The Sports Gambling Scandal & LeBron James' Hypocrisy

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
The problem with covering Trump in the media is that
they tend to make literally everything he does like a
level ten def Con one crazy emergency when it isn't
necessarily that, and as a result that they turn into

(00:21):
a kind of boy that cried wolf sort of situation
where the media is hollering and clamoring and yelling and
screaming about every single or liberals more generally are hollering
and clamoring and screaming about every little thing Trump does,
and then it sort of bypasses actual and then when

(00:42):
they feel like they actually have something that's more serious, well,
they've used up all the oxygen. They've been hollering and
screaming about things that are completely inconsequential. The best example
of this is the renovations at the White House. So
Trump is renovating a portion of the east wing of

(01:06):
the White House. It's not the main body of the House.
So you have the main White House, you have walkways
going out to the west wing, walkways going out to
the east wing. They want to expand this one portion
of the east wing to have a larger ballroom that
can be used for state functions. They sometimes have these

(01:30):
larger state functions and they have to put out tents
and things like that because they don't have a space
that's kind of big enough. So Trump wants to build
a ballroom. He's gotten it privately financed, so there's no
government spending on it. And they started work on it,
demolishing one section at the East Wing. It's like a

(01:50):
car park overhang on one portion of the East Wing.
But then they circulate all these pictures of it and
liberals like, really go to town with it, and really,
he's destroying the people's house. He's destroying your house. How
could he like it? Really, like genuinely acting as though

(02:11):
this question of a White House renovation. And I've even
looked at the architect he's got for the ballroom, who's
very good architect. They're they're turning this into this. This
is the most terrible, horrible, evil thing that's ever existed.
Even Gavin Newsom gets in on it, he's yelling at

(02:33):
screaming Donald Trump doesn't want you to see this picture.
He's literally destroying the White House. He's not. He's destroying
a driveway overhang next to the East Wick. So, yeah,
they knew some posts like the most destructive looking angle
of it like directly, you know, looking at the eastern

(02:56):
side of the east wing where this car park overhang is,
which yes, they are tear that down, but this isn't
you know, this isn't destroying the heart of American democracy
or something. It's not you know, it just isn't. They're
not painting the White House black or green or something.
They're getting rid of a car park on the edge

(03:17):
of the east wing and they're going to put in
a ballroom. So everyone expends all their energy on this,
and even Gavin Newsom did this, even while at the
same time the State Capitol Building is getting completely overhauled
renovated in Sacramento, which is going to cost way more

(03:39):
money than this White House ballroom is going to cost,
which has taken way longer, is involves way more wrecking
of all the of portions of this building. It's not
like the old historic Capitol building. In fairness, it's kind
of like, I think it's like the nineteen fifty sixty

(04:00):
seventies sort of office side of it that was attached
to the main old Capitol building. But still it's this big, old,
destructive thing, and actually it's cost way more. It's been
a way the far worse project, really in a lot
of ways. So there's this constant temptation, to constant temptation

(04:22):
on the part of the media, on the part of
Democrats to focus on stuff Trump does that is just
not even that important. Just take anything he does and
try to spin it up into some Oh, Trump is
the most horribly destructive thing ever. Now, Trump the other
day talked about something that I feel like is another

(04:44):
instance of this where it could involve inappropriate self dealing
but possibly not. And it if it does involve self
dealing and involves self dealing in a way that Democrats
have done. Egregiously, Democrats just sort of don't have much
of a leg to stand on, all right, So what

(05:04):
is this? Trump had filed a lawsuit two administrative claims
in twenty twenty three and twenty twenty four, so he's
not president at this point. He had filed administrative claims
in twenty three and twenty four, threatening to sue the
Justice Department and asking for compensation of as much as

(05:27):
two hundred and thirty million dollars over alleged violations of
his rights that happened over the course of the Russia
Gate probe and which while he was probed in connection
with Russiagate and had the whole the first special council
appointed against him, Robert Muller, and that all that nonsense.

(05:49):
He never got charged in that investigation, and he wanted to,
And he filed a similar thing for the FBI's raid
of mar A Lago back in twenty twenty five three,
which did lead to him getting indicted. So this is
Trump filing an administrative claim. He's wanting to sue the

(06:13):
Justice Department for various claims arising out of them. He
argues wrongly investigating him in those contexts, and he wants
two hundred and thirty million dollars in damages. The story
from The New York Times about this quotes Trump mentioning
the claims last week. Quote, I have a lawsuit that

(06:34):
was doing very well, and when I became president, I said,
I'm sort of suing myself. It sort of looks bad.
I'm suing myself, right, So I don't know. But that
was a lawsuit that was very strong, very very strong,
very powerful, classic Trump words. Asked about it yesterday, Trump
didn't deny the story, but he responded, all I'm not
gonna do with the Trump voice. Here we go. All

(06:55):
I know is they would owe me a lot of money.
But I'm not looking for money, Trump told reporters, adding
that if he did get a payment, any money that
I would get, I would give to charity. It's interesting
because I'm the one that makes a decision, and you
know that decision would have to go across my desk.
He said. It's awfully strange to make a decision where
I'm paying myself. Now Trump is sort of like idly

(07:20):
dealing with it. But yeah, it's that there's something kind
of inappropriate where it's basically, this is the situation that's
happening when someone is suing the federal government. This is
suing the federal government trying to make a claim for
money damages. The party is the federal government, but the

(07:46):
person who executes and forces law is the president. And
in the context of a lawsuit, what's one of the
outcomes that can happen in a lawsuit. Well, either the
plaintiff can win, get it to a trial, maybe have
a juried side jury rules in favor of the plainiff,

(08:08):
gives a plane off a whole bunch of money. The
defendant can win. Maybe the defendant files a emotion to
dismiss and says nope, don't. They don't stay a real claim,
and the judge throws out the whole case or case
goes all the way, goes to a trial, goes in
front of a jury, and the jury decides, Note we
ruled in favor of the defendant. The plaintiff didn't make

(08:31):
out his claim. The defendant doesn't know anything, Okay. But
the more likely outcome, many many, many times, is a
settlement where, rather than paying the lawyers for years and
years worth of litigation work, the two sides come to
an agreement and they say, look, we'll give you. You

(08:57):
know you're asking us for one hundred million I'll give
you forty million dollars right now if you just make
this lawsuit go away. Okay, sounds good. Settle the case,
We shake hands, We sign an agreement saying you're not
going to pursue these claims anymore. I agree in exchange
for my agreement to do that, I give you all
this money. Blah blah blah blah blah. Very good. Now,

(09:20):
when the federal government is being sued, who decides on
a settlement. The federal government has a kind of pool
of money allocated by Congress that can be used for settlements,
and it has to kind of vary from case to case,

(09:40):
space to space, individual to individual. It's under the control
of the executive branch. Maybe it's a case where the
federal government really screwed something up, and the federal government's
lawyers at the DOJ they go to whoever's the decider.
Perhaps it could be the president if it's a big
enough deal. Ultimately it's people under his authority who are

(10:04):
making this decision and say, look, we're in a really
bad posture here. We would rather give a settlement right
now rather than get our pants, rather than get our
butts kicked in a trial and have to pay way
more money. So we want to authorize you to make
this settlement than have this lawsuit go away. And so
the president can agree to settle, so lawsuits like that happen,

(10:29):
and now it's the president or officers under him, agreeing
to the settlement with the taxpayer's money. It's not the
president's money, it's not the Department of Justices money. They
don't have their own money. They have money from the
American taxpayer. Now, the problem is when presidents use that

(10:54):
pool of money in sleazy self dealing or helping out
friends kinds of ways. So there's this lawyer named Ted Frank,
who very prominent attorney, who was tweeting about this, and

(11:16):
he writes this. In nineteen ninety six, lawyers sued the
government in a class action over the management of Indian
trust accounts. They got a friendly judge who put bureaucrats
through hell over the course of over a decade of litigation.
Records from a century ago were a mess, to be sure,
but there wasn't any evidence that the departments were siphoning
wealth away from Native Americans. The Department of Justice kept

(11:40):
taking various rulings up on appeal and would win every time.
Finally there was a trial and the plaintiffs failed to
show damages. The best they could do was a statistical
study with an estimated range of damages from negative to
positive within two standard deviations. That is, perhaps the government
mess had overpaid aid the Indian within two standard deviations,

(12:03):
meaning that there's a possibility of the government could have
overpaid the Indians from the fisk. So they're the only
evidence they gave was not like conclusively that the Native
Americans had been robbed there was some evidence there's a
chance that might have actually been overpaid. The judge picks
a number from the ninety fifth percentile from the right
hand tail, so that one of the very few options

(12:27):
showing that the Native showing the most damages in favor
of the Native Americans, and he awards them a few
hundred million dollars. That's a tiny digit percentage of the
alleged claims, and even that got reversed by the DC Circuit.
So the government has all but one and just needs
to mop up the rest. The lawsuit is a failure.

(12:49):
But then Barack Obama got elected president, and suddenly the
Department of Justice wants to settle the case, and by settle,
I mean give away billions of taxpayer dollars three point
four billion dollars to be precise. So they were winning
the lawsuit, they were only going to give away a
couple hundred million, and even that got overturned by the

(13:11):
DC Circuit. They're ready to not pay out anything. But
then Obama comes in and says he wants to settle
the lawsuit for three point four billion dollars, with over
ninety million dollars going to the lead plaintiffs. Attorneys who
were major fundraisers for Barack Obama, and that is what happened.

(13:41):
So the taxpayers got absolutely grifted out of three point
four billion dollars. Barack Obama got to give some attorneys
who were big fundraisers for him ninety million dollars. It
was pretty openly ludicrously illegitimate what was being done. Now,

(14:09):
Trump has not yet done this to give him to
settle a case that he himself filed against the federal
government for two hundred thirty million. It's not clear what
he's going to do. I immediately see this story and
see people saying this would be impeachable in any other administration. Well,
he hasn't done it yet. He's just talking about it,

(14:33):
and he's as Trump tends to do. He talks about
legal matters that it would be best for him not
to talk about publicly. He's saying, oh boy, you know,
I'm kind of suing myself right now. I'm the one
who would have to oversee whatever payment would go out
to me. Now, I think I would hope Trump would

(14:56):
think better of this whole thing. It sounds like Trump
doesn't want to personally enrich himself. He says he's just
going to give all the money to charity. I don't
know that that necessarily makes it better from a self
dealing perspective, But this is the thing, like this, this
attitude that Trump is such a norm violative person is

(15:20):
just not that true. Even if Trump does do this,
which I don't know that he's going to, it's stuff
that Barack Obama did all the time, and everyone was
just so busy, you know, slurping on him, that no
one called him out when he would do stuff that
was every bit as egregious. When we return, why are

(15:45):
we spending so much time fretting over Trump with this
or that and not with other things that I think
sometimes might be a little bit more serious. Next on
the John Geardy Show, you have so much ink being
spilled in the media over this stupid renovation at the
White House, and it just makes me sort of think,
like Democrats really do this whole kind of boy who

(16:09):
cried wolf thing, including like Avenue someone who's going nuts
about this, and it doesn't leave enough oxygen in the
room to talk about things that might be a little
bit more serious, like, for example, I mean, this White
House story is frival frivolous, at best, this is not

(16:31):
a serious story. It's a renovation for a segment of
the White House to add on a ballroom. That's all
it is. It's not destroying some critical piece of American history,
like the thing they demolished was a car park overhang.
It's not the end of the world. Subsequent presidents are

(16:53):
going to use the daylights out of this ballroom that
Trump is going to build. Okay, let's just make it
clear now. Meanwhile, I feel like less ink has been
spilled by liberals over the ongoing Trump administration's actions of

(17:16):
destroying drug boats coming from Venezuela. They just recently destroyed
a drug boat coming that was on the Pacific Ocean side,
I guess, coming around towards California, where the Trump administration
is using like military strikes to blow up drug boats

(17:42):
coming from either Venezuela or other places. Now, I have
no great sympathy for drug running Venezuelans note at all. However,
I do have a little concern about the President of

(18:02):
the United States utilizing military force and Congress not being involved.
And this doesn't seem like it's a one time thing
in response to an imminent invasion threat. Now what Trump
keeps saying, and he's not wrong. I guess is that
you know, for every one drug runner coming in, you

(18:24):
know X number of people are gonna die. Okay, and
especially he points to the fentanyl crisis, and certainly that
is a crisis. However, a lot of the stuff that
he's attacking, these are like Colombian cocaine. These are guys
bringing cocaine, not necessarily fentanyl, which the lethality of that

(18:48):
is a different thing. Obviously it's still bad. I'm not
saying it's non lethal, but it's also just kind of
an apple's orange as comparison. Military force is a certain
thing that's for a certain kind of thing. International criminal
law enforcement and border policing is what we use for

(19:12):
drug running. And I don't know that the legal authority
exists for the President just to use the military just
to blow up drug dealers rather than using appropriate whether
it's coast Guard or border patrol or whatever, to arrest
and detain these people. Now, again, no one cares about

(19:37):
this story because nobody left, right or center in America
is going to cry too many big alligator tiers when
some of the scummiest low lifes in the world, these horrible.
Drug traffickers get blown sky high, no one cares. I'll
I'm not saying I'm shedding big alligator tiers for them myself.

(19:58):
What I am saying, though, is that appropriate, lawful use
of military force has to be used in accordance with law.
This is all stuff that is governed by law. And
it seems as though Republicans in Congress are willing to
just sort of let Trump do whatever he wants with it.

(20:18):
And I don't know how other than I think a
few voices on the right, and I don't know how
appropriate that is. And this is the thing, like, this
is the sort of thing where maybe we should be
having a bit more of a robust debate the limits
of the president's constitutional powers here, the legal limits of

(20:41):
when military force can be used. What is an imminent
invasion that permits military force abuse? Are we talking about
anyone doing anything bad coming to America? Are we talking
about people coming to America with intent to use military
force to kill people? Like there's a difference between our
terrorism statle and our narcotics are narcotics anti narcotics trafficking

(21:10):
law enforcement statutes. They're different statutes designed for different kinds
of things. We're using military force for the narcotics stuff.
Is that appropriate? Is that doable? I mean, I'm not
saying it's not. But if he's violating the law and
killing people and violating the law, that's a pretty serious thing.

(21:31):
Now I'm not claiming to be an expert on all
of these very complex bodies of law, but the idea
that we're spending half a nano seconds worth of breath
complaining about.

Speaker 2 (21:47):
Donald Trump's destroying the home of America by tearing down
a car park overhanging on the edge of the East
Wing and putting in a nice ballroom, Like why are
we even spending ano second of concern on that?

Speaker 1 (22:03):
As opposed to hey, like, are are we starting a war?
Like are you saying that these Venezuelans are agents of
the Maduro regime in Venezuelan and we're at war with them?
Or or are they non state actors? Are we declaring war?
Are we asking Congress for military authorization authorized used to
military force? Like what are we doing? That's like an

(22:27):
actual serious kind of thing that like Congress is supposed
to get concerned with. That's like a seri a real thing.
It's not a thing of like, oh, the White House renovation.
And this is what annoys me about liberals is that
again they've used up all the oxygen in their room
talking about a renovation at the White House on the

(22:48):
edge of the East Wing, and meanwhile, something that's actually
Congress's role overseeing, you know, the use of military force
that they're just sort of out to launch for all. Right,
when we return, sports gambling is everywhere. It's not going away.

(23:09):
That's next on the John Girardi Show. Gambling has always
been associated with sports. Gambling has always been on the
kind of ced underbelly periphery of sports. When gambling was
largely illegal unless you went to Las Vegas, it was
sort of kept at an arms distance, and sports leagues
were terrified of gambling. The experience of the Whole White

(23:35):
the Whole Black Sox scandal in baseball led to baseball
basically and then other American sports leagues followed suit, basically
declaring sports gambling to be the greatest, most unforgivable cardinal
sin for people involved in participating in professional sports in
America and college sports too. So for years and years

(23:58):
and years there was this taboo against having gambling like
anywhere near sports to such an extent that like Las
Vegas couldn't even get any professional teams. You know, Las
Vegas now has the Raiders and a WNBA franchise, and
I think the NBA is thinking about expanding into Vegas.
But leagues didn't want to put franchises there for forever.

(24:21):
Why just because of the proximity to gambling and the
perception that this was impacting competitive fairness, the idea of
other kinds of illegality that could be going on, and
sports leagues took it so seriously that Pete Rose one
of the greatest baseball players ever, the hit king of baseball.

(24:45):
No one accumulated more hits in Major League Baseball than
Pete Rose. There are some people who try to argue, well,
you know, each ro Suzuki, he had, you know, this
many hits in the Japanese League, plus this many hits
in major leagues, so combined he has more hits than
now Pe Rose, the Major League hits king. Each row
is a tremendous, tremendous hitter. But I think we kind
of have to, you know, take Japanese league hitting the

(25:08):
stats a bit with a grain of salt. Who knows
if Etro had started in the big leagues as a
twenty one year old rather than a twenty seven year old.
Who knows what it could have been? What he you know,
how many hits he could have accumulated, Maybe you would
have passed Pete Rose. Who knows. But over time, especially
as the Supreme Court has loosened laws on gambling, and

(25:31):
more and more states have begun legalized gambling. And at
the heart of it, I I've always contended this. As
America has faced more and more government spending difficulties, the
weight of paying government employees and government employee pensions for

(25:53):
local and state governments has gone up, up, up up.
Local government and state governments become more and more and
more desperate for sources of revenue where they don't have
to increase taxes on everybody, where they don't have to
increase sales taxes, where they don't have to increase property taxes,

(26:16):
where they don't have to increase income taxes most of all,
So how do you generate revenue? Well, you got one
of the ways to do it is to find some
voluntary activity that nobody has to do, some kind of vice.

(26:39):
You legalize it, and then you tax it. Heavily, and
you hope that all the bad outcomes that were the
reason why it got sort of legally restricted in the
first place don't get too bad. So this is the
massive incentive that state governments and local governments have for

(27:00):
legalizing marijuana. It's the major incentive that state governments and
local governments have for legalizing gambling. It's a way to
raise money off of an activity that nobody has to do,
but you know a bunch of people are addicted to
doing it. So you can pretend like you have clean hands,
and then you offer, Oh, are you having trouble because

(27:23):
you know you're addicted to gambling and your wife left
you because you know you took out a second mortgage
on your house without telling her and gambled away your
kid's college fund. Oh oh oh no, Well here's the
gambling helpline. Hey, how about a three team parlay, the
two team teaser? Whatever? You know. So state governments and

(27:47):
local governments want it, and the sports leagues realized, okay,
wait a minute. Now we have these online gambling companies
and they got more money than God and they want
to advertise Hm, okay, well I guess we'll uh I
guess we'll start allowing that maybe a little more gamble,

(28:10):
and then we are now at this point where gambling
is like integrated into the broadcast. I was watching the
Lakers game last night, about two nights ago. I guess
at the Lakers Warriors game, and right there on the
old Staples sene. Guess now, it's the Crypto dot com arena.
They've got a big Draft Kings logo right there on

(28:30):
the court. It's everywhere. Okay, it's completely suffused throughout the
culture of sports. Well, well will news broke today regarding
a massive gambling scandal in sports where the Department of

(28:55):
Justice has just indicted and player, a former NBA player
and friend of Lebron James by the way, Damon Jones,
Lebron James, who himself has a personal advertising deal. He's
an endorser for one of the big gambling things. I
believe it's DraftKings. I might be I have to double

(29:17):
check that. I think it's DraftKings. Damon Jones, Terry Roseier
and current Terry Rogier and Damon Jones were Terry Rogier
was a pretty good NBA player. Damon Jones was always
a kind of backup, but he was friendly with Lebron James,
and I think Lebron kind of would bring him along

(29:39):
to different stops. And then Chauncey Billups. Chauncey Billups who
is the coach of the Portland Trailblazers, the NBA franchise
in Portland, which a lot of people might remember from
the nineties and early two thousands, the old jail Blazers era,
where there was there was a short stretch of time

(30:01):
where a bunch of players for the Portland Trailblazers happened
to be criminals who were kept getting indicted or convicted
for various kinds of bad behavior, and so people started
referring to those teams as the jail Blazers rather than
the Trailblazers. So it's good to see the jail Blazer
tradition is back with their coach Chouncy Billips, who was

(30:23):
himself a former NBA player. He was a really good
guard in the NBA for a long long time. He
was one of the best players on the Detroit Pistons
team that won the two thousand and four NBA Championship
and beat Kobe and Shack and the Lakers. So these
guys are getting arrested or they're getting indicted for gambling.

(30:46):
Bill Ups is getting indicted for being involved in a
mafia run poker thing, so not betting on games. Damon
Jones is alleged to have traded info on Lebron James

(31:07):
missing a twenty twenty three Lakers game for money. So
here's the story from The Athletic, which is the New
York Times owned sort of sports little entity. The February ninth,
twenty twenty three game between the Milwaukee Bucks and the
Los Angeles Lakers referenced in the FBI's investigation into sports
betting was one that Lebron James did not play it.

(31:28):
He was ruled out due to ankle soreness. According to
the indictment, Damon Jones, a friend of Lebron James who
was not a formal employee of the Lakers, sold or
tried to profit from non public information so that others
could bet on it, including alleged co conspirators Eric Ernest
and Marvez Fairley. So what's happening is Damon Jones is

(31:51):
Lebron's buddy. He gets winned before the general public does that.
Lebron is going to be out for a couple of
games an injury, he tells. He sells this info. He says, hey, uh,
you know, I got some info on that'll be very

(32:11):
helpful for your gambling when you give me X number
of dollars for it. He sells this non public information
about Lebron being injured so that people can bet on
it appropriately. So if you know or don't know that
Lebron is playing in a game, well that is going
to change your bet. That that you know Lebron playing
versus not playing could swing the gambling line. That might

(32:34):
go from the Lakers being favored by three points to
the Lakers being the underdog by four points or so. Okay,
so you could have a seven point swing as a
result of Lebron deciding to play or not to play,
and then you would bet things appropriate or that could
impact what's called the over underline. So the over under
is basically what is the combined total number of points

(32:55):
that both teams are going to score over the course
of the game. So if NBA team's average about one
hundred and ten points, so maybe the over unders said
at two hundred and twenty. Maybe if you know Lebron's
not playing, maybe you bet the under because you think
the Lakers are just not going to score very many points.

(33:16):
So you've got Lebron, James's buddy being indicted and Lebron
himself who's invested in who's you know, a spokesperson for
a gambling entity. You've got a coach involved in gambling.
And then you've got Terry Rogier, who's Terry Rogier was

(33:38):
a guard. He played for the Boston Celtics for a
little bit. He played for the Charlotte Hornets for a
good bit of time. And now people are starting to
go back and look at different games Terry Rogier played
and they're looking at like individual plays and like that
was really weird that he sort of sat out here,
that he did this here, he did that there, and

(34:05):
this stuff's not going to go away. Gambling is coming
home to roost within the NBA. I mean, we already
saw show Heyotani the best baseball player, like possibly the
best baseball player I've ever seen in my life. You know,
the guy threw six shutout innings and hit three home

(34:29):
runs to win the Pennant for the Dodgers. That's one
of the most unbelievable single game performances in the History
of Baseball show Heyotani, his interpreter gets slammed for allegedly
making like hundreds of millions of dollars in illegal bets,

(34:53):
and the interpreter goes down, and a lot of people
sort of that leaves a bit of an odd taste
in them mouth, like, really, Otani didn't realize that this
interpreter was getting that his that Otani was not realizing
that his bank accounts were getting siphoned so that this

(35:13):
guy could bet tens of millions of dollars on all
kinds of stuff. So this guy goes down rather than everyone,
you know, the the suspicion is this is Otani making
these bets. This guy's making the bets for him with
Otani's money. And then when people find out, uh, they

(35:35):
act like, oh, this guy has stolen from show, Hey Otani,
And so he goes down. I don't know, I mean,
that's not the story that the prosecutors came to. That
everyone kept he keeps saying, no show, he is the
victim of this, and blah blah blah blah blah. I mean,

(35:57):
I guess I'm not a conspiracy theorist. I'm just saying
that it's a oh it sort of stretches belief. Anyway, Regardless,
this is a humongous story and the temptation I think
is going to be really on college level players who
have a lot you know, they're not making as much

(36:17):
as NBA players and they have a lot more to
gain I think from doing shady things for gamblers. So
when we return the hypocrisy of Lebron James, it's next
on the John Girardi Show. You know, Lebron James really
comes out looking like kind of a real sleeze. And

(36:40):
this was before this indict Now, I'll be clear, Lebron
was not implicated in this indictment other than his friend
Damon Jones is being indicted for selling insider gambling information
on the fact that Lebron James was not going to
play in a game so that gamblers could bet appropriate accordingly.

(37:01):
But Lebron himself's not indicted. But you know what, here's
this thing. Lebron announced this deal he had with I
believe it was Draft Kings, that he's an endorser for
an online sports gambling site. Lebron, what are you doing?

(37:22):
Why are you gambling on sport? Why are you being
an endorser for a sports gambling site. Lebron James has
more money than God. He can pick what endorsements he
wants to do, does not want to do. Why are
you trying to get rich off of a whole industry
who's only whose point is to drain stupid people of

(37:43):
their money. That's the point of the industry. It's a
tax on people who are bad at math, that's all
it is. Like, if you're about empowering your community or
something like that, don't invest in vices. Geez, Louise, that'll
do it. Joan Jerardi Show. See you next time on

(38:03):
Power Top