Latest / The Death Of Journalism / Episode Eighty Eight: Missing The “United” States

Transcript

Episode Eighty Eight: Missing The “United” States · The Death Of Journalism

0:00
Welcome to episode number eighty eight of the Debta Journalism Podcast. My name is
0:04
John Ziegler. I'm your host on today's show. Did my jfk assassination theory
0:08
just get vindicated in the most shocking way imaginable? Donald Trump gets by far
0:14
his most infuriating endorsement yet. There's all sorts of liberal medium malfeasance at the
0:20
US Open tennis tournament, and the state of New Mexico suspends the rights of
0:26
their citizens due to a contrived emergency. I'm known as the Dutch Digital marketing
0:32
Man. I'm a digital advertising SEO and email marketing specialist that also happens to
0:38
be a big fan of John Ziegler and the Death of Journalism. Do you
0:42
need help preaching your target audience? Let me help you develop the right messaging
0:47
and confaded message in the best channels for your business. Please visit my website,
0:51
the Dutch Digital marketing Man dot com and let me help you tell your
0:56
story. The website is the Dutch Digital Marketingman dot com. If you want
1:02
to grow your business, Peter can help. That's the Dutch Digital marketing Man
1:07
dot com. And hey, thanks for sponsoring the show. There's a lot
1:11
to get in too on this episode of the Death of Journalism. I want
1:12
to begin, though, with this being the day after the twenty second anniversary
1:19
of the nine to eleven attacks on America, with a couple of thoughts about
1:23
the nine to eleven attacks and the fact that we're now twenty two years later,
1:27
which is just amazing in so many ways. There are elements of this
1:33
in my life. At least it feel like it's been longer than twenty two
1:36
years, because it's been a very strange roller coaster ride for me personally,
1:42
But in other ways it doesn't seem all that that long. There's no question
1:47
that our country is a completely different place culturally than it was twenty two years
1:53
ago on nine to eleven. And one of the things that I really miss
1:57
about America that was illus traded in the aftermath of the nine to eleven attacks
2:02
is the concept of unity. I'm beginning to believe that it was that period
2:09
just after the nine eleven attacks where America truly was unified, where even a
2:15
previously not particularly popular president who had been elected under very controversial circumstances, George
2:21
W. Bush, was getting ninety percent approval ratings or close to it.
2:25
That's never going to happen again in this very, very divided country. But
2:30
I think that that was probably the last era of true unity in this country.
2:35
We could have another nine eleven attack today and we would not have within
2:38
a couple of days. It would probably become very very partisan. Now.
2:44
Nine eleven eventually became partisan, and in fact, I did my first documentary
2:49
film in large part about that. I did that about a movie that ABC
2:54
was airing for two nights on the fifth anniversary of nine to eleven, called
3:00
Path to nine to eleven by a guy'm a name of Cyrus Narasta. He
3:02
was the screenwriter. He's been a guest on this program because now his fate
3:07
would have it. He's probably my best friend. So nine to eleven had
3:13
enormous impacts on everybody's life, but some of those things that occurred were positive.
3:19
I met my best friend, and directly I also met my wife because
3:23
of what was going on on my radio show surrounding the fifth anniversary of nine
3:29
to eleven. It was also related to Cyrus's docudrama The Path in nine eleven.
3:34
Anyway, I did a documentary a few years after that called Blocking the
3:38
Path in nine eleven. About how that film had been largely censored by the
3:43
Clintons in a partisan effort to protect Bill Clinton's legacy and to help Hillary Clinton
3:50
pave her way to what they thought was going to be the two thousand and
3:53
eight Democratic presidential nomination. Didn't turn out that way, but that's what they
3:59
had ended, and you can still find it online for free blocking The Path
4:03
in nine to eleven. You cannot get the actual original movie The Path in
4:09
nine to eleven unless you're a friend of Cyrus's. He still has DVD copies
4:13
that he gives out. I think he was offering them online the other day,
4:16
but that's because Disney shut it all down on behalf of the Clintons,
4:23
and you know, Disney ABC decided that they were going to edit and cut
4:28
the balls off of the Path in nine to eleven. That's partly why I
4:30
did my documentary for Citizens United, which was an incredible ordeal dealing with Dave
4:36
Bossi, who ended up being becoming one of Donald Trump's campaign managers in the
4:42
twenty sixteen election. A complete asshole and a guy who I loathed greatly,
4:46
but he was the one that hired me to do the documentary about Cyrus's film
4:51
But You Can't Find the Path at eleven, which in my opinion, is
4:56
the greatest cinematic enterprise has ever done about what really led up to the attacks
5:03
of nine to eleven. And it was done on a mainstream outlet, and
5:06
that's why it had to be destroyed because it was too dangerous because it told
5:12
the true It's about both parties and implicated both parties in the negligence and the
5:17
maufeasans that led to the nine to eleven attacks being possible. But I really
5:23
miss, I really miss the united part of the United States of America,
5:29
and we see it in our media all the time. I mean, I
5:31
truly believe that we are divided largely because of our media. Television being the
5:38
most powerful medium, used to be a great uniter in this country. It
5:43
is now the most prolific divider that we've ever seen. And we're now living
5:49
in our own little universes, our own silos, our own information bubbles,
5:55
and this will prevent us, in my opinion, from ever being as united
5:59
as we were in the aftermath of the nine to eleven attacks. In thinking
6:03
about this being the twenty second anniversary of nine to eleven, I did come
6:09
up with. I don't know if you would call this technically an analogy or
6:12
a metaphor, but I do think that the state of our country, the
6:16
United States, can be described using nine to eleven terms, or visions or
6:27
or you know, obviously the circumstances of the morning of nine to eleven.
6:31
If I had to describe the United States of America in nine to eleven terms,
6:35
I would say that currently this country is pretty much like we were on
6:42
the morning of nine to eleven after the first plane hit the World Trade Center,
6:48
where we realize something awful has happened. In this analogy, I'm going
6:54
to use COVID as the first plane hitting the twin towers, but realize that
7:00
something awful has happened. We're not sure it's full magnitude. You know,
7:04
some people aren't in the tower next door, not even getting there, not
7:10
even getting out of the building. Because we're being told it's not a big
7:13
deal. We're going to live normal lives. We're just going to pretend that
7:16
that tower next to us is not on fire, and it looks like it
7:20
could collapse at any moment, and we have no idea of how inevitable it
7:27
is. At least most people have no idea how inevitable it is that a
7:30
second plane it's going to hit the twin towers. And that second plane,
7:33
in my opinion, is essentially a combination of climate alarmism and wokeism, and
7:41
socialism and Marxism in all one ball of wax that is going to hit that
7:46
second tower, and it's going to be too late by the time that happens
7:51
for us to fully realize as a country, Oh my god, we're really
7:55
under attack. This is really horrendous, and this is going to be really,
8:01
really awful, and there's no recovering from this, at least in terms
8:05
of the towers themselves, because at least to me, once that second plane
8:11
hit the second tower, it was obvious that they were going to collapse.
8:15
I was only only using common sense, and obviously that was vindicated. Within
8:20
an hour and hour and a half they were both on the ground collapsed.
8:24
Of course, to this day there are idiots that think that somehow there was
8:28
a massive conspiracy to cause that to happen. It's just insanity. I'm not
8:33
even going to deal with it. But you know, that's that's kind of
8:35
way the way I see America right now is that we're right in the middle
8:41
of this, and unfortunately very few of us seem to understand the seriousness of
8:46
the situation. Now. I realized that I'm known for my pessimism, and
8:50
that's a very dark and pessimistic view of the future. But that's kind of
8:56
the way I see it. I think I COVID was that first attack,
9:00
and because there was so little blowback in most of the country and no accountability
9:05
at all in any substantial way, then we've made ourselves vulnerable to similar attacks,
9:16
and that second tower is in the process of getting hit and we just
9:18
don't most of us don't realize it yet. Again, that's a dark way
9:22
to begin the podcast, but I do think that it's an appropriate metaphor when
9:28
you consider, you know, we've just gone through again an anniversary of nine
9:33
to eleven, and people have that morning on their minds. Of course,
9:35
it's also important to point out that we're not living in a world where,
9:39
you know, there are people who are well outside of college age now who
9:43
still have absolutely no memory of what happened that morning, at least not directly
9:48
having experienced it themselves. I mean, you have to basically be now twenty
9:50
seven, twenty eight years old to have any theoretical memory of nine to eleven,
9:56
which is just mind blowing to me, and how fast time flies.
9:58
But that's those are my thoughts on the twenty second anniversary of the attacks of
10:05
nine to eleven. Now, before nine to eleven, the most memorable day
10:09
in American modern history, in the television era, was obviously the jfk assassination.
10:16
And if you're a fan of this podcast, and if you're not whired,
10:18
you're not. But if you are, and you've been listening to most
10:22
of not all of our episodes, you know that in episode seventy one of
10:28
this podcast, I went into incredible detail. I spent about two hours plus
10:35
detailing my very unique theory about mostly the logistics of what happened in the Kennedy
10:43
assassination. And the reason I did this is because I am somebody who has
10:50
an opinion that maybe nobody else in the whole world has, or at least
10:56
very very few people have, and no one that I'm aware of, other
10:58
than maybe ironically enough, Mark Furman from OJ Simpson infamy. And there you
11:03
go. If you're counting at home, if you're keeping score, I've made
11:05
an Simpson reference and yet another podcast. I don't know what the record is,
11:09
but we're getting close to it as of right now. But Mark Furman
11:13
wrote a book in which he kind of had a similar theory of what really
11:18
happened with the jfk assassination that I have articulated. I've also wondered since I
11:26
did articulate this on Los Angeles radio on KFI, the number one talks station
11:30
in America at that time, and while Furman wasn't really living in LA still
11:35
it still always bothered me that maybe he had somewhat plagiarized my theory. I
11:39
don't know that. I'm not someone who a lot of talks show hosts believed
11:43
that almost anything that they see that's similar to something they have said is inherent
11:48
evidence of plagiarism. I don't buy that theory at all. This one just
11:52
kind of felt weird. But even he didn't articulate it in exactly the same
11:58
way that I did an episode seven one, and if you're interested, I
12:01
urge you to go back and listen to episode seventy one. But the essence
12:05
of my theory is that I'm someone who believes two things that seem completely contradictory
12:11
to each other. That Learvy Oswald acted alone, but that the Warren Commission,
12:18
which investigated the assassination and put out a massive report on the assassination,
12:24
blew it. That they got the logistics wrong, and without getting into the
12:30
details, the essence of what they got wrong was the single bullet theory,
12:33
the infamous single bullet theory, which is probably the number one reason why people
12:37
don't buy the Warren Commission conclusions. And they think because that those behind the
12:45
Warren Commission made a critical error. They think that if you don't buy the
12:50
single bullet theory, inherently it means that the commission must also be wrong.
12:56
That Oswald acted alone. And I have been in incredibly passionate and consistent over
13:03
the decades because I came up with this theory, I don't know, twenty
13:05
twenty five years ago. I've been every opportunity I have gotten, I have
13:11
tried to say, no, no, those are not inconsistent theories. You
13:16
can believe that the single bullet theory is garbage, but that Lee Harvey Oswald
13:24
acted alone. And this is a source of great frustration to me. And
13:28
I'll explain why I'm talking about this now in just a moment, because it's
13:33
becoming even a greater frustration and the reaction to a story that just broke a
13:37
couple of days ago, which was truly shocking to me. So just to
13:41
review my theory, I don't believe the single bullet theory is necessary and I
13:48
don't think it's legitimate. I believe that there were three shots, that the
13:52
first shot hit Kennedy in the back, fell out, and that that was
13:58
the bullet that was mistaken as the so called single bullet, the pristine bullet
14:03
or the magic bullet. It was a mistake, and that the second shot
14:07
only hit Connolly, John Connolly, the governor of Texas, and that the
14:11
third shot only hit John Kennedy in the head, blew his head off and
14:13
killed him. The first shot would not have killed JFK. And as I
14:18
went into this in great detail in episode seventy one, I talked about how
14:24
one of the mistakes, what I believe has to have been a mistake that
14:31
occurred, was where that so called pristine bullet was found, because it was
14:37
said to have been found on John Connolly's stretcher at Parkland Hospital. Now,
14:43
if you know that is the main evidence if there is any that the bullet
14:50
came from Connolly and that therefore you need that bullet, and it's complicated as
14:54
to why. But if that bullet came out of Connolly's body, then in
15:00
order to make everything work and to make Oswald a lone gunmen, and for
15:03
there'll only be three shots, you need that bullet to have gone through JFK
15:09
and then done all the damage that it did to Connolly. And if that
15:13
bullet was indeed found on connolly stretcher, that's pretty good evidence that that bullet
15:18
is associated with Connolly, that it fell out of Connolly. But when I
15:24
looked at the rest of all the evidence in this case, I'm always looking
15:28
for a scenario that fits everything we know and make sense in its totality,
15:35
and the single bullet theory never did to me, largely because of the common
15:39
sense that a bullet can't cause that much damage and come out pristine. However,
15:45
it could go a couple inches into the back of somebody because it was
15:48
a misfire fall out and be basically pristine. That makes total sense, But
15:56
I could never prove. I could raise questions about, but I could never
16:00
prove that the bullet wasn't found on John Connolly Stretcher. In fact, if
16:06
you really are an ardent listener to this podcast, do you know that an
16:10
episode seventy two, because I had gotten questions from listeners about my theory,
16:15
I got people asking about the evidence that that bullet was found on Connolly Stretcher,
16:21
and I either didn't remember or I never knew, and I went back
16:26
and looked because it was sent to me by a listener that even the Warren
16:30
Commission had grave, serious questions about whether or not that bullet, the famous
16:36
bullet Exhibit three ninety nine, had actually been found on Connolly Stretcher. Now
16:41
they thought they could rule out JFK. Stretcher, So I think that's why
16:45
they decided, Well, we know it's not JFK. Stretcher. We think
16:51
it's probably Connolly Stretcher. So we're going to say that the bullet came out
16:53
of Connolly, and then therefore we have to come up with a theory that
16:57
explains that. And that just never made sense to me. There is so
17:03
much writing on that that you need more evidence than that. You can't have
17:08
the whole theory writing on a well, maybe it was Connolly Stretcher. He
17:14
can't do that, because if it's not Connolly Stretcher, or if it's somehow
17:18
god un Connolly Stretcher in a weird way, the whole theory collapses, and
17:23
in episode seventy one, I provide some evidence, I think, admittedly not
17:30
tremendous evidence, but at least some evidence that there are questions about whether or
17:36
not there was a pristine bullet found near Kennedy in his operating room in the
17:41
midst of that chaos. I played a tape from Jayager Hoover, I played
17:45
a tape from a nurse at Parkland, both of whom seemed to indicate that
17:49
an entire full bullet was seen there. And it was my theory that,
17:55
okay, that what that is is that's the bullet falling out of Kennedy's back
18:00
in the midst of trying to save his life, doing CPR and everything else
18:04
that made sense to me. Now, I will always acknowledge that part of
18:10
what I felt was not the strongest element of my argument was that having the
18:15
bullet be found in the operating room where there were probably I don't know,
18:21
at least ten people maybe more than that, coming in and out, and
18:25
no one picking it up, no one, you know, realizing its significance.
18:30
That seems a little far fetched. Granted, in chaotic panic situations anything
18:36
as possible. But I've always felt that that was the part of my theory
18:41
that, you know, I'm kind of relying on something really strange happening there,
18:45
but it's still to me to make everything makes sense. I was positive
18:49
that that bullet could not be associated with John Connolly. It had to be
18:55
associated with Kennedy, and it had to have hit him in the back and
18:59
fell out, and that the first shot. So that was my basic theory
19:03
that I could not prove. Well. Imagine my shock and surprise when all
19:07
of a sudden I start to get messages dms on Twitter and messages on Facebook,
19:15
and a couple of people texting me, all sending me an article in
19:18
the New York Times wanting to get my opinion about a new witness that had
19:25
come forward in the JFK assassination. And I have to say that when I
19:33
read the article in the New York Times, it's about a new book by
19:37
someone who's never been heard before, at least not in a big way with
19:41
regard regarding the assassination. That if you had said to me, Zig,
19:48
I want you to concoct a scenario between now and the sixtieth anniversary of the
19:52
assassination, which is this November, that would vindicate your theory in the most
20:00
dramatic way possible. If you had said, go ahead, come up with
20:03
whatever you want. I honestly don't think I could come up with anything better
20:10
than what the New York Times had, which is why a lot of people
20:12
were sending me this now. I want to stress that I have some pretty
20:18
stringent rules when it comes to my investigation of cases, and one of them
20:25
is if I want something to be true, I generally hold it to much
20:30
higher scrutiny than I would normally, because I understand the power of personal bias,
20:38
and I will be the first to admit that because I have been ridiculed
20:42
and mocked for a couple of decades on my theory. I want what was
20:48
in the New York Times to be true, so I will admit that bias
20:52
right off the bat. I don't know if it's true, but I want
20:59
it to be true, and I think it's possible that it's true, largely
21:03
because if it is true, it makes everything suddenly makes sense. It makes
21:11
all the puzzle pieces finally fall into place. But the frustrating part is no
21:17
one seems to understand that, including experts that I have a lot of respect
21:22
for, like, for instance, Gerald Posner, the author of the tremendous
21:26
work on the assassination called Case Closed. Now get the Posner's reaction to this
21:30
article in a moment. But I'm going to read from the article, and
21:33
this is going to take a little while, but I want to make sure
21:37
I get all the details here because this is the details are important in this.
21:41
So this is the New York Times and their headline is jfk assassination witness
21:48
breaks his silence and raises new questions. The account of Paul landis one of
21:56
the Secret Service agents just feed away from John F. Kennedy and he was
22:00
struck down. Could change the understanding of what happened in Dallas in nineteen sixty
22:06
three. And then it begins. He still remembers the first gun shot.
22:11
Now this is interesting to me because I don't even think the writer of the
22:17
New York Times article, by way, a guy who is very respected,
22:19
Peter Baker, I don't think he understands the significance of what he's writing because
22:26
he's contradicting his account here is actually directly contradicting the Warren Commission in an extremely
22:33
significant way, because the Warren Commission's view is that the first shot was a
22:38
miss it missed everything, which is really how I started down this path because
22:42
I realized there's no evidence that the first shot missed everything, and it makes
22:48
no sense because all the Secret Service agents associated with the sound of that first
22:52
shot, with John Kennedy's reaction, so there's not time for there to be
22:59
a missed shot and then a second shot and then we see Kennedy reacting.
23:04
But so this is important for context. But back to the article for an
23:07
instant. Standing on the running board of the motor car, he entertained the
23:12
vain hope that maybe it was just a firecracker or a blown tire. If
23:17
you listened to episode seventy one, that is consistent from all the Secret Service
23:22
agents. They thought it was a firecracker, which is important to understanding how
23:26
that bullet ends up in JFK's back under my scenario, back to the New
23:32
York Times. But he knew guns, and he knew better. Then came
23:36
another shot, in other words, a second shot, and another and the
23:42
president slumped down. Okay, now it's the way he did. That was
23:48
kind of crafty, waiting for the third shot for the president to slump down,
23:52
because that's when his head gets blown off. For so many nights afterward,
23:59
he Lands relived that grizzly moment in his dreams. Now sixty years later,
24:03
Landis one of the Secret Service agents just feet away from President John F.
24:07
Kennedy on that faithful day in Dallas, is telling his story in full
24:12
for the first time. Mister Landis has spent most of the intervening years fleeing
24:19
history, trying to forget that unforgettable moment etched in the consciousness of a grieving
24:26
nation. The memory of the explosion of violence, and the desperate race to
24:30
the hospital, and the devastating flight home, and the wrenching funeral with John
24:37
Junior saluting his fallen father. It was all too much, too tortuous,
24:44
so much so that mister Landis left the Secret Service and Washington behind, until
24:49
finally, after the nightmares had passed, at last, he could think about
24:52
it again, and he could read about it, and he realized that what
24:59
he read was not quite right, not as he remembered it. As it
25:06
turns out, if his recollections are correct, the much discussed quote unquote magic
25:12
bullet may not have been so magic after all. His memory challenges the theory
25:21
advanced by the Warren Commission that has been the subject of so much speculation and
25:26
debate over the years that one of the bullets fired at the President's limousine hit
25:30
not only Kennedy but John Connelly, the Governor of Texas, who was riding
25:34
with him. In multiple places, mister Landis's account, included in a forthcoming
25:41
memoir, would rewrite the narrative of one of modern American history's most earth shattering
25:48
days in an important way. It may not mean any more than that,
25:52
but it could also encourage those who have long suspected that there was more than
25:59
one gunman in Dallas on November twenty second, nineteen sixty three, adding new
26:03
grist to one of the nation's enduring mysteries. Now, that's that's I got
26:10
to stop there for a second. This is so frustrating that this new piece
26:15
of information, which we're going to get to in a moment somehow, is
26:18
being used as grist for the conspiracy mill. When under my scenario, it
26:23
actually proves there was no conspiracy, and it proves that Lee Harvey Oswald acted
26:29
alone. But back to the New York Times article, as with all things
26:33
related to the assassination, of course, his account raises questions of its own.
26:37
Mister Land has remained silent for sixty years, which is fueled doubts even
26:42
for his former secret service partner, and memories are tricky, even for those
26:48
sincerely certain of their recollect recollections. A couple of elements of his account contradict
26:52
the official statements he filed with authorities immediately after the shooting, and some of
27:00
the implications of his version cannot be easily reconciled to the existing record. But
27:06
he was there, a first hand witness, and it is rare for new
27:10
testimony to emerge six decades after the fact. He has never subscribed to the
27:15
conspiracy theories and stresses that he is not promoting one now. At age eighty
27:21
eight, he said, all he wants is to tell what he saw and
27:25
what he did. He will leave it to everyone else to draw conclusions.
27:32
Investigators. Now this I move forward a little bit in the New York Times
27:37
story to save time, But this goes to the issue of where that magic
27:41
bullet was found, and the Warrant Commission concluding that it was found on John
27:47
Connolly's stretcher. The Times rights investigators came to that conclusion partly because the bullet
27:53
was found on a stretcher believed to have held mister Connolly at Parkland Memorial Hospital,
27:59
so they assumed it had exited his body during efforts to save his life.
28:03
But mister Landis, who was never interviewed by the Warrant Commission, said
28:08
that is not what happened. In fact, he said he was the one
28:15
who found the bullet, and he found it not in the hospital near mister
28:23
Connolly, but in the presidential limousine, lodged in the back of the seat
28:32
behind where Kennedy was sitting. Now, if that's true, that's earth shattering,
28:45
earth shattering for those who care about what actually happened on November twenty Seco
28:51
nineteen sixty three. If that's true, that's the biggest revelation by far that
28:56
has happened in the last fifty nine years of thousands of people investigating the assassination
29:03
of John F. Kennedy. Back to the story in the Times when he
29:08
spotted the bullet after the motorcator arrived at the hospital, he said, he
29:15
grabbed it to thwart souvenir hunters. Now, let me stop there for a
29:19
moment. This rings true because there is video of that limousine at Parkland Hospital,
29:26
right there in front of God and everybody, I mean, the public
29:30
had access to it. There's film, famous film of the roses the jackie
29:36
was holding in the back of the limousine spewned throughout the back seat. I
29:41
mean, this was not a situation where they cared about the the security of
29:45
the limousine. They were worried about getting the President United States into the hospital
29:49
as fast as they could. So that part seems plausible at least plausible,
29:56
if not more than that. Back to the times, then reasons that still
30:00
seem fuzzy even to him. He said. He entered the hospital and placed
30:07
it next to Kennedy on the President's stretcher. The it there is the bullet.
30:12
So he picked up the bullet out of the back seat of the limo
30:15
where Kennedy was sitting. He brings it into the hospital and placed it next
30:21
to Kennedy on the President's stretcher, assuming it could somehow help doctors figure out
30:27
what happened. At some point, he now guesses, and I think this
30:33
is a bad gas. By the way, the stretchers must have been pushed
30:37
together and the bullet was shaken from one stretcher to another. Quote, there
30:45
was nobody there to secure the scene, and that was a big, big
30:51
bother to me. Mister land has said all the agents that were there were
30:55
focused on the president. A crowd was gathering. This was all going on
31:02
so quickly, and I was just afraid that it was a piece of evidence
31:07
that I realized right away very important, and I didn't want it to disappear
31:11
or get lost. So it was Paul, You've got to make a decision,
31:17
and I grabbed it. Mister Landis theorizes that the bullet struck Kennedy in
31:22
the back, but for some reason, was undercharged and did not penetrate deeply,
31:30
therefore popping back out before the president's body was removed from the limousine.
31:37
Mister Landis has been reluctant to speculate on the larger implications. He always believed
31:45
that Lee Harvey Oswald was the lone gunman, but now quote, at this
31:49
point, I'm beginning to doubt myself, he said, Now I begin to
31:53
wonder that is as far as he is willing to go. Now. There's
31:59
a lot to unpack here, and I want to I'm not going to go
32:02
too deeply into this because there's other things I need to get to in this
32:06
episode of the podcast, and I'm hopeful that I'm going to do an interview
32:10
with Gerald Posner, who I've already referenced the author of Case Closed, because
32:15
his reaction to this has been frankly fascinating to me and also all over the
32:21
map. And I really like Gerald Posner because he is a truth guy.
32:24
He's a smart guy. He's always very fair. He's always been fair to
32:29
me when we've done interviews, even though we disagree about the logistics of this
32:32
whole thing. But he is a Warren commissioned guy, and so he is
32:38
not prone to believing this. And he has already written a very good article
32:43
about why there are many things to be concerned about in Landis's account and many
32:49
questions to be asked, and I'm all in favor of those. Interestingly,
32:53
I kind of rebutted Gerald Posner's questions in a tweet, and Gerald responded very
33:02
nicely and fairly to me and said, I bring up some really good points.
33:06
And it seems as if and I don't know that I have anything to
33:09
do with this, but it seems as if his opinion on this has already
33:14
shifted slightly, that he's gone from This can't be true. This is out
33:19
of the blue, where the you know, sixty years later, he's never
33:22
talked about this before. How can this be credible? Some of the details
33:25
are wrong to now seemingly, And I don't want to put words in his
33:29
mouth because I'm really looking forward to interviewing him, but it now seems like
33:32
he's more than open to the idea that he's telling the truth. But what
33:37
he doesn't seem to understand, which I really want to try to figure out
33:40
if I speak to him, is that this is actually good for the Lee
33:45
Harvey Oswald Acted Alone crowd, which he's part of, he's a leader of,
33:51
and I consider myself to be part of as well. It's baffling to
33:55
me why even positor can't see this, And I think it's all because of
34:00
that first shot miss. They're so invested in that first shot miss, because
34:07
of the Warren Commission. In Arlan Spector's crazy theory, and they've they've been
34:10
defending this single bullet theory for so long. It's a little you know everything.
34:15
I always say this, it's a little bit like COVID, where the
34:17
experts get invested in something this deeply and for this long period of time,
34:23
and they don't want to admit that they were wrong. Now, Gerald's one
34:27
of the few people I think that has the strength of character to do that.
34:30
He hasn't done that yet, and if I can get him to do
34:34
so, I will. I'll certainly do my best to try. But but
34:37
I understand the questions about this. However, here are some of the answers
34:42
that I gave, like, for instance, on this issue of all right,
34:46
so why did Landis not talk about this? Well, Landis didn't talk
34:51
about this for a couple of really good reasons. One, he broke off
34:54
his story is true, he broke the chain of evidence. He did something
34:59
that was probably a fireable offense. I don't know what the rules of the
35:01
Secret Service were at the time, but he took a key piece of evidence,
35:07
he held it with him, We're not sure for how long, and
35:08
then he placed it, by his account, on the stretcher of the president
35:15
of the United States. That's a major problem, and I can certainly understand
35:21
why, you know, he would not be eager for anyone to know about
35:23
this. The whole plan that he had, if this is true, is
35:27
what he's saying is true, the whole plan is. And this is weird
35:30
because I kind of theorized about this in episode seventy two when I was answering
35:35
questions from listeners, I said, you know, I think it's possible someone
35:38
dumped it on the stretcher because they had initially picked it up, panicked,
35:44
didn't do the right thing, and then didn't know how to get rid of
35:46
it, so they just saw a stretcher and they said, you know,
35:50
get rid of it like a hot potato. So it's out of my hands.
35:53
Someone's gonna find it, and I'm not going to get in trouble for
35:57
this. Well, that's almost exactly what Land is. The story is,
36:01
which is eerie when I read it now. Posner raises some good questions.
36:07
And because his account of leaving the bullet where Kennedy was doesn't match up with
36:14
what we know. In fact, his description which is way too detailed,
36:17
and I interpret this as you know, dramatic license for a book. And
36:22
remember, anything that's in a book is inherently going to be augmented, at
36:27
least from a descriptive standpoint, because you've got to make the book readable and
36:30
compelling. And it's sixty years later, and so the idea that you know,
36:35
he's remembering these minute details, the way he's describing putting the bullet next
36:40
to Kennedy's body, it's almost like a religious ceremony, which is ridiculous.
36:45
I don't I don't buy that at all. And interestingly, Posner on Twitter
36:51
seemed to understand my theory on that too, because my theory and that was
36:55
he's lying about that, or essentially lying aderating because he's trying to make what
37:01
he did seem less bad. If he turns this into some sort of act
37:07
of you know, religious reflection or almost a burial ceremony with putting the bullet,
37:16
you know, next to Kennedy's body, that somehow that justifies his original
37:22
sin, which was taking the bullet out of the back of the limousine and
37:29
in a good intentioned, well intentioned panic when he should not have done that.
37:35
And Postners seemed to understand the logic behind that as well. But then
37:38
there's the part of land Is the story that to me gives him the most
37:43
credibility. And this sounds contradictory. It might sound contradictory. I don't know,
37:49
But to me, I think land Is his story is more credible because
37:52
he is clearly not repeat not an assassination buff. He clearly knows all most
38:00
nothing about the assassination. He's clearly until about a decade ago, twenty fourteen,
38:06
is when he started to tell friends about this, with including Secret Service
38:10
agent Hill, who's probably the most famous Secret Service agent involved in all this
38:15
because he was the one that got Jackie off the back of the limousine famously
38:20
in the Zubruder film Clint Hill. And Clint Hill is dubious of this story.
38:25
But Landa's went to Hill back in twenty fourteen and started to tell him
38:30
I think I have an important memory to share here, and Hill kind of
38:36
dissuaded him from going forward with it. Well, if you don't understand,
38:39
if you're not an assassination buff and you've tried to wipe this from your life
38:44
and your memory, and you leave the Secret Service, and you know,
38:46
time goes on and you're you're kind of embarrassed of the way you handled this,
38:52
and you're not thinking about it. To me, it might take till
38:57
the fiftieth anniversary when this all started to become a story again, which would
39:00
have been in twenty thirteen, to start you to think, you know what,
39:05
I'm gonna die soon, and I may have a really significant piece of
39:09
information that perhaps I should bring forward. That doesn't mean it's true. I
39:16
want to emphasize that this story may not be true, however, my gut
39:23
tells me, and I'm not as relying on my gut in a situation because
39:28
i want the story to be true. As I've already acknowledged, my gut
39:31
tells me. It's probably mostly true that because he's not an assassination buff,
39:39
he doesn't understand the significance. He even seems to be misinterpreting the significance.
39:45
I will say, I'm a little concerned by the fact that his co author
39:49
or ghostwriter I'm not sure which it is, of the book is a conspiracy
39:53
buff. That bothers me. Although it doesn't appear as if Landis has been
39:59
convinced that there's conspiracy, He's more along the lines of, you know,
40:01
I'm questioning things now. So remember, you know, you have to consider
40:06
the monetary incentives of writing a book. But the guy is eighty eight years
40:10
old. He's not going to be around for much longer. This is the
40:14
last go around, This is the sixtieth anniversary, This is the last call,
40:17
and literally, at last call, we may have the piece of information
40:24
that finally vindicates the truth, which happens to be my theory of what happened
40:30
here, Because if that bullet was found in the back of the limousine where
40:35
Kennedy was sitting, that means that the only thing I got wrong about my
40:39
theory was that the bullet didn't pop out in the emergency room at Parkland Hospital.
40:45
It popped out in the back of the limousine and then got put there
40:50
by this secret Service agent who who did this very weird thing and then panicked
40:54
trying to get rid of the thing. My theory is that that whole business
40:59
of putting the body and putting the bullet next to Kennedy's body, I don't
41:04
buy that. I don't even think he could have gotten the access to the
41:07
body at that point. You know, once the body, once it's dead,
41:10
president that now we're in a completely different realm with regard to security,
41:15
and there's no reason for anyone to get near the body. I'm leaning towards
41:20
my theory that I posited in episode seventy two, which is he just saw
41:24
a stretcher and wanted to get rid of the goddamn thing, and and it
41:29
was misidentified as Connolly stretcher, maybe it even was Connelly Stretcher, and Lantis
41:36
had no idea, and it was just this incredibly bizarre coincidence, one of
41:40
many strange coincidences that occurred during this whole situation that led people to misidentify where
41:47
that bullet came from, and therefore it dramatically impacted the theory of the Warrant
41:53
Commission, which is why I mean the single bullet theory is why there are
41:58
so many conspiracy theories that have gotten so much traction on the biggest event prior
42:05
to nine to eleven in the modern history of America. And I think it's
42:08
significant way beyond that, because, as I've said with Tucker Carlinson many times,
42:13
when you buy that the US government killed JFK, which did not.
42:17
When you buy that, it's so much easier to buy other bullshit conspiracy theories
42:22
and that's how the right has fallen into nothing in the Trump era, nothing
42:28
but conspiracy theory, atric conspiracy theory, atric conspiracy theory. There's a straight
42:32
line between that and you know, most of the Republican base believing that the
42:37
twenty twenty election was stolen. And it's not based in reality, it's not
42:40
based in truth, and it's all because of fucking Arland Spector, who was
42:45
my senator in Pennsylvania for quite a long time, who was so arrogant that
42:51
he thought he had a problem with the Zibruder film and he thought he figured
42:53
out He's because he's the smartest guy in every room. He thought he figured
42:57
out a way to solve the problem with this goddamn sing bullet theory. And
43:00
that's why nobody buys the Warrant Commission's conclusions, and no one buys that Oswald
43:07
did it alone. And again I want to emphasize my side of this,
43:13
the Oswald acted alone side should be thrilled that this information came out because it
43:20
gives us the path one to tell the truth and two to tell the story
43:23
without the single bullet theory, which is why no one buys what we're saying,
43:30
because it doesn't pass the smell test because it shouldn't because it's not true.
43:36
So that's at least for now, my first take on the landis revelations
43:43
and book, which we're quite shocking to me, and you know, I
43:47
have to say I did. I took about a five minute victory lap before
43:52
I started delving into the details and maybe why the story is not one hundred
43:57
percent credible if if he's available, I will be thrilled to interview land As
44:02
when his book comes out in October. Now I want to turn to the
44:07
political situation, and there's some COVID news. There's a whole bunch of stuff
44:13
going on, and I'm not even a hundred percent sure I'm gonna able to
44:15
get to all of it, because I just went longer than I expected with
44:19
regard to the Kennedy assassination. But as you know, I am someone who
44:25
believes has already stated with the nine eleven metaphor that I began this podcast with
44:31
that COVID changed this country forever, And maybe the most depressing it's hard to
44:37
say what's the most depressing, but maybe the most depressing element of the entire
44:43
COVID fiasco has been the complete and total rewriting of history, even on the
44:51
right, even among alleged conservatives, even I as pessimistic as I am,
44:58
as as dim as my view is of the average American, even I have
45:05
been shocked, stunned, appalled that Donald Trump can just gaslight and pretend that
45:14
he was somehow the hero fighting against COVID tyranny, and that somehow Ron de
45:22
Santis, Ron de Santis was the bad guy who locked down Florida and still
45:28
had horrible COVID stats, and that Andrew Cuomo was better in New York than
45:34
De Santis was in Florida, and be complimented by Gavin Newsom from here in
45:39
California with regard to his COVID response and have no negative impact on his in
45:45
his polling popularity among Republicans. And recently on this podcast, I've documented how
45:52
Trump is all over the map. I mean, at one point he even
45:57
said we will not comply where against COVID tyranny and tyrants, and he sounded
46:04
like the biggest COVID contraing of all time when he was effectively condemning his own
46:08
administration's response, almost like he pretending he wasn't president. In March of twenty
46:14
twenty and getting away with it. Getting away with it because the right wing
46:19
media is so terrified to hold him accountable on this because they know that their
46:25
most fervent customers will hate it. Well, this phenomenon went to a whole
46:34
new level a few days ago when Trump held a rally in South Dakota,
46:39
and the reason why he did that was he was getting the endorsement of South
46:44
Dakota Governor Christy Nome. Now, Noam is somebody who I have cited many
46:50
times as having been really good on COVID, although I'm not sure she really
46:54
had a choice. There may be some reve in his history by herself on
47:00
what her true opinions were when when COVID broke, she eventually or very quickly
47:08
did become the anti COVID tyranny governor because South Dakota never had any e nom
47:15
aware of any restrictions at all due to COVID. But it may not have
47:21
been because of her. She may have been led by her populace rather than
47:24
vice versa, because some of the things I'm reading now and trying to refresh
47:30
my own recollection, is that the people of South Dakota basically said go fuck
47:34
yourself, and Nome said, Okay, yeah, that's what we're gonna do.
47:37
I'll be fucking myself now and we're not going to do any of this.
47:42
And in South Dakota, well, the media tried hard to find flaws
47:46
and what they did when you look at their stats, their stats are exactly
47:51
the same as North Dakota, which is obviously the neighboring state, and you
47:54
know, I mean, with very similar demographics, very obviously saying climate I
48:00
mean. And in North Dakota had some restrictions, in South Dakota had none.
48:06
So South Dakota did fine. But Christy Nome when she endorsed Donald Trump,
48:12
in a rational world, she would never be endorsing Donald Trump because Trump
48:16
was mister Covid tyranny, you know, on four days out of the week
48:21
and three days out of the week he pretended not to be He was throwing
48:23
everything against the wall, changing his position, constantly, getting played by doctor
48:29
Fauci and by the so called deep state and screwing us all. I mean,
48:35
because if Trump was going along with a restriction, then it basically made
48:38
it impossible politically for any Republican governor or anybody in a in a local community
48:45
to go against it, because obviously Trump is a cult leader. So I
48:50
mean, the idea that Trump didn't have any power here is just absurd.
48:52
He's controlling the belief system of at least thirty percent of the country at that
48:59
point, and these are the people that should have been the most ardently against
49:04
COVID tyranny, but because Trump was compromised, that did not happen. Anyway.
49:10
Noam gave an endorsement speech that was straight out of George Orwell's nineteen eighty
49:15
four where she just decided that we were just going to create our own history,
49:22
where you know, reality means nothing, We're just going to gaslight.
49:25
I'm going to pretend that Donald Trump was the hero I want him to be,
49:30
and I'm going to pretend that Ronda Santas either isn't in the race or
49:34
that somehow Ron de Santas was terrible on COVID because Florida didn't open up or
49:40
as quickly as South Dakota did, which is just insane because you have to
49:45
understand the political realities of your jurisdiction. In Florida, a very very purple
49:52
state at that time, which is a huge state, incredibly diverse where there's
49:57
a strong liberal media presence and there's a strong national liberal media interest. De
50:04
Santis was, he was. I made the analogy before that. You know,
50:07
Gnome was basically playing rookie league baseball in South Dakota with no liberal media,
50:14
no real liberals in her whole state, while Ronda Santis was in the
50:19
World fricking Series. And it's a completely different ball game. And eventually De
50:25
Santis got it right and he won the day. And now we're just going
50:30
to pretend that that didn't happen. And even Christy Nome when endorsing Donald Trump,
50:36
I mean, it is hard to imagine a more dramatic example of flat
50:40
out gas lighting and revisionist history than this. I even hesitate to play it,
50:45
but it's just so stunning I have to. So this is the governor
50:49
of South Dakota in an alternative universe, upside down universe, endorsing Donald Trump
50:54
for president, largely because of the COVID response. I haven't seen these other
51:06
candidates fight when it really mattered, when it was hard to do the right
51:09
thing for our country. Now, some of them talk pretty tough, but
51:14
where were they when the pandemic was raging when leaders were taking away people's constitutional
51:19
rights because the government told folks that they couldn't gather together. People lost their
51:23
freedom of assembly, because the government told people they couldn't go to church.
51:29
People lost their freedom of religion. Because governments censored what information could be shared
51:34
and what couldn't, people lost their freedom of speech. Where were these candidates
51:39
then? They were silent, They were cowering, or worse yet, they
51:45
were locking down their own people. They were pushing mandates, they were closing
51:49
beaches, even arresting people for taking a spring break. Now, yes,
51:53
I will be attacked for speaking the truth to all of you tonight. And
51:58
yes, I expect that Joe Biden, these candidates, their political operatives,
52:02
and the media will perpetuate ugly, hateful misinformation and an attempt to destroy me
52:07
and my family because of our opinions. It's nothing new, and frankly,
52:13
I'm getting pretty used to it now. To me, that's one of those
52:20
moments that goes down as a nail in the coffin for the Republican nominating process.
52:30
Look, I believe that most of these polls are largely true. I
52:35
don't believe all of them. I certainly don't believe that they're all accurate.
52:39
I think there's still a decent chance that the Santists is able to do better
52:44
than currently anticipated in Iowa, for instance, but that's not going to be
52:47
able to do it. The numbers and the polls are getting worse on a
52:52
daily basis. If you're a desantist person like I am, or if you
52:54
don't want Trump to be the nominee. But if you take away the polls
53:00
and you just look at the basic reality of the race, that wouldn't happen.
53:05
What you just heard would not happen in a race that Trump was gonna
53:12
lose or that the Santis was gonna win, And if it did happen,
53:16
there would be universal hell fire raining down on Gnome and Trump for flat out
53:23
lying and in the right wing media. And none of that really happened.
53:29
None of it. There was some outrage online of what the hell are we
53:31
talking about here, but nothing really happened because the right wing media is in
53:37
on the scam, they're in on the take, and they're taking the dive
53:42
again just like they did in twenty sixteen. So they'll let this go.
53:45
We're just going to pretend that this you know is the new reality. The
53:51
twenty twenty really didn't happen. It was just a figment of your imagination.
53:54
And now we're just going to rewrite history in whatever way benefits us most.
54:00
Even when at the very same time, I think it was the same day
54:04
or it was within twenty four hours of Noam doing this, there was the
54:08
release of a letter the Trump administration sent to Ronda Santis and Florida in January
54:16
of twenty twenty one, after the election, but before Biden was inaugurated,
54:24
and we were in the midst of what was clearly a new spike in COVID
54:30
cases. Most people don't understand that. You know that that area era was
54:36
actually pretty bad for COVID, And so there was a letter sent from the
54:43
Trump administration to De Santis urging, strongly urging Florida to lock down and do
54:52
things like force masking. This is in January of twenty twenty one, just
55:00
before Trump left office, when he on the last day gave an award to
55:04
doctor Fauci. So this is a guy who still had not learned anything in
55:09
January of twenty twenty one, telling De Santis to lock down and force masking
55:16
on the populace of Florida in order to endure a new COVID surge. And
55:23
this is the guy that Christy Gnome is pretending was the anti COVID tyranny hero
55:30
and that nobody else running showed any courage. Well, De Santis didn't listen
55:37
to Trump. De Santis said, go pound sand We're doing our own thing
55:42
here in Florida, and everything's going fine, and none of these restrictions work
55:46
because at that point, to Santis had already figured it out, because he's
55:50
a smart guy, and he understands data and logic, and he has better
55:54
advisors than Trump had, and he's using common sense, and he's looking at
56:00
places like Sweden and probably South Dakota and yes, even Georgia. Now,
56:07
speaking of Georgia, it's really kind of amazing. You know, Brian Kemp
56:10
deserves a lot of credit for being one of the few Republicans willing to stand
56:15
up to Trump in every which way. I don't know whether or not it
56:17
was GNOME's endorsement that induced this this particular tweet. The timing of it is
56:25
consistent with that, because Brian Kemp, the governor of Georgia, put out
56:30
a tweet where he is quote tweeting that video that we talked about in this
56:37
podcast previously that I referenced earlier on in my commentary, where Trump did a
56:43
video where he's saying to every COVID COVID tyrant who wants to take away our
56:47
freedom, hear these words, we will not comply, like he's the freedom
56:52
fighter. And that was, you know, a pretty old video by modern
56:59
standards by the time that Kemp decided to tweet about it. So I'm thinking
57:02
that maybe the NOME endorsement provoked this. I don't know, but this is
57:07
a pretty darn good post by Brian Kemp. So he quotes, tweet,
57:12
quote tweets the ridiculous statement by Trump pretending to be a COVID freedom fighter,
57:17
and he writes the fact is former President Trump led the opposition to my decision
57:25
to reopen Georgia, the first state in the country to do so. While
57:30
he listened to Fauci and parrotied media talking points, I listened to hard working
57:37
Georgians. He may not remember, but I sure as hell do good For
57:45
Brian Kemp. I wish the Santists would show a little more gumption like that,
57:51
because it's the truth and It's an incredibly significant truth, and in theory
57:57
it ought to help the Santists politically, but we've learned long ago that this
58:01
is not the path that the Santa's campaign has chosen to take, which I
58:07
think is going to be seen as a big mistake. I believe that COVID
58:10
had to have been a paramount part of any campaign against Trump, and you
58:15
needed to effectively do what you did in Florida, which is to convince the
58:21
Republican electorate that you were right. And instead of the liberal media being wrong
58:25
and Faucci being wrong, you had to convince people that Trump was wrong.
58:30
And saying I would fire Fauci isn't gonna do it, because, as I
58:35
said before, and I was surprised by this, but it's now very obvious
58:39
when you blame Fauci to Republicans, it actually gives Trump an out. It
58:45
doesn't make them blame Trump and actually gives Trump an out. And now he
58:51
gets an out by blaming Fauci, and he's got Christy Nome endorsing him because
58:55
of his his fighting of COVID tyranny. It's just you have to laugh,
59:01
because otherwise you're going to cry. It's just so batshit crazy and on an
59:08
anecdotal stand From an antidotal standpoint, another reason why I have been so downcast
59:15
and despondent about the chances of the Santists winning the nomination against Trump and how
59:23
ineffective his leadership in COVID has been with regard to his political prospects. I
59:30
mean, he should be rewarded for this. I've made the analogy before that
59:34
it's a bit like Great Britain getting rid of Winston Churchill after he won World
59:37
War Two. Well, we don't need him anymore, so screw you,
59:40
old man. Although he did come back eventually before he died as was Prime
59:45
Minister again. But it's a very similar scenario, and I posited that way
59:51
before things started to get very bad. I was worried that we might be
59:54
seeing the Santist suffering from the Winston Churchill phenomenon. Now that allegedly COVID has
1:00:01
gone, although it's not gone, the media is talking about it constantly.
1:00:05
There's there are places where there's still things happening that are absolutely insane, including
1:00:10
here in southern California. You would think that that would at least get people
1:00:15
to start remembering what really happened or it would play into the Santis's hands.
1:00:20
It is not, but from an aadultal perspective, and I've referenced this before,
1:00:23
but I wanted to add to it. And it sounds insane to be
1:00:28
using one person as a focus group when it came to the Trump to Santis
1:00:32
battle. But I gotta tell you the person that's probably had the most impact
1:00:38
on my view that this was a hopeless cause and probably why I tried to
1:00:45
convince my friend Steve Cortez to stay with Donald Trump and not join team to
1:00:50
Santis is because of Lizabeb, my former co host on this podcast and my
1:00:55
co host on the With the Benefit of Hindsight pod cast, and my long
1:01:00
ago co anchor on the NBC Local News and Steubenville, Ohio, Wheeling,
1:01:06
West Virginias. And when I've known for over thirty years, you know,
1:01:08
Liz is somebody who I've known forever. I convinced her that Jerry Sandusky is
1:01:13
innocent, which is impossible to do the most hated man in America. I'm
1:01:17
convinced to do all sorts of other things that are probably against her her self
1:01:22
interest. You know, we've had our battles but we've always respected each other.
1:01:25
She respects the hell out of my political opinions, my knowledge of these
1:01:32
issues. I've been right to her many many times. He has all the
1:01:37
reason in the world to find me to be a credible person. Here I
1:01:42
am telling her that de Santis is clearly the choice over Trump. During COVID,
1:01:49
she escaped to Florida, where much of her family lives. She reveled
1:01:55
in the freedom that Florida gave her instead of living here in California. And
1:02:01
so you would think given everything I just told you, I mean, she's
1:02:05
a smart person, she's a conservative, she hated the COVID tyranny, She
1:02:09
trusts me, she fled to Florida. This is a person who ought to
1:02:15
be, you know, basically a grade A first level to Santa's supporter.
1:02:22
And she's not, as far as I can tell, She's on Team Trump.
1:02:29
And I'm just like, Okay, if, if, if I,
1:02:32
even under these circumstances, I can't convince Liza Bibe to be on Team to
1:02:38
Santa's instead of Team Trump, then what the hell hope is there? And
1:02:44
by the way, part of the reason I'm mentioning this is we had a
1:02:47
guest on this podcast many months ago named Brittany Hopper, who has almost the
1:02:52
identical background of Lizabe Los Angeles news personality, seemingly lost her gig partially because
1:03:00
of her conservative views. She and I even talked about her becoming the new
1:03:05
co host on this podcast, but we could never make it work logistically.
1:03:07
Well, I just found out she's moved. Where did she move to,
1:03:12
at least temporarily Florida because she wanted to get out of California, and you
1:03:17
know, Florida looked like the place to go because largely of Rhonda Santis.
1:03:24
And I'm pretty sure she's still on Team Trump because I asked her when I
1:03:29
found out that she moved to Florida, so you're on Team Trump now,
1:03:32
aren't you? Or something like that. You know, I made a comment
1:03:36
like, you don't tell me you're on Team Trump even after you moved to
1:03:40
Florida because of the Santis. And she didn't respond to that. And I
1:03:44
know that she previously has been on Team Trump. So the non response was
1:03:49
very very telling to me. And so I'm thinking, my god, now
1:03:52
we don't don't have nearly the relationship with Brittany Hoppers as I do with Liz,
1:03:55
but you know, almost identical situations where people who have fled to Florida
1:04:02
to enjoy the Florida that has been created largely by Ron De Santa's even they
1:04:11
and there, and both of them very anti COVID tyranny, probably brittany more
1:04:15
so than Liz. I mean, Liz's father died with and of COVID,
1:04:18
so I mean that was a mitigating factor for Liz, and very much to
1:04:23
her credit, she never let it impact her her views of how we should
1:04:28
handle the virus, but it was. It just remarkable to me that both
1:04:31
of these people whom I respect to are smart, people who I alleged least
1:04:36
at least have some influence over, are almost perfectly designed to be De Santa's
1:04:44
supporters are still with Trump as far as I can tell, and that to
1:04:47
me is incredibly telling, incredibly telling, and maybe more so than any of
1:04:55
these ridiculous polls that I see on a daily basis that are unbelievably depressing.
1:05:00
Now, on the not depressing side, because you've got to take the victories
1:05:02
when they come, and they're very rare. There was a victory in court
1:05:08
when it came to free speech and the issue of COVID censorship. The Washington
1:05:13
Post, I'm sure begrudgingly reported the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled Friday that
1:05:19
the Biden White House, top government health officials, and the FBI likely violated
1:05:27
the First Amendment by improperly influencing tech company's decisions to remove or suppress posts on
1:05:34
COVID nineteen. This would be mostly to do with the vaccines, not in
1:05:40
total. There were masks posts and vaccine posts, and of course, you
1:05:45
know the way that the liberal media has tried to spin this, or that
1:05:49
the Washington Post didn't in the headline that I just read to you to their
1:05:54
credit, but the New York Times and others tried to spin this as the
1:06:00
US Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals sticking up for misinformation. That's the way they're
1:06:05
spinning this, that it's okay to post misinformation, that that you know,
1:06:12
that's the First Amendment right, and that the government can't get tech companies to
1:06:16
suppress or censor misinformation, even about a COVID emergency. But that's not what
1:06:23
this was. Many of these posts were totally true about vaccines not stopping transmission,
1:06:31
about masks not working, what have you. Those were truthful posts that
1:06:38
the United States government coerced tech companies in the censoring and the and the you
1:06:45
know, the Court of Appeals, the Fifth Circuit US Court of Appeals ruled
1:06:48
that that was a violation of the First Amendment. But the New York Times
1:06:53
wrote, and this is Stephen Lee Myers. He wrote about this decision,
1:06:58
saying a federal appeals court ruled that the Biden administration most likely overstepped the First
1:07:04
Amendment by urging the major social media platforms to remove misleading or false content about
1:07:14
the COVID nineteen pandemic, partly upholding a lower court's preliminary injunction in a victory
1:07:21
for conservatives. What a load of bullshit this is. This was not There's
1:07:29
nothing in this ruling about protecting misleading and false content, or at least shot
1:07:33
I shouldn't say, that's not the primary essence of this ruling, because there
1:07:40
were many posts that were not false or misleading. They were true. And
1:07:45
the idea that this is a victory just for conservatives is insane. This is
1:07:48
a victory for anyone who cares about free speech and the government not infringing upon
1:07:54
our First Amendment rights, not to mention the truth when it came to COVID
1:07:59
and the issue of the vaccines not stopping transmission and masks not working. Stephen
1:08:06
Lee Myers of The New York Times continued, the ruling by a three judge
1:08:10
panel of the US Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit in New Orleans was
1:08:15
another twist in a First Amendment case that has challenged the government's ability to combat
1:08:21
false and misleading narratives about the pandemic, voting rights, and other issues that
1:08:29
spread social media. So there it is again, folks, nothing to see
1:08:33
here. This is actually a victory for false and misleading information. Bullshit.
1:08:40
That's not what this was. But that's what the New York Times and other
1:08:44
major media outlets want you to believe that it was about. Because they were
1:08:47
wrong, they were duped, and these things became sacred narratives, religious narratives
1:08:56
that the United States government used influence over tech companies to suppress and censor.
1:09:03
And thankfully the Fifth Circuit stepped in and said no, this is a violation
1:09:10
of the First Amendment, and thank goodness for that. So it's a rare
1:09:15
court victory here. Part of the problem though, with our court system,
1:09:20
and we see this in other ways. In fact, I think we're going
1:09:24
to see it in the New Mexico situation with gun rights, which I'll get
1:09:28
you momentarily, is that the court system takes so long that by the time
1:09:33
these rulings come down, the damage has already been done. I mean,
1:09:38
these decisions were already made, public opinion was already shaped. Those that were
1:09:43
trying to force the vaccine down almost literally the throats of our children, specifically
1:09:47
here in California, where we barely dodged that bullet. I mean, that
1:09:54
was going to be a massive issue. If kids were forced to take the
1:09:57
vaccine to go to public schools, might have caused my wife and I to
1:10:00
get a divorce. I'm being sincere about that because I don't know what our
1:10:03
other options would have been. I mean, this was a huge deal that
1:10:08
had a stunted public debate, in large part because of suppression and censorship urged
1:10:15
by the United States government on tech companies, and so these things have massive
1:10:23
randomfications, and by the time the court step in, it's often too late.
1:10:28
Now. Also on the positive fronts, as I'm always looking for optimistic
1:10:32
information or news, something to feel remotely good about, I have to say
1:10:38
that the United States Open tennis tournament ended in the most delicious way possible if
1:10:45
you're someone who's a COVID contrarian, anti COVID tyranny person like myself, because
1:10:49
Novak Djokovic, who has been barred by the United States government from playing in
1:10:55
the past two United States Open Championships, which is just insane. I mean,
1:11:00
it's totally ridiculous. The fact that the Biden administration went into a mid
1:11:03
term election barring the number one tennis player in the world from playing in the
1:11:09
United States Open and got no political blowback for that because he refused to take
1:11:15
a vaccine that he didn't need that was a potential harm to him for a
1:11:20
virus that had no impact on him as an elite professional athlete. Is as
1:11:27
mind blowing as it gets. And the media is one hundred percent to blame
1:11:30
for that because they have just ignored the no vac joke of its story pretended
1:11:35
it didn't happen. They did it again the last two weeks, where they
1:11:40
barely ever mentioned. In fact, I'm not sure they ever did mention specifically
1:11:45
why he's missed the last two US Opens. Is the number one player in
1:11:49
the world, potentially the best player that's ever played the game, and here
1:11:53
he was going to try to set the record, tie the record for all
1:11:56
time major championships among men or women with his twenty fourth victory. Well,
1:12:02
despite you know, being treated incredibly poorly by the US government, getting no
1:12:08
support by the US Open, which is at least partially sponsored by Maderna,
1:12:13
and no support from the tennis establishment except maybe a little bit from John McEnroe,
1:12:18
Novak Djokovic rolled to victory, and he won his twenty fourth major title,
1:12:24
won the US Open, showed an incredible class throughout the whole thing.
1:12:28
I mean, my god, if I had ever had the opportunity to tell
1:12:31
people to go stick it like Novak Djokovic did with winning this US Open,
1:12:38
I would never have had the class that he did. I don't know that
1:12:41
anyone would have had the class that he did. And instead of making about
1:12:44
it about himself and his retribution to use a trump word, or his vengeance,
1:12:49
he actually made it about Kobe Bryant. He wore a T shirt honoring
1:12:55
the deceased Kobe Bryant, Thest. Los Angeles Lakers basketball ledge and who wore
1:13:00
number twenty four through part of his career, and since this was the twenty
1:13:03
fourth major championship of Novak Djokovic's career, that was a really nice touch.
1:13:10
People seemed to really like that. But it was particularly bizarre and ironic and
1:13:15
just sweet, in my opinion, that right after Djokovic won, of course,
1:13:21
they make no mention of, you know, the amazing story of having
1:13:25
been banned from this tournament for the last two years because he made a prudent,
1:13:29
private medical decision, which liberals used to be very much in favor of
1:13:33
defending. But instead of that, they right after the match was over,
1:13:40
ESPN did there. I could not believe this actually happened. They did their
1:13:46
Maderna Shot of the Day. Maderna, one of the largest makers of the
1:13:55
COVID vaccines, the Maderna Shot of the Day, which, by the way,
1:14:00
I don't even know how the marketing geniuses at Maderna thought that that was
1:14:04
a good idea to make that their promotion, the shot of the day from
1:14:10
Maderna, I honestly don't know. Was that a play on a vaccine shot
1:14:15
or was that just you know, a weirdness that kind of got through anyone
1:14:20
thinking about it. I honestly don't know, because that's that's weird to begin
1:14:25
with, that Maderna would even consider sponsoring something called the shot obviously the double
1:14:32
meaning there the shot of the day. But the shot of the day,
1:14:35
of course, was Novak Djokovic winning the US Open. So here you have
1:14:42
a guy who has been banned for the last two US Opens for no goddamn
1:14:47
reason because he refused to take a vaccine shot that he didn't need. He
1:14:53
wins the US Open and seconds later the Maderna Shot of the day is no
1:15:00
Djokovic winning the US Open, and not a hint of irony or recognition from
1:15:06
many of the ESPN announcers. I actually tweeted out the video that I took
1:15:13
of my own television set of this happening because I was in such shock and
1:15:18
it for for my uh, you know, normal tweet standards. It went
1:15:24
viral with the night of the of Djokovic winning. It had been seen by
1:15:30
one hundred and fifty thousand, not people, but at one hundred and fifty
1:15:34
thousand views, over three thousand likes, almost a thousand retweets or reposts,
1:15:42
you know, and many other people had noticed the same thing. And it
1:15:45
also tweeted it out. I mean, this is you just can't make this
1:15:49
shit up. You literally cannot make this shit up. Where but the madernast
1:15:56
shot of the day, the guy who did not take the vaccine and was
1:16:00
banned for two years winning the US Open, tying the all time record among
1:16:04
men and women for most major championships. So maybe, just maybe, And
1:16:09
by the way, that's partially why the tweet when semi viral was because I
1:16:15
think it not wasn't just funny and ironic. It was, you know,
1:16:19
karma. It was a victory for the good guys that this was one of
1:16:25
those very rare situations where everything actually turned out pretty darn well. When let's
1:16:31
never forget when it came to vaccine mandates, there were very prominent elements of
1:16:38
the left, especially in the media, that wanted to destroy people, not
1:16:44
just chide, not just criticize, destroy the lives of people because they refused
1:16:51
to get the shot, and they tried to use Novak Djokovic as an example.
1:16:57
That's what really was driving this. We're not even gonna let them into
1:17:00
the country legally, even the best tennis player in the world, he's not
1:17:04
gonna be able to play in the US Open because we're going to use him
1:17:08
as an example. That's why he got deported from Australia the year before last
1:17:13
year. And then you know, at the beginning of twenty twenty two,
1:17:18
because now at that point everyone had to get vaccinated, and Australia said,
1:17:23
you're not vaccinated, you're not you know, they literally said in Australia that
1:17:27
we're making Djokovic an example because we don't want people to get the idea that
1:17:31
it's okay to not be vaccinated. These people were wrong about this. They
1:17:36
were wrong, and they didn't They weren't just wrong from an intellectual standpoint.
1:17:42
They went for the kill. They went for the kill on this. They
1:17:46
put all their chips down on this, and they were wrong, and no
1:17:49
one has ever forced them to pay up. They've lost very little accountability.
1:17:57
They've never admitted they were wrong. They've never paid any real price, and
1:18:01
it's just incredibly frustrating. Now. The Djokovic situation was not the only piece
1:18:08
of hilarity and insanity that ensued at the US Open tennis tourment Coco Goff,
1:18:14
who ended up winning the women's side an American great story. There were a
1:18:18
couple of things that happened with her in her semifinal match, and this is
1:18:24
it's amazing the things that now happened, and we just pretend they never did.
1:18:27
Let's move on. Nothing to see here. We're not going to really
1:18:30
worry about this. Her semifinal match was delayed in the middle of it for
1:18:36
fifty minutes. Play was stopped. They had to go back into the lockers,
1:18:42
locker rooms, come back out, rewarm up. Fifteen minute delay fifteen
1:18:48
minutes. Why not not because of some sort of weather situation. How they
1:18:53
got a roof now at the US opens so they don't have to worry about
1:18:56
weather. There was nothing unusual happening on the court because three environmental wackos did
1:19:03
a protest in the stands and one of them glued their feet to the concrete
1:19:12
in the stadium, so they couldn't remove them from the audience. And I
1:19:18
guess because they were afraid of hurting the person who had glued their feet to
1:19:24
the concrete. It took fifty minutes for the authorities to take care of the
1:19:30
situation. And during this fifty minute delay, I mean, for most of
1:19:34
an ESPN was just like, we have no idea what's going on, boy,
1:19:38
this is odd. You know, well, let's talk about something else.
1:19:42
No outrage, no what the hell's going on? No anger. And
1:19:45
then when they found out that these people were environmentalist wackos, that was mentioned
1:19:49
a couple of times, but without any anger at all. There was no
1:19:55
no real criticism of these people. I kept thinking, can you imagine if
1:20:01
the protest subject was something that was clearly conservative or clearly politically incorrect. Let's
1:20:09
say it's against the vaccines, right with Maderna co spots or in the US
1:20:15
Open. If this had been an anti vaccine demonstration, all hell would have
1:20:20
been made to pay. There would have been outraged galore, the ESPN never
1:20:25
would have stopped talking about it, and there probably would have been no hesitation
1:20:30
to rip the person's feet from the concrete because there would have been no sympathy
1:20:34
in the media or in the very liberal New York City tennis crowd for how
1:20:41
to handle these these cretans for what they're doing. But because they are environmentalist
1:20:45
whack jobs, somehow, we're you know, we're not going to make a
1:20:48
big deal out of it. It's just the you know, the second biggest
1:20:51
women's tournament match in the United States, all year long. The US Open
1:20:56
semifinals, We're just gonna have a fifty minute delay and pretend it never really
1:21:00
happened, with no real anger, very little explanation, and unfortunately, I
1:21:04
think this is going to be the norm going forward. I mean, if
1:21:08
one person can create a fifty minute delay and a major sporting event simply by
1:21:14
doing that, I mean, that's a can of worms. That is a
1:21:16
very very dangerous precedent. But of course we don't give a shit about that,
1:21:20
because you know, it's all about what Matt, what's going to be
1:21:24
politically correct or fit our agenda, our narrative at that particular moment. We
1:21:28
don't care about what ramifications or repercussions are going to happen to the future.
1:21:32
Finally, one last thing on the US Open. I gotta give kudos to
1:21:36
Tony Dungee, who's an NBC NFL football commentator, former NFL Super Bowl winning
1:21:44
head coach, very well respected guy. And you know, I'm not a
1:21:50
huge fan, but I was really respectful of what he did here because ESPN
1:21:57
tweeted a video of Coco Golf after she won the US Open, and she
1:22:04
was clearly praying, and the tweet said Coco Golf taking it all in after
1:22:13
winning the US Open, and Tony Dungee quote tweeted that and basically castigated ESPN
1:22:19
for not having the balls to acknowledge what she was actually doing. Now,
1:22:25
now, Tony Dungee is a religious person and so and I think he knows
1:22:30
he asked the street cred and the PC protection being a black celebrity that you
1:22:38
know, he's not going to get canceled over this. So he decided to
1:22:41
hold ESPN accountable for being afraid to acknowledge the Coco Golf was praying. I'm
1:22:47
not a religious person myself, but I respect the courage that Tony Dungee showed
1:22:51
to correct ESPN. And so you know, when it comes to where my
1:22:58
loyalties are gonna lie on this, and I'm always going to be anti ESPN.
1:23:00
Anyone who takes on ESPN in a correct and substance of manner, I'm
1:23:04
always going to applaud. So good job, Tony Dungee. There. I
1:23:09
mentioned earlier that there are COVID restrictions that are still happening. There are some
1:23:15
places that have mask mandates, some schools that have missed school, which is
1:23:20
stunning to me because I'm still completely baffled as to what this alleged COVID surge
1:23:27
is based on. Now. I mean, my father currently has COVID.
1:23:30
He's eighty two years old. He's perfectly fine, you know. So I
1:23:34
in my personal life, I have noticed that a few more people are getting
1:23:39
COVID or getting sick. We might have even had a COVID outbreak in our
1:23:43
own house. But when you look at the national statistics, there's just nothing
1:23:47
at all to substantiate this. Now that might be partially because we're not testing
1:23:51
nearly as much, but still the numbers are just nowhere near any kind of
1:23:59
level that would make people go, oh, here we go again. It's
1:24:01
just not even close. And so most of this is a media fabrication.
1:24:05
But media fabrications have impact, especially in the liberal world, and this is
1:24:11
an example. And I'm sure this is not isolated, but it just happened
1:24:15
to occur here very near where I live in southern California, in Ventura County.
1:24:18
We had a local high school football team, Santa Santa paul At High
1:24:23
School, cancel a high school football game because of a COVID outbreak. In
1:24:30
September of twenty twenty three, and I guarantee now one of those kids had
1:24:36
anything more than a cold, and that before COVID, there's not a chance
1:24:42
in the world anyone would even have thought about canceling the game. And there
1:24:46
probably wouldn't even any thought of any of those kids who got tested clearly,
1:24:51
which is the big problem, and tested positive for COVID. There would have
1:24:56
been no speculation at all, even in this wise world in which we now
1:25:00
live in, of any of those kids actually missing the game, because you
1:25:03
only get ten shots of this per year. If you make the playoffs,
1:25:09
you might get eleven or twelve, but you're only supposedly assured. You used
1:25:13
to be assured of ten games. If it's your senior year in high school.
1:25:17
You get ten games in high school. You work your whole life,
1:25:21
and for ninety nine percent of the kids, this is the last time they
1:25:24
were gonna play football. You get ten shots at this. It's not like
1:25:28
basketball, where you play twenty five games or baseballs some similar number. You
1:25:31
get ten games. And this local high school, in a fairly conservative area
1:25:38
of our county canceled the entire game and varsity JV the whole bit. No
1:25:45
way, there's no way to make that up because you only you get ten
1:25:48
weeks, there's no buy weeks, and you can only play one game a
1:25:53
week basically in football, so that game is lost forever, all because I'm
1:25:59
sure some academic who is a covid idiot is paying attention to the news and
1:26:04
all these stories about the COVID spread, and that's a permission slip to go
1:26:09
back to twenty twenty one or twenty twenty two. And this is why it's
1:26:14
never gonna end in certain areas. And this goes back to this whole concept
1:26:18
that I've talked a lot about of cancelation nation where and this goes to the
1:26:24
truancy issue I discussed in the last episode of the podcast, where the standards
1:26:28
are now unbelievably lower than they used to be for canceling things or for skipping
1:26:34
school. And I should have mentioned when I talked about the truancy problem in
1:26:39
education that some of this is hypochondria where and it's some of it's somewhat understandable
1:26:45
where people are confused as to whether or not they're even allowed to send their
1:26:49
kids to school in this post COVID era, because if you've got a you
1:26:54
know, stuffy nose, or a cough or whatever. People are gonna think
1:26:58
you have COVID, which is nothing more than a cold now, especially among
1:27:01
young, healthy people at worst, which used to not be a big deal,
1:27:06
but now all of a sudden, you might get in trouble for that.
1:27:09
You might get sent home, you might get suspended until you test negative.
1:27:14
So there's all sorts of things that have never been part of the equation
1:27:17
before and are not healthy. And this gets into the subconscious and the people
1:27:26
making the decisions and pulling the trigger on cancelation now has never been easier.
1:27:32
And sometimes it's because they want to cancel for personal reasons, maybe political reasons,
1:27:38
maybe they don't like football, because I do believe football is under attack
1:27:42
in this country in a lot of ways. But they're all sorts of reasons,
1:27:45
and that COVID gives an excuse to and we're still seeing it now,
1:27:50
even in the fall of twenty twenty three. And you would think, if
1:27:55
Republicans hadn't lost their minds, that this would actually at least somewhat help the
1:28:00
into Santa's campaign, but there's no evidence of that whatsoever. Spiting of football,
1:28:04
I have to at least mention a couple of things going on in college
1:28:08
football, specifically what is going on at Michigan State University, where it appears
1:28:14
as if their head coach Mel Tucker is about to get fired. As of
1:28:17
this taping, he has been suspended. There have been some reports that he's
1:28:21
going to be fired. And I don't like Mel Tucker. I think he
1:28:26
got a ridiculously lucrative contract at Michigan State because he won a couple of games
1:28:33
that maybe he shouldn't have, and because he looks like every Liberals dream football
1:28:40
coach. He's a very big, husky black man, and he just kind
1:28:44
of fit that. He looks like, you know, a movie character in
1:28:47
the Liberals mindset of what a college football coach ought to be in twenty twenty
1:28:53
three, and so he got this long term, very lucrative contract that he
1:28:58
did not deserve. I've heard some things about him from people who are very
1:29:02
close to the Michigan State situation that are not good. So I am loath
1:29:08
to defend him, and I'm not going to defend him, but I'm going
1:29:12
to talk about the media reaction to what's going on with him, Basically,
1:29:15
the reason why it appears as if he's going to be fired or may already
1:29:18
be fired by the time you hear this podcast, and he's at least been
1:29:24
suspended. Is that as a married man, he apparently as admitted to having
1:29:30
phone sex with a woman who did not consent to this, And the biggest
1:29:35
problem for him is that the woman who did not consent to this is a
1:29:41
very well known sex abuse expert. In fact, that's how Coach Tucker met
1:29:46
her, was that she spoke to the team basically about, you know,
1:29:50
not abusing women. That's her job. She was a rape victim herself,
1:29:57
and she's become very well known in this world, and she's as public speaker
1:30:01
and tries to I think, basically teach kids to avoid bad situations and to
1:30:09
properly treat women, which is perfectly fine. Well, apparently, as a
1:30:13
married man, mel Tucker came on to her very strongly, and how the
1:30:16
hell you have non consensual phone sex? I honestly don't know. All of
1:30:24
it sounds incredibly stupid, very inappropriate. I don't know whether or not that
1:30:28
alone should rise to the level of a fireball offense. There are those who
1:30:31
believe that Michigan State may want to get out of that ridiculous contract that I
1:30:35
told you about, and that they may use this to do so, and
1:30:39
that's certainly possible. That's a large part of how the game is played.
1:30:42
But the part about this that I find most interesting from the media element,
1:30:46
is that here's a media darling. Mel Tucker, until last week was a
1:30:51
media darling. And by the way, that the team is two and oh
1:30:54
they haven't played anyone yet but for all intensive purposes, but you know,
1:30:58
they won their first two games, and you know, largely because he's a
1:31:01
black man, he's a media darling. And now all of a sudden,
1:31:05
based upon one report in USA Today which the university is claiming it didn't even
1:31:11
know about that They knew that there was a complaint file, but they didn't
1:31:15
know the details of it until somehow it got into USA today, and that
1:31:18
that's why they're suspending Tucker. That the fact that he would go from a
1:31:24
media darling to calls for his immediate firing all based upon the written word of
1:31:31
a person who very well may be telling the full truth that she did not
1:31:35
consent to the phone sex. That's certainly possible, but can we at least
1:31:41
acknowledge that this woman's entire identity is wrapped up in the issue of sex abuse,
1:31:48
and that if she wanted to seek revenge on somebody maybe for leading her
1:31:54
on or you know, not leaving his wife for her. I mean,
1:31:58
this is all speculation on them all my part, but it's all theoretically possible
1:32:01
that this kind of a person would know exactly how to play the game,
1:32:05
exactly what put what buttons to push, especially with an academic institution like Michigan
1:32:12
State that already has gone through the whole Gymnastics has scandaled, you know,
1:32:19
with the sex abuse there, with the doctor who was employed both by US
1:32:24
Gymnastics and by Michigan State and so and then of course all the other Big
1:32:30
ten problems that began at Penn State and Ohio State wrestling at Michigan and Northwestern
1:32:35
hazing. I mean, this is a conference wide contagion and every single situation
1:32:42
these schools have paid out big, big money to abuse victims. And like
1:32:46
in the Penn State cases, we proved and with the benefit of hindsight,
1:32:49
those people were not telling the truth. They weren't even vetted. They were
1:32:53
just given million dollar checks, multi multimillion dollar checks because they wanted the whole
1:32:58
story to go away. So I'm not saying that that's what's happening here,
1:33:01
But the idea that we can go from media darling to you ought to be
1:33:05
fired instantaneously, even when the person involved here does theoretically have an incentive and
1:33:16
the ability to make it happen. That would not be consistent with Tucker being
1:33:24
totally guilty here. I mean, this is her whole existence. I'm not
1:33:29
saying that's what happened. I'm saying that her identity, which ironically plays right
1:33:33
into the media's narrative, Oh my god, she couldn't possibly be lying.
1:33:38
She's a rape victim herself, and this is her area of expertise. Well,
1:33:42
if you use your brain for a second, there's a scenario where this
1:33:46
works in exactly the opposite direction. Again, I'm not saying that that's what
1:33:49
happened here. I'm saying that could we not hold our horses just a little
1:33:54
bit, And the fact that this came out right in the middle of football
1:33:59
season, which would make him, you know, the most vulnerable in theory,
1:34:01
because as soon as you're suspended during the season as a football coach,
1:34:06
and who knows how long that's going to go on for the investigation. You're
1:34:12
basically neutered. I mean, you can't recruit everyone thinks you're gonna get fired
1:34:17
in any moment. I mean, it's almost impossible to recover from that,
1:34:23
even if they come back and go after further investigation. We've decided that coach
1:34:27
Tucker can stay. I just don't see how that could possibly work. And
1:34:30
so I don't like the guy. I've heard bad things about him. I
1:34:35
think he's gonna get fired. I'm just not real comfortable with the way the
1:34:41
news media has handled this particular situation, given the specifics of it and the
1:34:45
potential underlying the potential for this he said, she said situation to be misconstrued.
1:34:55
I'm not defending what he did because he's already admitted engaging in phone sex
1:35:00
of the woman, not his wife, which is bad enough given his position
1:35:04
at the university. Speaking of college football, I did talk in the last
1:35:08
episode about the Dion Sanders phenomenon and how the news media and sports media is
1:35:13
jumping all over this, and boy, we haven't seen anything yet. Now
1:35:15
that Colorado has won their second game, this time over Nebraska, which is,
1:35:20
unfortunately for Nebraska fans, just a terrible team. So I'm not sure
1:35:25
that it really tells us very much about Colorado. But now that they're two
1:35:28
and oh, the media is all in on Coach Prime next week Fox,
1:35:33
This coming week, Fox and ESPN are taking both of their pregame shows to
1:35:40
Colorado because they just all want a piece of Coach Brime. And I don't
1:35:45
blame him, because Coach Prime is an amazing story. I love it myself.
1:35:47
I've praised Dion Sanders for what he's doing, and his old school philosophy
1:35:53
is tough love philosophy. I hope he's successful, he's entertaining his Heck,
1:35:58
I totally understand why the ratings involving him are very good. He's a massive
1:36:02
celebrity. I'm still not convinced that Colorado is the real deal, though,
1:36:09
I'm really not. And then it'll probably beat Colorado State this weekend because Colorado
1:36:13
State is usually not I mean, they're a decent team, but it's a
1:36:16
rivalry game. But generally Colorado ought to be able to beat Colorado State in
1:36:20
any particular year where Colorado is halfway decent, So I'm gonna expect them to
1:36:25
go three and Ozero and the media hysteria to continue. But I'm not one
1:36:29
hundred percent convinced yet until they play somebody who's a legitimate opponent that this whole
1:36:33
thing is real. But there's no question that the whole coach prime phenomenon has
1:36:40
taken over college football, and then it may change the game for a long
1:36:44
time to come. And I'll tell you what the essence of Dion Sanders appeal
1:36:48
is, what I think his genius is. And this is something you will
1:36:54
not hear anywhere else because no one else will have the guts or the stupidity
1:36:58
to articulate this. But the real reason, the number one reason, is
1:37:02
Deon's celebrity and charisma. Okay, let's be clear about that, man,
1:37:05
because that those are off the charts, and celebrity and charisma are everything,
1:37:10
especially with young people today. But one of by far the most underlooked,
1:37:15
underrated, under disgust elements of Deon Sanders magic is that Deon Sanders understands race
1:37:25
relations, or healthy race relations, better than anybody else I've seen. In
1:37:30
his position, Deon Sanders can appeal to both black people and white people in
1:37:38
unique ways. He can connect with the young black athlete in a way that
1:37:43
is off the charts, that no other college football coach or even pro football
1:37:47
coach can even dream of doing without offending white people. It's a remarkable ability.
1:37:58
It's almost magic. And I think more black leaders could learn from Dion
1:38:02
Sanders because he clearly understands that most white people will gravitate to a black leader
1:38:13
as long as they don't feel as if he's going to play the race card
1:38:16
on them at any given moment, that this isn't all about black and white,
1:38:21
and that he's not gonna try to destroy you with his race. And
1:38:27
Deon does a tremendous job about that of that. By the way, Dion
1:38:31
also partly because of his persona, he gets away with this, going back
1:38:35
to the Coco golf issue. He talks about God and Jesus all the time,
1:38:41
which obviously is going to appeal to a lot of white people, especially
1:38:45
in the South. But and so that to me is the key to understanding
1:38:49
Dion's popularity, being able to bridge the racial divide in a way that very
1:38:56
very few big celebrities are able to do in this day and age, and
1:39:01
it's I think it's a key part of his appeal and how he could be
1:39:06
very very successful. I mean, my God, it. How are you
1:39:10
going to recruit against Dion Sanders if this thing turns out anything close to the
1:39:14
way it currently looks like it might. I mean, with all the charisma,
1:39:18
all the celebrity, the nil money that Colorado will have flooding in because
1:39:23
of Deon Sanders, all the TV attention you're going to get if Deon Sanders
1:39:27
decides to stay at Colorado and it continues to go in this direction, look
1:39:32
out. And it's kind of ironic to me that a couple of years ago
1:39:35
he started doing TV commercials for Afflack with Alabama's legendary head coach, Nick Saban,
1:39:42
because it looks to me like Nick Saban's head in the other direction.
1:39:45
And Nick Saban may regret doing those those Afflack commercials and elevating Deon Sanders.
1:39:51
I mean, he didn't elevate him from a celebrity standpoint, but I think
1:39:54
he subconsciously he elevated him from a coaching credibility stand point. And I think
1:40:00
those afflat commercials actually made it easier for Colorado to hire Dion Sanders because he
1:40:04
was connected to by far, the biggest most successful coach in the modern history
1:40:11
of college football in Nick Saban, and now Saban is having to adjust to
1:40:15
a you know, an instant transfer, an nil money world that I don't
1:40:20
think he's going to be able to adjust to a world that fits right in
1:40:25
with what Dion Sanders brings to the table in appealing to eighteen, nineteen,
1:40:29
twenty year old kids who all think that, you know, two years from
1:40:32
now is an incredibly long period of time. Nick Saban is used to dealing
1:40:38
with a four to five year program where he can get kids to sit on
1:40:43
the bench for a couple of years because they're going to Alabama and they're playing
1:40:45
for Nick Saban. And they used to be they couldn't transfer, they were
1:40:49
stuck at Alabama or they had to sit out a year. Well now that's
1:40:54
not the case. Now we're going from a four to five year program to
1:40:57
a one to two year program and d Sanders understands this and has the weapons
1:41:01
to play on that field. And I think a lot of guys that used
1:41:05
to go to Alabama are gonna end up going to Colorado. I was assuming
1:41:09
that Dion Standers stays there and is as successful as certainly the media hopes that
1:41:15
he is. Early on in this particular season, I want to mention going
1:41:20
back to politics for a second, and I guess this kind of relates to
1:41:23
the race issue. I have said numerous times before that if there was gonna
1:41:29
be a movement to remove Joe Biden as the Democratic presidential nominee, that it
1:41:35
had to begin with a major black commentator. And I've run first a couple
1:41:41
of times that I thought it would be Van Jones of CNN, and in
1:41:45
fact, I played a clip on a recent episode of the podcast Or which
1:41:48
I thought was evidence that Van Jones was in the process of doing that well
1:41:53
in light of Biden's very poor performance at the international summit. I guess of
1:41:58
the what they call it, this particular summit, but there was a summit
1:42:02
of international leaders where Biden embarrassed himself, and now Van Jones is elevating his
1:42:11
talk of Uncle Joe's gotta go, and I just wanted to reference that because
1:42:15
I do think that that could be a canary in the coal mine theoretically for
1:42:19
Joe Biden. I don't know if it's going to catch on how many dominoes
1:42:23
are going to fall, but it has to start somewhere, and it's very
1:42:27
clear that just as I predicted Van Jones is doing his best to start that
1:42:33
domino effect, and he's probably the right guy to do it because he's got
1:42:39
credibility, he's got celebrity, he happens to be black, and if it
1:42:45
looks like the black vote is hemorrhaging, especially towards Trump, post for indictments,
1:42:51
as I've theorized was possible previously on this podcast, we could see an
1:42:58
effort to get Joe to to step down from running in twenty twenty four.
1:43:02
What would happen then? I have no idea, because you know, Kamala
1:43:08
Harris would be vice president, she wouldn't be president under this scenario. Does
1:43:12
Gavin Newsom get in against someone from his own state who's a woman of color,
1:43:16
who would be making history? I don't know. I think that would
1:43:21
be a very difficult thing to predict. But I do think the chances of
1:43:26
Biden not being the nominee are ticking up slightly. We're getting very late in
1:43:31
the game. It should be pointed out that this is very, very late
1:43:35
in the game, and you know, if a decision is going to be
1:43:39
made, it's got to be made almost immediately. We might already be too
1:43:43
late by traditional standards. We are too late because you've got to get on
1:43:45
the ballot, which is very, very difficult and takes a long time in
1:43:49
a lot of these primary states. But you know, in an emergency,
1:43:54
I guess they can do almost anything. But Democrats have to be getting nervous
1:44:00
about Joe Biden's reelection bid, and Van Jones, as I predicted, seems
1:44:03
to be the most prominent guy who's willing to vocalize that in a big way,
1:44:09
and he did so again just a couple of days ago. Now,
1:44:13
I mentioned previously what's going on in New Mexico where the governor there, Michelle
1:44:18
LuJean Grisham, due to what she calls a public health order emergency. So
1:44:27
she's declared an emergency in the state of New Mexico under her powers for public
1:44:32
health orders to suspend conceal and carry of guns in the state of New Mexico
1:44:43
for at least thirty days. And what's the emergency, you may ask,
1:44:48
You know, this public health order that's done under an emergency. She's creating
1:44:53
this emergency order because an eleven year old was shot and killed, and that
1:44:58
she's so pro gun controlled. Effectively, what she's doing here is she's having
1:45:02
a temper tantrum, and she is crapping all over the law and essentially the
1:45:11
constitution by suspending rights based upon a contrived emergency. I mean, one person
1:45:20
as tragic as it is, being killed in a state like New Mexico is
1:45:27
in no way, shape or form an emergency. But the reason why I'm
1:45:30
mentioning this, I mean that would be significant of itself. Her explanation for
1:45:35
this was so scary and so similar. I'd say all the time about how
1:45:43
the COVID precedent is going to be used in all sorts of different ways.
1:45:46
I'm usually mentioning it in reference to climate hysteria and climate lockdowns. But here
1:45:54
we have almost a perfect example of where a governor of the state is using
1:46:00
exactly the same modus operandi to take away basic rights like the right to conceal
1:46:08
and carry a firearm in New Mexico, suspend those rights for at least thirty
1:46:15
days because of a made up emergency, because of something that upset people.
1:46:21
And this is almost exactly what our founding fathers would have feared most, the
1:46:26
idea of a governor of a state suspending rights because of an emotional reaction to
1:46:33
something that was horrible that occurred, but which in no way, shape or
1:46:36
form was actually an emergency. I mean that's almost right out of a textbook.
1:46:42
I mean almost reads like a constitutional law of fake case to try to
1:46:45
illustrate our founding father's greatest fears is what's happening in New Mexico. But the
1:46:51
real scary part of this is her statement in support of this, and how
1:46:58
little she thinks of constitutional rights, that these are things that effectively are privileges
1:47:05
that are given by the government that can be taken away whenever the hell they
1:47:11
feel like it, and there's nothing you can do, and because the legal
1:47:16
system takes so damn long, she's basically right, because there's no way that
1:47:24
this is going to be resolved in court, at least I don't think it's
1:47:26
going to be within a thirty day period. So she's gonna get her away
1:47:30
now. There are thankfully sheriffs that are saying, we're not going to enforce
1:47:33
this, but for how long are we going to be? Much like COVID,
1:47:36
there were sheriffs that were saying, you know, yeah, we're not
1:47:40
going to enforce your mask mandate. Even in some very very blue areas,
1:47:44
there were sheriffs that stood up and did that. But you know, that's
1:47:46
basically the last line of defense. How much longer can you rely on that?
1:47:50
And in some areas you're not going to be able to rely on a
1:47:54
sensible logical shareff. And when when the sheriff's the person, it's not not
1:47:59
in favor of a authoritarianism and tyranny. I mean, when that's your last
1:48:02
line of the fence, you've got an inherent problem. It should be the
1:48:08
governor that understands that they're there to protect your rights even when it's inconvenient,
1:48:15
not take them away. And here is her statement, the governor of New
1:48:18
Mexico basically outlining the worst nightmare scenario when it comes to people who care about
1:48:27
freedom and liberty and rights in this country. Oh yeah, but your point
1:48:31
is that the constitution isn't it unconstitutional to say you cannot exercise carry license with
1:48:41
one exception, and that is, if there's an emergency and I've declared an
1:48:45
emergency for a temporary amount of time, I can invoke additional powers. No
1:48:51
constitutional right, in my view, including my oath, is intended to be
1:48:58
absolute. There are restrictions on free speech. There are restrictions on my freedoms
1:49:01
in this emergency, This eleven year old and all these parents who have lost
1:49:08
all these children, they deserve my attention to have the debate about whether or
1:49:15
not in an emergency we can create a safer environment, because what about their
1:49:19
constitutional rights? I took an oath to uphold those two and if we ignore
1:49:25
this growing problem without being bold, I've said to every other New Mexican,
1:49:30
your rights are subrogated to theirs, and they are not in my view about
1:49:38
crimes however, but again, if I'm unsafe, who's standing up for that
1:49:48
right? If this climate is so out of control, somebody should do something.
1:49:56
I'm doing as much as I know to do. If you really think
1:50:00
that are going to hear this message and not carry a gun the camel querque
1:50:05
on the streets for thirty days, uh No. But here's what I do
1:50:11
think it's a pretty resounding message. I mean, that's just chilling and incredibly
1:50:17
infuriating and so frustrating because it's obviously not just a contrived emergency. It's obviously
1:50:26
an attempt by her to one get national publicity too, to do a temper
1:50:33
tantrum and show her off her virtue. She's virtue signaling about how far she's
1:50:39
willing to go because she's so upset over an eleven year old being shot and
1:50:44
killed, and she knows that it'll take forever, and she even acknowledged that
1:50:49
she's probably gonna lose in court, but she doesn't care because when that happens,
1:50:55
big deal. In fact, it will probably be in the left wing
1:50:59
world, a badge of honor for her. I've said this when it came
1:51:02
to the Supreme Court decision on affirmative action and a lot of these liberal colleges
1:51:10
getting sued over the new standards of not being allowed to use affirmative action when
1:51:15
it comes to college admissions is going to be a badge of honor if you
1:51:17
get sued, by the way, probably a badge of honor if you get
1:51:20
sued successfully, because that shows that you were willing to take it, you
1:51:27
know, you know, go as far as you possibly could, go to
1:51:30
the mat, balls to the wall, do everything you can possibly could for
1:51:33
the cause. Even if it was illegal, it doesn't matter. There will
1:51:38
be no repercussions, no accountability. And New Mexico is a liberal enough state,
1:51:42
they're just very likely never going to be any electoral accountability for Democrats in
1:51:47
New Mexico. And I think what we've learned is post COVID. I know
1:51:54
I'm a broken record on this, but it's so important that no one has
1:51:58
a self interest to talk about it because most of the right wing media is
1:52:01
so invested in Donald Trump now. But the COVID president has really in many
1:52:09
ways open the floodgates and they now know what they can get away with.
1:52:15
And we're now seeing it not just with regard to COVID hysteria and with what's
1:52:19
going to be banned when it comes to energy use, but we're now seeing
1:52:24
it with even Second Amendment rights for all intensive purposes in a state like New
1:52:29
Mexico. I do at least want to mention that something interesting is going on
1:52:32
with the illegal immigration. And we've now got the mayor of New York,
1:52:35
Mayor Adams, suddenly who's been declaring New York to be a sanctuary city.
1:52:41
He's very upset that now all of a sudden, New York is being overwhelmed
1:52:44
by illegal immigrants. We've got the Dingbats on the view very upset that their
1:52:49
city is being overrun by illegal immigrants and they need to be sent somewhere else,
1:52:54
not here it is. It is really hilarious and remarkable the hypocrisy of
1:53:00
liberals when it comes to this issue. They are all in favor of illegal
1:53:02
immigrants coming into America as long as it's not near where they live. Isn't
1:53:08
that interesting? And now it looks like the Biden administration is going to try
1:53:10
to force them all to stay in Texas, which, oh my god,
1:53:15
I can't even imagine how that's going to turn out. It's not official yet,
1:53:18
but that seems to be the intended direction that they're going. This is
1:53:23
going to be a major issue because we're seeing more and more evidence of something
1:53:29
that people like me have been waiting for for a couple of decades. I
1:53:32
remember as a talk show host on Cafe I and Los Angeles, where illegal
1:53:35
immigration was a daily topic that we kept wondering and waiting and hoping that the
1:53:44
black community was finally going to wake up and go, wait a minute,
1:53:47
this is a threat to us. This is a threat to our political standing,
1:53:51
This is a threat to our place in line. You know, when
1:53:55
it comes to priorities, we are going to be hurt here. It's harmful
1:54:00
for us when it comes to jobs, well, there's now seemingly, at
1:54:04
least anecdotally, there's more and more evidence. I'm seeing this a lot now
1:54:10
online where both black leaders as well as regular everyday African American citizens are starting
1:54:16
to go, wait a minute, this is going too far. Now what
1:54:19
kind of electoral impact that has I don't know, but it could theoretically open
1:54:26
up another opportunity for Trump in the general election against Joe Biden because of the
1:54:30
reasons I've already stated, and I just wanted to mention that now this deserves,
1:54:35
this next topic deserves a lot more time than I have to give to
1:54:39
it in this episode. But Boyle, a lot has been going on with
1:54:42
Elon Musk. Now, I like Elon Musk on the free speech perspective.
1:54:46
I'm glad he bought Twitter. I hate what he has done in the Republican
1:54:50
nominating process. I think he's sabotaged maybe not on purpose, but effectively Rhonda
1:54:55
Santis is nominating. I guess you'd call it event that he hosted on Twitter.
1:55:01
He's done things that have indirectly helped Donald Trump in the Republican race.
1:55:08
I actually think he's probably one of the top five quote unquote right wing media
1:55:12
figures who has helped either directly or indirectly, Donald Trump win the nomination in
1:55:17
twenty twenty four, assuming that's the way that it all turns out. So
1:55:20
I'm very conflicted about Elon Musk. I don't trust him. I've said that
1:55:25
previously, not because I think he's evil, but because he's so rich,
1:55:30
doesn't have anyone around him to tell him no. He's also incredibly busy,
1:55:33
so there's no way for him to get all the right details. He's also
1:55:36
a bit autistic, so there's all things. I'm very conflicted about Elon Musk.
1:55:41
But he's in a battle right now the Defamation League with the Anti Defamation
1:55:47
League, which is purportedly a group that defends Jewish people against defamation, but
1:55:55
they have effectively become a liberal activist group that uses intimidation to stifle other people's
1:56:00
free speech. And they're going after Elon Musk, and they're going after advertisers
1:56:04
on Twitter, and apparently they've been very effective in this, and by some
1:56:10
accounts, Twitter has lost an enormous amount of value and income because of efforts
1:56:16
like the Anti Defamation League to try to somehow make it toxic to advertise on
1:56:21
Twitter. Because somehow it's Elon Musk's job to censor all politically incorrect speech.
1:56:29
And you know, this is what happens when a group gets enough power to
1:56:33
where they can intimidate. It all starts innocently enough. You know, obviously
1:56:39
you want to protect a group that add the Holocaust happen to them. That's
1:56:43
understandable. I get it, and that's well intentioned. But then you start
1:56:47
to use that as a shield, and then you start to get political power,
1:56:51
and you get money, and then you start to have a perverse self
1:56:55
interest where you're going to try to destroy your enemies by taking away their own
1:57:00
free speech by intimidation, and by also trying to take away their source of
1:57:06
income by intimidating advertisers, which they've done to Musk and to Twitter slash x
1:57:13
well. Much to Musk's credit, Elon Musk has gone after the Anti Defamation
1:57:18
League with both barrels, and I respect what he's doing. And it does
1:57:26
show that Musk has an advantage now that he owns Twitter that he never had
1:57:31
before. And this is probably one of the reasons why he bought Twitter,
1:57:34
whether he realized it or not, this is probably as he thinks of it.
1:57:39
Now, this is probably the greatest benefit that he has, and that
1:57:42
is it effectively he has become the new Matt Drudge and maybe more powerful than
1:57:48
Matt Grudge ever was when it came to dishing out Internet traffic. And without
1:57:55
getting too deeply into it, I used to talk all the time about in
1:57:59
the hate of Matt Drudge, and I was very good friends with his right
1:58:01
hand man Andrew Breitbart. Matt Drudge became an expert at creating markets for stories
1:58:11
because people knew Matt Drudge would be interested enough in them to post them on
1:58:15
the Drudge Report prominently, which means they would get massive amounts of traffic,
1:58:19
which means that they would hit their quota as a writer for that week,
1:58:24
or that month, or maybe even that year. That's how valuable a link
1:58:29
on Drudge was. Well, Twitter has been a direct hit on Drudge.
1:58:31
But apparently Drudge is still making a lot of money. But I'm getting a
1:58:34
lot of traffic. I'm surprised that it does, because I never go there
1:58:38
anymore, but because Twitter has basically replaced it with ten thousand Matt Drudges.
1:58:43
Well, the biggest Matt Drudge of all, by far is Elon Musk,
1:58:46
because all Elon Musk has to do is post or repost an article that someone
1:58:53
has written that fits his agenda, and guess what's going to happen. It's
1:58:57
gonna get millions and millions of views and legs and reposts, and whoever wrote
1:59:03
that is going to be rewarded. They will that article will have been seen
1:59:10
by their employer as a positive thing. So that creates a market for stories
1:59:15
that are at least fair to Elon Musk. So effectively, Elon Musk is
1:59:20
able to create a market for pro Elon Musk stories. I guarantee that there
1:59:28
are media outlets all over the place that are running their stories, at least
1:59:33
unless they decide to go in the other direction, at least with the idea
1:59:36
that maybe Elon Musk will post this on Twitter and we're going to get a
1:59:42
ton of traffic, and so therefore we're at least going to be fair to
1:59:45
him. We might even be very fair to him. And that is an
1:59:47
incredibly important weapon to him when he takes on somebody like the Anti Defamation League.
1:59:55
He's also Musk is being accused of meddling in the UK in Russian War,
2:00:01
and this is a very complex issue. But he's being criticized on CNN
2:00:06
and other liberal media outlets for effectively not doing Ukraine's bidding when it comes to
2:00:13
the satellite systems that he has because of his his space X program, and
2:00:18
he apparently refused to do what Ukraine wanted because he was afraid that it might
2:00:24
act effectively caused World War three because he thought Russia might respond very dramatically to
2:00:31
the attack that Ukraine wanted to do using space X technology. Now, look,
2:00:38
I don't know whether or not Must made the right decision. To me,
2:00:41
the biggest issue here is and I'm not I don't really have a dog
2:00:45
in that in that hunt, I don't I'm not pro Russia. I'm not
2:00:47
pro Ukraine. I think we're spending way too much money there. I don't
2:00:50
know for sure what our self interest is. I don't think there's any real
2:00:55
good outcome in that whole situation. But I'm most concerned when it comes to
2:01:00
Musk as to the unbelievable amount of power that one person can have in this
2:01:08
day and age of technology driving everything. Can you imagine I mean the minist
2:01:15
This guy is a business owner, an entrepreneur. He's never been in any
2:01:21
elected office. He doesn't have any training in this area, and he's being
2:01:27
put into these positions where he's having to make decisions that dramatically impact the state
2:01:32
of a war and whether or not it potentially turns into World War three.
2:01:36
I mean, I have to have a lot of empathy for and sympathy with
2:01:42
Elon Musk in this situation. But that is scary that we're now living in
2:01:46
this technological world where one person completely separate from government can have this kind of
2:01:53
power, and I really don't think that element of this story is getting nearly
2:01:58
enough attention. Finally, in the last episode of the podcast, I spent
2:02:02
a lot of time at the very beginning talking about this absolutely ridiculous interview that
2:02:08
Tucker Carlson, who is the biggest disappointment by far of twenty twenty three when
2:02:14
it comes to immediate personality, and he's been the MVP of the Trump campaign
2:02:17
without a doubt, the interview that Tucker Carlson did with Larry Sinclair, the
2:02:21
guy who claims to have had a drug induced sex tryst with Barack Obama back
2:02:29
in nineteen ninety nine, and I essentially told you this story is bullshit.
2:02:34
I went through some of the things about Obama's background that are indeed fishy,
2:02:39
and how they've been misinterpreted, and why he tried to hide some of the
2:02:43
things that he did. And it has nothing to do with whennot Obama is
2:02:46
gay or buy or whatever. I don't know. I have no idea.
2:02:48
Is it possible that Barack Obama's by Yeah, if you look at the passages
2:02:55
he wrote to his girlfriend many years ago, it certainly seems that that's possible.
2:03:00
It's possible that he's not. But that's separate from whether or not Larry
2:03:03
Sinclair is telling the truth. I told you he was not, and I
2:03:05
told you that this was a sign that Tucker Carlson has hit a new low
2:03:11
and that there's something wrong with Tucker Carlson. And it was interesting to see
2:03:15
the right wing reaction to that. I was very frustrated by people I respect,
2:03:19
like Ben Shapiro, who did the most Ben Shapiro thing I've ever seen
2:03:24
peak Ben Shapiro, where he went on Twitter and he asked just a question
2:03:29
about the Larry Sinclair interview, saying is what Larry Sinclair saying significantly less credible
2:03:35
than, for instance, Christine blasi Ford, who went after Judge Kavanaugh or
2:03:41
Ejeen Carroll who won a defamation suit against Donald Trump. And so Ben was
2:03:46
just asking a question which seemingly was saying, you know, typical, you
2:03:50
know what aboutism and typical try to have it both ways, which is the
2:03:55
way Ben Shapiro attends to do things, which I don't have any respect for,
2:03:58
especially in this day age when it comes to Trump. He's always very
2:04:00
afraid of offending the Trump customer base because he's built quite a great operation there
2:04:08
with a daily wire and he doesn't want to blow it. He doesn't want
2:04:10
to become Glenn Beck from twenty sixteen. And the answer to that is,
2:04:15
well, first of all, yes, he is significantly less credible than Christine
2:04:19
blasi Ford or Ejeene Carroll. And I think Christine blasi Ford is not credible
2:04:25
at all. But at least Christine blasi Ford testified under oath in a legal
2:04:30
setting in front of Congress. That's not something that Larry Sinclair has ever done.
2:04:34
Larry Sinclair, you failed a light detector test and was only subjecting himself
2:04:42
to very very very benign questioning from Tucker freaking Carlson on an internet show.
2:04:47
So at least Christine Blasi Ford did that, which makes her at least somewhat
2:04:53
more credible than Larry Sinclair. Ejeene Carroll at least met Donald Trump, because
2:04:58
there's a photograph of them meeting which Donald Trump misidentified Eging Carroll as his first
2:05:03
wife, which was rather telling and was probably a major reason why Trump lost
2:05:08
that defamation suit. And so yeah, Ejing Carroll, well, I don't
2:05:14
really buy her story is in fact more credible than Larry Sinclair, because Larry
2:05:18
Sinclair has zero credibility. And by the way, Ben Shapiro, in my
2:05:24
mind, what you're doing here is very damaging because you're actually lowering the threshold
2:05:30
for credibility. Two wrongs don't make a right here. The conservative position should
2:05:35
be Ford and Ejen Carol were not credible, and neither is Larry Sinclair.
2:05:43
They shouldn't. They don't belong in the public discourse like this without at least
2:05:46
a shred of evidence for what they're claiming. And it was really rather ironic
2:05:51
and telling about how broken the right wing media is that in stepped to this.
2:05:57
Pray. Dave Portnoy, who I've mentioned for is the guy who owns
2:06:00
barstool Tucker and others are giving him all sorts of credit for this amazing deal
2:06:05
that he pulled off to get Barstool back for a dollar. And the more
2:06:09
I learned about that, the less convinced I am that this was really a
2:06:13
tremendous business deal. He must have just I think he just got lucky.
2:06:15
And he may not have gotten nearly as lucky as it seems, because it
2:06:18
seems to me as if Barstool, which just laid on twenty five percent of
2:06:23
its workforce after this transaction, you know, maybe an albat ross around his
2:06:28
neck. We'll see. But Dave Portnoy is I would not call him a
2:06:31
conservatives. I think he's kind of a populist, anti liberal. This is
2:06:36
a guy who has posted very graphic and I think rather violent pornography of himself
2:06:45
online and defense against being accused of sexual abuse and sexual harassment. You know,
2:06:51
there's parts of him I think are entertaining, but I don't think he's
2:06:55
very particularly bright. I don't like their content. But at least Dave Portnoy
2:07:00
had had the gumption and the guts and the credibility to come forward and and
2:07:06
tweet out this interview between Tucker Carlson and Larry Sinclair and say, hey,
2:07:12
look, I'm paraphrasing, Hey look, I was there in Tucker's studio being
2:07:16
interviewed by Tucker at the same time as it's Larry Sinclair. And let me
2:07:20
tell you, there is a zero percent chance Larry Sinclair is telling the truth.
2:07:26
Now. I don't know how in the world David Portnoy could tell that
2:07:29
in a you know what seemingly would be a short interchange, as they're both
2:07:35
in the same studio with Tucker Carlson, who knows. He didn't get specific
2:07:40
about that as far as I am aware. But Portnoy is right, and
2:07:44
Portnoy's gut instinct on this is right. Larry Sinclair is a fraud. It
2:07:48
did not happen, and nothing, you know, all these years later,
2:07:53
it's going to suddenly make it credible twenty four years after the alleged fact.
2:07:58
And it's an embarrassment to Tucker carl and did this. And it's an embarrassment
2:08:01
that major right wing media figures like Ben Shapiro were at least partially defending Tucker
2:08:07
Carlson for doing this and elevating the interview. And now we have yet another
2:08:11
crazy belief that has been added to what you had to believe to be a
2:08:16
quote unquote good Republican in twenty twenty three, which is just batshit crazy and
2:08:20
not true that Larry Sinclair did not have this happen with Barack Obama. Yet
2:08:26
the most popular right wing media figure and maybe the most influential right wing media
2:08:31
figure, Tucker Carlson, embraced him almost completely, and that just shows you
2:08:35
how unbelievably broken the right wing media is and why it is We're going to
2:08:41
end up in all likelihood with Donald Trump as the Republican nominee in twenty twenty
2:08:46
four. In the next episode of the podcast, episode eighty nine, mark
2:08:52
your calendars, this will be out in a couple of days. And in
2:08:56
that episode, I interview Jank Huger, who is the host of The Young
2:09:01
Turks. He's a very very liberal, progressive, well known host. He's
2:09:05
got a new book out about progressives taking over America and how much America is
2:09:09
gonna love it, and he and I get very combative in this interview.
2:09:15
We've already done the interview, but it's been embargoed because of the timing of
2:09:18
the book coming out, but we'll make that part of episode eighty nine of
2:09:22
the podcast, and I think you're going to enjoy it quite a bit.
2:09:26
Until then, as always, please remember to subscribe, rate, and review
2:09:28
this podcast, share it with others to be shared on social media. Please
2:09:33
remember to tag me and I'll be happy to share it with my followers on
2:09:35
Twitter and Facebook. Until next time, thanks so much for listening. This
2:09:39
is episode eighty eight of the Death of Journalism podcast. My name is John Ziegler.