Latest / The Death Of Journalism / Episode Three Hundred Sixteen: The Censorship of Jane Doe's Identity

Transcript

Episode Three Hundred Sixteen: The Censorship of Jane Doe's Identity · The Death Of Journalism

• 0:00
  Speaker 1: Welcome to episode 316 of the Death of Journalism podcast.
• 0:04
  Speaker 1: My name is John Ziegler. I'm your host on this
• 0:06
  Speaker 1: week's show. The new White House press secretary doesn't even
• 0:10
  Speaker 1: last a week. More extreme media malpractice in the Cornell
• 0:14
  Speaker 1: 8 case. The legacy media falls yet again for totally
• 0:19
  Speaker 1: fake OJ Simpson and Amelia Earhart news. It appears minor
• 0:24
  Speaker 1: league professional football really is going to a 24-team playoff.
• 0:29
  Speaker 1: an update on my Shane Conlon dilemma, and in a
• 0:32
  Speaker 1: story you don't want to miss, my daughter's school principal
• 0:36
  Speaker 1: hangs up on me. We begin this episode of the
• 0:39
  Speaker 1: podcast with a story that somehow has already been forgotten.
• 0:45
  Speaker 1: It's a sign of our very strange and desensitized times
• 0:49
  Speaker 1: when the White House press secretary gets effectively fired after
• 0:54
  Speaker 1: literally only doing her job effectively for one day, having
• 0:58
  Speaker 1: one press briefing that took all of 14 minutes. I'm
• 1:02
  Speaker 1: referring to Katie Zakaria, who was named with much fanfare
• 1:07
  Speaker 1: after much time to determine that she would get the
• 1:10
  Speaker 1: position as Trump's White House press secretary. And it all
• 1:14
  Speaker 1: fell apart remarkably quickly. And you could actually see it
• 1:18
  Speaker 1: happen on video when in front of the White House,
• 1:23
  Speaker 1: a gaggle of reporters is shouting questions at Trump and
• 1:27
  Speaker 1: Zakaria is behind Trump. And they ask her about her
• 1:31
  Speaker 1: law degree and when she passed the bar and where
• 1:35
  Speaker 1: she practiced as a lawyer. And then she says something
• 1:39
  Speaker 1: about China and And Trump does a double take. And
• 1:43
  Speaker 1: you can literally see in real time Donald Trump saying, oh, shit,
• 1:50
  Speaker 1: what is this all about? And it didn't take long
• 1:53
  Speaker 1: from that moment. I think it was about maybe less
• 1:56
  Speaker 1: than 24 hours before Zakaria was out of her position
• 2:00
  Speaker 1: that she barely had ever even really taken hold of.
• 2:04
  Speaker 1: The most interesting part of how this all went down
• 2:08
  Speaker 1: from a media perspective was the fact that she did
• 2:11
  Speaker 1: an interview with Sean Hannity on Fox News Channel that night,
• 2:16
  Speaker 1: the night before she was fired. And it was very
• 2:20
  Speaker 1: obvious that this was not a normal Sean Hannity pro-Trump interview.
• 2:25
  Speaker 1: Somebody had given Sean the job of effectively taking down Zakaria. Normally,
• 2:33
  Speaker 1: Sean Hannity would be an incredibly soft interview for a
• 2:36
  Speaker 1: brand new press secretary for Donald Trump, but this was
• 2:39
  Speaker 1: actually the opposite of that. There are, I don't know
• 2:42
  Speaker 1: if you would call them rumors or scuttlebutt or speculation,
• 2:46
  Speaker 1: but it seems as if Susie Wiles, the chief of staff, the,
• 2:50
  Speaker 1: of course, daughter of legendary announcer, golf announcer, football announcer,
• 2:55
  Speaker 1: Pat Summerall, football player himself, that's Susie Wiles' father. She's
• 3:01
  Speaker 1: the chief of staff, and it seems as if she
• 3:04
  Speaker 1: may have been behind the taking out of Katie Zakaria
• 3:09
  Speaker 1: because she was never in favor of this decision to
• 3:11
  Speaker 1: begin with. Sean Hannity was given, this is again speculation,
• 3:16
  Speaker 1: was given the go-ahead to take her down, and it
• 3:19
  Speaker 1: wasn't difficult because she was really bad at it. I mean,
• 3:23
  Speaker 1: really bad. And I think, to me, I want to
• 3:26
  Speaker 1: be as... understanding of Katie Zakaria as I possibly can be.
• 3:31
  Speaker 1: I mean, she follows me on Twitter. We've appeared on
• 3:35
  Speaker 1: the same television show, not at the same time, but
• 3:39
  Speaker 1: she was a frequent guest on Alex Michaelson's CNN show,
• 3:43
  Speaker 1: which by the way, is probably a bad indication that
• 3:46
  Speaker 1: you're going to be a press secretary or that you're
• 3:50
  Speaker 1: qualified to be press secretary. When you're doing the same
• 3:53
  Speaker 1: television shows as John Ziegler and you follow John Ziegler, Twitter,
• 3:57
  Speaker 1: you're probably not in a good position to be Donald
• 4:01
  Speaker 1: Trump's press secretary. I mean, then only somewhat facetiously. She
• 4:07
  Speaker 1: seems nice enough. But I think my biggest takeaway from
• 4:11
  Speaker 1: the fact that she was not qualified, other than the
• 4:13
  Speaker 1: fact that how the hell did she get the position?
• 4:15
  Speaker 1: How is it that Donald Trump didn't realize that she
• 4:18
  Speaker 1: wasn't going to be any good at it? Forget about
• 4:20
  Speaker 1: the lawyer thing for a second. She just really wasn't
• 4:23
  Speaker 1: that good at this. I think it's one of those
• 4:26
  Speaker 1: really great indications of how difficult the job is. I
• 4:30
  Speaker 1: don't think people understand how tough a position that is,
• 4:34
  Speaker 1: especially in a Donald Trump administration, because you have to
• 4:38
  Speaker 1: please Donald Trump. And you also, at least in theory,
• 4:43
  Speaker 1: have to give some respect to the truth. And those
• 4:46
  Speaker 1: two motivations can sometimes be, often be, in direct contradiction.
• 4:52
  Speaker 1: But also just dealing with hostile questions is an incredibly
• 4:58
  Speaker 1: difficult skill to do it really well. Very, very few
• 5:02
  Speaker 1: people can do that. And she clearly could not, as
• 5:06
  Speaker 1: she proved when Sean Hannity, of all people, when Sean
• 5:10
  Speaker 1: Hannity is able to take down a Trump press secretary,
• 5:15
  Speaker 1: then you know there was a major problem to begin with.
• 5:19
  Speaker 1: This person never should have had the position. It's a
• 5:22
  Speaker 1: little bit like with regard to the skill part of this,
• 5:24
  Speaker 1: it's a little bit like when you suddenly see a
• 5:28
  Speaker 1: bad actor on a television show or in a movie,
• 5:32
  Speaker 1: they're just miscast or they're not very good or they're
• 5:36
  Speaker 1: just there because of whatever reason, nepotism or celebrity or luck, whatever.
• 5:41
  Speaker 1: Occasionally you'll see it and you go, oh my God.
• 5:45
  Speaker 1: this job is not as easy as I thought it was.
• 5:48
  Speaker 1: Doing this well is very, very difficult. And when you
• 5:50
  Speaker 1: see someone that can't do it well, it's really glaring.
• 5:54
  Speaker 1: I think you see the same thing when it comes to,
• 5:56
  Speaker 1: for instance, singing at a high level. When you suddenly
• 6:00
  Speaker 1: see someone who really can't sing, you go, wow, people
• 6:03
  Speaker 1: who can sing, that's really a difficult thing to do. Well,
• 6:07
  Speaker 1: Katie Zakaria does not have the ability to do the
• 6:10
  Speaker 1: job for which she was hired. And of course, there
• 6:13
  Speaker 1: ought to be a lot of concern and speculation and
• 6:17
  Speaker 1: analysis of, okay, how did she get the job? Because
• 6:19
  Speaker 1: this wasn't like a hurried hire. There was no emergency here.
• 6:25
  Speaker 1: This was a long time in coming. How in the world,
• 6:29
  Speaker 1: and this might be the most significant part of the story,
• 6:32
  Speaker 1: how in the world was Donald Trump allowed to give
• 6:38
  Speaker 1: her the position? I think that to me is one
• 6:41
  Speaker 1: of the most glaring examples of something that I have
• 6:44
  Speaker 1: been worried about regarding Trump 2.0 since the 2024 election.
• 6:49
  Speaker 1: It was my number one concern about Trump being reelected,
• 6:53
  Speaker 1: which is Trump as a godlike, king-like figure coming off
• 6:58
  Speaker 1: of having survived an assassination attempt. No one was going
• 7:03
  Speaker 1: to tell him no. And in a situation where it
• 7:07
  Speaker 1: becomes clear that he really wants something, Nobody is going
• 7:11
  Speaker 1: to have the guts to stand in his way. And
• 7:13
  Speaker 1: it's very obvious that Trump has a thing, this is
• 7:16
  Speaker 1: hardly a surprise, has a thing for attractive white women
• 7:20
  Speaker 1: with blonde extensions. And that's how she got the job.
• 7:25
  Speaker 1: That's clearly the case. And nobody was willing or able,
• 7:31
  Speaker 1: at least until she flopped publicly, to tell the president,
• 7:35
  Speaker 1: either directly or indirectly, this person can't do the job.
• 7:40
  Speaker 1: And ordinarily, there would at least be some ambiguity. Well,
• 7:44
  Speaker 1: she's not that great. She's not as good as Caroline Leavitt.
• 7:48
  Speaker 1: Leavitt was really good at this. No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
• 7:51
  Speaker 1: She could not do the job, largely because the job
• 7:57
  Speaker 1: is really, really, really difficult, especially in a Trump administration,
• 8:03
  Speaker 1: especially in a Trump 2.0 administration where Trump within the
• 8:07
  Speaker 1: White House is seen as a god, but in the
• 8:10
  Speaker 1: public at large has incredibly low, record low approval ratings.
• 8:14
  Speaker 1: That's the disparity that makes the job almost impossible. The
• 8:20
  Speaker 1: hostility of the press, which is reflecting extremely, basically record
• 8:27
  Speaker 1: unpopularity of Donald Trump, yet Trump thinks he's doing a
• 8:30
  Speaker 1: fantastic job. And within the bubble of the White House,
• 8:33
  Speaker 1: I'm sure everyone is saying to him, and everyone around
• 8:37
  Speaker 1: him that he's doing a fantastic job. That's basically an
• 8:40
  Speaker 1: untenable situation for a press secretary, certainly for someone who
• 8:44
  Speaker 1: does not have any sort of special talent in this area,
• 8:48
  Speaker 1: like Katie Zakaria clearly does not. And as far as
• 8:53
  Speaker 1: Trump's unpopularity in the coming midterm elections, which obviously are
• 8:58
  Speaker 1: now basically two weeks away, I'm not gonna talk very
• 9:01
  Speaker 1: much about that today, We'll do a lot on that
• 9:04
  Speaker 1: in next week's episode of the podcast. My good friend
• 9:07
  Speaker 1: Steve Cortez, who has been doing a lot of polling,
• 9:10
  Speaker 1: especially on the Senate side regarding the midterm elections, is
• 9:14
  Speaker 1: going to join us in episode 317 of the Death
• 9:18
  Speaker 1: of Journalism podcast next week. So I'm really looking forward
• 9:22
  Speaker 1: to that. I don't have a real good sense of
• 9:25
  Speaker 1: where Steve is on this. My guess is that he's
• 9:28
  Speaker 1: going to be somewhere in the middle, somewhat more optimistic
• 9:32
  Speaker 1: than me, but clearly realistic about how things are likely
• 9:36
  Speaker 1: to go very badly for Republicans, especially in certain areas
• 9:40
  Speaker 1: of the country. I'm trending more pessimistic from the Republican
• 9:45
  Speaker 1: perspective right now, simply because of Donald Trump's unpopularity and
• 9:50
  Speaker 1: the perceptions of the economy and the perceptions of the
• 9:54
  Speaker 1: war has had a negative effect on the economy, and
• 9:58
  Speaker 1: to some degree it has, the war with Iraq, And
• 10:01
  Speaker 1: I just don't think that Republicans are in a good position.
• 10:04
  Speaker 1: And I actually think, look, I have never been in
• 10:07
  Speaker 1: the total bloodbath camp with regard to the midterms because
• 10:12
  Speaker 1: I just think Democrats are too crazy for that to happen. However,
• 10:17
  Speaker 1: I do think that a blue wave is much more
• 10:21
  Speaker 1: likely than some sort of a miracle where Republicans maintain
• 10:26
  Speaker 1: control of the Senate and barely lose the House, which
• 10:29
  Speaker 1: I think is probably the best case scenario for Republicans
• 10:33
  Speaker 1: right now. I mean, that is the absolute most optimistic
• 10:36
  Speaker 1: scenario for Republicans. They maintain legitimate control of the Senate
• 10:41
  Speaker 1: and only lose the House by a small enough margin
• 10:44
  Speaker 1: to where Democrats can't even dream about of impeaching Donald Trump.
• 10:48
  Speaker 1: That's like the best possible scenario. And while that scenario
• 10:52
  Speaker 1: is like within somewhat of a reasonable realm of possibility,
• 10:59
  Speaker 1: I don't anticipate it. It is possible. It wouldn't like
• 11:03
  Speaker 1: completely stun me if that happened, but I think it's
• 11:07
  Speaker 1: a very unlikely scenario. The one that I just put
• 11:11
  Speaker 1: out there that Republicans maintain control of the Senate and
• 11:15
  Speaker 1: barely lose the House. But that's the best Republicans can
• 11:18
  Speaker 1: hope for. That scenario, I think, is less likely than
• 11:22
  Speaker 1: a blue almost tidal wave. And the reason why I
• 11:27
  Speaker 1: think it's less likely than a blue tidal wave and
• 11:29
  Speaker 1: why I think a blue tidal wave is in the
• 11:31
  Speaker 1: realm of not likelihood, but reasonability is largely because of gerrymandering.
• 11:40
  Speaker 1: I've said this before. I just want to make the
• 11:41
  Speaker 1: point again. We're right on the cusp of a situation
• 11:46
  Speaker 1: where Republicans are banking on the idea that gerrymandering, redistricting
• 11:53
  Speaker 1: in several states, certainly not here in California where it
• 11:56
  Speaker 1: went in exactly the opposite direction, but in several states
• 11:59
  Speaker 1: has gone so much in their direction that they might
• 12:02
  Speaker 1: be able to hold on in the House and not
• 12:06
  Speaker 1: get totally blown out. But I've always said, well, hold
• 12:10
  Speaker 1: on a second. Yeah, there's logic to that. But the
• 12:13
  Speaker 1: way that redistricting works is what you're really doing, and
• 12:16
  Speaker 1: this is simplifying it, is you're taking a bunch of
• 12:20
  Speaker 1: plus 15 Republican seats and making them maybe plus eight
• 12:25
  Speaker 1: in order to be able to spread the red boat
• 12:29
  Speaker 1: around enough so that you think you might be able
• 12:32
  Speaker 1: to get more seats out of a particular state, like Florida,
• 12:35
  Speaker 1: for instance. Now that works, except if you're getting blown out.
• 12:42
  Speaker 1: Because if you're getting blown out, all of a sudden
• 12:44
  Speaker 1: seats that were extremely safe are now very much in jeopardy.
• 12:49
  Speaker 1: And so I still believe that a blue tidal wave
• 12:54
  Speaker 1: scenario in the House is possible because redistricting could, underline could, backfire.
• 13:02
  Speaker 1: I think what we're really going to have is a
• 13:04
  Speaker 1: lot of really close races in the House. And that's
• 13:08
  Speaker 1: why it's almost impossible to predict is it going to
• 13:10
  Speaker 1: be Democrats plus 30, 35 or Democrats plus five or 10.
• 13:15
  Speaker 1: There's going to be probably 20 or 30 really close
• 13:19
  Speaker 1: races in part because Republicans have taken very safe districts
• 13:25
  Speaker 1: traditionally and made them less safe in an effort to
• 13:28
  Speaker 1: try to redistrict their way and gerrymander their way into
• 13:32
  Speaker 1: holding on in the House. So that's all I'll say
• 13:35
  Speaker 1: about the midterms in this episode. Like I said, we'll
• 13:38
  Speaker 1: be speaking with Steve Cortez next. in the next episode
• 13:41
  Speaker 1: of the podcast. I want to turn now to the
• 13:45
  Speaker 1: latest in the Cornell 8 case. I think that's probably
• 13:47
  Speaker 1: the best way to describe it. You know, maybe Cornell
• 13:51
  Speaker 1: 5 would probably be better. I mean, the media loves
• 13:54
  Speaker 1: Cornell 7. It's not Cornell 7. You know, four guys
• 13:59
  Speaker 1: had some level of sex with a woman that she
• 14:03
  Speaker 1: is now claiming was not consensual. So, you know, there
• 14:06
  Speaker 1: were eight people involved in some way, shape or form,
• 14:10
  Speaker 1: five people engaged in sex acts. I think for whatever reason,
• 14:15
  Speaker 1: I'm going to go with Cornell eight for now. And
• 14:18
  Speaker 1: one of the many elements of this case and this
• 14:20
  Speaker 1: story from a news perspective that has driven me crazy
• 14:24
  Speaker 1: is the issue of Jane Doe's identity and how it
• 14:29
  Speaker 1: is that we somehow got into a place where guys
• 14:34
  Speaker 1: who never had sex sex with her in any way, shape,
• 14:38
  Speaker 1: or form, consensual or otherwise, by her own accord, by
• 14:41
  Speaker 1: their accord, and by her accord, can be named publicly
• 14:47
  Speaker 1: in a story that the media is referring to as
• 14:50
  Speaker 1: the Cornell 7 and where AOC is claiming seven men
• 14:54
  Speaker 1: brutally raped a woman for hours and hours on end
• 14:58
  Speaker 1: and have their lives destroyed because they're all now publicly
• 15:02
  Speaker 1: named and widely reported in the mainstream news media, and
• 15:08
  Speaker 1: yet Jane Doe's identity officially has been censored. And let's
• 15:14
  Speaker 1: be clear, that's what this is. It's censorship. It's censorship. Now,
• 15:21
  Speaker 1: there are very rare occasions where censorship is legitimate. In
• 15:26
  Speaker 1: this particular kind of case, if the victim was a minor,
• 15:34
  Speaker 1: I would say, okay, fine. That's fine under most circumstances.
• 15:39
  Speaker 1: That would certainly be a factor that would indicate that
• 15:42
  Speaker 1: their identity should not be made public. And at the
• 15:45
  Speaker 1: very least, the media should refrain from using their name
• 15:49
  Speaker 1: and divulging their identity. Now, public records is a completely
• 15:53
  Speaker 1: different issue because you do have a constitutional right to
• 15:55
  Speaker 1: meet your accuser and all that. But that would be
• 15:58
  Speaker 1: a factor that would go towards censoring a name. She
• 16:02
  Speaker 1: is not and was not, obviously, a minor when this happened.
• 16:06
  Speaker 1: She was 20 years old when this happened. She's 22 now.
• 16:09
  Speaker 1: She's a full-on adult. And she's the one, and this
• 16:13
  Speaker 1: maybe is the most important part of this whole equation,
• 16:17
  Speaker 1: she's the one filing a lawsuit. This is not, at
• 16:22
  Speaker 1: least right now, of course, there's going to be criminal
• 16:24
  Speaker 1: charges eventually because now it's been forced by public media
• 16:28
  Speaker 1: and moral panic pressure, but This story was facilitated by
• 16:33
  Speaker 1: a lawsuit, a lawsuit, I cannot emphasize this enough, by
• 16:39
  Speaker 1: an adult. And somehow the media has decided it is
• 16:42
  Speaker 1: not just important that her name be kept out of
• 16:46
  Speaker 1: the public domain. They actually had to be proactive about it.
• 16:51
  Speaker 1: This is the part that's insane. It would be one
• 16:55
  Speaker 1: thing if they just said, okay, well, we're out of
• 16:59
  Speaker 1: our own discretion, our own policy, you know, the New
• 17:02
  Speaker 1: York Times or the Washington Post, we're not going to
• 17:05
  Speaker 1: use her name. But you know what? If other people
• 17:07
  Speaker 1: come to a different conclusion, that's their right. She's an adult, whatever.
• 17:11
  Speaker 1: That would be at least a somewhat rational perspective on
• 17:15
  Speaker 1: the ID. But no, no, no, no, no. In the
• 17:18
  Speaker 1: last week, we have seen legacy media outlets go on
• 17:22
  Speaker 1: the offensive, not even a mild offensive, an extremely strong
• 17:28
  Speaker 1: offensive attacking those who have had the audacity, the audacity
• 17:34
  Speaker 1: to allow people to know the identity of Jane Doe.
• 17:38
  Speaker 1: I wish I was making this up, but I'm not.
• 17:41
  Speaker 1: The New York Times, they had an extraordinary story, which
• 17:45
  Speaker 1: they themselves summarized on X by saying, after her lawsuit,
• 17:51
  Speaker 1: which is an incredibly important phrase, after her lawsuit, a
• 17:57
  Speaker 1: social media mob moved to reveal the identity of the
• 18:03
  Speaker 1: former Cornell University student who accused seven men of sexual assault. Again,
• 18:08
  Speaker 1: that's not what she said, all right? That's the New
• 18:12
  Speaker 1: York Times. Now, is it possible that for the purposes
• 18:15
  Speaker 1: of getting money, she's accusing them of having attended a
• 18:19
  Speaker 1: sexual assault and therefore, I guess, being part of it? Fine.
• 18:23
  Speaker 1: But if you're going to use the word sexual, three
• 18:26
  Speaker 1: guys did not engage in any sort of sex here.
• 18:28
  Speaker 1: So that's a factual inaccuracy by the New York Times,
• 18:32
  Speaker 1: one that keeps getting repeated at time and time again,
• 18:34
  Speaker 1: not just by the New York Times, but by legacy
• 18:37
  Speaker 1: outlets everywhere. But they write, reveal the identity of the former,
• 18:41
  Speaker 1: this social media mob moved to reveal the identity of
• 18:44
  Speaker 1: the former Cornell University student who accused seven men of
• 18:48
  Speaker 1: sexual assault, inaccurately We traced how the campaign gained momentum
• 18:54
  Speaker 1: and led to real-world consequences. So the New York Times
• 18:59
  Speaker 1: is on the case. And boy, they did not hold back.
• 19:03
  Speaker 1: You might have already connected this situation to Michael Tracy,
• 19:07
  Speaker 1: who has been a guest on this podcast on multiple occasions.
• 19:10
  Speaker 1: Michael and I have a very complicated and, in my view,
• 19:13
  Speaker 1: frustrating relationship for reasons that I've gone into many times
• 19:18
  Speaker 1: in the past. But Michael Tracy... was the person who, unfortunately,
• 19:22
  Speaker 1: in my view, very briefly outed Jane Doe on X,
• 19:28
  Speaker 1: and then, in my opinion, wimped out. He came up
• 19:31
  Speaker 1: with some convoluted explanation for why he wimped out, and
• 19:34
  Speaker 1: then he deleted the post, which ended any chance, any
• 19:39
  Speaker 1: chance of Jane Doe's identity being taken seriously by anyone
• 19:45
  Speaker 1: in the legacy or even remotely mainstream news media. And
• 19:49
  Speaker 1: even conservative outlets were going to be scared because effectively
• 19:53
  Speaker 1: what Tracy was doing was admitting, whether he wanted to
• 19:56
  Speaker 1: accept that or not, admitting that he had done something wrong.
• 19:59
  Speaker 1: That's what happens when you delete a post that's gone
• 20:02
  Speaker 1: super viral. If you do that, it is essentially a
• 20:06
  Speaker 1: guilty plea. That's how it's perceived. And perception is reality.
• 20:11
  Speaker 1: And it creates a situation where now naming Jane Doe
• 20:15
  Speaker 1: is so toxic that nobody, even in right-wing media circles,
• 20:20
  Speaker 1: is going to do it. So Michael Tracy, of course,
• 20:23
  Speaker 1: was very interested in how the New York Times was
• 20:25
  Speaker 1: going to frame this. And Michael Tracy posted on X
• 20:30
  Speaker 1: a screenshot of the actual headline of the New York
• 20:33
  Speaker 1: Times piece, which was, when a social media mob came
• 20:37
  Speaker 1: for Cornell's Jane Doe. And then the sub-headline was, after
• 20:42
  Speaker 1: a former student named seven men in a lawsuit saying
• 20:46
  Speaker 1: they had sexually assaulted her, again, factually inaccurate, a movement
• 20:51
  Speaker 1: gained steam online to reveal her identity. Oh, my God. Well,
• 20:58
  Speaker 1: this is what Michael Tracy wrote about that article on X.
• 21:02
  Speaker 1: In a long awaited expose on the malevolent online mob
• 21:07
  Speaker 1: campaign to identify Jane Doe, the New York Times manages
• 21:11
  Speaker 1: to name drop Hitler within the first two sentences. I
• 21:17
  Speaker 1: wish I was kidding. So the New York Times was
• 21:21
  Speaker 1: not messing around here. We must go after those who
• 21:25
  Speaker 1: want to identify Jane Doe. I cannot emphasize enough. How
• 21:31
  Speaker 1: important this distinction is between a media outlet simply saying,
• 21:36
  Speaker 1: you know what, we're not going to name her. And
• 21:39
  Speaker 1: here's why we're not going to name her. And you
• 21:42
  Speaker 1: could disagree or you can agree with that. And other
• 21:45
  Speaker 1: media outlets can make their own decision. That would be
• 21:47
  Speaker 1: a at least semi-rational view on this topic, given all
• 21:52
  Speaker 1: the circumstances. But that's not what's happening here. No, no, no, no.
• 21:56
  Speaker 1: Media outlets, media outlets which live and breathe on the
• 21:59
  Speaker 1: First Amendment, on free expression, on free speech, are literally
• 22:04
  Speaker 1: campaigning for censorship and attacking people, not for lying, but
• 22:13
  Speaker 1: for telling the truth. A truth that is incredibly important
• 22:17
  Speaker 1: to understanding context here, which I'm going to get to
• 22:20
  Speaker 1: in just a moment, but I have to get to
• 22:22
  Speaker 1: what the Washington Post did, which is at least as
• 22:25
  Speaker 1: bad as what the New York Times did. The Washington
• 22:28
  Speaker 1: Post put out an article, which they summarized on X
• 22:32
  Speaker 1: by saying, Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok attempted to limit the
• 22:38
  Speaker 1: spread of content purporting to identify Cornell's Jane Doe. But X, again,
• 22:46
  Speaker 1: this is a post on X, by the way, by
• 22:49
  Speaker 1: the Washington Post, but X allowed searches for the alleged
• 22:54
  Speaker 1: name and Grok, which is the AI of X, and
• 22:59
  Speaker 1: Grok also posted it in replies to users at least
• 23:04
  Speaker 1: 300 times, data shows. Now, this is really remarkable for
• 23:10
  Speaker 1: a slightly different reason than why the New York Times
• 23:13
  Speaker 1: effort was absurd. It's the same concept, which is they
• 23:17
  Speaker 1: are attacking those who have the audacity to tell the truth,
• 23:21
  Speaker 1: an important truth, about who is Jane Doe and what
• 23:25
  Speaker 1: her identity is and everything that goes with someone's identity,
• 23:29
  Speaker 1: specifically trying to determine their credibility. But what's really amazing
• 23:34
  Speaker 1: to me about this is this feels almost exactly like
• 23:38
  Speaker 1: what happened during COVID. where you're actively promoting the censorship
• 23:44
  Speaker 1: of what you said at the time was misinformation, most
• 23:49
  Speaker 1: of which turned out to be either true or plausibly true.
• 23:53
  Speaker 1: And that turned into a massive scandal, not as big
• 23:55
  Speaker 1: as it should have been, and very little of any
• 23:58
  Speaker 1: accountability for it, but it's a legitimate scandal. And some
• 24:04
  Speaker 1: people have at least admitted, by the way, it's interesting
• 24:06
  Speaker 1: that Facebook is part of the censorship campaign because Mark
• 24:10
  Speaker 1: Zuckerberg has effectively apologized for the censorship during the COVID panic. Well,
• 24:17
  Speaker 1: this is very, very similar. We're repeating exactly the same stuff.
• 24:22
  Speaker 1: This is true, relevant information that the Washington Post is
• 24:29
  Speaker 1: attacking X for not fully censoring and praising Facebook, Instagram,
• 24:34
  Speaker 1: and TikTok for actually censoring. That's what this is. It's
• 24:39
  Speaker 1: censorship of something that's obviously clearly legal and extremely morally
• 24:46
  Speaker 1: defensible and from a logic perspective, incredibly important to understanding
• 24:52
  Speaker 1: someone's credibility. You cannot determine someone's credibility without knowing their identity.
• 25:01
  Speaker 1: This is just two plus two equals four stuff. And
• 25:04
  Speaker 1: how we have gotten to a place where the New
• 25:06
  Speaker 1: York Times and the Washington Post are avidly, aggressively pro-censorship
• 25:14
  Speaker 1: and anti-truth, especially after the COVID fiasco, is just astonishing
• 25:20
  Speaker 1: and incredibly depressing and very, very telling. Because Her identity
• 25:27
  Speaker 1: is incredibly important here. And it would be in any case,
• 25:31
  Speaker 1: but in this particular situation. And in the last episode
• 25:34
  Speaker 1: of the podcast, I basically allowed a ground ball to
• 25:39
  Speaker 1: go through my legs because I'm just one person. I
• 25:42
  Speaker 1: only have so much time because I talked about Megyn Kelly,
• 25:45
  Speaker 1: who for some reason has decided to be correct on
• 25:48
  Speaker 1: this particular allegation of sexual abuse. She determined that it's
• 25:52
  Speaker 1: in her self-interest to be on the side of the
• 25:54
  Speaker 1: guys here. She's a schizophrenic when it comes to this issue.
• 25:57
  Speaker 1: I've gone through this many, many times before. She's a
• 26:00
  Speaker 1: shapeshifter who does things that are only in her own self-interest.
• 26:04
  Speaker 1: But in this particular case, she perceives her self-interest as
• 26:07
  Speaker 1: being aligned with the actual truth. And she has been very,
• 26:10
  Speaker 1: very critical of Jane Doe. And I went through how
• 26:13
  Speaker 1: she was also very critical, Megyn Kelly was, of the
• 26:16
  Speaker 1: host of the Call Her Daddy podcast, Alex Cooper, for
• 26:21
  Speaker 1: having been very much promoting of all many of the
• 26:25
  Speaker 1: things that Jane Doe did. And now she's on the
• 26:29
  Speaker 1: Me Too bandwagon. We played a clip on this podcast
• 26:32
  Speaker 1: last week about how with no self-awareness whatsoever, Alex Cooper
• 26:36
  Speaker 1: is basically coming down on rape culture and promoting a
• 26:40
  Speaker 1: new Me Too movement. And you're like, holy cow, how
• 26:43
  Speaker 1: could this even be possible? And Megyn Kelly went after
• 26:46
  Speaker 1: Alex Cooper, properly so. But what I did not realize,
• 26:49
  Speaker 1: the ground ball that went through my legs, was that apparently,
• 26:53
  Speaker 1: and again, I don't have the proof of this, and
• 26:56
  Speaker 1: I'm hesitant to use Megyn Kelly as a source, but
• 27:00
  Speaker 1: she seemed emphatic about this in the video that I
• 27:02
  Speaker 1: saw after last week's podcast episode, where Megyn Kelly says
• 27:07
  Speaker 1: that she has evidence that Jane Doe follows Alex Cooper
• 27:13
  Speaker 1: on Instagram. Now, does that prove that she was inspired
• 27:21
  Speaker 1: by in October of 2024, which was a time period
• 27:25
  Speaker 1: where Alex Cooper was interviewing Kamala Harris in a very
• 27:29
  Speaker 1: high-profile situation. So she was at the height of her
• 27:32
  Speaker 1: publicity and her influence, especially among younger female demographics. Does
• 27:37
  Speaker 1: that prove that Jane Doe was being influenced by Alex
• 27:43
  Speaker 1: Cooper and this whole idea of threesomes are great and
• 27:47
  Speaker 1: blowjobs on the first date? all sorts of other things
• 27:50
  Speaker 1: I'm not even going to get into, but clearly very
• 27:53
  Speaker 1: consistent with what at least the guy's perspective of the
• 27:58
  Speaker 1: Cornell seven has been with regard to what actually transpired.
• 28:02
  Speaker 1: It does not prove it, but is it relevant? Abso-fucking-lutely
• 28:07
  Speaker 1: it's relevant. And it's something that I theorized about, you know,
• 28:12
  Speaker 1: many days before Megyn Kelly was claims to have found
• 28:15
  Speaker 1: this evidence that Jane Doe follows Alex Cooper on Instagram.
• 28:21
  Speaker 1: By the way, the photograph that Michael Tracy used of
• 28:25
  Speaker 1: Jane Doe when he revealed her identity accurately, but apparently
• 28:29
  Speaker 1: based upon faulty sourcing, which is kind of weird, but
• 28:33
  Speaker 1: I guess that's the indication of what a strange world
• 28:36
  Speaker 1: social media is these days. I think it's partially why
• 28:38
  Speaker 1: Michael Tracy ended up deleting Jane the viral post, but
• 28:41
  Speaker 1: the photograph was of Jane Doe essentially giving the Empire
• 28:46
  Speaker 1: State Building a hand job. I'm sorry, that's relevant. When
• 28:51
  Speaker 1: you take that photograph and you post it on social
• 28:54
  Speaker 1: media and you're a follower of Alex Cooper on Instagram
• 28:58
  Speaker 1: and That's relevant. That's relevant. Again, doesn't prove anything, but
• 29:04
  Speaker 1: it's relevant and consistent with an entirely different narrative, which
• 29:10
  Speaker 1: is that Jane Doe actually facilitated much, if not all,
• 29:16
  Speaker 1: of what happened here. and it should at least be
• 29:20
  Speaker 1: part of the narrative. If this is going to be
• 29:23
  Speaker 1: one of the biggest national stories of the year, bizarrely enough,
• 29:26
  Speaker 1: and it is, then we ought to have all the
• 29:29
  Speaker 1: information because this is influencing a lot of things in
• 29:32
  Speaker 1: all sorts of different directions, including potentially the midterm elections. Democrats,
• 29:37
  Speaker 1: liberal legacy outlets clearly are trying to use this to
• 29:40
  Speaker 1: gin up younger female votes for the midterm election. This
• 29:46
  Speaker 1: is obviously extremely relevant public situation. So her identity is
• 29:52
  Speaker 1: relevant for all sorts of reasons. And we don't even
• 29:56
  Speaker 1: know what we don't know. I mean- There's all sorts
• 29:59
  Speaker 1: of other things that could be relevant to her identity.
• 30:02
  Speaker 1: And not only has the media protected her identity, there
• 30:08
  Speaker 1: we had the bizarre specter of ABC playing a phone
• 30:13
  Speaker 1: call where Jane Doe is clearly trying to entrap one
• 30:17
  Speaker 1: of the guys that she's now accusing, recording him without
• 30:21
  Speaker 1: his consent, although legal in New York, where they play
• 30:26
  Speaker 1: the guy's audio, but they don't play hers. because they're
• 30:31
  Speaker 1: afraid of giving away her voice, which I guess would
• 30:34
  Speaker 1: then give away her identity. Well, that's incredibly relevant to
• 30:38
  Speaker 1: determining all sorts of things in that phone call. How
• 30:42
  Speaker 1: you perceive that phone call would obviously be very different
• 30:46
  Speaker 1: based upon hearing her voice and her inflection and all
• 30:50
  Speaker 1: sorts of other things. But the media is proactively censoring that.
• 30:56
  Speaker 1: It's really remarkable. It's a sad state of affairs, and
• 31:00
  Speaker 1: it's absolutely going to influence how this whole thing turns out.
• 31:06
  Speaker 1: And I cannot emphasize enough how much it just has
• 31:11
  Speaker 1: been lost on everybody, especially in the news media. This
• 31:14
  Speaker 1: is all part of a lawsuit. I just can't believe
• 31:19
  Speaker 1: we've gotten to this point. We're a lawsuit. A lawsuit
• 31:22
  Speaker 1: is nothing but bullshit that a lawyer puts on a
• 31:25
  Speaker 1: piece of paper, especially in this kind of circumstance, to
• 31:29
  Speaker 1: try to intimidate an academic institution into caving and giving
• 31:34
  Speaker 1: away millions of dollars of other people's money. That's what
• 31:37
  Speaker 1: this is. It has nothing to do with the truth.
• 31:43
  Speaker 1: especially when an academic institution is involved. We've seen this
• 31:47
  Speaker 1: time and time and time and time again, but the
• 31:50
  Speaker 1: media refuses to understand it. They actually think that somehow, bizarrely,
• 31:56
  Speaker 1: that there's a rape culture in a place like Cornell,
• 31:59
  Speaker 1: that Cornell is fostering and enabling a rape culture. No,
• 32:03
  Speaker 1: it's exactly the opposite. They're willing to cave and to
• 32:08
  Speaker 1: probably over-punish. I mean, people completely lost their minds on
• 32:11
  Speaker 1: this Cornell thing. I mean, two guys got expelled. The
• 32:14
  Speaker 1: other two guys got severely punished. There's all sorts of
• 32:19
  Speaker 1: punishments that have already happened. I mean, the DA, in
• 32:24
  Speaker 1: my opinion, made the right decision by not going with
• 32:27
  Speaker 1: the criminal charges based upon the statements of Jane Doe herself,
• 32:32
  Speaker 1: not to mention the facts of the case. And yet
• 32:36
  Speaker 1: somehow a lawsuit, and by the way, it's not just
• 32:39
  Speaker 1: a lawsuit, okay? This is the part that's driving me
• 32:43
  Speaker 1: the most crazy on the lawsuit front. It's insane on
• 32:46
  Speaker 1: its face for all of this to be based on
• 32:49
  Speaker 1: a lawsuit. But particularly when that lawsuit was so poorly researched,
• 32:56
  Speaker 1: and so poorly constructed that we already have, by the
• 33:01
  Speaker 1: admission of the law firm that filed the lawsuit, they
• 33:07
  Speaker 1: have been forced now to admit that one of the
• 33:11
  Speaker 1: people that they served in the lawsuit was the wrong guy.
• 33:17
  Speaker 1: And this person has had their life at least temporarily
• 33:20
  Speaker 1: destroyed because of it. So they served a wrong person,
• 33:25
  Speaker 1: and now... In the last couple of days, they've been
• 33:27
  Speaker 1: forced to admit that they sued the wrong person, that
• 33:32
  Speaker 1: the person that they thought was in charge of one
• 33:34
  Speaker 1: of the organizations that they're suing, because they're suing God
• 33:37
  Speaker 1: and everybody, because that's all they want is money and
• 33:39
  Speaker 1: publicity here. They're not about the truth. They're not about justice.
• 33:43
  Speaker 1: That person wasn't even in a position at the time.
• 33:47
  Speaker 1: And has there been any mea culpa by the news media? Oh, gee,
• 33:51
  Speaker 1: maybe we should not have taken this lawsuit so seriously
• 33:55
  Speaker 1: if they actually served a wrong person and sued a
• 33:57
  Speaker 1: wrong person. What else did they get wrong? What else
• 34:01
  Speaker 1: could they have possibly gotten wrong in throwing all this
• 34:06
  Speaker 1: up against the wall to try to get publicity and
• 34:08
  Speaker 1: try to force Cornell into a settlement? It's unbelievable how
• 34:14
  Speaker 1: bad the news media is on this. And academia is
• 34:18
  Speaker 1: a massive problem on this topic. I've said this a
• 34:22
  Speaker 1: hundred times before. Obviously, my Penn State experience has given
• 34:27
  Speaker 1: me a unique view on this, but that was just
• 34:30
  Speaker 1: the beginning. I've seen this time and time and time again.
• 34:34
  Speaker 1: Academia does not have any clue how to handle this.
• 34:39
  Speaker 1: Any of the three R's, rape, race, and Republicans, The
• 34:45
  Speaker 1: legacy media is terrible on, but academia is even worse.
• 34:49
  Speaker 1: It's in their DNA. They cannot possibly handle any of
• 34:55
  Speaker 1: those three words, rape, race, or Republicans. They literally melt.
• 35:01
  Speaker 1: They have no idea what they're doing. They have to cave,
• 35:05
  Speaker 1: and they have to virtue signal, and they have to
• 35:08
  Speaker 1: give away other people's money, and the media has no
• 35:12
  Speaker 1: clue how to properly interpret it.
• 35:15
  Speaker 2: None.
• 35:16
  Speaker 1: They all think that somehow this means, oh, well, if Cornell,
• 35:20
  Speaker 1: like Penn State did, and like all these other schools did,
• 35:24
  Speaker 1: if they're giving away money or if they're admitting fault,
• 35:27
  Speaker 1: that is a guilty plea that has no other interpretation
• 35:30
  Speaker 1: other than, my God, this horrible thing must have actually happened. No,
• 35:37
  Speaker 1: there's a completely different scenario. And we have proof of
• 35:42
  Speaker 1: a completely different scenario. Because we have a remarkable story
• 35:47
  Speaker 1: that just broke in the last few days where a
• 35:51
  Speaker 1: former MIT scientist has won a $ 6 million defamation verdict
• 35:58
  Speaker 1: against a female colleague who accused him of, you guessed it,
• 36:03
  Speaker 1: sexual misconduct. Now, this story, of course, is not going
• 36:07
  Speaker 1: to get anywhere near the same kind of publicity as
• 36:10
  Speaker 1: the Cornell 8 case will because it doesn't fit. When
• 36:15
  Speaker 1: in reality, if we lived in a remotely rational world,
• 36:18
  Speaker 1: there would be people going, huh, wait a minute, hold on.
• 36:22
  Speaker 1: How was this able to happen in an elite academic setting?
• 36:28
  Speaker 1: Is it possible that there's a fundamental problem when it
• 36:33
  Speaker 1: comes to how especially elite academic institutions handle allegations of
• 36:40
  Speaker 1: sexual misconduct? Hmm.
• 36:43
  Speaker 3: Hmm.
• 36:43
  Speaker 1: No, no, we wouldn't want to do that kind of introspection.
• 36:46
  Speaker 1: That might be troubling. We might find things we don't
• 36:49
  Speaker 1: want to find. We might be in a situation where
• 36:52
  Speaker 1: we have to revisit like a dozen different cases that
• 36:56
  Speaker 1: we fully bought into. But this story is amazing. Here
• 37:01
  Speaker 1: from the New York Post, Dr. David Sabatini, a former
• 37:05
  Speaker 1: MIT biology professor and prominent biomedical researcher. was awarded $ 6
• 37:11
  Speaker 1: million in damages after a jury found that his former colleague, Dr.
• 37:17
  Speaker 1: Kristen Canoes, had defamed him. At the time of the allegations,
• 37:22
  Speaker 1: Sabatini had led a research lab at the Whitehead Institute
• 37:28
  Speaker 1: for Biomedical Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts. He had done this
• 37:32
  Speaker 1: for approximately 24 years. His work focused on cell biology
• 37:38
  Speaker 1: and its connections to neurodegenerative diseases, diabetes, aging, and cancer.
• 37:45
  Speaker 1: In 2021, Sabatini lost his position at Whitehead following an
• 37:51
  Speaker 1: internal investigation into the allegations made by Dr. Kristin Knuths,
• 37:57
  Speaker 1: a younger colleague who worked at the Institute. The pair
• 38:00
  Speaker 1: met in 2012 and began a sexual relationship in 2018,
• 38:06
  Speaker 1: which ended the following year. According to the court documents
• 38:14
  Speaker 1: obtained by Fox News Channel Digital, Canoes later alleged the
• 38:18
  Speaker 1: relationship was coerced. Coerced. It went on for a year.
• 38:24
  Speaker 1: It was coerced. By the way, there's so many aspects
• 38:26
  Speaker 1: to this story that are relevant, but one of them
• 38:29
  Speaker 1: is we are now reaching the point where at least
• 38:32
  Speaker 1: within woke academic circles, someone who is at a higher
• 38:38
  Speaker 1: level of stature, a male, having a consensual sexual relationship,
• 38:47
  Speaker 1: nothing inappropriate about it, for over a year can now
• 38:52
  Speaker 1: be retroactively determined to be some sort of sexual misconduct
• 38:58
  Speaker 1: because the relationship was quote unquote coerced. Now forget about
• 39:03
  Speaker 1: the insanity of that. How about the infantilization? of women here.
• 39:10
  Speaker 1: These are elite, woke academic institutions that are supposedly all
• 39:14
  Speaker 1: about feminism. This is a doctor. Now, apparently she has
• 39:19
  Speaker 1: a terrible academic record, which is not surprising when you
• 39:23
  Speaker 1: get into the details of this whole thing. But this
• 39:26
  Speaker 1: is allegedly an esteemed woman doctor, and somehow she is
• 39:35
  Speaker 1: so infantilized that she is engaged in a romantic relationship
• 39:40
  Speaker 1: for over a year, and now she's saying she was
• 39:42
  Speaker 1: coerced into it? Well, the details here are actually worse
• 39:49
  Speaker 1: than You're hearing, you know, some of this has been reported.
• 39:52
  Speaker 1: The New York Times did a story about it. But
• 39:55
  Speaker 1: they are watering down what really transpired here. What really
• 39:59
  Speaker 1: happened appears to have been that this woman was jealous
• 40:03
  Speaker 1: of this guy, was upset that the relationship seemed to
• 40:06
  Speaker 1: be ending, and went into a conspiracy to destroy his
• 40:11
  Speaker 1: career with another woman at MIT, who then created a
• 40:16
  Speaker 1: bogus investigation of this guy. resulting in his firing, the
• 40:22
  Speaker 1: destruction of his reputation, the destroying of his career, all
• 40:27
  Speaker 1: because a jealous woman convinced another woman within the infrastructure
• 40:33
  Speaker 1: to go on an attack and destroy mission on this guy.
• 40:37
  Speaker 1: And thankfully, a jury saw through it. I'm usually against
• 40:42
  Speaker 1: these kind of jury judgments. But frankly, in this case,
• 40:45
  Speaker 1: it sounds like $ 6 million wasn't enough. I have no
• 40:48
  Speaker 1: idea if he'll ever get the actual $ 6 million. He
• 40:51
  Speaker 1: at least gets some level of vindication. But this is
• 40:55
  Speaker 1: a really amazing story. But maybe the most remarkable part
• 41:00
  Speaker 1: about it is, if you understand the way elite academia works,
• 41:04
  Speaker 1: it's not that shocking. This kind of stuff probably happens
• 41:08
  Speaker 1: all the time because women now know they are empowered
• 41:12
  Speaker 1: in this situation. And how in the world a guy
• 41:17
  Speaker 1: could ever possibly survive under these circumstances, I have no idea.
• 41:22
  Speaker 1: I have no idea. We have now created rules that
• 41:25
  Speaker 1: have made it essentially impossible. for a man to engage
• 41:28
  Speaker 1: in any sort of relationship, especially if he's of a
• 41:32
  Speaker 1: higher stature. I mean, this is the whole Matt Lauer
• 41:36
  Speaker 1: rape theory that Ronan Farrow came up with. Even though
• 41:41
  Speaker 1: this was a consensual relationship over many months, and they
• 41:45
  Speaker 1: didn't even work in the same part of NBC together, Somehow,
• 41:49
  Speaker 1: because Matt was world famous and very powerful, and the
• 41:53
  Speaker 1: woman involved was a producer for another aspect, another part
• 41:58
  Speaker 1: of NBC that was not directly under Matt Lauer at all.
• 42:01
  Speaker 1: Matt had no authority over this woman whatsoever, which is
• 42:04
  Speaker 1: why it's relevant. Somehow, Ronan Farrow convinced that woman that
• 42:09
  Speaker 1: she had been raped. And somehow... As if the entire
• 42:15
  Speaker 1: world hasn't been run on the idea that men want
• 42:18
  Speaker 1: to achieve power and stature and money because they'll be
• 42:21
  Speaker 1: attractive to women. That's literally what has made the world
• 42:26
  Speaker 1: go round for centuries and centuries. And now somehow that's rape,
• 42:32
  Speaker 1: at least when the media wants it to be. By
• 42:36
  Speaker 1: the way, not when Jimmy Kimmel does it. Jimmy Kimmel
• 42:40
  Speaker 1: did exactly the same thing with his now current wife.
• 42:43
  Speaker 1: I'm just using that as one example because Jimmy Kimmel
• 42:46
  Speaker 1: is a woke hero. But Jimmy Kimmel's gotten away with
• 42:49
  Speaker 1: all sorts of shit over his career that are incredibly
• 42:52
  Speaker 1: hypocritical given the woke rules of engagement. The point here
• 42:57
  Speaker 1: is this is not unusual. This is just a situation
• 43:01
  Speaker 1: that got caught recently. And if we were living in
• 43:05
  Speaker 1: a remotely rational world, this would cause legacy media outlets
• 43:12
  Speaker 1: to at least take a step back and go, hmm, wow,
• 43:19
  Speaker 1: that's really something. How did that happen? I wonder if
• 43:23
  Speaker 1: there is a fundamental problem within academic institutions that allows
• 43:29
  Speaker 1: these kinds of false stories to to gain traction, and
• 43:33
  Speaker 1: to destroy lives. Is that possible? But there's been none
• 43:38
  Speaker 1: of that. None of that. Just like there's been no
• 43:41
  Speaker 1: mea culpa with regard to the Cornell 8 lawsuit that
• 43:46
  Speaker 1: has made two massive blunders in serving a wrong person
• 43:49
  Speaker 1: and suing a wrong person. No, there's no revisiting. And
• 43:53
  Speaker 1: this will be perceived, I guess, and I would love,
• 43:56
  Speaker 1: I would honestly love to know, within the circles of
• 43:59
  Speaker 1: the legacy media and the liberal women that dominate those newsrooms.
• 44:03
  Speaker 1: Is this just seen as an aberration that's irrelevant? Wow,
• 44:09
  Speaker 1: just a one-off that's terrible. Thank goodness the jury fixed
• 44:14
  Speaker 1: it for us and we'll do one story on it
• 44:16
  Speaker 1: and then we're going to move on. That's my guess.
• 44:19
  Speaker 1: That's my guess that they've just rationalized that this is
• 44:24
  Speaker 1: an aberration, that this is a unique situation. It's not
• 44:28
  Speaker 1: a unique situation. This is a result of a fundamentally
• 44:32
  Speaker 1: broken set of circumstances, a broken system within elite academia.
• 44:40
  Speaker 1: And thankfully, this one at least has been somewhat fixed.
• 44:45
  Speaker 1: But we have another situation. It's not exactly the same,
• 44:49
  Speaker 1: but it's very similar, where it appears as if there's
• 44:52
  Speaker 1: been another rush to judgment when it comes to allegations
• 44:56
  Speaker 1: of sexual abuse. I'm referring to Timothy Busfield, the actor.
• 45:01
  Speaker 1: We talked about this a few months ago. And I
• 45:03
  Speaker 1: was at first hesitant to dive in because the allegations
• 45:06
  Speaker 1: against Busfield by two young boys on a movie set
• 45:12
  Speaker 1: where Busfield was the director were very, very similar in
• 45:17
  Speaker 1: some ways to the Jerry Sandusky story. And I know
• 45:20
  Speaker 1: that if I weighed in on any situation that's remotely
• 45:23
  Speaker 1: similar and it turns out that I'm wrong... that that's
• 45:26
  Speaker 1: going to have consequences. People are going to say, oh, well,
• 45:29
  Speaker 1: you're wrong about Busfield, so you must be wrong about Sandusky.
• 45:32
  Speaker 1: But I did, after doing a deep dive on it,
• 45:36
  Speaker 1: come to the conclusion that this was a bogus allegation.
• 45:40
  Speaker 1: And Melissa Gilbert, his wife, came out and very strongly
• 45:45
  Speaker 1: defended him. And I said that because of Melissa Gilbert,
• 45:47
  Speaker 1: and obviously from Little House on the Prairie fame, that
• 45:51
  Speaker 1: this gave Busfield a chance, that he had one thing
• 45:55
  Speaker 1: going for him that Jerry Sandusky did not have, which
• 45:57
  Speaker 1: was a famous wife who was willing to stand up
• 46:00
  Speaker 1: and fight for him. If he was married to Dottie Sandusky,
• 46:04
  Speaker 1: I think Bustfield would be in much bigger trouble than
• 46:07
  Speaker 1: he's currently in. Instead, he's married to Melissa Gilbert, an
• 46:10
  Speaker 1: American icon. Well, the media didn't give you nearly as
• 46:15
  Speaker 1: much attention as it deserves, certainly not nearly as much
• 46:18
  Speaker 1: attention as the original allegation got, but the indictments against
• 46:22
  Speaker 1: Bustfield have been dismissed. They've been dismissed. Now, that doesn't
• 46:30
  Speaker 1: mean that he's in the clear. My guess is, because
• 46:34
  Speaker 1: this happened due to a judge determining that there's been
• 46:38
  Speaker 1: prosecutorial misconduct, which is another thing that's very similar to
• 46:42
  Speaker 1: the Jerry Sandusky case, and that therefore the indictments were illegitimate,
• 46:47
  Speaker 1: prosecutors still could indict Busfield again. My guess is that
• 46:52
  Speaker 1: they won't, because this case stinks to high heaven. And
• 46:56
  Speaker 1: I think Busfield would likely beat these charges, especially with
• 47:00
  Speaker 1: Melissa Gilbert on his side. But Busfield actually gets the
• 47:04
  Speaker 1: worst of all worlds here because he gets a partial exoneration,
• 47:11
  Speaker 1: but not a full one, because the media, not without
• 47:15
  Speaker 1: some logic, can claim, well, it's not over yet. He
• 47:20
  Speaker 1: might still be indicted again. And a judge wasn't determining
• 47:24
  Speaker 1: his innocence, just that the prosecutors were inherently and fundamentally
• 47:28
  Speaker 1: corrupt in the way they got this indictment. Well, I'm sorry.
• 47:33
  Speaker 1: Given the incredibly weak nature of the evidence and the
• 47:38
  Speaker 1: shady story, I'm more than willing to conclude that this
• 47:44
  Speaker 1: is an exoneration of Timothy Busfield. And that the reason
• 47:47
  Speaker 1: why there was prosecutorial misconduct, much like in the Sandusky case,
• 47:52
  Speaker 1: is because the prosecutors knew they had a bullshit case.
• 47:56
  Speaker 1: So this is the way you have to look at
• 47:58
  Speaker 1: these things, but the media is incapable of doing that
• 48:01
  Speaker 1: because they are so invested in the idea that somehow
• 48:05
  Speaker 1: allegations of sexual abuse exist. that are false are incredibly rare.
• 48:10
  Speaker 1: Incredibly rare. Even when there's a massive motivation for someone
• 48:15
  Speaker 1: to make a false allegation. Like in this circumstance where
• 48:20
  Speaker 1: there's obviously money at stake and there may have been
• 48:23
  Speaker 1: revenge at issue here. And you have a story that
• 48:28
  Speaker 1: didn't make any sense that was contradicted where you had
• 48:31
  Speaker 1: the kids on tape saying that nothing had ever happened.
• 48:34
  Speaker 1: You had meddling parents involved. I am very confident that
• 48:39
  Speaker 1: Timothy Busfield never abused those kids. And I hope for
• 48:43
  Speaker 1: him that this thing is over, but he's not going
• 48:45
  Speaker 1: to get his life back because the allegation is so
• 48:49
  Speaker 1: damaging and it got so much publicity at the beginning
• 48:53
  Speaker 1: and there will be no exoneration for him. Just because
• 48:58
  Speaker 1: of the nature of the legal system, we have created
• 49:00
  Speaker 1: a circumstance where the pendulum has swung way, way, way
• 49:05
  Speaker 1: too far in the other direction. way too far. And
• 49:10
  Speaker 1: now everyone knows it. There's no repercussions for making a
• 49:15
  Speaker 1: false allegation. You might as well go for it. Because
• 49:18
  Speaker 1: even if it turns out you're lying and even if
• 49:21
  Speaker 1: it turns out you get found out as a liar,
• 49:24
  Speaker 1: nothing's going to happen to you. And the media, if
• 49:28
  Speaker 1: they like the story, is going to buy into it
• 49:31
  Speaker 1: every single time. And they might pressure the organization that
• 49:35
  Speaker 1: you're going after into giving up free money in a settlement.
• 49:40
  Speaker 1: These things never actually go to a trial because no
• 49:45
  Speaker 1: one making a shaky allegation wants there actually to be
• 49:48
  Speaker 1: scrutiny involved in this unless the media is really on
• 49:52
  Speaker 1: your side and there's really a huge motivation to do so.
• 49:56
  Speaker 1: By the way, I should probably do a weekly update
• 49:59
  Speaker 1: on this. Speaking of allegations for which there's no actual evidence,
• 50:04
  Speaker 1: we still have no update on the story out of
• 50:08
  Speaker 1: Arizona where a female Democrat congressional candidate running for office,
• 50:15
  Speaker 1: up for election in less than two weeks, when she
• 50:19
  Speaker 1: claimed now, as of this date, 10 weeks ago, 10
• 50:23
  Speaker 1: weeks ago, she claimed she was brutally, horrifically raped by
• 50:27
  Speaker 1: not one, but by two men in public. By two
• 50:32
  Speaker 1: men in public.
• 50:34
  Speaker 3: Where.
• 50:35
  Speaker 1: where she was brutally raped. And as of right now,
• 50:40
  Speaker 1: there are no updates. There's no evidence that law enforcement
• 50:45
  Speaker 1: has come up with any relevant information about this in
• 50:47
  Speaker 1: this day and age with flock cameras and cell phones
• 50:51
  Speaker 1: and all sorts of other technological advances. 10 weeks later, nothing.
• 50:58
  Speaker 1: And the media has just dropped the story, just like
• 51:01
  Speaker 1: I told you they would last week. They've just dropped it.
• 51:05
  Speaker 1: based upon what this woman claims, we have two horrendous
• 51:09
  Speaker 1: rapists on the loose in Arizona. And even though we've
• 51:13
  Speaker 1: got this massive moral panic going on with the Cornell
• 51:16
  Speaker 1: aid and this rape culture that everyone claims is going on,
• 51:20
  Speaker 1: somehow there's no interest by the news media in tracking
• 51:23
  Speaker 1: these bastards down and putting them behind bars. Why is that?
• 51:28
  Speaker 1: In fact, the only person that seems to be interested
• 51:30
  Speaker 1: at all is her opponent. The Republican just put out
• 51:33
  Speaker 1: a reward for $ 10, 000 leading to the arrest of these suspects,
• 51:39
  Speaker 1: which I think is a pretty good move. Although if
• 51:40
  Speaker 1: I was this guy, I might've gone with $ 10 million
• 51:43
  Speaker 1: because I'm now more and more confident that there are
• 51:47
  Speaker 1: no suspects. The story makes absolutely no sense. I was
• 51:51
  Speaker 1: open to the idea last week that, okay, maybe this
• 51:54
  Speaker 1: story is so strange that there could be some truth
• 51:57
  Speaker 1: to that. I think I put it at like 5%
• 51:59
  Speaker 1: or 10%. Well, I'm now even below 5%. Because at
• 52:04
  Speaker 1: this point, we would be hearing something. There would be something.
• 52:10
  Speaker 1: And the media silence on this, I think, is very telling.
• 52:14
  Speaker 1: The media knows. This is a story they don't want
• 52:17
  Speaker 1: to get to the bottom of, especially with a female
• 52:19
  Speaker 1: Democrat who happens to be part of this midterm election.
• 52:24
  Speaker 1: But this is another example. very much like Busfield, very
• 52:27
  Speaker 1: much like the MIT situation, where we're never going to
• 52:32
  Speaker 1: get to the bottom of it in all likelihood, unless
• 52:34
  Speaker 1: somehow some miracle happens and I'm totally wrong. And this
• 52:38
  Speaker 1: is the craziest story that ever had actually some truth
• 52:40
  Speaker 1: to it. I'm not believing that's likely to happen, but
• 52:44
  Speaker 1: it's still within the realm of possibility. But assuming that
• 52:48
  Speaker 1: I'm right here, the media should be at least doing
• 52:52
  Speaker 1: some introspection. that wait a minute, maybe we've gone too far.
• 52:57
  Speaker 1: Maybe we've set up a set of rules and circumstances
• 53:01
  Speaker 1: now where people are way, way too willing and able
• 53:05
  Speaker 1: to make false allegations because they have a motivation to
• 53:09
  Speaker 1: do so and the media buys into it and everyone
• 53:11
  Speaker 1: knows that the media is going to buy into it.
• 53:14
  Speaker 1: Maybe we have created a situation where false allegations are
• 53:20
  Speaker 1: far more likely than we ever realized, and that we
• 53:24
  Speaker 1: should consider that whenever we are evaluating a new circumstance.
• 53:32
  Speaker 1: It doesn't seem like I'm asking very much, but that's
• 53:35
  Speaker 1: never going to happen. It's never going to happen, especially
• 53:38
  Speaker 1: when liberal females dominate the newsroom. I cannot emphasize that enough.
• 53:44
  Speaker 1: Liberal females dominate the newsroom. And in their minds, They're
• 53:51
  Speaker 1: doing God's work here. Even if it means a few
• 53:55
  Speaker 1: innocent people get hurt in the mix, they don't care.
• 54:00
  Speaker 1: They don't care because they think they really have, they've
• 54:04
  Speaker 1: concluded that we're living in a rape culture and that
• 54:06
  Speaker 1: something has to be done about this. Katie Couric just
• 54:09
  Speaker 1: did an interview. I'm not going to play the clip
• 54:11
  Speaker 1: from it because it's just so nauseating. But she did
• 54:15
  Speaker 1: an interview with the professor from Cornell who advises the
• 54:19
  Speaker 1: student paper there. And they're getting all sorts of credit
• 54:24
  Speaker 1: for breaking this story and not letting it go and
• 54:27
  Speaker 1: finally getting justice of the Cornell, what they call a
• 54:30
  Speaker 1: Cornell 7 case. And this woman is a nut job.
• 54:35
  Speaker 1: nut job. She truly believes that all men are rapists, basically.
• 54:40
  Speaker 1: It's really unbelievable, but this is the mindset of the
• 54:43
  Speaker 1: people who are making the decisions. She's the faculty advisor
• 54:47
  Speaker 1: for the student newspaper at Cornell. That's the type of
• 54:51
  Speaker 1: woman who is dictating the conversations in every major newsroom
• 54:56
  Speaker 1: other than the you know, the strongly conservative outlets, every
• 55:00
  Speaker 1: single newsroom, and nobody is going to have the balls
• 55:04
  Speaker 1: to stand up and say, well, hold on. Isn't there
• 55:07
  Speaker 1: another side of this story? Because there's nothing in it
• 55:09
  Speaker 1: for that person, especially if they're a straight white male.
• 55:13
  Speaker 1: They have no shot. They're going to get destroyed. They
• 55:16
  Speaker 1: just want to hold on to their job. Truth and
• 55:19
  Speaker 1: justice means nothing. And so that's the situation we've created here.
• 55:25
  Speaker 1: And it's, incredibly telling and very depressing and very dangerous
• 55:30
  Speaker 1: because this kind of stuff is going to keep happening
• 55:33
  Speaker 1: time and time and time again. And while this has
• 55:37
  Speaker 1: nothing to do with the realm of sexual abuse, although
• 55:39
  Speaker 1: I guess in some ways it has an indirect relationship,
• 55:43
  Speaker 1: but there have been two stories in the last week
• 55:46
  Speaker 1: that have really exposed just how fundamentally fucking fraudulent major
• 55:54
  Speaker 1: legacy media outlets outlets have become in the modern era.
• 56:00
  Speaker 1: I mean, every time I think we can't go any lower,
• 56:03
  Speaker 1: we actually do. And one of them deals with OJ
• 56:07
  Speaker 1: Simpson and the other with Amelia Earhart. And these are
• 56:13
  Speaker 1: two stories that keep coming back time and time and
• 56:17
  Speaker 1: time again on almost a yearly basis, maybe a bi-yearly basis,
• 56:22
  Speaker 1: where some bullshit will be you know, put out there
• 56:28
  Speaker 1: and legacy media outlets will pretend that it's legitimate news.
• 56:34
  Speaker 1: I want to start with OJ Simpson. This is really amazing. Now,
• 56:39
  Speaker 1: I probably don't need to remind you of my many
• 56:42
  Speaker 1: connections to the OJ Simpson case, but let's just say
• 56:45
  Speaker 1: I am absolutely a world-class expert on the OJ Simpson case.
• 56:51
  Speaker 1: And not just because, you know, I very seriously dated
• 56:54
  Speaker 1: Kim Goldman, the daughter, not the daughter, the daughter, obviously
• 56:57
  Speaker 1: the sister of Ron Goldman, who OJ Simpson murdered along
• 57:00
  Speaker 1: with his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson. That's actually a fairly
• 57:05
  Speaker 1: minor part of my entire role in the entire OJ
• 57:09
  Speaker 1: Simpson saga. But I know all the facts of the case.
• 57:14
  Speaker 1: I was obsessed, more obsessed than almost anybody at the
• 57:16
  Speaker 1: time for all sorts of different reasons, partially because OJ
• 57:19
  Speaker 1: Simpson was my favorite football player for a couple of
• 57:23
  Speaker 1: year period when he was with the Buffalo Bills in
• 57:25
  Speaker 1: the mid seventies. And I was just, learning about the
• 57:27
  Speaker 1: sport of football. And so I found it at first
• 57:32
  Speaker 1: amusing and then infuriated that for the last several days,
• 57:37
  Speaker 1: we've had major legacy media outlets, major allegedly reputable news outlets,
• 57:47
  Speaker 1: starting with the New York fucking Times. The New York
• 57:52
  Speaker 1: Times claiming that there's bombshell new evidence indicating that OJ
• 57:59
  Speaker 1: Simpson had a mob accomplice on the night of the
• 58:05
  Speaker 1: murders back in June of 1994. Now, when I first
• 58:11
  Speaker 1: saw this, it began as, in my experience, as a
• 58:18
  Speaker 1: TikTok video put out by the New York Times. And
• 58:22
  Speaker 1: it was hosted by a young guy I had never
• 58:26
  Speaker 1: heard of before named Baker. And in fact, trying to
• 58:30
  Speaker 1: find information on this guy was very difficult. I couldn't even,
• 58:34
  Speaker 1: AI couldn't even tell me how old he was. They
• 58:36
  Speaker 1: couldn't even tell me what year he graduated from college,
• 58:39
  Speaker 1: but he clearly was not even 40 years old. And
• 58:43
  Speaker 1: if you're under 40 years old, that means you weren't
• 58:46
  Speaker 1: really alive during the OJ Simpson case.
• 58:49
  Speaker 4: All right.
• 58:50
  Speaker 1: Cause that was over 30 years ago. And if you're
• 58:53
  Speaker 1: a kid, you, Clearly weren't paying any attention. So there's
• 58:57
  Speaker 1: no chance that this guy who's reporting on this actually
• 59:01
  Speaker 1: lived through the O.J. Simpson saga. And that's important. Now, look,
• 59:08
  Speaker 1: I get the idea of fresh eyes.
• 59:10
  Speaker 3: Eyes.
• 59:10
  Speaker 1: I get it. But there's also something to be said
• 59:14
  Speaker 1: for having lived through it and understanding what was possible
• 59:18
  Speaker 1: and what wasn't possible. And for instance, understanding because it
• 59:23
  Speaker 1: was such a massive story, everyone wanted to be part
• 59:27
  Speaker 1: of it. Everyone wanted to have some role in it.
• 59:32
  Speaker 1: I've been accused of the same thing, which is really,
• 59:34
  Speaker 1: I don't think legitimate, but okay, fine, whatever. The point is,
• 59:39
  Speaker 1: everybody wanted to have some role. People were desperate to
• 59:44
  Speaker 1: have a piece of it in any way, shape, or form,
• 59:46
  Speaker 1: whether that was public or private, whatever it was. And
• 59:50
  Speaker 1: so therefore, anything that someone says to someone else privately
• 59:55
  Speaker 1: is with regard to their alleged involvement in the actual act,
• 1:00:00
  Speaker 1: is inherently highly suspicious. But particularly if you understand the
• 1:00:05
  Speaker 1: dynamics of the facts, of the evidence, of the timeline,
• 1:00:11
  Speaker 1: of the narrative of that night, if you do, you
• 1:00:15
  Speaker 1: understand that it is not possible, it is not possible
• 1:00:19
  Speaker 1: logistically for O.J. Simpson to have had the kind of
• 1:00:24
  Speaker 1: accomplice that is being described at first by the New
• 1:00:29
  Speaker 1: York Times and then picked up by virtually every single
• 1:00:33
  Speaker 1: fucking major media outlet in the country. Now, there's three
• 1:00:38
  Speaker 1: basic important parts of this story. One is the truth
• 1:00:43
  Speaker 1: of the OJ case, which I'm going to get to.
• 1:00:45
  Speaker 1: But two is that this story and the way that
• 1:00:49
  Speaker 1: it exploded exposes two other Enormous biases that the legacy
• 1:00:58
  Speaker 1: news media still has today that I'm frankly embaffled by,
• 1:01:04
  Speaker 1: but I think need to be pointed out because they
• 1:01:08
  Speaker 1: impact a lot of different stories. And one of the
• 1:01:12
  Speaker 1: biases is it's in the New York Times. It's inherently credible.
• 1:01:18
  Speaker 1: That still plays a huge role. I mean, there are
• 1:01:23
  Speaker 1: legacy media outlets that still think that if the New
• 1:01:26
  Speaker 1: York Times reports on something, that that makes it inherently credible,
• 1:01:31
  Speaker 1: inherently newsworthy, inherently something that they themselves ought to echo. Now,
• 1:01:39
  Speaker 1: it's not as strong as it used to be, but
• 1:01:43
  Speaker 1: based on this story, it's still strong. I mean, it
• 1:01:46
  Speaker 1: used to be if the New York Times published something,
• 1:01:49
  Speaker 1: it was basically like, it being the headline on Drudge
• 1:01:53
  Speaker 1: for Fox News Channel back in the early 2000s. That's
• 1:01:58
  Speaker 1: the way it used to work, right? If Drudge put
• 1:02:00
  Speaker 1: something at its headline, it was going to be on
• 1:02:03
  Speaker 1: Fox News Channel because Drudge was effectively the assignment editor
• 1:02:07
  Speaker 1: for Fox News Channel and talk radio and the conservative media.
• 1:02:11
  Speaker 1: That's no longer the case, but it was in the
• 1:02:13
  Speaker 1: early 2000s and Andrew Breitbart, my then good friend, was
• 1:02:18
  Speaker 1: a huge part of that equation, which is why I'm
• 1:02:20
  Speaker 1: so intimately familiar with how that worked. Very similarly, for decades,
• 1:02:26
  Speaker 1: if it's in the New York Times, then legacy media,
• 1:02:30
  Speaker 1: almost in a Pavlovian response, has to echo it. The
• 1:02:36
  Speaker 1: New York Times is literally their assignment editor. Now, in
• 1:02:40
  Speaker 1: this particular situation, I didn't think that, maybe I was
• 1:02:44
  Speaker 1: just naive, I did not think that everyone else was
• 1:02:47
  Speaker 1: going to pick up on this because I thought, this
• 1:02:50
  Speaker 1: is just such obviously bullshit clickbait that this is going
• 1:02:55
  Speaker 1: to embarrass the New York Times. But no, no, I
• 1:02:59
  Speaker 1: was way too optimistic. I was wrong. I was naive,
• 1:03:04
  Speaker 1: as I occasionally am, where I think people can't possibly
• 1:03:08
  Speaker 1: be this stupid. This is going to I actually thought
• 1:03:12
  Speaker 1: there was going to be at least somewhat of a
• 1:03:13
  Speaker 1: backlash against the New York Times, but that didn't happen. Instead,
• 1:03:19
  Speaker 1: we went back to this world where, well, the New
• 1:03:22
  Speaker 1: York Times is credible, and it doesn't matter how much
• 1:03:25
  Speaker 1: bullshit is in the story and how obviously it's clickbait
• 1:03:29
  Speaker 1: and delusional. And the sourcing is terrible. That doesn't matter.
• 1:03:34
  Speaker 1: It's in the New York Times. So therefore, if we
• 1:03:37
  Speaker 1: like the story, and I think that's really what the
• 1:03:39
  Speaker 1: new rule is. The old rule used to be, if
• 1:03:41
  Speaker 1: it's in the Times, we have to do it. Now,
• 1:03:44
  Speaker 1: if it's in the Times and we like the story,
• 1:03:46
  Speaker 1: we get to do it. because they provide us inherent cover.
• 1:03:51
  Speaker 1: Nobody's going to criticize us for clickbaiting if the New
• 1:03:54
  Speaker 1: York Times does it first. So the New York Times
• 1:03:57
  Speaker 1: provides cover and then everyone else looks at this and goes, well,
• 1:04:01
  Speaker 1: this is a great clickbait story. OJ Simpson, everybody over
• 1:04:05
  Speaker 1: the age of 40 knows about the story already. I
• 1:04:07
  Speaker 1: don't have to explain it. There's inherent interest. This is
• 1:04:10
  Speaker 1: new intrigue. This is going to do well for us.
• 1:04:14
  Speaker 1: And thank you, New York Times, for providing us cover
• 1:04:17
  Speaker 1: for a completely bullshit story and allowing us to engage
• 1:04:20
  Speaker 1: in blatant click baiting. So that's the one bias. The
• 1:04:24
  Speaker 1: second bias, which I think is incredibly relevant to things
• 1:04:29
  Speaker 1: like the Cornell eight case, because let's be clear, the
• 1:04:32
  Speaker 1: Cornell eight case is based upon a lawsuit, which is
• 1:04:35
  Speaker 1: a legal filing. And somehow that has magic in the
• 1:04:41
  Speaker 1: media's mind. My God, Find someone who loves you as
• 1:04:46
  Speaker 1: much as the legacy media loves quote unquote court documents.
• 1:04:51
  Speaker 1: They think there's some fucking magic to either court documents
• 1:04:55
  Speaker 1: or unsealed court files or unearthed government documents. They literally
• 1:05:04
  Speaker 1: think there's magic to this. And there's not. There is
• 1:05:10
  Speaker 1: no magic to them. In fact, More often than not,
• 1:05:15
  Speaker 1: as we have seen with JFK assassination files and Epstein
• 1:05:23
  Speaker 1: files and alien files, the vast, vast, overwhelming majority of
• 1:05:32
  Speaker 1: documents that have never been made public in those particular
• 1:05:36
  Speaker 1: subject matters are bullshit, which is why they've never been
• 1:05:41
  Speaker 1: made public. Whenever you have a story of incredibly high interest,
• 1:05:48
  Speaker 1: like the JFK assassination, like the Epstein situation, especially when
• 1:05:52
  Speaker 1: Trump is an incumbent president running for reelection and one
• 1:05:56
  Speaker 1: of his best buddies kills himself at a federal prison,
• 1:05:59
  Speaker 1: like with aliens, like with OJ Simpson, whenever you have
• 1:06:05
  Speaker 1: a story like that, you're gonna have an enormous amount
• 1:06:10
  Speaker 1: of bullshit documents. because that's what these things are. They're
• 1:06:17
  Speaker 1: garbage receptacles for people's bullshit. And somehow a bullshit story
• 1:06:26
  Speaker 1: in unsealed court files became a story in the New
• 1:06:31
  Speaker 1: York Times, which got picked up by everybody, including by
• 1:06:36
  Speaker 1: ABC World News Tonight. I'm going to play one clip
• 1:06:38
  Speaker 1: for you. This is going to prove a lot of
• 1:06:40
  Speaker 1: what I'm talking about. One, it's going to prove how
• 1:06:43
  Speaker 1: the legacy media picked up on the New York Times,
• 1:06:45
  Speaker 1: as if somehow that's inherently credible, but also even in
• 1:06:49
  Speaker 1: their own reporting. As they're going through this, they basically
• 1:06:53
  Speaker 1: discredit the report without actually saying they're discrediting the report.
• 1:06:57
  Speaker 1: But here is ABC World News Tonight, David Muir, and
• 1:07:01
  Speaker 1: their reporter, Aaron Katursky, who not coincidentally has been doing
• 1:07:06
  Speaker 1: a terrible job on Cornell 8, And he does almost
• 1:07:10
  Speaker 1: exactly the same thing here, although at least he does
• 1:07:12
  Speaker 1: play a clip of. The main source here, it's a
• 1:07:17
  Speaker 1: hearsay story. This is all based on hearsay. The brother
• 1:07:21
  Speaker 1: of a guy who had mob connections, who was friends
• 1:07:24
  Speaker 1: with OJ, who's been dead for 20 years, who was
• 1:07:28
  Speaker 1: friends with Al Cowlings, who's also been dead. OJ's dead.
• 1:07:31
  Speaker 1: Cowlings is dead. The original guy is dead. The brother
• 1:07:35
  Speaker 1: is still alive, although he's retracting his story, a story
• 1:07:38
  Speaker 1: that he tried to make money from, that somehow OJ
• 1:07:41
  Speaker 1: had an accomplice the night of the murders, and here's
• 1:07:44
  Speaker 1: ABC falling for a completely false story, all because it
• 1:07:49
  Speaker 1: was in the New York Times.
• 1:07:51
  Speaker 2: Tonight, more than 30 years now after his acquittal, the
• 1:07:53
  Speaker 2: stunning new twist in the O.J. Simpson murder case, what
• 1:07:56
  Speaker 2: newly unsealed court documents now suggest tonight. Here's our chief
• 1:08:00
  Speaker 2: investigative correspondent, Aaron Katursky.
• 1:08:03
  Speaker 1: Not guilty of the crime of murder.
• 1:08:05
  Speaker 4: Tonight, more than three decades after O.J. Simpson was found
• 1:08:08
  Speaker 4: not guilty of murdering his ex-wife, Nicole Brown Simpson, and
• 1:08:11
  Speaker 4: her friend Ron Goldman, there is new intrigue about whether
• 1:08:14
  Speaker 4: someone tried to cover up the crime of the century.
• 1:08:17
  Speaker 4: This recently unsealed court document shows Joseph Ippolito, a government
• 1:08:21
  Speaker 4: informant in an unrelated case, provided very helpful information about
• 1:08:26
  Speaker 4: the disposal of the murder weapon, which has never been found. Ippolito,
• 1:08:30
  Speaker 4: a drug trafficker linked to the New Jersey mob, died
• 1:08:32
  Speaker 4: 20 years ago, but back then he was close to A.C. Cowlings,
• 1:08:37
  Speaker 4: Simpson's best friend, who was behind the wheel of the
• 1:08:40
  Speaker 4: Bronco during the infamous chase. The document does not say
• 1:08:44
  Speaker 4: what Ippolito told investigators, but according to the New York Times,
• 1:08:48
  Speaker 4: his brother Sam recently claimed he heard Ippolito say he
• 1:08:51
  Speaker 4: had been helping Simpson the night of the murders and
• 1:08:54
  Speaker 4: saw his brother with what appeared to be bloodstained hands
• 1:08:57
  Speaker 4: carrying a bag. The Times reports Joey Ippolito put his
• 1:09:00
  Speaker 4: clothes in the bag and asked Sam to get rid
• 1:09:02
  Speaker 4: of it. We spoke to Sam Ippolito, who now denies
• 1:09:05
  Speaker 4: saying any of that to the Times.
• 1:09:07
  Speaker 5: They asked me specifically if you think he was involved,
• 1:09:11
  Speaker 5: and I said no.
• 1:09:12
  Speaker 1: I said he could have done a lot of things,
• 1:09:14
  Speaker 1: but not that.
• 1:09:15
  Speaker 4: David, nobody's ever been formally accused of being O.J. Simpson's accomplice,
• 1:09:19
  Speaker 4: and the statute of limitations on accessory to murder has
• 1:09:22
  Speaker 4: long expired, but the LAPD told us it would always
• 1:09:25
  Speaker 4: consider new information.
• 1:09:26
  Speaker 2: David?
• 1:09:27
  Speaker 1: Aaron Guterski on this. Aaron, thank you. Now, again, to
• 1:09:30
  Speaker 1: be clear, the only reason why ABC and every other
• 1:09:33
  Speaker 1: legacy media outlet did this story is because the New
• 1:09:37
  Speaker 1: York Times started it, and because they have this obsession
• 1:09:40
  Speaker 1: with unsealed court files, that somehow there's magic in them.
• 1:09:46
  Speaker 1: And we saw this probably most dramatically with regard to Epstein,
• 1:09:50
  Speaker 1: that somehow I think from a human perspective that this
• 1:09:54
  Speaker 1: has a lot to do with people always want what
• 1:09:56
  Speaker 1: they think they can't have. And so if somehow something
• 1:10:01
  Speaker 1: has been kept from us and we suddenly get access
• 1:10:05
  Speaker 1: to it, especially if you're a reporter, especially if you're
• 1:10:07
  Speaker 1: a young guy like from the New York Times and
• 1:10:10
  Speaker 1: you don't have any real memory of the OJ case
• 1:10:12
  Speaker 1: and that people were making shit up just because they
• 1:10:14
  Speaker 1: wanted to be part of it. If you're in that
• 1:10:17
  Speaker 1: camp and you think, oh, I have access to new information.
• 1:10:20
  Speaker 1: This information has been kept from me, but now I
• 1:10:22
  Speaker 1: have it for whatever reason. So it inherently somehow becomes valuable.
• 1:10:28
  Speaker 1: I think that's human nature. It's stupid, especially in this
• 1:10:33
  Speaker 1: particular case, because sometimes things have been kept from us
• 1:10:36
  Speaker 1: because they have no fucking value. Sometimes because they're just bullshit.
• 1:10:42
  Speaker 1: They're just people talking. They're people bragging. They're people wanting
• 1:10:47
  Speaker 1: others to think that they're more important or more powerful
• 1:10:50
  Speaker 1: or scarier or more connected than they really are. And
• 1:10:54
  Speaker 1: I cannot emphasize enough. I mean, especially now that I've
• 1:10:58
  Speaker 1: been living in Los Angeles, I was not living in
• 1:11:00
  Speaker 1: Los Angeles during the trial, but I mean, even moving here,
• 1:11:03
  Speaker 1: you know, basically 10 years after the OJ Simpson murders,
• 1:11:08
  Speaker 1: people still love talking about you know, there's six degrees
• 1:11:12
  Speaker 1: of separation, you know, the whole Kevin Bacon thing to
• 1:11:16
  Speaker 1: the OJ Simpson case. And so to me, I am,
• 1:11:20
  Speaker 1: my knee jerk fallback is always going to be, this
• 1:11:23
  Speaker 1: is just a bullshit bragging story, especially when there's no
• 1:11:27
  Speaker 1: evidence to support it, especially when the source is hearsay,
• 1:11:31
  Speaker 1: the source is retracting and the source was looking for money.
• 1:11:36
  Speaker 1: But also it's not just that, Like with Epstein, there's
• 1:11:41
  Speaker 1: a whole bunch of garbage in there that now all
• 1:11:43
  Speaker 1: of a sudden people are pretending is gold because we've
• 1:11:47
  Speaker 1: seen it. Again, I cannot emphasize this enough. JFK, Epstein, aliens.
• 1:11:53
  Speaker 1: Weirdly enough, this is kind of like the exception that
• 1:11:56
  Speaker 1: proves the rule. One of the very few things that
• 1:12:00
  Speaker 1: the media ever latched onto, including Eric Katansky from ABC,
• 1:12:06
  Speaker 1: regarding Jerry Sadusky's appeals and his defense was the court
• 1:12:11
  Speaker 1: filing involving the recantation of accuser number 10, Ryan Rittmeyer,
• 1:12:17
  Speaker 1: which I knew was greatly overblown. And here I am,
• 1:12:22
  Speaker 1: Jerry Sadusky's biggest public defender. Yet, The news media is
• 1:12:27
  Speaker 1: so in love with court documents that they actually gave
• 1:12:30
  Speaker 1: that too much credibility on a story that they never
• 1:12:34
  Speaker 1: are willing to touch when there are actual real reasons, legitimate, substantive,
• 1:12:40
  Speaker 1: evidence-based reasons to be doing stories on things in Jerry
• 1:12:45
  Speaker 1: Sadowski's appeal or in his defense. And so- this is
• 1:12:49
  Speaker 1: just Alice in Wonderland type of stuff. Everything is completely
• 1:12:53
  Speaker 1: upside down and it's all the New York Times fault.
• 1:12:57
  Speaker 1: But I want to emphasize it's not just because the
• 1:13:01
  Speaker 1: story is bullshit, not just because of the sourcing and
• 1:13:05
  Speaker 1: because the files are inherently bullshit and given way, way
• 1:13:10
  Speaker 1: too much credibility because it's stuff that we haven't had
• 1:13:13
  Speaker 1: access to. And because the news media knows this is
• 1:13:16
  Speaker 1: really great clickbait for anyone over the age of 40.
• 1:13:19
  Speaker 1: But it's also just knowing the basics of the case.
• 1:13:23
  Speaker 1: And there's no one who knows the case better than
• 1:13:26
  Speaker 1: former LAPD detective Tom Lang. And there was a lot
• 1:13:30
  Speaker 1: of people who screwed up the OJ case. But Tom
• 1:13:33
  Speaker 1: Lang basically, to me, was by far the best. I mean,
• 1:13:38
  Speaker 1: there was all sorts of incompetence. I mean, Mark Furman
• 1:13:41
  Speaker 1: messed up lying about having used the N-word in a
• 1:13:45
  Speaker 1: screenplay that he was helping a writer create. And, you know,
• 1:13:51
  Speaker 1: Van Atta stupidly, you know, had the blood in his
• 1:13:56
  Speaker 1: car in a way that made allowed the defense to
• 1:13:58
  Speaker 1: make it look far, far nefarious than it was. There
• 1:14:01
  Speaker 1: were lots of screw ups. The the, you know, the
• 1:14:04
  Speaker 1: medical examiner, the forensics guys, they all screwed up. All
• 1:14:08
  Speaker 1: of them. They were. But Tom Lang was really good.
• 1:14:11
  Speaker 1: And in fact, most people don't even understand that Tom
• 1:14:14
  Speaker 1: Lang is probably why OJ Simpson survived the Bronco chase
• 1:14:17
  Speaker 1: because he was talking him. out of killing himself, the
• 1:14:20
  Speaker 1: same guy that was the lead detective on the case.
• 1:14:24
  Speaker 1: And TMZ, who I have very little respect for, Harvey
• 1:14:28
  Speaker 1: Levin is the ultimate clickbaiter and a narcissist and does
• 1:14:33
  Speaker 1: whatever he thinks is in his own self-interest. TMZ jumped
• 1:14:36
  Speaker 1: all over this because they knew it was great clickbait
• 1:14:39
  Speaker 1: for them, giving credibility to this New York Times report.
• 1:14:43
  Speaker 1: And then they finally, after spending how many years however
• 1:14:47
  Speaker 1: many reports they did promoting this BS story, they actually
• 1:14:52
  Speaker 1: interviewed Tom Lang. And Tom Lang gave it to them straight.
• 1:14:56
  Speaker 1: And I'm sure much to their chagrin, basically popped their
• 1:15:01
  Speaker 1: balloon and told them that there's basically a 0% chance
• 1:15:05
  Speaker 1: that this actually happened. And here's what that sounded like
• 1:15:09
  Speaker 1: on TMZ.
• 1:15:10
  Speaker 5: How much credence do you put in this story that
• 1:15:13
  Speaker 5: Joey Eppolito was the cleanup man?
• 1:15:17
  Speaker 3: Pretty close to zero.
• 1:15:19
  Speaker 1: How come? Zero?
• 1:15:21
  Speaker 3: Well, again, I'd have to tell you this, but homicide
• 1:15:25
  Speaker 3: cops deal with evidence, not supposition. You have the central
• 1:15:31
  Speaker 3: figure in the story now. He's been dead for a
• 1:15:33
  Speaker 3: number of years. His brother came out with a lot
• 1:15:37
  Speaker 3: of information that's been questioned. His credibility has been questioned.
• 1:15:42
  Speaker 3: I don't know one way or the other. It makes
• 1:15:44
  Speaker 3: for an interesting story. far as entertainment goes. But as
• 1:15:48
  Speaker 3: far as evidence goes, there's nothing really there. Most high
• 1:15:52
  Speaker 3: profile cases, if not all of them, you get a
• 1:15:54
  Speaker 3: lot of information that's erroneous coming in. So we built
• 1:15:58
  Speaker 3: a so-called clue file. Initially, we had like 518 of
• 1:16:02
  Speaker 3: these call-ins, various information, and we had to categorize them.
• 1:16:08
  Speaker 3: Some of them were worth looking at, others weren't. As
• 1:16:11
  Speaker 3: far as Zappolito goes, we did have his name, I believe,
• 1:16:15
  Speaker 3: in three different so-called clues, call-ins, but they were from
• 1:16:20
  Speaker 3: other organizations.
• 1:16:22
  Speaker 5: Somebody cleaned up for O.J.
• 1:16:23
  Speaker 3: Simpson.
• 1:16:25
  Speaker 5: He left too quickly that he could not have disposed
• 1:16:28
  Speaker 5: of that knife, his clothing, and whatever other evidence there was.
• 1:16:33
  Speaker 3: Well, I don't know what you mean by clean up.
• 1:16:37
  Speaker 3: As far as the knife goes, if that's what you're
• 1:16:39
  Speaker 3: talking about. Yeah, yeah. We actually have a witness at
• 1:16:42
  Speaker 3: the airport that saw Simpson probably within 45 minutes after
• 1:16:46
  Speaker 3: the murders, before the bodies had been even discovered, at
• 1:16:50
  Speaker 3: the airport getting on a flight to go to Chicago,
• 1:16:53
  Speaker 3: standing by the left side of the entrance of the airport,
• 1:16:56
  Speaker 3: the American Airlines, with a little tote bag on top
• 1:16:59
  Speaker 3: of the container, taking items out of the container, shoving
• 1:17:03
  Speaker 3: them down into the trash container, and snipping it up,
• 1:17:06
  Speaker 3: picking it up, and walking back into the airport.
• 1:17:09
  Speaker 5: I remember that well, but that guy didn't see what
• 1:17:13
  Speaker 5: was taken out of the bag.
• 1:17:14
  Speaker 4: But I get your point.
• 1:17:16
  Speaker 3: That's certainly better than hearsay or someone thinking that this
• 1:17:20
  Speaker 3: may have happened or that may have happened. This was
• 1:17:22
  Speaker 3: a solid witness. Nobody says that's direct evidence, but circumstantially,
• 1:17:27
  Speaker 3: that looks pretty good as far as time-wise and everything else.
• 1:17:31
  Speaker 3: So that's the story. You ask, you know, where the
• 1:17:33
  Speaker 3: murder weapon could be or how did he clean up?
• 1:17:36
  Speaker 3: Certainly that, to me, is more relevant than anybody talking
• 1:17:40
  Speaker 3: about hearsay saying, well, this could have happened because so-and-so
• 1:17:43
  Speaker 3: said it. Joey Apolito, of course, is dead, which makes
• 1:17:47
  Speaker 3: it pretty convenient for that story to be out there.
• 1:17:53
  Speaker 1: So you think his brother Sam spoke to the New
• 1:17:56
  Speaker 1: York Times.
• 1:17:57
  Speaker 5: Are you saying that Joey lied to his brother, or
• 1:18:01
  Speaker 5: is his brother telling stories to the New York Times?
• 1:18:03
  Speaker 1: Well.
• 1:18:05
  Speaker 3: Sam, is that his name? He doesn't have a reputation.
• 1:18:08
  Speaker 3: His credibility has been questioned in that very article, the
• 1:18:12
  Speaker 3: New York Times article, a lot more than I could
• 1:18:15
  Speaker 3: for people who have a lot more information on him
• 1:18:17
  Speaker 3: than I do. Again, this is not evidence of anything.
• 1:18:22
  Speaker 3: If there's anything there, then you've got to pick it up,
• 1:18:25
  Speaker 3: regardless of whether or not the case has been solved,
• 1:18:28
  Speaker 3: which it has been solved. He wasn't convicted. It doesn't
• 1:18:32
  Speaker 3: mean the case wasn't solved. So this is interesting to
• 1:18:36
  Speaker 3: talk about, but where's the meat? Where's the beef? I
• 1:18:40
  Speaker 3: don't know.
• 1:18:41
  Speaker 1: Now, Tom Lang says it's true on the OJ case.
• 1:18:45
  Speaker 1: I'm already 98% there. But I also know.
• 1:18:51
  Speaker 1: More than enough to realize that just logistically, it's impossible.
• 1:18:56
  Speaker 1: There was no time. There was no time. There was
• 1:18:59
  Speaker 1: no opportunity. OJ was so incredibly rushed. I believe in
• 1:19:05
  Speaker 1: the theory that OJ did not actually go over to
• 1:19:10
  Speaker 1: Nicole's place in an effort to kill her. I don't
• 1:19:13
  Speaker 1: think that was his intent. It's possible it was. I
• 1:19:16
  Speaker 1: don't think that was his intent. I think unfortunately Ron
• 1:19:21
  Speaker 1: Goldman showed up at absolutely the wrong time and it
• 1:19:25
  Speaker 1: created a circumstance where OJ kills one of them, then
• 1:19:29
  Speaker 1: he has to kill the other because there's a witness
• 1:19:32
  Speaker 1: and he's totally frantic. He has no idea what he's doing.
• 1:19:36
  Speaker 1: He's late to get to the airport. And I believe
• 1:19:40
  Speaker 1: that if, ironically enough, here's what's really kind of amazing
• 1:19:44
  Speaker 1: about this story. If there was an accomplice when it
• 1:19:49
  Speaker 1: came to getting rid of evidence, it might have been
• 1:19:53
  Speaker 1: Robert Kardashian. And of course, his daughters are famous today
• 1:19:58
  Speaker 1: simply because he's the one that read O.J. Simpson's suicide note.
• 1:20:02
  Speaker 1: during the Bronco chase. Without Robert Kardashian reading that suicide note,
• 1:20:06
  Speaker 1: we don't have the Kardashian sisters. We don't, period, end
• 1:20:10
  Speaker 1: of sentence. Because, I mean, for all sorts of different reasons. And,
• 1:20:15
  Speaker 1: you know, there are pictures of Robert Kardashian getting rid
• 1:20:18
  Speaker 1: of a suitcase. I don't know if he was a
• 1:20:21
  Speaker 1: knowing accomplice or not. I really don't. But there was
• 1:20:24
  Speaker 1: at least motive and opportunity there. You know, the way
• 1:20:28
  Speaker 1: that Kardashian suddenly became part of O.J. 's legal defense
• 1:20:33
  Speaker 1: team when he really had no business and no role,
• 1:20:36
  Speaker 1: seemed to be consistent with someone who was trying to
• 1:20:38
  Speaker 1: protect themselves from being called as a witness. So there's
• 1:20:41
  Speaker 1: at least some level of logic to Robert Kardashian being
• 1:20:46
  Speaker 1: an accomplice after the fact, especially when you look at
• 1:20:50
  Speaker 1: Robert Kardashian's reaction to the reading of the verdicts. He's
• 1:20:54
  Speaker 1: more shocked than anybody that O.J. Simpson actually got away
• 1:20:57
  Speaker 1: with killing two people. Um, so that's, I find rather
• 1:21:02
  Speaker 1: ironic that this, you know, unheard of mob guy is
• 1:21:06
  Speaker 1: now being accused well after his death, uh, of being
• 1:21:11
  Speaker 1: OJ Simpson's accomplice when there's no time or opportunity or
• 1:21:14
  Speaker 1: ability or to make that make sense. And Robert Kardashian,
• 1:21:18
  Speaker 1: which is much more of a clickbait story. That would
• 1:21:21
  Speaker 1: have really, you want a clickbait story. Let's get some
• 1:21:24
  Speaker 1: unsealed court documents accusing Robert Kardashian. of being an accomplice. Wow,
• 1:21:29
  Speaker 1: that would really be something. Now we're cooking with oil.
• 1:21:32
  Speaker 1: But there just wasn't any time for this. And again,
• 1:21:37
  Speaker 1: the sourcing is terrible. It's not credible. And it's all
• 1:21:40
  Speaker 1: consistent with this idea that people wanted to be connected
• 1:21:43
  Speaker 1: to the case. And the idea that somehow unsealed court
• 1:21:48
  Speaker 1: files make something legitimate simply because some young punk at
• 1:21:52
  Speaker 1: the New York Times decides, oh my God, look what
• 1:21:55
  Speaker 1: I found. And that somehow gives it credibility is really
• 1:22:00
  Speaker 1: a damning indictment to how and why it is that
• 1:22:04
  Speaker 1: the mainstream legacy news media gets fooled by false stories
• 1:22:09
  Speaker 1: time and time and time again. And it will continue
• 1:22:13
  Speaker 1: to happen, especially when they're high profile and everyone involved
• 1:22:17
  Speaker 1: knows that they're going to do well in the traffic.
• 1:22:21
  Speaker 1: And that's really the last thing I'm going to say
• 1:22:23
  Speaker 1: about the New York Times. The New York Times actually
• 1:22:25
  Speaker 1: did a piece. on the reactions to their OJ story.
• 1:22:30
  Speaker 1: Like they're not walking away from this. They're not, you know,
• 1:22:33
  Speaker 1: they're actually proud of this. Why? Because for them, it worked.
• 1:22:38
  Speaker 1: I'm sure it did very good traffic and it got
• 1:22:41
  Speaker 1: extremely strong pickup by other media outlets. In their minds,
• 1:22:47
  Speaker 1: in their metrics, the way that they evaluate this, that's
• 1:22:52
  Speaker 1: a success. The New York fucking Times. allegedly the paper
• 1:22:57
  Speaker 1: of record. They think that's the new way to determine success.
• 1:23:04
  Speaker 1: Not that the story was total bullshit. That doesn't matter anymore.
• 1:23:11
  Speaker 1: They are evaluating success and failure through a prism that
• 1:23:17
  Speaker 1: could not be more adverse to basic journalism. And this
• 1:23:20
  Speaker 1: is the fucking New York Times. We're so doomed. We're
• 1:23:26
  Speaker 1: so doomed. And it happens far more than most people understand.
• 1:23:32
  Speaker 1: Thanks for listening to today's free drop of the abbreviated show.
• 1:23:36
  Speaker 1: If you're interested in listening to the entire show, you
• 1:23:39
  Speaker 1: must become a patron. Please go to Patreon. That's P-A-T-R-E-O-N
• 1:23:45
  Speaker 1: dot com. Patreon dot com slash The Death of Journalism
• 1:23:52
  Speaker 1: with John Ziegler. My name is J-O-H-N-Z-I-E-G-L-E-R. That's patreon.com slash
• 1:24:01
  Speaker 1: the death of journalism with John Ziegler. Good luck to
• 1:24:06
  Speaker 1: you on that. But that's how you can subscribe.