All right, Oh, you guess it's up to me, right, who's
driving the bus? I guess I am doing it. Ask not what your
country can do for you, Ask what you can do for your country.
Mister garbutchaf tear down this wall, read my lifts. Today's settlement of seven
hundred eighty seven million, five hundred thousand dollars represents vindication and accountability. Lies
have consequences. It's the Ricochet Podcast. I'm Rob Long with Peter Robinson and
Charlie Cook. Today we're going to talk to Ann Coulter. Would you see
Belts and deb Saunders? Lots to talk about. Let's have a podcast.
Believe me, you'll never get bored with when we never get bored. Hello
and welco The Ricochet Podcast Number six hundred thirty eight, six hundred thirty eight
podcasts. Oh man, um and uh yeah, I guess six hundred and
thirty eight more to go. Um. I am Rob Long in New York
City. I'm joined as always by Peter Robinson and Palo Alto, California.
How are you? Peter? Very well should say that James Lilacs is abroad.
James Lilax is taking that trip to Spain that we caused so much commotion
over the the proper pronunciation of Barcelona. Um depends on where you're from.
UM. And we're joined by Charles C. Cook Charlie Cook in Florida.
Is that Creig correct? How are you doing everything good? We should?
We should. Before we get jumping into the news, we have and Culture
as a guest at dev Saunders, So it's going to be a pack show.
Before we get in there, we do want to say we had a
great time in New Orleans, Charlie, right, we did. Absolutely.
We stood on the street and we watched Dixieland jazz. That's right, That's
right. That was That was after a great dinner with a bunch of people.
UM we had I don't know, we had that thirty maybe thirty more,
thirty more um Rick and members came spent. Some people spent the whole
week, Some people spent the long weekend. Uh. Some people like me
flew in and flew out. UM. Randy way Voda, he organized the
whole thing, did a great job. Of course, Melissa, you know
she said up the podcast recording which would be posted shortly, which was really
more of a conversation UM among all of us because people joined in, so
you want to have to tune up a video to hear the audio to hear
everybody joined by a member named Dan who has been a long time member,
a charter member. How a bunch of charter members, Peter by the reality,
Yeah, you should come to one of these. They would like to
shake your hand. Um. And uh, a lot of them, like
Dan had had never posted. They're just members of the community, really,
and that's really great. And then some great ideas came too many people to
name all. Some great ideas came out of a lot of people had some
great thoughts. For m painter Geane, for instance, she had a great
thought for maybe we'd have some kind of like a Bricochet version of Ricoche Etsy
somewhere on the site, which would be awesome. Um. And it was
a great time, a lot of great conversation, a lot of fun.
I did have to buy two drinks. I told you I would buy drinks
for it. Anyone who joined Ricochet just to come to that meet up.
And there were two people raised their hand. They both got pretty good sas
racks. By the way, Um, and if you're listening to this and
you thought yourself yeah, I don't know. I want to join. I'll
join just to throw them some money. I mean, we'd like you to
say that. By the way, Um, you should join for the things
like this. This was loads of fun. They're gonna be more of them.
We'll talk about more of them later. Um. But this is part
of the joy of being in a community of actual people and not just faceless
um and bots. You know, we get together and we have fun.
So um, next time, Peter, you gotta come, I'd love to.
I'd love to. In the meantime, we are going to talk a
little bit today with the Ann and Dead Anne, another Florida resident. I
want to talk to get Anne and Charlie talk a little bit about whether it's
the implosion of Ron de Santis is real, fake, imagined wish casting in
the parts of the liberal media, or what parts of it are true,
what parts of are false, if not all of them are Whilst but before
we do, speaking of twenty twenty four, Robert Kennedy Junior is running for
president in the United States. He's already polling at fourteen percent. I don't
know what to say about that, except so very recently I just assumed he
was kind of a crackpot on the fringes, But that doesn't mean that's not
actually musually exclusive. I don't know what to make of it either. I
thought he was a crack pot on the fringes because of his well i'll tell
you why, because I read what the Mainspring stream press has been saying about
him for low these many years, and so far as I knew, he
had dedicated himself after a series of sort of conventional liberal do good and causes,
he dedicated himself in recent years to the cause of anti vaccines. And
then it turns out, according to friends of mine who know more about this
than I do, that at least during COVID, he had the better of
a number of arguments, and the public health authorities and the conventional wisdom had
the worse. So I don't I really don't know what to make The numbers,
of course, indicate that well there, it seems to me it indicates
a couple of things. One is that Joe Biden is just extremely weak.
If Robert Kennedy, whom only people our age and up, and I refer
to you and me, Rob and exclude Charlie our age and up. Actually
yeah, actually not much actually have a working memory of when the Kennedy's were
a glamorous and serious element in the American politics. So that he's Puly fourteen
percent when most of the electorate can't remember who the Kennedys are exactly, says
something. And then the other thing that says is that the barriers to entry
to use up in the school term are way low now when it comes to
presidential races. I don't believe Vivic Ramaswamy really is running for president. It's
hard for me to believe it. Maybe in his heart of hearts he is,
but it looks to me as though there's no downside and running for president.
If your Vivic Ramaswamy or now Larry Elder apparently has announced that he's running
for president, you get your talk radio number numbers up, You get your
start collecting email addresses to whom the publisher of your next book can promote your
book. And maybe RFK Jr. Is doing something like that. This is
just you gotta be careful because you might win. I mean, that's kind
of what Trump yes, yes, on election night, and nobody is more
surprised than he exactly. So let's see what Charlie Trump. Charlie makes of
all this well. I think the second point you made is the keywan.
I do think he's a kug. You do, but oh yeah, you've
looked into it more than I have. Wow. The thing is is,
if you're reflexively against all vaccines and consider them to be a plot, you
will eventually stumble upon a position that could, if you squint, seem president.
You know, my mother teaches children with autism, and he ran around
the country in the world telling parents that vaccines can give you autism, as
if it's an infectious disease, which is lunacy. But there's the guy,
the kook. But I think you're dead on Peter when you say that.
The fact that he jumped up instantly to fourteen fifteen percent shows us something about
Biden. And I actually think the press is underplaying this story. Shock horror.
The history of sitting presidents who are challenged, including by Kennedy's, is
not one right that you would wish to see repeated. Are a Democrat?
Has anybody ever won without happening? No? I mean, obviously there are
fringe candidates. I don't mean ideological, I mean in terms of their support
who say I'm going to challenge the president. In twenty sixteen, Bill World
ran for the Republican nomination against Donald Trump, but he never polled at more
than two or three percent. Even that was rare. There was no challenger
for Obama, There was no challenger for George W. Bush, There was
no challenger for Clinton. There was a challenger for George H. W.
Bush. His name was perhap U Cannon. He polled in the double digits
and he really did a lot of damage to George H. W. Bush's
re election campaign. Before that, Ted Kennedy took on Jimmy Carter, damaged
Jimmy Carter a great deal. Two of the seven campaign videos that Ronald Reagan
ran in nineteen eighty were just Ted Kennedy speaking, and then at the end
it said Reagan for President. Four years earlier, Reagan himself had on Gerald
Ford, nearly won the nomination, Gerald Ford lost. It never came to
that in sixty eight because Johnston stepped out, but he had a challenger.
Robert F. Kennedy was one of them, Robert F. Kennedy Junior as
father. The point here is that we have not, in half a century
or more had a challenger who has pulled in the double digits against a sitting
president and that sitting president won the subsequent reelection campaign. This could do a
lot of damage. And the fact, as you said, that Biden is
that eighty five percent against this guy who is a kook, who is not
well known, shows you that he's weak and really should represent an alarm.
Not because Biden's going to lose the nomination, not I think because Robert F.
Kennedy Junior is going to be the nominee or the president, but just
because it's very unusual and it never ends well, right, I mean that,
So how come you didn't provide that history? Listen, Rob Well,
I was gonna Charlie didn't even go to Yale for goodness sake. That's right.
Well, look, I mean, I guess the question is, um,
if you're the Biden campaign, which is starting, I guess it's gonna
people say they're gonna announced next week, what are you hoping for? Um?
Are you hoping for Donald Trump? Are you hoping for someone else?
I mean, right right now, the political calculation seems to be to be
just from looking at how incredibly over the top the the criticism of Ron de
santisis and also just how how you know this is my own uh takeaway here?
How overly um um excited and excitable the press is about the missteps that
they perceived that ron and Santis has done. Um that they're really frightened of
him. Oh for sure. Um, so they don't want him, but
I remember twenty six they really wanted Trump. They still want Trump. They
still still Trump, they still want Trump Trump. Could I I'm going to
say something that sounds obvious, and it is obvious, except that it surprised
me at the time, and it has never ceased to surprise me since the
first time I walked into the Oval office. Oh I was, I can't
remember my first impression was, and it just words formed unbidden in my mind.
Wait a minute, He's just a man, and we tend to forget
at least, and I would tend to forget it every time you see Ronald
I live. I worked in a white House. So it's it's in my
head that at the center of all of this is an eighty something, you're
old human being who is clearly declining and declining pretty quickly. Everyone around him
knows that. I can tell you from working in an operation like that,
that that if the president seems a little off one morning, word moves right
through the whole organization. That And so there are people who we complain all
the time about the way the progressive left is trying to keep us from saying
anything out loud in that organization. They're not allowed to say to each other.
You know, I'm not sure he's going to look too good by convention
time. Um So, so there is this this weird thing where they all
know that he's declining, but nobody's allowed to say so except RFK Junior perhaps.
But I'm just it's very easy to do to talk about these terms in
terms of sort of strategy, as if these people were talking about are Big
Macy's Day balloons parading down the political street or they have control over themselves in
acting. So let's jump right into this and we're talking about politics, and
we are joined by our old friend and culture. That's how you know you're
listening to an independent, fearless conservative podcast, because Anne's here to give us
some independent and fearless conservative conversation and was famously wrote a book called In Trump
We Trust and then I can then probably has an addendum to it which is
a little bit more throat. I've given the answer one million times before.
Yeah, of course I would write in Trump we trust again. Look at
the people he was running against. They were all open borders. I mean,
it was the same reason I supported Romney his self deportation versus Huckleberry,
who said illegal immigration is how we make up for slavery. New Gingrich,
who wanted to just let me say it like that. Though I don't think
he said it like that. That looks like that was a very good invitation.
Gingrich. Remember he wanted to let them all pour in and let towns
take well up town sols and have them vote on which illegals can stay.
And this is just this has been a dividing line between the public and our
leaders and our elites forever. I knew immigration was the most important issue.
It still is because Trump didn't do anything when I turned on Trump. You're
obviously not following me assiduously on Twitter pretty much right away. I mean,
at the time of the nomination, he started hiring you know, Jared Kushner
and the rest of them, and unlike Fox News, I don't lie.
I've been taking the slings and narrows for attacking him for not fulfilling his promises,
which one of them the White House. I said he wouldn't win if
he didn't win re election, if he didn't build the wall, And guess
what, he didn't build the wall, and he didn't win re election.
So I'm still looking for a politician who will make those promises. The best
thing that could have happened to the country. Something else I've said a million
times would have been if on election night two from sixteen, he comes out
at two am, Um, who we beat Hillary? Yay uh, he
won if he had had a heart attack and died right then, because that's
all we ever got out of Trump. He had the best campaign of any
presidential campaign I've ever seen, and then decided it was all about him,
it wasn't the issues, and started immediately betraying his bass um. All right,
So okay, so that that why he didn't do it. I mean,
I, you and I and you and I have have have but wildly
and bizarrely found ourselves on the same side, and crowded dining in crowded dinner
parties making it start every now and then I could see and looking around this
and cribbed table filled with like really smart people and say it's this guy I'm
agreeing with, Like, you know, the shadow of doubt comes over you.
Um, why isn't immigration still an issue? I mean, no one's
talking about it. Anybody talking about it. I haven't seen it. It's
it's it's cultural issues, it's the woke, this woke that it no one's
talking about immigration. Well, I sort of despair of my party and the
country and thus the world. Um, I don't know we I mean people
have said it forever. Democrats are the evil party, Republicans are the stupid
party, and whoa mama are they fulfilling that right now? They want to
talk about I mean, how do we win? We went on crime and
immigration, Crime and immigration, that is what people are desperate to vote on.
And no our party is running off, I mean many of them running
off on conspiracy theories. And was the FBI really behind January sixth? Then
Big Farma and Bill Gates is inserting us with with with with with clip with
chips And now they've been played. As I wrote a couple of weeks ago,
the Democrats only hope for getting Biden reelected and they are going to have
to do the weekend of Bernie's thing is to maneuver Republicans into renominating Donald Trump,
who has now lost re election cycles in a row for US. So
what do they do Exactly what they did throughout his term in office, which
was the thesis of my book, Resistance is Futile. Instead of attacking Trump
for stuff he's actually done, they attack him on these utterly nonsense charges,
and they drive people who hate him, like me, into defending him and
seeing, no, he's a douche, but he's not a Russian agent.
Knock it off media, And so they launched this ridiculous and it is ridiculous,
the da Alvin Braggs indictment of Donald Trump. And man did they play
the conservative media. I don't know if you guys listen to conservative talk radio
and away we're lucky that am is being removed from all cars Right now,
Buck and Clay talk about nothing but Emperor God Donald Trump and oh my gosh,
she's so great. And did you see the Republicans last week? They
all or maybe this week, whenever they hold a hearing attacking Alvin Brag,
I mean, the entire Republican party is now in a all they will talk
about is we must save Trump? Tucker is interviewing him. Oh, he's
back on top at Fox. So yeah, Okay, Republicans, I thought
next year was going to be a blast. We'd have Governor Ron De Santis
running against this senile dementia patient. Things would be fun. Finally we start
to win again. It's been a long time since we've won. Nope,
Nope, my party has decided we are pedals to the medal for a fourth
loss. Okay, An, you're advising Ron De Santis? Do you say
do you say what some people are blogging already? It's just not your year.
You're young, You're too talented to destroy yourself flinging yourself at Donald Trump.
Just sit this one out, or do you say what? Do you
say? I mean the art The counter argument is there was a pull the
other day that showed in a head to head match matchup in I think it
was three of the state with Arizona, Georgia, and one other of the
so called battlegrounds, not Pennsylvan Maybe he was North Carolina. In any event,
Trump was trailing Biden in all three states, and DeSantis was up on
Biden in all three states. There's a funny way in which DeSantis has not
uttered one. He has not uttered the T word once. He's still holding
his fire and he's still in double I mean, there's a certain sense in
which he's still in a strong position, but it's hard to escape the feeling
that he needs to do something. Fire a gun, run up a flag,
let your people know that you're still in the fights. Okay, all
I'm doing is displaying exasperation. What would you tell him? I totally disagree
with your analysis. This was the santas Is to lose. He was doing
everything right, ignoring Trump, pushing through really fantastic stuff, lord, and
just one thing, win after win after win. He was way ahead of
anyone out there, except I suppose the President of Sweden on the reaction to
COVID, And you know a lot of us have put it in the back
of our minds, but no, a lot of kids were ruined, careers
were ruined. That is still a live, important issue. And he didn't
just you know, flip a coin and say, oh, keep the stayed
open. No, he was talking to um, you know, Rob's friend,
Jay Bakaria, my friend. Yeah, I lent him to rob by
the way By who paid a price for being right. Yeah, the whole
Great Barrington Declaration. Guys, he was listening to them. He did the
right thing. Um, same thing on crime, same thing on Black Lives
Matter, and up until this week or was it last week? I called
and screamed at all of his campaign people. Boy, they must love to
see your caller id pop up. He was doing the exacts right thing on
abortion until a week ago. And now he signed the Republican Assistant Suicide Acts.
So let's move on and try to find somebody else. No, seriously,
you're done with Ron de Santis. I think he cannot win. He
cannot win how many And by the way, Peter and Rob, I think
you both know I am a fanatical pro lifer. I have been writing and
talking about this forever. It is because I want to save babies that I
think it's better for Republicans to be elected than for Democrats to be elected.
We've had eleven elections since Dabbs and these hardcore anti abortion bills initiatives. Candidates,
judges lose, lose, lose, lose, lose. What De Santis
did originally only allow abortion for the first fifteen weeks, beautiful perfect, So
what went wrong. Did he did he lose control of the of his own
legislature? How did that happen? How did they from fifteen to six?
Who knows? He signed a six week back band. And I have been
in Florida for the past week and going out quite a bit with different kinds
of people, not just idiot donors, but some idiot donor And I don't
even bring it up. Every place I go, everyone is saying, he's
done. Why did he do this? Why did he do this? So?
What was he supposed to do? Because he won the election so well
nineteen points, swept in all sorts of people all across the state, put
supermajorities in both the Senate and the House in the state. He couldn't veto
the bil City. Well for one thing, he's kind of powerful. What
he should have done is call up the Republicans and say, knock this crap
off. But if you don't have the foresight to do that. Wow.
He has foresight with hurricanes, he has foresight with tornado, he has foresight
with COVID, he has foresight with BLM. But this, oh huh,
that's just appeared out of nowhere. I guess I got to sign it but
yes, if it comes to that, and you're not anticipating anything that's going
on in the Florida legislature, Oh my gosh, where did this come from?
Yeah, you're vetoing. Oh, yes, you vetoing. You say
the public isn't there yet. We're gonna do this incrementally. We're gonna do
it bit by bit. I'm pro life, I would say, because I
am. We try to talk people out of it. I mean, I
did a video on this on my sub stack too, videos in fact,
about how abortion was killing us. And I think, unlike a lot of
other people saying this, I don't know if it's all of them. Again,
I am a genuinely pro life person. I always have been, I
always will be. These are zealots who don't care about saving babies lives.
Oh and by the way, don't care about saving adults lives. Because once
we have huge democratic majorities in the House, in the Senate, and the
presidency, well, good keeping your guns. Oh, we're totally going to
get We're going to get the most heinous legislation. This is going to be
worse than the postwater Gate Congress. If Republicans, if the zealots keep this
crap up. So more babies will die, more adults will die, but
you'll have these zealots will be so proud of their right up in Catholic Sites
magazine. So, Anne, I have some really bad news for you.
I think we agree. I mean I don't. I would, I would,
I would put it nicer. But I've talked about how the you know,
the argument about the anti rhino movement in the Republican Party is a disaster,
that the rub Party needs more rhinos. Well, I don't think this
is the rhino position. So I'm sorry, I disagree with you on that.
Good I'm trying to figure out how he gets out of this because okay,
but isn't this early common. It's like, what is this like?
It's like a it's it's it's April. I'm hoping that but unless he takes
this back, I think there's a very very good chance he loses the general
against Biden. And I would. I mean, I have all these steak
bets all over town, but the nominee isn't going to be Trump. I
didn't specifically say it would be to Santis, but I have really been looking
forward to next year having de Santis. You know, smart and energetic,
and all these wins having him run against Biden, and now the presidential election
will be all about abortion. And like every other election we have had since
Dobbs, everyone everyone, Kansas, New Hampshire, Michigan, not just you
know, crazy states like New York and California. Apparently I don't care what
people say in polls when they go into the privacy of the voting booth,
and I think I know why they say this. They decide, Okay,
I would never have an abortion. I would advise everyone around me not to
have an abortion. I do think this is a life, but I don't
want to to prohibit other people from doing it. And if I could just
say one other thing about that, the stupid rhyme line or Democrat line technically
about I'm personally opposed to abortion, but I don't think the government, Okay,
that's stupid when it's a constitutional right. We won pro lifers. It
is a hideous thing that for this long the right to stick a fork in
a baby's head was enshrined in our constitution. According to the Supreme Court,
it was hideous to get something attached to the constitution. It really should be
a basic, fundamental right, we won on that, But when it comes
to state laws, I think it actually does make some sense. And I
mean, I'm just trying to explain why people in polls stay they're against abortion
written when they hopefully say, oops, don't want to end it. I
think it does make some sense to say I'm personally opposed, but six weeks
is too sure. That's basically banning abortion from conception, which I'm not against.
Oh and I came up with the compromise proposal, So don't think I'm
not constantly working on these things. You're a problem solver. Yeah, I'm
a problem solver, and that is I think we need laws that ban abortion
only for registered Republicans. So how does he take it back? I mean,
you said take it back. And if he doesn't and can't take it
back, who who'd you get? Because you know, Brian Kempt signed a
six week abortion ban, Greg Abbott signed a six week abortion ban. Mike
Dwine, he's a presidential candidate, signed a six week abortion ban. I
mean, Glenn Junkin is that the sort of person tho none of those are
presidential candidates. How he could take it back, which I consider the more
important thing. I think he'd he'd wait a few months, go back to
the morons in the Florida legislature and just say we think this is unworkable,
you know, attach some other stuff to it, like I think they already
have, you know, encouragement for adoption, which is great. Eight I'm
all four of that. But take it back and go back to I don't
know, twelve weeks, ten weeks. It can't. We will lose on
that, and you know Democrats will run on that. And who are my
backup choices? I have two of them. One I'd like to ask you
guys about because there's one thing that's a gaping hole in this idea, and
that is yes, the governor of Virginia, Glenn Yonkin and the Governor of
Montana, greg Ganforte. Those are my only two backups. Everyone else you
mentioned was ridiculous and would never be a candidate anyway. Wait, wait,
wait, hold on, just one elaborate on that a little bit. Greg
Abbott, I can see, is too Texan. He's not going to travel.
But Brian Kemp, I've not met him. I don't know the man.
And you're just shaking your head as though I'm saying I'm talking crazy talk.
Why is it crazy talk? George is a big complicated states he stood
up. He has there's no Trump fingerprint on the man anywhere in his record,
and he got elected pretty big. Right. That's wrong with him exactly
what he won on running against Trump as by man, that's the only thing
that's good about him. Georgia Republicans were trying to tell us, please just
send us a normal Republican take that away, and UM, no, he's
well. I mean the reason I mentioned those people, I agree with you,
they're not running. That was sort of what I was saying. So
that's why I mentioned Glen young Kin because it seems to me that that's your
choice, right, I mean, if it's not the Santis, that's your
choice, and I think he's good, I'd be totally happy with Glen Junkiness
a nominee. The problem with him is, which I've seen because I've been
promoting him as to Santis as vice president until now. The problem with Junkin,
which shows up in all of my sub stack comments whatever I do a
video promoting Junkin as my vice presidential choice is um which kind of annoys me.
Is oh, Carlile Carlile oh, I'd never vote for somebody from Carlisle.
And I say to these people from one thing, look at what we
should. We should a very very powerful, connected private equity merchant what we
used to call merchant bank. And so there's going to be tons and tons
of really really horrible stuff. They're going to be able to dig up that
Carlisle did that. What you're saying, well, back in the nineteenth century
when they were still funding whaling ships, we called the merchant banks. Yes,
Rob, I'm referring to you guys on Well, first of all,
what do I say to people who, oh it was with Carla. I
mean, just for the fact that someone is smart and went to Carlo,
I was like rejecting to Santras because he went to Harvard. Um, yes,
if if our candidate is in a black box and we know absolutely nothing
else about him, but he once worked at Carlisle. Totally with you,
So do you feel do you feel other stuff? And he's done really great
stuff. But what I defer to you guy, and I haven't looked into
this because I was just thinking of him as vice presidential candidate until last week.
Um, he wasn't involved in some buyouts. Now I mean, it
depends what kind of buy out it was. So so you tell me when
we went through this. You went through this in particular because you were very
strongly in favor of Mitt Romney. Mitt Romney was at bank Cap, but
On made two hundred million dollars. Glenn Youngkin went to Carlyle and made one
hundred million. So there's some rough cut where the opposition ought to be about
half as much to Youngcan as it was to Romney. But what was that
fatal for Romney? Could he have overcome it? Because if Romney was able
to overcome it, Youngkins should be able to as well. As far as
I can tell, he's a terrific guy. He was what was he?
They had some kind of split leadership of Carlyle when he was running the place.
There were co CEOs or something like that. I myself have some doubts
about the early days of Carlyle when it was filled with George hw Bush people
and the Arabs were the first big investors. It was it looked a little
I would rather, But Glen Youngkin came along long after that, after Rubinstein
had turned it into a big operation. Basically, I mean, the charge
is not that he's up to nefarious deals that I don't think that could stick
against him. Let them dig and dig and dig, as if the press
ever actually wanted to do any real reporting. Again, the charge is just
that he's he's a white guy who's rich. It's the same, it's the
Romney problem. Well I think it. Um No, No, I mean,
I hope, I hope you you're that is correct. But it isn't
just that he's a white guy that rich, that's rich. It's Romney's problem.
And again I would still support him. He was the only he had
the toughest position on immigration at the time, and our country is going,
oh my gosh, you guys are in California. You know what happens to
the whole country with unrestricted immigration. So um with Romney. I mean,
the most important fact everyone in politics should know. The Democrats who are know
what Daniel shore Shore knows. That is, every single election is decided by
the white working class. Now, Yunken has a lot of pull with the
white working class. How did he win that election in a purple state?
Exactly ICs it was the white working class. He walked after the schools his
first day in office. Look him, I'm on wikipe his first day in
office, it was just executive order, executive order, no masks, no
vaccine mandate, no CRT in the schools. So he's done a lot of
great stuff and he does have that attraction to the white working class. So
that's fantastic. What we need to know. What killed Romney, in my
opinion, wasn't just rich white guy. He also was kind of a Doric
sort of stiff. I don't think Glancin is that. No. I don't
think so either, specifically that his deals laid off a lot of people,
a lot of the white working class. So on the dessentist issue, I
think that if you're right about the six week ban, and I'm not sure
you are, although I do accept it's a challenge, then he's dead and
you need to give up on him, because the prospect of taking it back,
I think would be worse. He has a reputation as this fighter who
doesn't back down, doesn't care. He's going to have to keep that reputation.
He's going to beat Trump. Let alone be a presidential nominee. If
he goes back to the legislature and says change this to ten weeks. In
the minds of the people who care about this, the difference between ten and
six weeks, it's not good enough. Also, he's already signed six weeks
fifteen. Maybe you stick with fifteen. I can see an argument, But
ten eight the legislature is not going to repeal the law take it back to
fifteen. So what you're saying, in effect, I think is he's done
if you're right about the underlying question, which again I'm not sure you are,
although I do think it's a challenge. No. Unfortunately, what I'm
seeing, if I were looking into my crystal ball, and I hope it
doesn't work this way, is yeah, he gets the nomination and then he
loses the general because of the abortion ban. I disagree that there is no
way for him or the legislature to take it back. No politician has,
no candidate has ever won an election on the grounds. I'm consistent. There's
nothing wrong with changing your mind. There are change circumstances. There is nothing
wrong with gigging back a bad bill. I think it shows flexibility and compromise.
He's just got to understand that this is going to kill him, and
I don't think he does. Okay, So I got two questions for you
one question easy, and I'm you know, there are only two candidates that
I can tell right now in the Republican Party running as if they're running in
a Republican primary meeting fits flying once Donald Trump, and the other is former
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie. He's running. Yeah, well that's the lesson
and back to she's going to ask you to the question. Peter asked me
a couple of questions. Back, No, just santis can't wait. Chris
Christie is the example when your time is now, you better take it.
Because when he was running and I would have supported him, turns out would
have been a mistake because he was listening to the Wall Street Journal on immigration
and many other things. But remember he was, you know, the Golden
Boy when he was when he was really going after the public sector unions in
New Jury. That was brave, it was smart. It was a crucial
issue. People I know called it in Hollywood called it Chris Christie porn.
They would begin meetings or sessions because they want to go on YouTube just to
watch him yell at teachers unions. UM. So my second second, much
is this right now? Um, if you're smart, you're di santists.
You're probably trying to pivot quickly to away from the stuff that you're not going
to win on and back to all the brilliant stuff you did and the trolling
you did with immigration, which is he's doing an inherited speech I think right
today talking about sending illegals to Martha's vineyard. That's the first time that the
that anybody cared about illegal immigration on the left. Isn't it possible, just
possible that when people go in to vote, they're not it's not gonna be
an isolated in the general, I mean not isolated vote the way it is
and you know, a ballot initiatives or judges or things like that in statewides.
It's in general they're gonna on balance say, well, you know what,
he might build a wall, and he might get tough on crime,
and I will live to fight abortion another day. Is that possible? Oh
my gosh. I hope so, oh my god, because he is so
perfect other than this, really really so fantastic. And by the way,
he isn't just trolling on immigration, No, I agree, I mean you
know what I meant though, that was mentioned about him because his crime and
immigration are the issues Republicans win on. Please keep talking about it and stop
talking about abortion. Republicans um he when after winning re election getting a supermajority,
he introduced an amazing immigration series of proposals that he is going to push
through the legislature and standing up to donors on it, which is which is
quite brave. There are a lot of agricultural interests in Florida. It's huge
ag stay um and needless to say, the like like the slave owners,
they want their cheap labor. So it is a very powerful interest group to
stand up to. And yet and still you still pushing e verify across the
state, all kinds of great ideas on checking not accepting driver's licenses from states
that give drivers licenses to illegal So it's just I mean a point point point
point why he didn't force the Florida legislature to push that through. First,
No, let's start with the Republican assistant Suicide Acts. And Charlie wants to
come in with what I'm sure will be an extremely perceptive question that will frame
everything up and allow you to sum up everything you have to say. I
have a light question first, is does Santis likable? I think so?
I mean, I've met him, I met his people, I've seen him
speak. There's nothing creepy about them, which they're kind of was with Mitt
Romney, he was just I mean, I liked Met Romney, but he
was a dork, and not everybody likes a dork. Um, what's his
name? Blake Arizona? Too much? Can I put the question another?
And then I will shut up because it's Charlie. I'm sure Charlie will ask
a brilliant question. So this puts things very, very crudely. But as
you know extremely well, they're two basic ways of running for president. One
is the Ronald Reagan approach. Vote for me, I'm one of you and
the others. The Mit Romney approach, also the Hillary Clinton approach. Vote
for me, I'm smarter than you. Where's the santis? Okay, I
reject that characterization of Romney, but um no, I mean it's the stuff
I think, especially right now, Americans are feeling so beaten down and losing,
losing, losing, the transgender stuff, the CRT, the endless attacks
on white people and white males and guns. To have this governor winning,
winning, winning, When I've watched his speeches, it's funny um, and
I think he can he can fix this. The parts of his Santis's speeches
I hate are beginning and the end, because that's when he does the bs
like campaigns speak and we will never stop or I don't know, whatever the
nonsense cliches are. The second he gets onto policy, he's not only engaged,
but you just you could be, you know, trying to run an
errand you have to sit on your bed and watch the speech because his wins
on policy and his thinking behind it, it's really interesting. It's really engaging,
and I mean, I think that's the the Glenn Youngan appeal. Give
Americans issues to vote on, and they'll vote on them. We just need
our leaders and our conservative media Fox news talk radio to please stop talking about
the stupid stuff. Please please please stop. Yes, I leve in Florida
too, although I'm sure you're a lot more plugged in than I am,
and I am enjoyed, but go ahead, all right. Well, I
have enjoyed him as governor. I think he's been a terrific governor. A
very small number of things I objected to, but in the grand scheme of
things, they don't matter. Why do you think We're seeing Floridian congressman after
Floridian congressman endorsing Trump instead of the santiss I know the Scantist is not in
the race, but Thomas Massey didn't care, Chiproy didn't care. Some people
have said this is because Decantists doesn't call him up himself. He doesn't rub
shoulders, he doesn't do that part of politics very well, whereas Trump will
call people on his cell phone and say, Hi, will you endorse me?
Do you need in a thing? I'm sorry to hear you broke your
foot? I mean, is this a problem or is this media nonsense?
I think that's media nonsense. I mean, I do hate to insult other
Republicans or elected Republicans at all, but I think if you look at the
list of Republicans who have endorsed Trump, they're they're the equivalent of R A
O UM. They're They're not the ones you necessarily want endorsing. They are
kind of the crazy ones. Now. I like some of the stuff crazy
people on our side do, um, but they aren't our impressive Republicans.
Thomas Massey as our impressive Republican. Instantly, I just had a one hour
interview with him I put up on substack. Oh my gosh, that man
is great. Right, So that's somebody you like, and he's endorsed to
Sciantist and he's probably gonna be the next senator from Kentucky hopefully soon. All
right, so and um, uh we know you gotta go. Uh before
we go, substack, tell me about substack. Let's get a substack um
plug in here right now. Well, it's fantastic, And I mean,
you're a substack, substa and culture dot subsac dot com. And the reason
I went to it was because of all the censorship on Twitter. Um sub
stack. It's lots of fun on I put up columns, random thoughts,
things that would be suppressed and shadow band on Twitter videos. I mean,
the video with the Thomas Massey was fantastic. That was this week. I'd
do Heather McDonald a lot, Amy Wax, the most Dangerous woman in America.
I did a couple with John Lott with guns being in the news.
I'm doing a few repeats because I realized right before I do the videos,
I don't really just want to talk to somebody to talk to somebody. I
want to talk to smart people and I don't care if I have to repeat
myself, oh sometimes regularly with smart liberal Mickey couse. But if I could
just segue to one thing that's really driving me crazy, and I think people
who even aren't on Twitter should care about it. And that is how Twitter
has gone from being the world's marketplace of ideas to utter censorship. We know
what the old regime did, and Elon is, if anything, making it
worse the removal of blue check marks, which the sole purpose of that was
to prove you really are Bob Dole, You really are Thomas Masse, you
really are the New York Police Department. You just pulled Bob Dole out for
Okay, called Rob Long. You're the one who got me my Twitter handle
because true there was a fake and culter on Twitter. Well you got it
for me, got the blue check it. I'm very powerful. And by
the way, approximately once a month there is a fake and culter that happens
to come to my attention and I need to report that person. Okay,
so the old regime turned it into oh this is a reward for liberals.
Okay, don't do that anymore. But let us be able to distinguish am
I attacking AOC or AM I attacking some idiot right wing meme creator who's pretending
to be AOC, so that he's ruined. And the main thing I think
he's ruined. I mean, it's stupid to be driving liberals from off of
Twitter. The whole point is we want to see them so we can tweak
them. But the biggest way I think he's I don't think he's removed the
shadow banning. Um is that to show how um, there will be no
shadow banning. We won't throw people off Twitter. He brings back on the
worst people, the Nazis, the Donald Trumps, the Alex jones Is.
But you know smart right wingers who are saying uncomfortable truths. Um, oh
say Jared Taylor. Nope, he's still banned. We're not going to let
you hear from any smart people that are not safe for work. But whoa,
we'll put the Nazis back on. Thanks Elon, Thanks, that's great,
That's just what we wanted. Okay, So that was the question about
substack. So we're going to make sure that's why everybody's going to substack,
no censorship, no ads. It shows up in your inbox loads of fun.
And I have a lot of terrific kind and you're having a lot of
fun with it. That's and that's some. I'm a substack, I'm an
an colder sub subscriber, and thank you for joining us. Thank you.
Um, take a deep breath, at least gonna be okay, ganforesay yeah,
exactly right, see you soon, and thank you, thank you.
Well, after all of this, you're going to need a good night's sleep,
and of course with the warm weatherhead, you're gonna spend more time outside,
enjoying longer days, more daylight. It's a lot of fun, but
all days start with one thing, and that is a great night's sleep.
Ball and Branch is the betting expert making the highest quality sheets with incredible craftsmanship.
Each sheet set is slow made for an unmatched softness with one hundred percent
traceable organic cotton that gets softer with every wash. The signature hem sheets from
Ball and Branch are a best seller for a reason. Bone Branch uses the
highest quality one hundred percent organic cotton threads on Earth. Each sheet is slow
made for a superior softness and a better night's sleep. They feel better to
the touch and are super breathable, so they're perfect for both cooler and warmer
weather, and that's why they're loved by millions of sleepers, and you can
hear from more than ten thousand of them who've given Bone and Branch five star
reviews. But here's one me one thing they say, and it's kind of
buried on all the other stuff. These sheets get better and better and better
as you wash them. They feel like these fantastic, fantastically soft, beautiful
sheets that are more comfortable with every wash, which is which is a lot
to save for a pair of sheets, So keep in mind. Balling Branch
gives you a thirty night risk free guarantee with free shipping and returns on all
US orders. You can sleep better at night with ball and Branch sheets.
Get fifteen percent off your first order when you use the promo code ricochet at
ballen Branch dot com. That's ball and Branch all one word bolll an d
Branch dot com promo code Ricochet. See the site for details of exclusions supply.
But we have to thank ball and Branch for sponsoring the Ricochet podcast.
It's a great product and they've been a great supporter. We are very lucky
again to have Debrah Saunders as a syndicated columnist, a fellow with a Discovery
Institute's Chapman Center for Citizen Leadership. You can find most of her work at
the Creator's Syndicate. She was a White House correspondent during the Trump administration.
She is now writing and thinking and thinking and writing about the press. So
I got to ask, first of all, welcome, thanks for joining us.
Thank you for having me seven hundred eighty seven million dollars to settle a
very what looked like a lawsuit that was going against Fox Although who knows is
there anything you can take away from this other than people will pay a lot
of money to not take the stand. We live in a corporate age,
so there was a time when you would have seen Fox be pro First Amendment
where journalists, we're going to fight this. We're not going to have anybody
tell us that we can't do our jobs, which is what this lawsuit is
all about. The dominion is going after Fox News for reporting on the election.
Were there people on Fox News had said things that were ridiculous? Absolutely,
and dominions free to say them and they are seeing them. But going
after Fox News, that's just that's going after the money, right, and
it's going after the headlines, and it makes Dominion not look like a bunch
of greedy people asking for a lot more money than they're worth, but as
if they're they're champions for something. And unfortunately the news media are just incredibly
bad and they're reporting on this. You don't really see the other side.
You can read long stories about this case and everybody is dumping on Fox News
and nobody's question in this lawsuit. It's really upsetting. And you know Rupert
Murdoch, well, he's used to paying off people in lawsuits, right,
so I guess it's no big for him. But this is not a good
thing for journalism, and I wish more people understood that. So the pushback
on that I know Peter wants get is that they were reckless, that they
that as a corporate policy, they knew that this was false and they went
ahead. They didn't just say the election of stolen, because of course there's
no victim there if that's the case. They said that this company, these
two companies Smart Manic and Dominion, stole it so and they knew that that
wasn't true. So what what punishment, if any should that should the organization
suffer? Well, there were people who said that on Fox News, but
most of Fox News reporting was Joe Biden won. So there, I mean,
you can find that there were all people who said that, so can
I. As usual the mirror within the first sentence you speak, I find
myself swooning and in love with you all over again. But let me just
menas careful, sell close the door. I don't want to or over here,
so I want to Here's I haven't studied this, I haven't followed it
closely. You have. Isn't it? Isn't it? Roughly speaking? The
case shouldn't It shouldn't matter if Tucker Carlson in a private email says Rudy Giuliani
is nuts and Sidney Powell is lying through her teeth. The fact that Rudy
Giuliani and Sydney Powell, both of whom were close to a former president of
the United States who was contesting the results of the election. The fact that
those people claimed it may have been a crazy claim we now know it was
a crazy claim, but that they claimed that the company responsible for some voting
machines was in on an elaborate that was news. Yes, that wasn't That
wasn't some sort of conspiracy to do down dominion or overturn the reason, or
even simply to throw red meat to the audience. That was news. If
it's if you can sue Fox News for putting on Rudy Giuliani, you ought
to be able to sue CNN for putting on Jim Comey. They can,
they can Sueciate, and they can, and now they can. Isn't that?
I mean it would be a completely different matter if Sean Hannity, Well,
maybe Sean Hannity did so. I guess what I'm saying is I'm not
sure that there's a Yes. It's tremendously embarrassing, and everybody's chortling and chuckling
and have a wild, impish glee that Tucker Carlson and Laura Ingram and Sean
Hannity are exchanging emails saying these people are idiots, they're fools. Donald Trump,
I can't stand Donald Trump while they go on the air and pretend to
take these people seriously. I understand that that's embarrassing, but the distinction would
be between reporting news and trying to push a narrative themselves. And I don't
see this is my memory. I don't. I don't see that Fox News
championed any particular narrative. They were reporting news and there were crazy people in
the news at that time. Am I right in my general understanding? Am
I missing something? You're completely right? And let me just just you were
talking about what Tucker Carlson's text to his producer Alex Fiefer. That's right,
Okay, So that has nothing to do with this lawsuit. It's just to
embarrass Fox News. I mean, if you read this one hundred plus whatever,
it is a statement that the dominion put out. It's crack for journalists
there, it is. They're just giving them everything they want. They're embarrassing
Fox News, They're embarrassing the Fox talent. But it has nothing to do
with this defamatory lawsuit, right, It's just they're just trying to I mean,
the fixation that other networks and major newspapers have with Fox News is unholy
and this is the spawn of that unholyness. Charlie, So I am,
as you all know, a big First Amendment guy. Explain to me why
this doesn't fit neatly within our existing libel laws, the libel laws in England
and our a disgrace because they essentially look only to the veracity of a statement
and they don't consider anything else. The libel laws in the United States add
some steps. They say, you have to know what you're saying is false,
and in the case of a newspaper or a broadcaster, you have to
know what it is that you're publishing or echoing or platforming is false, and
you have to do it to damage the target. Is there not an argument
that both of those conditions were met here? Fox knew that what they were
platforming and echoing and broadcasting and promogating was false. They knew that, and
then they did it. Why did they do it? Because they wanted to
appeal to their audience and take back market share from Newsmax. I why am
I wrong? Okay, Well, for one thing, Ben Smith has a
piece in The Atlantic today about Russia Gate and how yes it was a total
fraud and yes it was a problem, but he'd do it again anyway.
If somebody handed him the dossier he would print he would he would print it
again, but with different caveats. Right, And this was a bogus story.
But nobody sued BuzzFeed for this, and nobody did it because it is
Ben Smith argued in his pies today, Hey, this dossier was news.
Everybody knew about it. Now I didn't know about it. I don't know
if you guys knew about it in October. I mean before he didn't know.
Yeah, that's right in California. I didn't know that. So he
acts so that this was something that everybody knew about. So we had this
um that he had to do it. But I don't have a problem with
dominion suing certain people for saying certain things. Who are Fox people? I
mean I think there could be a case from Maria bardar Romo or Janine Pierro,
But Fox News network that they were they were covering news stories and they
had and they had Sidney Paulan, so did other networks. They broadcast things
that Sidney Powell said that we're very questionable. So the idea they're just picking
on one network and we all know why. It's where the big pockets are
in everybody in the media will be rooting for you if you go after Fox
News. Yeah. But there's a couple of problems with that. The first
is that if people had sued BuzzFeed News under American law, they'd have had
a case of what you're saying is correct, the fact that they didn't doesn't
change that. The second is that Fox did not invite a random guest on
and then jump in horror when he or she said these things. It was
not like Twitter, where we have Section two thirty in place, because they
don't know what I could tweet in ten seconds, they don't pre review it.
They knew over a period of time that they were broadcasting and in some
cases, including in segments that were preapproved and pre written lies that we're based
on factual claims that were false. I think you'll write about massive bias in
the media. Of course you are, And you're right about the hypocrisy of
the press, and you're right about all the people who should be upset about
this but on't. And you're right that this works in one direction. But
I'm not sure this is a violation of American libel law, is it?
Well? I mean, I think the way this case would have worked out
if there wasn't a settlement is they would have won in the courtroom and lost
on appeal. Again, I'm sorry, they would have won in the court.
They would have won in the courtroom and lost and lost on appeal.
And again, there ares lawsuits to people who said things, But to go
after a news network for reporting things that were said, that crosses a different
line. So again, if if if if Domini wants to sue Maria Bardaromo
Virginie Piero for things that they said, fine, But to go after this
working I mean, if you read through this, uh, the document that
they put out again, it's exceedingly embarrassing. I just don't know what the
fact that that Tucker Carlson thought Sidney Paul was an idiot or nuts or something
whatever, whatever the exact word was, I don't know what that has to
do with this. Well, if somebody wrote an op head in The New
York Times saying that I was a serial killer and then an editor published it
and it was subsequently revealed that the editor knew that the piece was not true,
that's the standard that we need to be met on the New York Times
v. Sullivan. So that, I think is why it matters. Well,
again, I would just say that we're in this um that when you
look at what this lawsuit is about, the lawsuit is going after a network
for having people on I mean, if you read the documents they're angry that
they had people on who made arguments that they didn't like. It's And by
the way, did dominion get hurt. No, Dominion's making more money than
ever right, worth one point six billion dollars. No, it is not.
So we all know that the financial basis of this is crazy. There's
no sign that dominion has been hurt. Now, I understand reputational damage,
but dominions. Dominions going to come out okay with this. That doesn't mean
it's okay for people to say false things. But most of the stuff we're
talking about here, they're not talking about what was said about dominion. They're
talking about what was said about the twenty twenty election, and that's a different
thing. And they're really going after Fox News for for for what was said
about the election. And they're going after people who on air said Biden one.
So if they're saying over and over again Biden one, Trump lost,
and then you can cherry pick a few sentences that say otherwise, a lot
of people are in trouble, I can tell you, Or I would assume
that if CNN were under the same kind of scrutiny and somebody got their hands
on all of their internal documents that you'd find a lot of the thinks,
people questioning stories. And again you have to go back to the dossier.
People knew that was not a good story, and they put it out anyway,
and that somehow that again not a basis for a lawsuit. Yeah,
the idea that the standard, it seems to me there's an embryonic standard here,
and that standard is that report that if you're in television news print maybe
well print is dead anyway, So let's set that aside. If you're in
television news, here's the new rule. You're not allowed to put a guest
on unless you know that that guest is going to make claims that are verifiable.
Well, that's that's just not the job to put it. One just
a slightly different turn on it. When Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell appeared on
Fox News making their crazy claims, they had an effect on me. I
thought, Wow, the whole Trump organization has just lost. It was valuable
information in a working democracy. If they had been suppressed, if they sorry,
what Rudy's claiming is obviously untrue. We can't let him talk about that
anymore. That would have created much more suspicion. I think, all right,
so that it was, it had value. It was a totally defendable
newsroom judgment to put Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell on. I don't know about
Maria Bartiro. I guess that's a set where it would make sense to sue
Maria Barti Roma. Okay, So here's my question to you, dep If
I'm and I don't mean to lead the witness here, but if if you
feel as I feel, that there's a kind of latent, new and unreasonable
standard embedded in the result of this case, what does it mean for American
journalism? What does it mean for television news? It's just the double standard.
I mean, that's the thing about this again. You look at you
look at the Hunter Biden laptop story. Now, this is a case where
basically we had people like Mike Morrell going saying this is a false document and
it was suppressed by the media because of this bogus accusation right about. I
mean, basically, we know the laptop story was pretty true. The current
and Secretary of State said it wasn't true. Yeah, what but and what
do you do not report that? Can? I mean one of the things
that the lawsuit makes really clear is we have to report what both sides are
saying. Are we supposed to say that the President of the United States and
his campaign, that we're supposed to censor them? I mean, we know
how much how distrustful people are the media, what happens if they're not airing
this, And and I think Fox did a pretty good job of explaining to
people how that story worked. And you can cherry picks sometimes when they did
things that were wrong and and they get reputational damage, except I actually think
their audience wants that. I think they're people who want to be lied to.
And that's another issue that the Fox really pretty much understood. That's what
That's the one thing that those texts that came out during Discovery reveal was that
people who were running the shows, of the stars of these shows knew that
it was false, but they also knew that the audience wasn't going to And
that's the one thing under American libel lawyer you're not allowed to do. It's
not that you have to know that everyone you put on air is going to
tell the truth, is that you can't put people on the air if you
know for a fact that they're going to lie with your blessing. Okay,
is that what this lawson is about? Because I could swear when I was
watching election coverage that they said Joe Biden won and that they did not buy
into all these phony claims. Did they air them? Did they have people
who said that, Yes, but they were not doing stories about they weren't.
Fox News was not putting out stories saying that dominion was wrong. The
dominion was this problem. You have random people who say that, not all
random, But what are they supposed to do? They supposed to We just
saw this, we're seeing it right now with the laptop story, where people
decide that they have to squelch something because they've decided it's not true instead of
letting be aired out in public and people make up their own minds. That's
what I thought we did, That's what I thought the news was about.
And this lawsuit is trying to tell people, no, you can't do that.
So where does this go? We know where it goes. There's a
double standard. We know we know that the left can do whatever they want
and break all the standards that you're talking about. We know that that New
York Times Washington Posting, and they can all break all that and nobody cares.
And there's only going to be one place that's going to pay for and
that's Fox News. Yead, thank you for joining us. Than before you
go, I want to make sure everybody knows that you're a limited series podcast
series with us covering Trump. It's there. It's great, like a lot
of good old a lot of good worst stories. And um my guess is
that you we might be able to convince you to do another one coming up
for twenty twenty four. I would love to twist my arm. Please,
I'll twist Jarmed some more. Thanks, thanks for joining us, Thank you,
thank you all. I still miss you here in California. Oh I
miss you and I missed that room. That is Stanford, right, this
Stanford? No, that's Dartmouth. No, no, this is an East
Coast room. There's nothing like Oh, it's just a backing though. He's
it's fake. It's it's fake. I mean the spare bedroom. There's it's
a fanteken. There's a dog behind me in reality scene. Yes, okay,
tell we was to stop sending me torturing, to stop torturing texts about
how lovely it is in Virginia. Okay, I shall do that. He's
my tech guy. He's sitting right there. Okay, was knock it off.
Okay, but he can't hear because I have. That's good. Thank
you for having me, Thanks for coming to soon. Okay, bye bye
bye bye. Health insurance plans can be confusing and expensive. Then when you
actually have to use your benefits, there are deductibles and claims processes and other
red tape to deal with. We have all been there. Crowd Health puts
you back in control of your healthcare and helps you pay for health expenses.
Um, I had We've all been there. We've all had a had some
kind of health insurance thing where it was clearly a necessary thing and the health
insured and didn't felt the form right. I've been doing this and it's incredibly
irritating and you kind of feel like, well, what can I use health
insurance for well? Crowdhealth is the simple, transparent and affordable solution. As
a member, you'll get a personal care advocate to help navigate the complexities of
health events. Your personal care advocate will even negotiate bills on your behalf.
They'll be with you every step of the way and could save you thousands in
health bills. In the process, you'll get access to a crowd of thousands
of other members who are ready to help pay for large health expenses. Forty
dollars of your one hundred and seventy five dollars monthly payment helps pay for your
care advocate tele medicine services, discount of prescriptions, and other tools to get
you the best care at an affordable pright. The remainder of the monthly payment
goes into a crowdhealth account that you own, so you can help others in
the crowd pay for their medal expenses as well. Experience healthcare freedom with crowdhealth.
Visit join crowdhealth dot com and use code ricochet at checkout to get your
first three months for just ninety nine dollars. That's join crowdhealth dot com.
It's all when we're join crowdhealth dot com promo code Ricochet. Crowdhealth is not
health insurance. It's a totally different way of paying for healthcare. Terms and
conditions to be apply. Find out everything you need to know at join crowdhealth
dot com and we thank crowdhealth for sponsoring the Ricochet podcast. Um wow,
we actually this is a this is a substant podcast. I think we delivered
value. I really do think we delivered some value. Um before we go.
Are you sure? Are you telling the truth? I am? I
really think that. I do really think that, um, Because if we
haven't discussed it before, I had the cook standard, it's not the cook
standard. The reason I've got there is the name of this view, though,
is why I absolutely agree with Dad that this is unjustly meet it out.
I think it was wrong. For example, that Sarah Palin lost her
case against The New York Times, which knew when it published the lie once
again that she remind us of the facts of the case. Well quickly,
there was a crazy guy who murdered a bunch of people and shot a congresswoman,
Gabby Giffords. And this back in twenty eleven was inexplicably and disgracefully blamed
on Sarah Palin because on her campaign website she had a target. Of course,
we use Marshall language in politics all the time. We called him campaigns
for goodness sake, she got blamed for this. This is outrageous. It
turned out that the guy who did this, I won't name him as I
don't name mass shooters. The guy who did this had no connection to Sarah
Palin. I'd never looked at Sarah Palin's website. It was in no way
inspired by Sarah Palin. Now, when The Times originally blamed this on Sarah
Palin, it was protected under the First Amendment, But after it had become
abundantly clear and published a retraction, it knew And yet once again I forget
to hear it was it repeated the line. It just included it like one
of those things that just iterate over to Sarah Palin who did this, and
she sued them. Now, I agree with deb it's outrageous that Fox got
this settlement. Although they did settled, it wasn't actually litigated, and in
court Sarah Palin lost. But what I'm saying, as someone who is a
big free speech guidants very expansive libel laws, is that I think that is
a good threshold for libel. When you knowingly print a lie determined to hurt
someone's reputation, then yeah, that actually is a good standard for libel.
And Sarah Palin should have got justice in that case. She didn't, And
I'm not convinced that Fox is innocent under our libel laws. Ten second rebuttal.
The ten second rebuttal would be, I agree with deb that it may
make sense. I haven't read through all the reporting on the case, but
it may very well make sense under the cook standard that you just outlined,
also known as the first Amendment, for dominion to have gone after Maria bard
Romo, possibly also one or two other figures, but not for Fox not
to go after Fox News as distinct from The New York Times, which repeated
the law in an editorial, yes, which is formally understood to speak four
the New York Times. That's quite different. Quite it's not different under the
law. Though, if the New York Times accepts the piece well, no,
I mean, I'm well law. It might be an art, but
it's also the law. And if the New York Times accepts an opad written
by Rob Long and Peter Robinson accusing me of all sorts of things that I
didn't do, and it knows when it publishes it that you two are not
telling the truth, then it is susceptible to be for a lot of times,
if the New York Times reports in a news story that Rob Long and
Peter Robinson are claiming all kinds of mad things about Charlie Cook, which the
reporter knows to be untrue. It's still news that's correct, and that's why
people say allegedly all the time. So that's why I am drawing the distinction.
All right, that will never happen. And here's why, because The
New York Times pays about two hundred and seventy five dollars for that kind of
op ed and that's just not enough to get me, Peter does. I
wouldn't even I wouldn't even gin up some lies about Charlie Cook for two hundred
dollars, So it would have to be more. But Maria about Drama has
a show on Fox that is produced. People sit around a table, they
work out what's going to be said. They figured into a tele prompted,
they put the camera in position, and their platform it and under current libel
law, which is fairly liberal in a good sense in the world, that
includes that is included. You know, that's that's so much. Well,
all right, if we're going to go at this, do you remember exactly
what Maria Bardi Romo said? No? Okay, So the distinction I'm trying
to draw is between reporting something that even very loosely counts as news and instead
asserting something as in the with it in one's own person, so to speak.
Right, if Maria barda Roma says today, Rudy Julian it was at
again, that's one thing. If she says, of course, okay,
that's all that that distinction strikes me as important and I'm just not sure where
it fell in this case, well we are not going to solve that now.
No, But if Charlie and I would like to go at this for
at least another here's where you can go at this. You can go at
this in person in the Twin Cities on April twenty second and still Water,
so still Water meet up for Ricochet. There you can. There's another Winston
Salem meet up that Randy set up again, which is Randy's MVP of meetups
in Winston Salem. Mid July, Matt Ballzer is asking for RSVPs for the
annual German Fest meet up in Milwaukee. So that's the last week in July.
That's gonna be fun. All of these meetups are available to you if
you're a member of Ricochet, and if they don't work for some reason and
you're not a member. Here's what you do. You just join and then
you announce on the member page, Hey how about a meet up here or
there or somewhere, and you will get people to show up. That's the
one thing that members of Ricochet. They show up a lot of other stuff
going on, but I think you know this. We've we've we've hit the
two big issues. We've done enough. The podcast was brought to you by
Ball and Branch and Crowdhealth, so please support them for supporting us and join
Ricochet today. Ricochet dot com go and join. Take a minute to leave
a five star review, only a five star review at on Apple Podcasts,
because that's the kind of algorithmy thing that they use and helps to get people
to discover our podcast, not just not just this one, but the other
ones we do, including with depths And I guess I guess that's the clothes.
Well, what can I say? So we need James Beck because I
am clearly very rusty this But in the meantime, um, we'll see you
next week, Fels next week. Boys, This is Stephen Hayward of the
power Line Blog and the power Lines Show on Ricochet, inviting you to tune
in each weekend too, our three Whiskey Happy Hour where John, You and
I, along with the pseudonymous Lucretia power Lines International Woman the Mystery, breakdown
the week's top stories and continue our long running arguments about first principles and also
critique the best whiskies available in the world. That's power Line's three Whiskey Happy
Hour, hosted by Ricochet and found on all of your favorite podcast platforms.
Ricochet, join the conversation.