Jimmy Dore Show - 20210527_TJDS_20210526_Podcast

All Episodes

Previous Next

May 27, 2021 - Jimmy Dore Show

01:08:18

20210527_TJDS_20210526_Podcast

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Get ready for an outstanding entertainment program.
	The Jimmy Dore Show.
	Hello.
	Hey, man, it's me, Joe Biden.
	Got a minute?
	Yeah.
	Because I got some good news and bad news.
	Good news is two doses of the COVID vaccine provide protection against a new variant in India.
	What's the bad news, Joe?
	We're not in India.
	Yeah.
	Look, I'm no scientist, you know?
	But for some reason, you have to either be in India for the vaccine to work against the variant, or it's got to be from two different vaccines.
	I pledge we'll get back to you on that.
	Two different ones?
	Now, that's not even true, Joe.
	You're spreading misinformation.
	No, I'm not fat.
	I read it somewhere.
	Which vaccines then?
	The AMC PACER and the McGrib sandwich.
	But the McGrib's not coming out till July 4th.
	Just in time for barbecue season.
	So get ready.
	Keep an eye out and stay aware.
	If you see something, say something.
	Joe, are you okay?
	You seem confused.
	You don't know if I'm confused.
	I remember everything.
	I got mine like a steel something.
	I'm sharp as something that's usually associated with sharpness.
	My intellectual acuity is unparalleled compared to acuteness.
	Arm wrestle me.
	I don't want to arm wrestle you, Joe.
	Yeah, I didn't think so.
	I'm the fittest president you'll ever not arm wrestle.
	Sharp as attack and well-dressed, which I still do myself.
	Speaking of intellectual acuity, you ran for president on the public option in student loan forgiveness.
	Ah, we've stopped, man.
	What you first have to understand is number one.
	Hear me out.
	You explicitly ran on the public option, you asshole, and eliminating student loan debt, fuckface liar.
	Hey, now.
	You far left just got to realize that I feel your pain.
	Joe Biden's a proud father.
	Yeah.
	Even prouder grandfather.
	Proud liar.
	And an even prouder wife.
	You're a proud liar.
	My American family's flat plan is a once-in-a-lifetime investment in the foundations of our prosperity.
	Education.
	I mean, education and health care, healthcare, and something else dealing with children.
	Whatever those are.
	What about hunger?
	And what about laughter?
	Does anyone remember laughter?
	I can hear it now.
	The laughter of children taking off their masks.
	Going to the mall to see Gallagher.
	Jesus Christ.
	I even met with George Lloyd's family at the White House.
	Floyd, George Floyd.
	Come on, man.
	I was active in the civil rights movement.
	Yeah.
	Took a part in sit-ins.
	No, you didn't, liar.
	But I was arrested in South Africa on my way to visit Nelson Mandela.
	That never happened, liar.
	Fair enough.
	But every time I ran for president, I received the endorsement of the NAACP.
	Nope.
	You did not.
	How about Triple-A?
	Okay, that sounds believable, actually.
	I know, man.
	And that's why we're opening up stronger and better.
	Joe's back to shaking hands and sniffing hair.
	Normalcy, man.
	Normalcy.
	Do you even remember how bad normalcy was?
	I don't even remember what your question was.
	It's like my Pez Secretary said, workers are not permitted to refuse suitable work and continue to receive unemployment benefits.
	And leave my son alone.
	Did I answer all your questions?
	No, but that's expected.
	Thanks for calling, Joe.
	I never called you Joe.
	Stop it, man.
	Hey, sorry for my nap.
	Don't forget, we're all in this nap together.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Establishment media sets of artists fighting.
	So good luck with bullshit they can't afford.
	Watch and see as a jackdoll comedian who speeds and jumps comedium and hits him head on.
	It's the Jimmy Door show.
	So guess what?
	The squad finally coordinated their votes, but not in the way you think.
	You know how they would never vote together as a block and use their leverage?
	And everybody gave me shit for pointing that out last December in January, and now everybody else is pointing that out.
	Well, guess what?
	They did.
	They finally coordinated.
	Devastating news.
	This dangerous bill passed 213 to 212 with Representative AOC, Rashid Talib, and Jamal Bowman abandoning their positions and voting present instead of against it, thus supporting giving cops more money and weapons to use against the most vulnerable people.
	So they voted for a bill that gave almost $2 billion more dollars to this Capitol police.
	So they were running around saying defund the police for a whole year.
	And then when they got a chance to vote for it, they voted to refund them, upfund them, especially for $2 billion.
	Not $2 billion in student loan relief, not $2 billion in extra Medicaid, not $2 billion in infrastructure spending, not $2 billion in a jobs program, not $2 billion, nothing.
	$2 billion, they're going to hire more cops to protect AOC and the squad.
	Well, all the Democrats.
	So that's what this vote was.
	And what did they do?
	They voted present.
	So it would pass 213 to 212.
	Just enough of them voted present.
	Just enough.
	So they coordinated.
	They coordinated.
	So three of them voted for it.
	I mean, three of them voted against it.
	And then three of them voted present.
	So they coordinated.
	Here's Corey Bush.
	Investing more money in policing is always bad, actually.
	She said that on May 21st.
	Well, you should tell your three colleagues that.
	Yeah, they were the ones who needed to hear it.
	You don't need to tweet that.
	You need to tell those three people who voted present.
	Glenn Greenwald says the only reason Pelosi's more capital police funding bill passed is because AOC, Jamal Bowman, and Rashid Talib spent a year demanding to fund the police for everyone else, but then did what they had to, voted present to ensure they got more police funding for themselves.
	To fund the police, to fund the police, to fund the police.
	Oh, wait, what's that?
	Pelosi, Schumer, and the Democrats want $1.9 billion more in spending for the Capitol Police to protect us.
	Hell yeah.
	Tell us what we have to do to make that happen.
	It's one of the most cynical, opportunistic, and deceitful things I've seen in a while, says Glenn Greenwald.
	Credit to Corey Bush, Ilhan Omar, and Ayanna Presley for voting with all GOP House members to try to stop this bill.
	But at least three squad members ensured more police funding.
	I forgot about AOC's attack on Tulsi Gabbard.
	Do you remember this?
	So when they were impeaching Donald Trump, which was, again, also bullshit, ridiculous.
	Theater.
	Theater over Russia Gate, Tulsi Gabbert voted present.
	And they attacked her for it.
	I forgot that AOC's attack on Tulsi Gabbard for voting president on Trump's impeachment, saying a present vote is a violation of leadership duties.
	This makes AOC's present vote yesterday on the 1.9 billion capital police spending bill even more craven.
	Is the DSA holding her feet to the fire on this?
	Of course not.
	Of course not, the DSA.
	Do you even know who runs the DSA?
	No.
	Why?
	Because they don't want you to know because they're fucking you over and over.
	And they're not doing anything except sheep herding progressive energy into this bullshit party.
	Where's their DSA statement on this bill?
	Where is it?
	It's fucking nowhere.
	And this is the exact thing she called out Tulsi Gabbard for, and here they are doing it themselves.
	You think I'm kidding?
	Here it is.
	We are sent here to lead.
	AOC Hammers Tulsi Gabbard for voting president on impeachment.
	Alexandria Khrera chided House colleague Tulsi Gabbard for refusing to vote in favor of President Trump's impeachment.
	Today was very consequential, she said.
	And to not take a stand one way or another on a day of such great consequence to this country, I think is quite difficult.
	We are sent here to lead, AOC said.
	The New York Democrat then added, whenever we have a vote, we should vote yes and we should vote no.
	Voting present is a very tough position to be in.
	Wow.
	There you go.
	Here we go.
	Could you please take this opportunity to explain your recent vote of present on the Capitol Security Supplemental Bill?
	Yes.
	So I appreciate this question.
	This was a.
	Okay, I appreciate this question.
	Do you think she appreciates this question?
	What's what?
	Here we go.
	Very tough vote.
	I appreciate your question.
	I appreciate your question as code for damn it.
	I was hoping nobody would bring this up.
	Could you please take this opportunity to explain your recent vote of present on the Capitol Security Supplemental Bill?
	Yes.
	So I appreciate this question.
	This was a very tough vote.
	Why?
	Why was this a tough vote?
	Are you guys for defunding the police or not?
	And there are areas of this bill that I strongly oppose to, that I'm strongly opposed to.
	One was this authorization under the National Guard of a new quick response force.
	You know, I think that this is an attempt to try to get around what we saw as a critical failure that day, which was the failure to launch the National Guard in time.
	And I believe that that delay came from the top.
	And I believe that.
	If that delay came from the top, he's gone.
	Why are you giving them more money?
	If that delay of the National Guard, if that came from the top, why are you giving them more money?
	What we really need to do is address the breakdown in democracy, essentially.
	But could I just tell you, there is nothing less democratic than our policing system in the United States.
	So, so.
	But I think that I'm strongly opposed to the authorization of that new force.
	But you voted for the Federal Bureau of Prisons requested funding as well.
	And you voted for that.
	And there was some allocation for facial recognition technology.
	And you voted for this.
	Which I am also strongly, strongly opposed to.
	And you voted for it.
	Oh, you voted present, which is the equivalent of voting for it.
	On many different grounds.
	One, the technology is not reliable.
	Two, it disproportionately targets its algorithms, disproportionately target people of color and say that and identify people of color as criminals when they are not.
	And, you know, the bias of the programming of the programmer goes into the programming, even if that bias is subconscious.
	And so I'm strongly opposed to facial recognition technology.
	So she just gave us a shit ton of reasons why you should be against this bill, why she strongly, strongly, strongly opposes this bill.
	Yet she didn't vote against it.
	Isn't that interesting?
	Shouldn't you be voting against shit?
	Where is the reason why you voted present?
	I haven't heard it yet.
	Have you heard it yet?
	No.
	I haven't heard it yet.
	Well, it comes at the end and that's where it gets interesting.
	Okay, here we go.
	So for the intents of for the purposes of that, of those allocations, I knew that I could not vote for this bill.
	I could not vote for it.
	And, you know, I think the decision and going between voting no and voting present was one that a lot of us were really struggling with up until literally the very last and so it was one that was very difficult because I don't want to deny people the overtime that they've worked.
	I don't want to deny people the mental health care that their existing employment does not, employment arrangement does not provide for.
	And so that is kind of where we had landed there.
	But if you believe that I should have.
	She voted to give $2 billion more to the police and along with all that bullshit with facial recognition and targeting because she cares about cops overtime pay.
	Well, and that's the thing.
	I mean, that is kind of just a deflection talking point.
	And that's why I said, like, that's where it gets interesting because she gives you all these reasons why she should not have voted for this bill.
	Like, no one should vote for this bill, which, by the way, they're all good reasons.
	There's a lot of good reasons not to vote for this freaking thing.
	And then she kind of just skates over these reasons why she voted president.
	And by the way, I believe it was Ilhan Omar who was one of the folks who voted against the bill.
	And she brings up that the bill doesn't even do those things.
	You mean the good things?
	Yeah, the good things that AOC mentioned, why she voted present.
	You mean for the mental health and the overtime days?
	Yes.
	So she just, so AOC is just making that up.
	So there is nothing.
	There's no reason for her to vote present.
	She can't get, just like it gets forced to vote.
	The reasons she gave against forced to vote, they were all ridiculous.
	The first one was ridiculous.
	Justin Jackson slammed her on Twitter and revealed that your top reasons for not doing forced to vote is ridiculous.
	Just like this, she has no reason to vote present, except she was told to by Nancy Pelosi, and she's a good little girl who will do what Nancy Pelosi says.
	It's not over.
	Voted differently on that.
	I strongly encourage you to call our office and to let us know Because sometimes we get into these votes that happen, you know, that these votes kind of get called and they fall into a very intense situation and you have to make a decision in a matter of hours or sometimes minutes.
	And so providing your feedback is quite helpful because if you prefer that I had not voted that way, it's important for you to let us know.
	I won't take it personally.
	It was a really tough vote.
	Oh, really?
	Really?
	I really appreciate you giving us permission to let you know you fucked up.
	We now have permission to let her know she's fucking up, Ron.
	Well, we have permission to be citizens.
	That's what that is.
	That's what citizens do.
	You have the right to contact your elected officials.
	It's not violence.
	That's not violence, Ron.
	I think that sounds like violence.
	No.
	I like how she said she won't take it personal.
	So don't, she doesn't want you to feel bad.
	She's not going to take it personal.
	Well, you should take it personal because you're a failure and you're a fraud and everybody sees it now.
	Even Kyle Kalinsky at the secular talk sees right through you, your bullshit.
	Even the founder of the Justice Democrats won't fucking toll the line for you anymore.
	Isn't that wild?
	Jenky Uger still will, though.
	I'm sure that the intercept will and Jenk Uger will and Anna Kasparian at the Young Turks because they're fucking nutless wonders who don't think people can see what they're saying.
	But anyway, what are you going to say, Ron?
	No, I was just going to say it's so painful to listen to because that whole like, if you're opposed to how I voted, call our office.
	That's politicians speak for go fuck yourself.
	That's really what it is.
	No matter who the politician is, it doesn't matter.
	And you know, I know there's people out there who, you know, refuse to say a bad thing about AOC.
	And I get it.
	It hurts.
	But imagine that same speech she just gave was being given by Hillary Clinton or Nancy Pelosi or Joe Manchin or Chuck Schumer.
	It would piss you off, right?
	Ron, you sound like a bad person.
	I'm sorry, Jimmy.
	You sound like you're doing the horseshoe theory.
	You're so left, you're right.
	Don't you love when people say that?
	You mean because I'm criticizing a fucking Democrat for selling you out, that makes me a right-winger?
	You fucking chump.
	No, you're a chump because you won't hold your elected politicians' feet to the fire.
	You're a fucking nutless wonder chump.
	I'm the real citizen here.
	Go ahead.
	Well, I wish I could properly give credit to this, but it's been circulating on Twitter a lot.
	And shout out to the author.
	But, you know, the common response to that is, I don't go against Democrats because I side with Republicans.
	I go against Democrats because they side with Republicans.
	I wish I could give credit.
	That's viral.
	I'm sorry, I can't give credit.
	And if that's you, feel free to email me and I'll mention it next time.
	But that's a viral thing that's become a meme.
	I don't oppose the Democrats because I don't oppose the Democrats because I side with Republicans.
	I oppose the Democrats because they side with Republicans.
	Yeah.
	So there's your response to your horse show.
	Is there any more to this?
	Let's see.
	And I can use your feedback in the future if a similar situation arises.
	And it's in the future.
	You know, when I don't do what I'm supposed to in the future, she knows no one's ever going to hold her accountable.
	Even people criticizing her, they won't say, stop donating to the Justice Democrats.
	They won't say it.
	So if you watch your favorite YouTube host and they're going to criticize the squad, they're not really serious about their criticism unless they also say stop donating to them because that's how you hold them accountable.
	Jenk Uger and Anna Kasparian will never fucking say that because their bullshitters extraordinaire.
	Jenky's pretending he's going to hold the squad.
	We showed you that video where he's going to hold him accountable.
	Tell people to stop donating to them, you fucking liars.
	But if you want to donate to that and have her bullshit you for the rest of your life, go ahead because that's what you're getting.
	I can't wait till the Republicans take over the Congress again so then they can start fighting again and pretending to be damn hey you know we no longer have an Amazon link because we're not doing that we're not playing that game but here's another great way you can help support the show is you become a premium member we give you a couple of hours of premium bonus content every week and it's a great way to help support the show you can do it by going to jimmy doorcomedy.com clicking on join
	premium.
	It's the most affordable premium program in the business.
	And it's a great way to help put your thumb back in the eye of the bastards.
	Thanks for everybody who was already a premium member.
	And if you haven't, you're missing out.
	We give you lots of bonus content.
	Thanks for your support.
	Hey, this is Jimmy.
	Who's this?
	Jimmy, it's Al Pacino.
	Hey, Steph.
	Hey.
	Oh, hi, Al.
	What's going on, buddy?
	You got COVID yet?
	No, I managed to avoid it.
	Now I'm double vaxxed.
	Yeah, me too.
	I guess this shit is over.
	Yeah, I guess for some people.
	I think we should just forget it ever happened.
	Like a bad marriage or a car wreck that you fled the scene of.
	No, Al, I think we need to get to the bottom of how this happened so we can prevent it from happening again.
	Who knows where these things come from?
	It's a mystery.
	Al, it's not.
	This isn't the Middle Ages.
	We have epidemiologists who study viruses.
	Oh, OK, Captain Science.
	Where did COVID quote unquote come from?
	Well, there's evidence to suggest that the virus did, in fact, originate in a lab in Wuhan.
	Wuhan?
	Yes, Wuhan, China.
	Whoa!
	What?
	Jimmy, you can't say that.
	That's racist.
	No, it isn't.
	If that's what's happened, we need to know about it.
	Wait a minute, but I hear that Asian people get beat up because of all this hateful rhetoric.
	Those attacks are disgusting, but they are being carried out by violent racists who, for whatever their motivation is, it probably wasn't the truth about the lab in Wuhan.
	Al, three Chinese researchers at the Wuhan lab got sick with a mysterious...
	Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa!
	You can't use racial slurs like that.
	I didn't say a racial slur, Al.
	You said...
	You said the C word.
	Chinese?
	What?
	Are you crazy?
	You're gonna get us both on the express train to cancel town.
	Wouldn't mind saying hi to Kevin Spacey, though.
	He has his demons, but he is a brilliant craftsman.
	People who live in China are Chinese.
	That's our word for that.
	Yeah, I think it's...
	I think to be safe, you better call people who live over there...
	asian americans al that doesn't make any sense people in china you know what see i'm not even sure you're allowed to say the name of the country what are you talking about al every time i hear somebody mention the name of another country i'm like yeah where you going with this, Jack?
	Seems a little racist.
	Like, why are you even bringing this up?
	Al, we have to use these perfectly acceptable words in order to describe the events of the past 18 months accurately.
	We need to know where this came from.
	I heard it came from a bunch of weirdos eating bats and shit.
	These filthy wet markets they have over there with all these animals and humans interacting in unnatural ways.
	Little kids riding pigs and shit.
	Iguanas on leashes with little top hats.
	Unclean.
	And what people are doing this country.
	Jesus Christ.
	Okay, is that is that somehow less racist sounding to you, Al?
	Well, that's what they said in the news.
	And that the lab thing was a racist conspiracy theory.
	They sure do love that term conspiracy theory, don't they?
	The evidence suggests that COVID escaped from the Wuhan lab and that the Chinese government is trying to cover it up.
	It's not a conspiracy theory.
	It's just a plain old theory and a plausible one.
	You're kind of blowing my mind over here.
	Using people's admirable disinclination to be bigoted as a weapon against them to shut down speech is the oldest trick in the book.
	Control the language.
	It's 1984 stuff.
	What, like Van Halen?
	No, Al, not like Van.
	Oh, okay.
	That's the Pointer Sisters.
	That's not Van Halen.
	Still came out in 1984, though.
	Look, I'm just trying to not be racist.
	That's all.
	I don't want to get in trouble.
	That one other actor got in trouble.
	He supported the Palestinians.
	Yeah.
	Then he found out that he was racist.
	Yeah.
	So now he supports the Israelis.
	Mark Buffalo.
	Yeah, yeah, Mark Ruffalo.
	Yeah, funny.
	He correctly addressed something as a genocide and then got browbeaten into saying it wasn't a genocide.
	Tricky thing to assess those genocides.
	Again, conflating a pro-Palestinian human rights stance with anti-Semitism is just another filthy trick they pull.
	Okay, who is this mysterious say?
	Sounds like an anti-Semitic conspiracy theory.
	Oh, the corporate media, the military-industrial complex, APEC, the American Christian far right, just to name a few, has nothing to do with Jewish people in the aggregate.
	Well, I guess I'm going to have to do some soul searching about what is racist and anti-Semitic.
	Al, you're not a racist person.
	Follow your gut.
	Admitting Israel is an apartheid state or saying the Chinese government may have done something bad that isn't racist.
	Better play it safe.
	I'm going to do what they say on CNN.
	Ciao, baby.
	Whenever someone said, hey, that COVID thing probably started in a lab or might have started in the lab, or someone, you know, speculated that it was because it's good to ask those questions because they're doing that kind of stuff all the time.
	They're creating viruses in labs all the time, I guess.
	Apparently, now we know that they are.
	It's called gain of function.
	And so this was from March 31st.
	This is CNN.
	If you thought that the COVID-19 originated in a lab, that was like out of a comic book, according to CNN.
	And they're experts.
	And you're nuts if you thought that.
	There's still articles up calling Joe Rogan a conspiracy theorist for saying that there's people speculating that it started in a lab.
	Well, guess what?
	Now the Wall Street Journal is adding more fuel to the fire on this lab theory.
	And now it's okay to question it because the Wall Street Journal says so.
	So the Wall Street Journal uncovered a previously undisclosed U.S. intelligence report that could add weight to the growing calls for a fuller probe on whether COVID.
	Three researchers from China's Wuhan Institute of Virology became sick enough in November 2019 that they sought hospital care.
	So there's three people working in that lab.
	They're supposedly all friggin' cooked.
	They got sick enough from a virus in the same week that they all had to go to hospital.
	That's the double CK.
	The details of the reporting go beyond the State Department fact sheet said that several researchers at the lab, a center for the study of coronaviruses and other pathogens, became sick in autumn 2019 with symptoms consistent with both COVID-19 and common seasonal illnesses.
	November 2019 is roughly when many epidemiologists and virologists believe COVID-19, the virus behind the pathways, first began circulating around the central Chinese city of Wuhan, where Beijing says the first confirmed case was a man who fell ill on December 8th, 2019.
	The Wuhan Institute hasn't shared raw data, safety logs, and lab records on its extensive work with the coronavirus and bats, which may, which many consider the most likely source of the virus.
	So now here's someone asking Fauci, the shit libs hero, Fauci, who we showed you is a pathological liar about the coronavirus and the treatment for it.
	We've showed you that.
	Here he is now being asked because previously said it didn't come from a lab, it came from nature.
	Now here's a lot of cloudiness around the origins of COVID-19 still.
	So I wanted to ask, are you still confident that it developed naturally?
	No, actually, no, I'm not convinced about that.
	I think that we should continue to investigate what went on in China until we find out to the best of our ability exactly what happened.
	Huh.
	That's well, according to the National Post, Dr. Fauci's newfound skepticism on COVID-19's natural origin is at odds with his former stance on the issue.
	Not only that, it's at odds with the whole media's entire stance on it.
	Everybody said if you even brought that question up, you were a conspiracy theorist.
	By the way, that's not how fucking science works.
	So here's Paul Graham points out some of the stealth edits that so Vox had did a debunking the conspiracy of the Wuhan lab theory of COVID-19.
	And then guess what?
	After it's been now proven it probably did come from the lab, now after people risked their lives and stuck their necks out to tell the truth about it, after people have been censored, have been canceled, have been silenced over this.
	Now, now Vox comes back to do a deceptive edit.
	So you see what they did?
	It said the Wuhan Institute of Virology is a real place, and the exact origin of the novel coronavirus is still a mystery with researchers racing since the outbreak began to figure it out.
	But already virologists who've Parsed the genome and infectious disease experts who study coronavirus have more than enough evidence to show that the virus is a brand new and came from nature, not the Wuhan lab.
	They changed it.
	Now it says that coronaviruses say they have enough, not more than enough evidence that the virus came from the nature, not the Wuhan lab.
	They took that out.
	So they're changing.
	That's nine words difference.
	Here's a 41 word difference.
	There appears to be it.
	So they're, and as Shant Ms. Robian points out, Vox, a science-worshiping explanatory news site, told us that COVID wouldn't become a pandemic.
	They were wrong.
	Told us masks don't work.
	They were wrong.
	Travel restrictions don't work.
	They were wrong.
	And that the lab leak theory is a debunked conspiracy theory.
	They were wrong.
	This website should be out of business.
	If I made that many mistakes about the coronavirus on my YouTube show, YouTube would have taken down my videos and shut my channel down.
	But Vox and every other shit journalist out there gets to fucking lie to you and tell you misinformation as if it's fact.
	And now let me bring it.
	Well, this brings me to this article on Substack by Matt Taibbi.
	He says fact-checking takes another beating.
	And there he is.
	There's Dr. Fauci, who we've shown is a proven liar about COVID.
	He's not misunderstanding the facts.
	He's not changing his opinions when the facts change.
	He lies about COVID whenever he feels like it.
	And so this is from Matt Taibbi.
	He says, through 2020, officials at mainstream press shut down most every discussion on that score about where the originated the COVID virus.
	Did it come from a lab?
	It got shut down in 2020.
	The consensus was so strong that some well-known voices saw social media accounts suspended or closed for speculating about COVID-19 having a lab origin.
	Just days after its festival of fact checking, PolitiFact pointner, PolitiFact had to issue a correction to its September 2020 pants on fire ruling on the lab origin theory.
	And here it is.
	PolitiFact did a fact check and they said the idea that the woo the COVID-19 originated in a lab was pants on fire, conspiracy shit, crazy.
	They have fact in their name, PolitiFact.
	That was not a fact.
	That was a theory that they were positing as fact to discredit people who had questions about the establishment narrative.
	That's what PolitiFact is.
	They're the establishment narrative.
	They are not a fact-checking organization by any means.
	And this proves it.
	And so now this is what they put up now.
	Archived fact check.
	Tucker Carlson guest airs debunked conspiracy theory that COVID-19 was created in lab.
	Editor's note, when this was fact-checked, it was first published in September.
	PolitiFact sources included researchers who asserted that the SARS-CoV-2 virus could not have been manipulated.
	That assertion is now more widely disputed.
	For that reason, we are removing this fact check from our database pending a more thorough review.
	So that's not a fact check.
	That's you pushing establishment narrative as a fact.
	And anyone else who doesn't repeat the establishment narrative is now given a scarlet letter and canceled from society.
	That's what PolitiFact does.
	And then when they get it 100%, they're not going to get their Twitter account suspended.
	They're not going to get their Facebook page.
	There's not going to come a warning when they tweet something.
	Hey, they get shit wrong all the time on COVID.
	Nothing's going to happen because they lie in the same way the establishment is lying.
	Now, let me bring in Matt Taibbi, who wrote this article on this.
	Our guest is one of the top journalists of his generation.
	He's a contributing editor at the Rolling Stone magazine.
	He's the author of the best-selling books, Griftopia, The Great Derangement, and most recently, Hate Inc.
	You can read his writings along with this article at taibbi.substack.com.
	Please welcome Matt Taibbi.
	Hi, Matt.
	How's it going, Jimmy?
	Matt, it is unbelievable what's happening.
	It is.
	So I've made this point before.
	Why is it okay now to disagree with the CDC?
	Why is it okay now to question a coronavirus origin?
	Why is it okay?
	Before, if you did any of that stuff, you got canceled.
	I'm not kidding.
	You got, well, let me just throw that to you and you can answer.
	Well, I think originally what happened with this story was that, like almost everything else in the Trump era, the coverage of COVID was heavily politicized from the very start.
	And the idea of a lab origin for COVID was associated with Trump.
	It was associated with Mike Pompeo.
	It was associated with Tom Cotton.
	So it was automatically bad.
	It was automatically a conspiracy theory.
	And that's really how the press treated it for the better part of a year.
	And then I think what happened was the WHO delegation went to visit China a couple of months ago.
	They came back with a few questions.
	And they slowly are now trying to roll out a theory that we have to now investigate a lab origin hypothesis.
	And this is how they're doing it.
	They're basically saying, oh, yeah, quietly, we may have screwed this up.
	And so what does that tell you about, what does this tell you about journalism?
	What it tells me is that, again, there's just a herd mentality of a bunch of spineless cowards who will push a false narrative and let other people get thrown under the bus who are doing good work.
	What does it tell you about journalism?
	Yeah, this is a classic screw-up of journalism because COVID is the kind of story that sort of reveals the core truth about the journalism business, which is that we basically don't know anything.
	Like we're not experts.
	At best, a lot of us went to journalism school and what did we study?
	Journalism, which isn't anything.
	So when we get presented with a story like this, which is highly technical and extremely complicated in the best circumstance, we're completely dependent upon experts and we're only telling you our best guess about what could possibly be true.
	And so the worst thing you can possibly do at the start of a story like this is instantly start ruling things out and declaring some things facts and some things conspiracy theories.
	And on top of that, being sanctimonious and obnoxious about it, you have to have some humility with the job of journalism.
	I think that's actually crucial to how you do this job is you have to know that you don't know anything and you have to be suspicious of everybody that you talk to.
	And over time, things get revealed and that's how you get to a truth.
	They did it backwards with the story.
	They declared a truth at the start and now they're in this backpedal mode where which is a complete catastrophe for the business and for the country.
	Yeah, they I can't get over the lack of intellectual curiosity that is allowed in journalism today.
	Anybody who has a question that questions any establishment narrative, you are immediately branded a kook and a crazy.
	Like I was telling people, all I did was share the effects that I'd gotten from my second vax.
	I've gotten both the vaxes, and so I shared the side effects that I'm having.
	And people called me anti-vax.
	What the?
	I mean, that's part of that same thing.
	That's part of the, you're going, you're going outside the, you know, Chomsky talked about this in manufacturing consent, that what the news media is there really to do and what the is what the media is there to do is to set the parameters of the debate.
	And if you go outside that parameter, you are then labeled a bad person.
	You are unclean.
	You're an uh, you're the bad, you're the worst thing.
	Uh, why is that?
	Well, look, that's by design.
	And in his book, Manufacturing Consent, he kind of lays out how the business works.
	If you have intellectual curiosity, if you're the kind of person who is inclined to have an original thought, you just don't get promoted in journalism.
	That's the way it works.
	All those personalities, they wash out of the business relatively quickly.
	You see it happen to people like Chris Hedges, for example, right?
	Like he has the wrong opinion on whatever it is, Iraq or Bosnia or whatever.
	And they just quietly move you into a different part of the company and you stop being on the front page.
	And before you know it, you're working in, you know, not in the New York Times anymore.
	And the people who do rise in the business are the people who tend to be conformists, intellectually uncurious, and they have that herd mentality.
	They don't mind thinking as a group.
	Whereas this is a job, again, where in order to be really good at it, you have to have the courage to sometimes take an unpopular point of view and say and report something that sounds unlikely, but there's evidence for it.
	That's the whole point of the job is you have to have that kind of quality, but they wash that out of you in the business.
	And so the least curious amongst us are the people charged with bringing us the news of the day.
	That's how the filtering, that's how the promotion system works over at the New York Times.
	The least curious amongst us gets promoted.
	So I wanted to talk about this idea now that I remember when CNN announced ahead of the campaign, the political season, that they were hooking up with factcheck.org so that they could then fact check politicians' statements.
	And I'm like, it never dawned on Jake Tapper or anybody at CNN that they're supposed to be a fact checking, that they have to go find an app to figure out how to fact check.
	What does that say about the news media that they have to team up with an app to do a fact check?
	All of that is just a marketing campaign.
	Like the journalism business has been having this problem for a long time where the public has had this declining trust in the news media.
	They just don't believe what we report anymore.
	And so as a partial solution to this, as a partial way of dealing with the fact that audiences have begun to clue into the fact that a lot of professional corporate news media is very politicized, they've started dredging out fact-checking operations as a way of saying, look, we're really dedicated to facts.
	We're really into the factuality in our stories when we can prove it because, look, we have this shiny thing and we even call it fact-checking.
	Like we're going to put that on the front page.
	But actually, you're right.
	Like just journalism itself is fact-checking.
	That's the whole point.
	You shouldn't need a separate thing to fact check a politician's statements.
	That's your job.
	It's ridiculous.
	And internally, fact-checking within news organizations has always had a different connotation and a different meaning.
	And people in the business understand that this whole thing they've been showing to the public is just, it's a joke.
	So in your article, you make the point that we used to, I used to make fun of journalism in this way.
	I would say that they always go, well, they say this and they say that.
	Like you'd see Brian Williams would have a debate between an anti-climate change person and a pro-climate change person.
	And he would say, well, thanks for the debate.
	Well, this guy says this.
	I guess we'll never know, you know?
	And the joke I make is that you couldn't say that about sports.
	You couldn't report sports like that.
	You couldn't say the Cubs played the Dodgers.
	Dodgers said they won five to four.
	Cubs said they won five to four.
	Who really won?
	Well, I guess we'll never know.
	That's not how that's not how it works, right?
	But that's the way they used to do it.
	And I used to make fun of them for doing it that way.
	But now they're not doing that anymore.
	They're not going, well, they say this and they say that.
	Now they're saying we fact check it.
	And then they got it wrong.
	Isn't that what's happening now?
	Yeah, I mean, you're absolutely right.
	Like sometimes the way they did that in the past was a total cop-out.
	And it was a way of allowing illegitimate opinions to get more play than they really should have.
	You know, because they didn't take a stance and really say what they really felt about a certain issue.
	Like they would know that one version is more true than the other.
	And they just kind of, they would allow the illusion that there was some debate about that.
	You know, in my own work, I always tried to avoid doing that.
	Like if I was writing about Goldman Sachs, I would say, this is what I think they did.
	You know, I mean, I would give you the denials.
	That would give you the other side of the story.
	But I'd say, this is what I think they did.
	However, recently there's been this problem where they have stopped doing even the perfunctory, like, you know, superficial requirement of allowing for some other possibility.
	And which you do have to do in journalism.
	You do have to say, look, there still is this possibility that this is true.
	Like, we don't know absolutely for sure.
	This person claims this.
	We have to, you know, out of fairness, we do have to say that there is that possibility.
	They kind of stopped doing that.
	And that's how you get the situation like this thing with the lab origin story, where they lock themselves into a version before they knew anything.
	And that's not a good way of doing the job either.
	And the point you make in the article, which is a great point, is that these people are in journalism.
	They're not scientists.
	They're not engineers.
	They're not specialists in any of these things.
	And these stories have to get printed and put out that day.
	They don't have time to do this kind of research of fact checking.
	And they're at best, they're taking a shot at the truth.
	I'm paraphrasing your article.
	Absolutely.
	And you say, you make a great point.
	You go, but once you get past names, dates, and whether the sky that day was blue or cloudy, the worst kind of misinformation in journalism is to be too sure about anything.
	That is especially when that's especially when dealing with the complex technical issues and even more especially when official sources seem interested in eliminating discussions of alternative scenarios of those issues.
	So that's the that's the part that got me that gets me the most.
	It's like, okay, I don't mind you repeating the government narrative or the establishment narrative.
	I know you're going to do that.
	But the fact that you would then shame people who have questions, which is almost the definition of a journalist, is to question the official and establishment narrative about everything.
	And then you turn doing that into something disgusting and something dirty and something nefarious and something to be shamed.
	How, I mean, that's the thing that I still can't get over.
	And just go ahead and comment on it.
	Yeah, I mean, again, this has been really.
	A lot of this has to do with politics, you know, especially in the last five years when there's been this sentiment that we saw, you know, among other things in the Trump campaign.
	You know, journalists are the enemy of the people.
	This association with being anti-media, the press has interpreted that as anybody who criticizes the news media is right-wing, is a lunatic, is a conspiracy theory, and they should be shamed.
	You know, we're the good people.
	We're the defenders of democracy, blah, blah, blah.
	And they've gotten, I think, high on themselves and they've forgotten what their role in society is, which is, you know, when people don't believe you, it's your fault.
	Like you lost somebody's trust.
	Like it's not like it's not like it was an unfair thing that happened to you.
	This was a gradual process.
	It didn't start with Trump.
	It's been going on for 20 years now.
	And the business has just been slow to realize that it's out of touch with ordinary people and ordinary people don't trust them anymore.
	And so they react in these ways that are defensive and they're aligning themselves with official sources because they see themselves as being part of that group now, like a raid against the general public, which is the opposite of what they should be.
	So this really is another offshoot of Trump derangement syndrome is what has happened.
	Totally.
	So you could not risk being seen on the other side on the other team or being a sympathizer or, you know, it's, well, it's what McCarthyism is.
	That's what McCarthyism was.
	And you got afraid to be associated.
	Were you at a meeting with these people?
	Have you met you ever have you now or have you ever been a member of that?
	I mean, that's what this is.
	And that's what's been going on for the last four or five years.
	And it's been cheered on by the worst of it, by the young Turks, by the intercept, by the fucking MSNBC and CNN and New York Times, the loudest.
	And they're all shit.
	And now when people like me and you, I come along, not you, when I come along and with a YouTube show and start doing better journalism than they do, because how could you do worse?
	They then start to get, they then start to do bullshit propaganda about how we're the ones misinforming people and creating conspiracy theories when they're the ones doing that.
	I'm a conspiracy analyst.
	They are conspiracy theorists at NBC and CNN and the New York Times and the Intercept and the Young Turks.
	They're conspiracy theorists.
	I debunk their conspiracies.
	And so that's that's it.
	Well, let's move.
	Let's move on to this about the COVID-19.
	From the start, you say the press mostly mishandled COVID-19 reporting.
	Part of this was because nearly all of the critical issues, mask use, lockdowns, viability of vaccine programs and so on, were marketed by news companies as culture war narratives.
	That's exactly right.
	Again, if you questioned any part of it, you're a bad person, including lockdowns, including lockdowns.
	A related problem had to do with news companies using the misguided notion that the news is an exact science to promote the worst misconception that science is an exact science.
	This led to absurd spectacles like news agencies trying to cover up or denounce as falsehood the natural reality that officials had evolving views on things like the efficacy of ventilators or mask use by labeling whatever the current scientific consensus happened to be an immutable fact.
	So that's what they were doing.
	Whatever the scientific consensus at that moment was, it still wasn't peer-reviewed.
	It still wasn't set.
	They were, whatever the scientists' consensus, they were saying that was fact at the moment when they shouldn't be doing that.
	And that is journalistic malpractice.
	And you point that out.
	By labeling whatever the current scientific consensus happened to be an immutable fact, media outlets made the normal evolution of scientific debate look dishonest and pointlessly heightened mistrust of both scientists and the media.
	So as you point out, the worst thing you could do was to pretend that news is an exact science or that science is an exact science.
	As I point out on this show all the time, that's why they publish their findings and their studies in peer-reviewed publications so they can try to knock them down and try to find the holes in them and find out where they're wrong.
	That's how science works.
	And that's not how people are operating since Trump.
	People are operating that if you do science and you question science, which is what science does all the time to science, you're somehow a crazy Trumper.
	You're a right-winger and you need to be canceled.
	And that's what you're laying out here.
	Yeah.
	Part of this is, I think, just journalists are uneducated and they don't really know what science is.
	I mean, I don't have scientific training, but I've talked to enough of them to know that science is not a set of facts and dictums.
	It's a method.
	It's a process.
	And scientists, I've heard from so many scientists since COVID started who are just frustrated with the way this story has been reported because things change.
	People, you know, you find things out over the course of treating a disease or new data comes in.
	Maybe ventilators don't work.
	Maybe they're not necessary.
	Maybe everybody doesn't need to be intubated immediately.
	Like these are things that you learn over time.
	But what they were doing is they were taking slivers of consensus opinion at snapshot moments at every stage of this controversy and declaring it sort of an immutable fact.
	And if you were on the wrong side of it, you were crazy or you were a right-winger or you were a conspiracy theorist.
	And worse than that, they were getting people knocked off the internet for this.
	I mean, this was either career ruining or, you know, it was a real problem.
	And it was a total misunderstanding of how all this works.
	Science is a conversation and they cut off the conversation at the most crucial junction that we've probably had in modern history.
	Yeah, when we should have been having the most robust debates possible, we were having none.
	Debate was then shamed as bad and toxic.
	So I just want to, here's how you close out.
	You say this, you go, fact-checking was a huge boon when it was an out-of-sight process, quietly polishing the turd of industrial reportage.
	When companies dragged it out in public and made it a beast of burden for use in impressing audiences, they defamed their tradition.
	So explain what do you mean by that?
	When it was out an out-of-sight process as to now, talk about that transformation.
	So again, The news happens in a blink of an eye, right?
	Like most of the time you're reporting a story and it's got to be like in print within five hours in a daily news operation.
	A fact checker is just there to make sure you don't make the most obvious screw-up, like that you don't get sued, that you don't spell somebody's name with, you know, two letters off, that you don't, you know, you don't have the year off by six years, whatever it is.
	They're there to keep the journalists, typically, and most importantly, like in broadcast journalism, keep them from looking too, too stupid.
	Because the reality is we don't, we know almost nothing about almost anything we report, and we're just getting the basics to you as quickly as possible.
	Fact checkers had a really important job, which was to steer us away from the kind of obvious big rocks in the sea that we could have shipwrecked on when we're doing this kind of work.
	But instead of people understanding that it's just kind of a last-ditch protective mechanism for journalists, they dragged it out and made it this kind of ennobled thing, like that there were these, you know, sort of faultless finders of the truth, which is totally not their job.
	They're great at what they do, in my experience, but that's not what they do.
	They're not there to find the truth.
	They're there to save our asses.
	And they've misrepresented what fact-checking is to the public.
	And let me just end with this.
	It says, we know only a few things, absolutely for sure, like the spelling of FEMA or Blaine Gabbert's career interception total.
	The public knows pretty much everything else is up for argument.
	So we only look like jerks pretending we can fact-check the universe.
	We do better admitting we don't know.
	That would be such a refreshing turn, Matt, if you tuned in and heard Wolf Blitzer tell the truth, which is he doesn't know.
	I don't know what happened in Syria.
	I'm not on the ground.
	I don't know what's happening in Libya.
	I don't know what's happening in Venezuela.
	I don't know what's happening with the COVID virus.
	I don't know where it is.
	We don't know.
	None of this stuff is known.
	And it's going to take years for science to settle on this.
	And so right now, let's not shame anybody for questioning things and having ideas because that's what the strength of a democracy is: a robust debate.
	And that's what we're supposed to be having.
	And that's the strength of science, by the way, is a robust debate.
	And you try to knock it down.
	And that's, you know, anyway, you're absolutely right.
	Yeah.
	You're trying.
	So I just wanted to go because so this is what I first noticed this when this story broke, right?
	So the CDC abruptly changed its guidance on face masks.
	And I was, I mean, abruptly, right?
	And it makes sense, right?
	So like, if you're vaccinated and the vaccine works, why would I need to wear a freaking mask?
	And if you are not vaccinated and you are worried about catching COVID, then go get fucking vaccinated.
	Don't tell me to wear a mask after I'm vaccinated.
	That means you don't believe the science that vaccines work.
	That's right.
	And that see the CDC realized that, I think.
	They realized that the pace of vaccines was too slow to get herd immunity.
	And that because idiot Fauci was walking around after he had been double vaxed with two fucking masks on, which was completely performative theater.
	And now the CDC is saying that's stupid.
	Stop doing that.
	If you're vaccinated, you don't have to freaking wear a mask.
	That's what the C, but guess what?
	Now it's okay to disagree with the CDC.
	Now you can disagree with them.
	So here it is right here in a break with the CDC's new guidelines.
	California is going to keep its mask mandate.
	So they're saying they don't trust the science on vaccines.
	Why is that okay now, Matt?
	Look, there's obviously, again, this is cultural and political.
	I mean, Joe Biden was having himself photographed wearing masks when he was doing Zoom calls.
	Kamala Harris was doing the same thing.
	She's in a room full of people who have been vaccinated.
	There's absolutely no reason the CDC guidelines say that you don't have to do that.
	And these are the two most visible politicians in the country are essentially going against the CDC guidelines, which tells you what exactly.
	They don't think the vaccines work.
	That they don't trust the CDC.
	What's the point of that?
	I think it's mostly just kind of cultural virtue signaling.
	And it's a little, to me, like almost cultish behavior.
	But it's just, again, it's just weird how the reporters throughout this entire time, they dove into this mask issue with such fervor.
	And it was like the torchbearing mob in Frankenstein or something.
	Anybody who had any kind of divergent opinion about it had to be publicly shamed.
	Whereas, you know, I think there were legitimate differences of opinion and shades of differences about what kind of mask use was permissible or safe in different circumstances.
	But they just wanted to have everybody wearing a mask all the time.
	And that was the only way they wanted to report the issue, which was just so weird.
	And I just want to remind people, because it's not hyperbole when I say that Dr. Fauci's been lying about this all along.
	He lied about the herd immunity.
	He said at first it would take 60% of the people to get vaccinated before we would have herd immunity.
	And then when the polls changed and said more people would be willing to get vaccinated, he changed that number.
	He moved it up to 70 to 85% to 90%.
	And then when asked why he did that, he said, because the polls said that people were more receptive.
	So he's giving you false information because he doesn't think that the polls will handle it well.
	That's not how science is supposed to work.
	That's not how medicine works.
	And I'm not making that up.
	He admitted that he did that.
	I'm not accusing him of doing that.
	He's admitted he did that.
	And there's been no consequences for him.
	And there's been almost zero reporting of it.
	And I'll show you another thing that's been almost zero reporting.
	Here he is being asked about, should we wear masks on 60 minutes?
	Right now in the United States, people should not be walking around with masks.
	You're sure of it because people are listening really closely to this.
	Right now, people should not be warned.
	There's no reason to be walking around with a mask.
	When you're in the middle of an outbreak, wearing a mask might make people feel a little bit better and it might even block a droplet, but it's not providing the perfect protection that people think that it is.
	And often there are unintended consequences.
	People keep fiddling with the mask and they keep touching their face.
	And can you get some schmutz sort of staying inside there?
	Of course.
	Of course.
	Schmutz, we're talking science.
	So now here he is admitting why he did that.
	So he was giving incorrect medical advice to everyone in America.
	So now what that means is there are a lot of people who didn't wear a mask who got COVID and maybe died and maybe got sick for the rest of their life because they were following his incorrect advice.
	And he was lying then.
	He wasn't giving you misinformation.
	He wasn't wrong.
	He was lying and misleading you on purpose.
	He was putting your health at risk.
	And why?
	Here's why.
	So you shouldn't discount that.
	Now, getting back to your first question, which was what about a month or so or two or three ago when people were saying you don't really need to wear a mask well the reason for that is that we were concerned the public health community people and many people were saying this were concerned that it was at a time when personal protective equipment including the n95 masks and the surgical masks were in very short supply and we wanted to make sure that the people namely the healthcare workers
	who were brave enough to put themselves in a harm ways to take care of people who you know were infected with the coronavirus and the danger of them getting infected.
	We did not want them to be without the equipment that they needed.
	So he just admitted that I lied and I told people to be to what they did was then reckless.
	And I lied.
	Why?
	Because I needed to protect these other people's lives that were more important than your life.
	But now you can trust me going forward because we have enough masks.
	Now you can trust that I'll always tell you the truth, except if I feel like your life isn't as important as someone else's life, that I'm going to lie to you again, just like he did with herd immunity.
	So he's key.
	He's he's and now and then he's look.
	It looks like he's lying about gain of function.
	Who if that he funded it looked like he lied about that.
	He was funding gain of function.
	It looks like he was.
	And then he lied about it because when he's in front of the Congress and he's asked questions, he sounds like a politician.
	He doesn't sound like a doctor.
	So there he is lying.
	And there he is.
	What do you how does he get away with that, Matt?
	Well, again, it's funny because Fauci was one of the guests at that pointers festival of fact checking.
	Yeah.
	And I think that there's a very good reason for that, which is that for for a lot of people in blue state America, Fauci was the symbol of kind of anti Trumpism.
	He was the counter to Trump throughout the beginning of the covid disaster.
	And people look to him as kind of like the soul of rectitude on television.
	He was the figure that they trusted on television who was not Trump.
	Right.
	And so I understand that to a degree.
	But the problem for journalists became they now refuse to criticize him at all because they didn't want to be perceived as being pro Trump or doing anything that would have would have.
	have been looking like a Trumpian criticism.
	So now he's immune from the criticism that he should have gotten or maybe should have gotten in certain cases because he's a symbol of something politically, which again is not how you're supposed to do the job.
	It should be separate from those considerations.
	Matt, I was at dinner the other night and I had a grown-up person who I respect say to me, well, what was Fauci supposed to do?
	I don't know when you think lying to people about medical advice is ever right.
	What you're supposed to do is, I don't know, tell people how to make their own masks.
	Tell people to stay home.
	Tell people to, I don't, I don't, you don't lie to them about the science of medicine on purpose and endanger their lives, which is what he did.
	Yeah, and you can think of other things that you could say, look, we have a difficult situation.
	We have to triage these masks, right?
	So we're not going to tell you that it's safe to go outside without a mask.
	Take that into consideration, but you might not be able to get one right now.
	You know, like we're going to, we're going to prioritize giving them to healthcare workers.
	Why not say that?
	I mean, that's better than lying and being caught doing it later, unless you have a press that doesn't ask you questions about it, which is kind of where we are right now.
	When I tried to buy masks and 95 masks on Amazon, they said you can't buy them.
	We're reserving these for frontline workers.
	Okay, why couldn't they do that?
	Why don't you go out and hold a press conference and say the president should command corporations and industry to make more masks?
	You can do that.
	He could do an executive order and make people do whatever he wants to.
	He could have done that.
	They could have ordered them to make ventilators.
	He could have ordered them to make math.
	That's what Fauci should have been doing.
	He should have been telling us the truth, not lying to us about our health care and science.
	And somehow that gets turned into a virtue.
	They take that and they turn it into a, oh, he was trying to protect people.
	I mean, the way liberals' minds work is just mind-blowing to me.
	Like, well, what else was he supposed to do?
	Now, how could you ever trust that guy?
	Yeah, exactly.
	And again, people, they're mixing something up.
	They're trying to express the fact that they don't like Donald Trump through their boundless faith in this other individual, whereas the two things are actually totally separate issues.
	They should be looking at them as completely separate narratives, completely separate stories, and judging them individually.
	And that's the problem we've had throughout the Trump period.
	Like with the Russia Gate story, they don't look at that objectively as a separate set of facts.
	They see it as a Trump story.
	And so clearly, X must be true because Trump is bad.
	And it's the same thing that happened with Fauci.
	He's gotten the pass on a lot of things because he's perceived as being politically on a certain side.
	And again, the Russia gating, the McCarthy smearing that became all the rage in liberal quarters and even on YouTube, that's really destructive.
	I don't know how to, I don't know how I tried to tell people at the Young Turks when I worked there, this is really destructive.
	What you're doing is actually going to hurt the left more than it hurts Donald Trump.
	And it's going to hurt just our culture.
	And they couldn't give a shit.
	They don't care.
	And so here we are.
	Hello.
	Hello, Jimmy Dore.
	This is Charles Chucky the Chuckster Schumer, Master of the Senate, Harvard graduate, class valedictorian of James Madison High School, and former hall monitor at the Harvard School of Insufferable Nagging.
	Greetings.
	Hey, Chuck, you must be happy after confirming Kristen Clark as head of the DOJ's Civil Rights Division.
	Oh, my gosh.
	I know, right?
	I didn't even know we had a civil rights division.
	We simply must start doing something with it.
	I agree.
	I know.
	Guess what?
	Kristen Clark is the first woman and first black woman ever confirmed to lead this important division on civil rights.
	I'm so happy.
	I feel like increasing police funding by another $2 billion.
	You know what?
	I just might.
	Don't you even try to stop me.
	My mind's made up.
	I know you have many questions you wish to ask of myself, Master of the Senate.
	But may I break protocol and ask you one?
	Sure.
	Could you send us 50 bucks as soon as possible?
	Why?
	What do you need 50 bucks for?
	To stand up to Mitch O'Connell.
	It's McConnell, I believe.
	He said 100% of the GOP's focus should be on stopping the Biden administration.
	This may sound harsh to my colleagues across the aisle, but I pledge to fight that obstruction in a bipartisan manner that will be pleasing and soothing to all involved.
	But we can't do it without your big plate money.
	Please send what you can to Chuck Schumer, Master of the Senate, care of the Hunter Biden Foundation.
	And we'll send you this adorable hang in there, baby, blanket as a thank you.
	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.
	Today's show was written by Ron Placone, Mark Van Landowitz, Steph Zamarano, Jim Earle, Mike McRae, and Roger Rittenhouse.
	All the voices performed today by the one and the only inimitable Mike McRae, who can be found at MikeMcRae.com.
	That's it for this week.
	You be the best you can be, and I'll keep being me.

▲