Latest / The Death Of Journalism / Episode Two Hundred Eighty Six: "Whatchoo Talkin Bout, Willis"

Transcript

Episode Two Hundred Eighty Six: "Whatchoo Talkin Bout, Willis" · The Death Of Journalism

0:00
Speaker 1: Welcome to episode two hundred and eighty six of the
0:02
Speaker 1: Death of Journalism podcast. My name is John Zigler. I'm
0:05
Speaker 1: your host on today's show. Trump is officially stuck in
0:08
Speaker 1: a quandary in Iran. CBS News makes massive job cuts,
0:13
Speaker 1: someone orders a code red on liberal icon Caesar Chavez,
0:17
Speaker 1: and he gets canceled faster with less evidence than any
0:20
Speaker 1: non white man in modern American history. The NCAA Basketball
0:25
Speaker 1: Tournament is becoming a showcase for old school coaches. But
0:28
Speaker 1: they've killed Cinderella, which is the perfect hook for me
0:31
Speaker 1: to interview the coach of my high school basketball team,
0:35
Speaker 1: who forty years later retired as the winning as boys
0:38
Speaker 1: coach in the history of Pennsylvania. Begin this episode of
0:43
Speaker 1: the podcast with a quick programming note. I'm taping just
0:46
Speaker 1: a little bit early, about a half day earlier than normal,
0:49
Speaker 1: so if something big happens on Wednesday morning, which is
0:52
Speaker 1: normally when I tape the podcast, I will not be
0:54
Speaker 1: able to speak about it until episode two hundred and
0:57
Speaker 1: eighty seven. But there's still lots to get to and
1:00
Speaker 1: I want to begin as we had the last several weeks,
1:02
Speaker 1: with what's happened or not happened with regard to the
1:05
Speaker 1: war in Iran, I do think it's right to now
1:08
Speaker 1: call this at least a quandary. I don't think it's
1:10
Speaker 1: a quagmire. Yet it is a quandary, and it's a
1:13
Speaker 1: quandary made mostly of the fact that there was very
1:16
Speaker 1: little thinking through or very little good prognostication about what
1:23
Speaker 1: was going to transpire once the initial attacks from the
1:26
Speaker 1: United States and Israel landed on Iran. The attacks that
1:31
Speaker 1: by all accounts have been successful, but the reaction to
1:34
Speaker 1: the attacks and the domino effect of the attacks has
1:38
Speaker 1: not been at all. Apparently what Donald Trump in the
1:41
Speaker 1: United States was expecting, at least on three different fronts.
1:46
Speaker 1: The first is there's no sign of a natural regime change.
1:51
Speaker 1: It appears as if that was at least part of
1:53
Speaker 1: the scenario that Trump and the Trump administration contemplated as
1:59
Speaker 1: they did this. I don't want to force regime change
2:01
Speaker 1: because that can be incredibly messy, as we've seen with
2:04
Speaker 1: regard to what happened with Iraq. But I do think
2:06
Speaker 1: that they thought that there might be a natural inclination
2:10
Speaker 1: of the Iranian people to uprise and be able to
2:12
Speaker 1: overthrow the current Iranian regime that has not happened. I
2:17
Speaker 1: don't think. In fact, I know because Trump himself has
2:20
Speaker 1: said it that they anticipated Iran going with the escalation
2:24
Speaker 1: strategy of attacking effectively neighbors and even allies, or at
2:31
Speaker 1: least their territory in an effort to try to get
2:33
Speaker 1: back at us, to spread this conflict as much as possible.
2:37
Speaker 1: Trump has said that no one told him that was likely,
2:41
Speaker 1: and he's also said that no one told him that
2:44
Speaker 1: the strait of our moves would be so difficult to reopen,
2:47
Speaker 1: and specifically that we would get effectively, at least to
2:50
Speaker 1: this point, no help from our European allies. Those are
2:54
Speaker 1: three big parts of this equation, and it appears as
2:58
Speaker 1: if we went in to this situation with faulty estimations
3:04
Speaker 1: and predictions about what was going to transpire once we
3:08
Speaker 1: started this war. Now, whether or not that means in
3:12
Speaker 1: the end this is going to be a success or
3:13
Speaker 1: a failure, I don't know. Frankly, I don't think it's
3:16
Speaker 1: possible for this thing to be seen, at least in
3:19
Speaker 1: perception as a success at this point, mainly because of
3:23
Speaker 1: the regime change issue. The polling on this is almost
3:26
Speaker 1: split fifty to fifty, so the reality is you're either
3:30
Speaker 1: in favor of regime change or you're against regime change.
3:34
Speaker 1: So if you end up achieving all of your goals
3:37
Speaker 1: but there's no regime change, the regime change people are
3:41
Speaker 1: still going to be very disappointed and probably not feel
3:44
Speaker 1: as if this is a big success. Meanwhile, the people
3:47
Speaker 1: that are against regime change, who also probably are against
3:51
Speaker 1: the war to begin with, are never going to be
3:53
Speaker 1: satisfied at this point. So it's almost impossible to get
3:57
Speaker 1: a significant number or percentage of the American people to
4:01
Speaker 1: believe that whatever ends up transpiring here was a success,
4:05
Speaker 1: especially when they're already paying far more for gasoline at
4:10
Speaker 1: the pump. And there's all sorts of other economic implications
4:13
Speaker 1: of this. For instance, fertilizer apparently is going to be
4:16
Speaker 1: bottled up just as badly as oil has been with
4:19
Speaker 1: regard to the strait of our moves. And then, maybe
4:22
Speaker 1: the most interesting and perhaps the most troubling aspect of
4:25
Speaker 1: this old thing transpired earlier this week, where Donald Trump
4:30
Speaker 1: effectively announced that Iran was seeking a deal and that
4:34
Speaker 1: negotiations had been going on at the highest level to
4:38
Speaker 1: try to end the war. On that news, the stock
4:41
Speaker 1: market exploded the dal Jones went up well over a
4:45
Speaker 1: thousand points at one point, and then Iran denied that
4:51
Speaker 1: there was any truth to this. Now they always say it.
4:55
Speaker 1: It's true that truth is the first casualty of war.
5:00
Speaker 1: Very very difficult to tell what is true on a
5:02
Speaker 1: daily basis when it comes to the Trump administration. But
5:05
Speaker 1: we're now in this incredibly I believe troubling set of
5:10
Speaker 1: circumstances where even I, as a Republican and someone who
5:15
Speaker 1: has no reason at all to trust anybody in Iran,
5:18
Speaker 1: especially a regime that's in disarray, does not know who
5:22
Speaker 1: to trust here. I don't know whether or not to
5:25
Speaker 1: trust the president of the United States or an Iranian
5:29
Speaker 1: regime that is in complete disarray. I have no idea
5:33
Speaker 1: who's telling the truth. I have every expectation that it
5:38
Speaker 1: is possible, possible that Trump either was lying or exaggerating
5:43
Speaker 1: because he's very much looking for an out here. But
5:46
Speaker 1: just think about that. Think about how bat shit crazy
5:49
Speaker 1: that is that we do not have rational reasons to
5:54
Speaker 1: trust the president of the United States over an Iranian
5:59
Speaker 1: regime we don't even know who's in charge of. I
6:03
Speaker 1: mean literally, Trump doesn't even know who's in charge, which
6:06
Speaker 1: is partially why I'm not sure I really believe there's
6:10
Speaker 1: a whole lot of truth to this idea that there's
6:13
Speaker 1: negotiations to end the war, because Trump keeps talking about
6:15
Speaker 1: how they don't even know who to negotiate with, which
6:19
Speaker 1: is probably the fourth part, although it's related to regime
6:22
Speaker 1: change or the lack thereof the fourth component that they
6:25
Speaker 1: did not fully anticipate with this whole thing, because in
6:29
Speaker 1: order to end a war, you need some sort of
6:32
Speaker 1: an agreement. To have an agreement, you need to have
6:35
Speaker 1: a leadership that you know who you're dealing with that
6:39
Speaker 1: is legitimate that they're the ones that can agree to
6:43
Speaker 1: a ceasefire or some sort of a post war pact.
6:48
Speaker 1: So you know, whatever it is that gets agreed to
6:52
Speaker 1: the declaring victory on the United States side and accepting
6:56
Speaker 1: defeat on the Iranian side, whatever it is, you need
6:59
Speaker 1: somebody who's in charge in order to make that happen,
7:04
Speaker 1: and by Trump's own admission, we don't know who that is.
7:08
Speaker 1: And so I don't know what's going on here with
7:12
Speaker 1: regard to whether or not we're close to ending this thing,
7:14
Speaker 1: whether or not there's really negotiations going on. Iron is
7:18
Speaker 1: talking a good game, which is consistent with their entire worldview.
7:22
Speaker 1: And I think it's their worldview that's really at the
7:25
Speaker 1: crux of the problem for why there have been so
7:27
Speaker 1: many miscalculations here. I think there seems to be a
7:30
Speaker 1: fundamental lack of understanding, understanding of the incentive structures for
7:36
Speaker 1: believers in radical Islam. Now, you would think, after all
7:39
Speaker 1: these years, we would have true experts that would figure
7:42
Speaker 1: this out, but apparently we don't, and Trump is certainly
7:45
Speaker 1: not one of them. In the Western mind cannot fully
7:50
Speaker 1: comprehend it appears, how it is that someone in the
7:55
Speaker 1: Iranian regime, a believer in radical Islam, is going to
8:00
Speaker 1: deceive our actions and perceive their own self interest. And yes,
8:04
Speaker 1: martyrdom is at the core of that problem. Martyrdom is
8:09
Speaker 1: at the core of all of this. Martyrdom is why
8:12
Speaker 1: the belief in martyrdom is why Iran cannot be allowed
8:16
Speaker 1: to have a nuclear weapon. I've talked about this before,
8:20
Speaker 1: but it bears repeating. That's the core objective here, apparently,
8:25
Speaker 1: is to prevent Iran from getting a nuclear weapon, which
8:27
Speaker 1: I fully support, because the entire system of nuclear weapons
8:34
Speaker 1: rest upon the idea that whoever has them does not
8:39
Speaker 1: believe that's in their best interest to die, or to
8:42
Speaker 1: have lots of their own people die, or to have
8:44
Speaker 1: lots of innocent people die. You must believe in life.
8:48
Speaker 1: You cannot believe that death is a good thing, that
8:51
Speaker 1: death is something to be pursued. The proper type of
8:55
Speaker 1: death is to be pursued, and that's what martyrdom is.
8:58
Speaker 1: You cannot allow well a group of people that believe
9:02
Speaker 1: in that ideology, especially when they're bad guys to begin with.
9:06
Speaker 1: They're obviously terrorists, they've done all sorts of bad acts
9:10
Speaker 1: throughout the world and throughout the region. That type of
9:13
Speaker 1: group of people cannot be allowed to have a nuclear weapon.
9:16
Speaker 1: But it appears as if we also have a really
9:19
Speaker 1: tough time being able to calculate how those people are
9:22
Speaker 1: going to respond to any sort of stimulus or any
9:26
Speaker 1: sort of self interest. And so, you know, my patience,
9:30
Speaker 1: as you can tell, is already waning. I'm not going
9:34
Speaker 1: to declare it to complete defeat or anything close to
9:37
Speaker 1: a complete defeat yet. I'm still hopeful that we're going
9:39
Speaker 1: to be able to come up with some semblance of
9:41
Speaker 1: a success here. But uh, there's no question that this
9:45
Speaker 1: is a big problem This is a big problem from
9:49
Speaker 1: a strategic standpoint, from a political perspective. Economically, this is very,
9:55
Speaker 1: very problematic, and there's got to be a way to
9:59
Speaker 1: end this in a way that does as little damage
10:02
Speaker 1: as possible. And I know just don't have a lot
10:05
Speaker 1: of faith. I have faith in Marco Rubio, but he
10:09
Speaker 1: clearly is not able to do this all on his own.
10:11
Speaker 1: He's got a lot of jobs wearing a lot of hats,
10:14
Speaker 1: and when you have Donald Trump as the lead person,
10:18
Speaker 1: I have good reason not to have a lot of
10:20
Speaker 1: faith in what's actually going to transpire here. So my
10:23
Speaker 1: love of confidence has never been lower. But I'm still
10:27
Speaker 1: hopeful that we're going to be able to eventually wrap
10:30
Speaker 1: this thing up in the next whatever it is, three
10:32
Speaker 1: or four or five weeks and be able to at
10:35
Speaker 1: least plausibly claim some level of success. But it won't
10:39
Speaker 1: be because of great planning or being able to figure
10:44
Speaker 1: out how exactly Iron was going to react to all
10:47
Speaker 1: the various circumstances of this war. Now, one of the
10:51
Speaker 1: other things that happened with regard to Donald Trump that
10:53
Speaker 1: I have to mention is that former Special Counsel Robert
10:58
Speaker 1: Muller died a few days ago, and Robert Maller, by
11:03
Speaker 1: every account, was a great American, a marine, a war hero,
11:08
Speaker 1: a great prosecutor, a great American, a man of great character.
11:14
Speaker 1: I think, as I've said many times publicly at the time,
11:18
Speaker 1: he just was too old to handle Russia Gate. And
11:23
Speaker 1: it took like fifteen twenty seconds when he finally testified
11:28
Speaker 1: after his so called Russia Gate investigation, to realize, oh
11:32
Speaker 1: my gosh, this guy just doesn't have it anymore. He
11:36
Speaker 1: had lost his fastball and probably his curve ball at
11:38
Speaker 1: that point. And you know, liberal hearts broke instantaneously because
11:43
Speaker 1: this was a guy that for a year and a
11:44
Speaker 1: half they had put all their hopes and dreams into.
11:48
Speaker 1: And I even warned liberals about that at the time.
11:50
Speaker 1: I said, my god, you forget about his age. You
11:54
Speaker 1: are really putting a whole lot on one man and
11:57
Speaker 1: put making him into a superman. Rachel Maddow would do
12:01
Speaker 1: this on a consistent basis on MSNBC when she was
12:04
Speaker 1: talking a nauseum about Russia Gate being wrong about the
12:08
Speaker 1: vast majority of it. But Robert Muller was not up
12:12
Speaker 1: to that task. But that doesn't mean he was a
12:16
Speaker 1: bad guy or it doesn't destroy his career. But the
12:21
Speaker 1: main reason I'm even mentioning this is that the President
12:23
Speaker 1: of the United States, Donald Trump, made a public statement
12:27
Speaker 1: about Robert Muller's death and he said he was glad
12:31
Speaker 1: that he was dead. He celebrated his death. Why well,
12:38
Speaker 1: because at least in his perception or in the perception
12:42
Speaker 1: of his MAGA fan base. And I don't even know
12:45
Speaker 1: for sure whether Trump really believes this or not. I
12:47
Speaker 1: would love to know, but we'll never have any idea
12:49
Speaker 1: because no one will ever ask him in a way
12:52
Speaker 1: that will elicit this kind of information. But Trump, at
12:56
Speaker 1: least in perception, believes that Robert Muller was on a
12:59
Speaker 1: win hunt for him when it came to Russia Gate.
13:03
Speaker 1: I would argue it was exactly the opposite. I would
13:07
Speaker 1: argue that Robert Muller did Donald Trump a huge favor
13:12
Speaker 1: on a number of levels. First of all, he did
13:15
Speaker 1: not know force Bill Barr's hand. He allowed Bill Barr
13:20
Speaker 1: to effectively kill the investigation with this preemptive memo that
13:26
Speaker 1: was released well before Muller got a chance to blow
13:29
Speaker 1: his own testimony because he was too old to pull
13:32
Speaker 1: it off. Muller's recommendations were very soft benign. I think
13:40
Speaker 1: there was a much stronger case to be made than
13:42
Speaker 1: even Muller made it on obstruction of justice and areas
13:46
Speaker 1: like that. Yes, the big story was no evidence of
13:51
Speaker 1: collusion or no proof of collusion for sure with Russia
13:56
Speaker 1: and Trump. Trump of course saw that rightly as a vindication. Well,
14:00
Speaker 1: that only comes because of Robert Muller, and because of
14:04
Speaker 1: Muller's stature, and because Muller was known as a Republican
14:08
Speaker 1: and all sorts of other reasons, all the credibility that
14:13
Speaker 1: liberals had given to Muller, that was why Trump was
14:18
Speaker 1: able to survive all that. He wasn't even impeached over
14:22
Speaker 1: Russia Gate. And I think that there were absolutely things
14:25
Speaker 1: that were impeachable offenses. It wasn't because of collusion, but
14:29
Speaker 1: because of other I believe violations that were done during
14:33
Speaker 1: the course of the investigation. And I've gone through many,
14:35
Speaker 1: many times before when I think Trump's real motivation was
14:38
Speaker 1: about that whole situation. But for the President United States,
14:43
Speaker 1: forget about all the details. I mean, I think there's
14:46
Speaker 1: a strong argument that made Muller actually did Trump a favor,
14:49
Speaker 1: But for the President United States to call a man
14:52
Speaker 1: of Robert Muller's stature, a great American, a hero, somebody
14:57
Speaker 1: that he's glad died. To celebrate his death publicly as president,
15:04
Speaker 1: it's just ridiculous. It's sad, it's an abomination. It's an
15:08
Speaker 1: indication once again that, in case you've forgotten, that Donald
15:12
Speaker 1: Trump is a very bad human being. He's not all bad,
15:17
Speaker 1: but at his core, he's a bad person, because only
15:20
Speaker 1: a bad person does something like that, especially when it's
15:24
Speaker 1: not even justified by facts or logic. Look, I'm the
15:29
Speaker 1: first person if Gavin Newsom were to die, I would
15:33
Speaker 1: probably celebrate, depending on how it happened. So I'm not
15:37
Speaker 1: above that kind of thing. But I have very substantive
15:41
Speaker 1: reasons for why I might celebrate the death of Gavin Newsom,
15:46
Speaker 1: depending on how it all transpired, of course. But that's
15:51
Speaker 1: just a theoretical example to tell you that I could
15:55
Speaker 1: understand the impulse, but it's not justified with regard to
15:58
Speaker 1: Robert Muller and Donald Trump. If anything, it's exactly the opposite,
16:02
Speaker 1: and I'm not president of the United States. That's the
16:05
Speaker 1: other big thing Trump, I've always said, is psychologically physiological,
16:10
Speaker 1: and I mean not physiologo physiologically might be another story,
16:14
Speaker 1: but he is certainly psychologically, mentally unfit, emotionally unfit for
16:21
Speaker 1: the office of the presidency. And there's probably never been anyone,
16:25
Speaker 1: at least in the modern history of the country that's
16:27
Speaker 1: ever been more psychologically more unfit. He's a toddler, and
16:32
Speaker 1: this was just another very sad example of that. Now,
16:35
Speaker 1: this is the death of journalism podcasts, and I have
16:38
Speaker 1: to say, well, this podcast has not been arousing success
16:42
Speaker 1: based upon the metrics of modern media. I doubt that
16:47
Speaker 1: there has ever been a podcast that had a more
16:49
Speaker 1: prussianed name than the Death of Journalism. Because we've been
16:53
Speaker 1: doing this now for what three three and a half
16:56
Speaker 1: years something like that, I can't even remember how long it,
17:00
Speaker 1: but it's during that time period it has been absolutely
17:05
Speaker 1: prescient in predicting what was going to happen with the
17:09
Speaker 1: mainstream news media, because journalism at every single level is
17:14
Speaker 1: either dying or dead or has already been buried. And
17:19
Speaker 1: we saw more evidence of that in just the last
17:21
Speaker 1: few days where CBS News, once the home of Walter Cronkite,
17:29
Speaker 1: the pinnacle of television broadcast journalism, at least in perception,
17:35
Speaker 1: has made massive cuts this just after their parent company, Paramount,
17:41
Speaker 1: has purchased Warner Brothers Discovery in a merger that is
17:46
Speaker 1: likely to be approved and will mean that there's going
17:48
Speaker 1: to be a massive merger of two enormous media companies
17:54
Speaker 1: and that CBS and CNN will be under the same umbrella. Well,
18:00
Speaker 1: whether it's in preparation for that because of that provoked
18:03
Speaker 1: by that, who knows. I have no inside information, but
18:08
Speaker 1: massive cutbacks at CBS News, including the entire shuttering of
18:14
Speaker 1: CBS Radio News. Now, I was a radio talk show
18:20
Speaker 1: host for quite a long time in several media markets.
18:22
Speaker 1: Was a fan of radio growing up, and the idea
18:26
Speaker 1: that CBS Radio News in a couple of months is
18:30
Speaker 1: no longer going to be in existence is just mind
18:34
Speaker 1: blowing to me. I mean, if you're your fan of radio,
18:38
Speaker 1: you are probably as flummexed as I am, as bathfuled
18:42
Speaker 1: as I am as how that's even possible. And look,
18:46
Speaker 1: we've talked time and time again about how mainstream networks
18:50
Speaker 1: have lost the public trust and they often deserve a
18:52
Speaker 1: lot of what they're getting. I get that sentiment, but
18:56
Speaker 1: there's a lot lost here, I mean with regard to
18:59
Speaker 1: subs into programming that can't really be replaced in this
19:05
Speaker 1: day and age because news is just not making money anymore.
19:10
Speaker 1: It used to be a license to print money. And now,
19:16
Speaker 1: you know, two things happened simultaneously. One, it stopped being
19:20
Speaker 1: nearly as profitable as it used to be, and the
19:22
Speaker 1: companies that owned it now only care about profit. They
19:26
Speaker 1: don't give a shit about journalism or news or doing
19:32
Speaker 1: the public service. Public service means absolutely nothing in this
19:36
Speaker 1: equation anymore. But there's all sorts of local stations that
19:41
Speaker 1: are now going to be scrambling for any sort of
19:45
Speaker 1: national news content of any substance now that CBS Radio
19:49
Speaker 1: News has gone along with massive cutbacks at CBS News
19:53
Speaker 1: in general, and the same thing is forecasted for CNN.
19:58
Speaker 1: And you know the fact that CBS and c and
20:01
Speaker 1: N are going to be under the same corporate umbrella
20:04
Speaker 1: would indicate that once that's official, there's going to be
20:07
Speaker 1: even more cutbacks. And this matters. And it's frustrating to
20:12
Speaker 1: me as a conservative to see so many people online
20:16
Speaker 1: who are conservatives dance on the graves of these institutions.
20:21
Speaker 1: And I get it. I understand they're your enemies. A
20:26
Speaker 1: lot of are bad people. They've done a lot of
20:28
Speaker 1: bad things. They've been incompetent, they've been incredibly biased. I
20:32
Speaker 1: get all that, I really do. I've lived it. It's
20:34
Speaker 1: been a huge portion of my life. But I take
20:38
Speaker 1: very little joy in this because I realized the downside
20:43
Speaker 1: for our society and our country. And it really does matter.
20:48
Speaker 1: It's not just this high minded ideal that journalism needs
20:53
Speaker 1: to matter and substantive news needs to matter. Let me
20:56
Speaker 1: tell you how it actually impacts real life these kinds
20:59
Speaker 1: of cutbacks. First of all, these massive companies have no
21:04
Speaker 1: resources anymore none, there's no fat at all. In fact,
21:09
Speaker 1: I'm sure they're cutting beyond the bone. And you know
21:13
Speaker 1: what that means. That means that real journalism is impossible
21:17
Speaker 1: because real journalism takes time, and time is money, and
21:23
Speaker 1: there's just not going to be a situation where you
21:25
Speaker 1: can put reporters on a story that might not come
21:29
Speaker 1: to fruition for six months or a year, or two years,
21:34
Speaker 1: whatever it is, to finally get to the truth of
21:38
Speaker 1: a matter that otherwise no one would ever know the
21:41
Speaker 1: truth of. And you know my experience obviously, specifically with
21:45
Speaker 1: regard to the Penn State Joe Paterno Jerry Sandusky case,
21:48
Speaker 1: is a fantastic proof of this. I mean, it took
21:52
Speaker 1: me years on my own to figure out what really
21:56
Speaker 1: transpired about one of the biggest stories of this century
21:59
Speaker 1: and eventually did it. Now I wasn't being paid, and
22:03
Speaker 1: I also didn't have the risk of losing a gig
22:06
Speaker 1: by coming up with the wrong truth, which is another
22:10
Speaker 1: part of this equation, because you can only come up
22:13
Speaker 1: with popular truths now unpopular truths. Media corporation or media
22:19
Speaker 1: outlets from big corporations have no interest here, but they're
22:22
Speaker 1: not gonna put lots of resources to come up with
22:25
Speaker 1: a truth that's highly unpopular, like the one that I did.
22:30
Speaker 1: Even though I've never understood why my truth was unpopular,
22:33
Speaker 1: it should have been very popular. I was telling people
22:35
Speaker 1: nothing bad happened. But that's another story for another day.
22:38
Speaker 1: The point of this is that the entire business model
22:42
Speaker 1: has broken to the point where there's not gonna be
22:46
Speaker 1: the time allocation the resources, or there's not gonna be
22:51
Speaker 1: the risk endurance to take on unpopular stories or unpopular truths.
22:59
Speaker 1: And these cutbacks are impacting that reality in two ways.
23:04
Speaker 1: It's not just a lack of resources in time and
23:07
Speaker 1: you can't put enough reporters on a story that takes
23:11
Speaker 1: time to finally break, which is a huge part of journalism.
23:15
Speaker 1: I'll tell you what maybe the bigger factor is. The
23:18
Speaker 1: bigger factor is fear of losing your job. I've discussed
23:22
Speaker 1: this before, but probably not enough, because this is something
23:25
Speaker 1: I truly understand better than anybody. Haven't been fired from
23:28
Speaker 1: a lot of jobs and lived a lot of my
23:31
Speaker 1: career not having a corporate job and realizing how much
23:35
Speaker 1: more freedom that gives me because I don't have anything
23:39
Speaker 1: to lose, So the risk reward ratio is different. But
23:43
Speaker 1: I'm telling you when there's cutbacks, that means there's job
23:47
Speaker 1: in security. And job in security has never been higher
23:52
Speaker 1: and major media outlets than it is today, and it's
23:54
Speaker 1: going to get worse as we go into the future.
23:57
Speaker 1: And job in security is a journalism killer. If you
24:02
Speaker 1: consider journalism as a pursuit of finding and telling the truth,
24:07
Speaker 1: it is a killer because even if you stumble on it,
24:12
Speaker 1: you're probably not gonna bother to tell it, because why
24:16
Speaker 1: your job's not secure. In order to be a true journalist,
24:20
Speaker 1: you need to either have an extremely secure job or
24:24
Speaker 1: not give a shit about losing it. If those If
24:28
Speaker 1: either of those two circumstances are not in play, you
24:32
Speaker 1: cannot be a real journalist. It cannot happen. So from
24:38
Speaker 1: at least two different directions, journalism is getting crushed by
24:43
Speaker 1: these massive cutbacks, and they're just going to keep coming,
24:47
Speaker 1: and especially at both CBS and CNN as they merge together.
24:53
Speaker 1: And you know, who knows if CNN is even going
24:56
Speaker 1: to exist or what the hell they're going to call it,
24:59
Speaker 1: And and this is a death spiral. There's no way
25:03
Speaker 1: out of this for a number of reasons. I mean,
25:06
Speaker 1: it's a lot like Hollywood. Once you've lost that power,
25:10
Speaker 1: it's almost impossible to get back. And the incentive structure
25:15
Speaker 1: is all wrong, the business model is totally broken, and
25:20
Speaker 1: the institutional memory of what journalism was is being lost
25:24
Speaker 1: on a daily basis. That's the other part of these layoffs.
25:27
Speaker 1: Who they laying off, Well, they're either laying off the
25:30
Speaker 1: really old people or the really young people in general.
25:33
Speaker 1: And if you lay off or fire the really old people,
25:37
Speaker 1: now you're losing more and more institutional memory. People who
25:39
Speaker 1: actually at least have a memory of what it was
25:42
Speaker 1: like in the eighties or the nineties when there was
25:46
Speaker 1: actual real journalism. It wasn't perfect journalism. It was very
25:48
Speaker 1: biased journalism, but at least it passed his journalism, and
25:52
Speaker 1: that's being lost at an incredibly rapid pace. So if
25:57
Speaker 1: nothing else, this podcast The Death Journalism has the most
26:01
Speaker 1: prescient name in all of podcasting. If that's the only
26:05
Speaker 1: claim to fame we have, I'll take it. But I
26:07
Speaker 1: think we actually deserve it on that particular front. And
26:11
Speaker 1: with that being said, you know, I talk all the
26:14
Speaker 1: time about how we have no journalism here in California,
26:18
Speaker 1: and maybe that's partially why I see this faster than
26:22
Speaker 1: maybe some other people do, because here in California, we're
26:25
Speaker 1: living in a world where there is no journalism. It's
26:29
Speaker 1: a one party state politically, and the journalism is pathetic.
26:35
Speaker 1: It's beyond biased. They've been cutbacks all over the place.
26:40
Speaker 1: There's no substance. The newspapers are dying, the TV stations
26:44
Speaker 1: are dying. We get no national coverage because there's such
26:48
Speaker 1: an East Coast bias with regard to the television networks
26:51
Speaker 1: and the New York Times and the Washington Post and
26:53
Speaker 1: the Wall Street Journal and so there's nobody covering anything here,
26:58
Speaker 1: which allows Democrats to get away with bloody murder. Gavin
27:01
Speaker 1: Newsom could do whatever he wants. There's a reason, a
27:04
Speaker 1: lot of reasons, but one of the reasons Galvendusom was
27:07
Speaker 1: able to get away with all of the horrendous things
27:10
Speaker 1: he did during the COVID panic was because there's very
27:13
Speaker 1: little true journalism here and the little bit that there
27:17
Speaker 1: is was completely in the tank for him. And so
27:20
Speaker 1: it's like the perfect peatrit dish for liberals to get
27:23
Speaker 1: away with whatever they want because there's not even national scrutiny.
27:28
Speaker 1: And there's a couple of stories that involve California that
27:31
Speaker 1: I want to address, one of them briefly and then
27:34
Speaker 1: one in more detail. I have to mention what's going
27:37
Speaker 1: on with their guide to the governor's race here in California,
27:41
Speaker 1: the race to replace Gavin Newsom as the next governor
27:44
Speaker 1: of California. And right now, there's like twelve candidates in
27:49
Speaker 1: the race, maybe more than that, but at least twelve
27:51
Speaker 1: that are being taken somewhat seriously, and no one has
27:56
Speaker 1: come close to taking control of the race. There's no
27:59
Speaker 1: major celebrity in the race, which makes it difficult to
28:04
Speaker 1: figure out, Okay, how are you going to do a debate?
28:07
Speaker 1: Because you know, everyone's jam packed in these polls, but
28:10
Speaker 1: a bunch of people in the teens or single digits,
28:14
Speaker 1: And how do you determine, because you can't fit all
28:17
Speaker 1: these people on the stage at one time, how do
28:19
Speaker 1: you determine who's going to be in a gubernatorial debate,
28:23
Speaker 1: especially when you don't even have a Republican and Democratic primary,
28:28
Speaker 1: which is just incredibly asinine but typical of the way
28:30
Speaker 1: we do things in the dumbest way possible here in California.
28:34
Speaker 1: There is no primary system here. Well, I mean there's
28:37
Speaker 1: a primary, but it's not a party primary. It's I guess,
28:40
Speaker 1: I guess you'd call it a jungle primary where everybody
28:44
Speaker 1: runs in a primary and then the top two vote
28:46
Speaker 1: getterers they go against each other in the general election
28:50
Speaker 1: in November. And the way the Democrats have designed this,
28:54
Speaker 1: which is perfect for them, is either they're going to
28:57
Speaker 1: get two candidates into the race and therefore that there's
29:01
Speaker 1: a you know, it's deadlock, sinch that there'll be a
29:03
Speaker 1: Democratic governor, which is going to be anyway, Or they
29:07
Speaker 1: get a Democrat in there who everyone likes, they run
29:11
Speaker 1: against a Republican and they have a slam dunk in
29:14
Speaker 1: the November election, because the Democrats always going to beat
29:17
Speaker 1: the Republican here in California. But currently the situation here
29:22
Speaker 1: is a bit influx, not nearly as much as people
29:26
Speaker 1: think it is, and it's getting a lot of attention
29:28
Speaker 1: nationally and a lot of misinformation. It's amazing to me
29:32
Speaker 1: online how supposedly smart people are making some incredibly stupid
29:37
Speaker 1: comments about what's happening in California. Because currently you can
29:42
Speaker 1: make an argument that the two Republican candidates, the two
29:46
Speaker 1: Republican candidates are getting the most support, could based on
29:51
Speaker 1: some polls, end up being the top two vote getters,
29:54
Speaker 1: and you would have the most ridiculous, biggest upset in
29:58
Speaker 1: the modern history of American public politics, where you would
30:01
Speaker 1: end up with a Republican governor because you'd have two
30:03
Speaker 1: Republicans running in the November election and people are getting
30:08
Speaker 1: their Democrats have their panties all in the wad, and
30:12
Speaker 1: Republicans are celebrating, Oh my gosh, We're gonna take California,
30:16
Speaker 1: And I'm just like, are you people fucking idiots? Do
30:18
Speaker 1: you not understand how this works? First of all, there's
30:20
Speaker 1: lot of people that just really don't understand how this works.
30:23
Speaker 1: There's some people say the one Republican should drop out
30:26
Speaker 1: so the other one can have a better chance. I'm like,
30:28
Speaker 1: are you kidding? The only chance, the only chance Republicans
30:32
Speaker 1: have is if both Republicans hang in there and some
30:36
Speaker 1: have by some miracle, end up being as the top
30:39
Speaker 1: two vote getters. Because the Democratic vote has split fifteen
30:42
Speaker 1: different ways. That is the only, I repeat, only scenario
30:47
Speaker 1: where a Republican could end up winning the governorship in California.
30:52
Speaker 1: But that's not gonna happen despite the polling. And let
30:56
Speaker 1: me tell you why. Yes, Democrats are dumb, Yes they're incompetent,
31:01
Speaker 1: Yes they can't run a state, but they're not complete imbeciles.
31:06
Speaker 1: They understand what is going to happen here right now.
31:11
Speaker 1: The Democratic vote is completely splintered because nobody because this
31:16
Speaker 1: is where Democrats are actually paying a price for the
31:18
Speaker 1: fact that there's no cohesion. There's no real media, there's
31:23
Speaker 1: an ignorant voter base. Nobody knows who the fuck's running.
31:27
Speaker 1: No one knows. All they're seeing is all these television commercials.
31:31
Speaker 1: They're all saying exactly the same thing, So you have
31:34
Speaker 1: you know whatever, it is. Sixty five percent of the
31:37
Speaker 1: Democratic vote of an up one hundred percent of the
31:39
Speaker 1: voters is splintered all over the place. So right now,
31:43
Speaker 1: none of the Democrats are getting enough votes to where
31:46
Speaker 1: they would definitely be in the top two and make
31:48
Speaker 1: it into the November general election. But that can change
31:54
Speaker 1: in fifteen minutes because all that has to happen is
31:59
Speaker 1: for one or all of these people, Barack Obama, Kamala Harris,
32:06
Speaker 1: and Gavin Newsom to endorse a candidate, and as long
32:09
Speaker 1: as they all endorse the same candidate or nobody endorses
32:13
Speaker 1: somebody else, that person is going to make the top
32:16
Speaker 1: two at least, and that person is very likely Congressman
32:20
Speaker 1: Eric Solwell. Swalwell is probably going to be the guy,
32:25
Speaker 1: which is terrible, but that seems to be the convention
32:28
Speaker 1: to wisdom, and Swalwell will get, you know, whatever it is.
32:33
Speaker 1: He'll get the thirty five percent of the vote. He'll
32:36
Speaker 1: probably run against one of the two other Republicans if
32:39
Speaker 1: Republicans are lucky, and he'll crush the Republican in the
32:43
Speaker 1: November election. But that's all it takes, because right now
32:48
Speaker 1: the Democrats are in California are like cut cats. They
32:51
Speaker 1: can't be herded, you know, they're all over the place.
32:54
Speaker 1: But even though it's not as easy as he used
32:56
Speaker 1: to be, Obama or Harris or News or all three
33:00
Speaker 1: of them together, if they say, hey, cats get over here,
33:05
Speaker 1: enough of those cats are finally going to hurt around
33:07
Speaker 1: Eric Swalwell, and he'll be the Democratic candidate, and it's
33:11
Speaker 1: just a matter of whether or not he's going to
33:13
Speaker 1: run against another Democrat in the November race or against
33:17
Speaker 1: one of the two Republicans that have been getting around
33:20
Speaker 1: sixteen seventeen percent of the vote. Part of the reason
33:24
Speaker 1: I'm mentioning this now is because something absolutely hilarious and
33:27
Speaker 1: yet so typically California happened this week with regard to
33:33
Speaker 1: this race. There was supposed to be a debate. I've
33:36
Speaker 1: already referenced the problem that having all these different candidates
33:40
Speaker 1: with very little support causes for trying to figure out
33:44
Speaker 1: who should be on the debate stage. Well, the debate
33:48
Speaker 1: was supposed to be hosted by usc University of Southern
33:51
Speaker 1: California and Los Angeles. They canceled the debate. Why did
33:56
Speaker 1: they cancel the debate? Was it that you know, they
34:01
Speaker 1: not enough people are gonna show up, or whether they
34:05
Speaker 1: didn't have enough space for all that, well, they didn't
34:07
Speaker 1: have enough space for everybody on the stage. That was
34:10
Speaker 1: the problem. The problem was that they tried to cut
34:14
Speaker 1: down on the number of people on the stage. And
34:18
Speaker 1: here's what happened. They used a data driven criteria. This
34:23
Speaker 1: was supposedly blind, right, and the people that qualified to
34:27
Speaker 1: go up on stage, they suddenly realized, uh, oh, they're
34:32
Speaker 1: all white. Somehow, the only candidates who qualified based upon
34:40
Speaker 1: the data driven criteria to make this debate stage were white.
34:45
Speaker 1: I just I would have loved I would have loved
34:48
Speaker 1: to have been in the meeting at USC when they
34:51
Speaker 1: suddenly realized, folks, we got a problem. What are we
34:54
Speaker 1: gonna do about this. We need at least water or
34:57
Speaker 1: two people with pigmentation in their skin. We can't just
35:00
Speaker 1: have all white people. That would be racist, which of
35:04
Speaker 1: course is ludicrous, it's insane. But this is California thinking,
35:08
Speaker 1: even in a place like USC, which you know, a
35:11
Speaker 1: couple of decades ago would have been considered a pretty
35:13
Speaker 1: conservative university. But now it's part of the DNA of
35:16
Speaker 1: everybody in the entire state. So we have this absolutely
35:21
Speaker 1: ludicrous spectacle that in the midst of this chaos of
35:25
Speaker 1: this Guvena toil race. They can't even have a goddamn
35:28
Speaker 1: debate because they can't figure out a criteria that will
35:32
Speaker 1: get somebody who's not white on the stage. I mean,
35:36
Speaker 1: you just you can't make this shit up. But this
35:39
Speaker 1: is California, folks, this is the California that Galvendusen wants
35:44
Speaker 1: to bring to the White House. And unfortunately, I think
35:46
Speaker 1: there's a pretty decent chance, an increasing chance, that that's
35:49
Speaker 1: gonna happen. By the way, currently the galvendusm becomes president
35:52
Speaker 1: United States fear factor is still at seven point zero
35:55
Speaker 1: out of ten. Now, speaking of California insanity, and this
36:01
Speaker 1: next story is largely, although not totally, a California story.
36:05
Speaker 1: I did not anticipate in a million years that I
36:09
Speaker 1: would be focusing a large portion of this podcast on
36:13
Speaker 1: the legacy of Caesar Chavez. Was not on my pingo card,
36:18
Speaker 1: was not on my radar. Caesar Chavez for people that
36:22
Speaker 1: don't know, I mean, because it's you know, through much
36:24
Speaker 1: of the country, he's probably not a household name, but
36:27
Speaker 1: certainly here in California he is. He's effectively like the
36:31
Speaker 1: Hispanic Martin Luther King Junior. And there's a lot of
36:34
Speaker 1: parallels between Caesar Chavez and Martin Luther King Junior. He
36:39
Speaker 1: was most associated with farm workers and the farm Workers' Union,
36:43
Speaker 1: and you know, he's of Mexican descent and a Hispanic hero.
36:49
Speaker 1: And there's all sorts of statues and all sorts of schools,
36:53
Speaker 1: I mean, like over a hundred schools, most of the
36:56
Speaker 1: middle schools name for Caesar Chavez. And and there's a
37:01
Speaker 1: Caesar Caesar shop As Day, which is actually a holiday
37:05
Speaker 1: here in California. It's like a secondary holiday, but it's
37:08
Speaker 1: an official holiday, Caesar shop As Day in California and
37:12
Speaker 1: in several other states. And he's been dead for thirty
37:16
Speaker 1: three years, and I have not given much thought the
37:19
Speaker 1: Caesar shop As in a very long time. Basically, what
37:23
Speaker 1: I think of him, it's okay. He's a socialist and
37:27
Speaker 1: a symbol of, you know, where we're going in California
37:32
Speaker 1: with regard to the changing demographics. And he's been propped
37:36
Speaker 1: up as a hero because he served a political purpose
37:39
Speaker 1: to that end, and so I have no love for
37:42
Speaker 1: the guy. You know, he wasn't on my raidar when
37:45
Speaker 1: he was alive, but since I've been living in California
37:48
Speaker 1: for over twenty years, I've become pretty familiar with Caesars Shop,
37:51
Speaker 1: as it's almost impossible not to for the reasons I've
37:54
Speaker 1: already stated. Well, all of a sudden, a little over
37:58
Speaker 1: a week ago, I started to see these news reports,
38:02
Speaker 1: first here in California, that Caesar Chavez was being accused
38:07
Speaker 1: of horrible things in the realm of sexual abuse or
38:12
Speaker 1: sexual assault. Now, at first I thought, what the hell
38:18
Speaker 1: is this, because I mean, first, as you know, I've
38:20
Speaker 1: become an expert in this area, much to my chagrin,
38:23
Speaker 1: I hate the topic. I can't stand the fact that
38:26
Speaker 1: I'm one of the few people that can figure these
38:28
Speaker 1: cases out. I feel now this weird obligation to tell
38:32
Speaker 1: the truth because no one else seems to have the ability,
38:35
Speaker 1: or the or the fortitude to do so, because we've
38:38
Speaker 1: all lost our minds in this realm. And so I'm
38:42
Speaker 1: always curious, especially when it's an ancient allegation, as it
38:46
Speaker 1: obviously must be if someone's been dead for thirty three years. Okay,
38:49
Speaker 1: what's this based on? And so I watched a network
38:53
Speaker 1: local television report out of San Francisco, and I even
38:57
Speaker 1: posted this online because I'm like, there is nothing here,
39:00
Speaker 1: like literally literally, these people are reporting on what seems
39:06
Speaker 1: to be the start of the destruction of Caesar Chavez's legacy,
39:12
Speaker 1: based upon incredibly vague, almost like in the Realm of
39:15
Speaker 1: Romer type allegations, And I'm like, what is this? What
39:20
Speaker 1: is going on here? There's no names, there's no specific allegations.
39:24
Speaker 1: The reporters even saying we don't know all the details,
39:27
Speaker 1: And I'm like, is there something gonna happen here?
39:32
Speaker 2: What?
39:32
Speaker 1: What is where? There's got to be something to this.
39:35
Speaker 1: This can't just be like, hey, we heard a rumor
39:38
Speaker 1: about Caesar Chavez and now all of a sudden, we're
39:40
Speaker 1: preparing to tear down all his statues. In retrospect, it
39:45
Speaker 1: feels like this was part of the code read I mean,
39:48
Speaker 1: because it's like it was like the word had already
39:52
Speaker 1: gotten out to the to the key people to start
39:54
Speaker 1: spreading the news that it was time to take down
39:57
Speaker 1: Caesar Chavez, and and it just it came about a
40:00
Speaker 1: day early. Actually wasn't even a day early. It was
40:03
Speaker 1: about a half a day early, because later that same day,
40:06
Speaker 1: when I was perusing the internet, all of a sudden,
40:10
Speaker 1: this article in the New York Times came out, and
40:14
Speaker 1: the New York Times article was going viral super fast,
40:19
Speaker 1: and it was being described as a bombshell, and it
40:25
Speaker 1: was an allegation with several allegations three to be exact,
40:29
Speaker 1: of either rape or child sex abuse against Caesar Chavez.
40:35
Speaker 1: And I'm always curious, Okay, this will be interesting. I mean,
40:39
Speaker 1: he's been dead for thirty three years. We've already had
40:42
Speaker 1: me too, which, as you know, I always perceive, although
40:48
Speaker 1: unfortunately no one in the media seems to perceive it
40:50
Speaker 1: this way as last call. I mean, you can't for
40:54
Speaker 1: a dead person, in my mind, anything after you know,
40:58
Speaker 1: twenty seventeen, early twenty eight eighteen, when there's me too,
41:03
Speaker 1: you can't have a legitimate claim after that, whether regard
41:06
Speaker 1: to a famous person who's been dead for that long,
41:09
Speaker 1: It's not possible. But I'm I'm open minded. Maybe they
41:13
Speaker 1: found some really amazing evidence. And the article in the
41:19
Speaker 1: New York Times makes it very clear at the start
41:22
Speaker 1: of the article that these allegations have heavy corroboration, that
41:28
Speaker 1: this is these are allegations that have been substantiated. The
41:33
Speaker 1: New York Times basically says, trust us, trust us, this
41:37
Speaker 1: is we got the goods on this, and there were
41:40
Speaker 1: all sorts of stories out there that the Times have
41:43
Speaker 1: been working on this investigation for either two years or
41:46
Speaker 1: five years. I keep hearing different numbers. By the way,
41:50
Speaker 1: I don't look at that as necessarily a positive thing,
41:52
Speaker 1: even though it sounds like I'm contradicting myself from the
41:55
Speaker 1: from my commentary on cutbacks, because good journalism requires that
42:01
Speaker 1: kind of time. However, there's a threshold beyond which there's
42:04
Speaker 1: a problem. And if it's really two or five years,
42:09
Speaker 1: then you don't really have a story unless there's really
42:15
Speaker 1: a smoking gun, because if in other words, if you
42:20
Speaker 1: had a story, it wouldn't have taken this law. Also,
42:24
Speaker 1: the fact that it did take this lag indicates to
42:27
Speaker 1: me you had a real great desire to try to
42:31
Speaker 1: find something. It's a very fine line between, you know,
42:35
Speaker 1: too much time and too little time, and that felt
42:39
Speaker 1: like way too much time, especially given what was actually
42:42
Speaker 1: in this article, because as I was reading it, I
42:45
Speaker 1: kept waiting, Okay, I'm open minded here, I'm skeptical, but
42:49
Speaker 1: I'm open minded. Tell me, if we're going to destroy
42:52
Speaker 1: this liberal icon who's got all these schools named after him,
42:55
Speaker 1: all these statues, there's got to be something to this.
42:59
Speaker 1: If the new York Times is doing this, and they
43:02
Speaker 1: talked about an rape allegation from a woman by the
43:06
Speaker 1: name of Dolores Huerta, who was basically his right hand
43:11
Speaker 1: woman for most of his career and is very well
43:16
Speaker 1: known within the movement, that she was making an allegation
43:19
Speaker 1: of rape as an adult, which I'll get to in
43:23
Speaker 1: detail and just a bit, but there was an allegation
43:26
Speaker 1: of rape by her that resulted in a child. By
43:31
Speaker 1: the way, her allegation, I don't want to get too
43:32
Speaker 1: deeply into her allegation because it deserves its own little
43:35
Speaker 1: segment here, but you know, her allegation is that she
43:38
Speaker 1: had sex with Caesar Chavez twice six years apart. The
43:44
Speaker 1: first one doesn't sound like it was rape, but she
43:47
Speaker 1: wasn't into it. The second one actually doesn't even sound
43:49
Speaker 1: that much like rape either, but she's now sort of
43:53
Speaker 1: kind of calling it rape. And both of those sexual
43:58
Speaker 1: situations resulted in children allegedly, although there's a question about
44:03
Speaker 1: that as well. So that was like the headline of
44:07
Speaker 1: the Times piece. But the Times does something incredibly insidious
44:12
Speaker 1: in They do so many things insidious in this article,
44:16
Speaker 1: but one of them is that they create a situation
44:20
Speaker 1: where they conflate the adult rape allegation from Guerta with
44:27
Speaker 1: two other allegations from women who aren't now in their sixties.
44:32
Speaker 1: By the way, Guerta is ninety six years old, which
44:35
Speaker 1: is an important part of the story. But there's these
44:39
Speaker 1: two other women that no one's ever heard of before,
44:41
Speaker 1: in their sixties who claim that as young girls like
44:45
Speaker 1: twelve thirteen years old, Caesar Chavez sexually abused them, which
44:52
Speaker 1: obviously would be horrendous and more than worthy of a
44:56
Speaker 1: can cancelable event, right, I mean, if you can prove
44:59
Speaker 1: that you sexually abused a young girl's that's instant cancellation
45:05
Speaker 1: in a rational world. But there ought to be at
45:09
Speaker 1: least some evidence of that, especially when we're talking about
45:12
Speaker 1: something that occurred over fifty years ago, over fifty years
45:17
Speaker 1: and no one's ever said anything about this publicly before.
45:20
Speaker 1: I mean, there's a reason why in the law there's
45:22
Speaker 1: a statute of limitations, although liberal states like New York
45:25
Speaker 1: and California keep trying to pretend that they don't actually exist,
45:29
Speaker 1: which is, you know, another part of the whole problem
45:32
Speaker 1: with this entire issue of past allegations of sexual abuse
45:37
Speaker 1: or rape or whatever. You're going to call it, so
45:40
Speaker 1: I keep waiting in this article for all right, where's
45:43
Speaker 1: the substantiation, where's the corroboration. The Times promised me that
45:48
Speaker 1: this these allegations, these very old allegations, they would have corroboration.
45:54
Speaker 1: And finally we get to the so called smoking gun.
45:58
Speaker 1: The smoking gun, for one, one of the two allegations
46:02
Speaker 1: of child sex abuse is a letter that was written
46:08
Speaker 1: by the then thirteen year old girl to Caesar Chavez.
46:15
Speaker 1: Not a letter from him to her, a letter from
46:19
Speaker 1: her to him. Now this gave me, you know, the
46:25
Speaker 1: hebgbis because of the whole Jerry Sandusky case, because there's
46:29
Speaker 1: still people that believe that somehow Jerry Sandusky writing letters
46:33
Speaker 1: where he signed them love Jerry to teenage boys with
46:38
Speaker 1: somehow proof of sexual abuse, which is just unbelievable to
46:42
Speaker 1: me that people actually seem to consider that to be
46:46
Speaker 1: actual evidence when there's nothing in the letters that are
46:49
Speaker 1: is even remotely sexual or romantic or in any way,
46:54
Speaker 1: shape or form corroborates allegations of sexual abuse. But to me,
46:59
Speaker 1: that's sick. That's sick that you believe that a man
47:03
Speaker 1: writing a letter that ends in love Love Jerry is
47:06
Speaker 1: somehow evidence of sexual abuse. But this isn't even that.
47:10
Speaker 1: This is a letter from a thirteen year old girl.
47:12
Speaker 1: They show the letter. It's handwritten like you would think
47:16
Speaker 1: from a thirteen year old girl, nice penmanship and flowers
47:20
Speaker 1: and all that kind of stuff. And it's a letter
47:24
Speaker 1: clearly from a girl who is love struck by Caesar Chavez.
47:30
Speaker 1: That's the letter. Nothing in there about sex, nothing in
47:35
Speaker 1: there alleging any sort of illegal or even in my view,
47:40
Speaker 1: inappropriate behavior by Chavez to the girl. Just a love
47:46
Speaker 1: letter from a thirteen year old girl to a guy
47:48
Speaker 1: who was already at that time an icon in the community. Now,
47:54
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, it's hardly a stretch to think that a
47:57
Speaker 1: thirteen year old girl might write a love letter to
48:02
Speaker 1: somebody like a Caesar Chavez. And oh, by the way,
48:06
Speaker 1: why do they even have the letter. The fact that
48:09
Speaker 1: they have the letter indicates that Caesar Chavez kept the
48:13
Speaker 1: letter because it was kept in the archives of the organization.
48:19
Speaker 1: No one, including himself, ever thought to destroy it. Now
48:23
Speaker 1: that doesn't prove it's that somehow there was no sexual
48:28
Speaker 1: abuse here. Don't doesn't prove it, but it's at least
48:31
Speaker 1: a question that someone ought to raise. So if Caesar
48:35
Speaker 1: Chavez really did sexually abuse this girl, why would he
48:40
Speaker 1: keep that letter? Now you might argue, oh, it was
48:42
Speaker 1: he was getting his jolly's from the letter. Okay, fine,
48:46
Speaker 1: that's awfully reckless. You at least have to put that
48:50
Speaker 1: into the equation. That's awfully reckless that the letter was
48:53
Speaker 1: was not only not destroyed but was kept. But even
48:57
Speaker 1: if you don't buy that problem, that's not corroboration, that's
49:03
Speaker 1: not substantiation for an allegation. This devastating, especially over fifty
49:10
Speaker 1: years later, especially when there's nothing else, and for the
49:14
Speaker 1: New York Times to basically build up this entire article,
49:19
Speaker 1: which by the way, is not nearly as long as
49:21
Speaker 1: I thought it would be going in because it was
49:24
Speaker 1: getting so much hype, it was going so viral. People
49:27
Speaker 1: were talking about that the multi year investigation, and there
49:31
Speaker 1: really wasn't very much to it. And the big crescendo
49:35
Speaker 1: was this letter from the girl to Caesar Chavez. I'm like,
49:40
Speaker 1: you gotta be kidding, You've got to be kidding. And
49:44
Speaker 1: so I'm trying to figure out, all right, what is
49:47
Speaker 1: the Times doing here? What are they basing this on?
49:51
Speaker 1: And I talk all the time in these kinds of
49:54
Speaker 1: cases about how the media understands how critical it is
49:59
Speaker 1: to have multiple accusations, which I get makes sense, it's logical,
50:05
Speaker 1: but three is a magic number for them. Two is good,
50:09
Speaker 1: but three is really the magic number. I think Schoolhouse
50:13
Speaker 1: Rocks used to have a three is a Magic Number
50:15
Speaker 1: cartoon on Saturday mornings. But when it comes to these
50:18
Speaker 1: kinds of stories, three is a magic number. But the
50:22
Speaker 1: problem here with the three that they came up with
50:26
Speaker 1: is that they conflate two totally different situations in order
50:32
Speaker 1: to provide strength to the whole of the three. In
50:38
Speaker 1: other words, much like Sandusky, none of these three could
50:41
Speaker 1: hold up on their own, so we need to conflate
50:45
Speaker 1: the three of them. Partially because the aware to adult
50:49
Speaker 1: rape allegation has absolutely nothing to do with these two
50:54
Speaker 1: other allegations. Nothing. I mean, it's apples and oranges. He's
51:00
Speaker 1: an adult. She had sex with, by her account, Chavez
51:05
Speaker 1: twice six years apart. She had children both times. I mean,
51:10
Speaker 1: this is not the same kind of allegation, but the
51:14
Speaker 1: New York Times conflates it because for two things they need,
51:19
Speaker 1: they need three. That three is a magic number, and
51:23
Speaker 1: Houerta is someone well known in the movement, and therefore
51:28
Speaker 1: the fact that she's making an allegation and she was
51:31
Speaker 1: so perceived as being the biggest supporter of Caesar Chavez
51:35
Speaker 1: that people will believe her, that she will give credibility
51:38
Speaker 1: to the story as a whole. She will give credibility
51:41
Speaker 1: to the other two that have no corroboration or substantiation
51:46
Speaker 1: for their fifty year old allegations of being abused as
51:51
Speaker 1: little girls. And so let's go to the Awerta story,
51:55
Speaker 1: because the Awarda story really is the key to this
51:58
Speaker 1: whole thing, because without her, I don't think there's a
52:02
Speaker 1: chance in hell that The New York Times goes with
52:05
Speaker 1: this story, partially because they only have two and partially
52:09
Speaker 1: because of the elements that I already mentioned with regard
52:12
Speaker 1: to how well known Huarte is and the fact that
52:16
Speaker 1: in their minds, the fact that she had children with
52:19
Speaker 1: Caesar Chavez is a huge part of the evidence here.
52:25
Speaker 1: And I actually think it's a massive problem. This whole
52:29
Speaker 1: thing is a classic case, and this happens all the
52:32
Speaker 1: time in this realm of sexual abuse, where the truth
52:36
Speaker 1: is actually the opposite of the way the media is
52:39
Speaker 1: portraying it. Because the fact that she had two children
52:44
Speaker 1: with Caesar Chavez allegedly. See, there's problems at every level
52:49
Speaker 1: of this. We don't know their names. Can you imagine this?
52:53
Speaker 1: The New York Times is being praised as having created
52:57
Speaker 1: one of the most impact pieces of journalism in many years.
53:02
Speaker 1: I mean, Caesar Shapez is being completely and totally canceled
53:06
Speaker 1: and erased in record time, Statues being taken down, school's
53:12
Speaker 1: being renamed. My god, we can't build a high speed
53:15
Speaker 1: rail with a trillion dollars in decades, but we can
53:19
Speaker 1: tear Dallas statue in twenty four hours. It's unbelievable what's
53:25
Speaker 1: been happening with Caesar Chavez based upon this article. But
53:29
Speaker 1: we don't even know. And the New York Times played
53:32
Speaker 1: fast and loose here. They really tried to sneak this
53:35
Speaker 1: one past people. They created the impression that we knew
53:40
Speaker 1: for sure that she had two children. We don't know
53:43
Speaker 1: that because we don't even know their names. Imagine that
53:47
Speaker 1: this whole story rests on these two allegations of rape
53:51
Speaker 1: six years apart that produced two children. And let me,
53:54
Speaker 1: by the way, just point out, and the New York
53:57
Speaker 1: Times did not do this, which they should have. Journalism
54:00
Speaker 1: wasn't dead, It should at least be pointed out that
54:03
Speaker 1: if where this story is true, she is probably I
54:08
Speaker 1: can't prove this, but she is probably the only person
54:13
Speaker 1: in the history of humanity that ever had sex twice
54:19
Speaker 1: with a famous person and both times were rapie and
54:26
Speaker 1: both times resulted in children which she then apparently gave
54:31
Speaker 1: up to for adoption, and we don't know their names.
54:35
Speaker 1: The chances of that happening, by the way, forget the
54:38
Speaker 1: rape part, and rape clearly would diminish these odds even
54:42
Speaker 1: further for various reasons. But according to Chad Gpt, the
54:47
Speaker 1: chances of having sex with the same man twice and
54:51
Speaker 1: only having sex twice years apart, and having both sexual
54:57
Speaker 1: episodes result in the birth of children is over eleven
55:03
Speaker 1: hundred to one. Over eleven hundred to one. Now that
55:09
Speaker 1: alone ought to make you go hmmm, really, especially when
55:15
Speaker 1: there's a far, far, far more likely scenario to explain
55:21
Speaker 1: how it is that Auwerta had a kid allegedly with
55:25
Speaker 1: Caesar Chavez in nineteen sixty or at least had sex
55:29
Speaker 1: with him in nineteen sixty and had a kid allegedly,
55:32
Speaker 1: and then again in nineteen sixty six and had a
55:35
Speaker 1: kid allegedly, she says, now due to rape, or more
55:41
Speaker 1: likely they were having an affair all along, you know,
55:45
Speaker 1: maybe not constantly, but consistently, and two of those episodes
55:49
Speaker 1: ended up resulting in pregnancies, which she got rid of
55:52
Speaker 1: because they were inconvenient for other reasons. Are going to
55:56
Speaker 1: get too momentarily. That makes a hell of a lot
55:59
Speaker 1: more sense. That's also statistically far more likely because of
56:04
Speaker 1: the problem with just the odds of getting pregnant twice
56:08
Speaker 1: with only two sexual episodes. But she needs there to
56:11
Speaker 1: only be two sexual episodes because obviously you can't claim rape.
56:17
Speaker 1: Maybe you can, but very very few people, even in
56:20
Speaker 1: this day and age, are going to believe you if
56:22
Speaker 1: you've been having sex with a person constantly and then
56:25
Speaker 1: all of a sudden, this one time was rape and
56:27
Speaker 1: it has happened to result in a second child. But
56:31
Speaker 1: even if there is somebody else that had sex twice
56:35
Speaker 1: with a famous person six years apart and both times
56:38
Speaker 1: resulted in pregnancies, I am positive, positive, one hundred percent
56:44
Speaker 1: positive that this next fact puts it into the realm
56:48
Speaker 1: of okay that has never happened before in the history
56:50
Speaker 1: of humanity. And this is a fact that the New
56:53
Speaker 1: York Times somehow did not put in this great piece
56:57
Speaker 1: of journalism. And I believe it's the number one fact
57:01
Speaker 1: that if it had been in there, rational people would
57:04
Speaker 1: have gone, what you're talking about, Willis. If you're a
57:09
Speaker 1: fan of different strokes, you remember what you're talking about, Willis.
57:15
Speaker 1: But the reality of this is the New York Times
57:18
Speaker 1: decided that it was not relevant to put in this
57:22
Speaker 1: article that was going to destroy the legacy of Caesar Chavez.
57:25
Speaker 1: That was clearly the intent and the expectation after someone
57:28
Speaker 1: put out the code read on Caesar Chavez, they did
57:32
Speaker 1: not tell their audience, and to my knowledge, still have
57:35
Speaker 1: not told their audience that after these two sexual episodes
57:40
Speaker 1: with Caesar Chavez, Delores Hierta decided to have four more
57:46
Speaker 1: kids with Caesar Chavez, his brother. That's right, she had
57:54
Speaker 1: four more kids. By the way, we don't know how
57:56
Speaker 1: many kids she's had in total, because I can't figure
57:59
Speaker 1: it out. I've tried. It appears as if she's had
58:01
Speaker 1: at least eleven kids with four different men. But if
58:04
Speaker 1: you count these two with Caesar Chavez, I think we're
58:07
Speaker 1: up to thirteen. But we don't know their names. But
58:10
Speaker 1: we do know for sure, although you know it's I
58:13
Speaker 1: shouldn't say for sure, because I think it's even theoretically
58:16
Speaker 1: possible that some of the four that she had with
58:18
Speaker 1: Caesar Chavez, his brother, where that we're actually with Caesar Chavez.
58:23
Speaker 1: That would actually make some sense to And she's ninety six.
58:28
Speaker 1: She may not even, you know, even in good faith,
58:31
Speaker 1: may not be able to keep this all straight. She
58:34
Speaker 1: may not have not even known then who the father
58:38
Speaker 1: was in any particular situation. I mean, but the fact
58:43
Speaker 1: that it's his brother certainly makes it a hell of
58:45
Speaker 1: a lot easier to get away with it, because no
58:46
Speaker 1: one's going to go, well, that doesn't look like the
58:49
Speaker 1: dad that kid, because it's the same their brothers. I mean,
58:54
Speaker 1: this is so obvious. I feel stupid even talking about this.
58:58
Speaker 1: Yet somehow the New York Times did not decide that,
59:02
Speaker 1: you know what, maybe readers ought to, at least for
59:04
Speaker 1: context and basic fairness, ought to know that part of
59:09
Speaker 1: Dolores's Herrita's biography is at least eleven kids, four of
59:14
Speaker 1: them with the brother of the man she now claims
59:17
Speaker 1: raped her. Now part of what I think is going
59:22
Speaker 1: on here, which is just incredibly mind blowing and frustrating
59:27
Speaker 1: and bizarre to me. Is I think at the root
59:30
Speaker 1: of what The New York Times did is at least
59:34
Speaker 1: some level of racism, Because in order to not believe
59:41
Speaker 1: that what I just told you is relevant enough to
59:44
Speaker 1: be put into the article, you either have to be
59:47
Speaker 1: doing a pure hit job and you're not even a
59:51
Speaker 1: person of good faith. And I'm actually not willing to
59:54
Speaker 1: conclude that without evidence. I think these the people that
59:58
Speaker 1: wrote this article are just idiot. It's who bought into
1:00:01
Speaker 1: it a narrative. They all believe that everyone is a rapist,
1:00:05
Speaker 1: especially post Epstein, everyone's a pedophile. I think Epstein plays
1:00:09
Speaker 1: an incredibly important role in this. I think without the
1:00:12
Speaker 1: Epstein files and the lowering of the threshold dramatically, I
1:00:16
Speaker 1: don't think The New York Times ever goes with this story,
1:00:18
Speaker 1: regardless of whether it's Huerta and the two child sex
1:00:22
Speaker 1: abuse allegations. I just don't think it even comes close
1:00:25
Speaker 1: to meeting the standard, especially for someone who's been dead
1:00:28
Speaker 1: for thirty three years. The standard for someone who's been
1:00:30
Speaker 1: dead for thirty three years ought to be much higher,
1:00:34
Speaker 1: not lower. Effort. This whole thing is upside down. When
1:00:38
Speaker 1: someone is dead, they obviously cannot defend themselves, and when
1:00:41
Speaker 1: someone is dead, you can't be sued. Part of what
1:00:47
Speaker 1: makes an allegation against a living person at least somewhat
1:00:51
Speaker 1: more credible inherently is well, first of all, it can't
1:00:56
Speaker 1: be that old because the person is still alive too.
1:00:58
Speaker 1: The other person has an opportunity to defend themselves. And three,
1:01:02
Speaker 1: if you're completely lying, they could sue you, but that
1:01:06
Speaker 1: can't happen when you're talking about a dead person. Even
1:01:10
Speaker 1: the estate can't go after you. You can say whatever you
1:01:13
Speaker 1: want about a dead person. And somehow the media does
1:01:16
Speaker 1: not understand that this opens up an incredible Pandora's box.
1:01:21
Speaker 1: They're looking at this exactly the opposite. Somehow the burden
1:01:25
Speaker 1: of proof is much lower when it should be much
1:01:28
Speaker 1: much higher. And this story doesn't even come close, doesn't
1:01:32
Speaker 1: even come close. And look, is it possible Caesar Shapez
1:01:36
Speaker 1: was a sexual abuser? Absolutely, it's possible. I'm not defending him,
1:01:42
Speaker 1: but I'm just telling you there's no evidence here, it's
1:01:45
Speaker 1: even remotely remotely at the level of cancelization fifty and
1:01:51
Speaker 1: sixty years later. I mean, it's unbelievable to me, and
1:01:56
Speaker 1: how scary this is, and the precedent that this is
1:02:00
Speaker 1: setting on so many different levels. But the racism part
1:02:03
Speaker 1: of this is, you know what, that's just Hispanic culture,
1:02:07
Speaker 1: you know what. You know, in a white culture, yes,
1:02:11
Speaker 1: a woman having four kids with the brother of her
1:02:15
Speaker 1: rapist wouldn't make any sense. But this is Hispanic culture.
1:02:18
Speaker 1: This is what I'm thinking is going on in the
1:02:20
Speaker 1: brains of these liberals of the New York Times. That's
1:02:23
Speaker 1: just Hispanic culture. And we all know Hispanic men. They're
1:02:27
Speaker 1: all rapists to begin with, and it's really not that
1:02:29
Speaker 1: difficult to believe that they're probably pedophiles too. And so
1:02:33
Speaker 1: therefore our threshold for evidence here is very low. That
1:02:39
Speaker 1: seems to be the presumption here. You have to have
1:02:43
Speaker 1: that view of Hispanic culture to throw out the window
1:02:47
Speaker 1: all of these very problematic facts about Dolores Huerta. And
1:02:52
Speaker 1: by the way, I'm just scratching the surface, and I'm
1:02:56
Speaker 1: not going to get into all the details. I can
1:02:58
Speaker 1: talk about this for another hour, I promise I'm not
1:03:00
Speaker 1: going to. But this woman, first of all, was no wallflower,
1:03:05
Speaker 1: all right. This woman is not the type of woman
1:03:08
Speaker 1: that was gonna hold onto this secret for over fifty
1:03:11
Speaker 1: years until she's ninety six years old. I mean, this
1:03:15
Speaker 1: woman is on record in a book about the union,
1:03:21
Speaker 1: the farm Workers Union, talking on multiple occasions about using
1:03:27
Speaker 1: allegations of sexual abuse as a weapon to destroy enemies.
1:03:33
Speaker 1: I mean, that's almost direct quotes from her. This is
1:03:37
Speaker 1: a woman who is on tape talking about what a
1:03:41
Speaker 1: pain in the ass she was to the men within
1:03:44
Speaker 1: Caesar Chavez's organization because she was always complaining about women
1:03:48
Speaker 1: not being treated fairly. And you know, by the way,
1:03:52
Speaker 1: Caesar Chavez at one point made an allegation against her
1:03:56
Speaker 1: that she stole money from the organization, which is one
1:03:59
Speaker 1: of many possible motivation she had in this allegation of
1:04:03
Speaker 1: pseudo rape against Caesar Chavez. In twenty seventeen, she participated
1:04:10
Speaker 1: in a documentary about her relationship with Caesar Chavez and
1:04:14
Speaker 1: was nothing but glowing in her words about him during
1:04:18
Speaker 1: Me Too. There's a YouTube video. There's a fucking YouTube
1:04:22
Speaker 1: video that either The New York Times didn't see or
1:04:25
Speaker 1: didn't even care to report about. Where she is in
1:04:28
Speaker 1: the middle of the met Too, panic is talking about
1:04:32
Speaker 1: on multiple occasions Caesar Chavez going out of his way
1:04:36
Speaker 1: to defend women within the organization against Sexual harassment and
1:04:40
Speaker 1: sexual abuse. This is the woman claiming that Caesar Chavez
1:04:45
Speaker 1: raped her over fifty years ago. I mean, it's unbelievable.
1:04:51
Speaker 1: It's I mean again, is it theoretically possible that that happened. Sure,
1:04:56
Speaker 1: but I'm sorry. You don't get to do this. You
1:05:00
Speaker 1: can't live in US, in a remotely fair and just
1:05:04
Speaker 1: or even functional society if you're allowed, thirty three years
1:05:11
Speaker 1: after someone is dead to claim that a child you
1:05:15
Speaker 1: had with them, who you can't even name or isn't named,
1:05:19
Speaker 1: was as the result of sort of rape. And if
1:05:23
Speaker 1: you think I'm exaggerating on the way she describes the rape,
1:05:27
Speaker 1: this might be low key the craziest part of this
1:05:31
Speaker 1: whole story, because again there's these two allegations of sex
1:05:37
Speaker 1: that result in children, which statistically is almost impossible. I
1:05:40
Speaker 1: don't believe it happened. I believe they were having an
1:05:42
Speaker 1: affair for a very long time over that six year period,
1:05:46
Speaker 1: and these were just the two situations that apparently resulted
1:05:50
Speaker 1: in kids. But she gave an interview again at ninety
1:05:54
Speaker 1: six The New York Times did at least acknowledge he
1:05:56
Speaker 1: has a very hazy memory. This is where everything's upside now.
1:06:01
Speaker 1: I think the fact that she's ninety six somehow plays
1:06:04
Speaker 1: in her favor here because The New York Times has
1:06:08
Speaker 1: reduced their expectations for what she should remember about the details.
1:06:12
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, it should work in the other direction. When
1:06:16
Speaker 1: you're ninety six, My god, I don't care how sharp
1:06:19
Speaker 1: you are at ninety six. How the flying fuck do
1:06:22
Speaker 1: you know what happened in nineteen sixty or nineteen sixty six,
1:06:25
Speaker 1: especially when we're talking about shades of behavior, the line
1:06:31
Speaker 1: between what is sexual assault and what was rough sex?
1:06:36
Speaker 3: Could?
1:06:36
Speaker 1: I mean, my god, there's also the mind boggles about
1:06:39
Speaker 1: how insane that is sixty years over, sixty years later.
1:06:45
Speaker 1: So to me, the fact that she's ninety six is
1:06:48
Speaker 1: a huge problem with this story. There are all sorts
1:06:52
Speaker 1: of possible motivations she has to throw Caesar Shabaz under
1:06:55
Speaker 1: the bus, including the fact that you know what he
1:06:58
Speaker 1: was against, the illegal IMMCGRAT and that's just no longer convenient
1:07:03
Speaker 1: for the current Hispanic movement in the United States of America.
1:07:06
Speaker 1: There's a lot of people, I think understandably pointing the
1:07:08
Speaker 1: finger that that was why the code read was called
1:07:12
Speaker 1: on Caesar Chavez, because he was vehemently against illegal immigration
1:07:15
Speaker 1: because he thought it was bad for Mexican farm workers.
1:07:19
Speaker 1: But she her organization just got sued and had a
1:07:23
Speaker 1: major court ruling against them a couple of weeks ago.
1:07:26
Speaker 1: And I'm not saying that that's why she came forward now,
1:07:28
Speaker 1: but it's her life is a hell of a lot
1:07:30
Speaker 1: better than it was a couple of weeks ago, a
1:07:32
Speaker 1: hell of a lot better. She's a national celebrity, she's
1:07:35
Speaker 1: a heroin people are saying that her name should replace
1:07:38
Speaker 1: Caesar Chavez on schools and in organizations and statues. I mean,
1:07:44
Speaker 1: just crazy. Her life is way better, regardless of what
1:07:47
Speaker 1: her motivations were, than it was a couple of weeks ago.
1:07:52
Speaker 1: There's no question about that. And she gave an interview
1:07:55
Speaker 1: to John Konis of ABC News, who is Hispanic, and boy,
1:08:01
Speaker 1: boy kionis just is amazing to me. Kenyonas who publicly
1:08:07
Speaker 1: stated that he viewed Caesar Chavez as a hero, and
1:08:11
Speaker 1: how devastating these allegations were to him, and he basically
1:08:14
Speaker 1: curled up in the fetal possess. He was like a
1:08:16
Speaker 1: Penn State fan. In the wake of the Joe Paterno
1:08:19
Speaker 1: Jerry Sedusky situation. Oh my god, I need the virtue
1:08:23
Speaker 1: signal immediately because I liked Caesar Chavez and this is
1:08:27
Speaker 1: like kryptonite. Oh my gosh, we can't possibly stand up
1:08:31
Speaker 1: against the forces of a sixty year old rape allegation
1:08:36
Speaker 1: that resulted in a child But Kenyonas was the one
1:08:40
Speaker 1: that interviewed Huerta, and he's not a good faith actor
1:08:44
Speaker 1: here because he's already made it clear he's virtue signaling
1:08:47
Speaker 1: he's going to be very soft on her, even though
1:08:49
Speaker 1: he was a fan of Caesar Chavez. So he's actually
1:08:52
Speaker 1: like the worst person to interview where possible, because he's
1:08:55
Speaker 1: a fan. But he feels as if I'm guessing that
1:08:59
Speaker 1: that defends him because he can't be seen as attacking
1:09:02
Speaker 1: her because then he'll he'll be the one he'll get attacked.
1:09:06
Speaker 1: Oh my god, you're a man who likes Caesar Chavez
1:09:08
Speaker 1: and you're being unfair to this sex abuse victim, even
1:09:11
Speaker 1: though she's never said anything for sixty years, and she allowed,
1:09:15
Speaker 1: by the way, if her story is true, she allowed
1:09:18
Speaker 1: the sexual abuse. If all this is true, she allowed
1:09:21
Speaker 1: the sexual abuse of the children to happen, because her
1:09:24
Speaker 1: allegation in nineteen sixty six happened before the two that
1:09:28
Speaker 1: came forward regarding the child sex abuse of the seventies. So,
1:09:32
Speaker 1: how the fuck is she a hero? How the fuck
1:09:34
Speaker 1: is that possible? What kind of world are we living
1:09:37
Speaker 1: in here, folks? This is insane. Alison Wonderland was not
1:09:41
Speaker 1: nearly as upside down as where we are on this topic.
1:09:46
Speaker 1: But here is a clip of Junkin Jonas of ABC
1:09:50
Speaker 1: interviewing Dolores who heard that? And I want you to
1:09:54
Speaker 1: listen for a couple of things. First of all, I
1:09:56
Speaker 1: want you to listen for the lack of details of
1:10:00
Speaker 1: the allegations. I want you to listen because it's important
1:10:04
Speaker 1: to me that you understand I'm not downplaying the way
1:10:08
Speaker 1: she describes these so called rapes or this one situation
1:10:12
Speaker 1: of rape. In fact, I think I'm being exceedingly fair
1:10:17
Speaker 1: when you listen to this. When I listen to it,
1:10:20
Speaker 1: it is very difficult for me to claim to make
1:10:24
Speaker 1: a legitimate claim that she's even alleging rape. The first
1:10:29
Speaker 1: time in nineteen sixty it basically sounds like she really
1:10:33
Speaker 1: wasn't into it. The second time, she herself says, well,
1:10:38
Speaker 1: you might call it rape if you want to do.
1:10:40
Speaker 1: I think that's almost a direct quote. And on that
1:10:43
Speaker 1: we're going to destroy the guy thirty three years at three,
1:10:46
Speaker 1: he's dead, So no details.
1:10:51
Speaker 3: Her.
1:10:51
Speaker 1: She herself barely describes the second episode as rape and
1:10:56
Speaker 1: no emotion, no emotion at all. And then, in my view,
1:11:01
Speaker 1: a convoluted explanation for why now, which is or why
1:11:05
Speaker 1: she didn't come forward until now because she was protecting
1:11:08
Speaker 1: the movement? Well what changed? I mean why in twenty
1:11:13
Speaker 1: seventeen when she made all these very positive statements about
1:11:16
Speaker 1: him in this very specific area of sexual harassment and abuse. No,
1:11:22
Speaker 1: no questions about that. Kenyona's was incredibly soft on her,
1:11:26
Speaker 1: But here was the primary accuser in this New York
1:11:30
Speaker 1: Times bombshell report that is completely destroyed instantaneously the legacy
1:11:36
Speaker 1: of a liberal icon in Caesar Chavez. And I hope
1:11:40
Speaker 1: you'll listen to this carefully because I think this is
1:11:44
Speaker 1: not what you would expect if this story was actually true.
1:11:47
Speaker 2: Can you tell me about that winter night in nineteen
1:11:51
Speaker 2: sixty six and Delano?
1:11:55
Speaker 3: Well, I don't really like to revisit that, you know
1:11:59
Speaker 3: what I mean? I can just say that there was
1:12:02
Speaker 3: something unexpected, you know, uh that you know, she said
1:12:13
Speaker 3: we have to talk. I thought we were going to
1:12:17
Speaker 3: a meeting or something, you know, and it wasn't he
1:12:21
Speaker 3: had other intentions.
1:12:23
Speaker 2: You said you were surprised at the brutality of it.
1:12:28
Speaker 3: Well, I believe that when you do these kinds of
1:12:32
Speaker 3: actions against swimming, it is it is a violence, you know,
1:12:37
Speaker 3: and I think these are brutal acts.
1:12:39
Speaker 2: You know, it had happened before in a hotel room.
1:12:44
Speaker 2: What do you remember about that?
1:12:46
Speaker 3: Again, I don't really like to revisit that, you know,
1:12:49
Speaker 3: I prefer not to have to go through that again,
1:12:52
Speaker 3: you know, but again it was uninvited, unexpected.
1:12:57
Speaker 2: Yeah, it pains me to have to ask you this,
1:13:01
Speaker 2: But did Sessa Chevis rape?
1:13:04
Speaker 3: What one could uh household put it? You can name
1:13:11
Speaker 3: it what you name it, whatever you know. But I
1:13:14
Speaker 3: think when you were forced Senator to a situation of
1:13:20
Speaker 3: unwanted uh sex or whatever, that I think you could,
1:13:25
Speaker 3: you know, you could consider.
1:13:27
Speaker 2: It, and you didn't tell anyone. Why why not?
1:13:33
Speaker 3: You know, I've spent my entire life organizing for farm workers. Okay,
1:13:37
Speaker 3: I didn't want to do anything, and I knew Cessa
1:13:40
Speaker 3: was probably the only person that I had ever met
1:13:43
Speaker 3: that could really do the job to organize workers. You know,
1:13:46
Speaker 3: I had worked with the and for another organization before
1:13:50
Speaker 3: the f W, the actual Agricultural Workers Organizing Committee, okay,
1:13:57
Speaker 3: and then you know we had organized workers and then
1:14:01
Speaker 3: it didn't make it. And that's where I left. I
1:14:04
Speaker 3: left the AWC to start the u f W.
1:14:07
Speaker 2: So you did not want to hurt the.
1:14:09
Speaker 3: Movement, no, I mean, you know, just as there was
1:14:12
Speaker 3: so much. I mean, I knew in my heart that
1:14:18
Speaker 3: the only way that farmers would ever get any any
1:14:22
Speaker 3: kind of relief or what they were going through.
1:14:25
Speaker 1: Was to have a union. Now based on just that
1:14:29
Speaker 1: incredibly vague statement with no details, no emotion, very little
1:14:34
Speaker 1: logic in a softball interview and a rather short New
1:14:40
Speaker 1: York Times piece with no corroboration whatsoever, for two other
1:14:44
Speaker 1: allegations involving child sex abuse, Caesar Javez has been almost
1:14:51
Speaker 1: completely canceled as canceled as you can possibly get in
1:14:54
Speaker 1: a week's time. It's it's happened with remarkable speed. I mean,
1:14:58
Speaker 1: even the Joe Pittarto's that you took almost a year,
1:15:03
Speaker 1: a little less than the year before they took that down,
1:15:06
Speaker 1: after the rest of Jerry Sedusky. I mean, it's unbelievable.
1:15:11
Speaker 1: And again, I couldn't care less about Caesar Shappist. Part
1:15:14
Speaker 1: of me is laughing at how liberals are eating their
1:15:17
Speaker 1: own on this, but somehow not being held accountable. That
1:15:21
Speaker 1: might be the most underrated part of the story. Okay,
1:15:24
Speaker 1: let's pretend this is all true, which I don't think
1:15:26
Speaker 1: it really is. It certainly wasn't proven, but let's pretend
1:15:29
Speaker 1: it's true. How come liberals are not getting any accountability
1:15:32
Speaker 1: for having made this guy into a hero? I mean, really,
1:15:37
Speaker 1: a child rapist is being having his name put one
1:15:41
Speaker 1: hundred over, well over one hundred middle schools because why
1:15:45
Speaker 1: because liberals wanted it that way? Well, how come they're
1:15:49
Speaker 1: not taking any accountability for their incredibly poor vetting or
1:15:53
Speaker 1: their elevation of really bad guys to hero status. None
1:15:58
Speaker 1: of this is making any sense. And I don't know
1:16:02
Speaker 1: for sure why the New York Times did this. New
1:16:05
Speaker 1: York Times certainly benefited from this story. They got lots
1:16:08
Speaker 1: of attention, credibility. I mean, this is one of the
1:16:12
Speaker 1: few stories they've done recently that's had this kind of
1:16:14
Speaker 1: an impact. Why and how it had this kind of
1:16:17
Speaker 1: impact this fast is baffling to me. I mean, other
1:16:21
Speaker 1: than the fact that that the code read was put
1:16:25
Speaker 1: out there and because of his stance on illegal immigration,
1:16:28
Speaker 1: and because there's no one left among his contemporaries to
1:16:32
Speaker 1: fight back. See that's the part of this that from
1:16:36
Speaker 1: a fairness perspective, is so infuriating. When someone's been dead
1:16:40
Speaker 1: for thirty three years and you know their accusers ninety six,
1:16:44
Speaker 1: there's no one alive to stand up and say, hey,
1:16:47
Speaker 1: I was there. This is bullshit, and you know, even
1:16:52
Speaker 1: the family, and this I think was the death knell
1:16:55
Speaker 1: for Caesar Chavez and why the news media felt like
1:16:59
Speaker 1: it was okay to go ahead and run with this story.
1:17:02
Speaker 1: The Shabaz family put out a very I thought, vague
1:17:07
Speaker 1: statement where they, of course, as liberals, they felt compelled
1:17:10
Speaker 1: to honor the accusers and the survivors and they didn't
1:17:14
Speaker 1: really deny any of this and all that interrational world
1:17:18
Speaker 1: would be significant. But we don't know who wrote that statement.
1:17:21
Speaker 1: There's probably dozens and dozens of people supposedly of the
1:17:25
Speaker 1: Schabez family, almost none of whom knew Caesar Shavez because
1:17:30
Speaker 1: he's been dead for thirty three years. Who knows what
1:17:33
Speaker 1: their self interest is, what their incentive structure is. There's
1:17:37
Speaker 1: all sorts of perverse incentives. Who knows who's in charge,
1:17:41
Speaker 1: I mean, yet, but it gets labeled as the family.
1:17:43
Speaker 1: I doubt very seriously that everybody of the family signed
1:17:46
Speaker 1: off on that statement. And again, I have no idea
1:17:52
Speaker 1: whether or not Caesar Chavez was a bad guy. If
1:17:56
Speaker 1: he was a rapist, was he a child sex abuser,
1:17:59
Speaker 1: I don't know. But I'm telling you what the New
1:18:02
Speaker 1: York Times did did not even come remotely close, not
1:18:06
Speaker 1: even remotely close for the standard that should be required
1:18:11
Speaker 1: for destroying somebody thirty three years after they're dead. Not
1:18:16
Speaker 1: even close. And to me, the real impact of this
1:18:21
Speaker 1: story moving forward is the slippery slope that we're seeing
1:18:25
Speaker 1: with regard to allegations of sexual harassment or abuse or
1:18:29
Speaker 1: of rape. And we've been seeing this for a very
1:18:31
Speaker 1: long time, but now it seems to be accelerating again.
1:18:34
Speaker 1: I thought for a while, you know, when Brett Kavanaugh
1:18:37
Speaker 1: survived the lie of Christine blasi Ford, I thought, well,
1:18:41
Speaker 1: maybe maybe you know, there's at least a foothold that
1:18:44
Speaker 1: rationality has here. But ever since then now, I mean
1:18:49
Speaker 1: the Eging Carroll story against Donald Trump somehow got accepted
1:18:54
Speaker 1: in won in court, and I mean Eging Carroll and
1:18:57
Speaker 1: Christine Blasi Ford absolutely fucked lied, absolutely lied, and you know,
1:19:03
Speaker 1: I mean, it wasn't necessarily sexual abuse, but it was abuse,
1:19:07
Speaker 1: and maybe it was a sexual component to it. But
1:19:10
Speaker 1: the Just Smollette story to this day, I mean, Jesse
1:19:14
Speaker 1: Smollett really didn't get punished, and there's some people that
1:19:17
Speaker 1: still believe just Smollett was innocent in that entire hoax
1:19:21
Speaker 1: and fraud. So when Justse Smollett and Christine Blasi Ford
1:19:26
Speaker 1: and Egene Carroll do not get destroyed for making obviously
1:19:31
Speaker 1: false allegations, very serious and very clearly false allegations, it
1:19:37
Speaker 1: creates a slippery slope situation. And I think the Epstein
1:19:40
Speaker 1: case absolutely greased the skids. I am positive. This is
1:19:46
Speaker 1: probably why the New York Times has been working on
1:19:48
Speaker 1: this thing for years and only now decided the coast
1:19:52
Speaker 1: was clear. The coast was clear because Epstein and the
1:19:55
Speaker 1: Epstein files lowered the threshold and the burden approved even further,
1:20:01
Speaker 1: because now everyone's a pedophile and we don't really need
1:20:05
Speaker 1: actual evidence and any sort of allegation no matter how
1:20:09
Speaker 1: old it is or how long the person accused has
1:20:12
Speaker 1: been dead for, it doesn't matter. It's all okay now.
1:20:17
Speaker 1: And if that holds and it very well made. If
1:20:21
Speaker 1: that holds as the new rule, God help us all.
1:20:24
Speaker 1: I mean, it's unbelievable. In a fairly short amount of time,
1:20:28
Speaker 1: in order to be considered a rapist, you know, it
1:20:32
Speaker 1: wasn't that long ago that you had to be convicted
1:20:35
Speaker 1: in a criminal court of being a rapist. I mean
1:20:39
Speaker 1: it wasn't I don't know when. That was, maybe two
1:20:42
Speaker 1: decades ago, three decade days ago. In order to be
1:20:45
Speaker 1: a rapist, that was the standard. And then slowly but surely,
1:20:49
Speaker 1: it got to well, you had to be charged with
1:20:51
Speaker 1: being a rapist, or then it got too well, you
1:20:54
Speaker 1: have to be successfully sued for being a rapist. And
1:20:58
Speaker 1: then it got too well, well, no, you got to
1:21:00
Speaker 1: be sued for being a rapist. And now it's even
1:21:05
Speaker 1: below that. You're just being accused, after your long dead
1:21:08
Speaker 1: of being a rapist, and now you're a rapist. I mean,
1:21:13
Speaker 1: where does that end? And I think that there's real
1:21:16
Speaker 1: world implications for this now. I don't know politically whether
1:21:22
Speaker 1: or not Martin Luther King Junior is as vulnerable as
1:21:25
Speaker 1: Caesar Shabez was. But you know, next year, the FBI
1:21:30
Speaker 1: is scheduled to release an audio recording we don't know
1:21:34
Speaker 1: for sure that it exists, but there's a transcript that
1:21:37
Speaker 1: purports to have an audio recording. Obviously, that's why there's
1:21:41
Speaker 1: a transcript of Martin Luther King, the way I read it,
1:21:45
Speaker 1: participating in and sheering on the rape of a woman
1:21:50
Speaker 1: that is in his presence. That's the FBI transcript, and
1:21:55
Speaker 1: supposedly next year that tape is scheduled to be released.
1:21:59
Speaker 1: Now well, using the Caesar Chavez standard, I mean, that's
1:22:03
Speaker 1: game set match for Martin Luther King Jr. Especially when
1:22:07
Speaker 1: you consider the fact that by many standards, Martin Luther
1:22:11
Speaker 1: King Junior is now out of step with modern liberalism
1:22:14
Speaker 1: and progressivism. In some ways, he's actually a conservative in
1:22:18
Speaker 1: comparison to modern progressives on the issue of race. So
1:22:23
Speaker 1: there could be a very similar set of circumstances where
1:22:26
Speaker 1: Martin Luther King Jr. Gets canceled just as easily, or
1:22:31
Speaker 1: maybe not quite as easily, as Caesar Chavez has been.
1:22:35
Speaker 1: I mean, I'll be fascinated to see whether that there's
1:22:38
Speaker 1: the same treatment given to him, whether or not there's
1:22:41
Speaker 1: massive hypocrisy or double standards, which there could be, because
1:22:45
Speaker 1: the media is far less hesitant to destroy a hispanic
1:22:50
Speaker 1: icon than I think they would be the ultimate African
1:22:52
Speaker 1: American icon. Martin Luther King Junior might be too big
1:22:55
Speaker 1: to fail still, but I'm not sure about that. A
1:22:59
Speaker 1: few weeks ago to set out he'll survive for sure,
1:23:02
Speaker 1: but after the Caesar Shabez thing not positive anymore. I mean,
1:23:07
Speaker 1: it's extraordinary how easy this could be now. I mean,
1:23:11
Speaker 1: the other day was mister Rogers from from you know,
1:23:15
Speaker 1: not Sesame Street, but from Public Broadcasting, you know, the
1:23:18
Speaker 1: show that was always on, I guess just before after
1:23:20
Speaker 1: Sesame Street. My father used to make me watch it,
1:23:23
Speaker 1: partially because he was not George Rogers, Fred Rogers personal
1:23:29
Speaker 1: banker for quite a while, and he really liked mister Rogers.
1:23:33
Speaker 1: And so mister Rogers from PBS just had a birthday,
1:23:37
Speaker 1: and I tweeted out that, you know, if two elderly
1:23:41
Speaker 1: men who were young boys and had any connection at
1:23:45
Speaker 1: all to mister rogers neighborhood came forward to the New
1:23:50
Speaker 1: York Times with a sex abuse allegation, mister Rogers, especially
1:23:54
Speaker 1: given his demeanor, would be Jerry Sandusky in twenty four hours.
1:23:59
Speaker 1: I mean that sincerely, and by the way, just be clear,
1:24:02
Speaker 1: I don't believe that mister Rogers ever did anything remotely wrong.
1:24:06
Speaker 1: I think he was a great guy based upon everything
1:24:08
Speaker 1: I know and everything that my father said about him.
1:24:11
Speaker 1: And you know, the Tom Hanks movie might give him
1:24:14
Speaker 1: some level of protection, but I doubt it very much
1:24:18
Speaker 1: because it would be very believable given who mister Rogers
1:24:21
Speaker 1: was in his demeanor. Now, hopefully it's not gonna happen,
1:24:25
Speaker 1: but we're now living in a world where that's incredibly easy.
1:24:28
Speaker 1: And I'm gonna make one more prediction in this realm,
1:24:30
Speaker 1: not that I'm making a prediction about mister Rogers, but
1:24:34
Speaker 1: let me just give you another real life example. So
1:24:38
Speaker 1: Bill Belichick is not going to be around for much longer.
1:24:42
Speaker 1: If Bill Belichick's lucky, he'll live another ten, maybe fifteen years, right,
1:24:47
Speaker 1: But his girlfriend Jordan Hudson is going to be around
1:24:49
Speaker 1: for a long, long, long time. I mean, barring some
1:24:54
Speaker 1: sort of unpreseen disaster, she's gonna probably be living for
1:24:58
Speaker 1: another fifty five or six if we keep going down
1:25:03
Speaker 1: this path. Now, who the hell knows what's going to
1:25:05
Speaker 1: happen to the world with AI and everything else. But
1:25:08
Speaker 1: if let's pretend that the world has anything close to
1:25:10
Speaker 1: where it is today, and it keeps going in this direction.
1:25:14
Speaker 1: Jordan Hudson, at the age of fifty or sixty, who
1:25:17
Speaker 1: hasn't gotten any attention in quite a long time, we'll
1:25:20
Speaker 1: be easily able to make an allegation that Bill Belichick
1:25:24
Speaker 1: actually raped her and brainwashed her and sexually abused her
1:25:29
Speaker 1: during this very famous relationship that they had during the
1:25:32
Speaker 1: time period of twenty twenty four to twenty twenty six
1:25:36
Speaker 1: or however long it ends up going, and without a doubt,
1:25:41
Speaker 1: liberals will believe it. If we still have a media,
1:25:45
Speaker 1: the media will believe it, and Bill Belichick would get canceled.
1:25:48
Speaker 1: As absurd as that is, given what we know and
1:25:52
Speaker 1: what we've experienced and what we know about reality today.
1:25:55
Speaker 1: I'm telling you the rules have changed so much. Bill
1:25:58
Speaker 1: Belichick doesn't know it, but Bill Belichick forty years from
1:26:02
Speaker 1: now is going to get canceled by a false rape
1:26:04
Speaker 1: allegation by Jordan Hudson because he's too old, he's not
1:26:08
Speaker 1: good looking, she's beautiful, she's young, she's hot, incredibly easy
1:26:13
Speaker 1: based upon where we're heading that people will actually believe
1:26:17
Speaker 1: that bullshit. And it's just and the media is just
1:26:21
Speaker 1: so bad on this topic, so bad. I had a
1:26:24
Speaker 1: very interesting conversation with Alex Michaelson. Alec Michaelson, who has
1:26:28
Speaker 1: been on this podcast before, who is now the late
1:26:31
Speaker 1: night host on CNN out of Los Angeles. I asked
1:26:35
Speaker 1: to speak to him about this topic because he had
1:26:39
Speaker 1: conversed with me online about some of my skepticism about it.
1:26:42
Speaker 1: And I'm not going to describe the conversation other than
1:26:45
Speaker 1: to say it was a very interesting and positive and
1:26:48
Speaker 1: detailed conversation. But one of the things that I kept
1:26:52
Speaker 1: expressing to Alex was my frustration over how these very
1:26:57
Speaker 1: obvious things that the media ought to understand just simply
1:27:01
Speaker 1: never get pointed out, and that this Caesar Shabaz story
1:27:05
Speaker 1: is a great example of that. And really the takeaway
1:27:07
Speaker 1: I got, which was not a surprise to me because
1:27:10
Speaker 1: I already believe this, but this conversation with Michaelson really
1:27:14
Speaker 1: kind of further substantiated that is that there's this fear
1:27:20
Speaker 1: there's nothing in it. There's nothing in it these are
1:27:22
Speaker 1: my words, nothing in it for anybody in the mainstream
1:27:26
Speaker 1: news media to push back against any of this. Because
1:27:29
Speaker 1: Caesar Chavez has been dead for thirty three years, he
1:27:32
Speaker 1: clearly doesn't have a fan base that's willing or able
1:27:34
Speaker 1: to push back. There's nothing in it for you other
1:27:37
Speaker 1: than getting attacked by the virtue signaling crowd, and so
1:27:43
Speaker 1: why bother, especially when you're already very insecure about your job.
1:27:47
Speaker 1: This is a great example of what I talked about
1:27:49
Speaker 1: earlier with cutbacks. Everybody in the news media is very
1:27:52
Speaker 1: insecure about their job, and so therefore they're very, very
1:27:56
Speaker 1: hesitant to take any sort of risk. And it sho
1:28:00
Speaker 1: even be a risk to ask basic questions about a
1:28:02
Speaker 1: story like this, But unfortunately we live in a world
1:28:05
Speaker 1: where it is unless you're John Zigler and you're stupid
1:28:08
Speaker 1: enough to wait in on this, even though you have
1:28:10
Speaker 1: absolutely no dog in the life whatsoever. By the way,
1:28:13
Speaker 1: one last point on this, It's been a week now
1:28:16
Speaker 1: since the New York Times article, and as of this taping,
1:28:20
Speaker 1: there have been no new accusers. None that should be
1:28:26
Speaker 1: interrational world to tell that's a problem now. More accusers
1:28:31
Speaker 1: doesn't prove that the allegation is true, especially if there's
1:28:34
Speaker 1: potentially attention and nor money on the table, as there
1:28:38
Speaker 1: certainly was in the Jerry Sandusky case and others like it. However,
1:28:44
Speaker 1: if Caesar Shabez really was a reckless serial abuser of
1:28:50
Speaker 1: young girls in the nineteen seventies, as alleged in the
1:28:54
Speaker 1: New York Times article. That means that there's plenty of
1:28:58
Speaker 1: girls in their sixties, maybe even younger than their sixties,
1:29:03
Speaker 1: but certainly the sixties and seventies who are still alive.
1:29:07
Speaker 1: There should be I don't know what dozens maybe if
1:29:11
Speaker 1: the story is true, if you use your logic right,
1:29:13
Speaker 1: because he was very These stories are very, very reckless.
1:29:17
Speaker 1: He was not trying to hide this at all, if
1:29:19
Speaker 1: this was true, so he was doing this a lot.
1:29:22
Speaker 1: He had this compulsion. So where are all the other
1:29:26
Speaker 1: accusers that now that the coast is clear, now that
1:29:29
Speaker 1: the whole is certainly the Hispanic world knows that his
1:29:33
Speaker 1: reputation has been destroyed, and no matter what you say,
1:29:36
Speaker 1: people are gonna believe it. Where are they? So far?
1:29:41
Speaker 1: There's been crickets. The lack of any new accusers in
1:29:47
Speaker 1: a rational world should be problematic, but of course it
1:29:51
Speaker 1: won't be perceived that way because we've completely lost our
1:29:53
Speaker 1: fucking minds on this topic. Thanks for listening to today's
1:29:57
Speaker 1: free drop of the abbreviated show. If you're interested in
1:30:00
Speaker 1: listening to the entire show, you must become a patron.
1:30:04
Speaker 1: Please go to Patreon. That's p A t R e
1:30:08
Speaker 1: O N dot com. Patreon dot com slash The Death
1:30:14
Speaker 1: of Journalism with John Ziggler. My name is j O
1:30:18
Speaker 1: H N z I E g L e R. That's
1:30:21
Speaker 1: patreon dot com slash the Death of Journalism with John Ziggler.
1:30:29
Speaker 1: Good luck to you on that. But that's how you
1:30:31
Speaker 1: can subscribe.