Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Jan. 8, 2017 - No Agenda

03:10:11

893: Throw a Rock

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	The code was ANTS. Adam Curry, John C. Dvorak.
	And Sunday, January 8, 2017, this is your award-winning Gitmo Nation Media Assassination, Episode 8, 9, or 3.
	This is No Agenda.
	Reading intelligence assessments with moderate confidence and broadcasting live from the darkest corners of the internet here in FEMA Region 6, Austin Tejas.
	In the morning, everybody, I'm Adam Curry.
	And from northern Silicon Valley, we're being pounded by the Pineapple Express.
	I'm John C. DeVore.
	It's Crackpot and Buzzkill.
	In the morning!
	Yeah, the Pineapple Express?
	Wasn't that a movie with Seth...
	Seth McFarland?
	Seth Rogen?
	Seth Green?
	What is the Pineapple Express?
	It's a front that brings moisture in from the Hawaiian area.
	It mixes with something else and it just It drops a lot of moisture.
	We had two inches of rain last night.
	Oh my goodness.
	That's a lot for California.
	Was that just Northern California or is LA getting pounded as well?
	I think everybody's getting pounded.
	You know what that means.
	It's a swath.
	Mudslides.
	Mudslides.
	In some areas, there definitely will be mudslides.
	Well, the weather is crazy everywhere.
	It's in the 20s here in Austin.
	Not right now, but overnight it was.
	Really?
	Mm-hmm.
	Did you make sure you have your little faucets dripping?
	What?
	Oh, you don't even know about that.
	Okay.
	I'm in an apartment building.
	Oh.
	Yeah, if my floss is drifting, I call maintenance, okay?
	That's nothing I need to have here.
	Europe, though, is...
	Wow, it's really bad, the global warming over there.
	As a big freeze grips Europe, the plight of refugees has become increasingly desperate.
	At abandoned industrial buildings in Belgrade, those unable or unwilling to enter official shelters shiver in temperatures lower than minus 20 degrees Celsius.
	In Bulgaria, blizzards have cut power to homes and hit transport.
	Last week, three migrants froze to death in the biting cold.
	Then there are those struggling to keep warm on the Greek islands.
	We're worried.
	Currently, the situation on Samos, Kios and Lesbos is particularly worrying.
	On Samos, around 700 people.
	This includes young children and other especially vulnerable individuals.
	These people are in unheated tents in the Perception and Information Centre.
	While this camp on Lesbos does have heating, the UN's refugee agency wants migrants stranded on Greek islands to be quickly transferred to the mainland or other European countries amid cold temperatures.
	Some here are seeing snow for the first time, offering a chance to play for children and adults alike.
	Yeah, yeah, there you go.
	And it's incredible because the newspapers all reported, now it's been like 11, 12 years ago, Children in Europe and the UK would never see snow except in snow globes.
	That's what they reported.
	We talked about it on the show numerous times.
	There's a pretty prominent climatologist who quit her university, Georgia Tech.
	She's finally fed up.
	I don't blame her.
	If you talk to these people privately, almost all of them are just...
	You feel cowed by the whole thing.
	It's a scam, folks.
	She's a climatologist I've been following for a number of years because she had a blog with an RSS feed and she's posting every day.
	For years I've been following Judith Curry, of course.
	She's not related, but because of her name, I was like, oh, check her out.
	I'll follow her.
	I'll follow her, yeah.
	Her and Brittany.
	Do you want to hear a little bit of her?
	Tucker Carlson had her on.
	It would be great.
	Yeah, because it kind of hits everything we've talked about, including the 97% thing, although she has a little different take on it.
	But here she is.
	She's a professor at Georgia Tech, and she resigned.
	Dr.
	Curry joins us now.
	Professor Curry, thanks for coming on tonight.
	That's kind of a ring to it, though, doesn't it?
	Professor Curry.
	Yes, you're welcome, Tucker.
	I'm happy to be here.
	Dr.
	Curry joins us now.
	Professor Curry, thanks for coming on tonight.
	Tucker, it's a pleasure.
	Well, thank you.
	It is for me.
	So you have written that part of the problem with climate science, not just at your school but at others, is that research money only goes to researchers pursuing certain lines of inquiry and that they're all the same and that that prevents good science from happening.
	Am I mischaracterizing you?
	Not really, but what you're seeing is there's this dominant theme of human-cause climate change, which is where all of the research and the focus is being directed, and there's far too little funding and effort going into understanding natural climate variability.
	That's my concern.
	Right.
	So is that, for those of us who are not experts, is that the key debate, not whether temperatures are changing, because of course they always have, but over what's causing that change?
	And is there a debate on that in your world?
	Exactly.
	It's clearly warming, and it's been warming overall for several hundred years.
	The key question is how much of the recent warming, say for the last fifty years, has been caused by humans.
	Right.
	And my interpretation of the evidence is that We really can't tell, and I don't see a clear signal that it's being caused by humans predominantly.
	Do you believe you were penalized for that view?
	Oh, I've been vilified by some of my colleagues who are activists and don't like anybody challenging, you know, their big story.
	So, I mean, I walk around with knives sticking out of my back.
	And, you know, in the university environment, I just felt like I was beating my head against the wall and not being effective.
	The universities should be places of unfettered research, freedom of investigation, honest and open debate, diverse perspectives, etc.
	And in certain fields, you know, that are politically relevant, you're definitely not seeing that.
	The research you're doing and that your colleagues, the ones you described as activists, are doing will inform public policy in a way that affects every person on the planet, so the stakes are really high, no?
	The stakes are very high.
	Personally, I think I can have more of an impact outside of the university, in the private sector, sort of free market academic freedom.
	I thought that was an interesting comment she made there.
	Free market academic freedom?
	Yeah, that was weird.
	Yeah.
	And so, Tucker asked the final important question.
	Let me ask you this.
	When you hear people who ask the question that you just asked, to what extent is climate change being driven by natural factors that have always existed, and to what extent by human activity?
	People who ask that question are derided as climate deniers.
	What's your response to that?
	Well, my response is we really don't know.
	It's certainly, humans are contributing something.
	We don't know how much.
	From the evidence that I've seen, I don't think it's the dominant cause.
	You know, I think it's mostly...
	Wait, but Dr.
	Curry, you may have, you may have, you're not listening to TV, because 98% of scientists globally believe one thing.
	So you must be in the 2%, right?
	Ironically, the way the question is framed about the consensus that yes, it's warming, yes, humans contribute to it.
	I mean, everybody agrees with that, and I'm in the 98%.
	It's when you get down to the details that there is genuine disagreement that is really glossed over in the media.
	I'm a little confused by her final comment there on the 98%.
	She said that She agrees that climate's changing and humans have something...
	Something to do with it, but it may be such a minor something that it doesn't mean anything.
	Right.
	But she was saying...
	But she'd have to put herself in the 98%.
	Right.
	But that's still specious.
	That whole 98% thing is bogus.
	I'd expected her to debunk that a little more.
	Yeah, you'd think she would, but I think she's beaten back.
	She's beaten down.
	She's got knives sticking out of her back.
	You've got knives sticking out of her back.
	From her colleagues and their big story.
	I kind of like that.
	I like their big story.
	Their big story.
	People pay no attention to us, but now we have a big story.
	Asking us questions.
	Let's just get on those talk shows.
	Rock and roll, baby.
	That's pretty funny if you think about it.
	Yeah.
	Alright, well there's a lot to do today.
	Well, you want to just get started with, we got backgrounders on the Russian report that reports the big deal.
	Yeah.
	That came out and Trump apparently had a little secret meeting.
	They got this Adam Schiff character.
	Oh, is he back on the scene complaining again?
	Yeah, I think I have two clips about him.
	Okay, so the general background is we got the declassified version of the assessment from the intelligence community about the intense...
	No, it's a new report.
	It's a new final report.
	I know.
	It's a new report.
	It still has classified elements.
	I said it's an unclassified version.
	You're absolutely correct.
	Yes, which I have, of course, the unclassified version.
	And I knew you would, and so I didn't even bother looking at it.
	And it's, of course, it's marked up.
	And I have to say, though, because the newsletter came through, I'm like, of course, I would do this.
	I was like, oh yeah, John's saying Adam will have poured over the document.
	I'm like, yeah, yeah, that's right.
	I've got to mark everything up.
	I've got to get everything going.
	Well, you know, so I go pull the report.
	It's not a newsletter, it's goading you.
	That's right.
	So I pull the report, and check this out.
	I was so proud.
	Producer James from Huntsville, Alabama, had already pulled the report, had already marked it up in multiple colors with comments, exactly like I would have done, actually.
	And I was like, wow, this is...
	What, he got you off the hook?
	Are you telling me?
	This is what true listener participation media is about.
	That's why we call our listeners producers.
	It's amazing.
	And I really appreciate it.
	I would have done the work.
	Before we go into that, I think we should play the prelude so we get a feeling for what the media is feeding us.
	Yes.
	But let's start with a negative feed.
	In other words, something from RT, who's just taken this extremely cynically.
	Mm-hmm.
	And let's play, this is Larry Johnson, an ex-CIA guy, who appeared on, who's always on, he's one of the...
	Is that the guy with the beard?
	Does he have the beard?
	No, he's got, no, he's not the guy with the beard.
	This is another guy.
	You've seen him.
	And he's like a go-to guy for RT. He's one of the regular grousers.
	For the state-sponsored media, you mean?
	The state-sponsored media of RT has one of our ex-agents working for it.
	It's so meta to have a report about RT discussed on RT with former CIA agents.
	And my head sometimes wants to explode.
	It's fantastic.
	...designed to discredit U.S. intelligence.
	Well, you never know.
	But former CIA officer Larry Johnson says, regardless, it is an embarrassment to the U.S. intelligence services.
	There is no fact underlying this.
	There are analytical assumptions.
	And you can tell that because whenever they use the language like, we assess that, or we believe that, or it is likely that, well, that means they don't know.
	Normal estimates in the community are coordinated within all the intelligence agencies.
	This one was only so-called coordinated with FBI, CIA, and NSA. Now, what's so curious about that, on the one judgment that they said, oh yeah, we all three agree about Russian interference, except it was only CIA and FBI that strongly agreed, but NSA, who's the only one in that group that would actually have the physical evidence of the hacking, if it existed.
	It's the one that says, well, our judgment's moderate.
	It's a joke.
	I mean, if I'm a Russian intelligence analyst with one of your intelligence services looking at this, I would be suspicious to think, what are the Americans up to?
	They really can't be this stupid.
	And let me just reassure the folks on your side of the ledger, yeah, they actually are.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, that was the first thing that jumped off of the paper to me as well.
	It's not 17 agencies.
	It's only three in this report.
	So if you hear anything on the news channels that's saying, oh, all 17, that's not true.
	It is only CIA, FBI, and DHS. DHS indeed say, yeah, we have moderate, NSA say moderate confidence.
	Was it, I thought it was.
	No, it was DHS, CIA, and NSA. I'm sorry, you're right.
	I thought it was FBI. Hold on.
	Let me double check the document.
	Now I'm confused.
	Hold on.
	DHS was the original one.
	Hold on.
	Here we go.
	It is CIA, FBI, NSA. Yeah.
	Yeah, you're right.
	And Clapper.
	Well, yes.
	Clapper is, of course, he's actually not named in the document.
	No, but that agency that he runs.
	DNI? I don't think so.
	Yeah.
	No, DNI is not in the document.
	It doesn't have the symbol on the top?
	Well, that's okay.
	No, no.
	The point is that NSA is the one.
	Here, let's listen to the whole report from NBC, who's going to give us the government angle.
	This is the clip, the CIA hacking report, Russia MS or NBC misreporting.
	There's a lot of bad reporting in this report, which is supposed to be the best.
	Intelligence officials briefed him on their top secret report about Russia's hacks during the election following weeks of dismissals from Mr. Trump.
	A declassified version of that report is now out.
	It claims Vladimir Putin himself ordered the hack in part to help Mr. Trump win.
	NBC's Kristen Welker has a response from the president.
	Right off the bat, that is not the conclusion.
	It says it could only have been one person if it was at the top of the Russian If it went all the way to the top of the Russian government.
	No, you're obviously wrong because NBC says it was Putin.
	I'm sorry.
	What am I thinking?
	I need to shut up.
	A two-hour showdown at Trump Tower.
	The president-elect comes to face with the nation's top intelligence officials, whom he spent weeks disparaging.
	Trump calling the meeting constructive, just as the explosive details of their report made public late this afternoon.
	Their key findings?
	Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 and developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump.
	Putin and the Russian government aspired to help President-elect Trump's election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton.
	But the Russian hacking didn't affect vote tallying.
	Trump has for weeks questioned the conclusion Russia was responsible.
	It could be somebody sitting in his bed.
	And today, still refuse to single out Russia.
	Instead, Mr.
	Trump saying in a statement, Russia, China, and other countries are engaged in cyber attacks, and insisted there was absolutely no effect on the outcome of the election.
	Late tonight, top Democrats firing back.
	It is beyond time for the president-elect to accept the obvious.
	Everyone else has.
	And if this report and presentation was enough to convince him, nothing will be.
	The meeting capped a week of escalating tensions.
	Just hours before the briefing started, Trump telling the New York Times the focus on Russian hacking is a witch hunt by his political adversaries.
	Still in their report tonight, the nation's top intelligence officials The FBI, CIA, NSA, and the Director of National Intelligence say they're all in agreement, concluding with high confidence Russia's efforts including hacking, propaganda, and fake news mark a significant escalation in the country's efforts to undermine American democracy.
	A democracy Mr.
	Trump will soon lead.
	Yeah, that's not true, because they didn't all say high confidence.
	By the way, there's a...
	By the way, before you say that, every single network said that.
	Yeah, they're liars.
	Liars.
	There's a chart in the actual report that shows the percentages of likelihood based upon the verbiage from remote, highly probable, improbable, actually it has almost no chance, very unlikely, unlikely, roughly even chance, likely, very likely, almost certainly, which corresponds with probable, highly probable, nearly certain.
	So they both said highly...
	Probable.
	Wait.
	Hold on.
	What did they actually say?
	This is interesting.
	The language they used was...
	We've got to go through some of this report.
	You and I could have done a better report than these jabronis put together.
	Same information.
	High confidence.
	Okay.
	High confidence.
	And high confidence in their little chart here to explain that, I guess, would be under highly probable.
	That's 80%.
	Likely is 70%, and the moderate would be at 60%.
	So it's not even 90%.
	It's not even 98%.
	It's good enough.
	Yeah, yeah, good enough.
	Do you want to go through some of this report, or do you want to do some more background?
	I want to do more background so the report can have more impact.
	Okay.
	Because this was so off the rails, this whole thing.
	Let's listen to, for example, I have way too many clips of this stuff because it just was beyond me.
	I would say, so you didn't read the report at all?
	No, I decided not to.
	Okay.
	Because I knew you were going to go over with a fine-tooth comb so I could be flabbergasted.
	Oh, you will be.
	Yeah, okay, good.
	That's what I'm looking for.
	I want to be flabbergasted.
	I'm going to flabbergast you hard.
	So let's go over...
	Okay, let's start with this horrible clip.
	Shields and Brooks on PBS. And they go on with the lies about everything everyone agrees.
	This is very much like the global warming scam.
	Very much like it.
	And they have Shields and Brooks...
	Both of them kind of denouncing.
	I don't know why Brooks is even on this show.
	What's the point of having two guys in a totally agreement?
	You really don't like him.
	You always complain about him being fake.
	It's like, what's the point of two guys agreeing with each other and that Trump's a douchebag?
	Right.
	I mean, I want to hear somebody else.
	I don't want to hear somebody just, whatever he says, yeah, I agree.
	Right.
	And this thing with the Russian thing is completely out of control with these two.
	And let's play this.
	I got two of these clips.
	There's one of them, the long one.
	Play the long one.
	I think, and in this sense, that the intelligence community said it made these findings with high confidence.
	Ever since the weapons of mass destruction era and decision on invading Iraq, the intelligence community has been very, very careful to avoid high confidence.
	That's saying we really believe this to be true.
	It's been more tentative.
	There was no question.
	They were unequivocal, emphatic.
	Every American ought to be angry, ought to be concerned that an unfriendly nation, A nation that has cooperated with us in certain places but does not wish us well sought to sabotage American democracy, American confidence in our own democratic institutions and to influence the outcome of the election.
	I mean, that's a cause of concern and worry and anger.
	And I would hope they would respond not as Democrats or Republicans but as Americans to make sure it never happens again.
	David, how should Americans look at this?
	I agree with that with anger, with shock.
	I agree with anger.
	Hey, let's rock against anger.
	We should do a benefit.
	I agree with that.
	I agree with that with anger.
	We should have a celebrity concert against anger.
	Let's look at this.
	I agree with that with anger, with shock.
	We've sort of gotten used to the idea.
	Shock and anger.
	Shock and anger.
	But the idea that Russia felt emboldened and apparently fearless to go into our election and manipulate our own election process, whether successfully or not.
	There's always statecraft, there's always disinformation.
	But this is a step up, a Russia that feels completely free to do this.
	This is outrageous.
	A Putin who feels completely free to do this without fear of penalty, and so far paying little penalty.
	Partly it's motivated, I think, by animus toward Hillary Clinton, as we heard earlier I think she said in 2011, 2012, partly, frankly, a desired belief that Donald Trump will be tougher on ISIS. But the thing that should most concern us is a shift in American foreign policy.
	We've had a bipartisan belief in American foreign policy based on the post-World War II institutions that believed in democratic global world.
	Which Russia and the Soviet Union was often seen as hostile to.
	And most Republicans and Democrats have always basically believed in this world order.
	Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin and maybe Marine Le Pen do not agree with this basic structure of the world.
	Wait a minute.
	What did Marine Le Pen have to do with this all of a sudden?
	Why'd he bring her in?
	You tell me.
	But he must have brought in Geert Wilders while he was at it.
	No, but you could tell he wanted to.
	Listen to that again.
	That was interesting.
	Hostile to.
	And most Republicans...
	Hold on, hold on back a little more.
	There we go.
	See, based on the post-World War II institutions that believed in democratic global world, which Russia and the Soviet Union...
	A democratic global world?
	Really?
	That's what it led to?
	...that believed in democratic global world, which Russia and the Soviet Union was often seen as hostile to.
	And most Republicans and Democrats have always basically believed in this world order.
	Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin and maybe Marine Le Pen do not agree with this basic structure of the world.
	They seem to have no respect for the institutions that were created after World War II. And they see a potential alliance of populists around the world who would fight Islam and restore certain semblance of traditional values.
	Oh, what a horrible thing to do.
	Well, we don't want that.
	He's a globalist.
	I had no idea.
	I don't want any of that.
	He's a one-world-order globalist.
	Yeah, and most Democrats and Republicans believe in the new world order.
	He said it.
	Well, world order, he said.
	He said world order.
	Well, it's not new anymore.
	George H.W. Bush coined it.
	That was some time back, so it's not new.
	Yeah.
	Do you want to play this?
	I have something just to kind of slip in here.
	CBS and CNN had a good take on the report, surprisingly.
	I'm not quite sure why.
	On CNN, it's Smirconish.
	That's the guy who does the media show.
	And he also had on, I think, former CIA guy.
	But just listen to how he is skeptical of the report.
	Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign aimed at boosting Donald Trump and harming Hillary Clinton.
	That's what U.S. intelligence found and what they told the president on Thursday and the president-elect on Friday.
	After being briefed, Trump released a statement saying the outcome wasn't altered, and his tweet blamed Democrats for their own vulnerability.
	Then, last night came the release of a declassified public version, which left me wanting more.
	Having a president-elect at odds with his intelligence community forces the public to have to choose sides, but we don't have enough to go on.
	No, it doesn't.
	As one who suspects, Putin did cause the hacking.
	I was nevertheless disappointed in reading the declassified report due to its lack of specificity.
	And when I said so last night via Twitter, man, the immediate harsh response was indicative of how, in this case, our partisanship doesn't stop at our borders.
	I tweeted last night, quote, where's the beef?
	Somebody please direct me to the...
	Hello, 1983.
	Where's the beef?
	But okay.
	Please direct me to the evidence.
	I want to see more.
	And my observation caused something of a twitstorm.
	It's classified.
	Holy S. Dang, I used to like you, but you jumped on the crazy train.
	Or, I've been done with this Nazi in sheep's clothing months ago.
	Spirconish has been a Trumper since day one.
	And I won't be watching this weekend.
	Really?
	That was really interesting, because he kind of had the same that we had.
	You can't be critical of the message, regardless of what the message is.
	And in this case, he was saying, I don't know, man, I'm missing a little bit.
	And then people immediately call him a douchebag, a Trump lover.
	Hold on, hold on, it's not done yet.
	I want to bring in the CIA. Did I have a topper?
	Yeah, you can top me in a moment.
	...months ago.
	Spirconish has been a Trumper since day one.
	And I won't be watching this weekend.
	Really?
	Really?
	Have you reached a point where a demand for answers earns such disdain?
	Yes.
	Here's how I followed up.
	I want an email.
	I want a text, an affidavit, an intercept, something.
	Yeah.
	I'm a trial lawyer, and I deal in evidence, not generalities.
	People accuse me of doubting the findings.
	I don't.
	But given the stakes, I want proof.
	This guy is cruising for a job on RT, that's for sure.
	Not just assessment.
	Yeah, great.
	There goes your salary.
	Joining me now, the man with the expertise, the former director of the CIA and NSA, whose memoir is titled Playing to the Edge.
	General Michael Hayden joins me now.
	General.
	Our buddy, yeah.
	All right.
	You know you need to hear something from him.
	Can we, the public, be sure?
	Well, Michael, you raise great questions, and frankly, welcome to my world.
	Welcome to my world.
	Welcome to my world.
	Yeah, welcome to my world.
	Well, Michael, you raise great questions, and frankly, welcome to my world, or welcome to my old world.
	I think he wanted to say my new world order, but it came out...
	My wardrobe.
	Welcome to my wardrobe.
	Welcome to my old world, in which an awful lot of the things...
	I want to hear the whole thing again.
	What a douche.
	Well, Michael, you raise great questions, and frankly, welcome to my wardrobe.
	Would you like to try my boa in my wardrobe?
	Which an awful lot of the things we know can't be shared, because we need to keep going back to this well in the future, Michael.
	Now you see, this is the big thing.
	And you're going to read that in the report as well.
	There's a lot of things we really just can't share, like proof, because that would ruin our whole system and our statecraft and the way we do things.
	So we can't actually show you the proof because that would be Compromising our means.
	Michael, to learn things to keep America safe.
	Now, look, I read the same document last night.
	I had the same sense of disappointment.
	I probably had a little more understanding as to why it was a brick short of a load.
	He has more understanding because he's more knowledgeable.
	Yes, it was a brick short of a load, though.
	I hadn't heard this term.
	I like that.
	A brick short of a load.
	Before you top me, I want to play.
	It's much shorter.
	CBS, The Morning Crew, they're with Charlie and Nora and Gail.
	Hold on a second.
	You don't know...
	Why am I topping?
	I'm topping you about being condemned.
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	Okay.
	Then top me with that.
	Yeah, because the guy...
	See, the second part didn't make any sense because of the topper.
	Got it.
	Now, go back.
	The guy was condemned by his colleagues.
	He's a trumper.
	He's this and he's that.
	Yeah.
	Well, none of this.
	Comes close to what happened to Glenn Greenwald, your buddy.
	Hold on a second.
	Why is he my buddy?
	Well, because you'd like to call him something else.
	I can't remember what you call him.
	Glenn Greenwald.
	Don't rap, Glenn Greenwald.
	Yeah, that guy.
	Oh, he's your buddy.
	Glenn, this is the...
	I got a bunch of Greenwald clips, but this is the Glenn Greenwald intro to attacks.
	Okay.
	Because, yeah, he's getting – he's getting – Buttslam!
	Yeah, so I've done some pretty controversial and polarizing reporting in the past decade when I've been writing about politics.
	And when you do that, you obviously get attacked in lots of different ways.
	It's not just me.
	It's everybody who engages.
	It's just sort of the rough and tumble of politics and journalism.
	But I really haven't experienced anything even remotely like the smear campaign that has been launched by Democrats in this really coordinated way ever since I began just expressing skepticism about the prevailing narrative over Russia and its role that it allegedly played in the election, and in particular in helping to defeat Hillary Clinton.
	I mean, not even the reporting I did based on the Edward Snowden archive, which is extremely controversial in multiple countries around the world.
	Not even that compared to the attacks now.
	And the reason is very, very obvious, which is that it has become exceptionally important to Democratic partisans to believe that the reason they lost this election is not because they chose a candidate who was corrupt and who was extremely disliked and who symbolized all of the worst failings of the Democratic Party.
	It's extremely important to them not to face what is really a systemic collapse on the part of the Democratic Party as a political force in the United States, in the House, in the Senate, in state houses and governorships all over the country.
	And so in order not to face any of that and have to confront their own failings, they instead want to focus everything on Vladimir Putin and Russia and insist that the reason they lost was because this big bad dictator interfered in the election.
	And anyone who challenges or anyone who questions that instantly becomes not just their enemy, but now, according to their framework, someone who's actually unpatriotic, that if you question the evidence, the sufficiency of the evidence to support this theory, that somehow your loyalties are suspected.
	that you're not just a critic of the Democratic Party, you're actually a stooge of or an agent of the Kremlin.
	And obviously we've seen this rhetoric for decades during the Cold War, although back then it was the far right.
	I'm really happy he jumped into this.
	We really need the guy here because he was such a hero and such a bastion of truth.
	But, of course, he worked very closely with WikiLeaks.
	I'm sure this is why he's being excordiating.
	We can't have any friend of WikiLeaks anywhere now.
	It's unbelievable.
	Play the kicker.
	Okay.
	And, of course, of being a Kremlin operative.
	And it's just this constant flow, not from fringe accounts online, but from the Democratic operatives and pundits with the greatest influence.
	In fact, Howard Dean, the former chairman of the Democratic National Committee, went on Twitter three weeks ago and said, I think it would be really interesting to find out whether The Intercept is receiving money from Russia or Iran.
	Something that he obviously has zero evidence or basis for.
	For suggesting this is what the Democratic Party has become.
	Well, Pierre Omidyar, drive my car, is of course Persian.
	I would think that Pierre Omidyar would be irked about that.
	You think?
	Yeah, but he's Persian though.
	He is Persian, I believe.
	Could be.
	And that would be even more of an insult.
	That's what makes it so fun.
	Now, do you want to continue with Grand Green Road on Raph, or do you want me to go back to the other stuff?
	Why don't you go back, and then I do have another thing, because I can...
	We've got to read the report.
	I can top anything you do.
	Anything you can do, I can do better.
	Here's the morning crew on CBS This Morning, who actually kind of are waking up to the idea that maybe Russia didn't actually make Hillary lose, and they're there with David Sanger from the New York Times.
	Astounding.
	Russia tried to interfere with the election, but to Kellyanne's point, did they influence the outcome of the election and tip it in Donald Trump's favor?
	I don't think anybody has found any evidence that that has happened.
	And I think one of the interesting things that's going on with the Trump campaign right now, or the Trump transition, is that they are confusing the fact set of whether the Russians came in, what they did, With the outcome.
	Right.
	And they could easily be in a position, I think, maybe after today's briefing, but maybe not, of saying, okay, they think the Russians were part of the groups that came in, but that it still didn't affect the outcome.
	I think so far they've sort of conflated those two.
	And that's why I asked the question in that way for that very point, because it is true, actually, that the Clinton campaign spent more money in Georgia and Arizona than they spent in Wisconsin and Michigan.
	No, that's right.
	I think if the Russians had stayed out, you could have exactly the same result.
	But that doesn't necessarily mean the Russians didn't try.
	This is fascinating to me.
	Yeah, everyone's like, well, okay, the report doesn't really show that it did anything.
	In fact, they say it didn't influence the campaign, and now they're kind of questioning Hillary a little bit.
	Well, this meme has got me bothered.
	And the meme is, well, they didn't do anything about the voting machines.
	They didn't directly change anything.
	So that much we know.
	But they did this, that, and they wanted to do this.
	And they had all these bad intentions.
	And by the way, this was all on public media.
	Here's the question I'd ask one of these guys.
	I'd say, well, what happens?
	Let's just get rid of RTs.
	And get rid of the tweeters.
	And what if Russia just took out a bunch of anti-Hillary advertisements?
	Just paid for it.
	Is that like some sort of illegal act?
	Is it something they can't do or they're not allowed to take out an ad so the media would refuse these ads?
	Why don't we go through the document just for a bit?
	Okay, let's do that because I do have more clips.
	Yeah, I want to hear more of Greg Greenwald and I have some of the...
	The hearing.
	I have a couple of clips from the hearing.
	So the official title of the report is Background to Assessing Russian Activities and Intentions in Recent U.S. Elections, colon, The Analytic Process and Cyber Incident Attribution.
	Woo!
	Alright.
	Um...
	Well, it's got the right name for a report.
	It does.
	So assessing Russian activities and intentions in recent U.S. elections is a declassified version of a highly classified assessment that has been provided to the president and to recipients approved by the president, which apparently included NBC News, who reported on this before it was even given to anyone else, certainly the public.
	And then they say, of course, the intelligence community rarely can publicly reveal the full extent of its knowledge or the precise basis for its assessments as the release of such information would reveal sensitive sources or methods and imperil the ability to collect critical foreign intelligence in the future.
	So, in other words, we're not going to tell you how we did it.
	What if they even did it?
	The whole thing could be a bluff.
	Well, when you read through this, intelligence community analysts integrate information from a wide range of sources, including human sources, technical collection, open source information, and apply specialized skills and structured analytic tools to draw inferences informed by the data available.
	That's what we do.
	Thank you.
	That's why I said we could have done a better job on this report.
	Relevant past activity and logic and reasoning, they should have put in their common sense, to provide insight into what is happening and the prospects for the future, but when intelligence community analysts use such words as, we assess or we judge, they are conveying an analytic assessment or judgment.
	Okay, and now there's a couple of things.
	This is just all the rules they set up before the report.
	The nature of cyberspace makes attribution of cyber operations difficult but not impossible.
	The claim here.
	Every kind of cyber operation, malicious or not, leaves a trail.
	I disagree with that assessment.
	It could leave a trail, but good hackers erase their tracks.
	It's very possible that...
	That you can do a lot online in the cyber.
	Cyber.
	Cyber.
	And not leave a trail if you're very careful.
	Of course.
	Go to the library, go to the library, and then from the library, you check into a proxy, and from that proxy, you check into another proxy, and then you post something, and then you take the false nose off your face when you leave the library, and then where's the trail?
	So I would assert that as a false claim.
	An assessment of attribution usually is not a simple statement of who conducted an operation but rather a series of judgments that describe whether it was an isolated incident, who was the likely perpetrator, the perpetrator's possible motivations, and whether a foreign government had a role in ordering or leading the operation.
	So that is what they talk about when it comes to assessment.
	Now the things that are in this, like key judgments, I'm just going to pick out a couple of lines here.
	Russia's goals were to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency.
	That is a claim.
	We have high confidence in these judgments.
	CIA and FBI have high confidence in the judgments.
	NSA has moderate confidence.
	And then they just, out of the blue, further information has come to light since election day.
	And there's just, that's it.
	There's no explanation of what the information is.
	Just further information.
	And that's not explained anywhere in the document.
	Russian behavior since early November 2016 increases our confidence in our assessment of Russian motivations and goals.
	Again, I guess they're saying Russia is acting shifty.
	Moscow's influence campaign followed a Russian messaging strategy that blends covert intelligence operations such as cyber activity with overt efforts by Russian government agencies, state-funded media, third-party intermediaries, and paid social media users or trolls.
	This is an intelligence report.
	They use the word trolls?
	Well, worse, they say paid social media users or trolls, in quotes.
	So they're saying trolls are paid social media users, unless I'm misreading it.
	Oh, that's, yeah, no, you have to assume that that's exactly what that means.
	I think that is bullcrap.
	Total bullcrap.
	Russia's intelligence services conducted cyber operations against targets associated with the 2016 U.S. presidential election, including targets associated with both major U.S. political parties.
	It says it right there in the document.
	So let there be no confusion over that.
	So, of course, they assess with...
	There's a lot of confusion over that already, because Rance Priebus says that they were never hacked at the RNC. Well...
	We assess with high confidence that Russian military intelligence, that would be GRU, General Staff Main Intelligence Directorate, use the Guccifer 2.0 persona and DCLeaks.com to release U.S. victim data obtained in cyber operations publicly and in exclusives to media outlets and relayed material to WikiLeaks.
	It's quite a mouthful.
	In addition...
	Russian intelligence obtained and maintained access to elements of multiple U.S. state or local electoral boards.
	DHS, who is not signing off on this report, assesses that types of systems Russian actors targeted or compromised were not involved in vote tallying.
	That line is interesting because the only claims we heard about of U.S. state or local electoral boards is that it was actually DHS who was poking around in their server, if you recall.
	Yes.
	They were the ones port scanning and pinging around.
	Yes.
	And I want to point out to you that thing that you were concerned about, that little statement there about vote tally, is part of that meme I'm complaining about, and I do have a conclusion to make about this.
	You want to do that now?
	No, no.
	I want to hear more of this.
	I just wanted to make you aware that this thing keeps cropping up.
	Right.
	This is all still just the key findings.
	Nowhere, and this is the last bit of the key findings, there's no mention of any proof or cyber tracks, which of course we know they leave them everywhere.
	All we have is the statement that we can't tell you that because it would ruin all of our spycraft.
	However, Russia's state-run propaganda machine contributed to the influence campaign, influence campaign, By serving as a platform for Kremlin messaging to Russian and international audiences.
	So I guess it was only for Russians and international audiences, not for the U.S. electorate, I guess.
	What is the point of saying that?
	To me, it debunks the entire thing.
	When you watch RT, RT does have a UK feed and some feeds elsewhere.
	But all that stuff, in fact, the clips I played earlier from RT, they're not aimed at Argentina.
	No.
	That was aimed, you have that guy, Larry Johnson, that guy's talking to Americans.
	But they specifically do not say US audience.
	I don't understand why not.
	However, finally here we assess Moscow will apply lessons learned from its Putin-ordered campaign aimed at the U.S. presidential election to future influence efforts worldwide, including against U.S. allies and their election processes.
	That is one of the dumbest things I've ever heard.
	Alright, now, been to the meat of the report.
	Putin ordered the campaign to influence U.S. election.
	We assess with high confidence that Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at U.S. presidential election, the consistent goals of which were to undermine public faith in the U.S. democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency.
	Then of course all three agencies have judged this with high confidence except for NSA. In trying to influence the U.S. election, we assess the Kremlin sought to advance its long-standing desire to undermine the U.S.-led liberal democratic order, the promotion of which Putin and other senior Russian leaders view as a threat to Russia and Putin's regime.
	I would say this is hearsay, Your Honor.
	I mean, they're just saying stuff now.
	Oh, they're just saying stuff, but I think that in a broad sense, they're probably correct.
	Sure.
	The New World Order, as the Hillary Clinton side of it stands, the idea that we should all be kind of slaves to these treaty agreements, the NAFTA, for example, really takes away a lot of our sovereignty when you look into it.
	Whose Trade Organization is the book you want to read to understand that?
	That is a threat to Putin.
	I agree.
	Okay.
	I think it's a threat to us.
	I think it's a threat to the American citizen.
	Putin publicly pointed to the Panama Papers disclosure and the Olympic doping scandal as U.S.-directed efforts to defame Russia.
	Well, it is.
	Maybe not for that.
	But Putin most likely, which is a very weak argument, most likely, with high confidence, wanted to discredit Secretary Clinton because he has publicly blamed her since 2011 for the I agree with that.
	I agree with that, too.
	And then they have a couple of points here, I guess, to prove that...
	Trump's stated policy to work with Russia and pro-Kremlin figures spoke highly about what they saw as his Russia-friendly positions on Syria and Ukraine.
	Putin publicly contrasted the president-elect's approach to Russia with Secretary Clinton's, quote, aggressive rhetoric.
	Moscow saw that the election of President-elect Trump as a way to achieve an international counterterrorism coalition against the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levant.
	What a horrible idea.
	Putin has had many positive experiences working with Western political leaders whose business interests made them more disposed to deal with Russia, such as, let's put another shitty names in here, former Italian minister Silvio Berlusconi and German Chancellor Gerhard Schroeder.
	Now we go into...
	Here we go.
	We assess that influence campaigns are approved at the highest levels of the Russian government, particularly those that would be politically sensitive.
	Moscow's campaign aided the U.S. election reflected years of investments in its capabilities, which Moscow has honed in the former Soviet states.
	Yeah, so they're saying Moscow's campaign, to discredit Secretary Clinton, reflects years of investment in its capabilities, Which Moscow has honed in the former Soviet states.
	So they're saying, this is pretty much the old KGB guys who did this.
	That's the way I read it.
	And I'm going to say the term at the end of the day.
	This is about RT. Yes, and we're going to get to that.
	How does that have anything to do with honing anything?
	RT, when it first showed up, was not very well honed until it finally got a clue about how Western media works.
	It wasn't honed by doing RT in the sticks of the old Soviet Union.
	No.
	Who are they kidding with that assessment?
	Apparently, everyone in mainstream media and in Congress.
	Now check this out.
	I love putting this in an official report.
	I always love it.
	By their nature, Russian influence campaigns are multifaceted and designed to be deniable because they use a mix of agents of influence, cutouts, front organizations, and false flag operations.
	Thank you for legitimizing that.
	Yes, but what false flags are we talking about?
	They're just stating a fact.
	And what cutouts are we talking about?
	Ah, Moscow demonstrated this during the Ukraine crisis in 2014 when Russia deployed forces and advisors to eastern Ukraine and denied it publicly.
	That's their proof.
	Yes.
	That's their proof.
	Okay, let me see.
	Then they go on to say that...
	They said you mentioned it.
	Whatever happened to the report about that downed airliner that the Dutch had, and they were supposed to give us some clue about who actually shot that plane down?
	Where is that?
	No, it's never going to happen.
	How long ago did that happen?
	Two years.
	It's a preliminary report.
	And the Russians were blamed all along?
	Yes, of course.
	Well, why don't they show us something?
	Now, that's something you can have some real evidence.
	You've got the black boxes.
	Why is it taking so long?
	I'm sorry.
	That's okay.
	That was...
	That was uncalled for.
	Go on.
	Now, here's the assessment regarding How it got, how it was leaked, the chain, the cutouts.
	Guccifer 2.0, who claimed to be an independent Romanian hacker, made multiple contradictory statements and false claims about his likely Russian identity through the election.
	And this is great.
	Press reporting suggests, so now we're relying on the press.
	Press reporting suggests that more than one person claiming to be Guccifer 2.0 interacted with journalists.
	Content that we assessed was taken from email accounts targeted by the GRU in March 2016 appeared on DCLeaks.
	So, they're saying, you know, these were all fronts.
	The Kremlin's principal international propaganda outlet.
	RT. I love that.
	That's it.
	That's their principal propaganda outlet.
	That's it, ladies and gentlemen.
	Their principal propaganda outlet.
	Has actively...
	Well, I'll tell you, we do a much better job.
	We've got NBC, CBS, and to a lesser extent, ABC. Oh, yeah.
	And CNN. Oh, CNN and MSNBC? Yeah, of course, of course.
	Yeah.
	Okay, so the propaganda outfit actively collaborated with WikiLeaks.
	RT's editor-in-chief visited WikiLeaks founder Julian Hassan to the Ecuadorian embassy in London August 2013, where they discussed renewing his broadcast contract with RT. Three years ago, they did an interview.
	And RT routinely gives us on sympathetic coverage.
	It's been on RT, I think, six to eight times during this, when they get a TV camera into the...
	So now the report just gets really bad.
	Now they just were writing to fill pages.
	DHS, who did not sign off on the report, I remind you, assesses that the types of systems we observed Russian actors targeting or compromising are not involved in vote tallying.
	There's your meme, John.
	There it is.
	One more time.
	DHS... Assesses that the types of systems we observed Russian actors targeting or compromising are not involved in vote tallying.
	And now we have Russian propaganda efforts.
	This is where it gets a little crazy.
	Russia's state-run propaganda machine compromise of its domestic media apparatus, outlets targeting global audiences such as RT and Sputnik, and a network of quasi-government trolls.
	What does that mean?
	Quasi, like, they're fake government trolls?
	Quasi, doesn't that mean, like...
	Maybe it means...
	Oh man, what does it mean?
	That is very confusing, that term.
	Quasi.
	It could mean that they're quasi, they're trolls.
	Never mind.
	Ah, quasi.
	How's that going to help?
	Quasi.
	Definition.
	Quasi means kind of.
	No.
	Apparently, but not real.
	Yeah, kind of.
	Same thing is what I meant.
	Well, so it's quasi-government trolls means they're not really government trolls.
	Yeah, what does it mean?
	That's what I'm saying.
	This is a meaningless...
	What does it mean?
	A quasi-government troll?
	Are they a real government troll?
	Are they working for the government?
	Are they trolls that pretend they're working for the government?
	Are they the government guys pretending to be trolls?
	Or are they just phonies?
	I mean, what does it mean?
	I don't know.
	If I had an opportunity, I would get an answer.
	Now they just go in through all these things.
	Putin's chief propagandist Dmitry Kizilev used his flagship weekly news magazine program this fall to cast President-elect Trump as an outsider victimized by a corrupt political establishment.
	Pro-Kremlin proxy Vladimir Zirinovsky, leader of the Nationalist Liberal Democratic Party of Russia, proclaimed just before the election that if President-elect Trump won, Russia would drink champagne in anticipation of being able to advance its positions on Syria and Ukraine.
	We will drink champagne and we will snort caviar!
	Ha ha ha ha ha!
	On August 6th, RT published an English language video called Julian Assange Special.
	Do WikiLeaks have the email that will put Clinton in prison?
	And an exclusive interview with Assange entitled, Clinton and ISIS funded by the same money.
	RT's most popular video on Secretary Clinton, quote, how 100% of the Clinton's charity went to dot dot dot themselves, had more than 9 million views on social media platforms.
	RT's most popular English language video about the president-elect called Trump Will Not Be Permitted to Win featured Assange and had 2.2 million views.
	And here we go.
	Russia used trolls as well as RT as part of its influence efforts to denigrate Secretary Clinton.
	Really?
	Yes, really.
	So let me get this straight.
	When you went on Twitter, all these people moaning and groaning about Clinton, they're trolls, all of them.
	Paid.
	And as we know, trolls are paid.
	But they could be quasi-government trolls, so they could be paid trolls that aren't for the government, but I don't know.
	The likely financier of the so-called Internet Research Agency of Professional Trolls...
	Is that on the doorbell?
	Press here.
	Press here for the Internet Research Agency of Professional Trolls, which is located in St.
	Petersburg.
	In St.
	Petersburg is a close Putin ally with ties to Russian intelligence.
	Again, here.
	A journalist who is a leading expert on the Internet Research Agency claimed that some social media accounts that appear to be tied to Russia's professional trolls...
	There's another category, because they previously were devoted to supporting Russian actions in Ukraine, started to advocate for President-elect Trump as early as December 2015.
	So now we are talking about journalists who are not made, who are so-called experts on the Internet Research Agency of Professional Trolls, claim that some social media accounts were professional trolls.
	Are you kidding me?
	This is ridiculous.
	And then, of course, they just kind of wrap it up by saying, that's really it, John.
	The Russian Foreign Intelligence Service, SVR. Oh, they're talking about since the Cold War.
	This is great.
	Since the Cold War, Russian intelligence efforts related to U.S. elections have primarily focused on foreign intelligence collection.
	For decades, Russian and Soviet intelligence services have sought to collect insider information from U.S. political parties that could help Russian leaders understand a new U.S. administration's plans and priorities.
	Here's their examples.
	The Russian Foreign Intelligence Service SVR Directorate S. Those are like the Americans on the TV show.
	Wasn't that the hot redhead who in 2010 were arrested?
	I think it may have been the hot redhead.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	So apparently they were...
	What was her name again?
	I can't remember.
	They were deported to Moscow in 2010, but they report on the 28 election.
	In the 1970s, the KGB recruited a Democratic Party activist who reported information about then-presidential hopeful Jimmy Carter's campaign.
	And, of course, they have to say that Russia has sought to influence elections across Europe.
	And that's it.
	That's it.
	Don't they even mention, if they're going to do that, mention Teddy Kennedy in 1984 when he contacted, openly contacted Moscow to put a stop to Reagan.
	Nope.
	Nope.
	Not in there.
	That's it.
	I'm surprised that's not in it.
	That really bothers me that he left that part out.
	I have to do a little research on it so I have more details, but...
	All the right-wing talk shows are just bitching.
	But this, John, this is an essay.
	It's an essay that you and I could have written.
	Now, they have snappy, snazzy graphics.
	Nice.
	Cool graphics.
	We could have done a better job.
	I think so.
	In fact, I'm wondering if this wasn't outsourced.
	You know, it's interesting you say that.
	Because the first thing I thought, this is not an intelligence report.
	Well, of course it's not.
	It's an assessment of Russian activities.
	But it's using sketchy sources.
	It's using social media as a source.
	Social media.
	Social media.
	And they talk about trolls, paid trolls, quasi-government trolls, professional trolls.
	It's a lot of trolls.
	And quite honestly, I think this is a microaggression against trolls.
	Ah!
	Yeah.
	We have something there.
	I shall wrap up this bit with the leaked report from NBC News, which came out Thursday night, which I agree is an outrage.
	That this, before there were hearings, before it was given to anyone else, it was leaked to NBC. That, of course, is not okay.
	But, yeah, whatever.
	Tonight, an exclusive inside look at a top-secret report on Russia.
	One that went directly to President Obama today.
	So, what does it reveal?
	Two top intelligence officials with direct knowledge of the report tell NBC News it details Russian cyber attacks against not just the Democratic National Committee, but the White House, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the State Department, even American companies.
	Some hacks, successful.
	Others, thwarted.
	The report explains Moscow's motives, partly to disrupt the democratic process, and partly as payback, the intelligence analysts conclude, for the Obama administration's questioning of Vladimir Putin's legitimacy as president.
	It's not just last year's presidential campaign, either.
	The report tracks Russian cyber activity back to 2008 and 2012.
	It does not speculate on whether Russia's interference affected the outcome of 2016.
	Well, President Obama said...
	Did you hear how they did that?
	That was interesting.
	They did a whole different audio, almost like it was pushed in there.
	Like someone said, hey, I love the report.
	It's great.
	It makes Russia sound like a bunch of a-holes.
	We have to put one nugget of truth.
	Could you just put a little nugget in there?
	Just put a...
	Just try that.
	Hold on.
	Because it was really beautiful the way they did that.
	Back to 2008 and 2012.
	It does not speculate on whether Russia's interference affected the outcome of 2016.
	Well, President Obama says...
	That was inserted after the fact.
	That's obvious.
	Whole different audio, everything thrown in there.
	Like, oh, we have to put something in.
	Today, he has full faith in the conclusions of that report.
	President-elect Trump, who will get the same briefing tomorrow, has seemed skeptical of the intelligence community so far.
	The president with NBC Chicago's Carol Marine.
	When the president-elect receives his own briefings and is able to examine the intelligence as his team is put together and they see how professional and effective these agencies are, that some of those current tensions will be reduced.
	Chuck Schumer, although it was a few days ago, I went back and watched him again as he was talking to Rachel Maddow, and he said something that I thought was pretty outrageous.
	I completely understood what he was saying as you brought up, we brought up Teddy Kennedy, but there are other things to think about in Kennedys when it comes to the intelligence services of the United States.
	Here's The veiled threat that Schumer threw out.
	We're actually told, intelligence sources tell NBC News since this tweet has been posted, that actually this intelligence briefing for the president-elect was always planned for Friday.
	It hasn't been delayed.
	But he's taking these shots, this antagonism, this taunting to the intelligence community.
	Let me tell you, you take on the intelligence community, they have six ways from Sunday at getting back at you.
	Really, Chuck?
	What is he saying?
	They're going to kill him?
	He said they're going to kill him.
	That's it.
	And you know, the funny, the couple of...
	Yes, 51% of the American public believes that the CIA killed Kennedy.
	Or were at least involved, yeah.
	In some way.
	We know that it was really Jackie Kennedy, but...
	Well, it could have been anybody by now.
	Who knows?
	It was like 50 years ago.
	It's kind of beside the point.
	But that's kind of one of the senses of this.
	We also have the Ron Paul, the comment he once made that the CIA took over in a bloodless coup when they killed Kennedy.
	Yes, yes, yes.
	There's that element, which is floating around.
	And then we have in the book that about the...
	Who's the book that Baker wrote that we have?
	Family of Secrets.
	Family of Secrets goes into great detail about how the CIA got Richard Nixon with the whole Watergate fiasco by kind of being double agents during that whole affair by purposely screwing up so he'd get caught.
	I think it's one of the most fascinating parts of that book.
	People should read that book.
	Also part of that book is the apparent fact that Papa Bush H. Walker could not remember where he was the day Kennedy was shot.
	Now sources have him in Dallas, and he was the CIA. Yeah, they have pictures of him, supposedly.
	Yeah, but he said, I can't remember where I was.
	Every American remembers where they were.
	Everyone in the world who was alive and conscious remembers where they were.
	Yeah, I was in chemistry class.
	So there's that, and so we have this kind of...
	This oblique threat by Schumer.
	But I think there's goading going on.
	It's almost as if the mainstream media people are going, well, you know, you can't do this.
	You can't disparage.
	And they're the ones that are emphasizing, oh, Trump's disparaging.
	He's insulting the agencies.
	They're going on and on about this.
	They're making a big stink about it.
	Play this clip.
	Shields goading the CIA. This is on PBS NewsHour.
	I reject.
	His disparagement, make that disdain openly for the American intelligence community and its work, is damaging to national security.
	I mean, the intelligence community, for For the security of our nation, for the well-being of our nation, for the economic prosperity of our nation, competitiveness depends on sources in other places.
	And other nations depend upon our intelligence.
	And here we have the president-elect dismissing, disparaging, disdaining openly because somehow, in his way, his perspective diminishes his victory.
	It's just astonishing.
	Yeah, well, with respect, our intelligence agencies have done some crazy crap in the past, FBI in particular.
	Which we'll get to later.
	I did want to mention that, as we know, that the DNC servers were never investigated by FBI or NSA or any other official agency because the DNC would not allow them to do that.
	It, of course, was CrowdStrike, who they brought in.
	CrowdStrike is stacked with former douchebags, former government douchebags.
	And I also wanted to point out, I just learned this this morning, CrowdStrike is partially funded.
	By Google Capital, who led a $100 million financing round.
	So it just makes it all that much more convenient.
	It wraps up in a tiny bit.
	Doesn't it look beautiful that way?
	I think it's fabulous.
	Now, I'm thinking that these guys in the media, and I would put, I think a lot of them are doing it unwittingly, which is saying that Trump disparaged this day.
	He hates him.
	He's getting into a beef, and I think it's all being created by them.
	It's kind of a message to the agencies.
	Kill him!
	That's what they're saying.
	Now, let's listen to Adam Schiff, who's in Congress, a Democratic representative from Southern California.
	He was the guy that started with the...
	Didn't he start with the Electoral College?
	We had him on Tucker.
	Yes, he was.
	That was him.
	And he's also big buddies with this, you know, oh, everything's bipartisan and bipartisan agrees.
	And when they talk bipartisan, he talks about what two Republicans are always part of this bipartisan anti-Russian clique.
	That would be Lindsey Graham and John McCain.
	Exactly.
	Let's play this.
	This is the first clip.
	This is the one that just, not the tampering clip, but the other one.
	I got it.
	What should Americans take in that are not publicly known?
	Is it your sense that the U.S. is responding appropriately?
	Should more be done?
	What should Americans, what should America, what should the United States be prepared to do as a result of this?
	I think what has been done so far by the current administration is a first step.
	It is by no means, I think, sufficient.
	We need to work in Congress on a bipartisan basis.
	We've reached out on the Democratic side to Senator McCain and Graham on a package of sanctions, broader sanctions, to make the Russians pay a price.
	But even beyond that, we need a comprehensive approach to To what is a very successful, well-funded Russian effort through a variety of vectors, through, as I mentioned, bribery of people and their media platforms.
	They're hacking the publishing of...
	There was nothing in the report about bribery of people that I saw.
	He's bringing it up.
	You mentioned bribery of people and their media platforms.
	They're hacking the publishing of fake news, the publishing of bogus documents.
	We need to push back against all of that.
	It's a threat to the German elections coming up.
	It's a threat to our French allies, our native allies.
	And we need a comprehensive and hard pushback.
	It's the only thing the Russians understand.
	It's the only thing that will deter them.
	Yeah, let's go start a war.
	you are.
	Well, talking about that, here's McCain trying to start a war when those hearings were going on with Clapper up there.
	This is McCain's questioning Clapper specifically.
	And by the way, Clapper wouldn't answer this question the way McCain wanted.
	McCain had kind of a smirk on his face afterwards saying, eh, I tried.
	Really what we're talking about is if they succeeded in changing the results of an election, which none of us believe they were, that would have to constitute an attack on the United States of America because of the effects if they had succeeded.
	Would you agree with that?
	Wait a minute.
	He's saying even though it didn't influence because they did it with that intent, therefore it's a huge issue.
	That's what he's saying?
	Yeah, and isn't it an act of war?
	Act of war.
	Did he say act of war?
	Because of the effects, if they had succeeded, would you agree with that?
	First, we cannot say, they did not change any vote tallies or anything of that sort.
	We had no way of gauging.
	What did McCain say?
	Did he try to shut him up when he said McCain jumped in for something there?
	Hold on.
	We have no way of gauging the impact that certainly the intelligence community can't gauge the impact it had on choices the electorate made.
	There's no way for us to gauge that.
	Whether or not that constitutes an act of war, I think, is a very heavy policy call that I don't believe the intelligence community should make, but it certainly would carry, in my view, great gravity.
	I have a clip from the same hearing with Lindsey Graham.
	I got the biggest sissy clip in the world.
	Lindsey Graham, here we go.
	Is there a difference between...
	Espionage and interfering in an election.
	Yes, espionage implies, to me at least, a passive collection, and this was much more activist.
	So, when it comes to espionage, we better be careful about throwing rocks.
	When it comes to interfering in our election, we better be ready to throw rocks.
	Do you agree with that?
	That's a good metaphor.
	Really?
	That's a good metaphor?
	Throwing rocks?
	That's a great metaphor.
	You better be ready to throw rocks.
	Do you agree with that?
	That's a good metaphor.
	I think what Obama did was throw a pebble.
	I'm ready to throw a rock.
	Would I be justified as a United States senator for taking your information about Russia's involvement in our election and what they're doing throughout the world and be more aggressive than President Obama if I chose to?
	That's your choice, Senator.
	Do you think he was justified in imposing new sanctions based on what Russia did?
	I do.
	Okay.
	So to those of you who want to throw rocks, you're going to get a chance here soon.
	You!
	And if we don't throw rocks, we're going to make a huge mistake.
	He just wants to throw rocks.
	I didn't get that clip.
	You get the Borderline clip of the day for that.
	Borderline!
	I'm going to throw a rock.
	A rock.
	For rocks.
	Okay, now...
	Rocks.
	Now, back to Schiff.
	This is the one that...
	This is my favorite clip.
	All right.
	And this is the one where...
	That I think kind of gives me a clue to what might be the reason for this meme I'm bitching about.
	And the meme again?
	The meme is that the election results were not altered one iota by whatever it was the Russians did.
	Very hard for Congress to do it over his opposition.
	Well, one of the comments he made after the briefing was he pointed out and emphasized, he said he appreciated the briefing, but he emphasized that the alleged Russian action had, in his words, absolutely no effect on the outcome of the election.
	Now, my reading of what was made public from this report is that they didn't examine whether the hacking affected the outcome of the election.
	That's exactly right.
	And I think that was very misleading of the president-elect to suggest that this report or the presentation said there was no outcome effect, no effect on the election itself.
	It's true there's no evidence that the tampering with voting machines or tampering with voter registrations or any of that affected the counting of the votes.
	That's true.
	If you listen to that clip carefully...
	Yeah, he said the counting of the votes.
	The tampering.
	The tampering, the counting.
	He said that there was tampering with the vote, and there was tampering with the counting.
	Oh, I know why then.
	Because it was the Democrats who were tampering, and that's why they have to keep it quiet.
	No, I don't think that's it.
	I think this is a scheme.
	They're going to keep this up, this pressure.
	I'm sure the Democrats were tampering, but that's not the point.
	The point is they keep this meme alive, so it's like, oh, okay, it wasn't effective.
	Schiff just said there was tampering.
	The tampering.
	He just said there was tampering.
	Yes, but it did not affect the outcome.
	No, well, play that little end again.
	Tell me whether he really said that.
	Well, let me actually...
	Play that clip about halfway through.
	Let's make sure I got the right one.
	Hold on.
	She said, let's go, I'll go over it again.
	She said that the report did not say that there was tampering or that tampering affected the outcome or anything that Russia's did affected the outcome.
	And he agreed.
	He says, yeah, there was nothing in the report.
	And then he talked about...
	Let's hear it again.
	Let's hear it again.
	I'm liking this.
	It's very hard for Congress to do it over his opposition.
	Well, one of the comments he made after the briefing was he pointed out and emphasized, he said he appreciated the briefing, but he emphasized that the alleged Russian action had, in his words, absolutely no effect on the outcome of the election.
	Now, my reading of what was made public from this report is that they didn't examine whether the hacking affected the outcome of the election.
	That's exactly right.
	And I think that was very misleading of the president-elect to suggest that this report or the presentation said there was no outcome effect, no effect on the election itself.
	It's true there's no evidence that the tampering with voting machines or tampering with voter registrations or any of that affected the counting of the votes.
	That's true.
	You're right.
	The tampering didn't affect the counting.
	So, that doesn't mean that the votes weren't falsified, just when they counted them, there was no tampering.
	Well, he's saying, this is what I think he's done, because he's on the Intelligence Committee.
	He is stupidly bringing up the next stage of this.
	Because I don't think he should have said that at all.
	He shouldn't have said anything.
	He should have said the alleged tampering or the supposed...
	He didn't do any of that.
	He said the tampering as if there was tampering.
	Which I think is going to be the next thing that comes out.
	The next step is there was tampering.
	Because they're letting everybody step into this trap.
	Oh, there is no, and even McCain does it, and he's on those committees too, so he knows how to do this, and he says it right.
	There's no proof, what he's leaving out is there's no proof yet, there's no proof that the outcome of the election was affected by anything the Russians did.
	There's no proof yet.
	And so he does it right, but he keeps, that's what's bothering me about the meme.
	It's in play.
	Right, I think you're right.
	It's constantly being brought out.
	Yep, I think you're right.
	We have to keep our eye on it.
	Yeah, and you're going to see the next thing they're going to do is, whoops, there was tampering.
	The president did issue an executive order, which didn't get a lot of play.
	Executive order, taking additional steps to address the national emergency with respect to significant malicious cyber-enabled activities.
	I will only read the opening here.
	By the authority vested in me.
	I, Barack Obama, President of the United States of America, in order to take additional steps to deal with a national emergency with respect to significant malicious cyber-enabled activities declared in Executive Order 13-694 of April 1, 2015, and in view of the increasing use of such activities to undermine democratic processes or institutions,
	hereby order all property and interests in property that are in the United States, that hereafter come within the United States, or that hereafter Okay.
	Okay.
	So if you, any person determined by the Secretary of the Treasury, interestingly, in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State to be responsible for or complicit in or to have engaged in directly or indirectly cyber-enabled activities originating from or directed by persons located in whole or in consultation with the Attorney General and the Secretary of State to be responsible for or complicit in or to have engaged in directly or indirectly cyber-enabled activities originating from or directed by persons located in whole or in substantial part outside the United
	Of the United States, which includes harming or otherwise significantly compromising the provision of services by a computer network or computers that support one or more entities of critical infrastructure.
	This is what it's about.
	So now he's putting election systems under critical infrastructure.
	Tampering with, altering or causing a misappropriation of information with the purpose or effect of interfering with or undermining election processes or institutions.
	And it goes on and on.
	So that means a whole new set of rules come into play if there's suspicion of that.
	And that could be part of the setup of what you're talking about, if you know what I mean.
	Yeah, I think it's a good possibility.
	This is definitely going on.
	Now, for future, I thought Admiral Michael Rogers, who is now running NSA, I thought he had a very interesting statement when asked, what keeps you awake at night?
	What are you worried about?
	What are you so frightened about for the future?
	Here's his answer.
	When I look at the challenges and the threats, It's in no particular order.
	Significant extraction of information and insight that is generating economic advantage for others.
	That is eroding operational advantage at times for us as a nation.
	That is, as you have seen in this Russian piece, where not just the extraction, but then the use of this information adds a whole nother dimension.
	And what concerns me beyond all that is, what happens is we start to move in an environment in which not only is information being, I've heard some people use the phrase weaponized, what happens when now we see people suddenly manipulating our networks so we can't believe the data that we're looking at?
	That would be a real fundamental game changer to me, and to me it's only a question of the when, not the if.
	This is going to happen.
	And what happens when the non-state actor decides that cyber offers an asymmetric advantage to them?
	Because their sense of risk and their willingness to destroy the status quo is significantly different and greater than your typical nation state.
	Those are the kinds of long-term things.
	So as we've talked about more broadly today...
	We've got to get better on the defensive side, because part of deterrence is making it harder for them to succeed.
	I acknowledge that.
	But a defensive strategy alone isn't going to work.
	It is a resource-intensive approach to doing business, and it puts us on the wrong end of the cost equation.
	That's a losing strategy for us, but it is a component of a strategy.
	We have got to ask ourselves, how do we change this broader dynamic?
	To go to the point you've heard repeatedly today, how do we convince nations and other actors out there that there is a price to pay for this behavior?
	That, in fact, it is not in your best interest.
	And what should that price be?
	Oh, it's a wide range of things.
	There's no one silver bullet, which is another thing I would make.
	If we're looking for the perfect solution, there isn't one.
	This will be a variety of incremental solutions and efforts that are going to play out over time.
	There's no one single approach here.
	So what he's saying is, and we've heard this before, this was the initial defense from people like Donna Brazile.
	They changed the information.
	These aren't my emails.
	I don't recognize them.
	This will be a great out, I would say, for the climate change people.
	Well, numbers were changed by Russia.
	We wasted all this time thinking we were going to die.
	It would be a perfect out for them.
	That would be one of them.
	Ted Cruz, who was asking this question, had a little editorial after the Admiral's response.
	Wow, and your point about manipulating data.
	Russians and climate change, great.
	Good, right?
	Yeah, the Russians changed the data.
	I'm sorry.
	Back to the drawing board.
	Wow, and your point about manipulating data.
	About a month ago, I chaired in a different committee a hearing on artificial intelligence and our growing economy's growing reliance on artificial intelligence.
	And one of the things that the witnesses testified there was concern on the cybersecurity side.
	of a hack that would modify the big data that's being relied on for artificial intelligence to change the decision-making in a way nobody's even aware it's been changed.
	And I think that's a threat I hope that you all are examining closely, and it's the sort of threat that could have significant repercussions without anyone even being aware it's happening.
	I would really love to see the good Professor Theodore Kaczynski testify.
	Bye.
	Because that's what you're saying, Teddy Cruz.
	None of this ends well.
	Of course that's dangerous.
	He's right.
	It's a huge danger.
	Yeah, he's right, but he's wrong.
	Well, yeah.
	Just shut down the internet and we'll be fine.
	Yeah.
	Who thought this was a good idea to begin with?
	The internet?
	Yeah.
	Tim Berners-Lee, of course.
	I've said it numerous times.
	Even in the early days of this, I'm very consistent.
	I said the first thing they should have done is shut down the internet for at least a couple of months to get rid of TCPIP, because that's really the base of the problem.
	And find something else that works better.
	It's completely insecure.
	It works great.
	You want to go back to Novell Network?
	Yeah.
	Token ring.
	A token ring.
	You did.
	I think I said it a little sooner.
	No, that's because of the lag.
	I think we should all go back to frame relay connections.
	I'm ready for it.
	Now...
	I do have one jokey kicker.
	Okay, go.
	Jokey kicker.
	Nancy Pelosi places the blame squarely on the media.
	I really say to you, my friends in the press, with all the respect for the guardians of the First Amendment that you are.
	The guardians of the First Amendment that you are.
	I really say to you, my friends in the press, with all the respect for...
	That's your job, douche-nuggle.
	...guardians of the First Amendment that you are, that you are accomplices in this.
	Because every single day you reported that Hillary was an email that was embarrassing to the Clinton administration without saying, we know this because of disruption by a foreign power.
	Into our electoral system.
	Yeah, so you have to disclaim every WikiLeaks email with...
	How is that defending the First Amendment?
	Well, it's what you have to do, slave.
	Into our electoral system.
	She is a dipshit.
	And so, did it affect the Clinton campaign?
	Of course it did.
	Of course it did.
	Would it have come out differently?
	I don't know, because there are many factors in an election.
	Yeah, okay.
	Thanks, Nancy.
	Douche.
	All right.
	That's all I got.
	I think we might have beaten this one to death.
	It's a stupid...
	No, I like that.
	I think this is good because this is going to be the future of news.
	Let's see if there's anything I need to play before we get out of here with Chuck.
	Yeah, Chuck Schumer.
	At least let's play a little bit of him.
	This is Schumer babbling.
	They all introduced themselves.
	So this is part of Schumer's long-winded bullcrap about Trump being a crappy president.
	He's already laid down the gauntlet.
	So when he calls Chuck Schumer?
	No, no, no, no, no, no, no.
	Schumer babbling as new leader.
	I'm sorry.
	I got it.
	Serious thought in action.
	These issues are too important for mere words.
	Our challenges too entrenched for mere tweeting.
	Making America great again requires more than 140 characters per issue.
	With all due respect...
	America cannot afford a Twitter presidency.
	We have real challenges and we have real needs to get things done.
	And many Americans are afraid, Mr.
	President-elect, that instead of rolling up your sleeves and forging serious policies for you, Twitter suffices.
	There's nothing wrong with using Twitter to speak to the American people.
	It's a good use of modern media.
	But these issues are complex and demand both careful consideration and action.
	We cannot tweak them away.
	For instance, a tweet bragging about the 800 jobs that were saved at the Carrier plant doesn't solve the underlying problem.
	While it's good the 800 jobs were saved, even at Carrier, 1300 jobs are still leaving.
	Hundreds more jobs are leaving it from the nearby Rexnord plant down the road.
	He goes on and on about all these things that the Democrats have done nothing about for the last eight years.
	And he's bitching and moaning.
	So apparently, which is the other clip, the one you started to play, which you now have to play...
	This other clip, the Chuck Schumer clown rumor.
	I didn't know this happened, but apparently Trump called Schumer a clown.
	I never heard that.
	Yeah, here he goes.
	So when he calls Chuck Schumer the head clown, Mark, we just ignore it.
	What does it help?
	How does it possibly help?
	I mean, he's going to need Chuck Schumer.
	Chuck Schumer is a proud and able and dedicated and successful leader.
	I mean, you don't want him as an opponent.
	You don't want him as a sworn adversary.
	And he's a formidable figure legislatively.
	Why do it?
	It's gratuitous.
	You know, while we're on this, I was going to save this clip, but while we're on people slamming Trump, particularly for tweeting, I need to play this clip.
	I consider Jason Calacanis to be a friend.
	I've known him for a long time.
	Back to the Silicon Alley days in New York.
	He's an odd duck.
	I always thought that he and Trump actually are a little similar in the way they speak.
	Some things are, to me, familiar.
	And these days he is, as far as I know, an unpaid correspondent on CNBC to go talk about technology-related issues.
	And again, he knows a lot about Silicon Valley and funding and angel investing, and he knows a decent amount about technology.
	But when it comes to this, I've got to say, he's overstepped his bounds, and he really comes off as a douchebag.
	Well, I would say we're starting to see exactly how disastrous the Trump presidency can be.
	Tweeting first and then getting the intelligence second is the worst possible strategy you could have when dealing with cyber attacks.
	You don't want to force the intelligence community to tip their cards and explain how they get their information, who they get their information from, when they got it.
	There's Jason.
	He's talking points.
	He's missed the talking points all of a sudden.
	So here he is.
	Oh, well, you know, we have methods we can't disclose.
	What you want to do is meet with the intelligence community, respect the hard work, the dangerous work that they do where they put their lives at risk, collect the information, and then you don't want to explain to Julian Assange, you know, the PR arm of, you know, Putin's organization.
	Really?
	Really?
	Really, Jason?
	Julian Assange is the PR agency for Vladimir Putin.
	Thank you.
	I mean, he's off the reservation with this shit.
	I want to explain to Julian Assange, you know, the PR arm of, you know, Putin's organization, or to Putin, how you're getting your information.
	Trump is an absolute unmitigated disaster right now.
	This is incredibly dangerous when it comes to cybersecurity.
	You never explain how you catch people.
	That is like a proprietary secret that you would never want Putin to understand, because then they can close those loopholes.
	They can close the access we have to their information.
	It's a disaster.
	I think what you want to do is you want to back your team in all things.
	First, hear the information first, and then form an opinion.
	Forming opinions and then spewing them on Twitter at 6 a.m.
	or 7 a.m.
	without thinking about them or having collected the information is idiotic.
	Let's not sit here and try to normalize what Trump is doing.
	This is insane behavior.
	And we're sitting here trying to pretend like, oh, but he's so good at Twitter.
	He's so good with this, you know, negotiating on Twitter.
	This is not a normal negotiation.
	We're dealing with superpowers and information about rigging and dismantling our democracy.
	There is nothing normal about this.
	This is idiotic, dangerous behavior.
	Let's not sit here and try to normalize it.
	He will certainly be asked to come back with that kind of talk.
	They love that.
	Yeah, probably.
	But that's, I'm very disappointed.
	Well, I am too.
	I didn't realize he was such a hillbot.
	I don't even think he's a hillbot.
	He's just trying to be...
	He has to be to be that.
	No, no.
	He's trying to be a cybersecurity expert, which is...
	That's the whole reason why...
	You know, Tina and I watched the McAfee documentary.
	Of course, after she went into the show notes, looked at the clip and said, boy, you guys made a good call not to play that.
	And then we looked at the documentary.
	I made the call.
	Okay.
	You made the call.
	I'm just saying, because I was getting resistance.
	Yeah, but I didn't push.
	I mean, ultimately, I control the knobs.
	I do the same thing when you insist on something.
	I'm not going to counter it.
	Okay, fine.
	Okay, you get all the credit.
	Good man.
	I don't want the credit.
	I just want to make clear that you would have played the clip.
	No, I don't think so.
	Anyway, that documentary, I will tell you right now, McAfee's behind it.
	He is behind it.
	Oh, yeah.
	Oh, for sure.
	He's behind it, and it is positioning him as a cyber security expert.
	Okay.
	I have not seen the clip.
	I mean, the documentary in its entirety.
	I would have thought it was because of that sub clip that we put on the show notes, which anyone can listen to.
	Yeah.
	I would think that it was a hit piece.
	In context of the documentary, it only adds to his craziness.
	Which, I'm telling you, this thing is a propaganda documentary for him to reposition him as a cyber security expert.
	And the clue for me, I should have clipped it.
	So he's closer to it than Calacanis.
	Well, that's for sure.
	The clue was, he ran for a libertarian candidate and came in second behind Gary Johnson.
	That is not how a documentarian would position what happened with the primary.
	I mean, he was nowhere close to, I mean, he was, okay, second, but nowhere close to Gary Johnson in votes.
	So that was, it's, I'm telling you, you watch this thing.
	Okay, I'm taking your word for it.
	He's pretty much insane, though.
	It's really crazy.
	He's always been a little nutty.
	Still owes me dinner.
	But anyway...
	But after hearing what he likes to eat, I've decided I'm not going to take him up on the dinner he owes me.
	One other thing, just before we take our break.
	Sunday night I watched...
	Tina wasn't here.
	That's when I watched Grand Tour.
	I watched Jay Leno's Garage.
	And I also watched The Accountant, the Ben Affleck movie.
	I just watched that a week ago.
	Well, what did you notice?
	Oh.
	I just enjoyed the movie.
	I didn't notice anything particularly.
	I noticed at the end, I thought it went very heavy on we have to respect our autistic children, they could be brilliant.
	Yes, I got that.
	There was a message.
	Who was the executive producer of this movie?
	I don't remember.
	Munch, our new Secretary of the Treasury.
	Munch?
	Yeah, he was also executive producer on Sully, executive producer on Mad Max.
	This guy's a huge Hollywood guy.
	Really?
	Yeah, yeah.
	Yeah, Munch is...
	So I immediately went to see if he had...
	I couldn't find it because it was this morning before the show.
	I have a feeling that he may somehow...
	Maybe he has an autistic child or something because there was such a strong...
	It was like the Autism Foundation had financed part of the movie.
	Yeah, well, because at the end it was all about, you know, this guy steals money left and right.
	He doesn't steal.
	He gets big fees for working with shady characters.
	Has to be on the run all the time.
	And then launders the money only so he can give it to this one operation, which is an autism kind of a hotel.
	Yeah, and he was autistic himself, of course.
	But yeah, then I look into the IMDB of Munch.
	Oh my God, this guy has done a lot.
	But he's a Goldman guy, isn't he?
	Goldman or, I think, J.P. Morgan.
	Hold on a second.
	I think he's a Goldman guy.
	I think he's part of that division of the company that does a lot of finances movies, and he shows up as executive producer.
	I think.
	I could be wrong.
	Let me see.
	I have it.
	It caught me off guard.
	Yeah.
	It was like, whoa, this is interesting.
	I can find it here, I think.
	We need to figure out how to pronounce his name.
	Mnunch.
	Munch is good.
	Munch.
	Munchin.
	Okay.
	IMDB. Check this out.
	You'll love this.
	Okay.
	IMDB. Here's his most recent movies.
	The ones that are coming out.
	The Lego Ninjago movie.
	But the ones we would know.
	Sully.
	The Legend of Tarzan.
	Keanu.
	Batman vs.
	Superman.
	Dawn of Justice.
	There's a ton of them here.
	I don't know all of them.
	The Man from U.N.C.L.E., the 2015 version, Mad Max, Fury Road, American Sniper.
	The guy's been around.
	The Lego movie.
	A lot of movies.
	Yeah.
	The money guy.
	Yeah.
	That's a real money guy.
	Yeah.
	I thought that was interesting.
	You get some money people, too, you know.
	Yeah, but I thought that was interesting.
	I thought that was interesting.
	Yes.
	Yes.
	So with that comment, I would like to thank you for your courage and say in the morning to you, John C, where the C stands for.
	Cyber reports are better when we do them.
	Dvorak!
	In the morning to you, Mr.
	Adam Curry.
	Also in the morning, the all ships at sea boots on the ground, feeding the air subs in the water, and all the names and knights out there.
	Yes, in the morning to everybody in the chat room, noagendastream.com.
	Thank you all for being here in massive numbers.
	Good to have you.
	And in the morning to our artist, Supreme, Nick the Rat, who got it.
	He always gets it.
	When it comes to simple artwork, this of course was for episode 8, 9, or 2, Foot Stomp.
	Yeah, he did a blue hat with Make America Sick Again, which was exactly, it's just spot on, spot on the money.
	That's actually what we requested.
	That was, it's exactly, it is indeed exactly what we requested.
	I know something else I was going to say about that.
	Oh, yes.
	The title was Foot Stomp, and we received a lot of notes.
	I'm sure you received them as well, John.
	No.
	Oh, Foot Stomp is a real training.
	If you're a cadet in the Army, this is what you learn.
	I'm going to foot stomp that into you.
	So it is a term.
	It is a military term that we're just not familiar with.
	Well, coming from the guy who's chief of DNI, the intelligence guy.
	I'm just saying.
	You know, I appreciate the notice.
	Well, let's thank a few people.
	Okie doke.
	Starting with our first and only executive producer for this show, Uncle Dave, who's actually one of the guys who contributes to the Dvorak blog.
	Oh, yeah, I know Uncle Dave, of course.
	Uncle Dave, and he's also, he works in the gaming industry, and he's in Henderson, Nevada, and he donated 333.33, and he left a note with a check.
	Uncle Dave here, after my invention of the small boobs donation.
	Yeah.
	He's pointed out that the big boobs and small boobs donation leaves out a portion of the female audience.
	As a result, I'm inaugurating the flat chest donation of $111.11.
	What makes this an even greater figure is that if you triple the amount, you get the magic number donation of 333.33, which is what I'm donating.
	Nice.
	I like that.
	Flat chest times three.
	One, one, one, one, one.
	I'm in my early 60s, saving what I can so as not to have to retire to a mac and cheese lifestyle.
	Donating money, therefore, has to be for something truly important, and that means no agenda.
	Nothing pointed out how important what you two are doing than the item on Pearl Harbor Day, where students going to the memorial weren't only ignorant about the attack.
	They didn't even know who we fought and who won the war.
	Oh, God.
	Remember that?
	The best podcast in the universe is fighting this kind of ignorance with which the media and government wants us slaves to wallow in.
	And it's that worthy cash money out of my pocket.
	And that's worthy of my cash money out of my pocket.
	And it isn't that I always agree with your conclusions.
	In fact, it's precisely then that I often learn the most by questioning what I thought I knew or believed.
	There you go.
	Your recent War on Cash segment was a Of special interest to me, I recently had two credit cards cancelled because both had fraudulent charges on them that, to their credit, the card companies took off.
	Problem was, until the new cards were mailed to me and activated, I couldn't use them.
	You're mad.
	You're without cash.
	I had to use cash.
	Just another reason, while hearing someone say they don't have any cash on them, I tell them that's foolish because they never know when they'll need to bribe a cop, pay off a judge, or bail a hooker out of jail.
	Happy Ways in Nevada.
	Apropos of that, please play the Bush Just Send Cash and the Donating is Love jingles.
	Keep up the good work and always carry cash while listening to No Agenda, Uncle Dave in Henderson, Nevada.
	Okay, Donating is Loving, I think was the title of that.
	Yes.
	And I'll add a little extra one on there for him.
	And a karma.
	And a karma, yes, of course.
	Take that to the bank.
	You can take that to the bank.
	Why?
	Because donating is...
	I forgot that one.
	You've got karma.
	Bye.
	Thank you.
	you Nice.
	That was good.
	Thank you.
	Anonymous Baronet in Las Vegas, Nevada.
	This is right up the street from Uncle Dave, 22222.
	Anonymous Baronet, I hate talking politics, so I'm sending in this question about climate change anonymously.
	The theme of the show is that the media manipulation and propaganda are typically done for profit, either to protect the profits of a company like Atrazine, Or to create new markets like vaccines, assuming climate change is BS. Who is spending all of the effort propagating this?
	Carbon trading appears to be going nowhere.
	Alternative energy proponents certainly use climate change to sell solar panels, but buying solar panels usually ends up being a cost-benefit analysis by the homeowner.
	Many academics receive lots of funding to study climate change, but to what end?
	Where is the product?
	More papers about climate change?
	Lame books and second-rate documentaries?
	If man-made climate change is happening, the effects appear to be slow and subtle.
	The world is certainly not ending in the next 50 years.
	Regardless, I'm not seeing where the big profit scam is or how climate change itself is a complete fiction.
	Any insight you can provide would be helpful.
	Jingle requests.
	Well, I said it before.
	I said this is a way to identify the sheep.
	It's actually a grand scheme.
	It's a meta.
	Extremely meta.
	Yeah, I agree.
	That would be very meta.
	Yeah, I'd say.
	Okay, onward.
	Well, thank you, Anonymous Baron.
	I appreciate that.
	Yeah, and we'll keep it in mind.
	I'm sure that something shows up.
	Will, $203.33.
	That was 2-22-22, I believe, before that.
	Yeah, correct, correct.
	Dear John and Adam, although I remain happily employed, I have applied to a position at a firm on a different industry.
	I love my current job, so if things don't work out, it's no big deal.
	As such, I would like to offer my situation as an opportunity to test the efficiency of the Trump-only jobs karma.
	Do we have a Trump-only one?
	Yes, we do.
	As a bonus test, I will also attempt to leverage my newly obtained associate executive producer credit at some point during the hiring process should results from the karma be forthcoming.
	I will report back on my findings in the interest of further establishing a robust knowledge.
	This is good.
	I'm very happy with this, too.
	This is a great idea.
	This is a great idea.
	I'm surprised someone else hasn't done it.
	Well, it's risky.
	It's risky.
	Full of risk.
	He says, establishing a robust knowledge base regarding no agenda karma and its spatiotemporal effects.
	Yeah.
	Spatiotemporal.
	To all his listeners should attest, you too serve a vital function by providing an oasis of truth.
	I like that.
	To those who struggle to subsist on low-fact diets.
	Yes.
	This is great.
	Love and light.
	So he has jingle requests, though.
	Okay.
	He wants Bill Nye.
	These are shorties, too.
	These are good.
	Bill Nye.
	So come on, champ.
	Yeah.
	Which I thought was just kind of an outrageous...
	Two to the head.
	Don't be a denier.
	And then the aforementioned Trump jobs.
	All right.
	Well, I cannot wait to find out if it works.
	It may be super karma.
	We don't know.
	We don't know.
	We've been cautious in testing that.
	So, okay.
	Thank you.
	So come on, champ.
	Show us how tough you are.
	Don't be a denier.
	The science is in.
	We are going to stand up for the American worker like nobody has ever stood up for that worker before.
	Our economic agenda can be summed up in three very beautiful words.
	Jobs, jobs, jobs.
	Karma.
	I lost it.
	Let me try the other one while we're at it, just to make sure.
	Jobs, jobs, jobs!
	And jobs.
	Let's vote for jobs!
	Now everything's in there.
	Okay, we got two things.
	So it still has to be broken down to one.
	I thought I had a...
	Maybe this is it.
	Okay.
	This is the one.
	Jobs, jobs, jobs!
	There we go.
	You've got karma.
	Boy, if you didn't get enough karma on those three.
	That guy's going to be in the cabinet.
	That guy's going to be in the cabinet.
	But that would take probably less pay.
	Finally, Eric Ross in Corona, California, $200.
	John and Adam, I started listening to the podcast around the middle of 2016 and became an instant fan of the show.
	This is my first donation and a de-douche would be greatly appreciated.
	Hold on.
	You've been de-douched.
	All right.
	I was hit in the mouth by a co-worker and since then have hit a few people myself.
	Love and light to you both for doing what you are doing and keeping us sane.
	Can I please get a wee and a Putin yell?
	I would also love to hear a drone again naturally at the end of the show if possible.
	Yeah, I'll give him the shorty here.
	We'll do that one.
	You've got karma.
	Karma.
	And I'll put the long version at the end of the show.
	And that concludes our small group of executive and associate executive producers for show 893, I believe.
	Yes, 893.
	A couple of mentions here at the top.
	I've put search back in the show notes after enough bitching.
	I finally figured it out.
	And it works very well also on mobile.
	I also wanted to mention that we messed up our sole executive producer on the previous episode, as we credited Andrew Kopikin, but it's Adam Kopikin.
	Oh.
	Yes.
	Okay, well.
	So that's taken care of.
	Yes, I've corrected it in the notes and everywhere.
	I can't, of course, can't go back and correct the audio, but we apologize for that.
	Other good news.
	Dame Angela from Las Vegas.
	He was in the Vortex, I guess.
	Yeah, he was.
	Adam.
	I'll see him later.
	He's going to come out to the Bay Area.
	No.
	Dame Angela from Vegas, of course, who produced the I Love Laundry Tour, has agreed to produce the Australia and New Zealand Tour.
	Does it have a name yet?
	A title?
	Well, we have a couple of names.
	The Hokey Pokey Tour, for some reason it's funny in New Zealand.
	It is?
	Yeah.
	The Pavlova Tour.
	Not sure what that means.
	Pavlov?
	Pavlov's dog?
	I don't know.
	The Pavlova.
	I don't know why.
	But I did get kind of a concerning message.
	Uh-oh.
	Yeah, that apparently Australia is very sharp on people who come in and do stuff without filing the proper paperwork.
	So if you do a documentary or anything else like that, or if you come in to work and do shows, that if they hear about it, and the person who told me said, you know, they're pretty sharp about this stuff.
	It's not easy to do stuff in Australia.
	If you want to move there, you have to be a rocket scientist or have a lot of money.
	That's pretty much the only way.
	I guess marriage I can get you in.
	And he said, you know, you really need to get the proper paperwork to do that, which I think is okay.
	Our producer even said, probably if you talk to the tourism bureau, they may even pay for the trip, which I don't really want, but I don't want to get kicked out of the country, if that's really true.
	I think it is.
	Yeah, you should do some...
	I would talk to the Tourism Bureau.
	Right.
	They would help you out on this.
	Right.
	But I've done Tourism Bureau stuff, and then it's like, well, you've got to talk about this.
	You've got to talk about, well, we'll fly on Qantas.
	You've got to talk about Qantas.
	Well, don't take the free trip.
	Just have them expedite some of these issues.
	Okay.
	Well, we'll be working on that.
	Anyway, so we're getting serious about this.
	I'm excited.
	I'm glad you're equally as excited about the tour, John.
	That's fabulous.
	I'm thrilled.
	I'm all jacked up.
	I'm sure you are.
	Oh, yes.
	I'm still trying to get the damn train museum thing going here.
	Thank you very much to our executive and associate executive producers.
	We really appreciate that, and we'll be thanking more people later on in our second segment.
	Remember, another show coming up on Thursday.
	And even if you're down under, you can...
	How did that happen?
	That's not what I wanted.
	Even if you are down under, you can always get ready for us by propagating the formula.
	Our formula is this.
	We go out, we hit people in the mouth.
	Hey, citizens.
	Shut up, slave.
	Shut up, slave.
	Fact check false.
	Yo...
	Okay.
	Maybe we talk about Fort Lauderdale for a moment, about the shooting in Fort Lauderdale.
	Well, do we have any...
	Yes, we should.
	I have the long...
	I have the full NBC report.
	I have a kind of an overview, shorter report from NBC. But the long report, which is long, you can kill it.
	But it's the one in all caps.
	It says Fort Lauderdale FULL. Okay.
	Well, what's long?
	Let me see.
	That's not too long.
	Let's have a listen for a background.
	Good evening.
	Airport baggage claim became a scene of carnage and bloodshed when a gunman began firing into a crowd of arriving passengers today at Florida's Fort Lauderdale Hollywood International Airport.
	Thirteen people were shot, five of them killed, before the 26-year-old suspect was finally subdued.
	The shooting touched off a panic that sent passengers and airport workers fleeing onto the tarmac.
	SWAT teams descended on the airport amid concerns there might be other attackers.
	I gotta say something about that.
	When I saw the footage of people running across runways, all I thought to myself was, this airport has no plan.
	That is the security risk associated with that.
	That place had no plan.
	How can people run out on active runways, active taxiways?
	That was truly insane.
	I got a kick out of it.
	I know how airports work.
	This was a breakdown.
	But tonight, police say the gunman operated alone and had himself just arrived after flight and used a weapon that had apparently been in his checked luggage.
	Our team is in full place with coverage of the attack and the investigation.
	Let's begin with NBC's Kerry Sanders, who's been at the scene all afternoon.
	Kerry, what's the latest?
	Well, good evening, Lester.
	The airport remains shut down.
	All roads in and out closed.
	There are tens of thousands of passengers who are being told to still remain here and shelter in place.
	And many of them are panicked and anxious even now after witnessing the horrific deaths here.
	Just before 1 p.m.
	as passengers gathered in baggage claim in Terminal 2, shots fired.
	A chaotic and horrific scene.
	Bags scattered.
	Frightened passengers and airport workers streaming out, gathering on the tarmac.
	Officials responding within minutes.
	One witness told us the shooter was relentless.
	He continued firing and I know that at one point he stopped and reloaded and continued firing again.
	The Wexler family were headed home to Denver after a Caribbean cruise.
	We looked down the end of the terminal and started seeing people running.
	Figured it might be a good idea to get out of there.
	When it was over, eight wounded, five dead.
	Broward County SWAT teams, deputies, and the FBI swarmed the area immediately looking for the suspect, apprehending him shortly after.
	26-year-old Estaban Santiago.
	His route?
	He flew on Delta Airlines from Anchorage to Minneapolis and on to Fort Lauderdale, nine hours in the air.
	The weapon he used in the attack was in his checked luggage.
	According to witnesses, after he got his luggage, he then got the gun, loaded it in a bathroom and began shooting without saying a word.
	He allegedly reloaded several times.
	Once he ran out of bullets, he allegedly put the gun down and got down on the floor.
	We have the shooter in custody.
	He's unharmed.
	No law enforcement fired any shots.
	The subject is being interviewed by a team of FBI agents.
	Alright, that is part of the background.
	We're missing some pieces there, but that wasn't early.
	Well, I got another little piece.
	Well, before we do that, before we do that, because I want to get into that, I know what you're going to do.
	First, we need to go into the immediate reaction and analysis that was taking place on the news channels.
	CNN knows exactly what's going to happen with their panel of former Secret Service dudes and other douches.
	This is a wow.
	I've never heard of this.
	I just brought two handguns down to Charleston, South Carolina just last month.
	What?
	What?
	So they immediately make that the point.
	Yeah, wait, wait, you'll hear it.
	What you have to do is you have to go, when you go to Kennedy, you go to the poor authority police, they check your weapon, they check my permit, make sure everything's okay, then it's got to be put in your luggage.
	Yeah.
	So apparently anybody can do that who's licensed, you know, because the police at that airport will specifically show that.
	So I think if this man put this weapon in his luggage like that, and whether or not he checked it or not, there's a possibility they might not have caught it.
	All right, and was able to retrieve it.
	But he could have done it totally lawfully.
	Yes, it could be totally lawfully, totally lawfully, and then decide to do this.
	So let me ask you this.
	That rule's changing.
	You can see that.
	There's no question about that.
	It's going to be new legislation.
	Yep.
	It definitely changes.
	It's a game changer.
	It's a change at this point.
	Just that fact, if that's correct, checking firearms is going to change moving forward.
	I mean, it almost has to.
	This is now a new procedure.
	Why?
	And it's unfortunate.
	It's just when you think of everything we go through to get on a plane these days, right?
	Shoes, liquids, searching, to think that, you know, someone could grab a firearm and could place it in there lawfully if you fill out the proper paperwork, right?
	And then you get to baggage claim and you pull the gun out because there's no metal detectors.
	No, not at all.
	What a disaster.
	Clearly we have to look at this.
	This is a loophole.
	It needs to be completely changed.
	Oh yeah, it has to be completely changed.
	Okay, hold on a second.
	Stop.
	Are these people insane?
	Tell me what the difference is between what that guy did and me taking a gun or seeing the guy himself taking a gun.
	Going down to the second level, walking into baggage claim, which there is no, there is zero.
	Exactly.
	It is, of course, it's the Achilles heel.
	And shooting up the place.
	What's the difference?
	You can walk straight into baggage claim.
	Everybody can walk into baggage claim.
	Yeah.
	That's over.
	No more happy hellos.
	Now they're going to change all the laws because of this situation, even though that situation has nothing to do.
	But think about it.
	Think about it.
	If you are L3 or one of these Homeland Security, you know, contracted companies, Oh my!
	Now we get to protect baggage claim, which means you have to come in through a metal detector or a body scanner.
	You can't just come in.
	No more happy hellos at the airport.
	Uh-uh.
	No, no.
	Shut up and sit in the cell phone lot.
	There's a meme for it, too.
	We have a meme.
	The other challenge that we have is that you are able to check a firearm and the procedures here in place were followed.
	But we most definitely, and I'm going to go back to Washington and start work on this, need to review the procedures.
	Not only the question of whether or not you should be allowed to check a firearm when you travel at all, rather than ship it or transport it in some other way.
	But we need to more minutely examine the question of if you are going to continue to allow that.
	in what way are we going to reunite you with your firearm?
	I love that.
	How we will reunite you with your firearm.
	Debbie Washman Schultz.
	Yes, we could tell.
	That horrible voice of hers.
	It's like scraping your fingernails on a chalkboard.
	Now, a piece of information came out, and where it came from, from all the reports I have been able to assess, was not from the intelligence agencies themselves, or from the FBI themselves.
	I have not been able to find an official statement from them.
	But everyone was in New Jersey.
	They were outside some aunt's home.
	Some reporters got in, talked to them.
	A number of reporters were able to go inside and speak to the aunt.
	And the aunt actually said that her nephew had a baby, that he's the youngest of five siblings.
	They live both in Puerto Rico and also in Florida, which may explain why he was on his way to Florida.
	She said that he served in Iraq from April 2010 to February 2011.
	That was in Iraq.
	He was deployed.
	When he returned, she said that He was really acting strangely, and he was discharged in August of this past year, and a couple of months later, that's when he walked into the FBI agent saying that somebody from the U.S. intelligence agency was speaking to him.
	He was sort of hearing these voices, and that's when he was questioned and taken to a medical facility for that mental evaluation.
	So, FBI does admit that...
	In fact, I have the...
	Hold on a second.
	I think it's this one.
	They admit that he did walk into an FBI office, but no mention of this...
	In Alaska.
	Yeah, but yes.
	But no mention of this intelligence talking to him and telling him to watch ISIS videos.
	But this is what the official work was.
	The individual did walk into our Anchorage office in November...
	He came in and spoke with FBI agents.
	At that time, he clearly stated that he did not intend to harm anyone.
	However, his erratic behavior concerned FBI agents that were interviewing him and they contacted local police.
	And turned him over to the local police.
	He was taken into custody by the local police and transported to a medical facility for a mental health evaluation.
	We looked at his contacts, we did our interagency checks and everything, and at that point we closed our assessment.
	Alright, so two things about this.
	One, this is the second FBI failure.
	The previous one was the Orlando nightclub shooter, Pulse, Omar Mateen.
	He also was investigated by FBI. So two failures.
	You have to call it a failure.
	But what interests me...
	I'll explain my point of view.
	Let me just finish and then that may help you with your point of view.
	This FBI agent on the scene...
	They flashed up his name, George Pirro.
	I'm like, wait a minute, I know this guy.
	George Pirro is not just any FBI agent.
	He's the special agent in charge at the Federal Bureau of Investigations Miami field office.
	He was the team leader and lead interrogator of the Saddam Hussein interrogation team.
	This is the guy...
	Who interrogated Hussein while he was imprisoned in Iraq, and through his conversations, he learned that Iraq did not have weapons of mass destruction at the time of the invasion in 2003, but he had some other info.
	But this guy is a top-notch terrorism guy from the FBI. I thought that was interesting he shows up.
	Yes.
	I would think.
	He was in 2007.
	He was serving as supervisor of FBI's Joint Terrorism Task Force in the Washington Field Office.
	Um...
	So, I don't know.
	I just thought, hmm, okay.
	That's an interesting guy to roll out to be the spokeshole for this incident.
	Yes, it seems unlike that.
	I don't know why they do that.
	Play this one.
	This is somewhat of an analysis after the long NBC report.
	This is the Fort Lauderdale Airport shooting clip.
	Oh, yes, I have it here.
	Got it.
	This correspondent, Pete Williams, has been working his sources all day.
	He joins us now from Washington with new details.
	Pete, what can you tell us?
	Well, Lester, law enforcement officials say tonight that they do not consider this an act of terrorism.
	They say the suspect was struggling with serious mental health issues.
	Officials say Esteban Santiago was undergoing treatment for mental health problems, complaining that he was hearing voices.
	They say a few months ago he walked into the FBI's office in Anchorage, complaining that the CIA was forcing him to join ISIS. Officials say local police were called and he went voluntarily to a mental health facility for treatment.
	His aunt and uncle in Union City, New Jersey, near where officials say Santiago was born, say they believe he developed problems after a military deployment overseas.
	Military records show he signed up for the National Guard in 2007 while he was living in Puerto Rico, where the family is from.
	The records show he was on duty as a combat engineer for ten months in Iraq, returning five years ago.
	He was discharged last August.
	Family members say he went to Alaska looking for work where he had a son and was receiving psychological counseling there.
	Investigators say they've heard from witnesses who say he got into an altercation on board one of the flights, but whatever that was, it wasn't serious enough for the airline to call the police.
	So tonight it's still unanswered why he opened fire and why in the Fort Lauderdale airport.
	Pete Williams.
	Thank you, Pete.
	And word that the alleged gunman had apparently retrieved a firearm from his check baggage before opening fire is shining a spotlight on a whole new set of concerns.
	Among them, what are the restrictions on checking a weapon on board a flight?
	Yeah, well, there's a simple fix, but that's not going to be the fix they come up with.
	I mean, you can obviously say you can check your firearm, but no ammo.
	That would be good, yeah.
	But the problem is obvious, and the solution is a bunch of money waiting to be picked up.
	Yeah, that sounds right to me.
	Yeah.
	Now, I was concerned about...
	I mean, I have a crackpot theory.
	I'm taking your position in this.
	You can come up with something better.
	Crackpot theory about this whole thing.
	Okay.
	But I was very concerned about the widespread panic that took place.
	And you talked about a little bit already.
	But apparently it was way beyond that with people in the other terminals thinking something was going on in there.
	And the general public, to me, it's very disconcerting how they panic to such an extreme.
	And it's almost as though this was like a test of this.
	Everybody is so wired and so keyed and has been so traumatized about airport shootings.
	Thank you, media.
	Yes.
	Completely traumatized.
	This is a clip from NBC discussing what happened after the guy was actually already in custody.
	Which one is it, John?
	A Fort Lauderdale widespread panic.
	Yes.
	And around 2.30, more chaos.
	Panic in another terminal, Terminal 1, as passengers there thought they heard more shots.
	Authorities telling them to evacuate, also to evacuate Terminal 2.
	People ran outside, falling in the rush to get away.
	Others, like Callie Hazelgrove, hiding just as she could.
	There was another shooting, and we hid behind something like this in the airport for a while, and then we realized everyone else was gone, so we ran outside.
	Those already outside running and crouching, taking cover behind cars.
	Around the same time, reports of a suspicious person in a parking garage nearby.
	It would later turn out nothing was going on in the garage and there were no shots fired in Terminal 1.
	Meanwhile, a complete ground stoppage on all flights in and out of Fort Lauderdale Hollywood International Airport.
	Yeah.
	I find that to be...
	Well, there were other things.
	I mean, the timing of this was interesting.
	At the same moment the intelligence assessment came out, so it was a lot of flip-flopping back and forth, and I'm pretty sure that it's much easier for people just to hear the headline, Putin something.
	Okay, yeah, because they're all looking...
	No one's afraid.
	When it comes to Russia or crashing or being shot in an airport, people are going to watch the airport.
	And of course, when you have a guy saying, they're talking in my head, telling me to watch ISIS videos, there's something going on.
	Well, I thought this was, here's what I thought, and from the most extreme crackpot perspective, and I've learned this from you, and also based on what we've seen before for the past two or three or four or five years that we've deconstructed.
	This guy, and it's almost a comedy scene in a funny movie.
	This guy has been, supposedly now, this is only from right-wing talk shows, and it doesn't show up in any of the mainstream news media.
	He's a converted Muslim.
	Yes, that's what I heard as well.
	And he was living near, apparently the only mosque, he wasn't living near it, he was a mile away from it, but it was from the only mosque in Alaska, and that's why he was living in that little area.
	Uh-huh.
	And so I think he was targeted.
	This is the crackpot theory now.
	I'm liking it.
	So far, so good.
	He was targeted by the FBI to be one of the stooges because he was a convert.
	He has all the right elements.
	Now you can say, oh, look, even the Puerto Ricans are susceptible to this sort of brainwashing.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah.
	And veteran, veteran, veteran.
	You got crazy PTSD veteran.
	Everything's in there.
	So the FBI poses as the CIA. Oh, man, yes.
	To get him, which they've done before.
	Yep.
	They've done this before.
	They pose as another agency.
	And they get him to get, they try to get him on board with their scheme of theirs, which is an FBI scheme to become like a shooter that they, you know, gets killed in the process.
	Which was the idea, of course.
	Which is the idea at the end.
	He should have been killed.
	And so then he stupidly goes to the FBI itself and they're aware of this situation.
	Oh my God, this guy's in here talking to us.
	Throw him in the nuthouse as fast as you can.
	So they have him arrested and they throw him into the insane asylum nearby.
	But a clerical error lets him out.
	Well, either that or he gets out somewhere or another after he's been programmed at least or programmed enough so that he knows to go to Florida and shoot up the place with a gun that he apparently has with him.
	And the idea is he goes nuts there.
	The Florida police go crazy and kill him.
	Boom.
	Problem solved.
	Yeah, that didn't work out the way they wanted it to.
	This will be interesting.
	That's because he surrendered.
	He put the gun down and then went into the position where, you know, if you shoot me, it's just murder.
	And so they arrested him, which was the big screw-up in this scheme.
	I'm all in.
	And so now he's got a crackpot theory.
	Oh, they have to see how he's involved.
	This was all part of the old six-week cycle.
	And somebody just messed up.
	They picked the wrong guy.
	They didn't evaluate him properly.
	He wasn't going to go for any of this.
	So now they're going to have to kill him while he's in custody.
	Now, did he travel through Canada when he came through?
	No.
	Okay.
	He never traveled through Canada.
	It was a flight to Minnesota, Minneapolis from Alaska.
	That means he was flying on Northwest.
	Right.
	Which they never mentioned.
	I don't know what the point of this Canadian story was all about.
	I didn't quite understand that either.
	The Canadians don't let you have a gun in the country.
	No, they don't.
	No, I checked that.
	It was the needle to Canadians.
	Yeah.
	I think it was the needle of the Canadians.
	The Canadian Airlines really came out hard and strong all over the place and said, this is bullcrap.
	This guy's not on any of our itineraries.
	Right.
	Everyone dropped that line of question, of everything.
	They just said, oh, I guess we were wrong.
	But no, he went from Minneapolis and took a flight from Minneapolis to...
	Well, in this case, you're kind of like Shields, you know?
	Or Brooks?
	No.
	What are you, Brooks?
	Yeah, you're like on my side of the fence.
	Where's the pushback?
	Yeah.
	Yeah, I know.
	Bad.
	Yeah, very bad.
	It's programmatically wrong, but okay.
	I like it.
	It makes more sense than any other narrative.
	Yeah.
	Well, MKUltra is alive and well, as far as I'm concerned.
	Oh.
	Yeah.
	You know, on the last show, we were talking about the four black Utes who had kidnapped the white Ute and tortured him and broadcasted on Facebook Live.
	And we were talking about how the media obviously was not playing that up as they would if the roles had been reversed.
	If it had been four white Utes and a black Ute.
	So I have a couple of clips because what was interesting is that no one wanted to classify this in the media or even in the White House, you'll hear in a moment, as a hate crime.
	And I think they were all so afraid to be the first to classify it as a hate crime in case, you know, they were on the wrong side of history.
	It was really, really, really interesting.
	It was funny to watch.
	And just before I roll out these set of clips...
	The FBI, FBI.gov, has the definition of a hate crime on their website, so let's review what a hate crime is, just so we can see what they were hemming and hawing about.
	Yes.
	A hate crime is a traditional offense, like murder, arson, or vandalism, With an added element of bias.
	For the purposes of collecting statistics, the FBI has defined a hate crime as, and I quote, criminal offenses against a person or property motivated in whole or in part by an offender's bias against a race, religion, disability, sexual orientation, ethnicity, gender, or gender identity.
	Hate itself is not a crime, and the FBI is mindful of protecting freedom of speech and other civil liberties.
	So that is the definition of a hate crime.
	Not that hard.
	We actually have a political thing in here because of the Trump.
	We have a racial thing here because it's black versus white.
	And we have a disability thing in here.
	So it kind of hits three of the main points.
	It nails it.
	Everyone's, ooh, let's be quiet.
	Let's not say...
	And now CBS... These a-holes are so biased.
	This is the initial reporting from CBS Radio.
	Radio News.
	The viral video of a beating a knife attack in Chicago suggests the assault had racial overtones.
	CBS's Dean Reynolds tells us the victim is described as a mentally challenged teenager.
	In the video, he is choked and repeatedly called the N-word.
	His clothes are slashed and he is terrorized with a knife.
	His alleged captors repeatedly reference Donald Trump.
	Police are holding four people in connection with the attack.
	Now, does that sound like it was reversed to you?
	That's exactly what it sounds like.
	And it's so shameful that CBS went out of its way to pull every example of that.
	You cannot get that clip now.
	I know.
	They pulled it off.
	I got it.
	Thank goodness.
	That is shameful indeed.
	It was the worst example of anything.
	It made it sound like a bunch of white guys who are Trump supporters.
	Yep.
	Beaten up and calling N-word on this poor kid.
	That's exactly what it sounded like.
	That was really pathetic.
	This is the best example that you could find of CBS, the CIA broadcasting, being extremely biased and trying to just cover up the story.
	There's no explanation for this.
	Now into the examples.
	Here is Josh Earnest, White House.
	I just don't know if we can call it hate crime.
	I mean, yeah, you know, disability, white, but no, it's very hard.
	Hey, why is it not firing?
	Obviously, this is something that's gotten a lot of attention and for good reason.
	Would this rise to the level of a hate crime, in your opinion?
	I think it's too early to tell.
	I certainly don't want to predict where the investigation would lead.
	I think our expectation would be that local law enforcement would follow the facts.
	And I wouldn't speculate at this point about...
	To what degree federal officials would get involved for considering those kinds of crimes.
	Obviously, a decision by the Department of Justice to investigate a matter like this is a decision that they would have to make alone.
	And it's really mind-boggling to me that...
	The whole conversation is around, is this a hate crime?
	It's a freaking crime!
	You committed a crime of kidnapping, asking for ransom, threatening.
	Who gives a shit?
	Sorry, timecode.
	Who cares?
	This whole notion of hate crime, now it's about hate crime, hate crime.
	This is only being positioned now to talk about hate crime versus just crime.
	Now, Don Lemon, as you know, he is the legend of the overnight television news business.
	He had a whole conversation with a whole bunch of people.
	And why don't we ask the constitutional lawyer, Jeffrey Toobin, if this is a hate crime?
	Police say they're still investigating.
	They won't classify it as a hate crime.
	Is this a hate crime?
	Well, I don't know, and I don't want to prejudge too much because, you know, frankly, even the video has so much...
	It's so easy!
	I've just read the definition.
	How hard can it be to say, yeah, it's a hate crime?
	Because you're a bunch of pussies is what you are.
	But he bleeps that you would need to hear what he says.
	Oh, there was too many bleeps.
	I couldn't figure out what the bleeps were, so I don't know if it was a hate crime.
	Did you see the color of everybody involved?
	Here's some of the offenders, Jeff, shouting F Trump, F white people.
	Do you think that this was politically motivated, a politically motivated crime, or these just stupid kids?
	This is my favorite.
	This is the narrative.
	They were just stupid kids.
	So the options are, was this politically motivated or just stupid kids?
	The option, glaringly missing option is, was it racially motivated, Don Lemon?
	I get really mad at this guy now.
	Is it a politically motivated crime or are these just stupid kids?
	I mean, that's all your options.
	Just stupid kids.
	You know, I'm going to say the three words you're never allowed to say on cable news, which are, I don't know.
	No, gee, cop out.
	P.U. You know, this is, the liberals...
	At least the contingent that's running things.
	The narrative is that blacks cannot be racists.
	That's correct.
	And therefore could never take part in a hate crime because you have to be a racist to do that.
	Well, let us then listen in on a conversation between Don Lemon and Robin Sanders.
	Robin Sanders, black woman, it's notable in this particular clip, who used to be Bernie Sanders' PR manager.
	You know her.
	Big mouth.
	Why don't we ask her?
	So now we have two black people who have an opportunity to do something good here.
	I can't say that it's a hate crime because Chicago police won't say it.
	They're saying they're still investigating it.
	They're not done with their investigation.
	But when you look at this, Simone, they're saying F white people, F Trump.
	How can you say it's not a hate crime against the white people?
	Simone Sanders.
	So, first I want to say this is absolutely sickening.
	It's unfathomable that so much hate and anger can fill up a person where they go out and they think that this is okay.
	And then it was stupid to do it on Facebook Live, but that's a whole other story.
	See, there's the meme again.
	Stupid kids.
	Oh, just stupid kids.
	They're just stupid kids.
	You watch.
	They're just stupid kids.
	So this is absolutely sickening, but I'm going to say something that's probably not very popular.
	We cannot callously go about classifying things as a hate crime.
	Motive here matters.
	So, was this for hate of Donald Trump, the president-elect, because of the things that he has said, or was this for pure hate of white people?
	That matters, because if we start going around and...
	Anytime someone says something or does something really egregious, really bad, and sickening in this instance, in connection with the president-elect, or Donald Trump, or even President Obama for that matter, because of their political leanings, that is slippery territory.
	That is not a hate crime.
	Hate crimes are because of a person.
	Do you hear this?
	She's talking the hate crime out of it because, well, you can't...
	Classify people saying bad things about Donald Trump as a hate crime.
	Maybe when you're pushing someone's head in the toilet and saying it, maybe that's a hate crime.
	Maybe you have to flush it before it's a hate crime.
	Racial ethnicity, their religion, their gender.
	We cannot sit here and ignore the four...
	At least for the last year, on very public display, the worst parts of America have been brought from the fringe into the mainstream.
	So that affects people on both sides.
	We've talked about white nationalists and white supremacists and the KKK, but there are also, when this inflammatory rhetoric is out there, When someone is repeatedly telling you that your community is the worst of the worst, it brings out the worst of the worst in people.
	And so I'm not defending what these young people did was sickening.
	I would argue that they also need some help in addition to some consequences.
	But this just didn't come out of thin air.
	It's not a hate crime.
	It's all Donald Trump's own fault.
	Boy.
	Trump's fault.
	I got nothing after I hear that.
	You know, if you haven't seen it yet, I know you love the comedies.
	Dana Carvey has a new comedy special out.
	And it's titled Single White Male, 60.
	And I have to say, if he's brilliant, everything you can't say as a white male, he makes jokes about throughout this entire thing.
	It's fabulous.
	My new hero of the single white old dudes.
	A lot of comedians are rebelling against what's going on.
	They have to.
	Because it's ruining their audience.
	They can't do gigs at colleges anymore.
	All that's left for the comedians is podcasts.
	And they're all doing them.
	Yeah, because they can't go to college campuses anymore.
	They can't go to comedy clubs.
	Everyone's getting butt slammed.
	Yeah.
	Well, I haven't seen a new Carvey thing, but I would assume that...
	Of all the people getting screwed by the situation, one of them, and I can see him doing a very good bit on it.
	He also does a brilliant bit.
	Oh, check it out.
	He also does a brilliant bit.
	It's on Netflix, right?
	Yes, he does a brilliant bit where he's Paul McCartney, and he's talking to John Lennon, who's in heaven, and he's explaining iPhones and the internet, and Kim Kardashian.
	It's fantastic.
	It's very good.
	It's very, very good.
	Ah, okay.
	What else do we have?
	Well, would you like to take a break?
	Well, let me just say there's a little entremant.
	Oh, yeah.
	I got one.
	I got a little entremant before the break.
	All right.
	All right.
	Flu.
	Flu?
	We just got the flu.
	Yeah, it's the flu.
	Now, a warning about the flu.
	The CDC says this season is worse than last.
	More than 10,000 reported cases nationwide is hitting especially hard on the coasts and reaching epidemic levels in Washington State, where at least 10 people have died.
	But doctors do say the flu shot is a good match for this year's dominant strain, and it's not too late to get one.
	Oh, there's the promotion.
	There it is.
	You know, I was disappointed because I had this clip from Thursday's show from the local Washington State broadcaster, and they did, they messed it up.
	Here.
	According to Dr.
	Jeff Duchin at Seattle King County Public Health, the number of people seen at hospital emergency rooms with flu-like symptoms...
	Is more than they've seen at this time of year than in the previous five years.
	This graph helps illustrate the situation in our state right now.
	In the 51st week last year, the percentage of ER visits jumped to 2.2%, spiking earlier and almost at the same rate as the peak high of last year, late February, 2.9%.
	So what we're seeing right now, spiking Earlier and almost as high as last year.
	Since the season began in September statewide, there have been nine deaths.
	And this is very concerning to officials.
	The state is now declaring the flu widespread in Washington.
	And while all age groups appear to be affected, the incidence was highest among children and young people under 24.
	And here's the bad news.
	Dr.
	Dugin says as far as the flu, we haven't peaked yet.
	But she forgot the payoff.
	I was very disappointed.
	Oh, she did.
	That's a total screw-up.
	Very disappointing.
	I didn't understand why she messed that up.
	That was weird.
	Alright.
	I got more little ones, but I'd like to do a clip blitz with maybe three, four clips at the end of the show.
	Oh, you want to do it at the end?
	Okay.
	Alright.
	Yeah.
	We can take a break right now.
	We shall do that.
	I'm going to show myself mood by donating to No Agenda.
	Imagine all the people who could do that.
	Oh yeah, that'd be fun.
	That will be fun.
	Yeah, on No Agenda.
	In the morning.
	We do have a few people to thank and a few notes to read that are pretty entertaining.
	Oh, nice.
	Patrick Hopple in Deerfield, Wisconsin came in with 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
	I think he sent a note in.
	Everybody, these next three guys sent notes in.
	There's actually one or two of them here that are...
	I think definitely worth reading, because besides being complimentary...
	And I will say that for people who know how it works and have listened to the show for a bit, if you wanted to have your note read with a lower amount, which we don't have to do, I mean, those are the rules, you know that when you have lower donation days, that's when you want to send a donation with a handwritten note, with a check.
	It's a winner.
	Anyway, he didn't hardly send a note in.
	He was in Deerfield, Wisconsin, one, two, three, four, five.
	Dame Amy of the House Punu in Clive, Iowa, she did send a note in.
	And it was Happy New Year's.
	Realize that when Sir John and I sat down to send checks off to causes we care about, this is at the end of the year, we neglected to send a little something extra to the best podcast in the universe.
	So here you go.
	Thank you.
	It's $100.
	Love and light, Amy of the house Punu and Sir John.
	Thank you very much.
	From the same house.
	From the same house.
	Sir Mark Tanner came in from Whittier, California with $100 instead of his normal $50 twice a month.
	We figured that's like our Christmas bonus.
	Christopher Scherer, $99.99.
	He's been listening for a long time.
	He needs a dedouching and jobs karma.
	We'll put that at the end for you.
	William Machinsky in Everton, Wyoming came in with $99.99 and he sent a note in that was...
	See, the problem is slowing me down is I have to wear reading glasses nowadays as I get old.
	I have to put the glasses on.
	He wants another job.
	We'll put his job karma at the end.
	This is an interesting question he has.
	May I have some karma in helping me to decide whether I should retire this year or keep on working?
	Oh.
	I thought that was kind of impressive.
	Okay, all right.
	So the karma will show you the way, I guess.
	Well, I don't know how.
	But that's what he hopes.
	Boob.
	Yeah.
	Dude named Benonymous.
	8808, which is not really boob, but...
	Yeah, I'm sorry.
	You're right.
	Somebody thought it was.
	I totally messed it up.
	My mistake.
	That's okay.
	You know, we're doing this on the fly.
	We ad-libbed this show.
	It's a bub.
	B-b-b-bob.
	John...
	Oh, brother.
	I would say...
	Boilzevich.
	86 bucks.
	He's in Warren, Michigan.
	And he did send a small note in, too.
	He wants a job.
	We're going to put it at the end for his daughter, who's hoping to get a full-time position, went to college, and can only get part-time jobs.
	Also, love and life for the father who passed away on November 21st at the age of 86.
	That's why it's a donation of 86.
	Thanks for the greatest podcast in the universe.
	Keeps me sane from all the BS out there.
	Thank you.
	Onward to Christopher Spaulding in Franklin Park 8502.
	Uh...
	Sir Mike...
	There's the...
	There's the...
	Got it.
	Uh...
	Sir Mike...
	Uh...
	Ph.D. from some places in the United States, 8008.
	Sir Roger Boots in Mechanicsville, Iowa, 8008.
	Stephen Sandoval, 8008.
	And Anonymous.
	We've got four boobs donations.
	Sam Godwin, parts unknown.
	Frank, 7777.
	Frank Pugh, 75.
	Now, this was interesting, what's coming up here, this row.
	This was from the newsletter.
	Preston Thaler, 7117.
	Yes, this was the palindrome from yesterday when the newsletter went out.
	Right.
	We got a few people that liked it.
	Didn't we also have the train stuff and all the...
	He had something in the newsletter.
	Was it 7117 on trains?
	Yeah.
	Trains?
	Oh yeah, no, there was a number of trains, including Transrail.
	Yeah.
	7-1-1-7 was the number on the train.
	Yeah, but there was a whole bunch of 7-1-1-7s.
	Yeah, I put them on.
	There's a Japanese band, girl band, 7-1-1, called 7-1-1-7.
	There's a bunch of stuff I left off.
	I had no idea.
	I mean, we need to figure out the 7-1-1-7 meme.
	I know, it must mean something.
	Anyway, Preston Thaler, 7117.
	David Oliver in Calistoria, California.
	These are all 7117 donations.
	Nick in Walnut Creek.
	Sir Kevin McLaughlin, Departs Unknown.
	Roger Esty in Tampa, Florida.
	John Knowles in Murfreesboro, Tennessee, which seems to be an enclave of No Agenda listeners.
	Robert Cohen, Parts Unknown, and that's a group.
	We have one, two, three, four, five, six, only seven, curiously.
	Seven.
	Brandon Turner in Kingsman, Arizona.
	I think one of these has a, he's in for 55-55.
	I was hoping to get a birthday call out to my daughter Harper.
	She is going to be six on January 7th.
	Six, mind you.
	She listens to the show with me.
	And likes to sing along to the jingles, especially I've Got Ants.
	Yeah.
	I'm slowly working my way to nighthood.
	I recently had a couple of funny occurrences I wanted to share with you.
	I'm a real estate agent and got a listing at 1-2-3-3-3 3rd Street.
	I was showing houses.
	One of them had a manual key lockbox, which are usually four to five numbers.
	This one had four letters, which was odd.
	I called the listing agent and I shit you not.
	Time code.
	The code was ANTS. No.
	Hold on.
	We'll just do a little bit for his daughter.
	For Harper.
	Because she likes it.
	Just the beginning.
	It does kick in great, doesn't it?
	I got ANTS. ANTS. I said I got ANTS. I got ANTS. God, I love that song.
	He's K-I-7-H-D-T, so he's a ham.
	All right.
	Seven threes, kilo five alpha, Charlie Charlie.
	So we'll put her on the birthday list.
	She's on the list.
	She's on the list.
	Onward, Ivar Vandervelde, 5510.
	Vandervelde.
	For Kevin Payne in Chantilly, Virginia.
	55432 is his favorite.
	Sir Ed of Rostrevoir in Rostrevoir, South Australia.
	So this is his amount, is his zip code in US dollars.
	5073.
	Oh, nice.
	Sir Roy of Hoyt, 5017.
	Martha Fellner in Schwarzenstadt, Austria.
	And he's got a...
	He has a birthday call-out for his smoking-hot fiancée, Dame Lynn.
	And he has...
	Oh, he says he also wants to call her out as a douchebag as she has never herself donated.
	Douchebag!
	Wow, tough, man.
	All right.
	Yeah, that is rough.
	That's very rough.
	That's rough.
	She's going to have to donate or something or punch him.
	Anyway, $50 in one.
	Said the following are $50 donors, name and location, Mike.
	Edward Mazurek in Memphis, Tennessee.
	Noah Reeves in Elba, Texas.
	Jonathan Meyer in Xenia, Ohio.
	Eugene Ablin in Sonora, California.
	Tim Abel in Bergfeld, Berkshire, UK. Sir Alan Bean over here in Oakland, California.
	Sir Brett Farrell in Oklahoma City.
	Jason DeLuzio in Chatsford, Pennsylvania.
	And last but not least, Sir Brian Watson in Raleigh, North Carolina.
	I want to thank all these folks for helping us out and helping produce the show.
	$8.93.
	Yes.
	We really appreciate it.
	We also appreciate everyone who came in under $50, typically for reasons of anonymity.
	In fact, $49.99 is an anonymous donation right there.
	And people who are doing, who are on the layaway plans, night wayaway plans, wayaway layaway layaway plans, or other subscriptions, we really appreciate everything you do.
	This is our Value for Value model.
	We'll have another show coming up on Thursday.
	So please remember us at...
	Dvorak.org slash N-A-N. And for those who need it...
	Jobs, jobs, jobs, and jobs.
	Let's vote for jobs!
	You've got Carmen.
	It's your plan!
	And here we go.
	Jason Zeissler says happy birthday to his daughter, Lily.
	She's turning 13.
	Martin Feldman says happy birthday to his smoking hot fiancé, Dame Lynn.
	Lady of the Lins, she turned 25 on January 6th.
	Brandon Turner says happy birthday to his daughter, Harper.
	She turned 6 yesterday.
	Christopher Schur, 33 tomorrow.
	And Noah Reeves will be celebrating on the 19th happy birthday from everybody here at the best podcast in the universe.
	And we have no title changes, no nights, no nothing.
	But I do have a report.
	A report.
	Okay.
	Yes, this is a very important report.
	It is Pornhub's 2016 year in review.
	And I find it always very interesting to see what types and what categories of porn different countries are viewing.
	I think it tells you something about the country itself.
	Well, it's like, it reminds me of Legman's rationale, the dirty joke, a very famous folklore resource, that where Legman, whose thesis is that you can tell a person's, what their, a little bit about their personality, but by what kind of jokes, dirty jokes in particular, what kind of jokes do they tell?
	Yes.
	You can learn a little bit.
	I would agree.
	I would agree.
	Yes.
	And we learn a lot of very interesting things from the search behavior from different countries.
	Now, first of all, when it comes to just traffic in general, United States, top of the bill, we win, we're number one, big foam finger, we watch the most porn.
	Followed by, you just want to guess?
	Let me think.
	Now, is this done per capita or total population?
	I'd guess the Germans.
	No, no, no.
	United Kingdom is number two.
	Oh, I was going to guess them.
	That was my second choice.
	Number three on the list is Canada.
	Number four is India.
	Number five, yeah.
	Japan.
	Then we get France, Germany, Australia, Italy, Brazil, Mexico, Russia, Spain, Philippines.
	Oh, Netherlands way down at the bottom there.
	Poland, Sweden, Argentina, Belgium, and bottom of the list is South Africa.
	Now, let's look at the most searched for terms, and these are pretty consistent across the board with some obvious differences per country.
	And there's a new entry that I'd like to discuss.
	Number one, and this, you know, it surprises me.
	I actually had a conversation not too long ago with the Keeper about this, and I'm surprised that this is the number one...
	Well, maybe I'm not surprised when I think about how...
	Men are being demasculinized.
	What do you think the number one porn search term is, John?
	I would just type in porn.
	No, no.
	I mean, there's categories, you know?
	I don't know.
	I have no idea.
	I wouldn't have a clue.
	Tits.
	Nope.
	Lesbian.
	Number one search porn term.
	Lesbian.
	I would have never guessed that.
	No.
	Number two?
	Stepmom.
	What?
	Stepmom.
	Well, that's even more surprising.
	Number three, MILF. Then we get teen, stepsister, mom, cartoon, hentai, massage, Japanese, and the new entry, Overwatch.
	Overwatch?
	Yeah.
	Yeah, that's what I said.
	Overwatch?
	I don't even know what it means.
	Okay.
	This shows you how culture is collapsing.
	Overwatch is a video game.
	And it's really a platform...
	At this point, I think it was the old game guys.
	Who were the game guys?
	I'll tell you a second.
	Overwatch was...
	Goodson and Todman?
	No, it was...
	Blizzard Entertainment, yeah.
	And they have a toolkit so you can manipulate your characters.
	And a huge category in porn now is computer-generated, rendered porno.
	So you have these...
	And a lot of these video game characters are already highly sexualized.
	So now they just have...
	Genitals and very...
	It's all animated, but it's real pornographic depictions.
	And this is high in several countries, so we're going to get to that.
	After Overwatch, an old favorite.
	It's on the way down the list.
	Anal was just on its way out.
	Ebony.
	Threesome, almost at the bottom of the list.
	Lesbian scissoring.
	I mean, jeez.
	Lesbians at the top, but scissorings is going away.
	Cream pie, Asian black, squirt, and gangbang at the bottom of the list.
	Let's look at by country.
	United States.
	Now, you heard some of these, you heard some of the search terms.
	What do you think the top three are for the United States?
	Remember, we are being...
	I'd say number one was lesbian.
	No, it's actually stepmom number one, lesbian number two, stepsister number three.
	Okay.
	Yeah.
	That makes sense based on your thesis.
	Yes.
	Overwatch comes in at the bottom.
	Now we'll go to...
	Actually, this is a quick intermezzo.
	Time spent per visit shows you something very funny.
	Of course, we know there's a lot of fraud going on in the internet.
	So what is the number one country that spends the most time watching porn?
	Not us?
	No.
	We're number two?
	We're number three.
	I have no idea.
	The Philippines.
	Of course, that's where all the click farms are.
	Oh, so they're not really watching porn.
	No, they're just clicking around and watching to hit all the ads.
	Yeah, they're doing what they do, right.
	The Philippines and India, both, which may account for some of India's numbers, are both click farms.
	So you hire them.
	This is a very common scam, which is why we ask our producers to help pay for our show, because everybody else is scamming the advertisers, and that's how you do it.
	You hire, there's certain firms you can hire.
	Yep.
	And they will put together a click farm, usually in the Philippines and India, and they just go on your site and start pounding your site with all kinds of clicks, and the advertisers go, oh, look at all the clicks they're getting.
	And number two, and I would wager they have some farms as well, is South Africa.
	So either they're really horny or they got click farms.
	But they're so low on the overall list, why would they be so high on the watching?
	No, you're right.
	It's got to be click farms.
	Probably a new area for click farms.
	Nice little category here.
	Time spent per visit for the United States.
	So states that spent the time the longest and then the shortest, which I guess you could extrapolate to say guys who take a really long time and who take a very short time.
	Mississippi watches porn the longest.
	Alabama, Arkansas, Louisiana, South Carolina.
	The shortest time, Oregon, Utah, Kansas, Colorado.
	Okay, now we go into...
	I know, isn't that funny?
	United Kingdom, let's look at their top searches.
	Top search is lesbian, MILF, stepsister, British, stepmom, ooh, lesbian seduces straight girl.
	Ooh, this is a good one.
	And they do not have Overwatch on their list.
	We go to Canada.
	Canada also becoming very feminine.
	Lesbian, stepsister, MILF, stepmom, all in the top.
	But top gaining searches, and this is across the board, virtual reality.
	And, oh my favorite, oh Canada, oh Canada, number three on their top gaining searches, surprise come in mouth.
	Wow, gee Canada, you're a bunch of nice guys.
	Hey baby, don't worry about that.
	Hey, that's a word to the wise if you're going out with it.
	Now, here's what I found interesting.
	You get to other countries like India, and their top searches are Indian, Indian wife, Indian college, Indian actress, Indian teacher, Indian auntie.
	Indian auntie with young teen.
	So they're all about their own, they don't want to see any Americans.
	They want to see Indians.
	Japan, same thing.
	Top searchers, Japanese, Japanese teen, Japanese amateur, Japanese wife, Japan, Japanese massage, Japanese schoolgirl.
	Interesting racial overtones.
	You would think.
	Top gaining searches in Japan.
	Japan's sex game show.
	Magic mirror car.
	And Japanese amateur ass.
	This is a top search.
	And again, for France, we see French, Francaise, Maman Francaise, Massage.
	Those are the top ones.
	VR, again, really climbing the charts everywhere.
	Germany, of course.
	German, teen, Deutsch, German mom, mom, stepmom, stepsister, German dirty talk, massage.
	Wow, this is all about women in Germany.
	With gaining searches, virtual reality again, Skyrim.
	I did not look that one up.
	Real celebrity sex tape, ball busting, and Oktoberfest.
	Yes.
	Now, Australia.
	We're going to Australia.
	Oddly, Australian itself, bottom of the list, but lesbian, MILF, Asian, massage, cartoon, stepmom, boom, Overwatch comes in on the list there.
	Harley Quinn, I don't know who Harley is, she's some porn.
	Italy, also Italian.
	Oh, number three in Italy, foot job.
	Foot job for the Italians.
	Let's see.
	They don't have any Overwatch.
	Brazil, top of the list.
	But it sounds to me that Overwatch isn't on anybody's list.
	No, no, it is.
	It is, but they're not on the top.
	No, it's on everyone's list, but not in the top.
	But in Brazil, it is number one.
	Well, the Brazilians have a very strong social media structure to their society.
	And they like to...
	There's just a social...
	They're social, so Overwatch must be a social game.
	Russia, also number one, Overwatch.
	Spain, number three, Overwatch.
	The Philippines, not at all.
	The Netherlands, let me see.
	No, no Overwatch for the Netherlands.
	Okay.
	Well, I don't know what this Overwatch thing is, so I'm going to have to look into it.
	Yeah.
	Well, here, Argentina, number two.
	What is it?
	I told you what it is.
	It's a sex game of, like, real life?
	No, no.
	It's a video game, but just like Grand Theft Auto, you can modify it.
	So they're modifying the characters and they're creating sex scenes that they capture and then publish that as a sex video.
	And they put storylines in it and all kinds of stuff.
	It's interesting, but the sad thing is, it's not real sex!
	No.
	It doesn't sound like real sex to me.
	There's something there that needs to be looked at by someone who knows much more about this than we do.
	Well, when I run into this sort of thing, I always say the same thing.
	I say it in my writings.
	I say it everywhere I can.
	No one pays attention, but I say it anyway.
	The sociologists that work at the major universities should look into this.
	They should.
	But here's the thing that threw me off, though.
	And I'll end with that.
	They also split it up by search terms by gender.
	And this really threw me off.
	So men's favorites, MILF, stepmom, stepsister, Japanese mom, teen, lesbian, stepmom, mom and son, celebrity sex tape, hentai, ebony, massage, cartoon, anal, and Asian.
	Women's favorites, lesbian, lesbian scissoring, threesome, big black dick, lesbian seduces straight woman, stepdad and her daughter, black, extreme gangbang, Japanese gangbang, massage, lesbian threesome, cartoon, squirting orgasm, anal.
	I mean, wow, women.
	So they're apparently pushing the lesbian stuff up.
	Lesbianism is in.
	It's hot, I'm telling you.
	I mean, as in trendy, hot.
	Yeah.
	I don't know, John.
	I think someone should indeed look at this.
	Well, they should.
	I think there's something going on.
	There's been something going on, and we're just the reporters.
	That's right.
	All right.
	Well, thanks for that report.
	Back to you in the studio, John.
	As long as it was.
	Come on!
	All right.
	You just don't like those words.
	No, it's not the words.
	It's the length.
	It's the length, which does have something to do with it.
	Okay.
	I got a couple of funny things.
	I got this.
	Well, it should be part of the clip blitz.
	Okay.
	I have...
	Okay, I gotta play this anyway.
	Let's play this.
	Do you not want to finish the Greenwald stuff?
	Because I thought there was more that we could do there.
	No, I think the Greenwald stuff was fine the way I did it.
	We don't need the extra stuff.
	But I do have to play this because I have to...
	I wonder if there's mixed feelings at NBC when Jimmy Fallon does this gag.
	Now, Jimmy Fallon is being introduced.
	He's going to be the host of the Golden Globes, which are tonight.
	Yes, that's true.
	So, he does this joke, and I have to think to myself, with NBC, can the suit come up to him and say, you know, we're trying not to trivialize this, you're making fun of it, because it's really counterproductive for the narrative that we're trying to push in this country, that the Russians are bad actors.
	So, you don't make light of it like he does in this part of the promotion for the Golden Globes.
	Biggest stars in TV. Oh!
	Be sure to catch all the winners voted on by you, the Russian hackers.
	Jimmy Fallon hosts the Golden Global Wars.
	Don't you think?
	I think it brings the Academy into question, quite honestly.
	I would say that if I'm an NBC executive and I know what I'm supposed to do and then he does this joke about you, the Russian hackers.
	That's a little rich, yes.
	I'm thinking, can we tell him?
	Can we gripe at him?
	He's at the number one nighttime show.
	No, it's just Jimmy.
	He's just joking.
	He's just kidding around.
	I really think somebody discussed this at the network level.
	That is funny.
	That is very funny.
	Yeah.
	Oh, man.
	Yeah, Jimmy, you're wanted on the 34th floor.
	Here's one of my favorite clips for today.
	This guy's name, I think it's Dean Keene, ex-head of the NRA, who was also a book writer, and he's written books defending the Second Amendment.
	And he was on C-SPAN, talking about his book, and I believe it was C-SPAN, yes it was.
	And this is a little anecdote he threw in.
	I have a couple more of him that I'll use in other shows, but this is an anecdote he throws in about The show they have, they play it on CNBC, or not CNBC, but on C-SPAN, where they bring in a bunch of reporters, and they host a breakfast, and this guy's grilled.
	Oh, gosh, yes.
	Yes, I know exactly what we're talking about.
	You've seen this as Christian Science Monitor breakfast or something.
	Yes, or something like that.
	Here's his little story about this reporters and the gun show.
	During what we call our gunfight with, when I was president of the NRA with the Obama administration, I was invited to the...
	The Christian Science Monitor breakfast used to be known as the Sperling Breakfast in Washington.
	So maybe 50 or 60 print broadcast reporters and they have a guest there that they rang or asked questions.
	So I was to be put on the spit one morning and somebody brought up the question of the gun show loophole.
	And I said, I have a question for all of you.
	How many people at this table, how many of you reporters who write about this have ever been to a gun show?
	Nobody raised their hand.
	So I said, okay, it just happens that next weekend in Virginia, just outside Washington, is going to be the largest gun show in this region.
	So the editor of the Monitor will pass around a sign-up sheet, and I will host you.
	I'll take you there so you can look at this.
	And then if you want, we can go to the NRA, and you can do whatever you want there.
	So that way you'll know what you're writing about.
	And the poor guy called me Wednesday of the next week, and he said, nobody signed up.
	My reaction was, well, why would you want to know about something you were reporting on?
	You know, so...
	Yeah, that would be crazy.
	Yeah, nuts.
	Don't be doing that.
	Don't be finding out about anything.
	A lot of people that are in the media, especially modern new reporters, the ones who don't even like to go drinking...
	A lot of these people would feel ashamed of themselves if they went to a gun show.
	Exactly.
	Are you going to take him up on that offer to go to the gun show?
	I would never go to a gun show.
	I would never go to a gun show.
	There's guns there.
	And that's the way they are.
	They're extremely kind of closeted.
	They won't really get out there.
	There's just a kind of amount of reporting we get.
	They don't know what they're talking about.
	It's the same thing as not wanting to say something is a hate crime when it obviously is.
	It's the same.
	It's the same shame or worry or fear.
	I got a quick multi-parter, really short clips, about the women organizing the march on Washington, D.C., Mm-hmm.
	Now, this is supposed to be a really big deal, and I was interested because it was Carol, Facebook.com slash CarolCNN, who had these two women on.
	One is Latina.
	The other is, I don't know where she's from, but she's Muslim.
	She's wearing a hijab.
	And as I was listening to them, I'm like, oh my God.
	First of all, if this is how, you can probably just say people who hate Donald Trump are going to organize, this is going to be a big failure.
	There's so much hate that they're not even really focusing on how to do this properly and how to communicate to people properly.
	And well, here's a little intro of these two ladies and the genesis of the movement.
	The day after President-elect Trump is inaugurated, hundreds of thousands of women will take D.C. by storm.
	They have one mission in mind, send a bold message to our government on Mr.
	Trump's first day in office.
	200,000 women are expected to attend.
	Joining me now are the co-chairs of the Women's March on Washington, Linda Sarsour and Carmen Perez.
	Welcome to both of you.
	So, you guys don't belong to any political group.
	Yet, 200,000 women?
	How did you do that?
	So really, a woman by the name of Teresa, who's from Hawaii, put up a post and sent it to 40 of her friends.
	And when she woke up, 10,000 women were joining her in Washington, D.C. And so there were other women who also had kind of felt this despair after the election and wanted to find hope in D.C. together.
	So this woman has given her blessing to other women.
	One of our other national co-chairs is Bob Bland, who's also founder of the March.
	Now, this is interesting, because there's kind of a throwaway line at the end there about Bob Bland.
	I'm like, Bob Bland?
	Who the hell is Bob Bland?
	Well, Bob Bland, you've got to check this out, is a woman.
	She's the CEO and co-founder of Manufacture New York, a social enterprise that is rethinking the fashion ecosystem.
	And creating a new, vertically integrated business model that will transform apparel and textile production for the 21st century.
	So this is a bunch of fashionistas, is the way I see it.
	Oh, Bob Bland's going to be there.
	Who gives a crap about Bob?
	She's a VC-funded shill in the fashion industry.
	So then, let's talk about this grassroots movement that includes shock celebrities.
	This is a grassroots effort, and because we don't belong to any political groups, we have no loyalties to any political groups, that we are able to show what ordinary Americans are capable of doing.
	This is going to be from the grassroots up.
	We have bus corps.
	Do you think they're trying to say it's grassroots here?
	I get the impression it might be grassroots somehow involved.
	Yeah, but there's money in there with VCs and Bob Bland and...
	...across the country in over 45 states.
	We have about 144 sister marches that are happening mostly here in the United States, but also globally in Europe and places like Australia.
	We have so many exciting people like America Ferreira, Oh yes, America Ferreira, another fashionista.
	She was on that fashion sitcom, whatever the hell it was.
	Perfect Betty, Betty Dumbo, whatever it was.
	I have no idea.
	More fashion, yes.
	People like America Ferreira, who is part of, she's chairing our artist table.
	Artist table.
	You know, Carmen's...
	My boss and mentor Harry Belafonte is one of the honorary co-chairs.
	Oh yes, Harry Belafonte, Gloria Steiner.
	As well as Dolores Huerta, who just came on board.
	And so we've been very intentional about...
	There's no political slant.
	No, no.
	They are not affiliated with any party whatsoever.
	Now comes the part where you can see the organization is stupid.
	Just listen.
	What is the point?
	Thank you.
	What is the point?
	What is the bold message you want to send?
	What bold message?
	Send to the Trump administration.
	I mean...
	Look, you cannot ignore.
	We're saying 200,000 conservatively just based on the numbers of buses that we have.
	Because there could be random people and random buses that we don't know about yet.
	We will not be ignored there.
	We want our president-elect and the new administration and our Congress and Senate.
	This is not just about Donald Trump.
	This is about our government.
	We are women.
	We will protect the most vulnerable amongst us.
	We are intersectional human beings.
	We are intersectional human beings.
	What does that mean?
	I looked it up for us.
	Intersectionality is a term first coined in 1989 by American civil rights advocate and leading scholar of the critical race theory, Kimberly Williams Crenshaw.
	It is the study of overlapping or intersectional social identities and related systems of oppression, domination, and discrimination.
	I think what it means if you're intersectional is you can be just as big an asshole as men.
	I think that's the idea.
	Hmm.
	I think.
	Yeah, I think you're probably not right, but there's no definition.
	That makes no sense what you just read.
	But that's the definition.
	And she's the one who defined it.
	I think that we are intersectional podcasters.
	I think it's people that are standing in the middle of the street and they don't really know where they should go.
	Is this one of those streets where you can walk across the middle and you have to go one by the street?
	It's the intersection.
	Yes.
	We are women.
	We will protect the most vulnerable amongst us.
	We are intersectional human beings.
	We are impacted by so many issues, including reproductive rights, but also issues of immigration, of racial justice, religious freedom issues.
	So we are going to be out there with a broad spectrum of people from climate justice to reproductive rights to women's rights to immigration.
	So instead of one bold message, it's going to be 100 people.
	We're going, climate change!
	And I was going to be like, oh, gays!
	This is going to be horrible.
	It's not focused, you're right.
	Native issues.
	Native issues.
	And saying, we're here, we're watching you, we're ready to fight back, and this is what happens when ordinary people are going to stand up and say, we're coming to you to Washington D.C. on your first day.
	So that is clearly, clearly a very bold message.
	But really, and this is the last bit, just a shorty, you can really hear that really they just hate Trump.
	That's what it's about.
	And putting women is one thing.
	The idea that women are so shallow that we cared when we see other women.
	Women doesn't mean that you stand for my issue.
	So if you're appointing women, but you're telling me you're going to defund Planned Parenthood, I don't want to hear that.
	So I think that he needs to understand that women are a lot more sophisticated, we're a lot more intelligent than he thinks we are.
	Than he thinks we are.
	Ah, there you go.
	So they just hate Trump.
	That's pretty much it.
	If you just hate Trump, then come on over and do your thing and just hate Trump.
	That's what it will be.
	Alright?
	Alright?
	It's time.
	Okay.
	Clip blitz.
	Clip blitz.
	Yes, hold on.
	I only got three left.
	This is the final submission of the votes in Congress when Biden was up there and the Democrats, who always accuse Trump of doing this, try to interrupt the final electoral college count in the session of the House and Senate.
	Red, 33, 2!
	In the day's other news, the election of Donald Trump as president was certified when Congress tallied the Electoral College votes.
	Vice President Joe Biden presided as a number of House Democrats objected, but none had the support of a senator as the rules require.
	Even as people waited hours...
	There's no debate.
	There's no debate.
	And if there's not signed by a senator, the objection cannot be entertained.
	Mr.
	President, the objection is signed by a member of the House, but not yet by a member of the Senate.
	It is over.
	laughter Mr. Trump.
	Trump finished with 304 electoral votes to 227 for Hillary Clinton.
	Red, 33!
	Let me throw a clip in there, because Biden said something at the end of that, which you didn't have on your clip.
	The purpose of this joint session, having been concluded, pursuant to the Senate Concurrent Resolution 2 of the 115th Congress, the chair declares the joint session dissolved.
	Now listen, wait for it.
	Guys, say the please.
	He says, God save the queen at the very end.
	Very funny.
	It's another No Agenda.
	All right.
	FaceTime manslaughter story.
	FaceTime manslaughter story.
	Tech giant Apple faces a new lawsuit over a popular app used by millions.
	Parents in Texas contend a driver was distracted while using Apple's FaceTime when he hit their car and killed their five-year-old daughter.
	The suit questions whether Apple should do more to stop accidents just like this.
	NBC's Miguel Almaguer has that story.
	Nice!
	Good!
	Cute little girl, too, is a shame.
	Air rage and conclusion.
	It's another No Agenda.
	Air rage seems to be taking off.
	From this brawl on a flight from Baltimore to this takedown in Charlotte to pop star Richard Marks helping subdue an unruly passenger last week.
	Worldwide, there were more than 10,000 cases of air rage reported by airlines last year, a 16% jump from the year before.
	I don't think that alcohol really is the cause of the increase in air rage.
	The real cause of air rage increase is the lack of personal space on aircrafts.
	No, the shocking thing about that story with Richard Marks is he's married to Daisy Fuentes.
	Yeah.
	Well, you may not know who that means, who that is.
	I work with Daisy.
	She was an MTV VJ. Right.
	And that she would marry Richard Marks, believe me, from people from my era is mind-boggling.
	Okay.
	It's mind-boggling.
	Well, I found that the guy, this one expert comes out and says, hey, those seats are too close together.
	Definitely good.
	That's it?
	Okay.
	It's another No Agenda.
	All right.
	Good cliplets.
	Are you cranky?
	Yeah, I'm cranky.
	Why?
	I'm supposed to be.
	I'm hired to be cranky.
	You want to hear a story that doesn't make anybody cranky?
	So, in Oakland, this will be my last clip.
	Oh, okay.
	Hold on a second.
	Yes.
	All right.
	Okay, this clip is called Oakland Police Chief.
	Now, I have to say, there's this woman.
	She is a gray-haired old lady.
	She has been hired as Oakland.
	They can't get anyone to be the Oakland Police Chief because it's an impossible city.
	It's just a mess, that town.
	And so they hired some old lady who really has never been a police chief except in Spokane, Washington, where they ran her out of town.
	And so she's really...
	This is going to be one of the funniest things we've ever seen, but she sounds kind of like an old lady.
	She's got no real big town experience whatsoever.
	And she's an old woman.
	She's like this old woman.
	I haven't one.
	They're not disparaging all the elderlies that listen to the show.
	I'm an old man.
	Okay.
	She's an old woman.
	And so let's play this clip.
	Oakland's new police chief says she's ready to hit the ground running.
	Veteran law enforcement leader Ann Kirkpatrick says she has the courage to transform the beleaguered Oakland Police Department.
	So we're moving forward.
	We'll learn from the mistakes of our past, but the past is behind us now.
	We learn from that and we're moving forward.
	Kirkpatrick's 34 years in law enforcement includes serving as chief in several cities in Washington and most recently heading up police reforms in Chicago.
	The Tennessee native says she's not afraid to hold officers accountable, but promises to also be their biggest champion.
	For the men and women of the Oakland Police Department, I also want you to know that in this chief, I have the courage to stand by you.
	And I will.
	I'm glad, and I think all the officers are glad, that the uncertainty of not having a chief has now ended.
	And we actually have a chief of police moving into the new year.
	Kirkpatrick will be Oakland's first female police chief at a time the mayor says the department needs a change in culture.
	But Kirkpatrick says it's all about leadership, not gender.
	I am a leader who is cloaked as a woman.
	And I'm grateful for being a woman, but I will be your leader.
	I'll be your Führer.
	This woman mayor hired her.
	And this is not going to end up well, I can assure you.
	Do you think this was actually a gender hire?
	Is that your feeling?
	Yes, I think it was totally a gender hire.
	Yeah, well, you better get some guns up there.
	Well, I don't live in Oakland, thank God.
	Yeah, but it spills over, man.
	Well, it's got to spill over one, two, three, four towns.
	Too many towns.
	Before you know it, they're walking across the mudflats.
	Well, they could.
	Except for today, it's been raining so much.
	It ran...
	Well, actually, funny thing is, as much as it's raining, the mudflats are still there.
	Oh.
	Huh.
	You'd think.
	Yeah.
	We need a high tide to...
	Alright, I'll be watching for any Illuminati devil worship on the Golden Globes, of course.
	That's my beat.
	The Golden Globes doesn't have so much of that.
	Well, we'll see.
	And, of course, we'll see the big controversy.
	I'm sure they leave someone out of the dead segment and everyone gets all pissed off about it.
	That always happens.
	Oh, yeah.
	And, of course, we will return on Thursday to bring you another...
	Best podcast in the universe.
	Another episode of it.
	I think you got something out of this one.
	Think of maybe helping us out there with a small contribution.
	That's right.
	Remember us at Dvorak.org slash NA. And coming to you from the Crackpot Condo here in the Skyscraper downtown Austin, Tejas, we are the capital of the Drone Star State, located in FEMA Region 6 on all government maps.
	Until next Thursday, everybody.
	In the morning, I'm Adam Curry.
	And from northern Silicon Valley, where this deluge has actually stopped.
	Although it looks like it's going to reconnect later.
	I'm John C. Dvorak.
	We'll be back on Thursday right here on No Agenda.
	Until then, adios, mofos!
	is turning into a clique Flying over Afghanistan Or maybe it was Pakistan I promised myself to aim myself at every woman, child and man That was on my list I don't care if I missed
	I'm remote controlled.
	I do what I'm told by someone at a computer.
	Obama gave me a push, more than push, and I cost millions.
	I'm supposed to target terrorists, but not so much civilians.
	I don't know what to say.
	Whoops, some got in my way.
	A drone again, naturally.
	A drone again, naturally.
	If you're blue and you don't know where there's fake news, why don't you get your Gitmo fix?
	Putin on the rest.
	Dressed up like a million dollar trooper.
	Trying not to look like Anderson Cooper.
	Super Poopper.
	Come, let's mix where John Podesta walks with kids.
	Oh, I mean pizzas in his midst.
	Putin on the wrist.
	If you see something, say something.
	To accept the science of climate change, 98% of the world scientists believe is true.
	How do you know that 98% of the world's scientists believe what you believe?
	The answer, of course, is you have no idea.
	But how do you know 98% of the scientists?
	I mean, I often hear people say that.
	How do you know that?
	It's just a simple question.
	How do you know that?
	Well, you know what?
	If you're a giant research team, you can send people out and find out about it.
	I'm merely asking you to explain something you just said live on our show.
	And that 98% of worldwide scientists believe that.
	How do you know that?
	Are you a scientist?
	Or have you told other scientists?
	Where'd you get that figure?
	You're practicing species of religion where anybody who doesn't agree with what you believe is a heretic and should be human.
	No, no, that's not true at all.
	How do you know that 90% of the world's scientists believe what you believe?
	The answer, of course, is you have no idea.
	But how do you know 98% of the science?
	I mean, I often hear people say that.
	How do you know that?
	I'm just a simple question.
	How do you know that?
	The answer, of course, is you have no idea.
	I'm a skeptic of everything, including your answers.
	I'm going to stop making sense!
	Amen.
	Fist bump.
	Adios, mofo.
	The best podcast in the universe.

▲