Latest / The Death Of Journalism / Episode One Hundred Fifty Eight: "He's My Asshole"

Transcript

Episode One Hundred Fifty Eight: "He's My Asshole" · The Death Of Journalism

0:00
Welcome to episode number one hundred and fifty eight of the Death of Journalism podcast.
0:04
My name is John Zigler. I'm your host on today's episode, the
0:08
Trump trial is in the hands of the jury. The Biden team makes a
0:12
blunder trying to exploit Trump's trial, Scotty Scheffler's case appears to finally be over.
0:19
Basketball great and broadcasting character Bill Walton passes away in Major League Baseball makes
0:25
an absurd racial decision with potentially massive ramifications. Now, usually when I start
0:34
an episode of the Death of Journalism podcast, I reference when we are taping,
0:39
which is normally Monday and Wednesday morning, but it doesn't have all that
0:44
much relevance. I mean, you like to be as topical and timely as
0:47
possible, and we try to turn our episodes around in less than twenty four
0:52
hours. But in this particular case, timing is very, very significant because
0:59
as I am taping this on Wednesday morning, Pacific Coast time, the Trump
1:04
trial is now finally in the hands of the jury, or is about to
1:10
be in the hands of the jury. And assuming that there is no massive
1:15
problem, which is always possible in a high profile case like this, it
1:19
is theoretically possible that there could be a verdict by the time you are actually
1:26
listening to this episode. I don't think that's likely to be the case.
1:30
I doubt the jury is going to come to a verdict in its first day
1:34
of deliberations, but that is possible. Now. If that were to happen,
1:42
I can't even tell you who that would be necessarily good for. It
1:46
would probably be good for the prosecution because there are very few people who think
1:52
that this is going to end up in a full acquittal, and with the
1:57
numerous charges, over thirty of them, it's going to take time, under
2:01
the best of circumstances for the jury to sift through all that they have to
2:07
decide, especially with jury instructions taking about an hour, and so this is
2:12
going to be a complicated decision. You know, almost no matter what the
2:17
jury decides to do, this is not an open and shut situation. You
2:22
know, wow, boy, he's clearly guilty, he's clearly not guilty whatever.
2:27
So should there be a verdict on Wednesday before you even get a chance
2:30
to listen to this episode of the podcast, I think generally speaking, that
2:37
would be bad for Donald Trump. I am definitely in the camp that Trump
2:40
is trying, and this has been part of his team's strategy to create a
2:46
hung jury, to just focus on a couple of different jurors and hope that
2:51
they hold out long enough to where this judge eventually decides to cry uncle.
2:55
Which I have said many times that this judge is going to have a massive
3:00
conflict of interest should we get to that point, because you know, most
3:05
judges don't have that much skin in the game when it comes to declaring a
3:09
mistrial, but this one does. If this were to be a hung jury
3:15
and a mistrial, one that would reflect badly on the judge. It's obvious
3:20
that the judge does not like Trump and would like to see Trump convicted,
3:24
but more than anything else, they would like to see their trial come to
3:28
a conclusion after all this hubbub, all of this consternation, all this focus,
3:36
and all the effort and the money and attention everything else, for you
3:40
not end up with any kind of a verdict would reflect badly on the judge.
3:45
But even more importantly than that, their fifteen minutes of fame would be
3:47
up. And that is a huge conflict of interest. That is a perverse
3:53
self interest. I'll say it again, it's a lot like doctor Fauci and
3:58
COVIDC. He was never going to declare COVID to be over because he would
4:02
be ending the greatest thing that ever happened to him. This judge is going
4:05
to be theoretically in a very similar situation. Should it look like this jury
4:12
is going to hang, now, it's possible that the jury may not go
4:16
in that direction. We won't know that for at least a day or two
4:20
before people can start to question and conclude that there's not coming to a unanimous
4:28
conclusion. And there are some who believe that the judge has made it easier
4:34
for the jury to convict based upon some decisions that were made at the very
4:40
end of the trial. Specifically, and this gets very complicated from a legal
4:43
perspective, but basically, this entire case is in search of a second felony
4:49
against Trump, because you can't make the first part felonies without there being a
4:56
second part where there's the cover up of an actual crime. And the prosecution
5:01
never even said what they think the second crime is until they're closing statements,
5:09
which is just insane and infuriating. And again, I'm somebody who lows Donald
5:15
Trump but I am very much in favor of fairness and doe process, and
5:19
that's just flat out wrong. I mean, so everything about this case has
5:24
been utter bull crap from the beginning, every element of it. And I'm
5:29
someone who believes the basic allegation. But from a legal standpoint, this is
5:34
a case that clearly never should have been brought, was brought in a very
5:38
biased jurisdiction by a very biased judge who is doing everything possible to make sure
5:45
this jury can come to a verdict. And you know, one of the
5:50
things that's going to be I think a little weird, maybe hopefully humorous about
5:55
this episode is that there are three different stories that I got to talk about
6:00
that remind me of situations from my own, often bizarre and sometimes sad life,
6:05
and this is one of them. Because I'm getting the hebe gbis thinking
6:11
about the situation involving this judge and the Trump trial and how reminiscent it is
6:17
of my defamation trial in Louisville, Kentucky, and I have alluded to that
6:24
many times before, I've never done the full still absolutely amazing story. That
6:29
should be a movie on this version of the death of journalism podcasts, maybe
6:34
I will do that again sometime because I've never told the full, full story,
6:40
which is really mind blowing. But the bottom line of this is that
6:45
a case was brought against me for defamation where I was clearly innocent under the
6:49
law. It was an open and shut situation, but the judge loved the
6:55
attention that this case could bring, and then he really loved it once we
7:00
actually went to trial because it was the biggest thing that happened in Louisville other
7:04
than the Kentucky Derby that particular year, and it happened to be scheduled,
7:09
I think on purpose, right after the Kentucky Derby, so there was nothing
7:13
going on in Louisville, Kentucky in May back then was a ratings sweep month
7:18
that the television stations went bananas. I mean, it was crazy, absolutely
7:24
insane. I was nowhere near important enough when I was actually a talk show
7:28
host in Louisville, Kentucky to warrant this level of coverage. I was completely
7:32
stunned and rather naive that this was going to happen. But there were a
7:39
couple of similarities here. One of them was the allegation itself did involve a
7:44
relationship with a woman, although in my case, the woman I was in
7:48
a relationship with was a hell of a lot more attractive than Stormy Daniels.
7:54
But the allegation itself had to do with things I had said about her on
7:58
the air, which were true, and that's the ultimate defense in defamation.
8:03
If what you said is true, there's no case. But the judge was
8:07
so in love with the idea of keeping this thing going. And this is
8:11
where once again it relates to the Trump situation. It feels to me like
8:16
the Trump judge got to the end of this case, it's like, well,
8:20
you know, it's going to be really hard for the jury to come
8:24
to a particular conclusion, in other words, guilty, So I'm going to
8:28
make it as easy as possible for them, because otherwise we're kind of wasting
8:31
our time here. That's the sense I got. Well, that's exactly what
8:35
happened in my case. Our jury instructions in the defamation trial were so absurd
8:43
that the appeal lawyers for Clear Channel Broadcasting that was funding my defense, were
8:50
salivating over the idea that I was going to get found libel and that they
8:54
would have the greatest appeal issue in history. Because the judge literally took out
9:01
of the jury instructions the entire concept of actual malice. The people don't understand
9:09
actual malice because it's a weird phrase. But basically, the judge told that
9:13
did not tell the jury, did not tell the jury that if what I
9:18
said was true, they could not find me libel. That's the essence of
9:24
defamation cases. It's the essence of the First Amendment. And the judge purposely
9:28
took that out because he said that if he put that in, there was
9:33
no way that the jury could find me liball. And that was our entire
9:37
point. Was no shit, Charlock. That's why we shouldn't even be here.
9:43
That's why this whole thing is a farce. So I feel a great
9:48
deal of empathy, bizarrely for Trump's situation, because it seems remarkably similar,
9:56
where you have a judge that is enamored with this whole situation, doesn't want
10:01
to end, it doesn't want to you know. Certain there's a dozen different
10:07
times during this entire process where the judge could have said, you know what,
10:11
this case doesn't meet the standard. We're not going to allow it to
10:13
go in front of a jury. But this whole idea and I've seen this
10:16
in so many different situations. Judges love to rely on the idea of let's
10:22
let a jury decide. Let's let a jury decide, because that feels right,
10:26
right. So if they know we'll trust the jury that they're going to
10:31
figure it out. Well, first of all, there's no way you should
10:35
ever trust a jury in this day and age, especially because the average citizen
10:39
is a moron, and those that can't get out of jury duty are generally
10:43
even dumber than the average moron. And they all can also have all sorts
10:50
of perverse self interest, they may have personal biases. In a situation that
10:54
not that doesn't even involve a presidential candidate, you put Trump involved, and
10:58
that's that's a situation that's on steroids. So the idea that you would inherently
11:03
trust the jury in a normal case is absurd, But in the Trump circumstance,
11:11
it's laughable. It's laughable. He's the most divisive political figure in the
11:16
modern history of America, maybe the most divisive political figure in the history of
11:20
the country, and he's the Republican presidential nominee in the middle of an election
11:26
year and is in a jurisdiction that's extremely liberal, where the jury pool can't
11:33
possibly be fair even if they wanted to be. I mean, I'm willing
11:39
to I'm willing to say that the twelve jurors may think they're being fair,
11:45
although even that I think is a bit naive. But it's impossible. It's
11:50
impossible for people to be completely objective. We all have our biases, and
11:56
in this case, we have perverse self interest. Are just pretending that these
12:01
twelve jurors don't understand that they are going to have the most outsized influence in
12:09
the history of voters in a presidential election. Their twelve votes are going to
12:16
have a massive impact on who the next president of the United States is,
12:20
and we're just going to pretend that that doesn't influence their decision? Are you
12:26
kidding me? And the media just pretends that this isn't really an issue.
12:30
They'll talk a little bit about, well, the liberal jurisdiction may be a
12:33
problem for Trump, but we're going to trust that the jurors are going to
12:37
be fair and unbiased. Well, that would be ridiculous if this case was
12:43
in twenty twenty two and Trump wasn't the presidential nominee. But now it's twenty
12:48
twenty four, he's the Republican presidential nominee. So anybody who is a Democrat
12:54
in New York City, there's a lot of most of them are Democrats.
13:00
In the jury poll, anybody who's a Democrat who wants Joe Biden to be
13:05
reelected or doesn't win Donald Trump to win the election has an opportunity to cast
13:13
a vote that is worth at least three or four million votes. Who knows.
13:18
I mean, I'm just guessing based upon the polling. But if you
13:22
convict Donald Trump of a felony, the polls show that's going to dramatically impact
13:30
his level of support nationwide. Now we don't know that for sure. It
13:33
could change. That could change if the public doesn't buy the credibility of the
13:41
verdict. And a lot of people are not going to buy the credibility of
13:43
any conviction here, but I'm talking about swing voters, swing voters that actually
13:48
matter. MAGA people are going to obviously not accept any verdict against Donald Trump,
13:54
and there may be ramifications for that. In all sorts of ways.
14:00
The mind boggles. But in my particular case, somehow the jury was able
14:05
to see through this, and our jury consultant thought we had no chance,
14:11
and I didn't think we had a chance. I was preparing my press conference
14:18
to accept defeat when the jury was in deliberations, and they didn't take very
14:22
long. They came back and unanimously decided that I was not libel, which
14:28
was one hundred percent the right verdict. But my theory on it was they
14:33
didn't like me very much, but they actually hated the woman involved more than
14:39
me, and for not illegitimate reasons. So they didn't like me, but
14:45
they hated the other side's main witness more than they hated me, and that's
14:52
why we won. It really had nothing to do with the law or the
14:54
jury instructions, or actual malice or what was right or wrong. It was
15:00
simply a you know what, this guy suffered enough, he got fired from
15:03
his job, and you know, and this woman seems to be just looking
15:09
for a free payout, and she told all sorts of lies and he told
15:13
the truth. So we're just gonna say that there's no there's no defamation here.
15:20
That was my interpretation of what happened. Now I don't have the same
15:26
kind of faith in this New York jury. It's possible, though, Again,
15:30
I do think This is a legitimate comparison to my situation because Trump is
15:37
not a sympathetic character. It's like I was not a sympathetic character. Trump
15:41
did wrong, just like you could easily argue that I did things wrong.
15:45
I admitted that I said things I shouldn't have said, although they were not
15:48
ill intent and they were absolutely true, and they were actually intended to be
15:50
complimentary of the woman involved, who I had dated when she was a Fox
15:56
morning host in Louisville, Kentucky. But I acknowledge that I got fired over
16:02
that situation. I suffered greatly, And you can make a similar argument to
16:07
Trump's situation. So you have unsympathetic people who are defendants in both of these
16:14
cases, but you also have those that testified against them who have huge problems
16:19
Michael Cohen, obviously, Stormy Daniels, and David Pecker. So it is
16:25
theoretically possible, if we lived in a rational world, that the jury could
16:30
just look at this and go, Okay, yeah, this is a mess.
16:33
And I don't really even understand these jury instructions, and we're still looking
16:37
for this second felony, and I don't trust Cohen, I don't trust Pecker,
16:42
and I really don't like Stormy Daniels. So I'm going to vote to
16:48
a quit that is an irrational world. That would actually make a lot of
16:52
sense. But is it all. Is it logical that twelve New York City
16:59
jurors, among those, you're going to find twelve of them that are willing
17:03
to be that rational, be that unbiased, to be that a political I
17:10
find that to be hard to believe. I would actually love to see that.
17:15
I mean, I've said before I'm rooting for a hung jury mainly because
17:18
I think that's the most viable conclusion here that causes the least amount of damage,
17:26
and because I do believe that the essence of the allegation against Trump is
17:30
basically true. But I think a conviction here would be an abomination from a
17:37
legal perspective, and it would cause all sorts of political problems. It could
17:41
cause lack of trust in our entire system, It could cause theoretically riots,
17:48
It could cause this entire presidential election to spin completely out of control. I
17:53
don't see anything good at all coming from a conviction here. So it is
18:00
possible that by the time you're hearing this, a decision has already been made.
18:04
If that's the case. You know, I'm sure I'll put out some
18:07
more content, maybe we'll do an emergency episode of the podcast. Who knows.
18:12
But my gut tells me that that is not going to be the case.
18:17
My gut tells me that this is not going to be a quick decision.
18:22
But you know what, it could be because the allegations are so weak,
18:27
and the theory behind the case is so complex, and the witnesses are
18:33
so bad. I could see in theory this jury just going you know what,
18:41
eh no, Or I could see this jury being so biased against Trump
18:45
that none of this matters. That they buy the basic allegation kind of like
18:49
I do, and they don't even care about the details. They don't care
18:52
about the credibility of the witnesses, and they're just going to act out of
18:56
their own self interest and they're going to convict his ass because they hate him
19:00
and because they're Democrats, and they know that that's going to, in their
19:03
view, going to be good for the country to see Trump convicted and potentially
19:07
therefore debilitated in a presidential election against Joe Biden. So I basically think every
19:14
scenario is possible, But I'm betting on the hung jury situation here. Now,
19:21
what's a little bit ambiguous to me is the idea of a split verdict.
19:26
I think that we've kind of been sleeping on the split verdict situation.
19:30
And what I don't even understand, and I've tried to research this unsuccessfully,
19:36
is whether or not it's possible for any of these felonies to be turned into
19:41
misdemeanors. My sense is that it's not that it's felony or bust, and
19:47
maybe that was done on purpose. I'm not sure, but I could certainly
19:51
see a situation where you end up in a compromise deal where some jurors are
19:56
willing to go along with misdemeanor counts but not felony counts, or that you
20:00
could see guilty on some and not guilty on others and as part of a
20:04
deal making just to get a verdict. I think that is a plausible scenario.
20:08
But I do think that the most likely situation is that we're going to
20:15
see at least the beginnings of a hung jury. I find it very hard
20:19
to believe that we're going to get unanimity, even in a New York City
20:25
jury in very quick fashion. Could be wrong, but that's where I think
20:30
we are heading, and I've already talked about how that is very problematic because
20:34
then that puts the judge in a situation where he has a very perverse self
20:38
interest because he has no incentive whatsoever to end this thing from either the standpoint
20:45
of declaring defeat or admitting defeat that he wasn't able to get this thing across
20:51
the line, and two for his fifteen minutes of fame to end. But
20:53
we're not there yet. For us to get there, it's going to take
20:56
several days at least, maybe longer than that, because as I said,
21:03
I think this judge is going to hold out to the very very end to
21:06
make sure that they get some sort of a verdict, especially if it happens
21:10
to be a guilty verdict. And I do think I agree with those who
21:14
say that the judge has done everything possible in the last moments of this trial,
21:18
much like mine did in the devamation case, to try to make it
21:22
as easy as he can for this jury to come to a guilty verdict.
21:29
And I believe that's out of bias. I don't believe that that is fair.
21:34
I don't believe that's keeping in the basics of due process. But there
21:41
are all sorts of problems with this trial that are going to if there is
21:45
a conviction, are going to be adjudicated on appeal. I mean, that
21:48
is obvious. I'm going one more time back to my situation when I was
21:52
found not liable unanimously. The first thing I did was go over to our
21:57
appeals lawyers, Clear Channel, I apologize for screwing up their slam dunk appeal
22:04
and I probably cost them a very high profile situation in a lot of billing
22:10
hours that they were going to have because Clear Channel was going to appeal this
22:15
if I had lost, and they were going to win based upon the jury
22:18
instructions alone. And they kind of laughed, and you know, they were
22:23
happy that the right verdict was come to. But I do think that they
22:26
were really looking forward to that appeal because it was going to be a slam
22:32
dunk and I'm sure that there are Trump lawyers who feel the same way in
22:36
this particular situation. Now, yesterday, as of this taping, the day
22:41
before the jury got the case, there was an enormous amount of attention,
22:47
understandably so, over something that the Biden election team did, which is beyond
22:55
inexplicable, really stupid, and seemingly backfired in a huge way. And that
23:03
is that they held an official Biden election press conference outside of the Trump trial.
23:15
Now, right off the bat, that's insane. I mean, to
23:21
me, Biden shouldn't even be anything anywhere near this case, should be staying
23:26
as far away from it as possible. Yeah, I mean, because there's
23:30
a perception out there that this is all part of a Democratic plot to get
23:36
Donald Trump. So what do you do. You're you're going to hold a
23:38
press conference for your election team outside of the trial. And who's going to
23:45
be your star? Your star is going to be Robert de Niro. Actor
23:51
Robert de Niro is going to speak on behalf of the Biden reelection team outside
23:59
of the Trump trial. And so you're going to bring in a Hollywood celebrity,
24:06
you know, who is perceived, I guess still in some circles as
24:07
being in everyman New York City kind of guy, Robert de Niro. But
24:12
I mean, come on, and he gets there and he's in an N
24:17
ninety five mask outside, which is just freaking hilarious, and he does this
24:22
press conference and it goes exceedingly poorly and there are a couple of different aspects
24:30
about what happened here that I want to talk about. And again, I
24:33
have a situation from my own life that I thought was remarkably reminiscent to all
24:40
this, but I'll get to that momentarily. And so I want to play
24:44
a couple of clips from what de Niro said, and the first is basically
24:49
his primary argument for why Donald Trump must be defeated. Now, again,
24:56
this is outside of his trial, just before the jury gets the case.
25:02
The jury is not sequestered. I mean, this is at best, this
25:07
is jury tampering facilitated by the president of the United States. But you have
25:12
Robert de Niro making a political argument, which, again going back to my
25:19
biggest problem with this entire case is you've got largely democratic jurors who have this
25:27
perverse self interest that they can influence the election. Well, Robert de Niro
25:33
is playing directly into that. I mean, you could argue, if there
25:37
was rationality behind this, that they were trying to send a message to the
25:41
jury, Hey, this is your chance to short circuit the entire Trump campaign
25:48
to save us from what would be the horror of a second Trump presidential term.
25:56
I mean This is not a stretch at all. This really appears to
25:59
be what their intent was, or what DeNiro's intent wasn't presumably the Biden campaign
26:04
because they were sponsoring all this. And DeNiro goes into his primary rant and
26:14
he says that if Trump is president again, government as we know it will
26:18
end. Basically is what he said, and I ad maity others responded to
26:23
that by saying, why are you trying so hard to get me to vote
26:27
for Donald Trump? Wait a minute, you're saying that if Trump is elected,
26:30
we're going to end government as we know it? Where do I sign?
26:36
Please, let's do this. I had no idea that would be fantastic.
26:41
But then he goes into this argument that somehow, if Trump is elected,
26:48
he will never leave and he will be a dictator for life. And
26:53
before I address the absurdity of that, I'm just going to play the clip.
26:57
So here is Robert and making the essence of his argument about why we
27:04
can't reelect Donald Trump. And then as you listen to this, there's not
27:10
just the substance of it, but the noise in the background and the honking
27:14
and the chaos that is New York City. I think really gives this clip,
27:21
you know, really shows what a disaster this whole thing was and how
27:26
difficult it is to put on this kind of event in the chaos that is
27:30
the streets of New York City, even if you're Robert de Niro. So
27:33
here's what that sounded like. Under Trump, this kind of government will perish
27:38
from the earth. I don't mean to scare you. No, no,
27:42
wait, maybe I do mean to scare you. If Trump returns to the
27:47
White House, you can kiss these freedoms goodbye that we all take for granted,
27:52
and elections forget about it. That's over, that's done. If he
27:56
gets in, I can tell you right now, he will never leave.
28:03
He will never leave. You know that he will never leave. What does
28:10
that mean? Is that the country we want to live in? Do we
28:14
want him running this country and saying I'm not leaving, I'm dictator for life.
28:21
And that's why I've joined the Biden Harris campaign because the only way to
28:25
preserve our freedoms and hold on to our humanity is to vote for Joe Biden
28:30
for president. Really, we don't have a choice now. As far as
28:38
the substance of what De Niro was trying to sell, there by the way.
28:44
Part of my reaction to that clip was, this is supposed to be
28:48
one of the greatest actors of his time, and he's terrible at this,
28:53
especially when he's reading. He can't do better than this as allegedly this great
29:02
actor. So that was one of the first things that hit me was he
29:07
doesn't seem like that great an actor because he's not performing this particularly well.
29:11
And I actually think he believes it. I think he believes most of,
29:17
not all, of what he's saying here. But from a substantive standpoint,
29:21
I have never understood this argument. So let's do the math on this.
29:26
And again, I loathe Trump, do not trust him. I think that,
29:30
you know, it is theorically possible that in Trump's dreams much of what
29:36
de Niro said could actually be true or would be consistent with his intent if
29:41
he could get away with it. But we already went through this. Trump
29:45
was an incumbent president who lost an election that he claimed he didn't lose,
29:52
and while the system got tested way worse than it should have, it held,
30:00
Donald Trump was deemed to be the loser. And Donald Trump left the
30:04
White House and he didn't go to the inauguration, which he should have.
30:10
That was outrageous and absurd and childish and all to Trump like. But the
30:18
transfer of power happened, and that was before we had real reasons to suspect
30:26
that Trump might not leave power as he was supposed to, and the system
30:30
still held. Okay, So I don't understand how it is now that you
30:38
know the whole world is on edge about what Trump might do in a similar
30:42
situation. How is it that let's say Trump wins, which I think is
30:48
at best a fifty to fifty chance right now. In fact, I think
30:51
it's probably more like a forty eight percent chance right now. But let's pretend
30:55
that Trump wins. Right, everybody in the world knows in our constitution that
31:03
you can only serve two terms, so there's not even a question about whether
31:11
or not he won or lost, say the twenty twenty eight election. So
31:15
how would this work? In other words, he knows, the whole world
31:18
knows he cannot serve beyond twenty twenty eight. So what would his plan be
31:26
to stop elections? How would that work? He's termed out, he's a
31:33
lame duck. And what the secretaries of state? This is? This is
31:41
one of the geniuses of our system, and why the system held in twenty
31:45
twenty and why it would hold again even under the worst circumstances that de Niro
31:52
is fantasizing about in twenty twenty eight. How would this work? So either
31:57
Trump would have to have have his name placed on the ballot in enough states
32:04
to win another election in twenty twenty eight, which ain't gonna happen because under
32:08
the worst scenario, there would only be a few, you know, bloody
32:14
red states, mega country where the secretaries of state would be feel forced to
32:20
allow Trump's name to be on the ballot. And even that's a stretch.
32:23
I don't even think that would happen. I'm just giving the de Niro every
32:28
possible benefit of the doubt here, but there would, in no way,
32:30
shape or form would he even be on the ballot in enough places to theoretically
32:36
win an election. So that ain't happening. No chance. So the other
32:40
scenario is what He's gonna stop elections? How's that gonna happen. He's gonna
32:47
just He's going to cancel the twenty twenty eight elections so that there's no one
32:52
elected to replace him. I don't even understand what the mechanism for that would
32:57
be, again, we have states, we have United States. So you're
33:02
going to have all the states go along, or even half the states or
33:07
more than half the states go along with that. That's absurd. Now,
33:12
is it possible? Is it possible that this could then cause a few states
33:16
to want us a seed from the youth? I guess in theory maybe,
33:20
but I think we're headed for that eventually anyway. But I'm just addressing very
33:25
specifically this idea that Trump would serve as president or dictator past twenty twenty eight,
33:30
assuming he's even still alive, because he's going to be into his eighties
33:35
at that point. But I just don't see any logic to this. So
33:40
the military is going to go along with this. I mean, the military
33:45
is not going to go along with that idea, regardless of what they think
33:51
of Trump. It is. It is an absolute absurdity. It's a fantasy.
33:57
And if this is the best argument the Democrats have, then that indicates
34:01
to me that they they're bankrupt, they have nothing. This is the best
34:06
they've got. Is Robert de Niro trying to make the argument that the guy
34:09
who just gave up power in twenty twenty would not give it up in twenty
34:15
twenty eight, when he's termed out, then my god, that's just beyond
34:22
pathetic. They have literally nothing. And I have to say now, I
34:28
don't know how much the de Niro situation resonated or it was even known about
34:34
among people who would be considered you know, the three people that are still
34:37
swing undecided voters in this election, But at least on social media and particularly
34:44
on Twitter, this was mocked in a huge way, huge way, and
34:50
rightfully so. I mean, this was a complete disaster for the Biden campaign
34:57
and for De Niro. Again, I don't know whether or it's going to
35:00
have any impact at all on the election itself, except for the symbolism of
35:05
it. I mean that this is the best you've got Robert de Niro in
35:07
a mask talking about how Trump won't give up power. By the way,
35:12
there's one other element of this I won't give up power situation that is a
35:15
huge mistake by Democrats, and that is it makes Trump look strong. You've
35:23
got a historically weak president in Joe Biden, shuffling around, not knowing where
35:31
to go, seemingly out of it. You know, half the time he's
35:37
physically mentally weak, and you're gonna build Trump up as being so strong that
35:45
if he takes power, we can't get rid of him. How the fuck
35:49
is that a good strategy in a country that still, at least in most
35:53
places, respects strength. So you're gonna make this is exactly what the he
36:00
did in twenty sixteen, and I made Trump into the bully, the politically
36:04
incorrect bully. Well in doing so, they made him seem like a strong
36:09
man. And by putting him on this level where he's so feared that he
36:15
has magic powers that we're not going to be able to get rid of him
36:19
if he takes office again, I think they're giving Trump way too much credit,
36:24
way too much credit, and I think it plays right into Trump's narrative.
36:30
But this was a disaster from a substances standpoint, from the perception that
36:37
it created, but also the nuts and bolts of the event itself, which
36:44
is how you know. I've already referenced that I had a situation that was
36:47
remarkably similar in this case too, where I learned the hard way that it
36:53
is impossible, especially as a conservative and non celebrity, to do an event
37:00
like this in the streets of New York City. You cannot do it,
37:07
especially in a highly contentious situation. And I referenced this in the last episode
37:13
of the podcast, and it's so painful. I don't even want to go
37:15
into all the details, although it's a great story. But this was very,
37:20
very much reminiscent to me of what happened when I got involved in the
37:23
Sarah Palin David Letterman controversy, where David Letterman had made some very inappropriate remarks
37:30
about Sarah Palin's daughter and being raped, and it was just ridiculous and absurd,
37:36
and I got roped into by some Sarah Palin supporters to come from LA
37:40
to New York to basically protest David Letterman outside the Ed Sullivan Theater. And
37:46
I knew this was a bad idea and it was a complete clusterfuck, largely
37:52
because of Sarah Palin herself. Because I got off the plane from LA to
37:58
New York and the first thing I learned is that Sarah Palin had accepted David
38:01
Letterman's apology for this, and I'm like, oh my god, I'm running
38:07
into a buzzsaw here. I knew we were poorly organized. I knew it
38:10
was New York City. I knew getting people to help support me from a
38:15
conservative cause of New York City was going to be basically impossible, but even
38:20
I did not fully comprehend how impossible it is to do a controlled, substantive
38:29
event on the streets of New York City. It's like trying to have a
38:35
church service at a circus. It's just complete chaos. And you know,
38:44
New Yorkers famously are not hesitant at all to give people shit, especially if
38:51
they don't agree with them, or to cause you know, disruption in what
38:55
they think you're doing. And my situation was just absolutely horrific. It was
39:02
a disaster at every turn, every single turn. I remember many years later
39:10
visiting New York City with my now wife and we were happen to be going
39:15
past the David Letterman at Sullivan Theater or whatever the hell they call it,
39:20
and I actually posed a picture for my wife to take with me with a
39:23
finger to my head like I was blowing my brains out, reenacting what had
39:28
happened there. Now, obviously I'm not Robert de Niro, and I didn't
39:31
have a bunch of security guards, and I didn't have the media on my
39:35
side, but I was not surprised to see what happened with the Neros event
39:42
being disrupted by Trump fans. And I have to say, this is a
39:46
situation that occurred largely because Trump's efforts of working the locals through having the rally
39:58
and the Bronx, and being very interactive with his supporters who show up for
40:02
the trial. This really paid dividends here. And I don't know how much
40:07
with Trump, you never know how much is strategy how much is luck,
40:12
But I'm willing to give him some credit here because he does understand this kind
40:15
of thing pretty well. And I think that Trump not seeding the streets of
40:21
New York City, which he could have done but he didn't. Not seeding
40:25
the streets of New York City really helped him in this de Nero situation because
40:32
he created an environment where it was acceptable and expected for Trump fans to show
40:42
up and be confrontational and go after Trump's opponents, so he didn't seed.
40:52
Even though it's not his territory. Obviously, New York City is not in
40:55
general Republican territory or Trump territory, though obviously Trump has lived there basically his
41:02
entire life, but he clearly has created a foothold there where there's enough people
41:08
on his side willing and able to show up and defend him and attack those
41:15
who are going up against him. And that is part of why de Niro
41:20
had a meltdown, because it was I felt this myself, not to this
41:25
level, but I felt exactly the same thing that de Niro was. He
41:29
was clearly very frustrated by the noise and the chanting and the honking, and
41:35
the fact that it was obvious he was getting pushedback, and there were people
41:38
who were saying that the people behind him had lied under oath, and he
41:43
got very confused by that. And then as he was leaving, he got
41:47
into a shouting and cursing exchange with Trump supporters themselves. And this goes back
41:55
to me questioning Robert de Niro he was in an act, because what you're
42:00
about to hear actually happens, but sounded very much like Robert de Niro playing
42:07
a character in a movie, a most word for word. And so I'm
42:10
now thinking, not only is Robert DeNiro not that great an actor when he
42:15
plays these roles in movies, he's basically just being himself. Who knows which
42:22
came first? The chicken or the egg. But here's the clip of Robert
42:25
de Niro telling some drump supporters to fuck off after this whole debacle happened,
42:31
And I think this was very telling about the environment of trying to do an
42:36
event like this on the chaotic streets of New York City. You love texts,
42:42
you loves you, You talk me nobody, good jest. So again,
43:09
I don't know what impact the Robert De Niro fiasco is going to have,
43:15
if any, but it does show, I think, a real dysfunction
43:22
when it comes to the thinking at the Biden campaign headquarters who decided that this
43:29
was a good idea. And if they thought that this was a good idea,
43:34
then wow, you know, maybe people like me who keep thinking that
43:40
the cavalry is coming on behalf of Joe Biden because they've got to have stuff
43:45
up their sleeve in the final months of the election and that they're going to
43:50
use these massive resources that they have to their advantage. Maybe we're wrong.
43:54
Maybe these people are just flat out dumb, because if they thought this was
43:59
a good idea, they're not geniuses and they might be ignoramuses and so but
44:06
mostly I think that the nero thing was just funny, but there is a
44:09
serious element of it because it was obviously an attempt at jury tampering. And
44:15
it goes back to the core issue that I have had that I think that
44:20
the media has been derelict in completely ignoring it's been media malpractice on steroids that
44:30
the issue of the self interest of these jurors and the influence that they can
44:35
have on the presidential election has been almost completely ignored. Thanks for listening to
44:40
today's free drop of the abbreviated show. If you're interested in listening to the
44:45
entire show, you must become a patron. Please go to Patreon. That's
44:51
pat r e O N dot com. Patreon dot com slash the Death of
44:59
Journalism with John Ziggler. My name is j H N z I E g
45:05
L e R. That's patreon dot com slash the Death of Journalism with John
45:13
Ziggler. Good luck to you on that. But that's how you can subscribe.