Latest / The Death Of Journalism / Episode One Hundred Fifty Two: Five For Fighting

Transcript

Episode One Hundred Fifty Two: Five For Fighting · The Death Of Journalism

0:00
Welcome to episode number one hundred and fifty two of the Death of Journalism Podcasts.
0:04
My name is John Zigler. I'm your host on today's show. Stormy
0:07
Daniels takes the stand in Trump's criminal case and almost causes a mistrial. Did
0:13
the epic Netflix roast of Tom Brady save comedy in mainstream culture? I'll update
0:20
you on two recent stories from the podcast and have an interview with the lead
0:25
singer from five for Fighting, John Androsik, about why he has livid at
0:30
his alma mater, UCLA over their response to the anti Israel protests. We
0:36
begin this episode of the podcast with the latest in the Trump criminal trial,
0:41
which saw Stormy Daniels take the stand. She, of course, is the
0:46
former porn star who is alleged to have had an affair with Donald Trump and
0:51
was paid money via the National Inquirer to cover it up. And really that
0:55
is the allegation at the heart of this largely bogus trial in New York City
1:00
that Donald Trump is facing and the reason why I'm leading off the podcast with
1:07
that particular situation. Not only is it obviously a politically significant event, because
1:11
this trial could have a really important impact on how the presidential election goes down.
1:19
But also because I think I have at least something to say about this
1:22
that has not been circulated widely, at least not within the right wing media,
1:27
and that is that the main narrative around Stormy daniels testimony has been that
1:34
the Trump defense team objected, probably too late, to the idea that Daniels'
1:42
testimony did not adhere to the rules that the judge had set forth before she
1:49
testified. Basically, what happened was that the judge made it clear, hey,
1:56
look, I understand you got to go into some of this, but
1:59
I don't want you to go to when it comes to the whole romantic stuff,
2:04
the sex stuff, that it's just too prejudicial to the jury and it
2:07
really doesn't have anything to do with the core allegation in the criminal charges.
2:14
And she went way further than what was anticipated. The judge even had to
2:21
step in and say, let's knock it off. The defense team for Donald
2:25
Trump asked for a mistrial. There was no chance that this judge was going
2:30
to grant a mistrial on almost any circumstances, because this judge obviously loves the
2:37
fact that they're presiding over this very high profile case. This is one of
2:40
the many dangers of this particular situation and why it's absurd that we're pretending that
2:46
this can be a real legitimate trial in the midst of a presidential campaign,
2:51
when you have the Republican presidential nominee on trial. I mean, just it's
2:55
utterly absurd. I've said this many many times. I mean, I've seen
3:00
this in other cases. I've experienced this in other cases. I mean my
3:04
defamation trial twenty years ago more than that now, or actually exactly twenty years
3:08
ago in Louisville, Kentucky, a case that I ended up winning unanimously against
3:14
all odds. We had a judge that absolutely positively kept a trial that was
3:20
completely illegitimate going simply because they loved the attention, They loved being the focus
3:25
of the news media. There was so much on the line and so much
3:30
made of all this that there was no chance that they were just going to
3:34
blow it up, even when in that particular circumstance they knew that the allegations
3:39
were completely illegitimate, that the law and the threshold had not even been met,
3:46
that there was no chance that this was going to be a legitimate verdict
3:51
against me, they still went forward with it simply because ending it was against
3:55
their own self interest. So that's the same situation in this particular case with
4:00
this judge. There was no chance they were going to grant a mistrial of
4:02
any kind. However, and this is I guess the part that I want
4:08
to add to this that I have not heard anywhere else, at least not
4:12
in the conservative media, and that is that the Trump team and Trump himself
4:18
blew it on this issue. Now that this judge was never going to grant
4:21
a mistrial under these circumstances anyway, for the reasons I've already stated. However,
4:27
here's the problem from the Trump perspective. Trump has not stipulated to the
4:32
affair, and so therefore the defense can make a very legitimate argument. Okay,
4:40
judge, we have to go into the sex stuff because we have to
4:44
prove that there was an affair, so that we can set the foundation for
4:48
why it is that Trump paid her or the National Inquirer paid her to cover
4:54
it up, which is at the center of this entire allegation. Now I
4:59
have already he said many times I completely disagree with this criminal case at just
5:02
about every single level, especially the timing of it. But I also have
5:09
to understand and to and have to defend basic principles. And I'm sorry Trump
5:15
and his team blew it here. If they had stipulated that there was in
5:18
fact an affair, which he you know, he has not done. And
5:21
I don't think it's because he didn't have an affair. I think it's because
5:25
he doesn't want to have to admit it to his wife, or he doesn't
5:28
want to have to admit it to the public that he lied previously. So
5:31
he he is stubbornly forging ahead with this idea. This is all false.
5:38
I didn't even have an affair. At least, he's not admitting to having
5:41
an affair, and that cost him here because if they had stipulated, hey,
5:48
we're not going to argue about the fact that there was an affair.
5:51
We're just going to argue the law and the heart of this case, and
5:57
you know, the logistics of it, the documentation of it, the credibility
6:00
of the witnesses, all that, we're not going to argue that there was
6:04
an affair. If they had done that, then what happened would have absolutely
6:11
been caused for a mistrial. And if the judge had not granted a mistrial,
6:15
it would have been a fantastic issue on appeal. I saw some people
6:19
who are Trump supporters saying, well, Trump just won the appeal because the
6:23
judge didn't grant a mistrial and clearly this testimony from Stormy Daniels was illegitimate and
6:29
made the case itself illegitimate because it was too prejudicial to the jury. Well,
6:33
no, I don't think that's going to win the day in an appeal
6:36
because any appeal jurist is going to look at this and go, well,
6:42
wait a minute. You know, this might have been excessive, but it
6:46
didn't destroy the entire case because the prosecution was forced to do this. They
6:50
had to prove that there was an affair, and the only way to do
6:55
that is to have the witness go into great detail and let the jury determined
7:00
her credibility when it comes to the allegation that they had an affair. So
7:06
I get why this is all happening. I get they're trying to embarrass Trump,
7:11
But from a purely legal standpoint, you know, Trump made a decision
7:15
to deny or not acknowledge the affair, and that put the prosecution in a
7:21
situation where they had to do what they did, and so I don't really
7:27
don't have any sympathy for Trump and his legal team on this particular issue because
7:32
they had the opportunity to stipulate to the affair and they did not do it.
7:38
Now, on the good side for Trump, it does not seem as
7:43
if the jury is buying Stormy Daniels as a personality. Even CNN didn't seem
7:51
to be feeling it based upon their in court reporting. The jury was just
7:58
not feeling it with her. She's trying to make jokes. They weren't laughing
8:03
that. She was not coming off as particularly credible. This is a person
8:07
who has lied many times in the past based upon even if you believe she
8:13
had an affair, she's denied this publicly on multiple occasions, and she has
8:18
all sorts of theoretical credibility problems, not to mention the fact that she's a
8:22
former porn star. And so it does not appear as if the testimony itself
8:28
has hurt Trump very much. If you're somebody who believes that the facts and
8:33
the law, as opposed to the people that are actually on the jury,
8:37
is going to win the day here, I'm somebody who believes a jury selection
8:41
is basically ninety five percent of this trial. But you know, if you
8:46
believe that the jury is going to be fair, it seems as if her
8:50
testimony was not all that damaging. And you have a situation now, this
8:56
narrative, it's pretty clear where the star witnesses for the pcution in this case,
9:01
Stormy Tangils former porn star, proven liar, even if you believe her
9:07
current story, David Pecker proven liar, scumbag, former head of the National
9:13
Choir, and still to come, Michael Cohen convicted liar, and you know,
9:20
scumbag and a guy who in the media has not made nearly enough of
9:24
this, a guy who, if you spend any time in the evening on
9:28
TikTok does TikTok lives on basically a daily basis, answering questions, some of
9:37
them completely inane from the general public, anonymous questions via TikTok, so that
9:43
he can make money from his notoriety while this case is going on. I
9:48
mean, it's unbelievable. The prosecution has to be pulling their hair out that
9:54
Michael Cohen is doing this, even I didn't believe it first couple of times
9:56
I scrolled right past I thought it was a mo Michael Cohen impersonator. It's
10:01
not. It's actually Michael Cohen live on TikTok answering questions about the case or
10:09
about issues related to the case and everything else, trying to, you know,
10:15
the last ditch effort to make a few dollars from his involvement in this
10:20
situation. So, if you're Trump, you couldn't possibly ask for three less
10:24
credible people on paper than Stormy Daniels, David Pecker and Michael Cohen. Now,
10:31
does that mean that Trump isn't going to get convicted? No, I
10:35
personally believe, based upon what we currently are, that there's I'm still basically
10:41
in the same place I was at the start of this that it seems as
10:45
if a complete acquittal is out of the question, but that a hung jury
10:50
would be a victory for Donald Trump, and that there was a chance at
10:52
a hung jury. Now the hung jury situation, which we're not there yet
10:56
but looking ahead, going to provide basically the same issue as this mistrial circumstance,
11:03
where the judge has an inherent conflict of interest. It's a little bit
11:07
like doctor Fauci and COVID. Doctor Fauci never wanted COVID to end because it
11:11
was the best thing that ever happened to him. This judge isn't gonna want
11:13
this case to end, especially not in a mistrial, because it's the best
11:16
thing that's ever happened to them. So that's going to be a problem.
11:20
But at a certain point, if the jury can't come to a unanimous decision,
11:26
there's going to have to be a mistrial, hung jury. And there
11:30
certainly seems as if we're on the track for there to be enough for a
11:35
juror who's at least remotely sympathetic to Trump to say no, I don't think
11:41
this has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. There seems to be enough there
11:46
based upon even like I said, CNN's reporting on this and others from the
11:50
liberal perspective, who are just saying that basically this isn't turning out to be
11:56
a deadlock cinged case. And certainly none of this is really new information,
12:01
but the witnesses and credibility issues, the law itself, it seems to be
12:05
being applied in an illegitimate fashion. There's the whole issue of how do you
12:11
get to a felony on this without another crime. What's the other crime.
12:15
There's a statute of limitations issue. I mean, there's all sorts of things
12:18
that a juror could hang on to if they wanted to vote to acquit and
12:24
not go along with the others on the jury who wanted to convict, mainly
12:28
because they hate Donald Trump. So I'm not making a prediction as of this
12:31
point, but if you're in the Trump camp, you have to feel decently
12:37
about how things are going in this particular trial, and that if there are
12:43
jurors who are predisposed to being fair, you have a chance at a mistrial.
12:48
Now, if you get a mistrial, and if you're in the Trump
12:52
camp, you might be free and clear now through the election. Because there
12:56
have been some major developments in the other cases that Trump is facing. The
13:01
classified documents case in Florida has been officially delayed indefinitely by the judge there.
13:07
Now, the judge in Florida is seen as being very pro Trump. I
13:11
don't know if that's true or not, but the liberals have been complaining about
13:15
that for months, about the rulings in that particular case. But that essentially
13:20
means there is no chance that Trump faces the classified documents case in Florida before
13:26
the election. Now, you know, I've always looked at that case as
13:30
a double edged sword, because I thought that was the best chance, if
13:33
you're rooting for Donald Trump for there to be an acquittal. And certainly there
13:37
was very little chance of a conviction in my mind, given the nature of
13:41
a Florida jury and given the nature of the allegations, especially since the DOJ
13:48
let Joe Biden off the hook on very similar though different allegations. But that
13:52
case is not going to go to trial before the election. We now essentially
13:58
know that similar and this just happened this morning Wednesday, as I'm taping this
14:03
podcast. The Georgia Court of Appeals has taken the case to determine whether or
14:09
not the judge in that election interference case against Trump aired by not disqualifying Fulton
14:16
County DA Fanny Willis. Now, we talked a lot about the Fanny Willis
14:22
situation, and eventually the judge decided to wimp out and allow Fanny Willis to
14:28
continue while getting rid of her special prosecutor and her boyfriend. And now that
14:33
case is being appealed, and that appeal it seems like is going to cause
14:41
enough of a delay, especially since even that appeal can be appealed. See,
14:46
once you start down this path, there's all sorts of opportunities for further
14:52
delays. So even if Trump's team loses, it's my understanding loses the this
15:00
appeal over where whether Fanny Willis should have been disqualified, they can then appeal
15:05
that, And you know we're almost into summer now, then you get into
15:09
the crux of the campaign. I just don't see any chance whatsoever now that
15:16
Trump is going to face the criminal case in Georgia before the election. So
15:22
Florida documents case is out, it appears as if the Georgia election interference case
15:30
is out. The US Supreme Court has put a very significant delay on the
15:37
DC election interference case, which to me is the one with the most credibility
15:41
and the one that would be the most damaging if a legitimate jury ever convicted
15:48
Trump on those charges, and I in the case that I would most like
15:52
to see adjudicated. But the US Supreme Court has essentially made it clear.
15:58
They have not ruled yet, but they've made it pretty clear. Even liberals
16:02
were accepting the reality that they were going to cause a situation where they were
16:07
going to throw it back down to the lower courts, and that that was
16:11
going to cause all sorts of delays because of the Trump immunity claim. So
16:15
right now it looks as if this New York City case is it, and
16:22
it's looking more that way than it ever has as of this taping. And
16:26
if that's the case, then my god, what a damning indictment of the
16:33
entire year of twenty twenty three. When it came to news media coverage,
16:38
there were thousands and thousands of hours spent in mainstream news media coverage on those
16:47
four indictments. Those four indictments not only dominated the news media coverage through twenty
16:52
twenty three, they completely changed the course of the Republican presidential nominating process.
16:59
They affected ended any chance that Ron Desant has had to mount a charge and
17:03
to potentially win the twenty twenty four Republican presidential nomination. That's how significant those
17:11
indictments were, and the media coverage of them was. They dominated everything.
17:17
They changed the course of history. And the only case that's going to go
17:22
to trial before the election is this bullshit New York City hush money case.
17:30
You gotta be fucking kidding me. You have to be fucking kidding me.
17:34
This is it. I mean, this is as big. If this is
17:37
as it appears to be, and I'm now convinced that it is, I
17:41
mean, it certainly seems as if there is very little chance now that any
17:48
of these other cases are going to go to trial before the election. If
17:51
that's it, this is about as embarrassing as it gets for the news media.
17:55
And this is after a stream of embarrassments over the last five to ten
17:59
years or longer than that, but especially in the COVID and post COVID era
18:03
and the Russia Gate era. It's absolutely unbelievable, and people wonder why the
18:08
news media has no credibility. And then there's the issue of the prosecutors being
18:15
way too cute, way too cute to wait until the middle of twenty twenty
18:19
three to do this, thinking that under the best of timelines, they could
18:23
get their trials done in the middle of a presidential election. And I always
18:29
said, my god, in these cases in normal situations, get delayed very
18:34
significantly. You've got, you know, a very powerful, very rich guy
18:41
with high high profile not always great, but high profile lawyers with resources.
18:48
They're going to figure out ways to delay this. I mean, almost any
18:52
decent lawyer can find ways to delay. But when you're a former president,
18:55
you can go to the US Supreme Court claiming immunity. That's just one of
18:59
many exams of the way that you can delay this. And then you have
19:02
horrendous opponents like Fanny Willis, who's having affairs with their special prosecutor and then
19:07
lying about the whole thing. I mean, you know, Trump has always
19:11
been gifted with very poor enemies, and this is a classic example of that.
19:18
And so the prosecution in all of these situations has to take some responsibility.
19:23
I mean, I'm sure that liberals on MSNBC are going to be wailing
19:27
about the current situation that all they have after all of this is, you
19:34
know, Stormy Daniels, that's all they have going to trial before the twenty
19:40
twenty four presidential election. It's really a remarkable situation. And you know,
19:45
even for a guy who loads Donald Trump and I also love that loath the
19:51
news media, I have to take at least a little bit of satisfaction of
19:55
this because even though it helps Trump, my god, doesn't make the news
19:59
media look like a bunch of fucking morons because they largely are, and makes
20:03
Liberals look corrupt as hell. And you know, they got caught with their
20:07
hand in the cookie jar. They pushed it too far and it looks like
20:11
they got screwed. It looks like they played this too cute. They're not
20:17
going to get their great conviction before the presidential election. Now, there could
20:22
be if Alnty conviction in this New York City case, but I'm not even
20:26
sure that that would have that much impact on the election because I think the
20:32
majority of the American people understand that these allegations are politically motivated and they're not
20:37
particularly serious. Now, there was a time before Trump when this all would
20:41
have been very devastating, especially do a Republican presidential nominee, and I think
20:47
it ought to be disqualifying. I want to make that clear. I think
20:49
all of that happened with the National Inquirir and frankly, I think the National
20:55
Inquirer involvement and this is more dangerous than the actual affairs with Stormy Daniels.
21:00
And I don't really have a problem with the Karen McDougal affair, because my
21:03
god, I'd be bragging about that if I were Trump. But the point
21:07
of this is that what happened here there were significant issues. I mean,
21:12
Trump allowed himself to be potentially blackmailed by a terrorist organization called the National inquir
21:21
and he did that stupidly, and it was very corrupt and very mob like.
21:26
So I'm not defending the behavior really at all. It was it should
21:30
have been disqualifying. But we don't live in that world anymore. I'm a
21:34
realist and as I'm trying to figure out what's going to happen here in this
21:40
twenty twenty four at presidential election, I've been trying to call this as objectively
21:44
as possible, and right now, I mean, my goodness, if you
21:48
had said in the middle of twenty twenty three that this is what the situation
21:53
would be in the middle of twenty twenty four, and you're a Trump fan,
21:59
you would take you would take this in a heartbeat, one trial before
22:03
the election. It's the hush money trial, and hush money trial doesn't seem
22:07
to be going all that spectacularly for the prosecution. You would take that.
22:14
Obviously, we don't know what the result of that's going to be, and
22:15
I'll continue to cover it as it goes along. As far as the twenty
22:19
twenty four presidential election is concerned, there was one piece of polling data that
22:25
came out that I wanted to mention because it goes to a theory that I've
22:30
had about this election for almost a year now that very few other people are
22:36
talking about, and that is that there's a remarkably good chance that this whole
22:41
thing ends up in a two sixty nine to two sixty nine electoral college tie.
22:45
Now, to be clear, the chances of this are small. It's
22:51
way below fifty percent. But of all of the current potential scenarios, it's
22:57
hard for me to come up with one that is more likely than this one.
23:02
In other words, if you predicted to the number what the electoral college
23:07
result was going to be, I don't know that you could come up with
23:11
a number that would be more likely than the two sixty nine two sixty nine
23:18
time based upon the current polling and the way that I see this race going
23:25
moving forward, and the way that would happen is really, frankly, very
23:29
simple. And I'm a big believer in the geographical theory of presidential politics,
23:37
and without getting too sidetracked or too deeply into it, but you know,
23:41
in twenty twenty, we only had one landlocked state, and what I mean
23:45
by landlocked state is that we had only one state that was completely surrounded by
23:52
states that voted differently than it did. So geography matters, largely because graphics
24:00
matter, and I do believe, as I said in the last episode of
24:03
the podcast, we're essentially living in three different countries. The Northeast combined with
24:07
the traditional Midwest. You've got the southeast diagonally up to the Upper Midwest and
24:15
maybe the southwest of the United States. That's the conservative country right in the
24:19
middle. And then you have the West coast Looney Tunes where I live in
24:22
California and Oregon, Washington, and then Nevada and Arizona are on the edge
24:29
of either the middle part of the country or the western part of the country,
24:33
depending on what's happening on almost any given day. And so, based
24:37
upon my theory of geography, I've thought that it made sense that if you
24:45
split the swing states, the so called northern swing states, Wisconsin, Michigan,
24:52
and Pennsylvania, you give those to Biden, you know, so that
24:56
you know is geographically consistent the Midwest, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.
25:03
Now there are polls that show Trump barely winning all of those states. This
25:07
is in a new poll out where Trump's winning Pennsylvania, which I continue to
25:11
be very skeptical of. But okay, so I'm not saying this is a
25:17
deadlock since at all. I'm just saying that under this theory, this is
25:19
how you get the two sixty nine two sixty nine. Biden wins the northern
25:25
so called swing states Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania, and then Trump wins
25:30
the southern swing states. He would win all the South, including North Carolina
25:33
and Georgia, and then he would win Arizona and Nevada in the West.
25:41
And he's winning Nevada and although there's one poll out this week having him losing
25:45
Arizona for the first time in over a year, but that was just one
25:49
poll by one point. I think. So if Trump wins Nevada and Arizona,
25:55
Georgia, and North Carolina, very logical both from a political as well
26:00
as a geographical perspective, and Biden wins those northern swing states Wisconsin, Michigan,
26:06
and Pennsylvania, now you're looking at the two sixty nine two sixty nine
26:10
tie. But The two sixty nine and two sixty nine tie is based upon
26:15
two things. One that the second congressional district in Maine goes for Trump because
26:21
Maine is one of the two states that divvy's up its Electoral College votes based
26:26
upon congressional district and it's very clear that Trump is going to win. That's
26:32
the second congressional district. Maine is basically has all their Liberals in one district
26:37
and all their Conservatives or Republicans in another district. And so it's pretty clear
26:42
that Trump's going to win that second congressional district in Maine. That leaves one
26:48
last concern if you're the Trump team to get to a two sixty nine and
26:52
two sixty nine tie, and that is Nebraska. And I've been saying for
26:59
weeks now, where the hell is there any polling data on the second congressional
27:03
district in Nebraska, which includes Omaha, Because that district is up for grabs.
27:11
Trump won it in twenty sixteen, he lost it in twenty twenty.
27:15
If he were to win it under the scenario I just outlined for you,
27:19
this election would end in a two sixty nine two sixty nine, probably civil
27:26
war inducing tie, and That would mean it would go to the House of
27:32
Representatives and each state would get one vote based upon its House delegation. Now,
27:37
that could still get very dicey depending on how the House races go during
27:42
this particular election. It is still theoretically possible that Democrats, although unlikely,
27:48
Democrats could get twenty six votes in the House of Representatives. Now currently,
27:55
Republicans would carry enough state delegationations in the House for Trump to be elected president.
28:03
And my god, would that make liberals blow a gasket. I mean,
28:07
all this business about questioning democracy or questioning election results and defending democracy of
28:15
that would all go out the window in a heartbeat, because all of a
28:19
sudden, Liberals would be questioning the Constitution and questioning I mean, my god,
28:25
they'd be questioning everything. They would make you twenty twenty look like a
28:29
picnic. Almost literally might make January sixth look like a picnic. In the
28:33
liberal reaction to the scenario I'm outlining. But that scenario is all based on
28:41
Trump winning the second congressional district in Nebraska. And there's finally a new poll
28:45
out. Although I have to say this poll is from a weird source.
28:48
It's from an independent candidate and his campaign in Nebraska. But I don't see
28:55
any reason to think that it's totally made up or illegitimate, and it shows
29:00
Trump winning the second congressional district in Nebraska by three points. Now that's only
29:07
one pole, kind of a dubious source. I am told very reliably that
29:12
there will be new polling in the second congressional district in Nebraska within the next
29:17
couple of weeks. I look forward to that, and I will share that
29:19
with you when I haven't and when it's made public. But at the very
29:25
least, this two sixty nine two sixty nine scenario is very much in play
29:30
because clearly Trump is at least competitive in that congressional district in Nebraska. And
29:37
under that scenario, I mean that is I keep calling it the civil war
29:40
scenario, and almost there's a little bit of being facetious there, but there's
29:45
a seriousness to this. I mean, that would not be a good scenario
29:48
for the country, but there is a relatively good chance this is going to
29:52
happen. When I just outlined makes perfect sense, it's logically consistent, and
29:59
the polling really leads you in this direction, especially if like me, you
30:04
believe that the polling is at least a little bit biased towards Donald Trump.
30:10
If it's if the current polling is biased, at least the state polling is
30:14
biased by a couple of points in Donald Trump's favor, then that means that
30:18
Biden wins Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania. And we're right there at this
30:23
two sixty nine to sixty nine tie situation. Now, of course, I
30:30
do want to make one other caveat to this, this polling in Nebraska,
30:33
and you know, the way I perceive the current race may have just been
30:37
dramatically changed because in the last twenty four hours, we've learned that former NFL
30:45
wide receiver Antonio Brown has endorsed Donald Trump over Joe Biden for president. He
30:52
did so in an interview with Jason Whitlock. And this could be a game
30:56
changer. I mean, to have a complete nut job like Antonio Brown,
31:02
who was once one of the best wide receivers in the history of the National
31:06
Football League suddenly decide to endorse Donald Trump. I mean, that's gonna influence
31:11
a lot of people, because you know, there are a lot of people
31:14
that look to Antonio Brown for their political analysis and trying to discern and to
31:22
decipher what they should do in this situation that he's really a moral authority.
31:27
I mean, Antonio Brown is a guy with a lot of credibility after the
31:32
way his NFL career ended, So that could change everything. I mean,
31:37
forget about these campus protests and what impact they may have on the polling.
31:41
I'm looking at what's gonna happen because Antonio Brown has now endorsed Donald Trump for
31:47
president. Obviously I'm being facetious, but you know, stranger things have happened.
31:52
We're living in a very, very odd world. We're living in a
31:55
world it is so odd that the Biden administration has been on the attack against
32:02
the New York Times of all places, because they don't feel as if the
32:07
New York Times is carrying their water, at least not enough when it comes
32:12
to their coverage of the race against Donald Trump, and the New York Times
32:17
editor has basically pushed back against the Biden administration narrative on this. So we
32:23
have this very strange situation where the New York Times, which effectively at times
32:30
is the pr firm of the Democratic Party and still allegedly the paper of record,
32:36
very influential within what's left of the mainstream news media. We have the
32:38
New York Times editor pushing back very strongly against the Biden administration and the Biden
32:45
campaign. Here's an article for my old outlet, Mediaite, where I was
32:51
a senior columnist for several years, headline, New York Times editor slams Biden
32:57
Whitehouse for whining about press they want to be covered by quote unquote Pravda,
33:04
the Russian news agency. Here's parts of the article in media I. New
33:08
York Times executive editor Joe Kahan slammed the Biden Whitehouse for complaining about the paper
33:15
of records coverage of it in a new interview, musing that it's denzings want
33:21
to be covered by something like Pravda, the infamous state run newspaper published by
33:27
the Soviet Union. The New York Times editor is quoted as saying, it's
33:30
our job to cover the full range of issues that people have at the moment.
33:35
Democracy is one of them, but it's not the top one. Immigration
33:39
happens to be the top of the polls, and the economy and inflation is
33:45
the second. Should we stop covering those things because they're favorable to Trump and
33:50
minimize them? Ask con rhetorically. I don't even know how it's supposed to
33:54
work in the view of the Biden White House. Thanks for listening to today's
34:00
free drop of the abbreviated show. If you're interested in listening to the entire
34:05
show, you must become a patron. Please go to Patreon. That's p
34:09
A T R e O N dot com. Patreon dot com. Slash the
34:16
Death of Journalism with John Ziggler. My name is j H N z I
34:22
E G L e R. That's haatreon dot com. Slash the Death of
34:30
Journalism with John Ziggler. Good luck to you on that. But that's how
34:35
you can subscribe.