All Episodes
Previous Next
Feb. 17, 2023 - Jimmy Dore Show
59:52
20230217_TJDS_20230217_Podcast_-_21623_9.37_AM
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Doing live stand-up comedy in Tempe, Palm Springs, Milwaukee, Nashville, Northampton, Massachusetts, Syracuse, co-host New York, and Hartford, Connecticut.
Go to jimmydoor.com for a link for tickets and become a premium member.
Get access to all our content.
Hey, this is the Jimmy Door show.
Aaron Matte speaking.
Who's this?
Aaron?
Aaron, this is Senator Chuck Schumer of the great state of New York.
Oh, hello, Senator.
What's on your mind?
Well, I'll tell you what's on my mind, young man.
Balloons.
I have balloons on the brain.
Yes, I see.
As I said to George Stephanopoulos of ABC News the other day, we have now shot down a third balloon of unknown origin, presumably Chinese, over the skies of North America.
Unexceptable, all these balloons.
So they are of unknown origin, but you are assuming they're Chinese.
Well, that first one, the big mothership one, that was definitely Chinese.
These other two, well, you know, probably.
Is it possible we're just shooting down regular weather balloons?
Well, it's better safe than sorry.
I'd rather not know whether a cold front is coming in on Tuesday or Wednesday than have China know all of our topography-based state secrets.
I say we clear the sky of every single one of these inflatable menaces.
Down with dirigibles.
Okay.
And what really chuffs my hide is knowing that these things were flying around during the Trump administration, too, and they did nothing.
Why weren't they shooting down these balloons?
Seems like a no-brainer for Trump, like someone it sounds like something he would absolutely love to do, blowing up balloons and then acting like he's a tough guy for doing it, right in his wheelhouse.
I see.
Aaron, I have described myself as a, quote, China hawk.
I think it's high time that China's various aggressions and malfeasances are curbed.
We don't want a Cold War.
We have to remain trade partners, but this aerial aggression cannot stand.
Based on what you're saying, don't you think we should address the intelligence failures that allow giant spy balloons, visible to the naked eye, to float unhindered through U.S. airspace for years?
Well, yes, quite.
We are working on that, Aaron, I assure you.
But as I told George, I have my sights focused on another Chinese menace, TikTok.
TikTok?
Yes, TikTok.
As we all know, TikTok is a Chinese app that many think the Chinese government is using to spy on U.S. citizens.
I have put forth the idea that we seriously consider banning TikTok in this country.
Is that so?
It's very so.
Think of all the personal information China is gathering on all his citizenry.
People make stupid little TikTok videos about every goddamn thing of their lives.
It's like the entire American experience is being served up to our adversaries on a digital platter.
Okay, but how would this be used in some sort of military or otherwise aggressive way?
Well, think about it, Aaron.
Think about all the shit that's on TikTok.
All this pathetic shit.
If I were the Chinese government and I had to convince a skeptical Chinese public that we could beat the U.S. in a war or a conflict of some kind, all I would have to do is do is just show them a montage of American TikToks.
I see.
Some able-bodied adult man doing a TikTok dance with his little girl where they're both dressed like princesses.
Some middle-aged white lady alone in her car screaming at the top of her lungs and threatening legal action because Starbucks got her order wrong.
Some blue-haired tween sobbing uncontrollably over something J.K. Rowling said on Twitter.
I mean, seriously, you could defeat a country like that with a Nerf gun.
Don't you think this is all fear-mongering on some level?
You bet your sweet patuti it is.
Look, during the Trump administration, this nation sank to a pathetic level.
We had no great enemy.
Trump was friendly with Russia.
Even tried overtures to North Korea.
Just sad.
But now the Democrats have reinstated Russia as the great enemy of the West, of civilization itself.
We have revived that great fear-mongering tradition that we spent the entire 20th century building.
Yes, you've certainly done that.
But I say take it further.
We are the United States of America.
We are the greatest country on earth.
Certainly great enough to have two arch enemies, Russia and China.
We are Americans.
We can think big and dream bold.
How patriotic of you.
Thank you.
Yes, I agree.
So, Aaron, I invite you to join me in thinking of China as the great threat to the West of the 21st century.
Trademark Pendle.
Tell you what, I'll just keep my eye out for odd-looking balloons and let you know if I see one.
Doing her part.
I like it.
China and Russia.
But maybe there should be a third.
An Axis would be good.
But I think you need three countries to form an Axis.
How about Saudi Arabia or Israel?
All right, wise guy.
Let's not go overboard with this whole thing.
All right, I have to go.
It's been nice talking to you, young man.
I need to get a spa treatment in before that ridiculous square dance we call the debt ceiling negotiations.
It's fun, but the amount of drinking and cavorting that goes on behind the scenes, you know, behind closed doors leaves me drained.
Toodaloo!
Toodaloo!
establishment media sucks all gaslighting so good luck bullshit we can't afford he's fomenting this watch and see as he's jacked off the median speeds and jumps the medium and hits him head on it's the chimney tour show you you you Hey, everybody, it's the Jimmy Dorse show.
I'm Aaron Matte, sitting in for Jimmy here with Americans comedian Kurt Metzger, and we are covering the fallout from this explosive scoop by Seymour Hirsch, revealing how the U.S. blew up the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline.
Now, Seymour Hirsch has won every journalistic accolade that you can get.
The Pulitzer, the George Polk Award.
He's broken so many impactful stories from the Milai massacre in Vietnam to the Abu Ghraib torture scandal.
So he's not someone you can dismiss very easily.
So how is the U.S. media responding to his scoop that the U.S. blew up the Nord Stream 2 pipeline in a covert operation?
Well, deafening silence.
New York Times, Washington Post, CNN haven't touched this.
The only response that Seymour Hirsch is getting is from, you know, lowercase outlets like something called Business Insider.
And their response is to try to denigrate Seymour Hirsch.
So this is the headline from Business Insider.
The claim by a discredited journalist that the U.S. secretly blew up the Nord Stream pipeline is providing a gift to Putin.
Mia Jankiewicz.
Is that a Ukrainian name by any chance?
Well, I was thinking, I wonder if she's related to Nina Jankowicz.
Remember her?
She was the person who was going to head the disinformation board.
Yeah.
Well, certainly they're related in spirit because they're calling Seymour Hirsch, one of the most decorated and accomplished journalists of all time, discredited.
And of course, they're saying how his reporting is a gift to Putin.
Wait, how has he been discredited?
Is there any where is that just pulled out of her ass?
They're going to try to show us how, but it's really funny how they try and fail.
So this is Glenn Greenwald responding.
Cy Hirsch is one of the most accomplished and important journalists of this generation.
Someone who works for Business Insider, Mia Jankiewicz, has never broken a story of note in her life.
This is how she and that site describe Hirsch's report on the U.S. blowing up Nordstream.
And this is how they do it.
So this is what they say here.
The once celebrated journalist Seymour Hirsch made unproven claims that the U.S. blew up the Nord Stream pipelines.
Hirsch won a politory in 1970, but his more recent work has come under sharp criticism.
Nice use of the passive voice there, sharp criticism from State Department propagandist.
That's correct.
Yes.
But Russia pounced on his claim, swiftly endorsing it despite there being no current evidence of its truth.
So the only time U.S. media gets skeptical about claims is when they happen to undermine U.S. state propaganda, which is pretty interesting.
When it's many anonymous sources making demonstrably false claims, you don't see this kind of skepticism in outlets like that.
I heard Russia's paying bounties on American troops in Advanced.
Exactly.
Exactly.
Hirsch was once widely celebrated for his journalism, which uncovered the 1969 Milai massacre in Vietnam and also helped expose U.S. abuses at Abu Ghraib in 2004.
But in recent decades, he has come under criticism by those who call it poorly sourced, conspiratorial, and over-reliant on anonymous sources.
Is that right?
Wow.
Okay.
And this is my favorite part.
The open source investigative outlet Bellingcat was deeply critical of his reporting on chemical attacks in Syria.
Okay.
So whenever you need someone to be discredited in U.S. media, someone who reports critically about U.S. state power, you can always trot out what is described as the open source investigative outlet Bellingcat.
Again, Bellingcat never heard of him until I was working on this show.
No one I know has ever heard of him.
No.
They quote him all the time like there's some amazing who knows who Bellingcat is that doesn't work in the media.
Anyone?
Nobody, because what they are is basically they're a U.S. state-funded propaganda organization that poses as what is described here as an open source investigator.
This is just a British concerned British citizen who could no longer stand by and watch Putin's crimes.
Unfortunately not.
And look, this is how credible Bellingcat is.
So this is from a report.
This is from a leaked report put out.
It was prepared for the British Foreign Office by one of their contractors called the Zinc Network.
It's called Upskilling to Upscale, Unleashing the Capacity of Civil Society to Counter Disinformation.
This is from June 2018.
And notice here at the bottom, it says, private and confidential, not for public distribution.
And this is why.
Because this report prepared for the British Foreign Office acknowledges that Bellingcat, their own partner, is full of it and can't be trusted.
This is what they say.
Other concerns included that, quote, Bellingcat was somewhat discredited both by spreading disinformation itself and by being willing to produce reports for anyone willing to pay.
So that's the private assessment of the British government, which is a partner of Bellingcat and helps to fund it through various cutouts.
Is this that like Intel input by proxy shit that Jason?
Exactly.
Yes.
So that's what Bellingcat's own state sponsors privately think of it.
But in public, we're supposed to believe that Bellingcat's some sort of credible open source investigation.
And this is, they even themselves talk about what their so-called open source expertise is based on.
This is from the New York Times, and they're talking about the founder of Bellingcat, a guy named Elliot Higgins.
The blogger Elliot Higgins made waves early in the decade by covering the war in Syria from a laptop in his apartment in England.
Yes.
Covering the war in Syria from his laptop in England.
And then it says this.
Mr. Higgins attributed his skill not to any special knowledge of international conflicts or digital data, but to the hours he spent playing video games.
How did they find him?
Maybe on a video game forum.
I don't know.
So he's covering the war in Syria from a laptop, which, like, who would do that?
Yes.
So was he already being paid to do that?
I don't know.
I don't know who found who, but the point is somebody found him to pretend that it's some sort of digital Sherlock.
And accordingly, Bellingcat's been paid a lot of money by NATO states to put out propaganda that aligns with their interests.
And one of their funders, this is from the Bellingcat's website is something called the National Endowment for Democracy.
And what is the National Endowment for Democracy?
It's a cutout of the CIA for propaganda operations.
And now eventually it was getting so embarrassing for Bellingcat to be made fun of for being funded by the National Endowment for Democracy that they switched it up.
They got funding from new sources.
And the Gray Zone reported on their new sponsors.
This is from my colleague Click Clarenberg back in 2021.
And it says, Bellingcat funded by U.S. and U.K. intelligence contractors that aided extremists in Syria.
So rather than getting the U.S. government to directly fund Bellingcat, someone thought, all right, let's get the contractors that are paid by the U.S. government.
Let's get them to fund Bellingcat.
And here's a table from Bellingcat.
The groups include, you can see they're Adam Smith International and K-Monics.
And both of these companies have made a lot of money off of the dirty war on Syria.
Adam Smith International, you might recognize it from the war in Iraq, when after the Bush administration invaded Iraq and tried to privatize Iraq's economy, Adam Smith got the contract to help take part in that effort.
So that's who now is helping to fund Bellingcat.
Not the U.S. state itself, but just U.S. state war profiteers.
Is that named after the old-timey Adam Smith that's like the big father of capitalism?
Yeah.
And so that's a weird, okay.
Adam Smith International.
They're spreading capitalism internationally with the help of Bellingcat.
And this is from a leaked email that the Gray Zone also obtained.
This is from Paul Mason, who is a British media personality, I guess you can call him that, who was trying to plot about how to basically destroy the gray zone with some colleagues of his.
And he called for this.
He says, he says, what this really needs, what our plot really needs, is take down the gray zone, the website I work for, founded by Max Blumenthal.
What it really needs is Intel service input by proxy, e.g.
Bellingcat.
And that's what Paul Mason privately admitted, that Bellingcat really is Intel service by proxy.
He's exactly right.
So what is it?
He didn't have his account account password strong enough for something stupid like that or wasn't encrypt.
He wasn't taking care of his emails.
So that's why we can know that he agrees with us.
What we say, what we say publicly, which is that Bellingcat is the Intel service by proxy.
We find out from Paul Mason's email that he agrees with us too.
He just won't say it publicly.
He says it in private.
I went down a whole hole at watching Paul Mason videos after this back when this happened.
And he is a TWATSTWAT.
Wow.
But sometimes they make it open.
Listen to this.
This is a headline from Foreign Policy not long ago.
Bellingcat can say what U.S. intelligence can't.
Okay.
And here's a former CIA deputy chief of operations in Europe and Eurasia, Mark Polymeropoulos.
This guy, we quoted a popular.
Polymeropoulos.
He came down with Havana syndrome, so hopefully he's recovering from that.
He says, I don't want to be too traumatic, but we love this.
He's talking about Bellingcat.
We love this.
Yes, they do, because Bellingcat is doing their job, the job of the intelligence agencies that they work with.
And so Bellingcat took issue with Cy Hirsch's reporting about Syria.
And what Cy Hirsch revealed was that while the U.S. was publicly accusing Syria of committing a chemical attack in Ghouta in August 2013, Cy Hirsch reported that privately, U.S. intelligence collected a lot of information that in reality, the sectarian death squads in Syria had their own chemical weapons program and that the intelligence that Assad, that the Syrian government was guilty of this attack was not there, that they actually had no evidence at all.
That's what Seymour Hirsch reported in the London Review of Books in late 2013 and 2014.
And he was attacked for that, including by Bellingcat.
But then Hirsch got corroborated by an unlikely source, Barack Obama.
And so I tweeted this to those dismissing Cy Hirsch because he challenged Syria chemical weapons allegations.
You haven't heard from Barack Obama.
Hirsch reported that U.S. intelligence raised doubts about the claim that Syria used chemical weapons in Ghouta in August 2013.
Obama later admitted that the intelligence he was given about Syrian guilt was not a slam dunk.
And that's a deliberate reference to Iraq WMDs because when George Tennant, then the director of the CIA, went to George W. Bush and said, we have proof that Saddam is weapons of mass destruction, he said the case was a slam dunk.
So this is from Politico.
Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper, interrupted President Obama's daily briefing to tell him the intelligence on Syria's use of sarin gas was not a slam dunk.
And it goes on to say here that that was a deliberate reference to the Iraq war.
So that was James Clapper's way of saying that they did not have the intelligence that Syria was guilty of the chemical attack because they knew, as Hirsch later reported, that actually the rebels in Syria had their own chemical weapons.
And there's been a lot of evidence coming out since pointing to actually that attack being carried out by the sectarian death squads.
So people trying to dismiss Seymour Hirsch for reporting something that's turned out to be 100% accurate.
And there were even Obama administration officials at the time of this leaking similar claims.
Look at this.
This is from the Associated Press.
I remember this because at the time, he was getting trashed because he said the red line was chemical weapons.
And I remember people talking about it.
Like Obama didn't even, they crossed the red line.
We didn't even punish them.
Exactly.
And the reason why he didn't punish Syria is because he was told that the intelligence wasn't there.
Seymour Hirsch reported.
And here are even, these are U.S. officials leaking this.
U.S. intelligence on weapons is no slam dunk.
And they were leaking this at the time because they were worried that Obama was going to bomb Syria based on an Iraq WMD level lie.
And so they leaked stuff like this to undermine that.
And Seymour Hirsch later reported exactly what they were concerned about.
And so, okay, so that's so they tried to use Bellingcat to dismiss him about Syria.
Okay, that's Syria.
And then Insider also says Vox raised doubts about Hirsch's infamous 2015 claim that President Barack Obama did not, in fact, mastermind the killing of Osama bin Laden.
He didn't.
So what Hirsch reported was that the White House had said that they tracked down bin Laden through some master sleuthing of the CIA, that they followed bin Laden through his courier.
What Hirsch reported was that actually a walk-in happened.
A witness came into a U.S. facility in Pakistan and told them that actually we know where bin Laden is hiding.
And he's actually there under the protection of the Pakistani security services.
And Hirsch reported that.
And right after Hirsch reported that, the White House denied it.
They said it's not true.
But then guess what?
Here's NBC News.
Pakistani asset helped in hunt for bin Laden, sources say.
Sources tell NBC that an ex-Pakistani official helped in the search for bin Laden and that some Pakistani officials knew where Osama was hiding.
So that was NBC's story of basically corroborating Hirsch's reporting without giving him credit.
Why?
So the reason to lie about that was because we went into Pakistan, they're our ally and we wanted to pretend like.
Because we pretended the Obama claimed that we went into Pakistan without them knowing, that we went in there in this daring raid to kill Bin Laden.
What happened was the U.S. was cooperating with allies inside the Pakistani military who were willing to basically turn on their other people inside their government who had been protecting bin Laden.
Oh, I actually thought at the time they were making that up because they were trying to give them some credit too, because we invaded their own.
Yeah, yeah.
Well, they were trying to basically, they were trying to, they were trying to protect the Pakistani government from criticism from their own people for allowing a raid on their country to happen.
So that was a part of it.
And they also wanted to, if you watch the movie Zero Dark 30, you're supposed to think that we learned about bin Laden and other important intelligence through torture.
In reality, it was exactly as Hirsch reported and NBC News confirmed that a witness came in and spilled the beans.
And Hirsch reported that first, and they hate him because he got the truth and he exposed their lies, as he's doing once again with the Nord Stream 2.
I'm Mary Matte, sitting in for Jimmy Dore here with Americans comedian Kurt Metzger.
And here is the headline in the Times of London.
U.S. bombed Nordstream gas pipelines claims investigative journalist Seymour Hirsch.
Yes, Seymour Hirsch, one of the most accomplished journalists of all time, recently came out with a report.
We've covered it here extensively on the Jimmy Door show detailing how the U.S. blew up the Nord Stream 2 pipeline.
And Cy Hirsch exposed the details, how this was planned on the orders of President Biden and executed with the help of Norway.
And outlets like the Times of London are covering this, but in the U.S., it's a much different story.
U.S. outlets are pretty much doing their best to ignore Seymour Hirsch's reporting.
And this is confirmed in some new reporting from Alan McLeod, who's with Mint Press News.
And here it is.
An investigation into the 20 most influential U.S. news outlets found that virtually all of them have completely ignored a star journalist's bombshell report claiming the Biden administration blew up the Nord Stream pipeline.
Yes, Seymour Hirsch, one of the most accomplished, impactful journalists of all time, won the Pulitzer Award and many other accolades.
His stories have made history.
The Milai massacre, which he exposed, this massacre of Vietnamese civilians, him revealing that and the cover-up that occurred, that helped end the Vietnam War.
He also exposed the Abu Ghraib torture scandal and story after story exposing the national security state and having a huge impact on the world.
But now, Cy Hirsch, after a brief hiatus, has come back with this huge story that the U.S. blew up the Nord Stream 2 pipeline and is getting crickets from the establishment media in the U.S. So here's more from Alan McLeod studying a week's worth of news from the top 20 largest U.S. media outlets found only full four total stories on Cy Hirsch's reporting,
including five minutes of TV, one tiny report, and one blistering attack piece calling Hirsch a discredited journalist who just gave a gift to Putin.
And that was in the Business Insider, which had the gall to call Seymour Hirsch discredited, one of the most accomplished and legendary journalists ever.
Wait, don't they do that with a bunch of people?
Yes, they do.
That's what they do.
Yeah, we covered it on the Jimmy Dorse show, how they and their effort to smear Hirsch was based on Bellingcat, which is a NATO state-funded website, which, of course, Insider failed to mention.
And by the way, as we talked about, Bellingcat's own state partners in the UK have privately called them in leaked documents somewhat discredited.
So it's funny that they cite Bellingcat to try to call Seymour Hirsch one of the best journalists ever discredited.
Well, also, look at like, okay, he's discredited.
Then how did he give a gift to Putin if his word ain't worth anything?
That's a good point.
Alan McLeod, this is incredible because fallout from Hirsch's article is all over the news wires.
Reuters has 14 articles on it.
So Reuters is an international news service, which every major outlet is subscribed to.
And so these outlets get Reuters' reports, 14 reports about Seymour Hirsch's story, but none of them have picked it up.
And Alan says this means that every newsroom in the U.S. has been bombarded with a story for days, and virtually everyone has repeatedly refused to acknowledge its existence.
That's exactly right.
And more from Alan McLeod's reporting here, a survey of U.S. news coverage or lack of U.S. news coverage of Cy Hirsch's story.
The entirety of the corporate media's attention given to the story consisted of a 166-word mini report in Bloomberg, one five-minute segment on Tucker Carlson tonight.
I was in that segment.
One 600-word roundup in the New York Post, a shrill business insider attack article whose headline labels Hirsch a discredited journalist that has given a gift to Putin.
The 20 outlets studied are in alphabetical order, ABC News, Bloomberg, Business Insider, BuzzFeed, CBS, CNBC, CNN, Forbes, Fox News, Huffington Post, MSNBC, NBC News, New York Post, New York Times, NPR, People Magazine, Politico, USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, The Washington Post.
Look how many of these outlets have completely ignored the story, including the New York Times, which formerly employed Cy Hirsch, where he did some of his most legendary reporting.
But not everyone's ignoring it.
And here's Claire Daly.
She's a member of parliament in the European Parliament.
She's from Ireland.
And here she is talking about the world turning its back, or some of the world turning its back on Cy Hirsch's reporting, especially establishment media in Europe and the U.S. Since September, the lack of interest in finding answers to who was behind the Nord Stream gas explosion has been frankly astounding.
This was an act of sabotage, an act of unrivaled evangelism, economically and environmentally, and not a word, no discussion, no questions.
Then along comes Seymour Hirsch, the world's most acclaimed, distinguished living investigative journalist.
He produces a detailed claim that the United States executed this explosion with the help of Norway.
Planned months before the invasion, a Norwegian Navy P8 surveillance plane dropped a sonar boy on the 26th of September, which triggered explosions planted by U.S. Navy Panama City divers three months earlier under a NATO exercise and still nothing.
I don't know what happened, but I want to know.
This is a man who doesn't make claims lightly, a man with contacts.
And I find it frankly jaw-dropping that the EU is not asking questions as to who is responsible for sabotaging the livelihoods of our citizens.
I am ashamed to be a European.
So what this bombing of the Nord Stream 2 did is it cut off a huge source of cheap energy, not just for Germany, but for all of Europe, because the Nord Stream 2 was built to bring cheap Russian energy from Russia to Germany and then the rest of Europe.
And it was basically by using cheap Russian energy that Germany has been able to build such a powerful economy, which now has been severely hurt by the proxy war in Ukraine and by the destruction of the Nord Stream 2.
And what Cy Hirsch points out in his article is that the U.S. recognized that if the Nord Stream 2 went online, then that would create a big problem for the U.S. if it wanted to wage a proxy war against Russia and Ukraine, because to do that proxy war, they need Germany.
And Germany is not going to want to be on board with that, or at least it's going to have jitters about being on board if it has its cheap energy coming from Russia.
So the U.S. took care of that by blowing up the Nord Stream 2.
Well, you're welcome, Germany.
Exactly.
Is that so?
She said they planned the article said they planted the explosives before the invasion even happened.
Did I hear that?
They started planning, but they started planning this before the invasion.
No, but the buoy, did I hear this?
I might have heard this wrong.
It sounded like the explosion, the explosives were planted during a Navy exercise, the Panama City divers.
Was that before?
It was after.
That was in June 2022.
But the planning for this operation began before the invasion.
And actually, the planning really got underway in December 2021.
And that's really interesting timing because that same month, Russia submitted these detailed draft treaties to the U.S. and NATO, outlining all of its concerns that could resolve its issues over Ukraine and end the crisis.
And we don't want to prevent a war.
But the U.S. and NATO didn't want that.
And that Russian treaty, those proposals and those treaties, basically asked the U.S. and NATO to recognize Russia's security concerns in Ukraine by pledging to keep Ukraine neutral so Ukraine wouldn't join NATO.
And also, it asked the U.S. NATO to roll back to some of the offensive military infrastructure that are in states that surround Russia.
Not all the infrastructure in these states, but just some of them, the states that joined NATO after 1997, which include states that formerly were a part of the Soviet Union.
So Russia was asking NATO to scale that back.
And rather than even discuss that, even talk about it, let alone accept it, just discuss it.
The U.S. instead started planning for blowing up the Nord Stream 2 and basically wanted, I think, this invasion to happen so they could in turn wage a proxy war.
And just to make sure everybody was on board, they took care of the German factor by blowing up the Nord Stream 2.
And now, since then, the U.S. media has not been willing to ask any questions.
And even when one of the most celebrated journalists of all time comes out with this story, they still don't want to pay attention to it.
Well, I like how Business, like Business Insider, I thought they had lost all their credibility back when they did the barstool sports guy smear.
That was that.
That's when they got blown up.
So it's amazing to talk about somebody, or who's what's the guy that we're the last time we were watching the, he was from the CIA.
Now he's at the State Department.
Oh, Ned Price.
Ned Price.
Like watching him talk as if like he has a track record of the guy who's told the truth all the time.
Now he's discredited.
And you who have lied every single time.
That's amazing.
That's how it works.
Hey, you know, 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 jimmydoorcompedy.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.
I'm Aaron Matte sitting in for Jimmy Dore here with Americans comedian Kurt Medzker.
And let's talk about this.
Remember this whole thing about the Chinese supposed spy balloon?
Here's a dramatic headline from CNN.
Inside Biden's decision to take care of the Chinese spy balloon that triggered a diplomatic crisis.
Oh my God, they didn't exactly get on that like a Nord Stream pipeline level.
And then, so when this balloon was flying over the U.S., there was a big freakout and it led to stories like this.
Now, look at China's history of spying in the U.S. Did this just come out or how long ago?
This was back when the balloon was.
This was before Balloon URI 6.
Wait, but because I was trying to look up the balloon because I told you, I thought I dreamt it.
It was such a dumb thing.
So I looked it up and it was like, why they would use a balloon?
They're listening to all these reasons why it would be advantageous to spy with a balloon.
And I was like, did anybody just, hey, just want to raise my hand?
Do you think maybe a big white balloon might be the most noticeable thing?
I mean, I get the, it's low-tech.
And maybe we're not supposed to.
Maybe there's matters of intelligence that us lay people are not allowed to grasp.
Does this history include a car jammed filled with clowns?
It's their entire history.
Well, look, you're Kurt, you're skeptical.
They're coming at us with those big dragon puppets.
I remember actually, when this was happening, Kurt, you texted me and said, what the hell?
You're like, this is blinded.
Yeah, that's right.
I couldn't find one thing.
Because I saw, okay, the fine print was suspected spy balloon because they all said, then they all just dropped suspects.
Yes.
And so suspected, I'm like, well, that's like, you know, free credit report.
How that's not, you know, like, and I couldn't find one thing saying it was not.
So I was like, this has to be me.
I texted you.
Yeah.
If they're all agreeing on it, that's fucking crazy.
Yeah.
Well, your skepticism has been vindicated because now, of course, as always happens, whenever there is this explosive claim made about an official enemy like China or Russia or whoever else, there's always the moment when it has to be walked back, when the evidence has to be admitted, when the hype has worn off.
They've examined the payload of the balloon payload.
Yes.
Yes, they have.
So not only was there this supposed Chinese spy balloon, but also these recent unidentified flying objects that the U.S. shot down over Canada.
And now we're getting – But now we're going to get an update on what these objects and balloons really are about.
Back here in Washington, there is breaking news tonight on that Chinese spy balloon.
CBS News has just breaking news.
It's not a spy balloon.
We have recovered all of the spy hack dick pics of Billings, Montana that were found inside the payload.
Learned that U.S. intelligence watched the high-flying airship as it lifted off near China's south coast.
You hear that?
So U.S. intelligence watched this balloon the moment it left China.
That was my question because it has to come from mainland China, right?
Yes.
So I think Jimmy showed all the bases we have.
None of our high-tech surrounding China bases picked up on this balloon.
No, they absolutely did.
And that's what they have to admit now.
It's like, we were supposed to initially admit that all of a sudden this balloon, this Chinese spy balloon, appeared out of nowhere.
Well, guess what?
We were tracking it the whole time.
And the reason why we're tracking it is because it's not a spy balloon.
It's actually a weather-tracking balloon, as we're going to get to.
Wait, China told the truth?
And our media lied.
Imagine that.
That means the U.S. military had been tracking it for nearly a week before it entered U.S. airspace, longer than originally known.
Okay, wait, can I is the is this story going to end with why didn't they act sooner to stop the Chinese spy balloon?
Correct.
Yes, it is.
Yes, it is.
CBS Nancy.
It doesn't take a Chinese spy balloon to know what they're going to say.
This is at the White House.
So, Nancy, they were watching this from the beginning.
They were, Nora.
And what they saw was this balloon heading east from China towards Guam and Hawaii.
But then it took a sharp northward turn, a beeline towards Alaska.
And we're going to get to why that was.
And it turns out this was just a weather system, some cold air that pushed it that way.
This was not a spy balloon trying to, you know, monitor the secrets of the U.S. This was just a weather balloon being pushed by the weather.
This sounds like something when you hear like, you know, you'd hear about like China, somebody crashed and they go, you are a spy.
That's what we did with a also revealed today that the three subsequent objects they shot down probably were not involved in spying.
You don't say.
You don't say.
Wait, why are you still writing spy balloon in the thing underneath it then?
The three objects shot down this weekend may have been harmless research balloons.
That's now a leading theory for the intelligence community.
Did they bring up UFOs so that this balloon thing is that embarrassing so that you would associate like, oh, they're trying to say it was just balloons now?
It's a good question.
I mean, this happened at a very opportune time.
Also, there was the story about the U.S. blowing up Nord Stream 2.
So it's a good time to start a freak out about some unidentified flying objects in a Chinese spy balloon.
Well, I thought, what's his name?
Was it Blinken?
Was supposed to go to China?
He canceled his trip.
I thought it was like to get out of going trip to China.
So here is from Caitlin Johnstone.
U.S. officials now say Chinese spy balloon flew over U.S. accidentally.
And Caitlin talks about this headline in the Washington Post.
U.S. tracked China spy balloon from launch on Hainan Island along unusual path.
But check out the subheading there.
It says, the large Chinese surveillance device that flew across Alaska and the continental U.S. may have been diverted on an errant path caused by atypical weather conditions.
Was there a rudder on the balloon?
Because if there wasn't, I'd say probably that's what happened.
But notice how the headline's still calling it a spy balloon.
So the headline is spy balloon, but then in the subheading, they actually watered that down to surveillance device because that surveillance device was really just tracking weather.
Well, they're spying on our weather.
And here it is from this Washington Post article, according to several U.S. officials who said analysts are now examining the possibility that China didn't intend to penetrate the American heartland with their airborne surveillance device.
Oh, the balloon floated over Alaska's Alecian Islands, thousands of miles away from Guam, then drifted over Canada, where it encountered strong winds that appear to have pushed the balloon south into the continental United States.
My God, could it be possible?
And there it is.
We must examine the possibility.
There's the weather system.
This is basically why we had a Chinese spy balloon freak out.
So you're saying they control the weather.
Here's Caitlin Johnson again.
Washington Post.
It was a spy balloon.
It was a spy balloon.
It's definitely 100% a Chinese spy balloon.
Okay, it had no intention of flying over America to spy on us, but it was definitely 100% a spy balloon.
She also says, so it's entirely possible that the American political media class has been spending the month of February furiously demanding more militarism and more Cold War escalations over four harmless balloons.
Sometimes I think U.S. media should abandon its whole free speech, free press charade and just switch to publishing news straight out of the Pentagon.
I think the Pentagon thinks that most of the time.
And again, so after the Chinese balloon came these unidentified objects that were shot down.
And check out the headline there.
Three objects shot down after Chinese spy balloon.
Of course, it's not a spy balloon.
Maybe benign, White House says.
And here is White House Press Secretary Corine Jean-Pierre speaking on MSNBC.
Why is the American military shooting something out of the sky over Canada?
Because it's part of a NORAD.
The NORAD is part of like a part of what you call a coalition attack.
Because we got to shoot something down.
We just got to knock something.
And that's happened to me over Canada.
We can't take a chance on another balloon.
It was a little embarrassing.
Because they don't want to not warmong with China, but they also.
So the Democrats were like, no, we knew it was a spy balloon.
We were watching it.
We can't just shoot down a spy balloon.
They couldn't say it's just not a spy balloon.
Exactly.
Exactly.
A pack.
Exactly.
And so that's why we were able to do that.
Again, we didn't do it on our own.
We did it in clearly in step with Canada.
Canadia helped us shoot down.
I see Canadia all the time.
Fair enough.
And by the way, these missiles that were used to shoot down these objects over Canada are pretty expensive.
Sidewinder missile Biden used over Lake Huron cost over $450,000.
But guess what?
The military missed the unidentified flying object with its first missile shot over Lake Huron.
Wait a minute.
The UFO, are they also still calling you the balloon at this point, right?
These are other.
I'm not sure even the nature of these objects.
It could be balloons, but they're unidentified.
And the point is we try to shoot them down, but we missed the first time.
Mike Tracy says, so because of some weird political frenzy over alleged spy balloons, the U.S. military just fired a $400,000 side winder missile.
Sidewinder.
Sidewinder that hit nothing and splashed right into Lake Huron.
Makes sense.
I mean, it sounds like a bargain if you look at how they spend.
Here's more from Bloomberg.
U.S. says, three mystery objects, likely private with no China link.
Initial evidence finds no link to Chinese espionage efforts.
But guess what?
We might not know this because the debris has not been located, according to the Pentagon.
This is Max Lumenthal.
Biden directed the military to shoot down several objects over U.S. skies, but may never be able to tell the public what those objects are and may not know himself.
Now his administration is trying to tamp down on burgeoning conspiracies because why would the public have questions?
And what they're saying here is from one official, if it can't be recovered, it's going to be extremely difficult to say with great certainty what these things were.
It sounds like they're trying to cause conspiracies, what it sounds like.
Absolutely.
Absolutely.
And they're doing a great job, but not after they also stoked a new round of Cold War panic and frenzy by accusing China of launching a spy balloon over the U.S. when it turns out this is a weather balloon pushed by a weather system.
I did suspect the suspected spy balloon was not, in fact, a spy balloon.
You know, I also now suspect, does anyone use a spy balloon?
I've never heard of that ever.
Maybe World War I did some spy ballooning.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Did the inventor of the balloon think of his invention as being used for spying?
Phineas balloon?
I don't know.
Phineas.
I'm Mary Matte sitting in for Jimmy Doer here with Americans comedian Kurt Medzker.
And talking about Ukraine, there's a new revelation of yet another NATO ally revealing that the U.S. blocked a peace deal.
And this time, this comes from Naftali Bennett, who was the former prime minister of Israel.
And early in the war, right after Russia invaded, in the first week, he started brokering talks between Ukraine and Russia.
And this is what he said.
He said that each leader has their way.
Boris Johnson adopted an aggressive line.
Macron and Schultz were more pragmatic.
Biden was both, and that's it.
But then he says this.
After a peace deal was reached, a ceasefire was reached between Ukraine and Russia.
This is what happened.
He says, I think there was a legitimate decision by the West to keep striking Putin.
Anything I did was coordinated down to the last detail with the U.S., Germany, and France.
They blocked it.
And I thought they were wrong.
So what he's talking about there is after he brokered the ceasefire between Ukraine and Russia and also got concessions from both sides.
Ukraine, according to Bennett, agreed that they would not join NATO.
And Russia agreed, according to Bennett, that they would abandon their goal of demilitarizing and denazifying Ukraine, which is also their way of acknowledging that they're not going to regime change Zelensky.
So both sides gave these concessions.
And according to Naftali Bennett, the West blocked it.
And he specifically names the U.S. and UK for being the most aggressive here because they wanted to keep striking Putin.
Or in a different translation, because it's in Hebrew, his interview, it was that they wanted to keep smashing Putin.
Regardless, they wanted to keep this war going.
And that's why, according to Naftali Bennett, they blocked a peace deal.
And this is the latest source to confirm this.
We've already heard from sources close to Zelensky that Boris Johnson came over to Zelensky in late March 2022.
And this was after a different deal was reached between Russia and Ukraine in talks brokered by Istanbul.
And according to these sources, close Zelensky, Boris Johnson told Zelensky that now is not the time to make peace with Russia.
Now's the time to keep fighting.
And if you make peace with Russia, we're not going to back you up, which made it impossible for Zelensky to make any kind of deal.
So this revelation from Bennett about talks that occurred just a bit prior to that incident where Boris Johnson came over are the latest revelation of how the U.S. and the U.K. blocked peace in Ukraine to keep this war going.
So here's Michael Tracy.
The former Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett just confirmed what any rational observer could have surmised.
Russia and Ukraine reached a preliminary agreement during the early phase of the war.
Both sides very much wanted a ceasefire, Bennett said, but the U.S. blocked it.
And Tracy goes on, on March 5th, 2022, nine days after the invasion, Bennett secretly went to Moscow and met with Putin.
Bennett says Putin agreed to two big concessions, renouncing the denazification of Ukraine, understood to mean regime change, and renouncing the disarmament of Ukraine.
Bennett says that simultaneously to this, again, based on his own direct intensive involvement in the day-to-day negotiations, Zelensky also agreed to a big concession and would officially renounce NATO membership.
I say to myself Now, I say to myself, wow, that's a huge shift, Bennett recounts.
Anything I did was coordinated down to the last detail with the U.S., Germany, and France, said Bennett.
As an impartial mediator, he said it wasn't for him to make prescriptive determinations about the correct policy choice.
I turned to America in this regard, he admitted.
Well, that's a bad choice if you want peace.
Yeah, why would you do that?
Because he's not powerful enough.
It's America that calls the shots.
Because when the rubber hit the road and the parameters of a diplomatic settlement had been mutually agreed upon by both Ukraine and Russia, they blocked it, Bennett said, as in the U.S. And I thought they were wrong.
And of course, just like every other revelation that comes out about the West blocking peace in Ukraine, this one has been uniformly ignored in U.S. establishment media with one exception on the Tucker Carlson show.
And here is Tulsi Gabbard talking about that with Tucker Carlson.
I have no idea why the former prime minister of Israel admitted this in public.
I'm so grateful that he did.
How can Biden, how can the New York Times, the Washington Post, how can all the cheerleaders for this refuse to acknowledge this fact?
This is huge.
We could have prevented this.
Our leaders, those in power, could have prevented this, and they didn't.
And the fact that it's not being widely reported is incredibly revealing, and it just shows they never really cared about the Ukrainian people.
They never really cared about the American people or democracy or freedom, all these other things that we hear them giving so much lip service to.
It reveals what they've really wanted all along, which is to overthrow the Putin regime.
And they saw this war as an opportunity that would help them achieve that goal.
And it's disgusting to know that this is true.
The thing is, Tucker, you and I both know with regime change wars, no one can predict how they'll end up or what happens next or who's going to take over.
But we do know with Russia, because they've already, you know, the writing is on the wall.
We do know that in Russia, it's not going to be some, you know, a pro-Western or pro-democracy power that goes and takes over.
It's going to be someone that is far more hawkish and far more dangerous, creating a greater threat for the United States.
The only way that this war ends is through a negotiated outcome.
So unless something radical changes, something major changes, unfortunately, what we, the American people, will see what the Ukrainian people will see people in the world is that this will continue to escalate, pushing us closer to a direct conflict between the United States, NATO, and Russia.
And we've talked about where that could potentially lead more dangerous weapons, more countries involved, and increasing that risk of a potential nuclear war.
It's so reckless and crazy.
It's also completely beyond our control that this war for democracy has never involved a referendum.
People are not allowed to vote on this.
Most people are against it, but because they're so for democracy, they won't allow the vote.
But I'm really trying to find, since I think this is going to happen, regardless of what you and I say, how does the U.S. conceivably benefit from this?
Is there any benefit that you can see?
Well, we know who is profiting from this.
The Biden administration and these pro-war Republicans.
Yeah.
And she goes on to talk about the military industrial complex and how there's support for this in both parties.
And if you're someone who doesn't like that Tucker Carlson and Tulsi Gabbard are the only ones talking about this, and that's another reason to push progressives to, for once, stand up and support peace.
Remember the one time they did when those House progressives sent a letter to Biden politely asking him to support diplomacy.
They withdrew that after 24 hours.
And now we get more revelations that as all this was happening, the Biden administration was blocking every attempt there was to make peace in Ukraine.
How come Tucker, because I watched him talk about the Chinese spy balloon.
I'm sure he's been on the spy balloon.
But why on that, like, is it just because he's already on the back, the people that they wouldn't want to know this are already not going to watch Tucker.
So that's why it's cool for him to be able to say the real thing.
I don't get why, you know, on some issues, someone like Tucker Carlson can be, you know, very clear-eyed about the proxy war in Ukraine, but then simultaneously push warmongering with China.
It's interesting.
Well, does he have to like make up for taking away from one war to stay on five?
But I will say this, you know, he's had on people sometimes like Doug McGregor, the retired Army Colonel, who have criticized the Cold War mentality around China.
So it's, you know, he has a lot on some essentials.
Well, he does have people on.
Yeah.
But Kurt, guess which low-rate outlet, third-rate outlet, tried to pour cold water on these revelations from the former Islamic Prime Minister Naftali Bennett.
We've come across them already.
Business insider.
Business insider.
That's right, everybody.
Business insider is here, just as they're here to try to tell you that Seymour Hirsch is discredited and has been giving a gift to Putin by reporting.
Boosted by Russia.
Oh, those pieces of shit want peace.
So just as insider is here to tell you that like one of the best journalists of all time, Seymour Hirsch should not be listened to.
It took two of them to write this, by the way.
Two insiders.
Who are the reporters for Insider?
Because this stuff all reads like, let's say, I don't know, you're going to go buy some gym supplements and you want to check and see if they were good online and you read research and like, not only are they really safe and good.
Like, is that what this is?
This is how this all reads.
Like, PR from some company or interest.
That's pretty much what they are.
Like how bills are given to Congress people that they don't write.
Like, that's what this is.
That's what this is.
Exactly.
So whenever you need the national security state to validate one of its propaganda claims, you can always count on outlets like Insider to come out and justify it and attack people who challenge it with reporting, like Seymour Hurts.
Really, they're telling you who they are right in the title.
They're insiders.
Insiders, yes.
So here they are now trying to pour cold water on this admission from the horse's mouth from former Israeli prime minister Naftali Bennett that the U.S. blocked a peace deal in Ukraine.
And this is a headline.
Former Israeli Prime Minister Rebut's claim boosted by Russia that the U.S. blocks a Ukraine peace agreement.
It's unsure there was any deal to be made.
So now they're trying to basically take Bennett's comments that he made in response to the controversy that he elicited by admitting that the U.S. blocked a peace deal in Ukraine.
Now they're trying to take that and say that, oh, he never admitted that there was a peace deal that was blocked by the U.S. Everyone, including Russia, are just twisting that.
So here is Insider.
They say pro-Russia commentators have focused on his saying that a peace deal was blocked by the West.
But Bennett has clarified that no such deal existed and said the talks broke down because of apparent Russian war crimes.
Now, that's not true that Barrett clarified that no such deal existed.
And the people who are going to tell us that are none other than the people who wrote this article itself, because they have to admit that later on.
So remember that when they say that Bennett clarified that no such deal existed, here's what Bennett actually said, according to Insider.
He said that it's unsure there was any deal to be made.
At the time, I gave it roughly a 50% chance.
Americans felt chances were way lower.
Hard to tell who was right.
And then he says it's not sure such a deal was desirable.
So he's not saying there was no deal to be made.
He's just saying he gives it a 50-50 chance.
But the point is, the deal was being discussed.
Desirable to whom?
No, exactly.
Not desirable to warmongers.
And the reason why there was no deal in the end is because it was blocked by the U.S., which prevented it from happening.
Is this like when the Taliban was going to give us bin Laden and we said no?
Exactly.
When Donald Rumsfield said we don't negotiate with terrorists and then gave us the Afghanistan war.
Yeah.
And here's more from Insider.
And here they are trying to like challenge, try to say that Bennett said that they're trying to argue that Bennett said that the deal wasn't blocked.
And this is how they put that, okay?
They say the English subtitles are flawed because the original interview was in Hebrew.
The English subtitles are flawed.
In the exchange, Bennett and the interviewer do not use the word blocked, but rather stopped.
What's the difference?
U.S. stopped a peace deal or blocked it.
It's the same thing.
Blocked and stopped.
They stopped it from happening.
So they're undermining their own attempt to try to whitewash what Bennett is.
That's why I'm saying these all read like this.
They're all like.
You could immediately get an ear full of bullshit.
As soon as it starts with, like, which, by the way, Russia loves the thing they said.
As soon as they include that, like, you know, you're reading some kind of PR thing.
You can't acknowledge facts if Russia happens to agree with them.
That's pretty much what the rule is.
That's what disinformation means.
Yes.
That's what disinformation means.
Hey, this is the Jimmy Doer show.
Aaron Matte speaking.
Who's this?
Andy, this is United States American President Joe Joseph Biden.
Oh, hello, Mr. President.
Thanks for calling.
My pleasure.
Happy to do it.
I've always said the Jimmy Doer show would be ten times better without that smug prick Jimmy Dore.
Okay, I'll leave that one alone.
What's on your mind, sir?
Nothing but good thoughts.
The Biden administration continues to bring America back from the brink to ensure that our economy is sound and our citizens are safe.
We're shooting balloons out of the sky.
Our infrastructure is in better shape than ever before.
And in this latest mass shooting, it wasn't even a white guy.
America is coming back.
I see.
You seem very up with Biden at the moment.
Would you perhaps be posturing for a 2024 announcement?
Ronnie, as I've said before, I've made my decision.
But I haven't decided exactly when I'm going to announce my decision.
The decision regarding my announcement of the first decision is still pending.
I hope that makes sense and not like the rambling of an old man.
No comment.
But if I ran, if I feel confident the Biden administration and its accomplishments can deflect anything that any potential Republican candidate could possibly aim at us with their lie cannons.
I see.
So far, we know Donald Trump is running us.
No surprise.
And like I said, I would feel confident about a Biden-Trump 2024 election, even though the very thought of such thing probably drains the American people of their collective will to live.
I agree with that last part, actually.
I mean, how old will Trump be in 2024?
70-something?
Give me a break.
Hang it up, pal.
All right.
Nikki Haley just announced her candidacy.
What do you think of her?
Not worried.
Why not?
I don't know who she is.
You don't know who Nikki Haley is?
Oh, Nikki Haley.
I thought you said Nikki Haley.
Well, Trump is going to eat her alive.
He'll see her as a traitor.
He'll come up with some mean nickname for her and it'll be over.
Ben and Nikki Arnold.
Something like that.
Yeah, that's pretty good.
Haley's comet.
Well, that doesn't make sense.
But you get the idea.
She has proposed term limits for Congress members and mental health checks for politicians over 75.
Oh, that's just a low blow and stupid.
As president, I get a full annual physical that includes a mental competency test.
And I always pass it with flying colors.
Or so they tell me.
I mean, honestly, what are they going to say?
I'm senile.
It's just easier to dump them than not to if you think about it.
There have been stirrings in the GOP for new blood in politics, a not-so-subtle jab at the advanced age of Donald Trump and yourself, Mr. President.
Yeah, well, I'm not worried.
I may be old as shit, but I still feel like a spring chicken, which is an expression no one has used since 1965.
Bring him on.
Ron DeSantis 2.
You wouldn't be worried about running against Ron DeSantis.
Oh, you mean meatball Ron?
As Trump calls him?
I gotta hand it to him.
Some of these are pretty good.
Of course not.
He has the charisma of a fucking toaster.
Yeah, I may be old and senile, but at least that's kind of interesting.
An old guy saying weird shit.
It's entertaining on some level.
This guy just, it's Ron DeSantis.
He just stands in an odd way.
He's boring when he talks, and all he can do is say incendiary shit about minorities and gay people in this flat monotone.
Doesn't that tend to galvanize the conservative base?
Yeah, yeah, yeah, it does.
Now you mention it.
Okay, yeah, DeSantis may be a problem.
You're saying he could double down on culture war stuff and get a lot of the middle that way?
It at least seems like a possibility.
God damn it, Andrew.
You're right.
God damn it.
These videos of kids twerking around at drag shows or whatever really isn't doing us any favors at the moment.
It's just tossing red meat to these MAGA people.
All right.
You know, I'll get my, I'll get my team on that.
Okay.
Hey, you know what?
I appreciate it.
You're much more helpful to me than that Jimmy Dore guy.
I'm not trying to help you, Mr. President.
I'm literally just reading from a script right now.
Okay, well, Star, I appreciate it just the same.
How long is he gone?
Another 10 days or so.
Any way you could extend that?
No, I don't think so.
I have to spitball in here.
Harry Monte, new permanent host.
Perhaps some sort of, I don't know coup could be arranged.
That's how we usually do it.
Want me to talk to the CIA?
These boys know how to make accidents happen.
Okay, no, thanks, Mr. President.
And on that note, we should probably go.
Okay, but just think about it.
They can make it painless.
Or at least I assume so.
They don't usually tell us much about what they do.
They'll just do a favor every now and again.
But I'll make it clear.
Hands off brownie.
*laughter* *music*
Hey, become a premium member.
Go to jimmydoorcomedy.com.
Sign up.
It's the most affordable premium program in the business.
Freak out.
Freak out.
Don't freak out.
All the voices performed today are by the one and only the inimitable Mike McRae.
He 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.
▲
Export Selection