All Episodes
Previous Next
March 31, 2023 - Jimmy Dore Show
01:01:59
20230331_TJDS_20230331_Podcast_-_33023_10.45_AM
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Go to jimmydoor.com to see my new stand-up special, COVID lives are funny.
For only $10, you get to become a premium member, too.
And come see us do our live shows.
We're going to be doing stand-up comedy in Milwaukee, Nashville, Honolulu, Los Angeles, Northampton, Massachusetts, Syracuse, New York, co-host, New York, Hartford, Connecticut, Baltimore, Maryland, and more.
Go to jimmydore.com for a link for all those tickets.
*Phone ringing*
Hey, this is Jimmy.
Who's this?
Jimmy, this is Senator Chuck Charles Schumer, the state of New York.
Chucky the Shoe.
How are you doing, pal?
Oh, I just love it when you call me that, Jimmy.
It gets me all tingly.
What do you call it about today, Senator?
Well, Jimmy, in case you haven't heard, I am pleased to report that the Senate has voted to repeal.
Get ready for this.
Repeal the 2002 authorization for use of military force resolution that formed the legal justification for the 2003 invasion of Iraq.
Is that so?
Wow.
Well, that's just in time to stop the invasion of Iraq that killed millions of innocent Iraqi civilians and thousands of U.S. troops.
Oh, no, wait.
It's 2023, not 2003.
Kind of late, Chuck.
Okay, Mr. Weisenheimer.
At least we've made it so that we can't invade Iraq again a third time, like by accident or something.
Unless Congress declared war, like it says in the Constitution.
Oh, that part of the Constitution that everybody seems to forget about, that Congress has to vote to declare war?
Well, aren't you full of beans today?
Yes.
Congress would like its war powers back, please.
The executive branch has had them long enough, and this is the first step.
Having that one on the books creates precedent for further executive, quote-unquote, police action.
I wish we could have done this before that warmonger Trump was in office, but better late than never.
Actually, Barack Obama used that resolution more than anybody.
He used it to drop bombs all over the Middle East, especially in Syria.
Okay, all right.
Interesting how you single out our only African-American president for your moral opprobrium.
Interesting.
Not a good look, Jimmy.
Do better.
Don't do better, me, Senator.
I'm not singling out Barack Obama.
What I'm doing is not singling out George W. Bush because he was not our only war criminal president of the 21st century.
Okay, agree to disagree.
But I think we can agree that this is the first step in putting these regrettable conflicts behind us, these Middle East conflicts.
As I said, the world is a very different place than it was 20 years ago, and it's time to update the books.
Do you think it will pass the House?
Yes.
Really?
Absolutely, Jimmy.
Republicans will see this as an opportunity to take a monocampa away from a Democratic White House.
And to be clear, Democrats don't exactly want Biden having blow up the world powers themselves.
Is that so?
Yes.
I mean, let's be real.
Well, I, for one, will I never move on from being lied to about this bloody war.
But I suppose it is a good thing that the legal architecture that allowed it to be dis is being dismantled, even if it's just being dismantled symbolically.
Absolutely.
We cannot let the rhetoric of those times divide and obfuscate us as a nation yet again.
We have too many looming threats to deal with.
Really?
Like what?
Well, Russia, of course.
Jesus.
What are you goofy?
Russia.
Oh, brother.
Don't oh, brother me, Mr. Man.
This Putin character is a madman and a threat to the whole world.
Where have I heard that before?
I saw you chastise Ron DeSantis on Twitter for saying the war in Ukraine is a, quote, territorial dispute.
I know.
Could you believe that?
The nerve.
And I told him that Putin is a threat to American security and American democracy.
Putin is threatening American democracy?
Well, that's what you say when you're ramping up to a war, duh.
I mean, I said that wrong.
Yes.
Did I say that?
That's not what I meant.
No, you said it, Chuck.
All right, fine.
Maybe I did, but it's not like you're recording this or anything.
Yeah, you know what's ironic?
I'm glad that the House is Republican now.
Why?
Because if the House has to vote to declare war, I'd rather it be in their hands than the Democrats, because the Democrats are the warmongers now.
Do you hear yourself?
Republicans, war, other things.
You have a point.
Absolute lunacy.
Is that so?
Democrats are warmongers.
Give me a break.
All that happened is we went from sheepishly going along with Republican-led military action to spearheading our own military actions and leading the saber-rattling.
And do these Republicans return the favor?
No.
They say things like the war in Ukraine is a territorial dispute, like they're wearing crazy pants or something.
Does it bother you that the American public doesn't want these forever wars to continue?
They'll fall in line if we say the right things.
Anyway, the point is we got rid of that Iraq war thingy, so that makes us look peaceful.
Great job.
Well done.
Thank you.
That's all I wanted to hear.
Now, can we count on your support?
Support for what?
Asset approval of whatever aggressive foreign policy that we put forth.
Absolutely not, Chuck.
Well, aren't you just an ingrate?
You call yourself a leftist, but what does that even mean?
You and your you.
You people.
We try and try, and you just you ingrate.
Is that all you have, Senator?
Yes, my outrage.
And donors.
Don't forget the donors.
I still have those.
So I don't need you.
We are the party of peace unless we want to go to war in order to win elections or whatever, in which case we'll appeal to the basic forms of nationalism and demonizing.
And you have my word on that, sir.
Or my name isn't Charles Chuck Schumer.
Do you hear me?
This isn't over.
What isn't over, Chuck?
I'm not really sure I'm trying to sound tough.
It's not really our strong suit, but we have To practice it if we're going to be the party of endless wars.
Anyway, always a pleasure, Jimmy.
Tata.
Okay, bye, Chuck.
So get this.
So Jon Stewart's in the news again.
And it's never good anymore.
The last good thing was when he told the truth about the lab leak theory, and then he got canceled.
And ever since then, he's been doing horrible things.
He gave Larry Summers a good talking to.
That was it.
Yeah.
He says, what happened to our country?
It's as though you can't even commit financial fraud anymore.
The next thing you know, they're going to send you to jail instead of your lawyer and your accountant and your campaign manager and everyone else around you.
It isn't.
No, it isn't like that, though.
That's the problem.
That's why that's not funny.
Yeah, right.
I mean, whatever.
Who am I to critique his comedy?
He's a better comedian than me.
Okay.
Also, he's a big Springsteen fan.
It's like, shut up, dude.
Springsteen.
So he...
Isn't he good anymore?
I never liked it.
Oh, okay.
He's like, whatever.
You can like what you want.
The thing that really is annoying with him is he's got a...
Like, years ago, I worked on a show called The Approval Matrix that Neil Brennan hosted.
Remember The Approval Matrix?
It was in like New York Magazine.
It was like this chart and they would put pop stuff in the news on it like from like Sublime and then Despicable.
And then they're like, let's make a show.
It was popular in that magazine.
So like, let's make a show.
So he made a show out of it, which is basically like the Bill Maher, like politically incorrect, but there's like a board in the middle that you have to like move hockey pucks around.
It was just a ridiculous thing.
But Neil interviewed Jon Stewart.
This is back when Donald Sterling...
What year was this?
This is 2012?
When was that?
Whenever Donald Sterling, that basketball team owner, got recorded saying like, don't take pictures of black people.
Oh, okay.
So Neil's asking him, he's like, do you think this is like good that, you know, in your own home you get in trouble for...
And he was all on board.
Like, yeah, not even your own home you shouldn't have.
He doesn't have a principal.
He has like a corny, I would say Bruce Springsteen-esque idea.
You mean he was asking Jon, did you think you should have to watch what you say even in your own household?
Yeah.
And Jon's like, good.
So Donald Joe, he'll follow his heart like an idiot to real bad places.
So here's where he is now.
Here's where he is now.
So there are people who say, yes, you're...
have to indict him because he he has in fact broken the laws and there are other people who say this is going to turn him into a martyr this is his path through redemption sure how do you no you you can't you can you can't have george bush and dick cheney walking free uh people who ordered a torture program and tortured people around the world and lied about going into a war and then prosecute Donald Trump,
put him in handcuffs over a campaign finance quibble, which is what it is.
That literally they can't prove.
I like how that doesn't come up.
I know it's a foregone conclusion.
Guilty.
It's the weakest.
The DA goes, well, hopefully we'll have the evidence to prove it in court.
Hopefully?
You're supposed to have that.
Yeah.
So they're asking Jon Stewart about this, right?
And here we so the thing that they told you to be afraid of Trump doing, he's going to, he's going to try and use the criminal justice system as a weapon against his political enemies.
And that's what dictators do.
They've been trying to lock him up ever since he got elected.
They impeached him twice, and now they're trying to find every which way to try to make sure he can't run.
That's what, hey, I'm no fan of Donald Trump, but I am a fan of democracy, and that this is subverting that.
And if people want to vote for somebody, and again, they would be doing this to Bernie Sanders had he won in 2016.
And so that's why this is important.
Okay, so here's what Jon Stewart says about it.
Think about it.
Oh, the law should always take into account someone's popularity.
I think that's, I mean, what's happened to our country?
It's as though you can't even commit financial fraud anymore.
You can't inflate the value of your properties when you need a loan and then deflate it with taxes.
I mean, the next thing you know, they're going to send you to jail instead of your lawyer and your accountant and your campaign manager and everyone else around you.
It's no.
The idea.
That's funny.
I'm not going to say that's not funny.
Even though I didn't laugh out loud, it is good, solid writing and thought and process, and it's logical and all that stuff.
But what has happened to our country is we've never, we don't.
This is a political prosecution.
What do you mean?
We never prosecuted anybody powerful.
We didn't prosecute Nixon.
We don't prosecute anybody.
So they're all war criminals.
We know this, including Barack Obama.
And so you can't go around putting in jail people who aren't used to president for that.
That's what this is.
So again, when he says that, what happened to our country?
That someone may face accountability who's that rich and powerful is outrageous.
And this country shouldn't stand for it.
But what if it turns out to be his get out of jail free pass?
It's his path through people will see him as a martyr.
He gets okay.
You're okay with that.
So he doesn't bring up any...
It doesn't bother.
This doesn't bother him.
This is a clear political prosecution of their political enemies.
I think the common shitlib thing of like, this is Trump, so this is the ultimate.
Now we have to stand on principle.
It's like we're fighting the non- For the rule of law and we're fighting for the rule of law.
Is that what this is?
Yeah, I think it's like a Capone.
I bet he's hanging his hat on.
This is going to be like an Al Capone tax thing.
Like, we'll get him on that.
But it's not.
The case itself stinks.
There's reasons called novel use.
I don't president again.
He could become president anyway.
Farid, we either have the rule of law or we have no rule of law.
Oh, come on.
Law does not take into account if that might make you a martyr to somebody.
I'd much rather have.
Okay.
I wish I had more of that.
I'm sorry.
I, I, um, my, uh, uh, uh, Thank you.
Jon Stewart is such a moral man that he stops just short of having principles.
Isn't that something?
Boy, where's Stephen Colbert to step on his lines when you need him?
Am I right?
Come on.
Boy, what Trump did was pretty bad because John is a guy who can stomach personally giving a medal to a Nazi.
Ha ha ha ha.
Ha ha ha.
Ha ha ha ha ha.
Thank you.
Thank you.
Well, whatever.
At least he really gave it to that Larry Summers that one time, huh?
So you're not afraid to speak truth to the people who are out of power.
I like how he went hard on Larry Summers, took it easy on Condi.
And he met Hillary, hard on Larry Summers.
Oh, then he let that one Republican have it about like He's such a it's it's funny to watch.
It's all calculated.
It's funny.
It's it, you know, he was a, again, I don't want to, hero is too big of a word, but I certainly admired him.
He's certainly informed the kind of comedy I do when I use video and stuff like that.
And it's just a heartbreaker.
It's just a heartbreaker to see stuff like this and to see people.
I mean, he could really help get this country back together, I think.
I really do.
I think when he did like the lab league thing, if he kept telling those kinds of truths, it would give people like me, I would look less mental to people.
And then we could come back to, but as soon as he did the lab leak thing, they came, they put the hammer on him, and he's been doing stuff like this ever since.
He won't tell you.
I don't know.
I don't, again, I don't want to make it about Justin.
He's making more jokes about like the raccoon dog.
Maybe he is, and I didn't hear the raccoon dog thing.
But as far as I know, that's the only time I've heard him really go on about that.
He's got a whole show on Apple he doesn't get into about it.
And he's the guy.
Anya brought it up a while ago when she was on.
I forgot all about his stupid convention to restore sanity with Colbert that they did.
Because ironically, the people that are supposedly woke are really MAGA, but what they think Great America was the Obama years.
So it's like make America the Obama years again.
Yeah.
And then like, you know, the crazies are like the woke, the people that would be accused of MAGA, really.
So here.
So let's, I want to hear it all again, and then I'm going to play you another.
So there are people who say, yes, you have to indict him because he has, in fact, broken the laws.
And there are other people who say, this is going to turn him into a martyr.
This is his path through redemption.
Sure.
How do you think about it?
Oh, the law should always take into account someone's popularity.
I think that's, I mean, what's happened to our country?
It's as though you can't even commit financial fraud anymore.
You can't inflate the value of your properties when you need a loan and then deflate it with taxes.
I mean, the next thing you know, they're going to send you to jail instead of your lawyer and your accountant and your campaign manager and everyone else around you.
It's no, the idea that someone may face accountability who's that rich and powerful is outrageous.
And this country shouldn't stand for it.
But what if it turns out to be his get out of jail free pass?
It's his path to people will see him as a martyr.
He gets okay with that.
I agree.
He could become president again.
He could become president anyway.
Fareed, we either have the rule of law or we have no rule of law.
Oh my God.
The rule of law does not take into account if that might make you a and so it would be nice if he just said, and I don't know if you've looked around, we don't have the rule of law.
Because that would have been nice.
Because then that would have turned this into a real truth-telling moment instead of a partisan hackery moment, which is what this is.
He came on CNN and told them to stop being partisan hacks.
And here he is pushing a partisan hackery point of view.
You can't have political prosecutions of your political enemies.
If you're going to do this to Donald Trump, you had to at least do it to Hillary Clinton for denying she funded the steel dossier for a year.
She lied.
Her campaign lied to the FBI about it.
They didn't get prosecuted over that.
They had to pay a fine.
And they didn't get to pay a fine for lying.
Anyway, it doesn't even matter.
We have war criminals.
Every president since World War II is a war criminal.
What are you kidding?
We don't have the rule of law now, Kurt.
Even Fareed was like, John, but all of them know that.
Remember, lock her up for Hillary?
Yes.
And I remember going.
They're going to start with her.
I remember thinking that.
Right.
And so they thought that that was the worst thing in the world when Trump said, lock her up.
That was about her.
That was about her doing illegal things.
Yeah, right.
But now it's, what kind of a country do we have if we don't lock up our political opponents?
And this is honest.
I hate to do this.
I hate to play psychiatrists.
But why do you think he's doing it?
It's got to be.
Because once you're a pal with them and you're like, well, this is a campaign thing.
This is not.
So you go, well, they all know how bad Biden's doing, right?
And Trump is looking better and better.
So I bet in his mind, he thinks it's the only hope of stopping Trump from being.
They do.
That's why they're doing it, Kurt.
Do you think if they weren't worried about stopping Trump, that they wouldn't be doing crazy stuff like this?
Or how about in the, is it the Alabama?
They're also trying to get him on some kind of election.
It's the same stuff.
Yeah.
So it's he, he's, he's got to be smart enough.
I know he's smart enough to be aware of all the things Biden has not done and also screwed up and a bunch of other things that he would probably wouldn't even dare talk about, right?
So this is the last way to maybe, but even I wouldn't even hang my hat on it that way if I was him because the case is very weak.
I know.
Freed Zakar doesn't go, well, there's people who say, hey, we should try to get him and people who say, no, it'll make him martyr.
There's also people saying there's a weak case that's not going to work.
Maybe try the other ones.
Well, well, and here, I wish I had video of this so I don't.
I have the audio.
I'll play it over Barack Obama's face.
And this is when he's being asked about, hey, how come you didn't prosecute people who ordered a torture program?
That's like you're constitutionally required to do that.
He didn't do it.
And here's what he said.
The most popular question on your own website is related to this on change.gov.
It comes from Bob Furdick of New York City.
And he asks, will you appoint a special prosecutor, ideally Patrick Fitzgerald, to independently investigate the gravest crimes of the Bush administration, including torture and warrantless wiretapping?
We're still evaluating how we are going to approach the whole issue of interrogations, detentions, and so forth.
And obviously, we're going to be looking at past practices.
Past practices.
Don't believe that anybody is above the law.
On the other hand, I also have a belief that.
On the other hand, I have a belief that there are some people who are above the law.
Those are people in the CIA, the people who ordered an illegal war, the people who lied about it, and the people who committed torture.
So when Nixon went, when the president does it, it's not a crime.
That's it.
Was it bad he did that because he didn't include all the other people for whom it's not a crime?
There we go.
We need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards.
There it is.
He didn't prosecute the people for torture because Barack Obama's looking forward and not backwards.
It's a lot harder to prosecute crimes if you don't look into the past because that's where all the crimes happen.
Much harder.
So if you're just looking forward.
I mean, all those people in prison, Kurt, they're in prison because they committed their crimes in the future.
It wasn't minority report just yet.
Not yet.
He just said it.
I'll play it again.
I'll play it for you.
I wish we had the videos we had.
We need to look forward as opposed to looking backwards.
And part of my job is to make sure that, for example, at the CIA, you've got extraordinarily talented people who are working very hard to keep Americans safe.
I don't want them to suddenly feel like they've got to spend all their time looking over their shoulders and lawyers.
Is there no 9-11 commission with independent subpoena power?
We have not made final decisions, but my instinct is for us to focus on how do we make sure that moving forward, we are doing the right thing.
So I don't want to prosecute the PASCA.
I don't want the people at CIA to be worried that they're going to be prosecuted for war crimes when they commit war crimes.
So I don't want them looking over their shoulder.
So we're not going to do anything.
That's what he said.
Look, he wanted to focus on getting the shittiest healthcare deal in the world.
And the world.
And it worked.
And it worked.
So if you're not going to prosecute that, and you're going to prosecute.
So that's.
And that, so what happens when you do that?
When you selectively enforce the law, people lose respect for the law.
And that's what they're doing with this prosecution of Donald Trump.
And that would have been nice to hear Jon Stewart say that.
And I know I put a lot of weight on Jon Stewart's shoulders, but that's because I looked up to him so much.
And, you know, maybe I shouldn't have.
Pentagon is accused of blocking an effort to hand Russia war crimes evidence to the ICC.
You know why?
Because we don't participate in the ICC because we commit more war crimes than Russia.
And they better not say we did any crimes because we'll invade them with the invasion of Haiti.
And so the department reportedly unwilling to share intelligence over fears precedent could be set against U.S. So we're all a bunch of war crimers, but you're going to, you got to stand so all, but all of a sudden you got to stand on the rule of law when it comes to Donald Trump's campaign finance, paying off a stripper that he had sex with to be quiet.
It's not for that.
It's for how it was marked in the books.
And they got to prove.
It's crazy what they have to prove.
Yeah, they have to prove that he paid himself, which he didn't.
Because anyway, it does.
I didn't want to get into the weeds out there.
John Stewart made it sound like he inflated his properties to which I don't know if that's a separate.
But he's like, that's what the crime is.
The young Turks inflated their numbers when they were trying to get the $20 million in financing from the venture capitalists.
They inflated all their numbers.
They were giving out free memberships to anybody in college.
You remember that?
You don't remember that, but I do.
And they were doing all kinds of stuff to get their numbers inflated so they could get the financing.
That's what people, that's called capitalism.
Fund bought whole other websites or their traffic, and you legally could do this, I guess.
I think you still can.
So they were going to advertise like, yeah, this is all our traffic.
Yes.
It's not, it just sounds like fraud.
It is fraud.
Yeah.
And then let's not forget that employers steal billions from workers' paychecks each year.
So we live in a rule of law.
That is so sad to me.
It's such and I got to.
He's a punk for not just saying, I don't look at it.
He's like, I don't care.
I just want him to get him and throw everything you have.
Just say that.
But to do rule of law is like, that's a real punk ass.
That's a real punk.
You watch him do it with free speech in your own home.
And I remember that's a weird thing for Jon Stewart to say.
He's a part of that.
Like, you nudge people, make them do what, you know, that's a whole, the Rob Reiner school.
Again, I don't want to, you know, make some fake feud between me and Jon Stewart because, you know, I don't even know he thinks I know if I exist, but I'd probably have to that Nazi metal thing.
I imagine so.
I blown it up on Rogan.
Oh, that's right.
I'm sure he does.
Yeah.
All right.
But anyway, it's just that I feel let down through COVID and Russia gate by people like that.
Like people I would look to that the country looks to people like Chomsky, people like Jon Stewart, people like Stephen Colbert.
People, I mean, you know, just in my little circle of things, politicians are useless now.
And, you know, it was fun to turn on Jon Stewart and hear him say the truth about people.
There's something exciting about that.
Well, then you start to make friends and then it's not so true.
That becomes all show biz.
So showbiz is like, it's just all talk bad about people.
He's not going to tell the truth about Ukraine.
He is not.
Yeah.
He won't even, I mean, it's just crazy.
And again, I don't want to make it.
Anyway, he's dumb enough to not know.
Yeah, there's no way.
You think Rachel Maddow really doesn't know what's going on in Ukraine?
You know, they pay her $100,000 a day.
Really?
She has a $30 million contract.
So $30 million.
$30 million.
Hey, Suri, what's $30 million divided by 52?
It is $576,923 a week.
Okay, let's do this like this.
Hey, Suri, what's $30 million divided by $306?
But it's not $300 because she doesn't work.
He only works five days a week, five times 52.
Hey, Siri, what's 5 times 52?
Uh...
Thank you.
I don't, that's not the answer.
Anyway, I'm trying to figure out how much she makes a day, right?
So if you work 50 days, it's about two.
So let's say she works 250 days a year.
Let's say.
Hey, Suri, what's 30 million divided by 250?
$120,000 a day.
I mean, I'll lie for that.
For $120 a day?
$120,000 a day.
Yeah.
That's $15,000.
Is that $15,000 an hour?
Well, Lions hard work.
Right?
Hey, Suri, what's $120,000 divided by 24?
No, no.
She only works eight hours a day.
Scott, skip.
Hey, Suri, what's $120,000 divided by eight?
$15,000.
$15,000 an hour.
Nice work if you can get it.
And if you get it, won't you tell me how?
Oh, no.
you you 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.
Aaron was at the UN testifying for his third time.
And let's remind people that why we're in Syria.
One of the big reasons is.
We're keeping the oil.
We have the oil.
The oil is secure.
We left troops behind only for the oil.
So I like this.
It says, so where are The sanctions for the United States?
And when did the U.S. oligarchs have their property confiscated?
Then, when is the discussion on visa bans for U.S. citizens entering the European Union?
So, of course, right?
So, we're again, we're the world's terrorists, and then we pretend that we care about things like that when it's one of our enemies.
Aaron Matei just reminds everybody the U.S. claims to be in Syria to be fighting ISIS, but it rarely fights ISIS.
It's actually there to deny Syria its own oil and wheat and to occasionally attack Syrians and their allies who defeated the United States-backed sectarian death squads in the dirty war.
So, that's why we're really there.
And nobody really knows the real reason, but RFK Jr. posited a long time ago that it was because they wanted to put a pipeline from Qatar and have it go through Syria.
I think that was the idea.
So, anyway, but nobody really knows, but it's got something to do with fossil fuels.
So, this is how they reported.
There was in 2018, there was a gas attack on people on Syrians, and that's how it gets reported.
Syrian regime found responsible for Duma, a chemical attack.
And then, when they report it like that, immediately, what's the result of those reports?
Trump announces strikes on Syria following suspected chemical weapons.
So, they have to do that, and then they can bomb them under the guise of, oh, this, and I don't know how bombing helps people who are killed in a gas attack anyway.
It doesn't.
And so, oh, we're mad at the Syrian government.
Let's blow the shit out of their people.
And so, when the gas attacks happen, and then the corporate media just immediately says whatever the State Department and the war machine wants them to.
And then, here's they go over to check and make sure that the gas says, Do you know how you know a gas attack really happened here?
There's definitely something that stings.
Yeah, it stings.
If you thought there was a deadly chemical weapon on something, the first thing you would do as a reporter, give me it.
Oh, yeah, yeah, it doesn't smell like a false flag.
Anyway, so if you Google, so they use that fake, they tried to say that Assad had gassed his own people, and so that's what they use that pretense to bomb Syria, right?
Um, so if you Google now, Aaron Matei has done his reporting and he's debunked that, right?
That that did that there's many, many questions.
You can't, it's it's it's all the evidence points the other way.
Um, and if you Google the Duma attack, gas attacks, this is what comes up: Watchdog blames Syria for the Duma chemical attack, chemical weapons watchdog blames Syrian Air Force for the chemical Duma chemical attack and the fog of Syria.
OPCW blames Syria government for the 2018 chlorine gas attack, and then reasonable grounds to believe Syrian government did the okay, there is no reason.
Okay, so Aaron Matte then has done, but he went to the UN.
And I just want to show you a minute of this because he looks good in a suit.
Here we go.
I have to say that I find it unfortunate that nearly five years after that alleged incident in Duma, this controversy around the OPCW investigation is still being debated in public rather than being addressed by the OPCW.
Because fundamentally, this is a controversy that is internal to the OPCW.
At the heart of it are at least two veteran inspectors from the OPCW with nearly 30 years of combined experience who worked on the Duma investigation, who deployed to Syria for the Duma investigation.
And what they say is very simple: they have accused senior officials at the OPCW of suppressing findings from their probe and putting out unsupported conclusions that basically implicate the Syrian government in a chemical attack.
And they are not demanding that their own opinions be affirmed as the ultimate truth.
They just want the right to be heard.
And rather than hearing these inspectors, allowing them to come in and voice their concerns, allowing the OPCW to weigh the findings that were suppressed, the OPCW has refused to meet with them and has even denigrated them in public, which I will get into.
So when I talk about the suppression of the Duma probe, there's a long story, which I've gone through before you before, so I won't repeat the whole story.
But let me just illustrate, give you one example of the documented suppression of the findings of the Duma probe, which nobody contests.
This is uncontested fact.
So the alleged chemical attack happens on April 7th, 2018.
Well, let me bring you in.
Let me bring in Aaron right here.
So, first of all, if those chemical weapons inspectors who went against the OPCW's official narrative and they were considered whistleblowers, if they can't get a hearing or get to speak at the UN, how come you get invited?
And if Jose Bustiano, who's to be the former head of the OPCW, who also agrees with your narrative on Syria gas attacks, can't get a hearing at the UN, how do you get invited?
Joseph Bustani, the first director general of the OPCW, who was ousted by the Bush administration back in 2002, 2003 because he was opposing the Iraq war.
He was invited to speak at a UN Security Council meeting in the fall of 2020, but the U.S., UK, and France led the way in blocking him from speaking because he was going to come out in defense of the dissenting OPCW inspectors in the Duma investigation and call for accountability.
And that was a different kind of meeting where other states can block speakers.
At the one where I was invited to, I don't think there's that option.
So that's why I was given the chance to speak here.
Oh, okay.
All right.
And so why did so?
I noticed that there was a rash of articles written recently that was confirming the BS narrative that Assad gassed his own people.
It's inexplicable.
He was winning the war.
Why would you kill those people?
It was only like a couple of dozen people they claimed he killed anyway.
Why would you use chemicals?
Everything points the other way that he would do that.
So why all of a sudden were these all these articles written recently that claim that was the true narrative that Assad did it himself?
And then go ahead.
Yeah.
So a quick timeline.
So April 7th, 2018 is when this alleged chemical attack occurred.
There are videos put out of dozens of dead bodies from the scene.
The people are foaming at the mouth.
They've collapsed dead in piles.
And the insurgents who controlled Syria at the time, Duma at the time, this town of Duma, and their allies, the White Helmets, which is a group funded by the U.S. and UK and other NATO states, they all claim that the victims have suffered a chemical attack.
And about a year later, in March 2019, the OPCW puts out a final report that says that, yes, there are reasonable grounds to believe that this was a chemical attack with chlorine gas.
And they don't say who did it, but the obvious inference that they want you to come away with is that Syria was guilty.
So that's March 2019, about a year after the original incident.
But then we get all these leaks from inside the OPCW.
And these leaks show that the actual original team that went to Syria for this mission and then came back and wrote up an original report, that they did not reach that conclusion, that they actually collected a lot of evidence that this was not a chemical attack, but that this incident was staged by insurgents on the ground, which makes sense, right?
Even if Before you look at all the evidence, just think of it logically.
The U.S. has laid down what's called the red line.
Obama announced it, saying that if chemical weapons are used, that would change our calculus and we would militarily intervene.
So, if you're Syria, why would you do the one thing that you know would invite military intervention against you?
You're already facing the most well-funded insurgency in history, billions of dollars spent by the U.S., U.K., Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey, Israel, France, flooding Syria with weapons to an insurgency dominated by Al-Qaeda.
So, you're already facing that.
Why would you now do the one thing that you know will get the U.S. Air Force to act on Al-Qaeda's behalf?
It doesn't make any sense.
And why, by the way, does Syria never gas all these insurgents that are taking over its territory?
Like Idlib right now is controlled by Al-Qaeda.
How come Al-Qaeda never got hit with chemical weapons?
But yes, for some reason, Syria chooses to use them against innocent civilians inside an apartment building.
So, just even logically, it's so ridiculous.
And obviously, the obvious answer is that this is just like the Iraq WMD playbook.
You need a pretext to justify sanctioning Syria, bombing Syria occasionally, and continuing the dirty war and now continuing the U.S. military occupation of Syria, which, by the way, just led to a U.S. contractor being killed because the U.S. is still there.
And when the State Department says why we need to be there, what do they say?
It's because Syria gassed its own people.
So, that's really the reasons behind these chemical weapons allegations.
So, anyway, the leaks show that the original team collected all this evidence that was suppressed.
And when all this comes out, it's published at WikiLeaks.
Robert Fisk, the late great journalist, British journalist, writes about it.
It gets attention.
What does the OPCW do?
It basically says there's nothing to see here.
These two dissenting inspectors, the ones we know about, they're uninformed.
They don't matter.
And they refuse to have any accountability whatsoever.
And then there's basically a disinformation campaign, launched against the dissenting inspectors and people like myself and Max Blumenthal and Roger Waters, who speak out in their defense.
So the BBC, which is a UK state-funded outlet, and Bellingcat, a NATO troll farm, put out all these ridiculous attacks on the whistleblowers.
And this goes on for many years, and we've talked about it over the years.
So finally, in January of this year, finally, they've also done the same thing to this show.
If you go to my Wikipedia page that I've called a conspiracy theorist because of this very, it's in Wikipedia.
It says CNN.
It's called Jimmy Door conspiracy theorist over the gas attacks of Assad on his own people.
Well, he didn't do it on his own people.
Jimmy, are you accusing the government of lying about weapons and mass destruction?
Anyway.
Jimmy, listen, the difference between you and me is that you called bullshit on this one from the start.
Whereas I only came along after the whistleblowers and the leaks from the OpCW came out.
And that's when I really got involved in the story.
So as always, you deserve a lot of credit there for you to call this one out.
You're very generous.
It's true.
It's just true.
So finally, in January of this year, after years of stonewalling accountability, so insulting the whistleblowers in public, putting out false claims about them, all of which I've debunked in over 12 articles at the gray zone, which no one's ever written a single response to.
After blocking people like Jose Bustani, the first director general of the OPCW, when he tries to speak in their defense, the U.S. and their allies block him from speaking.
So after years of that, finally in January, we get the OPCW coming out with a new report from something called its Investigation and Identification Team.
And this is a new team that's been set up pretty much at the behest of the U.S. and its allies.
And their mandate is to identify the perpetrators of chemical attacks in Syria.
Their actual mandate is to whitewash U.S.-led allegations like the one in Duma.
So they put out this long report that makes the case that, yes, Syria was guilty of the attack at Duma.
And they, you know, it's a very long report on the surface.
Some people reading it might be impressed by it.
But as I've shown now in two articles at the gray zone, it is riddled with gaping holes.
And it's basically an attempt to answer the dissenting inspectors without directly answering them because they can't directly answer them because the dissenting inspectors have the facts on their side.
So it's basically a tacit effort to try to paper over all the previous flaws in the Duma probe.
The problem is to paper over the previous flaws, they have to come up with a whole bunch of new deceptions.
And that's what I've debunked at the gray zone in two articles and also in my comments at the UN.
So how does the corruption of an institution like the OPCW happen like this?
Well, look, we got an example 20 years ago with Jose Bustani.
He was the founding director general of this organization.
And right after he was elected to a new five-year term, the Bush administration came in and forced him out.
Why?
Because he was trying to bring Iraq into the chemical weapons convention.
And the Bush administration knew that if Bustani succeeded in that, that that would subject Iraq to regular inspections, which would show that Iraq had no chemical weapons.
And once that happened, that would make it a lot harder for Bush to invade Iraq.
So John Bolton personally flew over to The Hague to Bustani's office, said to him, You have to resign.
And Bustani said no.
And John Bolton literally said to him, We know where your kids live.
And Bustani said, I'm not resigning.
So then John Bolton went and behind the scenes, they bullied enough states into basically agreeing to oust Bustani in a vote.
And just for good measure, the U.S. threatened to withhold its share of the OPCW's budget, which would have made the OPCW impossible to operate.
And I've interviewed Jose Bustani before, and he tells this story.
It's an amazing story.
I interviewed him on my podcast pushback.
It's incredible.
He also found out during this time that his office was being bugged and there was even a mole inside who was working for whoever was bugging him.
And we can guess who was the party, who was the state party that was bugging him.
So anyway, that's when the corruption started.
When he was ousted, that was a sign that the OPCW was not going to be an impartial, independent institution.
It was subjected to be compromised, to be to compromise by the U.S. and its allies.
And so fast forward now to Douma in 2018, the OPCW gets on the ground for the first time in Syria to investigate an alleged chemical attack.
The actual investigators find no evidence of the chemical attack.
What happens to them?
Their findings get censored.
The original team gets sidelined and all this deception is put forth.
And I'll just give you one example.
And I talked about this in my UN remarks, but I think this is the easiest part to understand when it comes to how much fraud has gone into propping up this narrative.
Okay.
So one of the complaints of the original dissenting inspectors of the previous OPCW reports about Douma was that they were making unsupported claims to assert that there was evidence of chemical weapons in Douma, particularly chlorine gas, which is what the OPCW claims.
So what do we get now in this new OPCW report put out by the IIT, the investigation and identification team?
To prove their case that there was evidence of chlorine gas in Duma, they say they found what they call a marker chemical.
And a marker chemical basically means a smoking gun.
It's a signature that basically means the presence of this chemical means there was chlorine gas.
But guess what?
And I've written about this and I talked about this at the UN.
This sample that the supposed marker chemical came from has appeared out of nowhere.
In all the previous OPCW reports about Duma, it was never even acknowledged.
So there's a long table in March 2019 of all the samples that the OPCW collected in Duma and all the samples they received from third party.
And the supposed smoking gun didn't even exist then.
So nearly five years later, the OPCW has basically pulled it out of a hat, out of the blue.
It's come out of nowhere, which is unprecedented.
Why did we not know about this new magic smoking gun sample until now?
And then it gets worse when you find out how it was obtained because this sample wasn't even collected by the OPCW.
The OPCW says it was collected by a third party.
And they don't tell us who that third party is.
But I can.
And that violates their own rules of an investigation, right?
Where they only are supposed to analyze things that they themselves have collected.
And now they're using a third party collecting this sample that's supposed to confirm that Assad did this, but they won't even tell you who the third party is, even though that, even if they did, that would still break their rules.
Yeah.
In any serious investigation, criminal investigation, you only want to test evidence, samples you can verify yourself.
If some third party comes in and says, hey, guess what?
I found this sample, then you can't trust it.
And that's what the OPCW rules say, that basically, if any, unless a sample is collected by the OPCW, it will not be accepted as valid.
And in this case, this sample, I would bet anything, was collected by the White Helmets, which is a group that cooperates with insurgents, that is funded by the U.S. and U.K. and in Douma was caught faking a hospital scene to make it look as if they were treating victims of chlorine of a chemical attack when there's now been multiple reports by journalists, even from the BBC, who said that this attack was, that this hospital scene was staged.
The hospital scene was staged by the White Helmets.
And the White Helmets have bragged publicly that they gave the OPCW samples from Douma.
So I would bet you anything that this new smoking gun sample, which appeared out of nowhere, came from the White Helmets.
And even if it came from anybody else, it doesn't matter.
It's not collected by the OPCW.
And so therefore, it just can't be trusted.
And previously, the OPCW has said explicitly, we would never, ever weigh a sample that we have not collected ourselves.
But that has been forgotten in Duma all of a sudden.
And then you find out, it gets even more.
So, okay, the samples appeared from nowhere.
It's collected by a third party.
And then you find out that actually the OPCW used this sample over a sample that its own inspector has actually collected from the exact same spot.
So this sample supposedly comes from the room under one of the cylinders in Duma, some concrete debris in the room under the cylinder.
The OPCW collected a sample from that exact same location.
But for some reason, they chose to rely on a brand new sample that somebody else collected.
It's so shady.
And in any serious investigation, it would never be accepted.
For some reason, now it's become a new smoking gun.
So do you think so?
I mean, I think it's great.
Your reporting is great because I can then point people to printed documents and things like that.
You're a great investigator of this.
So you've been invited to speak three times now at the UN.
It seems like in me, like, I don't want to be a cynic, right?
But I am now.
So I'll just admit it.
And I just don't.
Do you think that there'll be a positive outcome from this?
Or do you think that things will just keep getting worse until we're all dead?
Well, listen, Jimmy, I'll give you one reason to be cynical, but then one reason to be optimistic, okay?
The reason to be cynical is that when the OPCW came out with this new report with this brand new smoking gun sample and all these other deceptions back in January, when all the media, establishment media in the U.S. reported on this, none of them even mentioned the OPCW whistleblower's existence.
So the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, all these other outlets, Al Jazeera, all of them said the OPCW finds Syria guilty of the chemical attack in Douma.
None of them mentioned that the original team from the OPCW that went to Duma wrote up an original report that said there was no chemical attack or there was no evidence of a chemical attack.
So the OPCW leaks are so damning to this narrative of chemical weapons in Syria that there's so much effort being deployed to erase the leaks and the whistleblowers.
And no matter how many times I try to bring this up with the reporters, so-called reporters who write the stuff, they don't listen.
This is such a damning story to their narrative that they just, there's such an effort to make it go away.
Okay, so that is a cause for cynicism because if people can't even know about the OPCW leak's existence, how will they ever know the real story?
It's just, it's memory hold.
It's out of Orwell, right?
But on the positive side, at this meeting on Friday where I spoke, a really important development happened.
For the first time, Brazil, which is the largest country in South America, one of the biggest countries in the world, they came out in support of accountability for this scandal, which is huge.
The representative from Brazil basically challenged the claims of the OPCW and pointed out that a Brazilian diplomat, Jose Bustani, was silenced and asked me some questions about what could be done to address this cover-up.
And that is a huge geopolitical shift.
And so I could tell you from being in the room when this Brazilian representative was speaking, the delegates from the U.S. and UK were not happy.
And actually, a few of them started like furiously texting on their phones because they were not expecting this, I don't think.
Because this is a major ship for Brazil to come out in defense of accountability at the OPCW.
So I left the room, the meeting, feeling very optimistic from that.
But again, Jimmy, you know, we don't do this tethered to any outcome.
We just do this to spread the truth and to give people the facts.
And the more people learn the facts of the story, the more it's undeniable that there was a cover-up and that this has to be addressed.
I definitely have outcomes that I want.
Like what?
All right.
Well, that's fine.
I mean, and it's important because this is used as a pretext to kill people and to keep America thinking we're bombing bad guys instead of what we're doing, which is committing imperialism and economic hegemony, which is why we're still occupying a third of as we try to indict Putin for war crimes.
We're occupying a country right next door, a third of it, the part where all the food and the oil is.
Yeah.
And I have this loaded in here, but it's not really worth it.
It's just, this is how they cover the airstrikes.
They never talk, they never tell you anything.
Just listen how empty and vapid this is.
From here, Syrian commanders this morning have been examining the damage from last night's attacks, limited airstrikes that the U.S.-led coalition is not calling a success, but airstrikes that Russia says were acts of aggression.
They were certainly airstrikes that President Assad in Damascus will have heard.
Loud and clear.
So do you hear the news guy?
The news guy's like, that's right.
Assad heard it loud and clear.
You mean that you were bombing parts of the city where people, yeah.
Okay, here we go.
There it is.
The barrage of missiles came from ships and planes in the night.
American, British, and these French warplanes firing over a hundred missiles at three main targets in Syria in the capital of Damascus.
Syrian air defenses trying to shoot them down, claiming to have hit 13.
Massive explosions lighting up the night sky.
As they fell, the president addressed them.
I think that's called terrorism.
I'm pretty sure that's what that's called.
If you would plant those bombs, that would be called terrorism.
It's not terrorist.
It's just like if you ever had an apartment with a noisy neighbor upstairs, that's just America's version of hitting the ceiling with a broom.
Yeah.
Let him hear it a little bit.
That's right.
Assad certainly heard it.
That's the kind of empty, vapid with absolutely no context that the corporate, and they're cheering it on.
We're getting him.
Ha, that asshole.
Assad.
That's what that is.
He did a great job with that, but now as good as Brian Wilson, when he or not, Brian Wilson, what are you going to do?
Brian Williams.
Yeah, Williams.
Sorry.
Oh, we were guided by the beauty of our weapons.
Yeah, that was the most.
I think that was the quote of the day back then.
Yeah.
And they are beautiful, is what he said.
And they are beautiful.
Did Assad acknowledge how beautiful it was at least?
And so I like what this guy says.
Obviously, the United States can't leave Syria because then how would it fight the people who attacked the United States soldiers who are in Syria?
All right.
Well, you know what?
There actually is some news out of Syria.
Some big news out of Syria that's going to not be good for Americans' influence around the world.
In fact, it's lessening the things they said that Donald Trump was going to do to our prestige and influence around the world.
Joe Biden is pulling off very quickly.
*phone rings* Hey, this is Jimmy.
Who's this?
Hey there, Jimbo.
This is your pal, George Clooney.
Hey!
How are you, you old Tijuana street cat?
I'm doing great, George.
Thanks for asking.
How about you?
What are you up to?
Oh, Jimmy, I'm doing fantastic.
Fantastic.
Thanks for asking.
As a matter of fact, I am back here in LA.
I'm back filming my new flick with none other than my old buddy, Brad Pitt.
Ah, really?
What's the project?
Jimmy is called Wolves.
And he and I play two fixers who gets hired for the same job and are competing to get it done.
And hilarity ensues, as you may imagine.
Of course.
Brad and I are pretty funny guys, as you are probably well aware.
And handsome.
That you are.
Any on-set hijinks to report?
Oh, Jimmy, you know us.
We're always playing pranks on each other all the time.
Just gags and boners.
Good times.
Lots of laughs.
always laughing.
Oh, yeah.
Can you give me an example?
Oh, sure.
A few weeks ago, I had 50 pizzas delivered to Brad's hotel suite.
50.
You should have seen the look on his face.
Eventually, he figured it out and very generously had them sent down to the crew.
Well, what he did know is each pizza was pineapple and anchovy.
So everyone had to pretend to be grateful to Brad Pitt for the worst fucking meal of their lives.
And we just laughed.
Sounds like a blast.
Oh, and he's super afraid of snakes, right?
Brad Pitt, fun fact.
Anyway, so I had an animal wrangler get a hold of a little nasty looking but non-poisonous snake, and we put it in the toilet in his trailer.
And then when he went in for lunch, we padlocked the door so he couldn't get out.
So after about 50 minutes, we hear squealing like I've never heard in my life.
Glass breaking the whole nine yards.
He about had a heart attack, killed the fucking snake, though.
The animal wrangler was kind of pissed.
I see.
What does he pull on you?
Well, see, that's the thing.
Pitt is not really good at the pranks.
Like, his ideas range from bizarre to not fun to oddly sociopathic.
Really?
Yeah.
Encase him in some sort of life-size plastic tube, and then bury it in a field overnight.
I'm like, what?
That's not even a prank.
That's just a cold-blooded thing to do to a cat.
And it's always cheadle, too.
It's kind of racist undertones there, to be honest.
That's bizarre.
I'll say.
He also always trying to convince people that their loved ones died somehow.
He just doesn't get the whole prank ego.
I'm trying to coach him.
I said, start out small with some, you know, prank phone calls.
You know, like we did in high school, just to get his feet wet.
Good idea.
Wait, wait, hold on.
I'm getting another call right now.
Oh, you know what?
That's probably him.
He knew I'd be calling you today.
Just try and play along.
Okay, hello.
This is Jimmy Door.
Radio man.
How did I guess this?
I literally did guess this.
I did not know that, Brad, you were going to be calling in today.
Brad, it's good to hear from you.
I did guess this.
I got a question for you.
Is your refrigerator running?
Uh, yeah, it is.
Well, that's good news because you've got bigger fish to fry than that.
What?
Your best friend died, and they need you down at the board to identify the body or what's left of it.
Oh, come on, Brad.
That's not going to work.
Okay, I'm going to stop you right here.
God damn it, George.
You ruined my anonymous prank phone call.
It was going great.
Brad, you said your name right in the beginning of the call.
God damn it, I did, didn't I?
I'm sorry.
I just thought telling people that I'm Brad Pitt.
Can't tell you how many times that's gotten me late.
Well, I appreciate the effort, Brad.
I was having a good time.
See?
Don't encourage him, Jimmy.
I don't know, man.
I think I can still salvage this one.
All right.
Okay, fine.
I'll back off.
Do you think he's forgotten already?
Forgotten what?
Who's this again?
Okay, okay.
Hey, do you like pizza?
Why, yes, I do.
Of course you do.
Well, I know where you can find 50 pizzas.
50 pepperoni pizzas.
I promise.
Would you be interested in such an offer?
Yes, Brad.
Okay, well, good news.
This is going great.
Okay, there is a human-sized plastic tube in Griffith Park.
Find it, climb in it, shut it behind you, and that tube will take you to the 50 pizzas.
How?
How what?
How will the tube take me to the pizza?
Uh, I don't know.
Tube motion.
That's the thing, right?
All right, Brad, just stop.
Okay, okay.
You don't know me.
You're Brad Pitt.
Who's that?
You don't know me, but anonymous tips.
Someone is going to try and kidnap your dog.
Better leave your doors unlocked tonight, just saying.
All right, Brad.
I got to stop you there.
We'll have a powwow about this later.
I still have some pointers to give to you.
God damn it, why is it so hard?
Gentlemen.
Gentlemen, this has been fun, but I really got to go.
Enjoy the rest of your film shoot together.
Yeah, I'm sorry about all this, Jimmy.
We'll get it cleaned up.
Radio man.
You got to prank me sometime.
No fucking snakes.
No fucking snakes.
*laughs* *outro music* you We'll be right back.
Hey, become a premium member.
Go to JimmyDoorComedy.com.
Sign up.
It's the most affordable premium program in the business.
Oh, 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