Latest / DeProgram with Ted Rall and Jamarl Thomas / The Cornell Controversy (with Michael Tracey) | DeProgram with Ted Rall and Jamarl Thomas

Transcript

The Cornell Controversy (with Michael Tracey) | DeProgram with Ted Rall and Jamarl Thomas · DeProgram with Ted Rall and Jamarl Thomas

• 0:12
  Good morning. Hope you had a nice weekend. This
• 0:14
  is DeProgram with Ted Rall, Jamarl Thomas.
• 0:16
  It's Tuesday, October 13th, 2026. Thank you so
• 0:20
  much for being here with us. We appreciate you
• 0:22
  and we're glad to be back. We've got a full packed
• 0:27
  hour today. We go just one hour today. We have
• 0:29
  a lot to do. Michael Tracy, the independent journalist
• 0:32
  who made national news in his contrarian coverage
• 0:36
  of the Cornell Jane Doe sex scandal, gangbang,
• 0:45
  rape case, whatever you want to call it. He's
• 0:48
  going to be joining us in just a few minutes.
• 0:50
  So it's a trigger warning, for real, that you
• 0:54
  may find this disturbing. Also... Ilhan Omar,
• 1:00
  the Democratic representative from Minnesota
• 1:02
  and member of the squad, has been raided over
• 1:06
  the weekend. They broke down her door at 4:30
• 1:09
  in the morning. We will get into exactly what
• 1:12
  that's all about. The New York Times did a satellite
• 1:16
  analysis. They found that in southern Lebanon.
• 1:19
  Out of about 60 villages, 48 have been leveled
• 1:23
  by Israel since the April so-called ceasefire.
• 1:27
  And they've been picking and choosing which villages
• 1:30
  to level. And some have been left pretty much
• 1:33
  intact. And you can probably, well, you probably
• 1:36
  can't guess which ones they've chosen, but we'll
• 1:38
  get into that. The Saudis are getting hit hard
• 1:41
  by the Houthis. The Riyadh airport, which looked
• 1:44
  like it was going to reopen, is going to be closed
• 1:46
  at least till the end of the week as another
• 1:49
  airstrike from a ballistic missile hit yesterday.
• 1:52
  Elon Musk has given over $276 million to GOP
• 1:59
  -affiliated groups and his own GOP-affiliated
• 2:03
  super PAC since July. So just in the last three
• 2:07
  months, this makes him the biggest known midterm
• 2:10
  donor. Known is the key word here. There could
• 2:13
  be more. Yeah, we should probably get right to
• 2:17
  it. If you have questions, comments, whatever,
• 2:20
  Michael Tracy will be available to deal with
• 2:24
  those while we're talking to him. We have no
• 2:27
  Robby West today, no producer, so please bear
• 2:30
  with me as I try to get through your questions.
• 2:33
  The Super Chats and the Rumble Rants will get
• 2:36
  my attention first, but I'll try to
• 2:39
  ban the board and read those questions and talk
• 2:42
  to Jamarl and put Michael on and all that
• 2:45
  stuff all at the same time. We'll have Michael
• 2:47
  on starting at about 9:10 Eastern time. That's
• 2:50
  in about six minutes. Okay, a lot to talk about
• 2:53
  here. Hope you're doing well. Tomorrow I'm doing
• 2:56
  okay. I'm doing okay. I was thinking, do you think
• 2:59
  Tracy is right? I read his article on the meeting that took place where they were going
• 3:05
  to ban students from meeting or something to that
• 3:09
  effect. It was like they were banning students
• 3:11
  from coming together, banning kids from meeting.
• 3:15
  You think he's right? Or do you think he's wrong?
• 3:17
  I'm curious. About which aspect? Well, do you
• 3:21
  think it was right for the council to try to
• 3:23
  ban student groups? No. No, never, never. Yeah,
• 3:28
  agree. When I saw it, I was like, they had a
• 3:31
  student council because of the scourge of gang rape.
• 3:36
  And it's like, you have to shut down student
• 3:38
  groups because of this? As if the student groups
• 3:40
  are the issue? Yeah, student groups are not the
• 3:42
  issue here. Yeah, rapists are the issue. Yeah,
• 3:48
  that's the issue. It's like, how is that my fault?
• 3:51
  It's like, I'm going to chess group and you're
• 3:53
  shutting down my chess camp. No, look,
• 3:55
  this is even more insane than when Columbia University
• 3:59
  shut down Jewish Voice for Peace. That was insane. And as a Columbia alum,
• 4:05
  it really still pisses me off. But this is even
• 4:07
  worse than that because you're literally canceling
• 4:09
  all student groups. What's the
• 4:12
  point of college then? The whole point
• 4:14
  of college is to meet and interact with other
• 4:16
  students. Yeah. And me going to chess club is
• 4:19
  not going to affect what do you expect
• 4:22
  to happen? Gang rapists break into the chess
• 4:24
  club room and go all wild. Yeah, we haven't heard
• 4:27
  about that many, much wild. Yeah, right. It's like
• 4:31
  I don't think they're breaking people at student
• 4:33
  groups. No, probably not. Yeah, no, they're not. And this, and I'm not even the architecture
• 4:40
  students group. I don't think that things are
• 4:42
  getting very crazy there. And I don't even know
• 4:45
  if this was a gang rape, right? Yeah, that has
• 4:47
  not yet been established in a court of law, right?
• 4:49
  Yeah, and so it's very wild. Cornell just
• 4:52
  seems to be out of his mind on this. Well, that's,
• 4:55
  look, that's the thing. Cowardice
• 4:58
  is the go-to place for administrators
• 5:01
  of any kind. If you're not a coward,
• 5:03
  you don't last long in those spaces. It's all
• 5:06
  be like, but what if, what if they say things?
• 5:09
  What if the alums and what if this, and what
• 5:11
  if that, and what if there's protests and what
• 5:13
  if, and what if, and what if that's, that's,
• 5:15
  that's how they live their lives. Yeah. Yeah.
• 5:18
  Well, let's go to that story. Okay. Yeah. Let's
• 5:22
  hit something. What do you want to talk? Ilhan
• 5:23
  Omar, maybe? We can do Ilhan. We can do Ilhan.
• 5:27
  OK, let's do Ilhan. OK, so you talked about it
• 5:30
  this morning. You want to tee up what happened?
• 5:32
  Sure. So at five in the morning, the feds raid
• 5:35
  Ilhan Omar's house. And in raiding the house,
• 5:39
  of course, they ransacked the place and everything
• 5:41
  else. And what they are going with is this idea
• 5:44
  of there was something nefarious, something wrong
• 5:46
  in her application for citizenship or for her
• 5:50
  when she effectively got here. And so. They have
• 5:53
  a, quote, wide ranging investigation, unquote,
• 5:55
  in the way that the papers recounted, even though
• 5:58
  they weren't necessarily clear on the boundaries
• 6:02
  of that particular investigation. It's also very
• 6:05
  strange that weeks before the election, this
• 6:07
  is taking place. And obviously, the Trump administration
• 6:10
  has been going after Ilhan Omar, claiming that
• 6:13
  sex with her brother or claiming that there was
• 6:16
  something nefarious in regards to her immigration
• 6:17
  papers, meaning these were the things that were
• 6:20
  effectively floating out there in order to justify
• 6:23
  them going after her. But they're claiming that
• 6:25
  there was some kind of immigration faux pas that
• 6:28
  took place that required them to ransack her
• 6:30
  house at five in the morning. Who knows what
• 6:33
  that would be that would justify that particular
• 6:35
  thing. As you pointed out today, they could have
• 6:37
  sent her a letter. They could have knocked on
• 6:40
  her door. She's a sitting congresswoman. What
• 6:42
  did they think she was going to do? And also
• 6:45
  more to the point, what did they think they were
• 6:47
  going to find in a raid of her house at five
• 6:48
  in the morning? What do you think she's
• 6:52
  hiding? All of her ties, too. All of her ties
• 6:54
  as a secret agent for radical jihad. Yeah. I'm
• 6:59
  saying it's outrageous. I'm saying it's outrageous.
• 7:02
  And they're obviously doing this not because
• 7:04
  there's some kind of secret jihadist camp that
• 7:08
  she's working with or not because there's some
• 7:10
  kind of secret immigration paper that they're
• 7:12
  going to find and they're going to be like, we
• 7:13
  got her. Dead to rights. That if we didn't raid
• 7:16
  her house at five in the morning, she was going
• 7:17
  to hide this immigration document. I don't believe
• 7:20
  in that, right? Yeah, look, let's face
• 7:21
  it. If she had a name like Marie Claire
• 7:26
  O'Malley, and let's just say her case
• 7:32
  of her choice in headgear was different, and
• 7:36
  she just had free-flowing blonde locks,
• 7:39
  I guarantee you that she would not have been
• 7:41
  raided yesterday morning. Agree. Agree. If Melania
• 7:45
  Trump is in this country, and Melania Trump can
• 7:48
  barely speak English, then maybe we shouldn't
• 7:50
  start with your heart, right? Right. And it does bring up some interesting
• 7:56
  points about how many people have irregularities
• 8:00
  in their documents. I wouldn't be surprised if
• 8:02
  it's quite a few. And I don't even know. That's kind of a feature not
• 8:07
  a bug. When you fill out a form, what
• 8:12
  the answer should be. And if you feel
• 8:15
  like you can get away with it, you tend to do
• 8:18
  that. We have a comment here from Dead Meme Club.
• 8:20
  Thanks so much for the donation, $20. Absolutely
• 8:23
  astonishing that oil prices haven't exploded.
• 8:26
  We need more power than ever for data centers.
• 8:28
  And we have the least amount of oil available
• 8:31
  in reserves since the 1970s. It is astonishing.
• 8:37
  I used to work on Wall Street. And
• 8:41
  I was used to the markets reacting on a hair
• 8:44
  trigger. And this was in the pre-internet age,
• 8:47
  where you're working on a Quotron machine. It
• 8:50
  was ancient, a little LED display. Here,
• 8:54
  you have the information is incredibly available
• 8:57
  quickly. We know exactly what's going on. If
• 9:01
  I were an oil futures trader, I'd be going crazy.
• 9:04
  I don't know. No, you're right. You would
• 9:07
  think it would be much higher than what it is.
• 9:09
  It makes no sense. Blew up in overfill yesterday.
• 9:13
  Yeah, Dead Man Club is totally right. Michael,
• 9:16
  thank you so much for joining us. We see you
• 9:18
  backstage. Need you to click both the video camera
• 9:21
  and the mic so that we can see and hear you,
• 9:24
  and then we'll bring you right on. It's just,
• 9:28
  there we go. All right, we see him. And then
• 9:31
  let's just go ahead and bring him on. Without
• 9:33
  further ado, I'll take out the, all right. Good
• 9:38
  morning, Michael Tracy. Thank you so much for
• 9:40
  joining us here on DeProgram. How are you
• 9:42
  doing? Good morning. What's going on, man? How's
• 9:46
  it going this morning? Not much. Hard to say
• 9:50
  yet because I woke up very recently, but we'll
• 9:52
  see. The day is young. Okay, so tell us a little
• 9:58
  bit about, for people who have not been
• 10:01
  following this, well, everybody's been following
• 10:04
  the Cornell rape allegations. You've been covering
• 10:09
  this. You went up to Ithaca to poke around. You're
• 10:12
  an independent journalist and commentator. And
• 10:14
  you've gotten quite a bit of notoriety in the
• 10:17
  corporate press in the last week, most notably,
• 10:21
  I think, for publishing online the Jane Doe's
• 10:26
  real name. And then you thought better of it
• 10:29
  and you took it back down. And I want to ask
• 10:32
  you about that. But if you could just sort of
• 10:34
  tell us, and Jamarl and I will alternate back
• 10:38
  and forth on questions, but if you can just sort
• 10:40
  of tell us, what's your interest in this case
• 10:43
  and what's your take generally? Why were you
• 10:48
  interested in this? Why did you go? What did
• 10:49
  you find out? And what do you think happened?
• 10:54
  Well, it's not so much that I thought better
• 10:56
  of the wisdom of publishing the name. The name
• 11:00
  and the identity of the claimant that I reported
• 11:02
  was accurate. I spent three or four days journalistically
• 11:07
  verifying who this was. So it wasn't a matter
• 11:10
  of the accuracy of the reporting being in question.
• 11:15
  No, I didn't mean to imply that. Yeah, just to
• 11:18
  clarify, just to clarify. It was simply that
• 11:22
  I didn't necessarily want my website, right,
• 11:25
  which to be the only place on the internet
• 11:29
  with any media or journalism adjacency that people
• 11:33
  could log on to to ogle at this person, right?
• 11:37
  Because I felt that it was much more prudent
• 11:39
  to keep the attention trained on what I regard
• 11:42
  to be her huckster lawyers and this racket that
• 11:48
  they run, along with many other plaintiff's attorneys
• 11:50
  and firms who really inflict all this kind of
• 11:54
  hysteria on the public through these sleazy
• 11:57
  methods that are not really well understood because
• 12:00
  the media provides cover for them. Look
• 12:04
  what the New York Times ran a piece recently
• 12:07
  and they're one of the organizations
• 12:09
  on a crusade against me now. Or they're dogging. You might have to spend hours on
• 12:13
  the phone with them over the weekend. Who the
• 12:15
  hell knows what they're going to spit out soon.
• 12:16
  But look at it, okay. What's that? Media
• 12:23
  clusterfucks are so much fun. Yeah. They lauded,
• 12:27
  okay, and others are lauding the Cornell Daily
• 12:31
  Sun, which is the student newspaper at Cornell,
• 12:33
  right? Supposedly according to Julie K. Brown
• 12:36
  and people, the foremost Epstein journalists
• 12:39
  supposedly in the U.S., these kids at Cornell
• 12:41
  are, they give us hope for the future
• 12:44
  because of their intrepid, dogged journalism.
• 12:47
  And what did they do? They sat around and waited
• 12:51
  for this lawyer, Thomas Gufra, to file a lawsuit
• 12:55
  on September 16th, and then a couple days later
• 12:58
  they published an article repeating the claims
• 13:00
  of the lawsuit, taking them at face value, and
• 13:03
  posting and publishing the names of the seven
• 13:06
  defendants as though it was some brave act of
• 13:08
  journalism. And now they're getting showered
• 13:12
  with plaudits for this from the New York Times
• 13:14
  and from Julie K. Brown because Julie K. Brown
• 13:16
  did the same thing over the course of the supposedly
• 13:20
  landmark Epstein journalism that she just got
• 13:23
  a fake Pulitzer for earlier this year. The Pulitzer
• 13:25
  Committee invented a fake award, literally, to
• 13:27
  give her in 2026 relating to articles that she
• 13:30
  published in 2018 because she effectively did
• 13:34
  the same thing. She would take material from
• 13:38
  profit-seeking plaintiff's attorneys who have
• 13:40
  a strategic self-interest in pumping out the
• 13:43
  most salacious, lurid, graphic claims into the
• 13:47
  public arena through the media so that they can
• 13:51
  gin up support for their intended litigation
• 13:57
  goal, which is to extract the maximum settlement
• 13:59
  monies from whoever. They're targeting individually
• 14:03
  or institutionally. So this is a practice that
• 14:05
  I think needs to have more attention brought
• 14:08
  to it for the damage that it does constantly
• 14:11
  and the havoc it wreaks. And this Cornell thing
• 14:13
  is the latest example. So in publishing the name,
• 14:17
  I saw the primary utility of that as journalistically
• 14:24
  contesting this idea that the media is just going
• 14:27
  to enable or abet the strategies of these totally
• 14:34
  unscrupulous profit-seeking lawyer syndicates
• 14:39
  like Thomas Gufra, who just got done attempting
• 14:42
  the same sort of thing with Sean Diddy Combs,
• 14:44
  where the presiding judges rebuked him over and
• 14:47
  over again for false claims he threw in there
• 14:49
  to get in on a feeding frenzy after Diddy was
• 14:51
  indicted in 2024. And this guy Gufra demanded,
• 14:55
  likewise, anonymity for his three male clients
• 14:59
  who he was bringing lawsuits on behalf of who
• 15:01
  were alleging some sort of rape by Diddy. Okay.
• 15:03
  And then, mysteriously enough, Diddy
• 15:06
  goes on to criminal trial, not long thereafter.
• 15:08
  And none of these guys, none of these clients
• 15:10
  represented by this guy Gufra are involved, even
• 15:12
  involved in the trial. And the judge, the judge
• 15:15
  denies that they can be kept permanently anonymized.
• 15:18
  So I guess they've been judicially doxed by
• 15:19
  federal judges. So I'm sorry, I
• 15:23
  just want a little, just to put a fine point
• 15:26
  on it. So am I, correct me if I'm wrong, is
• 15:30
  your take basically if the guys
• 15:34
  can be doxed, it's not fair for the accuser not
• 15:37
  to also be publicized and to remain anonymous?
• 15:41
  Is that basically it? And then the other thing
• 15:44
  is I want to be, if you can just go on the record,
• 15:47
  do you think she's lying? I wouldn't say it's
• 15:52
  an eye for an eye in terms of my
• 15:55
  view as to the justifiability of publishing the
• 16:00
  claimant's name or the plaintiff in this litigation,
• 16:02
  right? Two wrongs don't make a right.
• 16:06
  I don't think the lawsuit ever should have been,
• 16:07
  I'm highly, highly, highly doubtful
• 16:10
  that this lawsuit ever should have been brought
• 16:11
  in the first place, right? Why? Do you
• 16:14
  think it's all? Because it's falling apart upon
• 16:15
  scrutiny. Obviously they put, this is
• 16:18
  part of the tactic, right, that I'm trying to
• 16:20
  contest, the lawyer, the civil lawyer tactic,
• 16:24
  where obviously they throw out a narrative that
• 16:27
  seems utterly salacious that seems utterly shocking
• 16:30
  that gets everybody in a frenzy that sends social
• 16:33
  media into an uproar that gets the media
• 16:37
  enraptured and now as you know
• 16:39
  day after day after day we get more and more
• 16:42
  countervailing information that shows the incredible
• 16:45
  dubiousness and unsupportability of the initial
• 16:47
  narrative that was presented in the civil complaint
• 16:49
  but people take that's the thing journalists
• 16:51
  take it at face value. People on the ordinary
• 16:54
  people, so journalists are the most indicted
• 16:57
  by taking it at face value. Ordinary people don't
• 16:59
  really know better by and large. They don't really
• 17:02
  know a whole lot about the court system or the
• 17:03
  tactics of profit-seeking plaintiff's attorneys,
• 17:06
  right? So if they see something in a court, an
• 17:09
  official looking court document, they assume they're
• 17:11
  it must be reflective of the truth which
• 17:13
  it most certainly is not. Just look at
• 17:15
  what this same lawyer got done doing with Sean
• 17:18
  Diddy Combs. Please look. He that was been rebuked
• 17:21
  over and over again for putting in false claims
• 17:23
  and speciously demand that his clients be anonymized.
• 17:27
  So I'm not saying just because they named the
• 17:29
  seven in the defendants that therefore she ought
• 17:31
  to be named, although it would seem like basic
• 17:34
  fairness and parity that in the United States,
• 17:38
  there is a fundamental right to confront
• 17:40
  your accuser. Right. And not just in the court
• 17:42
  of law. This has been held by federal
• 17:43
  judges that when litigation spills out into the
• 17:47
  public, right, in the media, then,
• 17:49
  there is a way in which that the claims are being
• 17:53
  litigated in the public domain. Right. So the
• 17:57
  idea that there's that the that a similar aged
• 18:00
  person, right, who's making a claim against,
• 18:03
  against her peers effectively ought
• 18:07
  to just be presumptively anonymized. No matter
• 18:10
  the veracity of the allegations, no matter any
• 18:13
  countervailing evidence, it just doesn't make
• 18:14
  sense. It's a matter, it's a dogma that the journalists.
• 18:17
  Sorry, Jamarl, I have to just, I just have to,
• 18:19
  I just have to follow up on this. So,
• 18:21
  okay, I get that. No, I don't think she's lying
• 18:24
  so much. I can explain that. Okay, well,
• 18:26
  I do want to, I definitely want to hear you address
• 18:28
  that. But okay, so when I read your online,
• 18:33
  you said when you decided to take her name down.
• 18:37
  And that raised two questions for me. First of
• 18:39
  all, why did you change your mind about and decide
• 18:42
  to take it down? And secondly, what's the point
• 18:44
  of it, given that it's the Internet and once
• 18:46
  it's been up there, it's out? Because I didn't
• 18:49
  want, because look, it was a, I'll admit,
• 18:53
  sorry, there's a fly I'm trying to kill, it's
• 18:55
  driving me crazy. There was a, it was an anomalous
• 18:59
  decision, I'll freely acknowledge, for a very
• 19:04
  in a very anomalous situation. Okay. I had just
• 19:07
  been the subject of the entire internet bearing
• 19:10
  down on me pretty much, with thousands
• 19:13
  of women on TikTok and Instagram making videos
• 19:16
  addressing me by name and calling up my
• 19:18
  father and sending suspicious packages to the
• 19:21
  house that I haven't lived in in years in New
• 19:23
  Jersey. Okay. So I didn't want, I made
• 19:28
  the decision. You were feeling some sympathy
• 19:29
  for her? No, I made the decision that I don't
• 19:34
  even be seen as potentially encouraging, which
• 19:39
  I never did, but even potentially encouraging
• 19:41
  anybody to try to get retribution on my
• 19:43
  behalf against her or anything like this. But
• 19:45
  there's no take backs, right? Once you
• 19:47
  once you put there's no take backs, right? Once it's out there. Well, sure. But
• 19:52
  the name was already out there. If
• 19:54
  you want to talk about doxing or publishing the
• 19:55
  names, her lawyer is Doxter. I never posted her
• 19:59
  address. I never did anything that's reminiscent
• 20:01
  of doxing. I never said I was going to publish
• 20:04
  her. Your home address, phone number, social
• 20:08
  security number, email address. OK, but once
• 20:10
  the name is simply identifying the it's not doxing,
• 20:14
  it's not inherently malicious. OK, to identify
• 20:17
  the litigant in a court action. OK, that's a
• 20:20
  matter of that's by definition in the
• 20:23
  public domain. It's having all these downstream
• 20:25
  reverberations. The governor of New York came
• 20:27
  out based on the allegations in the
• 20:31
  civil complaint and demanded an overhaul of the
• 20:33
  New York state criminal code around sexual assault.
• 20:36
  They appointed one of the most unethical
• 20:38
  people in the unethical public officials in
• 20:40
  the entire country with the possible
• 20:42
  exception of Donald Trump, Letitia James as the
• 20:45
  special prosecutor to supersede the D.A.
• 20:49
  in Tompkins County. AOC waltzed
• 20:53
  out in Ithaca the week that the day or this
• 20:56
  broke basically. They're summarily declaring that
• 21:00
  these seven were guilty of drugging and gang
• 21:03
  raping. So you had politicians joining in the
• 21:06
  frenzy and so forth. Obviously, it was a matter
• 21:09
  of public interest. It was like a private dispute
• 21:11
  at that point. It's having society-wide effects.
• 21:15
  So at the same time, I reasoned that once my
• 21:22
  primary objective had been achieved journalistically
• 21:25
  meaning not just meekly accepting that the media
• 21:29
  is going to as a matter of this trauma-informed
• 21:31
  victim ideology thing permanently and not anonymize
• 21:36
  anyone who can ever make any kind of claim of
• 21:38
  sexual victimization and in so doing aid and
• 21:41
  abet the sleazy profit-seeking tactics of these
• 21:45
  plaintiff lawyer cabals. I that had been once
• 21:48
  I had published the name, it was out
• 21:50
  there. It was achieved that then I thought
• 21:53
  the point has been made such that given and given
• 21:57
  the intense vitriol around this. I
• 22:00
  don't necessarily want my Substack to be the
• 22:02
  landing page of people who have a limited amount
• 22:06
  of time. So Jamarl can go and then an ogle at
• 22:09
  her. OK, so we want to get to the rationale,
• 22:12
  but that was the rationale. We want to get to
• 22:14
  everything. Jamarl, please go ahead. Michael,
• 22:16
  it sounds like you've been to public pressure.
• 22:19
  I'm just saying. No, I didn't. I didn't.
• 22:21
  So you think I'm lying about the rationale?
• 22:23
  Why would I lie? No, no, no. I don't think you're
• 22:25
  lying about the rationale. I think you're telling
• 22:27
  the truth. Okay. I think everything you've said
• 22:30
  has been true. So you think I'm capitulating
• 22:34
  to a mob? Have you known me to really do that?
• 22:38
  No, but okay, fair enough. Fair enough. Fair
• 22:41
  enough. I'm not going to push on that point.
• 22:42
  The only way that I bent to public pressure
• 22:44
  is if I'm lying about the rationale.
• 22:46
  The rationale is what I sincerely believe. I
• 22:48
  will show you the text message that I
• 22:50
  sent her before I published it, where I repeated
• 22:53
  this even before there was a public pressure
• 22:55
  to bend to. OK, my intent was to not to necessarily
• 22:59
  focus excessively on her. She was she
• 23:02
  was 20 years old when this happened. I don't
• 23:04
  want I wouldn't like for this to define the rest
• 23:06
  of her life necessarily. But at the same time,
• 23:08
  you got to weigh competing considerations. Right.
• 23:10
  On the one hand, it's in the public interest
• 23:12
  not to just acquiesce to the sleazy huckster
• 23:14
  lawyer tactic of reflexive anonymization. On
• 23:19
  the other hand, she's 20 years old. She might
• 23:21
  not fully grasp what she's gotten herself into.
• 23:23
  This lawyer, I think, is much more primarily
• 23:25
  responsible for the fiasco that's been unleashed.
• 23:28
  So that's what I wanted to keep the focus on.
• 23:31
  But in order to keep the focus on that, you do
• 23:33
  have to de-anonymize the client and not legitimate
• 23:35
  the tactic, right? So again, you have to weigh
• 23:37
  competing factors. So this is what I communicated
• 23:39
  to her. Okay, so if you think I'm lying about
• 23:43
  the rationale, I have proof that I'm not because
• 23:46
  this is what I believe. Just to be clear, I don't
• 23:48
  think you're lying. How did I bend to public
• 23:50
  pressure? Because, even, okay, if we're
• 23:54
  going to get into it, let's get into it. When
• 23:56
  you first, when Ted asked you that question,
• 23:58
  the first thing you said was all of these people
• 24:00
  have been doing so and forth. That sounds like
• 24:03
  public pressure, public sentiment. You've been
• 24:07
  in the internet game long enough to know that
• 24:09
  the moment that you put a name out, it's out
• 24:10
  forever. Even if you take it back, it's out forever.
• 24:13
  I know. Okay, so I'm not insane, right? It seemed
• 24:18
  like it was a huge amount of public pressure
• 24:20
  that was being applied to you. You were saying
• 24:23
  people came up to your dad's house. They were
• 24:25
  sending stuff on anonymous packages. I know,
• 24:27
  but I did it anyway. That didn't stop me from
• 24:30
  publishing it. True. I guess I'm just making
• 24:33
  a point of saying it sounded like public pressure.
• 24:35
  That didn't stop me from going to Ithaca and
• 24:37
  calling on the mayor to resign. So what public
• 24:41
  pressure am I about? Yeah. There was
• 24:43
  an attack. The whole point of the I am Jane Doe
• 24:45
  movement that was launched apparently in reaction
• 24:48
  to me, OK, was to supposedly confuse or disrupt
• 24:51
  my attempts to identify the real Jane Doe, because
• 24:54
  the idea was you're going to have all these women
• 24:56
  saying I'm Jane Doe. Hey, Michael Tracy, I am
• 24:59
  Jane Doe. So that would somehow inhibit
• 25:03
  my ability to figure out the real Jane Doe. Will
• 25:06
  the real Jane Doe please stand up? Well, it didn't
• 25:08
  work, okay? So I figured out the real Jane Doe,
• 25:10
  but that was the logic behind those I am Jane
• 25:13
  Doe videos and everything and the
• 25:15
  threats and the quote-unquote attempted doxing
• 25:17
  of me. So there was an attempt to exert pressure
• 25:20
  on me, but it didn't affect my behavior. Let's
• 25:22
  not belabor the point. Because there's so much
• 25:24
  more to this, right? The thing I wanted to get
• 25:28
  to is just step back just so the audience will
• 25:31
  know. What were her claims and what are the claims
• 25:34
  that you see to be the reason why you make the
• 25:36
  point of saying, well, this case shouldn't have
• 25:37
  even been bought? The moment that the case
• 25:40
  fell apart. So when the lawsuit was first
• 25:44
  filed, OK, it obviously the headline claim is
• 25:47
  the most salacious one. That's why it caused
• 25:48
  such a media frenzy. Gang rape, drugging and
• 25:51
  gang rape among seven gang rapists. That's
• 25:55
  what was alleged in the initial complaint, if
• 25:57
  you take it at face value, which, of course,
• 25:58
  most of the media and social media does. Now,
• 26:02
  if you'll notice, in the initial complaint, we
• 26:04
  don't have all kinds of other exculpatory evidence
• 26:06
  that's in the record that was progressive,
• 26:09
  first not even reported at all by the media
• 26:11
  organizations that were getting stuff leaked
• 26:13
  to them. So, New York Times, ABC, CBS,
• 26:17
  etc. It's taken TMZ, OK, to actually post the
• 26:23
  full text exchanges that we get the full contents
• 26:25
  of stuff, such as 36 hours after this purported
• 26:28
  gang rape, what they're calling now gang rape.
• 26:32
  She is in communication by text with one of the
• 26:35
  alleged gang raping assailants, characterizing
• 26:40
  what transpired to him directly as a consensual,
• 26:43
  quote, gang bang to quote her. I wish I didn't
• 26:46
  have to quote the word gang bang on a public
• 26:48
  stream at the moment. It's OK. But
• 26:51
  that's her terminology. We have no community
• 26:53
  standards here on the show. She says she enjoyed
• 26:57
  it. She said she wants to meet up with them again,
• 26:59
  that she enjoyed the sexual activity, and she
• 27:02
  wants to engage in additional sexual activity
• 27:05
  with them and also ingest substances with them.
• 27:08
  I'm glad you brought this up. Why not? Because
• 27:11
  they're tailoring it to extract settlement money
• 27:13
  from Cornell, from the sorority. Michael, I'm
• 27:15
  glad you brought up this point because there's,
• 27:17
  and there's other stuff, right? She was
• 27:19
  upset that she didn't get invited to the next
• 27:20
  frat party. But we see this a lot with these
• 27:25
  kinds of cases, and psychologists call this phenomenon
• 27:27
  fawning, right? And I have a little familiarity
• 27:30
  with it. Basically, a victim will try to normalize,
• 27:35
  will use normalizing language after something
• 27:37
  traumatic to be like, we're okay, we're okay.
• 27:40
  And it makes it very difficult to convict in
• 27:42
  a court of law. I think this case will be very
• 27:44
  difficult, would be difficult to convict in a
• 27:47
  criminal procedure. They might have better luck
• 27:50
  in the civil claim. I don't know. It's just like
• 27:53
  with OJ. But it introduces
• 27:56
  reasonable doubt, right? But at the same time,
• 28:00
  it's also not uncommon, right? For a rape
• 28:03
  victim to reach out to her assailant, to her
• 28:07
  rapist later and be like, we're good, right?
• 28:09
  And that doesn't mean she wasn't raped. I'm just
• 28:12
  saying it's not, it's evidence, but it's not
• 28:14
  proof. Can we agree to that? Well, Number one,
• 28:20
  there is an ongoing criminal investigation. The
• 28:22
  governor has appointed a special prosecutor,
• 28:25
  okay? There is a very serious threat that - But
• 28:29
  there wouldn't have been originally, if not for
• 28:31
  this lawsuit. This issue would have died in 2024.
• 28:35
  The prosecutor at the time, back two years ago,
• 28:37
  considered it and assessed that basically there
• 28:40
  wasn't a case to be - I know, but the - The politics
• 28:43
  have changed things here. I know, well - But
• 28:45
  the dissemination, the strategic dissemination
• 28:49
  by these civil lawyers of this civil complaint
• 28:51
  into the media bloodstream then is what stimulated
• 28:55
  the whole public outcry and then stimulated the
• 28:59
  appointment of the special prosecutor. So it's
• 29:01
  all based on this one civil complaint that everybody's
• 29:03
  taking at face value, which is absurd. It's absurd
• 29:05
  to take a profit-seeking – the whole
• 29:08
  point of filing a civil complaint rather than
• 29:10
  pursuing criminal charges, which is what this
• 29:12
  lawyer is supposed to do. There was something
• 29:13
  to it. But two boys, Cornell had a
• 29:17
  Title IX hearing. They expelled two students.
• 29:20
  They disciplined another five. It's obviously something that was deemed by some
• 29:27
  people to be untoward. Which is an ass-covering,
• 29:32
  bureaucratic procedure where,
• 29:35
  who makes those decisions as to what punishments
• 29:38
  to dole out? It's these moronic bureaucrats
• 29:41
  who have no special particular particular
• 29:44
  expertise in anything. They're university
• 29:46
  employees. One of them got caught on a Zoom hearing
• 29:49
  when she was supposed to be evaluating
• 29:52
  the evidence for one of the seven in terms of
• 29:54
  what he was supposedly culpable of and what
• 29:57
  a penalty he should receive. She got caught
• 29:59
  driving in her car and browsing the internet
• 30:01
  and stuff. These Title IX proceedings
• 30:04
  are a joke. But on the question of oh
• 30:11
  It doesn't mean that somebody hasn't been raped
• 30:13
  if they say that it was consensual for weeks
• 30:16
  afterwards and said that they want to meet up
• 30:18
  with the alleged rapists and that they enjoyed
• 30:20
  the rape. That's what I'm saying. Okay.
• 30:23
  I think at a certain point. It's well documented.
• 30:25
  I don't know what documentation you're
• 30:27
  talking about. There's a whole sort of cottage
• 30:29
  industry of trauma informed stuff where
• 30:33
  it's this therapeutic trauma jargon, I call
• 30:35
  it. Let me give you. All logic and reason can
• 30:38
  be thrown out the window when you appeal to
• 30:41
  the mysterious ways that trauma works. I'm sorry.
• 30:44
  When the recollection was the freshest. Let me
• 30:46
  give you a personal example. When the recollection
• 30:48
  was the freshest, she described it as consensual
• 30:51
  and that she enjoyed it and that she wanted to
• 30:53
  meet up again. You'll have your chance. Let me
• 30:57
  give you a personal example of what I mean. Many
• 31:00
  years ago, regular listeners know about my lawsuit
• 31:03
  against the LA Times. I was roughed up by the
• 31:05
  LAPD. The encounter was recorded. And in the
• 31:11
  recording, you can hear me at the end of it,
• 31:13
  ask the cop who just roughed me up for, is there
• 31:18
  any place around here where I get something to
• 31:19
  eat? Now, at the time, my 10 friends were waiting
• 31:23
  at the restaurant for me. There already was a
• 31:25
  place for me to eat. I didn't need a dining recommendation.
• 31:29
  The LA Times used this as evidence, obviously
• 31:32
  nothing bad had happened to me. It was a friendly,
• 31:34
  polite encounter. And so I was very curious,
• 31:38
  when I listened to it, why on
• 31:40
  earth would I have asked? I had my friends waiting
• 31:43
  for me. There was no need. I wasn't
• 31:45
  going to change where we were going to eat. I
• 31:47
  was running late because I'd just been detained
• 31:48
  by the cops. And so that's when I learned about
• 31:51
  this fawning behavior that is not uncommon when
• 31:54
  you're the victim of an assailant. And if that
• 31:58
  assailant is an ICE officer, whether it's a cop,
• 32:01
  whether it's a frat bro, whatever. Right. So
• 32:04
  I'm just saying it is a well-documented phenomenon.
• 32:06
  Here's where that analogy breaks down. You saying,
• 32:08
  hey, where's a place I can get something to eat
• 32:11
  is not analogous. That would be, that's not you
• 32:15
  saying, hey. It's analogous to, hey, can
• 32:18
  I come over to the party? No, no, the proper
• 32:20
  analogy would you be saying, hey, I enjoyed that
• 32:23
  attack you just launched on me, or that attack
• 32:26
  you just made on me was consensual, or hey, let's
• 32:28
  meet up again for another attack. Okay? Not some
• 32:32
  extraneous comment about where to get something
• 32:34
  to eat. I think they're related, but okay. I'm
• 32:35
  saying how she characterized the alleged crime
• 32:37
  itself in the immediate aftermath was of its
• 32:41
  consensuality. Well, she did say... She voluntarily
• 32:43
  enthusiastically partook in it. The part that
• 32:45
  jumped out to me is when she... That she wanted
• 32:46
  to do it again. That it was a gang bang, not
• 32:48
  a gang rape. Michael, when she... What information
• 32:50
  are you saying she received? Let me interject
• 32:54
  here, since I'm the co-host of the show here.
• 32:57
  Michael, let me talk here. Explain it to me.
• 33:00
  I'm trying to. Okay. So at one point, and I thought
• 33:05
  this was the phrase that really, I think probably
• 33:07
  we all read this, where she said, she reached
• 33:09
  out to the two guys that she claimed she had
• 33:12
  a consensual encounter with, a threesome, that
• 33:14
  then spread into a non-consensual encounter,
• 33:17
  according to her, with the subsequent five guys.
• 33:19
  And she says, hey, let's do it again sometime,
• 33:23
  but next time with no ketamine and next time
• 33:26
  without all those extra guys. To me, that's
• 33:30
  a really interesting statement that to me appears
• 33:34
  to define her narrative, right? If I'm on
• 33:37
  her side of this, her accusation is she's not
• 33:42
  complaining about the first two guys except to
• 33:44
  the extent that they went on Snapchat and invited
• 33:47
  all of their buddies to join, right? But
• 33:51
  that's where she's, that's where she flies. But I'm just, I'm trying
• 34:01
  to be, I'm trying to keep this together here.
• 34:03
  There's so she said that
• 34:07
  except for the fact that the invitation on Snapchat,
• 34:09
  she was okay with the first two guys, at least
• 34:11
  at the beginning. They're now also accusing of
• 34:15
  gang rape. Yeah, because of the invitation. I
• 34:19
  mean, no. They're accused of being perpetrators
• 34:22
  of gang rape. The lawyer, Gufra, says that at
• 34:24
  no point could she have consented to anything
• 34:28
  from the moment she walked in the house. That's
• 34:30
  their argument now. Yeah, and I think this case
• 34:33
  criminally will depend on how she presented
• 34:36
  in terms of was she visibly intoxicated
• 34:39
  so when you ask is she lying right I think that's
• 34:41
  too simple. It's very so what do you think
• 34:43
  is going on here? It's very seldom a black or
• 34:46
  white situation right where somebody's either
• 34:48
  lying or telling the truth. Oftentimes what happens
• 34:51
  is that humans are incredibly impressionable
• 34:55
  and suggestible right and they have an extraordinary
• 34:58
  ability to convince themselves that things are
• 35:01
  true or that a certain narrative or reconstruction
• 35:04
  of past events is true where they might not be
• 35:07
  consciously, they might have been sort of convinced
• 35:14
  of a fundamentally inaccurate narrative reinterpretation
• 35:20
  of things, but also not be consciously lying.
• 35:23
  They think they could think that they're consciously
• 35:24
  telling the truth. We see this over and
• 35:26
  over again with Epstein stuff, where it's a similar
• 35:29
  reframing, especially if there's a financial
• 35:30
  incentive at play, right? With Epstein, you got
• 35:32
  a billion dollar industry to convince women
• 35:35
  who took a luxury vacation to the Caribbean on
• 35:37
  a private island that they were sex trafficked
• 35:39
  20 years ago. And then if they reframe things,
• 35:42
  they can get millions of dollars in tax-free
• 35:44
  settlement money and they're a trafficking victim
• 35:46
  similarly here when you it seems as the weeks went on
• 35:52
  this rumor spread. It seems
• 35:59
  to me one of the proximate causes of what
• 36:01
  caused all this unpleasantness was that the other
• 36:04
  girls in her sorority were being mean to her,
• 36:06
  and there was nasty rumors spreading.
• 36:09
  Sororities, my God, think of
• 36:11
  the drama there, regardless of a purported gangbang
• 36:14
  situation. It must have been very unpleasant
• 36:17
  for her. And then so, yeah. So you
• 36:20
  think she felt slut-shamed? Yes, she
• 36:23
  said so. But initially she was
• 36:27
  lighthearted about it where one of her
• 36:28
  fellow sorority members, sisters or whatever,
• 36:32
  was, I believe, speaking to the Title IX investigator
• 36:36
  and recounted that the day after
• 36:40
  the incident, she said to the alleged victim,
• 36:46
  people are saying that you're a slut
• 36:50
  or something like this. Alleged victim said it's
• 36:53
  true ha ha ha. She was making light of it
• 36:55
  that she was in fact whatever that was
• 36:58
  that was kind of how it was recounted because
• 37:00
  she had this whole her mindset was one
• 37:02
  of sexual open-mindedness. She said in one
• 37:04
  of the text messages look people shouldn't
• 37:06
  be so uptight about this. It's the kind of thing
• 37:08
  that they did in medieval times or whatever.
• 37:11
  A group sexual encounter right. So she
• 37:13
  was into it at the time but then it caused
• 37:15
  all this gossip and pushback for her embarrassment
• 37:17
  so then yeah and you could see why she would
• 37:19
  then want to reframe things and reinterpret things
• 37:22
  such that she wanted to sort of restore
• 37:25
  her reputation so that she wasn't somebody
• 37:27
  who just willingly partook in this quote
• 37:29
  gang bang because that's sort of embarrassing
• 37:31
  and it's also embarrassing to walk
• 37:33
  around a college campus and have people snickering
• 37:35
  at you for having done this right. So then there's
• 37:38
  an incentive to then recast things. And now with
• 37:41
  two weeks and then two years later, all of a
• 37:45
  sudden it gets even more dramatically recast
• 37:47
  to a gang, a vicious gang rape where nothing
• 37:51
  was consensual, which is totally implausible.
• 37:55
  So I don't know that she's lying per se. I think
• 37:58
  people can become genuinely convinced of a sort
• 38:03
  of self-interested. Well, I accept. Confirmation
• 38:09
  bias, sort of motivated reasoning, reframing
• 38:12
  of past events such that it's not so much willful
• 38:15
  lying in that they're conscious that they are
• 38:18
  saying something untrue, right? It's more about
• 38:20
  how they've sort of been suggested into an alternate
• 38:28
  understanding of what happened. So it would be
• 38:31
  much easier if it were so simple as lying versus
• 38:34
  truth telling. Right. But unfortunately, there
• 38:36
  are many gray areas in this. Well, if we accept
• 38:38
  your point, right, where it's well, look,
• 38:41
  she sent a text message. She said this.
• 38:43
  Ted kind of has a point. Let's assume for the
• 38:46
  moment that the first two guys was consensual,
• 38:49
  which it sounds like. And then the other people,
• 38:53
  she was unable to consent because she was unconscious.
• 38:56
  That's not by definition rape. Meaning, let's
• 39:00
  say for the moment that the first two that she
• 39:01
  walks in, she's down for the first two. Yes,
• 39:04
  I want to have ketamine. I want to have sex with
• 39:06
  two guys. I want to have some fun. And then the
• 39:09
  two guys on their own invite other guys into
• 39:12
  it to have sex with her as she's unconscious.
• 39:15
  By definition, she couldn't acquiesce or she
• 39:18
  couldn't agree to the other five guys, right?
• 39:21
  Well, hold on. This is a misunderstanding. And
• 39:24
  this is because of the sleazy, cheap tactic of
• 39:28
  the plaintiff's attorneys who kind of at a first
• 39:31
  blush impression have people believe that it
• 39:34
  was seven people perpetrating a gang rape. Not
• 39:38
  all, even all seven are alleged if you read the
• 39:40
  granular details of the lawsuit. Yeah. Which,
• 39:44
  did AOC read it before she trotted out
• 39:46
  in Ithaca and declared them all guilty of drugging
• 39:50
  and gang raping using the platform of her office
• 39:53
  to do so? Of course not. Nor did the mayor, who
• 39:56
  I called on to resign for doing this. The mayor
• 39:58
  of Ithaca called the perpetrators. Later today,
• 40:00
  they're holding a rally in Ithaca, where if you
• 40:02
  look at the city website, Ithaca.gov or whatever,
• 40:04
  it says rally for crime victim. Really?
• 40:07
  Do these people have any fidelity at all?
• 40:09
  Michael, can you please try answering Jamarl's
• 40:12
  question? Because I really want to hear it, too.
• 40:13
  I want to hear the answer. So not all of them
• 40:15
  are even accused of engaging any sexual activity
• 40:17
  with her. OK, so that's another fallacy that
• 40:22
  they strategically spit out there. So people
• 40:24
  would have the most sort of extreme
• 40:26
  conception of what took place. Nor is it alleged
• 40:30
  that the sexual activity that did take place
• 40:35
  happened simultaneously. Okay, let's say that's
• 40:39
  true. First of all, then you have to ask the
• 40:41
  attorney who's out in the media making the case
• 40:46
  on this, why he's arguing that all of the accused
• 40:50
  are gang raped, meaning that every little step
• 40:54
  of sexual contact that was ever made with her
• 40:56
  that night from the moment that she entered the
• 40:57
  house was sexual assault or rape because that's
• 41:00
  what they're claiming right. So they're not
• 41:02
  acknowledging a subtlety like you just but
• 41:04
  what do you think about this? What I think was
• 41:07
  that you if it is let's say hypothetically it
• 41:11
  is the case that she initially consented to the
• 41:12
  first two and not the subsequent
• 41:16
  yeah that's theoretically
• 41:17
  possible but what would that hinge on? That would
• 41:19
  hinge on the contemporaneous evidence. There's
• 41:22
  really no contemporaneous evidence including
• 41:24
  in her own words and actions that there was a
• 41:27
  lack of consent following the first two at all.
• 41:30
  You know why, how we know that? Because there's
• 41:33
  the text that I quoted. That is evidence.
• 41:36
  No, not necessarily. Not necessarily.
• 41:39
  No, not necessarily. Let's do that again. She's
• 41:42
  saying, she's saying nothing. Let's do that again.
• 41:46
  Let's not do the other thing again. That's evidence.
• 41:49
  She said something to the effect of nothing
• 41:52
  illegal happened. I loved her. I really love
• 41:54
  being with you two guys the most. Maybe let's
• 41:57
  do it next time, but not have the other anybody
• 42:00
  else come in. That's not necessarily her
• 42:02
  declaring that she was raped by any of the subsequent
• 42:06
  people who came in. OK. And in fact, she's exculpating
• 42:10
  the others because she's saying nothing illegal
• 42:12
  happened. I don't know. I don't think
• 42:15
  she's a lawyer or a judge. Right. So she probably
• 42:17
  doesn't know if something illegal. What?
• 42:21
  Let's use some common sense. A woman doesn't
• 42:23
  know she is raped? Look, for what we know so
• 42:25
  far, I think that the prosecutor
• 42:27
  probably made the right decision legally not
• 42:30
  to charge criminally at the time because it would
• 42:33
  have been really hard to prove in a court of
• 42:34
  law. What we're talking about here, though, is
• 42:37
  ethically. What do we think happened? And also,
• 42:40
  we're talking about reporting
• 42:43
  and this nature. And basically, why
• 42:46
  do you not believe her? And I think we,
• 42:48
  I'll let Jamarl have the last question. It's not
• 42:51
  a matter of belief or disbelief. It's a matter
• 42:52
  of evaluating the totality of evidence. And yeah,
• 42:57
  in order to do that, we have to evaluate the
• 42:59
  claimant who has been strategically anonymized
• 43:01
  by her profit-seeking attorney. Okay so that's
• 43:04
  everybody's assessing the veracity
• 43:07
  or the credibility and the statements of the
• 43:09
  defendants. They were named right off the bat.
• 43:10
  Their addresses were posted right off the bat
• 43:12
  in the court docket right. Their mother's names
• 43:14
  were posted. They were fired from their jobs
• 43:17
  within the first couple days okay or at least
• 43:20
  one or two of them I believe. So that happened
• 43:23
  and so it's not a matter of belief or disbelief.
• 43:26
  It's as a rational assessment
• 43:29
  of the evidence as we can make. It's not that
• 43:31
  I just instinctively disbelieve her. Again I just
• 43:34
  said that I would not be surprised
• 43:36
  if on some level she does currently genuinely
• 43:38
  believe in the veracity in the truth of this
• 43:41
  narrative but then it comes out okay so what
• 43:44
  do you believe if you if you if you want to say
• 43:46
  let's believe her why. We're not going to believe
• 43:49
  what she said when she had the freshest recollection
• 43:51
  within 36 hours, and she called it a consensual
• 43:54
  gangbang. And then anybody who's commenting on
• 43:57
  it, it's not in their jurisdiction, and they
• 43:59
  should mind their own business. And our body,
• 44:00
  our choice. That's what she said. Our body, our
• 44:03
  choice. Now, we didn't know she said that for
• 44:06
  the first two weeks or so because the media is
• 44:09
  all bound up in this, again, trauma-informed
• 44:13
  victim ideology thing where they're against transparency
• 44:15
  and disclosure in this one particular issue and
• 44:18
  selectively leak on behalf of the profit-seeking
• 44:20
  lawyers. But finally, we got it thanks to TMZ,
• 44:23
  and she says, our body, our choice. So why do
• 44:25
  you disbelieve her when she says, our body, our
• 44:28
  choice, 36 hours after the incident? To be fair,
• 44:32
  I don't believe her or disbelieve her. If anything,
• 44:35
  the only thing I know is a gangbang took place.
• 44:39
  That's all I know. Well, she says, but now they
• 44:41
  say gang rape. She initially said gang bang.
• 44:44
  Now they say gang rape when there's money at
• 44:45
  stake. Well, I'm assuming it was a gang bang.
• 44:49
  Now, whether it was entirely consensual all the
• 44:51
  way through, I'm unclear. Because as you point
• 44:54
  out, this hasn't been adjudicated by a court
• 44:56
  of law. Right. That's what needs to happen. Which
• 44:59
  is what needed to happen, right? It needed to
• 45:01
  be adjudicated, not, hey, here's salacious claims.
• 45:05
  And now everybody's kind of unclear in the sense
• 45:09
  that she submitted a three weeks after the initial
• 45:13
  incident a six-page comprehensive sworn statement.
• 45:17
  She signed it. It was submitted okay. She was given
• 45:20
  opportunities to revise it. It's very
• 45:23
  it's not that it's not typical really for a potential
• 45:26
  victim to necessarily on her own volition composed
• 45:30
  a very lengthy, meticulous, detailed six-page
• 45:32
  statement going over every conceivable detail
• 45:35
  of what transpired that day before,
• 45:37
  in the afternoon, the night, the day after, et
• 45:40
  cetera. And then that was submitted to the Cornell
• 45:42
  Police and then submitted to the DA. And the
• 45:45
  DA, on the basis of that statement,
• 45:47
  made what was clearly the
• 45:52
  sensible decision in not prosecuted because
• 45:56
  she's giving all this exculpatory information.
• 45:58
  You can't prosecute somebody if the person
• 46:01
  that they allegedly say assaulted or raped
• 46:04
  is over and over again absolving them of
• 46:07
  criminal culpability in their own sworn statement.
• 46:10
  It's not like this was coerced out of her
• 46:12
  or she was interrogated. She'd follow she
• 46:14
  on her own volition decided to go and proactively
• 46:16
  make this statement exculpating them. Just to
• 46:19
  be clear though just because she did that that
• 46:21
  doesn't necessarily mean that. Look I can tell
• 46:25
  you from my own experience and two different
• 46:27
  experiences. In one case, I knew a guy,
• 46:31
  him also, he's accused of rape, big splashy headline,
• 46:36
  comes out and huffing the posts. He gets fired
• 46:39
  from his job immediately, not even an investigation,
• 46:42
  just fired from his job immediately. And come
• 46:44
  to find out when people actually get the opportunity
• 46:47
  to talk to her, she makes this point of basically
• 46:50
  saying it was consensual. And then she talked
• 46:55
  to her husband and realized it was rape. In which
• 46:57
  case she called it rape and then they had to
• 46:59
  pull the HuffPo piece when people realized
• 47:01
  it wasn't necessarily rape. She just didn't necessarily
• 47:03
  like the fact that her husband engaged in a particular
• 47:05
  way. So on that side of it true but I can tell
• 47:09
  you from my own personal experience rape as a
• 47:12
  child never said a word about it. Granted
• 47:15
  I didn't exculpate the person who did it. By the
• 47:18
  same token there was still communication between
• 47:20
  family and everything else that I never necessarily
• 47:21
  brought up for hashtag reasons. I'm saying she
• 47:26
  may look at the stuff as her choice, her body,
• 47:29
  et cetera, but she also might not have necessarily
• 47:32
  been a boy. She was also an adult. Potential
• 47:36
  rape of children I think is a different issue
• 47:39
  completely, especially the younger the child
• 47:42
  is. We're talking about same-age adults here,
• 47:45
  okay? I'm just trying to make a basic point that
• 47:47
  she might not have been down with what happened,
• 47:51
  but also might not have wanted to admit it to
• 47:53
  herself of what happened, if that makes sense.
• 47:56
  Okay, well, look, that might be possible,
• 47:58
  but when we get to a situation like that, right,
• 48:01
  then I struggle to understand why everybody deems
• 48:05
  it so fanatically necessary for
• 48:08
  whatever issue a problem might have occurred
• 48:10
  right there as something that the criminal justice
• 48:13
  system needs to hash out. That's always a disaster
• 48:15
  it seems to me. Sometimes there are alternate
• 48:18
  alternate conflict resolution mechanisms right
• 48:20
  especially if some of the harm that she was clearly
• 48:23
  experiencing that contributed to why the situation
• 48:26
  unfolded the way that it did in the weeks that
• 48:29
  followed was because of the gossip and the chatter
• 48:31
  right. Look at her text messages where she's definitely
• 48:34
  expressing disquiet or anguish to the guys about
• 48:43
  the rumors that are spreading. And the guys are
• 48:46
  actually pretty empathetic toward her, saying,
• 48:48
  look, we're so sorry. We're trying to stop the
• 48:50
  rumors. We hope you're doing well. Let us know
• 48:52
  if we can do anything. It's a situation that,
• 48:54
  I'm sorry, you can imagine some dopey college
• 48:57
  kids of both sexes who are drunken idiots having
• 49:01
  to deal with. And maybe the best way to
• 49:03
  deal with it is not to just shunt it out into
• 49:05
  the criminal justice apparatus because we're
• 49:07
  all demanding justice and accountability.
• 49:09
  How come that how come is it how come
• 49:12
  leftists and liberals in particular decide
• 49:15
  a few years ago they're all marching for
• 49:18
  defund the police, abolish the prison state.
• 49:22
  Blah, blah, blah, blah. All these
• 49:25
  basically anti-incarceral, almost quasi-anarchistic
• 49:29
  slogans. But then when you come to the area of
• 49:32
  sex crime, they're the most punitive,
• 49:35
  retribution zealots on Earth. They want to throw
• 49:39
  everybody and everybody in prison. They want
• 49:42
  to close the non-existent rape or intoxication
• 49:45
  loophole in New York as if New York State has
• 49:47
  been a hotbed of just state-sanctioned rape
• 49:49
  for decades and make it easier for prosecutors
• 49:52
  to throw people in prison willy-nilly.
• 49:56
  Explain that to me. Explain how this is the one
• 49:58
  area where everybody's critical faculties and
• 50:01
  pre-existing claim to adherence to certain principles
• 50:04
  around criminal justice and the prison state
• 50:07
  and so forth just get, I don't know, tossed by
• 50:10
  the wayside. It's totally bizarre. You don't
• 50:12
  think there's any other potential way for whatever
• 50:15
  unease or whatever problem that this woman experienced
• 50:19
  in the aftermath of this episode could
• 50:21
  have been addressed. Look at, look at
• 50:23
  the whole debacle that's unfolded right now.
• 50:25
  Is this the best way to go about handling
• 50:28
  situations like this? Clearly not. Well,
• 50:31
  it's the system we have. Michael, thank you so
• 50:34
  much for joining us here on DeProgram. We appreciate
• 50:36
  you taking the time and hope you felt like you
• 50:40
  were treated fairly and we will talk to you maybe
• 50:43
  later. Okay. All right. Sounds good. All right.
• 50:46
  Take care. Bye. Have a good one, man. Okay. So.
• 50:50
  Yeah, I knew that would be spicy, and it was
• 50:52
  spicy. I actually agree with him. Tell me. I
• 50:59
  actually agree with him. Look, I guess
• 51:00
  even when we talked about the case before, my
• 51:02
  point of view was always, how do I know what
• 51:06
  actually happened? It sounds like she
• 51:09
  went in. She was probably in incapacity. She
• 51:14
  was drunk. She was already drinking, yeah, before
• 51:16
  she arrived. Yeah, she was already drunk. Basically,
• 51:18
  she just kept drinking and then added drugs to
• 51:20
  the mix. Many of us have been there.
• 51:24
  And you end up having a gangbang. Now the catch
• 51:28
  becomes, okay, was it consensual all the way
• 51:30
  through or whether there were parts of it that
• 51:32
  were consensual? Either way, it's a mess.
• 51:35
  And as a random person sitting outside of it
• 51:38
  looking into it, how do I know what happened?
• 51:42
  It's that part. We don't know. We know
• 51:47
  what happened. We just don't know
• 51:49
  what it means right ethically and legally all
• 51:51
  the way through which is the issue because if
• 51:54
  if the story is she was although I have to say
• 51:57
  as a guy myself I think you're an idiot if
• 52:01
  you have sex with someone who is visibly
• 52:05
  drunk or impaired or I don't mean just
• 52:09
  a tad tipsy. If someone's totally
• 52:13
  up you should not have sex with them. Obviously
• 52:16
  yeah but if you're totally up too it's not your
• 52:19
  fault right. Well that's where things get really
• 52:22
  complicated and out of hand. Yeah but it shouldn't
• 52:24
  be complicated but this is the DUI argument
• 52:27
  oh if you're really up you shouldn't.
• 52:29
  How I was saying well if you're
• 52:32
  so up you don't have judgment so therefore can
• 52:35
  you be blamed when you get behind the wheel of
• 52:36
  a car. That's different though. Getting
• 52:39
  behind the wheel of a car is different than having
• 52:41
  sex with a person when both of you are up. But
• 52:43
  it's not making a decision that you shouldn't
• 52:45
  have made, that you would not have made if you
• 52:47
  weren't fucked up. Yeah, but the analogy is that
• 52:49
  the car is also fucked up, which the car is not.
• 52:52
  You are fucked up. And you made the individual
• 52:54
  choice to get behind the wheel of a car knowing
• 52:56
  full well, meaning you decided to drink and then
• 52:59
  you decided to get behind the wheel of a car.
• 53:01
  You're having a potential effect on other human
• 53:03
  beings that you know. But these are two people,
• 53:05
  both of which are fucked up and both of which
• 53:08
  are making the decision. It's not the guy's fault
• 53:10
  in that case. You can't blame the guy.
• 53:13
  If the guy and the female are both radically
• 53:16
  intoxicated. Let me address some of the comments
• 53:18
  in the chat. Several of our regular listeners
• 53:22
  are upset that we didn't bring up Michael Tracy's
• 53:26
  take on Epstein. Now, I didn't bring it up for
• 53:31
  two reasons. I didn't bring it up for two reasons.
• 53:33
  One, I don't know much about what he had to say
• 53:35
  about Epstein. And number two, it's not just
• 53:38
  you. It's not relevant. I hate
• 53:41
  it when there's a... I want him to focus
• 53:45
  on this issue, and we can invite him back to
• 53:48
  talk about Epstein if we want. We went
• 53:49
  the entire show just talking about this issue.
• 53:51
  Where was Epstein a fit in? Yeah, it just would
• 53:53
  have been. It's not about putting
• 53:55
  him on trial. It's about having him,
• 53:57
  elucidate exactly where he's coming from. Yeah,
• 54:00
  yeah. And I agree with his basic point. His basic
• 54:03
  point is they threw the names out into the
• 54:06
  public even though the people hadn't been convicted
• 54:08
  of anything and in her case protected her despite
• 54:13
  the fact that the guys hadn't been convicted
• 54:14
  of anything meaning they're accepting consequences
• 54:16
  for something that they haven't necessarily been
• 54:19
  convicted for and that we only have a person's
• 54:22
  word explaining what ultimately happened and
• 54:24
  that word is kind of all over the place.
• 54:28
  Look I'm not reflexively disbelieving her. I'm
• 54:32
  willing to accept right this idea that the first
• 54:35
  two guys were fair game. This is what I was down
• 54:38
  for. It's my body, my choice. And that's my,
• 54:39
  that's my instinct is to believe that. Yeah.
• 54:41
  Yeah. They invited a bunch of their stupid
• 54:46
  fucking frat bros to come and join. It's that
• 54:49
  part. They had no business doing that. That makes
• 54:52
  them rapists by proxy. Well, the catch becomes,
• 54:55
  are they? The part that you pointed out in the
• 54:58
  text where she was, the first two I accepted.
• 55:02
  Next time, let's not have your other guys. Tracy
• 55:05
  is right that that's not really that other guys
• 55:08
  rate me, but it is kind of an indication of I
• 55:10
  wasn't on board for these guys. Right. But there
• 55:14
  is evidence. Yeah. Whether that constitutes
• 55:16
  proof, I don't know. It's that part. And the
• 55:19
  fact, and that's what, I guess that was kind
• 55:21
  of the point I was trying to make to Tracy. Just
• 55:22
  because a prosecutor didn't break a trial doesn't
• 55:25
  necessarily mean that these guys didn't commit
• 55:28
  rape. I don't know, right? I'm stuck in
• 55:31
  a position of just not knowing. Can you stay
• 55:35
  a few extra minutes or do we have to race through?
• 55:37
  Okay, all right. All right, cool. So anything
• 55:40
  else you want to say about any of this or? I
• 55:43
  don't think so. Personally, I like Tracy
• 55:46
  and I like his take on this. I don't think his
• 55:48
  take is. He used to buy a fly swatter, though.
• 55:52
  Well, right, that too. But I think they're looking
• 55:55
  at it as, well, how are you not just believing
• 55:57
  her? You're disbelieving women. And this woman
• 56:00
  was obviously raped, and you're not acknowledging
• 56:02
  the fact that she was raped. And I think Tracy's
• 56:04
  basic point is, how do we know that as a flat
• 56:07
  fact? And our justice system isn't built on what
• 56:10
  people think. It's based on what you try to get
• 56:12
  to as the nub of it. How can you prosecute multiple
• 56:16
  guys that are in their college years that's
• 56:19
  going to affect for the rest of their life if
• 56:20
  indeed you don't know if it was rape and under
• 56:25
  the law innocent until proven guilty. He has a
• 56:29
  point. It doesn't mean that they're interested
• 56:31
  no right. It just means that how do you prosecute
• 56:34
  them in a criminal justice system when you don't
• 56:36
  know it's a flat fact it was right and this is
• 56:38
  not a rah-rah for people who committed gang
• 56:41
  right but it's interesting to me that they didn't
• 56:44
  invite her to the there's so much right.
• 56:46
  They didn't invite her to the next party why
• 56:49
  I mean, obviously they felt that they had fucked
• 56:52
  up some way. And that one, one of the two guys
• 56:55
  that she was apparently may have been consensual
• 56:58
  with, she exchanged a text with him
• 57:01
  and, and basically she was kind of, he was
• 57:04
  apologizing. He reached out to her and said,
• 57:07
  basically, sorry for the way things went yesterday.
• 57:10
  That's very, that's extremely telling. Yeah.
• 57:13
  I think that's telling too. It sounds like she
• 57:15
  was down for the first two. I don't know about
• 57:17
  the other one. That's what it sounds like to
• 57:18
  me too. And by the way, if indeed she was not
• 57:22
  down for the other ones, if indeed she did not
• 57:24
  agree to the other ones, by definition, it's
• 57:26
  rape. Well, certainly for those five. And I would
• 57:30
  say, I don't know what you charge the
• 57:32
  first two with. Is there a charge
• 57:36
  for basically soliciting rape?
• 57:39
  When you say, hey, come on up, there's free pussy
• 57:41
  upstairs. It's called rape. It's called rape.
• 57:45
  Well, but it's not legally rape, right? Because
• 57:48
  they didn't rape her, right? So the question
• 57:50
  - Yeah, but they invited other guys to do so.
• 57:52
  Right. So the question is, if you are enabling
• 57:55
  it, you know what I'm saying? I don't know. I
• 57:59
  don't know how the - There's a person who's unconscious.
• 58:01
  This would be a New York State legal question.
• 58:03
  Yeah, but there's a person who's unconscious.
• 58:05
  You're inviting other people in to have sex with
• 58:07
  this other person when they didn't consent. But
• 58:10
  clearly you should be charged with something.
• 58:12
  I don't know what. Well, let me ask you this.
• 58:14
  If a person robs a bank. Maybe reckless endangerment
• 58:15
  or something. The person in the getaway car
• 58:18
  is going to be charged with robbery and killing
• 58:20
  if they kill somebody in that bank robbery also.
• 58:22
  Yeah, that's true. They just call it murder.
• 58:26
  They don't call it. Yeah. Well, I'm fine with
• 58:28
  that. I think if you invite people in
• 58:30
  to rape someone who's out of it or not out of
• 58:33
  it, that's rape, obviously. I don't know if the
• 58:37
  law works that way. Because there's that whole
• 58:40
  question, right? Conflate the legal system with
• 58:42
  the justice system and they're not the same right.
• 58:45
  Yeah no no that's fair. Okay so all right let's
• 58:49
  we'll move on to we'll get into
• 58:52
  Israel and Lebanon and Elon Musk. What do
• 58:55
  you want to do first? Let's do Elon. Let's do
• 59:00
  Israel first. Okay so New York Times did a satellite
• 59:04
  analysis because I guess it's too expensive to
• 59:07
  send reporters where they looked at 60 villages
• 59:11
  that have been leveled in southern Lebanon in
• 59:13
  the parts that have been occupied by Israel most
• 59:17
  recently. And 48 of them have been completely
• 59:20
  leveled. In other words, this is beyond just
• 59:22
  just I don't want to use the word just beyond
• 59:25
  bombing. And they have special teams, just like
• 59:28
  we've seen in Gaza, go in and demolish any buildings
• 59:31
  that have survived in part or in whole. And there's
• 59:34
  literally nothing left. The IDF says this is
• 59:38
  in order to prevent there being any infrastructure
• 59:40
  that can be used by Hezbollah against targets
• 59:43
  in northern Israel, which is obviously nonsense.
• 59:46
  This is ethnic cleansing. It's about creating
• 59:49
  a space where nobody could live so they can come
• 59:52
  and go as they want. And stealing the land, basically.
• 59:56
  They want the land. But interestingly, only Shiite
• 1:00:01
  villages have been targeted. Obviously, Hezbollah
• 1:00:06
  is a predominantly Shia movement. And Druze and
• 1:00:10
  other villages that are not Shiite, including
• 1:00:14
  some Sunni villages, were relatively left unscathed.
• 1:00:18
  So this is... This is definitely genocidal, right?
• 1:00:22
  In Gaza, they went after everyone. They
• 1:00:25
  killed Christians, too. Here, they're killing
• 1:00:28
  members of a particular sect of Islam and destroying
• 1:00:33
  their property and their homes and leaving other
• 1:00:37
  sects untouched or unmolested. It's, in a way,
• 1:00:42
  more specifically genocidal. Well, they're also
• 1:00:47
  trying to create divisions between Sunni and
• 1:00:49
  Shia the area, meaning because the Shia would
• 1:00:55
  know our villages have been destroyed, right?
• 1:00:58
  They would have a clear conscience of it.
• 1:01:00
  And when you get Druze who are that much closer
• 1:01:02
  to Israel, especially in the Syria conflict,
• 1:01:05
  yeah, they're leaving certain villages alone
• 1:01:08
  for reasons. Even with Saudi Arabia,
• 1:01:10
  if you're looking at it, the way Saudi Arabia
• 1:01:12
  is trying to use sectarian divisions and trying
• 1:01:15
  to make this argument that Ansar Allah is somehow
• 1:01:17
  against Islam because Ansar Allah is attacking
• 1:01:20
  Saudi Arabia and so the Sunnis should come together.
• 1:01:23
  They're using this kind of
• 1:01:28
  the differences in the religions. Well the
• 1:01:31
  assumed differences in the religion almost as
• 1:01:34
  a weapon in and of itself but yeah they're obviously
• 1:01:37
  ethnic cleansing those areas. They're leveling
• 1:01:39
  villages in southern Lebanon fully leveling
• 1:01:42
  villages and they want the land clearly. And
• 1:01:46
  part of the reason that they were going after
• 1:01:48
  building materials, construction materials,
• 1:01:51
  construction companies those type of things
• 1:01:53
  because they want to prevent any kind of rebuilding
• 1:01:55
  of Lebanon. They're going to, they want the land
• 1:01:58
  and yeah they're trying to create sectarian divisions.
• 1:02:00
  We have some breaking news. Kimberly
• 1:02:06
  Guilfoyle may be unemployed soon joining the
• 1:02:10
  ranks of the unemployed. She's the U.S. ambassador
• 1:02:13
  to Greece. The Wall Street Journal is reporting
• 1:02:16
  exclusively that the White House is calling on
• 1:02:19
  her to resign, which obviously she will. She
• 1:02:23
  appears to have asked a wealthy donor to pay
• 1:02:28
  off $100,000 American Express bill as a way
• 1:02:32
  of basically laundering a bribe to her because
• 1:02:38
  she said, oh, that won't appear anywhere. That'll
• 1:02:40
  just go directly to American Express and apparently
• 1:02:43
  the wealthy donor said I would need a divorce
• 1:02:47
  if I did that. I guess it's because apparently
• 1:02:51
  it's a guy and he and his wife would see this
• 1:02:54
  payment and be like okay I'm going to kill you
• 1:02:56
  now. So yeah so former Mrs. Gavin Newsom is
• 1:03:01
  in deep shit. Oh that was Gavin Newsom's wife.
• 1:03:05
  Yeah. Oh, I didn't know that. Interesting. Oh,
• 1:03:11
  yeah. She's bipartisan in that respect. Well,
• 1:03:16
  I think she's screwed. Yeah, she's probably going
• 1:03:19
  to lose her job and she needs to do better. There
• 1:03:24
  are better ways except bribes, right? Yeah. Other
• 1:03:28
  people have found all sorts of creative ways
• 1:03:30
  except bribes. Donald Trump is magnificently
• 1:03:32
  rich. There's an irony, by the way, of this idea
• 1:03:35
  of her being fired for taking bribes. And
• 1:03:38
  the money that Donald Trump has been able to
• 1:03:40
  monetize the office for. Billions. Yeah. $100,000.
• 1:03:44
  It's, it's that, it's that editorial cartoon that came out during the
• 1:03:49
  2008 subprime mortgage meltdown and all the banks
• 1:03:53
  fucking up. And it's two bank, two bank managers
• 1:03:56
  looking through the, out the window of their
• 1:03:58
  office at a guy, a classic bank robber with the
• 1:04:01
  mask holding up the teller. And he's, amateur.
• 1:04:05
  Right? Yeah. That's an amateur move. With all
• 1:04:10
  of the bribery that takes place in this country,
• 1:04:13
  and you get caught. Yeah, it's sad. Do better.
• 1:04:18
  $100,000. Trump is, that's not even a tip.
• 1:04:22
  That's a rounding error. That's a rounding error.
• 1:04:26
  Trump is making billions. Even on the oil trade,
• 1:04:29
  he has people making side deals. It's astonishing.
• 1:04:34
  Meaning, he is using policy and sending out Kushner
• 1:04:38
  or Witkoff and sending these guys out where these
• 1:04:41
  guys are making deals based on the terms of what
• 1:04:46
  Donald Trump is doing. Also, some other breaking
• 1:04:49
  news. A massive cyber attack hit France. 380
• 1:04:55
  refrigeration systems at supermarkets were struck
• 1:05:00
  last week, according to the French government.
• 1:05:03
  And they're trying to figure out who's responsible.
• 1:05:06
  They targeted a Danish software system. Wait,
• 1:05:10
  their refrigeration system is connected to the
• 1:05:12
  internet in some way? Apparently so, yeah. It's
• 1:05:16
  a Monoprix, which is what they call a hypermarché,
• 1:05:19
  a hypermarket, a hypermarché. The Monoprix chain,
• 1:05:24
  which is like Walmart where they sell food, but
• 1:05:26
  it's even more food, right? Anyway, they
• 1:05:30
  said that no one's claimed responsibility. They
• 1:05:34
  don't know who it was. Obviously lots
• 1:05:36
  of food had to be thrown away. I wonder if this
• 1:05:39
  could be the Iranians or, Russia. Or
• 1:05:44
  the kids that are 16-year-old kids. Who knows?
• 1:05:48
  Yeah, it could be. Some of those
• 1:05:51
  kids ostensibly will be really good at computers.
• 1:05:54
  They're kids. Yeah. And we're not talking
• 1:05:57
  about five-year-olds. We're talking about
• 1:05:58
  people 16, 17 who are going to college that
• 1:06:02
  may be going to college for software, it very
• 1:06:04
  well could have become internal in France. It
• 1:06:06
  could have been the Russians. It could have been
• 1:06:08
  the Iranians. It could have been French. This
• 1:06:11
  is the shape of things to come, right?
• 1:06:14
  Yeah. That's why I thought it was worth mentioning.
• 1:06:18
  And finally, Elon Musk, you mentioned this earlier.
• 1:06:20
  We talked about it on your show, has given nearly,
• 1:06:23
  well, basically over a quarter of a billion dollars
• 1:06:27
  to GOP groups and political action committees
• 1:06:30
  just in Q3 of this year right. This is the
• 1:06:35
  one of the biggest political donations recorded
• 1:06:38
  in U.S. history and it's a midterm election.
• 1:06:41
  Can you imagine what he'll pour in and
• 1:06:44
  in 2026, in 2028 it'll be it'll be crazy.
• 1:06:50
  At some point, this feels like the steroid Olympics.
• 1:06:52
  Saturday Night Live had this skit where they
• 1:06:56
  legalize all steroids for the Olympics. And this
• 1:07:00
  skit, one of the guys tries to lift 1,000
• 1:07:02
  pounds, and he rips his arms off. And his arms
• 1:07:06
  are, blood is peering out. And he's just
• 1:07:08
  walking around with his arms pulled off. It feels
• 1:07:11
  like that, where it's, at a certain amount,
• 1:07:13
  you guys, you've allowed this idea of money equals
• 1:07:16
  speech where the people with the most money
• 1:07:18
  can effectively give billions if they wanted
• 1:07:21
  to. Bloomberg gave a billion dollars into
• 1:07:23
  his campaign when he ran and and for all the
• 1:07:26
  good it did him. Yeah but all the good it did
• 1:07:28
  but a billion dollars think of that having that
• 1:07:30
  much money when you dump that into a primary
• 1:07:33
  not even the main election. Imagine what he would
• 1:07:35
  have done in the main election. He could have
• 1:07:37
  literally ran his own campaign. Hillary Clinton
• 1:07:40
  spent a billion dollars in her campaign to put
• 1:07:42
  it in context for the presidential race. Bloomberg
• 1:07:45
  spent that much in a primary by himself. That
• 1:07:48
  is an astonishing sum of money to have and astonishing
• 1:07:51
  sum of money to use. And so when Elon Musk is,
• 1:07:54
  quietly, as they put it in the article,
• 1:07:56
  quietly drops a quarter of a billion dollars.
• 1:07:59
  How do you quietly drop a quarter of a billion
• 1:08:01
  dollars? Obviously, he's reading the paper today.
• 1:08:04
  It's, not quietly enough, apparently. Not
• 1:08:06
  quietly enough. And obviously, that money is
• 1:08:09
  being spread out into candidates that he thinks
• 1:08:11
  will be in his personal bank. No doubt through
• 1:08:13
  shell corporations. It's all dark money. Just
• 1:08:16
  to be very clear, this is not for America. This
• 1:08:20
  is for Elon. I'm putting in candidates that will
• 1:08:23
  be to my best interest. That's what I'm going
• 1:08:25
  to do because I believe I'm going to get that
• 1:08:26
  money back when I'm putting that money out. So
• 1:08:29
  I can get my calls returned. Yes. This is an
• 1:08:34
  investment. It's not for America. He's doing
• 1:08:37
  this personally, specifically for Elon Musk.
• 1:08:40
  And we as Americans should have some feelings
• 1:08:43
  about that. Well, it's inherently corrupt. And
• 1:08:47
  it's inherently anti-democratic. That's why
• 1:08:49
  I disagree with you with the money equals speech
• 1:08:51
  stuff. I don't think money is speech. I think
• 1:08:52
  money and speech are two different things. Well,
• 1:08:54
  it should be. I'm just saying, I agree that it
• 1:08:57
  ought to be. I'm just saying that it isn't. It's
• 1:09:00
  not about ought. I'm saying they are different.
• 1:09:02
  Me having a dollar is not equipping me. It's
• 1:09:06
  not the same thing as me telling my dog to go
• 1:09:08
  outside. I hear you because the fact that
• 1:09:13
  the fact that you can lose with lots of
• 1:09:15
  money proves that proves your point. Yeah I guess
• 1:09:19
  I just thought about them being the same thing.
• 1:09:20
  I think the Supreme Court up they shouldn't.
• 1:09:23
  They were rich people doing rich things
• 1:09:26
  in the best interest of other rich people is
• 1:09:29
  what the Supreme Court did with that. That's our
• 1:09:30
  system. Yeah if you say better to says better
• 1:09:33
  to live in truth but have no meaning and and
• 1:09:36
  purpose or to have purpose and meaning, but not
• 1:09:39
  in truth, i.e. religion. I do not know what
• 1:09:43
  that's profound. I want to believe in something,
• 1:09:45
  even if it's not true. Yeah, that's crazy. Also,
• 1:09:51
  a few says, check out Bible expert rejects Christianity
• 1:09:55
  after living in Amazon jungle. All right. What?
• 1:09:59
  I don't know. Oh, the jungle life was so hard.
• 1:10:01
  He said, there is no God. Well, yeah, well, that's
• 1:10:04
  a lot of, a lot of Jews lost their faith
• 1:10:08
  in the camps during World War II right. They
• 1:10:10
  were just if there was a God either
• 1:10:13
  there's either there's a God and he's an or a
• 1:10:17
  do-nothing or there's no God or look I would
• 1:10:22
  tell you this statement there is no what
• 1:10:26
  is it you have a jealous God stuff like that.
• 1:10:28
  I don't believe a God would say that. Not one
• 1:10:33
  that is real. It just seems very strange
• 1:10:36
  to me. That's something on Stargate where
• 1:10:38
  the Goa'uld comes down and it's, worship
• 1:10:40
  me as your God, that type of stuff. And it's
• 1:10:42
  , I am a jealous God. I have no other God
• 1:10:44
  before me. I can see them saying it, right? But
• 1:10:49
  God of the universe? Eh, I'm skeptical. By the
• 1:10:54
  way, I've got to tease something. So I don't
• 1:10:56
  know if, tell me if you, did the publisher send
• 1:10:59
  you the PDF, the digital version of Boiling Point,
• 1:11:05
  the Ukraine book? If not, make sure you I'll
• 1:11:08
  ask for it. Anyway, I'm almost done with it.
• 1:11:10
  We're going to have Stephen Kinzer, author of
• 1:11:13
  this upcoming book called Boiling Point, How
• 1:11:15
  America Brought War to Ukraine. It's from published
• 1:11:19
  by a major publisher, Henry Holt. And that is
• 1:11:21
  it's a barn burner. And it's all the stuff you
• 1:11:24
  and I have been talking about on the station
• 1:11:26
  and subsequently about Ukraine and
• 1:11:30
  people who watch this show and and listen
• 1:11:32
  to this show know about it but for a mainstream
• 1:11:35
  audience and I will say there's even stuff that
• 1:11:37
  surprised me Jamarl the US has had a hard-on
• 1:11:40
  for Ukraine going back to World War II and trying
• 1:11:43
  to use Ukraine as the way to with the Soviet
• 1:11:46
  Union and then with post-independence Russia.
• 1:11:48
  I knew it. I knew they'd been on since
• 1:11:52
  independence but I didn't know that even back
• 1:11:55
  in the day they were recruiting
• 1:11:58
  Ukrainian Nazis back in the late 40s
• 1:12:01
  to attack the Soviets militarily. What
• 1:12:04
  Operation Gladio. Yeah crazy is that it. Operation
• 1:12:08
  Gladio yes. Doing that stuff. I knew about it
• 1:12:12
  going back during the Bush administration during
• 1:12:15
  the first Bush administration. Is that right? During
• 1:12:17
  Bush first Bush. No, no, no. We've been screwed
• 1:12:19
  with it for a while. Because you're right, the
• 1:12:21
  Soviet Union. Even Operation Lightning.
• 1:12:24
  1947, yeah. And they recruited, and just
• 1:12:28
  basically, what, basically how,
• 1:12:32
  and also how the foreign policy establishment
• 1:12:35
  of the United States, with people like Brzezinski,
• 1:12:38
  has been completely infiltrated by anti-Russian,
• 1:12:42
  Eastern European emigres. Well, we
• 1:12:45
  were working with the Nazis after the Soviet
• 1:12:46
  Union to get information on the Soviets. Yeah.
• 1:12:49
  And obviously, if you're working with the Nazis,
• 1:12:51
  when you're in close coordination, I don't
• 1:12:53
  mean just NASA. I mean, literally working with
• 1:12:55
  Nazis that were in Germany after the war and
• 1:12:58
  using them as our way of getting information
• 1:13:00
  on the Soviets. And it's, OK, well, what
• 1:13:02
  is your foreign policy going to be? Well, this
• 1:13:03
  is not even just and what I'm talking about is
• 1:13:06
  not this is hiring, the old Banderites
• 1:13:08
  to try to launch military assault
• 1:13:12
  inside the Soviet Union in 1947 while
• 1:13:17
  we were technically still supposed to be allies
• 1:13:19
  after World War II. So it's yeah pretty scurrilous.
• 1:13:23
  It goes back to the early days of the CIA. So
• 1:13:26
  yeah we were looking immediately at the moment
• 1:13:29
  that the war ended day one. Yeah. Totally. The
• 1:13:32
  moment that it ended. And McCarthy was,
• 1:13:34
  we should attack the Soviet Union. It's funny
• 1:13:35
  because a lot of the, the high ranking
• 1:13:38
  Nazi officials up to Hitler all assumed that
• 1:13:41
  basically they, hey, one day you
• 1:13:43
  guys will agree with us and you'll turn against
• 1:13:45
  the Soviets. And, it turns out that
• 1:13:48
  not those Nazi leaders, they were just a few,
• 1:13:51
  a couple of years ahead of their time. That's
• 1:13:53
  all. Yeah, they were right. They were just, we
• 1:13:57
  were just at war with them. If we weren't at
• 1:13:58
  war with them, we'd be allies, right? Totally.
• 1:14:02
  Well, thank you so much. But no, I haven't seen
• 1:14:04
  the book. I don't see it in my email. Oh, really?
• 1:14:06
  Okay, I'll remind them. All right. Thank you.
• 1:14:10
  I'll do that right after this. Yeah, you definitely
• 1:14:11
  want to read the book. It's a great read. Stephen
• 1:14:13
  Kinzer is great, and we're going to have him
• 1:14:14
  here on the show soon. So, all right. Thanks
• 1:14:19
  everyone. Appreciate you. It's we'll be back tomorrow
• 1:14:22
  with the full two hours on Wednesday 9 to 11
• 1:14:25
  a.m. Thanks for and we'll have Robby
• 1:14:29
  back next week. So TMI no TMI this week. So
• 1:14:33
  basically it's a it's a slim week short
• 1:14:37
  week slim week Robby list week. Anyway. Hope
• 1:14:41
  all's well. Thanks to all the, to the people
• 1:14:43
  who are subscribing to the show. We've added
• 1:14:45
  the new subscribers to the outro that I'm about
• 1:14:48
  to play right now. So if you want to join that
• 1:14:50
  group, it's $10 a month. Subscribe through YouTube
• 1:14:54
  and talk to you later. Bye.