Latest / The Death Of Journalism / Episode Two Hundred Ninety One: Living in The Simulation

Transcript

Episode Two Hundred Ninety One: Living in The Simulation · The Death Of Journalism

0:00
Speaker 1: Welcome to episode two hundred and ninety one of the
0:02
Speaker 1: Death of Journalism podcast. My name is John Zigler. I'm
0:06
Speaker 1: your host on today's show. A third assassination attempt against
0:09
Speaker 1: President Trump, and this time the news media is directly involved.
0:14
Speaker 1: Jimmy Kimmel is back in the news as the FCC
0:17
Speaker 1: goes after ABC owned stations after a failed joke of his.
0:22
Speaker 1: The Diana Russini Mike Rabels scandal reignites and now drags
0:27
Speaker 1: in ESPN, leading an epidemic of affair stories in sports,
0:33
Speaker 1: and there is yet another gambling scandal in college athletics.
0:40
Speaker 1: Believe it or not, we are still, at least theoretically
0:43
Speaker 1: at war in Iran that appears to be at an impasse,
0:47
Speaker 1: a very tentative cease fire with no real end or
0:51
Speaker 1: resolution to the war in sight, despite promises from President Trump.
0:56
Speaker 1: But we have so much news over the last week
1:00
Speaker 1: that we've literally forgotten that we are at war with Iron.
1:03
Speaker 1: So I'm going to forget it for this episode of
1:06
Speaker 1: the podcast to move on to all the remarkable things
1:09
Speaker 1: that have happened over the last seven days. The most prominent,
1:13
Speaker 1: of course, was the shooting that somehow resulted in no
1:17
Speaker 1: major injuries at the White House correspondence dinner that appeared
1:23
Speaker 1: to have targeted President Trump and other members of his administration.
1:29
Speaker 1: This whole episode provided great evidence that we are actually
1:33
Speaker 1: living in a simulation, because only in a simulation could
1:39
Speaker 1: the President of the United States be sitting at a
1:42
Speaker 1: dais with his wife talking to Oz Perlman, the mentalist,
1:49
Speaker 1: who was doing some sort of mental trick hocus pocus
1:55
Speaker 1: that he does remarkable stuff that no one can really
1:58
Speaker 1: truly understand how he pulls it off. And in the
2:01
Speaker 1: midst of having Oz proman blow their minds the people
2:07
Speaker 1: that he was talking to Donald Trump, Milania and Trump
2:10
Speaker 1: and others on the dais, a shooting just outside of
2:14
Speaker 1: the room where the dinner was to take place occurred,
2:18
Speaker 1: where a deranged, lunatic liberal from California was trying to
2:24
Speaker 1: take out as many people as he could. Thankfully, he
2:29
Speaker 1: failed spectacularly, and amazingly he was apprehended without being harmed himself.
2:35
Speaker 1: I mean, it's just absolutely astonishing that someone could go
2:40
Speaker 1: on a full blown Kamikazi attack on a place where
2:45
Speaker 1: that many prominent people were, where there's that much security,
2:49
Speaker 1: and not only does he kill nobody doesn't come close,
2:52
Speaker 1: apparently to killing anybody, but he doesn't get harmed himself,
2:57
Speaker 1: and so I guess that's good news. But it's just amazing.
3:01
Speaker 1: It's astonishing to me that no one got seriously hurt
3:05
Speaker 1: in this attack. Now that's only one of many, many
3:07
Speaker 1: elements of the story that are worthy of mention. Of course,
3:12
Speaker 1: it's important to point out that this was supposed to
3:14
Speaker 1: be the rebirth of the White House Correspondence Dinner. Donald
3:18
Speaker 1: Trump had agreed to attend this year after not doing
3:22
Speaker 1: so last year. The entire situation the White House Correspondence
3:27
Speaker 1: Dinner was effectively on life support. Trump had essentially, for
3:32
Speaker 1: all intentsive purposes, deflated it as a major event because
3:36
Speaker 1: with the President's not there, it loses a lot of
3:38
Speaker 1: its bizaz. This had been a long time tradition where
3:42
Speaker 1: the president gets skewered and the president takes his shots
3:45
Speaker 1: at the press, and it's meant to be a fun,
3:49
Speaker 1: unifying event, which we can't have in America anymore because
3:52
Speaker 1: we're so divided. But this was supposed to be a
3:55
Speaker 1: turning of the page. This was Trump basically going back
3:59
Speaker 1: to a previous tradition. He seemed to be enthusiastic about it,
4:03
Speaker 1: adding to the simulation feel this whole thing. Carolyn Levitt,
4:08
Speaker 1: the White House Press Secretary, promoted this event by saying
4:13
Speaker 1: that there would be shots fired. You can't even make
4:15
Speaker 1: this up. The Press secretary say there will be shots fired.
4:19
Speaker 1: And then there literally were shots fired by this person
4:23
Speaker 1: who was apparently trying to assassinate Donald Trump and other
4:27
Speaker 1: people that were there who were members of the Trump administration.
4:32
Speaker 1: And so this happens. And I have to say that
4:36
Speaker 1: Donald Trump, from what I can tell, handle this whole
4:40
Speaker 1: circumstance about as well as anybody could. Now you might
4:43
Speaker 1: argue he's experienced this now, this being the third assassination
4:47
Speaker 1: attempt against him, but his first instinct was to get
4:53
Speaker 1: back into the room and not let this asshole ruin it.
4:58
Speaker 1: I mean, that's the last thing you want to do
5:00
Speaker 1: is have the terrorists, in this case an obvious terrorist attack.
5:05
Speaker 1: You don't want to have the terrorist win. And part
5:08
Speaker 1: of the way they win is by theoretically killing people
5:12
Speaker 1: or hurting people badly, or by at least canceling the
5:17
Speaker 1: event and Trump to go on. In fact, the initial
5:20
Speaker 1: reports were that it was going to go back on.
5:24
Speaker 1: It was announced that they were gonna still have this event,
5:27
Speaker 1: which I would always be in favor of. I mean,
5:29
Speaker 1: I can't stand cancelations. I can't stand postponements. I think
5:34
Speaker 1: we're living in cancelation nation. But it's understandable why if
5:38
Speaker 1: there's a shooting just outside the room where the dinner
5:42
Speaker 1: is taking place, that you might want to postpone it.
5:46
Speaker 1: And at first I was confused as to why that
5:49
Speaker 1: might be the case, and then I thought about it
5:52
Speaker 1: some more, and it's really pretty obvious. And this appears
5:54
Speaker 1: to have been the argument with Trump that carried the
5:58
Speaker 1: day because Trump wanted to go back in and I've
6:00
Speaker 1: applaud that instinct for him to do that. That was
6:03
Speaker 1: the right idea in an ideal world. But if you
6:06
Speaker 1: think about this logically, you can't do that from a
6:09
Speaker 1: security perspective, because it would create a circumstance where the
6:14
Speaker 1: ideal plan, if you really wanted to succeed in taking
6:18
Speaker 1: out Trump or anybody else in this kind of a situation,
6:22
Speaker 1: is that you have a two tiered attack. In other words,
6:25
Speaker 1: you have somebody to the initial attack. It causes all
6:29
Speaker 1: sorts of chaos and confusion, and in the midst of
6:32
Speaker 1: the chaos and confusion, you're able to get somebody else
6:36
Speaker 1: into the room undetected, because the reality would be that
6:41
Speaker 1: they would have had to empty the room completely, redo
6:44
Speaker 1: all the security protocols, and by the time you do that,
6:48
Speaker 1: it's probably too late in the night to do it securely.
6:51
Speaker 1: So I understand the logic of why they couldn't continue
6:55
Speaker 1: with the event, But I do think that that Trump
6:58
Speaker 1: had the right instincts, and he's absolutely right that they
7:01
Speaker 1: must reschedule this thing because it has the potential of
7:05
Speaker 1: being a far better event now than it even was
7:09
Speaker 1: going to be. It's going to get more attention, especially
7:11
Speaker 1: if it happens in the next few weeks like Trump
7:14
Speaker 1: wants it to be, and you know, obviously there's gonna
7:18
Speaker 1: be a lot to joke about. It did appear as
7:21
Speaker 1: if there was somewhat of a unifying moment. I think
7:24
Speaker 1: Trump may have exaggerated a little bit about how much
7:27
Speaker 1: of a unifying moment it was between the administration and
7:29
Speaker 1: the press in the aftermath of this whole situation, But
7:34
Speaker 1: in general, I thought that Trump handled this whole set
7:38
Speaker 1: of circumstances really well, especially at first. Now, the media,
7:43
Speaker 1: it's always fascinating to see how the media reacts to
7:45
Speaker 1: these kinds of circumstances. The first thing that I think
7:49
Speaker 1: needs to be pointed out about how the media responded
7:52
Speaker 1: to this situation is being the narcissists that they are,
7:56
Speaker 1: they made it all about themselves. I mean, they frankly
8:00
Speaker 1: loved this story. There is nothing that the media would
8:05
Speaker 1: like more than to be part of the story, make
8:08
Speaker 1: themselves as potential victims. And by gosh, especially for the
8:13
Speaker 1: women reporters that were there, they're all dolled up, they're
8:17
Speaker 1: in their pretty dresses, and now they're forced to go
8:20
Speaker 1: on television to instantly report about this failed assassination attempt
8:25
Speaker 1: where even they members of the press were diving under
8:29
Speaker 1: tables and they were endangered by what transpired here. I mean,
8:34
Speaker 1: doesn't get any better than this. For a lot of
8:37
Speaker 1: the narcissistic members of the news media who love drama,
8:41
Speaker 1: love a good story. This one was particularly good because
8:44
Speaker 1: no one died or was even seriously injured. So you
8:47
Speaker 1: have all the positives of an assassination attempt without any
8:52
Speaker 1: of the negatives, and here they are literally at the
8:55
Speaker 1: epicent of the story. And in the case of the
8:58
Speaker 1: women and the men, the men were largely dressed in tuxedos.
9:01
Speaker 1: But the women, they really loved this. I mean they
9:04
Speaker 1: were heroes and their high heels, you know, immediately running
9:09
Speaker 1: to the White House to be prepared for the press
9:12
Speaker 1: conference or to do live shots from the site of
9:15
Speaker 1: the assassination, and them they loved it. And don't kid yourself,
9:19
Speaker 1: I mean it was it was clear this was a
9:21
Speaker 1: story that members of the press loved. But even in
9:25
Speaker 1: this situation, and I'll give them somewhat of a pass
9:28
Speaker 1: for being narcissistic, I mean, I guess they were endangered,
9:32
Speaker 1: although again nobody was actually hurt, certainly not members of
9:36
Speaker 1: the press. There was one security person that might have
9:39
Speaker 1: been hurt, but thankfully was saved by a bulletproof vest.
9:43
Speaker 1: But it is interesting to note, I think, you know,
9:47
Speaker 1: very telling about how pathetic the reporting is, even on
9:52
Speaker 1: major stories where the media is directly involved, that there
9:55
Speaker 1: were several reports early on, specifically by CNN and CBS
10:01
Speaker 1: that were totally incorrect, specifically that the gunman had been
10:05
Speaker 1: confirmed dead. Now think about this, This was an event
10:11
Speaker 1: that was attended by hundreds and hundreds of major media personalities.
10:17
Speaker 1: It's literally a media event. And even then they completely
10:23
Speaker 1: blew the story. They misreported something that wasn't even close
10:28
Speaker 1: to true, reporting that the gunman was confirmed dead. If
10:32
Speaker 1: they can't get this right when they're literally there when
10:35
Speaker 1: it happens, how can they get anything right? And it's
10:39
Speaker 1: just amazing. Now they quickly retracted that when it was
10:43
Speaker 1: obvious that the President of the United States was posting
10:46
Speaker 1: pictures of the guy on the ground and handcuffs, clearly
10:50
Speaker 1: alive and unharmed. But I just found out to be
10:54
Speaker 1: really telling about just how broken the news media is,
10:58
Speaker 1: how dead journalism is that even in this situation, something
11:02
Speaker 1: that never even came close to happening got reported by
11:05
Speaker 1: major news outlets when they were right there, literally when
11:09
Speaker 1: it happened, and they still blew the story. Now, as
11:13
Speaker 1: far as the perpetrator, I'm not going to say his
11:15
Speaker 1: name because that's kind of my policy. I think. Obviously,
11:18
Speaker 1: especially in this case, a lot of the reason why
11:21
Speaker 1: these people do these kinds of things is for attention,
11:25
Speaker 1: and in this particular case, there was no ambiguity about
11:30
Speaker 1: the biography of this person. We've had similar situations where
11:35
Speaker 1: there's some debate, like, for instance, the Charlie Kirk assassination.
11:41
Speaker 1: What's the real political persuasion, What was the real motivation?
11:45
Speaker 1: Was this really about politics? Was this really a left
11:48
Speaker 1: wing hate crime? And of course there's an immediate battle
11:52
Speaker 1: over this. Conservatives online are automatically predisposed, understandably so, to
11:58
Speaker 1: believing that anyone who goes after a conservative with violence
12:03
Speaker 1: must be a liberal, and that must be with their motivation.
12:07
Speaker 1: And this is liberal hypocrisy because liberals are supposedly against
12:11
Speaker 1: guns and against violence, and here we have yet another
12:14
Speaker 1: situation of a liberal perpetrating gun violence against a conservative,
12:20
Speaker 1: ineffectively a political hate crime. Sometimes there's ambiguity. This situation
12:26
Speaker 1: does not appear to have provided any ambiguity whatsoever. This
12:30
Speaker 1: is as clear as it gets in a way that
12:33
Speaker 1: I actually think is maybe more interesting and more telling
12:37
Speaker 1: than if this person was just a left wing nut
12:40
Speaker 1: job who had been brainwashed by the liberal media. To
12:44
Speaker 1: be clear, there was some of that involved in this,
12:47
Speaker 1: but this was not a loser. This was a very
12:50
Speaker 1: highly educated guy from here in California. The first report
12:55
Speaker 1: was that he was a teacher from Torrance, California, which
12:58
Speaker 1: sent my wife into it dizzy because she was a
13:01
Speaker 1: public school teacher in the Torrance School district. For several years.
13:04
Speaker 1: Although this guy was not in the school district, he
13:08
Speaker 1: was effectively a tutor or a part time teacher. He
13:11
Speaker 1: essentially had become a bit of a loser for someone
13:14
Speaker 1: who was as highly educated as he was, apparently as
13:17
Speaker 1: smart as he was, and was really not doing very
13:20
Speaker 1: much with his life, and his manifesto indicates that, you know,
13:26
Speaker 1: he effectively had gone looney tunes. Now, maybe I have
13:29
Speaker 1: no idea what he was like earlier, but the manifesto itself,
13:35
Speaker 1: you know, does not appear to be someone who's completely insane.
13:38
Speaker 1: Like he understood what was going on. He was able
13:40
Speaker 1: to function, but his view of this made no sense
13:45
Speaker 1: to me. And his execution of this really wasn't all
13:50
Speaker 1: that great. I mean, as Trump said, when the media
13:53
Speaker 1: tried to make it sound as if the security wasn't
13:56
Speaker 1: very good and he was, you know, the perpetrator was
13:59
Speaker 1: mocking secure and his manifesto, the reality is he failed.
14:04
Speaker 1: I mean, did he get further than he probably should have.
14:06
Speaker 1: I guess so in an ideal world if you want
14:08
Speaker 1: to live in a police state. But the reality is
14:11
Speaker 1: he failed miserably and somehow he survived with his life,
14:16
Speaker 1: which I'm not a big fan of because in some
14:21
Speaker 1: circles he's going to be a hero. That's the reality
14:24
Speaker 1: of this. I mean, he let's be clear, because he
14:28
Speaker 1: didn't kill anybody, and he's not a murderer, and because
14:32
Speaker 1: he survived and he's going to have a trial, and
14:35
Speaker 1: because his manifesto made it so clear that he did
14:39
Speaker 1: this out of hatred of Donald Trump, he's going to
14:42
Speaker 1: have somewhat of a fan base. And who knows what
14:45
Speaker 1: that means down the road. I mean, he's a young guy.
14:48
Speaker 1: I think he's thirty one years old. It would not
14:51
Speaker 1: shock be given where we're heading in this country, that
14:57
Speaker 1: he gets out of jail long before he's dead. I
15:02
Speaker 1: hope that doesn't happen, but I could certainly see down
15:06
Speaker 1: the road, you know, some situation where where liberals look
15:10
Speaker 1: at this and go, well, he didn't kill anybody, and
15:12
Speaker 1: he was one of us, he was youngish, and he
15:16
Speaker 1: was well intentioned. So we're gonna let him out.
15:19
Speaker 2: Now.
15:20
Speaker 1: It's a federal crime, obviously, and it should be life imprisonment.
15:24
Speaker 1: But I just I just feel that way that we're
15:27
Speaker 1: heading all walks of life. I mean I all the time,
15:30
Speaker 1: especially here in California. My wife and I watch a
15:33
Speaker 1: lot of date lives in twenty twenties, and whenever we
15:38
Speaker 1: see a sentence that's not for life, or even sometimes
15:42
Speaker 1: it is for life, we say to each other, you know,
15:45
Speaker 1: you know this is a young person. They're getting out
15:47
Speaker 1: because in California, this is the way we're headed, especially
15:51
Speaker 1: if they're a woman or a minority, if they're gay,
15:54
Speaker 1: and this guy happens to be a minority. So my
15:58
Speaker 1: guess is that in the very end of this whole thing,
16:01
Speaker 1: whether it's thirty years, forty years, whatever it is, or now,
16:04
Speaker 1: this guy's not gonna get the punishment that he deserves,
16:07
Speaker 1: and he's gonna have a fan base. So I kind
16:09
Speaker 1: of wish he had been taken out, is what I'm
16:11
Speaker 1: trying to say here. But he wasn't. And the persona
16:17
Speaker 1: that he provides through his biography couldn't be more clear,
16:22
Speaker 1: and it couldn't be more obvious to me that this
16:24
Speaker 1: was a guy who was influenced by the negative media
16:28
Speaker 1: coverage of Donald Trump because of what he specifically said
16:32
Speaker 1: about why he did this. He made several statements that
16:36
Speaker 1: were obviously about Trump. Now, in a moment, you're gonna
16:40
Speaker 1: hear noro'donald interviewed Donald Trump on sixty Minutes, where I
16:44
Speaker 1: think she tried to coyly set a trap for Trump
16:49
Speaker 1: because Trump is not named specifically in the manifesto in
16:54
Speaker 1: relation to the allegations that the perpetrator made, But it
16:59
Speaker 1: could not be more obvious if you read the thing.
17:03
Speaker 1: It is clear he's referring to Trump, but he's referring
17:08
Speaker 1: to Trump in a way that is inaccurate, specifically him
17:14
Speaker 1: being a rapist and a pedophile. There's no evidence at
17:19
Speaker 1: all that Donald Trump is a rapist or a pedophile,
17:23
Speaker 1: And the only reason why you would believe that is
17:25
Speaker 1: if you believe bullshit told to you by liberal news outlets.
17:31
Speaker 1: Now we've gone through the e G and Carroll situation before,
17:36
Speaker 1: I don't put any merit at all in a civil
17:40
Speaker 1: verdict in a case where Donald Trump is a highly
17:45
Speaker 1: controversial political figure who is a former president potential future
17:52
Speaker 1: president in a liberal jurisdiction, with a case that had
17:57
Speaker 1: no evidence. There was an ancient oul delegation that I
18:01
Speaker 1: believe had a very logical, plausible, more than plausible, alternative
18:05
Speaker 1: explanation for why EG and Carroll was making this up
18:10
Speaker 1: or somehow mistaken, but the story is not true, and
18:14
Speaker 1: a civil trial verdict against someone like Trump in a
18:17
Speaker 1: highly charged political environment is just bullshit to begin with.
18:22
Speaker 1: So I don't put any merit on the idea that
18:25
Speaker 1: somehow you can call Trump a rapist simply because of that.
18:29
Speaker 1: And we all know that George Stepanoppolis situation where ABC
18:32
Speaker 1: got sued by Trump because he effectively used that verdict
18:37
Speaker 1: to call Trump a rapist. Even technically, I'm not sure
18:42
Speaker 1: that you can even really argue logically that that's what
18:45
Speaker 1: the jury concluded. There's ambiguity over that. But the point
18:48
Speaker 1: is EJ. Carroll did not tell the truth, and there's
18:50
Speaker 1: no evidence that she did. And there's nothing in the
18:53
Speaker 1: Epstein files that indicates that Donald Trump was a pedophile none.
18:58
Speaker 1: But that's a the motivation that this guy had, and
19:03
Speaker 1: it could have resulted in that in a lot of deaths.
19:06
Speaker 1: It's an almost miracle that it didn't result in a
19:09
Speaker 1: lot of deaths. Now, I don't really think Trump's life
19:11
Speaker 1: was ever truly in danger, because it doesn't appear to
19:14
Speaker 1: me as if there was any real chance that this
19:16
Speaker 1: guy was going to get into the room and get
19:18
Speaker 1: anywhere close to Trump. But that was the intent, and
19:23
Speaker 1: just because it failed doesn't mean it's not an assassination attempt.
19:26
Speaker 1: It clearly counts as a third assassination attempt against Trump
19:30
Speaker 1: in less than two years, which is unprecedented in American politics.
19:35
Speaker 1: And I do think that the media, and that's a
19:38
Speaker 1: broad term obviously, but clearly liberal elements of the media
19:43
Speaker 1: at least enabled this, If not facilitated this, it could
19:48
Speaker 1: not be more obvious based upon what he wrote in
19:51
Speaker 1: the manifesto. And so Trump went on sixty Minutes the
19:57
Speaker 1: very next day, and you know, min was very proud
20:00
Speaker 1: of how fast they turned this interview around. I saw
20:04
Speaker 1: an interview with Nora o'donald from sixty Minutes, who did
20:07
Speaker 1: the interview, and she was acting like it was nineteen
20:10
Speaker 1: seventy five or something like, Wow, this is remarkable. It's
20:13
Speaker 1: the fastest turnaround of a major interview we've ever done
20:16
Speaker 1: in the history of sixty minutes. Well, welcome to twenty
20:19
Speaker 1: twenty six sixty minutes. But that's not a big part
20:23
Speaker 1: of the story. The essence of this is Nora o'donald,
20:26
Speaker 1: who's a clear lefty and I've talked many times about
20:29
Speaker 1: my confrontations with Nora O'Donnell. I don't like Nora o'donald,
20:33
Speaker 1: even though we both went to Georgetown University. Or son
20:36
Speaker 1: plays on the golf team for the same coach I
20:38
Speaker 1: played for forty some years ago, and so we should
20:42
Speaker 1: actually or I should like her. But I confronted her
20:46
Speaker 1: pretty strongly. In fact, up until what you're about to hear,
20:49
Speaker 1: I might have confronted her more strongly to her face
20:51
Speaker 1: on natural television than anybody on the planet, having told
20:55
Speaker 1: her on MSNBC when she was no longer you know,
20:59
Speaker 1: at that time she was hiding the fact that she
21:01
Speaker 1: was a lefty. I told her twice during a live
21:04
Speaker 1: interview that she should be fired for having misreported something
21:08
Speaker 1: about Sarah Panllin in the two thousand and eight presidential election.
21:11
Speaker 1: So weirdly, what you're about to hear here, I think
21:16
Speaker 1: puts me and Donald Trump in a pretty select group.
21:20
Speaker 1: I think the two of us are probably the people
21:23
Speaker 1: who have most dramatically gone after Nora o'donald on national
21:28
Speaker 1: television interviews. Obviously, my situation was nowhere near as prominent
21:32
Speaker 1: as Donald Trump's, and I actually think Trump out did
21:35
Speaker 1: me here. I think I've been usurped by Donald Trump
21:39
Speaker 1: as the person who has most dramatically gone after Nora
21:42
Speaker 1: o'donald during a national television interview. And I fully applaud
21:46
Speaker 1: what Donald Trump did here because he expected Nora o'donald
21:51
Speaker 1: to bring up the charges in the manifesto that were
21:55
Speaker 1: made by the perpetrator of this terrorist act. And Trump
21:59
Speaker 1: was fully prepared for this, and his argument, I think
22:04
Speaker 1: is dead on, which is that Nora O'Donnell is trying
22:08
Speaker 1: to amplify the false charges of somebody who committed an
22:13
Speaker 1: act of terror giving let me think about this, the
22:19
Speaker 1: more I think about it, the angrier I get. Nora O'Donnell,
22:23
Speaker 1: and what you're about to hear is giving the perpetrator
22:29
Speaker 1: of this terrorist act an attempt to assassinate the United
22:32
Speaker 1: States President everything he could have possibly wanted. She is
22:37
Speaker 1: confronting the president with false charges from a guy who,
22:45
Speaker 1: if he had not tried to assassinate the president, never
22:50
Speaker 1: could have gotten anybody to confront the president about. She's
22:54
Speaker 1: doing his bidding for him. I mean, it's just incomprehensible
23:02
Speaker 1: to me, and apparently it was to Trump too, and
23:05
Speaker 1: Trump absolutely eviscerated her. This is one of my top
23:10
Speaker 1: five at least favorite Donald Trump clips, because when Nora
23:14
Speaker 1: o'donald tries to give the perpetrator of this heinous act
23:18
Speaker 1: everything you can possibly dream of, Trump had none of
23:22
Speaker 1: it and shut her down completely. And here's what it
23:27
Speaker 1: sounded like on sixty minutes and listen carefully. I'm not
23:31
Speaker 1: sure this comes across in the audio, because part of
23:34
Speaker 1: this is visual and seeing her facial expression. But I
23:37
Speaker 1: think Nora o'donald tries to do a gotcha I think
23:42
Speaker 1: she tries to do a gotcha here. In fact, I've
23:45
Speaker 1: seen liberals online who think that she pulled this off,
23:48
Speaker 1: that she actually did a great job here because she
23:51
Speaker 1: makes Trump conclude that he's the rapist and the pedophile,
23:56
Speaker 1: even though she pretends, oh, Donald pretends that it's unclear
24:01
Speaker 1: in the manifesto who he was referring to. It's not unclear.
24:06
Speaker 1: It was obviously Donald Trump. And that's why Trump rightfully
24:10
Speaker 1: attacks O'Donnell for allowing the perpetrator to get his false
24:16
Speaker 1: attack to be spoken on national television in the presidents
24:21
Speaker 1: of the in the presence of the president of the
24:23
Speaker 1: United States. So here's Trump responding in what I thought
24:27
Speaker 1: was a very correct, righteous and fantastic way to O'Donnell
24:35
Speaker 1: trying to pull a gotcha and also do the bidding
24:39
Speaker 1: for the perpetrator of this horrible act.
24:42
Speaker 3: The so called manifesto is a stunning thing to read.
24:44
Speaker 3: Mister President. He appears to reference a motive in it.
24:49
Speaker 3: He writes this, quote administration officials, they are targets. And
24:54
Speaker 3: he also wrote this, I'm no longer willing to permit
24:57
Speaker 3: a pedophile, rapist, and traitor to coat my hands with
25:00
Speaker 3: his crimes. What's your reaction.
25:02
Speaker 2: Well, I was waiting for you to read that because
25:04
Speaker 2: I knew you would, because you're horrible people. Horrible people. Yeah,
25:09
Speaker 2: he did write that, I'm not a rapist. I didn't
25:12
Speaker 2: rape anybody. I'm not a pedophile. You read that crap
25:20
Speaker 2: from some sick person. I got associated with stuff that
25:26
Speaker 2: has nothing to do with me. I was totally exonerated.
25:30
Speaker 2: Your friends on the other side of the plate are
25:34
Speaker 2: the ones that were involved with let's say Epstein or
25:38
Speaker 2: other things. But I said to myself, you know, I'll
25:41
Speaker 2: do this interview and they'll probably read the manifesto. You
25:44
Speaker 2: know it's a sick person, But you should be ashamed
25:48
Speaker 2: of yourself reading that, because I'm not any of those things.
25:53
Speaker 2: Excuse me, you shouldn't be reading that in sixteen minutes.
25:57
Speaker 2: You're a disgrace. But go ahead, let's finish the interview.
26:00
Speaker 3: The other thing that he wrote in the.
26:03
Speaker 1: So just to be clear here, O'Donnell does a couple
26:06
Speaker 1: things that are completely wrong. She has no business giving
26:12
Speaker 1: credibility to what was in the manifesto, especially when it's
26:16
Speaker 1: not accurate. And there is no way, no way she
26:21
Speaker 1: would have done that had, for instance, Kamala Harris been
26:26
Speaker 1: president and there have been an assassination attempt. There's not
26:29
Speaker 1: a chance in the world if some crackpot had run
26:33
Speaker 1: had written a manifesto accusing her of things for which
26:36
Speaker 1: there was not evidence, there is zero chance that Nora
26:41
Speaker 1: O'Donnell or anybody else in sixty minutes would have given
26:44
Speaker 1: the perpetrator that kind of credibility, the kind of credibility
26:48
Speaker 1: they could only dream of in their wildest dreams. Is
26:53
Speaker 1: they're fantasizing about trying to assassinate the president, they could
26:58
Speaker 1: not possibly. I've asked for much more than to have
27:02
Speaker 1: the president be confronted with their own manifesto. So that's
27:06
Speaker 1: sin number one. And Trump was absolutely right to take
27:10
Speaker 1: her down in the way that he did. And number
27:14
Speaker 1: two was the gotcha part of this. You know, the
27:18
Speaker 1: way she reacted facially, Oh so you think it was?
27:23
Speaker 1: You made me think. Is it possible that she didn't
27:26
Speaker 1: really read the thing carefully? Is it possible that she's
27:30
Speaker 1: being sincere in this or is she really just acting?
27:35
Speaker 1: I honestly don't know what it is. I realize I'm
27:37
Speaker 1: a cynic, but I like to believe the best of
27:41
Speaker 1: people unless I have strong evidence to believe otherwise. But
27:46
Speaker 1: I can't believe she would be so stupid. This has
27:49
Speaker 1: to have been a contrived situation where she was trying
27:52
Speaker 1: to pull a gotcha, And, like I said, a lot
27:55
Speaker 1: of liberals that I saw online responding to this actually
27:58
Speaker 1: thinks she succeeded, actually trapped Trump into admitting that he
28:02
Speaker 1: was the rapist and the pedophile bullshit. It couldn't be
28:07
Speaker 1: more clear, if you use your goddamn brain, that the
28:11
Speaker 1: manifesto in this section was obviously directly referring to Donald Trump,
28:17
Speaker 1: and it doesn't make the allegations true. They're false allegations
28:21
Speaker 1: that should not be amplified by the news media, especially
28:25
Speaker 1: in a question to the president of the United States.
28:28
Speaker 1: So Trump was right in his response, and the media
28:32
Speaker 1: is I think exceedingly responsible for this attack. I mean,
28:37
Speaker 1: there's so many layers of irony when it comes to
28:39
Speaker 1: this event and the media. Obviously, it was a media event,
28:42
Speaker 1: the White House correspondence dinner, it was an event that
28:46
Speaker 1: was being resuscitated by Donald Trump's presence. He was effectively
28:50
Speaker 1: doing the press of favor.
28:52
Speaker 2: Now.
28:53
Speaker 1: I'm sure he also was looking forward to having the
28:56
Speaker 1: opportunity to attack them, and there's probably some really good
29:01
Speaker 1: stuff in there. Maybe there'll be more good stuff now
29:03
Speaker 1: that there was this assassination attempt, and Trump will hopefully
29:07
Speaker 1: still get a chance to do this in the coming
29:09
Speaker 1: weeks if this thing is rescheduled as it should be.
29:12
Speaker 1: But there is no question that part of why these
29:18
Speaker 1: things keep happening is that some of these nut jobs
29:22
Speaker 1: are being radicalized by the news media. There's a price when,
29:29
Speaker 1: for instance, to use the cliche you keep calling Trump hitler,
29:33
Speaker 1: although there's no evidence that the Hitler thing played a
29:36
Speaker 1: direct role in this attack, but when you demonize somebody
29:40
Speaker 1: to that degree. And I try very very hard, as
29:44
Speaker 1: you know, to be as fair to Donald Trump as
29:46
Speaker 1: I possibly can be. I do not like him. I
29:50
Speaker 1: hate what he has done to this country in so
29:52
Speaker 1: many ways, but I evaluate him on a case by
29:56
Speaker 1: case basis, and I try very very hard to not
29:59
Speaker 1: demonize him him and make him far worse of a
30:02
Speaker 1: figure than he actually is, because he is capable of
30:05
Speaker 1: doing some good things. He is capable of being right
30:08
Speaker 1: from time to time, like he has been in his
30:11
Speaker 1: response to this attack, and like he was in the
30:14
Speaker 1: interview with Nora O'Donnell. And when he's right, I say
30:17
Speaker 1: that he's right. But there is a price to pay
30:21
Speaker 1: when for political and financial and attention based reasons, liberals
30:28
Speaker 1: in the media demonize the president to the degree where
30:33
Speaker 1: effectively it is a call literally to arms, for every
30:37
Speaker 1: nutjob in the world to do something about this. I mean,
30:42
Speaker 1: it's not a difficult thing to connect. It's not just correlation,
30:47
Speaker 1: it's causation. At this point, we've got three situations in
30:52
Speaker 1: less than two years. That's more than correlation. It's because
30:58
Speaker 1: at some level, at some level, when you have a
31:02
Speaker 1: pool of nut jobs and they're being radicalized with all
31:07
Speaker 1: this information, whether it's news media or social media or
31:11
Speaker 1: activist media, whatever it is, their beliefs are being radicalized
31:16
Speaker 1: and amplified, and their desires to do something about this
31:21
Speaker 1: are being fueled. And so it's just a game of
31:24
Speaker 1: law of averages. If you have, however many nutjobs it
31:29
Speaker 1: is that are in this camp, Eventually, if enough of
31:33
Speaker 1: them are radicalized, someone is going to see an opportunity
31:37
Speaker 1: and take a chance. And this guy did so at
31:40
Speaker 1: a remarkably young age. And there's another part of this
31:44
Speaker 1: equation that really isn't political directly that is very, very troubling.
31:50
Speaker 1: And I've talked about this in the past. In fact,
31:52
Speaker 1: I think I'm one of the very few people that's
31:54
Speaker 1: really talked about this. First time I wrote about it
31:57
Speaker 1: publicly was after the Law Vegas massacre. No one can
32:02
Speaker 1: figure out why the Las Vegas guy did what he did, right,
32:05
Speaker 1: There has to be some grand conspiracy who would just
32:09
Speaker 1: decide to get up on the top of a hotel
32:13
Speaker 1: and start shooting people randomly and killing all these people
32:17
Speaker 1: and then of course killing yourself. And my argument is
32:22
Speaker 1: this wasn't a mass murder. This was a suicide where
32:26
Speaker 1: someone just decided to go out with a bang. That's
32:30
Speaker 1: what this was. And if you read the manifesto, this
32:34
Speaker 1: guy thought he was trying to commit suicide. The difference,
32:38
Speaker 1: at least on the surface between the two situations is
32:42
Speaker 1: the Las Vegas guy was older, and I have always
32:46
Speaker 1: believed that we're heading for a very, very very dangerous
32:50
Speaker 1: situation in our society where really, for the first time
32:55
Speaker 1: in human history, we're gonna have a lot of old
32:57
Speaker 1: people who don't believe in a heaven or an actual life.
33:03
Speaker 1: That is a very dangerous situation because when you have
33:08
Speaker 1: nothing else to live for, nothing else to lose, and
33:14
Speaker 1: you don't believe there's gonna be any punishment, and you
33:17
Speaker 1: decide you're going to end your life and you hate humanity,
33:22
Speaker 1: what's to stop you, in a semi free for society
33:26
Speaker 1: from doing something similar to what the Las Vegas guy did.
33:30
Speaker 1: But here we have a situation where someone who was younger,
33:33
Speaker 1: highly educated, still had somewhat of a career going on,
33:38
Speaker 1: still had a lot to live for. I mean, as
33:41
Speaker 1: highly educated as this guy was, and being a minority,
33:45
Speaker 1: there were all sorts of potential opportunities still to be had,
33:49
Speaker 1: and he was willing to give it all up. He
33:52
Speaker 1: thought he expected to die based upon the manifesto. He
33:56
Speaker 1: was willing to give it all up because he thought
33:59
Speaker 1: it is in the best interest of I guess the
34:02
Speaker 1: country or society to get rid of Donald Trump. Now,
34:07
Speaker 1: clearly there's at least some element of mental illness here,
34:11
Speaker 1: but it's not all mental illness, and we're starting to
34:15
Speaker 1: see more and more people who are willing and able
34:18
Speaker 1: to just say fuck it, I'm done with this. I'm
34:21
Speaker 1: willing to die to create this kind of damage, and
34:26
Speaker 1: that doesn't happen, in my opinion, without the media being
34:31
Speaker 1: a part of the equation. How much of the equation,
34:34
Speaker 1: it's impossible to know, but it's a lot more than zero.
34:38
Speaker 1: It may not be one hundred percent. I don't think
34:40
Speaker 1: it's one hundred percent, but it's way more than zero.
34:44
Speaker 1: The news media and social media absolutely has to take
34:49
Speaker 1: some significant responsibility for these kinds of things happening. There
34:53
Speaker 1: is a cost to using the rhetoric that they use
34:58
Speaker 1: when it comes to Donald Trump, because somebody is going
35:02
Speaker 1: to really, really believe it. Someone's going to become radicalized,
35:05
Speaker 1: and someone's going to find themselves in a situation where
35:08
Speaker 1: they're willing to die to try to stop the horrible
35:13
Speaker 1: thing that they're being told needs to be stopped. And
35:16
Speaker 1: that's essentially what happened here. So this whole event was
35:23
Speaker 1: fascinating on so many different levels, but also very telling
35:27
Speaker 1: that we have this media event where, of course I've
35:30
Speaker 1: already referenced many members of the media were thrilled to
35:33
Speaker 1: be literally there and to pretend that they were victims
35:36
Speaker 1: and pretend that they were heroes, and their narcissism came
35:41
Speaker 1: out in full display alive in the aftermath of this shooting.
35:48
Speaker 1: But they're also responsible for why it happened. A lot
35:51
Speaker 1: of them obviously not all of them, but a lot
35:53
Speaker 1: of them are responsible for why it happened in the
35:55
Speaker 1: first place. By the way, when I mentioned sixty minutes,
36:01
Speaker 1: I should also give sixty minutes some credit because Scott
36:05
Speaker 1: Pelly did an interview with Ben Sass, former Republican senator
36:10
Speaker 1: from Nebraska, who apparently is going to die soon from cancer,
36:16
Speaker 1: although it appears as if he's at least somewhat in
36:19
Speaker 1: remission and there's a tiny little bit of hole, but
36:22
Speaker 1: he's convinced that he's going to die. And of course
36:25
Speaker 1: there's nothing the news media loves more than an independent Republican,
36:31
Speaker 1: meaning a non Trump Republican who's dying. I mean, in general,
36:35
Speaker 1: that's their favorite kind of Republican. Their favorite kind of
36:38
Speaker 1: Republican is the dead Republican. Right, they love Lincoln, they
36:43
Speaker 1: kind of like Reagan. Now dead Republicans. They like a
36:48
Speaker 1: dying Republican. They really like to And even though it
36:52
Speaker 1: sounds like I'm ripping on sixty Minutes, I actually want
36:54
Speaker 1: to give them the credit because if you get a chance,
36:57
Speaker 1: watch the Scott Pelly in it with Ben Sas. It's tremendous.
37:05
Speaker 1: It's probably some of the best stuff I've seen on
37:07
Speaker 1: sixty minutes maybe ever. And so when I talk about
37:13
Speaker 1: how the media loves a dying Republican, and that's really
37:15
Speaker 1: only an explanation for how and why this happened. But
37:19
Speaker 1: Ben Sas said some really amazing things about the state
37:22
Speaker 1: of the country are politics. He made you feel like,
37:26
Speaker 1: oh God, why does this have to happen to this guy?
37:28
Speaker 1: Why does the good guy have to Because he's super smart, clearly,
37:32
Speaker 1: clearly principled. He quit in the middle of his second
37:37
Speaker 1: term in the Senate, which no one ever does. He
37:40
Speaker 1: went on to become president of the University of Florida,
37:42
Speaker 1: and now he's sick, and you're just thinking, you know what,
37:46
Speaker 1: there's a lot of people in the us said it.
37:48
Speaker 1: I wish this would have happened to Ben SaaS would
37:51
Speaker 1: have been at the bottom of the list. And the
37:54
Speaker 1: interview that Scott Pelley did with him was absolutely fantastic,
37:57
Speaker 1: And I'm not going to play anything from it because
37:59
Speaker 1: if I start, I'll never stop. And so but I
38:03
Speaker 1: do urge you if you're at all interested, it's easy
38:06
Speaker 1: to find online. Just watch the entire not just the
38:10
Speaker 1: segment that they did in sixty minutes, but go online
38:13
Speaker 1: and watch the entire interview. So because Ben Sas was
38:16
Speaker 1: phenomenal and Scott Pelly did a really good job there
38:19
Speaker 1: as well. Now back to the assassination attempt, I just
38:24
Speaker 1: have to acknowledge, since this is a show that is
38:27
Speaker 1: very much anti conspiratorial, that we are now living in
38:31
Speaker 1: a world where whenever anything big happens, people are now
38:36
Speaker 1: automatically knee jerk going to start believing in a nonsensical conspiracy.
38:42
Speaker 1: I mean, we're almost twenty five years since nine to eleven.
38:46
Speaker 1: It is absolutely astonishing how much the world has changed
38:50
Speaker 1: with regard to conspiracies and the lack of control by
38:54
Speaker 1: the mainstream news media is really at the heart of this,
38:57
Speaker 1: and the advent of social media, and I think now
39:00
Speaker 1: to nine to eleven, it took years for the bullshit
39:03
Speaker 1: nine to eleven conspiracy theories to get any kind of
39:06
Speaker 1: traction whatsoever. If nine to eleven happened to day, within
39:10
Speaker 1: fifteen minutes, there'd be ridiculous conspiracy theories coming out of
39:16
Speaker 1: the woodwork on social media might not even take fifteen minutes.
39:21
Speaker 1: And the proof of that was that even though we
39:23
Speaker 1: have video, we have video of the whole thing basically
39:28
Speaker 1: of this situation, and we've got hundreds and hundreds of witnesses,
39:31
Speaker 1: and oh, by the way, the vast majority of the
39:35
Speaker 1: witnesses are people who are critics, literally paid critics of
39:40
Speaker 1: the President of the United States. Somehow, all these people
39:43
Speaker 1: are part of a massive conspiracy to create a stage
39:47
Speaker 1: dissassination of that. That's what some people seem to really
39:51
Speaker 1: believe based upon their social media posts. It's depressing, it's idiotic,
39:57
Speaker 1: it's stupid. I'm not even to the substance of it,
40:02
Speaker 1: because it doesn't even get out of the batter's box.
40:04
Speaker 1: It's just utterly ludicrous. But it goes to prove my
40:09
Speaker 1: entire theory on conspiracies and why I'm so adamant I mean,
40:13
Speaker 1: it's not just that I'm someone who likes debunking bullshit.
40:17
Speaker 1: I'll acknowledge I like doing that, especially when I'm one
40:21
Speaker 1: of the very few people willing and able to do so.
40:24
Speaker 1: But the real damage done, other than to the public trust,
40:28
Speaker 1: is that every time you buy, or a segment of
40:31
Speaker 1: the population buys a new bullshit conspiracy theory, it becomes
40:37
Speaker 1: easier and easier for the next bullshit conspiracy theory to
40:40
Speaker 1: gain traction. I mean, we've seen this consistently, and now
40:46
Speaker 1: we've reached the point where it's just expected. Even if
40:51
Speaker 1: there's no logic evidence, there's not a coherent theory, you've
40:56
Speaker 1: got photographs and video of the whole thing, it doesn't matter. Instantaneously,
41:01
Speaker 1: there's gonna be a ridiculous conspiracy out there, and we're
41:05
Speaker 1: seeing it time and time again, now, even in this
41:09
Speaker 1: situation where it's about as batshit crazy as you can get,
41:13
Speaker 1: for the reasons I've already stated. Now, I guess connected
41:18
Speaker 1: to the Trump assassination attempt is another controversy involving ABC
41:25
Speaker 1: Late Night host Jimmy Kimmel. Now you obviously remember that
41:30
Speaker 1: we went through the whole Jimmy Kimmel controversy after the
41:34
Speaker 1: assassination of Charlie Kirk. I somewhat defended Jimmy Kimmel at
41:39
Speaker 1: the time because I think the joke that got him
41:41
Speaker 1: in hot water was misinterpreted. It wasn't particularly well stated,
41:46
Speaker 1: but it was misinterpreted by conservatives. He got suspended. There
41:51
Speaker 1: was a massive controversy over that he got put back
41:54
Speaker 1: on the air. I at the time thought it was
41:57
Speaker 1: absolutely totally wrong for the chairman of the CC to
42:00
Speaker 1: be threatening ABC and basically essentially intimidating them into taking
42:06
Speaker 1: Kimmel off the air. That is not the role of
42:08
Speaker 1: the FCC, that is not the role of a trumpet
42:12
Speaker 1: administration official. On so many different levels, it's completely totally wrong.
42:17
Speaker 1: So it's a horrendous precedent for the next democratic administration.
42:22
Speaker 1: It's totally wrong legally, philosophically, from a president's standpoint, could
42:28
Speaker 1: not have been more wrong. I also think it was
42:30
Speaker 1: wrong on the substance of what Kimmel said in that situation.
42:33
Speaker 1: And eventually Kimill was put back on the air and
42:35
Speaker 1: it was probably in net positive for him because his
42:38
Speaker 1: show had been languishing doing poorly in the ratings. This
42:41
Speaker 1: got him a whole bunch of attention made him into
42:44
Speaker 1: a martyr in left wing circles and probably breathe new
42:47
Speaker 1: life into his show. Well. Now, in the aftermath of
42:51
Speaker 1: the assassination, he's in trouble again for remarkably similar reasons,
42:57
Speaker 1: involving the FCC, this time more specifcifically going after eight
43:02
Speaker 1: ABC owned or Disney owned local affiliates who carried Jimmy
43:07
Speaker 1: Kimmel's show, with the idea that they are going to
43:10
Speaker 1: have to fill out the application renewing their license earlier
43:17
Speaker 1: than had been previously presumed would be the case. Effectively,
43:22
Speaker 1: they're being forced by the chairman of the SEC to
43:25
Speaker 1: defend their license and this is basically a shot across
43:29
Speaker 1: the bow because that's a death sentence for a broadcast outlet,
43:34
Speaker 1: although I'm still confused as to why that's the case
43:37
Speaker 1: in an era where over the Air doesn't even exist anymore,
43:40
Speaker 1: But that's another story for another day. But the point
43:44
Speaker 1: is it could not be more clear that the FCC
43:47
Speaker 1: chairman is trying to intimidate more dramatically than even in
43:51
Speaker 1: that first episode involving Charlie Kirk ABC affiliates if they
43:56
Speaker 1: don't shut down Jimmy Kimmel. And the reason for this
43:59
Speaker 1: is before the assassination attempt. And that's key here, right,
44:05
Speaker 1: I mean, this is not difficult to understand. Before the
44:09
Speaker 1: assassination attempt, Jimmy Kimmel made a joke about Mulania Trump
44:15
Speaker 1: looking like an expectant widow. And it's obvious, at least
44:21
Speaker 1: to me. And this is what Jimmy Kimmel has claimed
44:24
Speaker 1: that this was not a situation where Jimmy Kimmel was
44:29
Speaker 1: urging the assassination of the president so that Mulania would
44:33
Speaker 1: be an expectant widow. He was referring to the rather
44:36
Speaker 1: large age difference between Trump, who's eighty years old, and
44:41
Speaker 1: Mlania is much younger and obviously in fantastic shape. Now
44:46
Speaker 1: you could argue, is that an appropriate joke? Is that
44:49
Speaker 1: a funny joke? You know? Is that something that viewers
44:53
Speaker 1: should be turned off by. I have no problem if
44:55
Speaker 1: you're turned off by that kind of a joke. It
44:58
Speaker 1: was a stupid thing to do about the President of
45:00
Speaker 1: the United States, especially given the fact that you're already
45:05
Speaker 1: in on thin ice with the prior situation. But you know,
45:09
Speaker 1: once you're a left wing martyr, you've got to keep
45:12
Speaker 1: feeding that narrative if you're Jimmy Kimmel. So I'm not
45:16
Speaker 1: agreeing with the joke. I didn't think it was appropriate
45:19
Speaker 1: or funny. But I also don't think that the FCC
45:22
Speaker 1: should have any role in this whatsoever. And I also
45:26
Speaker 1: think it's absolutely absurd, ludicrous, and juvenile for even the
45:32
Speaker 1: fcced is seemingly ort least pretending to be evaluating the
45:36
Speaker 1: situation through the prism of an event that happened afterwards,
45:42
Speaker 1: where there's no evidence whatsoever that Jimmy Kimmel was urging
45:47
Speaker 1: an assassination attempt or that theists that there would be
45:50
Speaker 1: assassin was somehow inspired by this. I mean, if if
45:57
Speaker 1: Kimmel made the same joke right after this and somehow
46:03
Speaker 1: referenced you know that there's been three assassination attempts, that
46:08
Speaker 1: would be a horse of a different color. But that's
46:10
Speaker 1: not what we're dealing with here. So once again I'm
46:13
Speaker 1: in this very awkward and uncomfortable position of sort of
46:16
Speaker 1: defending the substance of what Jimmy Kimmel said. But the
46:20
Speaker 1: most important part of this is the FCC has absolutely
46:24
Speaker 1: no business in this situation. This is an internal ABC matter.
46:29
Speaker 1: If ABC wants to punish him, fine, they want to
46:33
Speaker 1: take him off the air, great, they want to cancel
46:36
Speaker 1: a show, fantastic, But they should be doing so because
46:40
Speaker 1: it is in their commercial best interest to do so,
46:43
Speaker 1: or if it's you know, in the interest of whatever
46:48
Speaker 1: principles or philosophy they pretend dictate content at ABC that
46:54
Speaker 1: should have absolutely nothing to do with the federal government.
46:58
Speaker 1: And we have really come near close to leaving the
47:01
Speaker 1: pool of the gravitational Earth on this issue when even
47:05
Speaker 1: a Republican president, a guy who says all the right
47:09
Speaker 1: things in the aftermath of the assassination attempt, including the
47:12
Speaker 1: fact that essentially this was an attack on free speech
47:15
Speaker 1: because that's what the media press is supposed to be
47:18
Speaker 1: all about, and that this event was to celebrate free speech.
47:22
Speaker 1: And then here you go in the aftermath of it,
47:24
Speaker 1: and your FCC is making a direct attack on free speech.
47:31
Speaker 1: This is not that complicated. It gets nuanced because it's
47:35
Speaker 1: commercial speech. And obviously Jimmy Kimmel does not have a
47:38
Speaker 1: constitutional right to have a talk show. However, he does
47:41
Speaker 1: have a constitutional right for the government to not punish
47:45
Speaker 1: him for saying something on that show unless what he
47:49
Speaker 1: said was illegal and there's nothing illegal about what Jimmy
47:53
Speaker 1: Kimmel said. He was not inciting violence just because violence
47:59
Speaker 1: occurred in the aftermath of a joke. There's no direct
48:04
Speaker 1: correlation either from a logistical or logical perspective. So we're
48:10
Speaker 1: in really dangerous territory. And it's very contradictory and hypocritical,
48:15
Speaker 1: given what Trump said in the aftermath of the assassination
48:18
Speaker 1: attempt at the White House correspondence dinner, for his administration
48:23
Speaker 1: to be going down this path. And it's obvious. It's
48:26
Speaker 1: obvious by the way part of this equation. That's important
48:29
Speaker 1: to point out. In a normal administration, there would be
48:33
Speaker 1: a firewall between the president and the FCC, and so
48:37
Speaker 1: you wouldn't be able to automatically presume that the FCC
48:42
Speaker 1: was doing the bidding of the President of the United States.
48:45
Speaker 1: That's not the case in this administration. Brendon Carr is
48:50
Speaker 1: doing exactly what he believes or maybe knows, Trump wants
48:55
Speaker 1: him to do, and if Trump disagreed with it, he
48:57
Speaker 1: would immediately have cars back down. But that hasn't happened,
49:02
Speaker 1: and this is more than just a threat. We're now
49:06
Speaker 1: starting to act on this threat with the Charlie Kirk situation.
49:10
Speaker 1: All car did was make a comment on a podcast. Here.
49:13
Speaker 1: This is an actual administrative, logistical paperwork situation that is
49:21
Speaker 1: intended to scare the crap out of ABC. And there's
49:25
Speaker 1: some indication. I don't know how true this is, but
49:28
Speaker 1: Chris Cuomo of News Nation reported that he's being told
49:32
Speaker 1: that local affiliates have pulled the promos for the Jimmy
49:36
Speaker 1: Kimmel Show those that would be impacted by this. So
49:39
Speaker 1: there is at least some sign that ABC is very
49:43
Speaker 1: very nervous about what the FCC is doing. And it's
49:46
Speaker 1: totally wrong, inappropriate, very dangerous, and we are going to
49:50
Speaker 1: rue the day. We're going to rue the day if
49:54
Speaker 1: a president Gavin Newsom, god forbid ever has control of
49:58
Speaker 1: the FCC, which he would if he was president, and
50:02
Speaker 1: now he can do whatever he wants to broadcast outlets
50:07
Speaker 1: based upon the precedents being set here. God help us all,
50:12
Speaker 1: God help us all. And I had to put into
50:15
Speaker 1: this camp the second indictment of former FBI Director James Camy.
50:21
Speaker 1: I know that my view on Cally is incredibly unpopular,
50:25
Speaker 1: even more unpopular than most of my political opinions. I'm
50:29
Speaker 1: not a fan of James call me But I don't
50:31
Speaker 1: believe that James call Mey has ever committed any real
50:34
Speaker 1: crimes in any of this. But he's been indicted a
50:39
Speaker 1: second time. The first indictment was tossed out for technical reasons,
50:43
Speaker 1: but this time he's been indicted again. And I don't
50:46
Speaker 1: think we can decide that this is purely coincidental that
50:51
Speaker 1: had occurred right after an assassination attempt, but he's been
50:55
Speaker 1: indicted for this, in my opinion, ridiculous thing that happened.
51:00
Speaker 1: He made a social media post where I think there
51:03
Speaker 1: were some rocks or seashells on a beach, and he
51:07
Speaker 1: put out the numbers eighty six forty seven, and it
51:12
Speaker 1: was interpreted as kill Trump because eighty six is a
51:17
Speaker 1: term that can sometimes be used as a synonym for
51:22
Speaker 1: killing or ending something, and forty seven, obviously is the
51:28
Speaker 1: forty seventh President United States, Donald Trump. And somehow this
51:32
Speaker 1: has now been an indictable offense interpreted as a direct
51:37
Speaker 1: threat against the President of United States. And I'm sorry,
51:41
Speaker 1: that's ridiculous, completely absurd, totally political, extremely dangerous in its president.
51:49
Speaker 1: I don't think there's any chance whatsoever that this would
51:52
Speaker 1: result in a conviction, and if it did, I would
51:56
Speaker 1: hope that the conservative Supreme Court would talk out because
52:01
Speaker 1: if that is a violation of a threat against the president,
52:07
Speaker 1: that is a criminal, indictable offense to put numbers in
52:14
Speaker 1: the sand and post it on social media eighty six
52:17
Speaker 1: forty seven, then we have no first Amendment because there
52:21
Speaker 1: are all sorts of ways you can interpret eighty six.
52:24
Speaker 1: First of all, but even if you did, eighty six
52:28
Speaker 1: could mean get rid of him with the twenty fifth Amendment,
52:31
Speaker 1: It could mean get rid of him by the impeachment
52:35
Speaker 1: and conviction. It could mean I mean. So it does not,
52:39
Speaker 1: in any way, shape or form clearly mean assassinate Trump,
52:44
Speaker 1: And so I'm sorry. It's absurd on its face, And
52:50
Speaker 1: this is obviously an attempt by members of the Trump
52:54
Speaker 1: DJ to go after a guy they know their boss
52:58
Speaker 1: doesn't like. Sounds like a king, doesn't it. Which has
53:03
Speaker 1: always been one of my most fervent fears of Trump
53:09
Speaker 1: two point zero is that everyone around him would be
53:12
Speaker 1: such a sycophant and so eager to please him that
53:16
Speaker 1: they would do things that would be wrong and that
53:19
Speaker 1: would create enormously dangerous precedents. And to me, the indictment
53:24
Speaker 1: of James call me as a classic example of that.
53:27
Speaker 1: And it's also rather ironic because it happened at the
53:30
Speaker 1: same time period where King Charles has visited the United
53:35
Speaker 1: States to great fanfare, made an address to Congress which
53:40
Speaker 1: is getting rave reviews. I have to acknowledge King Charles
53:44
Speaker 1: was really rather funny, and I thought a lot of
53:48
Speaker 1: what he said was fantastic. He and Trump seemed to
53:50
Speaker 1: gin along great. They were joking with each other, trolling
53:55
Speaker 1: each other over the two hundred and fiftieth anniversary of
53:58
Speaker 1: our revolution against Great Briain. And of course there were
54:02
Speaker 1: so many ironies in this old situation because the Democrats
54:06
Speaker 1: in Congress were standing and applauding King Charles at the
54:11
Speaker 1: very same time where one of their great themes is
54:14
Speaker 1: no kings, so they supposedly really don't like kings unless
54:18
Speaker 1: it's king from the United Kingdom, a country where we're
54:21
Speaker 1: celebrating the two hundred fifty anniversary of having fought a
54:24
Speaker 1: revolution successfully for our independence from I mean, it's quite
54:29
Speaker 1: ironic now. I think it's a little bit overblown. I
54:33
Speaker 1: saw a lot of social media posts where people were
54:36
Speaker 1: attacking Democrats for being hypocrites, for applauding their King Charles,
54:41
Speaker 1: but being very much against kings in the United States. I
54:44
Speaker 1: don't really think that that's inherently nearly as hypocritical as
54:48
Speaker 1: a lot of Trump fans are saying, because there are
54:52
Speaker 1: reasons to applaud King Charles and his presence. One of
54:58
Speaker 1: its respect to what he said. Three, it's a different country,
55:04
Speaker 1: and it's a country that we obviously fought a revolution against.
55:07
Speaker 1: We're celebrating the two hundred and fiftieth anniversary of that,
55:10
Speaker 1: and I think it's the two hundred and fifteth anniversary
55:12
Speaker 1: of this old situation I found to be most significant
55:15
Speaker 1: because so far I have been rather disappointed with how
55:20
Speaker 1: much attention the two hundred and fifty anniversary is getting.
55:23
Speaker 1: Now we're not at July fourth yet, but we're getting close,
55:28
Speaker 1: and I really think an opportunity has been missed from
55:31
Speaker 1: what I can tell. I mean, for instance, my school kids.
55:34
Speaker 1: I know it's California, we're barely part of the United
55:36
Speaker 1: States of America anymore, but my kids in school in
55:41
Speaker 1: seventh and third grade, respectively, they're not learning anything about
55:45
Speaker 1: the country's history, especially for the two hundred and fiftieth anniversary,
55:49
Speaker 1: and not going to be in school on July fourth
55:52
Speaker 1: when that happens. So it feels to me as if
55:55
Speaker 1: a great opportunity to educate, especially younger people, about the
55:59
Speaker 1: history of this country, the history of the Revolution, is
56:01
Speaker 1: being lost. And I do find it rather ironic that
56:04
Speaker 1: so far the biggest news story related to the two
56:07
Speaker 1: hundred and fiftieth anniversary is the King that we seceded
56:13
Speaker 1: from coming to the United States and giving an address
56:17
Speaker 1: where he says a lot of really good and I
56:20
Speaker 1: think cogent and funny things related to the relationship between
56:24
Speaker 1: the United States of America and Great Britain, which has
56:27
Speaker 1: obviously been under a lot of stress lately, and so
56:30
Speaker 1: I think that's another reason why people are plotting that
56:33
Speaker 1: this seems to be a situation where our special relationship
56:37
Speaker 1: is being recognized and maybe being fortified. So I get
56:41
Speaker 1: the no king's element of this, And of course Trump
56:47
Speaker 1: played right into this by posting a picture, or at
56:50
Speaker 1: least someone did on his behalf from the White House
56:52
Speaker 1: ex account, where a picture of King Charles and Donald
56:56
Speaker 1: Trump together was posted two kings, which I would like
57:01
Speaker 1: to think was funny. But the part of me that
57:04
Speaker 1: abhors kings and has been very concerned about Trump acting
57:08
Speaker 1: like a king in his second administration, was not real
57:12
Speaker 1: comfortable about because obviously that's rule number one, you know,
57:17
Speaker 1: in our mission statement, literally in our mission statement, no
57:21
Speaker 1: fucking kings, which is something we should be celebrating in
57:24
Speaker 1: our two hundred and fiftieth anniversary of the Declaration of Independence.
57:28
Speaker 1: But other than this visit from King Charles, we really
57:31
Speaker 1: haven't been. And there's no question that Trump has in
57:34
Speaker 1: many ways been acting like a king, specifically indicting his
57:38
Speaker 1: enemies and having the FCC go after the free speech
57:42
Speaker 1: of people who are making his wife uncomfortable. That's not
57:46
Speaker 1: something that's supposed to happen in the United States of America.
57:49
Speaker 1: It's part of why we fought the revolution two hundred
57:51
Speaker 1: and fifty years ago. I want to turn down to
57:54
Speaker 1: a story that, at least on social media, was almost
57:58
Speaker 1: as big as the assassination attempt against Donald Trump. What
58:03
Speaker 1: I'm referring to is the ongoing drama in the Diana
58:09
Speaker 1: Versini and Mike Rabel's story. Now, in the last episode
58:13
Speaker 1: of the podcast, you may recall that my spidey senses
58:18
Speaker 1: were flaring up because I felt like this story was
58:24
Speaker 1: about to reignite or maybe explode in a different direction,
58:28
Speaker 1: although I did not anticipate the degree to which it
58:32
Speaker 1: actually would in fact do that, because at the time
58:37
Speaker 1: Mike Rabel was basically trying to pretend that he could
58:42
Speaker 1: get away with never answering any questions about this. I
58:45
Speaker 1: felt like his lack of detail in his response to
58:51
Speaker 1: the allegations was almost comical. It was ridiculous that he
58:56
Speaker 1: thought he could get away with this. My theory was
58:59
Speaker 1: that that he thought at first that he could basically
59:04
Speaker 1: address it without really addressing it, get through the NFL Draft,
59:09
Speaker 1: and then go away for a while, and by the
59:11
Speaker 1: time he came back for training camp, this would be
59:14
Speaker 1: old news and he wouldn't have to go into any
59:17
Speaker 1: of the great detail, any great detail about this. But
59:21
Speaker 1: I said to you in the last episode, that's not
59:23
Speaker 1: going to work. And I made the prediction that the
59:26
Speaker 1: media was not going to let this just pass, that
59:29
Speaker 1: there was going to be some thing that was going
59:33
Speaker 1: to occur here. Well, I did not anticipate what was
59:36
Speaker 1: going to occur almost right after I said that on
59:39
Speaker 1: this podcast, because not only did the story reignite, not
59:43
Speaker 1: only was Rabel once again forced to address this whole circumstance,
59:48
Speaker 1: and if somehow you've missed it, this is the story
59:51
Speaker 1: of Mike Rabel, the head coach of the New England
59:53
Speaker 1: Patriots NFL football team, and Diana Russini, now former NFL
59:59
Speaker 1: in Sight, a reporter for the New York Times, the
1:00:02
Speaker 1: athletic who resigned her position the wake of photographs being
1:00:07
Speaker 1: published in The New York Post then indicated that Russini
1:00:10
Speaker 1: and Vrabel were alone together at all a couple's only
1:00:14
Speaker 1: resort in Sedona, Arizona, just a couple of weeks ago,
1:00:20
Speaker 1: and it's been now obvious that they've been engaged in
1:00:24
Speaker 1: an affair, an affair that was totally inappropriate for a reporter,
1:00:29
Speaker 1: And it was clear that The New York Times was
1:00:31
Speaker 1: going to conclude that their initial support of Rossini was
1:00:35
Speaker 1: wrong and that she lied. They both lied when they
1:00:39
Speaker 1: claimed at first that this was preposterous, that there's nothing
1:00:42
Speaker 1: to this, that this was just a coincidence that they
1:00:45
Speaker 1: happened to be at the same place, the same couples
1:00:48
Speaker 1: were sorted at the same time in a remote area
1:00:51
Speaker 1: of Arizona, and that Russini understood that the investigation by
1:00:56
Speaker 1: The New York Times was not going to go well
1:00:58
Speaker 1: for her, and she resigned, and the story was still bubbling.
1:01:03
Speaker 1: It was, you know, at that point where it's either
1:01:05
Speaker 1: going to start to fade away or it's going to reignite.
1:01:08
Speaker 1: And boy, did it explode all over again. In fact,
1:01:11
Speaker 1: it exploded probably in a bigger way than it did initially,
1:01:16
Speaker 1: because we learned that this affair was not new, This
1:01:22
Speaker 1: was not just something that had occurred in early twenty
1:01:26
Speaker 1: twenty six. What we learned is that there were photographs
1:01:30
Speaker 1: of Mike Rabel and Diana Rassini snuggling and cuddling and
1:01:35
Speaker 1: kissing in a bar from twenty twenty. Now. I am
1:01:42
Speaker 1: fascinated by how this all went down, and there's a
1:01:46
Speaker 1: lot of tea leaves to read on this, and a
1:01:50
Speaker 1: I have questions about the tea leaves. I don't really
1:01:55
Speaker 1: have conclusions because there's no scenario that makes total sense
1:02:01
Speaker 1: in all of this. But I'm going to try to
1:02:03
Speaker 1: read some tea leaves and try and figure out what
1:02:06
Speaker 1: really transpired here so we know for sure that there
1:02:11
Speaker 1: was an affair, because otherwise Russini doesn't resign and Rabel
1:02:16
Speaker 1: doesn't acknowledge he's made mistakes or his actions were not
1:02:20
Speaker 1: up to his standards, although he's never said what the
1:02:23
Speaker 1: hell those actions are, and the media has been unable
1:02:26
Speaker 1: to get any actual answers from him, despite a couple
1:02:29
Speaker 1: of opportunities, and Rabel is still trying to stand by
1:02:32
Speaker 1: this idea that I'm just not going to answer any
1:02:34
Speaker 1: questions in detail about this because it's a personal matter.
1:02:38
Speaker 1: It is not a personal matter anymore. This is not
1:02:41
Speaker 1: a personal matter. It's clearly impacting your job. And we
1:02:45
Speaker 1: know it's impacting your job because you ended up missing
1:02:48
Speaker 1: the third day of the NFL draft, which was the
1:02:51
Speaker 1: day in which the New England Patriots had most of
1:02:54
Speaker 1: their draft picks. I think they had eight draft picks
1:02:57
Speaker 1: on that day when Rabel was gone for counseling. So
1:03:01
Speaker 1: it's no longer a private matter. But let's first deal
1:03:05
Speaker 1: with the issue of the photographs. Now. It's the New
1:03:09
Speaker 1: York Post that broke the original story of the photographs,
1:03:13
Speaker 1: and there's been a lot of speculation that those first
1:03:16
Speaker 1: photographs from not too long ago in Sedona, Arizona, that
1:03:21
Speaker 1: they must have been from a private investigator. They look
1:03:24
Speaker 1: like they're from long range. It doesn't look like their
1:03:27
Speaker 1: photographs from a camera phone, a lot of people who
1:03:30
Speaker 1: are much more of an expert in this than I
1:03:33
Speaker 1: have have said that they believe that the photographs are
1:03:36
Speaker 1: from a private investigator. Now there's been some report I
1:03:40
Speaker 1: think TMZ, which I don't trust anymore because TMZ is
1:03:43
Speaker 1: wrong all the time, all the time. They were completely
1:03:48
Speaker 1: bamboozled by the Savana Guthrie situation, her mom and these
1:03:54
Speaker 1: ransom notes which were clearly bogus, and they fell hook
1:03:58
Speaker 1: line and sinker for that. But anyway, there's been some
1:04:01
Speaker 1: reporting that it might not have been a private investigator,
1:04:04
Speaker 1: but to my knowledge, it's never been proven that it
1:04:08
Speaker 1: wasn't a private investigator, and the New York Post got
1:04:12
Speaker 1: those photographs. Now, if it's a private investigator, that's important
1:04:16
Speaker 1: because that indicates that someone is paying a private investigator.
1:04:19
Speaker 1: They're not doing this on their own. And the most
1:04:21
Speaker 1: obvious suspect would be Russini's husband, who happens to be
1:04:25
Speaker 1: very rich. And so again, I don't know any of
1:04:29
Speaker 1: this to be true, but it's the most logical scenario. Well,
1:04:32
Speaker 1: the reason why I find this to be relevant and
1:04:36
Speaker 1: interesting and maybe even hilarious is it's the New York
1:04:40
Speaker 1: Post that also got the twenty twenty photographs. Now, if
1:04:47
Speaker 1: you're you know Oxhom's razor right, the New York Post
1:04:52
Speaker 1: is the source for both of these. That indicates to
1:04:56
Speaker 1: me there's a pretty good chance that whoever was the
1:05:00
Speaker 1: of the twenty twenty six photos is also the source
1:05:03
Speaker 1: of the twenty twenty photos. Doesn't prove it, but there's
1:05:08
Speaker 1: a pretty decent chance of that. So here's a scenario
1:05:12
Speaker 1: that again, this could be wrong, but this at least
1:05:17
Speaker 1: ties some of these loose ends together. It appears to
1:05:21
Speaker 1: me that there's a chance that Russini's husband is both
1:05:27
Speaker 1: brilliant and diabolical, because if he's behind the private investigator,
1:05:34
Speaker 1: he's known about this for a very long time, Because
1:05:38
Speaker 1: how do you suddenly get photographs from twenty twenty there's
1:05:42
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, those photographs could have been from
1:05:47
Speaker 1: a person on the street. That's certainly plausible, and maybe
1:05:51
Speaker 1: the story coming out the way that it did made
1:05:54
Speaker 1: that person realize, wait a minute, I saw Racidi and
1:05:58
Speaker 1: Vaible together back in twenty two. Maybe this is relevant.
1:06:02
Speaker 1: That is plausible. To my knowledge, there's no evidence of
1:06:06
Speaker 1: that that's plausible. But here's the problem. To me, there
1:06:10
Speaker 1: was too much time this story got way too much attention.
1:06:15
Speaker 1: If somebody who was just a civilian happened to recall
1:06:20
Speaker 1: that they had photographs of Versini and Vrabel together from
1:06:23
Speaker 1: twenty twenty, I think they would have come forward sooner
1:06:27
Speaker 1: than this. So it doesn't prove it, but I think
1:06:32
Speaker 1: that that makes sense. So here's the scenario in my mind,
1:06:36
Speaker 1: and that doesn't make This doesn't make perfect sense, but
1:06:38
Speaker 1: it makes some sense. So the husband has has a suspicion.
1:06:45
Speaker 1: He hires a private investigator who gets the goods Unvrabel
1:06:49
Speaker 1: on Rasini. Maybe he even confronts Rassini about it and
1:06:53
Speaker 1: thinks it's done with, but then realizes later on that
1:06:57
Speaker 1: she lied to him that it's not done with. He
1:07:00
Speaker 1: gets suspicions again. He once again hires a private investigator.
1:07:05
Speaker 1: They get the goods on them the second time. This
1:07:09
Speaker 1: time he's had it, so he goes public with it.
1:07:12
Speaker 1: He gets the photos or the private investigator does, to
1:07:16
Speaker 1: the New York Post. And here's the diabolical part. You
1:07:21
Speaker 1: let them make their public statements thinking that this is
1:07:27
Speaker 1: new information, that there's not another shoot a drop, Because
1:07:32
Speaker 1: it's the public statements that really fuck them. It's the
1:07:36
Speaker 1: belief that Russini and Rabel had when those first photographs
1:07:41
Speaker 1: came out that the jig wasn't completely up. So if
1:07:45
Speaker 1: you're being diabolical and you really want your revenge, what
1:07:49
Speaker 1: you do is you do this in a two tiered release.
1:07:54
Speaker 1: You put out the most recent photos. First, you get
1:07:58
Speaker 1: them on the record. You get them maybe to try
1:08:02
Speaker 1: to pretend that this didn't happen. And now that creates
1:08:06
Speaker 1: a completely new level of trouble for them because it's
1:08:11
Speaker 1: really not the affair, it's the lying that destroys your credibility. Now,
1:08:16
Speaker 1: Rassini probably would have been toast at the New York
1:08:20
Speaker 1: Times simply with the affair. Let's say she had admitted
1:08:24
Speaker 1: to the affair, let's say after the first photographs from
1:08:26
Speaker 1: Sedona came out, and said, yeah, I have to acknowledge
1:08:29
Speaker 1: we've had this affair. That's probably it for her because
1:08:32
Speaker 1: it's such a blatant, obvious conflict of interest. But for him,
1:08:36
Speaker 1: that's not a big problem. He's got no conflict of
1:08:40
Speaker 1: interest there. The problem for him comes when he probably
1:08:44
Speaker 1: lied to the patriots about how long this was going on.
1:08:50
Speaker 1: And so if you're in the camp where and the
1:08:54
Speaker 1: husband of Rassini is by far the most likely person
1:08:58
Speaker 1: behind this, since he's got a lot of resources, and
1:09:02
Speaker 1: I think this is much more of a I don't
1:09:04
Speaker 1: know if this is more of a way a man
1:09:06
Speaker 1: would think about it or a woman would think about it,
1:09:08
Speaker 1: but regardless, a man could obviously be very upset by
1:09:13
Speaker 1: this and want to create as much damage as possible.
1:09:17
Speaker 1: And under this scenario, which again, just to be clear,
1:09:21
Speaker 1: I could be wrong about it's almost too perfect. You
1:09:25
Speaker 1: get them on the record, and then you dump the
1:09:28
Speaker 1: second photos right before the NFL draft, and the second
1:09:33
Speaker 1: photos changed the story significantly in multiple ways. First of all,
1:09:39
Speaker 1: it ends any chance that this was just a misunderstanding.
1:09:44
Speaker 1: So at one thousand confirms the affair. It means the
1:09:48
Speaker 1: affair has been going on and on or off, who knows.
1:09:51
Speaker 1: It probably wasn't going on for six straight years, but
1:09:54
Speaker 1: it was going on and off for at least six years,
1:09:58
Speaker 1: maybe longer than that. But it clearly wasn't just a
1:10:03
Speaker 1: one time deal. And six years is a long period
1:10:07
Speaker 1: of time. So now that changes the story significantly from
1:10:11
Speaker 1: that perspective. It also changes it from the standpoint of
1:10:16
Speaker 1: ESPN getting involved, which I'm going to address in greater
1:10:20
Speaker 1: detail in a moment because she was working for ESPN
1:10:24
Speaker 1: as an NFL insider in twenty twenty. So that is
1:10:29
Speaker 1: a significant part of the story that has been altered
1:10:32
Speaker 1: by the existence of these twenty twenty photographs. But the
1:10:36
Speaker 1: part of this story that has gotten the most attention,
1:10:39
Speaker 1: and I understand why this is the case, and has
1:10:42
Speaker 1: really kind of elevated this whole thing to a different
1:10:45
Speaker 1: level of insanity, is that Diana Rossini had a child
1:10:52
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty one, a child that she named Michael,
1:11:00
Speaker 1: now obviously Mike Rabel. And you name your child Michael
1:11:07
Speaker 1: when at the very least you have previously had some
1:11:11
Speaker 1: sort of a romantic relationship with this person, and where
1:11:15
Speaker 1: you clearly still have a romantic relationship with them years later,
1:11:21
Speaker 1: and you name your child Michael. Now, that is inherently
1:11:28
Speaker 1: highly suspicious. By the way, it, in my opinion, goes
1:11:33
Speaker 1: to my theory about the husband, because obviously he knows
1:11:37
Speaker 1: about this, and this would fuel I think, the desire
1:11:43
Speaker 1: for greater revenge than normal, which is why you might
1:11:47
Speaker 1: go down the path that I've theorized about trying to
1:11:50
Speaker 1: fuck both Rabel and Racini as much as possible. With
1:11:53
Speaker 1: the way that these photos have been released, but it's
1:11:57
Speaker 1: not just the fact that the child's name is Mike. Remarkably, unbelievably,
1:12:05
Speaker 1: Rassini tweeted four days after the birth of her child, Michael,
1:12:13
Speaker 1: that she was looking at her child's face and wondering,
1:12:19
Speaker 1: you can't make this up, wondering who the greatest players
1:12:25
Speaker 1: and coaches in NFL history named Michael Ware. You cannot
1:12:32
Speaker 1: make this up. You cannot. If someone had theorized about this,
1:12:37
Speaker 1: they would have been thought to be batshit fucking crazy.
1:12:40
Speaker 1: But she publicly posted that she's looking at her four
1:12:44
Speaker 1: day year old, that four day old child, and wondering
1:12:48
Speaker 1: about Michaels who have played and coached in the NFL
1:12:54
Speaker 1: and who might be the best of all time. Now,
1:13:00
Speaker 1: there aren't that many Michaels that have both played and
1:13:03
Speaker 1: coached in the NFL. They're apparently according to chat GBT,
1:13:08
Speaker 1: there's eleven of them, and Mike Rabel is probably in
1:13:13
Speaker 1: the top two or three. The top three would be
1:13:17
Speaker 1: Mike Ditka, Mike Singletary, and Mike Rabel, who all played
1:13:22
Speaker 1: in the NFL and coached in the NFL. You probably
1:13:27
Speaker 1: have to give Dicka the nod since he won a
1:13:29
Speaker 1: Super Bowl, so it's Mike Dicka's number one, won a
1:13:34
Speaker 1: Super Bowl as a head coach, sort of. Buddy Ryan
1:13:37
Speaker 1: might have disagreed, but anyway, another story for another day.
1:13:40
Speaker 1: The point is, obviously she's thinking about Mike Rabel there,
1:13:46
Speaker 1: and the kid's name is Michael. So is it possible
1:13:51
Speaker 1: that the kid is actually Mike Rabels. I don't think
1:13:55
Speaker 1: that that's an absurd speculation. I think that's I think
1:13:59
Speaker 1: there's a darn good chance that that's the case. Even
1:14:02
Speaker 1: if it's not the case, it shows the level to
1:14:06
Speaker 1: which this affair went. This was not just sex. She
1:14:12
Speaker 1: is in love with Mike Rabel. And you know, a
1:14:15
Speaker 1: lot of people have made the statement. I think it's
1:14:18
Speaker 1: true and funny that it's almost like she was a
1:14:21
Speaker 1: serial killer leaving hints and breadcrumbs everywhere. I mean, there's
1:14:26
Speaker 1: been probably a dozen elements of the story that have
1:14:30
Speaker 1: gone viral because she was almost begging people to figure
1:14:35
Speaker 1: out that she was having an affair with Mike Rabel.
1:14:39
Speaker 1: Some of the things that she said on podcasts are
1:14:41
Speaker 1: astonishing that no one ever put two and two together
1:14:45
Speaker 1: and got four. One of the bigger things that happened
1:14:48
Speaker 1: this week is that we learned that she sent a
1:14:52
Speaker 1: Spotify playlist to a guy named Michael called turn the
1:14:58
Speaker 1: Page Right when Mike Rabel's team was in the midst
1:15:03
Speaker 1: of a four game losing streak, and oh, by the way,
1:15:07
Speaker 1: once that went viral, she deleted her Spotify account, and
1:15:12
Speaker 1: oh by the way, immediately after the story about her
1:15:17
Speaker 1: son Michael went viral, she deleted her ex account, which
1:15:23
Speaker 1: is effectively pleading guilty at least to some element to
1:15:27
Speaker 1: the story. So we now have a completely different scandal here.
1:15:34
Speaker 1: This goes way deeper in every possible level than what
1:15:39
Speaker 1: we thought a week ago the last time I spoke
1:15:42
Speaker 1: about this story, and it goes way deeper for both
1:15:46
Speaker 1: Rossini and for Rabel. But I at least want to
1:15:50
Speaker 1: reference the ESPN element of this, and you know how
1:15:53
Speaker 1: much I can't stand ESPN. But they have really exposed
1:15:58
Speaker 1: themselves as not being a legitimate news media organization here,
1:16:03
Speaker 1: and they have committed massive hypocrisy. Some people might think
1:16:08
Speaker 1: that Democrats are being hypocritical and the no kings thing
1:16:11
Speaker 1: by applauding King Charles the wather they did during his
1:16:16
Speaker 1: speech to Congress. That ain't nothing in comparison to the
1:16:19
Speaker 1: hypocrisy that ESPN has displayed on the Diana Rossini situation,
1:16:25
Speaker 1: especially vis a vie, the way they covered the whole
1:16:28
Speaker 1: Penn State Joe Perterno Jerry Sandusky situation. I mean, it
1:16:32
Speaker 1: is absolutely mind blowing to compare those two situations. I've
1:16:37
Speaker 1: posted about this and went semi viral on x but
1:16:41
Speaker 1: I do want to at least go through it here
1:16:42
Speaker 1: on the podcast. So in November of twenty eleven, ESPN immediately,
1:16:49
Speaker 1: with no evidence or logic, decided that the only way
1:16:53
Speaker 1: to interpret the Jerry Sandusky indictment was that Sinusky was
1:16:58
Speaker 1: completely guilty, and that therefore Penn State must have engaged
1:17:02
Speaker 1: in some sort of a massive cover up for a
1:17:04
Speaker 1: former employee, Jerry Sandusky, and that that cover up, because
1:17:09
Speaker 1: Joe Paturno was so powerful, must have included Joe Paterno.
1:17:13
Speaker 1: This was the narrative they jumped on at one hundred percent.
1:17:17
Speaker 1: It was inconceivable to them that there was any other
1:17:20
Speaker 1: possible explanation for any of this, like, for instance, the
1:17:23
Speaker 1: idea that the accusers were lying and that Jerry Zanuski
1:17:27
Speaker 1: was innocent. That never even occurred to them. I mean,
1:17:29
Speaker 1: that's what the truth of the matter was. But even
1:17:31
Speaker 1: if we pretend that Jerry Sanusky was guilty, which he
1:17:34
Speaker 1: was not. The idea that ESPN had, and I mean,
1:17:39
Speaker 1: people like Stephen A. Smith were incredibly outspoken about this,
1:17:43
Speaker 1: that it's impossible for Joe Paterno to not have known
1:17:48
Speaker 1: about this, even about acts that occurred after he was
1:17:51
Speaker 1: no longer working at Penn State, which the key event,
1:17:54
Speaker 1: the Mike McCurry event, was actor he was no longer
1:17:56
Speaker 1: working at Penn State. That that was the first part
1:17:59
Speaker 1: of this narrative that drove me crazy, Like, how in
1:18:02
Speaker 1: the world can you just presume that somehow Joe Paterno
1:18:05
Speaker 1: knew about this or the Penn State covered it up
1:18:08
Speaker 1: when we don't even know whether that Sandusky himself is guilty.
1:18:11
Speaker 1: We haven't even know anything about the allegations. This is ridiculous.
1:18:15
Speaker 1: But that was the ESPN narrative twenty four to seven
1:18:18
Speaker 1: until Penn State finally cave curled into the fetal position
1:18:22
Speaker 1: and fired Joe Paterno like three days later, and then
1:18:25
Speaker 1: all sorts of injustice flowed from that act of panic
1:18:31
Speaker 1: by Penn State that was facilitated by ESPN. One hundred
1:18:35
Speaker 1: percent by ESPN. If ESPN had taken a different tack.
1:18:39
Speaker 1: The entire story turns out, in my view, very very differently.
1:18:44
Speaker 1: Now why is that relevant here? Well, hold on a second.
1:18:48
Speaker 1: If we use ESPN's philosophy from November of twenty eleven
1:18:52
Speaker 1: with regard to Sandusky and Joe Paterno and Penn State
1:18:56
Speaker 1: as a whole, including the Penn State administrators who were
1:18:59
Speaker 1: accused of cover up. If we use that, now I
1:19:02
Speaker 1: realize the analogy is not perfect because there aren't criminal
1:19:04
Speaker 1: charges here. But the reality is this, We now know
1:19:08
Speaker 1: that Diana Rossini was engaged in an affair with the
1:19:13
Speaker 1: head coach of the Tennessee Titans while she was working
1:19:18
Speaker 1: as an NFL insider at ESPN. That's a fucking problem.
1:19:23
Speaker 1: That's a huge problem. And based upon ESPN's philosophy, there's
1:19:29
Speaker 1: no way they didn't know about it. How could they
1:19:31
Speaker 1: not have known? We now have seen the evidence, the
1:19:35
Speaker 1: evidence those unsocial media is as clear as it could be.
1:19:41
Speaker 1: Not to mention, I don't know if you've heard, but
1:19:43
Speaker 1: girls talk, and it's clear Diana Rossini wanted people to
1:19:48
Speaker 1: know about this. So who at a ESPN was she
1:19:51
Speaker 1: joking with or winking and nodding with. I mean, if
1:19:57
Speaker 1: you use ESPN's philosophy from the way they covered penns state,
1:20:01
Speaker 1: it would be obvious that everybody at ESPN, or at
1:20:05
Speaker 1: least some people at ESPN, had to know about this,
1:20:08
Speaker 1: or at least had to be suspicious, and there are
1:20:11
Speaker 1: some social media posts involving ESPN personalities that are certainly
1:20:17
Speaker 1: consistent with the idea now that we have twenty twenty
1:20:20
Speaker 1: hindsight that they had either knowledge or suspicion that something
1:20:26
Speaker 1: like this was going on, and that the rational way
1:20:31
Speaker 1: of looking at this is that ESPN looked the other
1:20:34
Speaker 1: way because they knew it was good for them. I mean,
1:20:39
Speaker 1: there's no better way to get inside information on what's
1:20:41
Speaker 1: going on in the NFL than to be fucking an
1:20:44
Speaker 1: NFL head coach. I've semi joked that there are all
1:20:49
Speaker 1: sorts of ESPN personalities, specifically Adam Schefter, who's their number
1:20:54
Speaker 1: one NFL insider, who probably does all sorts of very
1:20:57
Speaker 1: gross things in private that maybe aren't direct sexual, but
1:21:02
Speaker 1: he's got to do what he's got to do to
1:21:03
Speaker 1: get the inside scoop. The ass kissing and the favors
1:21:07
Speaker 1: that are done I'm sure are gratuitous, and he's not
1:21:11
Speaker 1: the only one we've seen it. I've joked about Marty
1:21:14
Speaker 1: Smith slobbering all over Lane Kiffin during the LSU controversy
1:21:19
Speaker 1: last year. He did so on camera multiple times. He
1:21:22
Speaker 1: was kissing him, almost as much as we have evidence
1:21:25
Speaker 1: of Recini and rabel kissing on camera. I mean, so
1:21:30
Speaker 1: there's all sorts of inappropriate behavior, whether it's directly sexual
1:21:34
Speaker 1: or not, that these people engage in to get the
1:21:37
Speaker 1: story to get access. But if we use ESPN's own
1:21:42
Speaker 1: philosophy here and the way that they covered and I'm
1:21:46
Speaker 1: just using Penn State Joe Paterno Sandusky because it's most
1:21:49
Speaker 1: dramatic and it's the story I'm most familiar with. But
1:21:51
Speaker 1: this is not the only story that ESPN has done
1:21:54
Speaker 1: this on. It's just the one that clearly I'm an
1:21:59
Speaker 1: expert on and has impacted my life in a significant way.
1:22:02
Speaker 1: But I do think it's probably the best analogy. By
1:22:06
Speaker 1: the way, there's another part of this analogy that I
1:22:08
Speaker 1: think I should reference because one of the things that
1:22:13
Speaker 1: the Russini story has made me think about, and I
1:22:16
Speaker 1: know other people have thought about it too, because they've
1:22:18
Speaker 1: sent me messages online about this, is if Russini was
1:22:23
Speaker 1: so blatant about this. This must be far more common
1:22:28
Speaker 1: than we have been led to believe. What I mean
1:22:31
Speaker 1: by this is female reporters using their sexuality to get stories,
1:22:39
Speaker 1: whether it's direct affairs or whether it's just flirtation, or
1:22:43
Speaker 1: whether it's somewhere in between. And you know, based upon
1:22:47
Speaker 1: my own experiences in the business, this would not surprise me.
1:22:51
Speaker 1: But there's a specific example in the Penn State case
1:22:55
Speaker 1: that I've always wondered about, and I think we reference
1:22:58
Speaker 1: vaguely on with the benefit of Hindsight podcast, the almost
1:23:02
Speaker 1: positive that we did, and that is Sarah Gannam. Sarah
1:23:06
Speaker 1: Gannam is the woman who won a Pulitzer Prize for
1:23:08
Speaker 1: her alleged work in the Penn State Sandusky case. She's
1:23:12
Speaker 1: a total fraud. She's not even in the business anymore.
1:23:15
Speaker 1: She went to CNN and flamed out. She never wrote
1:23:18
Speaker 1: a book after winning the Politzer Prize, which is unheard of.
1:23:21
Speaker 1: It's unheard of to never write a book about a
1:23:24
Speaker 1: story that big, biggest sports scandal of the century. You
1:23:28
Speaker 1: want a Poetzer Prize, the first thing you're gonna do
1:23:30
Speaker 1: is write a book. If you're capable of writing a book,
1:23:34
Speaker 1: or if you have the material to write a book,
1:23:35
Speaker 1: and she never did, and then she flames out at CNN.
1:23:38
Speaker 1: She's not in the business anymore. Well, Sarah Ganham is
1:23:42
Speaker 1: somebody that there's always been a lot of rumors about
1:23:46
Speaker 1: how is it that she got herself involved in this case?
1:23:48
Speaker 1: How did she get the leaks from the Attorney General's office?
1:23:52
Speaker 1: And I've referenced previously that there was a group of
1:23:57
Speaker 1: Penn State students that were literally investigating her as part
1:24:02
Speaker 1: of this equation, and that part of their investigation was
1:24:05
Speaker 1: that they believed that she might have been involved in
1:24:08
Speaker 1: a romantic relationship, potentially with Tom Corbett. I spoke to
1:24:13
Speaker 1: one of the students that was engaged in this investigation.
1:24:16
Speaker 1: This was a legitimate investigation. Now, they were never able
1:24:19
Speaker 1: to nail it down. They had some interesting information, and
1:24:24
Speaker 1: they kind of got scared off, especially when it became
1:24:27
Speaker 1: toxic to take any other side than the conventional wisdom
1:24:31
Speaker 1: of the story. So it never went anywhere. And I
1:24:34
Speaker 1: have no proof at all that Sarah Gannon was engaged
1:24:38
Speaker 1: in some sort of a sexual relationship related to her
1:24:41
Speaker 1: reporting here, but there's been a lot of suspicions about it.
1:24:45
Speaker 1: It would make a lot of sense she happens to
1:24:48
Speaker 1: be like the exact level of a physical attraction as
1:24:53
Speaker 1: Diana Rossini. You know, Diana Rossini's probably a seven or eight,
1:24:58
Speaker 1: depending on how you define these things. And Sarah Gannon
1:25:02
Speaker 1: was in exactly the same level of the little younger
1:25:04
Speaker 1: than Diana Russini. And so that seems to be the
1:25:08
Speaker 1: sweet spot if you're in a situation like this. So
1:25:12
Speaker 1: again it's pure not pure speculation, but it's mostly speculation
1:25:16
Speaker 1: on my part. But part of the Rusini story is
1:25:21
Speaker 1: that for me, I have to reevaluate everything that we
1:25:24
Speaker 1: think we know about the reporter, the female reporter and
1:25:29
Speaker 1: male subject relationship, because if this could happen for as
1:25:33
Speaker 1: long as it did, her to be so blatant about it,
1:25:36
Speaker 1: and nobody at ESPN or the New York Times ever
1:25:41
Speaker 1: say anything about this publicly or do anything about it,
1:25:43
Speaker 1: and even the New York Times is so stupid that
1:25:46
Speaker 1: they publicly supported her after her initial ridiculous denial of
1:25:51
Speaker 1: the original New York Post story, then I'm sorry. Using
1:25:56
Speaker 1: your brain, you have to believe this is happening far
1:26:00
Speaker 1: more than we know, far more than we know that
1:26:03
Speaker 1: there is no firewall between the reporter and the subject
1:26:10
Speaker 1: and that women are more than willing and able to
1:26:14
Speaker 1: use their feminine wiles to get what they want. And
1:26:17
Speaker 1: I'm not taking the men off the hook here. Mike
1:26:19
Speaker 1: Rabel should not have been engaged in this relationship. It
1:26:23
Speaker 1: was stupid on multiple levels. First of all, he's married
1:26:25
Speaker 1: with kids, but second of all, this is not the
1:26:28
Speaker 1: type of relationship that is appropriate. It's not as inappropriate
1:26:32
Speaker 1: for him as it is for Rusini because of the
1:26:35
Speaker 1: conflicts of interest that are obviously far more dramatic for
1:26:40
Speaker 1: the reporter in that relationship than for the NFL head coach.
1:26:45
Speaker 1: But to me, Russini has made me reevaluate everything we
1:26:50
Speaker 1: think we know about female reporters covering sports or even
1:26:56
Speaker 1: covering news, and specifically it makes me even more suspicious
1:26:59
Speaker 1: now about what Sarah Gannam was up to. But as
1:27:03
Speaker 1: far as Rabel is concerned, here's some more tea leaves
1:27:06
Speaker 1: that I don't really one hundred percent know how to evaluate,
1:27:10
Speaker 1: but I'm just going to give you my general take
1:27:13
Speaker 1: on them. There's a perception that Rabel is untouchable because
1:27:19
Speaker 1: the Patriots made the Super Bowl this year and because
1:27:22
Speaker 1: Robert Kraft has had his own problems in this area.
1:27:26
Speaker 1: By the way, you know, you may recall Robert Kraft
1:27:28
Speaker 1: was the guy who got me my first job in
1:27:30
Speaker 1: television because he had a relationship business relationship with my father.
1:27:34
Speaker 1: We back in the late eighties, and he owned the
1:27:37
Speaker 1: CBS affiliate in Boston and I had the world's greatest
1:27:41
Speaker 1: internship there during the summer of nineteen eighty eight, which
1:27:44
Speaker 1: really was why I ended up going into broadcasting. So
1:27:47
Speaker 1: I have that weird connection to Robert Kraft, the owner
1:27:51
Speaker 1: of the New England Patriots, And so there's this perception
1:27:55
Speaker 1: that Craft isn't going to do anything to get rid
1:27:57
Speaker 1: of Rabel, and that because Rabel didn't do anything all
1:28:01
Speaker 1: that horrible, he shouldn't get fired. And I'm no longer
1:28:06
Speaker 1: in that camp. I think there's a chance Rabel loses
1:28:10
Speaker 1: his job. I'm not saying it's gonna happen, but I
1:28:13
Speaker 1: think there's a chance. And I've really been kind of
1:28:17
Speaker 1: taken aback by how naively most of the sports media
1:28:22
Speaker 1: has responded to the news that Vrabel went to therapy
1:28:28
Speaker 1: on the third day of the NFL Draft. I mean,
1:28:30
Speaker 1: that is a huge deal, and it's so weird the
1:28:35
Speaker 1: way this went down, the way that it got announced
1:28:38
Speaker 1: the timing of it. This bogus second press conference where
1:28:42
Speaker 1: Vrabel once again doesn't acknowledge exactly what he did and
1:28:46
Speaker 1: tries his best to not even answer any damn questions,
1:28:49
Speaker 1: hiding behind this is a personal matter when it's now
1:28:52
Speaker 1: clearly not a personal matter. If you're going to miss
1:28:55
Speaker 1: the third day of the NFL Draft, that is a
1:28:58
Speaker 1: massive deal. That is eight players that you don't have
1:29:02
Speaker 1: any direct influence over them being selected. There's not the
1:29:07
Speaker 1: moment where they get drafted and you're on the phone
1:29:10
Speaker 1: with them. There's not that connection matters, because that's why
1:29:14
Speaker 1: they put the coach on the follow because they want
1:29:17
Speaker 1: the players the teams do. They want the players to
1:29:20
Speaker 1: feel some connection to the coach, somewhat beholden to the coach,
1:29:25
Speaker 1: that the coach selected them, the coach had an influence
1:29:29
Speaker 1: over their selection. Well, for eight players being drafted by
1:29:34
Speaker 1: the Patriots, that's not going to be the case. Also,
1:29:38
Speaker 1: we could go to therapy like it was emergency therapy,
1:29:43
Speaker 1: and then we learn that he's back on the job already,
1:29:47
Speaker 1: so the therapy is over. So why did the therapy
1:29:50
Speaker 1: have to happen on that Saturday? That makes no sense.
1:29:54
Speaker 1: And then It really gets odd when you learn that
1:29:59
Speaker 1: ESPN originally reported during their draft coverage that Rabel was
1:30:05
Speaker 1: in constant contact with the Patriots during Day three of
1:30:10
Speaker 1: the NFL Draft. Now that was the case, that would
1:30:13
Speaker 1: be odd, but that would be a clear indication that
1:30:18
Speaker 1: Rabel is still very very much in command of his job.
1:30:23
Speaker 1: There's no effort to try to push him aside or
1:30:26
Speaker 1: you know, cut off one of his testicles, which might
1:30:29
Speaker 1: have been helpful in this story earlier. But I digress.
1:30:34
Speaker 1: The point is that if that's really true, that's significant.
1:30:38
Speaker 1: But then things got really weird because the same reporter
1:30:43
Speaker 1: that reported on ESPN that Rabel was in constant contact
1:30:47
Speaker 1: with the Patriots essentially retracted their story later in the draft,
1:30:53
Speaker 1: saying that Rabel had not had any contact with the Patriots.
1:30:57
Speaker 1: So how does that happen? How does a Patriot source? Now?
1:31:02
Speaker 1: Is that from the Vrabel team or is that from
1:31:05
Speaker 1: the Patriot team? I don't know, but you could make
1:31:09
Speaker 1: an argument in either direction that when that kind of
1:31:14
Speaker 1: thing happens, it means that not everybody's on the same page,
1:31:19
Speaker 1: that the narrative has changed for some reason. Now, is
1:31:22
Speaker 1: that potentially due to incompetence? Or miscommunication. Absolutely, but it's
1:31:28
Speaker 1: also consistent with the idea that Rabel's team is telling
1:31:33
Speaker 1: the reporter one thing and the Patriots team is telling
1:31:38
Speaker 1: the ESPN reporter a completely different thing, and that that
1:31:43
Speaker 1: disparity is an indication that Rabel is not on solid footing,
1:31:50
Speaker 1: that the ice underneath his feet is not nearly as
1:31:53
Speaker 1: thick as it was after the Patriots went to the
1:31:56
Speaker 1: Super Bowl, that there's a scenario where he's in big
1:32:01
Speaker 1: trouble here. I'm not predicting he's gonna get fired. I
1:32:05
Speaker 1: do think if there's another shoot to drop, he could
1:32:09
Speaker 1: get fired. Like, for instance, the most logical next thing
1:32:14
Speaker 1: that could really send this even to another level, which
1:32:18
Speaker 1: is hard to imagine, if it somehow came out that
1:32:22
Speaker 1: the kid is Mike Rabels and I don't even know
1:32:25
Speaker 1: how that would happen. I guess the dad, if he
1:32:27
Speaker 1: was really diabolical, that could be the next thing to
1:32:30
Speaker 1: come out. The dad could prove that he that the
1:32:34
Speaker 1: DNA of the kid is not his, So maybe he
1:32:37
Speaker 1: already has that in his back pocket and he's and
1:32:39
Speaker 1: he's just waiting to screw Rabel as much as he
1:32:42
Speaker 1: possibly can. That's that's a scenario that makes some sense here.
1:32:46
Speaker 1: But if we learn that the kid is Mike Rabels,
1:32:51
Speaker 1: even though that doesn't make any sense logically as to okay,
1:32:54
Speaker 1: why would you fire him over that? Is that a
1:32:56
Speaker 1: firebole offense in and of itself having in illegitimate care
1:33:00
Speaker 1: with a NFL reporter. Maybe? Maybe, But I think in
1:33:05
Speaker 1: this atmosphere that would probably be too much. That would
1:33:10
Speaker 1: probably be the thing that would cause Rabel to get fired.
1:33:14
Speaker 1: My personal opinion, based upon what we currently know, is
1:33:18
Speaker 1: that what really occurred here is that Rabel got soft
1:33:21
Speaker 1: suspended for one day. That's all comes Razor right there.
1:33:26
Speaker 1: He wasn't there for the third day of the draft.
1:33:29
Speaker 1: Kraft felt like there needed to be some punishment, and
1:33:32
Speaker 1: that was the punishment. You're suspended for a day. You
1:33:36
Speaker 1: got to say you went to therapy. Who the hell knows
1:33:38
Speaker 1: what he actually did, but I got to do something
1:33:43
Speaker 1: just to show everybody that there's some accountability here. We'll
1:33:46
Speaker 1: say you went to therapy. Maybe you did go to
1:33:48
Speaker 1: some sort of therapy and you know, and after that
1:33:51
Speaker 1: everything's going to be fine. That I think is the
1:33:53
Speaker 1: most likely scenario, But that also sets up a situation
1:33:57
Speaker 1: where if there is more to the story like I
1:34:00
Speaker 1: just speculated about, then it would not surprise me at
1:34:04
Speaker 1: all if Vrabel does not survive this, because you have
1:34:08
Speaker 1: another part of this equation that even though I understand,
1:34:13
Speaker 1: I think a lot of thinking people understand, even most
1:34:16
Speaker 1: people in the media understand that there's a vast difference
1:34:20
Speaker 1: between Russini's responsibilities and obligations in this situation and his.
1:34:26
Speaker 1: The disparity between Russini getting her career absolutely destroyed, and
1:34:31
Speaker 1: I said in the last episode of the podcast, I
1:34:33
Speaker 1: thought she could survive at a non mainstream news outlet
1:34:37
Speaker 1: like a barstool and be a commentator and she'll still
1:34:41
Speaker 1: have some sort of a career going forward. I no
1:34:44
Speaker 1: longer believe that the story has gotten too big and
1:34:48
Speaker 1: too messy, especially given the situation with the kid. I
1:34:53
Speaker 1: think right now her career is over because of what
1:34:57
Speaker 1: has transpired in the last week. Although I I did
1:35:00
Speaker 1: find it rather funny that since I mentioned Barstool as
1:35:02
Speaker 1: a potential landing spot for her, one of the most
1:35:06
Speaker 1: prominent personalities at Barstool said that he doesn't think that
1:35:10
Speaker 1: there's a place for her at Barstool, which I found
1:35:12
Speaker 1: to be hilarious because Dave Portnoy owns Barstool, he's a
1:35:17
Speaker 1: huge Patriot fan, and I even tweeted on X I said, so,
1:35:22
Speaker 1: let me get this straight. It's perfectly fine for Dave
1:35:24
Speaker 1: Portnoy to kiss Mike Rabel's ass all over the place
1:35:29
Speaker 1: as a Patriot fan, which he has done even during
1:35:32
Speaker 1: this scandal. That's perfectly fine. But Barstool can't hire the
1:35:36
Speaker 1: person that kissed Rabel elsewhere privately. How does that make
1:35:41
Speaker 1: any sense. We're just living in a very strange simulation,
1:35:44
Speaker 1: apparently given the news of the week. But I no
1:35:48
Speaker 1: longer believe that Ruscini's gonna land on her feet here
1:35:51
Speaker 1: because this thing has gotten huge, and much like last week,
1:35:56
Speaker 1: I feel like we haven't reached the end of this story.
1:35:59
Speaker 1: There's just so so much interest in this, so much intrigue,
1:36:03
Speaker 1: that I would be surprised if there's not more to
1:36:06
Speaker 1: come now. I'm not making any predictions, because this thing
1:36:09
Speaker 1: has been so bizarre from the beginning, but I just said,
1:36:13
Speaker 1: this is not the last time we're going to talk
1:36:15
Speaker 1: about the Recini Rabel situation. And I still think Mike
1:36:21
Speaker 1: Rabel might underline might not survive this situation. Thanks for
1:36:27
Speaker 1: listening to today's free drop of the abbreviated show. If
1:36:30
Speaker 1: you're interested in listening to the entire show, you must
1:36:33
Speaker 1: become a patron. Please go to Patreon. That's p A
1:36:38
Speaker 1: T R e O N dot com. Patreon dot com
1:36:43
Speaker 1: slash the Death of Journalism with John Ziggler. My name
1:36:48
Speaker 1: is j hn z I E G L e R.
1:36:52
Speaker 1: That's patreon dot com. Slash the Death of Journalism with
1:36:58
Speaker 1: John Ziggler. Good luck to you on that, But that's
1:37:02
Speaker 1: how you can subscribe.