Today, Dan and Jordan reunite by sticking around in the past to check out what Alex gets up to. In this installment, Alex meanders about the OKC bombing, talks to a guy who's named Blood, and gets all peeved about the 2004 Super Bowl halftime show.
I assume that everyone who works there kind of enjoys that aesthetic and stuff, but it feels to me like a renaissance fair full of people who aren't passionate about it.
My other bright spot is I got a message over the time that you were away, and I had forgotten that I hadn't taken it down, but our GoFundMe for the button time hit its goal.
And so now we have officially, over the course of these two GoFundMe campaigns, one for reproductive health care access, the other for the Transgender Law Center, raised over $35,000 for these campaigns.
And so thank you all so much to everybody who has...
Been a part of it.
It's so thrilling to be able to be a part of that ourselves.
What I loved the most about it is how much of a struggle it was at first, and then how quickly everyone forgets that this man was not able to walk just a short while ago.
This may have been when Devin Hester opened the Super Bowl with a kickoff return for a touchdown on the season that he was absolutely amazing for, and then the Bears lost by 40 points.
And so yesterday, I get off air, and I'm flipping around through radio stations, and I hear Limbaugh...
And very sophisticated propaganda.
He's going, well, yeah, what Bush is doing, I apologize for having to say that it's wrong, what Bush is doing with big government, but what are you going to do?
And, well, I tell you, Bush, you know, he got control of the ship, but he just is having trouble slowing it down.
The lady on the phone said, no, he's accelerating the speed of the cruise ship.
And Limbaugh just said, oh, no, and just hung up on her.
And, well, you know, what are you going to do?
You know, you've still got to vote for Bush because, you know, we can't have the Democrats in there.
Yeah, we've just got to get used to it, you know.
So the government's grown by 45% in the last three years.
And so, you know, all these federal programs are getting expanded and all this.
In the case of Rush, it's that Rush is making excuses for Bush's tendency toward big government and appealing to how the alternative is way worse in order to make supporting Bush more appealing to the audience.
Compare that to the extreme levels of rationalization Alex does for Trump, where he has to tell the audience complicated stories about how Trump put out the COVID vaccine, but he didn't know what he was doing or that he was tricked by the globalists into doing it.
Every bad thing Trump does has an in-world explanation that at least partially exonerates him from full blame.
And think about how Alex has created a world for his audience where you have to support Trump, at least partially because the alternative is the Democrats, who he's trained the audience to believe are literally demon-possessed pedophiles who want to drink your children's blood.
In the past, Alex called this behavior sophisticated propaganda, and on some level, he's right.
It's at least somewhat manipulative persuasion, but part of the reason he's attacking Rush like this in the past is that he didn't understand the game Rush was playing because Alex had the luxury of not being invested in electoral politics.
Electoral politics is, at best, an attempt to get a representative into office who will try to get your preferred policies made into law.
The candidates themselves aren't human embodiments of these policies, and people of some maturity recognize that even if a person you want to win gets into office, that doesn't guarantee the policy you want will pass.
Simultaneously, you recognize that if the person you support loses, That's something that exists on a plane above the election.
The election is just an opportunity to put into office people you believe will help support the policy you want to see enacted.
At its worst, electoral politics is essentially a boxing match.
It's a singular event that happens, and then once it's happened, your person is in or they're not.
When you're an entertainer on the political space and you don't foster any deeper appreciation for what politics is in your audience, this is how you have to interact with elections.
Building towards a climactic conflict and building the tension around that event drives ratings and gets listeners excited.
In 2003, Alex wasn't on some mature tip when he was actually above focusing on electoral politics, but he was pretending to be, and that was a solid brand.
It allowed him to make criticisms like this of Rush, and at this point, it's really hard to argue with his point.
In order to support Bush, Rush does need to make a bunch of rationalizations and appeal to lesser of two evil arguments, because the end goal of winning the election is all that's important there.
Rush is more of a GOP shill, but he and Alex are both entertainers.
It's just at this point Alex was pretending to be more than that.
Now that Alex has taken a bite from that forbidden fruit of supporting a candidate who won the election and seen how much money he was able to make off centering his entire coverage and worldview around propping up this central figure, he finds himself in a similar position to where Rush was in 2004.
The big difference is that Rush never cried on air about how Bush was a god-appointed king or how he was willing to die for Bush.
It's essentially a comically desperate version of what he called sophisticated neocon propaganda in the past.
And, you know, it's fun to see these glimpses because another thing you can take away from it is that Alex understands this.
In the present day, he knows these techniques.
He knows, like, very valid criticisms of the very things that he's doing.
I do appreciate also the difference between him and Rush in this sophisticated propaganda, is that Rush can be like, well, you know, yes, he's expanding federal programs, but he's also doing this better.
Rush, can you imagine Rush in 2004 being like, yes, Bush did kill 17 million Americans with a poison shot.
So Alex gets to lying here about his interview with Ann Coulter.
And I think that this is something that's worth noting because there are these trends that we can track when we listen to his show over time that is the development of myth, essentially.
Where the reality is overtaken by the false version of the story.
I hate Ann Coulter as much as the next guy, but Alex is absolutely lying about how that interview went down.
He's creating a myth of how the interview went, which will replace the reality that she was making fun of Alex about how he sounded like a crazy LaRouche follower and that she didn't say that she never read the Patriot Act.
That's not what she said.
Alex was talking about Patriot Act 2, which is something that didn't exist.
That was a big, high-profile interview Alex got with a major figure in the right-wing media, and it didn't go well.
So he's constructed a self-soothing straw man of that interview.
He wanted the interview to be a huge dunk so that he'd be able to use it to attack Anne and the wider right-wing mainstream media, but he failed.
So this is the way that he has to proceed.
Also, it's a weird idea that Alex has here where I guess the Democrats play the role of distraction while the Republicans, who are also secretly liberals, sneak in and pass liberal policies.
It's interesting because there's a way to articulate this that makes some sense, but Alex can't not sensationalize things.
I would understand it if he said that his side was way too caught up in attacking Democrats and focusing on what they're doing, that they never take the time to pay attention to what's going on in their own party.
Not necessarily that they're passing a liberal policy, but maybe liberal to him, to Alex's far-right extremist views.
They spend all day complaining about the Clintons and have no time to hold the GOP politicians' feet to the fire.
That criticism makes some sense, but Alex is discussing this in some kind of, like, it's an intentional...
You know, like, Alex crying about how Trump is the god king and all this, and then having to, because his base is so severely anti-vax and all this, having to be like, well, okay, he did do Operation Warp Speed.
It's so interesting just to hear the self-condemnation from the past.
I find, historically speaking, that when people want to have, quote, the right debate, they are more talking about how they want to talk about what they want to talk about, and everybody else should stop talking about other stuff.
So we have one last clip from the 30th, because it's kind of not a whole lot going on, but Jack Blood gets into a story about a fellow radio host that he knows who just got fired and the reasons for it.
And that led me down a path of maybe one of the days that you were gone.
unidentified
I mean, if you want to talk about absolutely sick and twisted, just for a quick second, I've got a guy on my show.
This is a breaking story.
He's the talk show host out of Omaha, Nebraska.
Marty Stacy was just fired because he started talking again about this Franklin cover-up.
And I know you've done some work on that as well, some good work.
And here the guy was fired.
He interviewed Maureen Gosch, who was the mother of Johnny Gosch.
This is one of the boys that was kidnapped and abused by this Franklin cover-up group.
He testified in a civil suit, which was won in Nebraska.
After this interview, which was just a couple of weeks ago, Stacey was fired.
And then a few days later, Maureen Gosch, Johnny Gosch's mother, goes into her house and finds an adult doll, okay, mutilated and hanging as a warning inside her house.
He may be too obscure of a figure to have left much of a trail on the internet.
So, the way that Jack is telling this story, you would think that it's been proven that this kid, Johnny Gotch, was kidnapped by this trafficking ring at the center of the Franklin cover-up.
It must be the case that there was some evidence or that he came home and he was able to point out the people who did it.
So this is a messy situation, because a lot of the information that's being bounced around by people like Alex and Jack Blood, it comes from Johnny's mother, Noreen, and from interpretations made by Satanic Panic Enthusiast and your good friend, Ted Gunderson.
It's very difficult to parse fact from fiction, and many of the narrators in this story seem kind of unreliable.
Take, for example, the story that Jack is telling about Noreen coming home to a mutilated doll, which was meant to be a warning.
This apparently was after she had done an interview with a completely obscure Christian radio host, Marty Stacey, on KCRO in Omaha.
That seems like an overreaction from a kidnapper, particularly given that it was over 20 years since Johnny had gone missing.
But, you have to understand this in context.
Noreen has told some pretty hard-to-believe stories since her son went missing.
In 1999, she claimed that two years prior, her son, now 27 years old, visited her randomly one night at 2.30am.
He was accompanied by another man who was completely unidentified, but who apparently was in some kind of a supervisory role over Johnny.
They talked for about an hour and a half, during which time he told her that he was taken by a pedophile organization, but that he had gotten too old.
The details on this are very hazy, and no one has been able to find any evidence that would establish that this meeting ever happened, and based on everything about how people work, it seems unlikely that it did.
In 2006, Noreen claimed that she had found some child exploitation photos on her door, which she determined were of her son.
Later, it came out that some of the people in the photos had been identified, and they were from a case in Florida in 1978, prior to Johnny's disappearance.
There's no evidence that anyone in the pictures is Johnny, but there's one person in one of the pictures who wasn't identified, who they can't prove is not him, but they also can't Wait, so somebody did leave child exploitation material on her doorstep?
Yeah, no matter what, there's a level of, like, unacceptability.
Yeah, yeah, yeah.
Unfathomability.
So in 1999, Noreen testified in a civil suit that was brought by a man named Paul Bonacci against Larry King, who was the former manager of the Franklin Credit Union.
So there was essentially the Franklin cover-up has to do with allegations that this guy, Larry King, who was running the Franklin Credit Union, was going to Boys Town in Nebraska, which was a...
At-risk youth, excuse me.
And there was a prostitution ring of minors that was going through that.
There were all kinds of elites that were involved.
And he would take kids from Boys Town and take them across the country to be exploited by rich and powerful people.
Well, yeah, there's, yeah, people give it more credibility than a lot of the other satanic panic stuff, but from everything I can tell, most of these allegations are, they cannot be, some of them can be proven to not be true.
So this guy, Bonacci, he, in 1999, was suing Larry King.
And Noreen was called in to give testimony.
So Bonacci claimed that King had abused him and that he was forced to take part in Gotch's kidnapping, which is how this all ends up being connected to the Franklin situation.
Multiple family members have told authorities that Bonacci was at home at the time of Gotch's disappearance, so his claims on that front weren't really taken all that seriously.
So this is the case that Jack Blood is referring to, and it wasn't a successful civil suit, but...
Except on a technicality.
Larry King was the central figure of these allegations in the Franklin case, and that was who Bonacci ended up suing, because the other people that he sued were removed from the suit.
King was already in jail for embezzlement convictions, and as I understand it, he just didn't respond to the suit, so Bonacci was awarded summary judgment.
The facts of that case were not determined in court, which is what Jack Blood is trying to suggest, and Alex saying people who are convicted, yes, Larry King...
Right.
So, like, the actual allegations of, like, this ritualistic child abuse ring, that was not something that they were convicted of.
I don't want to spin too far afield into the Franklin situation, because I thought we talked about it before, but I guess not.
So we'll talk about it another time that Alex brings it up in more detail.
So I'll make this as concise as possible.
There were four people who initially made allegations that there was a child trafficking ring run out of Boys Town in Omaha with Larry King at the center.
Super rich and prominent figures were involved in the ring, and there were connections with elites in other parts of the country.
When the case was brought before a grand jury, two of the accusers recanted their claims.
Bonacci was one who didn't, along with Alicia Owen.
Owen ended up serving four and a half years in jail on the charge.
Months later, a federal grand jury heard the case and arrived at the same conclusion that the accusations were unfounded and they also indicted Owen.
The conspiracy around this has continued largely because there was another investigator working on the case named Gary Caradoni.
Sorry, Gary Caridori.
Caridori had taken a trip to Chicago in July 1990, around the time that these grand juries were making their determinations.
On his return trip, his small self-piloted plane crashed, and he died along with his eight-year-old son, who was also aboard.
Naturally, this was the work of the globalists, who blew up his plane as part of an elaborate cover-up.
according to the conspiracy.
Sure.
unidentified
The story became that he called his boss before heading back, telling him that he had found the smoking gun, and this evidence was then destroyed in the crash.
I can find no evidence that I find credible that this call was made, but it proves and provides conspiracy theorists with the perfect if-only story, which is a feature of so many of the narratives we end up seeing on InfoWars.
The crash is sad, but William Bruce, the investigator for the National Transportation Safety Board, that he'd seen crashes like that in the past, and it appeared that the wings had become separated from the plane.
This usually happens in cases where pilots lose control of the plane, they go into a dive, and then their speeds go past what the plane can structurally handle.
Right.
unidentified
There's also speculation that he had hit some bad weather and lost control, which is a plausible scenario.
Anyway, the point here is that Nothing happened in Omaha, but the allegations that have been made and the things that are claimed to have been covered up just are not proven at all.
One of the people making the allegations who ended up indicted for perjury claimed that he was involved in kidnapping Johnny Gotch, which I think is tough to see as credible.
Gotch's disappearance was a national story, and his picture was famously...
One of the first that was ever put on a milk carton.
He was one of the first milk carton kids.
It stands to reason that Bonacci might want to connect his own civil suit to that giant media-rich story for his own reasons.
Whatever the case, Bonacci claimed he kidnapped Gotch, and then Gotch's mother testified in his civil case about how Johnny had shown up in the middle of the night for a random visit, which no one can verify and seems almost impossible to believe.
These are things that I'm dubious of, but for someone like Jack Blood...
All of this is true and proven.
It's all concrete.
This is all established fact for him because he wants it to be.
This narrative structure preserves the organized evil nature of his imaginary enemy team, which is critical to him retaining his own heroic image that he can project onto the audience.
Further, they're complaining about this Marty Stacy guy getting fired from his radio job, but in reality, there's a decent chance that his broadcast may have been defamatory.
If he was covering the subject irresponsibly, odds are that he might have named some names, and the station probably didn't want to deal with that kind of possible trouble.
That's something that would have happened to Alex years ago if he had a boss.
The reason that I wanted to get into some of these threads and how they dispersed and all this and led to kind of dead ends or areas where it's like, I don't know about this.
It's because I wanted to demonstrate that for Jack Blood, this is a very simple story where everything is true and all of these witnesses are entirely credible.
As somebody who tells stories, who writes all of those things...
To me, you're just making a shittier story in order to exploit it.
The interesting story is what we can't find out, you know, is the composition of all of those things and the mysteries that do exist along with the things that we can solve.
I did two radio interviews last night during the Super Bowl, and of course there was rioting as the drunken mass of animals, of Romans, went insane when their Patriots won, and I'm sure you enjoyed Janet Jackson with her breast hanging out.
While you were all busy doing that, I was fighting for this country, trying to defend the republic in the final days of this nation and any freedom you ever had.
And I'm not saying you're evil if you watch the Super Bowl.
So Alex has just decided that Janet Jackson's breast being exposed during the halftime show of the 2004 Super Bowl was intentional, and it was meant to desensitize the children.
First of all, I think that children were plenty desensitized in 2004.
The internet was widely available and pornography was one click away from anyone who wanted to look at it.
There isn't any desensitization value that's gonna come from this.
Like, the swimsuit issue and lowrider were sold at every grocery store in the country.
And really, how much of a difference is it between a tiny bikini and technically seeing a nipple?
So really that much difference in terms of desensitization?
If anything, the response to that halftime show probably had a reverse effect to desensitization, where children were taught that the nipple is a horribly shameful thing to see in public or expose.
I wouldn't be too surprised if there was far more of an impact in that direction.
Of, like, stigmatization.
Also, not for nothing, Janet Jackson has been pretty open about this, and what she went through is really, really shitty.
Her outer layer was supposed to be ripped off to reveal lingerie underneath, but it didn't go as planned, and for that, she was demonized, while Justin Timberlake, who did the ripping, more or less got a free pass.
Her career took a massive hit, with stations and even MTV not wanting to play her music, which didn't happen for Timberlake.
Less importantly, the backlash to this happening involved halftime shows that were all old rockers and boring shows like Paul McCartney, The Rolling Stones, and Tom Petty was okay, and then Bruce Springsteen.
You would go to your grandparents' house and they would have a toolbar with Ask Jeeves, Yahoo, and every time they did anything, porn would just show up and they'd be like, this is weird.
The Fairfax County, Virginia, home of John Cumberston, once a member of former U.S. Representative James Travacant scandal-plagued congressional office, It was raided Friday afternoon by Oklahoma City police detectives searching for evidence related to the 95 Oklahoma City bombing.
Now, wait a minute.
Searching for evidence?
That would mean you didn't already have it.
And they go on to admit that Congress has a copy of this and that the government declared national security on it and won't release it.
So Alex is just making up all the details that he's not directly reading from an article.
They don't say that Congress has a copy of the video in question and that they declared it national security secrets or whatever.
Here's what's going on.
At this point in 2004, Terry Nichols is about to stand trial for his role in helping Timothy McVeigh pull off the Oklahoma City bombing.
His defense attorneys are trying like crazy to cast blame anywhere they can in order to plant seeds of reasonable doubt to get him off the hook.
It became a whole mess where they were trying to call over a hundred witnesses seeking to bring up insinuations about, quote, a group of bank robbers, Iranians, residents of the white supremacist community, Elohim City, convicted murderer Chevy Kehoe, and...
In that context, a lawyer named Tom Mills Jr. claimed that back in 1998, a congressional aide named John Culbertson had shown him pictures of the explosion.
Quote, John Culbertson has testified under oath that he has no such evidence, and I have a tough time getting a handle on what he's actually all about.
In a local news article, he's credited as a former congressional aide and an employee of the Arkansas Chronicle.
I found a speech in the congressional record that Jim Traficant gave that discussed a review of the Murrah Building's security prior to the bombing that was conducted by Culbertson.
In an article in the New American, the publication of the John Birch Society, they credit him as a, quote, construction and demolition analyst.
I don't know if that's a credit he has.
I have no idea what his real credentials are, but this also appears to be a case where it's more people, like, they're making stuff up about him and embellishing him than him making it up himself.
So Mills, that lawyer, told the Nichols defense that he'd seen these photos, and on the basis of his affidavit, Culbertson's home was searched and his computers were seized.
Now, here's where things get sticky.
Culbertson was an employee of the Arkansas Chronicle, which is barely a real thing.
But it does technically exist, and it maybe makes him a journalist.
From 1996 to 2000, the publication was run by a man named Jim Bolt, who returned after Culbertson's house was searched, as they were looking to transition the publication to being an online-only format.
At that time, he and Culbertson made up the entire staff of the Chronicle.
Naturally, because they were in journalism, Bolt brought a suit against the search.
Quote, under questioning by a state prosecutor, Mr. Bolt acknowledged that he and Mr. Culbertson were the publication's only employees and he gave conflicting answers as to whether he was Mr. Culbertson's boss or vice versa.
So as to the matter of this alleged photograph, quote, in winding and often contentious testimony, Mr. Bolt said Mr. Culbertson had described to him an image he'd seen of the Murrah building exploding, but that neither he nor Mr. Culbertson had the image that it might have been faked, and that Mr. Culbertson said he had never shown it to Mr. Mills.
Culbertson showed up the next day and testified that they were just generic images of an explosion, but there was no real way to tell if it was even the Murrah Building or any context surrounding it.
So at this point, the judge said that the hearing was a, quote, waste of time.
He went on to say, quote, there was absolutely, unequivocally no evidence whatsoever of photographs of the Murrah building blowing up.
One of Nichols' lawyers, Brian Hermanson, who wanted this evidence to be taken seriously because it helped cast doubt on his client's guilt, even said, quote, when all was said and done, we didn't believe the guy.
After we questioned him, after he faked a heart attack, it just seemed a little contrived.
I mean, the moment you fake a heart attack, you either win or lose, you know?
It feels like if he got back to Arkansas with no negative consequences for this, I mean, other than he can't go, he's got an outstanding arrest warrant in a different state.
So now, almost certainly, the Arkansas Chronicle is not a legitimate publication, and it's a little iffy about whether or not they merit the standard protections for journalists.
But even leaving that aside, Culbertson and the Chronicle won their case on the grounds that the search warrant did not include probable cause for the search, and he was awarded $60,000.
Anyway, as is so often the case, there's a really fascinating story buried here that Alex completely misses and has no idea about because he's not interested in reality.
His narrative demands that these pictures not just be pictures, they're videos, and that they're real, so they're real to him.
Not only that, the government has copies of the videos.
So Alex is interviewing a guy who's presenting himself as a big expert on this story, and even according to him, the best he can do is say that he's heard secondhand from people that they've seen pictures from Culbertson, but there's no way to know if what they saw was even real.
This is not an important piece of evidence in any sense, but...
It's fairly telling that this Cash fellow is on the case, but doesn't seem to know much about the surrounding context of the story, like Jim Bolt and his heart attack.
But I do appreciate his restraint, because it's something you rarely see in these people on InfoWars.
J.D. Cash himself, I think, is an interesting figure.
He's a bit of a self-styled journalist who only got into the career after the Oklahoma City bombing.
He was an Oklahoman, and I guess he just took a serious interest in the topic and started digging into things.
There are definite things that he did some decent reporting on.
For instance, he was the person who spoke to Carol Howe, a federal informant who had lived at Elohim City and claimed that she had heard a conversation about bomb plots between Dennis Mahon and Andrea Strassmeyer.
Howe was a white supremacist who was at Elohim City and dated Mahan.
The two had a falling out in 1994, at which point she was recruited by the ATF.
She definitely spoke with the FBI after the bombing, but she's claimed that to cash that she spoke to her contacts at the ATF and told them about the bomb plotting conversation she overheard about five months prior to the bombing.
It's unclear if this is accurate, and even if it is, it's unclear how specific the information she relayed would have been, but this is a story that Cash was at the center of bringing to light.
He was able to do this because he was embedded at the white supremacist and Nazi headquarters.
It doesn't appear that he necessarily shares their worldview, but some other journalists have definitely raised questions about the ethics of how he went about courting sources.
Apparently, his buddying up with extremists went so far as to publish articles in extremist publications like Jubilee and Media Bypass, as well as speaking at an extremist conference called Jubilation, where he followed Aryan Nations Ambassador-at-large Louis Beam on the podium.
So he was very close with these white supremacist types that he covered, and he was also very friendly with the McVeigh defense attorneys, which will definitely make people a little bit concerned about bias.
That comes into play as it relates to what was probably his largest moment in the spotlight.
In 1997, a reporter for the Dallas Morning News dropped a bombshell story that he'd obtained a defense document which contained Timothy McVeigh making an explicit confession to one of his lawyers.
Everyone was a bit taken aback by this, and McVeigh's defense team was understandably a little bit light on details when asked for a response.
Someone who was quick to go on the attack about this was J.D. Cash.
According to Cash, this was a fake confession that the defense team had put together to use as a prop I haven't found any, like, solid confirmation of that, but that's what most people believe due to his contacts.
As implausible as all this sounds, it does appear that this story is true.
Another member of McVeigh's defense team, an investigator named Richard Rayna, had shown the dummy confession to Cash a year prior, and they had a big laugh about it, according to their story.
So when Cash saw reporting about this confession, he recognized some of the language from it and came out saying it was a hoax.
After he did, McVeigh's lead attorney, Stephen Jones, began to get a bit more specific with his responses and took that line about the supposed confession, that it was a dummy confession meant to lure in another witness.
But I mean, if you were a defense team, and you were defending Timothy McVeigh, and he had made an explicit confession, it doesn't seem like something that you would put on paper, and it also doesn't seem like something that you would continue defending him after, because it would put you in a situation where you would have to lie.
On the one hand, from everything I can tell, he definitely believes that McVeigh was involved in the bombing, and has even said that he's spoken to sources that place McVeigh at the scene.
But on the other hand, he's still a bit of a conspiracy theorist, and as much as he alleges a gigantic conspiracy was behind the bombing, with wide-ranging players that he definitely doesn't establish.
He's someone I was teetering on the edge about, unsure about where to categorize him, but then I realized I'm only talking about him because he's having a friendly interview with Alex Jones.
And Alex is somebody where you can say whatever about these kinds of topics, so I can kind of understand that, even if he doesn't fully align with Alex.
Here's a guy who covers the OKC bombing compulsively, who believes in a conspiracy-style cover-up regarding who was involved in it, who knows all about the subjects Alex covers and about all the people Alex references, and he doesn't buy the game Alex is playing and has reason not to.
He's heard Jane Graham's story, and he's found her not to be a credible witness because her version of events has changed over time.
That is one of the most elementary reasons that you would deem someone a bad source.
And Alex can't really dispute what the guy is saying.
Something that I think is interesting and maybe not immediately apparent is that when J.D. Cash says that he has talked to her, her story's changed, it's not reliable enough for me to...
His interest would be served by believing that there were people who put these gray sticks of butter and explosives in there, and he's rejecting taking that easy path.
I'd like to thank my friend Jeremy in 2001 who told me a well-documented talk show host named Alex Jones who was taken off KRKS for supposedly suspicious reasons.
Thank you, Mr. Jones, for airing more of your callers than any other talk show I've ever heard.
First of all, Common sense that a huge bomb would blow chunks of debris for blocks in every direction and still not take down that building unless it was shape charges in the beams and columns.
There is one pretty good chunk of that building that appears to be in the middle of the street in front of where the office was.
building was, there was a property safe, heavy steel safe, that was actually blown into the parking lot of the General Rucker building across the street.
There were not big chunks of the buildings blown all over downtown.
So this caller is trying to make Alex's point, which is that there had to been other bombs in the building, shape charges, which made the explosion go outward, shooting the building all over other buildings downtown.
You may notice that this caller didn't claim that, and Alex is making his claims in response to something Cash said.
A little bit earlier in the episode, Alex made this claim to Cash himself.
An interesting point about Cash seems to be that he believes that there were multiple explosions that day, but he doesn't believe that there were bombs planted in the building.
From what I can tell, his theory is that there were bombs or other explosives that were being stored at the ATF office in the Murrah building, and the explosion caused them to detonate in a secondary explosion, but that there's been a cover-up of that.
In terms of logical leaps, this is way more reasonable as a place to be because you can imagine that if there is an ATF office there, which there is, they may keep items that were confiscated from searches of arrests there, and one such item might be a bomb.
And you could believe that there could be a legitimate reason why they might not want to be upfront about that.
For one, it could paint a picture that ATF offices are inherently dangerous, which could hurt with them leasing property.
Or another direction could be that they wouldn't want to reveal exactly what they'd confiscated because it could give away part of an ongoing investigation unrelated to McVeigh.
I'm not saying that this is the case, but there's a little more of a grounded conspiracy there than the type that Alex tends to engage in.
Yeah, and I mean, even just on a crass kind of level, you could be like, well, they just didn't want anyone thinking that they were partially responsible for the destruction or whatever.
So these kinds of conspiracies seem to have more of a foot in the real world than Alex's does.
Here's the vibe I'm getting, is somebody who is an excellent Bigfoot researcher.
And I'm talking about somebody who believes in Bigfoot as real, like 100% believes in Bigfoot, but is looking at all of the evidence that people have gathered and is like, this is not conclusive because here's why, here's why, here's why, here's why, all of that kind of thing.
And, you know, I mean, it's faint praise slightly, but it is appreciated that he will at least set those lines and be like, I'm not going to essentially be a party of, you know, saying these things that are delegitimizing to my expertise and years and years are going to be a party.
If we were reading about this story, or perhaps listening to it occur, we would all know, the audience knows, exactly who is being called a moron here.
So Alex is just blurring all kinds of details about the David Kelly case, because as we've seen unfolding, he's in the process of turning it from a real event into a piece of paper.
Yeah.
lying about the Ann Coulter interview to make it a myth, he's doing the same thing as it relates to the David Kelly story.
Yeah.
unidentified
He has his established narrative in place, which is that Kelly was murdered, and so every little detail that he covers about the case needs to be bluffed and finessed so it fits that narrative.
It wasn't said to a female American co-worker who was a fellow weapons inspector.
It was said to a British diplomat named David Brucher.
It wasn't said just before Kelly's death.
It was about six months prior in the lead-up to the invasion of Iraq.
He didn't say that some shadowy unknown group was going to kill him and put him in the woods.
He was saying that if the invasion went forward, he'd, quote, probably be found dead in the woods.
But the reason for that comment is clear.
He was worried about the Iraqi contacts he had, many of whom he feared would feel betrayed by him if the UK invaded, particularly around issues related to weapons of mass destruction.
It came out in the Hutton inquiry that Kelly had made indications bordering on assurances to his contacts that the war could be avoided, and the idea that an invasion might still happen that made him rightly concerned that the danger that he could be in because of those assurances that he'd made to high-level people.
Ultimately, a comment like this makes me feel even more convinced about the suicide determination because it helps illustrate the headspace and fear and guilt that Kelly was feeling.
What's important to recognize here is the way that Alex is wantonly misreporting details around this comment because the actual context puts his narrative into more question, whereas his phony version makes his narrative seem more likely.
Without the context of who Kelly was worried would kill him, Alex is able to pretend that this is about him worrying about retribution for supposedly blowing the whistle on WMD intelligence.
By presenting this as something that was said in the immediate time just before his death, Alex is able to tie the comment to the death far more directly than reality would allow.
This is one of Alex's primary ways of lying, and it's something that he's able to pass off as just being sloppy or speaking extemporaneously without notes or a teleprompter.
He can use that excuse if he Sure, sure, sure.
His sloppiness and unprofessional approach to his job actually provides cover for the misrepresentations and lies he presents as researched fact to his audience.
You know, it is like Douglas Adams described the serious cybernetics corporation of like, the superficial flaws are so loud and annoying they distract you from the fundamental flaws that are the larger problem.
Chris Simcox is not the editor of a reputable local paper, which is why Alex phrased it like that.
He's the founder of the Minutemen Civil Defense Corps, a border vigilante group that violently harasses immigrants.
He's another one of the pieces of shit who Alex presents to his audience as heroes, and it's worth noting that he's not a person that Alex would admit to knowing anymore.
That's because Simcox is currently in prison, serving an over 19-year sentence after being convicted in 2016 of molesting a 5-year-old girl.
It's probably also really terrifying to realize that prior to his shift into being a border vigilante, Simcox was an elementary school teacher in classes from kindergarten to third grade for 13 years.
Two of his ex-wives filed for protective custody from him, one in 2001 and another in 2010.
The first ex told the court that Simcox had threatened deadly violence and had slapped their four-year-old son so hard he had a mark on his face for two days.
The ex-wife from 2010, who is actually Simcox's third wife, told a judge that he, quote, brandished a gun and threatened to shoot her, the children, and any police officers who tried to protect them.
As is so often the case when we look back through Alex's catalog, the guests he has on are all complete monsters.
It's bad enough that this guy's only real claim to fame at the time is that he was demonizing immigrants and harassing them while heavily armed, but when you get into who he actually is, you start to see the caliber of person Alex puts on a pedestal.
It really feels like if you peel back even a single layer on most of Alex's guests from this time period, you end up with a literal Nazi or a child abuser way more regularly than you should.
I mean, they were just shooting at people again a few weeks ago, kidnapping citizens.
That's the Associated Press.
It's a matter of time to lay open fire on you.
What are you going to do, Chris?
unidentified
Well, we are prepared, and again, we had a situation here in our county, and Cochise County is going to lead the way with citizens arming themselves and patrolling that border, as we already have.
We had a mother and a 14-year-old daughter who were beaten, threatened with death and carjacked as they were going to school last week.
You know, like you can have undocumented immigrants and they're rolled in with drug smugglers and this fake story that Alex has about the family being kidnapped that we talked about on a past episode.
It's just all very irresponsible and only meant to make people more fearful and distrustful of, well, I mean, basically all Hispanic people.
They're on the front line standing up against these people.
And you were trying to tell us a story of the beating of this woman and her child.
Tell us more about that.
unidentified
I'll read it straight from the paper.
A woman and her 14-year-old daughter were pulled from their SUV and beaten outside their rural Cochise County home Thursday morning in a carjacking by three men illegally in the United States.
They stole their SUV.
They punched the women in the mouth, stole their vehicle, got into a car chase with border patrol agents again on our rural highways right during morning rush hour and children going to school right by children standing on the side of the road waiting for school back.
They should set up a roadblock and shoot that vehicle full of holes.
unidentified
Well, they pulled them over.
The guys took off running back across the border and they caught them just a few hundred yards You can see here something that's really important to recognize and hold on to.
Alex's principles and the things he says he believes in don't matter when his emotions, particularly his hatred, get triggered.
He had a sincere interest in police.
And that maybe there could be some kind of alliance you could make with him to work on it.
But the truth is, Alex doesn't care about that at all.
He supports rampant police brutality when it's directed towards the groups he agitates against.
Sim Cox is telling him a story here about a carjacking and assault, and because the alleged perpetrators are undocumented immigrants, Alex thinks the police should have fired on the car indiscriminately.
Would that be what you would want people to do if it was just a carjacking where it was a...
Given the details that he provides, it's impossible to verify this story, given that we have no idea when this happened, there are no names provided, so cross-checking doesn't really work.
I couldn't find anything.
We'll find back issues online of the Tombstone Tumbleweed, but shockingly, unavailable.
In this environment where Simcox is willing to do this shitty of a job, he could legitimately just make up whatever story he wants and people like Alex will accept it as real because it conforms to the narrative that they want to perpetuate, namely that migrants are an existential threat to the noble whites of the country.
Not only will Alex accept whatever story he's told that lines up with what he wants to believe, he'll then use that story to advocate for summary executions to be carried out on these people by the police.
just blindly accepts.
If Alex were someone who cared about the rising police state as much as he pretends to, he would never excitedly wish that the police could just randomly kill people for non-capital crimes just because they're part of a vulnerable population that he happens to hate.
Everybody should have to be armed and trained, and the next time somebody tries to carjack, you know what to do.
unidentified
Well, we have our local sheriff who's had enough also, Sheriff Deaver, who is now forming a citizen's volunteer patrol group that are going to patrol armed our bus stop in the morning where our children wait for the buses.
The fact that he was that drunk and could physically operate a motor vehicle led many to speculate that he was a career boozer and that maybe he was pretty intoxicated, but he had a super high tolerance from drinking all the time.
This raises another uncomfortable question, which is whether or not the other members of the sheriff's department had ever stopped him for driving drunk in the past and looked the other way, or they'd just covered for his drinking in other ways.
Compounding the suspiciousness of this is the fact that Deaver publicly presented himself as a teetotaler and a devout Mormon.
Because he was a real anti-immigrant type of sheriff who appealed to the bigot types like Alex and Simcox, conspiracies started to swirl after his death.
It was really tough to make this look like a murder, though, because he had so much booze in his system.
He was alone in the car.
There was beer and liquor bottles in the car.
A bunch of them.
And there was a witness to the time surrounding the crash.
Another motorist had been behind him but lost sight when Deaver went around a corner, or a curve.
After that, the witness rounded the curve.
He saw that there had been a crash.
And this is exactly where you would expect a super drunk person to crash, because their ability to navigate and negotiate the curve would be diminished.
Anyway, Sheriff Deaver, more than anything else, seems like another one of these severely anti-immigrant sheriffs who like to provide cover for extremists like Simcox.
They legitimize things by virtue of their position.
They say like we got to deputize people like Simcox and then he is allowed to sort of run free and do all kinds of really irresponsible and shitty things.
So it wasn't like we were, and we were kids, so if we were driving, then we were getting pulled over and the whole town is, you know, that whole thing.
It was that kind of thing.
So we'd go out into the middle of nowhere, sit there, drink all night, and then wake up and then go to, go back, you know?
So yeah, I mean, it's kind of an unsatisfying last clip.
And as much as it's just...
Well, this guy, he was...
I found that level of intoxication and the fact that he pretends to be a teetotaler and what have you quite bizarre, but it's not really that meaningful in the grand scheme of things.
So anyway, we reach the end of this, and we'll get back to the present, find out what Alex thinks about the arrest and all that, but I felt like I wanted to not do that on our maiden voyage back.
And I wanted to, I just, you know, while you were gone, I was spending a lot of time listening to these episodes because I wanted to have an enjoyable time and found some things like a dude faking a heart attack, which are just so fun.
We'll do an entire episode and you'll be- And we can't wait to talk about it.
Yeah, yeah, honestly, you'll be like, listen.
This episode, you'll tell me before the show, you'll be like, honestly, most of this episode's gonna be garbage, but there is one clip that I can't not play for you.