Latest / The Death Of Journalism / Episode Three Hundred Thirteen: Morally Binding

Transcript

Episode Three Hundred Thirteen: Morally Binding · The Death Of Journalism

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: Welcome to episode 313 of the Death of Journalism podcast.
• 0:04
  Speaker 1: My name is John Ziegler. I'm your host on this
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: week's jam-packed show. President Trump thinks he has solved the
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: artificial intelligence problem with a White House summit. I'll tell
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: you why I'm still rather worried. A two-year-old sex orgy
• 0:18
  Speaker 1: at Cornell University suddenly becomes a huge gang rape story.
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: Of course, the Lindsay Clancy's asshole lawyer is at it again.
• 0:30
  Speaker 1: And the war on tackle football has a very telling week.
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: We have two fear factors on the Death of Journalism podcast.
• 0:41
  Speaker 1: One is whether or not Gavin Newsom will become president
• 0:45
  Speaker 1: of the United States. That's currently at 6.0 out of 10.
• 0:48
  Speaker 1: The other is whether or not AI is going to
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: destroy us all. That fear factor out of 10 is
• 0:55
  Speaker 1: currently at 8.5. And it is probably on the rise
• 1:00
  Speaker 1: because there's been a lot of stories, some of which
• 1:03
  Speaker 1: seem to be not very credible, but there's clearly a
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: narrative that AI is on the verge of taking over
• 1:12
  Speaker 1: our entire culture and maybe killing us all. At least
• 1:15
  Speaker 1: some people thinking there's a 10% chance of that happening
• 1:18
  Speaker 1: in the not too distant future. I'm not buying that scenario.
• 1:21
  Speaker 1: But I've always believed that there are great dangers in AI,
• 1:25
  Speaker 1: not because of necessarily what it will do to us,
• 1:29
  Speaker 1: but what we will do to ourselves because of how
• 1:32
  Speaker 1: AI changes our economics, our culture, our politics, virtually every
• 1:38
  Speaker 1: aspect of our lives. And one of the elements of
• 1:43
  Speaker 1: the current narrative about AI that I and others are
• 1:48
  Speaker 1: starting to become particularly perplexed by is how it is
• 1:52
  Speaker 1: that AI companies, specifically open AI, ChatGPT, Sam Altman, that
• 1:58
  Speaker 1: whole bit, seem to be completely immune from the normal
• 2:04
  Speaker 1: way that we as a society would treat what's going on,
• 2:09
  Speaker 1: specifically in two areas. And I myself have been negligent
• 2:13
  Speaker 1: in not making a bigger deal out of this. The
• 2:16
  Speaker 1: first is the most obvious and maybe the most important.
• 2:19
  Speaker 1: And that is that a huge part of what, for instance,
• 2:22
  Speaker 1: chat GPT or other AI models do is effectively intellectual theft.
• 2:30
  Speaker 1: That's what it is. They've just stolen basically everything that's
• 2:34
  Speaker 1: on the internet and they're using it for their own
• 2:37
  Speaker 1: commercial interest. And no one seems, or very few people,
• 2:40
  Speaker 1: seem to be particularly outraged by this. But a huge
• 2:44
  Speaker 1: part of what is driving AI is effectively plagiarism and theft.
• 2:50
  Speaker 1: And there seems to be an immunity there. There also
• 2:53
  Speaker 1: seems to be an immunity to this entire concept that, well,
• 2:58
  Speaker 1: we accidentally hacked another company or a government entity. You
• 3:03
  Speaker 1: know what? No real harm, no foul. This was all
• 3:06
  Speaker 1: just an experiment. We didn't mean for it to happen. Well,
• 3:09
  Speaker 1: hold on a second. Just because it was an accident
• 3:13
  Speaker 1: doesn't mean you shouldn't be held somewhat culpable or responsible.
• 3:18
  Speaker 1: How have we decided that there's somehow this immunity because, well,
• 3:22
  Speaker 1: you know, you're, I guess, it's part of the deal.
• 3:27
  Speaker 1: It's part of the experiment. You know, you have to
• 3:30
  Speaker 1: take the risks. Look, I'm all for risk-taking, but there
• 3:33
  Speaker 1: ought to be some accountability. There ought to be some culpability.
• 3:39
  Speaker 1: People are getting hacked into and entities are getting hacked
• 3:42
  Speaker 1: into because of these experiments that are going on where
• 3:46
  Speaker 1: the AI agents apparently go rogue. By some reports, this
• 3:50
  Speaker 1: is happening far more often than we even know about. Yet,
• 3:54
  Speaker 1: there just seems to be this compartmentalization that, oh, well,
• 3:59
  Speaker 1: this is just the way AI works. Why is it
• 4:03
  Speaker 1: being treated completely differently than any other industry would? And
• 4:08
  Speaker 1: we saw more evidence of that when President Trump held
• 4:12
  Speaker 1: a remarkable summit at the White House earlier this week.
• 4:15
  Speaker 1: I mean, this was extraordinary in so many ways. This
• 4:19
  Speaker 1: event that Trump held at the White House was truly
• 4:22
  Speaker 1: extraordinary in so many different ways. First of all, just
• 4:25
  Speaker 1: getting all of these incredibly high power people together in
• 4:30
  Speaker 1: one place on fairly short notice is a remarkable thing
• 4:34
  Speaker 1: in and of itself. But It was the substance of
• 4:37
  Speaker 1: what came out of this meeting that I found to
• 4:40
  Speaker 1: be most remarkable. And that is that, according to Trump,
• 4:46
  Speaker 1: they came to an agreement. Not what you might consider
• 4:51
  Speaker 1: a real agreement, but what he called a morally binding agreement.
• 4:56
  Speaker 1: He talked to really good game about how significant this was,
• 5:00
  Speaker 1: but their agreement. And I find myself in a little
• 5:02
  Speaker 1: bit of a weird spot here because it sounds like
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: in principle, Trump is trying to do something very similar
• 5:10
  Speaker 1: to what I have suggested on this podcast. Not that
• 5:13
  Speaker 1: what I suggested was all that unique or profound, but
• 5:17
  Speaker 1: I did believe or still do believe that there needs
• 5:20
  Speaker 1: to be kind of an all for one, one for
• 5:23
  Speaker 1: all concept here. But in my vision, everybody is responsible
• 5:29
  Speaker 1: and accountable for everybody else. And everybody, you know, takes
• 5:33
  Speaker 1: part in the rewards like everybody else. So everyone is
• 5:37
  Speaker 1: incentivized in the same direction, but also there's an incentive
• 5:41
  Speaker 1: for everyone to make sure that no one gets out
• 5:44
  Speaker 1: of line. No one is taking risks that are completely
• 5:48
  Speaker 1: out of control because if they do, if somebody else
• 5:51
  Speaker 1: within this group does so, everyone will be punished in
• 5:55
  Speaker 1: some sort of way. Civil verdicts or settlements would be
• 5:59
  Speaker 1: the most logical way that you would enforce a such
• 6:03
  Speaker 1: an agreement of one for all and all for one.
• 6:06
  Speaker 1: But there doesn't appear to be anything really that is
• 6:11
  Speaker 1: in the realm of binding towards this agreement. In fact,
• 6:16
  Speaker 1: Donald Trump himself, when commenting about this, in front of
• 6:20
  Speaker 1: all of these AI leaders at the White House, made
• 6:23
  Speaker 1: some truly remarkable statements to the press, and eventually acknowledged that, yeah,
• 6:30
  Speaker 1: there's nothing really binding us here. It's just morally binding,
• 6:34
  Speaker 1: which for Donald Trump, something being morally binding is particularly troubling.
• 6:39
  Speaker 1: But here's what that sounded like at the White House
• 6:42
  Speaker 1: earlier this week.
• 6:43
  Speaker 2: They came together and they did something that few people really,
• 6:47
  Speaker 2: it's almost like a constitution in a way. And the
• 6:52
  Speaker 2: biggest people in the world signed that, and I signed
• 6:55
  Speaker 2: it as president, and it really is a form of protection.
• 6:58
  Speaker 2: They understand that they have to sell police. And it's
• 7:01
  Speaker 2: very hard for somebody to come outside, get into these,
• 7:04
  Speaker 2: these models are very complex. And again, I believe they're
• 7:07
  Speaker 2: going to be used for the good, and when they're.
• 7:09
  Speaker 1: Not, we're going to be able to nab them.
• 7:11
  Speaker 2: But there's going to be a tremendous self-policing aspect. We're
• 7:15
  Speaker 2: also thinking about forming a committee of sorts where we
• 7:18
  Speaker 2: put maybe 10 people on that committee. It could be
• 7:21
  Speaker 2: from that group so that we can so the committee
• 7:24
  Speaker 2: can watch over the whole enterprise.
• 7:26
  Speaker 1: Is this a core that everybody signed?
• 7:28
  Speaker 3: Is it binding in any way?
• 7:29
  Speaker 2: I think it's morally binding.
• 7:30
  Speaker 1: Yeah. Boy, that's comforting to know that. All this money,
• 7:37
  Speaker 1: I mean, an unprecedented amount of money is at stake.
• 7:40
  Speaker 1: Everyone is in a race to win AI. Donald Trump,
• 7:45
  Speaker 1: who is only going to be president for another two years,
• 7:48
  Speaker 1: and who the hell knows who's going to replace him
• 7:50
  Speaker 1: after that. And he's going to be a lame duck president,
• 7:53
  Speaker 1: extremely lame duck president in all likelihood in just a
• 7:56
  Speaker 1: couple of months when Republicans get crushed, as it seems
• 7:59
  Speaker 1: like they will be getting trounced in the midterm elections.
• 8:03
  Speaker 1: that all of this is based upon a morally binding agreement.
• 8:09
  Speaker 1: What could possibly go wrong? You know, I'm convinced, folks.
• 8:13
  Speaker 1: I'm totally convinced. I am bringing the AI fear factor
• 8:17
  Speaker 1: down from 8.5 to let's put it at 5.0 now
• 8:20
  Speaker 1: because Trump has it all handled. It's all under control now.
• 8:24
  Speaker 1: There's a morally binding agreement between all these people with
• 8:29
  Speaker 1: trillions of dollars at stake. A massive pressure to win
• 8:33
  Speaker 1: a race, and Donald Trump, who's not exactly known for
• 8:37
  Speaker 1: his morality, seemingly supposedly in charge. This means absolutely, unfortunately, nothing.
• 8:44
  Speaker 1: It might mean something for a short period of time,
• 8:47
  Speaker 1: but that's not going to hold up under pressure. There's
• 8:50
  Speaker 1: going to be all sorts of pressures going forward in
• 8:53
  Speaker 1: this situation. So this seems to me like a lot
• 8:56
  Speaker 1: of happy talk. And obviously, I'm not going to change
• 8:59
  Speaker 1: the fear factor. I probably ought to raise it based
• 9:01
  Speaker 1: upon the nature of this bogus, morally binding agreement. But
• 9:06
  Speaker 1: I'm going to keep it at 8.5 out of 10
• 9:08
  Speaker 1: for now. But that's not because I have dissipated my concerns.
• 9:14
  Speaker 1: In fact, I'm increasingly concerned about several aspects of the
• 9:18
  Speaker 1: entire artificial intelligence issue. And I want to be clear
• 9:23
  Speaker 1: about what my concerns are, because I've actually been, I think,
• 9:27
  Speaker 1: bizarrely accused of being a doomsdayer. I'm not. I am
• 9:32
  Speaker 1: very much more in the camp of we're going to
• 9:36
  Speaker 1: do this to ourselves. And I was reminded of this
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: when Elon Musk took the mic in front of Donald Trump.
• 9:42
  Speaker 1: It seems as if they have had a rapprochement. Their
• 9:45
  Speaker 1: relationship seems to be mostly repaired now. Musk even referred
• 9:50
  Speaker 1: to artificial intelligence as super intelligence, as Donald Trump has
• 9:54
  Speaker 1: asked people to do. But once again, Elon Musk made
• 9:59
  Speaker 1: it sound like this. is going to be the greatest
• 10:00
  Speaker 1: thing that's ever happened to humanity. He once again promoted
• 10:04
  Speaker 1: his absolutely ridiculous high universal income proposal to deal with
• 10:10
  Speaker 1: the economic job losses that may be associated or seemingly
• 10:14
  Speaker 1: are going to be associated with artificial intelligence, an idea
• 10:18
  Speaker 1: that I just think is absolutely batshit crazy, has absolutely
• 10:22
  Speaker 1: no chance of working. And the fact that Elon Musk,
• 10:25
  Speaker 1: the richest man in the world, richest man in the
• 10:27
  Speaker 1: history of the world, somehow thinks that's going to lead
• 10:30
  Speaker 1: to an economic and cultural utopia is completely ridiculous. It's
• 10:37
  Speaker 1: more ridiculous than his idea that he's going to colonize Mars,
• 10:40
  Speaker 1: which is totally logistically absurd and impossible. And yet that's
• 10:45
  Speaker 1: a huge part of his persona, what he believes, what
• 10:49
  Speaker 1: he thinks the future is going to hold. It makes
• 10:51
  Speaker 1: no sense. And frankly, it's scary to me. I mean,
• 10:55
  Speaker 1: Elon Musk is an incredibly complex figure, obviously very successful,
• 11:01
  Speaker 1: clearly very smart, obviously also autistic, and believes a lot
• 11:06
  Speaker 1: of things that are absolutely batshit crazy. And one of
• 11:08
  Speaker 1: them is the concept of high universal basic income, which
• 11:12
  Speaker 1: he once again floated into at the White House earlier
• 11:16
  Speaker 1: this week. But my primary concerns, and they're basically three,
• 11:21
  Speaker 1: I think go into three different categories. One is the
• 11:24
  Speaker 1: economic devastation caused by the job loss and what we're
• 11:29
  Speaker 1: going to do to deal with that job loss. And
• 11:31
  Speaker 1: that it will be something like, at least we're going
• 11:34
  Speaker 1: to attempt something like what Elon Musk is proposing with
• 11:37
  Speaker 1: this absurd universal high income idea. I think that AI,
• 11:42
  Speaker 1: if it comes to fruition in the way that almost
• 11:46
  Speaker 1: all these so-called experts are predicting, and of course, experts
• 11:49
  Speaker 1: have been wrong a lot and catastrophically wrong a lot,
• 11:54
  Speaker 1: especially in recent years. We saw that obviously most prominently
• 11:58
  Speaker 1: during the COVID panic, but let's presume for a second
• 12:01
  Speaker 1: that they're right. And there's going to be all sorts
• 12:04
  Speaker 1: of massive job loss. I think this is going to
• 12:06
  Speaker 1: cause economic devastation I think Musk's proposal or anything close
• 12:11
  Speaker 1: to it destroys the dollar. I think we have inflation
• 12:15
  Speaker 1: that is absolute, a runaway freight train. And I think
• 12:21
  Speaker 1: we have a world in which we don't even know
• 12:23
  Speaker 1: what the hell has value. I've talked about this before,
• 12:27
  Speaker 1: where I honestly do not know. I think about this
• 12:30
  Speaker 1: almost every day. What am I positive is going to
• 12:33
  Speaker 1: have value in five or 10 years? And I still
• 12:36
  Speaker 1: can't come up with an answer to that question. And
• 12:40
  Speaker 1: so that to me is right up there with my
• 12:43
  Speaker 1: highest concerns regarding where this is all heading with artificial intelligence.
• 12:49
  Speaker 1: The second factor that I'm very concerned about is the
• 12:53
  Speaker 1: blurring of reality and how that will, and this is,
• 12:58
  Speaker 1: maybe these are two separate issues, but in my mind,
• 13:00
  Speaker 1: they're related. The issue of hacking and scams. We're going
• 13:06
  Speaker 1: to be living in a world, if AI... is able
• 13:09
  Speaker 1: to do what they're claiming it will, we're already somewhat
• 13:13
  Speaker 1: living in this world, especially for old people. But you're
• 13:17
  Speaker 1: not going to be able to tell what's real and
• 13:19
  Speaker 1: what's fake. That is going to fundamentally alter so much
• 13:24
  Speaker 1: of how we function as a society. And almost all
• 13:27
  Speaker 1: of it is going to be devastatingly bad, whether it's
• 13:32
  Speaker 1: news stories or whether or not it's trusting with regard
• 13:37
  Speaker 1: to what's going on with your own personal finances, people
• 13:42
  Speaker 1: trying to hack into your emails, your bank account, whatever
• 13:46
  Speaker 1: it is, the ability for people to pull off scams
• 13:51
  Speaker 1: is going to be exponentially increased, seemingly, because of AI.
• 13:56
  Speaker 1: Not to mention the whole issue of hacking, which I've
• 13:59
  Speaker 1: already addressed, whether it's Corporate hacking or individual hacking, it
• 14:04
  Speaker 1: seems as if that to me is going to be
• 14:06
  Speaker 1: one of the biggest problems going forward, that all of
• 14:08
  Speaker 1: a sudden, these hackings are going to be far less
• 14:11
  Speaker 1: expensive and far easier to do. And how we protect
• 14:16
  Speaker 1: ourselves against that, I have no idea. This is outside
• 14:19
  Speaker 1: my realm of expertise. But that entire issue, which I've
• 14:23
  Speaker 1: kind of conflated a bunch of things together, that is
• 14:26
  Speaker 1: the second part of what I'm most concerned about with
• 14:29
  Speaker 1: regard to to where we're heading on AI. The third
• 14:33
  Speaker 1: is what I call tech tyranny. And this might be
• 14:38
  Speaker 1: the worst. It's hard to pick between economic devastation, not
• 14:43
  Speaker 1: knowing what the hell is real and fake and everything
• 14:46
  Speaker 1: being vulnerable to hacking and scams and the issue of
• 14:49
  Speaker 1: tech tyranny. And tech tyranny to me is a situation
• 14:54
  Speaker 1: where we now live in a world where The biggest
• 15:00
  Speaker 1: thing that has always protected us from living in a
• 15:04
  Speaker 1: totalitarian state, other than we used to believe in freedom
• 15:08
  Speaker 1: and liberty in the United States of America, but the
• 15:11
  Speaker 1: thing that you could always rely on the most was
• 15:14
  Speaker 1: it took too much manpower. Totalitarianism is incredibly, has been very,
• 15:21
  Speaker 1: very expensive, right? and takes a lot of manpower and
• 15:25
  Speaker 1: a lot of people that are willing to go along
• 15:27
  Speaker 1: with it, and it's just not feasible. Our government, as
• 15:31
  Speaker 1: monstrous as it is, doesn't have the resources to put us,
• 15:36
  Speaker 1: at least until recently, into a full totalitarian state where
• 15:41
  Speaker 1: you have absolutely no privacy and where anyone can be
• 15:44
  Speaker 1: targeted at any time because we have so much information,
• 15:48
  Speaker 1: so much data at our fingertips. AI fixes that problem.
• 15:55
  Speaker 1: And we're already seeing the evidence of that with regard
• 15:59
  Speaker 1: to this issue of flock cameras. Now, flock cameras is
• 16:03
  Speaker 1: not a government entity, but we're a very small step
• 16:08
  Speaker 1: from that kind of situation occurring. And this issue is
• 16:12
  Speaker 1: starting to get a lot more traction. I think it should.
• 16:15
  Speaker 1: And there was a Senate hearing in the last week
• 16:18
  Speaker 1: where one of my favorite senators, Republican senator from Missouri,
• 16:22
  Speaker 1: Josh Hawley, Josh Hawley is really on this issue now.
• 16:28
  Speaker 1: And I think understandably so, where he's trying to get
• 16:32
  Speaker 1: to the bottom of and educate people as to what's
• 16:35
  Speaker 1: really going on with these flock cameras and how they
• 16:37
  Speaker 1: could be easily used for anything. very nefarious purposes. Because
• 16:44
  Speaker 1: if you have this kind of data, eventually it's going
• 16:48
  Speaker 1: to be abused. People are going to be targeted for
• 16:51
  Speaker 1: all sorts of different reasons. They're going to be blackmailed.
• 16:55
  Speaker 1: And we're already seeing evidence of people being wrongly prosecuted,
• 17:01
  Speaker 1: wrongly convicted based upon technologies like Flock, where it's not 100%.
• 17:09
  Speaker 1: Sometimes it's flawed. But even if you get it to
• 17:12
  Speaker 1: a point where it's not flawed, where it's 100% reliable,
• 17:16
  Speaker 1: which I'm not sure you can possibly do, but let's
• 17:18
  Speaker 1: pretend you get there. Do we really want to be
• 17:21
  Speaker 1: living in that society? I mean, we know, we know
• 17:25
  Speaker 1: from COVID, we know from HOAs that the inherent reality
• 17:31
  Speaker 1: of the vast majority of humans is to abuse power.
• 17:36
  Speaker 1: They want to control the lives of other people, especially
• 17:41
  Speaker 1: liberals in blue states. That's the essence of a huge
• 17:45
  Speaker 1: portion of humanity. And you put these small people in charge,
• 17:49
  Speaker 1: look the fuck out. And now they have access to
• 17:54
  Speaker 1: data and video and and information that could be damaging
• 18:00
  Speaker 1: or compromising or could be used as a weapon and
• 18:04
  Speaker 1: to target someone for whatever reason, whether it's because of
• 18:07
  Speaker 1: their political views or because you have a vendetta against them,
• 18:12
  Speaker 1: whatever it is, the mind boggles, the mind boggles about
• 18:17
  Speaker 1: what can happen And we've seen time and time again
• 18:21
  Speaker 1: through history, most recently with the COVID panic, that this
• 18:24
  Speaker 1: is an issue that we must be wary of because
• 18:27
  Speaker 1: people lose their fucking minds. And now the biggest problem
• 18:31
  Speaker 1: preventing a totalitarian state, manpower, has been removed or is
• 18:36
  Speaker 1: in the process of being removed because we not just
• 18:40
  Speaker 1: have this video, these flock cameras around, but now we
• 18:44
  Speaker 1: have AI which can actually get into the data. and
• 18:49
  Speaker 1: make it incredibly easy to find what you're looking for
• 18:53
  Speaker 1: and to weaponize it. And so Josh Alley had this
• 18:58
  Speaker 1: Senate hearing, and I want to play two different clips
• 19:02
  Speaker 1: butted together, although it's from the same hearing, so it's
• 19:05
  Speaker 1: not like there's a massive context issue, but just for
• 19:07
  Speaker 1: the record, he doesn't say these two clips all in
• 19:13
  Speaker 1: one continuous portion of a speech, but I thought they
• 19:17
  Speaker 1: were the best two clips to try to give you
• 19:19
  Speaker 1: a sense of what this hearing was about, why Hallie
• 19:23
  Speaker 1: is so concerned about this issue, and why I am
• 19:26
  Speaker 1: as well. And here's what that sounded like in the
• 19:29
  Speaker 1: United States Senate.
• 19:30
  Speaker 4: This hearing is about a simple thing. It's trying to
• 19:34
  Speaker 4: get to the bottom of what is going on with
• 19:37
  Speaker 4: the expanding surveillance network that appears to be going coast
• 19:41
  Speaker 4: to coast in this country. I have in mind the
• 19:43
  Speaker 4: hundreds of thousands of individual cameras all linked to the cloud,
• 19:48
  Speaker 4: all powered by AI. that seem to be spreading all
• 19:51
  Speaker 4: across the country. Practically every state in the union now
• 19:54
  Speaker 4: has them, hundreds of thousands of them, recording billions of
• 19:58
  Speaker 4: images every single month. And the question is, where are
• 20:01
  Speaker 4: all of these images going? Who is using them? What
• 20:04
  Speaker 4: are the privacy protections for them? How do we make
• 20:07
  Speaker 4: sure that this kind of surveillance is consonant with the
• 20:11
  Speaker 4: Constitution of the United States. You know, there's many players
• 20:15
  Speaker 4: in this industry, but there's one name that really stands
• 20:18
  Speaker 4: out above the rest, and that is Flock. If you
• 20:21
  Speaker 4: haven't heard of Flock, all I have to say is
• 20:24
  Speaker 4: Flock's probably heard of you.
• 20:26
  Speaker 1: In fact, the truth is you.
• 20:27
  Speaker 4: Have probably been scanned and surveilled and tagged and logged
• 20:31
  Speaker 4: multiple times this week alone. And that's because Flock, by
• 20:37
  Speaker 4: its own admission and its own statistics, maintains a network
• 20:40
  Speaker 4: of 120,000 individual cameras in 49 states all across this country.
• 20:51
  Speaker 4: And Flock has admitted that until very recently, there were
• 20:54
  Speaker 4: basically no curbs or restrictions. on which of these subscribers,
• 20:58
  Speaker 4: so to speak, could search their databases, what they could
• 21:01
  Speaker 4: do with the images, how long the images were kept,
• 21:04
  Speaker 4: or what other uses they were put to. In fact,
• 21:06
  Speaker 4: customers can search using natural language across this data set,
• 21:11
  Speaker 4: including images that are months and months old. Flock customers
• 21:15
  Speaker 4: are even able to assemble a pattern of life That's
• 21:20
  Speaker 4: a comment from Flock itself, a pattern of life for
• 21:22
  Speaker 4: the millions of vehicles that are caught up in what
• 21:26
  Speaker 4: is becoming a massive dragnet. You know, the overwhelming majority
• 21:29
  Speaker 4: of drivers or other travelers who are surveilled here have
• 21:32
  Speaker 4: done absolutely nothing wrong. Nothing wrong at all. And I
• 21:36
  Speaker 4: think that's what's so troubling to people as they learn
• 21:38
  Speaker 4: about this technology. It sounds as if, based on the
• 21:41
  Speaker 4: reports we've heard, it's treating... Every citizen in America, I mean,
• 21:45
  Speaker 4: by now, surely almost all of us have been scanned
• 21:48
  Speaker 4: and logged as if we are criminals, yet without any
• 21:51
  Speaker 4: due process, without any reasonable suspicion, without any articulable suspicion whatsoever.
• 21:56
  Speaker 4: This just seems very, very strange, to put it mildly,
• 22:00
  Speaker 4: and something I think this committee really needs to hear about.
• 22:03
  Speaker 1: You're going to hear in just.
• 22:04
  Speaker 4: A moment from someone who has suffered at the hands
• 22:07
  Speaker 4: of this surveillance network, Lindsay Isaacs, who joins us from
• 22:10
  Speaker 4: Palm Coast, Florida. She was falsely accused of being in
• 22:13
  Speaker 4: a car crash, causing one, in fact, and she spent
• 22:16
  Speaker 4: 13 days in jail because of a misidentification from one
• 22:21
  Speaker 4: of these surveillance networks.
• 22:22
  Speaker 1: She's totally innocent. Sadly, who you're not.
• 22:24
  Speaker 4: Going to hear from today are the CEOs of Flock
• 22:28
  Speaker 4: and Axon and Motorola and Verceda. I invited all of them,
• 22:31
  Speaker 4: as Senator Durbin and I did, the whole committee. We
• 22:33
  Speaker 4: sent letters to them and asked them to be here,
• 22:36
  Speaker 4: and they're not, and I think that that's unfortunate. I
• 22:38
  Speaker 4: think we need to hear from them about what it
• 22:40
  Speaker 4: is their networks do. I think we need to hear
• 22:42
  Speaker 4: from them about their intentions, about their capabilities, and we
• 22:45
  Speaker 4: need to have an honest conversation about where this is
• 22:48
  Speaker 4: leading us.
• 22:48
  Speaker 1: As a country.
• 22:49
  Speaker 4: I'll close with this and let Senator Durbin make his
• 22:51
  Speaker 4: opening remarks. I just want to say this. This is
• 22:54
  Speaker 4: still the United States of America, and it shouldn't be
• 22:56
  Speaker 4: that when you walk out your door in the morning,
• 22:59
  Speaker 4: you just have to agree and assent and accept the
• 23:01
  Speaker 4: fact that you're going to be on camera morning, noon,
• 23:03
  Speaker 4: and night. You'll be tracked by anybody and everybody in
• 23:06
  Speaker 4: the world. You'll have no privacy whatsoever. You'll be tracked
• 23:08
  Speaker 4: when you take your kids to school and tracked when
• 23:10
  Speaker 4: you go to church and tracked when you go to
• 23:12
  Speaker 4: the grocery store. My gosh, that isn't the free society
• 23:16
  Speaker 4: that we've known. That's not what the Constitution guarantees. We've
• 23:20
  Speaker 4: got some work to do, I think, to make sure
• 23:21
  Speaker 4: that the Constitution is real and protected in this area.
• 23:24
  Speaker 4: And I look forward to doing it today, getting a
• 23:26
  Speaker 4: start at least.
• 23:27
  Speaker 1: Senator Durbin. I think that Josh Hawley is exactly correct.
• 23:32
  Speaker 1: And I'm very glad at least he is on this case.
• 23:36
  Speaker 1: Whether or not he's going to be able to prevent
• 23:38
  Speaker 1: this from becoming as dangerous as an issue as I
• 23:41
  Speaker 1: think that it already is, I have no way of knowing,
• 23:44
  Speaker 1: especially since there's a very good chance he's no longer
• 23:47
  Speaker 1: going to be in the majority in the US Senate
• 23:49
  Speaker 1: going forward. Now, on the good news side, it does
• 23:53
  Speaker 1: appear as if this is not a fully partisan issue.
• 23:56
  Speaker 1: There seems to be some Democrats who are also understanding
• 23:59
  Speaker 1: that this is a very concerning situation. But the flock cameras,
• 24:04
  Speaker 1: I think, are mostly symbolic of a larger issue that
• 24:09
  Speaker 1: not enough people are recognizing with regard to AI. So
• 24:12
  Speaker 1: just to review, AI may kill us all, but that's
• 24:17
  Speaker 1: not my major concern. My major concern is what we're
• 24:21
  Speaker 1: going to do to ourselves economically with Ridiculous proposals like
• 24:25
  Speaker 1: Elon Musk. What's going to happen when we cannot tell
• 24:28
  Speaker 1: the difference between what is real and what is fake? Hell,
• 24:32
  Speaker 1: this is a weird example. My daughter Grace and I
• 24:35
  Speaker 1: got in a stupid fight. I mean, frankly, it was
• 24:38
  Speaker 1: not my fault. It was her fault. She was having
• 24:40
  Speaker 1: a temper tantrum over this. We were watching a video
• 24:43
  Speaker 1: that I found on TikTok that I thought she'd be
• 24:46
  Speaker 1: very interested in because it dealt with something that's going
• 24:49
  Speaker 1: on with the South Park cartoon that she loves so much.
• 24:52
  Speaker 1: And she told me that she thought that the host
• 24:55
  Speaker 1: of the video was AI. And I thought that was
• 24:58
  Speaker 1: interesting because I did not think that it was AI.
• 25:01
  Speaker 1: She was positive that it was AI. And I wanted
• 25:03
  Speaker 1: to have a conversation with her about it as to
• 25:05
  Speaker 1: why she thought it was AI and why I did
• 25:08
  Speaker 1: not think it was AI. The issue of whether or
• 25:10
  Speaker 1: not it was AI or not was nowhere near as
• 25:12
  Speaker 1: important as the fact that she lost her shit and
• 25:15
  Speaker 1: started calling me names. And that ended up creating a
• 25:18
  Speaker 1: massive fight within the family and all that. I believe
• 25:21
  Speaker 1: it's all taken care of as a as of now,
• 25:23
  Speaker 1: but here's the point. My 14-year-old daughter and I are
• 25:28
  Speaker 1: fighting over whether or not a video that we're watching
• 25:32
  Speaker 1: in 2026 is real or AI. I would consider myself
• 25:37
  Speaker 1: to be a pretty, not a true expert, but way,
• 25:41
  Speaker 1: way above average when it comes to being able to
• 25:44
  Speaker 1: discern what is real and what is fake. My 14-year-old
• 25:49
  Speaker 1: daughter and I can't even agree. And this is only 2026.
• 25:53
  Speaker 1: So this is going to be a massive issue going
• 25:57
  Speaker 1: forward with all sorts of implications. And then there is
• 25:59
  Speaker 1: the issue of tech tyranny, which is currently, I think,
• 26:02
  Speaker 1: best represented by what's going on with the flock cameras. Obviously,
• 26:06
  Speaker 1: this is an issue we're going to continue to talk
• 26:08
  Speaker 1: about on the Death of Journalism podcast. And in case
• 26:11
  Speaker 1: you're keeping score at home, we're going to maintain, at
• 26:13
  Speaker 1: least for now, the fear factor at 8.5 out of 10.
• 26:17
  Speaker 1: when it comes to artificial intelligence. I wanna move now
• 26:21
  Speaker 1: to what has been the biggest social media story of
• 26:24
  Speaker 1: the week and a story that I've gotten myself involved with.
• 26:29
  Speaker 1: I hate that this continues to happen, but for whatever reason,
• 26:34
  Speaker 1: I have become a bit of an expert, maybe a
• 26:36
  Speaker 1: world-class expert on the entire issue of sex abuse allegations.
• 26:42
  Speaker 1: And there's another one that has exploded in bizarre fashion.
• 26:46
  Speaker 1: throughout the media and across social media as well. I'm
• 26:50
  Speaker 1: referring to what is being called in the media, the
• 26:55
  Speaker 1: Cornell gang rape case. I guess that's what they're referring
• 26:59
  Speaker 1: to it as. Cornell University, of course, is a pseudo
• 27:03
  Speaker 1: Ivy League school. They're kind of the bastard stepchild of
• 27:06
  Speaker 1: the Ivy League, but they're technically an Ivy League school, which,
• 27:10
  Speaker 1: by the way, I think plays a little bit of
• 27:12
  Speaker 1: a role in this story. The fact that it's Ivy
• 27:15
  Speaker 1: League clearly increases the media attention. But the fact that
• 27:19
  Speaker 1: it's not really Ivy League, I think also may have
• 27:22
  Speaker 1: played a small role in how this story went down.
• 27:28
  Speaker 1: For those of you who have not been following this,
• 27:31
  Speaker 1: The basics of this, I'm going to just give you
• 27:34
  Speaker 1: the basic of the media version of this, is that
• 27:37
  Speaker 1: back in 2024, almost exactly two years ago, there was
• 27:41
  Speaker 1: an episode where a Cornell female student ended up having
• 27:47
  Speaker 1: sex of some sort with what I believe to be four.
• 27:52
  Speaker 1: This is important. The numbers are always important in this case,
• 27:55
  Speaker 1: and the media always gets the numbers wrong. They always...
• 27:58
  Speaker 1: manipulate the numbers, but had sex with four different guys
• 28:03
  Speaker 1: in two different threesomes. You're hearing that the term Cornell seven,
• 28:08
  Speaker 1: but I have found absolutely no evidence whatsoever that seven
• 28:13
  Speaker 1: guys had sex with this woman, whether it was consensual
• 28:16
  Speaker 1: or not. Again, No one ever wants to talk about
• 28:19
  Speaker 1: the details on these things because it always gets icky. But,
• 28:23
  Speaker 1: you know, facts matter. And one of the biggest mistakes
• 28:27
  Speaker 1: the media is making, and they're making a lot of
• 28:29
  Speaker 1: mistakes on this case, is they're claiming that there were
• 28:33
  Speaker 1: seven men that are accused of now, two years later,
• 28:36
  Speaker 1: because the story has changed, raping this Cornell female student.
• 28:40
  Speaker 1: That's not accurate. It's actually four based upon her own statements.
• 28:44
  Speaker 1: But two years ago, The woman told police very clearly
• 28:49
  Speaker 1: that everything was consensual. They did a lot of drugs.
• 28:52
  Speaker 1: They had a lot of sex. But nothing illegal happened.
• 28:58
  Speaker 1: There were no charges filed. Two of the seven men
• 29:02
  Speaker 1: were expelled. The frat was suspended. These were frat boys, which,
• 29:06
  Speaker 1: of course, that's another part of this story the media
• 29:09
  Speaker 1: loves because, you know, crazy white women, liberals, Think frat
• 29:15
  Speaker 1: boys in an Ivy League school, this is our target.
• 29:19
  Speaker 1: These are men we want to destroy. Even though, by
• 29:22
  Speaker 1: the way, at least three of them are not white men.
• 29:25
  Speaker 1: I have no idea how privileged they were. They were
• 29:28
  Speaker 1: clearly at least somewhat privileged since they went to Cornell.
• 29:31
  Speaker 1: But the reality is that at least three of them
• 29:34
  Speaker 1: were not white. I'm sure the perception among most people is,
• 29:39
  Speaker 1: although their names and faces are becoming far more prominent
• 29:42
  Speaker 1: than they should be at this point, the perception is
• 29:45
  Speaker 1: that they're white. They're not. But what's happened here is
• 29:49
  Speaker 1: that over a two-year period of time, the story has
• 29:52
  Speaker 1: dramatically changed from the standpoint of the woman involved in
• 29:57
  Speaker 1: this episode. So what sparked all of a sudden, two
• 30:03
  Speaker 1: years later, all of this media coverage? A lawsuit. Now,
• 30:09
  Speaker 1: you know, since you're a listener to the Death of
• 30:12
  Speaker 1: Journalism podcast, this is one of my pet peeves. I
• 30:16
  Speaker 1: have a lot, but this is one of my clearly
• 30:18
  Speaker 1: top five. And that is how the media has completely
• 30:24
  Speaker 1: lost the plot and thrown away basic standards and when
• 30:30
  Speaker 1: it comes to reporting on allegations, especially in the realm
• 30:35
  Speaker 1: of sexual abuse, especially when it comes to academia. There
• 30:39
  Speaker 1: used to be an understanding, because this is as obvious
• 30:43
  Speaker 1: as it could possibly be, but apparently not for media morons,
• 30:47
  Speaker 1: that a lawsuit is just a piece of paper. All
• 30:52
  Speaker 1: you need to file a lawsuit is a lawyer effectively.
• 30:58
  Speaker 1: And any lawyer, is going to take a chance. Getting
• 31:02
  Speaker 1: a lawyer to buy a lottery ticket to get a
• 31:07
  Speaker 1: chance for big money from a deep-pocketed institution like Cornell
• 31:10
  Speaker 1: University is not going to be difficult. A lawsuit is
• 31:14
  Speaker 1: meaningless from a factual perspective. You can put anything you
• 31:20
  Speaker 1: want in a lawsuit. You're not even going to be
• 31:24
  Speaker 1: liable for it. You're protected. It's completely... without inherent credibility.
• 31:32
  Speaker 1: Yet somehow we've gotten to the point, this happens all
• 31:36
  Speaker 1: the time now, and lawyers understand this. They have figured
• 31:40
  Speaker 1: it out. that the media is so stupid now, especially
• 31:44
  Speaker 1: in the realm of sexual abuse, and so biased, and
• 31:48
  Speaker 1: so willing to be activists for any allegation, that they
• 31:52
  Speaker 1: treat a filing of a lawsuit, not even a lawsuit
• 31:57
  Speaker 1: that has been deemed credible by a judge, and we're
• 31:59
  Speaker 1: going to head to trial on this, that would at
• 32:03
  Speaker 1: least be somewhat of a standard. I mean, to me,
• 32:08
  Speaker 1: The absolutely lowest level of standard for reporting on a
• 32:11
  Speaker 1: lawsuit would be that there's an actual trial date or
• 32:16
  Speaker 1: ideally a trial itself. Okay, fine. If there's a trial itself,
• 32:22
  Speaker 1: then go ahead and report on it. That's a news event.
• 32:26
  Speaker 1: But the filing of a lawsuit is not a news event.
• 32:32
  Speaker 4: It's not.
• 32:33
  Speaker 1: It's not. Certainly not with regard to the idea that
• 32:38
  Speaker 1: you are giving inherent credibility to what is alleged in
• 32:42
  Speaker 1: the lawsuit. And especially when what's alleged in the lawsuit
• 32:48
  Speaker 1: contradicts the person who is suing's own statements on the matter.
• 32:56
  Speaker 1: That's not in question here. The woman said... to police weeks,
• 33:04
  Speaker 1: not the next morning. Now when she's hung over or
• 33:08
  Speaker 1: maybe still under the influence of alcohol and drugs, whatever,
• 33:11
  Speaker 1: or is still not sure what really happened, doesn't have
• 33:16
  Speaker 1: her bearings, hasn't talked to her friends or family or therapist, whatever.
• 33:20
  Speaker 1: Weeks later, not the day after, weeks later, she made
• 33:25
  Speaker 1: it clear in vivid detail So the idea that she
• 33:30
  Speaker 1: was so intoxicated or incapacitated she couldn't remember is bullshit.
• 33:34
  Speaker 1: She remembered incredible details about what happened during this crazy
• 33:39
  Speaker 1: night of sex and drugs and made it clear it
• 33:42
  Speaker 1: was all consensual. And then two years later, in a lawsuit,
• 33:48
  Speaker 1: let's be clear what a lawsuit is. What's a lawsuit?
• 33:50
  Speaker 1: It is an attempt to get money. That's the other
• 33:54
  Speaker 1: part that the media just completely ignores when it comes
• 33:58
  Speaker 1: to lawsuits. Not only does it have no credibility, there's
• 34:02
  Speaker 1: an inherent deep conflict of interest with regard to the truth,
• 34:08
  Speaker 1: which is you are trying to get money. You have
• 34:13
  Speaker 1: a financial incentive to not tell the truth. Again, especially
• 34:20
  Speaker 1: when it contradicts dramatically with what you originally claimed. And
• 34:26
  Speaker 1: so now we have all the elements of a perfect
• 34:29
  Speaker 1: storm and a witch hunt with regard to what's going
• 34:33
  Speaker 1: on here, because the media pretends, and I honestly don't know,
• 34:38
  Speaker 1: I don't know anymore, whether or not the media doesn't care,
• 34:41
  Speaker 1: because they just know it's good for business, this is
• 34:44
  Speaker 1: a great story, they love academic-related sexual abuse stories. I
• 34:50
  Speaker 1: don't know whether or not they don't care or they
• 34:53
  Speaker 1: just don't realize now. Some of these people are so stupid.
• 34:57
  Speaker 1: And there's a younger generation now, and a lot of
• 35:00
  Speaker 1: them are female. Female-dominated newsrooms play a huge role in
• 35:05
  Speaker 1: stories like this because nobody, there's no one remotely in
• 35:10
  Speaker 1: the realm of a John Ziegler in any of these
• 35:13
  Speaker 1: newsrooms that's going to say, Hello, hold on a second.
• 35:17
  Speaker 1: What are we doing here? Because even if there's somebody
• 35:19
  Speaker 1: in that newsroom that has that inclination, they don't have
• 35:22
  Speaker 1: the balls to come forward and say it because they're
• 35:25
  Speaker 1: going to get run over by a Mack truck of estrogen.
• 35:29
  Speaker 1: Because the women in these newsrooms are on the warpath immediately. Immediately.
• 35:36
  Speaker 1: And it doesn't matter to them that this is just
• 35:39
  Speaker 1: a lawsuit and that it dramatically contradicts what the woman
• 35:44
  Speaker 1: said at the time. No, no, no. This gives us
• 35:49
  Speaker 1: enough cover to go with the story. Somehow we've reduced
• 35:54
  Speaker 1: the standard to a lawsuit has been filed. Legal documents
• 35:59
  Speaker 1: is somehow a magic phrase. It's all bullshit. Just because
• 36:04
  Speaker 1: you put it in a legal document is completely irrelevant,
• 36:08
  Speaker 1: especially when, again, it's a lawsuit looking for money and
• 36:12
  Speaker 1: the inherent allegation, the base allegation, the fundamental allegation goes
• 36:17
  Speaker 1: against the statement of the person who is suing. But
• 36:21
  Speaker 1: that's what's happened here. And it's not even in dispute.
• 36:27
  Speaker 1: It's not even in dispute.
• 36:29
  Speaker 5: Right.
• 36:30
  Speaker 1: Now, one of the many, many, many problems that I've
• 36:33
  Speaker 1: seen this time and time and time again when it
• 36:35
  Speaker 1: comes to allegations of sexual abuse is that nobody ever
• 36:40
  Speaker 1: wants to go into the details. And I get it
• 36:44
  Speaker 1: because a lot of these details are messy. They're gross.
• 36:49
  Speaker 1: They oftentimes are disgusting. They're sometimes infuriating. But details matter.
• 36:57
  Speaker 1: And the media is terrible at this. They never, I've
• 37:00
  Speaker 1: already told you, they can't even get the goddamn number right.
• 37:02
  Speaker 1: I mean, numbers are, we saw this in the Sandusky case.
• 37:06
  Speaker 1: We've seen this in other cases as well. It feels
• 37:09
  Speaker 1: like in this case, because there's the issue of threesomes,
• 37:15
  Speaker 1: I think that in people's perception, three is a magic number.
• 37:19
  Speaker 1: If you're of my age, you remember the Schoolhouse Rocks
• 37:25
  Speaker 1: cartoons on Saturday mornings. and one of the, you know, they, they,
• 37:29
  Speaker 1: you know, I'm just a bill. And one of their
• 37:31
  Speaker 1: more famous, uh, sketches cartoons was three is a magic number.
• 37:36
  Speaker 1: I always remember that one. And three is a magic
• 37:39
  Speaker 1: number in so many ways. Well, when it comes to sex,
• 37:42
  Speaker 1: three is a magic number because it feels like three
• 37:45
  Speaker 1: is okay. I mean, I've never been involved in a threesome,
• 37:50
  Speaker 1: but it feels like, and you know, if you follow
• 37:53
  Speaker 1: social media trends, there is a thing called, uh, you know,
• 37:57
  Speaker 1: the Eiffel Tower and women wanting to be taken to Paris.
• 38:01
  Speaker 1: And that's all slang for a threesome, two guys usually
• 38:06
  Speaker 1: and a girl. And people, I think, will accept that as, okay, well,
• 38:12
  Speaker 1: that's in the realm of normal sexual behavior. But when
• 38:16
  Speaker 1: you get beyond three, now we're into gang rape, especially women.
• 38:24
  Speaker 1: They don't understand. Oh, wait a minute. You can't You
• 38:26
  Speaker 1: can't have more than three people involved in this. And
• 38:29
  Speaker 1: in my scenario, it's two men. But so if you
• 38:31
  Speaker 1: go beyond three people, now we've got a gang rape.
• 38:36
  Speaker 1: And the number seven is important because, oh, my God,
• 38:40
  Speaker 1: that's craziness. Well, again, to be clear, that's not the allegation.
• 38:46
  Speaker 1: If you actually read what she has claimed, both originally
• 38:51
  Speaker 1: as well as two years later in a lawsuit, We
• 38:54
  Speaker 1: have two separate threesomes. I know, it's crazy. But we
• 39:00
  Speaker 1: have two separate threesomes involving four men. There's no evidence
• 39:06
  Speaker 1: that three of them, of these so-called Cornell Seven, did
• 39:10
  Speaker 1: anything sexual. Now, I guess you could argue that being
• 39:14
  Speaker 1: present While some of this stuff is going on, makes
• 39:18
  Speaker 1: you somewhat culpable if it's in fact criminal. I get that.
• 39:22
  Speaker 1: But that's presuming criminality. We don't have that yet. So
• 39:28
  Speaker 1: you can't call... all these guys being involved in a
• 39:32
  Speaker 1: gang rape that hasn't been proven yet. And there's another
• 39:36
  Speaker 1: element of this where, and I think this is a
• 39:37
  Speaker 1: huge part of the problem in the way this is
• 39:40
  Speaker 1: being perceived. There is a conflation of the sex allegations
• 39:47
  Speaker 1: and the drug allegations. Like, for instance, I'm pretty darn
• 39:52
  Speaker 1: sure that the penalties that Cornell issued at the time
• 39:56
  Speaker 1: related to the drug use, the illegal drug use, not
• 40:01
  Speaker 1: the legal sex. But the media especially is conflating these
• 40:06
  Speaker 1: two things. And they're also misinterpreting, I think, some of
• 40:09
  Speaker 1: the text messages that occurred in the aftermath of this
• 40:14
  Speaker 1: crazy event. Some of them are totally inappropriate. I don't
• 40:17
  Speaker 1: think that they prove anything. what the media thinks that
• 40:20
  Speaker 1: they do, because you have to remember, a lot of
• 40:22
  Speaker 1: this is out of context. These are guys bragging about
• 40:26
  Speaker 1: what happened. It's after the fact. A lot of people
• 40:33
  Speaker 1: have compared this case to maybe Duke Lacrosse or the
• 40:37
  Speaker 1: University of Virginia Rolling Stone thing, which was basically a hoax.
• 40:41
  Speaker 1: I don't really think that those two cases are all
• 40:45
  Speaker 1: that similar to what is happening here. I actually think
• 40:49
  Speaker 1: the closest parallel is the Steubenville High School case, football case,
• 40:55
  Speaker 1: which was in the aftermath of the Penn State situation
• 40:59
  Speaker 1: where I was deeply, deeply involved in that because I
• 41:01
  Speaker 1: had decades prior written a book about Steubenville High School's
• 41:05
  Speaker 1: football team and the coach was still the coach. And
• 41:07
  Speaker 1: I went to Steubenville on multiple occasions to try to
• 41:10
  Speaker 1: help him through this. There are a lot of similarities,
• 41:13
  Speaker 1: a lot of similarities where you had a drunk Female,
• 41:19
  Speaker 1: you had multiple guys doing things that they shouldn't have done.
• 41:25
  Speaker 1: The woman clearly had a thing. The girl, female, what
• 41:29
  Speaker 1: have you, clearly had a thing for both of the guys.
• 41:34
  Speaker 1: There was no, in this particular case in Steubenville, and
• 41:37
  Speaker 1: this is why I think there's a parallel. One of
• 41:40
  Speaker 1: the things that drove me crazy about the Steubenville case
• 41:42
  Speaker 1: is that no one ever talked about the actual details.
• 41:46
  Speaker 1: It was called... the Steubenville rape case. But there was
• 41:51
  Speaker 1: no actual allegation of sex in that case. Now, again,
• 41:54
  Speaker 1: that doesn't make it right, but it does make it relevant.
• 42:00
  Speaker 1: ABC 2020, when they did their hour show on the
• 42:05
  Speaker 1: Steubenville rape case, they had a clip of the coach
• 42:08
  Speaker 1: I had written a book about, legendary coach, Reno Sucosh,
• 42:12
  Speaker 1: on tape telling the police that he had asked the
• 42:15
  Speaker 1: two football players, did you fuck her? which is classic Reno,
• 42:21
  Speaker 1: didn't surprise me a bit when I saw that clip.
• 42:24
  Speaker 1: And the boys had told him no, and he believed
• 42:28
  Speaker 1: them because they were telling the truth. But that didn't
• 42:32
  Speaker 1: stop the media and the perception of being created as
• 42:36
  Speaker 1: to what had transpired with this girl. Well, in this
• 42:39
  Speaker 1: particular case, there was sex, although the sex was The
• 42:44
  Speaker 1: most polite gangbang sex in the history of gangbangs, if
• 42:48
  Speaker 1: this was a gangbang. I mean that sincerely. I have
• 42:53
  Speaker 1: watched numerous videos and read lots of documents about what
• 42:57
  Speaker 1: this woman has alleged. And this was incredibly polite sex
• 43:02
  Speaker 1: and gangbang, if this was a gangbang. And, you know,
• 43:07
  Speaker 1: a lot of there's been a lot of misunderstandings about
• 43:10
  Speaker 1: what really transpired here, much like the Steubenville High School
• 43:14
  Speaker 1: football case. Then there are also parallels to Penn State,
• 43:17
  Speaker 1: which I'm going to get to in the broader picture
• 43:20
  Speaker 1: of Cornell and a cover up, which I'm going to
• 43:23
  Speaker 1: get to momentarily. But let me just with regard to
• 43:26
  Speaker 1: the details. And I've broken this down on social media.
• 43:30
  Speaker 1: And when I say this was the most polite, quote unquote,
• 43:33
  Speaker 1: gang rape of all time, I mean that sincerely. Because
• 43:37
  Speaker 1: if you go through the woman's original statement, there are
• 43:41
  Speaker 1: at least five times where she clearly consents to drug
• 43:49
  Speaker 1: and or sex acts. Five times where she consents verbally
• 43:56
  Speaker 1: by her own admission. There are also, I think maybe
• 44:00
  Speaker 1: even more tellingly, five times in which guys are told
• 44:07
  Speaker 1: to stop doing something and they do every single time
• 44:13
  Speaker 1: where she objects and they stop. And even a situation
• 44:18
  Speaker 1: where the guys stop voluntarily because they're uncomfortable with what's
• 44:24
  Speaker 1: going on. So there are at least five points of
• 44:28
  Speaker 1: consent verbally and at least five times in which the
• 44:33
  Speaker 1: guys stop doing what they're doing because she has given
• 44:38
  Speaker 1: some indication that she's not cool with it. I mean,
• 44:43
  Speaker 1: this whole thing is absurd. Again, I'm not defending the
• 44:47
  Speaker 1: behavior of the guys. I'm certainly not defending the behavior
• 44:50
  Speaker 1: of the woman. Everyone is wrong here. But to call
• 44:56
  Speaker 1: what was described by this woman weeks after the fact
• 45:00
  Speaker 1: a gang rape is completely ridiculous. I actually think, since
• 45:05
  Speaker 1: I'm the guy who will always tell you things that
• 45:07
  Speaker 1: no one else will tell you, but I actually think
• 45:10
  Speaker 1: the key moment in this deal was she agrees to
• 45:14
  Speaker 1: a threesome with these two guys. The one guy she
• 45:17
  Speaker 1: seems to like more than any other. I think he's
• 45:20
  Speaker 1: referred to as number one. And he loses his erection.
• 45:26
  Speaker 1: And I really believe that if that hadn't happened, that
• 45:31
  Speaker 1: probably none of the rest of this occurs. But that
• 45:36
  Speaker 1: development basically blows up the plan. And I think that
• 45:41
  Speaker 1: there's a sense, maybe facilitated by her, that there needs
• 45:45
  Speaker 1: to be reinforcements brought in because this guy loses his
• 45:48
  Speaker 1: erection and falls asleep. And then later on in the night,
• 45:52
  Speaker 1: he wants redemption, in her words, because... You know, he
• 45:55
  Speaker 1: couldn't take part in the threesome. So the first threesome
• 46:00
  Speaker 1: gets replaced by the second threesome because the first threesome
• 46:03
  Speaker 1: was a disaster. Again, one guy loses his erection. The
• 46:08
  Speaker 1: other guy is dry heaving. And she's trying to take
• 46:11
  Speaker 1: care of both of them. This is a gang rape.
• 46:14
  Speaker 1: This is the only gang rape in history where the
• 46:17
  Speaker 1: victim is trying to take care of a guy who
• 46:18
  Speaker 1: loses his erection and another guy who's sick because of
• 46:22
  Speaker 1: the alcohol. But in the course of this, she provides
• 46:26
  Speaker 1: verbal and physical consent on multiple occasions. And maybe the
• 46:34
  Speaker 1: most obvious thing that she does, which in a rational
• 46:38
  Speaker 1: world would end any debate over whether or not what
• 46:44
  Speaker 1: happened was consensual or not, is, and this is where
• 46:48
  Speaker 1: details matter, by her own admission, she tells police, weeks
• 46:54
  Speaker 1: after the event, that she snorted drugs, ketamine, off of
• 47:00
  Speaker 1: the penis of one of the guys involved while several
• 47:05
  Speaker 1: of the other guys are there watching. Now, I'm sorry.
• 47:11
  Speaker 1: That is consent. When a woman is snorting drugs off
• 47:16
  Speaker 1: a guy's dick while other guys are watching and she,
• 47:21
  Speaker 1: by her own admission, is cognizant. She's not incapacitated. She's
• 47:27
  Speaker 1: able to remember this and give great details about this. Well,
• 47:32
  Speaker 1: great they were, but there were details about this given
• 47:37
  Speaker 1: to police weeks later. I'm sorry. That's game, set, match.
• 47:43
  Speaker 1: That is clear, obvious consent that you cannot go back on.
• 47:50
  Speaker 1: But apparently we now live in a world where Women
• 47:55
  Speaker 1: are treated as infants. And we saw it with the
• 48:00
  Speaker 1: Lindsay Clancy case, which I'm going to get to in
• 48:02
  Speaker 1: a little bit, where women can't be held responsible for
• 48:05
  Speaker 1: their hormones. Well, after birth, they can kill three of
• 48:09
  Speaker 1: their children and they're not really criminally responsible for that
• 48:14
  Speaker 1: in the minds of many women. Because I guess women
• 48:17
  Speaker 1: can't control their hormones. Well, you're also an infant because...
• 48:23
  Speaker 1: You can't be, I mean, again, this is how women
• 48:26
  Speaker 1: are treating other women. This is the rules that are
• 48:28
  Speaker 1: being created here. If a woman cannot be expected to
• 48:32
  Speaker 1: tell the truth about what happened weeks later and then
• 48:35
  Speaker 1: is allowed in an attempt to make money in a
• 48:38
  Speaker 1: lawsuit two years later to completely change her story, I'm sorry,
• 48:43
  Speaker 1: you're treating her like an infant. This is a college-aged
• 48:48
  Speaker 1: Ivy League student. She's capable of making these decisions, and
• 48:53
  Speaker 1: she was in a very safe place to tell the
• 48:56
  Speaker 1: truth about what happened. Now, a lot of her lawsuit
• 49:00
  Speaker 1: is trying to exaggerate and change not really the facts
• 49:05
  Speaker 1: of what happened, but whether or not she was incapacitated.
• 49:09
  Speaker 1: Because that's the key problem legally, is that the law, thankfully,
• 49:15
  Speaker 1: is pretty darn clear about this. You can be intoxicated
• 49:19
  Speaker 1: and still get... consent. Otherwise, we'd have total chaos. As
• 49:25
  Speaker 1: soon as someone had a glass of wine, you wouldn't
• 49:30
  Speaker 1: be able to engage in consensual sex in theory because
• 49:33
  Speaker 1: they could always claim that they were intoxicated There would
• 49:37
  Speaker 1: be complete insanity to have that be the law. People
• 49:43
  Speaker 1: need to look at the larger picture of this, the
• 49:45
  Speaker 1: precedence that would be set, how in the world you
• 49:48
  Speaker 1: could possibly have a society that was remotely functional if
• 49:54
  Speaker 1: the rules were anything close to what the supporters of
• 49:58
  Speaker 1: this woman, this former Cornell student, want them to be.
• 50:04
  Speaker 1: I mean, it's complete insanity what we're dealing with here.
• 50:10
  Speaker 1: You cannot take back consent two years later in an
• 50:13
  Speaker 1: effort to make money. And there's no evidence, to me,
• 50:17
  Speaker 1: the strongest evidence that she wasn't incapacitated is the level
• 50:21
  Speaker 1: of detail that she provided to the police weeks later.
• 50:24
  Speaker 1: If she was incapacitated, she wouldn't remember that she snorted
• 50:30
  Speaker 1: drugs off of one of the guy's penises. I mean,
• 50:33
  Speaker 1: it's just, It's mind-blowing to me. Yet we're in the
• 50:38
  Speaker 1: middle of a witch hunt, a literal witch hunt. The
• 50:41
  Speaker 1: supporters of this woman are doing a rally in a
• 50:46
  Speaker 1: couple of weeks. They put out a poster with a
• 50:49
  Speaker 1: literal witch riding the broom, coming to the rescue, I guess,
• 50:55
  Speaker 1: of this woman. Us witches are all going to get
• 50:59
  Speaker 1: together and support this woman whose identity we don't know,
• 51:03
  Speaker 1: which is another part of this whole absurdity. I want
• 51:07
  Speaker 1: to get to the issue of anonymous accusers and the
• 51:12
  Speaker 1: identity of the accused in just a minute. But I
• 51:16
  Speaker 1: want to deal with the media coverage of this a
• 51:19
  Speaker 1: little bit more since this is the Death of Journalism podcast.
• 51:22
  Speaker 1: I mean, there have been some really, really bad reporting
• 51:26
  Speaker 1: on this. I mean, CBS has a reporter by the
• 51:28
  Speaker 1: name of Lilia Luciano, who might as well be on
• 51:32
  Speaker 1: the payroll of the plaintiff's attorney here. And I talk
• 51:36
  Speaker 1: about this all the time. The news media often acts
• 51:41
  Speaker 1: as the PR firm for these lawsuits. And the lawyers
• 51:46
  Speaker 1: have figured this out. They know exactly what the media wants.
• 51:50
  Speaker 1: They know how the media will react. And they know
• 51:53
  Speaker 1: the pressure that that will put on, especially liberal academic
• 51:57
  Speaker 1: institutions like Cornell, The media is literally on the team,
• 52:04
  Speaker 1: whether they realize it or not, they're in a key
• 52:07
  Speaker 1: part of this. If they acted responsibly and didn't report
• 52:11
  Speaker 1: on a fucking lawsuit until at least it got a trial,
• 52:16
  Speaker 1: then there wouldn't be this firestorm. There wouldn't be this
• 52:19
  Speaker 1: pressure on Cornell. There wouldn't be the pressure on the
• 52:23
  Speaker 1: local DA. The governor of the state, Governor Hochul, wouldn't
• 52:27
  Speaker 1: be calling for an independent investigation. I mean, we've got
• 52:31
  Speaker 1: all the elements of the perfect storm here where I
• 52:34
  Speaker 1: am convinced that eventually these so-called Cornell 7, these guys
• 52:40
  Speaker 1: are going to be charged with something. just to save face,
• 52:45
  Speaker 1: just to make this go away, just to placate the
• 52:48
  Speaker 1: female mob and the media that has their pitchforks and
• 52:53
  Speaker 1: their witches' brooms out in their thirst for what they
• 52:57
  Speaker 1: think is justice, when in reality, what they're really promoting
• 53:02
  Speaker 1: is total anarchy and injustice. and also promoting really, really
• 53:09
  Speaker 1: bad behavior by women. Again, the guys seemingly behave poorly here,
• 53:15
  Speaker 1: especially the texts in the aftermath, not gonna defend those.
• 53:19
  Speaker 1: But I mean, this woman was a student at Cornell.
• 53:25
  Speaker 1: She clearly made it very obvious that she was consenting
• 53:30
  Speaker 1: to various sex acts and drug acts. Now, would it
• 53:34
  Speaker 1: have been a lot smarter for these guys to have
• 53:37
  Speaker 1: some restraint and not to partake in that? Obviously. But
• 53:42
  Speaker 1: these are college-age guys. I mean, the reality is they're
• 53:49
  Speaker 1: going to do what they're going to do. And if
• 53:51
  Speaker 1: you look at the details, as I've already said, these
• 53:54
  Speaker 1: guys were about as polite as you could possibly be
• 53:57
  Speaker 1: under these circumstances on multiple occasions. They stopped doing what
• 54:02
  Speaker 1: they were doing because they realized that the woman wasn't
• 54:05
  Speaker 1: into it. They obeyed her wishes at every turn. And again,
• 54:13
  Speaker 1: there were guys involved in this, the so-called seven, that
• 54:16
  Speaker 1: effectively shut it down. I think, again, this is an
• 54:21
  Speaker 1: important point, I really think the drug element of this
• 54:25
  Speaker 1: is being conflated. The drug element, which was the illegal
• 54:29
  Speaker 1: part of this, is a lot of what was causing concerns.
• 54:35
  Speaker 1: Like for instance, one of the guys says, we're gonna
• 54:37
  Speaker 1: shut down whatever this is. Well, because there was illegal
• 54:41
  Speaker 1: drug use. The sex is legal. The drug part was not.
• 54:49
  Speaker 1: And so there's a conflation going on, I think on
• 54:51
  Speaker 1: purpose in the news media and people just don't get
• 54:55
  Speaker 1: into the details and they don't think it through. that
• 54:58
  Speaker 1: wait a minute, there's two separate issues here. And if
• 55:01
  Speaker 1: you're apologizing, that's the other part of this. Never fucking apologize, guys,
• 55:05
  Speaker 1: I guess, because that'll be seen as a sign of guilt.
• 55:08
  Speaker 1: But what are you apologizing for? By the way, just
• 55:12
  Speaker 1: to be clear, the woman sent messages to two of
• 55:16
  Speaker 1: these guys that she wanted to get together and do
• 55:19
  Speaker 1: similar activities again in the future. Come on. This is
• 55:25
  Speaker 1: complete insanity. But The media has been terrible. I could
• 55:30
  Speaker 1: play lots of different clips, but I'm only going to
• 55:32
  Speaker 1: play one. And it's from CNN's Jake Tapper. And Jake
• 55:37
  Speaker 1: Tapper really pisses me off because he's a guy that
• 55:40
  Speaker 1: I've talked about before. I used to have some respect for.
• 55:43
  Speaker 1: We're about the same age. We both grew up in Philadelphia,
• 55:45
  Speaker 1: Philadelphia sports fans. We used to have a decent rapport
• 55:49
  Speaker 1: on social media. He lost his fucking mind during the
• 55:52
  Speaker 1: COVID panic, was totally wrong. Here's a guy who has
• 55:56
  Speaker 1: the audacity to mock those who were saying that President
• 56:00
  Speaker 1: Joe Biden did not have the mental acuity to be president.
• 56:04
  Speaker 1: And then he writes a fucking book, fucking book about
• 56:08
  Speaker 1: how this was always obvious that President Joe Biden didn't
• 56:12
  Speaker 1: have the mental acuity. Oh, by the way, he took
• 56:14
  Speaker 1: part in the debate where that became obvious to the
• 56:17
  Speaker 1: whole world and claims that that he and his co-host
• 56:22
  Speaker 1: Dana Bash knew during the debate that this was a
• 56:25
  Speaker 1: disaster and that he did not have the mental acuity
• 56:28
  Speaker 1: to do the job, yet they didn't ask one fucking
• 56:30
  Speaker 1: question about that during the debate? I mean, this guy,
• 56:36
  Speaker 1: to me, has become one of the very worst. And
• 56:41
  Speaker 1: it's really disappointing because I've been following his career for
• 56:44
  Speaker 1: a long time, When he was young, he was actually
• 56:47
  Speaker 1: pretty fair. And I always thought he was pretty smart.
• 56:50
  Speaker 1: But this clip you're about to hear is one of
• 56:52
  Speaker 1: the worst and probably the worst when it comes to
• 56:55
  Speaker 1: this particular topic, because Jake Tapper is pure virtue signaling here.
• 57:02
  Speaker 1: He's literally invoking his own daughter in a conversation with
• 57:06
  Speaker 1: the DA, this poor straight white guy who did the
• 57:11
  Speaker 1: right thing in not filing charges back in 2024 because
• 57:16
  Speaker 1: there was no crime alleged. There was no crime alleged.
• 57:20
  Speaker 1: What the fuck was he supposed to do? But now
• 57:22
  Speaker 1: he's doing all these interviews, being berated, having the governor
• 57:27
  Speaker 1: basically say, that he can't be trusted to make this
• 57:31
  Speaker 1: decision going forward. He's been forced to reopen the case,
• 57:34
  Speaker 1: which this is a classic example of where the media,
• 57:37
  Speaker 1: they facilitate a panic and then they use the panic
• 57:43
  Speaker 1: as evidence that they were right to facilitate it. When
• 57:47
  Speaker 1: the DA says he's reopening the case, he's just placating
• 57:50
  Speaker 1: the media and social media and the mob because he
• 57:55
  Speaker 1: doesn't want to look like he's not taking this seriously.
• 57:59
  Speaker 1: So the fact that he's reopening the case because of
• 58:01
  Speaker 1: the lawsuit is not an indication that the original decision
• 58:05
  Speaker 1: was wrong. It's just that he's placating the mob. And
• 58:10
  Speaker 1: we cannot have mob justice. We've seen time and time
• 58:12
  Speaker 1: and time again what happens when we have mob justice,
• 58:15
  Speaker 1: especially on highly emotional issues like sexual abuse, especially when
• 58:20
  Speaker 1: it's in academia where everyone loses their fucking minds and
• 58:23
  Speaker 1: those are in charge. have a compulsion, it's in their DNA,
• 58:29
  Speaker 1: to immediately fold into the fetal position, which is what
• 58:33
  Speaker 1: the lawyers are hoping for. This is all happening exactly
• 58:37
  Speaker 1: as the lawyer hoped. He could not have dreamed the
• 58:40
  Speaker 1: way that this would have gone after filing just a
• 58:43
  Speaker 1: fucking stupid lawsuit. where his client totally changes the essence
• 58:49
  Speaker 1: of her story from two years ago. But here's Jake
• 58:52
  Speaker 1: Tapper interviewing the DA who decided rightfully to not file
• 58:56
  Speaker 1: charges back in 2024, because there was no crime alleged.
• 59:01
  Speaker 1: Tapper's almost in tears. He invokes his own daughter, which
• 59:06
  Speaker 1: I'm going to get to in a moment, but, um, this,
• 59:10
  Speaker 1: to me, belongs in the media hall of shame because
• 59:16
  Speaker 1: this is just absolute absurdity. Jake Tapper on CNN interviewing
• 59:21
  Speaker 1: the DA in this case. You know, I have a daughter.
• 59:23
  Speaker 6: I can't imagine how mad I would be. if a
• 59:30
  Speaker 6: district attorney handled this case that way for my daughter.
• 59:36
  Speaker 6: It's just, do you not acknowledge that your office dropped
• 59:41
  Speaker 6: the ball by not looking more into what happened? I'm
• 59:44
  Speaker 6: not saying I know what happened. I'm just saying based
• 59:47
  Speaker 6: on the document you had, the Cornell University Police Department complaint,
• 59:53
  Speaker 6: six pages, single spaced, it makes me think, oh my God,
• 59:58
  Speaker 6: this woman was at the very least assaulted, doesn't remember
• 1:00:02
  Speaker 6: things that happened. Who knows if she was even conscious
• 1:00:06
  Speaker 6: for all of it? I want to know more.
• 1:00:09
  Speaker 1: About what happened.
• 1:00:10
  Speaker 6: And that's, correct me if I'm wrong, your job.
• 1:00:17
  Speaker 5: My job under the New York State Constitution is to
• 1:00:20
  Speaker 5: apply the penal law of New York State. We are
• 1:00:23
  Speaker 5: constrained by that law. Whether you agree with it, whether
• 1:00:27
  Speaker 5: you think someone's conduct is morally repugnant or vulgar or disgusting,
• 1:00:32
  Speaker 5: I'm still constrained by the law.
• 1:00:33
  Speaker 1: That is my ethical duty. I get the loophole. I
• 1:00:35
  Speaker 1: understand the loophole. I cited it. I get the loophole.
• 1:00:38
  Speaker 6: I'm talking about the curiosity to find out what happened
• 1:00:41
  Speaker 6: and to talk to local police, which you have acknowledged
• 1:00:43
  Speaker 6: you do. Hey, I need to know more about what
• 1:00:46
  Speaker 6: happened because this woman did ketamine twice and was an
• 1:00:50
  Speaker 6: eight out of 10 on the intoxication chart and doesn't
• 1:00:54
  Speaker 6: remember a lot of what happened. And there's a group
• 1:00:58
  Speaker 6: chat of fraternity brothers saying free. Like that would make
• 1:01:02
  Speaker 6: me think we need to do more to find out
• 1:01:05
  Speaker 6: what happened because this sounds horrific. Don't you regret not
• 1:01:07
  Speaker 6: doing more?
• 1:01:08
  Speaker 5: Well, let me push back on you one minute there
• 1:01:12
  Speaker 5: because she, Jane Doe, remembered explicitly virtually everything that happened
• 1:01:18
  Speaker 5: that evening. And the fact that Jane Doe retained an attorney,
• 1:01:24
  Speaker 5: no one reached out to us. If she remembered more,
• 1:01:27
  Speaker 5: if she had more insight in the last two years,
• 1:01:30
  Speaker 5: that attorney knows very well how to contact my office
• 1:01:34
  Speaker 5: to say she's dissatisfied with your decision. Let's sit down
• 1:01:38
  Speaker 5: and talk.
• 1:01:39
  Speaker 1: Now, I actually thought the DA did a pretty darn
• 1:01:41
  Speaker 1: decent job under difficult circumstances and holding his own there
• 1:01:45
  Speaker 1: against the absurd virtue signaling that and fake emotion that
• 1:01:53
  Speaker 1: was provided by Jake Tapper. And to invoke his own
• 1:01:57
  Speaker 1: daughter there is so absurd and so inappropriate, so ridiculous
• 1:02:02
  Speaker 1: for no other reason than the fact that if Jake
• 1:02:05
  Speaker 1: had bothered, and I never know, I mean, whether or
• 1:02:08
  Speaker 1: not he's even bothered to look at the details of
• 1:02:11
  Speaker 1: this or not, I don't know. Maybe he's just ignoring them.
• 1:02:14
  Speaker 1: Maybe he's only read the lawsuit. He's only gotten one
• 1:02:18
  Speaker 1: side of this. I don't know. But any remotely fair
• 1:02:22
  Speaker 1: and objective analysis of the factual record, the full factual
• 1:02:27
  Speaker 1: record of this situation, you would never want to put
• 1:02:31
  Speaker 1: your daughter in the place of the plaintiff in this case.
• 1:02:37
  Speaker 1: Because she is incredibly culpable for a large part of
• 1:02:43
  Speaker 1: what happened. I mean, I would like to believe that
• 1:02:48
  Speaker 1: Jake Tapper would understand that if it really was his daughter,
• 1:02:54
  Speaker 1: that she should never have put herself in this situation.
• 1:02:57
  Speaker 1: She should never have acted the way that she did,
• 1:03:00
  Speaker 1: that she needs to take some responsibility for her own actions,
• 1:03:04
  Speaker 1: that she acted like a complete slut, a whore, a
• 1:03:10
  Speaker 1: drug addict. and she's completely the victim. Again, this goes
• 1:03:16
  Speaker 1: to the idea that somehow women are infantile. College age
• 1:03:22
  Speaker 1: women at an Ivy League school, at least a pseudo
• 1:03:25
  Speaker 1: Ivy League school, are somehow so completely incapable of making
• 1:03:33
  Speaker 1: rational decisions and being held accountable for those decisions that
• 1:03:38
  Speaker 1: we have to presume that The guys that went along
• 1:03:44
  Speaker 1: with what she wanted to do are 100% wrong and
• 1:03:49
  Speaker 1: that she had no culpability in this. That she made
• 1:03:54
  Speaker 1: no bad decisions. Really. Really. If this was my daughter,
• 1:04:00
  Speaker 1: I can assure you, yeah, I'd be pissed at the
• 1:04:04
  Speaker 1: guys for the way they handled it. But I'd be
• 1:04:08
  Speaker 1: at least as pissed as my own daughter. I'd also be...
• 1:04:11
  Speaker 1: Totally shocked. Even though she's only, you know, Grace is
• 1:04:14
  Speaker 1: only 14 right now and she's boy crazy. I would
• 1:04:18
  Speaker 1: be completely shocked if in college anything close to this happened.
• 1:04:24
  Speaker 1: And I would take it upon myself to feel like
• 1:04:27
  Speaker 1: I really fucked up as a dad. She fucked up.
• 1:04:31
  Speaker 1: I fucked up. Everybody in the situation fucked up. But
• 1:04:36
  Speaker 1: that's the media right there. And that has impact. You
• 1:04:39
  Speaker 1: don't think that that DA, assuming he even keeps the
• 1:04:43
  Speaker 1: case with the governor claiming that essentially there ought to
• 1:04:47
  Speaker 1: be an independent investigation, you don't think that that guy
• 1:04:50
  Speaker 1: is under enormous pressure from all sorts of different angles
• 1:04:57
  Speaker 1: and that that pressure isn't going to influence His decision,
• 1:05:01
  Speaker 1: assuming it is his decision, as to whether or not
• 1:05:04
  Speaker 1: to reconsider charges, I'm convinced these guys are going to
• 1:05:08
  Speaker 1: get charged with something because this has gotten too big.
• 1:05:12
  Speaker 1: The mob is too loud. The media is fueling the
• 1:05:17
  Speaker 1: fire too much for them not to get charged with something.
• 1:05:22
  Speaker 1: I hope I'm wrong because, again, I'm not defending their behaviors.
• 1:05:27
  Speaker 1: But I'm telling you that there's no evidence currently that
• 1:05:29
  Speaker 1: what they did was criminal. None that I can see.
• 1:05:34
  Speaker 1: And I've looked for it for a couple of days now.
• 1:05:38
  Speaker 1: And the fact that we're living in this bizarro world
• 1:05:41
  Speaker 1: where the worst example in the media comes from Jake Tapper,
• 1:05:45
  Speaker 1: a guy who I used to think was at least
• 1:05:47
  Speaker 1: somewhat rational, and one of the very few voices of
• 1:05:52
  Speaker 1: reason in the media is Sonny Hostin from The View,
• 1:05:57
  Speaker 1: one of the dumbest, least credible people in all of television.
• 1:06:01
  Speaker 1: Sonny Hostin actually effectively said the same thing that I did,
• 1:06:06
  Speaker 1: that there was no crime here and that the media
• 1:06:08
  Speaker 1: is handling this in an extremely poor fashion. I was
• 1:06:12
  Speaker 1: so stunned by this, I thought, my God, I must
• 1:06:15
  Speaker 1: be wrong. There's no way that I that Sonny Hostin
• 1:06:18
  Speaker 1: can be correct on this. I don't know if it's
• 1:06:22
  Speaker 1: the blind squirrel theory, the broken clock theory. I don't
• 1:06:26
  Speaker 1: know what's going on with Sonny Hostin, but somehow, some way,
• 1:06:30
  Speaker 1: despite the fact that she's a very liberal female and
• 1:06:32
  Speaker 1: she's taken a lot of heat for this, she's been
• 1:06:35
  Speaker 1: one of the few women, in fact, maybe by far
• 1:06:38
  Speaker 1: the most prominent mainstream media personality, male or female, that
• 1:06:43
  Speaker 1: has come out and said the obvious truth of this case.
• 1:06:46
  Speaker 1: That's how broken everything is. When you have to rely
• 1:06:49
  Speaker 1: on Sonny fucking Hosted to be the voice of reason,
• 1:06:53
  Speaker 1: you know you're in a real big world of hurt.
• 1:06:57
  Speaker 1: And every single element of the machinery here is broken.
• 1:07:02
  Speaker 1: Every part of academia is broken. Every part of the
• 1:07:05
  Speaker 1: news media is broken. And it all comes together. I
• 1:07:10
  Speaker 1: always say this, the three R's. when the issue is
• 1:07:13
  Speaker 1: race or rape or Republicans, look out because the machinery
• 1:07:18
  Speaker 1: is totally broken. And it's particularly broken when the issue
• 1:07:22
  Speaker 1: is rape and academia. And I've referenced Penn State, obviously,
• 1:07:28
  Speaker 1: as the touchstone for almost everything in my experience over
• 1:07:31
  Speaker 1: the last 15 years. I actually think there are some
• 1:07:34
  Speaker 1: parallels with regard to the Cornell aspect of this, because
• 1:07:39
  Speaker 1: I actually think somewhat like Penn State, I've always said
• 1:07:43
  Speaker 1: that Joe Paterno and Penn State were actually too tough
• 1:07:46
  Speaker 1: on Jerry Sandusky based upon what we currently now know.
• 1:07:50
  Speaker 1: And because they did punish Jerry Sandusky to a certain degree,
• 1:07:55
  Speaker 1: in retrospect, once the story completely changes, it looks like
• 1:08:01
  Speaker 1: they knew that they had a massive problem and that
• 1:08:03
  Speaker 1: they were actually going easy on him and that they
• 1:08:05
  Speaker 1: might've been trying to cover this all up. That's not
• 1:08:09
  Speaker 1: what happened, but that's, what Penn State became vulnerable to because,
• 1:08:15
  Speaker 1: specifically Mike McQueary, much like this woman, radically changed his
• 1:08:20
  Speaker 1: story years later when his incentive structure was altered. Well,
• 1:08:25
  Speaker 1: I think Cornell is in much the same boat, and
• 1:08:29
  Speaker 1: this goes to the issue of conflating the sex with
• 1:08:31
  Speaker 1: the drugs, but they did expel two of the kids,
• 1:08:35
  Speaker 1: they did suspend the fraternity, but That now looks mild
• 1:08:41
  Speaker 1: in comparison to what should have happened if what this
• 1:08:45
  Speaker 1: woman is saying is true. And so if Cornell hadn't,
• 1:08:51
  Speaker 1: I actually think Cornell probably came down too hard on
• 1:08:55
  Speaker 1: the fraternity and two of these guys. But now... it
• 1:09:00
  Speaker 1: looks like, very much like what happened with Penn State,
• 1:09:03
  Speaker 1: they were acknowledging that something horrible happened. I believe they
• 1:09:07
  Speaker 1: were acknowledging what was going on with the drug use
• 1:09:11
  Speaker 1: and not the sex element of this because the woman
• 1:09:13
  Speaker 1: at the time made it clear that this was consensual.
• 1:09:18
  Speaker 1: But these academic institutions, they have no ability to fight back.
• 1:09:23
  Speaker 1: They have to curl into the fetal position, especially when
• 1:09:26
  Speaker 1: it's a Cornell, which is probably even worse than Penn
• 1:09:29
  Speaker 1: State was back in 2011, although they're both very woke universities.
• 1:09:34
  Speaker 1: But Cornell, part of the narrative of this, which is
• 1:09:38
  Speaker 1: really kind of amazing, and I think very telling and
• 1:09:41
  Speaker 1: a large part of why everything is broken, there was
• 1:09:45
  Speaker 1: a study of some sort done of females at Cornell,
• 1:09:50
  Speaker 1: and apparently one-third of female Cornell students claim that they
• 1:09:58
  Speaker 1: have been the subject of sexual misconduct. One-third! Are you
• 1:10:06
  Speaker 1: kidding me? One-third! The media, of course, goes, oh, my God,
• 1:10:12
  Speaker 1: we've got a rape culture on campus, even at Cornell.
• 1:10:15
  Speaker 1: That's ridiculous. I mean, the guys at Cornell are so
• 1:10:21
  Speaker 1: woke and have every element of toxic masculinity beaten the
• 1:10:27
  Speaker 1: hell out of them so much so that one of
• 1:10:29
  Speaker 1: the guys asked to be part of a threesome can't
• 1:10:31
  Speaker 1: even keep his erection. And everyone's being incredibly polite. There's no...
• 1:10:38
  Speaker 1: There is no way that there's a rape culture at
• 1:10:41
  Speaker 1: Cornell University. You know what there probably is, though? There
• 1:10:45
  Speaker 1: is a standard of what abuse is or misconduct is
• 1:10:50
  Speaker 1: that has become complete lunacy. My guess is that to
• 1:10:56
  Speaker 1: the extent that this is based in reality, a lot
• 1:11:00
  Speaker 1: of these women think that a guy looking at their
• 1:11:02
  Speaker 1: boobs for too long is sexual misconduct. Or asking them
• 1:11:07
  Speaker 1: out on a date when they don't want to be
• 1:11:09
  Speaker 1: asked out on a date is sexual misconduct. I mean,
• 1:11:11
  Speaker 1: that's where we are now. The definition of abuse has
• 1:11:15
  Speaker 1: been completely dumbed down, a lot like the definition of racism.
• 1:11:19
  Speaker 1: Everything's racism now. Everything is abuse now. And when everything
• 1:11:26
  Speaker 1: is abuse, nothing is abuse. And before I leave this topic,
• 1:11:31
  Speaker 1: I want to, since this is obviously the Death of
• 1:11:33
  Speaker 1: Journalism podcast, one of the many journalism issues in this
• 1:11:37
  Speaker 1: situation is the topic of naming the accusers or the
• 1:11:43
  Speaker 1: accuser and the accused. And this to me is really
• 1:11:49
  Speaker 1: where this gets so nefarious and where the media is
• 1:11:53
  Speaker 1: completely and totally broken. And this is really inevitable in
• 1:11:59
  Speaker 1: large part because of the female takeover of newsrooms across
• 1:12:03
  Speaker 1: the country, especially obviously, in a student newspaper like at
• 1:12:08
  Speaker 1: Cornell University. What I'm referring to is the fact that
• 1:12:11
  Speaker 1: the student newspaper at Cornell, run by a female, shockingly,
• 1:12:16
  Speaker 1: has named in the student newspaper all of the seven men,
• 1:12:22
  Speaker 1: two of whom apparently are still at Cornell. They've named
• 1:12:26
  Speaker 1: all seven of them. Now, their names and faces are
• 1:12:31
  Speaker 1: all over the internet, And the New York Times actually
• 1:12:35
  Speaker 1: did a story praising the Cornell newspaper for standing up
• 1:12:42
  Speaker 1: for the victim here and for naming the accused. Now,
• 1:12:49
  Speaker 1: the praising of the female editor at Cornell feels a
• 1:12:52
  Speaker 1: lot like what happened with Sarah Ganim and the Penn
• 1:12:55
  Speaker 1: State story, even though she was a recent graduate of
• 1:12:57
  Speaker 1: Penn State, she effectively was barely out of Penn State
• 1:13:01
  Speaker 1: and she was became the heroine of that story. A
• 1:13:04
  Speaker 1: lot of echoes there with Sarah Ganim and what's going
• 1:13:07
  Speaker 1: on with the national news media and the Cornell student newspaper.
• 1:13:12
  Speaker 1: But the idea that the Cornell student newspaper is being
• 1:13:16
  Speaker 1: praised for naming these accusers, shaming these accused, naming and
• 1:13:23
  Speaker 1: shaming those that are accused, the so-called seven accusers, which
• 1:13:28
  Speaker 1: of course is conflated because only four of them ever
• 1:13:31
  Speaker 1: even had sex, all of which was supposed to be
• 1:13:33
  Speaker 1: consensual based upon the statements of the so-called victim that
• 1:13:37
  Speaker 1: she gave to police weeks after this event. The fact
• 1:13:40
  Speaker 1: that they are naming in a publication those that are
• 1:13:45
  Speaker 1: accused here is completely outrageous, mostly because they are not
• 1:13:52
  Speaker 1: naming the accuser. If they were naming the accuser, I
• 1:13:59
  Speaker 1: would be at least somewhat okay with that. But they're
• 1:14:03
  Speaker 1: not doing that. They believe that it is their moral
• 1:14:06
  Speaker 1: obligation to protect the accuser, Jane Doe. Now, think about this, folks.
• 1:14:14
  Speaker 1: There's a couple different ways to think about this. Number one,
• 1:14:18
  Speaker 1: If there was a student newspaper that was run by
• 1:14:22
  Speaker 1: a male editor who felt like this case was an
• 1:14:25
  Speaker 1: injustice and felt like the accuser had no credibility and
• 1:14:30
  Speaker 1: that the only way to fully evaluate their credibility was
• 1:14:35
  Speaker 1: to identify them, which is a very logical way of
• 1:14:39
  Speaker 1: looking at this. Someone's identity is critical. It's paramount to
• 1:14:44
  Speaker 1: understanding their credibility. Paramount. I said this a thousand times
• 1:14:50
  Speaker 1: in the Penn State case. The media, even though their
• 1:14:53
  Speaker 1: names were in the public record, they protected the identity
• 1:14:56
  Speaker 1: of the accusers because they thought it was morally right,
• 1:15:01
  Speaker 1: even though they were all adults, just like this woman
• 1:15:03
  Speaker 1: is an adult. She's an adult. And her identity goes
• 1:15:08
  Speaker 1: right to her credibility, evaluating who she is. That is
• 1:15:13
  Speaker 1: an obvious reality. But if that scenario ever occurred, which
• 1:15:17
  Speaker 1: it never would, in this day and age, if it
• 1:15:20
  Speaker 1: ever did, the New York Times would come down on
• 1:15:23
  Speaker 1: that guy like a ton of bricks. He would be
• 1:15:26
  Speaker 1: removed from his position immediately. Instead, because it's the reverse
• 1:15:32
  Speaker 1: and the genders are reversed, this woman's a hero. The
• 1:15:35
  Speaker 1: newspaper is standing up for what is right. They get
• 1:15:38
  Speaker 1: credit for not letting this story go. And everything is
• 1:15:43
  Speaker 1: upside down. But think about this in another way. So
• 1:15:49
  Speaker 1: there's only one person who's trying to make money from
• 1:15:53
  Speaker 1: this situation. It's the accuser. She gets to have her
• 1:15:58
  Speaker 1: identity protected? Now, I'm aware that there is a viral
• 1:16:04
  Speaker 1: post on X that claims to have her name and
• 1:16:07
  Speaker 1: her photo. I don't know if it's accurate or not.
• 1:16:09
  Speaker 1: I don't know. I do know that no mainstream news
• 1:16:12
  Speaker 1: outlet is going to touch her name, photo, identity. They're
• 1:16:17
  Speaker 1: not going to because they know politically, forget about right
• 1:16:20
  Speaker 1: or wrong or journalistic standards, they know politically that's death.
• 1:16:24
  Speaker 1: No one's going to do that. So I'm aware that
• 1:16:26
  Speaker 1: it's probably out there if you're going to search it,
• 1:16:29
  Speaker 1: but that's not the same thing. It's not the same thing.
• 1:16:33
  Speaker 1: These guys who are accused, they're already suffering ramifications. One
• 1:16:37
  Speaker 1: of them got fired from their job at Wells Fargo.
• 1:16:41
  Speaker 1: I'm sure there's going to be all the ramifications just
• 1:16:43
  Speaker 1: because they're named in this and their pictures are everywhere
• 1:16:47
  Speaker 1: on the internet. And certainly the two guys at Cornell,
• 1:16:50
  Speaker 1: they're toast. They're not going to be able to continue
• 1:16:52
  Speaker 1: to go to school at Cornell now that the student
• 1:16:55
  Speaker 1: newspaper has identified who they are. But the hypocrisy and
• 1:16:59
  Speaker 1: the absurdity and the inconsistency here is astonishing. There is
• 1:17:05
  Speaker 1: no reason, none, why the person who's trying to make
• 1:17:09
  Speaker 1: money should be protected with regard to their identity. Yet
• 1:17:14
  Speaker 1: those that are being accused of something for which they've
• 1:17:18
  Speaker 1: never even been charged with a crime, they're going to
• 1:17:22
  Speaker 1: have their lives destroyed because in this day and age,
• 1:17:25
  Speaker 1: the internet is forever. This story has gotten so large
• 1:17:29
  Speaker 1: that they can't possibly live it down. And three of
• 1:17:32
  Speaker 1: them didn't even have sex, consensual or otherwise. It's just
• 1:17:39
  Speaker 1: so mind blowing. And the perverse incentives and horrendous precedents
• 1:17:45
  Speaker 1: that are being created here are extraordinary. By the way,
• 1:17:49
  Speaker 1: I think Jake Tapper is creating a horrible precedent, maybe
• 1:17:52
  Speaker 1: for his own damn daughter. I mean, so this is
• 1:17:56
  Speaker 1: acceptable behavior from the standpoint of the woman? You got
• 1:18:01
  Speaker 1: to be kidding me. But think about this. And this
• 1:18:04
  Speaker 1: might sound far-fetched. I don't think it is at all,
• 1:18:07
  Speaker 1: especially given the fact that plaintiff's lawyers have figured this
• 1:18:11
  Speaker 1: all out. And these are evil fucking people. And they
• 1:18:16
  Speaker 1: are very, very good at being able to figure out
• 1:18:20
  Speaker 1: vulnerabilities in the system, loopholes. They know how to manipulate
• 1:18:24
  Speaker 1: the media now. They have figured this out. And one
• 1:18:29
  Speaker 1: of the things that could easily happen now, again, This
• 1:18:33
  Speaker 1: is going to sound conspiratorial, but this is not far-fetched.
• 1:18:37
  Speaker 1: If you're a female and you go to a high-profile university,
• 1:18:44
  Speaker 1: ideally as liberal as possible, but that's pretty much the
• 1:18:48
  Speaker 1: norm these days. And you engage in horrendous activity. Lots
• 1:18:55
  Speaker 1: of sex with lots of guys. There's drug use involved.
• 1:18:59
  Speaker 1: But there's no actual crime, and you don't accuse anybody
• 1:19:03
  Speaker 1: of a crime. Right? And the university... adjudicates it and
• 1:19:10
  Speaker 1: the law enforcement adjudicates it and says there's no actual
• 1:19:13
  Speaker 1: crime and maybe there are some penalties involved, you're actually incentivized,
• 1:19:20
  Speaker 1: incentivized to go ahead and change your story years later.
• 1:19:29
  Speaker 1: It's actually better for you. I hope I'm explaining this properly.
• 1:19:33
  Speaker 1: It's actually, this woman is in a better position to
• 1:19:36
  Speaker 1: make money because she changed her story, because she can
• 1:19:42
  Speaker 1: now accuse Cornell effectively of a coverup or at the
• 1:19:47
  Speaker 1: very least a botched investigation. And because the media will
• 1:19:54
  Speaker 1: accept a change in story as being 100% credible, even
• 1:19:59
  Speaker 1: in the context of trying to make money from a lawsuit,
• 1:20:02
  Speaker 1: We have now created a loophole, a scenario, a Mack
• 1:20:10
  Speaker 1: truck could drive through this vulnerability with regard to creating
• 1:20:15
  Speaker 1: a scam. This is a perfect scam.
• 1:20:18
  Speaker 3: Engage in horrendous behavior, have it be adjudicated, change it
• 1:20:25
  Speaker 3: just a little bit of the details later because in
• 1:20:28
  Speaker 3: these kinds of situations, nuances, everything, context with everything, You know,
• 1:20:32
  Speaker 3: you say you go from a five or a six
• 1:20:35
  Speaker 3: on the intoxication scale to an eight or a nine,
• 1:20:38
  Speaker 3: and all of a sudden everything changes.
• 1:20:41
  Speaker 1: It's very, very easy, especially with the help of a
• 1:20:43
  Speaker 1: plaintiff's lawyer, to shift your story. And now all of
• 1:20:47
  Speaker 1: a sudden you're actually bizarrely in a better position to
• 1:20:49
  Speaker 1: make money, especially when the media is putting pressure on
• 1:20:53
  Speaker 1: a liberal academic institution, than if you would actually claim
• 1:20:57
  Speaker 1: to have been raped at the beginning of this. Because
• 1:21:00
  Speaker 1: then the only people you can really go after would
• 1:21:02
  Speaker 1: be those that you're accusing who are not deep pocketed
• 1:21:07
  Speaker 1: like an Ivy League university is. So I don't know
• 1:21:11
  Speaker 1: if I fully explained that right, but we are creating
• 1:21:14
  Speaker 1: unbelievably bad precedents. We are creating perverse incentives. We are
• 1:21:22
  Speaker 1: scaring the fuck out of men. I mean, women wonder
• 1:21:27
  Speaker 1: why guys don't want to engage in romantic relationships anymore.
• 1:21:31
  Speaker 1: And again, I'm not defending the guys here. And this
• 1:21:35
  Speaker 1: is not anything close to what a normal romantic relationship
• 1:21:38
  Speaker 1: ought to be. But the re the idea that women
• 1:21:42
  Speaker 1: can change their story dramatically and destroy your life two
• 1:21:46
  Speaker 1: years later is something that was as I'm sure I
• 1:21:50
  Speaker 1: am positive that those guys the next day were quite
• 1:21:55
  Speaker 1: certain that she had consented to everything. Again, She snorted
• 1:22:02
  Speaker 1: ketamine off the dick of one of the guys while
• 1:22:08
  Speaker 1: several of them were in the room. Voluntarily. And then
• 1:22:13
  Speaker 1: voluntarily had them snort ketamine off of her body. I.
• 1:22:22
  Speaker 1: I am quite certain that while they were shocked by
• 1:22:26
  Speaker 1: what had transpired and thought it was crazy and all that,
• 1:22:29
  Speaker 1: I am quite confident that the idea that her consent
• 1:22:34
  Speaker 1: was ever in question the next day probably never even
• 1:22:37
  Speaker 1: occurred to them. But we now live in a world
• 1:22:40
  Speaker 1: where you're allowed to change your story and the media
• 1:22:42
  Speaker 1: will completely support you and they will protect your identity
• 1:22:46
  Speaker 1: and they will not tell you. They will not tell
• 1:22:49
  Speaker 1: you that you admitted snorting drugs off of the penis
• 1:22:52
  Speaker 1: of one of the guys involved. They will not tell
• 1:22:54
  Speaker 1: you that in the news meeting. Oh my God. There are,
• 1:23:02
  Speaker 1: I think, some parallels, I've already referenced them, with regard
• 1:23:05
  Speaker 1: to this case and the Lindsay Clancy situation when it
• 1:23:09
  Speaker 1: comes to the issue of treating women as infants and
• 1:23:12
  Speaker 1: lack of accountability for their own actions. I did not
• 1:23:16
  Speaker 1: intend to speak about the Lindsay Clancy case this week,
• 1:23:20
  Speaker 1: but I have to at least reference it because I
• 1:23:25
  Speaker 1: have to tell you, I'm not perfect, anything close to perfect.
• 1:23:29
  Speaker 1: I have my weaknesses as a commentator and as a host.
• 1:23:33
  Speaker 1: I'm wrong a lot of times, but I also have
• 1:23:36
  Speaker 1: some strengths. One of my strengths is telling you who
• 1:23:39
  Speaker 1: the good guys are and the bad guys are. I
• 1:23:41
  Speaker 1: think that that's probably my greatest strength. I'm not 100%
• 1:23:45
  Speaker 1: right all the time, but my batting average on telling
• 1:23:48
  Speaker 1: you who the good guys and the bad guys are
• 1:23:50
  Speaker 1: is probably way higher than anybody else I'm aware of.
• 1:23:54
  Speaker 1: And I told you several weeks ago that Lindsey Clancy's attorney,
• 1:23:59
  Speaker 1: Kevin Runnington, was an asshole. I believe that was actually
• 1:24:03
  Speaker 1: the title of the episode of the podcast, Asshole. And boy,
• 1:24:08
  Speaker 1: was I right in that assessment. This guy is a
• 1:24:11
  Speaker 1: complete and total jackass. of epic proportions because now he
• 1:24:19
  Speaker 1: is claiming in court, he is now suddenly claiming as
• 1:24:24
  Speaker 1: they argue over whether or not there's gonna be a
• 1:24:25
  Speaker 1: retrial of Lindsay Clancy after there was a mistrial in
• 1:24:29
  Speaker 1: the case where she's accused of killing her three children,
• 1:24:35
  Speaker 1: that all of a sudden after she admitted it and
• 1:24:39
  Speaker 1: he admitted it in court, that she did in fact
• 1:24:42
  Speaker 1: kill her children, and that this was just an issue
• 1:24:44
  Speaker 1: of whether or not she was legally culpable because of
• 1:24:48
  Speaker 1: the postpartum psychosis, now all of a sudden Kevin Rennington
• 1:24:52
  Speaker 1: is claiming that there's no evidence that she killed her kids,
• 1:24:56
  Speaker 1: that she has no memory that she killed her kids,
• 1:24:59
  Speaker 1: and even implying in court that her husband might have
• 1:25:03
  Speaker 1: killed the kids, something that Reddington himself, after the mistrial,
• 1:25:11
  Speaker 1: pushed back against in the media. This was just a
• 1:25:13
  Speaker 1: couple of weeks ago. This is how much of an
• 1:25:17
  Speaker 1: asshole this guy is. So for whatever reason, and I
• 1:25:22
  Speaker 1: don't pretend to know what it is, he has now
• 1:25:26
  Speaker 1: perceived that it is in his self-interest to at least
• 1:25:29
  Speaker 1: scare the prosecution into believing that he can try this
• 1:25:34
  Speaker 1: case again without accepting the fact that Lindsay Clancy actually
• 1:25:40
  Speaker 1: killed her kids. Now, I don't know how effective that
• 1:25:44
  Speaker 1: strategy is. I can see where it might be effective,
• 1:25:47
  Speaker 1: but that doesn't make it remotely right, especially when it's
• 1:25:51
  Speaker 1: going to now give an enormous amount of energy to
• 1:25:56
  Speaker 1: these social media lunatics, these women on TikTok that have
• 1:26:00
  Speaker 1: been trying to claim that the husband, the father, the
• 1:26:03
  Speaker 1: one who found his three children dead after coming home
• 1:26:06
  Speaker 1: from getting food for dinner because his wife killed his
• 1:26:10
  Speaker 1: kids in cold blood in a horrendous fashion and then
• 1:26:14
  Speaker 1: seemingly tried to kill herself, that somehow he did it.
• 1:26:18
  Speaker 1: These people are now going to believe that their position
• 1:26:21
  Speaker 1: is justified. Because Rennington has just given them fuel. I mean,
• 1:26:28
  Speaker 1: so he is, I mean, it's just inconscionable. I get
• 1:26:35
  Speaker 1: that lawyers are supposed to give a vigorous defense for
• 1:26:40
  Speaker 1: their client. I get it. But there's a line over
• 1:26:43
  Speaker 1: which you do not cross. And Kevin Rennington has crossed
• 1:26:46
  Speaker 1: it with the holdout juror. And he's now crossed it
• 1:26:49
  Speaker 1: with the father of these children who were murdered very,
• 1:26:53
  Speaker 1: very clearly. He is a complete asshole. And as far
• 1:26:57
  Speaker 1: as the holdout juror, we seem to be getting bits
• 1:27:01
  Speaker 1: and pieces from him. He put out a video statement
• 1:27:04
  Speaker 1: that I think was given to Sean Hannity, which I
• 1:27:06
  Speaker 1: don't think was a particularly great idea. But it's clear
• 1:27:09
  Speaker 1: that they understand, his representation understands, that it's the conservative
• 1:27:14
  Speaker 1: side of this that's going to be supporting him the most.
• 1:27:17
  Speaker 1: He didn't really say very much in his video statement.
• 1:27:20
  Speaker 1: The fact that he's slowly but surely coming out with
• 1:27:23
  Speaker 1: his identity and this video statement. I think we're going
• 1:27:26
  Speaker 1: to eventually see a full-scale interview with him. But he
• 1:27:30
  Speaker 1: is standing strong despite the fact that Kevin Rennington and
• 1:27:34
  Speaker 1: the media have been going after him in an onslaught
• 1:27:38
  Speaker 1: to try to intimidate him for having the audacity to
• 1:27:42
  Speaker 1: actually stand up for the three children that were murdered
• 1:27:45
  Speaker 1: by their mother. Thanks for listening to today's free drop
• 1:27:49
  Speaker 1: of the abbreviated show. If you're interested in listening to
• 1:27:52
  Speaker 1: the entire show, you must become a patron. Please go
• 1:27:56
  Speaker 1: to Patreon. That's P-A-T-R-E-O-N dot com. Patreon dot com slash
• 1:28:05
  Speaker 1: The Death of Journalism with John Ziegler. My name is J-O-H-N-Z-I-E-G-L-E-R.
• 1:28:12
  Speaker 1: That's Patreon dot com slash The Death of Journalism with
• 1:28:19
  Speaker 1: John Ziegler. Good luck to you on that. But that's
• 1:28:22
  Speaker 1: how you can subscribe.