Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hello, everybody, Happy Saturday. It's Saturday morning here, and we
got the long awaited Trump Rogan interview clocked in at
exactly three hours long. There's quite a few let's just
say the weave was in full effect for the entire thing.
We both now listened to the entire interview. They ended
(00:21):
up dropping it around what was it like, ten o'clock
last night. It's got about ten million views now on YouTube.
So we pulled some of the sections that were the
most newsworthy that we thought, and we're going to go
ahead and start with some of them. The big, big
one that you're probably gonna hear from most media and
others is this one on the election from twenty Twentygan
(00:44):
asked Trump about specifically some of these quotes stolen election claims.
So let's take a listen and make sure the two
point speed's not on, and let's take a listen to
how that all went.
Speaker 2 (00:56):
I want to talk about twenty twenty because you said
over and over again that robbed in twelve totally. How
do you think you webbed? Everybody always cuts you off.
Speaker 3 (01:05):
I'm gonna do.
Speaker 4 (01:06):
It, well, they not only cut you up.
Speaker 5 (01:08):
Well, what I'd rather do is we'll do it another time,
and I would bring in papers that you would not believe,
so many different papers that election.
Speaker 4 (01:17):
Was so crooked. It was the most crooked election.
Speaker 3 (01:20):
Okay, but give me some examples of how.
Speaker 4 (01:22):
Well, let's start. Let's start the top and the easy ones.
Speaker 3 (01:24):
Okay.
Speaker 5 (01:25):
They were supposed to get legislative approval to do the
things they did, and they didn't get it. In many
cases they didn't get it.
Speaker 3 (01:32):
What things anything they made approval like.
Speaker 5 (01:36):
For extensions of the voting, for voting earlier, for this,
all different things. By law, they had to get legislative approvals.
You don't have to go any further than that. If
you take a look at Wisconsin, they virtually admitted that
the election was rigged, robbed, and stolen. They wouldn't give
(01:57):
access in certain areas to the ballots because the ballots
weren't signed, they weren't originals they were We could go
into this stuff. We could go into the ballots, or
we could go into the overall.
Speaker 4 (02:09):
I'll give you another one.
Speaker 3 (02:10):
Are you going to present? Like? Do you do you think?
Speaker 5 (02:16):
Let me just give you one before fifty one intelligence agents?
Speaker 1 (02:21):
Should I stop it there? Because that's that's basically.
Speaker 6 (02:24):
It, Yeah, are you going to present this ever? Well,
actually so it came.
Speaker 1 (02:29):
Back to it twice. So there was more at the
end as well that they went into. But I mean
I thought that was, you know, in terms of that's
the one mainstream media and others are going to be
picking up on, and I mean genuinely was. It's a
problem for him because what you see there is that
even in a setting where Rogan's like, I won't even
cut you off, like you could just go into it,
he's like, well, I still have to look back. I mean, look,
(02:51):
I don't want to say this is like the entire interview.
This is obviously three hours, but we're trying to pick
out the most newsworthy bits here and specifically also the
ones that the campaign will try to highlight from the
Kamala Harris side, and because this is a political vulnerability
for Trump, that was, in my opinion, one of his
weaker moments.
Speaker 7 (03:10):
Yeah, I mean it was also I mean, this was
maybe the most even like theoretically adversarial part of the interview.
Most of the interview was just kind of like bullshitting
about whales, psychologists and windmills, enjoy the one whatever, And
most of the interview too, As you said, this wasn't
the only place where stop the Steal came up. And frankly,
(03:32):
Rogan was like pretty sympathetic in most of the interactions
where he was like, oh yeah, like it's just like
Hillary totally deny the results. This is not unusual. Putting
the framing around what you're doing, which involved fake elector
slates and January sixth and you know, trying to get
the National Guard to seize ballot boxes, et cetera, is
(03:52):
just the same as Hillary, who conceded literally the next day.
So the framing overall was very like friendly. He also,
you know, indulged a lot about of course the Hunter
Biden laptop, and indulged a lot about well, of course
voter fraud is real and it's non zero blah blah blah.
But even within that context of a very friendly interviewer
(04:13):
and an audience that is overwhelmingly friendly too, you know,
he still kind of he still comes off looking like
a fool and a madman because he cannot explain anything
that makes sense about why he thinks there's fraud. He
just you know, throws a bunch of stuff out there.
It's relatively incoherent, says this thing about they were making
(04:33):
legislative changes, but they didn't go through the legislature.
Speaker 3 (04:35):
I know.
Speaker 7 (04:36):
One of the things I don't even know what he
was talking about with Wisconsin, but with Pennsylvania, one of
the things that they were pointing to is they had
changed some of the rules. You know, it was during
COVID to try to enable more mail in balloting. It
was a pencil, it was a Republican legislature that passed
those rules. So in any case, obviously there's no there there,
and Trump continues to insist that there is. There was
(04:58):
another interesting moment Sagra. I'm sure you caught as well,
where Trump said, like, you know, I lost by twenty
two thousand VOTs like Gus Well, he didn't lose, but
they said that I lost by twenty two thousands.
Speaker 1 (05:08):
It was very Lex Friedman esque. Yeah, I mean the
reason why I think, and I'm sure Trump people will
be furious they're even starting on this, but look, this
is first of all consequential, right in terms of whatever
happens and what is it ten days now? But it's
just like if you've had four years, don't you think
you would come up with something better than I would
love to come back and.
Speaker 6 (05:29):
Present with so many paperpers It's.
Speaker 1 (05:32):
Like, come on, man, and like this again, this is
the part where it just is. It demonstrates the fundamental
weakness of trying to actually play in this in a
serious manner. At the end, he's like, well, there's this
phenomenal book by Molly Hemingway. But again, if you actually
read that Molly Hemingway book, or if you're familiar, the
Molly Hemingway book is specifically about big tech and influence
(05:56):
on the election. And by the way, that's a very
different conversation than talking about mailings or fraud or whatever.
So right, you know, but let's particulate that properly. So
I was like, bro, and look.
Speaker 7 (06:07):
But how can you at this point when your biggest
donor is explicitly running a big tech platform on your behalf,
So like, spare me at this point your complaints about
the Hunter Biden laptop when at your request, Elon Musk
is censoring documents that you find to be unfavorable to
your campaign and running the algorithm, et cetera to benefit you.
(06:31):
So you know, if that constitutor stole an election last
time with Hunter Biden, laptop, like, tell me about what's
going on right now?
Speaker 1 (06:38):
Yeah, and I mean again, it's it is. Also this
is too where like talent comes into play, like with
JD you know, and look, people know Jade and I
very vehemently disagree about this whole twenty twenty election thing,
but he smartly usually comes back to tech and or
censorhip because that's about as good as you're going to get.
And me, we're still not going to look great, but
that's good to get With Trump, as I always tell people,
(06:58):
he believes it, all right, he actually believed it, and
so this is the evidence.
Speaker 7 (07:02):
Well, the last thing I don't I actually don't agree
that he believes it. I don't think that he really
believes No, I don't think so. I mean all the
people that told him over and over again that no,
there's no there there. I think that I don't actually
think that he believes this. But I think he just
can't admit that he lost because it goes so against
(07:22):
his image, et cetera, et cetera. The last thing I'll
point out, and you gestured towards the saga, is that
it's not just consequential because of what happened in the past.
It's also consequential because there, and we're going to cover
this this week. You know, they are laying groundwork for
if the election is close, especially and Trump loses, to
assert once again that it was stolen. I mean, he's
(07:44):
already making comments in that direction. At the McDonald's photo
op thing. He said, hey, you know, I'll accept the
election results if they're fair. But and then goes on
to say, hey, I'm I'm up in the polls and
I've got a ninety three percent chance of winning, which
is of course utterly preposterous. So you know, it's very
possible that he is going to win. But if he doesn't,
I think we're going to see another It's almost a guarantee.
(08:07):
We're going to see another organized effort to gaslight and
try to convince the country that it was stolen from
him yet again. And you know what the consequences of
that would be hard to say.
Speaker 1 (08:18):
All Right, So this next part, this was interesting to me.
This was Trump on what he did wrong while he
was president. Let's take a listen to that.
Speaker 5 (08:28):
The biggest mistake I made was I picked some people.
I picked some great people, you know, but you don't
think about that. I picked some people that I shouldn't
have picked. I picked a few people that I shouldn't
have picked.
Speaker 3 (08:41):
And neo cons, Yeah, neocons.
Speaker 5 (08:44):
Or bad people or disloyal people, or people that were
just people that people that advice.
Speaker 3 (08:50):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (08:50):
I mean, look, I mean you're reading about him a
little bit today.
Speaker 5 (08:54):
A guy like Kelly who is a bully, a bully,
but a week a weak person.
Speaker 4 (08:57):
You know, you know more.
Speaker 5 (08:58):
About bullies than anybody around because you deal in a
certain sport where the bullies are exposed very quickly.
Speaker 4 (09:05):
But you know, uh, he's bad.
Speaker 5 (09:08):
Bolton was an idiot, but he was great for me
because I go in with a guy like a John Bolton.
Speaker 4 (09:13):
You know John Bolton.
Speaker 5 (09:14):
A friend of mine called called me up, I was
picking Bolton. He's a very smart guy. His name is
Phil Rouffin. He's a very rich guy from Las Vegas,
one of the he's a great card player. He doesn't
play cards, but he's a great part. You know, he's
just a natural got poker sense, right, you know, a
good old poker sense. And Phil Rouffin is very, very
wise kind of a guy and very one of the
(09:37):
richest people around and has had great success and understands people.
So it was in that I was picking Bolton or
I picked Bolton. He called up, he said, don't pick him.
Why he's a bad guy. Now he wasn't in politics
at all, He's in various businesses.
Speaker 4 (09:55):
He said, he's a bad guy. He's just it always
works out with that guy. I said, I wish you'd
told me this two weeks. I already hired him. You
know he's here, and he was right.
Speaker 1 (10:07):
But all right, So I wanted to share that part
because there's two things that go on here. Yeah. Number one,
it gives us some insight into the hiring decisions. I
guess of the past, which was basically like fielding calls
from whoever.
Speaker 6 (10:24):
Phil is random rich people Phil.
Speaker 1 (10:26):
Whoever has card sense. By the way, he's looking for
card sense is the terminology. But you know, second is
this acknowledgment about how bad things went in the first
administration and specifically you know Trump, you know Joe was
actually trying to get him on neo cons and even
to try to list people out. But this remains if
Trump does win, there's a decent chance that he's going
(10:47):
to win. This is the singular question around what is
going to happen the next time around, because, as people
saw by his own admission, he literally was like I
got there and I didn't know what I was doing,
and a bunch of people call me and they ended
up wanting the job, and I ended up hiring them,
And like this time around, it's like, well, what are
the assurances that it is actually different? Here? You could
(11:09):
look on two sides of the coin. You've got JD.
You had Project twenty twenty five, but now they say
they won't hire anybody from Project twenty twenty five. You've
got Johnny McEntee, you've got Don Junior, but you also
have this thing called the America First Project. And so
I enjoyed this clip for a couple of reasons. The
internal psychology of just like how exactly the staffing administration
(11:31):
was made last night, which was obvious to everybody as
we were covering it, and you know it always a
fundamental question was people being like, hey, why do you
keep hiring people who don't agree with you? And it's
like this was a good view. If I recall with Bolton,
he liked Bolton because he was on Fox News, but
a huge part of the at least finally I will
admit it now is one of the reasons why a
(11:52):
lot of things that didn't get done last time that
he said he wanted to get done was because he
would hire people who actively did not agree with him.
So whether he's learned or lesson not obviously is an
open question. But I did think at the very least
it was an interesting answer.
Speaker 7 (12:05):
Well, so, you know, a lot of people are sharing
this on the right of like see Trump regrets hiring
these neocons, and it's like, it's actually, if you listen
to what he says, Joe suggests was the problem that
they're neocons and Trump times in Yeah, but they were
bad and disloyal right for him. It's not about John
(12:26):
Bolton had a you know, bad ideology that disagreed with him,
or John Kelly or you know, Madis or Millie or
Mike Pence. It's that they were disloyal that in the
end they criticized him and they came down on the
wrong side of the only issue that matters to Donald Trump,
which is how do you feel about Donald Trump? How
do I know that? Because in the same interview, when
(12:48):
he's asked about, oh my cat just arrived, when he's
asked about, you know, the releasing the JFK files. He
goes on and on about how great and wonderful Mike
Pompeio is and how much he loves Mike Pompeo, who,
by the way, is the guy who wanted Julian Assans
to literally be assassinated, and who is as much of
a Neocon as.
Speaker 6 (13:08):
You could possibly get.
Speaker 7 (13:10):
But there's Kitty, that's Salem, I'm mister. But because he
is correct on the only issue that ultimately matters, he's
still in Trump's good graces.
Speaker 3 (13:20):
You know.
Speaker 7 (13:20):
Another example I'll give you is that they confirmed Tom
Cotton is on the list of potential secretaries of Defense.
Tom Cotton is the most hawkish Neocon person in all
of elected Washington DC period. So that's why you shouldn't like,
I'm not saying you, I'm saying people out there that
are sharing this as like, oh, look, he understands we're
(13:43):
not gonna have neo cons this time.
Speaker 6 (13:45):
Like you're fooling yourself. He's talking about.
Speaker 7 (13:48):
He's upset with these people because they ultimately criticized him.
Speaker 6 (13:52):
That's it. It had nothing to.
Speaker 7 (13:54):
Do with their ideology or you know, blocking him on
something that was important to him. They got crosswise on
the only thing that matters to him. And you know,
so you should not have any expectations that he's not
going to go ahead and chalk the next administration full
of neo cons once again, because he's already floating knew
neocon names to be part of the new administration.
Speaker 1 (14:16):
You should be very realistic, folks. As laid out in
my monologue, the case again, the only case for why
it wouldn't happen is if somebody inside actually tried to
make sure. But the Tom Cotton thing on the list
that was very, very disturbing. The next one that I
wanted to share here was an interesting clip with Drogan
talking about Kamala Harris and this was specifically Trump brought
(14:40):
up here. He was like, can you imagine Kamala doing
this interview with Joe Rogan? And he was like, well, yeah,
I can. I actually think God would have a conversation
with her. So this gets to the whole like should
Kamala have done Rogan or not? Let's take a listen.
Speaker 4 (14:55):
Can you imagine Kamala doing this show? I could imagine
he SA should be laying on the floor.
Speaker 2 (15:01):
She was supposed to do it, and she might still
do it, and I hope she does. I will talk
to her like a human being. I would try to
put this.
Speaker 4 (15:08):
Interview with you. I hope she does, because it would
be a mess.
Speaker 5 (15:13):
She'd be laying on the floor, She'd be saying, Colin
the medics.
Speaker 2 (15:17):
I think we'd have a fine conversation. I think I'd
be able to talk to her. I wouldn't try to
interview her. I just try to have a conversation with
her and hopefully get to know her as a human being.
That was my goal having her on, trying to get
her to express herself, just as I don't know if
these I don't think these formats are good. I don't
think that two people. First of all, I hate the
idea of the presidential debates because I hate the idea
(15:38):
of it.
Speaker 1 (15:38):
Okay, it goes into the debate there, but that was
specifically about having Kamala on. So Kamala is also going
on a podcast. She's going on the Shannon Sharp podcast,
which actually is quite big. People might remember it from
the the Cat Williams viral.
Speaker 6 (15:51):
Right, Yeah, it is actually have a big audience.
Speaker 1 (15:54):
No, it's it's very big, and obviously, look it's you know,
it's a big blackmail audience. That's what's they're trying to
go after.
Speaker 6 (15:59):
But okay, so the young men in general.
Speaker 1 (16:01):
Yeah, my take after watching the Trump Rogan interview actually
was that Kamalas should have done it, because I mean
it's pretty clear when he was like, let her have
a conversation, he would let her just talk. I don't
think it would have gone badly for her, you know,
I still I really don't. I really believe that, especially
look look at the posture you know that Rogan took.
And in general with Rogan, like whenever he talks with people,
(16:22):
he's not the most challenging person. He might ask a
challenging question per se, but he's going to give the
space to talk. And he's not Brett Baer at least
is what I would say. So if I watching this
how and how this went down, I actually don't think
it would have gone badly for her. I'm curious what
you think.
Speaker 6 (16:36):
Yeah, I agree, she should, she should do it.
Speaker 7 (16:39):
She I mean, it looks like they've turned it down
and her dude Ian Sam's les on her campaign, he
said they're not going to do it. I listen, I
understand why because it's definitely more fraud and risky situation
for her because I do think Rogan would be somewhat
more adversarial with her.
Speaker 6 (16:55):
At least there's a risk.
Speaker 1 (16:56):
Yeah, I mean several things that he disagreed with her on,
So the idea that it would be as friendly, I mean, look, Joe,
he can whatever he wants. It's clear throughout this like
there's a lot of things that he disagrees with the
modern left about and he brought a lot of that
out the Trump and it was sad.
Speaker 5 (17:11):
No.
Speaker 7 (17:11):
I mean, he came off as just like, you know,
partisan pro Trump guy. That's how he came off. And
I think that's probably pretty fair assessment at this point.
And that's also who his audience is. You know, we've
seen the polling. It's like sixty five percent of his
audiences pro Trump. So you know, it's also like responding
to where his audience wants him to be. But all
that being said, you know, Trump and Kamala are engaged
(17:31):
in tactically two different goals at this point. Trump's goal
is to humanize himself to you know, try to buck
the like. You know, multiple people who serve with him
coming out being like, hey, this guy, he is a fascist,
and also to undercut his own comments, like he just
sent out a very you know, disturbing truth about the
(17:53):
season assist and I'm going to go after all my opponents,
donors and supporters, etctera, et cetera. So he's trying to
soften that with hey, look at me, I'm just one
of the boys, like hanging out on your favorite podcast, Kamala.
And this was why I want to give credit to
Weigel who really laid out this dichotomy.
Speaker 6 (18:11):
It really landed with me.
Speaker 7 (18:12):
Kamala has to cross this threshold of like we can
see her as commander in chief, and you know, for
anyone who hasn't been president before, that's always a challenge.
And of course because she is a woman, and you know,
we've never had a female president, that makes the part
of Americans imagining that even more challenging. And she also
has not done herself any favors at certain points, is
(18:35):
coming off as a lightweight and making it even harder
for people to imagine her. So that was the decision,
that was the thinking behind things like going on with Brettbaer,
which you know where she's like, I'm tough, I can
go into the lions Den and I can take whatever
you have to throw at me. And I think doing
a Rogan interview would send a similar message of you know,
(18:58):
I know this is not friendly territory for me at
this point. I know there's an audience here that's deeply
skeptical of me, but I don't care. I'm not afraid,
like I can go in. So for Trump, sitting with
Rogan accomplishes his goal of like humanizing him blah blah blah.
For Kamala, it could accomplish that goal of I'm not afraid.
I'm tough, I can handle myself even in difficult circumstances.
Speaker 6 (19:20):
So I agree with you it's a mistake.
Speaker 7 (19:22):
We're going to talk a little bit more later after
we get through all the clips about the sort of
meta thing, meta like podcast election thing. But I do
just have to say the podcast election has left me
very depressed, because, look, it'd be one thing if, you know,
conversation with Rogan and THEO Vaughn and Shannon Sharp and
(19:43):
Alex Cooper and whatever, if that was part of an
ecosystem in which many adversarial, difficult conversations were also happening.
But especially on the Trump side, Like, when is the
last time he sat for an adversarial interview if you
don't count I mean the debate, which you know, it's
a different thing, and he wouldn't agree to any more
debates after the first one. I think it might be
(20:06):
that back in what July when he did that National
Association of Black Journalists event, that's the last time I
remember him sitting for an adversarial interview. So that means
that these things are not like compliments to you know, Oh,
let's get to know them a little bit better and
who they are underneath the hood. This is it, Like,
(20:27):
so you're putting the you know, traditional roles served by
like journalists whose job it is to learn how to
you know, conduct adversarial interviews. And we've got all kinds
of like, you know, grievances with some of these journalists
and how they conduct themselves and what they focus on.
But you know, I think it's fair to say, like
Anderson Cooper on CNN, whatever we think of him, that
town hall with Kamala included much more adversarial.
Speaker 6 (20:50):
It was much more edifying in terms of how she.
Speaker 7 (20:53):
Would actually conduct herself, what she's actually focused on, which
included both audience questions and Anderson Cooper asked asking difficult
follow ups that his own audience was honestly very unhappy with.
Speaker 1 (21:03):
They got furious this. Yeah, it's it's funny. You saw
that with Charlemagne, right. I mean, look, yeah, if we
want to talk to meta, it is true, you know,
open kimono here. I tried very hard to interview Donald Trump,
you know, as part of this whole podcast, you know thing,
and at the end of the day, it just looks
like it's not going to happen. And that's fine. I
did point out, you know, I interviewed him on four
(21:24):
separate occasions when I was a White House correspondent. But
I mean, if I'm looking at it from their perspective,
they don't really want that right because they want the
humanization and you know, you know, you could call me
partisan or whatever, but I would actually have asked some
pretty serious stuff about Ukraine, foreign policy, social security, the economy.
You know, I wouldn't commit necessarily like cut him off
(21:46):
the way that NBC News or whatever would want me to.
But I'm not going to just sit there and like
let some of this stuff right go by. And it
was clear I mean, it has become clear now that
that that you know, they just didn't want that to happen. Again,
I get it. I know if I'm running for office,
probably what you want as well. Coming back to what
you said, and I do think this is the most
important analytical framework is that. And I brought this up,
(22:08):
you know, credit to this guy Ruben who I stole
it from. But you know, the Trump McDonald's thing and
Rogan interview talking about whale psychology. You cannot imagine a
person in the McDonald's interview and on Rogan just fucking
around talking about ear scars as a hitlaryan dictator, like
it's just simply not possible. And that is the card
(22:29):
he Rubin calls it like Trump being a cartoon, and
that really is like both his political superpower. And I
think it fundamentally explains a lot of the you know,
everyone's like, oh, well, nothing sticks to him. I'm like, yeah,
this is why. It's because the camp, the celebrity, the
humanization here now with the podcast format and others, and
especially in the absence of some of the stuff that
(22:52):
you were talking about, especially the averagar and also look,
it's been gone for a long time. It has not
been in office, so a lot of people don't really
remember what it was like, you know, when behind the
podium or in the in the oval or if they do,
a very different perhaps view than what it was like
to actually live through at the time. So I think
that is one of the major things and one of
the reasons why I think this will probably be his
last podcast interview and from here on now it's just
(23:14):
going to be a stretch get out the vote and
the rallies. So and even at the rallies, you know,
we see these these all these ave Maria and the
opera and the dancing. I'm giggling because I mean, what
else can you do? It's funny, and that is fundamentally
not in line with what Kamala's closing message will be
about January sixth, about fascism, and I do think it's
(23:38):
very effective as a counter It's one of the reasons
why I wouldn't do it if I were her, especially
the closing argument. I mean, just based on all the polling,
all that, you know, the stuff that Matt carp and
all them have put out there, but they seem to
believe it. I mean, I'm sure we'll cover in New
York Times Sienna the final poll, Crystal. But I don't
know if you saw, like you know, in terms of
this strategy about getting Republicans not to vote for Trump,
like there are less Republicans not voting for Trump, been
(24:00):
Democrats not voting for Kamala Harris. I mean, what are
we talking.
Speaker 7 (24:04):
About here as an early critic of the Liz Cheney
strategy like you know, and and since she has leaned
into the Liz Cheney's strategy, is when the polls have
started to you know, really tie down move against her.
I do want to go back to what you were
saying about, you know, why Trump wouldn't sit with you.
And by the way, it wasn't even with me involved.
(24:24):
It was like, you know, maybe with you and but yeah,
I mean, they can go back and look at your
interviews of other Republican contenders and see that you ask
them real questions.
Speaker 6 (24:33):
Because because if you are a person.
Speaker 7 (24:36):
I don't care who you are, how much I like
you or hate your what you can go look at
my interviews with Bernie Sanders. Right, you are seeking the
highest office in the land. You want to be the
most powerful person on the planet. I don't care who
you are sitting with that person at this point, you
have responsibility to ask some some you know, challenging questions
about how they intend to use that power and how
they use that power in the past, in the case
(24:57):
of Donald Trump and so.
Speaker 6 (25:00):
But in the like podcast.
Speaker 7 (25:03):
New media arena. Yeah, all the incentives are to not
do that. Because let's say that the Trump people deluded
themselves into thinking they could get a softball interview with you,
and he sits with you and that's not what he gets.
He's never coming back. Yah, he is never coming back.
Or if you think in the by the come of
people that that was never an even remote possibility that
(25:26):
that was gonna happen. Right, And also, like think of
in terms of Rogan's audience or any of the like,
you know, right wing audiences that you know, he's been
going to these these podcasts for if Rogan did do
aggressive adversarial interview with Trump, his audience would be mad
(25:46):
at him.
Speaker 1 (25:47):
Yeah, they would.
Speaker 7 (25:48):
There is no incentive for him or anyone else. And
this is not you know, personal man, this is anybody
in the ecosystem. We think a lot about corporate media
incentives and where those lie, right, there is no reason
for anyone in that sphere to be adversarial, because they
will never get the interview again, and their audience will
be pissed at them. And in some ways, I think
(26:08):
the in centers are actually worse in the new media
landscape than in the old media landscape, because number one,
you're so much more there is so much more audience capture,
because it's so much more direct, you know, like whether
or not that video clicks or not, whether or not
you lose premium subscribers or not, Like that's your whole thing,
(26:28):
not to mention if you even think about the corporate
part of it zooming out from the political lens, Like
at least in traditional media, there's an alleged firewall between
the people who are selling ads and the hosts who
are on air and the journalists who are doing the work.
Like in new media, there's none of that buffer, which
is why we've decided not to do any direct adreads,
never to interface with a corporate sponsor, because we don't
(26:51):
want even the appearance of a conflict of interest. Now,
if you're a comedian in general, there's no reason for
you to worry about that as much. It's a different
ethical quandary. But if you're gonna be the only game
in town in terms of interviewing or would be presidential candidates,
then that creates a very different ethical landscape. So in
any case, I'm kind of, like I said the podcast election,
(27:15):
it's it's very depressing to me because obviously we work
in this space. I had a lot of hopes for
new media, and I see it. I see the incentive
landscape as at least as bad and corrupting as legacy media.
And like I said, if it was if it was part,
like if this Rogan interview was part of a broader
framework where he's sitting for tough questions with New York
(27:36):
Times editorial board, the Wall Street Journal, whoever. Oh, that
was a relatively adversarial interview he did was with what
was it Bloomberg? That was at least somewhat adversarial. So
we'll give him credit for that, but it's by and large,
not by and large, this is what we're getting. There's
no other debate, there's you know, So it's that's why
to me, it's very it's very depressing.
Speaker 1 (27:58):
Yeah, I mean, look, I don't want this to be
too naval gazing, but it is certainly important, and it's
what you're talking about too, is important for people to understand,
like you were talking about there with incentives and incentives
do obviously matter. And this is way bigger than Rogan
because it's not just about him. It's so Trump has
been on a million of these podcasts. In fact, the
mystifying part to me is whenever he does much much
(28:20):
smaller podcasts and you're like, Okay, this is literally just
so you can feel good while you're talking. That's that's different.
Like here I see the strategy with the rest planet Tyris,
I'm like, what are we doing here?
Speaker 6 (28:32):
All right?
Speaker 1 (28:32):
So stick you know, sticking with that and just that
general like theme of adversarial questions, incentives and all that
I always tell people too, you know, in terms of
why that matters. And we saw a lot of that
during that whole insanity around Lauren Chen and the Russia situation,
just about standards and like how you you know people.
Speaker 7 (28:53):
Yeah, just to refresh people's mind. That was the tenant
media things where Lauren Chen was knowing, knowingly taking like
some Russian government money and then lying to a bunch
of creators like Dave Rubin and timpoole that this was
some like French businessman or whatever, Eduardo Gregorian or whatever
(29:14):
his name was, and they like, okay, I'll take them
at their word. They didn't know that this wasn't some
random French businessman. But the very fact that you would
be like, sure, I'll just take in millions of dollars
in certain cases for doing very little work and not
ask any questions shows you how much like shady, sleaziness
(29:38):
and lack of scruples there is in the business in general.
Speaker 1 (29:41):
Right, last thing I wanted to show here was this
UFO clip, not just about UFOs, but was about the
JFK files as well, and it revealed importantly what you
talked about, Crystal, about the Mike Pompeio connection and kind
of how that worked with government. Let's take a listen.
Speaker 5 (30:00):
Of interested in the people coming from space?
Speaker 4 (30:03):
You know, yes, and I know you're interested, oh.
Speaker 3 (30:05):
Very interested in that. How much do they tell you
about that?
Speaker 4 (30:07):
A lot?
Speaker 3 (30:08):
Really? Well, they tell you how much can you tell you?
So how's that work? Because it's like super top secret?
Speaker 5 (30:14):
Tell me well, based on Hunter Biden, I can say
whatever the hell now, But I interviewed a few people
it's never been my thing. I have to be honest,
I have never been a believer. I have people that
Area fifty one or whatever it is. I think it's
a number one tourist attraction in the whole country or something.
Speaker 4 (30:31):
Area fifty one.
Speaker 3 (30:33):
You know that, Sure, I know what it is.
Speaker 5 (30:35):
It's a big tour secment. So I interviewed jet pilots
that say they saw a something. If you saw them,
you'd love to have them ass.
Speaker 2 (30:46):
I've had a couple in here, Commander David Fraver, Yeah,
I had him and who had that sighting in two
thousand and four, very very compelling with visual, visual, video evidence,
radar evidence.
Speaker 4 (30:56):
I don't believe his name, but I jet pilots that.
Speaker 5 (31:03):
Were solid people, perfect, I mean, great pilots, and they
said we saw things, sure that we're very strange.
Speaker 4 (31:14):
Like a round ball. But it wasn't a comet or
a meteor. It was something.
Speaker 5 (31:19):
And it was going four times faster than an F
twenty two, which is a very fast plant.
Speaker 1 (31:23):
You know. Okay, that was just the UFO section. I
guess I hadn't pulled that full clip. But there was
also a JFK section part of that specifically where they taught.
He was like, well, why didn't you release the JFK
files And he was like, well, Mike Pompeo and a
few other people called me the only interesting part on
the jf cancer is he said, well, there's addresses, and
(31:44):
some of these people are still alive. And I was like,
what some of these people still be alive in terms
of the main conspirators, right, I mean this was it
was nineteen sixty three, Like how I mean, theoretically, I
guess it would be extraordinarily old. But anyway, he said,
he was like, well, this time around you I.
Speaker 6 (32:02):
Can pull it up if you want.
Speaker 4 (32:04):
I got it.
Speaker 6 (32:04):
Yeah, hold on, let me.
Speaker 7 (32:05):
Pull up that part because the first while I'm pulling
it up, what did you make of the UFO part?
I mean to be, I have a rule of thumb.
This is a Kyle and I rule of thumb. Every
time he tells the story, that's.
Speaker 6 (32:16):
Like, sir, I'll tell you, yeah, every.
Speaker 7 (32:20):
Time it starts with sir, it's a lie, Like you're
just making this up right now?
Speaker 3 (32:23):
Really?
Speaker 6 (32:24):
Yes?
Speaker 1 (32:25):
Well, okay, I will say that's the first time I've
ever heard of this so called the so called interview
with jet pilots I hope it did happen. I hope
more of those jet pilots can come out be disc
classified and speak to people. I mean, the unfortunate part
for me was just like I'll believe it when I
see it. So if I recall with Trump, there was
this whole thing. People probably don't even remember this, but
it was FISA D classification, and there was this Trump
(32:47):
pledged to do. Fis a de classification. Okay, here we.
Speaker 3 (32:49):
Go, let's listen to it.
Speaker 6 (32:50):
You can finish.
Speaker 1 (32:51):
God, So fi's a declassification. And it was like Trump
was like, I'm going to do it anything, you know.
We just kept waiting and waiting, and I was covering
the wine house. We would ask the secretary when isis
the classification going to happen? And this and this, this,
and then finally it just like never happened, and a
lot of it came back to exactly this whole Mike
Pompeo thing. In my opinion, I mean, it's kind of
like with everything with the executive unless the executive really
(33:12):
really wants something to happen and is willing to follow
through on that every single day for his presidency until
it finally does. Then it's not going to happen in
terms of the deep state.
Speaker 7 (33:21):
So yeah, I mean, he could have done last time
he did it, He could have done the files.
Speaker 1 (33:25):
He claims he said this time that he will do
it now. Hopefully at this point he's.
Speaker 7 (33:29):
Been prim tell him not to again. Could be My hope.
Speaker 1 (33:34):
Would be that this time that you've had enough people
and he's had enough times that he said it on
the record that he might do it, So that would
have at the I have a little bit more hope
than I did last time, but not as much some
people do.
Speaker 6 (33:46):
Okay, let's let me I'll play I'll play this part. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (33:49):
One of the things that I wanted to talk to
you about is the JFK files.
Speaker 3 (33:53):
And one of the things that you.
Speaker 2 (33:54):
Said was that if they showed you what they showed me,
this was your quote, you wouldn't want people that know
it either.
Speaker 4 (34:03):
So I opened them up. Partially. I was met with
from good people.
Speaker 5 (34:11):
I mean, you know, look, I mean good people, people
that were well meeting.
Speaker 4 (34:16):
Mike Pompeo was one of them. He's a good person. Uh.
Speaker 5 (34:21):
They called me, they said, Sarah would rather have you
not after and I did open him, but I was
asked by some people not to open them. There's a
Martin Luther King file too, by the way, that they'd
like to see. I don't know if you know, but
there is that. But but JFK in particular, So they
called me. A lot of good people called me people
(34:42):
that I you know that you would find reasonable.
Speaker 4 (34:44):
People, and they asked me not to do it.
Speaker 5 (34:47):
So I said, well, we'll close it for another time,
but if I went, I'm going to open them up.
I'm just going to open enough. A lot of times
addresses people that are still living. They are ap people
that are affected, and there could be some national security
reason that for you know that I don't have to
necessarily know about. But some very good, talented people asked
(35:10):
me not to do it. I opened it up, and
then they said, would it be possible for us to
do that a different day.
Speaker 3 (35:17):
How much of it did you read into.
Speaker 5 (35:20):
I think it's going to be just fine to open it.
Let me put it that way. I think it's fine.
It's going to be time. It's a cleansing, you know,
it's truly a cleansing.
Speaker 4 (35:30):
So I'm going to do it.
Speaker 5 (35:31):
I'm going to do it immediately, almost immediately upon entering office.
Speaker 3 (35:34):
Well, the thing when people look at it from the outside.
Speaker 7 (35:37):
All right, So anyway, what do you make of that?
Because to me, I'm just I know people are like
reading a lot and as well, he said there's addresses
and people are still alive. I just think he's making
it up, Like I think he's just coming up with
an excuse for why he didn't do the thing last time.
And the real reason probably is something more like like
well like Pompeo's that I know that is the real reason.
Speaker 1 (35:55):
Yeah, I just want look, he said he would do it.
Let's let's hold his feet to the fire. If he wins,
let's get it done. Because it's funny, you.
Speaker 7 (36:02):
Know, because because the Mega Movement is really good at
holding Trump's feet to the fire over his failed promise.
Speaker 1 (36:07):
And we'll try, we'll try our best. I'll bring it
back to Jefferson Morley, who, Yeah, when we interviewed him,
we were like why why And he's like, it's just
all narrative. It's just that they can't have the information
out there about the direct CIA involvement. I don't think
it has to do with addresses or people alive, you know,
Like he said, he's really is about mythos and about
(36:27):
how the CIA and how foundational, you know, the assassination
is to like the American myth and how they don't want,
you know, the the imagery of the CIA to be diminished.
Speaker 8 (36:37):
Now.
Speaker 1 (36:37):
I mean the ridiculous part is that everybody knows, Like
if you were to ask people, you know, the vast
majority of Americans believe that it was a conspiracy. They
believed it at the time, they still believe it today.
If anything, they know even more than they've ever known.
So yeah, we'll see, Uh, we'll see if it happens
this time around.
Speaker 6 (36:54):
The last thing I wanted to show.
Speaker 7 (36:55):
I don't know, Sagara if you have it or I
can pull it up, But is the I think it's
reflecting on because I actually think there were some real
insights here from Rogan when he was asked by Lex
Friedman previously if you would interview Trump, and he was like,
absolutely not. And I actually Lex to his car was like, no,
You're gonna do it. And you know, I suspect that
Rogan was reluctant to do it. But then once you
(37:17):
see you know, the Ovon and all these other people
doing it, saying all right, well whatever I guess this
is just what we're doing now. But in any case,
let's let's take a listen to this clip of how
he previous.
Speaker 3 (37:30):
Trump supporter in any way, shape or form. I've had
the opportunity to have him on my show more than once.
I've said no every time.
Speaker 1 (37:36):
I don't want to help him.
Speaker 3 (37:37):
I'm not interested in helping the Knight is still young.
We'll see if I have mon the Night is still young.
You think I'll have I think you'll have them one. Really,
why do you think that? Because you'll have Putina on.
Speaker 9 (37:51):
And you're competitive as fuck? No, I think ultimately, I
mean you had You've had a lot of people that
I think you might. You may otherwise be skeptical. Would
I have a good conversation, which I think is geometric?
You don't care about politics, so can I have a
good conversation? And I think you had like people, people
(38:14):
like Kanye on for example, and you had a great
conversation with him. I think you I think, uh.
Speaker 3 (38:19):
But Kanye is an artist.
Speaker 8 (38:21):
But Kanye doing well or not doing well doesn't change
the course of our country.
Speaker 9 (38:27):
Yeah, but you know, do you really bear the responsibility
of the course of our country based on a conversation.
Speaker 8 (38:35):
I think you can revitalize and rehabilitate someone's image in
a way that is pretty shocking.
Speaker 1 (38:46):
All right, that's the end.
Speaker 7 (38:48):
So yeah, what do you make of that, because I mean,
I think he's I think he's pretty accurate there, Like
you say, I don't want to help them. I mean,
I think, for one thing, you know, Joe's politics have shifted, Like,
you know, the guy who was like, I'll vote for
Bernie Sanders is now like just pretty partisan, like pro
Trump guy and happy RFK juniors in that camp and whatever.
Speaker 6 (39:08):
So that's one thing.
Speaker 7 (39:09):
But but yeah, I mean I think he was correct
there that you look at Trump's approval rating now, it's
the highest it's ever been. And I've been skeptical of
how much these podcast appearances will actually like move voters
that are watching, like in the audience, like young men,
you know, many of whom probably just aren't really going
(39:30):
to vote. They might they might be like, yeah, Trump's school,
but then are they going to actually vote, Like I'm
a little skeptical of it from that perspective, I'm not
skeptical of the benefit is provided him in terms of
raising his approval rating and undercutting the messaging of like,
you know, rehabbing him post January sixth, and undercutting the
messaging of like this is a dangerous person to put
(39:52):
back in the White House. I think on that front,
it has already been profoundly successful. And I think Joe
is you know now also just accepted his part in
playing a role in that rehabilitation.
Speaker 1 (40:04):
Yeah, if you interested, if you if you listen, there
are a couple things that he says, and he said
he changed his mind after Trump got shot, and he
also said it's because of Dana White. That's the number
one reason that this is happening. So clearly there wasn't
a major effort from Dana behind the scenes to get Trump. Dana,
by the way, doesn't get enough. It's funny if you
(40:24):
look at the genesis of this podcast stuff, it's all
Dana White. So, for example, Dana was the one who
Trump told Trump to do the NLK Boys, which I
believe is the very first podcast that Trump ever did.
This was back in twenty twenty two if you listen
to Trump with Aiden Ross. So Dana and Aiden Ross
have gambled before together in previous interviews, and Dana and
(40:45):
apparently Barren as well. We're the two who were like,
you gotta do this, And obviously Dana and Job been
friends for twenty three years and this was clearly an
area of disagreement or whatever behind them. I also think,
you know, you can't underestimate the fact we just brought
up with Theovonne like it's not novel at this point.
For like, this isn't the only podcast Trump's done. I
believe that this is eighth or ninth. Obviously it's the
(41:05):
biggest one, but it could be the one that more
most people pay attention to than any others. But within
the context and specifically because these guys are all friends
with each other, this is not outside of the norm
out of all of those podcast interviews. So that's like
the last part. But then, yeah, I mean I think
part of it too. And I guess, to Joe's credit,
he said, I want to have Kamala Harrison, you know,
and so he's like, look, you know, if I'm going
(41:26):
to do Trump, it seems that he obviously extended a
you know, like a Olive branch or whatever to Kamala
to have her on, And I guess I'll just close
with it. I hope she does it. I don't think
that she will, but I do hope that she does.
And so you know, you know, it's it is difficult.
And we've talked to him about this, like he never
necessarily wanted to be a role which could move the
country or whatever. He slowly found himself there, and I
(41:49):
think maybe he's just shifted his mind of like, yeah,
I'm in this position.
Speaker 7 (41:53):
It is what it is, right, Yeah, I just listen.
I think that, as I said before, since this podcast strategy,
you know, whether it's Alex Cooper or Theovon or Andrew Schultzer,
Joe Rogan or Shannon Sharp or whoever the hell it is,
on whatever side of the aisle they're on, Like, if
this is going to be the bulk of the questioning
(42:14):
and insight that we get into candidates, you do have
some responsibility here, Like as much as you want to
be like I'm just a you know, an influencer, an athlete,
a comedian, whatever you know, or like a whatever you
want to call Alex Cooper, I guess, like a cultural
figure well or influencer, yeah, influencer. I mean, as much
as you want to hide behind that of like, oh, well,
(42:35):
no one should expect me. It's like, well, we kind
of have to rely on you because this is all
we're getting. So you do have to take on if
you're going to interview Kamala, if you're going to interview Trump,
you do have to take on some level of responsibility
of like this is in terms of our like brittle,
broken down, depressing democratic process. This is kind of all
(42:58):
we're getting. So it does put maybe an unfair burden,
but it does put an onus on you to do
your best to you know, to get insights and to
be a little adversarial and to push them in areas
where they're not comfortable, especially like you know, you got
three hours of this man's time. How precious is his time?
How who was the last I mean, when has he
(43:18):
ever given anyone three hours of time?
Speaker 6 (43:21):
And this is it? Like you said this, he's probably
not going to do anything else. Yeah, the election, I.
Speaker 1 (43:25):
Think is that this is probably the last one.
Speaker 7 (43:28):
So this is your last chance to you know, get
from him, Like what what are you going to do?
And what about the failures of last time? And what
about the Middle East? And yeah, you say none of
it would have happened, but like, okay, it did so
what now and so anyway, That's what I would say,
is like, as much as it would be nice to
just kick back and be like, let's chill and have
(43:49):
a conversation, I think because of the direction that they
I'm under no illusions that any of any of these
influencers or whatever are going to shift their approach, because
all the incentives are in the direction of doing the
like you know, softball, let's hang out interview. It's easier,
your audience likes it more, and you're more likely to
get the candidates back. But I do think it's it's
(44:11):
depressing and unfortunate and is further degradation of like our
democratic process and the ability of voters to assess who
they're voting for.
Speaker 1 (44:21):
I aw say, it's a tough position, especially if never
had any experience doing this. You know, you and I
came up in a more traditional background, so you know,
you get kind of used to it, like in terms
of pressing people, Oh so and so, Senator so and
so is pissed off you, Okay, whatever, don't be a senator.
Then you know it's one of those where yeah, it's weird.
Trust me. It takes years of social conditioning to be
able to push past that, and you need a certain
(44:41):
personality type. And like you said, it's also not necessarily
fair to expect people maybe who've been acting or doing
like this for a lifetime and now are suddenly thrust
into the position. So I do sympathize it's a very
difficult kind of position to be in. And yeah, finally,
you know, really what I would say, And this is
to our audience as well and to everybody else who
is out there. Is part of the issue with podcasts
(45:03):
of people who are non political. It is conditioned people
to think that you should quote let people talk, which
is fine. My general theory is if you're an author
or whatever, yeah, like the stakes they're not that high.
But when you're a politician, I do think you should
have fundamentally different standards, and specifically for when people are
running for president. And part of the issue is that
(45:24):
people will listen to a podcast or even maybe an
interview that you or I have done with others where
you just kind of like let them talk, like whatever,
because again, the stakes are not necessarily all that high,
but it should be very different. And there were different
expectations for politicians that were there in the past and
if it's complimentary, it's fine. I have no issue with it,
like you said, But I don't think that. I do
(45:46):
think that there are way too many people out there
who only want to see this type of interview. And
by the way, that doesn't work for you at all.
It really doesn't, because you know, just flip it around
and say for the person you don't like. You know,
when I watch you know, that Alex Cooper thing or
whatever with Comma, I'm like, what the fuck am I
getting out of this?
Speaker 7 (46:02):
Like yeah, but I mean I feel the same way
watching that. It's like, Okay, well this is like just
a propaganda puff piece, waste of time, you know. Yeah,
she's gotten much more difficult questions. Even the ladies of
the view gave her more difficult questions then I've seen
thrown at either candidate in like the podcast setting space.
(46:22):
So yeah, I mean, if if it's part of a
broader thing and then you can just like have the
conversation and see see who they are on the inside,
that's one thing. But that's not that's not where we are,
and it's only going to go more in this direction.
It's because if you're a politician and there's no public
pressure on you to do otherwise, Why would you, like,
why would you, as Kamala Harris, subject yourself to potentially
(46:44):
difficult questioning from Joe Rogan and a hostile audience. Why
would you do that outside of some you know, narrow
tactical goal of proving that you can. For most politicians,
we already see this trend like they'll just go on
the partisan networks and friendly podcast circuits and never really
get pressed. And that's that's just more and more of
(47:04):
the direction that we're heading in. And now we've basically
normalized having effectively no debates as well, so you know,
that's that's where we are, all.
Speaker 1 (47:12):
Right, Buckle up, folks, ten days ago to the election.
We will see you all on Monday.