All Episodes
Previous Next
March 2, 2018 - Jimmy Dore Show
01:08:31
20180302_0302_TJDS_PODCAST
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Get ready for an outstanding entertainment program.
The Jimmy Dore Show.
Jeff Sessions is on the phone.
What's he in charge of now again?
I can't keep track of this stuff.
Salutations, James Doll.
Speaking, what can I do for you?
I most humbly request the honor of your discourse.
I must defend my integrity, sir.
Stand back and take my pasty-faced indignation at 30 paces.
Please don't hold back, Jeff.
What are you in charge of again?
HUD, Surgeon General?
Oh, no, that's Ben.
Is that Ben Carson?
Everybody in the Trump administration is interchangeable and equally qualified for the job they acquire through some freak accident or mental illness.
Okay, so what is your point?
I am the nation's top law enforcement official, Attorney General.
Oh, that's your job title.
That's right.
I forgot.
How could you possibly forget what my damn job title is?
Because you people are all alike.
It's hard to tell you apart.
That's why.
We may be interchangeable, but we are still strong individualists onto ourselves.
For instance, I set myself apart from others in this administration by denouncing the theory of evolution.
But they all do that.
No, no, no.
Not the way I do it.
I do it in a yes, but way.
And they're all like, for sure, I'm afraid.
No, uh-uh.
And I'll go, yeah, but, you know, and they're all like, no way.
Understand?
So you're not concerned President Trump might be about to fire you.
As long as I am this country's top law enforcement official, I'll continue to discharge my duties with integrity and honor to which you are accustomed.
And then I'll shoot you dog and impound your possessions and sell them for profit.
But what if he fires you during the March recess?
The March what?
The recess.
That's when legislators leave Washington and refuse to work.
Sir, you mischaracterize a needed respite from the gulling pressure of ignoring one's constituents.
Every few weeks, public servants need to return to their hometowns and ignore the people there.
Here's what Donald Trump has said about you in the past 12 months.
He said you're beleaguered.
Well, that's only natural, son.
As you know, I am named after my great-grandpappy, Confederate General Beauregard beleaguered.
But Trump also called you an idiot.
And that was the nickname Beauregard's beloved troops gave him.
Idiot.
As in, oh my God, did you just file on False Sumter?
You idiot.
But President Trump also called you weak and disgraceful.
Oh, that's impossible.
I don't have anyone with those names in my family history.
Though I did have an anti-fuck turd from Paris.
But in the French pronunciation, fuck turd doesn't sound like fuck turd.
Isn't oomlaut over the turf?
And Trump called you disappointing.
Okay, he's got a point there.
I can see how he might think that, but I'll put my lack of integrity up against his lack of integrity any day of the week.
You haven't posted anything on your official campaign Twitter account since November 2014.
Why is that?
Because I shall never run for office again.
From now on, I plan on getting appointed to everything.
And I'm hopeful that once I resign my president office, I'll be appointed to something else I'm supremely unqualified for.
The South shall rise again.
The South shall rise again.
It's the Jimmy Dore show.
The show for people that are comments maybe on tearing down our nation.
It's the show that makes Anderson Cooper save.
It's hard to talk to you, T Value.
And now, there's a guy who sounds a lot like me.
It's Jimmy Dore.
Hi, everybody.
Welcome to this week's Jimmy Door show.
We're going to see you March 26th.
We just added another date in Austin.
So March 25th sold out.
We'll see you March 26th.
That's a Monday.
Also, March 30th, we're going to be in Burbay, California.
So go to JimmyDoorComedy.com for a link for all those tickets, right?
Hey, let's get to the jokes before we get to the jokes, shall we?
You know, and I don't know if you heard, but Trump, Trump has picked his 2020 campaign manager.
That is right.
He's already got him.
And I'm glad he picked this 2020 campaign manager before I had the chance to lose money by betting on Hulk Hogan.
Hey, Jennifer Palmieri, she's going to be, maybe she'll make the show this week.
We'll see.
Jennifer Palmieri, she was Hillary Clinton's communication director.
She set her own book on her tray on a flight, hoping the person next to her would want to talk to her about it.
Hey, I guess it makes sense a narcissist would work for a narcissist.
Am I right?
Come on.
I can't believe the California Democrats didn't endorse Dianne Feinstein.
What's crazier are the reports that apparently after it happened, she just exploded into a cloud of smoke and a bunch of bats flew away.
Hey, Hope Hicks says she's resigning in order to spend more time with this worn-out premise and its lousy punchline.
Hey, what's with the kids these days with their hula hoops and crazy music and inserting themselves into gun debates just because they saw their classmates slaughtered before their eyes?
I mean, what's the deal with that?
Hey, a Driple C survey concluded candidates shouldn't talk about single-payer health care based off the question, if you could change one thing about your health care or health insurance, what would it be?
Next, they'll conclude candidates shouldn't talk about rent control based off the question, what's one thing you don't like about your house?
I was in the green room before a show and CNN was on.
If Trump wanted to make his White House a reality TV show, he's in luck because that's already been done for him.
Hey, tip of the day, never push the I'm feeling lucky button on Google's self-driving car.
From now on, Jaron Kushner will only receive important information on a need-to-not-intellectually-grasp-it basis.
Boy, have you seen all the...
Hey, if you're outraged by the control the NRA has over our representatives, but don't think money and politics has corrupted both parties, then you're as dumb as the NRA thinks you are.
Hey, so what's coming up on today's show?
A BBC host shows you how you're supposed to put down a McCarthy smear.
It's kind of some awesome television we're going to share with you.
Plus, Nancy Pelosi is talking about income inequality and quoting Martin Luther King, and then she gets asked and confronted about her own Net worth.
Awkward.
We talk about it.
Plus, the Democrats are literally trying to undermine Medicare again.
Phone calls today from Chucky the Shoe.
Chuck Schumer calls in.
Bernie Sanders and Jeff Sessions.
Plus a lot lot more.
That's today on The Jimmy Dore Show.
The Jimmy Dore Show.
Nancy Pelosi, according to OpenSecrets.org, she is the sixth richest person in the house with an estimated net worth of $100,643,521.
That was in 2015.
That almost made me faint.
And they got it down to the dollar, which I think is like ridiculous that they do that.
And she has a dollar right now in her pocket.
But if she bought a latte, now she only has $518.
Stop it with to get it.
Just go.
She's about $100 million.
Just estimate.
What are you doing?
So anyway, $100 million is, I think that's the kind of person who should be leading the People's Party.
I don't know about you.
So here we go.
So here she was given a speech about Inc.
She was talking about income inequality, which, boy, talk about your flawed messenger, huh?
Somebody who acquires $100 million while in office.
You know, let's remember what Truman said.
There's the only kind of people who get rich while working in government office are criminals.
That's what Truman said.
I didn't make that up.
So she massed $100 million since she's been in Congress.
So she was given a speech on income inequality, and here's what happened.
There we go.
These issues about the tax cut and then the cuts to initiatives that help people.
That's part of the budget.
The national budget should be a statement of our national values of what is important to us as a nation, which makes us strong and bills for the future, should be reflected in our budget.
But what we have seen here is the complete opposite.
So this isn't about Democrats or Republicans.
This is about the United States of America, about our children's future.
And again, it can't possibly be a statement of values for us to talk about, as Martin Luther King said, God really didn't intend, or maybe it is.
God really didn't intend, never intended one group of people to live in superfluous, inordinate wealth while others live in abject, deadening poverty.
She's worth $100 million.
That's just weird that you're going to try and make this point.
While you're in power, you are the most powerful people in the world.
We have a system that gave you $100 million while 63% of the country can't afford a $1,000 emergency.
Almost 30 million people still don't have health care, and you're not for single payer.
So this is what's wrong with our politics right now, that it's left up to 100 millionaire to make the argument against income inequality.
That's where we are.
That's the People's Party.
That's our leader.
She's worth $100 million amassed while she was in government.
And now she's going to tell us the dangers of income inequality.
While she has no proposals to fix it, by the way, she has a better deal.
Not a new deal.
A better deal.
Okay, here we go.
So people start applauding that.
And then someone heckles her.
So these are kitchen table issues, though, for America's families, because most people are not in deadening poverty, but some are.
But most people have to struggle to make ends.
So it sounded like a woman's voice said, How much are you worth, Nancy?
And she heard it because everybody heard it and she ignored it because she doesn't want to, she can't, again, she can't stalk openly.
Just who she is is offensive in this context.
She couldn't be a more flawed person to be leading the People's Party right now, especially in this time of gross income inequality.
Yet she won't step down.
Yet she won't let someone else become the face of the party.
She won't do it.
Even though she knows that when people run in the red states, they don't run against their opponent.
They run against her people for Congress.
When Republicans run for Congress against Democrats and red states, they don't run against the reporter.
They run against Nancy Pelosi because she's that unpopular.
And that's why they're wiped out.
So here, she was just asked that question.
What's your net worth?
She ignores it.
And then she does, then she hides behind.
No, we're not talking about that.
No, that's actually exactly what you guys were talking about.
That's exactly what you were talking about.
Turns out it's exactly what you were talking about, liar.
What a coward.
That's pretty cowardly.
You heard the question, and then you pretended you didn't.
And then you said you weren't talking about it when you knew you were.
So this is what's wrong with politics.
We're left with 100 millionaire to give us the straight dope about income inequality.
And when challenged even for a second, asked a direct question.
She can't handle it.
Any event, I can, you know, I'm a mother of five.
I can speak louder than anybody.
Here's the thing.
I'm a mother of five.
What does that have to do with a goddamn thing?
Steph, what does that have to do with anything that she's a mother of five?
I'm a mother of five, and I know how to already ignore the needs of my kids.
So I'm really good at ignoring one of them every time.
So if you could please.
And you know what?
I'm also insulted that wherever this event is happening, that they have to say Trump tax.
They have to tell me what I'm against.
How about you show me what we're for?
What are we for?
Where's your alternative agenda?
That's what we need to know.
What are you for?
That's the problem.
They're not for anything.
And she almost slipped earlier when she started to talk about this is a kitchen table issue.
Yeah.
That most Americans are sitting around.
Well, not most of them are starving or out of a job.
You know, like she had to catch herself.
Yes, I saw that too.
So that's it.
So I thought that was great.
And I wanted to see if I could get close to her at the California Democratic Convention this weekend so I could shout that question at her.
What's your net worth, Nancy?
Do you think 100 millionaire should be the leader of the People's Party?
Don't you see a problem with this?
And I couldn't get an earshot of her.
I didn't see her.
How about Diane?
She had a breakfast meeting.
Get this.
7 a.m. to 8 a.m.
That's breakfast with Diane.
Diane Feinstein.
She didn't have the lunch with anybody.
She had a breakfast.
And when?
7 a.m.
So you got to get up at 6 in the freaking morning to go to go have breakfast with Diane Feinstein.
Listen, yeah, I value my sleep.
Yeah.
You know, what was she going to tell?
You know, and of course, if anybody yelled, the room would tell you to be quiet.
Yeah, of course.
Because please, you need to have deference and respect for the gazillionaire class.
That's representing you.
That's representing you.
The servants of the people.
You have to don't make them serve you.
So I thought that was fat.
I thought that was so.
There you go.
You want to know what's wrong with the Democratic Party?
There it is right there.
And, you know, she loves to brag that she's the biggest fundraiser in the Democratic Party, even though Hillary Clinton outspent Donald Trump two to one, still lost.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz knows that people, she's bad on TV.
The WikiLeaks reveal that.
Everyone knows she's by bad on TV.
What does that mean?
That means when you go on TV, it has a negative effect on whatever you're proposing.
Like if you're there in defense of Obamacare, it makes people hate Obamacare more.
It makes them want it less.
If you're the person advocating for it, it hurts.
So whatever you're trying to do, you are not likable.
People, don't you hurt your cause by being by you being the face of it.
And yet they still do it.
Debbie Wasserman Schultz still goes on CNN all the time.
Still goes on MSNBC.
Here's Nancy Pelosi.
People know that she's repulsive.
I'm going to say that three-quarters of the country at this point.
Half the party is progressive.
They don't like her.
So she's left.
And none of the Republicans like her.
That's the other half of the country.
So she's left with a quarter of the corporate.
She's left with the corporate Democrats liking her.
So a quarter of her own, half of her own party, which is a quarter of the voting electorate, like her.
That's your leader.
And I don't even know how much they like her.
And she had just cheated.
She's cheated Stephen Jaffe.
Just cheated Stephen Jaffe in the primary.
I don't want to go into it, but it has to do with the Democratic Party endorsement.
And Stephen Jaffe had to get 37 signatures of Democratic delegates to make sure that she couldn't get the endorsement.
He got those signatures.
They just changed the rules.
Oh, we need UD38 now.
They said after the deadline.
So they're still cheating.
They're still lying.
And look what a coward she is.
What a coward.
She hides behind being a mother when she's acted as direct question by a freaking citizen.
You're one of the most powerful people in the world.
Answer the goddamn question.
What are you worth?
What's your net worth?
Why is that impolite to ask?
Why do you get to ignore that question?
So, you know, we've been talking about how the Democratic, the Driple C, that's the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
They're supposed to help people get elected to Congress, Democrats.
And so we've shown you how they've been screwing over progressives.
So that's what the Democratic Party does.
They screw over progressives.
So there's a Driple C. And there's millions of examples this year from all over, right?
But here is just another example of how bad the Democrat, the Driple C is.
This is from the Intercept.
And they found memos from the Driple C sent to candidates about Medicare for all, telling them not to talk about it.
No, I'm not.
Here it is.
In the wake of the election, the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, which works to elect Democrats to the U.S. House, commissioned a survey and analysis from Greenberg Quinlan Rossner research and GBA strategies to help think through healthcare messaging.
I think Bernie had his messaging down.
Oh, yeah, again, there's a template for how to win this.
It's Bernie's campaign.
There's an MSNBC video.
You can watch it.
You can see him get a standing ovation and you can just take cliff notes about what he said.
Yeah.
Done.
There you go.
So again, this whole thing of we don't know how to, no, no.
What they want to do is find messaging that sounds progressive to fool you, but they're still corporatists and you ain't getting single payer, okay?
Because we're Democrats and we're bought.
That's what this is.
So the messaging handouts obtained by the intercept made clear where the party wants its candidates to stand when it comes to healthcare reform, preferably nowhere.
But certainly not with single-payer advocates.
The polling memorandum produced by GBA Strategies and Greenberg's firm was composed by surveying 52 so-called battleground districts, half of which are currently held by Democrats and half by Republicans.
The question that Greenberg put before Democrats to make the case against single payer, though, is a highly unusual one.
So when you say we did a poll, we found out people don't want single payer.
It's like, well, what was the question you asked them?
Did you ask people, do you want single payer?
Would you like Medicare?
Which probably gets a different response than if you ask people, do you want Medicare for all?
I bet you more people would say yes to Medicare for all than single payer because I bet you a lot of people still don't really know what single payer means, but they do know what Medicare is because their grandma has it and their grandpa has it and their parents can't wait to get to it.
Right?
Well, Jimmy, and if you conducted a research study and your conclusion from the study is, hey, don't talk about single payer, surely the question you asked folks was about single payer, right?
Well, here's the question they asked.
The question they asked, Ron, if you could change one thing about your health care or health insurance, what would it be?
Hmm.
That sounds like a totally total, mine would be, I'd like to change my health insurance agent because he's a jerk.
I don't know what that doesn't sound like, hey, do you guys want, would you like to trade in your current health care system for a new one, meaning Medicare for all?
That would be the question.
Yeah.
That's not the question they asked.
So they asked this question.
The question was not about what kind of system the voter would prefer, but a surprising 12% of the people surveyed still said they wanted their own insurance to be single payer.
So even off that crappy question, still 12% of the people said, I would like that one change, make it single-payer.
And still, even I wouldn't answer that question that way.
I'd be like, what was the one thing you want me to change about my insurance?
Well, I would like there to be some kind of a board that's actually neutral to make the decisions on treatment, like by doctors, instead of some insurance company who never sees me, who's being paid by the insurance company.
I would like a neutral body.
That would be what I would say.
I wouldn't even know that that's an option to say, oh, single payer.
Yeah.
And keep in mind, like, this is the general person.
When you ask them a question like that, they're not going to go to policy first.
Right.
You know, we talk about this stuff every day for a job.
Right.
And we wouldn't go there for that.
That's right.
Still, it's unclear what this means in context of the question beyond suggesting that at least 12% of voters are so passionate about single payer that they offered it as a non-sequitur answer because that's what that is to that.
You asked me that question.
Hey, what would you like to change about your insurance?
I go, I'd like single payer.
Those, that question, that answer doesn't go with that question.
That's a non-sequitur to that question.
It says, if you could change one thing about your healthcare or health insurance, what would it be?
And they don't give you options.
Like, would you like it to be single-payer?
Would you like it to make it cheaper, more affordable, lower premiums, deductibles, dread?
That's what most of the people said about their current insurance.
And you know how you do that?
You become single-payer.
That does all those things.
So maybe that would mean people would want single-payer because that's what accomplishes those things.
And your ideas don't.
Obamacare rates still skyrocketed.
Prescription drug prices skyrocketed, right?
Under Obamacare, 30 million people, 28 million people still left out.
12% said nothing, no complaints.
Those are really rich people who self-insure.
They don't have any problem.
Or they're on Medical.
Those might be a lot of those people who are on Medicare.
Yeah.
Medicare.
They're already on single payer.
Okay, making it single-payer universal.
So some people said, they just straight up said it.
Then make it easier to understand and less complicated.
5% of the people said make it easier and less complicated.
4% have more choices of plans.
That would also, I would put that in single payer.
Get government out of health care.
4% said that.
Who would those people be?
Yeah, I don't know.
Those aren't people on Medicare.
Yeah.
That's not those people.
Make me only pay for what I need says 2%.
That's not how insurance works.
Actually, you know what?
I bet those 4% are the people that the ACA really screwed them over.
Oh, the 4% problem.
Get government out of healthcare.
They don't think it's because of it.
And they think it's because of government.
They think it's because of the.
Yeah.
And then 1% says, get rid of individual mandate.
1%.
That's everybody under 20 years old.
So there's your Driple C. Turns out also, the Driple C advised candidates not to discuss gun control policy right after the Vegas shooting.
This is, do you understand?
I don't, people still think this party is savable.
Do you think it is, Ron, after this?
I mean, time and time again, I'm proven like, no.
Like, it's just like they're getting worse.
It seems like they're getting worse, and it seems like they have no interest in fixing the problem.
And it seems like they're set up to remain this way.
They're set up to be donor-friendly.
Yeah.
And the other thing that I want to say just about their conclusion about don't talk about single payer.
You know, in graduate school, I had to take like a research class where you basically you're taught how to conduct surveys.
And when you frame a question in a way that doesn't lead to the answer you were trying to get to, it's considered a failed survey.
And there's a phrase for it.
It's not important.
It's academic jargon anyway, but there's an actual term for that.
That's what this is.
This is if they were trying to get to don't discuss single payer, their question on how to get there was totally null and void.
It was a bad survey.
It was bad research.
They're a research agency.
They know that.
They know what's going on.
So it's almost like the Driple C is just trying to justify being against single payer.
That's exactly what this is, Ron.
Yes.
This is data.
Hey, this is where we want you guys to end up.
No single payer.
Now go do a survey and come up with that with those conclusions.
That's what they're doing.
And we're going to pay you to do it.
And if you don't do it, we won't pay you.
Tell me, right?
That's what they're saying.
It's like, there's no way you are this stupid and tone deaf.
There's just no way.
So you're just set up to fail on purpose.
So part of the memo produced by Greenberg follows up with an additional talking point for members of Congress to use back in their districts.
So after they do this bogus polling that says people don't want single payer, they then come up with talking points for congressional candidates or congresspeople to use back in their districts.
It says the Republican plan should be the focus.
Meaning if you talk to anybody in your district, focus on the Republicans plan.
Meaning don't focus on your plan, what you're offering.
Why?
Because you ain't offering them anything.
That's exactly what we've been saying all along.
The Democrats need their own agenda.
They need to push together their own agenda.
They need to all be screaming single payer, free college, end the wars, living wage, tax the banks, break up.
That's what they, and they're not.
They don't have an alternative.
That's the problem.
So there they go.
The Republican plan should be the focus.
But in terms of what Democrats would do to improve health care, the first thing they say is allow the, what you should say as a Democrat, well, we should allow the federal government to negotiate with drug companies to get a lower price on medications for people on Medicare, like the Veteran Affairs Department does.
Guess why they don't do that now?
Because the Democrats and Barack Obama gave that away to that big pharma so they could pass Obamacare.
Yeah, they could have insisted on that.
Barack Obama knuckled and the Democrats knuckled under to their doors.
We should already have this.
The Democrats already controlled Congress completely and the White House.
We should already have all this.
We didn't even negotiate with Medicaid because of Barack Obama and the Democrats.
They don't even negotiate drug prices.
Whatever the drug companies say you have to pay, we have to pay.
Number two, allow middle-class families to qualify for tax breaks to reduce their health care costs.
But stay away from specifics on which income brackets should qualify.
That's what it says.
Unbelievable.
This is the advice the Driple C gives to congressional.
Now, you wonder why half the country doesn't vote?
Do you wonder why we need a third party?
Why we need a revolution?
If pressed on how to deal with insurance companies, the following is a top-tested proposal.
Require audits of insurance companies to ensure they are reducing administrative costs.
So this is all just talking points to tell people in lieu of actually solving their problems, in lieu of actually trying to help them in the way you know you should help them.
This is what the Democrats say: bullshit your own constituents.
Bullshit them.
That's what politicians should do.
Why?
Because we're not really trying to help them.
We're trying to satisfy our corporate donors.
Oh, my God.
Hey, Tom Perez, maybe you should put your values on the ballot.
Well, I mean, especially like when you sum up those, it's like, well, we're going to cooperate with the corporations.
Yes.
And we all know, make sure administration costs are in line.
We all know that's code for let's make sure the people with no money and no power, i.e.
the employees, aren't getting paid that much.
That's right.
That's what that's code for.
So not only are these BS nonsensical talking points, they're Republican.
Yes.
Talking about that.
They're Republican.
Thank very well put it.
You know what I like to tell people, I'm just like, look, I'm not saying that we need to abandon the Democrats and start a new party because I think we need a third party.
I'm saying that because I think we need a second one.
Ah.
It goes on, this memo, it goes on.
It says, it suggests focusing on criticizing Republicans' health care plans only if asked.
You have the biggest winning argument in the world.
We're going to give you Medicare for all.
The Republicans want to take away your health care.
Boom, you win the election.
They go, don't do that.
And then you wonder why half the country doesn't vote.
Because you guys aren't offering the people anything.
That's why half the people didn't vote for Hillary Clinton, because they know they didn't vote.
That's why half the country didn't bother to vote.
So here it is, suggested talking points.
Here it is.
It says the House Republicans repealed plan takes away health care from 24 million hardworking people.
That's their talking points.
So here's their solutions, proactive solutions, only if asked.
Don't tell people your solution for health care unless they ask you specifically.
or after you lost the election.
Then you can tell them.
Driple C, this was after the Vegas shooting.
We found this memo and it says, team, last night's shooting will dominate the news today and will garner serious coverage the rest of this week.
You and your candidate will be understandably outraged and upset, as will your community.
However, this is after the Vegas shooting.
Everybody's going to be upset, which you should be.
However, however, there it says right there, don't politicize it today.
That's the Democrats telling their own candidates, don't politicize gun control the day after a massacre.
By the way, not talking about it is politicizing it.
Because if you don't talk about things when they happen, that means you're ignoring it.
You're making a political decision to ignore it, which is a political, you're politicizing that.
You're saying I'm okay with the status quo.
There's no such thing as being non-political.
It's already politicized.
It's an issue.
Now, you can choose to ignore the issue, which is one form of politicizing it, or you can address the issue, which is another form of politicizing it, because it takes politics to fix it.
And it also takes politics to keep it broken.
So there's no getting out of this.
When they say don't politicize it, they mean don't talk about a solution because we're in bed with corporations.
People still think Russia and the Democrats are the antidote to Republicanism.
The Democrats are not the antidote.
They are not the solution.
The Democrats are not going to fix your problems and they're not going to fix this country.
I can't wait to get Bernie on the show so I can ask him these questions.
They're still not.
Are you still calling them?
Yeah.
And what's up?
Haven't heard anything for a bit, but oh, really?
Yeah.
I'll keep trying.
So you know what?
I'm going to start calling him.
Yeah, I'll start calling him.
What's the guy's name you're calling?
Josh, is his Josh?
Yeah, yeah.
All right, we're going to call Josh at the Bernie Sanders campaign.
I know you're a little afraid of progressive media.
What are you, 80 years old, Josh?
Bernie's supposed to be out of touch, and you're supposed to help get him in touch, not keep him away from progressive media.
That's Josh now.
That's Josh calling me right now.
There he is.
Hey, let's set it up.
Okay, so there you go.
Now you know why half the country doesn't vote.
Now you know why we need a third party.
They're not changing.
They're getting worse.
And all those Senate Democrats who said they were for Bernie Sanders single payer, as soon as this becomes viable, they will get away from it.
They will undermine.
The Democrats in California have a filibuster, super majority.
They have the governor, Senate, and the House, and we don't have single payer.
Why?
Because Anthony Rendon is bought.
That's why.
Because the head of the party in California was to be a lobbyist for the pharmaceutical industry.
Eric, what's his name?
Bauman?
That's why.
This is why I say you got to stop voting less or too evil because they're evil.
That's why.
Because they don't want to fix your problems.
We'll vote for the puppet on the left instead of the puppet on the right.
And then we'll wag our finger at everybody else who doesn't vote to prop up a one-party corporatism, which is what this is.
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 it 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 Dore 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.
Wow, Chuck Schumer's poll ratings have taken a big dive recently.
I wonder how he's holding up.
Forgive me, Father, for I have sinned.
Senator Schumer, aren't you Jewish?
Yes.
And if that offends anybody, then by golly, they can all just go and accept my heartfelt apologies.
Seriously, I really don't want to be in any trouble to anyone.
What's happening with your poll numbers, Chuck?
They're going through a period of uncertainty, Jimmy.
We must reassure Wall Street that they're safe.
Yeah.
We must give them a nice place to lie down in front of a comfy fire with a soft pillow and then read them a little story.
They like that.
Yeah.
Only then can we reach a higher level of consciousness before Hail Pop returns.
But I'm getting ahead of myself.
But you just got your lowest numbers in more than a dozen years among New York voters in two polls last week.
I'm not going to lie to you, Jimmy, mainly because you're not registered to vote in my state.
But it's devastating.
That's not the worst of it, Jimmy.
I used to have a 55% approval rating with Republicans.
Now I'm down to 23.
Under the circumstances, maybe that's not a bad thing, right, Chuck?
But I got to get those numbers up.
Republicans need me.
But what about progressives, Chuck?
What about progressives and your own party?
Oh, nonsense.
Here's my strategy.
For every Democrat I fill with self-loathing and disappointment, I'll pick up two Republicans with my lack of basic values and warped sense of justice.
That's really inspiring, Chuck.
You bet.
And you can repeat that in Ohio and Illinois and Wisconsin.
For the people have spoken.
They sent a clear message to congressional Democrats.
And that message is to be less responsive to the needs of the average person.
Really?
I'm certain of it.
I know what I'm talking about because I've worked for years to identify with young voters.
How?
By wearing the same glasses Roger McGuinn did on the cover of Mr. Tambourine Man.
It shows that I am hip and with it and not Squaresville like my honorable and respected colleagues across the aisle.
Do you have a party slogan ready yet?
Yes.
We're not the other guys and we're not us guys either.
We're really not anybody any longer.
So vote for nobody.
That's great, Chuck.
Welcome to my Jingle Jangle Morning, Daddy O. Hi, everybody.
Welcome to the Jimmy Door show.
I want to just show you now, you know, that everybody in the mainstream news media and even some lefty news shows have their hair on fire because 13 Twitter trolls completely threw the election.
I didn't know.
Did you know that?
$5 billion in free advertising to Donald Trump can't match 13 Twitter trolls who don't even know the language.
And let's remember how powerful they were.
It took a CBS news host.
This is John Podesta, Hillary Clinton's campaign manager, CBS news host.
Some impact.
But it does beg the question, how is it that these Russian operatives knew to focus on purple states like Michigan and Wisconsin, and your campaign didn't.
Bam!
Okay, so now we know.
But what I really want to talk to you today about, because that's how it's stupid it is to blame the election on 13 Twitter trolls.
This is James Risen.
He was prosecuted by the United States for revealing secrets, secrets, criminal secrets that the government was doing.
So he's a great reporter, and he wrote this.
He wrote this, is Donald Trump a traitor?
And it's in the intercept, which is bogus that he wrote that.
And it's stupid that he used that headline.
In fact, he was told so by Glenn Greenwald.
They had an hour-long debate over stuff like this, James Risen and Glenn Greenwald, since they both work for the intercept.
And I'm just going to show you a little bit of it, why it's not treason, and why I don't think debating stuff like this is very helpful.
So here's Glenn Greenwald telling you why it's not treason.
Jim wrote, quote, if a presidential candidate or his lieutenant secretly work with a foreign government that is a longtime adversary of the United States to manipulate and then win a presidential election, that is almost a textbook definition of treason.
That's what James Risen wrote.
So, and here we go.
Not just wrong, but dangerously wrong, that statement and that idea, that it's almost a textbook definition of treason.
It's completely not a textbook definition of treason.
And it's extremely important to be careful about what treason does and doesn't mean.
And there was a fantastic article just from two days ago by Stephen Vladek, who's a professor of law at the University of Texas, who on NBC's website wrote a really great article about why it's so dangerous to throw the word treason around recklessly in cases where it clearly doesn't apply.
And he meant it in two senses.
One, Trump had just said that maybe the Democrats were traitors for not standing and clapping for all of the great things that are happening to the United States.
And then the other one is that Trump might be a traitor for colluding with the Russians.
And what Professor Vladek said, and he's a really ardent opponent of Trump, is he examined the history of treason in the United States.
And he said, quote, the mere existence of this question of whether Trump is a traitor underscores the need for a long overdue moratorium on the blithe characterization of things as treason.
And for all of us to be far more careful when using that term to describe conduct that we believe is some combination of reprehensible, criminal, and perhaps even impeachable.
As Jim acknowledges in the article, the Constitution defines treason.
It's not a vague crime.
It's one of the most specific crimes.
And the Constitution went out of its way to define what treason is.
It doesn't define what murder is.
It doesn't define rape or pedophilia, but it does define treason.
And it says treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.
And what Professor Vladdick said is that, contrary to Jim's suggestion in the article, that, well, it's kind of a vague term, so we don't really know if collusion would fit into it, it's actually not vague at all.
And he cited a federal appeals court in 1986 who explained, quote, the reason for the restrictive definition of treason is apparent from the historical backdrop of the treason cause.
The framers of the Constitution were reluctant to facilitate such prosecutions because they were well aware of abuses and they themselves were traitors in the eyes of England.
As a result, treason is, in some respects, the most specific crime in our legal system and certainly among the hardest to prove.
And then he went on to apply it to this question of whether Trump could be a traitor if he colluded with Russia.
And what Vladdick says is, quote, because of this history, a lot of things that might seem or feel like treason to casual observers do not in fact come close.
In this context, enemies, for example, must be countries against which Congress has formally declared war or otherwise authorized the use of force.
So contemporary Russia is out, whatever role it might have played in the 2016 election.
Even during the height of the Cold War, Vladdick writes, when Julius and Ethel Rosenberg were tried, convicted, and executed for conveying nuclear secrets to the Soviet Union, the charge against them was espionage, not treason.
And that's because we weren't at war with the Soviet Union.
And so he concludes, by those metrics, it should be obvious why it is not treason to either refuse to applaud the president or to collude with Russia to influence the outcome of a presidential election.
To be sure, the latter one is worse, but treason is a crime indicating the clear support of our enemies during wartime, period.
That's it.
So when that guy wrote that article, he's an award-winning journalist, James Risen.
He knows better.
You would think he knows better.
And he just had it explained to him by Glenn Greenwald.
He just had it explained to him.
So whenever you see someone throw the treason term around, remember they're using it recklessly.
Just like every almost all commentary about this Russia collusion and Trump is completely reckless, hyperbolic, and dangerous.
Why?
Because A, it's being used to silence the left like it's always been.
B, they're attacking Trump from the right because he has to show he's not a traitor, so he has to bomb somebody.
That's what's happening.
So now they're ratcheting up tensions with a Cold War, with a nuclear power.
So now Trump, Trump has to be more muscular in his response to Russia and Syria, or else he's a traitor.
These are horrible, horrible things.
And that's when you start throwing that word around recklessly the way James Risen is.
there's no doubt in the world that it's not treason.
He just laid it out for you in three different ways.
Now, the reason why I don't like to do debates like this is because of the way Jim Risen responds.
Now, Glenn has one more ironic fact he wants to give to James Risen, and here it is.
There's an irony to this, which is that when I first started writing about politics in 2005 and 2006, one of the main reasons that I stopped practicing on, started writing about politics is because I was so disturbed about the political climate of the United States.
And one of the things I was most concerned about was that at the time, journalists who were revealing secrets about the war on terror were routinely being accused of being traitors.
James Risen was one of those journalists revealing secrets.
Okay.
And even prosecution was commonly advocated for them.
That was true of Jim and Eric Lickbau's story exposing surveillance programs, the New York Times story exposing Swift, Dana Priest's story exposing black sites.
And the argument at the time was these journalists are giving aid and comfort to our enemies, Al-Qaeda, by showing them how we're tracking their finances, how we're spying on their calls, how we're detaining them.
And I found that argument so revolting and repellent for the reasons I just said.
The irony, though, is in that case, they actually had a better argument for these reporters having committed treason because we really were at war with al-Qaeda.
There really was a congressional declaration authorizing the use of force, unlike in the case of Russia, where we're not at war with Russia.
President Obama called them our partner.
And so I think to even insinuate that this is a case of treason is extremely dangerous and unwise.
Okay, so now you just saw him break it down twice why it's bad to call this treason.
And so this is why these debates aren't helpful.
Here's how he responds to that.
You think he would say, you're right, I'm wrong.
And I'm sorry I did that.
If I could retract it, I would.
Let's see what he does say.
Not at war with Russia.
President Obama called them our partner.
And so I think to even insinuate that this is a case of treason is extremely dangerous and unwise.
All right, go ahead.
Let's get to this paper going on.
What you've just expressed leads me back to what I have come to think about the way you write about the Trump and Russia story.
I don't know if there was a New York magazine story about you and reading a lot of your writings.
Many times what you do is you criticize the political or journalistic points of view of either the writer or a politician who's talking about Trump in Russia fairly and often validly, but you don't deal with the underlying issue of the substance of the Trump and Russia case.
For instance, just now, you made a valid criticism of the use of the word treason.
Okay, I'm going to stop it there because he's not responding to what Glenn said at all.
He's just changing the subject to talk about something else.
And that's how these things always go.
He just goes, oh, and then in the middle, he says, you just made a valid criticism.
Really?
You didn't acknowledge it.
You didn't go, that's a great point, Glenn.
And you're right.
And let's, so let's move on to another point.
That's not what he did.
He didn't address it at all.
He moved on to another point and then he kind of sideway addresses it.
That's what these, that's why these things aren't helpful.
So by the way, he just said that.
He just said that you made a valid criticism, but then he, let's see what else he says.
But you didn't deal with the underlying issue of, do you believe that the Russians intervened in the 2016 election?
So no matter what you say, they just moved the gold posts.
No, we're talking about this.
And you're going, yeah, but you just don't, we're talking about this.
And he just moved the gold posts.
So he just changes it.
And now here, so now watch this.
This is also very interesting.
So that's why these things aren't helpful.
That's why I watched Kyle debate Jenk Uger over this exact topic.
It went almost exactly the same.
And they never concede.
Like, that's right.
All right.
So that point, check.
Let's move on.
They didn't.
But watch what happens here.
Passage of your article saying that you thought that if this case could be proven, this is a textbook definition of treason.
And I still believe in what?
Facts be damned.
I believe it.
Facts be damned.
Everything you just said, everything I just said in that first segment, forget about out the window.
He just, so that's why these things aren't helpful.
So no matter how many facts you throw in his face, A, he's not going to acknowledge.
He didn't acknowledge it.
He goes, well, it's a valid criticism as you didn't acknowledge everything he said.
He couldn't have laid the case out any better.
He took almost five full minutes to read you definitions of why it's not treason, why it can't be.
And then he goes, well, it's a valid criticism.
And then he just, here, I'll play for you again.
Passage of your article saying that you thought that if this case could be proven, this is a textbook definition of treason.
And I still believe.
So that's why this, this, that's worthwhile.
I'm here with Ron Placone.
Ron?
Yeah, well, this is sort of a thing.
You mentioned how, like, well, now the left is attacking Trump from the right.
They're also attacking parts of the left from the right, too.
Yes.
Like, whenever you ask critical questions about what's going on in Russia Gate and how there's some cyclical effects that are very, very not okay, you're called a Trump sympathizer or a Putin puppet.
That's the equivalent of, well, you're not with us.
You're with the terrorists.
That's you're either with us.
Or when you're called not a patriot.
Like, aren't you going to be a patriot?
Well, I'm asking critical questions.
That's what I'm doing.
Right.
So that's why I'm not big on these kind of debates.
You just saw what happened.
Glenn could not have been any crystal clearer about what happened.
And Jeremy Scahill's sitting there.
And another great thing.
By the way, these are all three great journalists.
So I'm not, but Jeremy Scahill is doing as good a job as he can.
I don't think I would do a better job.
But the problem is, I think you need a scorekeeper.
So Jeremy Casey's going, wait a minute, we're talking about your use of the word treason.
And I think we have to concede to Glenn's point on this, right?
They didn't do that.
There's no scorekeeper, which is what was also missing in Kyle Kalinsky's debate.
There's no scorekeeper to go, okay, now we can move on.
So then it just gets all bungled.
So finally, I don't know, 14 or 15 minutes into this conversation, James Risen actually decides to answer the question or answer or talk to the topic, which is treason.
And is it wrong for him to use treason in this conversation, which it is.
It's already been laid out that it is.
And so now, now, again, now watch what he comes back with.
This is unbelievable almost.
It's a question.
I didn't say, I didn't give an answer.
I said that it's a question whether he's a traitor.
I didn't say, yes, he is a trader.
I'm just asking questions.
I'm like, I'm just asking, did Jill Stein, did you sit at a table with, put on You can't just say, I'm asking if he committed treason in the headline of an article.
I'm just asking.
What the?
That's like if someone said that about you.
Hey, how about if I put a headline in the New York Times?
Did James Risen, is he a traitor?
That's okay.
So that's just mind-blowing.
And here, here it goes.
There's more.
There's more to this.
Look at the issues of the if you are a presidential candidate, you collaborate with a foreign government, an adversary.
Granted, it's not an enemy of the United States.
And under the legal definition of treason, that may be one reason why it would never be considered treason.
It might never be considered treason because, you know, it's not.
That might be one of the reasons that they don't consider it treason is because it's not.
That's what he just said.
That might be one of the reasons they don't consider it is because it literally isn't treason.
But watch this, gets worse.
As you said, as you pointed out, but the idea that if you're a presidential candidate and you get elected, but whatever.
Colluding with an adversary of the United States, I think most Americans would think, in the common usage of that term, that that would be treason.
First of all, there's two point problems here.
The first problem is everybody colludes with everybody to get dirt on their Hillary Clinton colluded with a foreign spy from England who colluded with people inside the Kremlin to get dirt on Donald Trump.
That happened.
The exact thing they're accusing him of, they did it.
The second problem is it's commonly used, commonly misused.
So here, Glenn gets to that.
Now, I'm not saying that Donald Trump is a traitor, but there is no definition of treason or traitor besides the legal definition.
Yeah, well, I think you're wrong about that.
There's another guy.
Ron, I don't know if you know, there's another definition for treason outside the legal definition.
And it's exclusively in this guy's article, apparently.
And that's the thing.
He just kind of read, he said his own boundaries for terms in the headline.
You can't do that.
Now, he could have written an article, and the title of that article should have been, We Need to Redefine Treason for the Modern Age, right?
That's something like that.
And that would have been like, okay, that's an interesting point of view.
Let's see what.
And then use this as an example, gone through his point of view on it.
That's a fine article to write, but that probably wouldn't get MSNT coverage or anything like that.
That's probably right.
Let's listen to watch the rest of this.
It's a really dangerous standard.
No, I think that's a good idea.
I think there's a common usage and a legal standard.
I think it's a really dangerous standard.
I said in my piece of say that, okay, well, maybe treason and being a traitor doesn't apply in the legal sense, but a lot of Americans think that it would apply in a colloquial sense.
You know what?
I can guarantee you, and I'm sure there's polling to support this, in fact, that in 2006 and in 2007, a lot of Americans believed that the New York Times was guilty of treason.
He was exposing secrets.
And he's just very, he says, yeah, a lot of people wanted to call me a traitor.
And he says, yep, a lot of people want to put me in a job.
Yeah, that's why it's horrible, Tim.
People are going to go to jail over it, Jim.
That's why it's horrible.
Yeah.
That were designed to help Al-Qaeda learn about the U.S. And so I think it's incredibly dangerous, especially for a journalist who writes about classified programs to say, hey, when we're talking about treason and being a traitor, let's not use this careful constitutional definition.
Let's just be colloquial about it and take a poll and figure out whether or not people kind of like the behavior.
And if they don't like it, let's just maybe suggest someone's.
That's exactly why I think it's so dangerous.
We can disagree on that point.
What the f are you disagreeing about?
Well, I think you can't disagree about that.
So he again, he just, you were like what you said.
He just makes up his own universe.
He makes up his own language, his own pair, his own goalposts.
He makes up his own parameters.
He makes up his own definitions of words and terms and then goes, well, I'll just disagree with the actual definition, Ron.
Well, Glenn Greenwald's being a bit of a sickler by assuming that journalists should be careful with the language they use.
And so that's how the, that's why I'm just saying, because people keep telling me, you should debate people.
You should debate people.
This is how it goes.
And you can be a slick debater.
He's being kind of a slick debater where he's, again, he's not answering.
He's not, I don't think he's being an honest debater here.
I think he's doing everything he can to try to cover his ass and cover his point of view.
And he's completely, it's, I don't, well, the reason why I'm showing you this is because I think it's undeniable what's happening here.
And it's only undeniable, but it's not deniable to him because he apparently could do any kind of mental gymnastics required to make his position correct, which he's doing right here, left and effing right.
Left and effing.
And so that's why I don't go.
People, I'm not that I won't debate someone or I don't go on Paguan panels all the time, but I'm just saying people like, well, you know, like when I keep going back to when Kyle debated Jenk Uger, that was so unsatisfying.
It's just as unsatisfying as this is.
So for the same exact reasons, because direct questions never get answered.
They can always talk about something else.
They go, I agree with you, but it's that, but you don't.
And there needs to be a scorekeeper.
I wish that Jeremy Scale was like, wait a minute, you're wrong on treason.
We have to agree.
You're wrong, James, on that 100%.
That needs to happen and it's not happening.
And if that doesn't happen, then these conversations aren't as useful as they could be.
Treason.
And we showed you the video where the MSNBC hosted a McCarthy smear against Jill Stein and she just told her facts.
And then all the headlines were Jill Stein melts down.
It was unbelievable.
Jill Stein just with a smile on her face couldn't be more controlled, calm, and collected and just pushed back that every BS thing that that host was saying.
And so they're doing the same kind of smear to Jeremy Corbyn in the UK.
It's not working.
They're trying to say that he was, he worked with a communist spy and Chat Kosva.
It's all kinds of stuff, right?
What it means is they're afraid.
Why would they bother to smear Jill Stein?
Why would you bother to smear Jill Stein?
Because you're afraid that she might take votes away from the Democrats.
That's why.
Why would you bother to smear Jeremy Corbyn?
Because he's fucking a threat to the power.
He's a threat to the establishment.
So here's a guy from the BBC.
Now, I'm not a biggest fan of the BBC.
They're usually pretty junky, but this guy's going to push back against these McCarthy smears of Jeremy Corbyn.
And it's like, you would never see this on American TV.
But here's this.
Corbyn has, quote, betrayed his country.
In what way?
Well, the defense secretary's chosen his own words.
So if you see these newspapers back there, that's all the headlines.
And I'll read a couple of them to you.
Corbin, the collaborator.
That's in the Daily Mail.
So it's all, that's the Daily Telegraph.
So that's all the headlines that are smearing him.
Headlines.
Headlines, by the way.
And so they have them all there, and they're all there in a montage or a collage.
So he's asking him straight questions, which I love.
Corbyn has, quote, betrayed his country.
In what way?
Well, the Defense Secretary's chosen his own words.
I mean, the point for me about this debacle is a wiggle of his country.
Well, Jeremy Corbyn, I think, is a grave danger to this country, but that's because he's a very good idea.
Has he betrayed the country?
That's because of the ideas in which he believes and what that would mean for our economy and our society.
People have all sorts of ideas.
But your defense secretary, our defense secretary, the defense secretary of this government of our government, has said the leader of Her Majesty's opposition has betrayed his country.
In what way has he betrayed his country?
Well, that really is a question for Gavin Williamson.
That's not the way.
You don't agree with it?
Well, I'm not really commenting on the...
I think that Jeremy Corbyn is a grave danger to our country.
That's a political point.
That's a different.
Of course you do.
Everybody in one party thinks the other party is a grave danger.
Betrayal is an entirely different matter.
That's a serious accusation.
I just point out that a senior figure in the Czech Republic Defense Ministry says Sarkozy, who is the former Czech spy, that's his real name, is a liar.
That's the exact word.
The director of the Czech archives on security says no files show Mr. Corbyn cooperating with Czech intelligence.
The German archivists say there are no Stasi files on Mr. Corbyn at all.
So I ask again, in what sense has Mr. Corbyn betrayed this country?
Well, Andrew, I'm not going to comment on that.
As you've suggested, this is an area where there's lots of questions to answer.
We've got a free press in this country.
The free press is asking the questions.
They should be answered.
Yeah, but it's not just the free press.
Your fellow Tories are all piling in as a result.
Your security minister, again, the key word security minister.
He's compared Mr. Corbyn to Kim Philby.
Kim Philby was a traitor.
At the time, if he had been found guilty, he would have been hanged.
That's an outrageous smear to say of the leader of the opposition.
Well, Andrew, I'm not going to allow you to draw me into potentially libeling anybody, and so I'm not going to comment on it.
So you don't agree with that either.
Well, you don't agree with the defense minister.
You don't agree with the security minister.
This is classic dead cat strategy, isn't it?
The government's on the ropes on a whole range of issues from NHS crisis, children services are in crisis.
I've got the government on the ropes and you've just interrupted.
So that's trying to.
Let me try and keep him on the ropes.
A Tory backbencher, MP, Ben Bradley, he tweeted that Mr. Corbyn had, quote, sold British secrets to communist spies, sold British secrets to communist spies, so clearly without evidence that he then had to delete it.
Well, that really is a matter for Ben.
But what I would say to you is that we believe in a free press in this country.
The questions have been asked.
And the questions need to be answered.
I'm asking.
And do you think that Mr. Corbyn can be compared to Kim Philby?
Do you think that he has in any way betrayed this country?
Do you think he sold British secrets?
Do you think any of that?
I've got no evidence for any of that, and so I won't make it.
Why do your colleagues?
Well, that's a matter for them, Andrew.
Surely the real scandal, Mr. Baker, isn't what Mr. Corbyn has supposedly done or not done.
It's the outright lies and disinformation that your fellow Tories are spreading.
That's the real scandal, isn't it?
Yes.
That's the real scandal.
And by the way, it's backfiring in the UK.
Didn't work.
This smear of Jeremy Corbyn did not work.
All the newspapers can print all that stuff.
Now you know why people don't trust the news.
Now you know why people get their news from YouTube.
Same thing in the United States.
People wanted to get news about Bernie Sanders.
They saw how they were bullish.
New York Times blamed him for Steve Scalise's shooting.
People see that's why people don't trust.
And that's why when Trump says fake news, it lands.
Well, maybe because every other month they have to fire a bunch of reporters who got a story wrong about Trump.
That's another maybe reason why it lands because they keep getting stuff wrong about him in the same way always.
So wouldn't that be nice to see it?
But what we get in the United States, we get the opposite.
We don't get a guy pushing back against the government smears.
In the United States, we get someone doing the smear, and the politician has to fact-check the goddamn reporter.
You think I'm kidding?
So here is what's been happening in the United States.
There's some straight-up.
That's Ari Melber from MSNBC.
He's not doing what the BBC guy did.
He's doing the exact opposite.
He's doing the dirty work that politicians usually do.
He's smearing.
He says Bernie Sanders' response to Mueller's indictment does not address that this Russian operation tried to help his campaign per the indictment.
Just as I reported Ari Trump, that is a remarkable omission.
What a complete.
No, you have you no shame, Ari.
Have you no dignity, sir?
And I don't care what the fuck you say or how many mental gymnastics you do to justify that.
That's disgusting.
And to think that, did you ever think the day you decided you wanted to be a journalist that you'd be doing McCarthy smears?
When you watched Good Night and Good Luck, did you ever think that you'd be the bad guy in that movie?
Because you are.
So now you know why we have a show.
Now you know why Jagoff nightclub comedians can't just be jagoff nightclub comedians because we got just tools of evil pretending that they're news people and that they're doing good work instead of exactly what that is, just bullshit.
And boy, do I not want to be in their club.
I could not want to be not in their club.
I can't say not enough in that sense.
I not don't want to not ever not be in their not club, not ever.
Would you want to be in that club at a party?
Hey, when you were smearing that Jill Stein, that was great.
That was great.
How much did they pay you?
Five grand a day, 10 grand a day?
20 grand a day?
That's fantastic.
Oof.
Oof.
PHONE RINGS PHONE RINGS Hi, this is Jimmy.
Jimmy, this is Senator Bernie Sanders from Vermont.
How are you?
Senator Sanders, it's good to hear from you.
What are you up to?
Well, Jimmy, actually, synthesized, I'm partaking in a little medical marijuana.
Oh, really?
What's ailing you?
Not being high.
A little medical marijuana.
I just put on some records.
A little Big Brother and the Holding Company.
Flying Burrito Brothers.
Quicksilver Messenger Service.
Good stuff.
Wow, what's going on, Bernie?
I'm getting back to my roots, Jimmy.
It's my ritual that I have when I need to return myself to first principles.
Because me and some other senators are going to be starting to question our country's role in Yemen and other places abroad.
Jimmy, do you know what's going on in Yemen?
Yeah, we've covered that topic here on the Jimmy Door show.
Right, it's Bernadette.
and you don't hear peep about it on CNN.
So, me and the boys are trying to dust off this whole anti-war thing and see if it still runs.
Okay, remember that?
Remember that whole anti-war part of the left?
Hey, you know, there's a lot more to that phone call, but we don't have time in today's podcast.
How do you hear the entire phone call?
You got to become a premium member.
Go to JimmyDoorComedy.com, sign up.
It's the most affordable premium program in the business.
Hey, today's show is written.
That's right, it was written by Jim Earle, Ron Placone, Steph Samurano, Frank Conniff, and Mike McRae.
All the voices today performed by the one and the only, the inimitable Mike McRae, who can be found at MikeMcRae.com.
That's it for this week.
Until next week, we'll see you March 26th in Austin.
New show added, and March 30th in Burbank, California.
▲
Export Selection