Speaker 1: Welcome back, everyone to a new episode of You're Wrong
with Me? David Harsani, senior writer at The Washington Examiner.
Today we have a special guest, another Hemingway, Mark Hemingway,
sitting in for Moli. Mark still iced in there.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's been pretty crazy. I'm still trying to clear
a section of sidewalk that's pure ice. But I've got
all three cars mobile now finally.
Speaker 1: So nice. Yeah, it's finally warmed up here. I'm happy
about that. I think today let's start by talking a
little more about Don Lemon. Momy and I spoke about
him a bit, but he's been arrested by the FEDS.
I think he was at an event or something, right,
I forget exactly.
Speaker 2: But yeah, I was at some event in Los Angeles.
Speaker 1: The rest of him. Yeah, I totally am not a
Don Lemon fan. I don't even really consider him any
kind of real journalists. But I stuff like this does
concern me to some extent. Right, when you have the
FEDS going after someone who's embedded with a group that
that does something that I think is clearly unlawfull and unconstitutional, Well,
I guess i'd start with, what is your concern level?
About this arrest as being a journalist yourself. That's a
good question.
Speaker 2: I'm writing a fine line here, Like my instinctual reaction
to any sort of journalists getting arrested is one of unease,
and you know, I think that applies here too. That said,
it is really astonishing if you listen to Lemon what
he says ahead of the the event, the direct action
thing whatever he tagged along with. I mean, he's speaking
as if he's a participant and not a journalist. You know,
there are facts about the indictment that are very troubling
in terms of you know, he was you know, in
the church and he was asked several times by the
pastor to leave, and he didn't. There where he was
alleged he was blocking people as human his camera crew
or whatever, we're blocking people from leaving the church, you know.
So there's all these things where, yes, he's a journalist,
but was he acting like one in his capacity? And
the part of the issue with the First Amendment that
we really need to address is that the First Amendment
has been perhaps most threatened by journalists in the last
ten or twenty years, people doing absolutely outrageous and irresponsible
things that make people in courts want to crack down
on journalists and the First Amendment, and I think that's
very much the case here, because if you have a
situation where you don't respect private property, you don't respect
you know, trespassing laws, you don't respect, you know, the
line between you know, being a neutral observer as a journalist,
or in a full on activist who's participating in like say,
a protest direct action where you know, and mind you
this was not a lawful protest. There's a federal law
that's as you cannot go into churches, then this is
you know.
Speaker 1: Concerning Yeah, I argue I have this debate a lot
with other people, but I believe that journalists actually have
a duty to break the law sometimes because it's the
only real way to get your hands on information you're
not supposed to see. Every time you have classified information
or something like that, you were breaking the law. Doesn't
mean you shouldn't that you don't pay a price for that,
you know, But if you're just going to follow the
rules and the law all the time, you're not never
really going to break any stories. On the other hand,
what story is is don Lemon breaking here. There was
no real journalistic reason to be in there. There is
no journalistic reason to stop people, if the allegations are true,
from leaving the church, to embed yourself with people knowing
full well that they're going to stop other people's first
amendments rights. It's a tough one for me, But I mean,
I can't feel bad for Don Lemon. I don't think
he was engaged in real journalism. But I'd hate to
see this be used as an excuse which to go
after journalists. But let's you know, it's not like Barack
Obama didn't, Right, It's not like previous administrations didn't. Journalists
don't care when it's not their team, right. Well, yeah,
that's the other thing. I mean, you know, I saw
people bring this up and you know, to crickets. I mean,
there were multiple journalists arrested in January sixth. You know,
they did the same thing. You know, they went into
the Capitol. They were, you know, claiming exactly the same
thing as Don Lemon. They were you know, you know,
chronicling you know, an important American event. And I would say, honestly,
there was far more of a reason for journalists to
be in the Capitol in January sixth than there was
for Don Lemon to be in that.
Speaker 2: Church that day. You know, I'm not saying there aren't
you know, concerns there. I mean having been a journalist myself.
In fact, twenty some years ago, I spent a year
on this project where I was covering anti globalization protesters
back when that was a big thing. Remember the Wto
riots in nineteen ninety nine and all this stuff that
followed on from that. I spent a long time covering
violent protesters and violent and protests that turn violent. I
never in a million years would have made that mistake
in either circumstance where oh, people are going to the
Capitol right now, I'm going to tag along, or oh
people are going to this church right now, I'm going
to tag along. You know, you know it doesn't you
know take it, you know, genius to figure out that you,
as a journalist shouldn't be doing that at the same time.
You know, either we defend you know, the rights of
journals to do this to the hill in both directions,
or you don't you know it. You know, the hypocrisy
here is is really sort of stunning. You know, when
you look at Barack Obama spying on the ap news
room and all these other things that happened when democrats
in the left in power, you know, nobody cares. But
the moment you know, this happens on the right, it's
you know, fascist, you know, you know, boots on your neck,
et cetera.
Speaker 1: Yeah, well, we'll see what happens. I mean, I've seen
lawyers on both sides of the sides of this, some
saying that they don't really feel like it's a very
strong case, and other's saying it is. We'll see what happens.
I mean, I'm sure the punishment won't be anything draconian anyway.
Speaker 2: So yeah, I'd like to know more about the law involved,
Like I like, I saw a lawyer point to me that,
you know, given that this was a federal crime, there's
you know, not only is there not a reason for
lemen to be there, there's arguably are you illegal imperative
for don lemon to who have you know reported that
this was going to take place? You know, this this
this was not a normal sort of journalistic situation. But
you know, I don't want to go into it, but
suffice to say, there was one time in my career
where I went to someone's house to ask for a
comment on something, and there were trespassing charges involved to
ask for comment by going to someone's front door, you know,
and you know, you know this does this does happen.
You know, You've got to be careful with this sort
of thing.
Speaker 1: So that's what I'm talking about. As a journalist, you
still have to do it, even though you knew that
it could be against the law, right, I mean, but
but you're after a story, You're trying to get someone's
side of something. None of that occurred.
Speaker 2: I knowly that I felt like this was a story
involving very serious charges being leveled against someone, and I
felt that I had a, you know, in a very
important journalistic duty to get his side of things, because,
you know, are the supporting stuff that could be very
damaging to the man's reputation and career, and you know,
I wanted to be scrupulously fair. So I'm thinking, Hey,
go to this guy's house, you know, and you know,
walk down the driveway and you know, see if you
know you can get him to comment. You know, it's
it's a fine line.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 2: I was trying to do the right thing, but you know,
at the same time, the legal protections for journalists in
that situation aren't as clear as you might think. You know, yeah,
it's true. I probably could have you know, done any
number of things to obviate that or you know, fight
it or this or that or whatever. But you know,
and everything worked out for me, you know, legally speaking.
But but you know, it was a real thing that
that happened, you know, and you know, you part of
the problem here is that, let's just be honest. Don
Lemon is not very intelligent. I mean, just full stop.
I don't want to be like, you know, mean or
cruel about it, but like, clearly he doesn't think about
this stuff. You know, clearly he doesn't think about, oh,
how do I be respectful to other people? You know,
what are the competing sides of this, you know, argument
that I need to be you know, sensitive about. Like
he's just not thinking and that's why he got he
got himself into this situation. I mean, if this isn't
dangering the First Amendment, don Lemon has you know, partly
himself to.
Speaker 1: Blame, isn't And there's this more moralistic component that it's
always been around. But you know, democracy dies in darkness,
probably sort of like the heyday of this where you
think that you have a moral imperative, maybe even to
almost be an activist journalist and participate in this sort
of thing. I think it clouds your clouds your mind
even if you were a thinking person, which I don't
think Don Lemon ever has been. And and and this
goes back to b LM. It goes back to the
Goaza stuff. It goes back to college campuses and people
shutting down other people's free speech. Is that you think
that you know that your crusade is so important that
the rules no longer apply to you, that other people's
First Amendment rights don't matter, and that you get to
do whatever you want to do. I call it protest culture,
or you call whatever you want. It's it turns violent
and it's definitely not what I would say is in
the best tradition of civil you know, even civil disobedience.
I mean, you're essentially shutting other people down. And I
see it all the time.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I think that's in astute observation. But what's going
on with the journalists I think is even worse than that.
It's because they have they've been totally infected by this
protest culture. This post Watergate idea that it is good
versus evil, you know, kind of thing, you know, David
against Goliath or whatever that empowers them morally to justify
doing a lot of things that they shouldn't be doing.
But at the same time, they think that, you know,
their role as journalists is they're holding power to account neutrallly.
They think that they are looking at competing sides of
the issues, and they've decided that there aren't you know,
competing sides essentially, and not only that, they think that
they're kind of a special clarity that tells other people
what is right and wrong, you know, ironically enough for
you know, the situation where we're talking about invading a church.
These people think that they are you know, moral arbiters
for people, and they're empowered to do that. They're empowered
to say, oh, you pay attention to this side of
the issue, but you don't have to pay attention to
the other side of the issue. And the reality is
that they're losing credibility in the first Amendments threat and
precisely because they don't weigh competing interests.
Speaker 1: But but yeah, I do think that that.
Speaker 2: Moral crusading righteousness from this protest culture in mentioned is
you know, right on target for journalism.
Speaker 1: How do you think the public will react to people
like Bad Bunny and Billie Eilish going, you know, speaking
out against ice and telling them to get out of Minnesota?
Did they make I didn't really pay that close attention.
Did anyone bring up Don Lemont at the Grammys that
you know of? I mean, they see now a folk
hero or a co care of the elites. I didn't
actually see anything about Don Lemon.
Speaker 3: I me.
Speaker 2: I think the most of just thing about the Grammys
was that Kaitanji Brown Jackson was at the Grammys, which
you know, is just you know, I.
Speaker 1: Don't know how to take that.
Speaker 2: You know, she's at an event where everybody is screaming
about Ice and applauding and giving standing ovations for it,
and you have a Supreme Court justice present for it,
you know, clearly in a sort of an approving fashion.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 2: Never mind this sort of hypocrisy where all the conservative justices,
you know, their kids wrapped in kevlaren, aren't going anywhere
because of the threats against their lives. But I really
think these spectacles and and I don't know, I think
part of the problem here is we still, you know,
as much as Trump in the last election really broke
the media legacy, media stranghold on things, it's still exton
in a lot of ways. And you see that at
events of the Grammys, where you know, it is a
situation where you know that the famous apocryphal Pauline Kale story,
and like, how did Nixon get elected? And Carrie, you know,
forty nine forty eight states and I don't know anyone
that voted for him. I'm the same as sort of
true in elite media and elite entertainment circles and you know,
and even on social media outside of Twitter to some extent,
whether there are no competing interests and so people don't understand,
you know how you know you could, you could, you know,
think anything otherwise.
Speaker 1: Well, what's her I sound like a boomer now, but
what's her name? Cardi B? Is that the one who's
uh pro Trump? Sort of Nicki Minaj? Oh, Nicki Minaj?
So I confuse those two. But the the thing is,
if you are even nice about Trump or normal about Trump,
or less than you know, completely unhinged about Trump, You're
going to be You're going to be. You're going to
be mocked mercilessly. It is like you can chill speech
because you know that Noah, I'm so bad with name,
But who's the effort, Trevor. Noah is going to mock you, right,
and everyone's going to laugh at you. And so I
think that that chill speech. But someone pointed out I
forget her. It is that when Alito's had a pine tree,
you know, appealed to heaven flag up. That was a
major story in the New York Times. But here you
have a Supreme Court justice at a political rally in essence, laughing,
clapping along, and she's going to have cases in front
of her that are going to have something to do
with immigration, for sure, and you know she's obviously incredibly partisan.
I don't know that she's any smarter than Don Lemon.
I think that's the problem. Consider her arguments, right, She's no.
Speaker 2: Alito, let's put it that way. Yeah, I don't know.
I mean, I think part of the problem the left
is having right now is that for so long they
got away with achieving a lot simply through cultural and
political consensus. And the moment you know there was any
sort of you know, crack in the dam, you know,
they just you know, ceased to function, and you know,
so we'll see, you know, if the twenty twenty four
election is kind of a harbinger of what's the come,
or they're going to be able to go back to
sort of you know, creating that consensus again. It seems
like they've had some success in the Minnesota issue, to
be perfectly honest, you know, where I do think a
lot of normy types that maybe even vote for Trump
where all of a sudden like, well, I'm not comfortable
with this, you know, And I saw a lot of
people saying that on Facebook and other things, where they
were just straight up, you know, unaware of a lot
of the facts surrounding the killings of the two people
and other things. And not to say there's in't a
tragedy and there's a room to have a reasonable discussion
about what Ice should or should not be doing. But
you know, these are people that are just been swayed
by emotional appeals that aren't grounded in facts and are
frequently wrong.
Speaker 1: And welcome to politics, right, I mean, mostly emotional appeals.
But I think you're right about that, and I think
some conservatives actually are fooling themselves in the sense that
they think that, you know, these tragedies don't really affect
people because they have the facts on their sides. It's
just not how it works. And I think that whenever
people are dying in the streets, it starts to get
pretty ugly. Though in the end, I don't I think
Trump has a responsibility to keep going here because you're
it's not even a heckler's veto, I don't know what
to call it. You can't let mobs stop you from
enforcing law. You just are going to have to do
it in a smarter way, right, And it seems like
that's happening to some extent now. I don't know.
Speaker 2: So I was just on the phone actually for twenty
minutes to day. It was somebody who's in Minnesota, in
Minneapolis right now, visiting, and he says it's insane, like
he's in downtown Minneapolis and you're walking around like random
people are asking him questions about like who he is
and what he's doing there, and like in order to
avoid you know, Trump's fascist police state, they've created a
police state of their own, I mean. And he was
like also saying that it was kind of surprising you
thought there might be like some sort of dissenting opinion
or you know, people that were wary because of the
you know, their businesses got trashed in the riots in
twenty twenty in Minneapolis or whatever. But it's like, no,
just like everybody has in this like progressive urban COREUS
basically on board, and you know, it's really kind of
sort of terrifying. I do think that's interesting though, that
like as much as there was a visceral reaction to
the killing of Pretty in particular, and that was the
second killing within a week or two, the left, at
least on the ground in Minneapolis had sort of overcompensated
thinking they had the momentum on the side when they're not.
I mean, like they're setting up literal barricades in their
neighborhoods and like you know, checking people's plates and databases
like that they shouldn't have access to. And pretty soon
the Minneapolis police were out tearing all that stuff down
right quick, Whereas you know, you saw in twenty twenty,
you know, they had autonomous zones set up in Seattle,
and you know, even back fall in the same situation
where antiev It was creating barriers on sidewalks in Portland
during the ice protests and stuff like that, which, by
the way, this autonomous zone thing and setting up barriers whatever,
aside from being like profoundly ironic that you know, they're
they're setting up borders and checkpoints in Minneapolis to protest immigration,
this is like a fundamental part of like anarchists left
wing ideology. I mean, their whole thing is to discredit
the civil authorities and set up you know, sort of
you know, autonomous zones of their own that they can
have some sort of control over and you know, fight
the state that way. You know, once you can get
like a toe hold where they don't have any control,
then you can you know, build your base of support
from there. I mean, it's it's really crazy that they're
allowing this to happen. But I don't know. I mean,
I've seen some polling data since then that, you know,
even though people were very uneasy with the way that
two people got killed, people still on the whole are
very much pro immigration enforcement, and the left is going
to make a huge mistake if they go whole hog
on that issue. But at the same time, you know,
we've seen some you know stuff recently. I don't know
if you saw the data about the latest data about
census apportionment. I guess it comes out like once a
year or whatever. And because of you know, Democrats are
set to lose something like thirteen electoral votes in congressional
seats moving from you know, the congressional apportionment from from
blue states to red states in a couple of purple
states like North Carolina and Arizona. Like this is an
existential you know, you know, threat to them. And then
you combine that with you know, three million people leaving
the country. Ostensibly they weren't voting or whatever, but for
why would you be fighting so hard on their behalf.
It is also true that even though they're not voting,
they you know, illegal immigrants do count for census apportionment.
You know, this is going to be an issue that
they're going to be compelled to fight for. You know,
it was a matter of survival.
Speaker 1: It's it's a huge it's I always thought that the
illegal voting stuff was way over done by the right,
but the census stuff is huge. I mean, and also
maybe illegals won't vote, but once you legalize them in
some way, they're going to vote in the future. Their
kids are going to vote. I mean, this is obviously
part part of the Democrats' plan here, but the thing
that's the problem for them, I think it's just an
untenable position to say that we don't can't enforce laws.
I just don't think most Norman Americans view the world
in that way. And it's not because they hate, you know,
Mexicans or whatever. It's just that they live in the
real world and they see that you can't have anarchy.
Like I'm pro immigrant, I am anti legal immigration. I
think that's probably the position to some varying extent for
most people, and it's illegality in many ways. Like my
parents are immigrants. They view that as a shortcut that
they couldn't take. Like this idea that just because you
have immigrant parents or something like, you're going to be
pro illegal immigration. It's just ridiculous position that Democrats harp
on that. I just don't think normal people think that. No.
Speaker 2: Well, and the other things I found the opposite that
oftentimes the people that are mostly anti illegal immigration are
the people that had to go through the legal process,
you know, because it frequently, you know, wasn't easy. So yeah,
I think that's exactly right. I mean, it becomes this
sort of like there's no question. And what I do
think is interesting is that the Left has had a
lot of success dragging federal judges along on this crusade,
and it will be very interesting if we reach a
point politically where the judges become an issue. So far
they have not been. I don't know if you just saw,
but earlier today Ao Scott, who's one of the top
literary critics at the New York Times, published this unbelievably
embarrassing piece about I don't remember, there was that judge gosh,
I don't remember what the failure was in Mini Minnesota
or not, but he had that, you know, scathing opinion
that was about the deport the alleged deportation of that
five year old boy that you know was putting his
finger in the dyke of the constitution. And it was
like this incredibly over the top, like absurdly florid opinion
that was not grounded in the law or facts.
Speaker 1: And it was dated February.
Speaker 2: Thirty first, I mean it was, and it was written
by like an eighty something year old judge who's like
clearly out to lunch. And Ao Scott wrote this unbelievable
piece in New York Times or that had like visual
like cutouts of the opinion that had highlighted things. You know,
they had some like the New York Times data visualization
people came in and like, you know, to show how
how this brilliant judge had weaponized wit and Barack Obama
is tweeting it out or whatever, and like any plane
person can read this and look at this and go
whatever you think about this. This judge is clearly like
out to lunch and insane, and you know, no federal
judge should be grandstanding like this. And I'm very curious
to see whether or not that's going to become an issue.
Is that that seems to be like the number one
thing that the Democrats have going for them is they
still have this. You know, they can still claim color
of law for all these delegitimate, illegitimate activities because they
can always find a federal judge to stand up and say, oh, yeah,
that's that's totally fine. It doesn't matter that it gets
reversed on appeal. You know, two months later the Supreme
Court steps and and says no. But that's going to
be a real problem.
Speaker 1: I mean, the power I think conservatives under well, not
in hole, but sometimes underestimate the importance of DA races,
attorney general races, you know, and judges. And I always worry,
because yeah, I always worry that at some point it
breaks and people start ignoring activist judges completely and then
the whole system starts falling apart. And that's always been
a concern. I know it's been a concern going back
to like Andrew Jackson, but I think it's really pronounced
these days and dangerous, you know.
Speaker 2: Yeah, But I honestly, what you just said is interesting
because I think it goes back to what we were
talking about with the census apportionment, because I mean, I
think one reason why people are moving from places one
place to others they want to live in places where
they know that they can trust the local authorities. You know,
a lot of people live through COVID, and oftentimes the
difference between having a decent, you know, experience in COVID
and having a terrible experience was having you know, a
local sheriff who wasn't going to literally shut down churches,
you know that that kind of thing. You know. And
what's interesting is you're starting to see blue state governments
react to this. The last I looked, there was a
bill in the Washington legislature to change it so that
sheriffs in the state are now appointed by the legislature
and not directly elected by their local communities, which you know,
is utterly terrifying to me. You know, that's you talk
about your like last line of defense against tyranny, you know,
are you know how your local officials choose to interpret
the law and.
Speaker 1: Your last your last line is your is your weapon? Right?
But which which kind of I got that comes to that?
Speaker 4: Yeah?
Speaker 1: Yeah, yeah, I understand non violent. I didn't like. I
didn't like the messaging on guns after the shooting and
other messaging from the administration. It's funny someone is mentioning
like there are New York types in the government, you know,
Trump New Yorkers who don't fully kind of grasp what
they're saying about guns and how it comes across to
other people. But I think they've corrected course on that
and now things are better.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, I saw. It was disastrous, you know, But yeah,
I think that's that's right, though. I mean, I think
that's been a problem for Republicans in general. There's a
lot of people that are empowered in publican party that
you know, maybe they're like reactionary New York Republicans, but
they don't speak social conservatism. Things like guns and religion,
you know, has a first language.
Speaker 3: You know.
Speaker 2: They they just don't understand those imperatives of the base.
And that comes out of times like this.
Speaker 4: What it means to be a conservative used to be clear,
tax cuts, free markets, Christian family values, and supporting democracies
around the world. That's not true anymore, as anyone following
politics sees every day. That's where the new podcast Conservative
Crossroads with Henry Olsen, Senior Fellow at the Ethics and
Public Policy Center comes in. It doesn't shy away from
these disputes. It leans into them by putting two conservatives
who disagree about an important issue together to hash it
out on the air. Every other week, Conservative Crossroads does
what no other program does, explore conservatisms disagreements without name calling.
Conservative Crossroads is the podcast for conservatives who want to
understand what's happening to their movement. Join Henry Olsen and
his guest at Conservative Crossroads every other Monday as they
hash out the ideas and principles that will decide the future.
Speaker 1: Of the right.
Speaker 4: Download Conservative Crossroads from our partner Ricochet or any platform
where you get your podcast. Conservatism is at a crossroads,
which is why all conservatives need Conservative Crossroads. Listen today.
Speaker 1: I dread this next topic, but let's touch on it
for a bit. It's the Epstein file, so called Epstein
files they released I guess like three point five million pages.
I just be upfront about this. I mean, I just
I am. I just don't think there's anything there or
will be anything there that we don't basically know ready.
I'm not saying a name won't pop up, some kind
of slimeball who still you know, was friendly with the
guy after we knew what you know, or after he
was convicted. But there is no and it has never
been any evidence of any kind of client list. Successful
people don't hang out together in pedophile rings. I'm not
saying that no one is ever a pedophile. I'm saying
that these conspiracies that people have built this is almost
like build your own adventure. I've seen people like, you know,
he's an Israeli spy, he's a CIA guy, he's a
Russia guy, he's uh, you know, an Arab chic Saudi,
you know, a guy like and what's going on right
now online is just I blame the media, by the way,
for because they have blown all their trust. This vacuum
now allows people to just go nuts on every single
story like this. And but anyway, that's my view of this.
I don't understand why people are this way, but the
conspiracists are out in full force now. That's just you know,
And don't get me wrong, I think that these a
lot of the people in these files are slime balls.
It gives you a glimpse into their how they live
their lives, and it's really ugly. But I just don't
think that there's any new criminality there that I've seen.
I don't know. Maybe you view it differently.
Speaker 2: No, actually, I mean I largely agree with that, although
I will say, just so we can make this podcast
a little spicy. This YouTube video, we're already off to
a good start, right. It was actually very convincing by
like one of these conspiracy theory types about that basically
showed that John Wayne Gacy, the serial killer that famously
had all the young boys in his crawl space, was
like tied into a guy who was tied into like
multiple pedophile rings that are like well documented in multiple states.
Like there might have actually been like a massive, like
you know, you know, national you know, pedophile ring and
like several different like urban areas where like everybody knew
each other and were like swapping videos and other things
like that of like like.
Speaker 1: Snuff films and things like that.
Speaker 2: It's just just like, you know, I'm willing to believe
with stuff like that is possible. Right, But in the
case of Epstein, right, this was operating at such a
level that, like, I do not have any issue with
the idea that Epstein was trafficking women or Epstein was
involved in like all these other like crazy things, and
or Prince Andrew and a lot of other other people
some of the other men in his orbit might have
also been involved in this. But what I found really
interesting was there was a ton of conspiracy mongering about
xpting on the right for years, and to some extent
that was almost justifiable. Right, you have an entire media
apparatus that is aligned against you, you know, and most
of the people that Epstein powered around with were you know,
people that were in terms of their political donations and
their financial interests, definitely opposed to what was.
Speaker 1: Going on with the right.
Speaker 2: You know, if you look at a guy like Bill Gates,
you look at a guy like Reid Hoffman, the LinkedIn
billionaire who was visiting Epstein's island and palling around with him,
you know, years after his crimes were exposed, and you know,
Hoffman personally bankrolled the Egen Carol lawsuit against Trump that
was absurd for sexual harassment. And he's been very active
in democratic politics. So you can see why the media
wouldn't be saying anything about it to protect them. But
what I found sort of fascinating was, all of a sudden,
earlier this year, the Trump administration showed like the slightest reticence,
I think, for reasonable reasons to not release all of
millions of documents at once, with you know, all kinds
of random people's names in them, And all of a sudden,
the entire left convinced themselves it was to protect Trump.
And it was like the most irrational thing I've ever seen.
Do you think that at any point there was like
sitting in some you know, Epstein file in the Justice Department,
there was an unbelievably damning report that Donald Trump was
involved in Epstein and trafficking women and all this other
stuff that that wouldn't have been leaked years ago. Like
it just no, Trump's tax returns got leaked for crying
out loud, and you think they wouldn't leak that he's
a pedophile. And yet I knew all these people on
the left that were telling me, oh, no, you don't understand.
You know, it's going to come out that Trump was
a big part of this, and you know, here we are.
Speaker 1: It's incredible the things that people can convince themselves are true.
To me at least, Like, the reason we don't release
grand jury files is because they're filled with uncorre operated accusations,
you know, or contextless emails, right and like, or you know,
third hand accounts of things that couldn't be proved. That's
the reason. It's not like the lawyers going after Epstein
are like, no, we don't want to get him, you know,
we don't want to hit him with all this stuff.
I mean, it's just like, give you an example. What's
the name of this dude? Their brothers Krasenstein or something
like that. So this guy comes out and he shows
a letter, handwritten letter. He says, this is the reason
Donald Trump didn't want us to see this file. It
involves Epstein the sale of young women to sex trafficking
ring by the Saudis. I'm not laughing at sex trafficking.
I'm laughing that this sounds like it's something out of
a James Bond movie or something. But anyway, it turns
out that this claim was made by a woman who
said it happened in nineteen sixty seven, when Trump was
twenty one and probably in Wharton, and Epstein was fourteen
years old. So this is the reason that you don't
release these kind of files. And now you have no
I can't call it mainstream journalism, whatever you want to
call it, filtering through it, letting people know, giving context.
Now it's just a free for all for all kinds
of craziness. And I think it actually is distracting in
a way for especially for Republicans. I think I have
a lot better things to be talking about right now.
But now, I mean, I think.
Speaker 2: That's why they just kind of forced their hand in
for better for worse. It's just like throwing it all
out there because it's like, you know this, sooner we
get this behind us, you know, the better as crazy
as it is. But yeah, it's just been NonStop insanity
since this last batch of documents got released.
Speaker 1: Like I saw this thing.
Speaker 2: There was an Epstein email talking about how they had
some security concern they wanted Mike Lee to address, and
everyone's tagging the US Senator Mike Lee, like what do.
Speaker 1: You know about this?
Speaker 2: And it's like, Mike Lee is not an uncommon name.
I think somebody looked it up. There's like five thousand
people named Mike Lee in the United States, in a
country of three hundred and fifty million people or whatever.
And that's the level of idiocy we're dealing.
Speaker 1: With basically at this point in time. And some of
it's interesting though, like Noam Chomsky reaching out to Steve
benn And to talk to Jeffrey Epstein, Like that's quite
the pyramid.
Speaker 2: There there Noam Chomsky stuff, the Larry Summer stuff, uh,
the Bill Gates stuff. I mean I saw Bill Gates's
ex wife Melinda was asked on air about this and
basically was, you know, you know, she didn't like confirm
any direct knowledge or anything, but basically was like, yeah,
that sounds like my husband.
Speaker 1: I was just like wow. But but none of this
points to any criminality, just slimeball behavior well rich, rich
connected people, Bill.
Speaker 2: Gates, you know, the allegation of Bill Gates with prostitutes
and his wife basically saying, you know, that sounds like
something he Bill would have done. I mean it does
point to you know, bad stuff for sure. I don't think.
I don't think, for instance, it's you know, bad stuff
that rich guys haven't done since time memorial, which is
not to say that shouldn't be dealt with or judged
or you know, even prosecuted. But it's not the you know,
giant smoking gun. You know, this is all stuff that
we suspected and we're just getting that confirm basically.
Speaker 4: You know.
Speaker 2: I saw a great take from I think Matt Stoller.
He's like a lefty, but he's sort of an interesting
sort of heterodox lefty. It does a lot on anti
trust issues, and he was saying, like, the big thing
about the Epstein files that is like really interesting is
that how it exposes what Epstein was really about. It
wasn't like this grand pedophile conspiracy so much as it was.
Epstein's big job was as a fixer. He knew how
to move money for people. You know, he knew how
to like circumvent the laws on stuff, and you know
that he was the go between between all these rich people.
I mean he was you know, he was the guy
that could do things for you, you know. And it
really exposes a level of corruption at high levels that
is kind of concerning. And the law doesn't apply to
you once you get to be a certain level of
wealth in this country in terms of taxes and this
and that. And you have guys like Jeff Epstein, who
are the New York financier who are you can call
and they are you know, in a pinch, will drop
everything to help Bill Gates move money or get antibiotics
to deal with his you know, trip to a Russian hooker.
Speaker 1: And that is concerning.
Speaker 2: To me, that the law does not apply because we
have weakened institutions and people with too much money.
Speaker 1: I agree with all that, but what I did find
interesting in that Matt Stolar piece was that he blamed
neo liberalism for it. It's like proof that you could
make the Epstein files whatever you want, Like if we
had a socialistic government that he wants, we wouldn't have
corruption as a real stretch, I though, or we wouldn't
have people like this is a real stretch, but I
get what you're saying. Yeah, for sure, Well he gives
us a glimpse into what type of people operate on that,
you know, in that strata.
Speaker 2: Explicitly compared it to how the Soviet Union operated, you know,
and it's late stages or whatever. There were always guys
whose factories didn't have to worry about getting they needed
from the government because they had the money and the
connections or whatever to make it happen, whereas there were
you know, people starving at the same time, and we
don't want to be heading toward that.
Speaker 1: You're absolutely right.
Speaker 2: I mean I would say that I would blame neoliberals,
not because neoliberalism itself is necessarily wrong, but just it
was a certain class of people that used, you know,
things like a big, big problem with the big validation.
The Trump era, I would say is that, you know, look,
I'm free trade, you're pro free trade, and Trump comes
along starts talking about tariff some of these other things
that I'm a little nervous about. But Trump was right
about one thing, and in terms of neoliberalism, was neoliberalisms
sold us a bill of goods on a lot of stuff,
Like a lot of quote unquote free trade agreements we
had were really like thousand page multilateral agreements with you know,
loopholes you could drive, you know, the one hundred and
first airborne through you know. Things that we were told
were free trade were not free trade. Things that we
were told were this were not that, you know, And
that's where I think the neoliberalism problem sort of came in.
It was basically a group of elites telling people they
were making the world fairer, more global, these other things,
when in fact they were raking everything to benefit them,
as you know, an elite class.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but that's like it reminds me of when people
are like, well those priests were pedophiles, So now I'm
not a Catholic anymore, you know, or I hate I
hate Christianity. Well there are bad actors in all systems,
so or like free trade deals were terrible and they
aren't really free. So now I'm going to become a protectionist,
like the opposite of this thing that I supposedly am
mad that we didn't do. You know, it's like that
kind of logic that bugs me about people who complain
about that. But of course I agree. I mean, I
would love to see free trade deals that are I
would love to see no free trade deals. I would
like to just have people voluntarily exchanging goods all they want.
But that's a you know, that's never going to happen.
So I'd like to see a page long free trade agreement.
And honestly, Trump talks a lot about tariffs, and obviously
I am against almost all tarrifts, but a lot of
the agreements he made it actually fixed. You know, he's
fixed some agreements. I think we're poor, poor and done
better for us. So it's a it's a mixed bag.
Speaker 2: For Trump has explicitly argued at times that the point
of tariffs is to basically like get people to the
table so you can get a fairer trade deal, uh,
you know, a better trade deal. You know, I'm not
sure how it's worked out in practice, to put it mildly,
but I you know, I approve of the logic, and
I certainly feel like, you know, part of the reason
why we ended up with Trump is we got stuck
with this sort of system of you know, set up
by global elites that is inherently unfair in so many ways.
And Trump was the first guy that came out that said, yeah,
I participated in the system, and I can tell you
exactly how crooked it is. And I know because I
was writing the checks to make it crooked in order
to benefit myself, because that was the only way you
could do business. And that argument was like super powerful
and appealing. And you know, hence the fact that Dave
Chappelle has an entire like comedy routinement is basically just that.
Speaker 1: So yeah, well, yeah, economic populism is popular in Republicans.
Weren't embracing it at all the Democrats to some extent. Now,
you know, I don't know if things have been flipped upside down. Uh.
Last political topic I want to touch on was just Iran.
We've sent, We've sent, as Trump said, an armada over
there to the to the Gulf, and Steve Whitcoff's there,
I think, with others negotiating or about to negotiate with Iran.
And my position on this is that Iran always does
this whenever they get boxed into a corner, whenever there's
a called a revolution in a sense in their country,
they engage in negotiations, drag it out, maybe sign a deal.
Never abide by whatever they sign, keep funding proxies, causing
problems for everyone. And frankly, you know, I am not
a neocon, but I think that Trump promised these protesters
or egg them on in a way to to to
continue what they were doing, and that we they deserve
our help. They don't deserve for us to give the
regime a lifeline and to solidify their powers. So I'm
saying that, I don't know. Maybe Trump is just waiting
to get pieces in place to do something militarily. I
don't know, but I am worried. I don't trust Steve Wikoff.
I know others do when it comes to this sort
of thing, and so I'm worried that we're just going
to go back to what it was. And I realized
it's a huge problem to overcome what happens after regime change,
et cetera. I don't want American boots on the ground, really,
So I don't know what. I don't know what your
take is on what's been going on.
Speaker 2: Yeah, In fact, I think right before I hopped on
this podcast, there was a situation where the US Navy
had to like shoot down an Iranian drone in the
Strait of horror moves that was threatening it. So tensions
are still very high. I um, like you, I have
some mixed feelings about this. I mean, if the current
Iranian regime were to fall and we were to get
a you know, more secular, you know, pro Western regime
in Iran, it would be the biggest geopolitical earthquake since
the fall of the Berlin Wall, There's just no question.
And you combine that with regime change in Venezuela, you know,
I mean, it would be just I mean, Russia and
China would be screwed in a really major way. So
for someone who is very wary of regime change, like
I am, like I see the geopolitical logic here and
its urgent, need you know, handicapping China this way would
be like really truly massive and I would be delighted
to see that. But at the same time, you know,
we've seen, you know, how many times things can go
totally wrong when you engage in regime change for the
sake of regime change. I think the Trump administration is
aware of this, and they've been smart about it. Like,
for instance, even though there are definitely a lot more
pro Western figures in Venezuela. You know, they kept the
number two person in charge, I forget her name, uh,
but simply because they had judged that the pro Western
pro democracy people that have you know, were major agitators
in the country were not did not have the basis
support within the military and other things to keep ordering
the country and hopefully they can slowly move things toward
democracy and elections to a point where you know, they
can actually empower people like that. But you know, they
weren't just gonna, you know, turn the country into chaos.
You know, we saw, like I'm you know, we saw
what happened in Libya with the bomb administration, where you know,
Hillary Clinton led the charge to you know, basically kill
more Market Offye for some really shady and possibly corrupt reasons.
I might add there were people around her that were
like tied into private military companies that had like contracts
about taking care of things in Libya and all sorts
of stuff. So I think I really doubt her motives.
And you know, as much as I hated more Markedafi
and thought it was a bad guy. Ever since Maremarket
Afis was you know killed, Libya has been a completely
failed state. It is the conduit of most of the
illegal immigration that is flooding from North Africa into Europe,
and you know there are open air slave markets in
the place. I mean, it was much better under Kadafi
than it is now. It's crazy as that sounds, and
you don't certainly want a similar situation in the country
like Iran, where you know, you decapitate the current leaders
and somehow you get an even more brutal military dictatorship
or something like that, and you need to proceed very
very carefully. But I hope they have a plan, and
I hope they're successful at you know, getting somebody else
to run that country for the first time in forty
seven years or whatever it's been.
Speaker 1: I think of Venezuela, you have what would be a
rational actor to some extent now, you know, or self
interested actor, so you can pressure them to reform things
and so on. You're dealing with Shia twelvers, apocalyptic cultists
took over a country. I just don't think that you
can do the same kind of pressure from outside to
make them reform stuff. And I agree, I don't know
how things would turn out, but we can. I think
both agree. Iran is not Libya, right I mean, it
is a much more advanced society with different sorts of
people there, and there is organic uprisings, unlike in Iraq
or Afghanistan, where you had no uprising, where we force
people into democracy something they didn't want. And I'm not
even saying that they'll be democracy in Iran. I just
don't see how there can be a more theologically violent
group that takes over. It might be a military dictatorship.
I don't know, but I prefer a military dictatorship to
what's going on now because military dictator dictatorships can generally
evolve into something better. So I take all the things
you said, I think that Trump was then Trump should
not have said keep going, We're coming to help you.
Reminds me a little bit, just because of my personal
family history of you know, at Hungary and nineteen fifty six,
where the Americans sort of egged on too Hungarian revolutionaries,
but help never came even though they thought it was.
And obviously the United States was not going to get
into a world war over Hungary. But this is different.
There is no world war, and like you said, making
having you ran become even just less aggressive as far
as exporting its violence, all over the region would be
just a massive change in the world for the good.
I think.
Speaker 2: So, yeah, we're taking on Iran is at the center
of so many problems, like you know, I mean, they
are obviously funding a lot of you know, fumbling, They're
con to it for a lot of oil and other
things for Russia and China. They are the you know,
leading state sponsor of terrorism, you know, in the world.
You know, getting rid of Iran would immediately take care
of israel security problems. You know, it just it would
fix so many things that it's it's so tempting. But
at the same time, there's always been this like blood
lust in the American foreign policy establishment that I don't
think is you know, particularly thought through. You know, remember
John McCain famously singing, you know, bomb bomb, bomb ran
or whatever like that hasn't come out in very intelligent ways.
And I want them to do this intelligently so and
I want them to do it carefully for sure.
Speaker 1: I mean, with foreign policy, there's there's no surefire formula. Ever,
you never know what's going Iran is a really diverse place.
I think around could be gang numbers wrong, but maybe
forty percent of people there are not of Persian descent.
There's Kurds, there's Arabs, there's you know, there are a
lot of different people there, and that could get ugly.
So obviously it's a concern.
Speaker 3: How many people's health insurances cost more than their mortgage.
The watch Dout on Wall Street podcast with Chris Markowski.
Every day Chris helps unpack the connection between politics and
the economy and how it affects your wallet. Some Americans
are paying more for the health insurance than their mortgage.
And what happened? What if we all just stopped paying
for health insurance? Will that force doctors to lower costs?
Whether it's happening in DC or down on Wall Street,
it's affecting you financially.
Speaker 1: Be informed.
Speaker 3: Check out the watch dot on Wall Street podcast with
Chris Markowski on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1: Ayway, let's talk about culture. Yes, do you have anything
there watched recently?
Speaker 2: You know, I just watched rewatched, I hadn't seen it
in a long time. To Live and Die in La Oh. Yeah,
William Dafoe, maybe.
Speaker 1: Williem Dafoe's and William L.
Speaker 2: Peterson, who's like this fantastic eighties actor who just was
totally underutilized for some reason. He's just absolutely fabulous in
a couple of movies in the eighties. He was also
in Michael Man's Manhunter, which was the Silence of the
Lambs prequel.
Speaker 1: Where Brian Cox plays plays animal elector. And uh, he
was in Thief, which was great, and that's also Michael Mann.
I think, right he James Cohn was in Thief was women. Yeah,
I think he was a I think he was like
a partner or something.
Speaker 2: Anyway, Oh okay, well anyway, so obviously I'm a sucker
for these things in the eighties I was young. In fact,
I was just gonna mention Thief because Michael Man's Thief
kicked off this whole like uh gen mini genre of
we call them like uh, driving a night at l
A in LA movies, right, like because of Michael Mann.
Like now, anytime there's an action movie with a scene
at night, they have water trucks to wet down the streets. Yeah,
they all reflect the light or whatever when you're driving
and Winim Franklin is just a brilliant director, you know. Obviously,
to said, he kind of wanted to enter this this
sort of genre. It's an interesting movie, Like Willem Defoe
plays this counterfeiter that's being chased by a couple of
secret service agents, being one of them being played by
willimill Peterson, this other eighties character actor whose name totally
escapes me, and he ends up killing his partner and
he goes on this like sort of revenge crusade to
like get the guy. But the William the criminal is
also like, aside from being a psychopath, is also like
an artist, and there's always like weird scenes involving modern
dance and other things.
Speaker 1: But Willim Freaking's such a brilliant.
Speaker 2: Director, and the film looks so good. It's like such
an enjoyable film to watch. The soundtrack is by Wang Chung,
so that this really like eighties like new wave soundtrack
plus all the driving and night stuff.
Speaker 1: My memory of that movie is like a really long
episode of Miami Vice maybe back kind of like aesthetic
to it and very similar, you know, clearly, yeah, you know.
Speaker 2: It might even have been an influence on Michael Mann obviously,
who kind of invented the genre in that respect. But
so anyway, will I really like William Freakin, and I
just want to tell a quick story about Wayne Frequin.
Speaker 1: So William Creed Freakin, very famous director.
Speaker 2: He did, you know, the French Connection and The Exorcist
and a bunch of other great movies. What was the
remake of the French film about the You Have to
Carry the Dynamite in the Trucks through the Jungle.
Speaker 1: Sorcerer Y Sorcerer, which was which was expected to be
this huge hit and was overshadowed I think by like
Star Wars and Jaws and all that.
Speaker 2: Yeah, but it's such a great movie. Anyway, I was
listening to this podcast. Freakin died a couple of years ago,
but I was listening to this podcast, very popular film podcast,
where he was he was being interviewed and it's you know,
the podcast is is the host is a film director.
I can't remember his name. What's the name of the
guy that directed Gremlins? He's anyway, he's a well known director.
And then this other screenwriter and they're both typical Hollywood
lefties or whatever. And somehow politics came up, and you know,
Trump had recently been elected or something, and William freaking like,
as soon as they started mentioning politics, Willim freakin is like, now, now,
now let's not go down this road of attacking Trump,
you know, and let's give the guy a chance or whatever.
And the other hoster just gobsmacked it. This Hollywood legend
that they all worship is literally telling them to cool
their jets on criticizing Trump for the sake of criticizing Trump.
And it was like gobsmacked to hear this, And so
I tweeted about it, and I immediately got a call
from a Hollywood screenwriter friend of mine who's been around
a long time. And there's a lot of people's just
say the guy's legit, and and I know him because
he's also like a conservative, and he was like, oh, yeah,
uh freaking big conservative. Yeah no, I'm like, I would
not surprise me the slightest if he voted for Trump.
I was like, so, anyway, if I'm telling tails out
of school and freaking's of state is going to go
ballistic when they hear this, But like that's.
Speaker 1: What I was told.
Speaker 2: So, you know, and when you look at the eighties
action movie, it's ayesthetic, you know, it would make sense.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 2: It was just a very law and order, let's get
the criminal kind of thing.
Speaker 1: Yeah, his movies are very Uh, why did to say
masculine them thinking about the movie Cruising, which is a
incredibly disturbing and people should not watch it. But it
is I think a really well made, dark and affecting movie, right,
Like Cruising is no joke, but.
Speaker 2: You know it's kind of a reactionary commentary on sexuality,
is it not?
Speaker 1: You know? Yeah? Not it is? It is it is?
I uh wait, you have anything else there?
Speaker 2: I was to say, MOLLI and I've been watching The
Night Man, the second season of the Night Manager.
Speaker 1: We've discussed this and I think that ten year gaps
between shows are not okay. Who's just going to say?
Speaker 2: This is kind of crazy? Like I had totally forgotten
about this and all of a sudden they were promoting
It's got a good cast. It's really sickly done.
Speaker 1: You know.
Speaker 2: I don't have anything to say about it other than
it's it's better than average and enjoyable. Yeah, it's not
remarkable either.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I haven't watched it yet. I will, John lecare,
I'll usually usually take it in. I watched a documentary
called Miracle the Boys of eighty, which is another documentary. Yeah,
on I didn't watch it, by sorry, I saw it
listed it was interested. Yeah, miracle on ice, the hockey team,
which was massively important in my life. I was ten
years old when it happened. I was just like so
into it for me as a kid, and I'm probably
just romanticizing everything. That's when like the Reagan era started,
even though he wasn't present yet, and like people started
flying flags and everyone loved their country again and all
of that. And I'm sure that it wasn't that simple.
But this one's really good. I think it's the better,
the best one I've seen. First of all, they bring
back all a lot of the players, and it's interesting
to they get to see footage they'd never seen. It's
just interesting to hear their stories. But also it talks
a lot about the political atmosphere of the culture, and
not in just like this superficial way they usually do,
but as how, a lot of people were just really
looking for some reason to like America again, you know,
and this gave them that reason. And obviously I'm a
lifelong hockey fan and it's just a huge, huge, you know,
part of my young life, and I was. I just
think it's really well done. So I recommend it highly
to people my age, but to everyone. Yeah, I think
the Kurt Russell movie is is miracle.
Speaker 2: The miracle that they made out of this and so
is simultaneously one of the greatest sports films ever made.
It's acknowledges one of the greatest sports films ever made,
and also underrated. Like I feel like people don't talk
about that film quite as much as they would talk
about Hoosiers or other classic sports films. And it's so
well done. I mean, you know, talk about a movie
you could like show the whole family and you know what,
you make them, you know, cheer for America, and it's
just so well done. The locker room speech, Kurt Russell's fantastic.
It's it's just's great. It's my favorite sports movie.
Speaker 1: I watch it like once a year, make make my
family members watch it begrudgingly watch it with me. But
the h Yeah, the scene where he's always Herb Brooks,
so it's Kurt Russell plays is always asking them where
that who they play for? In the in the in
the hockey players are like University of Men is so,
you know Boston And then finally one says, you know,
I played for the USA, and I'm like, yeah, I
mean that is like such a great moment. And then
I Netflix. I had all has all the James Bond movies, right,
so I went back to watch some of the Daniel
Craig ones that I didn't really love. And you know,
I thought Casino Royale was one of the best James
Bond movies ever made. I just love the reboot when
it happened. I think he really he's much more in
line with what I think Ian Fleming's James Bond was
in the books. You know, he's just agreed, Yeah, just
a hardheaded, like straightforward. You know. I love there's this
scene where this guy's chasing is jumping through all the
windows and he just goes right through the wall. You know,
that's this James Bond. But then the other movies becomes
like this emotional mess and I just don't really enjoy them.
And I didn't love I mean, Skyfall's fine, but I
watched like the most recent one, I didn't love it, Specter,
I didn't really love it. I don't know, how do
you what do you think of iem?
Speaker 2: Completely agree with everything you just said, Like I was
so thrilled by Casino Royale in terms of like, you know,
after you know.
Speaker 1: The taking James Bond, you know, breaking.
Speaker 2: It down and just bringing it back to its essence
and what it should have been, and you know, really
nailing that right out of the gate.
Speaker 1: I was like great.
Speaker 2: And then like all of the other Craig films, it's
like the aesthetic and the tone is right, but somehow
they just don't work, like they're not well written. They
had they at some point Becauseina Royale didn't have a
problem with this, but some point all the other films
because they took a more sober, you know, view of
Bond being you know, this ruthless, you know, you guy
with a license to kill. They had a trouble balancing
that with the you know, the serious tone with the
more ridiculous aspects of James Bond. I felt like in
terms of like you know, Henchman's layers and you know,
women and all the other crap. Uh, they just couldn't
ever find the balance after Casino Royal again, and you know,
I don't know, it just there should have been slightly
more of an element of fun. Basically, there was just
enough in Casino roy Allen. Then none of the other
films really had that.
Speaker 1: And occasionally they'll they'll try to throw some joke in,
but it always comes out, it falls flat because the
movie is just so serious and the directors like Sammon
does whatever they're like have But I think they look great.
They look like you've hired the best director. You spent
a lot of money on this movie. They're three hours long.
I like that, Like I want the story to stretch out.
But like you say, something was always off with the
with the writing, with the with the.
Speaker 2: Well I think also the story fundamentally it was Daniel Craig,
like Bond needs to have some sort of like actual
like charisma, and I you know, I think he's a
very good actor, you know, I just don't think he
fundamentally had that. You know, women want to be with him,
men want to be him thing. Yeah, that you know,
he really sort of needed. Sean Connery had that in spades,
you know, and I think Sean Connery could have. You know,
obviously they made you know, Thunderball and Goldfinger and all
those are the classics, but you know, he could have.
Really they could have really honed in on that with
Connery and handled it well in terms of being kind
of a serious bond. If they'd gone down that route,
I just don't.
Speaker 1: Think that.
Speaker 2: Craig had the chops or charisma quite to pull it off.
He's a different kind of actor ultimately.
Speaker 1: Guys ripped though in really good shapes.
Speaker 2: Yeah, human growth hormone and a trainer and a dietician
twenty four hours a day.
Speaker 1: I'll do that and listen. I'm not one to talk,
and I don't know what women find attractive, but he
is a weird looking dude a little bit right, Like,
I'm like, is this really an attractive man? I'm not sure,
you know, but like in the way that Sean Connery
was or Roger Moore.
Speaker 2: Was, you know, he does have that kind of intensity
I think that women are drawn to. I don't know,
maybe women find him slightly more appealing than I did ultimately,
but yeah, he that intensity was just a little too much,
Like intensity was for Bond. Was good, but at a
certain point it was just like, Ugh, this doesn't need
to be, you know, a something that drags us down.
Speaker 1: For three hours. Yeah, yeah, and I get it. I
think he is a good actor in other roles. I've
enjoyed him quite a bit. So if you have different
ideas about James Bond, you can email us at Radio
at the Federalist dot com. We always love to hear
from you. Then we'll be back next week. The next
James Bond should be well. For a long time, I
thought it should be an Indrius Alba, right, but he's
I think he's aged out. Is just too old now. Yeah,
so I don't know. I don't know enough about British actors.
Here's the thing I don't think. I mean I didn't.
I sort of knew who Daniel Craig was because I
had seen him in that Tom Anks movie and a
British crime movie. But like, you don't need someone who's famous.
Layer Cake is an I love that movie. That's what
That's what really put him on people's radar for this. Yeah. Yeah,
so I don't have an answer to that. I think
a lot of the people I was thinking about years
ago of aged out. So why do you have someone No,
not at all. Yeah, I'm very sort of curious. But well,
so Amazon bought at all and they're looking now right, Well.
Speaker 2: What I'm afraid of? You know, the Amazon is going
to turn this into the James Bond Extended Universe. You know,
when you get three seasons of a money paying show,
Heaven help us. You know, I'm given what they did
Lord of the Rings after spending a.
Speaker 1: Billion, I'll say that. Yeah, it was brutal, and I
really gave it my best shot at liking it. It's funny.
There has never been any kind of James Bond offshoot
anything ever, Right, Yeah, I.
Speaker 2: Mean they were obviously very guarded with the property and
was kind of the Golden Us for you know, De
Laurentis and other people. So yeah, don't don't don't screw
this up. Amazon, I'm please, I'm looking at you, Bezos.
Please do not get involved. Bezos.
Speaker 1: Anyway, We'll be back next week until will them be
lovers of freedom and anxious for the throw?
Speaker 3: Hey, tonight is the ninth.
Speaker 1: Then I'm gonna get twisted. Mike miss got no if
I go, I'm gonna mix it. Roll that space ship.
We about to get lifted. Lift in the President give
this is gonna gift it. This is what you came,
is what you came for. What you made is what
you paid for.