Speaker 1: Get ready for October thirteen, and we're not even close
Speaker 1: to Halloween, but it is that date allegedly, according to
Speaker 1: that thing we call a calendar.
Speaker 2: And this is the Ocelli effect.
Speaker 1: Despite the strange sound you heard from your host, Yeah,
Speaker 1: my throat's sore, but that's okay. We're gonna give you
Speaker 1: a little more this week anyway. Now it is a
Speaker 1: Moonday or a Monday, and it is not my standard
Speaker 1: broadcast day, but I had a guess that I wanted
Speaker 1: to get on as soon as possible. And why not
Speaker 1: because I think of him as a rock star or anything.
Speaker 1: I've never heard of him before until.
Speaker 2: He emailed me, and he emailed.
Speaker 1: Me and told me he was listening to the Friday
Speaker 1: night open mic show.
Speaker 2: And you know what, He's one.
Speaker 1: Of the handful of people that actually responded to my
Speaker 1: own plea okay for individuals to, you know, to think
Speaker 1: about what it is they're saying and how much of
Speaker 1: their own opinions that they are so strongly committed to
Speaker 1: that they seem to be married to, are you know.
Speaker 2: Are they actually their own?
Speaker 1: Can I even articulate this process that I'm witnessing happening
Speaker 1: where literally, I mean I hate those AI things, but
Speaker 1: I utilized it in order to find out that people
Speaker 1: were literally, whether knowingly or unknowingly, reading the same script
Speaker 1: that they were also consuming one way or another in
Speaker 1: their different algorithm driven streams of media and in the
Speaker 1: news apps they have, and in the language they were using.
Speaker 1: It was all common and it wasn't just common terminology.
Speaker 1: It was literal robative parenting of things based on guess
Speaker 1: what their political, religious, and social orientations of you?
Speaker 2: And I'm witness and there's among.
Speaker 1: People that I deal with all the time, and even
Speaker 1: I've found a couple of things in my own speech
Speaker 1: patterns when I looked at guess what the AI printed
Speaker 1: transcripts of this show? Where I am not working with
Speaker 1: the script, I'm running with a couple of notes.
Speaker 2: These are my own thoughts.
Speaker 1: And yet I still found some duplication of things that
Speaker 1: I was being exposed to.
Speaker 3: Right there and robatea repetition, I mean, talk about mocking
Speaker 3: bird here we are.
Speaker 1: But anyway, this guy wrote to me about it and
Speaker 1: actually heard my plea for please, how do we serve
Speaker 1: this out?
Speaker 2: How do we improve this? How do we.
Speaker 1: Convince people that they are literally risking their lives, investing
Speaker 1: their treasure, giving up things for things that they believe
Speaker 1: of supreme importance their opinions, and they're not necessarily even
Speaker 1: their own anyway. Via email was entitled unpacking political witch
Speaker 1: hunt switch Dennis Brennan. So I assume I've made contact
Speaker 1: with Dennis Brennan because that's what the email tax say.
Speaker 1: Who knows anymore, because maybe he's an AI These are jokes, Tennis, Relax,
Speaker 1: I don't mean that really, But the thing is, you know,
Speaker 1: here we go keep thinking and keep.
Speaker 4: Your mind open.
Speaker 1: And also situational awareness is a psychological strategy that is
Speaker 1: not only important, but could result in greater in greater
Speaker 1: success when it comes to your personal survival and integrity
Speaker 1: at the same time.
Speaker 3: Anyway, enough out of me, Dennis, this is an interesting
Speaker 3: thing that you caught the show and you are occupied
Speaker 3: with something else.
Speaker 1: So first I want to find out how you're doing tonight,
Speaker 1: and then immediately after that, I'd like you to tell
Speaker 1: people what it is you do and you know and
Speaker 1: where you're at here, because there's some suggestions in the email.
Speaker 4: Here that give me an idea that you and I are.
Speaker 1: Going to have an interesting discussion about and conversation and
Speaker 1: aline My entire work is through conversation. So yeah, how
Speaker 1: you're doing and tell me and everybody here what it is.
Speaker 5: Okay, Well, thanks check, thanks for having me on. I
Speaker 5: I'm doing well today. Uh, and I think I've been
Speaker 5: doing well trying to talk about my book while I've
Speaker 5: been out there.
Speaker 6: I'm an attorney.
Speaker 5: I've been an attorney for thirty five years, also a
Speaker 5: political historian, very involved in local political campaigns for many years.
Speaker 5: I lately what I've been really concentrating on, and the
Speaker 5: reason I contacted you is I wrote a book DC
Speaker 5: Swamp Strikes Back Aaron Burr, Donald Trump, and their similar battles,
Speaker 5: and that book is now out and available, and I'm
Speaker 5: I wanted to get out and talk to you because
Speaker 5: I think some of the themes just in that introduction
Speaker 5: you mentioned are important to discuss in how people see
Speaker 5: Donald Trump, for instance, maybe not so much Aaron Burr.
Speaker 6: They probably don't know much about Aaron Burr.
Speaker 1: Well, you know, that was going to be my first
Speaker 1: question actually, because I know who Aaron Burr is and
Speaker 1: the ending of his political honesty in America is rather
Speaker 1: fascinating just in and of itself. But he has a
Speaker 1: legacy here that a lot of people don't necessarily know
Speaker 1: the name, except they might know that he was involved
Speaker 1: in a duel. But other than that, you know, it
Speaker 1: seems like America is sort of oblivious, or Americans, I
Speaker 1: should say, we're sort of oblivious to a lot of
Speaker 1: the history outside of a couple of bullet points that
Speaker 1: you're taught, you know, in high school or in middle
Speaker 1: school or whatever. And Aaron Burr is much like the
Speaker 1: entry for M. Kennedy assassination in a history book to me.
Speaker 1: But you know, generational context, I was in school in
Speaker 1: the seventies eighties, okay, And an entry into history book
Speaker 1: if we had one that went up to the Kennedy
Speaker 1: assassination when I was in school, because I went to
Speaker 1: some bad school districts, it might have had one sense.
Speaker 2: You know, John F.
Speaker 1: Kennedy was killed in Dallas, Texas, and a man named
Speaker 1: Lee Harvey Oswald either was the assassin or is the
Speaker 1: alleged assassin, and it was assumed that he's the guy
Speaker 1: based on the warrant commission end of story. And that
Speaker 1: would be a lengthy entry for the John F. Kennedy assassination,
Speaker 1: which doesn't begin to explain it doesn't begin to put
Speaker 1: it in context or anything else. Much of our history
Speaker 1: is this. It's worse than Wikipedia. And yeah, I know
Speaker 1: how bad Wikipedia is. And also, by the way, if
Speaker 1: there is some like underlying hostility here toward you during
Speaker 1: this conversation, just remember that might be because you're a lawyer.
Speaker 1: And okay, I made this point that ninety nine percent
Speaker 1: of lawyers I really like, you know, the jokes about
Speaker 1: like what's wrong with you know, a three hundred seat
Speaker 1: but going off the cliff with two hundred and ninety
Speaker 1: nine lawyers in it the empty seat. You know, a
Speaker 1: lot of people make those kind of jokes. But realistically,
Speaker 1: I've always said, every time a lawyer shows up in
Speaker 1: my life and is engaged in something in my life,
Speaker 1: it just means it's about to get a whole lot worse.
Speaker 1: But anyway, so I'm picking on you. But I have
Speaker 1: a couple of friends that are lawyers, but I am
Speaker 1: friendly with them in spite of the fact that they're lawyers,
Speaker 1: you know what I mean. Side, I'm gonna put that
Speaker 1: aside because I love Bill Simpitch and a couple other guys,
Speaker 1: Larry Snapp, you know a few other individuals that is,
Speaker 1: of course, maybe have common interest with me, and they're
Speaker 1: good guys and they're nice, and even I knew Mark
Speaker 1: Lane like you know, in a very like superficial way,
Speaker 1: and some other lawyers I've known too, and I'm not
Speaker 1: necessarily hostile towards every one of them. But I'm not
Speaker 1: throwing any sort of legal society get togethers for anybody.
Speaker 1: If I was a trillionaire, Okay it's not happening.
Speaker 5: Well, well, I you know, I don't blame you, because
Speaker 5: you know, we have some bad apples, just like like
Speaker 5: every profession. I think, you know, the one thing that's
Speaker 5: probably true is when a lawyer shows up in your life,
Speaker 5: it's probably going to cost your money one way or
Speaker 5: the other.
Speaker 6: You know, that's that's a fact.
Speaker 5: But I think when you compare lawyers, you know, we
Speaker 5: used to, you know, wonder about car salesman, right, used
Speaker 5: car salesmen were in the bottom wrong? Then you know,
Speaker 5: lawyers were getting that, you know tag at some point.
Speaker 5: I think now it's more the media when we talk
Speaker 5: about you know, which which job or which career is
Speaker 5: the worst it I think people now distrust the media
Speaker 5: more than even lawyers.
Speaker 6: So and I've been in both.
Speaker 5: I was also a small newspaper reporter editor.
Speaker 6: I even owned a newspaper for a while.
Speaker 5: And it is difficult because journalism has changed over the years.
Speaker 1: Well that's another thing is I used to have journalists
Speaker 1: on and we talked about, you know, the spirit of
Speaker 1: the business. Like a lawyer theoretically should be somebody I
Speaker 1: respect and appreciate. But I don't mean I don't even
Speaker 1: care about the money comes and goes. Okay, money is
Speaker 1: not the issue with lawyers. I'm telling you. They bring
Speaker 1: misery as far as I'm concerned, and it's not just
Speaker 1: based on a divorce, uh, you know, which I have
Speaker 1: experienced as well. Uh and a pretty profoundly brutal one.
Speaker 2: But either way, it doesn't matter. That's not what I
Speaker 2: hold against them.
Speaker 1: Okay, But I just understand that I watch a TV
Speaker 1: show like Better Call Saul, and I really wish most
Speaker 1: of you were like that guy as opposed to what
Speaker 1: it is I see in real life. I'm telling you now,
Speaker 1: so you know. But then again, I also hold your
Speaker 1: average let's hold up Italian businessman or other ethnic businessman
Speaker 1: to get together or less than legal activities. I respect
Speaker 1: those guys a whole lot more than I do politicians
Speaker 1: as well, because a they're better dressed and be you know,
Speaker 1: if you paid protection money to them, you might actually
Speaker 1: get something for it, unlike the politicians. Okay, so just
Speaker 1: understand my nasty libertarian attitude which other libertarians buyd a
Speaker 1: little hard to swallow because ultimately, you know, when I say,
Speaker 1: what is the you know, the ultimate redress? How do
Speaker 1: we deal with these things when there is no mechanism
Speaker 1: in place to hold people accountable?
Speaker 2: And ultimately they go to well.
Speaker 1: You just you know, arbitration through courts and through and
Speaker 1: I'm like, oh, oh no, no, no, no, no.
Speaker 2: There's got to be a better way, you know.
Speaker 1: Because I don't trust the court system. I see things
Speaker 1: going the wrong way all the time. And much like
Speaker 1: a whole lot of other elements in society, you know,
Speaker 1: what people.
Speaker 2: Buy their way through.
Speaker 1: If you have enough money, you.
Speaker 2: Can buy what they call justice. You can buy a
Speaker 2: good result.
Speaker 1: But if you don't, you can get ground up, either
Speaker 1: in the criminal court system or the civil court system,
Speaker 1: or you know, by basically being paid off in a
Speaker 1: way that is really a pittance compared to the damage
Speaker 1: done to you. No matter what it is you know,
Speaker 1: class action or direct lawsuit. It's always a lose lose
Speaker 1: thing for me when I see this go on, and
Speaker 1: so therefore I don't trust the courts either, surprise, you know,
Speaker 1: just like I don't trust the other two major branches
Speaker 1: of our government because over time they have absolutely eroded
Speaker 1: credibility in every direction possible in my mind. And the
Speaker 1: media also, yes, and journalism is almost an archaic dead art,
Speaker 1: like a language, you know, like sanscript. Nobody is using
Speaker 1: it right now. Okay, as far as I'm concerned, you know,
Speaker 1: much like the Constitution, which people will bend to the
Speaker 1: point of breaking and become contortionists in order to create
Speaker 1: an argument for something that's advantageous to them but not
Speaker 1: to the rest of us, which by the way, is
Speaker 1: the incorrect interpretation of the whole thing in the first place.
Speaker 1: But anyhow, enough of my world view. The point is,
Speaker 1: I want to get at this now. I haven't read
Speaker 1: your book, so I'm at a disadvantage here, and usually I.
Speaker 2: Like to read the books of the guests before they
Speaker 2: come on.
Speaker 1: But frankly, just seeing your email, I envisioned that you
Speaker 1: and I might have to have more than one conversation. Okay,
Speaker 1: if you're willing, and I'm willing because I want to
Speaker 1: explore this. So you put up his book and you
Speaker 1: do have a different sense of Donald Trump, which you
Speaker 1: and I discussed off air before we joined the audience here.
Speaker 1: But maybe you could explain to me what it is
Speaker 1: that now makes somebody who is in the legal profession
Speaker 1: so therefore has an opportunity to make money win or lose. Okay,
Speaker 1: Quite frankly, I've seen that over the years. And yes
Speaker 1: I know about you know, the people who work at
Speaker 1: the Public Defender's office and people who do charity work
Speaker 1: and good works and all that. But the point is,
Speaker 1: you have a license to print money if you're you know,
Speaker 1: clever and you're a lawyer. So tell me why it
Speaker 1: is that you would get into something like, oh, well,
Speaker 1: you know, some less profitable like publishing a book and
Speaker 1: things like this, and getting into this, you know, almost
Speaker 1: seeming to want to repair something you see broken in society.
Speaker 1: Tell me about that, because why wouldn't you just go
Speaker 1: along your way make your money. And quite frankly, a
Speaker 1: corrupt system is also another payday for you, So why
Speaker 1: would you even bother with you know, clearing things up
Speaker 1: when you could become the person standing up for people
Speaker 1: that are incompetent in the eyes of the court need
Speaker 1: you to be an attorney, which is separate from being
Speaker 1: a lawyer in a very serious way. But either way,
Speaker 1: they need you to be an ability to speak for
Speaker 1: them and you can get paid for it all the time.
Speaker 1: And yet there's something about communication that seems to bother
Speaker 1: you where you'd like to see other people empowered. So
Speaker 1: can you explain to me how we get from I'm
Speaker 1: a lawyer, I have these things going on. I even
Speaker 1: touched in journalism, and now I actually want to do
Speaker 1: something good. It almost seems counterintuitive to me. But you know,
Speaker 1: can you explain.
Speaker 5: Yeah, I think so, I think you know the idea
Speaker 5: of you know, we first of all, we have like
Speaker 5: eighty thousand attorneys in Illinois, so we have we have
Speaker 5: plenty of attorneys to represent just about everybody. And that's
Speaker 5: when I went to law school, I think the number
Speaker 5: was thirty thousand. By the time I graduated, it was
Speaker 5: up the sixty thousand. So we have an overabundance of attorneys.
Speaker 5: It's like you know, coorn out of Illinois. We have
Speaker 5: too many, probably I think, you know, mine comes from
Speaker 5: an interest that you know, goes from the legal system,
Speaker 5: journalism itself.
Speaker 6: Politics.
Speaker 5: You know, you wonder like why I would do something
Speaker 5: maybe that's not as financially rewarding. I have to tell you,
Speaker 5: I served on a school board, two school boards over
Speaker 5: the course of twelve years, and we don't get paid
Speaker 5: for school board work, and that it was rewarding.
Speaker 6: But you don't get paid, So are you wasting time? Absolutely?
Speaker 6: And I had I had another, you know job.
Speaker 5: Basically when I was doing the newspaper work, it was
Speaker 5: never for the money. It was to get opinions out there.
Speaker 5: I suppose to cover news. Maybe the others weren't covering.
Speaker 5: I always felt that even at that time, the journalism
Speaker 5: that we had wasn't very good. When I when I
Speaker 5: went to school. You know, journalism it's who, what, when, where,
Speaker 5: or why and how? You know, the five w's the
Speaker 5: one age. That's what you're supposed to concentrate on. Anybody
Speaker 5: that picks up a newspaper, a magazine or watches TV
Speaker 5: news will tell you it's mostly my opinion or that
Speaker 5: issue is, you know, without any evidence. They'll say Donald
Speaker 5: Trump said something without any evidence or that issue has
Speaker 5: been debunked, but they don't tell you how. They don't
Speaker 5: give you the facts. You have to go look it
Speaker 5: up yourself. So part of me doing this book is
Speaker 5: trying to present facts and show here, this is what
Speaker 5: I found through research.
Speaker 1: Right, and there needs to be a methodology here because
Speaker 1: I observed the same thing in what's the alleged news business?
Speaker 1: Some people would, you know, take it back to the
Speaker 1: time when broadcast news was done as a public service,
Speaker 1: not as a for profit industry, and people would say, well,
Speaker 1: what happens here is that we're serving the existing and
Speaker 1: waiting audience what it is they want. And I think
Speaker 1: that has been taken to an extreme in what I
Speaker 1: always refer to as the Brady Bunch format, which is,
Speaker 1: you know, the Brady Bunch. Famously, if you think about it,
Speaker 1: everybody will think of the split screen where you have
Speaker 1: you know, the TikTok toaieboxes okay, nine boxes with people's
Speaker 1: heads in them, except.
Speaker 2: The one that has the title in it.
Speaker 1: Well, they split the screen on TV, right, and then
Speaker 1: here we go, here's the stand in is it? You know,
Speaker 1: the standard guy who's going to argue on one side.
Speaker 1: Maybe he's got a partner. Here's two other people that
Speaker 1: are guests. They're there to promote their books or whatever,
Speaker 1: or their blogs, and they're there, they're on the other side,
Speaker 1: and then you have the alleged moderator or newsperson. Okay,
Speaker 1: and it's like the Brady Bunch style, except maybe they
Speaker 1: don't have a full nine people, and then it's about
Speaker 1: the argument.
Speaker 2: Quite honestly, each news show.
Speaker 1: Takes on a niche where you know, like the old
Speaker 1: Don Lemon show is the easiest one to not the
Speaker 1: one he does online on YouTube now, but the one
Speaker 1: he did for CNN was the easiest one to sort
Speaker 1: of you know, encapsulate in a quick summary, which was okay.
Speaker 1: So first hour, we're going to deal with the outrage
Speaker 1: of the day and have the Brady Bunch format. Now,
Speaker 1: second hour, we may change the lineup a little bit
Speaker 1: because some people are going to get tired after an
Speaker 1: hour of trying to fight for a spot to speak
Speaker 1: or waiting their turn to speak instead of listening to
Speaker 1: other people, and therefore they get a little bit you know, fatigued.
Speaker 1: So we're going to switch some new people in. And
Speaker 1: now the second hour is called how racist is It?
Speaker 1: And that's a game show almost where the outrage of racism.
Speaker 1: Don Lemon is bothered, but he's going to.
Speaker 2: Try and be objective. And now I'm going to throw.
Speaker 1: That on the table in the same arena, like I said,
Speaker 1: with a couple of substitutions, almost like it's a basketball
Speaker 1: game and second half. You know, you rest your stars
Speaker 1: for the first quarter, this kind of thing, all right,
Speaker 1: And then in between the commercials, which are often you know,
Speaker 1: inserted in a rather interesting way and might actually influence content.
Speaker 1: You know, we're not going to talk too much about
Speaker 1: the drug companies because they happen to account for a
Speaker 1: whole lot of our advertisers, so we're not going to
Speaker 1: criticize them, But we can criticize other people and other things,
Speaker 1: and other corporations that maybe are not exactly our advertisers,
Speaker 1: are connected to our parent group of media, you know,
Speaker 1: because everything's a conglomeration owned by approximately five corporations some
Speaker 1: people say six, but five corporations in one way or
Speaker 1: another of corporate groups effectively own every piece of media
Speaker 1: that has any sort of traction in the legacy media.
Speaker 1: So you can see it coming if you understand the
Speaker 1: format right, And.
Speaker 2: It wasn't always like this was it.
Speaker 1: There was a time, I mean you mentioned the who, when, where, why?
Speaker 1: You're talking about the literal like middle school level of
Speaker 1: journalism where they told you you have to structure that
Speaker 1: in the first paragraph. Now, how do I know this
Speaker 1: because I took those classes and I did beyond high
Speaker 1: school as an education. But you know what, I educated
Speaker 1: myself afterwards. So stay tuned. But that's the reality is
Speaker 1: that it really was that simple. At one time, you
Speaker 1: did your local news. You let people know what was
Speaker 1: going on around the world, and whether it was a newspaper,
Speaker 1: it was on television, or it was the trusted sources
Speaker 1: on radio. Even Okay, when I was growing up, these
Speaker 1: three outlets informed people and it was for the most
Speaker 1: part of public service. I mean, newspaper wanted to turn
Speaker 1: a profit, but it wasn't a massive profit. It was
Speaker 1: just about being able to pay those people to guess
Speaker 1: what do journalism. And you know, local advertisers might have
Speaker 1: also served a dual purpose. You were informed about your
Speaker 1: community and the things around it through the local advertisers also,
Speaker 1: and you know, there was a marriage there of you know,
Speaker 1: the interests of the people the community and information being
Speaker 1: arbitrary being informative without massive bias. For the most part,
Speaker 1: that was the concept. When did that go out the window?
Speaker 1: To you? Because I have an idea about it, but
Speaker 1: you might have a different one.
Speaker 5: Yeah, you know, I think it started to go out
Speaker 5: actually earlier than most people realize.
Speaker 6: I think when Watergate hit.
Speaker 5: I think Wood, Orton, Bernstein became superstars and how they're
Speaker 5: writing books.
Speaker 6: There's a movie about them.
Speaker 5: People I think in journalism started thinking, wait a minute,
Speaker 5: I can make money and I can be a celebrity.
Speaker 5: And it's slowly has creeped upon us over the years.
Speaker 5: I mean, it's interesting when you ask journalists, they all
Speaker 5: think they're not biased, right, they all think I do
Speaker 5: it right down the line, I'm fair balanced, whatever. But
Speaker 5: when they take polls of the journalists in the newsroom,
Speaker 5: and they've had these over several years, you know, they'll
Speaker 5: find that they're mostly Democrats. Actually, the last one in
Speaker 5: twenty twenty two, only three point four percent of American
Speaker 5: we're talking about American journalists identified as Republicans. You know,
Speaker 5: thirty five percent or so said they're Democrats. The rest
Speaker 5: said their independence. I would guess most of those independents
Speaker 5: are not really independence but they're smart enough to say
Speaker 5: they are.
Speaker 6: That's a problem.
Speaker 5: But there's even a bigger problem beyond that, where a
Speaker 5: lot of the people are coming from government going to
Speaker 5: the networks in important positions. Not only like George Stephanopolis,
Speaker 5: who was a big advisor to Clinton, doing the news
Speaker 5: shows now as if he's a journalist, but the people
Speaker 5: running the networks, you know, running the news network part
Speaker 5: are people who have been in government, who have been
Speaker 5: in the Obama administration or the Clinton administration, and they're
Speaker 5: you know, we identify them as Democrats. It's impossible to
Speaker 5: get a fear shake. And I think it's something that
Speaker 5: Trump has run into, and I think rightly has decided
Speaker 5: I'm going to go.
Speaker 6: Around these guys.
Speaker 5: I don't have to deal with the media the same
Speaker 5: way I used to deal with it, or Republicans in
Speaker 5: general used to deal with it, because they're not being fair.
Speaker 5: They've already, you know, basically made up their mind. They've
Speaker 5: written the story. Now they want to just get you
Speaker 5: to throw a quote in there and make you look silly.
Speaker 1: See what's strange is I detect a sincerity about what
Speaker 1: it is you're saying. And I've heard this argument over
Speaker 1: the years, and I've got to tell you, I find
Speaker 1: it to be counterfactual completely. And the reason is that
Speaker 1: that is through the lens that you're choosing to see it.
Speaker 1: I see it through a slightly different lens, and I
Speaker 1: have people tell me that I'm insane. Now I'm obviously
Speaker 1: capable of thinking above. You know, the pay grade is
Speaker 1: somebody who's got a bad high school diploma, and that's it.
Speaker 1: But I think a lot of people don't take me seriously.
Speaker 2: When I try and explain that.
Speaker 1: I think that is a narrow view of what it
Speaker 1: is you're observing, and the problem is that we don't understand.
Speaker 1: I think that in some cases, Okay, I'll take the
Speaker 1: Donald Trump thing on because it is the biggest piece
Speaker 1: to bite off and try and chew. Here where I'm
Speaker 1: constantly told, look, the media has been against him, he's
Speaker 1: gone around it. I find that to be entirely false,
Speaker 1: because here's what happens. In my mind, a guy that
Speaker 1: really had no right to be taken serious, okay, in
Speaker 1: the political arena, was absolutely promoted on a twenty four
Speaker 1: to seven basis, even if he was promoted as a
Speaker 1: bad guy by his alleged opposition okay, And indeed what
Speaker 1: you're saying is true in part of the media where
Speaker 1: it is completely the operatives of the alleged democratic side,
Speaker 1: which I conclude is in collusion with the opposed, the
Speaker 1: alleged opposition. And here's why. Even with them constantly making
Speaker 1: him the bad guy, the bad guy, the bad guy,
Speaker 1: guess what, they're not talking about anything that their alleged
Speaker 1: side is doing. They're talking about him twenty four hours
Speaker 1: a day. So your outrage is supposed to be focused
Speaker 1: on him. You're you know, he's the bad guy. He's
Speaker 1: literally the guy you can root against. I use the
Speaker 1: wrestling analogy often because Jesse Ventura, even though you know
Speaker 1: he's a little bit odd, made a couple of very
Speaker 1: very astute statements over the years, and one of them is,
Speaker 1: it's very much like pro wrestling. Yeah, what you see
Speaker 1: on TV, this guy's the bad guy, he's the bane
Speaker 1: of all things and everything else. But they are promoting him,
Speaker 1: and indeed he's selling his own merchandise. And there is
Speaker 1: a whole business model where you can support the anti
Speaker 1: hero while pretending that you're working against it. Okay, And
Speaker 1: that is what I see here, is that that's going
Speaker 1: on with Trump and he was promoted. There was no
Speaker 1: way the air is suck down in the room. There
Speaker 1: was nothing else being talked about except Donald Trump. Now,
Speaker 1: there was a miscalculation, in my mind, in the political
Speaker 1: halls of power, let's say, during the time when Trump
Speaker 1: ran for president. There was a serious miscalculation. And I
Speaker 1: had Roger Stone on this show and talk to him
Speaker 1: about it in that time period in twenty fifteen when
Speaker 1: he was allegedly dismissed from the campaign, and I swear
Speaker 1: to you, I think he's still working behind the scenes
Speaker 1: with Trump because I see his methodologies in the winning
Speaker 1: strategy that Trump is now utilizing. Okay, and Roger Stone,
Speaker 1: I said, come on, Roger, this guy is you know,
Speaker 1: a joke. There is no way anybody could think that
Speaker 1: he is capable of running anything. And I don't think
Speaker 1: he believes it. It must be nothing more than a
Speaker 1: publicity's done and the media is going right along with it.
Speaker 1: And I'll tell you why their ratings rose up. People
Speaker 1: were paying more attention. They were hate watching so that
Speaker 1: they were tuned in, much like you know Goldberg in
Speaker 1: nineteen eighty four. Everything has to stop so you can,
Speaker 1: you know, have your whatever minutes of outrage, right, your
Speaker 1: minutes of hate. And the thing is they ran that
Speaker 1: hate minute on a twenty four to seven cycle, So
Speaker 1: exhaustion comes into the equation for sure. But he was profitable.
Speaker 1: You could see the ratings and the business models rise up,
Speaker 1: their viewerships rolls up.
Speaker 2: Literally, you could witness it.
Speaker 1: On a grab that Donald Trump's popularity or the negative
Speaker 1: benefited the entirety of the broadcast and the news business
Speaker 1: in general. If you were covering Donald Trump, whether you
Speaker 1: were totally against him or you were the propaganda machine that.
Speaker 2: The Rupert Murdochs of the world were running.
Speaker 1: Either way, you know, here's your choices. It's all on
Speaker 1: a menu of choices. You want to hate Trump, you
Speaker 1: want to pretend like you're being objective, or you want
Speaker 1: to go all full throated with him because he's a disruptor,
Speaker 1: he's an outsider and all that. We have something on
Speaker 1: our menu for you. And the thing to remember about
Speaker 1: the menu they offer you at a restaurant is you know, oh,
Speaker 1: I'm making a choice. Yeah, but a lot of choices
Speaker 1: were made for you because you didn't design the menu
Speaker 1: in the first place. You got to think of it
Speaker 1: that way. So this was the offer, and this is
Speaker 1: the benefit that was had by all, even the msnbcs
Speaker 1: and you know, the clown show that is Rachel Maddow
Speaker 1: and you know, for God's sake, Reverend House Sharpton being
Speaker 1: taken seriously, you know, as.
Speaker 2: Somebody who's a news analyst.
Speaker 1: I mean there's another guy who was a hustler from
Speaker 1: the same region I grew up in, and you know what,
Speaker 1: he hustled his way into an alleged legitimacy as far
Speaker 1: as being a presenter on MSNBC, for God's say. So
Speaker 1: you know, when you combine that with and back to
Speaker 1: Hillary real fast, I think there was a major miscalculation
Speaker 1: here is that even if the CIA wanted to directly
Speaker 1: steal an American election on her behalf, I don't think
Speaker 1: the American people would have bought it because there were
Speaker 1: no legitimate actual you know. I mean there was a
Speaker 1: few that they showed you on TV, but there were
Speaker 1: no legitimate supporters who were enthusiastically and organically behind her.
Speaker 1: I openly asked for, you know, please give me some
Speaker 1: Hillary supporters while this guy is out.
Speaker 2: Here doing his clown show.
Speaker 1: And I couldn't get legitimate Hillary supporters unless they were
Speaker 1: directly operatives and being paid by the campaign. I couldn't
Speaker 1: get just regular people in the come on and even
Speaker 1: begin to tell me why she's such a great idea,
Speaker 1: you know. And so she was such a pathetically and
Speaker 1: unrelatable character. I mean, think about this. She went out
Speaker 1: with the great grandma of you, right and been the
Speaker 1: kindly grandma. She had the opportunity to sell that as
Speaker 1: political capital out there to say, look, I'm just like you,
Speaker 1: I'm with the common people. And she couldn't pull that
Speaker 1: off because she didn't even know how to behave like
Speaker 1: a normal human being in public.
Speaker 2: I mean, and this isn't about politics, I'm.
Speaker 1: Telling you, this is about, you know, her less than
Speaker 1: capable ability to interact with the media, with people directly,
Speaker 1: and to be relatable as another human being in America.
Speaker 1: She was incapable of that, you know. And so Bill Clinton,
Speaker 1: you know, he could sell you stuff with And I
Speaker 1: know right now I probably sound more like Clinton than
Speaker 1: I usually do, but I mean thing is he was
Speaker 1: like that with his horse voice and is biting his
Speaker 1: lip and his off shucks and all that. People looked
Speaker 1: at him and said, you know what, I kind of
Speaker 1: believe him. He seems like a legitimate guy, and meanwhile
Speaker 1: he was another illegitimate human being when he came to
Speaker 1: what it was, he said he was less than genuine.
Speaker 1: But there was zero genuine presentation from that woman because
Speaker 1: she was incapable of it. So even if the deep State,
Speaker 1: let's call it, decided to steal the election, for people
Speaker 1: would have been screaming that that was the most fake
Speaker 1: election they ever saw. We might have seen a revolution
Speaker 1: because it would have been obvious that she wasn't even
Speaker 1: marketable as a candidate. And I think they miscalculated about that,
Speaker 1: and once that happened, they had no choice but to
Speaker 1: allow Trump, who actually had legitimate, populous support.
Speaker 2: And why did he have that support.
Speaker 1: Because he was saying things that were, you know, clean
Speaker 1: to the fact that people had felt as though they
Speaker 1: had been left behind and shut out of the system,
Speaker 1: ignored and now abused by the system that was meant
Speaker 1: to serve them. And he literally said, no, we're going
Speaker 1: to get the people that did that to you.
Speaker 2: We're going to.
Speaker 1: Change everything because I'm like you.
Speaker 2: And I can't be bought.
Speaker 1: And you know what, that sounds pretty good when you
Speaker 1: have alien woman over here, you know, allegedly being a candidate.
Speaker 1: She was so terrible and they miscalculated so bad, thinking
Speaker 1: there's no way that somebody's going to buy this joke
Speaker 1: over here that you know the miss and they miscalculated earlier.
Speaker 2: Than him having the nomination.
Speaker 1: But when I said this, old Roger Stone off the
Speaker 1: air and then partially on air, he said, you know
Speaker 1: what the problem is, Chuck, You sorely misunderstand the amount
Speaker 1: and the level of narcissism that you're looking at with Trump.
Speaker 1: This is a guy who is in no way connected
Speaker 1: to your world of thinking. He is on another level.
Speaker 1: He really believes that he can run everything because he
Speaker 1: always has and he's always been successful even when he fails.
Speaker 1: And I said, wow, yeah, and that's Roger Stone, who
Speaker 1: was a good friend of his. And you know the
Speaker 1: history then, and.
Speaker 2: By the way, I'm a fan of rober Stones.
Speaker 1: I'm just saying I know that this guy was effective
Speaker 1: as a political operative and somebody who got things done,
Speaker 1: regardless of how they wanted to do him dirty and
Speaker 1: get him out of the establishment and get him away
Speaker 1: from everybody because he was dangerous to you know, the
Speaker 1: politic dajure of any given time period. And you notice
Speaker 1: I haven't gone for against anybody here. I'm telling you
Speaker 1: what I see as far as what was workable in
Speaker 1: the media.
Speaker 2: You know, even people that cast the Jerry Springer Show.
Speaker 1: Legitimately weren't necessarily in love with Jerry Springer, but the
Speaker 1: action made them feel good or better, et cetera, et cetera.
Speaker 1: And that's what Donald Trump did. The words, let's lock
Speaker 1: her up because we feel that she's responsible.
Speaker 2: Let's get these.
Speaker 1: People who have tried to, you know, make our lives
Speaker 1: miserable and unlivable. And you know what, that grievance, that
Speaker 1: appeal to grievance gave him the ability to say, give
Speaker 1: me the authority and I'll do it. And people bought
Speaker 1: that because at least it sounded real. I'm sorry, I
Speaker 1: know that was a long rant, but I wanted to
Speaker 1: explain that right away. Your premise fothers me because I
Speaker 1: see it in this light. So please help help me
Speaker 1: to see your side of it.
Speaker 5: Yeah, let me, there's a lot there. I'll agree with
Speaker 5: that if you put a lot there. I mean, you
Speaker 5: start with did the media build up Trump? Yes, I
Speaker 5: think they did, but it started in the primary, and
Speaker 5: I think they did that with the purpose of Trump
Speaker 5: being the candidate they thought Hillary could beat.
Speaker 6: I think when you look at.
Speaker 2: Uh, I agree with you on that, just.
Speaker 5: Ahead and you know, and it's like he was a
Speaker 5: star on MSNBC, right, Joe Scarborough, who now dislikes him.
Speaker 6: I guess we had him on all the time.
Speaker 5: Trump would call in, and I think those relationships, so
Speaker 5: they lay out in the book, the owners, not so
Speaker 5: much the people, like the president of NBC at the time,
Speaker 5: her what she called her life partner, was a lobbyist,
Speaker 5: you know, and he also worked for mauryel Bowser, the
Speaker 5: Democrat mayor in DC. You had ABC had their news
Speaker 5: executive producer Mary to Susan Rice. The CBS president, David Rhodes,
Speaker 5: was the brother of Ben Rhoades, who was in Obama's
Speaker 5: administration as National Security advisor. CNN's president was married to
Speaker 5: a Hillary deputy, a deputy secretary. ABC had the brother
Speaker 5: of another Obama advisor, Elizabeth Sherwood. And it goes on
Speaker 5: and on, and I think these people, I think you're right,
Speaker 5: they knew Hillary was a bad candidate. That's why nobody
Speaker 5: like Barack Obama was able to take her out In
Speaker 5: two thousand and eight. You know, he had served a
Speaker 5: couple of years in the Senate and all of a
Speaker 5: sudden he's the star of the party. But when they
Speaker 5: went to twenty sixteen, yeah, they looked at it like
Speaker 5: Hillary has a problem beating let's say, Jeb Bush or
Speaker 5: whoever that's on that stage. Trump was the guy they
Speaker 5: thought is a joke. Now it turns out they're wrong.
Speaker 5: You know, he was able to win so of it
Speaker 5: I think is Hillary like you mentioned, you know, when
Speaker 5: you call Americans deplorables. I mean there's some people that
Speaker 5: vote for you know, let's say Kamala Harrison the last election,
Speaker 5: I wouldn't call them deplorables. I mean, some of them
Speaker 5: are friends of IBE.
Speaker 6: I don't.
Speaker 5: I just think they're misled. They don't, you know, to
Speaker 5: the point that you made originally in the previous show.
Speaker 5: You believe things that you keep being told, and the
Speaker 5: media is one of those brainwashing mechanisms, as is our
Speaker 5: education system and a lot of our institutions.
Speaker 7: Right here, I have a question in this pocket, please,
Speaker 7: because okay, you mentioned the debate, and yes, on the
Speaker 7: one hand, you're very correct.
Speaker 1: There's all these people that are democratic operatives and all that.
Speaker 1: But then you have to square it with what happened,
Speaker 1: which is, okay, the debates happened. And when I had
Speaker 1: Roger Stone on Jeb Bush, he was writing a book
Speaker 1: to basically kneecap Jed Bush in the primary. Okay, he
Speaker 1: put out that book. It wasn't very popular, it wasn't
Speaker 1: necessary because Jeed Bush, you know, took himself out. All right.
Speaker 1: Meanwhile the Democrats are turning around and making sure to
Speaker 1: really manipulate a selection process.
Speaker 2: When he came to Bernie.
Speaker 1: Sanders directly, okay, because he actually had people that were
Speaker 1: enthusiastics supporting him among the Democrats, we totally removed him
Speaker 1: from the equation, you know, just based on what it
Speaker 1: is they wanted to do, regardless of what the people wanted.
Speaker 2: So there you go. But the interesting thing.
Speaker 1: About Trump and the debates is that he didn't even
Speaker 1: win a debate. What he did is go in there
Speaker 1: and say, you know what, realistically, a debate is not
Speaker 1: just about winning. Now most people think that's all it is,
Speaker 1: you know, win your point when your argument. Debating in
Speaker 1: more than that, Donald Trump walked in there without the
Speaker 1: knowledge of a how to really debate anything, but he
Speaker 1: did know how to win an argument, and those are
Speaker 1: two different things. Now, he went in there and he
Speaker 1: won the arguments by, you know, basically throwing out the
Speaker 1: book on what it is you're supposed to do. He's
Speaker 1: interrupting people and going, yeah, well you know you did this,
Speaker 1: Well what about your family and the wars boom boom book.
Speaker 1: He just kept hitting people even when it wasn't He
Speaker 1: was like stepping up. If it was baseball, the guy
Speaker 1: is stepping up out of the dugout, walking up to
Speaker 1: the plate with a bat and taking a swing at
Speaker 1: a ball that wasn't even pitched to him. Okay, that's
Speaker 1: what he was doing. And in reality, somebody might say, well,
Speaker 1: either he's an idiot or he's so smart that he's
Speaker 1: just decided to go around it and utilize that airtime
Speaker 1: to really make his points. So he just created all
Speaker 1: of possible campaign as during the time that they were
Speaker 1: allegedly debating.
Speaker 2: And I mean, so you've got.
Speaker 1: To recognize it that way in my mind, So the
Speaker 1: people in these media organizations, regardless of their intent, when
Speaker 1: they saw this, they could have corralled it and put
Speaker 1: a stop to it and taken the spotlight off of
Speaker 1: him if they really wanted to strategically defeat him. But
Speaker 1: that wasn't what it was about. It was about the
Speaker 1: fact that some of them were on their way out
Speaker 1: business wise. People had stopped watching a lot of this stuff.
Speaker 2: People were bored with it.
Speaker 1: And knew they were being deceived, you know, for political
Speaker 1: talking points. You know, like I said about the astrasenttion
Speaker 1: stuff and removing the drug you know, any criticism of
Speaker 1: drugs that were literally being marketed and killing people. You
Speaker 1: didn't see big news stories on that. You saw new
Speaker 1: stories about drug companies doing well because you know, magically
Speaker 1: and just go instantly that's who their sponsors were. You
Speaker 1: didn't see them being guys and they were literally killing people.
Speaker 1: So Trump could have easily been made a lot less
Speaker 1: you know, substantial as a candidate if they had simply
Speaker 1: stopped giving him the.
Speaker 2: Air, stopped giving him the controversy.
Speaker 1: I mean, even when they dug up the Access Hollywood team,
Speaker 1: that was a search they did trying to come up
Speaker 1: with something anything, because they wanted the sensational breaking headline.
Speaker 1: Everybody wants to meet TMZ, you know completely probably there going.
Speaker 2: Another lawyer running a media out.
Speaker 4: There right, And here we go.
Speaker 1: The way I'm viewing it. And again you might think
Speaker 1: I'm crazy or maybe I got intense, you know, because
Speaker 1: I'm just sort of hostile towards disingenuous people.
Speaker 2: But I mean, if i'scle towards.
Speaker 1: Disingenuous people, I should really stay away from politics and
Speaker 1: media people, because that's what I'm gonna get is a
Speaker 1: lot of fake not just fake news, but how about
Speaker 1: fake newspeople and fake politicians. They're not real, they're not legitimate,
Speaker 1: they're not really speaking to their values or their reality.
Speaker 2: They're here to come and that's what they do.
Speaker 5: Well, no, I think you know, you hit on something
Speaker 5: that I wanted to make sure we didn't pass up.
Speaker 5: Like you mentioned the Hollywood Access tape. Hollywood Access, Right,
Speaker 5: that's the show that came out. You know, they knew
Speaker 5: about it, but it came out a month before the election.
Speaker 5: So he's already the candidate that they've helped create because
Speaker 5: they think he's going to lose, and then a month
Speaker 5: before they realized, wait a minute, he might win this thing.
Speaker 5: And you know, now that tape comes out. But the
Speaker 5: problem that they always have when they attack Trump is
Speaker 5: Trump's base.
Speaker 6: Does not care about that.
Speaker 5: And I think also you have you know, a lot
Speaker 5: of even the regular Republicans were at that point upset
Speaker 5: because you know, Obama Hillary Clinton were both attacking Republicans
Speaker 5: in general for years. So it almost becomes I'm not
Speaker 5: voting for them, and so I think that Hollywood Access tape. Yeah,
Speaker 5: they were trying to take him out at that point,
Speaker 5: and usually that works with most candidates, right, It didn't
Speaker 5: work with Trump.
Speaker 1: He used to, but I think Bill Clinton taught it's
Speaker 1: a different lesson because remember, the moral high ground was
Speaker 1: supposed to be a big deal. Now I'm not concerned,
Speaker 1: and I'll tell you I was part of that then,
Speaker 1: and that was one of my you know, my first
Speaker 1: presidential candidate I ever voted for was Bill Clinton. And yes,
Speaker 1: I realize it's a mistake now, but at the time,
Speaker 1: I was a young guy and I was being directly
Speaker 1: influenced a kind of you know, oblivious to a lot
Speaker 1: of what the media was doing, and Bill Clinton just
Speaker 1: seemed like, you know, a better choice.
Speaker 2: I didn't like George H. W.
Speaker 1: Bush.
Speaker 4: I didn't like him.
Speaker 1: It wasn't about Democrat Republican. It was just about I
Speaker 1: found Clinton likable and the thing is he gets caught
Speaker 1: up in a scandal where he's taking advantage of his
Speaker 1: position and power over this girl. Her life is ruined, right,
Speaker 1: can't even be faithful to his wife, so therefore, you
Speaker 1: know how we're going to trust him with the country.
Speaker 1: This was, you know, part of the moral outrage of
Speaker 1: the time, and believe me, it dominated. Another section of
Speaker 1: media that has never been touched really by liberals in
Speaker 1: a real.
Speaker 2: Way is talk radio.
Speaker 1: It survives even today, just barely, based on the fact
Speaker 1: that it is absolutely loaded and has only been successful
Speaker 1: in the political game. You can do sports radio or
Speaker 1: you can do conservative.
Speaker 2: Radio, and that's it.
Speaker 1: In Rush Limbaugh, you know, crack, that coach very well
Speaker 1: figured it out how to work at that. But there are,
Speaker 1: you know, many of them. Before Rush Limbaugh. There was
Speaker 1: a guy named Bob Brant, New York that I used
Speaker 1: to listen to all the time. He used to start
Speaker 1: his shows by basically insulting Mario Clmo with an Italian every.
Speaker 2: Day, and I used to listen to him. You know,
Speaker 2: Curtis Sleeve was running for mayor.
Speaker 1: Now, yeah, he was a Guardian angel and he was
Speaker 1: almost seen as a lefty kind of but he never was,
Speaker 1: and he's now what the Republican.
Speaker 2: Candidate for mayor in New York not doing well? But
Speaker 2: there he is.
Speaker 1: Right, that's pretty substantial of the change.
Speaker 2: But here's the deal. Bill Clinton did.
Speaker 1: Something that normally should have disqualified him on his character. Uh.
Speaker 1: And you know, most of America, in all honesty, even
Speaker 1: though with the impeachment and everything else. And I'm bringing
Speaker 1: him up only because he's a Democrat, even with the
Speaker 1: impeachment and everything else, a lot of people like myself
Speaker 1: kind of went, so what because you know and that yeah,
Speaker 1: and that's what happened with access Hollywood. And meanwhile, Bill
Speaker 1: Clinton literally had a physical relationship that was proven in public.
Speaker 2: And he lied on the oath.
Speaker 1: And still people like me said, yes, so what, who's
Speaker 1: not gonna lie about cheating on his wife? I mean seriously,
Speaker 1: that was what it boiled down to.
Speaker 2: So yeah, he got the bill, you know, and he
Speaker 2: knew that he knew them Trump did at the time,
Speaker 2: by the way, but anyway, go ahead.
Speaker 5: No, I think you know, that's a real good example.
Speaker 5: Clinton might have been the one that that broke it
Speaker 5: right that uh, it didn't matter you know if people
Speaker 5: because that was the excuse and that excuse even went
Speaker 5: on when you know, George W. Bush became president and
Speaker 5: what were people yelling on the other side. You know,
Speaker 5: Bush lied and people died, you know, and for and
Speaker 5: they would say that when Clinton lied, it was about sex.
Speaker 5: It's like, well, okay, that's a great excuse. But yeah,
Speaker 5: up until then you go back to Gary Hart, you know,
Speaker 5: when he was in the primary and other candidates over
Speaker 5: the years. He's the one that comes to mind though,
Speaker 5: where he's caught, you know, on a boat with some
Speaker 5: young woman who's not his wife. That's it. His campaign's
Speaker 5: over and literally called monkey business.
Speaker 1: Yeah, but you know he had moved not because of character.
Speaker 1: He wasn't you know, politically taken down because of his character.
Speaker 1: You know this, he was politically taken down because he
Speaker 1: had and people forget, he had been part of those
Speaker 1: investigations that were challenging and actually pulling some of the
Speaker 1: dirt that people were doing the government out in the public.
Speaker 1: So that's why he had to be sidelined. That's why
Speaker 1: Gary Hart went out.
Speaker 2: If you don't believe me, check.
Speaker 1: Out you know, his involvement with some of the investigations
Speaker 1: and the slew of them that occurred in the nineteen seventies,
Speaker 1: which by the way, is also part of his calculus here.
Speaker 1: And I'm not even going to go too deep into
Speaker 1: the Iran contrast to that year. Another thing we're seeing
Speaker 1: that both sides of the equation do the dirty thing,
Speaker 1: and if the public doesn't care, take the public doesn't care,
Speaker 1: you know, I mean Barack Obama. I can make this
Speaker 1: statement without hesitation. Barack Obama literally ordered the murder of
Speaker 1: an American citizen on foreign soil, without any due process
Speaker 1: or even an adversarial process to prove that he was
Speaker 1: guilty of a crime.
Speaker 2: Now, I know that.
Speaker 1: That guy is not popular, and if I bring up
Speaker 1: his name, people are going to go, yes, so much.
Speaker 1: But Barack Obama literally ordered the murder of an American
Speaker 1: citizen on foreign soil. That's a historical factor, okay, and
Speaker 1: more than one in my estimation. But you know what
Speaker 1: I'm talking about.
Speaker 6: Right, yeah?
Speaker 5: And I think you know I've mentioned this to other
Speaker 5: people when they talk about so called crimes by the president.
Speaker 5: You know, it's like he said, be careful because you
Speaker 5: never know if they want to look back at others
Speaker 5: who have done things that you know aren't authorized by Congress,
Speaker 5: and he just you know, as the commander in chief,
Speaker 5: you have a lot of leeway and often they finish it.
Speaker 1: You have a lot of leeway, even contradicting the oath
Speaker 1: that you took to take that office. You know, he's
Speaker 1: supposed to defend it ready, the people of the United
Speaker 1: States against all enemies, barre and domestic. That doesn't seem
Speaker 1: to invite that you can call a drone strike on
Speaker 1: a guy that you've declared to be a terrorist. Whether
Speaker 1: he was a terrorist or not is irrelevant. You didn't
Speaker 1: give him a due process. You didn't give him the
Speaker 1: opportunity to the constitution to do what to prove his
Speaker 1: innocence or guilty. You're supposed to be what innocent before
Speaker 1: proven guilty? I mean, mister lawyer, you got to admit
Speaker 1: Morocco effectively murdered an American citizen without any process. Okay, outside, good,
Speaker 1: go ahead. But I just want to say, I mean,
Speaker 1: the facts are facts, right, So if we brass tack
Speaker 1: this thing, the fact that Donald Trump makes you know,
Speaker 1: some elude comments on a bus to Billy Bush, who
Speaker 1: was still angry about it, by the way, Uh, you know,
Speaker 1: it makes some lude comments to Billy Bush who kind
Speaker 1: of celebrates along with him, and it does become locker
Speaker 1: room talk.
Speaker 2: Guess what.
Speaker 1: Yeah, the American people are going to look at that
Speaker 1: and go, yes, so what And I don't blame them
Speaker 1: considering you know, if I want to dig, I can
Speaker 1: find all kinds of interesting things. It used to be
Speaker 1: a problem when we had a president who wasn't even
Speaker 1: you know, no military service. You refuse military service, you're
Speaker 1: a draft dodger.
Speaker 2: All that stuff.
Speaker 1: He used to count too, And then what Bill Clinton? Right,
Speaker 1: so no military service. Don't even attempt to pretend like
Speaker 1: you did. I mean, Ronald Reagan didn't serve either. But
Speaker 1: you know, here we go, right, no military service and
Speaker 1: Rile Trump is canet bone spurs as far as I'm concerned,
Speaker 1: you know, and went to a military academy that was
Speaker 1: paid for so he can walk around that uniform. But
Speaker 1: that's the closest he ever came to serving. So now
Speaker 1: he's commander in chief. Where's the outrage over that? People
Speaker 1: don't care? They care when it worked for him, Now
Speaker 1: they don't. So you know, there's a difference in what's
Speaker 1: you know, the moral high ground depending on the candidate. Huh,
Speaker 1: And that's all I'm pointing out what I'm swinging both
Speaker 1: ways on this. Okay, it's like, don't know about it,
Speaker 1: you know, the moral high ground on either side because
Speaker 1: it's you know, I can find a criminal match your
Speaker 1: criminal any day.
Speaker 2: You know what I'm saying.
Speaker 1: It just.
Speaker 6: Yes, I do know what you're saying.
Speaker 5: And I think it's funny because some of the people
Speaker 5: maybe that said there was no due process back when
Speaker 5: Obama was doing his thing now would say, you don't
Speaker 5: need due process on the you know, the drug cartels
Speaker 5: that are you know, in the boats that Trump is
Speaker 5: blowing up.
Speaker 6: And vice versa.
Speaker 5: Well, the Democrats have offended Obama now say where's due process?
Speaker 6: And we, as Americans?
Speaker 5: I think the great thing about being an American maybe
Speaker 5: or maybe the sad thing is we switch our positions
Speaker 5: based on where our party is, you know, and.
Speaker 6: That seems to be constant. That's the only thing is
Speaker 6: constant in politics.
Speaker 1: Right, the only thing that's kind of se I learned
Speaker 1: this in New Jersey because Jersey politics the outsiders that
Speaker 1: have never experienced it, you know, up front and closed.
Speaker 1: I think that in a lot of cases that New
Speaker 1: Jersey's a blue state and it's liberal and this and that,
Speaker 1: and you totally misunderstand Jersey if you think that, because
Speaker 1: it's not. It's a clearly purple state that literally swings
Speaker 1: back and forth like those things that used to sit
Speaker 1: on the desk with the metal balls that we click
Speaker 1: and clack back and forth. Literally, that is the way
Speaker 1: Jersey politics work. Okay, there is no consistency as well,
Speaker 1: is it being conservative or you know, a Republican or Democrat.
Speaker 1: And you need to throw that book out if that's
Speaker 1: what you think, because that's not the way Jersey politics works.
Speaker 2: And it is corrupt. It is corrupt too.
Speaker 1: But it's not, you know, at the level that some
Speaker 1: people like to portray it as. And it's not New
Speaker 1: York City either, even though if you live in New
Speaker 1: Jersey and you say the words the city, you're talking
Speaker 1: about New York, you're not even talking about a city
Speaker 1: in Jersey. But the reality is it's attached to New
Speaker 1: York in a unique way. I mean to such a
Speaker 1: degree that it's represented quite well by the arrangement with
Speaker 1: the port Authority that shares the Hudson River and the
Speaker 1: Statue of Liberty and other things in responsibility and et cetera.
Speaker 1: But the truth about it is something completely different. You know,
Speaker 1: like people have had this impression. I live in Georgia now, right,
Speaker 1: and if you observe this place up close, you know
Speaker 1: that this entire state in reality is controlled top to
Speaker 1: bottom by the Republican.
Speaker 2: Party in absolute.
Speaker 1: Now, people would say, well, what about Atlanta, what about Savannah. Yeah,
Speaker 1: there's these blue sploshes in there that indeed make an
Speaker 1: impact because they have the better media outlets, But in
Speaker 1: reality it doesn't matter. You can't beat the rest of
Speaker 1: the state with just you know, a couple of cities.
Speaker 2: It doesn't work.
Speaker 1: And I'm even sitting in an allegedly blue area in Macon,
Speaker 1: Georgia right now. This is where I live, and Macon
Speaker 1: is you know, they elect a Democratic mayor or whatever.
Speaker 1: But the truth is all they keep doing consistently is
Speaker 1: electing corrupt people and the city gets fleeced and then
Speaker 1: we move on to the opposite side of the equation.
Speaker 1: So that's why that Democrat's theirs, because the last Republican
Speaker 1: flees them, and then they'll put this Democrat in and
Speaker 1: he hasn't done it quite yet, although there's already.
Speaker 2: Allegations it'll come out this guy. I'll flee them and
Speaker 2: then they'll switch to the Republicans.
Speaker 1: This is what they do. So I kind of feel
Speaker 1: at home almostly it's Jersey because of this, you know,
Speaker 1: arbitrary switching back and forth, thinking that one side or
Speaker 1: the other is going to do something different. Yeah, and
Speaker 1: so but anyway back to this overall thing about Trump
Speaker 1: and Jeb Bush. Jeb Bush was a failure as a
Speaker 1: candidate because he was a failure. And I literally thought
Speaker 1: before we got into it and into the primaries and
Speaker 1: people got serious about it, when there was like twelve candidates,
Speaker 1: I said to myself, you know what, they're gonna manipulate
Speaker 1: this so that we have you know, Bush Clinton too,
Speaker 1: like you know, like Super Fight two.
Speaker 2: It's gonna be like I'll leave.
Speaker 1: Versus Foreman, let's do it again, and that's what they're
Speaker 1: gonna do here. I really felt that way, and I
Speaker 1: was almost shocked when Trump was taken seriously and then
Speaker 1: I saw what you saw, which was they were gonna
Speaker 1: undermine and destroy this guy as a candidate. And therefore
Speaker 1: it was like, look, we're gonna let this guy get
Speaker 1: in there and even encourage it because he's going to
Speaker 1: be so easy to be. Now, I knew that was
Speaker 1: a miscalculation, but I in no way thought this guy
Speaker 1: could possibly win. And yet guess what happened. And I
Speaker 1: think that was a shock to a lot of people.
Speaker 1: But like I said, even the CIA couldn't have stolen
Speaker 1: this election. For Hillary would.
Speaker 2: Never have been bought.
Speaker 1: It would have been like, here's what happened, folks, We
Speaker 1: won the war because the Cats were out of space,
Speaker 1: intervened and decided to fight on our side in the air,
Speaker 1: and therefore we won.
Speaker 2: Nobody would buy this.
Speaker 1: Nobody would buy that Millary Clinton was a you know,
Speaker 1: voted in by potting and ellectedly she won the popular vote, which.
Speaker 2: Tells you something. And by the way, I have.
Speaker 1: Questions about a lot of elections and the manipulation on
Speaker 1: both sides, although I don't believe for a second that
Speaker 1: either any of the elections in recent times were actually stolen.
Speaker 1: I mean, she canery, yes, did the Russians try to interfere? Well,
Speaker 1: I do read Bob Muller's report, and Bob Muller's the
Speaker 1: kind of guy who was there to protect the system
Speaker 1: regardless of a political flag, And what he said is, yeah,
Speaker 1: the Russians tried to interfere, but we can't prove that
Speaker 1: Trump was directly knowledgeable of it or as people were.
Speaker 1: That's the ultimate thing. But it's not a complete fake.
Speaker 1: The Russians trying to interfere in our elections, We're trying
Speaker 1: to manipulate, you know, social.
Speaker 2: Constructs here in America.
Speaker 1: Almost be like, you know what malpractice on the KGB
Speaker 1: and gru's.
Speaker 2: Part if they didn't do that.
Speaker 1: So they are actively doing it, and they are actively
Speaker 1: trying to insert themselves into our political discourse at all times.
Speaker 1: And yeah, we see it sometimes. And really, if you
Speaker 1: look at the rise of our team and the shifting
Speaker 1: of the media about fifteen years ago and ten years
Speaker 1: ago especially, you know that there was a propaganda and
Speaker 1: a you know, any sort of a dark and yet
Speaker 1: direct campaign to run a PSI off on the American
Speaker 1: people and it was done quite skillfully. But you know,
Speaker 1: did Trump benefit, Yes, But can you prove that he
Speaker 1: was culpable or criminally liable for it? There's another issue,
Speaker 1: But it's not a complete faith either. So you know,
Speaker 1: you gotta look at these things from moral angles to
Speaker 1: get the truth.
Speaker 2: And yet, like I.
Speaker 1: Said, the immediate response is there to get people to react,
Speaker 1: not to inform them. And that's the key here with this,
Speaker 1: with his cable news and these different outlets that.
Speaker 2: Have risen up, and take a look at it. Look
Speaker 2: at what's risen up.
Speaker 1: You know, in the past ten years, I mean Newsmax
Speaker 1: was what a YouTube channel. In my mind, it was nothing.
Speaker 1: You know, Ruddy's organization over there.
Speaker 2: Now it's an entity. You know.
Speaker 1: You have Oann, you have the Rise of the Epoch times.
Speaker 1: You have, like I said, Ruper Murdoch consistently, though, has
Speaker 1: run his propaganda outlet exactly down the line, even when
Speaker 1: he discarded a guy like Bill O'Reilly, who I used
Speaker 1: to religiously.
Speaker 2: Watch by the way, you know.
Speaker 1: And that's the other thing that people get this idea
Speaker 1: that I'm some kind of liberal now because it sounds
Speaker 1: like I'm being hostile to trumble. But I think you
Speaker 1: recognize where I'm coming from, even if you disagree with it.
Speaker 1: And that's because you're actually hearing what I say. And
Speaker 1: there is the key problem with the witch hunts and
Speaker 1: how they're informed and how they're motivated. So you know,
Speaker 1: let's get back to that, all right and talk about it.
Speaker 1: Because Donald Trump is being demonized and I think he's reveling.
Speaker 1: You know, I used to be a fan of Oziospores,
Speaker 1: and he revels in the fact that he was the
Speaker 1: bad guy. He was, you know, the devil's work was
Speaker 1: the Prince of Darkness. That was part of his marketing.
Speaker 1: And really that's not the kind of guy he was
Speaker 1: in He was actually a down to earth guy, John Osbourne.
Speaker 1: He wanted to take care of his family, and he
Speaker 1: had his problems against health issues, and he had mental
Speaker 1: issues and everything else. And he was an artist, that's
Speaker 1: all he really was. But he was made out to
Speaker 1: be something else. Even although Rivera, who's another interesting study,
Speaker 1: and how the media is, you know, not one thing,
Speaker 1: even if you think you know.
Speaker 2: Who the political operative is, or although Riverta is a.
Speaker 1: Great example of yeah, try and tell me where he's
Speaker 1: really coming from. Okay, And like Howard Stern in the equation,
Speaker 1: which by the way, has been popular as far as
Speaker 1: dragging out clips of Donald Trump, because hey, that's what
Speaker 1: the Howard Stern Show does. Show you dirt, and you're
Speaker 1: supposed to, you know, hear things that you're not supposed
Speaker 1: to hear on him.
Speaker 2: So that's why you got what you got.
Speaker 8: There.
Speaker 2: Although it is weird some of the stuff the Trump.
Speaker 1: Said on there, but hey, go back through anybody's interviews
Speaker 1: on there, you'll find it unless they were very very careful.
Speaker 4: I mean, even O. J.
Speaker 1: Simpson previous to the murder trial. You take a listen
Speaker 1: to that interview. It's kind of creepy.
Speaker 2: What Howard Stern has a talent for.
Speaker 1: Getting people to voluntarily spit out on the show.
Speaker 2: So that's why he needed to make anyway.
Speaker 1: And you might have different opinions on all of this,
Speaker 1: but I think the media landscape, even the people that
Speaker 1: are analyzing and criticizable or oversimplified what it is, they're
Speaker 1: looking at strategically because I say again, Donald Trump effectively
Speaker 1: saved a lot of the news organizations that he now
Speaker 1: says are the enemy within. He saved that. He gave
Speaker 1: them the content directly. He's a content generator. Even when
Speaker 1: he wasn't in office, he was.
Speaker 2: A content generator.
Speaker 1: And previously is you know, expansious into the world of polity.
Speaker 1: He was a content generator, whether it was on lifestyles
Speaker 1: of the rich and famous, or he was involved in
Speaker 1: you know, some small scandal or you know, and notice
Speaker 1: I haven't even gone into Jeffrey Epstein, which you know,
Speaker 1: by the way, is the ubiquitous problem and is representative
Speaker 1: of a larger ubiquitous problem. But you and I might
Speaker 1: have to have that discussion another.
Speaker 2: Day, so please continue on.
Speaker 1: But you do recognize what I'm saying about this media
Speaker 1: landscape not necessarily bring the black and white world that
Speaker 1: a lot of people want to make it into. Or
Speaker 1: do you think I'm out of line with wor.
Speaker 2: No.
Speaker 5: I think you're right, and I think you hit on
Speaker 5: a point that's also in the book about how the
Speaker 5: media has changed. I think you know, you mentioned some
Speaker 5: of those networks, but it's also we have now, we have.
Speaker 6: Blogs, we have podcasts.
Speaker 5: You know, we have You know how Joe Rogan influenced
Speaker 5: the election more than most journalists the last election, or
Speaker 5: at least he's getting credit for it when Trump went
Speaker 5: on there. And I think now people are getting their information,
Speaker 5: whether it's news or not, in many different ways.
Speaker 6: And you know Trump has played into that.
Speaker 5: He may have saved those legacy media I call him
Speaker 5: the den media, but it's the same thing.
Speaker 6: He may have saved them as temporary.
Speaker 5: I think you know the numbers are down for those
Speaker 5: networks they have trouble.
Speaker 6: They have much more competition, even with streaming, you know,
Speaker 6: for other choices.
Speaker 5: We even look at the late night programs, you know,
Speaker 5: the Tonight Show and well now we're going to have
Speaker 5: one last with Colbert leven and May. But those shows
Speaker 5: became much more one sided politically, and I don't know
Speaker 5: if that's the reason they're going. I think that might
Speaker 5: be part of it. The other reason is, you know,
Speaker 5: it might be all tied together. I could tell you
Speaker 5: from my own experience. I didn't find it funny, so
Speaker 5: I find something else to watch at that time, and
Speaker 5: that's I suspect a lot of.
Speaker 6: People do that. I don't have any hard data and
Speaker 6: that except that they've lost you know, viewers. And you know,
Speaker 6: part of that I think is Trump.
Speaker 1: No, it's absolutely Trump, and he led the way here
Speaker 1: and now I'm going to tell you what he actually
Speaker 1: set up to continue. Yes, indeed, you know, broadcast media
Speaker 1: in general is dying, and people showing up at five o'clock,
Speaker 1: six o'clock, eight o'clock to catch their favorite shows is
Speaker 1: the thing in the past. So the dynamic, the interaction
Speaker 1: the audience is so compartmentalized and set.
Speaker 2: Into so many different directions.
Speaker 1: Okay, it's it's gone way beyond the five hundred channels
Speaker 1: I'm paying for and I've only.
Speaker 2: Watched four of them. It's in a whole other arena now.
Speaker 2: And I think what he's set up and set in.
Speaker 1: The Motion is the new media landscape which is represented
Speaker 1: by Joe Rogan. I don't even find Joe Rogan funny,
Speaker 1: and I don't even find his interviews interesting most of
Speaker 1: the time. I got to tell you, they're not very revealing,
Speaker 1: they're not very unique, and quite frankly, I think he's
Speaker 1: been given a privileged position in media. You know, somehow
Speaker 1: this guy is magically the most popular thing in the world,
Speaker 1: and I don't think he's done anything of relevant since
Speaker 1: he did Fear Factor.
Speaker 2: The guy is not interesting to make. But here's the thing.
Speaker 1: No matter who you are, whether you want to live
Speaker 1: on YouTube or you want to find your favorite podcast, Okay,
Speaker 1: if you're you know, listening to one of the other
Speaker 1: great you know podcasts of the day, or you're involved
Speaker 1: in the streaming thing where you have your shows you know,
Speaker 1: delivered to you on demand all the time, this is
Speaker 1: the new media reality.
Speaker 3: And I think he said it in Motion. Why do I
Speaker 3: say that we can see it directly. Like I brought
Speaker 3: up Bill O'Reilly early.
Speaker 2: Now he has his own platform.
Speaker 4: Okay, what happened They.
Speaker 3: Got rid of Chris Cuomo. He went over to the
Speaker 3: Christian Christian Nation station. But eventually I'm pretty sure he'll
Speaker 3: be independent.
Speaker 1: You know, the guys like Tucker Carlson, who you know,
Speaker 1: regardless of what people think of.
Speaker 2: His background, has served in every type of flavor.
Speaker 3: Of media as if he knows that it's all about
Speaker 3: the corporatism as opposed to any other ism. And he's
Speaker 3: supposed to be a conservative and now he's taking on
Speaker 3: trying to be the hero of the alternative media when
Speaker 3: this guy's been a corporate media guy his entire career.
Speaker 1: But these guys, slowly but surely, look at what they're doing. Colbert, indeed,
Speaker 1: I think, is going to reboot himself as.
Speaker 2: The old you know, Colbert Rapport character and go out.
Speaker 1: There and be the conservative mockery again because it'll seem
Speaker 1: press in this current era. Okay. And that's where we're at,
Speaker 1: is that this is now going to become a compartmentalized
Speaker 1: thing where instead of the massive corporation being represented in
Speaker 1: one you know, chunk in one channel, you're gonna have
Speaker 1: these guys who are going to cooperate.
Speaker 2: And appear to be independent, and.
Speaker 3: They're gonna be out there on their own because that's
Speaker 3: what the market demands, a mentalized, personalized thing where you
Speaker 3: know what, instead of just yelling at Don you know,
Speaker 3: Don Lemon on Twitter and yelling at your TV, you
Speaker 3: now can go to this chat room on YouTube but
Speaker 3: he streams and directly comment at him and he might
Speaker 3: read it directly file yes, yeah, and.
Speaker 2: It's more direct.
Speaker 3: And like I said, Bill O'Reilly's done it. These other
Speaker 3: guys that have been demonized for one reason or another
Speaker 3: or you know, gotten acquired allegedly, they move on to
Speaker 3: other careers and they do it in a different way,
Speaker 3: and they still exist and they continue on and I
Speaker 3: still see that they get you know, preferential treatment one.
Speaker 4: Way or another. Okay, I mean even look at the guy.
Speaker 2: Who on Fox.
Speaker 3: I found that amazing that a guy said that we should,
Speaker 3: you know, voluntarily you know, give lethal injections, involuntarily excuse me.
Speaker 2: Give lethal injections.
Speaker 3: Almost people the clear of that problem. You know, you
Speaker 3: would have thought there would have been outrage and this
Speaker 3: guy would have gotten channed.
Speaker 4: Over that, you know what, Okay, let me give.
Speaker 2: A disant jet apology.
Speaker 4: Moving on.
Speaker 2: That's not against what it is they're doing at Box.
Speaker 4: And trust me, that might be a guy.
Speaker 3: Who eventually is you know, kicked out or removed or
Speaker 3: whatever controversy, and they will find a way to give
Speaker 3: him another slot.
Speaker 2: Somewhere else where he's allegedly independent.
Speaker 4: You know. Even the world.
Speaker 1: Watch Jones is interesting here because this was a guy
Speaker 1: was on Access TV, came from the bottom where he
Speaker 1: was paying to air his shows.
Speaker 2: Right, and then he got involved with radio and.
Speaker 3: He's part of Genesis and this and that and in
Speaker 3: pult War certain you're up the triple the screen buying.
Speaker 4: My stomach, uh, you know, and I knew.
Speaker 2: People work with them.
Speaker 1: And he transitioned from ringe nothing okay to magically a
Speaker 1: completely mainstream guy who's still screaming that he's not mainstream.
Speaker 1: And that's the funny thing because if you remember Fox
Speaker 1: News in its earlier incarnation, they were saying we're not
Speaker 1: the mainstream media, yet are the mainstream media And they
Speaker 1: even carry a see media name by calling themselves Fox.
Speaker 2: And it was assembled piece by piece.
Speaker 4: By Rupert Murdoch who went around and.
Speaker 3: Bought independent TV channels all over the country so that
Speaker 3: he created.
Speaker 2: A brand new network.
Speaker 1: So you know, when you see this and then you
Speaker 1: see these transitions and handoffs between these different entities that
Speaker 1: now deliver it in a different package, I think you're
Speaker 1: just seeing, you know.
Speaker 2: And again, podcasts not too long ago, we're laughable.
Speaker 3: A blog was like, oh god, why don't you to
Speaker 3: scream at the wood at the wall because you're not.
Speaker 1: Going to be read by anybody, You're not gonna be
Speaker 1: hurt by anybody. And now it's becoming what the new
Speaker 1: actual standard need.
Speaker 2: These things are transition, right, and you know, so the but.
Speaker 3: Yet the corporate thing remains in play because who backs
Speaker 3: it at the end of the day, who's actually you know,
Speaker 3: conglomerating these things? Okay, now part of this podcast network,
Speaker 3: and it gives strength to something like iHeart Radio, which
Speaker 3: now owns you on.
Speaker 1: Any like radio station's iHeart Radio owns. And how many
Speaker 1: podcasts outlets they own.
Speaker 2: They're huge.
Speaker 3: And what was I you know, not too long ago,
Speaker 3: you know nothing, It was like it's sort of like
Speaker 3: jet Jet Peso says one of the largest you know, entities.
Speaker 2: On the planet.
Speaker 1: And meanwhile, it was a bookseller in my lifetime. I
Speaker 1: remember it in the nineties.
Speaker 3: It was like, oh, you want to buy a book,
Speaker 3: go to Amazon and maybe they'll sell you some CDs.
Speaker 4: And that was it.
Speaker 2: It was just an outing for that stuff. And now
Speaker 2: what is That's what we're seeing is a shift of
Speaker 2: the technology and.
Speaker 1: The delivery and an audience that is demanding something that
Speaker 1: absolutely is custom made by them, they think, but it's
Speaker 1: really just then wring off the slightly different venue than
Speaker 1: what they used to have.
Speaker 2: So what do you think of that?
Speaker 6: Yeah, I think it's a it's a good point.
Speaker 5: I think also, you know, you leave out X with
Speaker 5: Elon Musk, him him purchasing uh what was Twitter?
Speaker 6: And then I think he declared we are.
Speaker 5: The media now and you know in some ways, yes,
Speaker 5: you can put you know, links and you know there's
Speaker 5: certainly something there's some power there.
Speaker 6: Social media is a part we haven'tone really touched. Only
Speaker 6: it's uh.
Speaker 2: You know what you make a great point about muscle.
Speaker 2: Let me ask you about.
Speaker 1: That, because you know, Elon muss is not just running
Speaker 1: Twitter like it was.
Speaker 3: It's now X, which by the way, is a standard thing.
Speaker 3: He slaps an X on everything that he decides to
Speaker 3: take ownership. That's the standard thing X when he was
Speaker 3: involved in it.
Speaker 1: But anyway, that's actually X. You can broadcast on X live.
Speaker 6: You know this right, yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1: You effectively a channel on there where you're a podcast
Speaker 1: and broadcast outlet.
Speaker 2: You have the ability to publicize.
Speaker 4: That outlet right there, You have the ability to.
Speaker 1: Process, you can literally upload accessible videos into.
Speaker 2: There and communicate with other people.
Speaker 3: He's actually taking that platform and created guests a catch all.
Speaker 3: All he needs now is something like the communication issue
Speaker 3: we had where.
Speaker 4: You know, we have an automatic get together and.
Speaker 6: It doesn't have to be really yes, like, all he needs.
Speaker 3: Is a private communications set up, which he already has
Speaker 3: at his disposal.
Speaker 4: Because of Star Like.
Speaker 2: He can make X into an.
Speaker 1: All in one media experience, whether you're producing it or
Speaker 1: you're selling it to people or you're actually decided to
Speaker 1: you know.
Speaker 2: Just just watch it.
Speaker 3: You have everything with the exception of a streaming. I
Speaker 3: mean that I can see so far.
Speaker 2: So he is doing that and that's where that was going.
Speaker 1: And meanwhile, Facebook, you know it's not original because Facebook,
Speaker 1: you know, Meta is doing the same thing slightly less successful.
Speaker 1: Is still existing, and a lot of these other platforms
Speaker 1: are becoming multipurpose.
Speaker 2: So this makes sense ball because if you put it.
Speaker 1: Together with that independent now or the illusion of independence
Speaker 1: from these people are cast offs from the legacy media.
Speaker 2: Guess what, Betry Wise, who was a blogger, is now.
Speaker 1: Going to be running CBS News, right, I mean basically, yeah,
Speaker 1: I see, And well that's quite an evolution and a switch.
Speaker 1: So somebody who was you know, in a different decade,
Speaker 1: would have been seen as a loser blogger that you
Speaker 1: know only your mother or cat's read, is now a
Speaker 1: major media organization and deliver your ub Okay, So I
Speaker 1: mean recognize this too, right, I mean this is a
Speaker 1: different world, Dennis.
Speaker 4: I mean you gotta agree to that at.
Speaker 2: Least, right.
Speaker 5: Oh yeah, oh absolutely, Technology, like you said, it's it's uh,
Speaker 5: I don't know, fractured or you have so many different
Speaker 5: outlets for information.
Speaker 6: Maybe I think it's could.
Speaker 5: Actually be good honestly, but you know, there's also the
Speaker 5: downside of it. Right now, when you when you look
Speaker 5: at anything, or I find myself doing it.
Speaker 6: I don't know how many people do this.
Speaker 5: I'll read a story and it's incomplete and I have
Speaker 5: to now go do research. I'm the researcher for the media,
Speaker 5: just to see what's true what's not.
Speaker 6: And I shouldn't have to do that.
Speaker 5: I should be able to pick up the Chicago Tribune
Speaker 5: here and get a story that's not biased or that's
Speaker 5: at least complete.
Speaker 6: They're neither.
Speaker 5: They're biased and incomplete, and I have to go and
Speaker 5: look for the you know, real story behind.
Speaker 6: It, which I don't want to do. Really, we're not
Speaker 6: to have to.
Speaker 2: Well, you know what, that's another thing that's coming around.
Speaker 3: I almost any corporate sponsor. I don't have any corporate sponsors,
Speaker 3: so only.
Speaker 2: Which is.
Speaker 4: That with that model?
Speaker 2: Though I saw something called round News. You ever heard
Speaker 2: of it?
Speaker 6: No, I don't think so, okay.
Speaker 2: So ground News.
Speaker 3: I was going to actually sign The Great Movie with them,
Speaker 3: and then I just I had to debate for like
Speaker 3: three months, and I was gonna use them as a.
Speaker 2: Sponsor and everything else.
Speaker 3: But I can't do it because you know, corporations inevitably
Speaker 3: exert influence over the people they're working with, and that's
Speaker 3: been the problem with this kind of media.
Speaker 2: If you're really independent, you avoid that.
Speaker 3: But these guys, if you ever take into it, they're
Speaker 3: all you know, still corporate supported. Okay, even the leged independence,
Speaker 3: even the pariahs like Bill O'Reilly are still corporate supported.
Speaker 2: But I am not okay, and that makes me pretty rare.
Speaker 3: The thing is the ground news turns around and is
Speaker 3: an aggregator and swords for you.
Speaker 2: Here's the left wing bias, here's the right wing bias.
Speaker 2: Here is the you know, nearly non.
Speaker 3: Biased news right and they'll collect it on a story
Speaker 3: like you asked about, I don't know, pick a news
Speaker 3: story for the past, you know, recent hours of okay,
Speaker 3: cease fire, okay.
Speaker 2: Palestine Israel.
Speaker 1: It'll sort and show you where the spin is, where
Speaker 1: they're consistently kind of you know, going on the same
Speaker 1: line and everything else, and begin to sort the general
Speaker 1: resources out there on the internet to tell you, look,
Speaker 1: these are the people that are slanted, These are the
Speaker 1: people that are mount pieces for the government, these are
Speaker 1: the people, et cetera.
Speaker 6: They actually do that.
Speaker 3: And I'm again I'm not being paid, okay, but I
Speaker 3: almost signed a thing with them to get paid for
Speaker 3: explaining this, but.
Speaker 2: I would have to do at every show.
Speaker 4: And again, like I said, I can't sign.
Speaker 2: The corporate sponsors. It's just against my against my brain.
Speaker 3: But the thing is I did consider it because their
Speaker 3: work and what they seem to be doing is exactly
Speaker 3: the answer to what you're talking about.
Speaker 2: We are cable of absorting.
Speaker 4: This one way or another.
Speaker 3: You don't have to get lost in the you know,
Speaker 3: see of property and what crazy people like you and me.
Speaker 2: And here's where I'm gonna put you in the same.
Speaker 3: Boat with me, like it or not, you know, crazy
Speaker 3: what human me might actually try to facts? You know,
Speaker 3: like I realize when I see a story of police interaction, right,
Speaker 3: somebody gets shot, somebody gets killed, there's a car accident,
Speaker 3: and it was in a police interaction.
Speaker 2: I know of the majority of what I'm gonna read
Speaker 2: came from the public information officers email, because.
Speaker 1: That's who puts it out there, okay, and actually gets
Speaker 1: the story out And you can see.
Speaker 2: It right away in the reporting where they're like, the.
Speaker 1: Police said, the police told us this, and then they'll
Speaker 1: say a bunch of other things, but it's all.
Speaker 2: From one source.
Speaker 3: They don't go and get a witness anymore, and they
Speaker 3: don't try and talk to.
Speaker 2: The person who's involved anymore.
Speaker 4: None of that.
Speaker 2: So what will I do, crazy person? I am try
Speaker 2: and reach out to people that might be in proximity. Hey,
Speaker 2: what is this area of town? Like? What actually happened?
Speaker 2: What were people saying locally? What was seen is there?
Speaker 2: You know? I do like that personal as much as
Speaker 2: I can, I reach out, you know.
Speaker 3: Make home falls, not just to the cops, you know,
Speaker 3: I take their side of the story, yes, but.
Speaker 4: Then I look at the other stuff.
Speaker 1: And you know what, when you do that, you get
Speaker 1: a completely different view from almost anything that's being published
Speaker 1: out there, whether the reporter is lazy or biased or not.
Speaker 2: You can find information on your own. Who wants to
Speaker 2: take all that time if you're not being paid.
Speaker 1: To investigate everything? So right, there's gotta be more tools
Speaker 1: that will be developed here.
Speaker 3: But that ground news thing is, even if it's not
Speaker 3: the endgame, it is a great idea.
Speaker 2: And I think something that could be out of the people's.
Speaker 3: Toolbox is where we aggregate these things together and recognize see.
Speaker 4: And that was the core. But what I was talking
Speaker 4: about on.
Speaker 3: That show that night is that if you and you
Speaker 3: begin to compare these things, you'll see a consistency.
Speaker 2: A pattern of behavior and human.
Speaker 3: Beings are you know, our mindsets, no matter how you
Speaker 3: want to argue or what you believe about psychology, because
Speaker 3: it is a pseudoscience.
Speaker 4: In my mind.
Speaker 1: The thing is, you do have the capability and built
Speaker 1: into you is something called the ability to.
Speaker 2: Do pattern recognition, and you'll see the pattern to merge.
Speaker 3: And there is no reason in the world that the
Speaker 3: you know, newscaster in Des Moines is telling you the
Speaker 3: same thing as the guy.
Speaker 4: In Chicago is telling you.
Speaker 3: The same thing as the guy in la unless they're
Speaker 3: working off the same source and practically the same script,
Speaker 3: especially when they were words. And it goes well beyond
Speaker 3: the Sinclair you know conglomerate where they have and that's
Speaker 3: another thing that argues against that old liberal media thing,
Speaker 3: not because Sinclair is a is a conservative outlet, but.
Speaker 4: Here you go. They own every kind of alphabet, you.
Speaker 2: Know, a type of network broadcaster out there.
Speaker 4: They put them together and they still.
Speaker 2: Be the same scripts. Throw so your legs liberal.
Speaker 1: You know, NBC is reading the same script that a
Speaker 1: more conservative at one time that scene is more conservative.
Speaker 1: CBS is reading the same script because they have the
Speaker 1: same corporate overlord, even though they still carry the different letters.
Speaker 2: Okay, so you got to realize this is no longer
Speaker 2: a come to dry black and white situation. And another
Speaker 2: thing we didn't touch on even is.
Speaker 1: The intelligence agencies and even the pentagons directed and intentional
Speaker 1: influence over those organizations too.
Speaker 2: And we've caught that time of time again.
Speaker 3: And I'm not even talking about just the mocking birds
Speaker 3: of the world or the fact that we had people
Speaker 3: admitting in the nineteen seventies during Coggression with investigations that yes,
Speaker 3: we actually.
Speaker 4: You know, embent people in our media in order.
Speaker 2: To influence it.
Speaker 3: And you know, hello, Cia, I thought you weren't supposed
Speaker 3: to operate domestically, but l.
Speaker 2: This is the reality, right. So my whole point is
Speaker 2: that I just I.
Speaker 1: Know I'm being one winded.
Speaker 2: And I'm saying a.
Speaker 4: Lot of stuff here, but I'm hoping that this.
Speaker 1: Is actually the beginning of a conversation between you and me,
Speaker 1: because I believe that we could objective these things and
Speaker 1: you could help me some of the confusions I have, and.
Speaker 2: Indeed I might give you a couple of new thoughts
Speaker 2: and a couple of new ways to look at these things.
Speaker 2: What do you think about that as far as you know, motivating.
Speaker 6: Yeah or two?
Speaker 2: On this? What do you think.
Speaker 1: I like it?
Speaker 5: I think it goes to your suggestion we might need
Speaker 5: to have another conversation, maybe several conversations, right right.
Speaker 3: And I know I'm taking up more of your time
Speaker 3: than I said I would, and I apologize for that,
Speaker 3: and also apologize for my small pack of dogs that are,
Speaker 3: you know, somewhere in my house making noise. I apologize hopefully,
Speaker 3: But you know, I am broadcasting from home on the
Speaker 3: low budget.
Speaker 4: So what do you want.
Speaker 1: I do have some sound proofing, but you know it
Speaker 1: doesn't kill everyone. Okay, sorry, anyway, here we are.
Speaker 2: But this is the real deal. Okay, this is the
Speaker 2: reality of things.
Speaker 4: And whether your name is Cuomo or you know your name.
Speaker 2: Is Lemon or whatever else.
Speaker 3: He came from the alleged left, or you know, you're
Speaker 3: one of the ultra conservative guys out there, or you're
Speaker 3: a really big ball of confusion like Carondo Rivera.
Speaker 2: I think media figures are all going to.
Speaker 1: Graduate into this podcast space one way or.
Speaker 3: Another if they are popular enough on their own, you know,
Speaker 3: like John Stewart is now, yeah he's back on the
Speaker 3: Daily Show and he's part of that corporate entity. But
Speaker 3: also guess what he's got the Weekly Show podcast on
Speaker 3: the side too, right, Yeah, Bill Maher an alleged leftist
Speaker 3: is and I do say alleged because I think he's
Speaker 3: you know, one of the most disingenuous, disconnected, you know
Speaker 3: millionaires who's out of the loop as far as reality goes.
Speaker 4: Anyway, Bill Maher, even though he.
Speaker 2: Did sit down with the President Trump and have dinner
Speaker 2: with him, which.
Speaker 3: I found strange also, But anyway, that guy right there
Speaker 3: is on HBO, one of the biggest corporate conglomerate run
Speaker 3: legacy media things on the planet, but also does what
Speaker 3: a podcast on the side.
Speaker 4: He goes, Oh, I don't care, we smoke bought on here.
Speaker 4: We're gonna be you know club I can't remember the name, but.
Speaker 2: It's Club something.
Speaker 1: Random show and he's like mister laid back and does
Speaker 1: single interviews there, right.
Speaker 2: So they're alleping into what was independent.
Speaker 1: Space and they are bringing their corporate you know backers
Speaker 1: with them in a covert way. So this you know,
Speaker 1: change in the media landscape and also supported by guys
Speaker 1: like you know, Elon Musk and the other you.
Speaker 2: Know elitist top richest people on the planet one way
Speaker 2: or another. Uh. This this is a big landscape.
Speaker 1: Where I think they're gonna pool you into believing again
Speaker 1: that you have an independent and.
Speaker 2: Impartial media, except now it's.
Speaker 1: Going to be on demand, custom made and scene as
Speaker 1: though it's really being legitimately done.
Speaker 2: Because this is a guy talking to me from his basement.
Speaker 1: Now you know, this is a guy Don Lemon talks
Speaker 1: to me from his attic studio.
Speaker 2: You know what I'm saying. And the less polish is now.
Speaker 3: Going to be the truly polished when it comes to
Speaker 3: the new media and the deception. And I think that's
Speaker 3: the thing that we need to keep our hands up
Speaker 3: lot and remind ourselves about whether we're dealing with a
Speaker 3: witch on a demonization or people trying to literally encourage
Speaker 3: a civil war like Red.
Speaker 4: There are people that want that one way or another. Okay,
Speaker 4: And we didn't even touch on Charlotte Kirk and.
Speaker 3: The recent you know, bloodthirsty comments and all that stuff
Speaker 3: on all sides, right, we didn't even go there, but
Speaker 3: I think we could do it the part too. And
Speaker 3: I apologize I talked a lot more than I wanted
Speaker 3: to in my sore throat water me too, I trust,
Speaker 3: trust me, but excited that somebody's actually willing the thinking
Speaker 3: and examine this stuff and look some of the.
Speaker 4: Stuff he said.
Speaker 2: Though to me, I was like, God.
Speaker 1: That is an outdated look, because you've got to take
Speaker 1: into account the new stuff. But on the other hand,
Speaker 1: you have some very solid ideas that I need to integrate.
Speaker 2: Into view here.
Speaker 1: And you know, you're not necessarily going to create my
Speaker 1: new opinion.
Speaker 2: Nobody does. But we all do actually.
Speaker 3: Influence one another if we bothered to listen and to
Speaker 3: clearly and consistently speak our minds and to articulate what
Speaker 3: it is that we are witnessing, because in any circumstance,
Speaker 3: even with eyewitnesses, you can have five eye witnesses, which
Speaker 3: will give you five different versions of an event that
Speaker 3: lasts less than five minutes any given day. And the
Speaker 3: thing is, they're all important because they're all reality to somebody.
Speaker 4: And the more we inform.
Speaker 3: Ourselves, the more we'll understand the things that went wrong,
Speaker 3: the things that went right, and the things that just
Speaker 3: went And I think that's the important part here.
Speaker 2: So I'm going to now shut up and ask you to.
Speaker 1: Again remind people about the name of your book.
Speaker 3: You know, any websites you have the stuff that you
Speaker 3: have to promote, please and hopefully I'll have some links
Speaker 3: in the show notes, which I'll put this out as soon
Speaker 3: as I.
Speaker 2: Can as a podcast.
Speaker 3: And apologies because we went like twenty minutes over the
Speaker 3: time I thought I was gonna do with you, and
Speaker 3: it's because I'm long winded and obnoxious, and I apologize.
Speaker 3: But things need to be set, things need to be explored,
Speaker 3: and we need to continue having revelations like conversations. And
Speaker 3: I mean conversations, not arguments, not pseudo debates, you know, not,
Speaker 3: Hey prove me wrong and.
Speaker 2: I'm gonna fight with you today.
Speaker 4: And I don't mean to even.
Speaker 2: Make an exclusion to Charlie Kirk. I mean, that's really
Speaker 2: the attitude of people.
Speaker 4: Let's have a debate. I want to prove you wrong.
Speaker 2: That's not really the full purpose of debate.
Speaker 4: You know.
Speaker 3: Let's understand a dictionary. People say, oh, a dictionary is
Speaker 3: to give you definitions.
Speaker 2: No, don't know, be careful. For dictionary is for adiction.
Speaker 2: It's to tell you how to.
Speaker 1: Pronounce the word. It is not for meanings. There are
Speaker 1: definitions within it so that you can properly know which
Speaker 1: word you're referencing. That is why it's there.
Speaker 4: An phonetic spelling is before.
Speaker 3: The definition, okay, And people need to learn exactly what
Speaker 3: tools they're looking at and how to use them, and
Speaker 3: not just assume they know because automatically have all that knowledge. No,
Speaker 3: you need to continue to learn at all times because
Speaker 3: the world changes, and no matter who you are, how
Speaker 3: smart you think you are, you've got to always recognize
Speaker 3: you don't know everything. And I'm not addressing you, denism,
Speaker 3: addressing everybody.
Speaker 4: Listen, get myself.
Speaker 2: Even you don't know everything.
Speaker 4: You can make an effort all the time.
Speaker 2: But let's try to get a handle on it and
Speaker 2: get back.
Speaker 1: To mutual understandings where we can be productive as a
Speaker 1: group of people.
Speaker 2: Because I assure you, the rich.
Speaker 4: People, the elite.
Speaker 1: People, that people that benefit from us being at.
Speaker 2: Each other's throats.
Speaker 3: Will be more than happy to keep communication muddled and
Speaker 3: impossible and so biased that nothing is heard. Because the
Speaker 3: less we communicate with each other and the less that
Speaker 3: we can work together and you know, stopped, and the
Speaker 3: more we can stop turning on each other, the more
Speaker 3: likely it is we might actually hold people accountable that
Speaker 3: are doing us damage on a daily basis.
Speaker 2: So that's my preacher speech for a minute.
Speaker 4: Tell us all.
Speaker 1: About where we can, you know, follow up the name
Speaker 1: of your book.
Speaker 3: Is it available on a couple of different websites or
Speaker 3: do I go to Amazon?
Speaker 4: Tell me about it? Oh, and I.
Speaker 2: Lose, Dennis, Did I lose? You might look?
Speaker 3: I am going to go ahead and it looks like
Speaker 3: as a leader fifteen points to consider. Okay, he's got
Speaker 3: a leadership book out there.
Speaker 1: I'm going to get more information about the stuff that
Speaker 1: he does. But I think the g n Keith phrase to.
Speaker 3: Recall here is unpacking witch Hunts with Dennis Brennan. And
Speaker 3: I'm going to put that into a search engine and
Speaker 3: also contact Dennis and see where he's.
Speaker 2: At regarding regarding his work and tell.
Speaker 3: Us where we can find it all because the letter
Speaker 3: in and of itself that he sent me was the
Speaker 3: inspiration for this conversation, and I think it was necessary
Speaker 3: based on the spirit, and I think we can continue
Speaker 3: to have a great, great interaction in order to continue
Speaker 3: our understanding.
Speaker 2: And it's DC Swamp strikes.
Speaker 4: Back is the name of the book.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry I got that wrong the first time about
Speaker 1: the book, but DC Swamp strikes Back. Aaron Burr, Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: let me get the full title here, because I just
Speaker 1: did a search.
Speaker 4: And I wanted to pull it up and be able
Speaker 4: to promote his book directly if I could.
Speaker 1: I'm also going to put it in the live chat
Speaker 1: room and put it in the reference notes for this
Speaker 1: podcast kind because it's absolutely necessary for us to.
Speaker 2: Get at you know, the bottom line.
Speaker 3: There is a grand manipulation occurring. There is a lot
Speaker 3: of ugliness where you.
Speaker 2: Know, we're being manipulated.
Speaker 3: Doing things that are counterproductive to ourselves and to one
Speaker 3: another and to this country over and over again. And
Speaker 3: I'm getting pretty tired of it. I hope you are too.
Speaker 1: DC Swamp strikes Back Aaron Donald Trump and their similar
Speaker 1: battles victims separated.
Speaker 2: By centuries, bound by opponents and hatred.
Speaker 4: Okay, And that thing came out in May.
Speaker 3: Of this year, and again, the author's name is Dennis A. Brennan,
Speaker 3: and I was.
Speaker 1: Really really happy to have marn regardless of the fact
Speaker 1: that we lost them toward.
Speaker 2: The end here.
Speaker 3: And I hope that you guys have gotten something out
Speaker 3: of this, and I also that we're going to continue
Speaker 3: this conversation in.
Speaker 2: The very very near future.
Speaker 1: So with all that in mind, I'm not even gonna
Speaker 1: bother to give you any other details or whatever about
Speaker 1: my stuff, where I'm at, what I'm doing, because why.
Speaker 9: Botheration through conversation, you are the effect.
Speaker 10: The decid is broken.
Speaker 4: Through spoken revelation, through conversation.
Speaker 10: Through ptopy life.
Speaker 8: So show effect revelations conversation, abation, a devastation, revelation through conversation,
Speaker 8: the effects You are the effects true conversation, amonstration or.
Speaker 11: Sell effect revelations conversation, tiion through conversation, or shall lea
Speaker 11: effect revelations from the sas gone and forgotten.
Speaker 10: I'll sell you a fact beyond this place and fears
Speaker 10: of the shame.
Speaker 2: And yet the.
Speaker 10: Years finds it shall find me afraid.
Speaker 2: And that is not three decades charge the scroll.
Speaker 1: I am the master of my fate.
Speaker 10: I am the ant of my soul.
Speaker 12: Joe funny effect revelation Conte.
Speaker 1: The propaganda horse continued cashing in and.
Speaker 10: Teach us about religion, keeping score at home.
Speaker 12: For a people you'd like to see even by wolves dishropped,
Speaker 12: dying soon tangles like Jacko tips and has continued golf
Speaker 12: stormy tour him when you streak, he says.
Speaker 10: God sparred him and decided.
Speaker 2: A firefighter died from the.
Speaker 10: Revelation conversation.
Speaker 13: A fact, you are the effect.
Speaker 6: You are the effects.
Speaker 10: Well, listen through conversations, but all.
Speaker 2: Praise no straight.
Speaker 10: Revelation through conversation.
Speaker 9: Through conversation raised a restraints.
Speaker 10: Affect revelation through conversation.
Speaker 13: Through conversations restraints.
Speaker 12: I'll tell you affected revelation through conversation.
Speaker 13: Time as the dead from old.
Speaker 8: Ever done for my indokable soul in the constant circumstance,
Speaker 8: I have not wist, no cry aloud.
Speaker 10: He's a chance my head blade about it. You are
Speaker 10: the effectually effect.
Speaker 13: Convolation through conversation.
Speaker 12: Revelation conversation y relation to conversations.
Speaker 14: The War State by Michael Swanson explains the great national
Speaker 14: transformation that took place and put the Kennedy presidency in
Speaker 14: the context of the times and reveals never before published
Speaker 14: information about the Cuban missile crisis. President Kennedy would not
Speaker 14: have been assassinated if he had been president two hundred
Speaker 14: years ago. His assassination took place in the context of
Speaker 14: the Cold War and the rise of the national security state.
Speaker 14: Before World War II, the United States was a continental republic.
Speaker 14: In the decade that followed, it became an imperial superpower
Speaker 14: generals such as Curtis LeMay not only wanted to invade Cuba,
Speaker 14: but knew that there were short range missiles on the
Speaker 14: island arn't with nuclear warheads that they could not destroy
Speaker 14: because they were on mobile launchers. Their invasion could have
Speaker 14: led to a Third World War, and they wanted to
Speaker 14: go to war anyway. The War State by Michael Swanson
Speaker 14: reveals why and will show you what President Kennedy was
Speaker 14: up against. For more information, the Warstate dot com the use.
Speaker 2: Expressed like caller schools.
Speaker 1: There anyone else who happens to get on the air
Speaker 1: who jelly dot com if not necessarily reflected the views
Speaker 1: of the jelly dot com or Jelly And we are
Speaker 1: not responsible for any stupidity which might ensue. Thank you.
Speaker 15: In Denial The Secret Wars with air strikes and Tanks
Speaker 15: by Larryhncock. Secret wars became a staple of US covert
Speaker 15: operations and are still happening today. Larryhancock's book In Denial
Speaker 15: rips the cover off many of them, using new files.
Speaker 15: It exposes things about the Bay of Pigs that no
Speaker 15: one has ever written about before. It shows why it
Speaker 15: really failed and why the United States did not learn
Speaker 15: from it. It also shows why other countries today are
Speaker 15: doing secret operations with more success.
Speaker 16: This is the book that puts what some want to
Speaker 16: deny into the light. In Denial secret wars with air
Speaker 16: strikes and tanks Larryhancock. For more information, go to Larry
Speaker 16: hyphen Handcock dot com. Pick up your copy of In
Speaker 16: Denial at Amazon dot com.
Speaker 2: In digital or physical.
Speaker 11: Revels through com section.
Speaker 2: H oh.
Speaker 13: Shell fact, Oh Sally fact, say that right.
Speaker 2: Y r.
Speaker 13: Fain' all the world your fat Yeah.
Speaker 1: Mm hmmm.
Speaker 13: Yeah.
Speaker 9: Revel like show.
Speaker 13: The fruit of size.
Speaker 6: Show very.
Speaker 15: Sound as.
Speaker 17: I was like, go ahead, call it about the JFA assassination.
Speaker 16: Right, Well, what do you want to know?
Speaker 17: Dye Baker's wild claim? Oswald girlfriend if he knew Ruby
Speaker 17: and Arry answer weapons? Really?
Speaker 16: I imagine I could claim I have four wheels. It
Speaker 16: doesn't make me a wagon.
Speaker 17: But okay, Oswald on the building and I'm trying to
Speaker 17: prevent the murder of John Kennedy. Come on now, has
Speaker 17: a real effort on the DAFA assassination. Book into her claims.
Speaker 16: Go to Amazon dot com enter Judith Baker in her
Speaker 16: own words. You'll get the results for a digital copy
Speaker 16: of a book where Walt Brown utilizes her own words
Speaker 16: and the known evidence in the case to get at
Speaker 16: well a different perspective. Let's say you can get Judith
Speaker 16: Barry Baker in her own words from the author himself
Speaker 16: signed if you request it by contacting doctor Brown at
Speaker 16: k I A s JFK at aol dot com. It's
Speaker 16: a fun book and it actually dissects the many, many
Speaker 16: fantastic claims Judith very Baker.
Speaker 2: In her own words all the.
Speaker 17: Great information.
Speaker 1: What would I do?
Speaker 18: Revelation through conversation in a radio show slash podcast. You
Speaker 18: want the good news, listen to the o'helly effect. Check
Speaker 18: o'ceelly is the most underrated voice in all media, news, education,
Speaker 18: and entertainment. The daily bread from o'chelly dot com. Go there,
Speaker 18: save yourself from ignorance ochelly dot com. But we all
Speaker 18: agreed to put o'elly dot com on and listen to
Speaker 18: the o'helly effect. Revelation through conversation o'helly dot com, Gee,
Speaker 18: ochilli dot com.
Speaker 2: Nuclear holocaust.
Speaker 1: You know what uranium is right?
Speaker 10: Think called rooplear weapons and other things like lots of
Speaker 10: what uranium is right?
Speaker 15: Bad things The things are done up with uranium, including
Speaker 15: some bad things.
Speaker 2: Looklear holocaust, what uranium is right? I Looklear Holocaust.
Speaker 1: Nuclear holocaust.
Speaker 9: Uranium is right.
Speaker 1: The things are.
Speaker 17: Nuclear reaponies and other revelation through conversation.
Speaker 13: On your roll of brass l.
Speaker 1: Bulls, beasts that smash, fire flows through every pain little
Speaker 1: form at least the pain.
Speaker 8: D crazy sign the fighting of the Roughty killer bulls, destructing.
Speaker 10: Dot com radio, go ahead, the truth.
Speaker 17: About the day assassination? Right, Well, what do you want
Speaker 17: to Judy Baker's wild claim? Oswald girlfriends he knew? Ruby
Speaker 17: and Arry answer weapons? Really?
Speaker 16: I imagine I could claim I have four wheels. It
Speaker 16: doesn't make me a wagon.
Speaker 17: But okay, Oswald was on the building and I'm trying
Speaker 17: to prevent the murder of John Kennedy. Come on now,
Speaker 17: has a real effort on the DAFA assaffination claim.
Speaker 16: Go to Amazon dot com enter Judith Baker in her
Speaker 16: own words. You'll get the results for a digital copy
Speaker 16: of a book where Walt Brown utilizes her own words
Speaker 16: and the known evidence in the case to get at
Speaker 16: well a different perspective. Let's say you can get Judith
Speaker 16: Ary Baker in her own words from the author himself
Speaker 16: signed if you request it by contacting doctor Brown at
Speaker 16: k I A s jfk at aol dot com.
Speaker 1: It's a fun book and it.
Speaker 16: Actually dissects the many, many fantastic claims. Judith very Baker, in.
Speaker 17: Her own words, thank you for all the great information.
Speaker 10: The effected conversation.
Speaker 2: You want.
Speaker 10: Silence broken, broken.
Speaker 6: Connection. Sh