Latest / The Death Of Journalism / Episode Ninety One: Unmade Man

Transcript

Episode Ninety One: Unmade Man · The Death Of Journalism

• 0:00
  Welcome the episode number ninety one of the Death of Journalism podcast. My name
• 0:04
  is John Ziggler. I'm your host on today's show. The January sixth,
• 0:08
  ray Epps conspiracy theory gets even more bizarre. Is Russell brand being targeted for
• 0:14
  being a COVID contrarian? Mel Tucker gets fired from Michigan State and the liberal
• 0:19
  sports media yawns. The total wissification of football continues, and another update on
• 0:26
  the new jfk assassination Witness. I'm known as the Dutch Digital marketing Man.
• 0:32
  I'm a digital advertising SEO and email marketing specialist that also happens to be a
• 0:38
  big fan of John Ziggler and the Death of journalisten. Do you need help
• 0:42
  preaching your target audience? Let me help you develop the right messaging and confaded
• 0:47
  message and the best channels for your business. Please visit my website, the
• 0:51
  Dutch Digital marketing Man dot com and let me help you tell your story.
• 0:57
  The website is the Dutch Digital Marketingman dot com. If you want to grow
• 1:02
  your business, Peter can help. That's the Dutch Digital Marketingman dot com.
• 1:07
  And hey, thanks for sponsoring the show. One of the many things that
• 1:11
  has really frustrated me about the right wing conservative media in the era of Donald
• 1:21
  Trump, and there are many elements of this phenomenon that has created many gray
• 1:26
  hairs and wrinkles on my face is that the so called conservative base has not
• 1:34
  just become prone to believing in crazy conspiracy theories, They've become reliant unbelieving in
• 1:45
  crazy conspiracy theories. And I've talked a lot on this podcast about so many
• 1:52
  different examples of this incredibly frustrating phenomenon. I referenced Jeffrey Epstein a lot that
• 1:59
  he fact did kill himself, he was not murdered. The whole Paul Pelosi
• 2:05
  gay sextris gone wrong theory, which was totally wrong, and I told you
• 2:09
  it was completely wrong, and I was vindicated on that, but that hasn't
• 2:13
  changed very many people's views of what really happened there. We talk a lot
• 2:17
  about the JFK conspiracy theories and Tucker Carlson matter of factly just saying that the
• 2:25
  CIA killed JFK, and then this is now somehow part of conservative thinking and
• 2:31
  in the Trump era, even the moon landing, which I was stunned just
• 2:38
  the other day to find out that Candice Owens a black female conservative commentator who
• 2:43
  I think is very, very smart. I was absolutely flummixed, and I
• 2:49
  thought, Wow, this is so emblematic of where we are. The Candice
• 2:53
  Owens can be a star in the right wing media and unabashed say she does
• 3:00
  not believe the moon landing actually happened, and it doesn't harm her at all.
• 3:07
  I mean, it's just just nuts, crazy stuff. And of course
• 3:12
  all of this makes it far, far easier to believe that the twenty twenty
• 3:17
  election was somehow stolen or rigged. I say this all the time, and
• 3:23
  it's an incredible, I think, an incredibly important point that I never hear
• 3:27
  anyone else make. That every conspiracy theory that you buy creates a narrative about
• 3:34
  how the world works, which then makes it far easier to buy into further
• 3:40
  nutty conspiracy theories. And just by the nature of humanity, they're going to
• 3:46
  get crazier and crazier as they go along, because your willingness to believe things
• 3:53
  is going to be greater and greater as you believe all this nuttiness. I
• 3:58
  mean, if you believe that the CIA killed JFK, it's a lot easier
• 4:02
  to believe that somehow that twenty twenty election was stolen, or that we have
• 4:10
  the bodies of aliens from outer space that have come to visit us, which
• 4:14
  is another one that a lot of people, I guess on both the left
• 4:17
  and the right believe. But the right wing has become far very much more
• 4:23
  prone and yes, reliant on conspiracy theories, especially in the era of Donald
• 4:28
  Trump. After all, Trump became politically famous because of his conspiracy theory involving
• 4:33
  Barack Obama's birth certificate, on which he was completely wrong and totally humiliated,
• 4:40
  and it didn't have any impact on him at all. In fact, you
• 4:43
  can make a very strong argument that it's set up his run for president in
• 4:46
  twenty sixteen. And I think the core reason for this, which has some
• 4:53
  rationality to it, obviously, this is called the Death of Journalism podcast for
• 4:58
  a reason is that there's no trust at all in the mainstream news media none
• 5:03
  and understandably so. So I'm not just blaming the right wing media or so
• 5:10
  called conservatives or Trump followers for believing this bullshit. It begins because they have
• 5:17
  no trusted source of information anymore. Because the mainstream media abdicated their responsibility,
• 5:25
  They threw away their superpower. They lost the trust of the average American,
• 5:32
  especially an average American who is not a liberal, And so I get it.
• 5:39
  I get the lack of trust. I share it. It's a huge
• 5:43
  part of my life, but it hasn't caused me to go off the deep
• 5:46
  end and to believe things that are completely asinine, nonsensical, and simply not
• 5:53
  true. And with that preamble, that is where I want to start on
• 5:58
  today's podcast with the latest right wing Trump fed conspiracy theory. Tucker Carlson facilitated
• 6:08
  conspiracy theory involving January sixth. Now, my view on January sixth, like
• 6:14
  it is on a lot of things, is more nuanced than most commentators,
• 6:19
  well like almost every American. When it first happened, I was horrified by
• 6:24
  what I witnessed, and it was a terrible day, and the whole thing
• 6:28
  was wrong, and there was so much blame to go around on almost every
• 6:32
  side. And Trump was at least partially responsible. I don't think he was
• 6:38
  completely responsible. You can argue that you know about what he did and what
• 6:44
  he should have done, and should he have done more to stop it,
• 6:46
  and did he in some ways facilitated But there was a lot of blame to
• 6:50
  go around. I mean, and it's not just on Trump, It's not
• 6:55
  just on the right. There were security problems were they were all sorts of
• 7:00
  problems that happened. And again it all goes back to lack of trust in
• 7:03
  the news meeting, because these people really believe that the twenty twenty election was
• 7:06
  stolen, and a lot of them, most of them were earnestly trying to
• 7:12
  express their outrage over their false belief that the twenty twenty election was stolen.
• 7:18
  Now, but the part where I start to believe everybody you know deserves blame
• 7:26
  here is the media narrative out of January sixth is not true. I mean,
• 7:30
  the idea that police officers were killed that day is a mythology. There's
• 7:35
  no evidence at all that protesters killed any police officers. Now, police officers
• 7:40
  died under very bizarre circumstances, But the only person that died that day was
• 7:45
  a Trump protester, a white woman who was killed by a black police officer
• 7:48
  at point blank range. Who I mean, she was unarmed. If you
• 7:53
  reverse those situations, my god, you know, the protester is a hero
• 7:58
  and the police officer is inherently racist and instead, very few Americans outside of
• 8:03
  Trump supporters, even though Ashley Babbitt's name, So that's completely wrong, that
• 8:09
  there's been a mythology on the left that's been created about January sixth. That's
• 8:11
  not true. But then Tucker Carlson came along and completely reversed history and tried
• 8:18
  to make it sound like nothing really all that bad happened that day. It
• 8:22
  was just a big tourist event and that you know, I'm paraphrasing, but
• 8:28
  basically the whole thing was bullcrap and that this was all just a grand conspiracy
• 8:33
  to make Trump supporters look bad. And as part of Tucker Carlson's revision of
• 8:39
  history, there was a lot of focus on a guy by the name of
• 8:43
  Ray Epps. Now you may not know the name Ray Epps, although he's
• 8:46
  become very well known for anybody who's even tangentially followed the January sixth story.
• 8:54
  Ray Epps is a guy who, by all accounts, was a big Trump
• 8:58
  supporter and was there on January sixth. And he's a very large man,
• 9:05
  tall, big guy. He was wearing a red Maga hat, and he
• 9:09
  was very outspoken and he was more than willing to be seen on camera everywhere.
• 9:13
  In fact, he did interviews with anyone who wanted to interview him,
• 9:18
  and he seemed to be one of those, especially the day before the so
• 9:24
  called riot or insurrection, whatever you want to call it, urging people to
• 9:28
  go inside the capitol. Now, the day of the actual event, the
• 9:31
  video evidence, at least that I've seen, indicates that he seemed to be
• 9:35
  more of a person who was trying to prevent violence than somebody who was trying
• 9:41
  to foment violence. But there's all sorts of things that within the video that
• 9:46
  Trump's supporters say, no, no, here he is whispering in a guy's
• 9:50
  ear, and then all of a sudden, that guy storms the barricades,
• 9:54
  and that's what ignited the whole situation, and Trump supporters ray Epps seems very
• 10:01
  very suspicious, and there has become a theory that somehow ray Epps was an
• 10:09
  FBI informant or an agent, and that he was there to stir things up,
• 10:15
  that he was the one of the main people who caused this horrible situation
• 10:20
  to happen, and the real motivation here was to make Trump and Trump's supporters
• 10:28
  look bad. Now, as with most conspiracy theories, the motivation is very
• 10:35
  dubious here. So why would the FBI give a damn? Why would they
• 10:41
  give a damn about an outgoing president being made to look bad and his supporters
• 10:48
  being made to look bad to the point where they're willing to create a riot
• 10:52
  at the Capitol. And oh, by the way, if this bizarre world
• 10:56
  conspiracy ever gets blown up, put their own own careers and even their freedom
• 11:01
  on the line because they're they're creating, you know, all sorts of potential
• 11:05
  crimes and scandals. It just doesn't it doesn't even make any sense. It
• 11:11
  doesn't pass not just a smell test, it doesn't pass the laugh test.
• 11:15
  But that's that's the theory that somehow the FBI had it out so much for
• 11:20
  Trump and Trump supporters that they they have agents or informants in the field who
• 11:28
  are there to stir up this anger and outrage and to urge people to storm
• 11:35
  the capitol. And and so Ray Apps has become like the personification of this
• 11:43
  theory, especially when he didn't originally get charged with anything. And so we
• 11:50
  had this very strange everything so bizarre world. But this very strange circumstance where
• 11:56
  Trump supporters are outraged that a guy who by all appearances seems to be a
• 12:03
  big Trump supporter not getting charged with his involvement in the January sixth situation.
• 12:11
  Now, how strange is that, right off the bat that Trump supporters are
• 12:16
  outraged because a Trump supporter did not get charged. And I'll be the first
• 12:20
  to acknowledge I should point out I didn't put this in my list of outrages.
• 12:26
  There's no question that people have been grossly overcharged when it comes to January
• 12:31
  sixth, and that that overcharging is at least somewhat political in its motivation.
• 12:37
  There is no doubt about that. And the fact that most of these cases
• 12:41
  are happening in Washington, DC, which is a very, very very liberal
• 12:45
  jurisdiction, all of that plays into this. Okay, so everybody's a little
• 12:50
  bit right, everybody's a little bit wrong when it comes to January sixth.
• 12:54
  But on this Ray app situation, I don't think there's any real ambiguity here.
• 13:00
  I think that this conspiracy theory is crockpot nuts and the only semblance of
• 13:07
  rationality to it has been that Ray Ebbs was not charged. And I will
• 13:13
  fully acknowledge that based upon the charging of other people who were not nearly seemingly
• 13:20
  as vocal, at least not on video, as ray Ebbs getting charged and
• 13:24
  in many cases being you know, convicted and sentenced to very very stiff penalties,
• 13:31
  and having ray Epps not being charged at all. I agree, that's
• 13:35
  one of those things that makes you go, hmm, that's kind of weird.
• 13:37
  I wonder why that happened. Now, that's kind of weird. I
• 13:41
  wonder why that happened. In the world of Trump conspiracies automatically goes to,
• 13:46
  well, the only logical explanation is that he's got to be a federal agent
• 13:52
  or informant and this is all part of a massive government conspiracy to make Trump
• 13:54
  look bad. Huh. That's that's not the way the world works. You
• 14:01
  have to come up with a you know, the burden is on you to
• 14:05
  prove, and a completely different alternative explanation that appears to be nonsensical and have
• 14:11
  no evidence behind it. Now, so the argument has been for years,
• 14:20
  ray Epps hasn't been charged. Obviously he's being protected by the federal government because
• 14:26
  he's a federal agent. That's essentially the ray Epps theory. Well, then
• 14:33
  earlier this week that changed. Ray Epps did get charged. Now he got
• 14:39
  charged with a misdemeanor that it appears as of this taping, he is going
• 14:43
  to plea bargain and who knows, you know, probably get a very small
• 14:48
  penalty. But he is being charged by the federal government for his involvement in
• 14:56
  the January sixth riot insurrection. That's a fact. So the MAGA conspiracy theory
• 15:03
  went from, well, obviously Ray Apps is a federal agent because he mysteriously
• 15:11
  hasn't been charged, so I was very curious. So it's going to happen
• 15:15
  now that he has been charged. Is this going to change anyone's mind?
• 15:20
  Of course not, because we don't live in that world because people can believe
• 15:24
  whatever the hell they want now, because they're always going to be able to
• 15:26
  find somebody seemingly credible on social media to facilitate and enable their crazy beliefs.
• 15:35
  This is one of the major problems with social media and massive fragmentation. It
• 15:39
  used to be in the olden days that you wouldn't be able to find someone
• 15:43
  to substantiate a crazy belief and make you, if you had a suspicion,
• 15:48
  make it go, oh that must be true because someone I trust tells me
• 15:52
  so well, I'm using Canda's owns as an example because I just mentioned her.
• 16:00
  Most of these people are not credible because they believe crackpot bullshit like the
• 16:06
  fact that the moon landing didn't happen. That ought to discredit you forever.
• 16:08
  It doesn't matter what else you say, because you've either you've already exposed yourself
• 16:11
  as either an imbecile or you know, or a crack pot imbecile slash crackpot,
• 16:18
  or you're someone who lies because you want to create content and you're a
• 16:23
  grifter. So there's no good scenario there anyway. Of Course, the Trump
• 16:30
  conspiracy people immediately went to, well, he's getting charged only with a misdemeanor,
• 16:36
  so the fix is in. This is all just to show that we're
• 16:40
  we're not really a conspiracy here, that this is all that this is all
• 16:45
  set up, that he's being charged only with a misdemeanor and he's going to
• 16:51
  go away and you know, get very little of any punishment. And this
• 16:55
  way, the cover up is able to maintain itself. And I'm like,
• 17:00
  oh my god, okay, so can we please. And this is one
• 17:03
  of the major weaknesses in most conspiracy theories. The people who are putting together
• 17:11
  or promoting these crackpot conspiracy theories. They never think the whole story through,
• 17:18
  which is what I always do. I say, Okay, just for ships
• 17:22
  and giggles, I'm going to accept what you're saying is true. Let's pretend
• 17:26
  it's true that ray Epps somehow a federal agent or informant whatever, that for
• 17:32
  some reason, the NBI got this crackpot idea that, you know what,
• 17:37
  let's facilitate an attack on our own capitol just to make Trump and Trump people
• 17:42
  look bad as he goes out of office. Let's let's do that. It'll
• 17:45
  just be so much fun, and it'll really help us in some mysterious way
• 17:49
  that no one can can really pinpoint. But okay, let's do it,
• 17:53
  all right. So if that happened, ray Epps would have at this point
• 17:59
  especial actually, given all of the media coverage on the right about this story,
• 18:04
  ray Apps would have massive amounts of leverage because he would be able to
• 18:11
  blow up the entire conspiracy easily. He would have massive amounts of proof that
• 18:19
  he was an FBI informant or Asian and that this was all a massive conspiracy.
• 18:26
  So he has all the cards. He has all the leverage if if
• 18:33
  what they are saying is true, which is not, but if it was
• 18:36
  true, he would have all the leverage, and so there would be no
• 18:41
  leverage at all for the federal government. Let's pretend that, oh, we
• 18:45
  got to charge Apps because this is looking too bad. It's people are too
• 18:49
  suspicious of us, They're onto the cover up of the conspiracy. We got
• 18:53
  to charge him with something. If they did that, he would never engage
• 19:00
  in a plea bargain of any sort because he would have all the cards.
• 19:07
  My god, not only would they have no leverage to charge it with anything
• 19:10
  and him to plead guilty to anything, they'd have to pay him off in
• 19:14
  millions of dollars because right now he is sitting on not just a huge story
• 19:19
  in theory, but a multi million dollar book. I mean, if he
• 19:25
  wrote a book telling the real story of this, would it would be incredibly
• 19:29
  valuable to some right wing publisher. So right there, the current situation makes
• 19:37
  absolutely no sense. But that's only one data point that doesn't make any sense.
• 19:42
  Under the scenario where Ray Apps is a federal agent and this is all
• 19:48
  a massive conspiracy, why the hell would Ray Apps sue Fox News Channel for
• 19:57
  defamation Fox News Channel, the very same outlet who already is by the way,
• 20:04
  he had to pay hundreds of millions of dollars in claims related to the
• 20:08
  entire twenty twenty bogus election theory, you know, when the Dominion Voting System's
• 20:15
  lawsuit. But also an entity that allowed Tucker Carlson before they fired him,
• 20:22
  to completely rewrite the history on January sixth, and to go after ray Epps.
• 20:29
  So when you sue an entity as large and as powerful and as as
• 20:34
  obviously resource filled as Fox News is, guess what happens. There's a thing
• 20:41
  called discovery and if you were involved in some sort of conspiracy, it's a
• 20:49
  federal agent. I can guarantee mt you. The last thing you would do
• 20:56
  is sue an entity with a massive incentive and a massive amount of resources to
• 21:03
  get to the bottom of this conspiracy. I mean, it would be hugely
• 21:07
  in Fox News Channel's interest to blow the lid off of this massive conspiracy.
• 21:14
  So the last thing you would do is sue Fox News Channel. But that's
• 21:18
  what ray Epps did. And then, by the way, the next the
• 21:23
  last thing you would do is you would do an interview with sixty minutes,
• 21:30
  sixty minutes one of you know, nowhere near as powerful they as they used
• 21:33
  to be, and not nearly as credible as they used to be, but
• 21:37
  still one of the few standing somewhat legitimate journalistic operations left in television. And
• 21:45
  you're going to allow yourself to be put under their microscope and their scrutiny.
• 21:51
  So well, of course the Trump person would say, wow, no,
• 21:52
  they're in on the cover up there. They're part of the left wing,
• 21:56
  so therefore you know they're helping facilitate this all bogus narrative. They're on the
• 22:03
  same team. Okay, so now you've expanded the conspiracy even further. So
• 22:08
  the conspiracy not only involves the FBI and the federal government everyone around ray Epps,
• 22:14
  but now the conspiracy also is somehow involving sixty minutes as well as I
• 22:21
  guess Fox News channel, which is really bizarre world stuff. And then it's
• 22:26
  the federal prosecutors who decided, well, we're not going to charge him with
• 22:32
  a felony, will charge him with a misdemeanor. And oh, by the
• 22:36
  way, I guess ray epps lawyers are in on this too, because they're
• 22:40
  for I guess, forcing him to go along with a plea bargain, even
• 22:42
  though he holds all the cards under their own scenario. It's all just ridiculous.
• 22:49
  This not to mention if this is kind of like since I mentioned the
• 22:53
  JFK assassination, and I'll do so again at the end of this episode of
• 22:57
  the podcast with the new wit in that whole saga, this does remind me
• 23:03
  the whole idea that ray Epps would be the guy who would be a federal
• 23:08
  agent or informant. It does remind me of the absurdity of that Oswald would
• 23:14
  be the guy who would be chosen by the CIA to kill JFK. Almost
• 23:19
  literally the last person on the planet you would choose. I mean, ray
• 23:23
  Epps could not have been less clandestine. I mean he was as out there
• 23:30
  as you could possibly be. As I said, He's a huge guy wearing
• 23:33
  a red Maga hat, speaking to everybody and anybody who wanted to talk to
• 23:38
  him, not just that day but the day before. I mean, this,
• 23:42
  this guy was the least likely secret agent you could possibly imagine. Of
• 23:48
  course, then Trump people say, well, that was the whole point was
• 23:52
  he was. He was being so avert just that so that no one would
• 23:56
  think that he was actually a federal agent. I mean, the mind boggles,
• 24:00
  and it's funny, but it's also frustrating this album one because it's not
• 24:04
  the truth, and because, as I continue to say, the real significance
• 24:08
  of this is that each and every one of these bogus conspiracy theories that people
• 24:15
  buy into makes it easier for the next one to be sold. And every
• 24:21
  time this happens, every time I spend way too much time on Twitter fighting
• 24:27
  with people who are generally supporters of mine, it's oh, there's always one
• 24:33
  or two people who say, Zeigel, love your work on this and this
• 24:34
  and this and this, but you're totally wrong about this conspiracy theory, And
• 24:38
  inevitably we get in an argument and I end up either you know, unfollowing,
• 24:42
  muting, or even blocking these people supposed supporters of mine, Because if
• 24:47
  you if you believe me on X, Y, and Z, then why
• 24:49
  the fuck aren't you believing me on something as simple as ray Epps was not
• 24:53
  a federal agent sent by the FBI to foment a riot make Trump people look
• 25:00
  bad. Trump people look bad that day because a lot of Trump people are
• 25:03
  bad. That's it. That's what happened. Oh god, it just it
• 25:10
  drives me crazy, and it has absolute significance, and it makes the right
• 25:15
  wing look so bad. It prevents any chance of appealing to independent voters who
• 25:23
  just look at this and they go, my god, Yeah, the left
• 25:27
  is nuts and they don't even understand what a woman is. And you know,
• 25:32
  the economy is sucks and inflation is high, and boy, that COVID
• 25:37
  thing was insane. But you know what, those right wingers under Trump are
• 25:41
  just even nutting. I can't do it. I mean that that is the
• 25:45
  thinking of an awful lot of people. And this is this is the price
• 25:49
  of Donald Trump, because you cannot separate Trump from this conspiracy phenomenon. This
• 25:56
  was not the way it was prior to Donald Trump. Now we're there people
• 26:00
  who were underground who believed in this ship. Of course there were, but
• 26:04
  it is far more pervasive now. It's not just I mean, it's it's
• 26:08
  dominant. This is dominant thinking within the so called right wing and the Republican
• 26:15
  Party that currently has as its front runner getting almost sixty percent of most national
• 26:22
  polling in Donald Trump against the field that includes highly incredible people like Ronda Santis.
• 26:30
  It's just it's really incredibly infuriating, almost excruciating stuff. So the Ray
• 26:37
  Epps thing is bs. But the Trump people will forever believe whatever the hell
• 26:41
  they want to believe because there's an entire media industrial complex there to enable such
• 26:48
  beliefs and facilitate such beliefs. Now, there's a several stories that I want
• 26:53
  to get to in this episode of the podcast that really make me think what
• 26:59
  we're back into the me too era. It's we've had a spate of me
• 27:03
  two cases, and I want to address several of them, not all of
• 27:07
  them, because I would be spending too much time if I did. That's
• 27:10
  how many I have all of a sudden become part of the news cycle.
• 27:14
  But the first one I want to talk about is Russell Brand. Now,
• 27:18
  Russell Brand is a very interesting character British actor, comedian, used to be
• 27:22
  married to Katie Perry, used to be a member of the liberal elite,
• 27:27
  and a guy who I've always thought was very smart and very funny. But
• 27:32
  it's it was also clear that for a long period of his life, back
• 27:36
  when he was really famous, he you know, basically was you know,
• 27:41
  living in debauchery. I mean, he was very, very promiscuous, He
• 27:48
  did a lot of drugs and alcohol. I mean, he was living the
• 27:52
  basic, almost stereotypical liberal Hollywood entertainment elite life, and it was obvious that
• 28:00
  his marriage to Katy Perry was never gonna work. I mean, I remember
• 28:04
  watching him do stand up one time when he talked about how the the only
• 28:08
  benefit to fame was that it'll make women want to sleep with you, which,
• 28:14
  by the way, might be true. I've said similar things myself,
• 28:18
  but that's not a healthy thing for someone to be saying publicly. I think
• 28:23
  while he was married to Katy Perry, that's that's that's not gonna last,
• 28:30
  especially when you happen to be still very famous and have the options to do
• 28:34
  what you want in that area. So I've always enjoyed Russell Brand, but
• 28:40
  I've never had any respect for him as a person until all of a sudden,
• 28:45
  during the COVID panic, Russell Brand was one of the few members of
• 28:49
  the liberal elite club to really speak out about the insanity. And he's been,
• 28:56
  you know, very anti COVID mandates, especially vaccine mandates, and very
• 29:03
  much willing to speak out against elements of the COVID tyranny and I've respected that,
• 29:10
  and so when all of a sudden he gets hit with a series of
• 29:15
  sex abuse allegations that have been facilitated by mostly British media, including a very
• 29:22
  strange documentary done by Channel four in the UK, I'm automatically suspicious because of
• 29:30
  the timing. Now, I mentioned in the last episode of the podcast that
• 29:34
  Christy Gnome, the governor of South Dakota, is trying to make the argument,
• 29:40
  or I think try, in my opinion, setting up the narrative that
• 29:44
  the reason why she's being hit with allegations of an affair with Corey Lewandowski is
• 29:49
  that she just endorsed Donald Trump and therefore she's a target. N I said,
• 29:53
  no, no, no, no, no. The timing of that
• 29:56
  and doesn't make any sense. The logic of that doesn't make any sense,
• 30:00
  and that this is being reverse engineered by her to try to give her the
• 30:03
  protection of the Trump cult, and because she anticipates or anticipated that the news
• 30:10
  of her affair would come out, an affair of which she has not actually
• 30:14
  denied and has been rumored for quite a long time, and the evidence of
• 30:17
  will not definitive seems rather strong. So it's nuanced. But I do think
• 30:22
  that there's a very big difference between what Christy Nome is trying to claim,
• 30:27
  which is now becoming a very popular tactic of people who are attacked on the
• 30:32
  right, especially when they're attached to Trump. They're attacking me because I'm attached
• 30:37
  to Trump. That's a very popular line of the fence, and it's very
• 30:41
  effective among the Trump cult because this goes back to the whole conspiracy theory phenomenon.
• 30:49
  The people on the right, or especially Trump supporters, are now willing,
• 30:53
  very willing, almost eager, to believe this kind of stuff. So
• 30:57
  I'm not buying it with Nome because the timing and the logic doesn't work out.
• 31:03
  However, I am willing to buy it on Russell Brand because the timing
• 31:08
  does seem to work out, because these things take a lot of time to
• 31:11
  put together, and Russell Brand has, you know, used mafia terms,
• 31:15
  which I like to do. You know, he used to be a made
• 31:18
  man among the liberal media elites. They used to let him get away with
• 31:23
  a lot of stuff because you know, he was on their team, and
• 31:26
  he was funny and British and popular and married to Christy, married nothing.
• 31:30
  He was He wasn't married to Christy, No, that would have been a
• 31:33
  story married to Katie Perry for all those reasons. You know, he was
• 31:40
  never attacked. Well, now he's left the club, he's left the mob.
• 31:45
  He no longer has the protection of the mob, of the mafia,
• 31:51
  the liberal media mafia. And so now all of a sudden, things that
• 31:55
  he did or allegedly did, back when he was a member of the liberal
• 32:00
  elite, well before COVID, many many years ago, at the height of
• 32:05
  his fame, are all of a sudden being portrayed as being evidence of sex
• 32:10
  abuse or maybe even rape. Now, as is often the case in these
• 32:15
  situations, I can't stand. There's so much I can't stand about how we
• 32:19
  have changed the way we evaluate these cases. But one of the favorite tricks
• 32:25
  of the media is to get numbers. They love to get numbers because to
• 32:32
  the average person, if in this case, four women are saying something,
• 32:37
  then that's inherently more credible than if only one woman is saying something. But
• 32:44
  in this case, just because you have four women involved, and by the
• 32:47
  way, one of the women wasn't even involved in that documentary, she was
• 32:52
  portrayed, I'm not making this up. Portrayed by an actress. None of
• 32:57
  these people are on the record, they're all on anonymous. But one of
• 33:00
  the anonymous accusers of Russell Brand in this so called documentary was not actually portrayed
• 33:08
  by herself, what was portrayed by a paid actress. So you have an
• 33:15
  anonymous person who is being portrayed by somebody else making an allegation from many years
• 33:22
  ago, for which there's no apparent evidence, and which by the way,
• 33:27
  doesn't even reach the threshold of a criminal act necessarily. And you know this
• 33:35
  always gets complicated. But the way I interpret this is, you have one
• 33:39
  allegation so far against Russell Brand that I would consider to be a sexual assault
• 33:47
  allegation, maybe two, depending on your definition. But then once they open
• 33:53
  that door, anybody that's anything negative to say about Russell Brand automatically gets tossed
• 33:59
  into the same basket because they want the number to be as high as possible,
• 34:04
  because that inherently increases the credibility of everybody, because not everybody could be
• 34:08
  lying, right, that's the theory. And you know, when it comes
• 34:14
  to somebody like Russell Brand, one of the many things that the news media
• 34:20
  just completely ignores because and it's not because they don't know it. Of course
• 34:25
  they know what I'm about to say is true, but it's just very politically
• 34:30
  incorrect and it's very inconvenient to their narrative. But here's the reality that anyone
• 34:36
  with half a brain understands about these situations. When you have somebody who is
• 34:43
  a huge, charismatic celebrity, who you know, has a look about him
• 34:50
  that is appealing to certain women and has a British accent, and who is
• 34:53
  funny and charming and rich, guess what happens. Women want to sleep with
• 35:01
  you. That is just a fact. And guess what happens when women go
• 35:07
  a little crazy over somebody like this and want to sleep with you. They
• 35:15
  might do things that they wouldn't ordinarily do, things that they might eventually regret.
• 35:22
  Now, is that the fault of the celebrity? Hell? Maybe maybe
• 35:30
  not, certainly, not totally, but there is absolutely a phenomenon that because
• 35:37
  of the celebrity and the charm and the charisma everything else I just mentioned,
• 35:42
  women will act in a way that they themselves will think, how the hell
• 35:46
  did I do that? Why did I do that? I can't believe I
• 35:49
  did that? Boy, that was super risky. Boy, Wait a minute,
• 35:52
  I shouldn't have done that. I did, I really consent to that.
• 35:57
  I can't believe I did. And then conversely, you have a situation
• 36:02
  where the celebrity like Russell Brand gets essentially used to the idea that women who
• 36:10
  say yes to anything are gonna say yes to everything. So they become basically
• 36:20
  trained, like a like a zoo animal, that whatever they want, they're
• 36:23
  gonna get, and this is a recipe for disaster, especially in this era
• 36:30
  where we've changed the rules. So in my view, and I'm trying to
• 36:35
  evaluate, for instance, the one allegation against him that seems to be the
• 36:39
  most serious where they're actually there was a rape kit involved that happened here in
• 36:45
  the Los Angeles area. There was a text exchange between the person who's now
• 36:52
  the accuser and Russell Brand, and the way I look at this, it
• 36:57
  certainly seems consistent with I just outlined where Russell Brand thinks that he's entitled to
• 37:02
  do anything and everything because that's what women have taught him in the sexual realm,
• 37:09
  while this woman, seemingly in her normal life, was much more conservative.
• 37:15
  For instance, there was an argument over when or not to use a
• 37:17
  condom. Now to me, if they're are arguing over whether or not a
• 37:22
  condom should have been used, that that's inherently goes against the idea of a
• 37:29
  rape allegation, right, I mean, I'm sorry if that's the If that's
• 37:32
  what we're discussing, I don't know how you get to rate from there.
• 37:37
  That gets to a situation where Brand is being accused of doing things that the
• 37:43
  woman didn't like or want or later regretted. It's I would call it certainly
• 37:49
  rude behavior, wrong behavior, potentially dangerous behavior. But is that is that
• 37:55
  a criminal sexual assault situation? I don't think so. I would need a
• 38:00
  lot more evidence than just that. But it certainly seems to me that the
• 38:06
  worst allegation against Brand certainly fits with my theory of celebrity sex situations, And
• 38:16
  so I am not prone to believing necessarily based upon what we currently know,
• 38:22
  especially since these people are anonymous. And I cannot stand the idea that we
• 38:27
  have now set the precedent that it's a rule that even among adult accusers,
• 38:35
  they get to remain anonymous, because who people are, their identities is incredibly
• 38:42
  important in determining credibility. This notion that the media has that everybody's credibility is
• 38:49
  the same, therefore their identity means nothing is just preposterous, so and for
• 38:54
  all sorts of different reasons. So I'm not look it seems to me as
• 39:00
  if Russell Brand probably engaged in some very very bad behavior, But I don't
• 39:04
  think that there's been any proof as if yet that he is a rapist or
• 39:10
  a sexual abuser. But of course the media is pretending that there is.
• 39:15
  YouTube has already stopped him from monetizing his YouTube account. Actually did an appearance
• 39:22
  on News Nation with Dan Abrams about this and another topic, which I'll get
• 39:25
  to later on in this episode of the podcast earlier this week, where I
• 39:30
  made the argument that this is ridiculous because what's the standard. There's been no
• 39:37
  criminal charge here, There's been no criminal complaint that we're aware of. There
• 39:40
  hasn't even been a lawsuit. So by what standard are you determining that someone
• 39:46
  is guilty enough to where you're going to prevent them from monetizing their YouTube account?
• 39:52
  A huge YouTube account, several YouTube accounts that account for an awful lot
• 39:55
  of income for Russell Brand at least in theory, And what about all the
• 40:01
  other people on YouTube who have been accused in similar situations, I mean,
• 40:07
  including rap artists and other people. I mean, what is the standard here?
• 40:10
  So YouTube is now going to be the sexual assault police without any legal
• 40:17
  proceedings whatsoever. I mean it used to be. And this is maybe the
• 40:22
  biggest problem I have with the way the news media has changed the way they
• 40:25
  cover sex abuse allegations. There. It used to be that you at least
• 40:30
  needed a criminal charge before these types of allegations, especially from long in the
• 40:37
  past, were taken seriously because it was understood that if you set that precedent,
• 40:45
  and if that becomes the standard, even any kind of allegation, even
• 40:50
  anonymously to a media outlet, that may have an incentive to destroy someone who's
• 40:54
  no longer protected by the liberal mediumafia because they've become a COVID contrarian. That
• 41:01
  it was understood that that was too dangerous, that that would be opening a
• 41:07
  Pandora's box. Well, when me too hit with Harvey Weinstein and Ronan Faraoh,
• 41:14
  it's a complete fraud. In my opinion, all that got thrown out
• 41:17
  the window. All the rules that used to to know somewhat control the potential
• 41:24
  insanity in this realm were no longer at play, so it no longer takes
• 41:30
  a criminal charge, doesn't even take a criminal complaint, It doesn't even take
• 41:34
  a lawsuit. I mean, my god, anybody can file a lawsuit,
• 41:37
  and obviously, with Russell Brand having a lot of money, there's a huge
• 41:40
  incentive to file a lawsuit. The lack of a lawsuit, to me,
• 41:46
  it's almost impossible to get over. I mean, there's been plenty of time
• 41:50
  in these allegations for someone to file a lawsuit, and a huge incentive if
• 41:54
  you have a legitimate claim, because Russell Brand has a lot of money,
• 41:59
  and yet none of that has happened to our knowledge, and without that,
• 42:05
  then what the hell is the standard here? The standard seems to be,
• 42:08
  well, you know, he's he left our club, we now have to
• 42:12
  run him over. That seems to be the motivation here. And it's really
• 42:17
  kind of funny to me to see right wing media figures, many of whom
• 42:22
  I tried my best to understand what really happened in the Penn State Joe Paterno
• 42:28
  Jerry Sandusky case and had no interest in doing so because there was no incentive
• 42:31
  for them to run into that buzz saw or even even come close to that
• 42:36
  buzz saw, but people like Ben Shapiro and Clay Travis, two of the
• 42:42
  people I probably targeted more than any other right wing media members on the Penn
• 42:46
  State Joe Paterno Jerry Sandusky situation where I've gotten absolutely nowhere and where they've been
• 42:52
  totally totally wrong. They're now, along with other right wing media figures,
• 42:55
  defending Russell Brand, which, by the way, I think is appropriate and
• 43:00
  right, but it's it's it's an incredible thing where you know, politics makes
• 43:05
  for strange bedfellows to probably not use a great metaphor considering the allegations in this
• 43:09
  case, but the reality is it's the left wing that is throwing Russell Brand
• 43:15
  under the bus, almost literally, and it's the right wing that's coming to
• 43:20
  his defense, partially because they now see him as an ally on being a
• 43:27
  COVID contrarian, but also because I think they understand how this game is played,
• 43:34
  that they see that this is now another piece of evidence that the left
• 43:38
  targets someone when they become a threat, which by the way, is basically
• 43:44
  the entire essence of the Donald Trump twenty twenty four campaign. Go with me
• 43:50
  because I'm the one they target the most. And so weirdly, by the
• 43:53
  way, I think it's very subconsciously and subliminally, but this attack on Russell
• 43:58
  Brand really fits the I Are Donald Trump campaign narrative. Won't be surprising at
• 44:04
  all for me to see Donald Trump supporting Russell Brand publicly in short order,
• 44:10
  and it might not even be a bad idea for him to do so.
• 44:15
  Again, I want to make clear though, I am not a hundred percent
• 44:17
  convinced of Russell Brand's innocence, if only because during the time period of these
• 44:22
  allegations, he was doing a lot of alcohol and drugs, and so therefore
• 44:25
  he may have done things that you know, we're not normal for him,
• 44:30
  or that he wasn't even thinking through and that we're totally wrong. And again
• 44:36
  I'm trying to be as fair as possible here, But part of that might
• 44:39
  be because of the drugs. Part of it might be because he was just
• 44:43
  trained that he's allowed to do whatever he wants with women because women want to
• 44:46
  be with him because he's Russell Brand, and the idea that the media just
• 44:52
  never accepts that this is part of the equation. I always find it really
• 44:58
  strange when these celebrities get hit with allegations male celebrities get hit with allegations at
• 45:04
  the height of their fame many years later. This happens continually. Well,
• 45:08
  when you're at the height of your fame, you don't need to rape anybody.
• 45:13
  Not that. By the way, I've never even understood how rape is
• 45:15
  something that men want to engage in. I've always found it to be repugnant
• 45:21
  and very not sexually enticing at all, exactly the opposite. Maybe that's just
• 45:27
  the way I was taught by my mother, but I've never gotten any sense
• 45:30
  that men get a thrill out of that. That's not as the opposite of
• 45:34
  what the vast majority of men want from a sexual experience. But why is
• 45:38
  it that no one in the media ever puts it together? Gee, it's
• 45:40
  awfully odd that these allegations seem to come about when a man is it is
• 45:45
  absolutely most sexually appealing, and where women are throwing themselves at a guy,
• 45:52
  why would he engage in sexual assault and rape? Or is it what I
• 45:58
  already talked to you about, which is that when a man is at at
• 46:01
  the height of his fame, women will do things that they later regret and
• 46:07
  rationalize and may decide to come up with a way of making themselves feel better
• 46:12
  about their own actions, and that means blaming the guy. Now does that
• 46:15
  mean that sometimes the guy is to blame one hundred percent? But does that
• 46:19
  mean it's sexual assault or rape? No? And so there's so many problems
• 46:24
  with the Russell Brand story, but I do think the essence of what's going
• 46:30
  on here, I do think that either directly and I'm not saying someone put
• 46:34
  out a code read on Russell Brand, although it could be, but I
• 46:38
  do think that consciously or subconsciously, Russell Brand was now free from liberal media
• 46:45
  protection and that's why they went after him. There became an incentive to do
• 46:50
  so only after he left the club. I talked about the club all the
• 46:55
  time and the dangers of leaving the club and to make an example. By
• 47:00
  the way, this makes an example out of Russell Brand. You don't think
• 47:04
  that other celebrities who might be predisposed to leaving the Liberal club don't look around
• 47:12
  and go, look what they just did to Russell Brand. I better not
• 47:15
  do that myself. There's no question that that's a message that's out there.
• 47:21
  Are they smart enough to do that on purpose or consciously? I don't know,
• 47:24
  But the effect is the same. I'm amazed that anybody ever comes out
• 47:30
  of the liberal club because the protections are so good that it's such a cushy
• 47:35
  situation and the dangers are so great for doing it. It's a lot like
• 47:42
  the Mafia. And I'll be very curious to see what happens with the Russell
• 47:46
  Brand situation. It's kind of teetering on going in in a couple of different
• 47:52
  directions, but he at least has, bizarrely the protection of the right wing
• 47:57
  media at this point. Matt Wals was another that when out on a limb
• 48:00
  to defend Russell Brand. And so we're just living in a bizarro, upside
• 48:05
  down world. Now I'm gonna talk about another apparent me too situation, and
• 48:10
  it's gonna seem as if I'm contradicting myself. I think maybe I won't be.
• 48:15
  I don't know. You can decide for yourself. But Tim Ballard,
• 48:19
  the guy about whom the Sound of Freedom movie starring Jim Caviezel, the surprise
• 48:24
  hit of the summer, The story of Tim Ballard's crusade to try to stop
• 48:31
  child sex trafficking that we talked a lot about on this podcast during the summer
• 48:37
  months. Tim Ballard is now the subject of many allegations, although they it's
• 48:44
  hard to tell what the nature of the allegations are. But as of this
• 48:46
  taping, seven women have made some sort of an allegation against Tim Ballard.
• 48:53
  The reports indicate that there will be more women in the coming days and weeks
• 48:59
  to do so. I'm not sure how they know that, but that's what's
• 49:00
  being reported. And the timing of this one is awfully interesting too. But
• 49:06
  I'm i'm my guts putting this more into the Christie Gnome basket, then into
• 49:13
  the Russell Brand basket as far as the timing is concerned, because Ballard also
• 49:19
  recently announced that he is thinking about running for Mitt Romney's Senate seat in Utah
• 49:25
  because Romney has announced he's not going to run for reelection to the US Senate.
• 49:30
  And you know, it's obviously very interesting and coincidental maybe that all of
• 49:37
  a sudden these allegations come out against Tim Ballard as he's thinking about running for
• 49:43
  US Senate and obviously the movie about his life just was a massive surprise hit.
• 49:50
  I don't know what to make of the allegations against Ballard, mostly because
• 49:54
  there's very little detail about them, and Ballard has longly denied them, basically
• 50:01
  said that this is all an attack. He's basically taking the right wing playbook,
• 50:06
  which is, you know, this is an attack on me and my
• 50:08
  cause and a little bit like the Lance Armstrong scenario, which makes me very
• 50:15
  very nervous. I'm someone who believes that Lance Armstrong created his charity as protection
• 50:21
  against allegations of steroid use, and I think that's exactly what happened with Livestrong
• 50:27
  and Lance Armstrong. Well, there's it feels a little bit like that's what
• 50:31
  Tim Boward is doing here, saying that they're trying to attack my cause by
• 50:37
  going after me. And none of these allegations are true, and you know,
• 50:44
  some of them from again, it's all very vague at this point,
• 50:46
  but we're I've been able to tell some of them are pretty benign allegations.
• 50:52
  When it comes to you know, inappropriate texts or sending a photo of himself
• 50:58
  and his underwear, I don't know what the hell context that could be,
• 51:00
  but I haven't seen proof that that actually happened. But that's just one of
• 51:04
  the allegations here. But the fact that there's already reports that there's going to
• 51:09
  be more than seven women is troubling to me. Also, the part of
• 51:15
  this that the equation that is important to point out is that the Church of
• 51:19
  Latter day Saints basically the Mormon Churchill. I don't know if that's the right
• 51:22
  way to phrase it, because I'm always confused as to how you're supposed to
• 51:27
  describe it. But anyway, the Church of Latter Day Saints, there's an
• 51:30
  organization that has severed themselves from Ballard. But even that's confusing because Ballard claims
• 51:37
  that that wasn't actually done by the church itself, but by a rogue spokespersons.
• 51:44
  I really can't figure out at this point what the truth is of the
• 51:49
  Ballard situation, and I want to give him the benefit of the doubt,
• 51:52
  but my gut tells me that there's something bad here. And the reason why
• 51:59
  I said this is going to sound contradictory to the Russell Brands story, is
• 52:02
  it. Wait a minute, Zig, so you're you're defending the guy who
• 52:07
  is clearly immoral, not religious, brags about promiscuity, brags about drug use
• 52:16
  and alcoholism. You had a bad divorce with Katie Perry, you know,
• 52:22
  has numerous acts that would seem to be consistent with sexual ha harassment that are
• 52:29
  on video, although they seem to have been, you know, acts of
• 52:32
  comedy. I mean, there's there's all sorts of reasons to not be supporting
• 52:37
  Russell Brand based upon his persona. And conversely, Tim Ballard's a hero.
• 52:44
  Tim Ballard's the guy who you know. And I don't think everything in the
• 52:46
  Sound of Freedom movie is true, because especially the second half of the movie
• 52:52
  seems to have taken a lot of artistic license based upon what seems to be
• 52:57
  realistic. But that's the way the movies work this day and age. But
• 53:00
  you know, by all accounts, he's a hero who saved all these kids
• 53:06
  from child sex trafficking, and you has now had a hit movie made about
• 53:09
  him, and certainly you know, he's become a symbol and a potential target
• 53:15
  for enemies. I get all that. I'm not discounting that as a possibility,
• 53:21
  but I'm always more suspicious of people who are wearing their morality on their
• 53:28
  sleeve. And maybe that's the part of me that's not I believe in organized
• 53:36
  religion. I consider myself to be a very moral person, hardly perfect,
• 53:38
  but I try to be a very moral person. But I'm not a religious
• 53:43
  person. I grew up as a Catholic. I now refer to myself as
• 53:46
  a recovering Catholic. I'm recovering from being Catholic for all intents and purposes.
• 53:52
  But in my experience, someone who is flawed and transparent about their flaws,
• 53:57
  like Russell Brand, is more trustworthy than someone who portrays themselves as being almost
• 54:05
  a superhero and a very very moral person. I'm always a little suspicious of
• 54:13
  that. I'm always wondering, Okay, is it possible that that's covering for
• 54:16
  something else? Again, I don't know that that's the case with Tim Ballard,
• 54:21
  but I think that that's a possible scenario here, that you know that
• 54:27
  there's a reason when you have to show the world how moral you are,
• 54:30
  how amazing you are, that maybe you're covering for something else. And so,
• 54:37
  if I had to guess, I would say I am much less willing
• 54:44
  to believe that Tim Ballard is completely innocent here than I am Russell Brand,
• 54:50
  even though that seems contradictory based upon their public personas. But we'll see.
• 54:54
  I'm very open minded on Tim Ballard. But I felt like I needed to
• 54:59
  mention it because it's obviously been in the news almost exactly the same time period
• 55:06
  as the Russell Brand's story. There's another story in the Me Too Realm that
• 55:10
  we've discussed previously on the Death of Journalism podcast involving the I guess former head
• 55:17
  football coach at Michigan State University God by the name of Mel Tucker. Now,
• 55:22
  as this as of this taping, it's a very very strange situation because
• 55:30
  it's been reported and Mel Tucker has publicly stated that he has been informed that
• 55:36
  he will be fired. Now, I predicted a couple episodes ago on the
• 55:40
  podcast that he would be fired because he had been suspended because of an investigation
• 55:47
  into an allegation of sex abuse by a woman by the name of Brenda Tracy.
• 55:52
  And this got leaked to USA Today, and USA Today made a huge
• 55:58
  deal out of it, largely because of Brenda Tracy's persona. Now, this
• 56:02
  is where the whole issue of anonymity, I think, really kind of exposes
• 56:07
  itself here, because when you know someone's identity, it tells you so much
• 56:13
  about the allegation or the story itself. You cannot fully evaluate an allegation without
• 56:20
  knowing the identity of the person. Because identity provides all sorts of clues about
• 56:25
  credibility or potential motivations, and the reason why USA Today jumped all over this
• 56:31
  story. I guarantee you that if Brenda Tracy had not been a rather famous
• 56:37
  victim of sex abuse, herselves was a victim of gang rape, which then
• 56:43
  caused her to make a career out of being a speaker on the issue of
• 56:47
  sex abuse. And she had been hired by Michigan State apparently only one time.
• 56:53
  It might have been two times. It seems as if there's only one
• 56:58
  substantiated time where Brenda Tracy was contracted by as an independent contractor to speak to
• 57:06
  Michigan State or for Michigan State on the issue of sex abuse. And that's
• 57:10
  how Mel Tucker, the then head coach at Michigan State, met her.
• 57:15
  And mel Tucker is going through apparently a separation in his marriage, and Tracy
• 57:22
  claims an a an allegation that was supposed to be private until it was leaked
• 57:30
  to USA Today that Tucker engaged in unwanted phone sex with her, that there
• 57:37
  was phone sex where she did not consent, There was which right off the
• 57:45
  bat, And I have to say a lot of people have latched onto that
• 57:49
  and understandably, so, how do you have non consensual phone sex? I
• 57:53
  mean, that doesn't even make any sense. First of all, you're not
• 57:58
  in the same room with somebody, And in order for there to be phone
• 58:01
  sex, inherently it has to there has to be mutual participation. And if
• 58:08
  there's not mutual participation, I don't even know how that would work. But
• 58:12
  there is something called hanging up the phone. I mean, it's it's literally
• 58:17
  the easiest thing you can possibly do if you're in a situation that you don't
• 58:22
  want to consent to or you don't want to participate in. And there's phone
• 58:27
  records indicating this was a very long phone call. All you gotta do is
• 58:32
  hang up the phone, and she didn't do that. Instead, she made
• 58:37
  a complaint, which then created an investigation, which again was supposed to be
• 58:43
  confidential. USA Today leaked it. Tucker is saying that it was Brenda Tracy
• 58:49
  that leaked it, and the timing of the league is highly suspicious because it
• 58:54
  was leaked right after the start of football season, which is absolutely the time
• 59:00
  in which a head football coach would be at their most vulnerable because once you're
• 59:07
  suspended you're done. And I predicted that already. I said once they suspended
• 59:12
  Tucker in the aftermath of the USA Today's story, there's no chance that he
• 59:15
  survives. I mean, he got replaced by another black coach. Tucker is
• 59:21
  black here, which I think is an interesting part of the story, which
• 59:23
  I'll get to momentarily. But they replaced him with another black coach. By
• 59:29
  the way, they got crushed in their first game without Tucker, which has
• 59:34
  created kind of a confusing dynamic to me. As far as the lack of
• 59:37
  reaction and support for Tucker in the liberal sports media, I mean, there's
• 59:42
  all sorts of reasons why you would think that the liberal sports media would be
• 59:46
  rushing to Tucker's defense. And maybe this just shows how much how powerful the
• 59:52
  kryptonite of sex abuse allegations is to the liberal sports media. They can't even
• 59:58
  defend a black coach who was a media darling got one of the richest contracts
• 1:00:05
  in the history of college football, a contract he didn't even deserve. I
• 1:00:10
  don't even know why he got it. He basically won a couple of games
• 1:00:13
  he probably shouldn't have won. And I've said before, I think that Tucker
• 1:00:16
  being a very large, bald black man really fits the liberal Academy of movie
• 1:00:22
  like view of what a college football coach ought to be in twenty twenty three,
• 1:00:27
  and they got enamored with a couple of big wins, and they went
• 1:00:31
  overboard, and they gave him this massive contract that he's not lived up to
• 1:00:37
  at all. And there are those that speculate that this is all a scam
• 1:00:39
  to get out of his contract. In fact, Tucker, in a statement
• 1:00:43
  where he has blasted I mean blasted Tracy and Michigan State and the entire situation
• 1:00:50
  and vehemently defended his own innocence, has essentially insinuated exactly that this was a
• 1:00:57
  situation where Michigan State has alter your motives. Now, I want to emphasize
• 1:01:01
  that again, is of this taping, there's been no official word that I
• 1:01:06
  could tell that Tucker was actually fired. He was just informed, or we're
• 1:01:09
  hearing from Tucker that he was informed that he will be fired for cause,
• 1:01:15
  and that he you know, this was not a situation that would be within
• 1:01:20
  his contract where he would be fired and then paid out, which might be
• 1:01:22
  because of the money involved. The essence of what's really going on here,
• 1:01:27
  But when this story broke. I theorized that, I said, wait a
• 1:01:30
  minute, can we can we home on a second. The identity of Brenda
• 1:01:34
  Tracy is really important here, and it's working in the exact opposite direction of
• 1:01:37
  the way that it should. The fact that she's an expert in sex abuse
• 1:01:42
  quote unquote expert in sex abuse makes the news media, sports media automatically believe
• 1:01:47
  everything she says because she's a bonafid rape victim herself, and she's a known
• 1:01:53
  person, and she's an expert, and so therefore, you know, what
• 1:01:58
  she says is automatic gospel. And I posited the theory. I said,
• 1:02:02
  will wait a minute, What if she and Tucker were involved in some sort
• 1:02:08
  of romantic relationship, which their phone calls indicate they clearly were. There were
• 1:02:14
  dozens of phone calls of an extended period of time between the two of them
• 1:02:19
  in a fairly short order, so it's obvious that they had somewhat of an
• 1:02:24
  intimate relationship. Whether it was sexual or not, who the hell knows.
• 1:02:29
  And what if Tucker broke it off, and what if Tracy got upset about
• 1:02:35
  that? Well, would she not have an incentive and the ability knowing the
• 1:02:39
  ins and outs of this issue as well as anybody as well as how an
• 1:02:44
  academic institution, one that already has been hit previously in the whole Larry Nasser
• 1:02:52
  situation, that doctor Larry Nasser situation involving USA Gymnastics the doctor and he was
• 1:02:58
  also the doctor for Michigan States Athletic Department, where they had to pay out
• 1:03:02
  a whole bunch of money Michigan State did for their alleged involvement, which I
• 1:03:06
  don't think was even real, and the cover up of Larry Nasser's crimes which
• 1:03:09
  were real. And so you know, Brenda Tracy could be looking at this
• 1:03:14
  going all right, okay, Tucker, you know you're you're gonna drop me.
• 1:03:20
  Look what I'm gonna do to you, and and all she had was
• 1:03:23
  this, apparently, this allegation of non consensual phone sex, which again I've
• 1:03:30
  not heard anybody come up with a good explanation as to how you can even
• 1:03:34
  have non consensual phone sex. There are even people now who are claiming that
• 1:03:38
  it doesn't matter whether not the phone sex was consensual or not, that this
• 1:03:43
  would be enough to justify the firing of a head football coach at Michigan State,
• 1:03:49
  which is just asinine to me. Yeah, he was technically married,
• 1:03:53
  but so that's the new standard, that's the new rule, not even actual
• 1:04:00
  sex, but phone sex. I mean, the mind boggles. I mean,
• 1:04:05
  how we're all of a sudden, in some weird ways, going back
• 1:04:10
  almost to puritanism. I mean, I don't I don't understand. And not
• 1:04:14
  only that, don't understand how that could be or that could be the standard.
• 1:04:17
  But think about the precedent this would set. I mean, essentially,
• 1:04:21
  if that's the precedent, any woman could get any head football coach, then
• 1:04:27
  he woke university fired on a moment's notice. I mean, that's essentially what
• 1:04:32
  we're doing is we're creating all sorts of very perverse incentives that could create very,
• 1:04:39
  very very unjust situations. But I think maybe the most bizarre part of
• 1:04:46
  the mal Tucker story, it's not the most frustrating. The most frustrating is
• 1:04:50
  having people like Clay Travis of out Kick vehemently defending mel Tucker when I can't
• 1:04:56
  even get him to have a conversation with me about the whole Penn Stagoe paternal
• 1:05:00
  us dusky situation. I mean, that's incredibly frustrating to me. But the
• 1:05:02
  most baffling part of this is how the liberal sports media the defense people be
• 1:05:11
  largely because of the color of their skin on a regular basis. I mean,
• 1:05:15
  the color of someone's skin is to the liberal sports media incredibly important and
• 1:05:21
  inherently anyone being attacked who happens to be a black man in a position of
• 1:05:27
  power, it's it's just assumed that they're the focus of some sort of inappropriate
• 1:05:33
  attack or they're not being treated fairly. And here we have a white woman,
• 1:05:39
  Brenda Tracy, happens to be white, making this very shaky allegation against
• 1:05:45
  the black man and the liberal media. It's destroying his career, and the
• 1:05:49
  liberal media is the thing back going, Oh okay, all right, what's
• 1:05:56
  that's interesting? What's next next? I mean, it's it's it's shocking to
• 1:06:00
  me. Now. I've mentioned previously that I have a source that's very close
• 1:06:03
  to the Michigan state situation that has indicated to me that there's all sorts of
• 1:06:08
  other reasons why they want Maltucker gone that are for off the field transgressions and
• 1:06:15
  that maybe this is just what they got him on and maybe there's going to
• 1:06:18
  be more to come out. I don't know, but I have to say
• 1:06:20
  that the lack of reaction by the liberal sports media in defense of malt Tucker
• 1:06:28
  is incredibly bizarre and very very telling that the whole race issue they know is
• 1:06:33
  bullshit. They only use it when it's convenient. I mean Colin Kaepernick to
• 1:06:39
  this day, it's still a hero because he claims that his career was targeted
• 1:06:44
  because of his race, which was always bullshit. And here Meltucker is being
• 1:06:47
  taken down by a white woman with a bogus, a seemingly bogus claimed with
• 1:06:51
  sex abuse, and the liberal media is like, h whatever, who cares.
• 1:06:59
  It's just it's my boggling. It's just very, very strange. Now,
• 1:07:01
  there's two other situations involving football that I want to talk about before I
• 1:07:08
  get into a couple other topics, including the latest and the new witness and
• 1:07:11
  the jfk assassination situation. And I think these are really important way beyond football.
• 1:07:18
  I think it goes to the nature of our culture, and I think
• 1:07:23
  that's one of the reasons why I want to talk about him. Here,
• 1:07:25
  something very odd happened in the Monday night football game between the Cleveland Browns and
• 1:07:30
  the Pittsburgh Steelers. It got a little bit of attention, maybe not as
• 1:07:35
  enough for listeners to this podcast to be fully aware or any even remotely aware
• 1:07:42
  that had happened. But the Cleveland Browns have a really good running back by
• 1:07:45
  the name of Nick Chubb who was severely injured. And from time to time
• 1:07:53
  in football there are these catastrophic injuries. Most famously, if you're of my
• 1:07:59
  age, was the Joe Thisman situation which happened against the New York Giants in
• 1:08:03
  the nineteen eighties where on Monday Night football, Lawrence Taylor basically broke Joe Thisman's
• 1:08:12
  leg in half almost off and it was at that time the most grotesque injury
• 1:08:16
  ever seen on national television. It became nationally known, it was seen hundreds
• 1:08:25
  of times on television. I mean, Deisman basically joked about it the rest
• 1:08:30
  of his life, and it was gruesome. And and over the years,
• 1:08:38
  every once in a while there are somewhat similar injuries, and generally what happens
• 1:08:44
  is when it occurs, the broadcast will show a replay and they'll go,
• 1:08:50
  oh, that's horrible, Oh, you know, thoughts and prayers. They
• 1:08:54
  might show it a second time and then they'll say, Okay, that's enough.
• 1:08:59
  You know, we're not going to show that anymore. And I'm fine
• 1:09:01
  with that. I mean, you know that's not censorship. You've you've shown
• 1:09:04
  what has happened. You know, people if they especially in this day and
• 1:09:10
  age, if they have DVR or it's if it's online, they can find
• 1:09:14
  it for themselves if they want to see it. And you know, and
• 1:09:17
  I you know, look, I don't think you have to be someone who
• 1:09:21
  is perverse to at least be curious to know. Okay, well, if
• 1:09:27
  this is going to end this guy season or his career, what actually happened.
• 1:09:30
  I don't think there's anything sick about that. Now, if you'll watch
• 1:09:33
  it a dozen times, maybe you have this shoose. But but I don't
• 1:09:38
  think there's anything wrong with wanting to know what happened. And so this happens
• 1:09:44
  with Nick Chubb, and the broadcast team, Joe Buck and Troy Aigman immediately
• 1:09:51
  immediately say, yeah, we're not going to show that Nick Chubb has been
• 1:09:59
  injured and you don't want to see this, And they showed it on the
• 1:10:02
  big screen in Pittsburgh and the crowd groaned, but we're not going to show
• 1:10:10
  this on national television because it's just too grotesque, and I thought, what
• 1:10:16
  wait a minute. So we're now setting a new rule here where if somebody
• 1:10:24
  in the production truck or an announcer decides that we're not going to show something
• 1:10:30
  because I've decided that it's too gross for adults to see, even with viewer
• 1:10:35
  discretion, that we're not going to do it. We're just gonna censorate ourselves.
• 1:10:41
  We're not going to show this. And there's so many elements of this
• 1:10:45
  that are troubling in my brain. One because I think that censorship is a
• 1:10:48
  very very slippery slope. And you know, as soon as you set the
• 1:10:54
  precedent, and we saw this during COVID, you set the precedent that you
• 1:10:59
  know, we are not going to talk about something and you're not allowed to
• 1:11:01
  show something. Once you set that as being normalized, then look out,
• 1:11:09
  because then these people are going to decide that they can make these kind of
• 1:11:12
  judgment calls on all sorts of things up. Nope, that the public can't
• 1:11:15
  handle this. We're going to prevent you from from this information or this piece
• 1:11:19
  of video or whatever it is. So that that was the first part going
• 1:11:24
  through my brain. But the second part of this was these are the viewers
• 1:11:32
  of this broadcast have all tuned in, I mean in twenty to twenty three,
• 1:11:38
  where there's a thousand television channels, I mean, where it's difficult to
• 1:11:41
  sometimes even find what you're looking for. You don't get accidental viewers anymore.
• 1:11:47
  Everyone viewing this game has tuned in to watch an NFL football game. So
• 1:11:55
  it's not like you're going to have five year old kids late at night,
• 1:11:59
  you know, channel surfing and all of a sudden see Nick chubbs leg bend
• 1:12:05
  in a way that it shouldn't have bent. So to me, it's like
• 1:12:12
  we're living in this fantasy world where the audience should be treated as children when
• 1:12:18
  they all understand and all of sought out what an NFL football game is.
• 1:12:25
  And part of when an NFL football game used to be was a situation where
• 1:12:30
  players were engaging in a significant amount of risk to try to get a reward.
• 1:12:34
  And that was part of what made the game very compelling was this there
• 1:12:40
  was always an inherent risk and every time you went on the field, it
• 1:12:43
  could be the last time you're on the field. Essentially, it's the modern
• 1:12:47
  version of gladiators. It used to be. Now, maybe that was too
• 1:12:51
  dangerous at a certain point in time. But, as is always the case
• 1:12:55
  with anything that has a pendulum effect, I think we've gone too far in
• 1:13:00
  the other direction, where now we're going to have broadcast outlets openly censor and
• 1:13:05
  be proud of it. No, by the way, get praised for it.
• 1:13:10
  This was the part that really bothered me because there was no question this
• 1:13:16
  was a new standard that they were setting. To my knowledge, this had
• 1:13:21
  never been done before. Maybe it had been, but I had never seen
• 1:13:25
  it before. And it got enough media coverage that indicated to me that people
• 1:13:29
  were seeing it for what it was, a new rule that if we decide
• 1:13:33
  something is just too much for you to handle, we're not gonna show it.
• 1:13:39
  And that issue got largely praised, and when I raised it on Twitter,
• 1:13:45
  I got attacked viciously. Now that doesn't mean anything, you know,
• 1:13:51
  that's the way Twitter is. I'm a big boy. I can handle it.
• 1:13:55
  But I find that amazing and fascinating that me simply saying, hey,
• 1:13:59
  look, you know, we shouldn't be censoring this. There's a thing called
• 1:14:04
  viewer discretion. That's the way these used to work. We used to treat
• 1:14:08
  the audience like adults. Hey, you may want to look away. What
• 1:14:12
  you're about to say is see is pretty grotesque, and then you show it
• 1:14:15
  once, maybe twice, and then that's it. That's all it takes.
• 1:14:19
  But you don't treat the audience like a bunch of babies. But that's what
• 1:14:24
  we've become as a nation. We are incredibly wilsified, we're incredibly soft,
• 1:14:30
  and now you know, even in NFL football games, the broadcast is treating
• 1:14:36
  the audience like a bunch of babies. And maybe that's what we'd become.
• 1:14:41
  Maybe it's appropriate because based upon what I saw is the reaction was, oh
• 1:14:45
  my god, I can't believe anyone would want to see this. If you
• 1:14:48
  want to see this, you're a sicko. No, that's not the issue.
• 1:14:53
  The issue is it's something that happened. It may have ended a significant
• 1:14:58
  NFL player's career. It's not insane to at least want to be able to
• 1:15:04
  see what the hell happened. And so again it seems like a very small
• 1:15:13
  issue. I don't think it is. I think this is very significant because
• 1:15:17
  it's normalizing censorship. And once this is a lot. Again I always say
• 1:15:24
  it's a lot like COVID, where I said the biggest issue in COVID is
• 1:15:28
  we lost control over our own medical decisions. That we seeded as a society,
• 1:15:35
  that society can get to decide what medical decisions and precautions we make under
• 1:15:44
  this idea that somehow it's good for the whole of society. And once we
• 1:15:49
  seeded that, Katie bar the door, it's all over. Well. Similarly,
• 1:15:55
  if we seed to broadcast outlets, even on an NFL football game,
• 1:16:02
  that they get to decide what it's okay for us to see and what it's
• 1:16:05
  not okay for us to see based upon their view of our sensibilities. Where
• 1:16:12
  does that end? Where does that end? I don't see where it does,
• 1:16:17
  and we're normal. Once this becomes normalized and there's no blowback, and
• 1:16:23
  even there's praise for this happening, lookout, there's no going back. And
• 1:16:30
  this is not difficult to connect to the larger issue of what has happened to
• 1:16:34
  football over the last decade or so. There is no question that football itself
• 1:16:41
  has become unbelievably wiscified in comparison to what it was. As I said,
• 1:16:47
  was there a time when football was probably too dangerous? Yes, but now
• 1:16:51
  it has become absurd absurd. It is almost unrecognizable to what it was a
• 1:17:00
  decade or two decades ago with regard to the physicality of it. I am
• 1:17:05
  convinced that eventually the NFL is gonna somehow stop the early Super Bowl highlight films
• 1:17:15
  from being even shown because because it makes the current game looks so weak and
• 1:17:23
  pathetic in comparison to what it used to be. Now, look, the
• 1:17:27
  guys today are much faster and stronger than they ever were before, and you
• 1:17:30
  know, and inevitably you're gonna have injuries like what happened to Nick Chubb,
• 1:17:34
  but the especially when it comes to the quarterbacks, the game has become a
• 1:17:40
  joke. And something has happened already this season that I find to be maybe
• 1:17:46
  more significant than the not showing of the Nick Chubb injury, and that is
• 1:17:51
  that I have noticed that and I've not done a deep study on this,
• 1:17:58
  but this has been based upon, you know, my personal viewing habits,
• 1:18:02
  and I watch a significant amount of football, not nearly as much as I
• 1:18:05
  used to, but based upon what I have seen so far in both this
• 1:18:11
  NFL and college football season, something has happened with regard to the way broadcast
• 1:18:17
  analysts are commenting on roughing the passer penalties. Last season, we were still
• 1:18:26
  in a state where if there was a ridiculous roughing the passer penalty, which
• 1:18:30
  happens very often, where basically if you breathe on the quarterback in the two
• 1:18:36
  aggressive a fashion, they throw a penalty flag on you. When that happened,
• 1:18:42
  especially if it happened to Tom Brady for some reason, because there's a
• 1:18:45
  lot of Brady hate and jealousy and a thought that Brady was more protected by
• 1:18:49
  the referees than anybody else. Whenever that happened, even last year, there
• 1:18:56
  was clear pushback and outrage, and it was often led by the broadcast booth
• 1:19:03
  and usually the color commentator. In fact, it was last year with Troy
• 1:19:09
  Aikman, the same guy who was saying we're not going to show the Nick
• 1:19:13
  Chubb injury, he was the one that somehow got away was saying we've got
• 1:19:17
  to take the dresses off the quarterbacks. And he's a former quarterback, and
• 1:19:23
  I thought he was gonna get canceled for that, but he got away with
• 1:19:26
  it, and I thought, Okay, that's at least a decent sign.
• 1:19:28
  If Troy Agman is allowed to get away. Was saying we got to take
• 1:19:31
  the dresses off the quarterback, especially with all the transgender insanity going on and
• 1:19:36
  the anti PC nature of this, then at least there's hope, because as
• 1:19:42
  long as there's outrage, there's hope. And last year, whenever there was
• 1:19:46
  one of these bogus penalties, it went viral on Twitter. People were incensed
• 1:19:51
  by it. This is a joke. Put flags on the quarterback, you
• 1:19:55
  know, for flag football. That was the reaction. Suddenly this year that's
• 1:20:01
  gone. It seems to me as if a white flag has been waived by
• 1:20:09
  these announcers. And maybe this is conspiratorial, but I don't think this is
• 1:20:13
  a stretch. And maybe it's because the NFL has said knock it off.
• 1:20:17
  And I saw one situation in particular where the Cowboys were playing the Jets,
• 1:20:24
  and within like three or four plays, the Jet scot not one, but
• 1:20:29
  two totally ridiculous romping the passer penalties against Dak Prescott, the quarterback for the
• 1:20:34
  Dallas Cowboys. Utterly ridiculous calls that two years ago would have provoked massive outrage
• 1:20:44
  that this is insane. How can you possibly play defense if these are the
• 1:20:48
  rules when it comes to protecting the quarterback and Tony Romo Jim Nanson, Tony
• 1:20:54
  Romo, by the way, two conservatives. We're doing the broadcast, and
• 1:20:59
  there was barely a mention I think. I think Romo said in reaction to
• 1:21:05
  one of them, this is an interesting call. This is an interesting call,
• 1:21:12
  and it led to it both not just a cowboy touchdown, but a
• 1:21:15
  cowboy two point conversion. And so it was. You know, it was
• 1:21:20
  eight points in this game that were created by ridiculous two of the most ridiculous
• 1:21:27
  roughing the passer penalties I've ever seen. And even Jim Nance and Tony Romo
• 1:21:32
  didn't say anything. And at that point, I'm like, Okay, the
• 1:21:38
  word has come down from Roger Goodell and the NFL commissioner. Knock it off,
• 1:21:44
  guys, this is the new game. You deal with it. I
• 1:21:47
  don't want any more pushback about this. That's my theory, and it sounds
• 1:21:53
  conspiratorial for me, but that's not a conspiracy. That's incredibly easy. That's
• 1:21:57
  the way this thing works. And I've talked a lot about these gigs are
• 1:22:01
  incredibly lucrative and incredibly cushy and incredibly prestigious. No one wants to do anything
• 1:22:08
  to threaten them and if they get word or you know, the way this
• 1:22:12
  would work is Goodell says this to the head of the CBS Sports in this
• 1:22:17
  case with Romo and Nance, hey knock it off and they get the message
• 1:22:23
  down filtered to them. I doubt it came directly from Roger Goodell, but
• 1:22:28
  it based upon what I've seen for the first couple of weeks of the season.
• 1:22:31
  Something has happened, and I reiterate my prediction that within ten years there
• 1:22:41
  will be effectively, effectively no tackling of the quarterback. Within ten years,
• 1:22:47
  the quarterback will be that protected. I don't know if they will go to
• 1:22:51
  flags directly. I think it's actually possible they may. I mean that's you
• 1:22:57
  know, the going to the flag football for the Pro Bowl. I think
• 1:23:00
  it was set a very dangerous subconscious precedent that they're normalizing flag football. But
• 1:23:09
  I think they may create The quarterback has become so important, so integral to
• 1:23:14
  the game, and no one seems to care about traditional football tackling and blocking,
• 1:23:19
  and everyone cares about throwing the football. That's all. It's about.
• 1:23:23
  The quarterbacks of the stars. I think we're going to see a situation,
• 1:23:28
  especially after what happened when Aaron Rodgers, where the quarterback is essentially playing completely
• 1:23:32
  different sport than than what has ever been done in the history of football.
• 1:23:38
  And it's consistent with the entire whussification of America. We are such a bunch
• 1:23:44
  of wussies, are I mean, it's just sad that this country, this
• 1:23:47
  country that was built by real men in such a short amount of time,
• 1:23:54
  has become so unbelievably whussified. And the media has facilitated and in name bold
• 1:24:00
  that. And they don't want to rock the boat because, as using this
• 1:24:03
  example of NFL broadcasters, it's not in their self interest to do so.
• 1:24:08
  It's not in their self interests to do so. Why bother wave the white
• 1:24:13
  flag. This is the new reality. We're just going to go along with
• 1:24:16
  it, and we're going to keep our cushy gigs. Now. There's a
• 1:24:20
  strange connection with regard to the not showing of the Nick Chubb video to a
• 1:24:28
  situation that I referenced in the last episode of the podcast, episode ninety that
• 1:24:32
  occurred last month in Las Vegas, Nevada, where a retired former California police
• 1:24:39
  chief by the name of Andres Propes was horrifically and tragically targeted and killed while
• 1:24:46
  riding his bicycle one morning, and he was killed by a hit and run
• 1:24:51
  driver. Two teenage boys who appeared to be African American stole a car,
• 1:24:59
  got in all in a hit and run accident, kept going, videotaped this
• 1:25:02
  whole thing, and then obviously and clearly targeted this poor man. Never knew,
• 1:25:09
  literally never knew what hit him from behind and knocked him off his bike
• 1:25:15
  and killed him. And at first this was reported as a bike accident,
• 1:25:21
  and then video emerged, And the fact that the video has emerged the way
• 1:25:28
  that it has is so disturbing to me, because they've apprehended the driver of
• 1:25:34
  this car, a seventeen year old kid, but they've not apprehended the guy
• 1:25:39
  who was in the passenger seat who was taking the video on his phone.
• 1:25:45
  And that tells me and I have reason to believe that this is true because
• 1:25:49
  I made a News Nation appearance on this topic, which I'll get to momentarily
• 1:25:56
  on Tuesday night of this week, and I asked News Nation to contact the
• 1:26:02
  Las Vegas the Police Department to get some clarification on how this video became public,
• 1:26:08
  and they got no answers and they just got a you know, a
• 1:26:12
  statement that was actually old from the Las Vegas Police Department, and that tells
• 1:26:17
  me that the way this video became public is very unorthodox. And the best
• 1:26:25
  iiding figure is that since they have not apprehended the person who took the video,
• 1:26:30
  that he must have shared this horrible video with friends, and that someone
• 1:26:36
  in that friend group must have posted the video online and then it went viral,
• 1:26:43
  and it was the video that caused the authorities to realize, holy shit,
• 1:26:46
  this wasn't in an accident, this was actually murder. Because it's very
• 1:26:50
  very clear from the video these kids are targeting this person. They're joking,
• 1:26:57
  hey, let's get him, you know, and they they pick them off
• 1:27:00
  like it's literally a video game. It's one of the worst videos I've ever
• 1:27:03
  seen in my life, and I was kind of a I've been looking for
• 1:27:11
  Okay, how's the media going to handle this, because I'm assuming the left
• 1:27:14
  wing media is not going to do anything on this because this doesn't help them.
• 1:27:17
  I mean, you know, the victim here is white, the kids
• 1:27:19
  are black, and you know, this is very an inconvenient narrative for them.
• 1:27:26
  If the races were reversed, every American would know Probe's name because this
• 1:27:30
  would be a teaching moment and the entire media industrial complex would be talking about,
• 1:27:35
  you know, what's happened to our society and how racist we are,
• 1:27:39
  and that clearly this was done for racial motivations, none of that, because
• 1:27:44
  this is black on white crime, and so therefore we must presume that race
• 1:27:48
  had nothing to do with this. This is just an isolated incident and the
• 1:27:50
  video is too difficult for us to show anyway, so we're just going to
• 1:27:55
  ignore this now. I did expect Fox News Channel to jump on this for
• 1:28:00
  many of the reasons I've already stated, And I was watching Jesse Waters,
• 1:28:04
  and ironically enough, I was watching Jesse Waters because he was doing an interview
• 1:28:09
  with the new jfk assassination witness, Paul Landis. I'll get to that momentarily,
• 1:28:15
  And so I was curious as to how Jesse Waters was going to handle
• 1:28:20
  this story because I was Okay, good, Finally someone on a national scale
• 1:28:25
  is doing this story. It deserves to be talked about because this is an
• 1:28:29
  insane video that is telling us a lot about what's really happening in our culture,
• 1:28:33
  especially among the younger generation and I was stunned that, much like what
• 1:28:40
  happened with Nick Chubb, Jesse Waters did not show the full video and did
• 1:28:45
  not show the critical portion of the video. They stopped the video before the
• 1:28:49
  car hit the bicyclist. Now, and I was miffed, surprised, and
• 1:28:56
  a little bit outraged by this for some of the same reasons that I am
• 1:29:00
  about the Nick Chubb situation. To me, people need to see this video
• 1:29:05
  because without seeing the video, you don't have the same reaction to the situation.
• 1:29:12
  It goes from theoretical to reality. And yes it's difficult to watch,
• 1:29:19
  but when you watch it, you go, oh my god, what has
• 1:29:24
  happened to our society? What is going on here? This is depraved,
• 1:29:30
  There's something broken here, and you can have that reaction without seeing the full
• 1:29:35
  video. So I'll give you a little background here into my appearance on News
• 1:29:42
  Nation, and this will kind of give you an indication of how the sausage
• 1:29:45
  has made in some of these TV shows. As you probably know, I
• 1:29:49
  appear on Dan Abrams show on News Nation about every other week, and I
• 1:29:54
  used to work for Dan Abrams at Media as a senior Columnisty and I have
• 1:29:59
  a mutual respe act. We seem to think somewhat similarly, although he's far
• 1:30:02
  more liberal than I am. I think Dan is I would call him an
• 1:30:06
  extreme moderate, and that's really the kind of the branding of his show and
• 1:30:12
  of the News Nation network. And occasionally I will make a suggestion to Dan,
• 1:30:18
  and I would say most of the time he takes my suggestions. Not
• 1:30:23
  all the time, but most of the time. And so I after I
• 1:30:26
  did episode ninety of the podcast, I send him the information on this Las
• 1:30:31
  Vegas situation, and I said, Dan, this story is perfect for you.
• 1:30:36
  I mean, you know, he's a very big proponent of police.
• 1:30:40
  This is a former California police chief. The video is obviously horrendous. There's
• 1:30:45
  a potential racial element here, there's the media hypocrisy aspect of it. I
• 1:30:50
  think you ought to do the you know, consider doing this on your show.
• 1:30:55
  I did not pitch myself as as the interviewee. I thought there would
• 1:31:00
  be other people who would be better to talk about this than me. But
• 1:31:05
  then I got a message from one of his producers saying, Dan wants to
• 1:31:09
  do your story. I said, well, it's not not my story.
• 1:31:13
  In fact, I don't even need to be a guest, you know,
• 1:31:15
  please, if there's somebody else better, have them do it. And they're
• 1:31:19
  like, no, Dan wants you to do it. So I'm like,
• 1:31:21
  okay, I'll do it. And so we planned to do it on Tuesday
• 1:31:28
  evening, and as we were preparing for the show, I got a text
• 1:31:34
  saying that the producer or a producer at News Nation doesn't want us to run
• 1:31:40
  the video just so you know, you know, we're gonna you know,
• 1:31:43
  I can't remember the exact verbiage of the text, but basically it was giving
• 1:31:45
  me a heads up that that the video wasn't going to be shown in its
• 1:31:50
  totality during the broadcast. I said, well, that's fine, that's your
• 1:31:55
  call, but just so you know, I'm going to make comment on that,
• 1:31:59
  and I'm gonna disagree with it because you know, the implication being that
• 1:32:03
  I don't think I got into all this, But I said, you know,
• 1:32:04
  my argument was you got to see the whole video to fully understand what
• 1:32:10
  happened here, and you know, I'll play nice, but I'm gonna be
• 1:32:14
  critical of the decision not to run the video. And and then then that
• 1:32:19
  issue got dropped. They never got any follow up on that, and so
• 1:32:24
  then, much to my surprise, when we actually did the segment, Dan
• 1:32:29
  ran the full video, actually ran it twice, and I was I was
• 1:32:34
  only mildly surprised because I know Dan, so in my mind, here's what
• 1:32:41
  happened. They probably got into a discussion about, Okay, do we run
• 1:32:47
  the video. The initial reaction from someone in production was no, we can't
• 1:32:51
  run the video. It's too horrific. And then whether it was because of
• 1:32:57
  my text and or Dan himself getting involved, I cannot know, you know
• 1:33:03
  what was related to what, but I don't think it's coincidental that I sent
• 1:33:08
  a text saying that I disagree with this, and I also knew that Dan
• 1:33:12
  would disagree with this, because I know Dan's thinking pretty well. That Dan
• 1:33:15
  must have convinced everybody that we have to run the video. So I made
• 1:33:21
  the appearance. Dan actually gave me credit for being the reason why they were
• 1:33:27
  even doing the subject matter, and then I mentioned that, you know,
• 1:33:30
  I think it's important that you show the whole video because without the whole video
• 1:33:34
  you cannot understand the full impact of just how when saying the story is And
• 1:33:40
  then Dan agreed with me on that and kind of admitted that they had had
• 1:33:44
  a discussion off the air about whether or not to run the video. So
• 1:33:48
  these are this is the way that these kind of decisions get made. And
• 1:33:53
  I think the most important part of this is to show you just how close
• 1:33:58
  we are to this kind of censorship, the censorship that I referenced with regard
• 1:34:04
  to Nick Chubb and then what Fox News Channel did with Jesse Waters, that
• 1:34:09
  this kind of censorship is so close to being normalized. That this is what
• 1:34:15
  it took for News Nation to even run the video while doing a story about
• 1:34:21
  the fact that the news media has been ignoring a video. It took me
• 1:34:29
  who you know, I'm in the top you know, ninety nine point nine
• 1:34:33
  nine percentile when it comes to not giving a damn and telling people what I
• 1:34:40
  really think and not worrying about repercussions. Being on a show with a guy
• 1:34:45
  Dan Abrons who just got his contract at News Nation extended, so you know,
• 1:34:49
  that gives you a lot more credibility and power and people are going to
• 1:34:55
  listen to you when you're just got an extension on your contract and you're in
• 1:34:59
  the prime time I'm slot at News Nation and a guy who strongly believes in
• 1:35:04
  free speech, and who also is willing to stand on principle and was willing
• 1:35:11
  to go to bat within his own production crew and say no, we need
• 1:35:15
  to run the video. That's what it took. That's how close we were
• 1:35:19
  to not running the video. That's the extraordinary circumstances that had to occur for
• 1:35:26
  the video to be run again while doing a story about how a video is
• 1:35:31
  being ignored for political reasons by most of the news media, and to me,
• 1:35:36
  in a weird way, this was an exception that kind of proved the
• 1:35:41
  rule. Because if this is what it's going to take in this day and
• 1:35:44
  age to be able to run this video, I can garin damn tea that
• 1:35:48
  at other news organizations there's not a guest like John Ziegler, and there's not
• 1:35:53
  a host like Dan Abrows who's going to be willing to fight to the mat
• 1:35:58
  for this. To me, I thought was very very profound and telling about
• 1:36:05
  where we are. By the way, with regard to the Jesse Waters thing,
• 1:36:12
  one of the strangest elements of Jesse Waters on Fox News Channel not airing
• 1:36:16
  the horrible video of this biker hit and run in Las Vegas is that later
• 1:36:23
  on in the very same episode of his show, after not showing the props
• 1:36:30
  video in its totality, not showing him being run over by a car and
• 1:36:34
  a hit and run and being murdered, Waters did show President Kennedy's head being
• 1:36:42
  blown off. Now they did blur it slightly, which again, that to
• 1:36:46
  me is new territory. I've not seen that on news programs, at least
• 1:36:53
  in my memory. I mean, we're now blurring out the headshot of John
• 1:36:58
  Kennedy. Now, you could clearly tell what had happened, even especially if
• 1:37:02
  you've seen it before, which most adult Americans have. But it wasn't really
• 1:37:06
  even blurred out that dramatically. But I thought, how bizarre is this?
• 1:37:12
  So Fox News Channel thinks that it's inappropriate even when you can give viewer discretion.
• 1:37:18
  You know that if we're all adults here, hey, you know,
• 1:37:20
  look away if you need to. Even when we can do that, We're
• 1:37:24
  not going to show the video of this poor man being run over on the
• 1:37:29
  side of the road by these asshole teenagers. But we're gonna show the President
• 1:37:34
  United States head being blown off with slight blurring. And I mentioned this to
• 1:37:42
  my wife, I said, how weird is that? And she goes watch.
• 1:37:45
  It makes sense because you know, the Kennedy assassination is white on white
• 1:37:47
  crime. My wife not usually that funny, but that was that was pretty
• 1:37:54
  good. So I guess that does change the rules because it was white on
• 1:38:00
  white crime Oswald and Kennedy. It's okay to show that, But what we
• 1:38:05
  can't show two black teenagers running over a poor white guy who's just riding a
• 1:38:12
  bicycle trying to bind his own business and ending his life and having any idea
• 1:38:16
  what the hell happened to him. Now, speaking of the JFK assassination,
• 1:38:21
  I spent several of the last few episodes talking about this new witness named Paul
• 1:38:28
  Landis, who has come out with a book just short of the sixtieth anniversary
• 1:38:32
  of the assassination, which I am extremely interested in, mainly because his new
• 1:38:40
  information, if true, very much substantiates a theory that I have long had
• 1:38:45
  about the assassination, and that is, and again, I always hesitate to
• 1:38:51
  go down this path because once you do it, there's almost no coming back.
• 1:38:56
  But if you're interested in my full theory, go back and listen to
• 1:39:00
  the last two hours or so of episode number seventy one, because I go
• 1:39:04
  into extraordinary detail about how four decades after researching this case from every possible angle,
• 1:39:13
  I am of the opinion that what really happened here is that there were
• 1:39:17
  three shots fired from Oswald. The first hit John of Kennedy in the back,
• 1:39:23
  fell out at some point and was misidentified as the so called magic bullet
• 1:39:28
  and was miss connected to John Connolly because it was supposedly found on John Connolly's
• 1:39:34
  stretcher at Parkland Hospital. And that's one of the keys to how the Warrant
• 1:39:39
  Commission blew this whole thing. They got the final conclusion correct, which is
• 1:39:43
  that Hartley Harvey Oswald acted alone, but they got the logistics wrong because the
• 1:39:47
  first shot hits Kennedy in the back, the second shot hits Connolly alone,
• 1:39:51
  the third shot blows off Kennedy's head. Three shots. It's all really fairly
• 1:39:57
  simple. And that the reason why the Warrant Commission blew this was because they
• 1:40:02
  thought there wasn't enough time between Kennedy's reaction to being hit the first time and
• 1:40:09
  Connolly's reaction to being hit the first time. And this has always been absurd
• 1:40:15
  to me for a couple of reasons. Number one, I should have mentioned
• 1:40:18
  this previously, but it's one of those things that's so obvious that it slipped
• 1:40:23
  my mind. The Suburto film does not have audio. Okay, if the
• 1:40:28
  Suburto film had audio, all of this would be easily understood and known,
• 1:40:33
  the timing of the shots. But we're trying to determine timing of shots based
• 1:40:39
  upon human reactions, which this just then do not always happen instantaneously and are
• 1:40:45
  not always able to be discerned with one accuracy, because you're trying to interpret
• 1:40:53
  on a grainy, blurry film whether or not someone was hit and when they
• 1:41:00
  were hit with a bullet. And it is my very strong opinion that because
• 1:41:04
  the bullet was an under charge or a misfire and described as a firecracker by
• 1:41:11
  Secret Service agents, that something was wrong with that first shot that had Kennedy
• 1:41:15
  in the back, which is why it only went into his back for a
• 1:41:16
  couple of inches, and that, for all intents and purposes, Kennedy was
• 1:41:20
  hit with a dart. And you can imagine being hit by a dart in
• 1:41:26
  your back, which is one of the least sensitive portions of your body next
• 1:41:30
  to yours near your spinal cord, that you would have potentially a delayed reaction
• 1:41:36
  to that, And I believe that Kennedy had an involuntary neuromuscular reaction where his
• 1:41:44
  elbows went out and his fists became clinched, and it appeared as if he
• 1:41:46
  was grabbing his throat, but he was not. He never comes close to
• 1:41:49
  touching his throat, which is the biggest misconception of the entire assassination that his
• 1:41:55
  reaction is delayed. It only has to be delayed for about a second for
• 1:42:00
  the timing to actually line up perfectly with Oswald firing three shots, first hitting
• 1:42:05
  Kennedy in the back, then hitting Connolly, then hitting Kennedy in the head.
• 1:42:10
  And that's always been my theory, but I could not prove it.
• 1:42:13
  And the biggest problem has always been Exhibit three ninety nine, the so called
• 1:42:17
  pristine magic bullet. Well, this new witness, Paul Landis he has come
• 1:42:25
  forward and written a book out of nowhere after sixty years, saying that he
• 1:42:30
  found the magic bullet and it was not on John Connolly's stretcher. It was
• 1:42:34
  actually in the back seat of the limo where John Kennedy was sitting, and
• 1:42:41
  that he then placed it. And I'm still a little hazy on where exactly
• 1:42:45
  and when exactly he placed the bullet, but he says he placed it on
• 1:42:50
  JF. Kay's stretcher, And you know that part is I still don't understand,
• 1:42:57
  Okay, So then how did it get to the stretcher that was identified
• 1:42:59
  as Anne's And that part may never be knowable. But the most important part
• 1:43:04
  of the story is if Landis is telling the truth, and if his memory
• 1:43:11
  is correct that he picked the bullet out of the backseat of the limo,
• 1:43:15
  that ends the single bullet theory, and it does effectively everything it possibly could
• 1:43:23
  to one hundred percent vindicate my view of what happened, which by the way,
• 1:43:28
  is basically what the FBI said two weeks after the assassination and what Jayaker
• 1:43:33
  Hoover said to President Johnson days after the assassination in a phone call that we
• 1:43:40
  played for you in episode number seventy one. So I have been hoping that
• 1:43:45
  Landis is telling the truth, one because I'd love to be vindicated, and
• 1:43:49
  two because I think it would finally make all the puzzle pieces fit and we
• 1:43:55
  might, on the sixtieth anniversary, finally be able to solve this whole thing
• 1:43:59
  in a way that kills the conspiracy theories, because if you understand what really
• 1:44:02
  happened here, Landis, in my view, disproves a lot of the conspiracy
• 1:44:09
  theories. And he gets this away from this single bullet theory, which has
• 1:44:14
  been really used by people like Joe Rogan and many others to say this,
• 1:44:18
  what the Warrant Commission said can't be true, because there's no way a bullet
• 1:44:21
  could do all this damage in two different people and come out effectively pristine.
• 1:44:28
  Ben just you know, compressed just a little bit, with almost all of
• 1:44:31
  its mass intact. And I've always agreed with that kind of thinking. That
• 1:44:35
  makes no sense. It just doesn't. It's just impossible from a common sense
• 1:44:42
  standpoint that one bullet could do that and not be damaged, especially when you
• 1:44:45
  look at the damage done by the bullet that hit Kennedy in the head.
• 1:44:48
  It broke into two massive chunks, and the pristine bullet is said to have
• 1:44:54
  done or hit many more objects, including many bones and Connolly's body, then
• 1:45:00
  the bullet that hit Kennedy in the head. So I've been very curious as
• 1:45:04
  to how Landis was going to able to endure questioning. You know, the
• 1:45:12
  original New York Times article I thought was very promising and seemed to make him
• 1:45:15
  very credible. In the last episode of this podcast, I played a portion
• 1:45:19
  of an interview that he did with Elizabeth Vargas that had me more concerned because
• 1:45:25
  it didn't seem to jive with what his incentive structure should be for someone who
• 1:45:31
  kept quiet for sixty years. And again, I don't want to get into
• 1:45:34
  all the details, but I explained why I'm starting to lose faith in Landis's
• 1:45:39
  story in episode ninety and one of my questions that I had about how the
• 1:45:45
  bullet possibly could have gotten out of Kennedy's clothes and into the back of the
• 1:45:49
  limo created quite a bit of reaction from listeners to this podcast, which I
• 1:45:54
  want to get to momentarily, but first I want to play the essence of
• 1:45:59
  the interview, the latest interview that Landis did with Jesse Waters, and I
• 1:46:02
  will say I'm a little bit I'm confused by a couple of things from a
• 1:46:06
  media standpoint. I mean, this is a guy who's eighty eight years old.
• 1:46:10
  His book is not out yet, all right. The book does not
• 1:46:14
  come out till October, the sixtieth anniversaries, not to the end of November.
• 1:46:17
  So when the New York Times article came out, I presumed that Landis
• 1:46:23
  wasn't going to do TV interviews at least until the book came out, because
• 1:46:28
  generally you don't want to, you know, spend your fire and you use
• 1:46:34
  your chips up when it comes to doing interviews before a book can even be
• 1:46:40
  purchased. Now I realized the sixtieth anniversary of the assassination is going to create
• 1:46:45
  a lot of publicity, and I'm sure they're thinking he'll be reinterviewed again,
• 1:46:49
  I guess once the anniversary comes around, because this has created a large bit
• 1:46:55
  of news. But it just seems strange to me that he's already doing interviews.
• 1:47:00
  And it's also odd that he's doing interviews with people like Elizabeth Vargas and
• 1:47:03
  Jesse Waters, which I would consider to be the C team, And then
• 1:47:09
  I don't think they're a list or B list when it comes to the major
• 1:47:14
  mainstream news media. I would say that's C list material, And so that
• 1:47:20
  makes me go, what's weird. On the other hand, and this would
• 1:47:26
  be in the realm of things that are positive towards Landis. You know,
• 1:47:30
  he's doing these interviews via satellite in what appears to be a live to tape
• 1:47:39
  format. In other words, the interview is taped as if it is live,
• 1:47:42
  and then they air the essence of the interview as if it's live.
• 1:47:46
  So you have to be a pretty sophisticated viewer, be somebody who's in the
• 1:47:50
  business like I am, who's done the hundreds of these interviews where you can
• 1:47:54
  tell the difference. But at eighty eight years old, for him to be
• 1:47:58
  able to do a satellite interview is kind of amazing because I'm not one hundred
• 1:48:04
  sure our president could do so, I'm being serious about that. I'm not
• 1:48:09
  sure that Joe Biden could do a satellite interview where he's not in the same
• 1:48:15
  room with the interviewer, and you know, there's all sorts of issues related
• 1:48:19
  to that, especially when you're not you know, someone's used to it like
• 1:48:23
  Landis, I'm sure has never done a satellite interview in his life. That
• 1:48:28
  that, you know, I'm not sure Biden could do it without looking like
• 1:48:30
  a fool. Maybe he could, it would depend on, you know,
• 1:48:33
  how much sleep he got that day. But at eighty eight years old,
• 1:48:36
  I've been kind of impressed that Landis has been able to do this. So
• 1:48:42
  I'm still conflicted about, all right, how to make all this work and
• 1:48:46
  whether than one hundred percent believe him. But I wanted to play the Waters
• 1:48:51
  interview because it's short, It's only a few minutes long. With Landis mainly
• 1:48:59
  because it made me feel a little bit better. Again, just the fact
• 1:49:02
  that he's doing these interviews, I think is a strong indication that he clearly
• 1:49:06
  doesn't feel like he has anything to hide, that he wants to answer questions,
• 1:49:12
  and he's not crazy. He comes across as sincere, and so he
• 1:49:18
  passes all the basic tests of credibility. That doesn't mean his story is true,
• 1:49:24
  but each time that he passes one of these interview tests, you can
• 1:49:30
  at least make a stronger and stronger argument that, Okay, he can't possibly
• 1:49:32
  be totally making this up. Maybe the most important part of the interview I'm
• 1:49:39
  about the play for you is not having anything to do with how and where
• 1:49:44
  he found the bullet. That's actually a very small portion of this interview.
• 1:49:47
  And I expected that Jesse Waters was not going to have the amount of knowledge
• 1:49:54
  and information to be able to do a really solid interview. He was actually
• 1:49:58
  a little bit better than I thought, it's clear that he at least researched
• 1:50:01
  it and did get the basic facts right, but he didn't even focus on
• 1:50:06
  the actual finding of the bullet. And so the most important part of this
• 1:50:13
  interview to me is listening to Landis talk about his experience of the assassination as
• 1:50:20
  someone who was a Secret Service agent and who was in the car right behind
• 1:50:26
  Kennedy. Listen carefully to the portion of this very short interview where Landis talks
• 1:50:32
  about his actual witnessing of the assassination and the progression of each shot. And
• 1:50:41
  the most important part of this, and it's a hundred percent consistent with every
• 1:50:45
  other Secret Service agent, is that he associates the first shot with Kennedy reacting.
• 1:50:55
  And I'm convinced that people like Waters don't even understand Dan that the Warren
• 1:51:01
  Commission's conclusion on this was that the first shot missed. That's that's really the
• 1:51:11
  I mean, And I don't believe that. I don't think there's any evidence
• 1:51:13
  to support that, any logic to support that. But the idea that we've
• 1:51:16
  just completely forgotten that the first shot has to miss for the single bullet theory
• 1:51:23
  to work is just beyond me because None of the eyewitness accounts of the Secret
• 1:51:29
  Service agents or of the Conollies themselves is remotely consistent with that, because they
• 1:51:34
  always associate the sound of the first shot with Kennedy reacting. And let's be
• 1:51:41
  clear, if the first shot missed, there would be two and a half
• 1:51:47
  seconds, two and a half seconds from the time people were aware at least,
• 1:51:56
  I'll be kind, maybe it's two seconds if you account for the you
• 1:51:59
  know, the time it takes with a sound to be heard and understood,
• 1:52:01
  So there's at least two seconds from the time people would understand that there was
• 1:52:08
  a shot that's been fired. Two seconds under these circumstances, an incredibly long
• 1:52:12
  period of time, and that a second shot would have to ring out and
• 1:52:17
  then you'd have to see Kennedy's reaction. And that is completely inconsistent with what
• 1:52:24
  Landis is saying, what Clint Hill, the Secret Service agent who hopped on
• 1:52:29
  the back of the limo to try to say Jack you and Nassis said,
• 1:52:32
  what the Connelly said. It's it's just completely absurd based upon the eyewitness account,
• 1:52:41
  So that to me is the most important part of this now. Of
• 1:52:44
  course, Jesse Waters at the end very cryptically tries to get Landis to go
• 1:52:49
  down the conspiracy lane, and at first Landis says, no, he doesn't
• 1:52:55
  believe in a conspiracy, and basically says Lee rvy Oswald, he still thinks
• 1:53:00
  did it himself, which is one consistent with my theory. And then he
• 1:53:03
  gets him to say that the government's not telling the truth, which which,
• 1:53:08
  by the way, I would agree with, because the Warren Commission is the
• 1:53:11
  official government story and that's not the truth because they got it logistically wrong.
• 1:53:15
  Anyway, here is Paul Landis's latest national TV interview, this one with Jesse
• 1:53:19
  Waters on Fox News Channel. Former Secret Service agent Paul Landis joins me,
• 1:53:25
  Now, so, Paul, why did you grab the bullet? Well,
• 1:53:30
  at the time, I was worried that it would disappear and that a souvenir
• 1:53:35
  hunter somebody would pick it up and take it. Why now are you coming
• 1:53:42
  forward after all this time, it just happened. I reached the point where
• 1:53:49
  I had not talked about the bullet, I had not read any of the
• 1:53:57
  I did not read the Warren Commission until four years ago. I just accepted
• 1:54:04
  the fact that whatever they were talking about a magic bullet. I figured they
• 1:54:10
  had to have it right. Nobody ever questioned me, nobody there to call
• 1:54:15
  me over sixty years. Do you believe now that there was another shooter besides
• 1:54:19
  Oswald that day? Not yet? No, nothing, nothing changed my mind
• 1:54:27
  to think that there was another shooter. I heard the first shot, turned
• 1:54:32
  looked over my right shoulder where the sound came from. Turned back, I
• 1:54:38
  looked to President Kennedy. He was leaning slightly to his left, and he
• 1:54:43
  had his arms raised up towards his throat. But I just thought I thought
• 1:54:51
  the first first shot hit him. But I'm quickly scanned around. And then
• 1:55:01
  a few seconds later, this very short period of time, I heard a
• 1:55:08
  second shot. I was still looking at the limo. I saw no reaction.
• 1:55:15
  Everybody seemed to be the same. That Hill was racing ahead to jump
• 1:55:18
  on a president's limo. Just as he got there, there was a third
• 1:55:25
  shot, and the has president's heads exploded and a just a mist of blood
• 1:55:32
  and flesh and brain matter. I ducked as we drove through it. At
• 1:55:38
  that point, we zoomed through the underpass and headed to Parkman Hospital. Do
• 1:55:44
  you think the government's been honest about what happened that day? No, mis
• 1:55:56
  alanis thank you so much for finally coming forward. It's very important to get
• 1:56:00
  the truth out there. That's the only way this country is going to recover
• 1:56:02
  and rebuild from that horrible day. And thank you for telling the story on
• 1:56:08
  Jesse Water's prime time, and thank you for all of your service for many
• 1:56:11
  many years. Thank you, Jesse. I'm pretty sure having me on it.
• 1:56:15
  So after watching Land with Jesse Waters, I felt a little bit better
• 1:56:20
  about his story. I still have the same basic questions I had in episode
• 1:56:26
  ninety that made me think that this might be a fifty fifty proposition. There's
• 1:56:30
  still elements of the story that don't fully make sense. And one of the
• 1:56:33
  things that I expressed as a concern about and got a lot of reaction from
• 1:56:38
  you the listing audience. It's weird what gets reaction. There's certain things I
• 1:56:42
  do on this podcast and I think, oh boy, I'm going to get
• 1:56:44
  a lot of email or messages about that, and I don't. And then
• 1:56:47
  there's other things I do where I get reaction that really surprises me. But
• 1:56:51
  I had to say that when I put out there in episode ninety that I
• 1:56:58
  am now starting to question how it is that a bullet could have possibly been
• 1:57:02
  lodged in Kennedy's back while he's wearing a tucked shirt and have that fall out
• 1:57:10
  into the back of the limo by simply taking his body out of the limousine.
• 1:57:15
  That seems like a really tough cell. That seems really difficult for me
• 1:57:23
  to understand how that happened. I even discussed how I did a very very
• 1:57:28
  rudimentary experiment where I slid a bullet down my back while wearing a tucked shirt
• 1:57:32
  to see what would happen. And you know, sure enough, the bullet
• 1:57:36
  lodged in my belt line. And so if I, you know, if
• 1:57:40
  I was being pulled out of the limousine, you know, limp by Secret
• 1:57:45
  Service agents, the bullet would probably rummage around. It might, you know,
• 1:57:49
  it was going to go anywhere, probably getting go into my underwear.
• 1:57:53
  But there's there's no, no seeming chance that in a very short period of
• 1:57:57
  time the bullet would fall out of the back, which I always had presumed
• 1:58:00
  and happened during CPR in the emergency room while Kennedy's jacket and shirt were off.
• 1:58:06
  That always made sense to me. But the idea that fully clothed this,
• 1:58:12
  uh, you know, bullet could fall out in the back of the
• 1:58:14
  limo. In the very short period of time that you know it took to
• 1:58:17
  get Kennedy's body out of the limo seems like a stretch to me. Well,
• 1:58:23
  I had a lot of people saying, okay, weirdly, they were
• 1:58:26
  kind of trying to bring me back to my own theory, and a lot
• 1:58:30
  of people mentioned to me, John, what about the back brace that Kennedy
• 1:58:33
  was wearing. I should have mentioned that in episode ninety, because Kennedy was
• 1:58:38
  wearing a back brace. In fact, there are people who, with some
• 1:58:42
  logic, believe that it was the back brace that may have ended up causing
• 1:58:46
  Kennedy's death indirectly. He you know, he had Addison's disease, and you
• 1:58:51
  know, he was wearing this basically a girdle, and because of that,
• 1:58:56
  when he got hit in the back, in my view of the first shot,
• 1:59:00
  he doesn't go all the way down. He's basically in a static position.
• 1:59:05
  He slumps over only slightly, and he doesn't duck, now like what
• 1:59:12
  your instincts would be, especially if you weren't enduring an involuntary neuromuscular reaction.
• 1:59:17
  And by the way, you know, maybe I should have mentioned this previously
• 1:59:19
  too. The involuntary neuromuscular reaction also explains why Kennedy doesn't duck into the limousine
• 1:59:29
  right, because if you think you've been shot, you're hearing sounds of gunfire,
• 1:59:32
  the initial human reaction is going to be get the hell down. Kennedy
• 1:59:41
  doesn't do that, and there's two potential reasons. One, he doesn't have
• 1:59:45
  control over his own body because the shot in the back has caused this involuntary
• 1:59:50
  neuromuscular reaction causing his elbows to jet out and his fist to clingch. Plus
• 1:59:56
  he's wearing this girdle, which makes it more difficult for him to move in
• 2:00:00
  that direction. And so there are people who think that that's why he was
• 2:00:03
  still vulnerable to the third shot, because otherwise he would have been down and
• 2:00:10
  invulnerable to being hit. And that's speculation, but I think, you know,
• 2:00:14
  it makes it makes a lot of sense. But anyway, I got
• 2:00:15
  several questions, John, what about the back brace? And I said,
• 2:00:19
  well, the best we can tell from the autopsy sketches and photos is that
• 2:00:25
  the shot in the back, if it's as I believe it to be,
• 2:00:30
  would have been above where the back brace would be, so it's not like
• 2:00:34
  the back brace was keeping the bullet intact. To my recollection, there's no
• 2:00:41
  evidence that the back brace had a hole in it like the shirt and the
• 2:00:44
  jacket did, And so I don't know how the back brace would be relevant
• 2:00:48
  to this issue, because you know, the back brace would essentially be like
• 2:00:53
  the rest of his skin and wouldn't necessarily have any impact over how the bullet
• 2:00:59
  would react once it fell out of his body while he was fully closed.
• 2:01:01
  So the back brace questions I got didn't really move me at all. But
• 2:01:05
  then I got a message on Twitter from a guy who I don't even know.
• 2:01:11
  His name is. His moniker on Twitter is freedom guy misspelled freedom on
• 2:01:17
  purpose, and he made a really interesting point. Again, this is all
• 2:01:23
  theoretical, but I found it worthy of mention, and it's the best explanation
• 2:01:29
  I could possibly imagine. He says to me, when someone hists Kennedy out
• 2:01:35
  of the car, they would place their hands in his armpits, shirt would
• 2:01:42
  become untucked, and anything falling out of his back would not get caught in
• 2:01:46
  the belt line due to the angle his back would be at. That's pretty
• 2:01:55
  dark, guy, It's better than anything else. I've come up with that's
• 2:01:59
  a theoretical explanation. Right there, I can see that happening that would untuck
• 2:02:03
  the shirt, and that action could theoretically dislodge a bullet that was only a
• 2:02:11
  couple of an inch or two in someone's back. That makes some sense.
• 2:02:16
  So now I have a theoretical explanation for how that bullet falls out in the
• 2:02:21
  process of taking Kennedy's body out of the limousine, which would then make it
• 2:02:28
  possible for Landis to pick it up. Because, as Landis says, and
• 2:02:31
  this is true, this is to me maybe the part of his story that's
• 2:02:35
  most credible. Where that limousine was parked and there's video of this film of
• 2:02:41
  this was very vulnerable to basically anyone from the public coming by and taking whatever
• 2:02:48
  they wanted, and so that part of the story rings very, very true.
• 2:02:54
  The part of where he put the bullet on Kennedy's stretcher, I still
• 2:02:58
  have significant questions about, and we're still planning and efforting an interview with Jerald
• 2:03:02
  Posner, the interview with the author of the book Case Clothes, which I
• 2:03:06
  consider to be the most definitive and influential work ever done on the assassination,
• 2:03:13
  although Posner doesn't seem to believe Landis and it is still desperately in my view,
• 2:03:16
  holding on to the single bullet theory. And if Landis is telling the
• 2:03:20
  truth, the single bullet theory is dead. But that does not mean that
• 2:03:25
  there was a conspiracy. Jesse Waters seems to of course, he's a right
• 2:03:29
  wing television host, so conspiracies are what they do. Now. You know,
• 2:03:32
  anything that doesn't fit the conventional narrative, aha, that must be evidence
• 2:03:38
  of a conspiracy. No, if you fully understand the story as I do,
• 2:03:41
  it actually explains exactly in a much simpler fashion, how Lee Harvey Oswald
• 2:03:46
  killed John F. Kennedy as the lone gunment. But obviously this is to
• 2:03:50
  be continued on this podcast. That'll do it for this episode of the podcast,
• 2:03:56
  episode number ninety one of the Death of Journalism. My name is John
• 2:04:00
  Zigler, As is always the case, Thanks so much for listening. Please
• 2:04:01
  remember to subscribe, rate, and review this podcast and share it with others,
• 2:04:05
  especially on social media. If you do so, please tag me and
• 2:04:09
  I'll share your post on Twitter and or Facebook. Until next time, thanks
• 2:04:12
  so much for listening. My name is John Ziggler. This Is the Death
• 2:04:15
  of Journalism podcast