Speaker 1: Welcome back, everyone to a new episode of You're Wrong
with Molly Anyway and David Harsan. 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, Molly. I think we're
about forty two weeks away from the election. Wait? Is
that forty three days away from the election? Weeks?
Speaker 3: Like weeks?
Speaker 2: For sure? For sure, it's not a lot of time.
Speaker 3: Well, and we're really in the election right now because
people have already begun voting in many states, so we're
just in a six week long election day.
Speaker 1: People are voting in states like Virginia, I believe, and
we still don't.
Speaker 2: We still have not had.
Speaker 1: A real interview with one of the presidential candidates, not
no press conference.
Speaker 2: I think she's due.
Speaker 1: I think Kamala Harris is doing an interview with who's
she doing one with?
Speaker 2: I think it's going to run tomorrow. I forget. But
it's unprecedented, right it is.
Speaker 3: And also of note is that the corporate media aren't
just fine with this, they're helping make it happen. It
seems that they many of them understand that if Kamala
Harris were to speak more, it would hurt her even more.
That's their theory of the race, and so they are
just helping protect her, keeping her in Joe Biden's basement
for verbial basement.
Speaker 1: It's going to the interview is going to be on MSNBC,
so you know it's going to be real tough with
Stephanie Rule.
Speaker 3: Oh my, good Stephie Rule, who this weekend was saying,
we can't interview her because we know that Donald Trump
is bad and that's all that you need to note about.
Speaker 1: Yeah, And in some sense, I think it's correct that
this election is going to be about a referendum on
Donald Trump. In some ways, I think we don't know
anything about Kamala Harris.
Speaker 2: She's done nothing to impress voters.
Speaker 1: So it's I think for many I mean obviously many
people just vote party line, but I think for many
other voters it's going to be how they feel about
Donald Trump, if they.
Speaker 2: Can trust or not.
Speaker 3: I think that's not quite capturing all of it. I
don't think the race is between Trump and Harris so
much as it's between the regime and those who oppose
the regime. It's not it doesn't really matter who the
particular people are. What matters is whether you like the
administrative state, the interagency consensus running everything, or whether you
think that it has failed and you want someone with
a more like America first attitude. It's not really about
the individuals, it's about the what system you want in
a way, so to that end, to that end, you
don't need to know much about Kamala Harris, and you
already know what you need to know about Trump.
Speaker 2: I think so.
Speaker 1: But there are people out there who aren't that involved
or don't care that much about politics, who vote who
I think probably are thinking about the economy first and foremost.
It seems like in every poll when you ask sorry
voters who they're you know, their top interest, it's almost
always the top three or four will be about economics.
Speaker 2: So anyway, I mean, so, hold on.
Speaker 3: The polls have pretty consistently shown the border as a
number one or number two issue, with the economy also
a number one or number two issue. It's economy and
border with.
Speaker 1: I think the border is important. I think it's an
underrated issue. I think at twenty sixteen that was the
issue that probably won Donald Trump the race. A lot
of people I don't even know that it's properly reflected
in polls because I think people, you know, are nervous
about sounding intolerant or something when they talk about it.
But I think it's a huge issue for people not
saying I'm Joe average out there, but whenever I speak
to normal folks, my neighbors, anything about politics, that is
an issue that does come up more than I think
polsters or people in DC probably know so. And what's
going on now in many ways is just anarchy. And
being a person who's pro healthy immigrant, healthy immigration.
Speaker 2: Numbers, I think this hurts.
Speaker 1: Are you know, the normal person's idea of immigration, I
think is being battered.
Speaker 3: Did you follow President Trump's speech or it was at
a rally. It was kind of a segment of a
rally where he talked about immigration sort of in general,
meaning it's not just about illegal immigration, it's also about
just these massive numbers of immigrants and how it affects
a country. And so he was talking about how it
takes a really long time to build a healthy culture
and it can be torn down very quickly, and he
was pointing to various cities in Europe that have had
their you know this, like their long traditions kind of
destroyed overnight, and it reminded me of Christopher Caldwell's book
What Is That Like? Reflections on the Revolution in Europe,
which it was such oppression book. I mean, it came
out a while back, and it really looks at all
of these problems that Europe has been having because of
its immigration policy, and it's less about you know, legal
versus illegal, and more just about what it means to
have a country with borders and people who inhabit those
borders and whether they are completely interchangeable or not. And
I think we've we've really not had good conversations about that,
and we haven't thought through all the repercussions of dramatic
changes in population.
Speaker 1: Well yeah, I mean I wrote a book called Your
Trash about their immigration system there and how I think
it failed and how we are doing the same thing
in many ways. And for me, obviously very complicated topic.
But we need to assimilate people come here and not
just bring people here. And the you know, the Left
for the most part, doesn't really want to assimilate people
into the American system because they most of most of
them don't believe in the American system. So we have
people coming here, who aren't you know, who aren't learning
the language, who don't believe in American bourgeois values. I'm
not saying all of them, but some of them. And yeah,
when you overtax the system in that way, it's going
to be problematic. I think, you know, as a you know,
immigrants in the past also had a transitionary period, but
at the end of that they were fully Americanized, as
it were, And I just don't feel like that's happening
right now, and I think that's a problem.
Speaker 3: So in fact, it's opposed, Like the idea that assimilation
is a good thing is viewed as anathema by many
people in our administrative state.
Speaker 1: Well, if you're in a school in a blue state,
they're going to teach in elementary school, you send your kid,
there're an immigant, they're going to teach you. America is
a bad place they're going to teach you. It's an
unfair place. They're going to teach you. It's a racist place.
So how can you assimilate people into a society that
is none of those things? Really when this is you know,
what they're learning anyway. So, yeah, it's a debate we
need to have but are we having any serious debates
about anything right now? No?
Speaker 2: Not really.
Speaker 3: No, That's what I kind of liked about this speech though.
It was really well written. So I don't know who
not that Donald Trump doesn't have a way with words,
but this particular section of the speech seemed really well
reasoned and thoughtful and all that, so I was kind
of curious to learn more about it.
Speaker 2: But anyway, how do you feel about it? Yeah? Sorry,
go on, I'm just going to ask what.
Speaker 3: Do you think about the race? But if you have
a question, No, I was going.
Speaker 2: To ask you the same exact thing. As you know.
Speaker 1: I try never since twenty sixteen to make predictions. I
don't know, you know, I see some stories I think
it was and NBC News today telling me that Harris
is kind of moving, you know, is splitting some room
between herself and Donald Trump.
Speaker 2: But when I look at polls, they all.
Speaker 3: Wait in a good way or in a bad way.
Speaker 2: In a good way, in a good way for Harris.
Yeah it was, I think it was. Yeah, Chuck Todd,
full show improvement for Harris, trouble for Trump.
Speaker 1: Maybe that's true. I'm not an expert on polling, but
the polls I see. What they tell me is that
Trump is doing better in a lot of places in
polling that he did in twenty sixteen or twenty twenty.
And if I was Harris, that would worry me. Obviously,
the polls are super close, there are many of them
are in these in these important states or within you know,
two or three points, which I don't think really matter.
So I don't know is my answer to that. I
feel like Donald Trump, though, is doing better than a
lot of these mainstream i'm sorry, establishment or media organization
and say is how about you?
Speaker 2: What do you feel?
Speaker 3: So I just want to preface everything by saying that
I totally think she could win. That's a that's not
just within the realm of possibility. But she has you know,
she's got a good enough chance. She's not out of
it or anything like that. But when I look at
the range of possibilities, my range goes from she could
win to Trump could win pretty big. I think the
reason why the campaigns are not in Chuck Todd mode.
I mean, the Kamala Harris campaign clearly is a little
freaked out about where she is in the polls right now.
And that's not to say that she's not up in
the polls. She is. But if you looked at the
twenty sixteen race and the twenty twenty race, they essentially
were tied races, meaning the first race came down to
about eighty thousand votes across three states, and the second
race came down to forty three thousand votes across three states.
They were very very close, and the polling in both
of those races had the Democrat way way way ahead
of where Kamala Harris is now. So if you had
two essentially tied races, one which you eked out and
one which you lost, and your current candidate is running
five to ten points behind, that that's not good for you. Now.
Chuck Todd is only like narrowly correct in that the
polls which systematically over state Democrat advantage have her ahead.
Some of them do, some of them have her tide.
The New York Times Sienpol has her tide. The New
York Times Sienapol had Biden up eight points at this
point in the race. The New York Times Sienapol also
has Trump up in the in many of the swing states,
Kamala up in a in many. You know, they're they're
kind of evenly divided in the swing states. So I
think if you look at the campaigns and what they're doing,
it seems that the Trump and Harris campaigns agree that
Harris will need a lot of help to eke it out.
Speaker 1: A lot of these polls that I'm seeing are national polls,
which tell me really nothing. Every election, we have these
polls and everyone sort of focuses on them, but the
so called popular vote is irrelevant to me. I think
it's really important to look at state poles, and in
a lot of the Pennsylvania polls, for instance, Trump is
either tied or slightly behind, maybe one point behind. I
think he's right now Harris's and the real clearer. Harris
is up point six percent in the polling average. That's
not enough for her, I think, you know, compared to
the compared to what we've seen before Georgia, Trump is
up in Arizona. He's doing surprisingly well, So I don't
you know, I feel like he's doing pretty well, right
And I put this way as well, The way Kamala
is acting, the way she wants to have another debate,
and all these things tell me that they think that
they're probably behind right now. You know, her actions tell
me they think they're behind. I don't know if you
agree with that.
Speaker 3: No, I mean, I'm not when I kind of do
wish that there were another debate. In a way, I
just can't imagine anyone in our propaganda press being allowed
to participate in yet another one of these ridiculous ambushes.
So it's not about my personal view. I like debates.
I like to watch them, but the fact that Kamala
Harris is screaming for one and Donald Trump says he's
not going to give one suggests that they both agree
about the state of the race and that she needs
a debate to get to help her out, and that
he does not.
Speaker 1: I mean, so many of the ABC fact checks have
been proven incorrect since since that debate. I think Trump
lost an opportunity to really dunk on the press there.
But yeah, I don't really if I were his running
his campaign, I don't think I'd agree to another debate.
I don't think the upside is there for him.
Speaker 4: You know, warmer, sunnier days are calling fuel up for
them with factors, no prep, no mess meals, meet your
wellness goals in time for summer. Thanks to the menu
of chef crafted meals with options like calorie Smart, protein plus,
and Keto factors. Fresh never frozen meals are Dietitian approved
and ready to eat in just two minutes, so no
matter how busy you are, you'll always have time to
enjoy nutritious, great tasting meals. Make today to day you
kick start a new healthy routine. What are you waiting for?
With thirty five different meals and more than sixty add
ons to choose from every week, you'll always have new
flavors to explore. You can crush your wellness goals this
month with Dietitian approved meals and ingredients that you can trust.
Make your day delicious from breakfast to dessert. Stay fueled
with easy nutritious options. Treat yourself to restaurant quality meals
that feature premium ingredients like filet mignon, shrimp, and black
and salmon. Keep kitchen time to a minimum. Factor meals
are ready in just two minutes, no shopping, no prepping,
no cooking or cleaning up. Enjoy effortless support for your
lifestyle by choosing from six menu preferences to help you
manage calories, maximize protein intake, or simply eat well balanced.
Head to factor meals dot com slash Federalist fifty and
use code Federalist fifty to get fifty percent off your
first box plus twenty percent off your next month. That's
code Federalists fifty at factor meals dot com slash federalists
fifty to get fifty percent off your first box plus
twenty percent off your next month while your subscription is active.
Speaker 3: And then so you've got the polls, which, if you
understand the polls and how they tend to overstate Democrats
support in elections, we're can do well. You've got the
debate issue, but you also have just the fundamentals of
the race seem to be in Donald Trump's favor.
Speaker 2: So, you know, not fundamentals like what fundamentals like people do.
Speaker 3: Not think the economy is going well, and also the
economy is not going well. And you look at how
Trump did well in twenty sixteen. Yes, I think the
border wall was a huge part of that, but so
was the fact that the economy had been kind of
stagnant for all eight years under Barack Obama. Likewise, you've
had a pretty rough go of things from the beginning
of COVID, and people remember what the Trump presidency was
like economically, it was not that long ago, and it's
been a grind, And the inflation in particular has been
a grind for people who feed their families. And so
you've got that issue kind of just constantly on people's
and you've got the border chaos that many people throughout
the country are dealing with, large scale, massive immigration throughout
the country. Those things really helped Donald Trump. Now, abortion,
for the furvor for ending onborn life is a main
motivating factor for Democrats. That's true, but it doesn't rank
as high as those other two issues on polling, even
if people who want to kill onborn children are quite
rabid about it.
Speaker 1: Yes, well, let's talk about a couple of things. One
the economy. I saw this.
Speaker 2: Where is it?
Speaker 1: This letter signed by four hundred economists endorsing Kamala Harris
warning against Trump's policy agenda. The list was put together
by a guy named Brian Dees who works for the
White House. This is the guy who argued that spending
trillions of dollars would help bring down inflation.
Speaker 2: Just to give you an idea of the people, Reymoist,
then yes, exactly. So I just want to.
Speaker 1: Quickly say these lists by experts have no meaning anymore,
because these people are all willing to sell their souls,
and I mean it on all over, you know, politically.
But Kamala Harris came forward with a price fixing scheme
on groceries, which every economist on Earth knows is a
terrible idea, and yet they endorse her. She came forward
with this unrealized capital gains tax idea which is just
will destroy the market. They virtually every economist thinks it's
a terrible idea, and they still endorse her. So these
kind of expert endorsements I don't think mean very much.
But I wanted to and I think you wanted to
talk about this other letter that was where I think
it was seven hundred national security officials and Republicans endorsed
Kamala Harris for president, warned, you know about the terrible
things will happen if if Donald Trump is elected. The
list is quite interesting.
Speaker 3: Yeah, So it came out this Sunday. It was hundreds
of retired four star generals and other top officials put
out a letter saying that they were endorsing Kamala Harris.
And I saw some people highlighting this on Twitter and
the list includes like Hillary Clinton and people who had
also signed the letter falsely claiming that Hunter Biden's laptop
was actually Russian disinformation. So they are people at that
caliber of truth telling, people who would knowingly lie about
whether Hunter Biden's laptop, which everyone knew was Hunter Biden's laptop,
whether it was Russian disinformation. But more than that, the
list is just full of people who stand to gain
financially from the foreign policy approach of Kamala Harris and
much of the DC consensus. That's the actual takeaway from it.
But I also thought it was interesting. The letter was
very weak. It didn't have much to say about why
they supported Kamala Harris. But one of the things that
they supported her for was that she was an empathetic leader.
Effective leadership requires empathy for those you lead. So in
other words, Donald Trump would fire people like us and
Kamala Harris would not. But someone pointed out that this
empathetic leader, Kamala Harris, had ninety two percent staff turnover
during her first three years as vice president. It doesn't
seem that empathetic. Like the whole letter was ridiculous. It
wasn't about national security, it was about empathetic leadership, and
even that is a lie.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I don't actually want empathetic leadership. I want effective
leadership that's good for the American people.
Speaker 2: But can I just throw out a few more names
there that on this list.
Speaker 1: Former Director of National Intelligence Jim Clapper, who lied to
the American people under oath, should be in jail. Michael Hayden,
I believe he once said that Trump supporters were worse
than Nazis. Leon Panetta, who's you know, was with the
Obama administration, and others who recently said that the Israelis
super targeted Hasbala terrorist operation, you know, killing of Hasbala
fighters and staff was a act of terrorism. John Brennan,
who spied on the Senate illegally and should be in.
Speaker 2: Jail, and lied about Russia.
Speaker 1: All these people lied about the Russia hoax, and Clapper
and Brennan knew they were lying when they did it
for sure, because we have evidence. Anyway, on and on
goes the list. These are not people I'd want endorsing
me if I cared about the country, you know, but.
Speaker 2: It was here we are.
Speaker 3: It was a kind of list that if you think Washington,
d C. Is corrupt, and broken. It makes you want
to vote for Donald Trump more. And if you're part
of the people that benet fit from the way Washington
is run, you go, oh, yeah, this is why I
want This is why I want Kamala Harris. She'll be
an effective regime. Lackie so just interesting. But I also wonder,
like with the with the economist's ladder, these things just
don't work the same way anymore, right now.
Speaker 2: They don't.
Speaker 3: You had economists in twenty sixteen claiming that Donald Trump
would be bad for the economy, and then they claimed
in twenty twenty that Joe Biden would be good for
the economy. Everyone knows that they do this, and everyone
kind of sees the reality versus what the quote unquote
expert class are telling you, and they just know to
trust reality.
Speaker 1: I look, I took a deep dive into that list
of economists, and most, if not you know, most of
them are kind of like progressive economists, which I kind
of compare to like a witch doctor or someone who
believes in like holistic medice, but not real medicine, you
know what I mean. It's all feelings and stuff like that.
It's not based in very much fact. So listen, I
realize most people, it's not. None of these lists are
about the people. It's just about the number four hundred economists.
You remember, Barack Obama, he was selling Obamacare, said that
every economist you know agreed with him. And then I
think it was the Cato Institute put out a letter
from like two hundred, some of them Nobel Prize winning
laureates and stuff like that, economists, and they just ignored it.
So anyone I could put together a list of economists
saying anything I want, I don't think. I think most
people are are onto.
Speaker 2: That, you know, I think so. Yeah.
Speaker 1: So let's move on to another thing that happened this week.
I love the Hill has a pouncing a pouncing headline.
Here geop takes aim at Zelenski for Pennsylvania visit. Now,
Zelenski came to Pennsylvania.
Speaker 2: I think he was on some kind of like government
American government plane. Right. Was it an army Yeah? I
forget what it was.
Speaker 1: An Air Force C seventeen plane landed in Pennsylvania and
to munitions plant factory. Josh Shapiro, the governor of Pennsylvania,
was there. And then what I think was really true,
and I think the visit and how he did it
is troublesome. I don't think visiting here and making a
case for your country is troublesome. I think how he
did it is really bad. He basically went after Trump
and called JD. Vance a radical or something of that nature.
You do not get involved in an election in the
United States and that way, and you definitely don't do
it while you're here because you're basically at.
Speaker 2: A campaign event.
Speaker 1: I can't think, I know that Nettagnell came over here
to make his case against the Iron Deal in Congress
after being invited. Probably he shouldn't have done that either,
to be honest. But he never ever has endorsed anyone
or made any kind of you know, campaign and you know,
had gone to a campaign event for anyone. This is unprecedented.
I can't think of another foreign leader has done this.
Speaker 3: Yeah, So the context is that he had this big
landmark interview published on Sunday in The New Yorker in
which he goes hard after Vance and Trump, and he
does this in the middle of a presidential election. It
was supremely unwise of him to do this. If he wants,
I mean, he does control Congress and in that includes
the Republicans in Congress. But his support has already been
weakening quite a bit over the last couple of years,
and getting this involved in a political race as a
foreign leader is just unbelievable. Is also unwise of the
Biden Harris administration to do this kind of campaign ish
trip paying, having taxpayers pay for him to go visit
a Kamala Harris surrogate in a battleground state as his
words against Vance are being broadcast everywhere, and do some
kind of like stumps with with this Kamala Harris surrogate.
It just was unbelievably unwise. You might remember we had
an impeachment over Donald Trump calling Zelensky and seeing if
he could find anything out about the rampant corruption of
the Biden family in Ukraine that was impeachable. But this,
you know, supposedly is no big deal at all, and
it just I don't know. I do understand that he's
probably controlled by our government or CIA to the extent
that if they say you're going to campaign for Harris
and you're gonna say some you're gonna say some things
that are very bad about about Trump, Like maybe maybe
they're the ones who wanted him to do that, but
it just still was very unwise in my view.
Speaker 1: I don't know if he's controlled by anyone or not,
but I do know that if if jd Vance has
a say in it, he's going to lose. You know,
things will change dramatically for him in Ukraine. And obviously
that to him is a paramount important. So he comes
over in campaigns. Now, you know, I'm very pro Israel,
pro Nataniel. If he came here and campaigned against Kamala
Harris who will help Iran and basically help fund Hamas
and Hazbala, I still would think it was completely wrong.
It is I can't think of a foreign more of
a foreign influence than someone coming over by the way,
you know, than that. It's worse than anything Trump did
when he was impeached in that first impeachment. So on
the side story, did you see that Iran that Donald
Trump was told that Iran it has there's a legitimate,
credible threat against his life by the Iranian government who's
trying to assassinate him. Now can you imagine if this
had happened and we had the word Russia in there
and come Kamala, I mean it would be it would
be World War three. And yet Kamala will get into
power and she will coddle the Iranian regime just as
Biden has, just as Obama died.
Speaker 2: And I want to get off this topic.
Speaker 3: I actually don't hold on. I want to talk about
it a little bit. It's one thing that makes me
really sad about the corruption of our intelligence agencies is
that them saying that there's a credible threat that Iran
wants to kill Donald Trump doesn't mean what it used
to to me. Like I used to think, oh, that
probably means there's at least some kind of threat from
Iran against Donald Trump. And now I have so little
regard for our intelligence agencies that I'm more like, okay,
so why are they saying that? I also wondered, was
this the second assassin who the FBI just released the
letter from him saying if someone else gives it a try,
we've got one hundred and fifty thousand dollars for them,
Which was just unbelievable that they released that letter calling
for another assassination attempt. That guy also had I think
visited Iran or had some kind of you know, he's
clearly an unstable person, but kind of in a Lee
Harvey Oswald way and had had ties with not just
Ukraine but Iran. Did Ukraine send him to shoot Donald Trump?
Did Iran send him to shoot Donald Trump? Did our
Cia send him up to shoot Donald Trump? Or was
he Like I guess, possibly he could have been a
lone actor. That seems the least believable of those options.
But I wonder if if someone's trying to frame the
next assassination attempt against Trump as coming from Iran when
really it's not.
Speaker 2: I have a different view of this.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think that guy did act on his own,
but also I think that, if anything, our intelligence agencies
would underplay a threat from Iran. Also, incidentally, isn't it
plausible that that's happening because at the same time of
Iran is spying on the Trump campaign and sending that
information to the Biden campaign, Which isn't that worse than
what Russia Russia did during twenty sixteen. I mean, so,
you know, it's Calvin bul all the time with the media,
with the Democrats, they can do whatever they want, and
it's fine. If it was Russia and Kamala, there would
have been a Thermo nuclear meltdown, a foreign influence in
our elections, they would have been wanting to you know,
ban disinformation, you know, all the stuff that they usually do.
Speaker 3: So true, it's horrible. I mean, I wish I had
been this way longer because I would have been more
appropriately suspicious of some things I should have been. But
I don't trust them when they release anything. I actually don't.
I'm not saying that Iran doesn't want Trump dead. I
actually I think they probably do. I just don't know
if I believe the CIA when they say it, like
I think they have some kind of game they're playing,
and they're saying it for alteriator.
Speaker 1: Reasons can very well be I don't know, I mean,
but to me it's it's completely plausible because Iran was
in a lot of trouble when Trump was president. Their
economy was, you know, falling apart, there were protests in
the streets. It could very well have overturned that regime,
and Biden, of course, immediately made sure that they wouldn't
be overturned. So if Trump comes back, I think that's
going to be terrible for Iran.
Speaker 5: Have you ever noticed it's only called a recession after
we're already in it or pasted it. The watched aut
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. Economists are always in search
of a recession like letter nimoy.
Speaker 2: If they find one, it's already too late.
Speaker 5: Always be prepared by putting money away and investing accordingly.
Whether it's happening in DC or down on Wall Street,
it's affecting you financially.
Speaker 2: Be informed.
Speaker 5: Check out the watch Dot on Wall Street podcast with
Chris Markowski on Apple, Spotify, or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 3: And I just want to remind people our current government
allowed the first assassination attempt through at best gross negligence,
but possibly for worse reasons. They allowed a second assassin
to get within one hole on the golf course from
killing Donald Trump, also through a lack of preparedness, even
though they want to pat themselves on the back that
they did find this one before he took a shot,
so they're getting slightly better. Then, our FBI released a
letter calling for more assassins in a completely unprecedented way.
I don't know if you saw Attorney General Barr talking
about this, he was like, I cannot, for the life
of me understand why they did this, just almost like,
please help us out and you will be rewarded if
there's another assassination attempt. And that's our I mean, that's
just our current state of afairs with our government, and
it's horrific. That's our government, very bad. And then also
our DOJ is upset that they're not allowed to put
their political opponent on trial before the election, so they've
decided to make it even worse, put him on trial
without him having a right to defend himself while he's
under a gag order. The zealous and hubistic Jack Smith
is releasing a book report about his hatred for Donald Trump,
where Donald Trump does not get a chance to respond
before the election, and Tanya Chuckkin, this DC judge, said
that sounds like a great idea. And when Donald Trump
claims this is election interference, I have no idea what
he's talking about. I mean, she's crazy, and this is
all our government. And so yeah, I'm worried about Iran,
and I'm worried about maybe Ukraine also wanting Donald Trump dead,
But I'm mostly worried about our government wanting Donald Trump dead, imprisoned, bankrupted,
and his supporters likewise treated that way.
Speaker 1: The gag order is just completely unconstitutional. I just can't
even believe it's in place.
Speaker 2: It is.
Speaker 1: It's such a blatant act of election interperence by the government. So,
my gosh, and we're still again. We're still forty two
days away. Can you imagine all the things that are
going to happen in the next forty two days. It's
going to be insane. There's one more story I don't know.
Would you like to talk about this sexting scandal with
RFK Junior? Because I find it interesting in a number
of ways, and not maybe the most obvious ways. By
the way, the Federals has a piece written by your
husband called our Political Sex Scandal is a thing of
the past, which was interesting. So the story is about
a New York magazine reporter or feature writer. I don't
know what the title is named, Olivia.
Speaker 2: Is it new Zy? How you pronounce it?
Speaker 3: I say nutsy, but I don't know.
Speaker 1: NUTSI I like that better having listen. Okay, So she
had some kind of relationship with RFK Junior.
Speaker 3: I don't think that's true. I don't think you can
say she had some kind of relationship.
Speaker 2: With Okay, how would you categorize it?
Speaker 3: I just would say that she claimed she had an
affair with him, and then it turned out she didn't,
which is weird.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 1: So I read a piece I believe that it was
in a New York Post where RFK Junior's people said
that she had been harassing him and sending him unsolicited
nude pics. I'm skeptical of that story. I'm skeptical that
RFK Junior, who had has had mistresses and has acted
in certain ways, is rebuffing the advances of a listen.
Speaker 2: I shouldn't even say for sure, you shouldn't be skeptical.
Speaker 3: She admits that, meaning first she leaks that she's having
an affair with RFK Junior, then later she says, oh,
but it was not. It was only digital and emotional,
and everyone was like digital and emotional, Like do you
mean involving your fingers or what digital means? She meant
she was sending pictures of herself to him. She has
never claimed that she hadn't she had any relations with him.
She hasn't. Nobody has claimed that he reciprocated this digital relationship.
She and then his camp is saying, yeah, he had
to block her number repeatedly because she was obsessing over him. Now,
this is not to say that RFK Junior wouldn't or
couldn't have responded. He's notorious for having like I think,
dozens of affairs in one year, which actually makes it
even sadder like he was apparently willing to sleep with
anything that moved previously, but Olivia Nutzi was a step
too far.
Speaker 1: I hate these kind of stories in a way, but
I don't understand why she suspended. Am I crazy here?
They did not have a sexual relationship. She's sending him
texts he can block her. He supposedly blocked her over
and overkin, I don't know how that works. I only
need to block you one time, and I never I
need to block you again. And that I think she is,
of course a left winger, like most writers, but better
than most left wing writers in that I think she's talented.
Speaker 3: So you, I have so many thoughts on this. You
had tweeted something about how reporters shouldn't donate money to
politicians or even vote in elections because they should be
so independent, and I'm thinking Okay, the worst thing that
reporters do is that they run pro bono massive propaganda
campaigns on behalf of their preferred candidate and party. I
could give a flying fig if they bother to vote.
Because Jake Tapper running PR at a very high level
for Democrats is worth millions of votes. Yeah, I don't
care what he personally votes for. I truly don't care
who they vote for, and they can. I don't care.
I know people, oh oh, I remember some guy who
used to be at CNN was like, oh, I'm so scrupulous.
I don't vote, And it's like, yeah, you run propaganda
for your party. That's not scrupulous, that's awfoul.
Speaker 1: I would rather people just be honest about who they
support and write in that way, for sure. I was
responding to an Elon Musk tweet about the amount of
money journalistic institutions and journalists give Democrats and not you know,
are Republicans, So of course it.
Speaker 2: Wouldn't change much. I completely agree with that.
Speaker 3: But okay, but now you say, I don't think.
Speaker 1: NUTSI has ever pretended to be this chest down the
middle journalist, right, I mean, she just writes feature stories
I think are quite interesting sometimes.
Speaker 3: One of my I don't mind her writing. Like in
a sea of really bad writing, she's not the worst, Okay,
I don't. I don't have like a major problem with
her style of writing. I get very confused that people
think she's such a great writer. I think we have
entered an era of such weak journalism that just barely
competent feature writing gets accolades. When I grew up with
such great people to read that, it just makes me
feel bad for people thinking she's that great. But she
didn't get suspended when she put a Pepe the Frog
head on Evanka Trump's kid, And she didn't get suspended.
Right when she broke and entered into Corey Lewandowski's house,
or maybe she didn't break. She entered. She claims the
door was open, but she entered and took pictures inside
the foyer of Corey Lewandowski's house, and that was fine,
and she didn't you know, she's been openly advocating for
abortion for years and she didn't get suspended for that.
But she starts sending unsolicited nude pics to someone who
might have to take a restraining order against her, and
then all of a sudden, it's oh, she's suspended, like
maybe all the previous behavior was worth a conversation with
the editors.
Speaker 2: Listen.
Speaker 1: I was all on her side until I learned that
she dated Keith Olberman for while. So then I'm like,
this person keest have the worst taste.
Speaker 2: I don't know, I just feel like this was not
an She wrote one feature story about the guy and
then she listen if she met him once. I just
don't understand why that's a suspendable offense.
Speaker 3: If one of our reporters was sending nude pics unsolicited
or solicited by the way to a source, they would
no longer work with us. And I kind of shocked
that you would think that was okay.
Speaker 1: I don't know that it's I'm not saying. First of all,
I don't exactly know what happened yet. I don't believe
r everything RFK Junior's people say.
Speaker 3: But I will say she's also saying that she's saying.
Speaker 2: She's saying that she said.
Speaker 1: She's not saying that he was not he was not
receptive to what she was sending. Maybe he's trying to
save his marriage.
Speaker 3: I don't know, I mean, what does that even mean?
What if he's like all I'm saying is, breasts are
pretty Olivia, you have a rear side. I mean, I
don't know. I'm not saying that that's good or not,
but like, what does receptive exactly mean? I oh, I.
Speaker 1: Mean, I'm not going to say it, but you know,
I mean, maybe he was recepting and he's like, yes,
send more. I don't know what the hell he's saying,
and you can't make him say you what I'm thinking
about that. But I'm just telling you that I don't
really trust everything RFK Junior's people say.
Speaker 2: My point is only this. She's not writing about she
wrote one feature piece on She's not writing about him.
He's not really even running.
Speaker 1: I just don't understand why this is a suspendable offense
when you have people doing a.
Speaker 2: Lot worse out there.
Speaker 1: Journalists and DC types are having affairs, They're doing all
kinds of things, and people don't get suspended for it.
Speaker 2: That's all I'm saying.
Speaker 3: Yeah, that's what I find funny. There's so many so
there's so many reporters who are literally sleeping with various
Democrats or in some cases Republicans. I think there was
a recent story about Republican this way too, that the
literal sleeping with the people in political power would seem
to be a bigger issue than sending pictures. And when
I say literally seeping, that even include marriage. And what
I mean by that is like, there are very well
known journalists whose wives run Democrat strategy firms and stuff
like that, and nobody says anything. The intermarriage rate between
journalists and Democrat operatives is extremely high.
Speaker 2: Yes, I like in Marx PC has this quote from
a friend of his who says, let's talk about this.
Speaker 1: Times reporters slept with the source. And she wasn't fired
for sleeping with the source. She was fired for sleeping
with a source and not getting anything out of it.
And that's how I kind of feel like this. I
don't feel like this relationship or whatever it was, really
affected anything that she was writing about. She wrote this
piece on r FK Junior, which was quite good. My
thing with nut season that she's writing, her writing is
on such a you know, high level. It's that she
gets these people to talk about weird things that they do,
which other reporters don't seem very curious about.
Speaker 2: So anyway, I don't think it's rue.
Speaker 3: You like Olivia Nutzi.
Speaker 1: I was kind of taken aback by the age difference,
and I wondered a little bit about that thirty one.
She's thirty one. I hate to get into gossip, but
wasn't she engaged to a guy who left his wife
for her, who writes for.
Speaker 3: Political Hell yeah, Ryan Liza, who left his wife and kids,
I think for her, and he also, separately, I think
unrelated to her, had gotten fired from The New Yorker
for some me too issues back when me too was
a thing, and I think he found out with the
rest of the world about Olivia's love of sending nude
pics to RFK Junior, and so he broke off the
engagement and had to do so, like publicly in Politico Playbook.
Oh how embarrassing. Also, maybe don't leave your spouse, that's
my advice.
Speaker 1: I think this is a The most unique part of
the situation is that Kennedy might be on the right
side of some kind of terrible, you know, sex scandal.
Speaker 3: How can you not bed a Kennedy. I feel like
that's so easy to do that that's the most humiliating
part of this for Olivia.
Speaker 2: Hey, I'm not listen. I don't know what.
Speaker 1: I don't know what happened. All I'm saying is that
I think that there's an interesting there's an interesting story
about who gets suspended for what in DC political circles. Hey,
I wish them, I wish I hope they will pull
it together and yeah, oh yeah, No, I want to
talk about this with you a little bit. So she's
thirty one and he's seventy. So that's a really big gap.
You don't see that that often. But he is in
really good shape for a man his age. All right,
you don't want to talk.
Speaker 3: About Pete Olberman like eighty? No, how old is.
Speaker 2: He he is?
Speaker 1: I can't believe we're doing this live. We're doing this
live sixty five?
Speaker 3: Oh he does not look good, does he? For his age?
So I would say there are some issues there. And
I'm not a strict opponent of huge age differences in relationships,
but that suggests problems for both individuals if you're doing
thirty five year age differences barring something very special you
know happening, don't you think? Or am I being Am
I saying too much?
Speaker 2: I don't know what to say and not get in trouble.
I would say it's weird. I find it weird. Listen.
I think a few years obviously is what it is.
Speaker 1: Maybe, especially in my parents generation, for instance, almost everyone
I knew the husband was older than the wife by
a few years for five years. Maybe women were more
attracted to more accomplishment or more mature men or whatever
I think of. Like a fifty year difference is a
weird yeah, and kind of very weird.
Speaker 3: So you know, you know that I'm older than my husband.
Speaker 1: Yes, my wife is older than me as well, but
I was very mature. You he's like a young child
when you met him.
Speaker 2: All Right, that was a weird segment.
Speaker 3: Seriously, are we I'm sorry, I don't. I just don't
like any of it, and I don't think any of
it needed to be public. There was no need to
learn about Olivia Ninci sending pictures of herself to a
man forty years older than her. There's just no need.
I mean that he's a Storius is fine. It just
seemed almost like to me, it seemed weird also that
the story was broken through an anonymous tip that I
think some people think was her Like she was really
pursuing he was blocking her, and she kind of got
desperate and thought she would just make a big deal
or something. I don't know, it's just weird.
Speaker 1: I read some stories that say that, you know, they
weren't hiding this, or she wasn't hiding this at all,
and it was sort of common knowledge.
Speaker 2: Here, here's my thing, I just hiding.
Speaker 3: What What is she hiding? Like meaning I think she
was trying to I think she imagined a relationship that
may not have been there. One of the first statements
from the RFK team was he met her once. He
met her once, and that was for the profile, not
for a date. Like, how much of a relationship could
there be? What's there too? What's there to hide?
Speaker 2: All right?
Speaker 3: Can we talk about culture now though?
Speaker 2: Please?
Speaker 1: That is culture right there? Hookup culture. I did watch
a couple of do you want to go first? No?
Speaker 3: Go ahead?
Speaker 2: I watched a movie called Civil War.
Speaker 3: Oh, I've heard people saying that because it got released
on Netflix or whatever, they've been watching it and I've
heard many things about it. What did you think?
Speaker 2: I so.
Speaker 1: The person directed it, I think his name is Alex
Garland maybe is talented. The way the movie looks it's cool,
The way it shot is interesting. It feels almost like
one of these zombie movies where people on a road
trip and have to avoid all these kind of dangerous things.
But the story is so ridiculously implausible, just stupid, that
immediately is a turn off for me. The idea that
the California and Texas is getting together to fight this
war against the East Coast or whatever is just so stupid,
and they never even try to make it plausible in
any way.
Speaker 2: It just is.
Speaker 1: The idea that the American army would then lose this
war is also ridiculous, not that I guess that's a
bit of a spoiler, But mostly I didn't like how
it portrayed I would portray Americans, some Americans as just
engaging in mass murder, for instance, I just don't buy it.
I don't think Americans are like that. I don't care
if I disagree with you, I think you're an authoritarian.
I just don't think Americans would act like Nazis. So
in the end, it just felt like an empty experience,
if that makes any sense. I'm just like, why am
I watching this? It's implausible. It makes me feel bad.
It's not how I see other Americans. Even if we
got into some kind of civil war, and I don't
even believe we'd ever have a hot civil war of
that nature here.
Speaker 2: Hope we did obviously the Civil war. But I mean, now,
so I didn't like it. I would put I would
give that a thumbs down.
Speaker 3: I heard from people that it was so bad that
they were laughing. It was laugh Okay.
Speaker 2: I didn't like it.
Speaker 1: You know, I'm not saying that Americans are perfect and
you can't betray people the way they are. I just
think it was over the top, and you know, there's
no subtlety to it. So while it looked nice, it
was just, you know, vapid in general.
Speaker 2: So that's it.
Speaker 1: I watched the on Max. I watched the ping Win,
which is Colin Farrell. He plays the penguin. It's actually
more like a mob story. And you know, I got
an offshooted Batman show, and I actually thought it was
going to be really bad, and I enjoyed the first
episode quite a bit.
Speaker 2: So I'm a.
Speaker 1: Little bit gunshy now because of the all the emails.
I get mad at me for recommending Deadpool. But if
you are into comic book stuff, you will like the Penguin.
If you're not, don't watch it and don't blame me
if you do.
Speaker 3: Okay, that's it. Oh, that's all.
Speaker 2: Okay.
Speaker 3: So I watched, sort of slowly with my rowing this
movie called Anatomy of a Fall.
Speaker 2: Oh yeah, you were telling me, did you watch that?
Speaker 3: No? I really liked it. I thought it was a
really very good film. It's about a marriage sort of this.
It begins with the husband dead and having fallen or
been pushed out of his attic and being discovered by
his son, and then it's about, you know, just trying
to figure out what happened there. But the acting was
superb and it was a good movie.
Speaker 2: Was it up for Oscars? I think it was right.
Speaker 3: I think So I like to give really fresh movie
reviews like that. Probably came out several years ago and
I'm reviewing it now. But I don't want to give
anything away either, not that they're like huge spoilers. It's
just more a slowly unfolding story.
Speaker 2: I know I'm going to watch that. I'm going to
watch that.
Speaker 3: Yeah. Most And it also deals with two writers in
a marriage, so I found that interesting and it made
me appreciate and love my husband very much for being
a good husband in a co writing relationship. And then
I also started watching the Menendez Brothers documentary I.
Speaker 2: Saw that was on.
Speaker 3: I don't know, that's interesting. There's been a lot of
revisionists and revisionist history on that that they didn't kill
their parents for money, but over sexual abuse, and so
there's just a documentary about that. And then I watched
with my journalism students the movie Sweet Smell of Success.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I think I watched it a long time ago.
I don't remember who's in it. What's it about again? Oh? Man?
Speaker 3: So it's Tony Curtis and Bert Lancaster, and Burt Lancaster's
kind of the Walter Winchell character of the movie, you know,
like a columnist who's very powerful, and Tony Curtis is
a press agent, and it just deals with what they're
willing to do for their lines of work. I think
it was made in the mid fifties. It's a really
beautifully done film and very dark. I like to show
my journalism students dark films.
Speaker 1: Nineteen fifty seven, just that I'm you know, I see
it here? I didn't, okay, yeah.
Speaker 2: Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 3: Burt Lancaster is amazing and Tony Curtis is pretty amazing too. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I am a big fan of watching movies about journalism.
For instance, the other month I watched The Paper with
Michael Keaton, which I love, so I will watch this one.
Speaker 3: Yes, okay, great, Yeah, tell me what you think.
Speaker 2: About it, certainly. Well.
Speaker 1: I actually had one more thing, just very quick because
of the assassination stuff. I read the book called Case
Closed by Lee Harvey Oswald and the Assassination of JFK
by Gerald Posner, Posner and Posner. Yeah, it's so meticulously documented.
I am a person who believes he acted completely alone,
but reading about him, he did remind me very much
because you mentioned this other guy you tried to kill
Trump is kind of very similar way you went to
Russia he went.
Speaker 2: He tried to get to Cuba Oswald.
Speaker 1: It's just very it goes through everything and if you
care or interested in that case, which I think is
the most the most the largest criminal investigation of all time,
you know what I mean, Like it's been looked at
from so many angles, I think this book will interest you.
Speaker 3: I think that is the best case for Lee Harvey
Oswald acting alone. And there there are some really good
summations of that book online. Because it's a really long.
Speaker 2: Book and read it.
Speaker 3: Yeah, okay, but you can get some summations where they
just kind of people boil down each of his arguments
for why Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone. For all of
the work I do dealing with intel agencies and being
skeptical of different things, that's just not an issue that
I have explored very much. I do like to ask
people I interview what is a conspiracy theory they believe,
or what's if there were one that were true, which
one would it be? Overwhelmingly powerful people in DC do
not accept the Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone theory, and
I do think it's weird that we're not allowed to
see all the evidence, and like they keep those files
so secret. I'm like, what is in them? But I
just haven't really worried about that issues so much.
Speaker 2: Well, I'll just say what interests me.
Speaker 1: I think they don't release the file because there are
things in there that would about what we did in
Cuba and other stuff that came out during the you know,
and those investigations that weren't actually related to him, but
that he was under surveillance by the FBI and others
because they thought he might be involved in that stuff.
Speaker 2: But anyway, that doesn't matter what but I mean, it matters.
Speaker 3: But because they thought, sorry, So I just want to
say that I did an event recently with Peter Schweitzer
who had Posner on his podcast, and he said, you know,
Posner's case against the conspiracy theory is just so good, right,
But he asked him about I think it was the
second assassin and whether he thought he acted alone, and
he was like, oh, not at all. So like the
guy who wrote the definitive case for Lee Harvey Oswald
after did not think that about this. But to me,
the latest guy seems just like Lee Harvey Oswald, like
mysteriously in other countries, possibly in CIA operations, possibly not,
possibly not mentally well possibly not like it all seems
very similar to me.
Speaker 2: Yeah, completely thought of that.
Speaker 3: Witty is like in the same way I.
Speaker 2: Was when that happened.
Speaker 1: I was literally reading this book and it was like, so,
the Oswalt story is much more interesting than I thought.
Speaker 2: I mean, he was.
Speaker 1: Clearly a very stupid, crazy, abusive to his wife and
did all kinds of terrible things. But here's the point.
After the assassination of JFK, which in my view at
least was perpetrated by a loan gunman who was a communist,
a leftist. The media, everything, just like now, blamed right
wing you know, rhetoric, he was a communist, and yet
the media at the time blamed everything but the communist
for doing it. And that's why I think that those
conspiracy theorists about him and Jack Ruby and all the stuff,
the stuff that went on is kind of propelled by
that a bit, and by the way pulling at the
time immediately afterwards, because of the incompetence of law enforcement,
in my opinion, and kind of the closed off way
that that the federal government acted, and the incompetence of
the Warren Commission, no one believed that he was like
very few people believed he was a low and gunman
right from the beginning. This is not a conspiracy theory
they grew. This was a conspiracy theory that was birth
the day JFK was killed. Anyway, I thought it was
a meticulously, you know, very you know, high level journalistic effort.
Speaker 2: I just think the book is great.
Speaker 3: Yeah, yeah, I agree, even though I'm not sure I
agree with the with him on it, because I want
to read more. I want to have that type of
book from an alternate perspective, Can you recommend any of
anything that okay for?
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 1: He talks about many of the books that have come
out in hundreds and maybe thousands have come out about RFK.
Speaker 2: So he kind of focuses on the most popular conspiracy
theories I think, and debunks them.
Speaker 3: Have you been to the Observed what is it called? Oh?
Speaker 2: What's that? Yeah? No, I was never. I've been to Dallas,
but I don't know why at the time I didn't
think to go to the Times have been in Dallas.
I didn't go down there yet.
Speaker 3: I have friends in Texas who say that if you
actually visit the location of the shooting, the Lee Harvey
Oswald story, it seems quite implausible given the direction of
the bullets and where you know. But anyway, this is
a totally separate stations.
Speaker 2: He goes into all of that. Yeah, and it's quite interesting.
Speaker 3: I think people should send us their favorite conspiracy theory
that they believe to Radio at the Federalist dot Com.
Speaker 1: Nice, yes, Radio at the Federalist dot Com.
Speaker 2: You're only allowed one.
Speaker 1: Like, if you believe a bunch of conspiracy theory theories,
you are a conspiracy theorist. If you believe one right,
this is your this is your view, right.
Speaker 3: Then that the CIA lies about everything.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean I think pointing out that the CIA,
FBI is lying about something isn't a conspiracy theory. I
think a conspiracy theory is something that's happened. We've had investigations.
People say some you know, have looked into it and
say that it happened a certain way nine to eleven.
But yet you still believe, you know, George Bush was
behind it or whatever, Then I think you are a
conspiracy theorist.
Speaker 3: I heard a really good one I'd just like to share. Yeah,
recently from this question that I asked, which was that
nuclear weapons are not as dangerous as world leaders have
claimed they are, or not as deadly.
Speaker 2: That's interesting.
Speaker 3: I thought it was interesting.
Speaker 1: I mean, we have a little proof that they are
pretty deadly right in two cities or obliterated.
Speaker 2: So it ended on me.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I would say that they seem But what you're
saying is like if there was a nuclear maybe what
they're saying is that if you had a nuclear war,
the world wouldn't end.
Speaker 3: Yes, it's interesting, which we might I learned soon enough
whether that's that was right or not. Thanks two are
brilliant people doing foreign policy right now.
Speaker 1: All right, so we will hopefully people will send us
mail and we'll go through this conspiracy. By the way,
I have a book coming out called The Rise of
bluing On and it's about the conspiracy theories of the left.
In that book is about a month I believe from
coming out. You can pre order it all Yeah.
Speaker 3: People should pre order it. It's a good thing to
do so that on. So when the book is released,
you've got a good punch on sales. So everyone should
order now.
Speaker 1: Well, I would certainly appreciate it from anyone who is
so inclined to buy my book. I'm sure we'll be
talking about it in the coming weeks. Until then, even
though there's a freedom and anxious for the friendly.
Speaker 3: He's mister Kennedy, I don't want to go
Speaker 1: M