Speaker 1: Welcome back, everyone to a new episode of You're Wrong
with Molly Hemingway and David Harsani. Just a reminder, if
you would like to email the show, please do so
at radio at the Federalist dot com.
Speaker 2: We'd love to hear from you. Molly. How's it going.
Speaker 3: It's going great, beautiful day here in Virginia.
Speaker 2: Yes.
Speaker 1: I think we should start by talking about the Democratic
Party's presidential candidate, who have really not heard from in
any genuine way, not about policy, not about anything. She
continues to not given interviews. I think her first interview
as a presidential candidate will be given tomorrow on CNN,
a joint interview with her vice presidential candidate, Tim Walls,
which is weird, right.
Speaker 3: That's weird. It's weird that it's pre taped. It's weird
that it's a special thing that a person running for
president isn't doing ten of these a day with real media,
but instead is doing one interview quarterly at best, with
friendly media who have competed and promised basically not to
answer any or ask any tough questions.
Speaker 2: It's unprecedented.
Speaker 1: This is worse, right than what Biden did in twenty
twenty at least he I mean, he'd be in his
at his home, but at least occasionally he did an interview, right,
and it wasn't always pretaped. I think I remember seeing
him on some of the networks just speaking contemporaneously.
Speaker 3: He had some trouble, troubles as he did his interviews
from the basement. But yeah, it's actually much much worse
than what we saw with Joe Biden. And what we
saw with Joe Biden was very bad. You know, the
media ran his campaign, and they did it with at
least a pretense of presenting ideas to the American people.
This time, the media are running Kamala Harris's campaign, and
they understand that the more people see of her, the
less they like of her, and so they are all
working to protect her from being out in the public square,
from having to answer questions. They are handling her messaging.
I don't know if you saw. Tom Cotton was on
one of these propaganda press Sunday shows and the interviewer
just kept saying that she had changed her positions, and
he just called the bluff on it on the guy
who's like, she has not She has not even spoken
about it.
Speaker 2: John Carl was the interviewer.
Speaker 1: So I went back to see how his reporting was
on Mitt Romney, who had changed his which flip flopped
on abortion.
Speaker 2: Of course it was quite critical and you know, this.
Speaker 1: Deep dive into how you know, his evolution on abortion
or you know whatever. But yeah, I mean she has
never explained. We talked about this, I think last week
or two weeks ago. She has never explained. First of all,
she's changed, supposedly changed her position on literally every major
issue other than abortion that exists in American politics. She
took those positions running for president four years ago. These
aren't positions from you know, when she was a young person,
or you know, when she ran for senator. And she's
never explained. And I think people, and especially political candidates,
but all of us, should explain why we.
Speaker 2: Change our position.
Speaker 1: So John Carl just takes a press release at its word.
How this is Kamala Harris is now a fictitious person.
The one that we see presented to us is not real.
She has no positions.
Speaker 3: It's not even a press release. Usually it's some low
level like Hill the Hill. You know, that's a media outletter.
Axio staffer claims that they spoke with Kamala Harris campaign
official who is not named, and that that person who's
not named claims that Kamala Harris has changed her position.
Kamala Harris has not changed her position on a single thing.
She is one of the more consistent people out there.
The way she was as Attorney General of California very
anti free speech, anti First Amendment. The way she was
a senator very similar, The way she's been vice president
very similar. The things she said when she was running
for president all very similar to what she's always been.
The idea that she has suddenly become a right wing
Republican conservative is insane. And I mean, if it's true,
If it's true, she should probably do about one thousand
interviews a month to explain this dramatic change in position.
And otherwise people should treat it like the joke that
it is.
Speaker 2: Well. And let's say she has changed her positions, which
I don't believe. What do we make of a candidate, the.
Speaker 1: Honesty or the prudence or whatever of a canon who
takes radical positions on free speech, on eliminating health private
health care insurance, on eliminating air travel and combustible engines,
who now changes her mind over four years time. It's
not a person that could be trusted at all on anything.
Speaker 3: Okay, but again, she hasn't changed her mind. No, she
has not changed her mind. Nobody should say she's changed
her mind because she hasn't changed her mind. Like, that's
just I don't see any reason to participate in that
syop that is being run against the American people.
Speaker 1: They just the other maybe two weeks ago, she backed
price controls on food, which is the one thing basically
every economist knows is a bad idea, and she walked
that back. So she's not even holding positions she had
two weeks ago and she didn't walk it back. Some
stafford did, I think, but.
Speaker 3: You know, someone who supports the Green New Deal is
the type of person who supports price controls.
Speaker 2: How do you push back?
Speaker 1: So what are Republican supposed to do when the entire
media simply accepts that she can be this fictitious person
this interview. I suspect it's going to be terrible, you know,
contrived kind of answers and all that.
Speaker 2: So I would okay, I have what can you do?
Speaker 3: Yeah, two different thoughts. One is about the importance of
just reporting real news and You can do that as
a media outlet. You can also do it as a campaign.
So the media outlets that are not completely compromised should
just be really aggressive in talking about her ideas, her
current position, how she is the incumbent in a failed presidency,
incumbent vice president in a failed presidency. They just like,
report the facts and do it because we're in an
environment where nobody else is doing it. The campaign can
just also show video of her articulating her positions on
all of these things and make sure people understand. I mean,
particularly if she doesn't come out and say these brand
new positions like she's supposedly suddenly for a border wall
or something like that. If she doesn't say that, if
she doesn't say I was wrong. I was wrong to
be so hateful toward Republicans when they were concerned about
our border. I was wrong to lie about the situation
on the border. And that's why I now understand that
Donald Trump was right, and so were his supporters. And
so I am coming to you humbly asking for forgiveness
and to give me a shot to implement his ideas.
That's the standard that she has to meet, and if
she's not meeting that standard. You just play all of
the things she said over and over and over again.
Like you said, they're not from twenty or fifty years ago,
they're from a few years ago. Sometimes they're from last month.
So just play it and get the message out there.
This is I have a second thing, though, yeah, which.
Speaker 1: Is, yeah, she wanted to she wanted to decriminalize illegal
board crossings. I just want to remind people she's on
the record. She said it. It wasn't in some fact
sheet or anything. She said it, I believe during a
debate or an interview, and I think it was actually
on one of the major networks.
Speaker 3: Sorry, it was the twenty twenty debate, and she also
followed up with it and reiterated it. And I wouldn't
say she wanted to. She wants to. And here's a
perfect example. If she had changed her mind truly in
any way on this topic. She has power right now,
as the country's borders are, to implement that change in
policy right now. And so it's a simple way to
test whether she whether these anonymous sources with anonymous titles
have this insight into some secret position she has, or
whether it's real. Well, no, because she would today shut
down the border. And again, she wouldn't just shut down
the border. She would say, I am so very sorry
for destroying the country by allowing in twelve million illegal immigrants,
doing nothing other than condemning people who thought that was
a problem. I mean, she she has to explain it,
and that explanation has to include a genuine apology and
contrition and repentance for like what she's done.
Speaker 1: It's interesting you touched on it before that she's almost
running as if Donald Trump was the incumbent president and
the Biden administration not only never happened, but that she
was never part of it in any way. And then
there's this revisionist history, like with the borders are stuff.
You remember the fact checks on people who claim she
was a border czar.
Speaker 2: Well, I saw.
Speaker 1: Also, we just had the anniversary of the murder of
thirteen US soldiers in the botched Afghanistan pull out, and
there are articles at the time saying that she had
such a big say in that policy and she had,
you know, she had the presidency ear and all that,
and now she pretends she had nothing to do with it.
I mean, I just don't understand how anyone can let
her get away with that. We're talking about thirteen lives there,
so it's important not to let them do that. But
it's so weird there. She not only pretends she wasn't
vice president I had no control, but that she they
pretend like the bi like the entire convention. I felt like,
do they know that Joe Biden's president? They have been
running the country since twenty twenty one.
Speaker 3: So this is where the media are very powerful. They
can turn up the volume on things when they want
people to get hysterical, and then they turn down the
volume when they want things to be hidden. Obviously, and
so I think much much more needs to be done
by people who understand the problems posed by our corporate media.
And so what I want to say is we all
get happy when JD. Vance or Tom Cotton or anyone
with you know, Ron Johnson or anyone with like a
backbone goes on corporate media and says, oh, here's why
the here's where your question is wrong. You're actually asking
the one wrong question. Here's where this assumption that is
built into your question is wrong. And that's great. They
do a good job. I mean, I really think JD.
Vance does a great job. In part because he's so
informed and educated on the topics. But there is this
legitimacy that is given to these left wing media outlets ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN,
Washington Post, New York Times when you engage with them
in any way. And so I think that we had
this submission that might might be published later, but it
was about how Republicans should be very public about why
they no longer view the media as legitimate, the propaganda
press as legitimate, kind of maybe list out their reasons why.
And there are so so many. I mean, these people
are running information ops on behalf of the CIA against
the American people. They do not need to be taken
legitimately or seriously. So you say that, and then if
you go on, you actually use that time on air
to condemn the propaganda press and do it vociferously and
to explain in detail either you know why there's a
there's a Republican wide boycott of the press, or to
just do nothing but punch them in the face metaphorically.
And I think we're at a crisis point with our
propaganda press. They are destroying the country, and you've got
a bunch of Republicans who are like, oh, oh, CNN
asked me to be on. Well, this is exciting, and
it's embarrassing. Like they have no fortitude, they have no courage,
they have no like self respect. It's embarrassing.
Speaker 2: I think it's good to go on and do exactly
what you said.
Speaker 1: I mean, you have to just treat them almost as
if they were in an opposite as if this was
some sort of opposition debate rather than an interview with you,
and call them out. For instance, I think when Tom
Cotton did what he did, there were probably a lot
of people watching this the first they heard of it,
you know.
Speaker 3: Yeah, But it's also true that when you treat them
as legitimate, they get to ride this wave of legitimacy
for a really long time, like overarching. When you look
at the work product of CNN and you have, I
don't know, six years of Russia collusion hoax versus Tom
Cotton fought back. I don't even know where he was.
It wasn't even CNN, But you know what I mean, Like,
one good response from one of the three good Republicans
on the issue is not sufficient to counter what they're
doing to the country.
Speaker 1: Every Republican needs to do it until they stop inviting
Republicans on because it's going to make them look bad.
I mean, that's the only way to really do it.
I think it's worthwhile because if you get if you
get on there and you let people know what's really
going on, there are probably a lot of independent people,
independent voters who think CNN's kind of in the middle
or something. Even though they even on Colbert Show they
laughed at that contention, but they might believe that. I
see it on an airports and elsewhere. I just it's
the best way I think counter it, or the only
way not to let them set narrative.
Speaker 2: Every single day.
Speaker 4: Warmer, sunnier days are calling fuel up for them. With factors,
no prep, no mess, meals meet your wellness goals in
time for summer thanks to the menu of chef crafted
meals with options like calorie smart, protein Plus and Keto factors.
Fresh never frozen meals are dietitian approved and ready to
eat in just two minutes, so no matter how busy
you are, you'll always have time to enjoy nutritious, great
tasting meals. Make today to day you caick start a
new healthy routine. What are you waiting for? With thirty
five different meals and more than sixty add ons to
choose from. Every week, you'll always have new flavors to explore.
You can crush your wellness goals this month with dietitian
approved meals and ingredients that you can trust. Make your
day delicious from breakfast to dessert. Stay fueled with easy
nutritious options. Treat yourself to restaurant quality meals that feature
premium ingredients like filet shrimp and black and salmon. Keep
kitchen time to a minimum. Factor meals are ready in
just two minutes. No shopping, no prepping, no cooking or
cleaning up. Enjoy effortless support for your lifestyle by choosing
from six menu preferences to help you manage calories, maximize
protein intake, or simply eat well balanced. Head to Factor
Meals dot com slash Federalist fifty and use code Federalist
fifty to get fifty percent off your first box plus
twenty percent off your next month. That's code Federalists fifty.
At Factor Meals dot com slash Federalists fifty to get
fifty percent off your first box plus twenty percent off
your next month while your subscription is active.
Speaker 3: There's this one thing about the way the media are
treating this race that I think is interesting too, which
is they don't feel an ethical problem with how they
are running Kamala Harris's campaign, or how they're lying about
her cur job, or how they are lying about her
what her positions are, because they view government as the
administrative state and a regime that controls things, and that
the president is a mere figurehead, right, so it doesn't
really matter if Kamala Harris is the figurehead or someone
else's the figurehead. They understand that permanent DC is built
to make things continue in the way they've been going
for the people with power, and they like that because
they are people with power in part because Republicans give
them power. And the people who are Trump voters are
people who hold to the quaint notion that we are
a constitutional republic and that the person who's elected president
runs the executive branch and that he or she should
get to dictate what not a matter, gets to set policy,
and that we're a constitutional republic. And so what you're
seeing in the media roach is a perfect reflection of
those two systems that we're currently living under side by side.
There's the regimes system, which is not constitutional. This administrative
state and the media are a really key part of
the of that administrative state, particularly as it relates to
running syops against the American people on behalf of some
of the like you know, intel parts of that administrative state.
And then you've got the rest of the country that
again is more tied to the history of the republic,
that believes in free and fair elections and that you
elect people so that they will implement the policies that
you like.
Speaker 2: I think that's right in part.
Speaker 1: I also think many of them have convinced themselves that
allowing Donald Trump to be president is a attack on democracy,
so they are willing to do anything to stop that,
including being completely corrupt. I think for many others who
just care, you know, we're just thinking about themselves.
Speaker 2: There's a question of access.
Speaker 1: If you do not do if you do not participate
in this sort of thing, you're not going to have access.
Speaker 2: It's very clear.
Speaker 1: And they want that to the admin administrative state and
other things. And but the gall I mean, I haven't
been paying a ton of attention this week. I've been off,
but I saw a story where they warned that Donald
Trump's going to use the judicial the Justice Department to
take revenge on his political opponents. I mean, the gall
to write a story like that without even mentioning that
Donald Trump has gone through I don't know how many
trials now and how many prosecutions, very risible ones, rickety
cases just to punish him for running for president. It's insane,
it's it's it's it's the gall of these people.
Speaker 2: And I don't you know, I don't know.
Speaker 3: So do you remember the first impeachment was done because
this guy, I think his name is Alexander Vinman, his
brother's running for Congress, and their twin brothers and like
one of them just basically to destroy free speech in
the United States. And that's a tangent. But Vinman listens
in on a phone call where Trump is talking to
Zelenski and is saying, I think you should look into
this corruption of the Biden family. And that led to
an impeachment, and we had in recent weeks, State Department
released information about how Hunter Biden had coruptly been lobbying
government officials when his dad was vice president. You know,
it's all my point, b it was all true. You know,
the Biden family was profiting off of Biden's proximity to
power through foreign oligarchs in ways that affected US policy.
And yes, now we have a situation where just yesterday
Jack Smith, the completely out of control prosecutor who's been
beclowned at the Supreme Court for being this hubristic guy
who just it shows no prudence in going after Donald
Trump on behalf of his boss Joe Biden. The Supreme
Court slapped him down and he refiles, re indicts the president,
the former president, just days before the election starts. And
that's actuallyante I don't want to go off on a
tangent here, but Donald Trump was saying that this was
in violation of DOJ policy. So DOJ policy is that, yeah,
sure you could totally meddle in American politics, but you
shouldn't do it within sixty days of an election. And
so that set it in early September for most years,
because we used to have an election day that was
the first Tuesday after the first Monday in November. But
now we no longer have an election day. That's just
one of about sixty days of voting in some places.
And so that sets the DOJ policy of not within
sixty days an election back to sixty days prior to
what it used to be. And so Jack Smith is
just like completely in violation of this, the idea that
because a very small percentage of the population now votes
on election day, that's the arbitrary date we're gonna that,
we're gonna we're gonna say you can't do anything by then,
when in fact Democrats have their people voting as soon
as next week.
Speaker 1: Anyway, Okay, since you mentioned it, let's turn the table
to censorship and the Justice Department.
Speaker 2: Facebook's what is he? The CEO Zuckerberg.
Speaker 1: Sent a letter to the Justice who they sent it
to the Republican to the House Judiciary Committee, basically admitting
that the Biden administration had pressured him to censor not
only you know, alleged disinformation about COVID, but but you know,
political satire and other issues which he apparently just gave
into and the staff gave into. Now, I just want
to say, I don't I blame him. He's a powerful person.
He's is you know and all that. However, it is
difficult to withstand the pressure of the United States government.
Because you're a rent seeking company, you need the government
to help you in certain ways.
Speaker 2: This is a big problem. I think. So when the
government comes to you and says, can you stop this?
It's dangerous, people are going to die.
Speaker 1: Whatever they told them Facebook, they did censor people Instagram
maybe also, and on and on. So I think we
all knew this was going on, but it is a
bit mind blowing to see the at least from my perspective,
to see the turn. I think there's been a turn
where a lot of these companies believe that maybe it
wasn't the right thing to do, and it is a
kind of dangerous, and they do maybe I think, led
by Elon Musk, maybe care a little bit more about
free speech than they did before.
Speaker 2: What do you think I am?
Speaker 3: I have conflicting thoughts. Okay, So there were three parts
of Mark Zuckerberg's letter. The first was admitting that there
had been widespread censorship related to how to handle the
COVID pandemic. That's a huge story in itself. The second
thing was that there had been a massive interference in
the twenty twenty election demanded by the FBI on behalf
of Biden, that Facebook participated in with suppression of the
story that we were just talking about the Biden family corruption.
And then The third thing was relating to the topic
of my best selling book, Rigged, about how we handle elections,
and it was him, you know, talking about how he
had funded the private takeover of government election offices. And
he says, you know, I did this in the name
of COVID. And that's true that he claimed it was
in the name of COVID. It's also true that only
one percent of the funds went to anything COVID related
and ninety nine percent went to partisan get out the
vote outreach. And he says, I'm convinced it wasn't done
in a partisan fashion, but I realized that other people
think it was, and so I will not even participate
in the elections this way or even give the appearance
of doing it. Now, election integrity advocates should not be
happy because other billionaires took over most of his operation,
and the US government has also gotten involved at a
much higher level in working to drive out the vote
on behalf of Democrat constituencies. But these are all three
very interesting things. Now. First off, you say, I think
we knew about the COVID suppression, Well yes, And the
Federalist is suing the State Department for its ongoing role
in funding, marketing, and helping out the censorship industrial complex.
We at the Federalists have pushed back against various propaganda
operations throughout our history, but the one that hurt us
the most was not even disagreeing with government the government
response to the pandemic, although many of our authors did.
It was that we were even hosting bits about the
proper response to a pandemic. So if we said, okay,
so throughout human history, this is how we've handled pandemics,
and that has served us well relative to the US
government or state government shutting down churches that would get
us censored. And it got us censored on Facebook and
other social media at the request of the US government.
And it's it was a desire by this powerful regime
to put us out of business. I mean, the way
that we the way that we work is that we
get our message out and you sell ads and all this.
So censorship is a huge threat to self government and
a huge threat to the American Republic. And so yes,
it's good that he said this happened. He's actually kind
of said it happened before. But it's nowhere near sufficient
to dealing with the problem because those tools they set
up to say, like, because Facebook censored us in twenty twenty,
still censored now, It's not like him admitting that he
did the marching orders of the US government takes away
that we are still censored. We are still censored.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Also, it should be said, and you've said this before,
even if what the Federalist or whoever is on Facebook,
or even just a guy on Facebook who's a nut
is saying is conspiratorial and wrong, it still should not
be censored. This is the debate, This is the way
it works. But the funny thing is that most of
the supposed disinformation people were one hundred percent right. The
Wuhan lab you know, leak theory or whatever has proven
probably right compared to everything, and that was censored for
a year. You could not talk about that. The Hunter
Biden laptop story was proven right according to Hunter Biden
in court documents, and they were wrong. So this just
shows you the danger of censoring people who seem like
they're crazy at the time to the elites and two
people run these places.
Speaker 2: Even if they were wrong.
Speaker 3: So I just want to met you, really, I really
think that's an important point that you just said, because
you'll hear people say, oh, and the people who were
COVID skeptics were right or you know, skeptics about various
responses by the government. And yes, that's true, we were right.
But even if we were wrong, we should not have
been censored by the government and its agents as social
media companies.
Speaker 2: Yeah, so this brings up another point I think is
really important.
Speaker 4: Now.
Speaker 1: Obviously there's a debate even among conservatives about how to
how much government involvement do we need. Facebook's a private company.
I am very sympathetic to that point. Very However, if
Facebook can be pressured by government in this way, it's
basically fascism. I'm not saying that Zuckerberg is Hitler or
anything like that, but when government works with giant corporations
to deliver political messages. To say, people, you're talking about
fascistic functions of government, that this is a definition of it.
Speaker 3: It's so weird when people use the term fascism correctly.
So thank you for correctly noting that fascism is this
blending of corporate and government power. And we could not
be in a more fascistic situation right now than what
you see with many social media companies and the government.
And this is the whole censorship industrial complex. It is government,
state and federal government agencies. It's NGOs that are usually
set up by the government or otherwise working closely in
tandem with them. It's for profit companies that make money
off of enforcing the government censorship protocols. And it's these
social media companies that are unable to resist or unwilling
to resist government pressure, or maybe they're just so stacked
with Democrat activists that they think it's like a great
thing to be part of it. But I just wanted
to say something really quickly on the second aspect of
the Zuckerberg letter too. So he says that they he
says a bunch of stuff that's really interesting that in
a functioning republic would lead to people being in prison.
So he says, the situation with the violent suppression of
the Biden family corruption story is that the FBI came
to them months before the story broke and said that
there might be a story that will be Russian disinformation
of this nature. Now, the reason why that's important is
because we know, and Margot Cleveland has reported on this
at the Federalists, that the FBI had that laptop for
a year before if not wait, I can't remember. I'm
forgetting the actual party. At least a year before it
came out, they knew the laptop was real. So when
they're briefing these social media companies to say there might
be this fake story, this Russian disinformation, they know it's
a lie. This is an egregious manipulation of the twenty
twenty election. I'll just point out all So, do you
remember that there was a tabletop exercise run by parts
of the censorship industrial complex and the Aspen Institute in
August of twenty twenty. And what was the topic of
the exercise. It was literally like, a laptop comes out
supposedly related to one of the candidates, but really it's
Russian disinformation. And then they had all these journalists and
all these social media types work together about how to
suppress the story and censor it. And then a few
weeks later the story comes out and they all go
into action. Zuckerberg references this that they were basically mobilized
and prepared for exactly this story. He's like, so we
just thought when it happened that the thing that we'd
been coached by the US intelligence agencies was in fact
happening this is a massive scandal, and I'm not saying
we didn't already know that, but more people need to
think through the implications of this. And then there's one
more thing he says about it, because when it happened,
we did suppress that story and sent it over to
fact checkers, and so once the fact checkers looked into it,
we would unsuppress the story. Now the fact checkers are
people like what is it lead Stories, which is related
to the Chinese Communist parties byte Edance group. They are
responsible for censoring US and other entities because they didn't
like our reporting on election issues. It's all these like
left wing groups and then they have I think they
pretend they have a right wing group. And I'm not
sure if they're still doing this, but I think they
are in isn't it the Dispatch.
Speaker 2: I was, I'm not sure if they're still doing it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I think so. And by the way, this is
a great way to make money. So if you go, huh,
how do these people do so well? Well, they're getting
paid by the regime to take part in the censorship
industrial complex and they have no compunction about it. Obviously,
the Dispatch got in trouble when they falsely got a
pro life ad suppressed by miss reporting that ad or
it's meaning on by the Susan B Anthony List. Well
guess who didn't do any fact checking these regime stooge
media organizations, or if they did, they were like, Nope,
we're pretty sure it's Russian disinfo. These fifty one intel
experts say it was. And so it kept being suppressed
because that's how the whole censorship industrial complex works. And
then if there were people like us doing real reporting,
well we can't be taken seriously. We've already been suppressed
for reporting accurately about COVID. So the whole thing is,
it's not just a scam. It's like a scam that
gets worse with time. And so thank you Mark Zuckerberg,
Yes for admitting that you did these really egregious acts
against the American people. But it in no way, in
no way is taking care of the problem.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well it should be said, and we could take
a step back and say, if we had a real
journalistic if we journalistic institutions that were highly funded did
their job, that we wouldn't have to worry because they
would ferret out any kind of disinformation they would do
the work. Instead, they pass along the disinformation that works
for them and suppress what they don't like. So I
just want to stress the New York Times, the New
York Posts, not the New York Times. Your post story
on Hunter Biden's laptop was meticulously reported. They had someone
on the record, they had receipts, they did a forensic
check on the computer, there were pictures. It was not
any kind of disinformation. It was pretty clear from the beginning.
I think it's one of the biggest journalistic scandals that
we've ever had or in modern times. I just I
can't think of another story that rises to this level. Now, yes,
the journalist knew about things that didn't report them to
help democrats in the past, things like that, but this
was the suppression of a story that was reported by
other journalistic institutions, you know, quote unquote. So it was brutal,
and you know what, even though they're caught, I just
don't think it's the last of it.
Speaker 2: I've already seen stories that are talking.
Speaker 1: About Russian disinformation and Russian involvement, you know. In me,
I think AP had one. I mean, I think it's
it's going to happen they're going to try it again.
I hope people don't fall for it again, but you
never know. Let's turn the page. So this week OURFK
Junior suspended his campaign and he endorris Donald Trump, as
did his vice presidential candidate, I forget her name. It
was a big story.
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 1: Do you think it matters? What does it say about
our politics today? I mean, I have I don't respect
RFK Junior very much. I think he says a lot
of things that I agree with about censorship and things
like that, but he has taken a slew of insane positions.
Speaker 2: Over his career. Are most of his supporters potentially Trump supporters?
Is it in the middle? What do you think?
Speaker 1: So?
Speaker 3: I think it's really interesting that he dropped out of
the race in states where it would hurt Trump, and
that he's staying in the race in states where will
help Trump, and that he endorsed Trump. I think that's
all super interesting. But mostly what I found interesting was
his speech. And I will admit that I like speeches,
you know, I like speeches that are good speeches, even
when they're from people I don't like, certainly when I
don't agree with everything that they say, is the case
with RFK Junior. But this speech was so powerful and
so statesmen, like, there are these problems in the country
where it seems like we don't have any statesman on
either side of the aisle sometimes, and him talking about
these major problems that are affecting the country, you kind
of you could almost tell, you know, he has his
very particular ideas, which I think you and I do
not agree with some of them. And he said they
are less important than what's going on right now at
the hand of Democrats, and he listed, yes, the censorship
industrial complex. He used that phrase, and I just was
like so excited when he talked about well, actually, let's
first of all talk about elections. So he talked about
how much effort was put to fight democracy and to
fight his role in the democratic process by the Democrat Party.
So they worked really hard to keep him off ballots.
He had these overwhelming difficulties in getting on the ballot.
He had an army of supporters who did put him
on the ballot, and they're having to fight these Democrat
election boards or Democrat secretaries of state or other Democrat
operatives to just get on the ballot. And I don't
care if you're a Republican die hard or Democrat die hard,
if you're a good American, you should believe in in
the just like letting people compete in that marketplace for votes. Right.
So then once he gets on the ballot, there are
all these legal efforts to get him off the ballot.
And so he was talking about the law fair that
was used again him to keep him from being part
of the process. But then he also noted that the
media were the major players in this. He was talking
about how Ross pro was a candidate for president for
just a few months and he was on every major
media outlet multiple times. I can't remember what the number was,
it was like thirty times he did interviews, major interviews,
and RFK Junior was not given any interviews except for
like one or two on ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, MSNBC,
total like total. And that is the way that the
regime media controls outcomes, you know. So when Donald Trump
is president, they are When Donald Trump is running for president,
they tried to They tried to treat Evan McMuffin as
a legitimate candidate. He was elevated constantly by these same
media outlets. But when RFK junior literal son of RFK
and nephew of JFK is running for president against a
completely weak guy. They're like, we don't see anything happening here,
and they don't give media coverage and they don't give
print coverage. And so he talked about their role in
manipulating election outcomes as well, and then he talked about
the law fair against President Trump, you know, remembering that
they tried to take Donald Trump off of every ballot
in the country, this supposed party of democracy. And he
talks about the border, and he talks about the foreign
policy and how the way we're handling the situation in
Ukraine is making us weaker as a country about how
I mean, he said things that a lot of Republicans
haven't even been able to communicate, such as how our
recklessness in foreign policy is leading other countries to form
coalitions that can pose a challenge to our role as
the reserve currency of the world. And so he's talking
about bricks and how much we've narrowly avoided catastrophe in
the Russia Ukraine War. And it was so great to
hear him go through all of these things, and it
was you know, then he's kind of like, I don't
even like this guy, and I strongly oppose so many
of his policies, but it's an existential issue that we
stop Democrats with what they're doing here. And so that's
what I think is actually the most important part of
the speech. Isn't like how many of Rfk's supporters. I mean,
he does have supporters, a not insignificant number of supporters,
you know, not how are they going to vote? But
more like how it opened up. It was this powerful
person speaking through a web of lies and deception that
we're constantly dealing with by our corporate media and saying
they're trying to destroy the country and before we can
even fight about policy, we need to get back to
an actual functioning republic.
Speaker 2: Yeah. I have a couple of things to say.
Speaker 1: First, I I do think RFK Junior moving to Trump
probably I don't know how many, but it probably gives
some voters who I would call patriotic populists or something
like that, gives them permission maybe to vote for Trump.
I don't know how many that is. I don't know
if it matters, but I don't love But let me
finish the statement before you yell at me. I do
not love this idea that you can run in some
states to hurt candidates and not other states to give
them a pass. But because of the law fair and
the Shenanigans that went on to take him off ballots
to help Joe Biden and then now Kamala Harris, I
think he has every right to react in that way.
I would like to see a good faith effort by
candidates to go you know, I don't like this trick
of just getting on ballots to hurt certain candidates and
things like that. I think if you're running for president,
there should be a good faith effort to get on
all ballots, and then the states should let you on
those ballots if you're running, you know. But what made
me laugh so hard was the Kennedy family statement about
how Bobby endorsing Trump, you know, is a betrayal of
our family values.
Speaker 2: Now listen, I would say that the.
Speaker 1: Kennedy family, I have very There are a bunch of
you know, there were so many sexual deviants in that family.
JFK was completely corrupt and irresponsible. Teddy Kennedy, we all
know that story. He's just a horrible person. I'm sorry.
RFK was also a pretty corrupt guy in the way
he treated government. So I think RFK endorsing Trump is
way on the bottom of the list of things that
sully the reputation of the Kennedy the Kennedy family, that
lobottomized one of the sisters of granddad.
Speaker 2: Right anyway, So I found.
Speaker 3: That I think I have thought about this. I have
very law abiding siblings. Okay, so this is a total hypothetical,
but I would not denounce my brother even if he murdered.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think.
Speaker 3: It's your job as a family. I mean, maybe you
don't say something publicly, maybe you do. But the idea
that over politics you would denounce a family member, that's
just saying I'm a very bad person.
Speaker 1: Listen, maybe if they were a Nazi or something, but
they're just endorsing the other major political candidate of the
other major republic, you know, the party in the country.
I mean, I would never do that to my family.
Sometimes I asked my wife if she would turn me
and if I murdered someone and stuff, and I think
she would, But I don't know if that I'd even
turn in my kids or my wife if they murdered someone.
Speaker 3: Oh, this does remind me that my mom told me
like in my twenties, she was like, if you ever
broke the law, I would go.
Speaker 2: Down to them.
Speaker 3: I'd go down to the jail and like police station
and tell them, like, Okay, thanks mom. That's what having
a German mom is like. So I was on Fox
News Sunday on Sunday and RFK Junior that he was
doing his first interview after his endorsement. So he led
the show and it was really interesting. I mean, I
don't no offense to the politicians in DC, but I
normally don't find them very interesting to listen to. And
his interview it was riveting. In part two because I
have never seen someone not take bait or not get
not get defensive. I guess as he did. Shannon Breem
began by pointing out all these like horrible things he'd
said about Trump, and I have a separate issue here.
This is not like politicians always speak horribly about each other.
I don't get why we only bring it up when
it's Trump, but that's a separate thing. So she brings
up all these things and I mean, he was like brutal.
It was like he's saying that Trump was a psychopath
or something, and he just like answers the question with
a return to the focus of why he endorsed him
on these issues that I just talked about, that there
are certain things that are an existential threat to the
country and so personal feelings don't really matter. And it
was I like to think that I am good at
not getting defensive on TV, but I was like, this
isn't actually quite impressive. He was asked about his family
trashing him, and he did not in any way say
anything against his family. He pointed out that he comes
from a large family, that he has many family members
who are working on his campaign, and that he appreciates
their support, and he also understands that not every family
member agrees. And he then again says, this is why
I'm doing what I'm doing, because I want to return
to a time in our country when we were able
to have political disagreements without it being a betrayal, a
family betrayal. It was just for people who were interested
in how to not get defensive. I thought he provided
a masterclass in it.
Speaker 1: Sort to point out that everyone, or quite often Trump
is portrayed as this person who like harbors anger and
wants to get revenge on anyone who says anything bad
to him, and think for him if anyone is again,
you know, if anyone says anything critical about him, he
takes it very personally and attacks that person.
Speaker 2: But on the flip side, if you come back.
Speaker 1: To him and you're nice to him and you support him,
he will I think he easily forgets the past and
is willing to sort of embrace a person.
Speaker 2: I think it's happened numerous times.
Speaker 3: Oh yeah, I mean he's obviously petty and all that.
The thing that makes him different though, is that he
is very public with it. So most politicians in DC,
they are a billion times pettier and take offense at
anything that people say, and they remember everything. They just
keep it very quiet and stew on it and plot
the destruction of their opponent. And then they get like
a huge kick out of how aggressive drinking be.
Speaker 2: Trump comes up with a devastating nickname and he'll.
Speaker 3: Just be like, you're stupid. You know, He'll be out
front with it. And I don't think either thing is great.
I think it'll be great if we had more mature politicians.
I just see no difference betwe between Trump and these
other guys except that Trump is a bit manly or
in how he handles it. And I mean by that
that passive aggressive like plotting is really unmanly in my view.
Speaker 1: All Right, that's it. I don't think I have any
more topics. Do you want to talk about culture?
Speaker 3: Did you do anything fun this past weekend?
Speaker 2: Yes? I did.
Speaker 1: I went to a concert in DC. I went to
see So. It was kind of a band made up
of other people from other bands. I mean so it
was someone Mike Mills from Rim, someone from Wilco, Chris
Damie who's been around forever, a guy from the Posies,
and a guy from Big Star. And they played it's
the fiftieth anniversary of Big Stars Radio City album, which
I'm a big fan of. I went with a guy
named Mark Hemingway.
Speaker 3: It was kind I normally go to concerts with.
Speaker 2: Yes, it was a lot of fun. I enjoyed it.
I've been to a concert in years.
Speaker 1: They went through the Radio City album, then they came
back and played more Big Star. I'm a huge Big
Star fan. I've been for many, many years, and it
was I have to say one quick thing. The drummer's
name is Jodie Stevens. I think, and he was seventy two,
and he looked amazing and he was amazing, and it
I'm like, I just I feel like I looked I
look older than him, and I'm more tired than he
has already. He's just banging those drums very powerfully, just
very impressive and it.
Speaker 2: Was a lot of fun. So I did that.
Speaker 1: I got to see Molly and her beautiful family as well.
Speaker 3: And it was Yeah, stay in our quote unquote guest room.
Have you ever seen a nine year guest room?
Speaker 1: I thought it was quite nice. A lot of books
in there. Yeah, I appreciate it was very nice.
Speaker 3: I like that you thought that it's books. It's like
books and legos.
Speaker 1: There were some toys there too. Just give something to someone,
your guests something to do in that room. No, I
appreciate it was very nice. I had a wonderful time
and it was a very nice weekend. Did you do anything?
Speaker 2: Uh?
Speaker 3: No, I worked. And I did want to say that
I watched the Bad Monkey Show that you had recommended
last week, and I've only watched two episodes, and it's
you had said every about it being like it's not
totally safe for kids, but it's pretty family friendly. I
did not find it to be that way.
Speaker 2: That's an say, pretty family friendly.
Speaker 1: I said it wasn't awful, But now that I've watched
four episodes, there will be other instances where you don't
want your kids watching.
Speaker 3: But I think we've talked before about people who just
play themselves as actors, and Vince Vaughn is definitely sort
of playing himself. But I like who he is so too.
It works really well, and I like the other cast.
I find that the witch Doctor lady to be captivating.
Speaker 2: Yeah, she's really good.
Speaker 1: It's funny because I just I've been listening to this
SmartLess podcast where they have famous people on it, and
oftentimes they mentioned Vince Vaughn as just being the funniest
and quickest person in real life that they know, and
and it comes out they're like, when he's acting, you know,
it's just you never know where he's going to go.
You know, you just have to kind of stand back
and let him do his thing. And this show is
just like super Vince. It's Uber Vince Vaughn. Right, it's
a pretty good show. I don't know, it's all right.
I did watch a movie called Little Wicked Letters. Do
you know what this is.
Speaker 2: No, it has.
Speaker 1: It has Olivia Coleman in it. It's a British movie.
I don't know the other names of the other actors
in it, but it.
Speaker 2: Was pretty good.
Speaker 1: It's about It takes place I think after World War One.
I forget where. Somewhere in Britain, but I forget where.
And it's about someone is sending out these horrible letters
filled with curses and all kinds of imagery to you know,
offending people, so they want to know who it is,
and it's sort of a little bit of a mystery.
Speaker 2: I would recommend it.
Speaker 3: Okay, good, that's good to know. I know exactly what
you're talking about.
Speaker 1: Yeah again not probably not for the kids, unless you
don't mind them hearing bad words.
Speaker 3: They never heard that in our house thing.
Speaker 1: Yes, I know that. Then I watched Murders in the building.
Is that what it's called?
Speaker 3: I watched only murders in the season four four?
Speaker 1: Okay, I don't something's missing. I don't love that show.
I think I don't really. Oh my gosh, I'm getting
in trouble. But I don't really love Selena Gomez as
an actress, like I just she's kind of.
Speaker 2: A millennial mumbler.
Speaker 3: Or something time when they tried to change her into
a lesbian in that show. That was very stupid and annoying.
Other than that, I haven't like been so annoyed by it.
Speaker 1: Also, I want you to know that season whatever of
the Slow Horses is coming like next week. Oh good,
both are fans of that show.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I was remembering while you were talking that I
did see two other things.
Speaker 2: Oh awesome.
Speaker 3: So one was that we watched as a family Adventures
in Babysitting, Yes, which is like an eighties show with
came up to visit our house. But we're doing a podcast.
Speaker 1: But she shouldn't say, Yeah, it's not a show, it's
a movie. And it was with Elizabeth's.
Speaker 3: Shoe, and I liked it a lot. It was quite
dramatic about how she is taking care of these kids
while they're narrowly escaping certain death in various ways, and
so that was pretty good.
Speaker 2: Although you did you did tell me it's not really
family friendly.
Speaker 3: Yeah, like it's it's supposed to be a family friendly show,
and like there's a major subplot dealing with how people
think Elizabeth's Shoe is the March Playmate of the Month.
And then also how boys are sharing playboys and you
know it's fine, I guess, but it's just.
Speaker 2: It's very eighties thing.
Speaker 3: And then the other thing is I found this comedian
named I think her name is Laura Ramos.
Speaker 2: Laura Ramos, I can't remember.
Speaker 3: I might have just totally butchered her name. But she
does impersonations of her German mother and they are hilarious.
She has a German mother and an Italian father, and
she does a lot of these like One Woman shows,
and she's on tour right now but it's sold out
in DC. But she does impersonations of her mother, and
unless you have a German mother, I don't know if
it works. But I do have one of those. So
I was really enjoying watching her lovingly portraying the stoic
and unaffectionate nature of a German mother.
Speaker 1: I don't have a German mother mother, but I that
sounds like something I would like.
Speaker 2: I like when people make fun of Germans. Defense.
Speaker 3: She also an ongoing stick she has is that her
mother's kind of obsessed with much Damon, and so she
really likes to watch movies with Matchew Damon.
Speaker 1: Anyway, I just had to see it a Ben Affleck
and Jennifer Lopez got divorced.
Speaker 2: Do you know who he's dating now? According to the tabloids,
RFK Junior's daughter. That's right, she has some crazy name.
Forgot what it was.
Speaker 3: It's not crazy.
Speaker 2: Kick is not a crazy name.
Speaker 3: Kick, certainly not by my standards. But also she's named
after her aunt. Right, wasn't her aunt named Kick? I mean,
for all, her name isn't Kick. She goes by kick.
I think.
Speaker 2: I didn't know that. I don't know anything.
Speaker 3: At my church we had this woman Kak Marshall, and
I'm sure it's like standing for her initials or something,
but we always call her Cak.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: I don't mean to offend anyone whose name is Kick
out there, but maybe you can explain yourselves in the
mail where you can mail us at radio at the
Federalist dot com. We got a lot of mail recently.
Now I don't want to go through it all, but
I think it's because I've been mentioning it at the
end of the show.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's been some really great mail. Also good for
story ideas for the staff. So thank you, please.
Speaker 2: Keep sending your mail, and until next time, be lovers.
Speaker 1: Of freedom, and anxious for the friend