Latest / The Death Of Journalism / Episode Sixty Six: Wokeback Mountain, A Covid Bromance

Transcript

Episode Sixty Six: Wokeback Mountain, A Covid Bromance · The Death Of Journalism

• 0:00
  Welcome to episode number sixty six of the Death of Journalism podcast. My name
• 0:04
  is John Zigler. I'm your host on today's program. Donald Trump gets indicted
• 0:09
  again, but this time they really need it. Gavin Newsom throws Ron de
• 0:14
  Sanders's campaign a lifeline, but they don't seem to want to grab it.
• 0:19
  And it appears that nearly everyone except for me, got it at least mostly
• 0:23
  wrong on the story of the alleged PGA Tour Live golf merger. I'm known
• 0:29
  as the Dutch Digital marketing Man. I'm a digital advertising SEO and EMO marketing
• 0:34
  specialist. It also happens to be a big fan of John Ziggler and the
• 0:38
  Death of Journalism. Do you need help preaching your target audience? Let me
• 0:43
  help you develop the right messaging and confaded message in the best channels for your
• 0:47
  business. Please visit my website, the Dutch Digital marketing Man dot com and
• 0:52
  let me help you tell your story. The website is the Dutch Digital marketing
• 0:58
  Man dot com. If you want to grow your business, Peter can help.
• 1:02
  That's the Dutch Digital Marketingman dot com. And hey, thanks for sponsoring
• 1:07
  the show. Since our last episode of this podcast, a lot has happened.
• 1:11
  News broke that Donald Trump was going to be indicted federally with regard to
• 1:18
  the classified documents case, So that news broke. And when that first broke,
• 1:23
  it appeared as if this was going to be a redo largely, if
• 1:29
  not entirely, of the bogus New York City case involving campaign hush money to
• 1:37
  a porn star. But then we got the actual details. Because you know,
• 1:42
  the news media invariably always jumps the gun, and the initial narrative on
• 1:46
  big stories is almost always wrong, especially when all the information is not known
• 1:51
  at the time when people are trying to make their assessments, and this I
• 1:55
  think was a pretty good example of that. But it turns out that Trump
• 2:00
  was indicted federally on thirty seven counts related to his possession of top secret documents
• 2:06
  at Mara Lago. Now that first reaction, which is so very very important.
• 2:10
  I mean, we live in this age of instant reaction, instant information,
• 2:15
  and the first narrative, even when it turns out to be wrong,
• 2:20
  is so often what dictates everything that happens afterwards. I've seen this happen numerous
• 2:25
  times in many stories, and the bigger the story the more prevalent this phenomenon
• 2:31
  is because there's more coverage, there's more viewership, there's more excitement, and
• 2:38
  the first thing that people here sticks, or at least tends to stick,
• 2:42
  and it's very difficult to change people's minds. We've seen this throughout history,
• 2:46
  but specifically in recent times. Obviously COVID was the most dramatic example of this,
• 2:53
  and I do think that the first reaction here played very much to Donald
• 2:59
  Trump's advance, which of course stopped me. If you've heard that before,
• 3:01
  it seems like that happens all the time. Almost everything eventually, in some
• 3:06
  way, shape or form, plays to his advantage. I'll give you an
• 3:08
  example. Dan Abrams, my former boss at Mediaite, on whose news Nation
• 3:15
  show I appear about once every two weeks or so. I really respect him
• 3:22
  in general, but especially on legal issues, and his first reaction was that
• 3:27
  he wished that this indictment was not coming down. It was bad for the
• 3:30
  country. While he was waiting to find out what the details where, he
• 3:36
  really wasn't all that impressed with the whole concept of indicting a former president on
• 3:43
  this kind of charge, especially when from a perception standpoint, other Democrats have
• 3:49
  had big problems in this area and never been charged, specifically Hillary Clinton and
• 3:54
  Joe Biden. That was basically his take, and I think that was a
• 3:58
  take that was shared by a lot of people not on the right, who,
• 4:02
  of course, we're immediately knee jerk reaction, going to support Trump no
• 4:05
  matter what the details were. But then the next day we found out what
• 4:11
  was actually in the indictment, and for some people, some very significant people,
• 4:17
  things change. Now it should be pointed out that part of what's driving
• 4:23
  all this is an assumption, and it's not an irrational assumption. The assumption
• 4:29
  is that all of this is pointless because Republicans are not going to be convinced
• 4:35
  by anything in this realm, especially given the history of Hillary Clinton and Joe
• 4:41
  bidenn't even do a lesser extent Barack Obama on this particular issue, even though
• 4:46
  the details are different, the fact pattern is different, the level of evidence
• 4:50
  is different. It's assumed, and I'm one of those that assumes this that
• 4:55
  it's not going to matter because we don't live in a world where facts really
• 4:58
  matter, where details matter, especially on a complicated issue. It's really all
• 5:03
  about perception, and the perception is that Democrats don't get charged for this,
• 5:09
  So why would you be charging Donald Trump or something that didn't seem to have
• 5:14
  any real world impact. No one really seemingly got harmed by what Trump is
• 5:20
  alleged to have done. And I understand all that. I get it,
• 5:25
  probably more than anybody. I don't like it, but I get it.
• 5:30
  And so that really kind of cuts the legs out from under this entire concept
• 5:33
  of Okay, well what's in the indictment, Well, what's in the indictment
• 5:38
  is pretty significant stuff. At least if we lived in the world and we
• 5:43
  lived in prior to Donald Trump. The world we lived in prior to Donald
• 5:46
  Trump, it seemed like things like breaking the law mattered, and having incredible
• 5:53
  evidence, including a recording that proves that you basically knew you were breaking the
• 5:58
  law mattered. And as from a Republican standpoint, there was always this concept
• 6:01
  of Okay, well, the law might not always apply to the other side,
• 6:05
  morals may not always apply to the other side, but we're better than
• 6:09
  they are, so we're going to hold our own people to a higher standard.
• 6:13
  That used to be something that Republicans at least pretended to care about.
• 6:17
  Well, that's long gone in the age of Trump. Now it's screw you,
• 6:21
  We're not going to play by your rules anymore. And again I get
• 6:27
  that. I get it to a large extent, what the left has done
• 6:30
  here has created a situation where large portions of the right have PTSD, where
• 6:36
  they've lost their minds because they've been abused so much and have been treated so
• 6:43
  unfairly, and they've seen so much injustice that they've just stopped caring. And
• 6:47
  it actually draws people to Trump because they see him as a vehicle through which
• 6:53
  they can express their frustration. That's why Trump's bizarre campaign slow and if you
• 7:00
  will, I am your retribution really does work for him because there are a
• 7:04
  lot of people who feel as if they have been screwed by the system,
• 7:09
  and they now see Shrump as their their vehicle, their voice box, that
• 7:16
  he's one of them, he too is being screwed by the system and being
• 7:21
  treated unfairly. And so I am fully aware that details and facts and the
• 7:29
  law don't really matter, but I do think that for the record, they
• 7:34
  ought at least matter a little bit. And I gotta I have to tell
• 7:39
  you that even I was a bit surprised by how strong the indictment was because
• 7:45
  I had basically blown this thing off that there's really no chance of this going
• 7:50
  anywhere significant because of the reasons I've already laid out. But this is a
• 7:57
  significant indictment. And I guarantee to you that if the same indictment had been
• 8:03
  filed against Hillary Clinton or Joe Biden or Barack Obama or anyone on the left,
• 8:09
  the right would be going apoplectic and Donald Trump would be leading that charge.
• 8:13
  And it's important to point out, see, these are things that it's
• 8:16
  so weird that it works in Trump's favor when in fact it should work against
• 8:22
  him. I mean, here's a guy who won in twenty sixteen partially on
• 8:26
  this issue of how he was going to handle this situation involving classified documents better
• 8:33
  than Hillary Clinton did. He was having his crowds chant lock her up largely
• 8:39
  over this issue, and yet here he is a former president essentially using top
• 8:48
  secret classified documents as if they are trophies to be shown off at Marlago,
• 8:56
  like he's bringing strangers into his trophy room and being so stupid that he's being
• 9:05
  recorded doing this, and he's doing this to strangers, showing them war plans
• 9:13
  for a run again like their trophies. Like their trophies, this is top
• 9:18
  secret information where he is showing them to strangers, not keeping them securely.
• 9:26
  They're not in his they're not his that he does not own them. They're
• 9:31
  the property of the United States government. They are very significant apparently in the
• 9:37
  information that they had. He knows, according to the recording, that he
• 9:43
  did not declassify them. He admits that in a recording. And by the
• 9:48
  way, forget about the legality of all this. What about the lack of
• 9:54
  judgment, I mean, the lack of judgment here alone should just quality why
• 10:00
  Donald Trump from being the twenty twenty four Republican presidential nominee. I mean that,
• 10:05
  to me is the most overwheding part of this. I'm not a law
• 10:09
  expert, it certainly seems as if he has broken several laws that the indictment
• 10:13
  can be backed up with facts and with a strong argument. But from a
• 10:20
  judgment standpoint, especially given the history of his campaign against Hillary Clinton, this
• 10:26
  is just unbelievable, even by Trump standards. And I have to say,
• 10:31
  and no one that I've seen has pointed this out, but maybe because it's
• 10:35
  so obvious, but what I kept thinking in reading the indictment is if they
• 10:41
  caught him doing this, if he happened to be recorded here partially because he
• 10:48
  was doing this with a reporter, a stranger who's a reporter and he's being
• 10:56
  recorded. If they caught him like this, how many other times has he
• 11:01
  been doing this and we just don't know about it. I mean, this
• 11:05
  can't be the only time he's been doing this. He was there was nothing
• 11:09
  that provoked him to do this, and he got nailed. It's kind of
• 11:15
  like, you know, if you catch someone speeding at one hundred and five
• 11:18
  miles an hour or in a fifty five mile an hour zone, pretty good
• 11:22
  chance that's not the only time they've done it. Pretty good chance that this
• 11:28
  is their m O and the circumstances just happened to conspire in that moment for
• 11:33
  them to be caught. And so Trump has been doing this, in my
• 11:37
  view, on a consistent basis. He's you know, reusing top secret documents
• 11:43
  from the United States government essentially as trophies to be shown off to guests at
• 11:50
  Marlago, and he's not even really vetting his guests that he does this too
• 11:56
  at all. And so that that's to me the most shocking part of this.
• 12:03
  Now now legally, obviously there's a completely different story to be told here,
• 12:07
  because legally brings up the issue of whether or not Trump's freedom is ultimately
• 12:15
  going to be at stake, And that's where I want to go to next,
• 12:18
  because that might be the only thing in the long run here that truly
• 12:24
  matters, at least theoretically. Now one of the many, many, many,
• 12:28
  many problems we have, and this all goes back to media fragmentation,
• 12:33
  which I have decried for decades, wrote a book about it in two thousand
• 12:37
  and five, way ahead of the curve. I have said that media fragmentation
• 12:43
  was going to divide this country in ways that we don't even understand, That
• 12:48
  it was going to make it impossible for the truth to win, that everyone
• 12:52
  was going to pick their own facts, that they would have their own truths,
• 12:56
  and that this was going to be a very dangerous especially in like a
• 13:01
  crisis set of circumstances. Not that this is necessarily a crisis, although you
• 13:07
  know, free Trump. I do think having the Republican presidential front runner and
• 13:13
  a guy who could be the next president indicted on federal charges would be considered
• 13:18
  a crisis, but we've been so desensitized to the Trump insanity that we probably
• 13:24
  don't feel like it's a crisis. But this really is a crisis. And
• 13:28
  so taking that concept of media fragmentation out of the theoretical and putting into the
• 13:33
  practical, there are so few people that have both the incentive to tell the
• 13:43
  truth about this indictment in a negative Trump way, and who also have any
• 13:50
  semblance of credibility on the right. I mean, that is a very small
• 13:56
  subset of people, people who have the intelligence and the courage and they care
• 14:01
  enough about the truth to say, hey, wait a minute, this is
• 14:05
  very serious stuff. But who are not automatically labeled as leftists, because if
• 14:11
  you're a leftist you have absolutely, positively zero, in fact, you have
• 14:16
  inverse credibility on this issue. Because if the left is saying that Trump broke
• 14:20
  the law not to go to jail, that actually only helps him. On
• 14:24
  the right, that's how much distrust there is, that's how much division there
• 14:31
  is, and that's how few people are still credible. And by the way
• 14:35
  I understand it, I decry it all the time. I have said previously
• 14:41
  that the media deserves blame for why no one will trust them on these kind
• 14:48
  of issues because they blew their credibility long ago. And I've used the analogy
• 14:54
  of a firefighter that your credibility is basically the water in your hose, and
• 15:01
  they have used up all that credibility in being wrong so many times before,
• 15:07
  and specifically with regard to Trump. They have been wrong many times before,
• 15:11
  most notably with regard to Russia Gate, and they were obviously very very wrong
• 15:16
  when it came to COVID, and they used COVID to destroy Trump's reelection campaign.
• 15:20
  I have been consistent about that, probably way before even a lot of
• 15:24
  Trump fans have been, And so I get it that that hose is empty
• 15:30
  of credibility, and in fact, oftentimes instead of water to put the fire
• 15:33
  out, the hose is filled with gasoline, which works to Trump's favor.
• 15:39
  So there are very very few people who have the credibility, the intelligence,
• 15:45
  the courage to speak the truth here and who would also be taken even theoretically
• 15:50
  seriously on the right, and a few of them have spoken out. I
• 15:56
  think Jonathan Turley is one of the more interesting people in this equation. Jonathan
• 16:00
  Turley, who's not a conservative but He's a well known, in respected George
• 16:04
  Washington University law professor who and I've never been quite sure what Kurt Turley's motivation
• 16:11
  here was. But during Russia Gate and other legal problems for Trump, Turley
• 16:19
  became a Fox News Channel darling because he was seen as someone who was not
• 16:25
  a conservative, but who was willing to strongly defend Donald Trump on these issues,
• 16:32
  and so he became a regular on Fox News Channel. Well, Turley
• 16:37
  came out and was very critical of Trump thanks to this indictment, said that
• 16:42
  it was a very devastating indictment, that this is a very serious matter.
• 16:48
  He did so in a highly incredible way, and I was kind of surprised
• 16:52
  that Fox News Channel even had him on because they had to know that was
• 16:56
  basically what he was going to say. He would have told the Bookers before
• 17:00
  he went on. I don't know if they'll keep having him on because it's
• 17:04
  clear that Fox News Channel has decided to become Trump TV again. I'm gonna
• 17:08
  get to that momentarily. But Turley really kind of was the first person that
• 17:15
  I saw come out on a conservative outlet from a position of credibility and say,
• 17:18
  hey, wait a minute, this is a very serious situation. Some
• 17:22
  significant laws were broken, and some important things were done that were wrong by
• 17:29
  Trump here. Andrew McCarthy, another conservative former federal prosecutor, has said similar
• 17:33
  things about this indictment against Donald Trump. And Culter, a lawyer who wrote
• 17:41
  a book and Trump We Trust. You would think that she would have some
• 17:45
  credibility on the right here, But no, no, because she has abandoned
• 17:49
  Trump, she lost I guess all of her credibility. But she had similar
• 17:55
  things to say, not quite as dramatic, were as detailed as McCarthy or
• 17:59
  Turley, but she definitely was in the camp of this is a serious matter,
• 18:04
  Unlike, for instance, the New York City indictment Mitt Romney, who
• 18:11
  was the freaking twenty twelve Republican presidential now monee and who thirty six hours before
• 18:18
  election day was thought to be the next Ronald Reagan. When Republicans thought he
• 18:22
  was gonna win, he came out with a scathing statement and bizarrely, no
• 18:27
  one cares, because that's that's how much Trump changed the world. I happened
• 18:33
  to respect Romney's position. I don't think he's always right. I think he's
• 18:37
  a bit two PC for my taste, but I do think that he's a
• 18:41
  good person. I think he's a smart person. I think he stands up
• 18:45
  for what he believes to be right. And Romney was very much in the
• 18:48
  camp of this is this is a very significant situation, very serious, and
• 18:52
  if true, it's completely disqualifying for Trump to be the Republican presidential mine.
• 19:00
  But again, because it's meant Romney, and even though Trump almost made Romney
• 19:07
  his secretary of State, and again, Romney was the twenty twelve Republican presidential
• 19:12
  now manee at twenty twelve. Wasn't that long ago. It seems like it,
• 19:15
  but it was only eleven years ago. Somehow Romney doesn't have any credibility.
• 19:22
  But then there's one other person who was willing to step up and did
• 19:26
  so in a big way that in a rational world, I mean even a
• 19:30
  remotely rational world, would be a game changer, and that is Bill Barr,
• 19:38
  Donald Trump's hand picked second Attorney General. Bill Barr, the guy who
• 19:47
  was chosen by Trump, took him almost literally out off the couch in his
• 19:53
  underwear, brought him back into the public sphere because Trump, this is my
• 20:00
  belief, Trump believed rightly that Barr would protect him on Russia Gate, and
• 20:06
  that's exactly what Barr did. Bar sabotaged the Mulla report with that bogus summary
• 20:14
  that he put out there that created the narrative that there was nothing in the
• 20:18
  Mulla Report, which was not true. I have personally confronted Bill Bar at
• 20:25
  an event at Ronald Reagan Library about this very issue, and so I have
• 20:30
  been a critic of Bill Barr, but I also think that Bill Barr is
• 20:34
  a very intelligent guy. Bill Barr, I think may have been somewhat vindicated
• 20:40
  with regard to the totality of the issue of Russia Gate, and then I
• 20:45
  think what he was doing was he knew that the bigger issue was bogus and
• 20:49
  that it would be wrong to get Trump on obstruction of justice for a situation
• 20:55
  that may not have had a crime at the heart of it. I think
• 21:00
  was Barr's view. I disagreed with it, but since then, I think
• 21:03
  Barr has really done a heck of a job when it comes to telling the
• 21:10
  truth about Donald Trump, and my view of Bar has evolved. I was
• 21:14
  furious with Barr when he did that to Mueller, and I still disagree with
• 21:18
  it, but Barr is a very smart guy who clearly is doing what he
• 21:25
  thinks is right. It doesn't mean you're always doing the right thing. It's
• 21:29
  kind of like Romney, I mean, but he at least cares about the
• 21:33
  truth, and he cares about what's right and wrong, and he cares about
• 21:37
  the country, and he cares about the Constitution, and what he says on
• 21:42
  this matter ought to be incredibly significant. One. He's obviously qualified as a
• 21:52
  former attorney general twice, who was Trump's attorney general, and who obviously would
• 22:00
  have an incentive to back Trump here. If that's all he really cared about,
• 22:07
  if he cared about politics, then you know that would be theoretically where
• 22:11
  his incentives would lie. Well, he went on the Fox News Sunday Morning
• 22:18
  Show and he did not hold back. He eviscerated Donald Trump on this indictment.
• 22:26
  He eviscerated him. He took on the claims of the Trumps side.
• 22:33
  He put forward his argument as to why this was important and why what Trump
• 22:40
  did was wrong. He did not hold back, and to Fox News Channel's
• 22:45
  credit, they at least allowed bar to have his say, although, as
• 22:49
  you'll hear in a second day, they were very quick to point out that
• 22:55
  you know, you have to prove this in court and innocent until proven guilty,
• 22:59
  blah blah blah. But what you're about to hear is a clip that
• 23:04
  if we still lived in a world, we're rationality mattered, we're logic mattered,
• 23:10
  we're facts mattered, we're credibility mattered. Where it wasn't all about perception,
• 23:15
  all about politics. If people weren't invested in their own narratives and unwilling
• 23:19
  to change their minds, this would be a game changer. In fact,
• 23:26
  I would argue that this could be game set match for Donald Trump. Now,
• 23:30
  to be clear, it's not gonna be. It's not gonna be.
• 23:33
  But if we lived in that world, this would be the end of Donald
• 23:38
  Trump. Via Bill Barr on Fox News Channel this past Sunday. Want to
• 23:44
  bring in former Attorney General Bill Barr, who served in the Trump administration,
• 23:48
  knows the former president very well. Mister Attorney General, Welcome back to Foxy
• 23:52
  Sunday. What about this This chief argument that comes up for the president's allies
• 23:56
  and his legal team that this should have been handled under the presidential records,
• 24:00
  not this Espionage Act charge and other federal statutes that were used here. Well,
• 24:04
  it started out under the Presidential Records Act and the Archives trying to retrieve
• 24:11
  documents that Trump had no right to have. But it quickly became clear that
• 24:15
  what the government was really worried about were these classified and very sensitive documents.
• 24:21
  I was shocked by the degree of sensitivity of these documents and how many there
• 24:25
  were, frankly, and so the government's agenda was to get those protect those
• 24:30
  documents, and get them out, and I think it was perfectly appropriate to
• 24:34
  do that. It was the right thing to do. And I think the
• 24:37
  counts under the Espionage Act that he willfully retained those documents or solid counts.
• 24:45
  Now. I do think we have to wait and see what the defense says
• 24:48
  and what proves to be true. But I do think that even half what
• 24:52
  Andy McCarthy said, which is, if even half of it is true,
• 24:56
  then he's toast. I mean, it's a it's a pretty detailed indictment,
• 25:02
  and it's very very damning. And this idea of presenting Trump as a victim
• 25:07
  here, a victim of a witch hunt, is ridiculous. Yes, he's
• 25:11
  been a victim in the past. Yes, his adversaries have obsessively pursued him
• 25:15
  with phony claims and I've been at his side defending against them when he is
• 25:22
  a victim, But this is much different. He's not a victim here.
• 25:26
  He was totally wrong that he had the right to have those documents. Those
• 25:30
  documents among the most sensitive secrets that the country has. They have to be
• 25:36
  in the custody of the archivist. He had no right to maintain them and
• 25:40
  retain them, and he kept them in a way at Mara Lago that anyone
• 25:45
  who really cares about national security their stomach would churn at it. So you
• 25:49
  see this as different and separate from what he would term the Russian hoax,
• 25:53
  where he saw from the Durham Report. You see these as two totally separate
• 25:57
  tracts. Yes, because there was nothing There was no problem or issue underlying
• 26:04
  the Russia Gate claim. It was an effort to knock him out with a
• 26:07
  false claim. Here, I think the government acted responsibly. They gave him
• 26:12
  every opportunity to return those documents. They acted with the restraint. They were
• 26:18
  very deferential to him, and they were very patient. They talked to him
• 26:22
  for almost a year to try to get those documents, and he jerked them
• 26:26
  around. They finally went to a subpoena and what did he do. According
• 26:29
  to the government, he lied and obstructed that subpoena. And then they did
• 26:34
  a search and they found a lot more documents and they're not even I don't
• 26:38
  think they're even sure now or that they have everything. So they acted in
• 26:42
  a very patient way and what were they were met with was, according to
• 26:48
  the government and the indictment, very egregious obstruction. Let me ask you this
• 26:53
  in clarify, because the Justice Department has wanted to say over and over again,
• 26:57
  this is not something Marrick Garland Atorney General was involved. And this is
• 27:00
  the Special Council. Jack Smith has complete autonomy makes these own decisions. But
• 27:06
  in a case of this important with a special Council statute, would this have
• 27:10
  to go to the Attorney General for some kind of review or decision making process
• 27:15
  before this indictment happens and goes public. Well, under the regulation coil can
• 27:22
  be made just by the Special Council. But I'm sure they had worked out
• 27:26
  an agreement whereby he would keep the Attorney General in the loop and if the
• 27:30
  Attorney General had strong feelings, he'd voice them. But I think the Attorney
• 27:33
  General set pretty early on he would be guided by the recommendation of the Council.
• 27:38
  Now, we can't forget here that this entire thing came about because of
• 27:44
  reckless conduct of the president. If he had just turned over the documents,
• 27:48
  which I think every other person in the country would have done. The government's
• 27:52
  documents, they're official records. They're not his personal records. Battle plans for
• 27:56
  an attack on another country or Defense Department documents about our capabilities are in no
• 28:03
  universe Donald J. Trump's personal documents. They are the government's documents. What
• 28:10
  about the arguments, They'll say, Okay, when it came to President Obama
• 28:14
  leaving or you know, President Biden was vice president when some of these documents
• 28:18
  allegedly and he's got that's a different question. But when you think about somebody
• 28:22
  like President Obama or President Clinton the socked or case with President Clinton, they'll
• 28:26
  point to these and say, listen to the two big lies I think that
• 28:30
  are out there right now. One is, oh, these other presidents took
• 28:32
  all these documents. Those were situations where they arranged with the archives to set
• 28:37
  up special space under the management, control and security provided by the archivists to
• 28:44
  temporarily put documents until the libraries were ready these were not people just putting them
• 28:49
  in their basement, Okay. And the second thing that the president, this
• 28:53
  idea that the president has complete authority to declare any document personal is obvious.
• 29:00
  It's facially ridiculous that opinion had to do with the distinction between official records,
• 29:07
  which are records prepared by government agencies for the purpose of government action, and
• 29:12
  personal documents as opposed to official documents, which are things prepared by the president,
• 29:18
  such as a diary or notes, which are not used in the government's
• 29:22
  deliberations. And yes, as to the second class stuff that the president himself
• 29:27
  generates, the president has some discretion, but these are official documents. It's
• 29:33
  inarguable the president's daily brief provided by the intelligence community is not Donald J.
• 29:40
  Trump's personal document buried. I'm guessing that you're not going to join his legal
• 29:45
  team together legal team? Well are you? Do you still talk to the
• 29:48
  president, like, how was he going to feel about your public take on
• 29:52
  this case? Well, he's been angry with me for a while, But
• 29:56
  you know, I defend the president on Russia Gate. I stood up and
• 30:03
  called out Alvin Bragg's politicized hit job, and I have spoken at for thirty
• 30:08
  years about the abuse of the criminal justice process to influence politics. But this
• 30:17
  is simply not true. This particular episode of trying to retrieve those documents,
• 30:22
  the government acted responsibly and it was Donald J. Trump who acted irresponsibly.
• 30:27
  So again, innocent until presumed innocence unless otherwise proven guilty beyond a reasonable dal
• 30:33
  Jack Smith said that in a court of law when he talked to us on
• 30:37
  Friday about this. So we'll watch and see as they now get to present
• 30:40
  a defense. Now that, in my opinion, was fantastic. It was
• 30:44
  measured, it was logical, it was factual, it was said by someone
• 30:49
  who should theoretically have enormous credibility on this issue, and it was done on
• 30:55
  Fox News Channel, which, even after they've lost an enormous amount of audience
• 31:00
  due to firing Tucker Carlson, is still obviously the biggest conservative media outlet in
• 31:07
  the country. And this should rock the Trump campaign to its core. It
• 31:17
  will not, but it should for the reasons that I've already stated, and
• 31:22
  you know who knows that it should, and it is at least a little
• 31:26
  bit worried that it might Donald Trump. Because Donald Trump immediately came out and
• 31:33
  posted on truth Social the following message, Trump said, Virtually everyone is saying
• 31:41
  that the indictment is about election interference. That's not true. That I already
• 31:45
  stated several people with a lot of legitimate conservative street cred who do not believe
• 31:52
  that at all. Back to what Trump said and should not have been brought
• 31:57
  except Bill Barr, a quote unquote disgruntled former employee. For the record,
• 32:06
  Barr was not fired by Donald Trump. Trump lost the election, and therefore
• 32:13
  Barr lost his job thanks to Trump. Back to Trump's statement, and lazy
• 32:20
  attorney general who was weak and totally ineffective. Again, this is the guy
• 32:27
  Trump himself brought in after he fired Jeff Sessions the day out to the twenty
• 32:32
  eighteen midterm elections, which Trump lost, and he knew that it would get
• 32:38
  you lost in the media firestorm over the election results. What he did the
• 32:44
  Sessions was unbelievable because Sessions was the first major endorser for Trump and he had
• 32:50
  tried to stay as loyal to Trump as possible, even remained loyal to Trump
• 32:52
  after he humiliated him and fired him. But this is the guy Trump who
• 32:58
  hires all the best people, right, so he destroys his first attorney general,
• 33:05
  and this is the second guy he brought in, who was weak and
• 33:07
  totally ineffective. Trump also says he doesn't mean what he's saying. Now,
• 33:15
  that's amazing, That is absolutely amazing, because I mean, holy projection,
• 33:21
  batman. Bill Barr believes what he's saying. He means what he is saying.
• 33:28
  Now, you can theoretically disagree with it. I don't for the most
• 33:32
  part. But the idea that Bill Barr is saying something he doesn't mean is
• 33:38
  just ridiculous. But that's what how Trump is portraying it, because that's the
• 33:44
  way Trump would do it, because Trump rarely means anything that he's actually saying.
• 33:49
  But Trump wrote he doesn't mean what he's saying, it's just misinformation,
• 33:54
  and misinformation is in capital letters, so you know it must be true.
• 34:00
  Bars doing it because he hates quote unquote Trump again all capital letters for firing
• 34:07
  him. Now. I don't know where he's getting this idea that the bar
• 34:13
  was fired. I'm baffled by that. He was deathly afraid of the radical
• 34:19
  left when they said they would impeach him. He knows the indictment is bull
• 34:25
  dot dot dot turn off Fox News when that quote unquote gutless pig is on
• 34:35
  gutless pig. That's how he's referring to his former attorney general, the guy
• 34:40
  who saved him during Russia Gate and sabotage the Mulla report, the guy who
• 34:47
  he handpicked. So at the very very least, if we just take Trump
• 34:52
  at his word, he is horrible at choosing people to be his attorney general.
• 35:00
  Horrible. I mean, it's unbelievable how bad he is. This was
• 35:06
  tweeted by a Twitter account Republicans Against Trump. Here are some of the things
• 35:12
  that Donald Trump said about Jeff Sessions. Quote a disaster quote what kind of
• 35:17
  man is this? Quote? Weak? Quote beleaguered quote ruined many lives.
• 35:25
  And then of course he fired him ignominiously and crapped all over him. And
• 35:31
  then and then when Sessions tried to run for his old job back didn't support
• 35:37
  him. And then when it comes to Bill Barr, his second attorney general,
• 35:43
  gutless pig, slob, coward, a stupid person in a lot of
• 35:49
  ways, weak and slovenly man. So okay, So what you're saying,
• 35:54
  then, Donald Trump, is that you are really bad at choosing one of
• 36:00
  the most important positions to be filled. I mean, if you can't,
• 36:05
  if you're over two, you're dramatically oh for two. When it comes to
• 36:08
  choosing people to be your attorney general, why should you get this job back?
• 36:14
  Why should you do that? And this is obviously, you know,
• 36:17
  not nearly the only area where Trump was terrible based upon his own evaluation,
• 36:22
  when it came to hiring people. I mean, he's been famously bad because
• 36:28
  he's he's ripped almost everybody who's ever worked for him, which is why I
• 36:31
  keep saying, can someone please raise the issue of who's gonna work in his
• 36:36
  administration? Who's going to be his vice presidential nominee, who's gonna be his
• 36:40
  attorney general, who's gonna be attorney general after this, who's gonna be Secretary
• 36:45
  of State, who's gonna be Secretary of Defense, who's gonna fill all these
• 36:49
  other cabinet positions. He's gonna be down to the D minus team. Forget
• 36:53
  about the A team. You're gonna be down to the D minus team.
• 36:58
  It's gonna be a complete joke if he were somehow be elected, which after
• 37:04
  this indictment I don't believe is likely at all. And the polls are already
• 37:08
  indicating that so this should be the end of Donald Trump if we still lived
• 37:15
  in a remotely rational world, being indicted federally on topic as significant as this,
• 37:23
  even with the hypocrisy issue, and I look, I get the hypocrisy
• 37:28
  issue with regard to how Hillary and Biden and Obama were treated with regard to
• 37:34
  this, However, these aren't different allegations with a much different level of evidence.
• 37:40
  The recording, if it is anything close to as portrayed, is devastating.
• 37:47
  Even Alan Dershowitz, who is basically a Trump syncophant, now did say,
• 37:52
  well, you know, most of the indictment is unimpressive, but that
• 37:54
  recording, that's a problem. I mean, the guy's essentially one that he
• 38:01
  didn't declassify the documents, and he's effectively admitting a crime. Again, I
• 38:07
  think the judgment issue is an even bigger topic here. Yeah, I want
• 38:12
  to be clear, is this, you know, the worst thing that's ever
• 38:15
  happened as far as presidential behavior. I'm sure it's not. It's not,
• 38:20
  but it is a significant matter. It is. It is clear from the
• 38:24
  evidence that what Trump did was wrong, stupid, and seemingly illegal. And
• 38:30
  so, you know, the Trump argument seems to be well, you can't
• 38:35
  go after me because you didn't go after Hillary and Biden. And my counter
• 38:40
  argument is, okay, so you're above the law because you're running for president.
• 38:46
  How is that any better than not going after Hillary or Biden? And
• 38:52
  by the way, the Biden thing is still being investigated, not that I
• 38:54
  think it's going to amount to anything, because I do think that the fact
• 38:58
  pattern is different from we know with regard to Biden unclassified documents, but who
• 39:02
  knows. The reality here is that if a Democrat was accused exactly of what
• 39:09
  Trump has been accused of, with the apparent evidence behind it, Republicans and
• 39:15
  Trump fans and Trump himself would be universal in saying that this indictment is legitimate
• 39:22
  and that these are serious crimes, and that this needs to be fully adjudicated.
• 39:28
  Now, as far as how this is going to go down legally and
• 39:32
  politically, and why I don't believe this is anything close to the end of
• 39:37
  Donald Trump, part of it is because of the timing here. The timing
• 39:44
  is all off. And look, I am an anti conspiracy person, ardently
• 39:49
  anti conspiracy person. I don't believe the Left is competent enough to pull off
• 39:53
  conspiracies like this. But I do have to say that they could not have
• 39:58
  timed these indictments better to help Donald Trump politically, at least in the short
• 40:04
  run than they have done. I mean, the only thing they could have
• 40:07
  done differently was if they had announced this indictment, you know, in the
• 40:12
  middle of Ronda Santis's presidential announcement, which may have actually been helpful to him,
• 40:19
  since I'm not a fan of how that all went down on Twitter,
• 40:22
  but I digress. But you know, basically, two weeks after de Santis
• 40:25
  announces, here we go again. It's all about Trump all the time,
• 40:30
  and let's give Republicans another reason to rally around Donald Trump. So politically,
• 40:37
  this is not going to hurt Trump at all. In a Republican primary.
• 40:43
  It will probably hurt him. And there is some polling already that indicates that
• 40:47
  there is an ABC poll that is certainly consistent with this idea that it's going
• 40:53
  to further hurt him. With independence that Republicans in the Majar do not believe
• 41:00
  that this is a very serious matter. In fact, over sixty percent of
• 41:05
  Republicans do not believe this is a serious matter. Eighty percent of Republicans believe
• 41:10
  that he should still be able to be president even if convicted in this case.
• 41:16
  So let me just give you the data here and from that ABC poll.
• 41:21
  I'm sorry, this is a CBS poll. CBS poll, sixty one
• 41:24
  percent say that Trump's indictment won't change their views about Trump. Seventy six percent
• 41:30
  say that Trump's indictment is politically motivated. This is a Republicans seventy six percent.
• 41:35
  Eighty percent Republicans say that Trump should be able to be president even if
• 41:38
  convicted overclassified documents. And there's an ABC poll that indicates that independence view of
• 41:47
  this is much more serious than, for instance, the first indictment in New
• 41:53
  York, and that independents are taking this much more seriously than Republicans are,
• 42:00
  and that kind of fits with what you would expect that the reality is that
• 42:04
  this is going to hurt Trump even further in a general election against Joe Biden,
• 42:09
  and theoretically might hurt him in the polling when it comes to the general
• 42:14
  election, but even there, even there, Trump is saved because you know,
• 42:20
  in theory, okay, not going to really hurt him on the Republican
• 42:23
  side, but isn't the Santis is going to be able to say, see,
• 42:28
  look at these general election polls. Trump is going to lose to Biden
• 42:31
  and I do better than Trump does against Biden. Well, I don't think
• 42:36
  that's going to be the case lartually, because one Trump people don't really care
• 42:40
  about polls. The Santists, I think, is being harmed in general election
• 42:45
  polls for a number of reasons, some of which I've mentioned previously, including
• 42:49
  the attacks by Trump, but also because Biden is so damn weak. Biden
• 42:54
  is so damn weak that it actually keeps the person reception of Trump's viability in
• 43:01
  a general election alive. So, I mean, it's so frustrating because everything
• 43:09
  seems to work in Trump's favor. And here, if Biden was stronger,
• 43:15
  I think more Republicans would go, oh gosh, okay, this is bad.
• 43:20
  It might be politically motivated, but you know, we just don't need
• 43:22
  this headache. Can we just get rid of Trump and let's go with a
• 43:27
  young guy and let's you know, play the age card and move on because
• 43:31
  Trump's a loser here. Well, but because Biden is so weak, and
• 43:36
  in the Republican mind, they can't even imagine why anyone would vote for Joe
• 43:40
  Biden. I mean, there are lots of Trump fans who are just completely
• 43:45
  convinced there's no possible way that Joe Biden can win reelection, as if they
• 43:49
  didn't see the twenty twenty election where you got eighty one million votes, almost
• 43:52
  all of which were anti Trump votes. Of course, they don't believe that
• 43:54
  because Trump has told them that that election was rigged, and they didn't apparently
• 44:00
  paying any attention during the twenty twenty two midterm elections, where Republicans basically fought
• 44:05
  to a draw in an election where they should have had a red wave.
• 44:09
  Now, since then, Biden's approval ratings have gone down significantly. He looks
• 44:15
  even weaker physically, and I think that's translated into his political weakness. But
• 44:21
  that plays right into Trump's hands because the only real negative from a political polling
• 44:27
  standpoint that Trump is likely to see thanks to this indictment, at least in
• 44:30
  the short run, is that it's going to hurt him in general election polling.
• 44:35
  But being hurt in general election polling is not going to be a big
• 44:38
  deal because it's not going to be dramatic, largely because of Biden's weakness and
• 44:43
  because Republicans will not believe it because they look at Biden physically and in the
• 44:49
  state of the country and they go, now, Trump's gonna crush Biden.
• 44:52
  He'll crush him. He'll crush him in the debate, so they'll outwork him.
• 44:57
  And you know, America is to be tied with all this because everyone
• 45:00
  I know is upset with Biden. So therefore Trump is gonna win. So
• 45:07
  politically, I do not see how this is gonna hurt Trump at all in
• 45:12
  the short run. Is it gonna help him? I actually don't think it's
• 45:17
  going to help him. I know this sounds a little more optimistic than I'm
• 45:22
  known for being, but it's largely because Trump's numbers have exploded so much in
• 45:28
  the last three or four months on the Republican side that they don't have much
• 45:32
  hire to go. He's already winning by at least thirty five to forty points
• 45:38
  nationally. Since De santis announcement, it's only decreased a few points at best,
• 45:45
  and so and there's no sign that he was suddenly that everything was gonna
• 45:52
  change thanks to Ron De Santa's officially getting into the race. So there's not
• 45:55
  a whole lot more room for Trump to until he hits his ceiling. So
• 46:02
  my guess is that the national and maybe the state polling on the Republican side
• 46:07
  is going to stay mostly the same. There might be a couple point bump,
• 46:13
  you know, maybe we'll see directly a point or two go down.
• 46:16
  There might be a few Republicans to get offended by this, but I think
• 46:20
  by and large it's not going to impact the Republican polling, at least not
• 46:27
  in the short run. I'd like to see some data on that. I
• 46:30
  don't think we have good data on it yet. It takes some time for
• 46:34
  these things to flesh out. But that's my general sense and my prediction.
• 46:38
  Now, if now I have said previously that by Father's Day, which is
• 46:45
  coming up this weekend, that at the Santist wasn't at least somewhat back in
• 46:50
  the race, wasn't making some significant headway, that this thing would be essentially
• 46:55
  over, I'm going to push that back a little bit because of this indictment,
• 47:00
  and I'd like to see some more time for the data to come in.
• 47:04
  But I am not of the belief and there are some delusional Descantist people
• 47:07
  who think that this is actually going to hurt Trump, that they're going to
• 47:12
  be people who are going to start to see have their eyes be open that
• 47:15
  I'm seeing it in my own Twitter feed or my own social network, and
• 47:20
  I'm just not buying that until i see some real data to back it up.
• 47:23
  So my guess is that we're not going to see a lot of movement
• 47:27
  on the Republican side. We may see some negative movement whether it comes to
• 47:30
  Trump in the general election side, but because of Biden's weakness, that really
• 47:35
  won't be that very significant at all when it comes to the perception of the
• 47:40
  race, which is what matters so very much. So that's the political side
• 47:45
  of this. I mean, Trump is in an incredibly strong position there.
• 47:50
  In that CBS pole I referenced fourteen percent, only fourteen percent of Republicans are
• 47:57
  not considering Trump as their choice. That's by far the smallest percentage of people
• 48:04
  who are not considering him as their choice to be the Republican nominee. The
• 48:09
  Santist is second, but he's a distant second. That means that eighty six
• 48:15
  percent of Republicans. Now this was before the news of the indictment fully broken,
• 48:21
  but eighty six percent of Republicans were still considering Donald Trump after seven years
• 48:29
  of chaos, after three lost elections and an indictment in New York and rumors
• 48:35
  of an indictment federally, only fourteen percent of crossed Trump off the list.
• 48:40
  You gotta get somehow to fifty five percent minimum by the time Iowa New Hampshire
• 48:46
  come around. How do you go from fourteen percent crossing Trump off their list
• 48:52
  to fifty five percent minimum in six months or seven months? I don't see.
• 48:59
  I don't see how you do that. Now? Could another indictment on
• 49:06
  election fraud and Georgia potentially finally hit the threshold where you reach a point of
• 49:13
  critical mass where it's just too much, where people get tired. I understand
• 49:17
  that theory, and at that and at this point, that might be the
• 49:22
  only thing other than physical infirmity that could potentially change things. But as I've
• 49:29
  said numerous times, even that theory has flaws. I mean, I'm at
• 49:35
  this point the only path you have if you're a DeSantis person is you've got
• 49:38
  a root for a third indictment where it just becomes it just becomes too much,
• 49:44
  too much that from a perception standpoint, that details don't matter, This
• 49:47
  is just too much. I can't I can't deal with this. It's too
• 49:51
  much baggage, too much drama. It's going to hurt them too much in
• 49:53
  the general election, and I need to go elsewhere. That is theoretically possible.
• 49:59
  And maybe a third indictment, if it is based in some substance like
• 50:02
  this one seems to be that could have a significant impact in theory. But
• 50:09
  the counter to that, and I have said this continually and I believe I've
• 50:13
  been vindicated, is that one of the major problems here is that every time
• 50:17
  Trump gets indicted, it's Rhonda Santis that has to eat the shit sandwich.
• 50:24
  Rhonda Santis is forced to put out a statement saying he supports Trump, which
• 50:31
  doesn't please independence. It doesn't help. Frankly, I think people that were
• 50:37
  already in his camp who were anti Trump, I mean, if you're an
• 50:39
  anti Trump person. The idea that the Santis is basically kissing Trump's ass continually
• 50:46
  every time he gets in trouble and playing the what aboutism game and saying,
• 50:51
  well, what about Hillary and what about Biden? And this is a political
• 50:54
  witch and blah blah blah. It's understandable where people might say, well,
• 51:01
  we'll wait a minute, there's other people in the race. Maybe Desantist isn't
• 51:05
  the guy, but de Santists feels like he has to do it because if
• 51:09
  he doesn't, he'll be destroyed in the minds of over half of the Republican
• 51:15
  voters. So we can't win the nomination anyway in the long run. And
• 51:21
  even if he did, enough Republicans and Trump supporters would stay home and he
• 51:25
  wouldn't be able to be Biden. So it's a no win situation for DeSantis.
• 51:30
  And I have anticipated this and I continually said, the more trouble the
• 51:34
  Trump gets in the worsess for DeSantis in this upside down world that we're living
• 51:39
  in, and it's got to be very, very frustrating for the DeSantis people.
• 51:45
  And I actually give him some slack because I understand the problem. I
• 51:51
  hate it, but I understand it. There's no good scenario here, and
• 51:57
  in large part it's because of Trump's enormous popularity still within Republican ranks and within
• 52:06
  the conservative media. I have said continually this is a lot about leverage,
• 52:12
  and the reason why my hair has been on fire for the last few months
• 52:17
  is that I knew that Trump had broken containment. That the only way this
• 52:23
  was gonna work, was that you contain Trump, that you're at at least
• 52:29
  eye level with Trump, that it's not clear he's going to be the nominee.
• 52:34
  Because when it's clear he's the nominee, nobody in power, really in
• 52:39
  real power, wants to diss him, wants to get on his bad side,
• 52:45
  wants to make themselves vulnerable to his wrath should he be the nominee or
• 52:50
  maybe even president. I have used continually the Tom Cruise movie Valkyrie as and
• 52:59
  now ology for what's happening here, hopefully without people being massacred. But if
• 53:05
  you've ever seen the Valkyrie movie, if you haven't, I urge you to
• 53:07
  watch it because it's it's a tremendous depiction of real world politics and how psychology
• 53:14
  works and a coup. Well, basically we're at the stage now where the
• 53:20
  coup has been triggered and attempted. But the perception now has been created that
• 53:27
  Hitler survived the coup and is going to still be the leader. And once
• 53:32
  that happens, everybody that was on the fence scurries back into Hitler's category because
• 53:42
  they don't want to die, and all those people that were supporting the person
• 53:46
  who was leading the coup. They get weak need they run for the hills,
• 53:54
  and it's a self fulfilling prophecy. And let me again take this out
• 53:59
  of the theoretical and into the practical. Fox News Channel is a perfect example
• 54:04
  of this. Imagine a world, if you will. If Trump had never
• 54:09
  been indicted in New York and Tucker Carlson hadn't revised the history on January sixth,
• 54:19
  and Trump and De Santis were still eye to eye basically in a two
• 54:24
  man, pretty even battle as it was at the end of twenty twenty two
• 54:29
  in the beginning of twenty twenty three, and Fox News Channel had not fired
• 54:32
  Tucker Carlson and not lost a bunch of their audience as well as their street
• 54:37
  cred within the anti establishment quote unquote conservative Trump world. If all those things
• 54:45
  had not happened, and this indictment had come down, Fox News Channel would
• 54:51
  be in a far, far, far stronger position to create and carry and
• 55:00
  follow through with the narrative of this is the time to let Trump go,
• 55:06
  this is the end for Donald Trump, that this is this is the moment,
• 55:12
  folks, that this is too much, it's not necessary, it's going
• 55:16
  to help elect Biden. There's a viable alternative. His name is Rhonda Santis,
• 55:22
  and it's time for that to happen. That could have been the Fox
• 55:27
  News Channel narrative under the circumstances that I just laid out. But because all
• 55:31
  those things did happen, Fox has no leverage. Fox can't afford to do
• 55:38
  this because if they were to do it, they would get destroyed by what's
• 55:45
  left to their core audience, and they would be in a situation where they
• 55:50
  would effectively be going up going against Hitler when Hitler had clearly survived the coup
• 55:59
  Hitler. You know, again, I'm not analogizing Trump to Hitler on a
• 56:01
  substance basis. I'm using that from the standpoint of the politics of this matter
• 56:06
  in the movie Valkyrie. And so the reality is Fox News. While they
• 56:12
  might let Jonathan Turnley on from time to time and Bill Barr from time to
• 56:15
  time, It'll be fascinated to see if they have either of them on.
• 56:17
  Ever again, when it comes to this indictment issue, the reality is they
• 56:22
  can't do this. They cannot do as many people had anticipated at the beginning
• 56:30
  of the year, which was get a divorce from Donald Trump. They don't
• 56:34
  have the leverage to do that now, especially after having fired Tucker Carlson.
• 56:37
  So Fox is on board with Trump now, and so this becomes a self
• 56:44
  fulfilling prophecy. As I've said many many times, So what's the scenario where
• 56:49
  Trump gets taken out? Who's gonna do it? Fox is not gonna do
• 56:53
  it now because they don't have the leverage. They would get destroyed if they
• 57:00
  did so now, because it's clear that among their base audience, Trump is
• 57:07
  still the guy. And this is a classic situation where it's not the media
• 57:12
  outlet that is driving the audience, it's the audience that is driving the media
• 57:15
  outlet. They can they read the tea leaves better than anybody. They have
• 57:21
  overnight television ratings that tell them minute by minute what stories pop and which ones
• 57:25
  don't. By the way, as someone who watches this very carefully, I
• 57:30
  saw every single conservative media outlet that put out a tweet on this indictment issue
• 57:37
  that was negative towards Trump. I did not find one that when anything close
• 57:42
  to viral, most of them were completely ignored. And this is from some
• 57:45
  major media outlets like The Washington Times, a conservative newspaper, Fox News.
• 57:52
  When they tweeted out the Bill Barr interview that we played large portions of for
• 57:58
  you that did not go viral in any sort of way. Most of these
• 58:02
  things get ignored because the audience on the right just doesn't want to hear it.
• 58:07
  And that's what's gonna win the day here. And so Trump is clearly
• 58:14
  the leader, he is clearly the alpha. He's way ahead, and now
• 58:19
  nobody is incentivized to try to take him out unless something dramatic changes. Now,
• 58:27
  what could that be? Well, again, a third indictment I think
• 58:30
  could underline theoretically have an impact of attrition where it's just we reach a threshold
• 58:38
  where some portion of the Republican population says enough is enough. I'm skeptical of
• 58:45
  that, but I'm open to that idea. It's not gonna win the day
• 58:50
  in and of itself. To me, We're at the point now where it's
• 58:54
  either heart attack or physical infirmity or physically being in a jail cell. There's
• 59:01
  something that has to happen to Trump. And I'm not urging this. I'm
• 59:06
  just saying, as far as Trump not being the nominee, we're now down
• 59:09
  to it has to be physical, either physical incapacity, or physical presence in
• 59:17
  a prison cell, and the timing just isn't going to work out when it
• 59:22
  comes to a prison cell. I don't even think that that it's likely that
• 59:27
  that scenario will ever happen, regardless of the timing, because one of the
• 59:31
  things that the media seems to be discounting or forgetting, is that this is
• 59:37
  Donald Trump we're talking about. Not only does he have lots of money for
• 59:39
  lawyers, even though his lawyers just quit on this federal indictment, although you
• 59:45
  could argue that that was to be expected based upon the situation, but that
• 59:51
  did happen. But he's got money for lawyers, He's obviously got enormous personal
• 59:57
  charisma. If he's ever in a room, it's only gonna take two jurors
• 1:00:04
  to be enamored with Donald Trump and this particular trial whenever it happens. Now,
• 1:00:09
  Jack Smith has claimed it's going to be a speedy process. I don't
• 1:00:13
  know what the hell that means in a federal case, but it's just impossible
• 1:00:15
  for me to believe that before the Republican Convention that there's going to be an
• 1:00:22
  actual trial and they're going to be able to keep two big Trump supporters in
• 1:00:30
  Florida. In Florida, off the jury, I mean, how do you
• 1:00:35
  have a fair jury when Donald Trump is the defendant. It's just not possible.
• 1:00:40
  There's just we've been through this before. They tried O. J.
• 1:00:44
  Simpson in Los Angeles. There was and he was clearly guilty of killing two
• 1:00:50
  people, and that that jury, you know, took three hours, less
• 1:00:53
  than three hours to deliberate an obviously slam dunk case and decided that J was
• 1:01:00
  somehow not guilty. Well, all it's gonna take in Florida is too strong
• 1:01:05
  Trump supporters, and there's no way you're gonna get a conviction. I don't
• 1:01:08
  care what the facts are, especially over something where it's nowhere near as serious
• 1:01:14
  as murder. So I don't to me, there's all sorts of possibilities where
• 1:01:20
  this actually works well for Trump. Well in both cases. Now, in
• 1:01:23
  the Manhattan situation, your jury pool is going to be much worse than in
• 1:01:28
  Florida. But again, it only takes two and Trump's lawyers are gonna know
• 1:01:32
  that it's incredibly easy to be able to discern in the jury pool who's a
• 1:01:37
  potentially big Trump supporter. I mean, so if you can't get two people
• 1:01:42
  on that jury to hold hands, then you ought to be fired. It
• 1:01:45
  should not be that difficult, even in New York City, but in Florida
• 1:01:50
  it should be incredibly easy. So you know, Trump wins if any of
• 1:01:55
  these cases get thrown out, he'll get vindicated. That way more likely.
• 1:02:00
  He's able to delay these trials until way beyond when they matter, you know,
• 1:02:07
  after the convention or even you know, after the presidential election. Of
• 1:02:12
  course, if he wins, then it's all over anyway, because he can
• 1:02:15
  get rid of a federal court case against himself very very easily as president of
• 1:02:20
  the United States, and no one will care about the New York City situation.
• 1:02:25
  And so you know, he could win there by delay, or he
• 1:02:30
  wins by a potential acquittal. Now I don't think he'll get acquitted if and
• 1:02:36
  when there's an actually trial on the classified documents case, but he's probably gonna
• 1:02:42
  get a hung jury based upon my analysis, and he'll be able to spend
• 1:02:46
  that as a as a victory. The government wasted all this money, all
• 1:02:51
  this time, all this investigation. They couldn't get one conviction against me.
• 1:02:55
  I have been vindicated again, that's the way it'll be perceived. So I
• 1:03:02
  don't see a path towards the legal process saving Republicans from this looming disaster.
• 1:03:10
  I just don't see it. And um, you know, look, I
• 1:03:15
  would be thrilled if if there really was a speedy trial and if in fact
• 1:03:20
  he was guilty on these charges, he was convicted and then somehow he was
• 1:03:25
  put in prison. By the way, even under the scenario he was is
• 1:03:29
  convicted in a speedy trial, there's no way he's going to be put in
• 1:03:34
  jail as the Republican presidential front runner on a case where you know, nobody
• 1:03:42
  got killed, he'll be he'll be let out on appeal that he'll appeal forever.
• 1:03:50
  So he's never going to see the inside of a prison cell between now
• 1:03:53
  and the presidential election. That's just I just can't perceive that this is an
• 1:03:58
  area where I'm an expert. But it's just hard for me to imagine how
• 1:04:00
  that's even theoretically possible given all the circumstances that I just laid out. And
• 1:04:06
  so this is gonna be bad. I mean, there's almost no good scenario
• 1:04:12
  here. I don't know how to sugarcoat this. The only if I was
• 1:04:15
  gonna try to find a silver lining, it's this that things appear this bad,
• 1:04:24
  and it's only June of twenty twenty three. So you know, if
• 1:04:29
  you if you believe in the pendulum theory, if they're this bad in June
• 1:04:33
  of twenty twenty three, there's at least time for somehow the pendulum to swing
• 1:04:40
  back in the other direction. So from a global perspective, I guess that's
• 1:04:47
  something to hang onto, because I don't think they can get a whole lot
• 1:04:49
  worse than what they currently are. However, not to be all negative,
• 1:04:56
  again, it does not appear to me as if the Des sand Is campaign
• 1:05:00
  is willing or able to take advantage of the opportunities that they are given.
• 1:05:05
  In fact, I am now coming to the conclusion that the Santa's campaign is
• 1:05:12
  really just strategizing based upon the idea that they're going to be there just in
• 1:05:16
  case Donald Trump is physically infirmed or somehow ends up in jail. That seems
• 1:05:24
  to be their strategy, at least as of right now. I'm open to
• 1:05:27
  the idea, though I don't really believe it. I'm open to the idea
• 1:05:30
  that they are simply waiting, that the Santa's campaign is for a situation where
• 1:05:36
  Trump is more vulnerable than he currently is. For them to really unload on
• 1:05:42
  Trump, which is something that I have said in the past, makes sense
• 1:05:45
  because if you attack him down by thirty five forty points in the polls,
• 1:05:49
  it doesn't have nearly the same impact as if you attack him when it is
• 1:05:54
  perceived that he is weak, or if you get him in a debate,
• 1:05:58
  or you're closer to the actual voting process happening. I get all that,
• 1:06:03
  but as I've also said, we are at a critical juncture here because we
• 1:06:08
  are really on this path of Trump either not doing the debates or using his
• 1:06:14
  leverage, which he's a master ad, to completely eviscerate the debates. And
• 1:06:18
  I don't think that I've made this part of the debate argument enough where I
• 1:06:24
  have said that Trump will likely try to bail from the debates, and he'll
• 1:06:28
  get away with it when he's if he's winning by this much in the national
• 1:06:32
  polling. But it's not just about bailing on the debates. Trump could also
• 1:06:38
  do the debates but have the leverage to make the rules as such to where
• 1:06:44
  there's so much in his advantage that it's really not even worth going through the
• 1:06:50
  process. And what I mean by that is Trump, because it's going to
• 1:06:56
  be perceived he's going to be the winner, and the people making these decisions
• 1:06:59
  will be doing everything they can to placate him. So he'll get to choose
• 1:07:02
  who's in the debates. So if Avake Ramaswami will be in, Chris Christie
• 1:07:08
  will be out, there'll be enough people on the stage to where no one
• 1:07:12
  can actually go after Trump. The rules will be set up to advantage Trump
• 1:07:16
  in every possible way. You know, the way the crowds will be selected
• 1:07:20
  will be advantage to Trump. The rules and whether or not the crowds can
• 1:07:26
  respond will be advantaged to Trump. Everything will be done to Trump's advantage because
• 1:07:31
  of the leverage he has from the national polling and the perception that he is
• 1:07:38
  going to be the nominee. And so you know, I am I am
• 1:07:45
  understanding, while frustrated by I am understanding of the strategy that now seems to
• 1:07:50
  be pervasive within team to Santis that we just can't go after Trump right now,
• 1:07:58
  and they certainly don't aren't going after him on the indictment, which I
• 1:08:01
  somewhat understand, while although I disagree and it frustrates the hell out of me.
• 1:08:06
  What I don't understand and what is more than frustrating, and which leaves
• 1:08:12
  me to come to this conclusion that the De Santis campaign really is not running
• 1:08:17
  a full blown campaign, that they seem to be just sitting there hoping for
• 1:08:23
  some manner from heaven to fall in their lap, and that for Trump to
• 1:08:27
  be forced out by some force of nature is what is not happening. When
• 1:08:32
  it comes to the COVID issue in general, and Andrew Cuomo and Gavin Newsom
• 1:08:40
  in particular, I have joked previously that the only way that the Santis can
• 1:08:45
  get back into this race is for De Santis to get indicted in San Francisco,
• 1:08:49
  ideally for something COVID related or transgender related. Well, last week I
• 1:08:57
  mentioned that Gavin Newsom was trying to help the Santists on that front by threatening
• 1:09:02
  absurdly to charge the Santists with kidnapping because he sent some migrants to California,
• 1:09:10
  and not much was made of that issue, even though that was a potential
• 1:09:15
  opportunity to show that, you know, Newsom is much more afraid of the
• 1:09:19
  Santists than he is of Trump, and that therefore, in the conservative mind
• 1:09:24
  that would have some value in a Republican primary, because Newsom is among if
• 1:09:30
  he's not the top he ought to be, but certainly within the top five
• 1:09:33
  most hated and distrusted Democrats in Republican circles nationwide. Well, then Newsom did
• 1:09:43
  this interview with Sean Hannity, and this is just unbelievable. I mean,
• 1:09:48
  if if I'm the de Santist camp, and if you had told me that
• 1:09:54
  the following scenario was going to happen, that Trump would proactively, just after
• 1:10:00
  we announce, put out a video praising Andrew Cuomo's response to COVID in comparison
• 1:10:06
  to Ronda Santis and Florida's response to COVID, and that Andrew Cuomo would then
• 1:10:13
  back Trump and use Trump to disc Florida's response to COVID, and then Gavin
• 1:10:23
  Newsom would go on Fox News Channel, and not long after Trump had praised
• 1:10:30
  Newsom on Fox News Channel in an interview with Tucker Carlson go on to praise
• 1:10:36
  Trump's COVID response and how he handled COVID with him personally, if you had
• 1:10:44
  told me that scenario, I would have been like, oh my god,
• 1:10:48
  this is the greatest thing that's ever happened. We're gonna win because we're gonna
• 1:10:55
  use this issue to destroy Trump's entire street cred as this anti woke crusader.
• 1:11:02
  We're going to expose how he shipped the bed on COVID. We're gonna tie
• 1:11:08
  him with two hated figures on the left, Cuomo and Newsome. He's part
• 1:11:13
  of the deep state establishment, this Biden Trump establishment cabal that I talked about,
• 1:11:19
  which should be one of the major themes of the de Santist campaign.
• 1:11:24
  This is fantastic. We can't possibly ask for anything more than that. And
• 1:11:30
  that's what has happened with the latest piece of this puzzle coming in the form
• 1:11:34
  and I just I cannot believe how lucky that the Santist people theoretically were to
• 1:11:41
  have Newsome do an interview with Sean Hannity. By the way, what an
• 1:11:45
  indictment of Sean Hannity that Newsom, who's an idiot, was confident enough and
• 1:11:50
  rightfully so that he would be able to outsmart Hannity, that he would be
• 1:11:55
  willing to do a one on one interview with Hannity, and Hannity basically doesn't
• 1:11:59
  even lay it love on him. I mean, that's just pathetic job by
• 1:12:02
  Sean Hannity here. I mean, you've got Gavin Newsom in your clutches and
• 1:12:08
  you don't even draw blood. But the most significant part of this is he
• 1:12:13
  gets Newsome to praise Trump when it comes to COVID response. And this should
• 1:12:23
  be just deathknell in theory in a Republican primary for Trump to be tied to
• 1:12:32
  Newsom in general, but specifically on COVID. And here's what that sounded like
• 1:12:39
  on Fox News Channel when Sean Hannity interviewed California Governor Slash King, Gavin Newsom,
• 1:12:45
  all right, Donald Trump's trying for you. I'd be negligent if I
• 1:12:48
  didn't get your reaction to what happened in the news said, and I say
• 1:12:54
  that as an American, I can imagine friendly with him. I was,
• 1:12:57
  you know, I didn't have a close fist, that an open hand.
• 1:12:59
  We act incredible relation during COVID. It was incredible. He would play no
• 1:13:02
  politics or in COVID with California played none whatsoever. It's a fact. And
• 1:13:08
  by the way, I've got a lot of critique from the left by saying
• 1:13:12
  that. Now, when I saw that, I was like, Okay,
• 1:13:16
  this has got to be the moment, right We're finally going to unlease the
• 1:13:20
  dogs. Right if you're the Santist campaign, I mean, you can't possibly
• 1:13:26
  resist this opportunity. The ads right themselves. You've got Cuomo and Newsome tying
• 1:13:34
  themselves to Trump, not just tying themselves to Trump, but tying themselves to
• 1:13:41
  Trump. On the santis is number one issue, at least theoretically, what
• 1:13:46
  ought to be his number one issue, which is the response to COVID.
• 1:13:51
  The ads right themselves. You could have Trump praising Cuomo, Cuomo praising Trump,
• 1:14:01
  Trump praising Newsom, Newsom praising Trump, and the entire theme of the
• 1:14:06
  ad would be Woke Back Mountain, a COVID bromance. I mean, how
• 1:14:15
  great would that be? Get the proper music in the background, Woke Back
• 1:14:20
  Mountain, a COVID bromance with Trump tied to Cuomo and Newsom on De Santis's
• 1:14:30
  number one issue, and instead, other than a couple of tweets, nothing
• 1:14:35
  that I have seen now. Is it possible that the De Santis camp just
• 1:14:41
  thinks this is not the right time. I guess so. I don't know
• 1:14:45
  when they think that time is going to be. It's always better to do
• 1:14:48
  it when it's a news story, because then it doesn't appear as if you
• 1:14:53
  are dredging up the past. And unfortunately, bizarrely, many people think that
• 1:14:58
  COVID is the past, and though it's clearly not. That's becoming more and
• 1:15:01
  more obvious every single day, but that's the perception of it. So that's
• 1:15:06
  why you know there's urgency for two reasons. One because you've got to close
• 1:15:10
  the gap to make sure that Trump does the debates, but also there's urgency
• 1:15:14
  when it comes to the news hook and how it would be perceived for you
• 1:15:17
  to raise this issue if you wait five months, well, why are you
• 1:15:23
  doing that now? Plus doing it now helps create a narrative that Trump is
• 1:15:30
  not a conservative, that he's not a woke crusader, that he doesn't defeat
• 1:15:36
  the deep state, that he's captive of these people. That all you have
• 1:15:40
  to do is compliment him or be someone who it's in his self interest to
• 1:15:45
  compliment. It doesn't matter what your politics are. You can be a boogeyman
• 1:15:50
  of the right Cuomo and Newsom, and Trump will still for his own selfish
• 1:15:57
  purposes, not forgetting things done. For his own selfish purposes, he will
• 1:16:02
  side with them. This is very powerful and Again, it should be pointed
• 1:16:09
  out that there was polling data that over ninety percent of Republicans favored Florida's response
• 1:16:15
  to COVID then New York's. You can't get a better polling issue than this,
• 1:16:21
  And yet largely that Asantist campaign has come back with crickets with crickets,
• 1:16:30
  And I'm very close to just throwing up my hands and saying, okay,
• 1:16:34
  so what you're really doing here is you're just gonna play out the string.
• 1:16:41
  You know, put forward what seems like a good campaign, but you're not
• 1:16:46
  going to really attack Trump, and you're effectively just keeping your viability for twenty
• 1:16:51
  twenty eight, and you're gonna be there. Ironically enough, you know what
• 1:16:56
  the great irony of this is, it seems like that Asantist campaign strategy right
• 1:17:00
  now is exactly the Gavin Newsom strategy on the Democratic side. The Gavin Newsom
• 1:17:06
  of the Democratic side is well, if Biden dies, or if Biden just
• 1:17:11
  can't run, then maybe I've got a shot here. I'm gonna be the
• 1:17:15
  person that everyone turns to if it's clear that Biden can't do it, and
• 1:17:19
  if that doesn't happen, I'll be set up for twenty twenty eight. That's
• 1:17:24
  essentially what it seems like the DeSantis campaign strategy currently is. Now. I'm
• 1:17:29
  open, again, just to be clear, to the idea that the Dessanta's
• 1:17:33
  camp is waiting, which I think is wrong. I think it's dangerous.
• 1:17:39
  You may never get that opportunity if you don't shoot your shot now, it's
• 1:17:43
  never going to be close enough for you to do it. But maybe they're
• 1:17:45
  thinking along the lines up, well, there's gonna be a third indictment,
• 1:17:49
  and then there's gonna be some attrition, and and maybe at that point,
• 1:17:56
  when we're closer to the actual primaries, that's when we go in for the
• 1:17:59
  kid. If that's the strategy, I at least understand it. I don't
• 1:18:04
  agree with it for the reasons I've already stated, but I also don't really
• 1:18:09
  have any trust that that's where this is going. I'm just open to that
• 1:18:13
  possibility. I don't trust that that's the case, but this is a if
• 1:18:17
  things turn out the way they look like they're going to turn out, and
• 1:18:19
  I'm not coming to any final conclusions yet. I've already said I'm holding off
• 1:18:24
  on that for at least another couple of weeks. As far as declaring this
• 1:18:28
  race dead. But if it turns out the way that it looks, this
• 1:18:33
  is where the Santis campaign lost it on the issue of COVID, because the
• 1:18:40
  opportunities are numerous, and they're not just Newsome and Cuomo. But it is
• 1:18:45
  clear now that there are people on the left even who are now either willing
• 1:18:51
  to or being feeling like they're forced to admit that they were wrong about COVID.
• 1:18:58
  In at least some significant way. The lab theory is gaining all sorts
• 1:19:02
  of media credibility and even the gain of function situation with the FAUCI and the
• 1:19:10
  US government funding that what essentially was the Chinese military now appears as if Zif
• 1:19:15
  was in on this, and that the once discredited conspiratorial lab theory is now
• 1:19:23
  being accepted as the actual origins of the virus, and that seems to me
• 1:19:29
  to be something very significant. That is an opportunity for the Desantist campaign because
• 1:19:34
  while Trump did try give him some credit, he did try to push this
• 1:19:41
  this theory early on, he dropped it almost immediately, like he did almost
• 1:19:45
  everything with COVID. There were moments when Trump's instincts were right on COVID,
• 1:19:50
  but he never had the balls to trust his instincts and he immediately backed down
• 1:19:56
  on everything, while DeSantis did not back down. And so that's an issue
• 1:20:00
  that's in the news right now. But Mark Zuckerberg, obviously the guy owns
• 1:20:05
  Facebook. He did an interview recently where he was talking about misinformation and how
• 1:20:12
  to handle misinformation. This is a fascinating clip you're about to hear where Zuckerberg,
• 1:20:18
  if he's anywhere near as smart as he's perceived to be or thinks that
• 1:20:23
  he is, is essentially making the argument inadvertently that censoring people is an inherently
• 1:20:32
  destructive and impossible slippery slope because once you start doing it, you don't know
• 1:20:40
  where to stop, and inevitably you're going to make mistakes in doing it,
• 1:20:45
  and you can't be the arbiter of truth. And so here in an interview,
• 1:20:49
  Zuckerberg is talking about the general issue of misinformation where he basically lets it
• 1:20:57
  out of the bag that they don't really care about him this information if it's
• 1:21:00
  not a politically hot topic, that's that's the way. It's not the way
• 1:21:04
  he phrases it. But I want you to have that in your mindset as
• 1:21:09
  you're listening to this Basically, if it's not a third rail on the left,
• 1:21:13
  they don't care about censoring you. Like, for instance, you can
• 1:21:15
  say anything you want about UFOs, I guess, no matter how crazy that
• 1:21:19
  is, but that's not a third rail issue. Or you can say anything
• 1:21:24
  you want about Bigfoot or the Locknest monster, or you know, Epstein didn't
• 1:21:30
  really kill himself. I guess all the all the crazy theories that are out
• 1:21:34
  there, that's fine because those are quote unquote harmless. In other words,
• 1:21:38
  they're not part of the left wing religion. But then he gets to covid,
• 1:21:44
  which obviously is a central point in the left wing religion, and he
• 1:21:48
  acknowledges that some of the Facebook censorship turned out to be wrong. There he
• 1:21:57
  admits this, which is nick ordinary admission coming from Mark Zuckerberg. And here's
• 1:22:03
  what that sounded like. So misinformation, I think is um has been a
• 1:22:10
  really tricky one because there are things that are kind of obviously false. Right,
• 1:22:16
  there may be factual um, but may not be harmful um. Since
• 1:22:24
  it all right, are you gonna sensor someone for just being wrong? It's
• 1:22:28
  you know, if there's no kind of harm implication of what they're doing.
• 1:22:30
  I think that that's there's there's a bunch of real kind of issues and challenges
• 1:22:33
  there. But then I think that there are other places where it is,
• 1:22:38
  um it just takes some of the stuff around COVID earlier on in the pandemic,
• 1:22:42
  where um, there were you know, real health implications, but there
• 1:22:47
  hadn't been time to fully vet a bunch of the scientific assumptions. And you
• 1:22:50
  know, unfortunately, I think a lot of the kind of establishment done that
• 1:22:55
  um, you know, kind of waffled on a bunch of facts and you
• 1:22:58
  know, asked for a bunch of things to be censored that in retrospect ended
• 1:23:00
  up being more debatable or true. And that stuff is really tough, right,
• 1:23:06
  really undermines trust and that And now I found that to be extraordinary that
• 1:23:13
  Mark Zuckerberg was willing to admit that some of what Facebook censored turned out to
• 1:23:18
  actually be true. Now I would love for him to be more specific about
• 1:23:21
  that. I doubt that he would be, but he's right. However,
• 1:23:28
  I can't stand this new narrative that's forming within the media. It's getting a
• 1:23:33
  lot of traction, this idea that well, you know, back in early
• 1:23:39
  twenty twenty, it was a confusing time We really didn't know what was going
• 1:23:44
  on. The data then changed. We did what we thought was right.
• 1:23:49
  We aired on the side of good bullshit bullshit bullshit bullshit. We knew far
• 1:23:56
  more than they're pretending that we did. There's there's been nothing, nothing that
• 1:24:01
  happened since May of twenty twenty that is different than, for instance, what
• 1:24:08
  I and others like me were saying at that time, which was, this
• 1:24:14
  is not as dangerous as we were told. It's not as contagious as we
• 1:24:16
  were told. Masks do not work. Later on, it was clear a
• 1:24:20
  couple of months after the vaccines came out that vaccines did not stop transmission.
• 1:24:28
  It's still open as to how much death they really stop. That this was
• 1:24:31
  largely a disease that really only impacted old people with coul morbidities, that social
• 1:24:40
  distancing had no impact, that outdoor events were not dangerous. We knew all
• 1:24:45
  this. We knew it all but because we were in the middle of a
• 1:24:49
  presidential election, and because many in the LAFT didn't want to admit that they
• 1:24:53
  were wrong in their original panic, and because the health elites loved this new
• 1:24:59
  power they were getting. I didn't want to give it up. All of
• 1:25:01
  that combined to create a situation that should have been over in a month or
• 1:25:08
  two, as far as dramatic governmental interventions on what our actions were allowed to
• 1:25:15
  be an allegedly free country, and turned it into a two year ordeal in
• 1:25:20
  much of the country and is still going on in some ways today. Absolutely
• 1:25:28
  unbelievably unbelievably. You can't, I mean, this seems like a fake news
• 1:25:33
  story. The White House, the Biden White House is announced that and an
• 1:25:39
  event for college athletes that unvaccinated people, college athletes the most healthy people you
• 1:25:47
  can possibly find on the planet, that unvaccinated people will be forced to be
• 1:25:53
  masked and socially distant at the White House. You cannot make this shit up.
• 1:26:00
  How in the world in June of twenty twenty three, the Biden White
• 1:26:04
  House can be doing this and not be openly ridiculed by the entirety of the
• 1:26:11
  news media is absolutely beyond me. But that's where we are. That's how
• 1:26:16
  utterly dead journalism is because even though every single media outlet knows this is ridiculous,
• 1:26:24
  because it's still part of their religion and they don't want to admit that
• 1:26:27
  they were wrong, they will not, at least on the left. They
• 1:26:30
  will not attack the Biden White House for doing this. I mean, there's
• 1:26:34
  absolutely no reason, no logic, no data, no nothing to substantiate this,
• 1:26:43
  and it just happens to occur right on the heels of Novak Djokovic winning
• 1:26:47
  the French Open, becoming the men's tennis player to have won the most major
• 1:26:54
  titles, and doing so after he was barred from playing even in the US
• 1:27:01
  Open tennis tournament thanks to Joe Biden because he is unvaccinated. I mean,
• 1:27:10
  that is the most underrated sports story of the last couple of years. And
• 1:27:14
  there's been a lot that have been underrated, almost all of them related to
• 1:27:17
  COVID. But the idea that Novak Djokovic has overcome the utter discrimination against him
• 1:27:27
  for no reason whatsoever, all because he decided not to take a vaccine that
• 1:27:31
  would not help him at all against a virus that he was not vulnerable to,
• 1:27:39
  and a vaccine that theoretically he could have possibly caused him some harm,
• 1:27:45
  is maybe the most mind blowing sports development in the entire COVID era. And
• 1:27:51
  then he wins the French Open, becomes the greatest tennis champion of all time,
• 1:27:58
  and there's no discussion of this at all. This overcoming, even just
• 1:28:01
  the overcoming of adversity angle should be something that the sports media and the news
• 1:28:08
  media should embrace. Right, Oh my god, he was ostracized. He
• 1:28:13
  was prevented from playing in major tournaments, including in the United fricking States of
• 1:28:19
  America not far from where the Statue of Liberty is. That's where the US
• 1:28:25
  Open takes place in New York. And Djokovic couldn't even get into the goddamn
• 1:28:29
  country legally, and crickets from the news media and the Biden White House gets
• 1:28:36
  away apparently with hosting an event where the unvaccinated that to be masked and socially
• 1:28:43
  distant. I mean, you can't make this shit up. It's unbelievable.
• 1:28:47
  But this is the world we live in, and all of this is set
• 1:28:51
  up perfectly for De Santis to take advantage of his number one issue, and
• 1:28:57
  there's no sign that Team to Santra is willing we're able to do that,
• 1:29:00
  at least as of this moment. Now. As far as Joe Biden is
• 1:29:05
  concerned, I mentioned recently on the podcast that after Joe Biden's fall at the
• 1:29:13
  Air Force Academy commencement address, that there was gonna be some major Democrat that
• 1:29:20
  was gonna finally come forward and say enough is enough, Biden should not be
• 1:29:27
  the nominee. And there I always has to be someone to go first,
• 1:29:32
  And I think in this situation, if there was someone prominent to go first,
• 1:29:36
  who was the right person to go first, that it might open the
• 1:29:40
  floodgates. Now, in a rational world, Bill Barr doing what he did
• 1:29:45
  on the Trump indictment on Fox News Channel would open the floodgates on the right.
• 1:29:48
  But that's not going to happen because Trump has a cult. Biden does
• 1:29:53
  not have a cult. And I theorized that if I was gonna pick somebody
• 1:29:59
  who would be the guy or the person to come forward in a prominent way
• 1:30:04
  on television and say Biden shouldn't be the nominee. I picked Van Jones,
• 1:30:11
  black commentator who I considered to be a very smart guy. Often he's contrarian,
• 1:30:16
  and some of the things he's willing to say I don't agree with him
• 1:30:20
  often, but he's I do think he's a good analyst that Van Jones on
• 1:30:25
  CNN would have the incentive to do so. One it's CNN. They seem
• 1:30:30
  to be going in a different direction. Philosophically, he's black. That gives
• 1:30:34
  him extra protection. He's got lots of street cred, he's prominent, he's
• 1:30:40
  got a large following, certainly among liberals. Now that has not happened,
• 1:30:46
  but I found it interesting that someone has jumped forward who is a little bit
• 1:30:53
  like Van Jones. I did not see this coming. But the person that
• 1:30:58
  has filled the Van Jones's role, though I don't think it's going to create
• 1:31:00
  a Floodgate effect is Stephen A. Smith of ESPN. Stephen A. Smith
• 1:31:08
  is someone I loathe. You know, we're both from the Philadelphia area.
• 1:31:14
  That's where he began as a sports writer. He is, in my view
• 1:31:16
  of fraud. Uh. You know, he basically has become a massive celebrity
• 1:31:23
  because he doesn't act. He basically does a black preacher act on sports television
• 1:31:30
  and it's entertaining at times. And I don't think he's a I don't think
• 1:31:33
  he's a complete idiot. I mean he does say some things at times that
• 1:31:38
  are are accurate. I did not think that he was philosophically predisposed to being
• 1:31:45
  the person who would come forward to say that Biden shouldn't be the nominee but
• 1:31:48
  he did so, and of course, immediately Fox News Channel jumped all over
• 1:31:55
  this, right because you know, they see this as a situation where man
• 1:32:00
  eats dog. So black guy proceed as a liberal on a liberal outlet like
• 1:32:05
  ESPN is willing to say, wait a minute, Joe Biden's too old.
• 1:32:12
  We shouldn't be doing this. We gotta get Stephen A. Smith on our
• 1:32:15
  programming. And Stephen A. Smith, because he's an attention horror, he
• 1:32:19
  loves this, and so he goes on Fox News Channel with Sean Hannity and
• 1:32:26
  he basically makes the case that Joe Biden is too old and that this should
• 1:32:31
  not be who the Democrats nominated. And here's what that sounded like. Mess.
• 1:32:35
  Of course, he's a cognitive master. I'm not going to labor excuse
• 1:32:40
  me, I'm not going to label it that way show on. What I'm
• 1:32:43
  gonna tell you is this, I'm looking at him, and I don't like
• 1:32:45
  what I see. I'm not at breast with what I've been very concerned with
• 1:32:50
  what I've seen, and the fact that he's going to be eighty two years
• 1:32:54
  of age at election time. If he would have winn an election and he'd
• 1:32:58
  be in a white House and tell he's eighty six years I think in the
• 1:33:00
  year twenty twenty three. It is utterly embarrassing that the liberal side has him
• 1:33:06
  as their best candidate. What does it say about you when that is the
• 1:33:12
  best candidate that you can give the left? That is ridiculous. That's not
• 1:33:17
  a knock against Joe Biden, an indictment against the Democratic Party. It took
• 1:33:23
  a little push. Now I got Stephen A coming out of his shell.
• 1:33:26
  I was waiting for that. All right, Now, let me move on.
• 1:33:28
  Now this is a situation where I really have no dog in this hunt
• 1:33:30
  because Stephen A. Smith has been as wrong as anyone has ever been about
• 1:33:34
  the whole Penn State Joe Paternal Jerry Sandusky scandal. And there is even a
• 1:33:42
  supporter of mine, a god in the name of Laton Harmon, who to
• 1:33:45
  this day every single day tweets a video of Stephen A. Smith claiming that
• 1:33:51
  he will debate anyone anytime. Just come on, come on, come one,
• 1:33:55
  come all, just challenge me and I will debate you on the air,
• 1:34:00
  and has tweeted this video with a challenge to Stephen A. Smith to
• 1:34:02
  debate me on that topic. And he has tweeted that tweet counting the days
• 1:34:09
  every single day now for almost two years, and I don't think he's missed
• 1:34:15
  one day. Just amazing. So kudos to latent harmon. And of course
• 1:34:19
  we've gotten no response whatsoever from Stephen A. Smith because he's a coward and
• 1:34:24
  I would crush him on the topic, humiliate him completely, and that's never
• 1:34:29
  gonna happen. But I think it's an indication of who Stephen A. Smith
• 1:34:32
  really is. But I found it also fascinating that it would be Stephen A.
• 1:34:38
  Smith that would jump in and fill this massive void. I mean,
• 1:34:41
  there is a massive void on the left for people to support this idea that
• 1:34:47
  Biden should not be the nominee. The polls are overwhelming, both among Liberals
• 1:34:53
  as well as independence that Joe Biden should not be the Democratic nominee. Yet
• 1:35:00
  he's going to be unless there really is a massive movement where people are willing
• 1:35:05
  and able to speak publicly and say, guys, what are we doing?
• 1:35:10
  And is it possible that Stephen A Smith lit a spark? I doubt it
• 1:35:15
  because there's no sign of anything happening after this, and Stephen A. Well,
• 1:35:18
  he's very popular, isn't taking particularly seriously in political circles. However,
• 1:35:26
  I do think that it may have at least opened the door should there be
• 1:35:30
  another episode involving Biden where the next time this happens will more seriously. People
• 1:35:38
  like A Van Jones feel like, Okay, I got some cover from Stephen
• 1:35:43
  A. Smith, Now I'm going to jump in and fill this void.
• 1:35:47
  And then are they going to be followed by other people? That's a scenario
• 1:35:50
  that I can see, which is partially why the Stephen A. Smith thing
• 1:35:56
  is not just interesting and fascinating from personal standpoint, but also potentially may have
• 1:36:03
  some political significance. But it's going to take another major episode. I don't
• 1:36:08
  know how it gets much worse than what happened at the Air Force Academy commencement
• 1:36:12
  address, but it's Joe Biden, so that's certainly possible. I want to
• 1:36:16
  end this episode of the podcast with some more thoughts about how I began episode
• 1:36:24
  number sixty five of the Death of Journalism, which was my take on the
• 1:36:28
  entire news story that the PGA tour and the lib Golf series had merged.
• 1:36:35
  Now, if you're not real up to date with all this, I would
• 1:36:40
  ask you to go back to listen to the first forty minutes or so of
• 1:36:44
  episode number sixty five of the podcast so that I don't have to revisit all
• 1:36:47
  of this. Most people at this point probably know at least the basics of
• 1:36:50
  the story, and it was perceived, including by myself, for a short
• 1:36:56
  period of time when this story shockingly broke last week, that this was a
• 1:37:01
  true merger between the PGA Tour and the Lib Golf Tour, and that the
• 1:37:04
  Lib Golf Tour seemed to have gotten the better of the PGA Tour, and
• 1:37:09
  that the guy who who runs the fund, the so called PIFF Fund for
• 1:37:15
  Saudi Arabia, was going to be basically running the new PGA Tour and that
• 1:37:19
  he would be the chairman of the board, and that from a perception standpoint,
• 1:37:25
  this looked like Live Golf had won, the PGA Tour had lost,
• 1:37:30
  and that they had lost so badly that they were forced to eat a giant
• 1:37:33
  shit sandwich, as I put it, because Jay Monahan, the commissioner of
• 1:37:38
  the PJA Tour, was forced to admit that, you know, the Saudi
• 1:37:42
  money that he had been decrying for two years is being tainted as blood money
• 1:37:46
  because of nine to eleven and other acts of terrorism perpetrated by the Saudi Royal
• 1:37:51
  family or at least connected to the Saudi Royal family, that he had to
• 1:37:58
  go back on that and spose himself as a massive, unbelievable, hideous hypocrite
• 1:38:03
  by now not just taking Saudi money, but merging the PGA tour with the
• 1:38:10
  Saudi Investment Fund and essentially with Live Golf. And that was the narrative.
• 1:38:16
  That was how this was portrayed and perceived, and for a short while I
• 1:38:23
  even perceived it that way because the optics were so dramatic, and it certainly
• 1:38:28
  felt like Jay monahanan lost. It felt like Live and one the Live players
• 1:38:34
  were celebrating on social media. And you know, from a perception standpoint,
• 1:38:41
  there was almost no pushback, even on the Golf Channel, no pushback,
• 1:38:45
  remarkably, no pushback at all against this narrative. There was no Golf Channel
• 1:38:51
  reporter saying, look, I've spoken on background to people close to the commissioner
• 1:38:56
  and they're saying that this is being misperceived and actually Live lost here and that
• 1:39:00
  Live is probably not even going to exist in a short period of time.
• 1:39:04
  There was none of that, and I put forward the rather novel theory,
• 1:39:09
  and I have to say I was a little nervous when I did this because
• 1:39:12
  I wasn't one hundred person sure about this theory, and I'm sure to some
• 1:39:16
  people it sounded more than contrarian, maybe crackpot that what was really happening here
• 1:39:24
  was that Jay Monahan was essentially taking a dive on the pr because he wanted
• 1:39:30
  the Saudis to be able to save face, or at least that's what the
• 1:39:31
  Saudis wanted in all this. What the Saudis really wanted was the perception that
• 1:39:35
  they want the perception, not the reality, and that they wanted to be
• 1:39:40
  able to get rid of this embarrassment which was live golf, and they wanted
• 1:39:44
  the prestige and the respect of now being business partners with a revered American institution.
• 1:39:50
  And part of that would be Monahan eating this shit sandwich and essentially acknowledging
• 1:39:57
  that he's a hypocrite and that maybe the Saudis really aren't that bad after all.
• 1:40:00
  That would be a win win for both the PGA tour and give the
• 1:40:06
  Saudies what they wanted. And I put that theory out there in episode number
• 1:40:11
  sixty five and I'm sure there were some people that thought I was out on
• 1:40:15
  a limb, but I think that I have been not one hundred percent because
• 1:40:17
  we don't know all the facts and the details yet, but it's certainly if
• 1:40:20
  Piers as if I have been vindicated in this view, and the reason why
• 1:40:26
  I got vindicated in this view is the person that brokered the deal, a
• 1:40:30
  guy by the name of Jimmy Dunn who's kind of a mythical figure in sports
• 1:40:34
  and golf specifically. And he's a mythical figure, ironically enough, partially because
• 1:40:41
  of his connection personally to nine to eleven. He was supposed to be the
• 1:40:45
  story goes in the World Trade Center on nine eleven. He lost a lot
• 1:40:49
  of friends on nine to eleven. He's a business titan in the New York
• 1:40:55
  City area, incredibly well connected in golf, members member some of the most
• 1:41:00
  prestigious golf clubs in the world, and there's no more connected person in golf
• 1:41:05
  than Jimmy Dunn, and highly respected person. Partially because of the whole he
• 1:41:12
  became well more well known because of the nine to eleven situation. Well,
• 1:41:15
  we now know that it was Jimmy Dunn that brokered this deal. In every
• 1:41:21
  possible way, including reaching out to the guy who runs the Saudi pif Fund
• 1:41:29
  and who essentially runs live golf, who controls the purse strings for the Saudi
• 1:41:32
  royal family. And so it wasn't just that Jimmy Dunn. First of all,
• 1:41:39
  let's just go by Jimmy Dunn being a key figure here. I mean,
• 1:41:43
  Jimmy Dunn is as propegiators as it gets. He runs a very famous
• 1:41:49
  pro am at Seminole Golf Club in Florida where he prevented lived players from playing
• 1:41:57
  this past year, which was an extraordinary thing for him to do, because
• 1:42:04
  you know, this is you know, I'm sure ruffled a lot of feathers
• 1:42:09
  within the golf world, but it also shows the power that he has.
• 1:42:12
  He also happens to be Rory McElroy's best buddy. So just from the big
• 1:42:18
  picture, headline optical standpoint, you mean to tell me, Jimmy Dunn broker
• 1:42:26
  this whole thing was? He was intricately involved in the negotiations. He's the
• 1:42:31
  one that facilitated this. So Jimmy Dunn's fingerprints are all over this alleged merger,
• 1:42:39
  and Greg Norman was completely iced out, the guy who runs Live Golf.
• 1:42:44
  I mean Norman totally iced out, not even part of the negotiations,
• 1:42:48
  apparently informed of what happened just before it was announced. Since then, normanwell,
• 1:42:58
  on background, he's been jabbering to some reporters trying to claim that Live
• 1:43:03
  Golf is alive and well into the future. He has tweeted one time,
• 1:43:08
  two vague sentences that in no way, shape or form declared victory at all.
• 1:43:15
  So if Live really had won this, Norman would be crowing at the
• 1:43:21
  top of his lungs, and instead it's basically crickets from Greg Norman. So
• 1:43:28
  Jimmy Dunn, who's on the board of the PGA Tour, he's going to
• 1:43:31
  be on the board of this new entity. So it's from what we were
• 1:43:34
  being told, four person board. So the Saudie guy is the chairman of
• 1:43:41
  the board, which sounds incredibly impressive but seems to me as if it's largely
• 1:43:46
  a ceremonial position, which is keeping in what the Saudi's really want in these
• 1:43:51
  situations, and they don't really care about money. They want prestige, they
• 1:43:55
  want respect, they want to be honored. So he gets the position of
• 1:44:00
  chairman of the board, but it's a four person board, and the other
• 1:44:03
  three people one's Jay Monahan, one's Jimmy Dunn, and the other is a
• 1:44:08
  j Monahan sycophant. So Jay Monahan's the CEO, three against one on the
• 1:44:15
  board. And it certainly seems to me as if the PGA Tour one here
• 1:44:21
  that they're going to control things, that if they want to get rid of
• 1:44:25
  live golf, they're gonna get rid of live golf, and that the live
• 1:44:29
  players are going to be in for a route awakening when it comes to being
• 1:44:34
  able to return to the quote unquote PGA Tour. Now, a lot of
• 1:44:39
  this is premature because we don't know all the details. I don't think anyone
• 1:44:43
  knows all the details. But just from a structural standpoint, this thing is
• 1:44:48
  in no way shape or form a loss for the PGA Tour and no way
• 1:44:53
  shape or form a victory for so called live golf. Now, from a
• 1:44:57
  pr standpoint, it's a disaster for Jay Monahan. But Jay Monahan is banking
• 1:45:02
  on the idea that in the end he's going to be the victor. In
• 1:45:08
  five or ten years now, if he survives the storm, he's going to
• 1:45:12
  be the winner. The PJA Tour is going to be the winner. There's
• 1:45:15
  gonna be a lot more money on the PGA Tour, Golf will be consolidated,
• 1:45:18
  Live will have been vanquished, and the biggest thing I think is the
• 1:45:24
  top players will have lost a lot of their leverage over the PGA Tour because
• 1:45:29
  there's gonna be no place else to go. That is a huge part of
• 1:45:32
  this equation, which, by the way, it's possible, and this is
• 1:45:38
  not an area of an expert in, but there are people who are experts
• 1:45:41
  who claim that this might actually be too good a move by Jay Monahan and
• 1:45:45
  the PGA Tour because there now could be a major anti trust violation going on
• 1:45:53
  that this quote unquote merger may never actually happen, either because it doesn't get
• 1:45:58
  approved or there's some technical violation of the law that prevents it from happening,
• 1:46:04
  or and I think this is also possible. I think it's still a chance
• 1:46:09
  this thing could fall apart politically, that when they get into the details and
• 1:46:13
  the negotiation, that at that point, you know, that's where maybe the
• 1:46:18
  Saudis go, Await a minute, you know, this is not a good
• 1:46:23
  deal for us, or if it works the other way and the quote unquote
• 1:46:28
  chairman of the board isn't going to play nice and he thinks this isn't a
• 1:46:31
  ceremonial position. Then Monahan may realize I can't do this because I'm going to
• 1:46:38
  be forced to give away too much because there's so there's a lot still to
• 1:46:42
  be decided. I made the analogy in the last episode of the podcast where
• 1:46:45
  this is kind of like the end of World War two, where you have
• 1:46:48
  the ceasefire. That's where we're at, and then we have the basic parameters
• 1:46:51
  for the ceasefire, and then you get together for the Yalta Conference. By
• 1:46:57
  the way, for some reason, I said Malta in episodes five, which
• 1:47:00
  really bugged the crap out of me, but we didn't change it. But
• 1:47:02
  so now I can fix it. The Yalta Conference after World War Two,
• 1:47:08
  where all of the details are decided and where Europe got divvied up and where
• 1:47:13
  a lot of major decisions were made. Well, so it's possible that when
• 1:47:15
  they get to Yalta that this thing still falls apart. But this idea that
• 1:47:20
  live one as of right now is ridiculous, and it's kind of funny to
• 1:47:24
  see the evolution of Brandell Shamblee, who is the Golf Channel's number one commentator,
• 1:47:30
  who's not nearly as smart as he thinks he is, and his initial
• 1:47:33
  reaction, this is the saddest day in the history of golf. I joked
• 1:47:38
  that it was actually the saddest day in the history of his career because he's
• 1:47:40
  been very, very, very very anti Live. But he panicked. Rich
• 1:47:45
  Eising, by the way, the NFL network also completely panicked on his podcast
• 1:47:48
  about what this was going to mean. And now it seems as if,
• 1:47:51
  after the dust is cleared, a lot more people are starting to realize that
• 1:47:57
  essentially I'm right, My side of this is right, and even Shamblee seems
• 1:48:01
  to be singing a different tune about it's very slowly but surely coming to the
• 1:48:05
  realization of wait a minute. From a moral standpoint, this has problems from
• 1:48:11
  the PGA Tour perspective, but when you look at who won and who lost,
• 1:48:15
  it's clear that the PGA Tour one and that Live lost, and that
• 1:48:20
  Live is probably not going to exist, certainly not in its current form,
• 1:48:25
  for much past this current year, which if that's the way it turns out,
• 1:48:30
  I'm fine with this. I've always felt that playing the morality card was
• 1:48:34
  wrong and stupid, and that's what Monahan is paying for here. If you
• 1:48:39
  can imagine, can you imagine if they had never played the morality card,
• 1:48:43
  if nine to eleven and nine to eleven families had never become part of this
• 1:48:45
  issue, and that this was purely a golf topic, that this what's good
• 1:48:50
  and bad for golf. Monahan would be a conquering hero right now because he
• 1:48:56
  wouldn't have the hypocrisy issue to deal with. And so I was right about
• 1:49:00
  that from the beginning. I've always felt that was a mistake. I didn't
• 1:49:02
  think it was an effective argument, mainly because most people didn't understand it.
• 1:49:06
  People can't understand the difference between doing business small business with a nefarious entity,
• 1:49:15
  which everyone is forced to do from time to time, and doing big business
• 1:49:19
  for that nefarious entity, which is what Live was. Live was doing business
• 1:49:26
  for the Saudi government. They were the pr arm of the Saudi government.
• 1:49:31
  They were quote unquote sportswashing on behalf of the Saudi royal family. That's different
• 1:49:39
  than playing a golf tournament at one time in Saudi Arabia or having a company
• 1:49:45
  sponsor you that takes money from Saudi Arabia, and they know that's a completely
• 1:49:48
  different animal, but people were not understanding that, and so it was not
• 1:49:53
  an effective issue and it's set Monahan up for all sorts of understandable charges of
• 1:49:58
  hypocrisy. Here's my prediction though, on the narrative. The person that has
• 1:50:03
  been most silent since this news broke by far has been Tiger Woods. By
• 1:50:10
  the way, let me before I talk about Tiger. I think Rory McElroy
• 1:50:14
  deserves so much credit for the way he has handled this throughout the entire situation,
• 1:50:18
  even post merger talk. I think that he has been almost pitch perfect
• 1:50:23
  at every moment and deserves an enormous amount of credit. Well, Jimmy Dunn
• 1:50:28
  and Rory McElroy are buddy buddy, and Rory McElroy and Tiger Woods are buddy
• 1:50:33
  buddy. They're literally business partners on a new TV golf manure that's starting next
• 1:50:38
  year. Tiger has been completely silent. Now, Is that because Tiger doesn't
• 1:50:45
  know what to say if he's on the fence. Is he still being lobbied
• 1:50:50
  behind the scenes. I don't think so. I think Tiger is waiting.
• 1:50:56
  He's been injured and isn't playing in the US Open this week. I think
• 1:51:00
  Tiger is waiting to drop the hammer because when Tiger does his first interview post
• 1:51:10
  this most recent surgery that he's had, first interview since the Live merger,
• 1:51:15
  he will have the entire golf world hanging on every word. And when I
• 1:51:21
  went back and I watched Tiger's comments, specifically at last year's British Open,
• 1:51:27
  about what it would take for there to be any kind of a merger between
• 1:51:32
  the PGA Tour and Live, it dovetails exactly with what seems to have happened.
• 1:51:41
  So I believe that Tiger Woods is going to be completely on board with
• 1:51:45
  this, and that when he does his first interview he's going to drop the
• 1:51:51
  hammer on Live. He'll effectively declare victory. And it will be at that
• 1:51:59
  point because of the magnitude of Tiger and what he has to say, and
• 1:52:02
  the fact that he didn't say it right away, that will force most of
• 1:52:08
  the golf establishment to finally, even the idiots and the golf media to finally
• 1:52:13
  say, oh, oh wow, we got this wrong at first. The
• 1:52:17
  PGA Tour really did win. So that's my prediction. Watch Tiger Woods,
• 1:52:23
  because Tiger is really the only guy that still has that kind of authority,
• 1:52:29
  that kind of power to be able to influence minds and narratives, and that's
• 1:52:34
  my prediction with regard to that. In the next episode of the podcast,
• 1:52:39
  we're gonna be joined by Ian Miller, who is really interesting character because he
• 1:52:45
  writes for Outkicked, the conservative sports media outlet, and he's also written two
• 1:52:53
  different books about the COVID response. He's most well known for his opposition to
• 1:52:58
  masks from a scientific standpoint, but he's just written a new book about how
• 1:53:02
  the COVID experts got it wrong. So Ian Miller will be our guest in
• 1:53:06
  episode number sixty seven of the podcast. Until then, please remember to subscribe,
• 1:53:12
  rate, and review this episode of the podcast. Please share it on
• 1:53:15
  social media. If you do so, tag me and I'll be happy to
• 1:53:17
  share it as well. Until the next episode of the podcast. Thanks so
• 1:53:21
  much for listening. This has been episode number sixty six, so the Death
• 1:53:25
  of Journalism podcast. My name is John Zickler.