Latest / The Death Of Journalism / Episode two Hundred Two: Grasping At Straws

Transcript

Episode two Hundred Two: Grasping At Straws · The Death Of Journalism

0:00
Speaker 1: Welcome episode number two hundred and two of the Death
0:04
Speaker 1: of Journalism podcast. My name is John Zigler. I'm your
0:06
Speaker 1: host on today's show. With one week to go in
0:10
Speaker 1: the presidential election, everyone has officially.
0:13
Speaker 2: Lost their damn minds.
0:15
Speaker 1: But what can we tell about Democrats freaking out and
0:19
Speaker 1: major liberal papers not endorsing Kamala. I will make my
0:23
Speaker 1: first minor prediction about the nature of the outcome, plus
0:28
Speaker 1: an infuriating trend when it comes to coaches and the
0:31
Speaker 1: death of college sports. And it looks like, as I
0:35
Speaker 1: predicted in our last episode, that the Menendez brothers will
0:38
Speaker 1: be indeed getting out of prison thirty five years after
0:42
Speaker 1: murdering their parents. We've officially reached the stage in this
0:48
Speaker 1: very stupid presidential campaign where everyone, and I mean everyone,
0:54
Speaker 1: has lost their damn minds. The news media and the
0:58
Speaker 1: Democrats are regularly called Donald Trump a racist, referring to
1:03
Speaker 1: him as literally Hitler. Madison Square Garden is suddenly only
1:09
Speaker 1: associated with Nazism because of something that happened at a
1:14
Speaker 1: different location in nineteen thirty nine. A joke about Puerto Rico,
1:20
Speaker 1: not Puerto Ricans, Puerto Rico by some relatively unknown comedian
1:25
Speaker 1: is the most important thing that's ever happened in the campaign.
1:29
Speaker 1: Trump himself is letting out the crazy, especially on Joe Rogan.
1:34
Speaker 2: Both sides are.
1:35
Speaker 1: Delusional about how good their chances are of winning this race,
1:40
Speaker 1: and America could be headed for the iceberg of an
1:45
Speaker 1: extremely close election where no one trusts anyone else to
1:50
Speaker 1: tell them the truth.
1:52
Speaker 2: That is basically the state of.
1:53
Speaker 1: Where we are with one week to go before voting
1:57
Speaker 1: ends in this presidential election.
2:00
Speaker 2: So much to get to.
2:02
Speaker 1: I'm going to start with this Madison Square Garden and
2:05
Speaker 1: the connection to Nazism, which is just so bizarre, so
2:10
Speaker 1: absurd on so many levels, it can't even be real.
2:15
Speaker 1: It cannot be real. In fact, my old co host
2:19
Speaker 1: on this podcast, my co host from With the Benefit
2:21
Speaker 1: of Hindsight, former Los Angeles News anchor Liza Bebe sports
2:27
Speaker 1: anchor as well. She actually texted me asking whether or
2:31
Speaker 1: not this story was real. She could not believe it
2:35
Speaker 1: that MSNBC, while covering the rally in Madison Square Garden
2:41
Speaker 1: by Trump and the Trump supporters, which you know, by
2:45
Speaker 1: some accounts was a huge success and other accounts was
2:48
Speaker 1: a total disaster. MSNBC was literally referencing the fact that
2:56
Speaker 1: this was taking place in Madison Square Garden where in
3:00
Speaker 1: nineteen thirty nine there was a pro Nazi rally, and
3:05
Speaker 1: that therefore, inherently that must be what Donald Trump was
3:09
Speaker 1: intending to do, that he was sending out a subliminal
3:13
Speaker 1: message to the racists and to the Nazis that he's
3:17
Speaker 1: the new Hitler because he's recreating a rally. It occurred
3:23
Speaker 1: again at a different location, not the same place. It's
3:28
Speaker 1: called the same place, but it's not the same place.
3:31
Speaker 1: It's not the same location. And it's twenty twenty four now.
3:37
Speaker 1: So the idea that somehow there is this connection here
3:40
Speaker 1: is just so laughable, so absurd, and yet MSNBC. Now, granted,
3:45
Speaker 1: I often say I rarely talk about anything that happens
3:49
Speaker 1: on MSNBC because they are so absurd, so ridiculous, so partisan,
3:55
Speaker 1: so not to be taken seriously.
3:56
Speaker 2: But this is so off the charts.
3:59
Speaker 1: I have to friendship, especially since even Liz is saying,
4:03
Speaker 1: is this real?
4:04
Speaker 2: Could this? Are you sure? This isn't fake? No, this
4:08
Speaker 2: is real.
4:09
Speaker 1: This is a commentary on MSNBC about the alleged connection
4:15
Speaker 1: between Trump's Madison Square Garden rally in twenty twenty four
4:20
Speaker 1: and what happened there, or not even there but nearby
4:25
Speaker 1: in nineteen thirty nine.
4:27
Speaker 3: But that jamboree happening right now, you see it there
4:30
Speaker 3: on your screen in that place is particularly chilling because
4:34
Speaker 3: in nineteen thirty nine, more than twenty thousand supporters of
4:38
Speaker 3: a different fascist leader, Adolph Hitler, packed the garden for
4:42
Speaker 3: a so called pro America rally, a rally where speakers
4:46
Speaker 3: voiced anti Semitic rhetoric from a stage draped with Nazi banners.
4:51
Speaker 3: When a Jewish protester rushed the stage, the Associated Press
4:55
Speaker 3: reported quote, Instantly a dozen or more stormtroopers set upon him,
5:00
Speaker 3: knocking him down and beating him. As he held his
5:02
Speaker 3: head in his arms. Most of his clothing was torn
5:05
Speaker 3: from his body. Later, he was booked for disorderly conduct. Now,
5:12
Speaker 3: against that backdrop of history, Donald Trump, the man who
5:16
Speaker 3: has threatened to use the military against opponents he calls
5:19
Speaker 3: enemies from within, who has threatened to use the troops
5:23
Speaker 3: to quell what he says are lawless cities, and to
5:27
Speaker 3: use those troops to carry out mass deportations of immigrants,
5:31
Speaker 3: is once again turning Madison Square Garden into a staging
5:34
Speaker 3: ground for extremism.
5:36
Speaker 2: There are no words.
5:38
Speaker 1: There are literally no words to describe just how ridiculous
5:41
Speaker 1: that is.
5:43
Speaker 2: It's totally absurd.
5:45
Speaker 1: It would be absurd under any circumstances, but particularly when
5:49
Speaker 1: before the rally at Madison Square Garden, the mayor of
5:54
Speaker 1: New York City, a very liberal black man, Mayor Adams,
6:01
Speaker 1: took to the microphones to condemn his fellow Democrats for
6:05
Speaker 1: this entire narrative in general, that somehow Trump's a racist
6:11
Speaker 1: in a Nazi and that he has no right to
6:14
Speaker 1: be having a rally in New York City, the heart
6:17
Speaker 1: of New York City.
6:18
Speaker 2: At Madison Square Guarden.
6:20
Speaker 1: You would think that that would put an end to it. Now,
6:23
Speaker 1: I understand that Adams is under federal indictment. Therefore everything
6:27
Speaker 1: he does is inherently suspicious, and I agree that there's
6:32
Speaker 1: a very good argument to be made that part of
6:34
Speaker 1: what is motivating Mayor Adams here is that Trump may
6:37
Speaker 1: win and then pardon him. So I'm not naive to this,
6:42
Speaker 1: but come on, what a liberal black mayor of New
6:46
Speaker 1: York City says should have at least some weight with liberals.
6:51
Speaker 1: And for the record, here's what Mayor Adams said before
6:54
Speaker 1: the Madison Square Garden rally that Trump and his supporters
6:58
Speaker 1: put on.
7:00
Speaker 4: You know, I have been had those terms hurled at
7:04
Speaker 4: me by some political leaders in the city. Use the
7:10
Speaker 4: terms like Hitler and fastest. My answer is known, I
7:17
Speaker 4: know what Hitler has done, and I know what a
7:22
Speaker 4: fastest regime looks like. I think, as I've called over
7:28
Speaker 4: and over again that the level of conversation, I think
7:34
Speaker 4: we could all dial down the temperature. And I've heard
7:37
Speaker 4: people say that the former president should not be able
7:41
Speaker 4: to have a rally in a Madison Square garden. I
7:44
Speaker 4: strongly disagree. This is America, this is New York, and
7:50
Speaker 4: I think it's important that we allow individuals to exercise
7:54
Speaker 4: their right to get their message clear to New York,
8:00
Speaker 4: and our job as a city and as a police
8:03
Speaker 4: department is to make sure they could do that in
8:05
Speaker 4: a peaceful in a peaceful way. I think that we
8:09
Speaker 4: must be extremely cautious. The heat we turn up today
8:15
Speaker 4: pre election is going to have to be the heat
8:18
Speaker 4: We're going to have to govern it. And I think
8:20
Speaker 4: we need to show a level of respectable communication. And
8:25
Speaker 4: so when people called me fastists in other terminologies, I
8:31
Speaker 4: didn't like it, and I don't think is fitting to
8:37
Speaker 4: anyone to state that former president is equal to being
8:41
Speaker 4: hit love.
8:43
Speaker 1: One of the more interesting things that Mary Adams said
8:45
Speaker 1: there was the idea of lowering the heat. And it's
8:49
Speaker 1: just pretty hilarious that he is acting as the voice
8:53
Speaker 1: of reason, at least among the laught and among Democrats.
8:58
Speaker 2: But no, oh, what is lowering the heat? As we
9:01
Speaker 2: get closer to this election, the.
9:03
Speaker 1: Heat seems to be rising on all sides in what
9:07
Speaker 1: could be a very dangerous set of circumstances, given how
9:11
Speaker 1: incredibly close this election appears to be. Now as far
9:16
Speaker 1: as the Madison Square Garden rally specifically, I think there's
9:21
Speaker 1: a lot of.
9:22
Speaker 2: Things going on here.
9:24
Speaker 1: First of all, Liberals hate it.
9:28
Speaker 2: They cannot stand it.
9:29
Speaker 1: They have a literal emotional mental freak out and meltdown
9:37
Speaker 1: when they see their territory being taken over by Trump.
9:44
Speaker 1: They cannot stand it. It drives them literally crazy. And
9:50
Speaker 1: so for Trump to go into the heart of New
9:53
Speaker 1: York City, into the otherwise sacred Madison Square Garden, one
9:58
Speaker 1: of the most revered arenas in the whole world, but
10:00
Speaker 1: somehow now it's a bastion of Nazism and racism in
10:04
Speaker 1: the liberal mindset.
10:06
Speaker 2: Just for this one set of circumstances.
10:09
Speaker 1: But that's an important part of this, that this is
10:13
Speaker 1: New York City and the idea that Trump could be
10:17
Speaker 1: doing this, and you know, having a packed house in
10:20
Speaker 1: New York City drives them absolutely positively bananas, So that
10:28
Speaker 1: that's a big part of this.
10:29
Speaker 2: I mean, they they take their territory.
10:32
Speaker 1: Very very seriously, and that is a large part of
10:36
Speaker 1: the mount down. This was happening in a red state, Actually,
10:40
Speaker 1: there would be easier for them to create this ridiculous
10:44
Speaker 1: narrative that this was somehow a racist rally.
10:48
Speaker 2: By the way, just for the record, you know, the
10:50
Speaker 2: idea that.
10:51
Speaker 1: Somehow this is connected to the nineteen thirty nine pro
10:55
Speaker 1: Nazi rally.
10:55
Speaker 2: There were apparently all sorts.
10:58
Speaker 1: Of diverse groups there, including a lot of Jewish people,
11:02
Speaker 1: so right there, that whole narrative falls apart. Even though
11:05
Speaker 1: it was I feel even stupid even referencing this, because
11:09
Speaker 1: it's just such a stupid narrative. We've had a lot
11:11
Speaker 1: of very dumb narratives in this campaign. This probably takes
11:17
Speaker 1: the cake. This is probably the dumbest of all them.
11:20
Speaker 1: But generating the freak out is in large part the
11:26
Speaker 1: fact that Trump is in their territory in this revered
11:30
Speaker 1: arena of Madison Square Garden in the heart of New York.
11:34
Speaker 2: City, and he's got a packed house.
11:37
Speaker 1: So that's a large part of what's really going on
11:41
Speaker 1: here and why this is creating so much angst among
11:45
Speaker 1: liberals and why they were so on edge to find anything,
11:50
Speaker 1: anything they possibly could to fit their narrative and to
11:54
Speaker 1: use it as a weapon against Trump. Now, connection in
11:59
Speaker 1: connection to the idea that liberals freaked out about this
12:03
Speaker 1: because it's their territory, is the idea that they're freaking
12:07
Speaker 1: out in general because they're starting to think Trump might win.
12:11
Speaker 2: Now, there are a lot of liberals that are I think.
12:13
Speaker 1: Actually a little too confident that they're going to win,
12:15
Speaker 1: people like James Carvill or Michael Moore, that type of people.
12:20
Speaker 1: They're not as delusionally optimistic as a lot of the
12:22
Speaker 1: Trump people. Aren't going to get to more of that
12:24
Speaker 1: later on the podcast, but you know, I still look
12:27
Speaker 1: at this as basically a fifty to fifty shot. But
12:30
Speaker 1: there's no question that the context for the Madison Square
12:34
Speaker 1: Garden meltdown is that, oh my god, not only is
12:39
Speaker 1: he in New York City, well, you know, why is
12:41
Speaker 1: he in New York City.
12:42
Speaker 2: Why is it he in a swing state?
12:44
Speaker 1: There's only one reason why he could possibly be in
12:46
Speaker 1: New York City, and that's because he's trying to recreate
12:50
Speaker 1: nineteen thirty nine. Because obviously New York's not a swing state.
12:54
Speaker 1: Although Vivey Obama Swami tried to claim that it is.
12:57
Speaker 2: That's ridiculous. Look, I I'm someone who questions being in.
13:02
Speaker 1: New York and California in an election that's going to
13:05
Speaker 1: be decided by seven states. But I can see from
13:09
Speaker 1: Trump's perspective, especially since he's from New York and has
13:12
Speaker 1: lived there as most of his life, that you know
13:16
Speaker 1: he's doing a sign of strength. He's this is This
13:19
Speaker 1: is a broader message that he's trying to send, and
13:22
Speaker 1: I don't think it's about racism or Nazism, So I
13:27
Speaker 1: get why he did it. It's one Sunday, and I
13:32
Speaker 1: don't think it's going to impact whether or not he
13:34
Speaker 1: wins any of these swing states. But those are the
13:37
Speaker 1: two things really from a contextual perspective, driving the liberal
13:43
Speaker 1: meltdown their territory, and a lot of them are starting
13:46
Speaker 1: to think, holy crap, he could win, So they're very
13:51
Speaker 1: much on edge.
13:51
Speaker 2: They're looking for anything they can. The liberals and the
13:54
Speaker 2: media are. They're looking for.
13:55
Speaker 1: Anything they can, one to fit their narrative and two
13:59
Speaker 1: to have this backfire on Trump. And so they thought
14:04
Speaker 1: they got what they wanted. They're convinced, they're completely convinced
14:09
Speaker 1: that the rally was so filled with hate and inappropriate
14:13
Speaker 1: statements and specifically these jokes by this relatively unknown comedian,
14:19
Speaker 1: that somehow this was everything that they had hoped for,
14:23
Speaker 1: that this is going to backfire, that Trump tried to
14:26
Speaker 1: come into our territory and he exposed himself as the
14:30
Speaker 1: true racist nazi hitler want to bee that he is,
14:33
Speaker 1: and that this is what's going to.
14:35
Speaker 2: Finally turn the election in our direction.
14:39
Speaker 1: And you know, the media certainly has tried their best
14:42
Speaker 1: to promote this idea. They let me give you some
14:45
Speaker 1: headlines from the Madison Square Garden rally. Speakers at Trump
14:49
Speaker 1: MSG rally insult DEM's minorities. Before Trump spoke at the
14:54
Speaker 1: Midtown Manhattan Arena rally, goers heard f bombs and smears
14:58
Speaker 1: from the former presidents opening acts. Time magazine headline, Trump
15:03
Speaker 1: rally at Madison Square Garden marked by racist and lude jokes.
15:08
Speaker 1: Whenever I see a headline from a liberal media outlet
15:12
Speaker 1: that says something is racist. I automatically presume that it's
15:15
Speaker 1: not really racist, because the last thing you want is
15:18
Speaker 1: for a liberal media member or to be able to defy.
15:22
Speaker 2: What is racist.
15:23
Speaker 1: It could be Ray shoal doesn't mean it's racist, And
15:28
Speaker 1: oftentimes they won't even tell you what.
15:29
Speaker 2: Was actually said. Just trust us it was racist. More
15:33
Speaker 2: headlines from the event.
15:34
Speaker 1: Extremely racist, not just racist, extremely racist.
15:39
Speaker 2: Quote unquote.
15:39
Speaker 1: Comedian speaks at Trump rally calls Puerto Rico garbage. Speaking
15:45
Speaker 1: at Trump's rally in New York, Tony Hinchcliff said Latinos
15:50
Speaker 1: love making babies. Yeah, okay, and called Puerto Rico a
15:56
Speaker 1: floating island of garbage. For the record, there's some garbage
16:01
Speaker 1: issues in Puerto Rico.
16:03
Speaker 2: I don't I don't think it was funny, it was appropriate.
16:07
Speaker 1: I didn't understand why it was relevant to being in
16:10
Speaker 1: a Trump rally. But I really don't understand. I truly
16:14
Speaker 1: do not understand how it is that this joke, this
16:19
Speaker 1: bad joke from a guy most people have not heard of.
16:23
Speaker 2: When Trump wasn't even anywhere near the.
16:25
Speaker 1: Stage, he wasn't even close to coming on the stage,
16:28
Speaker 1: one of many many speakers doing a attempted comedy act
16:35
Speaker 1: could somehow turn into the most important thing that's happened
16:39
Speaker 1: in the last stages of the campaign.
16:41
Speaker 2: This makes no sense to me, And this feels very
16:44
Speaker 2: much like.
16:46
Speaker 1: It is consistent with the liberal freak out and meltdown
16:49
Speaker 1: and where they.
16:50
Speaker 2: Are grasping at straws. Ah, we got them, we got them.
16:55
Speaker 1: Some guy made a joke about not Puerto Ricans but Rico,
17:00
Speaker 1: which ought to be an important distinction. But more importantly
17:04
Speaker 1: than that, Trump didn't say this. Jadie Vance didn't say this.
17:09
Speaker 1: Nobody that's gonna work in his administration said this.
17:12
Speaker 2: This was a comedian, It's a joke.
17:17
Speaker 1: Who the fuck is gonna vote based upon this? Yet
17:22
Speaker 1: if you read the social media posts of a lot
17:26
Speaker 1: of liberal media members and Democratic operatives, they think this
17:31
Speaker 1: is manna from heaven. They think this is gonna turn
17:33
Speaker 1: the whole race around. And I'm like, have you guys
17:36
Speaker 1: been in the coma for the last eight years? Do
17:39
Speaker 1: you not understand that this kind of stuff that doesn't
17:43
Speaker 1: even relate to anything Trump said or did, has no
17:46
Speaker 1: impact on him?
17:48
Speaker 2: And yeah, I get that there are Puerto Ricans who
17:52
Speaker 2: are an influential voting block in a couple of states,
17:54
Speaker 2: potentially Pennsylvania. I get that.
17:58
Speaker 1: If any significant number of votes are influenced by this,
18:01
Speaker 1: then I don't know what to tell you. I mean,
18:04
Speaker 1: because that would be utterly idiotic, utterly idiotic. Again, it
18:09
Speaker 1: wasn't Trump. It was a comedian no one's ever heard of.
18:13
Speaker 1: Trump wasn't even.
18:14
Speaker 2: On the stage.
18:15
Speaker 1: This very much reminded me of a situation that I
18:19
Speaker 1: was involved in Six Degrees with John Zigler. I guess
18:23
Speaker 1: in two thousand and eight during the primary campaign for
18:27
Speaker 1: the Republican Party. You may recall in two thousand and eight,
18:29
Speaker 1: before John McCain won the nomination, that there were a
18:35
Speaker 1: whole mess of really pretty decent candidates, and my favorite
18:40
Speaker 1: at the time was former actor and US Senator Fred Thompson.
18:44
Speaker 1: I thought that Thompson, if he had ever become president,
18:48
Speaker 1: would have been really well suited for the job. Now,
18:52
Speaker 1: getting him the job was, especially in retrospect, impossible because
18:55
Speaker 1: he was.
18:55
Speaker 2: Seen as too low energy.
18:59
Speaker 1: But I think if you had put him in that
19:01
Speaker 1: situation in a presidential arena where he doesn't have to
19:07
Speaker 1: be energetic, and in fact he can have gravitos, I
19:11
Speaker 1: thought Thompson was the guy, and I also thought Thompson
19:14
Speaker 1: would have been well suited to beat who we thought
19:17
Speaker 1: at the time the Democratic candidate was going to be
19:21
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton. People have to remember that for context, we
19:24
Speaker 1: still thought Hillary Clinton was going to be the nominee,
19:27
Speaker 1: not Barack Obama. Well, anyway, long story short, Fred Thompson
19:31
Speaker 1: was doing an event here in southern California, and I
19:35
Speaker 1: was a Thompson supporter, so I got asked to kind
19:38
Speaker 1: of MC the event. Now, Thompson's campaign was not going
19:42
Speaker 1: particularly well at this time. He was probably in third
19:45
Speaker 1: maybe fourth place, still in contention, but it wasn't going
19:48
Speaker 1: as well as had hoped. But he did an event
19:53
Speaker 1: and I was the MC and he was late, which
19:57
Speaker 1: is not unusual. So he's late, and I'm trying to
20:01
Speaker 1: entertain the crowd. I mean, there's nothing worse than having
20:06
Speaker 1: everyone sit around with nothing to entertain them. So I
20:10
Speaker 1: decide to make some comments, not just about Thompson's campaign,
20:15
Speaker 1: but I decide to tell a joke. And my joke
20:19
Speaker 1: was something along the lines of One of the things
20:22
Speaker 1: that impresses me about Fred Thompson is as a single guy,
20:28
Speaker 1: it's very impressive to me that almost all of his
20:31
Speaker 1: ex girlfriends, and Fred Thompson had a very energetic and
20:37
Speaker 1: lively dating life as an actor, had dated a lot
20:39
Speaker 1: of very prominent women. Almost all of fred Thompson's ex
20:44
Speaker 1: girlfriends had publicly endorsed him, which, again, as a single guy,
20:49
Speaker 1: I found out to be very impressive. And then I
20:53
Speaker 1: asked the question, why haven't any of Hillary Clinton's ex
20:57
Speaker 1: girlfriends endorsed her? Or something to that effect. The crowd
21:02
Speaker 1: loved it, they thought it was funny. I thought nothing
21:06
Speaker 1: of it because I'm just trying to kill time before
21:10
Speaker 1: Thompson shows up at this event. Well, sure enough, quite
21:16
Speaker 1: similar to what happened with this Madison Square Garden event.
21:20
Speaker 2: The media picks up on it.
21:21
Speaker 1: The CBS Evening News that night actually used a clip
21:26
Speaker 1: of me making a joke about Hillary Clinton's ex girlfriends
21:30
Speaker 1: not having endorsed her as part of the newscast. Now,
21:36
Speaker 1: I had never even met Fred Thompson to that point,
21:40
Speaker 1: I mean, fred Thompson was nowhere near the stage. Now
21:43
Speaker 1: did that have any impact on his campaign? No, he
21:46
Speaker 1: ended up withdrawing soon afterwards, but that had nothing to
21:48
Speaker 1: do with it. It's just such a stupid concept and
21:51
Speaker 1: it's only something that works in one direction. It's when
21:56
Speaker 1: they can embarrass a Republican. By the way, at least
21:59
Speaker 1: my joke was funny, unlike the Puerto Rican joke, where
22:02
Speaker 1: the Puerto Rico joke not the Puerto Rican joke.
22:04
Speaker 2: I think that's an important distinction.
22:07
Speaker 1: But it's just so absurd, and it's such a blatant
22:10
Speaker 1: example the double standard that the news media uses when
22:15
Speaker 1: it comes to.
22:15
Speaker 2: Ah, we gotcha.
22:18
Speaker 1: You hardly ever ever see this on the Democratic side,
22:22
Speaker 1: and so I am hopeful that this has much ado
22:27
Speaker 1: about nothing, that this is liberals and Democrats grasping its
22:32
Speaker 1: straws trying to come up with anything they can in
22:34
Speaker 1: their desperation to make sure that Trump is defeated. I
22:39
Speaker 1: don't think it's going to have any real impact. I mean,
22:42
Speaker 1: it would really be hard for me to understand how
22:45
Speaker 1: after the guy's been convicted on thirty four fallity counts
22:51
Speaker 1: in a bogus trial, not to mention all sorts of
22:54
Speaker 1: other things that have been thrown at him, and it's
22:57
Speaker 1: never had any real impact.
22:58
Speaker 2: In fact, the times it's only helped him.
23:00
Speaker 1: How this lame joke about Puerto Rico is going to
23:04
Speaker 1: impact him? When he had absolutely nothing to do with
23:06
Speaker 1: it would be really stunning to me. And I think
23:10
Speaker 1: it's more the most significant part of this is it's
23:13
Speaker 1: an indication of just how desperate Democrats really are and
23:17
Speaker 1: how desperate the liberal media is that they're feeling like
23:20
Speaker 1: this could be slipping away and they may be facing
23:23
Speaker 1: another four years of Donald Trump. Consistent with that theme
23:29
Speaker 1: was a speech made by Michelle Obama. Now it's important
23:34
Speaker 1: for context to point out that Michelle Obama's husband, Barack Obama,
23:39
Speaker 1: just a few days ago, after you know, having scolded
23:43
Speaker 1: black men for not supporting Kamala Harris enough, something that
23:48
Speaker 1: did seem to create a legitimate backlash among black men
23:52
Speaker 1: against what Obama said. But her husband, Barack Obama, made
23:56
Speaker 1: news because he was lamenting. And I played this clip
24:00
Speaker 1: on the podcast. I probably should have, but I had
24:02
Speaker 1: too many other things on the agenda. But he made
24:06
Speaker 1: news because he was lamenting about how divided we are
24:11
Speaker 1: and how did this happen? How did this happen that
24:15
Speaker 1: we became so divided? As if he had nothing to
24:19
Speaker 1: do with it, we had a huge role in this.
24:23
Speaker 1: And I've talked many times about from a racial perspective,
24:26
Speaker 1: Barack Obama's entire presidency was the greatest or the biggest
24:31
Speaker 1: bait and switch I had ever seen.
24:34
Speaker 2: Vote for me.
24:34
Speaker 1: We're going to end the racial divide. We're going to
24:37
Speaker 1: put this behind us. We're going to move forward as
24:40
Speaker 1: one nation. No white, no black, no red, no blue Kumbaya.
24:45
Speaker 1: And it turned out to be exactly the opposite. It
24:47
Speaker 1: was a bait and switch. And so it is in
24:52
Speaker 1: that context that it's particularly infuriating that Michelle Obama gave
24:57
Speaker 1: a very prominent speech on behalf of Kamala Harris, Aamala Harris.
25:00
Speaker 1: I don't want to be racist Kamala Harris, and she
25:05
Speaker 1: was as divisive as she could possibly be, and by
25:08
Speaker 1: the way, appeared to be oblivious to the backlash that
25:11
Speaker 1: Barack got for scolding black men, because she basically scolded
25:17
Speaker 1: all men for not being willing to get on board
25:22
Speaker 1: to the degree that's necessary for Kamala Harris to win.
25:26
Speaker 1: I got two clips here from Michelle Obama that I
25:29
Speaker 1: want to play. This was a speech that was roundly
25:33
Speaker 1: praised by liberals.
25:36
Speaker 2: Oh my god, this was so tremendous.
25:39
Speaker 1: Michelle Obama is so passionate and so articulate, and what
25:42
Speaker 1: she said was so great and so important. Well, here's
25:46
Speaker 1: the first clip where she talks about how in the
25:49
Speaker 1: world is this election so close? The only explanation in
25:53
Speaker 1: her mind is that we as a nation just aren't
25:58
Speaker 1: ready for this.
26:00
Speaker 2: We're just not good enough to.
26:02
Speaker 1: See how important it is that Kamala Harris win. This,
26:06
Speaker 1: I guess is the first female president. And here's what
26:09
Speaker 1: that sounded like.
26:10
Speaker 5: I got to ask myself, why on earth is this
26:13
Speaker 5: race even close. I lay awake at night wondering what
26:19
Speaker 5: in the world is going on? And it's clear to
26:23
Speaker 5: me that the question isn't whether Kamala is ready for
26:27
Speaker 5: this moment, because by every measure she has demonstrated that
26:31
Speaker 5: she's ready. The real country, the real question is as
26:37
Speaker 5: a country, are we ready for this moment?
26:41
Speaker 1: I mean, this is really rich coming from Michelle Obama. Obviously,
26:48
Speaker 1: Barack Obama's election was all about are we ready for
26:52
Speaker 1: this moment? The first black man to be president? And
26:57
Speaker 1: in their minds, the prism that they use to view reality,
27:04
Speaker 1: they can only come up with one explanation for why
27:08
Speaker 1: this race is in a blowout, and that is, well,
27:12
Speaker 1: we must be misogynists.
27:14
Speaker 2: That must be it.
27:16
Speaker 1: There's no other rational explanation as to why we're not
27:21
Speaker 1: winning this election easily.
27:25
Speaker 2: There's so many problems with this.
27:27
Speaker 1: First of all, we were ready for the first black president,
27:32
Speaker 1: but that turned out to be a bait and switch,
27:34
Speaker 1: which I think has a lot of people who would
27:37
Speaker 1: ordinarily be on board with Kamala being much more hesitant.
27:43
Speaker 1: It's mostly subconscious, but I believe that that is one
27:46
Speaker 1: of the most underdiscussed and underrated narratives of this entire campaign,
27:53
Speaker 1: is that the way that the Obama presidency is perceived
27:57
Speaker 1: is greatly hindering the Kamala Harris candidacy. Now, let's be clear,
28:04
Speaker 1: Kama is no Barack, so she suffers in the comparison
28:09
Speaker 1: that way.
28:10
Speaker 2: But we've already been through this.
28:12
Speaker 1: Ninety percent of voters have been We were told go
28:16
Speaker 1: along with history, it's all going to be great. And
28:20
Speaker 1: for a lot of people they felt duped. I know
28:23
Speaker 1: I felt duped. And so there's got to be a
28:27
Speaker 1: lot of people in that middle area politically that are like, well,
28:32
Speaker 1: wait a minute, we went through this, we showed we
28:35
Speaker 1: were ready for this moment, and you did a bait
28:39
Speaker 1: and switch on us. Well, now you're asking us to
28:42
Speaker 1: do the same thing with a lesser candidate who's not qualified,
28:46
Speaker 1: who didn't even go through a primary process, was handed
28:50
Speaker 1: the nomination. Her whole life is an example of DEI
28:57
Speaker 1: and she doesn't seem to really be up to the challenge.
29:00
Speaker 1: And now you're telling us, you're berating us, you're scolding us,
29:04
Speaker 1: that the only explanation for this is Wow, we're just
29:09
Speaker 1: not ready for this moment.
29:11
Speaker 2: But she didn't stop there.
29:14
Speaker 1: She then talked about the assault on female safety if
29:21
Speaker 1: Harris does not win this election, the assault on female safety.
29:25
Speaker 1: She's emotionally blackmailing men directly, overtly blackmailing men emotionally because
29:36
Speaker 1: if they don't get on board with Harris, they're making
29:40
Speaker 1: the women in their life vulnerable to literal assault. I
29:46
Speaker 1: don't even understand what this means, but here's what Michelle
29:50
Speaker 1: Obama said.
29:52
Speaker 5: But see anyone out there thinking about sitting out this
29:55
Speaker 5: election or voting for Donald Trump or a third party
29:58
Speaker 5: candidate in protest because.
30:00
Speaker 2: You're fed up. Let me warn.
30:03
Speaker 5: You, your rage does not exist in a vacuum. If
30:08
Speaker 5: we don't get this election right, your wife, your daughter,
30:13
Speaker 5: your mother, we as women will become collateral damage to
30:17
Speaker 5: your rage. So are you as men prepared to look
30:30
Speaker 5: into the eyes of the women and children you love
30:32
Speaker 5: and tell them that you supported this assault on our safety.
30:38
Speaker 1: I honestly do not understand what Michelle Obama's talking about there.
30:43
Speaker 2: Now.
30:44
Speaker 1: I get that she's referencing abortion. I mean, abortion is
30:48
Speaker 1: by far the most prominent theme of the entire Democratic campaign,
30:52
Speaker 1: from the presidency all the way down to congressional racis
30:56
Speaker 1: my god. Here in southern California, you cannot want watch
31:01
Speaker 1: fifteen minutes of television without getting bombarded with a BS
31:06
Speaker 1: ad about abortion that completely lies about everything. I mean,
31:11
Speaker 1: just doesn't even try to be truthful, it just completely lies.
31:15
Speaker 1: It gives you the impression that somehow Maga Republicans are
31:20
Speaker 1: going to be able to make and are wanting to make,
31:22
Speaker 1: and we'll be able to make abortion completely illegal in California.
31:26
Speaker 2: I'm not exaggerating. That is a constant theme.
31:30
Speaker 1: So I get that she's talking about abortion inherently, I
31:35
Speaker 1: don't understand the connection.
31:37
Speaker 2: I don't get it.
31:38
Speaker 1: I really don't, and I don't want to get bogged
31:39
Speaker 1: down in the abortion talk right now.
31:41
Speaker 2: But this is all a lie.
31:44
Speaker 1: This is all based upon numerous false premises, and I
31:49
Speaker 1: don't think it's effective. I really don't believe that the
31:53
Speaker 1: scolding of men in general, or black men in particular,
31:57
Speaker 1: is what's going to turn this thing around. I mean,
32:01
Speaker 1: I don't know who they're appealing to. I really don't.
32:04
Speaker 2: Yet. Liberals are so delusional.
32:06
Speaker 1: They think Michelle Obama's address or speech was fantastic.
32:13
Speaker 2: The prison through which they see the world, Wow, that
32:16
Speaker 2: was awesome.
32:17
Speaker 1: Letting those massogynistic assholes have it. Wait a minute, maybe
32:24
Speaker 1: there's a reason why men are so hesitant to vote
32:28
Speaker 1: for Kabo Harris. And it's not just Harris, it's the
32:32
Speaker 1: entire democratic regime that has been in charge.
32:35
Speaker 2: For twelve of the last sixteen years.
32:38
Speaker 1: I mean, I guess that's part of what drives me
32:41
Speaker 1: crazy about what's going on with the Obamas. The things
32:44
Speaker 1: that they are saying not only don't make any damn sense,
32:47
Speaker 1: but they are actually effectively. If you think this through
32:52
Speaker 1: a condemnation of Obama's own presidency, he was present for
32:58
Speaker 1: eight years, none of this stuff would be happening.
33:03
Speaker 2: His vice president has been president.
33:05
Speaker 1: For the last four years. Effectively, he's been president for
33:10
Speaker 1: twelve of the last sixteen, So anything that's happening today
33:16
Speaker 1: is at least indirectly, if not directly, because of what
33:21
Speaker 1: happened when he was president, and yet no self awareness
33:25
Speaker 1: at all.
33:27
Speaker 2: Zero.
33:28
Speaker 1: Now there's another aspect to Michelle Obama's theme, and that is, Okay,
33:34
Speaker 1: what does it say about what they think the state
33:36
Speaker 1: of the race is there's a lot of terror card reading,
33:40
Speaker 1: a lot of tea leave reading.
33:42
Speaker 2: And I get it.
33:43
Speaker 1: I mean this makes some sense, especially when you know
33:45
Speaker 1: we're living in an era where you can't trust the polls.
33:48
Speaker 2: Maybe you can trust people's actions more than the polls.
33:53
Speaker 1: And I will agree that Michelle Obama going to that
33:57
Speaker 1: level of absurd rhetoric is an indication of a bit
34:01
Speaker 1: of desperation, maybe a lot of desperation. And it's certainly
34:06
Speaker 1: not consistent with a confident campaign and one that believes
34:10
Speaker 1: that they're about to win. That's basically pushing the panic button.
34:15
Speaker 2: I agree with that. Now, does that prove anything? No,
34:19
Speaker 2: it doesn't prove anything.
34:20
Speaker 1: They could just be theoretically juicing the vote, trying to
34:24
Speaker 1: get out their base, trying to scare people, doing everything
34:28
Speaker 1: they can just to make sure that they get across
34:31
Speaker 1: the finish line. That is possible, but there are other
34:34
Speaker 1: data points that might even be stronger in this direction
34:39
Speaker 1: that a lot of smart people, I think are understandably saying,
34:42
Speaker 1: wait a minute, this certainly doesn't seem consistent with a
34:46
Speaker 1: Harris victory. Specifically, I'm referring to what the Washington Post
34:51
Speaker 1: and the Los Angeles Times have elected not to do,
34:56
Speaker 1: which is to not endorse any presidential candidate, which traditionally
35:03
Speaker 1: both papers have done. Now, the first part of this
35:06
Speaker 1: that I find interesting is we are living in such
35:09
Speaker 1: a bizarre world where the very liberal Washington Post and
35:13
Speaker 1: the very liberal Los Angeles Times effectively have the same
35:17
Speaker 1: position on this presidential campaign as Trump's Vice president Mike Pence, which.
35:24
Speaker 2: Is to make no endorsement.
35:27
Speaker 1: Now, of course, everybody knows that the Post in the
35:30
Speaker 1: LA Times is actually in favor of Harris, but they
35:35
Speaker 1: haven't made an official endorsement, and the reasons why they
35:40
Speaker 1: haven't made an official endorsement are pretty interesting.
35:44
Speaker 2: It's a little bit of.
35:46
Speaker 1: A situation where we don't know for sure what happened,
35:49
Speaker 1: But in both cases, the editorial boards were ready to
35:54
Speaker 1: make the endorsement that everyone knew was coming or expected
35:57
Speaker 1: was coming, that they would endorse Kamala Harris.
36:00
Speaker 2: Of course they're going to endorse the Democrat.
36:02
Speaker 1: Everybody knows they're very liberal papers, and yet the ownership
36:07
Speaker 1: in different ways.
36:09
Speaker 2: Stepped in to stop the.
36:12
Speaker 1: Endorsement of Harris at both the La Times first and
36:17
Speaker 1: then the Washington Post. Here's one New York Times article
36:21
Speaker 1: about what happened at the LA Times headline daughter of
36:26
Speaker 1: La Times owner says endorsement decision. In other words, the
36:31
Speaker 1: decision not to endorse anybody stem from Harris's stance on
36:36
Speaker 1: Goza War.
36:38
Speaker 2: After the paper.
36:39
Speaker 1: Canceled its planned endorsement of Kamala Harris, the owner, Patrick
36:44
Speaker 1: soun Shun, and his daughter didn't speak for said his
36:49
Speaker 1: daughter didn't speak for the organization, but many staff members
36:54
Speaker 1: questioned his motives. All right, The bottom line here is,
36:58
Speaker 1: I think they're trying to come up with some explanation
37:01
Speaker 1: that's substantive and principle based for why they prevented the
37:07
Speaker 1: La Times from endorsing Harris.
37:09
Speaker 2: And the best they could come up with is that the.
37:12
Speaker 1: Daughter of the owner felt like it was a bad
37:16
Speaker 1: idea to endorse her because of her stance on the
37:18
Speaker 1: gods of war, which of course then brings into the question,
37:21
Speaker 1: I mean, how is it that the La Times could
37:25
Speaker 1: squash an endorsement of Harris.
37:27
Speaker 2: You know, the La Times.
37:29
Speaker 1: I don't know what percentage of their subscribers in La
37:32
Speaker 1: are Jewish, but a hell of a lot somehow.
37:36
Speaker 2: That's the reason.
37:38
Speaker 1: That's the reason why they're not going to endorse Kamala Harris.
37:41
Speaker 2: I don't know that. I buy that. I don't know
37:43
Speaker 2: what the real explanation is.
37:45
Speaker 1: There's been a lot of contradictory reports regarding what happened
37:49
Speaker 1: at the La Times, so I don't know what the
37:52
Speaker 1: truth is. But this feels to me like a grasping
37:56
Speaker 1: at straws. This is a way for them to try
37:58
Speaker 1: to come up with a principal base reason for why
38:01
Speaker 1: they didn't do this, and it may have actually been
38:04
Speaker 1: more of a corporate decision, more of a financial decision.
38:08
Speaker 2: A lot of Trump fans are.
38:10
Speaker 1: Interpreting it that way, and I think that that belief
38:15
Speaker 1: got bolstered when a very similar thing happened at The
38:20
Speaker 1: Washington Post, which of course is owned by Jeff Bezos,
38:24
Speaker 1: and the reporting there from NPR was that Jeff Bezos
38:29
Speaker 1: personally intervened to stop the Washington Post from endorsing a
38:34
Speaker 1: candidate after the editorial board had drafted their endorsement for Harris.
38:39
Speaker 1: The papers page editor David Shipley had already approved an
38:43
Speaker 1: endorsement of Harris and had reportedly told colleagues that it
38:48
Speaker 1: was being reviewed by the paper's owner, Jeff Bezos. Again,
38:52
Speaker 1: according to NPR, the Washington Post itself reported that the
38:56
Speaker 1: decision was down to Jeff Bezos. It marks the first
39:00
Speaker 1: the paper hasn't endorsed the candidate in thirty six years.
39:04
Speaker 1: And what the Post is basically saying, and what the
39:08
Speaker 1: way they're trying to put lipstick on this pig from
39:11
Speaker 1: the liberal perspective is that they're no longer in the
39:14
Speaker 1: endorsement business, that it's no longer a good idea for
39:18
Speaker 1: a newspaper to make an endorsement. Of course, it's important
39:22
Speaker 1: to point out all of this is basically irrelevant in
39:25
Speaker 1: this day and age. It's irrelevant from the perspective of
39:30
Speaker 1: the endorsement itself. Nobody's vote is going to be impacted
39:35
Speaker 1: by whether the La Times or the Washington Post endorses
39:39
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris. Nobody because first of all, everybody knows, especially
39:45
Speaker 1: in the aftermath of these stories, that the papers themselves
39:49
Speaker 1: absolutely endorse her, and nobody cares about endorsements in general anymore.
39:56
Speaker 1: We don't live in that world. Plus, the La Times
40:00
Speaker 1: washing It posts, by the way, neither are neither are
40:02
Speaker 1: located in swing states by any stretch of the imagination,
40:06
Speaker 1: and so their influence is basically minimal. They have no
40:11
Speaker 1: subscriber base that is remotely conservative or even moderate. They're
40:15
Speaker 1: already appealing to liberals primarily, who are all going to
40:20
Speaker 1: vote for Harris anyway.
40:22
Speaker 2: So we don't live in this world. We once lived
40:25
Speaker 2: in a.
40:25
Speaker 1: World where a newspaper had the power, had the influence,
40:29
Speaker 1: had the audience of not just liberals, to where if
40:34
Speaker 1: they made an endorsement, it might make people think about, Okay,
40:39
Speaker 1: maybe I should go along with that endorsement. Because people
40:43
Speaker 1: trusted an institution like their local newspaper. They also, by
40:47
Speaker 1: the way, weren't as bombarded with political information as we
40:53
Speaker 1: are today.
40:53
Speaker 2: People forget that before the cable news era, I mean,
40:58
Speaker 2: people didn't think about politics.
41:00
Speaker 1: Three hundred and sixty five days a year, and so
41:04
Speaker 1: they actually oftentimes trusted an institution like their local paper.
41:09
Speaker 2: Hey, I haven't really been following this. Tell me what
41:12
Speaker 2: you think, and I'm going.
41:13
Speaker 1: To take that into consideration for better or for worse
41:17
Speaker 1: that no longer exists today.
41:19
Speaker 2: So that part of this, in my view, is irrelevant.
41:22
Speaker 1: But what is potentially very relevant is what does it
41:27
Speaker 1: say about where the owners of The Post and the
41:32
Speaker 1: La Times think this raises headed Because I understand I'm
41:37
Speaker 1: not saying I buy it, but I understand the thought
41:41
Speaker 1: process of a lot of Trump fans that are saying,
41:44
Speaker 1: especially when it comes to Bezos.
41:46
Speaker 2: I think the La Time situation is screwy.
41:49
Speaker 1: So I think if that had happened on its own,
41:52
Speaker 1: it would not have been very significant. But when you
41:55
Speaker 1: combine it with the Post and you say, my god,
42:00
Speaker 1: Jeff Bezos is afraid to piss off Trump. That's basically
42:05
Speaker 1: I think the way most Trump fans are looking at this,
42:09
Speaker 1: and it's not irrational.
42:11
Speaker 2: I'm not saying it's based in truth.
42:13
Speaker 1: I'm saying it's not irrational that Bezos, who's willing to
42:18
Speaker 1: take a huge risk. I mean, the reporters at the
42:23
Speaker 1: Post are enraged by this. This is incredibly big embarrassment
42:30
Speaker 1: to Bezos within the liberal elite bubble in Washington, DC.
42:35
Speaker 1: The fact that he was willing to do that and
42:38
Speaker 1: step in and say no, we're not going to endorse
42:42
Speaker 1: anybody is certainly consistent with the theory that he thinks
42:48
Speaker 1: Trump is going to win and he doesn't want to
42:51
Speaker 1: piss off Trump.
42:54
Speaker 2: Is that true? No one knows.
42:57
Speaker 1: No one knows right now, but that is a theory
43:00
Speaker 1: that makes sense. And Bezos is a smart guy, a
43:04
Speaker 1: successful guy. He would certainly have reason to be theoretically,
43:10
Speaker 1: you know, maybe not afraid of, but certainly wary of
43:15
Speaker 1: a Trump presidency where Trump would have reason to get
43:19
Speaker 1: retribution against him.
43:21
Speaker 2: Or his entities.
43:22
Speaker 1: That's certainly possible. And he also you know, that's the
43:26
Speaker 1: other part of this. It's important is people know who
43:28
Speaker 1: Trump is, right, everybody knows who Trump is psychologically.
43:33
Speaker 2: Everybody knows that by making a.
43:36
Speaker 1: Gesture like this so publicly to not endorse his opponent,
43:43
Speaker 1: you don't even have to endorse him, but you're not
43:45
Speaker 1: going to endorse his opponent, that will carry weight with Trump.
43:51
Speaker 2: That is everyone knows.
43:53
Speaker 1: Everyone knows the best way to get to Trump is
43:58
Speaker 1: to stroke his ego and to do something that would
44:02
Speaker 1: embarrass his enemies.
44:04
Speaker 2: That's all you gotta do.
44:06
Speaker 1: Again, I'm not saying that that's what really transpired here,
44:10
Speaker 1: and it's possible. That's only part of the equation. Maybe
44:14
Speaker 1: they're other considerations, but I get and have strongly considered
44:19
Speaker 1: this idea that Jeff Bezos is basically covering his bases,
44:25
Speaker 1: hedging his bets that he doesn't want to have Trump
44:28
Speaker 1: be president after having the Washington Post endorsed Terris. Or
44:34
Speaker 1: it could be irrelevant, or maybe Bezos is just wrong.
44:38
Speaker 1: That's also possible, but it has absolutely created a shit
44:42
Speaker 1: storm in response. I want to go through some of
44:47
Speaker 1: the reactions. I mean, some of these have been absolutely hilarious,
44:52
Speaker 1: especially at the Washington Post. The virtue signaling by Washington
44:56
Speaker 1: Post employees has been absolutely positively off the charts. Here
45:02
Speaker 1: is a columnist by the name of Karen Attaia.
45:06
Speaker 2: She tweeted, I didn't sign up to be a.
45:09
Speaker 1: Journalist to be silent on what matters most. I didn't
45:14
Speaker 1: come here to be a coward. Some of us really
45:17
Speaker 1: truly believe in speaking truth to power. We were betrayed today.
45:25
Speaker 1: My god, that's a little over the top. Concerned the
45:30
Speaker 1: fact that it's not like they endorsed Trump, they just
45:32
Speaker 1: decided not to make any adorsement at all.
45:35
Speaker 2: Then there was David Lazarus.
45:37
Speaker 1: This is interesting from a slightly different perspective, he works
45:40
Speaker 1: for Channel five Television here in Los Angeles. This goes
45:44
Speaker 1: back to the LA Times situation, but he connected it
45:48
Speaker 1: to the Post as well.
45:50
Speaker 2: But he used to be a reporter at the LA Times.
45:55
Speaker 1: And this was after both the LA Times and the
45:58
Speaker 1: Washington Post decided not to endors Harris. He tweeted, even
46:03
Speaker 1: after a night's sleep, I still can't get over my
46:07
Speaker 1: disappointment with the LA Times and Washington Post. These once
46:12
Speaker 1: great papers deserve so much better.
46:17
Speaker 5: Now.
46:18
Speaker 2: I tweeted that.
46:19
Speaker 1: With some sort of mocking emoji, and I'm not going
46:22
Speaker 1: to say who responded, but one of David Lazarus's prominent
46:27
Speaker 1: colleagues at Channel five responded.
46:31
Speaker 2: To my tweet with a thank you for posting.
46:34
Speaker 1: This because I think I know that within the media
46:39
Speaker 1: there's a lot of eye rolling about the virtue signaling
46:43
Speaker 1: reaction that so many of these reporters have had to
46:46
Speaker 1: what happened at the LA Times and the Washington Post.
46:51
Speaker 1: But maybe the most interesting and potentially significant reaction to
46:57
Speaker 1: what happened with regard to the lack of a post
46:59
Speaker 1: endorsem of Harris came from Bob Woodward.
47:03
Speaker 2: And Carl Bernstein. That's right. Woodward in Bernstein.
47:08
Speaker 1: Now this tells you so much, so much about the
47:11
Speaker 1: nature of the mainstream news media.
47:14
Speaker 2: And frankly, I.
47:16
Speaker 1: Always talk about how if you wait long enough, the
47:20
Speaker 1: truth will come out.
47:21
Speaker 2: I say this constantly.
47:22
Speaker 1: And it's not as if we didn't know this already
47:25
Speaker 1: about Woodward and Bernstein, who became synonymous with allegedly great
47:30
Speaker 1: journalism in the nineteen seventies because of their water Gate investigation,
47:34
Speaker 1: which led to the resignation of President Richard Nixon. But
47:38
Speaker 1: this is really quite telling. I mean, this to me
47:41
Speaker 1: is a new level of oh oh.
47:45
Speaker 2: So, this is who you really are.
47:48
Speaker 1: But this is the statement that Woodward and Bernstein felt
47:51
Speaker 1: compelled to release in light of the Washington Post not
47:56
Speaker 1: endorsing Kamala Harris quote, we respect the traditional independence of
48:02
Speaker 1: the editorial page.
48:03
Speaker 2: Oh you do, oh you do? Okay, but not really apparently, because.
48:07
Speaker 1: They go on to say, but this decision, eleven days
48:11
Speaker 1: out from the twenty twenty four presidential election, ignores the
48:14
Speaker 1: Washington Post's own overwhelming reportorial evidence on the threat Donald
48:21
Speaker 1: Trump poses to democracy. To democracy, wait a minute, this
48:29
Speaker 1: isn't aside. Just to be clear, everyone knows I hate Trump,
48:34
Speaker 1: but he's already been president, he lost an election, and
48:38
Speaker 1: he left office. Now he left as a complete asshole
48:40
Speaker 1: and a sore loser.
48:42
Speaker 2: And you know, he.
48:42
Speaker 1: Didn't go to the inauguration, and he did things he
48:44
Speaker 1: should have done, but he left. Meanwhile, the Democratic candidate
48:50
Speaker 1: was handed the nomination without winning one goddamn vote during
48:55
Speaker 1: a primary, and was handed the nomination after the other
48:58
Speaker 1: party had already had their convention selected their vice presidential nominee,
49:04
Speaker 1: and there was a presidential debate, and she was handed
49:08
Speaker 1: that nomination, not only without a vote, without even a process.
49:12
Speaker 2: So this is just so rich.
49:15
Speaker 1: Back to Woodward and Bernstein's statement. Under Jeff Bezos ownership,
49:20
Speaker 1: the Washington Post news operation has used its abundant resources
49:25
Speaker 1: to rigorously investigate the danger and damage of a second
49:29
Speaker 1: Trump presidency could cause to the future.
49:32
Speaker 2: Of American democracy.
49:34
Speaker 1: And that makes this decision even more surprising and disappointing,
49:38
Speaker 1: especially this late in the electoral process. First of all,
49:43
Speaker 1: as if anyone really cares at this stage, what would
49:47
Speaker 1: and Bernstein say?
49:48
Speaker 2: But what does that really tell us?
49:50
Speaker 1: Well, fifty one years later, the only reason anyone cares
49:54
Speaker 1: about you was Watergate. Well, if that's your view of
49:59
Speaker 1: Trump and your willing to signal your virtue so dramatically
50:03
Speaker 1: because your former paper had the audacity to not endorse anybody.
50:10
Speaker 1: What does that tell you about what their mindset was
50:14
Speaker 1: with regard to Richard Nixon and whether or not they
50:17
Speaker 1: really were the fair arbiters of truth and justice and
50:22
Speaker 1: journalism that they were portrayed to be. I mean, those
50:26
Speaker 1: are two liberal political hacks putting out a statement to
50:33
Speaker 1: signal their virtue and to make themselves relevant in this
50:36
Speaker 1: time of crisis among the liberal media elite. I'm sorry,
50:43
Speaker 1: but you have to, if you're a rational person, go
50:46
Speaker 1: back and go wait a minute, hold on here. Is
50:51
Speaker 1: it quite possible that maybe the whole Watergate thing wasn't
50:54
Speaker 1: what we thought it was. And by the way, there
50:57
Speaker 1: have been a lot of very credible questions raised about
51:02
Speaker 1: the entire Watergate investigation. And I'm not saying Nixon was
51:07
Speaker 1: a perfect guy or he got a totally raw deal.
51:12
Speaker 1: I am totally convinced, totally convinced that if Watergate happened today,
51:18
Speaker 1: especially post Trump, no one would give a shit, And
51:21
Speaker 1: with the conservative media industrial complex behind him, Nixon would
51:26
Speaker 1: have had no problem remaining in office for better or
51:29
Speaker 1: for worse.
51:30
Speaker 2: So you know that. To me, I'm one hundred percent
51:33
Speaker 2: positive of. But the idea that.
51:36
Speaker 1: Somehow Woodward and Bernstein or to this day synonymous with
51:41
Speaker 1: tremendous journalism and the glory days of print journalism, specifically
51:46
Speaker 1: the Washington Post, and here they go and reveal themselves,
51:50
Speaker 1: expose themselves one more time as obvious liberal partisan hacks,
51:56
Speaker 1: to me is quite rich.
51:59
Speaker 2: Why would we not look back and go wait a minute,
52:02
Speaker 2: hold on.
52:02
Speaker 1: I mean, I talk about this all the time when
52:05
Speaker 1: it comes to the CBS evening news anchors, and it
52:08
Speaker 1: got progressively worse. Walter Cronkite when he left. Oh he's
52:13
Speaker 1: actually liberal. Dan Rather, Oh my god, he's a complete
52:17
Speaker 1: liberal loon. Katie Kirk, Oh my god, she's completely off
52:21
Speaker 1: the charts. She's a total liberal. Should we go back
52:25
Speaker 1: and consider that whole Sarah Palin interview over again and
52:30
Speaker 1: what her real motivation was and whether she might be
52:33
Speaker 1: willing to be deceitful in the editing of her interview
52:38
Speaker 1: with Sarah Palin, which I believe she was, and I
52:40
Speaker 1: believe I've proven in my documentary about that election Mediam malpractice,
52:45
Speaker 1: how Obama got elected.
52:46
Speaker 2: For some reason. We never go back and go, wait
52:49
Speaker 2: a minute, Now we know the full story.
52:53
Speaker 1: Paul Harvey might have said, now we know the rest
52:56
Speaker 1: of the story, might have taken fifty one years to
52:59
Speaker 1: be hundre percent positive about it. But that was the
53:03
Speaker 1: real significance to me of the Woodward and Bernstein reaction
53:07
Speaker 1: to the Washington Post. As far as not endorsing Kamala Harris,
53:12
Speaker 1: I don't know whether or not this whole thing means
53:14
Speaker 1: that Jeff Bezos thinks that Trump is going to win,
53:17
Speaker 1: but I certainly understand why people are interpreting it that way.
53:22
Speaker 2: And again, he could just be hedging his bets.
53:24
Speaker 1: Now, there are a lot of other media related stories
53:27
Speaker 1: that have occurred in this election, in this campaign over
53:31
Speaker 1: the last several days. I want to get to them now.
53:33
Speaker 1: A couple of them deal with CNN and specifically Jake
53:38
Speaker 1: Tapper's interview with jd Vance. Now, this got very heated,
53:43
Speaker 1: very fiery combative. I'm not a big fan of Jake Tapper, although.
53:47
Speaker 2: I used to be.
53:49
Speaker 1: We both grew up in the same era, in the
53:51
Speaker 1: same area in Philadelphia, both big Philadelphia Phillies fans in
53:56
Speaker 1: nineteen eighty We've actually exchanged messages about that. I used
54:00
Speaker 1: to think of him as being very fair, but as
54:02
Speaker 1: time has gone on, he's become much more openly liberal.
54:07
Speaker 1: You know, there's all sorts of reasons why that could be.
54:10
Speaker 1: But he and JD. Vance went at it over specifically
54:16
Speaker 1: this issue of the lack of trust that people have
54:21
Speaker 1: in the news media and specifically have in CNN, and
54:25
Speaker 1: Vance rightly brings up the resetta stone really of the
54:31
Speaker 1: at least in modern times in recent years, of this issue,
54:35
Speaker 1: which is the whole Russia Gate investigation. Now this gets
54:39
Speaker 1: very complicated, but I totally get where JD. Vance is
54:43
Speaker 1: coming from in this clip, and it's remarkable that Jake
54:47
Speaker 1: Tapper does not or at least pretends that he does not,
54:50
Speaker 1: and that Jake Tapper is completely revising history, pretending pretending
54:57
Speaker 1: that CNN in particular and the liberal mainstream news media
55:01
Speaker 1: in general did not totally buy in in tone and
55:07
Speaker 1: in the amount of time that they spent on the
55:10
Speaker 1: entire Russia Gate investigation. Now, look, I never bought into
55:14
Speaker 1: the full Manchurian candidate Russia Gate theory. There were things
55:20
Speaker 1: about it that I found interesting. You know, I've written
55:23
Speaker 1: about it extensively. I would say my record on this
55:27
Speaker 1: is somewhere in the middle. I didn't buy anywhere near
55:30
Speaker 1: to the extent that CNN and others did that you
55:33
Speaker 1: know that somehow Trump was a Russian spy. But I
55:37
Speaker 1: also to this day believe that there were things in
55:41
Speaker 1: the Mula report that were very, very troubling, and that
55:45
Speaker 1: I believe that the heart of the whole thing. I've
55:47
Speaker 1: said this many times before, and I'll say one more time.
55:50
Speaker 1: I think the heart of the whole thing was Trump
55:52
Speaker 1: was trying to leverage the twenty sixteen Republican presidential nomination
55:58
Speaker 1: to get at Trump Tower Bill in Russia. That he
56:01
Speaker 1: thought that Putin would be impressed by the fact that
56:04
Speaker 1: he was the Republican presidential nominee and that this would
56:07
Speaker 1: finally get him the leverage to get this done, and
56:11
Speaker 1: that he thought, hilariously wrongly in retrospect, that if people
56:16
Speaker 1: found out about this effort that there would be outrage. Now,
56:20
Speaker 1: he didn't realize at the time that he could literally
56:23
Speaker 1: do anything, and that there, at least on the Republican side,
56:26
Speaker 1: no one would give a shit. Of course, he wasn't
56:28
Speaker 1: president yet, that's important to point out. You know, the
56:31
Speaker 1: image of Trump changes once he kills the wicked witch
56:33
Speaker 1: of the West, Hillary Clinton, and he's president, had his states,
56:38
Speaker 1: and you know, he has multiple Supreme Court justices confirmed
56:42
Speaker 1: under his watch and allegedly great economy all that. So
56:45
Speaker 1: there's a different view of Trump once he beats Hillary
56:49
Speaker 1: and becomes president.
56:50
Speaker 2: But at the time, I think he.
56:53
Speaker 1: Was trying to cover up this effort to get this
56:56
Speaker 1: Trump Tower bill, and that's why he had Michael Cohen.
56:58
Speaker 2: LYI to Congress about it.
57:01
Speaker 1: That to me, was at the heart of the whole
57:03
Speaker 1: Russia Gate situation. And then there were people that took
57:08
Speaker 1: bits and pieces of information and ran with it, and
57:10
Speaker 1: CNN absolutely positively did that. And the reason why this
57:15
Speaker 1: is so significant in my view is that there are
57:19
Speaker 1: a lot of reasons why people don't trust the mainstream
57:22
Speaker 1: news media and specifically CNN, But for Trump fans, Russia
57:28
Speaker 1: Gate is the ultimate mic drop that ended it. Right
57:33
Speaker 1: there after Russia Gate, there is nothing CNN can report
57:39
Speaker 1: about Donald Trump that will influence the Trump fan nothing.
57:44
Speaker 1: It doesn't matter if it's video of Trump actually doing
57:48
Speaker 1: or saying whatever it is that CNN claims to the
57:52
Speaker 1: core Trump fan, it doesn't matter.
57:56
Speaker 2: You've lost all credibility.
57:59
Speaker 1: And the lack of self awareness on the part of
58:02
Speaker 1: the mainstream news media in general, CNN in particular is
58:06
Speaker 1: so telling and it's frankly shocking if it's real. If
58:11
Speaker 1: Tapper doesn't understand this, it is truly shocking to me.
58:16
Speaker 2: And it's really if Trump were to.
58:18
Speaker 1: Win this election, which I'm not convinced of yet, but
58:22
Speaker 1: it's really a huge part of why the media completely
58:27
Speaker 1: lost all of their credibility. They threw it all away,
58:32
Speaker 1: and they threw it all away on a ton of
58:34
Speaker 1: different stories, but none was more powerful in Trump world
58:39
Speaker 1: in the negative than them buying into the whole Russia
58:42
Speaker 1: Gate investigation. And so this sets up a really fascinating
58:48
Speaker 1: conflict between Jake Tapper of CNN and vice presidential nominee
58:53
Speaker 1: jd Vance.
58:54
Speaker 2: And this happened over the weekend on CNN.
58:56
Speaker 6: Ask yourself a basic question about network integrity. You guys
59:01
Speaker 6: talked about the Russia hoax NonStop.
59:03
Speaker 7: The FBI was investigating it. The FBI was investigating it.
59:06
Speaker 2: So we recovered them.
59:08
Speaker 6: And so you took the words of unnamed FBI agents
59:10
Speaker 6: and put them on your network as if they were
59:12
Speaker 6: the gospel truth.
59:13
Speaker 2: You did it again and again.
59:14
Speaker 6: A viewer of your network would have believed that Donald
59:17
Speaker 6: Trump and Vladimir Putin conspired in twenty sixteen. That was totally,
59:21
Speaker 6: im preposterously false.
59:22
Speaker 7: Now, well, that's what you just said is false. We
59:25
Speaker 7: covered an FBI investigation. I don't know why you want
59:27
Speaker 7: to talk about the FBI investigation.
59:29
Speaker 6: You covered it in a way that gave credence to
59:31
Speaker 6: anonymous sources accusations. You did it yourself, your network did it, Jake.
59:36
Speaker 6: But again, can we talk about the issues that Americans can.
59:39
Speaker 2: I'm talking about things that Donald Trump has said.
59:42
Speaker 7: Yes, if you have an issue with whether or not
59:44
Speaker 7: he's talking about the economy, enough, that's between you and
59:46
Speaker 7: your running mate. I'm talking about things he has said this.
59:49
Speaker 6: Week, every single rally that he does, he talks about
59:52
Speaker 6: how he wants to unleash American energy so we can
59:54
Speaker 6: lower the cost of groceries. He talks about the fact
59:56
Speaker 6: that housing has become unaffordable.
59:58
Speaker 2: He talks about the.
59:59
Speaker 6: White open board, or Jake, Kamala Harris and her allies.
1:00:02
Speaker 6: You know, it's interesting Kamala Harris and her media allies,
1:00:05
Speaker 6: and I would put CNN in this category.
1:00:06
Speaker 2: You guys guys seem.
1:00:08
Speaker 6: To tell I'll tell you that they would, Well, they
1:00:10
Speaker 6: should watch your network more because you guys seem to
1:00:12
Speaker 6: care more about Donald Trump's past than the future of
1:00:16
Speaker 6: the American people. We're running this campaign on making the
1:00:20
Speaker 6: American dreams, specifically.
1:00:21
Speaker 7: Asking about how Donald Trump is going to be president
1:00:24
Speaker 7: in the future should he win, and then we're.
1:00:26
Speaker 6: Being told we're going to pursue economic policies that lower
1:00:28
Speaker 6: the cost of groceries and make life more affordable.
1:00:30
Speaker 2: Again.
1:00:31
Speaker 6: He talks about it every single day on the campaign trail,
1:00:33
Speaker 6: and so do I. What you're talking about is is
1:00:36
Speaker 6: an anonymously source story.
1:00:38
Speaker 2: Or one guy or who one guy?
1:00:41
Speaker 6: One guy who is a disgruntled employee.
1:00:43
Speaker 2: I told her five.
1:00:44
Speaker 6: Other people, five other people push back against him and
1:00:47
Speaker 6: said that what he said was dishonest.
1:00:49
Speaker 2: So why don't we talk.
1:00:50
Speaker 6: About the policy that's affecting American citizens and not what
1:00:54
Speaker 6: Donald Trump allegedly said. According to one guy who's pissed
1:00:57
Speaker 6: off because he got fired by Donald Trump, I.
1:01:00
Speaker 2: Thought Vance did a really good job there.
1:01:03
Speaker 1: I might have even gone further. This is I say
1:01:05
Speaker 1: this quite a bit when it comes to Vance. I
1:01:07
Speaker 1: like a lot of what he does or says, but
1:01:10
Speaker 1: I actually would like him to go even further into
1:01:14
Speaker 1: this issue of the lack of trust that people have
1:01:17
Speaker 1: in the news media because of.
1:01:20
Speaker 2: What they did, not just.
1:01:21
Speaker 1: With Russia Gate, but when it comes to Trump fans,
1:01:24
Speaker 1: that's obviously the most prominent topic and issue that people
1:01:29
Speaker 1: reference and understandably.
1:01:30
Speaker 2: So, I mean, if you're.
1:01:31
Speaker 1: Gonna go after a sitting president and strongly imply that
1:01:37
Speaker 1: he's a Russian spy or a Manchurian candidate, you better
1:01:41
Speaker 1: be fucking right. You better be fucking right. And let's
1:01:46
Speaker 1: be clear, and I don't think this point has made
1:01:48
Speaker 1: enough even in the conservative media. Let's be clear about
1:01:53
Speaker 1: what was really going on at the time. Liberals needed,
1:01:58
Speaker 1: for therapy purposes, an explanation for how it is that
1:02:05
Speaker 1: Trump beat Hillary. And this provided this entire Russia narrative.
1:02:11
Speaker 1: Provided that it provided it.
1:02:14
Speaker 2: On two fronts.
1:02:16
Speaker 1: Number One, it gave them somebody to blame. It was
1:02:21
Speaker 1: an nefarious underground force that was able to bring Trump
1:02:28
Speaker 1: to victory, and it was able to get liberals off
1:02:31
Speaker 1: the hook for not having any comprehension that this could
1:02:34
Speaker 1: possibly happen.
1:02:35
Speaker 2: Oh, there was a magical force behind the scenes, Evil.
1:02:39
Speaker 1: Russia, which was always hilarious because it was up until
1:02:42
Speaker 1: that point it was Democrats didn't care that much about
1:02:44
Speaker 1: Russia and Republicans were anti Russia. All that flipped because
1:02:48
Speaker 1: all of a sudden, Aha, we have someone to blame.
1:02:52
Speaker 1: We really weren't that stupid, we weren't that asleep of
1:02:55
Speaker 1: the switch. It was Russia that helped Trump win. So
1:02:58
Speaker 1: this was very soothing therapy for liberals dealing with Trump's victory.
1:03:04
Speaker 1: But also, and this may have been even more important,
1:03:08
Speaker 1: it provided some semblance of hope that this nightmare that
1:03:13
Speaker 1: liberals were going through was going to end quickly, that
1:03:18
Speaker 1: somehow Trump would be impeached and removed from office so
1:03:23
Speaker 1: that this could be erased, and that was what drove
1:03:28
Speaker 1: the ratings for this narrative. Liberals loved this for the
1:03:34
Speaker 1: reasons I just stated, And that's why CNN and others
1:03:38
Speaker 1: went overbore because it was good for them from a
1:03:42
Speaker 1: content perspective, a narrative perspective, and a rating standpoint. And
1:03:48
Speaker 1: so that's when that occurs, people in the media lose
1:03:52
Speaker 1: their goddamn minds, and Tapper may have forgotten about that.
1:03:56
Speaker 1: It's like, you know, I've been going into a drunken
1:03:58
Speaker 1: stupor and you pretend or you, you fool yourself into
1:04:03
Speaker 1: believing you didn't really do the things that you actually
1:04:06
Speaker 1: did when you were drunk that night. Well, that's what
1:04:08
Speaker 1: it feels like is happening with Tapper and with CNN
1:04:13
Speaker 1: and the mainstream liberal news media in general. Thanks for
1:04:17
Speaker 1: listening to today's free drop of the abbreviated show. If
1:04:20
Speaker 1: you're interested in listening to the entire show, you must
1:04:23
Speaker 1: become a patron. Please go to Patreon. That's p A
1:04:28
Speaker 1: t R e o n dot com. Patreon dot com.
1:04:32
Speaker 1: Slash the Death.
1:04:35
Speaker 2: Of Journalism with John Ziggler.
1:04:38
Speaker 1: My name is j H N z I E g
1:04:41
Speaker 1: L e R. That's hatreon dot com. Slash the Death
1:04:47
Speaker 1: of Journalism with John Ziggler.
1:04:50
Speaker 2: Good luck to you on that. But that's how you
1:04:52
Speaker 2: can subscribe.