Latest / The Death Of Journalism / Episode Three Hundred Ten: A-Hole

Transcript

Episode Three Hundred Ten: A-Hole · The Death Of Journalism

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: Welcome to episode 310 of the Death of Journalism podcast.
• 0:04
  Speaker 1: My name is John Ziegler. I'm your host on this
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: week's jam-packed show. Lindsay Clancy, her asshole attorney, and a
• 0:11
  Speaker 1: hero juror. The latest real story on Jerry Sandusky, plus
• 0:16
  Speaker 1: Diana Rossini, Pablo Torre, Lane Kiffin, an AI update, Charlie Kirk,
• 0:23
  Speaker 1: and an interview with the writer of the highly controversial
• 0:25
  Speaker 1: and censored 2006 ABC miniseries, the path to 9-11, Cyrus Narasta.
• 0:34
  Speaker 1: We begin this episode of the podcast with a programming note. Normally,
• 0:38
  Speaker 1: I like to take deep dives into almost every topic
• 0:41
  Speaker 1: I discuss, but if I do that on this particular episode,
• 0:44
  Speaker 1: it's going to be at least four or five hours
• 0:46
  Speaker 1: long because there's that many topics that I absolutely positively
• 0:50
  Speaker 1: have to get to. So I apologize in advance for
• 0:54
  Speaker 1: If I don't give the comprehensive analysis that I normally
• 0:58
  Speaker 1: do on every single topic, but I'm going to do
• 1:00
  Speaker 1: the best that I can. We're going to begin with
• 1:02
  Speaker 1: the biggest news story in the nation. It's only the
• 1:05
  Speaker 1: most talked about over the last week. And that is
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: the mistrial in the Lindsay Clancy situation where she murdered
• 1:12
  Speaker 1: three children in Massachusetts. And this was not a surprise.
• 1:16
  Speaker 1: Anybody that was following this a week ago knew that
• 1:19
  Speaker 1: it was going to end up in a hung jury.
• 1:21
  Speaker 1: And it did. But it did so under rather extraordinary
• 1:25
  Speaker 1: and I think very significant circumstances. A lot of those
• 1:28
  Speaker 1: had to do with her attorney, an asshole by the
• 1:31
  Speaker 1: name of Kevin Reddington. And I thought it was impossible
• 1:36
  Speaker 1: for me to have more disdain for a defense attorney
• 1:40
  Speaker 1: than I did for OJ Simpson's dream team. But I
• 1:43
  Speaker 1: think Kevin Reddington reaches at least that level because this
• 1:49
  Speaker 1: guy really is an asshole. And I don't even know
• 1:52
  Speaker 1: for sure that he's that bright. I can't tell if
• 1:55
  Speaker 1: he's dumb like a fox or whether he's just an idiot. Like,
• 2:00
  Speaker 1: for instance, since the mistrial has been declared, he has
• 2:06
  Speaker 1: been asking publicly on major news outlets, including Good Morning America,
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: to have Donald Trump issue a pardon for Lindsay Clancy,
• 2:16
  Speaker 1: which is just the dumbest thing I've ever heard of
• 2:18
  Speaker 1: in my life. First of all, Trump has absolutely positively
• 2:21
  Speaker 1: no authority to do that. These are state charges that
• 2:24
  Speaker 1: she's facing in Massachusetts. But also, Trump would have to
• 2:28
  Speaker 1: be the biggest idiot on the planet to do so,
• 2:31
  Speaker 1: even if he had that authority, given the politics of this.
• 2:34
  Speaker 1: I don't even understand what he's doing. And frankly, from
• 2:37
  Speaker 1: a strategic standpoint, his base of support is liberal, woke,
• 2:44
  Speaker 1: white women in Massachusetts. Tying himself to Trump is idiotic
• 2:50
  Speaker 1: from that perspective. But the fans of Lindsay Clancy, and
• 2:54
  Speaker 1: she has many, love themselves some Kevin Reddington. And Kevin Rennington,
• 3:00
  Speaker 1: to me, is one of the more dangerous types of
• 3:03
  Speaker 1: people when it comes to public life. He reminds me
• 3:06
  Speaker 1: a bit of Dr. Fauci in that one of the
• 3:09
  Speaker 1: things you got to really be wary about is an
• 3:12
  Speaker 1: old man with a huge ego who knows that this
• 3:15
  Speaker 1: is his last bite of the attention apple. And Kevin
• 3:19
  Speaker 1: Rennington is playing it for all that it's worth. But
• 3:22
  Speaker 1: let me give you the details of why, to me,
• 3:25
  Speaker 1: he went from just being you know, a defense attorney
• 3:28
  Speaker 1: that you think, oh, my God, stop lying to a
• 3:32
  Speaker 1: guy who is absolutely deserving of the moniker asshole, specifically
• 3:38
  Speaker 1: how this thing went to a mistrial. And when the
• 3:41
  Speaker 1: judge issued the order for a mistrial, Kevin Rennington did
• 3:45
  Speaker 1: not accept that. He made an absolutely ridiculous plea to
• 3:49
  Speaker 1: the Massachusetts State Supreme Court to have a stay on
• 3:55
  Speaker 1: that order of a mistrial.
• 3:57
  Speaker 2: Why?
• 3:58
  Speaker 1: Because he knew we were heading into a holiday weekend,
• 4:01
  Speaker 1: and he knew that if somehow, someway, some liberal judge
• 4:05
  Speaker 1: sided in his favor and gave this jury another three
• 4:10
  Speaker 1: or more days to deliberate, something bad might happen to
• 4:14
  Speaker 1: the one juror that he believed was holding out for
• 4:18
  Speaker 1: not guilty by reason of insanity. That's not what they
• 4:20
  Speaker 1: call it in Massachusetts, but effectively, that's what it is.
• 4:24
  Speaker 1: And that would have been bad enough because it's completely
• 4:27
  Speaker 1: without any legal merit. It's unprecedented. The news media tried
• 4:31
  Speaker 1: to tell you that, but they're so afraid of offending
• 4:35
  Speaker 1: the Lindsey Clancy fan base, much like they were with
• 4:38
  Speaker 1: the OJ Simpson fan base, that they never really are
• 4:41
  Speaker 1: declarative about anything. This wasn't unusual. This wasn't a situation
• 4:47
  Speaker 1: that was dramatic. This was absurd. This was absolutely asinine,
• 4:53
  Speaker 1: without precedent, with no merit whatsoever. The argument was completely ridiculous,
• 5:00
  Speaker 1: and it was designed to focus attention and pressure on
• 5:04
  Speaker 1: one person, the person that was holding out against a
• 5:10
  Speaker 1: not guilty by reason of insanity decision by the jury. Apparently,
• 5:15
  Speaker 1: one man. And that would be bad enough because what
• 5:20
  Speaker 1: Rennington was trying to do was to create a situation
• 5:23
  Speaker 1: where over that weekend, maybe he gets doxxed because the
• 5:27
  Speaker 1: jury's not even sequestered. Maybe he feels pressure. Maybe he's
• 5:31
  Speaker 1: afraid for his family and he caves when they come back.
• 5:36
  Speaker 1: But when that attempt to get this thing delayed failed,
• 5:41
  Speaker 1: which was always inevitable, although It was one liberal female
• 5:46
  Speaker 1: judge in Massachusetts from gaining traction. I mean, that's all
• 5:51
  Speaker 1: that it took. All it would have taken for one
• 5:54
  Speaker 1: judge who heard this emergency hearing to say, yeah, go ahead.
• 5:59
  Speaker 1: We're going to hold this off for another week or
• 6:02
  Speaker 1: whatever it is. And Reddington would have gotten his wish. Thankfully,
• 6:07
  Speaker 1: that did not happen. But then Reddington in the post
• 6:11
  Speaker 1: mistrial press conference said, thanked all the jurors except for one.
• 6:18
  Speaker 1: And he targeted this one juror in a way that
• 6:22
  Speaker 1: was so far beyond inappropriate that it made my blood
• 6:27
  Speaker 1: boil and reminded me so much of the antics of
• 6:31
  Speaker 1: OJ Simpson's dream team. This guy is a complete and
• 6:36
  Speaker 1: total asshole. And thankfully, thankfully, there was one man who
• 6:42
  Speaker 1: stood strong and prevented what would have been an absolutely
• 6:45
  Speaker 1: outrageous verdict. There is no logical, remotely legal explanation for
• 6:53
  Speaker 1: how you can vote not guilty by reason of insanity
• 6:57
  Speaker 1: in this particular case. Now, there's one caveat to that,
• 7:00
  Speaker 1: and that is that the law in Massachusetts is completely
• 7:04
  Speaker 1: and totally bonkers, where effectively the burden of proof is
• 7:09
  Speaker 1: on the prosecution itself. when the defense claims insanity, which
• 7:14
  Speaker 1: is utterly insane in and of itself. I honestly have
• 7:17
  Speaker 1: no idea, given Massachusetts law, why anybody, if they were
• 7:24
  Speaker 1: accused of a very serious crime, a crime that you'd
• 7:27
  Speaker 1: have to be crazy to commit to begin with, why
• 7:29
  Speaker 1: you wouldn't claim insanity. I really don't know. I've not
• 7:33
  Speaker 1: heard anyone come up with a good explanation for that.
• 7:36
  Speaker 1: But on the facts and on the logic, And on
• 7:40
  Speaker 1: common sense, this was as open and shut a case
• 7:44
  Speaker 1: as you can possibly get, probably even more so than
• 7:46
  Speaker 1: OJ Simpson, as hard as that is to believe. But
• 7:50
  Speaker 1: as soon as there was a mistrial, and as soon
• 7:52
  Speaker 1: as you heard the breakdown, nine women on the jury,
• 7:55
  Speaker 1: which is absurd how the prosecution allowed there to be
• 7:58
  Speaker 1: nine women on this jury. I have no idea. That
• 8:00
  Speaker 1: also reminded me of OJ. That reminded me of, I
• 8:04
  Speaker 1: think the prosecution made a lot of the same mistakes
• 8:07
  Speaker 1: that the prosecution made in the OJ case. I think
• 8:09
  Speaker 1: they were naive. I think they gave everyone too much credit.
• 8:13
  Speaker 1: And Marsha Clark famously made a very tactical error in
• 8:18
  Speaker 1: that she wanted black women on OJ's jury because she
• 8:22
  Speaker 1: thought that they would be angry at him for dating
• 8:25
  Speaker 1: a white woman. And it was exactly the opposite. She
• 8:27
  Speaker 1: didn't like the white woman he killed. And I think
• 8:31
  Speaker 1: there's a racial component to this situation, which I have
• 8:35
  Speaker 1: not heard anybody talk about. And this is based on very,
• 8:39
  Speaker 1: very anecdotal evidence. But if I'm retrying this case, and
• 8:45
  Speaker 1: I absolutely would as a prosecutor, because I think it
• 8:48
  Speaker 1: is winnable if you make some changes to your strategy,
• 8:52
  Speaker 1: specifically with regard to the suicide problem. I think that
• 8:56
  Speaker 1: was one of the mistakes the prosecution made was they
• 8:59
  Speaker 1: didn't know how to deal with the fact that Lindsay
• 9:02
  Speaker 1: Clancy tried to commit suicide or seemingly tried to commit
• 9:05
  Speaker 1: suicide after She killed her three children. But I would
• 9:09
  Speaker 1: change the strategy on the suicide. But I also, based
• 9:12
  Speaker 1: upon my very, very anecdotal, quote unquote, evidence and observations,
• 9:19
  Speaker 1: you know who I want on this jury? I want
• 9:22
  Speaker 1: black men on this jury. I want black men on
• 9:25
  Speaker 1: this jury because I have seen so many online videos,
• 9:30
  Speaker 1: mostly on TikTok, of black men absolutely eviscerating Lindsey Clancy.
• 9:37
  Speaker 1: And the beauty of a black man, if you get
• 9:39
  Speaker 1: a black man in a jury situation like this, these
• 9:42
  Speaker 1: woke white women, they can't go after him. See, I
• 9:46
  Speaker 1: don't know anything about, no one at this point knows
• 9:48
  Speaker 1: anything about the holdout juror, but I don't believe he's black.
• 9:53
  Speaker 1: He could be, there were a couple of black people
• 9:55
  Speaker 1: on the jury, who But I don't believe he's Black
• 9:58
  Speaker 1: because these woke women would not be going after a
• 10:01
  Speaker 1: Black man. It's not in their DNA. But I think
• 10:05
  Speaker 1: Black men are absolutely who you want on this jury, one,
• 10:08
  Speaker 1: because they seem to get it, but two, because the
• 10:10
  Speaker 1: white women are powerless against Black men, woke white women.
• 10:14
  Speaker 1: But these woke white women that were on this jury
• 10:17
  Speaker 1: were exactly, exactly as any rational person would have anticipated.
• 10:23
  Speaker 1: As soon as the mistrial was declared, I knew there
• 10:26
  Speaker 1: would be interviews with these crazy cat ladies on the jury.
• 10:31
  Speaker 1: And I actually said the Republican Party ought to buy
• 10:35
  Speaker 1: time on every television network and streaming service so that
• 10:39
  Speaker 1: people could see these interviews in their entirety, because it
• 10:42
  Speaker 1: was obvious these women were going to be crazy. And
• 10:46
  Speaker 1: they did not disappoint. Three of them did an interview
• 10:50
  Speaker 1: locally in Massachusetts, and they were absolutely nuts. They were
• 10:56
  Speaker 1: everything any rational person would have expected. And I'm not
• 11:00
  Speaker 1: going to play a whole lot of clips. I'm just
• 11:03
  Speaker 1: going to share one very brief, mind-blowing clip that says
• 11:08
  Speaker 1: it all in an incredibly short amount of time. Here
• 11:13
  Speaker 1: is one of the jurors talking about how the holdout,
• 11:16
  Speaker 1: at this point, unknown, unnamed male juror who stood up
• 11:21
  Speaker 1: for justice in this case, who was pissing off these
• 11:25
  Speaker 1: women because he was not listening to them. He was
• 11:30
  Speaker 1: not accepting that they were the experts. By the way,
• 11:32
  Speaker 1: one of the parts of this whole equation that's not
• 11:35
  Speaker 1: getting enough attention is that these jurors made it very
• 11:38
  Speaker 1: clear that there were nurses on the jury who were
• 11:43
  Speaker 1: basically acting, it sounds like, as if they were, quote unquote,
• 11:47
  Speaker 1: experts on the case, that they had some sort of
• 11:50
  Speaker 1: special expertise and effectively testifying to the rest of the jury,
• 11:55
  Speaker 1: which is highly inappropriate, if not illegal. So they acknowledged
• 12:01
  Speaker 1: that inadvertently, that they certainly did not abide by the
• 12:05
  Speaker 1: spirit of what's supposed to happen in jury deliberations. But
• 12:10
  Speaker 1: that pales in comparison to this very short statement by
• 12:14
  Speaker 1: one of the three women who did interviews where she
• 12:18
  Speaker 1: is trying to explain her frustration. over the idea that
• 12:23
  Speaker 1: this male juror was holding out, claiming that the male
• 12:27
  Speaker 1: juror admitted that he had reasonable doubt, which I'm not buying.
• 12:31
  Speaker 1: I think this is either a miscommunication or just a
• 12:34
  Speaker 1: flat-out lie, because that doesn't make any sense to me.
• 12:37
  Speaker 1: But here is the clip that's been going viral of
• 12:42
  Speaker 1: the female juror in the Lindsay Clancy case, actually putting
• 12:47
  Speaker 1: this better than anyone possibly could about the essence of
• 12:51
  Speaker 1: this case.
• 12:52
  Speaker 3: So-and-so, this is the definition of reasonable, but he had
• 12:56
  Speaker 3: the hardest time getting off the fact that Lindsay viciously
• 13:00
  Speaker 3: killed her children.
• 13:01
  Speaker 1: Now, that clip has understandably gone viral, mostly because of
• 13:07
  Speaker 1: the fact that The juror admits that it's difficult to
• 13:10
  Speaker 1: get over, or actually doesn't even admit, is confused by
• 13:14
  Speaker 1: why it's difficult to get over the fact that Lindsay
• 13:18
  Speaker 1: viciously killed her three children. I find one of the
• 13:24
  Speaker 1: most interesting parts about that clip to be she used
• 13:27
  Speaker 1: her first name. Lindsay. I think that's important. That shows
• 13:35
  Speaker 1: a level of affection that is disturbing to use Lindsay
• 13:42
  Speaker 1: in that particular context. But obviously the most important part
• 13:46
  Speaker 1: of that clip is this woman honestly could not understand
• 13:50
  Speaker 1: why it would be difficult to get over the fact
• 13:53
  Speaker 1: that someone effectively admitted to killing her three children in
• 13:58
  Speaker 1: cold blood. And very clearly based upon the evidence, planned
• 14:04
  Speaker 1: to do so. She sent her husband out on an
• 14:07
  Speaker 1: errand so that she could do it. That's not postpartum psychosis.
• 14:15
  Speaker 1: And yet they could not get a conviction of this woman.
• 14:19
  Speaker 1: And they almost got a not guilty verdict, except for
• 14:22
  Speaker 1: one man who stood up against these crazy people. I'm
• 14:27
  Speaker 1: as interested as I am in who this guy is. Obviously,
• 14:30
  Speaker 1: everyone is. I'm almost as interested, and I don't think
• 14:33
  Speaker 1: we're ever going to hear from these people, but there
• 14:35
  Speaker 1: were two other men on the jury. What the hell
• 14:39
  Speaker 1: was going on with them? Are they getting their vaginas
• 14:43
  Speaker 1: worked on this week? Because how the hell do you
• 14:47
  Speaker 1: let this one guy in this situation be the lone
• 14:51
  Speaker 1: holdout under these circumstances with this fact pattern? What a
• 14:54
  Speaker 1: bunch of fucking pussies. So, I mean, there's no ambiguity
• 14:59
  Speaker 1: about this. That's why I keep comparing it to OJ.
• 15:03
  Speaker 1: And there's a lot of similarities. The main one from
• 15:07
  Speaker 1: a media perspective is that the media is absolutely terrified
• 15:12
  Speaker 1: of offending Lindsey Clancy's fan base. That is the key
• 15:17
  Speaker 1: to this. And we're seeing this time and time again
• 15:21
  Speaker 1: in criminal cases. I'm going to get to Jerry Sandusky
• 15:24
  Speaker 1: in a moment. I've said many, many times. Jerry Sandusky
• 15:28
  Speaker 1: was hosed from the beginning here because he had no
• 15:30
  Speaker 1: fan base. He had the absolute worst type of celebrity.
• 15:34
  Speaker 1: And any fan base that he had was also Joe
• 15:36
  Speaker 1: Paterno's fan base. And that the Joe Paterno people thought
• 15:40
  Speaker 1: it was in their best interest to throw Jerry Sandusky
• 15:42
  Speaker 1: under the bus. Had there been no Joe Paterno aspect
• 15:47
  Speaker 1: to the Jerry Sandusky case, Jerry might have had enough
• 15:50
  Speaker 1: of a fan base to at least get a fair
• 15:52
  Speaker 1: hearing because that's what the media cares about, a built-in audience.
• 15:57
  Speaker 1: And the reason why people started to care in the
• 16:00
  Speaker 1: media about the Lindsay Clancy case is because of that
• 16:03
  Speaker 1: built-in audience. Karen Reid got acquitted because she was somehow
• 16:08
  Speaker 1: able to develop a built-in fan base and audience. that's
• 16:13
  Speaker 1: going to tune in whenever the subject comes up. Well,
• 16:18
  Speaker 1: once it gets into the realm of a story that
• 16:20
  Speaker 1: the media goes, oh, this is instantaneous ratings bump because
• 16:24
  Speaker 1: we've got a Lindsay Clancy fan base, the last thing
• 16:27
  Speaker 1: they're going to do is offend that fan base. So
• 16:30
  Speaker 1: just like they did with OJ Simpson, they pretend that
• 16:33
  Speaker 1: this is a legitimate case. Yeah, they'll talk about all
• 16:37
  Speaker 1: the evidence and they'll talk about how, you know, She
• 16:41
  Speaker 1: actually admits to being guilty, but they give way, way
• 16:45
  Speaker 1: too much respect to whatever the hell her side of
• 16:48
  Speaker 1: the case is. And they did that with Kevin Reddington
• 16:51
  Speaker 1: in spades. They love Kevin Reddington because he understands how
• 16:54
  Speaker 1: much the media loves this case. And he gives them
• 16:57
  Speaker 1: the faux drama that they want, like that ridiculous appeal
• 17:00
  Speaker 1: to the Massachusetts State Supreme Court. An antic very similar
• 17:05
  Speaker 1: to a lot of what the Dream Team did during
• 17:06
  Speaker 1: the OJ Simpson case. And so- Getting a fan base
• 17:12
  Speaker 1: in the modern media era is key, is key. One,
• 17:17
  Speaker 1: because it gets your case traction and because the media
• 17:22
  Speaker 1: will be afraid during that coverage to offend your fan base,
• 17:27
  Speaker 1: especially when your fan base is rabid and crazy and illogical,
• 17:32
  Speaker 1: like these woke cat ladies, these middle-aged white women that
• 17:36
  Speaker 1: love Lindsay Clancy for some bizarre reason. So the media
• 17:41
  Speaker 1: part of this is incredibly important. And the real media bias,
• 17:46
  Speaker 1: the media bias that doesn't just impact the potential verdict,
• 17:50
  Speaker 1: because remember, this matters. It matters, especially in a case
• 17:55
  Speaker 1: where the jury is not sequestered, where the jury is
• 17:59
  Speaker 1: seeing a crowd outside the courtroom wearing pink every day.
• 18:04
  Speaker 1: That matters significantly. But it also... with regard to the
• 18:11
  Speaker 1: public at large, especially with a midterm election coming up,
• 18:15
  Speaker 1: the real media bias here is this. And this is stark,
• 18:20
  Speaker 1: and this is significant, and no one else will mention this.
• 18:24
  Speaker 1: If this case had been about a pro-life abortion clinic
• 18:32
  Speaker 1: bomber who killed three people, right? And They did not
• 18:40
  Speaker 1: get convicted because of one holdout pro-life juror. And the
• 18:46
  Speaker 1: evidence was overwhelming. Guess what would happen? Every single Republican
• 18:54
  Speaker 1: in the country would be forced to condemn that because
• 19:01
  Speaker 1: the news media would know this puts Republicans in an
• 19:05
  Speaker 1: impossible situation because if they condemn it, there's a good
• 19:09
  Speaker 1: chance they're going to offend at least a portion of
• 19:12
  Speaker 1: their most ardent fan base, pro-lifers. So they know they've
• 19:18
  Speaker 1: got them in a tough spot, and they would absolutely
• 19:21
  Speaker 1: never relent until every Republican was forced to answer a
• 19:25
  Speaker 1: question or two or three about that situation. But in
• 19:30
  Speaker 1: this circumstance, we do not see the converse. We do
• 19:34
  Speaker 1: not see, I've not seen one Democrat, I'm not saying
• 19:37
  Speaker 1: it hasn't happened, I haven't seen it. I've not seen
• 19:39
  Speaker 1: one Democrat who has been forced to answer the very
• 19:42
  Speaker 1: simple question, do you believe Lindsey Clancy is guilty or not?
• 19:49
  Speaker 1: Or what do you believe her punishment should be? Or
• 19:52
  Speaker 1: do you, you know, all sorts of different ways you
• 19:54
  Speaker 1: could ask this question. Every Democrat ought to be asked it,
• 19:58
  Speaker 1: but they won't be because the media knows this is
• 20:01
  Speaker 1: an impossible situation for Democrats. Because if they condemn Lindsey
• 20:05
  Speaker 1: Clancy and then a portion of their most ardent fan
• 20:08
  Speaker 1: base is going to be offended. But if they don't,
• 20:12
  Speaker 1: the majority of people who are semi-rational and have somewhat
• 20:16
  Speaker 1: of common sense, and some of them are even black
• 20:19
  Speaker 1: men who are in your fan base, your voting block,
• 20:23
  Speaker 1: traditionally for Democrats, they're gonna be offended. But the media
• 20:29
  Speaker 1: will not pursue that because they know. They're effectively acting
• 20:34
  Speaker 1: as the campaign managers for the Democratic Party on this
• 20:38
  Speaker 1: particular issue. We're not going to ask about it. It's
• 20:41
  Speaker 1: not that relevant. It would be fucking relevant to every
• 20:44
  Speaker 1: goddamn Republican in the country if this was reversed. And
• 20:48
  Speaker 1: that's the insidious media bias. Now, as far as the
• 20:52
  Speaker 1: impact of the mistrial, I think it probably hurts Clancy's
• 20:57
  Speaker 1: chances of being the 2028 Democratic presidential nominee. she's going
• 21:02
  Speaker 1: to be busy. She's not going to be free for
• 21:04
  Speaker 1: quite a while. It's going to take a while before
• 21:06
  Speaker 1: there's a new trial in all likelihood. If there is
• 21:10
  Speaker 1: a new trial and not a plea bargain, if I'm
• 21:12
  Speaker 1: the prosecution, I certainly listen to a plea bargain because
• 21:16
  Speaker 1: I don't know that I want to go through this again,
• 21:19
  Speaker 1: but if I have to, I absolutely will. While Clancy's
• 21:23
  Speaker 1: probably not going to be the 2028 Democratic presidential nominee,
• 21:28
  Speaker 1: she might still be a decent vice presidential candidate for
• 21:31
  Speaker 1: Gavin Newsom. I can see that combo. Newsom-Clancy, I think
• 21:36
  Speaker 1: that would work for Newsom's fan base. So that's still
• 21:41
  Speaker 1: an open question. But I don't think that she is
• 21:44
  Speaker 1: likely to be the 2028 Democratic presidential nominee. Now, had
• 21:48
  Speaker 1: she been acquitted, you know, effectively, then that would have
• 21:52
  Speaker 1: been possible, I guess, because that's how popular she is
• 21:55
  Speaker 1: in elements of the Democratic Party. And that's how crazy
• 21:58
  Speaker 1: elements of the Democratic Party really are. Another impact of
• 22:01
  Speaker 1: this that the media is whitewashing and basically pretending didn't
• 22:04
  Speaker 1: happen is that, you know, these kinds of precedents have significance.
• 22:11
  Speaker 1: They matter. I talk about this all the time. And
• 22:15
  Speaker 1: we already have a case in Illinois where where a
• 22:19
  Speaker 1: woman by the name of Cori Walsh, who was obsessed
• 22:23
  Speaker 1: with the Lindsay Clancy trial, hung her two-year-old, killed her
• 22:32
  Speaker 1: two-year-old by hanging. And while there's been some coverage of
• 22:37
  Speaker 1: the connection between this and the Clancy trial, not nearly enough. Again,
• 22:42
  Speaker 1: let me use the converse example. If there had been
• 22:46
  Speaker 1: an abortion clinic bombing, and then that person got acquitted,
• 22:50
  Speaker 1: and there had been another abortion clinic bombing by someone
• 22:53
  Speaker 1: who was obsessed with that trial. That's all we would
• 22:55
  Speaker 1: ever hear about. But this is one of those, let's
• 22:59
  Speaker 1: just move along. Move along, everyone. Let's move along. Nothing
• 23:02
  Speaker 1: to be seen here. Just a two-year-old being hanged to
• 23:06
  Speaker 1: death by her mother, who was obsessed with the Lindsay
• 23:09
  Speaker 1: Clancy trial. Nice job, everybody. Nice job. Of course, one
• 23:14
  Speaker 1: of the many, many aspects of the Clancy situation that
• 23:18
  Speaker 1: I find incredibly frustrating and infuriating is that Lindsay Clancy,
• 23:23
  Speaker 1: someone who clearly killed her innocent three very young children,
• 23:27
  Speaker 1: has gotten way more support, way, way, way, way more
• 23:31
  Speaker 1: due process than Jerry Sandusky ever did. And there's been
• 23:36
  Speaker 1: a lot of news over the last couple of weeks
• 23:38
  Speaker 1: involving Jerry Sandusky's appeal. And last week during this podcast,
• 23:44
  Speaker 1: I told you almost exactly what would happen. I mean,
• 23:49
  Speaker 1: as word for word, I could not have been more
• 23:52
  Speaker 1: accurate against what was in the conventional wisdom, what everyone
• 23:55
  Speaker 1: else was reporting, what would really transpire. And what I
• 24:00
  Speaker 1: told you at the time was that the hearing that
• 24:03
  Speaker 1: had been getting so much attention where so-called victim number 10,
• 24:06
  Speaker 1: Ryan Rittmeyer, was supposed to recant, was not going to occur.
• 24:11
  Speaker 1: And that part of why it was not going to
• 24:13
  Speaker 1: occur is that both publicly and privately, I have been
• 24:16
  Speaker 1: vehemently lobbying against it. I've been doing everything I possibly can.
• 24:21
  Speaker 1: I'm not going to pretend I'm the reason why it happened,
• 24:23
  Speaker 1: but I think I was a contributing factor. I mean,
• 24:25
  Speaker 1: I went to the mat to make sure that this
• 24:29
  Speaker 1: hearing did not happen because I knew, having interviewed Ryan
• 24:33
  Speaker 1: Rittmeyer for over two hours, and having read the tea
• 24:36
  Speaker 1: leaves properly, it was going to be a disaster. I
• 24:40
  Speaker 1: went so far as to effectively threaten to become a
• 24:44
  Speaker 1: prosecution witness, if need be, about the circumstances surrounding Ryan
• 24:50
  Speaker 1: Rittmeyer's alleged recantation, circumstances that were highly inappropriate and unethical. Now,
• 24:59
  Speaker 1: it never came to that. Cooler heads prevailed, but I
• 25:03
  Speaker 1: made it as clear as I possibly could that there
• 25:07
  Speaker 1: was only one path out of this. And I told
• 25:10
  Speaker 1: this to Frank Parlato, who I've had an extremely, extremely
• 25:15
  Speaker 1: volatile relationship with, who was essentially the Sandusky family spokesperson
• 25:21
  Speaker 1: or investigator. I don't know what the hell he is.
• 25:23
  Speaker 1: I believe him at times to be a lunatic and
• 25:26
  Speaker 1: a fraud. He's exhausting to deal with. I've probably spoken
• 25:31
  Speaker 1: to him for more than three hours over the last
• 25:34
  Speaker 1: 10 days or so, which is way, way, way, way
• 25:39
  Speaker 1: more than I have with my entire family. And I
• 25:42
  Speaker 1: hate every minute of it because I can't stand dealing
• 25:45
  Speaker 1: with this guy. But I did so because he asked
• 25:48
  Speaker 1: me for my help. He was clearly in a bind.
• 25:51
  Speaker 1: And I told him, here's the only way out of this.
• 25:54
  Speaker 1: We got to get a statement from Jerry Sandusky. I'll
• 25:57
  Speaker 1: write it up. You have a Zoom call scheduled. obviously
• 26:05
  Speaker 1: imperfect as this is, I need you to hold up
• 26:10
  Speaker 1: the statement that we've written on the screen so that
• 26:13
  Speaker 1: Jerry might be able to see it and then record
• 26:16
  Speaker 1: his voice reading it, assuming he agrees with it. Let
• 26:20
  Speaker 1: him make any changes that he wants. And then we
• 26:23
  Speaker 1: have that statement. And the essence of the statement is,
• 26:26
  Speaker 1: I'm withdrawing my Pennsylvania appeal and We have no chance
• 26:30
  Speaker 1: in Pennsylvania. It's an unfair process. We're going finally to
• 26:34
  Speaker 1: federal court, which is what I've been urging the Sandusky
• 26:38
  Speaker 1: team to do for many, many years and thought I
• 26:41
  Speaker 1: had Jerry Sandusky convinced a few years ago. He got
• 26:44
  Speaker 1: scared because he doesn't want to live in a world
• 26:48
  Speaker 1: where if he loses in federal court, he has nowhere
• 26:50
  Speaker 1: else to go. I understand that, but he's 82 years
• 26:54
  Speaker 1: old at this point. There's no chance. There never was
• 26:56
  Speaker 1: any chance of Pennsylvania winning. a state deeply, deeply, deeply
• 27:01
  Speaker 1: invested in the mythology of his case where all the
• 27:04
  Speaker 1: judges are elected. What was ever going to give him
• 27:07
  Speaker 1: any semblance of due process? Zero chance. And so I
• 27:11
  Speaker 1: told Frank, we've got to get this out. We've got
• 27:14
  Speaker 1: to get this out as fast as we can. We've
• 27:17
  Speaker 1: got to have Jerry's lawyers file this well before or
• 27:21
  Speaker 1: just before the holiday weekend. And we can at least
• 27:27
  Speaker 1: create a diversionary tactic. We can avoid what was going
• 27:31
  Speaker 1: to be a disastrous hearing, and we can get done,
• 27:34
  Speaker 1: most importantly, what we both agree is the only path here,
• 27:38
  Speaker 1: which is federal court. Frank completely agreed with me. The
• 27:42
  Speaker 1: weirdest part about my very, very, very strange relationship with
• 27:44
  Speaker 1: Frank is that I would say almost every single time
• 27:48
  Speaker 1: we have a conversation about this kind of stuff, about
• 27:51
  Speaker 1: what either has happened or what should happen or what
• 27:54
  Speaker 1: the strategy should be, Frank almost always agrees with me.
• 27:58
  Speaker 1: And he agreed with me in this particular situation. And
• 28:01
  Speaker 1: much to my surprise, he actually kind of got done
• 28:05
  Speaker 1: what I wanted to get done, at least at first.
• 28:09
  Speaker 1: Because I had very low expectations for this, having dealt
• 28:12
  Speaker 1: with the Sanduskys for far too long and dealt with
• 28:15
  Speaker 1: Jerry and understanding the very, very not ideal circumstances and
• 28:22
  Speaker 1: trying to get Jerry Zyduski from prison cold at the
• 28:26
  Speaker 1: age of 82 to give us a statement. But it
• 28:31
  Speaker 1: did happen. Now, Jerry completely changed the statement, which I
• 28:35
  Speaker 1: don't care about. It's his words. He can do whatever
• 28:37
  Speaker 1: the hell he wants. I just gave him a template
• 28:40
  Speaker 1: to work with. And the essence of it was, we
• 28:42
  Speaker 1: have no chance in state court. We're going to federal court.
• 28:46
  Speaker 1: And we need to get this, you know, he didn't
• 28:48
  Speaker 1: say this, but that was my intent. We need to
• 28:51
  Speaker 1: get this out ASAP so that this is appropriately understood
• 28:56
  Speaker 1: by the media and the public, at least, you know,
• 28:58
  Speaker 1: if we get lucky. But I knew we had to
• 29:01
  Speaker 1: at least be somewhat proactive about this. And so to
• 29:05
  Speaker 1: Frank Peralato's credit, and I've always tried to be fair
• 29:08
  Speaker 1: to Frank, he did what I asked. Jerry mostly got
• 29:11
  Speaker 1: it done. It took several different takes. The video was unusable,
• 29:17
  Speaker 1: which I knew it would be, but Frank was able
• 29:20
  Speaker 1: to piece together the audio in a way that was
• 29:23
  Speaker 1: a fairly cogent and I think compelling statement. And so
• 29:28
  Speaker 1: last week, this is what Jerry Sandusky said from prison
• 29:33
  Speaker 1: about what his legal situation was and where it was heading.
• 29:38
  Speaker 2: I have instructed my lawyers to cancel the September 8th
• 29:42
  Speaker 2: evidentiary hearing and ask the Center County Court for a
• 29:47
  Speaker 2: final order on my PCRA petition so that I can
• 29:52
  Speaker 2: take my case to federal court. Over the years, I
• 29:56
  Speaker 2: have brought 15 serious issues before Pennsylvania's courts, each one
• 30:03
  Speaker 2: showing I deserve a new trial. Every one was swatted down.
• 30:10
  Speaker 2: I have no faith this one would be treated differently,
• 30:14
  Speaker 2: no matter how compelling the evidence. In federal court, every
• 30:19
  Speaker 2: one of those issues can be heard together by judges
• 30:24
  Speaker 2: who have not already made up their minds about me.
• 30:31
  Speaker 2: This is overwhelmingly more important than any single hearing in
• 30:36
  Speaker 2: Center County, and I need to get there as fast
• 30:39
  Speaker 2: as possible. I'm 82 years old.
• 30:43
  Speaker 4: I'm innocent.
• 30:45
  Speaker 2: I intend to be alive when the truth is heard.
• 30:49
  Speaker 1: Now, was that statement perfect? No, but I thought it
• 30:53
  Speaker 1: was pretty good. I thought from an emotional perspective, it
• 30:56
  Speaker 1: was compelling. And I don't think that even I emphasize
• 31:00
  Speaker 1: enough just how unbelievably unusual, if not completely unprecedented it
• 31:08
  Speaker 1: is for an 82 year old serial pedophile to be
• 31:13
  Speaker 1: vehemently declaring his innocence and continuing to appeal almost 15
• 31:21
  Speaker 1: years after his arrest. I have never heard of a
• 31:25
  Speaker 1: case like that, ever. And frankly, Jerry is in a
• 31:30
  Speaker 1: situation where he would be in the least likely category
• 31:36
  Speaker 1: to be doing this if he was guilty because he
• 31:39
  Speaker 1: has no money and he has zero political capital and
• 31:43
  Speaker 1: he has the media completely and totally against him. And he's,
• 31:48
  Speaker 1: you know, allegedly a straight white male, which, of course,
• 31:51
  Speaker 1: is even stranger given the nature of the allegations. If
• 31:54
  Speaker 1: he was gay or black, he would at least have
• 31:57
  Speaker 1: some semblance of a chance. But he has none of
• 32:01
  Speaker 1: that for reasons I've stated a zillion times before. And
• 32:06
  Speaker 1: yet he's still appealing, which in itself ought to be
• 32:09
  Speaker 1: seen by rational people as extremely significant. But we don't
• 32:14
  Speaker 1: think straight. in general, and certainly not in this particular case.
• 32:18
  Speaker 1: So we get the statement. Now, what do we do
• 32:20
  Speaker 1: with it? I wanted to give it to ABC News
• 32:25
  Speaker 1: because I thought that they might be okay with this.
• 32:28
  Speaker 1: I had had some interaction with Dan Abrams, who I
• 32:32
  Speaker 1: used to work for, who used to be the legal
• 32:34
  Speaker 1: correspondent for Good Morning America, still a consultant there. I
• 32:39
  Speaker 1: thought maybe I could maybe get his help on this.
• 32:42
  Speaker 1: I had had some Contact with Aaron Katursky, who had
• 32:45
  Speaker 1: done a very significant report on the recantation hearing. But
• 32:51
  Speaker 1: Frank Perlotto had a really good feeling about an ESPN
• 32:55
  Speaker 1: reporter that he's been dealing with for quite a while
• 32:57
  Speaker 1: that he thought might believe Jerry is actually innocent. And
• 33:01
  Speaker 1: I'm like, oh, God, not ESPN. Please not ESPN. Please. No,
• 33:06
  Speaker 1: I fucking hate ESPN with every passion, every fiber of
• 33:11
  Speaker 1: my being forever. very obvious reasons, going all the way
• 33:15
  Speaker 1: back to the beginning of the story in November of 2011.
• 33:17
  Speaker 1: And on a daily basis, my disdain, my ire, my
• 33:22
  Speaker 1: anger at ESPN for a number of reasons continues to increase.
• 33:27
  Speaker 1: But I also know ESPN is very influential, significant. If
• 33:32
  Speaker 1: it gets reported by ESPN, it's going to get picked
• 33:34
  Speaker 1: up by everybody else in the ABC family anyway, as
• 33:39
  Speaker 1: well as in the sports world. And I said, Frank,
• 33:43
  Speaker 1: this is on you. I have not dealt with this guy.
• 33:46
  Speaker 1: I don't believe it. I do not believe ESPN is
• 33:49
  Speaker 1: going to give us a fair shake, but we got
• 33:52
  Speaker 1: to get this out ASAP because the holiday weekend's coming
• 33:58
  Speaker 1: and we need to get ahead of this. So begrudgingly,
• 34:03
  Speaker 1: I let Frank do what he wanted to do, which
• 34:04
  Speaker 1: was to send it to this ESPN reporter. And ESPN
• 34:09
  Speaker 1: did a story on it. And it wasn't that bad
• 34:12
  Speaker 1: from a content perspective, but it was terrible from every
• 34:16
  Speaker 1: other standpoint. The most ridiculous part was, for some reason,
• 34:20
  Speaker 1: despite my urging Frank to make sure that they use
• 34:25
  Speaker 1: the fucking audio, they did not use the fucking audio.
• 34:28
  Speaker 1: How the hell do you... They quoted Sandusky, but they
• 34:33
  Speaker 1: did not actually use the audio. And I don't know
• 34:35
  Speaker 1: if that's just incompetence, laziness, or whether or not They
• 34:40
  Speaker 1: felt like this statement is pretty compelling in audio, but
• 34:44
  Speaker 1: let's make it as boring as possible. We're going to
• 34:47
  Speaker 1: put it in print. I don't know. That's conspiratorial. But
• 34:51
  Speaker 1: it doesn't make any sense to me. And I even
• 34:53
  Speaker 1: anticipated I was all over this. I said, Frank, are
• 34:56
  Speaker 1: they going to use the audio? Because he kept being
• 34:59
  Speaker 1: in touch with this guy as he was writing the
• 35:01
  Speaker 1: article for ESPN. And Frank says, I don't know, which
• 35:04
  Speaker 1: to me, that's immediately. No, they're not going to use it.
• 35:07
  Speaker 1: I said, Frank, you've got to get back to him
• 35:09
  Speaker 1: and tell him you've got to use the damn audio,
• 35:12
  Speaker 1: which Frank claimed that he did. I don't know if
• 35:13
  Speaker 1: he did or not. But there was no audio being used.
• 35:16
  Speaker 1: And so because ESPN didn't use the audio, the audio
• 35:20
  Speaker 1: was not used in news reports about this development that
• 35:24
  Speaker 1: Jerry Sadowski was pulling out of Pennsylvania court and moving
• 35:29
  Speaker 1: into federal court. And Frank and I had numerous calls
• 35:34
  Speaker 1: with other reporters in the aftermath of all this. He
• 35:38
  Speaker 1: asked me to be on a conference call with him
• 35:40
  Speaker 1: multiple times. And we actually had one reporter, I think
• 35:43
  Speaker 1: from CNN, mystified as to why ESPN didn't use the audio.
• 35:49
  Speaker 1: But they didn't. And I didn't like the way that
• 35:52
  Speaker 1: they configured the article. It really wasn't even a standalone article.
• 35:56
  Speaker 1: I don't think they tweeted it. And yes, it got
• 36:00
  Speaker 1: picked up a little bit, but it was nowhere near
• 36:03
  Speaker 1: as impactful as it should have been. And I wanted
• 36:06
  Speaker 1: the audio. to be a huge part of this story
• 36:09
  Speaker 1: because it humanizes Jerry Sandusky. So I then released the
• 36:13
  Speaker 1: audio myself on my X-Feed. I think it's got like
• 36:18
  Speaker 1: about half a million views. I don't know what the
• 36:21
  Speaker 1: hell that really means in real life or not. So
• 36:23
  Speaker 1: it got some traction, but it did not get anywhere
• 36:26
  Speaker 1: near the traction that it should have from a news perspective. And,
• 36:30
  Speaker 1: you know, ESPN is, is once again to blame. As
• 36:34
  Speaker 1: far as Frank Peralato goes, it's been incredibly frustrating, aggravating, draining,
• 36:41
  Speaker 1: exhausting to deal with him. He is, to his credit,
• 36:45
  Speaker 1: I think been chastened by this Ryan Rittmeyer situation. You
• 36:50
  Speaker 1: may recall that he tried to facilitate Ryan Rittmeyer's recantation.
• 36:55
  Speaker 1: He had Ryan Rittmeyer live at his house in the
• 36:58
  Speaker 1: Florida Keys for several months. Ryan dated the daughter of
• 37:03
  Speaker 1: Frank's longtime companion, which was completely inappropriate. There was effectively
• 37:10
  Speaker 1: a contract to be part of a documentary film Frank
• 37:13
  Speaker 1: is trying to make. So all of this, in my view,
• 37:16
  Speaker 1: was completely ridiculous. I mean, Frank kept saying, I'm trying
• 37:20
  Speaker 1: to throw a Hail Mary pass here with Ryan. And
• 37:23
  Speaker 1: I kept telling him, Frank, you're running a Hail Mary
• 37:26
  Speaker 1: play out of an illegal formation. Even if by some
• 37:29
  Speaker 1: miracle it lands, it's going to get called back. We're
• 37:33
  Speaker 1: under very, very difficult circumstances, incredible scrutiny. Nothing like this
• 37:40
  Speaker 1: is going to possibly pass muster. There's no way. And
• 37:44
  Speaker 1: I think Frank finally acknowledged that and has been a
• 37:48
  Speaker 1: bit easier to deal with because he's been chastened by
• 37:51
  Speaker 1: his miscalculation, his gross miscalculation on Ryan Rittmeyer. I mean, essentially,
• 37:58
  Speaker 1: Jerry's appeal lost a year. Now, Frank would disagree with
• 38:01
  Speaker 1: that because he claims, well, Ryan wasn't the only part
• 38:04
  Speaker 1: of this most recent appeal. And I said, Frank, without Ryan,
• 38:07
  Speaker 1: the rest of the appeal, while it's interesting, doesn't have
• 38:10
  Speaker 1: any juice. And so the reality is at least a
• 38:15
  Speaker 1: year of Jerry Zanusky's life was wasted waiting for this
• 38:20
  Speaker 1: appeal hearing to happen. And then it never did. And
• 38:23
  Speaker 1: the reason was because I knew, I knew from the
• 38:26
  Speaker 1: moment I interviewed Ryan Rittmeyer, that there's no possible way
• 38:31
  Speaker 1: Ryan Rittmeyer is going to go into a public court
• 38:34
  Speaker 1: in front of a judge, in front of the prosecution,
• 38:36
  Speaker 1: in front of a crowd, in front of the media,
• 38:39
  Speaker 1: and completely recant his trial testimony. It's just not in him.
• 38:46
  Speaker 1: He's not an honest person. He's a bad dude. And
• 38:50
  Speaker 1: as I rewatched the interview, thanks to Mike Agavino, our
• 38:55
  Speaker 1: executive producer, finding it, we had a technical problem for
• 38:58
  Speaker 1: reasons I'm not even going to get into. But Mike
• 39:01
  Speaker 1: had to go to extraordinary lengths just to be able
• 39:04
  Speaker 1: to get us access to the interview. And when I
• 39:08
  Speaker 1: rewatched it, because I thought I was never going to
• 39:11
  Speaker 1: probably release it because Frank was threatening to sue me
• 39:15
  Speaker 1: if I ever released it. But as I watched it,
• 39:18
  Speaker 1: my overwhelming sense was, This guy's a bad dude and
• 39:22
  Speaker 1: he's not to be trusted. And so this is going
• 39:26
  Speaker 1: to be a disaster. And I knew there had not been.
• 39:30
  Speaker 1: a major change because had there been a major change
• 39:34
  Speaker 1: in Ryan's story, I would have heard about it because
• 39:37
  Speaker 1: Frank would have bragged about it. Now, according to Frank,
• 39:42
  Speaker 1: here's what actually transpired with Ryan Rittmeyer. About A month
• 39:48
  Speaker 1: and a half ago, or actually two months ago now,
• 39:51
  Speaker 1: they had a meeting with Ryan and Frank and Jerry's
• 39:54
  Speaker 1: lawyers that lasted like four hours long. And by the
• 39:59
  Speaker 1: end of it, it sounded as if Ryan was within
• 40:03
  Speaker 1: a whisker of recanting all of his allegations against Jerry Sandusky.
• 40:09
  Speaker 1: Because in my interview, he recanted virtually everything. except he
• 40:14
  Speaker 1: kept holding on to these one or two very vague,
• 40:17
  Speaker 1: ever-changing episodes that don't have a place, don't have a date,
• 40:23
  Speaker 1: don't have any details. They feel very made up, and
• 40:27
  Speaker 1: there's certainly no evidence to support them. But according to Frank,
• 40:31
  Speaker 1: Ryan essentially said something to the effect of, maybe my
• 40:36
  Speaker 1: memory is just playing with me on this. That's my
• 40:39
  Speaker 1: interpretation of what Frank said. And I felt that that
• 40:43
  Speaker 1: was significant because one of the things that I gleaned
• 40:48
  Speaker 1: from the second or third watching of the video is
• 40:51
  Speaker 1: that even though Ryan had said he didn't go to
• 40:55
  Speaker 1: the official therapy sessions that were offered by Andrew Shubin,
• 40:59
  Speaker 1: the lawyer who was so influential in this case, that
• 41:03
  Speaker 1: he did go to therapy and I don't have a,
• 41:06
  Speaker 1: I don't have the details on what the hell that means,
• 41:09
  Speaker 1: but it did feel as if while watching the interview
• 41:14
  Speaker 1: with Ryan, that that might be what was happening, that
• 41:17
  Speaker 1: he's got this, this false memory that's been implanted somewhere
• 41:22
  Speaker 1: in his brain that he can't shake. So he has
• 41:24
  Speaker 1: no details of it. but he feels like they're there.
• 41:29
  Speaker 1: So he knows that the specific stuff that he testified
• 41:32
  Speaker 1: to at trial is false, like the silver convertible and
• 41:36
  Speaker 1: all that, but he still has this vague memory of
• 41:39
  Speaker 1: having been abused by Jerry Sandusky. To me, this reminds
• 41:43
  Speaker 1: me a lot of Christine Blasey Ford and Brett Kavanaugh.
• 41:49
  Speaker 1: I believe that that's largely what happened with her, that
• 41:52
  Speaker 1: her memory was was implanted by a therapist. In fact,
• 41:56
  Speaker 1: that's where she first told this story. And that's why
• 41:58
  Speaker 1: there's no details, no date, no place. She doesn't know
• 42:02
  Speaker 1: how she got back home, which would have been, you know,
• 42:05
  Speaker 1: probably the worst part of the entire situation, especially since
• 42:08
  Speaker 1: she was only in her bathing suit. And it was,
• 42:11
  Speaker 1: you know, in a time period with no cell phones
• 42:14
  Speaker 1: and all that. So that to me resonated. And interestingly,
• 42:20
  Speaker 1: when I said that to Frank, Frank seemingly changed his opinion,
• 42:24
  Speaker 1: and Frank was there. At the time, Frank thought Ryan
• 42:27
  Speaker 1: was just lying, but now he's kind of warming to
• 42:31
  Speaker 1: the idea that maybe there is this lingering implanted memory
• 42:35
  Speaker 1: that is impacting Ryan. Who knows what the reality is?
• 42:40
  Speaker 1: I'm positive Ryan was not abused by Jerry Sadowski. I
• 42:43
  Speaker 1: knew that before I interviewed him. I was even more
• 42:46
  Speaker 1: sure of it after I interviewed him. And And there's
• 42:50
  Speaker 1: nothing that would change my mind because there's never going
• 42:52
  Speaker 1: to be any proof otherwise. And there's never going to
• 42:54
  Speaker 1: be any logic otherwise. And Ryan is just not an honest,
• 42:59
  Speaker 1: good faith actor, which, of course, is part of the
• 43:02
  Speaker 1: problem here. I do find it funny that there are
• 43:05
  Speaker 1: people who are critics of me and the defense of
• 43:09
  Speaker 1: Jerry Sadusky who will say, well, see, this was an
• 43:12
  Speaker 1: unreliable witness. No shit, it was an unreliable witness. Why
• 43:15
  Speaker 1: did you rely on him the first time, Woody? He
• 43:18
  Speaker 1: testified at trial, and what he says was now pejorative testimony.
• 43:24
  Speaker 1: But the reality is, whether it was lying, whether it
• 43:28
  Speaker 1: was an implanted memory, whatever it was, even though they
• 43:31
  Speaker 1: got Ryan apparently to the two-yard line, Ryan disappeared after that.
• 43:36
  Speaker 1: And that didn't surprise me at all, because I don't
• 43:40
  Speaker 1: think that Ryan had it in him to do what
• 43:42
  Speaker 1: would have been required in this particular situation with all
• 43:45
  Speaker 1: the bright lights and the big stage and everything else,
• 43:48
  Speaker 1: especially once this thing got a lot of publicity. Once
• 43:51
  Speaker 1: this thing got a lot of publicity, I knew there
• 43:55
  Speaker 1: was no way that the guy I interviewed was going
• 43:57
  Speaker 1: to be able to stand up and tell the world
• 44:00
  Speaker 1: that he was not abused by Jerry Sandusky, that he lied,
• 44:03
  Speaker 1: and that Jerry Sandusky is an innocent man. His wife
• 44:07
  Speaker 1: would have that kind of courage, Jasmine, and she was
• 44:10
  Speaker 1: willing to testify if Ryan had testified. And I've interviewed
• 44:14
  Speaker 1: her and she's spectacular. But Ryan is not nearly as good,
• 44:17
  Speaker 1: we're near as good a person as Jasmine is. How
• 44:20
  Speaker 1: the hell they ended up married, I have no idea.
• 44:22
  Speaker 1: Because Jasmine is amazing and Ryan is an asshole. But
• 44:29
  Speaker 1: I want to play one clip of this interview. I
• 44:34
  Speaker 1: got permission from Frank. I was going to do it
• 44:36
  Speaker 1: regardless of whether or not I had permission or not.
• 44:39
  Speaker 1: I got permission from Frank to finally release some clips
• 44:44
  Speaker 1: from this interview. And since Mike Agavino had gotten into
• 44:46
  Speaker 1: so much trouble to get us access to it, and
• 44:50
  Speaker 1: because it was newsworthy, I went through the whole thing
• 44:53
  Speaker 1: again with a fine tooth comb, and I found six
• 44:56
  Speaker 1: clips that I thought were relevant and probably wouldn't be
• 45:01
  Speaker 1: grossly misunderstood. So I posted them on my ex account.
• 45:05
  Speaker 1: So if you're interested in this, go to my ex account.
• 45:08
  Speaker 1: It's pretty easily found. Just look me up and Ryan
• 45:12
  Speaker 1: Rittmeyer or whatever. And there are six pretty substantial clips
• 45:17
  Speaker 1: from that interview. And I put those out, one, because
• 45:19
  Speaker 1: I wanted to prove to people that the interview happened,
• 45:22
  Speaker 1: that it was exactly as I told you it was.
• 45:25
  Speaker 1: And also because I do think that if you're a
• 45:27
  Speaker 1: rational person and you watch these six clips, you're going
• 45:31
  Speaker 1: to agree with me that Ryan Rittmeyer was not abused
• 45:35
  Speaker 1: by Jerry Sandusky. And that obviously has significance because he's
• 45:39
  Speaker 1: one of only eight adult men who testified against Jerry
• 45:42
  Speaker 1: Sandusky that they were abused during his trial in 2012.
• 45:48
  Speaker 1: But I'm just going to play one of those six
• 45:50
  Speaker 1: clips here because it's the one that I've referenced several
• 45:52
  Speaker 1: times before. And not that anyone who's a subscriber to
• 45:56
  Speaker 1: this podcast is really going to doubt me. I hope not.
• 45:58
  Speaker 1: Although there are a few people, I think, who listen
• 46:01
  Speaker 1: to this podcast purely because they want to be able
• 46:04
  Speaker 1: to figure out that I'm actually a fraud or that
• 46:06
  Speaker 1: I'm wrong about this or that. But I'm not. I
• 46:10
  Speaker 1: always tell you exactly what the truth is. I think
• 46:12
  Speaker 1: this situation has once again proven that in spades. And
• 46:15
  Speaker 1: I've been saying for almost a year now that the
• 46:20
  Speaker 1: most memorable moment to me of this interview with Ryan
• 46:23
  Speaker 1: Rittmeyer was when I asked Ryan about having lost his
• 46:28
  Speaker 1: money from Penn State. He got a settlement of over
• 46:30
  Speaker 1: $ 5 million. I want to know where the money went.
• 46:33
  Speaker 1: And where the money went, I thought was pretty darn telling.
• 46:36
  Speaker 1: In a rational world, I think it's relevant, beyond relevant,
• 46:41
  Speaker 1: that you end up blowing your sexual abuse money on
• 46:47
  Speaker 1: frivolous shit, especially when you're not a teenager. You're an adult.
• 46:51
  Speaker 1: You're married. You're a married adult. So when you blow
• 46:56
  Speaker 1: it on splurging on, in his own words, toys and
• 47:00
  Speaker 1: gambling and drugs and other stuff, To me, that's not
• 47:05
  Speaker 1: consistent with a true sexual abuse victim. But then he
• 47:09
  Speaker 1: referred to himself as a lottery winner, in my view,
• 47:14
  Speaker 1: in an effort to try to substantiate why he lost
• 47:17
  Speaker 1: the money so fast. In fact, gave himself credit because
• 47:21
  Speaker 1: he didn't lose it as fast as most lottery winners do.
• 47:24
  Speaker 1: And then Frank Parlato came in to save his ass
• 47:27
  Speaker 1: because I was trying to be very nice. I was
• 47:30
  Speaker 1: under great restrictions during this. this interview because Frank was
• 47:34
  Speaker 1: very protective of Ryan. But I also wanted to make
• 47:37
  Speaker 1: sure that the point was made. And when he said
• 47:39
  Speaker 1: lottery winner, I was ready to pounce. And Frank stepped
• 47:44
  Speaker 1: in like his defense attorney to save him. And here's
• 47:47
  Speaker 1: what that encounter that I've referenced several times in this
• 47:49
  Speaker 1: podcast before actually sounded like. How much money did you
• 47:54
  Speaker 1: actually get? I know the settlement was $ 5. 5 million.
• 47:58
  Speaker 3: They took 40%. I got 3.3.
• 48:02
  Speaker 1: You got $ 3. 3 million. And where's that money now?
• 48:07
  Speaker 3: It's gone. I have some assets left, but not much.
• 48:11
  Speaker 1: What did you spend it on?
• 48:15
  Speaker 3: I bought a house. I bought some vehicles. I bought
• 48:18
  Speaker 3: some toys. I gambled a lot of it. I fell
• 48:23
  Speaker 3: into a drug addiction. And.
• 48:29
  Speaker 3: I went into some business with some people that really
• 48:34
  Speaker 3: screwed me over. I mean, this.
• 48:37
  Speaker 1: Has not been that long. You got paid this money
• 48:40
  Speaker 1: about what? 11, 12 years ago, something like that.
• 48:44
  Speaker 3: Yeah.
• 48:44
  Speaker 1: Is that right? Yeah.
• 48:47
  Speaker 3: And this is a lot longer than most people would have.
• 48:51
  Speaker 1: You think it took you longer to spend the $ 3
• 48:53
  Speaker 1: million than most people?
• 48:55
  Speaker 3: Yeah, absolutely. If you look at the statistics on people
• 48:57
  Speaker 3: that win the lottery, they're broke within two years.
• 49:01
  Speaker 1: And so you think of yourself as a lottery winner?
• 49:04
  Speaker 3: No, that's not what I said. I said people that
• 49:07
  Speaker 3: come into that type of money are broke within two years.
• 49:10
  Speaker 1: But you did refer to your situation as being like
• 49:13
  Speaker 1: a lottery winner.
• 49:17
  Speaker 3: No, it's not what I refer to my situation as.
• 49:21
  Speaker 4: I think he meant just to compare it to a
• 49:23
  Speaker 4: lottery winner. People that come into sudden money oftentimes dissipated quicker.
• 49:31
  Speaker 4: I think that's true of some of the other people
• 49:34
  Speaker 4: who did get money from what I've been able to see.
• 49:38
  Speaker 4: The money's gone. I think that's the case with Aaron Fisher.
• 49:42
  Speaker 1: It does seem to be the case with a lot
• 49:44
  Speaker 1: of the lottery winners in this case. Now, I'm not
• 49:48
  Speaker 1: claiming that that clip is, you know, game set match
• 49:54
  Speaker 1: or a slam dunk. But to me, when you understand
• 49:57
  Speaker 1: the full context of all this, that's pretty powerful stuff.
• 50:02
  Speaker 1: It also shows you the massive conflict of interest that
• 50:05
  Speaker 1: Frank Peralotto had in this circumstance. And for those that
• 50:10
  Speaker 1: have been saying, but John, he didn't really do that.
• 50:12
  Speaker 1: He didn't really say he was a lottery winner. Well,
• 50:14
  Speaker 1: why did he get, and this is more clear when
• 50:16
  Speaker 1: you watch the video and you can see the video
• 50:19
  Speaker 1: on my Facebook page. And again, on my ex page,
• 50:24
  Speaker 1: when you watch the video, it's very clear. He realizes
• 50:27
  Speaker 1: he screwed up. He gets angry. He gets quiet. His wife, Jasmine,
• 50:33
  Speaker 1: a hundred percent agrees with me and my interpretation of
• 50:36
  Speaker 1: what really transpired there. And so I find it significant.
• 50:40
  Speaker 1: But I played it mainly because I just want to
• 50:43
  Speaker 1: prove to you one more time that when I tell
• 50:45
  Speaker 1: you something that I have witnessed, you can take it
• 50:48
  Speaker 1: to the bank. I'm not going to lie. I'm not
• 50:52
  Speaker 1: going to exaggerate. I'm going to tell you exactly the
• 50:54
  Speaker 1: way that it is for better or for worse. And
• 50:58
  Speaker 1: I continue to do that with regard to the Sandusky case.
• 51:02
  Speaker 1: Because I am so far ahead of the curve when
• 51:06
  Speaker 1: it comes to going through the grieving process of this
• 51:09
  Speaker 1: situation that it gives me some advantages and some disadvantages.
• 51:15
  Speaker 1: My greatest advantage in this case, my superpower, if you will,
• 51:20
  Speaker 1: this reminds me of something that Ricky Gervais, the comedian,
• 51:22
  Speaker 1: says from time to time, my superpower is that I
• 51:24
  Speaker 1: don't give a shit. I've already accepted defeat, and I
• 51:28
  Speaker 1: already hate everyone in the case. I fucking hate Dottie Sandusky.
• 51:32
  Speaker 1: I hate Frank Perlato. I really kind of have disdain
• 51:35
  Speaker 1: for Jerry Sandusky, even though I have empathy and sympathy
• 51:37
  Speaker 1: for him. I fucking hate everybody. I fucking really hate
• 51:41
  Speaker 1: Scott Paterno. I have disdain for Sue Paterno, Jay Paterno.
• 51:45
  Speaker 1: I fucking hate everybody. So I don't care. I do
• 51:48
  Speaker 1: not care about being liked. Never cared about being liked,
• 51:51
  Speaker 1: but in this particular situation, I could not care less.
• 51:55
  Speaker 1: I'm not trying to curry favor with anybody. And that
• 51:58
  Speaker 1: provides me with some advantages, but also probably puts me
• 52:02
  Speaker 1: in a disadvantageous position from time to time as well.
• 52:06
  Speaker 1: And I fully acknowledge, I've said this many, many times before,
• 52:10
  Speaker 1: if by some miracle this all gets fixed, which is
• 52:13
  Speaker 1: never going to happen, there's nothing good in it for me.
• 52:17
  Speaker 1: I'm going to be the villain. I've said that many times.
• 52:20
  Speaker 1: I'm sure people don't believe me. I'm the villain because
• 52:23
  Speaker 1: people will need someone to blame for why they didn't
• 52:27
  Speaker 1: believe this story. And it will be on me because
• 52:32
  Speaker 1: I wasn't a celebrity and I was an asshole and
• 52:35
  Speaker 1: I didn't do it right. And I blew it on
• 52:38
  Speaker 1: the Today Show. Whatever it was, I will be the
• 52:42
  Speaker 1: person who gets blamed. I get that. I fully get it.
• 52:47
  Speaker 1: I'm actually willing to accept that if this was ever
• 52:49
  Speaker 1: going to get fixed, but it's never going to get fixed.
• 52:52
  Speaker 1: It's never going to get fixed ever. And, you know,
• 52:57
  Speaker 1: just a couple of days ago, even after I thought
• 53:00
  Speaker 1: we had put this thing to bed with regard to
• 53:03
  Speaker 1: going to federal court, Jerry Sadowski got cold feet again.
• 53:06
  Speaker 1: And he and his jailhouse buddy put together a new
• 53:12
  Speaker 1: Pennsylvania appeal that which Frank told me was absolute garbage,
• 53:17
  Speaker 1: but Frank didn't have the balls to tell him was garbage.
• 53:20
  Speaker 1: And Frank actually called me very worried that Jerry was
• 53:23
  Speaker 1: going to renege on the desire to go into federal court.
• 53:29
  Speaker 1: Of course, I lost him on Frank at that point.
• 53:31
  Speaker 1: I convinced Frank that you have to threaten to leave
• 53:34
  Speaker 1: the case if he does that. And you can tell
• 53:36
  Speaker 1: Jerry that I will absolutely go rogue with every fiber
• 53:40
  Speaker 1: of my being. And that's a promise, not a threat.
• 53:44
  Speaker 1: Because there's no fucking way I'm dealing with that. No way.
• 53:48
  Speaker 1: I mean, the only thing possibly good out of this
• 53:51
  Speaker 1: was getting into federal court. And I believe, based upon
• 53:55
  Speaker 1: the statements of Jerry's attorney at the hearing that actually
• 53:58
  Speaker 1: did take place, but it was purely a formality, just
• 54:01
  Speaker 1: to have Jerry withdraw via Zoom out of Pennsylvania court,
• 54:06
  Speaker 1: and I believe express his intention to go into federal court,
• 54:10
  Speaker 1: the lawyers certainly told the media that that's what they're
• 54:13
  Speaker 1: going to do. So I'm still hopeful and anticipating that
• 54:17
  Speaker 1: that's where things are going. But Jerry, frankly, is, I think,
• 54:22
  Speaker 1: losing his marbles. And it's understandable. He's 82. How he's
• 54:27
  Speaker 1: possibly survived all of this over the last 15 years
• 54:32
  Speaker 1: is beyond my comprehension. I got to give him a
• 54:34
  Speaker 1: lot of credit for that. I mean, the guy's somehow
• 54:37
  Speaker 1: still standing, still appealing. still somewhat cogent, has not been
• 54:43
  Speaker 1: harmed in prison. They keep punishing him for bullshit, even
• 54:48
  Speaker 1: though everybody apparently that is serving time with him knows
• 54:50
  Speaker 1: that he's innocent. So, I mean, look, I have a
• 54:53
  Speaker 1: great deal of empathy and sympathy for Jerry Sandusky, but
• 54:59
  Speaker 1: I also have a lot of frustration because he's very naive.
• 55:02
  Speaker 1: He's very stubborn. And the idea that he was going
• 55:06
  Speaker 1: to renege after giving us the statement that he was
• 55:09
  Speaker 1: going into federal court is just unconscionable. So I do
• 55:14
  Speaker 1: believe that that problem has been nipped in the bud,
• 55:17
  Speaker 1: but it wouldn't shock me, given the nature of Jerry Sandusky,
• 55:22
  Speaker 1: if somehow that changed. I don't think it will. If
• 55:26
  Speaker 1: it does, there's going to be hell to pay. But
• 55:30
  Speaker 1: I don't think that it will. But going into federal
• 55:33
  Speaker 1: court is not a panacea. In my view, it's too late.
• 55:39
  Speaker 1: It's way too This should have been done 10 years ago,
• 55:42
  Speaker 1: 10 years ago when Jerry was 72 and still had
• 55:48
  Speaker 1: his wits about him. By the way, the rules in
• 55:52
  Speaker 1: federal appeals have been changed in a way that is
• 55:55
  Speaker 1: very adverse, in my opinion, to Jerry Sandusky's federal appeal.
• 56:00
  Speaker 1: He still has plenty of tremendous appeal issues, but one
• 56:05
  Speaker 1: of the better ones I think was effectively taken away
• 56:08
  Speaker 1: by the Supreme Court in the intervening years. And so,
• 56:14
  Speaker 1: you know, this is gonna be a long process. I
• 56:18
  Speaker 1: have no idea how long, but best case, best case scenario.
• 56:24
  Speaker 1: Jerry's what, 85 if he's still alive? By the way,
• 56:28
  Speaker 1: it's amazing how many people he's outlived in this case.
• 56:32
  Speaker 1: He outlived Alan Myers, the boy in the shower. How
• 56:36
  Speaker 1: amazing is that? I have not emphasized that enough. The
• 56:40
  Speaker 1: boy in the shower got paid millions and millions of
• 56:43
  Speaker 1: dollars for a story he didn't even testify to because
• 56:47
  Speaker 1: he knew it was false. And he's already dead, apparently,
• 56:51
  Speaker 1: although I don't know this, because of alcoholism. Jerry Sandusky
• 56:56
  Speaker 1: goes through fucking hell and is still alive, somewhat kicking
• 57:00
  Speaker 1: and appealing. Not to mention all the other people that
• 57:02
  Speaker 1: have died in this case. absolutely amazing that Jerry is
• 57:08
  Speaker 1: still alive. But even if everything goes perfectly in federal court,
• 57:13
  Speaker 1: which it never will, it never has in this entire case,
• 57:17
  Speaker 1: he's at least 85. And you know what will happen
• 57:21
  Speaker 1: at that point? The federal court will say, wow, this
• 57:25
  Speaker 1: is really crazy stuff that happened in Pennsylvania back in 2012.
• 57:29
  Speaker 1: We're going to demand a new trial. State of Pennsylvania
• 57:33
  Speaker 1: is must give Jerry Sandusky a new trial. And you
• 57:36
  Speaker 1: know what happens then? The prosecution says, the attorney general's
• 57:41
  Speaker 1: office says, well, you know, we'd love to put this
• 57:44
  Speaker 1: asshole child molester on trial again, but a lot of
• 57:49
  Speaker 1: the witnesses have died. The accusers don't want to have
• 57:52
  Speaker 1: to go through this again. They've moved on with their lives.
• 57:56
  Speaker 1: This is going to be putting them through too much. Mr.
• 57:58
  Speaker 1: Sandusky doesn't have long to live. Good luck to him
• 58:03
  Speaker 1: as he goes back into society as the most hated
• 58:05
  Speaker 1: man in America, which he ought to be. That's essentially
• 58:10
  Speaker 1: what would happen. Best case scenario, an 80-something, 85, 86-year-old
• 58:19
  Speaker 1: Jerry Sadusky is allowed to die at home with people
• 58:26
  Speaker 1: probably throwing eggs at his house. Okay, great. As I
• 58:32
  Speaker 1: joked with our executive producer, Mike Agavino, this is like
• 58:37
  Speaker 1: in 2026, devoting your life to try to have sex
• 58:41
  Speaker 1: with Madonna. You know, it's a bizarre analogy, but it
• 58:45
  Speaker 1: actually works. Even if you somehow pull it off, what's
• 58:48
  Speaker 1: the reward? It's way too late. It's way too late.
• 58:53
  Speaker 1: There's no scenario where that's really all that great a thing.
• 58:58
  Speaker 1: And so I've accepted that. And it's been depressing for
• 59:05
  Speaker 1: me personally, very depressing. I went through a very, dark
• 59:11
  Speaker 1: 24 to 36 hours, not because things weren't working perfectly
• 59:17
  Speaker 1: with regard to the counter initiative with Jerry's statement and
• 59:24
  Speaker 1: what have you and the frustration of dealing with Frank Perlato.
• 59:27
  Speaker 1: And not because I was realizing that there's really no
• 59:30
  Speaker 1: hope here. I've known that for a long time. I
• 59:33
  Speaker 1: think there was pain in being forced to, at least
• 59:39
  Speaker 1: at some level, revisit this when I thought I had
• 59:42
  Speaker 1: put it to bed and now have people around me
• 59:48
  Speaker 1: expressing hope that this can still be fixed when I
• 59:52
  Speaker 1: know it cannot be fixed. There's no scenario where it
• 59:56
  Speaker 1: can be fixed. There's no scenario that's going to be
• 59:59
  Speaker 1: good for me. I have destroyed my life and career
• 1:00:02
  Speaker 1: over this. It's the dumbest thing I've ever done. Some
• 1:00:06
  Speaker 1: people think it's the best thing that any journalist has
• 1:00:09
  Speaker 1: done in the 21st century. It's the worst thing I've
• 1:00:12
  Speaker 1: ever done, which, by the way, is probably the perfect
• 1:00:15
  Speaker 1: proof of the death of journalism, because the incentive structures
• 1:00:18
  Speaker 1: are all wrong, especially in a highly controversial case. But
• 1:00:22
  Speaker 1: let me give you a really good example of why
• 1:00:23
  Speaker 1: I got so depressed. I don't have respect for many
• 1:00:29
  Speaker 1: media members, but one guy I do have respect for
• 1:00:32
  Speaker 1: is Dan Abrams. Used to work for him, was on
• 1:00:34
  Speaker 1: his News Nation show dozens and dozens of times. And
• 1:00:39
  Speaker 1: I think he's a very, very smart guy. And he
• 1:00:42
  Speaker 1: and I have communicated over the years about the Sandusky case,
• 1:00:44
  Speaker 1: but he's never interviewed me about it. We've never had
• 1:00:50
  Speaker 1: an extensive conversation. He's asked for information about it. I
• 1:00:53
  Speaker 1: thought at one point he might open his mind He's
• 1:00:57
  Speaker 1: obviously a very well-respected legal analyst. So he's got an
• 1:01:02
  Speaker 1: influence within that community. And I've been very, very, very,
• 1:01:07
  Speaker 1: very patient with Dan. And last week, I told you
• 1:01:11
  Speaker 1: that Dan had asked me on his Sirius XM radio
• 1:01:14
  Speaker 1: talk show. I was very excited about this. And we
• 1:01:19
  Speaker 1: didn't know if it was going to be a debate
• 1:01:20
  Speaker 1: or an interview. Well, long story short, and this is
• 1:01:23
  Speaker 1: so classic. for how this whole case has gone down
• 1:01:27
  Speaker 1: and why it's been such a source of anguish for
• 1:01:30
  Speaker 1: me in my life. So there's one thing I'm actually
• 1:01:33
  Speaker 1: looking forward to. Finally, I'm going to get a chance
• 1:01:37
  Speaker 1: publicly to convince Dan Abrams that I'm right after all
• 1:01:40
  Speaker 1: these years. I mean, something I've been building for this
• 1:01:45
  Speaker 1: for so long. In fact, at least in part, My
• 1:01:49
  Speaker 1: strong opposition to mask and vaccine mandates when I was
• 1:01:54
  Speaker 1: a senior columnist for Mediate was to prove to Dan
• 1:01:59
  Speaker 1: Abrams that I was right against conventional wisdom in this
• 1:02:03
  Speaker 1: particular situation, and that if in some way, shape, or form,
• 1:02:09
  Speaker 1: it hit his brain that, wait a minute, if Ziegler
• 1:02:11
  Speaker 1: was right about that, then maybe I should take a
• 1:02:13
  Speaker 1: look at what's going on with the Sandusky case. So
• 1:02:17
  Speaker 1: this has been A lot of work and a lot
• 1:02:19
  Speaker 1: of time in coming. Well, there was a mix up
• 1:02:22
  Speaker 1: with regard to scheduling. And so it was then rescheduled
• 1:02:28
  Speaker 1: for this Wednesday, what Dan thought was the day after
• 1:02:33
  Speaker 1: the hearing. And I said, Dan, that's fine. I'm thrilled
• 1:02:37
  Speaker 1: to do this the day after the hearing, but the
• 1:02:40
  Speaker 1: hearing's not going to happen. There's not going to be
• 1:02:43
  Speaker 1: a recantation witness hearings. Now, this wasn't public knowledge at
• 1:02:47
  Speaker 1: the time, but I told him I was very, very
• 1:02:49
  Speaker 1: confident that was not going to occur. And he thanked
• 1:02:53
  Speaker 1: me for letting me know, giving him the heads up
• 1:02:55
  Speaker 1: that the hearing's not going to occur. And because the
• 1:02:58
  Speaker 1: hearing wasn't going to occur, he canceled the interview. So
• 1:03:03
  Speaker 1: here I am. Can you imagine? Because of my strategy,
• 1:03:10
  Speaker 1: me throwing my body once again on the hand grenade.
• 1:03:16
  Speaker 1: to try to save a bad situation. I get the
• 1:03:19
  Speaker 1: hearing canceled, which a hearing that would have embarrassed the
• 1:03:24
  Speaker 1: hell out of Frank Peralotto and Jerry Sadowski, but wouldn't
• 1:03:27
  Speaker 1: have had any negative impact on me. I get it canceled,
• 1:03:30
  Speaker 1: but it destroys my opportunity to finally get a shot
• 1:03:35
  Speaker 1: at convincing Dan Abrams after almost 15 years.
• 1:03:40
  Speaker 2: Really?
• 1:03:42
  Speaker 1: And of course, you know, he said, well, we're going
• 1:03:44
  Speaker 1: to postpone this. I said, Dan, that's never going to happen.
• 1:03:48
  Speaker 1: That's never going to happen. Because there's not going to
• 1:03:50
  Speaker 1: be a hook. I know Dan very, very well. He
• 1:03:54
  Speaker 1: needs a news hook. And there's not going to be
• 1:03:56
  Speaker 1: a news hook. Because there's not going to be, the
• 1:04:00
  Speaker 1: way these federal appeals work, there's never going to be,
• 1:04:05
  Speaker 1: maybe the day they file the federal appeal, but there's
• 1:04:08
  Speaker 1: always going to be something else going on that's more significant.
• 1:04:12
  Speaker 1: I know these things. It's never going to happen. And
• 1:04:15
  Speaker 1: so that was very depressing to me. And I think
• 1:04:19
  Speaker 1: emblematic of the hell that this entire situation has been
• 1:04:24
  Speaker 1: for me and how frustrating it has been to bang
• 1:04:27
  Speaker 1: my head against the wall. And then there's another similar example,
• 1:04:31
  Speaker 1: even when there's somewhat of victory, something that would have
• 1:04:35
  Speaker 1: been considered a very significant win, certainly in 2012 or 2013.
• 1:04:39
  Speaker 1: And that is that Penn State has created at their
• 1:04:48
  Speaker 1: football stadium, whatever the hell they call it now. I
• 1:04:50
  Speaker 1: don't even know if it's still called Beaver Stadium or not,
• 1:04:51
  Speaker 1: but whatever local business now has paid for the naming rights.
• 1:04:57
  Speaker 1: But they have now created within the football stadium, the
• 1:05:02
  Speaker 1: Paterno Family Football Experience Room. And a lot of Paterno
• 1:05:08
  Speaker 1: supporters have been hailing this and that this is symbolic,
• 1:05:12
  Speaker 1: the new football coach, has embraced the past. He's got
• 1:05:16
  Speaker 1: a framed photo of Joe Paterno in his office, which
• 1:05:21
  Speaker 1: is all great. I think it's fantastic that there's at
• 1:05:24
  Speaker 1: least some semblance of being able to talk about Joe
• 1:05:27
  Speaker 1: Paterno in a positive way at Penn State. I started
• 1:05:32
  Speaker 1: this battle for Joe Paterno. That's how this began. I
• 1:05:35
  Speaker 1: never anticipated nor wanted to be defending Jerry Sadowski, but
• 1:05:40
  Speaker 1: that's where the facts took me, which is the way
• 1:05:42
  Speaker 1: journalism used to work. And so I'm happy that there's
• 1:05:48
  Speaker 1: at least some semblance now of a validation of Joe
• 1:05:55
  Speaker 1: Paterno's role in Penn State football. But there's also a sadness.
• 1:06:00
  Speaker 1: The number one sadness is Franco Harris isn't here. Franco
• 1:06:05
  Speaker 1: would have loved this. Franco would have been a part
• 1:06:07
  Speaker 1: of it. This would have been a great vindication for
• 1:06:11
  Speaker 1: Franco's work on behalf. of Joe Paterno, but Franco is
• 1:06:16
  Speaker 1: one of the many people related to this case who has, unfortunately,
• 1:06:19
  Speaker 1: especially in his case, two days before the 50th anniversary
• 1:06:22
  Speaker 1: of the Immaculate Reception, tragically passed away. So that made
• 1:06:26
  Speaker 1: me sad. Also, to me, this is essentially reducing the
• 1:06:33
  Speaker 1: chances of the statue ever coming back because this is
• 1:06:37
  Speaker 1: kind of like a consolation prize. This is in lieu
• 1:06:41
  Speaker 1: of putting the statue back. I also don't like the
• 1:06:44
  Speaker 1: name of it. The name of it has been understandably
• 1:06:47
  Speaker 1: mocked on social media, the Paterno Family Football Experience Room.
• 1:06:52
  Speaker 1: The word experience, of course, leads all sorts of people
• 1:06:55
  Speaker 1: to conjure up connections to the scandal and all sorts
• 1:07:00
  Speaker 1: of absurdities. And it's just very, very clear that the
• 1:07:05
  Speaker 1: media is never going to get it. I mean, there
• 1:07:06
  Speaker 1: are media members. There was a Fox Sports host who's
• 1:07:10
  Speaker 1: a complete imbecile. who railed against the Paterno family football
• 1:07:15
  Speaker 1: experience room that basically Penn State ought to be kicked
• 1:07:19
  Speaker 1: out of the Big Ten or end football because Paterno
• 1:07:22
  Speaker 1: was so guilty. And he's the very same guy that
• 1:07:25
  Speaker 1: the next day talked about how Lane Kiffin is his hero.
• 1:07:28
  Speaker 1: We're now living in a world where Joe Paterno is
• 1:07:31
  Speaker 1: the devil of college football and Lane Kiffin is the hero.
• 1:07:35
  Speaker 1: Put a bullet through my head. But that's where we are.
• 1:07:40
  Speaker 1: In 2026, everything is completely upside down. All right, I
• 1:07:43
  Speaker 1: got to move on because otherwise this is going to
• 1:07:45
  Speaker 1: be a four-hour podcast, and I promise that that's not
• 1:07:48
  Speaker 1: going to be the case. And I'm trying to abbreviate
• 1:07:52
  Speaker 1: everything as much as possible. But there's a lot of
• 1:07:54
  Speaker 1: sports media-related issues that I do want to at least
• 1:07:57
  Speaker 1: talk about. The Athletic has released their investigation of the
• 1:08:04
  Speaker 1: Diana Rossini-Mike Vrabel situation. The former... New York Times athletic
• 1:08:11
  Speaker 1: reporter who obviously had some sort of an extended affair,
• 1:08:15
  Speaker 1: even though she was married and Mike Vrabel was married
• 1:08:17
  Speaker 1: with the then coach of the Tennessee Titans and then
• 1:08:20
  Speaker 1: the New England Patriots, first when she was with ESPN
• 1:08:23
  Speaker 1: and then when she was with the New York Times,
• 1:08:25
  Speaker 1: the athletic. And get this, the athletic and their investigation
• 1:08:30
  Speaker 1: concluded that there was no bias. There was no bias
• 1:08:37
  Speaker 1: in the reporting. by Diana Rossini of Mike Vrabel. No bias. Now,
• 1:08:46
  Speaker 1: how in the world you can possibly conclude that? I
• 1:08:48
  Speaker 1: don't know. But I'm going to give them the benefit
• 1:08:50
  Speaker 1: of the doubt. You know what? Maybe they looked at
• 1:08:53
  Speaker 1: all of her reporting on everything Mike Vrabel related, and
• 1:08:56
  Speaker 1: they could not find any bias. I don't buy that
• 1:09:00
  Speaker 1: but okay that's plausible I guess it doesn't matter she
• 1:09:05
  Speaker 1: was fucking the head football coach of an NFL team
• 1:09:09
  Speaker 1: that she was covering while they were both married you
• 1:09:14
  Speaker 1: can't get a bigger conflict of interest than that And
• 1:09:18
  Speaker 1: I'm still convinced we don't have the full story. There's
• 1:09:20
  Speaker 1: been rumors that as the NFL season is beginning that
• 1:09:23
  Speaker 1: we're going to see a new story drop. I've seen
• 1:09:25
  Speaker 1: no evidence of that as of this taping, but I
• 1:09:28
  Speaker 1: just found it rather hilarious that the athletic, you know,
• 1:09:32
  Speaker 1: basically is Sergeant Schultz here from Hogan's Heroes. I see nothing.
• 1:09:38
  Speaker 1: There's been no... no bias, but at least they did
• 1:09:42
  Speaker 1: an investigation. ESPN hasn't even reported on the story effectively.
• 1:09:48
  Speaker 1: ESPN is really pretending like nothing ever happened. And there's frankly,
• 1:09:52
  Speaker 1: a lot of social media evidence that people at ESPN
• 1:09:56
  Speaker 1: did know what was going on between Diana Rossini and
• 1:09:59
  Speaker 1: Mike Rabel. So I feel like that story has not
• 1:10:03
  Speaker 1: yet been fully played out. By the way, with the
• 1:10:06
  Speaker 1: NFL season started starting up, um, this week. Very, very quickly,
• 1:10:11
  Speaker 1: I want to just address a couple of predictions that
• 1:10:15
  Speaker 1: I've made in the past. I am still not sold,
• 1:10:18
  Speaker 1: although I could be. This year will tell the tale.
• 1:10:22
  Speaker 1: I am still not sold on the Chicago Bears and
• 1:10:24
  Speaker 1: Caleb Williams. I was very emphatic when Caleb Williams, the
• 1:10:29
  Speaker 1: quarterback for the Bears, was drafted that he was overrated.
• 1:10:32
  Speaker 1: I did not think he would be a bust, but
• 1:10:34
  Speaker 1: I said very clearly he's never going to be a superstar,
• 1:10:38
  Speaker 1: never going to get the Bears to a Super Bowl,
• 1:10:40
  Speaker 1: never win an MVP. He is not the be-all, end-all.
• 1:10:46
  Speaker 1: I am still betting that the Bears are going to
• 1:10:48
  Speaker 1: have a disappointing season and that Caleb Williams will at
• 1:10:51
  Speaker 1: least somewhat regress from last year because they got really
• 1:10:55
  Speaker 1: lucky last year. They were the luckiest team on the
• 1:10:59
  Speaker 1: planet last year. And in the NFL, that tends to
• 1:11:03
  Speaker 1: ebb and flow. So I will be the first to
• 1:11:07
  Speaker 1: admit I'm wrong. If the Bears have another great year
• 1:11:10
  Speaker 1: this year and Caleb Williams has a great year, I
• 1:11:12
  Speaker 1: will wave the white flag. But I'm not there yet.
• 1:11:16
  Speaker 1: This year will tell the tale on that. Similarly, I'm
• 1:11:19
  Speaker 1: not buying on the Kansas City Chiefs comeback narrative. Now,
• 1:11:23
  Speaker 1: there's a little bit of similarity between the Chiefs and
• 1:11:26
  Speaker 1: the Bears in that two years ago, the Chiefs, like
• 1:11:29
  Speaker 1: the Bears did last year, got ridiculously lucky. And then
• 1:11:32
  Speaker 1: the luck ran out last year. So could the luck
• 1:11:37
  Speaker 1: return this year or could the could there be a
• 1:11:39
  Speaker 1: reversion to the mean? Yeah, I think the Chiefs will
• 1:11:42
  Speaker 1: probably be better than last year. But Patrick Mahomes is
• 1:11:46
  Speaker 1: coming off injury. He's starting to get on in years.
• 1:11:50
  Speaker 1: Travis Kelsey has to be played because he's Mr. Taylor
• 1:11:52
  Speaker 1: Swift and he's really old and degrading fast. So I
• 1:11:58
  Speaker 1: am not sold on the Kansas City Chiefs somehow becoming
• 1:12:01
  Speaker 1: a Super Bowl contender. automatically just because Patrick Mahomes is
• 1:12:06
  Speaker 1: returning from injury. Now, I want to address another sports
• 1:12:10
  Speaker 1: media issue that I've discussed in the past, and that
• 1:12:12
  Speaker 1: is the reporting of Pablo Torre, who has a very,
• 1:12:17
  Speaker 1: very popular podcast, and this story involving the Los Angeles Clippers,
• 1:12:22
  Speaker 1: Kawhi Leonard, Steve Ballmer, the owner, and whether or not
• 1:12:27
  Speaker 1: there was salary caps or convention in a story that
• 1:12:33
  Speaker 1: actually several stories that Pablo Torre has put out to
• 1:12:37
  Speaker 1: great fanfare. And in fact, he ended up winning the
• 1:12:40
  Speaker 1: Pulitzer Prize. And I want to be very, very clear
• 1:12:43
  Speaker 1: because I'm the first to admit when I'm wrong, but
• 1:12:46
  Speaker 1: I'm also not going to admit when I'm wrong when
• 1:12:48
  Speaker 1: I didn't actually say anything that was wrong. I want
• 1:12:51
  Speaker 1: to be very clear about what I said. I could
• 1:12:53
  Speaker 1: not have been, I don't think, more obvious that what
• 1:12:57
  Speaker 1: I was saying about Pablo Torre all along was, I
• 1:13:01
  Speaker 1: don't know whether or not this story is true. There's
• 1:13:04
  Speaker 1: some problems with the logic of the story, but I
• 1:13:07
  Speaker 1: have bigger problems with the nature of his journalism, specifically
• 1:13:11
  Speaker 1: that he had no on the record sources, none, and
• 1:13:15
  Speaker 1: that all of his sources seemed too perfect, too clean.
• 1:13:20
  Speaker 1: They were telling him exactly what he wanted. And that
• 1:13:23
  Speaker 1: to me is an extremely dangerous situation. In the Sandusky case,
• 1:13:28
  Speaker 1: I have talked to dozens and dozens of people who
• 1:13:34
  Speaker 1: did not want to be public with what they knew
• 1:13:37
  Speaker 1: to be true or thought to be true. Not one
• 1:13:40
  Speaker 1: of them ever told me a perfect story. And if
• 1:13:44
  Speaker 1: they had, I would immediately have thought, you know what,
• 1:13:47
  Speaker 1: this is some sort of bullshit, or I'm being fed
• 1:13:52
  Speaker 1: a line, this is a trap, someone's trying to make
• 1:13:56
  Speaker 1: me look bad, because that's just not the way human
• 1:13:58
  Speaker 1: beings work. So I was skeptical. And I did outline
• 1:14:04
  Speaker 1: problems with the logic of the story. Never made sense
• 1:14:08
  Speaker 1: to me that Kawhi Leonard would be hung out to dry.
• 1:14:12
  Speaker 1: It seemed really stupid for Steve Ballmer to do what
• 1:14:15
  Speaker 1: Pablo Torre was saying. And then ESPN, and ironically, Don Vanata,
• 1:14:22
  Speaker 1: who I've had extraordinary dust-ups with on the Sandusky case,
• 1:14:27
  Speaker 1: he's a very well-respected reporter, but he doesn't deserve to be,
• 1:14:30
  Speaker 1: A couple of weeks ago, ESPN reported that the NBA's
• 1:14:34
  Speaker 1: investigation had found no evidence that the Clippers were involved
• 1:14:39
  Speaker 1: in salary cap circumvention. And I went on this podcast
• 1:14:42
  Speaker 1: and I did a video, which I posted on X saying, okay,
• 1:14:45
  Speaker 1: we don't know what the truth here is yet. I
• 1:14:47
  Speaker 1: made that clear. And the NBA was pushing back against
• 1:14:51
  Speaker 1: the ESPN story, but it's important to point out that
• 1:14:55
  Speaker 1: ESPN then pushed back against the NBA's pushback. They stood
• 1:14:59
  Speaker 1: by the story a second time. And given the nature
• 1:15:02
  Speaker 1: of the relationship between ESPN and the NBA, I thought, okay,
• 1:15:06
  Speaker 1: that's got to be significant, right? I mean, ESPN is
• 1:15:10
  Speaker 1: really going out on a limb here. Even when the
• 1:15:14
  Speaker 1: NBA is publicly saying that the original ESPN story saying
• 1:15:18
  Speaker 1: that there's no evidence of salary cap circumvention is not accurate. So,
• 1:15:24
  Speaker 1: I did not take a victory lap, but I said,
• 1:15:25
  Speaker 1: this seems to be potential vindication for me and my
• 1:15:30
  Speaker 1: criticism of Pablo Torre's journalism. Well, then all of a sudden,
• 1:15:36
  Speaker 1: out of nowhere, the NBA comes down with their penalties
• 1:15:40
  Speaker 1: against the Clippers, and they're unprecedented. This is a near-death
• 1:15:45
  Speaker 1: penalty that the NBA levies against the LA Clippers. They
• 1:15:50
  Speaker 1: lose five first-round draft picks. Bomber gets fined $ 30 million,
• 1:15:56
  Speaker 1: which for a normal person, obviously is huge, but for Bomber,
• 1:15:59
  Speaker 1: not that big of a deal. But Bomber is suspended
• 1:16:03
  Speaker 1: from the team for a year. He can't even attend
• 1:16:05
  Speaker 1: games in the arena that he built. I mean, this
• 1:16:10
  Speaker 1: is as large a punishment as it gets, much larger
• 1:16:12
  Speaker 1: than Pablo Torre himself speculated would be the case, because
• 1:16:16
  Speaker 1: I felt like he was trying to protect his backside
• 1:16:18
  Speaker 1: by saying, well, you know, there's a scenario here where
• 1:16:21
  Speaker 1: Bomber emerges relatively unscathed. I think that's actually a direct
• 1:16:25
  Speaker 1: quote of his. And I interpreted that as Pablo was
• 1:16:28
  Speaker 1: a little nervous about what was really going to end
• 1:16:31
  Speaker 1: up happening here and whether or not he really had
• 1:16:33
  Speaker 1: the goods. But this obviously is perceived, and rightfully so,
• 1:16:38
  Speaker 1: as massive vindication for Pablo Torre. And if the NBA
• 1:16:43
  Speaker 1: is correct in their analysis, certainly an indication that I
• 1:16:47
  Speaker 1: was wrong I was not wrong to question it because
• 1:16:51
  Speaker 1: you should always question. And that's one of the problems
• 1:16:53
  Speaker 1: with journalism these days. We don't question a lot of
• 1:16:56
  Speaker 1: very popular narratives. And we know what happens when that
• 1:17:00
  Speaker 1: doesn't occur. That's a very dangerous set of circumstances. So
• 1:17:03
  Speaker 1: I'm not going to ever apologize for questioning. But clearly,
• 1:17:08
  Speaker 1: this appears to be a huge win for Pablo Torre.
• 1:17:12
  Speaker 1: But I'm still not totally sold on that. Because the
• 1:17:18
  Speaker 1: Clippers released an extraordinary statement in response to the NBA punishment. Now, look,
• 1:17:26
  Speaker 1: I get people claim they're innocent all the time when
• 1:17:29
  Speaker 1: they're not. But there's a difference between claiming you're innocent
• 1:17:35
  Speaker 1: and this statement, especially given the obvious incestuous relationship between
• 1:17:42
  Speaker 1: an NBA franchise and the NBA itself. So you can
• 1:17:49
  Speaker 1: interpret this whatever way you want, but this has not
• 1:17:51
  Speaker 1: been given nearly enough attention, in my opinion, because this
• 1:17:55
  Speaker 1: is the statement that the Clippers released in response to
• 1:17:58
  Speaker 1: what the NBA did. We vehemently reject the NBA's findings,
• 1:18:04
  Speaker 1: which are the result of a heavily biased investigation seeking
• 1:18:09
  Speaker 1: to justify a predetermined narrative rather than facts and evidence.
• 1:18:17
  Speaker 1: What the league told us privately differs from what it
• 1:18:21
  Speaker 1: announced today publicly, and they have not held themselves close
• 1:18:26
  Speaker 1: to the standard Commissioner Silver set at the start of
• 1:18:30
  Speaker 1: this investigation to ensure its fairness and accuracy. For the
• 1:18:35
  Speaker 1: past year, we cooperated fully and in good faith, and
• 1:18:40
  Speaker 1: we will now fight just as hard to demonstrate our innocence.
• 1:18:45
  Speaker 1: We intend to vigorously challenge these findings and penalties through
• 1:18:50
  Speaker 1: every avenue available to us and look forward to an
• 1:18:53
  Speaker 1: ethical and impartial arbitration process. I mean, that's about a
• 1:19:00
  Speaker 1: 10 on the outrage scale, given the fact that this
• 1:19:04
  Speaker 1: is your own league that you're making this statement against.
• 1:19:08
  Speaker 1: By the way, That is almost word for word the
• 1:19:10
  Speaker 1: statement that Penn State University should have released in response
• 1:19:16
  Speaker 1: to the Free report, except for the fact that the
• 1:19:18
  Speaker 1: people at Penn State had paid Louis Free to give
• 1:19:22
  Speaker 1: them the exact conclusions that he did, which were totally bullshit,
• 1:19:26
  Speaker 1: which is part of the perverse incentives that created the
• 1:19:29
  Speaker 1: perfect storm of injustice in that case. But that's the
• 1:19:33
  Speaker 1: statement Penn State should have released in response to Louis
• 1:19:36
  Speaker 1: Free if we were living in a rational world. But
• 1:19:39
  Speaker 1: that to me is way, way, way beyond, well, you know,
• 1:19:43
  Speaker 1: this is unfair penalty. You know, this is, we didn't
• 1:19:47
  Speaker 1: really do that much bad or, you know, we were
• 1:19:49
  Speaker 1: actually innocent. This is, that's not that. This is, this
• 1:19:52
  Speaker 1: is different. So I'm still open-minded on this. And the
• 1:19:56
  Speaker 1: fact that Pablo Torre's reporting or his podcast got so
• 1:20:01
  Speaker 1: much attention, got the Pulitzer Prize, I can certainly see
• 1:20:04
  Speaker 1: a scenario where, where we have a self-fulfilling prophecy here,
• 1:20:09
  Speaker 1: where the NBA gets influenced by the fact that they
• 1:20:12
  Speaker 1: don't want to look like they're going against this very,
• 1:20:17
  Speaker 1: very popular conclusion by this Pulitzer Prize winning podcaster. I
• 1:20:22
  Speaker 1: think that's a plausible scenario. So I'm not going to
• 1:20:25
  Speaker 1: come to any conclusions. I don't know what the hell
• 1:20:28
  Speaker 1: happened here. I still have questions about Pablo Torre's journalism,
• 1:20:33
  Speaker 1: but I will give him credit. It appears as if
• 1:20:35
  Speaker 1: he may very well have been right. He may very
• 1:20:39
  Speaker 1: well have been right. And by the way, he's also
• 1:20:42
  Speaker 1: clearly right on what was going on at the University
• 1:20:46
  Speaker 1: of North Carolina football program that's in total chaos. Although
• 1:20:50
  Speaker 1: my sense is that Pablo Torre probably got a leak
• 1:20:55
  Speaker 1: from somebody at UNC who didn't like Bill Belichick. That
• 1:21:00
  Speaker 1: seems to be the most logical scenario here because I
• 1:21:02
  Speaker 1: don't know that. This is just my guess. Just a
• 1:21:07
  Speaker 1: spidey sense I have that there really wasn't quite as
• 1:21:10
  Speaker 1: much journalism and investigation in this case, but Torre 100%
• 1:21:14
  Speaker 1: vindicated because- Bill Belichick's GM is gone. His son is
• 1:21:21
  Speaker 1: under fire. There are people that think that Belichick may
• 1:21:24
  Speaker 1: not make it through the year based upon everything that's
• 1:21:27
  Speaker 1: going on at UNC because of alleged scandals there that
• 1:21:31
  Speaker 1: were reported first by Pablo Torre. So I'll give him
• 1:21:34
  Speaker 1: credit for that. But I'm still not 100% convinced on
• 1:21:39
  Speaker 1: the Clipper situation. I'm still very, very curious to find
• 1:21:43
  Speaker 1: out how that whole thing is going to transpire. Thanks
• 1:21:46
  Speaker 1: for listening to today's free drop of the abbreviated show.
• 1:21:50
  Speaker 1: If you're interested in listening to the entire show, you
• 1:21:53
  Speaker 1: must become a patron. Please go to Patreon. That's P-A-T-R-E-O-N
• 1:21:59
  Speaker 1: dot com. Patreon dot com slash The Death of Journalism
• 1:22:06
  Speaker 1: with John Ziegler. My name is J-O-H-N-Z-I-E-G-L-E-R. That's patreon.com slash
• 1:22:15
  Speaker 1: the death of journalism with John Ziegler. Good luck to
• 1:22:20
  Speaker 1: you on that. But that's how you can subscribe.