Latest / The Death Of Journalism / Episode Two Hundred Nine: If The Man Is After You Then You Are The Man

Transcript

Episode Two Hundred Nine: If The Man Is After You Then You Are The Man · The Death Of Journalism

0:00
Speaker 1: Welcome to episode number two hundred and nine of the
0:02
Speaker 1: Death of Journalism podcast. My name is John Sigler. I'm
0:05
Speaker 1: your host of today's show. The reaction to MSNBC's Morning
0:08
Speaker 1: Joe surrendering to Donald Trump gets heeded, as does the
0:13
Speaker 1: controversy over Matt Gates being the next Attorney General, and
0:17
Speaker 1: a fantastic interview with my former co host Liz Habib
0:21
Speaker 1: about her role in the Trump presidential campaign and much more.
0:27
Speaker 1: In the last episode of the podcast, I talked about
0:31
Speaker 1: the startling news that Morning Joe on MSNBC hosted by
0:37
Speaker 1: Joe Scarborough and Mika Brazinski, who are married, that they
0:42
Speaker 1: announced on their show to begin this week that they
0:46
Speaker 1: had met at the end of last week with President
0:49
Speaker 1: elect Donald Trump in mar A Lago. And this was,
0:54
Speaker 1: in the media world a huge story because one, it
0:57
Speaker 1: was stunning too because it was kind of fascinating. Everyone
1:01
Speaker 1: had their own interpretations about what really happened, but also
1:06
Speaker 1: because it was one of the very few situations where,
1:09
Speaker 1: at least on social media, the left and the right
1:14
Speaker 1: seemed to be in sync. It appeared as if everybody
1:17
Speaker 1: pretty much hated what Joe Scarborough and Miker Brazinski did,
1:23
Speaker 1: they got excoriated everywhere. Now Interestingly, in reaction to all
1:31
Speaker 1: of this negativity, Joe Scarborough later in the week went
1:35
Speaker 1: on MSNBC and claimed that, you know, there's a big
1:39
Speaker 1: disconnect here between social media and the real world. And
1:44
Speaker 1: in real world, I was getting all sorts of very
1:47
Speaker 1: supportive texts from people telling me that this was a
1:50
Speaker 1: really good thing that we're doing and they understood where
1:53
Speaker 1: we were coming from. And I haven't gotten any real
1:56
Speaker 1: criticism from people directly. And I always laugh at this
2:01
Speaker 1: because you know who else always claimed that the general public,
2:06
Speaker 1: or the so called real world or people that he knew,
2:09
Speaker 1: were very supportive of him. After a big controversy, O J. Simpson.
2:15
Speaker 1: O J. Simpson used to say this all the time.
2:17
Speaker 1: You know, the public is really great to me. And
2:20
Speaker 1: by and large I mostly believed oh J. Simpson when
2:23
Speaker 1: he said that, because that's the way people react, especially
2:27
Speaker 1: to celebrities. Most people are not like John Zigler better
2:32
Speaker 1: or worse. They don't attack people to their faces. They don't,
2:36
Speaker 1: especially if they're friends with them or they think they
2:39
Speaker 1: can get something from them. That didn't surprise me at all,
2:44
Speaker 1: So I think it's hilarious that Joe Scarborough is so
2:47
Speaker 1: naive unless he's just flat out lying or rationalizing as
2:51
Speaker 1: to think that somehow this was not a bad move
2:56
Speaker 1: from a television TV show perspective. And see, I guess
3:02
Speaker 1: that's really the key component to understanding how to interpret this.
3:07
Speaker 1: Do you see what they're doing as an act of journalism,
3:10
Speaker 1: this being the death of journalism podcast? Or is it
3:14
Speaker 1: a contrived act of desperation in a world where journalism
3:18
Speaker 1: doesn't really matter and ratings are all that count, and
3:22
Speaker 1: your ratings have collapsed post election, and now you realize
3:27
Speaker 1: that you cannot go into Trump two point zero using
3:32
Speaker 1: the exact same mentality that you did with Trump one
3:35
Speaker 1: point oho, which worked very very well for the liberal media.
3:39
Speaker 1: That's what has the liberal media in panic. And it
3:41
Speaker 1: was that context through which I think most rational people
3:45
Speaker 1: saw what Joe Scarborough and Mika Brazinski did. It was
3:50
Speaker 1: not sincere. Now, there was an interesting dichotomy in how
3:54
Speaker 1: this whole thing got interpreted. When I went on News
3:58
Speaker 1: Nation television that night Monday, I had to discuss this
4:02
Speaker 1: Startling News. Dan Abrams is the host. I'm on his
4:05
Speaker 1: show a couple times a month, and Dan had an
4:10
Speaker 1: interesting take here. He was kind of the contrarian on this.
4:14
Speaker 1: Dan had the view that, you know what, I actually
4:17
Speaker 1: kind of I don't want to speak for him, but
4:19
Speaker 1: I'm paraphrasing. I kind of admire what they're trying to do,
4:23
Speaker 1: maybe unify the country. Communication is always good, you know,
4:28
Speaker 1: can't we all get along. He's going to be the president,
4:31
Speaker 1: If they're going to be journalists, shouldn't there be some
4:34
Speaker 1: mutual understanding? You know, what harm could there be in
4:39
Speaker 1: having a meeting like this, which I totally understand in
4:43
Speaker 1: the world in which I wish we lived. I even
4:46
Speaker 1: said that at the very end of the segment, I said, Dan,
4:49
Speaker 1: I wish we lived in this world. That's not the
4:52
Speaker 1: world we live in, and therefore we cannot really interpret
4:56
Speaker 1: what Joe Scarborough and Meeker Brazinski were intending to do
4:59
Speaker 1: through through that prism. I think that that's a fairly
5:02
Speaker 1: naive way of looking at this. And look, if the
5:05
Speaker 1: television ratings at MSNBC had gone in the other direction
5:10
Speaker 1: after the election, even I would look at this through
5:14
Speaker 1: a different prism. But it was so clearly obvious that
5:18
Speaker 1: MSNBC is in big trouble both from the ratings perspective,
5:22
Speaker 1: as well as from a corporate standpoint. In fact, just
5:25
Speaker 1: this week after this whole thing, Comcast announced that they're
5:30
Speaker 1: basically spinning MSNBC off with a bunch of other entertainment
5:34
Speaker 1: cable news networks and they're not even going to be
5:37
Speaker 1: connected apparently to NBC News in the future. So MSNBC
5:43
Speaker 1: is in big trouble. They're trying to figure out how
5:45
Speaker 1: they're going to deal with Trump two point zero. It
5:48
Speaker 1: doesn't look like the old playbook is going to work.
5:51
Speaker 1: And just to give you some more context as to
5:54
Speaker 1: where I'm coming from on this, and also because I
5:57
Speaker 1: thought this minute or so is fairly inner, here's what
6:01
Speaker 1: happened when I went on News Nation. This is the
6:05
Speaker 1: first statement I made. I guess I got two statements,
6:09
Speaker 1: which is generally what happens when I go on for
6:12
Speaker 1: these very short segments on News Nation. But here's what
6:15
Speaker 1: happened on Newsdation Television when Dan got my take. Dan
6:19
Speaker 1: Abrams got my take on this whole controversy. Yeah, I
6:24
Speaker 1: think it's obviously contrived. If Dan, if you were making
6:27
Speaker 1: this meeting with Trump, it would be sincere. But these
6:30
Speaker 1: people have flip flopped on Donald Trump numerous times. It
6:33
Speaker 1: is clearly because of what has happened to the ratings
6:36
Speaker 1: at MSNBC and CNN since the election, the liberal audience
6:40
Speaker 1: base has fled. They're not interested in season nine of
6:44
Speaker 1: the Trump series. They realized that the liberal media has
6:47
Speaker 1: no ability to kill the villain, so now they're no
6:50
Speaker 1: longer going to tune in. If the ratings had gone
6:53
Speaker 1: in the other direction, I don't think this meeting would
6:55
Speaker 1: have happened because there wouldn't have been the imperative. But
6:58
Speaker 1: it's too late, it's too far gone. They're too far
7:01
Speaker 1: down the path. To basically borrow from Robert Downey Junior
7:05
Speaker 1: in the movie Tropic Thunder. You can never go full Hitler.
7:08
Speaker 1: Once you go full Hitler, there's no going back. You
7:11
Speaker 1: can't mend fences after that. And I think it's too
7:13
Speaker 1: late to instance here to contrived, and that's why both
7:16
Speaker 1: the left and right are united, and why this was
7:19
Speaker 1: really a bad idea. By morning, just seeing Ernest Owens
7:23
Speaker 1: nodding to everything, John Ziegler is saying, it's going to be,
7:25
Speaker 1: I think, a unique visual that we may not get
7:28
Speaker 1: to see again now. Later on in this short segment,
7:31
Speaker 1: I went on to talk about how broadcasting is dead
7:36
Speaker 1: and now we are now living in an era, especially
7:38
Speaker 1: when it comes to the cable news networks of cult casting.
7:42
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, we went from broadcasting, which means
7:45
Speaker 1: you're targeting everybody in the olden days when there were
7:49
Speaker 1: four TV channels and you know, every one local or
7:54
Speaker 1: maybe two local newspapers depending on where you live. There
7:57
Speaker 1: was no Internet, there was a very few play is
8:00
Speaker 1: to get your news and information from, so you were
8:04
Speaker 1: trying to appeal to the broadest audience possible. But then
8:08
Speaker 1: as fragmentation hit, we went from broadcasting to narrow casting
8:14
Speaker 1: to what I call cult casting, and frankly, I think
8:17
Speaker 1: we're now in the realm of micro cult casting. I
8:20
Speaker 1: didn't use that term because I didn't think people would
8:24
Speaker 1: understand where I was coming from, but really, now, you know,
8:28
Speaker 1: when we see this in podcasting all the time, you
8:31
Speaker 1: can make a living off of a very very small
8:35
Speaker 1: audience if they are highly, highly engaged and willing to
8:40
Speaker 1: pay you money for your content. And that's the exact
8:44
Speaker 1: opposite of broadcasting. Well, we're seeing that in this whole
8:50
Speaker 1: MSNBC Morning Joe Donald Trump controversy because in the broadcasting days,
8:56
Speaker 1: and this might be the disconnect of Epeen, Dan Abram
9:00
Speaker 1: and myself and how we see this, and that is
9:03
Speaker 1: in the olden days, in the broadcasting days, this would
9:05
Speaker 1: have made total sense. But MSNBC is not in the
9:10
Speaker 1: broadcasting business. They're in the cult casting business, and frankly,
9:14
Speaker 1: post election, they're in the micro cult casting business because
9:19
Speaker 1: no one is watching them, because the liberal audience has fled.
9:24
Speaker 1: They don't want to deal with Season nine of the
9:28
Speaker 1: Trump Show. They realize that the liberal media can't leave
9:31
Speaker 1: a mark on Donald Trump. As I said on Dan's show,
9:37
Speaker 1: they can't kill the villain, and they've made that clear.
9:40
Speaker 1: And so now the liberal audience is fleeing. They don't
9:43
Speaker 1: want to have to deal with this. They're not going
9:45
Speaker 1: to be engaged in Trump two point zero like they
9:48
Speaker 1: were in Trump one point zero after the twenty sixteen
9:53
Speaker 1: upset election. So it is in that context and through
9:57
Speaker 1: that prism that you must look at what Morning Joe
10:01
Speaker 1: did and why it's not going to be effective because
10:05
Speaker 1: I said this again on Dan's show, They're not going
10:08
Speaker 1: to pick up any viewers from this, and they're only
10:12
Speaker 1: going to piss off what's left of their cult. Now
10:15
Speaker 1: are people going to stop watching them because they did this.
10:19
Speaker 1: I don't know. I've seen a few people online say
10:21
Speaker 1: that they will. Who knows, but my guess is there
10:24
Speaker 1: will be virtually no difference. They might short term pick
10:28
Speaker 1: up some ratings because of all the attention that they're getting,
10:32
Speaker 1: and attention is generally good in the television medium, but
10:37
Speaker 1: in the longer term, I don't think this helps them
10:39
Speaker 1: at all because it looks like they're surrendering, and it's
10:43
Speaker 1: incredibly hypocritical, given the fact that they effectively compared Trump
10:47
Speaker 1: to Hitler, as I referenced on News Nation. So it
10:51
Speaker 1: doesn't work because it's not sincere. It's contrived. It's so
10:57
Speaker 1: obviously contrived. And you know, as pointed as I was
11:02
Speaker 1: in my comments on News Nation, that was nothing compared
11:06
Speaker 1: to how Meghan Kelly reacted to this whole situation. She
11:09
Speaker 1: went viral because she went absolutely off on Joe Scarborough
11:15
Speaker 1: and Meeker Brazinski, you know, in those uncertain terms, using
11:20
Speaker 1: direct profanity, which I'm prone to do on this podcast.
11:24
Speaker 1: But just as a warning, here was Megan Kelly's viral
11:28
Speaker 1: take on what happened with Morning Joe begging for and
11:32
Speaker 1: getting a meeting with Donald Trump in mar A Lago.
11:36
Speaker 2: As for us, we also let him know that we
11:38
Speaker 2: will continue to speak truth to power and push back
11:42
Speaker 2: hard when called for, as we have with all presidents.
11:47
Speaker 1: Don't be mistaken.
11:49
Speaker 3: We're not here to defend or normalize Donald Trump.
11:52
Speaker 1: We're here to report on him.
11:57
Speaker 4: I searched for a way to respond appropriate, and I
12:00
Speaker 4: called on my ten years as a litigator in addition
12:03
Speaker 4: to mine now twenty as a journalist, and I think
12:05
Speaker 4: I found the perfect phrase, Go fuck yourselves, Go fuck yourselves,
12:11
Speaker 4: you dishonest jokes of faux journalists. What an absurd farce
12:18
Speaker 4: that was Glenn They which.
12:21
Speaker 5: One was insincere, He's hitler? Or now we're going to
12:25
Speaker 5: speak truth to power and find a way of speaking
12:29
Speaker 5: to and working with Donald Trump?
12:31
Speaker 1: Which one was a lie. Now, when I saw that
12:35
Speaker 1: it was very obvious that that was going to go viral,
12:38
Speaker 1: I understood that. I understood that with the conservative audience,
12:42
Speaker 1: especially on Twitter, people were going to love that, and
12:46
Speaker 1: Megan Kelly can be very good at that kind of diatribe.
12:50
Speaker 1: But I had a very different take on Megan Kelly
12:54
Speaker 1: doing this, and this is pretty consistent with my view
12:57
Speaker 1: of Megan Kelly, which is almost constant from because she's
13:01
Speaker 1: very smart, she's very talented, she's very beautiful. I really
13:05
Speaker 1: want to like her, But she is wrong about a lot,
13:08
Speaker 1: and she is hypocritical about a lot, And it's interesting
13:12
Speaker 1: how often her hypocrisy comes to the forefront when it
13:16
Speaker 1: comes to any issue related to NBC. I have talked
13:20
Speaker 1: in the past about how she is totally wrong about
13:22
Speaker 1: my good friend Matt lower, who I think she has
13:26
Speaker 1: rationalized in a way to excuse her failure at NBC
13:32
Speaker 1: and the Today Show. You have to understand that is
13:35
Speaker 1: a huge part of the Megan Kelly narrative. She abandoned
13:40
Speaker 1: Fox News Channel when her celebrity was at its highest,
13:44
Speaker 1: she even abandoned politics to try to become something that
13:48
Speaker 1: she's not. It failed miserably, and then, in order to
13:53
Speaker 1: excuse that failure, to come up with a reason for
13:57
Speaker 1: her failure that it wasn't because of her, or that
14:00
Speaker 1: she made a bad decision, or that she didn't have
14:02
Speaker 1: the talent to make that kind of a format work,
14:06
Speaker 1: she tried to claim that NBC had this horrible anti
14:10
Speaker 1: female culture and that Matt Lauer was representative of that culture,
14:16
Speaker 1: which ended up dooming her to failure. These are my words,
14:20
Speaker 1: not hers, But that's how she has been able or
14:24
Speaker 1: tried to rationalize her own failure. We see this all
14:27
Speaker 1: the time in life. Well, when people fail, they need
14:30
Speaker 1: an excuse, and so Megan Kelly is brought into a
14:33
Speaker 1: totally false narrative about Matt Lauer in an effort to
14:37
Speaker 1: try to excuse her own failure at NBC. But that's
14:41
Speaker 1: not the problem really that I had with what Megan
14:45
Speaker 1: Kelly said about mourning Joe, because in essence I agree
14:49
Speaker 1: with her. I agree with her, except her hypocrisy here
14:54
Speaker 1: is almost off the charts because I can't think of anybody,
14:59
Speaker 1: I really can. I cannot think of anybody in the
15:02
Speaker 1: news media other than maybe Glen Beck. Glen Back might
15:06
Speaker 1: be more dramatic, but I can't think of anybody who
15:09
Speaker 1: has flip flopped more often. Maybe not as dramatically as
15:13
Speaker 1: Glenn Beck, but nobody has flip flopped more often and
15:17
Speaker 1: in more nuanced ways that seem consistent with their professional
15:21
Speaker 1: self interest at the moment on Donald Trump than Megan Kelly.
15:27
Speaker 1: I mean, this is a classic example I referenced recently
15:31
Speaker 1: in an interview we did with Steve Cortes that I think
15:34
Speaker 1: Donald Trump understands that the fake Obama Swami is a
15:38
Speaker 1: fraud because they're a lot alike and Game recognizes game well.
15:43
Speaker 1: I think part of the reason why Megan Kelly is
15:45
Speaker 1: so enraged by the Morning Joe's situation is that she
15:49
Speaker 1: understands all too well exactly what they're doing, because she
15:54
Speaker 1: has shifted her position on Donald Trump constantly. I mean,
15:59
Speaker 1: I could do an hour on her history with Donald Trump,
16:03
Speaker 1: but the reader's digest version is that at first he
16:07
Speaker 1: was very negative towards Trump. Infamously, there was that first
16:11
Speaker 1: debate in the Republican primary process in twenty sixteen where
16:15
Speaker 1: she hit him with a question that she believes and
16:17
Speaker 1: I agree, at least based upon her book, that Trump
16:21
Speaker 1: knew the question was coming because he had an insider
16:25
Speaker 1: who knows, maybe Roger Ales within the Fox News organization,
16:29
Speaker 1: that gave him the heads up that Megan Kelly was
16:32
Speaker 1: going to ask him a question about his relationship with
16:35
Speaker 1: women and allegations of abuse and what have you, and
16:39
Speaker 1: he came up with the only Rosie o'donald line, which
16:43
Speaker 1: frankly is I've always felt was very much unlike Donald
16:47
Speaker 1: Trump's normal Mo. We didn't know that yet because that
16:50
Speaker 1: was his first Republican debate, but you can argue that
16:53
Speaker 1: the twenty sixteen Republican nomination was over at that point.
16:58
Speaker 1: I mean, that was it, because he was showing everybody
17:02
Speaker 1: that he's different, He's the alpha male. He's going to
17:04
Speaker 1: blow up all the old rules, and you know, you
17:08
Speaker 1: ain't seen nothing yet. And you may also recall that
17:11
Speaker 1: Trump after that debate, did an interview where he talked
17:15
Speaker 1: about blood coming out of Megan Kelly's whatever, which was
17:20
Speaker 1: perceived I think understandably that he was claiming that she
17:24
Speaker 1: was on her menstrual cycle. And then this created a
17:27
Speaker 1: massive feud between whether real or perceived, between Trump and
17:32
Speaker 1: Meghan Kelly throughout that election cycle and then after Trump won,
17:36
Speaker 1: when Meghan Kelly's star was at her highest point because
17:40
Speaker 1: she was seen as a voice of reason at Fox
17:44
Speaker 1: News Channel, because she was not on the Trump train
17:48
Speaker 1: when it behooved her the most, she had a high
17:52
Speaker 1: profile interview with Donald Trump and she absolutely used it
17:56
Speaker 1: to the hilt, the idea that somehow she was perceived
18:00
Speaker 1: just being anti Trump, and yet she and Trump were
18:03
Speaker 1: going to do this interview together and it was in
18:06
Speaker 1: prime time and it was a whole big deal, and
18:09
Speaker 1: so she manipulated that whole situation for her own personal
18:14
Speaker 1: selfish ends. And then again, with her celebrity at the highest,
18:20
Speaker 1: she went to NBC and in the first show, this
18:23
Speaker 1: was supposed to be an extension effectively of the Today
18:26
Speaker 1: Show in the mornings, she declared, very disingenuously, in my opinion,
18:31
Speaker 1: but I'll never forget it that, you know, now that
18:34
Speaker 1: Trump is elected and you know he's taking office, I'm
18:38
Speaker 1: just not into politics anymore, as an excuse for why
18:42
Speaker 1: her show was going to be a political because I
18:46
Speaker 1: guess she and or NBC thought, well, it's okay to
18:49
Speaker 1: hire a conservative, but we can't have them be conservative
18:53
Speaker 1: politically on NBC. That's just not going to work. So
18:57
Speaker 1: you're no longer going to do politics. I don't know
19:00
Speaker 1: whose decision that was, but she went along with it
19:02
Speaker 1: because she was getting paid a ridiculous amount of money.
19:06
Speaker 1: So then she became a political pretending, you know that
19:10
Speaker 1: she was no longer interested in politics, but every time
19:13
Speaker 1: it was in her self interest, she would joke about how,
19:16
Speaker 1: you know she and Trump don't get along, or or
19:19
Speaker 1: you know, her position on Trump is well known, but
19:23
Speaker 1: she would never actually really get deeply into it. My
19:26
Speaker 1: wife used to watch this show all the time. Way
19:28
Speaker 1: was a terrible show, and that's why it didn't succeed.
19:31
Speaker 1: And eventually they got rid of her over some bullshit
19:34
Speaker 1: Halloween blackface controversy because the ratings are terrible. They were
19:38
Speaker 1: looking for an excuse to get rid of her. And
19:40
Speaker 1: so then all of a sudden, she's interested in politics
19:43
Speaker 1: again when she goes independent, and she goes back and
19:47
Speaker 1: forth between being on the Trump train, not being on
19:50
Speaker 1: the Trump train, flirting with Ronda Santis, falling back in
19:53
Speaker 1: love with Donald Trump, and then finally speaking at a
19:57
Speaker 1: Donald Trump rally late in the twenty twenty four presidential
20:01
Speaker 1: election cycle. And I'm leaving out a lot of other
20:03
Speaker 1: data points, but it has been an absolute roller coaster
20:07
Speaker 1: when it comes to Megan Kelly and her view of
20:12
Speaker 1: Donald Trump, and it just happens to coincide at every
20:16
Speaker 1: turn with what is in her professional self interest. So
20:20
Speaker 1: for her to get her in her high horse and
20:24
Speaker 1: attack Morning Joe I found to be hilarious but also
20:28
Speaker 1: very telling, very telling about what an upside down world
20:32
Speaker 1: we live in and how everyone's a hypocrite and it's
20:35
Speaker 1: really just a business disguised as a cause. That's really
20:39
Speaker 1: what it is. I had proposed a book many years
20:42
Speaker 1: ago about the conservative media called a business not a Cause,
20:45
Speaker 1: and I think Megan Kelly is the ultimate personification of that.
20:50
Speaker 1: So I'm not a big fan of how Megan Kelly
20:52
Speaker 1: handled that situation. I'm also not a big fan of
20:55
Speaker 1: how the left wig media tried to spin this, and
20:58
Speaker 1: that was represented by Brian Stelter from CNN, who is,
21:03
Speaker 1: in my opinion, not very bright, not very good. It's
21:07
Speaker 1: amazing to me and disturbing to me that CNN rehired
21:11
Speaker 1: him after getting rid of him. He's their media reporter.
21:14
Speaker 1: But he had a story that he had two sources
21:17
Speaker 1: close to Morning Joe. I don't know who they were,
21:21
Speaker 1: probably Joe Amiica themselves that spun this meeting as being
21:27
Speaker 1: born out of a fear of retribution, a fear of
21:32
Speaker 1: retribution from the Trump White House, the Trump administration, or
21:37
Speaker 1: Trump himself, which is problematic on a number of fronts.
21:42
Speaker 1: The first is that this fits the liberal narrative way
21:45
Speaker 1: too much. This feels very much to me like spin
21:49
Speaker 1: coming from MSNBC to try to keep their anti Trump
21:52
Speaker 1: street cred that here they are. They're just doing this
21:55
Speaker 1: because they're so fearful of how horrible Trump two is
22:00
Speaker 1: going to be that they wanted to try to make
22:02
Speaker 1: sure that there was not personal retribution against them, because they,
22:06
Speaker 1: of course are the leaders of the resistance against Donald Trump. Well,
22:12
Speaker 1: first of all, that is a narrative that I really
22:15
Speaker 1: don't believe, although I'm willing to acknowledge that Trump doesn't
22:19
Speaker 1: help those of us who don't believe that that's going
22:22
Speaker 1: to be a major part of this administration when he
22:25
Speaker 1: right off the bat sues major media outlets for ten
22:29
Speaker 1: billion dollars for things that I don't think were illegal,
22:33
Speaker 1: and I don't think he'll ever win on given the
22:36
Speaker 1: nature of the laws involving libel and defamation. So you know,
22:42
Speaker 1: this is part of what frustrates the hell out of
22:44
Speaker 1: me out of Trump. It's very, very difficult to defend
22:46
Speaker 1: him on this when you're doing stuff like that. I mean,
22:49
Speaker 1: and I'm sure, by the way, whoever leaked this idea
22:53
Speaker 1: that Brian Stealter understood that that this is a narrative
22:56
Speaker 1: that liberals are going to eat up, partially because is
23:00
Speaker 1: doing things like suing media outlefts for ten billion dollars.
23:04
Speaker 1: But that narrative doesn't make any sense to me, not
23:07
Speaker 1: just because I don't think it's accurate, but also if
23:09
Speaker 1: that was the case, then why talk about this publicly?
23:14
Speaker 1: Why not just have a secret meeting? Why were you
23:17
Speaker 1: so public about it? And why did you make it
23:20
Speaker 1: sound as if it was going to a just or
23:24
Speaker 1: reframe your relationship? As well as as the way you
23:28
Speaker 1: discuss Donald Trump going into his second administration, That doesn't
23:33
Speaker 1: make any sense. Scott Jennings on CNN fought back against
23:39
Speaker 1: Brian Stelter, I thought in an effective way where he
23:42
Speaker 1: was basically saying, well, why why say anything? Or if
23:47
Speaker 1: you're going to say, you know what they did, it
23:50
Speaker 1: wasn't that a lie? I mean, so you're essentially saying,
23:53
Speaker 1: Brian Stelter that if that was the real reason why
23:56
Speaker 1: they met with Trump and mar Alago, then they lied up,
24:00
Speaker 1: why not say it was about fear of retribution? But
24:03
Speaker 1: I actually think the stronger argument is why say anything
24:06
Speaker 1: at all? If this was not a publicity stunt, if
24:10
Speaker 1: this was not about maybe trying to figure out a
24:13
Speaker 1: way to get a larger audience to be able to
24:16
Speaker 1: survive Trump two point zero by being more moderate on him,
24:20
Speaker 1: which again I don't think was a good ploy ratings wise,
24:24
Speaker 1: But if that was in fact the strategy, then you know,
24:28
Speaker 1: then frankly talking about it destroys a whole lot of
24:34
Speaker 1: that argument. I don't think they should have talked about
24:37
Speaker 1: it at all if that was really what was happening.
24:39
Speaker 1: But I don't think that what was really happening. I
24:42
Speaker 1: still believe this was a ploy that did not work,
24:46
Speaker 1: a trial balloon that got shot down almost immediately. And
24:51
Speaker 1: my guess is that they're going to pretend that this
24:53
Speaker 1: never really happened, especially after Trump dunked on them on
24:58
Speaker 1: social media, specifically Joe scarr Brow after the whole thing happened.
25:02
Speaker 1: So I realize this is a lot of inside baseball
25:07
Speaker 1: kind of stuff within the media, and the media is
25:09
Speaker 1: always very fascinated by the media itself. But I do
25:12
Speaker 1: think this story is more significant because of what it represents,
25:18
Speaker 1: specifically how the news media is going to handle Trump
25:22
Speaker 1: two point zero. So I do think that that is
25:26
Speaker 1: far more important than just the mascinations of what Morning
25:31
Speaker 1: Joe thinks is the best strategy for survival ratings wise,
25:34
Speaker 1: I do think that this is a much bigger issue
25:36
Speaker 1: and story when it comes to how the media will
25:40
Speaker 1: handle everything when it comes to Trump's second term, and
25:44
Speaker 1: how this turns out will also be very telling about
25:47
Speaker 1: the future of the media, especially given the context of
25:51
Speaker 1: MSNPC essentially being split off from NBC News. Now, there
25:57
Speaker 1: was another moment. I don't know if you call this
25:59
Speaker 1: cable news, because it was on Piers Morgan's show, which
26:03
Speaker 1: I'm not even really sure where that airs, but you
26:07
Speaker 1: know it's a legitimate talk show. Piers Morgan obviously a
26:10
Speaker 1: former CNN among other places post. I have once appeared
26:15
Speaker 1: with Piers Morgan in a very heated appearance about the
26:19
Speaker 1: Penn State Joe Paterno Jerry Sandusky case after I interviewed
26:22
Speaker 1: Jerry Sandusky in prison. That didn't go very well at all.
26:26
Speaker 1: When Piers Morgan was at CNN, but he was hosting
26:29
Speaker 1: a panel about the election results and you know why
26:34
Speaker 1: people got it wrong on the left, and a person
26:38
Speaker 1: who's been a guest on this show before, chenk Uger,
26:42
Speaker 1: was on with a guy by the name of Alan Lickman,
26:44
Speaker 1: and this was a larger panel, But what you're about
26:47
Speaker 1: to hear is just Uger and Lickman and This went viral,
26:52
Speaker 1: and understandably so, because Chenk went absolutely off on Alan
26:58
Speaker 1: Lickman and Alan Lickman. For those who don't know, I've
27:02
Speaker 1: mentioned him briefly, I think a couple of times. He
27:04
Speaker 1: is a liberal academic who is incredibly full of himself
27:09
Speaker 1: and has made an entire career out of this. I
27:14
Speaker 1: think bogus idea that he came up with thirteen keys
27:19
Speaker 1: to tell you with certitude who will win any presidential election,
27:25
Speaker 1: and that he'd never been wrong, oh except for that
27:28
Speaker 1: one time in two thousand and that was barely wrong,
27:32
Speaker 1: because you know, George Bush really shouldn't have won in
27:36
Speaker 1: the liberals' minds over Al Gore. So you know, to
27:40
Speaker 1: me right off the bat, if your thirteen keys are magical,
27:43
Speaker 1: that should be right every single time. It was not
27:46
Speaker 1: writing two thousand. But somehow he has been able to
27:50
Speaker 1: ride this mythology into a career for a very long time.
27:56
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't know how many articles, countless articles
27:59
Speaker 1: over the years, over the presidential cycles have been written
28:02
Speaker 1: about the no tra damis of presidential elections predicts that
28:07
Speaker 1: so and so will win this year. Well, Lickman first
28:12
Speaker 1: predicted that Biden would win and then predicted that Harris
28:17
Speaker 1: would win using his keys, and of course he was
28:19
Speaker 1: totally wrong, and video of him on election night realizing
28:23
Speaker 1: that he was totally wrong also went viral because it
28:26
Speaker 1: was absolutely hilarious. He's so full of himself, so sanctimonious,
28:31
Speaker 1: so full of crap, And Chank really went after Lickman
28:37
Speaker 1: and went frankly, in my opinion, a bit too far.
28:40
Speaker 1: I mean, somebody who believes in wide latitude when it
28:45
Speaker 1: comes to free speech in general, and how open I
28:49
Speaker 1: am to attacking people on television. But this went further
28:53
Speaker 1: than almost any other appearance I've ever seen. And I
28:57
Speaker 1: think the reason why Chank felt like a get away
29:00
Speaker 1: with it, as well as why he got away with
29:03
Speaker 1: it because Piers Morgan did not try to stop this
29:05
Speaker 1: at all, is because everybody in the news meeting is
29:09
Speaker 1: just sick and tired of Alan Lickman. I think everybody
29:12
Speaker 1: realizes this guy is a dick and finally got has
29:16
Speaker 1: come up and and Chank went after Lickman and hilarity ensued.
29:22
Speaker 1: And here's what that sounded like on Piers Morgan show.
29:27
Speaker 3: Don't blame the voters, I think, Look, we can get
29:29
Speaker 3: into this discussion but one, I think you're blaming the voters.
29:31
Speaker 3: I think that's a terrible idea. Uh And look, I
29:35
Speaker 3: debated Professor Lickman before I told him his theories about
29:39
Speaker 3: the keys were absurd. I was right, he was wrong.
29:41
Speaker 1: I said he'd lose his keys.
29:45
Speaker 6: Wrong, and that's a cheap shot. And I won't stand
29:47
Speaker 6: for who want.
29:54
Speaker 1: Denial?
29:55
Speaker 6: I read your own followers comments and they all trust you,
29:59
Speaker 6: everyone of them and supported me. Yeah, right, with your
30:02
Speaker 6: personal come find out again, make whatever point you want.
30:06
Speaker 3: Don't maybe you don't know anything you don't know.
30:10
Speaker 1: Attacked me personally, so deluded. I've only been a profession
30:16
Speaker 1: I've never been able to finish.
30:17
Speaker 6: How many books have you published?
30:19
Speaker 1: Then?
30:20
Speaker 6: No, because you're personally attacking me again, Say whatever you want,
30:24
Speaker 6: but I'm not okay when brother, you got it wrong,
30:27
Speaker 6: you were monstrously and stupidly wrong.
30:30
Speaker 1: So okay, all right?
30:31
Speaker 3: Can I just finish your goddamn stupid ever on this show.
30:34
Speaker 6: No, not if you're personally admitted I was wrong. I
30:37
Speaker 6: don't need you to call me stupid.
30:39
Speaker 1: Okay, damn company, just wanting.
30:51
Speaker 3: Hey, Alan, you deserve a tall glass of shut up juice,
30:55
Speaker 3: So can you just shut up for a second and
30:57
Speaker 3: let someone who knows what they're doing.
30:59
Speaker 1: Right want so.
31:02
Speaker 6: I will not sit here and say for personal attacks,
31:06
Speaker 6: for blasphemy against.
31:08
Speaker 1: Me, you don't need to do that.
31:10
Speaker 6: You don't blasphemy against Jesus Christ, loser?
31:14
Speaker 1: Okay, Can I just give a correct answer for once? Now?
31:19
Speaker 1: I enjoyed that because I really have to stain for Lickman.
31:22
Speaker 1: I think a lot of people do. But I think
31:26
Speaker 1: Lickman really stepped at it when he used the word blasphemy,
31:30
Speaker 1: and Chink really let him have it for that, because
31:33
Speaker 1: it really was emblematic. Maybe he use the word incorrectly
31:37
Speaker 1: or inadvertently, or maybe he didn't fully understand what that
31:40
Speaker 1: word means, but assuming that he did, it fits perfectly
31:45
Speaker 1: into the entire persona of Lickman as being a bombastic
31:50
Speaker 1: egomaniac who would actually think that any criticism of him
31:55
Speaker 1: is literally sacrilegious. I mean, that really is that is
32:00
Speaker 1: That's Alan Lickman right there. And hopefully this puts an
32:03
Speaker 1: end to Alan Lickman. Hopefully we will not have to
32:06
Speaker 1: hear from him again in future presidential cycles. Speaking of
32:11
Speaker 1: future presidential cycles, there is a poll out of Democrats
32:16
Speaker 1: and who they prefer to be their nominee in twenty
32:20
Speaker 1: twenty eight. Now, I realize this is way too soon,
32:23
Speaker 1: and you're probably tired of hearing about polls, especially polls
32:26
Speaker 1: that don't tend to turn out to be nearly as
32:29
Speaker 1: accurate as people would like them to be, including myself.
32:32
Speaker 1: But this one I felt as worthy of mention, at
32:35
Speaker 1: least briefly for a couple of reasons. It got a
32:38
Speaker 1: lot of attention, and understandably so, because this poll of
32:42
Speaker 1: Democrats nationwide showed that forty one percent of Democrats favor
32:48
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris to be the twenty twenty eight Democratic presidential nominee. Now,
32:55
Speaker 1: to be clear, we're just two weeks out or even
32:58
Speaker 1: less than that when this poll was taken from an election,
33:02
Speaker 1: and name recognition is everything, and you know, all these
33:05
Speaker 1: people that are being pulled or just about all of
33:07
Speaker 1: them literally just voted for Kamala Harris for president. So
33:12
Speaker 1: you know, only forty one percent of them want her
33:15
Speaker 1: to be the nominee next time around. In some ways,
33:18
Speaker 1: that's not that great a number, but that forty one
33:21
Speaker 1: percent dwarfed everybody else. Nobody else got in double figures.
33:27
Speaker 1: Gavin Newsom was at eight percent, Josh Shapiro at six percent,
33:31
Speaker 1: Pete Buddha Judge, and Tim Waltz were I think five
33:35
Speaker 1: and four percent or something in that range. But nobody
33:38
Speaker 1: else really even came that close to getting in double digits,
33:43
Speaker 1: and I think this represents a huge problem the Democrats
33:48
Speaker 1: are going to have in the next cycle. Obviously, a
33:51
Speaker 1: ton can happen, and obviously a lot depends on whether
33:55
Speaker 1: or not the Trump administration two point zero is considered
33:59
Speaker 1: to be a success by the general public, So all
34:03
Speaker 1: caveats understood, a lot can happen. However, I am a
34:09
Speaker 1: big believer that presidential elections are a lot like aircraft carriers.
34:13
Speaker 1: I mean, they are very very difficult to turn around,
34:17
Speaker 1: especially in this day and age where it's very very
34:19
Speaker 1: difficult to get enough celebrity to even be in top contention.
34:24
Speaker 1: I mean, even Ron DeSantis had a celebrity problem, a
34:28
Speaker 1: name recognition problem, and he was the governor of Florida
34:32
Speaker 1: who was a savior and a hero during the COVID
34:36
Speaker 1: paddock and his lack of name recognition I think was
34:39
Speaker 1: much more pronounced and problematic than even the DeSantis people understood.
34:45
Speaker 1: And there were a lot of problems, but that was
34:47
Speaker 1: one of the more underrated issues. And so when it's
34:51
Speaker 1: very very very very very difficult to get high name
34:54
Speaker 1: recognition in this day and age, that gives Harris a
34:58
Speaker 1: massive advantage. But here's the short version of the problem
35:03
Speaker 1: the Democrats are going to have in trying to find
35:07
Speaker 1: a candidate that one they can rally around and two
35:10
Speaker 1: would have a chance, you know, barring an economic calamity
35:15
Speaker 1: or disastrous Trump administration, to beat Vice President Jade Vance,
35:21
Speaker 1: who's almost assuredly going to be the Republican nominee in
35:24
Speaker 1: twenty twenty eight. The first issue is Kamala Harris has
35:28
Speaker 1: to decide will she run to replace Gavin Newsom as
35:33
Speaker 1: California's governor. Now, this to me is going to be
35:36
Speaker 1: a fascinating decision, because Newsom is turned out in twenty
35:41
Speaker 1: twenty six. Harris has no other path in politics other
35:46
Speaker 1: than to be the next California governor. And I have
35:50
Speaker 1: zero doubt that if she wanted to be the next
35:52
Speaker 1: California governor, she would be handed handed the nomination. And
35:57
Speaker 1: once she's handed the nomination, well, there's really no nomine
36:00
Speaker 1: nation in the completely screwed up system that we have
36:03
Speaker 1: in California, but she would make the top two and
36:06
Speaker 1: there's nobody in that situation who would beat her in
36:09
Speaker 1: a general election. So if she wants to be the
36:12
Speaker 1: next governor of California, Kamala Harris can be the next
36:15
Speaker 1: governor of California. That's an absolute no brainer, and that
36:19
Speaker 1: would give her a very viable future. Plus she'd be,
36:22
Speaker 1: you know, the governor of the largest state population wise
36:26
Speaker 1: in the country. That's that's you know, a pretty good gig.
36:29
Speaker 1: So I think that that's a no brainer if she
36:32
Speaker 1: wants it. But here's what's interesting. She would have to
36:35
Speaker 1: make that decision obviously before she made a decision about
36:42
Speaker 1: running for president, and she could not. I do not
36:45
Speaker 1: think there's any chance in the world she could be
36:48
Speaker 1: governor of California starting in January of twenty twenty seven
36:54
Speaker 1: and then immediately start running for president again, because our
36:58
Speaker 1: presidential elections are so long now that it would be
37:03
Speaker 1: literally a couple of months later where she would have
37:05
Speaker 1: to announce she was running for president. I just don't
37:08
Speaker 1: think that would wash. I just don't think that's feasible,
37:12
Speaker 1: even in today's day and age. So she has to
37:15
Speaker 1: make that decision first Okay, do I put all my
37:19
Speaker 1: eggs in the presidential basket or do I take the
37:23
Speaker 1: sure thing and do I become governor of California. And
37:27
Speaker 1: they're going to be a lot of people close to
37:29
Speaker 1: her that are gonna be telling her and have a
37:31
Speaker 1: huge financial self interest to tell her that she's going
37:34
Speaker 1: to be the Democratic presidential nominee and that she can
37:37
Speaker 1: win the presidency. I mean, all these consultants that got
37:39
Speaker 1: paid a ridiculous amount of money. Is the Hairs campaign
37:42
Speaker 1: blew over a billion dollars on a loss to Donald Trump.
37:46
Speaker 1: They're heavily invested in telling her, Hey, you can do this,
37:51
Speaker 1: we can do this. You know next time, Trump's not
37:53
Speaker 1: gonna be able to run, and you know, we can
37:55
Speaker 1: beat Jade Vance and you can be the first female president.
37:59
Speaker 1: All that, and very likely she's gonna believe them. So
38:03
Speaker 1: I will be really interested to see which direction Harris
38:08
Speaker 1: goes in. Will she be delusional enough to think that
38:11
Speaker 1: she can win the presidency even after this embarrassing loss
38:16
Speaker 1: to Donald Trump. My guess is that's probably the direction
38:20
Speaker 1: she's gonna go because it's just that enticing, and you know,
38:24
Speaker 1: being governor of California may not do it for you
38:27
Speaker 1: after you've thought you were gonna be the first female
38:30
Speaker 1: president of the United States. And then if Harris does run,
38:34
Speaker 1: I think that puts Democrats in a whole heapload of
38:38
Speaker 1: trouble because it'll basically come down we already know. We
38:43
Speaker 1: already know because it's this aircraft carrier, because name recognition
38:48
Speaker 1: is so difficult to get. It's gonna be between Harris
38:51
Speaker 1: and new some two people from California, and Josh Shapiro.
38:56
Speaker 1: And in a three way race there, I think Shapiro
38:58
Speaker 1: would have a hell of a shot, especially being from
39:02
Speaker 1: Pennsylvania and you know, obviously two people from California to
39:06
Speaker 1: you know, perceived super liberals, I think Shapiro would have
39:09
Speaker 1: a very very good chance of winning that nomination. However,
39:14
Speaker 1: if Boota Judge runs, and I don't think Tim Waltz
39:16
Speaker 1: will run, but if there are other candidates, you know,
39:20
Speaker 1: the governor of Kentucky, Brigier people delusionally think could win
39:24
Speaker 1: a Democratic primary. No chance in the woke era that
39:28
Speaker 1: that happens. But he could run. He could get maybe
39:32
Speaker 1: some traction. If there's too many people running, then it
39:37
Speaker 1: basically means that name recognition would win out and Harris
39:40
Speaker 1: would be the nominee, and I think Harris would be
39:43
Speaker 1: very poorly positioned to go up against JD. Van's So again,
39:49
Speaker 1: a ton could happen. Right now, I don't think it
39:52
Speaker 1: looks good for the Democrats, especially if Harris decides to
39:56
Speaker 1: run again, because there's going to be a component of a
39:59
Speaker 1: large component of the Democratic Party, the wokee component, that
40:03
Speaker 1: is still not going to give up on this idea
40:06
Speaker 1: of a woman of color that you can't take it
40:10
Speaker 1: away from a woman of color, that somehow it's still
40:12
Speaker 1: her turn because you didn't get a full turn because
40:15
Speaker 1: Biden got out too late. So that'll be very very
40:19
Speaker 1: interesting to see into the future. Again, a lot can happen,
40:23
Speaker 1: but I don't think it looks very good for Democrats
40:26
Speaker 1: in coming up with a candidate that can both unify
40:29
Speaker 1: the party and have a real good chance of defeating
40:33
Speaker 1: Jade Vance. But that's all incumbent on how obviously the
40:37
Speaker 1: Trump administration is perceived as doing the second time around.
40:41
Speaker 1: As far as the election results, I've been tracking one
40:46
Speaker 1: of my predictions that's actually turned out to be all
40:49
Speaker 1: too accurate from this past election, and that deals with
40:53
Speaker 1: the House of Representatives in the state of California. I
40:57
Speaker 1: told you that I thought Democrats were going to take
40:59
Speaker 1: and control of the House almost entirely because I was
41:03
Speaker 1: convinced that Republicans would lose several seats here in the
41:07
Speaker 1: state of California. I believe I predicted that they would
41:10
Speaker 1: lose at least three and up to five seats. Well,
41:14
Speaker 1: it now looks like three seats are gone, and rather surprisingly,
41:19
Speaker 1: it now appears as if a fourth seat that was
41:22
Speaker 1: in Republican hands is in grave jeopardy. So right now
41:26
Speaker 1: Republicans would actually be lucky to only lose three seats
41:30
Speaker 1: in California. Conventional wisdom seems to indicate it could be
41:34
Speaker 1: four seats, exactly what I told you was going to happen,
41:38
Speaker 1: and that that would mean if that was the result,
41:42
Speaker 1: that would mean that Republicans would only have two hundred
41:45
Speaker 1: and twenty representatives that were elected, and three of them
41:51
Speaker 1: are already tapped to be part of Trump's administration and
41:55
Speaker 1: are going to be leaving the House of Representatives. Means
42:00
Speaker 1: that the Republican majority would basically be non existent under
42:05
Speaker 1: this scenario, and I'm not sure that those in charge
42:09
Speaker 1: have fully understood the potential ramifications of that. I mean,
42:15
Speaker 1: it was already going to be a very small majority,
42:18
Speaker 1: but you could have a situation where, you know, if
42:21
Speaker 1: somebody gets ill, or dies, or or gets in a
42:25
Speaker 1: scandal or something like that, where you could end up
42:28
Speaker 1: losing control rather easily of the House Representatives while you're
42:34
Speaker 1: waiting for these three that are going to be part
42:37
Speaker 1: of the Trump administration to be replaced in the House
42:41
Speaker 1: of Representatives.
42:44
Speaker 3: You know.
42:44
Speaker 1: And by the way, for those who are saying and
42:47
Speaker 1: I understand it, look, I get it. I watch these
42:50
Speaker 1: elections as close as anybody. There's a lot of frustration
42:53
Speaker 1: online about how long it takes California to count their votes,
42:56
Speaker 1: and that's one hundred percent legitimate concern, and I understand
43:01
Speaker 1: why it automatically leads people to go, wait a minute,
43:04
Speaker 1: is there some hanky panky going on? Why is it
43:07
Speaker 1: the Democrats always end up winning these super close elections
43:12
Speaker 1: at the last minute. I totally understand the skepticism, the cynicism,
43:19
Speaker 1: the conspiracy theories that this ends up birthing. I get it,
43:23
Speaker 1: and I'm not totally adverse to them here in California
43:27
Speaker 1: because it's a total one party state and anything goes.
43:32
Speaker 1: But there is in my view, a rational explanation for this,
43:37
Speaker 1: because if you think about it logically, in these super
43:41
Speaker 1: close elections, when you're down to literally the bottom of
43:46
Speaker 1: the barrel of what's left of the ballots that last
43:50
Speaker 1: one two three percent, and you're now two weeks outside
43:54
Speaker 1: of an election, well, why is it that those votes
43:57
Speaker 1: haven't yet been counted. Well, generally it's because there's something
44:03
Speaker 1: wrong with them. A signature doesn't look right, or they
44:08
Speaker 1: forgot a signature, or the date was wrong, or something
44:12
Speaker 1: weird happened. That's generally the case. By the way, there's
44:15
Speaker 1: another there's also an economic bias here because you know,
44:19
Speaker 1: in certain jurisdictions, certain precincts that don't have as much money,
44:24
Speaker 1: they don't have as much resources to count the votes.
44:27
Speaker 1: So you have a kind of a double whammy here
44:30
Speaker 1: that would provide a theoretical explanation for why Democrats do
44:34
Speaker 1: better when it comes to these final ballots, because, let's
44:38
Speaker 1: face it, if you're somebody who screwed up your ballot,
44:42
Speaker 1: you're not the brightest bulb in the chandelier. In my opinion,
44:45
Speaker 1: there's more of a likelihood you're going to be a Democrat,
44:49
Speaker 1: especially in California, then you're going to be a Republican.
44:52
Speaker 1: And there's a similar bias when it comes to precincts
44:56
Speaker 1: that don't have any money, so it's not a huge buyer,
45:00
Speaker 1: but it's enough of a bias to where those last
45:03
Speaker 1: ballots are going to always trend Democrat, and now sometimes
45:08
Speaker 1: they trend really Democrat, which is concerning and worthy of investigation.
45:16
Speaker 1: And I'm not suggesting that there's no chance of any
45:19
Speaker 1: kind of hanky panky, especially when it comes to determining
45:22
Speaker 1: which of these shaky votes are valid and which are not.
45:26
Speaker 1: But I'm just saying that there is a logical explanation
45:28
Speaker 1: because I've seen this question a lot. I've had it
45:31
Speaker 1: myself because I've been watching the California elections for twenty
45:35
Speaker 1: years now, and there is a phenomenon where you'll get
45:38
Speaker 1: a very close election. It'll come down to the last
45:41
Speaker 1: one or two percentage points, the Republican will be slightly ahead,
45:46
Speaker 1: and then the Democrat will pull it out. By the way,
45:48
Speaker 1: that doesn't happen every time. A couple of times in
45:51
Speaker 1: twenty twenty two it was actually the Republican that ended
45:55
Speaker 1: up pulling it out. But I one hundred percent agree
45:57
Speaker 1: that in general, you'd rather be a Democrat than the Republican,
46:01
Speaker 1: And I just wanted to mention I do think that
46:04
Speaker 1: there is a rational explanation for why that is that
46:07
Speaker 1: does not include corruption. But back to this issue of Republicans,
46:12
Speaker 1: I think overplaying their hand when it comes to naming
46:16
Speaker 1: three incumbent just elected members of the House to Trump's administration. Obviously,
46:23
Speaker 1: the most prominent person there is Matt Gates, Congressman from Florida,
46:28
Speaker 1: who has been nominated to be the Attorney general. And
46:32
Speaker 1: this is the nomination that has created by far the
46:35
Speaker 1: most controversy. I agree that it is very controversial, and
46:39
Speaker 1: it should be because I don't think the Gates should
46:42
Speaker 1: be the next attorney general. I don't think he's qualified
46:45
Speaker 1: on a number of fronts. I don't think he has
46:47
Speaker 1: the proper legal experience, he has no real management experience,
46:51
Speaker 1: he doesn't have the right temperament, he doesn't have the
46:54
Speaker 1: right priorities, and he's an asshole. Now, sometimes an asshole
46:59
Speaker 1: can be good, but I think Gates is the wrong
47:02
Speaker 1: kind of asshole. I also think politically it's going to
47:05
Speaker 1: cost way too much to make Gates the attorney general.
47:09
Speaker 1: There's already speculation he might have to be named via
47:13
Speaker 1: a recess appointment the current Senate leader for the Republicans,
47:18
Speaker 1: Mitch McConnell, who will be retiring from that position next year,
47:22
Speaker 1: but he's still currently in charge. He has been very
47:24
Speaker 1: vague about whether or not he thinks it's possible for
47:28
Speaker 1: there to be recess appointments, which indicates to me that
47:31
Speaker 1: it's possible that's actually going to happen. And it's very
47:34
Speaker 1: clear that Trump is serious about this pick. There was
47:38
Speaker 1: some speculation, and I contributed to that in the last
47:42
Speaker 1: episode of the podcast. Was this some sort of a
47:45
Speaker 1: four D chess game? Was this a sacrificial lamb? Was
47:49
Speaker 1: using Gates as a lightning rod so that other nominations
47:53
Speaker 1: wouldn't get as much scrutiny. No, no, no, no, no,
47:56
Speaker 1: that's too much credit to be given to Trump's thought
48:00
Speaker 1: thought process here. He wants Matt Gates because he wants
48:04
Speaker 1: a sycophant to do his dirty work in this incredibly
48:08
Speaker 1: important job of Attorney General of the United States of America.
48:13
Speaker 1: And if there was any doubt about that, I mean,
48:15
Speaker 1: there's all sorts of stories that have come out that No,
48:18
Speaker 1: Trump is very serious about this. He really wants Gates.
48:21
Speaker 1: There's no funny business here. He's going to do everything
48:23
Speaker 1: he possibly can to make sure Gates gets nominated. If
48:27
Speaker 1: there was any doubt about that. To me, it ended
48:31
Speaker 1: earlier this week when Elon Musk tweeted about the Gates nomination. Now,
48:36
Speaker 1: I referenced that I thought Musk is in dangerous territory
48:40
Speaker 1: when it comes to his tweets on potential nominees for
48:46
Speaker 1: Trump's administration, specifically Treasury secretary. And this is different when
48:51
Speaker 1: Musk has did when I'm about to share with you,
48:53
Speaker 1: is different than what he did when I referenced the
48:56
Speaker 1: Treasury secretary situation, because there he was picking between the
49:00
Speaker 1: two people who were under consideration, and I thought that
49:03
Speaker 1: was dangerous given the nature of Trump's ego and how
49:08
Speaker 1: much influence Musk has, especially with the Trump cult. Well,
49:12
Speaker 1: here's a different situation. This is Musk fully backing someone
49:17
Speaker 1: that Trump has already named as his proposed attorney general,
49:23
Speaker 1: Matt Gates and Musk one thousand percent. And this is
49:28
Speaker 1: kind of depressing to me and a little bit surprising.
49:31
Speaker 1: But to me, it's a perfect illustration of Okay, we
49:34
Speaker 1: know for sure that Trump is for real on the
49:38
Speaker 1: Gates nomination, because otherwise Elon Musk would not be tweeting
49:42
Speaker 1: out the following Matt Gates has three critical assets that
49:47
Speaker 1: are needed for the ag role. A big brain, a
49:51
Speaker 1: spine of steel, and an axe to grind. He is
49:55
Speaker 1: the judge dread American needs to clean up a corrupt
50:01
Speaker 1: system and put powerful bad actors in prison. Gates will
50:06
Speaker 1: be our hammer of justice. That's Elon Musk tweeting, and
50:12
Speaker 1: you know, as a last check, that had over twenty
50:16
Speaker 1: million views, which is not uncommon for an Elon Musk tweet.
50:20
Speaker 1: That was one a clear indication that Trump ain't backing
50:26
Speaker 1: down on this. This is this is for real. You know,
50:30
Speaker 1: in my view, that was a weirdly worded tweet from
50:33
Speaker 1: Elon Musk that didn't feel like a normal Elon Musk tweet,
50:38
Speaker 1: that felt like it may have been coordinated with Trump
50:41
Speaker 1: himself in its verbiage. It actually felt a bit more
50:45
Speaker 1: trumpy than Elon Musk's normal tweets are. It's also a
50:49
Speaker 1: little longer than Elon Musk's tweets normally are. But that's
50:52
Speaker 1: just a theory I have as to how this happened.
50:55
Speaker 1: But the idea that Elon Musk, who is very much
50:59
Speaker 1: against law fair, very much a free speech advocate, would
51:03
Speaker 1: be in favor so fervently of Matt Gates being the
51:08
Speaker 1: Attorney General, and for reasons that he gave, like having
51:12
Speaker 1: an axe to grind, is very depressing and because you know,
51:17
Speaker 1: that is not that is not, in my view what
51:21
Speaker 1: the Attorney General of the United States should be having
51:24
Speaker 1: as qualifications and acts the grime and acts the grind.
51:29
Speaker 1: I mean, even if you could, you know, I'll concede.
51:31
Speaker 1: Maybe he's a smart guy. He clearly is a tactician.
51:34
Speaker 1: He got rid of the Speaker of the House for
51:36
Speaker 1: his own stupid, selfish reasons, and you know, maybe he
51:41
Speaker 1: has a spines steal. I don't know. But the idea
51:45
Speaker 1: that you're in favor of him because he has an
51:47
Speaker 1: axe to grind, when as I've already referenced, he's not qualified,
51:50
Speaker 1: and he does not have the right temperament and he
51:53
Speaker 1: does not have the right priorities is very disturbing. And
51:58
Speaker 1: this is going to be a real bad This is
52:00
Speaker 1: going to be, you know, to the end, this is
52:03
Speaker 1: kind of almost going to be the unstoppable force against
52:07
Speaker 1: the immovable object, The unstoppable force of Trump and Musk
52:12
Speaker 1: and this new administration, and the immovable object being the
52:17
Speaker 1: United States Senate, which clearly has enough Republican senators that
52:22
Speaker 1: are very much against the Gates nomination to stop it.
52:26
Speaker 1: But are they going to figure out some way around
52:28
Speaker 1: the US Senate to make sure he is the attorney
52:30
Speaker 1: general no matter what the political cost is. So this
52:36
Speaker 1: is to me, this is not surprising given what I've
52:40
Speaker 1: been predicting for a long time what would happen in
52:43
Speaker 1: a second Trump administration, but it's still disturbing and depressing.
52:48
Speaker 1: And what's really upsetting to me is how the right
52:52
Speaker 1: is rallying around Gates largely because of, not in spite
52:58
Speaker 1: of Haauz, of this House Ethics investigation against him. This
53:06
Speaker 1: is really mind blowing, and I think tells you so
53:08
Speaker 1: much about where we are in this country and how
53:11
Speaker 1: screwed we are, and how the Trump mind virus has
53:14
Speaker 1: really taken over the entire right wing, supposed conservative Republican movement.
53:20
Speaker 1: But you're probably aware that there's this House Ethics investigation
53:26
Speaker 1: that did not result in the Department of Justice filing
53:29
Speaker 1: any charges against Matt Gates, which, by the way, you know,
53:34
Speaker 1: I realized that the Trump cult is not known for
53:37
Speaker 1: its consistency or they're logical thinking. But it's been hilarious
53:42
Speaker 1: to me to see so many people online who are
53:45
Speaker 1: Trump fans and fans of Gates, because obviously, you know,
53:49
Speaker 1: you've got to be a fan of Gates if you're
53:50
Speaker 1: a fan of Trump. He's sent out the edict. That's
53:53
Speaker 1: how the cult works. But it's been hilarious to me
53:57
Speaker 1: to see so many people saying, see see this ethics
54:01
Speaker 1: investigations obviously bogus because even the Department of Justice decided
54:05
Speaker 1: not to indict him. Okay, So what you're telling me then,
54:11
Speaker 1: is that the Department of Justice is not really all
54:13
Speaker 1: that political or corrupt. That's what you're telling me. You're
54:17
Speaker 1: telling me that they decided that the testimony against Gates
54:22
Speaker 1: was not up to the standards of an indictment, and
54:26
Speaker 1: so they did the right thing. Even though, based upon
54:29
Speaker 1: your worldview, they would have loved to have indicted Gates.
54:34
Speaker 1: They would have loved to have taken him out, and
54:37
Speaker 1: this would have been consistent with how you view the
54:40
Speaker 1: Biden Department of Justice. So why didn't they do that?
54:43
Speaker 1: It's a lot like the whole stolen election narratives. So
54:47
Speaker 1: why didn't they steal the election from Trump this time?
54:50
Speaker 1: Why did they let him win a very close election
54:52
Speaker 1: in Wisconsin? But somehow we're able to take out the
54:55
Speaker 1: Republican senatorial candidate in Wisconsin by basically the same incredibly
55:00
Speaker 1: small margin of votes. How does that make any sense? Okay,
55:04
Speaker 1: but I realize making senses that's old school. That makes
55:09
Speaker 1: me a dinosaur. We don't need to be intellectually consistent anymore.
55:14
Speaker 1: But as far as this issue of the allegations against Gates,
55:20
Speaker 1: I find this to be very, very frustrating because you know, folks,
55:26
Speaker 1: just because someone is being attacked by the people you
55:30
Speaker 1: hate or don't trust, doesn't mean that they're the right
55:35
Speaker 1: guy for the job. It's not a positive or a
55:39
Speaker 1: qualification for the job. But I really do believe that
55:43
Speaker 1: this whole house ethics investigation is working in Gates's favor
55:49
Speaker 1: because the Trump cult sees that these allegations, even if false,
55:54
Speaker 1: and even if there's no indictment, is an indication that
55:59
Speaker 1: he's so dangerous to the establishment and to the deep
56:04
Speaker 1: state that he's the guy we need, not just one,
56:07
Speaker 1: but we need And I'm sorry, folks, I'm willing to
56:12
Speaker 1: accept it. Maybe these allegations are not legitimate. Megan Kelly
56:16
Speaker 1: did a whole diet dribe about how they're not credible.
56:20
Speaker 1: I don't know if they're credible or not. But it's
56:23
Speaker 1: not a qualification for the job. It's not a positive.
56:27
Speaker 1: It's not a reason to make him Attorney General of
56:30
Speaker 1: the United States. And yet I think it's absolutely working
56:35
Speaker 1: in his favor, especially when The View. The View was
56:39
Speaker 1: actually forced to make an on air legal notice about
56:45
Speaker 1: the ethics investigation into Gates, because I think what happened
56:50
Speaker 1: was that they had made some statements that the lawyers
56:53
Speaker 1: at ABC got nervous about, and so they wanted to
56:56
Speaker 1: protect their backside, and they issued a statement and Sonny Hosted,
57:01
Speaker 1: who's probably the dumbest co host of The View and
57:05
Speaker 1: the most liberal co host of The View, was forced
57:09
Speaker 1: to make this statement on ABC's The View, which you
57:13
Speaker 1: sent all sorts of chills of celebration through Trump World
57:18
Speaker 1: because they just loved having this or getting to see
57:21
Speaker 1: her struggle to make this statement, which is something she
57:25
Speaker 1: obviously did not want to do but was forced to
57:27
Speaker 1: do by the lawyers at ABC. And here's what that
57:31
Speaker 1: sounded like.
57:32
Speaker 7: On Spring son you have a legal I do have
57:36
Speaker 7: a legal No, thank you, Whipopy. Matt Gates has long
57:41
Speaker 7: denied all allegations, calling the claims quote invented, and saying
57:46
Speaker 7: in a statement to ABC News that this false miar
57:49
Speaker 7: following a three year criminal investigation, should be viewed with
57:52
Speaker 7: great skepticism. That DOJ investigation was closed with no charges
57:57
Speaker 7: being brought.
57:59
Speaker 1: We'll be right back now. I get as someone who
58:03
Speaker 1: hates the liberal media despises the view that that is,
58:07
Speaker 1: you know, a lot of fun to see them be
58:10
Speaker 1: forced to do that. I get it. But those allegations,
58:14
Speaker 1: which are very serious and unproven and may not even
58:18
Speaker 1: be legitimate. We may know more about that as this
58:22
Speaker 1: confirmation process goes along, are not a positive. They are
58:27
Speaker 1: not a qualification. The whole world is not a conspiracy. Okay,
58:33
Speaker 1: Sometimes people are just bad guys. Matt Gates is a
58:37
Speaker 1: bad guy, regardless of whether or not he was guilty
58:40
Speaker 1: of any of these allegations in the House Ethics investigation.
58:46
Speaker 1: And there are a lot of other people who could
58:48
Speaker 1: do a hell of a lot better job, would be
58:49
Speaker 1: at a lot more qualified from a standpoint of experienced
58:53
Speaker 1: temperament goals. And by the way, There's another issue here,
58:57
Speaker 1: and that is the precedent that this game Ate nomination
59:00
Speaker 1: would set. We are in a downward spiral, and this
59:05
Speaker 1: is the fault of both Republicans and Democrats, especially in
59:08
Speaker 1: the Trump era, where we are. You know, one side
59:12
Speaker 1: gets there shot in, then the next side feels like
59:15
Speaker 1: they have to get retribution, and so okay, you know,
59:18
Speaker 1: you go after our guy with your law. Fair Now
59:21
Speaker 1: we're gonna have Matt Gates as attorney general. Well, what's
59:23
Speaker 1: going to happen the next time Democrats are in charge?
59:27
Speaker 1: And on what basis are Republican's going to be able
59:29
Speaker 1: to object to anybody that they put in any position,
59:33
Speaker 1: whether it's attorney general or otherwise. Is no one thinking
59:37
Speaker 1: about this? Of course Trump doesn't think about this, because
59:39
Speaker 1: all Trump thinks about is today, and you know he doesn't.
59:43
Speaker 1: I don't think cares at all about what happens Atori's
59:45
Speaker 1: gone from office. So this is this is troubling on
59:50
Speaker 1: a lot of different fronts. To me, the Gates nomination
59:54
Speaker 1: is by far the worst that Trump has made so far.
59:57
Speaker 1: And I don't have a prediction as to how this
59:59
Speaker 1: is all going to turn out. I really don't. But
1:00:02
Speaker 1: it's just it's very telling that Trump fans have so
1:00:05
Speaker 1: little trust in the system, now, which I get, I
1:00:08
Speaker 1: understand it, I get it. It's it's overblown, but they
1:00:11
Speaker 1: have so little trust in the system that they think
1:00:15
Speaker 1: if the man is after you, that means that you
1:00:18
Speaker 1: are the man, and it's just not the case. That's
1:00:23
Speaker 1: the opposite of reality. Thanks for listening to today's free
1:00:29
Speaker 1: drop of the abbreviated show. If you're interested in listening
1:00:32
Speaker 1: to the entire show, you must become a patron. Please
1:00:36
Speaker 1: go to Patreon. That's p A t R e O
1:00:40
Speaker 1: N dot com. Patreon dot com. Slash the Death of
1:00:46
Speaker 1: Journalism with John Ziggler. My name is j hn z
1:00:51
Speaker 1: I E G L e R. That's Haatreon dot com
1:00:56
Speaker 1: slash the Death of Journalism with John Siggler. Good luck
1:01:01
Speaker 1: to you on that. But that's how you can subscribe.