All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 24, 2018 - Jimmy Dore Show
59:40
20180224_0223_TJDS_PODCAST
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Get ready for an outstanding entertainment program.
The Jimmy Dore Show.
Everybody's aware of how angry everyone is at the NRA because of the nonstop school shootings.
And well, anyway, I can't believe it, but we got Wayne Lapierre on the phone.
Hello?
This is Wayne Lapierre, the president of the National Rifle Association.
Who am I talking to?
Mr. Lapierre, this is Jimmy Dore.
Jimmy Dore, eh?
Mm-hmm.
Let me guess.
You're one of these so-called journalists who are using this horrible tragedy to promote your socialist anti-gun agenda.
Yep.
Huh.
People usually push back on that at least a little.
I knew it, you punk.
Oh, Mr. Lapierre, please.
Come on.
Let's have a civil dialogue here.
Well, the time for that is in the past, you butt nut.
When people like you start openly calling to take away our God-given rights, it's time for Americans like me to stand up and fight, not give footsies and foot rubs.
God damn it, that fell apart at the end.
Okay, well, then I guess we'll be up front and say that I think people like you are ruining this country, Wayne.
Me?
That's rich.
It's elites like you who are ruining this country.
How am I elite?
You Hollywood elites, just a bunch of rascals.
I don't live in Hollywood.
I live in Pasadena, and just being an entertainer doesn't mean you're necessarily progressive.
Well, we have a lot of entertainers in the NRA.
Yeah, who?
Like Ted Nugent?
Look, Jimmy, famous people are insane, and insane people love guns.
You think Ted Nugent is the only rock musician in the NRA?
Please, he's not even the only amboy duke in the NRA.
So, once again, you have the solution to these school shootings.
The solution that you're presenting is more guns in school.
How do any of you genuinely think more guns in school is going to work out?
Jimmy, as I've stated before, the only thing that can stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun and me shooting you in the face.
What?
Me?
Sorry.
My therapist said I should acknowledge and vocalize my feelings more.
Turns out it's mainly just gun stuff.
You know, everyone's on to you, Wayne.
The NRA is an industry lobby.
The way you handle these shootings just causes more people to buy guns, which creates more shootings and so on and so on until you personally make $5 million, just like you did last year.
Listen, you bum.
This is about elites like you having contempt for Red State America and for Christians.
What does that have to do with anything?
Jimmy, our members are deeply religious people.
Many feel that they are living in the end times.
It's a powerful and important aspect of their faith.
A faith that is protected by the First Amendment.
Right?
So they withdraw from the world with their guns.
They homeschool their children.
Okay.
Uh-huh.
So these school shootings don't even affect most of our members anyway.
This is.
With each of these tragedies, they see the sick, decaying, dangerous world out there that they need to defend themselves from.
Defend themselves with guns, guns, and more guns.
Wow.
So these occasional mass shootings put money in our pockets and validates the faith of our members.
Preventing them from happening in the future would be an all-out assault on the deeply held religious beliefs of these good Americans.
Beliefs that are protected by our Constitution.
And I will defend those rights to the death with guns.
Okay, well, that's revolting, Wayne.
Thanks for sharing that with us.
But let me ask you a question.
What about you?
Are you in this just for the money?
Oh, no.
I'm a true believer.
I love my guns more than my own children.
Guns are my reason for getting up in the morning.
I'm not even myself until I squeeze a few rounds off.
Wayne, you're not one of those people homeschooling fundamental Christians in the middle of nowhere.
You're well-educated.
You're wealthy.
You don't seem the type to be a gun fanatic.
Oh, yeah.
You try going to an all-boys school with one undescended testicle and a Frenchy French last name.
See what your relationship with guns ends up being.
You don't know my journey.
All right, Wayne Lapierre.
It's great talking with you, buddy.
All right.
That was Wayne Lapierre.
I got to tell you, look, where can that guy go out to dinner?
Where is it that you can go up?
Because we just saw Harvey Weinstein was at dinner somewhere, and some people just came up to him and just slapped him right in the face.
Maybe some.
He should have had a gun.
Oh, Wayne, you're still there.
I'm gonna shoot you with my gun.
I'm gonna shoot you with my gun.
It's the Jimmy Dore Show.
the show for up-minded, lowly-lovered lapdies.
The kind of people that are It's the show that makes Anderson Cooper say.
It's hard to talk to you, T-Doug.
And now, here's a guy who sounds a lot like me.
It's Jimmy Dore.
Hey, everybody, welcome to this week's Jimmy Dore show.
Hey, our next live show is March 25th at Austin.
That sold out.
Why did I tell you?
Our show after that is going to be March 30th back in Burbank, California.
Go to JimmyDoorComedy.com for a link for all tickets.
Let's get to some jokes before we get to the jokes, shall we?
Because look, I don't want to take away your guns.
I just want to cut your hands off.
You know, they say that this isn't a gun issue.
It's a mental illness issue.
I say, isn't owning a gun a sign of mental illness?
If you're outraged by the control the NRA has over our representatives, but don't think money in politics has corrupted both parties, then you're as dumb as the NRA thinks you are.
That's right.
I don't know if you heard in Florida, the legislature issued a decree saying porn was harmful but failed to repeal assault weapons.
Won't do anything.
And let me just say this.
I'll give Florida my porn when they unpeel it from my sticky latex gloves.
Anyway, Chuck Schumer's avatar on Twitter says that he stands with dreamers.
Didn't Twitter say something about cracking down on false accounts?
Did you hear everybody saying that it's the Russian trolls that were trolled, 13 trolls, Twitter trolls that threw the election out?
Anything.
Boy, it's amazing how what a great political machine they had that 13 trolls could just take her.
Isn't it weird that those trolls, it's just amazing.
You know, I knew fracking, a living wage, affordable college, and single payer were important.
But when I saw this meme of Jesus arm wrestling Hillary, I just lost control and voted for Vladimir Putin.
They're blaming our election on another country.
The Democrats are onto something, though, when they say foreign Nations made people like the Democrats less.
I mean, using myself as an example, Canada and nearly every European nation made me realize just how big of a joke it is that Democrats are considered a progressive option.
What's coming up on today's show?
Jill Stein gets a good McCarthy smear from MSNBC, except she smacks him down pretty hard.
How did the media cover it?
The answer just may surprise you.
Plus, those 13 Twitter bots that apparently threw the election, guess what?
They were already written about in the New York Times three years ago.
And the writer who did the in-depth article on Russia's Twitter trolls is here to tell us to stop making a big deal out of it.
And it didn't affect the election.
We're going to talk about that.
Plus, we got phone calls today from Barack Obama, Chuck Schumer, Wade Lapierre, and Mitt Romney, plus a lot lot more.
That's today on the GIPP.
Hi, everybody.
Welcome to Jimmy Dorso.
I'm here with Deron Placon and the Miserable Liberal.
I'm miserable.
Hello.
So I want to show you real quick that we talked about the FBI indictments.
They indicted Twitter bots, really, that they were influencing the election by posting stuff on Twitter and Facebook.
Literally, I think like two ads on Facebook in favor of Jill Stein.
Well, here's how, so Vox, so most of the media is their hair's on fire over this, pretending it's a big deal.
Here at Vox, Andrew Prokep, he wrote this.
And so he's a little more, he's a little more level-headed about this.
Just so it's, he said, the new charges don't add much to what was already publicly known about exactly how Russia tried.
Russians tried to interfere in the campaign, and they don't contain any new allegations about anyone in Trump's orbit.
Mueller's indictment of 13 Russian people and three Russian companies accuses them of conspiring to interfere in the U.S. political electoral process, including the presidential election in 2016.
The indictment's main emphasis, however, is on the propaganda efforts of one Russian group, in particular, the Internet Research Agency.
In a sense, these charges are plucking the low-hanging fruit of the Russian interference.
While these social media posts may be objectionable and may have involved violations of federal laws, it's highly unlikely that they actually affected an outcome of the election, which in fact, the FBI admits they didn't have an effect on the election.
When put in context with the overall amount of media Americans were exposed to in the 2016 campaign from a plethora of sources, the Russian efforts were likely a drop in the far larger bucket.
So Fox has it right this time.
So good job.
It's again, nothing.
Billions of dollars are being spent on the 2016 election.
$6 billion in free advertising to Donnie Tanahans.
And they're literally going after 12 Twitter trolls.
This is unbelievable.
Furthermore, the other allegations of Russian interference involving the hacks and leaks and leading Democrats of leading Democrats' emails and hacking into election-related computer systems in many states play no role in any of these charges.
So this is all, again, we've said this was a nothing burger, and this is important.
This indictment does not allege that any Americans or anyone on the Trump campaign was aware of or involved in in this Russian effort.
However, it does allege that some of the Russian defendants posed as U.S. persons and communicated with unwitting individuals associated with.
So there you go.
So now here is Jill Stein because they're coming after Jill Stein now with this.
I told you how this is being used against the left.
So they're going to use, oh, look, we got to protect everybody.
Bernie Sanders, by the way, is in bed with the Russians.
They did that.
I showed you Ari Melber did that.
Here's Ari Melber.
Here it is happening at MSNBC right there at the top of their lungs.
They're saying Bernie's in bed with the Russians.
Bernie Sanders' response to Mueller's indictment does not address that this Russian operation tried to help his campaign per indictment.
Just as I reported Ari Trump, that is a remarkable.
So there, again, that's how they do it.
That's a smear campaign.
That's called McCarthyism.
Ari Melber is the one doing it today.
He just happens to be the one today.
Rachel Maddow will also do it today.
I'm sure Chris Hayes will also do it today.
Well, Jimmy, I think we do have to point out some of the biases here.
I mean, in Andrew's article, he clearly had the bias of somebody who actually read the indictment before writing about it.
And Ari has the bias of somebody who might go to the Verrett website seriously.
So they're coming after Jill Stein in this.
And here she was on MSNBC.
And so literally, she's being charged with being in bed with the Russians.
They're smearing her that way.
And watch this host on MSNBC.
This is mind-blowing.
Special Counselor Mueller's indictment, which says that Russians used social media to boost your campaign as well as Senator Sanders' campaign in an effort to damage Hillary Clinton and then help Donald Trump.
So your reaction to Senator Sanders there.
Look, he's saying that his campaign hadn't at least an idea there was some level of interference.
Were you ever alerted to any of these efforts by Russia to boost your campaign?
You mean 12 Twitter bots?
You mean $50,000 in Facebook ads?
You mean that?
Okay, so here she's got a great answer.
Just back up for a minute to point out that what was cited in the Mueller indictment was one Facebook posting.
Okay, one Facebook posting, and that's it that is being claimed as evidence of our campaign benefiting from a boost from Russia.
So again, what this reporter is doing is she is reporting facts without any context.
So she doesn't go, well, they claim they boosted your campaign, but of course it was only one Facebook ad, and that's ridiculous.
Like that would be the way you would report that honestly.
What she's doing is pushing a narrative that Russia helped Jill Stein and that's why Hillary Clinton's not president.
That's a dishonest way to report that.
That's why you can't trust the media.
That's why people come to fucking YouTube and get their news from Jagoff Nightclub comedians because I'm not bought.
Yeah, how scary is it that we live in a world where on occasion, a politician, granted, it's always going to be a politician with no power, but nonetheless, a politician has to fact-check the reporter.
Yes.
And not the other way around.
How beyond scary is that?
Oh my God, Ron.
That's such a good point.
So Jill Stein literally has to fact-check the reporter.
And the reporter ignores it and talks over here.
Let's watch.
Remember, one Facebook post and in other evidence cited outside of Mueller's indictment, we were found to have received one or possibly two Facebook ads posted by the so-called internet research agency.
So remember here, on Facebook, there are trillions of pieces of information posted.
So this doesn't pass the laugh test, actually.
Well, but it doesn't.
I'm not going to pay benefits.
So were you aware, though, of these?
Were you aware of literally two Facebook posts that someone you don't know made.
That's what she's asking her.
Were you literally aware of, do you see what's going on?
This is called propaganda.
This is called sensationalism.
This is called misreporting the news.
This is MSNBC.
Were you aware of like two random social media posts?
It's not like you weren't busy running for president or anything.
Wow.
But I'm sure there's...
You know there are.
There are lefty shows who are going to actually go along with this.
And it gets better.
And it gets better.
Watch this.
Incidents you're talking about of the Facebook post and of the agency's advertisement.
How'd you been aware of those?
It's pretty hard to pick up one ad or one Facebook post among trillions.
No, understandably so.
No, you were not aware.
You were not aware.
No, no, we were not aware.
But let me say we were aware of other kinds of interference.
For example, we know that $6 billion in free airtime was given to Donald Trump by the big network.
$6 billion.
This was twice as much as Hillary Clinton, about four times as much as Bernie Sanders, way more than the independent candidates.
Is that not interference?
I do understand.
So first of all, she won't let her finish her point because she's making one that undermines MSNBC's bullshit.
And she's saying, you want to know who influenced the election?
You guys, you gave $6 billion in free media to Trump.
You don't think that influenced, that's not meddling in the election?
Let's watch this.
Now, this is called corporate capture.
This is how a reporter decides to then defend the corporation.
This is called corporate capture.
Well, I'm sure she's going to defend the integrity of the network, say they are doing the utmost journalism and that that's not true, right?
We'll see what she says.
Well, let's see what she says.
I mean, she certainly isn't going to admit to this charge, is she?
So that's not corporate capture.
I'm going to have my own phrase called cognitive corporate capture.
The Triple C. Triple C. If you will.
The Triple C. Here we go.
Here's what she says.
And it's not Russian interference.
And I will say, I'm proud to say that we actually had you on our broadcast.
So she says, well, that's not Russian interference.
Did you see what she said?
I'll back it up and play it for you one more time.
No, listen, billions of people.
I do understand, but it's not Russian interference.
And I will say, I'm proud to say.
She conceded.
She just conceded what she keeps.
And look at Joel Jill Stein's face.
She's like, what?
You're conceding?
She's conceding.
She goes, it's not Russian interference.
So it's okay if it's American oligarch interference because that's what that is.
Here's a laundry list of how your network is failing miserably at your obligation to inform the American populace.
Well, yeah, I get all that, but we're not in Russia.
Oh, point to you.
What?
Yeah, I give that we gave $6 billion to help Trump, but you had a Facebook ad.
This is literally, that happened.
That literally happened.
Okay, so now there's some headlines.
This is Ron Placone tweeted this out.
I tweeted this.
This is a very strong tweet.
Dr. Jill Stein's interview, MSNBC admits they failed miserably with their election coverage, giving excessive amounts of time to Trump for the sake of ratings, but that it's okay for them because they're not Russian.
That will not be a headline anywhere tomorrow morning.
That should be our headline for this video.
NBC admits meddling in election, but it's okay.
They're not Russian.
Yes, that's it.
Here's Raw story.
Watch Jill Stein comes unglued when asked about her visit to Russia in bonkers MSNBC.
What the fuck?
So I guess maybe it gets a little bonkers.
I don't know.
We're going to find out.
Let's see how it gets bonkers.
Let's see how it gets bonkered.
But it certainly seems likely that it had some impact.
So while we may never know precisely whether these efforts played a role in the outcome of the election, when we look at three of the states that Russia targeted, Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania being among those that they targeted, Pennsylvania as well, if I didn't say that.
Is it plausible that these Russian actors created enough influence that changed a few thousand votes here and there, and ultimately that could have altered the election?
So let me say the assumption here is that the votes belong to Hillary Clinton and that my votes were stolen from someone else.
And I think that's an insult to American voters who really deserve to choose, who made it perfectly clear that they did not like.
In fact, these were the most distrusted and disliked candidates in recorded history.
So to try to excuse my votes as being stolen from Hillary is outrageous.
But beyond that, we have data.
We actually have scientific data on how people voted.
And what we know is that the people who voted for me, in vast majority, over 60%, would not have voted if I wasn't there.
And of the remainder who would vote, many of them would have gone to Donald Trump.
So just asserting that those votes belong to Hillary is just another sign of the arrogance of the Democratic establishment, which is really working overtime here to silence its opposition.
And if you look at the smear campaign that's actually been conducted against me about being a Russian tool, when did that get started?
Remember, my trip based on foreign policy, on a peace offensive, on addressing nuclear weapons and the war.
Yep, while you were there.
Absolutely.
And trying to promote nuclear disarmament and really substantive climate emergency action, talking not only to Russian media and officials.
But on that same trip, I spoke to the deputy lead negotiator for China at the climate talks.
I spoke with Jeremy Corbyn, the head of the Labor Party in the UK.
So these are really critical issues.
And I say, what's wrong with our elected officials?
That this is not on their agenda.
Very important issues.
We've discussed them before on this broad.
Ha!
Thank you.
Thank you.
Yeah.
Oh, you were over there advocating against the Syrian war, attacking them from the right.
Oh, you're anti-war.
You're a commie.
That's what that, they just did it.
Look at this.
Terrible, horrible.
No good.
The former Green Party candidate in 2016 election spoiler melted down and MNMC.
What?
By implying people should get to choose who they vote for.
Now, do you understand why we have a show?
Do you under fucking stand why we have that's so that MSNBC is supposed to be the left media?
They're they're basically what do you have an FBI guy hosting your fucking show?
Are you kidding me?
That was horrible You got this?
Oh, here's another one.
See it.
Jill Stein has epic meltdown on MSNBC when asked about Russian meddling.
Hey, you know what?
Maybe those headlines will get people to watch because they'll watch.
They'll go, what the fuck?
I'm not going to believe a headline again.
Yeah.
I mean, it was, it was unreal.
Like, I, you know, when I was putting this together, I was, I was actually watching the video with my girlfriend, and I'm just like, where's the meltdown?
Do you see a meltdown?
Maybe I'm more biased.
Where's the meltdown?
She's like, no, she's perfectly reasonable and making a ton of sense.
I don't see a meltdown.
I couldn't get over how poised and articulated all the facts and nothing was kind of, nothing took her off track as far as what she was responding to with facts.
Maybe we should title this Jill Stein calmly takes down MSNBC hosts propaganda.
Yeah.
After seeing those stupid headlines like this, I kind of want to change it now.
Right?
Or Jill Stein's Jill Stein's awesome SmackDown of MSNBC host propaganda, something like that.
What do you think?
We'll talk about it afterward to finish with this.
But just what I said is what was going to happen.
We've been saying it all along, which is why I've been screaming at the top of my lungs about this.
And by the way, just because like if you do a news show and you're boring, that doesn't mean you're smart.
Just so you know.
Just so you know.
A lot of people make that mistake.
They go, well, he must be intellectual because he's boring.
Right?
You ever see people do that?
Yes.
I see people make that mistake.
People go, wow, well, that's really boring.
Sometimes he's just really talking over my head.
No, he's just boring.
No, he's just boring.
He's just boring.
And you tune out.
Yeah.
So that's funny to watch people make that mistake.
Yeah, you know what?
When I watch somebody like Noam Chomsky speak, I know he's an intellect.
He's not boring.
He's got a lot of meat and potatoes to what he has going to say.
A lot of facts that take your top of your head right off when you listen, Chomsky.
Like, what the F?
Anyway, we warned that this is how it happens.
They're using this against Bernie Sanders, using this against Jill Stein.
Anybody who's to the left of corporate Democrats is going to be caught up in this Russian smear.
So if you're a lefty news show and you're doing this, now you know just how destructive you've been.
And then now you can keep denying it.
And you will.
They will.
They're going to go right on.
Hey, people who are for bombing Gaza don't ever fucking admit they're wrong, believe me.
All right?
People who defend Israel over the Palestinians, they'll never admit that they're fucking wrong and they're destructive.
And they don't, and they're not consistent.
And that's the thing you're supposed to be as a progressive.
You're supposed to, A, understand who has power in situations and B, be consistent.
So it's, so again, another, again, I don't, it's not a genius prediction that we made here that this Russian Red Scare McCarthyism is going to be used against the left.
That's not a genius prediction.
That's logic.
And it just shows you how Trump makes people who consider themselves on the left to turn off their logic brain and engage their lizard brain.
And you see that MSNBC host, what she did to Jill Stein?
That's disgusting.
That'll be in a movie in a few years.
That'll be in a movie.
And it'll be a movie about how the fucking Russia Red Scare McCarthyism was the worst thing that happened in this country.
And how it led to another right-wing fucking demagogue being elected in 2020 because there was no left anymore to push back.
And people lost complete hope in the electoral process because we're giving one corporatist and another corporatist.
You got a corporatist warmonger, another corporist warmonger.
And how fucking dare you ever step out of line and say you might not support that?
That's why they push back so hard on Bernie Sanders.
That's why they push back so hard on Jill Stein.
And that's why pieces of shit on the left push back so hard against this show.
That's why.
Hey, there's a lot going on.
So who better to call than Chuck Schumer, leader of the resistance?
Hello, Chuck Schumer, leader of the resistance.
How may I completely disappoint you?
Hi, Chuck.
I think the country wants to know your response to Donald Trump's calling Democrats treasonous and un-American just because they gave him a cold reception at the State of the Union address.
Oh, don't you worry about a thing, Jimmy.
I'm right on that.
We set up a commission to develop various strategies on how to deal with such an outrage.
Don't worry about a thing.
So what's your strategy?
After much debate and brainstorming, we've decided the best strategy is to push back on it.
But we don't want to hurt anybody's feelings either.
So it's a delicate balance.
After all, isn't that what the American people want out of their Democratic Party?
The ability to just get by without making any waves?
I always thought that was the complete opposite.
Have you ever been in a wave, Jimmy?
It's not pretty.
You get groped by squids and wake up the next morning with sand in your butt crack.
But he called Democrats un-American and treasonous.
Oh, I know that, Jimmy.
Believe you me.
And we intend on doing something about it as soon as we consult our donors.
In the meantime, I completely back Dick Durbin's strong take-no-prisoners rebuke of Trump's words.
What's his reaction?
Well, Jimmy, you might want to hold on to your seat.
Dick said Trump's words were, quote, divisive.
I think we've got our rising star for 2020.
Dick Durbin?
Think about it.
He's white, male, balding, and tells it like it is.
Oh, sure, we'll have to smooth out the rough edges and tone down his blistering takedowns.
But once we're through with him, you won't recognize him.
Except for his bland congressional record and Knucklehead Smith comb over.
Who's Knucklehead Smith?
Oh, just Ulta Vista at you, Luddite.
In the meantime, here's the lowdown.
We're back.
And with DD's leadership, I know we can take a respectable second place again in 2020.
But wouldn't it be better to take first place this time?
Oh, no, Jimmy.
You get more done for your donors when you're in second place.
Second place is the new first place.
Remember in 2000 when Al Gore rejected Dick in favor of Joe Lieberman?
Yes.
That proves Dick is edgy.
Always ramping it up.
Pushing the envelope.
He'll ensure our second placeness in history.
And more important, our government jobs.
It's like Sarah Huckabee Sanders said.
Democrats need to decide if they hate Donald Trump more than they love their country's donors.
I think we can all come together in the first real sprout of bipartisanship on that point.
Never abandon your donor base and always wear a monocle.
They don't like it.
That's it.
People get the wrong idea.
I leaned into the word monaco.
Ha ha!
Ha ha!
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 Doer 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 if you can 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 Doer 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.
Yeah.
Beep.
It's Mitt Romney.
Hi, Mitt.
What is the occasion you're calling?
Oh, I oh, Jimmy.
Say, do you have batteries for all your devices?
I don't know.
Because it's always a good idea to be prepared in case you need a battery for your smartphone or Android device.
Did you know you can find a wide selection of batteries for all your devices at your local Vaughn's?
No, I did not.
Well, it's true.
I get it.
Yeah, I understand.
Don't get left in the dark.
Thanks for the advice, but is this why you called?
Jimmy, I'm calling to send my greetings and salutations to you and yours on this most wonderful of sunny afternoons.
Well, thank you.
And to tell you, I'm back, bitch.
What?
You're back?
What do you mean you're back?
I am definitely running for Senate of the great state of Massachusetts.
I mean, Utah.
Uh-huh.
What is your platform going to be, buddy?
Did I say that right?
Do you prefer bitch or be out?
Ah, do you have a platform, Mitt?
Oh, I have a platform, all right.
Utah has a lot to teach Washington.
Now, that's your platform, what Utah can teach Washington?
Basically, we're a glaring example of the futility of hoping for a representational democracy.
Our state has one-third the population of Los Angeles County.
It's pointless, Jimmy.
Totally pointless.
Just a complete waste of time.
No hope at all.
So you're running on nothing at all?
That's what you're running on?
Well, I could do bonus things while we're just going through the motions of running.
For instance, in light of these tragic school massacres, I've decided to join George Clooney in helping out the victims of gun violence.
Wow.
Mitt.
So you're telling me you're going to donate half a million dollars to end gun violence?
That's right, Jimmy.
I'm donating $500,000 to my Senate campaign.
You have to understand, Jimmy.
I'm not against guns.
I'm just against keeping them out of the hands of the bad and insane, like black people and immigrants and progressives and poor people.
Basically, anybody who's been screwed over by the two-party system and corporate America.
So what you mean is the 47%, right?
How dare you, Jimmy?
Say, can I use that?
So that's your plan to deal with Americans' gun nightmare?
That's your plan?
Wait, there's more.
I promised to do for school shootings what I did for healthcare.
I have a binder full of proposals for a market-based system of gun control, but we're still working on the name.
How does Romney control sound?
Romney control.
Is there a copay?
It depends on how many times you've been shot before.
You still have to pay for your first two shooting emergencies, but the third shooting is completely covered, depending on where you're shot.
Oh, okay.
So you're charged differently for head wounds as opposed to, say, like a stomach wound or a leg wound.
No, I'm saying we won't cover you if you're shot in a library.
And if a cop kills you, we cancel your insurance and bill your family for the bullets.
Wait a minute.
Is this gun control you're describing or just another giveaway to the health insurance industry?
Because that's what this sounds like.
No, no, no, no, no.
We're still working on the formulary, Jimmy.
It's really time for the 47% to take responsibility for their victimhood.
Perhaps if they paid their fair share of taxes, legitimate gun owners wouldn't have to kill them all the time.
Think about it.
God bless you, and God bless these United States of America.
Mitt, before I let you go.
Oh, oh, yes.
So you think to be pro-gun in this atmosphere is a winning platform for you?
Oh, absolutely.
Anytime you stand up for fundamental constitutional rights, you're going to get a lot of people, especially on the Republican side, the conservative side, on your side.
Supporting the Bill of Rights is always a winning strategy politically in the United States.
Yeah, but what about the Fourth Amendment of the legal search and seizure?
We live in a surveillance state that both parties agree with.
Four is a strange number.
It doesn't have a lot of flair to it.
One and two are great numbers.
That's why people talk about them all the time.
Yeah.
But for there's really not much there.
So you attacked Trump originally, and then you went and had that famous dinner with him where you took that horrible picture.
Are you going to run against Trump?
Are you going to run away from him?
Are you going to attack him like you were before?
Because that's the whole thing.
Everybody believes there's some kind of reasonable Republican out there, which I don't, I don't know, is there?
Well, I'd like to think I'm a reasonable Republican, Jimmy.
And as far as the president goes, I mean, when there are instances where the president and I agree on something, I'll be very forthright about that.
But if there's something that I disagree with the president about, I will use my senatorial position to articulate that.
Okay.
All right.
Well, it sounds like you've got the weasel words down.
You're mealy mouthing already.
It sounds like you're on your way to victory.
I appreciate that, Jimmy.
That means a lot to me.
Okay.
Thanks for calling in, Mitt.
I appreciate you taking time out.
I know you're barely a busy.
One more thing.
What's that?
Don't f*** yourself.
No.
So we've been talking about the Mueller indictment of the 13 Russian trolls.
And there's lots of things you need to remember.
First of all, even a place like Vox, which is pretty mainstream Democrat talking point, Vox, right?
I like to say Vox.
They Vox harder than anybody.
I don't know why I say that, but that's what I say.
And so even Vox saw that this Mueller indictment, which we've already covered it, so go if you want to go see us break it down.
We just broke that down.
But what it comes out to is that there was really nothing there.
Again, remember what this is about.
Russia somehow meddled in our election, and that's why we have Trump.
We have Trump because the Democrats nominated the most repulsive nominee in the history of the party.
She lost to another.
She lost to another repulsive guy, and then they blamed another country.
That's what this is, because they don't want anybody to look at the system that gave us Trump and Hillary Clinton.
They want us to keep Russia, Russia, Russia, so they can keep doing the same stuff over and over.
So even Vox got it right.
Vox says, in a sense, these charges are plucking the low-hanging fruit of Russian interference.
While the social media posts may be objectionable, may have involved violations of federal laws, it's highly unlikely that they actually affected the outcome of the election.
Even Mueller's indictment says that they're not making any allegation, even right?
They're saying there's no allegation that it affected the election.
Not just that, but that any Americans are involved.
Or any of us, there's no con right when put in context with the overall amount of media Americans were exposed to about the 2016 campaign from a plethora of sources, the Russia efforts were likely a drop In a far larger bucket, furthermore, the other allegations of Russian interference involving the hacks and leaks of leading Democrats' emails and hacking into election-related computer systems in many states play no role in these charges.
This is totally nothing.
And importantly, this indictment does not allege that any Americans or anyone in the Trump campaign was aware or involved in this Russian effort.
What were they doing?
They were making memes.
That's what the Russian trolls are doing.
They're making memes like this.
That's on a gay website that's trying to get LGBT people.
That was like a gay Facebook ad, a meme they put up.
And do you feel differently about any policies than you did before?
So Julian Assange, so what I said before in our other video, I go, this is probably some Russian oligarch billionaire, and he's got a couple extra million dollars, and he has a troll farm that works for him.
Well, Max Blumenthal actually knows who that guy is and why he started his troll farm.
It was exactly that.
It was to help create a positive business environment for him.
So why he was doing this stuff, Julian Assange has an idea why he was doing this stuff.
You ready?
Buried in the Mueller astroturfing indictment is something that we have long suspected.
The Internet's research agency's troll farm is geared to develop audience in socially active communities, e.g., through aligned memes, just like we showed you, right?
So, hey, maybe they go to a gay website, they post that.
Other gay people would retweet.
So, that's how they get with memes through aligned memes.
That's what I think he means by that.
In order to spam them on behalf of anyone willing to pay.
So, what he's saying is that they're just trying to drum up followers on social media so they can then monetize them.
So then they can then spam them on behalf of anyone willing to pay.
So they can then send advertisements to the people who follow them on Twitter or Facebook or Instagram or wherever at the behest of someone paying for advertising.
That's all that is.
So, and it would make sense to target them from a market standpoint, i.e., you feel strongly about one political candidate or another.
That's right.
So, here's from the he Julian linked to that to the indictment.
He says defendants and their co-conspirators also use the accounts to receive money from real U.S. persons in exchange for posting promotions and advertisements on the organization-controlled social media pages.
Defendants and their co-conspirators typically charge certain U.S. merchants and U.S. social media sites between 25 and 50 U.S. dollars per post for promotional content on their popular false U.S. persona accounts, including being patriotic, defending the Second Amendment, and black and blacktivists.
So, what Julian Assange is saying is that they're just trying to set up a network where they can then monetize it into people looking to influence so they could sell it for spam.
He goes on.
He says, before advertising networks can advertise, they must build an audience.
How much of internet research, that's the Russian troll farm, how much of IRA's activities, the Russian troll farm's activities, were simply trying to build audience by gaining followers using tweets and memes likely to be shared in those communities.
So, that's what I'm talking about.
So, it's almost like they just saw America as another market and it just goes into the whole oligarchs have no country, which I swear I've heard on a show.
I've heard it.
I can't remember where I've heard that before.
And then he says that Russian troll farm IRA allegedly also ran kitten appreciation groups, which they did.
So, they ran a group for kitten appreciation.
They started a Facebook group, kitten appreciated people.
Oh my God, why?
So, you could then spam them.
Are we also to believe that these kittens were also a plot to divide America?
To not distinguish between audience building and customer advertising payload is sketchy.
The U.S. has 320 million people with a trillion-dollar media and cultural sector that employs over a million people.
I do not assess that it is possible whatsoever to divide America by trying to heighten the differences with a hundred trolls.
But Julian does not know.
Americans did not know they like cats till we posted memes.
Reinforcing audience bias is exactly what Facebook and Google have been doing at a vast scale by algorithmically preying on people's existing biases to increase engagement.
In a more traditional manner, Fox, MSNBC, CNN, New York Times, WAPO, et cetera, are doing the same thing.
So, what he's saying is that they're just reinforcing the, they're going to a gay audience and reinforcing, okay, here's our gay Bernie.
We're going to go to a kitten audience.
Here's our kittens.
We're just trying to reinforce, and that's what Facebook does and Google.
And that's what pretty much what Fox and MSNBC does.
You don't go to MSNBC to get an opinion you don't like.
You go there for your confirmation bias.
You watch, you don't watch Rachel Maddow to give you the truth about Russia.
You go to Rachel Maddow because she's going to give you catnip about Russia.
Regardless of whether the Russian troll farm's activities were audience building through pandering to communities or whether a harebrained Russian government planned to heighten the differences existed, its activities are clearly strategically insignificant compared to the other forces at play.
Meaning, the $5 billion in free media that was given to Trump, all the Koch brother money, the Goldman Sachs money, the military-industrial complex money, the 200,000 people being kicked illegally off the voting rolls in New York that we know about, all the cross-check violations that we know about, all the voter suppression, all the voter ID law, all that.
All the popularity contests that DNC was winning.
Ha ha!
They were just thrilling everybody.
That again, and so if you're amplifying Mueller's indictment or you're saying that there's some kind of Russian conspiracy that the country really needs to pay attention to, you're fucking nuts.
And again, Trump excites your lizard brain and your critical thinking skills go out the window.
And if you're on the left and you're doing it, you're just, you're even dumber than the right because what do they use red scares for to silence the left, you fucking dummies.
So they're coming for you next.
If you are on the left and you're pushing Russia gate, they're going to come for you next.
They're already coming for Bernie.
They're already coming for Jill Stein.
You don't think they're coming for you?
You're repeating Democratic talking points.
If you're pushing Mueller's indictment as anything significant except a fucking revelation of what they don't have, you're pushing DNC talking points.
You're not doing news.
You're not a critical thinker on this subject.
This guy here, Adrian Chen, he actually covered this Russian troll farm three effing years ago.
He did an expose on them for We're the New York Times.
So this isn't new that the FBI didn't uncover these motherfuckers.
This guy did.
This is something to distract you from Mueller not being able to find dick in his investigation.
He just indicted somebody that the New York Times did an expose on three years ago.
And you want to hear what that guy, Adrian Chen, said about this Russian troll farm that everybody's hair is on fire about?
Everybody's shitting themselves over today.
Have you seen that the news?
Have you seen people?
Chuck Todd wants to know if he says if you're in news or politics and you're not screaming about this, you should question your citizenship.
If you're not screaming about what kind of punishment we could give to Russia, that's what Chuck Todd said.
We told Chuck Todd.
I wonder how W. I wonder how rack happened, Ron.
I wonder how rack happened.
Go ahead, Ron.
I'm sorry.
We told Chuck Todd that climate change wasn't real.
He believed us.
That's what he doesn't know.
So here is that guy.
So here is that guy who broke the story about them in the New York Times three years ago.
Here's what he had to say about it.
It's of my personal belief that it isn't all of that effective.
You know, it's essentially a social media marketing campaign with 90 people, a couple million dollars, $2 million behind it, run by people who have, you know, a bare grasp of the English language and not a full understanding of who they're targeting, what they're targeting.
I think if you think about that in terms of just a normal marketing campaign, that's not going to be a very good bang for your book.
I think that the paranoia aspect, right?
The idea that there is this, you know, all-powerful or, you know, immense propaganda machine that's going on and that anybody who's tweeting something that you don't like or is kind of causing trouble on the internet can be talking about Russia.
That is a very powerful thing that's going on and is really increasing now.
I think in the wake of these indictments in kind of a worrying way, there's not a lot of people saying, well, let's hold back.
You know, maybe it's not all that big of a deal.
Adrian Chen and the look on Chris Hayes' face, like as he was talking, was like, it's as if Adrian just told him he had an affair with his wife.
He looks so pissed off.
Well, and what I like is how when this guy blows the lid off this, how Chris Hayes follows up.
You want to hear how Chris Hayes follows up?
Yes.
Here's how he follows up.
There's not a lot of people saying, well, let's hold back.
You know, maybe it's not all that big of a deal.
Adrian Chen and Rosalind Hilderman, thanks for making the time tonight.
That's awesome, Chris.
Hey, at least he had him on.
Yeah.
Well, for the last time, yeah.
That's the last time that guy's on.
But at least he had him on.
So that guy, that guy, his tweet says, tried to tamp down the troll farm panic on Chris Hayes' show last night.
It's 90 people with a shaky grasp of English and a rudimentary understanding of U.S. politics shit posting on Facebook.
But we have rainbows.
And you turn on lefty news shows and they're calling it Pearl Harbor.
Did you see that where they called it Pearl Harbor?
Yeah, they compared it to Pearl Harbor and 9-11.
I didn't see it.
You didn't see that.
But by the way, let me just show you this.
This guy, Chris Stork, says many reporters have told me in private they find this moment and its shrill hysteria both asinine and concerning.
But the job market is so tenuous and anti-Russian Trump ideology so ingrained and profitable that they fear pointing out the obvious dangerous trend for media.
And there's some people saying that if you question the Russian narrative like this guy or this New York Times reporter just did he just threw water on it because he actually investigated it.
They'll tell you now that you're a Putin apologist, that somehow you like Putin.
That's what they, so that's what they've always done.
They have to make a caricature out of you to argue with you because there's no one who's pro-Putin that I know of.
I don't know anybody who's pro-Putin.
I don't know anybody on the right, on the left, in the middle.
I don't know anybody who's pro-Putin.
I met the girl from Pussy Riot.
She certainly wasn't pro-Putin.
Nope.
I don't know anybody who's pro-Putin.
So if somebody starts to make an argument that if you question this bullshit narrative and tell the truth about it, that you're somehow pro-Putin, fucking turn that show off because that's bullshit.
That's a guy gaslighting you.
That's the mainstream media.
If there's a lefty show telling you that when you tell the truth about this Russian 13-bot thing and you tell the whole truth about everything about Russia Gate and you're not going to prop up the FBI and the CEIA because you're on the left and you understand what that means.
So when someone tells you that if you're not willing to go along with that, that somehow you're fucking pro-Putin, that guy's gaslighting you and they're full of shit.
That guy's gaslighting you on purpose.
So there you go.
This is the world we live in.
And here's something else to watch for.
This was from something called the IPA Institute for Public Accuracy and a guy named Peter Van Buren, who's a former State Department Foreign Service officer who spent time in Iraq.
And he writes, he wrote a book called We Meant Well, How I Helped Lose the Battle for the Hearts and Minds of the Iraqi People.
So that's a book he wrote.
He used to work in the State Department, an officer who spent time in Iraq from the State Department.
And he says, going forward with the 13 Russian story, keep your eye out for how quickly the mainstream media morphs 13 people who were Russian citizens did this into the Russians did this.
Yeah.
Also, keep a lookout for any information that suggests their efforts had any impact on outcome or were just more spam.
Any information.
There's going to be no information.
He said, keep your eye out for any information that suggests their efforts had, because there isn't going to be any information.
He also says two years ago, the New York Times did a feature story on the same internet research agency, which we just showed you, that we showed you the New York Times reporter on Chris Hayes.
That's the guy he's referring to.
Two years ago, the New York Times did a feature story on the same internet research ANC Mueller indicted today.
The Times described the group as web trolls for hire.
Unspecified in the indictment is who hired them.
The critical question of this is to matter.
He also said this.
Missing In the indictment, he said this, missing in the indictment are A, any connections between the 13 trolls and the Russian government and the Trump campaign.
That's not in the indictment.
B, any discussion of the impact, if any, their social media efforts had.
It describes them buying Facebook ads, but nothing about how it affected votes, because it fucking didn't.
C, no connection shown between any of this and DNC, WikiLeaks, hacking of emails.
And D, no discussion about motive.
Why did this troll farm do this?
What were they doing?
Who are they?
And E, assumption that anything anti-Clinton was de facto pro-Bernie and pro-Trump.
So that's Peter Van Buren.
So, yeah, so by the way, it's already morphed into 13 Russian trolls who the Russians did this.
That's how it's just being reported.
That's how Chuck Todd reported it.
The Russians did this.
That's how they're reporting it.
So when this guy says this...
You know, it's essentially a social media marketing campaign with 90 people, a couple million dollars, a few million dollars behind it, run by people who have, you know, a bare grasp of the English language and not a full understanding of who they're targeting, what they're targeting.
I think if you think about that in terms of just a normal marketing campaign, that's not going to be a very good bang for your buck.
I think that the paranoia aspect, right?
The idea that there is this, you know, kind of all-powerful or immense propaganda machine that's going on and that anybody who's tweeting something that you don't like or is you know kind of causing trouble on the internet can be talked up to Russia.
That is a very powerful thing that's going on and is really increasing now, I think, in the wake of these indictments in kind of a worrying way.
There's not a lot of people saying, well, let's hold back.
You know, maybe it's not all that big of a deal.
Adrian Chen.
So when that guy says this isn't that big of a deal and there's no one pushing back on it, here's Chris Hayes' show the night before.
Or maybe that's here.
My reaction to the news is that this is absolute proof of what we knew all along and what the president has denied, namely that we were attacked.
This was a very serious attack against the United States by a hostile foreign power, an attack against our election process, our entire governing process.
That we know that the attack is continuing and that our intelligence agencies tell us that it's going to certainly continue through the next election.
And the president and they're already getting their excuses ready for when they don't have a blue wave in the midterms.
They're already ready.
They're going to meddle.
It's the Russians.
Public in the House, for that matter, refuse to do anything about protecting us from an attack.
Imagine if FDR had denied that the Japanese attacked us at Pearl Harbor and didn't react.
That's the equivalent.
Well, it's a bit of a different thing.
No, it's not.
They didn't kill anyone.
They didn't kill anyone, but they're destroying our country.
You think it's on minor detail?
Minor detail.
Wow.
So Chris Hayes pushes back a little bit there.
Not in the amount of violence, but I think in the seriousness, it is very much on par.
This country exists to have a democratic system with a small D. That's what the country's all about.
And this is an attempt to destroy that.
And the president's core, the presidential oath, is to preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution.
This president is refusing to do that.
So there you go.
So Chris Hayes has that guy on doing that, and then he brings on this guy on to tell you the truth.
So kudos to Chris Hayes, I guess.
I'm going to go out on limb and say kudos.
He did push back against Nadler a little bit.
And he did have this guy on to say what he said.
He didn't look happy about it.
He did not look happy.
He did not look happy.
He did not look happy, but he had him on.
So it's happening.
This is happening right now.
Do you see how when Chuck Todd and fucking Rachel Maddow and lefty news shows on the internet are fucking running around their hair on fire?
This is how propaganda works.
This is how panics work.
This is how the McCarthyism worked the first time.
That's how it works.
What?
Jimmy, have you ever now or ever been a friend of a Russian?
And by the way, how do you think the WMD's thing happened?
I was alive back then.
Ron, Steph, you were alive back then when we went to the Iraq war.
How is that not un-American?
Right?
So right now, they're doing the exact same thing.
They're doing the exact same thing.
And I see through it again, like I saw through at that time.
And most of the people don't again.
And they've called you a fucking Saddam sympathizer and everything in the fucking world.
And they're doing it again now.
Beep.
Uh-oh, caller ID says the guy who bankrupted the DNC is on the phone.
Hello.
Jimmy Door, Barack, do you miss me yet?
Obama here.
What's pissing you off today?
I need to get my fix of nattering nabobism in order to take the edge off a very upsetting week.
Oh, I got you're talking about Florida shooting, right?
Billy Graham was a humble servant who prayed for so many and who, with wisdom and grace, gave hope and guidance to generations of Americans.
Wait, the Florida what?
Yeah, yeah, Barack, how many school shootings happened during your presidency?
I never knew Mr. Graham very well, but I did meet privately with His Majesty in 2010.
Did you know we held a private prayer together?
Can you tell us what you prayed for?
I prayed that America would forgive me shit canning single payer and losing the midterms to the Tea Party.
And he prayed for politicians to keep giving preachers important access.
And guess what?
Our prayers were answered.
Wow.
It was literally a miracle.
Praise Jesus and God bless this country.
Did you always have a spiritual advisor like Hillary Clinton did?
I'm afraid that's confidential information.
I can always share with my spiritual advisor, Jimmy.
But I can't tell you that believing in a higher power made it easier to drop 26,000 bombs a year on people.
You believe in a higher power then?
That's right.
And there's no higher power than a drone.
Hey, you know, there's more to that phone call, but we don't have time in today's podcast.
We have time, but we got to get it to you in the premium.
Help support the show.
Okay, today's show was written.
That's right.
It was written by Mike McRae, Ron Placone, Tap Zamarano, and Jim Earl.
All the voices today perform by the one and the only the inimitable, Mike McRae, who can be found at MikeMcRae.com.
Today's show produced by Brian Gradillo.
That's it for this week.
Until next week, this is Jimmy Dorsey.
You be the best you can be, and I'll keep being me.
▲
Export Selection