Jimmy Dore Show - 20170902_0831_TJDS_PODCAST

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 2, 2017 - Jimmy Dore Show

01:01:58

20170902_0831_TJDS_PODCAST

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Two live Jimmy Door shows in September, September 18th in Burbank, California, and September 25th in San Diego, California.
	Go to JimmyDoorComedy.com for tickets.
	Get ready for an outstanding entertainment program.
	The Jimmy Door show.
	Oh, God, please answer it.
	Hello.
	Oh, hi, Jimmy.
	Jeb.
	Just checking up.
	What's with the storm at all?
	Are you stockpiling supplies and whatnot?
	Have you run to higher ground yet?
	Do you need someone to talk to?
	Can I help?
	No, no, no, we're fine here.
	Honest.
	Can I send you some helpful information in the mail?
	No, we're all right here.
	The storm didn't hit California.
	I can help make boxes.
	I've been told I'm the little demon with the masking tape.
	Here's the secret with cardboard boxes.
	Fold the smaller flaps in first, and then the larger flaps.
	Then all you need is to run three strips of tape across the top of the box and in your set.
	And don't forget to use a magic marker to list the contents, by golly.
	Boy, you could really get yourself in a jam if you put a box of butter plates in the den where the encyclopedias should go.
	But is anybody listening?
	Is anybody there?
	Oh, God.
	Mom?
	He hung up on me.
	Why?
	What did I do?
	God damn it.
	No, I am being patient.
	What?
	Yeah, I know he might be busy, but it's rude to hang up on a guy, right?
	No, I don't want anything to eat, mother.
	I'm not hungry.
	He's not on the damn line anymore.
	That's all.
	He hung up on me.
	I can't believe it.
	Whatever.
	Yes, mother.
	Okay, I'll try one more time.
	Hello?
	Is anybody on the gosh darn line?
	Yeah, Jeb.
	I've been here the whole time, buddy.
	Well, what the heck?
	Give a guy a break, will you?
	Look, I don't want to cause problems between you and your mom.
	Maybe you should leave the Bush compound and go see some friends.
	Oh, no, no, no.
	A boy's best friend is his mother.
	But you and your mom seem to be having a family squabble.
	Oh, don't worry.
	Mother, mother, she isn't quite herself today.
	But I don't hate my mother.
	I hate what she's become.
	I hate her always putting me down.
	Putting you down?
	Well, you know what they say.
	A son is a poor substitute for a lover.
	Hey, I predicted the Challenger explosion, but nobody listened.
	I didn't know that.
	Hey, Joe Scarborough said Donald Trump thought you'd win the nomination and that Trump is just using the presidency to enrich himself.
	Can you comment on that?
	Mother.
	Oh, God, Mother.
	Blood.
	Blood.
	What?
	Sorry, could you repeat the question?
	Yeah, Joe Scarborough said.
	Oh, yeah.
	Well, I think there may be something to that.
	After all, my brother made a lot of money, and so did dad.
	But they did it the right way, discreetly.
	They might have fooled the public, but no one could fool my mother.
	I see you're going to speak at St. John's University next month.
	What message will you be giving to the youth of America, Jeb?
	Thank you for bringing that up, Jimmy.
	I'll be giving the 11th annual Eugene McCarthy lecture on conscience and courage in public life.
	Mother, stop.
	No, he is not trying to take me away from you.
	Stop with your dirty thoughts.
	He's a nice man who needs help because his car broke down.
	What advice will you give the students?
	That this is the time for moral clarity, not ambivalence.
	Can you be more specific?
	Not really.
	Why?
	You were talking about racism and hatred, weren't you?
	Oh, sure.
	Yeah.
	America must always reject those things.
	Right?
	Any tips on the best way to do that?
	I advise retreating to one of the most expensive pieces of real estate in Kenny Bunkport, where you have your own compound on your own private peninsula.
	Then every few weeks you wheel the parents into town to cut a ribbon and get Thai food.
	I don't understand why more Americans just don't follow suit.
	Things are so much different than they used to be.
	Well, maybe most people don't have access to the resources your family does.
	That went way over my head, dude.
	No wonder you guys lost to Trump.
	You need to speak the language of the people.
	And we do that by going into town every few weeks and patronizing local business.
	That way, when the nuclear opens, they'll feel less inclined to jump over the razor wire and eat us.
	Yes, mother, just a second.
	Jeez, Louise.
	I'll dust the darn fetus in the jar after brunch.
	I'll dust the darn fetus in the jar after brunch.
	It's the Jimmy Dore show.
	The show for Luffy.
	The kind of people that are.
	Commence me on tearing down our nation.
	It's the show that makes Anderson Cooper save.
	It's hard to talk to you, TV.
	And now, here's a guy who sounds a lot like me.
	It's Jimmy Dore.
	Hey, everybody, welcome to this week's Jimmy Door show.
	Let's get to the jokes before we get to the jokes, shall we?
	Hey, this is my motto.
	I have a new motto, by the way.
	Here's the inspiration for the week.
	How about that?
	Dream it, wish it, do it.
	Go into debt.
	Do it again.
	Wish you never did it.
	Have nightmares.
	Lose your hair.
	Live in a box by the road.
	You know, I don't know about you, Brian, but I thought Trump didn't give a crap about the planet.
	But in the case of Judge Arpaio, he's even trying to protect the scum of the earth.
	That's right.
	Hey, I don't know if you heard Joe Olstein at the mega church in Houston finally opened the doors of his church to the hurricane victims when he saw that the Flood Waters had breached his bottom line.
	Come on.
	Am I right?
	But Joe Olstein did.
	He just recently announced that once the Hurricane Harvey is completely over, his church will resume a regular schedule of fake Christianity.
	Nice.
	And now quick financial tip.
	Here are some financial secrets for retiring young.
	Number three, inherit massive amounts of money.
	That's number three.
	Okay, tune in for number four next week.
	Are you like me and you can't believe you don't have to Google Mnuchin anymore to spell it?
	I have 58 web passwords that protect absolutely nothing.
	So what's coming up on today's show?
	We're going to talk with the lawyer who filed the DNC fraud lawsuit.
	So that was recently dismissed in a Florida court.
	Now, you know how we feel about this.
	A lot of important things happened in that case.
	One of them was the DNC Laura admitted they didn't have to run a fair and impartial primary.
	We're going to talk to him.
	Jared Beck is on the show.
	We're going to talk to him today.
	Plus, MSNBC Smarty Pants hosts pretend like they don't know what net neutrality really is.
	We're going to take a look at that.
	And then another case of a reporter telling the truth on MSNBC, and he immediately gets cut off.
	He starts to tell the truth about oil companies and the lack of infrastructure, but he gets cut up.
	We're going to talk about that.
	Plus, we got phone calls today.
	That's where we got phone calls from Rick Perry, Sean Connery, and Haley Barber, plus a lot lot more.
	That's today on the Jimmy Dore Show.
	Jimmy Dore Show.
	Hi, everybody.
	Welcome to the Jimmy Door Show.
	I have special guests with us.
	It's Jared Beck, and he was the lawyer or one of the two lawyers who introduced the lawsuit against the DNC.
	The judge dismissed the case yesterday.
	So let's get the straight dope from the guy who knows everything about it, Jared Beck.
	Well, first of all, welcome to the show.
	Oh, thanks for having me, Jimmy.
	Good to be here.
	My pleasure.
	Now, a lot of establishment-type people were saying, oh, it's a frivolous lawsuit.
	It's going to be thrown out.
	And that is just a bullshit, corporatized talking point because this case has already been successful in my eyes because it got the DNC's lawyer to admit in open court that they don't have to run a fair primary.
	And I said at that moment, well, try to use that as a fundraising slogan and see what happens.
	And they immediately had their lowest fundraising month since 2003.
	And if you remember what was happening in 2003, that's when the Democrats were teaming up with George Bush and Dick Cheney to invade Iraq.
	And that's when they had their lowest month fundraising.
	And this was the second lowest month after they admitted that in open court.
	So I think this the lawsuit, no matter what happened legally, was a big success because it got the DNC to admit what everybody already knew was the case.
	But it's nice to have it in the legal record.
	So could you just tell us now what the judge meant when he dismissed the case?
	Because some people are saying that he is friendly to you and the fact that he dismissed it in a way that leaves the door open for you.
	So you can explain it all.
	Okay.
	So in a nutshell, he dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction.
	And subject matter jurisdiction essentially is the ability of a court to hear a dispute based on who the plaintiff is.
	In this case, the court agreed with one of the arguments that the DNC put forward for why this case should be dismissed without a trial, which is that just because somebody donated money to the Bernie Sanders campaign based on the belief that they were participating in a fair primary process, that's not sufficient in and of itself to create standing in this case.
	And so the court dismissed the case, not because it found any facts or made any findings to say that the primary wasn't rigged or what we're alleging in the complaint isn't true, but based on this technical ground, which is that it doesn't believe the plaintiffs in this case have standing.
	And so that's a legal term, meaning that you don't really technically have a right to sue in this case.
	Not that your facts are wrong or that what you're alleging is incorrect or not true, just that you, specifically in this case, the way you filed it, aren't legally, technically able to do so, correct?
	Right.
	Well, it's even more than that.
	It's not so much the way we filed it.
	It's the fact that according to the court's ruling, and we don't agree with it, and we're looking at the next steps right now.
	But according to the court's ruling, there may not be any legal recourse in the judicial system by private plaintiffs to enforce the violation of the laws of fraud or the violation of the charter by the DNC.
	So I was reporting yesterday that the judge agreed with the premise of your case, but it turns out that was, I was misreporting that.
	Well, let me say something about that because, you know, there's a concept in law called the four corners of the complaint.
	And so when a judge rules on a motion to dismiss like this, he is bound by the four corners of the complaint in terms of having to accept the well-pled allegations in that complaint as true before he gets to the next step and decides whether or not the claim should proceed.
	Now, in this case, at the beginning of the order, the judge recited the well-pled allegations of the complaint, which allege that the primary was rigged.
	Now, I would just say something following that is that the court did indeed find those allegations to be well-pled.
	In other words, it didn't find those allegations to be implausible or ridiculous or out of left field.
	And when you look at the complaint, we pled those allegations specifically tied to facts that are all in the public record.
	And those facts are in the public record because every piece of evidence we relied on for the claim that the primary was rigged came from documents that were released by Guchefer or WikiLeaks.
	And so they're in the public domain.
	And there's really no dispute about the authenticity of the evidence.
	So I personally think that by virtue of the judge finding those allegations to be well-pled, that's very, very significant because I've seen orders on motions to dismiss.
	I mean, it's very common for a judge to say, you haven't raised plausible allegations of fraud in this case, and that's why you shouldn't go forward.
	But that's not what the judge did in this case.
	What the judge did is dismiss it on the basis of subject matter jurisdiction, which actually has nothing to do with the primary rigging itself.
	So he's, he, again, it's, he's not making it, the judge did not make a decision on the veracity of your claims.
	He made a decision on a legal technicality about whether you're able to sue in court for this and whether you're specifically able and whether this falls under his purview, correct?
	That's right.
	Okay.
	So I'm glad we got because I reported that when the judge stated, well, here, I'll show you what he says.
	He says, in evaluating the plaintiff's claims at this stage, the court assumes their allegations are true.
	Now, that doesn't mean the judge actually assumes what you're saying is true.
	He's saying, for the sake of argument, I'll assume it's true.
	That's what he's saying.
	Right.
	Exactly.
	He also can only, and this is why I wanted to really highlight the significance.
	I think it might be in the next sentence.
	He uses the words well-pled.
	In other words, he can't just assume anything is true just because you put it in a complaint.
	The allegations actually have to make sense and they have to be plausible.
	And I would say that the reason they're plausible in this case is because we actually base those allegations on actual evidence and facts that are in the public domain.
	And anybody can go onto WikiLeaks and read the evidence and the documents which show that the primary, in fact, was rigged.
	So is there anyone who denies that the DNC was, let me put it this way, because they won't use the term rigging like we will.
	I consider superdelegates to be a rigging of the primary.
	But so it's rigged just on its face, it's rigged.
	But when Debbie Wasserman Schultz would go on CNN and MSNBC and claim that she was neutral time and time again, that was false, correct?
	Right.
	And nobody even disputes that, which is why Debbie Wasserman Schultz resigned, correct?
	Right.
	And in fact, we had a situation where, you know, Tom Perez said it was rigged, and then he walked it back the next day.
	Yes.
	I believe he made a public statement.
	Debbie Wasserman-Schultz said it was neutral and impartial, but then there's also footage of her saying that they were doing everything to elevate Hillary Clinton, which I think is also an admission.
	So we actually had admissions out there that they did rig it.
	And this is why, you know, we were so hoping to get to the discovery phase in this case if we had gotten by the motion to dismiss, because at the discovery phase, you can actually sit those people down in the witness chair, put them under oath, and grill them on their public statements and their documents.
	And then they're under penalty of perjury and they're subject to all of the contempt power of the court if they commit perjury.
	So it's a very, very powerful process.
	And that's what we were hoping to get to.
	Yes, we were all hoping that we could get to the discovery phase of the trial where you could then depose Debbie Wasserman Schultz, Donna Brazil, John Podesta, what have you.
	Is there any hope that that will ever happen still?
	I mean, some people were saying that since the judge didn't dismiss your case with prejudice, I don't know what that means.
	I'm not a lawyer.
	Maybe you can explain to us that because he didn't use what he said without prejudice, that you can, he left the door open.
	Can you explain what that means?
	Right.
	So again, this goes back to the concept of subject matter jurisdiction, which is essentially saying this court, because federal courts have certain standards for when they can hear a dispute, this federal court can't hear the dispute.
	And so when a court dismisses for subject matter jurisdiction, it's almost always without prejudice because it's on jurisdictional grounds only.
	That said, if you look at the first page of the order, you'll see that the judge titled it as a final order of dismissal.
	And in our view, that gives us the right to go immediately up on appeal to the 11th Circuit and have that court, which is the highest federal court under the Supreme Court that has jurisdiction over Florida, and have that court make a ruling on the essential question here, which is whether or not donors to a campaign have standing to sue based on fraudulent representations and omissions.
	And I think we have very, very good arguments.
	I strenuously disagree with the court's reasoning in this case.
	And I think that in some ways you might look at the court doing a favor in some sense by issuing a ruling on this issue as a final order of dismissal because it gives us the option, if we decide to go down this route, of going right up to the 11th Circuit, which is an appellate court that can actually create binding precedent and having that court issue a ruling on this very, very important issue that affects not only what happened with Bernie Sanders, but campaigns going forward.
	Because I got to tell you, the thing about fraudsters is if people defraud you in the past, you can bet if they get away with it, they're going to do it again and again and again.
	And so my fear is that the DNC, of course, hasn't learned its lesson and we're just going to see it continue to do what we saw happen in 2016 on an ongoing basis.
	So one of the reasons why, again, I'm not a lawyer, but one of the reasons why you prosecute crimes is to deter future happenings of the same crime.
	By having absolutely no punishment repercussion for what everyone now admits pretty much was them rigging cheating and lying and not running a fair primary, there's no repercussion for that, which means it will definitely happen again.
	And so when people say, well, you know, Bernie Sanders is going to run as a Democrat again, and I said they're going to cheat him again.
	So I have lots of people on the left telling you, yeah, but he's going to win this time.
	They're going to cheat him.
	Like they, if they, why do you think they cheated him last time?
	He would have won the last time, you knuckleheads, if they didn't cheat him.
	That's why they cheated him.
	Yeah, he's going to win next time too, but they will cheat him.
	What do you think about that?
	I agree with you 100%.
	I think people are really, really, really searching for ways to hold the Democratic Party accountable for what they did in 2016.
	And the legal system is one way we have to hold people accountable.
	And it's frustrating that we've had the courthouse door shut in our face at such an early stage.
	But on the other hand, if you read the order, the judge does point to other potential avenues by which to hold the Democratic Party accountable.
	He talks about the ballot box.
	Now, one wonders how you use the ballot box to hold someone accountable if the process is already rigged.
	But then he also talks about freedom of expression.
	And so to the extent that this case has been part of a larger discussion about how the DNC actually operates and what really goes on in their selection of candidates, I think that is a good thing.
	And if the Democratic Party continues to want to do business like this, but it calls itself the Democratic Party and in truth operates as anything but a Democratic Party, I think they're going to lose people and they're going to continue to lose elections.
	And, you know, by virtue of that Darwinistic process, they may disappear for that reason.
	So I'm not sure that by winning this battle, they're going to win the war.
	So, yeah, you mean the DNC?
	No, I think this is a losing thing for them.
	This hurts them because what they're in desperate need of is reform.
	And right now, they're incapable, they're proving it on a daily basis that they're incapable of reforming themselves without a court order.
	So the fact that they don't have this court order, what does that mean?
	That means they're going to keep wagging their fingers at progressives, dismissing them, calling them names, and then telling them asking for their vote.
	They don't even ask for it.
	They just wag their finger at you.
	I've never seen a situation in politics where a politician is not expected to campaign for your vote.
	That is the way I've never seen this.
	Oh, this is the only time I've ever seen it, and it's with Hillary Clinton.
	She wasn't expected to campaign for my vote or the Green Party's vote or progressives' vote.
	You just owe it to her for some reason, which obviously we don't, and she lost.
	Yeah, it does seem to be a very, very strange world that we're living in where everything seems to be almost a funhouse mirror in terms of the way politicians are behaving.
	Yes, very much so.
	Now, are you going to go ahead and appeal it to the, what is it, the circuit court?
	The 11th Circuit.
	Yeah, we're discussing the next steps right now among all the counsel in the case.
	That certainly is an option that we're looking at.
	There's a 30-day window after an order is judged down within which to file a notice of appeal to the appellate court.
	So we have some time to figure out if that's the direction we're going to go in.
	Okay.
	Well, I wish you all the best of luck.
	And again, I said from day one that this was a successful lawsuit because there's many reasons why you file a lawsuit.
	One is that you want to actually win the lawsuit.
	Another is that you want to bring attention to a situation.
	You know, like when you're out there peacefully protesting, you don't expect the cops to go, you're right.
	You know they're going to arrest you and put you in jail, but you're making a statement and you're trying to call attention to an injustice.
	And you certainly did call attention to an injustice, but it's amazing just how ubiquitously ignoring your cases in the mainstream media it is.
	And then when they do report it, they only report, they report it in a way that makes it look like it is a frivolous lawsuit instead of what it actually is, which is a call for justice.
	Well, I appreciate you saying that, Jimmy, and I appreciate you having me on today.
	And one of the other good things about lawsuits is that you actually create a record.
	And so now we have a transcript where it says in black and white what the DNC's position is on its own obligations to members of the Democratic Party and how it can pick its candidate.
	And now we have an order which talks about how the court doesn't accept the trivialization of the DNC's obligations.
	So we're starting to build up a big legal record about this organization called the DNC.
	And that, I think, in and of itself, alongside, you know, just getting the word out there and pursuing justice that way.
	I think building up a record like that is very, very important because the one thing you can say about court orders and court documents is they're not fake news.
	They're part of a court record.
	And so that has some value in and of itself, especially in this day and age.
	You know what people don't, I think a lot of people don't know.
	I didn't until I started reading up because of this case, is that in 1968, the Democrats decided to reform the DNC back then because of what people saw in the 68 convention.
	And people felt locked out of their party and they weren't.
	And so they did.
	In fact, McGovern was the head of the commission that was set up a lot of reforms to make the vote, to make voters actually the ones who are supposed to be picking the candidates.
	And it became more democratic, but as we've learned, it's not.
	It's not 100% Democratic.
	And it's a system where the insiders who control the levers of power inside the DNC then cheat for their pre-approved candidate, which, and by the way, that pre-approved candidate is going to be the person who's friendly to Wall Street, not friendly to workers.
	That's a fact.
	Yeah, I think the political parties in this country have really lost their way on both sides of the aisle.
	I think there may have been a time when they were very vital to the democratic institutions of this country.
	And a lot of the democratic process occurred through them and people were very active in their parties, but that's not the case anymore.
	I mean, nobody reads the charter or the documents, and very few people are actually involved with political parties.
	They've really turned into brands, and voters are just like passive consumers.
	And it's all a game of how much money you can suck from the corporations and the people and try to inundate them with mass media messaging so that they'll vote for either brand A or brand B. It's really a sad state of affairs in this country in terms of what our democracy has become, in my opinion.
	So is the judge basically saying because the people who donated to the DNC didn't read the bylaws and they didn't read that clause that said the DNC in their bylaws has to run an impartial, even-handed election, because the people donated didn't read that, they're not entitled to the protections that that charter has stated in it.
	Yeah, that's one of the points in his order that we take issue with.
	He adds this passage where he says that we didn't, none of the plaintiffs alleged to have read the charter before donating the money.
	So how could they have been defrauded on the basis of the charter?
	But there's another concept in law, which is fraud by omission.
	So if you put together a, let's say, a horse race and you get a lot of people to gamble on it, but the race is fixed and you don't tell anyone about it, you're committing fraud.
	Yes.
	Because people assume that it's a fair contest.
	And that's really the same thing that is going on in 2016, in my opinion, which is that people assume that this is a fair election process.
	And that's why they're giving money to candidates, because why would you open up your wallet?
	And in some cases, you know, you had very, very poor people scraping together whatever change they could put together to send to Bernie Sanders.
	I mean, that's, you know, that's one of the great tragedies of this case, in my view, is that a lot of the people in the class are people that were the least able to afford making donations to political campaign.
	And why were they doing it?
	Not because they wanted to throw their money away on a worthless process.
	They were doing it because they thought they were participating in American democracy and wasn't the case.
	So I don't agree with the judge on that point.
	If we do go up to the 11th Circuit, that's one of the arguments that we're going to be putting forward in our brief alongside a number of other things.
	To me, that sounds crazy, what the judge said.
	To me, that's like saying if someone breaks a contract with me and I go, oh, but it's in the contract.
	And the judge says, did you read the contract?
	And I said, no.
	He goes, well, then the contract doesn't apply.
	That makes no sense to me.
	That's basically what he's saying, right?
	Since you didn't read the contract, the contract doesn't apply.
	It's supposed to apply whether you read it or not.
	Am I wrong?
	Well, there's a distinction between contract law and the law of fraud and negligent misrepresentation.
	So the contract analogy doesn't quite apply in this case, but it's not that far away from what you said.
	I mean, you cannot have secret information that you don't tell anyone and take their money.
	That's a principle of fraud.
	It's a very old principle.
	It's recognized in the law.
	And I just don't think the judge addressed the concept of fraud by omission in the order.
	So we respectfully disagree with him on that point.
	I do too.
	Tell me if this is analogous.
	I know a friend who had fundraisers for his wife who was ill.
	So he raised all this money, left town.
	She wasn't ill.
	How much different is that from what they're doing?
	They're saying, so, hey, give us this money.
	We're going to do this with it.
	And then they do the exact opposite with it.
	They're not telling you the truth about what.
	So the DNC is not telling you the truth about what they're going to do with your money.
	How could that be anything other than fraud?
	No, that's a perfect analogy.
	In fact, at the hearing, I cited a Supreme Court case from 2006, which makes that exact point, which is that just because the money that is being taken from people is a donation as opposed to a commercial transaction doesn't mean the laws of fraud don't apply.
	And so charities just can't take money from people on the basis of fraudulent representations, like the example you gave.
	I don't think it's any different in this case.
	I think what's really going on here is that political parties are treated differently in this country.
	They're special animals that act like they're entitled to special privileges.
	The DNC came into court and said that it doesn't believe that its own charter applies to it in any way.
	You know, it's time for us to hold political parties accountable to the same set of laws that we hold everybody else accountable, including large corporations.
	Just because you're a political party doesn't mean you're above the law.
	Unfortunately, the reality of The situation in this country is that they functionally are above the law, and they're above the law because the people that run those political parties are above the law, and we see that again and again in our judicial system.
	So, in some ways, this isn't really a surprise.
	It may just be a hard lesson into what the nature of our political system and judicial system are at this point in history.
	Thank you so much for filing the lawsuit.
	Good luck in the future.
	I hope you do appeal it because it certainly deserves more attention, and it certainly deserves more press attention that it's getting.
	Thanks again for coming on, and we look forward to talking to you in the future.
	Hey, everybody, this is the part of the show where I usually tell you to go to our Amazon.com link.
	You know, we don't encourage anybody to shop at Amazon, but if you do, we say have some of that money go to a progressive show like the Jimmy Door Show.
	Doesn't change the way you shop at Amazon, doesn't cost you anything, but it's a big help to the show.
	So, the next time you want to buy something from Amazon, go to JimmyDoorComedy.com.
	Our Amazon box is right on the front page.
	Click it, it takes you to Amazon, and then when you buy something, they send us money.
	It's just that easy.
	But we have a new thing, a new way for you to help support us.
	Well, you can become a premium member.
	You already know about that, and I'll tell you about it at the end of the show.
	But we started a Patreon, right?
	So, because a lot of people feel more comfortable using Patreon than using PayPal or Amazon.
	So, that's another way you can help support the show.
	We have a Patreon link.
	Just go to patreon.com/slash Jimmy Door, patreon.com/slash Jimmy Door.
	Go there.
	You can become a patron of the Jimmy Door show.
	And you know what matters more now than ever because our show has really blown up and gotten way more popular since we've been going on YouTube.
	But we've gotten over a quarter million subscribers, and so things are really happening.
	And except YouTube pulled our funding out from underneath us, right?
	So they don't want independent news anymore.
	And YouTube's offering establishment news.
	They're actually offering for a fee.
	So they're funding independent news people like us.
	So that's why we're offering Patreon.
	That's why we're offering a premium.
	That's why we offer the Amazon all these different ways.
	And plus, we have the t-shirts.
	We have all these different ways where you can help support the Jimmy Door show.
	So thanks for doing that.
	And if you're more comfortable with Patreon, use our Patreon link.
	If you're more comfortable using our PayPal, become a premium member.
	So there's lots of different ways to support the show.
	Thank you for doing that.
	Now, let's get on to the second half.
	Whoa, it looks like one of Washington's all-time mega lobbyists, Haley Barber, is on the line.
	Hello.
	You don't ever come around these parts.
	Fetch a two by four.
	We got ourselves a city feller.
	Former governor of Mississippi Haley Barber, you called me.
	Please accept my apologies, son.
	I just want to try out my new pickup line on you.
	That's your pickup line?
	Well, we're expranded, American Chamber of Commerce.
	Why?
	I don't know.
	Never mind.
	No offense taken, son.
	I call because I got something very important on my mind.
	I'm currently lobbying for a bill that allows colored brown illegals a path to citizenship without no requirements for literacy, family connections, or employment, and such and whatnot, etc.
	That's pretty surprising coming from a staunch right-winger like you.
	What's the catch?
	Ain't no cats, James.
	All they got to do is smoke three packs of camel unfiltered a day.
	Three packs of camel unfiltered a day.
	Why?
	Because it's a good olive smoke, you fucking did Le Pois.
	More doctors smoke camel than any other cigarette.
	But you knew that.
	So you're still lobbying for the tobacco industry.
	Can I answer that question with another question, Jimmy James?
	I guess.
	Why not change the camel for the next 30 days and see what difference it makes in your smoking enjoyment, son?
	All right.
	Thanks for the advice.
	You're welcome.
	No charge.
	You have experience with hurricanes.
	What's the most important lesson we can learn from Hurricane Harvey?
	We're a big tick party, Jimmy.
	State and local governments have to work together, and the governor has to lead.
	Nobody else can lead.
	Leadership is for the leaders and such and whatnot, etc.
	Corn palms, spicy red sauce, black peppers, and pulled pork, butter, corn cakes, lord.
	Understand?
	No.
	Stick a toothpick in your palm, son.
	She's done.
	Think about it.
	Then Paul spell more.
	There are only free market solutions to natural disasters, sonny boy.
	This is a special opportunity for small and local businesses to profit from the cleanup.
	How could that possibly happen when they're all flooded?
	Well, where's your entrepreneurial spirit, James?
	Somebody has to get rid of all them fire ants floating around.
	I put my money on the guy who invents the world's largest magnifying glass.
	Speaking of the Geographical Visionary Award, did you know I've been awarded the University of Mississippi Geographical Visionary Award?
	You must know a lot about geography.
	Knowing geography is essential to understanding history is what I want said.
	Did you know that?
	If you don't know your history, you're doomed to repeat it.
	These are all things I have said without really understanding what they really meant.
	For example, I think President Trump is doing a heck of a job, Brownie.
	He knows hurricanes and can still draw a nice crowd during a flood.
	Not like that Franklin Roosevelt who went golfing during Hurricane Katrina.
	Make all the excuses you like for your president, gum legs.
	Still don't change the scoring on that and do it.
	Now, I'll let you get along with what you were doing before you so rudely demanded my attention.
	Y'all be well now.
	Royal laughter
	Everybody was going crazy over this video a couple of days ago of Ali Vesci and his co-host smacking down a Trump spokesperson over economic ideas.
	Ready?
	Here we go.
	The number one catalyst is the corporate tax.
	This is the market mover.
	Brad, hold on a second, Brad.
	Brad, hold on, hold on.
	You're talking to do financial journalists, right?
	I don't know if you were going to bring this up so I don't have the chart ready, but we always put it on.
	I can find it and I can tweet it out to you.
	This market started going up on March 9th, 2009.
	And if you have a ruler, it's a pretty much straight line from there to now.
	So there's nothing Donald Trump has done to cause the market to be where it is right now.
	And President Trump would like tax reform to get it done, but those who are working on it have said the president is doing nothing to advance that agenda.
	And look at those CEOs that are on that council that walked away from it.
	I wanted to answer my question.
	Because you guys keep peddling this myth that Donald Trump is responsible for this market.
	You are a market guy.
	You have seen the SP 500 since March 9th, 2009, right?
	Absolutely.
	So do you give Barack Obama credit for all of the stuff that happened from March 9th, 2009 to January 20th, 2017?
	The number one driver of this is a good question.
	Just ask the question, Brad.
	Answer the question, Brad.
	And what is the question?
	You give Barack Obama the credit for all the stuff that happened from March 9th, 2009 to January 20th, 2017.
	Because if you do that, then you realize it's not Donald Trump.
	Right now, the commander-in-chief is Donald J. Trump.
	And in terms of the market mover, what's going to actually move this market?
	And what we're seeing now is job creation.
	President Trump has created over a million jobs.
	Oh, my goodness.
	Brad, Brad, stop.
	For heaven's sake, you know that in the last six months of 2016, there were more jobs created in the first six months of 2016, in the last six months of 2015, first six months of 2015, last six months of 2016.
	I mean, I can just keep on going.
	Donald Trump's not even close to being the largest job creator in the first six months of his presidency.
	There are four recent presidents who do better than him.
	Why do you continue to say these things?
	So this goes on and on.
	And he keeps saying, this is what we do.
	We're economics journalists.
	Who do you think you're talking to?
	He goes on and says stuff like that.
	So everybody was patting up.
	And I was patting him on the back.
	Good job.
	He also did a nice takedown of somebody arguing against single-payer healthcare.
	Ali Beshe did a great job.
	Ali Beshe's good reporter.
	So that's how I know he knows his stuff.
	He's not afraid to stand up to somebody and tell the truth.
	I've seen him do it.
	He's super smart.
	So that's why this is very disconcerting.
	So first, we're going to show you what they played on MSNBC.
	They're talking about net neutrality.
	They have a little video that explains what net neutrality is about, which is a pretty okay video.
	But then let's watch the discussion that the two hosts has afterwards.
	Neutrality says the internet needs to be just like electricity.
	Once you pay to get online, you can do whatever you want.
	Obviously, many companies and customers like net neutrality.
	The proponents of net neutrality are a wide bunch.
	A lot of internet activists who really care about the principles behind an open net, joined by a lot of companies that also care about.
	Big tech companies like Amazon or Netflix don't want anyone to be restricted from accessing their products.
	And you don't want to have to pay more to get that access.
	But small companies also rely on net neutrality.
	The big entertainment companies like Netflix could afford to pay the internet service providers to get premier special access.
	The problem is for the little guys and the startups.
	If they can't afford to pay for special premiere access and the user doesn't find it or finds that their content is very slow, then they're not going to succeed.
	So who doesn't support net neutrality?
	Well, the companies who provide the internet connection.
	Comcast, parent company of NBC Universal, is one of the top three internet providers in the U.S. So just let that sink in for a second.
	The people who own MSNBC are against net neutrality.
	So the people paying Chris Hayes, Rachel Maddow, Joy Ann Reed, Chris Matthews, they don't want net neutrality, which is why they almost never talk about it on MSNBC.
	And here they are actually talking about it, which shocked me that they were talking about it.
	And they're actually kind of talking about it in the correct way, kind of right now.
	But here, wait, just wait.
	Opponents of net neutrality are primarily internet service providers who argue that without being able to maximize the profits of providing internet service, they won't expand and improve and speed up the service.
	For their part, internet providers say they've always favored an open and free internet.
	What they oppose is increased government regulation.
	The real solution to net neutrality is competition.
	In the short term, however, most of us are stuck with one or two internet providers, and there isn't competition.
	Thus, net neutrality advocates are asking for protection from the government, at least for a while.
	Yeah.
	Hey, if we had 50,000 internet providers, I wouldn't need to have net neutrality, probably, because there'd probably be a bunch of providers that wouldn't throttle our content, meaning slow it down.
	Right.
	So what it is, this net neutrality is everybody's content is equal.
	Meaning, if you go to my website, it loads just as fat as if you go to Netflix or Google or anybody else.
	It's the same speed, the same service.
	You don't get to...
	And it's really important to a free and open internet.
	And if you don't have net neutrality, just a handful of really rich guys will be able to afford to have their stuff go on the internet in real time, in the speeds it's supposed to be.
	Does that make sense?
	Yes.
	And the Title II designation, that basically means that the Internet's treated like a phone line or like the other analogy people use is like running water.
	You know, if I call you or I call the White House or I call wherever, it's just treated like a phone call.
	That's the same thing here with the internet.
	No one can impose any regulation or anything like that.
	It's just equal access and everything's treated with the same speed.
	Right.
	And they're also, they're also coming very close to making it sound like someone wants to put added regulations on.
	There's no added, we have net neutrality right now.
	We want to keep it the way it is.
	No extra regulations, right?
	Okay.
	So back to this video.
	Now let's listen to their conversation.
	Now, I already showed you how smarty pants this guy is, right?
	So that's why this is a little disappointing.
	Virtually nobody says that there shouldn't be any regulation of the internet or internet providers.
	I guess the argument for the internet providers is that they went and built this thing.
	They put the infrastructure in.
	They built the highway.
	And everybody else gets to use it.
	Okay, I don't know what the hell he's talking about.
	Comcast did not build the internet.
	California universities and the government came together to form the internet.
	Who gets to use it for free?
	Ron, do you get to use the internet for free?
	No, I do not.
	Yeah, I took a lot of opposition to that part, too.
	I was like, everybody should send this guy their internet bills because, I mean, since it's all gratis, he wouldn't mind fielding them, I guess.
	Yeah, we all get to use it for free, and they built it for F's sake.
	You mean, you put up a monopolistic infrastructure?
	You call that building?
	I guess so.
	I guess that's what he's referring to, right?
	Yeah.
	I mean, okay.
	They want to be able to make enough money off of it, so they have to cut some deals to do that.
	Yes, but the argument, you know, Jeff.
	Oh, boy.
	They want to make some money.
	They just want to make some money to pay for that.
	They have to cut some deals to do that.
	You're telling me that the internet providers who have monopolistic power right now in the United States aren't making money off of providing internet?
	Is that what he's saying?
	That's what he's saying.
	Yeah, this guy's done some great work in the past that we've talked about.
	But yeah, I was like, how was anybody not watching this not throwing stuff at their television at this point?
	I mean, you get nickel and dime by these companies constantly.
	What he's doing here is playing dumb for his bosses.
	That's what's happening.
	And if it's not what's happening, I wish he would come on the show and explain himself because it gets worse.
	Jarvis talks about competition, breeds innovation, and that's great.
	But if it's all about competition, the biggest guy will always win.
	This is about innovation and entrepreneurship.
	You've got to leave space for that new guy to get in the game.
	Otherwise, Amazon and Google will control the world.
	And, you know, look, we've got to.
	No, that's a good point.
	See, she makes a good point.
	So that's the problem.
	They keep making good points and then they start mixing propaganda with good points, right?
	Which is the best kind of propaganda.
	I just want to remind everybody for now on that anytime you hear that word regulation, that's corporate speech.
	Yes.
	Because really what you want to remember is protections.
	Those are protections, internet protections, not internet regulations.
	Great point, Steph.
	Internet protections, because they protect people from predatory capitalists, right?
	Who want to wreck the internet?
	Yeah, and keep in mind, Title II, first of all, Title II does not give the government necessarily some overreaching power.
	Keep in mind, Tom Wheeler didn't want to do it.
	Tom Wheeler didn't want to give the Title II classification.
	Why?
	Because he was a lobbyist.
	Right.
	But the public twisted his arm into doing it.
	That's why the public demanded it.
	That's the other falsity she kind of parroted there that I have a problem with.
	Yes, Google and Netflix and places like that, they want net neutrality.
	Do they want it for selfish reasons?
	Yeah, I think it's safe to say they do.
	It helps their business model, but the public also wants it.
	They're unlikely allies in this fight.
	But to make it out like net neutrality is a fight between two different conglomerates is not true at all.
	At all.
	So let's listen to some more of this.
	Fantastic websites and these apps.
	And the government is still thinking about the way it applies trade regulations when one, you know, when Staples and Office Depot want to merge.
	So it's complicated.
	It is important to remember.
	It's not complicated.
	He's pretending like it's complicated and it's tough to understand.
	And the government doesn't know how to regulate it because they have the, you know, they're behind the times and we're this is all bull, all of it.
	And it's happening on MSNBC and everybody was lauding this guy just a few days ago on how you're supposed to take someone down and not let them bullshit you.
	And here he is bullshitting at the top of his lungs at a million miles an hour.
	Want to hear some more?
	Here we go.
	Entirely black and white.
	Generally speaking, even the internet providers say they're okay with a light touch and regulation.
	And their argument is that this entire internet has grown with relatively light touch regulation.
	Why do you want to throw more onto it?
	No one wants to throw more regulation.
	We want to keep it net neutral.
	No one wants more regulatory.
	So is he talking about because moving it into making it a utility?
	Is that what he said?
	That's the more regulation?
	Which we've already done.
	And prior to that, it was assumed those laws were assumed.
	Then Verizon challenged it.
	You know, so there was that big court case, and then everything happened with the FCC, and then people commented so much the website crashed.
	And then we got Title II designation, which basically assured and cemented what was previously assumed.
	So they're glossing over lots of stuff.
	Yes.
	They're glossing over lots of stuff.
	And that right there, that's the look of a guy doing the bidding of his corporate bosses at the tune of maybe five or 10 grand a day.
	I'm sure he has your best interest at heart.
	I'm sure he's not trying to save his job and please his bosses.
	I know it first, I know it secondhand from because Jenk Uger told me all about it.
	They give you more money when they want to quiet you down.
	They give you more money.
	Let's listen to some more.
	The counter argument is the internet's really grown a lot.
	There are some issues.
	We need to regulate it.
	You've got to regulate it.
	Problems haven't come yet, but guess what?
	They always do.
	So she says problems haven't come yet.
	What?
	Problems haven't come yet?
	Well, I don't know if you remember what started all this stuff was Netflix was getting throttled.
	They were slowing down Netflix and people couldn't watch it.
	And that's what started all this.
	And then most recently, Verizon, Verizon is only doing things to allow their content that's produced and distributed by Verizon to be like, for instance, you can watch it without it counting towards your data.
	But if you watch somebody else's content, it will count towards your data.
	So do you see how they're already pushing people towards their own?
	So that's not neutral.
	So that's already happening.
	That already happened where they throttled Netflix.
	This is stuff that's already, there's already been crises that have already happened.
	Maybe she doesn't know.
	I'm not saying she's misinforming on purpose about that part, but she doesn't know about that part.
	And it's weird when you're on MSNBC because now he has an assistant.
	She has an assistant.
	Now he has a producer.
	They have producers for the show.
	They have assistant producers.
	They have interns.
	They have writers.
	They have executive producers.
	They have directors.
	They have stage directors.
	They have technical directors.
	They have all kinds of people.
	So for her to not know, like to go, hey, has this ever been a problem before?
	You all have to do is ask, and someone will go, I can looked it up.
	Here's what they, what I'm saying is they have resources at MSNBC.
	So when they get something wrong, it should be a super big deal.
	So do you see what I'm saying?
	Okay.
	That is very disconcerting to see that happen.
	Do you think that he's purposely doing that?
	I do.
	Yes.
	I think there definitely are.
	They're making it all blurry and fuzzy.
	And it goes back to that whole thing, like when they say net neutrality, I need to hear net neutrality protections for you.
	Yes.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	And their owners, Comcast, their very explanation is complete and utter bullshit.
	Their explanation is, we're all about a free and open internet, but Title II is not all about.
	That would be the equivalent of me being like, hey, Steph, I would never kill somebody.
	Would you?
	No, I'd never kill somebody.
	So it's bullshit.
	We have laws against murder, right?
	Don't you think that's a bit of an overreach?
	What would you guys say?
	I don't get those protections.
	Yeah, you'd be like, I don't want to sit next to you anymore, Creepsack Magoo.
	You sound like you're up to something.
	Like, that is the same premise here.
	Wow.
	So, Comcast, hey, we're committed to a free and open internet, really.
	And the FCC goes, well, how about we put Ensconced net neutrality in law?
	Whoa, whoa.
	A little bit of an overreach.
	I thought you were committed to free.
	Yeah, we are, but not for real.
	Not if you're going to put it in law.
	I would do the same thing, by the way, Ollie.
	Ollie, I'm not making out that I'm a better person than him.
	I would do it if they paid me.
	My God, I'm totally willing to sell out.
	No one's made an offer.
	I think what happened was they were just like, so here's the company's official stance on this.
	Can you kind of neutralize this and make a nice little presentation?
	And he rolled his eyes and said, okay.
	Well, how about the fact that they are never allowed to talk about it?
	Ed Schultz got fired from MSNBC for talking too loudly against the TPP, which Comcast was in favor of.
	So Ed Schultz talked against it.
	They fired him.
	So that's why you get news reports like this.
	Exactly.
	That's why they never talk about net neutrality at MSNBC.
	And when they do, it's like that.
	Like, you really know it's complicated.
	It's not complicated.
	It's not complicated at all.
	And he knows it's not complicated.
	And again, I'm not a morally superior person to Ali Vesci.
	I would do the same goddamn thing for a pair of cufflinks like that.
	And when we say the corporate media is a systemic problem, this is one of the many, many, many, for instances that we have to show for that.
	I thought it might be a good idea to talk about what's happening in Houston with a man who was the longest serving governor of Texas, Rick Perry.
	Uh-huh, former governor of Texas and current director of Department of Energy, Rick Perry speaking.
	Hamada, Director Cole.
	Hey, Rick Perry.
	It's Jimmy Door here.
	Can you spare a few moments to talk about what's happening in Texas right now?
	Oh, sure, of course.
	What's happening in Texas right now?
	Certainly.
	I'm glad you asked.
	So what's happening in Texas right now?
	There's an unprecedented rainstorm and massive flooding, Rick.
	Of course, of course.
	Where's this again?
	It's Texas, Rick.
	There's a big storm in Texas.
	Lots of rain and flooding.
	It's really bad.
	Wow, really?
	Am I safe?
	Well, where are you right now?
	I'm not really sure, but a lot of people say I'm deep inside the Beltway bubble, whatever that is.
	Have you heard of it?
	You're in our nation's capital.
	Oh, my God.
	I'm in Houston.
	No, no, you're in Washington, D.C., Rick.
	So is the Beltway inside the bubble or is the bubble inside the Beltway?
	I think the Beltway is a bubble, is the way that works.
	I took a bath this morning and I made a bubble.
	Okay, but do you have any thoughts on what's happening in Texas right now?
	You were the governor for 15 years.
	And I was also on Dancing with the Stars, and the American Cowboy Association gave me the Top Cowboy of Texas award.
	My duties were to uphold the reputation of Texas cowboys and their cultures.
	Okay, but what about the terrible storm, Rick?
	Before I answer, I want to make it clear that should I acknowledge the unprecedented rains and flooding, that in no way means I believe in climate change.
	Okay?
	So you agree this weather is unprecedented?
	When I was governor, I killed every bill that mentioned climate change.
	Why, you ask?
	Three reasons.
	One, people don't cause climates Jesus's do.
	Two, you can't stop the Jesuses.
	And three.
	Wait.
	Okay.
	There's just two reasons.
	Oh, there's three.
	What's the third one again?
	Sorry.
	No, wait.
	Three is the devil controls the weather, so there's nothing we can do about it but let rich people buy up the high ground and drown the poor.
	No, wait, there's two.
	What's the third one again?
	Why do I always forget the third thing?
	Next time, I'll just say there's two things and use zero as an integer.
	That way, there will really be three things, but I'll count only two.
	Think about it.
	Huh?
	Let me make it clear.
	I'm completely dirsted by the devastation and destruction that mercilessly slammed, pummeled, overwhelmed, whipped, and impacted the state of Texas.
	The torrential rain that has transformed Houston streets into raging rivers is far from over.
	Countless rescues have been made in a drenched and dazed city.
	Why does it sound like you're just reading headlines, Rick?
	Because I am.
	Whoops, that wasn't the right answer.
	Look, I just want to reassure the great people of Texas that I have never respected their bootstraps more than I do now.
	So you don't think they should get any federal aid money for this disaster?
	Fuck, I never said that.
	That's our money, silly.
	Remember when we refused to send federal aid New Jersey for their little storm?
	We're just demanding that we use the money we never sent them because it's ours.
	Even though every state contributes to the tax base and it's really part of the social contract that we help others.
	And boy, I don't know what the hell I'm saying anymore.
	Help me, please.
	That's kind of insensitive, Rick.
	Insensitive?
	I had to cancel my trip to Kazakhstan because of Hurricane Harvey.
	They have lots of oil like we do.
	We could learn a lot from Kazakhstan.
	I love their fermented mare's milk.
	Goes great with prairie oysters.
	You know what those are?
	Yes.
	Bull testicles.
	Daddy used to wash his testicles down with fermented mare's milk.
	Pride.
	But scientists say this is a one in a 500-year flood.
	Oh, come on.
	That's almost half the age of the universe.
	You don't have any words of encouragement for the people of Texas?
	Of course I do.
	People of Texas do not panic.
	Jesus will soon return in a canoe to smite hermaphrodites and distribute Fiji water in an orderly manner.
	I read where Muslims have opened their mosques to provide shelter.
	I would like to thank our Muslim American friends for this humanitarian gesture, and I look forward to slandering them after this whole thing is over.
	So you tell me what you think of this.
	This video, Ali Veshi, one of our favorite MSNBC reporters, he's Canadian.
	He tells the truth.
	He's a tough talker, except when it comes to net neutrality, he pretends he doesn't understand it.
	But that's okay.
	We still like Ali Vesci.
	And so he's interviewing this guy.
	Is actually an Al Jazeera reporter, and he's talking to Ali Veshi.
	And let's watch what happens.
	Now, you know, it's interesting.
	The reason why it's called the Golden Triangle is because this is the first place in the United States where they discovered large quantities of oil in 1901.
	Right.
	And that led to the Texas oil boom and the huge amounts of money come pouring into this region.
	It's pretty clear, though, that despite that, money has not been flowing into this region for the infrastructure for the climate change effects that we knew were inevitable because of the oil and gas industry's activities on this coastline.
	Even as those oil and gas industries were covering up what they knew about climate change in the 70s, I have to go on about this.
	Ali, you're an Al Jazeera guy.
	We get to the point on Al Jazeera.
	So that is very striking for us here.
	So much money has been made on this region.
	She hasn't gotten to the bottom.
	to deal with the climate change that was inevitable because of the industry.
	Hold that thought for one second because...
	I don't know all that talk about how the oil and gas industry has sucked the profits out of this earth literally and then didn't invest anything back to help it.
	We can't have that.
	They created climate change and they ignored it.
	They covered it up.
	And now this is the effects of it.
	And anyway, we got to go.
	So they cut and they cut to a live rescue.
	Looks like every rescue I've ever seen in my life, right?
	So not to downplay how serious this is, but what news value is it to watch this while this guy is actually giving us news?
	That was something I wanted to hear him talk more about.
	And, hey, look, we got a guy getting pulled up.
	Helicopter rescue, the basket to get some.
	We know how rescues work.
	They're going to lower the basket.
	They're going to pull the person in.
	Okay.
	So they do that for a while.
	They rescue the person.
	They come back to this guy.
	Now watch how he gets.
	So you tell me, you just watch.
	He starts to talk about it again.
	You can't make the connection between the oil and gas industry and climate change much, much clearer.
	And you know, you were talking to someone in Port Arthur.
	We understand the largest crude oil refinery in the United States in Port Arthur is shutting down.
	That might sound very prudent, but what we know from experience is when you shut down these refineries, there's a huge amount of toxic gas that's released.
	So we've got to watch out for all that.
	And in the past, oil and gas companies have just got away with covertly just like losing a lot of toxic waste in emergencies like this.
	But this is, I mean, it's not rocket science.
	I mean, this has been warned about for years by climate scientists.
	ProPublica had a piece just last year warning of something like this was about to happen in the Houston area at the very least.
	And yet this is all coming as a surprise, and there just aren't the preparations for it.
	And yet, so much money has been generated here.
	The mayor yesterday talking about how she spent $5 million on roadways for drainage.
	Well, it wasn't enough.
	I love this guy.
	This guy is really getting it right.
	He's like, look, all the incredible amounts of money that's been generated here, and none of it's been spent back to help these people.
	And then, of course, they're covering up climate change.
	and they've created it and this is the...
	Just so you know, and they get away with it because it's a tragic time.
	It's a tragic event.
	It's a big catastrophe.
	So now let's watch them get cut off.
	There is more money here, and Texas politicians have a lot to answer for because they're the ones.
	I think we may have just lost Shihab's line there.
	We're looking at another rescue in Portugal.
	You're kidding me!
	You're kidding me!
	I think we just lost them.
	Of course, that guy's from Al Jazeera.
	And Ali Veshi is like, hey, I don't know if you know they're one of our big advertisers.
	I wish you would cut it out.
	We're talking about the oil industry.
	So that's funny.
	Every once in a while, the truth slips out on mainstream news.
	Isn't that funny?
	Isn't that nice?
	Every once in a while, MSNBC people almost got some truth.
	Almost.
	It came very close.
	Maybe next time.
	Hello?
	Jimmy, it's me, Sean Connery.
	Zardos.
	Wow, Sean Connery.
	We've never had a call from Sean Connery before.
	Of course you haven't, you son of a bitch.
	I'm the greatest living Scott.
	Why the hell would I call you?
	A good question.
	That's why I asked, because you never called before.
	And why in blazes should I, you son of a bitch?
	People magazine's sexiest man alive for 1989.
	Why the hell would I call you?
	Very good question.
	That's what I'm asking, Sean, because this is very unexpected.
	And why the hell wouldn't it be?
	I'm Scotland's greatest living national treasure, you son of a bitch.
	Queen Elizabeth knighted me, and that was when she could hold her yard.
	Hey, you know, there's a lot more to that phone call.
	We don't have time in today's podcast.
	We got the time, but you got to get the premium to hear it.
	There's a lot of great stuff happening in the premium.
	We do over an hour every week.
	Plus, you get the extra phone call, a couple of comedy sketches we throw in there, huh?
	It's the most affordable premium program of the business.
	So go to JimmyDoorComedy.com, click join premium, become a premium member.
	It's a great way to help support the show.
	Okay, don't forget, we'll see you September 18th in Burbank and September 25th in San Diego, California at the Comedy Palace.
	Today's show was written.
	That's right.
	It was written by Brian Grandillo, Rod Flicone, Jim Earl, Mike McRae, and Steph Zamarano.
	All the voices today performed by the one and the only, the inimitable, Mike McRae, who can be found at mikemcray.com.
	That's it for this week until next week.

▲