'Shackles'

'Fraud, financial waste, and abuse in City government'

Editor’s note: This is a lightly edited transcript of today’s video from Daily Signal Senior Contributor Victor Davis Hanson. Subscribe to our YouTube channel to see more of his videos. Hello, this is Victor Davis Hanson for The Daily Signal. Susan Rice, the former U.N. ambassador under the Obama administration, national security adviser, and also served in various capacities with former President Joe Biden, gave an interview on a podcast with Preet Bharara. He is that very liberal federal prosecutor that developed quite a name for himself in New York, going after, I think, targeted a lot of people based on their politics. But nonetheless, it was one of the strangest interviews because she flat out, candidly, with no reservations, sent a message to people who were conservative, Republican, or Trump supporters, and she used “Game of Thrones” imagery. “You’ve taken the need of [President] Donald Trump. You have allowed him to bully you.” She was talking about the so-called elites in the academic world, in the corporate world, in the institutional world. “And we’re not going to forget,” she says, “that you did that. And you better have your documents ready because when we come back into power, we’re going to … ” And the implication was: take you to court, make you pay, shake you. I don’t know what she was talking about, but it was a direct threat. But here’s what’s strange about it: Start with Susan Rice herself. If you look back through her latter years with the Obama administration, it was nothing but a complete disaster. She was the one that, you remember, that the CIA and the Obama administration wheeled out on a Sunday afternoon to explain the Benghazi attack that killed the four Americans at the annex and the consulate. Five times she told the American people that those attacks were spontaneous, and they were because of some right-wing Coptic video maker who caused it all. That was not true. That was a preplanned, either an al-Qaeda or ISIS or some type of radical Islamic preplanned assault. People knew what they were doing. They were well armed. They were well organized. Why did she go out five times and mislead the American people? Because the Obama administration had been warned prior that their security was too lax and they did not want to give the impression that that attack was preventable, which it was. She was the one that also assured us, Americans, that when former President Barack Obama issued those red lines and said if Bashar al-Assad and his Syrian forces move WMD around or still have it, that’s going to be intolerable, i.e., I’m going to take it out. When they didn’t do that and they backed out, and we knew they had it, she lied to the American people and said, essentially, that they no longer had WMD. Remember also she wrote, just wrapping up her career, she wrote a little memo to herself in the last weeks of the Obama administration about Michael Flynn. She went to a meeting, and it was pretty clear in that meeting they had planned to subvert the incoming administration with the false narrative of Russian collusion and that somehow Mike Flynn, the national security adviser-designate, had been colluding with the Russians, but that was not true. But then she wrote a fake memo to herself suggesting that they hadn’t really done that, that it was all up and up. And then, of course, she and others had requested the unmasking of people related with Trump in otherwise confidential files. So, she doesn’t have a good record. That’s why she didn’t have a high-profile position in the Biden administration. But there is also some real problems with what she said. She never said to corporate America, to the academic world, to the institutional world, to the political world what they had done wrong. She just said, “We’re going to come back. People don’t like Trump. It’s our turn to come back. We’re not going to play by the old rules. No, no, no. We’re going to be tough. You better get your … ” Well, what had they done? What had they done? If she’s implying they let people off, or they laid people off that were associated with DEI, that was in accordance with the Supreme Court ruling barring race-based preferences in academic life. If she means that Donald Trump does not have the authority to issue an executive order stopping DEI, the whole idea of executive orders goes back to the beginning, almost to the republic. But more importantly, Barack Obama was the one who said, “I have a pen and I have a phone and I’m going to use it.” And that’s when he lost control of Congress and he issued, up until that time, almost the greatest number of executive orders. So, if she’s not going to tell us that anybody committed a felony or misdemeanor, and yet she’s going to punish them, that doesn’t sound too legitimate. How does she know, secondly, that she’s going to come back into power? The polls are very volatile. Donald Trump has made, as we’ve talked before, a vast investment in the economy. Inflation is down, unemployment is down, gross domestic product is solid. Foreign investment is at record levels. So is energy production. And when the “Big, Beautiful Bill” is fully enacted and filters its way through the economy, you’re going to see enormous stimuli given reductions in the tax code, reductions in the deductions that you have to make for the IRS, no tax on tips, etc. It’s going to have an enormous effect, and it’s going to come into effect before the midterms. We don’t know what the world is going to look like abroad in Ukraine, in Cuba, in Iran. It may be that Donald Trump is able to solve two or three or all of them. November’s a long way away, so I wouldn’t be so sure, Susan Rice, that you will win the November elections, much less, if you are alluding, as I think you were, to 2028. If you heard Marco Rubio’s speech to the Munich Security Conference and you’ve seen JD Vance in the 2024 election take down almost every hostile reporter that interviewed him, they’re going to be a very formidable team. And I don’t see anything quite like that with Gavin Newsom. I don’t see it with AOC, especially after her performance at the Munich Security Conference. I don’t think Pete Buttigieg is a viable candidate. So, we’ve seen Kamala Harris, very uninspiring. Maybe Josh Shapiro. But given the antisemitic nature of the new Democratic Socialist Party, I doubt, as we saw with the vice-presidential selection in 2024, I doubt that he would have a chance to be the nominee of the new Democratic Party. And finally, when you talk about retribution, where have you been, Susan Rice? Who were the people who tried to take Donald Trump off 25, 26 state ballots … unprecedented? Who were the people who for the first time in history impeached a president twice? Who were the people who tried him as a private citizen when he was out of office in the Senate? Tried to convict him. Who were the people behind the Letitia James frivolous lawsuit that tried to bankrupt him with almost a $500 million fine because he took a loan out with a Deutsche Bank and they claimed that he overvalued the assets, which the Deutsche Bank said he didn’t? That he paid the interest on time to the profit of the bank who had no complaint? Who was Alvin Bragg trying to shoehorn a federal offense onto a state law and said that Donald Trump’s non-disclosure with Stormy Daniels was a federal campaign violation? Who were the people behind the crazy E. Jean Carroll persecution lawsuit that may have cost Donald Trump $90 million? Who were the people behind Jack Smith, who was knee deep along with the FBI and knew about that with Merrick Garland, the raiding, the Mar-a-Lago … the home of Donald Trump? And the idea that Donald Trump violated some confidential agreement with the government when an archival dispute when Joe Biden had taken materials that were confidential and classified from his days in the Senate in three or four, much less secure, places? Who’s behind all that? Who’s behind Fani Willis when a person calls the registrar and says, “I know there’s votes there, find them,” as a lot of candidates do to every registrar when they feel that they’re not adequately looking for votes that have been cast. There was a lot of things to be suspicious about in Georgia and turned that into a felony. All of those prosecutors were politically minded, biased, and ultimately found themselves in their own ethical dilemmas. But who did that? My point is, Susan Rice, your party has already taken out retribution. You were the ones that politicized the Department of Justice. You were the ones, going back to 2015 and ’16 with Russian collusion, 2020 with laptop disinformation. Your entire career of the Democratic Party—your career, Hillary Clinton’s career, Barack Obama—has been to destroy Donald Trump. So, we don’t need lectures on retribution. You’ve already tried to practice retribution against Trump. And I don’t think you’re going to be in a position of power necessarily in the Congress in 2026, and I have a pretty good idea you won’t come back to power in 2028. But otherwise, you really displayed your true nature and put your cards on the table. And I don’t think that your opponents are going be naive once they understand what your true intentions are, which are completely vengeful and incoherent. We publish a variety of perspectives. Nothing written here is to be construed as representing the views of The Daily Signal. The post Susan Rice Signals Retribution but 2026 and 2028 May Not Be Her Time appeared first on The Daily Signal.

Negotiations between representatives of the United States and Iran concluded without a nuclear deal on Thursday, with another round of talks scheduled for next week. Thursday’s negotiations were “one of the most serious and longest rounds of talks,” according to Iran’s Foreign Ministry. Negotiators met for four hours in the morning and an additional two in the afternoon. “During these long and intensive hours, we made good progress,” the ministry wrote on X following the talks, which Oman’s Foreign Minister Badr Albusaidi mediated. Albusaidi said “significant progress” was made but failed to provide details. U.S. Special Envoy to the Middle East Steve Witkoff and former adviser to President Donald Trump Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law, represented the U.S. in Geneva, Switzerland. Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi led the Iranian delegation. The U.S. delegation was “disappointed” with progress after the morning block of negotiations, Axios reported. Trump has repeatedly said Iran cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon and claims Iran is actively working to rebuild its nuclear program following Operation Midnight Hammer in June, during which the U.S. struck Iran’s three key nuclear sites. Iran has long denied wanting a bomb and said earlier on Thursday it would show flexibility at the talks. Reuters reported on Sunday that Tehran was offering undefined new concessions in return for the removal of sanctions and recognition of its right to enrich uranium. Any substantial move toward an elusive agreement between longtime foes Washington and Tehran could reduce the imminent prospects for Trump to carry out a threatened attack on Iran that many fear could escalate into a wider war. “We seriously addressed the elements of an agreement, both in the nuclear field and in the area of sanctions,” Iran’s Foreign Ministry wrote on X, adding that Iran has “clearly outlined our expectations regarding the lifting of sanctions.” Remarks by Iran’s FM Abbas Araghchi after conclusion of third round of Iran-US negotiations in Geneva: ? Today was one of the most serious and longest rounds of talks. We had nearly four hours in the morning and over two hours in the afternoon. The negotiations were indirect,… https://t.co/PwLaza35vQ— Foreign Ministry, Islamic Republic of Iran (@IRIMFA_EN) February 26, 2026 The U.S. has leveled a number of sanctions on Iran and Iranian officials in recent weeks. On Wednesday, the U.S. Department of the Treasury announced new sanctions on “over 30 individuals, entities, and vessels enabling illicit Iranian petroleum sales and Iran’s ballistic missile and advanced conventional weapons production.” There are still some “issues” to be worked out for a deal between Iran and the U.S., according to Iran’s Foreign Ministry, but “there was perhaps more seriousness on both sides than before, with the aim of reaching a negotiated solution.” Thursday’s talks took place while the U.S. continues to amass a significant military presence in the Middle East. A fourth round of negotiations is scheduled to take place in Vienna next week after both countries hold consultations in their own capitals. Reuters contributed to this report. The post ‘Serious’ Talks Between US and Iran End With No Deal Announced appeared first on The Daily Signal.

The urgency is palpable as President Donald Trump and Republicans in Congress look to pass the SAVE America Act to secure America’s elections before the midterms. The SAVE America Act would require proof of citizenship to register to vote and implement nationwide voter ID. Trump made a forceful call at the State of the Union for Congress to pass the bill, which currently sits in the Senate. The election integrity provisions of the bill are immensely popular among voters in Ohio. Support is especially strong among Republicans, Heritage Action’s Stefani Buhajla told The Daily Signal. “Eighty-six percent of Ohio Republicans support the SAVE America Act, and 82% are more likely to back their senators if they vote for it. Fighting for a law that prevents Buckeye State votes from being diluted by ineligible ballots coming out of states that refuse to secure their elections is a no-brainer,” Buhajla said. 7 in 10 Voters Support Proof of Citizenship, Heritage Action Poll Finds Polling from Heritage Action shows that 71% of Ohio voters approve of requiring proof of U.S. citizenship to register to vote in federal elections. Heritage Action also found that 69% of voters in Ohio say those who are not citizens of the United States should not vote in U.S. elections. That includes 76% of Republicans, 65% of independents, and 66% of Democrats. Other election integrity provisions to maintain proper voter rolls and ballot eligibility requirements also earn high levels of support. Sixty-nine percent of Ohio voters support requiring states to remove noncitizens from voter registration rolls. An even stronger majority, at 78%, agrees on uniform standards, the same number that agree they don’t want their vote “diluted by ineligible ballots.” The proof of citizenship requirement is an issue that Sen. Jon Husted, R-Ohio, who faces a special election in November, said is “common sense,” and argued that Ohio does it right. “Requiring proof of U.S. citizenship to vote in U.S. elections is common sense. Ohioans spoke loud and clear on this issue. They support the SAVE America Act by a 40-point margin. In Ohio, we believe in making it easy to vote and hard to cheat. That’s why we already made it state law that Ohioans must present a valid ID to vote,” Husted told The Daily Signal. “The American people do not want a vocal minority of blue states dictating policy for the rest of the nation,” Husted also told The Daily Signal, sharing that he supports the bill “to secure our elections and stop subverting the will of the American people.” Republican Rep. Dave Taylor, of Ohio’s 2nd Congressional District, found such a finding particularly noteworthy. “The numbers speak for themselves. The fact that 70% of Ohioans support proving U.S. citizenship when registering to vote in federal elections sends a clear message that Buckeye voters don’t want illegal immigrants choosing our country’s leaders,” he told The Daily Signal. Rep. Bob Latta, a Republican from Ohio’s 5th Congressional District, praised the legislation. “Showing ID is already required to board a plane, rent a car, or check into a hotel, so it makes sense to apply the same standard to federal voting. With 36 states, including Ohio, already requiring some form of voter ID, this bill would establish a consistent nationwide standard while ensuring appropriate safeguards are in place,” he pointed out to The Daily Signal. Rep. Troy Balderson, a Republican who represents Ohio’s 12th Congressional District, highlighted the importance of only American citizens voting, and suggested Ohio serves as a model for election integrity. “The right to vote in federal elections belongs to American citizens—and American citizens alone. The SAVE America Act puts basic guardrails in place to ensure that Americans’ voices are protected and our elections remain secure. Ohio has long been a national leader in election integrity, and with this legislation, we ensure all states uphold the same clear, consistent standards,” Balderson told The Daily Signal. Ohio Democrats Oppose Voter ID Efforts When the SAVE America Act passed the House this month, Ohio’s 11 House Republicans voted for the bill, while the four Democrats voted against it. Rep. Joyce Beatty, a Democrat representing Ohio’s 3rd Congressional District, told The Daily Signal that requiring recommended voter ID “would drive up costs for Americans that are already struggling to get by.” Beatty has election legislation of her own to prevent what she calls “purges” of voter rolls. “Real reform comes with purposeful policies that expand access to the ballot. That’s why I introduced the Voter Purge Protection Act, to stop unnecessary voter purging and protect eligible voters from being removed from the rolls,” she told The Daily Signal. Beatty argued that her bill, along with the John R. Lewis Voting Rights Act, “do the actual work to strengthen voter protections—instead of weakening them.” She also claimed that the SAVE America Act upended “progress toward making voter registration accessible and equitable.” “[Beatty’s] legislation prohibits the removal of individuals from the voter rolls due to changes in residence or not voting in previous elections, unless supported by objective and reliable evidence that the voter has died or moved out of the state, among other protections for registered voters and states administering elections,” a press release from the congresswoman’s office explained. SAVE America Act Stalling in the Senate? Conservatives in the Senate, as well as the president, are pushing Republican leadership to use the talking filibuster to pass the SAVE America Act into law. Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., however, believes “there just isn’t the support for doing that at this point.” Both Husted and Sen. Bernie Moreno, R-Ohio, have sponsored the bill in their chamber. “This is very simple—if you aren’t an American citizen, you can’t vote here. I’m proud to join [Utah Republican] Sen. Mike Lee in this commonsense reform and frankly shocked that anyone could possibly disagree,” Moreno said. There was also a question that particularly impacts Husted as he runs against former Sen. Sherrod Brown, D-Ohio. Asked if voters would be more likely to support their senators if they voted for the SAVE America Act, 55% said they were more likely to support their senator, including 37% who said it made them “much more likely.” “Sen. Husted, who is a co-sponsor of the bill, is clearly differentiating himself from his opponent, who thinks nothing of stripping all integrity from election processes,” Buhajla said. The poll of 617 likely Ohio voters was conducted Feb. 13-16, with a margin of error of plus or minus 3.95 percentage points. The post Ohio Voters Support SAVE America Act by Broad Consensus appeared first on The Daily Signal.

In the span of two days, courts have issued somewhat conflicting rulings about what the Internal Revenue Service can do to assist the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement efforts. On Thursday, U.S. District Judge Colleen Kollar-Kotelly for the District of Columbia determined that almost 43,000 addresses the IRS shared with Immigration and Customs Enforcement last August were provided without confirmation of a valid address. Two days earlier, in a separate case, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia gave a green light for the Internal Revenue Service to share information about illegal aliens with the Department of Homeland Security. The D.C. Circuit upheld a lower court decision rejecting a temporary injunction on the IRS’ actions until the case is completed. The court also said the plaintiffs are “are unlikely to succeed on the merits of their claims.” In the case led by Centro de Trabajadores Unidos, an immigrants’ rights group sued the Treasury Department last March over the information sharing. The IRS shared taxpayer identification numbers and address information with the Department of Homeland Security to assist in finding illegal aliens in the country. The IRS assigns taxpayer identification numbers to individuals who lack Social Security numbers, usually noncitizens, so those individuals can file taxes. Both cases focus on IRS data sharing. However, the D.C. Circuit ruled a federal statute allows for sharing data with other federal agencies. By contrast the district court ruling focused on whether the IRS followed proper procedures in sharing the data. “The statute straightforwardly says that addresses can be disclosed if they are not ‘taxpayer return information,’” the court opinion says. It adds, “Addresses are thus not ‘taxpayer return information,’ so they do not receive any special protection from disclosure.” The case in the district court was brought by the Center for Taxpayer Rights, the Washington Post reported. The plaintiffs brought the case in February 2025. Kollar-Kotelly wrote in her opinion, “The IRS violated the [Internal Revenue Code] approximately 42,695 times by disclosing last known taxpayer addresses to ICE … without confirming that ICE’s request set forth the ‘address of the taxpayer with respect to whom the requested return information relate[d]’.” The Trump administration defended data sharing in a statement last May after U.S. District Judge Dabney Friedrich first rejected the motion for a temporary injunction by Centro de Trabajadores Unidos. “Information sharing across agencies is essential to identify who is in our country, including violent criminals, determine what public safety and terror threats may exist so we can neutralize them, scrub these individuals from voter rolls, and identify what public benefits these aliens are using at taxpayer expense,” DHS spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin said in a statement. “With the IRS information specifically, DHS plans to focus on enforcing long-neglected criminal laws that apply to illegal aliens but which the Biden Administration ignored.” The post Courts Split on Role IRS Can Play in Immigration Enforcement, Data Sharing appeared first on The Daily Signal.

A Wee Bit O' Justice at Last Meted Out In NYC

The grandson of the man who created Reese’s Peanut Butter Cups said Tuesday that the Hershey Company has not contacted him following his public criticism of the brand. He also accused company leadership of arrogance toward the Reese family.On Feb. 14, Brad Reese, the grandson of H.B. Reese, who created Reese’s in 1928, wrote an open letter expressing concern about alleged ingredient changes associated with the Reese’s brand. “How does The Hershey Company continue to position REESE’S as its flagship brand, a symbol of trust, quality and leadership, while quietly replacing the very ingredients (Milk Chocolate + Peanut Butter) that built REESE’S trust in the first place?” Reese wrote.During an appearance on “The Glenn Beck Program,” host Glenn Beck referred to the dispute as the “chocolate wars” before pressing Reese on whether the company had responded to his concerns about changes with Reese’s.‘I mean, talk about a conflict of interest.’“Nothing. Zero,” Reese said.“They are so arrogant and condescending to anybody, especially in the Reese family, I find, unless they want something from you,” Reese said.Hershey said in a statement: “As we’ve grown and expanded the Reese’s product line, we make product recipe adjustments that allow us to make new shapes, sizes, and innovations that Reese’s fans have come to love and ask for, while always protecting the essence of what makes Reese’s unique and special: the perfect combination of chocolate and peanut butter.”Reese told Beck that tensions with company leadership date back years. He said he “kind of burned ... bridges” after helping stop the proposed sale of Hershey in 2002.“You have to understand, the Reese family has been creating the wealth there,” Reese said, arguing that the family has long played a role in building the company’s value.RELATED: ‘This is crazy’: Glenn Beck questions Obama alien claim and Trump's response Photo by Rick Loomis/Los Angeles Times via Getty ImagesHe also discussed what he described as internal conflicts involving the Hershey Trust and past corporate leadership. Reese referenced a cousin who previously served as general counsel for Hershey and later became president of the Hershey Trust Company, which controls the Hershey Company. According to Reese, his cousin worked to “clean up” issues within the trust and the company.Reese then turned to what he described as a missed “once-in-a-lifetime opportunity” when Hershey pursued a $19 billion acquisition of Cadbury Schweppes. He said the deal was “locked up” before it ultimately fell through and Kraft acquired Cadbury instead.Reese alleged there were conflicts of interest involving former executives and advisers tied to competing bids during that process.“I mean, talk about a conflict of interest,” Reese said.He also questioned whether corporate decisions driven by profitability are sustainable “long-term.”“Wall Street loves when you increase your margins at whatever cost to the public,” Reese said. “It’s long-term, is what I’m getting at. Is this going to not work out long-term?”RELATED: Glenn Beck reveals 5 reasons the US hockey victory over Canada was the moment America needed right now Photo by Rick Loomis/Los Angeles Times via Getty ImagesReese framed his concerns as rooted in protecting what he views as his grandfather’s original legacy and questioned whether current corporate decisions serve the long-term interests of the brand.Hershey did not respond to a request for comment from Blaze News.Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!

In a nearly three-hour interview released on February 20, Tucker Carlson pressed U.S. Ambassador to Israel Mike Huckabee on several topics, including biblical claims to land “from the Nile to the Euphrates," Gaza civilian casualties, U.S. aid to Israel, and Christian Zionism, resulting in heated exchanges. The interview highlighted a divide within conservative America over U.S. foreign policy priorities, particularly the balance between "America First" principles and strong support for Israel.On a recent episode of the “Steve Deace Show,” host Steve Deace spoke with Huckabee about his recent interview with Carlson. “Overall, how did you feel it went?” Deace inquires.“Our interaction in the interview was just fine. I didn't understand a lot of the things that he was going with in terms of the questions, and it was very frustrating because normally when he has someone on his show, he gives them about 65% of the time and he takes about 35%. … But with both Ted Cruz and me, he interrupted constantly; he went off on tangents,” says Huckabee.Deace then turned to the section of the interview that drew the most attention. Carlson referred to a Bible verse in Genesis 15 promising Abraham's descendants land "from the Euphrates to the Nile," an area encompassing much of the modern Middle East, and asked Huckabee whether this verse implies Israel has a divine right to that entire territory today.In response, Deace said that Huckabee said that it would "be fine" but immediately added that Israel has no such endeavor.“[Tucker’s] side of the argument absolutely seized on this. … Some of these nations, I think, have even released statements in response,” says Deace, offering Huckabee a chance to “clarify” and “react.”“He was badgering me, trying to get me to say that Israel was going to try to do a conquest from the Euphrates to the Nile … and finally I said, tongue in cheek, ‘Yeah, they can have the whole thing,”’ says Huckabee. “Now then immediately what I said was ‘Tucker, Israel is only wanting to keep the land of Canaan, the land that they have.”’He went on to emphasize that Israel has no plans to expand beyond its current borders into Lebanon, Jordan, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Egypt, or even Gaza.“Tucker clipped from that one statement, and then he marketed that all over the Arab world, where he apparently has some very strong contacts. Well, they got all spun up and did a blanket condemnation of what I had said,” Huckabee explains.“If you missed the last part of my answer, of course it kind of looks like that I said, ‘Yeah, just let 'em have the whole part’ — flippantly acting as if, ‘Yeah, that's fine with me.’ If you took it in its context, listened to the whole answer, you come away with a completely different view.”To hear more of Deace and Huckabee’s conversation, check out the full interview above.Want more from Steve Deace?To enjoy more of Steve's take on national politics, Christian worldview, and principled conservatism with a snarky twist, subscribe to BlazeTV — the largest multi-platform network of voices who love America, defend the Constitution, and live the American dream.

Johnny Knoxville is not a regular human being, and his latest interview has cemented that fact.The "Jackass" series and movie star sat down with Rolling Stone, marking 25 years since his famous cover shoot with the outlet.'The whole world was closing in, and ... I have a lot of sympathy for myself then.'As a fifth "Jackass" movie is in the making, the new "Fear Factor: House of Fear" host discussed his greatest stunts, production hurdles, and even brain injury fallout. However, what is grabbing attention online is Knoxville's brief emotional breakdown during the interview.No bullAfter discussing what it feels like to have an eyeball come out of its socket — with Knoxville describing his vision at the time as "fuzzy" TV lines — host Alex Morris asks the stuntman if there was one stunt he thought he would never get to do again.At 54 years old and 16 concussions deep, the Tennessee native got choked up before answering."I don't want to get emotional. I can't. God damn. I hate when this happens," Knoxville begins, fighting back tears."No, this is good. I was gonna ask when the last time you cried was," the reporter says, trying to comfort her guest.Then Knoxville reveals the source of his pain:"I can't mess around with bulls anymore."Confused, Morris follows up, "And that — you're, and that makes you emotional?""Yeah. It's terrible," he replies, before getting deeper into the emotional reality of a stuntman.RELATED: Make your own record player: A simple project with a profound lesson 'Steer'ing his thoughtsThe host asks Knoxville why that makes him cry; was it the thought of his art form being limited by injury or the memory of catastrophic brain damage?"No, I just want to play with them," the actor reveals. "And I'm trying not to — trying not to indulge in those thoughts." Although the bull-induced injury was not the source of his emotional pain, Knoxville takes time to go into detail about the five- to six-month period during which he suffered from "catastrophic thinking" and "ruminating" thoughts."The whole world was closing in, and ... I have a lot of sympathy for myself then, because your brain's feeding you such terrible information. And people outside were telling me like, 'Your brain's playing tricks on you.' I'm like, no, no, it's happening. [But] nothing's happening."The same brain that comes up with stunts like being shot with riot control munitions and balancing a teeter-totter around a charging bull apparently turned its back on Knoxville. He describes his recovery time as his "creative brain turned against me" while his mind "just fell off a cliff."RELATED: 'He meant that s**t': Actors rage after man with Tourette's yells N-word during award show Photo by FOX via Getty Images Please, ClappOther parts of the discussion briefly touched on former Sen. Joseph Lieberman (D-Conn.) attacking the "Jackass" brand in 2001, as well as Knoxville's upbringing in a Southern Baptist Church in the 1970s.Real name Philip John Clapp, born 1971 in Knoxville, Tennessee, the action star said that the fire-and-brimstone talk was too much for him to handle at a young age."You know, you're 7, 8, just having to go and sit there and be quiet and listening about burning in hell. And I'm like, 'Wow.'""It was a lot," he adds. "I think that's why, maybe one of the reasons I hate being told what to do so much."Like Blaze News? Bypass the censors, sign up for our newsletters, and get stories like this direct to your inbox. Sign up here!