Speaker 1: Welcome back, everyone to a new episode of You Were
Wrong with Molly Hemingway, editor in chief of the Federalist
and David Arsani, senior writer at The Washington Examiner. Just
as a reminder, if you'd like to email the show,
please do so at radio at the Federalist dot com.
Speaker 2: We love to hear from you.
Speaker 3: We got some great email this week.
Speaker 2: Didn't you think remind me.
Speaker 3: Well you'd ask for advice on procedural shows? Oh yeah,
one of those. And then also my favorite email was
the guy who was commenting on an episode from literally
three years and two months ago.
Speaker 1: I know, I didn't realize that was an old episode,
so I wasn't sure what the guy was talking about.
But I honestly don't remember what we talked about last week.
So two years ago, three years ago is a bit
much for me. First topic today I was going to
go into was the situations at the airports.
Speaker 2: Now, I have to just preface all.
Speaker 1: This by saying that I, ever since COVID, have hated
I've never loved being on plane. I mean, I'm not
scared of flying. I like the whole experience. It's fine,
but I hate airports. I hate lines.
Speaker 2: Since COVID. I will do.
Speaker 1: I will drive eleven hours to go visit one of
my kids rather than get on a plane and do
all of that. But you, I know, travel a lot.
So has the DHS defunding. The defunding of DHS hurt you?
Have you experienced it?
Speaker 3: Okay? So I travel a ton, and in fact, prior
to Sunday, I had traveled like seven of the seven days,
and I and like you said, I had done things
to avoid airports. I'd done planes, trains and automobiles, and
I I have found myself doing a little more train
and a lot more automobile than I have done previously,
because the flying experience can be so miserable. Having said that,
I've had only one experience with slight delays due to
the Democrats shutdown of TSA, and that was at Dulles Airport,
and I still it was not fun, but it wasn't horrific.
And oddly enough, I've actually had the opposite of problems
recently where I'll go to my line and it's not
a short line, it's no line, which never happens, and
that happened in Vegas for me, that happened at DCA.
But We're having a big Federalist summit in Arizona this week,
and I'm flying out soon, and I am nervous about
getting there and about other people getting there. You know,
people are coming from every different corner of the country,
and so if this in any way harms are I'm
going to be even angrier than I have been previously.
Speaker 1: I think, or I feel like very few people actually
know why we're experiencing these troubles, or specifically who is
at fault for doing it. I'm confident that if this
was in the reverse, Republicans were shutting down TSA funding,
it would be the biggest story going maybe second to
the Iran War. And I really you know, you're very
critical of Republicans for not really pressing issues. I think
this is a good example for you to talk about.
I mean it is if I was a Senator, I
would be out there or a House member every day
talking to the public about the reason you are now
having these horror shows at airports is because of Democrats,
who incidentally are doing it because they don't want to
deport illegal us to deport illegal aliens, which is just
like a double whammy.
Speaker 3: It is well, first off, the media viewing its role
as a Democrat party protection racket does make things a
little difficult here in that probably if you're watching Nora O'Donnell,
you know, if you're watching CBS or ABC or NBC, CNN,
MS now, whatever these places are, you're probably not being
told that this is a Democrat shutdown. You're probably being
told that there's gridlock in Congress and then being given
a lot of anti Republican talking points. But even so,
that's just the reality that's been in reality for a
long time, and Republicans don't seem to want to do
what it takes to destroy the corrupt media, but they've
been given sort of a political gift here in that
Democrats are trying to make life difficult for average Americans
and do it on behalf of criminal illegal aliens who
are the primary target of ICE operations. That would seem
to be such a gift that you'd have to be
really bad at politics to not take advantage of of it.
But I don't think they really are. And in a way,
I wonder if President Trump sending ICE agents away from
enforcement of their duties to help TSA at airports, isn't
therefore a bit of a problem itself, meaning by all accounts,
the ICE agents being at airports is helping speed up
these lines and helping people get through and make their flights.
You know, Atlanta had had like four to eight hour
delays that I at TSA. But in so doing it
removes the pressure on Democrats to stop what they're doing,
which is negotiating to make ICE less able to deport
criminal illegal aliens.
Speaker 1: Here are some of the headlines just that just pulled
it up. Republicans set up efforts to reach DHS funding
deal and shut down. Democrats aren't even mentioned in the
New York Times headline of having anything to.
Speaker 2: Do with this. Do you know what I'm saying?
Speaker 1: Like they figure out ways deal to fund DHS, falters
a mid bipartisan pushback and so on, you would never
know from the headlines, which unfortunately is what well, maybe
not unfortunately, is what most people you know, read, just
on airports.
Speaker 2: Like the other I was at JFK not long ago,
and I was on a line that was.
Speaker 1: Just snaked for probably four miles. I mean, it was
the worst line I'd ever been on in my life.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: I just feel like we can do better just general
in airports and I don't understand why there hasn't been
this big push to reform or fix these problems that
we have. And I think you would any party that
engaged in that would probably do well.
Speaker 2: Yeah, do well.
Speaker 3: Well did you see that Delta Airlines removed their Congressional
ticket office until the shutdown ends and people were like,
what's this congressional ticket off? There are special privileges given
to members of Congress and their staff so that they
don't have to experience airports like the rest of us do.
They get taken to the front of the line, they
can cancel a ticket without penalties, They can get booked
on a flight so easily you wouldn't believe it. And
I think they get special rates as well, So you
ask why are things not being done? And part of
it is that we have a two tier class here
where if you are elite, you do not face what
the rest of us face at an airport.
Speaker 1: One time I was at Denver International Airport and John
Carey cut in front of me. I was about to
go on and they let John Kerry cut in front
of me, and he had a snowboard with him. I
was very annoyed by that, but always fascinating.
Speaker 2: That's right.
Speaker 3: There's another thing I want to say about this, though.
We seem to have a situation with this and the
Save Act, where we tolerate a minority party exacting all
sorts of awfulness to prevent things from happening, but that
when Republicans are in the minority, they do not get
that treatment, not only by the corporate media but also
by the establishment in DC. If forty seven Republicans decide
to stop something in the Senate, they are treated you
worse than Hitler. They're treated as if they're just like awful,
awful people. But when Democrats do it, everyone's like, yeah,
this is normal, this is okay, and these I think
a lot of people felt when Donald Trump was elected
that we were going to see the end to this
double standard treatment of Republicans versus Democrats because of how
he was handed things. But you know, even with his
broad support that he has from the DC establishment, right now,
I sense that we are continuing. We're reverting back to
this old way of being where Democrats get to do
whatever they want, whether they're in the minority or the majority,
and Republicans don't get what to do whatever they want,
whether they're in the minority or the majority.
Speaker 1: As you know, I'm a fan of minorities being able
to stop majority.
Speaker 3: They too, I love I love minority rights in the Senate. Yes, yeah,
And I'm not talking about that, no, I.
Speaker 1: Understand, But I just want to say Republicans can also
do it. They're just terrible at making the case and
obviously they face a huge uphill battle against a media
in media that that makes them out to be villains.
I mean, you remember, actually I don't remember exactly what
it was, but the Republicans are standing in the way
of something, and they were called nihilists by everyone because
they weren't funding something that Democrats managed. So it's very
difficult to fight back. But they don't do a good job.
So those two things combined it's terrible.
Speaker 3: And it goes back to the State of the Union
when Trump said, I'm about to set a trap for
you that you only have to have a modicum of
intelligence to get out of. Please stand if you think
the primary purpose of the American government is to serve
the American people and not illegal aliens. And the Democrats
didn't stand like they are willing to do anything to
protect criminal illegal aliens, and that's sort of so absurd
that it makes it difficult to use as a political
talking point, like there were all these problems with the
Kamala Harris campaign where people didn't believe that she really
supported transing children or you know, things like that, because
it's so absurd, so nonsensical, that people like that can't
be And it almost feels that way with the criminal
illegal aliens, or even their opposition to showing that you
are a citizen of this country in order to vote.
It's interesting how much that's a threat to Democrats and
how much they're willing to do to stop that.
Speaker 1: Let's move on to the death. To the death of
Robert Moehler, who had a had a long career, but
I think for most contemporary people he's probably remembered for
the Russia quote unquote collusion investigation. Donald Trump had some
comments about him. He said, Robert Mulla just died.
Speaker 2: Good.
Speaker 1: I'm glad he's dead. He can no longer hurt innocent people.
There's a big debate about that. I think it's a
poor form to do that just in general, especially for
the president.
Speaker 2: I saw you were maybe less.
Speaker 1: I don't know what your opinion what was your opinion
on that comment from Donald Trump?
Speaker 3: Okay, So, Robert I told I frequently wish that our
president would say things differently. But I'm not going to
go after President Trump on this particular thing because Robert
Moeller tried to coop him. You know that it was
a coup attempt. He went after anybody who was ever
nice to Donald Trump in any capacity. He went after
Trump's family, friends, campaign associates, and when he began his investigation,
we know based on written documents, they knew there was
no collusion at that time. And they spent tens of
millions of dollars to destroy a presidency, to remove a
duly elected president, to create a climate that enabled assassination attempts,
and that put friends in prison trying to get them
to make something up about President Trump. So am I
going to be like, gosh, you weren't the nicest about
this guy when he died? No, I'm not. And I
found far more vile and reprehensible the comments from former
presidents saying Robert Moehler was a great man. I mean,
that's disgusting to me. That's that's so reprehensible. I can't
believe anyone would do that Republican or Democrat. And I
just saw last night President George W. Bush was like,
Laura and I were so saddened that the guy who
tried to coop a duly elected president died. It was
you know, what a great man he was. It's like, no,
I don't care. I actually don't care if everything else
he did in his life was good and it was not.
And I wrote about that in twenty eighteen, twenty seventeen,
maybe if you tried to coop a sitting president with
a phony investigation. And I just remind people when he
testified before Kong, after Bill Barr destroyed his little attempt
by saying, yeah, you know, we asked him to investigate
Russia clusion and there's no Russia collusion, so we're gonna,
you know, close this chapter. And he had done that
thing with the two volumes, and he was like, okay,
so there was no collusion, but we think he was
too angry about our investigation into something we knew was fake,
and so there really was obstruction and he so the
whole effort fails, right, The whole release of the Moler
report fails after tens of millions and a year and
a half every day being a crazy media story. And
so the media and other Democrats tried to get him.
They make they were like, why what if he testified?
What if he testified in front of Congress and he
could kind of reset the narrative away from what Bill
Barr did. And in testimony, he was asked about his
investigation of Fusion GPS, which is the group that manufactured
and disseminated the Russia collusion hoax that he was hired
to perpetuate, and he says whose Fusion GPS? In other words,
like I mean, I don't even know. I don't even
know what to do with that. If you were and
if you were a good American and you knew that
a fake Hillary Clinton funded group had manufactured and disseminated
a very dangerous hoax and you were in a position
to do anything about it, any good American would do
something about it. And so this idea that we're going
to praise this man, you know, it's disgusting to me.
And to see all these people being like, oh, dear
Donald Trump speak against a guy who was very bad
and did bad things, and then say nothing about Barack
Obama praising him as a man who supported rule of
law is just enraging to me.
Speaker 1: Well, I don't know Donald Trump is who he is,
so it is what it is. I don't I think
it's better if he had said nothing, because he's the president.
But I understand where you're coming from as well. I
don't think Muller was a great man or anything like that.
I also get that if you worked with him in
him a long time, you would say something nice about it.
Speaker 2: But I will say I.
Speaker 1: Think Moeller was the person who actually finally inadvertently killed
the Russia collusion or exposed the Russia collusion hoax when
he spoke in front of Congress, and he obviously was
not mentally capable. It was clear that he was not
mentally capable of running this investigation, that other people were
running the investigation, that he didn't really even know what
it was about, and I don't twenty nineteen, I forget
the date, and he was basically forced to admit that
the whole thing was nonsense.
Speaker 2: Obviously he didn't want to do.
Speaker 1: That, but that was the moment I think that a
lot of people were like, who are still saying to
some extent where like, yeah, this whole thing's bs. I mean,
that's how I remember. It's a while back, seven years now.
He basically confirmed that there was no collusion, that there
was no conspiracy, collusions, not even a real thing.
Speaker 3: No, I don't think he deserves any credit for anything
he did in his investigation. I think he deserves nothing
but condemnation. It is true that by some miracle, you know,
if the federal government comes after you, they're going to
get you on not just something, but they could get
you on a lot of things. It's nothing short of
a miracle that they did not have anything to go.
Speaker 2: On after Can I say I forgot to make my
main point? Then? My main point was the people who.
Speaker 1: Were conducting that investigation wanted to get Donald Trump so badly,
and the fact that they couldn't get him, I couldn't
get anyone around him on anything, was more proof than
anything else that there was nothing to get right.
Speaker 2: Is that a fairssessment of his investigation?
Speaker 3: I do. I just don't think he deserves any credit
for that. There were many illegal actions taken in the
effort to destroy an American president and to undo the
results of the twenty sixteen election, and Robert Moller went
after precisely zero of those people. He protected one hundred
percent of those people, and he instead went after people
in an effort to get them to say something against
Donald Trump. It is true and Byron York's book Obsession
is very good on this point, and I would always
recommend people read it as a reflection of those times
or accurate reported thing about those times. That Robert Mohler
was chosen for that role because he was perceived as
a Republican. He was perceived as unimpeachable. Now that was false,
and I wrote about that at the time, but he
all already probably had dementia at that point. So his
lack of control over his you know, he hired exclusively
hard left activists, Democrat prosecutors and people like that to
be part of his team. So the twelve top people
weren't just left, I mean they were hard left. They're
people like Andrew Weissman. They're people who were involved in
all of the Get Trump efforts during the interregnum. They
were activists. He didn't really have control over them, he
didn't maybe even know what they were doing. And so
it's hard to know just precisely how much to blame him,
given that he was losing his mind and was taken
advantage of, probably by these far left Democrat activists.
Speaker 1: But you remember how the anticipation and the eagerness thought
that all the Russia collusion hoasters and people will believe
that couldn't wait for his report. I mean, they thought
for sure it was going to blow it open, and
it didn't do anything like that.
Speaker 2: It was just such a big disappointment.
Speaker 3: They were lighting candles that were like those saint candles
that Roman Catholics have with Robert Mohler's picture on it.
I think they called it like molar moss or something.
I don't even remember. They were celebrating holidays around him.
They were worshiping him, and he left them high and drive.
That is true. But I do want to just say
for this hagiography about him, and I am not someone
who thinks like when someone dies, you should go after them.
To the point about Trump's tweet, but when he was hired,
I remember people being like, you literally can't criticize him.
But there were all sorts of things that I thought
were worthy of criticizing him over, including you know, he
was leader of the FBI when the anthrax investigation was
completely bungled. He was also the person who let Sandy
Berger serve no jail time when he stuffed documents in
his socks. Like the treatment of Democrats under his FBI
was ridiculous relative to the treatment of Republicans and to that,
to that point, you know, it was the charging Scooter Libby,
but not the leaker. He he had no control over,
you know, Comy. There was the railroading of Ted Stevens,
who was falsely accused of things by the FBI and
had his political career destroyed in Alaska and was exonerated later.
There was bad stuff about in Israeli spir ring that
had been bungled as well, basically accusing a guy who
had talked with you know, like an America. It was
like accusing some guy who had merely had like conversations
of being an Israeli spy just general incompetent supervision of
Andrew Weissman and other people. So this idea that he
is unimpeachable was unimpeachable just isn't really true. No matter what,
though nobody destroyed the reputation of the FBI as much
as Robert Mohler and Comy they ruined it. I mean,
there's no coming back from what they did, and the
idea that you would praise this person as a man
who upheld rule of law when it counted when he did,
not just the opposite, but maybe the worst in history.
Opposite is just bad. So I'm sorry for his family
and friends. I'm sure he also did many, many good things,
and I know he had a decorated military career for instance,
And you know, I don't. I understand that everyone's very complicated,
but nobody should be confused about the damage this man
caused the country and we have still we're still suffering,
in part because basically no one has been held accountable
for it.
Speaker 2: Well, it is interesting. I also try not to.
Speaker 1: Say negative things about someone who's just passed away, not
because of them, but because of their family, and I
think it's in poor form. But I've noticed lately and
I did have to do this twice and recently when
Jesse Jackson died and I forgot who else it was
that if you are quiet and you act with korum,
other people run to create revisionist histories of this people, yeah,
make them into saints. And if you don't act to
kind of push back, these stories cement their legacy in
a way. So that you have a responsibility to get
the history right. I hate this idea. I remember at
the time, if you criticized him, you would be smeared.
You know, they'd say, like, he served this country and
you know you're just a putin stooge or whatever. This
is not a fascist state. I get to be critical
of anyone I want.
Speaker 3: And it is good to honor military service. It is
good to honor that that does not give you a
get out of jail free card for the rest of
your life.
Speaker 2: But I wanted to point yeah, no, no, police.
Speaker 3: Well, I wanted to kind of talk about Margo Cleveland
testifying this week about FBI and d O j abuses, and.
Speaker 1: I mentioned one last thing on the Russia collusion stuff.
There was a piece by Eli Lake. You might not
have loved it, but it was about Bob Muller's tarnish
legacy about why he had good you know, he had
a good career but then Russia, the Russia stuff ruined
it for him. And Joe Scarborough a Morning Joke chimed
in that this was a joke of a piece because
he said the Senate Intelligence Committee had found that, you know,
all the things I found that it was a grave
counter intelligence threat, and this and that, and actually Russia's
stuff was true. Now, I just want to mention that
these dead enders on the Russia collusion stuff have also
revised the history to ten. That this was just about
the twenty sixteen Trump campaign and how it was susceptible
to Russian interference. That wasn't the thing that they talked
about day in and day out. That's not the thing
that they obsessed over. Joe Scarborough said that Donald Trump
had been compromised, that there he had been blackmailed. He
didn't talk about some low level twenty sixteen camp like
they are trying to change history, just like they do
for Robert Mueller's bio, to make it this very rational,
you know investigation, this very rational thought process. But they
were unhinged when Jonathan Chait wrote his spiece about how
Donald Trump was an assence since nineteen eighty seven, he
had he was on there talking about it. He asked,
I forgot his co host named Brazinski or whatever named Mika,
Mika is he is he an asset? Mika Brazinski one
hundred percent? Like that's not about some campaign worker in
the Trump campaign. That's about Donald Trump and what would
have been the biggest scandal in American history, maybe in
the history of the world, if the President of States
had been an asset for another country. So please, I mean,
let's let's let's not do that. I'm sorry, so Marvi.
Speaker 3: I love also like the Senate Intel Committee, which was,
by the way, a complete joke of an investigation, where
the Republicans were basically completely a wall on the whole thing,
and they let Democrats just kind of manifest their insanity
on that also suffered from restricted information. And so for example,
within the last year, we have seen the release of
quite a few documents from d and I Tulci Gabbard
and the CIA John Ratcliffe showing that there was an
attempt to manufacture a Russi occlusion narrative precisely to affect
members of the Senate in Congress, and most people fell
for it, and they were given a report that seemed
to be well, a report that alleged that Donald Trump
there was a legitimate reason to believe Donald Trump was
a Russian asset, and very few Republican or Democrat senators
had the wherewithal to even question this remotely. But as
those documents were released in the last year. It basically
makes that entire Senate report completely loot. But it is
interesting how much people cling to that but don't cling
to the excellent work put out by the House Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence. In fact, when the House Permanent
Select Committee on Intelligence was saying, we think their Afiza abuses,
we have questions about the predicate, where you know, we're
concerned about this dossiate. You know, everyone said these people
are insane, and they've been totally you know, and they
did it very quickly too. The Senates Intel whitewash thing
took many, many years and was heavily redacted, and was
written in such a way to give people like Mika
Brzinski a chance to say, oh, no, there really was
Russia collusion. Like they're just so bitterly clinging to it
that it's embarrassing, But they don't give credence to the
much better work by the House Permanent Select Committee.
Speaker 1: Despite everyone's best efforts, there were zero convictions having anything
to do with conspiracy by anyone, right, even the I
mean Manifred or whatever his name was, was I think
jail for some kind of tax forgot.
Speaker 3: He sailed clearly in an attempt to get him to
turn on Trump. Yeah, you know, and he didn't do it,
which is interesting. Okay, So I mentioned that Margot Cleveland,
our senior legal contributor at the Federalist, was testifying this
week before the Senate Judiciary Committee's Subcommittee on the Courts. No,
what was it. I forget what the subcommittee was, and
it was really interesting. They were talking about constitute dutional
abuses as part of the Arctic frost efforts, but also
other things that the FBI and DJ have been engaged in.
Senators Chuck Grassley and Ron Johnson released additional documents showing
that Jack Smith and his team were relying on that
one party J six committee led by people only people
appointed by Nancy Pelosi who agreed with her perspective on
J six and essentially led by Liz Cheney. They were
relying on that committee which had no balance on it,
zero balance to do like preliminary quote unquote investigations, and
then they were just using their map that they provided
for who they would go after. We learned that Jack
Smith really went out of his way to hide his
attempts to spy on his political opponents in the Republican Party,
including that you know, when he went after a bunch
of senators only one senator had a company mobile phone company,
went after a mobile phone company that said, like, we're
not going to turn over his records, and when they
pushed back, he did not in any way go to
the courts to try to secure these records. And Senator
Cruz was asking the panelists whether they thought the reason
why he didn't go to a judge on that was
because he knew he would lose. And there are all
these emails showing that they were aware that they were
violating people's privacy rights First Amendment rights, speech and privacy
I'm sorry, speech and debate clause rights, and they did
not care or they worked to make it so that
it didn't matter. It also showed interesting like almost it
looked like coordination with Judge Beryl Howell, and she was
strongly supportive of the approach they were using to go
after their political opponents. I mean, really interesting documents. And
once again, you know, like I'm glad that the Senate
held hearings on it, but there's a lot of bad
behavior out there at the FBI and DJ it seems
to be a completely rotten organization in many ways. I'm
not saying there's nobody there that's good, but the percentage
of people who are good seems to be very tiny
relative to the people who are just abusing their power.
And it's a it's a very bad situation.
Speaker 1: It's a terrible situation because it finds us in a
place now where most American people don't trust our institutions
at all, the ones that we need to trust most.
And I think that goes back in a big way too. Well,
it goes back to Obama, but it goes back in
a big way to the russiaclusion stuff and then the
stuff that came after.
Speaker 4: Twelve point seven percent of US credit card balances.
Speaker 1: Are how late.
Speaker 4: Watch Dout on Wall Street podcast with Chris Markowski. Every
day Chris helps unpack the connection between politics and the
economy and how it affects your wallet. American's credit card
balances are experiencing late fees to the highest level since
twenty eleven. More and more people are falling behind as
people are over ninety days late. Not a good sign.
Whether it's happening in DC or down on Wall Street,
it's affecting you financially.
Speaker 2: Be informed.
Speaker 4: Check out the watch Dot on Wall Street podcast with
Chris Markowski on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 2: You want to talk about the death of Kermit goz now,
I do. Now.
Speaker 1: Yeah, So for people who don't remember or don't know,
he was a late term abortionist.
Speaker 2: In Philly, right West Philly.
Speaker 1: He uh, you had, well, let's put it this way,
you had a lot to do with bringing that story
to national attention. I'd say, if I remember correctly, what
was a twenty third, twenty eleven, maybe I think before
I knew.
Speaker 3: Met you, I think it was twenty eleven, and I
don't remember exactly, and it's been a long time, but
the situation there was that Kermit Gosnell was a decades long,
you know, prolific abortionist in Philly and had a lengthy
history with the abortion movement. He had actually been involved
in something called the Mother's Day Massacre where he pioneered
this abortion method where he took like a bunch of
I want to see, like metal parts and put like
a gel around them and then inserted them into the
women and then as the gel melted, it tore up,
tore up their insides, you know, It was kind of
like a month, even by abortionist standards, which is not
a great standard since their entire profession is about ending
life in the womb violently. He was particularly monstrous about it.
But he kind of worked un regulated, unobserved for many decades,
and his specialty was working with women who were in particular,
like you know, hardship situations. He had a well, let's
first talk about how he was discovered. So he among
the other things he was doing, he apparently was a
doctor feel good who was willing to write prescriptions for
people for drugs, and the DEA was looking into that
and they raided his clinic. And when they rated his clinic,
they realized that it was like a bigger situation than
just the drugs. They found lots of baby body parts
in formaldehyde, They found body parts in the refrigerator. They
found hallways that were filled with trash that you know,
you couldn't safely evacuate a woman, say he botched an abortion,
which he did all the time, You couldn't safely evacuate
a woman to get to the hospital. And there were
all sorts of issues in play. They even found that
he had different standards of care in a racist way.
He himself was a black man, but he would take
advantage of women on an ability to pay and seem
to prey on like black immigrant women frequently or other
immigrant women. And so you would get anesthesia based on
your ability to pay, and the more you paid, the
less pain you would be in, just like so many
health policy issues in play here. And great, I'm sorry.
Speaker 2: Didn't a woman die as well? Wasn't there a manslaughter charge?
Speaker 3: Ye? Like several women had reportedly died, And he wasn't
just killing babies who were pre pre the age limit
and I don't remember what it was at the time
in Pennsylvania. He was also delivering babies live and then
killing them. And so he ends up being charged with
the deaths of I think one of the women and
a few of the babies that he killed.
Speaker 1: But I think they suspected that there were hundreds of
born alive deaths and maybe even more women.
Speaker 3: Maybe even thousands. Yeah, it was kind of his primary method,
according to what the grand jury found, And so when
the grand jury released their report, it was called House
of Horrors, and the description in the grand jury report
was just unbelievable, and it did get some news coverage
when that happened, Like when that report came out, it
got national news coverage. And usually when you discover a
prolific serial killer who has done like crazy things like
this over a long period of time, and it implicates
government regulating agencies and the abortion industry and in abortion
groups of which he was like a very prominent and
happy member, and the abortion movement. You know, like you
would think that for something that implicated so much, it
would be the kind of story that I don't know,
like the Russia collusion hoax, you might get multiple stories
a day out of Instead, it was one story, one story,
And at the time I thought, well, maybe when the
trial begins, that's when they'll cover it more. But the
trial began and nobody was covering it. Nobody, and a
local reporter JD. Mulane, showed the empty seats that they
had reserved for the media. They had assumed there would
be quite a bit of media interest in this serial killer,
like dramatic serial killer story, and there was no media interest.
And my very tiny role in this was just to
contact every reporter who had made a huge deal out
of Sandra Blood or of do you remember when the
Susan g. Coman Foundation tried to stop funding Planned Parenthood
and that became a big story, or Wendy Davis like
I or Todd Aiken. I just looked at the reporters
who would write, you know, Todd Aikin said something not
great on the campaign trail and a reporter might write,
no joke, fourteen stories on it. And when Susan g.
Comen tried to stop funding the abortion the leading abortionist
Planned Parenthood, maybe another twenty stories on it. You know,
it would be like they knew what to do when
they had a story, they knew what to do. When
they didn't have a story, they would write twenty stories
on it. And so I would like add up all
the stories they had written on the on the information
operations done by the pro abortion movement and say, okay,
you wrote seventy eight stories on Todd agg and Planned Parents.
Why have you not covered the Gosnel trial? And I
would just ask, like every reporter, this is in the
early days of Twitter, when you could contact a and
they would respond and quite notoriously, this woman, oh my gosh.
Speaker 2: What's her name? She was at the Washington Post?
Speaker 3: Right, Okay, so the best one of these, I thought,
and there were many, many good ones, but the best
one was Sarah Cliff at the Washington Post was their
health policy reporter, And I just tweeted Washington Post health
policy reporter Sarah Cliff has eighty plus site hits on
the Aiken, Fluke Coleman stories and zero on Gosnel. Would
love an explanation and of this story, which had maybe,
like I don't know, forty five good health policy angles.
She said, Hi, Molly, she misspelled my name. I cover
policy for the Washington Post, not local crime. Hence why
I wrote about all the policy issues you mentioned. You
remember the policy issues in play with Todd Akin's comment,
I'm sure you remember the policy issues in play with
the Coman Foundation.
Speaker 2: Sorry, no, I like this.
Speaker 3: There are no policy issues with what is the width
of your hallway? You know, because like when people try
to say abortion clinics should have admitting privileges for their
doctors at hospitals. That's so that they can take the
patient right to the hospital and explain what's going on. Right,
That's so, you know, you have to have a certain
width of your hallway if you're doing abortions, so that
when you butcher a woman along with her baby, she
can be safely evacuated. That's a health policy issue. When
you have different standards of care based on immigration or
racial status, that's a health policy issue. And Sarah Cliff
said this was a local crime issue. Okay, So how
did the papers cover this local crime issue? You know,
think about other local crime issues, Trayvon Martin, George Floyd,
Michael Brown. Those are local crime issues. Did the Washington
Post find fit to cover those?
Speaker 1: Hmm?
Speaker 3: Maybe to the tune of thousands of stories.
Speaker 1: Well, they will tell you that it reflects a national problem,
which of course late term abortion does as well. You
will remember John McCormick, I think the Weekly Stand was
still around, and he was covering Congress, I think, and
he got Nancy. He asked Nancy Pelosi what the difference
was between Kermit Gosnell did and the run of the
mill late term abortionist. I think it was just maybe cleanliness,
but or neatness. But she couldn't answer that question. She
kind of yelled at him and found it reprehensible and
said he was savoring the question or something like that.
It was just crazy. You will remember she said that
abortion was sacred ground for her she's a Catholic, That's
what she said, yes, and that the story itself was
was massive because.
Speaker 2: It had been a long time or maybe we'd.
Speaker 1: Never actually gotten a real look at the horrors of.
Speaker 2: Late term abortion in this way.
Speaker 1: It was always couched in like language, you know, by
by media that made.
Speaker 2: It sound outside the norm, but never like murder. And
this was clearly murder.
Speaker 1: And the reason that Nancy Pelosi couldn't answer that question
is because there is no difference between those those between
the guy and Colorado, did he dieet?
Speaker 2: And others like that.
Speaker 1: Right, who's a you know, one of the great mass
murderers in American history, and it it is, it's not changed.
I mean, I think abortion is still covered with this
kind of deceit. I just think it was an incredibly
important story, didn't they They made a movie and you
were a character, right or was a.
Speaker 3: Comparing There's a great movie actually directed by Nick Cercy,
who I love and I think he's so wonderful and talented,
and the screenplay was by Andrew Claven and the original
story was from the writing team of mcalar Mcalhaaney Felman
Anne who did that and it was really well done.
I thought and done, you know, just tells the story
and it takes some liberties with certain things. So for instance,
there's a character who's a reporter character and her name
is Molly Mulaney, and it's based you know, I mentioned
Jad Mulane, the guy who was covering the trial locally,
and then I, you know, I I tried to shame
journalists into covering it, and so it was kind of
you know, in a lot of that. So it's very
cool that there's a character like that, and that's good movie.
I'd highly recommend it. Nick Sercy's work.
Speaker 1: Local crime story became part of the vernacular of American
politics after that, right, I mean, you'd always mock liberals
for for not covering local crime stories. I think this
is when you first came to my attention. I was like,
I like the cut of her jib. I think, but
I might have known what you're love.
Speaker 3: That, David. I've been reading you for so many years
prior to that.
Speaker 1: It couldn't be that many years. Let's just mention since
we've been ragging on media. Scott McFarland, who was like
this big guy at CBS News, I forget his title
doesn't really matter, and he was was he laid off
or did he leave?
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 3: He left. He made a big show, but he's like,
I am leaving. I couldn't handle it here anymore.
Speaker 1: So he left, and nine days later he signed up
with some left wing digital media company.
Speaker 2: What is it? Is it Midas Touched.
Speaker 3: Or yeah, which is like an actual Democrat super pac
I think.
Speaker 2: So that is the usual thing.
Speaker 1: So when I worked at a newspaper and someone left
a newspaper, they usually went on to become like a
spokesman for some government agency, or a spokesman for some Democrat,
or a spokesman, or or working in some something like this,
some kind of pack or some kind of oppo research
firm or whatever. It was not always, but I'd say
ninety percent of the time. That's my experience. So we're
supposed to pretend, then the media is not biased when
a guy who is a CBS News Justice correspondent moves
over and goes to just a literal hard left political organization.
Speaker 3: I was in an uber at a meeting at the
White House. I'm ubering home and the uber driver is
listening to WTOP, a local radio station, and they go up.
We have Scott McFarlane, who has a new title, and
they're like, Scott normally meets with us at this time
to talk about such and such for CBS Radio, but
now he's at Midas Touch and we're so excited, and
I'm like, this is insane. They're treating it like it's
fine that this. I mean, ay, they never should have
had him on given his clear left wing bias, But
then it doesn't even matter when he goes to an
overt democrat organization. They're just still like treating it like
he's gonna share the news. And his reporting was done
in that way that like corporate media does it, where
they sound like they're actually delivering the news, but they're
omitting all of the relevant facts that would make it
actual news, and they're you know, they do it. They
do it in a really high level way that I
encourage my students who I teach a class on narrative
and propaganda and American journalism. I want them to see
what The New York Times is doing, because they do
it at a really high level. But he told the
story about the DHS shutdown without mentioning that democrats had
caused it.
Speaker 1: I call it Potempkin journalism anyway. So lastly, I think
we should mention what's going on in Iran. It is
a war that I believe we are winning in dramatic fashion.
I think the latest news is that it's confusing. We
don't know what's going on, but it looks like there
may be some kind of negotiation going on about some
kind of deal, perhaps some kind of ceasefire. But at
the same time, Donald Trump is moving paratroopers and other
military components to the Gulf, so you never know. One
of the talking points I just wanted to quickly mention
is that there were like fifty reportedly fifteen points that
the Trump administration sent to the Iranian negotiators, supposedly that
needed to be met for peace. So the big talking
point from the left is we already had this with
the Obama deal. Look at all the stuff we had
with the Obama deal, and you just you've ripped it
up and that's why we're here now. But that is
a lie, And I just want to go through just
five points. The first is that the Obama deal it
allowed iron to continue uranium enrichment. It did not stop
them from doing that. The second, it did not ask
them or compel them to decommission any of their reactors,
not the reactor that's three hundred feet concrete and forced
under a granite mountain that supposedly is for you know,
civilian medicine, medicinal purposes. The Obama administration puts zero limits
on missile production or development, not even intercontinental ballistic missiles
that carrie nukes. There was no to verify anything because
there was no any time anywhere inspections allowed. Also, there
are no restrictions on funding terror proxies that were American
interest analysis. But more than anything, it was worse than
all of that because the Obama Deal gave the Iranians
a shield, so the Israelis could not attack them while
the deal was in place, and they could just get
to a point where they can do large scale enrichment
within months and have a weapon.
Speaker 2: So like you, you could like the deal.
Speaker 1: You could not. You could think that Trump doesn't have
a strategy. You could think that he's asking for things
that can't get. Whatever it is, but it is not
the Obama Deal thus far. Maybe it'll change. I can't
tell you what the future is. So anyway, I just
wanted to get that off my chest.
Speaker 3: So I have some thoughts. But before that, I have
a question, which is, do you see this moving to
ground invasion and what do you see that looking like?
Speaker 1: Or No, I don't see like a large scale ground invasion.
Speaker 2: No, I could see.
Speaker 3: Us all scale ground invasion.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I could see. It's just a guess. I don't
know anyone. I don't know anything.
Speaker 1: But my guess is that I could see the Americans
and the Israelis trying to procure the enriched uranium that
exists at a site they think it exists at that
they have not bombed at all. So to me, that
says that there's something there that they want to get
their hands on. So I could see something like that happening.
I could see them landing some troops to ensure that
boats can get through the Strait of Hormuz. Maybe maybe
he's just threatening them, maybe he's trying to scare them.
I don't know what's happening. I don't think we know
what's happening yet. It's going to be really interesting to
read the history of this to see.
Speaker 2: What went on.
Speaker 1: But I don't see any kind of like regime change,
ground invasion or anything like that.
Speaker 2: But I don't.
Speaker 1: We just don't have the troops for that, and I
don't think there's the will for that, And I don't,
you know, certainly not among the population, which is obviously
not happy with this war, but in the administration either.
I just don't see that happening. Why do you feel
like that's a possibility.
Speaker 3: I don't know. I am sort of instinctually in such
a different place than most of my compatriots on this
that I'm continuing to just ask questions about what they're thinking.
So I read the story, I get confused between like
Wall Street Journal, Reuter's, Bloomberg. There's been a bunch of
different reporting, But there were a series of articles this
weekend that were kind of interesting about how Israel and
the US had talked about the war prior to it beginning,
and apparently there'd been Israeli intelligence suggesting that a big,
dramatic strike would lead to a regime change, you know,
a civil disruption and regime change, and that obviously did
not happen at all, and so there were beliefs that
this could be a pretty quick operation as a result
of that, and when that didn't happen, now it's like, okay, now,
what So the list of demands you mentioned that the
US sent to Iran was interesting, but so was the
list of demands that they sent back, which seemed either
untenable or indicative that maybe this war will go on
for a very long time. And and so I'm just,
you know, curious, what is that, like? What is the appetite?
Like we're told that one hundred percent of Trump supporters
and then one hundred percent of Iran war supporters support
the Iran war, or you know, one hundred percent of
people who always wanted to go to war with Iran
are supportive of Trump's war with Iran, and one hundred
percent of Trump supporters support Trump. So in that group,
what is the appetite? Is the appetite for a large
ground invasion in a lengthy war or is there a
tolerance of that? Or is there like not a tolerance
of that. You have a much better picture of that
than I.
Speaker 1: Other than Lindsey Graham, I have never heard anyone ever
say that they wanted a large scale invasion. If someone
can provide me with people.
Speaker 3: Who have, do you want that not to happen?
Speaker 2: I don't want that to happen.
Speaker 1: I can't speak for other people, but the people I know,
I just have never seen anyone say they want some
sort of large scalely rock style invasion. But I just
want to go back to another thing you said about
the regime change. That's not what I read, and I
could be wrong, but Israeli media said that the report
that Mosat I think gave Israel and Israel gave the
Americans was that regime change would probably not happen quickly.
That would probably take about a year, meaning first you
undermine the foundations of the regime, take out all their leadership,
all of that, and over time, what's going to happen
is they've been so weakened that they'll be a regime change,
but it won't happen overnight. I don't know if that's true,
but that's what I read. I think a low, high impact,
low casualty war like this, we've already won the war.
The war is over.
Speaker 2: In the sense of any kind of military sense.
Speaker 3: It's a very trumpy thing that you just said.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying that mission accomplished sort of thing. But
the Iranians have we literally control the skies. We're just
can can meticulously take out whatever we want and do
whatever we want with them.
Speaker 2: What are they going to do now? They could be
as radical as they want they Yeah, I.
Speaker 3: Agree with you on those things, but I also think
it's silly to say we have quote unquote won the war.
If so, there better be no people there right now,
and instead it's the opposite. More people are heading over.
Speaker 1: And I'm sorry, I hate to break the news too.
We won the war full surrender in Europe and people
were there for years and years and years after.
Speaker 3: That's not that's not that's not what's happening here. When
you're deploying troops. That's different than you know, having people
in Germany.
Speaker 1: Well, I think that you asked me how long I
want the war to go on. I want it to
go on as long as as we finish the objectives
we were there for that were initially stated by the
White House, which was stop ending their new program once
and for all because we didn't do it last time,
stopping their ballistic missile program, and stopping them from funding
proxy armies, terror proxy armies around the world.
Speaker 3: And if that takes like seven, ten, twelve, twenty years, that's.
Speaker 1: Okay, right, I mean, no, it's not going to take
I don't even know what to say to that. We're
not going to have troops there for twenty years. We're
not going to be doing this for twenty years. Yeah,
I mean, if we have to go back ten years
from now, because they're rebuilding all these things and we
have to go back, there's no panacea here. This is
the enemy has to say. That's a cliche, but it's true,
and we can only do the best that we can do.
Speaker 3: That's what we're winning. Like, clearly we are dominant, like
there's no question about that. And we have exacted quite
a bit of damage, and so has Israel to the
country of Iran. It's also true that they have exacted
some damage to neighboring countries, to their refineries. There are
major disruptions to oil. They still have some sway over
the straits over moves, and that matters too. And you
don't need to be winning, You don't need to be
winning necessarily to still have quite a bit of say.
And so with gas being dramatically higher in the US
right now, and I think if it's short term, that's
no big deal, but as that goes on, not no
big deal. It's obviously not great, But as that goes
on that could cause some issues.
Speaker 1: No, politically, yeah, I think when you think about oil,
I believe is under one hundred dollars a barrow today,
still way too high and higher than it was. But
the idea that you could have a war in the
Middle East with the Strait of Harmus partially closed and
still have a barrel of oil not be like one
fifty two hundred is kind of a miracle in a way.
I know people aren't going to look at it that way.
Iran is weakened in every way imaginable as far as
their military goes. But when people say we've won and
you know, militarily, I think they underplay that this is
perhaps the most successful military operation in modern history. Never
before has an entire tier of leadership and virtually every
leader of the country that we're fighting been taken out
within the first week of fighting. Basically a few stragglers
and their entire I mean, their ballistic capabilities are virtually
non existent. Now they're sending out drones, low tech stuff. Listen,
I agree with what there is a threat. People don't
like the war. Oil prices go up, gas prices go up.
That's going to be bad. But you know, I think
it's the right thing to do. So I don't know,
you know, I don't know what to say about that.
I hope that I wish that people were a little
more patient because this has been incredibly successful so united.
Speaker 3: I just want to say, I do have a little
bit of a pet peeve of like, this is the
most successful military operation in history or whatever. You can't
judge something like that. I mean, I agree that again
we have complete domination. We've had these really effective strikes.
You can't really know what the effect of something is
in the immediate moment. You need to think through what
are the what are the results down the road, And
I would like to not make immediate judgments when.
Speaker 1: I say that, I'm talking about the military operation. Okay,
the long term that's a different question. Iran has no
allies in the world, really. Maybe maybe Russia is helping them,
maybe not.
Speaker 2: I don't know.
Speaker 3: The entire isuela.
Speaker 1: Oh just kidding, right, just because we don't know what's
going to happen. And people mock Donald Rumsfeld's whole thing
about the knowns and unknowns and stuff. But I thought
it was actually quite an interesting quote, right, I mean,
it is actually quite smart. We don't know, and we
can't know, but that doesn't mean we don't act when
we have to act to defend our country. Yeah, I
think we did the right thing, and we'll see history
will tell. I don't pretend to know everything that's going
to happen, but I know that Iran is no longer
the danger to the United States or the Gulf nations.
Speaker 2: That it was the day before we struck.
Speaker 3: So I have a reader or a listener email request
and it's nowhere near as easy as recommending procedural dramas.
But because Washington, DC tends to have a lot of
group think about this war, it is largely supportive, you know, Democrat, Republican.
But you're not getting like a ton of interesting commentary here.
I would love to hear from people, and really people
who support, you know, enthusiastically support the war. What you
see as the timeline and what you're willing to have happen,
what costs you're willing to go through to achieve the
objectives that you want to achieve. So like what objectives
you want to achieve, what you see the timeline as being,
and like the range of what that timeline is and
what costs you're willing to endure. I know it's like
a heavy request, but if anyone has any thoughts, I
would love to hear them. I love kind of I
feel like I don't quite understand where everybody is on this,
and I would like to understand better. So if anyone
has any thoughts on it that are worth sharing, I
would love to hear them.
Speaker 1: Two quick things for me just before we go to
culture is one, if we just so you know where
I stand. If we left today, I still think it
would have been success. So if everyone picked up all
Trump picked up everyone and brought them home tomorrow, I
still think this mission was successful. I think it probably
pushed you romback like a decade, and that would be
good enough.
Speaker 3: Goodbody, I'm right there with you.
Speaker 1: I think we can do better, though. I think the
nuke stuff we need something to deal with that. There's
so much going on we don't know obviously.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: The other thing is there is the group think. Have
you listened to Chris Murphy lately? Have you listened to
Chuck Schumer when he's talking about how Donald Trump purposely
killed a bunch of girls, or Chris Murphy who says
it's the worst thing that's ever happened to us. I mean,
there's not group think on the Democrats side. They will
never support anything Donald Trump does, and I think that
their party is completely now resistant to anything that looks
like it would help Israel or anything that looks like
we would be in the Middle East or any of that.
Speaker 2: You don't think so.
Speaker 3: I remember being on Fox New Sunday with Senator Mark Warner,
Democrat from Virginia, and he did have criticisms of Trump
on the war. He called it a war of choice
and things like that, but he was also very supportive
of the goals of the war effort, you know, taking
it Ron's nuclear capabilities and the like. And I think
that a lot of the people who are more responsible Democrats,
you know, less just playing for politics, are treating this differently.
But I'm not interested in what Chuck Schumer has to say.
I'm interested in what a like normal American who supports
Trump and thinks about foreign policy like. I'm more interested
in what Yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's just because you said there was locks of
in DC. I don't think that's exactly true, but I do.
Speaker 3: It's a town that generally supports military. Well, I.
Speaker 1: Don't understand I like to ask people who I consider,
you know, realists or even isolation is. You know, do
you believe that we if you if Iran was on
the cusp of getting a nuclear weapon, do we have
a responsibility to act or not? I mean, that's a
question I want to know. And if we do, doesn't
it make sense to act before it has a shield
of immunity, before it has supersonic weapons, before it is
really a danger a more dangerous situation to act or
to let them get to that point. I believe most
people who are on that end of things, not the
realist but the isolationists and people on the left want
Iran to have a nuke. I think Ben Rhodes wants
Iran to have a nuke. But if you really don't,
I don't see why you would want to act now
and you would want to act later. I don't really
understand why when we know that the mulahs and the
clerics and their radicals lie.
Speaker 2: And don't abide by any agreement.
Speaker 1: Culture, it always seems like we go from the most
serious thing to the culture we have to like plan
better ratchet it down.
Speaker 2: I have two things.
Speaker 1: One, I watch the Peaky Blinder movie the Immortal Man.
I'm a huge fan of Peaky Blinders. I just love
everything about it. Chilian or Cilly Murphy, however you pronounce it.
Fantastic actor. Love him in that role, Like really looking
forward to this movie. I watched it. It looks great,
Like it's just all the visuals and the anachronistic rock
music and everything's done perfectly, just produced, perfectly. Story super thin,
super thin, barely held my interest. I don't know what
the reviews have been, like. I see it as ninety
three on Rotten Tomatoes. A little surprising to me because
I felt it was a little thin, But maybe I
need to rewatch it.
Speaker 3: Sorry, was that critics review or the people's review?
Speaker 1: It right here has high critics high people ninety four,
ninety three, So maybe it's just me. But I don't
want to give away anything. But there's like only so
many family members you can kill off before you're like,
what is even happening here?
Speaker 2: Right?
Speaker 3: And you saw this in the theater?
Speaker 2: No, so I don't know.
Speaker 1: I did go to the theater though, yeah, but and
I went to see Project Hail Mary.
Speaker 2: Okay, I did too, Oh you did too?
Speaker 3: Yeah?
Speaker 1: I found it enjoyable, right, I think it's a nice blockbuster.
It wasn't the story's nice that I think Ryan Gosling's
very likable guy basically just plays himself. I guess these days,
I have really no complaints about the movie. I'm a
little bit I wouldn't get in trouble here. I want
to push back a little bit some of the reviewers
and some of the people calling it like one of
the greatest movies ever made, Like, I just feel like
it's a bit overdone, right. I mean, it's a very
simple story, it's heartfelt. It's like a really good reminds
me of a really good nineteen eighties or you know,
blockbuster that you'd go with the family to see. Even
though that's another part everyone's like, yeah, I take my family.
Even the first scene is kind of I mean I
have a little kids or anything, but that first scene
is a little scary, right with the dead people. No,
doesn't he first uncover the dead his the dead people.
Speaker 2: In the ship? Oh, he look on zippers them and
they're dead.
Speaker 3: Spoiler alert there.
Speaker 2: Yeah, I should have said that, but well, what do
you think.
Speaker 3: I couldn't agree more. I enjoyed it. I thought it
was actually not just good, but like pretty you know,
like good good but pretty good. When people are like
that was amazing, I'm like, hmm, or when they're like
the meaning was so rich. I'm like, I get that.
And also I agree, even on the Ryan Gospeling thing.
I genuinely like him, although I get all the Ryan's
confused sometimes the white young men, but but I thought
he was a little too goofy to play an amazing scientist.
Speaker 1: The book apparently is a lot more science in it.
I wrote The Martian, which it is a movie. I
also liked, people are going to be Mad, but for me,
The Martian was more enjoyable to watch in this.
Speaker 3: It's also about one of my children also preferred The
Martian to this. I've not seen The Martian, but I yeah,
I don't know. I liked it. I would recommend it.
I would say it's a good movie to go see.
And I also was so happy relative to our previous
conversation about Hollywood not trying to make any movies for people,
this was a movie for people. This was a movie
that is broadly enjoyable across age groups, and you know,
different types of people, and there are some deeper themes.
I didn't find him to be like the deepest imaginable.
After I saw Interstellar and wept, you know throughout, I
wanted to see it again almost immediately, and I bought that,
you know about like a hard copy of it. I
did not feel that way about this one, but I
did like it a lot. So I don't want to
in any way disparage it because I would. I would
say people should go see it, definitely.
Speaker 2: It's just a fun It's a good experience.
Speaker 3: Oh in that it was like high quality.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's well made.
Speaker 1: I'm not going to give anything away here, though I
did find the last few scenes so too goofy maybe yeah,
kind of under my I would have liked for it
to Sometimes people don't like this. In European movies have
this sort of theme more often, or structure more often.
But do we really need to see everything resolved in
the movie? Can't it just be we don't know and
we leave a little bit to the imagination.
Speaker 3: It was a little bit unknown at the end, like
you don't know exactly what the future holds for the
individual in question. I do also, I also had a
little bit of struggle with the lack of human exceptionalism.
I am a human eccepstionalist, you know, and know the
same way that I'm an American exceptionalist, like we are better,
we're different, we're you know, not in the same way.
I should say that denigrated my actual belief in human exceptionalism,
and so I struggled a little bit with parts of that.
But in terms of the messages of sacrifice and sacrificing
for other people, I did really like those, and it's
very different from the message Hollywood is normally sending. And
also talking myself back into it, being like, yes, super good.
Speaker 1: And also that sometimes you were because of events that
are beyond your control, you're thrust into roles and then
you can still be something of a hero, right, you
can still be selfless, even though that wasn't your original intent.
Speaker 2: Right.
Speaker 1: I think that that's a good message as well. I
liked everything was great about it.
Speaker 2: I just don't think it's one of the great movies
of all time.
Speaker 1: That's all the only other movie I can think of
that had a similar experience that I think was for everyone.
Speaker 2: It was just fun and it was just popcorn. Was
the mission, not the mission the top gun equality.
Speaker 1: Yeah, not great works of art, but fun and f.
Speaker 3: One would be like a minor version of that. Okay,
there's one other thing I want to say about the
about Project tail Mary, which hopefully we'll do very well
at the box office and everything. One of the themes is
that you know, an individual is a cow that this
one particular individual is a coward, and yet is thrust
into needing not to be. But I didn't find that
really believable because the backstory for that person involved him
not being a coward, you know, standing up for his
beliefs even when there was great personal cost, and so
it just didn't and also, you know, there's a physical
strength about him, and it just I just didn't ever
buy that he was.
Speaker 2: That's interesting.
Speaker 1: They could have probably been a better way to have them,
you know, to have that happen where he ended up
on the ship.
Speaker 3: But the music was really well done too. It was
like all these bands that are well known, but their
song that they chose songs that are not the most
well known of that band. Yeah, Okay, on that note,
did you have a trailer for your before your movie
Brendan Fraser Meteorologist film before Well, okay, so Brendan Fraser
is in a World War two movie that seems to
be built. Oh it is like that great guy who
plays Moriorty in the Sherlock Holmes.
Speaker 2: Who's that guy? I will get that answer to in
a minute.
Speaker 3: Okay. And it's about but I'm calling it the Meteorologist
movie because it seemed like it was sort of about
the guy who was discussing the weather before the Normandy invasion.
But it looked great, and after it was done, I
turned to market I was like, I want to see that,
and he said, I'm a nearly fifty year old man,
and it's a movie about World War Two. Yes, I
will be seeing that.
Speaker 1: It's like when I tell people I've seen every movie
about the Roman Empire, or like, I don't care how
bad it is, how stupid it looks.
Speaker 2: It's called pressure. I think, is that what you're talking about?
Maybe he plays Dwight d. Eisenhower. Now, is that it? Yeah? Okay?
Speaker 3: And then also there was a preview for The Sheep Detective, which.
Speaker 2: She's seen that preview trailer.
Speaker 3: And also I want to see that. Although one of
my kids told me that Hugh Jackman, who's in that movie,
who is the Sheep Herder? Is a murder mystery he's murdered,
and the sheep figure out the murder based on how
he'd always read murder mysteries to them. I wish she's
like detectives, fabulous conceit. But she told me that he
left his wife, like his longtime, decades long wife for
Saren Foster. And I had seen Hugh Jackman and Saren
Foster on Broadway in the same production, and I realized
I had seen.
Speaker 2: Seen their marriage falling apart. Yeah, yeah, I was.
Speaker 1: I don't care about celebrities, but I was actually disappointed
when I heard that, because he was one of these
guys very attracted. Man, I take it. Who was married
to his you know, for a long time, to the
same woman, an age appropriate marriage, and then.
Speaker 2: That was it?
Speaker 3: Oh Sutton Foster is her name? Sorry, Yeah, I saw
them in the music man and you say age appropriate,
but I kind of feel like maybe she was his
first wife, was very not very but like older than him.
I'm older than my husband, so I'm not begrudging this.
Speaker 1: But we have the same situation here. Some of us
needed a bigger challenge.
Speaker 2: I am. I had my anniversary a few days ago.
We're married twenty seven years.
Speaker 3: Congratulation thank you wonderful. I love it.
Speaker 2: Okay, I think that's all right.
Speaker 1: We If you're interested in hearing me more, you can
come hear me speak at the Glenn Allencultural Arts Center.
I guess that's near Richmond. I'd be speaking about guns,
fortunate freedom, and history of American guns, and that's on
April first. If you'd like to reach the show, you
can do so at.
Speaker 2: Radio at the Federalist dot com.
Speaker 1: We'd love to hear from you, and we will be
back next week and tell them be lovers of freedom
and anxious for the fray
Speaker 2: The go walk in the pitches and go across the
trap