We're back with another edition of the Federalist Radio Hour. I'm Emilee Tashinski,
culture editor to hear at The Federalist. As always, you can email the
show at radio at the Federalist dot com, follow us on exit fdr LST,
make sure to subscribe wherever you download your podcasts, and of course to
the premium version of the Federalist dot com as well. I'm joined today by
my colleague Eddie Scary, DC columnist at The Federalist. You can also check
out at these books. He is prolific. He's written many books. Amazon
right Adie can get him on Amazon. Amazon is the best place to get
him out there. You go, Eddie, Welcome back to Federalist Radio Hour.
Happy to be here. It's been a while, it really has.
Because apparently your parking is running out. That's an issue, Yes, the
parking issue coming to the office in DC. Since I no longer i'm technically
living in DC, it's a little bit more of a challenge, but that's
okay. Yeah, So that's the sad thing. Federal Every episode of Federalist
Radio Hour until COVID was taped in studio, like every single one of them.
Are great friends at the hills Hillsdale Kirby Center let us use their studio.
After COVID, everyone just got used to doing things over zoom. But
podcasts are much better when they're recorded in person, way better when they're oh
sure, yeah, and I actually I forgot all about the Hillsdale studio because
I know we did at least one there. So yeah, so is that
closed down now? No? No, no, no, it's still there.
It's just typically what we find with guests is that they're all used to
doing it over zoom. So the book people in person now is really tough
because everyone just you know, every author. It's great in a lot of
ways because you know, we had David mammontt on the show, for example,
Like one is David Mammont in DC, probably very rarely, so we
get to have all kinds of different authors and people from all over the world.
People there in Europe and you know, wherever else, get to do
the show. That said it is really great when you get to do it
in person. He's like, I don't even like being like, you know,
obviously, when you're the host of something like this, you want them
in person, but as the guest, I don't like doing them over the
phone. I mean, I'll do them, but I way prefer being in
person. When I used to do Tucker's show and he was Tucker Carlton Show
and he was on Fox the Best One, which happened to be the final
show he did, I forgot about that. You were on the last show.
It was you? That was me? Yeah it was but no,
that was he happened to be in DC. So we did it in person,
and that was by far my best, like my best segment that I
think I ever did, and any other like TV things I did, and
doing them in person is just you know, because otherwise you're talking to a
screen. Yeah, they're talking to nothing. You're not looking at somebody.
So it's just it is way better to do it in person. So I'm
glad we're here in person and I can watch you chug a natty light.
It's like two PM. I like how I'm trying to take advantage of the
fact that they can't see us, and yet you tell them I had to.
Yeah, dude, it's gonna explain. I think probably your performance two
pm. I always say it's eight am somewhere. You're just always in an
airport. Airport, well, Eddie has been devouring the daily drama in down
in Fulton County, Georgia, and I have to say Eddie. Every time
I tune in to this trial, I think that I'm watching like an episode
of Judge Judy. So it's it's so Judge Joe Brown. Yeah, Judge
Joe Brown. He's so Judge Judy. She ended Judge Judy. I think
she does another show now, but it is Judge Joe Brown still on.
I think that he's done too now. He's like, isn't he like some
kind of like almost like a pseudo like life coach or something kind of thing
like he's He's just one of those people who like every now and then you'll
come across a video or I saw him interviewed on some other podcasts that had
nothing to do with like legal issues or anything. It was all just about
like him growing up his views on politics, like he talks. He's just
like a general end And actually I find him really interesting. I never watched
his show and it was on TV, but otherwise he seems like a pretty
interesting guy. Well, okay, so Judge Joe Brown. Aside, there
is something about this trial that is so like beneath the dignity of the office.
And I get that people can make that argument about Donald Trump's tweets,
and you know, that's not what we're talking about here, because there's a
I think a particularly grating element of hypocrisy with Fanny Willis and that she was,
you know, going to get Trump for corruption and she was going to
clean up, you know, all of the corruption that she could, and
she turned out to just be like nakedly corrupt herself. So that's what I
think is it's not just corrupt, it's just like her whole purpose her campaign
was to not be corrupt. Kind of that's true of virtually every especially like
the kind of the ones that have gotten the most media attention of these you
know prosecutors that are going after Trump in New York, Leticia James, Alvin
Bragg. Now you have uh, Fanny Fannie Willis in Georgia. Usually it's
these like they are they like kind of reek of corruption, if not out
and out stupidity. It's like just these people who they need to they need
to make a name for themselves, and they see this as they're opening and
and you know, you would think, well, you've at least got to
come up with something good, and yet they come up with something so so
stupid and and like you said it, it kind of cheapens our idea of
what it means to even you know, go through the what what the judiciary
is, the justice system, law and order. And I have I have
found this to be kind of like an ironic thing about the Trump era and
Trump himself, is that it's it's to put it in one way. You
could look at it. One way is that everything he touches kind of ends
up cheaper. But I don't look at it that way. I look at
it as the reaction to everything he does and everything he touches by his opponents
really debases everything and cheapens everything and reduces us all reduces completely reduces it to
this absurdity and again kind of like erodes its dignity. You stopped yourself when
you said Fanny Willison, corrected it to Fannie Willis. And I was actually
going to ask you about this, because if anyone has gotten to the bottom
of it, I would expect it to be you. If I have any
hope of knowing someone who's gotten to the bottom of Fanny versus Fanny, it's
you. I'm told over and over that it's Fanny, right, But so
many people who cover this are just saying Fanny, and every time I try
to say Fani, it sounds ridiculous, It sounds ridiculous. It probably sounds
ridiculous also because just like it was funny that her name was Fanny as we
kind of all knew it, and then now it's like, oh, but
it's actually Fani. Kind of like if your name is like Bianca and it's
like actually Beyonce or something like that. You know your last name is spelled
like Bucket, but you say Bouquet. Yes, yes, yes, But
all the people because right now with the hearings we're looking at, the hearings
have to do with whether there's this giant conflict of interest with uh the prosecutor
meaning Fannie Wells his office, and so do they need to completely does her
and her team need to be completely disqualified from even prosecuting this case against Trump
and associates? And it's largely actually, I guess I'd say one hundred percent
the witnesses that are being called for all know her on a personal basis,
even if it's not super super closer personal, but friend, there was a
former friend of hers who was called to testify. Obviously Wade, what is
it, Nathan Wade? He knows her very well. Yes, the close
personal friend, special prosecutor who was a defense attorney, but for some reason
she en listened as a prosecutor. Oh well, because we find out that
they were actually boyfriend and girlfriend and yeah, so and then and then also
his former partner at his law firm like something, Terence. They've all been
referring to her as Fani, So I assume that's her name, and it
hasn't been just this this random random switch up like de Santis. It's just
it's not spelled like that. You know, there are people who spell their
names Danny, d a and I. You don't say Donnie. Just every
time I try to say Fani, it's weird. Yeah, yeah, and
I've never heard I've never heard of either a pronunciation that's like a name Fanny
or Fanni. So it's a weird one. Yeah, Okay, I'm glad
that we got to the bottle that is close to yes. Well okay,
so yeah, I was called someone like in a comment section somewhere they recycled
the you're racist if you don't say Kamala Harris correctly line, you're racist if
you don't say Fannie Willis was what someone It was a sentiment that I encountered
in a comment section, probably like a month ago somewhere around there. That's
so weird. And you know, you know what this is a you say
the comment section. Yeah, some this liberal dude, much older guy who
I do not know in real life, but he follows my work and he'll
message me on social media and whatnot. And you know, there's Leticia James
in New York. She's the what she the DA in New York, she's
the Attorney General, Yeah, the attorney General. So there's Altisia James and
Trump is accurately saying her name is Letitia James. Some people might read that
and mistakenly pronounce it as Letitia, but he's saying it the way that she
says it. And this this liberal guy he asked me. He said,
Trump keeps saying her name Letitia, and apparently that's how you say it.
But I just I think there's something off about that, and I and he's
trying to get it that's racially motivated, kind of like because his nickname for
her was Leticia Pikaboo James, which is completely inexplicable and yet still hilarious.
But it's like, literally everything is called racist with this dude. If Trump
is anywhere around it or Republican in general, it's racist. Even if you're
doing it right, saying it the right way, it's racist. The best
Trump nicknames are the ones that you cannot understand right because it's so personal to
him. My favorite, by far, and I don't think this is on
anybody's list of their favorite Trump nicknames, but by far my favorite is his
nickname for Chuck Todd Chuck sleepy Eyes. That was one, yeah, Another
one was we're getting off track here, but sleepy eyes sleepy eyes. That
was good in like pencil neck cocoa chow. Another weird, like why did
he I've read some weird theories about why he was calling her elane chow cocach
how and I'm not even gonna repat him here because they were so weird.
But anyway, Uh, actually you said we were getting off track, but
that's not off track at all, actually right on track. Yeah. So
every time I tuned into it, it just gets more and more ridiculous and
to the point that you just made about how Trump's opponents and again like this,
I remember when it came out. I know you've read it. Going
through the case that Fanie Wells put together against Donald Trump, this like sweeping
Rico case. Are some of the charges are with Trump and his associates are
booking hotel rooms or booking conference rooms at hotels because it's a rico case,
so she's everything is in furtherance of the conspiracy. If you're reading through the
suit, it's an insane suit and she's someone who's known for using Rico in
these kind of like sweeping ways that you know, if it weren't Donald Trump,
a lot of people would read this case and say, what is this?
What the hell is this? Legal experts, and it reminds me of
actually something that happened with the anchor On case, which is, you know,
we get towards the end of it, and the Associated Press and some
other corners of the media they'll write like one article, but I'm thinking,
particularly with the Associated Press, they had this long piece interrogating how the law
has been prosecuted in New York in the past, the law that Donald Trump
is up on for allegedly inflating his assets and committing fraud. And they found
that it was quote unprecedented to prosecute it with victimist crimes, like it's been
used a couple of times, and they were in cases where there were actual
obvious material losses and victims, as most of the younger onn case where they
testified. The banks testified they were happy to have Trump as a customer.
They didn't feel like victims. They made money off of him, and the
money if Trump ends up having to fork it over, goes right into the
New York Treasury. It's not like it's going to victims. But of course
towards the end of this, as the decision is coming down that you get
one or two articles saying that it's quote unprecedented. It's never in a headline,
it's never a central criticism that you hear from the media. It's never
in the leads of their stories. And I feel like the same thing is
true of this finding way was trial, Like they're covering some of the ridiculous
parts, like whatever Nathan Wade is doing kind of I don't know what's your
take on how it's been covered. No, that's that's true because it's one
of those things that you kind of have to if you really want to,
you got to. You gotta search and read multiple articles and get down to
like, for example, like granular stuff like the Rico case. What is
it? I don't even know. It's like racketeering and something something, it's
about conspiracy. It's like how it was created basically to prosecute the mafia,
right, and that that was what I read and actually was an NPR article
to kind of describe and what is Trump being charged with? And it was
like the most recent one was like this rapper in Atlanta, it was it
was Fannie Willis, You're right, it was her. She's the one who
prosecuted this rapper and and and other associates. But they were involved with like
like human trafficking, prostitution, gang, you know, gang related stuff.
But and here we're talking about, you know, you know, setting up
an alternate slate of electors and Trump talking with the was it the phone call
that he made to kemp So, the governor of Georgia plus the Secretary of
State in Georgia. And I don't know if you even know this, that
phone call that is kind of like the most talked about thing in the media
and is kind of at the heart of this. This is going back to
so it's before before and Biden's inaugurated, but it's after the election, and
Trump is kind of running around to different states and seeing where he can if
he can cobble together enough votes or invalidate enough votes that he think were illegally
cast whatnot, that he can perhaps, you know, get a different result
from the election. That phone call has been talked about, and it's always
boiled down to like this like ten second, fifteen second snippet. You know,
that was like an hour plus phone call. And I listened to it
all, like fairly recently. You listened to the whole call. The whole
call. I listened to the whole call, and it's like, you know,
Trump is it's kind of sad to listen to because it's in a you
know, in a way that makes the president look a little bit pathetic because
he's I remember that at the time. Yeah, I remember frustrated to the
point of tears, being like this is what I've been told, and you
know, on the other end the actually I don't know if the governor was
on it. The Secretary of State though, was Raffensberger and he's saying,
you know, we know that you've said that we've looked into it, but
we can't do that or that's not what we found. And then you know,
you've got Trump's side saying, well, actually you can't. We have
access to these these these ballots and we need to see that. And then
you know, Rafsburger he's saying, no, that's actually a legal we can't
do that. And he's like, well, come on, I really this
is the number that I need that would you know? I think there's actually
well more than that, but this is the number that at least if you
could get me there, And it's put it's that's talked about as if he's
bullying this person, and it really isn't. I mean, you can you
can hear it again. You hear him kind of frustrated the point of tears
Donald Trump where he's even saying like, I don't even I can't imagine.
I don't know why I endorse Camp. I don't think I'm gonna endorse him
again, and I can't imagine getting elected again. It's just, you know,
it's it's sour grapes kind of reasonably so, but you know, you've
got to look back to all these things to to really realize just how absurd
the charges are the case the arguments that Fannie Willis's office is making. We're
all aware the stock market has seen some unprecedented fluctuations just over the last several
years. Silver, though, has historically been considered a safe haven asset during
times of market volatility. When that uncertainty rises, investors often turn into precious
metals like silver to preserve wealth and hedge against economic instability. Owning physical silver
coins also just provides you with a tangible asset that you can actually hold in
your hand. What a thought. In times of economic uncertainty, having that
tangible asset can provide a sense of security and peace of mind. Now.
CSN Mint has been providing certified US MINT collectible coins and precious metals for over
twenty years, and they're one of the most trusted names in numismatics. You
can explore CSN Mint's extensive catalog of bullion coins and numismatic collectibles. Whether you're
a seasoned investor or a passionate collector, you'll find a diverse range of products
to suit your own needs and your own preferences. So at CSN Mint,
trust is paramount rest assured that every product you purchased includes the original certificate of
authenticity or is certified and graded by a third party grader to ensure origin and
purity. With csn mint, you can build your collection with confidence, experience
world class customer service and support. With CSN MINT, their team of knowledgeable
professionals is here to assist you every step of the way, from product selection
all the way to order fulfillment and beyond. So if you're going to collect
something, it might as well be money. Go to csnmnt dot com,
slash Federalist and use promo code Federalist at checkout to get a free silver American
Eagle over thirty dollars in value with your purchase of seventy five dollars or more.
Yeah, that's interesting that going back to the phone call is a really
I think that's the right place to talk about the media coverage here because in
a way, there are a couple of times that this has happened with Trump
in a I shouldn't say there are a couple of times, but like a
couple of the high, high high profile times. The other one this reminds
me of is Charlottesville, where the media latches onto a narrative about what was
said. And unless you like, as a journalist, someone who is supposed
to be well informed and reading all of the articles and listening to the primary
sources, Unless you do listen to the primary source, and you do it
with an open mind, as opposed to like having this angle already given to
you and not being willing to depart from it, or not being aware that
it might be worth departing from, you would have no idea what he actually
said. Because the narrative snowballed so quickly that it is now anathema. I
mean it is. It is basically like and it treated as an act of
bigotry itself to say the narrative about what he actually said at Charlottesville is wrong.
It's the same thing with the phone call and the phone call about find
me ex votes, et cetera. If anything, Eddie, it actually undermines
Fani Willis's case because it shows that Trump genuinely believed the vast majority of the
things he and his deputies were saying. Now, I can't speak to the
particularities of Rudy Giuliani or anybody else who's brought into that Rico case. I
do think there are a couple of times in the case itself, and we've
talked about this before, there's like one, maybe one or two times where
like, oh, it does seem very clear that Donald Trump knew what he
was saying wasn't true, but we're talking like ninety five percent of it.
It seemed like he it's sad like it seeming he genuinely believed what Sidney Powell
was telling him. Mm hmm, yeah, I think that. And that's
kind of to your point is often these you'll read these articles that you know
because they're because there were you know, he had a massive legal team the
present between his between the White House, what he had on his legal team
in the White House and what he had on his campaign is twenty twenty campaign.
That's a massive operation that's basically working as one, but it's two separate,
you know, teams for the same guy. But you know, you
read these articles that are so and so testified. You know, one of
his lawyers testified that they had told him that this was not going this wasn't
true, and this wasn't going to work, and there were not these these
illegal ballots. That know, that's completely based on nothing, so he he
obviously knew. Trump must have obviously known. He couldn't have. He must
have been lying. But it's no, because there are other lawyers who are
on record saying that, actually, no, they told him something completely different.
They said one thing, and okay, well Trump, did he listen
to the wrong lawyers? Was that was that wrong judgment? Okay, make
that you can make that, you can make that call. Yeaheah yeah.
But and it's, by the way true, it's true that like he hired
some were Oh yeah, for sure. And that's the media makes that point
all the time. Sure, yeah, it's a fair, perfectly fair criticism.
But to say, well, he must have known because this lawyer,
Look, this lawyer told him, well, no, there was more than
one lawyer. It looks like at least a substantial number of them were telling
him one thing, whether it was sure or not, whether you want to
say it was true or not, and then others were telling him something completely
different. He chose to believe one half and then disregard the other. Right,
and in the case of that phone call, what he was saying the
media depicts as a wink wink kind of mafio. So find me ten thousand
votes. What he was actually talking about is in the context of someone saying
X number. It was like someone had told him, maybe like Sidney Power,
someone had told him more than ten thousand illegal ballots had been cast.
So he was saying, find me just ten thousand, like, just use
your resources to find at least ten thousand of those. So it was in
the context of illegal votes, what he believed to be illegal votes, and
Molly having in Margot Cleveland had done some great reporting on the votes that were
cast in Georgia, and in that case, he had at that time pretty
decent reason to believe that there was a big chunk of illegal ballots that have
been cast. So it's just the difference between the truth and the narrative is
staggering. And Fannie Willis was treated like a hero going into this, going
into her filing the RICO case, and then afterwards until the damn broke and
all of these allegations started flooding in. She was I don't know any maybe
you paid closer attention to the media coverage of her than I did, but
I just remember her being cheerleaded, cheerlead, yeah, yeah, champion.
She so even you say you remember her being cheerleader, even literally the day,
so if the listeners remember she she actually it was so it was so
absurd, so Jerry Springer that you know, it wasn't even clear that she
was going to be made to testify in this hearing, which again is to
determine whether there was this conflict of interest that would result in disqualifying her in
her office from even prosecuting this case. It wasn't even clear that she was
going to have to testify. She comes barreling into the courtroom in the middle
of the judge, the defense, her lawyers discussing whether that's the next step
they're going to take, and she's just I'm ready, I'm ready, and
like marches up to the to the witness box and she's just gonna go and
like it was the day. She's wearing her dress backwards, right, yes,
which I think is got we got to the bottom of that. It
was not backwards, our colleague did. This is funny because I actually went
deep down that rabbit hole and came to the conclusion of my own personal research
that the dress was absolutely backwards. Really, yeah, we need to follow
up with l because she she's found a dress. I think that was on
Amazon. Yes, but the dress was actually a different dress. Oh,
it was based on my own personal reas my information may be outdated. Yes,
Okay, so the back, but when I never got down to or
got to the bottom, I was okay. So again we're getting off traffic.
But it's still kind of a fun topic. Is how her chest fit
into that dress if it was on backwards, which is nothing, I'm not
caring. It was a pretty stretchy fabric. Okay, yeah, I think
it's with a stretchy fabric. I think it. Okay, she can make
it work anyway. Okay. So that's the day where, yeah, she
goes in and gives this wild testimony where I was kind of surprised that the
judge gave her as much rope as he did because she was she was downright
disrespectful in a lot of ways. She kept she was characterizing the questions she
was receiving as dishonest, their lies. She repeatedly said that the defense attorney
had lied about her in court filings. You know, they would ask her
a question, she'd go to answer, and then the attorney would say,
you know, that's not what I asked him. She said, well,
no, because you asked me, we're going to get We're going to go
down this route, and you know, it was just kind of it was
very abrasive and contentious. But the New York Times, the way they write
this up at the very bottom of you know, characters are drama. They
could they talked about it as it was this high drama and high stakes,
when really it was just this Jerry Springer kind of trashy affair for anybody who
actually watched it, So even dignify it to say that it was dramatic or
you know, with flair, it really was just trashy and unbecoming, you
know, for a media who constantly bemoaned, and I think rightfully so in
some cases, the like undignified presidential behavior of you know, tweeting at eight
thirty am about Mika Brazinski's facelift, which you probably loved that, you know,
completely every single time, you know, they would absolutely have an opinion
about that. Honey Willis and Naven Wade are exposed for clearly blatantly abusing their
offices in the trashiest of ways, and it's just drama and on the most
easily veracity, and yet you know what I was getting out with this was
that Then the New York Times they write about it, you know, because
if you're a Democrat and you like completely show your butt on national television,
you're going to be described just like, you know, emotional, and that's
drama versus you know, if it's if a Republican does it, it's you
know what, you know what the erosion of norms and what a tear?
You know, all that stuff. But I remember this New York Times article
writing up her testimony. At the bottom it was like, you know,
the contrast between the defense attorneys a sea of wool suits and white male faces
with with Fannie Willis and her magenta what is it shining? I don't think
they use the word shining. It was like glimmering or bright and her and
her pink or her magenta dress, just like really really cringe. But again,
it's one of those things that if you read the write up and maybe
you don't have time like I do too, or you're not paid like I
am just going to say things, I'm sure you would do it in your
spare time too, but it's really not yeah, dream job actually to get
paid to do something I would be doing my free time anyway, but yeah,
just been hours. Maybe you didn't do like I do and sit hours
and watch this whole thing. You would never know from reading the New York
Times that it wasn't at all the high drama that they made it seem.
It was actually trashy. And actually you've you've found out that Fannie Willis and
pretty much everybody that has been called to the stand has been lying and very
very it's ways that you're just you look at You're like, come on,
you expect me to believe that that she paid thousands and thousands of dollars in
cash and she carried cash around. Well, so let me ask you about
Nathan Wade, Like his testimony was hilarious, hilarious, and that was what
he said, right am, I right, I'm remembering that correct, That
he claims that she reimbursed him for all of these trips they went on in
cash. Right, They both maintained that, but he was called first.
Yeah, that you know, the idea was, yes, we did go
on these trips together. Because that's kind of a big part of the defense's
case that they're making in order to disqualify Fani Willis. In her office.
Is that here's the proof that she hired someone she was in a romantic relationship,
and it was basically, what is it called when yourself like kind of
like when you're paying yourself. There's a word for that, like, because
she's giving money to him, but she's benefiting from it, right, Like,
that's if there's a word for it. Neither of us is going to
the word for it, because I just saw the word literally today. The
problem is when you tell someone to think of a word, and you put
yourself on the spot to think of a word, you'll never think of the
word. No, I know. But anyway, so it's basically she's benefiting
from the money. She's saying she's paying somebody else, right, But so
and the evidence of that is that they went on these trips. They went
to like I think it's like a Ruba and Belize place. Yeah, places
otherwise all over you cruise they want a cruise, the cruise and you know
the idea. They're saying, well where's the end? But he's claiming,
Nathan Wade is claiming, but she, yes, I paid. There's records
that show that I paid on my credit card for those ships. But she
reimbursed me, and they say, well, how she reimbursed you in cash?
And they're like, in cash, So do you have any deposit slips
or anything? And Nope, no, I have nothing. And this is
again, this is thousands of dollars in cash that she supposedly just keeps in
her house. Yeah. Well, okay, So a couple of things on
that. When I watched Nathan Wade, he said he didn't keep receipts because
he had his credit card statement. Do you remember that he said? He
said what he was like, I don't have receipts of any of those because
I just have my credit card statements. And he was like, that's that's
a receipt But she was like, I specifically asked you if you had any
record of this. But the other point on that is, was it Fannie
Willis's dad, Yes, who said you're racist? I mean, he didn't
come out and say that. The implication though, was if you don't understand
why black people keep a bunch of cash in their personal homes, that's just
a racial difference, right. The implication was kind of like, you're being
racist for not understanding that it's perfectly normal for like members of the black community
to just have stacks of cash, which seems racist in and of itself.
That is the that is that was one Obviously a strategy from the beginning was
to make this actually racial, starting with before even the hearings began, with
Fannie Willis going to the church and delivering of some kind of sermon or eulogie
whatever, where she's talking about in racial term, why she's being scrutinized.
That was very I think that her whole strategy with coming in they're all angry
was for the purpose of getting people to call her angry and then she can
say, look, this is racially motivated. And you know, you had
pretty much all of the all of the witnesses that have been called to have
any stakes in defending Willis or defending their own reputation, which which would therefore
implicate Willis, have made it rachel starting with Nathan Wade. He even said,
you know, I don't you know, this is a black woman who
make who's strong and independent, and she makes sure that she covers like at
least half of everything. Fannie Willis says, you know, I learned the
whole thing from my dad about keeping at least she said at least six months
worth of cash in her house. Yea, and she says, you know,
I don't know why this black man does that, but you know it's
race is very much a recurring thing by the very people who I think need
race to be the element they're intentionally evoking in yes, yes, yeah,
sense right, because because it's a I mean, it's a great media strategy.
It's almost that you can't fault their attorneys. I mean, they're obviously
attorneys themselves, so they understand this. But it's a high profile case,
so their legal representation people that are advising them should say, who might understand
media? Well, anyone understands this. You don't even have to be a
media expert to understand that. That's a great way to get the media to
call any you know, any embarrassing behavior to your point on this emotional or
dramatic as opposed to ridiculous and embarrassing, because they're afraid of calling a black
da anything negative, so you use these like ridiculous euphemisms that Again, one
thing I would encourage people to do is actually watch the video, because it
doesn't everyone can identify if you're watching Nathan Wade and Fannie Willis. It's like
any school child who who I used this reference the other day, like a
school kid who did not turn in their book report. But hell's the teacher.
I absolutely put my work report on your desk on Friday, and teacher's
like, well, that's weird because I would have it, Like here's my
desk, it's not on it, and I did it. I don't know
what happened, Like something must have happened to it. If it's not there,
that's I don't know, that's weird, Like maybe maybe a rabbit came
in, Like I don't know what happened, Like maybe you left the window
open and the wind blew it away. Like you instantly recognize it in their
physical posture, the expressions on their faces. They are so digging themselves deeper
into a hole every time, but they're very confident about it, very confident
about their lives. And even the guy who I'm not sure so this is
it has turned out to be probably the most important important witness other than there
was There was a former colleague of Fannie Willis's who she was the one who
I think she may have been the first witness who said I know that they
were in relationship before he was hired, because that's obviously Fannie Willson's like,
the whole defense is, we were in this relationship after, so it couldn't
have been a conflict. I didn't know that we'd end up in a relationship.
But you know, the friend of the former friend is saying, no,
I knew that for sure. She told me I saw them kissing and
hugging well before he was ever hired on to be the special prosecutor in this
case. But the latest one who has become just as important, if not
more important, as something Terence. I can't remember his first name, but
he was the former business partner of Nathan Wade, and he has also turned
turned out to be a big time liar. And when he's not lying,
he's saying I don't remember. Including he'll be presented with text message communications saying
this is you right, that's coming. This is a conversation that you had,
and he'll say, yes, that's me, and they'll say do you
and they'll read from the text, so you said this, and he'll say,
I don't recall. It's just like okay, I guess, I guess
you can stay. You don't recall, But we see that we very much
see that. Yes, you said this, and so obviously what you're trying
to be proved here is that sort of the extent, the depth, the
timeline of their relationship, that Fannie willis improperly hired and compensated Nathan Wade as
a special prosecutor in this case. And if you can prove that their relationship
was you know, intense and started at a before he was hired a special
prosecutor, then obviously you have a better chance of sort of disqualifying her.
Right. That's what is yeah, basically saying she has this case and is
keeping it going as long as she can because she's benefiting. It's like getting
double paid because she's obviously paid by the state. But then she's now she's
retained this lover of hers. I guess no longer. I guess that's her
ex lover. Oh, so they broke up, Yes, they claim to
have broken up. Yes, and therefore that she was she was the kind
of double benefiting from it. I think I don't want to get ahead of
you, but think that it's possible that that that even though I think that
it's pretty much been proven, irrefutably proven, that what the defense is alleging
the prosecutor in her office did they have cell phone pings, They have all
kinds of like location data specific stuff, placing them repeatedly with each other.
And even though I think that yes, it's irrefutable, the evidence is overwhelming.
I think there's a high likelihood this judge, who is not crazy,
the judge I think has been pretty fair and fine. I think that he
looks into, yeah, this happened, but it doesn't change the facts of
the actual case at hand against Trump and his associates, which I mean,
don't get me wrong. I think that it's a car sham. I think
that this. I think it's it's crazy that a judge at all has allowed
this to move forward. There's probably reasons for that, motivations for that that
that may be self self preservation type things. But I think that he just
he might very well say, yeah, she did, It's all true,
and yet it doesn't change the facts of the case. So I'm not going
to disqualify her. I see that as a strong likelihood, though I wouldn't
put money on it, so you're not getting ahead of me. Actually,
one thing I wanted to run by you that I've thought about this for a
long time. I think maybe we've talked about it before, but I've been
thinking about it a lot recently, and I don't know how this equation works.
I think I'm curious for your thoughts. But one of the big parts
of this story from my perspective, for one of the big takeaways from this
story is that often the media's relationship with the Democratic Party does not in the
long term, not in the short term, but in the long term,
help the Democratic Party in some very critical ways. It hurts the Democratic Party
and Fannie Wilis is And again this is just a theory. I haven't come
to a conclusion about where the sort of net benefit net negative comes out on
this, But in the long term, again, not in the short term,
but in the long term. Fannie Wilis is a good examp because if
the media treated Republicans and Democrats, conservatives and liberals neutrallly, then Fannie Willis
never would have become this like Darling. I don't know that she ever would
have become DA I don't know that she ever would have pursued the case the
way that she pursued the case, and I don't know that the public would
have been asked to take it as seriously as they took it. And so
if to your point, the judge ultimately says facts of the case aren't changed,
Fannie Willis can stay. I don't know if that's ultimately great for Democrats,
right, because now they're stuck with someone who's been by force. I
mean, they had to drag the media kicking and screaming to even cover the
trial, basically, to cover it seriously and to your point, to say
any word that might reflect negatively drama emotion on Fannie Willis dragged kicking and screaming
to cover that. And now they're stuck with this woman who's been discredited in
the eyes of the public and in substantive ways. Right, Yeah, I
think that that's You're that's really that's a really smart point. You see it
everywhere, you see it, most prominently right now with the presidential election.
Joe Biden's struck with Joe Biden, right, And there's all for the purpose,
the short term purpose of getting rid of Donald Trump. And while who's
the Who's a couple that came to mind from the past, we're also Robert
Muller built up as this absolute shining knight and armor and then he comes and
gives this. You know, we finally get a good look at him,
and it's whoa bob. Yeah, yeah, I felt bad for the guy.
But but because you know, I don't think he asked for the media
attention. But there are some like Fannie Willis. There are some Latitia James,
who is now, by the way, tweeting the interest that's added to
the damages that every single day. Have you seen this? I have not
seen that. But these are all good examples anger On, Letitia James and
Tanya Chuckin, all people who have actually been i think, championed by the
media because they've indicated these staunch anti Trump positions may actually end up. In
Anchorn's case, he was smiling in a way that felt clearly very biased and
over eager to oversee this case, and he's donated to Democrats, kind of
unusual for his position. He just was being bizarre. I don't think that
helps their case in the court of public opinion ultimately, and then sometimes actually
in the real court, because with Fannie Willis, it can get you into
serious trouble mm hmmm, right, and then there has to be ultimately some
kind of resolution. I mean, Democrats can go pretty far with bringing us
to the absurd and with the media's helpful assist but oftentimes it just doesn't work.
And I mean there has to there has to be a logical conclusion to
a lot of things, and this is one of those cases. I mean,
we're even looking at it with with basically all of the cases right now,
the big ones against Trump. The one was, you know, trying
to kick his name off. Is it Colorado? Colorado? And then now
they just did one it was Illinois or Indiana, Illinois, Illinois. There's
also been main Yeah, there are a couple okay, yeah, jeez,
and or you know, to take the one you you mentioned a minute ago
about the real estate and inflating the assets. It's like, okay, so
you just now want you want half a billion dollars for for banks making money
off of Donald Trump? Like that? Where is the you know, how
am I supposed to square that? You know? So, yeah, I
think to your point, you know, when they get these short term successes,
and it's like, yeah, are not a badass for taking it to
Donald Trump and kicking Donald Trump while he's down? And yet well it's like,
well, did you think this through because you actually have to see it
through now and once, and you're gonna run out of gas. At some
point, people are going to start paying attention. They're going to see that,
well, this is not what I thought it was going to be,
and just real quick to take that back, because ultimately that's probably the biggest
one is the presidential election they got. They got Joe Biden in because of
the virus and because of the perceived chaos. Which it's kind of funny when
people think that Trump was such a chaotic person. It was the media.
The media was chaotic. It's all from the media. They didn't cover Joe
Biden's like clearly ailing health during twenty twenty. They never ever, ever,
ever talked about it. They did the same damn thing with John Fetterman.
They gave one critical interview of John Fetterman after he had his stroke, and
that was it. And so unless you happened across that NBC News interview,
which I believe the reporter either retracted or apologized for, unless you happen to
see that, you would have gotten basically zero coverage of his And in fact,
they covered for him. Reporters who had interviewed him said, I talked
to John Fetterman and man as he sharped tracer. I think, yes,
yes, it's the same thing. And then you end up with a situation
where it's like, thank goodness for Democrats that all of those ballots were cast
before Oh yeah, he debated doctor Oz because as soon as the debate it
happened, everyone was like, what the hell he can't finish a sentence,
which, again, yeah, it might remind someone of Joe Biden. That's
a great point, Eddie about Biden himself. Yeah, yeah, and you
know, because there we're now seeing I mean it's I don't even say this
with like, you know, I'm not you know, trying to be funny.
I think it's pretty sad. I often look at him and when he's
doing his interviews or when he's stumbling, I think if that was my dad
or my husband, I would not let this go on for another second.
And you know, but I guess it's it's a whole different ballgame when you're
talking about politics. But yeah, so with the media covering for him,
now they've got to deal with him. But now voters are getting the real
look at him that they should have had all along. Same thing with Kamala
Harris, they didn't you know, what did they do with COVID. COVID
got worse under Biden, far worse under Biden than it ever did under Trump.
And that was the person who was supposed supposed to shut down the virus.
I mean nothing, not a single thing has gotten better. We're looking
at the border, we're looking at the economy. But you know, the
media did their their their duty and the for the church short term, like
you said, they got him in office, they got Trump out of office.
But now we're onto the next fire that they've helped create. Right,
And the thing is, and this has maybe even I actually think this is
absolutely pathetic. It's not intentional, like they're too dumb to even be intentional
about it. Like, of course some of the positive coverage of Democrats it's
absolutely intentional. But the ways in which in the long term they set Democrats
up for failure, the media doesn't even recognize or understand that. Actually this
is full circle, Leddy, because it goes to the point you were making
earlier about how all of Trump's opponents reek of It's like they're projecting, you
know, they see Donald Trump and because they themselves have these impulses that are
often corrupt, greedy cronius. They project and say, I'm going to cleanse,
you know, the country of Trump is greedy, asm crony as whatever
it is. And they do that with so much audacity, and they do
it with so much confidence because the media covers them in a way that incentivizes
that, right, and it's it ends up elevating all of these just total
losers and non credible opponents to Donald Trump. And it's it's also it's not
just Donald Trump either. The media does that, you know, with anybody
who's anti Republican essentially unless they're what like Larry Hogan like they so it's not
it's not just a Trump thing, but it's been intensified under Donald Trump that
like for Democrats, they are now basically saddled with these un serious judges,
prosecutors, commentators who are just like Jim Acosta, and like the media rallied
around Jim Acosta and a few people have done more to make people vote for
Donald Trump, right, and like absolutely just to emphasize that point, just
absolutely shackle themselves to these people and will not deny or like they won't acknowledge
the truth that everybody can see in front of their face, you know,
for it just again, to take it back to Joe Biden. We've all
seen what Joe Biden is like. It's no mystery, there's nothing, there's
no excusing it. And yet everybody will, all his defenders in the media
will It was so funny. I was reading a Paul Krogman the New York
Times article. He is just as shit. Just stop your sentence there,
I was reading about Paul Krogmen. Ya, that's totally disqualifying, but it
was so funny because it's so it gets again just they drive themselves into the
absurd where he's talking about how sharp and smart Joe Biden is and I would
I would maybe even say, okay, I could probably in private there's you
know, the less intensity of you know, the cameras and whatnot. But
he even he tops it off with and by the way, he's really funny.
And I think being funny and having humor is a total sign of intelligence
and sharpness and incredible. And that's the New York Times. So it means
a lot to the White House, right, like, forget what the New
York Times allegedly symbolizes in media itself, which is the paper of record,
and like that means a lot to the White House because it's so prestigious.
It's the New York Times. It's well read among Biden voters. So the
fact that this is coming from Paul Kraigman gives them less incentive, less incentive
to take seriously the image that Biden is projecting on the world stage, which
is embarrassing. I don't know if you saw the Italian TV sketch that came
out recently. There it's like Italian SNL just mocking. Oh, it was
so bad. It reminds me of how everyone was so embarrassed. All of
the people defending Biden now were so deeply bitterly embarrassed by George W. Bush,
right, and they're so embarrassed by Donald Trump. But like Biden.
The other thing that reminds me of is latin X, right, So like
Elizabeth Warren, remember she used LATINX in a debate, and then some polling
showed not only did hispanics not like the term, like some people are openly
offended by it, Like a big chunk of hispanics were like, that's bullshit.
Please don't use that word for me. And then you started to see
Hispanics vote for Trump and like the Rio Grande Valley, and he's made these
inroads with Black Americans, Hispanic Americans, young Americans, according to recent polling.
I don't know how durable it is, but that's what's happened. And
I honestly think some of that is just because people realize the media the lie
that the media sold, and they're like, well, they lied about everything
else, so this must be totally wrong, you know, like it just
it backfires when people figure out the truth, right. I mean, it
really is like we're reliving twenty sixteen again again. It kind of feels like
these last two elections, and maybe as I get older, maybe this will
just be the case from now on. But it's like, I'm like,
I'm going to an election cycle, for example, twenty twenty two that felt
so much like twenty twelve. Then now twenty twenty or twenty twenty four now
feels so much like sixteen, where even what is now the biggest issue,
the order that's now the biggest or that was the same thing in twenty sixteen.
I think at the time, maybe, but I think Donald Trump actually
did a very he was very clever about marrying the two issues with like the
Muslim extremism terrorism with immigration. He kind of conflated the two in a way
because it was remember there was the Muslim shut down, the shutdown the big
travel travel band, plus you know, shut down the border, and we're
talking about that all over again. But there's looking at that and and I
think it in a big way it has to do you know, like I
think the backfire boomerang is kind of when the media is telling you that something's
not a problem. Yeah, don't worry about that, you know. I
would say another good example of that is the economy. You read an article
and kind of like you were saying earlier, to get like to the bottom
or something of the article before you finally see it's like, you know,
oh, by the GDP is out off the charts, record breaking, stock
market, low, unemployment at the bottom. I actually now takes a second
mortgage to go to the grocery store. And that's pinching people a little bit.
And maybe that's where some of the sourness among voters is coming from.
You know. It's like, oh, okay, so yeah, I'm actually
poor and I can't afford food, and I can I can't buy any of
the things I would like to buy, or yeah, inflation is easing,
but then terms of the bottom of the article you read read real wages are
still down right yeah. Or the whole thing with easing in itself is like
so so maddening because when they say it's what we talk about this whole time
at the Federals, when they say it's coolering cooling, or it's slowing or
it's being tamed, prices are still going up. It's just at a slower
rate that I don't know who. That's who, that's you know who.
That's a satisfactory answer to I mean, if it's still costs me more the
second, you know, my next time to go to the grocery store,
I'm not necessarily you know, throwing up you know, fireworks about inflation being
tamed, well, especially particularly if your wages aren't keeping wage growth doesn't keeping
pace with the inflation, right yeah. And all this is to say,
just to go back, is when you have the media telling you something isn't
a problem, telling you you know what you're actually doing, okay, don't
you know that you're doing okay? You just don't feel it. But you're
if you thought about it, you're actually okay. I think that that has
an adverse effect, where voters are saying, this is not okay, and
I don't even care that it's Donald Trump. There was that funny New York
Times focus group they did where it was like, eleven out of thirteen swing
voters, it was like there were people who voted for Trump, then voted
for Biden, and then it's like, now where are they going to vote?
So eleven I think out of the thirteen said they were going to vote
for Trump again, including a man who was like, everything they say about
him, every charge that he's facing right now, I believe is true.
I believe he committed sexual abuse. I'm still going to vote for him.
Yes, yes, yes, yes, And they've still not figured out how
to deal with that voter who is so upset about In some cases it's people
that just like, actually are very excited about Donald Trump. But the swing
voters, there's so many people like that who are in battleground states who it's
the binary. It's if you force them to choose between Donald Trump and a
career politician in the Republican primary. So I know roni stance has served,
but he's basically been a political animal a lot of his career Nikki Haley obvious
example. And then even in a general election, if you're asking people to
choose between Donald Trump and Joe Biden, or Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton,
a lot of people are going to vote for Donald Trump. And they might
not be happy about a lot of what Trump does, They're still going to
vote for them. And that's what's not being addressed by throwing Fannie Willis,
Tanya Chuckkin, Arthur Engern at Trump, Letitia James at Trump. Even though
the media sort of idolizes these people or champions these people, what they end
up doing is it's like the crutch and the leg never actually heals because they
keep giving themselves these like pr crutches with the leg, which is actually the
political muscle that allows them, in the tortured metaphor, to defeat Donald Trump
on the merits with people at the ballot. The lawfair is not convincing to
people at all. What's convincing is substance in policy and having a better alternative.
So it's not all substance of policy. But you can't have Joe Biden
be your alternative. You can't have Crooked Hillary be your alternative because people are
going to vote for Donald Trump and is going to be a really close election.
The lawfair is not going to move the needle. In fact, it
might actually bring people over to Trump. And immigration is one of the biggest
places we see this happen because with immigration, people right now, like as
we are talking, are looking around them and realizing what the hell happened over
the last couple of years, right, And that makes some question everything right
and reading of like you know, it was the line back when Trump was
first running was there is not a single rapist or criminal who comes across that
border. You open any newspaper right now, you will read about plenty of
rapists and criminals who it turns out they're illegal, especially in the big cities.
And I used to get It's different now because they changed it after Trump
left office, But I used to get I used to get regular press releases
from the Customs and Border Protection Agency and it was there would be at least
five and it came through probably twice a week or so. But they would
list like the most dangerous criminals that they found, and oftentimes they had some
of them were small crimes, like they had marijuana on them or something like
that. But there were so often people who had been twice deported before they
had a warrant because you know, they had they were charged with sexual abuse
of a minor. Oftentimes it was a family member, like the guy who
killed the girl recently in Georgia, right, he had a sexual abuse charge
right in New York. No, sure, yeah, I just wear that's
like that. That's so so common. When you when you these illegals who
are found doing some you know, taken into custody doing some crime, you
look at their background, their gang members oftentimes from El Salvador, so they
have you know, and they often have the tattoos that identify them as such
anyway, or they've committed some kind of sexual you know, impropriety. This
that is just so commonplace, and yet Democrats just swear that any acknowledgment of
that is racist. You're a big at, You're a xenophobe. And so
people are just looking around and saying, why are you lying to me?
And why are you and and and if you can't, if you can't reverse
course, or you refuse to absolutely do anything different with your policy. Instead,
what you're going to do is eliminate the alternative. You're gonna put him
in prison or take him off the ballots, or I don't even have that
option. Like this is complete bs, Like how like you so you're literally
just trying to take away any choice I have, any say I have.
It's not even a vote. What does your vote mean if like you don't
have an alternative, that's not a vote, that's you're just that's a that's
a complete show. Like that's a that's a fixed election. We don't it's
ragged. It's fixed just by any any any definition of the word. So
yeah, people are people are looking at that. It's just become an I
I don't like to do a lot of people on the right, I always
think it's wishful thinking, are like, oh, people are starting to wake
up. And I don't know if that's true in any long term, since
I think that at least in the short term, people are like, my
life is not and not only is it not better under Joe Biden, it
is measurably worse, it is measurably worse. I can say that I am
one of those people who I am not rich and I look at you know,
my own standard of living. I fortunately left DC, which has just
become a complete dump. I don't know if that's true for every other major
city, but DC a complete Sorry, sorry to my two colleagues who are
in the room who live in DC. Still it's getting better, although immigration
has definitely changed it. Things definitely change it. Yeah, I definitely think
it's getting better, especially where we are right now. What do you mean
this exact spot, Capitol Hill. In general, I think's gotten better.
Oh maybe, I don't know. Yeah, but the immigration has actually really
changed DC in some very visible, obvious ways. If you live here,
and there are a lot of people I think would and maybe will make great
Americans. But the way that we did this is horrible, dangerous. It
is so freaking dangerous. I just want to get to that real quick.
Because you said many or most or whatever will make create Americans. I absolutely
am so sick of hearing that from from Cox like you no, like you
know, because and I wrote a piece about this other federals, because Mark
thes and the Washington Post neo con he wrote a whole piece about how you
know, immigrants from Latin American can be just as American as you and I
and I mean I'm not ruling out that as a you know, a theory
or a possibility. There are I don't I'm not even gonna quantify it there.
I mean, there's at least one immigrant who was in the recent past
who has come here and become a great American and naturalized citizen. But that's
isn't that like you background, Oh I'm half Mexican, Yes, but my
mother came here was one brought as a child, and that was during the
ring and when it was like there also wasn't the massive Yeah, it's not
the program, So it wasn't massive human trafficking. Every single person you've literally
just walked across the border. Nobody gave a dam back then because he then
just went back home to Mexico or whatever. But anyway, no, I
was just going to say that the vast, vast majority of what we see
coming over the border right now, these are not people that are like I
want to come and learn the American traditions and history and and adopt the rule
of law and all their customs and learn their language. This is seeing You
asked them. You ask them, and they say, I'm here to make
money. I want a better life. Are there so much crime home?
Back home? They're switching neighborhoods. They're not real asylum cases. It's an
apartment upgrade. I think that our boss Sean Davis said that he referred to
America for them as as the vast majority of them, as an economic opportunity
zone rather than the nation with borders and in its own culture. That I
really it's not so much a belief. It's what my eyes show me and
what my all lived experience of these people that are coming, which isn't to
say I'm not saying the vast majority of are bad people even I'm just saying
it is not their priority and their driving motivation to come here because they want
to learn to be in America. No, it's not. No. I
think you're absolutely right about that. I definitely think I agree with you,
I think, and part of that is the fault of American culture right now,
which was which does not incentivize assimilation. In fact, it disincentivizes assimilation.
What it incentivizes is this total heterogeneity, like nobody is mixing into one.
Is what do people people who don't like calling America melting pot like calling
it a mosaic Okay. You know, it's sort of like you maintain you
know, ethnic national traditions. You know, for example, excellent Mexican food,
but also you speak English and are an upstanding member of your community hopefully
and go to a church that speaks English, etc. But now we do
like we don't incentivize that at all. So yeah, I think probably most
people who are coming here don't have the intention of assimilating into American culture in
a way that will benefit American culture overall. I do think there are what
makes me sad having when I went with their college John Daniel Davidson, New
Mexico talking to some people who clearly have legitimate asylum cases, like actually fleeing
imminent gang violence, children who have been kidnapped. I mean, some of
these it's like they're desperate because they love America. That is not Yeah,
that's not everyone, There's no question about it. And even for some people
who may think of America. We talked to a bunch of Haitians when we
were down there who were like, yes, the American dream, that's what
we want. They'd fled from perfectly decent lives in places like Argentina. You
know, there aren't American lives though, and what they want is to your
point and upgrade. But you get here and we have these little pockets of
places where they're you don't have to assimilate. You live with your family,
you live with a cousin, you live with your husband who came here first,
whatever it is. And there's totally calcified communities that don't blend into the
rest of a city or a community share their cultures so with the rest of
the city in community, they could keep to themselves. Yeah, and the
burden is placed on the burdens should be ideally and and you know, and
I think even legally speaking though, we just don't. We just completely disregard
it should be on the person who comes here to make their way, to
find your way, and you learn the language, navigate. But the way
that our own systems and our culture frames that reframes it is no, the
burden is actually on us. We're supposed to accommodate and make it to where
you know, if I need to learn your language and translate things into your
language and get a what do they call the like the person who translates the
translator. If we need to get a translator for you for your kids at
school. Oh you don't have you can't afford housing, We'll get you a
housing voucher on the taxpayer. Yeah, yeah, all taxpayer. And you
know it's that's people that move into your neighborhoods and they're not you know,
that's not they're completely from a completely different culture and country, and you're just
supposed to You're just supposed to not only eat it, but actually immerse yourself
in it, accommodate it. Yeah, that's not the way things are supposed
to be. But I was just saying when people are like, oh,
they're just coming to be American, just as American as you know. And
I know that's not what you quite what you were saying, but I just
really hate when people say that, No, it's fair. I wasn't using
it as a justification so much so I was saying, it's possible, but
like the way that we did that, it's horrible, and it's it's dangerous
for everyone, dangerous for American people, dangerous for the migrants. It's complete,
completely corrupt and dangerous. And just like as we close, we somehow
got down the immigration rabbit to make the point that you were just making.
I talked to somebody who lives in the middle of the country this week,
or I heard from somebody who lives in the middle of the country this week
who was at a park recently, and there was a group of sort of
non English speaking people there with their children. And this is just a great
example of something small that you wouldn't even think of, but there one kid
from the non English speaking group got in like a fight, or I think
I think some kid, you know, did what kids do, like pulled
their pants down something like that. Young kids, and the mom went to
talk to the parents of the non English speaking child without realizing that they didn't
speak English, and they didn't speak English, and this was like, I
added a huge stress because now you need to communicate what just happened, and
you can't and you can't say and imagine like getting into you know, fender
benders and all. It's actually becoming Tower Babbel esque. And when people realize
it's so many of us are going to have small things like this happening that
you know, are our stress about your children whatever. And I'm not going
into all the details of that story, so they don't want to, you
know, blow up anyone's spot. But it just when people look around and
realize just how many people have come here in the last couple of years,
it's going to be a very powerful thing. And Ed, I'll just end
by asking or tossing this to your way again, both of us, I
think are very clear that in the short term, especially the media mostly you
know, ninety nine percent of the time, because it's favorable to the left
over the right is helping the left, and downstream of that, the Democratic
Party. They've mainstreamed a lot of stuff, Latin X being one example,
transgenderism being another example. They've really convinced a swath of the public, not
everybody, but there are there's a big chunk of the public who has now
gone over to these far left cultural positions, who you know, has voted
for Biden and voted for this immigration wave. Maybe a lot of people regret
it. But anyway, in the short term, I think, you know,
the majority of the time, the media is mostly helping Democrats. But
I just I think it's a fair theory to float that this could in the
long term really really backfire in the same way that you know, when we
were growing up, people would get a copy of a copy of a people's
History of the United States, or like the Howards and book, or they'd
pick up numb Chomsky and they look around and they would realize there actually are
some kind of secret facts about, you know, the Cold War or Christopher
Columbus or whatever that we're not allowed to talk about at the time, and
that made people jump to the conclusion that everything they learned was wrong as opposed
to Okay, well this is more nuanced to the story, but I think
it's still fair to celebrate Christopher Columbus. They're just like, oh, Columbus
genocide boom. I think the media might be putting the left in that position
in the long term. I think so how long term, I don't know.
I do think that as far as the next election comes out. Again,
it's like it's America. Anything can happen. These events are you never
know what's going to happen ahead of an election. But yeah, as I
see things now, it's kind of the same. You're looking at it and
you're just saying, you're you're telling people something that is not true. It's
easily verifiable. It comes out eventually anyway. Uh, These people that you're
trying to hold up as these paragons of like virtue, whether it's a funny
willis. I would even go so far as to say, I'm sure this
won't appeal to some of our readers, but even what's his name, volodimirs
is Alenski, like my, my, oh, he's a great example.
My long running belief is that if we let him, if we showed him
more on TV talking, the less popular he would get among Americans, because
just even just his accent and his voice, I think, just kind of
he reminds me of that little the Rocky and Bullwinkle guy who wore the hat
and the villa. You know what I'm talking about. Oh gosh, sorry,
No, I just didn't watch rock Rolling, but he did. I
did. I got my car towed a year ago and I had to go
to like some like in hood. I had to go pick up my car,
and the guy who demanded cash and didn't have an ATM, he really
reminded me so much of Zelenski. Yeah, he looked like Zelenski. He
was acting like Celesky, Come on, man, and it just kind of
gives off a little bit of scammy vibes. I'm sorry, and just I
think that again, the more you actually allow the exposure. And that's what's
funny about the media. And I'm not I know, we're wrapping up,
but that's what's funny about the media is that they know now that there to
keep things. I guess this has always been true, but it is just
so true now that like to keep things the way they want them, they
have to really limit who gets exposure and elevate who they want to have more
exposures. So, for example, you do not see outside of Fox News,
you do not see Donald Trump on live television because they know that if
he's on live And then the last time we saw him on outside of Fox
was the CNN town hall, and boy oh boy, the Democrats hate that.
They got so upset with CNM for doing a live thing because what because
he's popular, he is compelling. When when people get an unfiltered look at
him, you get an unfiltered look at someone like, let's Usha James or
Fannie Willis or Vladimir Zelinski not so much. Yeah, it's actually that's a
great way to put it's Democrat's primary source problem. And when you have the
ascended kind of new media, you know they're trying to crash the censorship or
whatever else. Increasingly finding Rach telling new stories. Yeah, they they could
be in for some trouble. Eddie. This like somehow transformed from mocking Fannie
Willis into like a fascinating conversation, wild variety show of the Federalist Hour.
I think it was your natty light. I'll to do to next time.
Well, no, you'll probably come in here with a bud light. But
God, don't get me canceled on the Federalist. You've been listening to another
edition of The Federalist or Radio Hour, and Emily since the culture editor here
at the Federalist joint today by Might Collegue. Eddie Scary, DC columnist at
The Federalist, also an author. You can get his books over at Amazon.
We will be back soon with more. Until then, be lovers of
freedom and anxious for the Fray