Knowledge Fight Interactive Search Tool

All Episodes

Previous Next

Sept. 6, 2018 - No Agenda

03:03:29

1066: Hunger Stones

Large

Audio Only |

Scroll

Time	Text
	Adam Curry, John C. Devorak.
	And Thursday, September 6, 2018, this is your award-winning Gitmo Nation Media Assassination, Episode 1066.
	This is no agenda.
	Handling the hunger stones and broadcasting live from the capital of the drone star state here in downtown Austin Tejas in the Cludio in the morning, everybody.
	I'm Adam Curry.
	And from northern Silicon Valley where the Zephyr actually honked its horn today, I'm John C. Devorak.
	It's crack, blood, and buzzkill in the morning.
	Well, you've got to think by now that the guys on the Zephyr know about you.
	And they've triangulated you by now, surely.
	Oh, by the way, when we did the Sacramento meetup, one of the conductors was out in front of the station to say hi.
	Yeah, because he...
	And we have exclusive audio of that event.
	Oh, my God!
	Listen to that horn!
	I mean, you know what?
	Is there a Foamer podcast?
	There should be.
	Hell yeah!
	I think most of the former stuff is on RFD TV, which is a cable station, and they play these unbelievably long videos of one train just going through, you know, going here and there, and just keep following it.
	It's just unbelievably dull.
	I think it would be interesting.
	I would certainly listen to it, especially if they had guests on who brought their own favorite train clips and have it really high quality.
	Not just a 96 kilohertz sample.
	Do like 192 or do 300 plus and really have the binaural sound of the train going by.
	That I would listen to.
	Yeah, but you can't listen to that for too long.
	No, it's a very short podcast.
	Oh, yeah.
	Maybe a 10-minute podcast.
	Just listen to a bunch of horns.
	Anyway, it was busy, man.
	Finally, some stuff to watch on C-SPAN, sadly, at the same time.
	Oh, my God.
	And I looked at the clip list today.
	I'm like, oh, this is fantastic.
	We have almost no overlap.
	You did the Supreme Court mainly, Kavanaugh.
	And I mainly did the, I have one clip from that, and I mainly did the, what was the exact title of it?
	It was Foreign Influence in Social Media with Sandberg and Dorsey.
	Oh yeah, I wanted to watch that and I didn't.
	I was more interested in watching these guys screaming at each other.
	I watched that whole opening and I'm like, oh, really?
	It's just another scripted shit show.
	It's like, I don't need to see that.
	Although it's entertaining.
	But I already saw that.
	I saw that the day before.
	The first day.
	I'm like, okay.
	I'm doing that.
	And then the second day they did it again.
	Do you want to get into it now first, or do you just want to hear how we're all going to die, just to set the mood for the show?
	Well, I think we can tease the Supreme Court with, this is my Supreme Court hearing out-of-control moment.
	This is the way the whole first day went.
	Wait.
	Oh, out of control moment.
	Got it.
	Yes.
	Here we go.
	Chairman, I'd like to be recognized for a question before we proceed.
	Mr.
	Chairman, I'd like to be recognized to ask a question before we proceed.
	The committee received just last night, less than 15 hours ago, 42,000 pages of documents.
	And this is Kamala Harris from California.
	Or as they do on C-SPAN radio.
	Cummings that we have not had an opportunity to review or read or analyze.
	You're out of order.
	I'll proceed.
	We cannot possibly move forward, Mr.
	Chairman.
	I extend a very warm welcome to Judge Kavanaugh to his wife, Ashley.
	Mr.
	Chairman, I agree with my colleague, Senator Harris.
	Mr.
	Chairman, we received 42,000 documents that we haven't been able to review last night.
	And we believe this hearing should be postponed.
	I know this is an exciting day for all of you here.
	You know, I don't understand why he brought his two daughters.
	The whole day was an embarrassment for them.
	They were sitting there in their pretty frocks with Mom.
	And Mom looked like she was about to kill someone.
	Yeah, I mean, it was...
	It's not the most important part of the story, but I just felt bad.
	I'm like, dude, you knew this was going to happen.
	Are you an idiot?
	Don't bring your kids to this.
	This is going to suck.
	And then all the coordinated, oh, we haven't seen the documents, 48 million documents.
	Well, the thing that was funny about it is that, and one of the guys called out the group, one of the new, I don't have his name, we haven't seen Billy Rice ourselves.
	The freshman, from the freshman class?
	It's one of the new guys on the committee.
	He's not John Kennedy, the old fart that's a new guy, but a younger guy.
	And he...
	He says, I'm looking at a tweet right here from Chuck Schumer.
	He's telling all the Democrats to stall.
	Do anything they can to postpone these hearings.
	Is that what you guys are doing over there?
	He kept bringing tweets up.
	Apparently he was watching his phone the whole time during all the hearings.
	Well, of course.
	And then one of them pointed out, which I think should have been pointed out more, was the Democrats before the hearings all said, we're voting no no matter what.
	Mm-hmm.
	Well, if you're voting no, no matter what, what do you care about the documents coming in late or whatever?
	You're voting no.
	Well, exactly.
	So, do documents come in or don't come in?
	Well, I presume that they tried to maybe somehow convince one or two Republicans to vote against him.
	I mean, what I heard the big talking heads talking about on cable news was, and actually it was so long ago at the beginning of the week, I didn't even think they were going to look and clip it, Well, how come you guys didn't walk away?
	You know?
	And there was kind of this push from the media, like, you guys should walk out.
	You should walk out.
	It'll be really good.
	Walk away.
	Just walk out.
	Walk out of that.
	Just fuck them.
	And B-Day was like, well, we don't really want to do that because then we really lose all the power.
	So there was kind of that discussion.
	And I think they really thought, well, maybe we can convince one or two guys, shame them into it with the coordinated people in the audience standing up every 10 minutes.
	I mean, ah.
	Oh, there was somebody standing up and leaving.
	One would get out, they get kicked out, then another one, another one.
	They're all screaming, that high-pitched voice.
	I have a bunch of short little guys if you want to hear them.
	Your tease has become the segment, so let's move right through it.
	I'm liking what I'm hearing.
	Alright, so let's go with a couple of little...
	Have we even talked about what this is about?
	That this is the confirmation hearing?
	I think it's a good idea to mention it.
	Yes.
	I didn't even mention it.
	So this is Judge Kavanaugh who Trump appointed as...
	Nominated.
	Well, I think he appoints him and then he has to be confirmed.
	I don't think it's a nomination.
	Okay.
	And now it has to go through the Senate, and Senate has to, is it just a straight majority, I think, for this?
	Yeah.
	Yeah, so 51?
	First it has to get out of this committee.
	Oh, yeah, okay, yes.
	Complicated process.
	Yeah, this is still the committee?
	Yeah, there's the committee.
	And then where does it go?
	Then it goes to the vote for the Senate.
	Oh, then everyone gets to vote on it.
	Okay, I got it.
	So what's the make of the committee?
	Do they have a vote or just someone says, hey, nice chat and yay or nay?
	How does that work?
	Yeah, they vote and they say, okay, we can push it to the Senate.
	Well, how many Republicans, how many Democrats on the committee?
	I don't know the exact number, but there's one more Republican.
	It's all show, right?
	Let's just agree it's a big show.
	It's grandstanding.
	It's a show.
	Okay.
	And Kamala Harris was back and forth between this one and between the social media.
	I mean, it's just, they were busy.
	Well, here's a classic example of Kamala Harris.
	This is a short clip.
	I will be paying, of course, very close attention to your testimony, and I think you know the American public will be paying very close attention to your testimony.
	No, they won't!
	Who is she, an idiot?
	What is she saying this?
	You and I are paying some attention, but nobody's paying very close attention.
	And then Lindsey Graham, of course, had a couple of good points.
	He kind of pointed out what you just said a second ago.
	Play the Lindsey Graham hypocrisy clip.
	To my colleagues on the other side, Look forward to working with you, but we have a different view here.
	I think you've got to be blind as to what's going on here.
	Have you heard of Justice Breyer?
	Do you know him?
	You can't say anything, I guess.
	Where did he come from?
	He was Ted Kennedy's Senate Judiciary person.
	Where do you think Republicans are going to go find a judge?
	The whole argument is, you can be a conservative Republican president, but you've got to nominate a liberal to be fair to the country.
	That's absurd.
	What do you think Ruth Bader Ginsburg came from?
	She's the general counsel of the ACLU. Wonderful person.
	What groups do y'all use to pick from?
	This is shaping up to be the hypocrisy hearing.
	And that's hard to do in the Senate.
	Yeah, Lindsey is really...
	It's like one testicle dropped on the guy.
	Well, there was this incident that was...
	I don't...
	There's no clip of it.
	I saw this.
	I saw the video at the funeral, McCain funeral.
	Yeah.
	Oh, yeah.
	Explain.
	It's really good.
	Well, Lindsey Graham was there, and all of a sudden, Uma Abedin comes running up to him.
	Beeline.
	Beeline through the crowd.
	Yeah, beeline through the crowd.
	Gives him a big hug and a yank, yank, yank.
	Uh...
	And a couple of sorority sisters.
	And meanwhile...
	John Kelly.
	Yeah, Kelly and Mattis were both there.
	And I think it was Mattis that first spotted him and he looked around and said, what are these two doing?
	And then Kelly...
	And by the way, Lindsey Graham was doing kind of that, I'm at the funeral and no one wants to talk to me.
	Kind of that look on his face.
	After Aberdeen left, that's what happened.
	And then Kelly turns around.
	I didn't realize how tall that guy is.
	Yeah, a little menacing, actually.
	He's got to be able to stand up to Trump because he's at least the same height.
	Right.
	And he's standing there, and then all of a sudden he just starts staring at Lindsey.
	And with a real, like, a stare, like, what is it you're up to?
	Staring at him, and Graham is not noticing.
	Then he looks at him.
	Suddenly he catches his eye and he's like, yeah!
	And he kind of freezes.
	And then Kelly gives him some sort of a sign.
	Well, it looks a little...
	Yes, at first, it looks like he's giving...
	Because he's basically touching the bottom underneath his eye with his index finger.
	But it's the other side of his nose and the camera is positioned.
	And it could also have been just, I got some crud in my eye.
	Oh no, it's Lindsey Graham.
	But it could have been a signal like, I got my eye on you.
	Yeah, that's what I thought.
	And so then after that, Lindsey becomes this great apologist for Trump at these hearings.
	I said only one testicle dropped on him, not both, just one.
	But he's out there.
	He was doing the best job of all the people there.
	But something's up with that guy.
	Let's see what kind of hashtag MeToo moment we can have about Lindsey Graham.
	Wouldn't that be great?
	The guy was a harasser?
	It's pretty obvious.
	So this is his little very short comment about election.
	This is the second clip from him.
	You had a chance and you lost.
	If you want to pick judges from your way of thinking, then you better win an election.
	See, that's what I'm telling you.
	Lindsey's got a little ballsy.
	I like this Lindsey.
	Once his dad died...
	Hey, at least with his mom still?
	Not his dad, but McCain...
	Just a small interjection.
	We make jokes like this, and the other night I actually regretted.
	We made a lot of jokes about Ruth Bader Ginsburg, how she falls asleep.
	She's funny.
	Just look at her.
	She's funny.
	She looks funny.
	And I saw the documentary about her.
	Oh, I have respect for this woman.
	She's still fantastically...
	In fact, she is very humorous.
	But I felt like, oh man, I've been laughing at her without really knowing her whole story.
	Her whole story is pretty outrageously cool.
	Okay.
	So when we laugh about Lindsey Graham...
	You sure that's going to stop us?
	No!
	I'm just saying.
	It's my conscience.
	I just need to get it off my chest.
	Now, back to laughing about Lindsey Graham and his little testicle.
	So Feinstein comes out and she said something that I think she wanted to say one thing and she kind of drifted off and said something else.
	And if you listen to the structure of what she's trying to say, I think she wanted to say that She wants, she says the country is, you know, she's a diversity nut.
	The country's diverse and we should have a more, I think she was saying we don't want to put another white guy in the Supreme Court.
	She never actually said that, but I think that's what she wanted to say in a roundabout way.
	Behind the noise is really a very sincere belief that That it is so important to keep in this country, which is multi-ethnic, multi-religious, multi-economic, a court that really serves the people and serves this great democracy.
	And that's my worry.
	That's my worry.
	So I look forward to your statement and answering the questions.
	Thank you, Mr.
	Chairman.
	Yeah, and I have two clips that I need to play here.
	Before you go, what does multi-economic mean?
	Multi-diverse, multi-ethnic, multi-religious, multi-economic.
	What does that mean?
	That means we have rich people and very poor people.
	Multi-economic.
	What else could it mean?
	Multi-economic.
	So we need a homeless person.
	It seems to me.
	Well, that's like during the Nixon administration where Nixon says somebody needs to represent the mediocre people.
	No!
	Who said that?
	Yeah, I believe it was Nixon.
	I think people can look into this.
	He was being condemned for picking somebody who was mediocre.
	He says, there's a lot of mediocre...
	I'm paraphrasing.
	There's a lot of mediocre people, which is kind of what Feinstein just said.
	There's a lot of mediocre people in the country, so they need to be represented with a mediocre justice.
	Oh, man.
	You want to hear the flub of the week real quick?
	Yeah.
	This is John Kasich, and he was talking on the Big Head Cuomo Kid show on CNN. Look, I learned early on in my job when I had a fight with the unions, And sometimes you have to fight and stand tough.
	But if you do it all the time, it's distracting.
	You can't achieve your bigger purposes.
	And it's not about some, you know, it's not about I win, you lose.
	The other thing is, when you look at the Congress, though, it's like 24 hours since John McCain was put to death.
	And look at this circus of a hearing that's going on.
	What?
	Listen again.
	What?
	Listen again.
	Holy crap.
	Give yourself clip of the day.
	It's like 24 hours since John McCain was put to death.
	It's fantastic.
	I know.
	I actually cried the first time I heard it.
	Good Lord.
	Thank you for making the show.
	This is a good 30 seconds worth of conversation.
	We'll extend it even.
	It's like 24 hours since John McCain was put to death.
	Cold, cold, cold, cold.
	Yeah, I'd say.
	And how can a person not hear that at that moment?
	Anyway, I want to get back to fine scene.
	You would think that if the people were listening that do these shows, they were actually listening to the other person talk.
	Yeah.
	You know, he wasn't put to death.
	Let's make that clear.
	Not that we know.
	Not that we're aware of.
	That's what we would say.
	Yeah, of course.
	But they wouldn't say that, but they would correct him.
	Yes.
	All right.
	Can I go into Feinstein?
	Do you have a point?
	I probably interrupted your whole point about her.
	No, no.
	The Feinstein thing, I think I've got it covered.
	It says she wants diversity, so we should have another ethnic, even though we're already at the max, it seems.
	I mean, they have...
	How many people are Jewish on the Supreme Court?
	Three, maybe?
	Yeah.
	I think they're overrepresented.
	Oh, yeah.
	Hey, yeah, yeah.
	We need Pastafarians on there.
	Why doesn't she bitch about that?
	She's not a Pastafarian.
	Well, she's Jewish, too, I think, is another reason.
	Okay, there you go.
	I guess that's fine, then.
	I just want to get a couple...
	Let me get these out of the way, and then you can...
	No, this is about Feinstein.
	It's just...
	It's about her questioning.
	That's why I inserted it here.
	Oh, okay, yes.
	Sounds good.
	I really only saw the beginning because I was going back to the Sochnetz thing, and I see Feinstein trying to trick Kavanaugh into this conversation about, I guess in 93, her office wrote the assault weapons ban, which of course had a sunset clause after 10 years, and they had a review and said, well, it didn't do a damn bit of good, so we don't have to renew it, just so you know, historical context.
	But, you know, she was asking about an opinion he wrote, and the guy wrote a lot of opinions, about the reason that you could have an assault weapon legally is because they were not unusual.
	There's millions of them.
	And then she tries to get him into a debate of, well, does that mean that these millions are used or they're just in the closet?
	It's not the same thing.
	You know, she's trying to relitigate the Second Amendment pretty much like a moron, wasting everybody's time.
	And everyone could see it.
	You could see it.
	I mean, even I see this coming from a mile away.
	It's like, are you really going to try this?
	So instead of playing that, let's listen to NPR's report.
	They spend about seven seconds on it.
	Guns, abortion, the scope of presidential power, all issues being put to Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh today.
	This is the second day of his confirmation hearings and the first chance for senators on the Judiciary Committee to question him in public.
	In a moment, we'll hear from one of those senators.
	First, NPR legal affairs correspondent Nina Totenberg joins us to walk through some of the nominee's responses today.
	Hi, Nina.
	Hi.
	Let's begin with guns.
	Kavanaugh has a reputation as being a very pro-gun rights judge.
	How was he pressed on that today?
	Well, as a judge, Kavanaugh has staked out a starkly different position from most lower court judges on gun rights, disagreeing even with fellow conservatives.
	Most notably, he dissented when his court upheld a District of Columbia statute banning assault weapons and ammunition magazines of more than 10 bullets.
	Today, questioned by Senator Dianne Feinstein, he maintained that under the Constitution and Supreme Court precedent, only unusual weapons can be regulated and semi-automatic assault rifles are not unusual.
	They're in common use.
	Let's take a listen to the exchange.
	You're saying the numbers determine common use?
	They're widely possessed in the United States, Senator.
	Beyond guns, he was also asked about abortion, and we know President Trump promised to name someone to the court who would overturn Roe v.
	Wade.
	What did Kavanaugh have to say about abortion?
	Now, when I heard that, I thought, wait a minute.
	Did he say that the president, we know the president said he would appoint someone who would overturn Roe v.
	Wade?
	Yeah, that's what he said.
	I don't know if the president said that.
	And if he did, by the way, let's stop right here because we've listened to these media guys long enough.
	If the president ever said that, they would play the clip.
	So I went and got the only clip that I think comes close to what the claim is here.
	And you're right.
	They would have had the clip.
	They don't because he's...
	Let's just start with everybody out there listening to this because we've noticed this over the last year.
	If there is a moment where Trump said something that they're making an assertion about, they're either going to lie about it and play a different clip, or they're going to play Trump saying it.
	They did not play Trump saying it.
	That means he didn't say it.
	Or we'll see what he did say, because you have the clip.
	Okay, so again, here's NPR. NPR, your National Public Radio.
	Beyond guns, he was also asked about abortion, and we know President Trump promised to name someone to the court who would overturn Roe v.
	Wade.
	What did Kavanaugh have to say about that?
	Now, let's listen to what the president actually said.
	This is from the final debate against Hillary Clinton, and do I have a date on this?
	It doesn't matter.
	Mr.
	Trump, you're pro-life, but I want to ask you specifically, do you want the court, including the justices that you will name, to overturn Roe v.
	Wade, which includes, in fact states, a woman's right to abortion?
	Well, if that would happen, because I am pro-life and I will be appointing pro-life judges, I would think that that will go back to the individual states.
	But I'm asking you specifically, would you like to...
	If they overturned it, it'll go back to the states.
	But what I'm asking you, sir, is, do you want to see the court overturned?
	You've just said you want to see the court protect the Second Amendment.
	Do you want to see the court overturned?
	Well, if we put another two or perhaps three justices on, that's really what's going to be...
	that will happen.
	And that'll happen automatically, in my opinion, because I am putting pro-life injustices on the court.
	I will say this, it will go back to the states, and the states will then make a determination.
	There you go.
	He didn't say it.
	No.
	He said something really weaselly, but he did.
	Yeah, he weaseled out of it.
	He did not say it.
	He did not say it.
	That's okay.
	No matter.
	He didn't say it.
	That's okay.
	They can say he said it.
	Yeah.
	He kind of said it.
	Yeah.
	This is the kind of news reporting we have.
	Well, he didn't say it, but he kind of said it.
	And he actually added something important, which was omitted from the NPR report, which is No matter what happens, it goes back to the states where it probably belongs.
	So people in California shouldn't be worried about anything.
	They should be happy.
	They can do whatever they want.
	In fact, why don't they promote that?
	Well, I guess it doesn't burn Trump enough.
	Yeah, later on in the show I got some flashbacks.
	You and I will both reminisce about when some of the now crazy lefty people were really on our side of thinking, interestingly.
	We'll get to that later.
	Let's continue with the Supreme Court.
	I have two more things.
	I have Mike Lee.
	I got two clips from him.
	One is extremely long.
	You don't have to play the whole thing, but you just get an idea of what he's talking about by playing about probably the first half of clip one.
	This is sort of how the practice of holding these hearings began.
	So the senators could ask nominees.
	How they might vote, how they might rule in particular cases.
	But this didn't always happen.
	In fact, it wasn't until 1916 that this even started.
	You see, there have been 113 justices confirmed at the Supreme Court so far.
	The first 66 were confirmed without even holding a hearing.
	The idea of a hearing is relatively new.
	It's about 102 years old.
	You see, I love this, John.
	Thank you.
	Having a little history lesson on the show is something we need to work on.
	It's entertaining, even if this happened hundreds of years ago.
	Yes, because it gives us context that we're not getting from the news media.
	Yes.
	Now we have to do it.
	That's pathetic!
	Podcasters!
	We've been 125 and 130 years under our constitutional republic without ever having a hearing.
	But regardless, we started having hearings just over a century ago.
	The very first Supreme Court confirmation hearing occurred in 1916.
	With Justice Louis Brandeis.
	After Louis Brandeis was nominated to the court, some called for a hearing.
	Now, if we're honest with ourselves, if we're honest about history, I think a lot of this maybe had to do with some anti-sentiment fervor and the fact that Justice Brandeis was Jewish.
	But senators also wanted to determine whether Brandeis would use his seat on the Supreme Court to advocate for some of the things that he had advocated for as a private citizen, as a public interest attorney.
	They wanted to know how he might vote in particular cases.
	They didn't ask Justice Brandeis to testify significantly, but they did in fact ask some outside witnesses what they thought about his nomination.
	The next important moment, one could argue, occurred in 1939, when Felix Frankfurter became the first nominee to himself testify before the committee.
	At the time, Frankfurter was controversial in part because he was born overseas, but senators also worried that Frankfurter was a radical based on his defense of anarchists in court.
	So again, senators wanted assurances about how Frankfurter might rule in particular cases, in particular what results he might reach in a particular type of case.
	Frankfurter, however, significantly declined to engage with senators on those topics and insisted that his public record spoke for itself.
	Justice Stewart's nomination in 1959 was another turning point.
	Senators seeking to resist Brown v.
	Board of Education wanted to grill Stewart on his views on integration.
	Others still wanted to grill Stewart about his views on national security.
	So Senators turned up the heat a little bit more in that hearing.
	Like Frankfurter before him, Justice Stewart did not provide substantive answers to their questions.
	Huh.
	And I played the whole thing, as you can tell.
	It goes on and on.
	He talks about how now the standard of excellence is Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
	She had a rule.
	She says, I'm not going to...
	Tip my hat during her hearings, and I don't think I should be answering these sorts of questions.
	And that's the standard that the Republicans keep throwing in the Democrats' face during these hearings.
	Did Frankfurter, in that clip, is he also the guy who invented the hot dog?
	No, no, surprisingly enough, he's not the same guy.
	Okay, just check it.
	But I thought it might be.
	So let's play the little short clip where Mike Lee kind of does a little...
	A little ending here that I thought was interesting.
	28 years later, 28 years after Justice Stewart came through this committee, the Senate considered Robert Bork's nomination to the Supreme Court.
	This was another significant turning point.
	And in my view, it remains something of a rock bottom moment for the Senate and for the Senate Judiciary Committee.
	Without getting into any of the gory details here, I think it suffices to say that Senator Ted Kennedy and Judge Bork did not agree on certain matters of constitutional law.
	And Kennedy's response was to savage, unfairly in my opinion, the results that Judge Bork would reach if confirmed to the Supreme Court.
	History shows that over the better part of a century, the Judiciary Committee has gradually created something of a new norm, a norm in which members demand that nominees speak about specific cases in return for favorable treatment from the committee as the jurists are going through this process.
	Oh, man.
	He's talking about...
	He's wasting our time talking about people who are wasting our time in historical context of wasting time.
	Yes, he is.
	That's a good observation.
	And I only have one last clip.
	And this is, or I actually have two.
	Another one's not really about this hearings.
	But this one here comes from the government.
	There's a guy, a couple, they have a number of historians that like to produce podcasts.
	They're not really podcasts.
	They're just kind of like little books on tape.
	Are they hosted on Podbean?
	No, they're not on Podbean, surprisingly enough.
	I would say that I wouldn't be a podcaster if I had this guy's voice, because this is a guy, and I don't have his name in front of me, but he gives a little Supreme Court early history that was never mentioned by anybody, and it's actually kind of interesting.
	Presidents nominate Supreme Court justices.
	Oh my God, I'm already loving the voice.
	And the Senate has to confirm.
	There has been occasional trouble since the very beginning.
	The first justice to be denied a seat on the court was a man named John Rutledge.
	It was 1795, just seven years into the new constitutional experiment.
	Rutledge had written an op-ed piece critical of the Jay Treaty, a 1794 treaty with Britain that tried to resolve certain lingering issues from the War of Independence.
	That was enough for a Federalist Senate to scotch his candidacy.
	Jefferson came into office in 1801 in what he called the Second American Revolution.
	I gotta stop for a second.
	This guy needs a noise gate real bad.
	Because you hear that.
	I don't know, man.
	But poised to prevent that revolution was Chief Justice John Marshall, Jefferson's distant cousin.
	He was put into his life-tenured position in the last months of John Adams' failed one-term administration.
	Adams, who distrusted Jefferson's democratic radicalism, essentially engaged in last-minute court packing, Marshall and dozens of other midnight appointments, to make sure that Jefferson did not take things too far to the left.
	Marshall went on to serve for 34 years.
	He was perhaps the greatest of all Supreme Court justices.
	He was indeed a thorn in Jefferson's side.
	Marshall wanted America to be a great centralized nation-state, not a confederation of sovereign states.
	He wanted a nation that prized the sanctity of contract above any temporary notion of social justice.
	He despised Jefferson's vision of a lightly governed, inward-looking, agriculturally-based, loose association of proud commonwealths like Virginia and Pennsylvania.
	We now live in Marshall's America, not Jefferson's.
	And that's the story.
	Paul Harvey, good day.
	And that was probably, right there, was the fundamental basis for the Civil War.
	Yeah.
	That guy, Marshall.
	Yeah.
	Well, and that was social justice warriors.
	It sounds like Jefferson was a social Jefferson warrior.
	He was.
	And that's what we should call him.
	Then he was a lefty.
	I mean, of course, they demean him because he owns slaves and all the rest.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	But he was the OG SJW. The OG. Slave Jefferson warrior.
	Wow.
	Yeah.
	Okay, finally.
	We cannot.
	I'm sorry.
	That's my mistake.
	Yeah.
	What?
	Well, there's...
	We need...
	We cannot...
	Where is this thing?
	Yes.
	We cannot end a segment like that without this jingle.
	I'm sorry.
	I will have it ready next time.
	The more you know in the morning.
	In the morning.
	Just need to get that in there.
	It was a good one.
	Yeah.
	I would say not tight.
	No.
	The opposite of tight.
	Now, this is the last thing.
	Now, this was an ad.
	Did you see this ad?
	This was Susan, the ad against Susan Collins.
	The social justice warriors put up an ad.
	Wait, now, who is Susan Collins?
	Susan Collins is a senator from Maine.
	Uh-huh.
	Who is the Republican swing vote.
	Mm-hmm.
	And she has to vote.
	As do all the Republicans.
	They have to vote yes on this guy.
	And they think that she's a weak sister.
	A weak sister.
	Okay.
	And so all these Democrats put together this ad claiming to be her supporters.
	But you can just see this ad's a fake in terms of that.
	And they put this ad out, which is now floating around trying to get her to vote against Kavanaugh.
	And this is the ad.
	Susan Collins.
	Senator, I have called you, I have emailed, I have written letters.
	Day after day, week after week.
	It has been pretty demoralizing to know that your elected representative is ignoring you.
	So we're trying something new and hope that this will get your attention.
	Senator Collins, if you vote for Brett Kavanaugh, we're going to fund your future opponent.
	A vote for Kavanaugh is almost certainly a vote for Stop, stop, stop, stop.
	I gotta hear that part again.
	That was just so...
	And then, by the way, it's followed up by the non-binary person.
	Right.
	But also the...
	The cadence, the whole delivery of that line was just fantastic.
	If you're voting for me, you're voting to kill me.
	It's a Maynard who has a pre-existing condition.
	If you vote yes on Kavanaugh, you're voting to kill me.
	If he was confirmed in Supreme Court, he could instantly take away rights for people like me as a non-binary person or people of nearly unmarginalized identity.
	If you vote to confirm Kavanaugh...
	We're not going to stop fighting until you're defeated.
	Mainers need you to stand up and be a hero.
	Be a hero.
	Be a hero.
	Be a hero and vote no.
	And if you don't, we will replace you.
	Whoa!
	Whoa!
	Who paid for that?
	That's great.
	I don't know.
	I've yet to figure it out.
	It's humorous.
	I like it.
	It's very funny.
	I appreciate this kind of art, and I encourage that at any time in our media landscape.
	If you vote for him, you're going to kill me.
	Yes.
	Yeah.
	I think that is fantastic.
	Absolutely.
	Good job.
	Well, let's transition to the other side of Capitol Hill, where we had the foreign influence on social media hearing.
	And this was in the Intelligence Committee.
	And I think we can do a nice transition with the only clips that overlapped for this program, because John and I never discussed what we're going to do.
	I have no idea what he's going to talk about or what clips he's sending.
	I just get them before we start, five minutes before I look at them just to make sure there's not too many doubles.
	I have one clip of Alex Jones versus Marco Rubio.
	You have two, so I think that you should run with the segment.
	Actually, Marco, you might want to play your clip because my clips are kind of a trap clip.
	It's the clip plus the kicker.
	And I want to see what your clip is.
	I just have the straight-up clip.
	I just have straight-up clip.
	I think we should do yours.
	This is an executive decision.
	Okay, well, this is the clip that I'm going to play.
	This is Alex Jones versus Rubio.
	This is a clip that was generally promoted on the internet.
	Yeah.
	And it was...
	Rubio giving a press briefing in the hallway and Jones butting in.
	But I just want to say up front what I found so fascinating about this clip, and of course we'll hear it, most of the clip is about this, so a big spoiler.
	Rubio, and I've seen this behavior, I'll give you an example, in the Netherlands for sure, when I was 20, very early on, when being on TV was not as common as it is today, and people would of course recognize me, and they would always say, just without me even asking, hi, I don't know who you are.
	I never watch music television, are you kidding me?
	I don't know who you are.
	When you knew for a fact that they knew who you were.
	Oh yes, and it's a very odd reaction that some people had.
	And of all people, for this to happen, and Marco Rubio to do this, and to double and triple down on it with Jones shouting in his face, I give Alex Jones a 10 plus for this, by the way.
	I wish I had those balls to promote our show.
	Because, you know, he's just sticking his face and going, Infowars.com!
	I mean, I wish I had balls like that.
	That's fantastic.
	This is great.
	Should I have a First Amendment, or should these companies be able to violate the whole Safe Harbor Act and all that, and then ban conservatives en masse?
	Yeah, I don't know anything about your site, man.
	No, about the First Amendment.
	Yeah, I support the First Amendment.
	I just ask questions about it.
	Stop, stop, stop, stop.
	A couple of things.
	We have to start it over.
	Oh.
	Because I think it needs to be prefaced that Rubio is actually doing an interview with some woman from a local station, and Jones is just standing on the side there.
	And just jumps in.
	Yeah.
	And I believe he says Safe Arbor Act.
	Instead of Safe Harbor?
	Safe Arbor?
	Yeah, like Safe Arbor Act.
	Like, oh, you're going to put – now, Rubio, it's funny.
	He catched that in terms of what are you talking about, putting trees up?
	I don't know what you're talking about.
	We don't need any more trees.
	I didn't even catch that.
	That's pretty funny.
	Should I have a First Amendment or should these companies be able to violate the whole Safe Harbor Act and all that and then ban conservatives en masse?
	Yeah, I don't know anything about your site, man.
	No, about the First Amendment.
	Yeah, I support the First Amendment.
	I just ask questions about it.
	No, you were the only that brought up China.
	Are you aware of the deplatforming going on?
	In China?
	No, here.
	Big tech companies are purging conservatives.
	They're shadow banning people in mass.
	Yeah, well, my broader concern is that what we are trying to do in terms of preventing foreign interference in our elections, that technology could be used by authoritarian governments To argue, we want you to do the same thing against people that are in our...
	And Jones makes an excellent argument.
	He says, dude, what are you talking about?
	That's happening here right now under your very nose.
	...country operating, for example.
	For them, misinformation would be something like the truth.
	For them, sowing instability would be supporting democracy and free speech.
	But the Democrats are doing what you said China does.
	...that you got from Sheryl Sandberg and Jack Dorsey on that question.
	I think Facebook now is, I think it's important for them not to comply with any efforts to sort of go after freedom of expression.
	What about the Democrats purging conservatives?
	He's not answering them.
	Republicans are acting like it isn't happening.
	Thank God Trump is.
	It's weird, man.
	Oh yeah, it's really weird.
	There's no purge of conservatives.
	There's no shadow banning of members of Congress.
	Are you concerned about bias in social media?
	Yeah, who's this guy?
	We de-platformed him.
	I'm concerned about bias in social media.
	Well, I think the bigger bias is against freedom of expression.
	Everybody should be...
	There's a...
	Look, I support going after...
	It's happening here, but you say I don't exist.
	Is that a heckler?
	I'd have to press a gaggle.
	Look at this guy.
	He's saying that I don't exist.
	I just don't know who you are, man.
	I don't read your website.
	Sure, sure.
	And they demonize me in these very hearings.
	And then he plays dumb.
	Here's the question.
	InfoWars.com, you know what it is.
	Does Google, does Facebook, does Twitter, do they need to be regulated like...
	Do they need to be regulated?
	Marco Rubio the snake.
	Little frat boy here.
	All right, man.
	Who are you?
	Yeah, sure.
	I swear to God, I don't know who you are, man.
	So, first he calls him Snake Eyes Frat Boy, and then he touches his shoulder, which he had done a couple times before, which I also found to be quite aggressive.
	I'd be like, dude, don't touch me.
	But then Rubio falls for it.
	InfoWars.
	He knows who InfoWars is.
	I'm playing this joke over here.
	That's why the deplatforming didn't work.
	But here's the question.
	Don't touch me again, man.
	I'm asking you not to touch me.
	I know, but I don't want to be...
	I don't know who you are.
	You're not going to get arrested, man.
	You're not going to get arrested.
	I'll take care of myself.
	Oh, he'll beat me up.
	I didn't say that.
	He's so mad.
	You're not going to silence me.
	You're not going to silence America.
	You are literally like little gangster thugs.
	What was that?
	Something at the end of your clip there.
	Shouldn't have been.
	Yeah.
	Anyway, he says, you're a little gangster thug and he ends.
	But then that's the clip that went around.
	But then you gave him the kudos and I thought it was pretty funny.
	Yeah.
	Although he's just annoying.
	I gave him kudos for promoting his show.
	I gave him kudos for that.
	Michael Savage has an extended version that was done by Cassandra Fairbanks, one of the famous...
	Twitter people that I follow and she follows me.
	And she was there, apparently, putting this thing on Periscope live.
	And so when Rubio kind of gave up and started walking away, I think Jones kind of blew his credibility by calling him out as gay.
	And he kind of goes a little nuts on this.
	Listen, listen to the way it ends.
	What?
	Well, I'm playing it, but I'm not hearing it.
	Oh, well, that's not good.
	What we are trying to do in terms of preventing foreign interference in our elections, that technology could be used by authoritarian governments to argue, we want you to do the same thing against people that are...
	Maybe you didn't clip this?
	Should I move it?
	It's two minutes.
	Move it to the end and see what it sounds like.
	Okay.
	Be careful about we don't overreach in that direction.
	But then he doesn't know about informants being made.
	He doesn't know about me or got so mad at me.
	It threatens me physically.
	There's a balance between...
	Bro, look on the ground.
	I think you gave me the outtake.
	I may have.
	Well, I'll tell you what he says.
	He says...
	No, no, no, no, no!
	Okay, okay.
	Damn!
	Sorry, I'll get that clip.
	Stop the show, I'll go get it now.
	No, no, no, you don't have that clip.
	No, no stopping of the show.
	He calls him out, he says, go back to the bathhouse.
	Oh, it's too bad you didn't have the clip.
	No, this has happened to me before.
	It's happened to you once.
	Maybe twice.
	But it's okay because I have a clip maybe of similar proportion.
	This was really an interesting thing that happened.
	We had all...
	You know, there was lots of...
	Messy stuff going on in the audience.
	We had the Democrats shouting in the SCOTUS hearing.
	Then we had all kinds of stuff going on with Alex Jones.
	And of course we had the social media network in the election hearing.
	And that was interrupted by Laura Loomer.
	Now, Laura Loomer, I might as well just tell you what I've been thinking for a while.
	She comes up with really interesting and well-researched and surprising information, certainly about the Vegas shooting.
	And she has these just gems of nuggets from time to time.
	And then, all of a sudden, she's a 25-year-old moron again.
	You know, it was like primping for the camera.
	And so she stands up in the back with her selfie stick, making sure she's filming herself, causing this ruckus, shouting something to the effect of, Jack Dorsey is meddling in the elections.
	He's quashing Republican voices, conservative voices.
	Okay, hold on.
	So I didn't see any of these, which is what I expected you to do.
	I don't know why, but I did.
	I don't know why either, but there you go.
	But she was at this?
	Yeah.
	In the back.
	In the audience.
	So she stands up and she starts interrupting.
	And I'm watching this dueling C-SPAN screen.
	By the way, this is great on the Surface Go.
	I didn't know this about Windows.
	Maybe it's just the Surface.
	But you can drag a window to the edge and then it'll take up half the screen and it'll give you a choice for another window.
	Yeah, they'll do it.
	That's a Windows 10 thing?
	Yeah, and then you hit the escape button after you've done it accidentally.
	Ever since Steve died, all that cool stuff that Apple used to do.
	And now someone's going to tell me they do it too.
	I'm sure they do.
	That's beside the point.
	Very much beside the point.
	Anyway, so I'm looking at this and there she is.
	And I'm like, this is just grandizing.
	And now she has this thing like, you've been loomered.
	Grandstanding.
	What did I say?
	Grandizing.
	I'm an idiot.
	Grandstanding.
	And she has this, you've been lumered.
	Like, no, no, no.
	What?
	Oh, yeah.
	You've got to be around a little longer before you can say that you've lumered.
	I mean, I would never say, you've been Dvorak'd or curried or no agenda.
	No.
	We say, you've been hit in the mouth.
	That's a little different.
	But lumered?
	Well, you can always tell a chicken has been curried.
	Yes.
	So you've been lumered.
	So I have a feeling that she's being run by someone, that she has someone behind her who's giving her great information.
	And she just knows how to present it.
	She's, you know, semi-cute.
	She's bubbly, young, energetic.
	And, you know, so there's something going on behind her that is putting information out.
	Anyway, so this is not one of those moments.
	This is really her trying to loom her.
	And it fails, but it fails for a very interesting reason.
	And so I have these two screens going on.
	I'm like, is there a third?
	Is Mecham's auto auction on?
	What's happening here?
	Recognizes the...
	Get a mic over to her.
	Get a mic over!
	Order.
	Get a mic over!
	Now!
	We'll have order in the hearing room, and you'll be asked to leave...
	You'll, ma'am, you'll please take a seat, or we'll have to have you.
	Then you'll need to relieve.
	President Donald Trump, help us.
	Please help us, Mr.
	President, before it is too late, because Jack Dorsey is trying to influence the election, to sway the election.
	What's she saying?
	I can't understand her.
	What?
	You'll be elected.
	That is why he is censoring and shadow banning.
	I bet it in.
	Twelve at hand.
	Fifteen.
	Seven at hand.
	Twenty-dollar to the hand.
	Five at hand.
	Thirty-eight.
	Hit $30 down here.
	At this point, I'm like, what?
	I'm like, what's going on?
	She's yelling, I'm hearing this?
	Officer, will you escort this young lady out, please?
	I yield back.
	No.
	That was Senator Long from Missouri.
	That was fantastic!
	That was a really creative way of lightening the mood.
	That was really good.
	And so, everyone just like, it was perfect.
	And then, of course, it ends on such a sour note.
	Just dumb.
	It's just like, great.
	And now is your moment for the great line of the day.
	And no, what does he do?
	Somehow, I think our auctioneer in residence is going to get tweeted about today.
	Idiot.
	No.
	Okay.
	So, that was all I really had of the interruptions.
	The guy's good, though.
	Yeah, I like that.
	Apparently, he wasn't.
	That's a sound of a professional, too.
	Yes, yes.
	Well, we have a lot of them here in Tejas, so, yeah, I'm familiar with them.
	Yeah.
	I've always thought it'd be cool to be able to do that.
	There was a song back in the day I could do.
	The Auctioneer.
	I could do that.
	I could sing along with it.
	The Auctioneer.
	I'll find it for the next show.
	The Auctioneer.
	Okay, so now we have, on the other side of the Senate, we have, or wherever, I don't know if it's really on the other side, we have the Intelligence Committee, and they have a hearing which is titled Foreign Influence on Social Media.
	Now, although all of these things are scripted, and you could even see both Dorsey and Sandberg, who were the only two there, there was an empty seat, ominously empty, where Google didn't show up.
	Ooh.
	Everyone referenced, woo!
	Hey, they don't have to.
	They write everyone's checks.
	They don't have to show up.
	So that's what's going on there.
	And where's the outrage?
	Where's the media talking about Google being a bunch of either pussies, something to hide, or just plain rude?
	They talk about it.
	But only in a normal, like, reporting manner.
	Kind of like Google, man.
	They don't have to show up.
	It's Google.
	By the way, what shows up?
	A big G? An Google logo?
	Who comes from Google?
	Eric Schmidt comes from Google.
	Who comes from Google?
	Eric Schmidt comes from Google because he talks like this.
	He can't really express himself.
	He's got a low voice.
	Okay.
	I don't know.
	So they're not there.
	There's no one from Google.
	But you can see Sandberg and Jack Dorsey from Twitter, they basically have the questions in long-form sheets in front of them.
	They know who's coming, they know what questions are coming.
	I don't know if it was abbreviated or not, but we know these things are scripted.
	But this is a topic that not everyone is well-versed in.
	Sadly, one I forgot to do, and I will clip that for Sunday, is of Kamala Harris trying to understand the value of an ad buy, which is really important, but we can easily discuss it on Sunday.
	It's a much longer conversation because it's so convoluted, but I think you and I can pick it apart.
	Okay, we'll do that.
	But the hearing started off, and this is the first clip is a little over two minutes, and it kind of really says everything and it shows you the difference between these two personalities and I believe also the DNA of their companies.
	I don't know why I was up talking.
	And it was...
	I was doing my tech...
	I was doing my...
	No, I was doing my tech reporter voice.
	That's what it was.
	It's these two companies.
	Okay, let me tell you all about it.
	At least I caught myself.
	And the first question is the only question really we needed to have answered.
	Maybe I should ask you first for some reflection.
	Because the first question is from the chairman is, what is social media?
	Now, what is social media to you, John, before we hear from our witnesses?
	Social media is a construct using the internet to interconnect people in groups, forums, or even individually, so they can interact without being anywhere near each other.
	Someone should write that down, because that was very good.
	As you can imagine, it's not at all what their answers were.
	And Sandberg...
	Now, let me just get my other notes here.
	I did take a number of notes, even though we have just a few clips.
	First of all, Sandberg...
	I'm sorry, and I tried this out on Tina last night, not as a joke, but purely as just an observation.
	It didn't go very far, but...
	Sandberg has got to be watching these hearings of herself.
	I'm sure she saw some tape.
	I'm thinking, God, why did I fuck up my nose so bad?
	I mean, she did something with a nose job.
	It was probably a second or a third time.
	And she had a broad nose, if you look at the Book of Knowledge and you go back.
	But it was cute.
	There was nothing wrong with it.
	And now it has kind of that Michael Jackson thing where...
	You start chopping away.
	It's Michael circa 1989.
	And then it starts to fall in on the side, and then the way the light hits it, it just looks like you have a small penis.
	It's got no structure left.
	It looks like you have a small penis on your face.
	I mean, it's really bad.
	So anyway, and I'm sorry for her that she did that, but let it be a warning, people.
	Be careful what you do with your face.
	Dorsey read his opening statements.
	Dorsey read his opening statement from his iPhone, which I think was a big mistake.
	He was nervous.
	If he hadn't said, I'm shy at the beginning, which he did.
	I usually don't do these things.
	I'm shy.
	He could have been seen as a much...
	Much closer to Tony Stark than Elon Musk.
	Because he comes across as a very deep thinker.
	He carries his words very carefully.
	And I actually think he is a deep thinker and has thought about what he's doing and what Twitter is.
	And I have to say I'm very impressed by his performance in general.
	Let me see.
	The typical things are in there about, you know, Their business model and all that stuff.
	We've heard it a million times.
	But there were some new terms and a couple things I highlighted.
	Again, the advertising and the money flow and everything.
	I didn't get that.
	I want to do that on Sunday.
	But let's start off with the opening statements with that very question.
	This question is to...
	Oh, and Sandberg...
	Wait, hold on a second.
	Before you start teasing Sunday...
	Oh, you're right.
	What am I thinking?
	It's not Sunday.
	Sunday we have a special show.
	Yeah, you're talking about next Thursday.
	Yes, next Thursday.
	Sorry.
	I'll probably forget.
	We'll never know.
	No, you won't.
	I'll remember.
	I will remember the Sandberg-Kamala Harris clip.
	Okay, it's programmed.
	Now, back to the show.
	And Sheryl Sandberg, her entire testimony was Miss Goody Goody Two-Shoes, borderline valley girl, had everything all sewn up.
	She's a veteran.
	She knows Jack's nervous and shy.
	And she's a...
	This question is to both of you.
	How would you define social media?
	For this committee, and more importantly for the American people, and I'll start with you, Ms.
	Sandberg.
	Social media enables you to share what you want to share when you want to share it without asking permission from anyone.
	That's the top thing right there.
	Social media lets you share what you want to share with anyone without any permission, except permission from Facebook.
	And that's how we meet our mission, which is giving people a voice.
	I would have stopped right there.
	Somebody should say, oh really?
	So people can share like illegal images or atom bomb plans or anything they want to share or some sort of a meeting that's going to overthrow the government.
	That's all shareable?
	That's what social media is all about?
	You are now the senator from Kentucky.
	You have just won your seat on the Senate Intelligence Committee.
	I'll start with you, Ms.
	Sandberg.
	Social media enables you to share what you want to share when you want to share it without asking permission.
	I just want that on a big placard.
	And that's how we meet our mission, which is giving people a voice.
	And I think what's more important than just the content people share is the connections they make.
	Social media enables people to celebrate their birthdays.
	Woo!
	Woo!
	Social media's birthday calendar!
	When I heard that, I said, this is fantastic.
	How did they come up with this?
	Who approved that?
	Did Zuck go?
	Yeah.
	Number two on the list, birthdays.
	The Dutch are jumping up and down.
	And I think what's more important than just the content people share is the connections they make.
	Social media enables people to celebrate their birthdays.
	I'm sorry.
	This was my first birthday in many years without Facebook.
	You celebrated it just fine.
	Yeah.
	I'm still here.
	And it was really calm.
	And the few people that did get through to me, they really loved me.
	So it was a good feeling.
	In the last year, people have raised $300 million on Facebook on birthday funders for non-profits they care about.
	Birthday funders?
	It's a double whammy on the birthdays for the Sochnets.
	Safety check.
	Millions of people in the worst circumstances of their lives have let their loved ones know they're safe.
	How about a text message?
	Does that work still?
	Hey, I'm still alive.
	Phone call.
	Thank God there's Facebook.
	And small businesses to grow.
	All around the country I meet with small businesses.
	From a woman making dresses in her living room and selling them on Instagram.
	With one arm.
	To a local plumber.
	With no legs.
	Who are able to find their customers on Facebook and then able to grow and hire people and live their American dream.
	And that's her entire statement.
	That is what social media is.
	It's about sharing anything you want without anyone telling you what to do unless your name is Alex Jones.
	It's about birthdays, raising money for birthdays.
	And what was the last one?
	Small businesses.
	Oh, yes.
	Yeah, sad people with little, you know, retirees who are doing work somewhere.
	They can make a buck.
	That's social media.
	So Jack Dorsey...
	Who knew?
	I mean, if I was Zuckerberg, like, dude, you didn't do a good job on that.
	That's not what social media is.
	Anyway.
	So Dorsey doesn't really even answer the question.
	He goes straight to what he's thinking, and this will come back.
	I have just a couple other clips.
	This will come back.
	And it's deep, and I really appreciate the thinking he put into it.
	And also notice that the senator addresses him as Jack and not Mr.
	Dorsey in this particular clip.
	I just thought that was interesting for context.
	They're able to find their customers on Facebook.
	And then able to grow and hire people and live their American dream.
	Jack?
	Jack?
	I believe it's really important to understand how the people see it.
	And we believe that the people use Twitter as they would a public square.
	And they often have the same expectations that they would have of any public space.
	For our part, we see our platform as hosting and serving conversations.
	Those conversations are on the public.
	We think there's a lot of benefit to those conversations being in the public, but there's obviously a lot of risks as well.
	We see that news and entertainment are actually byproducts of public conversation.
	Very astute observation.
	I don't know if the media likes it, but I thought that was good.
	Yes, it's a byproduct.
	Absolutely.
	The media should like it, and they should use it as ammunition against them.
	Because it's not primary.
	So, yeah, you can advertise with Twitter, but it's a byproduct.
	It's like advertising with a byproduct.
	You know a byproduct, like a byproduct of pork?
	No, no, no, no, no.
	He said something.
	He said news is a byproduct of Twitter.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, I think what he means by news is like reporting news.
	Yeah, so Twitter is ground zero.
	The media is just taking the shreds that fly off the edge of the machine.
	No, I don't think that's what he meant.
	I think that's exactly what he meant.
	Well, it doesn't matter.
	We can disagree on that.
	I'd like to continue.
	News and entertainment are actually byproducts of public conversation.
	And we see our role as helping to not only serve that public conversation so that everyone can benefit, even if they don't have a Twitter account.
	I don't know what that means.
	Everyone can benefit from Twitter even if you don't have a Twitter account.
	Well, you can always go on the site, you can always put a Twitter link.
	Oh, okay, I gotcha.
	To not only serve that public conversation so that everyone can benefit, even if they don't have a Twitter account.
	That's important.
	But also to increase the health of that conversation as well.
	The health.
	And in order to do that, we need to be able to measure it.
	We need to...
	Yeah, yeah.
	This is deep.
	So he's saying the health of that conversation.
	The health.
	I think, contextually, I think I understand what he's talking about.
	The health.
	The health, yes.
	The health.
	So the healthiness of the conversation.
	The health.
	If it is something that is making people happy.
	And therefore, healthy because they either, I would say, agree with each other is one way.
	If you have everyone agreeing with each other, I don't know how that works, but okay.
	Just go into Dimension B for a few minutes on Twitter.
	You'll know how it works really quick.
	Right.
	But do we all agree that he's saying healthy conversations where people aren't like, bleh, and making themselves sick?
	Literally making themselves sick, which is what social media is.
	What is social media, Mr.
	Curry?
	It's a place where people go to get sick.
	That's my answer.
	But also to increase the health of that conversation as well.
	And in order to do that, we need to be able to measure it.
	We need to understand what healthy participation looks like in a public square.
	And we need to amplify that.
	And more importantly, we need to question a lot of the fundamentals that we started with 12 years ago.
	In the form of incentives.
	When people use our product every single day, when they open our app up, what are we incentivizing them to do?
	Not telling them what to do, but what are we actually incentivizing them to do?
	And that certainly speaks to the buttons that we have in our service all the way to our business model.
	So, didn't really answer...
	Well, he dealt with the social media question quite quickly.
	It's a public square and people expect the same type of...
	Actions they can take on the public square, although I would wager to say because of anonymity, people actually show themselves, their true selves, and being on Twitter is like looking at your own anus, because we're all like that to some degree.
	But then he goes into this very deep thinking, which we'll come back to later, about what exactly are we doing?
	What are we doing here?
	Now, I don't know if you can ever measure the health of a conversation, although you never know what machine learning and AI can do.
	But I thought there was at least some thinking and not the, it's for birthdays!
	Now this being the...
	Put a time code down.
	I already have a couple.
	This being the foreign influence in social media.
	So, you know, how are we responding?
	This is just kind of a general response to, are they working together?
	Are we collaborating?
	Are we doing everything?
	The minute we see bad actors, or actually a new term will pop up in a moment, whenever we see these bad actors, do we have systems in place?
	And man, when you listen to this and how they're all agreeing with each other and nodding, and oh yeah, we're all locked down.
	I think our collaboration has greatly increased.
	We've always worked closely with law enforcement, and we continue to do that, and particularly the FBI's new task force.
	We've always shared information with other companies, but I think we are doing better, and we can continue to do better.
	Mr.
	Chairman, you noted in your opening remarks that some of the tips we got came from a private security firm.
	In our mind, that's the system working.
	Our opponents are very well funded.
	They are very organized.
	And we are going to get those tips from law enforcement, from each other, from private firms.
	And the faster we can collaborate, the faster we share those tips with each other, the stronger our collective defenses will be.
	You're getting too far away from what...
	That was just a little bit of a report.
	She said our opponents?
	Yes!
	What is that supposed to mean?
	And the new FBI task force that certainly has great collaborating with them.
	Oh yeah.
	What does she mean by our opponents?
	The Russians.
	You're sure she doesn't mean Republicans?
	Well, she didn't say Russians.
	She said opponents.
	So I think that she meant a wide variety.
	Could be Republicans who are influenced by Russians or who have ever had a Russian dressing on their salad.
	I don't know.
	Those are her words.
	And she's pretty precise with how she speaks.
	She's rehearsed quite well.
	Our opponents.
	Our opponents, yes.
	And we have the special FBI task force.
	We've got to stop.
	And I want to look up this word.
	Because if she's that precise, we have to assume that there's something within this definition.
	Someone who competes, okay, if she says our opponents, it says someone who competes against or fights another in a contest.
	Yes.
	I think Russia fits in there, but also Republicans.
	I think Twitter fits in there.
	Yes.
	Actually, when I first heard this, because, you know, you're paying attention to a lot of things at the same time, I thought she was actually talking about Twitter, but then I went back and she wasn't.
	She was referring to his opening comments about the attacks on our democracy.
	Attacks on our democracy.
	By our opponent, she means the attacks on our democracy.
	I think so, yeah.
	By $100,000 worth of cheap advertising?
	That's kind of silly.
	Yes, and the $100,000...
	Again, I'm sorry.
	A week from today, we'll pull that apart.
	That did come up, and it's important.
	All right, let me move on.
	Because now we have a new term, as we're now going to talk about a little more about what is permitted, what can and can't be done on the platform.
	And she has all kinds of interesting terms, you know, very much like unindicted co-conspirator, which is what will go on Donald Trump's tombstone if it's up to the Democrats.
	Unindicted co-conspirator who's pre-dead.
	At this moment.
	We're precancerous.
	So here we're going to talk about...
	Well, you'll hear it.
	It's just new terms and interesting stuff.
	What entity do you have in each of your companies who make these determinations?
	Our policy team is setting those and our security team is finding them.
	And coordinated inauthentic behavior means behavior on our site.
	This is it.
	This is her big thing.
	Inauthentic behavior.
	You want to look something up?
	What does that mean?
	Isn't everybody by definition who's on Facebook inauthentic?
	That's the whole game, isn't it?
	Yes, you're supposed to be inauthentic.
	Look inauthentic, take pictures that are inauthentic, post inauthentically, and once in a while say Trump is a dick.
	Isn't that what everyone does?
	That's the only authenticity I'm seeing.
	Coordinated inauthentic behavior means behavior on our site that's inauthentic, so people are not representing themselves to be who they are to be.
	And coordinated means they are cool.
	Yeah, yeah, yeah.
	I know!
	They're not representing themselves who they are to be.
	Who they are to be.
	What does that even mean?
	Well, they're not representing themselves who they are to be.
	Who they are to be.
	From Arby's.
	Who they are to be.
	Sandwich from Arby's.
	They're not representing themselves to who they are.
	Who they are to be.
	Blah, blah, blah, blah.
	Who they are to be.
	Okay, so she's trying to explain inauthentic behavior.
	I think she means that they can't really, and I think she even refers to it, they can't really track if someone's being inauthentic, which I guess means I'm a Russian spy covering as the hot girl in a bikini.
	I think that's what she means.
	I need a road map for this.
	I don't know who to...
	Can I coordinate with you?
	I'm inauthentic, bro.
	Sorry.
	Both are unacceptable.
	Is this something that is easy to recognize, people are unanimous about it, or do you wind up with debates as to whether or not...
	Hey, is that guy for real?
	Isn't that the only unanswered question ever?
	A certain platform should be shut down.
	I think on a lot of issues we face hate speech, there's broad debate.
	When it comes to what is an inauthentic actor, which is a fake account posing as someone, they're hard to find, but once we find them, we know what they are.
	Who sets these standards?
	Same committee?
	The same group of people.
	And just for context, she said quite clearly, I don't have it in this clip, that Facebook is not in the business of determining what is fact or false, what is true or false, or fake news or fact, or fact check false, whatever the hell it is.
	Fact check false?
	That they use third-party independent or independent third parties for that, which means the independent fact-check network, which includes such luminary members as the Daily Caller Foundation, Tucker Carlson's thing, to Snopes.
	So, you know, I don't know what can come out of that, but okay, fine.
	Well, give me some examples of standards that are unacceptable.
	In the coordinated inauthentic behavior or in general?
	In general.
	Yeah.
	So we publish our community standards comprehensively.
	And what that does is define what's permitted on Facebook and what's not permitted.
	Okay.
	Here we, finally, what's permitted and what's not.
	Okay.
	Permitted on Facebook.
	So some examples are bullying is not permitted.
	Bullying?
	Hate is not permitted.
	Hate is not permitted.
	Not hate speech.
	Hate is not permitted.
	Hate!
	Don't hate!
	Language that leads to violence is not permitted.
	And this is published in detail.
	Publicly.
	Publicly.
	We publish it all publicly.
	Hate is not allowed.
	What is left of your social network if hate is not allowed?
	Hate speech?
	Okay.
	We've tried to define that, not legally, but now just hate?
	So if I go on Facebook, I'm like, I hate this guy.
	Am I in violation?
	You hate this guy.
	In violation?
	Yes, yes you are.
	If you hate President Trump, you're violating the...
	They should kick everybody off.
	They all hate President Trump.
	There is a group, there is a Facebook group when I was last on at, you know, when was that, March?
	That is called, I Hate Donald Trump.
	That should be not allowed.
	Well, then obviously one of the senators would bring that up.
	Final clip for this is, and now we're coming back around to the incentives, and you will hear Samberg with the, I don't, did I even put Samberg in this?
	She has no vision, just bad nose job.
	And Dorsey, he's thinking deep about it.
	I want to get to the basic issue of whether our incentives are, And by the way, I'm pretty sure that Dorsey, because of the Jack comment, that he coordinated this with the chairman.
	This is where they're going towards incentives and how the social networks are responsible for a lot of this bad behavior.
	And this is a setup.
	I'm not sure how they're going to play it out.
	I think it's way too complicated for most, but I think that's what's going on.
	If your users were to lose confidence in your platforms, in the authenticity of what you, Mr.
	Dorsey, called a public square, I might call it a digital public square, I assume there would be very serious economic implications for your companies.
	Do you think the incentives have aligned for platform providers of all types in the digital space to want to get at these issues and have a plan and be able to respond in real time?
	Ms.
	Sandberg, and then you, Mr.
	Dorsey.
	Absolutely.
	Absolutely.
	Trust is the cornerstone of our business.
	People have to trust that what they see on Facebook is authentic.
	People have to trust that this is a positive force for democracy and the things they care about.
	And so this has been a huge issue for us.
	And that's why we're here today.
	And that's why we're going to keep working to get ahead of these threats and make sure we can minimize all of this activity.
	Mr.
	Chairman, I just want you to know, we at Facebook, we're all on board.
	Do you like my tight sweater?
	I mean, seriously.
	Is that her vision?
	Is that how concerned she is?
	Very disappointing.
	Short Facebook.
	Our incentives are aligned, but I do believe it goes a lot deeper than just the alignment of our company incentives with this committee and the American people.
	I believe we need to question the fundamental incentives that are in our product today.
	Every time someone opens up our service, every time someone opens up our app, we are implicitly incentivizing them to do something or not to do something.
	And that extends all the way to our business.
	And those answers that we get from asking that question are going to create massive shifts in how Twitter operates and I also believe how our industry operates.
	So what worked 12 years ago does not work today.
	It hasn't evolved fast enough.
	But I think it's a layer, many, many, many, many layers deeper Than the surface symptoms that we often find ourselves discussing.
	I like his answer.
	Yeah, you're getting a bromance with this guy.
	Yeah, and I'm no fan of Jack Dorsey.
	We know he probably dislikes me.
	I'm not verified, have asked, have never even gotten a straight-up answer.
	People have asked on my behalf, still do.
	I don't want it anymore, because then I will have to leave Twitter, because it's the mark of the beast.
	But I like what he says here.
	And he is...
	Hey, it's going to change massively.
	And I think not to their benefit.
	And I think he realizes that.
	Thank God he has squares, what he's thinking.
	Damn, glad I got into that business.
	Yeah, that was a smart move.
	As far as I'm concerned, Twitter was always the invention of Ev-Head.
	Right.
	Evan Williams.
	Right.
	Who invented Blogger and made, you know, it's worth a billion dollars just from blogging.
	It was all based on RSS. That's what Twitter originally, you know, it was a podcast platform.
	Blogger.
	No, it was a podcast platform.
	It was Odeo.
	Odeo became Twitter.
	Odeo was the podcast competitor to Mevio, but they had a platform and we just had content.
	Don't you remember?
	No.
	Yeah, Odeo.
	And then they never really launched, and they came up with this follow thing, which I think they had in their podcast environment, and that became Twitter.
	And then podcasting just went in the crapper for 10 years, because then we had social nets, and that was the next new, new, new big thing.
	I'm not sure of this.
	Ah!
	I know my history, my friend.
	And we've discussed it on the show.
	We've discussed it on the show.
	Yeah.
	Well, with that, I'd like to thank you for your courage and say in the morning to you, John C. C stands for Charles Dvorak.
	You're welcome.
	Oh, wait, I'm sorry.
	Well, in the morning to you too, Mr.
	Adam Curry.
	Also, all the ships and sea boots on the ground, feet in the air, subs in the water, and all the names of nights out there.
	And in the morning to the troll room, noagendastream.com.
	Good to see all the trolls here.
	And in a good mood today.
	I think everyone had a lot of fun watching C-SPAN during the week.
	Yeah, we're an energetic bunch, we are.
	We watch C-SPAN as a group!
	And in the morning to Nick the Rat, who was awarded the choice of pick for album art for episode 1065, the title of that.
	A very competitive week we might have.
	Flux Capacitator was the title of the show.
	And this was Comey.
	James Comey looking at his laundry line of drying counterfeit money, or not counterfeit, washed money.
	Laundered.
	Laundered, I'm sorry.
	Whitewashed.
	Laundered money.
	It was interesting because I just read, we were talking about we have the Military intelligence versus the CIA, central intelligence.
	We have Democrats, Republicans.
	Now, of course, we have Nike versus Adidas, because Nike's got Kaepernick and Adidas has Kanye.
	And we have the banks who are laundering money, drug money, typically.
	And then you have the real estate guys like Trump who launder money to what we used to just call commerce, just doing private transactions, but now we always think of everything as a crime.
	Who cares?
	I don't care where you got your money from.
	You want to buy this apartment?
	Good.
	Here you go.
	So Trump is just laughing his ass off, and they hate him for it.
	And I just read that ING in the Netherlands just paid a 775 million euro claim, or a fine, to the European, I guess the central bank.
	I don't know where they send it.
	I did some research on this to figure out how to do money laundering as a real estate guy.
	You mean some job research?
	My exit strategy.
	It turns out it's a good one.
	It turns out to be a very good one.
	And the reason is because it's essentially legal.
	Completely legal.
	You do not have to check the background.
	So Trump is not breaking any laws by being a money launderer, if we want to call him that, if we even assume we're correct in our assumptions, which I believe we are.
	And that is because the restrictions on banks...
	and not reporting it from drug companies, stuff's still powdery, is one thing.
	And you have to do all these reportings.
	And for example, even when we make a money transfer, if I wait way too long and it gets over a certain amount, it gets reported to the IRS.
	Everything you do in a banking environment gets reported.
	No.
	No holds barred.
	There is nothing.
	You can take it.
	Some guy can walk into your office if you're a real estate developer.
	With cash.
	With a million dollars in cash.
	And you just put it into your account as a transaction.
	And that's how commerce used to work.
	It's okay.
	I don't care where you get your money from.
	Podcasts?
	International drug trade?
	What's the difference?
	I would think that there's a lot of opportunities all over the place, but apparently real estate is the real winner.
	And can you imagine, just to add insult to injury, these guys also have to lend to people like Trump.
	That must really gall them.
	Like, he's doing this with their money.
	No wonder they want to screw him so badly.
	Yeah.
	Yeah, it makes nothing but sense.
	To me.
	I love looking at Trump through that lens.
	It's a very comfortable feeling.
	Feels good.
	Money launderer, but legal.
	And that's the whole reason for doing these big deals.
	I mean, he obviously got a clue.
	He worked with some people that knew how to do this, and that's when he did Trump Tower as a young kid.
	Mm-hmm.
	And he just, this is going to cost more than you should be paying.
	And this is how you keep everyone on your side, all the mobsters.
	Yeah.
	I would say that he definitely has.
	In fact, if you saw, I don't have a clip of it.
	I was looking for it.
	I could never find a good clip of it.
	Lanny Davis coming out and condemning CNN for misquoting him.
	I have, yes, I have Lanny Davis.
	I want to play that clip after the donation segment because I want to comment on that.
	Does this have to do with Chuck Todd's article?
	No, but I can bring that in too.
	No, I have my comments different.
	Let's get these guys.
	Let's thank these.
	Let's do something important.
	Yes, let's do something important here.
	The executive producers for the show 1066.
	Wasn't 1066 the Norman invasion?
	We could have made that an issue.
	It's okay.
	Anyway...
	We have no associate executive producers, but we have four generous executive producers.
	Brian Gerard in Bellevue, Washington.
	Thank you for your courage.
	My recent donation is long overdue.
	The instant knight option has seemed the most appropriate for the unwinding of the Gordian Knot, that is the M5M. I would like to be knighted Sir Skull and Skrote of the...
	Lamb the lions.
	Sullen scrote?
	S-K-R-O-T? Sullen scrote.
	What is scrote, dare I ask?
	You know what?
	I don't want to know.
	I don't want to know.
	New Jersey karma.
	New Jersey and a karma for all.
	No jingles and a karma for all.
	Oh, here we go.
	You've got karma.
	So that was a thousand dollar instant night donation.
	We'd love to see that.
	Yeah, it's been a long time since we had an instant night.
	Yeah, it is actually.
	It's been a long time.
	We need more.
	And then we have a mix-up to me, but Jack Swoboda would be next from Cupertino, California with 666.
	And he actually did send an email, which I believe I have.
	Yes, that's the mark of the beast.
	Speaking of the beast, the beast shows up when you least expect it.
	Comes in as John Swoboda.
	Hello and greetings from a No Agenda Knight.
	Sunday's show was spectacular as always, and the pre-stream bore unexpected fruit.
	Really?
	Unexpected fruit.
	Usually it's just Linux advice.
	If you check the PayPal donation, you'll find a 333 donation that I'd like to accredit to Nick to simultaneously lift his douchebag status and begin his journey to NA knighthood.
	As always, for the fantastic deconstruction of Maxine Wazer, say stay woke.
	This may be a $333 donation.
	He did attach a note.
	Interesting.
	Well, that's why I might be out of sequence.
	I think something in the spreadsheet doubled it for some reason.
	Because it shouldn't be worse.
	John, something doubled it from 333 to 666?
	I think we should be worried.
	Yeah, I think so too.
	Anyway, so we'll give him, we'll assume it's 3-3-3 because that's what he says here.
	And does he ask for a jingle or anything?
	Oh, he has a mix by his friend Nick, current douchebag, created this afternoon after drinking.
	Maybe we'll listen to this mix and then if we...
	Did he send a mix?
	I don't have a mix.
	I have a mix.
	No agenda.
	Is that for rant?
	Oh, no, that's not a mix.
	What is it?
	Oh, that's...
	Oh, hold on.
	That's...
	That's this one.
	Here we go.
	Oh, my God!
	Listen to that horn!
	That one.
	I just received that one today.
	Is that from him?
	From him?
	I don't know.
	I don't remember.
	There was no long donation note for sure.
	Okay, well, here.
	I'm going to play it real quick to myself.
	You've got to hold it up to the microphone.
	You're not going to hear it anyway.
	No.
	Why are you doing that?
	No, it's something different.
	It's nothing like that.
	It's a song.
	What's the guy's name?
	Swoboda.
	S-W-O-B-O-D-A and you are on the mailing.
	Hold on.
	Oh, there it is.
	I apologize.
	Okay.
	Can I download?
	Where's the file?
	It should be at the bottom.
	Outlook is not cooperating.
	I don't know.
	I do not have...
	It's very odd, John, but I do not have a...
	I'll forward it to you and you can deal with it later.
	Okay, I got it.
	Jeez.
	Sorry.
	I don't know.
	I don't have the file.
	What?
	Outlook?
	Yeah.
	I use Outlook.
	You know that.
	Holy moly.
	Yeah, I've tricked it out, too.
	Now, where did this thing just go?
	I just put it in here.
	Yeah, that looks fabulous.
	No, it's not.
	It's crappy.
	Where did it go?
	Oh, donations.
	Okay, when is the donation segment?
	Oh, here we go.
	Okay, I finally have it.
	Okay.
	It's kind of long.
	Okay, end of show.
	Got it.
	It'll be in the end of show.
	Glad we did that.
	Okay, onward with Scott Richardson.
	Happy 54th birthday, Adam Curry.
	He comes in with $379.30 and gives you a happy birthday call.
	Happy 25th to another Adam.
	It should be on the list.
	I'm not sure.
	Happy 25th to another Adam, my brother, Adam Richardson.
	And then please call out my friend Foreman as a douchebag again.
	Douchebag!
	And then give him some dogs are people too karma.
	Dogs are people too.
	You've got karma.
	I want to say Sir Chris Wilson did a happy birthday song for me, but I'll play that end of show.
	Okay, good.
	All right, now we have our last guy, Sir Daniel Miller, who came in at 333.33, and he actually sent in a very short note, but he had the sealing wax on it.
	I love it.
	I love when I get something with the ceiling wax on it.
	Yeah, no, it was all closed up.
	Everyone's gathered around the table as I was opening mail.
	I said, look, look, the ceiling wax.
	I popped it open.
	Oh, I got one.
	I couldn't pop it open that easily.
	It ripped the paper a little bit, and it stuck to the note on the inside.
	This value for value is long overdue.
	Your analysis and delivery are truly outstanding and unmatched.
	And then he has it in emphasized, boldface type.
	In all the land...
	No agenda has helped my critical thinking and has undoubtedly had a positive impact on my career and general well-being.
	I know that many other producers feel the same way.
	I humbly request some jobs karma from my smoking hot wife and all producers.
	Amen.
	Fist bump.
	Now, before you play the thing, he's actually up to enough to grab a...
	Knighthood?
	No, he is a knight.
	He's got the ceiling wax.
	I'm sorry.
	He's up the baronet.
	And he...
	I think he didn't request Baronet upgrading.
	He may be just waiting because he's very short.
	I mean, he's just very close.
	I'm sorry, close to Baron.
	So maybe he's just waiting.
	I just want to mention to him because he's going to listen to this.
	He could have been upgrading.
	Now I know what you're doing.
	You know, for just $5 more, you could have the nicer model.
	Wow.
	Shameless.
	He's almost there.
	You know, people...
	You know what?
	Hey...
	It was really driven by the producers who wanted these titles beyond knighthood, and I'm very proud of our system, and I'm proud that other people use that.
	It's the value-for-value model, and it's true royalty.
	These credits are real.
	There's nothing that says there's no magical wall that makes these two media professionals less valuable than someone else being an executive or associate executive producer.
	In fact, once you've been one, you can automatically pass that title on.
	Is that not true?
	Yes.
	If you've been an executive producer, then any production you're involved in, you can hand out titles.
	You could if you wanted.
	Nobody does it.
	We do!
	Yes.
	Yeah, there you go.
	So, thank you very much to our executive and associate executive producers.
	We will thank everybody who came in over for $50 in our second segment.
	And we have a special show coming up on Sunday as I will be tomorrow morning.
	The Keeper and I, we go to Italy.
	My sister's 25th Wedding anniversary, which is Saturday night.
	We arrived Saturday morning, Saturday night, so there's just no way I'm going to be able to do any type of good show.
	And quite honestly, I think we deserve one show off.
	But John didn't take off.
	He actually added to his workload.
	Yeah.
	What you got for us on Sunday, Johnny Boy?
	Well, I got a couple of things, and I do have a teaser.
	Let me finish the segment first.
	Let me just get out of everything.
	I thought you were just going to tease it here real quick.
	Well, you were cueing me right there.
	What am I supposed to do?
	Well, just to...
	You're right.
	I messed it up.
	Let me thank everybody and get out and then we'll tease that.
	So, you do want to remember us at Dvorak.org slash NA. We got all kinds of nuggets for you today in our formula, including opponents.
	Our formula is this.
	We go out, we hit people in the mouth.
	World.
	Order.
	Shut up, slave.
	All right.
	you So Sunday, Sunday, Sunday, Sunday, special show.
	No rehash, no remix, no retake.
	No flashback.
	Nope.
	Brand new, fresh, fresh new content.
	We do have some mixes once in a while.
	This will be two interviews that I've done.
	One with Dane Jasper, the CEO of Sonic.net, talking about gigabit Ethernet.
	Now, why will this be interesting to everybody?
	Because we have a lot of dudes named Ben and we want to hear from a guy who's actually stringing his own wires outside of the AT&T infrastructure.
	And we're going to talk about Gigabit.
	He's an independent guy.
	He's like us.
	He's a separate and independent of the mainstream.
	Yeah.
	Nice.
	So there's like wires out in front of my house.
	These guys came by these trucks that say Sonic.net and they're stringing wires.
	Not wires, but cable, but fiber.
	So it's fiber to the home.
	FTH. Not fiber to the curb.
	FTH. Yeah, yeah, FTTH. Nice, okay.
	So that's a dude named Ben.
	Yeah, I'm very interested in that.
	FTTH, let's get that right.
	FTTH, yes.
	Now, on the other one, I have an exclusive interview with Scott Adams.
	Woo!
	And Scott, who I've known for 25 years, made it a little easier to do this interview.
	Now, can we cut the questions you have for Dane into Scott's answers?
	I don't have time for that, since I have to have this produced by tonight.
	Oh, okay.
	So, I could.
	It would be funny, but it wouldn't be that funny.
	But I do have a teaser to show you the kindness that we'll be talking about with Scott.
	Excellent.
	Now, you said you've known him for 25 years?
	I don't think people know that.
	Yeah, yeah.
	I've been over to his house and I haven't seen him for at least...
	Why do you always talk such shit behind his back?
	I don't understand.
	He's...
	Yeah, we're actually...
	If I saw him more, we'd be pretty good friends.
	I bet.
	Nice.
	Yeah.
	But he...
	Here's an example.
	I asked him a question.
	I said...
	Of course, he hates the word Trump apologist.
	We talk about that a little bit in the show.
	Because he's not.
	He doesn't vote.
	He talks about this.
	He's not a member of a party.
	He doesn't care.
	He just likes to analyze things.
	He just wants the weed to be legalized.
	Oh, it is.
	Well, in California, yes.
	It is.
	It's legalized.
	And he...
	I asked him a question.
	I said...
	Just to, you know, talk about Trump as a great persuader and he's outsmarted everybody else.
	Has this hurt your income or anything at all whatsoever?
	Because this is a question I felt I needed to ask.
	I'm sorry for interrupting your setup.
	This is the definition of a great question.
	This is the question that everybody should be asking him wherever he goes.
	They never ask him this.
	Ever.
	Ever.
	Oh, sure.
	No, go ahead.
	I'm sorry.
	No, she stepped on you.
	I will say that I got out of him at least three things that I've never heard.
	In fact, I thought two of them, he almost decided never to talk about, but I got it.
	You don't want to mess with Dvorak.
	He's a real juice squeezer, I'll tell you.
	Oh, sure.
	Yeah, probably 40% of my income evaporated and 75% of my social circle.
	Yeah, I'm quite an outcast.
	And I don't do public speaking anymore because it's too dangerous.
	You know, I wouldn't feel comfortable...
	If there was any publicity and you put me in front of a big crowd right now, because it only takes one person to say, that guy said something good about the president's persuasion skills.
	He must die.
	So I don't think it's safe to be in public when people like you are branding me a Trump apologist.
	People like you?
	Did you brand him?
	That's funny.
	That's very funny.
	So he says he's lost 40% of his income.
	40% of his income.
	That's Dilbert.
	Yeah, and 75% of his social circle, which does not surprise me in California.
	I say that's a win.
	It's not a loss, Scott.
	It's a win.
	That's what I would think.
	It's a big win.
	Yeah.
	Tina and I are like, hey, you know what's really great?
	We live with our best friends.
	Our only friend.
	Yeah, we're best friends and we've got some kids.
	That's about it.
	It's interesting that the gun range will meet more friends.
	Oh, yeah, and I've got tons of friends there.
	Reds.
	Reds.
	No, so that's the kind of interview it is.
	Nice.
	I'm very excited about that.
	Both.
	Very excited.
	Very good.
	Very good.
	Excellent.
	I enjoyed it.
	That is very nice.
	Okay.
	All right.
	Oh, you know what we can do here?
	Let me see.
	I think what we probably should do.
	Yes.
	And now it's time for your sexual harassment update.
	It's been a while since we've had a full-on sexual harassment update.
	But there are some moves.
	Things are happening.
	Things are going down.
	And we're on top of it.
	And we start with a very contrasting report from the CBC in Scandinavia.
	Where they're not paying attention to, in particular, NBC and CBS, the way we do here south of their border.
	But they have some interesting observations which have only marginally been discussed here.
	Their resignations were public, the backlash swift.
	But can the men disgraced in the Me Too movement return to the spotlight?
	Well, this week we saw some of the first steps towards comebacks.
	Comedian Louis C.K. returned to the stage for the first time since he was accused of masturbating in front of female colleagues.
	Page Six reported that fired Today Show host Matt Lauer recently told fans, quote, I've been busy being a dad, but don't worry, I'll be back on TV. And for some time, it's been rumored that former CBS This Morning host Charlie Rose is looking to host a new show where he interviews men brought down by the movement.
	Charlie Rose is a genius!
	He's a genius!
	How am I ever going to get back?
	Hold on, let me open my bathrobe for a second.
	How am I ever going to get back?
	I have an idea.
	I'll do a show about my colleagues.
	Tell me about this sexuality.
	It's in your DNA. No, it's here, behind my bathrobe.
	So I thought that was pretty interesting, especially the Charlie news.
	I didn't realize that.
	And it'll get on the air.
	It'll happen.
	It'll totally happen.
	And Matt Lauer, well, it's too early now, but he'll come back.
	This is America.
	We love to come back, kid.
	As long as you eat enough shit.
	As long as you're not Cosby.
	Ah, you know what?
	If he played his cards differently, he could probably come back, too.
	Yeah, but he didn't.
	He played his cards.
	He played his very wrong.
	Very wrong.
	Yeah.
	Because America, we'll just forgive you, brother.
	Don't worry about it.
	And I think Louis C. K. already has an excuse for that masturbation stuff.
	Yeah.
	If he had said, you know, because it was female comics.
	Yeah.
	He was masturbating.
	He's masturbating in front of a female comic.
	And what he should have said was, all I was doing there was reviewing their set.
	Okay.
	All right.
	I'm surprised he hasn't hired you yet as his attorney.
	Big moves over at CBS. This was breaking news this morning.
	We do have a story that we should be sharing with people, of course, involving CBS, a company that, of course, there's been no shortage of reporting on lately.
	What we can tell you this morning, though, is that the board of directors of CBS is deep in settlement talks with the company's CEO, Leslie Moonves, that would result in his exit from a company, of course, that he has led for a very long time.
	It would also mean the appointment of Joe Iannello, the current COO of CBS, as its interim CEO. This, according to people who are close to the negotiations between Moonbez and his board.
	Now, the talks between Moonbez and the board, they've been going on for some time.
	And they have yet to reach a conclusion, given what appears to be a continued back and forth About Moonves' exit package.
	While under his contract, he's due as much as $180 million in severance and a production deal.
	Sources tell me the board right now offering a package that would be roughly $100 million, made up almost entirely, though not completely, of CBS stock.
	The rest of it being cash.
	But it also wants the right to claw back some of that compensation if, at the conclusion of an ongoing investigation into charges of sexual harassment, Moonves has been found to have committed other inappropriate acts.
	Yep.
	I like the clawback provision.
	That's a really good one because if he fights that, oh, you're hiding something, huh?
	You don't want the clawback, do you?
	And we know you're not right past it.
	Well, the clawbacks, these guys like to do that because these numbers are outrageous.
	They've got to do something.
	You've got to pull some of that back.
	I mean, there's something going on here with Moonves.
	And I think it's the only...
	Who does it?
	I'll tell you.
	This seems to me that...
	Well, hold on a second.
	It seems to me that once Lauer went down...
	The next thing you know, you have these three networks.
	Lauer goes down and that damages NBC. And who's behind it?
	We don't know.
	But the decision is made by somebody, either the same people that took down Lauer or NBC's people, to take down Moonves, CBS, because that's hugely damaging.
	because Moonves is one of those guys who may or may not be a jerk, but he's one of those guys...
	And actually, in the Scott Adams clip or interview, you're going to hear a little discussion of this sort of thing, where he's a character that's so important to the company.
	He's the guy who, at some point or other, says, no, let's not do that.
	Let's do this.
	And those guys are...
	they don't look like major players until after they're gone.
	Then ABC gets dinged by getting Lasseter kicked out.
	Same kind of guy.
	I came up with kind of a simple explanation for all of this because the Daily Beast has also been teasing They've got a huge expose on Weinstein, his relationship with Andy Lack, the president over there at NBC News, I guess.
	Tucker Carlson is all over this.
	He's dragging in Chuck Todd that he must have known about it.
	They're all covering.
	There's a lot of stuff going on about why they didn't report on it, why they turned Ronan Farrow away.
	And I think just from a simple perspective, and this is based on other people I've spoken to about Harvey Weinstein who know him, that.
	And I'll go back to what Pachanik said.
	He's just an ugly Jew boy.
	I'm quoting him.
	Pachanik's a Jew, so he gets to say that.
	But that's what he says.
	He's just an ugly Jew boy who figured out that you could get laid and the women would gladly screw him.
	To get jobs.
	And that this network of guys at the top have been doing this for decades.
	This is the casting couch.
	I think that's what's going on.
	And you now see Asia Argento.
	She's now flipped the whole story about her having paid off the 17-year-old actor.
	Now she says she was sexually attacked by him.
	It's all coming off the rails.
	Totally.
	And I think, sadly, sadly...
	What has happened here is, you know, through simple Pavlovian response mechanisms, these men who have been at the top of their game, and Trump is the same way!
	Come on, this is the grabber by the pussy crowd!
	It's not just Trump!
	Power is attractive!
	You could be ugly!
	Our president can look pretty ugly at times.
	I'm sure he's not pretty naked.
	Look what he's getting.
	It's not just money, it's power.
	And it's attractive, and people fall for that.
	And I think, sadly, what we've seen here is a lot of accusations.
	And Weinstein may get off.
	He may actually get off scot-free.
	No, he's gotten off before.
	Ah, yes, I was waiting for that.
	So maybe they picked the wrong targets, but instead of saying, hey, this is war between the networks, which it could be in a way, hey, he's going down, screw it, I'm taking him down before I go down.
	I think they're all in it, John.
	And if they unravel that and they get anywhere deeper within ABC, they may find some very, very ugly stuff.
	That's why I'm encouraged about this.
	I'm encouraged because it's hilarious.
	Yeah, exactly.
	And there's a beautiful silver lining to this for Megyn Kelly, who made the step from Fox to NBC, seen, of course, as traitorous because she went over to the lefty crazy side, and she has not found her footing anywhere.
	Miraculously, they have not fired her.
	She's got the stupid daytime show, which has not been working, no traction, and all of a sudden, the genius of either Meg...
	I think it's her, and I'm very, very proud she did this.
	She's decided to take on her own network, to a degree, of course, but I do have a clip of her discussing this on her show.
	As you heard in that report, NBC News says now that, quote, there was not a single victim of or witness to misconduct by Weinstein who was willing to be identified.
	Moreover, they say Rose McGowan had refused to name Weinstein, and then her lawyer sent a cease and desist letter in August 2017.
	Late last night, Rose McGowan and Rich McHugh, the former NBC producer, both challenged that assertion, telling Megyn Kelly today that McGowan did go on the record with NBC in February 2017 after that on-camera interview with Farrell and that telling Megyn Kelly today that McGowan did go on the record with NBC in February 2017 after that
	Both McGowan and Rich McHugh say NBC had this on-the-record off-camera assertion from McGowan for eight months, long before her letter sent a cease and desist letter, which McHugh says was communicated to NBC executives.
	In a statement to Megyn Kelly today this morning, NBC News responded as follows, quote, As the interview transcript clearly indicates, McGowan did not name Weinstein as her attacker on camera in the February 2017 interview.
	The first time Ronan Farrow submitted a draft script on this story was five months later, on July 23, 2017.
	If Farrell had McGowan on the record, but off-camera before that date and wanted to proceed with airing the story, he did not indicate that to his editors.
	Within days of that July 23rd draft script being submitted, McGowan canceled the follow-up on-camera interview and her attorney sent NBC a cease and desist letter revoking all permission to use the first interview.
	There's a lot to unpack.
	Yeah.
	But what...
	What we're seeing here is Rich McKeown.
	Oh, dynamite.
	She's putting a little...
	So hard.
	This is a great career move.
	Megyn Kelly, you're a genius.
	Oh, it's so hard for me to do.
	It's in my own network, but I'm strong.
	I can do this.
	I can do my own network.
	I love it.
	Yes.
	The first interview.
	This is journalistic integrity.
	This is what press freedom is about.
	There's a lot to unpack.
	Getting fired.
	No, they can't fire her.
	This is why it's so genius.
	You're going to fire her because she questioned your hashtag YouTube?
	You bide your time.
	But what...
	What we're seeing here is Rich McHugh, who just resigned from NBC, who was Ronan's producer on this story, has now gone public with his accusations that NBC, he claimed, blocked the story.
	NBC vehemently denying that and saying they didn't have anybody.
	They didn't have anybody on the record who was willing to name him.
	And Rose McGowan telling us she was on the record, that she was on the record for months and they didn't use the statement.
	And you heard NBC's saying, if that's true, it wasn't communicated up the line.
	And now you have, you know, that's a dispute now between NBC and the reporters on the story.
	But this is getting, it's getting really in the weeds and it's getting really uncomfortable.
	It's almost like Braxton Hicks contractions.
	It's so uncomfortable.
	And I have to credit you and NBC for discussing it right here in this building today.
	Brilliant career move.
	Outstanding.
	She's just outstanding.
	You watch her fly now.
	This is going to be great.
	She's going to be doing interviews everywhere about her tough stance against her own company.
	But you know, this is what journalists do.
	If she plays it right, I don't know who's representing her, but if she plays it right, that's the way to go.
	And with all this, just to wrap this up...
	I'll make it real simple.
	After we heard Twitter, the Twitter stuff, and we all see what's going on on Twitter, and we hear about this hashtag meets two stuff, I'm going to take the veil away from your eyes.
	Because every human being on this earth either has or will cheat.
	You will have infidelity in your life.
	Those who have been through it and it didn't turn out so well, you probably won't do it again.
	Everybody has horrible thoughts about everybody else, and given the chance to do that safely, they will say it.
	We're a-holes.
	Happy Humanity Day, everybody.
	And this concludes your sexual harassment update.
	It's actually putting the show on a down note sheet.
	Well, I can do some up stuff.
	Come on, I gave...
	Well, if you just play the foamer again, that brings us back to normal.
	Oh, yeah.
	This is our go-to...
	Show level of humor back to normal.
	Yes, we do need that.
	Hold on.
	Oh, my God!
	Listen to that horn!
	You want to do some climate stuff?
	Not really.
	I want to get some politics out of the way, which is me.
	Oh, no, not more politics.
	Oh, okay.
	Climate.
	What was the latest climate thing?
	That one of the tennis players lost the game, according to the New York Times, because of climate change.
	Did you see that?
	Because it was hot and she took her...
	Veteran.
	No, I didn't say he lost because of climate change.
	The New York Times article, Federer lost the U.S. Open game because of climate change.
	Trump!
	I knew Trump had something to do with it.
	But they both didn't lose or die.
	I knew Trump had something to do with it.
	Well, hold on.
	I got two climate change things in the media, which is always fun.
	I do not watch the show Elementary.
	Do you watch the show Elementary?
	Yes, I do.
	Well, I'm surprised you haven't brought this clip to the table then.
	There probably was a clip I remember one recently that I was going to pull, but I never did.
	This is probably it.
	This is a FEMA flood map.
	Kidnappers are making you redraw flood zones.
	Care to let the rest of us in?
	FEMA, the federal government, is in charge of determining the risk of flooding for everywhere in the country.
	I can hear Norman Lear tapping away at the keyboards.
	And maps like this break the flood risks down into zones.
	Red is the highest risk, orange is second, and so on.
	They're used to plan emergency responses and to say who needs flood insurance and how much.
	But with climate change and rising sea levels, FEMA has been redoing all the old maps.
	Redoing all the maps!
	There's a staggering amount of data that goes into these maps.
	Staggering!
	And a lot of it comes down to statistical analysis, the likelihood of X event happening in Y number of years.
	Oh, P values!
	It takes forever.
	I mean, I heard from a colleague recently that the maps we were working on back then are just entering the public review phase now.
	So your maps aren't official yet?
	No.
	And your captors wanted you to change the math that Harlem was doing in order to make maps look different to them?
	It's a Total Climate Gate storyline.
	Yeah, it kind of was.
	It wasn't as good as the other elementary clip, if you recall, that I played.
	This is not the first time we visited the show.
	Somebody's writing these scripts about the patent-stealing.
	Where the government can find a good patent and they just steal it and you don't get credit.
	Oh yeah, that was just a couple shows ago.
	Yeah, that was elementary.
	Ah, okay.
	Well, you've spurred people on because I don't watch the show.
	It was sent to me.
	That's good.
	I enjoy these mysteries.
	I know the structure of a detective story and I'm always trying to see.
	They break it very rarely, but most of the time they don't.
	Uh-huh.
	And for people who like to watch these things or want to follow the basic theories of these stories, they're all the same.
	And typically, just for your information when you're watching one of these, the first for your health.
	The first person you see is the killer.
	The first person on screen is always the killer?
	Well, not the main characters, but I'm talking about the first person that has anything to do with asking about the murder.
	Oh, Bill's dead?
	That first guy is the guy who always does it.
	Now you've ruined it.
	So, it's the way it is.
	I'd say 90% of all detective story murder mysteries.
	The first person did it, and the rest of the story is all misdirection.
	And the way Elementary does it, which I think is one of the best models, they do misdirection, and then the misdirection itself leads to the guy who did it who is the first person.
	And I find this story very well structured.
	Except it's completely deconstructible and therefore no fun once you know the formula.
	All detective stories are deconstructible.
	They're all the same.
	Well, the CBC uncovered something, quite literally, that should be very alarming to all of us.
	It's been a summer full of records and extremes.
	Just take a look at BC. The province is now officially dealing with its worst wildfire season on record in terms of hectares burned.
	And that's meant smoky skies for much of Western Canada.
	This is Calgary's skyline, sort of.
	Let's not forget Montreal's deadly heat wave back in July, but we're not the only ones feeling the effects of extreme temperatures.
	Have a look at Europe, where summer has felt like a modern-day version of biblical plagues.
	And just when you thought...
	Biblical plagues!
	The warning signs couldn't get any worse.
	Bring in the hunger stones.
	Located in the Czech Republic along the Elbe River, the rocks were used to record low water levels.
	But starting centuries ago, when those water levels got dangerously low, bad enough to result in droughts and terrible harvests, past generations wrote news.
	Notes on those rocks.
	Warnings to the people of the future.
	Like this one.
	A message from 1904 saying, if you see me, weep.
	At least a dozen of these hunger stones in the Czech Republic and Germany have now appeared.
	No one knows how many there really are.
	Oh my goodness.
	Was there global warming in 1904?
	What was going on back then?
	John, all I know is I'm reading another stone and here's what it says.
	You might die.
	Well...
	I like The Hunger Stones.
	The Hunger Stones is great.
	I'd never heard of this.
	I think it's a title for a book, Hunger Stones.
	Yeah, about a bunch of kids that kill each other with rocks.
	Yeah, that's creative.
	The Hunger Stones.
	And that is your climate update, everybody.
	We're all going to die.
	Play this clip because I don't remember what it is.
	This is the CBS, it says CBS, and it must be CNBC, looking at fire idiot comments.
	So when you look at Bob Woodward's...
	Ah!
	Ah, okay, stop.
	Yeah, we should talk about this.
	This is an important topic.
	So Bob Woodward's got a book out called Fire, and this is his latest thing, and we played it...
	I love this.
	I love the book.
	I love the op-ed.
	I love the whole story.
	It's great.
	So some phony baloney op-ed came out, which is really about the book because everybody played it the same way.
	All it's doing is confirming Bob Woodward's book.
	It's completely about the book.
	If you want to just run through it, it's very short.
	It's not a long essay.
	But I just made...
	I wrote down some comments on it.
	Why bother reading it?
	Because if you listen to the ABC... Well, actually, ABC. I didn't play, though.
	I didn't clip the whole thing.
	But ABC... Here's the background.
	This is the intro.
	This is a 45-second intro to what becomes a...
	For all practical purposes, a complete paragraph-by-paragraph reading of this stupid essay.
	But play this ABC clip first.
	We begin with that unprecedented move, something we have never seen before.
	A letter published late today by the New York Times, written by someone inside the Trump administration.
	An anonymous senior official describing what it's like inside the White House, inside this administration.
	Saying, I work for the president, but like-minded colleagues and I have vowed to thwart part of the president's agenda.
	And his worst inclinations.
	The senior official writing in that letter, we know what is happening.
	Adding, quote, there is a quiet resistance within the administration to put country first.
	Tonight, the president tweeting just moments ago a one-word question.
	Treason?
	And it all comes 24 hours after Bob Woodward's bombshell book.
	ABC's chief White House correspondent, Jonathan Karl, leading us off.
	Coincidence?
	Coincidence?
	Jonathan Karl...
	For all practical purposes, reads the entire essay.
	It's unbelievable.
	I mean, it goes on for five minutes now.
	It was ridiculous.
	But on the other side, I think a very good two-minute rundown of the whole thing, which includes some clips from the essay, not the book.
	But it talks about the book.
	This is the insider slam.
	This is Hallie Jacks on NBC, who I think does a much better job.
	He's still an anti-Trump reporter, but much better job than Jonathan Karl.
	An extra alarm?
	See, inside out, jaw-dropping charges against the president by someone who says they work for him.
	An anonymous source describing a secret cluster of top aides, quote, working diligently from within to frustrate parts of his agenda and his worst inclinations.
	I would know, the author writes...
	I am one of them.
	The New York Times late today publishing that op-ed, choosing not to share who wrote it, but describing them as an official whose job would be jeopardized if their identity was revealed.
	The headline?
	I am part of the resistance inside the Trump administration.
	When you tell me about some anonymous source within the administration, probably who's failing and probably here for all the wrong reasons, if the failing New York Times has an anonymous editorial, can you believe it?
	Anonymous.
	Meaning gutless.
	A gutless editorial.
	We're doing a great job.
	The writer praising some of the president's successes, but arguing they've come despite, not because of, his leadership style.
	Describing half-baked, ill-informed, and occasionally reckless decisions that have to be walked back.
	At one point, the official describes early whispers within the cabinet of invoking the 25th Amendment to remove the president.
	But no one wanted to precipitate a constitutional crisis.
	Americans should know that there are adults in the room, the person writes.
	We fully recognize what is happening, and we are trying to do what's right, even when Donald Trump won't.
	The explosive op-ed echoes the portrait painted in a bombshell new book of a chaotic White House driven by dysfunction.
	The president doesn't believe any of it.
	The book means nothing.
	It's a work of fiction.
	Everything on the trumprotation.com, trumprotation.com, everything with very few exceptions on that list are put into these reports.
	But it's also in the article.
	Yes, in the article, too.
	The op-ed.
	And it's like the Trump rotation, they still don't know how to focus on anything.
	They need a lesson in formats and rotations.
	They're just shotgunning the entire list that we put online, which is trumprotation.com.
	You can read it.
	Everything that everyone said that's bad about it, everything except the orange faces in these comments.
	And then when I play a later clip with John Kerry, he manages to bring that in.
	If you look back at Woodward's past, he had the same problem with other presidents.
	He likes to get publicity, sell some books.
	The book's author?
	Bob Woodward, one of the most well-respected journalists of his generation, whose reporting helped bring down Richard Nixon.
	For the American people, why should they believe you over Bob Woodward?
	Well, if you look at Bob Woodward's track record, I mean, he had the same problem with Obama.
	Every time he wrote a book, they were complaining about it.
	They were complaining about the lack of accuracy.
	Woodward tells NBC News he stands by his reporting.
	And the president tonight seemed to refer to that anonymous op-ed with a tweet of just a single word.
	Treason?
	And the press secretary is now calling the writer a coward, saying whoever it was should resign.
	All of it, Lester, capping yet another extraordinary and explosive day inside this West Wing.
	This thing is so multidimensional.
	There's so many things at play here, including the treason and anonymous sources and chaos.
	And then please just add to that that Bob Woodward, who brought down a president, every single member you see, every talking head you see on television, Dreams of Bob Woodward.
	They've gotten into journalism because of Bob Woodward.
	They want to be Woodward and Bernstein.
	They want to be that so badly.
	This guy is the Pope of News.
	He cannot be questioned.
	Cannot!
	And the obvious collusion between the book and this op-ed, and I just want to pull a few things out of it.
	And the CIA. Well, yeah, we'll get to that in a second.
	First of all, the New York Times, in their opening, because they gloss over that a little bit, here's what the Times said about their anonymous opinion editor.
	The Times today is taking the rare step of publishing an anonymous op-ed essay.
	Oh, it is an essay.
	What is the definition of an essay?
	You know, an essay.
	It's like a short exposition of some idea or thought or something to promote.
	It's a million things.
	But this is an essay.
	All op-eds are essays.
	We have done so at the request of the author, a senior official in the Trump administration whose identity is known to us and whose job would be jeopardized by its disclosure.
	We believe publishing this essay anonymously is the only way to deliver an important perspective to our readers.
	We invite you to submit a question about the essay or our vetting process here.
	And I just put a few annotations in there.
	In this note, there's the following.
	In addition to his mass marketing of the notion that the press is the enemy of the people, President Trump's impulses are generally anti-trade and anti-democratic.
	Well, I mean, who in the White House at this point does not know?
	I'm sure the message has gone out, hey, the president actually said fake news, and maybe he added CNN in there one or two times or a thousand times he said it, but okay.
	Then there's this.
	Meetings with him veer off topic and off the rails.
	He engages in repetitive rants, and his impulsiveness results in half-baked, ill-informed, and occasionally reckless decisions that have to be walked back.
	I believe this to be true from a certain perspective.
	It may look that way, because it is.
	But it's how the guy works.
	He has a knack for finding the right people to be around him, doesn't mind getting rid of them when they're not good enough or not performing.
	And he doesn't really even blame them, typically.
	He's like, it's not working out.
	I look like a dick.
	You're gone.
	And he throws stuff out left and right.
	He's hyperkinetic.
	And for some reason, and Tina and I were talking about this last night.
	John, we know lots of people like this.
	Well, let me tell you a little Scott Adams anecdote.
	Oh, good.
	This story was breaking when I was showing up at Scott's house.
	And we're talking about it for a little while.
	It's not on the interview, but he says...
	How's his crib, by the way?
	Is it a cool crib?
	Nice place.
	It's like a...
	Is it a big bag?
	Did you meet his girlfriend?
	No, she wasn't there.
	Is he getting married to her?
	I don't...
	He didn't say.
	Okay.
	And I don't usually pry into that sort of thing.
	I do.
	Yeah, you do.
	He says...
	Exactly.
	Because, you know, you have to remember that Scott and we talk a little bit about this on the show, but he he does office is basically all his cartoons are about a guy in an office.
	It's an office environment.
	And he's been into offices and he knows the mechanisms.
	He says, I don't see that this is anything more than typically some guy bitching and moaning about his boss.
	Exactly.
	Which is exactly what I think, too.
	This is like some grouser.
	This is I don't know.
	I mean, I've often in many of office environments thought the boss was an idiot.
	Absolutely.
	Pretty much everywhere.
	So why is this such a revelation all of a sudden?
	I'll give you an example.
	My friend Michel.
	And you know Michel because he owns the strip bars and the restaurants and the big entertainment complex in Guilford and also the house near Saint-Tropez where we vacationed.
	And Michelle is illiterate.
	And he'll say, Adam, could you please just write this for me?
	He'll hand me his phone to write something, a business text.
	Because that's how he does business.
	And he's like, I'm illiterate.
	I can't write.
	I can't write.
	I can barely read.
	You know, I'll send him an article.
	He says, can you just call me and tell me what that is?
	He can't read.
	And the guy is wildly successful.
	Well, not in everything.
	He has tons of money.
	Not a worry in the world, really.
	And I see his staff.
	I've seen his secretaries save his ass.
	His daughter.
	It's like, Daddy, you can't do that.
	You've got to do it this way.
	Oh, okay.
	And this off-the-rails thing, he knows how to take direction from other people, it seems.
	I know people like this.
	And it's odd.
	And you see it a lot in real estate.
	You see it in farming.
	You see it in factories.
	You see it everywhere.
	You're right.
	What am I talking about?
	And so this is a style that works, and you're successful or not.
	And yeah, so there's just bitching about his boss.
	And my note actually said normal.
	People are bitching about their boss.
	Now, I have a couple of things to read from this thing, because I thought this was...
	So I believe this, even though it's somebody bitching about their boss, I don't believe anybody.
	I still think this was planted by the agency because to get Woodward's book out there and the agency we know.
	Well, one thing, before you get into that, two more things.
	One, at the bottom it says the writer is a senior official in the Trump administration.
	That could be a lot of people.
	It is definitely, definitely not military or military intelligence because of the entire two paragraphs about McCain, his farewell letter.
	We may no longer have Senator McCain.
	We will always have his example.
	A lodestar.
	A lodestar?
	Lode?
	A lodestar.
	What is a lodestar?
	Well, Lodestone is what I know.
	No, Lodestar.
	Consult the book of knowledge.
	I'll read the rest while you're looking that up.
	A Lodestar.
	Anybody who writes Lodestar in my office should be fired.
	For restoring honor to public life in our national dialogue, Mr.
	Trump may fear such honorable men, but we should revere them.
	That is not a military person.
	No, no.
	Lodestar is a star that's used to guide the course of a ship.
	Especially Polaris.
	So nobody in their right mind would use that word.
	Guiding light would be a better term if you were a normal person.
	I'll tell you, nobody wanted to follow McCain when he was landing.
	Trust me.
	Well, he killed...
	Enough said.
	Enough said.
	Enough said about McCain.
	So here I'm reading this.
	This is, again, the CIA is notorious for kind of running the New York Times.
	There's plenty of examples of how that works.
	Yeah, Operation Mockingbird.
	It's out in the public.
	You can read about it.
	And Woodward is in the book, A Family of Secrets.
	Everyone should have read this book by now.
	Woodward came out of military – naval intelligence, I believe, where the word lodestar would be used perhaps.
	Woodward himself could have written this and then – I'm not buying the whole – I mean I don't think they'd lie about senior official, but it's possible that – Well, here's the result.
	Here's the result.
	Okay.
	No, go ahead.
	No, keep going.
	I'm sorry.
	I thought you were just grasping.
	Which is the, this is a scam.
	Yes.
	I think the two belong together and it's a scam.
	And I have some thoughts.
	I'd like to hear yours.
	Let me read a couple of pieces from it.
	You've read a couple.
	Although he was, now I want to read, I'm going to deconstruct this paragraph.
	For one thing, nobody who is—well, this is a very long sentence.
	The structure itself is not typical of a government bureaucrat senior official or not.
	I just say that.
	Although he was elected—because the editors come in, maybe the editors screwed with it.
	Although he was elected as a Republican, the president shows little affinity for ideals long espoused by conservatives.
	Wait a minute.
	He wasn't elected as a conservative.
	He was elected as a Republican.
	Mm-hmm.
	So now they've mixed up.
	So all of a sudden, Republicans or conservatives or Republican, they're synonymous, and he was elected as a conservative by the way they structure this bullcrap.
	He was elected as a Republican.
	They got that right, but then they switch it to conservative.
	He shows little affinities for ideas long espoused by conservatives.
	Okay, he was elected as a Republican, not as a conservative.
	Free minds, I don't see any difference, free markets and free people.
	Free minds, free markets, and free people.
	The things espoused by conservatives are liberty and freedom.
	So they got one of them in here.
	Liberty and freedom, and the Democrat side, or the progressive side is the other one, which is equality and justice.
	This is a theme that was pointed out on the show long ago, and freedom and liberty is the conservative side, not free minds.
	Free markets and free people.
	Free your mind!
	Then your dress will follow.
	And he says, at best, he has invoked these ideals in scripted settings.
	At worst, he has attacked them outright.
	Has he attacked free minds?
	Do you know of?
	Yes, he's living rent-free in a lot of them these days.
	Now, as kind of a walk back that this guy did, or woman, who wrote this thing, they throw these gratuitous compliments in just as code for something, and I'm not sure why they're doing it, just maybe so they can soften the blow of the critics.
	So two paragraphs later, he says, or she, don't get me wrong.
	I would like to run this through.
	I have the feeling it's a man, by the way, by the writing style.
	These are bright spots that the near-ceaseless negative coverage of the administration fails to capture.
	There are bright spots.
	So he said, don't get me wrong.
	There are bright spots.
	And he mentions effective deregulation, which took some leadership, historic tax reform, which took some leadership, and a more robust military and more.
	But then he continues, these successes have come despite the president's leadership style, which is impetuous, adversarial, petty, and ineffective.
	If it's ineffective, how do these things get done?
	Well, he's saying that the bureaucracy is doing it, but the bureaucracy is not going to do that tax break.
	Are you ready for me?
	Hit it.
	Do you have an opinion on who this is and what's going on?
	I don't have an opinion of who it is, no.
	Okay.
	I have an opinion of what went down.
	It's just a theory.
	Please address me as a conspiracy theorist.
	You are now a conspiracy theorist.
	I'm proud of that moniker.
	This was set up by John Kelly.
	There's three people involved.
	John Kelly, who is Trump's handler on behalf of the defense intelligence apparatus, who is really managing the guy, and is very tired, but he manages the guy.
	We know the military is running the show right now.
	It's been the CIA for eight years, and now it's back to the military.
	Involved were Kellyanne Conway and the Raj guy, and Trump did not know about it.
	And they set it up, they gave Woodward all kinds of great things.
	I'm sure Kelly called him a moron or whatever.
	I'm sure all of that happened.
	Because what is the message of the book, and what is accentuated to put the exclamation point behind the message in the New York Times is, it's a shit show?
	But there are adults in the room.
	There's nothing to worry about, people.
	And that is, in effect, true.
	That's what Kelly knows, because that's how things have been running, and that's why things are actually getting done.
	I think Trump got in on it.
	I think that they told him, and that's when he might have gone a little too far with the treason, they've got to tell, but he'll be able to play that for a long time, and that'll change the news cycle.
	Everyone will be focused on, can the New York Times do that?
	And is it treasonous?
	That's why I think he invoked the T word, treason.
	I think the message is, don't worry, adults in the room, as you can tell, they're making stuff work.
	Hey, we'll even take something off someone's desk, off the guy's desk if we have to, and look how good everything's going.
	That's the message, and I think it's a total setup.
	I'm not going to argue the message.
	I'm going to argue the genesis.
	Okay.
	Because there has to be a middleman, some schmuck, some schmo, a schlemiel perhaps, Right.
	Right.
	Someone is a very big patriot and is going to go down as a martyr.
	Somebody who maybe used to work for the Obama administration.
	There are plenty of them in there that can walk over there and they covered for him.
	Well, it's probably the national security guy who already...
	What's his name?
	Dan Coats.
	I think it could be him.
	It could be.
	It could be Larry Kudlow.
	It sounds a bit like the way Larry Kudlow would speak.
	No, no, they'd bust him.
	But Larry Kudlow would, I mean, he loves Trump.
	He wants to sleep with him.
	Not like that, but they'd bust him and he would...
	He's frail.
	He's fragile right now.
	He's recovering.
	He's not going to do it.
	He's not in active duty.
	And he's not one of those guys who thinks this is a complex mechanism to sell a lot of Woodward's books.
	Well, Woodward wins no matter what.
	Yeah, well, he always does.
	Okay, so what you're saying is it did happen and the New York Times thought this was cute and they're idiots because they're actually sending...
	You agree with the message, so they're sending that message?
	Don't they want to screw the president as much as possible?
	I think they don't think that dimensionally.
	Gotcha.
	Because they're journalists at heart.
	And they're just, you know, they're just knee-jerk reactors.
	They just say, oh, look what we got, look what we got, blah, blah, blah.
	They're like a bunch of little rats in a cage.
	Well, actually, we should talk about journos in a minute, and then maybe we'll bring in your libjos.
	But first, we're running behind today.
	I'm going to show my soul by donating to No Agenda.
	Imagine all the people who could do that.
	Oh, yeah, that'd be fab.
	Yeah, on No Agenda.
	And we do have a few people to thank for show 1066.
	Was that the Norman Invasion?
	Somebody's got to look this up for me.
	So Ever the What comes in at the top here at $144.
	Parts Unknowns.
	Rui, R-U-I, Salgado?
	Yep, Salgado, yep.
	He's in Portugal.
	Yeah.
	Salgado might be pronounced differently.
	1, 2, 3, 4, 5.
	I want to thank him.
	He's on the birthday list.
	He turns 33.
	33!
	And he's expecting his first human resource of the front hole variety.
	Horrible people.
	Dennis Covell, $106.60.
	This is in memoriam of England becoming subject to a foreign power.
	Well, sorry.
	Sorry to hear that.
	What are you going to do about that?
	Oh, $10.66.
	Hello?
	Oh, beautiful.
	That would be the moron invasion.
	Oh, so right.
	Yeah, he's got $10.66.
	You were right, sir.
	$106.60.
	And Dennis, you and Dennis, the only people in the world who still know some history.
	Well, let me try.
	John Robinet, $100.
	Sir Tristan Banning, $100 in Toronto, Ontario.
	Something about HBD, Adam.
	Happy birthday.
	Yes, thank you.
	Sir Brent Dombrowski, $99.99.
	Another birthday donation for you, in a funny way.
	No, it's just $99.
	It's $54,045,000.
	For himself.
	Oh, he's on September 3rd.
	Oh, okay.
	Gotcha.
	K.C. Crisler in Phoenix, Arizona, 8086.
	Hold on, hold on, hold on.
	This makes me a night?
	Is Casey on?
	Yes.
	I want to add the extra $10 for Walter C. hitting me in the mouth.
	But he's never donated, so a douchebag call-out and de-douching are in order.
	You've been de-douched.
	Please knight me as Sir Some Guy in Phoenix.
	I think the way you did that was improper.
	He asked for it.
	Did he want the de-douching for the guy he douchebagged?
	Yes.
	Oh, I thought it was for him.
	No.
	You did it correctly, then never mind.
	Sir Herb Lamb, 8008.
	Hopefully you'll get to see some boobs for your birthday, Adam.
	Dude named Muhammad Ali.
	Dude named Muhammad.
	Happy birthday to you.
	Thank you.
	Lee, I think there's another dude named Muhammad Ali and dude named Muhammad.
	Yeah, there's a dude named Muhammad Ali.
	Lee Whitaker in Royal Tunbridge Wells, Kent, UK. Royal Tunbridge Wells, yes.
	Rob Van Dyke in the Netherlands, 8008.
	Isn't that one of our guys?
	No.
	Oh, by the way, our guy Roderick won the big podcast award, the online radio award in Holland.
	Oh yes, I heard this.
	Somehow they said thanks to you and Dvorak was of the schmuck.
	What was that all about?
	Well, I was on the jury.
	So they said, hey, you want to be a part of the online radio awards?
	No.
	But yeah, you're the podfather.
	Yeah.
	So do I have to do anything?
	No, just vote.
	And of course, they're like, oh, send a video congratulating them.
	I'm not going to do a stupid ass.
	You know that shows up on TV and I look like an idiot.
	So no.
	So Roderick and my other protege, Michiel Feinstra, and they all won awards.
	So very happy for them, yes.
	Nicholas Vosler and Marina Del Rey 8008.
	He wants to listen to that horn.
	I think you've got plenty of it today.
	Robert Wood in Benbrook, Texas, 75.
	B.A. Brusson in Amsterdam.
	Probably Brusson.
	Oh, that's Roderick's guy from the award-winning TPO podcast.
	There you go, 55-55.
	Sir Tom Darry in DeForest, Wisconsin, double nickels on the dime.
	Sir Chris in Reno, 54-54.
	Valued cardholder.
	In Queensland, 5425.
	By the way, Sir Dirtbag Dave in Concord, California.
	The award-winning TPO podcast can be heard on the No Agenda Stream at noagendastream.com.
	Let's go back to our Reno pal.
	Happy birthday to Adam and a happy birthday douchebag.
	Call it to my friend Art in Las Vegas.
	Douchebag!
	So, Art...
	Chris in Reno gives you a douchebag call out.
	Carl Schneider, 54.
	Robert Marsh, 54.
	Keep up the important work.
	Jobs Karma.
	Darko, we'll put that at the end.
	Darko Militech in Buenos Aires, Argentina, 54.
	Do we have any other Argentinians?
	Not many.
	Ron Link in Holbrook, New York.
	And these are all birthday wishes.
	I'm sorry.
	These are all $54 donations.
	The last of the...
	Thank you for having a birthday, Adam.
	Yeah, and Ron Link actually says his smoking hot something is celebrating today.
	Ron Link's smoking hot wife.
	Okay, I'll put that in the birthdays.
	It's a birthday.
	You put her on there.
	He says he'll have an extra child on your benefit.
	He says right there.
	I will have to add an extra child.
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	It says candle.
	Never mind.
	Oh, I was going to say, if it's a child, of course the child has to be called...
	Adam.
	Adam, Clark, John, Charles.
	And what's his last name?
	Link.
	Rabinowitz.
	Link.
	No, his name is Link.
	Where's Rabinowitz?
	I don't see Rabinowitz.
	No, I just thought that would be a good name.
	Angelo Saucy.
	It looks like CH, which is Switzerland.
	Bart Barton's Parts Unknown.
	Sir Brian Tobiasen in Gardner, Kansas.
	Charles George in Coral Springs, Florida.
	Brian Moss in Rancho Santa Margarita.
	Peter Chong in Lakewood, Washington.
	Adriana Oporto.
	Sir Christopher Barron of the Buckeye.
	Sam Seeler.
	Alan D. Peterson.
	Rene Latour in Nova Scotia.
	Tyler Fox in Seager Park, Texas.
	He says, maybe we'll get that Mooney flight in while you're still 54.
	We have to go flying.
	Oh, yeah.
	Get that Mooney flight in.
	I want to fly it.
	John Leclerc.
	Sir Queen.
	Quijibu.
	Quijibu.
	In Luxembourg.
	In Luxembourg.
	Literally from Luxembourg.
	Daniel Roberts, Taylor Kuzela in Alpharetta, Georgia, Kurt, parts unknown, Daniel Gallo in Marietta, Georgia, Christopher Pauly in Verona, Wisconsin, Rob Warren, Michael Ragusa, Sir Terry, the Night of the Crowley's Ridge.
	Ragus, it's Ragus.
	Ragus, Ragus.
	Ah, there it is, Ragus.
	It's pronounced like Vegas, Ragus.
	Sir Terry, Night of the Crowley Ridge, Adam Barrett, James Blair, Michael Gay, and James Blair ends your little congratulations list.
	Yeah, it's from the Michigan Local 1.
	Yeah, Michigan Local 1 rocks.
	Very convincing.
	Michael Gates, 5280.
	Eric Hochul.
	We think.
	Why does he need a dedouching?
	Oh, this is a different guy.
	No, this is different.
	It's not Hochul, this is Hoff something.
	It's Norwegian, so PayPal screwed it up again.
	Well, we'll figure it out next time.
	No, we won't.
	He does need a dedouching.
	I can do that.
	You've been dedouched.
	He says he liked JCD's explanation of property whitewashing and Adam's realization of Bitcoin's true purpose.
	Being able to pay when entities try to stop you.
	And now we have $50 donors name and location starting with Andrew Martin in Sydney, Australia.
	Victor Munoz in Miami, Florida.
	Josh Defabaugh.
	Not Jeff.
	Sir Josh Defabaugh.
	Scotty Knight in Las Wages.
	Paul Van Cordelau.
	Oh, I haven't seen him on the list in a while, I think.
	Aumuddin.
	Aumuddin.
	Oh, no, of course.
	Aumuddin.
	We know Paul.
	Matthew Januszewski in Chicago.
	Villarreal in Mercedes, Texas.
	James Romano.
	Todd Moore in Arlington, Virginia.
	And Brian Klimczak.
	Parts Unknown.
	Ralph Johnson in Lake Isabella.
	Jason Deluzio in Chatsford, Pennsylvania.
	John Horner in Bay St.
	Louis, Mississippi.
	And last but not least, our buddy over here in Oakland, Sir Alan Bean in Oakland.
	Thank all these folks for producing Show 1066 with their generous contributions.
	Yes, and thank you for your birthday wishes as well.
	I really appreciate that.
	Had a very nice birthday.
	It was very, you know...
	Calm.
	Cool.
	Just Tina, Marie, and me.
	And it's very nice to get, you know, since there's no more face bag in my life with people who just click a box to say happy birthday.
	HBD. Won't even say happy birthday.
	HBD. Wish them a happy birthday.
	Click.
	HBD. Well, thank you for the personalized gift.
	Right.
	Well, and these are personalized.
	I'm reading the spreadsheet and people have nice little notes and so thank you very much.
	And also, of course, thank you.
	Sorry?
	Do more than click a box.
	Yes.
	Yeah, they took like real money out of their pocket and supported the show in my honor of being born.
	So really, they're honoring my mom.
	Yes, thank you to everyone who came in under $50 on our subscription plans, our layaway plans.
	We have the 3333s, 1111s, 1212s, and also for reasons of anonymity.
	And a reminder, we have meetups coming in Bucharest, Romania.
	Uh...
	Austin, Texas, of course, although we're waiting for a new date.
	It will no longer be October 6th because of Austin City Live, and you do not want to be in Austin when that takes place unless you are performing on stage.
	And who was this?
	The No Agenda Meetup.
	I guess there was a plea to please look at the No Agenda Show Meetup team, but then apparently someone's trying to do NoAgendaMeetup.com, which isn't going anywhere yet.
	So we're still a mess.
	Mimi needs to grab hold of this, John.
	Yeah, she's good.
	She's going to grab it.
	All right, because someone's doing something with changing meetup domain names.
	I don't know.
	In general, I encourage it because we want the meetups to happen.
	Yeah, it's always going to be a little helter-skelter, I think.
	Helter-skelter!
	All right!
	Our special show on Sunday, which we do want you to check out because we have Dane.
	Dane.
	Was Dane's last name again?
	Jasper.
	Dane Jasper, from SonicNet, and Scott Adams, John's doubleheader.
	There's nothing like a Dvorak doubleheader, and you'll have that on Sunday.
	Remember the Dvorak doubleheader at...
	Dvorak.org slash NA. We got some karmas to take care of here.
	Jobs, jobs, jobs, and jobs.
	Let's vote for jobs!
	Yeah!
	You've got karma.
	It's your birthday, birthday I'll know what you're going to do Here are the birthdays for today It is September 6, 2018 Scott Richardson said happy birthday to his brother Adam Richardson Turns 25 Ruiz Salgado turns 33 tomorrow Sir Brent celebrated on my birthday September 3rd Sir Chris in Reno says happy birthday to his friend Art in Vegas Valued Koma cardholder A.K.A.
	Jeff Kenyon says happy birthday to himself He turns 25 on September 8th.
	And we say happy birthday to Ron Link's smoking hot wife from everybody here at the best podcast in the universe.
	It's your birthday, yeah!
	Okay, we got two nights.
	So there's my blade.
	Yeah, here we go.
	You got a double night glaze.
	Nice.
	Oh, wait.
	Yeah, I got it.
	Perfect.
	Brian Gerard and Casey Chrysler, step on up!
	Or Chrysler.
	It matters not because both of you are about to become knights and be known by your knight name here at the round table of the No Agenda Knights and Dames, and we thank you very much for supporting the work, and I am proud to pronounce the KD... Sir Skull and Scroach of the Lambda Lions and Sir Some Guy in Phoenix.
	Gentlemen, for you, we have Hookers and Blow, Red Boys and Chardonnay.
	We got Cookies and Vodka, Warm Beer and Cold Women, White Foods and Waffles, David Laces, Limoncello and Salmon, Fish Pie and Fellatio.
	We have Bong Eats and Bourbon, Vodka and Vanilla, Sparkling Cider and Escorts, Ginger Ale and Gerbils, and Mutton and Mead.
	All over at the Roundtable HQ, which is noagendanation.com slash rings.
	And that's where Eric DeShiel will help you get your package out to you as soon as possible.
	Thank you again for supporting the show.
	Remember our next one, which is a special Dvorak doubleheader.
	And remember us at dvorak.org slash NA. And I have a couple of cleanup notes to read, and also Eric did send a note in saying that our 666 guy actually made two 333 donations.
	Ah, okay.
	And he combined them.
	I didn't see...
	So you only sent a note in for the one of them.
	Hey, listen.
	So we'll assume that's correct.
	I have a...
	I have like a longer segment about journalism, which includes a very long clip of John Stewart.
	Let me read these.
	I'm just letting you know that that's what I was thinking of doing.
	It's going to be long?
	I think you'll like it.
	If not, you can always cut me off.
	You know you will.
	I don't do it.
	Sometimes you get mesmerized by some of these fabulous clips.
	I know.
	Dear Uncle John and Adam, this is from Victor Munoz.
	Who did send some money in.
	He started a nightly monthly layaway donation a couple of months ago.
	He needs a de-douching.
	Okay.
	You've been de-douched.
	He says the show's been on fire for a couple of months.
	Then Steeler96 writes in, writing to you, because of big changes coming along in the near future for myself, I was wondering if I could get some moving karma and jobs karma as I'm an adult under 40, about to move out on my own.
	Well, of course.
	You've got karma.
	There you go.
	He's looking forward to our deconstruction of the Kavanaugh stuff, and I think he probably got it.
	I think he got his...
	He got enough.
	He got some value.
	Yeah.
	Okay.
	Now, there was something we were going to discuss.
	We had a setup about Chuck Todd and his article, which he wrote about journalism.
	Okay.
	Can I get these clips out of the way, and then I think we can go there?
	Yeah.
	Because they're kind of semi-related.
	First, I want to play this.
	This is CBSN. That's what that is.
	It actually is CBSN. I want to make a comment about this.
	This is that show they have online.
	It's like the 24-hour news of CBS. And this is the fire the idiot comment, which seems interesting to me anyway, about Trump.
	So when you look at Bob Woodward's book, at least the parts that we know have been reported about, you break down some of the specific claims.
	It's interesting.
	Defense Secretary James Mattis denies that he compared President Trump to a fifth or sixth grader.
	Chief of Staff John Kelly denied calling the president unhinged or an idiot.
	The president appears to have accepted those denials, but how?
	How do these kinds of disclosures, these assertions in this book, how do they complicate the ability of Jim Mattis and of Chief of Staff John Kelly to do their job, Sabrina?
	Well, obviously there is a breakdown of trust, presumably.
	Now, John Kelly has had to refute...
	Multiple reports about what he has said about the president, the ways in which he has characterized him, and they have continued to be able to weather those controversies.
	But do recall that when Steve Bannon made derogatory comments about the president's son and the meeting at Trump Tower with the Russians in Michael Wolff's book, that led to a very public and dramatic rift between the president and the former chief strategist in his White House administration.
	Now, that was then and this is now.
	Steve Bannon is, of course, different than John Kelly and James Mattis, who have been a lot more enduring in their ability to continue and carry out their jobs.
	But we'll see if there are going to be any ramifications from these comments that they say they haven't made.
	But again, it's anyone's guess.
	You'll recall also Rex Tillerson.
	It was reported that he referred to the president as an idiot, and that was something that he did not necessarily deny, and that did continue.
	Continue and erode their relationship and eventually was part of the reason why he was forced out of the job.
	Now, I want to just say that I don't believe these guys are lying when they say they never said these things.
	I doubt if they did.
	Because the things that most of those guys are quoted as saying is right off the Trump rotation.
	Yeah, someone said them on TV. Yeah, but not necessarily Kelly.
	And they both denied it.
	Tillerson would never deny it.
	He just said he wasn't going to talk about it.
	So Tillerson probably did call Trump an idiot.
	That's what I have to assume.
	Now, the last thing I have for this whole thing, series, is John Kerry.
	The clips aren't too long.
	In fact, they're very short.
	John Kerry is the unluckiest guy in the world.
	Look at that head.
	Well, besides his head and the fact that he's got those weird eyebrows at that flake head.
	Watermelon head.
	I think he's a lizard.
	Yeah.
	And...
	He just came out with a book.
	What?
	He has a book too?
	John, where's our book?
	His book is like, nobody's going to buy his book because he can't get any publicity.
	So they didn't drag him on.
	The only reason he showed up on the morning show, and they prefaced it, I don't have the clip of the preface, but John Dickerson prefaced it by saying, Simon& Schuster is owned by CBS and that's why we've got this guy on.
	So...
	He didn't say those words, but he pretty much said that.
	He fought in the Vietnam War and became an anti-war activist when he returned home in 1984.
	He was elected to the U.S. Senate.
	He served for 28 years, including as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
	Most recently, he served as President Obama's Secretary of State.
	He was the chief negotiator of the Paris Climate Agreement and the Iran nuclear deal.
	Kerry's new book is called Every Day is Extra.
	He shares his life story from growing up as the son of a diplomat to becoming America's top diplomat decades later.
	Every Day is Extra is published by Simon& Schuster, a division of CBS. Mr.
	Secretary, good morning.
	Thank you, John.
	That's under the guise of disclaimer.
	Like, we're forced to do this!
	Speaking of the presidents and presidency, you had an interview on Face the Nation to which...
	Hold on a second, John.
	Was this at 2 in the morning on CBSN? No, no, this is not CBSN. This is the morning show.
	Oh, I thought it was the online thing.
	Oh, I'm sorry.
	No, the online thing was the other clip.
	President Trump tweeted about you possibly running for president, and he said, I should only be so lucky.
	What's your response to that?
	Well, you know, the president, I'm really not going to get into a back and forth on tweets.
	You know, I could give him a nickname, Agent Orange or something, and I could get back and forth.
	Oh, wait, wait, wait.
	Whoa.
	First of all, I'm just giving you...
	I can't give you anything yet, but...
	To catch this, that this guy has a book out, and the reason you write a book is to run for president, and he can't even, he has to go on his, you know, the publishers have to make sure he gets some airtime.
	This is, I feel bad for him.
	It's pathetic.
	It's really sad, and then, well, I could call him Agent Orange.
	Oh, my goodness.
	People who have big heads.
	I can call him a big jerk, a guy's ugly bastard, but I won't.
	A pussy grabber.
	I'm going to get into a back and forth on tweets.
	I could give him a nickname, Agent Orange or something, and I could get back and forth, but it doesn't take you anywhere.
	The president uses tweets as a weapon of mass destruction.
	And he obviously has exposed the world to the potential of a weapon of mass destruction in Iran.
	Hello, 2016 called they want their memes back, John Kerry.
	But pulling out of a deal that everybody in the world supports.
	So I'd rather stay on the substance because he wants to distract it and get into a fight.
	I want to stay on the real thing.
	He does not miss his point, though, because he's saying he hopes you run because he believes he could beat you is what he's saying.
	Look, nothing he says you can believe, and you always know there's a different motive.
	So let's not even get into that.
	What's important is, frankly, in my book, I lay out the challenge to our country.
	It's not a policy book.
	That's what's important.
	It's a story of a life that shows how we can confront the challenge that we face in America today.
	Oh, that sounds like a snooze.
	No kidding.
	Who wants to read that book?
	Nobody's going to read.
	This is going to be a big flop.
	Show me where someone called Trump a moron behind his back.
	That's a book.
	Now, there's a kicker here that I thought was worth clipping out.
	And to me, it was like the eye roller of the whole deal.
	And that's really more important, frankly, than listening to a guy who, as President of the United States, can't even go to the funeral of a war hero.
	He was uninvited.
	That's what I'm thinking.
	He was not invited.
	He was uninvited.
	He was specifically told not to go.
	And so he gets slammed by this jerk?
	It's like 24 hours since John McCain was put to death.
	So the guy says he can't even go to the funeral.
	Does this guy get that out of touch that he didn't know what the situation was?
	I believe he didn't know.
	Newsflash.
	They're all out of touch.
	Film at 11.
	So how do you tie this into Chuck Todd's article?
	You can do it.
	Alright.
	Well, and there's a reason for doing this.
	September 11 is coming up in five days.
	You're going to be crushed to death with September 11 stuff and truth or stuff and you name it.
	We're not going to do that on the No Agenda show.
	But I do have some history, some recent history that I think is worth listening to to understand the interaction between government, intelligence sources, and the media and people who seriously are considered journalists, New York Times journalists, journalists, And are performing actual journalism.
	Now, the reason I got on this is because somehow someone tweeted a link about this article that Chuck Todd had written.
	Apparently, he's also a guest editor at The Atlantic, which I don't know what guest editor means, if he has time for that.
	And, you know, he hosts Meet the Press, this prestigious spot.
	You know, he's seen as some of that Tim Russert rubbed off on him.
	And in his article, which I presume you read, John, I'm sure your Lib Joes have been talking about it, No.
	No?
	No, this is all news to me.
	I'm listening intently.
	Oh, it's titled, It's Time for the Press to Stop Complaining and to Start Fighting Back!
	Oh yeah, no, I knew about this.
	Yeah, I'm sorry, I did read it.
	And the subhead is, A nearly 50-year campaign of vilification inspired by Fox News' Roger Ailes, always easy to blame the dead guy, has left many Americans distrustful of media outlets.
	Now journalists need to speak up for their work.
	And paragraph two, there's a new kind of campaign underway, one of that most of my colleagues and I have never publicly reported on, never fully analyzed, and never fully acknowledged.
	The campaign to destroy the legitimacy of the American news media.
	And so this whole thing goes on about how, you know, everyone's a student of Roger Ailes, and it's all discredit, and fair and balanced, it's all tricks, and Trump is out to destroy everything, and it's 1984 George Orwell, everything, everything's in there.
	And we're journos, and we're trying to save you, America.
	Screw America, the world.
	We're trying to save you.
	And, of course, we're journos.
	We're libjos.
	Sometimes we get things wrong.
	We always correct and take responsibility.
	No, they don't.
	Oh, really, Chuck Todd, is what I thought.
	So I decided to pull two clips from the archives.
	The total will be about seven minutes of airtime, unless we interrupt them, which we may want to.
	And the first one is from 2016.
	This is September 11th, 2016, so we have not had the election yet.
	And Paul Wolfowitz, who was the Deputy Secretary of Defense during 9-11, is on the show.
	Now, what you'd expect is for Chuck Todd to say, you know, man, we really all got this wrong with the weapons of mass destruction, with the aluminum tubes, and, you know, as journalists, we feel pretty screwed and, you know, it's like, we're really sorry all these people died because we got it wrong in Iraq.
	Is there any of that?
	No, he all he does is deflects, blames everybody else.
	So does Wolfowitz, by the way.
	And so after we listen to Chuck Todd not taking responsibility, not apologizing, blaming his inside sources, then we'll go to the genesis of the weapons of mass destruction with the old Jon Stewart interview, which will remind you how refreshing Jon Stewart was in 2015 before which will remind you how refreshing Jon Stewart was in 2015 before Trump was on the scene and before everyone lost So first, Chuck Todd with Paul Wolfowitz.
	Let me go back to this issue.
	Here we are at 9-11.
	It was mostly Saudis, Saudi nationals, that flew those planes into those towers.
	Nobody from Iraq.
	And there's a lot of people that look today and go, why was that our first action?
	Why was that?
	Yes, we went into Afghanistan, but why was that our first action?
	And why didn't we ever hold Saudi Arabia accountable?
	Yeah, why didn't you report on it, Chuck Todd?
	You could make a case that a lot more Saudis were funding and fueling these terrorist attacks with Saudi money and things like that than anybody in Iraq.
	Look, there is a big problem with what the Saudis have been doing in propagating extremist versions of Islam.
	And I hope that people are right when they say the new crown prince or deputy crown prince.
	What concerned us about Iraq, and people want to forget this, but everybody believed, and Saddam was doing his best to convince us, That he had weapons of mass destruction.
	In fact, we knew he had previously had anthrax.
	He had previously had sarin.
	He was previously working on nuclear weapons.
	And that, of course, is why we had the phony baloney anthrax scare in Florida, because that's what we all knew.
	That's what we all reported on, because the inside intel sources had told us.
	And he made it clear after he was captured that he intended to start all of those programs again once the sanctions were lifted.
	No, he didn't.
	He was a real danger, and that's why there was a focus on weapons.
	Hold on, stop it.
	Saddam was denying that.
	He says that Saddam was making everyone think he had the weapons.
	He was going out of his way to deny it.
	He let the inspectors in.
	What's he talking about?
	He's lying and Chuck Todd is right there letting him blame other people.
	He was captured that he intended to start all of those.
	And by the way, where's the journalist Chuck Todd saying what you just said?
	He's not there.
	Programs again once the sanctions were lifted.
	He was a real danger, and that's why there was a focus on weapons of mass destruction.
	And people say after the fact that Bush lied and got us into a war, he wasn't lying.
	He was saying what everyone believed.
	Who lied?
	Is it bad intelligence?
	You know, somebody got us into this.
	Now, listen to Chuck Todd, what he's doing.
	Like, he had no role in this, and then, was it bad?
	But everybody believed it.
	Oh, you mean, like, Russian collusion.
	Everybody believed it.
	It was, everyone, it was, we knew it.
	We knew.
	Yeah, this is my point, obviously.
	And somebody convinced the United States Congress that weapons of mass destruction were imminent in Iraq, which is why so many Democrats and Republicans voted for this war.
	So he lied.
	I think the original liar is Saddam Hussein, who lied about what he had and we discovered he had more.
	Later, it seems he was lying that he had more than he really did have because he wanted to supposedly deceive the Iranians.
	Fumble, fumble, he had more than he said he had, but something.
	Yeah, okay.
	The fact is, every intelligence service in the world, not just the Americans, the British, the Germans...
	Everybody!
	...the French countries that oppose...
	97% of all intelligence sources...
	...all believe that he had weapons of mass destruction.
	Are you now concerned that this...
	Essentially, we were wrong...
	And if you think about the public...
	Have you ever considered we were wrong?
	Not Chuck Todd got it wrong.
	No, no.
	We were wrong because that's all your reporting is, Chuck Todd, is just parroting what you're told by your reliable sources.
	And it got a lot of people killed.
	Are you now concerned that this...
	Essentially, we were wrong.
	And if you think about the public's lack of trust for government right now, that's one of the reasons.
	That's one of the things over the last 15 years when you talk about Wall Street's inability to be truthful to us.
	And that now has undermined trust in government.
	Do you believe that?
	Undermined trust in government.
	Now remember, this is just before the election.
	Wait, wait.
	What?
	What's trust in government got to Wall Street being dishonest with them?
	What's he talking about Wall Street?
	Let's listen to that again.
	I wasn't focusing on the Wall Street part.
	Let me listen.
	Lack of trust for government right now.
	Hold on.
	Back a little further.
	He wanted to supposedly deceive the Iranians.
	The fact is, every intelligence service in the world, not just the Americans, the British, the Germans, the French, countries that oppose us in the war, all believe that he had weapons of mass destruction.
	Are you now concerned that this...
	Essentially, we were wrong.
	And if you think about the public's lack of trust for government right now, that's one of the reasons.
	That's one of the things over the last 15 years.
	When you talk about Wall Street's inability to be truthful to us, and that now has undermined trusting government.
	Whatever he's doing, he's not saying, hey, maybe the trust in the media was undermined because you kept telling us one thing and it turned out not to be true.
	Yeah, we didn't bother looking into it.
	On the eve of the election where everyone said 95-98% Hillary Clinton's going to win, do you find it strange, Chuck Todd, that there's a loss of faith and trust in the media?
	Do you believe that?
	Look, I think it's done a lot of harm, but I think, in fact, stating falsehoods, like saying that Bush lied about it, does a lot of harm as well.
	I believe that if we had had a better strategy in Iraq from the beginning, if the surge-type strategy had been implemented from the beginning, Iraq would look very different today.
	People would see the whole issue in a very different light.
	Okay.
	So, now, again, this was from 2016, just before the current election.
	Now we're going to go back, and this is my final clip, and this is, you know, this is really, it's a piece of history, but it was also so refreshing to hear Jon Stewart not be a blithering idiot and believing in what the intelligence sources said.
	is completely undressing Judith Miller of the New York Times.
	Judith Miller is the one who wrote every article about the weapons of mass destruction.
	She was getting it spoon-fed from the intelligence sources, and she is only blaming them.
	No responsibility on the part of the New York Times.
	But what's lovely about this clip is that you understand.
	Welcome to Mr. Rock.
	Rogers' Neighborhood.
	This clip is lovely.
	It's pretty funny.
	What is lovely about this clip is that Stuart, he's like no agenda.
	The way he used to be before he got blindsided by Hillary not winning or whatever his problem was.
	Whatever everyone's problem is.
	This is how it used to be on The Daily Show when we loved it.
	With Judith Miller, the woman who wrote about the weapons of mass destruction, the aluminum tubes.
	And she's there promoting her book and he is going to pull her apart.
	You wrote an article, this is September 8th, 2011, right?
	This was the big article.
	It said, U.S. says Hussein intensifies quest for A-bomb parts.
	You mean Michael Gordon and I wrote an article?
	Sure.
	Front page of the New York Times next to a giant picture of Never Forget 9-11.
	It was right around the first, there it is, in memory of 9-11.
	Front page.
	The information came from the Bush administration, yes?
	Broadly speaking, yes.
	It came from intelligence analysts and people in the Bush administration, yes.
	It came from the Bush administration.
	Right.
	Right.
	So, you write this article.
	Right.
	And you have somebody named David Albright, who is your source for whether or not this claim is wrong.
	No, he wasn't a source.
	He's an expert?
	He's an expert.
	Okay, and he's the guy you rely on and trust to tell you if this is wrong or right?
	No, one of several experts, because opinion is divided, and you have to ask a lot of different people.
	He's the expert that you write in your book that you trust, that you're desperately trying to reach?
	Yes, I was desperately trying to reach him.
	Yes.
	Couldn't reach him.
	So you just went with it?
	Well, because we had other sources.
	Who were the other sources?
	The guy in Bush's office, Joseph, who you didn't name.
	Whom I name in the book.
	But not in the article.
	No, but I named Charles Delfer in the article.
	Right.
	And I named who was the chief weapons inspector.
	Right.
	And we named Ahmed Chalabi and said that he was the man who wanted to take us to war.
	Right.
	So that you could evaluate the information.
	And we had many, many qualifiers.
	We are paying him to spread that information.
	We had reported that many times.
	Okay, so we know we're paying them.
	So we're paying, or the Bush administration is paying these guys to spread information about Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction.
	At the same time this is happening, Dick Cheney is going on television in August and saying there's a nuclear program, there's all these things.
	And in September, they begin what's called the White House Iraq Group.
	Yes?
	And that's a group of Karl Rove, Karen Hughes, and all these people, Gerson, and their job is to sell the war to the American people because they're not buying it.
	Can I just talk about aluminum tubes?
	Because there was something we knew that was new, that was really spinning up the intelligence community.
	We didn't know what it was.
	Sound familiar?
	Oh, something's going on.
	Everyone's talking about it.
	Russian collusion.
	So you report that they've got these tubes.
	This Albright guy never calls you back.
	No.
	So you run with it.
	Now, there's a phrase in your story on the 8th there where an unnamed source says, we don't want the smoking gun to be a mushroom cloud.
	Right.
	Right.
	That phrase, do you know where that phrase comes from?
	No, because I only know that Condi Rice repeated it.
	Right.
	It comes from the White House Iraq group five days before you write the article.
	But it's a very powerful line, and it explains their thinking.
	But it comes from Gerson.
	It's a political line directly tied to the White House.
	You said the information doesn't come from them.
	John, were we not supposed to report what it was that had the community, the intelligence community, so nervous about...
	Russian collusion.
	...about Saddam?
	No, you should have reported it, though, in the context that this administration was very clearly pushing a narrative.
	And by losing sight of that context, by not reporting...
	I think we did.
	The story said we...
	I wholeheartedly disagree with you.
	Well, that's what makes journalism.
	I mean...
	It's actually not what makes journalism, so let's continue with this.
	Let's continue with this.
	You run with the story when David Albright doesn't call you back.
	He calls you back on that Tuesday and says, there's something wrong with this.
	These tubes are not used for that.
	They're used for rockets.
	In your article on the 18th, which runs on page 13, not on page 1, and is still entitled, White House lists Iraq steps to build banned weapons.
	It's still titled something that seems like Iraq's the threat.
	Because the White House had just released another paper saying we have more evidence.
	Albright calls you and said this is wrong.
	Right.
	Okay.
	You don't put that in that article.
	Why?
	I did put it in.
	I said that the community was divided.
	I didn't quote David Albright.
	He said you could quote him by name.
	Yes, he did.
	Why didn't you?
	I think the story got cut for space.
	But I didn't, you know, look.
	So in your original article, you wrote in there, David Albright, and they cut it by taking out his name.
	I really don't remember, because on that story, I couldn't remember.
	What you say in the book is, you couldn't corroborate it.
	That's right, because he said, these are the labs that have the people that have a different view of these tubes.
	Right.
	And I called, I must have called 10 or 15 people, and nobody would talk about it.
	And so I went to David and I said, tell me one person who can corroborate this, and we'll put this, you know, we'll make the story as long as we possibly can.
	We'll sell it!
	And he either couldn't or wouldn't.
	There was a problem, because David, even though he disagreed about the tubes, believed that Saddam had a nuclear weapons program.
	I understand that, but the standard of proof in all this seems...
	Much higher on the side of, this is not an issue, and they're not a threat, and much lower on the side of, you're being fed.
	But that's what the intelligence community believed.
	That's what they were feeding you.
	No, no, that's what they believed, John.
	All right.
	Well, obviously, we're never going to see eye to eye on it.
	I mean, I appreciate you coming on the program.
	These discussions always make me incredibly sad because I feel like they...
	They point to institutional failure at the highest levels, and no one will take responsibility for it.
	And they pass the buck to every individual other than themselves.
	I think they point to intelligence failures that I still worry about every day, because we're still relying on the same intelligence communities to give us information about Iran, North Korea, Pakistan, and the other countries that we have to deal with.
	Well, hopefully, given the same effort, we'll get to invade all of them soon.
	I hope we won't.
	WTC7 won't go away.
	Well, I have the one comment that the audience and you kind of laughed at when she said, I think that was cut for space.
	Uh-huh.
	What happens in these situations where you have the intelligence community and the coziness that they have with the editors of the New York Times.
	Ah, yes, you're right.
	And there's plenty of stories, and there's plenty of stories that back this up.
	What happens is that she gets the quote from some guy.
	He says, yeah, yeah, yeah, you can quote me.
	And then he immediately calls the editors through some channel, a back channel, and says, hey, don't quote me.
	Exactly.
	Yeah, oops, and then, okay, we'll take it out.
	It's very easy to take out, and if she says anything, you say, hey, it was cut for space.
	Yeah, exactly.
	So she probably did put it in, but it was cut for space, and that was that.
	Yeah, it was good.
	And that's exactly what's going on now.
	Nothing changes.
	Yeah, well, that is exactly my...
	Well, as it was obvious, that's my point.
	It's like all this belief in the intelligence community and we have not learned that they sometimes really get it wrong and there might be agendas at play.
	This is the journos.
	This is the people who we need to trust.
	Chuck Todd should be ashamed of what he's saying.
	It's really a travesty.
	And that's why we exist.
	And there's clearly a need for what we do, because people are supporting the show, and we've been doing that for a decade.
	Despite there being more podcasts, more media, more news than ever, we're still here.
	And we have a special show on Sunday for y'all, the Dvorak Doubleheader.
	Make sure you check that out and remember us at dvorak.org slash NA. And the next time we speak, I will be in Italy still.
	That'll be next Thursday.
	And I will remember to have the clip of Kamala Harris and Cheryl Samper.
	Until then, coming in from downtown Austin, capital of the Drone Star State, FEMA region number six on the governmental maps in the show Elementary.
	In the 5x9 Cludio in the common law condo.
	In the morning, everybody, I'm Adam Curry.
	And from northern Silicon Valley.
	Where time's run out, I'm John C. Dvorak.
	We return with our Dvorak doubleheader on Sunday.
	Until then, adios, mohos.
	Okay.
	Wow.
	Eh?
	Hm?
	Sanford just shot by.
	Early?
	Nope.
	Right on time.
	That's exactly the time it should be coming by.
	Hm?
	Fifteen minutes.
	After nine.
	It was going full tilt.
	Did you hear that horn?
	Not a foamer's delight.
	What was cool about it, there was a freight train on the other track going in the same direction and it just passed like we're standing still.
	Wow, so cool.
	You ready?
	Almost.
	Trying to get over the coolness of another train on the track and this effort went by and it looked like we're standing still.
	I mean, holy crap, man.
	Holy moly.
	That's just so cool.
	OMG. Thanks.
	Let's do this.
	Oh my god!
	Listen to that horn!
	Not a foamer's delight.
	Happy birthday to you.
	Happy birthday to you.
	Happy birthday, Mr. Pye.
	Podcaster Happy birthday to you Happy birthday, Adam Love you No,
	I'm not So, however long people want to take We're going to Because this whole process is supposed to be a civil one where people get to ask questions and we get to get answers.
	It's an undermining of the constitutional role to which we have all sworn an oath to have a hopeful group.
	To answer every question about his role and almost anything he's done in his lifetime, I assume.
	But as President Obama famously said, elections have consequences.
	But frankly, we're not here to consider you as the president of our Neighborhood Civic Association or even to review whether you've been a great youth basketball coach.
	That should come within time.
	I wrote a big book, which I will never read.
	I know the man.
	He does things because it's the right thing to do.
	Oh, don't vote for Donaldson.
	He will grab you by the bus.
	He will grab you by the pussy.
	You stop it.
	Grab you by the pussy.
	He will grab you by the pussy.
	Talking to you now, lady.
	Grab you by the pussy.
	Grab you by the pussy.
	Don't go for him here.
	Grab you by the pussy.
	One more time.
	Grab you by the pussy.
	It's like 24 hours since John McCain was put to death.
	Oh my god!

▲