Latest / The Death Of Journalism / Episode Two Hundred Eighty Nine: Oh Jesus

Transcript

Episode Two Hundred Eighty Nine: Oh Jesus · The Death Of Journalism

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: Welcomed episode two hundred and eighty nine of the Death
• 0:03
  Speaker 1: of Journalism podcast. My name is John Zigler. I'm your
• 0:05
  Speaker 1: host on Today Show. President Trump orders a blockade of
• 0:09
  Speaker 1: the Strait of Hormuz and gets into a weird Jesus controversy.
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: Malania Trump bizarrely waves into the Jeffrey Epstein mess Eric
• 0:19
  Speaker 1: Swaalwell gets a code red treatment. The New York Times
• 0:24
  Speaker 1: NFL reporter resigns, apparently after having had a romance with
• 0:29
  Speaker 1: the head coach of the New England Patriots, and the
• 0:31
  Speaker 1: Master's golf tournament is giving off warning signs that ESPN
• 0:36
  Speaker 1: may have given it a cultural cancer. We begin this
• 0:41
  Speaker 1: episode of the podcast as we have for the last
• 0:43
  Speaker 1: couple of months, with the latest in the war with
• 0:46
  Speaker 1: Iran and the blockade that was ordered of the Strait
• 0:50
  Speaker 1: of Harmuz by President Trump. Now, my number one issue
• 0:58
  Speaker 1: with this entire Iranian war has been, Okay, was this
• 1:02
  Speaker 1: thought through? And how much influence did Donald Trump have
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: over the decision making? Because Trump is not the person
• 1:10
  Speaker 1: that I would trust to think this through, and he's
• 1:14
  Speaker 1: not the guy who I would believe in regarding his judgment,
• 1:19
  Speaker 1: especially given how he handled the COVID panic, and I
• 1:21
  Speaker 1: see similarities between how he handled the COVID panic and
• 1:25
  Speaker 1: how he's handling the war with Iran. And I just
• 1:28
  Speaker 1: never have any belief in Donald Trump's ability to play
• 1:32
  Speaker 1: chess as opposed to checkers or shoots and ladders or
• 1:35
  Speaker 1: some other child's game. And the blockade, I think is
• 1:39
  Speaker 1: a really good example of this. If the blockade had
• 1:42
  Speaker 1: been announced early on, after it was clear that Iran
• 1:47
  Speaker 1: was not going to be willing to play ball and
• 1:50
  Speaker 1: that was their point of leverage, and we did something
• 1:53
  Speaker 1: dramatic to take away their leverage, I would say, Okay,
• 1:57
  Speaker 1: that makes sense. But this is the same President tru
• 2:00
  Speaker 1: Up who, like ten days ago, was talking very much
• 2:02
  Speaker 1: like he did during COVID that this was all just
• 2:05
  Speaker 1: going to naturally heal itself, that the strait would naturally
• 2:08
  Speaker 1: open up, which gave me the hebgb's because it sounded
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: very much like some of the things he said when
• 2:14
  Speaker 1: he kept changing his mind every other week regarding how
• 2:18
  Speaker 1: to handle the whole COVID situation. And so to me,
• 2:22
  Speaker 1: this is a sign of he's making it up as
• 2:24
  Speaker 1: he goes along, which is always very dangerous. Now that
• 2:27
  Speaker 1: doesn't mean that the blockade may not end up working.
• 2:32
  Speaker 1: You know, it's possible that it could. It seems awfully
• 2:35
  Speaker 1: strange that the way to open the strait of her
• 2:37
  Speaker 1: moves is by blocking it. But I kind of get
• 2:40
  Speaker 1: it in principle, and I can certainly see how as
• 2:44
  Speaker 1: we went down this path, and it was clear that
• 2:46
  Speaker 1: a diplomatic solution was not going to come easily, especially
• 2:49
  Speaker 1: after jd Vance led a contingent, including Trump's son in
• 2:56
  Speaker 1: law Jared Kushner, which negotiated for twenty one hours twenty
• 3:02
  Speaker 1: one Think about that. Twenty one hours of negotiation resulted
• 3:07
  Speaker 1: during this ceasefire, this two weeks ceasefire in no actual agreement.
• 3:12
  Speaker 1: In fact, it doesn't sound like they even came all
• 3:14
  Speaker 1: that close. And so after that, Trump decided, okay, look,
• 3:20
  Speaker 1: the Iranians think that they have this leverage. Most of
• 3:23
  Speaker 1: the world agrees with them. The straight of Ramuz is
• 3:26
  Speaker 1: that leverage point. Let's try to take that away. I
• 3:30
  Speaker 1: hope it works. It could work. This is way out
• 3:33
  Speaker 1: of my league as far as expertise is concerned. I
• 3:35
  Speaker 1: don't know the logistics. I don't know how the Iranians
• 3:39
  Speaker 1: will eventually respond to this. Trump this morning is announced
• 3:42
  Speaker 1: that China is at least somewhat on board with this,
• 3:45
  Speaker 1: although there have been reports that Russia is working back
• 3:50
  Speaker 1: ends to try to help Iran get around the problems
• 3:55
  Speaker 1: created by the blockade of the Strait of Ramuz. I mean,
• 3:58
  Speaker 1: this really is a world war via proxy right now.
• 4:03
  Speaker 1: Most of it, thankfully is economic and not military. But
• 4:06
  Speaker 1: you know, the ceasefire is going to be up fairly soon,
• 4:10
  Speaker 1: and so we'll see whether or not this returns to
• 4:13
  Speaker 1: being a full scale military war or conflict, whatever you
• 4:19
  Speaker 1: want to call it. I certainly hope this works, but
• 4:23
  Speaker 1: I don't have any faith that Trump thought this through
• 4:27
  Speaker 1: and that this isn't just him deciding okay on a whim,
• 4:31
  Speaker 1: this is what we're gonna do to get out of
• 4:34
  Speaker 1: a bad situation. And there was some really interesting reporting
• 4:38
  Speaker 1: by the New York Times which went to the heart
• 4:41
  Speaker 1: of my greatest concern during this whole situation, which I've
• 4:44
  Speaker 1: already outlined, which was, all right, how much influence did
• 4:48
  Speaker 1: Trump have over this decision to go into war with Iran?
• 4:54
  Speaker 1: Because if it was really Trump, then I'm losing a
• 4:57
  Speaker 1: lot of faith in how this was thought through, whether
• 5:01
  Speaker 1: or not there was a plan, and how successful it's
• 5:04
  Speaker 1: going to be in the long run. If it was
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: Marco Rubio or maybe even JD. Vance, I would have
• 5:10
  Speaker 1: a lot more reason to have confidence. But that was
• 5:14
  Speaker 1: not the case. According to the reporting in The New
• 5:16
  Speaker 1: York Times. Maggie Haberman, who is very close to Trump,
• 5:20
  Speaker 1: absurdly close to Trump in a lot of ways, has
• 5:22
  Speaker 1: broken a lot of stories that ended up being highly
• 5:26
  Speaker 1: credible because of her connection to Donald Trump and fellow
• 5:30
  Speaker 1: New York Times reporter Jonathan Swan, who you know is
• 5:33
  Speaker 1: credible because in the moment you're gonna hear he has
• 5:35
  Speaker 1: a British accent. It's one of my pet peeves that
• 5:40
  Speaker 1: we give so many IQ incredible ability points to people
• 5:43
  Speaker 1: who have British accents, especially if they have sophisticated British accents.
• 5:47
  Speaker 1: Jonathan Swan, New York Times reporter does. But Swan and
• 5:50
  Speaker 1: Haberman did a very extensive report on the decision to
• 5:55
  Speaker 1: go to war with Iran, and the results I found
• 6:00
  Speaker 1: to be very interesting. Now I fully realize that in
• 6:03
  Speaker 1: the world we now live in, if you don't want
• 6:05
  Speaker 1: to believe this, you're not going to believe it. You're
• 6:07
  Speaker 1: just going to decide. The New York Times is biased,
• 6:09
  Speaker 1: doesn't know what they're doing. They're out to get Trump,
• 6:12
  Speaker 1: what have you. I tend to believe this, and I
• 6:16
  Speaker 1: don't want to believe it because the reporting indicated that
• 6:19
  Speaker 1: this really was much more Donald Trump's decision, and that effectively,
• 6:26
  Speaker 1: the way they portray it, donald Trump was manipulated by
• 6:28
  Speaker 1: Benjamin Netton Yahoo, which I don't even understand because all
• 6:32
  Speaker 1: the reporting leading up to the war was that Trump
• 6:35
  Speaker 1: had kind of had a falling out with net and Yahoo.
• 6:38
  Speaker 1: So that's one of the things I'm most confused about
• 6:41
  Speaker 1: about how we ended up in this war with Iran.
• 6:43
  Speaker 1: But here is the audio of a videotape that The
• 6:48
  Speaker 1: New York Times posted on their social media accounts, where
• 6:51
  Speaker 1: Jonathan Swan and Maggie Haveerman talk about how it is
• 6:55
  Speaker 1: that the United States decided to go to war with Iran,
• 7:00
  Speaker 1: influence that Natanya who had, and where Pete Hextas stood,
• 7:04
  Speaker 1: where Marco Rubio stood, where JD. Van stood, and how
• 7:07
  Speaker 1: it is that they all stepped aside when it was
• 7:11
  Speaker 1: clear that the King, Donald Trump wanted to go to
• 7:15
  Speaker 1: war with Iran. And here's what that sounded like.
• 7:17
  Speaker 2: Of all the people on Trump's team, Donald Trump was
• 7:21
  Speaker 2: the most hawkish when it came to Iran.
• 7:24
  Speaker 3: He decided to go to war on a gut feeling period,
• 7:27
  Speaker 3: full stop.
• 7:28
  Speaker 2: We did extensive interviews to find out how he made
• 7:33
  Speaker 2: that decision.
• 7:34
  Speaker 3: On February eleventh, Benjamin Etnia who hitched the idea of
• 7:37
  Speaker 3: joint Israel US strikes against Iran.
• 7:40
  Speaker 2: He lays out a very aggressive campaign to dismantle Iran's
• 7:44
  Speaker 2: weapons systems, and then he also lays out some scenarios
• 7:48
  Speaker 2: for regime change.
• 7:49
  Speaker 3: President Trump listened to this and he said, sounds good
• 7:52
  Speaker 3: to me.
• 7:53
  Speaker 2: But what happened next was actually in some ways more interesting.
• 7:57
  Speaker 3: Overnight, US intelligence analysts very quickly went to work.
• 8:00
  Speaker 2: The head of the CIA uses one word to describe
• 8:04
  Speaker 2: the assessment of Netnyahu's regime change scenarios fascical.
• 8:08
  Speaker 3: Within the next few weeks, there were a number of
• 8:11
  Speaker 3: discussions about what might come next. There was not consensus.
• 8:15
  Speaker 2: These three Trump advisors showed just how varied the opinions
• 8:18
  Speaker 2: were in the administration. The Secretary of War Pete Haigseth
• 8:21
  Speaker 2: thought that this was a really good idea, and.
• 8:24
  Speaker 3: It's not a surprise he was very much chosen for
• 8:26
  Speaker 3: the idea that he believes in flexing US military muscle.
• 8:30
  Speaker 2: Marco Rubio, the Secretary of State, was I would say
• 8:33
  Speaker 2: skeptical about a full scale war, would prefer to continue
• 8:36
  Speaker 2: with a maximum pressure campaign, but was also skeptical that
• 8:40
  Speaker 2: the Iridians would agree to a deal, so he was
• 8:42
  Speaker 2: somewhat ambivalent.
• 8:43
  Speaker 3: The most actively opposed was Vice President J. D. Vance.
• 8:47
  Speaker 3: He laid out various reasons why this could be complicated,
• 8:49
  Speaker 3: from depleted munitions to the position it would leave the
• 8:52
  Speaker 3: US in going forward, that it.
• 8:53
  Speaker 2: Could lead to regional chaos, that it would break apart
• 8:56
  Speaker 2: his coalition. Many of his voters would see that as
• 8:58
  Speaker 2: a betrayal.
• 9:00
  Speaker 3: Twenty six, President Trump had a final go no go
• 9:03
  Speaker 3: meeting with his team in the situation room.
• 9:05
  Speaker 2: Trump is sitting around the table with his inner circle.
• 9:07
  Speaker 2: It's a very small group.
• 9:08
  Speaker 3: He asked what people thought.
• 9:10
  Speaker 2: And Vance starts by saying, well, you know, I think
• 9:13
  Speaker 2: it's a bad idea, but if you do this, I'll
• 9:15
  Speaker 2: support you.
• 9:16
  Speaker 3: Pete Hegseth remained where he was, believing that Iran was
• 9:19
  Speaker 3: going to have to be dealt with anyway, might as
• 9:20
  Speaker 3: well do it now.
• 9:21
  Speaker 2: And Rubio says, if the goal is regime change, we
• 9:25
  Speaker 2: shouldn't do it. But if the goal is to degrade
• 9:30
  Speaker 2: around capabilities to wage war their missile program, that's a
• 9:34
  Speaker 2: goal that we can achieve.
• 9:36
  Speaker 3: At the end, when President Trump wanted to go.
• 9:38
  Speaker 2: Forward, almost everyone deferred to the president's gut instincts. They've
• 9:43
  Speaker 2: watched him survive being indicted, being convicted, being shot, They.
• 9:48
  Speaker 3: Had seen him beat the yards so many times that
• 9:51
  Speaker 3: it affects how they look at things and what might
• 9:54
  Speaker 3: be doable.
• 9:54
  Speaker 2: And at three point thirty eight pm the next day,
• 9:57
  Speaker 2: Donald Trump ordered the star of the Iraq War.
• 10:04
  Speaker 1: Now again, I fully realize if you don't want to
• 10:06
  Speaker 1: believe that, that's one of the problems with the world
• 10:08
  Speaker 1: we live in today, where everyone believes whatever they want
• 10:12
  Speaker 1: to believe. We're all in our own bubbles, our own silos.
• 10:15
  Speaker 1: If you don't want to believe the New York Times,
• 10:17
  Speaker 1: you're not going to believe the New York Times. But
• 10:19
  Speaker 1: based upon Maggie Haberman's history and based upon the nature
• 10:23
  Speaker 1: of the reporting, I think that's probably what happened. And
• 10:26
  Speaker 1: it's really kind of amazing to think that JD. Vance
• 10:30
  Speaker 1: was put in a situation where he apparently strongly advised
• 10:34
  Speaker 1: against this war with iron, and yet he's the point
• 10:38
  Speaker 1: person during these twenty one hours of negotiations, trying to
• 10:42
  Speaker 1: salvage something good out of what so far has been economically,
• 10:48
  Speaker 1: at least a borderline disaster for the world, and militarily
• 10:53
  Speaker 1: it's been very successful, but we've not achieved hardly any
• 10:57
  Speaker 1: of the goals other than I I guess, degrading Iron's
• 11:02
  Speaker 1: military capabilities and hopefully they're nuclear capabilities. But many of
• 11:07
  Speaker 1: the stated goals have not yet been achieved. And JD.
• 11:10
  Speaker 1: Vance was putting this, I'm sure extremely weird and uncomfortable
• 11:15
  Speaker 1: position of having to carry water for a policy he
• 11:18
  Speaker 1: did not agree with. Mark Rubio sounds like he was
• 11:22
  Speaker 1: somewhere in the middle, which doesn't give me a lot
• 11:25
  Speaker 1: of confidence because I like Mark Rubio and I respect him,
• 11:27
  Speaker 1: and I think he's smart enough to have been able
• 11:30
  Speaker 1: to figure out, Okay, let's gain plan this, how this
• 11:33
  Speaker 1: is all going to play out. Pete Hexstath, I have
• 11:36
  Speaker 1: no faith at all, and so the fact that he
• 11:38
  Speaker 1: was the one that was gung ho in favor of
• 11:40
  Speaker 1: this has no positive impact on me. And of course,
• 11:44
  Speaker 1: one of my greatest concerns about Trump two point zero,
• 11:47
  Speaker 1: which I stated a dozen or more times during the
• 11:51
  Speaker 1: twenty twenty four campaign was that Trump would be treated
• 11:54
  Speaker 1: like he's a king, especially after the failed assassination attempt.
• 12:00
  Speaker 1: That Haberman and Swan reference that there's just so much
• 12:05
  Speaker 1: deference to Trump now that when Trump decides he's going
• 12:08
  Speaker 1: to do something, no one has the balls or the
• 12:11
  Speaker 1: ability to stand up and say, hey, wait a minute,
• 12:14
  Speaker 1: let's not do this. I mean, apparently Vance advised against it,
• 12:17
  Speaker 1: but then anyone stand up strongly enough and say, look,
• 12:21
  Speaker 1: mister President, this might be a good idea in the
• 12:24
  Speaker 1: short run, but what's going to be the ultimate end
• 12:27
  Speaker 1: game here? How are we going to get out of this?
• 12:30
  Speaker 1: Are the Iranians really going to respond to being dominated
• 12:34
  Speaker 1: militarily like we would do so? Because I think that's
• 12:37
  Speaker 1: the core issue here. It's obvious that the Iranians just
• 12:41
  Speaker 1: don't care. They might even like, given their views a martyrdom,
• 12:46
  Speaker 1: They might even like being in a situation where they're
• 12:49
  Speaker 1: getting obliterated, and yet they are creating all sorts of
• 12:52
  Speaker 1: damage to the world economy. So I thought that New
• 12:57
  Speaker 1: York Times supporting was interesting and credible, and that's why
• 13:01
  Speaker 1: I shared it with you. But it also did not
• 13:04
  Speaker 1: increase my confidents and how we got into this and
• 13:07
  Speaker 1: what the likely outcome is, because I am quite certain,
• 13:11
  Speaker 1: at least there's no evidence that when this decision was
• 13:14
  Speaker 1: made to go to war with a run, that there
• 13:16
  Speaker 1: was any thought or planning that we're going to eventually
• 13:20
  Speaker 1: blockade the strait of our moos. It's almost an act
• 13:24
  Speaker 1: of desperation, one that hopefully will work, and I can
• 13:27
  Speaker 1: see where it could work, and I'm you know, let's
• 13:30
  Speaker 1: hope for the best. But my guess is that at
• 13:33
  Speaker 1: the end of the two weeks cease fire agreement, that
• 13:36
  Speaker 1: there's not going to be any reason to continue with it,
• 13:40
  Speaker 1: or maybe it'll be extended. But in other words, there's
• 13:42
  Speaker 1: not going to be a resolution within the two weeks
• 13:45
  Speaker 1: of the ceasefire agreement, and we could be right back
• 13:48
  Speaker 1: to where we were, depending on whether not this blockade
• 13:51
  Speaker 1: is effective, either diplomatically or economically. And I'm stunned from
• 13:56
  Speaker 1: an economic perspective that the stock market, the United States
• 14:00
  Speaker 1: stock market has effectively recovered everything that it lost since
• 14:05
  Speaker 1: the beginning of the Iran war. And I'm not sure why.
• 14:07
  Speaker 1: I mean, a lot of people are confused by this,
• 14:10
  Speaker 1: but as of this taping, the S and P. Five
• 14:13
  Speaker 1: hundred is actually in positive territory for twenty twenty six,
• 14:17
  Speaker 1: which is amazing considering all of the negative economic news,
• 14:22
  Speaker 1: even not related to the war with Iran, and then
• 14:26
  Speaker 1: the incredibly frustrating increase in price of gasoline, which has
• 14:31
  Speaker 1: an impact on virtually everything and causes all sorts of inflation,
• 14:36
  Speaker 1: the uncertainty in the world economy. There's all sorts of
• 14:39
  Speaker 1: reasons for the stock market to not be in positive
• 14:42
  Speaker 1: territory for twenty twenty six, and yet somehow it is,
• 14:46
  Speaker 1: which I'm not sure what that means. I mean, the
• 14:48
  Speaker 1: short run, it's positive if you have money of the
• 14:50
  Speaker 1: stock market. But I'm as baffled by that as anybody.
• 14:54
  Speaker 1: Now another's news involving Donald Trump, I have to talk
• 14:58
  Speaker 1: about this whole ges controversy, and a weird way, this
• 15:03
  Speaker 1: actually somewhat relates to the war with Iran because the
• 15:08
  Speaker 1: President has been in a feud now with the Pope Leo,
• 15:12
  Speaker 1: first American Pope, who has now been on a rampage
• 15:16
  Speaker 1: condemning the war with Iran, and Trump's been in a
• 15:20
  Speaker 1: feud with him. JD. Vance is in a feud with him.
• 15:23
  Speaker 1: Sixty minutes is doing the Pope's bidding, which I don't
• 15:27
  Speaker 1: really like because Nora O'Donnell was the reporter on that,
• 15:32
  Speaker 1: and Nora o'donald is someone who I have all sorts
• 15:34
  Speaker 1: of conflicts of interest with. Once when she was on
• 15:38
  Speaker 1: MSNBC twice in an appearance with her, said that she
• 15:42
  Speaker 1: should be fired for MSNBC for things that she misreported
• 15:46
  Speaker 1: about Sarah Palin. She's a total lib, very anti Trump,
• 15:52
  Speaker 1: which is my first problem with her role in this
• 15:55
  Speaker 1: whole pope feud story. But also she's Catholic. She to
• 16:00
  Speaker 1: Georgetown University like I did. Her son is a member
• 16:04
  Speaker 1: of the golf team I played on at Georgetown University.
• 16:08
  Speaker 1: And so you know, I don't like Nora O'Donnell. She's
• 16:12
  Speaker 1: clearly biased in multiple ways here, and I don't think
• 16:16
  Speaker 1: that she should be the person that would be the
• 16:18
  Speaker 1: conduit or playing a role, a key role in this
• 16:22
  Speaker 1: few between the Catholic Church and the Pope and the President,
• 16:26
  Speaker 1: at least without fully disclosing all of her own personal
• 16:29
  Speaker 1: conflicts of interest. But I've been waiting for the Pope
• 16:34
  Speaker 1: and Trump to get into it. I'm amazed it's taken
• 16:37
  Speaker 1: this long. You know, I'm a Catholic by birth. I
• 16:41
  Speaker 1: don't really have a dog in this hunt because I'm
• 16:43
  Speaker 1: a recovering Catholic. I'm recovering from being Catholic. I'm an
• 16:47
  Speaker 1: agnostic on a good day and atheist on a bad day.
• 16:51
  Speaker 1: I understand why the Pope has his position, but I
• 16:54
  Speaker 1: also don't think that the pope should be getting directly
• 16:57
  Speaker 1: involved in politics, especially American pope. But look, I mean,
• 17:02
  Speaker 1: the pope is free to say what the pope wants
• 17:04
  Speaker 1: to say. I just I don't think it's a proper
• 17:08
  Speaker 1: use of the papacy. But with regard to this whole
• 17:13
  Speaker 1: Jesus controversy, which has happened in the exact same time period,
• 17:18
  Speaker 1: So Trump posted on social media and this image of
• 17:23
  Speaker 1: what I guess people perceived to be Trump as a
• 17:27
  Speaker 1: Jesus like figure hovering over a sick person, basically healing
• 17:33
  Speaker 1: them with his hands. And he's wearing a white robe
• 17:39
  Speaker 1: with a red robe on top of it, like around
• 17:43
  Speaker 1: his shoulders. And I guess to people, and I can
• 17:46
  Speaker 1: understand this, the glowing part of it and the healing
• 17:50
  Speaker 1: part of it, and the fact that he's wearing robes
• 17:53
  Speaker 1: that have been associated in some artistic depictions of Jesus Christ,
• 17:59
  Speaker 1: that somehow this meant that Trump was allowing himself to
• 18:04
  Speaker 1: be depicted or sharing an AI generated image of him
• 18:09
  Speaker 1: as Jesus. And at first I was fully willing to
• 18:14
  Speaker 1: accept that Trump would do something like this, knowing that
• 18:21
  Speaker 1: he was being portrayed as a Jesus figure, that he
• 18:25
  Speaker 1: was essentially Jesus Christ, which if that was the case,
• 18:30
  Speaker 1: would obviously be insane, be insane for anybody, but particularly
• 18:34
  Speaker 1: a president of the United States. But then when I
• 18:38
  Speaker 1: looked at the image, I'm like, really, hold on a
• 18:42
  Speaker 1: second here, Yeah, I get that he comes off in
• 18:46
  Speaker 1: the image of a religious figure, the healing and the glowing,
• 18:50
  Speaker 1: and I get that there's some robes that are associated
• 18:54
  Speaker 1: with Jesus. But of course people are pretending like we
• 18:57
  Speaker 1: have actual photographs or even ouristic depictions of Jesus of Nazareth,
• 19:02
  Speaker 1: which we obviously don't. We don't even really know what
• 19:05
  Speaker 1: he looked like. We certainly have no idea if you
• 19:08
  Speaker 1: ever wore robes anything close to the robes that Trump
• 19:12
  Speaker 1: is depicted is wearing in this AI image. I mean,
• 19:16
  Speaker 1: there are a few famous artistic depictions of Jesus where
• 19:22
  Speaker 1: he's wearing robes like that, but I mean, it's just
• 19:25
  Speaker 1: it's ridiculous. It's it's essentially in this. I'm not saying
• 19:28
  Speaker 1: this to compare Jesus to Santa Claus, but it's basically like,
• 19:33
  Speaker 1: you know, wearing Santa Claus costume, because we have no
• 19:39
  Speaker 1: idea what Jesus actually wore, none, zero, just like you
• 19:44
  Speaker 1: know that we've made up what different versions of Santa
• 19:47
  Speaker 1: Claus wears. So I'm not being naive and I'm not
• 19:51
  Speaker 1: trying to defend Trump here in a way that he
• 19:54
  Speaker 1: doesn't deserve. But the rest of the image is not
• 19:58
  Speaker 1: consistent with an image depicting Jesus Christ. There's an American flag,
• 20:05
  Speaker 1: there's the Statue of Liberty, what looks like military aircraft
• 20:11
  Speaker 1: in the air. The people around him are clearly all
• 20:16
  Speaker 1: modern people that look like Maca supporters. And you know,
• 20:20
  Speaker 1: he took a lot of heat because he claimed that
• 20:24
  Speaker 1: and I'm not sure this is true, but in order
• 20:26
  Speaker 1: to get out of this after he deleted the post,
• 20:30
  Speaker 1: he claimed that he thought that he was being depicted
• 20:33
  Speaker 1: as a doctor who was healing someone on a bed
• 20:37
  Speaker 1: and not as Jesus. Well, one of the people next
• 20:40
  Speaker 1: to him looks to be like a nurse, so at
• 20:43
  Speaker 1: least there's some semblance of an argument to be made
• 20:47
  Speaker 1: on Trump's behalf there, but it doesn't really you know,
• 20:50
  Speaker 1: by the way, I do think it's possible. I don't
• 20:53
  Speaker 1: know that this is true, but it is possible that Trump,
• 20:56
  Speaker 1: because the Press secretary did use the word doc Derd,
• 21:01
  Speaker 1: that the image was doc derd, that somehow Trump got
• 21:05
  Speaker 1: that word in his head and turned doc Derd into
• 21:10
  Speaker 1: I was a doctor. That's possible. That sounds very much
• 21:14
  Speaker 1: like Trump to me. But so that's a separate issue,
• 21:19
  Speaker 1: the separate issue of Trump's explanation. I'm not sure I'm
• 21:21
  Speaker 1: buying that I thought I was a doctor explanation. But
• 21:26
  Speaker 1: I'm also not buying the idea that that clearly the
• 21:30
  Speaker 1: image was intended to depict Donald Trump as Jesus Christ.
• 21:36
  Speaker 1: Maybe he was, I don't know, but there's a lot
• 21:40
  Speaker 1: of that. The image in its totality is far more
• 21:43
  Speaker 1: trumpy than it is Jesus. I mean, if there was
• 21:47
  Speaker 1: a crucifix in the background, you know, if everyone was
• 21:51
  Speaker 1: dressed like they were at the times of Jesus, you know,
• 21:55
  Speaker 1: if he had a thorn of crowns, if he holes
• 22:01
  Speaker 1: in his wrists after being crucified and being resurrected. I mean,
• 22:05
  Speaker 1: that would be Jesus. But to me, a white you know,
• 22:12
  Speaker 1: outfit with a red robe on top of it, that
• 22:15
  Speaker 1: and some glowing that means you're depicted as Jesus. I'm sorry.
• 22:21
  Speaker 1: To me, the whole thing was stupid. I mean, every
• 22:23
  Speaker 1: part of it was stupid. The controversy was overblown. I'm
• 22:27
  Speaker 1: not one hundred percent sure that Trump would have known
• 22:30
  Speaker 1: that or even thought that he was sharing an image
• 22:33
  Speaker 1: depicting himself as Jesus Christ. His explanation is suspect, claiming
• 22:40
  Speaker 1: that he thought he was a doctor. You know, It's
• 22:43
  Speaker 1: very rare for him to delete anything from social media,
• 22:45
  Speaker 1: so I think that actually created more attention surrounding it,
• 22:50
  Speaker 1: which is why Trump normally does not delete social media
• 22:53
  Speaker 1: posts that caused controversy. But I think this one hit
• 22:57
  Speaker 1: a nerve with his base, which is probably why the media,
• 23:00
  Speaker 1: you know, smelled blood on this. I think that's probably
• 23:04
  Speaker 1: why the media went a bit over the top, more
• 23:06
  Speaker 1: than a bit over the top with the whole in
• 23:09
  Speaker 1: comparison to other things that Trump has done that I
• 23:11
  Speaker 1: think are far far more important and far more worthy
• 23:14
  Speaker 1: of criticism. But I think they thought, okay, oh wow,
• 23:17
  Speaker 1: we got him here because this is Trump's base. If
• 23:20
  Speaker 1: he's offending hardcore Christians, this is going to be problems
• 23:24
  Speaker 1: for him, and so I think that's probably why the
• 23:27
  Speaker 1: story got far more attention than it deserved. Another story
• 23:31
  Speaker 1: evolving Donald Trump in directly that no one fully understands,
• 23:37
  Speaker 1: and really the coverage of it was was a bit muted,
• 23:43
  Speaker 1: I think because people were just so confused and so
• 23:47
  Speaker 1: flumixed that they didn't know what to say about it.
• 23:51
  Speaker 1: But there was an incredibly bizarre I mean, even by
• 23:54
  Speaker 1: Trump administration's two point zero standards, there was an incredibly
• 23:59
  Speaker 1: bizarre moment where First Lady Milania Trump decided out of
• 24:05
  Speaker 1: the blue to make a live address from the White
• 24:09
  Speaker 1: House to the nation essentially, I mean, there was very
• 24:14
  Speaker 1: little notice, given the White House had nope, apparently prior
• 24:19
  Speaker 1: knowledge that this was going to happen. She just put
• 24:23
  Speaker 1: out a notice, I'm giving an address. She stepped to
• 24:26
  Speaker 1: the podium, and for like five minutes she went on
• 24:30
  Speaker 1: a diatribe about how she was not a victim of
• 24:34
  Speaker 1: Jeffrey Epstein and that she's sick and tired of the
• 24:38
  Speaker 1: misreporting about her and Epstein. Now, the first part about
• 24:43
  Speaker 1: this that was so strange. Other than the logistics of
• 24:47
  Speaker 1: it and the fact that Malania Trump never makes a
• 24:49
  Speaker 1: live address like this, was the fact that no one
• 24:53
  Speaker 1: in the mainstream had ever heard of Milania Trump being
• 24:58
  Speaker 1: associated with the Epstein story, or her ever being a
• 25:01
  Speaker 1: victim of Jeffrey Epstein. This is not a thing. It
• 25:05
  Speaker 1: wasn't a thing until Millennia Trump made it one. So
• 25:10
  Speaker 1: right off the bat, that's incredibly strange, and no one
• 25:14
  Speaker 1: could understand it. And of course, in my view, there's
• 25:17
  Speaker 1: two ways to look at this. There's the conspiratorial I
• 25:22
  Speaker 1: would call it the conspiratorial take on it, and then
• 25:26
  Speaker 1: there's the incompetence take on it. And generally I am
• 25:31
  Speaker 1: almost always in the camp of incompetence over conspiracy, but
• 25:37
  Speaker 1: most people in this day and age tend to go
• 25:39
  Speaker 1: for conspiracy than incompetence. And the conspiracy here is Aha,
• 25:45
  Speaker 1: something is about to come out. There's a shoe that's
• 25:48
  Speaker 1: about to drop. She's being proactive about this even though
• 25:52
  Speaker 1: we haven't heard anything about this. Somehow, some way, there's
• 25:56
  Speaker 1: a deep, dark secret. And does this have to do
• 25:59
  Speaker 1: with she and Donald Trump met, which she references in
• 26:03
  Speaker 1: this address, and was Epstein far more involved in Trump's
• 26:08
  Speaker 1: life and Milania's life than we knew. And of course,
• 26:13
  Speaker 1: if you're a pr person in the Trump White House,
• 26:17
  Speaker 1: you're like, my god, I thought we just got past
• 26:20
  Speaker 1: the Epstein story. Finally it seemingly is fading away and
• 26:26
  Speaker 1: no longer at the top of the headlines. And now
• 26:28
  Speaker 1: the first lady proactively puts it right back at the
• 26:31
  Speaker 1: top of the of the topics of conversation of the media.
• 26:36
  Speaker 1: That doesn't make any sense. So in order to do that,
• 26:39
  Speaker 1: in order to justify that there must be something to this,
• 26:42
  Speaker 1: this is the I think the conventional wisdom that something
• 26:45
  Speaker 1: is about to happen, that there's more information that's about
• 26:49
  Speaker 1: to come out, and that Milania Trump is very, very
• 26:52
  Speaker 1: concerned about this, because otherwise, why would she do this
• 26:56
  Speaker 1: unprecedented thing of having this live addressed to the nation
• 27:00
  Speaker 1: and where the White House had basically no warning about
• 27:05
  Speaker 1: that didn't sign off on. Apparently, I get that that's
• 27:08
  Speaker 1: where people's heads go. I totally understand that. I mean,
• 27:13
  Speaker 1: especially in this day and age, it makes a little
• 27:15
  Speaker 1: bit of sense that okay, wait a minute, hold on,
• 27:19
  Speaker 1: there's never been any reporting about Melania Trump and Jeffrey Epstein.
• 27:23
  Speaker 1: Why would she do this. For her to do this,
• 27:26
  Speaker 1: it must be a big deal. There must be something
• 27:28
  Speaker 1: coming out. She must be very concerned about this. This
• 27:31
  Speaker 1: is completely outside of her normal mo that all I
• 27:35
  Speaker 1: think makes sense, except nothing has happened since then. There's
• 27:40
  Speaker 1: not been anything that's come out. And yes, there's some
• 27:44
  Speaker 1: rumors about a friend of hers that she basically discarded,
• 27:50
  Speaker 1: and you know that she's got the goods I'm Melania
• 27:54
  Speaker 1: and social media posts and okay, but there's not been
• 27:58
  Speaker 1: anything substances that has been reported since this address involving
• 28:03
  Speaker 1: Milania Trump and Jeffrey Epstein, at least that I'm aware of,
• 28:07
  Speaker 1: and I think I would be aware of it because
• 28:10
  Speaker 1: there's been a lot of people waiting for the shoe
• 28:13
  Speaker 1: to drop. And so the absence of evidence here I
• 28:16
  Speaker 1: think is significant because it's clear she was not being
• 28:21
  Speaker 1: preemptive about something that was imminently coming out. That was
• 28:24
  Speaker 1: very significant regarding her and Jeffrey Epstein, because if that
• 28:29
  Speaker 1: was gonna happen, it probably would have happened by now.
• 28:32
  Speaker 1: And there's no evidence, no known evidence of that. So
• 28:35
  Speaker 1: what's the alternative explanation. Well, that's where I go back
• 28:39
  Speaker 1: to the incompetence theory, and I have This is just
• 28:43
  Speaker 1: purely my gut instinct. I have no evidence to back
• 28:47
  Speaker 1: this up. This is just me reading the tea leaves.
• 28:51
  Speaker 1: I think Milania Trump somehow got in front of her,
• 28:56
  Speaker 1: some crack pot on some obscure site or some social
• 29:01
  Speaker 1: media post making an allegation about her. Who knows how
• 29:05
  Speaker 1: that happened. Did she see it herself, did a friend
• 29:08
  Speaker 1: send it to her? Did an aide see it? And somehow,
• 29:12
  Speaker 1: some way it hit a nerve and she went rogue
• 29:17
  Speaker 1: and decided that she was going to put a stop
• 29:19
  Speaker 1: to this, not really having an understanding that this is
• 29:23
  Speaker 1: the world in which we now live, people are going
• 29:25
  Speaker 1: to say crazy things all over the internet, and that
• 29:28
  Speaker 1: the best way to handle this is to just ignore it,
• 29:31
  Speaker 1: especially if there's nothing to it. And who knows what
• 29:34
  Speaker 1: kind of mood she was in. Who knows what else
• 29:37
  Speaker 1: was going on, But for whatever reason she just decided
• 29:40
  Speaker 1: to do this. She clearly is very strong willed and
• 29:44
  Speaker 1: she can get her own way, she has her whole life,
• 29:48
  Speaker 1: and so no one was going to stop her, and
• 29:52
  Speaker 1: so she just went rogue based upon a piece of
• 29:55
  Speaker 1: stray bullshit that she somehow saw on the internet. That
• 30:00
  Speaker 1: is my theory, mainly because there's not been anything that
• 30:04
  Speaker 1: has happened since this address, and so I could be wrong.
• 30:09
  Speaker 1: I'll be the first to admit it if I am.
• 30:11
  Speaker 1: But if given the choice between this having real significance
• 30:17
  Speaker 1: and there being some news that's about to come out
• 30:20
  Speaker 1: and her just completely totally overreacting to a stray bit
• 30:24
  Speaker 1: of information that somehow got in front of her, I'm
• 30:27
  Speaker 1: going with the ladder instead of the former. I think
• 30:31
  Speaker 1: Malania just made a mistake and no one was willing
• 30:34
  Speaker 1: or able to stop her, which is kind of an
• 30:37
  Speaker 1: interesting indication of how things work in the Trump marriage
• 30:40
  Speaker 1: as well as the Trump White House. Now somewhat related
• 30:45
  Speaker 1: to the issue of Epstein, which of course has everything
• 30:48
  Speaker 1: to do with sexual abuse, alleged, real and otherwise, I
• 30:52
  Speaker 1: feel compelled, unfortunately, to talk about Eric Swallwell, now this
• 30:58
  Speaker 1: keeps happening. Stop me if you've heard this before, But
• 31:02
  Speaker 1: I am forced to delve into a topic where someone
• 31:06
  Speaker 1: I do not like is being destroyed, and I have
• 31:12
  Speaker 1: to get to the truth of the matter because unfortunately,
• 31:14
  Speaker 1: we're living in a world where no one else will
• 31:17
  Speaker 1: And I am very very very very very concerned about
• 31:21
  Speaker 1: the journalistic standards as they now exist post Epstein panic
• 31:27
  Speaker 1: regarding what the news media considers to be credible allegations
• 31:32
  Speaker 1: of sexual harassment, sexual abuse, and even rape. I think
• 31:37
  Speaker 1: this is an incredibly significant issue, having far more to
• 31:42
  Speaker 1: do with the society that we're going to be living
• 31:44
  Speaker 1: in going forward than what happens to Eric Swalwell. Although
• 31:48
  Speaker 1: I will say that what happened to Eric Swalwell was significant,
• 31:52
  Speaker 1: especially here in California, because I told you that the
• 31:57
  Speaker 1: most likely scenario is that there was this whole business
• 32:02
  Speaker 1: of two Republicans somehow getting the top two spots in
• 32:06
  Speaker 1: the California gubernatorial primary was impossible, especially after Trump endorsed
• 32:11
  Speaker 1: Steve Hilton. That ended any hope of that. It was
• 32:14
  Speaker 1: never going to happen even before Trump's endorsement, but Trump's
• 32:18
  Speaker 1: endorsement ended all hope of a miracle occurring because the
• 32:24
  Speaker 1: California Democratic Party and people at Gaven Newsom and Kamala
• 32:28
  Speaker 1: Harris and Barack Obama, they were eventually going to endorse
• 32:33
  Speaker 1: one candidate and all the cats would be herded, and
• 32:38
  Speaker 1: at the very least one Democrat, if not two Democrats,
• 32:42
  Speaker 1: would end up being the top two slots in the primary,
• 32:45
  Speaker 1: and therefore the Democrat Democrat would win in November and
• 32:50
  Speaker 1: be the person that replaces Gavin Newsom as California's governor.
• 32:53
  Speaker 1: And I thought that Eric Swawell, because that was the
• 32:56
  Speaker 1: conventional wisdom of the time, was the most natural person
• 33:00
  Speaker 1: for people to rally around, because he's well known, he's
• 33:02
  Speaker 1: been in Congress for fourteen years, he's part of the establishment.
• 33:07
  Speaker 1: He's controversial. He's got this history with this affair with
• 33:10
  Speaker 1: a Chinese spy, which should be disqualifying, but we, for
• 33:14
  Speaker 1: some reason, don't live in that world. But he's very
• 33:17
  Speaker 1: anti Trump, and you know, he's well known, he's got
• 33:22
  Speaker 1: the right connections, he's got enough money, he's in Congress.
• 33:25
  Speaker 1: There's no one else who's a natural person that Democrats
• 33:30
  Speaker 1: would rally around, because Katie Porter no one likes, and
• 33:34
  Speaker 1: Tom Steyer is a rich guy who's not in politics,
• 33:38
  Speaker 1: and he's a white, straight male, and there's no minority
• 33:42
  Speaker 1: candidate that's really galvanizing people. So Swallowell would appear to
• 33:47
  Speaker 1: be the person that would be most natural for the
• 33:50
  Speaker 1: California Democrats to rally around and end this little problem
• 33:55
  Speaker 1: with two Republicans potentially being in the top two spots
• 34:00
  Speaker 1: in the primary, though again I should point out one
• 34:02
  Speaker 1: more time, by the time this Swawell controversy hit in
• 34:06
  Speaker 1: the real world, that was no longer a threat because
• 34:09
  Speaker 1: Title Trump had removed that threat by endorsing Steve Hilton,
• 34:14
  Speaker 1: because the second Republican was no longer going to have
• 34:16
  Speaker 1: enough support to stay in the top two, and the
• 34:19
  Speaker 1: polls have indicated I was exactly right on that. Well.
• 34:23
  Speaker 1: What I did not anticipate was that Eric Swalwell would
• 34:26
  Speaker 1: get a Code red called out on him, much like
• 34:29
  Speaker 1: what happened with Caesar Chavez. And there are remarkable similarities
• 34:34
  Speaker 1: between what happened with Caesar Chavez and what happened with
• 34:38
  Speaker 1: Eric Swawell, the biggest difference being, of course, Swawoll not
• 34:41
  Speaker 1: only wasn't dead for thirty three years, he was on
• 34:44
  Speaker 1: the verge of being the next governor of California. And
• 34:48
  Speaker 1: now he's out of Congress, and he'll be lucky if
• 34:51
  Speaker 1: he avoids criminal prosecution for things that may or may
• 34:55
  Speaker 1: not have happened in the realm of sexual abuse. I mean,
• 34:58
  Speaker 1: this is as quick and is stunning the political demise
• 35:03
  Speaker 1: as maybe in the history of modern America. I mean,
• 35:07
  Speaker 1: when you're that close, you're on the verge being the
• 35:10
  Speaker 1: governor of California, and now you're not only out of politics,
• 35:15
  Speaker 1: you're unemployed in your political career is completely over, your
• 35:19
  Speaker 1: marriage is probably going to be over. I mean, that
• 35:22
  Speaker 1: is one hell of a fall from grace in an
• 35:25
  Speaker 1: incredibly fast amount of time. And the way this happened
• 35:31
  Speaker 1: was because of a series of quote unquote sexual abuse
• 35:36
  Speaker 1: or harassment allegations that all came at at the same
• 35:40
  Speaker 1: time about Eric Swahwell. Now, I can't stand Eric Swawell
• 35:47
  Speaker 1: at every level. Politically, I loathe him. He seems like
• 35:50
  Speaker 1: a scumbag. He's a hypocrite. It's obvious that he has
• 35:55
  Speaker 1: It's very clear that he has been using his office
• 35:59
  Speaker 1: as actively a dating app to cheat on his wife,
• 36:05
  Speaker 1: which I'll get to more momentarily. But I have no
• 36:09
  Speaker 1: love for Eric Swalwell. But the way this went down
• 36:14
  Speaker 1: was extremely disturbing to anybody who cares about fairness or
• 36:20
  Speaker 1: the truth or journalistic standards and how they have gone
• 36:25
  Speaker 1: into the toilet, especially post Epstein panic. I said this
• 36:29
  Speaker 1: during the Sieves Chavez situation that I don't believe The
• 36:34
  Speaker 1: New York Times ever goes ahead with the Caesar Chavez story,
• 36:38
  Speaker 1: if the Epstein panic hadn't dramatically lowered the threshold for
• 36:43
  Speaker 1: reporting on these kinds of situations, I mean, it's unbelievable
• 36:48
  Speaker 1: how low the threshold has gotten in so many different ways.
• 36:54
  Speaker 1: And the first shoot to drop here was four different
• 36:59
  Speaker 1: women in the San Francisco Chronicle and then on CNN
• 37:05
  Speaker 1: and the all here. This happens all the time. It
• 37:09
  Speaker 1: happened with Chavez. It's right, you know, the playbook is clear.
• 37:13
  Speaker 1: Now when you go after somebody on these kinds of situations,
• 37:17
  Speaker 1: you need and I've said the magic number is three.
• 37:20
  Speaker 1: In this case they used four. You need at least
• 37:23
  Speaker 1: three or four people to come out simultaneously, because inherently
• 37:30
  Speaker 1: in the media's minds, and I guess in the minds
• 37:32
  Speaker 1: of most of the public, this gives the story inherent credibility.
• 37:37
  Speaker 1: If it's just one person, doesn't matter what they're saying,
• 37:41
  Speaker 1: people tend to discount it. But what gets nefarious here,
• 37:45
  Speaker 1: and it really is nefarious, is when the news media
• 37:50
  Speaker 1: lumps in allegations that are clearly not criminal and incredibly
• 37:58
  Speaker 1: minor in this in the entire spectrum of sexual harassment
• 38:03
  Speaker 1: or quote unquote abuse that are easily made up. See
• 38:08
  Speaker 1: that's there's so many problems with this. But one of
• 38:10
  Speaker 1: the biggest problems is when you make a very minor allegation,
• 38:14
  Speaker 1: it's far easier to lie about that and it's almost
• 38:17
  Speaker 1: impossible to disprove it. And so it's very easy. If
• 38:24
  Speaker 1: someone is being targeted and the media wants to tell
• 38:27
  Speaker 1: the story, it's incredibly easy to get you know, the
• 38:32
  Speaker 1: magic number or three or in this case four people
• 38:35
  Speaker 1: to go along, and then they'll claim four women have
• 38:38
  Speaker 1: come forward. Okay, yeah, four women have come forward, But
• 38:43
  Speaker 1: this story started with only one person say anything that
• 38:47
  Speaker 1: was remotely criminal. There was one allegation of what was
• 38:51
  Speaker 1: called rape. Now that's all it takes. You know, one
• 38:56
  Speaker 1: rape should be enough clearly to disqualify somebody from from
• 39:01
  Speaker 1: political office. And if it's an actual rape, they ought
• 39:04
  Speaker 1: to be held accountable legally. And oh, by the way,
• 39:07
  Speaker 1: we have this civil trial system where someone can go
• 39:10
  Speaker 1: after your money in a civil trial, be a lawsuit,
• 39:16
  Speaker 1: which seems to be something that the news media has
• 39:18
  Speaker 1: completely forgotten about. Oh my gosh, we have this civil
• 39:21
  Speaker 1: lawsuits system. You mean, if for some reason the authorities
• 39:25
  Speaker 1: don't want to press charges against a powerful political person,
• 39:31
  Speaker 1: a member of the establishment, a white male who's getting privileged.
• 39:35
  Speaker 1: You mean a woman can on her own, with a
• 39:38
  Speaker 1: lawyer that would be easily found in this kind of situation,
• 39:43
  Speaker 1: they can sue. Really, this seems to be news to
• 39:46
  Speaker 1: the news media. We've seen this time and time again,
• 39:50
  Speaker 1: where the you know, the absolute lowest threshold of behavior,
• 39:55
  Speaker 1: if you're actually being sexually abused or raped, ought to
• 39:59
  Speaker 1: be filing a criminal complaint, and if that doesn't work,
• 40:03
  Speaker 1: filing a lawsuit. It's incredibly easy to do in high
• 40:06
  Speaker 1: profile situations. And yet none of this happened. But what
• 40:11
  Speaker 1: did happen with regard to this initial batch and how
• 40:15
  Speaker 1: this story evolved is I think very telling and fascinating,
• 40:19
  Speaker 1: and that's why I'm going to go through this in
• 40:20
  Speaker 1: some detail, even though I freaking hate the story. I
• 40:24
  Speaker 1: hate all these stories. I can't stand that I've been
• 40:26
  Speaker 1: in this incredibly uncomfortable position of being one of the
• 40:29
  Speaker 1: few people to seemingly defend a scumbag like Eric Swawell,
• 40:35
  Speaker 1: who I don't like at all. I hate it, but
• 40:39
  Speaker 1: I hate even more what has happened to journalism and
• 40:43
  Speaker 1: what is happening to our society. Where these allegations that
• 40:48
  Speaker 1: on their own would never hold up in any court
• 40:53
  Speaker 1: and should not be reported by allegedly reputable news organizations.
• 40:57
  Speaker 1: And that's what happened when this whole story begas because
• 41:01
  Speaker 1: CNN decided to play an interview with a woman who
• 41:06
  Speaker 1: remained anonymous. She's the one at first who claimed a
• 41:13
  Speaker 1: couple of years ago, not contemporaneously to twenty twenty four,
• 41:19
  Speaker 1: that she got drunk and got so drunk. She actually
• 41:25
  Speaker 1: says the words in the interview you're about to hear,
• 41:28
  Speaker 1: I don't remember anything. I don't remember anything. That okay,
• 41:36
  Speaker 1: that's okay, I'm sorry this happened to you. That's game,
• 41:39
  Speaker 1: set match. You don't remember anything. How can you passibly
• 41:44
  Speaker 1: destroy somebody's be allowed to destroy somebody's life anonymously in
• 41:50
  Speaker 1: a situation where you admit you don't remember anything. Oh,
• 41:55
  Speaker 1: by the way, you also admit this was at least
• 41:58
  Speaker 1: a second sexual encounter, which is one of the many
• 42:02
  Speaker 1: similarities between this situation and Caesar Chavez years before, almost
• 42:08
  Speaker 1: exact same timeframe. By the way, is the primary adult
• 42:13
  Speaker 1: allegation against Caesar Chavez. There was a rapeie episode in
• 42:18
  Speaker 1: twenty nineteen, and then another rape episode in twenty twenty
• 42:23
  Speaker 1: four that the woman fully acknowledges she facilitated. And by
• 42:28
  Speaker 1: the way, the fact that in the moment when you
• 42:30
  Speaker 1: hear her say that she facilitated it because she felt
• 42:34
  Speaker 1: like she was no longer working for him and she
• 42:37
  Speaker 1: had grown as a person. She's a full blown adult
• 42:40
  Speaker 1: now in her late twenties. I think she was twenty
• 42:43
  Speaker 1: one the first time around, and I guess twenty six
• 42:47
  Speaker 1: the second time around. The reason why she's doing that,
• 42:50
  Speaker 1: in my view, is there must be electronic messages that
• 42:53
  Speaker 1: proved that she facilitated the going out for drinks. Now,
• 42:58
  Speaker 1: why in the world would anyone decide that they're gonna
• 43:01
  Speaker 1: go out for drinks with a married man who claimed
• 43:05
  Speaker 1: that who they believe, based upon their current testimony, raped
• 43:09
  Speaker 1: them five years before. How does that make any goddamn sense.
• 43:13
  Speaker 1: But okay, fine, that's her story. But her story is
• 43:18
  Speaker 1: she got so drunk she could not remember anything, but
• 43:23
  Speaker 1: she somehow is sure that Eric Swawall raped her during
• 43:26
  Speaker 1: this episode that she doesn't remember anything. So here is CNN.
• 43:32
  Speaker 1: Of course they've got a female reporter, which is always
• 43:34
  Speaker 1: the case, and a female reporter, I mean, no female
• 43:39
  Speaker 1: reporter is going to stand up and lose all their
• 43:42
  Speaker 1: female street Craig by questioning in any significantly aggressive fashion
• 43:48
  Speaker 1: and alleged a victim of sexual abuse, even though they're
• 43:54
  Speaker 1: being allowed to remain anonymous. And the anonymous part of
• 43:59
  Speaker 1: this rise me crazy. But I'm gonna address that after
• 44:04
  Speaker 1: you you've heard the CNN report and the key snippet
• 44:08
  Speaker 1: of the interview with this person who is shadowed. You
• 44:12
  Speaker 1: don't know what she looks like, you don't know what
• 44:14
  Speaker 1: her name is, you know almost nothing about her background.
• 44:17
  Speaker 1: But CNN decided that this was worthy and met the
• 44:21
  Speaker 1: threshold for reporting on somebody who's in the middle of
• 44:25
  Speaker 1: a major political campaign, which also should go into this equation.
• 44:30
  Speaker 1: Wait a minute, Hold on a second, we're just all
• 44:33
  Speaker 1: of a sudden gonna do this when someone becomes the
• 44:36
  Speaker 1: leading candidate to be governor of the state of California. Wow,
• 44:40
  Speaker 1: what a coincidence. You mean this happened last week? Oh no,
• 44:43
  Speaker 1: it happened in twenty twenty four, and allegedly also in
• 44:46
  Speaker 1: twenty nineteen. Okay, we're not gonna ask any questions about this.
• 44:50
  Speaker 1: We're just gonna just just vouch for this. This anonymous
• 44:54
  Speaker 1: allegation anyway, Here's how CNN reported it.
• 44:58
  Speaker 4: Four women are accusing congress bean Eric Swalwell with sexual misconduct,
• 45:02
  Speaker 4: including a former staffer who says he raped her. The
• 45:06
  Speaker 4: allegations against the prominent Democratic candidate for governor ranged from
• 45:09
  Speaker 4: inappropriate messages and pictures to unwanted kissing and touching, and
• 45:13
  Speaker 4: in one case rape from a woman we spoke to
• 45:16
  Speaker 4: on camera in shadow to protect her identity due to
• 45:19
  Speaker 4: professional retaliation concerns. She is a former Swalwell staffer.
• 45:24
  Speaker 1: She says it.
• 45:24
  Speaker 4: Began when she was twenty one years old. There were
• 45:28
  Speaker 4: two very serious sexual assault allegations she made, one in
• 45:31
  Speaker 4: twenty nineteen as a staffer, the other from twenty twenty
• 45:34
  Speaker 4: four once she left his office. She also described inappropriate
• 45:38
  Speaker 4: messages and nude images with the congressman using Snapchat with
• 45:42
  Speaker 4: disappearing messages. Now, after the first incident where she said
• 45:45
  Speaker 4: she woke up in his hotel room as a staffer
• 45:48
  Speaker 4: naked after a night of heavy drinking, she told us
• 45:51
  Speaker 4: about what she says happened several years later, in twenty
• 45:54
  Speaker 4: twenty four, after she left his office. And I want
• 45:57
  Speaker 4: to warn you what you're about to hear is graphic.
• 46:00
  Speaker 5: I decided to ask him to meet me for a drink.
• 46:03
  Speaker 5: And I did this because I was so far removed
• 46:07
  Speaker 5: from what had happened in twenty nineteen. I felt safe
• 46:12
  Speaker 5: because I was established, I had a partner. I felt
• 46:18
  Speaker 5: more secure that I could have a strictly professional relationship
• 46:23
  Speaker 5: with this person. After that bar closed, we went to another.
• 46:26
  Speaker 5: I went to the bathroom, and I don't remember anything
• 46:30
  Speaker 5: after that.
• 46:31
  Speaker 4: You don't remember anything.
• 46:32
  Speaker 5: I remember the next day. I can see flashes of
• 46:37
  Speaker 5: that evening, of him on top of me, me pushing
• 46:41
  Speaker 5: him off, him grabbing me. It was a lot more aggressive.
• 46:49
  Speaker 3: It was aggressive.
• 46:50
  Speaker 4: Did you say no?
• 46:52
  Speaker 6: Yes?
• 46:52
  Speaker 5: I said no. I in my flash that I can recall,
• 46:58
  Speaker 5: I was pushing him off of me, saying no.
• 47:01
  Speaker 1: And what was it he do?
• 47:03
  Speaker 5: He didn't stop, he.
• 47:04
  Speaker 4: Didn't stop, And you woke up the next morning.
• 47:08
  Speaker 5: I woke up the next morning naked alone in his
• 47:12
  Speaker 5: hotel room. I for a moment, didn't even know I
• 47:17
  Speaker 5: was in his hotel room. That's how intoxicated I was.
• 47:22
  Speaker 5: And I called my mom, the only person I could
• 47:26
  Speaker 5: think that could help me.
• 47:28
  Speaker 1: Now. To me, when I heard that, I'm like, you
• 47:32
  Speaker 1: gotta be kidding me. If we knew the person's name,
• 47:38
  Speaker 1: and we know what they looked like, and we had
• 47:41
  Speaker 1: some sense of their history, and we could have I
• 47:45
  Speaker 1: think we could evaluate far more incredibly whether or not
• 47:49
  Speaker 1: this is an allegation that should be taken seriously. I
• 47:53
  Speaker 1: want to be clear about this anonymous thing. This has
• 47:57
  Speaker 1: been one of my pet peeves since I unfortunately have
• 48:00
  Speaker 1: been dragged into this issue, largely because of the whole
• 48:03
  Speaker 1: Penn Stage Joe Paternal Jerry Sindusky case, and effectively those
• 48:07
  Speaker 1: accusers were all allowed to be to remain anonymous, even
• 48:10
  Speaker 1: though they were all adult men when they testified against
• 48:13
  Speaker 1: Jerry Sandusky. When you're anonymous, this does so many things
• 48:19
  Speaker 1: to distort the allegation in a way that protects someone
• 48:25
  Speaker 1: who could be lying. The first thing is it's far
• 48:29
  Speaker 1: easier to do it. There's less stake in the game,
• 48:34
  Speaker 1: all right. The alleged reason was they're afraid of retaliation.
• 48:38
  Speaker 1: Retaliation from what Eric Swawell is completely dead. No one's
• 48:43
  Speaker 1: afraid of Eric swallow now, and it was already pretty
• 48:47
  Speaker 1: damn clear when she did this that was going to
• 48:49
  Speaker 1: be the result. So I don't buy this, Oh, I'm
• 48:53
  Speaker 1: afraid of retaliation, You're being protected by cned. If anything
• 49:00
  Speaker 1: happens to you, that's only gonna be way worse for Swallwell.
• 49:05
  Speaker 1: So so I don't buy the explanation number one, but
• 49:08
  Speaker 1: number two, when you're anonymous, we don't know your history,
• 49:14
  Speaker 1: We don't know have you ever been convicted of a crime,
• 49:19
  Speaker 1: you know, we don't know your social media post. This
• 49:22
  Speaker 1: is a huge one and I think this is probably
• 49:25
  Speaker 1: the number one reason why this woman decided to remain anonymous,
• 49:29
  Speaker 1: one because the coast wasn't fully clear yet. It's a
• 49:33
  Speaker 1: lot easier to do this when you know, even people
• 49:35
  Speaker 1: in your own world don't know for sure that that's you,
• 49:39
  Speaker 1: and you know they don't they don't, you know, because
• 49:41
  Speaker 1: it's when people in your own world, and this was
• 49:43
  Speaker 1: a huge issue in the Sandusky case, when people in
• 49:45
  Speaker 1: your own world don't get alerted that, oh my god,
• 49:48
  Speaker 1: you were raped by Eric Swalwell twice? How come you
• 49:50
  Speaker 1: never told us about this? Just don't have to deal
• 49:53
  Speaker 1: with that right now? Is it possible some people might
• 49:56
  Speaker 1: figure it out that it's her, Maybe, but they won't
• 49:59
  Speaker 1: be sure. The reality is, though it's so much easier
• 50:03
  Speaker 1: to do this anonymously, far less skin in the game.
• 50:07
  Speaker 1: No one in your world or people in the periphery
• 50:10
  Speaker 1: of your world are going to say, wait a minute,
• 50:12
  Speaker 1: you said great things about Eric Swowell in twenty twenty five,
• 50:17
  Speaker 1: So how does that make any sense? But it's the
• 50:19
  Speaker 1: social media posts that I think are most significant in
• 50:23
  Speaker 1: this day and age. How do we know that this
• 50:25
  Speaker 1: person has not posted all sorts of positive things about
• 50:29
  Speaker 1: Eric Swawell over the years after these alleged events. Now
• 50:33
  Speaker 1: I have no evidence that she did, but because we
• 50:36
  Speaker 1: don't know her name, we don't know if that happened
• 50:40
  Speaker 1: or not. And being anonymous prevents us from having all
• 50:46
  Speaker 1: sorts of information, including, and this is politically incorrect, what
• 50:52
  Speaker 1: she looks like. I'm sorry, but what she looks like matters.
• 50:58
  Speaker 1: To the media, they're going to pretend that it does,
• 51:00
  Speaker 1: and to the feminist they're going to pretend that that
• 51:02
  Speaker 1: doesn't matter. But evaluating these kinds of situations, if the
• 51:06
  Speaker 1: allegation is sexual in nature, then what she looks like
• 51:10
  Speaker 1: is relevant. Is it determinative? No, of course not. But
• 51:14
  Speaker 1: what she looks like in the real world matters. So
• 51:18
  Speaker 1: it's hard for me to take any sort of allegation seriously.
• 51:22
  Speaker 1: When you're anonymous under these circumstances, especially when being protected
• 51:26
  Speaker 1: by CNN and the rest of the news media. But
• 51:30
  Speaker 1: then there's her story. Now, even getting past it, I
• 51:34
  Speaker 1: don't remember anything, which should be game set match, right,
• 51:39
  Speaker 1: I get you know, you could make an argument, but John,
• 51:43
  Speaker 1: somebody can be too drunk to be able to give consent. Okay,
• 51:49
  Speaker 1: but how in the world is anyone supposed to know that.
• 51:52
  Speaker 1: I'm just gonna accept everything she's saying is true by
• 51:54
  Speaker 1: the way, I don't know it to be true. This
• 51:57
  Speaker 1: is generally the way I evaluate these stories. I press
• 52:00
  Speaker 1: whom everything you're telling me is true, and I try
• 52:02
  Speaker 1: to figure out, Okay, does that make any sense? And
• 52:04
  Speaker 1: what does that really mean? And so if two people
• 52:09
  Speaker 1: are drunk and she's you know, wakes up the next
• 52:12
  Speaker 1: morning you can't remember anything, How in the world can
• 52:16
  Speaker 1: she possibly make a credible allegation that she was raped
• 52:20
  Speaker 1: if she doesn't remember anything, Is it possible she was raped?
• 52:24
  Speaker 1: Of course it is. Of course it's possible. But that's
• 52:29
  Speaker 1: not the standard. The standard is not it's possible I
• 52:33
  Speaker 1: was raped. I don't remember anything. That's not the standard.
• 52:40
  Speaker 1: And the standard has got to be higher than that,
• 52:44
  Speaker 1: because it's also quite possible if not probable, that what
• 52:49
  Speaker 1: really happened here is this woman had a sexual encounter
• 52:53
  Speaker 1: with Swallow when she was working I guess for him
• 52:57
  Speaker 1: in twenty nineteen. Then she's no longer working for him,
• 53:01
  Speaker 1: she decides the coast is clear, but then she gets regret.
• 53:05
  Speaker 1: I mean the fact that the news media has completely
• 53:07
  Speaker 1: discounted the scenario where a woman has a sexual encounter
• 53:13
  Speaker 1: where they then regret what happened. You know, once it's
• 53:17
  Speaker 1: the next morning and the hangover wears off and they realize,
• 53:20
  Speaker 1: oh my god, what do they do? They regret it,
• 53:24
  Speaker 1: and when they regret it, they need to rationalize what happened.
• 53:30
  Speaker 1: And that is even without the political aspect of the
• 53:33
  Speaker 1: whole situation. There's all sorts of reasons why someone could
• 53:38
  Speaker 1: want to have it out for Eric Swawell. I mean
• 53:41
  Speaker 1: maybe she who knows, But is it possible that she
• 53:44
  Speaker 1: got feelings and you know, he decided to discard her
• 53:48
  Speaker 1: and now she wants revenge. I mean, that's certainly possible.
• 53:52
  Speaker 1: It's a rational motivation that's happened a bazillion times in
• 53:57
  Speaker 1: the history of the world. Again, that's just as possible,
• 54:01
  Speaker 1: if not more possible, than the scenario that where she
• 54:04
  Speaker 1: can't remember anything. She got raped by Eric Swawell, and
• 54:10
  Speaker 1: I always go back to, Okay, if you were raped,
• 54:13
  Speaker 1: then tell somebody, where's the lawsuit, where's the criminal complaint?
• 54:21
  Speaker 1: Where is it? This happened two years ago, It's happened
• 54:25
  Speaker 1: a second time according to you. I mean, there are
• 54:30
  Speaker 1: all sorts of problems with that story. It's CNN decided
• 54:33
  Speaker 1: to not just vouch for it and give it almost
• 54:36
  Speaker 1: no scrutiny, but allow it to be told anonymously. The
• 54:42
  Speaker 1: anonymous part is probably, in my view, journalistically, the worst
• 54:46
  Speaker 1: part of this. I'm sorry. If you're going to go
• 54:50
  Speaker 1: after someone's life and career, especially in the middle of
• 54:54
  Speaker 1: a massive political campaign where they're now the favorite to
• 54:57
  Speaker 1: be the governor of California, you've got to be willing
• 55:00
  Speaker 1: to do that. Showing your face and letting everyone know
• 55:05
  Speaker 1: what your name is. I'm sorry, that should be bare minimum.
• 55:09
  Speaker 1: But we don't live in that world anymore because the
• 55:12
  Speaker 1: standards have been reduced dramatically, and it's it's I mentioned
• 55:17
  Speaker 1: Caesar Chavez previously. It's incredibly similar. The tactics that we're
• 55:22
  Speaker 1: used here, the conflation of various different allegations, the trying
• 55:27
  Speaker 1: to gather another enough women together to where you get
• 55:31
  Speaker 1: you know that magic number of three or beyond, you
• 55:35
  Speaker 1: have two rapes similar years apart. By the way, I've
• 55:40
  Speaker 1: seen this happening on almost a regular basis now where
• 55:44
  Speaker 1: or I'm seeing allegations of rape years apart? How does
• 55:50
  Speaker 1: that even work? Can somebody please explain to me how
• 55:55
  Speaker 1: it is that if you believe you were raped or
• 55:58
  Speaker 1: involved in a rape situation with someone, how is it
• 56:02
  Speaker 1: do you that you years later decide to invite that
• 56:06
  Speaker 1: person out for drinks? How does that happen? How do
• 56:09
  Speaker 1: you ever get yourself into another situation where you could
• 56:13
  Speaker 1: be raped where you're naked or in some state of
• 56:18
  Speaker 1: serious undress in a hotel room or whatever it is,
• 56:23
  Speaker 1: in a private place. How do you allow yourself to
• 56:26
  Speaker 1: be in that situation with someone who you say previously
• 56:31
  Speaker 1: assaulted you or raped you, or whatever word you want
• 56:34
  Speaker 1: to use. And the word rape, my god, I mean,
• 56:38
  Speaker 1: the yr word has been diluted so much. It's a
• 56:41
  Speaker 1: lot like racism. Racism and rape have been diluted so
• 56:47
  Speaker 1: much now to have almost no meaning. But getting back
• 56:52
  Speaker 1: to the Caesar Shaba situation, there's one big difference, one
• 56:56
  Speaker 1: huge difference between the Caesar Shabaz situation and Eric swall
• 57:00
  Speaker 1: Well with Chavez. The New York Times reported it, and
• 57:04
  Speaker 1: that was it. There has been no pile on whatsoever,
• 57:08
  Speaker 1: which is extraordinary to me and very very instructive about
• 57:14
  Speaker 1: what really happened. We're led to believe with Caesar Shavez
• 57:17
  Speaker 1: that in the nineteen seventies he was recklessly sexually abusing
• 57:22
  Speaker 1: young girls, which is horrendous, horrific, absolutely more than a
• 57:28
  Speaker 1: cancible cancel in event if true. But here's the thing.
• 57:35
  Speaker 1: If he's doing this recklessly, and there were two allegations
• 57:38
  Speaker 1: of that in the New York Times story, then it
• 57:41
  Speaker 1: wasn't just two girls. There were way more than two
• 57:44
  Speaker 1: girls that he was doing this too in the nineteen seventies.
• 57:47
  Speaker 1: Will do the math. If you're eleven, twelve, thirteen years
• 57:50
  Speaker 1: old in the nineteen seventies, you're very likely still alive.
• 57:53
  Speaker 1: So where are all these women that should be coming
• 57:57
  Speaker 1: forward regarding Caesar Chavez. It hasn't had happened. It hasn't happened.
• 58:02
  Speaker 1: Why because I don't think it's true. I mean, that's
• 58:05
  Speaker 1: the most logical scenario. However, in the Swellwell situation, that's
• 58:11
  Speaker 1: not what occurred. There has been a Pilon effect, and
• 58:16
  Speaker 1: I think that that is very instructive about this entire story. Now,
• 58:21
  Speaker 1: the Pilon effect worked in two very different directions, and
• 58:26
  Speaker 1: I'm going in order of the way these stories came
• 58:29
  Speaker 1: out in the media for a couple of reasons, but
• 58:32
  Speaker 1: try to simplify the timeline here. But it's also fascinating
• 58:36
  Speaker 1: to see how the media react to this. So we
• 58:38
  Speaker 1: have the CNN story involving the anonymous rape and these
• 58:42
  Speaker 1: three other allegations that are nebulous and really don't rise
• 58:47
  Speaker 1: to any sort of criminal level. But the rape thing
• 58:51
  Speaker 1: I get. I've already discussed why the rape story should
• 58:54
  Speaker 1: not have been reported in my view, based upon what
• 58:57
  Speaker 1: we currently know by CNN and then CBS, because now
• 59:02
  Speaker 1: it's a thing. Right now, we got a full blown scandal.
• 59:05
  Speaker 1: Swawell releases a video that's absolutely terrible, and the moment
• 59:09
  Speaker 1: I saw his response video to the San Francisco Chronicle
• 59:14
  Speaker 1: of the CNN story, I knew he was toast. It
• 59:16
  Speaker 1: was an absolutely awful video, and I think it was
• 59:19
  Speaker 1: an awful video partially because a heterosexual, liberal white male
• 59:26
  Speaker 1: in very progressive California especially, is completely screwed in these
• 59:33
  Speaker 1: situations because the rules have been set up, and to
• 59:36
  Speaker 1: be clear, Swawell helped create those rules. And I get
• 59:40
  Speaker 1: why conservatives have been euphoric over the downfall of Eric Swawell.
• 59:46
  Speaker 1: One because he's an asshole too, because they disagree with him.
• 59:49
  Speaker 1: Three because of his hypocrisy, because he's one of these
• 59:52
  Speaker 1: believe all women people. He was going after Brett Kavanaugh,
• 59:56
  Speaker 1: he's going after Donald Trump on bullshit abuse allegations. I
• 1:00:01
  Speaker 1: get that. I get how tempting it is. I'm sorry
• 1:00:05
  Speaker 1: that has no impact on me because I'm just trying
• 1:00:07
  Speaker 1: to figure out what the truth of the matter is.
• 1:00:09
  Speaker 1: And I'm concerned about the journalistic standards going forward when
• 1:00:14
  Speaker 1: it comes to destroying people's lives based upon dubious allegations
• 1:00:18
  Speaker 1: of sexual abuse. But I get it. I get that
• 1:00:22
  Speaker 1: it feels good because he's you know, Karma's a bitch,
• 1:00:26
  Speaker 1: you know, live by the sword, die by the sword.
• 1:00:29
  Speaker 1: I think I might even tweet it out myself early
• 1:00:31
  Speaker 1: on in this situation. You know, I'm sorry, mister Swawell.
• 1:00:34
  Speaker 1: I was definitely told to believe all women, which is
• 1:00:37
  Speaker 1: something Swawell, you know, triumph that whole concept which is wrong.
• 1:00:43
  Speaker 1: You don't believe all women. You don't believe anybody. You
• 1:00:46
  Speaker 1: believe facts, logic, common sense evidence, and in this particular case,
• 1:00:53
  Speaker 1: there's very little of it. But the firestorm begins. Swawell
• 1:00:58
  Speaker 1: is doomed, although he is not admitting yet, he's at
• 1:01:01
  Speaker 1: first claiming he's going to hang in there, and CBS
• 1:01:05
  Speaker 1: comes out with two women. Now they're on the record,
• 1:01:10
  Speaker 1: their names are known, they're on camera, but what they're
• 1:01:15
  Speaker 1: alleging doesn't meet the standard clearly of criminality based upon
• 1:01:23
  Speaker 1: the evidence provided, and their stories on their own would
• 1:01:27
  Speaker 1: never be reported because there's just without the rape allegation
• 1:01:33
  Speaker 1: already out there, no one would take this seriously. Yeah, okay,
• 1:01:37
  Speaker 1: this is this is something that is problematic if true,
• 1:01:42
  Speaker 1: but it doesn't meet the standard because one of the
• 1:01:45
  Speaker 1: two women basically claims that she got to he be
• 1:01:49
  Speaker 1: GBI's and you know, felt like he was inappropriate and
• 1:01:54
  Speaker 1: was hitting on her. Although when you listen to this clip,
• 1:01:57
  Speaker 1: I want you to think about how different this could
• 1:02:00
  Speaker 1: be portrayed if they wanted to. It's kind of hilarious
• 1:02:05
  Speaker 1: to hear CBS and these democratic operatives, that's who these
• 1:02:10
  Speaker 1: women are. They're democratic operatives. Now these women talk about
• 1:02:15
  Speaker 1: how awful it was that Swalwell gave this one woman
• 1:02:19
  Speaker 1: an opportunity that no other men got, and somehow this
• 1:02:25
  Speaker 1: is a bump bump bom And by the way, I'm
• 1:02:27
  Speaker 1: not naive, I'm quite certain that that's exactly what Swalwell's
• 1:02:31
  Speaker 1: attention was. He found this woman to be cute, so
• 1:02:34
  Speaker 1: he put her into chat that no one else was in.
• 1:02:38
  Speaker 1: He saw her as a prospective sexual partner. He was
• 1:02:41
  Speaker 1: not interested in doing this with any of the men.
• 1:02:44
  Speaker 1: But I thought that was a good thing in democratic politics, right,
• 1:02:48
  Speaker 1: if you're a progressive, if you're a feminist, right, the
• 1:02:51
  Speaker 1: whole screw men. Why should the men get opportunities. Let's
• 1:02:55
  Speaker 1: give women opportunities. Oh no, no, no, Now this is
• 1:02:58
  Speaker 1: bad because Swalwell makes it clear he has a romantic
• 1:03:03
  Speaker 1: sexual interest. The woman does not apparently have the same interest,
• 1:03:07
  Speaker 1: And nothing actually happens. Nothing happens in this first allegation
• 1:03:13
  Speaker 1: that you're about to hear nothing. By the way, I
• 1:03:17
  Speaker 1: totally believe this woman's story, and I find it interesting
• 1:03:21
  Speaker 1: that the most credible person that I've seen in all
• 1:03:24
  Speaker 1: this is saying that she was involved in a circumstance
• 1:03:27
  Speaker 1: where nothing actually happened. And then there's the second person
• 1:03:32
  Speaker 1: that you're gonna hear now she claims that a similar story,
• 1:03:38
  Speaker 1: only there is something of significance that she is alleging.
• 1:03:42
  Speaker 1: She's alleging that Swawell sent without provocation, and no woman
• 1:03:47
  Speaker 1: ever asks for this. So I believe this if true,
• 1:03:50
  Speaker 1: if it ever happened, I believe that this is the
• 1:03:53
  Speaker 1: way it went down. That Swawell sent her via Snapchat
• 1:03:58
  Speaker 1: a dick pic. Right, a sit in congressman sent this
• 1:04:05
  Speaker 1: woman with whom he's never had any sexual contact a
• 1:04:09
  Speaker 1: picture of his penis just happened to be on a
• 1:04:13
  Speaker 1: Snapchat where apparently the the content automatically disappears. That doesn't
• 1:04:20
  Speaker 1: mean you can't prove it happened. Now that allegation, if true,
• 1:04:26
  Speaker 1: I have no problem with that being disqualifying. That should
• 1:04:29
  Speaker 1: be disqualifying for governor of California. I'm happy living in
• 1:04:33
  Speaker 1: that world where you said an unsolicited dick pic to
• 1:04:35
  Speaker 1: someone you're you know that you're not married to. That
• 1:04:39
  Speaker 1: should be disqualifying, especially when you happen to be married.
• 1:04:43
  Speaker 1: We don't live in the world where that's really disqualifying.
• 1:04:45
  Speaker 1: But okay, but here's the problem. Listen carefully. You have
• 1:04:50
  Speaker 1: to if you you know, CBS doesn't point this out
• 1:04:53
  Speaker 1: because you know they're trying to protect the survivors, the accusers.
• 1:04:57
  Speaker 1: But when the woman makes the allegation that he she
• 1:05:03
  Speaker 1: was sent a dick pic by Swollwell, CBS claims that
• 1:05:07
  Speaker 1: there are electronic messages that seemingly back this claim up.
• 1:05:12
  Speaker 1: And I'm like, oh, this will be good because the
• 1:05:15
  Speaker 1: woman immediately, which is perfectly natural and understandable, starts texting
• 1:05:20
  Speaker 1: at the same time allegedly that this occurred, or around
• 1:05:22
  Speaker 1: the same time that this occurred, starts texting with her friends.
• 1:05:28
  Speaker 1: The problem is there's no reference and if there is.
• 1:05:33
  Speaker 1: If there was, I'm guaranteed CBS would have made it
• 1:05:36
  Speaker 1: clear that there was. There's no reference to a dick pic. Now,
• 1:05:40
  Speaker 1: you tell me whether or not if a bunch of
• 1:05:43
  Speaker 1: girls are on a group text about a congressman dming
• 1:05:52
  Speaker 1: one of your friends and he sends her an unsolicited
• 1:05:56
  Speaker 1: dick pick, do you think that's gonna come up in
• 1:05:58
  Speaker 1: the conversation. I think it's pretty safe to say that's
• 1:06:02
  Speaker 1: a yes. Yet there's no evidence to that. So here's
• 1:06:06
  Speaker 1: what CBS aired after the initial media firestorms. Surrounding the
• 1:06:15
  Speaker 1: CNN San Francisco Chronicle rape allegation with these two women
• 1:06:21
  Speaker 1: that frankly, I don't have it. I don't believe they
• 1:06:24
  Speaker 1: have anything all that significant or certainly not proven, other
• 1:06:28
  Speaker 1: than the fact that Eric Swawell likes to flirt and
• 1:06:32
  Speaker 1: pursue attractive young women, which again, is that the rule?
• 1:06:37
  Speaker 1: Now is that disqualifying for someone to hold political office?
• 1:06:41
  Speaker 1: It's not been the rule. If we want to make
• 1:06:43
  Speaker 1: that the rule, I'm perfectly fine with that as long
• 1:06:46
  Speaker 1: as we can prove it. But in this particular case,
• 1:06:49
  Speaker 1: the bottom line is CBS, you know, with all sorts
• 1:06:53
  Speaker 1: of breaking news and exclusive banners, you know, the claires
• 1:06:58
  Speaker 1: to be vouching for these two women, who they acknowledge
• 1:07:02
  Speaker 1: our democratic political operatives, and nothing actually happens, at least
• 1:07:08
  Speaker 1: there's no proof of anything. Nothing actually that anything actually happened.
• 1:07:12
  Speaker 1: And here's what that sounded like on CBS.
• 1:07:15
  Speaker 6: He says, Swalwell created a group chat with all the
• 1:07:17
  Speaker 6: students and then added her as a friend on the
• 1:07:20
  Speaker 6: messaging app snapchat.
• 1:07:22
  Speaker 7: And so I asked the other people that were in
• 1:07:25
  Speaker 7: the meeting, did he add them? And they said no?
• 1:07:28
  Speaker 6: Were they all men?
• 1:07:30
  Speaker 2: Yes?
• 1:07:30
  Speaker 7: I was the only woman in the meeting.
• 1:07:32
  Speaker 1: She says.
• 1:07:33
  Speaker 6: Swalwell, who was then in his late thirties, started out
• 1:07:36
  Speaker 6: talking politics, but his messages soon turned flirtatious.
• 1:07:40
  Speaker 7: Ultimately it reached a point where he invited me to
• 1:07:44
  Speaker 7: a hotel to meet him. It was very clear what
• 1:07:49
  Speaker 7: the connotation was at that point. I completely stopped responding.
• 1:07:57
  Speaker 7: What I keep thinking back to is how lucky I
• 1:08:00
  Speaker 7: am that I didn't go to that hotel.
• 1:08:03
  Speaker 6: Only Somarco says she had a similar experience in twenty
• 1:08:07
  Speaker 6: twenty one. She sent Swallwell a supportive message on Twitter,
• 1:08:11
  Speaker 6: and to her surprise, he messaged right back.
• 1:08:14
  Speaker 8: I was so excited. I was a low level staffer
• 1:08:17
  Speaker 8: who had no real political background, and he was this
• 1:08:22
  Speaker 8: established figure in democratic politics.
• 1:08:24
  Speaker 6: They began to text, but she says, he soon asked
• 1:08:27
  Speaker 6: if she too, was on Snapchat, where messages and photos
• 1:08:31
  Speaker 6: automatically get deleted after they're viewed. How did the tenor
• 1:08:36
  Speaker 6: of his conversation change.
• 1:08:39
  Speaker 8: It started out as professional, platonic, and then slowly they
• 1:08:44
  Speaker 8: became more and more explicit, asking me what I was wearing.
• 1:08:49
  Speaker 8: Then one night he was on a trip and he
• 1:08:53
  Speaker 8: was laying in his hotel room bed and then he
• 1:08:55
  Speaker 8: sent me a photo of his penis.
• 1:08:57
  Speaker 6: Somarco showed us text messages she sent to friends at
• 1:09:00
  Speaker 6: the time about Swalwell's alleged advances. In one, she wrote,
• 1:09:05
  Speaker 6: he's snapping me right now, asking when he can see me.
• 1:09:09
  Speaker 6: But beyond that, both women said little for years as
• 1:09:12
  Speaker 6: they built careers as Democratic campaign strategists.
• 1:09:17
  Speaker 1: Now, I think I described that clip pretty darn well
• 1:09:21
  Speaker 1: and as fairly as I possibly could. There's no evidence
• 1:09:26
  Speaker 1: of anything actually happening, yet these women get referred to
• 1:09:30
  Speaker 1: in the media as Swawell accusers sex abuse victims. Again,
• 1:09:37
  Speaker 1: I want to make it clear I have no problem
• 1:09:40
  Speaker 1: believing Eric Swalwell was using his office to try to
• 1:09:44
  Speaker 1: get women to sleep with him. I have no problem
• 1:09:47
  Speaker 1: with that. And if that is in fact disqualifying, fine,
• 1:09:52
  Speaker 1: let's make it clear that that's the rule. But that's
• 1:09:54
  Speaker 1: not what's being alleged by the news media. What's being
• 1:09:57
  Speaker 1: alleged by the news media is that all Well is
• 1:10:00
  Speaker 1: a criminal sexual abuser and this is taking on a
• 1:10:05
  Speaker 1: Epstein like life where everyone around him now is being
• 1:10:10
  Speaker 1: accused of enabling this and knowing about it. And I
• 1:10:15
  Speaker 1: get why if you're a Republican or a conservative. You're
• 1:10:19
  Speaker 1: taking joy in this, although I actually think it's going
• 1:10:22
  Speaker 1: to result in a bad situation for California, which I'll
• 1:10:25
  Speaker 1: get to momentarily. But when the CBS support came out,
• 1:10:30
  Speaker 1: I thought, Okay, are we done with this? This is
• 1:10:33
  Speaker 1: We're gonna have one very dubious rape allegation from an
• 1:10:37
  Speaker 1: anonymous woman who says I don't remember anything. Well, then
• 1:10:41
  Speaker 1: word comes out not long after the CBS report that
• 1:10:45
  Speaker 1: there's going to be a press conference out of Beverly
• 1:10:48
  Speaker 1: Hills with a new accuser. Immediately. Having been through this
• 1:10:52
  Speaker 1: many times over the twenty years or so i've lived
• 1:10:55
  Speaker 1: at California. Aha, if this has gotta be Gloria all
• 1:11:00
  Speaker 1: Read related, we've reached the Glory all Read stage of
• 1:11:04
  Speaker 1: this fiasco. Well, I was right, although slightly off. It
• 1:11:08
  Speaker 1: wasn't Gloria Allread. It was Gloria Alread's daughter in law partner,
• 1:11:12
  Speaker 1: Lisa Bloom, So I guess she allowed her daughter to
• 1:11:15
  Speaker 1: take this one. Lisa Bloom needs some liberal street cred
• 1:11:21
  Speaker 1: after she kind of embarrassed herself during the Harvey Weinstein situation,
• 1:11:25
  Speaker 1: so she's trying to get herself back into the good
• 1:11:27
  Speaker 1: graces of the liberal elite, and so she is vouching
• 1:11:31
  Speaker 1: for a brand new accuser that has the most horrific
• 1:11:35
  Speaker 1: allegation by far and the most detailed allegation of anyone
• 1:11:40
  Speaker 1: to date involving Eric Swawell. And her allegation is that
• 1:11:47
  Speaker 1: in twenty eighteen, she believes that she was drugged and
• 1:11:52
  Speaker 1: she believes that she was raped by Eric Swawell, and
• 1:11:58
  Speaker 1: that she made contemporaneous notes about this, told people about this,
• 1:12:05
  Speaker 1: she went to therapy about this, and and that she
• 1:12:10
  Speaker 1: got emotional in this press conference, and of course the
• 1:12:13
  Speaker 1: media at this point, I mean, we all know Eric
• 1:12:16
  Speaker 1: Swalwell is a bad dude. He had resigned at this point,
• 1:12:20
  Speaker 1: he was out of the governor's race, he was even
• 1:12:22
  Speaker 1: resigning his seat from Congress. Yet even though he's dead,
• 1:12:27
  Speaker 1: we're still going to beat the shit out of him
• 1:12:29
  Speaker 1: because now we're into the realm of heinous, horrible, criminal allegations,
• 1:12:35
  Speaker 1: and we live in a world now where this is
• 1:12:38
  Speaker 1: just accepted. The media just she went on camera. Yep,
• 1:12:41
  Speaker 1: she's not anonymous. That's good. You know, she was willing
• 1:12:44
  Speaker 1: to speak, although she wasn't going to face any serious
• 1:12:46
  Speaker 1: question thing, But you know, she reads from a statement,
• 1:12:49
  Speaker 1: she tells her stories, she gets emotional, she shed some tears.
• 1:12:54
  Speaker 1: I get why, based upon the standards of today, everyone goes, okay, wow, wow, wow,
• 1:13:00
  Speaker 1: that's horrible. This Eric Swalwell. We knew he was a scumbag,
• 1:13:05
  Speaker 1: but this is a new level. This guy ought to
• 1:13:07
  Speaker 1: be put in jail. This is a criminal rape here.
• 1:13:11
  Speaker 1: I'm like, Okay, you know what it might have been.
• 1:13:14
  Speaker 1: I've said many times on social media, this woman might
• 1:13:17
  Speaker 1: be telling the truth. She might be and if she
• 1:13:21
  Speaker 1: is put Swawell in jail because she believed that she
• 1:13:25
  Speaker 1: was choked, drugged, choked, she thought she had died. That's
• 1:13:31
  Speaker 1: what she said. I thought how he had died. Okay,
• 1:13:37
  Speaker 1: that's horrible. Except let's think about this for a second.
• 1:13:42
  Speaker 1: There are a lot of red flags in this story.
• 1:13:45
  Speaker 1: First red flag, which the media will never ever tell
• 1:13:48
  Speaker 1: you about, is this woman, by her own emission, is
• 1:13:51
  Speaker 1: a former model, and she's on in years now. This
• 1:13:57
  Speaker 1: was eight years ago, but she looked pretty rough in
• 1:14:00
  Speaker 1: her press conference. I don't know what she looked like
• 1:14:03
  Speaker 1: at twenty eighteen, but in twenty twenty six, she doesn't
• 1:14:07
  Speaker 1: look very good. There is inherently, inherently a very high
• 1:14:14
  Speaker 1: likelihood that a former model has got some issues. It's
• 1:14:19
  Speaker 1: a very very difficult thing for any woman to lose
• 1:14:22
  Speaker 1: her looks. But when you're a former model that never
• 1:14:24
  Speaker 1: really made it, and now, all of a sudden, in
• 1:14:28
  Speaker 1: twenty twenty six, this is the first time anyone has
• 1:14:30
  Speaker 1: paid this woman any attention in a very very long time. She,
• 1:14:34
  Speaker 1: you know, I'm sure, was used to a lot of
• 1:14:35
  Speaker 1: attention when she was younger. She's getting no attention now.
• 1:14:39
  Speaker 1: Now all of a sudden, she's on national television and
• 1:14:43
  Speaker 1: everyone's kissing her ass, and everyone is very listening to
• 1:14:48
  Speaker 1: every word and everyone, you know, people know her name now.
• 1:14:52
  Speaker 1: And so that's the problem. That doesn't prove she's lying.
• 1:14:55
  Speaker 1: I want to make it clear that is not, in
• 1:14:57
  Speaker 1: any way, shape or form, prove that she's lying or
• 1:14:59
  Speaker 1: not telling the truth. That is an element of this
• 1:15:02
  Speaker 1: story that the news media never publicly considers. Whole lot
• 1:15:07
  Speaker 1: of second, can we think about the psychology of a
• 1:15:11
  Speaker 1: woman in this situation a little bit like the ninety
• 1:15:14
  Speaker 1: six year old allegation, A woman who made an allegation
• 1:15:17
  Speaker 1: against Caesar Chavez her life was a hell of a
• 1:15:19
  Speaker 1: lot better when she made that allegation. That it was
• 1:15:22
  Speaker 1: two weeks earlier when no one gave a shit about
• 1:15:24
  Speaker 1: this ninety six year old woman who's you know, prime
• 1:15:27
  Speaker 1: within the liberal movement was over many decades ago. So
• 1:15:35
  Speaker 1: we have this woman who's benefiting from getting a lot
• 1:15:38
  Speaker 1: of attention. There could be a financial they're very likely
• 1:15:41
  Speaker 1: is a financial motivation in all of this. But so
• 1:15:46
  Speaker 1: that's just the general gist of who she is that
• 1:15:50
  Speaker 1: is problematic to me. But those aren't the That's not
• 1:15:53
  Speaker 1: the most significant red flag. The most significant red flag
• 1:15:57
  Speaker 1: to me is twenty eighteen. So this happened in twenty eighteen.
• 1:16:03
  Speaker 1: So this happened in the year after me too. This
• 1:16:08
  Speaker 1: happened in an election year. So you're telling me that
• 1:16:14
  Speaker 1: a guy who's been in Congress at that time for
• 1:16:17
  Speaker 1: several terms running for reelection has a great career in
• 1:16:21
  Speaker 1: front of him. Eric Swalwell well known in Democratic circles
• 1:16:24
  Speaker 1: at that point post me too, where you know, the
• 1:16:29
  Speaker 1: media has made it clear you make any sort of
• 1:16:31
  Speaker 1: allegation against a significant political figure, especially a white male,
• 1:16:37
  Speaker 1: regardless of political party, would be better if they were
• 1:16:39
  Speaker 1: a Republican. But okay, Democrat will do. Certainly, Fox Newshadow
• 1:16:42
  Speaker 1: would be very interested in the story. So you're telling
• 1:16:46
  Speaker 1: me that Eric Swalwell decides that I'm going to rape
• 1:16:50
  Speaker 1: this woman, this former model, who I'm sure in twenty
• 1:16:55
  Speaker 1: eighteen had quite a few miles on her, and I'm
• 1:16:59
  Speaker 1: going to do so in the one way that is
• 1:17:02
  Speaker 1: easiest to prove a rape, which is to drug somebody.
• 1:17:08
  Speaker 1: That's the easiest way to prove a rape. If you
• 1:17:11
  Speaker 1: give someone a date rape drug and they're truly incapacitated.
• 1:17:16
  Speaker 1: That's almost open and shot. That's close to child pornography
• 1:17:22
  Speaker 1: when it comes to trying to prove these kinds of situations.
• 1:17:27
  Speaker 1: But here's the thing. Okay, is it possible Swallow is
• 1:17:31
  Speaker 1: that dumb, that reckless, that much of a dirt bag. Yeah,
• 1:17:34
  Speaker 1: that's all possible. That's absolutely possible. But here's what doesn't
• 1:17:38
  Speaker 1: seem to be possible, So that in twenty eighteen post
• 1:17:41
  Speaker 1: me Too, this woman believes that Swallow almost killed her,
• 1:17:46
  Speaker 1: or did kill her, drugged her, and she doesn't make
• 1:17:51
  Speaker 1: a criminal complaint, she doesn't file a lawsuit. Now she
• 1:17:55
  Speaker 1: says she told her friends and she made notes, and
• 1:18:01
  Speaker 1: I am really open to reading more about that, But
• 1:18:06
  Speaker 1: to my knowledge, that's not come out in any significant detail.
• 1:18:11
  Speaker 1: Which always gives me the hebgbies. This feels a bit
• 1:18:15
  Speaker 1: like the New York Times telling us in the Caesars
• 1:18:18
  Speaker 1: Shavez story. We've looked into this, there's a lot of
• 1:18:22
  Speaker 1: corroborating evidence. You're just gonna have to trust us, because
• 1:18:26
  Speaker 1: there's always a big difference between someone having evidence of
• 1:18:31
  Speaker 1: an encounter and the evidence of that encounter being rape
• 1:18:38
  Speaker 1: or sexual assault or there being a drugging. I'm quite
• 1:18:42
  Speaker 1: certain that she told people about an encounter. I'm quite
• 1:18:47
  Speaker 1: sure that she told her therapist about this, and the
• 1:18:52
  Speaker 1: therapist is maybe the biggest red flag of all to me.
• 1:18:57
  Speaker 1: When she said that the therapist was a key person
• 1:19:02
  Speaker 1: in the telling of her story, I'm like, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa,
• 1:19:09
  Speaker 1: Holy Christine Blasi Ford, because that was I mean, and
• 1:19:14
  Speaker 1: I really do believe we're talking we're talking about a
• 1:19:17
  Speaker 1: situation that could be similar to Christine Blasi Ford. Now,
• 1:19:21
  Speaker 1: I don't think Christine Blasi Ford ever met Brett Kavanaugh.
• 1:19:25
  Speaker 1: I'm willing to have no problem with the idea that
• 1:19:29
  Speaker 1: this woman actually knew Eric Swawoh and had sex with
• 1:19:34
  Speaker 1: Eric Swawah. I have no problem with that. I don't.
• 1:19:36
  Speaker 1: I don't have to this moment. I don't have proof
• 1:19:38
  Speaker 1: of that happened. I have no problem accepting that, given
• 1:19:42
  Speaker 1: Swawe's m O, given who she was, given the details
• 1:19:46
  Speaker 1: that she provided, the fact that she says she has
• 1:19:49
  Speaker 1: this contemporarious evidence, no problem believing that. But it's the
• 1:19:54
  Speaker 1: drugging and the rape part. Did I start to get
• 1:19:59
  Speaker 1: very skeptical about one because the drugging thing here that
• 1:20:08
  Speaker 1: concerns me. One because of the fact that that's really
• 1:20:12
  Speaker 1: stupid if you're Eric Swawell. The other part of the
• 1:20:16
  Speaker 1: drugging thing. There's actually two other parts of the drugging thing.
• 1:20:20
  Speaker 1: If you listen to her story, she somehow gets from
• 1:20:25
  Speaker 1: a bar where she had one glass of wine but
• 1:20:29
  Speaker 1: somehow became in her words, incapacitated. But she somehow makes
• 1:20:33
  Speaker 1: it up to his hotel room before she suddenly is
• 1:20:36
  Speaker 1: completely incapacitated. I don't know how that works. I'd like
• 1:20:41
  Speaker 1: to hear some more detail. So just magically, by the
• 1:20:45
  Speaker 1: moment she got into the hotel room, that's when she
• 1:20:47
  Speaker 1: was completely incapacitated. Okay, I guess that's possible, but it
• 1:20:52
  Speaker 1: seemed a bit consistent, or at least there was some
• 1:20:58
  Speaker 1: some questions I had about that when she told the story.
• 1:21:01
  Speaker 1: The other part of the drugging, which no one of
• 1:21:03
  Speaker 1: the news media will ever have the balls to ever acknowledge,
• 1:21:08
  Speaker 1: is why do we need to be drugged for there
• 1:21:10
  Speaker 1: to be a rape story? Oh wait a minute, you
• 1:21:12
  Speaker 1: mean because raping somebody an adult female and getting away
• 1:21:17
  Speaker 1: with it is logistically not very easy that no one
• 1:21:22
  Speaker 1: ever wants to acknowledge that part. I mean, I'm not
• 1:21:27
  Speaker 1: gonna get into details because nothing good could come of it,
• 1:21:29
  Speaker 1: but that that is a reality of sexual assault that
• 1:21:33
  Speaker 1: no one ever wants to talk about. Logistically, it's seemingly obviously.
• 1:21:38
  Speaker 1: I've never engaged in it, but just it seems impossible
• 1:21:42
  Speaker 1: to me for an adult female to be quote unquote
• 1:21:47
  Speaker 1: raped in a way that the media just accepts now
• 1:21:53
  Speaker 1: as something that could be easily gotten away with, that
• 1:21:57
  Speaker 1: could be easily done from a logistic perspective, and something
• 1:22:01
  Speaker 1: that these dirt bags could easily get away with. And
• 1:22:04
  Speaker 1: I'm like, that's just ridiculous. In order to have that happen,
• 1:22:09
  Speaker 1: I do think you probably need to drug somebody, or
• 1:22:11
  Speaker 1: they at least need to be extremely drunk. So I
• 1:22:15
  Speaker 1: find the drugging part of the story to be very interesting,
• 1:22:17
  Speaker 1: especially when now if her contemporaneous evidence indicates that she
• 1:22:23
  Speaker 1: says she was drugged. I'm very open to changing my
• 1:22:26
  Speaker 1: mind about this. But when the CNN story came out
• 1:22:30
  Speaker 1: and the woman said I don't remember anything, people on
• 1:22:33
  Speaker 1: their own decided, aha, he drugged her, even though she
• 1:22:36
  Speaker 1: never made that allegation, because that's how much they wanted
• 1:22:40
  Speaker 1: to believe this woman's story was true. Now, is that possible. Certainly,
• 1:22:44
  Speaker 1: it's possible, but she's not even alleging that. So the
• 1:22:47
  Speaker 1: fact that a couple of days later she came out
• 1:22:49
  Speaker 1: with the drugging story made me go, Okay, hold on
• 1:22:52
  Speaker 1: a second here. But if her contemporaneous evidence indicates that
• 1:22:56
  Speaker 1: she thought she was drugged, that's fine. But I have
• 1:22:58
  Speaker 1: to say the totality of the story does not make
• 1:23:03
  Speaker 1: sense to me. Doesn't mean it's not true. I want
• 1:23:07
  Speaker 1: to say, for the third or fourth time, this woman
• 1:23:09
  Speaker 1: could absolutely be telling the truth. I have no understanding
• 1:23:13
  Speaker 1: of why she wouldn't come forward in twenty eighteen post
• 1:23:16
  Speaker 1: Me Too. I have no understanding why the news media
• 1:23:18
  Speaker 1: doesn't think of me Too as relevant when evaluating these stories.
• 1:23:23
  Speaker 1: I mean, if it happened before me too, then why
• 1:23:26
  Speaker 1: didn't you come forward? If it happens just after me too,
• 1:23:29
  Speaker 1: why didn't you come forward? The rules it all changed,
• 1:23:32
  Speaker 1: and how these women can be heroes. That's part of
• 1:23:35
  Speaker 1: the thing that really drives me crazy. If you accept
• 1:23:39
  Speaker 1: all of this is true, how are these women heroes?
• 1:23:43
  Speaker 1: This woman was if she's telling the truth part of
• 1:23:46
  Speaker 1: a cover up. For eight years she stayed silent about
• 1:23:50
  Speaker 1: this scumbag, Eric Swalwell, She's not a hero or heroin now.
• 1:23:56
  Speaker 1: If it's all true, she could have prevented other people
• 1:23:58
  Speaker 1: from including the woman who went on CNN anonymously. She
• 1:24:01
  Speaker 1: could have prevented them from being raped. If we had
• 1:24:05
  Speaker 1: known that Eric Swawall was a rapist, you would have
• 1:24:09
  Speaker 1: been out of Congress and hopefully behind bars. How is
• 1:24:13
  Speaker 1: it that the news media doesn't even consider this part
• 1:24:16
  Speaker 1: of the equation. No one ever even asked them because
• 1:24:20
  Speaker 1: somehow me to never happened. That we're eight years We
• 1:24:24
  Speaker 1: can wait for eight years now. Even in this day
• 1:24:28
  Speaker 1: and age where there's all sorts of media outlets that
• 1:24:31
  Speaker 1: would have loved to allow her to tell her story,
• 1:24:33
  Speaker 1: there's social media where she could tell her story on
• 1:24:35
  Speaker 1: her own she doesn't even need a media outlet. She
• 1:24:38
  Speaker 1: could file a lawsuit, shed have a criminal complaint, none
• 1:24:41
  Speaker 1: of that. Yet somehow this is just accepted is true now,
• 1:24:46
  Speaker 1: And that really bothers me. There's a lot of a
• 1:24:49
  Speaker 1: story that really bothers me. One of the things that
• 1:24:53
  Speaker 1: I can't stand about this story is that somehow Democrats
• 1:24:58
  Speaker 1: get to have it both ways here and these women,
• 1:25:01
  Speaker 1: much like these women are having it both ways. There's
• 1:25:04
  Speaker 1: somehow heroines even though we're supposed to excuse them for
• 1:25:08
  Speaker 1: not saying anything for many years. How does that work? Well,
• 1:25:13
  Speaker 1: if the allegations are true, let's pretend they're true, which
• 1:25:17
  Speaker 1: Democrats are now all saying, oh m'st been true. You know,
• 1:25:20
  Speaker 1: he fooled us. Hold on a second, Much like with
• 1:25:23
  Speaker 1: Caesar Savez, you vouched for the Democratic Party, the progressive movement,
• 1:25:29
  Speaker 1: the news media. You vouched for over many, many years,
• 1:25:34
  Speaker 1: a guy who was a rapist. If what you're saying
• 1:25:37
  Speaker 1: is now true, you vouched for a rapist. You told
• 1:25:40
  Speaker 1: us that a rapist, a serial rapist was somehow this
• 1:25:46
  Speaker 1: great guy, someone who you enabled being in a very
• 1:25:51
  Speaker 1: powerful position in Eric Swawell. So why is there no accountability?
• 1:25:57
  Speaker 1: Why is there no responsibility taken for that much? How
• 1:26:01
  Speaker 1: did that happen? How do the serial rapist? If what
• 1:26:04
  Speaker 1: we're now being told is true and the media claims
• 1:26:07
  Speaker 1: that it is okay? Media, if you're accepting Eric Swalwell
• 1:26:10
  Speaker 1: was a serial rapist, I don't believe the evidence indicates that.
• 1:26:13
  Speaker 1: Yet could eventually indicate that it might have been true.
• 1:26:18
  Speaker 1: But I don't believe that's been proven to a threshold
• 1:26:22
  Speaker 1: that makes any damn sense. But if it's true, then
• 1:26:27
  Speaker 1: let's dal take the next step. How did that happen?
• 1:26:30
  Speaker 1: How did that happen in the Democratic Party? And we
• 1:26:33
  Speaker 1: saw what happened with how the way they reacted to
• 1:26:36
  Speaker 1: the Jerry Sanusky story. Everybody at Penn State was inherently guilty. Well,
• 1:26:40
  Speaker 1: why is not everybody in the Democratic Party inherently guilty
• 1:26:44
  Speaker 1: for enabling and covering up the serial rapist Eric Swalwell?
• 1:26:49
  Speaker 1: Is it because even in the media, One, obviously they're
• 1:26:52
  Speaker 1: protecting Democrats? But two, is it possible because even in
• 1:26:56
  Speaker 1: the news media they don't fully buy some of these stories.
• 1:27:00
  Speaker 1: Because what I think probably happened is that we have
• 1:27:04
  Speaker 1: a lot of women who found Swallwell attractive. He used
• 1:27:08
  Speaker 1: his office for the purposes of finding women he wanted
• 1:27:12
  Speaker 1: to have sex with. I think that a lot of
• 1:27:15
  Speaker 1: these women were very happy to engage in effectively consensual
• 1:27:19
  Speaker 1: relationships with him, and when things changed, their story changed.
• 1:27:25
  Speaker 1: There's a situation of regretting sex. I think in the
• 1:27:30
  Speaker 1: case of the Lisa Bloom accuser, that it's quite possible
• 1:27:35
  Speaker 1: the therapist convinced her that this is what happened. And
• 1:27:40
  Speaker 1: this is kind of an offshoot of the the regretting
• 1:27:43
  Speaker 1: of the sex scenario, where she has sex that she
• 1:27:48
  Speaker 1: regrets or you know, whatever reason it causes her problems.
• 1:27:52
  Speaker 1: She goes to her therapist and the therapist ends up
• 1:27:56
  Speaker 1: dragging out of her a story that's not true. It's
• 1:27:59
  Speaker 1: possible this, no one really believes it. Now, eight years later,
• 1:28:03
  Speaker 1: I think Christine blasi Ford might have actually believed that
• 1:28:06
  Speaker 1: she was sexually assaulted by Brett Kavanaugh, even though they
• 1:28:11
  Speaker 1: never actually met. Now there are some differences in the story,
• 1:28:16
  Speaker 1: and I'm far more willing to accept the possibility that
• 1:28:19
  Speaker 1: Eric Swahwall did sexually assault this woman. But to me,
• 1:28:24
  Speaker 1: the story doesn't make nearly enough sense, and there's not
• 1:28:26
  Speaker 1: nearly enough evidence to accept such a devastating allegation is true,
• 1:28:31
  Speaker 1: but the news media is not equipped to handle this
• 1:28:33
  Speaker 1: anymore because the standards have absolutely plummeted to nothing. And
• 1:28:38
  Speaker 1: that's to me the most important part of this. That's
• 1:28:41
  Speaker 1: incredibly dangerous moving forward about what kind of a society
• 1:28:45
  Speaker 1: we're going to live in. And this has a major impact.
• 1:28:47
  Speaker 1: This Swawall story has a major impact, not just on
• 1:28:51
  Speaker 1: the increasingly dangerous situation evolving low standards for reporting allegations
• 1:28:57
  Speaker 1: of sexual abuse, even those that are old and I
• 1:29:00
  Speaker 1: don't have a lot of evidence and don't make a
• 1:29:02
  Speaker 1: lot of sense. What's gonna happen to the California governor's
• 1:29:05
  Speaker 1: race now is very significant and very ironic because it's
• 1:29:12
  Speaker 1: pretty clear that Tom Steyer, a guy who's never held
• 1:29:16
  Speaker 1: political office, a super rich, super woke, straight white male.
• 1:29:24
  Speaker 1: Barring some sort of black Swan event, maybe he'll get
• 1:29:28
  Speaker 1: a code read sent out on him. I am convinced.
• 1:29:31
  Speaker 1: I put out a social media post joking about this.
• 1:29:34
  Speaker 1: I've convinced that anybody that dated Tom Steyer or Gavin Newsom,
• 1:29:39
  Speaker 1: given what's happened to Caesar Shavez and Eric Swalwell, is
• 1:29:42
  Speaker 1: counting their money today. They're getting paid off in huge ways,
• 1:29:46
  Speaker 1: because it would be so incredibly easy to take down
• 1:29:50
  Speaker 1: Stire or Newsom given these standards where straight white liberal
• 1:29:56
  Speaker 1: men simply cannot defend themselves against any allegation of sexual abuse.
• 1:30:03
  Speaker 1: They cannot do it. It's not in their DNA. It's
• 1:30:08
  Speaker 1: literally a virus that will kill them instantly. It's kryptonite
• 1:30:13
  Speaker 1: because of the rules that people like Eric Swawell helped create,
• 1:30:17
  Speaker 1: believe all women, and so if more than one woman
• 1:30:22
  Speaker 1: is telling a story, even that the stories aren't remotely similar,
• 1:30:25
  Speaker 1: they must be telling the truth. And if CNN valchis
• 1:30:28
  Speaker 1: for it, or CBS or the San Francisco Chronicle, you're done.
• 1:30:32
  Speaker 1: It's over. So my guess any ex girlfriend of Tom
• 1:30:36
  Speaker 1: Steier or Gavendussom is making a lot of cash these
• 1:30:39
  Speaker 1: days to make sure they stay quiet and that their
• 1:30:42
  Speaker 1: story remains whatever it was when they actually dated. But
• 1:30:46
  Speaker 1: it's absolutely hilarious that the most likely scenario right now
• 1:30:51
  Speaker 1: is that a party that cannot stand white people, cannot
• 1:30:56
  Speaker 1: stand white men, really cannot stand heterosexual white men, and
• 1:31:00
  Speaker 1: really really cannot stand super rich heterosexual white men, is
• 1:31:06
  Speaker 1: somehow going to nominate for one of the most important
• 1:31:10
  Speaker 1: positions in the country, governor of California, a guy who's unqualified,
• 1:31:16
  Speaker 1: who is a straight white rich man. How does that happen?
• 1:31:22
  Speaker 1: And it's happening because of the code read on Eric Swalwell. Now,
• 1:31:28
  Speaker 1: is it possible that there's another scenario? Sure? And by
• 1:31:32
  Speaker 1: the way, you know, it's Tom Steyer that had the
• 1:31:35
  Speaker 1: most to gain from Eric Swawell getting the code red.
• 1:31:37
  Speaker 1: There's no evidence that Steyer was behind this, but he
• 1:31:41
  Speaker 1: certainly had the money to make it happen, and he's
• 1:31:44
  Speaker 1: the one that benefited the most from it by far,
• 1:31:47
  Speaker 1: because before Swawell went out, it was Swawell who was
• 1:31:50
  Speaker 1: the most likely person for California Democrats to galvanize around.
• 1:31:55
  Speaker 1: Because there's been a little bit of panic, I think
• 1:31:57
  Speaker 1: overblown panic, but there's been a little bit panic because
• 1:32:00
  Speaker 1: some of these polls have indicated that two Republicans had
• 1:32:03
  Speaker 1: a chance to be in the top two positions after
• 1:32:06
  Speaker 1: this stupid jungle primary system that we have here in California.
• 1:32:11
  Speaker 1: But I already told you Trump destroyed that possibility. Based
• 1:32:16
  Speaker 1: upon where things are currently heading, it's gonna be Tom
• 1:32:18
  Speaker 1: Stier and Steve Hilton in the general election. And Stier
• 1:32:22
  Speaker 1: is gonna crush Hilton. And the reason why Stier's gonna
• 1:32:25
  Speaker 1: be in the top two barring a code read is
• 1:32:28
  Speaker 1: because he's got so much money he can buy commercials.
• 1:32:33
  Speaker 1: In a state that's so large, it's impossible to get
• 1:32:38
  Speaker 1: large enough name recognition to be able to compete in
• 1:32:43
  Speaker 1: a primary with ten semi legitimate candidates. Name recognition is everything,
• 1:32:50
  Speaker 1: and California is far too expensive for somebody who's not
• 1:32:55
  Speaker 1: a natural celebrity to be able to compete. But Stire,
• 1:32:59
  Speaker 1: because he's a alleged billionaire, has the money to do
• 1:33:02
  Speaker 1: this on his own. He's going to buy the governorship
• 1:33:08
  Speaker 1: and it's gonna be terrible for California if he pulls
• 1:33:11
  Speaker 1: it off. Because he is such a virtue signaler, he
• 1:33:16
  Speaker 1: is so woke, he has to apologize for his whiteness,
• 1:33:20
  Speaker 1: his maleness, his wealth. I mean, so he's going to
• 1:33:24
  Speaker 1: be worse than Gavendussom. At least Gavendussom was somewhat restrained
• 1:33:29
  Speaker 1: by the fact that Gavendussom wanted to be president in
• 1:33:31
  Speaker 1: the United States. But Stier I don't think has any
• 1:33:35
  Speaker 1: thought that he could be president. Maybe he does, but
• 1:33:38
  Speaker 1: he's delusional if he thinks that he could be, so
• 1:33:41
  Speaker 1: he has to virtue signal on everything. I would actually
• 1:33:46
  Speaker 1: prefer us to have a Latino governor who didn't have
• 1:33:48
  Speaker 1: to virtue signal on a whole bunch of bullshit and
• 1:33:52
  Speaker 1: could actually have some level of common sense. But Stier's
• 1:33:56
  Speaker 1: gonna have to apologize for every element of his being,
• 1:33:59
  Speaker 1: his wealth, his skin color, his penis, all of it.
• 1:34:04
  Speaker 1: It's gonna be in the fucking disaster all because Eric
• 1:34:08
  Speaker 1: Swawall got a code read on him. Now Swawah would
• 1:34:11
  Speaker 1: have been bad too, but I think he wouldn't have
• 1:34:13
  Speaker 1: been quite as bad as Stier, if only because Steyer
• 1:34:18
  Speaker 1: has to apologize for being rich. So he's gonna do
• 1:34:21
  Speaker 1: all sorts of things to attack rich people that are
• 1:34:24
  Speaker 1: still left in California. So you know, it's still time
• 1:34:29
  Speaker 1: for some things to happen. But I'm believing that Stier
• 1:34:33
  Speaker 1: is very much the favorite, if only because of the
• 1:34:37
  Speaker 1: name recognition issue and the money issue. My nine year
• 1:34:41
  Speaker 1: old daughter Diana knows who Tom Steyer is and can
• 1:34:45
  Speaker 1: tell you, you know, pretty much the essence of his
• 1:34:48
  Speaker 1: commercials because that's how ubiquitous they are. You cannot compete
• 1:34:54
  Speaker 1: in a state as large as California without a ridiculous
• 1:34:57
  Speaker 1: amount of money or a huge amount of celebrity, none
• 1:35:01
  Speaker 1: of which these other candidates have. Thanks for listening to
• 1:35:05
  Speaker 1: today's free drop of the abbreviated show. If you're interested
• 1:35:09
  Speaker 1: in listening to the entire show, you must become a patron.
• 1:35:13
  Speaker 1: Please go to Patreon. That's p A T R e
• 1:35:17
  Speaker 1: O N dot com. Patreon dot com slash the Death
• 1:35:23
  Speaker 1: of Journalism with John Ziggler. My name is j H
• 1:35:27
  Speaker 1: N z I E G L e R. That's patreon
• 1:35:32
  Speaker 1: dot com slash the Death of Journalism with John Ziggler.
• 1:35:38
  Speaker 1: Good luck to you on that. But that's how you
• 1:35:40
  Speaker 1: can subscribe.