Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Dec. 15, 2016 - No Agenda

02:56:38

886: Exodus of Misery

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Hey, would you like to make ten bucks?
	Adam Curry, John C. Dvorak.
	It's Thursday, December 15, 2016.
	This is your award-winning Gimbo Nation Media Assassination, Episode 886.
	This is No Agenda.
	Propagating the formula to all state-sponsored media and broadcasting live from the darkest corners of the internet here in Austin Tejas.
	In the morning, everybody, I'm Adam Curry.
	And from northern Silicon Valley, where Play-Dohs say, man who suggests vegan lettuce-only diet, just tip of the iceberg.
	I'm John C. Dvorak.
	It's Crackpot and Buzzkill.
	In the morning.
	Yeah, good Play-Doh?
	Sorry.
	It was in the veganism, but...
	Who knew?
	Who knew it was popular back then?
	It's just crazy.
	Hey, John, episode 886 of our little show here, the best podcast in the universe.
	Two things at the top of the show.
	I had a brilliant idea.
	Uh-oh.
	Uh-oh.
	No, we were talking about getting someone to edit a clean version of the show for some radio stations who want to air it.
	Yes.
	I have a better idea.
	Instead of trying to find someone who does that, why don't we just ask the producers who are listening on the stream anyway to write down the time codes of questionable content, words, and then at the end of the show send them to me.
	I'm doing everything anyway.
	I mean, how many edits can it be?
	Three?
	Four?
	And I can do a separate show.
	Five?
	Six?
	Seven?
	Well, that depends how the Tourette's is, but you know what I'm saying.
	In general, isn't that a much easier way to do it?
	I'd rather have someone do it.
	Why?
	Well, here's what's going to happen.
	You're going to get a bunch of people sending you all these time codes, and they're not going to be right.
	They'll be approximately right.
	Okay, and then you go...
	Well, okay.
	Well, I don't think that's a bad idea.
	Let's put it that way.
	I just think, you know, it won't take me much extra time.
	It'll take me maybe 15 minutes, and I can spin it off, and then it's done.
	I think the way it should be done is that we...
	There's somebody out there who's actually a pro...
	Who likes to listen to the show would sit there with an eight-second delay button on himself.
	He'd set it up.
	And as he'd listen to the show, he'd just be hitting the button every time.
	Okay.
	Somehow your way...
	I mean, I think my way is cleaner, I think.
	I'm just saying.
	You want my second genius idea?
	Uh-oh.
	Yeah, I'm on a roll this morning.
	Okay.
	So Max Geiser just released his interview with me on RT. That's out now.
	Yeah, it's pretty good.
	And in it we talk about...
	I just say so myself.
	Well, you know me, Mr.
	Humble.
	No, I'm pleased.
	I'm pleased with the result.
	Not for my performance, but pleased for the show, for the promotion for the show, the promotion of ideas, the promotion of our producers.
	And we were talking about neither of us being verified on Twitter.
	And then I said, hey, you know, that's why licensing is coming.
	That's why we have podcastlicense.com.
	And Max was like, oh, that's a really good idea.
	And as I was thinking about it, I'm like, you know, we could actually do a podcast verification service for real.
	We could have a little board of people, you know, who say who qualifies as a licensed podcast.
	Well, that's funny because that kind of fits in with something else I've been wanting to do.
	Okay.
	There was, and you know the old theory about top 10, top 25 media influencers.
	Yes, yes.
	Yeah, exactly.
	And we went over the list.
	You had it somewhere.
	We should go over it again on the show.
	I think it was, was it not Vanity Fair who did that?
	No, I don't think so.
	I wrote it down somewhere.
	Whoever, no, it was Mediaite.
	Oh, Mediaite, yeah.
	Yeah, that was dumb.
	They did this top 25 media influencers, and we looked at the list.
	This was after the show, I believe.
	And the list was just crap.
	It was the worst.
	There were maybe three or four in there that might be influencers, but the thing was backwards.
	It was these media influencers.
	Let's put it this way.
	If you don't have people like Rush Limbaugh on the list, then it's not a serious list of media influencers.
	You may not like Rush Limbaugh, but he's definitely an influencer.
	Yeah, especially when you have people on there like Martha Radich, and you have John Oliver.
	So how do we combine that?
	I mean, I'm just looking to make money.
	How do we combine it?
	Well, you can look at it to make money.
	This is not a moneymaker, but like most of the stuff we do.
	This is just a service that will draw attention to the podcast, which eventually people make money.
	So there's no fee for becoming licensed?
	Oh, no, there should be for the...
	I'm talking about my list of 25, not about the licensing.
	Oh, no, I understand.
	But we could basically launch the podcast license in conjunction with that.
	Yeah, that could be a fee.
	Why not?
	Yeah.
	All right, we'll work on it.
	But then I might as well start with the two pieces I promised I would cut for you about propaganda and RT. From Max Keiser when he and I were at the Seed Man.
	The Seed Man?
	Yeah.
	Because you didn't see the whole interview, and I wanted to play for you these two little clips when Max Keiser said some outrageous stuff.
	I'm all ears.
	Let's go.
	Alright, so first we're going, and again, we were on Alex Jones' show, and Max starts telling us about the censorship and actual propaganda in the UK. We're Ofcom.
	Now, Ofcom is the regulator of, I think, all media.
	Do they regulate other things besides just broadcast media?
	You're asking the wrong guy.
	Yeah, you're right.
	Okay, but it's kind of like a cross between our FCC and maybe our FTC. And, well, here's what Max Keiser had to say about how they handle Russia Today and information in Gitmo Nation East.
	All news, to some degree, would have some degree of subjectivity to it, would have some degree of...
	But these are the people saying, kill Donald Trump.
	News is not pure.
	It's not a pure...
	It comes out...
	It's all propaganda.
	Whole cloth and pure.
	News has, in many times, has errors in it.
	You try to do the best that you can.
	But to say it's fake news, it's just saying we don't want any news.
	We don't want any news.
	That's right.
	They're introducing the idea that...
	We want propaganda.
	We want only propaganda.
	It comes from one source.
	And if you don't report what we say, it's like Britain, where we do most of our shows, has become a totalitarian propaganda state, where the state is now dictating everything that comes out in any major news source.
	We're constantly harassed, as I was saying yesterday by Ofcom, the regulator, who gets actually...
	Into our face and gives us scripts.
	The UK regulator gives us scripts to read on our show.
	And then they accuse us of propaganda.
	The regulator gives us scripts that are detailing our position on energy companies in the UK. That's state-sponsored propaganda.
	That's right up there with Pol Pot.
	And all of this grew out of denotices.
	I like how he brings Pol Pot into it for some reason.
	What is he thinking?
	Pol Pot.
	What I like is the fact that he...
	Because Alex wants to always get a word in of some sort, just to say crazy stuff.
	And he just rides right over them.
	It's the super male vitality drops, I think.
	It just makes him like...
	And Max just...
	Yeah, you're right.
	Just keep going.
	National security.
	Oh, you can't talk about where nuclear weapons are stored.
	Next it's, you can't say you're for Brexit.
	Or you can't say you're against it.
	You just have to have no view.
	You can't even...
	I'm trying to get a word in edgewise.
	It's We're failing.
	Six months!
	You might as well give up when those two are battling.
	We can't mention Brexit for six months!
	You can't say anything negative about the migrant situation?
	It's illegal.
	We couldn't mention Brexit for six months.
	They threatened to take RT off the air in the UK. How about that?
	I knew there was...
	Isn't there like a two-week window that you have with voting in the UK? I don't know.
	I think so.
	And they wouldn't allow RT to talk about Brexit for six months.
	That was rigged.
	They were all in on making sure they got passed.
	That's why they're still not going to follow up.
	But how can anyone claim Russia was involved if RT couldn't even report on it?
	And that's what the regulator later said.
	And that's the kind of restrictions we deal with.
	There's no free speech in the UK. The UK is pretty high up on the global free speech.
	And by the way, they want a law passed here the same as England that, quote, if something's foreign media while they invite it in, then you're an American on that international platform, everything's global, then you can't ever make comments about anything domestic.
	Well, how are you supposed to do the news then?
	I'm sure you covered the repeal of the Smith-Munt Act on your show.
	And people need to hear that, I think.
	I think it was the mid-70s, there was a bill, an act, a law that said the U.S. government may not propagandize its citizens.
	And they repealed it three years ago.
	In the National Defense Authorization Act.
	And the reasoning behind it was, well, we do so much propaganda on the internet that it's going to eventually flow into the U.S. So just so we don't get in trouble, you might as well just take it off the table.
	And this is only a couple years ago.
	Yeah, they said we're going to put out fake news.
	They said even deceptive stories.
	We do put out the Voice of America.
	They do put out fake news.
	So they're saying we're fake when they admit they're fake and pass the law that they can lie to us.
	Correct.
	Voice of America is an American propaganda arm for American propaganda.
	You couldn't broadcast Voice of America in America due to anti-propaganda laws.
	Then they changed the law, and now you can broadcast Voice of America inside America because they're pro-propaganda.
	There is no anti-propaganda laws anymore in America.
	So then, more talk, blah, blah, blah, more interruption, commercial break, and then Max Keiser blows the lid off of something that we discussed on our show Actually, I have the date somewhere.
	Let me see.
	I'll tell you when it was.
	I have clips.
	It was 2014.
	March 2014.
	Here we go.
	About Voice of America.
	I'm sure you covered the repeal of the Smithmont Act on your show.
	And people need to hear that.
	Let me fast forward.
	Broadcast Voice of America in America doing anti-propaganda laws.
	Then they changed the law, and now you can broadcast Voice of America inside America because they're pro-propaganda.
	There is no anti-propaganda laws anymore in America.
	As I mentioned to you a while ago, when I was doing my show in Paris, I was approached from somebody from Voice of America to do an on-air, hissy-fit resignation on RT. Wait, was this the same time when that other girl...
	Oh, it came out.
	It was all set up.
	And I told them, you know...
	Of course, we know it's not really Voice of America.
	It's Central Intelligence Agency.
	They were flashing some big money around.
	I'm like, you don't get it.
	I was a stockbroker in the 80s.
	You can't bribe me.
	You're not with that sack of money.
	You've got to come with a truck full of money or go home.
	But he is bribable.
	If the truck is big enough, maybe I'll...
	So how about that?
	Yeah, that's kind of depressing.
	But it was, because we knew that she had been coerced by someone to do this.
	Well, we were under the impression that it was CNN or one of these guys who offered her a job and says, hey, it'd be even better if you...
	No, no, no.
	It was someone from, if I recall correctly, I'd have to go back and look it up.
	It was someone maybe involved with Politico, or there was one guy who, remember he was tweeting before she, so make sure you watch.
	He was retweeting her saying, make sure you watch.
	It wasn't Voice of America, but this is blatantly that she was that she took the money.
	I don't get the impression they pay a lot at RT. Well, no, not at RT, but I don't think at Voice of America either.
	We tried to kind of get the amount out of Max.
	But he is bribable.
	If the truck is big enough, maybe I'll consider it.
	The budget of Voice of America wouldn't take me to the place I would need to go to undermine my own show, you freaking losers.
	Get out of my face!
	We're such cheapskates.
	I can't believe...
	I know.
	They've only offered me $10 million to sell out.
	I'm like, listen...
	John, what are we doing wrong?
	$10 million.
	What are we doing wrong?
	Yeah, they only offered us $7 million.
	Here is the epic moment that Liz Wall quit on air at RT. This is the moment we're talking about, March 2014.
	Last night our team made international headlines when one of our anchors went on the record and said Russian intervention in Crimea is wrong.
	And indeed, as a reporter on this network, I face many ethical and moral challenges, especially me personally.
	Especially taking money from Voice of America.
	Coming from a family whose grandparents, my grandparents, came here as refugees during the Hungarian Revolution, ironically to escape She's nervous, daily grind of poverty.
	And I'm very lucky to have grown up here in the United States.
	I'm the daughter of a veteran.
	My partner is a physician at a military base where he sees every day.
	She's nervous.
	You can tell.
	You can hear it in her voice.
	She's about to blow the lid off.
	The first-hand accounts of the ultimate prices that people pay for this country.
	Here it comes.
	And that is why, personally, I cannot be part of a network funded by the Russian government that whitewashes the actions of Putin.
	I'm proud to be an American and believe in disseminating the truth.
	And that is why, after this newscast, I'm resigning Putin.
	Yeah, I had to ISO that.
	Putin.
	You know, we've been talking about...
	You should have fired her because she can't even say Putin.
	That's a sackable offense in my book.
	Putin.
	And then, of course, she went on her little tour and went to The View, short clip.
	Not right.
	Well, in light of current events, I could see how the network was being used as a propaganda machine to promote Putin's foreign policy.
	So that's what kind of...
	Yes, yes, right now, right now.
	And everybody's saying two years, two years, but it's like, you know, in an abusive relationship and the woman finally leaves, do you blame her for getting in the relationship in the first place?
	In this country, if a journalist disagrees with the administration, they just get hired at Fox News.
	But you know what, John?
	She's back!
	Liz Wall is back on track.
	I just want to stop before you go that far, which is the RT Network, which I have a bunch of clips from today because there's some pretty good stuff on Aleppo because they are the only ones that have a correspondent over there.
	They host the Tom Hartman show.
	Yeah.
	And if anybody kind of has this anti-Trump, anti-Russia perspective, it's Tom Hartman.
	Her argument does not hold water.
	That's the problem.
	And he has Professor Cohen on.
	I heard Cohen on the other day on the Thoms show.
	Yeah, totally.
	Correct.
	Anyway, Liz Wall reappeared.
	On CNN, on the CNNs, and of course, she's the expert now on Russian media infiltration.
	Selling chaos.
	Is the effort of Russian propaganda actors to just sow confusion, to make people doubt that anything could be true?
	Sure, yeah.
	I mean, that is the main goal of Russian disinformation, whether it be through their television channels, whether it be through other measures like hacking, like legions of paid trolls.
	That is the ultimate goal, is to undermine democracy, to undermine faith in our institutions like the media.
	And we have a president-elect now who has basically matched some of these key talking points in Russian propaganda to undermine our system.
	It's very hard to cover cyber warfare or cyber espionage.
	That's right.
	This is not like covering traditional conflict where you can see where the missiles are being launched.
	Right, and I think that's the point of Russian media.
	Russian disinformation has been happening for years now, but people didn't really take it seriously.
	I mean, the goal of Russian media is to undermine faith in our institutions, and now they've succeeded in hacking our elections.
	And I know that Julia has done some reporting, and there has been some reporting, but let's just say that.
	They've succeeded in hacking our elections.
	That is fake news.
	You know what else is interesting about that comment?
	Wolsey was on one of the talks.
	I got too many clips already, so I didn't clip this, but Wolsey, the ex-CIA director.
	And he says the problem people are having is they're conflating.
	In other words, they're taking two discrepant things and pushing them together to make a third thing that doesn't exist.
	And she herself just did it by talking about, oh, the Russians are really good at disinformation.
	They're really good at disinformation.
	These emails are not disinformation by any means.
	There were...
	Recognized as legitimate emails.
	So where's the disinformation part?
	In fact, there's been no evidence of disinformation.
	No one can cite any disinformation regarding this election.
	And as this little particular thing goes on, I have a completely different take now, having heard all the deconstructions that have gone on.
	As do I, by the way.
	I also have a theory on what really happened here.
	Okay, well, you want to do your theory?
	No, no, I want to hear yours.
	You might want to hear mine first.
	First of all, let's take a look at some of these clips that have come out about the hacking and all the rest of it.
	I have a bunch of really silly ones.
	And one really dynamite one from an unexpected source.
	Well, let's start with NBC, which is a disinformation source, if anybody is.
	NBC would take the cake and NBC broken number of us.
	You know, this is the thing where the all of a sudden based on the Washington Post once again, the Washington Post comes out with a story saying it's been confirmed by the intelligence agencies that the Russians were behind it and they can point the finger at Putin.
	Which is just not true.
	They have not confirmed anything.
	No, that's the point.
	And it's not Putin.
	It's not Putin.
	Putin.
	Get it right.
	So Putin.
	So let's see what we have for the NBC rundown on this.
	Oh, by the way, play the Joy Behar ISO before I find this other clip.
	Uh...
	Okay.
	I mean, do we have to wait till the hammer and sickle is on the American flag before we stand up to this guy?
	And now you're just walking on my beat.
	I have that.
	Too late.
	I shouldn't have given you the floor.
	Okay, let's start with...
	Let's start with what's really come out of this.
	I can't seem to find my NBC. Yeah, I got a starter NBC Putin Russia hack.
	I'm ready to go.
	I'm good to go, boss.
	Now on NBC News exclusive, what intelligence officials say is evidence the Russian effort to disrupt the U.S. election went all the way to the top, naming President Vladimir Putin, the former KGB chief, as an active player in the cyber operation that targeted Democrats and the Hillary Clinton campaign.
	And tonight, we've also learned new details about what officials believe motivated the plot.
	NBC's senior investigative correspondent, Cynthia McFadden, tells us more.
	Tonight, NBC News can report that Vladimir Putin was personally involved in Putin.
	Wow, she's also on the Putin tip.
	Putin.
	What is this?
	I don't know.
	This is why we have to use our consonants, John.
	Like, T. Important.
	Putin.
	Not poo-in.
	Poo-in.
	Vladimir Putin was personally involved in the Russian attempt.
	I gotta do that again.
	I can't believe that.
	That's not good.
	And this is Cynthia McFadden, their top hitman.
	Broadcast legend.
	...attempt to disrupt the U.S. election.
	Two senior intelligence officials with direct access to all the information tell NBC News the new intelligence is derived from diplomatic sources and others, including spies working for America's allies.
	Spy?
	Specifically, a high-level intelligence official tells NBC News Putin's role was directing the use of the hacked material.
	Putin's objectives were multifaceted.
	What began as a vendetta against Hillary Clinton morphed into an effort to show corruption in American politics and to split off key American allies by creating the image that other countries couldn't depend on the U.S. to be a credible global leader anymore.
	He's had a vendetta against Hillary Clinton.
	That has been known for a long time.
	He wants to discredit American democracy and make us weaker in terms of leading the liberal democratic order.
	And most certainly, he likes President-elect Trump's views on Russia.
	Now it sounds like we have evidence to support those hypotheses.
	So tonight the question, will the U.S. retaliate against Mr.
	Putin directly?
	As part of its contingency planning, U.S. intelligence dug into Mr.
	Putin's personal empire and concluded that his network controls some $85 billion worth of assets.
	Lester?
	All right, Cynthia, thank you.
	Okay.
	By the way, just to break down that report from a deconstruction perspective, What was the point of them throwing in the $85 billion assets?
	He controls $85 billion in assets.
	What has that got to do with anything in that report?
	I don't know.
	That I don't know.
	I do.
	It's just put in there.
	It's just a gratuitous slam to make you suspicious at the end.
	So your mind is open to the bull crap that she delivered.
	Excellent point.
	Yes.
	I think maybe as an additional backgrounder, just what the thinking is among the elites, Harry Reid, I had no idea.
	He is more crackpot than I've ever even considered to be.
	Yes.
	Every single Russia theory is in Harry Reid's mouth.
	And I think that what's going on here is that you have WikiLeaks who coordinated everything they did, obviously with the Trump campaign.
	That's why they leaked out a little bit here, drip here, drip there.
	Drip here, drip there.
	So there's collusion there, clearly.
	During the campaign, especially the last few months of the campaign, WikiLeaks was heavily involved in trying to hurt Hillary Clinton.
	And it helped Trump.
	Someone within the Trump campaign organization was in on the deal.
	I have no doubt.
	Comey was a front for the Republican Party.
	Here's a man who violated all precedent and decided that he was on his own.
	He was going to He's overruled many, many decades of precedent, and he said he didn't care what this attorney general, this one or any of the others said.
	He was going to get involved in the election, and he did.
	And he not only did it once, but he did it time after time.
	He did it one time, a week or ten days before the election.
	He should not have done that.
	He should not have done that because I'm confident we lost Senate seats because of that, and I'm confident that Clinton lost the election because of that.
	Well, that's what Hillary says, too.
	Yeah, well, it's the talking points.
	And it went all the way to the White House.
	I mean, did you hear Josh Earnest?
	I didn't clip it, but yeah, I heard him play it.
	There's ample evidence that was known long before the election, and even in most cases long before October, about the Trump campaign in Russia.
	Everything from the Republican nominee himself calling on Russia to hack his opponent.
	Hack!
	He's just joking!
	You know, he didn't even say that.
	He said, I'm sure the American media will reward you highly if you can find the 33 missing emails.
	That's what he said.
	Yeah.
	No, I mean, that is such a...
	And he was being cynical about that.
	Yeah, it's such a distortion of the truth.
	To hack his opponent.
	Hack!
	It might be an indication that he was obviously aware...
	Wait a minute, to hack his opponent?
	Oh, you mean Trump's opponent.
	Okay, that makes sense.
	That he was obviously aware...
	No, he wasn't aware of anything.
	Let's make up our minds about Trump.
	Is he the all-knowing, everybody's got control of all things, he was aware of this and that, or is this a big dummy?
	He doesn't even do his daily intelligence reports.
	How the heck could he know?
	No, he's dumb.
	He's a dummy.
	He's a buffoon.
	A sack of orange Cheetos.
	This was the problem they've always had with George Bush.
	The media had it.
	He was either a big dummy.
	He's dumb.
	Or he was a mad genius.
	I know.
	Make up your mind.
	The exact same thing.
	And concluded, based on whatever facts or sources he had available to him, that Russia was involved.
	And their involvement was having a negative impact on his opponent's campaigns.
	That's why he was encouraging them to keep doing it.
	You had the Republican nominee referred to...
	When was he encouraging them to keep doing it?
	He's referring back to the same joke.
	Hey, if you can find those emails, I'm sure...
	Well, they weren't doing it at the time.
	They hadn't found any of these emails from the DNC. So how could he be encouraging them to keep doing it when they haven't been doing it?
	This is exactly why Josh Earnest will never receive a podcast license.
	No.
	The Republican nominee referred to...
	By the way, I did that audacity trick again on him.
	There were pauses of six seconds in this thing.
	I don't understand how he gets away with them.
	When do people say, why can't you speak in sentences?
	He's very, very considered in the way he speaks.
	Yeah, right.
	But the audacity is great.
	Removes all the silences.
	Fantastic.
	The president of Russia as a strong leader.
	The Republican nominee chose a campaign chair that had extensive, lucrative, personal financial ties to the Kremlin.
	And it was obvious to those who were covering the race that the hack and leak strategy that had been operationalized was not being equally applied to the two parties and to the two campaigns.
	It wasn't fair!
	They should have released something from the Republicans too!
	That's not fair!
	There's one side that was bearing the brunt of that strategy.
	Not fair!
	And another side that was clearly benefiting from it.
	Huh?
	Now, I know there's a lot of reporting that there may be some disagreement in the intelligence community about whether or not that was the intent.
	Uh, there's disagreement!
	That's a question that they should ask, and a question they may attempt to answer.
	But there certainly was no doubt about the effect.
	Okay, I think we've heard it.
	It was 10 seconds.
	Okay, we're good.
	Now, since you're going to play him, I have to play my counter clip, which is not really a counter clip, but they have the entire clip available for people who will be on the show.
	Keith Olbermann?
	I only have the ISO, the little bit at the end.
	Why wouldn't you play the whole clip?
	It's seven and a half minutes is the reason.
	It's seven and a half minutes of dynamite juiciness?
	No, no, no.
	The end is juicy enough.
	Okay.
	I'm glad you thought that because now I can write you about these long clips, but It's kind of juicy for a while, then he just repeats himself, but at the end it's so good, it'll get people to go to the show notes and get used to that system and play it there, I think.
	I got the whole thing if you want to play that.
	No, no, it's good.
	I have it too.
	Don't worry about it.
	We'll play the ISO. That's fine.
	Here we go.
	Keith Oldman, this is...
	Let's talk about...
	Let's give it a little background.
	Because he has no station.
	It's GQ, right?
	He can't keep a job because I guess he's like this.
	He's kind of a hothead.
	And so he was fired from ESPN and then he...
	Went to work for MSNBC and pretty much carried the station during the Bush administration.
	Wait, wasn't it the other way around?
	It was MSNBC, then he went to ESPN? No, no.
	He was at ESPN long before MSNBC. Oh, I didn't know that.
	He was very famous on ESPN. Oh.
	And he made a big fuss when they fired him because he was disagreeable.
	But then he went to MSNBC and totally kicked ass for a while, and then he got sick of them, or Current offered him a job.
	He went to Current.
	Then he bitched and moaned because he didn't like the way the set was.
	Mm-hmm.
	And he didn't like the sound.
	Of course, meanwhile, it's worse now.
	And then he went back to MSNBC to do a special show, which never got any ratings.
	It was very good.
	He's really a good sportscaster.
	And he fired again, and this time a little with less indignity, I believe.
	And so then he's got nothing to do.
	I think he's got a lot of payouts.
	He was getting good money.
	And so now he does a podcast, video podcast for GQ magazine.
	He's done a few of these.
	Does he have a podcast license?
	No.
	Fake news.
	And so he goes on this rant, because he hates Trump probably more than he hates anybody, more than George Bush or anyone else.
	So he goes on this long rant on this clip that you can pick up anywhere.
	And the end of it is where he really ramps it up and then he finishes off.
	And it's just...
	It's really, really weird.
	The nation and all of our freedoms hang by a thread, and the military apparatus of this country is about to be handed over to scum who are beholden to scum!
	Scum!
	That was my favorite bit of the whole clip.
	We're beholden...
	The military leaders are scum, I tell you!
	We're beholden to scum!
	We're beholden to scum!
	Russian scum!
	Russian scum!
	As things are today, January 20th will not be an inauguration, but rather the end of the United States as an independent country.
	It will not be a peaceful change of power.
	It will be a usurpation, and the usurper has no validity.
	No credibility and no authority under the Constitution.
	This is a reality that will become the only reality until this country rids itself of Donald John Trump.
	He is not a president.
	He is a puppet put in power by Vladimir Putin.
	And those who ignore these elemental existential facts, Democrats or Republicans, are traitors to this country and will immediately and forever after be held accountable.
	Resist.
	Peace.
	Damn it.
	Hold on a second.
	Damn it.
	I wasn't ready for that.
	Hold on.
	Hold on.
	Accountable.
	Resist.
	But resist, we much.
	We must.
	Resist.
	And we will much.
	About.
	If you actually put his ending together...
	Yeah, it's kind of the same.
	No, not...
	What do you mean?
	Tell me what you want.
	His last two words together is resist peace.
	Yeah, resist peace.
	Yes, very good.
	I am a moron.
	Let's listen again.
	Resist!
	Peace!
	I can do that.
	Well...
	You still gave me the floor, so I'm going to keep it.
	Because I want to get right to the crux of this whole thing.
	I wanted to play a few more clips before you get to the crux of the thing.
	Okay.
	Are they going to be as good as Joy Behar's?
	Oh man, I don't know if I can get as good as Joy Behar, but I'll try.
	Nancy Pelosi was on with Andrea Mitchell.
	And, by the way, you have to see this video.
	The woman's face does not move.
	Her eyes look like she puts on a head mask every morning.
	Her eyes are really, really sunken.
	She's all Botox.
	She's Botox.
	It's beyond Botox.
	Oh, no.
	It's beyond Botox.
	Beyond.
	It's just insane.
	She really looks horrible.
	Yeah, she does.
	And she came out with a huge lie, which I have another clip to prove it, Um, regarding, uh, I guess that was, it was, uh, Trump's reply to this, uh, you know, to the intelligence community with, you know, they have some, you know, some, some, they're not in total agreement, et cetera.
	And he said, well, this is the same people who told us that we're weapons of mass destruction.
	Uh, I mean, we got to be careful with this before we start taking action.
	That was pretty much his answer.
	Um, and Nancy Pelosi addresses this.
	I want to ask you about Russia because, you know, this, I'm sorry.
	The idea that...
	I was just going to say this commentary about they've screwed up with the weapons of mass destruction was pretty much repeated by...
	that analysis was repeated by everybody to an excess.
	Yeah.
	Nancy Pelosi refutes it.
	Yes, I saw this thing.
	I didn't clip it.
	I should have.
	You got it.
	Yeah, you got me on that one.
	It's hilarious.
	Because this could be more controversial because of what the CIA has said and what the intelligence communities have said.
	All agreed on is Russia's role in trying to interfere with the US election, with hacking, not just hacking the DNC, but hacking John Podesta's emails.
	And then, according to our own reporting and a lot of other reporting, turning that material through intermediaries over to WikiLeaks to be distributed.
	What do we know about what Russia tried to do and how effective they may have been?
	I think it's quite remarkable and people should take Sharp notice of the fact that the President of the United States has made the statement he has about the Russian involvement in the disruption of our election.
	Even if it didn't succeed, even if Hillary Clinton had won, it's still very important for us to have an investigation.
	I prefer an outside, nonpartisan, bipartisan commission to review it.
	Others have said it can be done in the Congress, but it has to be done.
	You can't just say, as Mitch McConnell and the Speaker have said, Congress could do this.
	Well, task them to do it.
	It's interesting also that Donald Trump responded when he said the intelligence community has said that Russia was responsible for the hacking.
	He returned it with, well, they're the same people who told us that Saddam Hussein, Iraq had weapons of mass destruction.
	Did not.
	The intelligence community never said that.
	The evidence, there is no intelligence to support that claim.
	That threat was made by the Bush-Cheney administration.
	As you see in Britain, they've dispelled all of that.
	It was a massive misrepresentation of the American people.
	But there's nothing in the intelligence to support the threat that Bush-Cheney was presenting.
	So it was a cute response.
	It was a cute response, and other people maybe have fallen for it.
	But it's important to note that a president should pay attention.
	All right.
	So she's saying cute, but it's just not true.
	Our intelligence never said that.
	It was Bush and Cheney, the horrible Bush and Cheney.
	Well, that's interesting.
	Why is it that former CIA Director Michael Hayden in 2008 said something different?
	Looking back at what the American people were told about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq, was there a colossal intelligence failure?
	Yeah, we got it wrong.
	And although I wasn't at the CIA, I was in the room when that national intelligence estimate was approved by the community.
	It wasn't just a CIA document.
	And frankly, Tim, I voted yes.
	It was my belief that what we were saying in that document was correct.
	Why did you get it wrong?
	Now, so Pelosi is full of crap.
	She's just out blatantly lying, or she didn't know, or she's senile.
	Hello?
	Yeah, it's just incredible.
	It wasn't that hard to find.
	He also admitted that they screwed up.
	Hayden talking about what happened.
	They all signed on to the agreement.
	There was a consensus document.
	Same words we're hearing now.
	Consensus high confidence report.
	Can you imagine if you got your report card as a kid and little Johnny, we have a consensus on little Johnny with high confidence.
	We think he's going to be okay.
	Come on.
	So I have the other side of this argument, but maybe you just want to jump into it.
	Yeah, let me wrap my side up.
	Let's start with Intel Agencies No-Show Scandal 1 Fox.
	You got it.
	We have a big story breaking tonight as an increasingly tense fight takes an ugly new turn, with U.S. spy agencies now refusing to share the intel being used to attack the legitimacy of the 2016 election, to some extent.
	Good evening and welcome to The Kelly File, everyone.
	I'm Megan Kelly.
	The battle over the alleged Russian interference in the 2016 election took a couple of explosive turns in the last 24 hours.
	First, The Republicans started questioning why they were seeing media stories of Russian involvement that went well beyond what they had been told by these agencies.
	Then the House Intel Committee demanded an emergency hearing with the CIA, the FBI, the National Security Agency to figure out what's going on here.
	And now tonight, just hours ago, Republicans forced to cancel that hearing when the intel agencies refused to cooperate, saying they would not be sending any briefers in.
	In just a moment, we will have reaction from Congressman Peter King of the Homeland Security Committee.
	Yeah, I saw that.
	But we begin tonight with our Chief Intelligence Correspondent, Catherine Herrich, who's had a busy day in Washington.
	Catherine?
	Well, thank you, Megan.
	Hey, Pixie Girl is back.
	She's had a busy day.
	Hey, Pixie.
	She's a busy girl.
	What's she doing, Pixie?
	You know what's funny about her is I noticed this, especially in reports like this, I think because she's been working at Fox or there's something going on that they cut her off.
	She has this look of a person that's been cut off.
	She's suppressed.
	She has a look of defeat.
	They won't tell me.
	They usually always tell me stuff, but now they're not telling me anything.
	Look.
	You got the Peter King thing, too?
	Yes, and there's something I want to tell you.
	That's in the next clip.
	That was my kicker clip.
	Okay, you go for it.
	Let's finish her.
	Let's finish Pixie Girl.
	Catherine?
	Well, thank you, Megan.
	Late today, the Republican chairman of the House Intelligence Committee issuing this statement after the CIA said the agency would not send a briefer to Capitol Hill to de-conflict reports about Russia's alleged interference in November's election.
	Congressman Devin Nunez of California writes, The committee is deeply concerned that intransigence in sharing intelligence with Congress can enable the manipulation of intelligence for political purposes.
	The committee will continue its efforts and will insist that we receive all the necessary cooperation from the relevant leaders of the intelligence community.
	The classified briefing Thursday on the Hill was going to focus on whether there is new intelligence or analysis that concludes the Russian President Vladimir Putin authorized the cyber activity to ensure a Trump victory.
	The CIA told the House committee it was too busy with the president's review to help.
	A former intelligence officer tells Fox News that knowing the Russian leader's intent would be challenging.
	If you're going after a leadership target, you have to have someone next to that leader.
	So the idea of finding out intent has to be clearly defined and based on having a human intelligence asset, a spy, inside of the very circle you're trying to collect on.
	With at least four investigations on Capitol Hill and a full review requested by President Obama, a former senior intelligence officer said the probes are creating a paper trail that will make it harder for Mr.
	Trump and the Russian president to build a close relationship after January 20th, Megan.
	That'll be hard.
	I think it'll be party.
	Those douchebags are gone.
	So they bring in Peter King, who we consider kind of a flake.
	No, we consider him an incredible douchebag, but he was making sense here.
	Well, what was interesting to me is he was so upset about this situation, because when the Congress calls for a hearing on this, Emergency or otherwise, these agencies work for the Congress.
	For us, this is oversight on behalf of the people.
	Right.
	And so they have to show up.
	So the reason they're not showing up is we have to speculate on why aren't they showing up.
	I think they're not showing up because they don't know what the hell's going on or where this is even coming from.
	I think the Washington Post, the New York Times, and NBC, which are all colluded against Trump in the first place, I think they're making this stuff up.
	Well, I have some ideas.
	Okay, good.
	The thing about the King thing here where he's upset, he says a lot of stuff in here.
	I agree.
	I told you this is my kicker killer clip.
	It's a killer clip because he talks about stuff that has been in the news.
	Yeah.
	And he's refuting it all, even though nobody would say anything before.
	If you can listen to Peter King closely, you really get a lot out of it.
	Joining me now with more, New York Congressman Peter King, member of the Homeland Security Committee and Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence.
	Congressman, good to see you tonight.
	So what does it tell you that these agencies have refused Congress's demand that they show up and share the intel?
	Megan, this is absolutely disgraceful.
	All we've heard from the intelligence community over the last several months is that they could not say that there was any attempt to undermine Hillary Clinton to help Donald Trump.
	The consensus was that there was an attempt by the Russians to put the cloud over the election, to create disunity.
	Well, that's what's happening right now, and it's the intelligence community that's doing it.
	There was nothing at all ever told to us.
	In fact, they said that they couldn't prove it, that there was an attempt to favor one candidate over the other.
	Director Clapper, the director of national intelligence, said that publicly on November 17th.
	They what?
	They said they couldn't prove it.
	But yet the news media keeps telling us they could.
	I'm going to interrupt this clip for 21 seconds.
	This is Clapper answering the question about WikiLeaks.
	As far as the WikiLeaks connection, the evidence there is not as strong and we don't have good insight into the sequencing of the releases or when the data may have been provided.
	We don't have as good insight into that.
	Otherwise known as nothing.
	We got nothing.
	So Peter King speaks the truth here.
	Speaks the truth.
	There's nothing at all ever told to us.
	In fact, they said that they couldn't prove it, that there was an attempt to favor one candidate over the other.
	Director Clapper, the director of national intelligence, said that publicly on November 17th.
	And now we have this, as far as I know, there is no decision by the CIA. There is no consensus opinion.
	And yet we find it in the New York Times, in the Washington Post, and yet the...
	The House Committee on Intelligence was told nothing about this, and yet it's our committee, it's Devin Nunes, who has jurisdiction over the CIA and all the intelligence agencies.
	This violates all protocols, and it's almost as if people in the intelligence community are carrying out a disinformation campaign against the president-elect of the United States.
	It's absolutely disgraceful, and if they're not doing it, then it must be someone in the House or the Senate who's leaking false information, and there should be a full investigation of this.
	So you're telling me that when the Washington Post had this report on Friday citing anonymous sources saying that the CIA has determined Russia interfered in the election with the purpose of helping Trump's campaign.
	That was the first you heard of it from the Washington Post, and now this would be your next and best attempt to get the CIA to come before you, and you have oversight responsibility over them, to tell you what they know, and you've been refused.
	Absolutely.
	They absolutely refuse.
	They won't be there tomorrow.
	Somebody has the time to leak it to the Washington Post and the New York Times, but they don't have the time to come to Congress, and it's the House Committee on Intelligence that has the absolute jurisdiction over the CIA and the intelligence community.
	You don't believe that, that we're too busy to help you right now because we're busy helping President Obama.
	You don't believe that?
	No, it's their job.
	It's their job to come.
	They don't have any choice.
	They have to come in.
	Yeah, it was really good.
	Well, he made a bunch of points clear, which is that these agencies don't know what happened or who did what.
	I think this whole thing is made up.
	I think the Washington Post and the New York Times following it will at some point say they're going to come out maybe after the inauguration, I think, or not the inauguration, but the Electoral College, and say we were misled.
	We apologize.
	They're going to be apologizing, but they're going to have said that we were misled by normally good sources.
	That's kind of bull crap.
	They'll do the same thing they did with the intelligence briefings to the president.
	Yeah, well, somewhere along the line, it got mistranslated, and then it didn't come out right.
	People are afraid to speak up.
	Yeah, it's nonsense.
	But these guys are going after...
	The election, and they're trying to do anything they can to get the Electoral College changed.
	And Fox actually has this little clip, which is a bit of an aside.
	This is a clip about Larry Lessig now getting involved with the Electoral College vote, trying to convince people that they're going to switch over to Hillary for some unknown reason.
	But he's also offering legal service.
	You've got to just play this clip.
	This is Electoral College Lessig.
	Allegations that Mr.
	Trump got a helping hand from the Russians.
	Again, allegations.
	Trace Gallagher picks up the story from there.
	Trace?
	And Megan, because Donald Trump won 306 electoral college votes to change the outcome, anti-Trump activists would need to convince 37 Republican electors to vote against him.
	Harvard constitutional law professor Larry Lessig, himself a brief Democratic presidential candidate, says he knows of 20 GOP electors who are considering ditching Trump.
	He's even offering them free legal counsel, which could come in handy considering 29 states, including 14 that voted for Trump, have laws that bind electors to the candidate who won.
	Professor Lessig has offered no evidence to back up his claim, which is being directly contradicted by the Republican National Committee and state GOP committees who say that only one GOP elector, Chris Supperin of Texas, has revealed he's intended to vote against Trump.
	State and national GOP leaders have also been in constant contact with Republican electors to make sure they lock down their votes, although Democratic operatives are still actively trying to sway those people.
	Now, start with this.
	How is Lessig offering free legal services?
	And by the way, he's not a trial attorney.
	He's a professor.
	But how is that not a bribe?
	And how is that not interfering with an actual election?
	Ah, John, you misunderstand.
	These are patriots.
	They're patriots.
	They're heroes.
	So is that guy from Austin, Texas?
	I have no idea.
	I don't think so.
	He should be.
	Move to Texas, dude.
	You'll be a hero.
	Gun-toting liberals.
	Before we get into the electoral college, I have a couple things I want to play.
	So we heard Peter King, he's congressman, he's a republican, CarolCNN, Facebook.com slash CarolCNN, had Congressman Eliot Engel from New York.
	He's a Democrat and he corroborates the story.
	Let me ask you about that because you're a ranking member of the House Foreign Affairs Committee.
	Did you hear from intelligent sources that Russia's intent was to put Donald Trump in the White House?
	I haven't heard from intelligent sources.
	I only know what I'm reading in the newspapers.
	The intelligent sources have not contacted the members of Congress.
	I'm calling on the intelligent sources to brief the members of Congress, to give us a thorough briefing as to what they know and why they came to the conclusion they came with.
	And I'm also calling on the House to hold hearings.
	I'm the ranking member of the Foreign Affairs Committee.
	I think it's appropriate If we hold hearings, or some other committees might want to hold some hearings, you know, in the House, we've had all kinds of hearings about Benghazi, about Planned Parenthood, about Hillary Clinton's emails.
	I certainly think that the House ought to do hearings involving this very, very serious breach.
	Okay, so he corroborates the fact that intelligence has not come to Congress.
	Yeah.
	So now I want to play a couple of short clips that lead into my hypothesis about what really happened with this hacking.
	Okay.
	And when you're done with that, I have my one last clip with my hypothesis, which will vary from yours.
	Okay, good.
	I hope.
	Who knows?
	It's always a danger when you let me go first.
	Just reading the headlines, though.
	New York Times.
	CIA judgment on Russia built on swell of evidence.
	I mean, this is how it's being portrayed.
	What?
	That's one of my favorites.
	There's no evidence.
	A swell of evidence.
	The perfect weapon, how Russian cyber power invaded the US, another New York Times headline.
	And of course, what is unfortunate is that, although they do it pretty much, I guess if it was the printed version, it would be below the fold, is where they put the information that this was really a phishing expedition.
	And that's how they got his password.
	You can't really speak of a hack if that's what happened.
	And they have to keep going back to the crowdfire report, which said, oh, this is how it happened.
	It was a rogue email.
	It was a phishing attempt.
	And they got your password.
	And then your emails were downloaded seconds after that.
	Yeah.
	So that's not necessarily a hack.
	Anyone can do it.
	It's a leak.
	Well, now you're getting to where I want to go.
	But first...
	A nice little entrement from Josh Earnest.
	Void, responding to some of the charges from the President-elect's Twitter feed.
	And what I've tried to do is just to present objective facts.
	And I think the objective fact that's relevant here is the intelligence community, a month before the election, came forward and presented a unanimous view, a high-confidence assessment, that China was engaged in malicious cyber activity to Destabilize our political system.
	I'm sorry.
	Russia.
	What an idiot.
	You get to almost clip of the day.
	That's fantastic.
	Catch.
	I'll take a borderline.
	I'll take a borderline.
	Borderline.
	Clip of the day.
	What an idiot!
	He had a stupid look on his face, too.
	It used to be China, remember?
	It was China, China, China.
	China, China, China.
	North Korea, North Korea.
	North Korea, they hacked Sony.
	North Korea, North Korea.
	That's what they say.
	Well, you know, the funny thing is, I slip a clip in here.
	The funny thing is they seem to think, what I'm talking about is the elites seem to think that Russia's a great foil for anything.
	Play this little aside, which is the German news.
	Now Germany is pre-blaming Russia for what's going to happen to their elections.
	Hysteria in America over accusations that Russian hackers influenced the presidential vote is now spreading to Germany, which is gearing up for its own general election next year.
	Newspapers have been flooded by headlines warning of possible Kremlin interference.
	Peter Oliver reports.
	We've seen it in the US. We've seen it in the United Kingdom.
	It now seems that it's here as well.
	In Germany, Russia represents the biggest threat to your daily lives.
	If you read the newspapers anyway.
	Germany's spy chief said that Russia could influence next year's federal elections.
	And that's been lapped up by the media here, with article after article after article all saying that the votes of the German people might not matter if Kremlin-backed hackers have a different opinion.
	If we look at today's headlines in one of the country's major newspapers, the Frankfurter Allgemeinen, Russia is mentioned twice on the front page.
	And the story just up here about Aleppo saying that Russia never wanted to have any kind of peaceful or diplomatic solution to the conflict.
	And then Russia again mentioned in relation to hacking in the United States and potentially attempting to influence the outcome of the election and also its closeness, allegedly, to Donald Trump.
	It would seem that with so much mentions of Russia going on in the German press, it seems there's nothing else left for them to write about.
	Peter Oliver, RT Berlin.
	And it turns out Russia...
	You want to be done?
	Yeah, that's good.
	There was another story.
	I don't have a clip for it.
	You get the idea.
	Well, it gets better.
	The story came out this morning in the Daily Mail.
	Syria and Russia could be encouraging migrant sex attacks to oust Angela Merkel.
	Russian and Syrian secret services may be encouraging refugees in Germany to carry out orchestrated sex attacks in a bid to oust Angela Merkel from office.
	And this is from the European Council on Foreign Relations.
	Uh-huh.
	Isn't that fantastic?
	Yeah.
	That's how you do it.
	You get the migrants to rape people.
	Hey, would you like to make ten bucks?
	I'll bet you before Christmas we hear that the Russians are handing out Viagra to migrants to rape the German women.
	Oh yeah, we forgot the old Viagra plug.
	Yeah, you gotta get the Viagra plug in.
	That's how it rolls.
	Alright, now to get to my assertion about what's going on.
	And in this case, I'm talking specifically about the DNC emails.
	Because that's really, you know, that was hacking the election in regard that we all discovered the DNC had screwed over Bernie Sanders.
	And they were very partisan towards Hillary Clinton, and whatever they were going to do was going to get Bernie Sanders out of the race.
	That's the true embarrassment, because that's true.
	It's true.
	It was in the documents which are not refuted.
	Here's John Bolton, the, oh, I want to be Secretary of State, but no way, Jose.
	I think he was on Fox and Friends.
	Now he's former ambassador to the United Nations.
	Wasn't he also in the intelligence community?
	No, he was a bureaucrat in Washington that Bush took a liking to because he was just kind of an ideologue.
	And they put him in the UN, and that's really where he got his reputation.
	Before that, he was considered a douchebag administrator.
	I think he's still a douchebag administrator.
	Yeah, well, no, as far as I remember, I can look it up, and I will while you're doing this, but he has no real connection to the intelligence community.
	Well, I think he signed his own, well, not death warrant, but he'll never work in D.C. again.
	Because he used the word, although technically correct, he used the word that once you use that word, you're crackpot.
	It's not at all clear to me, just viewing this from the outside, that this hacking into the DNC and the RNC computers was not a false flag operation.
	Oops!
	Listen, dude.
	If you're going to use false flag, don't expect to get work.
	That's just not how...
	I mean, I agree.
	False flag is a real term.
	It really happens.
	It happened with our government, but still.
	And see, computers was not a false flag.
	Just a handy tip.
	Flag operation.
	That makes it sound like a nutball.
	Because, you know, truth, if you speak truth, then you're a jerk-off.
	You're a nutball.
	False flag.
	It's a real term.
	And it does happen.
	Yes, it certainly does.
	Remember what FBI Director James Comey said dealing with Hillary's homebrew server?
	He said, we found no direct evidence of foreign intelligence service penetration, but given the nature of this, we didn't expect to.
	So the question that has to be asked is, why did the Russians run their smart intelligence service against Hillary's server, but their dumb intelligence services against the election?
	I believe that intelligence has been politicized in the Obama administration to a very significant degree.
	Okay, I agree as well.
	So he makes a valid point, which is, you know, why do they have this sophisticated way of hacking into stuff?
	And the FBI said, well, yeah, probably, you know, Russia hacked in.
	We would know anyway, because, you know, it's what you do.
	You cover your tracks, you delete log files.
	It's an art form.
	Yeah.
	You do it as like a pro.
	In art form.
	Now you used the word leak earlier.
	Here's Judge Napolitano.
	Now we have to get some basics down.
	There's hacking and there's leaking.
	Leaking is when someone internally or remotely reveals information improperly into a third party.
	That's what happened to Mrs.
	Clinton.
	It happened with a drumbeat day after day after day.
	There were 47, 48,000 emails that were leaked.
	Hacking is when someone remotely enters an information system and alters it remotely so that the operator of the system doesn't know there was an alteration.
	That is what did not happen here.
	No matter what the New York Times and the Washington Post are pining this morning, they cannot point to any evidence whatsoever That the outcome of the election was altered by foreign agents.
	There certainly was leaking.
	That leaking could have been facilitated by people in the NSA, by a rogue in Mrs.
	Clinton's campaign, or by a foreign entity.
	But that was a leak.
	That was not a hack.
	But the leaking probably came from someone on the inside, or someone who had access To the fiber optics through which the communications ran.
	That means somebody in the NSA or somebody who once was in the NSA. How do we know this?
	We know it because for better or for worse, whatever you think of him, Edward Snowden revealed all this and revealed the nature and extent of the NSA's tentacles in all of the fiber optic traffic in the United States of America.
	Not to get too much in the weeds.
	The leaking could not have occurred without the NSA knowing about it.
	And if anybody hacked in and altered internal systems, the NSA would know who the hacker was and when they did it.
	We haven't heard any of that.
	Alright.
	And I concur.
	Here's what I think happened.
	And this is, again, only regarding the DNC emails, which were very damaging.
	Um...
	Obama hates Hillary Clinton.
	He hates the Clintons in general.
	We know this.
	They never got along.
	It's not a good vibe.
	He also waited quite long before he endorsed Hillary Clinton.
	And I think what he saw as the campaign started is, holy crap, this woman's going to ruin my legacy.
	She's going to change my health care, my Obamacare.
	I'm going to change all these things.
	She's already saying, well, it's no good.
	We've got to fix it.
	It's no good.
	And I think that he was more interested in his legacy.
	When I say him, I mean him and the people around him.
	And it would be better to have a Republican come in.
	Forget who it is.
	I mean, it's a dream that is Donald Trump because everyone will be able to say, oh man, it was so much better when Obama was there.
	We really, oh, we could have given him a third term.
	So, my assertion is these emails were leaked on purpose by the Obama administration and in particular, I will say it was done by Valerie Jarrett.
	Well...
	It's an interesting theory.
	I don't think so, personally.
	My thinking is different.
	And my thinking is based on one clip that came out all of a sudden, kind of was the news media paid no attention to it, to what happened, which is the hacking of the DCCC, the DCCC, which is the committee that elects the congresspeople.
	And it was played on, this is a clip called, it's got DCCC in it, somewhere's the name.
	And I'll tell you what it leads me to believe.
	And this is the sidebar DCCC notes.
	Okay.
	Play, or do you want some more setup?
	Yes, play.
	Eric, one of the stories, you had a separate piece about this, but one of the things that got buried in this, while we were all focused on the DNC hack and perhaps the Podesta emails, were how some of this information actually made it down into very key House races, the hack into the DCCC, the Congressional Campaign Committee.
	That's right.
	So at the same time as the hackers got into the DNC, they share a building and actually have a connection between the computer systems of the DNC and the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.
	And so they were able to take tens of thousands of pages of documents from the DCCC, which oversees the House races by Democrats.
	They took these documents and then they distributed them to bloggers and the reporters in individual states.
	At key moments, like right before specific debates, before primaries, to try to damage the standing of the Democratic candidates.
	All the documents that went out were related to opposition research and other collections of documents from the Democrats.
	Those document dumps had real consequences on some Democrats.
	So while the Trump spokes suggest that this had no impact on the election, I think you could look at some of the House races.
	In particular, in Florida, there's a particular House race where the party wanted one woman who was running, Annette Taddeo, to be their candidate.
	And she lost after the document dump embarrassed her and it became a subject of debates and news coverage.
	And that was consequential.
	And what didn't get much attention from the media is we were so focused on other things.
	Dimitri, we just have a few seconds.
	Are there enough measures in place?
	All right, so talk to me.
	Okay, so the only people that benefited from all this, especially the DCCC crack, were the Republicans.
	I would...
	put forward the idea that the republicans were behind all of this with various spies and tricky dicks the nixonian style of getting into the different systems and then leaking the stuff to wiki leaks doing it kind of a and using the russian thing as a smoke screen and and what makes me think that this is because the russians don't benefit from half of these congress people getting it off it there's the only people that benefit from all these break-ins hacks fishing expeditions
	no matter how cheesy they are including the podesta one uh are the republicans And if it was done by the NSA or by anybody from the Obama administration, they'd get into Hillary's personal emails.
	There was a lot of stuff they couldn't get into.
	So this is a second-tier kind of debate.
	hack job, and the Republicans did it, they did it, and then they misdirected it to the, as soon as the Russian thing came up, they were fine with that.
	And Donald Trump says kind of mild things, like, well, you know, they were wrong about the weapons of mass destruction.
	And the giveaway to me is that Late in the game is when all of a sudden this bullcrap comes out that, well, you know, the Russians also had hacked the RNC, but they didn't bring that up.
	They never hacked anybody, let alone the RNC. But this was another little misdirection.
	You throw it out there, nothing to see here.
	Oh, yeah, yeah, the RNC was also hacked.
	So let's put more focus on the Russians' outside sources.
	Meanwhile, you get away with murder.
	The Republican Party's behind this, period.
	Hmm.
	Hmm.
	Okay.
	Well, you know, could be.
	It's the only, who else benefited?
	Follow the money.
	It's a who benefited.
	And this DCCC thing, DCCC, that said to me, oh, wait a minute, there's no way, the Russians don't give a crap about a Florida congressperson.
	In fact, most of these Democrats and Republicans all hate the Russians.
	So why would they get involved in that?
	It makes no sense.
	Hmm.
	Well, we do know that it's being used to possibly influence the Electoral College.
	I want to talk about that after I say in the morning to you, John C! Where does he stand for DCCC, Dvorak?
	Well, in the morning to you, Mr.
	Adam Curry.
	Also in the morning, all ships to sea, boots on the ground, feet in the air, subs in the water.
	And all the dames and knights out there.
	Yeah, in the morning to everybody in the chatroom, noagendastream.com.
	In the morning to Sir Slough.
	Bought us the artwork for episode 885, Force Majeure.
	This was his kind of intelligence mapping piece of art, which was very nice.
	And we thank him for that.
	And I want to read a quick note here from Sir Trevor.
	A quick note to say, the torch has been passed on to the next generation.
	The fake book album art that JCD used in the newsletter was the work of my 14-year-old son.
	Homeschool, second son Edgar.
	He goes by the pseudo Etabox and was chuffed to be selected.
	Chuffed.
	Chuffed.
	Chuffed, I say.
	Hey, man.
	I'm chuffed.
	Oh, that's nice.
	That's nice.
	Would you like to have a chuff of this tote?
	Noagenartgenerator.com is where you can find...
	Not where you can find it.
	You can find all the art, but you can also upload it if you're thinking of giving it a shot.
	And we appreciate the work again.
	Thank you.
	We do have a few people to thank for show eight...
	Eight...
	Eight...
	Six?
	Six.
	Yeah, 886.
	I'm going to have to see it in my brain.
	So we've got two shows to go before we get to 888.
	Super lucky number for the Chinese.
	We have no Chinese listeners, and so nobody gives a crap.
	But that's beside the point we do.
	Truman Child comes in at the high number of 1,000 insta-night.
	Wow, nice.
	Linden, Utah.
	Honorary Bigly producer donation for Donald Trump.
	Do we want to knight Trump?
	I don't think so.
	We'll get a knight.
	Wait a minute.
	Then we have to do...
	Here it is.
	Don't we have a Trump jingle?
	We got the special Trump jingle.
	There we go.
	There you go.
	It's one of our best.
	I love that.
	It's a really good jingle.
	It's good.
	David Booher in Aurora, Illinois, 333.34.
	He says, I think there's another saying that contradicts that one.
	Sure.
	Pound foolish, penny, I don't know.
	Something about pound foolish.
	Pennywise pound foolish.
	Yeah, pennywise pound foolish.
	Yeah, something like that.
	Please, and a pound because you're referring to the British.
	Wie het kleine niet eert, is het grote niet weert.
	Please accept my thanks to both of you for a great year of no agenda.
	Please dub me Sir DB of the 20 Meter Band.
	Oh, a ham.
	Nice.
	A ham.
	Yeah, I'd like a ham-pocalypse and some karma.
	I wish everyone much success in the coming year, and he's got it.
	He did the right thing.
	He's got 333.340.
	He didn't want you to throw the penny in at all.
	Yeah, no penny.
	Hey, but he didn't give us his call sign.
	I noticed that.
	Oh, that's no good.
	Well, you can look them up in the database.
	Everyone who's a ham, if you don't know these people, there's a database that the FCC keeps tabs on.
	You can look them up and you can find out not only their license, where they're located, and usually their home address, although smart money like myself just puts the boxes.
	The same old box number.
	Thank you for everything.
	But Booard be in there.
	For sure.
	Donald...
	Well, hold on.
	He wants the ham apocalypse.
	Okay, for our fellow ham.
	Now here we have ham radio, guys.
	Ham radio is the public service network of last resort.
	When the apocalypse comes, we're the guys who are going to save the world, right?
	Yeah.
	Is that okay?
	That's good, no.
	Don O'Malley, Sir Doom, the Liberator of the Hennepin Slaves, comes in with $208.88.
	It's kind of part of the thing.
	He's in St.
	Paul, Minnesota.
	Nuts.
	He writes...
	Oh, man.
	You know, if I put my keyboard in one spot...
	Did you lose your keyboard again?
	Yeah, I got it back.
	It was behind me for some reason.
	Anyway, Don says, I need to get a shout-out from my youngest, Delilah, a.k.a.
	Lawlers, who celebrated her 8th birthday on December 14th, and she's on the list, I think.
	Both of my girls love hearing their names on the show.
	What's the other girl's name?
	You should mention it.
	Yeah, really.
	And are definitely singing along with the jingles, which always puts a smile on my face.
	That's how it works.
	Well, let's play the Trump jingle so the girls can learn that one.
	Can you just imagine if all of a sudden you have some people over visiting, it's like...
	The girl sings this.
	Hi, hi, I'm Delilah.
	You can call me Lawlers.
	It's Trump!
	He's Trump!
	He's Trump, the president!
	I'll tell you, you're weaponizing your kid with that.
	I will also be requesting a fuck cancer.
	Oh, yeah.
	Make a note.
	My father-in-law passed away on Thanksgiving morning with a short battle with lung cancer.
	My wife recently celebrated two years without her colon cancer.
	No, she said without her colon or cancer.
	Oh.
	It's a happy note.
	I also have a couple of other people in my life who were recently diagnosed with stage 4 colon cancer.
	Butt cancer, he says.
	To all those listening, get your butt checked.
	It's treatable but deadly if not caught early.
	I think, what's up with Minnesota or St.
	Paul?
	Yeah.
	That's horrible, man.
	That's horrible.
	Yeah, especially when it's a clump.
	Ugh.
	Cluster.
	Okay.
	Cluster.
	Everybody wrote the time code down good.
	Stop it!
	You've got karma.
	And we thank you profusely for your support of the show.
	And finally, Dennis Cruz appears to be parts unknown on this spreadsheet is $200.
	And he writes in, whoops, he doesn't write in that.
	He writes in the following.
	Can you read the first?
	Yeah, after clearing through a two-year process of a divorce that should have happened to have been finalized 12 years ago and having it cost me $75,000 in fee support and other expenses, I'm finally able to present a decent donation.
	This is return money from what is left of a $400,000 sale of the house.
	Not really, but awful close.
	All I ask is you mention hotcoffee.org, all one word, and the podcast The Den Man Show, D-A-D-E-N-M-A-N show on hotcoffee.org.
	I still host a No Agenda archive of shows on hotcoffee.org as well as a host of information on cannabis and cannabis law.
	He's the guy who wrote me about the CBD and THC working together.
	This will probably only be an associate executive, but hey, it's a smaller amount I gave when you guys asked for founding support way back when, and I wanted to be an associate executive producer.
	Hope this finds you well and warmed.
	Did the show discussing THC, CBD, and hemp cannabis comparison.
	Oh, okay.
	That was show 322.
	Got a little excessive with the clips.
	An 18-minute run on many different clips, but I think it was good information.
	Thanks for the karma.
	You guys really helped me when things got too crazy.
	Wow.
	You know, just along those lines I was going to talk about later, but since it comes up here, in the Federal Register, there was a note from the Drug Enforcement Agency under the heading Establishment of a New Drug Code for Marijuana Extract.
	And here is the basics of it.
	Drug Enforcement Administration creating a new controlled substance code number for marijuana extract.
	Under international drug control treaties administered by the United Nations, some differences exist between the regulatory controls pertaining to marijuana extract versus those for marijuana and tetrahydrocannabinoids.
	Cannabinols, they say.
	Cannabinols.
	Thank you.
	The DEA has previously established separate code numbers for marijuana and for THC, but not for marijuana extract.
	That's CBD. To better track these materials and comply with treaty provisions, DEA is creating a separate code number for marijuana extract with the following definition.
	Meaning an extract containing one or more cannabinoids that has been derived from any plant of the genus cannabis other than the separated resin obtained from the plant.
	Extracts of marijuana will continue to be treated as Schedule I controlled substances.
	So, CBD will be a Schedule I drug.
	And it's not the stuff that gets you high.
	No.
	That's an outrage.
	It's an outrage.
	It's medicine.
	These guys get a clue.
	And there's also the people that just keep spewing the old bullcrap about, oh, it's a gateway drug, which is total nonsense.
	Yeah, yeah.
	Anyway, he says thanks for the karma.
	I think he asked for a karma.
	Yeah, he's easy.
	Here comes a karma for the den man, for sure.
	You've got karma.
	All right, everybody.
	Thank you.
	Thank you, our executive producers and associate executive producers who I have been promoting all over the place.
	Our model, how it works, and that you are not listeners, you are producers.
	So make sure you go out there and shine bright when people ask you about it.
	Yes, I'm an executive producer of the No Agenda Show.
	And that didn't sound very funny.
	Then you give them a dirty look.
	So what are you looking at?
	What are you looking at, man?
	Alright, thank you all very much.
	We'll be thanking everybody else in our second segment, $50 or above.
	And, of course, we have another show coming up on Sunday.
	Remember us at...
	Yeah, so you tell them you're an executive producer, give them a good dirty look, and propagate the formula.
	Our formula is this.
	We go out, we hit people in the mouth.
	Water.
	Water.
	Patrick Fultz.
	Shut up, slave.
	Shut up, slave.
	So perhaps to get us into the mood for talking about the latest gambit to thwart Donald Trump from ever becoming president, we should play this little video.
	which came across the transom, and this is from Unite for America.
	Is it about scum?
	No.
	Unite for America.
	Now, Unite for America is a...
	This is really...
	This is dynamite.
	Actually, I have...
	We should probably take a look at the website, John.
	It's uniteforamerica.org.
	And I'm just at the top here.
	We're a multi-partisan movement of concerned citizens and volunteers united against the unprecedented threat of an unqualified candidate taking our nation's highest office.
	So here's a bunch of celebrities led off by Sheen.
	Martin Sheen, Moby's in here.
	A bunch of people.
	You'll recognize some of the voices.
	And here's their message.
	Republican members of the Electoral College, this message is for you.
	As you know, our founding fathers built the Electoral College to safeguard the American people from the dangers of a demagogue and to ensure that the presidency only goes to someone who is, to an eminent degree, endowed with the requisite qualifications.
	An eminent degree.
	Someone who is highly qualified for the job.
	The Electoral College was created specifically to prevent an unfit candidate from becoming president.
	There are 538 members of the Electoral College.
	You and just 36 other conscientious Republican electors can make a difference.
	By voting your conscience on December 19th.
	And thereby shaping the future of our nation.
	I'm not asking you to vote for Hillary Clinton.
	As you know, the Constitution gives electors the right to vote for any eligible person.
	Any eligible person, no matter which party they belong to.
	But it should certainly be someone you consider especially competent.
	Especially competent to serve as President of the United States of America.
	By voting your conscience, you and other brave Republican electors can give the House of Representatives the option to select a qualified candidate for the presidency.
	I stand with you.
	I stand with you.
	I stand with you in support and solidarity with conservatives, independents, and liberals.
	And all citizens of the United States.
	The American people trust that your voice speaks for us all.
	And that you will make yourself heard through the constitutional responsibility granted to you by Alexander Hamilton himself.
	What is evident is that Donald Trump lacks more than the qualifications to be president.
	He lacks the necessary stability.
	And clearly the respect for the constitution of our greatness.
	Ah, note the piano swelling.
	You have position.
	The authority.
	And the opportunity to go down in the books as an American hero.
	Who changed the course.
	A hero.
	Patron.
	You have my respect.
	For your patriotism.
	And service to the American people.
	Unite for America.
	Oh, I respect your work, man.
	You know, somebody came up with a thesis that these actors and jerk offs from Hollywood had actually cost Hillary the election.
	Yeah, that's not a bad thesis at all.
	Because they're so arrogant.
	What is very interesting about this site, I don't know if you went to uniteforamerica.com.
	I was watching the difference talking heads pop up.
	Now if you go to the FAQ page, about three quarters of the way down, they do have a nice infographic.
	Here's the plan.
	The plan is to get 37 Republican elector...
	Is this the about page?
	No, it's all the way at the bottom.
	Yeah, it says that about and then it goes to the FAQ. Oh, okay.
	All right.
	The FAQ and then three quarters of the way down.
	So the idea is to have electors flip for someone else, which would not be Hillary.
	It would be someone else.
	There's talk of John Kasich on this website.
	That's, I guess, one of their ideas.
	There's talk of Michael Bloomberg.
	So you vote for somebody else.
	And then this infographic shows that it goes back to the House.
	And then it would be the top three candidates, which would be Trump, Clinton, and then the unknown, presumably John Kasich.
	And I talk about the draft vote and all these things.
	And what gets me is this is all based on Alexander Hamilton's Federalist Papers No.
	68.
	And, you know, on the one hand, I know it's the same thing you were talking about earlier.
	How can you say, well, this Electoral College is an arcane idea from the 1700s.
	It's crazy.
	But at the same time, you want to stop the present elect from becoming president by using the same, even more arcane idea.
	The Federalist Papers.
	I think they're older than the Constitution, are they not?
	I don't remember when they were written, but there's a bunch of them.
	Yeah.
	And again, I go back to saying, yes, the Electoral College, it worked.
	We kept a maniacal person, completely corrupt, and as far as I'm concerned, unqualified, from becoming president.
	It worked.
	Because the big states couldn't basically call...
	I mean, if Texas by itself could do this...
	We have 38 electors here, I think.
	39.
	Yeah, Texas is just alone with doing...
	They already have one turncoat.
	Yeah.
	So, that is the...
	Who should be sued, by the way.
	That is the idea.
	And everyone's going giddy over it, man.
	Giddy.
	Giddy, I tell you.
	Well, this is like...
	I hate to bring this back up, but this reminds me of the bet with my two journalist friends.
	Mm-hmm.
	Yes.
	Which I finally got my second check, so they both paid the bet.
	Ah, they paid up.
	Okay.
	Nice.
	Hookers and blow, baby.
	Which both of them said, sitting there at the dinner table, said, well, Trump is going to quit the campaign.
	Remember this little period of time?
	Oh, yeah.
	He's going to quit.
	Trump was going to quit the campaign because things were going so poorly for him.
	He's going to quit by Friday.
	I think we were there on Tuesday.
	And they both took the bet.
	I said, this is bullcrap.
	This is nonsense.
	There's no way.
	Why would he do that?
	It makes no sense.
	And no, they took the bet.
	Oh yeah, no, he's quitting the campaign.
	Oh yeah, obviously.
	Absolutely.
	This is a kind of delusion.
	And these are New York Times guys.
	That level, let's put it that way.
	No, it was a New York Times and Wall Street Journal level.
	Okay, there you go.
	And by the way, so there was a thing in the Wall Street Journal...
	I don't know, unless you want to finish, you want to finish some points here, but I want to talk about something that was run in the Wall Street Journal that was a map of the table with everybody at the table.
	And I want to discuss, it was in the journal, it showed who was at that meeting with the techies, the big tech guys.
	Well, let's get to that in a second.
	Yeah, maybe you can do it at Tech News.
	Oh my God, okay.
	But let's just finish up with the Electoral College.
	Because I find this highly interesting and entertaining, what they're trying to do.
	It's desperation of the worst kind.
	It is.
	Here's Chuck.
	No, wait.
	So, again, Federalist Papers are not part of the Constitution.
	Do we need a background on the Federalist Papers?
	I think we do, actually.
	Can you give us a brief?
	Well, let's go to the Wikipedia page.
	Consult the Book of Knowledge.
	Consult the Book of Knowledge.
	All right, let's read about it.
	By the way, Tina and I were looking at my book of knowledge entry yesterday.
	Oh yeah, does it need fixing?
	You have a big audience now that can fix it.
	She fixed it, but here's what's funny.
	They talk about my company that took public, Think New Ideas.
	And at one point, we had 700 employees.
	It was a very big company.
	On Wikipedia?
	No, it's 7,400 employees.
	That's how many employees I had.
	Just to give you an idea of Wikipedia.
	Wait, how many were there really?
	700.
	And how many did they say?
	7,400.
	So what are you bitching about?
	Ah, I wish you many employees.
	I wish you many employees.
	Yeah.
	Federalist Papers, later known as the Federalist, it was the name of the publication, later known as the Federalist Papers, a collection of 85 articles and essays written under the pseudonym...
	Nobody had the guts to write it.
	Pubilius or Publius.
	Wait a minute, wait a minute.
	So Hamilton didn't even write it under his own name?
	No.
	It could be fake news.
	And it was fake names.
	It was actually written by Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, promoting the ratification of the Constitution.
	So these are during the constitutional development.
	77 were published serially in the Independent Journal in a New York packet between 1787 and 1788.
	The authors of the Federalist paper foremost wish to influence the vote in favor of ratifying the Constitution so they didn't want their names on there.
	This is a form of fake news, I think.
	I didn't know it was under pen names.
	Yeah, a pen name, one guy with different guys writing for him.
	Federalist number 10, which Madison discusses the means of preventing a rule by majority.
	We don't know if Madison wrote it or Hamilton wrote it.
	Or John Jay, who is an important character.
	Interesting point.
	Advocates a long commercial report.
	I'm sure they talked about it later.
	I wrote that part.
	That's the way they talked back then.
	Anyway.
	Apparently Hamilton wrote most of it.
	In fact, Federalist 84 is attributed to Hamilton, Federalist 10, Hamilton, Federalist 39 is Madison.
	It's mostly about creating a republic and a federation as opposed to a pure democracy, which they argued against because of the problems with democracies.
	So what they're saying, the people who want the electoral votes changed, The intent was that really the Electoral College, we're the ones that pick the president.
	We can even pick someone who wasn't and never even nominated.
	We can pick someone who doesn't want to be president.
	That's the John Kasich thing.
	And we need to do that with full understanding of the candidate.
	And therefore, we need to have, and this is a good idea, we need to have eyes on the classified evidence of Russia hacking the DNC. And Podesta emails and whatever else Russia did.
	And giving Viagra to German migrants.
	That's the idea.
	And people are giddy over this.
	People who hate the Constitution.
	Ah, the Second Amendment.
	This is true.
	It's an old, outdated document.
	It should be under the UN banner.
	Yeah, it's an old, outdated document.
	When they had muskets.
	The First Amendment.
	No, it's outdated.
	It's a living document.
	Second Amendment's stupid.
	It has to be updated to reflect social media.
	But no.
	I'm losing my voice.
	Now they're going back to the 1700s to make further arguments.
	This is, of course, the view, obviously.
	This is going forward.
	The idea that we'd apply it to this election when it was decided before.
	But it happened out.
	There's a hope.
	There's a glimmer of hope on the Constitution.
	I can't for Hamilton!
	There's a glimmer of hope on the Constitution!
	There's a glimmer of hope!
	We have an out!
	I would say that that play, Hamilton, has probably ruined it for all these liberals.
	Oh, yes!
	By the way...
	Barbara Walters came out with it in some interview.
	Yeah, I saw it.
	She said the view was ruining the legacy.
	The view was bad because she thought the network has ruined it.
	There's a revolving door.
	They don't have the same people any two weeks in a row.
	She went on and on about it.
	She said she has nothing to do with it anymore.
	Well, we do not want it to change because it's just lovely the way it is.
	It's material.
	It is.
	It's show prep.
	Here's Chip Todd, Chuck Todd, Chuck Todd, Chuck Todd.
	Chuck Todd.
	Yeah.
	He's all in on the idea of getting rid of the Electoral College, which, of course, would take a constitutional amendment, which is fine.
	We can do that if you want to, but there's a little different take on it.
	If we are never going to use the Electoral College, then we should abolish it.
	Not to say you go popular vote, that you make it a delegate.
	No, no, no.
	Stop, stop, stop.
	Stop.
	Aren't they using the Electoral College now?
	Because the popular vote, thanks to California, by the way, I'll keep harping on this because nobody else is, aren't we using it now?
	Isn't that what it's being used for, to keep California from running the place?
	Yeah, but they want to use it differently, John.
	No, no.
	He says we're not going to use it.
	He says if we're not going to use it, aren't we using it?
	Yeah, but this is a conversation about getting rid of it.
	So he's saying, well, if we're going to get rid of it, we're not going to use it.
	No, he says we're not going to use it when we get rid of it.
	That's what he said.
	It's the other way around.
	And then we're using it.
	This doesn't make any sense to him, but I'm sorry.
	I'm sorry you interrupted the clip, but play it away.
	But I'm just saying these guys are insane.
	In general, pretty much every clip we play on the show will have insane people in it.
	Because that's what the mainstream is.
	If we are never going to use the Electoral College, then we should abolish it.
	Not to say you go popular vote, that you make it a delegate.
	No, no, no, no.
	My point is, the Electoral College was the idea of a college of influencers, right, deciding whether the American public had made the right decision.
	If you are not going to ever allow them to exercise that power, I'm not saying get rid of the Electoral College and the idea that a state is worth a certain amount of debt.
	Then turn it into a delegate.
	That is one piece of the puzzle that needs to be changed.
	This whole election cycle has shown us what the founding fathers have created needs to maybe change.
	They didn't foresee social media.
	I give them credit.
	You've got to give them credit.
	They thought of almost everything, including the emoluments clause.
	But they didn't see social media and the immediacy and how things can change at a moment's notice.
	The Electoral College is there to prevent the biggest majority states from dominating the presidential process.
	So it's working exactly as the founders intended.
	That guy got shut up real quick when he said that.
	Well, he's the only guy with any logic.
	I mean, that's exactly what he said is exactly the situation that we're dealing with.
	Now, there is...
	They just don't...
	You know what?
	Hold on.
	I've come to an enlightened view.
	Holding on.
	Is there anything that we can please, a little music, a little theremin maybe?
	Theremin, if you want theremin, no problem.
	Okay, ladies and gentlemen, hold on one second, John.
	We have an enlightened view.
	Hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on, hold on.
	Go.
	I've just come to some conclusion that I think is worth stopping the show almost for.
	They hate Trump!
	Wow!
	Yeah, they do.
	Yeah!
	With a passion.
	President-elect Trump does have an actual problem with his hotel in Pennsylvania, I have uncovered.
	I'm not sorry, Pennsylvania.
	I don't know why I said Pennsylvania.
	I meant Washington, D.C. I'm sorry, I don't know why I said Pennsylvania.
	I think it's on Pennsylvania Avenue.
	That's what it is.
	It's the old post office.
	That's the old post office.
	So he's leasing that.
	And in the lease, there is a provision that is going to be problematic from him.
	And this is according to the GSA, which is the government...
	Government Services Administration.
	Thank you.
	Here it is.
	In the contract...
	Let me see.
	So he won the right to develop that in the lease.
	Okay.
	Okay.
	The terms of the lease preclude any elected federal or D.C. official from holding the lease, including the provision that, quote, So
	that means he, unless he puts it into a shell company that is public, He's going to have a problem, and they're going to go after him.
	I think he's going to have to dump it.
	I mean, he's owned other hotels that he's sold off.
	I mean, he owned the Plaza Hotel for a long time.
	I'm just saying, this is not reported.
	You will hear about it.
	You've heard it on the No Agenda show first.
	It's not reported because it's on the list.
	They're still harping on this rush.
	They got all this other news that keep harping and harping on it, and when that runs out of steam, which will be in a week or two, then they'll bring this up.
	More troubles for Donald Trump ahead!
	Ha ha ha!
	Breaking news.
	More troubles for Donald Trump ahead.
	And then they're going to talk about this.
	And then it'll be something else.
	A rough road for the president-elect.
	We're ahead of the game on our show, as everyone knows.
	And so what you're doing is just reading kind of a news story from, I don't know, I'm guessing two, three weeks.
	Probably after the...
	They've got to hound the Electoral College thing because that's their last best hope.
	They're not going to start talking about anything until that's over.
	Once he gets in, which will happen on the 20th, I guess, or not the 20th, this month, sometime shortly, I think it's...
	When is it?
	The 19th?
	I forgot.
	No, the 19th is the Electoral College vote.
	Okay, that's it.
	That's the one.
	And J20 is the riots.
	Yes.
	That's the January inauguration.
	Yes, sir.
	Okay, so the 19th, which we're coming up on, Yep.
	Today's 15th.
	Today's what, the 15th?
	Yeah, four days.
	Wednesday?
	Wednesday.
	No, not Wednesday.
	I'm sorry, not Wednesday.
	Monday.
	Is it Monday?
	Yeah, Monday.
	It'll be Monday.
	Okay, that means on show 888, we will be discussing this situation, because you never know.
	I mean, it's possible that what Larry Lessig says is true, that the Republicans all hate Trump, too, and they're going to vote for someone else.
	John Kasich.
	Well, Kasich seems to be the guy.
	That's who the celebrities are going with.
	Kasich is a douchebag.
	Yeah, I would say you're right about that.
	Yeah.
	We shall see.
	Alright, where were we?
	Sorry, I interrupted with my...
	Oh, we're all over the place.
	My meta-analysis.
	Yes.
	Well, let me see.
	Oh, I want to go to Euroland for a moment?
	Well, if you're going to do that, then afterwards we get to...
	Wait, before you do it, since we're still talking about Trump, let's do the miscellaneous rants, which incorporates the Behar ISO. Ah, miscellaneous rants.
	I mean, do we have to wait until the hammer and sickle is on the American flag before we stand up to this guy?
	I think what we have are ignoramuses, billionaires, and a few generals.
	This is pretty frightful stuff.
	You have loads of people who have never been in government, who don't understand the difference between business and government.
	And we have a president-elect now who has basically matched some of these key talking points in Russian propaganda to undermine our system.
	We're talking about a candidate who's lost in a historic way in terms of the popular vote, but clearly won in the Electoral College.
	Is this something of a national emergency?
	He's Trump!
	He's Trump!
	The President!
	I can't get enough of it.
	I don't care what the guy sings, the jingle's just great.
	Yeah, it's a good one.
	What song is that from?
	That is from...
	I can't remember.
	Because I know that the crazy parody guy...
	Jeff Smith.
	No, no, the commercial guy, Yankovic.
	Oh, Weird Al.
	Yeah, he did a whole song based on that riff that's from some song from, I think it's, I don't know, Pearl Jam or something.
	It's Gump.
	Gump, Lump, Lump, Lump.
	Lump, right.
	Presidents of the USA. That's what it is.
	Nigel Farage.
	We always love hearing from Nigel when he's speaking to the douchebags at the European Parliament.
	Before you play this clip, I saw a part of this.
	I didn't see the whole thing.
	You probably haven't.
	But, I thought he bailed on that.
	I thought he quit the European Parliament.
	I think it's the next term that he's not in.
	I believe.
	Because when I saw this, because it referred to the election, I'm watching it going, I thought he quit!
	What is he doing there?
	Someone would know.
	Someone in the chat room probably knows exactly what's going on with that.
	But he's there as part of the...
	Well, he's still in UKIP, isn't he?
	He quit that too.
	Yes, no, he had to take it over because the person who took it over couldn't take it.
	Some woman, I think.
	And she couldn't handle it.
	I think they just pulled him back in is what happened.
	Well, I don't know.
	We should look into it.
	But yeah, I saw this.
	I said, great.
	You guys back.
	And he was talking, yes, indeed.
	More show prep.
	Very, very good little speech here about NATO, the European army, which, again, we were promised, promised.
	I was there.
	I was living in the EU. Never will we have an army.
	Those days are over.
	This is peace.
	This is unicorns.
	This is rainbows.
	No, no, no, no.
	I think we can all agree that 2016 has been a momentous, indeed, historic year.
	And as it's Christmas, let's think of those events in terms of the three wise men bearing their gifts.
	First, we had the Brexit deliverance.
	Then we had the Trump triumph.
	And then thirdly, of course, the Italian rebellion.
	It's just that in this case, the gifts were all the same.
	Democracy and the rebirth of the nation-state.
	And I really think you'd better listen, because I know in the past you've managed to ignore Danish, Dutch, Irish and French referendums, but this time it is for real.
	A democratic revolution has begun.
	And yet...
	When the 28 leaders of the EU countries meet tomorrow, on the agenda, I see no sign of humility, I see no understanding of what has happened at all.
	In fact, what I see is the implementation plan of the EU global strategy on security and defence.
	In simple English, EU militarisation, the building of a European army, and indeed Mr Juncker.
	used Donald Trump's magnificent victory to say, well, that means that NATO won't be here anymore.
	We have to do this ourselves, is what she said.
	And I think this is a huge and dangerous error.
	Trump is not a threat to NATO. He wants it to be redefined, and he wants the members to pay their way.
	It is Mr.
	Juncker who is a threat to NATO. And you can pretend today, if you like, That your military structure is going to run in parallel with NATO, but those two structures cannot run together without being in direct conflict with each other.
	It was Tony Blair that first really worried me about this project when he said the rationale for the EU today is not peace, it's about power.
	And already we've seen that power exercised in terms of foreign policy in the Ukraine, where we have wantonly provoked Russia into...
	And we actually got rid of a democratically elected leader.
	You know, history is littered with conflicts caused by empires that seek to expand.
	And it's about time the British government actually stood up tomorrow and said,''Enough!'' This is madness and we as an independent United Kingdom will act as the bridge between America and the nation states of Europe to make sure that NATO is secure.
	I also hope tomorrow that we see the British Prime Minister stop dithering On Brexit, it's been six months since we voted for our liberation and at the minute we're being dictated to by courts and European commissioners and told what we can and cannot do.
	I hope we do that, but I suspect we won't and I suspect the other 27 leaders will continue on the same course and that's why you can all look forward to some even bigger dramatic shocks coming in 2017.
	It's going to be for nation state Democrats A very happy New Year.
	Yeah!
	Yeah!
	All right, Paul Piedermann says Faraj did not quit.
	He's serving out his term or until Brexit, but he stepped down from the party leadership.
	He stepped back into it, though.
	Now he's a temporary head of it again.
	Oh, that's possible.
	Yeah.
	He's there to give us very entertainment.
	He only gets called on once every two months or something like that as they go through every one.
	That's got to be the boringest job in history.
	Well, good.
	I'm glad you got that.
	He tells it like it is.
	The one thing that's the most interesting thing going on right now is Aleppo.
	Yes.
	I was looking for clips.
	I was trying to put it together.
	I couldn't quite make it happen.
	Well, Aleppo is interesting because there's a conflict of information.
	And I think there's a lot of propaganda with the cute videos.
	Is that what you're going to talk about?
	I was thinking of the cute girl from Canada who's been in Syria.
	She's grilled by somebody in the mainstream media.
	She chews him out.
	I have that.
	But I want to start with Here's the basic thesis, and I have most of the clips to cover this.
	The Western media is trying to sell a bullcrap story based on absolutely zero reporting.
	There's nobody there to report on anything.
	I concur.
	And by the way, every single video I've seen is taken from about, let's say, so a guy is shooting his Kalashnikov or whatever he's shooting, And the video is being shot from about the 2 o'clock position.
	So not even behind him, not even behind the barrel, but from in front to the side.
	I mean, this is bogus bullshit video.
	These are guys just shooting.
	They're just shooting in the air.
	That is propaganda.
	No, the whole thing is all B-roll bullcrap.
	So let's start with a Canadian woman who chews out this guy.
	This is a clip that's been around.
	This goes around the internet, but...
	She's a Canadian journalist who's called a blogger on one site that doesn't like her.
	A guy from the Norwegian mainstream media asked her a question, because she's bitching at this forum about, you know, we have an agenda.
	He says, what's the agenda?
	We're just reporting.
	We got good stuff, and we're reporting.
	And that guy was arrogant, too.
	He's sitting there.
	Very arrogant.
	Total arrogant cock.
	Yeah.
	Yeah.
	Time code.
	I'm sorry.
	Time code.
	RT Canadian journalist versus stooge.
	Before I play, we could also have like a 15 kilohertz tone.
	Which you wouldn't hear, but then I could go back and I could find the tone.
	This is asking for more work.
	This is like a violation of your basic principles.
	It is totally a violation of my life principles.
	Canadian journalist Ava Bartlett has visited Syria several times in the past few years.
	At a news conference, she explained why she believes the Western media has its own agenda when covering the Aleppo crisis.
	You talk about the corporate media, the Western media, the lies and all of this.
	Could you explain what you think might be the agenda from us in the Western media and why we should lie, why the international organizations on the ground should lie?
	So, international organizations on the ground.
	Tell me which ones are on the ground in Eastern Aleppo.
	Yeah, okay, I'll tell you, there are none.
	These organizations are relying on the Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, which is based in Coventry, UK, which is one man.
	They're relying on compromised groups like the White Helmets, which, let's talk about the White Helmets.
	The White Helmets were founded in 2013 by a British ex-military officer.
	They have been funded to the tune of $100 million by the US, UK, and Europe and other states.
	They purport to be rescuing civilians in eastern Aleppo and Idlib, yet no one in eastern Aleppo has heard of them.
	And I say no one, bearing in mind that now 95% of these areas of eastern Aleppo are liberated.
	The white helmets purport to be neutral, yet they can be found carrying guns and standing in the dead bodies of Syrian soldiers.
	And their video footage actually contains children that have been recycled in different reports.
	So you can find a girl named Aya who turns up in a report in months.
	I love the idea of recycled children.
	That's just funny.
	And she turns up in the next month in two different locations.
	So they are not credible.
	The SOHR is not credible.
	Unnamed activists are not credible.
	Once or twice, maybe, but every time, not credible.
	So, your sources on the ground, you don't have them.
	The agenda of some corporate media, it is the agenda of regime change.
	In 2014, the Syrian held actions.
	They see the problem as terrorism.
	They see elements of Whoa!
	You got butt slam.
	Oh, so the best.
	I like that someone else besides us said that, you know, the Syrian observatory is one guy in the UK in like an apartment.
	And he's the number one source listed in European Parliament documents about the atrocities in Aleppo.
	in Syria in general.
	Well, people know this.
	We know it.
	We talk about it.
	But the mainstream media definitely is not going to talk about it.
	Instead, they're going to give you stuff like, this is the NBC report.
	There's Aleppo 1 news.
	Aleppo won NBC, and this is the kind of reporting you're going to get from them making all these crazy claims.
	Now to the brutal four-year-long battle for Aleppo that appears to be near its end this evening.
	The Russian government, allied with the Syrian regime, said today that military action has ceased in eastern Aleppo, claiming Syrian forces have taken control of the city from rebels.
	But as our Bill Neely reports, civilians are still scrambling to get out of Aleppo amid horrifying reports of executions.
	They escaped a slaughter today, thousands fleeing Aleppo's last battleground.
	The young and sick, the old and helpless, besieged for months, trudging from the ruins of their homes.
	They fled a relentless onslaught by regime and Russian forces crushing what's left of the rebel east.
	But not everyone escaped, terrified civilians sending what they called their last messages.
	Acid militias are maybe 300 metres away.
	No place now to go.
	It's the last place.
	No word tonight of one child, seven-year-old Banna, whose latest message read, this is my final moment to either live or die.
	The horrors are clear on Aleppo's streets.
	Shelling and airstrikes claiming hundreds of lives.
	We can't verify this video or many claims, but the UN is alleging regime militias are executing civilians in cold blood.
	They've been going door to door, executing people on the spot.
	Well, first of all...
	They're going door to door because they've got to get out of there because the place is being reclaimed by the government.
	But instead of just getting out of there when they can, no.
	They're going from door to door just shooting people in the head.
	This makes nothing but sense.
	Here's my problem.
	Here's the big problem I have.
	First of all, that seven-year-old who did the video, she's verified on Twitter.
	So I'm just saying, I'd call that a flag.
	I would say that's definitely a red flag, although it's a blue flag on Twitter.
	All of these videos, to me, smack of complete propaganda, lying, fake news.
	So I've seen the videos.
	This place has been rubbleized.
	I guess the cell phone networks are still working great so we can get all the videos out, or they have Wi-Fi.
	How is that working?
	That infrastructure still works?
	Seriously?
	Where they are?
	You can get a Twitter.
	Yeah, it must be, because you can get Twitter.
	Twitter.
	Twitter.
	I like the good catch, by the way, with the fact that she's verified.
	And two days later, I see some of these very same people doing interviews on the BBC. See, this is what I tried to put together.
	I just didn't have the time to find all the clips.
	But I know that this is...
	Hey, hey, hey!
	Now, it's bad in Aleppo, for sure.
	But this is not Assad going in there.
	I mean, Samantha Powers, I don't want to play that clip of her.
	I'm not going to play it.
	I hate that.
	I really hate her.
	I do, too.
	She's a horrible person.
	She's a dick.
	And she's lying.
	She is lying.
	Well, there's a kicker to this little thing I just clipped to, because I have a second part, but it says, Soleppo, so it starts with an S. And this is Celepo 2, and this is the second part of that report.
	And there's a very interesting punchline that to me just...
	Just reiterates what you're saying right there about the bullcrap.
	President Assad's troops are celebrating victory over the symbolic city of the revolution and denying their committing atrocities.
	As soon as people heard we freed this area, he says they feel safe.
	But few can be safe, even as the regime boasts that Aleppo's rebels have stopped fighting, that they'll be allowed to leave, though it's not clear where, and that the battle here is over.
	The exodus of misery isn't over, nor is this war in so many places beyond Aleppo.
	Bill Neely, NBC News, Beirut.
	Hold on a second.
	The exodus of misery.
	I like that about his showtell.
	Did you hear the sign-off?
	No, don't say it.
	Let me roll it back.
	Battle here is over.
	The exodus of misery isn't over.
	Nor is this war in so many places beyond Aleppo.
	Bill Neely, NBC News, Beirut.
	Beirut.
	He's not reporting from Aleppo.
	He's in Beirut, Lebanon, that is 185 miles away from Aleppo.
	Yeah.
	So this is like reporting on the Seattle riots and talking about people trudging and have all these clips, you know, slaughter and using words like that and talking about the exodus.
	This is like reporting on that happening in Seattle.
	And you're in Portland, Oregon.
	That's actually a shorter distance.
	Right.
	So the guy's in Beirut.
	So what?
	He might as well be in London.
	He's watching CNN and reporting on it.
	Who knows?
	So this is a bogus report in every way.
	I think the whole thing is bogus.
	There's no doubt it's bad in Aleppo.
	No doubt.
	Well, actually...
	But here's a prediction for you.
	Because this is being used, obviously.
	Because this will all be blamed on Russia.
	The 7-year-old Twitter verified kid, she's going to die.
	That would be the way to do it.
	Oh, well, that's one way.
	We need her to become a little bit more of a celebrity.
	That's why she has a Twitter verification.
	A little more celebrity status.
	Interview here or there, and then they have to kill her.
	And then we'll be angry.
	Yeah.
	Damn, Assad.
	And so will Twitter.
	So will Twitter with your barrel bombs.
	Now, here's the Russia Today report on this, which I believe, because they actually have somebody in Aleppo, the only news outlet that does, I think.
	And, of course, this could all be bullcrap, too, but no one's said it is.
	I mean, if Russia Today is going to deliver a phony baloney report, someone would catch them.
	This is Aleppo RT1. The sound of fighting had eased.
	I'm sorry, this is...
	That's not the right one.
	This is short RT Aleppo opening.
	No, no.
	Aleppo RT1. Sorry.
	Got you.
	The State Department has a pretty one-dimensional view of what's happening in Eastern Aleppo.
	Its spokesman John Kirby confirmed it today when asked if he saw reports of people cheering in Eastern Aleppo as the Syrian government was retaking control of that part of the city.
	No, there are all these reports about I'm not in any way questioning their possible credibility.
	But also, I saw other reports where people are jubilant, they're happy to see the army command, they're going to the western side where they can get, you know, medicine and food and so on and all these things.
	So it is not all just one dimension, kind of.
	Would you agree with that?
	No, I don't, Saeed.
	I mean, I haven't seen every picture coming out of Aleppo, but I haven't seen, honestly, Saeed, I haven't seen any dancing in the streets.
	This is Dancing in the Streets?
	Yeah.
	Many people who are coming out of the war tour in East Nilepo are telling stories that contradict the State Department's view of the situation there, and apparently John Kirby never heard those stories from his sources of information.
	We gather the best information that we can from a variety of sources.
	Some of it's press reporting, no question.
	A lot of it comes from reputable aid agencies.
	That are either on the ground or have associates on the ground in Syria.
	And some of it comes from intelligence sources, which I'm obviously clearly not going to get into.
	And I don't think that it's incumbent upon me or anybody else from a podium to sit there in detail and provide a laundry list of every single individual.
	Is he harping on Guy Enchichichikhan again?
	Yeah.
	And what a dick.
	We should have played her jingle too, by the way.
	Provide a laundry.
	Yeah, I couldn't remember which clip it was.
	It gives us information.
	It's a mosaic.
	It's a mosaic.
	Again, I would encourage you to go flip on CNN today and look for yourself at the imagery that's coming out of Aleppo by a reputable news organization.
	So we did.
	We followed Mr.
	Kirby's advice and looked into coverage of Aleppo by respect...
	Hey, wait a minute.
	They're on our beat all of a sudden.
	Back off, R.T. Western media outlets.
	Certainly questions were raised.
	R.T.'s Murat Gazdiev reports.
	What's happening in Aleppo is one thing.
	What the media is telling you is happening is entirely another.
	100,000 people are trapped in this city.
	We're getting reports of executions of very grim pictures emerging from inside Aleppo.
	And the thousands of civilians are still trapped in the ever-shrinking rebel enclave.
	Complete meltdown on humanity.
	Of just how trapped these civilians are in Aleppo.
	If they stay at home, they could be killed.
	Tens of thousands of people remain besieged, trapped in the war zone.
	And the source is, well, someone told them.
	That's it.
	Very little of what you see in the Western media about Aleppo is verified.
	After all, they've got no one on the ground.
	What they do have are exaggerated headlines.
	Yes.
	I'm telling you.
	Seven-year-old Twitter girl, dead.
	I like the prediction.
	I think you might be right.
	I mean, she won't be, obviously.
	No, she obviously won't be dead.
	No, they just change her.
	She's like the girl that the Canadian woman pointed out where she is in this scene and she's in some other city.
	She's an actress.
	Recycling children.
	Yeah, she's going to be recycled at your Twitter girl.
	That's funny.
	Oh, man.
	Can we go talk to you?
	It's actually disgusting to me to watch this play out.
	Mainly because we're not getting...
	No one has the guts to go there.
	It's just unbelievable.
	Just unbelievable.
	Here's a guy.
	This came out before the Aleppo was liberated.
	This is from a couple days ago.
	It's from the last show.
	I didn't play it.
	But this is that guy Wilkerson.
	He's on one of the...
	Cable news shows.
	Wilkerson, if you remember, is the lieutenant general or lieutenant colonel or something.
	Oh, yeah, yeah.
	Okay, I know.
	And he's the guy who used to be the aide-de-camp for Colin Powell.
	And he's the one who said, this is bullcrap.
	They came up and told us to read this in the front of the United Nations.
	He's just a grouser.
	But he has a little interesting insight here that I thought was at least worth playing.
	Oh my gosh, I seem to forget that it wasn't Moscow who equipped, trained, and sponsored these rebels so that they became capable of capturing and holding Aleppo for more than four years while terrifying its residents.
	I have detected that probably the most powerful opposition element is resident in the United States of America.
	It isn't on the ground in Syria fighting tooth and nail for its so-called rights, liberty and democracy and that sort of thing.
	I have never been able to detect in Syria a substantial In short, whichever way Aleppo's fortunes have rolled, the only certainty is hearing that tried and tested formula of the past few years.
	Whatever happens, blame Russia.
	Canada must be pissed.
	We used to blame everything on them.
	Now it's all Russia.
	Darn it.
	Darn it.
	Yeah.
	Well, a lot of things coming to head.
	This is going to be a very interesting week.
	Yeah, there's no doubt about it.
	Yeah, it's going to be a very, very interesting week.
	We'll have to see how this all comes together.
	But this Aleppo stuff, and I'm going to see if I can put something together for Sunday with these desperate pleas.
	They're only 300 meters away from us.
	They're going to kill us.
	We're all going to die.
	Luckily, I have internet.
	And I can do an interview with the BBC in two days.
	Let me check my calendar for my avails.
	Talk to my agent.
	I better talk to my agent, yeah.
	Can you play this clip?
	Because I'm just wondering what it is, because I misspelled it completely, which is very rare for me.
	Yahap breach?
	Yeah.
	Yeah, I was looking at that myself.
	It's spelled Y-A-H-P-P. I'm going to guess Yahoo breach.
	Oh, that's it.
	Stop, stop, stop.
	I'm going to stop.
	We do that in tech news.
	We'll do that in tech news.
	We'll do that later.
	Okay.
	I want to do two little things on cash, if you don't mind.
	Cash is king.
	Yeah, well, not in India.
	We know that Modi took away the 500,000 rupee notes, and it is a crisis!
	Well, how much is a rupee?
	It's like 10 to 1?
	I don't know what a rupee is.
	I think something like that.
	Let me look it up while you do this.
	It's something like 10 to 1.
	So they took away the $100 bill and the $50 bill.
	Yeah.
	And the problem is, of course, most people in India use cash.
	And this is a very nice drive.
	Those are here.
	And this is a...
	I think this came from...
	It might have come from Euronews, but their local correspondent...
	And you'll see that the entire...
	It's working.
	You know, get everyone to get a bank account.
	Digital money.
	Here we go.
	For a month now, this has become the new normal.
	Hundreds of people queue up for hours outside banks to withdraw money.
	On November 8th, with only a few hours notice, the Indian government demonetized all 501,000 rupee bills.
	That's 86% of all currency in circulation.
	Frustration is mounting among the people.
	Me or one of my three children, we queue up here every day, yet sometimes we can't even withdraw one single rupee.
	I took leave yesterday to withdraw, but couldn't, so I'm back here today.
	Prime Minister Narendra Modi says the move is meant to target black money, a term commonly used for the country's parallel shadow economy.
	In India, 78% of all transactions are done in cash.
	Most of them are undeclared.
	The new currency notes are gradually being injected into the system, but not fast enough for the economy to function normally.
	The scarcity of notes also affects the 300 million Indians who do not have bank accounts.
	Overwhelmed by the number of customers, this bank has set up a temporary branch outside to help people open new accounts.
	We, the banks, are overwhelmed by the influx of customers.
	There used to be about 100 clients a day.
	Now it's 5,000.
	Ever since my childhood, I've never had a bank account.
	But because of the many problems we have with cash right now, I got to know that bank accounts can now be easily opened on the streets, so I came here.
	I'm keeping a very close eye on this.
	This, to me, is a test.
	And I think it's going to be very successful for them because people are now getting cell phones to do banking.
	And of course, we know that we love electronic money.
	This is exactly where governments want you to be.
	And the EU has been trying under the guise of, well, the 500 euro note is really only used by drug dealers, so we should get rid of that.
	And they may get rid of the 100 at the same time.
	In the Netherlands, some places you can't even pay with cash.
	It's PIN only.
	And hello, Australia.
	Do you have a $100 bill in your wallet right now?
	I'm guessing not.
	In fact, I reckon it would take the average Australian quite a while to realize if they disappeared altogether.
	I certainly have no idea.
	But UBS analysts say that we should turf the $100 note and they throw down a couple of facts as to why.
	First, there are 300 million $100 notes in Australia, but they're almost never used by the general population.
	Second, that means that there are almost three times as many $100 bills than $5 bills by number.
	And third, 92% of all currency by value in this country is held in 50s and 100s.
	Anyway, so they're ratcheting it up in...
	Australia.
	And this is all going towards a common goal.
	And I was thinking the other day what kind of problems the lack of cash brings along with it.
	Oh, money.
	So, of course, downtown here in Austin, 2nd Street is kind of where I live.
	And you know me, but I see someone on the street.
	Yep, you give them a fiver.
	If they ask me for money, I give them money.
	Now you've got to give them a credit card, and they have to have a credit card.
	You've got to have a square.
	You've got to have a smartphone.
	Yeah, you have to have a smartphone, or a computer of some sort.
	Yeah, that kind of stuff.
	To take your credit card.
	So screw the poor!
	Yes, yes!
	And that's what they did in India.
	And it's working just fine.
	Yeah, let them die.
	Let them die in the streets.
	That's pretty much where they belong.
	Indians are a bunch of people that believe in, generally speaking, that Hindus believe in reincarnation.
	They're poor because they're reincarnated.
	They were jerk-offs when they were the other person.
	No, this is sick.
	They're being recycled.
	This is sick.
	It is.
	It really is.
	And it's so wrong.
	I mean, I like paying with Apple Pay.
	Don't get me wrong.
	But I have cash always.
	Crazy.
	Crazy.
	And, yeah.
	Before we thank some people, I want to thank the drill sergeant.
	I think he's our head mofo in charge.
	Sir Head Mofo in charge.
	And he sent me a hoodie from his brand, which his brand is...
	A-S-M-D-S-S-S, D-S-S, which is awesome shit my drill sergeant says.
	This is a great hoodie, John.
	Time code.
	I think you'll like time code.
	On the front it says, sweat dries, blood clots, bones heal.
	On the back it says, suck it up, buttercup.
	Yeah, that's something you should wear around Austin.
	Oh, you don't think I'm going to?
	Yes, actually, I don't think you're going to.
	I'm going to show myself by donating to No Agenda.
	Imagine all the people who could do that.
	Oh yeah, that'd be fab.
	Yeah, on your agenda In the morning Yo!
	We do have a few people to thank, and we'll start with P.D., DaddyCast, and Josh Love.
	All righty.
	Hearts Unknown USA, $110.20.
	Michael Reed in Hancock, Maryland.
	$101.01.
	This is a short list, by the way, today.
	Yeah, it is a little short.
	Our 88-88 sack of eights.
	Two people.
	Yancey Summer R. Yeah.
	Summer R. Yeah.
	In Houston, Texas.
	And Sir Daniel Ehrlich in Bowlesburg, Pennsylvania.
	Okay.
	Those are our two 88s, which, of course, is a ham code for hugs and kisses.
	And then we have boobs.
	Yeah.
	Roger Boots, Mechanicsville, Iowa, and Gerald Preston in Bannington, Nebraska.
	Oh, and also David Oosterbon in Milwaukee.
	Those are three.
	Oosterbon.
	Ooster.
	Ooster, I think.
	And Adam...
	Likovic in King, Ontario.
	I think it's Icovich.
	It's not Icovich?
	What did I say?
	Icovich.
	Icovich.
	Oh, Icovich, okay.
	In King, Ontario, 55.
	Christopher Dolan in Brookline, Massachusetts, 51.50.
	Boom!
	Down to the $50 donors already.
	Bam!
	We did very poorly in this show.
	Kent O'Rourke, these are all $50, the name and place.
	Kent O'Rourke, no place.
	Tyson Rauch.
	Rauch.
	Rauch.
	I'm sure of it.
	In London.
	London, Canada.
	He has a call-out.
	Oh, yes.
	Okay.
	Let's see what it says.
	He has birthday for wife.
	Let me see if that's even on the list.
	Yes, it is.
	Tyson Rauch.
	Long-time listener.
	It's his birthday for wife, who's a long-time listener, and douchebag Jennifer.
	She turns the magic number.
	On the 17th, 33.
	All right.
	I don't know.
	33.
	Trevor Hoagland in Portland, Oregon.
	Brandon Savoy.
	Yeah, Brandon.
	Good to hear from him.
	Brandon, if you're not a sir.
	Dame Patricia Worthington in Miami, Florida.
	Sir Mike Westerfield, I think he's in L.A. Anonymous in Marquette, Michigan.
	Christopher Flynn in Groton, Connecticut.
	John Haller in Missoula, Montana.
	Jason Brockman in Hamilton, Ohio.
	Simon Horne in Manly, Queensland.
	Sir Chris Lewinsky in Sherwood Park, Alberta.
	And that concludes our group of well-wishers and producers for show 886 with two to go.
	The holidays are catching up to us.
	Are we doing a show on January 1st?
	Yeah.
	Just checking.
	It's a Sunday.
	Yeah, yeah.
	But the real holiday is the day before, and the Sunday is, you know, people...
	I don't think we're getting a lot of listeners, but...
	No, no.
	That's what I was thinking.
	I mean, we could skip it, but I don't know.
	I kind of feel like doing a show on January 1st.
	Okay, yeah.
	I agree.
	We'll kick off the new year.
	Kick off the new year, Jess.
	We'll rock the mic.
	We'll rock the mic.
	Right.
	Rock the mic.
	We'll rock the mic right.
	Thank you, everybody.
	Even though it was a tad on the low side, thank you for those of you who did support us.
	It's our value-for-value model.
	We bring you the value.
	We're not beholden to advertisers, to political groups, or anybody, but you are producers.
	That's how it works.
	And, of course, thanks to everyone who came in under $50, usually for reasons of anonymity.
	Another show on Sunday.
	And for those who needed some karma...
	You've got karma.
	Well, that also means a short list for the birthdays.
	Don O'Malley says he is Sir Doom.
	He says happy birthday to his youngest, Delilah.
	She turned eight yesterday and congratulated her earlier.
	Also, Tyson Lodge says happy birthday to his douchebag wife, Jennifer, turning 33 on the 17th.
	Happy birthday from everybody here at the best podcast in the universe!
	It's your birthday, yeah!
	Ba-da-bing!
	Two-nightings today.
	I'm sorry?
	Grief.
	Grief?
	He's going to get grief.
	We're calling his wife a douchebag.
	Yeah, probably.
	Two nightings today, John.
	There is my lady.
	Uh-oh.
	Zika?
	Zika, Zika, Zika.
	There we go.
	Thank you.
	Ah, we need Truman Child and David Boer up on the podium, please, gentlemen.
	Welcome!
	Over here, you see the roundtable, the No-Age on the Knights and Dames.
	That is where you will take place, as I am now very proud to bring you into the roundtable.
	I pronounce the KB here by...
	Sir Truman and Sir D.B. of the 20-meter band.
	Gentlemen, you are now both Knights of the Noah General Roundtable.
	We have for you hookers and blow-rent boys and chardonnay, white widow and brownies, cookies and vodka, kilts and kilter, lift to ale, espresso and hemp milk, crickets and cream, DMT and astral travel, breast milk and pavlin, mutton and mead, ginger ale and gerbil, sparkling side and escorts, bong hits and bourbon, vodka and vanilla, gations and sake, rubinous women and rosé, wenches and beer, and long-haired heavy metal guys and scotch.
	Very nice.
	East Africa.
	East Africa?
	Yeah, sounds like I'm in East Africa.
	Head on over to noagendanation.com slash rings, give Eric the Shill your details, and we'll make sure your awards go out to you as soon as possible, and make sure you retweet that stuff.
	Did you see our dame who retweeted her night ring at her ham rig?
	Yeah.
	Oh, I didn't notice.
	No.
	I didn't see that.
	I saw one.
	It was dynamized.
	She had a ring on her finger.
	She had her hammer.
	Oh, yes.
	She had the ring on the pointing finger.
	It's fantastic.
	Yeah, I saw that.
	That was great.
	The only good phone's a landline, and the phone should be made out of Bakelite.
	That's right, everybody.
	Screw the tech hornies.
	They don't know what they're talking about.
	The only tech news is right here.
	On the No Agenda Show, tech news, John.
	You had some tech news.
	I have a bunch of tech news, actually.
	Let's start off with the Uber launch.
	Apparently, Uber's launching illegally in San Francisco.
	Inside a nondescript warehouse south of Market, a fleet of vehicles is shrouded in secrecy.
	Tonight we watched as some of them emerged and drove around the block.
	Turns out these are self-driving cars from Uber, and they're about to start picking up customers on the streets of San Francisco.
	So says Dara Kerr of CNET, who broke the story.
	This person familiar with the launch told me that they would be rolling out very soon.
	I have since got further confirmation that the launch will be happening tomorrow.
	A launch, she says, much like the one in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania in September, where customers who need a ride just use the Uber app and now there's a good chance a driverless car will show up.
	And the self-driving cars will come, I believe, with a safety driver.
	In Pittsburgh, you're not alone in the car.
	And I presume that they'll be doing the same sort of thing here in San Francisco.
	Most of the self-driving Uber cars we've seen tonight are Volvo SUVs.
	They've got a whirly gig on the top.
	That is some sort of computerized device.
	What did he call it?
	A whirly gig?
	Yeah, I like that.
	A whirligig.
	I've got a whirligig!
	Oh, SUVs.
	They've got a whirligig on the top that is some sort of computerized device that helps map the streets and Uber markings on the side.
	I think it's pretty cool.
	I would probably try it.
	Does it make you nervous to not have a driver?
	Not really.
	I mean, I'm assuming that they've tested it and they know what they're doing.
	But, I mean, there's a small risk, I'm sure, yeah.
	The California DMV tells KPIX5 that Uber does not yet have a testing permit issued by the state.
	Quote, 20 manufacturers have already obtained permits to test hundreds of cars on California roads.
	Uber should do the same.
	Oh, man.
	So they're in violation of the DMV, apparently busted them, too, so you get those cars off the streets.
	Hey, you know, I was reading the Department of Transportation, this is tech news, has proposed a new rule which would mandate vehicle-to-vehicle communications.
	Oh, yeah.
	So cars would talk to each other, and they think this is a good idea.
	Yeah, this was a Ford initiative, as far as I know, and I first heard about it about five or six years ago.
	Ford does these meetups with the media, and they described this.
	They thought, at the time, they thought self-driving cars was a loser, even though they've changed their mind.
	They think self-driving cars was a loser, and the real future was these networks, network cars.
	They're all talking to each other, just talking.
	And so now somebody, I think it was a lobbyist, I don't know how they got this passed, but this is the backstory, is these car companies.
	Oh, Professor Kaczynski would not be happy with this.
	I'm sure he wouldn't.
	So it's called V2V, vehicle to vehicle, advanced vehicle technologies may well prove to be the silver bullet in saving lives on our roadways.
	Seems unlikely.
	That's what it's all about, though, and it's going to be, I mean, it'll take years, of course, before we see it in cars, but they're going to make it a rule.
	And it's going to happen.
	You'll have to have it.
	And privacy, let me read from their own document here, is also protected in V2V safety.
	Sure it is.
	V2V technology does not involve the exchange of information linked to, or as a practical matter, linkable to an individual.
	And the rule would require extensive privacy and security controls in any V2V devices.
	Uh-huh.
	Sure.
	Why don't you just kill us all?
	Just have the cars driving around.
	The humans are the irritating part.
	Well, there you go.
	So insofar as privacy is concerned, this Yahoo breach, which turns out to be another one that took place in 2013 that they never told their customers about.
	Good evening.
	There is late word from Yahoo tonight of a massive and stunning security breach.
	The company revealing that hackers may have stolen the personal information from more than a billion Yahoo users.
	The hack apparently occurred over three years ago, but is just now being made public.
	What's more, the eye-popping breach is apparently separate from the major attack announced by the company just a few months ago.
	NBC's Miguel Almaguer has late details.
	In what is one of the largest hacks in U.S. history, today Yahoo confirms data from more than 1 billion user accounts was stolen in 2013.
	Private names, email addresses, telephone numbers, dates of birth, even encrypted security questions and answers have been exposed.
	Man!
	Hey, is this after the sale done?
	Is this information after the sale?
	This seems like information they keep bringing out so Yahoo can't be sold.
	I mean, this is totally material adverse change in valuation.
	Oh yeah, big time.
	Bigly, bigly.
	Maybe we should shut this thing down.
	Just shut it down.
	I mean, I'm sorry for the people who are working there, but shut it down.
	Flickr is worth more by itself probably than Yahoo.
	Yeah, that's true.
	Well, they kind of screw up everything they buy, so Flickr's probably not worth as much as it used to be.
	I have a little bit of tech news.
	Good.
	I think this is not nefarious, but it's being reported as such.
	Just to show you the crap reporting from the Georgia Secretary of State.
	And, well, you'll hear the report.
	It's a local report.
	In an exclusive interview, a visibly frustrated Georgia Secretary of State Brian Kemp confirmed 10 separate cyber attacks of different levels on his agency's network over the last 10 months.
	It all traced back to United States Department of Homeland Security...
	IP addresses.
	We're being told something that they think they haven't figured out, yet nobody's really shown us how this happened.
	Kemp told us his office's cybersecurity vendor discovered the additional so-called vulnerability scans to his network's firewall after a massive mid-November cyber attack triggered an internal investigation.
	The Secretary of State's office manages Georgia's elections.
	And most concerning for Kemp about the newly discovered scans?
	The timing.
	The first one on February 2nd happened the day after Georgia's voter registration deadline.
	The next one just days before the SEC primary.
	Another in May, the day before the general primary.
	Plus two in November, the day before and the day of the presidential election.
	It makes you wonder if somebody was trying to prove a point.
	Last week, DHS confirmed the large November 15th hack traced back to a U.S. Customs and Border Protection Internet gateway.
	But Kemp says DHS's story about its source keeps changing.
	First it was an employee in Corpus Christi, now it's a contractor in Georgia.
	And unsatisfied with the response he got from DHS Secretary Jay Johnson this week, Kemp fired off this letter Wednesday to loop in President-elect Donald Trump.
	We just need to ask the new administration to take a look at this and make sure that we get the truth.
	The people of Georgia are deserving to know that and really demanding it.
	Oh man, this is so dumb.
	So, here's what I conclude from this report.
	First of all, the way the guy uses...
	In one instance, it says security scan.
	I think that's proper usage of what happened, a proper term.
	And then he says, well, they hacked and did this and was the time...
	It seems to me like maybe DHS was doing port scans, security scans, to see if these databases and other stuff were open or not.
	It doesn't seem that nefarious to me.
	They should have alerted them.
	And let them know.
	Yeah.
	But this doesn't seem...
	And just sports scanning, you know, you have security scans.
	Companies do them all the time.
	So I'm just...
	I'm a little annoyed by the reporting, if anything.
	Well, and well, you should be.
	Thanks.
	Now.
	Now.
	Trump and the techs.
	Trump and the techs.
	Now, here's an interesting thing.
	A friend sent me this from the Wall Street Journal.
	The Wall Street Journal mapped out who was at this meeting.
	Trump had this meeting in his tower with all these tech CEOs.
	And I'll tell you who they were.
	Jeff Bezos and Larry Page and Sheryl Sandberg and Peter Thiel and Tim Cook.
	Gina Rometty, the IBM CEO. The funny thing is, Marissa Myers wasn't there.
	When I saw the back shot, one of the shots, I thought it was her for sure because of the hairdo that Jenny had.
	It was just way too...
	It's just unbelievable.
	Blonde hair is beautiful.
	Oh.
	And I thought it would be...
	Oh, there's Marissa, even though you don't have to show her face.
	Oh, it was Marissa?
	No, no Marissa.
	Oh.
	Ivanka, Joe Trump, Eric and Brad.
	Anyway, so they got this map.
	Now, this is a little side note here on the tech news.
	Yeah.
	They have a map.
	They showed who was sitting at the table, which is valuable information, because it shows you what Trump thinks of people, where they placed them.
	Yes, Sandberg was next to Pence.
	That's what I saw.
	That's about all I saw.
	Yes, she was.
	Now, here's the way, and I think she was in a good spot.
	Here's, this is kind of a long-winded way of putting this.
	I'm absolutely convinced that Donald Trump, back in 1975, 1976, did what everybody did in those years, which was read Michael Corda's book, Power, How to Get It, How to Use It.
	I remember my parents reading this, I think.
	Right, right, right.
	And there were a slew of these books that just talked about different sex positions and how you're going to have sex standing on your head and how you're going to have sex this way and that way.
	And that was in the late 60s.
	Can I ask you a question?
	Why do you put so much emphasis on the word sex?
	You say it as if it's dirty, like sex.
	Yeah, well, these books were dirty, I'll tell you that.
	Ooh, dirty.
	These books were really dirty.
	Uh-huh.
	But they were hot.
	They were very hot sellers.
	Uh-huh.
	By the time the mid-70s came along, a slew of these power books came out.
	How to become powerful, how to do this.
	And I think this had to do with the depression of the 70s, where everybody felt so helpless.
	And, you know, there's also the Vietnam War that was being resolved.
	There's a lot of things going on that would create a need for these books so people could read these books.
	The Corda book was absolutely dynamite.
	You can get a used copy of it.
	I would recommend everybody, one of our listeners, to get it.
	You would not regret it.
	One of the things in the book that the only thing I actually remember almost verbatim is how to sit at a big table in a conference.
	Really?
	Yes.
	In fact, I used to get...
	Because that gets you sex?
	Or what is it?
	It's just there's different spots that you want to know about.
	There are power spots.
	You don't want to sit in the weak side.
	And I'll mention this as an anecdote.
	And I was actually always stunned by this.
	That when at Mevio they had this meeting room with this big power table.
	And Ron Bloom always sat at the absolute weakest spot.
	I don't think he ever read the quarter book.
	The weakest spot at a long table is the middle of the side, which is the short side.
	There's a long side and there's a short side.
	The short side in the middle...
	With your back to the door is the most weak, wimpy, useless side.
	Never sit there.
	Never sit.
	What is the power position?
	The most powerful position is the head of the table at the other side looking towards the door.
	Yeah.
	The middle of that is the power position.
	In this case, what they called the children's table in the Wall Street Journal, which was bullcrap.
	They had they had sitting at the power and was I have no idea what the backstory is for this one guy, which is Brad Smith, the president legal officer of Microsoft, sitting at the corner facing the door at the right side.
	And then in the middle was Ivanka and Eric.
	And the other corner opposite of where Brad Smith was would be Donald Trump Jr., This is the king and queen spot.
	So Ivanka...
	And Junior.
	And Eric, no.
	Oh, Eric.
	Eric, yeah.
	Junior would be the second string.
	But this is the power spot.
	Those are the two most powerful.
	They don't have to say anything.
	Because the way Trump set this up, he put himself at the long end...
	Yeah, sorry.
	Go ahead, go ahead.
	He put himself...
	end of the table and you can be on either side to do this but he was on the side that was facing where all the cameras were going to be that middle of the long side is considered the judgeship if you sit at that spot then you're the guy that can be the judge You're in the middle, you're neutral, because you've got the two ends, the weak side and the strong side.
	You're the neutral guy who can sit there.
	That's a perfect spot for him.
	And across from him, sitting next to him, was Pence on the one side and Teal on the other.
	Oh, interesting.
	Wait a minute!
	Was he separating the two?
	Because I'm sure Pence wanted to kill him because he's gay!
	Nobody's sitting next to Cook, which is funny.
	Directly across from Trump and directly across from those three, which represent a Supreme Court with Trump in the middle and the other two guys supporting, across from him would be the other side of the power coin, and that means Trump was directly across from Rance Priebus.
	Which means that he would be the number two guy in the pecking order.
	And then next to Priebus was Bannon on one side, who was sitting next to Eric Schmidt.
	And then on the other side of Priebus was number 16, which is Kushner, the son of...
	Wow.
	Now, the way the Wall Street Journal has it, he has the power guests, which is bullcrap, because these are not the power guests necessarily.
	Schmidt...
	And number 15 was Chuck Robbins, the CEO of Cisco.
	No, no, no, no.
	These are not the power guests.
	No, no.
	And on the weak side, with the backs of the door, are three of the cabinet members that did not have to speak or anything that was perfect for them.
	I thought, what's her face?
	Lean forward girl.
	She had a powerful spot next to Pence.
	She did.
	And she was close to him, too.
	Very close.
	She was right next to Pence.
	Yeah, but it just felt like she was closer than normal.
	That was a power spot.
	Larry Page was a power spot next to her.
	And then Jeff Bezos was kind of in the corner, which is less of a power spot, but that side of the table was very powerful.
	Six, seven, eight, and nine was Teal, Cook, and then the eight guy, which is the CEO of Oracle, or XC's co-CEO of Oracle.
	And then Musk was on the kind of a very weak position.
	And so was...
	Let's see.
	Rometti, I thought, was weak.
	Oh, the Microsoft CEO. Oh, Pavit, Pashit, Padit, Padit.
	Satya Nadella.
	Yeah, I guess.
	Yeah, he was an extremely, he was the weakest of all the corporate spots.
	And so I was looking at this thing as, this was, there's no doubt in my mind, because of where Trump was.
	Wait, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait.
	Where was Elon?
	Elon was in a weak spot across from the Microsoft guy.
	He was just a token, wasn't he?
	Yeah, borderline back to the door spot.
	Yeah, he was just a token just to get everyone.
	I've even read on the face bag people going, wow, that's kind of cool.
	He brought Elon in as an advisor.
	That's great.
	None of these people were really advising anybody.
	But the point, the way I saw this map initially, and especially this poor interpretation of the map, of the table, by the Wall Street Journal, who apparently doesn't know what they're doing, especially with this children's table nonsense, at the most powerful part of the table, technically.
	It was just, it was ridiculous.
	This was, and when I saw this, I said, this Somebody, and I'm sure it's Trump, read that book and did the same thing I did.
	I remembered this part of the book where these tables are designed where you should sit, how you should sit.
	I still use it to this day.
	When I go into a meeting, I find a spot that is not weak and I sit there.
	I generally don't sit at the head of the table and I will sit where Trump's that kind of thing, that judgeship kind of spot.
	I tend to sit in In this spot, in this case, I tend to put myself into a corner facing the door.
	In this case, I think it's a very powerful spot, considered part of the children's table, but not really.
	Brian Krasnich, the CEO of Intel, was seated pretty much where I would sit.
	Well, his stuff isn't everybody else's stuff.
	Yeah.
	I don't think you talked a lot.
	I have a little report on this.
	Which clears up the Elon thing, but of course also introduces the Jack Dorsey issue.
	We are looking behind the Trump Tower, where President-elect Donald Trump, in about 90 minutes, will now, excuse me, will now we welcome a who's who from the tech industry for a summit on jobs and the economy.
	Among those there will be top executives from IBM, Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, Google, and Facebook.
	Some of whom have voiced concerns about Mr.
	Trump's vow to tighten immigration restrictions, especially on his criticism of the special visas used to lure the high-value foreign workers Silicon Valley relies upon.
	And many of those leaders were very vocally opposed to Mr.
	Trump during the campaign.
	So, David, I'm going to go with you.
	There's reports that these people had a hard time being lured in to take this meeting.
	Jack Dorsey from Twitter not going.
	Very interesting, given that Donald Trump has sort of made Twitter great again.
	He is.
	Well, exactly.
	That's true.
	But he has very, very definitive views against him.
	I think it's interesting that some people came back, like Elon Musk.
	Remember, at first, he wasn't going to do it.
	He depends on the government to help him support a lot of his projects.
	No, all of his projects.
	All of his projects.
	Yes, he's a government...
	His expertise is getting money from the government.
	Now, first of all, great analysis, John.
	I enjoy that immensely.
	That's very cool.
	Tell me about...
	So this report said Dorsey didn't want to go.
	He didn't come.
	I don't know that he was invited.
	Well, that's why I was wondering if you had any info.
	And what did they really discuss?
	No, I mean, I thought he wasn't invited because there was a battle between Trump and Twitter about using the Crooked Hillary emoji.
	It's outrageous if you think about it.
	Oh, man.
	What a world we're living in.
	What are we arguing about here?
	I haven't really heard much announced about what they talked about other than, yeah, H-1B. Okay, sure.
	They must have talked about other stuff.
	I think the most honest analysis was that Trump called them in so they could kiss the ring.
	Yeah.
	And to show them who was boss.
	Right.
	And the only thing that I heard from it that somebody recorded somehow was that he said, you've got my phone number, you have a problem, you don't have to go through channels, we have no structure that requires you go through channels, just call me.
	Right.
	Yes.
	Yeah, he did say that.
	You just email me.
	Yeah, or email or whatever.
	I think this kind of fits in tech news.
	A bill that I stumbled across, the Missing Alzheimer Disease Patient Alert Program.
	Yeah, I remember.
	I heard of this too.
	Well, they tried to do this in the 90s, and now it's a new bill.
	And so this is to help people with Alzheimer's, because of course it's horrible.
	It's a horrible disease.
	But here's how they propose to do it.
	In consultation, but here we go.
	Shall establish standards and practices.
	This is Section 302, and this is House Bill 4919, 4919.
	Establish standards and best practices relating to the use of permanent tracking technology where a guardian or parent in consultation with the individual's health care provider has determined that a permanent tracking device or non-permanent tracking device is the least restrictive alternative to locate individuals as described below.
	And then, of course, this is for people who are confused and walk off.
	But this is, I find this a little dodgy.
	Because it's...
	It's about implants, right?
	Well, no.
	They are saying, in the language, specifically non-invasive types of tracking devices.
	But that would just be one small change down the road.
	But they're talking about collection, use, retention of the data.
	Which, of course, would only be used by the government to prevent injury or death to the patient.
	Because it will be shared with the government.
	That's the idea.
	It's kind of like blowjack.
	There it is.
	It's LoJack for people.
	And so, of course, when you need to activate your lost person, then you have to call the authorities, and then they activate the people LoJack.
	I don't know how often this happens, that people with Alzheimer's wander off and hurt someone else or die.
	It seems like a lot of work to...
	Well, they want to get their foot in the door for chipping everybody.
	Yes.
	That's what the paranoid screwballs have been saying for years, but it's a great idea if you can chip the public.
	And listen to this...
	The number of state, tribal, local law enforcement, or public safety agencies that receive funding include for the following.
	So here's other entities that will be involved in this program.
	So, training I have here.
	Again, law enforcement.
	Companies of the headquartered local offices who provide the tracking technology that's used by state, local, and tribal law enforcement.
	Nonprofit organizations, including their headquarters.
	They actually put tribal law enforcement in that list?
	Yes, sir.
	Huh.
	And check this out.
	The number of missing children with autism...
	Or another developmental disability with wandering tendencies or adults with Alzheimer's being served by the program.
	So they're talking about doing this to kids with autism, which is pretty much every kid.
	Because you're on the spectrum, you see.
	Yeah.
	So, you know, we're going to have tracking devices for my autistic kid in case he goes nuts and wanders off.
	And the government has it.
	Yeah, well, that way you can track everything you do.
	I mean, they kind of do that with cars now.
	I mean, the fast-track thing for the Bay Bridges and around the San Francisco Bay Area.
	That tracking device, which I don't keep it out, But it's tracking you all over the place.
	It's just not...
	Oh yeah, through the whole city it tracks you.
	Absolutely.
	Yeah, it tracks you through the entire city.
	It's not just...
	Yeah, it tracks you going through the bridge and say your toll's paid.
	But once you're in the city, there's all these little inductors all over the place that just keep tracking.
	They just record what car went by.
	Right.
	That's why they want everybody to use these things.
	I use it because I think it's really convenient, but I don't have it glued to the car.
	I have it, I put it on the dashboard when I go through the bridge, then I put it in my glove box.
	Oh, you should put it in your Faraday bag.
	I know, I should put it in aluminum foil or Faraday cage.
	Yeah, you can just use your hat.
	It's no problem.
	Just unfold the hat and it'll work.
	Yeah.
	All right, everybody, that...
	I'm not that nuts.
	That is what we call Tech News!
	I don't believe it's tough on now.
	iPhone, my phone.
	My phone.
	Less than 10 minutes to go.
	Okay?
	Alright.
	10 minutes to go, John.
	Less than 10.
	10.
	Okay.
	Well, let's see what we got together.
	I have something.
	I have something.
	I got something.
	I got something.
	This is just because I didn't play it yet.
	Actually, I have two clips here because I didn't play it yet.
	Here is Andrea Mitchell talking about the Trump transition team and the Nazis are in against the climate scientists.
	There was a very controversial questionnaire that their energy transition team sent out to everyone in the energy department at high levels asking for the names of anyone who helped negotiate the Paris Climate Change Accord.
	It was basically asking for top senior people to be identified.
	It was viewed by a lot of people in energy and in the environmental world as a potential hit list of people to get rid of.
	That's a controversial approach.
	Nobody can remember anything quite that intrusive from a transition team.
	Incredibly controversial, Andrea.
	A 74-point questionnaire, in addition to the questions you just mentioned, it also asked, had energy staffers attended climate change meetings or briefings?
	So this really dug deep to try to get to the heart of this issue.
	And of course the concern is that there will be some blowback against those energy officials who have participated in these meetings.
	Drain the swamp, I guess.
	Smoke them out.
	Maybe they just wanted to meet and see what information you had.
	I don't know.
	It's always so...
	Oh, no.
	There's a hit list.
	They want to kill them.
	I love the hit list bit.
	Did you hear Denzel Washington on...
	He was interviewed about fake news?
	No, I didn't hear Denzel.
	It was pretty good.
	There's been a lot of buzz about this fake news.
	You were the subject of a fake news story.
	Oh, yeah.
	What did they say?
	I was running for president.
	No, no.
	I voted.
	No, what did they say?
	You switched your support from the Trump.
	I switched the, yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
	What do you make of all the fake news that it affects?
	If you don't read the newspaper, you're uninformed.
	If you do read it, you're misinformed.
	That's a great question.
	What is the long-term effect of two...
	Not a great question.
	One of the effects is the need to be first, not even to be true anymore.
	So what a responsibility you all have to tell the truth.
	Not just to be first, but to tell the truth.
	We live in a society now where it's just first.
	Who cares?
	Get it out there.
	We don't care who it hurts.
	We don't care who we destroy.
	We don't care if it's true.
	Just say it.
	Sell it.
	Anything you practice, you'll get good at it.
	Including BS. I did like...
	That's not his quote, I'm sure.
	If you read the newspaper...
	No, I've heard that before.
	Whose quote is that?
	It's old.
	It's just not new phenomenon.
	All right.
	All right, I got an interesting anomaly.
	Okay.
	Tell me what you find peculiar about this 15-second advertisement.
	Okay.
	It's a Tide commercial.
	Oh, that is a form of a washing powder for the washing machine.
	All right, Tide.
	Lily, she pretty much lives in her favorite princess dress.
	But once a week I let her play sheriff so I can wash it.
	I use Tide to get out those weak old stains and Downey to get it fresh and soft.
	You are free to go.
	Tide and Downey together.
	Yeah, it's pushing the child towards multi-genderism.
	Yeah, making the man the house man.
	Yeah, the man is the woman and the daughter becomes the son.
	It's meant to confuse us profusely, I presume.
	I'm guessing.
	I don't understand.
	Does it sell washing powders, the question?
	I have no idea.
	Well, when we look at...
	I just found it peculiar.
	I mean, it's gender neutral, I would say, or more sinister the way you have it.
	Yes.
	And I found it to be...
	Odd.
	I thought it'd be odd.
	I wasn't offended by it because, I mean, I buy washing detergent myself.
	Yes.
	And I will give a washing detergent tip for people out there who listen to No Agenda Show for these rare gems.
	Hold on a second.
	Ladies and gentlemen, a washing machine tip from John C. Dvorak.
	Okay, so I was, of course, part of my job, I was meeting with, in some situation, with Colgate Palmolive.
	And they told me, I've given this tip before on the show, but I think people should know it.
	If you're going to buy detergents, whether it's a dishwasher detergent or laundry detergent or anything that you expect to clean something with, always get the liquid.
	Always the liquid?
	Yes, and here's the reason, I was told.
	What's happened over the years is some of the stuff that the way laundry detergent was first discovered was they let a bunch of the soaps that they made dry up and it became flakes and so they developed a laundry detergent that was just a powder and you'd dump it in and you'd clean with it.
	So it was basically a secondary product.
	It was a byproduct of the original.
	Yeah, but what happened was they banned all the phosphates and other chemicals that used to be great cleaners that you could turn into powder.
	And why did they ban them?
	Was it killing people?
	No, it was environmental.
	It was the EPA and others because it was making blooms of algae in lakes and it was causing water lilies to grow out of control.
	It's a...
	The phosphates are a food for plant life, and so it was a problem.
	So they banned all this stuff.
	So they had to reformulate to produce these new chemicals that did as good a job of cleaning, but they could not make it into a powder.
	It wouldn't powderize.
	So they started selling this idea of liquid.
	And so liquid, if you want to have anything that actually cleans, unless you're in Mexico where they still sell the original stuff, But in the United States, if you want anything that actually cleans and works, it has to be liquid.
	Now, first of all, thank you for this tip.
	Ladies and gentlemen, John C. Devorak with the tip and only the tip.
	As he is known, Mr.
	Tip.
	Would you, since, you know, of course, we talk about all kinds of products on the show, products that we like, products that we don't like, because we're not paid, we don't have no advertisement, I would like to know, what is your liquid detergent of choice?
	I do like Tide.
	But knowing that these formulations are pretty universal, I'll buy anything if it's on sale.
	So I use Tide, I use Era, I use All.
	I use the pens.
	But Tide, I believe to be probably one of the best formulations you could buy, especially the ones...
	But there's a lot of different formulations, and you have to kind of pick and choose which one you want.
	If you want the fake bleach that's in Tide, which is actually an enzyme.
	Well, I'll tell you, I'm a Tide man myself.
	Yeah.
	And that is because for the three months I went to college in West Virginia, my roommate, Tyree Hamilton from Newark...
	A black kid.
	He taught me how to wash my clothes properly.
	He also taught me how to moisturize.
	Let me tell you, the black guys know how to moisturize.
	And he said Tide, man.
	It's only Tide.
	I don't remember if we...
	I think we had liquid.
	But I've been a Tide man ever since.
	Yeah, well, you probably were using some powders.
	No, I never used the powders in school.
	You never took a powder?
	Never took a powder.
	Well, yeah, we used to snort diet pills.
	You did?
	Really?
	You're admitting to that?
	Yeah!
	It was West Virginia!
	Oh, yeah.
	There you go.
	Okay.
	Thank you.
	All right.
	Thanks.
	My final clip for today.
	We, of course, assert that the pharmaceutical industry pretty much keeps the mainstream media running.
	And if you watch and you're under the age of 60, you're not going to be very compelled to buy any of the products that are advertised because it's all pharmaceuticals and it's usually for people who are over the age of 60.
	Nice to see it corroborated that it's all working just well in this report from HLN Headline News.
	One in six American adults are taking psychiatric drugs according to a new study.
	And researchers say most of them are antidepressants, but what really worries them is the majority of the people in the study have been using the drugs for a long period of time.
	Experts say doctors and patients need to periodically evaluate whether they need to keep taking the drugs.
	People older than 60 seem to be taking the drugs the most.
	Duh!
	Yeah.
	One in six.
	Why would anybody take these drugs?
	That makes you feel good.
	Why do people take drugs?
	It makes you feel good.
	But, you know, it just makes you lethargic and dumb and addicted.
	That's the problem.
	Yeah, if that's suicidal.
	Well, yeah, there's that.
	There's that with the Shantix.
	Ugh.
	Alright, John, I think that's about all I've got.
	Other than that Wonder Woman has been fired from the United Nations gig.
	That's sad.
	Aww.
	Yeah, they got rid of her.
	Sad about that.
	Oh, and the Stanford band has once again been suspended.
	These guys are just looking for ways to get out of rehearsal.
	Right.
	What happened this time?
	I don't know what they did.
	Actually, there was no specification.
	And I have a final question for you.
	As the resident food and drink expert, is it just me?
	No, it's not just me.
	But why has the American cuisine decided that it's a good idea to put fried eggs on everything?
	I'm seeing fried egg on pizza, fried egg on french fries, fried eggs on hamburgers, fried eggs everywhere.
	And not just, you know, like a dead fried egg, no, with yolky, goopy, I mean, who, what is this?
	This is wrong.
	Fried eggs on hamburgers is old, by the way.
	That's been, that dates back to the God knows when era in the Pacific Northwest.
	It was very common to put a fried egg on a hamburger.
	Um...
	I've noticed a few more fried eggs than usual when you see these guys in the cooking shows that put a fried egg on stuff that doesn't really want a fried egg on it.
	And so the goo gets all over, you know, it's kind of a poor man's Bearnaise sauce is what it amounts to.
	It's not appetizing.
	It's not happening in California that I know of.
	Really?
	It's everywhere.
	You have to know that Tina the Keeper has a...
	I just call it an ovumphobia.
	She's not a big egg lover.
	Oh, interesting.
	And of course what's happened is...
	Does she like bananas?
	Yes.
	Does she like eggplant?
	That's another one.
	Yes, she does.
	Okay.
	But here's the sad thing.
	She likes Instagram a lot.
	All the ladies like the Instagrams.
	And she likes baking.
	She likes looking at food stuff.
	And then all of a sudden there will be a video or a photo of an egg on a piece of food that you don't expect it.
	Chocolate cake?
	But here's the problem.
	Because she keeps stopping and looking at it going, oh god, why would you put an egg on that?
	The algorithm's going, oh, you clearly want more.
	So she keeps getting egg photos and videos on every piece of food that's completely disgusting.
	Welcome to the new era.
	I told you it wouldn't end well.
	It's not ending well.
	All right, John, so we'll be back on Sunday, and this will be, wow, the show before the 8888888.
	Indeed.
	Oh, man.
	All right, well, we'll see what's going to happen.
	We'll have our eyes on the Electoral College.
	Anything else taking place here?
	Not really.
	The Electoral College thing will be the most interesting.
	Right.
	We'll be watching for you, ready to deconstruct whatever comes across the transom.
	And I look forward to our show.
	Until then, I would like to say that I'm coming to you as usual from downtown Austin Tejas in the Crackpot Condo.
	It's in the skyscraper, and that is the capital of the Drone Star State.
	FEMA Region 6 on the map if you're looking for it.
	In the morning, everybody, I'm Adam Curry.
	And from northern Silicon Valley, where Plato say, men who celebrate Hitler's birthday have a bad hair day.
	I'm John C. Dvorak.
	We'll be back on Sunday, right here on No Agenda.
	Adios, my phones.
	Sorry.
	Quote, the Russians, quote, hacked our democracy and they're mad at him.
	Sorry.
	Quote, the Russians, quote, hacked our democracy and they're mad at him.
	Sorry.
	Quote, the Russians, quote, hacked our democracy and they're mad at him.
	Sorry.
	Quote, the Russians, quote, hacked our democracy and they're mad at him.
	Sorry.
	Quote, the Russians, quote, hacked our democracy and they're mad at him.
	Sorry.
	Quote, the Russians, quote, hacked our democracy and they're mad at him.
	Sorry.
	Quote, the Russians, quote, hacked our democracy and they're mad at him.
	Sorry.
	Quote, the Russians, quote, hacked our democracy and they're mad at him.
	Sorry.
	Quote, the Russians, quote, hacked our democracy and they're mad at him.
	Sorry.
	Quote, the Russians, quote, hacked our democracy and they're mad at him.
	Sorry.
	Quote, the Russians, quote, hacked our democracy and they're mad at him.
	Sorry.
	Quote Well, let's not ignore Adam Schiff.
	As we know...
	The interesting is that Russia, and I'm quoting now, hacked our...
	You know, of the party of Reagan not taking place without the approval of this.
	that could not have been.
	What a douchebag.
	Levels of the crumbling.
	That's speculation.
	And institutions, by, among other things, giving us what they're saying.
	Well, they've told us so much.
	And we've seen a lot of what is speculation.
	That is kind of different.
	That's just emails.
	That Russia, and I'm pointing out, hacked our political parties.
	That's just how you have to do it.
	That's speculation.
	And you can only say so.
	Specifically in Iraq, which the intelligence can tell us.
	But in fact, it is hacking people's personal emails, for sure.
	Amen.
	this month.
	You have to figure out what do we do from here in And you're right.
	We've got to get some jobs.
	I'm a two-job.
	We've got to get some jobs.
	We must, we must, and we will much about that be committed.
	Where can we march behind that?
	What the hell did he say?
	I don't know, but yes, we're with you.
	But resist, we must.
	We must and we will much about that be committed.
	But resist, we must.
	We must and we will much about that.
	Be committed.
	Be committed.
	7, 8, 9, 10.
	I think we lost them there.
	I want to sell some seeds.
	I got seeds.
	Tommy.
	Lauren.
	The young, local, and the rights rising media star.
	I can't.
	There's a little something that's not right with it yet, but just give me a little more.
	No, no, no.
	Keep going.
	Keep going.
	I think we're okay.
	We're going to be okay.
	For the interview began, Mr. Doe requested that the studio had his feet polite.
	And Mr. Lauren, imagine you're at Thanksgiving again and your racist looking.
	What?
	Damn, he joked.
	Keep going.
	Ha, ha, ha, ha.
	Uh, who's going to happen?
	I want to sell some seeds.
	I got seeds.
	Up there goes the Z.
	Zephyr, how time is it?
	Who in?
	Adios, mofo.
	The best podcast in the universe!

▲