Hello, everyone, Welcome back to the new episode of You're Wrong with Molly
Hemingway and David Harsani. Molly, we have so many things to talk about.
I have a list here. Sometimes we have to search for things,
but not this week. I have a lot to this week. Yes,
I'd like to start, and I'm going to try to lay this out and
you can this issue out and you can correct me or add to it if
you want. But basically, it's this. The President of the United States
has been accused by a trusted FBI source of taking five million dollars in a
bribery scheme with a foreign national while he was vice president. So not he
didn't do it right now, he did it whatever many years ago. We
don't actually know. And this document, we have a document that exists in
the FBI building somewhere, not a document cooked up by some sort of oppo
research firm used, you know, to give to unethical SAPs in the media
to delegitimize an election, but an actual unclassified forget what's called FD ten twenty
three maybe something like that document which informants sign it's under oath, right,
So if you lie on this document, I think it's like if you lie
on this government document, you are you can be prosecuted. I'm not sure
about that. I'd have to look into it. But it's an official document,
and the FBI takes down this information. Now, Molly, I,
this is intensely boring to say, but can you imagine if there was a
document that the FBI had that Donald Trump or Ronda Santis or someone like that
had taken a bribe from you know, it would there would be a thermonuclear
meltdown in any event. What's the committee called that House Suminization Committee, House
Weaponization Committee has subpoena the f B. I first, I think just for
the documents, which they were denied. In fact, the FBI, I
don't even think acknowledge that the documents existed until like maybe earlier this week,
and then subpoena subpoena the FBI itself to bring in Christopher Ray. Right.
So yeah, So basically this is a story that's actually been going on for
close to a year. Chuck Grassley, who's this amazing senator who works with
whistleblowers and has a history of doing it across political administrations. His big issue
is protecting whistleblowers. So he's had whistleblowers who said, you know, like
a year ago that there was evidence that the FBI had kind of suppressed involving
the Biden family. And he has done everything slowly and by the book,
and he's working Representative James Comer, who's the chair of this weaponization portion of
the House Activities, and they have been asking very nicely for a document that
they knew existed, and they had the FBI sort of suggesting that they were
making it up, that it didn't exist. And Senator Chuck Grass, they
gave a floor speech yesterday where he talks about all the ways that Christopher Ray
has been obstructing the legitimate constitutional investigation into what the FBI did with this very
credible allegation. And he says, you know, they wouldn't even admit it
exists it existed until I told him I'd already seen a copy and it was
dated June thirtieth twenty. In other words, like, you're not hiding anything
from me, buddy, I already saw it. I already know what's going
on. But they still need him to turn it over so they could do
proper oversight about what happened. Could I give a little bit of a backstory
here, Um, okay, so that's why we're here, Okay. One
of the spins that the FBI was using, working with friendly journalists, the
same Russia collusion journalists they used at CNN and the Washington Post, they said,
this is all about Rudy Giuliani, and we all know Rudy Giuliani as
someone you can ignore, So we're just all going to ignore this, okay.
And the reason why they were able to kind of like take a little
kernel of truth and manipulate it into a lie is that back during the first
impeachment that Democrats and other nefarious people ran against the Trump administration, it was
all related to Ukraine, right, And at heart it was about Donald Trumps
saying that there was corruption involving the Biden family in Ukraine and the regime saying
that wasn't true and in fact, asking about it was the real crime.
And Rudy Giuliani, who was like an associated President Trump's, had all this
information about corruption involving Ukraine and Biden, and so the FBI needed to figure
out like what to do with it because he had passed it along to them.
So they had I think the Western District of Pennsylvania was the US Attorney's
office that looked into it. And while they were looking into it, I
think you can go through these FBI systems for search terms and whatnot, they
come across the most amazing document from twenty seventeen involving a confidential human source basically
saying there's a bribery scheme. It's like a throwaway line in a larger FD
ten to twenty three, which is like, you know, the FBI's ride
up of their information they're getting from a confidential human source alleging something of a
bribery scheme with Joe Biden and a Ukrainian energy company. And they go back
to that confidential human source because he's like one of their best. He's very
trustworthy. He's been involved in prosecutions that have been success full, he's been
paid hundreds of thousands of dollars for his information, and he's viewed as very
trustworthy. They go back to him and he's like, oh yeah, I'm
saying he. I don't know if it's he or she. Oh yeah,
here's all the details on that. And it's very specific and very detailed,
and it's filed on June thirtieth, twenty twenty, and this is the document
that whistleblowers say was filed that we're learning was shared with the Delaware US Attorney
Weiss, who's supposedly looking into Biden family corruption, although evidence remains scant that
that's actually happening, but that they also allege that when this document was was
filed, and remember it's like the Western District of Pennsylvania that's looking into things,
headquarters works to suppress that information. They claim that this very detailed description
of a very set of political matter involving literally the former vice president of the
United States was fully and rigorously investigated and determined to not have any truth four
weeks later, and that's the story that the media, Democrats, and the
FBI are now trying to spin that in fact, yes, there was an
allegation, it was thoroughly investigated by people who weren't even in charge of the
investigation into what was going on, and then they decided it wasn't trustworthy,
and they hid all of their reasons for why it wasn't trustworthy behind a wall
that only they knew how to get behind. And so we have two scandals
here. One is that there's a very credible allegation of a five million dollar
bribery scheme in exchange for a policy change for Vice President Biden and his family
and in his office. That's a huge scandal, far bigger than all of
the supposed scandals of involving Donald Trump combined, and it actually has evidence to
support it, unlike those other scandals. But you also have the scandal that
the FBI, when they figured this out, worked to suppress that information at
the HQ level so that they could get Joe Biden elected and get their arch
enemy Donald Trump not to be elected. So do you see what I'm saying,
It's like two big scandals here. Well, and Jamie Raskin said the
other day right that the investigation had been closed down by Trump's hand picked prosecutor.
And I guess he was talking about Was he talking about William Barr?
Right? Bill Barr? So what Jamie Raskin said? Okay, So let's
let's will even just do more background here. During the Russia collusion hoax that
the FBI perpetrated against the American people, what would happen is Devin Nunez would
ask for a document, the FBI would claim they had no idea what he
was talking about. He would say I know you need you know, or
he'd asked for information. They'd be like, we've never heard of Christopher Steele.
We've never heard of stuff on Helper. You're a crazy. We're going
to leak against you to the Washington Post to the New York Times. And
he would keep going and keep going, and then you know, the people
would get subpoena it or whatever, and they'd be like, Okay, okay,
okay, you can come over to the FBI in a darkened room for
fifteen minutes and we'll let you like pretend to look at a document, but
you can't talk about it. He can't do anything, you know. He'd
be like fighting them on that. And then a few months later they're like,
okay, we'll come over to the Hill and we'll let you and one
other person and Adam Schiff and one other person take a look at this,
and then we'll lie about what we showed you and we'll leak. You know.
It was just like game playing after game playing after game playing, and
so Grassley and Comber have been asking for this document. First they deny it
exists, or they like basically saying, you're crazy. We don't know what
you're talking about. Grassle says, I've seen the document June thirtieth that helps
you find it, And so they subpoena it and finally they like get the
document to be seen in one of these dark rooms for fifteen minutes with a
briefing from the FBI. The FBI tries its spin, saying, don't worry,
this is just Giuliani related. We did everything on the up and up.
You know, you can trust us because we've got nothing but a track
record of trustworthiness when it comes to politicized investigations. So they come out of
this meeting, Jamie Raskin says, here's what I learned. I learned that
this was related to Rudy Giuliani, which is a lie. That's not true.
It's just completely not true. I mean, it is true that it
was the Giuliani related investigation that led them to find this twenty seventeen document,
but it's not true that the twenty seventeen document was a Rudy Giuliani product,
or that the decision to go back. Can I ask a quick question,
So the initial form, the initial claim, when was that first officially made
by a whistleblower written down, Does it go back to twenty seventeen, does
it go all the way back to two thousand and you know, when it
was twelve or whatever. So the first time the FBI learns that there's an
allegation of a criminal bribery scheme for five million dollars from a Ukrainian energy company
and to Joe Biden is in twenty seventeen. Well, it's like a it's
an oblique mention, but it wasn't actually what they were looking into with that
confidential human source at that moment. So that ten twenty three is actually about
other stuff, and I have a theory about what that is, but I
don't know if I'm ready to go public with them. But then when they're
reviewing their files, they come across us and they're like, wait, this
is weird. This claim from twenty seventeen, this throwaway line in a larger
FD ten twenty three about other stuff kind of seems like something we should look
into about the Biden family. So they go back to the confidential human source
and that's where they get this like really detailed, very length the extremely descriptive
FD twenty three alleging pay for play involving Joe Joe Biden and the Ukrainian Energy
Concern. Okay, so that's twenty seventeen, and that's twenty s predates Giuliani
bringing it to them. They go back in twenty twenty. In June of
twenty twenty, which is after Giuliani had had given the FBI his branch of
documents, ask another question. Wait, I was like talking about something.
So Jamie Raskin comes out and he goes, here's what I learned. It's
Giuliani related, which is not true. And also what I learned is that
Bill Barr hand picked someone to look into this allegation. Oh my gosh,
I'm forgetting that guy's name. It's Steve, Steve something. He was the
US attorney. It was reported in the Washington Post to the US Attorney for
the Western District of Pennsylvania, and that guy thoroughly looked into it and he
closed it and there was nothing there. Now, I think Jamie Raskin has
since walked away from those statements, which is good because they're false. It
is not true that Bill Barr authorized and this. Oh my gosh, can
you look up Steve's name because I can't get his last name. I just
don't as the US Attorney from the Western District of Pennsylvania. It's in the
Washington Post story yesterday that he closed this thing. Well, Margot Cleveland and
I have been reporting on and by the way, also my husband Mark Hemingway,
have been reporting on Biden family business issues, including alleged corruption, for
years upon years upon years, and so we've talked with a lot of people
who are kind of familiar with the various investigations. So investigations took place in
the Western District of Pennsylvania, the Southern District of New York, the Eastern
District of New York, the Maryland Field office of the Delaware Investigation, and
other places. So there are a lot of people who are looking into it.
And one of the things that you always hear is that they found a
lot of really big stuff, the type of stuff that would have I remember
one person said, if any single one of the things that I had found
had been found about like a Reagan type person, there already would have been
a special council. Right, So, all these offices are reporting that they're
finding all this stuff, but when they turn it over to headquarters to get
over to the US Attorney in Delaware. It just dies. It just dies.
So an outside non DC office interviews this confidential human source. When they
try to get it to the Delaware office, it suddenly gets ruled that it's
like actually not worth looking into. The source gets closed or you know,
that aspect of it gets closed, and and they claim that this was signed
off on by Bill Barr. Now exclusively at the Federalist on the front page
today, you can read the story by Margo Cleveland with quotes from on the
record individuals, including Bill Barr, saying that's a lie. That's not true,
that they never authorized the closure of this allegation. Far from it,
they actually sent it to the Delaware US Attorney's office. It's kind of big
news. Yeah, I mean, listen, we don't I at least I
am. I am always skeptical that's the news world turn out to be as
big as as maybe some people hope. But I do have a quick question
for you that I want to ask before that raises alarms for me about this.
In some sense, is that in twenty seventeen, listen, a vice
president being part of a bribery scheme with a foreign national is a huge,
huge fuel. Why is it a throwaway line. It was a Democrat vice
president, I realized, So it's just a throwaway line. It seems that,
you know, it's the kind of thing I don't know because I haven't
don't I don't have a I have a lot of knowledge of this based on
what other people have seen, but I'm not sure they'd like to see it
in context that twenty seventeen thing and then also the greater description in twenty twenty.
But think of it this way. You've got agents, maybe they're investigating
an international conspiracy to commit fraud that involves nobody related to the Democrat Party,
Joe Biden or anything like that, and you're interviewing your confidential human source about
this international conspiracy, and if it's the one I'm thinking of, by the
way, it did lead to convictions and it had nothing to do I don't
think with like any political US domestic stuff. And the guy kind of says
something about Joe Biden. You might write it down, you might want to
put it in there, and you might even think, like, I hope
someone sees this, but it's really not your it's really not your investigation.
You're dealing with some foreign country, which, by the way, I don't
think was Ukraine in that situation. And it's just a throwaway line, and
it's like, maybe someone should look into that if they're already looking into something
else, but it's not your problem necessarily when they go back and they get
much greater details. And by the way, I've heard that one of the
things that was said when they went back to this source sort of like you
know, and he's unprepared, like laying out the precise nature of the criminal
scheme. He made an allegation that there would be the plan back in the
day I don't know you from when President Obama was in office, was that
the Biden family would create a shell company or a shell foundation to accept the
funds from this Ukrainian energy concern. And when they go back in twenty twenty,
it turns out there had been such a shell foundation or shell company that
was created to receive these funds. So it's not just an allegation, it's
like an allegation that has some already, you know, without even the FBI
looking into it at all, already has some supporting. Well, there is
a ton of circumstantial evidence out there that Biden took I don't not bribe money,
but definitely took money from the family business. There are people on the
record, you know, I mean, there's a ton out there. So
it is plausible certainly that you know that he was involved in some kind of
business like this. But the idea that we wouldn't know where the media shows.
Not only do they show zero curiosity curiosity about it, they're out there
doing what they did to Devin Nunez, right, They're out there sort of
cut the legs out of from under people who are bringing this forward or what
they did with the Hunter bind laptop story. They're trying to sort of blow
smoke and gaslight people into thinking that this is, you know, just some
conspiracy theory from Morning Joe, but also regular you know, every day so
cold reporters. There were two things that I was thinking of just now,
and both of them went away. I do that to you all the time.
I just let you finish up. Sorry, but okay, I know
one of them was that the Washington Post. So the Washington Posts. Devlin
Barrett was one of three authors on a piece saying don't worry, there's nothing
to be concerned about with this document alleging a five million dollar criminal bribery scheme
involving the current president. You cannot worry your pretty little heads about it.
The FBI spent not one, not two, not three, but like four
weeks looking into it, and they won't substantiate that in any way. But
we trust them because they're very trustworthy organization. And it turns out there was
no them there, So we can move along now. And yes, this
is a prime example of a Russia colusion hoax style leak to allies at the
Washington Post. Deviln Barrett, by the way, one a Pulitzer for being
willing to cooperate with the information op perpetrated against the American people and not doing
actual journalism to expose it in the Russia collusion hoax. So you take that
kernel of truth, which is that you know, there are these two agents
that whistleblowers have identified, or an agent and an analyst that whistleblowers have identified
as being politically corrupted and behaving inappropriately, and the claims made by these whistleblowers
is that one of them, Tim Tebow, had openly expressed his animals toward
Donald Trump and Attorney General bar and was not just peddling like Russia colusion hoax
stuff, but also working to suppress Biden investigations. The other one, Brian
Oughton, was an intelligence analyst, definite Russia collusion hoaxer, and also worked
to suppress He was the one who closed this confidential human source. He was
not the person like who actually should have been doing that. The investigation was
taking place at a different you know, at the Western District of Pennsylvania.
So the claim is from the whistleblowers. Yeah, FBI HQ inappropriately closed this
and then hid their reasons why behind a wall. So the Washington Post woids
a whole piece saying basically Washington HQ. I mean, they're not admitting that
it's HQ. There's all this like slight of hand and Pattempken journalism as you
say, where they sort of say this guy at the Western District of Pennsylvania
was looking into it, and Attorney General Bill Barr was the current attorney general,
so they're kind of the ones responsible. They don't mention that it was
HQ that was squashing this inappropriately, which is the allegation all along from the
whistleblowers. But they do all this like slight of hand to make it not
seem actually is I don't know. A friend of the show for Bump says
that the Brimbary allegations are I don't a very shaky limb. He has a
whole piece on it. So have I talked to you about how Philip Bump
doesn't know how babies are made? Yes? I love that you mentioned that.
Every time. He literally doesn't understand how babies are made, and it
cracks me up beyond belief. He wrote a whole piece about how when Marco
Rubio said life began at conception that actually a lot of people think it happened
some other magical way. I love that, dude. It's like his Gaza
Bridge piece. For us, it's still not corrected, like years later,
you know, speaking if we can move forward, I think this is a
huge story. You know. I should mention actually that it is weird,
is it not? That when the January sixth Committee puts out subpoenas, people
are handcuffed and dragged in to speak about to talk to Congress. But when
a Republican Congress does it just ignored, like like Eric Holder ignored Congress,
you know, and contempt charge. What does that mean? It doesn't mean
anything. There's no bite to it. No one's going to arrest the FBI
director. I don't know. It's kind of weird because like, if the
facts as we know them are real, you basically should probably be starting impeachment
proceedings, not just for Biden, but also for Ray. And then you
know, maybe you put like Garland in there too. You have to listen
to Chuck Grassley's speech from the floor yesterday. He was on fire. He
was going after Ray. He was talking about how he was obstructing the investigation,
how you know he was not willing to admit that this existed. And
then he calls him out for leaking to other entities. He specifically knows the
New York Times, which ran an anti whistleblower hit piece on behalf of Tim
Tebow on May eighteenth. He like sites that May eighteenth story, and he's
like, instead of leaking classified information to the media every day like you do
all the time, Christopher Ray, how about you actually, like just comply
with the constitutional oversight that is required of you. It was awesome, but
has to keep something. He has to keep going. I will can I
change the topic sort of to Hunter Biden for a second, not as exciting.
I have to admit, but um the other days it's the other day.
The ATF, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Farms and Explosives sent
out a warning to the people of Minnesota, who had just passed a bill
legalizing marijuana, that though they have legalized marijuana, they people who smoke marijuana
can still are still federally thought of as unlawful users and cannot cannot get firearms,
meaning when they fill out their background forms, they if it asks you
do you do drugs, you cannot have one. So it is just mind
boggling to me, and I'll get to Hunter Biden in a second that pot
is a Schedule one narcotic. It is illegal to legalize it anywhere in the
country when you'd legalize drugs, and minnesodare actually ignoring federal law. The federal
government ignores federal law and lets people do it except for this one line within
federal law that says you can have a gun. It is complete lawlessness.
It is authoritarian to take parts of laws that you like, you know,
use it for political purposes, and ignore the rest. But there have been
many cases recently where courts have founded unconstitutional to deny someone a gun simply because
they use drugs. First of all, asking someone if they use drugs before
allowing them to participate in a right is undermines not only the right, but
the Fifth Amendment, which says you don't have any reason to incriminate yourself ahead
of time. But yet we have this law. And to get to Hunter
Biden, he is being investigated supposedly for lying on his background check form because
you know, it'd ask you if you do drugs. And in his touching
autobiography, Beautiful Things Hunter Biden admit is that he admitted that he was doing
smoking crack every fifteen minutes during the time that he got this gun. But
he has not been indicted yet on that, you know, and how are
you going to prove he was actually doing crack? You can't really do that.
But I hope and pray that this case moves forward that he is indicted,
because I think it will help completely undermine the what's it called the nineteen
sixty eight gun control law because that doesn't allow people who drink or do you
know, or smoke pot to get guns. I think they should be able
to so anyway, wouldn't be awesome if like one of the seminal gun rights
cases at this time was called like Biden versus atf Yes, Yes, yes.
Biden called the recent decision on guns like unconstitutional brands. So, you
know, I would like to mention Amy Coney Barrett, when she was a
federal judge, had a dissenting opinion that was really interesting on gun rights.
You have got to read it if you haven't yet, David. But it
involved someone who was ruled of felon because he had, like you know,
many years prior he'd be he'd been convicted of some kind of not scam,
but like he had been selling foot inserts and getting Medicaid reimbursements, so not
like the certainly not a violent crime, but not the worst crime in the
world. But he had been ruled a felon and he was challenging whether that
meant that he could no longer ever defend himself with a gun, and he
lost the case. But Amy Coney Barrett wrote a really good originalist dissent talking
about how what the founders would have thought about this situation, and basically it
was like, there's no way in h double hockey sticks he would have been
denied the right to keep in bear arms. Just yesterday I believe a case
from the Third Circuit Court of Appeals overturned the Pennsylvania government from barring a man
from having guns over a fraud conviction that was thirty years ago. He lied
to get food stamps. Now, can you imagine we have a government that
let's murderers walk. You know, I don't want to sound like I'm a
nut, but if you look in New York, there are people who have
been involved in violent crimes or back on the street very quickly, but yet
go after people who have committed non violent crimes thirty years ago to deny them
their Second Amendment rights. There is nothing and I've written a book about this
if anyone wants to debate me on it. There is no historical standard to
deny the people their rights simply because they have engaged in some kind of non
violent criminality during you know, the Biden administration has made the case and they've
come up with a seventeenth century law that stopped like violent drunks from having guns
and hurting their wives. But there is no historical precedent for that. And
hopefully all this leads to the Supreme Court that overturns sixty eight law let's move
on. I think gun rights cases I've been doing well. I got to
say, over the last ten years. You know what I mean. This
one of the constitutional amendments that has been winning other than the first in others.
But let us talk. I want to talk about journalism again and how
terrible it is and how we don't have it in this country. There was
a really interesting story I thought, and I'm sure you'll have a lot to
say on it. I think it was in the New York Times. Well
done. Do you see that? By the way, see what yes,
Oh my gosh, what happened? That's from when the raccoon attacked me without
touching me and I got totally beat up. I also have I don't know
if you can see it, but I have like rash on my forehead and
my nose is all bruised. All right, let's just put what I was
going to talk to to this. I want to raccoon, what raccoon?
Are you? What happened? This? Like vicious, awful raccoon, all
of them? When after my oldest kid and I went out to kind of
like assess the situation, and it just came for me and just kept coming
for me. Like I was trying to kind of like signal not to do
that, but it came after me, and I was running around my yard
flailing like arms flailing. I was screaming like a little girl. And then
I face planted into the curb and I am like head to toe beat up
with like cuts and bruises everywhere. I'm like walking with a limp. It's
embarrassing. The raccoon never till this happened during the day. Yeah, yesterday,
during the day, raccoon also went after also went after Mark, also
went after another kid. He's been named He's been named by one of the
kids Lucifer because of his really evil nature. Sorry, let's talk about Chris
licht had. I had a similar situation with a humming bird recently back.
Those things die of bomb me all the time. I put food out for
them. Okay, wait, what happened? I thought you were going to
touch you. Go out there and these little bastards they dia bomb you to
go right near your ear. They like to try to attack you. They're
really really, you know that, really bad personalities. A fan, Sean
Davis Arcio was saying that he had shot an armadillo that then proceeded to charge
him, and he said that, you know, he had a gun in
his hand and yet was still running around like terrified of this armadillo. It's
just weird. Like they're small, so you don't think you need to be
so afraid of these. But wild animals are jerks. Yeah, pretty much,
pretty much except for owls. They're magnificent. You know, also are
jerks. The people at CNN who ousted the only person who was doing anything
worthwhile at CNN, Chris Lecht, who was trying it, is like,
I'm sorry, it's so funny to me. He's brought in to deal with
a news organization quote unquote news organization that is destroyed it's once not bad reputation
through absolute insanity. And he's like, I have an idea, what if
we kind of tried to sort of pretend to be a news network and everybody
was like, we will murder you if you try to make us do any
news. And he's out now, well, there was a there's a feature
story in the Atlantic where he basically the whole piece is basically just him explaining
how terrible CNN. It's how terrible everyone who works at CNN is basically which
of which he is correct. And I think that then because of that piece
in the Atlantic feature story in the Atlantic, he had lost the trust of
the employees, Like why are you letting him no offense? But why are
you letting these employees who have failed you and over and over again run the
place? I mean, this is like ridicious. Just by way of example,
he decides to have a town hall with the leading Republican presidential contender and
former President of the United States, Donald Trump, the type of get that
if you were a legitimate news organization would be like the biggest get of the
year. And his staff rebels because they because they they're Democrat activists. They
were like really upset also because it went really well for Trump and it was
like it was like exactly what his campaign needed to sort of like reminder of
why he's good in that type of scene. And the staff rebelled against Chris
Lecht, and one of them was Christiane Amanpour, who's like, you can't
allow Republicans to speak on air. This is a woman who routinely interviews Iranian
leaders who are like killing their people. She has no problem with platforming those
people. But if you platform like the guy who helped peace peace agreements breakout
all over the world. Well, that's when you've gone too far. And
yet she won. She got rid of Chris Lecht. Chris Lockt is gone.
If that's how you say his name, I think so. Yeah.
I mean I love when I read. I don't want to pick on you
know, you read like well, Jake Tappers, really you know about this
or whatever? These people lose in the ratings game, and this is what
it's about for them, right. I'm not saying that just because you get
high ratings you're smarter or anything like that, but this is the game they're
in. Who gets beat by like Nature shows on National Geographic in the ratings
dictating where this network's supposed to go. Okay, even more than that,
Jake Tapper was with Evan Perez, Jim Shudo, and Carl Bernstein, a
co author of the original Russia collusion hoax story, a story that CNN obsessed
over for years and led to the destruction of the network because nobody trusts what
they said because they went so crazy. I mean, they did succeed in
their operation. I was just seeing, like last year, the vast,
vast majority of Democrats still believe the Russia collusion hoax, even though it's been
soundly and routinely debunked for years. But yeah, Jake Tapper is not who
I'd go to for news guidance, given that he's just a willing receptacle and
regurgitator of information operations. Yeah, and I just I don't mean just him
that there are obviously other names there who who are upset by by all this.
But I don't know, I don't care. I mean, there's a
bunch of schadenfreud in me about CNN failing, because I think they actually are
are really destructive for the country in many ways, not beyond a kind of
bias, but in an active as active conspiracy theorists in this world and anyway.
So, but so speaking of a bad journalism or dying journalism, and
journalism really exists, you know, in media in the way it should Immediatlet's
let's talk about this story. Well, I guess I don't know. I
guess I got to give him some credit, right the New York Times as
a story the other day, here's the headline, Nazi symbols on Ukrainian front
lines highlights the thorny issues of history. Because you know when certain people wear
Nazi emblems, it gets really complicated. It's very complex. You have to
understand, and honestly, I agree it is complex because you have people,
I think in europe An Americans sometimes don't understand take history farm or seriously,
and take their country's histories farm or seriously, going back to the Middle Ages
sometimes when they're talking and fighting in wars or debating issues. So many Ukrainians
hated the Soviet Union. They were pro Nazi, one of the most anti
submitted countries there was for many, many years. And some of their guys
walk around with Nazi emblems on their uniforms, and The New York Times spends
a few thousand words telling us why that's okay and it's okay not to report
it. They literally have reporters taking asking them to take off the Nazi emblem
before taking pictures of them. Is that journalistic molly? Is that ethically?
Is that an ethical thing for journalists to do so? There have been multiple
stories written recently about how Ukrainian authorities help create the propaganda that we've seen about
what's going on. And one of the things I find frustrating is someone who's
interested and upset by this war. Is like nobody has any idea what's going
on. You certainly don't learn what's going on by reading the newspaper or watching
the TV about the Ukraine War because it's so completely untrustworthy. But yeah,
there have been like a couple of different stories out about how so For instance,
I think it was CBS News did a piece about how these Russian occupied
regions the people in them view themselves as Russian. And it's very much counter
to the narrative that the West is saying that these are like the most vulnerable
victims, that it is incumbent upon the West to liberate these people from Russian
rule. And if they actually think as themselves as Russian, that you know,
it's just it's against that narrative. It's complicated, it's complex. As
the New York Day. By the way, I noted so that I was
reading that May at New York Times article that Grassley said revealed classified information.
It was a little tricky because I wasn't sure exactly what was the classified portion
that was in there. But one of the things is is talking It's like
the whole point of the piece by Adam Goldman noted Russia coclusion hoax or Adam
Goldman is to run defense for this Tim Tebow agent, and he's a difficult
person to run defense for. He's like out there on Facebook being like I'll
do anything to come after Donald Droll, you know. So he's like really
out there about his political views, and he is at the center of a
bunch of suspicious things like the shutting down of Biden family investigations. And then
Adam Goldman writes, the truth is more complicated than it would seem with these
facts that the Whistle clovers, and then like the New York Times with the
Nazi symbol and imagery, so like they can invent white supremacy in a like
Latino shooter who doesn't speak English. But when it comes to like Nazi regalia
all over the place in Ukraine, they're like, it's actually more complicated,
and it just cracks me up when things are complicated, and when they're not.
This is on every issue, it'll be like, hey, you know,
I think George Soros is kind of a jerk. You know that the
anti Semitism, it's right there so clear, dog Whistle, I want the
Jews to be dead, And they're like well, it's a kind of complicated
thing she's talking about here, but wearing a swastik. Oh, well,
you know, it's kind of thorny when you really delve deeply into it.
But what I love about these articles is they're always like in Vladimir Zelenski,
who is Jewish, says, you know, like listen, he's Jewish when
it works for him, and he's not Jewish when it doesn't work for him.
It's very complicated. I get it. But what bothers me about this?
And Oh, I wanted to quickly say, you hit on something that
really I've been thinking about a lot lately. I don't know what's going on
there in this Ukrainian Russian war that's being waged on the European mainland, which
is because we are in the we are in twenty twenty three. I know
about them. I know about every shooting in the United States that happens,
you know, right away, I get one hundred it's about it and everything.
But I don't know anything about a major war happening on the European continent.
It is, it's just part of the failures of journalism. Were reporting.
Yeah, this rhythm of reporting on the conflict. So something will happen
and you'll think that sounds like Ukraine did that, and then all the talking
heads come out and they go, no, actually it was Vladimir Putin who
bombed the Nordstream pipeline. And then a few months later the New York Times
will like massage a piece saying, so it turns out that as we As
was like reasonable to Shamas on day one, Well, it turns out the
Ukrainians were the ones who bombed the Nordstream pipeline. And so yesterday you had
this breach of a damn that floods the Russian controlled regions of Ukraine. And
you'd had multiple stories in the months leading up to this bombing of this dam
that Ukrainians wanted to bomb the dam for strategic reasons, that they had been
caught like planning the bombing of the dam. And then also like just from
a qui bono perspective, it's the type of thing that seems to benefit Ukrainians.
On the other hand, you had voldemere Zelenski saying like, can you
believe that Putin personally bombed this dam? And you had other people on the
Ukraine side saying like wow, these Russians are horrible. This is like basically
a nuclear strike on our country. And so the media of course ran with
the it was Russia narrative, and I am just like waiting for a few
days or weeks until we until we get the like New York Times reports saying,
well, it turns out in Intel officials in the US say it was
in fact Ukraine who bombed this damn. But like you have to kind of
read everything or watch everything as if you are reading Pravda in nineteen eighty two
Soviet Union. You can't actually just take what's said. You have to like
reinterpret it through this prism. Yeah, there's there's too much cheerleading going on
in news stores. Too much. It's almost always cheerleading. You know,
who's not allowed to have thorny complex views on stuff, me or you or
anyone else about this war because when I say something like people are like,
excuse me, being like a paleokon, which is ridiculous because there's only neocons.
Don't know you exactly. Now, this license plate says I hate paleocons,
just so you know. So I have thorny complicated thoughts on this because
if this were if Putin had invaded Poland or the Czech Republic, I would
be like, everyone who is pro Ukraine would probably have a Polish flag out
there. Do what I'm saying, Like, my view would be different.
But my view of Ukraine is very different than my view of Czech Republic or
Hungary or another country because it is complicated. But we're not allowed to even
talk about that. If I mentioned something negative about Ukraine, I'm immediately accused
of being a Putin stooge or whatever, which is ridiculous, right, So
I don't know. So it's only thorny and complicated when they have something that
is thorny and complicated to explain and also to me. You know, there's
all this talk recently about how women have taken over society, you know,
the long House kind of theories about like female forms of like dispute resolution are
dominant and that like male forms are suppressed. There is this weird thing about
the war between Ukraine and Russia where a it seems like Russia's doing a pretty
traditional like we will throw bodies at this problem kind of war, but then
the propaganda response from the West is very much like if we just say things
are going, well, we'll convince everybody. It reminds me of like female
dispute resolution, where you sort of build up like imagery to sort of protect
you know, you don't use actual weapons of war. You use like conversation,
um. And they think like we can, we can converse our way
out of this conflict. As you'll read, you'll read about how you know,
when it comes to actual battles, the traditional metric by which we judge
who's winning a war. Yeah, Russia is doing pretty well. But when
it comes to the propaganda, we are for rushing it um. And I
do agree we are, and I think propaganda is a big part of war
efforts. We are crushing hunger game style the propaganda portion of this. But
it doesn't Yeah, yeah, no, I just I agree. I mean
I'm reading this stuff and I'm like, a damn was just blown up?
So whutin did it? Or the Ukrainians that it is some sort of I
don't know, self sabotage for propaganda reason whatever reasons, or the Russians did
it. Could be the Russians did it. Yeah, we do not anyone
is anyone like this. This seems like a pretty big escalation right here.
Like this could really turn into something bigger. This could you know, we
have now people if self sabotage or not or whatever it is, we have
a you know, whatever's going on. And people are just like, this
is a war crime. Okay, let's say it's a war crime. Like,
don't we want to wind this thing down in some way? Don't we
want to help wind this thing down somewhere before it gets out of hand?
No, they do not. And all of a sudden, all these left
wingers I'm reading in the Washington Post, all these columnists, they're like,
they sound like the Democrats used to be like anti war, they used to
be like judicious about this stuff, right, and now they're just all in.
I'm not saying they're the only ones. Plenty of Republicans are as well,
but they're all in to expand this thing, to fund it forever,
I don't know. And you're not allowed to ask any questions. Yeah,
Like the pro like the humanitarian approach seems to be We're in this to the
very last Ukrainian and that's the loving thing to do. It's like, I
don't actually think that's how it works. I do think the whole situation is
horrible. I do wish Vladimir Putin had not invaded Ukraine. I think it
doesn't make you a Putin stage to think about like all the things that led
up to this, or why people think it's in their national interest to do
this or that, Like, it's just it's just about being realistic and also
about hoping to resolve it with the least amount of not just bloodshed for Ukrainians
but trauma for the world, and that seems to be the thing we're not
willing to I do want to say one thing about the Nazi insignia stories.
Do you think I think this is I don't think this is actually true,
But when I first encountered them, I was like, I wonder if this
is the New York Times trying to prepare people for a negotiated settlement. So
I don't I think you've given them too much credit. Probably, I think
it could be someone who is telling them about this, setting the groundwork,
and they just repeat whatever they're told. I don't know, I don't know.
And then one other thing on the Ukraine situation. I think I was
telling you about this, but not on the podcast, like all of DC
is talking openly and on the front pages of major publications about this planned counter
offensive counter offensive in Ukraine. They're like openly saying like, so when the
counter offensive starts, here's what's going to happen. Blah blah blah. And
I'm like, maybe my reading of the art of war was a little different
than yours, but it's not really something we normally announce and broadcast. And
I was even talking to this one neo Khon writer who's saying that he had
a piece that he was going to push out when the counter offensive started.
I'm like, why would you be read into when the counter offensive starts,
you know, like maybe, yeah, I mean, okay, listen,
I think technologically speaking countries know if there's going to be a counter offensive,
but they can see it it, you know, happening. It's not like
you can hide it like you did in the old days. So I guess
that. But I am very skeptical that there's some big counter offensive going because
Ukraine is a far far weaker than Russian in many, many ways, and
just this damn bombing being an example of the counter offensive. I don't know.
I don't know, that's the thing. I really don't know. I
read these pieces and they don't. Just my spidy senses are going off that
this is not really what's going on, that it's it's more foreign name or
complicated. Lots of people are dying. I don't know what the Ukrainian people
think about all this, by the way, And I think people have the
right to self to you know, to fight for their land and you know,
and Russia had no right to invade them and all that. But there's
also a reality in the there's a reality in the world right like that there
are big nuclear powers that can bully other countries around and you have to navigate
that world. And having a nuclear power finding a proxy war against the nuclear
power is a dangerous game to be involved in. I mean, I don't
want to mention names, but there's someone and I like him and agree with
him quite often, who you know, who had this idea, for instance,
of sending Americans elsewhere to sort of help police criminality right in those countries
and things like that, so that you know, to help us with our
own borders. I know this sends a little off base, but when you
send people elsewhere or weapons elsewhere, you are then tied and involved and have
responsibilities to that nation. In that country. This is how Vietnam started to
become a full blown war, etc. And I don't know how how we
can pretend ever to help negotiate a settlement, but we are on one of
the sides in this war. So I don't know who is going to help
negotiate that. You know who the Chinese. The Chinese are going to do
it. They are going to make this peace. And that is not good
for American prestige in any way or American power anyway. Where we get off
this media this media bashing thing and Ukraine thing? Did you see that The
Atlantic's most recent issue has is like so beyond parody I cannot even describe it.
They have a line drawing of our Lord and Savior Voldemir Zelenski drawn by
Bono of YouTube on the cover, and then it advertises that they have pieces
by Anne Apple, Bob Noted disinformation pusher and Russia clusion hoaxer and the one
whose husband, by the way, on the day the nord Stream pipeline was
bombed, he was like not on message and he was like, thank you
USA for bombing the nord Stream pipeline. And then it was like, oh
no, we're supposed to say it's Russia, okay, okay, thank you,
not Russia okay. And then the other person is Jeffrey Goldberg, who
was the most prominent pusher of the Iraq war, and the piece he wrote
is titled War and its Consequences. This is a guy who like published that
false story about Donald Trump secretly hating American war Dead that was just like completely
debunked, was used by Joe Biden and media outlets in the twenty twenty Molly.
I don't know if you know this, but a source told me that
Jeffrey Goldberg said that the Ukrainians are suckers and louisers. I can confirm,
yes, I can confirm right now, I've four people, four anonymous sources
confirmed that he said that that line drawing making a joke about we're making a
joke about how he reported the einmarn story, which was based on anonymous sources.
Anyway, why doesn't he Why why can't those sources come forward today?
We're way past that. We're way past it. Anyway, Um that line
draw I think when you make stuff up, you don't want to be held
accountable. I mean, I'm not even sure if these sources existed, it's
I don't. I refuse to just be told. I have to accept that
sources exist because journalists who participate in information ops say they exist. That Shay
that I'm sorry that Zelenski drawing looked like Chay, like the Chay murals that
people used to have. You sure, it's very similar kind of iconic icon
icon iconography. Last last topic, I think on politics. I just want
to mention that did you read about this giant merger between the PGA Tour and
the Saudi lead. I think it's called LV golfs it's really I think I
was on TV. I was on TV today and they said live, but
I don't know if that was maybe the host of the Stuart Barney Hour Ashley
was wrong when he said, no, no, you may not know this,
but I haven't. Don't watch golf. I don't know anything about golf.
I couldn't name you any sort of modern modern golfer really, So anyway,
apparently these two leagues work in competition, and the Saudi's pumped like billions
into this league, and the PGA was constantly like, do you want these
you know, theocrats to be you know these terrible theocrats. Anyway, I
don't really care about that issue at all. What I do care about and
find interesting is that the anger over Saudi Arabia, the widespread anger about this
on the left, makes me laugh because the NBA is basically owned by China.
Now that they have no problem with making big deals with Iranians and pumping
up Iranians, they have no problem with like, but the Saudis they do.
And I am no fan of the Saudis, But the only reason that
they hate the Saudis is why they're so anti Putin now too, Donald Trump
has a good relationship with these people, and that means that these people are
evil. Before they didn't care I can go, you know, I mean,
Saudi Arabia has been Yeah, let me put it this way. Saudi
Arabia at least helps us occasionally. They've been in a US ally basically for
a very long time. On like Iran, I'm like China, et cetera.
So I just find it's so hilarious how mad they are about Saudi Arabia
that they can't generate that kind of anger towards red China, which for a
century has has has engaged in mass murder slavery, concentration camps and just repression.
Thank you. Yeah, no, I it's just it would be nice
to see some level of consistency here. But also there can be awareness that
corporations need to be involved in going to war in cold war against a given
country. We saw during the Soviet Union that there was only limited engagement with
Soviet commerce. You know, there were some there were some farmers and stuff
that, you know, like it was a very highly regulated situation, but
by and large companies weren't like, what can we do to lift up the
Soviet Union as they commit all these atrocities. But you don't see anybody saying
anything like that with China, even though the situation there's like far worse.
But then you do hear them saying it about Saudi Arabia when it's like basically
much more personal for them, you know, dealing with Jamal Kashogi, who
they who they portrayed as a journalist exclusively a journalist. I don't know,
it's just it's just well they knew, but just I think, at least
my view of it is that the Soviet Union knew very well that if they
open trade with the United States, it would be the end of the Soviet
Union sooner or later. Hasn't really worked out the same way with China,
but I would say that idiot is I still hold out hope that that the
people there will will realize that they don't benefit from being an aggressor in the
way they are, and that something will happen there. We'll see. Yeah,
I'm sorry, boys, it no, I just gonna say, she
can show you. I forgot to mention because I forgot to me shook a
show of you. Sorry, I'm hogging the mic here go. Do you
know? There's also that like how they say there's like a Donald Trump tweet
for everything. And there was this truth I guess you call it from last
year where he was like saying that when there was this dispute between the PGA
and Live, the PGA told their golfers like, you cannot go with Live,
even though they're offering you these huge payouts. You have to be loyal
to us. And so all these golfers were quite loyal to the PGA,
and then the PGA ends up like negotiating to merge with Live, and the
golfers who stayed loyal to PGA get like nothing. So they hadn't, and
Donald Trump had said, like a year ago, you know, these two
groups are going to merge. Get your money while you can, and it
turned out he was he was right. Okay, Yeah, I mean yeah,
he knows, you know, in certain areas of you know, he
knows what he's talking about, right, like golf exactly. Well, I
think that Trump Trump's property has had a relationship with Live maybe, but I
forget exactly how that worked out. But yeah, I'm happy you mentioned.
This is random, This is random, but mentioning Trump. So last time
I met with Trump, I'm a friend who's in the music industry who told
me this like crazy story about Elvis. And I was on the Trump Force
one or whatever you call it, the newly refurbished Trump Force one after the
last twenty twenty two primary rally or I'm sorry election primary, I'm an election
rally, which was in Ohio, and so I just heard this story and
he was playing Elvis on his big sound system, and so I told him
this Elvis story and it was pretty wild. I can't tell it here,
and he loved it and we ended up having like this great conversation. I
heard another Elvis story that's pretty wild, and I was like, it was
just funny. I was like, I wish I could tell Donald Trump this
story. Not all of us have relationships with ex president. It's weird.
Yeah, what a weird life. Like the person I want to tell this
story too is Donald Trump. I think he would really appreciate it, like
nobody else in my life would like this story as much as he could.
And I wrote a column. I wrote a column once and it was a
letter to my fifteen year old self, and it's one of the favorite things
I've ever written. And I just the very idea that Donald Trump was a
president everything. Sometimes I had to take a step back and think about it.
And then I go through, like all the things in my life that
have been weird, like, oh, oh Bill Bill Cosby from the Bill
Cosby Show. He's a rapist, you know, he's a jail oja.
Sorry, it's horrible, it's horrible. Yes, Oh yeah, O G.
Simpson's going to murder someone, you know, like his wife. Yeah,
allegedly. So I went through all the things that my fifteen year old
self wouldn't believe. It would just sound like a complete fantasy to them.
And that keeps growing. Oh yeah, Bruce Jenner is now called you know
what's her name again? It's his name again, Caitlyn Jenner. I don't
think it would compute. Anyway, Let's talk. Let's get out of this,
let's get out of the political stuff. Let's talk about culture. To
do anything, watch anything, see anything this week? Okay, So my
family is going on a Hillsdale cruise here pretty soon, and I'm trying to
build up like all the TV hits I can so that nobody will miss me
when I'm gone, you know, for a month or whatever. And so
I was up in New York and I was just doing like Around the Clock
TV, which was very interesting and fun. And you have to occasionally do
hosting, which involves reading the teleprompter. Everyone who works at Fox loves reading
the teleprompter. They love being a host. And I'm sitting there like sweating,
nervous. It is not an enjoyable experience for me. So anyway,
after one particious quickly say something yes, I struggle, like I don't know
how to do that kind of thing that obviously you're on TV and all of
that. I don't really do that. But even this show, like just
trying to lead it is like really hard for me because I'm usually I'm usually
I just want people to know. I usually call into a RADI show and
they ask me questions and I'm good at like answering questioning. Yeah, but
it's very difficult to sort of lead. And I have much more respect for
people on TV who do this leading a show or you know, or or
coming up with the right questions all the time. And I think it's a
real skill. Anyway, it is a real skill. And I was on
with these other people and I was just like fascinated watching them, including Guy
Benson and Tom Shalou and in need of Vogel, and like, yeah,
they get a topic and then they like lead a discussion and they ask you
questions that are relevant. In my case, I kind of know what I
want to say, and I'm kind of curious sometimes to ask people questions,
but not always. And I'm very quiet unless I have something I want to
ask or say. And you can't be quiet, Like there's no sport for
being like a meek listener on TV. You know, you know dead Air
as everyone loves dead Air on radio and TV. Oh yeah, I once
said to a wonderful host. He asked me a question and I said,
I don't know because I didn't know. And after the show he was like,
you will never do that again. I don't care that you don't know,
but tell me something you do know. Okay, we're like on live
television. Let's get it together anyway. Um. But so like I was,
I was doing this hosting with Guy Benson. He went to the Billy
Joel Madison Square Garden show one night, and other people went to like Ed
Sheeran and I went to a David Lynch film festival at the IFC Theater down
in Greenwich Village. I do want to say I feel very safe in New
York. I understand it's got a crime problem, but like where I am
in the city usually is pretty safe. But I do I got out of
the subway in Greenwich Ville and I just like pop up out of the subway
and there is a man with blood streaming down his face, like running up
to people and saying like boo and trying to scare them. And I was
like, did I make a bad decision by coming to Greenwich Village? Possibly?
Um, but it is definitely getting worse in my opinion every time I
go up there. I grew up there. I mean I staw in the
seventies and eighties. Every time I go back, I think it's worse,
more homeless or sort of weird stuff going on. And anyway, but I
saw Wild at Heart. Do you remember that? Oh? I love that
movie with Nicholas Cage. What does the Elvis thing and with the speed metal
and the speed metal bar is? Yeah? I love that scene. Well,
Laura Dern, I believe it's in it. William. You know it
is not a family friendly film people, But sorry, did you get the
reader who said I finally watched Triangle of Sadness and he was like oofed because
it's not It's not an enjoyable film. Even though I only wanted you to
see it, David, I didn't want anyone else to be subjected to it.
I just wanted to hear what you thought recommendations. Wild at Heart was
weird in nineteen ninety It ages weirdly too. It's not one of David Lynch's
best films. It's very inappropriate in many ways, and I kind of loved
it. I like it better than some of his other films. I don't
know. I'm a fan of it, and I'm a fan of Dune,
David Lynch's Dune. So yeah, okay, well that's that's that's fun.
That's it. By the way, I just want to quickly say, this
is a good time to say if you have questions, because we're going to
need more questions for our special episode of you answering a bunch of readermail at
radio at the Federalist dot com or radio at the Federalist dot com, and
do it like today because we might have to do it in two days.
If I might, if I might break down the wall there. But yeah,
sooner rather than later, we can break down the wall. I don't
know a wall six David, did you also get the email? So you
have like a lot of people email about the Bible chats and they're always like,
oh, you gotta read this, you gotta do that. Always,
But there was that one guy who was like, so help me, God,
if you talk about the Bible one more time, I'm out of here.
So on that note, I did finish for Samuel, and I've started
Second Samuel. And these are very exciting books too. Like I'm asked being
asked to do all these book lists for the summer, and I was like,
can I put the Bible because it is super interesting, like riveting the
story of David. I just like can't get enough out of fast edition of
the Bible. It will say, super interesting, Molly having away. Molly
had some edits for Deuteronomy's first half, but other than that, excellent.
You know what. I'm scared to say. I'm reluctant to say anything about
the Bible because I get I say, oh, you know, David did
this and Samuel whatever it is, and I get like ten emails telling me,
like with the thousand words, telling me I'm all wrong, but tell
I feel like I learned. I love these this email engagement where you like
learn about stuff like that I'm okay but being told I'm wrong David. And
it's good because it happens enough. Listen, I've never I'm no expert,
you know, no expert. I watched a show. I watched the whole
show. It's called Missus Davis. Have you ever heard of this? No,
listen, I can't really do it justice. Just it is the wild
one, a completely wild show. I don't even know how to explain it.
But here there are the basics. There's a nun and she is out
there like a superhero fighting AI which has taken over the world. So it's
a nun Catholic nun fighting as John Davidson heard about this, Like, did
John Davidson write this, perhaps, but go on, but it involves Jesus
is a character, It involves a virgin Mary makes an appearance, it involves
all kinds of crazy ideas. One of the writers is the one of the
writers of Lost, So it has a little bit of like we're making this
up as we go along feel to it. It in some ways felt like
Quentin Tarantino could direct something like this. The way it's shot, it is
not appropriate for kids, but it is not like it is not out there.
It is not. Yeah, it's inappropriate for children, but it is
not like, you know, you can watch it if you were like late
in your late teens or something. I think I'm not, you know,
just make it up your own minds on that. But anyway, I don't
know. I guess I recommend it. I literally, I don't know if
I liked it or not. It is wild. The actress who plays the
nun, I'm a big fan. She was in the movie The Hunt,
which I think was a great movie where the people hunt the conservatives, like
on the Island, it's got a lot of people you would recognize. I
don't know what's it called again, Missus Davids, Like I'm I was talking
to my wife, I like, we don't even I don't know if we
like it. I don't know if we liked it. There, you know,
is like the triangle of sadness where I'm just disturbed and I want the
house to share in my experience of being disturbed. Not you know, some
of it's a little disturbing, but let me ask you that. You know,
you know, sometimes you watch something you're like, that's really fun to
watch, like an expressionist painting, right, Like that's cool to look at,
but there's nothing really under it. There's nothing really there, Like I
doubt I'm even going to remember the plot, yes, like a month from
now. But it was fun to watch. It's a it's colorful, it's
exciting. I think there's eight episode something like that. Anyway, I'm just
throwing it out there. Great, okay, uh yeah, and that's all
I've watched. I've really gotten into though some of cliche. Maybe I've really
got into reading orwell, lately I listened to a podcast about his life.
And it just hit me that I think every writer should read Orwell the way
he writes, the just the just how smart he is and how direct he
is it. But I found this amazing quote. If I want to share,
I want to share with you. Yeah, you might have seen it
because I did share it online. But this is a quote from Orwell in
nineteen thirty six, I believe, when he went up to up northern England
to look at people. Any storm about socialists, one sometimes gets the impression
that the mere word socialism draws towards it the magnet with a magnetic force.
Every free drinker, nudist, sandal ware, sex mania, quaker, nature
cure quack, pacifist and feminist in England. And it hit me that this
is literally the truth today and nothing has changed. And reading Orwell it's like
reading something about the contemporary world, not something in nineteen thirty six or nineteen
forty seven, and stuff like that. Anyway, I just wanted to think,
except that like nineteen eighty four went from dystopia to just documentary. I
find it interesting that nineteen eighty four is always it was read when I was
young everywhere, because it was like the anti fascist book rather than Animal Farm,
which was the anti communist book. And I think animal Farm is a
better book. But nineteen eighty four when I reread it recently, didn't strike
me as an anti fascist book. Struck me as almost an anti like a
cough guist world where it was anti bureau see, an anti um, you
know, any kind of huge status government that cares about what you say and
does and change us history. And communists were much more effective at changing history.
Fascists quite often relied on the traditional history for their power, you know,
well, you know, for nationalism and things like that, whereas the
communists at the opposite. So I don't know, I'm not I'm not going
to pretend to be well expert either, and I just went in a weird
direction, I realized. But I think nineteen eighty four is worth rereading from
that light, as you know, and that from that prism as well,
that it's not exactly about fascism but just basically statism. How do you feel
about that? I've been thinking I want to read more orwell, and everything
that I sort of think about language and how it's used to control people was
probably you know, taught to me by orwell, And I just like to
revisit all of that. I mean, for so many years people would you
just orwellian where it wasn't appropriate, and now I feel it is appropriate that
I'm like and am I just getting old? Like every old person thinks the
world is falling apart? You know what I mean? And am I just
old now and cranky about everything? That's just to bring it around to the
most important thing, which is the raccoon attack. That's how I feel after
face planting into the curb and injuring myself, I feel like such an old
lady, like this must be what happens. Like I used to be able
to bounce back a little bit better than this. I just wanted a very
short story. My wife hurt herself, she heard her face she fell in
a similar way, and we went to the emergency room with her, and
everyone looked at me like, why are you beating your wife? And then
you have the gall to bring her here, take her into a separate room
and ask her questions. Do you feel safe? You're honey? Yeah,
anyway, that's great, So please email us if you can, and until
then, be lovers of freedom and anxious for the frame it's well hid.