July 24, 2025 • 33 mins
In this episode, Mary Katharine Ham and Matt Whitlock discuss various pressing topics, including highlights from the Hunter Biden interview, the implications of transgender policies in women's sports, the cultural shifts surrounding these issues, and the recent changes in gender treatment for trans minors. They also delve into Trump's trade deals and tariffs, parental rights in education, and the ongoing revelations surrounding the Russiagate investigation and the intelligence community's actions. Normally is part of the Clay Travis & Buck Sexton Podcast Network - new episodes debut every Tuesday & Thursday.
Follow Clay & Buck on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:02):
Hey guys, we are back on normally the show with
normal wish takes, but when the news gets weird, my
co host Carol Mark Woodz is out on the vacation
and we're letting her enjoy it. So joining me again
is Matt Whitlock, my buddy, formerly of the National Republican
Senatorial Committee, worked on various campaigns and the various Senate offices,
and now runs his own consulting company. And is it
(00:24):
You're sorry? Should I should check the facts on that.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
I work for a very smart people in a consulting company.
I don't want them to think that I'm telling people
I read the show, but very smart people.
Speaker 1 (00:34):
Yes, and now is a consultant and runs his own
podcasts called The Excellent Minute Drill. Welcome Mat Whitlock to
the show. A lot going on in the news as usual.
I could play seventeen more Hunter Biden clips and arguably
that would be the thing to.
Speaker 2 (00:51):
Do and people wouldn't tune out because it's an entertaining content.
Hunter gave us a lot to I mean, it was
a three hour interview and then he's done.
Speaker 1 (00:59):
More so, No, it's it's going to be my new
gym soundtrack. I'm just going to put the Hunter Biden
interview on and go with the gym and be motivated.
Speaker 2 (01:07):
Guy f that guy, I got run up the hill
to that.
Speaker 1 (01:09):
There's one answer I heard today, and this is just
an aside. We're going to get into the real news,
but there was one answer today I heard that I
hadn't heard earlier. That was, like, to be sure, I
don't want to instruct anybody on how to make crack cocaine. Oh,
these ingredients and also when you're making crack cocaine, people
act like it's dirty, but it's actually healthier for you.
Speaker 2 (01:28):
Yeah. Yeah. He goes through the health benefits of certain
kinds of crack cocaine, and that segment on crack cocaine
is like probably five minutes. You know. The highlight was
I'm not going to tell people how to make crack cocaine,
but he talks pretty specifically about how to get into it.
Speaker 1 (01:42):
Yeah, he's he's something else. As comfortably smug said, I
think the left has found its Joe Rogan.
Speaker 2 (01:47):
Yes, I didn't hear say that.
Speaker 1 (01:50):
That's a good smug take. That's a good one, all right,
But let's get some more slightly more serious stuff. I'm
sure Hunter will have tons to say on all the
issues of the day, and we can quote him in
the future. The US Olympic team is stating that they
are going to comply with Trump's keeping men out of
women's sports executive Order. They have changed some of their
(02:12):
official language. This is the US Olympic and Paralympic Committee
updating its policies with specific reference to the executive Order.
And I think this is like obviously a win for
women's sports and for sanity. This is a thing that honestly,
I wish I had been louder about at times, because
(02:33):
it did kind of sneak up on you and then
you're like, wait, what's happening? And here we are where
I think the tide is finally turned. It was really
hard to talk about for a long time. The female
athletes who did talk about it deserves so much credit.
I attended several rallies in the past, getting heckled all
the while with some of these very brave women like
(02:55):
Riley Gaines and others, And here we are seeing the
payoff from that. MIDS.
Speaker 2 (03:01):
This has been a crazy, crazy sort of progression over
I want to say, probably like ten twelve years when
you go back to like the initial bathroom bills that
dealt with trans issues in North Carolina places like that,
where I believe was the NBA moved a All Star
Game or something out of the state because the state
had done bathroom specific bills. But what happened over time,
(03:23):
and if you watch the polling on this year over year,
the more people saw this in action, the more people
saw female athletes get crushed by male athletes in sports,
the more it became very real. And that hit a
fever pitch the last three or four years to where
this jumped to the very clear seventy five to twenty
five eighty twenty issue that it is now. But it
took people seeing this in action to play out. And
(03:45):
I've talked to so many, you know, friends who have
young daughters who have had to compete against biological boys
in things like you know, rec league soccer, and it
is just unfair. But also parents watch this and are
just flabbergasted. But that's how this shifted. People saw it
in real life. And what happened with this Olympic level
(04:05):
decision is the fact that you know, it seemed like
Olympic committee and some of the you know, NCAA, those
types of organizations were the last holdouts on this, trying
to sort of continue to be the virtue signalers on
letting men compete against women's sports because of freedom or
whatever absurd justification they had for it. This is yeah,
kind of equity and you know, welcoming and belonging and
(04:28):
all that. But this is a win for the culture
shift that those athletes, Riley gained, so many others started
that President Trump capitalized on, like we talked about, you know,
on Tuesday, seeing these eighty twenty issues and saying, hey,
wait a second, the people are actually like all aligned.
They're not aligned on a lot of things. This is
one where they're on the same page and it is
a win, and it's really important for the sanctity of sports,
(04:51):
the opportunities for women to compete. You know, it's shouldn't
have taken this, but I'm glad that it got there.
Speaker 1 (04:57):
Yeah. I think another thing that it took. In addition
to people seeing action, I think Leah Thomas was a
turning point. There were just really see this. I think
part of it also was follow people following the lead
of people like Jennifer Say, Riley Gaines, who were really
in trouble for speaking out. There's a wonderful young sprinter
(05:17):
in I believe, Connecticut who was one of the early
folks who wrote a USA Today column very bravely, and
they were just dog piled in. Like transactivists are some
of the most vocal you're going to find, and it
takes brave people to help other people be brave. Jk
Rowling another great example. You can't cancel her, you can't
(05:37):
cancel Dave Chappelle. Right, So when people saw people being
brave on behalf of this very common sense thing. But
unfortunately we lost our minds so much between twenty twenty
and twenty four that you couldn't say common sense things
that they then felt empowered to say. Yet no, I'm
on the side of the women as well. USA Fencing
(05:58):
is another organization that immediately followed suit. As soon as
the Olympics said we got to change this, they said, okay,
we're on board too. And this is important because, as
Fox reports, USA Fencing has been under a national microscope
for its gender eligibility policies since April, when footage of
women's fencer Stephanie Turner kneeling to protest a trans opponent
at a competition in Maryland went viral. Turner was disqualified
(06:21):
and given a black card for her refusal to face
the trans opponent, prompting mass backlash against USA Fencing. Again,
this is a person who put her own reputation and
career such that it can be on the line to
say this is not right, and we're seeing results.
Speaker 2 (06:38):
When when you think about, you know, fencing, similar to swimming,
some of these very specialized sports that people dedicate their
entire lives to, you know, like I like swimming as
an example, because the competitive swimmers that I've known their
entire lives had to wake up at five am for
swim practice and go directly after school to three hours
of swim practice. Swimming as a technical I mean, fencing
(06:58):
similarly has such a technical, high level, you know, requirement
for being competitive. They get this far and then have
to compete against men.
Speaker 1 (07:07):
I just think, you know, you know what happens in
fencing when your your arm and your extremities are three
times longer than your opponent. Oh my gosh, it's crazy.
It's actually crazy. It is even have to have this discussion,
and that lefties are like, well, I don't know, there's
not a lot of studies. We don't need studies, guys. No,
just like you don't need studies, We didn't need studies.
And it's similar whether it was going to hurt toddlers
(07:29):
to cover their faces for two years like we k exactly.
Speaker 2 (07:32):
And volleyball was another one like this where people could
just say, wait a second, you watch a biological male
spike a ball in the face of a female and
there were legitimate injuries. The San Jose State volleyball team
had a male athlete competing on their team who caused
several injuries and led to a flood of other teams
dropping out of playoff competition even though they work their
(07:53):
entire lives to get there, because they were afraid for
their lives. And that's exactly what has sort of, you know,
added kindling to this fire of eventually being able to say, Okay,
you know we're being inclose to we love everybody, but
also this is just unfair. And to your point about JK.
Rowling and Dave Chappelle, you needed people like that with
that kind of platform who were essentially uncancellable to create
the permission structure where we could say this is absurd,
(08:15):
you know, and like Dave Chappelle did it in a
very different way that I think, you know, was helpful
in adding a comedy shine to abs sad it was. JK.
Rowling is an example of the crazy bedfellows this brought together.
Jennifer Say is another one. I believe she was a
Democrat most of her life, but have these issues thrown
in her face in such an absurd way that she's like,
wait a second, my side's lost the plot completely. And
(08:35):
so we have a lot a debt to these guys
for breaking that glass and making it okay to raise
questions that eventually led to this.
Speaker 1 (08:43):
Yeah, and as I say, as a former and current
mediocre female athlete myself, I do feel like we are
the demographic that is most at risk here because often,
and the Olympics are showing this, but often, and I
want everyone to be protected, but often elite female athletes
don't have to face the same issues because they're like, oh,
we'll just be kind and accepting. At lower levels, we
(09:06):
don't do any testing for high school, we don't do
any testing for middle school volleyball. Right, if you're in
that space, you don't have protections until this executive order
comes along. If your community is like, oh, anything goes,
there's no testing, there's no questions asked, there's no anything.
And so I do think one of the losses over
the past couple of years that we are hopefully going
(09:28):
to reverse is probably women thinking about getting into sports
and going that seems like I should do something else. Yeah,
it's not like it. There's a lot of glory to
begin with.
Speaker 2 (09:38):
No, No, the sacrifice is so real and if you're
going to sacrifice that far, So hopefully this course corrects
and does make you know, competing in women's sports again
the great thing that it was. You know, for such
a long time.
Speaker 1 (09:53):
I wish everybody the best I do. It was so
valuable to me growing up that I don't want erosion
and I want women to really be able to enjoy
these moments and competing against it, dude, makes it real
hard for you to do that. I want to also
note this is a big one. This is a New
York Times reporting on the gender subject. Hospitals are limiting
(10:14):
gender treatment for trans miners even in blue states. Two
prominent medical centers in California recently announced they would stop treatments,
citing pressure from the Trump administration. I do think Look,
the Trump administration obviously deserves credit, and part of that
is causal. I also think some of these organizations are like,
h should we take this chance to stop doing this
(10:35):
crazy stuff.
Speaker 2 (10:37):
That's the thing, like the vulnerability they have of the
permanent damage they do to people with these surgeries with
such little medical evidence. And I know in another part
of this show we're going to talk about people selling
out their expertise for political expediency, but I think this
is one where it's incredibly prominent when you look at
the medical groups who have said this is, you know,
critically important to mental health for young people, but there's
(10:58):
nothing to back it up. It's all purely anecdotal. And
you also have to give a lot of credit. There
are groups who have been hyper engaged in highlighting this,
creating resources for the Trump administration and others to look at.
For example, Do No Harm is a group that has
mapped this out and found exactly how much different hospitals
in different states have put into creating these facilities that
(11:18):
are performing these dangerous treatments on youth under the age
of eighteen. And it's radical and horrific. But when you
look at the volume and how much money these medical
facilities have made off of these procedures. It's egregious and
it makes a lot of sense that they're, you know,
cutting their risks by stopping this, but it is crazy
that it took so much to get to this point. Again,
(11:39):
because this is another issue where if you look at
the polling, like Washington Post is a very progressive polster,
they're polling showed that about seventy five eighty percent of
all people think that these should be banned for anyone
under the age of eighteen. And that is all of
the different sex change interventions. It is the surgeries, but
it's also the hormone treatments. It's also the different irreversible
(11:59):
medical interventions that can start that process that affects youth,
and it shouldn't be done before someone is eighteen where
they can make that permanent decision.
Speaker 1 (12:10):
And by the way, one of the reasons that the
medical information or lack thereof on this is more mainstream
now is because the ACLU's lawyer should not have but
brought this to the Supreme Court and argued in front
of the Supreme Court, at which point and a lot
of these documents put before the Supreme Court, and in
a lot of the questioning before the Supreme Court, it
(12:31):
was revealed that the data is not there. So I
think people now feel comfortable going with their gut on this. Again,
another thing where everyone kind of knew this was wrong
from the beginning, but it felt it's been a strange
five years. Everyone was like, uh, should I be saying
that this is wrong? Or am I mean to say
this is wrong? And in fact, it's really mean to
(12:53):
deny the truth and to tell children that they can
change their sex. That is, that's actually the wrong thing.
And we're coming to that conclusion. By the way, this
New York Times story mostly focuses on like that people
are worried about whether youth can consent to this type
of decision. They don't get into the actual harms that
(13:14):
like bone density and brain development and sexual function are
all affected by permanently, permanently by these interventions, and that
that matters too. And I would note that the New
York Times comment section, which has a lot of upright lit,
Yeah it's lit, And also a lot of the up
voting has happened for people saying, look, I'm no fan
(13:37):
of Trump, when he's right about this.
Speaker 2 (13:38):
Yep, that's the thing. It's these bedfellows. But to your
point before about the ACLU lawyer, I thought that was
really interesting after the Scrimeti decision, just what a month
ago from the Supreme Court, how many liberal groups are like,
wait a sec this was strategically a disaster opening the
door to all these other issues, arguing it poorly taking
this particular case, and I mean the Scrimetti team in
(13:59):
Tennessee that push this and argued that Jonathan Skermetti, the
Attorney General, there is a rock star to watch for
a very very long time to come. He's got a
number of different, very important sort of conservative movement cases
that are actually the common sense cases for parental rights
for things like this, that I think will be really
interesting to track. But again, this is brought together such
a unique coalition. I call it the coalition of the Normies.
(14:21):
It's people who are just like, hey, like, what if
we don't transkids before they have a you know, opportunity
to make decisions about their lives.
Speaker 1 (14:27):
Things like that, Like.
Speaker 2 (14:28):
What if you know, we let girls just compete against
other girls? What if we didn't have you know, thirty
five year old dudes in locker rooms and bathrooms with
little girls like what if we didn't do that? You know?
Speaker 1 (14:38):
Yep, And that's who we hope is listening to this
podcast called Norms.
Speaker 2 (14:42):
That's the dream.
Speaker 1 (14:43):
That's our constituency. Okay, from this culture shift to another
a little bit more wonky policy issue. Announcements today that
Trump is coming to a massive trade deal with Japan,
setting tariffs at fifteen percent. There. There's also reports that
you are getting some sort of income from the tariffs
(15:06):
that have been set thus far. I don't know where
you are on this. I have been look. Trump advertised
he was going to do this. I kind of hoped
he wouldn't do it too aggressively. I think trying to
do one hundred and sixty five ish trade deals at
one time, even though you have the energy of Donald Trump,
is not the best strategic plan. And yet the economy
(15:28):
has not responded as negatively as I would have thought
it might, and I'm very glad about that, very glad.
I also think there are unfair practices, but I don't
know how much we're gaining in this. What is your
take on whether this has economic or political advantages or
disadvantages for him.
Speaker 2 (15:47):
I think I'm generally in the same place as you.
Liberation Day when they announced the new tariff rates on
every country and the markets went into absolute shock was terrifying.
But since that time things have generally evened out, and
I think to point we've seen a lot of the
doomsday predictions were not you know, they didn't quite come
to fruition. There are still some warning signs about inflation,
(16:08):
you know, rising cost prices going up for goods. Certain
companies are dealing with, you know, the tariff issue in
different ways, but I think that it is generally coming
closer to an equilibrium. I think to your point about
you know, unfair practices, we're talking about the EU right now.
The EU, because they have not had any innovation, they
have very few successful companies. They are trying to find
(16:33):
new ways to generate income from American companies, so they
have things like their digital services tax, which I think
is one of the most absurd things in the world.
But I have a lot of like little beef with
EU on different things now that I've like gotten understand
a little bit more about our policy relationship with that
very opens Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1 (16:49):
I mean the Europeans.
Speaker 2 (16:50):
I just like I like Europe, I like to visit
different places, but so many things they're doing, whether it's
you know, like trying to force ESG on American companies
while they're buying Russian gas that's used, you know, to
fund the war, and you cant all that. We could
go on for a long time about beef with the EU,
but hopefully with you know, the tariff deal and everything
that Now the tariff deal with EU seems like more
(17:10):
of a stepping stone towards a larger suite of issues
they want to resolve with EU. But if they can
get into a conversation about things like these non trade
barriers in addition to the tariffs, that would be super valuable.
And I also think Japan is a big deal because
a lot of the trade conversations up to this point,
the places that we've seen progress with have been some
of the smaller Asian countries who have important import conversations
(17:34):
import export conversations with the United States. But Japan is
a very different scale, you know, And it's it's funny
we talked a lot about part of my beef with
tariffs is the way that you know, Peter Navarro and
some of the Trump trade. You know, experts talk about this,
you know, why aren't your why isn't Japan buying more
American cars? I lived in Japan for a few years
as a missionar, and I drove on those roads that
(17:56):
feel like you're in a video game. And if you
drove an F one to fifty on the road and
am in a small town in Japan.
Speaker 1 (18:02):
It's not gonna work.
Speaker 2 (18:03):
They're gonna be knocking buildings out of the way into
rice patties and it's gonna be a problem. So I
think that there was a disconnect there. But I know
autos were a big part of this Japanese deal, and
they'll find a way to sort of make it work
that's profitable for both sides. To your point before, I
think trying to do this many deals at once is
a little bit scary, and I think there are pressures
that come with that. There's a lot of coverage about
(18:23):
how you know, our posture on this has maybe pushed
more countries towards openness to China, and you know, despite
how terrible they are, I don't I don't love that,
but I think that they're trying to navigate around that
and I think that, you know, Scott Bessant is somebody
who has been valuable to watch because he's been very
even handed while still being you know, very pro the
trade agenda, pro what President Trump's trying to do, but
(18:46):
contextualizing it in a way for people who might go
in with more concern to feel like, Okay, we're in
good hands. The north star here is how do we
lower costs for Americans? And how do we get to
that point? And I think, you know, that's what they're
working really hard to do. So we'll see where I'm saying.
Speaker 1 (19:00):
Yeah, I know. And it's like I always say about
Trump that first of all, he does have endless energy,
so he doesn't mind putting one hundred and sixty five
deals in his plate. And he also likes tariffs and
likes steal making, so either sure it works. He's like,
these are the things he likes to do. He's given
himself the opportunity to do plenty of them. I do
fear that sometimes we end up in a slightly less
(19:21):
advantageous or the same place we were before before we
had this big back and forth with these economies that
we were doing business with that we did have access
to although there are places we need more access to.
I totally think that's true, totally besn't I love having
my guy around on the case, whether it's talking to
Trump about Jerome Powell or the so. I feel like
(19:42):
he's a steady hand, he's trying to make the best
of this and keeping between so a calming voice, a
calming voice, white hair, treasury second voice. Yeah. So that's
where I am on that, and we will keep our
eye on it. But yeah, I think Trump can take
a half a victory lap, at least on the fact
(20:03):
that the doom saying was not what came to pass.
I do think there are smaller harms that you don't
hear about as much. Probably for smaller businesses that get
things from some of these smaller Asian economies, that can
be an issue. And I don't want to dismiss that, bute.
The large picture has not been terrible.
Speaker 2 (20:21):
So agreed very much.
Speaker 1 (20:23):
Alrighty, going on, we have a segment on this show
called still Mad Bro. We're Still Mad Bro, And one
of the things I'm still mad about, and I think
you share this with me. We're going to do actually
two quick conspiracy theories that have come true. The first
is you remember that DOJ letter about parents talking at
(20:46):
school board meetings and objecting to coronavirus mandates, critical race theory,
transgender policies, mandated vaccinations, that kind of thing. The DOJ
under Biden sent out this letter basically saying, we should
find ways to creatively go after these people as domestic terrorists.
They're very dangerous, they're threatening people. It turns out that
(21:09):
that was very much done in concert with the National
school Board Association. Yes, plus Biden, do OJ plus the
White House all brainstorming ways over a weekend, by the way,
which shows how important it was to them, brainstorming ways
to get parents in trouble, to get them under federal law,
(21:31):
to get them under investigation for objecting about these things.
This is from newly obtained documents from the America First
from America First Legal, who has gone through all the
emails related to this memo.
Speaker 2 (21:45):
It's so egregious when you read they're looking for a
hook to use to go after these parents. And one
thing that I think you have to start out with
huge credit to our mutual friend NICKI Neely defending education.
She single handedly kept this the news and kept digging
and digging and digging and sending those foyas, which eventually
led to the National School Board Association being completely dissolved
(22:09):
because of this scandal. But way before that, to your point,
just for everyone's background, this began with the parents speaking out.
Miguel Cardona, former Secretary of Education, soliciting a letter from
somebody to say, which was a part of this hook,
how do we create the need for know FBI law
enforcement to use these counter terrorism tools against parents and
(22:30):
say they're a threat to us? Honestly, to me this
I am a little bit disappointed that there aren't people
in jail over this because they ruined lives. Some of
the parents that they pinpointed that they targeted and treated
like terrorists, like changed their lives forever, and so it's
horrific to keep hearing about. But like I am so
grateful that there were people digging into this at the
(22:50):
time to make sure that we were able to expose
and find out these forces that were trying to silence parents,
because this was a part of the parental rights movement
has had a in these last three or four years.
COVID was a huge part of it. Parents tuning in
to what their kids were hearing on zoom classes. Then
there was you know, the mask man, It's the vax man.
It's all the different things that parents had decision making
(23:12):
power taken away from them on. This played a huge
role in lighting the fire that got parents engaged, that
became a really strong political movement. Had a lot to
do with Governor Youngkin getting elected in Virginia.
Speaker 1 (23:24):
The timing is important because it was October twenty twenty
one and things were sort of hitting a fever pitch.
They were playing into Governor Youngkin's pitch. Two parents in Virginia.
Louden County, Virginia, of course showing itself to be among
the most egregious in the country, and everyone here, particularly
in northern Virginia, was so contemptuous of parents during COVID.
(23:49):
Here's some of the language from these emails. As you
noted the hook, We're aware, so is the deputy Associate
Deputy Attorney General. We're aware of the challenge here is
finding a federal hook. But White House has been in
touch about whether we can assist in some form or fashion.
So they're trying to gin up ways to go after
these parents. And then some actual career folks are like,
(24:10):
I don't know if we can do this, guys, it says.
It seems we are ramping up an awful lot of
federal manpower for what is currently non federal conduct. It
appears to me that the vast, vast majority of the
behavior cited cannot be reached by federal law. I only
saw three stories that involved what sounded like a possible
true threat quote, and one of those did not appear
to be related to masks, etc. Almost all of the
(24:31):
language being used is protected by the First Amendment. The
main issue seems to be disruption and obstruction of school
board meetings. So the idea that they were over a
weekend all getting together to brainstorm ways to arrest and
investigate parents at school board meetings, and this is what
we all said at the time. We said they're colluding
(24:51):
to do this, and we also said, none of these
threats are what they're talking about. They're raising speech into threats,
and that's what they were doing well.
Speaker 2 (25:00):
And they wanted to make an example of people, to
send a message to parents around the country that they
needed to get in line, they needed to do what
they're told and have their children go through this. But
one of the mistakes they made through this process. Was
one of the fathers they identified as a threat to
make an example of wasn't there because of masks. He
was there because his daughter had been sexually assaulted in
a bathroom and the school board covered it up. And
(25:21):
while they were covering that up, the same person who
carried out that sexual assault did it a second time
at a new school. And so when people started finding
this out again loud and county, as you're talking about,
this was a major national story that went all the
way to near the top of the Biden administration, and
they had wanted to do it to silence people, but
they picked every wrong element of this. And honestly, Miguel
(25:43):
Cardona's entire service as Education Secretary was like error after
like it was a comedy of errors, but like, this
was so egregious. And again again, I maybe this sounds crazy.
I wish someone was in jail for this.
Speaker 1 (25:56):
Yeah, no, I'm I'm with you on this. There was
a a special kind of psychosis during COVID, and I
think COVID gave people who are inclined to do this
kind of thing license to say, like, well, we're complaining
about masks. That's a public threat, and it's a public threat, dude.
One of the stories about Louden County, as you note
(26:18):
this father who was speaking out at meetings because his
daughter was actually assaulted and they had hidden it. That's
all proven. We've seen all the emails back and forth
about that. The person arrested at that meeting was the
father protesting about his daughter, I mean, and the entire
national media framed it as this guy's just a big
(26:38):
jerk who was threatening school board members. I mean, it's crazy,
just g regious conduct.
Speaker 2 (26:43):
His daughter was assaulted, and they tried to make him
into this like lunatic guy who's like a mask conspiracy
theorist and his daughter been assaulted. Like when you think
about what recourse do you parents have when the government
just does insane things. That story made people feel more
radicalized about what government was from them. Everything that the
covid era sort of microwaved. And yeah, that was an
(27:05):
explosive story that was just crazy and definitely shifted the
Virginia governor's race.
Speaker 1 (27:08):
I fact checked that about him being arrested every time
I mention it because it sounds so insane. I'm like,
is that true?
Speaker 2 (27:15):
It sounds like a conservative fever dream type of thing,
but that really happened.
Speaker 1 (27:19):
Okay, one last conservative fever dream before we're done, Because
this conspiracy theory is true as well, and we've had
it confirmed before by the Durham Report and other things.
But D and I Telsea Gabbart is releasing a bunch
of declassified stuff this week rolling on the Russia Gate story.
Now I'm actually still a little up in the air
(27:39):
on how much new information there is here, but it
does at least solidify the Durham Report conclusions and the
fact that this wasn't real. I mean, it's just Russia
Gate was not real. And the thing that I always
said at CNN when I was there and this came
(28:01):
to be was I feel like you are all deciding
on a conclusion yep, before we have the investigation, whether
you're a reporter or the intelligence community. And what Gabbart
has released this week about a December ninth, twenty sixteen
meeting suggests that in fact, the intelligence community and Obama's
(28:22):
officials and Obama himself were like at his behest, he
was like, we need a different conclusion than the one
you have given me, which is more benign about Russia's
involvement in this election, which basically says, I don't think
they actually wanted to help Donald Trump, but they were
definitely interfering. They weren't interfering by hacking actual machines or votes,
(28:45):
but there was an element here. It's just not the
thing that it became. And Obama and crew were like,
let's do a reassessment because they didn't like that assessment.
Speaker 2 (28:56):
Yep. And you have to track the moving goalposts of
what Democrats have claimed from the beginning of this, because
you'll remember after President Trump was elected, even around that time, Democrats,
media talking heads, Rachel Mattow, everybody was super comfortable coming
right out and saying Russia got Donald Trump elected. Russia
did this, and they wanted people to believe that they
had manipulated votes, they had hacked into machines, they had
(29:18):
made this happen. When you look at what President Obama
said this week to try and push back on the
d and I report and what Tolsy Gabbard put out,
he said Russia worked to influence the twenty sixteen election,
but did not successfully manipulate any votes. That vague language
of working to influence has been so amorphoused what that
could mean to work to influence could be as simple
(29:38):
as like some Russian bought you know, posted I hate Hillary,
or a meme or things like that. But they want
you to believe that it's so much more than it was,
because in twenty sixteen that was politically helpful. And when
you look at the intelligence community over the years, everything
from Hunter's laptop when you had all the you know,
intelligence experts signed letters of this was Russian disinformation. Everything
(30:00):
they sold out their expertise, and unfortunately, with that, the
credibility of the industry, the credibility of that entire institution
to get you know, in twenty sixteen, try and get
Hillary elected. In twenty twenty, try to get Joe Biden elected.
And it's so crazy to think back at just how
quickly the holes were poked in those things where people said, okay,
(30:21):
I mean, like, if they're willing to make this up,
what else are they willing to make up? And now
the conspiracy theories are everywhere. We're finding out more and
more of them are real. But skepticism in the institutions
that we need to trust is sky high, and I
don't know how they ever get that trust back.
Speaker 1 (30:34):
I know well, and that's one of the reasons that
I think it is important that a Brennan or a Clapper,
who were involved in misusing all this stuff, both on
the Hunter Biden laptop and on Russia Gate, should face
some sort of punishment. They've also lied to Congress in
the past under oath both there's no penalty for it,
which exactly important. I always noted that when I was
(30:55):
on CNN, and they didn't enjoy it at all that
those guys had lied under oath. But I do want
to know Eli Lake, who I trust very much on
this subject and has been an early skeptic as I
was on Russia Gate, although I wish I had gone
further back in the day because I didn't imagine just
how conspiratorial it was totally, he says. One area where
Gabbert does bring new information to light is the revelation
(31:16):
of a whistleblower inside the intelligence community who did not
believe that the intelligence supported the conclusion in the January
twenty seventeen ICA Intelligence Community assessment that the Russian government
developed a clear preference for President elect Trump. The release
from Friday includes this tantalizing quote from the whistleblower. As
for the twenty seventeen ICA's judgment of a decisive Russian
(31:38):
preference for then candidate Donald Trump, I could not concur
in good conscience based on information available and my professional
analytic judgment. There were a lot of people who make
this argument that Russia was interfering, but not for the
reason that became Russia Gate, and that so much nonsense
was predicated on their preference for Trump, when in fact,
(31:59):
if you think through at LAE, logically everyone thought Hillary
was going to win. Yep, they are. The things they
were doing were meant to handicap her to the extent
that they could, and to shape a playing field when
Hillary was present that would make her more helpful to them.
That was it, one hundred percent.
Speaker 2 (32:18):
And I think that this highlight on the motive part
is important because it undoes everything we've been told for
those years with everyone saying they wanted Trump to win.
They wanted Trump to win. I think that matters, and
I think that's a really important part of this. And
that whistleblower who got ignored. I mean, how often are
we hearing in these stories that there was a voice
in the darkness who was trying to push them in
the right direction that they conveniently ignored, just like you
(32:38):
know in the emails we were talking about before about
law enforcement in the Bide administration saying Hey, I don't
know if these parents that were trying to pin all
this on, you know, are guilty of what we're charging them,
and yet it disappears. The problem is if you use
a government email and try and do a conspiracy, someday
someone's gonna find it.
Speaker 1 (32:56):
It's going to come out. Well, we're all still little
mad bro here on Normally Always, Matt Whitlock, thank you
so much for being with me. You can listen to
his podcast ten Minute Drilling. You should. It'll give you
a briefing on politics for the week when you're feeling
a little overwhelmed and keep it short. Thanks for joining
us on Normally Normal. Yeah. Normally airs Tuesdays and Thursdays,
(33:17):
and you can subscribe anywhere you get your podcasts. Get
in touch with us at normally thepod at gmail dot com.
Thanks for listening, and when things get weird, act Normally
Hey guys, we are back on normally the show with
normal wish takes, but when the news gets weird, my
co host Carol Mark Woodz is out on the vacation
and we're letting her enjoy it. So joining me again
is Matt Whitlock, my buddy, formerly of the National Republican
Senatorial Committee, worked on various campaigns and the various Senate offices,
and now runs his own consulting company. And is it
(00:24):
You're sorry? Should I should check the facts on that.
Speaker 2 (00:27):
I work for a very smart people in a consulting company.
I don't want them to think that I'm telling people
I read the show, but very smart people.
Speaker 1 (00:34):
Yes, and now is a consultant and runs his own
podcasts called The Excellent Minute Drill. Welcome Mat Whitlock to
the show. A lot going on in the news as usual.
I could play seventeen more Hunter Biden clips and arguably
that would be the thing to.
Speaker 2 (00:51):
Do and people wouldn't tune out because it's an entertaining content.
Hunter gave us a lot to I mean, it was
a three hour interview and then he's done.
Speaker 1 (00:59):
More so, No, it's it's going to be my new
gym soundtrack. I'm just going to put the Hunter Biden
interview on and go with the gym and be motivated.
Speaker 2 (01:07):
Guy f that guy, I got run up the hill
to that.
Speaker 1 (01:09):
There's one answer I heard today, and this is just
an aside. We're going to get into the real news,
but there was one answer today I heard that I
hadn't heard earlier. That was, like, to be sure, I
don't want to instruct anybody on how to make crack cocaine. Oh,
these ingredients and also when you're making crack cocaine, people
act like it's dirty, but it's actually healthier for you.
Speaker 2 (01:28):
Yeah. Yeah. He goes through the health benefits of certain
kinds of crack cocaine, and that segment on crack cocaine
is like probably five minutes. You know. The highlight was
I'm not going to tell people how to make crack cocaine,
but he talks pretty specifically about how to get into it.
Speaker 1 (01:42):
Yeah, he's he's something else. As comfortably smug said, I
think the left has found its Joe Rogan.
Speaker 2 (01:47):
Yes, I didn't hear say that.
Speaker 1 (01:50):
That's a good smug take. That's a good one, all right,
But let's get some more slightly more serious stuff. I'm
sure Hunter will have tons to say on all the
issues of the day, and we can quote him in
the future. The US Olympic team is stating that they
are going to comply with Trump's keeping men out of
women's sports executive Order. They have changed some of their
(02:12):
official language. This is the US Olympic and Paralympic Committee
updating its policies with specific reference to the executive Order.
And I think this is like obviously a win for
women's sports and for sanity. This is a thing that honestly,
I wish I had been louder about at times, because
(02:33):
it did kind of sneak up on you and then
you're like, wait, what's happening? And here we are where
I think the tide is finally turned. It was really
hard to talk about for a long time. The female
athletes who did talk about it deserves so much credit.
I attended several rallies in the past, getting heckled all
the while with some of these very brave women like
(02:55):
Riley Gaines and others, And here we are seeing the
payoff from that. MIDS.
Speaker 2 (03:01):
This has been a crazy, crazy sort of progression over
I want to say, probably like ten twelve years when
you go back to like the initial bathroom bills that
dealt with trans issues in North Carolina places like that,
where I believe was the NBA moved a All Star
Game or something out of the state because the state
had done bathroom specific bills. But what happened over time,
(03:23):
and if you watch the polling on this year over year,
the more people saw this in action, the more people
saw female athletes get crushed by male athletes in sports,
the more it became very real. And that hit a
fever pitch the last three or four years to where
this jumped to the very clear seventy five to twenty
five eighty twenty issue that it is now. But it
took people seeing this in action to play out. And
(03:45):
I've talked to so many, you know, friends who have
young daughters who have had to compete against biological boys
in things like you know, rec league soccer, and it
is just unfair. But also parents watch this and are
just flabbergasted. But that's how this shifted. People saw it
in real life. And what happened with this Olympic level
(04:05):
decision is the fact that you know, it seemed like
Olympic committee and some of the you know, NCAA, those
types of organizations were the last holdouts on this, trying
to sort of continue to be the virtue signalers on
letting men compete against women's sports because of freedom or
whatever absurd justification they had for it. This is yeah,
kind of equity and you know, welcoming and belonging and
(04:28):
all that. But this is a win for the culture
shift that those athletes, Riley gained, so many others started
that President Trump capitalized on, like we talked about, you know,
on Tuesday, seeing these eighty twenty issues and saying, hey,
wait a second, the people are actually like all aligned.
They're not aligned on a lot of things. This is
one where they're on the same page and it is
a win, and it's really important for the sanctity of sports,
(04:51):
the opportunities for women to compete. You know, it's shouldn't
have taken this, but I'm glad that it got there.
Speaker 1 (04:57):
Yeah. I think another thing that it took. In addition
to people seeing action, I think Leah Thomas was a
turning point. There were just really see this. I think
part of it also was follow people following the lead
of people like Jennifer Say, Riley Gaines, who were really
in trouble for speaking out. There's a wonderful young sprinter
(05:17):
in I believe, Connecticut who was one of the early
folks who wrote a USA Today column very bravely, and
they were just dog piled in. Like transactivists are some
of the most vocal you're going to find, and it
takes brave people to help other people be brave. Jk
Rowling another great example. You can't cancel her, you can't
(05:37):
cancel Dave Chappelle. Right, So when people saw people being
brave on behalf of this very common sense thing. But
unfortunately we lost our minds so much between twenty twenty
and twenty four that you couldn't say common sense things
that they then felt empowered to say. Yet no, I'm
on the side of the women as well. USA Fencing
(05:58):
is another organization that immediately followed suit. As soon as
the Olympics said we got to change this, they said, okay,
we're on board too. And this is important because, as
Fox reports, USA Fencing has been under a national microscope
for its gender eligibility policies since April, when footage of
women's fencer Stephanie Turner kneeling to protest a trans opponent
at a competition in Maryland went viral. Turner was disqualified
(06:21):
and given a black card for her refusal to face
the trans opponent, prompting mass backlash against USA Fencing. Again,
this is a person who put her own reputation and
career such that it can be on the line to
say this is not right, and we're seeing results.
Speaker 2 (06:38):
When when you think about, you know, fencing, similar to swimming,
some of these very specialized sports that people dedicate their
entire lives to, you know, like I like swimming as
an example, because the competitive swimmers that I've known their
entire lives had to wake up at five am for
swim practice and go directly after school to three hours
of swim practice. Swimming as a technical I mean, fencing
(06:58):
similarly has such a technical, high level, you know, requirement
for being competitive. They get this far and then have
to compete against men.
Speaker 1 (07:07):
I just think, you know, you know what happens in
fencing when your your arm and your extremities are three
times longer than your opponent. Oh my gosh, it's crazy.
It's actually crazy. It is even have to have this discussion,
and that lefties are like, well, I don't know, there's
not a lot of studies. We don't need studies, guys. No,
just like you don't need studies, We didn't need studies.
And it's similar whether it was going to hurt toddlers
(07:29):
to cover their faces for two years like we k exactly.
Speaker 2 (07:32):
And volleyball was another one like this where people could
just say, wait a second, you watch a biological male
spike a ball in the face of a female and
there were legitimate injuries. The San Jose State volleyball team
had a male athlete competing on their team who caused
several injuries and led to a flood of other teams
dropping out of playoff competition even though they work their
(07:53):
entire lives to get there, because they were afraid for
their lives. And that's exactly what has sort of, you know,
added kindling to this fire of eventually being able to say, Okay,
you know we're being inclose to we love everybody, but
also this is just unfair. And to your point about JK.
Rowling and Dave Chappelle, you needed people like that with
that kind of platform who were essentially uncancellable to create
the permission structure where we could say this is absurd,
(08:15):
you know, and like Dave Chappelle did it in a
very different way that I think, you know, was helpful
in adding a comedy shine to abs sad it was. JK.
Rowling is an example of the crazy bedfellows this brought together.
Jennifer Say is another one. I believe she was a
Democrat most of her life, but have these issues thrown
in her face in such an absurd way that she's like,
wait a second, my side's lost the plot completely. And
(08:35):
so we have a lot a debt to these guys
for breaking that glass and making it okay to raise
questions that eventually led to this.
Speaker 1 (08:43):
Yeah, and as I say, as a former and current
mediocre female athlete myself, I do feel like we are
the demographic that is most at risk here because often,
and the Olympics are showing this, but often, and I
want everyone to be protected, but often elite female athletes
don't have to face the same issues because they're like, oh,
we'll just be kind and accepting. At lower levels, we
(09:06):
don't do any testing for high school, we don't do
any testing for middle school volleyball. Right, if you're in
that space, you don't have protections until this executive order
comes along. If your community is like, oh, anything goes,
there's no testing, there's no questions asked, there's no anything.
And so I do think one of the losses over
the past couple of years that we are hopefully going
(09:28):
to reverse is probably women thinking about getting into sports
and going that seems like I should do something else. Yeah,
it's not like it. There's a lot of glory to
begin with.
Speaker 2 (09:38):
No, No, the sacrifice is so real and if you're
going to sacrifice that far, So hopefully this course corrects
and does make you know, competing in women's sports again
the great thing that it was. You know, for such
a long time.
Speaker 1 (09:53):
I wish everybody the best I do. It was so
valuable to me growing up that I don't want erosion
and I want women to really be able to enjoy
these moments and competing against it, dude, makes it real
hard for you to do that. I want to also
note this is a big one. This is a New
York Times reporting on the gender subject. Hospitals are limiting
(10:14):
gender treatment for trans miners even in blue states. Two
prominent medical centers in California recently announced they would stop treatments,
citing pressure from the Trump administration. I do think Look,
the Trump administration obviously deserves credit, and part of that
is causal. I also think some of these organizations are like,
h should we take this chance to stop doing this
(10:35):
crazy stuff.
Speaker 2 (10:37):
That's the thing, like the vulnerability they have of the
permanent damage they do to people with these surgeries with
such little medical evidence. And I know in another part
of this show we're going to talk about people selling
out their expertise for political expediency, but I think this
is one where it's incredibly prominent when you look at
the medical groups who have said this is, you know,
critically important to mental health for young people, but there's
(10:58):
nothing to back it up. It's all purely anecdotal. And
you also have to give a lot of credit. There
are groups who have been hyper engaged in highlighting this,
creating resources for the Trump administration and others to look at.
For example, Do No Harm is a group that has
mapped this out and found exactly how much different hospitals
in different states have put into creating these facilities that
(11:18):
are performing these dangerous treatments on youth under the age
of eighteen. And it's radical and horrific. But when you
look at the volume and how much money these medical
facilities have made off of these procedures. It's egregious and
it makes a lot of sense that they're, you know,
cutting their risks by stopping this, but it is crazy
that it took so much to get to this point. Again,
(11:39):
because this is another issue where if you look at
the polling, like Washington Post is a very progressive polster,
they're polling showed that about seventy five eighty percent of
all people think that these should be banned for anyone
under the age of eighteen. And that is all of
the different sex change interventions. It is the surgeries, but
it's also the hormone treatments. It's also the different irreversible
(11:59):
medical interventions that can start that process that affects youth,
and it shouldn't be done before someone is eighteen where
they can make that permanent decision.
Speaker 1 (12:10):
And by the way, one of the reasons that the
medical information or lack thereof on this is more mainstream
now is because the ACLU's lawyer should not have but
brought this to the Supreme Court and argued in front
of the Supreme Court, at which point and a lot
of these documents put before the Supreme Court, and in
a lot of the questioning before the Supreme Court, it
(12:31):
was revealed that the data is not there. So I
think people now feel comfortable going with their gut on this. Again,
another thing where everyone kind of knew this was wrong
from the beginning, but it felt it's been a strange
five years. Everyone was like, uh, should I be saying
that this is wrong? Or am I mean to say
this is wrong? And in fact, it's really mean to
(12:53):
deny the truth and to tell children that they can
change their sex. That is, that's actually the wrong thing.
And we're coming to that conclusion. By the way, this
New York Times story mostly focuses on like that people
are worried about whether youth can consent to this type
of decision. They don't get into the actual harms that
(13:14):
like bone density and brain development and sexual function are
all affected by permanently, permanently by these interventions, and that
that matters too. And I would note that the New
York Times comment section, which has a lot of upright lit,
Yeah it's lit, And also a lot of the up
voting has happened for people saying, look, I'm no fan
(13:37):
of Trump, when he's right about this.
Speaker 2 (13:38):
Yep, that's the thing. It's these bedfellows. But to your
point before about the ACLU lawyer, I thought that was
really interesting after the Scrimeti decision, just what a month
ago from the Supreme Court, how many liberal groups are like,
wait a sec this was strategically a disaster opening the
door to all these other issues, arguing it poorly taking
this particular case, and I mean the Scrimetti team in
(13:59):
Tennessee that push this and argued that Jonathan Skermetti, the
Attorney General, there is a rock star to watch for
a very very long time to come. He's got a
number of different, very important sort of conservative movement cases
that are actually the common sense cases for parental rights
for things like this, that I think will be really
interesting to track. But again, this is brought together such
a unique coalition. I call it the coalition of the Normies.
(14:21):
It's people who are just like, hey, like, what if
we don't transkids before they have a you know, opportunity
to make decisions about their lives.
Speaker 1 (14:27):
Things like that, Like.
Speaker 2 (14:28):
What if you know, we let girls just compete against
other girls? What if we didn't have you know, thirty
five year old dudes in locker rooms and bathrooms with
little girls like what if we didn't do that? You know?
Speaker 1 (14:38):
Yep, And that's who we hope is listening to this
podcast called Norms.
Speaker 2 (14:42):
That's the dream.
Speaker 1 (14:43):
That's our constituency. Okay, from this culture shift to another
a little bit more wonky policy issue. Announcements today that
Trump is coming to a massive trade deal with Japan,
setting tariffs at fifteen percent. There. There's also reports that
you are getting some sort of income from the tariffs
(15:06):
that have been set thus far. I don't know where
you are on this. I have been look. Trump advertised
he was going to do this. I kind of hoped
he wouldn't do it too aggressively. I think trying to
do one hundred and sixty five ish trade deals at
one time, even though you have the energy of Donald Trump,
is not the best strategic plan. And yet the economy
(15:28):
has not responded as negatively as I would have thought
it might, and I'm very glad about that, very glad.
I also think there are unfair practices, but I don't
know how much we're gaining in this. What is your
take on whether this has economic or political advantages or
disadvantages for him.
Speaker 2 (15:47):
I think I'm generally in the same place as you.
Liberation Day when they announced the new tariff rates on
every country and the markets went into absolute shock was terrifying.
But since that time things have generally evened out, and
I think to point we've seen a lot of the
doomsday predictions were not you know, they didn't quite come
to fruition. There are still some warning signs about inflation,
(16:08):
you know, rising cost prices going up for goods. Certain
companies are dealing with, you know, the tariff issue in
different ways, but I think that it is generally coming
closer to an equilibrium. I think to your point about
you know, unfair practices, we're talking about the EU right now.
The EU, because they have not had any innovation, they
have very few successful companies. They are trying to find
(16:33):
new ways to generate income from American companies, so they
have things like their digital services tax, which I think
is one of the most absurd things in the world.
But I have a lot of like little beef with
EU on different things now that I've like gotten understand
a little bit more about our policy relationship with that
very opens Yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1 (16:49):
I mean the Europeans.
Speaker 2 (16:50):
I just like I like Europe, I like to visit
different places, but so many things they're doing, whether it's
you know, like trying to force ESG on American companies
while they're buying Russian gas that's used, you know, to
fund the war, and you cant all that. We could
go on for a long time about beef with the EU,
but hopefully with you know, the tariff deal and everything
that Now the tariff deal with EU seems like more
(17:10):
of a stepping stone towards a larger suite of issues
they want to resolve with EU. But if they can
get into a conversation about things like these non trade
barriers in addition to the tariffs, that would be super valuable.
And I also think Japan is a big deal because
a lot of the trade conversations up to this point,
the places that we've seen progress with have been some
of the smaller Asian countries who have important import conversations
(17:34):
import export conversations with the United States. But Japan is
a very different scale, you know, And it's it's funny
we talked a lot about part of my beef with
tariffs is the way that you know, Peter Navarro and
some of the Trump trade. You know, experts talk about this,
you know, why aren't your why isn't Japan buying more
American cars? I lived in Japan for a few years
as a missionar, and I drove on those roads that
(17:56):
feel like you're in a video game. And if you
drove an F one to fifty on the road and
am in a small town in Japan.
Speaker 1 (18:02):
It's not gonna work.
Speaker 2 (18:03):
They're gonna be knocking buildings out of the way into
rice patties and it's gonna be a problem. So I
think that there was a disconnect there. But I know
autos were a big part of this Japanese deal, and
they'll find a way to sort of make it work
that's profitable for both sides. To your point before, I
think trying to do this many deals at once is
a little bit scary, and I think there are pressures
that come with that. There's a lot of coverage about
(18:23):
how you know, our posture on this has maybe pushed
more countries towards openness to China, and you know, despite
how terrible they are, I don't I don't love that,
but I think that they're trying to navigate around that
and I think that, you know, Scott Bessant is somebody
who has been valuable to watch because he's been very
even handed while still being you know, very pro the
trade agenda, pro what President Trump's trying to do, but
(18:46):
contextualizing it in a way for people who might go
in with more concern to feel like, Okay, we're in
good hands. The north star here is how do we
lower costs for Americans? And how do we get to
that point? And I think, you know, that's what they're
working really hard to do. So we'll see where I'm saying.
Speaker 1 (19:00):
Yeah, I know. And it's like I always say about
Trump that first of all, he does have endless energy,
so he doesn't mind putting one hundred and sixty five
deals in his plate. And he also likes tariffs and
likes steal making, so either sure it works. He's like,
these are the things he likes to do. He's given
himself the opportunity to do plenty of them. I do
fear that sometimes we end up in a slightly less
(19:21):
advantageous or the same place we were before before we
had this big back and forth with these economies that
we were doing business with that we did have access
to although there are places we need more access to.
I totally think that's true, totally besn't I love having
my guy around on the case, whether it's talking to
Trump about Jerome Powell or the so. I feel like
(19:42):
he's a steady hand, he's trying to make the best
of this and keeping between so a calming voice, a
calming voice, white hair, treasury second voice. Yeah. So that's
where I am on that, and we will keep our
eye on it. But yeah, I think Trump can take
a half a victory lap, at least on the fact
(20:03):
that the doom saying was not what came to pass.
I do think there are smaller harms that you don't
hear about as much. Probably for smaller businesses that get
things from some of these smaller Asian economies, that can
be an issue. And I don't want to dismiss that, bute.
The large picture has not been terrible.
Speaker 2 (20:21):
So agreed very much.
Speaker 1 (20:23):
Alrighty, going on, we have a segment on this show
called still Mad Bro. We're Still Mad Bro, And one
of the things I'm still mad about, and I think
you share this with me. We're going to do actually
two quick conspiracy theories that have come true. The first
is you remember that DOJ letter about parents talking at
(20:46):
school board meetings and objecting to coronavirus mandates, critical race theory,
transgender policies, mandated vaccinations, that kind of thing. The DOJ
under Biden sent out this letter basically saying, we should
find ways to creatively go after these people as domestic terrorists.
They're very dangerous, they're threatening people. It turns out that
(21:09):
that was very much done in concert with the National
school Board Association. Yes, plus Biden, do OJ plus the
White House all brainstorming ways over a weekend, by the way,
which shows how important it was to them, brainstorming ways
to get parents in trouble, to get them under federal law,
(21:31):
to get them under investigation for objecting about these things.
This is from newly obtained documents from the America First
from America First Legal, who has gone through all the
emails related to this memo.
Speaker 2 (21:45):
It's so egregious when you read they're looking for a
hook to use to go after these parents. And one
thing that I think you have to start out with
huge credit to our mutual friend NICKI Neely defending education.
She single handedly kept this the news and kept digging
and digging and digging and sending those foyas, which eventually
led to the National School Board Association being completely dissolved
(22:09):
because of this scandal. But way before that, to your point,
just for everyone's background, this began with the parents speaking out.
Miguel Cardona, former Secretary of Education, soliciting a letter from
somebody to say, which was a part of this hook,
how do we create the need for know FBI law
enforcement to use these counter terrorism tools against parents and
(22:30):
say they're a threat to us? Honestly, to me this
I am a little bit disappointed that there aren't people
in jail over this because they ruined lives. Some of
the parents that they pinpointed that they targeted and treated
like terrorists, like changed their lives forever, and so it's
horrific to keep hearing about. But like I am so
grateful that there were people digging into this at the
(22:50):
time to make sure that we were able to expose
and find out these forces that were trying to silence parents,
because this was a part of the parental rights movement
has had a in these last three or four years.
COVID was a huge part of it. Parents tuning in
to what their kids were hearing on zoom classes. Then
there was you know, the mask man, It's the vax man.
It's all the different things that parents had decision making
(23:12):
power taken away from them on. This played a huge
role in lighting the fire that got parents engaged, that
became a really strong political movement. Had a lot to
do with Governor Youngkin getting elected in Virginia.
Speaker 1 (23:24):
The timing is important because it was October twenty twenty
one and things were sort of hitting a fever pitch.
They were playing into Governor Youngkin's pitch. Two parents in Virginia.
Louden County, Virginia, of course showing itself to be among
the most egregious in the country, and everyone here, particularly
in northern Virginia, was so contemptuous of parents during COVID.
(23:49):
Here's some of the language from these emails. As you
noted the hook, We're aware, so is the deputy Associate
Deputy Attorney General. We're aware of the challenge here is
finding a federal hook. But White House has been in
touch about whether we can assist in some form or fashion.
So they're trying to gin up ways to go after
these parents. And then some actual career folks are like,
(24:10):
I don't know if we can do this, guys, it says.
It seems we are ramping up an awful lot of
federal manpower for what is currently non federal conduct. It
appears to me that the vast, vast majority of the
behavior cited cannot be reached by federal law. I only
saw three stories that involved what sounded like a possible
true threat quote, and one of those did not appear
to be related to masks, etc. Almost all of the
(24:31):
language being used is protected by the First Amendment. The
main issue seems to be disruption and obstruction of school
board meetings. So the idea that they were over a
weekend all getting together to brainstorm ways to arrest and
investigate parents at school board meetings, and this is what
we all said at the time. We said they're colluding
(24:51):
to do this, and we also said, none of these
threats are what they're talking about. They're raising speech into threats,
and that's what they were doing well.
Speaker 2 (25:00):
And they wanted to make an example of people, to
send a message to parents around the country that they
needed to get in line, they needed to do what
they're told and have their children go through this. But
one of the mistakes they made through this process. Was
one of the fathers they identified as a threat to
make an example of wasn't there because of masks. He
was there because his daughter had been sexually assaulted in
a bathroom and the school board covered it up. And
(25:21):
while they were covering that up, the same person who
carried out that sexual assault did it a second time
at a new school. And so when people started finding
this out again loud and county, as you're talking about,
this was a major national story that went all the
way to near the top of the Biden administration, and
they had wanted to do it to silence people, but
they picked every wrong element of this. And honestly, Miguel
(25:43):
Cardona's entire service as Education Secretary was like error after
like it was a comedy of errors, but like, this
was so egregious. And again again, I maybe this sounds crazy.
I wish someone was in jail for this.
Speaker 1 (25:56):
Yeah, no, I'm I'm with you on this. There was
a a special kind of psychosis during COVID, and I
think COVID gave people who are inclined to do this
kind of thing license to say, like, well, we're complaining
about masks. That's a public threat, and it's a public threat, dude.
One of the stories about Louden County, as you note
(26:18):
this father who was speaking out at meetings because his
daughter was actually assaulted and they had hidden it. That's
all proven. We've seen all the emails back and forth
about that. The person arrested at that meeting was the
father protesting about his daughter, I mean, and the entire
national media framed it as this guy's just a big
(26:38):
jerk who was threatening school board members. I mean, it's crazy,
just g regious conduct.
Speaker 2 (26:43):
His daughter was assaulted, and they tried to make him
into this like lunatic guy who's like a mask conspiracy
theorist and his daughter been assaulted. Like when you think
about what recourse do you parents have when the government
just does insane things. That story made people feel more
radicalized about what government was from them. Everything that the
covid era sort of microwaved. And yeah, that was an
(27:05):
explosive story that was just crazy and definitely shifted the
Virginia governor's race.
Speaker 1 (27:08):
I fact checked that about him being arrested every time
I mention it because it sounds so insane. I'm like,
is that true?
Speaker 2 (27:15):
It sounds like a conservative fever dream type of thing,
but that really happened.
Speaker 1 (27:19):
Okay, one last conservative fever dream before we're done, Because
this conspiracy theory is true as well, and we've had
it confirmed before by the Durham Report and other things.
But D and I Telsea Gabbart is releasing a bunch
of declassified stuff this week rolling on the Russia Gate story.
Now I'm actually still a little up in the air
(27:39):
on how much new information there is here, but it
does at least solidify the Durham Report conclusions and the
fact that this wasn't real. I mean, it's just Russia
Gate was not real. And the thing that I always
said at CNN when I was there and this came
(28:01):
to be was I feel like you are all deciding
on a conclusion yep, before we have the investigation, whether
you're a reporter or the intelligence community. And what Gabbart
has released this week about a December ninth, twenty sixteen
meeting suggests that in fact, the intelligence community and Obama's
(28:22):
officials and Obama himself were like at his behest, he
was like, we need a different conclusion than the one
you have given me, which is more benign about Russia's
involvement in this election, which basically says, I don't think
they actually wanted to help Donald Trump, but they were
definitely interfering. They weren't interfering by hacking actual machines or votes,
(28:45):
but there was an element here. It's just not the
thing that it became. And Obama and crew were like,
let's do a reassessment because they didn't like that assessment.
Speaker 2 (28:56):
Yep. And you have to track the moving goalposts of
what Democrats have claimed from the beginning of this, because
you'll remember after President Trump was elected, even around that time, Democrats,
media talking heads, Rachel Mattow, everybody was super comfortable coming
right out and saying Russia got Donald Trump elected. Russia
did this, and they wanted people to believe that they
had manipulated votes, they had hacked into machines, they had
(29:18):
made this happen. When you look at what President Obama
said this week to try and push back on the
d and I report and what Tolsy Gabbard put out,
he said Russia worked to influence the twenty sixteen election,
but did not successfully manipulate any votes. That vague language
of working to influence has been so amorphoused what that
could mean to work to influence could be as simple
(29:38):
as like some Russian bought you know, posted I hate Hillary,
or a meme or things like that. But they want
you to believe that it's so much more than it was,
because in twenty sixteen that was politically helpful. And when
you look at the intelligence community over the years, everything
from Hunter's laptop when you had all the you know,
intelligence experts signed letters of this was Russian disinformation. Everything
(30:00):
they sold out their expertise, and unfortunately, with that, the
credibility of the industry, the credibility of that entire institution
to get you know, in twenty sixteen, try and get
Hillary elected. In twenty twenty, try to get Joe Biden elected.
And it's so crazy to think back at just how
quickly the holes were poked in those things where people said, okay,
(30:21):
I mean, like, if they're willing to make this up,
what else are they willing to make up? And now
the conspiracy theories are everywhere. We're finding out more and
more of them are real. But skepticism in the institutions
that we need to trust is sky high, and I
don't know how they ever get that trust back.
Speaker 1 (30:34):
I know well, and that's one of the reasons that
I think it is important that a Brennan or a Clapper,
who were involved in misusing all this stuff, both on
the Hunter Biden laptop and on Russia Gate, should face
some sort of punishment. They've also lied to Congress in
the past under oath both there's no penalty for it,
which exactly important. I always noted that when I was
(30:55):
on CNN, and they didn't enjoy it at all that
those guys had lied under oath. But I do want
to know Eli Lake, who I trust very much on
this subject and has been an early skeptic as I
was on Russia Gate, although I wish I had gone
further back in the day because I didn't imagine just
how conspiratorial it was totally, he says. One area where
Gabbert does bring new information to light is the revelation
(31:16):
of a whistleblower inside the intelligence community who did not
believe that the intelligence supported the conclusion in the January
twenty seventeen ICA Intelligence Community assessment that the Russian government
developed a clear preference for President elect Trump. The release
from Friday includes this tantalizing quote from the whistleblower. As
for the twenty seventeen ICA's judgment of a decisive Russian
(31:38):
preference for then candidate Donald Trump, I could not concur
in good conscience based on information available and my professional
analytic judgment. There were a lot of people who make
this argument that Russia was interfering, but not for the
reason that became Russia Gate, and that so much nonsense
was predicated on their preference for Trump, when in fact,
(31:59):
if you think through at LAE, logically everyone thought Hillary
was going to win. Yep, they are. The things they
were doing were meant to handicap her to the extent
that they could, and to shape a playing field when
Hillary was present that would make her more helpful to them.
That was it, one hundred percent.
Speaker 2 (32:18):
And I think that this highlight on the motive part
is important because it undoes everything we've been told for
those years with everyone saying they wanted Trump to win.
They wanted Trump to win. I think that matters, and
I think that's a really important part of this. And
that whistleblower who got ignored. I mean, how often are
we hearing in these stories that there was a voice
in the darkness who was trying to push them in
the right direction that they conveniently ignored, just like you
(32:38):
know in the emails we were talking about before about
law enforcement in the Bide administration saying Hey, I don't
know if these parents that were trying to pin all
this on, you know, are guilty of what we're charging them,
and yet it disappears. The problem is if you use
a government email and try and do a conspiracy, someday
someone's gonna find it.
Speaker 1 (32:56):
It's going to come out. Well, we're all still little
mad bro here on Normally Always, Matt Whitlock, thank you
so much for being with me. You can listen to
his podcast ten Minute Drilling. You should. It'll give you
a briefing on politics for the week when you're feeling
a little overwhelmed and keep it short. Thanks for joining
us on Normally Normal. Yeah. Normally airs Tuesdays and Thursdays,
(33:17):
and you can subscribe anywhere you get your podcasts. Get
in touch with us at normally thepod at gmail dot com.
Thanks for listening, and when things get weird, act Normally
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
24/7 News: The Latest
The latest news in 4 minutes updated every hour, every day.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com