Latest / The Death Of Journalism / Episode Seventy Eight: The Black Swan That Sank

Transcript

Episode Seventy Eight: The Black Swan That Sank · The Death Of Journalism

• 0:00
  Welcome the episode number seventy eight of the Death of Journalism podcast. My name
• 0:04
  is John Ziggler, I'm your host. Trump is finally indicted on January sixth,
• 0:09
  and the right wing media reaction is even worse than I thought. Ronda
• 0:13
  Santis finally accepts Gavin Newsom's offer to debate, sort of. The USA women's
• 0:18
  soccer team fails at the World Cup and much of America cheers, and college
• 0:22
  football officially ends, but with a tiny silver lining. I'm known as the
• 0:28
  Dutch Digital marketing Man. I'm a digital advertising SEO and EMMO marketing specialist that
• 0:34
  also happens to be a big fan of John Ziggler and the Death of journalisten.
• 0:39
  Do you need help preaching your target audience? Let me help you develop
• 0:43
  the right messaging and confaded message and the best channels for your business. Please
• 0:47
  visit my website, the Dutch Digital marketing Man dot com and let me help
• 0:52
  you tell your story. The website is the Dutch Digital marketing Man dot com.
• 0:59
  If you want to grow your business as Peter can help, that's the
• 1:00
  Dutch Digital Marketingman dot com. And hey, thanks for sponsoring the show.
• 1:07
  A couple of programming notes to start off episode number seventy eight of the Death
• 1:11
  of Journalism podcast. In episode seventy seven, I strongly implied that there would
• 1:15
  be a little bit of a delay between seventy seven and seventy eight episodes because
• 1:22
  of some traveling that me and my family are doing. However, because of
• 1:26
  the massive amount of news that has occurred in the last several days, and
• 1:30
  because the hotel room where we've been staying on our second vacation this summer has
• 1:36
  a little bit better WiFi than I had feared, we are able to do
• 1:38
  what I am calling a bonus edition of the Death of Journalism podcast, and
• 1:44
  it's well worth it because there's a ton to get to, and will begin
• 1:48
  with what was finally the indictment of Donald Trump for issues related to January sixth.
• 1:55
  This has been long anticipated. It had been promised by several media let's
• 2:00
  for many days before it finally did occur. It was not the indictment was
• 2:06
  not for the so called insurrection or the riot, but for an attempt to
• 2:12
  overthrow a proper election. That was the essence of the indictment against Donald Trump
• 2:19
  related to January sixth. Now, as we anticipated this indictment I continually said
• 2:25
  that I feared that Trump would have immunity, not legal immunity, although he
• 2:30
  might have legal immunity depending on the jury pool, but political immunity from almost
• 2:36
  any indictment against him, especially one where it is perceived by the right wing
• 2:40
  that he was actually fighting for them, fighting to win, to fend off
• 2:47
  the Marxists and the Socialists and the Democrats and the liberals on our behalf.
• 2:53
  And that's to a large part, especially of his cult. That is how
• 2:57
  January sixth is now perceived, especially sends Tucker Carlson, has revised much of
• 3:01
  the history on January sixth, you basically, in my opinion, taking out
• 3:07
  a context video given to him by Speaker of the House Kevin McCarthy. But
• 3:12
  it's important as we begin this discussion of these latest indictments that we understand that
• 3:16
  this is not about inciting an insurrection or a riot. That is not at
• 3:22
  issue in this latest indictment. However, I am of the opinion that what
• 3:28
  is alleged in the indictment, if proven, is every bit as serious,
• 3:34
  if not more so, than inciting an insurrection or a riot at the Capitol.
• 3:38
  And I'm going to get into why I feel this way rather strongly,
• 3:44
  and why I'm pissed off at many right wing media members who are at least
• 3:46
  pretending to not see the seriousness of this. But I want to first begin
• 3:53
  with this whole history of where we got how we got to hear. You
• 3:58
  know, the first indictment in the or everybody realized was crap. I agreed
• 4:03
  with that. I agreed the first New York indictment was total bullshit. Should
• 4:09
  never happen, especially against a former president who's running for president. It's overtly
• 4:15
  political, it's legally dubious at best, and I was right there with the
• 4:20
  right wing media on that. The second indictment was seen by some members of
• 4:26
  the right wing media like Jonathan Turley and Ben Shapiro and others who I have
• 4:31
  some respect for, as being much more serious, at least from a legal
• 4:36
  standpoint, the one dealing with classified documents, and I agreed that that was
• 4:42
  a serious indictment. However, I think I've been more outspoken than most people
• 4:46
  saying there's no chance Trump is going to get convicted by a jury in South
• 4:53
  Florida in this kind of a situation, especially as if he is the presumptive
• 4:58
  Republican nominee or the actual nominee, or hell of the president, none of
• 5:02
  those matters, because he'll pardon himself. But there was at least some semblance
• 5:09
  of the right wing media having a spine a backbone, caring about the truth
• 5:15
  and giving some credibility, not in totality, but in some circles within the
• 5:19
  right wing media, some credibility to the second indictment. However, now the
• 5:26
  overwhelming prevailing quote unquote wisdom on the right wing media with regard to this latest
• 5:32
  indictment involving January sixth, is that this one is garbage. I mean,
• 5:36
  Alan Dershow, it's hard to believe that he's considered part of the right wing
• 5:40
  media now, but he's a right wing media darling, famous liberal attorney for
• 5:46
  many many cases, including defending O. J. Simpson. But you know,
• 5:48
  he used to have a lot of liberal media cachet and he's lost that.
• 5:53
  So now he's desperate to maintain some semblance of relevance that he has been
• 5:57
  very outspoken about what garbage this latest January sixth indictment. Is Jonathan Turley,
• 6:02
  a fan favored at Fox News Channel, even though he's a George Washington professor.
• 6:08
  I theorized after his second indictment condemnation of Trump that he might not be
• 6:13
  asked back on Fox News Channel again. Well, clearly he got the message,
• 6:17
  and in the third indictment he is now claiming that this is a bogus
• 6:20
  indictment, that this is a violation the First Amendment rights. Ben Shapiro is
• 6:26
  somewhat in a similar boat, which is classic Ben Shapiro. Even Joe Rogan,
• 6:30
  who's hardly a legal scholar but he's very, very popular with the most
• 6:34
  popular podcast in America, who has been a Trump critic and has no business
• 6:39
  supporting Trump based upon his COVID belief system, is now warming up to Trump
• 6:45
  because of the third indictment, going very much to my theory that each indictment
• 6:50
  builds up even more and more political immunity for Donald Trump, that somehow now
• 6:55
  even Joe Rogan is feeling better about Trump after this third indictment. It's all
• 7:00
  incredibly nauseating, and it's worse than I thought it would be. I mean,
• 7:04
  I get accused of being a pessimist all the time, and whenever I
• 7:10
  get accused of being a pessimist, I generally said, well that's you know
• 7:13
  means I'm right most of the time, not always, but most of the
• 7:15
  time. And with the most remarkable element of me being accused of being a
• 7:19
  pessimist is that oftentimes, if not most of the time, when I am
• 7:25
  pessimistic, not only do I turn out to be right. The only way
• 7:29
  I turn out to be wrong is that I was not pessimistic enough. And
• 7:32
  my fear of this immunity phenomenon for Trump with regard to these indictments, as
• 7:39
  well as the right wing media reaction to this latest indictment is even worse than
• 7:44
  I thought it would. I have to acknowledge that even I thought, you
• 7:46
  know what, there's going to be some people who have credibility, They're going
• 7:50
  to be willing to stand up and say what really happened here, which I
• 7:55
  will in just a moment and explain exactly why I disagree with many on the
• 8:00
  right who are claiming that this latest indictment is nothing serious and is political and
• 8:05
  shouldn't be brought and wouldn't be brought under any other circumstances other than being driven
• 8:11
  by Trump arrangement syndrome. Now, there were a couple of people who have
• 8:15
  actually stood up. I wouldn't call them media members, and in irrational world,
• 8:20
  these people speaking up would be bombshell black swan events that would destroy Donald
• 8:28
  Trump because of who they are in relation to the story as well as who
• 8:31
  they are in relation to Donald Trump, specifically Bill Barr and Mike Pence.
• 8:39
  You got Bill Barr, donald Trump's hand picked attorney general, a guy who
• 8:43
  I have been very critical in the past. I was very critical of the
• 8:46
  way he handled the Mueller investigation. He effectively sabotaged the findings of the Muller
• 8:54
  Report on behalf of Trump, who hand picked him to do exactly that,
• 8:58
  took him off the couch, out of irrelevance, and made him Attorney General
• 9:03
  of the United States for the second time. But since having left Trump's orbit
• 9:07
  and no longer I guess feeling as if he's under the control of Donald Trump.
• 9:13
  Bill Barr has been dead on about virtually everything, and as the former
• 9:18
  attorney general for Donald Trump, one who has taken bullets for him in the
• 9:22
  past, you would think that he would have a lot of credibility when it
• 9:28
  comes to his opinion on what's happening here. And Bill Barr is while he
• 9:35
  I think has understandably made some statements, and you're going to hear this in
• 9:37
  a moment saying that maybe this is not a case you bring against the former
• 9:43
  president, and I will address that because I think there is some validity to
• 9:46
  that concept. He has also come out and forcefully said that this is a
• 9:52
  very serious matter and that this is not, as Jonathan Turley and others have
• 9:56
  tried to claim, a free speech in and of itself. There are I
• 10:01
  agree that there are free speech elements of this indictment that are troubling, but
• 10:05
  this is not a free speech case at its essence. This is a conspiracy
• 10:13
  to create a coup to overturn a legitimate presidential election. And here was Bill
• 10:20
  Barr, Donald Drum's former attorney general, explaining, while he has some misgivings
• 10:26
  apparently about whether or not the indictment should have been brought from a political standpoint,
• 10:33
  on a legal basis, he defends it rather strongly. But I mean,
• 10:37
  when you do look at the indictment, do you think it's something you
• 10:39
  would have brought. I think I don't know if I would have approved the
• 10:43
  indictment, but in the sense I may have exercised discretion and not gone forward
• 10:48
  with the case. I'm also concerned about having this case going on during the
• 10:54
  election and diverting people's attention from the issues in the election. I'm also worried
• 10:58
  about, you know, what impact is if they were acquittals during during the
• 11:05
  campaign. But as a legal matter, I don't see a problem with with
• 11:09
  the indictment. I think that, uh, it's not an abuse. The
• 11:16
  Department of Justice is not acting, uh to weaponize the Department by proceeding against
• 11:22
  the president for a conspiracy to subvert the elector the electoral process, which is
• 11:28
  what Trump's attorneys are saying. And they're also saying that he was just exercising
• 11:33
  his first amendment right here. Do you think that's a valid argument in your
• 11:37
  view, No, I really don't think that's a valid argument. You know,
• 11:39
  as the indictment says, you know, they're not attacking his first amendment
• 11:45
  right. He can say whatever he wants. He can even lie, he
• 11:48
  can even tell people that that the election was was stolen when he when he
• 11:54
  knew better, But that does not protect you from entering into a conspiracy.
• 12:01
  All conspiracies involved speech, and all fraud involved speech. So you know,
• 12:09
  free speech doesn't give you the right to engage in a fraudulent conspiracy. Yeah.
• 12:13
  Now, I think that is a measured and very credible response from Bill
• 12:20
  Barr. Once again, I find this very strange to be in a position
• 12:24
  where I'm continually saying that Bill Barr has it right, since again I was
• 12:28
  among his fiercest critics at the time of the Mueller Report, But for whatever
• 12:33
  reason, he has been getting it I think almost one hundred percent correct.
• 12:39
  In the post Trump era, and as his former attorney general, this ought
• 12:43
  to have impact, This ought to have credibility. Of course, it has
• 12:48
  none, because we're living in a bizarro world. We're living in an upside
• 12:52
  down planet where nothing makes any sense, where up is down and down is
• 12:56
  up. And it's not just with regard to Bill bar Can you imagine not
• 13:01
  just having the former attorney general for Donald Trump chime in the way that Bar
• 13:05
  just did, but to have Trump's own vice president, who was at the
• 13:11
  centerpiece of the alleged conspiracy. At least the attempt the attempted conspiracy was they
• 13:18
  were trying to use Mike Pennce as vice president as the vehicle to basically stop
• 13:24
  the Electoral College in its path and to potentially reverse electoral College votes, even
• 13:31
  though Mike Pennce as vice president, had absolutely positively no authority to do that.
• 13:35
  Anybody with half a brain knows that if you just read the Constitution,
• 13:39
  it is very clear that the vice president's position here is ceremonial. The Founders
• 13:46
  were constantly trying to figure out things for the vice president to do because they
• 13:50
  gave the vice president nothing to do, and it's just a completely superfluous position.
• 13:56
  It would be absolutely assinine for the Founders to have allowed the vice president
• 14:03
  the vice president to have real power when it comes to choosing which members of
• 14:11
  the electoral College were allowed to vote and stopping the votes from being counted,
• 14:16
  because obviously there would be a massive conflict of interest there because half the time
• 14:22
  the person that would be running for the presidency would be this person's running mate,
• 14:28
  and there would be other circumstances where they themselves may benefit dramatically from the
• 14:35
  way that the vote count went. So they would never give the vice president
• 14:39
  actual real power over how the electoral college was determined. And Mike Pence knew
• 14:46
  this. He count even consulted with other former vice presidents like Dan Quail,
• 14:52
  and there was no question in Mike Pence's mind that what he was being asked
• 14:58
  or told to do by Donald Trump was completely ridiculous, inappropriate, and maybe
• 15:03
  even illegal. And here was Mike Pence, a guy who, look,
• 15:07
  I think he's incredibly naive. He's super Christian, which you know, kind
• 15:11
  of turns me off. But I think in his essence he's a good person,
• 15:16
  and you know, he's not a moron. He understands the Constitution,
• 15:20
  and he seemingly, at least on this issue, has a backbone. He
• 15:24
  never had any backbone when it came to sucking up to Trump for four years
• 15:26
  while he was vice president. But that's what he saw was his job.
• 15:31
  But here was Mike Pence after this indictment revolving around this conspiracy to reverse a
• 15:39
  legitimate election, which he was what brought into. Trump wanted him to be
• 15:43
  the centerpiece of this conspiracy. This I guess you would call it a coup
• 15:48
  attempt. And Mike Pence did not hold back in his lamb basting of this
• 15:54
  entire situation. They're saying, all you needed to do was just take a
• 15:58
  pause. What do you say to that? I say, that's completely false,
• 16:02
  and it's contrary to American history, to our Constitution and to the laws
• 16:07
  of this country, and I never considered it. Martha. Look, when
• 16:11
  the first time I heard speculation that as vice president I'd have the authority to
• 16:15
  overturn the election by returning or rejecting votes, I frankly dismissed it out of
• 16:22
  hand. Look, the founders of this country had just won a war of
• 16:25
  independence against the king, and I was confident, as a student of American
• 16:30
  history that those founders would have never vested the vice president or anyone else with
• 16:34
  unilateral authority to decide what Electoral College votes to count and wish not to count.
• 16:40
  I was clear on that throughout. I was clear with President Trump throughout
• 16:44
  all the way up to the morning of January sixth. But let's be clear
• 16:48
  on this point. It wasn't just that they asked for a pause. The
• 16:52
  President specifically asked me and his gaggle of crackpot lawyers asked me to literally reject
• 17:00
  votes, which would have resulted in the issue being turned over to the House
• 17:04
  of Representatives, and literally chaos would have ensued. So well, Martha,
• 17:10
  I just people. People can read the indictment, and frankly, I've said
• 17:14
  before I had hoped it had not come to this point. You know,
• 17:18
  I don't know if the government can meet the standard the burden of proof beyond
• 17:22
  reasonable doubt for criminal charges. But the American people deserve to know that President
• 17:29
  Trump and his advisers didn't just ask me to pause. They asked me to
• 17:34
  reject votes, return votes, essentially to overturn the election and to keep faith
• 17:40
  with the oath that I made to the American people and to Almighty God.
• 17:44
  I rejected that out of hand, and I did my duty that day.
• 17:47
  Now, folks, I've been saying for a long time that it would require
• 17:52
  at least one, if not multiple, quote unquote black swan events, for
• 17:57
  Trump to not be the Republican nominee in twenty twenty four. A black swan
• 18:03
  event, if you don't know, has gotten to be famous as a term
• 18:07
  describing something that's completely out of the blue. It's so dramatic that it fundamentally
• 18:11
  changes everything no one saw coming, and the entire foundation of a situation is
• 18:19
  altered in a dramatic fashion, like nine to eleven was obviously a black swan
• 18:25
  event, well politically speaking, a Republican frontrunner for president being indicted in a
• 18:33
  conspiracy to reverse a legitimate election, and having their former attorney general and their
• 18:41
  former vice president speak out the way that you just heard Bill Barr and Mike
• 18:45
  Pence do would be black swan events. I mean, that is the definition,
• 18:52
  at least the prior definition of a political black swan event. It doesn't
• 18:57
  get more black swan than that federal indictment trying to reverse an election. Your
• 19:04
  attorney general and your vice president attack you directly and dramatically, incredibly, and
• 19:12
  yet there will be no impact. Zero, folks. There's your black swan
• 19:18
  event, and it's not gonna hurt Trump at all or hardly at all if
• 19:23
  it does. And by way, I'm gonna mention this several times, I
• 19:27
  think during this commentary, but it goes to illustrate one of the most dramatic
• 19:36
  and by far the least talked about problems with Donald Trump being the Republican nominee
• 19:41
  in twenty twenty four, and that is who the hell is going to work
• 19:45
  for this asshole, Who the hell is going to be part of his administration,
• 19:49
  who's going to be as vice president, who's going to be his attorney
• 19:52
  general, who's going to be a Secretary of State, who's going to be
• 19:56
  a Secretary of Defense, who's gonna be part of the cabinet should he some
• 20:00
  how defeat Joe Biden and win the presidency again. This should be a major
• 20:06
  part, specifically of the De Santist campaign, because it is obvious that nobody
• 20:11
  on the A list, the B list, the C list is even going
• 20:15
  to consider working for Donald Trump under these circumstances. And after what we've learned,
• 20:22
  especially in this latest indictment, you're gonna get nothing but whack jobs and
• 20:26
  kooks, the Mike Flynn's of the world. That's the best you're gonna get
• 20:32
  if Donald Trump is to somehow win the presidency again. And we should never
• 20:38
  lose sight of that. And this entire situation further proves that. Now to
• 20:42
  show that I am always objective even when it comes to Donald Trump. I
• 20:48
  still to this day, on a daily basis, multiple times a day,
• 20:51
  I get accused of having Trump derangement syndrome, even though I've been right about
• 20:55
  Trump on almost every step of the way. And you know, even this
• 20:59
  year, I tried to convince my friend Steve Cortes to not leave Donald Trump
• 21:03
  and to not join Rhonda Santis's Political Action Committee. Never backed down, which
• 21:08
  he ended up doing because I thought Trump would win and that I wanted Steve
• 21:14
  Cortes to be part of Team Trump for various reasons. I mean, if
• 21:18
  I had Trump's arrangement syndrome, I would not be doing those kind of things.
• 21:22
  I would not be able to see clearly enough to see when he was
• 21:26
  going to win and when he was gonna lose. Yet, my record on
• 21:30
  this is as good or better than anybody I know. But the reality is
• 21:34
  I am always open minded and objective, and with regard to this indictment,
• 21:40
  I get the First Amendment concerns. I share them. There are elements of
• 21:45
  the indictment that I think are problematic from a First Amendment standpoint, and I'm
• 21:49
  a free speech absolutist. So Trump has every right, which the indictment states,
• 21:55
  to lie about having won the election. He has every right to lie
• 21:57
  his ass off in the political realm. I have no problem with that.
• 22:03
  I mean, I have it morally, have a problem with it, but
• 22:06
  certainly legally I have no issue with it. But that is not, in
• 22:10
  my opinion, at the heart of this indictment. It is part of it,
• 22:15
  and I have concerns about it, and I'm glad that people like John
• 22:18
  lintorily are raising those concerns because somebody ought to at least mention that that is
• 22:22
  a potential problem on some of these counts. The other part of this indictment
• 22:29
  that I have issues with is that this is an inherently political matter. It
• 22:36
  is about who won a presidential election. It doesn't get more political than that.
• 22:42
  I agree with that, and therefore, inherently this goes to the Bill
• 22:47
  Barr issue as to whether or not you would actually go forward with this indictment
• 22:52
  because it is inherently political. Unlike the classified documents case, this is an
• 22:56
  inherently political case with a former right of we're president Donald Trump, who is
• 23:00
  now not just running to be president again, but he is by far leading
• 23:07
  the Republican nominating process to be president again. Because it is inherently political,
• 23:14
  I do think that there is a strong argument that you don't bring this case,
• 23:18
  that it's just not good for the country, that more damage is done
• 23:22
  by bringing this than by not bringing this. I don't know this for sure,
• 23:27
  but I share Bill Barr's concern or question about that. We're not going
• 23:32
  to know until that's all. Unfortunately, all works its way out, whether
• 23:37
  or not it was the right decision or the wrong decision to bring this case.
• 23:41
  But I share that concern as well, and I particularly share that concern
• 23:45
  because we have a mechanism for these types of political issues. It's called impeachment.
• 23:53
  And Trump already was impeached on the general issue of January sixth, however,
• 24:02
  and by the way, he was impeached and he was acquitted, which
• 24:07
  I think is going to be the moment that America was lost. Basically,
• 24:11
  when this is all said and done, I think we're going to be able
• 24:15
  to look back and go that second impeachment with regard to Donald Trump in January
• 24:21
  sixth, where he was impeached and it went to the Senate and there were
• 24:23
  several Republicans who voted to convict, but not enough to get to two thirds
• 24:30
  to convict him, and not enough to prevent him from ever running again.
• 24:33
  That was the moment. That was the moment politically and legally and morally,
• 24:40
  when Republicans in the Senate had the ability and the authority, the moral credibility
• 24:48
  to end the Trump cancer within the Republican Party, it would have been painful
• 24:53
  and that's why it didn't happen. And once again this problem was kicked down
• 24:59
  the street. The can was kicked down the street. As it's always the
• 25:02
  case in Washington, DC, whether it's the debt limit or whatever the hell
• 25:04
  it is, any problem that can be avoided being dealt with will the camp
• 25:08
  will always be kicked down the street. And that's what they did here.
• 25:12
  The Republicans in the Senate didn't have the balls, or the courage or the
• 25:17
  moral fiber to say enough is enough. We are forever ending Donald Trump as
• 25:22
  a political candidate by convicting him and preventing him from ever running for political office.
• 25:27
  Again, that did not happen. Now, it's important to point out
• 25:33
  that even though the subject matter was January sixth, the actual issues of impeachment
• 25:37
  were not the same as in this indictment. So again I'm going to get
• 25:44
  too momentarily. So that's an important distinction. But from a big picture standpoint,
• 25:49
  I do have problems with the idea of an inherently political prosecution coming up
• 25:56
  against the guy who is the leading candidate to be pressed. Of course,
• 26:00
  that creates the other problem of well, so if you're running for president,
• 26:03
  you can't be indicted on federal charges for anything you did while you were president.
• 26:07
  I get that that's a problem. Should we should be living in a
• 26:11
  world where Trump wouldn't be viable and Trump that shame alone would keep Trump from
• 26:18
  running for president again. But we don't live in that world anymore. So
• 26:22
  these are problems that the founders never anticipated. They never thought that there would
• 26:27
  be a Donald Trump who could possibly lose an election, be impeached for a
• 26:33
  second time, his own party wouldn't have the balls to prevent him from running
• 26:37
  again, and that he would run again and not only be willing to do
• 26:41
  that, but that he would be a favorite to win a major party's nomination
• 26:45
  and theoretically have a decent chance of even winning the presidency back. That is
• 26:49
  a scenario that I'm pretty sure the founding fathers never seriously contemplated. So I
• 26:56
  get the political issues, I get the first minute issues. I even get
• 27:02
  the jurisdiction issues. I think it is complete bullcrap that it appears as if
• 27:07
  if this ever goes to trial, that it's going to trial and Washington,
• 27:11
  d C. Which is obviously a ninety percent plus democratic city, the jury
• 27:15
  poll would be incredibly polluted against Donald Trump, and while it will benefit him
• 27:21
  in the classified documents case in Florida. It will absolutely harm him should this
• 27:26
  ever go to trial in Washington, d C. And because it's inherently political,
• 27:32
  I think this is wrong. I don't know what the solution to that
• 27:34
  is, because obviously it's a federal case. Obviously these crimes are alleged to
• 27:38
  have occurred in Washington, D C. But this is again part of the
• 27:42
  problem of having an inherently political prosecution against the former president who is running for
• 27:49
  president again. Now, I've said a lot about this indictment from virtually every
• 27:55
  angle except for why it is that I think it's far more serious than the
• 27:59
  right wing media is giving it credit for. To me, the heart of
• 28:03
  this indictment involves Jeffrey Clark, one of the alleged co conspirators in the indictment,
• 28:10
  a Trump lawyer who is alleged. Now, again it's important to point
• 28:15
  out this has not all been proven as of yet, and frankly, I'm
• 28:18
  not sure they're going to be able to prove this unless they get Clark to
• 28:22
  flip on Trump. And I don't know if they're going to be able to
• 28:26
  do that because he seems like he's very loyal to Donald Trump and I don't
• 28:29
  know that they have the evidence enough to get him to flip, But to
• 28:33
  me, the essence of this indictment is about what Jeffrey Clark is alleged to
• 28:37
  have done. He is alleged to have blackmailed the acting Attorney General, the
• 28:44
  guy who took over after Bill Barr left in the last couple of months of
• 28:48
  the Trump administration, blackmailing the acting Attorney General and the Deputy Attorney General to
• 28:56
  write focus letters to key states, which they hoped would cause them to illegitimately
• 29:04
  send Trump electors to the Electoral College, or at the very least they would
• 29:11
  stop the process. That was their hope, at least stop the process or
• 29:18
  pause it. But their ultimate goal was too full to full states into thinking
• 29:25
  that the Attorney General's Office of the United States had determined that there were inherent,
• 29:30
  fundamental problems with the voting in their own state, and that therefore the
• 29:37
  electors that were assigned to Donald Trump may or may not be or their hope
• 29:44
  was that would be perceived as being the legitimate electors for said state, whether
• 29:51
  it was in Michigan or Georgia, or Arizona or Wisconsin, Nevada. These
• 29:56
  were the Key states that they were trying through Jeffrey Clark, who, by
• 30:03
  the way, in one of the White House logs, Clark is referred to
• 30:07
  as the Attorney General, which never happened. But Clark blackmailed the acting Attorney
• 30:15
  General and Deputy Attorney General again alleged by saying, look, if you send
• 30:21
  this letter that we created for you, which is a focus letter full of
• 30:26
  lies and is not at all legitimate, if you send this letter, we
• 30:30
  won't remove you from your position. Now, thankfully they said, go pounds
• 30:37
  hand and they did not send the letter on behalf of Jeffrey Clark, who
• 30:41
  apparently was working on behalf of Donald Trump. But this issue clearly was a
• 30:51
  huge part of the Trump strategy to overturn this election. There's even a video.
• 30:56
  I've mentioned what's going on in Michigan and previously with these sixteen Trump electors
• 31:03
  who have now been indicted, and I still think that most of them have
• 31:06
  had no idea what they were actually doing, that they just thought they were
• 31:10
  being loyal to Donald Trump. But there's a video which has not gotten nearly
• 31:15
  enough play of the so called Trump electors from Michigan. Now, for those
• 31:22
  of you who may not know, I mean, we have the electoral College,
• 31:25
  and I think most people think that the electors are not actual people because,
• 31:30
  you know, for all intensive purposes, except for a couple of times
• 31:33
  in history, it hasn't mattered whether or not they were people, you know,
• 31:37
  whatever it was. However, it was that a state voted, that's
• 31:41
  where the electoral college votes went. But the Trump forces were trying to get
• 31:47
  their electors, the people who are chosen as Trump electors, to go in
• 31:52
  and be part of the electoral College, even when they didn't win the state.
• 31:56
  And the most dramatic example of this was Michigan, a state that really
• 32:01
  wasn't that close. And there's this video of and it's a little bit hard
• 32:07
  to describe, but basically there's a structure where these Michigan electors are trying to
• 32:15
  gain entrance into so that they can be counted as actual electoral College members so
• 32:25
  they can vote for Donald Trump in the actual electoral College tally. And they
• 32:32
  don't have the credentials because the state of Michigan had rightly determined that it was
• 32:38
  the Biden electors that would be granted permission to vote on behalf of Michigan in
• 32:45
  the electoral College tally, and these people in Michigan were trying to convince this
• 32:51
  basically a security guard that they had every right to get in to this structure
• 32:58
  so that they could vote on behalf of Donald Trump in the electoral college.
• 33:02
  And I mean, this is a stunning video. It's a little bit like
• 33:07
  taking this out of the political into maybe something that people could understand better and
• 33:12
  show how ridiculous it is. You know, a few years ago, the
• 33:15
  New Orleans Saints NFL football team got completely jobbed in the NFC Championship game,
• 33:22
  and there was even talk that, you know, somehow there would be a
• 33:25
  way to reverse the result and let the Saints go to the Super Bowl instead
• 33:30
  of the Rams, and of course that was always ridiculous. But this Michigan
• 33:36
  electoral video is a lot like if the New Orleans Saints had shown up on
• 33:40
  Super Bowl Sunday in their uniforms and they were trying to convince the security guard
• 33:47
  to let them get onto the field because they believed they were the rightful winners
• 33:52
  of the NFC Championship. I mean, that's essentially what happened here. And
• 33:58
  if that occurred, the New Orleans Saints would be the laughing stock of the
• 34:01
  entire country. And I would like to believe that even some Saint fans would
• 34:05
  be embarrassed that that ever occurred. And this is just a football game.
• 34:09
  We're talking about a presidential election here. And this is how close this Trump
• 34:17
  coup or whatever you want to call it, actually came to fruition. I
• 34:23
  mean, if Mike Pennce had been a lunatic, and if the Attorney general
• 34:29
  and the w Attorney General had given into Jeffrey Clark's demands, and you know,
• 34:35
  if these if the security guard had let in the Michigan electors, I
• 34:39
  mean, we would have had all sorts of massive chaos and confusion and what
• 34:45
  actually transpired on January sixth would have seemed like a fricking picnic. But this
• 34:52
  is insane, this plan by the Trump team. It's outrageous. It's legal.
• 35:00
  It must and the idea, the idea that conservatives, people who claim
• 35:07
  to be in favor of the Constitution are somehow saying, well, you know,
• 35:12
  this isn't really that serious. It's inherently political. It's the first Amendment
• 35:15
  iss you bulls checked if proven, if proven, this goes to the heart
• 35:22
  of our democracy, in our constitutional republic, and if Barack Obama ever tried
• 35:30
  to do this for Hillary Clinton in twenty sixteen, there would have been Republican
• 35:37
  led riots in the streets, and rightfully so, and I would have supported
• 35:46
  vigorous protest, even though I did not vote for Donald Trump in twenty sixteen,
• 35:51
  and I despise the man if a Barack Obama I had ever tried to
• 35:55
  concoct this scheme where he was going to change the human beings from Trump states
• 36:05
  who were going to be allowed to vote in the Electoral College to Hillary electors
• 36:10
  by blackmailing and lying to the acting Attorney General, as is alleged in this
• 36:16
  Trump indictment. If anything close to that had happened, Conservatives would have gone
• 36:22
  batshit crazy, and rightfully so. And instead we have massive hypocrisy here,
• 36:30
  not just because conservatives are claiming this is not a big deal and that this
• 36:34
  is all political, but we even have conservatives lying about what really did happen
• 36:40
  in twenty sixteen. People I used to have significant respect for, like Megan
• 36:45
  Kelly and Marco Rubio, who I supported in the twenty sixteen Republican presidential nominating
• 36:52
  process, and I'm sure they're not alone, because this became a very popular
• 36:57
  argument or analogy in the days after this latest Trump indictment, and what I'm
• 37:01
  referring to is that both Megan Kelly and Marco Rubio again I'm sure they were
• 37:07
  not alone, have gone out of their way to try to claim that what
• 37:12
  did happen in twenty sixteen with regard to the electoral college and the way that
• 37:16
  liberals in the media and even some Democrats handled twenty sixteen is essentially exactly the
• 37:22
  same thing that Trump is alleged to have had done in twenty twenty, and
• 37:27
  that therefore it's not only not illegal, it's not even wrong because after all,
• 37:31
  liberals and Democrats did it in twenty sixteen. Bullshit, total bullshit.
• 37:38
  What happened in twenty sixteen was that a bunch of Hollywood liberals, in the
• 37:43
  desperate liberals in the media, and a few Democrats who just could not comprehend
• 37:49
  that Donald Trump had won this election and were desperately trying to come up with
• 37:52
  some way to stop him. They did promote a campaign were involving the electoral
• 37:59
  College, which their campaign was this, Dear Republican electors. It's exactly what
• 38:07
  they said, Dear Republican electors, Please consider that the Founding Fathers can have
• 38:20
  contemplated the idea that maybe you could switch your votes if it was so dramatic
• 38:28
  a situation that the country was imperiled by you being forced to vote for a
• 38:32
  guy who was like a trader, or you know, a Manchurian candidate or
• 38:37
  something absolutely crazy, that for the good of the country, the Founding Fathers
• 38:43
  gave you the right to change your vote. Now, there are state laws,
• 38:47
  by the way, that restrict most I don't know if it's most,
• 38:52
  but a lot of the electors from actually doing what is called being a faithless
• 38:57
  elector, where you get to vote for whoever the hell you want. It
• 39:00
  has happened a few times in history, very rarely, to my knowledge,
• 39:04
  no one has ever been legally charged with being a faithless elector, regardless of
• 39:08
  what state they came from. But what the liberals did in twenty sixteen,
• 39:14
  while nutty and silly and desperate and wrong, was fundamentally different than what is
• 39:22
  alleged in this Trump indictment. What the liberals did was they tried to convince
• 39:29
  the properly elected members of the electoral College to switch their votes. What Trump
• 39:36
  tried to do was in an illegal conspiracy change the human beings who had been
• 39:45
  chosen legitimately by their own states to be part of the electoral college. That
• 39:52
  is a completely different set of circumstances. There is no analogy to be made
• 39:58
  there, and Megan Kelly and Mark Rubio ought to be embarrassed by having publicly
• 40:04
  made such an analogy. Here's the bottom line with regard to the right wing
• 40:09
  media reaction to the third Trump indictment. If Trump wasn't so damn far ahead,
• 40:16
  I think this thing might have taken him out. But everyone is far
• 40:21
  too invested and afraid of him now invested in him and afraid of him now.
• 40:27
  I have said continually for months you cannot let Trump break containment, and
• 40:34
  that these polls showing him way ahead, whether it's nationally or in the key
• 40:38
  States, are not irrelevant. It doesn't even matter whether or not they're accurate.
• 40:44
  They're incredibly relevant because they give Trump leverage. And one of the many
• 40:51
  ways that Trump's leading the polls has given him enormous leverage. It's not just
• 40:57
  that he's not going to do the first debate, may not do any debate,
• 41:00
  and he ever does any debates, they will be stunted in his favor
• 41:04
  to a ridiculous degree. The reality is that because he's so far ahead now,
• 41:10
  right wing media members are more than willing, they're thrilled to find any
• 41:16
  out at all to not attacking him on these indictments. And so if they
• 41:22
  can claim it's a First Amendment issue, or you know, it's inherently political,
• 41:27
  or this is a redo of impeachment, it's double jeopardy or whatever,
• 41:31
  or he was fighting for us, or this would never been brought against the
• 41:37
  Democrat, or the DOJ is inherently corrupt because of Hunter Biden. It doesn't
• 41:40
  matter what excuse they use, they'll come up with something. And the reason
• 41:44
  why they will come up with something is because Trump is clearly still absurdly popular
• 41:52
  among their customer base. And when Trump is above fifty percent nationally in Republican
• 41:59
  polls, and one even Rond De Santis is even close to him, nobody
• 42:04
  is going to take the unpopular position that this indictment is legitimate and should be
• 42:10
  disqualifying nobody that matters. I don't matter, which is why I'm able to
• 42:15
  tell you the truth. And unfortunately, one of the very few people willing
• 42:20
  and able to tell you the truth, because this isn't even close. This
• 42:23
  is as disqualifying as it gets. And by the way, it's not just
• 42:29
  disqualifying with regard to the morality and the illegality and the precedent that it sets,
• 42:36
  and how close we came to an absolute constitutional catastrophe which conservatives and Republicans
• 42:43
  used to pretend to care about, especially members of the so called conservative now
• 42:46
  right wing Trump friendly media. It's not just that, I mean, this
• 42:52
  should be disqualifying from a political standpoint. Well, it's not gonna hurt him
• 42:58
  in the GOP polls. Probably won't help him either, because he can't do
• 43:00
  much better than he currently is doing, unfortunately, but it's gonna hurt him
• 43:05
  in the general election polls. And for those who are trying to claim that,
• 43:07
  well, Biden and Trump are tied right now at forty three percent of
• 43:12
  seeing a lot of polls in that realm, who do you think the undecided
• 43:15
  voters in those polls are gonna go to in the last moments of the campaign.
• 43:20
  A lot of them won't vote, But there is no chance that of
• 43:24
  the fourteen percent that are left in a forty three forty three tie that anything
• 43:30
  close to majority of those people are suddenly going to go. You know what,
• 43:34
  I think we need to go with Donald Trump. I mean, barring
• 43:36
  an economic catastrophe of epic proportions or Biden basically being on his deathbread, I
• 43:42
  mean something along those lines, that's what it would take. But everything being
• 43:46
  equal, the undecided voters at this point are not going to break for Donald
• 43:51
  Trump. They're probably all gonna break for Joe Biden. And and that's assuming
• 43:58
  that there's no conviction with any of these indictments between now and then, which
• 44:04
  I don't think there will be from either a timing perspective or from a jury
• 44:07
  standpoint. But that's going to be a problem. This is gonna hurt Trump
• 44:12
  in a general election. Also, by the way, with all these legal
• 44:16
  problems, he's got no money. He's got no money, So he's dead
• 44:22
  in the water when it comes to a general election against Joe Biden. And
• 44:28
  he's got no money. And I will once again point out, after all
• 44:34
  this, who the hell's going to work for him? After seeing what happens
• 44:38
  to you when you are in Trump's orbit, and as discredited as he has
• 44:43
  become among people who are credible and established and have you know, great backgrounds
• 44:52
  and credentials and work histories people you would want in an administration. Who the
• 44:58
  hell's going to work for Donald Trump. His own vice president got thrown under
• 45:02
  the bus because he stood up for the constitution. His own vice president.
• 45:07
  To this day, Mike Pence is having to deal everywhere he goes with crowds
• 45:12
  telling him he's a coward and that he's the reason Joe Biden is president,
• 45:15
  which is just batshit crazy. I mean, it's just unbelievable that we've gotten
• 45:22
  to this point and the right wing media is going to pretend, well,
• 45:24
  you know, we're defending we're defending good here, we're defending against the evils
• 45:30
  of unfair justice and you know, this out of control DJ and it all
• 45:37
  goes back by the way, I gotta say I nailed this better than anybody
• 45:40
  else did, earlier than anyone else did. Went after that first indictment,
• 45:45
  I was screaming, screaming, bloody murder that Tucker Carlson and Glenn Back had
• 45:50
  created this narrative that if we don't nominate Trump, we will have allowed the
• 45:57
  left wing to get away with this, that we will have a two tier
• 46:00
  justice system forever, that we will have lost the Republic. And as soon
• 46:05
  as I heard that narrative, I was like, oh shit, this thing's
• 46:09
  over, because that's gonna resonate, that's gonna give everybody who likes Donald Trump
• 46:15
  an excuse to pretend that defending Trump and supporting Trump is somehow the moral high
• 46:22
  ground, that somehow has a cause bigger than Trump, that somehow is defense
• 46:29
  of the Constitution and defense of the American way, And that's all bullshit.
• 46:35
  And unfortunately that narrative has not just been planned in as seeds, it's turned
• 46:40
  into a forest of sequoia trees because I don't see how in the world you
• 46:45
  chopped that down now, I really don't. I mean, after seeing the
• 46:51
  reaction to this third indictment, and there's probably gonna be a fourth indictment,
• 46:54
  which is also going to be related to the twenty twenty election in Georgia,
• 47:00
  and once again it'll fall into the same exact heading of things that are inherently
• 47:05
  political, where the DJ has no credibility, where the jury form woman is
• 47:08
  a nut job who's already made it clear that she was out to get Donald
• 47:13
  Trump. And obviously he was fighting for us, he was he wasn't fighting
• 47:17
  for us, he was fighting for his own selfish purposes. He doesn't give
• 47:21
  a shit about you, He doesn't give a shit about his own voters,
• 47:23
  doesn't give a shit about the country. He only cares about himself and his
• 47:28
  own goddamn ego. And now all he cares about is keeping himself out of
• 47:30
  jail. That's all he cares about. And it's so damn obvious. And
• 47:36
  this indictment, while there are problems with it, and while it is not
• 47:40
  yet proven, and I don't think it's ever gonna be proven unless they get,
• 47:45
  for instance, Jeffrey Clark to flip what's alleged, is very serious.
• 47:51
  And the idea that the right wing media is pretending that it isn't is just
• 47:54
  pathetic, even by the standards of a post Trump right wing media. And
• 48:00
  one of the other things I have said about all these Trump indictments is that
• 48:05
  inherently it's bad for Rhonda Santis, the only guy who can beat him in
• 48:09
  the Republican nominating process, because Trump gets to say whatever the hell he wants.
• 48:16
  Desantist is in a trap. The Santist is handcuffed. Desantist has to
• 48:23
  somehow both support Trump while also be willing to say some semblance of the truth
• 48:31
  and remain somewhat viable in a general election should Trump somehow collapse and De Santis
• 48:37
  be the nominee. So all of Trump's troubles legally actually help him when it
• 48:45
  comes to the fight against the Santists, because De Santis is an inherently no
• 48:50
  win situation, and inherently no win situation, there's no possible way for De
• 48:55
  Santis to be able to get through this minefield. It's just impossible, especially
• 49:04
  among the right wing media and the Trump cult. They have set up the
• 49:08
  obstacles in a way that make it impossible for DeSantis to do this. And
• 49:14
  I gotta say on this one, DeSantis did about as well as he could
• 49:19
  have, because he was, of course asked what his view on the twenty
• 49:22
  twenty election is. Was it stolen? And DeSantis said, effectively, legally
• 49:29
  it was not stolen, but that you know, it was stolen in other
• 49:32
  ways with regard to the way that the voting systems changed and the politics and
• 49:38
  the media bias surrounding the twenty twenty election, which, by the way,
• 49:43
  I tend to agree with, I don't agree with every word DeSantis says in
• 49:46
  this clip we're about to play for you. But I think this is about
• 49:50
  as well as DeSantis could do when answering this question, which inevitably comes and
• 49:54
  will continue to come as Trump. I mean, it's this you ain't gonna
• 49:58
  go away now, folks. By the way, that's another part of the
• 50:00
  general election problem. I mean literally, we're gonna be reletigating whether or not
• 50:06
  twenty twenty was stolen just because that's gonna be a huge part of Trump's defense
• 50:12
  throughout the entire twenty four election. How does that help anything? How does
• 50:16
  that help beating Joe Biden even a little bit. It doesn't, of course,
• 50:22
  but no one on the right, in the right wing media seems to
• 50:24
  give a damn about that anymore because they actually want Biden in office and maybe
• 50:29
  even Harrison office for another four eight twelve years, because it's good for their
• 50:32
  business, which is struggling as it is. All media business is struggling.
• 50:37
  But here is Ronda Santis, once again being put in a tough spot,
• 50:42
  doing the best that he can, trying to answer the question as to whether
• 50:45
  or not the twenty twenty election was actually stolen, and do you think the
• 50:49
  twenty twenty elections stolen I've said many times the election is what it is.
• 50:53
  All those theories that were put out did not prove to be true. But
• 50:58
  what I've also said is the way you conduct a good election that people have
• 51:00
  competence in. You don't change the rules in the middle of the game.
• 51:05
  You don't ballot harvest, you don't do Zuckerbucks, and clearly having the agencies
• 51:10
  work with Facebook to censor things like hunter Byte and that's unfair. So it
• 51:15
  was not an election that was conducted the way I think we want to.
• 51:20
  But that's different than saying like Maduro stole votes or something like that, and
• 51:23
  I think those theories proved to be unsubstantiated. In Florida, we banned Zuckerbucks,
• 51:30
  we banned ballot harvesting. We have a transparent process where you know the
• 51:35
  votes are coming in. When the election's over at seven o'clock at night,
• 51:37
  you know how many votes have been cast, the results are produced. And
• 51:43
  I think a lot of people were frustrated because in twenty twenty, and we've
• 51:45
  seen it in twenty two, you'd have votes cast, you'd have results come
• 51:51
  up, tentative results, and then a week later it would change. In
• 51:54
  California, it's like multiple weeks where that would happen. That does not inspire
• 51:59
  competence, and so we need to do it the way Florida does it.
• 52:01
  But here's the thing, as the candidate, I am not going to fight
• 52:06
  with one hand tied behind my back. If there is ballid harvesting, we
• 52:09
  are going to harvest. If it's allowed. I don't think it should be,
• 52:13
  But in Nevada, on these places, we're gonna get after it.
• 52:15
  We're gonna have organizations that get every vote. If you have Zuckerbucks that's allowed,
• 52:21
  I think it's totally corrupt to allow it. It should be banned,
• 52:23
  but it's not banned in every place, and so if it's not, we're
• 52:28
  gonna get after it. And we will absolutely as president ensure that you do
• 52:32
  not have federal agencies colluding with social media companies to stifle information like they did
• 52:39
  with the Hunter valued laptop. So let's be honest about the failings that happen,
• 52:45
  and let's make sure that we correct that going forward like we did in
• 52:47
  Florida. Now, several weeks ago, I was screaming bloody murder because just
• 52:52
  after Ron de Santis announced that he was going to be an official nominee official
• 52:59
  candidate to be the nominee for the Republican presidential nomination. In twenty twenty four,
• 53:04
  there was what I thought political manner from heaven for the De Santist campaign.
• 53:09
  The De Santist campaign at the time did not latch onto. And what
• 53:13
  I'm referring to is that the governor of California, Gavin Newsom, my least
• 53:19
  favorite politician, maybe of all time, and that's really saying something, had
• 53:23
  told Sean Hannity on Fox News Channel that he was willing to debate ron De
• 53:29
  Santis and that Hannity would be the moderator of said two hour debate. And
• 53:36
  I went apoplectic when it appeared as if the Santists and the campaign was not
• 53:42
  going to accept that debate offer, because to me, I mean, this
• 53:45
  was everything you could possibly ask for, because I think the Santists would crush
• 53:50
  Newsome in a proper debate, and even if it has no impact over the
• 53:53
  actual Republican nominating process, because it might be over already, at least from
• 53:59
  his oracle standpoint, Having a debate between the way Florida's handled the last few
• 54:04
  years and the way California handled the last few years is incredibly significant from a
• 54:08
  historical perspective, and that I have faith in Rohn de Santis being able to
• 54:15
  stand up for what really is that the essence of what America is and will
• 54:20
  be in the future based largely in the very very very very different reactions to
• 54:25
  the COVID pandemic and other issues related to that. And I was very disappointed
• 54:30
  that at the time it appeared as if DeSantis was not going to accept Newsom's
• 54:37
  debate offer. However, in the last few days that has now changed.
• 54:40
  DeSantis went on with Sean Hannity and said that he would accept Newsom's debate offer.
• 54:46
  Now, there are a couple of problems. Number one, largely because
• 54:52
  the DeSantis team delayed. Now appears as if this won't happen if it does
• 54:55
  happen until November, which I have a big problem with because I think it'll
• 55:00
  be perceived very differently in November, which is basically in the middle of these
• 55:07
  debates that are supposed to happen on the Republican side, It'll seem confusing.
• 55:13
  It'll seem as if the Santist is not really going after Trump, that maybe
• 55:17
  he's even conceding. Twenty twenty four and starting to talk about twenty twenty eight
• 55:22
  and the potential matchup between the Santists and Newsom. You know, there are
• 55:28
  already people who are claiming that, you know, this is this is essentially
• 55:32
  the Santists acknowledging defeat. I don't think that would be the perception if this
• 55:37
  debate happened now before the Republican debates that. I still believe Trump is going
• 55:44
  to avoid like the plague, and I think by the way, his indictments
• 55:46
  will help him avoid because he'll be able to say that, you know,
• 55:50
  his lawyers don't want him to be answering questions directly about the allegations. You
• 55:55
  know, so I think that there's a perception problem with regard to November.
• 56:00
  There's also apparently a fight over the rules of this debate. The Newsom people
• 56:05
  put out a scathing statement saying that the rules that the Santist people are proposing
• 56:09
  are ridiculous. I'm not sure I understand why they're ridiculous. It is a
• 56:15
  little odd that the Santists wants there to be a video portion to begin to
• 56:20
  debate. He also wants there to be a live audience, which I could
• 56:23
  certainly understand why he wants there to be a live audience because anything hosted by
• 56:28
  Sean Hannity, and this is going to happen in Georgia, which I think
• 56:31
  is a good location for this. A Georgia audience coming to a Sean Hannity
• 56:37
  hosted debate is going to be very much more in the Republicans favor than it
• 56:42
  would be in the Democrats favor. So I'm not one hundred percent sure this
• 56:45
  is actually going to happen, because it seems like the Newsom people are now
• 56:50
  looking for a way out of this now that the Santist has accepted the general
• 56:54
  concept of a Newsome debate. I hope it happens, even though it's not
• 56:59
  perfect occurring in November, and I almost really don't care about the rules as
• 57:04
  long as they're fair. I frankly don't think there should be a crowd.
• 57:07
  I think that would only confuse things. It should just be three people in
• 57:12
  a room, you know, Newsome De Santis and Sean Hannity, and you
• 57:16
  got, you know, basically two morons in Newsome and Hannity, and a
• 57:21
  very smart guy from Yale and Harvard in Rohn De Santis. And in my
• 57:23
  opinion, under those circumstances, the Santis will shine. I am not convinced
• 57:29
  this is going to happen. I will believe it when I see it.
• 57:32
  However, I did tweet a few proposed lines that Rohn de Santis could use
• 57:37
  to show how trumpy he can be against Gavin Newso. Some of these were
• 57:42
  just off the top of my head, and I tweeted them out. I'll
• 57:45
  share a few of them with you here. I think it would be great
• 57:47
  if the Santis said something to Newsom along the lines of congrats on being far
• 57:52
  more liked by Donald Trump than me, Governor. It must be because you
• 57:57
  two are related failed marriage, of course, Kimberly. I hope you're watching
• 58:04
  Kimberly, his former wife. I also think De Santists could say, thank
• 58:08
  you, Gavin for your work at the French laundry restaurant. Improving mask mandates
• 58:14
  are just a virtue signal for you liberal elites that I think would be effective.
• 58:20
  I think most people watching would probably understand what I was referring to there.
• 58:24
  I would also love for Desantist to say, in Florida, we reopened
• 58:28
  our schools immediately during COVID and kept them open. Sadly that didn't happen in
• 58:32
  California, Governor, unless you went to the right private school, of course,
• 58:37
  like your own kids did, which is another fact that most people don't
• 58:42
  know about Gavin Newsom and the COVID response. And then I also suggested that
• 58:46
  maybe De santist could say a governor, I hear you're soon banning the sale
• 58:51
  of gas cars. I predict that the last of your gas fueled you haul
• 58:55
  trucks will end up in Florida, kind of like what happened with your in
• 59:00
  laws moving to Florida during COVID. Now, I don't anticipate that any of
• 59:06
  these lines will actually be used by De Santis people, because it doesn't seem
• 59:08
  to be, you know, within their m O, their modus operandi.
• 59:14
  However, in their current situation, I would urge them to be as aggressive
• 59:17
  as possible. There is zero blowback in a Republican primary process for being too
• 59:24
  tough on Gavin Newsom and to have too many mic drop moments and to being
• 59:30
  too trumpy. I've had people tell me that they think that no, no,
• 59:34
  no. The goal of a DeSantis Newsome debate is to show independent voters
• 59:39
  in a general election that DeSantis is the right guy. No no, no,
• 59:45
  no, no, no, no. Suppose not November of this year
• 59:49
  if this thing happens. The only purpose of this debate is to get the
• 59:53
  subject matter back to the COVID response, which is the strength of the De
• 59:57
  Santis' entire campaign, and also to show Republican voters just how trumpy Desantist can
• 1:00:05
  be, and how much better at being trumpy in an intellectual and cerebral environment
• 1:00:09
  De Santis can be than Trump. Ever, would be not to mention that,
• 1:00:15
  you know, this is a guy Knewsome that Trump has acknowledged he can't
• 1:00:17
  hit because he's been too nice to him, and Knewsome has complimented Trump specifically
• 1:00:22
  on the COVID response. I mean, you almost could not come up with
• 1:00:27
  a better scenario in theory for the Desantist campaign. I'm somehow very skeptical that
• 1:00:32
  it will turn out that way, partially because of the timing, partially because
• 1:00:37
  that's just the way the world works. I'm also I have to say I'm
• 1:00:39
  not one hundred percent trusting of Sean Hannah to here. I mean, he's
• 1:00:44
  such a dope that it's hard for me to attribute some underground conspiracy to him.
• 1:00:51
  But he obviously is a huge Trump fan, and I am a little
• 1:00:53
  bit suspicious that he seems so willing to do this, and that maybe he's
• 1:00:59
  setting the Santists up for embarrassment against Newsom on behalf of Trump. I can
• 1:01:05
  see that. I certainly hope that the De Santis people are aware of that
• 1:01:08
  possibility and prepare for it. But like I said, at this point,
• 1:01:13
  when you're this far down, I don't really see much negative. I mean,
• 1:01:16
  it's a risk, it could go badly in some ways, but when
• 1:01:21
  you're this far down to a guy like Trump, you got to take risks,
• 1:01:23
  and this is a calculated risk that to me is a no brainer on
• 1:01:28
  the part of the De Santis campaign, and I'm happy to see that they
• 1:01:30
  finally, at least in principle, have accepted the debate opportunity with Newsom,
• 1:01:35
  and I hope it happens, whether it's in November in Georgia or wherever,
• 1:01:39
  just get it done. At this point, I also want to mention what's
• 1:01:44
  been going on with Hunter Biden. I talk about this almost every episode of
• 1:01:47
  the podcast. From a very reluctant perspective. I've acknowledged I hate the Hunter
• 1:01:52
  Biden's story in general, I hate the story because it's so murky, and
• 1:01:57
  because I don't trust the right wing media on any of this, and I
• 1:02:00
  think that the right wing media is in danger of having created a narrative through
• 1:02:06
  which everyone sees future allegations or facts or evidence, and they've already come to
• 1:02:14
  a conclusion, and then that creates a very dangerous situation that's not unlike what
• 1:02:20
  happened to the left during Russia Gate. And I've even referenced some similarities between
• 1:02:25
  some of the allegations against Hunter Biden and Joe Biden and the Steel dossier with
• 1:02:31
  regard to Trump and Russia Gate. I am very open minded to everything regarding
• 1:02:37
  Hunter Biden and Joe Biden allegations. I think that the right is not open
• 1:02:43
  minded, and I understand why the media has zero credibility in the minds of
• 1:02:47
  Republicans, if only because of the laptop being censored during the twenty twenty election.
• 1:02:53
  I get that. I totally understand and I share it. Have no
• 1:03:00
  trust in the left wing media on this story either. I have disdain for
• 1:03:04
  the left wing media and the right wing media when it comes to Hunter Biden's
• 1:03:07
  stories, and at this point, the right would believe almost anything related to
• 1:03:12
  Hunter Biden. That's how toxic he is and understandably so, and how little
• 1:03:17
  credibility the left wing media has. But in the last week or so,
• 1:03:22
  there was a potentially significant development where a former Barisma associate of Hunter Biden got
• 1:03:30
  by the name of Devin Archer, testified or his testimony was made public.
• 1:03:34
  He also did an interview with Tucker Carlson. Tucker Carlson, of course continuing
• 1:03:37
  to be the MVP of the Trump campaign in every way possible, and basically,
• 1:03:43
  Devin Archer created this narrative of wait a minute, you know, Joe
• 1:03:50
  Biden is not telling the truth when he says he never discussed Hunter Biden's businesses
• 1:03:55
  publicly or with associates of his, and that he ned no nothing to do
• 1:04:00
  with the business, and that he said, wait a minute, he participated
• 1:04:05
  in about twenty conference calls where he would just jump on the line and suddenly
• 1:04:11
  Vice President Joe Biden would be there, and allegedly they didn't talk about it,
• 1:04:15
  and setting substitutive they talk about the weather whatever. No one believes that,
• 1:04:19
  although I actually kind of think it's possible. As absurd as it is,
• 1:04:24
  here's the bottom line of all this, I thought Devin Archer was a
• 1:04:28
  very credible witness, although it should be pointed out he is convicted of fraud,
• 1:04:35
  but I thought he was someone who was trying to tell the truth in
• 1:04:38
  his interview with Tucker Carlson. His testimony to Congress was interesting on a couple
• 1:04:44
  of levels. You know, the media has been attacked in the right wing
• 1:04:49
  because the media and the left wing media, they latched on to this phrase
• 1:04:55
  illusion of access, illusion of access, and that made it into a lot
• 1:05:00
  of headlines that Devin Archer had testified to Biden, creating Joe Biden creating an
• 1:05:04
  illusion of access for his son Hunter Biden, and the right wing media,
• 1:05:11
  and even a reporter for CBS, which is obviously mainstream left wing media,
• 1:05:15
  have been trying to make the point no, no, no, no,
• 1:05:17
  no. Archer never testified to illusion of access. And when I first saw
• 1:05:23
  this, I thought, oh, okay, this seems like left wing media
• 1:05:27
  malfeasance. This seems wrong because it's he did not say this. They're actually
• 1:05:31
  quoting the questioner, the person who was who was questioning Archer during his testimony,
• 1:05:39
  who said the phrase illusion of access. However, if you go a
• 1:05:44
  little bit deeper than that. You realize that Archer agreed at one point in
• 1:05:49
  totality and another point almost in totality with the use of the phrase illusion of
• 1:05:57
  access to describe what Joe Biden was to Hunter Biden. So, while it
• 1:06:03
  was a little bit of media bias to emphasize illusion of access, since Archer
• 1:06:08
  never said that, it was not inaccurate because he agreed on two different occasions
• 1:06:15
  with that phrase. And I have to say, the totality of his testimony
• 1:06:18
  and the totality of the interview with Tucker Carlson seemed to be consistent with what
• 1:06:24
  Joe Biden was trying to provide. No, I'm not naive, but and
• 1:06:27
  if you provide me with evidence that went further than that, I'll be the
• 1:06:30
  first person to jump all over it. I did a TV interview with Dan
• 1:06:35
  Abrams on News Nation television late last week to discuss this issue. Dan and
• 1:06:41
  I are of like minds here where the left wing media is pretending that the
• 1:06:45
  Hunter Biden's story is a non existent thing, that it's irrelevant, that it's
• 1:06:49
  just a right wing conspiracy, which is wrong, but that the right wing
• 1:06:54
  media is way over playing this. I'm exactly in that same boat, and
• 1:07:00
  I think what Biden did here is wrong. That's why he lied about it.
• 1:07:03
  Which I didn't get a chance to mention that specifically in the interview with
• 1:07:08
  Dan Abrams, but if I'd had another thirty seconds, I would have.
• 1:07:11
  There's, you know, whenever, there's got to be a reason why Biden
• 1:07:14
  and the Biden administration has essentially lied about what happened in these conference calls.
• 1:07:18
  If there was nothing nefarious at all, you wouldn't lie about it. However,
• 1:07:25
  what I think was happening here as vice president, I can't emphasize this
• 1:07:30
  enough. I mean, no one ever on the right wants to mention this.
• 1:07:32
  He's vice president at this point, Joe Biden is with no political future
• 1:07:39
  none. He's the most impotent vice president in modern American history. I mean,
• 1:07:45
  because he has no real power, he has no influence over Obama in
• 1:07:48
  reality, and he's never gonna be president in himself. And almost all of
• 1:07:54
  this happens between two and twelve and twenty and sixteen, so he's termed out.
• 1:07:58
  He's a lame doctor vice president with no political future. Because everyone knows
• 1:08:02
  Hillary Clinton is going to be the Democratic presidential nominee in twenty sixteen. The
• 1:08:06
  only reason Biden becomes president is through this this accident of history where Donald Trump
• 1:08:14
  defeats Hillary Clinton in twenty sixteen, and then the Democrats don't have anybody to
• 1:08:18
  run in twenty twenty because Hillary decides like Trump should have to not give it
• 1:08:23
  another go. So he Biden has no real power, and in my opinion,
• 1:08:30
  what he's doing here is he essentially is selling out like a celebrity doing
• 1:08:34
  commercials for reverse mortgages. You know, whether you're Fred Thompson or Tom Selleck
• 1:08:41
  and have formerly respected actors and even political figures. I mean, you just
• 1:08:45
  see this all the time. I have nothing against reverse mortgages, really,
• 1:08:47
  but there's all sorts of celebrities who at the end of their career Larry King
• 1:08:50
  did, It's a lot where all of a sudden, you know it's almost
• 1:08:54
  over, and so you just start selling out all over the place. And
• 1:08:58
  this is essentially what Joe Biden was doing was he was sending a signal to
• 1:09:02
  Hunter's associates that hey, remember he's the son of the Vice president. I
• 1:09:08
  might be able to help you out if you needs something. That's the signal.
• 1:09:12
  Okay, now, that's unseemly. That's wrong, especially when you lie
• 1:09:15
  about it. But what actually happened, did anything actually occur? And I
• 1:09:19
  have not seen evidence of that yet. Were there bribes? I've not seen
• 1:09:25
  direct evidence of that yet. I'm totally open to it. Even this firing
• 1:09:30
  of the Ukrainian prosecutor to me, doesn't fit with the narrative. In fact,
• 1:09:34
  might be in the opposite direction of the right wing narrative on this.
• 1:09:39
  So this is why I hate the goddamn story, because it sounds like I'm
• 1:09:42
  defending Joe Biden and Hunter Biden. I'm not. I just want the truth
• 1:09:45
  to be known, to be figured out, and if it's a real scandal,
• 1:09:49
  then let's prosecute it as a real scandal. I'm also particularly outraged with
• 1:09:57
  regard to the hypocrisy of Trump's supporter getting all exercised about these allegations of influence
• 1:10:03
  peddling and an inappropriate contact when their presidential candidate is Donald freaking Trump. Does
• 1:10:13
  anybody believe that Donald Trump never hopped on a call or jumped into a meeting
• 1:10:19
  that involved the Kushner's or Donald Trump Junior or some other friend or somebody he
• 1:10:26
  thought could be helpful to him in his post presidency era. I mean,
• 1:10:30
  this is this sounds like something Donald Trump would do on a daily basis,
• 1:10:33
  not to mention when you look talk about, you know, foreign influence.
• 1:10:39
  Look at all the money that the Kushners, Jared and Trump's favorite daughter made
• 1:10:45
  from Saudi Arabia, who also, as I continue to say, and I
• 1:10:47
  said on News Nation, no one wants to mention Trump himself is getting paid
• 1:10:53
  four times this year in what has to be way over priced fees because that's
• 1:10:58
  the way the Saudis do this. I mean, this is classic potential money
• 1:11:01
  laundering where they are paying Donald Trump for the use of his golf courses for
• 1:11:06
  four live golf events, which is not just a massive conflict of interest,
• 1:11:13
  and taking money directly from a foreign government that is often adversarial, that does
• 1:11:18
  an incredibly significant amount of business on numerous fronts with the United States. I
• 1:11:25
  mean, you're taking money directly from Saudi Arabia. By the way, you're
• 1:11:29
  also doing so in helping their attack on an American institution, which is the
• 1:11:34
  PGA Tour. I mean, in my mind, in my mind, I
• 1:11:38
  know, I'm a golfer, but Trump taking money from Saudi Arabia. An
• 1:11:42
  effort to try to destroy the PGA tour ought to be disqualifying in and of
• 1:11:46
  itself, and it's not even remotely an issue because the right wing media doesn't
• 1:11:51
  want it to be an issue. And I mean, it's all just so
• 1:11:56
  insane. But how in the world the Trump people can can get so upset
• 1:12:00
  about these allegations involving Hunter and Joe Biden when their candidate is Donald Trump is
• 1:12:06
  just beyond me. I really I don't get it, and it shows me
• 1:12:12
  how incredibly broken the entire process is, how upside down everything is, how
• 1:12:17
  there's an incredible lack of self awareness on the part of Trump fans, and
• 1:12:24
  they have an absolutely unbelievable ability to just forget anything that doesn't fit in the
• 1:12:30
  narrative that they want, or to rationalize whatever doesn't fit in the narrative they
• 1:12:33
  want. So with regard to Hunter Biden, I am still open to any
• 1:12:38
  and all possibilities, but as of right now, what has been proven is
• 1:12:44
  a bit underwhelming. It's a scandal, but not in the post Trump era,
• 1:12:47
  and frankly, Devin Archer should have been the best witness you could possibly
• 1:12:51
  ever get on this. I mean he's clearly willing to talk. He comes
• 1:12:56
  across as credible, but what he actually said I've already stated mostly underwhelming.
• 1:13:02
  And once again, Tucker Carlson all too happy to help Donald Trump in any
• 1:13:06
  way possible that he can. Because this Hunter Biden's story, the bigger it
• 1:13:10
  gets, the more it helps Trump, because one, it discredits the twenty
• 1:13:15
  twenty election in the minds of Trump friendly voters because of the laptop being censored.
• 1:13:20
  And it also discredits the Department of Justice for the two tiered judicial system
• 1:13:26
  and how Democrats get a sweetheart deal and they go after Republicans who are a
• 1:13:32
  threat like Donald Trump. This all fits perfectly with Trump's bogus narrative, and
• 1:13:38
  I expected to continue to help him in the nominating process on the Republican side.
• 1:13:43
  Turning away from direct politics for a second, I want to mention several
• 1:13:46
  other stories that have occurred in the last few days that I found to be
• 1:13:50
  quite interesting and very very telling. One is with regard to Lizzo. Now
• 1:13:58
  it's possibly you don't know who Lizzo is. Lizzo, I guess you would
• 1:14:01
  call her an entertainer. She happens to be a black female who is both
• 1:14:08
  morbidly obese, and I guess you would call her a lesbian. And I've
• 1:14:15
  always been very suspicious of Lizzo because I can't imagine that, you know,
• 1:14:20
  people are really all that entertained by her unless you happen to be of the
• 1:14:25
  same exact demographic. But because the media coverage of her is so favorable,
• 1:14:31
  and it has to be because she's a black, obese female who's a lesbian.
• 1:14:36
  I mean, she checks, you know, numerous boxes, and so
• 1:14:41
  therefore the media feels as if they need to protect her and elevate her.
• 1:14:45
  Oh my gosh, this is so awesome that this morbidly obese, black lesbian
• 1:14:50
  female is a successful entertainer. And but I never paid that much attention to
• 1:14:57
  her. I'm like, okay, well, there, that's the world we
• 1:14:59
  live in now, where the media is going to elevate somebody for all these
• 1:15:02
  completely ridiculous reasons. And the only thing I found to be serious about it
• 1:15:06
  was that when you elevate someone as an entertainer in our culture to this degree,
• 1:15:12
  you're basically telling young women that it's okay to be morbidly obese, which
• 1:15:16
  I have a big problem with. But okay, whatever, Well, now
• 1:15:19
  it's turned out that at least three people who have worked for Lizzo are suing
• 1:15:26
  her, and by the way, these are three black women. You would
• 1:15:30
  think that this would mean that inherently the news media would believe everything they have
• 1:15:35
  to say, and they would be deemed to be telling the truth, and
• 1:15:40
  Lizzo would be instantly canceled. When you hear about the allegations in the lawsuit,
• 1:15:45
  some of which I don't even want to talk about because they're that gross
• 1:15:48
  and they're that graphic. But basically, as hilarious and absurd as this sounds,
• 1:15:56
  it appears as if, again based upon the allegations in the lawsuit,
• 1:16:00
  that Lizzo was fat shaming people who were working for her and also effectively sexually
• 1:16:06
  abusing them by forcing them to engage in all sorts of bizarre I guess you
• 1:16:12
  would call them sex acts. And you know, my gosh, you know,
• 1:16:16
  when you compare this to most the most recently somewhat similar story, right
• 1:16:21
  with the hazing episode at Northwestern, the news media immediately decided that all this
• 1:16:29
  was true and outrageous, and Pat Fitzgerald was fired, and then somehow the
• 1:16:32
  baseball coach got fired and there's all sorts of lawsuits happening there, which is,
• 1:16:36
  in my opinion, completely and obviously a money grab. And it was
• 1:16:41
  all based on a bogus narrative, but it was all bought because why well,
• 1:16:45
  Pat Fitzgerald's a white guy, and football is considered, you know,
• 1:16:48
  to be conservative, I guests, and and you know, even though Northwestern's
• 1:16:53
  a super woke, woke school just outside of Chicago, somehow Pat Fitzgerald is
• 1:16:58
  promoting you know, these the sex abuse and then racism. I mean,
• 1:17:02
  it's just all so ridiculous. But it was all accepted, hook line and
• 1:17:06
  sinker by the news media. And already we've had the adjudication and we've had
• 1:17:13
  punishment, and there's no way to get people's reputations back, and the damage
• 1:17:17
  to the program has already been done. However, with Lizzo, the response
• 1:17:23
  has been vastly different, and while I don't necessarily refer to it as news
• 1:17:27
  media, certainly is media with a news element to it. The Dingbats on
• 1:17:32
  the View, the show on ABC on which I once appeared many many years
• 1:17:36
  ago, were the worst offenders. This is absolutely hilarious. I could not
• 1:17:42
  have created a more absurd example of hypocrisy and a situation where, because it
• 1:17:50
  fits their agenda and their narrative that these media members, including Whoopie Goldberg and
• 1:17:59
  Joy Beharn are willing to completely change the rules, completely change the rules one
• 1:18:04
  hundred eighty degrees because they feel uncomfortable accepting these allegations against a super obese black
• 1:18:14
  woman who's a lesbian, who they have previously put on a pedestal. So
• 1:18:18
  now all of a sudden, these allegations are not to be accepted on face
• 1:18:25
  value. And most remarkably, as you're gonna hear in this clip in a
• 1:18:29
  second, get this, folks, for the first time that I can remember,
• 1:18:32
  and these are black women that are bringing this lawsuit. We are now
• 1:18:36
  to be suspicious of anybody bringing a lawsuit where they could make money, and
• 1:18:45
  that means I guess that they could be bringing false allegations even in the realm
• 1:18:50
  of situations like fat shaming and sexual abuse. I cannot make this up,
• 1:18:56
  folks. This is a clip from ABC's The View. You can be a
• 1:19:00
  bone head and be a great person at the same time. Both things are
• 1:19:03
  true. You can be you can't say the word but it starts with an
• 1:19:08
  AUM, and and do great things. I don't know what happened, and
• 1:19:13
  as you said too, I will find out when it comes into the wash.
• 1:19:15
  That's what we need to do. If I just mentioned I want to
• 1:19:17
  be clear, I do think these women that spoke out seem very credible and
• 1:19:20
  they don't have anything but to lose by doing this and taking on someone very
• 1:19:25
  powerful. Well, but again again they work for her. I'm always definite
• 1:19:29
  they gained I said that backward. Yeah, yeah, you'll find out when
• 1:19:32
  it happened, when when it comes with it all comes out in the wash.
• 1:19:36
  But always wait until you get all the information because as we know,
• 1:19:43
  people throw things out there. Once it's out there, it's there for life.
• 1:19:46
  So no matter whether you're whether it did or did not happen, you're
• 1:19:50
  carrying that with you as well. So just take a man. She says
• 1:19:55
  that they have nothing to gain. What they have to gain is a lot
• 1:19:57
  that gets money for money. If it the lawsuit and they have a large
• 1:20:00
  sum of money, is what would happen. As I said, you just
• 1:20:03
  can't make this up. You cannot make up just how hypocritical that is.
• 1:20:11
  And by the way, I'm all in favor of that being the way we
• 1:20:15
  respond to all lawsuits like this concerning but let's find out what really happened,
• 1:20:20
  and let's be at least a little bit suspicious of people who have a financial
• 1:20:25
  incentive, a potentially big financial incentive for what they are alleging. But whiling
• 1:20:31
  now, whiling now, Well, because Lizzo is a media darling, because
• 1:20:39
  not because she's done anything, just because of her persona, because of the
• 1:20:43
  boxes that she checks. Well, that's the way we should be responding,
• 1:20:46
  and that's the way the media should be responding to all these types of allegations
• 1:20:50
  against public people. But it only happens when it fits their agenda. And
• 1:20:56
  this is an absolutely classic case of this. In fact, I could not
• 1:20:59
  concoct it. Would if you said, John, you know, I'll give
• 1:21:01
  you three hours concoct a scenario that exposes the hypocrisy more than this one,
• 1:21:06
  I could not possibly do it. And I could not possibly come up with
• 1:21:10
  a way that the view responded that was more obviously hypocritical than that. I
• 1:21:15
  think there's some similarities between the Lizzo situation and what has occurred with the US
• 1:21:21
  women's soccer team at the World Cup, and I think this is a very
• 1:21:28
  significant issue on a number of levels, but in case you somehow missed it,
• 1:21:32
  the two time World Cup champion US women's soccer team, considered to be
• 1:21:38
  for many years the dominant soccer team in the world, barely made it out
• 1:21:43
  of the preliminary round of the World Cup and then got beaten by Sweden on
• 1:21:47
  penalty kicks in the very first round, the round of sixteen. This is
• 1:21:51
  their worst performance in modern history, and the way that it happened was particular
• 1:22:00
  early juicy for conservatives who have been very critical of this team, because they
• 1:22:04
  have been very woke. They have been anti American, they have not sung
• 1:22:10
  the national anthem, many of them did not put their hand over their heart
• 1:22:14
  for the national anthem. And they have been led in their wokeness by a
• 1:22:18
  woman by the name of Meghan Rapino. Now Meghan Rapino, you probably have
• 1:22:25
  seen her. She is a lesbian who has very short hair that she colors
• 1:22:30
  different colors. This time it appears as if it was some bluish green color.
• 1:22:35
  She is a showboat, she's a hot dog. She's also too old
• 1:22:42
  to be playing, and hardly played at all this year. In my view,
• 1:22:46
  I'm not an expert, although I know enough to be dangerous about soccer.
• 1:22:51
  But you know, it certain appears to me is that the only reason
• 1:22:55
  why she was on the team was because she's become such an icon, mostly
• 1:23:00
  from a political perspective, that basically this was a consolation prize they give her
• 1:23:05
  being put on this team when she's too old and not good enough anymore,
• 1:23:10
  because she has been such a warrior for wokeness, being a lesbian, being
• 1:23:17
  pro transgender, not standing up for women's athletes against biological males playing against females.
• 1:23:27
  In fact, most of this team has been on that side in favor
• 1:23:31
  of biological men playing against women, which of course is particularly bizarre given the
• 1:23:38
  fact that these are people who could lose their jobs if biological men decided that
• 1:23:44
  they wanted to pretend to be females and that was allowed in their particular sports.
• 1:23:48
  So I mean, talk about hypocrisy, it's it's off the charts here.
• 1:23:53
  But Meghan Rapino and other members of this team have been exceedingly woke,
• 1:24:00
  and even before the team started to do much worse than expected, there were
• 1:24:05
  a lot of conservatives that were openly rooting against the team, which I have
• 1:24:10
  never experienced before in a major team representing the United States in a massive competition
• 1:24:17
  like the World Cup or the Olympics or something like that. I mean,
• 1:24:19
  I just I've never I have no recollection of this ever happening before. Well,
• 1:24:26
  they lost to Sweden in the round of sixteen in penalty kicks, which
• 1:24:30
  is a stupid way to determine a soccer game anyway, and they ended up
• 1:24:33
  losing by literally a millimeter because I'm the very last penalty kick. The ball
• 1:24:38
  barely got across the goal line, and so they lost five to four.
• 1:24:43
  But the difference in the penalty kicks was the fact that Megan Rapino missed her
• 1:24:48
  penalty kick. Now, penalty kicks at this level are supposed to be about
• 1:24:53
  ninety five percent, if not more so successful, and Rapino, who probably
• 1:24:58
  shouldn't have even been there for penalty kicks, she missed the net, entirely
• 1:25:03
  completely missed the net. Wasn't like the goalie made some spectacular save. She
• 1:25:08
  completely choked. She shanked it. She missed. She turned around and laughed,
• 1:25:13
  which upset a lot of people. And it wasn't just that she laughed
• 1:25:16
  after she missed the key penalty kick. She was laughing in the post game
• 1:25:21
  press conference after the United States lost to Sweden, and I have to say
• 1:25:28
  I get it. I mean, I have to acknowledge I was thrilled that
• 1:25:31
  this team lost under the circumstances that they did. I mean, Meghan Rapino
• 1:25:38
  crapping the bed and having her last moment in World Cup soccer be you know,
• 1:25:44
  this ignominious is fantastic. And I can't stand the fact that I even
• 1:25:47
  feel this way because it feels Unamerican. I mean, I'm as patriotic as
• 1:25:54
  anybody I know, and I don't ever recall openly rooting or having lots of
• 1:26:00
  other people like me openly rooting against a USA team like this. And I'm
• 1:26:04
  not talking about a small number of people. I mean this is a massive
• 1:26:10
  number of people. Now, of course, the ven diagram here will show
• 1:26:14
  you that a huge number of these people who are rooting against the US women's
• 1:26:17
  soccer team also happened to be Trump fans. And, by the way,
• 1:26:21
  as seemingly happens on everything, that a curse in this bizarre world. I
• 1:26:26
  think the US women's soccer team crapping out like this and the way that they
• 1:26:29
  did subliminally helps Donald Trump. I know everything helps Donald Trump, but I
• 1:26:33
  really do think that there is something to this where it just shows wokeness failing
• 1:26:40
  on an epic scale in a way that really ought to help the Santis but
• 1:26:45
  Trump, somehow we'll get the benefit from it. But I think there's a
• 1:26:47
  bigger issue here, and a couple bigger issues one, by the way,
• 1:26:53
  have to mention from a media standpoint, it's amazing how political correctness dictates now
• 1:27:00
  all commentary, even in sports. But there was backlash before the loss to
• 1:27:05
  Sweden against a former USA women's soccer player by the name of Carrie Lloyd.
• 1:27:11
  I'm sorry, Carly Lloyd. Carly Lloyd, former US women's soccer player who's
• 1:27:16
  now a TV commentator, suffered enormous backlash because even before the loss to Sweden,
• 1:27:24
  she was criticizing the team for its play and its behavior because even after
• 1:27:30
  they had a tie against the team they should have crushed, the team was
• 1:27:33
  acting like they won and you know, celebrating and see a way that seemed
• 1:27:38
  inappropriated and there didn't seem to be any urgency for what the hell was going
• 1:27:43
  on. Well, she almost had to apologize she got so much backlash for
• 1:27:49
  her criticism of her former teammates. I mean, this is a woman who
• 1:27:54
  should have enormous street cred here. I mean, she was on the team
• 1:27:57
  not very long ago, and she was just criticizing them, both correctly as
• 1:28:02
  well as from the motivation of trying to get them to get their asses in
• 1:28:08
  gear. Well, this is the world we now live in where if you're
• 1:28:13
  telling an audience something they don't want to hear, no matter how truthful it
• 1:28:16
  is, you're the bad guy, and unless you get a lot of support
• 1:28:20
  from the people around you and the corporate suits you and at best might have
• 1:28:28
  to apologize or you might even have your job in jeopardy. Well, Carly
• 1:28:31
  Lloyd mostly stood by her guns, and it turned out she was right.
• 1:28:35
  She was vindicated. Now, I don't know whether or not she is going
• 1:28:40
  to perceive what she did to have been the right thing, and whether she
• 1:28:43
  would do it again or not. But I did find that from a media
• 1:28:45
  standpoint to be very telling, especially in the sports realm, about how things
• 1:28:49
  work now. I mean, you actually now have to worry, especially in
• 1:28:55
  the social media age, of saying you can't say things that are true if
• 1:29:00
  they're going to be very unpopular with your core customer base, even when you
• 1:29:04
  have ultimate credibility like Carly Lloyd should have in this particular situation. But the
• 1:29:11
  much bigger issue than that particular media episode is just how divided we have become
• 1:29:17
  as a country. I think this is symbolic of a much, much larger
• 1:29:23
  problem. I mean here, we aren't now much of America. I don't
• 1:29:27
  know what the percentage is much of America. Not just rooting against a USA
• 1:29:32
  Sports team, a very prominent USA Sports team, but thrilled to see they
• 1:29:39
  lost. And I have to say again, I get it, I understand
• 1:29:43
  it. I feel very much the same way, but I don't like it,
• 1:29:46
  because this is very dangerous. We are dangerously divided in this country.
• 1:29:51
  This to me, is a symptom of a much deeper and larger problem.
• 1:29:59
  That's just consistent of something I've been predicting for a long time, that we
• 1:30:02
  are going to break apart as a country when we cannot even be united when
• 1:30:08
  it comes to rooting for USA major sports teams, and that huge portions of
• 1:30:14
  US are rooting against them with great passion. That's a big problem. Now,
• 1:30:19
  I want to be clear, I'm not blaming the fans. I'm blaming
• 1:30:25
  the soccer team, and I also blame the sports media for enabling it.
• 1:30:29
  The sports media has been enabling and elevating and pandering to these women for a
• 1:30:35
  long time. So what did these women do. They kept doing the same
• 1:30:40
  behaviors that got them praise in the media. If this thing had been nipped
• 1:30:45
  in the butt a long time ago, if the sports media wasn't so woke
• 1:30:49
  to begin with, these women would have stopped with the nonsense, and they
• 1:30:54
  wouldn't have been so political, and they would have been more honoring of the
• 1:30:59
  national lanthem. They wouldn't have knelt or refused to sing the national anthem.
• 1:31:04
  But because they not only get no blowback, at most of the time,
• 1:31:09
  they get praised. I mean these women, especially Megan Rapino, they got
• 1:31:12
  praised for their wokeness in the sports media. And I can understand it.
• 1:31:18
  People feel as if they have been betrayed. If you don't love America,
• 1:31:21
  then why should America love you? I get it, But taking it out
• 1:31:26
  of the specific situation with regard to the women's soccer team, this is I
• 1:31:30
  think emblematic of a very dangerous situation with regard to the deep, deep divisions
• 1:31:36
  within America. And by the way, Donald Trump's candidacy is not going to
• 1:31:41
  help that one, damn bid, it's only going to exacerbate it. Keeping
• 1:31:45
  within the realm of sports, my favorite team sport has always been college football,
• 1:31:51
  and the last few years have been very sad for me. I've seen
• 1:31:58
  this coming for a long time time, but it was still very difficult to
• 1:32:01
  actually see it come to fruition where college football was going to end it.
• 1:32:08
  At first, it was bit by bit, piece by piece, and it
• 1:32:12
  inevitably was going to end up being officially over. And I believe that we
• 1:32:18
  now, over the last several days, have the end of college football.
• 1:32:24
  Now, you know, most people are not going to accept that reality.
• 1:32:27
  By the way, we are going to have twenty twenty three as a funeral
• 1:32:30
  for college football, a going away party, if you will, because this
• 1:32:33
  last season it's about to begin, we'll still have some semblance of comparison and
• 1:32:43
  similarity to what college football was. And look, I get there's evolution.
• 1:32:48
  College football, like every other sport, has always evolved, in my opinion.
• 1:32:54
  You know, from the nineteen seventies through the nineties, you know,
• 1:32:59
  that was the old, an awesome era of college football. It also happened
• 1:33:01
  to be in time period when I was at the age where I was most
• 1:33:04
  interested in college football, but then slowly but surely, money mostly started to
• 1:33:12
  destroy it bit by bit, piece by piece, and now ultimately has led
• 1:33:17
  to what happened over the last couple of days, which is that the Pac
• 1:33:21
  twelve conference, which was the major schools on the West Coast, has essentially
• 1:33:27
  dissolved. It has been picked apart by two other conferences, the Big Ten
• 1:33:32
  and the Big Twelve. And for a non sports fan, that might not
• 1:33:36
  sound like that big of a deal, but it is. And I think
• 1:33:43
  it's interesting to me that this moment, and there's been one hundred other moments
• 1:33:47
  where this should have happened, but this moment does seem to have broken through
• 1:33:54
  when it comes to the non corporate sports commentators as oh my god, this
• 1:34:00
  really is the end of college football. I don't know why this one did
• 1:34:02
  it. Like I said, there's several other moments in the last several years
• 1:34:06
  that should have been the aha moment, But for a lot of people I've
• 1:34:10
  seen that this is, oh my god, this is really going down a
• 1:34:14
  direction that is going to suck. And basically what has happened and gets very
• 1:34:19
  complicated, but basically, what has happened is that college football used to be
• 1:34:25
  a regional sport, and the large part of the reason for that was you
• 1:34:31
  have regional rivalries and from a travel standpoint, if you are playing teams within
• 1:34:40
  your own region, it's less expensive. And you know, back when we
• 1:34:45
  pretended to care about kids going to school, there was less time away from
• 1:34:49
  classes and schoolwork because you know, travel time was cut down. And generally
• 1:34:56
  what occurred college football was a regional sport. With a few exceptions you had.
• 1:35:01
  That's why Notre Dame USC was such a big deal because it was you
• 1:35:05
  know, interregional, the Midwest playing USC on the West Coast or vice versas,
• 1:35:11
  depending what year it is, but generally you played teams from your own
• 1:35:15
  region and then you played the bowl games where those teams from each region played
• 1:35:21
  against each other. And that's why New Year's Day was so awesome. And
• 1:35:26
  in my opinion, where all this went wrong was that they should have played
• 1:35:30
  a national championship game after the bowl games, the so called plus one system.
• 1:35:35
  That was the perfect system for everybody. They would have made a boatload
• 1:35:39
  of money out of this. It would effectively have been a playoff system without
• 1:35:43
  the ending of the bowl system. And again without getting too deeply into the
• 1:35:47
  details. Unfortunately, these morons in charge decided that they could make more money
• 1:35:54
  by creating a playoff system, and the TV networks they don't really like the
• 1:36:00
  regional nous of college football because a regional matchup gets a regional audience, but
• 1:36:06
  a national television network doesn't really benefit that much from that. I mean these
• 1:36:12
  these were local TV channels or networks or regional then they would get a huge
• 1:36:17
  portion of that audience on any given day. But when you have let's say,
• 1:36:24
  you know, two teams from Arizona playing Arizona State, or Oregon playing
• 1:36:28
  Oregon State, people in the rest of the country don't really care about that.
• 1:36:31
  Even those are great rivalries, they don't care. So it doesn't get
• 1:36:34
  a national television number. But if you can have more quote unquote marquee matchups
• 1:36:43
  on a national base, if you can get usc to play Ohio State and
• 1:36:46
  Michigan and Penn State and Oregon to play you know, whatever school in the
• 1:36:55
  Big Ten they're going to be playing now, or UCLA the same way.
• 1:36:58
  Now you have marquee matchups that will get a better number, at least alleged
• 1:37:02
  league by a national television network. So now Fox and ESPN and NBC,
• 1:37:11
  that's all they care about. They care about what the national television audience is
• 1:37:15
  going to be for that football game, and they think that this is going
• 1:37:19
  to create more of those opportunities. I actually think in the long run,
• 1:37:26
  that's not what's going to happen, because I think that what they think of
• 1:37:29
  as marquee matchups today three or four years for now, no one's going to
• 1:37:32
  give a crap once the novelty wears off. And we saw the same thing
• 1:37:36
  happen with Major League Baseball once they went to inter league play. The All
• 1:37:41
  Star Game became irrelevant, and all of a sudden, a few years after
• 1:37:44
  inter league play became dominant and normalized, all of a sudden, you know,
• 1:37:49
  the Yankees playing the Mets wasn't that big of a deal anymore. Well,
• 1:37:55
  that's the same thing that's going to happen with college football and all the
• 1:37:58
  traditions, the rivals, forget about academics. All of this is going to
• 1:38:03
  be thrown out, and you know what else is going to be thrown out,
• 1:38:06
  giving a damn about all the other sports. I mean, that's the
• 1:38:10
  part that there's two parts of this that where the news media has really been
• 1:38:14
  exposed as a bunch of fucking frauds. Number one and three elements. Number
• 1:38:19
  one element is ESPN has told us for four decades how important history and tradition
• 1:38:25
  is to college football, but now that their business model is broken, they
• 1:38:28
  don't give a fuck about that, and their overlords have told them that they
• 1:38:31
  have to be on board with this. And by the way, when ESPN
• 1:38:34
  is laying off lots and lots of people, guess what happens to the people
• 1:38:39
  that are left. They are very willing to go along with the overlords.
• 1:38:43
  No one is going to push back against the narrative that the bosses are sending
• 1:38:46
  out there, because there's an inherent conflict of interest here. The people covering
• 1:38:50
  the sport are the ones dictating through their own networks what's actually happening. So
• 1:38:57
  nobody at ESPN is gonna push back because they've already been shown that anybody can
• 1:39:00
  be laid off there, no one, no one is sacred, no one's
• 1:39:05
  job is secure, so of course they're gonna go along with it. And
• 1:39:10
  so you have these these networks that are dictating everything they've been telling us for
• 1:39:14
  four decades, History and tradition means everything. Now it means nothing. That's
• 1:39:17
  number one. Number two. Academics used to be something we pretended mattered.
• 1:39:24
  And these other sports are sports that these networks pretend to care about. But
• 1:39:29
  these other sports are going to be destroyed by this. I mean, I
• 1:39:31
  can't even imagine how the hell this is all gonna work for the baseball team,
• 1:39:36
  and even basketball, tennis, golf, all the other sports. I
• 1:39:43
  mean, it's just insanity that you're gonna have non regional schools playing against each
• 1:39:48
  other within their conference. Now, there are ways that they can schedule that
• 1:39:51
  will mitigate some of this, but the smaller sports, I don't know how
• 1:39:58
  from an academic, an economic, and an academic standpoint, they're gonna possibly
• 1:40:02
  make this work. They're gonna make the lives of these student athletes almost untenable,
• 1:40:11
  and they don't care because it's all about football. It's not even about
• 1:40:14
  basketball anymore. It's all about football because that's where the money is, that's
• 1:40:16
  where the TV ratings are. And then the last element of hypocrisy here,
• 1:40:21
  and I've mentioned this before and I'm one of the very few people that have
• 1:40:25
  picked up on this, is holy crap. Does this entire issue prove the
• 1:40:30
  carbon footprint fallacy with regard to climate change. None of these members of the
• 1:40:36
  liberal media or these elites in academia give a flying fuck about carbon footprints,
• 1:40:42
  because if they did, they would never allow they would never allow USC and
• 1:40:47
  UCLA to play in the Big Ten, or Oregon and in Washington, Oregon
• 1:40:50
  and Washington to play in the Big Ten where they're going to be having to
• 1:40:54
  play games from all different sports in New Jersey and Maryland and Pennsylvania and vice
• 1:41:00
  versa back to California and Oregon and Washington. That's insane under any circumstances,
• 1:41:08
  but particularly when you're trying to pretend that carbon footprint is something that is endangering
• 1:41:13
  the entire world because of climate change. They don't really believe it. It's
• 1:41:16
  like masks. They don't wear masks when they didn't have to because they didn't
• 1:41:20
  really believe in masks during COVID. This is this is all bullshit. They
• 1:41:26
  don't really believe in carbon footprint. That's just a political weapon when convenient,
• 1:41:30
  And this proves it beyond any shadow of it out The carbon footprint is bullshit.
• 1:41:39
  And I even called out an LA Times reporter because I'm on Twitter all
• 1:41:43
  the time or x whatever the hell it's called now, And there was an
• 1:41:45
  LA Times reporter who put out his own story on all the ramifications of this
• 1:41:51
  realignment in college football, none of which had anything to do with carbon footprint.
• 1:41:57
  Carbon footprint wasn't even mentioned. And so I I went after the guy,
• 1:42:00
  said, Oh, so you're basically acknowledging that you wokesters in the liberal
• 1:42:04
  media, you don't really care about this carbon footprint issue, because if you
• 1:42:09
  did, you'd be screaming bloody murder about this. And his response was,
• 1:42:14
  who hurt you, John? That was his rebuttal an LA Times reporter,
• 1:42:17
  Who hurt you John? And I responded something along the lines of, you
• 1:42:23
  morons did because you're trying to change my country in my state based upon a
• 1:42:27
  focus concept climate change that you don't even believe in, which is proven by
• 1:42:31
  the fact that you don't care about expanding the carbon footprint of every single college
• 1:42:38
  athlete involved in this dramatically. And I wish the right wing media would latch
• 1:42:44
  onto this issue because this is the smoking gun. This is the proof that
• 1:42:48
  the whole thing is bullcrap. Because if it wasn't bullcrap, liberal academi and
• 1:42:53
  the liberal sports media would be at least screaming bloody murder about it, if
• 1:42:57
  not stopping it. Instead, they don't because in their best interest from a
• 1:43:00
  financial standpoint, that's all that matters. It's all about money. Now,
• 1:43:06
  look, I'm not naive. College football and college sports was never perfect.
• 1:43:11
  It's kind of like you know, if you start dating a girl in her
• 1:43:15
  twenties or thirties, you know she's not a virgin, but you didn't think
• 1:43:19
  she was a prostitute either. Well, now using that analogy to college sports,
• 1:43:25
  especially college football, now there's no bones about it. Everybody's a prostitute.
• 1:43:30
  Forget about being a virgin or pretending to be one. You're a flat
• 1:43:33
  out prostitute. Whether it's nil money or instant transfers, or the schools not
• 1:43:39
  caring about academics. That basically becoming minor leagues for professional football or college basketball
• 1:43:45
  for the NBA, that's all it is. It's just minor league sports.
• 1:43:49
  And using a slightly different analogy with especially when it comes to college football,
• 1:43:56
  which has always been seen as a religion, especially in the South. That's
• 1:43:59
  what made college football popular. It's a religion. People view it as a
• 1:44:03
  religion and not without some logic. Well, you can't treat a religion like
• 1:44:12
  a business and still have people pretend that it's a religion. Eventually, people
• 1:44:20
  are gonna go, wait a minute, why do I care so passionately about
• 1:44:25
  this. It's just a business. It's just a minor league. The games
• 1:44:30
  I cared about, the rivalry games, they're all gone, or they're no
• 1:44:34
  longer prioritized. I mean, hell, they got canceled a lot of them
• 1:44:38
  during COVID, which I think is partially how they thought they could get away
• 1:44:42
  with all this. I mean when they cancel USC Notre Dame because of a
• 1:44:45
  virus that doesn't affect athletes, or they get rid of Harvard Yale, or
• 1:44:49
  I mean that didn't get played that year, Ohio State Michigan, supposedly the
• 1:44:54
  most important rivalry and all college football didn't get played in twenty twenty because of
• 1:44:57
  the COVID virus. That doesn't mean to athletes. I mean, so people
• 1:45:01
  are going to eventually figure this out. I don't know how long it's gonna
• 1:45:04
  take. I don't know how long it's gonna take. I mean, you
• 1:45:08
  know, we've seen with Trump it takes a long time for people to figure
• 1:45:11
  out the big scammed. But on this one, I think people will eventually
• 1:45:14
  figure it out. You can't treat a religion as just a business. They'll
• 1:45:18
  stop treating it like a religion, and then the Golden goose is dead.
• 1:45:24
  And speaking of religion, I've seen very little comment about this, but I
• 1:45:30
  actually think that right now the school that is most vulnerable to getting completely screwed
• 1:45:33
  here, maybe through their own fault, is Notre Dame. And I grew
• 1:45:38
  up as a huge Notre Dame fan back when I still believed in stuff and
• 1:45:43
  thought there was magic to Notre Dame in the Joe Montana era, what have
• 1:45:46
  you. I couldn't care less really about Notre Dame anymore. But Notre Dame
• 1:45:51
  has been an independent in college football forever and ever because they were big enough
• 1:45:56
  to be able to do that, and there's always been thought that they really
• 1:45:59
  belong in the Big Ten from a geographic standpoint, many of their rivals playing
• 1:46:03
  the Big Ten. Well, now that the Big Ten has expanded to whatever
• 1:46:06
  it is sixteen teams is at the moment, could be eighteen by by tomorrow,
• 1:46:11
  who knows, their need for Notre Dame has basically have been evaporated now
• 1:46:15
  Notre Dame could, I guess, go to the ACC, which could be
• 1:46:17
  in big trouble, but Notre Dame could be left holding the bag here.
• 1:46:23
  I don't know that for sure, but I just I find that to be
• 1:46:26
  because you remember Notre Dame's entire cache here is history and tradition, when we
• 1:46:30
  now live in a college football world that doesn't give a shit about history and
• 1:46:33
  tradition. So their entire brand is meaningless now. And you know, they
• 1:46:39
  have their own TV contract with NBC, but that's nowhere near worth as much
• 1:46:44
  as it used to because every games on television. I mean, that was
• 1:46:46
  what made Notre Dame special for a long period of time, was that they
• 1:46:49
  were the only ones that every television, every game was going to be on
• 1:46:53
  television nationally. Well, almost every team is that way now, so it's
• 1:46:56
  no big deal. And so look for Notre Dame to be in big trouble.
• 1:47:00
  And I gotta tell you, and obviously I'm biased here because I devoted
• 1:47:03
  an enormous amount of my life to the entire Penn State Joe Paterno Jerry Sandusky
• 1:47:09
  scandal, and we did the epic podcast with the benefit of hindsight, when
• 1:47:13
  I look back at the history of how this happened, the destruction of college
• 1:47:16
  football. I really truly believe that the destruction of Joe Paterno started at all.
• 1:47:24
  And I'm not saying this in a conspiratorial manner, As you probably know,
• 1:47:27
  I can't stand conspiracies, but I do believe that, from at least
• 1:47:31
  a subconscious standpoint, the fact that the news media and the establishment were able
• 1:47:39
  to turn Joe Paterno into somehow enabling of child sex abuse, get him fired
• 1:47:49
  the weekend three becomes the winningest coach and history at college football, and effectively
• 1:47:54
  erase him from history with almost no blowback, even at Penn State. The
• 1:48:00
  fact that they were able to do that, I think made these people at
• 1:48:06
  ESPN and elsewhere within the college football establishment realized they could get away with almost
• 1:48:14
  anything. They can get away with not playing Notre Dame USC because of COVID,
• 1:48:21
  or Michigan, Ohio State, or Harvard Yale, which didn't even play
• 1:48:26
  at all during the COVID year, and all of this is a little bit
• 1:48:29
  like COVID, Folks, I know, I say that a lot, but
• 1:48:31
  COVID taught the establishment and the elites what they could get a way with without
• 1:48:40
  any major blowback, and the destruction of Joe Paterno did the same thing.
• 1:48:45
  And you can see a straight line at the end of twenty eleven and the
• 1:48:49
  destruction of Joe Paterno, who was perceived as representing everything that was good about
• 1:48:54
  college sports in general, college football in particular, the destruction of Paterno,
• 1:48:59
  and now in twenty twenty three, the destruction of college football. It's a
• 1:49:02
  straight line. Again. It's not conspiratorial, it's it's a lot of it's
• 1:49:06
  subconscious. But you know, a lot of what prevents bad actions from people
• 1:49:13
  in charge is fear of blowback, fear of accountability, fear of what will
• 1:49:17
  happen. All We couldn't possibly do that because you know, the masses will
• 1:49:21
  never accept it. Well, we learned that the masses will accept almost anything
• 1:49:25
  now, and when it comes to the destruction of college football. We've got
• 1:49:29
  all these corporate commentators who are on board now and they're telling their audiences,
• 1:49:34
  Oh, you just gotta deal with it. It's just the way the world
• 1:49:38
  is now. Ratings are everything. Change is good, even after the same
• 1:49:43
  people have been telling us that history and tradition and the essence of college sports
• 1:49:46
  really important. That was all bullshit. It was all bullshit. And as
• 1:49:51
  far as, by the way, the Joe paternal story. Speaking of bullshit,
• 1:49:55
  I gotta mention because this is really disturbing. I have previ viously referenced
• 1:50:00
  on this program, this podcast with regard to the Congressional hearings, the Senate
• 1:50:06
  hearings, on the PGA Tour, and Live Golf. I may recall when
• 1:50:12
  I talked about those Senate hearings, I said, boy, it was really
• 1:50:14
  scary to watch us senators talk about a subject and I know a lot about,
• 1:50:20
  because I realized most of them have not a fucking clue what the hell
• 1:50:24
  they're talking about. And it was scary because I'm thinking, if it's on
• 1:50:27
  this subject that they're this clueless, what about really complicated subjects. They must
• 1:50:31
  be totally out of it, and I have no idea what the hell's going
• 1:50:35
  on. Well, I had a very similar, maybe even more dramatic experience
• 1:50:41
  a few days ago, when there was a Senate hearing about a judge that
• 1:50:48
  the Biden administration has nominated for a promotion. And this judge I had no
• 1:50:56
  idea this was even happening. I got alerted to it by people on social
• 1:51:00
  media, and The Blaze even prominently sent out a YouTube video of the testimony
• 1:51:08
  where Republican Senator Ted Cruz when after this particular female nominee for a federal judge
• 1:51:16
  ship by the Biden administration because of the way she ruled in the Graham Spaniard
• 1:51:25
  case. Now Grand Spaniard, former president of Fenn State, who has done
• 1:51:29
  numerous interviews with me, and who I know is one hundred percent innocent in
• 1:51:32
  the entire Jerry Sandusky affair. I also know that he knows that Jerry Sandusky
• 1:51:38
  himself is innocent, although he has not said that publicly. If you read
• 1:51:41
  his most recent book, he certainly implies that. But what happened to Graham
• 1:51:46
  Spaniard was the worst injustice I have ever heard of in our judicial system,
• 1:51:53
  worse than even O. J. Simpson. When Graham Spaniard had nothing to
• 1:51:56
  do with any of this, and he went to jail for several months,
• 1:52:00
  had his life destroyed, his career destroyed, when he did nothing wrong,
• 1:52:05
  even if there had been an underlying crime. But there was no underlying crime,
• 1:52:12
  and there was only one judge in this entire fiasco who did the right
• 1:52:17
  thing, and Ted Cruz a guy who's entire persona is based in truth in
• 1:52:25
  the Constitution and legal matters. I mean, this is this is his wheelhouse.
• 1:52:30
  And by the way, John Kennedy, Senator Republican from Louisiana, did
• 1:52:33
  the same thing at the same hearing. Both of these guys. This is
• 1:52:36
  their expertise, this is what they're most well known for. These are guys
• 1:52:42
  who I would normally respect, especially on legal matters. They both went after
• 1:52:47
  this judge, and so I texted Graham, and this happens. It's amazing
• 1:52:53
  how often this happens. I mean, here Graham is being defamed at a
• 1:52:58
  Senate hearing, and Graham had no idea. He had some idea that the
• 1:53:02
  hearing was happening, he had no idea what specifically was said until I sent
• 1:53:06
  it to him. I mean, I gotta tell you, this has happened
• 1:53:09
  to me probably dozens of times in my life where I have been the bearer
• 1:53:14
  of bad news, because this is what happens when people are in a bubble,
• 1:53:17
  no one around them wants to give them bad news. And I always
• 1:53:23
  am of the opinion people need to know what the hell's happening, if for
• 1:53:27
  no other reason other than maybe they can fight back. So I sent Graham
• 1:53:30
  the video of Ted Cruise, and this is just I don't even want to
• 1:53:34
  play clip from it, because Ted Cruise proved he had not a clue about
• 1:53:40
  Sandusky and even less of a clue about Graham Spaniard, because you can defend
• 1:53:44
  Graham Spaniard easily without defending Jerry Sanduski. Now to me, they're intertwined for
• 1:53:49
  obvious reasons. But what happened to Spaniard was a complete joke, even if
• 1:53:56
  even if Jerry Sanduski was guilty, which he's not. And so I asked
• 1:54:00
  Graham, could you just remind me about this particular judge, and this is
• 1:54:05
  what he texted back. She was the federal magistrate judge assigned by the Middle
• 1:54:11
  District of Pennsylvania to hear our habeas corpus petition. She was the best judge
• 1:54:15
  we had, clearly well versed in following the law. She threw out my
• 1:54:19
  misdemeanor conviction and I was relieved from going to jail until it was reversed upon
• 1:54:26
  appeal by Shapiro, that's now the Governor of Pennsylvania. Shapiro, who was
• 1:54:30
  the Attorney general at the time to the Third Circuit Court of Appeals, where
• 1:54:33
  former Attorney General Fisher, a colleague of Tom Corbett, the former governor of
• 1:54:38
  Pennsylvania, came out of retirement to lead the panel and write the opinion reversing
• 1:54:44
  her decision. Our appeal was based on expiration of statute of limitations, ex
• 1:54:50
  post facto charged with something that wasn't in the law at the time, and
• 1:54:55
  jury instructions that were for a different law, all very good reasons to toss
• 1:55:00
  out spaniards bogus conviction and conviction so bogus that the jury form and the next
• 1:55:06
  day told the media, I think we screwed up, and I was in
• 1:55:10
  court. The whole thing was a fiasco. And so from every possible level,
• 1:55:15
  I know that the conviction of Spaniard was completely wrong, and those reasons
• 1:55:19
  that Graham outline very well were very good reasons for this judge to throw out
• 1:55:27
  Spaniard's conviction. So here we have this incredibly frustrating and bizarro world situation where
• 1:55:33
  Ted Cruz and John Kennedy, two of the best legal scholars in the Senate,
• 1:55:41
  are attacking the only judge in the entire Sandusky penn State fiasco who did
• 1:55:47
  the right thing, and it was clearly the right thing for the reasons that
• 1:55:51
  Graham articulated. I mean, I mean, even if Sandusky had been guilty,
• 1:55:58
  none of this was illegal what Graham was alleged to have done. It
• 1:56:00
  wasn't even within the statute of limitations. The law wasn't even the law at
• 1:56:04
  the time, and the Jerry instructions were all screwed up, and the judge
• 1:56:10
  tried to defend herself. Of course she threw Jerry Sanduski under the bus,
• 1:56:14
  because I'm sure she has no clue about Jerry Sanduski, because she was only
• 1:56:17
  ruling on the legality of spaniards conviction. But the most important part of this
• 1:56:24
  whole thing is even the guys who you can most rely on in the Senate
• 1:56:30
  to defend what is right, are actually taking the side of a socialist Democrat,
• 1:56:35
  Governor Shapiro, who should have been destroyed over what he did, vindictively
• 1:56:43
  going after Graham Spaniard a virtue signal on the Sandosky scandal, and are attacking
• 1:56:47
  the only judge who did the right thing, all because of ignorance and a
• 1:56:53
  desire to score political points. I've asked Graham to write to both Senator Cruise
• 1:57:00
  and Senator Kennedy and send him copies of his book. I don't know if
• 1:57:01
  he will. He didn't indicate that he would, so my guess is he
• 1:57:04
  probably won't. But this was very depressing, and I'm sorry if this whole
• 1:57:10
  podcast is depressing, But you know, I'm all about the truth, and
• 1:57:13
  sometimes the truth in this day and age is in fact depressing. But it's
• 1:57:17
  also my version of the truth. And unfortunately, I think my track worker
• 1:57:20
  is pretty darn good, especially when it comes to the Penn State Paterno Sandowsky
• 1:57:26
  case. But that'll do it for this episode of the podcast. I thank
• 1:57:30
  you so much for listening. As is always the case, please remember to
• 1:57:34
  subscribe, rate, and review the podcast, share it with others. If
• 1:57:38
  you shared on social media, I'll be happy to share it as well.
• 1:57:41
  If you tag me on Twitter or on Facebook, that'll do it for episode
• 1:57:45
  number seventy eight of The Death the Journals and Podcast. Until next time,
• 1:57:47
  my name is John Zigler. Thanks for listening.