Latest / The Death Of Journalism / Episode Three Hundred Eight: Trump Losing His Grip

Transcript

Episode Three Hundred Eight: Trump Losing His Grip · The Death Of Journalism

0:00
Speaker 1: Welcome to episode 308 of the Death of Journalism podcast.
0:04
Speaker 1: My name is John Ziegler. I'm your host on this
0:06
Speaker 1: week's show. America loses one of our last remaining cultural icons.
0:12
Speaker 1: President Trump makes up with Michael Cohen and is now
0:15
Speaker 1: at war with Tucker Carlson. The Lindsay Clancy child murder
0:20
Speaker 1: case divides the nation. The New York Times loses its
0:24
Speaker 1: first defamation case in half a century. The war against
0:28
Speaker 1: traditional football heats up. And our heat wave here in
0:32
Speaker 1: California has me in another hilarious conflict with our school superintendent.
0:39
Speaker 1: We begin this episode of the podcast with the death
0:42
Speaker 1: of cultural icon Dolly Parton, who passed away this week
0:47
Speaker 1: at the age of 80. Now, ordinarily, a celebrity dying
0:52
Speaker 1: at the age of 80, to me, wouldn't necessarily be
0:56
Speaker 1: worthy of leading off the podcast, especially someone who is
1:00
Speaker 1: an apolitical figure, but I believe that the death of
1:04
Speaker 1: Dolly Parton certainly does qualify because I think at least symbolically,
1:09
Speaker 1: this is a very significant event for a lot of
1:12
Speaker 1: different reasons. First of all, she was beloved almost universally,
1:18
Speaker 1: not just in America, but around the world. And she
1:22
Speaker 1: lived a remarkable life, an absolutely amazing life where she
1:28
Speaker 1: was in the public eye in seven different decades. Never
1:35
Speaker 1: really went away. I'm not sure that there's another career
1:40
Speaker 1: that had the same kind of arc that hers did,
1:44
Speaker 1: starting from literally nowhere in the smoky mountains of Tennessee,
1:49
Speaker 1: basically in poverty, and then becoming worth hundreds and hundreds
1:54
Speaker 1: of millions of dollars, doing amazing things in philanthropy, being
1:59
Speaker 1: a musical icon, changing country music, an actor, a businesswoman.
2:08
Speaker 1: I mean, you name it, she did it. And she
2:12
Speaker 1: did it while not causing any animosity, seemingly, among the public,
2:19
Speaker 1: which in this day and age is almost impossible. I
2:23
Speaker 1: think the Babylon Bee, the satirical conservative website probably put
2:28
Speaker 1: it best, when their headline in the aftermath of Dolly
2:32
Speaker 1: Parton's death was, apocalypse draws near as last remaining universally
2:38
Speaker 1: beloved human being passes away. And while that's funny, I
2:44
Speaker 1: think there's a lot of truth to that. I don't
2:46
Speaker 1: know that there's anyone else that qualifies now that Dolly
2:50
Speaker 1: Parton is gone. And I want to broaden this a
2:54
Speaker 1: little bit because everybody has a different reason for why
2:58
Speaker 1: the passing of Dolly Parton was significant to them. For
3:02
Speaker 1: my daughters and my wife, they loved her music. They
3:05
Speaker 1: admired her as a businesswoman. We had her cookies in
3:10
Speaker 1: honor of her last night after dinner. There were just
3:14
Speaker 1: so many different elements of her life that touched people.
3:18
Speaker 1: But to me, as someone who really loves America and
3:22
Speaker 1: loves the 50 States of America, the United States of America,
3:27
Speaker 1: the part of the Dolly Parton story that really hits
3:29
Speaker 1: me and why I'm saddened by her death and the
3:33
Speaker 1: symbolism behind it is that she was as rural as
3:40
Speaker 1: it gets. And I believe that the greatest divide in
3:44
Speaker 1: America today is between urban and rural. I mean, this, this,
3:49
Speaker 1: Dolly Parton was from a background that literally is as
3:54
Speaker 1: rural and as Tennessean as it possibly gets. And she
4:00
Speaker 1: rose to unimaginable stardom and it never went to her head.
4:04
Speaker 1: She never lost who she was. And I think that
4:09
Speaker 1: a lot of what makes this country great is our
4:12
Speaker 1: diversity and what used to be our unity. And Dolly
4:17
Speaker 1: Parton represents maybe the last person who could possibly do
4:23
Speaker 1: what she did without being a divisive figure. Being a
4:28
Speaker 1: rural person who urbanites loved seemingly just as much as
4:34
Speaker 1: people from rural America. And she brought with her rural values,
4:40
Speaker 1: unique to rural America. It's the backbone of this country.
4:46
Speaker 1: It's truly what made us great. And now she's gone.
4:51
Speaker 1: And there's no one to replace her. There's never going
4:53
Speaker 1: to be another Dolly Parton. I talk about this all
4:58
Speaker 1: the time, about how the star system has been completely destroyed.
5:02
Speaker 1: But you're never going to see somebody come from her
5:06
Speaker 1: situation to rise to what she did. It's just not possible.
5:12
Speaker 1: She was literally one of a kind, the last of
5:15
Speaker 1: a kind. And I think from the standpoint of America,
5:20
Speaker 1: that's sad and that's significant because Dolly Parton is representative
5:26
Speaker 1: of what made America great. She rose to extraordinary fame
5:33
Speaker 1: and wealth and she used it for good. And she
5:39
Speaker 1: was never a divisive figure, but she also wasn't afraid
5:44
Speaker 1: to speak her mind. That's the part that was magic
5:47
Speaker 1: about her. It's still possible. Like Caitlin Clark is doing
5:52
Speaker 1: the best she possibly can, just to use her as
5:54
Speaker 1: an example, to not offend anybody. And probably in the
5:59
Speaker 1: course of doing so, she is offending people because they're
6:02
Speaker 1: conservatives that know that she's not really telling the truth.
6:04
Speaker 1: And they're liberals that feel like she's not totally on
6:07
Speaker 1: board with what they want, especially in the WNBA. So
6:14
Speaker 1: that's even difficult in today's day and age. But Dolly
6:17
Speaker 1: Parton never stopped being who she was, but she also
6:21
Speaker 1: was somehow able to navigate a world that was different
6:25
Speaker 1: in her time period. And she kind of got an
6:27
Speaker 1: exemption in older age where people still loved her, despite
6:32
Speaker 1: the fact that she was willing to be outspoken and
6:37
Speaker 1: And not back down from her beliefs while also not
6:41
Speaker 1: being overtly political. But I mean, she clearly wasn't a liberal.
6:44
Speaker 1: That was obvious. But there's not going to be another
6:48
Speaker 1: person that's able to attain that level of universal acceptance
6:54
Speaker 1: and approval and love in America because we're just too divided.
6:59
Speaker 1: We're divided in all sorts of ways. But one of
7:02
Speaker 1: them is rural versus urban. There's so much distrust now.
7:07
Speaker 1: along those lines that you could never possibly have somebody
7:12
Speaker 1: spend six or seven decades in the public spotlight to
7:17
Speaker 1: the degree that Dolly Parton did and not eventually have
7:22
Speaker 1: it result in people feeling badly about them. But somehow
7:27
Speaker 1: Dolly was the last one and she will be missed.
7:32
Speaker 1: She made this country a better place. There'll never be
7:35
Speaker 1: another one like her. And so she deserves all of
7:39
Speaker 1: the accolades and the attention that her death at the
7:42
Speaker 1: age of 80 is getting. And moving on to more
7:48
Speaker 1: of the hard news of the last week, there's been
7:51
Speaker 1: some political developments that I want to talk about. In
7:54
Speaker 1: South Carolina, they held their primary for U.S. Senate to
7:58
Speaker 1: replace Lindsey Graham, who obviously passed away. Not all that
8:04
Speaker 1: dissimilarly with regard to the suddenness of it. although he
8:07
Speaker 1: was a bit younger than Dolly Parton. But his sister,
8:12
Speaker 1: Darlene Graham, won the primary. And she won the primary
8:17
Speaker 1: by a healthy but not overwhelming margin, just a little
8:22
Speaker 1: bit over 50% of the vote. Now, I'm not a
8:26
Speaker 1: big fan of this situation here at all, because replacing
8:31
Speaker 1: Lindsey Graham is going to be almost as difficult as
8:34
Speaker 1: replacing Dolly Parton, not to compare them too much, but
8:39
Speaker 1: Lindsey Graham was also one of a kind. And his sister,
8:43
Speaker 1: we know very little about. What we do know about
8:46
Speaker 1: her does not indicate that she's going to be a
8:49
Speaker 1: Lindsey Graham just because she shares some of his DNA
8:53
Speaker 1: and his last name. That's not going to cut it.
8:58
Speaker 1: And so I'm very concerned that this could end up
9:03
Speaker 1: being a decision that Republicans rue because now that she's elected,
9:10
Speaker 1: there's really not much keeping her in line. What's going
9:14
Speaker 1: to stop her from doing whatever the hell she wants
9:16
Speaker 1: to do other than her obligation to her brother's legacy,
9:20
Speaker 1: which appears to be significant, but we have no idea
9:25
Speaker 1: whether or not that's going to end up controlling her
9:29
Speaker 1: decision-making in circumstances that we have no idea what might
9:34
Speaker 1: come up in the future. So I'm very nervous that
9:39
Speaker 1: we have just replaced in South Carolina the most reliable
9:42
Speaker 1: conservative senator with someone that may not be reliable at all,
9:47
Speaker 1: that we know almost nothing about and has not been
9:49
Speaker 1: tested and could end up being a very weak Republican
9:54
Speaker 1: in one of the last remaining ruby red states of
9:58
Speaker 1: South Carolina. The other part of this that is significant,
10:03
Speaker 1: I think, is the margin of victory, because she did
10:06
Speaker 1: not win an overwhelming victory. She only won by four
10:13
Speaker 1: or five, six points at most. This despite the fact
10:17
Speaker 1: that she had Donald Trump's endorsement. Now, I want to
10:21
Speaker 1: make it clear what my feelings are about the value
10:25
Speaker 1: of a Donald Trump endorsement, because obviously this is going
10:28
Speaker 1: to become incredibly important as we head into the 2028
10:33
Speaker 1: presidential cycle, which will happen 15 minutes after the midterms
10:36
Speaker 1: are over. And I probably have confused some people because
10:42
Speaker 1: I have said that I don't think there's really going
10:45
Speaker 1: to be a Republican race tomorrow. for the presidential nomination
10:49
Speaker 1: in 2028, because I think it's whoever Donald Trump says
10:53
Speaker 1: he wants it to be. But I have also said
10:56
Speaker 1: something that might sound contradictory, which is it's clear that
11:01
Speaker 1: Donald Trump's endorsement is not as valuable, as determinative as
11:08
Speaker 1: it used to be. In fact, it's not even close.
11:11
Speaker 1: And I think the South Carolina race kind of proves that.
11:15
Speaker 1: Where Trump endorsed Graham. She won, but despite being Lindsey
11:20
Speaker 1: Graham's sister and having Donald Trump's endorsement, she didn't win
11:25
Speaker 1: by that much within a Republican primary in South Carolina.
11:30
Speaker 1: That's pretty amazing. And I think there are some signs,
11:34
Speaker 1: and this is not an isolated circumstance. We saw the
11:37
Speaker 1: same thing last week in Florida. I think we're seeing
11:41
Speaker 1: some signs that Donald Trump's grip over Republican primaries, while
11:46
Speaker 1: still strong and still very, very, very difficult to overcome,
11:52
Speaker 1: has absolutely weakened. Now, what that means and how much
11:57
Speaker 1: it has weakened, I'm not 100 percent sure, because obviously
12:00
Speaker 1: I'm someone who's been waiting for 10 years for Donald
12:04
Speaker 1: Trump's grip over the Republican Party that he turned into
12:08
Speaker 1: a cult. to finally weaken. So I'm hesitant to say, okay,
12:12
Speaker 1: this is it. We're seeing the beginning of the end.
12:15
Speaker 1: I don't believe that. But I do believe that we're
12:19
Speaker 1: starting to see the signs of people realizing, at least
12:22
Speaker 1: some people realizing, that the end is near for the
12:26
Speaker 1: Donald Trump presidency and his error. Because after the midterms,
12:32
Speaker 1: especially if Democrats win the House, which it appears they will,
12:35
Speaker 1: I mean, when you have Jared Kushner meeting with Hakeem Jeffries,
12:40
Speaker 1: who would be the next speaker of the House if
12:43
Speaker 1: Democrats win, to negotiate what the future looks like, that's
12:47
Speaker 1: a pretty strong sign that Republicans understand they're going to
12:50
Speaker 1: lose the House of Representatives. And I think there's a
12:53
Speaker 1: darn good chance, I'm not predicting it yet, I'm hoping
12:56
Speaker 1: against hope it doesn't happen, but I think there's a
12:57
Speaker 1: darn good chance that Democrats effectively take the Senate as well.
13:02
Speaker 1: And if that happens, Donald Trump is the lamest, lame
13:06
Speaker 1: duck maybe in the modern history of the presidency. And
13:10
Speaker 1: he's going to have a very miserable two years. And so,
13:16
Speaker 1: you know, the fact that already we're starting to see
13:18
Speaker 1: signs that Trump's grip is not as strong over the
13:21
Speaker 1: Republican base as it used to be, I think is interesting.
13:26
Speaker 1: And I applaud that because I'm someone who for a
13:30
Speaker 1: very long time has been hoping that the Republican Party
13:34
Speaker 1: would stop acting as a MAGA cult. But even with
13:38
Speaker 1: that said, I want to make this very clear. Trump
13:44
Speaker 1: and his endorsement in 2028 doesn't have to be unbeatable
13:50
Speaker 1: to be determinative. I think this is really important. What
13:57
Speaker 1: I mean by this is, let's say that if you're
14:02
Speaker 1: trying to figure out whether or not you're going to
14:05
Speaker 1: run for president and you're you know, Vance Rubio or
14:09
Speaker 1: DeSantis or somebody else. And you feel as if, well,
14:15
Speaker 1: Donald Trump's endorsement is going to be really, really difficult
14:20
Speaker 1: to overcome, if not impossible. You are going to decide
14:26
Speaker 1: not to run unless for some bizarre reason, you feel
14:30
Speaker 1: confident that either you're going to get that endorsement or
14:32
Speaker 1: that endorsement is never going to happen. Now, One of
14:36
Speaker 1: the key parts of this is because of who Trump is,
14:40
Speaker 1: there's no way to have any confidence that you know
14:44
Speaker 1: what Trump is going to do. He could tell you
14:48
Speaker 1: to your face, oh, I'm not going to get involved
14:51
Speaker 1: in the race. You should go ahead and I want
14:53
Speaker 1: to see a good competition. I can totally see that
14:55
Speaker 1: scenario happening. That's not going to mean anything. That's not
15:00
Speaker 1: going to have any impact at all. Once you get
15:03
Speaker 1: into the heat of battle, you know, weeks or months later,
15:06
Speaker 1: Trump could easily change his mind and then you're hung
15:09
Speaker 1: out to dry. So nobody as smart as the people
15:13
Speaker 1: I'm talking about is going to get involved in a
15:17
Speaker 1: massive endeavor, which is what running for president is. A
15:22
Speaker 1: massive endeavor. You're not going to do that. You're not
15:25
Speaker 1: going to raise the gazillions of dollars necessary, create the organization,
15:31
Speaker 1: all based upon something that could go to shit in
15:36
Speaker 1: five minutes if Donald Trump decided he was suddenly going
15:40
Speaker 1: to break his word. You're not going to do that.
15:43
Speaker 1: And so here's my view currently, even post-South Carolina primary,
15:49
Speaker 1: of what the Trump endorsement situation is. I don't think
15:54
Speaker 1: his endorsement would make a particular candidate unbeatable. Like, for instance,
16:01
Speaker 1: if he endorsed J.D. Vance and Marco Rubio decided, you
16:06
Speaker 1: know what, I'm going to run against Vance even though
16:10
Speaker 1: I don't have the president's endorsement and even though he's
16:13
Speaker 1: endorsed J.D. Vance. I think that there is a reasonable
16:17
Speaker 1: chance Rubio could overcome that. I really do. I don't
16:22
Speaker 1: think I'm being naive. I think that we just saw
16:25
Speaker 1: a poll out of New Hampshire. It was a weird poll.
16:28
Speaker 1: It was, you know, younger Republicans and how they feel
16:33
Speaker 1: about Rubio as opposed to Vance. And this was a
16:35
Speaker 1: small sample size, but Rubio absolutely boat raced Vance in
16:39
Speaker 1: New Hampshire. So, I mean, there's an indication that Rubio
16:43
Speaker 1: is more popular than Vance and at least elements of
16:47
Speaker 1: the Republican Party. Of course, that's before a Trump endorsement,
16:50
Speaker 1: but again, I'm presuming that the Trump endorsement is powerful,
16:54
Speaker 1: but not overwhelming. And I think that Rubio could overcome that.
17:00
Speaker 1: In fact, I think there could be a world where
17:02
Speaker 1: if Rubio did overcome it. He'd be in a better
17:06
Speaker 1: position in the general election because he would have created
17:10
Speaker 1: an arm's length distance between himself and Trump. But here's
17:14
Speaker 1: the thing. Even though it's a doable thing to overcome
17:19
Speaker 1: a Trump endorsement of J.D. Vance, Rubio ain't going to
17:24
Speaker 1: do it. No one would be dumb enough to do
17:28
Speaker 1: that because the risk isn't worth the reward. There's not
17:34
Speaker 1: an expectation that you're going to win. Now, what the
17:38
Speaker 1: percentage is, who knows? But the reality is it would
17:42
Speaker 1: have a chilling effect on Rubio deciding to run. It
17:46
Speaker 1: would take balls down to his knees to do that
17:51
Speaker 1: because it could end up in complete and total disaster
17:56
Speaker 1: because all of a sudden people don't want to raise
17:58
Speaker 1: money for you. Everyone's afraid. being part of your organization
18:03
Speaker 1: because no one still wants to get on Trump's bad side.
18:06
Speaker 1: It could end up imploding. You could maybe never even
18:11
Speaker 1: lift off the tarmac. So no one in that position,
18:16
Speaker 1: especially as young as Marco Rubio, is going to do that.
18:21
Speaker 1: So essentially, I think what's going to happen is is
18:26
Speaker 1: that Trump's intentions will be self-fulfilling without ever really being tested. Now,
18:32
Speaker 1: it is possible, it is possible that Trump will start
18:36
Speaker 1: off wanting there to be this great contest, for there
18:40
Speaker 1: to be an apprentice-style competition. But I just don't see
18:45
Speaker 1: how that's going to work. I really don't. Because on
18:49
Speaker 1: a daily basis, Trump is going to be asked multiple
18:53
Speaker 1: times about his view of the status of what's going
18:56
Speaker 1: on with this apprentice competition that he has created between
19:00
Speaker 1: Vance and Rubio and maybe DeSantis or whoever else, Steve Bannon,
19:06
Speaker 1: might get into the race. There's just no way that
19:10
Speaker 1: Donald Trump has the discipline to be able to hold
19:15
Speaker 1: it together for an entire year without giving away what
19:20
Speaker 1: his true intentions are, what his true endorsement is. That
19:24
Speaker 1: will have a massive impact. Now, it won't be as
19:29
Speaker 1: overwhelming as it once might have been, but it would
19:32
Speaker 1: have a huge impact. I just My bottom line is
19:36
Speaker 1: I just don't see how any significant candidate gets into
19:40
Speaker 1: this race unless they're somehow confident that Trump will endorse
19:43
Speaker 1: them because the ramifications are so great if it goes
19:49
Speaker 1: in the other direction. direction. And because there's no reason
19:52
Speaker 1: to have any confidence at all that Trump's position is
19:57
Speaker 1: going to maintain itself. And we have remarkable proof of
20:02
Speaker 1: that in just the last week. Because Look, I understand
20:08
Speaker 1: more than anybody just how desensitized we are to the
20:13
Speaker 1: insanity that is Donald Trump. I believe we are dangerously desensitized.
20:19
Speaker 1: But what we saw in this realm in just the
20:22
Speaker 1: last week is so far off the charts that it's
20:27
Speaker 1: hard for me to even comprehend or describe it. Because
20:31
Speaker 1: within the last week, and I want you to think
20:34
Speaker 1: about this in terms of what this means, for trying
20:38
Speaker 1: to have confidence in what Trump is going to do
20:41
Speaker 1: in 2028 if you're a potential Republican presidential candidate. In
20:45
Speaker 1: just the last week, Donald Trump made up with Michael Cohen.
20:51
Speaker 1: Michael Cohen, his former lawyer, his former fixer, who spent years,
20:57
Speaker 1: years attacking Donald Trump in every way possible. saying some
21:04
Speaker 1: of the worst things about Trump that you can possibly
21:07
Speaker 1: say about another human being, trying to live off the
21:11
Speaker 1: land by giving liberals what they wanted, essentially becoming a
21:18
Speaker 1: human minstrel show by telling liberals horrible things about Donald
21:24
Speaker 1: Trump to a pathetic degree. I remember on multiple occasions
21:30
Speaker 1: going through my For You page on TikTok and seeing
21:33
Speaker 1: Michael Cohen live trying desperately to get liberals to basically
21:43
Speaker 1: support him or give him money or whatever in exchange
21:47
Speaker 1: for him saying awful things about Donald Trump. And this
21:50
Speaker 1: is not an exaggeration. I mean, Cohen did everything he
21:55
Speaker 1: possibly could. to sell out Donald Trump. And look, I mean,
22:01
Speaker 1: at that time, he thought that was his only option.
22:03
Speaker 1: I mean, no one likes Michael Cohen. He was a
22:06
Speaker 1: terrible guy when he was pro-Trump. He was a terrible
22:09
Speaker 1: guy when he was anti-Trump. But you would think if
22:13
Speaker 1: you're Donald Trump and, you know, a guy goes after
22:17
Speaker 1: you when you're not president and then you become president,
22:22
Speaker 1: the last thing you're going to do is fail. publicly
22:26
Speaker 1: forgive him and give him an interview as he's now
22:31
Speaker 1: doing a radio talk show in New York? You're going
22:35
Speaker 1: to give him a live exclusive interview where you have
22:39
Speaker 1: this rapprochement, you have this reconciliation after really not that
22:47
Speaker 1: much of an apology by Cohen? What? How is this possible?
22:54
Speaker 1: To me, it doesn't even make any sense from Trump's perspective.
22:57
Speaker 1: I mean, I've always believed that when it comes to Trump,
23:03
Speaker 1: Trump loves very little more than having someone who was
23:08
Speaker 1: against him become a supporter, especially if they have to
23:13
Speaker 1: grovel a bit. In a weird way, I think he
23:16
Speaker 1: respects that more than someone who was very much in
23:20
Speaker 1: favor of him from the beginning. Like, for instance, just
23:24
Speaker 1: as an example, think about how he treated Jeff Sessions.
23:28
Speaker 1: Jeff Sessions, poor Jeff Sessions. Jeff Sessions, former senator from Alabama,
23:34
Speaker 1: was Trump's first major endorser in 2016. And he gets
23:41
Speaker 1: humiliated and fired as attorney general. And meanwhile, people who
23:48
Speaker 1: shit all over Trump, like a Michael Cohen, are now
23:52
Speaker 1: back in the fold. I mean, it's just so weird.
23:57
Speaker 1: I've often thought of Trump as a mob boss, but
24:01
Speaker 1: to me, this doesn't even make sense within the context
24:04
Speaker 1: of a mob boss, because Tony Soprano would have had
24:08
Speaker 1: a line beyond which Michael Cohen couldn't come back, at
24:12
Speaker 1: least not with both of his legs. I mean, it's
24:16
Speaker 1: just bizarre. And I really don't understand it from a
24:21
Speaker 1: psychological perspective or from the standpoint of what Trump is
24:24
Speaker 1: getting out of this. I don't. I don't know what
24:27
Speaker 1: Trump gets out of this unless somehow Michael Cohen... See,
24:32
Speaker 1: this doesn't make any sense to me. The only scenario
24:34
Speaker 1: that makes a little bit of plausible sense is that
24:39
Speaker 1: does Cohen still have something left that he is holding back?
24:46
Speaker 1: that Trump wants to keep hidden. That doesn't make any
24:49
Speaker 1: sense to me. One, because Cohen would have used it
24:51
Speaker 1: already because Cohen was desperate to come up with something.
24:55
Speaker 1: So if he still had some ammunition in the gun,
24:58
Speaker 1: he would have fired it. Number two, what does Trump
25:01
Speaker 1: care at this point? Trump's termed out as president. So
25:05
Speaker 1: I really don't understand what possible thing Cohen could say
25:10
Speaker 1: that would make Trump at all worried. So I don't
25:14
Speaker 1: get it. But I do find it amazing. And I
25:18
Speaker 1: think it's been highly underrated as a story. I mean,
25:22
Speaker 1: this was basically a two-hour story. I'm like, people, do
25:27
Speaker 1: you not see the significance of this from the standpoint
25:30
Speaker 1: of our president? The president of the United States is
25:33
Speaker 1: so unpredictable and so undisciplined and so erratic that he
25:41
Speaker 1: is now publicly embracing someone who was one of his
25:46
Speaker 1: strongest enemies and doing so for no apparent reason. This
25:52
Speaker 1: is not a stable genius, as Trump once famously referred
25:57
Speaker 1: to himself. So I really don't get that. But what
26:00
Speaker 1: makes it even more remarkable is that almost at exactly
26:04
Speaker 1: the same time that Trump is re-embracing Michael Cohen, he
26:11
Speaker 1: is throwing Tucker Carlson finally and completely under the bus.
26:18
Speaker 1: Now let's go back to late 2023, early 2024. Life
26:24
Speaker 1: comes at you fast in the Trump era. At that time,
26:28
Speaker 1: Michael Cohen... was as much an enemy of Donald Trump
26:32
Speaker 1: as anyone that used to be in his inner circle.
26:35
Speaker 1: Not even close. And at that time, Tucker Carlson, which
26:38
Speaker 1: I said many times on this podcast and elsewhere, was
26:42
Speaker 1: effectively the MVP of Donald Trump's 2024 Republican presidential nomination effort.
26:51
Speaker 1: That without Tucker Carlson, look, Trump probably would have won anyway,
26:55
Speaker 1: but Tucker Carlson paved the way. both before he left
26:59
Speaker 1: Fox and after he left Fox. And I was way
27:03
Speaker 1: ahead of the curve on that, and I was screaming
27:05
Speaker 1: bloody murder about it, and I was texting Tucker that
27:07
Speaker 1: he was making a big mistake on this. And, of course,
27:11
Speaker 1: it turns out I was right in many, many different ways,
27:14
Speaker 1: it looks like. But, you know, that's neither here nor there.
27:18
Speaker 1: What's relevant at this point is that now the guy
27:21
Speaker 1: who was the MVP– Trump's 2024 Republican nomination run for president,
27:29
Speaker 1: Tucker Carlson, is now facing the wrath of Donald Trump
27:33
Speaker 1: at the very same time that he's embracing Michael Cohen.
27:37
Speaker 1: Here's what Trump wrote about Tucker Carlson on Truth Social.
27:42
Speaker 1: This is the president of the United States talking about
27:45
Speaker 1: a guy who was one of his most important supporters
27:50
Speaker 1: during the last presidential election. campaign, at least during the
27:54
Speaker 1: Republican nominating process. Trump wrote, Tucker Carlson just met with
28:00
Speaker 1: lightweight former Congressman Thomas Massey, although Massey is still currently
28:05
Speaker 1: a congressman. He just isn't going to be reelected because
28:08
Speaker 1: he lost his primary. And Marjorie Trader Green, losers all,
28:15
Speaker 1: capital letters, exclamation point. Tucker's views have fallen through the floor.
28:22
Speaker 1: I have no idea if that's true or not, and
28:24
Speaker 1: will only get worse. Nobody cares about him any longer
28:30
Speaker 1: in that he has become totally irrelevant and happens to be, surprisingly,
28:35
Speaker 1: a very low IQ individual. He could barely get out
28:42
Speaker 1: of college and maybe he didn't. What? But only real
28:47
Speaker 1: dumb people can't make it through that wonderful four-year time
28:51
Speaker 1: in life. Exclamation point. Tucker wants to run for political office,
28:58
Speaker 1: but he should be required to take a cognitive test.
29:02
Speaker 1: He's got no chance, but could probably take a couple
29:06
Speaker 1: points away from whatever the Republican ticket happens to be.
29:11
Speaker 1: Tucker is a loser and always has been! Exclamation point. Now,
29:20
Speaker 1: this is the President of the United States, and you know,
29:22
Speaker 1: in any past presidency, going through that bit by bit
29:27
Speaker 1: might be worth something to try to figure out, you know,
29:30
Speaker 1: what the president's thinking is and whether or not it's
29:33
Speaker 1: consistent or not. Of course, this is Donald Trump. So
29:36
Speaker 1: there's really no value in that. But it if you
29:40
Speaker 1: always felt this way about Tucker Carlson, if he was
29:43
Speaker 1: always a loser. Why did you hang out with him
29:46
Speaker 1: so much? Why did you kiss his ass? Why did
29:49
Speaker 1: you do so many interviews with him? Why did you
29:51
Speaker 1: praise him so many times in the past? I mean,
29:54
Speaker 1: this didn't just suddenly happen. You didn't just suddenly realize
29:58
Speaker 1: that he's a low IQ individual and a loser who
30:03
Speaker 1: always has been. This is mostly because I think Tucker
30:07
Speaker 1: Carlson has been against the war in Iran. And obviously
30:11
Speaker 1: Trump has staked his presidency there. with regard to the
30:14
Speaker 1: war in Iran, and that Trump has just had enough.
30:18
Speaker 1: I think the much more important part of this equation
30:22
Speaker 1: is the lack of stability of the president of the
30:25
Speaker 1: United States. That's just a sign. If you have a friend,
30:29
Speaker 1: if you have a friend, think about it this way.
30:31
Speaker 1: If you have a friend who suddenly is making up
30:35
Speaker 1: with people like an ex-wife he just had a horrendous
30:40
Speaker 1: divorce with, And now all of a sudden he's back
30:42
Speaker 1: together with that ex-wife, i.e. Michael Cohen. And he's getting
30:47
Speaker 1: rid of and saying horrible things about people that have
30:51
Speaker 1: been very good friends to him for the last several years.
30:55
Speaker 1: You would be concerned about that friend, would you not?
30:58
Speaker 1: You would be thinking, what's going on? There's something not
31:03
Speaker 1: right here. And look, I'm Tucker Carlson's number one critic
31:07
Speaker 1: when it comes to conservative commentators. I told you a
31:11
Speaker 1: long time ago, Tucker was not to be trusted. But
31:15
Speaker 1: the fact that Trump's arc is happening on a completely
31:19
Speaker 1: different timeline and for totally different reasons, I think puts
31:22
Speaker 1: this in a very different category, especially when you combine
31:25
Speaker 1: it with the fact that he's embracing Michael Cohen at
31:29
Speaker 1: the same time. I And it doesn't get more interesting
31:36
Speaker 1: or more concerning when the person involved is the president
31:39
Speaker 1: of the United States than this. I mean, if you
31:44
Speaker 1: had said, if you had bet a dollar in 2024,
31:47
Speaker 1: that in 2026, Trump's president and he's doing interviews with
31:54
Speaker 1: Michael Cohen. and lambasting Tucker Carlson on social media, you
31:59
Speaker 1: can now collect your at least $ 1 million, maybe $ 2
32:02
Speaker 1: million on that dollar bet. Because there was no chance
32:06
Speaker 1: of that happening. But that's just become routine in the
32:10
Speaker 1: Trump era. It's really quite remarkable. Now, I want to
32:15
Speaker 1: shift gears to updating you on what's going on with
32:19
Speaker 1: a couple of stories in the news, one of which
32:21
Speaker 1: we've talked quite a bit about, The last couple of weeks.
32:24
Speaker 1: And that is the whole Jason Arday aftermath of his suicide.
32:29
Speaker 1: The now former, obviously, Cambridge University professor, the DEI professor,
32:36
Speaker 1: who was essentially a fraud, who was exposed as a
32:40
Speaker 1: fraud and ended up killing himself, I think, because he
32:43
Speaker 1: knew he was a fraud, even though he had every
32:46
Speaker 1: opportunity with a book out to have a massive platform
32:50
Speaker 1: to tell his side of the story. He did not
32:52
Speaker 1: do that. He effectively pled guilty with a suicide. And
32:58
Speaker 1: of course, the left has lost their minds over this.
33:01
Speaker 1: We went through last week all the different ways that
33:04
Speaker 1: the left is pretending that reality is not reality. And
33:09
Speaker 1: they need a piece of meat. They need retribution for this.
33:14
Speaker 1: And they think they have the person that they can
33:18
Speaker 1: harm to make themselves feel better about what Jason Arday
33:22
Speaker 1: did to himself. They love this narrative that the media
33:26
Speaker 1: killed Jason Arday. No, Jason Arday killed himself in a
33:31
Speaker 1: guilty plea because he was a fraud. All the media
33:35
Speaker 1: did was belatedly tell the truth about someone that the
33:38
Speaker 1: left didn't want the truth told about because it exposed
33:42
Speaker 1: so much about their corruption within academia and their view, frankly,
33:47
Speaker 1: of Black people and the soft bigotry of low expectations. Well,
33:52
Speaker 1: the focus that at least some on the left has
33:54
Speaker 1: found for their wrath is a guy by the name
33:57
Speaker 1: of Nathan Kofness, who at least I believe temporarily or
34:03
Speaker 1: at least currently is a professor at Dent University, but
34:08
Speaker 1: has been suspended because of his investigation into Jason Arday. Now,
34:17
Speaker 1: there's nothing that Kovnes did that was wrong. We're living
34:20
Speaker 1: in an upside-down world. He should be praised for what
34:24
Speaker 1: he did. Against all odds and facing all sorts of
34:29
Speaker 1: retribution and investigation and all sorts of hurdles that shouldn't
34:35
Speaker 1: have been there, Kovnes was really the lead guy to
34:40
Speaker 1: expose what Jason Arday was all about. But since we
34:44
Speaker 1: live in an upside down world, he's not being praised,
34:47
Speaker 1: certainly not in academia, he's not being praised. He's being
34:50
Speaker 1: suspended from his job and is under investigation and it's
34:54
Speaker 1: said publicly that he believes he will be fired. Now
34:59
Speaker 1: he hasn't been fired yet. And there's a chance that
35:04
Speaker 1: the United States, and I'm going to give the Trump
35:06
Speaker 1: administration credit here, it's possible that the United States may
35:11
Speaker 1: be playing a role in preventing Kofnes from being fired
35:16
Speaker 1: from his job. Because Ghent University is in Belgium. And
35:21
Speaker 1: the United States ambassador to Belgium took to social media
35:27
Speaker 1: with what I thought was a remarkable and fantastic message
35:32
Speaker 1: from for effectively Ghent University. And I don't know the
35:36
Speaker 1: details of how much leverage we really have in this situation,
35:41
Speaker 1: but just the fact that there was an effort made
35:43
Speaker 1: and oftentimes perception can become reality. And if the Belgium
35:48
Speaker 1: government gets at least a little bit afraid that Trump
35:52
Speaker 1: and his administration are serious about this. Maybe they have
35:56
Speaker 1: the leverage to make sure that Ghent University doesn't actually
35:59
Speaker 1: fire Nathan Kofnes. But this is what the ambassador to
36:03
Speaker 1: Belgium wrote on X. The United States mission to Belgium
36:08
Speaker 1: condemns in the strongest terms Ghent University's retaliation against an
36:14
Speaker 1: American scholar following his accurate whistleblower reporting on academic fraud.
36:20
Speaker 1: The United States government regularly funds and supports research, academic exchanges,
36:26
Speaker 1: and other engagements with overseas universities. Dishonest, corrupt institutions that
36:32
Speaker 1: engage in or reward scapegoating mob behavior are not desirable
36:39
Speaker 1: partners for us. This is particularly true where the purpose
36:44
Speaker 1: and effect of the scapegoating is to punish accurate journalism,
36:49
Speaker 1: unearthing academic dishonesty. We are therefore reviewing any relationships we
36:56
Speaker 1: have with Ghent University. Bad faith ideologues will try to
37:01
Speaker 1: make this a referendum on the content of Kofnes' scholarship
37:06
Speaker 1: or polemic distortions of it. That's wrong. Free speech means
37:12
Speaker 1: that controversial views are protected, and Kofnis's views were known
37:17
Speaker 1: to Ghent University when he was hired. The ultimate purpose
37:21
Speaker 1: of freedom of speech is to overturn lies, fraud, and
37:25
Speaker 1: false ideologies. This is precisely what Kofnis was doing and
37:31
Speaker 1: precisely the reason his home institution wants to silence him.
37:36
Speaker 1: Thank you for your attention to this matter. That was fantastic.
37:40
Speaker 1: That's one of the best things I've seen out of
37:43
Speaker 1: the Trump administration, at least from a symbolic perspective. In
37:46
Speaker 1: a practical world, I have absolutely no idea how much
37:50
Speaker 1: impact that will have. But sometimes just standing up for
37:54
Speaker 1: what is right has meaning and has power, especially when
37:58
Speaker 1: you have the president of the United States, Donald Trump,
38:01
Speaker 1: clearly behind this, even kind of using his language at
38:05
Speaker 1: the end. Thank you for your attention to this matter.
38:07
Speaker 1: It's obvious that Trump signed off on that. And that
38:11
Speaker 1: has got to have at least some power and impact.
38:13
Speaker 1: So I'm hopeful that maybe this situation can be salvaged.
38:18
Speaker 1: But there's no question that the left is in denial
38:21
Speaker 1: about the entire Jason Arday situation. They have largely gotten
38:25
Speaker 1: away with this. The vast majority, I don't know what
38:28
Speaker 1: the percentage is, but the vast majority of Americans have
38:30
Speaker 1: no idea who Jason Arday is. They don't understand the
38:33
Speaker 1: significance of this story. And you know, effectively they've gotten
38:38
Speaker 1: away with it. And now because our day took one
38:40
Speaker 1: for the team and killed himself, the story will go away.
38:44
Speaker 1: It already has for all intents and purposes, whatever investigations
38:48
Speaker 1: there will be into how the hell our day became
38:51
Speaker 1: a prominent professor at Cambridge university are going to be
38:54
Speaker 1: very muted. And by the time they come out, no
38:56
Speaker 1: one's going to give a damn, but I'm at least
38:58
Speaker 1: hopeful that there's not going to be any retribution and
39:02
Speaker 1: damage to a guy like Nathan Kofnes for simply having
39:06
Speaker 1: the audacity and the guts to tell the truth. We'll see.
39:11
Speaker 1: But at least I'm hopeful based upon that statement from
39:14
Speaker 1: the Trump administration. There's a story in America that is
39:20
Speaker 1: getting a lot of attention that, as you listen to this,
39:23
Speaker 1: is probably going to become a major news story because
39:26
Speaker 1: the verdict is likely to occur. If there's going to
39:29
Speaker 1: be a verdict, I'm referring to the Lindsay Clancy case
39:33
Speaker 1: in Massachusetts, which should be going to the jury just
39:38
Speaker 1: as this podcast goes live. So obviously I don't know what,
39:43
Speaker 1: if any verdict there is going to be in this case,
39:46
Speaker 1: if there is a verdict by next week, obviously we'll
39:48
Speaker 1: talk about it. But for those that don't know about
39:51
Speaker 1: the Lindsay Clancy case, which has gotten quite a bit
39:53
Speaker 1: of attention for obvious reasons, this is a woman who
39:57
Speaker 1: is on trial for having killed her three young children.
40:03
Speaker 1: An act that she's admitted to doing. Of course, the
40:08
Speaker 1: fact that she's admitted doing this horrendous act has not impacted, one,
40:15
Speaker 1: the fact that there are seemingly innocent Lots and lots
40:20
Speaker 1: of very liberal women who are extreme supporters of her.
40:26
Speaker 1: In fact, not only has it not stopped them from
40:29
Speaker 1: being supportive of her, they don't even believe that she
40:32
Speaker 1: did it, a lot of them. Which is maybe the
40:34
Speaker 1: most insidious and nefarious element of this whole thing. Essentially
40:40
Speaker 1: what this case has become is a referendum on post-birth abortion.
40:47
Speaker 1: all under the guise of postpartum psychosis. Because, and I've
40:53
Speaker 1: said this for many, many years. I remember 25 years ago,
40:58
Speaker 1: I was on a TV show in Philadelphia talking about
41:00
Speaker 1: this in a similar case. I think maybe it was
41:03
Speaker 1: the Andrea Yates case where I said, this is all,
41:08
Speaker 1: this postpartum depression, psychosis issue really is a buffer for abortion.
41:15
Speaker 1: That's what this is. And no one wanted to believe me,
41:19
Speaker 1: but I think I've been largely vindicated now by the
41:22
Speaker 1: reaction to this Lindsay Clancy case. Because if you can
41:27
Speaker 1: establish that a woman is allowed to kill her young
41:32
Speaker 1: children because of postpartum psychosis, then there's no possible way
41:38
Speaker 1: you can ever really outlaw abortion, right? Because if if
41:42
Speaker 1: kids as young as two, three, four, or five could
41:45
Speaker 1: be killed because of postpartum psychosis, then obviously you're allowed
41:51
Speaker 1: to kill them when they're in the womb. That's a no-brainer.
41:56
Speaker 1: So that's really what's driving the political element of this.
42:00
Speaker 1: There's a couple of things driving the political element, but
42:02
Speaker 1: they're all related. These are liberal women who are extremely
42:08
Speaker 1: pro-abortion and believe that you cannot restrict a mother's right
42:13
Speaker 1: to do whatever the hell she wants with her children,
42:16
Speaker 1: whether they're born or unborn. They probably all have wanted
42:20
Speaker 1: to kill their children at some point, so they feel
42:22
Speaker 1: better about themselves that someone else actually did it, and
42:26
Speaker 1: they want that act to be justified under the excuse
42:31
Speaker 1: of postpartum psychosis. But I think the most significant part
42:36
Speaker 1: of this story is that I think a lot of
42:40
Speaker 1: people are starting to go, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa, wait,
42:42
Speaker 1: wait a minute, hold on. How is it possible that
42:46
Speaker 1: Lindsay Clancy has this level of support? This is beyond
42:51
Speaker 1: just a few nut jobs on a street corner. These
42:56
Speaker 1: are significant numbers of people, both in person and online.
43:03
Speaker 1: And to that, I say, one, I don't think this
43:06
Speaker 1: is a new issue. I think that there are people
43:10
Speaker 1: that are so pro-abortion that they truly believe, whether they
43:14
Speaker 1: will admit it or not, that a mother can be
43:17
Speaker 1: allowed to kill her children even when they're two, three, four,
43:21
Speaker 1: five years old under the correct circumstances. They truly believe that.
43:27
Speaker 1: And again, a lot of this is connected to creating
43:31
Speaker 1: a buffer zone or force field protection around abortion rights.
43:37
Speaker 1: But there's also the social media aspect of this. We
43:41
Speaker 1: are seeing this now on a much more consistent basis,
43:45
Speaker 1: where almost every high-profile killer has a fan base. Sometimes
43:52
Speaker 1: a rabid fan base, like Luigi Mangione, has a fan
43:57
Speaker 1: base because he's a cute young guy. By the way,
44:01
Speaker 1: I didn't talk about that case, but very, very briefly,
44:04
Speaker 1: and maybe I will again when they actually get the sentencing,
44:09
Speaker 1: but he pled guilty to the federal charges. I was
44:13
Speaker 1: stunned that his lawyers wouldn't want to at least test
44:16
Speaker 1: this in front of a jury because you might get
44:19
Speaker 1: one or two chicky babes and fall in love with
44:21
Speaker 1: Luigi Mangione and they don't want to convict. I'm stunned
44:24
Speaker 1: that they didn't go down that path because of the
44:27
Speaker 1: nature of his fan base. But I think their strategy
44:30
Speaker 1: is to make sure that this only remains in federal court,
44:35
Speaker 1: if they can do that, then they're basically one AOC
44:40
Speaker 1: presidency away from a pardon or a commutation. I truly
44:45
Speaker 1: believe that's what the lawyers or Luigi Mangione, what their
44:49
Speaker 1: strategy was. But he had a massive, still has a
44:52
Speaker 1: massive fan base. Carmelo Anthony, The black kid in Texas
44:57
Speaker 1: who killed a boy in cold blood has a fan
45:01
Speaker 1: base because of his race, largely. Karen Reed, another Massachusetts case,
45:07
Speaker 1: a woman I truly believe killed her cop boyfriend and
45:10
Speaker 1: got away with it. She has a massive fan base.
45:13
Speaker 1: Her fan base is why she got acquitted, I believe,
45:16
Speaker 1: because it completely impacted the entire nature of the first
45:20
Speaker 1: trial and the second trial. And now we have Lindsay Clancy.
45:25
Speaker 1: with a huge fan base. And look, I'm willing to
45:31
Speaker 1: believe that our society has changed and that things are
45:34
Speaker 1: getting worse. But I actually believe in this particular circumstance,
45:39
Speaker 1: this is mostly about social media allowing things to grow
45:45
Speaker 1: that in the past never would have gotten traction. In
45:49
Speaker 1: the past, before social media, you might have had people
45:54
Speaker 1: that were really enthusiastic about what Lindsay Clancy did, but
46:00
Speaker 1: they wouldn't have been able to communicate so easily with
46:02
Speaker 1: each other. They wouldn't have been able to organize. They
46:05
Speaker 1: wouldn't have been able to feel better about their belief,
46:11
Speaker 1: knowing that they're not alone. This is why conspiracy theories
46:16
Speaker 1: are now so easily spread in the social media age.
46:22
Speaker 1: I mean, hell, we're about to come up on the
46:24
Speaker 1: 25th anniversary of 9-11. It took years for the 9-11
46:28
Speaker 1: conspiracy nut jobs to really take hold. If 9-11 happened today,
46:34
Speaker 1: it would occur in 16 seconds. It would be 16
46:38
Speaker 1: seconds before the first nut job conspiracy theory went wild online.
46:43
Speaker 1: Because that's the power of social media. It allows nut
46:48
Speaker 1: jobs to feel like they're onto something. and to know
46:52
Speaker 1: that they're not alone, and to feel better about their
46:56
Speaker 1: crazy belief, and to organize with other people, and then
47:00
Speaker 1: to have public gatherings where they can literally see, hey,
47:05
Speaker 1: I'm not alone. And in the Lindsay Clancy case, this
47:09
Speaker 1: has gotten really scary that there are this many women,
47:14
Speaker 1: both in public and apparently in private and on social media,
47:18
Speaker 1: who are willing to openly support This woman, and to
47:22
Speaker 1: be clear, I've not done a huge deep dive on
47:26
Speaker 1: this case, but I've done enough. The evidence is overwhelming
47:30
Speaker 1: that she did not have postpartum psychosis. It didn't even
47:33
Speaker 1: make sense from a timeline perspective. Didn't jive with her actions.
47:40
Speaker 1: This woman killed her three children in cold blood, suffocating
47:45
Speaker 1: them to death. And maybe the worst part of this
47:49
Speaker 1: whole deal, is a huge number of these nut jobs.
47:53
Speaker 1: And I've seen their comments on social media because I've
47:57
Speaker 1: been following the case now. And on TikTok, I'll look
48:00
Speaker 1: in the comments whenever there's a news story on it.
48:03
Speaker 1: And invariably, there are lots of these crazy women who
48:08
Speaker 1: think that the father killed his three young children, which
48:14
Speaker 1: is preposterous to begin with, no evidence to support it.
48:18
Speaker 1: And there's a 911 call that for some reason, and
48:22
Speaker 1: I don't fully understand it, it may have actually been
48:25
Speaker 1: because it's so horrendous that the judge decided that he
48:29
Speaker 1: didn't want the public to hear it, but it was
48:31
Speaker 1: only played in the courtroom. And those that had described
48:35
Speaker 1: the 911 call from the father, who at first did
48:40
Speaker 1: not realize, when he first called, did not realize that
48:44
Speaker 1: his children had been murdered by his wife, And he's
48:49
Speaker 1: startled at first, but then once he realizes, he says,
48:52
Speaker 1: I'm going to go check on the kids. And when
48:55
Speaker 1: he realizes that his kids are all dead and that
48:59
Speaker 1: his wife has murdered them, apparently the 911 call, according
49:05
Speaker 1: to witnesses, is one of the worst things they've ever
49:07
Speaker 1: heard in their lives. In their lives. This exists. It
49:13
Speaker 1: was played in open court. The jury heard it. Apparently
49:16
Speaker 1: the jury was in tears. I would like to believe
49:19
Speaker 1: this makes there be no chance that anyone on that
49:24
Speaker 1: jury is going to think that the father actually did
49:27
Speaker 1: it somehow or that the mom shouldn't be punished for
49:31
Speaker 1: what she did. But there are many, many nut jobs
49:35
Speaker 1: publicly very confidently claiming that no, no, no, Nancy, Lindsay
49:41
Speaker 1: didn't do this. Lindsay Clancy didn't do this. The father
49:45
Speaker 1: did because they fucking hate men. They fucking hate men.
49:49
Speaker 1: And that's what really this is all about. They hate
49:52
Speaker 1: their children. They hate men. And of course, these are
49:56
Speaker 1: all liberals. There's not a conservative woman alive that is
50:01
Speaker 1: supporting Lindsay Clancy. And there's, and I don't know how
50:04
Speaker 1: true it is, but there's even, um, It's gone viral
50:08
Speaker 1: a couple of times, stories of men breaking up with
50:13
Speaker 1: either girlfriends or fiat sales. I don't know if anyone's
50:15
Speaker 1: had their marriage broken up over it yet or not.
50:18
Speaker 1: But men breaking up with women because of that woman's
50:22
Speaker 1: position on the Lindsay Clancy story. Again, it's probably exaggerated
50:27
Speaker 1: for social media, but I could totally see that happening.
50:31
Speaker 1: That's a disqualifier. If you're a supporter of Lindsay Clancy,
50:35
Speaker 1: that's a disqualifier for ever having kids with that person.
50:39
Speaker 1: That's not just a red flag. That's multiple massive red
50:44
Speaker 1: flags of get the hell out of here. Run, Forrest, run.
50:48
Speaker 1: And so I totally get that. So I am hopeful
50:52
Speaker 1: and I do believe that at some point before our
50:56
Speaker 1: next podcast, Lindsay Clancy is going to be convicted of
51:01
Speaker 1: and that the jury is going to see through this
51:03
Speaker 1: bogus excuse defense. But stranger things have happened because obviously
51:08
Speaker 1: you only need one of these nut jobs on the
51:11
Speaker 1: jury to hold out for a mistrial. And that's really
51:15
Speaker 1: the danger of living in this era now, where if
51:19
Speaker 1: you're a high profile murderer, you're going to have a
51:23
Speaker 1: fan base. If you have something even remotely unique about you,
51:27
Speaker 1: you know, Luigi, you're a cute boy. Carmelo, you're a
51:32
Speaker 1: black guy. Karen Reid, I'm not really sure I understand
51:36
Speaker 1: why people gravitated their story, but they did. Mostly women,
51:41
Speaker 1: mostly liberal women. And the same thing with Lindsay Clancy.
51:45
Speaker 1: You're going to have a fan base. And if you
51:47
Speaker 1: have a fan base, that gives you a chance for
51:51
Speaker 1: a mistrial. And a mistrial means delays and bad things
51:56
Speaker 1: can happen. in the judicial system. But I'm still going
52:01
Speaker 1: to remain confident that even in Massachusetts, they're able to
52:05
Speaker 1: convict a woman for killing her three young children when
52:10
Speaker 1: there's no evidence that she had any real excuse for
52:14
Speaker 1: doing that. I want to mention a completely different topic now.
52:20
Speaker 1: It's going on in California. It's gotten a lot of
52:22
Speaker 1: attention online. And obviously, because it's a California issue and
52:26
Speaker 1: it's perceived as a free speech issue, this is right
52:28
Speaker 1: up my alley. I'm referring to the so-called Stop Nick
52:32
Speaker 1: Shirley Act that got passed in California. Nick Shirley is
52:36
Speaker 1: the guy who's become well-known, especially in conservative circles, for
52:39
Speaker 1: exposing welfare fraud across the country, most notably in Minnesota
52:45
Speaker 1: and then in California. And now the California legislature has
52:48
Speaker 1: passed a law that seems... designed to stop or intimidate
52:54
Speaker 1: a Nick Shirley from doing what he did again. Now,
52:58
Speaker 1: to be clear, this is always making me a bit
53:01
Speaker 1: uncomfortable because I'm a truth guy. There's the actual truth.
53:06
Speaker 1: And then there's, you know, the perception of the truth.
53:09
Speaker 1: And then there's, you know, the reality is sometimes in
53:12
Speaker 1: between here. And look, I support in general what Nick
53:16
Speaker 1: Shirley is doing. I have nothing against him, and I'm
53:20
Speaker 1: against this law. This law is ridiculous. But of course,
53:24
Speaker 1: this law is not technically the Stop Nick Shirley Act.
53:29
Speaker 1: In fact, it really doesn't have that much to do
53:32
Speaker 1: directly with freedom of speech or freedom of the press. See, unfortunately,
53:39
Speaker 1: as idiotic as California liberals are at governance— They're really
53:45
Speaker 1: not that dumb when it comes to concocting laws that
53:50
Speaker 1: are right on the line, right on the line of
53:55
Speaker 1: what might be constitutionally acceptable, that will get what they
53:59
Speaker 1: want done. Now, I'm not naive. They want Nick Shirley stopped.
54:04
Speaker 1: That's absolutely the intention of this. But that's not what
54:08
Speaker 1: the law says. This is actually crafted in a fairly
54:13
Speaker 1: conniving fashion. Now, I'm hopeful that because it is being
54:18
Speaker 1: challenged and the DOJ is looking at it, I'm hopeful
54:23
Speaker 1: that this will be knocked down. And sometimes, by the way,
54:26
Speaker 1: California does this on purpose. You know, I mean, the
54:31
Speaker 1: most obvious example was during COVID and Gavin Newsom wanted
54:36
Speaker 1: everyone to know how anti-COVID he was. So he created
54:39
Speaker 1: this ridiculous law about taking away the licenses of doctors
54:45
Speaker 1: who didn't give you the proper recommendations on COVID. I'm paraphrasing.
54:51
Speaker 1: But that eventually got knocked down. But it served his purpose.
54:56
Speaker 1: This hopefully will be knocked down in some sort of
55:00
Speaker 1: court of law. it'll probably take quite a while. In
55:04
Speaker 1: the meantime, it's going to have a chilling effect on
55:07
Speaker 1: anyone doing what Nick Shirley is doing, because the essence
55:10
Speaker 1: of this is about doxing the so-called personal information of
55:14
Speaker 1: immigrant groups, which to me is always a very hazy
55:19
Speaker 1: and frankly bullshit area, because a lot of this information
55:22
Speaker 1: is already public. And how is it that these immigrant
55:26
Speaker 1: groups are getting extra protection from what is called Intent
55:31
Speaker 1: to harass. See, that's the key to this whole boondoggle
55:37
Speaker 1: is that when they write these laws and when you're
55:39
Speaker 1: in California or in a super blue area, they have
55:44
Speaker 1: a huge advantage because they know that the people interpreting
55:49
Speaker 1: the law are on their side and that they're going
55:56
Speaker 1: to understand what the assignment is. And so they put
56:01
Speaker 1: in there, you can't publish any of this information or
56:04
Speaker 1: make public any of this information with an intent to harass.
56:10
Speaker 1: What the fuck does that mean? Intent to harass? Well,
56:15
Speaker 1: this kind of goes back to the Jason Arday situation.
56:18
Speaker 1: Jason Arday, when they were first asking questions about him,
56:22
Speaker 1: got the police involved because he was claiming harassment. Help, help,
56:27
Speaker 1: I'm being harassed. Well, no, a journalist is asking legitimate
56:33
Speaker 1: questions about whether or not you're engaged in fraud. That
56:37
Speaker 1: might be uncomfortable, but that's not harassment. But if you
56:42
Speaker 1: put into the law intent to harass, some liberal is
56:47
Speaker 1: going to look at that and go, oh, this person
56:50
Speaker 1: felt harassed. You publicly published their private information. This is
56:55
Speaker 1: against the law. Doesn't matter if you're a journalist or not.
57:00
Speaker 1: We're going to have to punish you under this law.
57:03
Speaker 1: And the way they get away with it is because
57:07
Speaker 1: we live in a one-party state. They know that those
57:11
Speaker 1: interpreting this are almost certainly going to be on their side.
57:15
Speaker 1: So they understand exactly how to do this. I wish
57:20
Speaker 1: they were as good at governance as they are at
57:24
Speaker 1: creating this kind of bullshit to create a chilling effect.
57:29
Speaker 1: This absolutely has a chilling effect. It's absolutely wrong. It's
57:33
Speaker 1: absolutely intended to do what Nick Shirley and his supporters
57:36
Speaker 1: are claiming. But it doesn't technically say that. And it
57:40
Speaker 1: doesn't have to technically say that because we don't live
57:44
Speaker 1: in a two-party state. In a two-party state, there might
57:48
Speaker 1: be someone else to go, well, wait a minute. That's
57:50
Speaker 1: not harassment. That's journalism. Get out of here. That's not
57:53
Speaker 1: going to happen here. Because... Everyone in charge is on
57:57
Speaker 1: the same team. They're going to get the same memo
58:00
Speaker 1: and they're going to understand the assignment. So I'm against it.
58:06
Speaker 1: But I also do believe that Nick Shirley and his
58:09
Speaker 1: supporters are not really telling you the full story. Frankly,
58:12
Speaker 1: I think the real story is more disturbing than the
58:15
Speaker 1: story that they're telling you about the so-called Stop Nick
58:19
Speaker 1: Shirley Act. There's another topic that deals with freedom of
58:24
Speaker 1: the press, freedom of speech. that I'm at least as
58:28
Speaker 1: upset about, and this will show you how I'm an
58:30
Speaker 1: equal opportunity offender and defender. I'm willing to defend Nick
58:36
Speaker 1: Shirley to a certain degree, but I want the truth
58:38
Speaker 1: to be known about what's really happening there. I also
58:42
Speaker 1: can't stand the New York Times, but I'm generally gonna
58:46
Speaker 1: defend them in a situation where they just lost a
58:51
Speaker 1: defamation lawsuit for the first time in half a century. Now,
58:59
Speaker 1: I'm a big believer that freedom of the press is
59:03
Speaker 1: under attack. The First Amendment is in big trouble. Obviously,
59:08
Speaker 1: the mainstream news media is in peril. And I have
59:13
Speaker 1: been very conflicted about that because I can't stand the
59:15
Speaker 1: New York Times. I loathe the New York Times. But
59:20
Speaker 1: I want the New York Times to exist in a
59:24
Speaker 1: healthy fashion. But I'm not sure that can happen in
59:28
Speaker 1: the world in which we now live. And if this
59:31
Speaker 1: defamation case I'm about to tell you about is any indication,
59:35
Speaker 1: I don't know how the New York Times possibly survives. Basically,
59:39
Speaker 1: here's what happened. A few years ago, there was a
59:43
Speaker 1: situation where a University of Alabama walk-on basketball player was
59:53
Speaker 1: reported to have been in the car during the commission
59:57
Speaker 1: of a serious crime. And he was not accused of
1:00:01
Speaker 1: a crime, but he was reported to have been in
1:00:04
Speaker 1: the car when the crime was committed. And the New
1:00:09
Speaker 1: York Times apparently had a source that said this was true.
1:00:13
Speaker 1: And I think the most underrated part of this story
1:00:16
Speaker 1: is the New York Times asked the kid, or at
1:00:21
Speaker 1: least somebody asked the kid, whether or not they were
1:00:24
Speaker 1: in the car. And the kid said no comment. Now,
1:00:31
Speaker 1: to me, I totally understand why the New York Times
1:00:37
Speaker 1: decided to report something that turned out not to be true.
1:00:42
Speaker 1: They had a source that they believed was credible, and
1:00:48
Speaker 1: they had a non-denial from the kid. Now, I totally
1:00:52
Speaker 1: understand why the kid in a panic says no comment
1:00:54
Speaker 1: because he's being told to say no comment. But had
1:00:57
Speaker 1: the kid simply said, I wasn't there, which is the truth,
1:01:03
Speaker 1: I have a pretty strong level of confidence the New
1:01:05
Speaker 1: York Times never would have published that, or at the
1:01:07
Speaker 1: very least would have put the brakes on it. But
1:01:11
Speaker 1: the New York Times published it, and they didn't retract
1:01:15
Speaker 1: it until there was a lawsuit by this kid, this
1:01:20
Speaker 1: Alabama walk-on basketball player, against the New York Times. Now,
1:01:25
Speaker 1: in the New York Times defense, and I don't know
1:01:28
Speaker 1: this for a fact, but it makes sense that that
1:01:32
Speaker 1: lawsuit probably provided the New York Times with a lot
1:01:36
Speaker 1: more information than they had when they made the decision
1:01:39
Speaker 1: to claim that the kid was in the car. And
1:01:42
Speaker 1: at that point, they retracted the story because apparently the
1:01:45
Speaker 1: kid was in the vicinity, but he was not in
1:01:47
Speaker 1: the car and there was proof to that. Okay, fine.
1:01:51
Speaker 1: The New York Times made a mistake and I'm not
1:01:53
Speaker 1: defending that. I'm explaining it, but I'm also saying more
1:01:58
Speaker 1: concerned than the mistake. I'm concerned about what damage was
1:02:03
Speaker 1: done here, why it is that an Alabama jury, who
1:02:07
Speaker 1: clearly hates the New York Times and has sympathy for
1:02:10
Speaker 1: the local kid, decided to hit the New York Times
1:02:14
Speaker 1: with almost $ 10 million in damages, almost all of them punitive.
1:02:21
Speaker 1: Almost $ 10 million. for an erroneous report that did not
1:02:27
Speaker 1: accuse this kid of a crime that ended up getting retracted. Now,
1:02:34
Speaker 1: there's so many, I think, interesting legal aspects of this case.
1:02:38
Speaker 1: Like for instance, one of the key parts of this
1:02:41
Speaker 1: case is, is a walk-on basketball player from the University
1:02:45
Speaker 1: of Alabama a public figure or not? That's really key.
1:02:51
Speaker 1: Because if he's a public figure, then he has no
1:02:55
Speaker 1: case because the standard is that the New York Times
1:02:59
Speaker 1: has to know what they were reporting was false. And
1:03:04
Speaker 1: there's no way, there's no evidence that they knew what
1:03:06
Speaker 1: they were reporting was false. They just made a mistake.
1:03:10
Speaker 1: That is protected very clearly under the First Amendment. But
1:03:15
Speaker 1: for the purposes of this case, the judge ruled that
1:03:18
Speaker 1: he is not a public figure. And I'm not sure
1:03:22
Speaker 1: that's true. I mean, I have been sued in a
1:03:27
Speaker 1: very high profile trial for defamation as a public figure.
1:03:30
Speaker 1: So I have a pretty good level of knowledge of this.
1:03:33
Speaker 1: If I'm the New York Times on my appeal, that's
1:03:37
Speaker 1: one of the first things I'm going after is that
1:03:41
Speaker 1: the definition of public figure is very, very low. And
1:03:46
Speaker 1: it needs to be very, very low. Also, there's the
1:03:50
Speaker 1: issue of the event itself being a matter of public interest,
1:03:56
Speaker 1: which effectively puts everyone even tangentially involved as a de
1:04:02
Speaker 1: facto public figure. So I think that the judge made
1:04:06
Speaker 1: a very, very questionable ruling here with regard to what
1:04:10
Speaker 1: the standards were and whether or not actual malice was applied.
1:04:15
Speaker 1: But I think the biggest problem is the level of
1:04:18
Speaker 1: damages here. This is ridiculous. I talk all the time
1:04:22
Speaker 1: about how juries, especially liberal juries, but in this case,
1:04:25
Speaker 1: obviously a conservative jury in Alabama, have lost their fucking minds.
1:04:31
Speaker 1: They have no concept of what the ramifications are when
1:04:36
Speaker 1: you provide these kind of damages in a case like this.
1:04:41
Speaker 1: They think the New York Times is made of money
1:04:44
Speaker 1: and it doesn't matter. There's no negative implications for this.
1:04:49
Speaker 1: We're making this poor kid whole because he suffered some damage.
1:04:53
Speaker 1: I have no problem believing the kid suffered some damage,
1:04:58
Speaker 1: but it was very minimal. The damage to this kid's reputation,
1:05:02
Speaker 1: whose name you don't know, and I'm not mentioning it,
1:05:05
Speaker 1: mainly because I don't think it's that relevant, but you
1:05:08
Speaker 1: don't know the name. Yes, is there a chance that
1:05:13
Speaker 1: when he applies for a job somewhere that his name
1:05:16
Speaker 1: could come up in a Google search? having been somewhat
1:05:21
Speaker 1: related to this crime? Yeah, but there's a retraction there
1:05:26
Speaker 1: from the New York Times. Now, other outlets picked it up.
1:05:29
Speaker 1: I get it. I'm not sure why they aren't liable
1:05:34
Speaker 1: for this like the New York Times is. But the
1:05:36
Speaker 1: New York Times, that was the source of the original story.
1:05:41
Speaker 1: But the level of damage here was exceedingly small. Exceedingly small.
1:05:47
Speaker 1: I mean- I always go back, because obviously you always
1:05:51
Speaker 1: use your personal experiences. My mother was killed by a
1:05:55
Speaker 1: truck driver in a car accident in 1994, instantaneously. So
1:06:01
Speaker 1: we had a wrongful death lawsuit, open and shut. Now,
1:06:06
Speaker 1: the rules for wrongful death are, in my opinion, weird.
1:06:09
Speaker 1: A lot of it has to do with how much
1:06:10
Speaker 1: you suffered and how much money you would have been
1:06:13
Speaker 1: worth if you lived and all that kind of stuff.
1:06:16
Speaker 1: And there's no good way to do it. But, and
1:06:19
Speaker 1: I realized 1994, 95 was a long time ago, but
1:06:24
Speaker 1: I don't remember the exact amount, but the entire value
1:06:27
Speaker 1: of my mother's life was several hundred thousand dollars. I
1:06:33
Speaker 1: don't even remember how much we got after attorneys fees
1:06:35
Speaker 1: and everything else. It was way under a million dollars.
1:06:39
Speaker 1: That was death, death. Now, now a minor hit, to
1:06:47
Speaker 1: reputation that got retracted is for somebody that's an unknown person,
1:06:53
Speaker 1: a walk-on basketball player at the University of Alabama, is
1:06:58
Speaker 1: worth almost $ 10 million? You got to be fucking kidding me.
1:07:03
Speaker 1: And I have no doubt that anti-New York Times bias
1:07:08
Speaker 1: was a huge part of what this Alabama jury decided
1:07:12
Speaker 1: to do. Now, Hopefully, this is going to be reduced
1:07:16
Speaker 1: on appeal. But if this holds, even a little bit,
1:07:21
Speaker 1: this is a massive problem for the news media. And
1:07:25
Speaker 1: I've been worried about this for a very long time,
1:07:27
Speaker 1: ever since I wrote the book, The Death of Free Speech,
1:07:30
Speaker 1: that real human beings, like people that are on juries
1:07:34
Speaker 1: in Alabama, simply do not understand the First Amendment. They
1:07:39
Speaker 1: do not understand freedom of speech and freedom of the press.
1:07:43
Speaker 1: and that sometimes bad things are going to happen. But
1:07:49
Speaker 1: you need to allow that to happen. Otherwise, even worse
1:07:54
Speaker 1: stuff is going to occur because we're not going to
1:07:57
Speaker 1: have any free press because a free press cannot exist
1:08:03
Speaker 1: under those circumstances. I mean, think about it. The mind boggles, right?
1:08:08
Speaker 1: If this case holds and becomes the standard for the future,
1:08:15
Speaker 1: I mean, you can easily see situations where people who
1:08:21
Speaker 1: are not public figures manipulate circumstances where something is reported
1:08:26
Speaker 1: incorrectly about them so that they can then sue for damages.
1:08:31
Speaker 1: I mean, that's not a stretch at all. But more importantly,
1:08:35
Speaker 1: the chilling effect, the amount of time and resources that
1:08:43
Speaker 1: it would take to report on anything without fear of
1:08:48
Speaker 1: being sued would be so enormous that it would make
1:08:55
Speaker 1: running a news organization basically impossible. Impossible. The New York
1:09:03
Speaker 1: Times had a source and they had a no comment
1:09:08
Speaker 1: from the kid and they were not accusing him of
1:09:11
Speaker 1: a crime. And again, I can't stand the New York
1:09:15
Speaker 1: Times and I have empathy for the kid. I don't
1:09:18
Speaker 1: think the kid did anything wrong. But let's be clear,
1:09:22
Speaker 1: right now, this is the greatest thing that ever happened
1:09:23
Speaker 1: to the kid. I mean, that kid made more out
1:09:28
Speaker 1: of his University of Alabama basketball experience than probably any
1:09:33
Speaker 1: of his teammates ever dreamed of, even after attorney's fees.
1:09:37
Speaker 1: So let's not lose sight of that. But the First
1:09:41
Speaker 1: Amendment is in big trouble. Freedom of speech, freedom of
1:09:44
Speaker 1: the press, and the mainstream news media, the legacy media,
1:09:48
Speaker 1: which already has a broken business model, is in big,
1:09:51
Speaker 1: big trouble, especially if a case like this is allowed
1:09:54
Speaker 1: to stand. Thanks for listening to today's free drop of
1:09:58
Speaker 1: the abbreviated show. If you're interested in listening to the
1:10:01
Speaker 1: entire show, you must become a patron. Please go to Patreon.
1:10:07
Speaker 1: That's P-A-T-R-E-O-N dot com. Patreon dot com slash The Death
1:10:15
Speaker 1: of Journalism with John Ziegler. My name is J-O-H-N-Z-I-E-G-L-E-R. That's patreon.com
1:10:24
Speaker 1: slash the death of journalism with John Ziegler. Good luck
1:10:30
Speaker 1: to you on that. But that's how you can subscribe.