as I have done. What's most amazing is that David Sanger is such a professional that he just stands there. He's got his microphone out on Air Force One. President says what he wants to say. Sanger lets him go. Sanger doesn't -- I would never have been able to hold back if I were Sanger.

I would have like, you know, are you blanking me, Mr. President? But he just stood there like a gentleman. And then Trump gave him more questions because like, Trump gets it. They're playing a game. They're playing a game. But he should not have called Sanger treasonous.

Sanger is a hell of a reporter. Sanger was one of three reporters that "The New York Times" sent into the Oval Office to spend like three or four hours with Trump a couple of months ago. Sorry, did I get too long-winded?

One more. I can do it. Let's do it. You wind me up on these things.

You mentioned the polls about assassination attempts. How do you expect people to react when a man is charged for an assassination attempt when he wasn't even on the same floor as the man they claimed that he was? Man is charged for an assassination attempt when he wasn't even on the same floor.

The guy was clearly there -- I'm not even sure. Cherry, what the hell are you saying? I mean, that guy, if you're talking about at the White House Correspondents' Association dinner, he bursts through the magnetometers, you know, with his weapons out.

[09:35:07]

You think he was there without malevolent intent? Of course, he was there to do harm. And it was assassination -- an assassination attempt.

I can't believe -- I can't believe that so many people buy into this craziness that it's all staged without any proof whatsoever. Now that's Smerconish Trumpsplaining again, right? But now, let me give you the criticism of Trump.

If you walk around saying fake news, fake news, fake news, then people are going to start to doubt their institutions and their reports of assassination attempts. That's the weave.

Don't forget to vote on the poll question today at Smerconish.com. It is this. See, I'm cordially inviting you now. Should the United States sell arms to Taiwan for its self-defense?

Still to come, I love this story. The man owns the Weather Channel. He's acquiring BuzzFeed and HuffPost, and now he's buying the time slot previously held by Stephen Colbert. But if you think that Byron Allen's move into CBS late night is some kind of a vanity project, then you don't know his story. I'm going to show you his path from a seven-year-old fleeing Detroit to the landlord of the airwaves. It's an inspiring conversation, and it lies ahead.

One more time, I ask, sign up for the newsletter when you go to Smerconish.com. You'll get the work of illustrators like Jack Ohman.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:40:25]

SMERCONISH: Next Friday, May 22nd, late night television undergoes a radical transformation after the final sign off from Stephen Colbert the prior night next Thursday, the 21st. The 11:35 p.m. hour on CBS is going to be filled by "Comics Unleashed" and "Funny You Should Ask." The media mogul buying the time to air those programs is Byron Allen.

I had a long conversation with him this week. It's rare that I've been so inspired by a conversation like this. If you don't know his story, you might think that buying the air time for comedy is some sort of vanity project. But Byron Allen is perhaps best known as the owner of the "Weather Channel." The scale of his vision makes total sense once you understand his roots.

He was born in Detroit to a 17-year-old mother. In 1968, she chose to flee the civil unrest in that city heading to Los Angeles with her seven-year-old son, Byron. She eventually cajoled NBC to create an internship for her, starting a career that would include giving studio tours and working as a publicist.

For young Byron, the NBC lot became his playground. He took to comedy early. He was writing jokes and doing stand-up as a teenager. And in 1979, just shy of his high school graduation, he became the youngest comedian to ever perform on "The Tonight Show" with Johnny Carson.

The three minute set would launch a remarkable career in production and television station ownership. To this day, his mom, she remains the executive producer of all of his shows.

I asked him about his philosophy as he takes over this iconic time slot. It's a disciplined mathematical approach to media. He sees comedy as a unifying opportunity with deep social value, and he's already expanding that footprint.

Just this week, Allen announced that he's acquiring a majority stake in BuzzFeed and HuffPost in a $120 million deal. But for Byron Allen, it all comes back to the craft. He was given the option by CBS to start this new era in the fall, but he refused. He insisted on starting on Friday, May 22nd. Why? Because May 22nd is the anniversary of Johnny Carson's final night of "The Tonight Show" in 1992.

So 34 years later, he says it's his turn to make history. I told him he needs to write a memoir for his family, for the rest of us. And he replied that his story isn't over yet. Well, a new chapter begins next Friday night. I'm going to stay up late to watch. Here's a piece of my 50-minute plus sit down with Byron Allen.

(BEGIN VIDEOTAPE)

SMERCONISH: Listen, if people know your story, it makes total sense as to why the billionaire behind the "Weather Channel" would come full circle now and put comedy on late night in America. You know what I'm referencing. I hope you don't mind telling the short version one more time. It's 1979. You are 18 years old. What kind of break did you get?

BYRON ALLEN, FOUNDER, CHAIRMAN AND CEO OF ALLEN MEDIA GROUP: Nineteen seventy-nine. May 17th, 1979, Michael. You know, comedian -- a comedian has two birthdays. The day they were born, April 22nd, 1961. I'm 65 years old, so I tell everybody I'm a 65 year old overnight sensation. And May 17th, 1979, the day they did their first "Tonight Show" with the great Johnny Carson.

JOHNNY CARSON, HOST AND COMEDIAN: Just turned 18, but he'd been working out at the improvisation for the past two years. Now, we originally offered Byron a shot on "The Tonight Show" last February, and he turned it down. He said he couldn't make it that night because he had to do his homework. True story. So make him feel welcome, would you? Byron Allen.

ALLEN: I was 18 years old and I was really fortunate. You know, I'm a -- I'm really a truly blessed human being. My mother got pregnant with me when she was 16 years old. She had me 17 days after her 17th birthday. I tell everybody I have two high school diplomas. And not only is she brilliant, she's beautiful.

You know, when Martin Luther King was assassinated in April of '68, you know, Detroit, you know, got lit up like a Christmas tree with riots. And we ended up coming to L.A. for a two week vacation, summer of '68. And we ended up staying and ended up sleeping on a lot of floors and sofas. And, you know, friends and, you know, neighbors who would let us, you know, stay in their place until we can get on our feet.

That took a while. And my mother ended up getting into UCLA and she ended up going to UCLA and getting her master's degree in cinema TV production. And after she got her master's degree, she knocked on a lot of doors and tried to get a job.

[09:45:08]

And there were a lot of noes, tons of noes. And finally she got to NBC and she said, you know, do you have any jobs? You know, they're like, no, we don't have any jobs. She said, do you have an intern program where I can work here for free to show you, you know, my passion for this business? And they said, no, we do not.

And then she asked the question that changed our lives forever. She said, will you please start one with me? And they said, yes.

And she could not afford child care. So, I went to work with my mom when -- especially in the summertime. And, I'll never forget, I'm sitting there. I'm waiting for my mom to get off work, and I'm being very quiet and very polite and -- basically, I'm a human wallpaper. I'm just up against the wall and I'm listening and I'm watching.

And one day I see this guy, Johnny Carson. And he pulls into his parking space, and he walks into the studio and I watched him tape "The Tonight Show," and I watched him closely as a kid. I was probably 13 -- 14 years old. And I watched him go and like clockwork, hit that mark and make people laugh and do his show.

And I went across the hall and I watched Redd Foxx do "Sanford and Son," tape "Sanford and Son." And it was a playground. And I remember the hair went up on my arm and I said, this is what I'm going to do with the rest of my life. I'm going to make people laugh. I'm going to be a comedian. And I went to the comedy store when I was 14.

SMERCONISH: A lot of eyes are going to be on your programing to see, well, what are the political leanings? What can they read into it?

ALLEN: What I'm doing with "Comics Unleashed," we don't talk about politics. We don't talk about anything that's topical. We don't talk about anything -- we don't do anything that's racist or sexist or anti-Semitic or homophobic. Just be funny and don't -- and don't offend.

And I'm proud of the fact that it is everybody. It's every voice, young, old, black, white, Jewish, Hispanic, Muslim, Asian, gay, you know, disabled. Everybody. What I love -- I love about Norman Lear, he used comedy to bring us together --

SMERCONISH: Love it, yes.

ALLEN: -- and to introduce --

SMERCONISH: Yes.

ALLEN: -- us to one another.

SMERCONISH: So you say -- in other words, you want to, quote, MJ, you want to sell sneakers to everybody?

ALLEN: Yes. This is like -- we don't need the politics. I don't care who you vote for. I don't care. I'm here to make people laugh.

You're going to vote who -- you're going to vote for no matter what I say. It doesn't matter. It's not my business -- it's not my business. Do what you do.

So, I'm here to make you laugh. And the great way to bring us together is through comedy. Comedy is very powerful, very powerful.

I'll leave you with this last thing. CBS comes to me and they said, OK, we want you to start in Colbert's time period in September -- in September, like 21 or whatever it is. And I said, no, no, no, no, no. I said, we have to go the next night. The next night. He's stepping down Thursday, May 21.

SMERCONISH: And you're starting on Friday?

ALLEN: And they said you want to -- I said, Friday, May 22nd. I said, it has to be Friday, May 22nd. We have to start that night.

They go, really? I go, without a doubt. And then what they didn't know and I didn't tell them at the time, my hero, Johnny Carson, his last night, the night he stepped down was Friday, May 22nd, 1992.

SMERCONISH: Wow. That's awesome. That is a perfect circle.

(END VIDEOTAPE)

SMERCONISH: Hell of a story, right? Hell of a story how it all comes full circle. Now, I'll be watching.

You still have time to vote on today's poll question at Smerconish.com. Should the United States sell arms to Taiwan for its self-defense? While you're there, subscribe to the newsletter. You'll get the exclusive editorial cartoons of the likes of Rob Rogers.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)

[09:53:05]

SMERCONISH: OK, there's the poll results so far, 30,015. Decisive, huh? Eighty-nine percent say, yes, the United States should sell arms to Taiwan for its self-defense.

Interesting. Oftentimes, the most hawkish answers carry the day in the poll result, but not necessarily with regard to Iran. If I ask a question about Ukraine, should the U.S. do X, Y, or Z for Ukraine? It's always overwhelmingly, yes, throw in the kitchen sink.

Here's some of your social media reaction to today's program. Hopefully you'll -- hopefully you'll follow me on all the usual places.

I can't believe what I'm hearing from you this morning. You really believe his comments were intentional, strategic, and intended for Iran? We are now cozying up to dictators and trying to make our dope sound like he's a genius. Oh, boy.

Gary, what should he have said? The president was asked, when that microphone was put in front of him, whether the economic realities, the hardships at home, the gas prices, enter into his negotiations with Iran. And he said, no, I don't pay them any consideration.

Oh, my God. He doesn't care about us. What's the alternative? Yes, it's horrible. And I'm going to have to fold our tent and I'm going to have to leave their enriched uranium in their hands. Such a shame.

No, I think what he should have said a little more precisely is, I have confidence -- I think this is what I would have said in his position. I have -- I'm aware of the pain. I'm aware of the pain. And it won't be long term.

And I'm appreciative of the American people's willingness to spend more at the pump so as to preclude Iran from having a nuke. That's what it's all about. Why are your gas prices high? Because we are seeking to preclude these dangerous people intent on wiping Israel and the United States off the map from ever having a nuke.

[09:55:00] That's how I would have said it. But he got it right and he got it right on the way home relative to Taiwan as well. And yet everybody wants to take a little snippet here and quote him out of context or quote him in context and think, can you believe he said the quiet part out loud? There's more to it than that.

OK, sorry. More social media reaction. Didn't mean to go so long with that one.

We can see the razor injury to your head. We do not see any evidence that Trump's ear was damaged.

The point is -- the point is I bled out from my noggin this week, OK? And I'm still bruised. I don't know if you can see it, but I'm going to heal. There it is. You see it in the back? Yes, it's there.

I think it was -- I think it was Wednesday. But I'm going to heal and he's going to heal. And when I heal it doesn't mean that I didn't cut my head accidentally when I was shaving in the shower this week. I mean, this is lunacy. One more, I think I have time. I'll do it quickly, I promise. Come on.

Late night TV shows were about to make you laugh before sleep. Today's late night TV is just anger and rage. Bye.

Hey, Rawhide. But the point is that Byron Allen, who bought the time to put his two comedy shows in Colbert's slot -- did you hear the interview? He says they're not going to be political. That was a big headline from his inspirational story. Thank you.

If you missed any of today's program, you can always listen anywhere you get your podcasts. Thank you so much for watching. See you next week.

(COMMERCIAL BREAK)