Latest / The Death Of Journalism / Episode Two Hundred Ninety Three: A Lib With Balls

Transcript

Episode Two Hundred Ninety Three: A Lib With Balls · The Death Of Journalism

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: Welcomed episode two hundred and ninety three of the Death
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: of Journalism podcast. My name is John Zigler. I'm your
• 0:05
  Speaker 1: host on today's show. CNN founder Ted Turner dies, We'll
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: examine his legacy. Ben Shapiro responds to reports of the
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: death of The Daily Wire. Has the redistricting battle given
• 0:19
  Speaker 1: Republicans a chance in the midterm elections? LSU football coach
• 0:24
  Speaker 1: Lane Kiffin reminds everyone why he's a jackass. More Diana Rassini,
• 0:29
  Speaker 1: Mike Rabel, news that you just can't resist, and a
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: glimmer of hope when it comes to Ai and gen Z.
• 0:38
  Speaker 1: With President Trump having seemingly tired of the war with
• 0:41
  Speaker 1: Iran and trying to end it and heading to China
• 0:45
  Speaker 1: for what could be historic negotiations, and without a major
• 0:49
  Speaker 1: news story to dominate the news cycle over the last
• 0:52
  Speaker 1: seven days, the structure of this episode of the podcast
• 0:56
  Speaker 1: is going to be just a little bit different. I
• 0:57
  Speaker 1: want to start with something that happened just after we
• 1:00
  Speaker 1: taped the last episode of the podcast, which happens all
• 1:03
  Speaker 1: too often, which was the death of CNN founder Ted Turner. Now,
• 1:08
  Speaker 1: Ted Turner hasn't been relevant for quite a while. He
• 1:10
  Speaker 1: had dementia, was very sick for the last several years
• 1:13
  Speaker 1: of his life. But I do think that his legacy
• 1:16
  Speaker 1: is important. It's gotten a lot of coverage over the
• 1:19
  Speaker 1: last week, and I wanted to share a few thoughts
• 1:22
  Speaker 1: on that subject because it goes right to the heart
• 1:25
  Speaker 1: of this podcast, the Death of journalism. First thing about
• 1:28
  Speaker 1: Ted Turner that I don't think got nearly enough attention,
• 1:32
  Speaker 1: and understandably so, because it's the liberal media that's been
• 1:35
  Speaker 1: obsessing over his legacy and has been lionizing him, is
• 1:40
  Speaker 1: that Ted Turner was a very liberal guy, but a
• 1:44
  Speaker 1: very liberal guy with balls. And to me, symbolically, that's
• 1:51
  Speaker 1: very significant because that's something that no longer exists. There
• 1:55
  Speaker 1: are no prominent liberals with real balls anymore. It's base
• 2:00
  Speaker 1: become an extinct species of liberal man to have any
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: sort of testicular matter. And Ted Turner had big balls,
• 2:10
  Speaker 1: and he did a lot of amazing things. His life
• 2:13
  Speaker 1: story was truly remarkable. But he's going to be most
• 2:16
  Speaker 1: well known for, at least in the news world, for
• 2:19
  Speaker 1: having created CNN. In the sports world, he's probably most
• 2:22
  Speaker 1: well known for having hired the manager of the Atlanta Braves,
• 2:25
  Speaker 1: Bobby Cox, forty nine years ago, and then they both
• 2:29
  Speaker 1: die within a week of each other, which is quite remarkable.
• 2:32
  Speaker 1: But that was an incredibly successful partnership with the Atlanta
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: Braves and something that probably could never be duplicated in
• 2:40
  Speaker 1: today's world, with everyone getting fired after one or two
• 2:43
  Speaker 1: bad seasons, maybe not even that. But back to CNN, CNN,
• 2:48
  Speaker 1: like a lot of things in life, was a great
• 2:51
  Speaker 1: idea that was extremely successful at the beginning and turned
• 2:55
  Speaker 1: eventually into a disaster. And I'm not really even talking
• 3:00
  Speaker 1: about the extreme liberal bias of CNN, which has been
• 3:04
  Speaker 1: very well documented and continues to expose itself almost on
• 3:07
  Speaker 1: a daily basis. I'm talking about the bigger picture of
• 3:11
  Speaker 1: the news media, and I talk a lot on this
• 3:14
  Speaker 1: podcast about the issue of fragmentation. It's a topic that
• 3:19
  Speaker 1: I first dealt with publicly in a big way in
• 3:21
  Speaker 1: my book The Death of Free Speech, which no one
• 3:23
  Speaker 1: actually purchased, understandably so because I wasn't a celebrity, but
• 3:28
  Speaker 1: was actually remarkably pressient. In fact, it might be the
• 3:31
  Speaker 1: most pressient thing I've ever done, because in the book
• 3:34
  Speaker 1: The Death of Free Speech, I predicted that media fragmentation
• 3:38
  Speaker 1: was going to cause all sorts of problems not just
• 3:41
  Speaker 1: in our media, but in our society and in our culture.
• 3:45
  Speaker 1: And CNN the birth of CNN was a major development
• 3:50
  Speaker 1: in that era of fragmentation, and at the beginning, a
• 3:54
  Speaker 1: little bit of fragmentation had a lot of positives. Before CNN,
• 4:00
  Speaker 1: vision news was dominated by basically three entities, ABCNBC and
• 4:05
  Speaker 1: CBS News and the evening news, and there was structure
• 4:09
  Speaker 1: to that, and it was slow, and the news cycle
• 4:12
  Speaker 1: was literally twenty four hours. It was twenty four hours
• 4:15
  Speaker 1: between newscasts, it was twenty four hours between when the
• 4:18
  Speaker 1: newspaper would go to print. And I believe there were
• 4:21
  Speaker 1: a lot of positives to that news cycle. Was it
• 4:24
  Speaker 1: incredibly slow in retrospect, Yes, but I think that there
• 4:28
  Speaker 1: were reasons that were positive for why that was good
• 4:32
  Speaker 1: for society and it was good for news because now
• 4:35
  Speaker 1: we've gone from a one day news cycle to a
• 4:38
  Speaker 1: one hour news cycle, and CNN and everything that CNN
• 4:42
  Speaker 1: birth is a large part of why that happened. But
• 4:46
  Speaker 1: when CNN was birth by Ted Turner, there wasn't massive fragmentation.
• 4:51
  Speaker 1: It was just the beginning of it. And for a
• 4:54
  Speaker 1: long while CNN could provide a twenty four hour news
• 5:00
  Speaker 1: a channel that would be substantive and didn't have any competition,
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: and so because it didn't have any competition, it could
• 5:09
  Speaker 1: succeed without having to do things that were against the
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: nature of journalism. You could do a twenty four hour
• 5:20
  Speaker 1: journalism based news network and seeing it was never perfect,
• 5:23
  Speaker 1: but it was a hell of a lot better than
• 5:25
  Speaker 1: it was. And at the beginning of it, they really thought, Okay,
• 5:28
  Speaker 1: we're going to do hard news. And it was able
• 5:30
  Speaker 1: to succeed because it didn't have any competition. It didn't
• 5:34
  Speaker 1: have any pressures to go in one ideological direction or
• 5:39
  Speaker 1: the other. It didn't have any pressures to sell out
• 5:42
  Speaker 1: and become much more entertainment, to do breaking news every
• 5:45
  Speaker 1: fifteen minutes, to pretend that something exciting was happening. We've
• 5:51
  Speaker 1: talked many, many times about what cable news has done
• 5:54
  Speaker 1: to the nature of journalism, and it's all been almost
• 5:57
  Speaker 1: completely negative. And so CNN at its inception was a
• 6:02
  Speaker 1: great idea, was incredibly successful. There was a need for it,
• 6:06
  Speaker 1: there was a place for it. But over time, not
• 6:10
  Speaker 1: only did it get competition within news, but the cable
• 6:13
  Speaker 1: universe exploded and now all of a sudden, CNN has
• 6:17
  Speaker 1: to compete in the free market, which normally I would
• 6:21
  Speaker 1: be in favor of as a conservative, but in this
• 6:24
  Speaker 1: particular case, the free market when it becomes too competitive,
• 6:28
  Speaker 1: is something that goes against basic journalism practices, because journalism
• 6:35
  Speaker 1: can't exist when it's desperate to try to make a profit.
• 6:40
  Speaker 1: It's an inherent contradiction. It has to be something essentially
• 6:44
  Speaker 1: that's a loss leader or is part of an organization
• 6:47
  Speaker 1: that's making so much money that they don't really care
• 6:50
  Speaker 1: that they can afford to do journalism. When I say
• 6:53
  Speaker 1: afford to do journalism, journalism itself, to do it right
• 6:57
  Speaker 1: can be very, very expensive. But you have to be
• 6:59
  Speaker 1: willing to take risks. You have to be willing to
• 7:01
  Speaker 1: take losses. You have to be willing to piss off
• 7:03
  Speaker 1: the wrong people. And if you're in a dog eat
• 7:07
  Speaker 1: dog world where you're going for every possible crumb like
• 7:11
  Speaker 1: they are today, you're going to do things that are
• 7:14
  Speaker 1: against basic journalism. You're gonna sell out, you're going to
• 7:18
  Speaker 1: do infotainment, you're going to break all sorts of journalistic norms. Hell,
• 7:22
  Speaker 1: they've been so obliterated they don't even exist anymore. And
• 7:25
  Speaker 1: we've seen that with CNN specifically, when it comes to
• 7:28
  Speaker 1: ideological bias because eventually, over time, you get Fox News Channel,
• 7:33
  Speaker 1: and you get MSNBC, and you get a couple of
• 7:36
  Speaker 1: other periphery fringe networks, and you have the Internet, which
• 7:40
  Speaker 1: was a massive development in all of this, and everything
• 7:44
  Speaker 1: fragments into a million pieces, and now you desperately have
• 7:47
  Speaker 1: to hold on to your audience, and in order to
• 7:50
  Speaker 1: hold onto your audience, you have to tell them what
• 7:52
  Speaker 1: they want to hear. It becomes therapy. That's essentially what
• 7:57
  Speaker 1: cable news became for your target demographic. You're giving them
• 8:04
  Speaker 1: what they want instead of telling them what you believe
• 8:06
  Speaker 1: to be the truth and what you believe to be
• 8:08
  Speaker 1: the most important information of the day. The tail is
• 8:11
  Speaker 1: now wagging the dog. The inmates are running the asylum,
• 8:16
  Speaker 1: and that's effectively what happened to CNN, only CNN did
• 8:20
  Speaker 1: a very poor job of it. They decided to pretend
• 8:24
  Speaker 1: to be in the middle while also being extremely liberally biased.
• 8:28
  Speaker 1: There's no audience for that. That's why their ratings have tanked,
• 8:31
  Speaker 1: and then once they tank to a certain level, they
• 8:34
  Speaker 1: lose relevance because everybody with a brain knows, well, what
• 8:37
  Speaker 1: happens on this channel doesn't really matter because a very
• 8:40
  Speaker 1: very insignificant portion of the population is watching in any
• 8:44
  Speaker 1: one particular time unless it's massive, real breaking news. But
• 8:48
  Speaker 1: even when there's real breaking news, there's now so many
• 8:50
  Speaker 1: different sources for that that you really don't get nearly
• 8:54
  Speaker 1: the audience that you used to. I mean, for a
• 8:57
  Speaker 1: several year period of time, CNN was the only place
• 9:01
  Speaker 1: to go for true breaking, live news, and in an
• 9:05
  Speaker 1: ideal world, it would have stayed that way. In an
• 9:07
  Speaker 1: ideal world, CNN would have remained ideologically somewhat agnostic, even
• 9:12
  Speaker 1: though Ted Turner was a liberal, and that would have
• 9:15
  Speaker 1: been the only cable news channel. We had room for,
• 9:17
  Speaker 1: one cable news channel. But because it was successful, it
• 9:21
  Speaker 1: actually doomed the entire industry to prostitution, effectively to therapy
• 9:29
  Speaker 1: slash prostitution. And that's what cable news has become. And
• 9:34
  Speaker 1: that is a large part of the legacy of CNN
• 9:38
  Speaker 1: and of Ted Turner, and fragmentation has caused cable news
• 9:44
  Speaker 1: networks to do all sorts of things that I believe
• 9:47
  Speaker 1: are very negative to the public discourse. And weirdly, I
• 9:52
  Speaker 1: think it was put very well on a show that's
• 9:55
  Speaker 1: owned by the same company that currently owns CNN, which
• 9:59
  Speaker 1: is HBO Real Time with Bill Maher, and Bill Maher,
• 10:04
  Speaker 1: of course, is a liberal and it's very I think
• 10:07
  Speaker 1: telling that oftentimes in this crazy world. Bill Maher, who
• 10:10
  Speaker 1: I used to loathe, tends to be the voice of reason,
• 10:14
  Speaker 1: at least among liberals, and he happened to have on
• 10:17
  Speaker 1: this past week John Fetterman, who's in the exact same boat.
• 10:20
  Speaker 1: I never would have thought that John Fetterman, Senator from Pennsylvania,
• 10:23
  Speaker 1: would be the voice of reason, the only voice of
• 10:26
  Speaker 1: reason maybe in the Democratic Congress. But the two of
• 10:30
  Speaker 1: them were on together and they discussed the legacy effectively
• 10:35
  Speaker 1: of Ted Turner's death, but also of cable news and
• 10:38
  Speaker 1: how news became opinion, an opinion became news, and the
• 10:44
  Speaker 1: negative aspects of that on our public discourse and our culture.
• 10:49
  Speaker 1: And here's what that sounded like on HBO Real Time
• 10:54
  Speaker 1: with Bill Maher.
• 10:55
  Speaker 2: This show airs on CNN. As of a couple of
• 10:59
  Speaker 2: years ago, the legacy of Ted Turner, who died this week.
• 11:02
  Speaker 2: What has the impact been of the twenty four our
• 11:05
  Speaker 2: news cycle. Well, he certainly was one of the giants
• 11:09
  Speaker 2: of broadcasting. Because yeah, because before Ted Turner and before CNN,
• 11:13
  Speaker 2: we did not have twenty four hour news now, I
• 11:16
  Speaker 2: mean sometimes there isn't news for twenty four hours. So
• 11:20
  Speaker 2: every time I see breaking news, I'm a little skeptical.
• 11:23
  Speaker 3: Opinions have become actual real news, and we've we've lost
• 11:28
  Speaker 3: that ability, like you know, like opinions are not news, right,
• 11:31
  Speaker 3: you know, and there are so many shitty trots out.
• 11:33
  Speaker 1: There in the world.
• 11:34
  Speaker 3: Now, why why are people still talking about Tucker Carlson?
• 11:40
  Speaker 3: Are any of these people now? Even Alex Jones now
• 11:43
  Speaker 3: is back? You know, I have to see that asshole
• 11:44
  Speaker 3: in my feet anymore. You know why because if they
• 11:48
  Speaker 3: are criticized, if they are criticizing Trump, it's like, now,
• 11:52
  Speaker 3: sometimes we in the Democrats say, well, maybe they have
• 11:55
  Speaker 3: a point, you know, MTG crazy pants? Why are we
• 11:58
  Speaker 3: keep hearing about her now? To yeah, yeah, I mean
• 12:04
  Speaker 3: so so what I'm what I'm saying, it's like, you know,
• 12:06
  Speaker 3: like focusing on real news and the real dynamic there.
• 12:10
  Speaker 3: You know, I'm so tired of you if opinions have
• 12:13
  Speaker 3: become news and now there's countless, countless ones and it's
• 12:17
  Speaker 3: it's all become slow.
• 12:18
  Speaker 2: And let me just make the point. This is this
• 12:20
  Speaker 2: is a this is an entertainment show. It says real
• 12:28
  Speaker 2: on a title. Yeah, because.
• 12:38
  Speaker 1: Now obviously there is a place for opinion. Podcasts have
• 12:43
  Speaker 1: obviously become a place where there are lots and lots
• 12:46
  Speaker 1: of opinions, most of them are completely bogus and ridiculous.
• 12:50
  Speaker 1: I'm not a big fan of what podcasting has done
• 12:53
  Speaker 1: to our media culture. I mean, it's splintered everything into
• 12:58
  Speaker 1: a billion little pieces. There's no communal moments anymore, there's
• 13:02
  Speaker 1: no communal experience. People live in their own little bubbles.
• 13:06
  Speaker 1: I mean the bubbles are getting tinier and tinier. Effectively,
• 13:10
  Speaker 1: in my lifetime, the history of journalism or broadcasting has
• 13:14
  Speaker 1: gone from broad casting where you're trying to appeal to
• 13:18
  Speaker 1: the largest broadest audience possible, to narrow casting where you're
• 13:25
  Speaker 1: targeting a particular demographic, to cult casting, where you're really
• 13:31
  Speaker 1: giving that particular demographic exactly what they want to hear
• 13:35
  Speaker 1: or see, to micro cult casting, which effectively is what
• 13:40
  Speaker 1: podcasting is. Micro cult casting, where you're picking a very
• 13:44
  Speaker 1: very tiny sliver of a demographic and just feeding them
• 13:48
  Speaker 1: exactly what they want so they will become addicted to you.
• 13:53
  Speaker 1: And that's the business model that works in a highly
• 13:57
  Speaker 1: fragmented age. Kills the truth. It kills journalism, It kills
• 14:04
  Speaker 1: a lot of what I think made American culture good
• 14:08
  Speaker 1: in the eighties and the nineties, specifically communal experiences and
• 14:13
  Speaker 1: having us all be on the same page. We don't
• 14:16
  Speaker 1: even read from the same book anymore. Literally, we don't
• 14:20
  Speaker 1: even read from the same book anymore. And it's all
• 14:23
  Speaker 1: because of what started with the advent of CNN. Now
• 14:27
  Speaker 1: that's not all Ted Turner's fault, although he owned a
• 14:30
  Speaker 1: lot of different cable channels, so he was right at
• 14:33
  Speaker 1: the forefront of the cable expansion, the fragmentation that would
• 14:39
  Speaker 1: end up, I believe being at the heart of the
• 14:41
  Speaker 1: death of journalism, especially when it comes to television. Now
• 14:46
  Speaker 1: in the modern era, we're seeing these economic pressures within
• 14:50
  Speaker 1: the conservative media and the fragmentation that has occurred there.
• 14:54
  Speaker 1: And in the last episode of the podcast, I talked
• 14:56
  Speaker 1: a lot about the situation of The Daily Wire, Shapiro's
• 15:01
  Speaker 1: media outlet, and how there were reports of layoffs and
• 15:06
  Speaker 1: loss of money, and there was a dispute over just
• 15:09
  Speaker 1: how bad things were at the Daily Wire, and I
• 15:12
  Speaker 1: went through a lot of the reasons why I thought
• 15:16
  Speaker 1: that the Daily Wire was having trouble. A couple of
• 15:19
  Speaker 1: them I actually inadvertently either sidestepped or didn't get into
• 15:23
  Speaker 1: in detail. I do think that the Jewish issue is
• 15:27
  Speaker 1: a problem, especially with the war in Iran, but that's
• 15:31
  Speaker 1: not new. I mean, you know, being Jewish has always
• 15:35
  Speaker 1: been problematic and it continues to be so. But the
• 15:39
  Speaker 1: Washington Post jumped into this debate with a searing I
• 15:44
  Speaker 1: guess you would call it analysis of what allegedly is
• 15:47
  Speaker 1: happening at the Daily Wire. This is how they promoted
• 15:51
  Speaker 1: that story on X. How Ben Shapiro's Daily Wire lost
• 15:56
  Speaker 1: its grip on the conservative Internet. The anti wokere that
• 16:00
  Speaker 1: invested tens of millions in fantasy shows and Shapiro scented
• 16:05
  Speaker 1: candles now faces sweeping layoffs and criticism. Its MAGA relevance
• 16:11
  Speaker 1: has slipped away. Now. Ben Shapiro, to his credit, issued
• 16:18
  Speaker 1: a statement in response that I loved I don't normally
• 16:22
  Speaker 1: read full statements on the podcast, but this one is
• 16:26
  Speaker 1: definitely worthy of doing. So. Here's what Ben Shapiro posted
• 16:31
  Speaker 1: in response to the Washington Post story. Yes, our revenue
• 16:35
  Speaker 1: is down compared to twenty twenty four. Matt Walsh put
• 16:38
  Speaker 1: out the most successful documentary in a decade, twenty twenty
• 16:41
  Speaker 1: four was an enormous election year, and for the first
• 16:45
  Speaker 1: third of the year we had a very popular host
• 16:47
  Speaker 1: who turned out to be a wild conspiracy theorist who
• 16:50
  Speaker 1: thinks Bridget macrohne has testicles Erica Kirk was involved in
• 16:55
  Speaker 1: her husband's murder and the Frankes Jewser drinking Christian blood
• 16:59
  Speaker 1: or some such. He's obviously referring there to Candas Owens
• 17:02
  Speaker 1: without naming her. Back to his statement. When we found
• 17:06
  Speaker 1: that to be the case, we fired her. That does
• 17:10
  Speaker 1: hurt your revenue some, but we can live with that. Also,
• 17:13
  Speaker 1: our friend and Jordan Peterson, one of the most important
• 17:15
  Speaker 1: people in conservative media, got sick. That hurts revenue too.
• 17:19
  Speaker 1: And of course we've taken some big swings, some hit,
• 17:22
  Speaker 1: some miss. That's the nature of the business. But here's
• 17:25
  Speaker 1: the big thing. We've been in business for a decade.
• 17:28
  Speaker 1: We have revenue numbers that dwarf those of our critics.
• 17:32
  Speaker 1: We have enormous plans for the rest of twenty twenty
• 17:35
  Speaker 1: six and for years to come. We're not going anywhere.
• 17:38
  Speaker 1: While much of the rest of the quote unquote conservative
• 17:41
  Speaker 1: movement decided it was a good idea to clickhore By
• 17:44
  Speaker 1: embracing radical Islam, theorizing about the evils of Winston Churchill,
• 17:49
  Speaker 1: extolling the wonders of Russian supermarkets, and mocking the widow
• 17:53
  Speaker 1: of Charlie Kirk as a probable accessory to murder. We
• 17:58
  Speaker 1: decided not to do those things, obviously, in most part
• 18:01
  Speaker 1: referring to tuck our Carlson there. If that's a strategic
• 18:04
  Speaker 1: business failure, then I guess we can live with that.
• 18:07
  Speaker 1: We found in the Daily Wire to promote truth, virtue,
• 18:10
  Speaker 1: and freedom, and we're not going to trade those causes
• 18:13
  Speaker 1: for the temporary nicotine high of Pakistani clicks and groyper likes.
• 18:21
  Speaker 1: That is a fantastic statement by Ben Shapiro. But here's
• 18:25
  Speaker 1: the bottom line of that is telling the truth within
• 18:30
  Speaker 1: the so called conservative movement in twenty twenty six a
• 18:35
  Speaker 1: business model that can work, I honestly don't have a
• 18:39
  Speaker 1: good answer to that. I don't know. I hope for
• 18:42
  Speaker 1: their sake that it can. I hope for the truth
• 18:44
  Speaker 1: that it can, but I'm skeptical that it will because
• 18:49
  Speaker 1: we are living in a world where the truth no
• 18:52
  Speaker 1: longer matters and unpopular truths have no chance. Lies that
• 19:02
  Speaker 1: are created to appeal to a particular demographic. And that's
• 19:07
  Speaker 1: what Candae Owens and Tucker Carlson and Megan Kelly what
• 19:11
  Speaker 1: I referred to as the Alliance of Lunacy. That's what
• 19:14
  Speaker 1: they do better than anybody else, certainly in the conservative movement,
• 19:20
  Speaker 1: even better than I realized because I didn't even understand
• 19:23
  Speaker 1: some of the plays that they were calling, but they
• 19:25
  Speaker 1: seemingly worked. Although Megan Kelly has gotten to a battle
• 19:29
  Speaker 1: with Ben Shapiro and Mark Levin over the last several
• 19:32
  Speaker 1: days over the size of their audiences, and some people
• 19:35
  Speaker 1: have analyzed it and said that Megan Kelly's audience is
• 19:37
  Speaker 1: nowhere near as big as Ben Shapiro's. But the reality is,
• 19:43
  Speaker 1: at least in perception, the Alliance of Lunacy has somehow
• 19:47
  Speaker 1: won this battle that started after Candice Owens got fired
• 19:52
  Speaker 1: from The Daily Wire and really exploded with the entire
• 19:56
  Speaker 1: issue of Charlie Kirk's assassination and whether or not Erica
• 20:00
  Speaker 1: Kirker Turning Point USA had anything to do with it.
• 20:03
  Speaker 1: I mean, to me, that's I mean, it just doesn't
• 20:06
  Speaker 1: get any crazier than that. It does not get any
• 20:09
  Speaker 1: more insane, I don't think than that. And it just
• 20:13
  Speaker 1: never occurred to me that I thought maybe Catus Owens
• 20:17
  Speaker 1: would temporarily benefit from that, just from the attention, But
• 20:21
  Speaker 1: I honestly believed, maybe naively, that over time there was
• 20:27
  Speaker 1: going to be a price to pay. At the very least,
• 20:29
  Speaker 1: you know, Ben Shapiro wasn't going to be harmed or
• 20:32
  Speaker 1: The Daily Wired wasn't going to be harmed for being
• 20:35
  Speaker 1: on the correct side of that seemingly very one sided debate.
• 20:39
  Speaker 1: It's not even a debate, it's it's just a ridiculous
• 20:42
  Speaker 1: assertion with no evidence whatsoever, that's incredibly hurtful, not to
• 20:47
  Speaker 1: mention nonsensical. So this is going to be an interesting battle.
• 20:52
  Speaker 1: I mean, it's one that I have posed before in
• 20:55
  Speaker 1: my own life many times. In fact, at the end
• 20:58
  Speaker 1: of my documentary film the Framing of Joe Paterno, I
• 21:03
  Speaker 1: basically say, we're going to find out whether the truth
• 21:05
  Speaker 1: still matters. And I suspected at the time the truth
• 21:08
  Speaker 1: wasn't gonna matter in that case, and boy, the truth
• 21:11
  Speaker 1: didn't matter even a little bit. Now, there were some
• 21:13
  Speaker 1: unique aspects to that whole story, and it doesn't really
• 21:17
  Speaker 1: necessarily for sure tell you what's gonna happen in the
• 21:20
  Speaker 1: bigger picture of the conservative media. But in the era
• 21:23
  Speaker 1: of Trump, I have my doubts. See, I'm not a
• 21:27
  Speaker 1: believer that you know, in two and a half years
• 21:30
  Speaker 1: we're going to go back to some sense of normalcy.
• 21:32
  Speaker 1: To twenty fifteen, I think the world, especially in the
• 21:35
  Speaker 1: conservative media, has completely and totally changed that Trump has
• 21:39
  Speaker 1: forever altered it. You know, some people might say that's
• 21:42
  Speaker 1: for the better. I think that's mostly for the worst,
• 21:44
  Speaker 1: especially when it comes to our public discourse and the
• 21:47
  Speaker 1: nature of the conservative media, especially when it comes to
• 21:50
  Speaker 1: the embracing of nonsensical and absurd conspiracy theories. But this
• 21:55
  Speaker 1: is going to be an interesting battle. It's gonna I'll
• 21:58
  Speaker 1: be very closely to see how the Daily Wire does,
• 22:01
  Speaker 1: and I wish them the best of luck. Now, one
• 22:03
  Speaker 1: thing that I did not mention, which I should have
• 22:07
  Speaker 1: in the last episode of the podcast, in which Ben
• 22:09
  Speaker 1: vaguely alludes to in his statement, is that one of
• 22:13
  Speaker 1: the things that Daily Wire did was spend a lot
• 22:16
  Speaker 1: of money on movie projects that did not pan out,
• 22:20
  Speaker 1: and they weren't even within the realm of conservative media.
• 22:24
  Speaker 1: The Washington Post refers to them as fantasy films. And
• 22:27
  Speaker 1: I actually had dinner with a friend of mine, who's
• 22:30
  Speaker 1: a Hollywood director who had been approached by Ben on
• 22:33
  Speaker 1: several occasions to do projects like that for The Daily
• 22:36
  Speaker 1: Wire and it just never happened. And he was telling
• 22:40
  Speaker 1: me in great detail just how much money they lost
• 22:43
  Speaker 1: because of that, and that that probably played a significant
• 22:46
  Speaker 1: role in where they currently are financially, and so I
• 22:50
  Speaker 1: think that's an important part of the equation that I
• 22:53
  Speaker 1: didn't want to leave out a second time. By the way,
• 22:55
  Speaker 1: speaking of the nature of the movie business, and the
• 22:59
  Speaker 1: movie business has experienced a lot of the same troubles
• 23:03
  Speaker 1: that the media business has, largely because of fragmentation and
• 23:07
  Speaker 1: broken business model and everything else. I have constantly maintained
• 23:12
  Speaker 1: that people still do want to go to the movie theater.
• 23:15
  Speaker 1: And I don't know, I didn't know where to put
• 23:17
  Speaker 1: this in the podcast because it doesn't really fit with
• 23:20
  Speaker 1: anything else, but I think it's still worthy of mentioned that.
• 23:23
  Speaker 1: In the last two or three weeks, the movie Michael,
• 23:26
  Speaker 1: about Michael Jackson and the Doublewares Prada two sequel from
• 23:32
  Speaker 1: twenty years ago with Meryl Streep and Anne Hathaway have
• 23:37
  Speaker 1: grossed internationally together over a billion dollars, actually well over
• 23:43
  Speaker 1: a billion dollars, but those two movies combined in less
• 23:48
  Speaker 1: than three weeks. Now I realize that there's some unique
• 23:52
  Speaker 1: aspects to both of them. You can't recreate Michael Jackson.
• 23:56
  Speaker 1: There's there's no not going to be another Michael Jackson
• 23:58
  Speaker 1: for you know, very interesting reasons that someday I'll probably
• 24:02
  Speaker 1: get into. But we've killed the star system in movies
• 24:06
  Speaker 1: and music and all sorts of entertainment. There ain't going
• 24:09
  Speaker 1: to be another Michael Jackson. So you obviously there might
• 24:12
  Speaker 1: be a sequel to that movie, which might create controversy
• 24:15
  Speaker 1: because of the I believe bogus allegations against him. But
• 24:19
  Speaker 1: you can't. You can't do a Michael Jackson movie every year, obviously.
• 24:23
  Speaker 1: And Devil's Where Devil's The Devilwaar's Product two is a sequel,
• 24:28
  Speaker 1: and so weirdly, the Devilwar's Product two is making more
• 24:32
  Speaker 1: money internationally in this sequel life than it did the
• 24:36
  Speaker 1: first go around. Now there's inflationary issues over twenty years,
• 24:39
  Speaker 1: but still it appears to me is that they're going
• 24:41
  Speaker 1: to sell way more tickets at the box office for
• 24:44
  Speaker 1: the sequel than they did in the original twenty years ago.
• 24:47
  Speaker 1: And to me, that says a lot about the fact
• 24:50
  Speaker 1: that people still do want to go to the movie theater.
• 24:53
  Speaker 1: They just want to be able to see something that
• 24:55
  Speaker 1: one they're familiar with and have a confidence that they're
• 24:58
  Speaker 1: going to like. Hollywood has lost that confidence, and they've
• 25:03
  Speaker 1: also lost the ability to take risks, which is all
• 25:06
  Speaker 1: why all you get is sequel after sequel. No one's
• 25:08
  Speaker 1: gonna green light anything major that doesn't have a brand
• 25:13
  Speaker 1: associated with it, doesn't have a built in audience like
• 25:16
  Speaker 1: Michael Jackson. Michael the Movie was natural because of the
• 25:20
  Speaker 1: fact that you have a base of fans that are
• 25:22
  Speaker 1: going to go see almost anything associated with Michael Jackson.
• 25:27
  Speaker 1: And it looks as if internationally Michael is going to
• 25:30
  Speaker 1: probably make a billion dollars or more. Now, it's interesting
• 25:33
  Speaker 1: to point out that for both Michael and Doubleware's Product two,
• 25:37
  Speaker 1: about almost sixty percent of the audience is international, which is,
• 25:44
  Speaker 1: you know, not historically been the case with these types
• 25:46
  Speaker 1: of movies. Generally the domestic box office dominates, but part
• 25:50
  Speaker 1: of that's because of the subject matter of Michael and
• 25:54
  Speaker 1: Doubleware's product too. But it's an interesting element that it
• 25:57
  Speaker 1: does appear as if the international market is now become
• 26:00
  Speaker 1: coming more and more important for Hollywood movies to be
• 26:03
  Speaker 1: able to make a profit. As far as Michael the movie,
• 26:07
  Speaker 1: I saw it with my two daughters. I liked it.
• 26:09
  Speaker 1: It was better than I expected. My daughters loved it.
• 26:13
  Speaker 1: We put out a video review on x which you
• 26:16
  Speaker 1: might have seen. I had a few minor issues with
• 26:19
  Speaker 1: the movie from a strategic standpoint. Since I have been
• 26:24
  Speaker 1: deeply involved in the fight to defend Michael Jackson against
• 26:29
  Speaker 1: what I believe now to be completely bogus allegations of
• 26:32
  Speaker 1: sexual abuse, I was a bit confused as to why
• 26:37
  Speaker 1: the movie does not take advantage of the fact that
• 26:40
  Speaker 1: you know, millions and millions of people are going to
• 26:42
  Speaker 1: see this worldwide, and you have a story of a
• 26:46
  Speaker 1: massive pop star and you have zero, I mean zero
• 26:50
  Speaker 1: romantic interest at all. To me, it was a missed
• 26:54
  Speaker 1: opportunity and a strategic mistake. Now I'm told that there
• 26:59
  Speaker 1: was actually a romantic interest in the film, but they
• 27:02
  Speaker 1: cut it out. Why they would do that, I have
• 27:05
  Speaker 1: no idea one because it's just not the truth. I'm
• 27:08
  Speaker 1: not suggesting they should manufacture romantic interest to make it
• 27:11
  Speaker 1: look like Michael Jackson wasn't a pedophile, but because the
• 27:16
  Speaker 1: reality is he dated lots of women during the time
• 27:19
  Speaker 1: period that the movie documents up till nineteen eighty eight,
• 27:25
  Speaker 1: and they just completely ignored it. I mean, it has
• 27:27
  Speaker 1: to be the only biopick in the history of pop
• 27:30
  Speaker 1: stars or rock stars to not have a romantic interest.
• 27:34
  Speaker 1: I mean, they can't possibly have been another one. So strategically,
• 27:38
  Speaker 1: I just thought that was a strange and maybe dumb decision,
• 27:43
  Speaker 1: not taking advantage of an enormous opportunity to introduce Michael
• 27:47
  Speaker 1: to a new and younger audience because people are curious
• 27:51
  Speaker 1: about the movie, and you know, tens and tens of
• 27:54
  Speaker 1: millions of people both domestically and internationally are going to
• 27:58
  Speaker 1: see this movie. And let's be clear, Michael is still
• 28:01
  Speaker 1: under attack via these bogus charges, and something very weird
• 28:07
  Speaker 1: that I don't fully understand transpired over the last couple
• 28:11
  Speaker 1: of days with regard to some new allegations from a
• 28:16
  Speaker 1: family that was extremely positive towards Michael Jackson way after
• 28:21
  Speaker 1: his death, in fact, only a couple of years ago,
• 28:24
  Speaker 1: and now all of a sudden, they've turned their children
• 28:27
  Speaker 1: they were no longer children, into accusers and it's just
• 28:31
  Speaker 1: complete bull crap. I mean, it's just overt bullshit. I mean,
• 28:36
  Speaker 1: but I guess it seems to me as if what's
• 28:39
  Speaker 1: happened here is that the family got rewarded for their
• 28:43
  Speaker 1: loyalty to Michael Jackson by the estate and got paid
• 28:47
  Speaker 1: some money, and so now they've basically done a switch
• 28:53
  Speaker 1: rou a double cross where they're trying to make it
• 28:56
  Speaker 1: look like that money was a payoff for sexual abuse.
• 29:01
  Speaker 1: But that doesn't make any goddamn sense. The money's not
• 29:03
  Speaker 1: nearly enough. Part of the problem has always been with
• 29:07
  Speaker 1: Michael Jackson and his estate is that there's so much
• 29:12
  Speaker 1: money that people don't properly evaluate how they're spending it
• 29:18
  Speaker 1: when it comes to these kinds of situations. To the
• 29:20
  Speaker 1: average person, and even to me when I first heard
• 29:23
  Speaker 1: about it, it makes absolutely no sense to be paying
• 29:27
  Speaker 1: people off unless you're hiding something. But when you have
• 29:31
  Speaker 1: as much money as Michael Jackson had and as much
• 29:33
  Speaker 1: money as the estate has, the equation completely changes. Well,
• 29:38
  Speaker 1: it seems to me is if some lawyer got a
• 29:41
  Speaker 1: hold of these people and said, hey, you know what,
• 29:44
  Speaker 1: you know, we could be part of this group of
• 29:47
  Speaker 1: lawsuits against the estate. The estate's got a ton of money,
• 29:50
  Speaker 1: they got this movie coming out, they might be so
• 29:53
  Speaker 1: afraid of us. They might want to make us go away,
• 29:56
  Speaker 1: they might pay us some more money. That seems to
• 29:58
  Speaker 1: be what has happened. And the shock part of this,
• 30:00
  Speaker 1: the part I don't understand, is that their attorney, this
• 30:04
  Speaker 1: family's attorney, is now Mark Garagos. And Mark Garragos is
• 30:09
  Speaker 1: Oh my god, I mean, what a whore he is.
• 30:12
  Speaker 1: He is a complete whore for both money and attention.
• 30:17
  Speaker 1: And I've never liked Mark Garragos. But when I went
• 30:21
  Speaker 1: on a podcast he used to do with Adam Corolla
• 30:25
  Speaker 1: about legal issues to talk about the Sandusky case, I
• 30:28
  Speaker 1: had a small hope that I could convince Mark Garagos
• 30:31
  Speaker 1: that I was right, partially because he had represented Michael
• 30:36
  Speaker 1: Jackson at one time against these allegations of sexual abuse,
• 30:40
  Speaker 1: and I thought maybe he would get it. He didn't
• 30:43
  Speaker 1: get it at all. And I don't even think he's
• 30:46
  Speaker 1: very smart. I mean, this the guy who still thinks
• 30:48
  Speaker 1: Scott Peterson is innocent, which is just absolutely preposterous. But
• 30:53
  Speaker 1: Garagos has clearly sold out here because the family understands
• 30:59
  Speaker 1: they it's far more valuable to have Garagos as their
• 31:02
  Speaker 1: lawyer because he used to be associated with Michael Jackson
• 31:07
  Speaker 1: being innocent and obviously it's kind of like taking somebody
• 31:10
  Speaker 1: from the other side, So he's more valuable, even though
• 31:13
  Speaker 1: he's way past whatever prime he had and frankly, he's
• 31:18
  Speaker 1: never really won any case. I mean not to me.
• 31:20
  Speaker 1: I don't even understand how he got hugely famous other
• 31:23
  Speaker 1: than going on cable. There's television all the time and
• 31:26
  Speaker 1: having the hosts and the anchors seemingly like him. But
• 31:31
  Speaker 1: there's more valuable value to him in this case because
• 31:36
  Speaker 1: of his past having defended Michael Jackson, which of course
• 31:39
  Speaker 1: you only really need if you're perpetrating a fraud, which
• 31:43
  Speaker 1: this family absolutely positively is. And then the last part
• 31:47
  Speaker 1: of this equation, A big part of why I'm even
• 31:49
  Speaker 1: mentioning it is that Garaghos went on Meghan Kelly's show
• 31:54
  Speaker 1: and Megan Kelly basically softballed him on this whole thing,
• 31:58
  Speaker 1: which is just so inferior on so many levels. I mean,
• 32:01
  Speaker 1: Megan Kelly's stance on allegations of sexual abuse are all
• 32:06
  Speaker 1: over the map. I mean, this is the woman that
• 32:08
  Speaker 1: literally held the hand of Pete Hegstath as he became
• 32:12
  Speaker 1: Secretary of War, even though he was forced to pay
• 32:15
  Speaker 1: a settlement in a rate case contemporaneously. I mean, and
• 32:21
  Speaker 1: you know, I've talked many times before about how she
• 32:23
  Speaker 1: went after Matt Lauer and lied about him my friend,
• 32:26
  Speaker 1: and she was totally wrong about what's happening with him NBC.
• 32:30
  Speaker 1: But the really bizarre part of this old equation is
• 32:34
  Speaker 1: that Megan Kelly has previously attacked the HBO film Leaving Neverland,
• 32:40
  Speaker 1: which made these allegations against Michael Jackson seven years ago,
• 32:44
  Speaker 1: really brought the whole issue back into the forefront, came
• 32:48
  Speaker 1: within a whisker of essentially canceling Michael Jackson. And I
• 32:52
  Speaker 1: am positive that the reason why she went after leaving
• 32:55
  Speaker 1: Neverland is that her lawyer, at least her lawyer at
• 32:58
  Speaker 1: the time I presume he still is. Brian Friedman is
• 33:01
  Speaker 1: a guy who I was working with for a short
• 33:04
  Speaker 1: period of time on the Michael Jackson case, and he
• 33:07
  Speaker 1: was part of the Jackson Estates legal team. So clearly
• 33:12
  Speaker 1: he had Megan Kelly at least educated, if not directed
• 33:16
  Speaker 1: to go after leaving Neverland, and she did so. So
• 33:21
  Speaker 1: why she's all of a sudden turning on Michael Jackson
• 33:24
  Speaker 1: I am completely confused by. I have a theory, and
• 33:27
  Speaker 1: it's purely a theory. I have absolutely no information on
• 33:31
  Speaker 1: this at all. I am out of the loop when
• 33:33
  Speaker 1: it comes to what's going on within the Jackson family.
• 33:36
  Speaker 1: I haven't talked to Brian Freeman in a very very
• 33:38
  Speaker 1: long time. I've mentioned Brian Freeman many times because he
• 33:42
  Speaker 1: was just in Baldoni's attorney that case. Obviously just settled
• 33:48
  Speaker 1: in that sexual harassment situation with Blake Lively, which we
• 33:52
  Speaker 1: talked many times before. Essentially it seems as if Freedman
• 33:56
  Speaker 1: won there. He implied that there was no money that
• 33:59
  Speaker 1: ially changed hands. But here's my theory. The only way
• 34:03
  Speaker 1: I can make this work. And I've been asked about
• 34:05
  Speaker 1: this by several people, so that's why I'm going to
• 34:07
  Speaker 1: take a little bit more time than I probably should
• 34:09
  Speaker 1: even theorize about this. My theory is this, unless there's
• 34:14
  Speaker 1: something going on with Kelly and Friedman that I'm unaware of.
• 34:18
  Speaker 1: This movie Michael seemingly has created a split within the
• 34:24
  Speaker 1: Michael Jackson forces. It's created somewhat of a split, it seems,
• 34:28
  Speaker 1: within the family of Michael Jackson, and it's also I
• 34:33
  Speaker 1: think seemingly created a split within the Michael Jackson organization.
• 34:39
  Speaker 1: That's a sense that I get, and this is my theory.
• 34:42
  Speaker 1: Maybe Friedman felt like he got effectively left out of
• 34:47
  Speaker 1: the movie situation and now decided screw Michael Jackson and
• 34:53
  Speaker 1: let either directed or let Megan Kelly do whatever the
• 34:57
  Speaker 1: hell she wants with regard to Mark garrow Goes, with
• 34:59
  Speaker 1: whom she seemingly has a good relationship. So now she's
• 35:03
  Speaker 1: doing Mark Garret Goos as solid by helping this bogus
• 35:06
  Speaker 1: case that he has against Michael Jackson. That's just a theory.
• 35:10
  Speaker 1: It would seem to make some sense. I have zero
• 35:12
  Speaker 1: evidence for that, but it does feel as if there
• 35:17
  Speaker 1: was a certain group of the pro Michael Jackson forces
• 35:21
  Speaker 1: that were in on this movie, and there were others
• 35:24
  Speaker 1: that were not in on this movie. And it's possible,
• 35:27
  Speaker 1: at least I think in theory that Freeman might be
• 35:30
  Speaker 1: in a situation where he no longer has any loyalty
• 35:33
  Speaker 1: to Michael Jackson. Again, just a theory could be completely
• 35:36
  Speaker 1: wrong in that because I'm just baffled. I'm trying to
• 35:38
  Speaker 1: come up with some explanation for something that doesn't seem
• 35:42
  Speaker 1: to make any sense. By the way, things that Dobaka
• 35:44
  Speaker 1: he says that I've talked about recently on the podcast
• 35:47
  Speaker 1: that I at least want a reference. The UFO files
• 35:51
  Speaker 1: have come out, at least to a certain degree, and
• 35:54
  Speaker 1: they basically are exactly as they told you they would be.
• 35:57
  Speaker 1: There's lots of videos of things that seem strangeing. Okay, great, interesting,
• 36:03
  Speaker 1: there's been some interesting videos. Boy, that's odd. I wonder
• 36:05
  Speaker 1: what caused that very dark, grainy video to occur? How
• 36:12
  Speaker 1: did that happen? What's the explanation for that? Knock yourself out?
• 36:16
  Speaker 1: I mean, I find that to be at least somewhat interesting. Okay,
• 36:19
  Speaker 1: so how did that happen? But there's been absolutely zero
• 36:23
  Speaker 1: evidence whatsoever nor any logic that somehow we have evidence
• 36:28
  Speaker 1: within the archives of the United States of America that
• 36:31
  Speaker 1: we've been visited by space aliens. And I've gone through
• 36:34
  Speaker 1: in great detail exactly why that's impossible. It's a mathematical,
• 36:39
  Speaker 1: logical impossibility. The closest planet to Earth that even theoretically
• 36:45
  Speaker 1: could have intelligent life, and it's only theoretical, is twenty
• 36:49
  Speaker 1: five trillion miles away from US. Game set match. It
• 36:55
  Speaker 1: hasn't happened. There's no evidence that it has. If there
• 36:58
  Speaker 1: had been evidence that it occurred, that would be massive
• 37:02
  Speaker 1: at this point. But here's one point that I want
• 37:04
  Speaker 1: to mention. This is part of why I'm even bringing
• 37:06
  Speaker 1: up the UFO files, other than the fact that they
• 37:08
  Speaker 1: did come out in a couple of weeks ago, I
• 37:10
  Speaker 1: prepared you for that. The one thing that I failed
• 37:14
  Speaker 1: to mention in my original diatribe about how absurd this
• 37:18
  Speaker 1: issue is is maybe the most ridiculous part of the
• 37:22
  Speaker 1: entire premise here, which is being promoted by a lot
• 37:26
  Speaker 1: of even Republican members of Congress, and that is that
• 37:30
  Speaker 1: somehow the theory here seems to be, while it's not stated,
• 37:34
  Speaker 1: it seems to be implied that these space aliens have
• 37:38
  Speaker 1: made themselves known and this has never become public, but
• 37:45
  Speaker 1: they've only made themselves known to the United States of America.
• 37:50
  Speaker 1: Think about this, folks, Think about how absurd and ridiculous
• 37:53
  Speaker 1: this is. The premise of this whole thing. Is we
• 37:56
  Speaker 1: here in the United States of America have the proof
• 38:00
  Speaker 1: somewhere hidden that we have been visited by aliens, and
• 38:04
  Speaker 1: we've been hiding it for whatever bizarre reason. Okay, maybe
• 38:08
  Speaker 1: we think that humans can't handle it, right, But now
• 38:11
  Speaker 1: we're suddenly going to just release all this information. But
• 38:14
  Speaker 1: no one ever wants to explain how it makes any
• 38:18
  Speaker 1: sense that there's only two scenarios here. Either the aliens
• 38:24
  Speaker 1: have only made themselves known to the United States of America,
• 38:28
  Speaker 1: which is almost logistically impossible, but let's just pretend that
• 38:31
  Speaker 1: it has. So there's only two scenarios. Scenario number one,
• 38:35
  Speaker 1: they have only made themselves known to the United States
• 38:38
  Speaker 1: of America somehow, and we decided until now to keep
• 38:43
  Speaker 1: that hidden from the rest of the world, even though
• 38:46
  Speaker 1: you can make a strong argument that this would be
• 38:48
  Speaker 1: a hell of feather in our cap that we should
• 38:50
  Speaker 1: be bragging to the rest of the world that aliens
• 38:52
  Speaker 1: have made themselves known space. Aliens have made themselves known
• 38:56
  Speaker 1: to the United States of America. They've come to our leader.
• 39:00
  Speaker 1: They've decided the erst leader is the United States of America,
• 39:03
  Speaker 1: and they came to us. That scenario number one, which
• 39:06
  Speaker 1: of course is insane. Scenario number two is that they
• 39:13
  Speaker 1: didn't just make themselves known to us, but the rest
• 39:16
  Speaker 1: of the world either didn't get it, didn't understand it,
• 39:20
  Speaker 1: or they are involved in a massive, nonsensical conspiracy of
• 39:27
  Speaker 1: epic unprecedented proportions, and now only the United States of
• 39:32
  Speaker 1: America is busting up that conspiracy to cover up space
• 39:37
  Speaker 1: aliens having visited us, and nobody else in the world
• 39:41
  Speaker 1: is coming forward to say, hey, us too, we also
• 39:44
  Speaker 1: got it, We also got visited. We also have proof.
• 39:49
  Speaker 1: And by the way, that conspiracy to begin with would
• 39:52
  Speaker 1: never hold because obviously, first of all, conspiracies can never
• 39:55
  Speaker 1: hold in this day and age anyway, especially with social media.
• 39:58
  Speaker 1: But you mean tell me that not one of these
• 40:01
  Speaker 1: other countries is going to decide that it's in their
• 40:05
  Speaker 1: best interest to be the one to blow the lid
• 40:08
  Speaker 1: off of the fact that we've been visited by space aliens.
• 40:11
  Speaker 1: Come on, it's completely ridiculous. But nobody ever even ponders this,
• 40:18
  Speaker 1: No one ever even mentions it. When I mentioned it online,
• 40:22
  Speaker 1: I got all sorts of hateful comments because I think
• 40:25
  Speaker 1: people deep down realize that's a really good point, and
• 40:28
  Speaker 1: they really want to believe that space aliens exist and
• 40:31
  Speaker 1: that they have made themselves known, and they've visited Earth,
• 40:34
  Speaker 1: but specifically, for some reason, only the United States of America.
• 40:38
  Speaker 1: And this is a very problematic issue for anybody with
• 40:42
  Speaker 1: half a brain. So I just wanted to mention that
• 40:45
  Speaker 1: because I neglected to do so the first time I
• 40:49
  Speaker 1: went on this diatribe against the absurdity of the idea
• 40:53
  Speaker 1: that somehow we've been visited by space aliens, and yet
• 40:56
  Speaker 1: we've never we've never made that note until we release
• 40:59
  Speaker 1: these files of strange and seemingly unexplained videos. Now, another
• 41:04
  Speaker 1: topic that we've discussed recently, including in the last episode
• 41:07
  Speaker 1: of the podcast, is the issue of redistricting congressional districts
• 41:12
  Speaker 1: and the coming twenty twenty six midterm elections. And we
• 41:18
  Speaker 1: discussed the issue of racial gerrymandering being banned by the
• 41:23
  Speaker 1: US Supreme Court. And in the last week, we had
• 41:27
  Speaker 1: the Virginia Supreme Court knocking down the effort by Democrats
• 41:32
  Speaker 1: in Virginia to stack and to jerrymandering, to jerrymander the
• 41:38
  Speaker 1: Virginia state congressional districts to the point where there would
• 41:41
  Speaker 1: only be one Republican representing a fairly large state that
• 41:46
  Speaker 1: has split about fifty five to forty five Democrat And
• 41:51
  Speaker 1: this is seen rightfully so as a huge win for Republicans. Now,
• 41:55
  Speaker 1: Virginia Democrats are so desperate that they are seemingly willing
• 41:59
  Speaker 1: to do all sorts of absolutely crazy things, even by
• 42:02
  Speaker 1: Democrat standards, that even I don't think they could possibly
• 42:04
  Speaker 1: get away with in Virginia, like getting rid of all
• 42:08
  Speaker 1: the judges and having a redo somehow before the midterm elections.
• 42:14
  Speaker 1: I mean, logistically and politically, I just don't see how
• 42:17
  Speaker 1: that's even possible. But to me, the most important part
• 42:20
  Speaker 1: of this desperation hail Mary by Democrats is it's a
• 42:25
  Speaker 1: sign of they're really really worried. Now, Normally, I would say, okay,
• 42:31
  Speaker 1: if Democrats are that worried that they're willing to do
• 42:34
  Speaker 1: something that insane, that's a sign that they think that
• 42:37
  Speaker 1: they might not win the twenty twenty six midterm elections. However,
• 42:41
  Speaker 1: we're dealing with liberals here. Liberals are inherently bedwetters. They
• 42:47
  Speaker 1: panic very, very very easily. So I'm not all that impressed,
• 42:53
  Speaker 1: at least individually by what happens in Virginia. And yes,
• 42:57
  Speaker 1: it absolutely helps Republicans at least in theory, and maybe
• 43:02
  Speaker 1: mitigates the idea that this is going to be a
• 43:04
  Speaker 1: blue wave election in twenty twenty six. But to me,
• 43:08
  Speaker 1: I'm not convinced by Virginia and the reaction to it
• 43:12
  Speaker 1: that all of a sudden, because of these various court
• 43:16
  Speaker 1: decisions and decisions by state legislatures, Obviously the Supreme Court
• 43:20
  Speaker 1: case in Louisiana. You got Ron De Santis redistricting Florida.
• 43:25
  Speaker 1: You've got the states of Tennessee, Alabama, and South Carolina,
• 43:29
  Speaker 1: all seemingly following suit. I'm sure emboldened by the US
• 43:34
  Speaker 1: Supreme Court decision banning racial gerrymandering. And look, I'm not
• 43:38
  Speaker 1: saying that that's not insignificant. I mean, I'm not saying
• 43:41
  Speaker 1: it's insignificant. I'm saying it's absolutely significant. It's absolutely something
• 43:45
  Speaker 1: that favors the Republican Party, seemingly more so in twenty
• 43:49
  Speaker 1: twenty six than I originally gave it credit for it,
• 43:51
  Speaker 1: because I just didn't think there was enough time to
• 43:54
  Speaker 1: do this. I mean, we're already into primary season. I
• 43:57
  Speaker 1: don't know how in the world, I guess, because we
• 43:59
  Speaker 1: live in an era where everything happened so fast, how
• 44:02
  Speaker 1: in the world they think they're going to redraw these
• 44:04
  Speaker 1: districts and have primaries and everything be ready for the
• 44:08
  Speaker 1: general election is kind of beyond me. But Okay, I'm
• 44:11
  Speaker 1: willing to accept that that seems to be the conventional
• 44:14
  Speaker 1: wisdom here. I'm still not one hundred percent convinced that
• 44:19
  Speaker 1: this means Republicans could actually hold on to the House.
• 44:23
  Speaker 1: I get why people are suddenly optimistic on that front.
• 44:27
  Speaker 1: If you're a non liberal like I am. The betting
• 44:31
  Speaker 1: markets are now seemingly split that this thing is going
• 44:33
  Speaker 1: to come down to the wire and could go either way.
• 44:36
  Speaker 1: Republicans might even hold the House, which up until two
• 44:40
  Speaker 1: weeks ago when these things started to happen, I did
• 44:42
  Speaker 1: not think was a legitimate possibility. But I'm still not
• 44:47
  Speaker 1: there and maybe this is the pessimist in me, but
• 44:50
  Speaker 1: you know, when I look at the generic ballot numbers,
• 44:53
  Speaker 1: they still dramatically favored Democrats. Obviously, Donald Trump's approval ratings
• 44:58
  Speaker 1: are at historic lows. He is a double whammy for
• 45:02
  Speaker 1: Republicans because he is not on the ballots. So the
• 45:05
  Speaker 1: Trump loving supporters that aren't big time Republicans may not
• 45:09
  Speaker 1: show up. And you've got the idea that Democrats love
• 45:13
  Speaker 1: voting against Trump. They think they're voting against Trump because
• 45:16
  Speaker 1: he's still in office, so you get the negatives of
• 45:20
  Speaker 1: him being president without the positives of him being on
• 45:22
  Speaker 1: the ballot. If you're a Republican, I also think that
• 45:26
  Speaker 1: there's a downside to this redistricting situation because there is
• 45:32
  Speaker 1: still the possibility if this is a wave election. Weirdly,
• 45:37
  Speaker 1: this redistricting might actually, under the worst scenario for Republicans,
• 45:43
  Speaker 1: might actually create a circumstance where a wave election is
• 45:47
  Speaker 1: more likely for Democrats. And that's because I'm going to
• 45:53
  Speaker 1: try to figure out a way to explain this as
• 45:54
  Speaker 1: simply as possible. But the reality is that if you
• 45:59
  Speaker 1: take a bunch of sixty forty Republican districts that are
• 46:04
  Speaker 1: safe Republican districts in order to gerrymannd er a whole
• 46:08
  Speaker 1: state in order to squeeze more Republican districts or red districts,
• 46:14
  Speaker 1: you're gonna have to take that sixty forty split and
• 46:17
  Speaker 1: you're gonna have to reduce it to fifty five forty
• 46:20
  Speaker 1: five or maybe even closer than that. Now, under good circumstances,
• 46:25
  Speaker 1: a fifty five to forty five Republican district is effectively safe.
• 46:29
  Speaker 1: You're not gonna lose that. But if inflation continues to rise,
• 46:34
  Speaker 1: and let's say we have a stock market collapse and
• 46:36
  Speaker 1: the Warren iron still going on. To me, that could
• 46:41
  Speaker 1: be the disaster scenario, because now you've taken some safe
• 46:46
  Speaker 1: Republican districts and you've put them into jeopardy because you're
• 46:49
  Speaker 1: still only dealing with the same numbers of Republican voters statewide.
• 46:55
  Speaker 1: It's just how you apportion them. And so I do
• 46:58
  Speaker 1: think there's a danger to this, and so I guess
• 47:02
  Speaker 1: I would definitely be in the camp of people who
• 47:05
  Speaker 1: would not be betting on Republicans holding the House. I
• 47:08
  Speaker 1: think it's a fool's bet. And is it possible that
• 47:12
  Speaker 1: this thing could be way closer than was thought to
• 47:16
  Speaker 1: be the case two weeks ago. Absolutely, and I favor
• 47:21
  Speaker 1: what a lot of these states are doing, especially when
• 47:23
  Speaker 1: it comes to getting rid of racial chanymandering. The situation
• 47:26
  Speaker 1: in Tennessee is absolutely hilarious and so telling, and liberals
• 47:32
  Speaker 1: are basically stepping in it by trying to claim that
• 47:36
  Speaker 1: somehow a white male Democrat losing their seat in Tennessee
• 47:40
  Speaker 1: and possibly being replaced effectively by a black female Republican
• 47:44
  Speaker 1: is somehow racist against black people. You can't make this up,
• 47:49
  Speaker 1: but that's the most likely scenario because of the redistricting
• 47:53
  Speaker 1: in Tennessee. But obviously this is happening mostly in the South,
• 47:58
  Speaker 1: where you have by far the largest population of black people,
• 48:02
  Speaker 1: and so this is creating an enormous amount of angst
• 48:06
  Speaker 1: within the media. I mean, my god, they're going absolutely crazy.
• 48:11
  Speaker 1: They think this is the most racist thing that has
• 48:13
  Speaker 1: ever happened. They cannot comprehend the idea that you should
• 48:18
  Speaker 1: not use the pigmentation levels of the voters in a
• 48:25
  Speaker 1: state to dictate how you draw the district lines. I
• 48:29
  Speaker 1: mean that, to me, that's blatantly racist. And the disconnect,
• 48:32
  Speaker 1: the first disconnect is obviously partisanship. I mean, they're Democrats,
• 48:35
  Speaker 1: and so they know this is bad for Democrats, and
• 48:37
  Speaker 1: so they're against it. At least they think it's bad
• 48:39
  Speaker 1: for Democrats, so they're against it. But they also can't
• 48:42
  Speaker 1: even comprehend. It's beyond their capabilities intellectually to even consider
• 48:50
  Speaker 1: the idea that wait a minute, hold on, black people
• 48:54
  Speaker 1: are not required to vote Democrat. I mean, because that's
• 48:59
  Speaker 1: it the premise of this whole thing, that somehow you're
• 49:04
  Speaker 1: required to vote Democrat and or you're required to vote
• 49:07
  Speaker 1: for another black person. I mean, how racist is that.
• 49:11
  Speaker 1: It's so obviously blatantly racist, and these racemongers either can't
• 49:17
  Speaker 1: see it or ignore it because they so desperately want
• 49:22
  Speaker 1: racism to exist. They live on it, they feed off
• 49:25
  Speaker 1: of it. It is something that gives them a reason
• 49:31
  Speaker 1: for existence, especially in the liberal media. I mean, if
• 49:35
  Speaker 1: racism no longer existed, they'd essentially be out of a job.
• 49:40
  Speaker 1: And this actually bled into sports, which is going to
• 49:43
  Speaker 1: get me to my next topic, because Ryan Clark probably
• 49:48
  Speaker 1: represented the absolute lunacy of so many members of the
• 49:54
  Speaker 1: liberal media, especially black members of the liberal media. In
• 49:57
  Speaker 1: the reaction to what's happening in the South in regard
• 50:01
  Speaker 1: to districting and the banning of racial jerrymandering, Ryan Clark
• 50:05
  Speaker 1: of ESPN actually said the following quote, Look, I'm gonna
• 50:11
  Speaker 1: be real with you. Black college athletes need to stop
• 50:15
  Speaker 1: signing with schools in states that Jerrymanner districts to block
• 50:21
  Speaker 1: black representation. That's Ryan Clark. He's a prominent commentator on ESPN.
• 50:29
  Speaker 1: Block block representation. Now, to me, that encapsulates the insanity
• 50:35
  Speaker 1: of this whole situation. There is absolutely positively nothing blocking
• 50:40
  Speaker 1: black representation. In fact, we've already proven that with what
• 50:43
  Speaker 1: appears to be happening in Tennessee, where it looks like
• 50:46
  Speaker 1: they're going to add a black female Republican. It's just
• 50:51
  Speaker 1: what's happening is you're probably going to get fewer blackfaces
• 50:56
  Speaker 1: because they're not going to have districts that are carved
• 50:59
  Speaker 1: out in a racist fashion to make sure that you
• 51:02
  Speaker 1: have a majority of black voters who for whatever reason
• 51:06
  Speaker 1: have been brainwashed into believing that they have to vote
• 51:08
  Speaker 1: Democrat or they have to vote for a black person.
• 51:11
  Speaker 1: There's nothing blocking black representation, and that's ridiculous. That would
• 51:16
  Speaker 1: obviously be racist. So if you're a black person and
• 51:21
  Speaker 1: you want to run, go ahead and run, but appeal
• 51:24
  Speaker 1: to more than just black people. How about that. There's
• 51:28
  Speaker 1: a solution. If you want to win a district it's
• 51:32
  Speaker 1: not majority black, then run in a way that will
• 51:36
  Speaker 1: have people of all racist vote for you. What's negative
• 51:40
  Speaker 1: about that? But this is Ryan Clark. He's an idiot.
• 51:43
  Speaker 1: He's a racemonger. To me, it was maybe the most
• 51:47
  Speaker 1: comical example of the freak out among the liberal media
• 51:51
  Speaker 1: when it comes to this issue of ending racial gerrymandering.
• 51:55
  Speaker 1: But it also led to one of the most frustration
• 52:00
  Speaker 1: and infuriating sports stories at least of the week, if
• 52:04
  Speaker 1: not longer than that, and that involves Lane Kiffen. Lane
• 52:08
  Speaker 1: Kiffin is now the head football coach at LSU in
• 52:11
  Speaker 1: Louisiana after very infamously leaving in the middle, not really
• 52:17
  Speaker 1: the middle, but at the end before the playoffs of
• 52:21
  Speaker 1: the University of Mississippi's season last year, he had been
• 52:25
  Speaker 1: basically tossed out of coaching and slowly got back in
• 52:30
  Speaker 1: and the University of Mississippi gave him his big chance
• 52:32
  Speaker 1: to get back into the SEC and he led them
• 52:36
  Speaker 1: to a successful run, but then he abandoned them right
• 52:39
  Speaker 1: before the playoffs went to their rival LSU in Louisiana.
• 52:44
  Speaker 1: I said at the time that I apologize forever believing
• 52:48
  Speaker 1: this narrative Lane Kiffen was a changed man. Ever complimenting him.
• 52:52
  Speaker 1: I found myself in a very strange spot, a little
• 52:55
  Speaker 1: bit like I am with Bill Maher. I'm always baffled
• 52:58
  Speaker 1: that Bill Maher is now the voice of reason. I've
• 53:01
  Speaker 1: said many times that I've been stunned that I find
• 53:05
  Speaker 1: myself liking Lane Kiffin. This is before him leaving to
• 53:08
  Speaker 1: LSU and thinking that he might be the guy who's
• 53:12
  Speaker 1: still standing up for old school values and had institutional
• 53:16
  Speaker 1: memory of the way things used to be in college football.
• 53:19
  Speaker 1: I bought into it. I like to give people second
• 53:22
  Speaker 1: or third chances if I think they deserve him, and
• 53:25
  Speaker 1: he snowed me. Now, of course I wasn't the only
• 53:27
  Speaker 1: person he snowed. There was a whole documentary on ESPN
• 53:31
  Speaker 1: about Lane kiffen being a changed man and how he's
• 53:34
  Speaker 1: going to stay in Oxford, Mississippi, maybe for the rest
• 53:36
  Speaker 1: of his life and be happy there, and then all
• 53:39
  Speaker 1: of a sudden he leaves for more money to go
• 53:41
  Speaker 1: to LSU. And so I had no love for Lane Kiffin.
• 53:46
  Speaker 1: I've only disdained for him before what happened this past week.
• 53:50
  Speaker 1: But now I'm in the hatred camp. Now I fucking
• 53:53
  Speaker 1: hate Lane Kiffin because in an interview with Vanity Fair.
• 53:58
  Speaker 1: Now it's important that this is Vanity Fair one. It's
• 54:01
  Speaker 1: not a sports outlet to it's clearly a liberal outlet.
• 54:06
  Speaker 1: So Lane Kiffin is not dumb. Lane Kiffin is a
• 54:10
  Speaker 1: very smart guy. He's a snake, but he's a smart guy.
• 54:14
  Speaker 1: And so he's doing an interview with nonsports outlet, very
• 54:19
  Speaker 1: liberal Vanity Fair, and according to the reporter, he pro
• 54:24
  Speaker 1: actively drops proactively. The reporter said this is not in
• 54:29
  Speaker 1: response to a question that he asked Lane Kiffin. In fact,
• 54:32
  Speaker 1: a reporter, in an interview with Paul Fleinbaum SEC commentator
• 54:37
  Speaker 1: said I wish that this had been in response to
• 54:39
  Speaker 1: a really great question. It was not, according to the
• 54:42
  Speaker 1: reporter from Vanity Fair. So Kiffen proactively tells the story
• 54:49
  Speaker 1: and makes it sound like this happened on more than
• 54:51
  Speaker 1: one occasion, which I am very very skeptical of that
• 54:56
  Speaker 1: grandparents of black athletes are preventing their grandkids grand obviously sons,
• 55:06
  Speaker 1: since this is football, from attending college in Oxford, Mississippi
• 55:11
  Speaker 1: and Old miss because they still remember Old Miss as
• 55:18
  Speaker 1: having the Confederate flag be a big part of their
• 55:21
  Speaker 1: game day festivities, playing Dixie and the band, having you know,
• 55:29
  Speaker 1: the rebel be you know, much more of a Confederate figure.
• 55:34
  Speaker 1: And look, this is this is a very complicated issue
• 55:40
  Speaker 1: that I have mixed feelings about because part of what
• 55:45
  Speaker 1: college football was people don't understand. You have to understand
• 55:49
  Speaker 1: the real history. Everyone's to say all the history of
• 55:52
  Speaker 1: racism in Mississippi, which is obvious as it is in
• 55:57
  Speaker 1: most of the Deep South. But you also have to
• 55:59
  Speaker 1: understand the history of college football. And I truly believe
• 56:04
  Speaker 1: that a large part of why college football became popular
• 56:10
  Speaker 1: in the South is that it was a reaction to
• 56:14
  Speaker 1: the Civil War. I know that might sound crazy, to
• 56:17
  Speaker 1: people that don't know the full history of it. But
• 56:20
  Speaker 1: I mean, college football basically began in the post Civil
• 56:24
  Speaker 1: War era when there was no war going on and
• 56:27
  Speaker 1: people thought that their young men were becoming woosies and
• 56:30
  Speaker 1: so they needed the tough one. I'm up toughing them
• 56:33
  Speaker 1: up because there was no war, so they created college football.
• 56:36
  Speaker 1: And that's not an exaggeration. But there's a reason why
• 56:41
  Speaker 1: the SEC exists. There's a reason why the SEC evokes
• 56:46
  Speaker 1: so much passion because it's the last source of true
• 56:51
  Speaker 1: Southern pride that you're still allowed to have after the
• 56:56
  Speaker 1: South got eviscerated post Civil War. They got emasculated, castrated,
• 57:04
  Speaker 1: but college football was the one area where you're still
• 57:09
  Speaker 1: allowed to be Southern and still have Southern pride. And
• 57:14
  Speaker 1: the University of Mississippi absolutely held on the symbols of
• 57:19
  Speaker 1: the Confederacy for a long time. And I get why,
• 57:23
  Speaker 1: in a perception perspective, if you're a black person, that
• 57:27
  Speaker 1: would be very problematic. I don't think it was based
• 57:30
  Speaker 1: largely in reality. I'm not naive. Obviously there was some racism,
• 57:35
  Speaker 1: or at least there were racists that were very much
• 57:37
  Speaker 1: in favor of that. I get it. You're going to
• 57:40
  Speaker 1: have bad apples everywhere. But the University of Mississippi has
• 57:43
  Speaker 1: actually tried very hard for a long time to get
• 57:48
  Speaker 1: this behind them, and I think that they have actually
• 57:51
  Speaker 1: done a decent job of it. Like I'll give you
• 57:53
  Speaker 1: an example, and I wrote about this in my book
• 57:56
  Speaker 1: The Death of Free Speech, because I thought this was
• 57:58
  Speaker 1: kind of ingenious. It used to be up until I
• 58:03
  Speaker 1: guess the late eighties maybe early nineties, that at the
• 58:07
  Speaker 1: University of Mississippi football game Old miss they used to
• 58:11
  Speaker 1: literally the fans used to hold on to Confederate flags
• 58:16
  Speaker 1: like with you know, little Confederate flags that used to
• 58:19
  Speaker 1: be what they would hold and whenever something good happened,
• 58:22
  Speaker 1: they would waive those flags. And they didn't know how
• 58:26
  Speaker 1: to deal with this issue. So the school banned sticks,
• 58:32
  Speaker 1: which I thought was ingenius because if you ban the sticks,
• 58:36
  Speaker 1: you can't hold on to a stick, because I guess
• 58:38
  Speaker 1: it's a safety hazard. Then you know, most people aren't
• 58:41
  Speaker 1: going to hold up a flag with two hands. It's
• 58:45
  Speaker 1: going to be much more problematic. The people behind you
• 58:47
  Speaker 1: are going to complain, and it's going to kill the
• 58:50
  Speaker 1: whole thing. And it did, so the fans stopped doing
• 58:55
  Speaker 1: that so that was I think the positive way of
• 58:58
  Speaker 1: handling that. By the way, just to give you an example,
• 59:02
  Speaker 1: this is an off the wall example, but it just
• 59:04
  Speaker 1: happened to hit me in my brain. But how prominent
• 59:10
  Speaker 1: the Confederate flag still was, not just at the University
• 59:14
  Speaker 1: of Mississippi, but in all sorts of other places within
• 59:18
  Speaker 1: the SEC. There's a very famous play between Alabama and
• 59:22
  Speaker 1: Auburn where Bo Jackson. It's called bow over the Top,
• 59:26
  Speaker 1: even though I think it's a bit overrated because it
• 59:28
  Speaker 1: wasn't even one of the top one hundred plays of
• 59:30
  Speaker 1: Bo Jackson's amazing career. But Bo Jackson for Auburn scores
• 59:34
  Speaker 1: a touchdown to upset Alabama in the Iron Bowl, and
• 59:40
  Speaker 1: on television when he scores that touchdown, they panned the
• 59:43
  Speaker 1: crowd and there's somebody in the crowd waving a massive
• 59:47
  Speaker 1: Confederate flag. And I believe that was nineteen eighty three
• 59:50
  Speaker 1: or nineteen eighty four. So it wasn't just Old miss
• 59:53
  Speaker 1: It wasn't just the University of Mississippi. That's Alabama. And
• 59:58
  Speaker 1: it goes to my whole point about the Deep South
• 1:00:01
  Speaker 1: feeling like college football was their one area of pride
• 1:00:06
  Speaker 1: where they could basically still fight the Civil War and
• 1:00:11
  Speaker 1: at least for a long time not be called racist
• 1:00:13
  Speaker 1: about it. And so I get that there is a
• 1:00:16
  Speaker 1: complicated and complex history. But the idea that somehow being
• 1:00:21
  Speaker 1: called rebels is still racist, or you know that the
• 1:00:28
  Speaker 1: University of Mississippi call themselves Old Miss is somehow racist,
• 1:00:33
  Speaker 1: is ridiculous. First of all, does that make U and
• 1:00:35
  Speaker 1: LV racist because they're known as the Rebels? I mean,
• 1:00:38
  Speaker 1: rebels is a common name for high schools and colleges.
• 1:00:44
  Speaker 1: So why would it be racist for Old Miss to
• 1:00:46
  Speaker 1: be rebels? And I mean, so they have done a
• 1:00:49
  Speaker 1: lot at Old Miss to try to play kate and
• 1:00:53
  Speaker 1: to mitigate this problematic past. And Lane Kiffin, I believe
• 1:00:58
  Speaker 1: at best exaggerated and maybe lied. I think it's possible
• 1:01:05
  Speaker 1: he lied. I think I'm going to give him some
• 1:01:07
  Speaker 1: benefit of the doubt and say, you know what, maybe
• 1:01:10
  Speaker 1: some grand parent. The fact that he said grandparent set
• 1:01:14
  Speaker 1: off my alarm bells because the reality is, I have
• 1:01:18
  Speaker 1: never heard of a grandparent dictating where their grandson is
• 1:01:23
  Speaker 1: going to go to college to play football. I've just
• 1:01:25
  Speaker 1: never heard of that. Is it possible? Sure it's possible,
• 1:01:29
  Speaker 1: but maybe happened once and so here's what I think.
• 1:01:33
  Speaker 1: If I'm going to give Kivin some benefit of the doubt,
• 1:01:35
  Speaker 1: I think maybe one grandparent mentioned this one time and
• 1:01:40
  Speaker 1: they happened to lose the kid. That's the absolute most
• 1:01:45
  Speaker 1: benefit of the doubt I can give Delane Kiffin on
• 1:01:47
  Speaker 1: this story. I'm open to the idea he just made
• 1:01:49
  Speaker 1: it up. And of course he didn't name a name,
• 1:01:53
  Speaker 1: there were not a lot of details, and interestingly, according
• 1:01:57
  Speaker 1: to the reporter, he brought it up a second time time.
• 1:02:01
  Speaker 1: So it seems to me is if Kiffen knew what
• 1:02:04
  Speaker 1: he was doing. He was trying to plant a negative
• 1:02:08
  Speaker 1: story about Old miss knowing what their vulnerabilities are because
• 1:02:12
  Speaker 1: of the history that I just provided to you, which
• 1:02:16
  Speaker 1: is a dirty ass thing to do, especially when they
• 1:02:19
  Speaker 1: gave you your big chance back into the big time
• 1:02:23
  Speaker 1: and you screwed them right before the playoffs and now
• 1:02:27
  Speaker 1: you're gonna play the fucking race card. Lane Kiffen's civil
• 1:02:32
  Speaker 1: rights leader. This is classic virtue signaling. Lane Kiffen knew
• 1:02:38
  Speaker 1: exactly what he was doing to Vanity Fair, he knew
• 1:02:41
  Speaker 1: they would run with it. And then the internet went bananas.
• 1:02:45
  Speaker 1: And the only part of this story that made me
• 1:02:47
  Speaker 1: feel even somewhat okay is that there was a significant
• 1:02:51
  Speaker 1: backlash against Lane Kiffin. I mean I was in rage
• 1:02:54
  Speaker 1: by this. I was enraged by this story. I mean
• 1:02:58
  Speaker 1: I have very few rooting interests left in college football
• 1:03:01
  Speaker 1: or sports in general. Generally, in college football, I root
• 1:03:04
  Speaker 1: for whoever's playing Penn State, not as as much passion
• 1:03:08
  Speaker 1: as I did when the scandal was still fresh, but
• 1:03:12
  Speaker 1: I still generally root against Penn State. I was rooting
• 1:03:15
  Speaker 1: for them when Terry Smith was their interim head coach
• 1:03:18
  Speaker 1: last year, but generally I rooted against Penn State. So
• 1:03:21
  Speaker 1: whoever's playing Penn State, I'm rooting for that. Well, I'm
• 1:03:24
  Speaker 1: now rooting for whoever plays LSU, especially when it's Old miss,
• 1:03:28
  Speaker 1: which is going to be a hell of a game
• 1:03:31
  Speaker 1: when that happens later in twenty twenty six. But I
• 1:03:34
  Speaker 1: cannot stand lanekiff and I cannot stand LSU for hiring him.
• 1:03:39
  Speaker 1: I used to like LSU, but I despise them now.
• 1:03:42
  Speaker 1: And Lane Kiffen was actually, I guess, forced issue a
• 1:03:44
  Speaker 1: half assed apology, which of course is a bogus apology.
• 1:03:49
  Speaker 1: He did this on purpose, and I guess it just
• 1:03:51
  Speaker 1: didn't work. Like he had hoped that it would. I
• 1:03:53
  Speaker 1: think he thought maybe that the liberal establishment would in
• 1:03:57
  Speaker 1: the sports media would rush to his defense, and there
• 1:04:01
  Speaker 1: was some of that, but not overwhelmingly. The public, I
• 1:04:04
  Speaker 1: think saw this for what it was, which was a bullshit, low,
• 1:04:10
  Speaker 1: dirty move that was draped in virtue signaling, especially when
• 1:04:15
  Speaker 1: you're Lane Kiffin and you're blonde and you have no
• 1:04:20
  Speaker 1: history of being somehow a civil rights leader, and it
• 1:04:26
  Speaker 1: just didn't work. At least. I would like to believe
• 1:04:29
  Speaker 1: that most people did not buy this act, and so
• 1:04:33
  Speaker 1: I don't think Lane Kiffin helped himself other than he
• 1:04:37
  Speaker 1: certainly increased the attention that the LSU University of Mississippi
• 1:04:42
  Speaker 1: game is going to get. I hope that Old Miss
• 1:04:44
  Speaker 1: doesn't cave on this because I think it's important that
• 1:04:47
  Speaker 1: they hold on to the rebels. I think it's important
• 1:04:50
  Speaker 1: that they hold on to Old Miss. I mean, again,
• 1:04:54
  Speaker 1: you can get rid of and I'm not someone that believes,
• 1:04:57
  Speaker 1: by the way that the Confederate flag is an inherently
• 1:04:59
  Speaker 1: race symbol. I get that that's the perception, and a
• 1:05:03
  Speaker 1: certain point, perception becomes reality. That's why this is such
• 1:05:06
  Speaker 1: a complex issue, because I don't believe that most people
• 1:05:10
  Speaker 1: that display the Confederate flag are doing so because they're saying,
• 1:05:13
  Speaker 1: I'm in favor of slavery and I hate black people.
• 1:05:15
  Speaker 1: I don't think that's what they're saying. Having lived in
• 1:05:18
  Speaker 1: many Southern cities, I don't believe that's the vast majority
• 1:05:21
  Speaker 1: of people. I believe they believe in Southern pride or
• 1:05:24
  Speaker 1: state pride, and you're not allowed to have that anymore
• 1:05:27
  Speaker 1: in the South, not even in college football, which I
• 1:05:31
  Speaker 1: think is said. I think something has been lost about
• 1:05:34
  Speaker 1: what it was that created the passion in the first place.
• 1:05:38
  Speaker 1: That geography mattered, that your state mattered. That's what made
• 1:05:44
  Speaker 1: the SEC special. Why I believe that the SEC. Even
• 1:05:49
  Speaker 1: though the Big Ten has done better in the playoffs
• 1:05:52
  Speaker 1: of recent years, I still believe the SEC has top
• 1:05:55
  Speaker 1: the bottom of the best college football conference. It still goes
• 1:05:58
  Speaker 1: back to those roots that go all the way back
• 1:06:01
  Speaker 1: to the post Civil War era, and I realized we
• 1:06:05
  Speaker 1: don't live in that world anymore. And there's positives to that,
• 1:06:08
  Speaker 1: but I would like to still believe that a place
• 1:06:12
  Speaker 1: like Old Mists can hang on to at least a
• 1:06:14
  Speaker 1: little bit of that Southern pride and not be called
• 1:06:17
  Speaker 1: racist for it, especially not by somebody whose career they
• 1:06:21
  Speaker 1: salvaged and then he screwed them over just before the playoffs,
• 1:06:24
  Speaker 1: which is what happened with Lane Kiffin. Now I want
• 1:06:28
  Speaker 1: to move to another coaching football coaching scandals slash controversy
• 1:06:36
  Speaker 1: that has captivated the attention of most of the nation,
• 1:06:40
  Speaker 1: or at least the large part of the nation, over
• 1:06:41
  Speaker 1: the last month or so, and that is the Diana
• 1:06:44
  Speaker 1: Rassini Mike Rabel situation. Now, I have in the past
• 1:06:48
  Speaker 1: gone into great detail about a theory I had, and
• 1:06:51
  Speaker 1: this is purely a theory that I thought that there
• 1:06:56
  Speaker 1: was a chance that the husband of Diana Rassini was
• 1:07:00
  Speaker 1: behind these leaks of photos and videos of the two
• 1:07:06
  Speaker 1: of them together involved in what is now a very
• 1:07:09
  Speaker 1: obvious romance, both when Mike Rabel was the head coach
• 1:07:13
  Speaker 1: of the Tennessee Titans as well as the New England Patriots,
• 1:07:17
  Speaker 1: and both when Diana Roussini was an ESPN NFL inside
• 1:07:21
  Speaker 1: a reporter as well as a reporter for the Athletic
• 1:07:25
  Speaker 1: owned by the New York Times. And I did so
• 1:07:28
  Speaker 1: based upon a part of this story from a media
• 1:07:32
  Speaker 1: perspective that I did not have an alternative explanation for,
• 1:07:36
  Speaker 1: and that is, so, where are these videos and photographs
• 1:07:41
  Speaker 1: coming from. It didn't make any sense to me. It
• 1:07:46
  Speaker 1: didn't make any sense to me that we weren't hearing
• 1:07:48
  Speaker 1: the backstory behind these in any sort of detailed way.
• 1:07:51
  Speaker 1: There were no names attached to the videos and pictures.
• 1:07:56
  Speaker 1: There were no interviews of people saying, yeah, I was
• 1:07:59
  Speaker 1: at the resort in Sedona, Arizona. I couldn't believe it.
• 1:08:03
  Speaker 1: I saw Mike Rabel. I took these pictures with my
• 1:08:06
  Speaker 1: iPhone from across the way, and yeah, I can't believe
• 1:08:11
  Speaker 1: this is blown up like this. There's been nothing like that.
• 1:08:15
  Speaker 1: Now in this day and age, that's unusual. Is it impossible? No.
• 1:08:22
  Speaker 1: But at the time I made that commentary on this podcast,
• 1:08:25
  Speaker 1: we had the twenty twenty six Sedona pictures and then
• 1:08:30
  Speaker 1: we had the twenty twenty bar photographs. Now, both of
• 1:08:35
  Speaker 1: them appeared to be taken surreptitiously. They were clearly not
• 1:08:39
  Speaker 1: photos of hey, oh my god, Mike Rabel, can you
• 1:08:41
  Speaker 1: pose for a photograph? Nothing remotely close to that. They
• 1:08:45
  Speaker 1: were consistent with pictures taken surreptitiously. They were consistent with
• 1:08:50
  Speaker 1: pictures taken by a private investigator. In both those situations,
• 1:08:55
  Speaker 1: we did not know what the source of the photos were. Now,
• 1:08:58
  Speaker 1: to be clear, TMZ, who got scooped on this story
• 1:09:03
  Speaker 1: with a New York Post, did put out a story
• 1:09:06
  Speaker 1: that was extremely poorly sourced, with no names and in
• 1:09:10
  Speaker 1: my opinion, no proof that they said that it was
• 1:09:14
  Speaker 1: not a private investigator that took the photos in Sedona.
• 1:09:18
  Speaker 1: I don't have any faith in that. I don't have
• 1:09:20
  Speaker 1: a lot of faith in TMZ. They make up a
• 1:09:21
  Speaker 1: lot of shit, and frankly, TMZ is all over the
• 1:09:25
  Speaker 1: map on this story, which are going to get to momentarily.
• 1:09:30
  Speaker 1: But frankly, even if the two twenty twenty six photos
• 1:09:35
  Speaker 1: were taken by a civilian and the civilian just decided
• 1:09:39
  Speaker 1: to not make themselves known, which is weird in today's
• 1:09:42
  Speaker 1: day and age, it still doesn't really change my theory
• 1:09:46
  Speaker 1: all that much, for reasons that I also explained in
• 1:09:49
  Speaker 1: a second. So that was the situation up until about
• 1:09:54
  Speaker 1: five days ago when a new video was released and
• 1:10:00
  Speaker 1: again it appears to have been surreptitiously taken, and this
• 1:10:04
  Speaker 1: time it's from twenty twenty one, and in my opinion,
• 1:10:09
  Speaker 1: in a weird way, this might be the most significant
• 1:10:12
  Speaker 1: dump of photographs or videos in this entire saga because
• 1:10:18
  Speaker 1: of the timing. Not only is it twenty twenty one,
• 1:10:21
  Speaker 1: which is obviously in between twenty twenty and twenty twenty six,
• 1:10:25
  Speaker 1: but it's when Racini is seven months pregnant and they're
• 1:10:31
  Speaker 1: going on a boat trip together, and this video is
• 1:10:36
  Speaker 1: clearly being taken surreptitiously, it's from across the water. It's shaky.
• 1:10:43
  Speaker 1: This is in no way, shape or form a situation
• 1:10:47
  Speaker 1: where Hey, I ran into Mike Rabel. I'd like to
• 1:10:50
  Speaker 1: take a photograph, And by the way, there's at this time,
• 1:10:54
  Speaker 1: there's if you are unaware that there's a relationship going
• 1:10:58
  Speaker 1: on between Racini and Rabel, there's no reason to be
• 1:11:02
  Speaker 1: surreptitious about taking a photograph of Mike Rabel. That doesn't
• 1:11:07
  Speaker 1: make any sense unless you don't want your identity to
• 1:11:12
  Speaker 1: be known, you don't want it to be seen that
• 1:11:14
  Speaker 1: you're getting proof of this interaction that to me is
• 1:11:19
  Speaker 1: very very consistent, doesn't prove it, but is very very
• 1:11:23
  Speaker 1: consistent with this being a private investigator, and so now
• 1:11:28
  Speaker 1: we have a situation where there are three major dumps
• 1:11:34
  Speaker 1: that have come out and a timing that is, in
• 1:11:38
  Speaker 1: my opinion, totally inconsistent with it happening organically, because again
• 1:11:43
  Speaker 1: you have to understand the world in which we're now living.
• 1:11:47
  Speaker 1: If this was a situation where the twenty twenty six
• 1:11:50
  Speaker 1: photos come out, and whether it was a PI or not,
• 1:11:54
  Speaker 1: it really doesn't matter, because it's at the end of
• 1:11:55
  Speaker 1: the story, you know. It doesn't really, in fact my
• 1:11:59
  Speaker 1: theory very much in either direction, which I think you're
• 1:12:02
  Speaker 1: gonna see in a second here, because once that happens,
• 1:12:08
  Speaker 1: all right now, there's clearly a market, both financially as
• 1:12:12
  Speaker 1: well as a human interest. There's a market for photographs
• 1:12:16
  Speaker 1: of Diana Versini and Mike Rabel together. That means that
• 1:12:22
  Speaker 1: everyone's gonna go through their memory if they've ever seen
• 1:12:25
  Speaker 1: Mike Rabel and go, gee, I wonder whether or not
• 1:12:29
  Speaker 1: Diana Rassini was there that day. Oh ititman, I took
• 1:12:32
  Speaker 1: a photograph of Mike Rabel. I remember that, And they're
• 1:12:35
  Speaker 1: gonna go through their phones, which in this day and age,
• 1:12:37
  Speaker 1: is incredibly easy to do. I mean literally could take
• 1:12:41
  Speaker 1: a couple minutes. And if those photos exist, you're gonna
• 1:12:46
  Speaker 1: find them fast, really fast, like instantaneously, same day, next
• 1:12:53
  Speaker 1: day at the latest. But that's not what happened. There
• 1:12:58
  Speaker 1: was a significant delay from the time of the twenty
• 1:13:03
  Speaker 1: twenty six photo dump to the twenty twenty photo dump,
• 1:13:07
  Speaker 1: which both happened with the New York Post, which to
• 1:13:10
  Speaker 1: me indicates there's a darn good chance Occam's razor that
• 1:13:14
  Speaker 1: the source is the same. The source felt good about
• 1:13:18
  Speaker 1: the way the first photo dump went, so they went
• 1:13:21
  Speaker 1: to the New York Post the second time. There's a
• 1:13:23
  Speaker 1: trust factor there. They don't have to go through the
• 1:13:25
  Speaker 1: vetting process, and they can time it whenever they want
• 1:13:30
  Speaker 1: to me, the twenty twenty photos came out in a
• 1:13:33
  Speaker 1: way that was inconsistent with this happening organically, and then
• 1:13:37
  Speaker 1: the story went away for a few days, and just
• 1:13:40
  Speaker 1: as if it appeared as if the story was dead
• 1:13:43
  Speaker 1: or at least at a pause, there was nothing new
• 1:13:46
  Speaker 1: feeding it. Then came the twenty twenty one video of
• 1:13:50
  Speaker 1: a pregnant Diana Russini and Mike Rabel going on a
• 1:13:54
  Speaker 1: boat trip together, and that to me changes the story
• 1:14:00
  Speaker 1: and the equation from a media perspective. You're reading Tea
• 1:14:03
  Speaker 1: leaves very significantly, because the twenty twenty boat video is potentially,
• 1:14:10
  Speaker 1: I want to understand, underline, potentially the most significant because
• 1:14:17
  Speaker 1: what's the name of the child that comes from that pregnancy.
• 1:14:21
  Speaker 1: Michael Mike Rabel is obviously having an affair with Diana Russini.
• 1:14:27
  Speaker 1: She's seven months pregnant and going on a boat trip
• 1:14:30
  Speaker 1: with Mike Rabel and someone surreptitiously taking a video of
• 1:14:34
  Speaker 1: them together. And that video never becomes public and doesn't
• 1:14:38
  Speaker 1: become public for like three four weeks after this story
• 1:14:43
  Speaker 1: becomes a national obsession, it takes almost a month for
• 1:14:50
  Speaker 1: that video to come out. How does that make any
• 1:14:53
  Speaker 1: sense unless it's all being done strategically. Again, doesn't prove it.
• 1:14:59
  Speaker 1: But now we have three data points where we have
• 1:15:03
  Speaker 1: no names, no backstories, and no interviews associated with any
• 1:15:10
  Speaker 1: of the photo dumps. In this day and age, I
• 1:15:15
  Speaker 1: find that to be almost statistically impossible, impossible where everyone
• 1:15:22
  Speaker 1: wants they're fifteen seconds of fame, everyone's got social media.
• 1:15:27
  Speaker 1: The the backstories on these things would be fascinating. And
• 1:15:31
  Speaker 1: that's where I go back to TMZ, because it was
• 1:15:34
  Speaker 1: TMZ that released this video of the pregnant Rasini and
• 1:15:39
  Speaker 1: Vabel on a boat trip. Now why TMZ, I have
• 1:15:43
  Speaker 1: no idea. I don't know. The weirdest part of the
• 1:15:47
  Speaker 1: TMZ part of this is that simultaneously to them releasing
• 1:15:52
  Speaker 1: this video of her seven months pregnant with a son,
• 1:15:56
  Speaker 1: she would then call Michael. TMZ put out one of
• 1:15:59
  Speaker 1: their They're underlings, someone I've never even heard of or
• 1:16:03
  Speaker 1: seen before, put out a video saying we have proven
• 1:16:07
  Speaker 1: and I don't know if they've said those words, but
• 1:16:08
  Speaker 1: effectively they said, we have proven that Diana Rossini did
• 1:16:12
  Speaker 1: not name her child Michael because of Mike Rabel, because
• 1:16:18
  Speaker 1: her brother's name is Michael. I'm like, what, First of all, okay,
• 1:16:26
  Speaker 1: is it possible she named her son coincidentally Michael for
• 1:16:30
  Speaker 1: her brother while she was having an affair with Mike Rabel,
• 1:16:33
  Speaker 1: and then posted four days after that child's birth that
• 1:16:36
  Speaker 1: she's looking into her son's eyes and wondering who the
• 1:16:40
  Speaker 1: best NFL players and coaches in history were were named Michael.
• 1:16:45
  Speaker 1: I guess that's possible, but it certainly doesn't prove it.
• 1:16:49
  Speaker 1: I mean, how, I mean, how naive could TMZ possibly
• 1:16:53
  Speaker 1: be that? I mean, obviously, the brothers being named Michael
• 1:16:57
  Speaker 1: could be a cover story. That's how she got away
• 1:16:59
  Speaker 1: with naming the son Michael. We don't know, And again,
• 1:17:03
  Speaker 1: I don't know whether or not the kid is Mike
• 1:17:05
  Speaker 1: Rabel's or not either. I have no idea, but as
• 1:17:10
  Speaker 1: I'm trying to put it together, a scenario scenario that
• 1:17:13
  Speaker 1: makes any damn sense here to me, the one that
• 1:17:18
  Speaker 1: actually kind of explains almost everything. It doesn't explain everything,
• 1:17:23
  Speaker 1: but almost everything. Is that what's really happening here is
• 1:17:27
  Speaker 1: that Diana Rossini's husband has been accumulating these videos for
• 1:17:33
  Speaker 1: years via a private investigator, and is strategically dumping these
• 1:17:39
  Speaker 1: videos to create maximum damage to Mike Rabel. That appears
• 1:17:45
  Speaker 1: to be a scenario that makes a lot of sense.
• 1:17:48
  Speaker 1: First of all, he's a rich dude. He's got the
• 1:17:51
  Speaker 1: resources to do this. A lot of people ask me, well, John,
• 1:17:54
  Speaker 1: why couldn't it be Rabel's wife. Well, it doesn't make
• 1:17:58
  Speaker 1: a lot of sense to me. I get that, you know,
• 1:18:01
  Speaker 1: hell hath no fury like a woman scorned, And this
• 1:18:04
  Speaker 1: sounds like a scenario that a wife might be engaged
• 1:18:08
  Speaker 1: in more than a husband. But first of all, where
• 1:18:10
  Speaker 1: does Mike Rabel's wife get the money to hire a
• 1:18:14
  Speaker 1: private investigator without him knowing about it. That's a big
• 1:18:19
  Speaker 1: problem for me. Number two, she if she was doing
• 1:18:25
  Speaker 1: this strategically, she's actually threatening If Abel were to lose
• 1:18:30
  Speaker 1: his job and his career over this, which is I
• 1:18:32
  Speaker 1: think still a possibility of this thing continues to fester,
• 1:18:36
  Speaker 1: especially if it turns out we find out that the
• 1:18:38
  Speaker 1: kid really is his. You know, you're then targeting your
• 1:18:43
  Speaker 1: family's livelihood, your children's livelihood, and reputation going on forever.
• 1:18:49
  Speaker 1: I mean, she has no known career, Mike Rabel. You know,
• 1:18:53
  Speaker 1: if his career gets destroyed, it's very difficult to rebuild that,
• 1:18:57
  Speaker 1: although he'd probably get another job, But it would seem
• 1:19:00
  Speaker 1: to me as if that strategy would be very self
• 1:19:03
  Speaker 1: defeating if you're the woman in this case, if you're
• 1:19:06
  Speaker 1: the guide, you've got your own money. And by the way,
• 1:19:09
  Speaker 1: she's already been fired from her job, so you would
• 1:19:13
  Speaker 1: think if it was revenged by the husband against Rassini,
• 1:19:15
  Speaker 1: you know, he just wanted her to suffer and she
• 1:19:17
  Speaker 1: got fired, that would be the end of it. We
• 1:19:19
  Speaker 1: would never see the twenty twenty one dump of the
• 1:19:24
  Speaker 1: boat trip because she's already been destroyed. So under my theory,
• 1:19:30
  Speaker 1: the target is still vraable. And I mean, again, could
• 1:19:35
  Speaker 1: I be wrong, Absolutely, I could be wrong, But I
• 1:19:38
  Speaker 1: put this theory out on X and it went super
• 1:19:41
  Speaker 1: viral over three million impressions or views, which I was
• 1:19:47
  Speaker 1: almost embarrassed by because I'm like, I have no idea
• 1:19:50
  Speaker 1: if I'm telling you, if I know what's going on here,
• 1:19:52
  Speaker 1: I'm just putting out a theory. I'm just trying to
• 1:19:54
  Speaker 1: make sense of something here, because no one has been
• 1:19:57
  Speaker 1: able to explain to me how it is we could
• 1:19:59
  Speaker 1: have these three document dumps, these photo dumps done over
• 1:20:04
  Speaker 1: an extended period of time that don't appear to be organic,
• 1:20:07
  Speaker 1: where we have no backstory for any of them, and
• 1:20:10
  Speaker 1: all three clearly were taken in a surreptitious fashion. Explain
• 1:20:16
  Speaker 1: an alternative scenario to me that that takes into account
• 1:20:22
  Speaker 1: all the factors that I've already discussed. I haven't heard
• 1:20:25
  Speaker 1: one despite thousands of comments on my ex post that
• 1:20:29
  Speaker 1: X post went so viral. This is hilarious to me
• 1:20:32
  Speaker 1: that the Times of India, the Times of India, which
• 1:20:36
  Speaker 1: is a massive media organization. It's I don't know how
• 1:20:39
  Speaker 1: many Twitter followers, but did the I think over ten million,
• 1:20:43
  Speaker 1: maybe eighteen million Twitter followers, whatever it is, it's a
• 1:20:46
  Speaker 1: massive media organization. The Times of India. The Times of
• 1:20:50
  Speaker 1: India actually did a news story. Why they even bothered
• 1:20:53
  Speaker 1: with this subject. I don't know, but they did a
• 1:20:56
  Speaker 1: massive news story based upon my ex post and made
• 1:21:01
  Speaker 1: it sound like I had some sort of inside information,
• 1:21:05
  Speaker 1: like I was reporting this as a news reporter as
• 1:21:09
  Speaker 1: opposed to a commentator just trying to come up with
• 1:21:12
  Speaker 1: a theory to explain all the known evidence. I just
• 1:21:15
  Speaker 1: found that to be hilarious. First of all, I don't
• 1:21:18
  Speaker 1: understand why people in India would care very much about it.
• 1:21:21
  Speaker 1: But I've been alerted on my Google alert several times
• 1:21:25
  Speaker 1: about this particular article, which I find to be hilarious.
• 1:21:30
  Speaker 1: So I don't get what TMZ is doing here. Is
• 1:21:35
  Speaker 1: there another explanation there may well be, I just haven't
• 1:21:40
  Speaker 1: heard one yet. And the fact that TMZ is all
• 1:21:43
  Speaker 1: over the map, man, maybe it's because they're trying to
• 1:21:46
  Speaker 1: catch up to the New York Post. Because the New
• 1:21:49
  Speaker 1: York Post has absolutely dominated this story. I don't have
• 1:21:53
  Speaker 1: a good explanation for that part now. Interestingly, on Mother's Day,
• 1:21:58
  Speaker 1: the New York Post has a photo which was clearly
• 1:22:02
  Speaker 1: professionally taken. This was clearly a situation where there was
• 1:22:07
  Speaker 1: a professional photographer photographer who caught I guess reluctaboter term
• 1:22:14
  Speaker 1: Russini and her husband in an embrace or a kiss
• 1:22:19
  Speaker 1: on Mother's Day, and it was portrayed as if, Wow,
• 1:22:23
  Speaker 1: Russini's husband is sticking by his wife in the midst
• 1:22:28
  Speaker 1: of all this controversy, which of course would seemingly go
• 1:22:31
  Speaker 1: very much against my theory, which I fully acknowledge if true,
• 1:22:36
  Speaker 1: would seemingly go against my theory, except if you look
• 1:22:40
  Speaker 1: at the photograph. And I'm not stretching here, I'm not
• 1:22:44
  Speaker 1: invested in my theory. If someone comes up with a
• 1:22:46
  Speaker 1: better one, I'm all years. I'm just trying to figure
• 1:22:49
  Speaker 1: out what the hell's going on here, because it's not
• 1:22:50
  Speaker 1: making sense to me from a media perspective. But if
• 1:22:53
  Speaker 1: you look at that photograph of Russini and her husband,
• 1:22:58
  Speaker 1: it seems as if they're doing a child because the
• 1:23:01
  Speaker 1: child is literally in the middle of the embrace and
• 1:23:05
  Speaker 1: the kiss. And it's Mother's Day. So it's consistent with
• 1:23:11
  Speaker 1: the idea that hey, it's Mother's Day, here's your kid,
• 1:23:15
  Speaker 1: have a good day. Again. I have no way of
• 1:23:18
  Speaker 1: knowing it that's what actually happened, but that certainly seems plausible.
• 1:23:22
  Speaker 1: And the fact that it's the New York Post, now
• 1:23:25
  Speaker 1: I get that the New York Post has made a
• 1:23:26
  Speaker 1: lot of money from this story, and they might have
• 1:23:29
  Speaker 1: the incentive to hire a photographer to hang out side
• 1:23:32
  Speaker 1: of their house on Mother's Day and see if they
• 1:23:33
  Speaker 1: get anything. But it's all so possible under my theory
• 1:23:38
  Speaker 1: here that the husband is actually working both sides of
• 1:23:42
  Speaker 1: this and let the New York Post know that Russini
• 1:23:47
  Speaker 1: and he were going to be meeting outside the house. Again,
• 1:23:50
  Speaker 1: I have zero evidence of this. I'm just trying to
• 1:23:53
  Speaker 1: figure it out, trying to put it all together, put
• 1:23:55
  Speaker 1: all the pieces of this puzzle together, and have so
• 1:23:58
  Speaker 1: far not been able to do so. If you have
• 1:24:00
  Speaker 1: a better theory, or if you see a major flaw
• 1:24:02
  Speaker 1: in my theory, I would love to hear it, because
• 1:24:04
  Speaker 1: I'm I'm I'm as interested in this story as anybody,
• 1:24:09
  Speaker 1: simply because of the intrigue from the media perspective. The
• 1:24:13
  Speaker 1: romance part of it, I think is interesting. Whether or
• 1:24:16
  Speaker 1: not Rabel's job at the Patriots's is still on firm footing,
• 1:24:20
  Speaker 1: I think has some significance. I am definitely in the
• 1:24:23
  Speaker 1: camp of those who believe that if it turns out
• 1:24:28
  Speaker 1: that this kid, Michael is Mike Rabel's son, I think
• 1:24:34
  Speaker 1: that is a game changer. I really do. I realized that.
• 1:24:38
  Speaker 1: You know, it's hard to pinpoint. Okay, why would that
• 1:24:40
  Speaker 1: be a game changer? I just think that from a
• 1:24:43
  Speaker 1: public perception standpoint, that would be a very difficult thing
• 1:24:47
  Speaker 1: for Vrabel to survive because that would break the Internet.
• 1:24:53
  Speaker 1: And it will also indicate just how extensive the relationship
• 1:24:58
  Speaker 1: was and how big of a lot they have been
• 1:25:01
  Speaker 1: living for a very very long period of time. And
• 1:25:04
  Speaker 1: there's also the ESPN angle of this story. It is
• 1:25:07
  Speaker 1: absolutely amazing and telling to me that ESPN has been
• 1:25:11
  Speaker 1: able to somehow get away with barely even mentioning this
• 1:25:15
  Speaker 1: story even when it started to directly involve them, And
• 1:25:21
  Speaker 1: there are smoking guns everywhere about how ESPN could have
• 1:25:27
  Speaker 1: theoretically been directly involved in this Russini Vrabel story, especially
• 1:25:32
  Speaker 1: if you use ESPN's model of how they interpreted the
• 1:25:35
  Speaker 1: entire Penn State Joe Paterno aspect of the Jerry Sandusky story.
• 1:25:39
  Speaker 1: They presumed to cover up even though it was nonsensical
• 1:25:41
  Speaker 1: and there was no evidence of it, and they dictated
• 1:25:45
  Speaker 1: all their coverage through that prism well using their very
• 1:25:49
  Speaker 1: same rules. It's now obvious that ESPN had to be
• 1:25:52
  Speaker 1: aware of what was going on when Russini was at
• 1:25:55
  Speaker 1: ESPN and covering the NFL and was very close to
• 1:25:58
  Speaker 1: Mike Rabel. Weirdly, I find this amazing that one it
• 1:26:03
  Speaker 1: took so long for this tweet to be found, and
• 1:26:06
  Speaker 1: two the tweet has still not gone viral, even though
• 1:26:09
  Speaker 1: it was shared by a couple of prominent accounts, and
• 1:26:12
  Speaker 1: I was one of those that did so. But there
• 1:26:15
  Speaker 1: is a remarkable post from January of twenty twenty one,
• 1:26:20
  Speaker 1: so we know that Rabel and Rassini are deeply involved
• 1:26:24
  Speaker 1: in some sort of relationship that would have them be
• 1:26:28
  Speaker 1: in a romantic twist in twenty twenty and have her
• 1:26:32
  Speaker 1: sharing a boat ride with him for several hours well
• 1:26:35
  Speaker 1: seven months pregnant in twenty twenty one. So right in
• 1:26:38
  Speaker 1: the middle of that we have Bill Hofheimer, who is
• 1:26:42
  Speaker 1: at major ESPN executive. Bill Hofheimer tweeted, I guess it
• 1:26:47
  Speaker 1: was a tweetback then because it wasn't named x. So
• 1:26:50
  Speaker 1: Bill Hofheimer tweets, I cannot make this up, folks. This
• 1:26:55
  Speaker 1: is unbelievable. I cannot believe this has not gone more viral.
• 1:26:58
  Speaker 1: He tweets that Leanna Resini ESPN, by the way, her
• 1:27:02
  Speaker 1: account is now dead, so that's no longer even highlighted
• 1:27:06
  Speaker 1: when you go to this post. Has covered the Titans
• 1:27:10
  Speaker 1: closely all season. Good get just now and interview a
• 1:27:15
  Speaker 1: few hours from kickoff with head coach Mike rabel on
• 1:27:20
  Speaker 1: NFL Countdown. And then there's frankly, a creepy photo of
• 1:27:25
  Speaker 1: Rusini with her big microphone in her hand in the
• 1:27:30
  Speaker 1: stands while looking up at her is Mike Rabel I
• 1:27:35
  Speaker 1: realized twenty twenty is hindsight. But this is insanity. This
• 1:27:42
  Speaker 1: is insanity, and ESPN has taken absolutely positively no forget
• 1:27:48
  Speaker 1: about responsibility or accountability. They haven't even acknowledged this reality.
• 1:27:53
  Speaker 1: They've just been allowed to completely ignore the fact that
• 1:27:57
  Speaker 1: this was all happening and began and was potentially a
• 1:28:02
  Speaker 1: very significant entanglement while Diana Rassini was working at ESPN
• 1:28:08
  Speaker 1: as an NFL insider. And that's even without the idea
• 1:28:12
  Speaker 1: that her first child might actually be Mike Vrabels, even
• 1:28:16
  Speaker 1: though she decided to name the kid Michael. I mean,
• 1:28:19
  Speaker 1: this story is just bonkers, and the ESPN aspect of
• 1:28:22
  Speaker 1: it is by far the most underrated. It is absolutely
• 1:28:27
  Speaker 1: astonishing that ESPN has gotten away with this and so
• 1:28:31
  Speaker 1: to be clear, I don't know what really transpired. I'm
• 1:28:35
  Speaker 1: throwing out a theory that makes some not total sense
• 1:28:39
  Speaker 1: to me, mainly because I've not heard any other theory
• 1:28:43
  Speaker 1: that explains all the known evidence, and I am still
• 1:28:47
  Speaker 1: getting the feeling that we have not heard the end
• 1:28:49
  Speaker 1: of this. Under my theory, we've absolutely not heard the
• 1:28:53
  Speaker 1: end of this because this is all being done systematically,
• 1:28:56
  Speaker 1: which is why we're not hearing any backstory on how
• 1:29:00
  Speaker 1: it is that these photographs and videos were taken, how
• 1:29:03
  Speaker 1: they were found, how they were made public, which we
• 1:29:07
  Speaker 1: would naturally be doing if this was happening organically instead
• 1:29:10
  Speaker 1: of as part of some sort of strategy. Thanks for
• 1:29:15
  Speaker 1: listening to today's free drop of the abbreviated show. If
• 1:29:18
  Speaker 1: you're interested in listening to the entire show, you must
• 1:29:21
  Speaker 1: become a patron. Please go to Patreon. That's p A
• 1:29:26
  Speaker 1: T R e O N dot com. Patreon dot com
• 1:29:30
  Speaker 1: slash the Death of Journalism with John Ziggler. My name
• 1:29:36
  Speaker 1: is j hn z I E G L e R.
• 1:29:39
  Speaker 1: That's patreon dot com. Slash the Death of Journalism with
• 1:29:46
  Speaker 1: John Ziggler. Good luck to you on that. But that's
• 1:29:49
  Speaker 1: how you can subscribe.