Latest / The Death Of Journalism / Episode Sixty Seven: The Teflon Don

Transcript

Episode Sixty Seven: The Teflon Don · The Death Of Journalism

• 0:00
  Welcome to episode number sixty seven of the Death of Journalism podcast. My name
• 0:04
  is John Ziggler. I'm your host on today's program. The Trump indictment insanity
• 0:09
  continues, Chris Christie goes off in a CNN town hall, Gavin Newsom exposes
• 0:15
  why Sean Hannity is the dumbest national right wing talk show host in history,
• 0:20
  and Pride Month lunacy rises to a whole new level. I'm known as the
• 0:26
  Dutch Digital marketing Man. I'm a digital advertising SEO and EMMO marketing specialist.
• 0:32
  It also happens to be a big fan of John Ziggler and the Death of
• 0:35
  Journalism. Do you need help preaching your target audience? Let me help you
• 0:40
  develop the right messaging and confaded message and the best channels for your business.
• 0:45
  Please visit my website, the Dutch Digital marketing Man dot com and let me
• 0:50
  help you tell your story. The website is the Dutch Digital marketing Man dot
• 0:56
  com. If you want to grow your business, Peter can help. That's
• 0:59
  the Dutch Digital marketing Man dot com. And hey, thanks for sponsoring the
• 1:03
  show. In episode sixty six, we talked to great detail about the latest
• 1:08
  indictment against woman President Donald Trump since we last spoke, he has been reigned,
• 1:15
  and that of course created an entire day of media madness. It was
• 1:21
  basically a repeat of the first New York City indictment, only this time it
• 1:26
  was from a media perspective even more solemn and with a lot better scenery because
• 1:34
  we got to see you know, Draw and Bedminster, and you know,
• 1:38
  Miami looks a heck of a lot better in parts on television than you know,
• 1:45
  cramped New York City. But it was basically a rerun, only there
• 1:49
  was I think, in some ways a little bit more insanity going on.
• 1:56
  There was a little bit more of a crowd and a little bit more of
• 1:59
  a carnival atmosphere, largely because New York City is more cramped in and there
• 2:05
  was more room in Miami for this to happen. I think, most notably
• 2:10
  what happened in the run up to the arraiment, which of course, you
• 2:15
  know, nothing really happens here. This is part of how absurd the media
• 2:20
  coverage was. It's wall to wall, all day coverage with dozens of reporters
• 2:25
  both in the studio and on location for each major media outlet, when they
• 2:31
  know nothing is going to happen, and nothing does happen, but we still
• 2:36
  learned a few things. And the first thing that I want to point out
• 2:39
  is that in the run up to the arraiment, veg Ramaswami basically proved that
• 2:47
  I was one hundred percent right about him from the beginning. I believe,
• 2:52
  before anybody else was able to pick this up, I told you that veg
• 2:57
  Ramiswami, the Indian businessman who is running for the Republican nomination, allegedly was
• 3:02
  effectively part of the Trump campaign. And then if you're the Santis person like
• 3:07
  I am, he's trouble. And I've even joked that Trump probably didn't collude
• 3:14
  with Russia, but he certainly is colluding with vake Ramaswami. I mean,
• 3:17
  the evidence of that has now become overwhelming, even before what happened at the
• 3:23
  arrangement. I mean, not only has he been very, very hesitant to
• 3:27
  criticize Donald Trump, He's gone after Rhonda Santis on many things, including things
• 3:31
  that are not even accurate, most specifically the whole Disney issue. But he
• 3:37
  has Trump's former campaign manager, Corey Lorendowski, as his campaign manager. He
• 3:44
  has been invited as the only other presidential candidate other than Donald Trump. He's
• 3:49
  been invited to a turning point event to speak, like a convention of Trump
• 3:53
  supporters. Gee, what a coincidence that is. And it's Trump has congratulated
• 4:00
  him on being in the race and given him some oxygen in some of the
• 4:05
  messages that Trump himself has put out there. So, I mean, it
• 4:11
  couldn't be more obvious that they're in cahouds. Whether it's a wink wig no
• 4:14
  not, or whether or not it really is some semblance of collusion, I
• 4:17
  don't know. But any doubt that there was that these two are very,
• 4:24
  very deeply aligned was removed on the day of the arrayment because Ramaswami, who
• 4:30
  is a media whore, knew that there would be a lot of cameras there
• 4:33
  and with nothing to do, right, I mean, there's literally nothing to
• 4:39
  cover, so you know, from a media perspective, he smartly goes down
• 4:43
  there and he holds his press conference where he is urging all the other Republican
• 4:53
  candidates to join him in promising to pardon Donald Trump should they be elected.
• 5:00
  Now, there's so many levels of absurdity of this, but the obvious intent
• 5:04
  here is to put pressure on specifically Rhanda Santis to further prostrate himself in support
• 5:13
  of Donald Trump that somehow, if you are not willing to promise a pardon
• 5:17
  for Donald Trump, you're not down with a struggle to the extent that would
• 5:24
  make you worthy of being the Republican presidential nominee. And of course this is
• 5:29
  a publicity stunt. And this is indicative of what I've said about Vague Ramaswami
• 5:34
  from the very beginning. I even said his whole purpose is to get into
• 5:40
  the debates and to protect Donald Trump and to dive in front of any bullets
• 5:45
  that the Santis might fire in Trump's direction. Well, that's effectively what Ramaswami
• 5:49
  was doing during the arrayment. Here he is he is virtue signaling to the
• 5:56
  Trump base that he is more willing than anyone else to go to seeing absurd
• 6:00
  lens to defend Donald Trump, and even to the extent of putting pressure on
• 6:05
  specifically Rhna Santis to do something that would be insane. I mean, it
• 6:10
  would be absolutely absurd at this point, when we don't know all the facts,
• 6:15
  when there hasn't been a conviction, there probably is never going to be
• 6:17
  a conviction, at least not before the election in my estimation, and if
• 6:23
  ever, because I truly believe that in this case in Florida, it's going
• 6:26
  to be very easy for the Trump lawyers to find at least two Trump supporters
• 6:30
  to get on that jury and effectively nullify the entire case, kind of in
• 6:34
  OJ Simpson style. But it would be absolutely ridiculous for Rhn De Santis,
• 6:42
  who is still, you know, theoretically in a position where he could beat
• 6:46
  Donald Trump for the Republican nomination, for him to promise a pardon when he
• 6:53
  doesn't know all the facts. But that doesn't matter to Ramiswami. Ramiswammy is
• 6:59
  doing Trump's bidding, and he's getting trying to get media coverage, and he's
• 7:01
  trying to curry favor with the Trump cult base, probably either for a future
• 7:08
  media career or if Trump were somehow to be elected, I'm sure he would
• 7:12
  get a very prominent position in the administration. So that was the first thing
• 7:17
  that I saw that was just outrageous. But I do think that it goes
• 7:21
  to something that I consider to be basically my strength. If I have a
• 7:27
  strength as an analyst, it's being able to tell who the good guys are
• 7:30
  and the bad guys are, And I would say that, trying to be
• 7:32
  as objective as possible, I'm probably better at picking out who the bad guys
• 7:38
  are. I've been burned a few times, not that many, but a
• 7:40
  few times when I thought somebody was on the good guy side and they really
• 7:44
  weren't. But I am pretty much one hundred percent when it comes to picking
• 7:49
  out who the bad guys are. And viveg Ramiswami is not to be trusted,
• 7:55
  and he's a bad guy, and he's causing trouble here, and he's
• 7:58
  doing it for all the wrong reasons. And as I told you very very
• 8:01
  early on in this process, when it comes to the Dessanta's campaign, vaveage
• 8:05
  Gramaswami is a problem and it may be too late to fully neutralize that problem.
• 8:11
  Although he did look so ridiculous that I gotta believe that he has stunted
• 8:16
  whatever progress his own campaign can make. Not that he was ever I think
• 8:20
  a threat to become the number two guy instead of dessantas something like that.
• 8:26
  His whole purpose is to get into the debates, and it's clear to me
• 8:31
  he's going to get into the debates. Whether Trump will join him is still
• 8:35
  very much an open question, and I'll have some more thoughts on that later
• 8:39
  on in this episode. But most of the coverage of this whole thing from
• 8:43
  a media perspective was just so dumb. I mean, there's literally nothing happening.
• 8:48
  We know nothing's going to happen. There's not even a large enough crowd.
• 8:52
  Now, I don't know how to evaluate what that really means. Mecause
• 8:56
  there were Trump people urging supporters to come out and protest all of this,
• 9:01
  and that did happen to a small extent, but not a large extent.
• 9:05
  These were not large crowds by any stretch of imagination. I don't know how
• 9:11
  significant that is. This is Miami, but you know, but it's also
• 9:16
  Florida, and it's also a place where Trump is very very well known.
• 9:20
  But I also personally know that it's very very difficult to get people to show
• 9:24
  up for these kind of things during a week day, especially in a liberal
• 9:31
  city. But the reality is there was not a big crowd. There was
• 9:35
  nothing that was going to happen. We all knew that Trump was gonna plead
• 9:37
  not guilty, which is what he did. There was almost no ability to
• 9:41
  see Trump. He only saw Trump for a couple of seconds getting in and
• 9:46
  out of vehicles. From a Trump's perspective, he had to like some of
• 9:50
  it, I mean a lot of it was a huge advertisement for two of
• 9:54
  Trump's golf resort properties, especially to Raw, where as I mentioned before,
• 10:00
  where I spent some of the best moments of my youth. My family back
• 10:03
  when I was a kid used to go to Draw for the Old Draw Open
• 10:07
  PGA Tour golf tournament for several years in a row because my father worked for
• 10:11
  a company that sponsored it, and I fell in love with Duret. Trump
• 10:16
  did not own it back then, but you know, it's a beautiful place,
• 10:20
  and it was bizarre for me personally to see all these police vehicles driving
• 10:26
  in and out of Draw to escort a former President Trump to go be arraigned
• 10:33
  on federal charges that could be felonies if he's convicted on them. I mean,
• 10:37
  it's just it's just also bizarre. But I got to believe that that
• 10:41
  Trump didn't mind a lot of these pictures. I mean it made him look
• 10:45
  very rich and powerful, and this long line of limos and obviously his properties
• 10:52
  and so um. You know, from a purely visual standpoint, I doubt
• 10:56
  that Trump disliked a lot of this. Now, I'm sure he wasn't enjoying
• 11:01
  what he was having to go through, but you know, from a purely
• 11:03
  media standpoint, I don't think it really hurt him very much. And again,
• 11:09
  there was nothing substantive that happened. Now, there were a few moments
• 11:15
  that I found to be interesting and worthy of comment. I did. I
• 11:18
  was, of course flipping back and forth mostly between Fox News and CNN,
• 11:24
  because I feel like if you've watched Fox News and CNN, you pretty much
• 11:28
  can get the full spectrum of how the media is covering this situation. And
• 11:33
  Fox News, of course has now basically gone back onto Team Trump, and
• 11:37
  as part of that effort, they had on Florida Senator MARKA. Rubio.
• 11:41
  Now, Rubio is an interesting character here. I think it's a significant one
• 11:46
  because one he ran for president in twenty sixteen. He was very very critical
• 11:52
  of Donald Trump. At times, I believed that he was the person who
• 11:56
  had the best chance in twenty sixteen to both def Donald Trump and to win
• 12:01
  the general election. But then Chris Christie took him out in the New Hampshire
• 12:05
  debate, and something that I didn't think was all that bad but that was
• 12:09
  the different standard that non Trump candidates were being held to as opposed to what
• 12:13
  Donald Trump was being held to in twenty sixteen. But I like Marco Rubio,
• 12:18
  and he was on Fox News Channel Live and he gave his analysis of
• 12:26
  this whole situation, and it was really pretty surreal to see the guy who
• 12:31
  was taking on Trump in twenty sixteen and being very very critical of him going
• 12:37
  to great lens to defend him on this particular indictment. Now, it didn't
• 12:41
  surprise me, even though it was rather depressing that Rubio was defending Trump.
• 12:46
  I thought he the way that he was defending Trump, though, was worthy
• 12:52
  of mentioned, because I think there's some merit to it. I was bothered
• 12:56
  by the fact that he would do it, and he's obviously doing it for
• 13:00
  political reasons, and the fact that he's a senator from Florida, which is
• 13:03
  both Trump's home state and the Santis's home state, so I think that gives
• 13:07
  him what he says is probably even a little bit more power and credibility.
• 13:11
  But Rubio's basic argument on this is, look, there's no evidence. I
• 13:18
  agree with this, By the way, although I would I would be a
• 13:24
  little bit more reserved than Rubio wasn't saying that we know this to be the
• 13:28
  case. But there's currently no evidence that we know of that what Trump did
• 13:33
  with these classified documents caused harm to the United States. I would agree that,
• 13:39
  from what I can tell, there's no evidence that that's the case.
• 13:43
  I would also agree that that has importance if you're looking at this not from
• 13:48
  a legal perspective, but from more of a global or moral standpoint. Okay,
• 13:54
  was there harm done here? When you're trying to make the decision is
• 13:58
  to whether you do something unprecedented and charge a former president with all these federal
• 14:05
  felonies. But I would also like to reserve judgment on that, because I'd
• 14:11
  like to have a trial to be able to determine whether or not it's possible
• 14:16
  or likely that there really was damage done. I don't think we know this,
• 14:18
  but I would agree that currently in the public sphere, there's no evidence
• 14:24
  that what Trump did, as dumb as it was and as illegal as it
• 14:28
  may have been, was in fact harmful to the United States. I'll accept
• 14:31
  that for the premise of Rubio's argument, but he says, and I also
• 14:37
  agree with this, that the indictment itself does do harm to the United States.
• 14:43
  So you're taking a situation where we have no evidence actual harm was done
• 14:48
  to any human or to the country, and we are creating harm by going
• 14:54
  putting the country through this process of indicting a former president. And I understand
• 15:01
  that argument. I think it's a compelling argument, especially to conservatives who are
• 15:05
  pissed off about what they perceived to be the politicization of the Department of Justice.
• 15:11
  I get it. But here would be my counter argument to Mark or
• 15:15
  Rubio. Okay, that all is well and good if in fact there was
• 15:20
  no harm. I agree that this indictment does damage. I mean it may
• 15:26
  do great damage, we'll see, But I agree that when you're trying to
• 15:31
  determine whether or not this was a proper indictment and a good idea for the
• 15:35
  Department of Justice to pursue this, I agree that that is a fair way
• 15:41
  to look at it. However, there's a part of this equation that Rubio
• 15:45
  and Trump supporters seem to be discounting, and that is that Trump is not
• 15:52
  Richard Nixon, who was pardoned by Gerald Ford after he resigned from office.
• 16:02
  Nixon resigned post Watergate and then was pardoned by Gerald Ford to great controversy,
• 16:11
  but he did so because it was he thought, and probably correctly so,
• 16:15
  in the best interest of the country that a former president not be criminally charged
• 16:22
  in this matter. But Nixon had resigned and was clearly never going to run
• 16:30
  for president. Again, that's not the case with Trump. Trump is not
• 16:37
  sitting at home playing golf every day out of the public sphere. He's not
• 16:45
  only running for president, he's the leading candidate. So if you're going to
• 16:48
  make a non legal argument, this is important. See legally, I don't
• 16:56
  think that there's any argument to be made that Trump shouldn't be charged here because
• 17:00
  it seems as if he broke several laws and he shouldn't be above the law,
• 17:06
  and just because Hillary wasn't. By the way, it should be pointed
• 17:08
  out because it's so obvious it was Trump's doa that didn't go after Hillary.
• 17:15
  I mean, Trump promised to lock Hillary up for similar alleged violations and then
• 17:21
  his Department of Justice did nothing against her for four years after promising to lock
• 17:26
  her up. So this idea, that's, well, why wasn't Hillary charge?
• 17:30
  Well, Trump had something to do with that. His his dh had
• 17:34
  something to do with that his FBI, his Attorney General. So I don't
• 17:40
  I don't understand. I mean, it's a cult, so it's not understandable,
• 17:44
  but I don't understand the logic there. But in this particular case,
• 17:48
  Trump is trying to get the same job back again. So if we're making
• 17:53
  the non legal argument, the moral argument, the pragmatic aregument is to whether
• 18:00
  or not this indictment is justified or makes sense. That has to be part
• 18:04
  of the equation because Trump can still do great damage if he is returned to
• 18:12
  the White House as president of the United States. He's already proven that he's
• 18:18
  not to be trusted playing with fire. And okay, let's presume, for
• 18:22
  the sake of argument, that he got away with not burning the house down
• 18:29
  by you know, showing these top secret documents to strangers in Marlago like their
• 18:33
  trophies to be shown off in his den, and let's hope and pretend that
• 18:40
  there was no actual damage done from him playing with this fire. Well,
• 18:45
  he's already proven that he's not to be trusted playing with fire. Why would
• 18:48
  you let him back into a situation where he could burn the house down and
• 18:55
  in a far more dramatic way, especially when he would not have to worry
• 19:00
  about reelection, and he's already said that his campaign slogan as I'm your retribution.
• 19:06
  And so if you're gonna make the non legal argument, which I'm open
• 19:11
  to, you have to at least include in that the fact that he's running
• 19:17
  and leading on the Republican side to get the job back again. And that
• 19:23
  part of the equation seems to have been completely lost, and and it's weird.
• 19:30
  I don't get it. It's like it's as if the cult has a
• 19:34
  hole in their thinking that they just don't think things all the way through.
• 19:40
  And I like Marco Rubio. I respect Marco Rubio, but I would love
• 19:44
  for him to address that particular part of this equation is. Okay, he's
• 19:49
  not Richard Nixon who resigned and is sitting at home. He's he's the leading
• 19:55
  candidate to get the job back and do be in charge of the Zach same
• 20:00
  situation, only with less ability to keep him under control. Now, there's
• 20:07
  a couple other things I want to mention before I get to Trump's reaction to
• 20:14
  his indictment in his arrayment and how the media handled that. Anthony Scaramucci,
• 20:19
  who very very briefly worked in the Trump White House, but has known Trump
• 20:25
  for quite a long time and according to him, was very very close to
• 20:29
  Trump for an extended period of time. He went on News Nation with Chris
• 20:33
  Cuomo, and this was before the arrayment, but it was after our last
• 20:38
  episode of the podcast, and he put forward a theory that Trump is going
• 20:45
  to eventually do what Richard Nixon did, which is effectively plea and flee.
• 20:52
  Those are my words. But he's going to plead to some sort of deal
• 20:56
  and he'll drop out of the race. And whether or not it was hard
• 21:00
  to determine this Scaremouchi think that that's a quid pro quel or will that one
• 21:06
  just follow the other, and that Trump is very scared about this, and
• 21:12
  that in the long run, Trump will not be a candidate for the Republican
• 21:18
  nomination because this is just going to be too much and he's gonna make a
• 21:22
  deal to make sure he stays out of out of jail. He doesn't want
• 21:26
  to die in prison. These are my words, but this is how I
• 21:30
  interpreted what Scaramouchi said. Now, Scaramouchi, I think is a pretty smart
• 21:37
  guy, but he's also prone to saying things that will get media attention.
• 21:41
  And I don't buy this theory as much as I would love for this,
• 21:45
  because this is one of the few paths where there is potential to get out
• 21:49
  of this mess. That would be, you know, even better theoretically than
• 21:55
  Trump suddenly being physically incapacitated or being put in prison. I mean, that
• 22:00
  would be the best scenario for the country in all this if somehow Trump decided,
• 22:06
  you know what, I've had enough, I'm withdrawing from the race,
• 22:08
  and I'm not going to go to prison, and we'll make some sort of
• 22:12
  deal. Again, I'm not sure that that deal is even theoretically possible because
• 22:17
  for a number of reasons, but let's pretend. Let's pretend that it is.
• 22:21
  I don't see Trump doing this. I think Trump's ego is far too
• 22:26
  big for him to ever admit that level of defeat. But I also I'm
• 22:32
  looking this from the standpoint of Trump's incentive structure and the leverage that he would
• 22:37
  have in this particular situation. And the reason is because basically, I think
• 22:48
  he needs to keep running in order to ensure that he is never convicted of
• 22:53
  anything. Follow me here, I've already alluded to this. This episode in
• 23:00
  the previous episode of the podcast, if he ever does go on trial,
• 23:06
  being the Republican nominee or presumptive nominee is a huge advantage for him because that
• 23:14
  would invest much more deeply any particular pro Trump jurors in his outcome. Then
• 23:23
  if he was just a citizen who was not the Republican nominee, So he
• 23:29
  would be giving up an enormous amount of leverage here because if he goes on
• 23:36
  trial as as the presumptive or potential Republican nominee, is far easier to find
• 23:45
  jurors that are just going to say, nope, nope, nope, nope,
• 23:47
  nope, I am voting not guilty, no matter what. If he's
• 23:52
  just a guy who is no longer going to be potentially president in the future,
• 23:59
  then I think that becomes much more difficult. So now you could argue,
• 24:03
  all right, well, what if he takes a plea deal, Well,
• 24:07
  but that's admitting some level of guilt and withdrawing from the race is acknowledging
• 24:14
  defeat. And I mean, I mean, you could maybe make an argument,
• 24:19
  and this to me is beyond Trump's ability to comprehend or to think even
• 24:26
  think in this manner. But you know, if he was convinced he was
• 24:29
  going to lose in the general election, right, which would take a help
• 24:33
  a lot more self awareness than Trump was capable of, h then you know
• 24:37
  he could he could argue then that he if he gets out of jail and
• 24:41
  he gets his legal troubles behind him and he withdraws with the race, that
• 24:45
  he is forever going to be able to say, see I would have won,
• 24:49
  or see the DOJ you know, prevented me from being president, and
• 24:55
  again he'd be in a martyr into perpetuity. I guess there's a the radical
• 25:00
  argument to be made there, but I just don't see how this would work,
• 25:06
  because, by the way, what would prevent Trump from going back on
• 25:11
  the deal? If that was somehow part of the deal to that Okay,
• 25:15
  we're gonna plea bargain this to basically nothing, but you're not gonna run.
• 25:21
  I don't even know how you would enforce that deal, because once the plea
• 25:25
  bargain's done, I just I just I just don't see it happening. I
• 25:29
  just don't see how logistically it's possible. And I also think that Trump is
• 25:33
  likely to be in such control of the Republican nominating process, that it would
• 25:40
  be it would be forcing him to give up way too much if he was
• 25:44
  somehow tied, or you might in a position where he thought he might lose
• 25:48
  the Republican nomination. I think that that might have at least some level of
• 25:55
  credibility to it, this idea that Trump could go for this, But that's
• 25:59
  not the case, and there's no sign that that's going to be the case.
• 26:02
  All indications are that he is winning big and might be winning even bigger
• 26:07
  nationally after this indictment. We don't know for sure yet whether or not he's
• 26:11
  getting another indictment bump, but there is some early indications that he might be.
• 26:17
  Tucker Carlson, certainly, I think helped him greatly on the day of
• 26:22
  the arrayment by putting out episode number three of his Twitter monologus. And he
• 26:29
  did so, by the way, in defiance of Fox News Channel threats that
• 26:33
  are claiming that he's in violation of his contract by posting essentially Tucker Carlson shows
• 26:40
  on Twitter. That did not apparently stop Tucker from doing what he wanted to
• 26:45
  do, which was as he's been doing, posting these ten minutes or so
• 26:49
  videos on Twitter, where he does commentary and monologue very much like he did
• 26:55
  the opening of his Fox News show. They don't have nearly the same technic
• 27:00
  go pizzazz, and the studio is clearly not even fully done, and the
• 27:03
  lighting is not great, but you know, it's definitely, you know,
• 27:07
  normal Tucker. And if you're a fan of Tucker Carlson, you know,
• 27:11
  I can see why you like them. They've been very very popular on Twitter,
• 27:15
  getting tens and tens of millions of impressions. Hard to tell how many
• 27:21
  views that translates to, but there's no question that every time Tucker puts out
• 27:26
  a video is very very popular. And the one that he put out on
• 27:30
  the day of the arreement, I thought, and I had a people who
• 27:36
  are much closer to the situation than me contact me in unprovoked in agreement that
• 27:42
  this was a very very pro Trump narrative that Tucker Carlson was spinning in this
• 27:53
  Twitter video that he put out. And it's a little bit complicated way that
• 28:00
  Tucker does it. It's a little stream of consciousness, but the way that
• 28:03
  I took it and I thought it was very clear what Tucker was trying to
• 28:08
  sell here was essentially that Trump was indicted because he's anti war, and it
• 28:18
  had a lot of echoes to me of Oliver Stone's Kennedy assassination theory, which
• 28:23
  was all about the military industrial complex that Dwight Eisenhower had warned about when he
• 28:30
  left office in nineteen sixty and that the theory goes that John F. Kennedy
• 28:37
  had taken on the military industrial complex and wanted to withdraw from Vietnam, and
• 28:42
  that this was why the CIA took out John F. Kennedy. And I
• 28:49
  have said previously on this podcast that Tucker Carlson clearly believes in the CIA killed
• 29:00
  Kennedy theory, which in my view as someone who has studied the Kennedy assassination
• 29:06
  to a very very detailed degree, and I believe I have figured out what
• 29:11
  really happened logistically in the Kennedy assassination, which almost no one else has been
• 29:15
  able to do. Hopefully later on this year i'll get to the details on
• 29:19
  that. I don't think there's any validity to that theory at all at all.
• 29:25
  In fact, I think it's ludicrous. But if you believe this is
• 29:29
  where one conspiracy begets another. If you believe that the CIA killed Kennedy and
• 29:36
  got away with it somehow, and you believe that nine to eleven was an
• 29:41
  inside job, and you believe Jeffrey Epstein didn't really kill himself, and you
• 29:45
  believe that you know there's aliens from outer space that have visited us and the
• 29:52
  government's covering it up, it becomes much easier to buy the next conspiracy theory
• 29:57
  because it dictates it's your worldview. It's very much, very much as I
• 30:03
  know from personal experience with two young daughters, and I've talked about this struggle
• 30:08
  on this podcast previously. It's very much like a child that believes in Santa
• 30:14
  Claus and believes in elves and reindeer that fly, and that whole narrative,
• 30:21
  Because then they're going to buy the tooth Fairy and they're going to buy the
• 30:23
  Easter Bunny a heck of a lot more easily than if they don't buy the
• 30:30
  whole Santa Claus story. Well, it's very, very similar, and this
• 30:36
  particular narrative. I agree with the person that contacted me that this has potentially
• 30:44
  devastating consequences to the Republican nominating process because this has been a narrative that I
• 30:51
  have been very very concerned about since the first indictment. You may recall that
• 30:56
  when Trump was indicted in New York, talker Carlson went on Fox News channel
• 31:02
  at the time and basically made the argument, if we don't nominate Trump,
• 31:07
  the bad guys have won. I mean, that's my assessment. But we
• 31:11
  now must elect Donald Trump because if we don't, we don't have a country
• 31:17
  anymore. And at that moment my hair went on fire. That was when
• 31:22
  I texted Tucker Carlson and said, Dude, you're completely wrong here. You're
• 31:26
  gonna help Trump be the nominee. You don't even like him, blah blah
• 31:30
  blah. He told me, I'm just a talk show host. I don't
• 31:33
  matter. I went on News Nation with Dan Abrams, and I went apoplectic.
• 31:38
  I mean, I would argue that I had more outrage, more anger,
• 31:45
  more umbrage in that television appearance than anybody has been on television that I've
• 31:49
  seen on cable doubles and all year long. And I believe at this moment
• 31:55
  I was a thousand percent vindicated because what was driving my outrage there was I
• 32:00
  saw the future, and I saw how damaging this particular narrative could be.
• 32:08
  How appealing this narrative would be to Republican voters who were on the fence,
• 32:15
  and the polling data one hundred percent went in the direction, maybe even more
• 32:21
  so than I had feared, where all of a sudden, a lot of
• 32:24
  people who had been on the Descanta side or who had been undecided figured out
• 32:30
  that, Okay, this is the reason why we're going to go with Trump.
• 32:35
  Screw these bastards. Screw these bastards. I don't care about all of
• 32:38
  Trump's failings and all of his weaknesses. Screw them. We're not going to
• 32:45
  put up with this. And it effectively gave Trump immunity even more than he
• 32:51
  already had from any and all viruses, including the COVID virus. And I
• 32:55
  don't mean from a medical standpoint, I mean from a political perspective. And
• 33:01
  I truly believe now Tucker's not the whole reason for it. Glenn Beck jumped
• 33:06
  on board with it, and that made me furious, given my relationship with
• 33:09
  Glenn and the fact that Glenn used to be an anti Trump conservative. But
• 33:14
  I saw right away how incredibly damaging and dangerous this was. Well basically what
• 33:22
  Tucker did on Trump's A Raymond Day was he picked it up an even further
• 33:27
  notch than that. Now it's you know, into complete conspiracy land. And
• 33:34
  to me, this theory makes no sense. And it makes no sense on
• 33:37
  so many different levels, but one of them is I don't even understand how
• 33:42
  it is that Trump got this reputation as this great anti war crusader. This
• 33:49
  seems like such a rationalization and such revisionist history. I think the origins of
• 33:55
  it are that he claimed that he was against the Iraq War. Well,
• 34:00
  the claims that he was against the Iraq War were always bogus. There there
• 34:05
  were statements that he had made that were pro Iraq War when the Iraq War
• 34:08
  was popular. It wasn't until after it became unpopular that Trump made allegedly made
• 34:15
  statements that were anti Iraq War. And I think my memory serves me.
• 34:21
  I think he even claimed that he did so privately to Sean Hannity, which
• 34:25
  didn't even make any sense to me given the timing that he was against the
• 34:30
  Iraq War. But then when it comes to what happened during his presidency,
• 34:35
  I mean, this is a guy who was constantly threatening to to use military
• 34:39
  force all over the place, and my bomb's bigger than their bomb, and
• 34:44
  you know, provoking, you know North Korea, and I there's two other
• 34:52
  elements of this I think are important. One, you know, Trump hired
• 34:55
  a lot of the people that Tucker was criticizing for being you know, the
• 35:00
  prom war people, you know, the military industrial complex, So that doesn't
• 35:07
  make any sense, and Tucker completely ignores that particular issue. But then there's
• 35:13
  just the issue of Okay, there were no new wars when Trump was president,
• 35:17
  but his presidency was unique. Number one, he was so crazy that
• 35:23
  the rest of the world was trying to figure out what the hell they were
• 35:28
  dealing with, and he only had three years before the entire world literally shut
• 35:35
  down. So the idea that somehow we know that Trump is an anti war
• 35:42
  guide to the extent that somehow the deep state has decided that he is so
• 35:49
  dangerous that he must be kept out of the White House at all costs,
• 35:52
  and so we're going to somehow manipulate or compromise Jack Smith, who has a
• 35:59
  great reputation as a prosecutor, into doing our bidding for us by making up
• 36:06
  these charges so that Trump, somehow, what will take a bigger lead in
• 36:12
  the Republican nominating process because that's likely what's happening right now. So how does
• 36:19
  this make any sense? I don't understand. Mean I actually wish that government
• 36:23
  officials or the liberal establishment or whoever these people are that Tucker's talking about we're
• 36:29
  nearly this competent, that that we're nearly this proficient at getting things done,
• 36:36
  because I just don't I don't see it. I mean, Trump himself,
• 36:39
  and we'll get to this momentarily is claiming that his indictment was to distract from
• 36:45
  the allegations of bribery involving Ukraine and Hunter and Joe Biden. Well that,
• 36:52
  I mean that, boy, that's a hell of a conspiracy. That's that's
• 36:55
  that's indicating a belief that they are incredibly proficient, efficient, and competent in
• 37:01
  pulling this off, simply from a timing perspective. And I don't think there's
• 37:06
  any evidence of that, nor any logic to that. But Tucker Carlson,
• 37:10
  and I've been warning about this for a while, has become essentially a conspiracy
• 37:15
  loon, and I think his firing has probably exacerbated that. And the reaction
• 37:22
  to his firing I'm sure has exacerbated that because, as I've said, previously.
• 37:27
  His firing is now basically a religious holiday for conspiracy koops because they can
• 37:36
  attribute his firing to almost anything they want, almost any conspiracy theory they want,
• 37:42
  the vaccines, the war in Ukraine, obviously, the whole anti war
• 37:50
  thing, which you know, Carlson is now very deeply embedded in. But
• 37:54
  you know, there's all sorts of different conspiracy theories. I'm sure there's a
• 38:00
  Trump fans probably believe he was he was fired for being pro to pro Trump,
• 38:04
  which is hilarious because he actually, as we know from the Dominion Voting
• 38:07
  System's lawsuit, hates Donald Trump passionately, which is the most infuriating part of
• 38:15
  this whole thing. Tucker, I gotta believe, because he's a smart guy,
• 38:20
  knows he's helping Donald Trump here. He's already done it once and it
• 38:23
  helped Trump, and he's now doubling down in a way that's clearly gonna help
• 38:28
  Trump. And by the way, you know who else is helping Trump here?
• 38:32
  Elon Musk retweeted Tucker's video with the word bold bold what so again?
• 38:45
  Elon Musk is a bit of a conspiracy guy too, not nearly as much
• 38:49
  as Tucker is. I think Elon was probably doing this because he's really trying
• 38:52
  to perpetuate this concept that Twitter could be a replacement for cable news te television.
• 39:00
  And by the way, Elon Musk retweeting Tucker's video, I thought was
• 39:06
  significant, not just because it got more views, but also because as I
• 39:10
  was looking at Tucker's three episodes, you know, the first episode did over
• 39:15
  one hundred million views, and the second episode did about half that, and
• 39:20
  this episode was on track to do much less than the second episode until Elon
• 39:25
  Musk, who has one hundred million followers on Twitter quote tweeted it. And
• 39:30
  so that not just helped people the popularity of that particular video, but it
• 39:37
  also helps the narrative that Tucker has blown the doors off of it, and
• 39:42
  way more people are seeing what he's doing on Twitter than ever would see what
• 39:46
  he was doing on Fox News Channel. But this has this narrative has devastating
• 39:52
  consequences, not just because it's not true. It makes no sense Donald Trump
• 39:57
  was not indicted because he's an Thai war I mean, if the anti war
• 40:02
  military, if the people who were against those who were anti war, the
• 40:07
  military industrial complex, to use the Eisenhower phrase, if they were really that
• 40:13
  powerful and that proficient. There's a hell of a lot better ways to take
• 40:16
  care of Donald Trump than to pursue this indictment in a way that's probably going
• 40:22
  to help him further in the Republican nominating process. I mean, heck,
• 40:28
  why didn't they do to him what they supposedly did to Kennedy Because they didn't
• 40:32
  do that to Kennedy and they wouldn't do that to Trump either. These people
• 40:37
  aren't. I mean, it's it's just such lunacy. And this is the
• 40:42
  guy who is probably the most credible and in my view at least previously the
• 40:46
  most intelligent conservative commentator there is. And it's just remarkable and depressing to me
• 40:53
  how conservatism has basically just become inundated with conspiracy theories. It's driven by a
• 41:01
  conspiratorial view of the world, which I am ardently against, and I only
• 41:09
  understand it from the standpoint of this is what happens after decades of the media,
• 41:15
  the mainstream media lying about and two conservatives, and so there's no trust
• 41:22
  left. And the more that they deny conspiracies, the more the right is
• 41:29
  convinced that the conspiracies are true, because sometimes they have been proven to be
• 41:35
  true. Obviously, COVID and Russia Gate are two prime examples, and the
• 41:39
  media is completely either unaware of this or unwilling to admit it. If there's
• 41:45
  ever going to be a fix here, the news media has to admit their
• 41:50
  past wrongs, their past sins. There has to be some level of accountability
• 41:53
  and atonement for there ever to be the regaining of any semblance of trust,
• 42:00
  because that trust is totally gone and nothing the media says has any positive impact
• 42:07
  on the conservative base, and instead Tucker Carlson feeds them this conspiracy bullshit and
• 42:14
  a narrative that is very helpful to Trump because it allows someone who maybe instinctually
• 42:22
  or from a visceral standpoint, wants to support Trump. It gives them a
• 42:28
  blanket excuse to do so. That's why it's so devastating to this race.
• 42:35
  It allows people to ignore all of Trump's foibles, all of his weaknesses,
• 42:42
  all the reasons why he would be terrible president the second time around, all
• 42:46
  the reasons why he would be very very likely to lose to Joe Biden.
• 42:50
  Because somehow there's a bigger cause here. We must save the country by nominating
• 42:58
  Donald Trump. Because if we don't, we will have allowed the left to
• 43:01
  do things that they should not be allowed to get away with. And even
• 43:07
  if you buy ninety percent of that factual foundation, which I don't, but
• 43:13
  for the sake of argument, I will, two wrongs don't make a right.
• 43:16
  You can believe that Donald Trump is being treated unfairly and also believe that
• 43:22
  it would be a really bad idea to nominate him as the Republican nominee for
• 43:29
  president. That's not a difficult intellectual exercise, but apparently for much of the
• 43:34
  Republican base it is, and Tucker Carlson is not helping in any way,
• 43:39
  shape or form. And so that was the reaction from a media standpoint to
• 43:47
  Trump's arrayment. As far as Trump himself, Trump, which I thought was
• 43:53
  incredibly hypocritical, but of course his fans don't care. Early in the day
• 44:00
  promised retribution against Biden if he got elected in twenty twenty four. Now,
• 44:08
  philosophically, that should blow apart this entire argument that some Republicans, many Republicans,
• 44:15
  and many Trump supporters are trying to make that somehow the politicization of the
• 44:22
  DOJ is inherently wrong. Well, if it's inherently wrong, then why is
• 44:27
  it okay for Trump to be promising retribution against Biden if he's elected because it
• 44:36
  feels good because we're basically children in a fight. Now you hit me,
• 44:42
  I'll hit you. I mean, how does that make any sense? How
• 44:46
  is that healthy? How is that productive? How is that not hypocritical?
• 44:51
  But then after Trump got back to New Jersey, so he went from Florida
• 44:55
  from DARAO. Must be nice to go from one golf resort you own in
• 45:00
  Florida to another you own in Bedminster, New Jersey. By the way,
• 45:06
  I'm as familiar with Bedminster as I am with the Root because I dated a
• 45:10
  girl for a very long time who owns a jewelry store in Bedminster, and
• 45:15
  that's where the USGA is located. So I've been to Bedminster many many times,
• 45:20
  and I've played the Bedminster golf course. But that's neither here nor there
• 45:23
  nice place. But Trump goes back there to give his speech to give his
• 45:30
  side of the story of this indictment and what happened today, and CNN and
• 45:37
  MSNBC decided to not carry his speech live. In fact, they bragged about
• 45:44
  it. Now I disagree with this, and I certainly disagree with the way
• 45:49
  that they handled it. I can somewhat understand if they, let's say,
• 45:55
  taped it and said, Okay, we're gonna air as it was an hour
• 46:01
  from now. Unless there's something absolutely batcrap crazy that we consider to be in
• 46:09
  the dangerous somehow publicly or inciting violence or something like that, I would not
• 46:15
  agree with that. That would not be the way I would do this.
• 46:19
  If I was somehow in charge, I would carry it live. He's their
• 46:22
  leading Republican presidential nominee. He just got indicted. You just spent ten hours
• 46:27
  on air talking about nothing that had happened, and here he is finally saying
• 46:32
  something that is new theoretically and giving his side of the story. I think
• 46:37
  that that is newsworthy. I think that that is the job of a cable
• 46:42
  news network to carry that live. But at the very least, if you're
• 46:45
  concerned somehow about public safety, which I don't think there was a legitimate concern
• 46:50
  in this case, but I can at least theoretically understand that given the history
• 46:54
  with Trump, then you wait to make sure that doesn't happen, and then
• 46:59
  you carry the whole thing on tape live to tape that did not happen on
• 47:04
  MSNBC or on CNN, and they basically virtue signaled. This is basically a
• 47:08
  virtue signal to liberal viewers. We are not going to air Trump's statements live
• 47:15
  because we do not believe in allowing lies. We don't believe in allowing lies
• 47:22
  to be spewed live on television unless there are lies, unless they're left wing
• 47:30
  lies, in which case we will not only allow them that, we will
• 47:32
  amplify into perpetuity, especially if they deal with COVID so and even if we
• 47:40
  turn out to be totally wrong, we're never going to admit that or correct
• 47:44
  the record. So I completely disagree with CNN and MSNBC because, as always
• 47:51
  the case with regard to everything, and even Donald Trump, I am incredibly
• 47:54
  objective and incredibly fair, at least they try to be. Now, Trump,
• 48:00
  as I've already mentioned in his speech in Bedminster, claimed that his indictment
• 48:06
  was time to distract from this story that is starting to get some traction of
• 48:13
  allegations that Joe and Hunter Biden took a combined ten million dollars in Ukrainian bribes
• 48:21
  when Biden was Vice president. Now, I have previously stated on this podcast
• 48:28
  that I am very open to this having actually happened, and I'll further explain
• 48:37
  why that is, although why I'm also not convinced yet that we know that
• 48:42
  it did happen. But first, here is Trump making this claim, this
• 48:46
  conspiratorial claim that somehow the deep state is so incredibly efficient and proficient that they
• 48:52
  were able to time this perfectly to distract from that story. So that's why
• 48:58
  they decided to indict Donald Trump. It's also no coincidence that these charges against
• 49:02
  me came down the very same day evidence revealed Joe Biden took a five million
• 49:08
  dollar bribe from Ukraine, took a five million dollar broad But the FBI and
• 49:15
  the Justice Department don't even want to talk about it. They showed something on
• 49:20
  television tonight. It had zero time on the three major network zero, But
• 49:25
  my impeachment had almost all the time. I think I had three hundred and
• 49:30
  fifty one minutes. They had no minutes. Okay, I think a lot
• 49:36
  of people are going to vote, Yeah, I think a lot of people
• 49:37
  available. Now, as I've already implied, I think it's absurd to claim
• 49:44
  that Jack Smith is part of this conspiracy and that they were able to time
• 49:50
  this just perfectly. Oh, the Biden story is breaking on Ukraine. Finally
• 49:55
  we better indite Trump's stat It involved a grand jury, a very long investigation.
• 50:02
  It'd been coming down the pike for a long time. There's no indication
• 50:06
  that the indictment was rushed. It was incredibly well done and written. It's
• 50:10
  got lots of evidence behind it. There's not a shred of logic or evidence
• 50:15
  that that's what happened here. But that fits to what Trump wants his cult
• 50:20
  to believe. But as far as the story itself, the reason why I'm
• 50:27
  very open to this, I've stated this previously. I'm very open to something
• 50:31
  like this having happened because of the situation Joe Biden was in when it is
• 50:40
  alleged to have occurred. Now, this is really important because people, and
• 50:46
  my experience, have a very difficult time going back in history and understanding what
• 50:53
  someone's incentive structure was at the time. See Biden is president now, right,
• 51:00
  so it's difficult to understand, well, why in the world would Joe
• 51:07
  and Hunter Biden do something so incredibly corrupt and stupid as to take a ten
• 51:13
  million dollar bribe in Ukraine? Why would they do that? Well, because
• 51:21
  At that time, it appeared as if Joe Biden's career was over. There
• 51:28
  was nothing left to protect in the future. He was already an old guy,
• 51:36
  and it was obvious that Hillary Clinton was going to be the nominee in
• 51:40
  twenty sixteen, So in Biden's second term as vice president, he's just playing
• 51:47
  out the string. He has no future. Hillary's going to be the nominee
• 51:53
  in twenty sixteen. She's probably gonna win, which means that there's not going
• 51:58
  to be a need for a Democratic cominy in twenty twenty, even if somehow
• 52:02
  she were to not win. By twenty twenty, Biden's way too old and
• 52:09
  not very popular, so there's there's no chance that he has any future viability.
• 52:16
  Well, if you're in that situation and you're basically looking to cash out,
• 52:22
  you have nothing to protect into the future, and and maybe even you're
• 52:28
  able to rationalize how this is going down that it's not really as corrupted as
• 52:31
  it appears to be. I can at least see how it might make some
• 52:39
  It's I'm not justifying it. I'm not defending it at all. If it
• 52:43
  happened, I'm saying that from an incentive structure perspective, I can see how
• 52:50
  the Bidens might be tempted to do that. And as another data point to
• 52:54
  kind of back this up, you may recall that prior to twenty twenty,
• 53:00
  and this doesn't prove it, but it's consistent with my theory here. Prior
• 53:05
  to twenty twenty, Biden had to be cajoled into running, and it was
• 53:10
  always perceived it was because, you know, he was still recovering from his
• 53:15
  other son bo having died, and that um, you know, was always
• 53:22
  the perception that he didn't want to run because of that. Well, I
• 53:28
  guess it's theoretically possible that he knew he had done this thing in Ukraine and
• 53:34
  was concerned that that would eventually blow up and that there was no way to
• 53:37
  get away with this. Again, this is under the theory that this happened
• 53:42
  and whether it's consistent with what we know to be the facts and what we
• 53:46
  know to be the incentive structures at the time. So I am open to
• 53:53
  this being true, all right, I want to make that clear. I'm
• 53:57
  open to this being true. It would make some sense, femblance of sense
• 54:00
  based upon the larger scheme of things. However, I am not convinced yet
• 54:08
  that we have enough evidence to determine that it actually is true. Now,
• 54:15
  Charles Grassley, the Republican senator from Iowa, an old guy, a guy
• 54:21
  who's considered to be pretty credible, made a lot of news because he went
• 54:24
  on the floor of the Senate and gave a actually very poor speech where he
• 54:30
  was stumbling through the reading that somebody else clearly had written for him of this
• 54:37
  speech detailing what supposedly the FBI has as far as an allegation regarding this bribery
• 54:47
  scheme, and as part of that, I mean, basically, what it
• 54:53
  seems like we have here is we have a trusted intelligence source who has claimed,
• 55:00
  and it sounds like it's hearsay to me, has claimed that there was
• 55:06
  this bribery scheme and that there was an executive from Barissima, the company that
• 55:13
  was involved in this scheme, that supposedly had recorded seventeen phone calls, fifteen
• 55:20
  with Hunter and two with Joe Biden in order to protect himself. Now,
• 55:24
  that sounds very damaging, That sounds bombshell like if it all true. However,
• 55:34
  we don't know the identity of the source. We don't know for sure
• 55:39
  that these tapes exist. If they exist, we don't know what's on them.
• 55:45
  So this would be what it should be called, a lead. This
• 55:51
  is a lead into something that warrants further investigation. However, many on the
• 55:58
  right, especially Jesse Waters on Fox newshow, Jesse Waters was basically demanding that
• 56:04
  Biden resigned based upon this, which I just thought was completely ridiculous. This
• 56:10
  is that we do not have any evidence of this yet. And what I
• 56:15
  found to be rather ironic and telling regarding the hypocrisy of the Trump forces is
• 56:21
  that currently in the big picture, again, this could all be true.
• 56:27
  I don't know, but there are a lot of similarities in the big picture
• 56:31
  between this allegation and the so called Steele dossier against Donald Trump. You know,
• 56:39
  Steele was considered to be a trusted intelligence source with a great reputation.
• 56:45
  He puts together this dossier claims that there's this pee tape that the Russians have
• 56:50
  of Trump, you know, with Russian hookers urinating on each other, and
• 56:55
  that he's compromised theoretically by Russia because of that very salacious stuff. Well it
• 57:02
  turned out to be not true. Well, here we have a somewhat similar
• 57:07
  situation. Trusted intelligence source. We don't even know the name of this person.
• 57:13
  We've got tapes allegedly, we don't know for sure that the tapes exist.
• 57:16
  We have no idea what's actually on the tapes. If there are tapes,
• 57:21
  I agree that that that is significant because why else would you tape it,
• 57:24
  although there's other reasons why you might tape something other than you're protecting yourself
• 57:31
  in a bribery screek scheme. But you know, so, to me,
• 57:37
  we're way way jumping the gun here in a way that is ironic and telling,
• 57:43
  because the same thing happened to Trump with regard to how the left jumped
• 57:47
  the gun on the Citeel dossier, And so I find that to be humorous
• 57:55
  but also rather telling from a hypocritical standpoint, from a hypocrisy perspective, because
• 58:02
  you know, the Trump people will tell you that was outrageous the treatment that
• 58:07
  Trump got on Russia Gate, until a large extent it was not totally,
• 58:10
  but to a large extent it was. And specifically when it came to the
• 58:15
  allegations and the Steele dossier, Well, to me, we're in a very
• 58:19
  similar situation here. Now could this actually end up being true? Absolutely?
• 58:24
  For the reasons I just gave you that it actually makes some sense in the
• 58:30
  bigger scheme of things, But we're not there yet. We're not there yet,
• 58:35
  and so that's part of the reason why I have not made a huge
• 58:37
  deal out of this. But now that it's I think it has reached a
• 58:43
  past a threshold where it was more than worthy of common especially when Trump is
• 58:46
  claiming that that was the real reason why he got indicted, which is utterly
• 58:51
  ludicrous. And so that's my take on that particular story at this time.
• 58:54
  Basically, I'm interested. There needs to be more investigation, but this idea
• 59:00
  that this has been proven is absolutely absurd at this point. Now, as
• 59:05
  far as the Trump indictment and the reaction to it, every major Republican with
• 59:13
  a career other than Mitt Romney really has been at best holding their fire.
• 59:20
  Most have been in a full throated support of Donald Trump for political reasons.
• 59:25
  Most of the other presidential candidates have been either being quiet or mostly supportive,
• 59:32
  like Ronda Santis, or ridiculously prostrating themselves like vaveg Ramaswami. All except for
• 59:39
  Chris Christie, the former New Jersey governor, who has absolutely no chance of
• 59:45
  being the Republican nominee. He has by far the worst net approval ratings among
• 59:52
  Republicans of anybody in the race. It's not even close. I think the
• 59:55
  last one I saw, he's at a negative twenty six percent. In other
• 1:00:00
  words, by twenty six percentage points more people disapprove. These are Republicans disapprove
• 1:00:07
  of Chris Christie then approve of him. And that was before what I'm about
• 1:00:13
  to tell you, which I'm sure that is not going to help his disapproval
• 1:00:16
  numbers. His disapproval numbers are going to go up, I think significantly,
• 1:00:21
  especially in Trump world. Now, remember, Chris Christie was one of the
• 1:00:24
  first, maybe the first major Republican candidate in twenty sixteen to endorse Donald Trump,
• 1:00:32
  and as I already alluded to, he took out Marco Rubio in the
• 1:00:37
  New Hampshire debate in twenty sixteen, which is really the part of this whole
• 1:00:39
  equation that bothers me the most. I mean, come on, Chris Christie,
• 1:00:45
  I mean, you're you're going to try to pretend that you're the moral
• 1:00:50
  high ground guy, You're you're the principal guy, You're you're the fighter against
• 1:00:53
  Trump, when you are a significant part of the reason why Trump was the
• 1:00:58
  twenty sixteen nominee. You took out the one guy that could beat him in
• 1:01:02
  Mark Rubio, though again I believe that was an overrated episode, but that's
• 1:01:08
  the perception. And then you endorsed him, and you would advised him during
• 1:01:13
  his campaign and even into his presidency. So you're part of the problem here.
• 1:01:16
  And I don't think that Christy has done nearly enough atonement for that.
• 1:01:22
  But he did a CNN town hall and he did not hold back. Chris
• 1:01:29
  Christie really when all guns blazing on Donald Trump, and as an anti Trump
• 1:01:37
  conservative, you know, I have to admit that this made me feel pretty
• 1:01:42
  good for at least a few minutes. Somebody was willing and able from the
• 1:01:45
  Republican side to tell the truth about Donald Trump without fear of the ramifications.
• 1:01:52
  Although I do think there's going to be some ramifications here that Christie may not
• 1:01:55
  have fully comprehended, which I'll get too shortly. But I have two clips
• 1:02:00
  here that I want to play from this CNN town hall and Chris Christie.
• 1:02:05
  The first one, I think is where Christie makes a really important point,
• 1:02:09
  one that I've been trying to make, one that the Santist campaign has not
• 1:02:14
  even remotely touched, which is this idea that that he is going to be
• 1:02:22
  a worst president the second time around than he would be the first time around.
• 1:02:30
  What we saw the first time around there might have been if you're a
• 1:02:32
  Republican, if you rationalize it, there might have been some good things.
• 1:02:37
  I think they were all completely in totally erased by his pathetic reaction to COVID.
• 1:02:40
  But okay, fine, for the first three years, I'll grant you,
• 1:02:45
  you know, some decent Supreme Court justice is not as great as he
• 1:02:47
  claims, and a good economy, and he lowered taxes and kept us out
• 1:02:52
  of war, and so in you know, in retrospect there were some good
• 1:02:57
  things. I think it's overrated, but fine. There was also a lot
• 1:03:00
  of chaos that people forget, but that in a second Trump term, Trump
• 1:03:07
  would be unleashed. And he references this whole concept of I am your retribution.
• 1:03:14
  And so here is Chris Christie making the argument that if what we saw
• 1:03:19
  in the first Trump term bothered you, you ain't seen nothing yet. If
• 1:03:23
  Trump gets a second term, you said the other day, Donald Trump is
• 1:03:28
  a TV star, nothing more, nothing less, And the quote if we
• 1:03:30
  put him back in the White House, the reruns will be worse than the
• 1:03:34
  original show was. Why worse? Oh, because he's so angry. Now
• 1:03:38
  he's angry and he's vengeful, and he said, I will be your retribution.
• 1:03:44
  Well, I don't think. I don't want him to be my retribution.
• 1:03:46
  I don't need him to do that, and I don't think anybody in
• 1:03:47
  America needs it either. He wants to be retribution for himself. I am
• 1:03:52
  convinced that if he goes back to the White House that the next four years
• 1:03:55
  will all be about him just settling scores anderson with everybody who he wasn't perfectly
• 1:04:00
  nice to him, you know. And the bottom line is that if you're
• 1:04:05
  lucky enough to become the president United States, every day you should wake up
• 1:04:10
  thinking about what you do for the people of this country, not what scores
• 1:04:13
  you need to settle for yourself. And he has shown himself, and I
• 1:04:16
  think most as particularly in his post presidency, to be completely self centered,
• 1:04:21
  completely self consumed, and doesn't give a damn about the American people. In
• 1:04:27
  my view, if what the American people want is in conflict with what Donald
• 1:04:30
  Trump thinks is best for him, and I don't think that's who we want
• 1:04:33
  sit behind the desk in the old office. Now, Christy went on to
• 1:04:38
  make several other important points, and the second clip I'm going to play for
• 1:04:43
  you deals with the fact that Trump is actually a political loser. This is
• 1:04:47
  something I also have been trying to make a point about for years, which
• 1:04:54
  is that since twenty sixteen, Trump hasn't won anything. Trump lost in twenty
• 1:04:59
  eighteen, twent twenty twenty two. But I also found it interesting in the
• 1:05:02
  way that Christie introduces this concept, which is that Trump only understands strength.
• 1:05:13
  And you can interpret it whatever way you want. But I kind of thought
• 1:05:17
  that Christie was taking a shot at the Santas campaign. Maybe I'm projecting because
• 1:05:23
  I am in this camp that thinks that the Santas campaign is being way too
• 1:05:28
  nice to Trump so far. And Christie says, look, the only thing
• 1:05:33
  Trump respects is strength, and he's a three time loser, and so the
• 1:05:40
  idea that he's suddenly gonna win is absurd. And here was Chris Christie again
• 1:05:45
  from that CNN town hall meeting. I've known him for twenty two years.
• 1:05:48
  The only thing he understands is force. The only thing he understands is coming
• 1:05:56
  right at him and making your case, and if these other candidates don't want
• 1:05:59
  to do it, the American people and Republican primary voters have to start to
• 1:06:02
  understand this. When did we get to the point we're always playing our adversaries
• 1:06:08
  for the weakness of our candidates. Oh, it's the Democrat's fault, it's
• 1:06:12
  DJ's fault, it's this person's full it's the media's fault. How bad it's
• 1:06:15
  his. He hasn't won a damn thing since twenty sixteen. Three time loser.
• 1:06:23
  Twenty eighteen, we lost the House, twenty twenty, we lost the
• 1:06:26
  White House, we lost the United States Senate a couple of weeks later in
• 1:06:29
  twenty twenty one, and in twenty twenty two we lost two more governorships,
• 1:06:32
  another Senate seat, and barely took the House of Representatives when Joe Biden had
• 1:06:36
  the most incompetent first two years I've ever seen in my life. Loser,
• 1:06:42
  loser, loser. Now I applaud what Chris Christie is trying to do again
• 1:06:48
  with the caveat that I wish that he would do more atonement for his role
• 1:06:53
  in twenty sixteen, But I also think that He's doing this largely for his
• 1:06:58
  own selfish purposes. He's trying to, I think, increase his credibility for
• 1:07:04
  another media job he'd been with ABC. I don't know if he thinks he's
• 1:07:08
  going to go back to ABC when this is over. But you know,
• 1:07:12
  if he stakes out the strongest anti Trump position, that is going to put
• 1:07:17
  him in a pretty good place for getting a mainstream media gig when this is
• 1:07:23
  over. And he has clearly done that, because none of the other presidential
• 1:07:28
  candidates have been willing or able to be that strong against Donald Trump in a
• 1:07:34
  major media outlet. However, this is the part where I think Christie either
• 1:07:40
  hasn't thought this through or isn't being totally sincere about what his intentions are.
• 1:07:45
  He is basically begging to get into the debates. In fact, I've seen
• 1:07:51
  an interview with him where he has essentially said he will lie about intending to
• 1:07:58
  support Trump if he is the nominee, simply to be able to get over
• 1:08:02
  that hurdle to be eligible for the debates, because supposedly you have to pledge
• 1:08:09
  that you were going to indorse whoever wins the nomination in the general election.
• 1:08:14
  And Christie's argument as well. Trump went back on that pledge in twenty sixteen,
• 1:08:18
  didn't raise his hand at the debates, and nothing happened to him.
• 1:08:21
  So why should I not be able to play by the same rules. So
• 1:08:26
  I'm gonna lie and say that I will indorse whoever the Republican nominee is,
• 1:08:31
  but I'm not going to endorse Trump in the general. But I'm going to
• 1:08:33
  do it simply to get into the debates. Well, in my view,
• 1:08:40
  Chris Christie has just made it basically impossible for him to be put into the
• 1:08:45
  debates. I've talked a lot about how I think Trump is likely to try
• 1:08:49
  to bail in the debates or sabotage the debates there from a structural standpoint,
• 1:08:55
  and make it basically impossible for them to be in any way, shape or
• 1:08:58
  form, and dangerous to him because he will have the leverage to do either
• 1:09:01
  or both of those things. And I don't know if Christie is smart enough
• 1:09:05
  to understand this. But because he has gone out so strongly against Trump,
• 1:09:11
  and because he is admitted he's gonna lie about endorsing Trump, and because his
• 1:09:16
  support is not going to be strong enough in the polls to warrant one hundred
• 1:09:24
  percent inclusion into the debates. In other words, there's going to be a
• 1:09:28
  question. A lot of this is going to be subjective. There's a standard
• 1:09:30
  for getting into these debates, but some of it is a judgment call which
• 1:09:35
  polls do you accept as being legitimate, which ones do you not. There's
• 1:09:40
  some wiggle room here, and the people that are going to be making this
• 1:09:44
  decision are all going to be looking around, going, well, Trump's likely
• 1:09:46
  our nominee. I don't want to piss Trump off, and the easiest way
• 1:09:49
  to piss Trump off is to allow Chris Christie into these debates. And it's
• 1:09:56
  very easy to see a situation where, let's say they approved Chris Christie to
• 1:10:00
  be in the debate. Trump's going to use that and say, I'm not
• 1:10:04
  going to into a debate with a guy who has already said he's not going
• 1:10:08
  to endorse the Republican nominee who's very likely to be me's. And I think
• 1:10:14
  he would also have the moral high ground with his supporters. Considering the fact
• 1:10:17
  that Christie has been so outspoken about his views about Trump as well as what
• 1:10:25
  his role in all this is going to be. He has essentially said,
• 1:10:29
  my role is to bludgeon Donald Trump in the debates. Well, Trump's not
• 1:10:33
  gonna go for that, and the conservative media will back him against Christie when
• 1:10:40
  if it comes to that kind of a conflict. So, while I applaud
• 1:10:45
  what Christie said, I I think he has now made it basically impossible for
• 1:10:50
  there ever to be a debate, a legitimate debate where Chris Christie and Donald
• 1:10:56
  Trump are on the same stage. I just don't see how that is possible.
• 1:11:00
  And in fact, Christy may have made it even easier for Trump to
• 1:11:05
  bail on the debates in totality, because it furthers the narrative that there are
• 1:11:12
  people out to get him in these debates who have no chance of winning the
• 1:11:17
  Republican nomination. And so I continue to believe that Trump is gonna say,
• 1:11:25
  look, if the polling remains as it currently is or even gets better post
• 1:11:29
  second indictment, look, Biden's not doing debates. Biden's not going to have
• 1:11:32
  a real primary process. His lead over Robert Kennedy Junior is not that much
• 1:11:40
  bigger, if at all, than mine is nationally, So why are we
• 1:11:44
  going to be stupid and put me through this? When Biden doesn't have to
• 1:11:47
  go through this. That's an argument that will win among most Republicans and in
• 1:11:53
  the vast majority of the conservative media, even though the conservative media will be
• 1:11:58
  would be acting against their own self interest in that situation, because obviously they
• 1:12:01
  love having the debates, and anything that would short circuit the legitimate primary also
• 1:12:08
  harms them from a content and ratings perspective. But that's how strong the Trump
• 1:12:13
  pull and the Trump cult is. So I think Christie may have won this
• 1:12:19
  small battle on CNN in a town hall, but I think he may have
• 1:12:25
  just lost the war for himself because I don't see how in the world he
• 1:12:29
  gets enough support to make it beyond any question that he belongs in the debates.
• 1:12:36
  I don't see that. I could be wrong. I kind of hope
• 1:12:39
  I'm wrong, but I think he just lowered the chances very much so of
• 1:12:45
  there ever being a debate where Christie and Trump are on the same stage.
• 1:12:51
  And I am still of the belief we will never see a debate where DeSantis
• 1:12:57
  and Trump are on the same stage in a way that is fair, because
• 1:13:02
  there's all sorts of ways that Trump can stunt and short circuit the format to
• 1:13:11
  make sure that he is not vulnerable to being attacked, and he is advantaged
• 1:13:16
  in a way that will allow him to do what he does best, which
• 1:13:18
  is to dominate by being a bully. And so I don't I'm not optimistic
• 1:13:27
  about the long term implications of what Christy just did there. By the way,
• 1:13:30
  I also think that indirectly this kind of hurts the Santists in a way
• 1:13:39
  if I'm right about how this plays out. Not only did he take that
• 1:13:42
  veiled shot about Trump only respects strength, but by being so out there in
• 1:13:48
  attacking Trump, he kind of makes the Santists look like a woosie in mind.
• 1:13:55
  Now, maybe I'm overthinking this, but I mean I tweeted this out
• 1:14:00
  and there were a lot of people that seemed to agree with me that by
• 1:14:04
  being so out there and so dramatic in your criticism of Trump, it really
• 1:14:12
  further illustrates how weak the Santis has been in his criticisms of Trump, at
• 1:14:18
  least so far. Now, I will once again say that when it comes
• 1:14:23
  to the Santis strategy, while I don't agree with it, I am open
• 1:14:30
  to this idea that it could work that if you wait, that if you're
• 1:14:34
  patient and there's some level of attrition, and maybe Trump gets indicted a third
• 1:14:41
  or maybe even fourth time when it comes to there the January sixth issue,
• 1:14:45
  which I don't think will have much impact on a Republican voting population, or
• 1:14:48
  a fourth indictment in Georgia when it comes to post election interference, that maybe
• 1:14:56
  there will just be a point beyond which Republicans are just too tired. There's
• 1:15:00
  just too much baggage, too much drama, and Trump starts to see some
• 1:15:04
  attrition in his support. And at that point, once there is some level
• 1:15:11
  of weakness, then you can go in for the kill. If that's really
• 1:15:15
  the strategy, I'm okay with it. However, it's very dangerous because one
• 1:15:21
  there may never be that attrition. We don't know what's going to happen with
• 1:15:25
  the further indictments. We may be in a situation where it doesn't matter that
• 1:15:29
  Trump now has full immunity, and that every indictment makes him just stronger and
• 1:15:32
  stronger. I don't think anybody knows, and I don't even really know.
• 1:15:36
  I mean, I usually have an opinion on everything, and I'm kind of
• 1:15:40
  on the fence. I can see a situation where every indictment just makes the
• 1:15:45
  Trump support stronger. I could see a scenario where you know what enough is
• 1:15:51
  enough. I can see that now to what percentage, I don't know,
• 1:15:57
  but that really is the only hope at this point, ring physical infirmity or
• 1:16:01
  somehow a miracle happening and Trump is thrown in prison before the primary process is
• 1:16:08
  over, which I don't think there's really any chance of that happening at all,
• 1:16:11
  as I explained in episode sixty six of the podcast. But basically at
• 1:16:15
  this point it seems as if that A Santa's campaign is just waiting and hoping,
• 1:16:20
  praying for an implosion from Trump, which in a rational world should be
• 1:16:27
  happening. I mean, as I said in the last episode, Bill Barr's
• 1:16:30
  a visceration his former attorney general is a visceration of Donald Trump. Should have
• 1:16:34
  should be enough to spark that, but it's not gonna be because we don't
• 1:16:38
  live in that world. And with Tucker Carlson helping the Trump narrative dramatically and
• 1:16:44
  Fox News Channel now clearly being mostly on board as Trump TV again, it's
• 1:16:50
  really kind of hard to see how that strategy is gonna work now. By
• 1:16:56
  way, it might be the only strategy that leads to ultimate victory, because
• 1:17:00
  you can't piss off the Trump cult enough so that they don't support you in
• 1:17:05
  a general election, or that somebody else is able to speed past you into
• 1:17:12
  the second position if something does happen to Trump. So it's a very very
• 1:17:16
  delicate, tightrope walking situation for the Desantist campaign. I just when you have
• 1:17:24
  such a strong argument, as de Santis has for you not to use it,
• 1:17:28
  especially when there have been so many opportunities to do so, especially on
• 1:17:32
  COVID, especially with what happened with Gavin Newsom and Sean Hannity, which I'm
• 1:17:38
  going to get back to in a moment, and obviously Andrew Cuomo and Donald
• 1:17:42
  Trump. I mean, these are these are golden opportunities that DeSantis is not
• 1:17:45
  taking, and I think there's a very good chance then in the end they're
• 1:17:49
  going to regret that. Although I'm still open, still hoping against all hope
• 1:17:56
  that maybe there is a method to this madness. As far as the current
• 1:18:00
  polling, the polling basically isn't two categories right now, and I don't think
• 1:18:05
  that we have a legitimate national post indictment poll yet. It's remarkable to me
• 1:18:15
  how often these polling institutions are very bad when they time these polls as far
• 1:18:20
  as you know, when the Santist gets into the race or when Trump gets
• 1:18:26
  indicted. So far, as of this taping, I am not seeing a
• 1:18:30
  legitimate national poll that was taken totally after the details of the indictment were made
• 1:18:38
  public, and I don't think we're going to get that for at least another
• 1:18:42
  week or so. But as of right now, the current polling fits into
• 1:18:45
  two categories. There are polls where Trump is blowing the doors off of this
• 1:18:50
  thing. Morning Consult which has been edging in Trump's direction almost on a daily
• 1:18:58
  basis throughout this entire year, is now at fifty nine nineteen forty point advantage
• 1:19:04
  nationally for Donald Trump. CBS has Trump at sixty one percent. These are
• 1:19:13
  polls where Trump is over fifty percent. His lead is at least in the
• 1:19:17
  thirties against the santis and under normal circumstances with Trump being a former president and
• 1:19:26
  having one hundred percent name recognition and a cult and a conservative media that's very
• 1:19:30
  afraid of attacking him, that would be game set match. That would be
• 1:19:34
  game set match, even though it's just June of the previous year. Because
• 1:19:40
  of these are special circumstances because of who Trump is. Then there is a
• 1:19:45
  second category of polls where Trump is back below fifty percent, with his lead
• 1:19:51
  shrinking. However, to Santis is not really gaining, which I think is
• 1:19:58
  as another sign of problems. It's not as if when Trump shrinks below fifty
• 1:20:04
  percent that the Santists share shoots back up to twenty five or thirty percent.
• 1:20:11
  The Santist is now struggling to exceed twenty percent in these national polls. Now,
• 1:20:17
  what does that mean? I don't know. I think that probably means
• 1:20:20
  that some people are going away from Trump into the undecided category. There are
• 1:20:27
  also a lot of other candidates, and you know, when each of them
• 1:20:30
  picks up one percent, that eventually adds up, because that's five to sixty
• 1:20:34
  seven percent that could be going to the Santis and instead is just going into
• 1:20:40
  the ether. So I'm not sure which of these two categories is most accurate
• 1:20:45
  At this point, none of it is particularly good. Although it should be
• 1:20:49
  pointed out that a technically post indictment poll was taken in Florida, obviously a
• 1:20:57
  must win state for De Santis, but one I've been very concerned about because
• 1:21:01
  I've always felt that Florida voters Republicans there were in a unique situation, right,
• 1:21:08
  I mean, they like Trump. Trump lives there, and a lot
• 1:21:12
  of them might think I can have my cake and eat it too. I
• 1:21:15
  can have Trump be president. De Santa stays as my governor, and then
• 1:21:18
  De Santist can be presidents somewhere down the road. So there's a for the
• 1:21:21
  undecided Florida Republican voter, there's a very very enticing reason to go with Trump,
• 1:21:30
  which has always very much concerned me. I talked about this many many
• 1:21:33
  times previously in the podcast. Well, the most recent Florida pole again technically
• 1:21:38
  post indictment, has Trump and DeSantis tied at forty one. So that's better
• 1:21:45
  than it was. It's not great, I mean, because it's Florida.
• 1:21:49
  Florida's absolute positively one percent, assuming they even get there, must win for
• 1:21:56
  De Santis. You cannot possibly lose Florida and be the nominee. It's just
• 1:22:00
  not that's totally game, set match, And if Desantist was really headed towards
• 1:22:06
  winning the nomination, in my view, he would be winning Florida by at
• 1:22:11
  least fifteen Right now, the fact that it's tied is better than it was.
• 1:22:15
  It gives some semblance of hope, but it's still not where it should
• 1:22:19
  be. So I'm gonna wait a little bit longer on making any definitive evaluations
• 1:22:27
  of where the polling is heading post indictment, because I just don't think we
• 1:22:30
  have enough Daddy yet, But hopefully maybe by the next episode of the podcast,
• 1:22:34
  we will, and I'll share it then in episode number sixty six.
• 1:22:39
  I think we titled episode and sixty six Woke Back Mountain a COVID Bromance,
• 1:22:45
  And we did so because that was my idea for a desantist campaign commercial based
• 1:22:50
  upon what we've seen with Trump appraising Andrew Cuomo's response to COVID, Cuomo essentially
• 1:23:00
  using that to attack Florida, Trump praising Gavin Newsom, Newsome in an interview
• 1:23:09
  with Sean Hannity, praising Trump's response at least with regard to him on COVID,
• 1:23:15
  and that this basically was an ad that wrote itself. You get some
• 1:23:17
  romantic music and you know these clips. We put them all together and it's
• 1:23:24
  Woke Back Mountain, a COVID bromance, Trump, Cuomo and Newsom into me.
• 1:23:29
  That would be theoretically devastating after all, we have a poll that indicates
• 1:23:33
  the ninety two percent of Republicans nationwide would have preferred to live in Florida then
• 1:23:40
  in New York when it came to the COVID response, and that's about as
• 1:23:45
  good a polling result as you're going to get in this very very divided age.
• 1:23:49
  So far, there's been no indication at all that the Santa's campaign wants
• 1:23:53
  to go there, which is very, very depressing, but it might not
• 1:23:57
  be as depressing as the rest of that. A newsom Seawan Hannity interview which
• 1:24:00
  has now been made public. I have said many times that Sean Hannity is
• 1:24:04
  an idiot, that he's there's a flat out moron. And I say this
• 1:24:11
  based upon personal experience because this was a long time ago, but back in
• 1:24:15
  the Hannity and Combs days, I was on the show a few times after
• 1:24:17
  the two thousand and eight election because of my documentary mediumilpractice, how Obama got
• 1:24:23
  elected and Plain was targeted, and I was stunned at the time, even
• 1:24:28
  though I never had a lot of respect for Hannity as a talk show host
• 1:24:30
  myself, but I was stunned in dealing with Hannity just how incredibly stupid.
• 1:24:34
  He was. I mean, just getting basic concepts across to him, not
• 1:24:40
  just on air, but off air saying emails was very difficult, and he
• 1:24:45
  invariably always blew things from a factual standpoint. So I've never had any respect
• 1:24:49
  for him, but it was really infuriating for him to interview Gavin Newsom,
• 1:24:57
  who clearly was confident enough to decide, you know what, I can handle
• 1:25:00
  Hannity with no problem. I'm going to go into the alleged lion's den one
• 1:25:05
  on one with Fox News's biggest star right now, and I'm gonna kick his
• 1:25:11
  ass. And Newsom's no genius either, but apparently he's smarter than Hannity,
• 1:25:17
  because based upon the reaction I saw and my perception of it, k Newsome
• 1:25:24
  did in fact kick Sean Hannity's ass in this interview. Sean Hannity had Newsome
• 1:25:30
  dead to rights one on one on television. And I don't know whether or
• 1:25:35
  not it's just because Hannity's an idiot and or because of Newsom's praise of Trump
• 1:25:43
  and Trump's praise of Newsome. I do think that that may have played a
• 1:25:46
  role here, because Hannity is so beholden to Donald Trump that he may have
• 1:25:54
  been kind of like kryptonite. He may have been basically disarmed to a certain
• 1:26:00
  degree in going after Newsome because in his mind, somehow Newsome and Trump as
• 1:26:05
  bizarre as this is our allies, And for whatever reason, Hannity allowed Newsome
• 1:26:14
  to do exactly what he wanted to do. It could not have gone better
• 1:26:17
  for Newsome in my opinion. And I want to play one clip as an
• 1:26:21
  example and for context. Newsome and Hannity were going at it on the economy,
• 1:26:30
  and Newsome was absurdly claiming all sorts of job you know, job gains
• 1:26:39
  in the Biden administration, which of course is ridiculous. I mean, even
• 1:26:44
  my young children would understand why there would have been massive job gains when when
• 1:26:50
  Biden took office, because we're coming out of the COVID hysteria which had blown
• 1:26:58
  through millions and millions of jobs. Now Hannity does did in fact raise that
• 1:27:02
  issue, and even Newsom was forced to acknowledge. Okay, that's legitimate,
• 1:27:10
  but Hannity was very gentle in doing so. But that was the context for
• 1:27:15
  the clip that I'm about the play for you, Because so they're going at
• 1:27:18
  each other on the economy, and this issue where Newsom is claiming massive job
• 1:27:25
  games again totally absurd. I mean, you know it was. It was
• 1:27:30
  because of Newsom largely shutting down California, which created the Domino effect, which
• 1:27:36
  and shutting all down, shutting down all these businesses that we lost so many
• 1:27:41
  jobs during the Trump administration. And then just like magic Whilah, when the
• 1:27:46
  vaccines come back, all of a sudden, we're allowed to have business as
• 1:27:51
  usual again, and like magic having nothing to do with the government, a
• 1:27:56
  lot of these jobs come back. So statistically, of course, it's going
• 1:28:00
  to look like the Biden administration created jobs in the Trump administration lost jobs.
• 1:28:04
  So Hannity didn't really lay a glove on Newsom, even though Newsom gave him
• 1:28:11
  the opportunity to do so on that issue. But that wasn't as bad as
• 1:28:15
  when the topic then turned to inflation, because this is one of my pet
• 1:28:19
  peeves. I mean, of all the consequences of the COVID panic, the
• 1:28:26
  one that has been the most lasting, the most dramatic, and the most
• 1:28:30
  underrated is inflation. And Newsome steps right into this trap. Right into this
• 1:28:39
  trap opens the door to Handity crushing Newsom on this and instead the door slams
• 1:28:47
  Hannity in the face and he has no idea what to do and basically just
• 1:28:54
  drops it. So here is Newsome getting away with metaphorical murderer. When it
• 1:29:00
  comes to the issue of how it is that Biden should not be blamed for
• 1:29:06
  the massive inflation that has occurred during his administration. In an interview with the
• 1:29:12
  idiotic John Hannity, question, I'm answering the ones in order brought up the
• 1:29:15
  economy. On the economy, let's talk about the economy. M an a
• 1:29:19
  inflation stubborn around the globe. Let's let's let's talk about inflation. It's down
• 1:29:24
  forty percent since last summer, ten months in a row, four point nine
• 1:29:28
  percent. He was just with the UK Prime minister at six point nine percent.
• 1:29:30
  Is that because of Biden's I think biolens economic and energy policyactly impacted the
• 1:29:35
  UK's inflation. No, I am for the fact that Frances five point five
• 1:29:40
  percent of Germany's at six. You are going to give something un inflation.
• 1:29:43
  We're moving in the right direction. On the issue of the border security.
• 1:29:45
  I've heritage one point four percent inflation. It went up to a forty year
• 1:29:50
  a forty year globally because you've just brought us so you were making an excuse
• 1:29:57
  for Trump's dismal jobs record, brility to COVID, COVID's relationship to inflation globally,
• 1:30:03
  and by the way, Cota, let me stop you. All right.
• 1:30:10
  So, now when I saw that, I was despondent because I'm thinking,
• 1:30:16
  there is never ever going to be a better opportunity for Gavin Newsom to
• 1:30:21
  be held accountable for what he did than that situation, and instead what should
• 1:30:28
  have been a massive loss got perceived as a victory. I mean, the
• 1:30:32
  reality is that inflation only really began during the Biden administration. Now part of
• 1:30:38
  that was just simply timing, that these things take time to flesh out,
• 1:30:44
  But it all began because of Gavin Newsom. And this idea that because it's
• 1:30:49
  happened internationally that that somehow gets Democrats off the hook is ludicrous. It's absurd.
• 1:30:59
  This this is all interconnected, and in the United States, inflation happened
• 1:31:05
  because of the shutdowns. It just took a while for that domino effect to
• 1:31:14
  cause it. And the person that began the process began the domino effect was
• 1:31:19
  Gavin Newsom, who lied and claimed that we were gonna have twenty five million
• 1:31:26
  COVID cases in the next eight weeks when he locked down the state in an
• 1:31:30
  unprecedented fashion, and then New York followed, and every blue state had to
• 1:31:33
  follow, and every purple state had the follow and almost every other state did
• 1:31:38
  immediately after that because they lost the political cover and the media was in a
• 1:31:41
  panic, and it was all bullshit. And this was what began the process
• 1:31:48
  of eventually creating the inflation. Why well, because when you shut down the
• 1:31:55
  economy, you have to you then have to inject all of this printed money
• 1:31:59
  into the onomy, and these PPP loans and literally giving of money to citizens
• 1:32:06
  for nothing, for staying home and doing literally nothing, and an extension of
• 1:32:11
  unemployment benefits into perpetuity, I mean, and the fact that Hannity didn't even
• 1:32:17
  mention that, you know, here Newsom is trying to claim that Democrats aren't
• 1:32:23
  that bad on inflation. In the last election cycle, most Californians were literally
• 1:32:29
  handed a significant check of over a thousand dollars. I think it's up to
• 1:32:33
  two thousand dollars. I can't remember exactly, but it was a significant amount
• 1:32:38
  of money directly from the California Treasury during an election season for absolutely positively no
• 1:32:44
  reason allegedly to fight inflation, specifically regarding the price of gasoline, which is
• 1:32:51
  higher in California than anywhere else. Again, Hannity doesn't even mention that.
• 1:32:56
  I mean, when it comes to inflation, the price of gasoline is a
• 1:33:00
  huge part of that entire equation, and California's prices are way higher than anybody
• 1:33:05
  else because largely of Gavin Newsom. So here, Gavin Newsom is the poster
• 1:33:10
  child for why we have inflation in the United States of America. Although it's
• 1:33:16
  starting to simmer down, it's still way higher than it should be. But
• 1:33:20
  it's because of Gavin Newsom and Sean Handy let this snake slither out of his
• 1:33:28
  grasp and bite him in the neck. And and this is just a damning
• 1:33:32
  indictment of the conservative media in general, Sean Hannity in particular, Fox News
• 1:33:38
  Channel in particular, and why conservatism is dead. If we can't even nail
• 1:33:43
  Gavin Newsom when he comes into the lions Den and turns out that he gets
• 1:33:49
  a victory out of it, then now I don't know what hope there is.
• 1:33:54
  I really don't know and Hannity ought to be ashamed of himself, and
• 1:33:59
  this is you know, a lot of people are saying this is another example
• 1:34:02
  where Newsom is positioning himself much like the Santa seems to be trying to do,
• 1:34:09
  for if there is a Biden implosion, that he could still rescue the
• 1:34:14
  Democratic Party. And I have to agree that, while I still believe that
• 1:34:18
  if Biden decides not to run, that Harris would be the heavy favorite because
• 1:34:24
  she would be historic female and she's the vice president and woman of color and
• 1:34:29
  that it's her turn, blah blah blah, I think Newsom could at least
• 1:34:34
  consider he would at least consider running against Harris under that scenario. Now,
• 1:34:40
  I don't think that scenario was very likely. I've said it's not likely.
• 1:34:45
  I don't think that. Let's say that something really bad happened to Biden and
• 1:34:48
  he resigned, I think that would end Newsom's bid, because then Harris would
• 1:34:53
  actually be an incumbent president. But that's very unlikely. Although a guy at
• 1:34:57
  eighty years old and that great health, it's anything's possible at this point.
• 1:35:01
  But there's no doubt that Newsome fashions himself either as a potential emergency candidate in
• 1:35:06
  twenty twenty four, or maybe the favorite in twenty twenty eight, depending on
• 1:35:12
  what happens. Let's say, if somehow Trump were to win, you know,
• 1:35:16
  then I think Newsom would probably be very well positioned to be the Democratic
• 1:35:20
  candidate in twenty twenty eight, which would be just scary as hell, given
• 1:35:24
  what I've seen firsthand of what he has done here in California. By the
• 1:35:29
  way, I should also point out to partially because of the payments he made
• 1:35:33
  during last year's election cycle, he took a massive budget surplus and turned it
• 1:35:41
  into a massive budget deficit, which is also something that I don't think Hannity
• 1:35:45
  mentioned with regard to inflation in California or in the rest of the country,
• 1:35:50
  or with regard to the economy. As far as Joe Biden is concerned.
• 1:35:55
  In particular, I have said many, many times that that the Democrats and
• 1:36:00
  the liberal and woke establishment, they want to take what they learned from COVID
• 1:36:05
  and they want to use it when it comes to climate change, global warming.
• 1:36:11
  And I just got to play this clip from Joe Biden at the White
• 1:36:14
  House and an event from earlier this week, because even though it's a very
• 1:36:17
  short clip. It really says so much about how completely out of touch Biden
• 1:36:25
  and the Left are on this entire issue, where they always dramatically overstate its
• 1:36:32
  significance, and then they do something maybe even more nefarious. They change the
• 1:36:39
  language so that you're not even allowed to question the absurdity of what they're saying.
• 1:36:45
  You're not even allowed to say, Hey, wait a minute, what
• 1:36:49
  about this? Hey wait a minute, what about what just happened in California
• 1:36:54
  this past winter? How does that fit with your climate change? Global warming?
• 1:36:59
  Narrow and here was Joe Biden, really in a very short clip,
• 1:37:04
  encapsulating the insanity of the entire situation as well as the nefarious of it,
• 1:37:11
  just a couple of days ago at the White House, addressing the existential threat
• 1:37:14
  of climate change in a real way for the first time. It is the
• 1:37:17
  existential threat to humanity. It is the existentive that humanity. I hope I
• 1:37:24
  have no climate doubters out there, because it's real now. The key part
• 1:37:28
  of that clip is where Biden says he hopes there are no doubters doubters of
• 1:37:35
  climate change. Now, I don't know. It's you never know with Biden,
• 1:37:41
  what is intended and what's just a mistake. But it used to be
• 1:37:45
  the phrase denier, and I hate that term denier. I mean that's a
• 1:37:51
  very religious term. Right, You're a denier, You're a climate change denier
• 1:37:57
  if you disagree with us. You know, it reminds me of Monty Python
• 1:38:01
  and blasphemer. I mean, that's just absurd, especially in a country where
• 1:38:09
  we supposedly value free speech and free expression and a hearty debate that we never
• 1:38:14
  had a debate about this, much like COVID, we never had a real
• 1:38:17
  debate about this. They just told us what they wanted to be true and
• 1:38:21
  then told us we were idiots or wrong or bad people if we even questioned
• 1:38:27
  it. But in a way, I think doubter is worse than denier,
• 1:38:32
  because denier implies you have come to a conclusion that climate change man make climate
• 1:38:42
  change is either not real or way way overblown, which, by the way,
• 1:38:45
  it should be pointed out every time I talk about this, just by
• 1:38:47
  virtue of the fact that they changed global warming to climate change is inherent doubt.
• 1:38:55
  I mean inherently, inherently if this was a criminal case, just by
• 1:39:00
  urns you the fact that they change global warming, the climate change is inherently,
• 1:39:03
  I believe, incredibly strong evidence of not one hundred percent proof that there's
• 1:39:10
  doubt about what's going on here. Because even those that are trying to claim
• 1:39:15
  that this is real, they had to change what they called it because the
• 1:39:20
  global warming thing wasn't working out because every time it was too cold, it
• 1:39:25
  made them look like idiots. So they just changed that the climate change,
• 1:39:28
  which is inherent plausible deniability no matter what the weather or the climate did.
• 1:39:35
  But doubters, doubters implies you're not even allowed to question. Deniers is a
• 1:39:44
  conclusion doubters is you can't even have a thought. You're a bad person if
• 1:39:50
  you even doubt something. Forget about the conclusion you come up to. You
• 1:39:56
  come to you can't even doubt, you can't even question, you can't even
• 1:40:00
  think about it. Otherwise you're an anti science bad person, which even before
• 1:40:06
  COVID you would have thought would have created a backlash of outrage among Americans.
• 1:40:12
  After COVID, when they lied to us about so many things and they were
• 1:40:15
  so certain, most recently about how vaccines stopped transmission. Biden himself said,
• 1:40:21
  if you get this vaccine, you're not gonna get COVID. Period. That's
• 1:40:25
  what he direct quote of what he said. He's never been forced to have
• 1:40:28
  any accountability or to retract that statement because the media is completely totally broken and
• 1:40:32
  on his side, they lied to us constantly. Things that they had no
• 1:40:36
  doubt about turned out to be false, one hundred percent false, and here
• 1:40:43
  they are claiming, now you can't even doubt this. This is a religion,
• 1:40:46
  folks. This is why they're using religious language. And whenever something becomes
• 1:40:51
  part of the liberal religion, they have no ability to contain themselves. They
• 1:40:59
  have no discipline. They will always, always, always, and I repeat
• 1:41:03
  always underline capital letters, always overplay their hand, and they have done that
• 1:41:11
  with climate change, global warming. Unfortunately, there hasn't been nearly the pushback
• 1:41:15
  that there should be, but we're seeing it trying to impact our lives in
• 1:41:20
  very real ways, not just economically, but the things that are gonna they're
• 1:41:25
  already trying to ban that. They're gonna ban gasoline, cars, gas stoves,
• 1:41:30
  what we're allowed to eat, how much energy we're allowed to use,
• 1:41:35
  air conditioning. I'm sure. I mean, this is going to be the
• 1:41:39
  issue I think of the next ten to twenty years, and I don't think
• 1:41:43
  enough people are seeing it, even on the right. I mean, we
• 1:41:45
  saw the absurdity of this just with the story of the Canadian wildfires. They
• 1:41:51
  created several days of really bad smoke in the Northeast, which closed schools and
• 1:41:58
  stops sporting events, which I've never understood. I also think that's as a
• 1:42:02
  result of what happened with COVID. I don't think prior to COVID that people
• 1:42:06
  would think they could get away with with canceling schools and in canceling sporting events
• 1:42:13
  because of smoke. I know it was bad. I mean, there's no
• 1:42:15
  question it was bad, But I just don't understand the logic. The air
• 1:42:17
  is the same in your home as it is anywhere else. I guess inside
• 1:42:21
  it might be a little bit better, But as far as the schools are
• 1:42:25
  concerned, you're you're inside at school, and you also have to worry about
• 1:42:30
  when you take keep kids home on no notice, what about parents that aren't
• 1:42:33
  there to take care of them. You have to go to work. That's
• 1:42:36
  a massive logistical problem. So I just hate this idea, that knee jerk.
• 1:42:42
  We can cancel anything now if it's under the guise of public health,
• 1:42:45
  and of course it was also this issue of health, the hilarity of public
• 1:42:49
  health officials saying, well, you know those masks people are wearing for the
• 1:42:54
  for the smoke, they don't really work. Wait, I mean, what
• 1:42:58
  do you mean they're not really work? The smoke particles are thousands of times
• 1:43:02
  larger than the COVID virus particles. So if they don't work for smoke,
• 1:43:06
  then how the hell are they working for a virus? That makes absolutely no
• 1:43:11
  sense. But that's where we are when it comes to reasons to distrust the
• 1:43:15
  so called science establishment. But the other thing about the wildfires, and this
• 1:43:18
  is my pet peeve about the wildfires, is there's no evidence at all that
• 1:43:23
  they have anything to do with global warm and climate change. Although that's what
• 1:43:27
  the left tried to do. What's what the media tried to do with regard
• 1:43:30
  to these Canadian wildfires. We saw it all over the place. We saw
• 1:43:32
  major democratic government officials claiming this is further evidence of man made climate change.
• 1:43:40
  Well know, the fires in Canada were largely because of Arson, as our
• 1:43:45
  most major wildfires because of Arson, and I think the most important part of
• 1:43:50
  this entire issue. I've seen it in California many many times. I've said
• 1:43:55
  continually. We haven't had a major wildfire in California for over sixteen months now.
• 1:44:00
  No one in the media will ever tell you that. But it's been
• 1:44:02
  over sixteen months now. It doesn't mean we're not gonna have some in the
• 1:44:05
  fall. It's going to probably be till the fall because we've had so much
• 1:44:10
  rain and cold and cloudy and moist weather here in California. There's no chance
• 1:44:14
  of there being a wildfire. But there's no evidence that, even if man
• 1:44:18
  made climate change is real, that wildfires are part of that equation. And
• 1:44:23
  experts used to push back on that. That wasn't that long ago, just
• 1:44:27
  a few years ago, that you would always see in these articles or wildfires
• 1:44:31
  part of climate change, and they would always have a quote from an expert
• 1:44:35
  saying, well, not really, there's really no evidence of that. Wildfires
• 1:44:40
  have always been around, there's no evidence that they're increasing due to temperature change
• 1:44:45
  or climate change. Well that's all stopped now, and I believe it stopped
• 1:44:48
  simply because the so called expert class decided, you know what, this isn't
• 1:44:55
  true that wildfires are evidence of climate change. But the media loves the pit
• 1:45:00
  choose a fire so much and they're so effective for the overall cause that we're
• 1:45:04
  just gonna let this one slide. We're just gonna let the media run with
• 1:45:09
  this because it's better for the overall cause. And why would I risk my
• 1:45:13
  own position in the club by pushing back against the narrative that my side likes
• 1:45:17
  so much? My team likes it so much because it's just so cool when
• 1:45:21
  you do these articles on global warm and climate change to have pictures in the
• 1:45:26
  dark, because that's when fire looks its best in the dark of wildfires or
• 1:45:31
  video of wildfires. It feels very consistent with global warming, right because fire
• 1:45:38
  is hot well, has absolutely nothing to do with even the theoretical idea of
• 1:45:44
  global warm and climate change. But the experts don't care because they're not really
• 1:45:46
  about the truth and they're not really about science. It's all about a political
• 1:45:50
  cause which is turned into a religion, and once it's a religion, all
• 1:45:55
  bets are off. Now another issue, which even more bizarrely than global warming
• 1:46:02
  climate change, that has become part of the left wing religion is now transgenderism.
• 1:46:08
  And this is Pride Month. Pride Month has seen an unbelievable number of
• 1:46:14
  crazy things. I don't have nearly enough time, or the inclination to go
• 1:46:17
  through all of the nuttiness that has surrounded Pride Month at which has somehow has
• 1:46:25
  been coopted by transgenderism. And how this is not utterly infuriated the homosexual community
• 1:46:34
  is beyond baffling to me. I guess it's because they all are on the
• 1:46:39
  same team, most of them, not all, but many of them,
• 1:46:42
  at least the most influential ones are all on the same political team, and
• 1:46:45
  now since it's part of their religion, they all just have to go along
• 1:46:47
  with it, otherwise they might get kicked out of their club. But month
• 1:46:53
  probably hit its natter when the White House held an event with a massive Pride
• 1:47:00
  flag being posted on the White House right next to and with the same status
• 1:47:09
  basically as the American flag, which I upset understandably a lot of people that
• 1:47:15
  somehow the Pride flag now has the same status as the American flag at the
• 1:47:20
  White House. But even that I don't think was as offensive as this event
• 1:47:27
  that they held on the White House lawn where a transvestite openly displayed there.
• 1:47:34
  I guess you would call them fake boobs on the White House lawn, And
• 1:47:42
  this created quite a bit of outrage on the right got a lot of media
• 1:47:45
  covers on the right understandably, so I mean, frankly, I think it'd
• 1:47:48
  be a hell of a campaign commercial to run if done properly, because it
• 1:47:53
  really is one of those moments where the average person is going to go,
• 1:47:57
  what the hell is going on here? We've got transvestites showing off fake boobs
• 1:48:02
  on the White House lawn, all to celebrate Pride Month for a group of
• 1:48:11
  people that are claiming to be under attack. And this is the most infuriating
• 1:48:15
  part of this entire media narrative. The media has gone along totally with this
• 1:48:18
  idea that, well, you know, trans, the trans people are under
• 1:48:26
  attack, and that this is why we need to celebrate Pride Month and to
• 1:48:32
  protect them. Well, that's not at all what's happened. Transgendered people have
• 1:48:40
  decided, emboldened by the left and by the media, that they can now
• 1:48:45
  get special privileges and then they can attack our own children for all intensive purposes
• 1:48:51
  by being in favor of quote unquote gender affirming care, which is really child
• 1:49:00
  mutilation, and by forcing women to compete against biological men in sports and to
• 1:49:09
  have biological men in their restrooms. That's an attack not on transgenderism, but
• 1:49:16
  by transgendered people and their allies on the rest of us that are just trying
• 1:49:21
  to mind our own business and get along with our lives and really don't care
• 1:49:26
  what transgender people do as long as it's not interfering with them with their own
• 1:49:31
  freedom to live their lives as they choose. You have your freedom to live
• 1:49:36
  your life as you choose. Let us have our freedom and don't mess with
• 1:49:43
  the way things have always been in a way that is obviously and totally unfair,
• 1:49:47
  usually to women. That's again, so many elements of this thing are
• 1:49:53
  so baffling. You know, the Liberals are supposed to be pro women,
• 1:49:57
  right, and when the whole political gender gap is that women are far more
• 1:50:01
  likely to vote for Democrats than for Republicans in general, well, liberals are
• 1:50:08
  crapping all over the female gender in an effort to play Kate and enable an
• 1:50:14
  incredibly small percentage of the population that I don't understand what the political benefit of
• 1:50:21
  it is. I mean, the polls, well, they're not as strong
• 1:50:25
  as they should be, are still overwhelming and by the way, increasingly overwhelming.
• 1:50:30
  There's an indication in the polls that more and more people are becoming anti
• 1:50:36
  transgender agenda than they were a few years ago. I think because they're starting
• 1:50:43
  to see, holy crap, these people are are for real. They're not
• 1:50:46
  messing around. This is not just an issue of let me have my own
• 1:50:50
  life. This is an issue of I'm going to cause you to be forced
• 1:50:58
  to accept my view of gender and sexuality in a way that negatively impacts your
• 1:51:04
  life and your children's lives. And that is a line that at least for
• 1:51:10
  the vast majority of American people, they don't want to see crost. And
• 1:51:14
  so I've never even understood politically how democrats and liberals think this benefits them.
• 1:51:19
  My theory is it goes back to my Bedrock premise that when it comes to
• 1:51:26
  the liberal religion, once it becomes a tenant of the religion, democrats are
• 1:51:30
  physically, biologically, psychologically incapable of any self discipline. They cannot curtail it
• 1:51:41
  because it's against their religion, and they always, always, always overplay their
• 1:51:45
  hand, and much like when it comes to global warming climate change, their
• 1:51:49
  only real weapon in defending themselves is intimidating the other side and the shutting up
• 1:51:56
  that somehow criticizing is inherently wrong. Criticizing what's happening is being anti transgender or
• 1:52:04
  attacking transgender people, or attacking vulnerable people, and you're just a bad person
• 1:52:12
  for doing so. And proving this was the White House Press Secretary, a
• 1:52:18
  black female who is lesbian, Jean Jean Pierre, who was asked a very
• 1:52:25
  sensible and logical question about the issue of transgendered people biological males playing sports against
• 1:52:38
  biological females, very legitimate question, one that is an increasingly important topic in
• 1:52:45
  the real world. It's no longer just theoretical. This is a real world
• 1:52:49
  issue that is happening on a consistent basis, and the White House Press Secretary,
• 1:52:57
  instead of addressing the substance of the question, instead immediately and with one
• 1:53:04
  hundred percent totality, turned it into a don't you dare ask such a question
• 1:53:12
  because you are saying that transgender kids, kids got to use the cover of
• 1:53:18
  kids, are somehow dangerous. That's not at all what the question implied.
• 1:53:25
  She ignores the essence of the question, and she instead attacks on this issue
• 1:53:30
  of effectively censoring and intimidating the question. Or and here's what that sounded like.
• 1:53:36
  We're the person going to say to parents out there who have daughters,
• 1:53:41
  that's safe from high school. For example, we're worried that their daughter man
• 1:53:44
  to compete against a male person born male, and then there could be re
• 1:53:49
  directly a physical athletic competition if we're about their daughter's safety. So, look,
• 1:53:56
  what you're alluding to is basically saying that trans gender kids are dangerous.
• 1:54:00
  It sounds like that's what you're saying. Well, you're saying, you're saying
• 1:54:04
  that their safety is at risk. Yeah, but you're you're you're laying out
• 1:54:11
  a broad, kind of broad example or explanation of what could potentially happening a
• 1:54:16
  broad a broad example exploit that is dangerous. That is a dangerous thing.
• 1:54:20
  To say that essentially transgender kids we're talking about are dangerous. That's outrageous on
• 1:54:28
  so many levels. But I think it's very similar to what Joe Biden did
• 1:54:31
  with the there should be no doubters on climate change comment you're not allowed to
• 1:54:36
  question this, And what she just did there was your question which could not
• 1:54:44
  be more legitimate, more credible, more logical, more based in facts,
• 1:54:48
  more relevant. No, No, No, you are somehow a bad person
• 1:54:54
  for claiming which was not even part of the question that transgender kid wrapping yourself
• 1:55:00
  and kids are dangerous. No, it's a matter of the essence of sports.
• 1:55:08
  And by the way, the danger thing completely misses the issue. There's
• 1:55:13
  a competitive fairness issue, which is quite obvious. It's not just about physical
• 1:55:19
  danger. There's other consequences here other than you might get injured playing against the
• 1:55:25
  biological male. It's just flat out wrong. It's unfair. There are female
• 1:55:30
  athletes that have given their entire lives to trying to attain a goal and then
• 1:55:38
  they have to go up against the biological male in a way that is completely
• 1:55:42
  unfair. I mean, that's an injustice in and of itself. You don't
• 1:55:45
  think get physically harmed, but there are sports in which physical harm can happen.
• 1:55:53
  But I'm not. That answer is just so outrageous, and so few
• 1:55:57
  American people, especially outside of the right, or even going to realize that
• 1:56:01
  she said it, because the media, like they always do, will just
• 1:56:04
  bottle that up. The media knows instinctually when something happens that they know is
• 1:56:11
  not good for Democrats, is not good for the liberal cause. Where a
• 1:56:14
  liberal goes over the line and that it could catch fires. So We're just
• 1:56:17
  going to pretend that that didn't happen. And that's a great example of it
• 1:56:21
  right there, and that's why journalism is dead, and that's why we have
• 1:56:26
  this podcast now. I mentioned in the last episode of the podcast that this
• 1:56:30
  episode would have an interview with Ian Miller, the author of a couple of
• 1:56:33
  books about the COVID response. He's also a writer for the conservative sports media
• 1:56:39
  outlet out Kick. I've taped that interview, but I've decided to hold that
• 1:56:44
  probably for the next episode of the podcast, assuming that Trump doesn't get indicted
• 1:56:47
  again, which you never know is possible. But I'm going to postpone the
• 1:56:51
  Ian mill interview for at least the next episode of the podcast, which you
• 1:56:56
  will enjoy once we finally do get to that. Until then, please remember
• 1:57:00
  to subscribe, rate, and review this podcast, and share it on social
• 1:57:03
  media if you can. If you do, tag me, I'll be happy
• 1:57:05
  to share it as well on both Facebook and Twitter. Until next time.
• 1:57:10
  This has been episode number sixty seven of the Death of Journalism Podcasts. My
• 1:57:14
  name is John Ziegler.