Latest / The Death Of Journalism / Episode Ninety: “I’ll Take the Rich Bad Boy”

Transcript

Episode Ninety: “I’ll Take the Rich Bad Boy” · The Death Of Journalism

• 0:00
  Welcome the episode number ninety of the Death of Journalism podcast. My name is
• 0:04
  John Ziggler. I'm your host on today's show. The chances are increasing that
• 0:09
  Joe Biden may not be the Democratic nominee. Trump gives two theoretically disastrous interviews.
• 0:17
  Is there a scandalous explanation for the Christy Gnome Trump endorsement? And updates
• 0:23
  on the Dion Sanders and jfk assassination sagas. I'm known as the Dutch Digital
• 0:29
  marketing Man. I'm a digital advertising SEO and email marketing specialist that also happens
• 0:35
  to be a big fan of John Ziggler and the Death of journalisten. Do
• 0:39
  you need help preaching your target audience? Let me help you develop the right
• 0:44
  messaging and confaded message in the best channels for your business. Please visit my
• 0:48
  website, the Dutch Digital marketing Man dot com and let me help you tell
• 0:53
  your story. The website is the Dutch Digital marketing Man dot com. If
• 0:59
  you want to grow your business, Peter can help. That's the Dutch Digital
• 1:03
  Marketingman dot com. And hey, thanks for sponsoring the show. We begin
• 1:07
  episode ninety of the podcast with Joe Biden related news including the indictment of his
• 1:15
  son, Hunter Biden on gun charges, which created a rather bizarre situation where
• 1:21
  conservatives, at least some of them were, were celebrating the indictment on gun
• 1:26
  charges that normally gun supporting conservatives might not be too comfortable with, although some
• 1:34
  conservatives were also saying that this is a trick, This is a trap,
• 1:38
  this is a fake indictment to make it look like justice is being done,
• 1:42
  and that this isn't all a scam. While Hunter Biden gets away with much
• 1:48
  more serious crimes, is still possible that he gets indicted on other charges,
• 1:53
  but as of right now he has been finally indicted on gun charges. There
• 1:59
  still could be charges related to tax evasion. We'll see what happens with the
• 2:04
  Special Council there. But to me, the most interesting element of the Hunter
• 2:09
  Biden indictment was a theory put out there by Chris Christie, which doesn't necessarily
• 2:15
  make it credible, but which also began a conversation on the News Nation television
• 2:21
  show hosted by Dan Abrams, on which I appear about once every other week,
• 2:25
  and which I did appear on late last week. Now, I did
• 2:29
  not participate in this particular discussion, but I was on the segment afterwards,
• 2:35
  and I talked about a very similar subject, or at least I made it
• 2:38
  into a similar subject. And that theory is that Joe Biden could theoretically use
• 2:46
  the Hunter Biden indictment or indictments as an off ramp or as an excuse to
• 2:54
  not run for reelection. And the theory basedly goes that he wants to pardon
• 3:01
  his son. That's understandable, but he can't do it and run for re
• 3:07
  election, at least under conventional Of course, conventional wisdom has been thrown out
• 3:13
  the window in the Trump era so many times it's hard to know what the
• 3:15
  rules currently are. But based upon the pre Donald Trump rules, you can't
• 3:22
  pardon your son and run for re election, especially when you're unpopular and in
• 3:25
  your eighties, you just can't do that. And so the theory would go
• 3:30
  that he would not run for reelection. And then after the twenty twenty four
• 3:38
  election, regardless of who won, especially if Trump won, because then obviously
• 3:43
  there wouldn't be a Democrat in office who could theoretically pardon Hunter Biden, then
• 3:47
  Biden would decide to pardon his son before leaving office. In that period between
• 3:53
  the election and the inauguration of the new president, whoever that is. Now
• 4:00
  sounds a little conspiratorial, but I think it actually makes some sense if you're
• 4:03
  looking for an excuse not to run. Now. I'm not sure we're there
• 4:09
  yet at all, but there are some signs at least that are pointing in
• 4:15
  that direction. I mean episode And to be clear, I am someone who
• 4:18
  has been on the side of this argument that says no, Joe Biden's going
• 4:24
  to be the nominee, that inertia is too powerful a force. He wants
• 4:28
  to be the nominee. He's the incumbent. You know, you've got to
• 4:31
  take him out somehow. You can't run against him. RFK Junior is certainly
• 4:35
  not going to be able to beat him in a Democratic primary, and no
• 4:39
  one else is going to run against him because it's political suicide to run against
• 4:43
  an incumbent president. So that's not going to happen. He has to decide
• 4:46
  this on his own, and it's obvious that he doesn't want to do so.
• 4:50
  He wants to run for another term, as insane as that seems given
• 4:55
  his age and current mental health. So that's important for context. I'm not
• 5:00
  someone who has been promoting this theory at all. I've been going in the
• 5:04
  opposite direction. But in the last episode of the podcast, I extensively went
• 5:10
  into doo an interview that Governor k Newsome here in California did with Chuck Todd
• 5:15
  on the last episode that Todd hosted of Meet the Press, and the fact
• 5:18
  that Newsom one did the interview and two essentially made remarkable, very unspecific and
• 5:27
  self serving concessions about errors that were made during the COVID response to me was
• 5:34
  the surest sign yet that at least in Gavin K. Newsome's mind, he
• 5:41
  thinks there's a chance that he could run for president in twenty twenty four,
• 5:44
  because that was the only motivation I could see that an egomaniac like himself,
• 5:49
  who has never acknowledged any mistakes, even though there were many, many,
• 5:55
  many catastrophic ones made during the COVID response and he was responsible for more than
• 6:00
  anyone else in the United States of America, for him to do that,
• 6:04
  there has to be some sort of motivation, and laying the groundwork for a
• 6:10
  potential presidential run would certainly qualify. It would be right at the top of
• 6:15
  the list of potential motivations for why an egomaniac like Newsom would even go there
• 6:21
  without there being any one or any force forcing him too, because he's certainly
• 6:27
  not being forced by the local media, which is a joke here in California.
• 6:30
  And he didn't have to do this interview with Chuck Todd. So I
• 6:33
  thought that was something that made me go hmm, And then there wasn't something
• 6:39
  else that happened that Dan Abrams and I talked about on the News Nation television
• 6:45
  network last week, where Nancy Pelosi was asked about Kamala Harris and whether or
• 6:50
  not she would be the best vice presidential nominee for Joe Biden. Now,
• 6:55
  I don't even understand why this is a topic, because the problem with biden
• 7:00
  reelection campaign is not Kamala Harris. She doesn't help, but you know,
• 7:05
  she's not the issue. The issue is is Joe Biden even healthy enough to
• 7:12
  still be president? Now? Forget about five years from now. And when
• 7:16
  I went on News Nation, I said something that I don't think I've ever
• 7:19
  heard anyone else say on national television, which is, people, there is
• 7:25
  no one who believes that sixty four months from now. Think about that,
• 7:30
  folks, sixty four months from now, Joe Biden is going to be mentally
• 7:35
  healthy enough to be President of the United States. There is no one who
• 7:40
  believes that that is remotely possible. There's a new poll out this came out
• 7:45
  after I made the News Nation appearance, where seventy two percent of Americans.
• 7:50
  You can't get seventy two percent Americans to agree on anything political these days,
• 7:55
  seventy two percent of Americans believe that Joe Biden is not healthy enough to be
• 8:01
  president of the United States today. Five years from now, sixty four months
• 8:07
  from now, How the hell is Joe Biden going to possibly be able to
• 8:13
  do the work of this job, especially given the stresses of the job.
• 8:18
  I mean, it'll be literally almost if assuming nothing horrible happens a weekend at
• 8:24
  Bernie's movie remake, it'll be a sequel. I mean, it's already becoming
• 8:30
  ridiculous, so ridiculous that even seventy two percent of the American people, when
• 8:33
  the media is not even talking really about this issue, not in the mainstream
• 8:37
  media, already believed that Biden is not physically healthy enough to be president.
• 8:43
  And so what facilitated this News Nation appearance was that Nancy Pelosi was asked by
• 8:48
  Anderson Cooper on CNN about whether or not Kamala Harris was the right person to
• 8:54
  be Biden's VP pick again. And this I didn't even understand why this is
• 8:58
  a topic, because you don't ever dump your VP unless there's a scandal,
• 9:03
  because it makes you look disloyal, it makes you look weak, and especially
• 9:07
  in this case, you've got a person of color, who is a woman,
• 9:13
  who is historic as your VP. So there's the risks of dumping this
• 9:18
  person, no matter how unpopular they meet. Maybe is far far worse,
• 9:24
  far far worse than just going ahead and not acknowledging any mistakes. And you
• 9:31
  know, hey, we did a great job the first term re elect us
• 9:33
  for a second term. So I was confused by why this is even a
• 9:37
  subject of conversation between Cooper and Pelosi. But Pelosi's response was astonishing. She
• 9:45
  basically doesn't even endorse Harris as Biden's VP pick. Now, she says nice
• 9:50
  things about her, but two or three times Cooper tried to get her to
• 9:56
  answer a very simple question, is she the best person to be the vice
• 9:58
  president vential nominee? And she does not provide an affirmative answer. She basically
• 10:05
  says, well, he thinks so, so that's all that matters. Now.
• 10:09
  Was she having a senior moment? Was she just being coy for some
• 10:13
  reason? Is there a personal issue between her and Harris? I mean,
• 10:18
  because again, she was complimentary in some ways. But I interpreted this a
• 10:22
  little bit, a little bit differently than Dan Abrams did. We got into
• 10:26
  it on the television segment where you know, Dan thinks that this is a
• 10:31
  situation where Democrats are terrified of attacking or even criticizing mildly Kamala Harris because you
• 10:39
  know, of the things I've already referenced that she is a woman of color
• 10:43
  and so therefore she's protected. And I agree with that. I said that
• 10:46
  on the show. But getting back to the main issue here, I think
• 10:50
  Pelosi was for seeing a potential Gavin Newsome Kamala Harris primary fight on which she
• 10:58
  will absolutely be on Gavin Newsom's team if that happens. I mean they are
• 11:03
  very close. The families are close, so I mean they're basically related.
• 11:09
  And so the reality is that Pelosi, to me, what I interpreted was
• 11:15
  her not wanting to tie herself down to say anything that would make it look
• 11:20
  like Harris should be the replacement for Biden should he decide not to run or
• 11:26
  heaven forbid, be forced to resign from office. Now that's a totally different
• 11:28
  story, because then Harris's president possession is ninety percent of the law. You
• 11:33
  can't take out a historic woman of color who's going to be the first female
• 11:37
  president. That's just not plausible. So this is all under the scenario that
• 11:41
  Biden decided not to run for reelection and Newsome takes the bait and decides to
• 11:48
  run. Harris would obviously run unless she was somehow paid off. And I
• 11:52
  don't even know how you would do that, but you would have a Newsome
• 11:56
  Harris potential fight. And it seemed to me as if Pelosi was keeping her
• 12:01
  powder dry. She didn't want to make any statements that made it make it
• 12:03
  seem as if Harris is the heir apparent, that she's definitely the next in
• 12:09
  line, because she would want to be on team Newsom. I could be
• 12:13
  wrong about that, I could be misinterpreting overthinking it. Dan seemed to see
• 12:18
  where I was coming from, but wasn't one hundred percent in agreement. Most
• 12:22
  of the rest of the segment was about this issue of Harris being protected because
• 12:28
  of the rules that liberals have created, where if you are a woman and
• 12:33
  you're a woman of color and you have the right political beliefs, you are
• 12:37
  protected. You are not. You're basically, as I referenced, a made
• 12:41
  woman in the liberal mafia, You're not allowed to go after that person.
• 12:46
  And that might be all that's happening. That it could be very very simple
• 12:48
  as that, and that maybe Biden is gonna be stubborn and he's gonna run
• 12:52
  for reelection and they're just gonna go as long as they can ride this horse.
• 12:58
  And if they can get the horse meaning Biden through the mid term elections
• 13:03
  at twenty to twenty six, and then he can resign from office and make
• 13:07
  Kamala Harris president and she can run for two more terms after that. That
• 13:11
  is the ideal scenario for the Democratic Party. But there's got to be questions
• 13:18
  as to whether or not the horse meaning Biden, can even make it that
• 13:22
  far. And I'm not talking about dying. I'm talking about being able to
• 13:26
  function as a president of the United States. This is an incredibly stressful job.
• 13:31
  Biden has deteriorated considerably just since the twenty twenty election campaign, and if
• 13:39
  you know anyone in their eighties, it doesn't get any better. There's no
• 13:43
  coming back from this, especially given the stresses of his job. And it's
• 13:48
  not like he has a physical ailment. In all likelihood, there's no apparent
• 13:52
  physical ailment that he can recover from and make an improvement in his cognitive performance
• 13:58
  or ability. It's a downhill slide from here. Everybody knows this, and
• 14:03
  that's why it's such a dangerous issue for Democrats because the media can't really hide
• 14:11
  it. They can try their best, they can try to ignore it,
• 14:16
  pretend it's not there, but every single voter has had experience with someone in
• 14:24
  their eighties who has gone through this, and so this is a very very
• 14:30
  dangerous issue for Democrats. They cannot control this, and we are really at
• 14:35
  the precipice right now. And the timing is crucial here. I mean,
• 14:39
  we're running out of time. If someone else is going to run for the
• 14:43
  Democratic nomination, they've got to decide to do this pronto, pronto, because
• 14:50
  you've got to get on ballots, and you gotta get slates of delegates,
• 14:52
  and you've got RK junior'or out there with a headstart, and so I'm still
• 14:58
  very ry skeptical that this can happen or that it will happen. But I
• 15:03
  see signs that top Democrats like Pelosi and Gavin Newsom or at least making plans
• 15:11
  contingency plans for what if Biden can't do this? And it's gonna be very
• 15:18
  interesting because you know, if I was the Democratic point, God forbid,
• 15:24
  if I was advising the Democratic Party, I don't even know what I would
• 15:28
  tell them, because it's hard to tell how much gas is left in Biden's
• 15:33
  tank, right, I mean, that's the first question you have to ask
• 15:35
  and answer. Can he get through at least the twenty twenty four election campaign?
• 15:43
  And by the way, there's not going to be debates, so okay,
• 15:45
  we can protect them from debates because Trump failed on Republican debates and Trump
• 15:48
  is toxic and the media will, against their self interest, support Biden's campaign
• 15:54
  when they dodge the debates. So okay, in theory, you might be
• 15:58
  able to get through the twenty twenty four elections. But the idea that we're
• 16:00
  not talking about what about twenty twenty eight? I mean, and if that's
• 16:04
  if I'm the Trump campaign, you know, or you know, I'm still
• 16:11
  hoping against hope that somehow it's not going to be Trump. But logically it's
• 16:14
  going to be Trump if I'm the Trump campaign, you know, to me,
• 16:19
  that's all I'm talking about, even though I'm in my late seventies and
• 16:22
  it's interesting, We're gonna get too Momentarily. One of the things that Trump
• 16:26
  really stepped in it in his two major media interviews in the last week is
• 16:30
  that, because he was afraid of condemning his own campaign, he said that
• 16:34
  Biden effectively wasn't too old to be president, that someone in their eighties is
• 16:38
  not necessarily too old to be president, because I think he sensed a trap
• 16:44
  in an interview with Megan Kelly where you know, she asked that question,
• 16:48
  and I think he did the math at his head and said, we'll wait
• 16:49
  a minute. If if I win, I'm going to be in my eighties
• 16:52
  before my term is out, so I can't say, yes, that's too
• 16:56
  old to be president. Interestingly, Mitt rob he has announced that he's not
• 17:02
  going to run for reelection, which I think is sad because I think met
• 17:06
  Romney, while I disagree with him on an awful lot, is a very
• 17:08
  good person, and I do give Romney credit for this. He tried to
• 17:14
  make the age issue at the forefront of why he's retiring now. It's probably
• 17:18
  because he would have had a tough time winning a Republican primary in Utah as
• 17:23
  an anti Trump Republican who's not very conservative. He might have won, but
• 17:27
  it would have probably been a bloodbath. But he made it very clear that
• 17:32
  he thinks that he's too old, which was pretty ironic, borderline hilarious,
• 17:37
  and very telling because he's in way better health than our current president and I
• 17:41
  think he's in way better health than Donald Trump and looks a lot more vigorous
• 17:47
  than Trump and certainly Biden. And yet he once again making a sacrifice,
• 17:52
  or at least a seeming sacrifice for the country, is using this moment of
• 17:56
  his retirement to say, look, I'm too old. We need the past
• 18:00
  up a time. And it's a not so subtle message at both an attack
• 18:07
  basically on both Biden and Trump on the age issue. So, uh,
• 18:14
  you know, to me, this thing is being very underrated as a as
• 18:19
  an issue because the media is afraid of it, and you know, part
• 18:22
  of it's being morbid. They don't like to talk about someone's potential death or
• 18:26
  demise. But also because obviously there's a liberal bias involved. If Trump was
• 18:33
  was as clearly in a diminished state as Biden when he was president, the
• 18:38
  media would have gone nuts. In fact, there was one moment I remember
• 18:42
  when Trump, because I guess the ramp was wet and slippery, took you
• 18:48
  know, shuffling baby steps down a ramp that made him look you know,
• 18:53
  rather old and somewhat infirmed. It was out of context, and the media
• 18:59
  went but annas with that, and they don't do anything close to that when
• 19:03
  it comes to Biden. So this issue, I think it's very dangerous for
• 19:08
  Democrats. I don't have a good scenario for them on this because if you
• 19:14
  get rid of Biden, it opens up a can of worms, because what
• 19:18
  do you do with Kamala Harris? What do you do? How do you
• 19:22
  solve a problem like Maria to quote the sound of music, Because Kamala Harris
• 19:27
  is as unpopular as Joe Biden, maybe more so. She's incredibly annoying.
• 19:33
  I think Republicans are underestimating her because while she is incredibly annoying and she's you
• 19:40
  know, basically a she talks like a third grade teacher. We have to
• 19:44
  realize that most voters, especially most swing voters, are essentially at a third
• 19:48
  grade level, so she speaks at their level. She's she's at eye level
• 19:55
  with a lot of voters in the in the way that she communicates, and
• 20:00
  while it annoys the hell out of people who aren't at a third grade level,
• 20:03
  it can still be effective. And you know, she's won multiple elections
• 20:07
  in California, which is not difficult as a Democrat. But I think she's
• 20:11
  being underestimated, especially if she ever becomes president, because then she's historic,
• 20:18
  the first female president, and she's a woman of color, and you know,
• 20:22
  she's young and vigorous, and yes, she's annoying as hell, but
• 20:26
  the media will prop her up in dramatic ways. And so you know,
• 20:33
  if I'm the Democratic Party, I still try to go with Biden as long
• 20:36
  as I can. But if I don't think he's got enough in the tank
• 20:40
  to at least get us through twenty twenty six, which a can. This
• 20:45
  shouldn't even be a conversation. The fact that we're even having this conversation is
• 20:48
  absolutely nuts and insane because this is not something that she really should be even
• 20:55
  a question. That's the number one qualification for the job. Are you a
• 20:59
  physical basically healthy enough to do it mentally and physically. And it's very obvious
• 21:06
  that Joe Biden may not be right now and isn't going to be in a
• 21:11
  few years, and that most of the American people understand this, and this
• 21:15
  of course is giving hope to a Trump campaign that should be doa I mean,
• 21:21
  this is classic Donald Trump luck, where he should be in an incredibly
• 21:27
  vulnerable position, facing four indictments and being personally very unpopular. He should have
• 21:33
  no chance in a general election against an incumbent Democratic president. No chance.
• 21:40
  But the polls continue to show basically a dead heat, at least when it
• 21:45
  comes to national popular vote, which I can't stand that this is how we're
• 21:48
  still doing these things. We shouldn't give a damn about national popular vote.
• 21:53
  That's not how we elect the president of the United States, especially in this
• 21:56
  day and age. There's only five or six states that matter. What the
• 22:00
  head to head matchup is in those states, that's the only thing that's relevant.
• 22:03
  But perception wise, Trump and Biden are basically in a dead heat right
• 22:08
  now, and I can guarant damn t a Trump voters think he's a lock
• 22:14
  to beat Biden because they can't conceive of how anybody would vote for somebody who's
• 22:19
  not physically mentally capable of doing the job. They just can't imagine how that's
• 22:26
  even possible, especially with all the problems in the country. And they might
• 22:30
  be right. I am coming around to the idea that Biden might be so
• 22:36
  weak, he might be so feckless, and you know, the country may
• 22:41
  be in such a state that even Donald Trump can beat Joe Biden. I
• 22:45
  wouldn't bet a lot of money on it right now, but I wouldn't bet
• 22:48
  money against it. And if the economy goes south from where it currently is
• 22:53
  even just a little bit, I think you got to believe that Donald Trump
• 22:56
  is, believe it or not, the favorite to be the next president of
• 23:00
  the United States. And that plays, of course, right into Trump's hands,
• 23:06
  because his electability should, at least in theory, be a major vulnerability
• 23:11
  when it comes to his battle for the Republican nomination. And of course he
• 23:18
  has decided to not do the debates, just as I predicted. He missed
• 23:22
  the first debate with absolutely zero accountability. In fact, his pull numbers have
• 23:27
  only gone up since then, it appears as if he's going to miss the
• 23:32
  second debate, which is next week here in southern California at the Reagan Library,
• 23:36
  just as I predicted. So instead of doing the debates, Trump is
• 23:41
  doing one on one interviews, and he did two major one on one interviews
• 23:47
  in the last few days. The first was with Megan Kelly, former Fox
• 23:52
  News star, former very short lived NBC Today Show host. I guess they
• 23:57
  called it, I guess her own show before they made it like the fifth
• 24:02
  hour of the Today Show, whatever it was called. She had a show
• 24:04
  on NBC that got canceled fairly quickly because it was just a horrible fit.
• 24:11
  And now she's basically doing her own independent media thing. And Megan Kelly is
• 24:15
  someone about whom I have always been very conflicted. I think she is very
• 24:21
  smart, I think she's entertaining, she's obviously beautiful, but on certain things
• 24:26
  she gets she's gotten very, very wrong. In my own personal situation.
• 24:34
  She led the charge against Matt Lower, former NBC Today's Show host and very
• 24:40
  good friend of mine, claiming that he's a sexual predator, that everyone knew
• 24:45
  this and very much facilitated the entire bogus narrative about him and the rape allegation
• 24:52
  against him. And she was one of those that said that NBC ought to
• 24:57
  release all the non discus closure agreements, or to release everyone who had signed
• 25:02
  a non disclosure agreements so they can talk publicly specifically about Matt Lower. They
• 25:07
  did that, and guess what happened, crickets. Nobody had anything to say
• 25:14
  because there were no non disclosure agreements written between NBC and accusers of Matt Lower.
• 25:19
  That didn't happen, that didn't exist. No one has ever even sued
• 25:23
  Matt Lower, even though they changed a fucking law and in New York,
• 25:27
  but you know, the basically full employment Act for plainiffs lawyers. They said
• 25:33
  for a year, you can go back as far as you want and sue
• 25:37
  anybody you want for sexual assault or abuse. And nobody sued Matt Lower.
• 25:41
  She's totally wrong about Matt Lower, and I've tried to tell her that,
• 25:45
  but she's not interested. She's also, you know, even though she had
• 25:51
  Malcolm Gladwell on to talk about the Penn State case, she's never been interested
• 25:56
  in going further than that, even though Gladwell did the hell of a job
• 26:00
  of educating her that the Penn State cover up in the Jerry Sandusky scandal is
• 26:04
  bogus. So I've never I've been frustrated with her on that story, especially
• 26:10
  since she's been supportive of Michael Jackson against his sex abuse allegations, even though
• 26:17
  Michael Jackson is now dead. Now, the reason why Megan Kelly has been
• 26:19
  supportive of Michael Jackson is that her lawyer, Brian Freedman, a guy who
• 26:23
  I've had lunch with, happens to be the main lawyer for the estate of
• 26:27
  Michael Jackson. So I don't think that's a coincidence. Also not a coincidence
• 26:32
  of Brian Freeman is Tucker Carlson's attorney, and that Megan Kelly has been very
• 26:37
  supportive of Tucker Carlson. So this is the way the world tends to work.
• 26:41
  And as far as Megan Kelly and Trump, you know, if I
• 26:45
  had to make a list of the top five media figures on the conservative side
• 26:52
  who have facilitated what appears to be Donald Trump's certain nomination as the twenty twenty
• 26:59
  four Republican mane, the list would go like this. I would say pre
• 27:04
  firing Tucker Carlson would be number one on that list. I'd say Elon Musk
• 27:11
  is number two on that list. I'd say post Fox News firing, Tucker
• 27:15
  Carlson is number three, followed by Glenn Beck number four, and I would
• 27:21
  put Megan Kelly as number five because she has been very much accepting of the
• 27:30
  essence of the narratives that it will help Donald Trump be the nominee. So
• 27:36
  you don't have to come out and endorse Donald Trump. You don't have to
• 27:40
  do that. You just have to make sure that the parameters of the discussion
• 27:45
  and the accepted narratives are conducive to that happening. And it's very easy to
• 27:52
  do. These people are very good at this. So you just ignore information
• 27:56
  that's not convenient, and then you lately embraced the main narrative being which Glenn
• 28:02
  Beck has driven me crazy with, which is this whole idea that Tucker Carlson
• 28:07
  started, that these indictments are inherently not just flawed, but they're political in
• 28:14
  nature. They're totally political in nature, their attacks from the establishment, their
• 28:18
  election interference, and that we cannot accept this and that the only proper response
• 28:25
  is to nominate Donald Trump to be president the United States, because that'll show
• 28:29
  the bastards, that they can't get away with doing this kind of stuff and
• 28:32
  making us into a banana republic, and that you know, we can't lose
• 28:37
  the country, we can't lose our republic. And the only way we can
• 28:40
  save our republic is if Donald Trump is in fact the nominee, and that's
• 28:45
  the best way to fight against what they're doing to him. And that's just
• 28:48
  a completely bogus narrative, even if you believe that all the indictments are erroneous
• 28:53
  and not justified, which you know, some of them are not justified,
• 28:57
  but some of them are. And you know, I have no problem with
• 29:02
  some of the charges against Trump. I get that a lot of them are
• 29:06
  in fact politically motivated. And I totally believe that the media has completely overplayed
• 29:11
  their hand right into Trump's hands on the Republican side of things, because it
• 29:15
  looks like he's the biggest threat and he's being attacked, and therefore Republicans tend
• 29:21
  to gravitate towards whoever is being attacked most. But Megan Kelly has helped facilitate
• 29:26
  that narrative. It's very obvious as to why I think she correctly predicted sooner
• 29:32
  than anyone that even back when you know, this was still a close race,
• 29:37
  well before Desanta sever got into the race, that beating Trump was going
• 29:40
  to be very, very difficult because of who he is and that he would
• 29:42
  essentially have to die. I've mentioned this on the podcast before. I've given
• 29:47
  her kind of credit for that, because I think she was right, and
• 29:49
  she helped influence my thinking a little bit because I listened to her reasoning on
• 29:55
  that. I thought, you know what, Unfortunately, she's probably right that
• 29:59
  the cold is so large and so strong on the Trump side that it's going
• 30:03
  to be basically impossible to take this away from him. And she has been
• 30:08
  proven to be right, and that would give her a motivation for what she's
• 30:12
  done, where she has played very koy but essentially not done anything that would
• 30:19
  upset the apple cart when it comes to the Trump nomination. So I was
• 30:22
  mildly surprised when Trump agreed to do an interview with Megan Kelly. And you
• 30:30
  know, I'm someone who has been outspoken that the confrontational interview is dead,
• 30:36
  that the dynamics have changed, that newsmakers don't have any incentive to ever be
• 30:41
  confronted on anything because they have so many options, and they have their own
• 30:45
  social media platforms, and there's no reason to make themselves vulnerable to tough questioning.
• 30:51
  And I think that that's really problematic in so many ways, and it's
• 30:55
  not just in politics, in every realm of life. I mean, facing
• 30:59
  tough questions ought to be part of the entire process, and it almost never
• 31:03
  happens anymore. Part of it's because there are no good interviewers in the media
• 31:08
  anymore. I mean, heck, the best interviewer there was was Matt Lower
• 31:11
  and he got the decapitated in a completely bogus situation. And there aren't very
• 31:18
  many good interviewers. No one has the balls, no one has the platform
• 31:22
  that is big enough to demand that newsmakers go on there and gives them the
• 31:27
  leverage to be able to do what they want to do. And so it's
• 31:30
  very, very difficult to get major celebrities to answer legitimate questions. And I
• 31:37
  am somebody who believes in aggressive questioning. That doesn't mean that I don't see
• 31:44
  the value potentially in being a little bit softer, and that that may be
• 31:51
  the way to actually cause more havoc. Then if you go at someone full
• 31:57
  force head to head, you know, manoamano, and it's clearly confrontational that
• 32:04
  sometimes you know, I guess what the cliche would be and get more bees
• 32:07
  with honey, h kind of deal where if you're if you're softer about it,
• 32:13
  especially if you're a beautiful woman like Megan Kelly, which is basically Donald
• 32:16
  Trump's kryptonite. Sitting there a couple of feet away from a beautiful woman,
• 32:22
  his guard's gonna be down. He's not gonna be himself, He's gonna be
• 32:27
  maybe more vulnerable, lulled into saying some things that would actually be more damaging
• 32:31
  than if you went after him really, really hard. And so while I
• 32:36
  have a problem with some of the softness from Megan Kelly, I mean at
• 32:40
  times, I mean she wasn't giving him a Lewinsky like Tucker Carlson or Glenn
• 32:46
  Beckha recently, but you know, she was giving him a few tugs from
• 32:51
  time to time that I'm sure felt good for Trump. But by and large,
• 32:55
  you know, she wanted to portray this as a tough interview, and
• 33:00
  there were elements of the interview that were tough, and she did not as
• 33:06
  as vigorously as I would like, But to her credit, she did at
• 33:08
  least confront Donald Trump on his COVID response, and specifically about the issue of
• 33:17
  doctor Fauci. And we've talked a lot about this on this podcast, and
• 33:21
  maybe the biggest surprise to me in this primary process so far has been that
• 33:25
  the attacks on Faucci have not hurt Trump at all. In fact, I
• 33:30
  think they may have helped Trump because it gives Trump an out. It gives
• 33:37
  Trump an excuse that when Desanti's and Desanta supporters attacked Fauci, it actually,
• 33:45
  bizarrely and in an upside down fashion, basically allows them to say, oh,
• 33:51
  so this wasn't really Trump's fault that this happened. That was Fauci's fault.
• 33:54
  And you know, Trump may have dropped the ball there, but he's
• 33:58
  learned and he's not going to do it again. And Fauci's retired, so
• 34:00
  this is a non issue. And in a strange way, it actually gets
• 34:05
  Trump off the hook for the absolutely insane COVID response. But Megan Kelly did
• 34:14
  in fact confront Trump in a fairly I think unique in effective way. I
• 34:20
  shouldn't say unique because it's basically out of my playbook, but okay for mainstream
• 34:23
  media or big media This is a unique fashion to confront Trump on the Fauci
• 34:30
  issue because Megan Kelly made what I think is the number one point about Trump
• 34:37
  and Fauci that I have not heard anybody else among the major media stars do,
• 34:43
  which is ironically enough, that Trump made Fauci a media star. That
• 34:50
  was the source of Fauci's power. It wasn't because of whatever the title that
• 34:57
  he held was within the White House, Head of the Task for or whatever.
• 35:00
  That didn't matter. What mattered was that when you make him a massive
• 35:06
  celebrity, especially one that the media was loving what he was selling, that
• 35:13
  gave him power. Because once he has one hundred percent name ID and a
• 35:19
  huge approval rating, and he's America's doctor, and you know, these these
• 35:23
  press conferences are being seen by tens and tens and tens of millions of people
• 35:29
  with nothing else to do because we've locked the country down, and he's seen
• 35:32
  as some sort of hero. Every single media outlet then essentially determines that everything
• 35:39
  he says is gospel, and every interview he does, I mean, everyone
• 35:44
  wants to interview him. It gives him power, real power. That was
• 35:49
  what was really happening. So much of what was being dictated wasn't by law,
• 35:54
  it was it was by edicts and what the media was telling people,
• 36:00
  and it filters down to the local level where well Fauci said it, So
• 36:06
  this is what we're gonna do. So all the hundreds and thousands of people
• 36:10
  that were making these decisions in every element of life, we're doing so because
• 36:16
  they trusted Faucci. Well why did they trust Fauci because he was a massive
• 36:20
  celebrity. Well why was the massive celebrity because Trump made him a massive celebrity,
• 36:27
  which it was maybe the most shocking mistake that Trump made, because this
• 36:31
  is his area of expertise. This is who he is. He understands celebrity
• 36:37
  better than anybody. He understands the power of it. It's he's leveraged it
• 36:40
  throughout his entire adult life to extraordinary gains, both financially and obviously politically.
• 36:49
  And so I don't understand why he did this. And interestingly, when you
• 36:52
  hear this clip where Megan Kelly confronts him on this particular issue, Trump himself
• 36:59
  seems can confused. I mean, I would love to know whether he really
• 37:06
  is flu mixed by this or whether he's just playing along and doesn't want to
• 37:10
  acknowledge a mistake. I honestly don't have the answer for that. But here
• 37:15
  is Megan Kelly confronting Donald Trump about making Fauci a star and then giving him
• 37:22
  an award on his last day and office, which Trump tries to lamely claim
• 37:27
  he has no idea how that actually happened. For years, you've been saying
• 37:30
  that the reason you didn't fire Anthony Fauci was because he'd been there for a
• 37:35
  long time, that you would have taken heat, that it would have created
• 37:37
  a firestorm. Quoting at your words. Then, for the first time in
• 37:40
  May, I also said I didn't listen to him too much. I'm getting
• 37:44
  there. But then in May you started saying, well, he's a civil
• 37:45
  servant, so I couldn't. Technically. The truth is, though not only
• 37:50
  did you not fire Fauci, who was loathed by many many millions of Republicans
• 37:54
  in particular, but also some Democrats, by the way, you made him
• 37:57
  a star. You made him a star. This is the criticism of that.
• 38:00
  You made him the face of the White House coronavirus. You think so
• 38:04
  that he was at a every presser, that he was running herd for the
• 38:07
  administration on COVID, and that you actually gave him a presidential commendation before he
• 38:12
  left office. Wouldn't you like a do over on that. I don't know
• 38:15
  who gave him the commendation. I really don't know who gave him the commodation.
• 38:21
  Somebody probably candid him accommodation. He probably, But let me just tell
• 38:23
  you about Faucci. Faucci was very important in the Biden administration, much less
• 38:29
  important. If you know, he didn't want us up China. He wanted
• 38:32
  to let everyone come in from China. I stopped it. I overwrote it.
• 38:36
  I overrote many of the things he did. He was much less important
• 38:39
  to me now with that all being said, he's been there for years.
• 38:43
  He was respected. He lost a lot of the respect because of COVID,
• 38:46
  but he was respected. Now. This is an example I think of where
• 38:52
  being aggressive but being soft about it was pretty effective by Megan Kelly. If
• 38:58
  we lived in a world reality mattered, where facts and logic matter, where
• 39:04
  the conservative media was going to tell every Republican voter what happened in this interview,
• 39:08
  because you know, Trump comes off as pretty pathetic. There has no
• 39:14
  idea made Fauci a star and he's claiming absurdly that he didn't know who gave
• 39:21
  Faucci this award, makes it sound as if someone else gave it to him,
• 39:24
  he had nothing to do with it. And then he lies, by
• 39:29
  the way, about Faucci not having a lot of power in his administration,
• 39:32
  that it was only in the Biden administration. Bullshit, that's total bullshit.
• 39:39
  Doctor Fauci's real power came in March and April of twenty twenty when we were
• 39:45
  setting the tone for all of this, and he became the spokesperson, He
• 39:51
  became the go to guy, he became the media star, he became the
• 39:54
  hero. And it was Fauci's flipping on masks. It facilitated mask mandate throughout
• 40:01
  most of the country. That was Fauci. Faucci was against masks, then
• 40:07
  he realized his liberal base wanted them, and he completely did one hundred and
• 40:10
  eighty degree flip on that. That was during the Trump administration. And by
• 40:15
  the way, Trump's own surgeon general didn't help at all because he flipped on
• 40:19
  masks too, And so this is one hundred percent on Trump. And these
• 40:24
  excuses are lame. And unless you're a Trump cult member or at least you
• 40:30
  have amnesia. Unless you have amnesia, you're gonna understand this because you live
• 40:35
  through it. And so it should have a negative impact on Trump. I
• 40:38
  don't think it's going to, but it should in a rational world. Now,
• 40:44
  when it comes to the issue of the vaccines, some people are even
• 40:46
  more upset on the Republican side, or the conservative side, or the COVID
• 40:52
  contrarian side with what he said there, because effectively, Trump claimed that he
• 40:59
  knows his vac scenes are great, his vaccines because you know, operation of
• 41:02
  warp speed. He knows the vaccines are awesome because get this, smart Democrats
• 41:08
  told himself. Smart democrats are saying, why aren't you taking credit for all
• 41:14
  this? You saved a hundred million people in the world, which is again
• 41:20
  completely insane lunacy. There's there's absolutely no justification for that number at all.
• 41:27
  I mean, I'm not even sure that we're into the you know, hundreds
• 41:31
  of thousands of people that were saved by the vaccine. Of course, this
• 41:36
  all depends on your definition of saved. I mean, I hate to break
• 41:38
  this to you, but none of us are ever going to be saved.
• 41:40
  We're all gonna die. So you know what does it mean to be saved.
• 41:45
  I mean, if you live another year when you're when you're in your
• 41:47
  eighties because you got a vaccine and you survived a bad bout with COVID,
• 41:53
  where you saved. I don't know any but the point is there's absolutely no
• 42:00
  no data based or logic based justification for that claim. It's just totally bogus.
• 42:07
  It's statistically insane. And I think maybe the most telling part of that
• 42:12
  is that that Trump is saying, Hey, listen to the Democrats on the
• 42:16
  vaccines. Democrats, the people who tried to use the vaccine to destroy lives,
• 42:22
  to destroy children's lives, to take people's jobs away, prevent people from
• 42:30
  playing in major athletic events like Novak Djokovic. They were playing for keeps here.
• 42:36
  They lied about what the vaccines did, said they stopped transmission, they
• 42:40
  did not, overstated how effective they were, understated their potential harm. And
• 42:47
  Megan Kelly, who believes that she was harmed by the vaccine, kind of
• 42:52
  soft pedaled Trump on that particular issue. But that was really astonishing and in
• 42:58
  a rational world, would have a very negative impact on Trump's base, because
• 43:04
  Trump's base is very anti vaccine mandate. Now, he does, I think
• 43:08
  rightfully say that he was never technically in favor of vaccine mandates, but we
• 43:14
  don't really know that because the vaccine didn't exist yet when Trump was president.
• 43:22
  My gut tells me if Trump had been president, he would have done some
• 43:25
  of the same things with regard to mandates, because it was his vaccine in
• 43:31
  his mind. And so Trump gets to have the best of both worlds here.
• 43:36
  He gets to take exaggerated, grossly exaggerated credit for the vaccines without any
• 43:42
  of the negative because he wasn't around to enforce the tyranny that the Biden administration
• 43:50
  did for several months more than that, probably a year before they finally had
• 43:53
  to wave the white flag and acknowledge that they were wrong about the vaccines.
• 43:59
  And so again, if we were living in a rational world, this would
• 44:02
  significantly matter. If Donald Trump was doing a debate next week at the Reagan
• 44:07
  Library. These are topics that would be huge, that would be incredible fodder
• 44:15
  for someone like Ronda Santis to take a flame thrower a blowtorch to Donald Trump,
• 44:22
  and that might actually move Republican public opinion. But I don't think enough
• 44:28
  people are even going to be fully aware of this people online are, but
• 44:31
  the average Republican voter I don't think is going to be. And I'll get
• 44:36
  to why in just a little bit. But I want to play one other
• 44:39
  clip from Megan Kelly, and this is the teaser that Megan Kelly put out
• 44:45
  there to promote the interview. And I'm playing this for a couple of different
• 44:50
  reasons. One just to kind of give you an overall sense of how the
• 44:53
  interview went. Some of this is a little bit out of context, but
• 44:59
  it intended I think it probably it probably was effective in this way. It
• 45:06
  was intended by Megan Kelly to show that this was not a Tucker Carlson interview.
• 45:10
  This was not softballs. This was Megan Kelly. At least by the
• 45:15
  standards of twenty twenty three and Trump interviews by conservative media hosts, this was
• 45:22
  a much tougher interview than we're used to. But when you listen to this,
• 45:27
  I want you to listen especially to the exchange at the end, and
• 45:32
  it's the exchange about the first debate back in twenty sixteen, which was hosted
• 45:38
  by Megan Kelly, where Meghan Kelly asked the first question of Donald Trump,
• 45:45
  and it was about his treatment and alleged abuse of women. Now this is
• 45:51
  where Megan. This is classic Meghan Kelly, because she's so frustrating to me.
• 45:55
  She's so right on some things and so wrong on others. I mean,
• 46:00
  the issue of sex abuse against women is a massive part of her identity.
• 46:05
  I mean, she's a character in a movie about Fox News Channel and
• 46:08
  Roger Ales and sex abuse. And I already told you about the whole Matt
• 46:15
  Lower thing. And here she is someone who ignores for all intensive purposes,
• 46:21
  the very same guy who she went after back in twenty sixteen, who since
• 46:24
  then has been found libel in a civil case where a woman accused Ejen Carol
• 46:32
  accused Donald Trump of rape and defamation. Yet she never mentions that she doesn't
• 46:37
  seem to care about that or any of the other sex abuse allegations of the
• 46:42
  treatment of women of Donald Trump. I mean, yet she cared about it
• 46:45
  in twenty sixteen. But that's not really the reason why I want you to
• 46:50
  listen to that clip. I want you to listen carefully to how Trump and
• 46:54
  Megan Kelly view that question. That resulted in a classic and I think very
• 47:02
  significant response from Trump where he says, essentially, I only treat Rosie O'Donnell
• 47:08
  that way, and the crowd roared. And there are people to this day,
• 47:13
  and I maybe one of them who think that that's when the nomination in
• 47:15
  twenty sixteen was sewn up because there had been so much anticipation to what Trump
• 47:21
  was going to bring to the table in that first debate watched by a massive
• 47:24
  audience in twenty sixteen, that that set the tone for the entire campaign.
• 47:30
  But I want to make some comments about that. So here is the teaser
• 47:34
  that Megan Kelly put out, and again pay special attention to the exchange towards
• 47:38
  the end where Trump and Kelly are going back and forth about what happened in
• 47:45
  that first debate in twenty sixteen. Seventy seven percent of Americans say that Joe
• 47:50
  Biden, at age eighty is too old to be president. Are they right?
• 47:53
  No? Not only did you not fire Fauci, you made him a
• 47:57
  star. Wouldn't you like a due over on that? You're big on the
• 48:00
  firey me. You allowed biological men to compete in the Miss Universe pageant at
• 48:06
  the time, which you owned a lot has changed since twenty sixteen, have
• 48:09
  you? No matter what you do there you're gonna take keep. Can a
• 48:13
  man become a woman? Why would you describe a newspaper article as highly confidential
• 48:19
  and still a secret, saying as president you shouldn't been classified it now you
• 48:22
  shan I did not. But let's get to my question. Even if you
• 48:25
  had the rights of the documents, once you get the subpoena, you gotta
• 48:30
  fork him over the sea said give us anything with a night marketing? Does
• 48:32
  it make you angry? Yeah? When I saw the mug shot, I
• 48:35
  said, he's angry. Yeah, that makes me angry. There is a
• 48:37
  realistic chance you could go to prison. You see that happening when you were
• 48:42
  moderated in the debate for Fox That. Frankly, if I didn't come up
• 48:45
  with the answer only Rosie O'Donnell, I would have had a problem with that.
• 48:47
  That was a bad question. That was a great question. It's a
• 48:51
  nasty You don't have to be running for president sitting for four criminal trials?
• 48:57
  Is it worth it? Would I like to be at Turnberry in Scotland right
• 49:00
  now? I may never see those places again. Now here's the part of
• 49:06
  the twenty sixteen Rosie O'Donnell situation that I am most interested in, and fascinated
• 49:14
  by, and frustrated by when it comes to Meghan Kelly. Again, I'm
• 49:17
  always frustrated by Megan Kelly because there's so many things I want to like,
• 49:22
  and then there are other things that drive me nuts. Meghan Kelly wrote in
• 49:27
  a book after the twenty sixteen election that she believed, or at least she
• 49:35
  strongly implied, a couple of things about those debates in twenty sixteen. One.
• 49:42
  She believed that she was essentially poisoned by someone in the Trump campaign.
• 49:49
  That she could not prove that, but that was clearly the implication that she
• 49:53
  had been given I think a cup of coffee and then all of a sudden
• 49:57
  she got sick, and and that she had suspicions that it was the Trump
• 50:02
  campaign that had facilitated her getting sick. Now, that could be complete bullshit,
• 50:08
  but doesn't matter. She wrote about it in a book. She believes
• 50:15
  that that's at least possible, and this it should be pointed out. You
• 50:19
  know what's really remarkable about the exchange that has played from that teaser clip is
• 50:24
  that this was the episode, the whole rosy O'donald thing that then facilitated Donald
• 50:29
  Trump going on another show and talking about blood coming out of wherever from Megan
• 50:36
  Kelly, like essentially saying that she was on her menstrual cycle and that's what
• 50:40
  caused her to ask that nasty question about how he treats women. And and
• 50:49
  you know that, in Regan Kelly's world, ought to be a mortal sin.
• 50:52
  And she doesn't even mention that it doesn't seem to have any impact on
• 50:55
  her at all in her view of Trump. But here's the part that I
• 51:00
  find most interesting about their exchange on the Rosy o'donald thing, and that is
• 51:07
  she also implies in the book that she thinks Trump may have had prior notice
• 51:13
  of her question and that that's why he was prepared with the whole Rosie O'Donnell
• 51:17
  answer. And this would make some sense because Roger Ales was running Fox News
• 51:24
  Channel at the time. Ales and Trump were close, and she again had
• 51:30
  suspicions, couldn't prove it, but she had a sense that Trump knew the
• 51:36
  question was coming. And it's obvious that that whole situation, if you listen
• 51:40
  to the clip carefully, it's obvious that that made a huge mark on Donald
• 51:46
  Trump's memory, a huge mark. He's very proud of that moment. And
• 51:52
  you know, he's never said or even implied that he had prior knowledge,
• 51:55
  but he doesn't have an incentive to do so. But the reason why I
• 51:59
  think there's a good chance that he did that prior knowledge is that I can't
• 52:04
  remember another time where Donald Trump has ever come up with a line like the
• 52:09
  Rosy O'Donnell circumstance under similar situations. Yes, he's good on his feet,
• 52:16
  but generally he does not have one liners. He is not someone who comes
• 52:22
  up with a one liner instantaneously that really knocks it out of the park.
• 52:27
  And when he got asked that question in twenty sixteen, he was clearly not
• 52:32
  flummixed. He was clearly prepared. And the Rosie o'donald thing was a grand
• 52:37
  Slam home run. As simple and as absurd as it is, it completely
• 52:43
  set the tone for the entire campaign. It showed he was different. It
• 52:47
  mitigated, if not destroyed, the entire attack along the lines of his treatment
• 52:52
  of women. Because you know, everyone in the Republican base hates Rosey O'Donnell
• 52:57
  and he's one of us. And this is these are just false attacks by
• 53:00
  liberals, and he's funny and he's not gonna take it. He's gonna fight
• 53:06
  back. Because the normal Republican response at that point, pre Trump would have
• 53:09
  been, oh, I love women, I apologize if I've ever offended anyone,
• 53:15
  it would have been weak. He came in strong. He was the
• 53:20
  alpha. He said, that's bullcrap, it's just Rosie O'Donnell. And I
• 53:24
  would have loved for Megan Kelly to say, did you get prior knowledge of
• 53:30
  that question? Why didn't she do that? I mean, it would have
• 53:34
  been perfectly relevant, and she didn't do it. Now is it possible because
• 53:37
  she doesn't really believe it and she thinks it'll be embarrassing to her. I
• 53:42
  don't know, but she didn't even ask the question. And there are other
• 53:45
  things that she didn't bring up, like she didn't really press them on why
• 53:49
  the hell he's not doing the debates, And frankly, you know, if
• 53:52
  we were, if this whole was, if this was a serious country,
• 53:55
  which were not, if our media was remotely incredible, which is not,
• 54:00
  and if the conservative media really gave a crap about having this process be fair
• 54:07
  and just and coming up with the best candidate, which is not Donald Trump,
• 54:12
  would essentially be boycotted. As long as he's not doing the debates,
• 54:17
  it would be like a strike. I mean in the rational world, especially
• 54:23
  conservative media outlets that don't think that he's right to dodge the debates, should
• 54:28
  not be interviewing Donald Trump. All right, you don't want to do the
• 54:30
  debates, Fine, we're not going to interview you. But of course Trump
• 54:34
  has so much cachet and so much leverage that no one would ever dream of
• 54:37
  doing that because of Donald Trump. Interview gets you lots of attention, gets
• 54:43
  you a lot of ratings, a lot of interaction, raises your profile,
• 54:47
  the whole bit. So everyone's incentive fies to do that. But she did
• 54:52
  not confront him hard on why he's not doing the debates, which I think
• 54:55
  she should have, and on the COVID issue. She did not confront hard
• 55:00
  on what he did to Brian Kemp, the governor of Georgia, who he
• 55:04
  attacked when Kemp decided to open up earlier than Trump wanted him to, attacked
• 55:09
  him multiple times. And to me, that's the smoking gun that Trump is
• 55:15
  trying to rewrite history now that somehow the Santis was bad on COVID and he
• 55:21
  was great. No, Brian Kemp proved to us that that's not the case.
• 55:25
  It's not true, and so you know, I'll give Megan Kelly a
• 55:30
  passing grade, better than most, but the standards are very low. I'm
• 55:35
  grading on a curve because there is no such things as a good interview anymore,
• 55:40
  especially when it comes to Donald Trump and the conservative media because they're also
• 55:44
  afraid of being seen as too tough on him. But better than certainly Tucker
• 55:50
  Carlson or Glenn Beck or anybody else that I've seen in recent history from the
• 55:54
  conservative media on when it comes to an interview with Donald Trump. As far
• 56:00
  as Rohn de Santas's response to it, I mean that the Santas team was
• 56:07
  clearly outraged by a lot of what Trump said to Megan Kelly. Now,
• 56:12
  to me, this is too little, too late. They should have been
• 56:15
  all over Trump on this when he praised Andrew Cuomo for his COVID response in
• 56:21
  comparison to Rhn de Santas's, that should have been the moment when you know,
• 56:24
  they came in hard and they went after Trump with everything. They had,
• 56:30
  all guns blazing. But now I think it's too late, because now
• 56:34
  you're down fifty points or whatever it is, and you're fading in the polls
• 56:37
  and every attack looks desperate, and people are already presuming that Donald Trump is
• 56:42
  going to be the nominee. But I want to at least play a couple
• 56:45
  of clips here from RHN de Santas and his response to the Donald Trump Megan
• 56:51
  Kelly interview. The first clip, and this is in an interview with Steve
• 56:54
  Deece or days, I guess Steve Daves from The Blaze. I want to
• 56:59
  talk about Daves in a minute, because his response to the Megan Kelly interview
• 57:04
  was quite interesting and I think very very telling about where we are in the
• 57:09
  conservative media. But this first to two clips from De santis I think it
• 57:16
  is important for because it takes on this issue of okay, Trump stepped in
• 57:22
  it. He stepped in it in this Megan Kelly interview. Is the conservative
• 57:28
  media going to tell people about this? Is this going to become the narrative
• 57:34
  now? And De Santist does so. And I want to give a special
• 57:37
  shout out because he appears to make a Franko. Harris reference here. I'm
• 57:40
  not sure if he was referring to the Immaculate conception or the immaculate reception,
• 57:49
  but I prefer to think of it as a Frank o' harris references as a
• 57:53
  friend to the now deceased Pittsburgh Steeler legend who caught the immaculate reception. But
• 57:59
  he references that when it comes to this idea that Trump gave this award to
• 58:05
  Fauci while leaving office and it just happened magically or immaculately, and nobody actually
• 58:10
  did it. So that's how it starts. But it ends with the Santis
• 58:15
  making the case that the conservative media ought to pick up this ball like Franco
• 58:20
  did and run it into the end zone. And he said, like,
• 58:23
  what was that? Was that the immaculate commendation that just happened to happen?
• 58:28
  It said, Donald Trump awards Fauci this commendation. So I thought it was
• 58:32
  really pathetic to sit there and listen to that dribble. It is totally false.
• 58:37
  And you know what, people in your business, and I know you've
• 58:42
  you've spoken out, there's a people in your business who have their own shows
• 58:45
  that they know all that's false too. We'll see how many of them are
• 58:49
  willing to step up to the plate and call a spade a Spade. Now.
• 58:52
  Interestingly, I think that part of why Rhanda Santis is urging the conservative
• 58:57
  media on there is because he knows that they're not going to pick up the
• 59:00
  ball and run with it. And ironically, the guy he was speaking with
• 59:06
  there, Steve Days from The Blaze, is maybe the exception that will prove
• 59:10
  this rule because Steve Days, with whom I have I don't have much of
• 59:15
  a relationship, but I mean we've done it. I think one or two
• 59:19
  interviews together many many years ago. We clearly don't like each other, even
• 59:23
  though we agree on a lot. He's a Descantis supporter. He's way more
• 59:29
  religious than I am, which is not difficult to do. But I also
• 59:32
  think he's rather naive. I don't think he's very smart. He jumped on
• 59:37
  the Trump train for a while and now he's completely off it. But he
• 59:42
  was very outraged by the Megan Kelly interview and essentially gave what I thought was
• 59:46
  a fantastic diatribe. I tweeted it out and praised it where he talked about,
• 59:52
  hey, look, I don't care if I'm the only one in the
• 59:55
  conservative media that's going to say that this is bs as saying, but I'm
• 1:00:00
  going to do it. I don't care if it's the last show I do
• 1:00:02
  and if it destroys my career blah blah blah. And I thought that was
• 1:00:07
  very telling, And I don't know whether or not he had permission to do
• 1:00:12
  it. Maybe the people at the Blaze won him to do this because it
• 1:00:15
  gives them kind of street cred that they have one major member of their stable
• 1:00:21
  of hosts who is anti Trump and pro de Sanders, and that kind of
• 1:00:24
  gives more slack to everyone else, including Glenn Back, to be more pro
• 1:00:29
  Trump. I don't know. I don't know whether or not that's the philosophy
• 1:00:31
  or not. That's just me theorizing. And that's possible that he already knew
• 1:00:37
  that he had permission and that he was basically play acting here, But it
• 1:00:39
  seemed pretty compelling that he thought he was putting his career on the line here,
• 1:00:45
  but just by virtue of the fact that he would even think about talking
• 1:00:50
  publicly about the fact that this could end his career. Even today, he
• 1:00:53
  even said this might be the last show I ever do blah blah blah.
• 1:00:55
  No evidence that it actually was. To me tells you exactly everything you need
• 1:01:00
  to know about the nature of the conservative media, because days wouldn't be even
• 1:01:06
  thinking that if it wasn't the reality. And it's why nobody is going to
• 1:01:09
  take up or nobody major is going to take up Ronda Santis's suggestion or please
• 1:01:17
  that, hey, can we please make this a major theme, a major
• 1:01:22
  narrative. Can we please hold Trump's feet to the fire with these absurd responses
• 1:01:28
  and these inaccuracies in these very problematic statements that he's making. Well, the
• 1:01:35
  fact that it's potentially career threatening for Steve Dace to take his position, I
• 1:01:39
  think shows exactly the reality here that no one's going to do that because no
• 1:01:45
  one wants to give up their gig or threaten their gig or be kicked out
• 1:01:49
  of the club. And everybody in the club now is on team Trump,
• 1:01:53
  at least to some degree. Now, a lot of them are pretending that
• 1:01:57
  they're being objective. That's bullshit, you know, letting things just play out,
• 1:02:04
  you know, is essentially supporting Donald Trump. I mean, that's really
• 1:02:07
  what it is. I mean, if you just let it all play out,
• 1:02:10
  well, gee, I wonder who's gonna win. I have no idea
• 1:02:15
  that, oh I had nothing to do with this. I never actually supported
• 1:02:17
  or endorsed Donald Trump. Well, yeah, but you allowed a false narrative
• 1:02:22
  to take hold and people to believe a lot of things that were not true,
• 1:02:27
  and that helped Donald Trump be the nominee. So Das, I think,
• 1:02:31
  actually kind of proves the problem here and why it is that the conservative
• 1:02:37
  media, they might mention it here and there, and then they'll move on
• 1:02:40
  and this will be long forgotten, even though it should be a major major
• 1:02:46
  change in the narrative of the campaign if we were living in a rational world.
• 1:02:51
  The second clip from the day's interview that I want to play from Rond
• 1:02:55
  to Santas to me really does show how well the Santis understands the media and
• 1:03:02
  media narratives, and it also, which of course I enjoy doing. It
• 1:03:07
  also backs up something that I've been saying continually throughout the history of this podcast,
• 1:03:15
  which and its kind of is similar to the how Trump made Faucci a
• 1:03:21
  media star scenario that I outlined earlier in this episode. But this is really
• 1:03:28
  important what the Santas says here, because it wasn't just that he made Faucci
• 1:03:35
  a star. Trump made it far more difficult for governors like Rhonda Santas and
• 1:03:43
  like Brian Kemp, to do what they wanted to do, what the facts
• 1:03:46
  suggested, they should do, what the constitution suggested, they should do,
• 1:03:52
  what our principles suggested that they should do. Because the media was ironically bizarrely
• 1:03:58
  using Donald Trump that you could not be more COVID contrarian than Trump, because
• 1:04:05
  then, my god, you're to the right of Donald Trump. You're a
• 1:04:09
  complete nut job. Even Donald Trump thinks X, Y or Z is a
• 1:04:14
  reasonable restriction when it comes to COVID. And here is the santist talking about
• 1:04:19
  that particular issue, which is a little bit nuanced, but I think was
• 1:04:25
  very, very significant when it came to how things actually turned out during the
• 1:04:30
  COVID panic. So we fought against that. Clearly, Florida led the way
• 1:04:35
  and being open too much to the attacks that I used to suffer from,
• 1:04:41
  and a lot of the attacks that I suffered from through the balance of twenty
• 1:04:44
  twenty was the media and Florida leveraging the Trump White House against me and saying,
• 1:04:50
  oh, the governor isn't following the Trump white House directives. He has
• 1:04:56
  restaurants open, he has schools open, he has all that stuff. They
• 1:05:00
  really used that White House Task Force as a cudgel to try to beat me
• 1:05:03
  over the head, to try to portray me as being reckless because you know,
• 1:05:08
  we had opened the state and we were doing all that. That is
• 1:05:11
  so dead on there by Ronda Santis and that, And it's so frustrating that
• 1:05:16
  Republicans don't seem to understand this. These things are all interconnected. Events don't
• 1:05:23
  happen in a vacuum. And Donald Trump was effectively used as a blocking back
• 1:05:30
  for the liberal media to go after Ron De Santis and Brian Camp and others,
• 1:05:36
  and it made things far far more difficult, and also, by the
• 1:05:40
  way, enabled blue state governors to get away with more bullshit because their positions
• 1:05:47
  weren't that much different than Donald Trump's. And if even Trump was supporting it,
• 1:05:53
  it made it much more difficult to galvanize opposition. I mean, you
• 1:05:59
  know, Trump, because he has a cult. His cult was confused in
• 1:06:03
  the especially the early days of the COVID panic. I lived this firsthand here
• 1:06:09
  in southern California, where there is still elements of a Trump cult. The
• 1:06:15
  Trump cults instincts were to fight back against this, but their own cult leader
• 1:06:19
  was telling them every other day not to do so, and that had a
• 1:06:25
  major impact. Had Trump been where he should have been early on, where
• 1:06:31
  the Santis and Kemp and others figured out that this was a complete and total
• 1:06:35
  overreaction, there would have been the opportunity to galvanize opposition in blue states,
• 1:06:42
  because then we would have had at a base of support. We would have
• 1:06:45
  had an energized group of people who were willing to go to rallies and to
• 1:06:50
  protest and to do all sorts of other things that might have changed the course
• 1:06:56
  of history. And had Trump done this earlier on, I personally think we
• 1:07:01
  would have had school throughout the country in the fall of twenty twenty. I
• 1:07:05
  think that sports would have been opened sooner, and that would have opened the
• 1:07:09
  door for schools to be opened in fall of twenty twenty, which Trump tried
• 1:07:14
  to do, but then he was so unpopular that the medical establishment literally flipped
• 1:07:18
  their opinion on opening schools in the fall of twenty twenty, just because they
• 1:07:23
  were afraid it was going to help Donald Trump's reelection campaign. But that's a
• 1:07:27
  really important point that the Santis made there. Now, that was the Megan
• 1:07:32
  Kelly interview was not the only major interview that Trump did. He also did
• 1:07:35
  an interview with Kristen Welker, who's the new host of Meet the Press.
• 1:07:40
  So interestingly, last week, Chuck Todd's last episode to Meet the Press had
• 1:07:45
  Gavin Newsome, and this past weekend, the first episode hosted by Kristen Welker
• 1:07:51
  had an interview with Donald Trump. Now, the symbolism there, I think
• 1:07:56
  is quite powerful. I mean, there are a lot of people still think
• 1:08:00
  that that's where we're gonna head here, that this is going to be Newsom
• 1:08:02
  versus Trump, which means God help us all. Even I'm not that pessimistic,
• 1:08:09
  but that makes me nervous because anytime I'm optimistic, I could be wrong.
• 1:08:13
  But I do find that kind of interesting that we had Newsome on one
• 1:08:15
  week and then Trump on the next week. And there's one clip I want
• 1:08:20
  to play that got a lot of play within the conservative twitter sphere because it's
• 1:08:27
  Trump condemning Rohn de Santis, calling him to sanctimonious or to sanctis I can't
• 1:08:31
  remember which one he uses, but you know, one of his nicknames is
• 1:08:34
  derogatory nicknames for Ronda Santis attacking him on the sixth week abortion ban law that
• 1:08:44
  the Santis signed in Florida, and you know this was this is quite extraordinary.
• 1:08:49
  I mean, this is extraordinary that Donald Trump would not just disagree but
• 1:08:57
  attack Rohn De Santis for signing a law that is not unique to Florida.
• 1:09:03
  There are many other red states that have passed very, very similar laws.
• 1:09:08
  Now, I personally think politically Trump is actually correct here unfortunately, that a
• 1:09:15
  six week abortion ban is politically a potentially huge negative in a national election.
• 1:09:23
  Are there pockets of the country where it doesn't hurt and may even help Republicans.
• 1:09:28
  Yes, but I think that those portions of the country are shrinking and
• 1:09:31
  are probably overrated. One of the things that's happened politically in the Trump era
• 1:09:36
  is that the evangelical vote has effectively been splintered and has dissipated. The fire
• 1:09:45
  has gone out of it, the power of it has faded. I think
• 1:09:48
  it's one of the reasons why De Santis is in big trouble in Iowa and
• 1:09:53
  South Carolina, which in the olden days would have had a strong evangelical vote.
• 1:10:00
  Being as pro life as DeSantis is would have guaranteed him twenty five thirty
• 1:10:04
  thirty five percent of the Republican vote, maybe more than that, but I
• 1:10:10
  don't think that that's that reality isn't play anymore. And in the general election,
• 1:10:14
  I don't think there's any question that a six week abortion ban is a
• 1:10:18
  net negative. And Desantist knows this. He's acknowledged this publicly, but he
• 1:10:24
  doesn't care because he thinks it's the right thing to do, which I respect
• 1:10:28
  that. I'm just talking politically. Trump is correct here, but it's it's
• 1:10:32
  remarkable that he chose to go after RHN de Santists for being two pro life
• 1:10:40
  on a liberal media outlet, Meet the Press on NBC. And here's what
• 1:10:45
  that sounded like. I mean, Desantists is willing to sign a five week
• 1:10:48
  and six week bad You support that? Do you think that's? What he
• 1:10:50
  did is a terrible thing and a terrible mistake. I mean, we're living
• 1:10:55
  in a bizarro world where the Republican front runner by forty to fifty points,
• 1:11:00
  is willing to attack the closest pursuer who he appears to have under complete control,
• 1:11:08
  Ronda Santis, for being two pro life, and that there's a very
• 1:11:15
  good chance that this isn't gonna hurt Donald Trump very much in the polling for
• 1:11:19
  a number of reasons, partially what I just talked about with regard to the
• 1:11:23
  changing nature of the evangelical vote. But what's also insane about this is this
• 1:11:30
  is a guy, Donald Trump, who should have very little credibility on the
• 1:11:33
  issue of abortion. He once went on Meet the Press when it was hosted
• 1:11:36
  by Tim Russert and referred to himself as being very pro choice, very pro
• 1:11:44
  choice. And I don't think there's any chance that Donald Trump has not in
• 1:11:50
  his lifetime ever been at least somewhat part of an abortion. I mean,
• 1:11:56
  I don't know that, I have no information to prove that, but just
• 1:11:59
  looking at the nature of his life and the way he operates, I would
• 1:12:04
  be completely stunned if he has never participated in some way, shape or form
• 1:12:11
  in an abortion. So the idea that somehow, you know, Donald Trump
• 1:12:15
  is still seen as a mister pro life by a lot of Republicans is laughable.
• 1:12:20
  Other than the fact that obviously his Supreme Court, Supreme Court, where
• 1:12:26
  he facilitated three members being part of the voting body, voted to n Roe
• 1:12:31
  v. Wade. So I get where he gets credit from that perspective,
• 1:12:34
  but from his own personal belief system. You know, it's obvious that he's
• 1:12:41
  not really pro life, and once again, I don't think this is really
• 1:12:44
  going to hurt him because he's already looking to a general election, and so
• 1:12:49
  from a politically advantageous perspective, this is probably the right position to take.
• 1:12:56
  And so maybe that's the most important political takeaway is that this is something you
• 1:13:01
  say when you're sure you're going to be the nominee. You don't even have
• 1:13:04
  to worry about Republican voters at this point. You're already starting to think about
• 1:13:09
  what's going to happen in the general election. And from that standpoint, there's
• 1:13:13
  a pretty good argument that Trump is making the smart move here, regardless of
• 1:13:17
  what is right or what is moral. So to review, and this is
• 1:13:23
  quite insane and remarkable to review the last week, and this was written.
• 1:13:29
  This is going to quote a tweet here from a guy in the name of
• 1:13:30
  Kyle Martinson because I want to give credit. Here's what Kyle Martinson tweeted.
• 1:13:36
  I'm not familiar with who Carl is, but it's a good tweet. This
• 1:13:40
  is the last week that Donald Trump has had and we've covered a lot of
• 1:13:43
  it in the first hour or so of this episode of the podcast, but
• 1:13:46
  let's just go through it with the kind of a laundry list. Here.
• 1:13:50
  Here's the list that Martinson put together. Trump struggled to answer if a man
• 1:13:56
  can become a woman. He did that in the Megan Kelly interview. He
• 1:14:00
  took a lot of heat online for that. He was uncertain as to what
• 1:14:03
  the answer should be if a man can become a woman, and Megan Kelly
• 1:14:10
  was pretty soft on him regarding that. I mean, this is one of
• 1:14:13
  her major issues. She goes apoplectic on this issue, and she had Trump
• 1:14:17
  right in front of her saying, I'm not sure before he finally kind of
• 1:14:23
  answered in the correct way and kind of gave him a pass on that.
• 1:14:27
  So I should have mentioned that sooner. But that's number one on the list.
• 1:14:31
  Then number two said he didn't know who awarded Fauci the presidential combination.
• 1:14:36
  Three denounced heartbeat laws as terrible, meaning the abortion issue. Number four promised
• 1:14:43
  to compromise on abortion to appease democrats. Number five walked back his plans to
• 1:14:48
  use the military against the cartels. Number six invented excuses for why he didn't
• 1:14:54
  keep his promise to end birthright citizenship. Seven said Biden is not too old
• 1:14:59
  to be pres president eight confused Obama with Biden, then confused Obama with Hilary.
• 1:15:05
  I saw that clip. I'm not one hundred percent sure that's what happened,
• 1:15:09
  but it's certainly possible. Next on the list said Biden is getting us
• 1:15:14
  into world War two. Big if true. He did say that. He
• 1:15:19
  said it was Biden could get us into World War two. I think he
• 1:15:24
  meant world War three. Then the list finishes with complained about not getting credit
• 1:15:30
  for COVID response, said his response was perfect, claimed the RNA m RNA
• 1:15:36
  shots saved one hundred million lives, which of course is ridiculous, and of
• 1:15:42
  course repeatedly lied about Ron De Santis. And then he concludes this is not
• 1:15:45
  the Donald Trump from twenty sixteen. I would disagree with that last statement.
• 1:15:50
  Donald Trump has always been a moderate at best politically. I've always thought he
• 1:15:57
  was essentially a liberal that on numerous issues, and that he just fooled the
• 1:16:03
  Republican base into thinking he's conservative, or maybe the Republican base really wasn't all
• 1:16:08
  that conservative to begin with, and it's just populist whatever it is from a
• 1:16:13
  standards perspective historical standpoint, Donald Trump is not a conservative, and he certainly
• 1:16:20
  has made numerous statements in the last week that are not remotely conservative or in
• 1:16:26
  keeping with what appears to be mainstream belief within even the twenty twenty three Republican
• 1:16:31
  Party. But is it going to matter? I don't think it is.
• 1:16:35
  I mean, I went on News Nation a couple of weeks ago and I
• 1:16:40
  was asked to come on to talk about Ronda Santus's hurricane response and whether or
• 1:16:45
  not the positive hurricane response was going to help the Santis in the polls.
• 1:16:49
  I said no, because we don't live in that world anymore. We don't
• 1:16:54
  live in a world where execution matters. We don't live in a world that's
• 1:17:00
  based in facts and logic, and being good at your job is now almost
• 1:17:05
  a detriment because it's boring. People want entertainment. You know, if I
• 1:17:11
  had to explain what's going on and what has been going on in the last
• 1:17:15
  several months between Trump and DeSantis and how Trump keeps getting stronger in the polls
• 1:17:19
  and de Santus keeps getting weaker, to me, it's very very simple.
• 1:17:24
  And by the way, it is clear that the santis Is support is going
• 1:17:28
  to Trump. If you look at Trump and DeSantis's combined support, its remain
• 1:17:34
  almost perfectly static all year. It's right around seventy percent. Sometimes it gets
• 1:17:41
  up to seventy two, seventy three, maybe down to sixty eight. But
• 1:17:44
  you know that's all within the margin of error. It's always around seventy percent.
• 1:17:48
  So that means logically that as De Santis has gone down and Trump has
• 1:17:54
  gone up, that it is the people who have been telling posters aren't going
• 1:17:57
  to vote for DeSantis, that they're now going to vote for Trump. Well,
• 1:18:00
  what's an explanation for that? Is? Trump has been indicted four times
• 1:18:04
  and De Santis has done all sorts of great things, including another really good
• 1:18:09
  job in handling a hurricane. Well, I said that wasn't gonna help De
• 1:18:14
  Santis is at all the Santas at all, And I'm right in fact,
• 1:18:17
  since the hurricane, De Sandus numbers have gone down as insane making as that
• 1:18:24
  is. So what's the explanation here? The short answer the Oxom's Razor Answer
• 1:18:30
  Reader's Digest version. It's about alpha and beta, that's all it is.
• 1:18:34
  The more Trump became the alpha, the more he gained. The more that
• 1:18:40
  made the Santis the beta, the more he lost support. It's as simple
• 1:18:45
  as that alpha beta. It's primal, it's pathetic. You know, it's
• 1:18:50
  basically like high school or college dating. Essentially, what we have here is
• 1:18:57
  the Republican base is about an eighteen or nineteen year old girl. I might
• 1:19:01
  even be giving them too much credit, and they're deciding between the rich bad
• 1:19:06
  boy who's a lot of fun and the perfect husband material and the eighteen and
• 1:19:14
  nineteen year old has no interest in the perfect husband material Ronda Santis, because
• 1:19:18
  you know, he's going to give her everything she wants that might make her
• 1:19:23
  actually happy. She wouldn't want that. She wants drama, she wants fun,
• 1:19:27
  she wants excitement, even though she's already had some experience with the bad
• 1:19:31
  boy that didn't turn out so well. Boy, that twenty sixteen experience was
• 1:19:36
  just so awesome. I want to recreate that. He just seems so much
• 1:19:41
  fun, and I have good memories of that past relationship. I've blocked out
• 1:19:47
  all the bad parts, and this time I can make it work. I
• 1:19:50
  know I can make it work. That's essentially what this is, alpha beta
• 1:19:57
  bad boy versus marriage material. And unfortunately, the vast majority of the Republican
• 1:20:01
  base clearly at this point and probably into perpetuity, is much more interested in
• 1:20:06
  the bad boy and having fun and being entertained than they are. And the
• 1:20:12
  guy who's going to actually provide, give you what you want, be safe,
• 1:20:16
  and actually do great things for you. But you don't want that,
• 1:20:19
  no, because you're an eighteen or nineteen year old girl, and that's not
• 1:20:24
  the value system. And how the Republican base became an eighteen year nineteen year
• 1:20:28
  old girl is an incredibly long story for another podcast episode, but that's where
• 1:20:33
  we are. And by the way, speaking of eighteen or nineteen year old
• 1:20:36
  girls, a few episodes to go. In the podcast, I probably startled
• 1:20:41
  some people when I said, you know, the secret weapon the Democrats are
• 1:20:45
  going to have in this twenty twenty four election and why the polling between Biden
• 1:20:49
  and Trump probably should not be taking that seriously right now is Taylor Swift.
• 1:20:57
  And I'm sure there were people because I even said the podcasts. I know
• 1:21:00
  people are gonna think I'm nuts here, but I really think that Taylor Swift
• 1:21:03
  would have the power to put Biden over the top. If this was even
• 1:21:09
  a remotely close election because she has by far the largest and most powerful cult
• 1:21:14
  in America, and that her fan base has now effectively all become voting age.
• 1:21:20
  And she's obviously a liberal, and she's tried to get involved in politics
• 1:21:26
  in the past in twenty eighteen, but they didn't work because I was in
• 1:21:29
  Tennessee, and you know it was five years ago, she wasn't nearly as
• 1:21:32
  powerful, and you know there wasn't a national election. Well, I put
• 1:21:38
  out that theory a few episodes ago, and I'm not suggesting that I hadn't
• 1:21:41
  need to do with this at all, but MSNBC has made that's the very
• 1:21:48
  same case. A host of MSNBC made the same case that I did that
• 1:21:54
  Taylor Swift made aside the presidential election, and then, interestingly, out Kick,
• 1:22:00
  the Fox owned conservative sports outlet, did an article saying, you know
• 1:22:05
  what, MSNBC might be right about this, and went through the same basic
• 1:22:11
  argument that here you've got a group of people who are generally not that interested
• 1:22:15
  in politics, don't tend to vote, I haven't had any history of voting,
• 1:22:20
  a very little history of voting depending on their age, who are incredibly
• 1:22:26
  devoted to Taylor Swift, and all she would have to do is snap her
• 1:22:30
  fingers and a huge portion of her followers are going to vote, and they're
• 1:22:35
  gonna vote not in Donald Trump's favor. And so I do think that that
• 1:22:42
  is a legitimate theory. And I found it interesting that MSNBC, OutKick,
• 1:22:46
  and John Zigler are all on the same page. So if you have that
• 1:22:50
  on your BINGO card, congratulations, that's pretty amazing. Now I have to
• 1:22:56
  mention something else with regard to Donald Trump, because this really irritated me on
• 1:23:01
  a recent episode of the podcast, and that is that Christy Nome, the
• 1:23:05
  Republican Governor of South Dakota, very strangely I thought, endorsed Donald Trump.
• 1:23:14
  And I thought this was bizarre and frustrating and telling that Trump was going to
• 1:23:16
  be the nominee because Christy Nome was very anti COVID panic and restrictions back in
• 1:23:25
  twenty twenty. Now the history around her has been somewhat revised, like it
• 1:23:30
  seems to happen all over the COVID narrative, and she has facilitated this,
• 1:23:35
  and even I got snookered by it a little bit. But it appears to
• 1:23:39
  me, in re examining this that it was really the South Dakota legislature that
• 1:23:45
  dictated what was going to happen, and that Nome went along with this.
• 1:23:47
  That Gnome may not have been the champion for freedom and liberty that she portrays
• 1:23:54
  herself to be. Now, not that she was bad on it, but
• 1:23:57
  that it was really the legislative in South Dakota saying no, we're not doing
• 1:24:02
  this, and she said, oh, okay, I guess we're not doing
• 1:24:05
  this. But she still deserves some credit in South Dakota led the way.
• 1:24:10
  And you know, it's easier to do it in South Dakota because there's there's
• 1:24:13
  no liberal media, there's very few real liberals in South Dakota, and obviously
• 1:24:18
  they have a very different kind of culture and mentality in a place like South
• 1:24:23
  Dakota than they do in most of the rest of the country. And so
• 1:24:26
  when she endorsed Trump and basically lied about his COVID response and then lied about
• 1:24:31
  the COVID response of everybody else in the race running, including Ronda Santis,
• 1:24:36
  I thought this is really strange. And I just presumed, maybe naively,
• 1:24:43
  that this was her getting on the Trump bandwagon because she knew Trump was gonna
• 1:24:45
  win and that she was using her greatest card because that's all she's known for
• 1:24:53
  nationally as being a COVID contrarian. She's basically using that card to benefit Trump
• 1:24:59
  because this is vulnerability and a weakness for Trump. So that all kind of
• 1:25:01
  made sense politically. Well, over the last few days, we've learned something
• 1:25:06
  new, at least I learned something new that may have played a major role
• 1:25:10
  in this, and that is that it's being widely reported, although it hasn't
• 1:25:14
  been one hundred percent substantiated yet, that Christy Nome, who's married, has
• 1:25:19
  been having an affair with Corey Lewandowski, Trump's former campaign manager from twenty sixteen.
• 1:25:29
  Now, what's interesting about the reporting surrounding this affair between Nome and Lewandowski
• 1:25:35
  is that there's been no denial, so there's no real proof. There's a
• 1:25:41
  lot of smoke that certainly is consistent with an affair, but there's also been
• 1:25:45
  no real denials, no apologies, no denials, so we don't know for
• 1:25:50
  one hundred percent sure. It certainly seems as if this story is true.
• 1:26:00
  Now, if this story is true, that Noam has been having this affair,
• 1:26:03
  it is consistent with a far more logical theory of how her endorsement went
• 1:26:10
  down, and that is that she realized that the story about her affair,
• 1:26:15
  which has been rumored for quite a while, was about to come out in
• 1:26:19
  a mainstream media outlet, and that's why she jumped on the Trump endorsement as
• 1:26:27
  protection, because as soon as you're on Team Trump, you have the protection
• 1:26:31
  of the cult. And it also gives you a narrative for why you're being
• 1:26:38
  attacked. And this drives me crazy, where you know, there's this theory
• 1:26:44
  that if you're attacked by the mainstream news media, that means you're a quote
• 1:26:48
  unquote over the target and that's why they're going after you. Well, sometimes
• 1:26:53
  that's true. By the way, that might be happening to Russell Brand with
• 1:26:56
  sexual assault and rape allegations because he's become anti establishment, especially on COVID.
• 1:27:00
  I don't know for sure, but that might be happening there. But that
• 1:27:04
  is a very popular theme or narrative on the right, especially among Trump supporters,
• 1:27:12
  and Noame knows this. And when you go back and you listen to
• 1:27:16
  her Trump endorsement, which was only a week or so ago, it certainly
• 1:27:21
  seems as if she is planting the seeds for her to be attacked, weirdly,
• 1:27:29
  not by the right, but by the left. And when I went
• 1:27:33
  back and listened to this, I thought, Okay, here's what's really happening.
• 1:27:39
  She knows her affair is about to come out, and she needs to
• 1:27:44
  one get the protection of the Trump colt, and two she wants to be
• 1:27:47
  able to create this narrative that it's all false because she's a Trump supporter now
• 1:27:53
  and that means that they're going to come after her and her family. And
• 1:27:58
  so, going back to the Rump endorsement speech, here is Noam talking about
• 1:28:02
  this particular topic. We're cowering or worse yet, they were locking down their
• 1:28:08
  own people. They were pushing mandates, they were closing beaches, even arresting
• 1:28:12
  people for taking a spring break. Now, yes, I will be attacked
• 1:28:16
  for speaking the truth to all of you tonight. And yes, I expect
• 1:28:20
  that Joe Biden, these candidates, their political operatives and the media will perpetuate
• 1:28:27
  ugly, hateful misinformation and an attempt to destroy me and my family because of
• 1:28:30
  our opinions. It's nothing new, and frankly, I'm getting pretty used to
• 1:28:34
  it now. I can't prove that that's what no one was thinking. But
• 1:28:45
  that fits almost perfectly with what I know to be the reality of humanity and
• 1:28:50
  politics, and the way she phrased that seems a hundred percent consistent with somebody
• 1:28:57
  who needs protection and she needs a narrative for people to not believe something that's
• 1:29:02
  about to come out about her, and this would certainly fit, especially when
• 1:29:06
  it comes to the timing for this timing to happen. Bang Bang is remarkably
• 1:29:14
  coincidental. Of course, Trump supporters will say it's Bang Bang because they decided
• 1:29:19
  they needed to destroy her because she became a full on Trump supporter, which
• 1:29:24
  is ridiculous. That's not the way this would work. It's far more logical,
• 1:29:28
  especially with timing. I mean, these investigations take a long time,
• 1:29:30
  and the story didn't prove that there was an affair, but there's the evidence
• 1:29:35
  that was accumulated, happened over an extended period of time. This is not
• 1:29:39
  something that was put together in a couple of days, whether it's true or
• 1:29:43
  not. And so you know, the Trump fan theory doesn't make any sense.
• 1:29:47
  The Zigler theory, I think, makes a heck of a lot of
• 1:29:50
  sense here and explains and otherwise inexplicable endorsement, and it's it's pathetic that this
• 1:29:58
  is this is how we're to presidential elections now, because Christy Nolum is having
• 1:30:05
  an affair with a former Trump campaign manager and decides that for her own self
• 1:30:12
  interest, she needs to endorse Donald Trump and give him street cred on his
• 1:30:16
  COVID response and dis people like Ronda Santis who were actually the heroes of the
• 1:30:23
  COVID response. And it's just enough to make you go crazy. But this
• 1:30:27
  is the world we're now living in. If I'm talking about Christy Nohm,
• 1:30:30
  I at least have to mention Lauren Bobert. Lauren Bobert is the Republican MAGA
• 1:30:36
  pro Trump congresswoman from Colorado who got involved in a bizarre controversy where she was
• 1:30:43
  kicked out of a theater in Colorado in Denver with her boyfriend. At first,
• 1:30:49
  it was because she was allegedly vaping, and there was all sorts of
• 1:30:55
  allegations as to when that this was true, and then did her campaign lie
• 1:30:59
  of about it? And do you know who I am? And uh,
• 1:31:04
  you know, just bad enough, But then video emerged of what was actually
• 1:31:10
  happening in the seats before she was kicked out of the theater, and she
• 1:31:14
  and her boyfriend are full on groping each other, full on groping each other,
• 1:31:18
  more so than Megan Kelly was groping Donald Trump during you know that interview.
• 1:31:26
  Similar but a little bit different. I mean, they were full on
• 1:31:30
  groping each other and in a highly inappropriate fashion. Even if you're not a
• 1:31:35
  congresswoman, but you know, you would like to think that being a congress
• 1:31:40
  person would would have you lived a little bit higher standard of behavior in public.
• 1:31:45
  But this was completely inappropriate, and the video obviously has gone viral because
• 1:31:51
  it's just insane. I don't know whether or not Bobert will pay any price
• 1:31:58
  in Republican circles. In the old days, she would have, in the
• 1:32:00
  pre Trump days, she would have. But I do think she's probably gonna
• 1:32:03
  lose her congressional seat over this, because she barely won in twenty twenty two
• 1:32:10
  and the Republican majority is already super thin. And you've got the you know,
• 1:32:15
  the Santos situation, Congressman Santos in Long Island, who you know,
• 1:32:20
  has basically been exposed as a fraud, and now you got Boubert with this
• 1:32:26
  tape. I mean, Republicans cannot afford to lose too many seats in Congress,
• 1:32:31
  and frankly, there's several seats here in California that are hanging on by
• 1:32:35
  a thread as it is. And while it's too early to make anything close
• 1:32:41
  to a call, I have to tell you my gut tells me regardless of
• 1:32:45
  what happens in the presidential election, if Trump is the nominee, Republicans are
• 1:32:48
  going to lose the House of Representatives. Republicans are going to lose the House
• 1:32:53
  of Representatives if Trump is the nominee, and they probably won't take the Senate
• 1:32:58
  back, even though they should. And that sets up a scenario where you
• 1:33:02
  could have Biden with a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate and then Kamala Harris
• 1:33:10
  comes in, I mean, which would be a horrible scenario, or even
• 1:33:12
  almost as bad a scenario you got Trump was basically a real a liberal,
• 1:33:17
  you know, in sheep's clothing, with a Democratic House and a Democratic Senate
• 1:33:23
  with retribution and vengeance on his mind. I mean, that would probably be
• 1:33:26
  even worse scenario than having Biden, who's decrepit and borderline senile, with a
• 1:33:33
  Democratic House and the Democratic Senate. So while one seat isn't going to determine
• 1:33:39
  anything. I think that this. I'm just getting a bad, bad feeling
• 1:33:42
  about the House of Representatives for next year. And it's also just pathetic that
• 1:33:47
  in the post Trump era there are no standards of behavior for Republicans anymore.
• 1:33:55
  I get that, well, the Democrats don't have any standards, so we
• 1:33:58
  shouldn't have standards either. But you know, there used to be a thing
• 1:34:00
  called two wrongs don't make a right, and that we're better than they are,
• 1:34:03
  and that's clearly no longer the case, and the Lauren Boubard situation proves
• 1:34:08
  it all right. I want to talk a little bit more about Dion Sanders.
• 1:34:14
  I've talked a lot about Dion Sanders over the last several weeks as he
• 1:34:16
  has taken over the entire world of college football as the head football coach at
• 1:34:21
  University of Colorado, and I have been generally supportive of coach prime mainly because
• 1:34:30
  I love his underlying principles. I think he's a conservative in hiding he gives
• 1:34:36
  off the appearance of being very much a liberal, but when you look at
• 1:34:42
  his actual abiding principles and what he says, they're actually quite conservative. In
• 1:34:47
  a lot of different ways. And it's not just because he's religious. It's
• 1:34:50
  also his value system and how he views hard work and personal responsibility and not
• 1:34:57
  making excuses and being old school and using tough love and all that kind of
• 1:35:04
  stuff. I completely agree with. I think it's fantastic. I was very
• 1:35:09
  curious as to how he was going to do. I told you last week
• 1:35:12
  in episode eighty nine of the media was going to go bananas. They were
• 1:35:15
  going to lose their minds after Colorado had won their first two games, and
• 1:35:20
  I think I actually underestimated that because what has happened over the last week,
• 1:35:26
  essentially, I think was the mark where this story jumped the shark, and
• 1:35:31
  it jumped the shark partially because there was a spat between Dion and the coach
• 1:35:38
  of Colorado State, which was their opponent this past weekend, their interstate in
• 1:35:43
  state rival, where the Colorado State coach had made a comment about when you
• 1:35:47
  meet somebody, my mama told me that you take off your hat and glasses,
• 1:35:51
  which seemed to be a shot not just at Dion, but I guess
• 1:35:55
  indirectly at his mom. And I get or that was a huge mistake.
• 1:36:00
  You don't you don't poke the bear or the buffalo in this case, since
• 1:36:03
  that's the mascot of the University of Colorado. And that was really dumb.
• 1:36:08
  But Dion really really overplayed this. I mean, I get he's essentially a
• 1:36:14
  social media content creator. Now, I mean, I don't even know how
• 1:36:16
  he has tied to coach football, because essentially it's all he does is create
• 1:36:21
  social media content. And he's very, very very good at it. And
• 1:36:26
  if you're a social media content creator, this is manning from heaven. And
• 1:36:30
  so this gave him all sorts of opportunities in all sorts of media outlets to
• 1:36:35
  you know, grandstand on this issue of my mama raised me right, and
• 1:36:42
  hear my hat and glasses, and they made it personal and we come in
• 1:36:45
  and all that. So I thought that Dion way overplayed his hand on this,
• 1:36:50
  and and frankly, it was amazing to me that he was basically setting
• 1:36:57
  himself up for complete humiliation if they had lost the game to Colorado State,
• 1:37:02
  which they almost did. As it turned out, they were twenty four point
• 1:37:06
  favorites and they had to go to double overtime to win the game. They
• 1:37:09
  won despite being behind late in the game and losing their best player to injury.
• 1:37:14
  So it was a fantastic win. The you know, the crowd in
• 1:37:17
  Boulder, Colorado loved it. It got huge television ratings, even though it
• 1:37:21
  was on late at night on the East Coast. But I felt a little
• 1:37:27
  queasy about the whole thing. I thought, you know, I've been very
• 1:37:30
  supportive about a coach Prime, but it feels like he's coming close to turning
• 1:37:34
  this whole thing into professional wrestling. I mean, the game itself had a
• 1:37:38
  lot of fights and a lot of you know, a lot of smack was
• 1:37:43
  talked and all there were a ton of penalties, and there were so many
• 1:37:46
  celebrities on the sideline and you know the rock, the Rock John Dwayne Johnson,
• 1:37:53
  who didn't even go to Colorado. He played football at the University of
• 1:37:55
  Miami. He was there for all the pregame shows, he was in the
• 1:37:58
  locker room, he was on the side lines. Why well, because he's
• 1:38:01
  a massive celebrity and this is all about celebrity now, and it just the
• 1:38:06
  whole thing felt too much. Okay, I love the whole Coach Prime thing
• 1:38:12
  too much, too much, just too much. We've jumped in the shark
• 1:38:16
  here. This is going into dangerous territory. And then sixty minutes aired an
• 1:38:25
  interview with Deon Sanders on Sunday night. Again, this is remarkable that Dion
• 1:38:30
  had the balls, maybe the stupidity, you know, maybe this was too
• 1:38:34
  risky and he just got away with it, the balls to agree to do
• 1:38:39
  a sixty minutes interview and profile that was going to air the night after he
• 1:38:45
  might have lost to his in state rival, Colorado State. I mean,
• 1:38:48
  that would have really been humiliating, embarrassing if sixty minutes had done their second
• 1:38:56
  feature on Deon Sanders within a year. They did one last year when he
• 1:39:00
  was at Jackson State, and now here they're doing another one now that he's
• 1:39:04
  at the University of Colorado, which they almost never do, but because this
• 1:39:09
  is such a popular story and they knew they would get great ratings, that
• 1:39:13
  they did so. And so if Colorado had lost this double overtime game,
• 1:39:17
  which they easily could have done, this would have been a very embarrassing moment
• 1:39:24
  for both sixty minutes and for Deon Sanders. But you know, the magic
• 1:39:29
  of primetime got Colorado through it. And I watched the entire interview on sixty
• 1:39:34
  Minutes. Now sixty minutes has a nowhere near the power they used to have.
• 1:39:39
  It's amazing the show's even still on. I don't know what the ratings
• 1:39:43
  were for this broadcast, but I'm sure they were higher than normal because they
• 1:39:45
  had Deon Sanders as their featured guest in the second half of the program.
• 1:39:53
  But this interview kind of got me back in love with Dion Sanders. I
• 1:39:56
  had to say, I'm being very forgiving of Dion because I so am on
• 1:40:01
  board with the essence of what I think he's trying to do. Now.
• 1:40:06
  I always get very nervous whenever I'm overly optimistic, and I'm always nervous when
• 1:40:13
  I start to put somebody on any kind of a pedestal, because inevitably I'm
• 1:40:16
  going to be disappointed. And I'm fully aware that Dion Sanders is nowhere near
• 1:40:20
  perfect. I mean, this is a guy who's been divorced twice, and
• 1:40:24
  when he was a player, he represented almost everything that I despised. It
• 1:40:28
  was all about him, me, me, me, me, me,
• 1:40:30
  all about showtime, Prime Time. It wasn't really about the team. I
• 1:40:35
  mean, he was a great player, but you know, and he was
• 1:40:39
  entertaining as hell. But I never really liked him, and now for him
• 1:40:44
  to be what might be the last bastion of what he calls old school college
• 1:40:50
  football coaching is really kind of a mindscrew. But this is where we are,
• 1:40:56
  and watching this interview with sixty Minutes, I became further convinced that my
• 1:41:01
  initial assessment of Dion Sanders may actually be right. And it's really kind of
• 1:41:06
  hilarious that you've got liberal sixty Minutes and liberal sports media, specifically ESPN,
• 1:41:15
  all promoting the guy who is now the entire identity of one of the most
• 1:41:19
  liberal universities in the country, in one of the most liberal places in the
• 1:41:24
  country. I mean, the University of Colorado at Boulder has now placed their
• 1:41:28
  entire identity in a football coach, which is inherently a somewhat conservative endeavor.
• 1:41:34
  I mean, liberals hate football, but they put their entire identity not just
• 1:41:39
  in a football coach, but in a football coach who is not politically correct,
• 1:41:44
  doesn't care about kids feelings, thinks that kids are being treated in a
• 1:41:48
  way that's way too soft. It's all about personal responsibility, all about hard
• 1:41:54
  work, all about winning, and is not afraid of upsetting some people on
• 1:42:02
  all sides. Of the aisle, and I find this to be hilarious,
• 1:42:05
  and I don't even think they understand what they're doing. In a way,
• 1:42:10
  I think Deon Sanders could end up being a human trojan horse where the last
• 1:42:16
  fashion of somewhat conservative values gets snug into a place like Boulder, Colorado,
• 1:42:24
  in not just a prominent way, but in a way that is now dominating
• 1:42:28
  the entire university. I mean the public service announcement that the University of Colorado
• 1:42:33
  airs on these football games now, which you know, is basically a commercial
• 1:42:36
  for the university literally has the word prime for coach Prime as its primary theme.
• 1:42:47
  It's basically coach Prime University at this point. And they don't even seem
• 1:42:51
  to realize what they've done. They have they have, They have given Deon
• 1:42:58
  Sanders all this power. And look, is he going to come out and
• 1:43:02
  endorse Donald Trump or something for president. No, because he's very very,
• 1:43:06
  very very smart. He's going to keep this on the down low. But
• 1:43:11
  he has the potential to be teaching incredibly important lessons to an entire generation of
• 1:43:17
  kids who desperately need it. And if that's what he ends up doing,
• 1:43:20
  then you know what, I'll forgive the you know, the jumping of the
• 1:43:26
  shark from on occasion. You have to take the good with the bad as
• 1:43:30
  long as it doesn't get any worse than it did this past week. And
• 1:43:32
  by the way, we're about to see a shift in this narrative because in
• 1:43:38
  my view, in the view of most people who follow college football carefully or
• 1:43:42
  closely, they're in for a rough time. I mean, especially if they're
• 1:43:45
  best player, Travis Hunter is not going to play. I don't see how
• 1:43:48
  they even stay close with Oregon or usc which are their next two opponents.
• 1:43:53
  And if they were to get beat and beaten badly in those next two games,
• 1:43:58
  we could see a major narrative shift. Because once you've created expectations,
• 1:44:02
  the way that Deon has done and has facilitated in the media has inflamed you
• 1:44:10
  know, what covers up must come down. I mean, expectations are everything
• 1:44:13
  in life, and the expectations for this Colorado team are now just way,
• 1:44:17
  way too high. I mean, Deon has already succeeded. They won one
• 1:44:21
  game last year. He brought in almost an entirely new team. They've won
• 1:44:26
  three games. I don't know how many they're gonna win by the end of
• 1:44:29
  the year, But it ain't gonna be twelve, which is you know,
• 1:44:32
  number of games they play in a regular season. If it's nine, that
• 1:44:36
  would be an incredible success story. It might only be six for all we
• 1:44:42
  know, depending on what happens with injuries. So this media narrative, which
• 1:44:46
  is on steroids, this is on not just steroids but rocket fire, then,
• 1:44:54
  you know, is gonna take a few shifts between now and the end
• 1:44:57
  of the season unless some miracle happens and Colorado keeps winning. So it'll be
• 1:45:01
  very interesting to keep a track on it, and I will do so because
• 1:45:04
  I am I'm all in on the story. I'm a little hesitant. I'm
• 1:45:09
  trying to brace myself for disappointment, but so far I'm still on Coach Prime,
• 1:45:16
  on Team Coach Prime, and on the Coach Prime train, and I
• 1:45:19
  hope it continues to go in the right direction. I also want to mention
• 1:45:24
  Aaron Rodgers, since I talked a lot about Aaron Rodgers. The Jets quarterbacker
• 1:45:29
  got injured on the fourth play of the season. After an enormous amount of
• 1:45:30
  media hype, he announced this past week that he is going to try to
• 1:45:36
  come back next year, which I am very skeptical of whether or not that's
• 1:45:42
  going to work, but the media is clearly not going to give up on
• 1:45:45
  him. Essentially, they have announced that the Aaron Rodgers series has been rescheduled
• 1:45:49
  for twenty twenty four. You know, they had such high hopes for the
• 1:45:53
  Aaron Rodgers miniseries in twenty twenty three, and you know they had scheduling problems,
• 1:45:59
  there was logistical issues, so they're postponing production to twenty twenty four.
• 1:46:05
  I will really be surprised if at forty years old and coming off an Achilles
• 1:46:11
  injury and going back to a team that is now currently one and one after
• 1:46:15
  a bad performance against the Dallas Cowboys, there's really no good scenario here.
• 1:46:19
  If the team sucks this year, a forty year old guy isn't going to
• 1:46:24
  take them to the super Bowl next year. And if somehow they turn it
• 1:46:28
  around and they have a good season, you can't get rid of your quarterback.
• 1:46:31
  So I don't know what the scenario here is where this all works out.
• 1:46:34
  But the media is still all in because you know, the ratings were
• 1:46:39
  good and therefore that's all that matters, and we're going to pretend that Aaron
• 1:46:44
  Rodgers is going to be back and just like you used to be at forty
• 1:46:47
  years old, after having an entire season off because of an achilles tendon injury.
• 1:46:54
  Two stories I want to talk about that are about as depressing as they
• 1:46:57
  get. In fact, I don't even want to talk about them. But
• 1:47:02
  no one else in the media, or hardly anybody else in the media,
• 1:47:05
  is doing so. But I feel like I have an obligation to do so.
• 1:47:09
  And no one's connecting them as far as I can see, but I
• 1:47:12
  think that they are connected in a lot of ways. Deal with people who
• 1:47:15
  have been murdered seemingly at random on videotape, and the media is either completely
• 1:47:24
  ignoring them in one case or downplaying it in the other. The first is
• 1:47:30
  a situation that occurred this past weekend here in southern California, where a Los
• 1:47:35
  Angeles County sheriff deputy was shot and killed while literally outside of the police station.
• 1:47:47
  Means literally, I mean the video comes from the Sheriff's department security cameras
• 1:47:55
  where the car is right out in front at a stoplight. The poor guy
• 1:48:00
  is just sitting there waiting for the light to change, and a car comes
• 1:48:04
  up on his left hand side. Stops and kills the guy shoots him dead.
• 1:48:11
  And this is a guy who was a young man who four eggs earlier,
• 1:48:15
  just gotten engaged. He's a third generation law enforcement official. By all
• 1:48:20
  accounts, he was adored. I mean, there's no reason to believe that
• 1:48:27
  he was personally targeted. It appears as if this was purely random and as
• 1:48:30
  brazen as it gets. Right in front of the police station, somebody just
• 1:48:36
  decided to drive up and shoot as sheriff's deputy outside of Los Angeles, Palmdale
• 1:48:46
  dead, And I mean, it's just heartbreaking, but it's also an indication
• 1:48:51
  that something is very, very very wrong. You know, you know,
• 1:48:58
  murders have always happened, but for them to be completely random as this appears
• 1:49:02
  to be an affront, an attack on law enforcement itself. I mean,
• 1:49:08
  that's the only thing that makes any sense currently. Now, maybe that'll change
• 1:49:12
  if and when they find who these assholes are or asshole whoever it was,
• 1:49:16
  because they don't even know how many suspects they're looking for. But I'm pretty
• 1:49:18
  confident they're going to find this, this person or persons who did this,
• 1:49:24
  because now all resources are going to be used to track down this car that's
• 1:49:30
  on video that perpetrated this heinous act. But it certainly appears as if to
• 1:49:38
  me and to those that have who have commented on this, who seem to
• 1:49:41
  know a lot more than I do, that it seems as if this was
• 1:49:45
  a random attack simply on law enforcement. Now where would someone get the idea
• 1:49:51
  that this is acceptable? Well from the news media. I mean, again,
• 1:49:57
  I'm jumping to conclusions here, but this is why news me coverage matters,
• 1:50:00
  And when you have years of media coverage condemning law enforcement, it gives
• 1:50:06
  a sick person the idea that somehow it's not only okay, but maybe even
• 1:50:10
  justify justified to randomly kill a law enforcement officer. Now again, I hesitate
• 1:50:16
  to go too deeply down this back because we don't have the facts, and
• 1:50:19
  that could change dramatically. But this story ought to be huge for what because
• 1:50:26
  it is an indicative of a much larger reality, not just with regard to
• 1:50:30
  law enforcement and our lack of respect for those who are in law enforcement,
• 1:50:34
  which I do think is facilitated by the news media, but also by just
• 1:50:40
  something being broken in our society that this could even happen, and there's something
• 1:50:46
  being broken in our society is maybe even more dramatically illustrated by the other episode
• 1:50:51
  than I want to talk about. And this is something that actually happened about
• 1:50:57
  a month ago, but it's only now getting a lot of attention, at
• 1:51:01
  least online. And it happened in Las Vegas. And I'm still uncertain as
• 1:51:08
  to how this video went viral and how it even became public about a month
• 1:51:15
  after it actually happened, because the video was clearly taken by those that perpetrated
• 1:51:21
  an absolutely horrific act. And basically what happened here was that two young males
• 1:51:29
  who appeared to be black, stole a car in Las Vegas, and they
• 1:51:33
  videotaped their own escape and they hit another car kept going and as they were
• 1:51:42
  speeding away, there was a bicyclist on there to the right of them,
• 1:51:47
  and you can actually hear these jackasses in the car say go ahead and hit
• 1:51:55
  them. I forget the exact words that were used, but it's very clear,
• 1:52:00
  you know, go get him. And they proceed to run over the
• 1:52:04
  bike bicyclist with the car at full speed, killing him. And the man
• 1:52:12
  happened to be white was a retired former California police chief. Ironically, enough,
• 1:52:19
  and obviously these assholes didn't know that, but they certainly did know he
• 1:52:24
  was a white male, which I gotta tell you I believe played a significant
• 1:52:29
  role in this based upon what we currently know. But this video is as
• 1:52:32
  horrific as it gets. Now it's been seeing millions of times online, but
• 1:52:39
  when I search for mainstream media news coverage of this, I can find hardly
• 1:52:45
  anything. In fact, the original article in the Las Vegas newspaper referred to
• 1:52:50
  this man being killed in a bicycle accident. Now the video was not publicly
• 1:52:57
  available at that time, but that's how it was originally reported. The original
• 1:53:01
  article in the Las Vegas paper has been revised to indicate that he was killed
• 1:53:06
  in a hit and run. Now how this video becomes public I don't know,
• 1:53:11
  because obviously it was taken by the perpetrators, and the perpetrators have not
• 1:53:15
  to my knowledge, been arrested yet. Did They must have posted this somewhere
• 1:53:20
  online, It's the only thing that I can think of. If I'm wrong
• 1:53:24
  about that, all corrected in a future episode. But because there's been no
• 1:53:29
  media coverage of this, I can't even find out how the hell we even
• 1:53:32
  have the video, because that makes no sense they posted somewhere online the video
• 1:53:39
  of them killing somebody in a total I don't even say this was random,
• 1:53:45
  because it certainly was at least premeditated by a few seconds, that they wanted
• 1:53:49
  to kill this guy. And I gotta believe. Let me put it this
• 1:53:55
  way. If everything was reversed and there were a couple of white hoodlums who
• 1:53:59
  saw a black guy on a bicycle on the side of the road and said,
• 1:54:03
  go ahead and hit him, and they hit him and killed him and
• 1:54:08
  ran and sped off and videotape the whole thing, this would be a story
• 1:54:14
  every single American would know about, every single medior media outlet would be running
• 1:54:18
  twenty four seven, and by the way, understandably so, because it would
• 1:54:23
  be seen as a racial targeting and killing. We saw what happened with that
• 1:54:27
  horrible situation in Jacksonville, Florida a couple of weeks ago, where three black
• 1:54:31
  people were killed by a white nut job, and that got a lot of
• 1:54:36
  media coverage. Well, we have video of this. We have unbelievably horrific
• 1:54:44
  video video that when you see it, you cannot unsee it. It's impossible
• 1:54:48
  to forget, which usually the news media is all over. Now. The
• 1:54:53
  only fig leave of an excuse the media has here is that it happened a
• 1:54:58
  month ago, but doesn't change the newsworthiness of this, especially in this media
• 1:55:03
  era where you know, videos that go viral create news stories all the time.
• 1:55:09
  We now have a full context for what happened a month ago, and
• 1:55:13
  what we know, at least at this point is beyond horrific and really an
• 1:55:17
  indication that something is really horrendously broken in our society, especially among our younger
• 1:55:26
  generation, that somebody could just do this videotape and like I said, apparently
• 1:55:30
  post a video for it to become public, you know, before they've even
• 1:55:38
  been apprehended as far as I can tell. I mean, it's just it's
• 1:55:43
  it's mind blowing, it's scary, and the media is at this point completely
• 1:55:47
  ignoring this. Now, is it possible that this week somebody in the media
• 1:55:53
  is going to start picking up on how this video went viral and that this
• 1:55:57
  is a remarkable story. I would like to think so. I've actually heard
• 1:56:00
  a few people that I know to at least look into this, because this
• 1:56:02
  is this is horrendous and it's a remarkable story, especially since it's being ignored
• 1:56:08
  by the mainstream news media, but I don't have high hopes because this just
• 1:56:11
  doesn't fit their agenda. But it sure does show that something is very,
• 1:56:16
  very wrong, and I don't know what the answer to it is. I
• 1:56:21
  really don't. It's scary, scary stuff going on out there. I realized
• 1:56:26
  by the way that we live in a media era, and so we're learning
• 1:56:28
  a lot more than we ever did before. Maybe stuff like this happened in
• 1:56:30
  the past. I get that, and I'm not big into, you know,
• 1:56:35
  making massive societal conclusions about one isolated incident and video definitely overdramatizes everything.
• 1:56:43
  I get all that, but I'm sorry that just doesn't happen in the in
• 1:56:47
  the world I grew up in, at at least not in my perception.
• 1:56:51
  It doesn't. I want to finish this episode of the podcast with another update
• 1:56:57
  of a story I've talked a lot about in the last few episodes. It's
• 1:57:00
  the New Witness and the JFK Assassination. A god named of Paul Landis,
• 1:57:04
  who was a secret Service agent, who has a book out for the sixtieth
• 1:57:09
  anniversary of the Kennedy assassination where he tells the story of how he believes he
• 1:57:15
  found the magic bullet in the backseat of the limo where John Kennedy was sitting.
• 1:57:24
  And if you have listened to me talk about this in the past,
• 1:57:28
  specifically episode seventy one of this podcast, where I go into extraordinary detail of
• 1:57:33
  my theory of what really happened in the JFK assassination, that basically the Warrant
• 1:57:38
  Commission got it wrong from a logistical standpoint, but that Lee Harvey Oswald did
• 1:57:43
  in fact act alone. This new testimony one seems to vindicate my theory because
• 1:57:51
  my theory is based upon the idea that the so called magic bullet did not
• 1:57:56
  pass through both Kennedy and Connelly, there is no quote unquote single bullet,
• 1:58:00
  and that the so called pristine bullet simply hit Kennedy in the back, went
• 1:58:05
  only a couple inches into his body and fell out at some point, and
• 1:58:10
  then was misidentified as having been found on the stretcher of John Connolly. And
• 1:58:15
  that this facilitated a false theory of the single bullet theory. And so when
• 1:58:19
  this book came out a bombshell out of nowhere, no one had, to
• 1:58:25
  my knowledge, even been rumored to have been saying this for almost sixty years.
• 1:58:30
  Now, you know there was no question that I was on the side
• 1:58:34
  of wanting this to be true. But if you know anything about me,
• 1:58:39
  you also know that if I want something to be true, I give that
• 1:58:43
  theory or that piece of information far more scrutiny than I would otherwise, because
• 1:58:48
  I realize I have a bias and that that bias needs to be you know,
• 1:58:56
  evaluated, that that it needs to be controlled for that at bias.
• 1:59:00
  And so if I have a bias in a particular direction, I need there
• 1:59:03
  to be more evidence and more scrutiny of anything that facilitates my particular theory.
• 1:59:12
  So I have actually not jumped on the Landis bandwagon. One. I've been
• 1:59:17
  supportive of his story. I'm hoping it's true one because it would vindicate my
• 1:59:24
  theory, but also too because it would make all the puzzle pieces finally fit.
• 1:59:29
  We might actually theoretically have closure on this thing after sixty years. So
• 1:59:34
  I am rooting for Landis to be telling the truth. However, I am
• 1:59:41
  now starting to question whether or not his story is actually true. Now.
• 1:59:46
  Gerald Posner, who wrote Case Closed, which is I think the pre eminent
• 1:59:51
  book on the Kennedy assassination, someone I've interviewed many times over the years.
• 1:59:57
  He's been doing a lot of interviews by the way, I have been in
• 2:00:00
  touch with him. He says he's going to do an interview with me when
• 2:00:02
  he comes back up for air sometime in either late October early November, because
• 2:00:08
  he's got some other things he needs to work on, as he says,
• 2:00:11
  pay the pills, which I totally get and understand and respect. And so
• 2:00:14
  when we get a little bit closer to the anniversary, I do fully anticipate
• 2:00:17
  to that I will interview Gerald Posner, which is going to be an amazing
• 2:00:21
  interview if and when it actually happens, because I really have high expectations that
• 2:00:27
  the two of us are going to be able to get to the bottom of
• 2:00:30
  not just the Landis allegation, but of the whole thing. Posner has been
• 2:00:33
  going back and forth in his public statements about whether or not he believes Landis.
• 2:00:39
  He didn't an interview this past weekend on CNN with Michael Smerconish. He
• 2:00:43
  was a guy I've known for a long time and I still communicate with.
• 2:00:45
  Interestingly, I knew Smerconish was going to interview Posner, and I texted Michael
• 2:00:51
  with a very specific concern about his pending interview with Posner, and offered to
• 2:00:58
  speak to him on the own, which I've done previously to explain my perspective
• 2:01:03
  on this, and Michael didn't even respond to me. Now, Michael's I
• 2:01:08
  think he's a little bit of a weird cat, and I'm never sure.
• 2:01:11
  You know, Sometimes he gets back to me right away and it's very eager
• 2:01:15
  to communicate. In other times he just ignores me. So I don't know
• 2:01:18
  what was going on here. Maybe he was just busy. There's a hundred
• 2:01:21
  different possible explanations. But I did try to communicate with Smerconis before his interview
• 2:01:27
  with Posner and was apparently unsuccessful. But it seems as if Posner is in
• 2:01:32
  the group of people who still believes in the single bullet theory. Now,
• 2:01:35
  how you could believe in the single bullet theory and believe Landis's story is true
• 2:01:40
  is completely beyond me. I don't think that's logistically possible. So to me,
• 2:01:46
  you have to at least think that Landis might not be telling the truth.
• 2:01:50
  Well, let me explain why I've become a little bit more skeptical of
• 2:01:55
  Landis's story and to be clear, I haven't made a determination either way.
• 2:02:00
  I'm still hopeful he's telling the truth. I think it's possible he's telling the
• 2:02:04
  truth, but I have some more concerns than I had previously. Now,
• 2:02:09
  Landis did an interview on News Nation television on which I appear about every other
• 2:02:14
  week on Dan Abrams Show, and he did so with Elizabeth Vargas, was
• 2:02:18
  a former ABC anchor. She's now a News Nation. I personally had a
• 2:02:24
  very bad experience with Elizabeth Vargas on the so called Steubenville High School football rate
• 2:02:30
  case for many years ago, where she did me, I think, very
• 2:02:34
  very wrong. I spoke to her on the phone about the response that Steubenville's
• 2:02:40
  football coach, Marino Sukosh was going to have to a twenty twenty story that
• 2:02:43
  they were doing about the rate case, and I was not happy at all.
• 2:02:47
  I feel as if she blatantly lied to me about what they were going
• 2:02:51
  to do and how they were going to handle our response. And I provided
• 2:02:57
  her with a two sentence response to an hour long program from the coach himself,
• 2:03:04
  and she only used the second sentence of it, which really pissed me
• 2:03:09
  off. So I'm not a big Elizabeth Vargas fan. She's also one of
• 2:03:12
  those at News Nations who has jumped all over the you know, we have
• 2:03:15
  proof that the aliens have visited from outer space narrative, which makes me very
• 2:03:21
  suspicious of her. So I'm not an Elizabeth Bargas fan, but she's really
• 2:03:26
  not the reason why I'm skeptical of Paul Landis. And I don't know why
• 2:03:31
  Landis would do an interview with Vargas, but for whatever reason, he did,
• 2:03:35
  and so I want to play a short clip of that interview between Paul
• 2:03:40
  Landis, the former Secret Service agent who's now claiming that he found the so
• 2:03:44
  called magic pristine single bullet in the backseat of the limousine which would have fallen
• 2:03:50
  out of John of Kennedy's back and therefore completely changed what is known about the
• 2:03:56
  logistics of the Kennedy assassination. This is a short clip, but I think
• 2:04:00
  you'll find it to be interesting, especially when it comes to the standpoint of
• 2:04:06
  how he viewed what he did, which has always been since we learned about
• 2:04:13
  this story a couple of weeks ago. That has been why I have thought
• 2:04:17
  his story was credible, which was that he must not have been very proud
• 2:04:25
  of what he did, and that's why I didn't want to talk about it.
• 2:04:28
  But he says essentially the opposite at the very end of this clip in
• 2:04:32
  the interview with News Nation and Elizabeth Vargas, Paul tell us why you're writing
• 2:04:36
  your book and speaking out now sixty years later after the event. I think
• 2:04:42
  to set things straight. Sixty years just kind of happened to come along after
• 2:04:48
  the assassination. I think the stress and everything I was, I'd just removed
• 2:04:55
  myself from the Secret Service. I just didn't like to talk about the assassination.
• 2:05:00
  You said you found a single bullet, the so called magic bullet,
• 2:05:05
  according to the Warren Commission, that was determined to have passed through the president
• 2:05:10
  and into Governor Connolly, who was sitting in front of the president. But
• 2:05:14
  you say you found the bullet in the back seat where President Kennedy was sitting.
• 2:05:18
  I found the bullet on the back seat of the car. I picked
• 2:05:24
  the bullet up, looked at it, started to put it back down.
• 2:05:29
  I put the bullet in my pocket. They were removing his body from the
• 2:05:31
  journey, and I quickly thought this is the place where the bullet should be.
• 2:05:36
  I made a snap decision. I thought this would help with the autopsy,
• 2:05:43
  and that the bullet would be evidence that the doctors would find. Thought
• 2:05:47
  I thought I'd done everything okay, and I was proud of the fact that
• 2:05:51
  I saved this piece of evidence. Now when I saw that, I thought,
• 2:05:57
  okay. First of all, it's good that he's doing television interview,
• 2:06:00
  So that's good. It's not like he's hiding. Number two. His demeanor
• 2:06:03
  is good. He seems like a credible guy. He's got his wits about
• 2:06:08
  him. He's not nuts. That's good. He seems sincere in what he's
• 2:06:13
  saying. That's good. Doesn't give off any obvious signs of lying in his
• 2:06:19
  body language, although he was blinking quite a bit, but the clips not
• 2:06:25
  long enough for me to determine whether or not that's just his normal emo or
• 2:06:30
  maybe it was a fluke or whatever. But so there were a couple of
• 2:06:32
  signs that maybe indicated some level of deception. But he doesn't come off like
• 2:06:39
  a con artist or and he's not trying to sell his book in any overtly
• 2:06:44
  dramatic way, and he's not connecting his experience with any particular conspiracy theory,
• 2:06:49
  which I think is that's all good, that all goes to potential credibility.
• 2:06:55
  But there's what he says there at the end that he thought he had done
• 2:07:00
  something good and that he was proud of it, which, by the way,
• 2:07:01
  is kind of contradicted by what he says at the beginning of that clip.
• 2:07:06
  So I'm not want to want to put too much weight on this,
• 2:07:10
  but it was disturbing to me because the whole issue of why you stay quiet
• 2:07:16
  for almost sixty years is really paramount here. So the narrative I had created
• 2:07:23
  to justify his story is he made a mistake in picking up the bullet.
• 2:07:29
  He felt bad about it, wasn't sure he we get in trouble, got
• 2:07:31
  rid of the bullet to get this problem off of his hands, didn't want
• 2:07:36
  to think about it, wasn't an assassination. Buff never realized its full significance
• 2:07:42
  until maybe the fiftieth anniversary, when this becomes an issue again. He's close
• 2:07:46
  to dying and realizes, you know what, I might have a piece of
• 2:07:50
  information that's more important than I realized. I need to tell this before I
• 2:07:55
  die. That was the narrative that made sense to me, that would explain
• 2:07:59
  why you would stay quiet about this, But what he says there at the
• 2:08:03
  end, to me is problematic because if you're proud of what you had done
• 2:08:11
  and you're also indicating there you understand the significance of it. He says,
• 2:08:15
  literally, this was an important piece of evidence, then why stay quiet about
• 2:08:20
  it for sixty years? That's a big hurdle for me. And you know
• 2:08:26
  time time changes a lot of things. I mean, it can alter your
• 2:08:31
  memory. And when you're about to die and you're reevalue winning your life,
• 2:08:37
  and let's face it, it's very natural for human beings to want to think
• 2:08:41
  that their existence had some meaning, right, there was some significance to your
• 2:08:46
  life. And you know, no one's ever heard of this guy before,
• 2:08:52
  and at eighty eight years old, all of a sudden, he comes forward
• 2:08:56
  with this incredibly compelling piece of evidence that may change the higher narrative of one
• 2:09:01
  of the most important things that ever happened in the twentieth century. That's you
• 2:09:07
  know, that's something to put on your tombstone. Maybe not your tombstone,
• 2:09:09
  but for certainly the first line of your obituary. You're now known for something.
• 2:09:16
  And the fact that he is trying to portray this as almost an act
• 2:09:20
  of heroism that concerns me. I am not suggesting he is blatantly lying.
• 2:09:28
  I think it is possible that he is rationalizing his memory in order to fit
• 2:09:37
  this agenda of coming up with something significant in his life, and then he
• 2:09:41
  could have been manipulated by this co author or ghostwriter who is a conspiracy person
• 2:09:48
  when it comes to the jfk assassination. That is concerning to me. And
• 2:09:54
  if I ever had the chance to interview Landis, which I doubt I will
• 2:09:58
  because I doubted eighty eight years old, he's going to do a ton of
• 2:10:01
  media interviews when the book comes out. But if I did, that would
• 2:10:05
  really be where I would be centered on. I would be like, Okay,
• 2:10:07
  help me understand why it is that you're gonna you've been quiet for sixty
• 2:10:13
  years if you think you did something good. If you think you did something
• 2:10:16
  good, that doesn't make any sense. And you're under and you're clearly stating
• 2:10:22
  that you get that this was significant. Now you may not have fully understood
• 2:10:26
  the significance of the evidence. And when I read the original New York Times
• 2:10:30
  article, that played a big role in why I felt like his story was
• 2:10:33
  credible because it sounded to me like he was almost naive, like, wait
• 2:10:39
  a minute, gee, you mean finding this bullet in the back of the
• 2:10:43
  limo might change people's view of what actually happened. I had no idea.
• 2:10:48
  Well, let me tell you this before I die. I mean, that
• 2:10:50
  was kind of what I had created based upon what I read in the New
• 2:10:54
  York Times. And this resonated with me, partially because of my experience and
• 2:11:00
  ironically enough, the Penn State Joe Paterno Jerry Sandusky case, because I found
• 2:11:03
  so many cases, so many situations where people had very important pieces of evidence
• 2:11:11
  or information that they didn't understand was significant because they didn't know the whole story,
• 2:11:20
  and that's why they stayed quiet until they happened to come across paths with
• 2:11:26
  me and I got it out of them. But because I know the full
• 2:11:30
  story, I understand why one little piece of information might be very, very
• 2:11:35
  significant, and it was perfectly understandable why they would not. Well, that
• 2:11:41
  was kind of what I had thought was going on with Landis, and I
• 2:11:45
  it's hard for me to continue to believe that based upon the interview that he
• 2:11:48
  did with Elizabeth Vargas. That doesn't mean it's not true. It means that
• 2:11:54
  I have greater concerns than I did previously because I need a narrative that makes
• 2:12:00
  sense, that explains why you would never say anything about this until you're about
• 2:12:05
  to die. Because when people are about to die, sometimes that means they
• 2:12:09
  tell the truth. Sometimes that means they make stuff up to rationalize the significance
• 2:12:15
  of their life. And that is also a possibility here. But there's also
• 2:12:20
  something else regarding Landis's story that is troubling me. And these are the types
• 2:12:26
  of things as pathetic as my life is that I actually lay awake at night
• 2:12:31
  thinking about it, and I was a couple of months ago. I was
• 2:12:33
  laying awake thinking about what Landis was saying and trying to fit it all together
• 2:12:37
  because again, I really want to believe it, because it would be personal
• 2:12:41
  vindication for me, and I think it would be great to be able to
• 2:12:45
  finally put all this together in a sensible fashion sixty years after the fact.
• 2:12:52
  And what I thought about is, Okay, let's pretend Landis is telling the
• 2:12:56
  truth. How does the bullet it fall out in the back seat of the
• 2:13:01
  limo. See my theory has always been that the bullet was lodged in the
• 2:13:07
  back but not very deep, which is consistent with you know, the scene
• 2:13:11
  in Oliver Stone's movie JFK where a Parkland doctor puts his finger in a hole
• 2:13:16
  and Jk's back in the emergency room and feels the end of it. It's
• 2:13:20
  not a very deep hole, and there's no bullet there, And you know,
• 2:13:24
  I'm thinking it makes sense that in the chaos of the emergency room,
• 2:13:30
  where people are doing CPR on him and his jacket and shirt are taken off
• 2:13:35
  and his bodies being moved around quite a bit, that the bullet would fall
• 2:13:39
  out at that point. And this was also consistent with the testimony of a
• 2:13:45
  nurse who said she saw a bullet lying there. And it was also consistent
• 2:13:50
  with Jaeger Hoover's phone call with President Johnson days after the assassination, where he
• 2:13:54
  even describes a bullet rolling out of JFK's head head in the emergency room at
• 2:14:01
  Parkland, which you know, since Hoover wasn't there, that made made sense
• 2:14:05
  to me that he might get the details wrong, but that that somehow Hoover
• 2:14:09
  had been given the impression that a bullet came out of Kennedy while they were
• 2:14:16
  treating him, So all that fit with my theory of the first shot hitting
• 2:14:20
  Kennedy in the back and then falling out. Well, as I was thinking
• 2:14:26
  about Land as this story, I'm I'm thinking, well, so Kennedy gets
• 2:14:31
  hit in the back and he's fully closed obviously, and yeah, is it
• 2:14:37
  possible that something could jar loose as they're getting the body of Kennedy out of
• 2:14:43
  the limo once they get to Parkland. Yeah, that's possible. It's not
• 2:14:48
  like I'm not envisioning it being like CPR where you're almost literally pumping theoretically a
• 2:14:54
  bullet out of a guy's back. But it's possible. But here's the problem.
• 2:15:01
  It's gonna sound so stupid, but Kennedy's shirt would have been tucked,
• 2:15:07
  and so if the bullet fell out of the back while Kennedy was still fully
• 2:15:11
  clothed, which he would have been in the limo, the bullet would have
• 2:15:16
  just fallen down basically into his belt line. Maybe, I mean, how
• 2:15:22
  would it have gotten out of of his clothes and into the back seat of
• 2:15:28
  the limo. That's hard for me to grasp. I don't I don't see
• 2:15:33
  how that could happen because it's not like it's going to fall back out of
• 2:15:35
  the same holes that that were created, the very small holes in the in
• 2:15:41
  the jacket and the shirt. That's just not logistically possible. I mean,
• 2:15:48
  so if you I mean I even did this kind of really sounds to it.
• 2:15:50
  But I even didn't experiment myself. I put a bullet, uh,
• 2:15:54
  you know, down my shirt, and uh, it didn't come out out
• 2:16:00
  in any way, shape or form. It just felt right back there on
• 2:16:03
  the belt line and stayed there, and I walked around with it. It
• 2:16:07
  didn't fall out. So I don't understand how this would have happened. Logistically
• 2:16:13
  doesn't mean it's impossible, but that's that is maybe my biggest question. Now.
• 2:16:18
  I don't have an alternative explanation. And it's possible that over sixty years
• 2:16:24
  there's been you know, there's been you know, miss memory or concocted memory
• 2:16:31
  or rationalization or whatever, or who knows. I don't have a I don't
• 2:16:37
  have a current, full, strong explanation for any particular scenario when it comes
• 2:16:43
  to Landis. But I'll just say that as of right now, I am
• 2:16:50
  less convinced that Landis is telling the truth than I was certainly when I read
• 2:16:54
  the New York Times article and this goes back to my primary issue of bias.
• 2:17:00
  I understand my own bias, and that bias was admittedly taking me in
• 2:17:05
  the direction of believing Landis because I wanted to believe Landis. Now I'm not
• 2:17:11
  so sure, so I'm still very open minded. I want to read the
• 2:17:13
  book. I want to see more interviews from Landis. I don't even know
• 2:17:18
  what percentages I would put on it right now. It's probably in the realm
• 2:17:22
  of fifty fifty or forty sixty in either direction. But I really don't know
• 2:17:26
  if Landis is telling the truth. I still want them to be telling the
• 2:17:28
  truth. I still think it's possibly he is telling the truth, but I
• 2:17:31
  have some serious questions. So that's the update on the never ending JFK assassination
• 2:17:37
  ASAKA. That'll also do it for this episode number ninety of the Death of
• 2:17:41
  Journalism podcast. As is always the case, please remember to subscribe, rate,
• 2:17:46
  and review, and share this podcast with others. If you share it
• 2:17:50
  on social media, please tag me and I'll be happy to share it with
• 2:17:54
  my followers on Twitter and Facebook. Until next time, thanks so much for
• 2:17:58
  listening to the Death of Journalism podcast. Asked. My name is John Zigler.