Latest / The Death Of Journalism / Episode Two Hundred Thirty Six: The Man Behind The Curtain

Transcript

Episode Two Hundred Thirty Six: The Man Behind The Curtain · The Death Of Journalism

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: Welcome episode two hundred and thirty six of the Death
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: of Journalism podcast. My name is John Zigler. I'm your
• 0:05
  Speaker 1: host on today's show. Trump's bizarre obsession with tariffs causes
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: a global financial crisis. Doctor fauci reappears and get this,
• 0:16
  Speaker 1: he's still lying. The woman who destroyed Prince Andrew's life
• 0:20
  Speaker 1: may have just been exposed as a fraud. But will
• 0:24
  Speaker 1: anyone care to notice? Trump claims to have won another
• 0:28
  Speaker 1: club championship in golf, but did he really plus a
• 0:33
  Speaker 1: master's preview, a March Madness review, and is Stephen A.
• 0:37
  Speaker 1: Smith really going to run for president? Since the last
• 0:42
  Speaker 1: episode of the podcast, the world has been tossed into
• 0:47
  Speaker 1: financial turmoil or maybe even worse because Donald Trump finally
• 0:53
  Speaker 1: announced his much anticipated tariffs across the world. And this
• 0:59
  Speaker 1: is a top that I had not discussed very much
• 1:02
  Speaker 1: on this podcast, and for good reason. And the reason
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: for that was primarily that I did not have any
• 1:12
  Speaker 1: confidence as to whether or not Donald Trump was actually
• 1:15
  Speaker 1: going to pull the trigger on this, and that if
• 1:18
  Speaker 1: he did, that this would be a long lasting, sustainable,
• 1:23
  Speaker 1: and very impactful, long term situation. It was impossible, at
• 1:30
  Speaker 1: least for me to know Okay, is this something that's
• 1:33
  Speaker 1: really worthy of discussion. Is this all just a bluff.
• 1:37
  Speaker 1: If it's not a bluff, is it going to be
• 1:39
  Speaker 1: ended quickly? Because we're talking literally, and this is maybe
• 1:43
  Speaker 1: the most important point to start off here. We're talking
• 1:46
  Speaker 1: literally about a unique situation in the modern history of
• 1:50
  Speaker 1: the world where a crisis is being created by one man,
• 1:57
  Speaker 1: not even one country man, you acting unilaterally, acting potentially
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: way beyond his constitutional authority, something that is still needs
• 2:09
  Speaker 1: to be sorted out, and maybe sorted out in the
• 2:12
  Speaker 1: relatively near future. But one man deciding that he is
• 2:17
  Speaker 1: going to slap tariffs, significant tariffs on the vast majority
• 2:23
  Speaker 1: of the world. And so I always hesitated to talk
• 2:27
  Speaker 1: about this, especially when we went to the one episode
• 2:32
  Speaker 1: a week this year, because by the time you talk
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: about anything involving Donald Trump, where it's completely on him,
• 2:40
  Speaker 1: it could be antiquated instantaneously if he changed his mind,
• 2:44
  Speaker 1: because he does that on a constant basis. So I
• 2:49
  Speaker 1: purposefully never really talk very much about the tariff situation.
• 2:53
  Speaker 1: It was always hanging over everyone's head. I'm not in
• 2:57
  Speaker 1: favor of tariffs because most can conservatives long ago were
• 3:02
  Speaker 1: have always decided to be against tariffs. Ronald Reagan was
• 3:06
  Speaker 1: largely well, not totally against tariffs. This has never been
• 3:11
  Speaker 1: something that conservatives have thought was a good idea. Although
• 3:15
  Speaker 1: I have to say, to be as fair as an
• 3:17
  Speaker 1: objective as I always am with regard to Trump, I
• 3:21
  Speaker 1: kind of see what the thought process theoretically behind it is.
• 3:28
  Speaker 1: But the big problem I have always had with the
• 3:32
  Speaker 1: entirety of Trump's philosophy, and I have referenced this many
• 3:36
  Speaker 1: times on the podcast, and this is certainly part of
• 3:39
  Speaker 1: what I was thinking was with regard to the teriff issue,
• 3:43
  Speaker 1: is that Trump doesn't have enough time to bring a plan,
• 3:48
  Speaker 1: even a plan if it was based in sound logic
• 3:52
  Speaker 1: and reasoning and was executed properly, Trump doesn't have enough
• 3:58
  Speaker 1: time to have it come to fruition. That's probably been
• 4:03
  Speaker 1: my number one theme about all of this. Trump doesn't
• 4:07
  Speaker 1: have the time. He is a massive timing problem. Now
• 4:10
  Speaker 1: he has vaguely referenced short term paying for long term gain.
• 4:16
  Speaker 1: Clearly the TERRFF issue was part of what he was referencing,
• 4:21
  Speaker 1: But he doesn't have an eight year term. He's already
• 4:25
  Speaker 1: at least constitutionally termed out. Even if he was at
• 4:31
  Speaker 1: the start of a first year, first term, and had
• 4:35
  Speaker 1: enormous political support for tariffs, which I don't think actually exists.
• 4:39
  Speaker 1: But even if that was the case, he would be
• 4:42
  Speaker 1: on shaky ground. But at least then he would be
• 4:45
  Speaker 1: theoretically in a place where he could see this through. Right,
• 4:49
  Speaker 1: if he had just been elected for the first time,
• 4:51
  Speaker 1: he could serve two terms. He was very, very popular,
• 4:54
  Speaker 1: and he had made it very clear. Now there's no
• 4:57
  Speaker 1: question that he has been talking about tarror forever, and
• 5:02
  Speaker 1: so this was definitely part of his campaign. I'm not
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: sure that very many people actually voted for this, though,
• 5:10
  Speaker 1: because I'm not sure many people really thought it through
• 5:13
  Speaker 1: or took him totally seriously. For reasons that I've already
• 5:16
  Speaker 1: referenced that this all could be a bluff. He could
• 5:19
  Speaker 1: change his mind. You know, who knows what's really going
• 5:23
  Speaker 1: to happen here. But if he was in a situation
• 5:26
  Speaker 1: where he had eight years or theoretically or plausibly or
• 5:31
  Speaker 1: likely eight years that I think this plan, if it
• 5:34
  Speaker 1: was executed properly, could have some benefits. I still wouldn't
• 5:38
  Speaker 1: be in favor of it philosophically, but I could at
• 5:41
  Speaker 1: least see where you're going with this. But Trump doesn't
• 5:46
  Speaker 1: have eight years. He might only have a year and
• 5:50
  Speaker 1: a half left if Democrats take back the House in
• 5:54
  Speaker 1: the senat or even just the House in a significant way,
• 5:58
  Speaker 1: because one of the first things that they would do
• 6:00
  Speaker 1: at that point is take away or try to take
• 6:03
  Speaker 1: away his ability to maintain the tariffs, because in theory,
• 6:09
  Speaker 1: that's what would cause a Democratic victory in the midterm election.
• 6:13
  Speaker 1: But even if that doesn't happen, he obviously only has
• 6:16
  Speaker 1: a little over three years, and three years is not
• 6:19
  Speaker 1: enough time to make this work unless it's a complete bluff.
• 6:26
  Speaker 1: That's the only scenario that makes any sense. But the
• 6:30
  Speaker 1: theory behind this is that it's not a bluff. The
• 6:34
  Speaker 1: theory is that this is actually good for America, good
• 6:37
  Speaker 1: for American manufacturing, good for jobs. It'll actually reduce the
• 6:43
  Speaker 1: cost of our debt. It'll stop fetanol from coming into
• 6:48
  Speaker 1: the country. There's all sorts of magical things that tariffs
• 6:52
  Speaker 1: are gonna do for us and make America great again. Now,
• 6:56
  Speaker 1: in the short run, obviously, the biggest impact has been very,
• 7:01
  Speaker 1: very negative, at least in the minds of rational people.
• 7:04
  Speaker 1: Though a lot of MAGA supporters are actually happy with
• 7:07
  Speaker 1: this impact, which is that the stock market markets around
• 7:11
  Speaker 1: the world, but specifically American stock market has basically collapsed
• 7:17
  Speaker 1: in the week since this happened. As of this taping,
• 7:20
  Speaker 1: although this week has not been nearly as bad as
• 7:22
  Speaker 1: a lot of people forecast it being, for a lot
• 7:25
  Speaker 1: of different reasons, including a couple of false positive bumps,
• 7:29
  Speaker 1: one based upon a fake tweet or a tweet from
• 7:31
  Speaker 1: someone who's not even a legitimate person, and then others
• 7:35
  Speaker 1: rumors that Trump was gonna, you know, basically start to
• 7:39
  Speaker 1: make it clear that he's just doing this as a
• 7:42
  Speaker 1: bargaining chip and that this is all about a negotiation
• 7:45
  Speaker 1: and not about a long term trade war. But both
• 7:49
  Speaker 1: of those have faded. But as of this taping, the
• 7:52
  Speaker 1: Dow Jones Industrial Average is down over four thousand points,
• 7:56
  Speaker 1: which is a very significant number. Now that's not quite
• 7:59
  Speaker 1: as low ards and number as it used to be
• 8:01
  Speaker 1: in the old days when four thousand points was a
• 8:03
  Speaker 1: complete crash, but still that's a lot of money. That's
• 8:08
  Speaker 1: a lot of money that's been lost based upon the
• 8:11
  Speaker 1: decision of one man and his obsession with tariffs, and
• 8:16
  Speaker 1: a lot of people believe his lack of understanding of tariffs.
• 8:20
  Speaker 1: It's one thing for you to have an unorthodox idea,
• 8:24
  Speaker 1: but for you to not fully understand what you're doing,
• 8:27
  Speaker 1: that's when people start to get really panicky. And I
• 8:32
  Speaker 1: actually think that that's what transpired here. I think that
• 8:36
  Speaker 1: there were two things that caught the market off guard.
• 8:40
  Speaker 1: First of all, I think that tariffs to a certain
• 8:43
  Speaker 1: degree had already been baked in to the stock market.
• 8:47
  Speaker 1: The stock market had not been doing very well before
• 8:50
  Speaker 1: the terriffs were officially announced, and I think a large
• 8:54
  Speaker 1: part of that was, Okay, we got a brace for
• 8:56
  Speaker 1: whatever the hell Trump is going to do here. That
• 8:58
  Speaker 1: was number one. And the second part of this was
• 9:03
  Speaker 1: that we have the hope that this is going to
• 9:08
  Speaker 1: be done properly and maybe in a much more moderate
• 9:11
  Speaker 1: way than feared. Well, as it turned out, when Trump
• 9:17
  Speaker 1: announced all this, that whole theory was blown apart. The
• 9:22
  Speaker 1: whole idea that Trump really knew what he was doing
• 9:25
  Speaker 1: and that this was going to be measured and targeted
• 9:28
  Speaker 1: and makes some sense was exposed as a fraud. And
• 9:33
  Speaker 1: he was talking about reciprocal tariffs and what he announced
• 9:38
  Speaker 1: had nothing to do with being reciprocal. And by the way,
• 9:42
  Speaker 1: Russia got no tariffs and North Korea got no tariffs,
• 9:45
  Speaker 1: which was weird, and it makes it look like this
• 9:49
  Speaker 1: is another situation where Trump is being easy on his friends,
• 9:53
  Speaker 1: and it destroys, in large part, the credibility of the
• 9:56
  Speaker 1: whole plan. But I think it goes way beyond on that.
• 10:00
  Speaker 1: The formula for how they came up with these tariffs
• 10:04
  Speaker 1: was literally juvenile. Had nothing to do with the teriffs
• 10:08
  Speaker 1: being reciprocal. It had to do with trade shortfalls, which
• 10:13
  Speaker 1: is a completely different issue and one that I'm not
• 10:16
  Speaker 1: sure that Trump understands. Trump seems to believe that a
• 10:21
  Speaker 1: trade deficit is inherently a horrible thing, when in some
• 10:26
  Speaker 1: situations it's not bad at all, And so I think
• 10:31
  Speaker 1: that's what really triggered the market collapse. It was basically
• 10:34
  Speaker 1: a Wizard of Oz moment where the Wizard of Oz
• 10:39
  Speaker 1: was revealed to be the old man behind the curtain,
• 10:42
  Speaker 1: and that was Trump. And I've always used that analogy
• 10:45
  Speaker 1: because I think it's a pretty good one for Trump.
• 10:47
  Speaker 1: Do you believe that he's the wizard or do you
• 10:49
  Speaker 1: believe that he's the old man behind the curtain. Well,
• 10:51
  Speaker 1: when it came to the tariffs, when he released the plan,
• 10:56
  Speaker 1: it was so nonsensical and so juvenil that it was
• 11:01
  Speaker 1: obvious that there was no plan and that any trust
• 11:05
  Speaker 1: in Trump knowing what he was doing was immediately obliterated.
• 11:11
  Speaker 1: And let's be clear, I have seen so many people,
• 11:15
  Speaker 1: including major figures on television, who are in the Trump
• 11:18
  Speaker 1: camp where their bottom line argument in favor of what's
• 11:22
  Speaker 1: happening is literally, I believe in Donald Trump. I believe
• 11:28
  Speaker 1: in Donald Trump. He's a businessman, he's a smart guy,
• 11:31
  Speaker 1: he's a winner, he knows what he's doing, he's a negotiator.
• 11:34
  Speaker 1: So I trust in Trump, which, my God, when that's
• 11:38
  Speaker 1: all you have, that's a huge problem, especially given the
• 11:42
  Speaker 1: history of how Trump handled the COVID panic, which was
• 11:46
  Speaker 1: an absolute catastrophe largely because of him. So I'm certainly
• 11:53
  Speaker 1: not somebody that's gonna put any trust in Trump, either
• 11:55
  Speaker 1: in his judgment or in his character or his intellect.
• 12:00
  Speaker 1: But the only thing I trust about Trump is his luck,
• 12:03
  Speaker 1: and eventually, you know what, luck runs out. He's an
• 12:07
  Speaker 1: extremely lucky guy. He does have good instincts. I've already
• 12:11
  Speaker 1: said I kind of understand the philosophy behind this, even
• 12:15
  Speaker 1: though I don't agree with it. I could see a
• 12:18
  Speaker 1: path where this could work if you were really smart
• 12:23
  Speaker 1: and really strategic about it, and you had eight years,
• 12:27
  Speaker 1: but Trump doesn't have eight ears, and he doesn't seem
• 12:30
  Speaker 1: to understand that. And it's particularly difficult to trust to
• 12:33
  Speaker 1: Donald Trump when simultaneous to all this, we're learning that
• 12:38
  Speaker 1: he fired three at least apparently respected national security staffers.
• 12:44
  Speaker 1: Why not because of the whole signal Gate situation, but
• 12:48
  Speaker 1: because whack job Laura Lumer told him to do so.
• 12:53
  Speaker 1: I mean, Laura Lumer is one of the nuttiest of
• 12:56
  Speaker 1: all the completely batshit crazy Trump Maga influencers, and somehow
• 13:03
  Speaker 1: she has enough access and influence over Donald Trump to
• 13:07
  Speaker 1: get him to fire three respected national security staffers. I
• 13:12
  Speaker 1: have no idea whether they deserve to be fired. Apparently
• 13:14
  Speaker 1: it was because Luma thought they were Lumer thought they
• 13:17
  Speaker 1: were leaking, or they weren't loyal enough to Trump or whatever.
• 13:20
  Speaker 1: But that's the kind of thing that does not elicit
• 13:24
  Speaker 1: a lot of trust in someone's judgment when they're being
• 13:28
  Speaker 1: guided significantly by Laura fucking Lumer. And the history with
• 13:34
  Speaker 1: regard to Trump on this kind of stuff is not good.
• 13:38
  Speaker 1: So I think the market got freaked out when they
• 13:41
  Speaker 1: saw the actual plan because it indicated that there is
• 13:44
  Speaker 1: no plan that they don't know what they're doing. That
• 13:48
  Speaker 1: Trump is the man behind the curtain, he's not the
• 13:52
  Speaker 1: Wizard of Oz, and so this created this market collapse,
• 13:56
  Speaker 1: which again, frankly, at least as if this taping Wednesday
• 14:00
  Speaker 1: morning has not had as nearly the kind of negative
• 14:04
  Speaker 1: impact on the markets this week as it did last week,
• 14:08
  Speaker 1: whereas as much as a lot of people including myself anticipated.
• 14:12
  Speaker 1: Now that could change on a dime. Maybe that's based
• 14:16
  Speaker 1: in the false hope that Trump is going to see
• 14:19
  Speaker 1: the light and just decide to negotiate deals. Here he's
• 14:22
  Speaker 1: bragging about how everyone's kissing his ass, which is his
• 14:26
  Speaker 1: favorite thing in the world, and that countries are begging
• 14:30
  Speaker 1: for deals. But it doesn't matter that even if that's true,
• 14:34
  Speaker 1: let's mist pretend that that's true. It doesn't matter unless
• 14:39
  Speaker 1: it's China, the European Union, and maybe Canada. Outside of
• 14:45
  Speaker 1: that group, metalist really matters. It's all table dressing. China,
• 14:52
  Speaker 1: the EU, and Canada probably in that order. Those are
• 14:55
  Speaker 1: the only endities that matter. And so far there's no
• 14:57
  Speaker 1: indication at all, especially with the Guard in China, that
• 15:01
  Speaker 1: they're looking to cut a deal, and so it's possible
• 15:06
  Speaker 1: that the market may end up taking another massive crap
• 15:11
  Speaker 1: once they realize or if they realize that Trump really
• 15:16
  Speaker 1: is in this for the long haul, or at the
• 15:19
  Speaker 1: very least if this is a bluff, this is going
• 15:21
  Speaker 1: to be a bluff that keeps going because he's not
• 15:24
  Speaker 1: going to be able to cut the deal he wants
• 15:26
  Speaker 1: in the short run. And you know, as far as
• 15:29
  Speaker 1: MAGA is concerned, a lot of MAGA and I'm not
• 15:32
  Speaker 1: sure that that many Republicans really fully understand this because
• 15:36
  Speaker 1: they don't spend nearly as much time on Twitter or
• 15:39
  Speaker 1: x as I do. But the core MAGA actually sees
• 15:44
  Speaker 1: the stock market collapse as a good thing. They see
• 15:48
  Speaker 1: it as a good thing, and this is not an exaggeration,
• 15:52
  Speaker 1: and they see it as a good thing largely because
• 15:55
  Speaker 1: one they're selfish, because they don't have any significant funds
• 15:59
  Speaker 1: in stock market, so they just want to see people
• 16:02
  Speaker 1: that they perceive as rich as getting sold. They think
• 16:05
  Speaker 1: that rich people losing money is inherently a good thing.
• 16:09
  Speaker 1: This is one of the more corrupt and cancerous elements
• 16:13
  Speaker 1: of the entire MAGA movement. They really don't believe truly
• 16:19
  Speaker 1: in capitalism, they claim to, most of them, but they
• 16:22
  Speaker 1: actually are thrilled to see people they perceive as rich
• 16:26
  Speaker 1: people have more money than they do losing money in
• 16:30
  Speaker 1: the stock market. They love that one out of as
• 16:34
  Speaker 1: I said, selfishness too because they're ignorant about the way
• 16:37
  Speaker 1: economics works. Because when you lose this much value in
• 16:43
  Speaker 1: the stock market, if it maintains itself, that has an
• 16:47
  Speaker 1: impact on everybody. Now, most MAGA core members aren't smart
• 16:53
  Speaker 1: enough or educated enough to understand that, but it's absolutely
• 16:57
  Speaker 1: the reality. Why well, for lots of different reasons, but
• 17:00
  Speaker 1: the number one reason is people make spending decisions based
• 17:06
  Speaker 1: upon largely what they consider their current financial situation to be.
• 17:13
  Speaker 1: And if the stock market is high and they think
• 17:16
  Speaker 1: of themselves as being in a very good financial position,
• 17:19
  Speaker 1: they're going to spend a lot more money than if
• 17:23
  Speaker 1: the opposite is the case. And right now, especially based
• 17:27
  Speaker 1: upon expectations, expectations or everything in life. If you thought
• 17:32
  Speaker 1: you had X amount of money and now you have
• 17:35
  Speaker 1: significantly less than that, guess what's going to happen to
• 17:38
  Speaker 1: your spending. It's going to go down. And that has
• 17:43
  Speaker 1: a massive impact on everybody if it maintains itself, And
• 17:48
  Speaker 1: almost all of that impact is negative. At magas say,
• 17:51
  Speaker 1: oh my god, this is so great. Rich people are
• 17:54
  Speaker 1: getting soaked. The price of gasoline looks like it's going down.
• 17:59
  Speaker 1: Suppose this was going to help, you know, the the
• 18:02
  Speaker 1: interest rate issue and the price of our debt. But
• 18:05
  Speaker 1: I've not seen any significant movement. As there's been movement,
• 18:09
  Speaker 1: but as far as where it currently is, it's not
• 18:12
  Speaker 1: any significantly better than it was before this. But Magasi's
• 18:16
  Speaker 1: most of all this is good. They have so much
• 18:19
  Speaker 1: trust in Trump that they really they believe that this
• 18:22
  Speaker 1: is all going to work out fantastically. I've even seen,
• 18:26
  Speaker 1: you know, some Republican members of Congress. Senator Kennedy from
• 18:30
  Speaker 1: Louisiana was on television either last night or this morning
• 18:35
  Speaker 1: saying that he's really surprised at how well this is
• 18:38
  Speaker 1: all going. Yeah, I'm not buying it yet. I am
• 18:42
  Speaker 1: not buying it at all now. To me, if Trump
• 18:47
  Speaker 1: actually decides to cut some deals and get the hell
• 18:52
  Speaker 1: out of this, that would be the best case scenario.
• 18:55
  Speaker 1: But I don't see any signs so far that the
• 18:59
  Speaker 1: entities that mat or specifically China, are willing and able
• 19:02
  Speaker 1: to do that. Because China is in a very difficult position.
• 19:06
  Speaker 1: Different not difficult, They are in somewhat a difficult position,
• 19:09
  Speaker 1: but they're in a very different position than us. I
• 19:12
  Speaker 1: talk about how Trump doesn't have eight years, China has
• 19:15
  Speaker 1: eighty years. China has all the time they want. They
• 19:18
  Speaker 1: don't really give a shit as much as Trump theoretically
• 19:22
  Speaker 1: does about their economy or their people. They they're in
• 19:27
  Speaker 1: this for the long haul, and they have total control,
• 19:31
  Speaker 1: something Trump doesn't have. Trump could lose his authority depending on,
• 19:37
  Speaker 1: you know, eventually how the Supreme Court rules over these
• 19:40
  Speaker 1: tariffs to begin with, and then what what happens then
• 19:44
  Speaker 1: if Trump actually loses his authority to do this, then
• 19:48
  Speaker 1: the bluff is completely blown. So that is one of
• 19:52
  Speaker 1: the scenarios that concerns me the most. But philosophically, I
• 19:57
  Speaker 1: think the part of this that is most disconcerting and
• 20:02
  Speaker 1: evaporates whatever trust I have in Trump is the idea.
• 20:08
  Speaker 1: And there's been a lot of different media entities that
• 20:11
  Speaker 1: have picked up on this, and I want to share
• 20:14
  Speaker 1: one clip there. I've been watching dozens and dozens of
• 20:16
  Speaker 1: videos from all across the political spectrum and trying to gauge, Okay,
• 20:21
  Speaker 1: what's the sensible take on all of this? And I
• 20:26
  Speaker 1: want to play a clip from a guy who most
• 20:29
  Speaker 1: of the people who listen to my podcast probably don't
• 20:31
  Speaker 1: like very much. I'm talking about Lawrence Summers. He's the
• 20:35
  Speaker 1: former US Treasury secretary, also the former president of Harvard. Yes,
• 20:39
  Speaker 1: he's a Democrat, but in my view, he's always been
• 20:42
  Speaker 1: pretty sensible. In fact, he actually came out pretty hard
• 20:45
  Speaker 1: against Harvard over some wokeness issues, and I've always sensed
• 20:50
  Speaker 1: that he's, you know, at least rational. He clearly has
• 20:53
  Speaker 1: the experience, and he's making a point that a lot
• 20:56
  Speaker 1: of other people are making, so it's not as if
• 20:58
  Speaker 1: he's you know, on his own here. In fact, John
• 21:02
  Speaker 1: Stewart on The Daily Show took what Summers said and
• 21:06
  Speaker 1: put it in a rather comedic form, which you can
• 21:10
  Speaker 1: find for yourself at The Daily Shows social media platforms.
• 21:14
  Speaker 1: But the basic concern that Summers points out in this
• 21:18
  Speaker 1: clip is one that I have, which is basically the
• 21:23
  Speaker 1: which is it? Which is it? Is this all a
• 21:27
  Speaker 1: negotiation ploy or do we really want tariffs because we
• 21:33
  Speaker 1: think that they will be good for making America great again,
• 21:37
  Speaker 1: rebuilding American manufacturing, bringing back jobs, reducing the cost of
• 21:43
  Speaker 1: the debt, generating revenue. By the way, I don't necessarily
• 21:48
  Speaker 1: buy the generating revenue thing, which I'm going to get
• 21:50
  Speaker 1: to momentarily. But there are all these theoretical and not
• 21:55
  Speaker 1: totally implausible benefits of a trade war and tariffs if
• 22:03
  Speaker 1: you were totally serious about this, and if you had
• 22:06
  Speaker 1: the time and the inclination for the long haul to
• 22:11
  Speaker 1: take effect. Here and what Summers points out is this
• 22:16
  Speaker 1: can't be both. This cannot be a negotiation ploy as
• 22:21
  Speaker 1: well as a legitimate policy because people in business need
• 22:29
  Speaker 1: certainty as to what is going to be the reality
• 22:34
  Speaker 1: for any of these benefits to actually take place. Now,
• 22:40
  Speaker 1: this might seem rather obvious to me. It is, but
• 22:44
  Speaker 1: just for the sake of argument, here's former US Treasury Secretary,
• 22:48
  Speaker 1: former President of Harvard Laurence Summers. I think pointing this
• 22:54
  Speaker 1: out and articulating this contradiction in a pretty cogent and
• 22:59
  Speaker 1: ration no fashion.
• 23:01
  Speaker 2: Say they are a source of revenue, so we don't
• 23:03
  Speaker 2: need to worry about the deficit, and then say we're
• 23:05
  Speaker 2: they're a crowbar because we're going to get rid of
• 23:07
  Speaker 2: them when other countries reduce their tariffs. That's just contradicting yourself.
• 23:12
  Speaker 2: All of us making decisions don't want to make them
• 23:17
  Speaker 2: when there are a whole bunch of cards that are
• 23:19
  Speaker 2: going to be turned over before too long. How could
• 23:23
  Speaker 2: anybody act with confidence when you don't know what the
• 23:28
  Speaker 2: price of steal's going to be, when you don't know
• 23:31
  Speaker 2: what the situation of your competitors is going to be.
• 23:37
  Speaker 2: So the traditional approach of policymakers is to try to
• 23:43
  Speaker 2: provide as predictable an environment as possible so as to
• 23:48
  Speaker 2: increase business confidence. And this new approach of trying to
• 23:54
  Speaker 2: maintain maximum flexibility probably is good for raising the rating
• 24:00
  Speaker 2: of a TV show because you never know what's going
• 24:02
  Speaker 2: to happen next, But it's hard to believe that it
• 24:07
  Speaker 2: inspires the confidence that will be a basis for investment.
• 24:12
  Speaker 1: Now, that makes a lot of sense to me. So
• 24:15
  Speaker 1: the basic question is which is it. Is this a
• 24:19
  Speaker 1: negotiating ploy, a bluff, or is this really a policy
• 24:24
  Speaker 1: that we want to pursue because we think it will
• 24:27
  Speaker 1: be good in the long term best interest of America.
• 24:32
  Speaker 1: And look, I get that you could maybe thread that needle.
• 24:37
  Speaker 1: You could maybe thread that needle if you were really
• 24:40
  Speaker 1: good at it, like you could be acting. You could
• 24:44
  Speaker 1: be pursuing the policy of a trade war because you
• 24:48
  Speaker 1: truly believe it will be best in the best interest
• 24:50
  Speaker 1: of America, and you can pursue it to the extent
• 24:53
  Speaker 1: that everyone else in the world, including the most important
• 24:57
  Speaker 1: entities China, the EU, and Canada, because I'm convinced that
• 25:00
  Speaker 1: it is real, and it is at that point that
• 25:03
  Speaker 1: they cave, because in theory, you have a better hand
• 25:07
  Speaker 1: of cards than they do. But that's down the road.
• 25:11
  Speaker 1: I mean, for them to really cave, they're gonna have
• 25:14
  Speaker 1: to see significant fundamental structural changes in the way the
• 25:20
  Speaker 1: US economy is functioning for them to go, holy shit,
• 25:24
  Speaker 1: this is for real. We're nowhere near that point. And
• 25:30
  Speaker 1: like I said, Trump doesn't have that much time. So
• 25:33
  Speaker 1: let's pretend this is, you know, a policy that Trump
• 25:39
  Speaker 1: truly believes in, and that could theoretically work if you
• 25:43
  Speaker 1: got all the breaks. But the problem is that there
• 25:48
  Speaker 1: are so many things that can go wrong even under
• 25:51
  Speaker 1: that if even if your backup option is okay, you know,
• 25:55
  Speaker 1: if we get really great deals, I'll make the deals
• 25:58
  Speaker 1: and we'll stop the trade war. Like for instance, one
• 26:01
  Speaker 1: I've already mentioned is what about the courts? What if
• 26:05
  Speaker 1: the courts take away Trump's ability or what if even
• 26:10
  Speaker 1: if a Republican Congress panics and takes back the authority
• 26:15
  Speaker 1: to institute tariffs. What if Democrats win big in the midterms.
• 26:22
  Speaker 1: If any of those things happen, the entire negotiating leverage,
• 26:27
  Speaker 1: the entire tactic of bluffing gets blown apart, and you're
• 26:33
  Speaker 1: in a much worse position at that point. So that
• 26:38
  Speaker 1: is one of my major concerns here. I also think
• 26:43
  Speaker 1: that there's a lot of what I would normally refer
• 26:46
  Speaker 1: to as liberal thinking when it comes to Trump's philosophy
• 26:51
  Speaker 1: on this. Let's pretend that this really is a policy
• 26:55
  Speaker 1: that he truly believes in, and he is going to
• 26:58
  Speaker 1: stay the course. Even so he's acting as if he's
• 27:02
  Speaker 1: more than willing to make deals because people are kissing
• 27:05
  Speaker 1: his ass. When I say liberal thinking, I talk all
• 27:10
  Speaker 1: the time about how liberals are terrible at understanding the
• 27:15
  Speaker 1: law of unintended consequences and the reality that things like
• 27:20
  Speaker 1: this do not occur in a vacuum. This is a
• 27:26
  Speaker 1: weird comparison to make, but I constantly talk about how
• 27:30
  Speaker 1: obvious it was in the college sports world that when
• 27:34
  Speaker 1: you made nil legal and you allowed for instant transfers,
• 27:39
  Speaker 1: that you were going to fundamentally alter the incentive structure
• 27:43
  Speaker 1: for everybody involved, and the whole system was going to
• 27:47
  Speaker 1: collapse immediately because it doesn't happen in a vacuum. Liberals
• 27:51
  Speaker 1: think that if you change the rules somehow, you're not
• 27:53
  Speaker 1: going to change the incentive structure, and therefore human behavior
• 27:57
  Speaker 1: won't change. And I fundamentally disagree with that. I'm a
• 28:03
  Speaker 1: big believer in incentive structures. And so when it comes
• 28:07
  Speaker 1: to this issue of trade wars and cariffs, Trump seems
• 28:13
  Speaker 1: seems to believe that it's not going to change significantly
• 28:18
  Speaker 1: human behavior, or it's not going to alter other aspects
• 28:23
  Speaker 1: that you're not directly counting on. Let me give you
• 28:26
  Speaker 1: an example, like he talks about how you know this
• 28:29
  Speaker 1: is going to generate revenue, and in theory, yeah, I
• 28:33
  Speaker 1: would generate revenue, except you have the downside of this,
• 28:38
  Speaker 1: and that is you might have a lot less consumption,
• 28:42
  Speaker 1: a lot less investment. You've already lost trillions of dollars
• 28:47
  Speaker 1: in the stock market, which by the way, impacts the
• 28:52
  Speaker 1: treasury because that's a lot less money that's being taxed
• 28:57
  Speaker 1: on capital gains and what have you. There's all sorts
• 29:01
  Speaker 1: of things that happen. You've already lost an enormous amount
• 29:05
  Speaker 1: of value in the stock market, and if people stop
• 29:09
  Speaker 1: investing and doing exactly the opposite of what you're anticipating,
• 29:14
  Speaker 1: then all of your initial projections upon which this was
• 29:18
  Speaker 1: based are gonna be off, maybe catastrophically off. So I'm
• 29:24
  Speaker 1: not even in the camp that buys that. Okay, if
• 29:28
  Speaker 1: this really is a long term policy, that it can
• 29:32
  Speaker 1: work exactly as Trump has suggested or seems to believe.
• 29:38
  Speaker 1: And I think that again that goes back to why
• 29:41
  Speaker 1: the market took such a massive crap, because it's the
• 29:45
  Speaker 1: lack of faith in Trump. The market does not have
• 29:50
  Speaker 1: anywhere near and understandably so the same level of trust
• 29:54
  Speaker 1: in Trump that Magafans do. Magafans are literally believing, almost
• 30:00
  Speaker 1: a religious fashion, that in Trump we trust, you know,
• 30:04
  Speaker 1: and Culter wrote a book with that title, and she
• 30:06
  Speaker 1: no longer is in that camp of in Trump we
• 30:09
  Speaker 1: trust for good reason, and so that's where we are.
• 30:14
  Speaker 1: Where it's basically that's all you got. The economics of
• 30:17
  Speaker 1: this are incredibly perilous. And again, one last time, I'm
• 30:22
  Speaker 1: trying to be in remarkably fair about this. As someone
• 30:26
  Speaker 1: who doesn't believe in trade wars or tariffs, I'm trying
• 30:29
  Speaker 1: to look at it from the perspective of Okay, I
• 30:32
  Speaker 1: get what Trump is trying to do. In in a
• 30:35
  Speaker 1: theoretically perfect world, I can actually see where this might
• 30:40
  Speaker 1: be something you might want to pursue, but it would
• 30:43
  Speaker 1: have to be executed perfectly. Nothing could possibly go wrong,
• 30:49
  Speaker 1: and I don't think you have enough time. Even if
• 30:53
  Speaker 1: everything went perfectly, I don't think you have enough time,
• 30:55
  Speaker 1: because you know, if nothing else, the manufacturing sector of
• 31:01
  Speaker 1: America needs to be confident that this is for real,
• 31:05
  Speaker 1: because they're not going to start down this path knowing
• 31:08
  Speaker 1: who Trump is and then get the rug pulled out
• 31:11
  Speaker 1: from underneath them when he starts to make deals. Now,
• 31:14
  Speaker 1: all of a sudden, the tariffs that were provoking them
• 31:18
  Speaker 1: changing the way they do business are now gone because
• 31:22
  Speaker 1: Trump loves to make a deal and there are some Republicans.
• 31:28
  Speaker 1: I've said many, many times one of the greatest fears
• 31:31
  Speaker 1: I have about Trump two point zero. Even though I
• 31:34
  Speaker 1: feared Kamala Harris and I, you know, behind the scenes,
• 31:38
  Speaker 1: did my part to try to help Trump win, mainly
• 31:42
  Speaker 1: to prevent Kamala Harris from being president, my greatest fear
• 31:45
  Speaker 1: is you've got a guy who is now a god king,
• 31:49
  Speaker 1: especially post assassination attempts, and nobody in the Republican Party
• 31:55
  Speaker 1: is going to stand up against him, nobody or hardly anybody.
• 32:00
  Speaker 1: And the tariffs so far have been a really good
• 32:03
  Speaker 1: or bad depending on your perspective. Example of that. One
• 32:07
  Speaker 1: of the few exceptions to this has been Kentucky Senator
• 32:11
  Speaker 1: Rand Paul, obviously the son of Ron Paul, who's a libertarian.
• 32:18
  Speaker 1: Rand is somewhat libertarian, not nearly as nutty as his
• 32:21
  Speaker 1: dad is. Generally well, I don't agree with everything that
• 32:25
  Speaker 1: Ran Paul stands for. I generally like Rand Paul. I
• 32:29
  Speaker 1: think he's a smart guy. I think he caved into Trump.
• 32:33
  Speaker 1: I think he has some basic principles. He's very much,
• 32:37
  Speaker 1: very much against tariffs. He has gone out on television
• 32:41
  Speaker 1: and spoken very emphatically about the economic the flaw, and
• 32:46
  Speaker 1: the economic philosophy of tariffs. I want to play this
• 32:50
  Speaker 1: short clip though, because Ran Paul has also been out
• 32:53
  Speaker 1: there talking about the political impact historically of tariffs, and
• 32:59
  Speaker 1: I'm not a hunt ensure that the historical parallels he's
• 33:03
  Speaker 1: making are that relevant. By the way, I'm not sure
• 33:05
  Speaker 1: that the historical parallels that Trump is making regarding tariffs
• 33:09
  Speaker 1: are relevant to today. I mean, Trump the other day
• 33:12
  Speaker 1: said that the golden era of America. I'm not sure
• 33:15
  Speaker 1: if he's a golden but the greatest era of America
• 33:18
  Speaker 1: was basically post Civil War, pre World War One. I'm like,
• 33:25
  Speaker 1: what what is he talking about? And because we're living
• 33:30
  Speaker 1: he references that in that era we didn't have an
• 33:33
  Speaker 1: income tax, which I agree that the origins of a
• 33:38
  Speaker 1: lot of our problems are when we started to allow
• 33:42
  Speaker 1: the federal government to have an income tax. I get that,
• 33:45
  Speaker 1: but we're so far beyond that point. I mean, I'm
• 33:49
  Speaker 1: a realist. I believe philosophically and conservatism and libertarianism, but
• 33:53
  Speaker 1: I'm also a realist. We're not going backwards on the
• 33:57
  Speaker 1: income tax now, so that's not the same warld that
• 34:01
  Speaker 1: we live in. So I just wanted to make that
• 34:04
  Speaker 1: point before I play this clip. But I think that
• 34:06
  Speaker 1: rand Paul's larger point here that there are political not
• 34:11
  Speaker 1: just economic. There are political perils to the path that
• 34:16
  Speaker 1: Trump has chosen here that could be catastrophic to what
• 34:22
  Speaker 1: I've all I've always felt was the number one role
• 34:26
  Speaker 1: of the Republican Party, which was to prevent a democratic
• 34:29
  Speaker 1: take hold. For him to prevent essentially, you know, this
• 34:35
  Speaker 1: entire fundamental change in the country to being wokeism and
• 34:39
  Speaker 1: communism and socialism and everything else that the current modern
• 34:44
  Speaker 1: Democratic Party stands for. And so that's what Rand Paul
• 34:47
  Speaker 1: is really talking about here when he seems to be
• 34:51
  Speaker 1: sounding the alarm about what will happen in the midterm
• 34:55
  Speaker 1: elections if Trump maintains this policy. So here's Kentucky Republican
• 35:00
  Speaker 1: Senator Rand Paul.
• 35:02
  Speaker 3: Tariffs have also led to political decimation. When McKinley most
• 35:07
  Speaker 3: famously put tariffs on an eighteen ninety, they lost.
• 35:09
  Speaker 1: Fifty percent of their seats in the next election.
• 35:12
  Speaker 3: When Hot and Smoothly put on their tariff in the
• 35:14
  Speaker 3: early nineteen thirties, lost the House and the Senate for
• 35:17
  Speaker 3: sixty years. So they're not only bad economically, they're bad politically.
• 35:23
  Speaker 1: So it seems to me as if Ran Paul gets it,
• 35:26
  Speaker 1: I don't know how many of his Republican colleagues do
• 35:29
  Speaker 1: in private. They're not saying so very much in public
• 35:33
  Speaker 1: because Trump runs the party, and the perils there's economic perils,
• 35:40
  Speaker 1: there's political perils of this policy, but there's also perils
• 35:45
  Speaker 1: when you are a Republican who stand out to Trump
• 35:48
  Speaker 1: on what is obviously a topic that he feels very
• 35:52
  Speaker 1: very strongly about and on which he has bet his
• 35:57
  Speaker 1: entire second term an exaggeration. Donald Trump has bet his
• 36:03
  Speaker 1: entire second term and his legacy, as least says of
• 36:08
  Speaker 1: right now, and we're getting close to the point of
• 36:10
  Speaker 1: overturn where he has bet all of this on the
• 36:14
  Speaker 1: tearror of plan working, and Ran Paul is saying, I
• 36:18
  Speaker 1: don't think it's gonna work economically, and oh, by the way, politically,
• 36:24
  Speaker 1: the history here is really really awful and that's dangerous.
• 36:29
  Speaker 1: That is politically dangerous in the modern Republican slash Trump Party. Now.
• 36:35
  Speaker 1: I've ren forerenced several times that don't really pay any
• 36:39
  Speaker 1: attention to this business that Trump is selling about all
• 36:43
  Speaker 1: these countries coming him to make supposedly sweetheart deals, because
• 36:48
  Speaker 1: they don't matter. I cannot emphasize enough China, the EU
• 36:54
  Speaker 1: and Canada are really all that matter, and probably in
• 36:57
  Speaker 1: that order. And it's really China, China, China, China, China,
• 37:01
  Speaker 1: China is really all that matters at this point. And
• 37:05
  Speaker 1: I referenced the unintended consequences and you know, the things
• 37:09
  Speaker 1: that don't happen in a vacuum. One of the impacts
• 37:13
  Speaker 1: one of the many, many impacts already of this tariff
• 37:17
  Speaker 1: plan that Trump finally pulled the trigger on was that
• 37:22
  Speaker 1: the deal that was very close to coming to fruition
• 37:25
  Speaker 1: with regard to keeping TikTok alive. Remember that TikTok the
• 37:31
  Speaker 1: social media app that is basically owned by China and
• 37:36
  Speaker 1: that was essentially outlawed in the United States by law,
• 37:41
  Speaker 1: which Trump just decided to ignore and extend. I don't
• 37:45
  Speaker 1: know what authority he really had to do that, even
• 37:47
  Speaker 1: though I thought it was probably for the best, because
• 37:51
  Speaker 1: I kind of kind of like TikTok, even though I
• 37:52
  Speaker 1: see the dangers in it, and I understand just how
• 37:56
  Speaker 1: incredibly popular TikTok is so politically, especially right at the
• 38:00
  Speaker 1: beginning of his new term. It was something that definitely
• 38:03
  Speaker 1: benefited Trump, especially among younger people. But one of the
• 38:08
  Speaker 1: unintended consequences of this is the trade ward with China
• 38:12
  Speaker 1: blew up the impending deal with TikTok. Now. Trump was
• 38:19
  Speaker 1: asked about this, and his response was fascinating on a
• 38:24
  Speaker 1: couple of different levels, one of which was he referred
• 38:26
  Speaker 1: to TikTok as tictac. Apparently, TikTok makes your breath a
• 38:33
  Speaker 1: lot better. Gives you minti breath. The tack app, the
• 38:39
  Speaker 1: tiktac app is very good for your the smell of
• 38:43
  Speaker 1: your breath. But he referenced is He referenced TikTok as tiktac.
• 38:48
  Speaker 1: That was just a side note. What I thought was
• 38:51
  Speaker 1: really amazing was that when you hear listen to this clip,
• 38:56
  Speaker 1: listen to what he says at the end about how
• 39:00
  Speaker 1: the fact that China has bailed on the TikTok deal
• 39:05
  Speaker 1: shows the power of tariffs, as if this is a
• 39:11
  Speaker 1: positive when I would argue that based upon his own metrics,
• 39:16
  Speaker 1: it shows the negative power of terrorists. But this was
• 39:20
  Speaker 1: Trump referencing what's going on with TikTok visi VI the
• 39:25
  Speaker 1: trade war with China. It was reported to China change.
• 39:32
  Speaker 3: I say, it was largely true the reporters that we
• 39:34
  Speaker 3: had a deal pretty much with a TikTok, not a deal,
• 39:37
  Speaker 3: but pretty close, and then China changed the deal because
• 39:40
  Speaker 3: of tariffs. If I gave a little cut in tariffs
• 39:44
  Speaker 3: and approved that deal at fifteen minutes, which shows you
• 39:47
  Speaker 3: the power of tariffs right now.
• 39:49
  Speaker 1: That kind of thinking on Trump's part, to me, is
• 39:52
  Speaker 1: very dangerous because there's a guy who is looking at
• 39:57
  Speaker 1: this whole situation from a very on this perspective. If
• 40:01
  Speaker 1: he truly believes that this shows the positive power of tariffs,
• 40:07
  Speaker 1: then that's a problem because based upon the way he
• 40:12
  Speaker 1: described it, yeah, this shows the power of tariffs in
• 40:16
  Speaker 1: a negative way. Did he not anticipate that doing this
• 40:21
  Speaker 1: right when we were reaching the deadline of the TikTok
• 40:24
  Speaker 1: deal was going to potentially cause them to blow that
• 40:28
  Speaker 1: deal up because they're gonna use whatever leverage they have.
• 40:35
  Speaker 1: And so I see what happened there is exactly the
• 40:39
  Speaker 1: opposite as the way that Trump describes it. Yet he's
• 40:43
  Speaker 1: looking at this through a very very biased prism, and
• 40:48
  Speaker 1: as I have said many many times before, there is
• 40:51
  Speaker 1: nobody close enough to him with the balls to say,
• 40:56
  Speaker 1: mister President, this is a bad idea. We need to
• 41:00
  Speaker 1: get out of this, or or mister President, if we
• 41:03
  Speaker 1: do this, guess what China's gonna do with regard to
• 41:06
  Speaker 1: the TikTok deal. I don't think there's anyone that will
• 41:10
  Speaker 1: give him that advice. And there's certainly nobody that's gonna
• 41:14
  Speaker 1: point out, mister president's see what we had we did
• 41:16
  Speaker 1: here becaused You know this, this had a situation where
• 41:20
  Speaker 1: there was an unintended consequence, and because we're in a
• 41:24
  Speaker 1: trade war with China now, they just blew up the
• 41:26
  Speaker 1: TikTok deal, a deal that you know, seemingly Trump really
• 41:30
  Speaker 1: wants to make and which politically is important to him,
• 41:35
  Speaker 1: because if TikTok goes away now on his watch, then
• 41:40
  Speaker 1: that is going to piss off millions and millions of people, and,
• 41:44
  Speaker 1: by the way, have some economic impact, because TikTok has
• 41:47
  Speaker 1: become that influential and that much of a driver of
• 41:52
  Speaker 1: economic activity. But that's just one of many, many, many,
• 41:57
  Speaker 1: many other examples here, and I do think you need
• 42:00
  Speaker 1: to keep your eye on China. All this other stuff
• 42:04
  Speaker 1: is just bullshit, and I am concerned. Although you know,
• 42:09
  Speaker 1: there are those in the Trump administration that claim that
• 42:12
  Speaker 1: that we hold all the cards with China, I'm not
• 42:15
  Speaker 1: sure that we really do, because in order for us
• 42:18
  Speaker 1: to hold all the cards with China, they have to
• 42:20
  Speaker 1: care about the cards that we have, and I'm not
• 42:24
  Speaker 1: sure that the structure of their society and their government
• 42:27
  Speaker 1: is nearly as vulnerable to the same things that we
• 42:31
  Speaker 1: care about. And so winning a trade war with China
• 42:35
  Speaker 1: is not going to be nearly that easy, especially since, oh,
• 42:39
  Speaker 1: by the way, way bigger than owning TikTok. They own
• 42:43
  Speaker 1: massive amounts of our debt and just the other day
• 42:46
  Speaker 1: they sold fifty billion dollars of our treasuries. I mean,
• 42:52
  Speaker 1: they have leverage points here, folks, And so you know,
• 42:57
  Speaker 1: I think that's going to be the biggest problem here.
• 43:00
  Speaker 1: How do you get out of this? Now? Trump is
• 43:02
  Speaker 1: a master at eventually caving and making a deal and
• 43:08
  Speaker 1: claiming it's a great deal. And of course his base
• 43:11
  Speaker 1: will always always believe that whatever deal he has cut
• 43:14
  Speaker 1: is awesome because it's inherently great because it's Trump that's
• 43:19
  Speaker 1: making the deal. Inherently any deal that Trump makes is
• 43:22
  Speaker 1: great because Trump's the one that made the deal. Among
• 43:25
  Speaker 1: his political base, that's probably, in my view, the best
• 43:30
  Speaker 1: case scenario at this point. But I don't know how
• 43:34
  Speaker 1: you get China to even do that. I mean, just
• 43:38
  Speaker 1: this morning, you know, there's massive escalation on both sides.
• 43:43
  Speaker 1: I'm not saying it's not possible. It may even be probable,
• 43:46
  Speaker 1: but it may not happen. China may just say fuck you,
• 43:51
  Speaker 1: and that's going to be a problem. So Trump will
• 43:54
  Speaker 1: cut some deals, I'm sure, just to show you know
• 43:58
  Speaker 1: that he's the one in charge, and he loves having
• 44:01
  Speaker 1: his ass kissed, and you know, he can show his base,
• 44:05
  Speaker 1: you know how awesome he is, and that he's got
• 44:08
  Speaker 1: this all figured out. But I am not confident that
• 44:13
  Speaker 1: that's what's gonna happen, and I'm not confident that there
• 44:16
  Speaker 1: aren't really tremendous perils in the long run if he
• 44:21
  Speaker 1: decides this is really what we're gonna do, This is
• 44:24
  Speaker 1: really what we're gonna do. And and I've already articulated why,
• 44:29
  Speaker 1: I'm very concerned about that, because there are hurdles that
• 44:32
  Speaker 1: he doesn't have a lot of control over. He doesn't
• 44:35
  Speaker 1: have a lot of control over what the courts are
• 44:37
  Speaker 1: gonna do. He does not have total control over what
• 44:41
  Speaker 1: the Congress may do to cut off his authority and
• 44:45
  Speaker 1: reassert their own authority. He doesn't have at all control
• 44:49
  Speaker 1: over what will happen in the midterm elections. And so
• 44:54
  Speaker 1: you know, there are all sorts of problems here if
• 44:58
  Speaker 1: this is going to be a long term pile. So
• 45:01
  Speaker 1: my inclination is the history of Donald Trump is he's
• 45:05
  Speaker 1: gonna cut a deal. He's gonna cave and cut a deal.
• 45:08
  Speaker 1: That's what he always does, That's who he is, and
• 45:12
  Speaker 1: I believe that that's probably the intention here, if you
• 45:17
  Speaker 1: read between the lines, that always seems to be where
• 45:20
  Speaker 1: his heart is, where he's heading. I think that's personally,
• 45:24
  Speaker 1: if not probably mostly why the market has not collapsed
• 45:28
  Speaker 1: this week. It's because everyone's starting to think, Okay, well,
• 45:32
  Speaker 1: if we look at Trump's history, this is what he does.
• 45:35
  Speaker 1: He'll cut a deal and claim victory, cut a deal
• 45:38
  Speaker 1: and claim victory. I think he can do that in
• 45:41
  Speaker 1: the vast majority of the cases here. I don't know
• 45:45
  Speaker 1: how he does that necessarily with China, and I'm not
• 45:48
  Speaker 1: one hundred percent sure about the EU or Canada, and
• 45:52
  Speaker 1: without them, none of this really matters. So I don't
• 45:56
  Speaker 1: know what's gonna happen next. My gut tells me he's
• 46:00
  Speaker 1: gonna cut deals. I just don't know whether I's gonna
• 46:03
  Speaker 1: be able to cut deals with everybody involved, because China
• 46:08
  Speaker 1: doesn't seem to understand this is a show, right. I've
• 46:11
  Speaker 1: always used the famous line from Rocky One from Apollo
• 46:16
  Speaker 1: Creed's Trainer. He doesn't realize this is a damn show.
• 46:21
  Speaker 1: He thinks this is a damn fight. Well, that's what
• 46:23
  Speaker 1: it feels like with China. China doesn't realize this is
• 46:26
  Speaker 1: a damn show. They think this is a damn fight,
• 46:30
  Speaker 1: and that's a problem. So my inclination is that this
• 46:35
  Speaker 1: is all gonna end up. I don't know when. I
• 46:37
  Speaker 1: have no idea on time, no idea. It could be
• 46:40
  Speaker 1: a couple of weeks, it could be a couple months,
• 46:43
  Speaker 1: you know, somewhere in that time range. But if you
• 46:45
  Speaker 1: go past that, the impacts become so negative that you
• 46:49
  Speaker 1: become basically invested in the policy itself, and then you
• 46:53
  Speaker 1: get the sunk loss fallacy. Well, we've lost so much
• 46:56
  Speaker 1: in the market, and we've put so much into this.
• 46:58
  Speaker 1: Now we got to see it, and that's where things
• 47:02
  Speaker 1: could really get dangerous, especially of some of these other
• 47:05
  Speaker 1: perils that I've referenced end up coming to fruition. So
• 47:10
  Speaker 1: best case scenario, in my view is we get the
• 47:12
  Speaker 1: hell out of this with cutting the best deals that
• 47:16
  Speaker 1: we can. But I'm not one hundred percent confident that's
• 47:18
  Speaker 1: going to happen. Turning to more directly political matters, and
• 47:25
  Speaker 1: specifically issues related to the news media and their own
• 47:28
  Speaker 1: hypocrisy and an incompetence, I have to play by far
• 47:33
  Speaker 1: the most remarkable media clip of the week certainly one
• 47:36
  Speaker 1: that doesn't relate to the massive story involving tariffs. And
• 47:41
  Speaker 1: this was an interview on CNN between Jake Tapper and
• 47:45
  Speaker 1: former vice presidential candidate Tim Waaltz. And this is amazing
• 47:50
  Speaker 1: on so many levels. This really belongs in the Museum
• 47:54
  Speaker 1: of medium malpractice, if they ever do create one. And
• 47:59
  Speaker 1: the reason why this is so amazing is that during
• 48:03
  Speaker 1: the actual campaign, Jake Tapper, among other major mainstream media personalities,
• 48:11
  Speaker 1: literally mocked, mocked people who were on his show, claiming
• 48:16
  Speaker 1: that Joe Biden was not capable of serving a second
• 48:22
  Speaker 1: term in office, that he was too old, that his
• 48:25
  Speaker 1: mental acuity had declined, and Tapper on multiple occasions, but
• 48:32
  Speaker 1: specifically one that got a lot of attention, almost how
• 48:35
  Speaker 1: to meltown saying how utterly ridiculous it is that Republicans
• 48:41
  Speaker 1: are promoting this narrative that Joe Biden is not mentally
• 48:45
  Speaker 1: fit to serve an office. That's all a matter of record, Okay,
• 48:49
  Speaker 1: in the irrational world, you can't get around that. You
• 48:52
  Speaker 1: can't fix that, you can't pretend that didn't happen. Of course,
• 48:55
  Speaker 1: we don't live in a rational world. And now Jake
• 48:57
  Speaker 1: Tapper has written a book co written a book essentially
• 49:03
  Speaker 1: about the cover up that he participated in of Joe
• 49:07
  Speaker 1: Biden's decline. And so he has Tim Waltz, the vice
• 49:12
  Speaker 1: presidential nominee who got the gig because Joe Biden eventually
• 49:16
  Speaker 1: was forced to drop out of the presidential race. Obviously,
• 49:19
  Speaker 1: they were never went him in a Tim Waltz vice
• 49:21
  Speaker 1: presidential nomination without Joe Biden getting out, and Jake Tapper
• 49:27
  Speaker 1: absolutely rails into Tim Waltz, not just once, but on
• 49:33
  Speaker 1: multiple occasions, acting like a real journalist, acting like a
• 49:37
  Speaker 1: real interviewer, trying to nail Tim Waltz to the wall
• 49:41
  Speaker 1: on the issue of get this Joe Biden's lack of
• 49:46
  Speaker 1: mental acuity and his lack of ability to serve a
• 49:48
  Speaker 1: second term. I mean, you literally can't make this up.
• 49:51
  Speaker 1: It seems almost like a Saturday Night Live sketch where
• 49:54
  Speaker 1: we're just pretending the past never happened, and yet it did.
• 50:00
  Speaker 1: I mean, this is a real life clip. This is
• 50:02
  Speaker 1: not fake and with no self awareness, no accountability, not
• 50:08
  Speaker 1: even a mention by Tapper. Oh, by the way, I
• 50:11
  Speaker 1: screwed this up. If he did that, I could at
• 50:14
  Speaker 1: least take this somewhat seriously, maybe even applauded, but there's
• 50:18
  Speaker 1: never any accountability, never any self awareness, especially when it
• 50:22
  Speaker 1: comes to the major elite mainstream news media. But this
• 50:25
  Speaker 1: is just an incredible clip of Jake Tapper just pretending
• 50:29
  Speaker 1: that essentially the entire twenty twenty four campaign did not occur,
• 50:34
  Speaker 1: and then everything that he said and did and participated
• 50:37
  Speaker 1: in did not happen, especially now that he's got a
• 50:40
  Speaker 1: book to sell. And here was that remarkable clip on CNN,
• 50:44
  Speaker 1: Jake Tapper interviewing Tim Walls, Well.
• 50:47
  Speaker 4: What do you make of the criticism that one of
• 50:49
  Speaker 4: the reasons why your party was so resoundingly rejected last
• 50:52
  Speaker 4: November is because Democrats were gaslighting the country saying that
• 50:56
  Speaker 4: inflation was not a big deal, heralding Biden. Not only Biden,
• 51:01
  Speaker 4: but Kamala Harris was heralding Bidenomics, pretending that there wasn't
• 51:04
  Speaker 4: a problem at the border, and then fundamentally this idea
• 51:08
  Speaker 4: the president Biden was up for another four years of
• 51:11
  Speaker 4: the job, while Americans in poll after poll for a
• 51:13
  Speaker 4: year after year were saying he's too old to do
• 51:16
  Speaker 4: the job. Your party stood against all of those things.
• 51:23
  Speaker 5: Look Joe Biden at coming in and doing COVID and
• 51:26
  Speaker 5: being a governor through COVID did a hell of a job.
• 51:29
  Speaker 5: But I think one of the things that we didn't
• 51:31
  Speaker 5: do was is we assumed that we said, and it
• 51:34
  Speaker 5: was true, that we were going to have a soft
• 51:36
  Speaker 5: landing in our economy was better than the rest of
• 51:38
  Speaker 5: the world. Better for who, Better for the working class
• 51:41
  Speaker 5: who was saying groceries were too expensive as they are
• 51:44
  Speaker 5: now and going up. They got to see us talk
• 51:46
  Speaker 5: about things again. I go back to this, don't talk
• 51:49
  Speaker 5: about food, insecurity or housing type of issues, talk about
• 51:53
  Speaker 5: being hungry and wondering where they're going to live, or
• 51:55
  Speaker 5: about their children's future, about real security. And so I
• 51:59
  Speaker 5: think your question is spot on. I think we got
• 52:02
  Speaker 5: intellectualized on this. I think the fact of the matter
• 52:04
  Speaker 5: is Joe Biden did soft land the economy. He did
• 52:08
  Speaker 5: usher us through COVID. None of us are saying we
• 52:10
  Speaker 5: should be soft on the border. But we allow a
• 52:13
  Speaker 5: vacuum and Donald Trump fills it the eight hundred pound
• 52:16
  Speaker 5: gorilla and their narrative starts to stick, and we look weak.
• 52:21
  Speaker 5: We look weak, like we don't care. We look like
• 52:22
  Speaker 5: we look Jake, I'm not going to say, you know
• 52:24
  Speaker 5: what we need to do is we need to just
• 52:26
  Speaker 5: arrest people and ship them to El Salvador. No, we
• 52:28
  Speaker 5: need to do invest the money on border. We need
• 52:30
  Speaker 5: to make sure that we have the judges necessary to
• 52:32
  Speaker 5: adjudicate things faster. We need to make sure if you're
• 52:35
  Speaker 5: going to be in this country, you're legally. When you are,
• 52:37
  Speaker 5: you're going to be uplifted, celebrated and part of this
• 52:39
  Speaker 5: great American tapestry. We didn't do that, and then they
• 52:42
  Speaker 5: it fills them. They'll find the example that is horrific,
• 52:46
  Speaker 5: where you have someone who's not here legally and they
• 52:48
  Speaker 5: commit a crime that is horrific. But we don't do
• 52:50
  Speaker 5: a good job of telling that.
• 52:52
  Speaker 4: Don't you think your party needs to acknowledge that President
• 52:55
  Speaker 4: Biden was not up for the job of running for
• 52:58
  Speaker 4: reelection and that this was a major mistake. But he
• 53:01
  Speaker 4: made that decision, I know, but you all went along
• 53:04
  Speaker 4: with the he was up for it and he wasn't,
• 53:06
  Speaker 4: and everybody saw it and the country rejected it.
• 53:11
  Speaker 5: Yeah, well, I look, history will tell us to go
• 53:14
  Speaker 5: back on that. That very well could be the case.
• 53:16
  Speaker 1: Jake, I just can't describe, I literally cannot describe just
• 53:20
  Speaker 1: how remarkable that is coming from Jake Tapper without a
• 53:25
  Speaker 1: hint of accountability or self awareness. I think that's the
• 53:30
  Speaker 1: part of the mainstream news media that really is most
• 53:35
  Speaker 1: shocking to me as someone who has a lot of flaws.
• 53:39
  Speaker 1: But I think I'm very very self aware and I
• 53:42
  Speaker 1: take accountability for everything I do. That is wrong, because
• 53:45
  Speaker 1: after all, I'm married with two young daughters, so I'm
• 53:49
  Speaker 1: held accountable for everything, and I'm very much self aware
• 53:53
  Speaker 1: of all my flaws. I hear about them multiple times
• 53:55
  Speaker 1: a day. But apparently when you're in the mainstream news media,
• 53:59
  Speaker 1: you don't have to live in that world, and you
• 54:02
  Speaker 1: can actually pretend that you didn't participate in the cover
• 54:06
  Speaker 1: up of Joe Biden's lack of mental acuity, and then
• 54:09
  Speaker 1: you can condemn those who did participate and attack the
• 54:14
  Speaker 1: Democratic Party rightfully so for not coming forward and acknowledging
• 54:20
  Speaker 1: what the reality of that situation was. It's just it's
• 54:23
  Speaker 1: really a remarkable testament to just how totally broken the
• 54:26
  Speaker 1: news media is and why we have the death of journalism.
• 54:30
  Speaker 1: Another clip that I've got to play for you. It
• 54:34
  Speaker 1: doesn't directly relate to Joe Biden's mental acuity, although it's
• 54:38
  Speaker 1: certainly in a similar median narrative vein, and that is
• 54:43
  Speaker 1: the lack of self awareness and lack of accountability. I mean,
• 54:46
  Speaker 1: I think there are a lot of similarities between the
• 54:48
  Speaker 1: way the news media handled Joe Biden's mental decline and
• 54:52
  Speaker 1: how they handled the COVID panic, and specifically with regard
• 54:57
  Speaker 1: to doctor Anthony Fauci. Now, just to quickly review, I
• 55:01
  Speaker 1: believe that I was way ahead of the curve on
• 55:04
  Speaker 1: doctor Anthony Fauci when the COVID panic hit just over
• 55:07
  Speaker 1: five years ago. I was saying on a different podcast
• 55:10
  Speaker 1: I was doing at the time called the Individual One Podcast.
• 55:14
  Speaker 1: I was saying immediately that this guy was big trouble,
• 55:18
  Speaker 1: that he was a narcissist, a megalomaniac, an egomaniac, much
• 55:23
  Speaker 1: like his boss, Donald Trump. Fauci and Trump are not
• 55:26
  Speaker 1: that dissimilar in some ways, and it was obvious to
• 55:30
  Speaker 1: me that Anthony Fauci was loving what was happening and
• 55:34
  Speaker 1: that he was not going to do anything to curtail
• 55:39
  Speaker 1: the attention he was getting. I mean, he had the
• 55:42
  Speaker 1: biggest conflict of interest in history, which was he was
• 55:47
  Speaker 1: a guy who was allegedly tasted with overseeing the handling
• 55:52
  Speaker 1: and theoretically the ending of a pandemic that he didn't
• 55:56
  Speaker 1: want to have end because his life had never been
• 56:00
  Speaker 1: better in every possible way. And the media never mentioned this,
• 56:05
  Speaker 1: this massive conflict of interest, And it was obvious from
• 56:09
  Speaker 1: the moment he was first on television, put on television
• 56:12
  Speaker 1: in front of massive audiences because there's nothing else on
• 56:15
  Speaker 1: and nothing else to do, put there by Donald Trump,
• 56:18
  Speaker 1: which was probably the biggest strategic mistake of his entire
• 56:22
  Speaker 1: first term. But it was obvious this guy loved a camera.
• 56:27
  Speaker 1: And so how in the world can a guy who
• 56:31
  Speaker 1: is loving the fact that this pandemic has happened and
• 56:35
  Speaker 1: the way that we're reacting to it, because he's getting
• 56:39
  Speaker 1: all the intention he's always desired. This is the greatest
• 56:41
  Speaker 1: thing that's ever happened in his life. How can he
• 56:44
  Speaker 1: possibly objectively determine when this thing should end? And so
• 56:53
  Speaker 1: I have felt like Fauci was a fraud from the beginning,
• 56:56
  Speaker 1: especially when he flipped on masks then and I knew
• 57:00
  Speaker 1: for sure this wasn't just an issue of his personality
• 57:03
  Speaker 1: and his narcissism and him being an attention whore. This
• 57:07
  Speaker 1: is a guy who was willing to change science. Of course,
• 57:11
  Speaker 1: he referred to himself as science. He was willing to
• 57:14
  Speaker 1: change basic science for his own personal popularity because he
• 57:20
  Speaker 1: was against masks. He mocked masks just before sixty minutes,
• 57:25
  Speaker 1: just before the COVID panic really started to hit, and
• 57:29
  Speaker 1: then two months in he completely flipped. Why did the
• 57:34
  Speaker 1: science on masks change, No, not at all. What did
• 57:38
  Speaker 1: change was the politics of masks. He never imagined that
• 57:44
  Speaker 1: the vast majority of the people he cares about liberals
• 57:51
  Speaker 1: would suddenly see masks as a virtue signal and a
• 57:56
  Speaker 1: security blanket, and that they would be not just in
• 57:59
  Speaker 1: favor of them, they would be demanding mandates for masks,
• 58:04
  Speaker 1: and so in response to that, this is not the
• 58:09
  Speaker 1: way science is supposed to work. In response to that,
• 58:12
  Speaker 1: Fauci flipped on masks and the rest was history. And
• 58:17
  Speaker 1: it has always been my strong belief that Fauci was
• 58:21
  Speaker 1: very unwilling to declare any of this to be over
• 58:24
  Speaker 1: with because it was obviously in his self interest for
• 58:28
  Speaker 1: it to be continued as long as possible, because he
• 58:31
  Speaker 1: personally was benefiting in every possible way for this. So
• 58:35
  Speaker 1: Fauci did a some sort of a conference where he
• 58:40
  Speaker 1: was interviewed on stage with an audience and a very
• 58:44
  Speaker 1: obviously liberal audience. And I have to play this clip
• 58:48
  Speaker 1: because Fauci is continuing to try to revise history, to
• 58:54
  Speaker 1: downplay the shutdowns, and to pretend that masks actually work.
• 59:01
  Speaker 1: And interestingly, here the moderator of this event pushes back,
• 59:06
  Speaker 1: not nearly as much as he should have, but pushes
• 59:09
  Speaker 1: back somewhat on Faucci on this and his response was
• 59:14
  Speaker 1: very revealing, as was the response of the audience, the
• 59:18
  Speaker 1: very liberal, clueless audience that obviously is desperate for someone
• 59:23
  Speaker 1: to tell them that they didn't waste two years of
• 59:25
  Speaker 1: their life wearing a completely needless and useless mask, and
• 59:30
  Speaker 1: so they're applauding him for giving them what they want,
• 59:34
  Speaker 1: basically therapy, telling them they didn't they weren't duped, and
• 59:38
  Speaker 1: that what they did really did save them from COVID
• 59:42
  Speaker 1: wearing a stupid cloth mask. But here is Anthony Fauci
• 59:46
  Speaker 1: what I found to be a very revealing, if not
• 59:49
  Speaker 1: also infuriating exchange.
• 59:52
  Speaker 6: So the thing that needed to be done is that
• 59:54
  Speaker 6: you needed to have physical distancing, which you know people
• 59:59
  Speaker 6: say lockdown. We didn't lock down China lockdown. We definitely
• 1:00:03
  Speaker 6: closed a lot of things down. So I think if
• 1:00:05
  Speaker 6: you really are fair and stop the finger pointing. In
• 1:00:09
  Speaker 6: the beginning, it was absolutely essential. The only way to
• 1:00:14
  Speaker 6: immediately shut down the four to five thousand deaths per
• 1:00:18
  Speaker 6: day was to shut things down for a while.
• 1:00:21
  Speaker 1: That was the right choice.
• 1:00:22
  Speaker 6: The thing we need to re examine is how long
• 1:00:26
  Speaker 6: you did that, How long schools were closed, how long
• 1:00:33
  Speaker 6: industry was shut down?
• 1:00:34
  Speaker 1: Way, what you're sort of saying is maybe it was
• 1:00:36
  Speaker 1: too long.
• 1:00:37
  Speaker 6: Maybe, I think in retroster, I think what people are
• 1:00:41
  Speaker 6: getting confused is the idea of shutting things down temporarily
• 1:00:45
  Speaker 6: was the right decision.
• 1:00:46
  Speaker 7: Everyone agreed, we all tell flatten the curve, but then
• 1:00:48
  Speaker 7: the curve got flattened.
• 1:00:49
  Speaker 1: We didn't get this and get back.
• 1:00:51
  Speaker 6: To what happened is that there became almost an ideological divide.
• 1:00:58
  Speaker 6: One thing is very clear, masks work. You see a
• 1:01:02
  Speaker 6: lot of people say, oh, masks don't went masks worked.
• 1:01:05
  Speaker 6: The other thing, that's well, let me push back on
• 1:01:11
  Speaker 6: that a little bit too.
• 1:01:12
  Speaker 7: Even those little cloth mask well, again, there's the rub
• 1:01:16
  Speaker 7: wall to a proper mask, an N ninety five or
• 1:01:20
  Speaker 7: a KA ninety five, properly worn all the time.
• 1:01:25
  Speaker 6: If someone comes in and says, you know, I don't
• 1:01:28
  Speaker 6: know what happened. I wore a mask for most of
• 1:01:30
  Speaker 6: the time. Then I went to the restaurant, I took
• 1:01:32
  Speaker 6: my mask off, and I had my meal, and I
• 1:01:34
  Speaker 6: got infected. Masks don't work. Well, you took the mask off.
• 1:01:39
  Speaker 1: Now, let's be clear, masks did not work. They did
• 1:01:45
  Speaker 1: not work. We know this from vast, vast arrays of
• 1:01:52
  Speaker 1: data from all over the world. And here's the easiest
• 1:01:56
  Speaker 1: way I can prove that masks did not work. If
• 1:02:00
  Speaker 1: masks had worked, we would be shown dozens and dozens,
• 1:02:07
  Speaker 1: if not hundreds of data charts from multiple jurisdictions throughout
• 1:02:14
  Speaker 1: the world showing us how case rates and death rates
• 1:02:19
  Speaker 1: went down when mask mandates were instituted, and how they
• 1:02:23
  Speaker 1: went up when they were not instituted. Instead, there's nothing,
• 1:02:30
  Speaker 1: there's crickets. This is the ultimate example of where the
• 1:02:35
  Speaker 1: absence of evidence is evidence of absence, and the absence
• 1:02:40
  Speaker 1: is any positive effect of mask mandates anywhere. I mean,
• 1:02:46
  Speaker 1: there's so many places where this has been proven, not
• 1:02:51
  Speaker 1: just a little bit, but demonstratively. But frankly, I think
• 1:02:55
  Speaker 1: the best example is here in southern California, where we
• 1:03:00
  Speaker 1: have Los Angeles and Orange Counties butting right up next
• 1:03:05
  Speaker 1: to each other. My god, I think, you know, books
• 1:03:08
  Speaker 1: should be written about the difference between Los Angeles and
• 1:03:10
  Speaker 1: Orange County because geographically they're right next to each other,
• 1:03:14
  Speaker 1: the same weather, you know, obviously the same state. There's
• 1:03:20
  Speaker 1: there's really no explanation for why LA should be very
• 1:03:24
  Speaker 1: much different than Orange County except for the fact that
• 1:03:27
  Speaker 1: Orange County, well it's nowhere near as conservative as it
• 1:03:29
  Speaker 1: used to be, is a lot more conservative than LA County,
• 1:03:32
  Speaker 1: which is basically communist, And when it came to COVID
• 1:03:37
  Speaker 1: for vast portions of the Panic, La had far more restrictions,
• 1:03:43
  Speaker 1: especially when it came to masks, than Orange County did.
• 1:03:46
  Speaker 1: So we're dealing you can't talk about seasonality because they're
• 1:03:50
  Speaker 1: right next to each other. It's essentially the same it's
• 1:03:53
  Speaker 1: exactly the same area of the same state. And so
• 1:03:58
  Speaker 1: if masks really were you would be able to see
• 1:04:02
  Speaker 1: that La County would do far better when it came
• 1:04:05
  Speaker 1: to COVID than Orange County. Because again, one of the
• 1:04:10
  Speaker 1: major problems in this whole data issue was, you know,
• 1:04:14
  Speaker 1: controlling for seasonality and for weather and that kind of stuff. Well, no,
• 1:04:20
  Speaker 1: there's no difference here. They're literally right up next to
• 1:04:22
  Speaker 1: each other in the same portion of the same state.
• 1:04:26
  Speaker 1: And not only did La County never do better than
• 1:04:30
  Speaker 1: Orange County for large portions of the pandemic, they did worse.
• 1:04:34
  Speaker 1: But basically it was exactly the same when it came
• 1:04:38
  Speaker 1: to the case rates the death rates. It had nothing
• 1:04:42
  Speaker 1: to do with masks. And the second proof that masks
• 1:04:46
  Speaker 1: didn't work is airplanes, where one of the worst mask
• 1:04:49
  Speaker 1: mandates of all was instituted by the mask Nazis formerly
• 1:04:55
  Speaker 1: known as Flight Attendance. People forget that when the pandemic
• 1:05:00
  Speaker 1: first hit there were no masks on planes other than
• 1:05:05
  Speaker 1: maybe you know some Asian people who culturally were used
• 1:05:09
  Speaker 1: to wearing masks, but there were no mandates. And here
• 1:05:13
  Speaker 1: you are is obviously as in a crowded situation, can
• 1:05:17
  Speaker 1: find a situation as you could possibly ever have, And
• 1:05:20
  Speaker 1: there were no known outbreaks of COVID on planes, and
• 1:05:27
  Speaker 1: the stats on planes didn't change when mask mandates were instituted.
• 1:05:32
  Speaker 1: And oh, by the way, even most importantly I think,
• 1:05:35
  Speaker 1: was when the mask mandates were finally removed from planes.
• 1:05:39
  Speaker 1: Guess what happened, Nothing, absolutely nothing. And the reason why
• 1:05:46
  Speaker 1: planes were not a dangerous place for COVID is because
• 1:05:50
  Speaker 1: of the tremendous air filtration systems that exist on planes.
• 1:05:56
  Speaker 1: I'm not saying no one ever got COVID on a plane,
• 1:05:59
  Speaker 1: but there were there were no oh, massive outbreaks on planes,
• 1:06:03
  Speaker 1: and it didn't matter before mask mandates or after mask mandates.
• 1:06:08
  Speaker 1: So Fauci's just completely lying. And even even if you
• 1:06:15
  Speaker 1: had data, which he doesn't have, because he would cite
• 1:06:17
  Speaker 1: cited if it existed, right, he would cite actual data,
• 1:06:21
  Speaker 1: actual science. Instead, it's just this theoretical idea that, well,
• 1:06:25
  Speaker 1: if you wear the mask perfectly, people just didn't wear
• 1:06:29
  Speaker 1: it correctly enough. We didn't mask hard enough, essentially, is
• 1:06:33
  Speaker 1: what Fauci is saying. Well, by the way, that's inherently
• 1:06:38
  Speaker 1: part of why a mask mandate is absurd, because it's
• 1:06:42
  Speaker 1: not physically possible to do, because get this, people need
• 1:06:48
  Speaker 1: to breathe, they need to eat, they need to drink.
• 1:06:53
  Speaker 1: It's inherent in the human experience. So it's fundamentally absurd
• 1:07:00
  Speaker 1: that even if masks did work, even if you have
• 1:07:02
  Speaker 1: an N ninety five, which I've never been convinced by
• 1:07:04
  Speaker 1: any data that that significantly changes anything. But even if
• 1:07:08
  Speaker 1: I accept that as a theoretically theoretical possibility, it still
• 1:07:12
  Speaker 1: doesn't work as a mandate because it's not possible to
• 1:07:17
  Speaker 1: institute perfectly. And so Fauci's just completely full of shit.
• 1:07:22
  Speaker 1: And this is the guy. This is the guy who
• 1:07:26
  Speaker 1: dictated virtually everything about our response to the COVID panic.
• 1:07:31
  Speaker 1: And this is the guy that Donald Trump listened to
• 1:07:34
  Speaker 1: and promoted and enabled and gave an award to in
• 1:07:38
  Speaker 1: his last day in office. This is the guy. So
• 1:07:41
  Speaker 1: I'm sorry when I don't have a lot of trust
• 1:07:43
  Speaker 1: in Trump's judgment when it comes to tariffs, when Anthony
• 1:07:47
  Speaker 1: Fauci is still out there lying, revising history and setting
• 1:07:52
  Speaker 1: us up theoretically for the next time this happens. Now,
• 1:07:55
  Speaker 1: the only good part of that was he's willing to
• 1:07:57
  Speaker 1: at least acknowledge, you know, maybe we did keep this
• 1:08:02
  Speaker 1: on for too long, which I found to be hilarious
• 1:08:04
  Speaker 1: because I've already stated that it was he who had
• 1:08:08
  Speaker 1: the motivation to keep this thing going on far too long.
• 1:08:12
  Speaker 1: But even Fauci, with no self awareness whatsoever, is now
• 1:08:16
  Speaker 1: willing to say, you know, maybe we went too far,
• 1:08:19
  Speaker 1: Maybe this went on too long, just too long, and
• 1:08:22
  Speaker 1: maybe we made a mistake with schools bullshit, bullshit, and
• 1:08:27
  Speaker 1: this idea I just Also, there's so many elements of
• 1:08:29
  Speaker 1: what he said that are just totally wrong. This idea
• 1:08:33
  Speaker 1: that the shutdown helped stave off all these deaths. These
• 1:08:37
  Speaker 1: what he refers to is four or five thousand deaths
• 1:08:40
  Speaker 1: a day, and that that would have continued if it
• 1:08:42
  Speaker 1: not for the distancing and the shutdown. There's no evidence
• 1:08:46
  Speaker 1: for that at all, because some of our worst death
• 1:08:50
  Speaker 1: periods and I will always maintain if you had told
• 1:08:54
  Speaker 1: people the average age of COVID death was seventy nine,
• 1:08:58
  Speaker 1: and in some areas of the world it was much
• 1:09:00
  Speaker 1: higher than that, and that people had, you know, multiple
• 1:09:04
  Speaker 1: comorbidities and we're also at average age of seventy nine,
• 1:09:09
  Speaker 1: it would have impacted their view of what those numbers
• 1:09:11
  Speaker 1: actually meant. But that number was effectively censored still is
• 1:09:16
  Speaker 1: being censored by Google. Go go for yourself and google
• 1:09:20
  Speaker 1: what was the average age of COVID death in America?
• 1:09:24
  Speaker 1: And you will not get an answer. You can get
• 1:09:26
  Speaker 1: an answer almost anything on Google. You will not get
• 1:09:29
  Speaker 1: an answer. You will get some graphs and charts that
• 1:09:32
  Speaker 1: they don't even give you the real answer. You've got
• 1:09:34
  Speaker 1: to be a mathematician to try to figure it out
• 1:09:36
  Speaker 1: for yourself and even then you can't get a definitive answer.
• 1:09:39
  Speaker 1: So so the idea that somehow we had all these
• 1:09:44
  Speaker 1: deaths at the beginning, but we cut that down because
• 1:09:47
  Speaker 1: of the shutdown is ridiculous. Some of the worst death
• 1:09:51
  Speaker 1: numbers were deeply into the COVID panic, and some of
• 1:09:56
  Speaker 1: them were after the vaccine came out. I mean, just
• 1:10:01
  Speaker 1: look at the charts yourself. There is no correlation between
• 1:10:08
  Speaker 1: what the mandates were and the shutdown and how we
• 1:10:14
  Speaker 1: did with regard to case rates and death rates, There's none.
• 1:10:18
  Speaker 1: Fauci is a fraud, just like I've always thought that
• 1:10:21
  Speaker 1: he was. And the fact that there's been no condemning
• 1:10:25
  Speaker 1: of him at all by the mainstream news media and
• 1:10:28
  Speaker 1: that they still consider him to be some sort of
• 1:10:31
  Speaker 1: hero is just an absolute abomination. Now whenever I talk
• 1:10:36
  Speaker 1: about COVID, to me, you know, the worst defender was
• 1:10:40
  Speaker 1: Gavin Newsom here in California. I've always said that he
• 1:10:44
  Speaker 1: was the one that really facilitated so much of the
• 1:10:47
  Speaker 1: panic by shutting down California based upon a total and
• 1:10:50
  Speaker 1: complete lie before anyone else had shut down their state,
• 1:10:54
  Speaker 1: that created the contagion and the rest was history. Well,
• 1:11:00
  Speaker 1: in just the last week there have been three things
• 1:11:04
  Speaker 1: that have happened that if the news media was at
• 1:11:08
  Speaker 1: all responsible, at all rational, at all fair, would completely
• 1:11:14
  Speaker 1: destroy so much of the liberal narrative about California and
• 1:11:22
  Speaker 1: about economic policy, and specifically about climate change. Three things
• 1:11:28
  Speaker 1: that are definitive that I guarantee you ninety nine percent
• 1:11:34
  Speaker 1: at least of the American people have no idea about.
• 1:11:37
  Speaker 1: So I want you to imagine a world where we
• 1:11:40
  Speaker 1: had a rational and fair media. The first thing that
• 1:11:45
  Speaker 1: Americans would be told is, hey, remember when we were
• 1:11:49
  Speaker 1: told that climate change was so real that the debate
• 1:11:55
  Speaker 1: is over, that you're our president. Joe Biden said that
• 1:11:58
  Speaker 1: you're basically a moron. I think you may even use
• 1:12:01
  Speaker 1: that word if you don't believe in climate change. And
• 1:12:05
  Speaker 1: how California has been the epicenter of climate change and
• 1:12:09
  Speaker 1: fighting against climate change. And remember when we were supposedly
• 1:12:13
  Speaker 1: in a permanent drought in California and that we were
• 1:12:17
  Speaker 1: never gonna have snow again. We're never gonna have snow
• 1:12:19
  Speaker 1: again in California. In fact, we were never gonna have
• 1:12:22
  Speaker 1: snow again hardly anywhere in America. That's what we were told
• 1:12:26
  Speaker 1: by the climate change, global warming activists. Well, we just
• 1:12:31
  Speaker 1: ended officially the snow season here in California. And get this,
• 1:12:38
  Speaker 1: for the first time in this century, for three consecutive years,
• 1:12:44
  Speaker 1: California has hit or exceeded one hundred percent of average
• 1:12:51
  Speaker 1: snowpack in the Sierra Mountain Range, which is really the
• 1:12:56
  Speaker 1: epicenter of everything in California when it comes to our
• 1:12:59
  Speaker 1: water supply. I talk all the time about how this
• 1:13:03
  Speaker 1: is in the area where your Sementy National Park is,
• 1:13:05
  Speaker 1: and that your seventy National Park really is the window
• 1:13:09
  Speaker 1: through which you can see exactly what has happened in
• 1:13:11
  Speaker 1: our climate. Every year and when my family, my my
• 1:13:15
  Speaker 1: wife and my daughters and I, which we will do
• 1:13:17
  Speaker 1: again this year, we go up to you Sementy National
• 1:13:19
  Speaker 1: Park and you can see with your own eyes exactly
• 1:13:22
  Speaker 1: what the climate has been for the last year. And
• 1:13:25
  Speaker 1: now for the third straight year, California has hit one
• 1:13:30
  Speaker 1: hundred of average snowpack. And to be clear, hitting average
• 1:13:36
  Speaker 1: snowpack is actually way above average, because it's way above
• 1:13:41
  Speaker 1: the medium. Because the way this works cyclically, you'll get
• 1:13:46
  Speaker 1: like we have the last two years. You'll get two
• 1:13:49
  Speaker 1: really strong years for snow, and then you'll get a
• 1:13:54
  Speaker 1: couple of years where you get no snow at all.
• 1:13:56
  Speaker 1: So to hit the average, the big years, obviously screw
• 1:14:00
  Speaker 1: the average. To get the average, you're ahead of average,
• 1:14:03
  Speaker 1: you're head of medium. And this has happened now three
• 1:14:07
  Speaker 1: straight years. That hasn't happened, I believe, since the nineteen nineties.
• 1:14:12
  Speaker 1: And this is in an era where we're told it's
• 1:14:15
  Speaker 1: the hottest years on record, and we're in the midst
• 1:14:19
  Speaker 1: of a permanent drought in California. And yet no real
• 1:14:25
  Speaker 1: media coverage of this, very little of it within California,
• 1:14:28
  Speaker 1: no none outside of California, no acknowledgment of Hey, wait
• 1:14:33
  Speaker 1: a minute, what about all those predictions of doom and gloom.
• 1:14:37
  Speaker 1: And just to be clear, the snowpack in California is
• 1:14:41
  Speaker 1: like a pinball machine when it comes to destroying the
• 1:14:45
  Speaker 1: global warming climate change narrative, not just because it shows
• 1:14:49
  Speaker 1: that the permanent drought narrative was bullshit, but the line
• 1:14:52
  Speaker 1: between rain and snow is very small. It's like, you know,
• 1:14:58
  Speaker 1: a couple of degrees different. So if things really were
• 1:15:01
  Speaker 1: getting warmer, which we're told constantly, oh my god, another
• 1:15:06
  Speaker 1: hottest year on record, ever, how the fuck is it
• 1:15:09
  Speaker 1: that we're still getting snow in the Sierras three straight
• 1:15:14
  Speaker 1: years effectively above the average year. How is that possible statistically?
• 1:15:20
  Speaker 1: It's not, especially when we're supposedly getting you again, what
• 1:15:25
  Speaker 1: I mentioned this one more time because we hear this
• 1:15:27
  Speaker 1: constantly in the news video, Oh my gosh, the hottest
• 1:15:30
  Speaker 1: year on record, the hottest era on record, the last
• 1:15:33
  Speaker 1: twenty years, blah blah blah. It makes no sense whatsoever.
• 1:15:38
  Speaker 1: But because the news media won't report it, the next
• 1:15:41
  Speaker 1: time we hear about droughts or warming, people who aren't
• 1:15:44
  Speaker 1: paying very much attention will actually believe it. If you
• 1:15:49
  Speaker 1: ignore the parts of the narrative that don't fit your
• 1:15:54
  Speaker 1: preconceived notions, then guess what it's like. It never really happened.
• 1:15:58
  Speaker 1: And this is one of the most prominent and infuriating
• 1:16:02
  Speaker 1: tricks of the news media. I always say, it's not
• 1:16:05
  Speaker 1: what gets reported, it's what gets repeated. And so if
• 1:16:08
  Speaker 1: you just report this maybe one time, very briefly, and
• 1:16:12
  Speaker 1: put no context into it, as opposed to what happens
• 1:16:15
  Speaker 1: in the reverse, when we do get droughts, we do
• 1:16:19
  Speaker 1: get extremely warm temperatures. It's we're bombarded with it. So
• 1:16:24
  Speaker 1: that's why people are at least some people are convinced
• 1:16:27
  Speaker 1: by this bullshit narrative. The second thing that's happened in
• 1:16:30
  Speaker 1: California in the last a week or so is that
• 1:16:34
  Speaker 1: there was a study by USC. You know, no conservative institution. Obviously,
• 1:16:40
  Speaker 1: any academic institution is inherently liberal, especially in California. USC
• 1:16:44
  Speaker 1: used to be somewhat rational, but they've gone off the
• 1:16:47
  Speaker 1: deep end. They're totally liberal. They have done a study that.
• 1:16:51
  Speaker 1: Get this, this is going to shock a lot of people.
• 1:16:54
  Speaker 1: But Gavin Newsom when he claims that gas prices, which
• 1:16:58
  Speaker 1: obviously is related to our fire against climate change global warming,
• 1:17:02
  Speaker 1: the gas prices in California are so much higher than
• 1:17:05
  Speaker 1: anywhere else in the country because of price gouging, because
• 1:17:10
  Speaker 1: of greedy corporations. That's how it's been his narrative. Well,
• 1:17:15
  Speaker 1: guess what, this is stunning. They actually did a study
• 1:17:17
  Speaker 1: on this and yeah, no, it's not because of price gouging.
• 1:17:21
  Speaker 1: It's because of you guessed it, liberal restrictive regulation and taxes.
• 1:17:29
  Speaker 1: So liberal policy is why California has by far the
• 1:17:33
  Speaker 1: highest gas price in the country. What a stunner shocking, right,
• 1:17:38
  Speaker 1: Yet Gavin Newsom has not been forced to acknowledge that
• 1:17:42
  Speaker 1: he has been wrong or he's been lying. None of that,
• 1:17:46
  Speaker 1: it's just a one and done move on. Very similarly,
• 1:17:51
  Speaker 1: Remarkably similarly, there's another study by another non conservative institution
• 1:17:57
  Speaker 1: that has found that Gavin Newsom is lying about the
• 1:18:02
  Speaker 1: impact of his minimum wage increase on fast food workers.
• 1:18:08
  Speaker 1: Newsom has been lying constantly trying to claim that this
• 1:18:11
  Speaker 1: has been a tremendous boon to fast food workers. Well,
• 1:18:15
  Speaker 1: we now know that California has lost over twenty thousand
• 1:18:20
  Speaker 1: fast food jobs since the minimum wage increase was instituted, which,
• 1:18:27
  Speaker 1: of course was always incredibly obvious that this was going
• 1:18:30
  Speaker 1: to happen. I mean, this was easier to predict than
• 1:18:32
  Speaker 1: what was going to happen with nil and inst the
• 1:18:35
  Speaker 1: transfers in college sports. Yet Newsom apparently wasn't smart enough
• 1:18:40
  Speaker 1: to understand it, and he's now still lying about it,
• 1:18:43
  Speaker 1: even when liberal institutions are coming forward with studies saying, look,
• 1:18:49
  Speaker 1: this is what's happened here, we're hemorrhaging jobs. And oh,
• 1:18:52
  Speaker 1: by the way, and this is not, as far as
• 1:18:54
  Speaker 1: I can tell, part of the study. At least it
• 1:18:55
  Speaker 1: wasn't made public. But I would love to know what
• 1:18:59
  Speaker 1: the demograph fixed were of the twenty thousand or so
• 1:19:03
  Speaker 1: people who lost their jobs at fast food restaurants thanks
• 1:19:07
  Speaker 1: to the minimum wage increase. Boy, I would love to
• 1:19:10
  Speaker 1: know that number, because I guarantee you that there got
• 1:19:14
  Speaker 1: to be a lot of black people, a lot of
• 1:19:17
  Speaker 1: Hispanic people, a lot of obviously poor people, a lot
• 1:19:22
  Speaker 1: of women or girls, you know, a lot of the
• 1:19:25
  Speaker 1: constituencies that the Democratic Party claims to be all in
• 1:19:29
  Speaker 1: favor of. And I would be very confident, very confident
• 1:19:34
  Speaker 1: that they are disproportionately impacted losing their jobs at a
• 1:19:38
  Speaker 1: fast food restaurant because of this idiotic idea of increasing
• 1:19:43
  Speaker 1: the minimum wage. But once again, no accountability and certainly
• 1:19:47
  Speaker 1: no self awareness when it comes to Governor Gavitt Newsom.
• 1:19:51
  Speaker 1: I want to switch gears now to or shift gears
• 1:19:54
  Speaker 1: now to a couple of stories involving I guess what
• 1:19:59
  Speaker 1: I would say is media malpractice in the realm of
• 1:20:04
  Speaker 1: sex abuse or sexual allegations. And the first story is
• 1:20:08
  Speaker 1: one that I referenced in the last episode of the podcast,
• 1:20:11
  Speaker 1: very briefly because for a couple of reasons, One it
• 1:20:16
  Speaker 1: was still emerging at the time when I taped the
• 1:20:18
  Speaker 1: last podcast, but also because I didn't have a really
• 1:20:21
  Speaker 1: strong take on it. But I'm referencing what happened involving
• 1:20:26
  Speaker 1: the University of Mississippi and a young co ed there
• 1:20:31
  Speaker 1: who turns out to be by the name of Mary
• 1:20:34
  Speaker 1: Kate Cornett, who somehow got embroiled in an urban legend
• 1:20:42
  Speaker 1: that was amplified by some major media outlets, including ESPN
• 1:20:48
  Speaker 1: and Pat McAfee. Now, this is a very odd story,
• 1:20:52
  Speaker 1: but the essence of it is that there became a rumor,
• 1:20:57
  Speaker 1: and I believe it's turned out to be an urban legend,
• 1:21:00
  Speaker 1: that there was a University of Mississippi Old Miss female
• 1:21:05
  Speaker 1: co ed who was dating an athlete and who then
• 1:21:09
  Speaker 1: had sex with that athlete's father under very strange circumstances.
• 1:21:16
  Speaker 1: And this thing spread like wildfire on social media, not
• 1:21:20
  Speaker 1: just at Old Miss, but nationwide. And it appears to
• 1:21:26
  Speaker 1: me as if Pat McAfee just could not resist the story,
• 1:21:30
  Speaker 1: one because it's so selacious, but because it was so
• 1:21:33
  Speaker 1: popular on social media that I think Pat McAfee decided
• 1:21:37
  Speaker 1: that he needed to show how cool he is, and
• 1:21:39
  Speaker 1: he very strongly alluded to the story as if it
• 1:21:44
  Speaker 1: was true or real, and he did so on ESPN. Well,
• 1:21:50
  Speaker 1: it appears as if the story was completely and totally
• 1:21:53
  Speaker 1: bullshit and made up and an urban legend, and the
• 1:21:58
  Speaker 1: woman that was a attached to the story this, Mary
• 1:22:02
  Speaker 1: Kate Cornett, came forward and has done a major interview
• 1:22:08
  Speaker 1: with NBC. Now I'm conflicted by a lot of the story.
• 1:22:13
  Speaker 1: The first part, I think Pat McAfee was completely wrong
• 1:22:17
  Speaker 1: for what he did. I you know, not that my
• 1:22:20
  Speaker 1: podcast matters at all, But I did not reference the
• 1:22:24
  Speaker 1: story because I didn't feel comfortable about it, even though
• 1:22:28
  Speaker 1: I'm someone who comments on media related topics. Obviously this
• 1:22:32
  Speaker 1: is the death of journalism podcast. It just didn't feel
• 1:22:36
  Speaker 1: like the story was real, and I hated the fact
• 1:22:38
  Speaker 1: that this rumor was potentially impacting someone's life. And so
• 1:22:44
  Speaker 1: it's obvious that at least at first, Mary Kate Cornett
• 1:22:47
  Speaker 1: is a victim here, because there's no evidence that the
• 1:22:50
  Speaker 1: story has any validity whatsoever. Now how she got embroiled
• 1:22:56
  Speaker 1: in this, The best I can figure is that she,
• 1:23:00
  Speaker 1: in her real life, is almost an AI version of
• 1:23:04
  Speaker 1: what people might think of when it comes to an
• 1:23:07
  Speaker 1: old miss co ed who might be dating an athlete.
• 1:23:12
  Speaker 1: She is absolutely gorgeous, blonde hair, perfect skin. You know,
• 1:23:19
  Speaker 1: the name Mary Kate Cornette fits exactly with what people
• 1:23:22
  Speaker 1: would perceive as an old Miss co ed. I mean literally,
• 1:23:26
  Speaker 1: she's central casting, right, she is absolutely central casting. She's
• 1:23:30
  Speaker 1: nineteen years old, and so somehow her name got attached
• 1:23:35
  Speaker 1: to this urban legend, and so I'm very much on
• 1:23:40
  Speaker 1: the side of her being the victim here until and
• 1:23:44
  Speaker 1: unless she actually did this interview where she gets very emotional,
• 1:23:51
  Speaker 1: and I understand why she got very emotional. I get it.
• 1:23:55
  Speaker 1: You know, it's obviously a terrible thing to have happened
• 1:23:58
  Speaker 1: because her life in her was ruined. I mean, her
• 1:24:01
  Speaker 1: reputation was destroyed. Everyone at old Miss thinks that she
• 1:24:04
  Speaker 1: did this. I have great sympathy and empathy for her situation. However,
• 1:24:13
  Speaker 1: the reality here when it comes to legal responsibility on
• 1:24:17
  Speaker 1: the part of the media, is much more complicated because
• 1:24:22
  Speaker 1: I personally had no idea and I had, like I said,
• 1:24:26
  Speaker 1: I had been aware of the story, was mana during it,
• 1:24:30
  Speaker 1: but I didn't do a super deep dive on it.
• 1:24:33
  Speaker 1: I had no idea that she was the name or
• 1:24:37
  Speaker 1: the face that was attached to this urban legend until
• 1:24:41
  Speaker 1: she did the national TV interview on NBC. So, in
• 1:24:45
  Speaker 1: a weird way, she's the one that's making herself attached
• 1:24:50
  Speaker 1: to the story at least outside of Old Miss, Right,
• 1:24:55
  Speaker 1: I have no problem believing that everyone at Old Miss,
• 1:24:57
  Speaker 1: at least at one point, believed that she was the
• 1:25:00
  Speaker 1: person that was involved in this real story that turned
• 1:25:04
  Speaker 1: out to be just an urban legend, and so she's
• 1:25:07
  Speaker 1: in a difficult spot. I get that, but I also
• 1:25:11
  Speaker 1: think that she's creating her own damage to her own reputation.
• 1:25:14
  Speaker 1: I had no idea that she was the person involved.
• 1:25:17
  Speaker 1: I didn't know what the name was. I didn't even
• 1:25:19
  Speaker 1: I don't even think I saw a face that was
• 1:25:21
  Speaker 1: attached to this urban legend. Now that wouldn't be that
• 1:25:26
  Speaker 1: big of a deal except for the fact that you know,
• 1:25:28
  Speaker 1: Pat McAfee never used her name. The we other media
• 1:25:31
  Speaker 1: outlets involved in what appears to be an emerging lawsuit
• 1:25:35
  Speaker 1: that never used her name, and so therefore legally, I'm
• 1:25:39
  Speaker 1: not sure what their responsibility really is. But then there's
• 1:25:43
  Speaker 1: the other aspect to this and I and this is
• 1:25:46
  Speaker 1: where I get really conflicted. I don't sense that this
• 1:25:50
  Speaker 1: is her intent, But in the world in which we
• 1:25:55
  Speaker 1: now live, where you know, social media fame is so
• 1:26:00
  Speaker 1: sought after and can be so lucrative, part of me
• 1:26:05
  Speaker 1: felt like, is she trying to take advantage of this,
• 1:26:08
  Speaker 1: or in effect, will she end up being advantaged by
• 1:26:13
  Speaker 1: this because now in certain circles she's become famous and oh,
• 1:26:20
  Speaker 1: by the way, she's dropped dead gorgeous. So inherently, when
• 1:26:25
  Speaker 1: you're drop dead gorgeous and you get a little bit
• 1:26:28
  Speaker 1: of fame, even if it's attached to infamy in this
• 1:26:31
  Speaker 1: day and age, that could be very very advantageous. That
• 1:26:34
  Speaker 1: can be very very lucrative. And I guess part of
• 1:26:37
  Speaker 1: me is thinking what a fucked up world we live
• 1:26:41
  Speaker 1: in now where even when someone is a legitimate victim,
• 1:26:46
  Speaker 1: which it appears as if this person was, that for
• 1:26:50
  Speaker 1: them to try to correct the record creates a circumstance
• 1:26:55
  Speaker 1: where it's very easy to see they could end up
• 1:26:59
  Speaker 1: benefiting from all of this. And therefore, if since that's
• 1:27:03
  Speaker 1: so logically, you know, easily seen as a path for
• 1:27:08
  Speaker 1: how this could all turn out, could this be her
• 1:27:12
  Speaker 1: motivation for coming forward? And I'm not saying that it is,
• 1:27:16
  Speaker 1: but it basically shows that this current media environment in
• 1:27:21
  Speaker 1: which we now live is so messed up that you
• 1:27:25
  Speaker 1: must you must question the motivations of everybody. Like let
• 1:27:30
  Speaker 1: me give you another example. I mentioned TikTok earlier, one
• 1:27:35
  Speaker 1: of the weird things about TikTok, and TikTok has a
• 1:27:37
  Speaker 1: lot of great elements and a lot of bad elements.
• 1:27:40
  Speaker 1: But one of the things that I have noticed is
• 1:27:44
  Speaker 1: that there have been a couple of situations where usually
• 1:27:49
  Speaker 1: an old person is trying to sell a product. I've
• 1:27:53
  Speaker 1: seen this happen a couple of times with books, Like
• 1:27:56
  Speaker 1: there'll be an old guy who's written a book, and
• 1:27:59
  Speaker 1: he's had a library or a bookstore, and he's got
• 1:28:02
  Speaker 1: a stack of books there and no one's coming by
• 1:28:05
  Speaker 1: to buy his book. And someone will post a video
• 1:28:09
  Speaker 1: of the poor old guy all along with his books,
• 1:28:13
  Speaker 1: and all of a sudden, everyone, you know, the thing
• 1:28:16
  Speaker 1: goes viral. Everyone wants to buy the book, even though
• 1:28:19
  Speaker 1: they have no idea if the book's any good or not,
• 1:28:22
  Speaker 1: because it makes them feel good, because it's felt so
• 1:28:24
  Speaker 1: terrible to see the old guy, you know, alone with
• 1:28:28
  Speaker 1: his books. And by the way, I've seen this happen
• 1:28:30
  Speaker 1: on multiple occasions, and at first this is wonderful. This
• 1:28:34
  Speaker 1: is like a feel good situation. Oh, I wasn't that nice?
• 1:28:37
  Speaker 1: The internet coming together. This poor old guy worked so
• 1:28:41
  Speaker 1: hard in his book, and now he's sold some books
• 1:28:43
  Speaker 1: and he feels good and he's made some money. That's
• 1:28:46
  Speaker 1: all fine. But the problem becomes once this becomes a thing,
• 1:28:51
  Speaker 1: then people start to take advantage of it. Now I'm
• 1:28:55
  Speaker 1: actually seeing situations where it is obvious we're someone who
• 1:29:00
  Speaker 1: contriving the narrative of an old person whose business is
• 1:29:05
  Speaker 1: failing or whatever it is, and they try to get sympathy,
• 1:29:09
  Speaker 1: to try to get a video to go viral so
• 1:29:12
  Speaker 1: that the same thing can happen to them that's happened
• 1:29:13
  Speaker 1: to other people, and so it's no longer organic. It's
• 1:29:17
  Speaker 1: a marketing trick. And so that's what I thought about
• 1:29:22
  Speaker 1: when it came to Mary Kate Cornett. I don't know
• 1:29:26
  Speaker 1: what's gonna happen with Mary Kate Cornett, but it would
• 1:29:28
  Speaker 1: not shock me at all if she ends up becoming
• 1:29:32
  Speaker 1: some sort of a social media star, mostly because she's
• 1:29:36
  Speaker 1: beautiful and she's well spoken, and because now she's got
• 1:29:40
  Speaker 1: the cachet of this viral urban legend story surrounding her,
• 1:29:46
  Speaker 1: and I just don't think that's healthy. I think that's
• 1:29:48
  Speaker 1: an indication of just how messed up our current system
• 1:29:52
  Speaker 1: is and how all of the incentive structures are so
• 1:29:56
  Speaker 1: perverse that we can't trust anything anymore. We can't trust anything.
• 1:30:03
  Speaker 1: This is why we can't have nice things. So even
• 1:30:05
  Speaker 1: when someone is vindicating themselves from a situation that where
• 1:30:09
  Speaker 1: they were an obvious victim, there's an inherent downside that
• 1:30:13
  Speaker 1: makes at least people like me go, hold on a second,
• 1:30:17
  Speaker 1: are we being taken here? Is this part of a
• 1:30:20
  Speaker 1: marketing scam? I'm not suggesting at all by the way
• 1:30:23
  Speaker 1: that this whole thing started that way. I'm saying that
• 1:30:25
  Speaker 1: it's possible that she may be taking advantage of it,
• 1:30:28
  Speaker 1: and she may not even realize that she's taking advantage
• 1:30:31
  Speaker 1: of it. Although doing an interview on NBC National was
• 1:30:35
  Speaker 1: odd to me, I can see doing an interview with
• 1:30:38
  Speaker 1: the Old miss newspaper or something like that that would
• 1:30:42
  Speaker 1: make some sense. But when you decide to use this
• 1:30:45
  Speaker 1: to go national and have your name and face associated
• 1:30:48
  Speaker 1: with a story that it wasn't really associated with to
• 1:30:50
  Speaker 1: begin with, that should raise questions, I have to say,
• 1:30:55
  Speaker 1: though those questions aren't nearly as serious or as significant
• 1:31:00
  Speaker 1: as the questions that should be raised surrounding the accuser
• 1:31:04
  Speaker 1: of Prince Andrew. Now, it's interesting that it was only
• 1:31:08
  Speaker 1: a few weeks ago that, for the first time on
• 1:31:10
  Speaker 1: this podcast, I went into great detail about my view
• 1:31:14
  Speaker 1: of Prince Andrew and the sex abuse allegation against him
• 1:31:19
  Speaker 1: that was related to the Jeffrey Epstein case. Now you know,
• 1:31:24
  Speaker 1: I don't remember which episode number that was, but it was,
• 1:31:26
  Speaker 1: I don't know, about a month ago. I did a
• 1:31:30
  Speaker 1: fairly extensive look at what I think really happened there,
• 1:31:34
  Speaker 1: and the short version is Epstein guilty as hell, obviously,
• 1:31:39
  Speaker 1: So that's why he killed himself in prison because he
• 1:31:41
  Speaker 1: knew the jig was up. But that I don't believe
• 1:31:44
  Speaker 1: that Prince Andrew was actually guilty of sex abuse, and
• 1:31:49
  Speaker 1: I think there's a very good chance that he was
• 1:31:51
  Speaker 1: railroaded because of unique circumstances related to the royal family,
• 1:31:56
  Speaker 1: to his relationship with his mother, his relationship with Prince Charles,
• 1:31:59
  Speaker 1: the aiming of the allegations, the fact that the Queen's
• 1:32:03
  Speaker 1: Jubilee was about to come up, the fact that Prince
• 1:32:06
  Speaker 1: Charles was super anxious about still not being king. There
• 1:32:10
  Speaker 1: were a lot of egos situations. There were issues with
• 1:32:13
  Speaker 1: regard to the different arms of pr within the royal
• 1:32:17
  Speaker 1: family that were basically battling with each other. It had
• 1:32:21
  Speaker 1: nothing to do with whether not Prince Andrew was actually
• 1:32:25
  Speaker 1: guilty of raping this young woman by the name of
• 1:32:29
  Speaker 1: Virginia Geoffrey Geoffrey, I guess that's how you say it,
• 1:32:33
  Speaker 1: And the fact that Geoffrey had a photograph of her,
• 1:32:38
  Speaker 1: a pretty innocuous photograph of her with Prince Andrew at
• 1:32:43
  Speaker 1: I guess a party or an event that was hosted
• 1:32:46
  Speaker 1: by Jeffrey Epstein. That was the only evidence was this
• 1:32:50
  Speaker 1: photograph of Prince Andrew's arm around her waist where her
• 1:32:56
  Speaker 1: midriff was bare. Not a great photograph, but certainly no
• 1:32:59
  Speaker 1: where near any sort of evidence of sex abuse or rape.
• 1:33:04
  Speaker 1: But after Epstein killed himself, there was a great desire
• 1:33:09
  Speaker 1: for some sort of retribution, some sort of justice among
• 1:33:14
  Speaker 1: those that might have been involved, and it was obvious
• 1:33:17
  Speaker 1: that this particular accuser, who had a very prominent lawyer,
• 1:33:21
  Speaker 1: David Boys, needed some big pockets to go actor, especially
• 1:33:25
  Speaker 1: since Epstein was now dead, and they ended up forcing
• 1:33:30
  Speaker 1: after Andrew did this terrible Jerry Sandowsky like interview on
• 1:33:34
  Speaker 1: the BBC, and I do think there are a lot
• 1:33:36
  Speaker 1: of parallels between Prince Andrew and Jerry Sandusky where he
• 1:33:41
  Speaker 1: does this interview that's perceived as terrible on the BBC
• 1:33:46
  Speaker 1: and now becomes a political leverage game where David Boys
• 1:33:51
  Speaker 1: is able to leverage the dysfunction of the royal family
• 1:33:54
  Speaker 1: into some sort of what was perceived or reported at
• 1:33:57
  Speaker 1: the time of being a major settlement. Andrew was never
• 1:34:02
  Speaker 1: charged with anything, never admitted any guilt. I don't think
• 1:34:05
  Speaker 1: he was guilty. I think he got caught into a
• 1:34:09
  Speaker 1: political quagmire, and that interview with the BBC basically sealed
• 1:34:14
  Speaker 1: his fate. Plus about a lot of bad luck and
• 1:34:17
  Speaker 1: bad timing and this extreme desire by the public and
• 1:34:21
  Speaker 1: the media for someone to pay for Epstein's crimes. Well,
• 1:34:26
  Speaker 1: the reason why I'm referencing this now is that I
• 1:34:29
  Speaker 1: have always had suspicions about this accuser, Virginia Geoffrey, and
• 1:34:35
  Speaker 1: because her story does not hold up, I don't believe
• 1:34:39
  Speaker 1: she's telling the truth about Andrew. She's already acknowledged, although
• 1:34:43
  Speaker 1: the media ignored this, that she made up a story
• 1:34:47
  Speaker 1: about Alan Dershowitz, the lawyer from OJ Simpson fame in
• 1:34:51
  Speaker 1: other cases, and there's evidence that that was actually an
• 1:34:57
  Speaker 1: extortion situation involving Dershowitz, although so it's now claimed that
• 1:35:01
  Speaker 1: it was a misunderstanding or a bad memory on her part,
• 1:35:05
  Speaker 1: But she's already acknowledged, been forced to acknowledge, that she
• 1:35:08
  Speaker 1: made a false claim against Alan Dershowitz. So once you
• 1:35:13
  Speaker 1: acknowledge that you made a false claim, a claim that,
• 1:35:16
  Speaker 1: especially in the environment in which it was made, could
• 1:35:18
  Speaker 1: destroy someone's entire life, I'm sorry, interrational world. Your credibility
• 1:35:25
  Speaker 1: ought to be greatly questioned, if not totally discredited, completely shot.
• 1:35:33
  Speaker 1: But the Dershowitz story was just ignored. There were holes
• 1:35:37
  Speaker 1: in her story about Prince Andrew, and so I was
• 1:35:43
  Speaker 1: always very skeptical of her, which is partially why I
• 1:35:47
  Speaker 1: was willing to publicly state that I think Prince Andrew
• 1:35:51
  Speaker 1: is innocent. Well, we now have this very bizarre story
• 1:35:56
  Speaker 1: that the news video has said. You know what, this
• 1:35:58
  Speaker 1: is one of those crimes better left unsolved, really, to
• 1:36:02
  Speaker 1: quote you know the great movie Spinal Tap. This is
• 1:36:07
  Speaker 1: spinal Tab. I am of the belief that what we've
• 1:36:13
  Speaker 1: just witnessed here in the media has ignored should be
• 1:36:16
  Speaker 1: the smoking gun that something is very very very wrong
• 1:36:20
  Speaker 1: with her credibility, and specifically the Prince Andrew allegation. And
• 1:36:26
  Speaker 1: what I'm referring to here is that a little over
• 1:36:30
  Speaker 1: a week ago we learned that in Australia, at least
• 1:36:34
  Speaker 1: we thought we learned that she was a victim of
• 1:36:38
  Speaker 1: a terrible bus accident or crash. She posted pictures on
• 1:36:44
  Speaker 1: social media of her looking weirdly though badly beaten up
• 1:36:49
  Speaker 1: in a hospital bed, claiming that she had only four
• 1:36:53
  Speaker 1: days left to live, that doctors had given her four
• 1:36:56
  Speaker 1: days left to live, which is incredibly odd, right, I mean,
• 1:37:03
  Speaker 1: apparently because of kidney failure or something. I mean, no
• 1:37:06
  Speaker 1: one that I know of, and I've researched this believes
• 1:37:10
  Speaker 1: that that's even a realistic or irrational thing for doctors
• 1:37:15
  Speaker 1: to tell somebody in that situation that they have four
• 1:37:18
  Speaker 1: days left to live. And so this odd picture gets
• 1:37:21
  Speaker 1: posted of her face being beaten up, she claims she
• 1:37:25
  Speaker 1: has four days left to live. She's basically saying goodbye
• 1:37:29
  Speaker 1: on social media. Now, the immediate reaction to this was
• 1:37:33
  Speaker 1: so predictable given everything involving Epstein, right, because the Internet
• 1:37:39
  Speaker 1: reaction was, oh my god, someone's trying to silence her,
• 1:37:43
  Speaker 1: which is the dumbest fucking theory, even for Epstein people,
• 1:37:47
  Speaker 1: The dumbest fucking theory you could possibly imagine. If anyone
• 1:37:50
  Speaker 1: was trying to silence her she would have been silenced
• 1:37:53
  Speaker 1: a long time ago. There's nothing left to silence her over,
• 1:37:58
  Speaker 1: and you wouldn't silence her by getting her into a
• 1:38:01
  Speaker 1: bus accident. And so that is just idiotic but incredibly predictable,
• 1:38:07
  Speaker 1: especially for the conspiracy theorist, especially those that are obsessed
• 1:38:10
  Speaker 1: with the Epstein story. But then things got a lot
• 1:38:15
  Speaker 1: more suspicious because there was a go Fundme account that
• 1:38:20
  Speaker 1: was created on her behalf, which one of the things
• 1:38:23
  Speaker 1: that that made me think is why does she need
• 1:38:26
  Speaker 1: any money? I mean, she got paid allegedly millions and
• 1:38:31
  Speaker 1: millions of dollars. Now, obviously there was some you know,
• 1:38:34
  Speaker 1: I'm sure the lawyers took a big chunk of that,
• 1:38:36
  Speaker 1: but she got paid millions and millions of dollars reportedly
• 1:38:39
  Speaker 1: by the Royal family over the Prince Andrews settlement. Now
• 1:38:42
  Speaker 1: I have no idea. Is it possible that she blew
• 1:38:45
  Speaker 1: through that money? Is it possible that money was exaggerated
• 1:38:48
  Speaker 1: for the purposes of publicity, because if you think about it, logically,
• 1:38:52
  Speaker 1: the Royal family isn't going to correct the record on
• 1:38:56
  Speaker 1: how much money she got, and you know, any leaks
• 1:38:59
  Speaker 1: from her lawyers would be incentivized to exaggerate the amount
• 1:39:03
  Speaker 1: of money that she got to bolster the credibility of
• 1:39:07
  Speaker 1: the claim and also, by the way, increased the price
• 1:39:10
  Speaker 1: of other settlements that might be involved with prominent people
• 1:39:15
  Speaker 1: and her allegations. So it made me question, is it
• 1:39:18
  Speaker 1: possible that she didn't really get nearly the same kind
• 1:39:21
  Speaker 1: of money that she claimed that she got or that
• 1:39:25
  Speaker 1: was claimed on her behalf in the news media. I
• 1:39:28
  Speaker 1: don't know that, but it also made me think is
• 1:39:31
  Speaker 1: this possibly a scam? I mean, the whole bus accident
• 1:39:35
  Speaker 1: story felt weird to begin with. It got weirder with
• 1:39:39
  Speaker 1: the GoFundMe account, but then we got reports that the
• 1:39:44
  Speaker 1: bus driver and the police in this situation both described
• 1:39:50
  Speaker 1: this accident as minor and that nobody had any serious injuries.
• 1:39:56
  Speaker 1: So what the fuck is going on here? Well, then,
• 1:40:01
  Speaker 1: of course the four days come and go. Not only
• 1:40:05
  Speaker 1: is she still alive, but apparently she's been released from
• 1:40:08
  Speaker 1: the hospital. So I'm sorry. In a rational world, this
• 1:40:16
  Speaker 1: is a case that should open up a whole lot
• 1:40:21
  Speaker 1: of questions, at the very least a whole lot of questions,
• 1:40:25
  Speaker 1: especially given the Alan Dershowitz element of this, the problems
• 1:40:30
  Speaker 1: with their story involving Prince Andrew, and now she appears
• 1:40:35
  Speaker 1: to have been involved in what can only be described
• 1:40:38
  Speaker 1: as a scam. This has all the makings of a scam.
• 1:40:42
  Speaker 1: And if you're really involved in a scam like this,
• 1:40:46
  Speaker 1: if this is as fraudulent as it appears to be,
• 1:40:50
  Speaker 1: how does this not destroy her credibility when it comes
• 1:40:55
  Speaker 1: to Prince Andrew and other elements of this case. Yet
• 1:40:59
  Speaker 1: nobody in the news media is even touching this, because
• 1:41:02
  Speaker 1: once you are declared to be a prominent sex abuse victim,
• 1:41:08
  Speaker 1: then there's no more scrutiny. And we saw this constantly
• 1:41:11
  Speaker 1: in the Penn State Joe Paternal Jerry Sanusky case. In fact,
• 1:41:15
  Speaker 1: in the media's mind, nothing that happens involving a victim
• 1:41:21
  Speaker 1: after the allegations have been accepted matters, because you can
• 1:41:25
  Speaker 1: always blame whatever dysfunction, whatever bad behavior, whatever might happen
• 1:41:32
  Speaker 1: on the sex abuse itself. Thanks for listening to today's
• 1:41:37
  Speaker 1: free drop of the abbreviated show. If you're interested in
• 1:41:40
  Speaker 1: listening to the entire show, you must become a patron.
• 1:41:44
  Speaker 1: Please go to Patreon that's p A t R e
• 1:41:48
  Speaker 1: O N dot com Patreon dot com. Slash the Death
• 1:41:54
  Speaker 1: of Journalism with John Ziggler. My name is jhn z
• 1:41:59
  Speaker 1: I E g we are. That's Patreon dot com slash
• 1:42:05
  Speaker 1: The Death of Journalism with John Ziegler. Good luck to
• 1:42:09
  Speaker 1: you on that. But that's how you can subscribe.