Trump World Falls Out of Love With Vivek

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
Vivek Ramaswami is learning that in Trump world, political popularity
is a fickle passing thing. Here today, gone tomorrow, and
it's leading me to wanna express out loud stuff I've

(00:20):
been thinking a lot of during the Trump era, the
bizarre sort of high stakes ramping up of questions of
political loyalty that have plagued so many people on the
right during the Trump era. You have to support this

(00:41):
Trump thing. Anyone who opposes this Trump thing is going
to get primaried. Hmm will they will? Anyone? Even remember
six months from now. This is the constant thing that
people on the Trump side of things reiterating, Oh, this
person doesn't support they're gonna get primary and then circumstances

(01:06):
change and oh that person's terrible. Well, I mean, like
I think about Matt Gates. Okay, Trump nominates Matt Gates
to be the Attorney general. People like me, Note, Hey,
Matt Gates has had kind of a messy personal life,

(01:29):
whether he did something illegal or not, that's gonna trouble
his candidacy or his you know, nomination to be attorney general.
And also, yeah, I guess he has some good ideas
for how to fix the DOJ maybe, but I have

(01:51):
good ideas for how to fix the DJH two. And
I'm not nominating myself to be Attorney General because I
don't have any relevant experience. Gates was a lawyer for
two years. Gates was a practicing attorney for only two years.
He had no background of experience within the Department of

(02:14):
Justice or as a state attorney general or anything of
the sort. He'd be coming in completely fresh, completely blind
to a situation that he has very little inside understanding of.
He had been a member of the House Judiciary Committee,
but that was it. So, I mean, he had kind
of some good ideas. I have good ideas for how

(02:39):
to improve DOJ, but I'm not nominating myself to be
Attorney general. Just having some good ideas isn't enough. You
got to know this stuff at a bit deeper of
a level. And yet somehow, the you know, two week

(03:01):
stretch or whatever, that he was Trump's nominee, all of
a sudden, all these people all over the right were
acting as if Matt Gates was the essential man, that
Matt Gates was the one and only, that Matt Gates
was the only person who could affect the changes that
DOJ needed that, and if you and and if you

(03:26):
didn't support Matt Gates, they would throw in their face,
in people's faces, all kinds of stuff, Like, if you're
more upset about Matt Gates's nomination than you are about
Merrick Garland and all he's done in the last four years,
then I don't want to hear about it. Well, no,
I'm both upset at things Merrick Garland has done for
the last four years, and I don't really care for

(03:50):
this Gates nomination either. You know, they'd throw it in
the face or Republican senators who voted for Garland. In part,
why did people vote for Garland? Why did some Republican
Senators vote in favor of Merrick Garland's nomination in twenty
twenty because he was far less bad than people that

(04:11):
could have been picked. And I still think that's true today.
All Right, Biden could have picked worse people Garland was
with the range of options that were out there and available,
Garland was actually far more moderate than other choices Biden

(04:31):
could have made. So I'll still defend the McConnell's of
the world trying to have, you know, a collaborative relationship
with the attorney general vote for this guy because they
know this is the best option that we're getting, that
we'd certainly rather have Merrick Garland than someone worse. Now,
did Merrick Garland wind up doing a lot of bad things?

(04:54):
Sure he did. I still kind of defend McConnell saying, hey,
I'm going to back Eric Garland. Republicans didn't have enough
votes to stop him, all right. Let's remember that Republicans
did not have the majority in the Senate at the time,
so I found it totally reasonable that McConnell did that. Anyway,

(05:21):
Gates gets nominated, and everyone in Trump World is just
you have to support Gates, everyone has to suport Gates.
And it's clear a bunch of Republican senators are just
not happy with Gates. That there were at least three
that McConnell definitely wasn't, and Murkowski definitely wasn't, and Susan
Collins definitely wasn't. There was probably one or two others

(05:42):
who were just like, no, we don't really care for
this Matt Gates fellow. And Trump eventually has more maturity
than all of the crazy talking heads in Trump World.
He realizes this Gates thing is a pain in my
ass and so he withdraws. He tells him, hey, withdraw

(06:04):
yourself from the nomination, and he does, like that was it,
and then it was over. Nobody was yelling, nobody was complaining.
Trump nominates Pambondi and every oh Saint pam Bondi. Everyone
loves Pambondi, and it's like, well, well, was was Gates
the essential man or not? I thought you were saying

(06:24):
he was the essential man. I thought we were gonna
primary any senator who didn't support who didn't support Gates,
And clearly Trump's not even taking that position. Trump didn't
think Gates was the essential man. He wasn't. He was like, no,
I'm not going to fight this fight over him. He's
not that great of a guy that he has to
be the attorney general. No. Trump wasn't making it that

(06:45):
big of an issue. And it seems like this Ramaswami
thing is similar. All right. For a solid year now,
Vivek has been sort of a gad flight. It's clear
that his candidacy in the twenty twenty four Republican primary

(07:14):
was geared around kind of two things. Making a name
for himself, which he certainly accomplished, and he was also
clearly a Trump surrogate. Even while he was campaigning, he
was the most deferential, the most complimentary, the most you know,
supportive of Trump while running as a candidate in the primary.

(07:39):
And he comes out of it with this enormously outsized
role on the right and it's clear that he's going
to be a Trump surrogate. His name was being floated
as a possible vice presidential pick, and he lands in
this sort of position of he and Elon Musk are

(08:02):
going to be in charge of this sort of floating
department of government efficiency organization. Okay, sounds great. So Ramaswami
goes on Twitter a couple of days ago and as
this big, long tweet about immigration and basically the upshot
of it being, we need to keep bringing in more

(08:24):
H one B visa holder programmers. We need. So the
H one B visa is a visa program for people
to come into the United States to do various kinds
of specialty work. A lot of people in the tech space,
like Elon Musk, like the H one B visa program.

(08:44):
They want to bring in more engineers, more tech talent
from a lot of it's from India and purportedly it's
because all these workers are so smart, and why should
we just restrict ourselves to the best and brightest of
the American labor market. There are so many great, brilliant developers,

(09:08):
et cetera in India, and we can bring them over
and that's part of the American dream. And then you
get your usual immigration rhetoric. Elon Musk has talked has
flowed this idea, which I think is kind of silly.
And maybe there's a level of generalization here. Maybe we're
thinking at different levels of generalization here. But Musk is
sort of saying there's basically this infinite need for engineers

(09:29):
and that the only thing is that that's the problem
in Silicon Valley is this bottleneck of not having enough
good engineering talent, which just doesn't strike me as true.
I mean, you had tech companies laying off engineers. There
have been big layoffs at a number of big tech
companies just over the last two years or so. I

(09:52):
don't think the problem is I don't think there is
this never ending demand for engineers such that the H
one B VISA program can just be expanded forever, never never.
I think, actually, as is the case with most forms
of immigration, The problem is that capital management ownership shareholders

(10:19):
for tech companies, they like hiring labor that is cheap.
A thirty year old engineer from India who went to
some good school in India, who you bring over with
an H one B visa, you obviously don't have to

(10:39):
pay that person as much as you have to pay
a thirty year old Stanford grad with eight years of
experience in the industry. I mean, of course you don't.
It's cheaper. It's a cheaper workforce that we are bringing in.
And Vivek issues this big, long tweet about why it

(11:03):
is and he breaks it down to basically a bunch
of cultural stereotypes. Oh, that Indian kids are you know,
trying to be you know, they're all raised by tiger
moms and they're you know, working hard at homework all
day every day, whereas American kids are still you know,
worshiping jocks and prom queens, and that American families have

(11:26):
their priorities all mixed up with their kids' education. But
whereas Indian families are also super dedicated to blah blah blah,
and that's why the H one bv's and that apparently
because American culture is screwed up. That is apparently why
the H one B visa program has to be expanded forever.
And everyone's kind of rightly flaming him, like, no, this

(11:48):
is a big broad generalization. There's a big, broad, unfair,
somewhat unrealistic generalization about what constitutes the good life and
why we have Indians doing better in their test scores
in America. And it's also not accounting for how is

(12:09):
supply and demand of engineers in the labor market in
Silicon Valley, How is that actually going, Can it actually
be filled with Americans? How much H one V immigration?
Do we actually need to keep expanding, expanding, expanding H
one V visa programs forever and never and never. And
this is the problem with American immigration policy is people

(12:31):
seem to be okay with limiting immigration, well except for
my industry because I want a cheap labor force. And
now overnight a ton of people in Trump world are
like VIVX sucks. VIVX Ramaswami, who for the last year
has been heralded.

Speaker 2 (12:51):
Oh he's so smart, Oh he's so engaging. Oh he's
so he's incredible. Oh he's such a he's so based.
Oh he's such a great Trump surrogate. Overnight, all these
people like Vivec sucks.

Speaker 1 (13:03):
Put thet's send Vivek back on a boat to India
or whatever like that. That's that's how insane it is.
Like overnight, trump World is basically like Vivek sucks. And
I'm now in this odd position of like, I mean,
I didn't think Vivec was that hot to begin with,

(13:24):
but now I'm like, really, he does one stupid tweet
and you guys are gonna pitch this man completely overboard.
I mean, I'm the speed with which Trump World both
falls into and out of love with political figures, it's unbelievable.

(13:44):
I mean, Mike john you know, Saint Mike Johnson. Now,
Mike Johnson sucks, all those Saint Vivic No, no, no
Vivic sucks. And the extent to which these like loyalty tests.

Speaker 2 (13:56):
Get if you don't support Matt Gates, do you should
get If you're a senator who doesn't support Matt Gates.

Speaker 1 (14:03):
We should primary you. No, you shouldn't. For God's say,
we need to Oh yeah, we need to do recess
appointments so that we can make sure that Matt Gates
gets installed. As attorney to Really, you want to redo
the whole normative, constitutionally based process for confirming presidential appointees

(14:27):
in an era where Republicans have fifty three, are gonna
have fifty three of the one hundred Senate seats and
can confirm nominees quickly. Even if Lisa Murkowski and Susan
Collins get upset, you'll still have fifty one votes. You
mean to tell me that we need to redo the

(14:47):
whole constitutional order for Matt Gates, a guy who for
Matt Gates, a guy who was attorney, a practicing lawyer
for two years to now all of a sudden become
the Attorney general or RFKG to run all of HHS,
not just like the FDA, but all of HHS. You know,
these highly questionable picks. No, the constitutional system makes sense.

(15:11):
The normative constitutional system of the president nominates and the
Senate gives its advice and consent. That makes sense. It
results in presidents having to moderate the kinds of picks
they make so that the Senate doesn't think this guy's
a bozo and I don't want to vote for him,
even if he is from my own party. This guy

(15:34):
is clearly unqualified for the job you're nominating him for.
Therefore I don't want to confirm him. Like, this is
why we have this process for presidential appointees, for cabinet positions,
we have this process for presidential appointees to judge ships.
I mean, you know, if we just want Republican outcomes
from the Supreme Court and make you know, throw Mat

(15:57):
Gates on the Supreme Court. Heck, throw I don't know,
throw someone who's not to think of, somebody who's not
even a lawyer, you know, Throw Roger Stone on the
Supreme Court. Actually, I'm not sure if Stone's a lawyer
or not. Regardless, throw Roger Stone on the Supreme Court. Yeah,
I'll give you a Republican outcomes and stuff, but he's
totally not qualified for the job. So on the one hand,

(16:24):
we're like ready to bend the whole constitutional order for
Matt Gates until Trump decides I don't really care. Then
all of Trump world doesn't care, and Pam Bondi is wonderful.
I just get the whiplash of how fast we fall
in and out of love with characters in Trump World.
Just I find it to be an unhealthy kind of

(16:44):
politics when we return. Is it true that American kids
are not doing as well in engineering because we value
jocks and prom queens too much? As Vivec says, that's
next on the John Girardi Show. All right, well, all
of Trump were well or most of Trump world. Much
of Trump world anyway, has fallen out of love with
Vivek Ramaswami. After telling us for a solid year plus

(17:07):
that he was so awesome, Now they're saying he's no
good because he did one Twitter post where he said, hey,
we should have more H one B visas. Now I
will actually discuss his post about the H one B
visa issue because it is it is kind of his
critiques critiques sorry, going through puberty on the radio. His

(17:30):
critiques are somewhat interesting, but totally I think unsatisfactory. Now,
Vivek rights, the reason top tech companies often hire foreign
born in first generation engineers over native Americans isn't because
of an innate American IQ deficit. That's a lazy and

(17:52):
wrong explanation. A key part of it comes down to
the C word culture. Tough questions demand tough answers, and
if we're really serious about fixing the problem, we have
to confront the truth. Our American culture has venerated mediocrity
over excellence for way too long, at least since the
nineties and likely longer. That didn't start in college, it
starts young. A culture that celebrates the prom queen over
the math Olympiad champ or the jock over the valedictorian

(18:15):
will not produce the best engineers. A culture that venerates
Corey from Boy Meets World or Zach and Slat or
over Screech and Saved by the Bell or Stefan over
Steve Erkele and family Matters will not produce the best engineers.
More movies like Whiplash, fewer reruns of Friends, more math tutoring,

(18:36):
fewer sleepovers, more weekends, science competitions, fewer Saturday morning cartoons,
et cetera. Okay, so this is the general tenor I
think this is an incredibly superficial diagnosis. This is an
incredibly superficial diagnosis. First of all, Vivek is totally glossing

(18:58):
by the actual reason in tech companies want more H
one B visa holders, or or at least a major
reason why they're cheaper. They're cheaper DEDUI. If some thirty

(19:19):
year old comes in again, who who Again? If some
thirty year old comes to America with an H one
B visa who worked as an engineer in India went
to an Indian university, that person can be paid less
than a thirty year old who went to Caltech. Obviously,

(19:44):
that's why H one BE visa holders can be paid
less than Americans. There's there's different expectations of pay. This
isn't rocket science, Okay. There are all kinds of financial
incentives even for universities for bringing over graduate students from India. Well,
for one thing, they don't have American student loans. Like,

(20:08):
There's all kinds of reasons that have to do with money,
none of which Vivek diagnoses or mentions in his stupid
post about why it is that we why it is
that we don't have enough engineers? Now, I'm sure that
this one post isn't like summarizing all of Vivek Ramaswami's

(20:30):
views on while we're not producing enough engineers? Does? He
doesn't even touch the American education system, which I'm guessing
he has a lot of critiques of, But I think
that has far more to do with it than culture
issues or even the kinds of cultural issues he's talking about.

(20:57):
Here's a culture issue. He doesn't seem to mention children
growing up without a father in the home, the enormous
number of children born out of wedlock in the United States,
it's more than the majority. Without a stable home environment
that values education, you're not going to produce people who

(21:18):
really excel academically. You're just not. But that's not part
of Ramaswamian's analysis. It's almost as if Vivek is stuck
in high school. His analysis of why we're not producing
enough engineers seems to be stuck in all the jocks

(21:40):
were mean to me in high school. They shoved me
into lockers, and they were the popular ones, even though
I was the math team champion, which is like, no,
that's not it. If anything, like what did we see
during COVID trust the experts, Huge percentages of Americans just
trusted what nerds told us. Big Bang Theories, the most

(22:01):
popular television show in America over the last decade plus,
Like there's actually, if anything, there's been this over exaltation
of nerds and of that sort of culture of high
academic achievement to such an extent that if you are
credentialed all of a sudden, everyone else has to shut

(22:22):
up and listen to you. No, this has nothing to
do with why America is not producing enough engineers. There
are cultural issues like the American home, American families in
the American family stability, our education system, the kinds of
outcomes our education system is focused on. There's a ton

(22:43):
of stuff like that before you get to you know,
suburban parents are letting our two lax with their kids. No,
that's idiotic, Like did Vivek's mom write this, like yelling
that kids are watching too many damn Saturday morning cartoons? No,

(23:04):
and Jesuits Anyway, I was never that far in love
with Vivek to fall so far out of love. I
think I didn't like him as much as Trump World
did before. I don't dislike him as much as trump
World seems to dislike him right now. But to try
to say, oh, we need more H one B visas

(23:26):
because American moms let their kids watch too many Saturday
morning cartoons, No, this is incredibly superficial explanation of it. No,
it has to do with how much H one B
visa holders can reasonably expect to be paid versus American
engineers when we return. Cash Patel worse than jay Edgar Hoover,

(23:49):
according to the New Yorker. We'll talk about it next
on the John Girardi Show. There is this insane story
published by the New Yorker that is talking about how
Cash Patel, Trump's pick to be the new FBI head

(24:09):
is going to be the worst FBI head ever, that
he's going to turn it into a something worse than
anything JEdgar hoof, JEdgar Hoover ever had. That jay Edgar
Hoover was a non partisan, was a non partisan, you know,
institution builder. But Cash Patel will turn this into a

(24:33):
partisan whatever. And I just want to read some of
this to you about how insane this is. Now, well,
let's recall we'll recall several of the hem problems at
the FBI over the course of the last you know,
six or so years, one of which being that they
were actively trying to unseat an elected president, that they

(24:59):
started the whole Russiagate thing without any evidence that were
ultimately shown to have been full of it, That they
were spying on the president, on the administrator, excuse me,
on the campaign of one of the two major presidential
candidates by lying to the FISA court that you know,

(25:22):
they had top officials like Peter Strock texting his girlfriend saying,
we're going to find a way to take him down.
The James Comy was actively trying to spring a trap
to impeach and remove Donald Trump from office on the
basis of him just being temperamentally unfit in James Comey's
personal opinion, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. I don't

(25:42):
think we need to go on how the FBI, even
during the Trump years, was actively undermining him, actively working
to suppress the Hunter Biden lapstop story. When they had
the Hunter Biden laptop, they knew it was authentic, and
people within the FBI and others within the intelligence canmmunity
got all these intelligence officials to say, oh, some Russian

(26:04):
disinformation is going to come out, don't you dare post it?
And tell tells that to all the big social media companies.
So the social media companies are like, oh, okay, well,
we're not going to post this New York Post story
about We're afraid that we have all these national security
people saying that it's Russian disinformation, so we're not going
to post it. When it turned out to be completely true,

(26:25):
and the FBI knew it was completely true, and so
Trump wants a cleaning of house at the FBI. Totally correct.
The FBI has been terrible and horrible for forever, basically
for its entire existence the combo because it's a weird
kind of agency that it has powers that other countries

(26:49):
don't combine into one agency. Because on the one hand,
the FBI has the role of it's basically the federal
police force. It has its federal agents who are charged
with investigating federal crimes, drug crimes, tax crimes, business fraud crimes,

(27:15):
all kinds of stuff, organized crime. So on the one hand,
it has this federal policing role, but on the other hand,
it has this counter intelligence role. It's an odd combo
that gives them odd kinds of powers of surveillance and spying.

(27:39):
That results in it being kind of a difficult dentity
to manage. A lot of powers all under one roof.
That creates a certain kind of culture around the agency.
And Jay Edgar Hoover was the one who set this up.
Hoover would basically utilize the FBI as his tool for
investigating people he didn't like or that the president directing

(28:00):
him didn't like. There's plenty of evidence he was illegally
investigating people like Martin Luther King Junior RFK, all kinds
of people, and he was wildly abusive of power. The
term limit was put in place for the FBI specifically

(28:23):
so that we'd never have another j Edgar Hoover. Now,
let's talk about these liberal dreams that Cash Pateel is
going to be worse than JEdgar Hoover. Since President elect
Donald Trump announced his intention of appointing his political loyalist
Cash Patel as the director of the FBI, as opposed
to presidents who promote you know who, they pick people

(28:45):
for executive positions who are not loyal to them. They
love doing that. They love pick picking people who will
stab them in the back. Critics have warned. Critics have
warned that we are heading back to the bad old
day of j Edgar Hoover. The FBI should be so lucky. Hoover,

(29:06):
for all his many faults and abuses of power, was
none nevertheless an institution builder. He believed, and this is
a New Yorker piece written by Beverly Gage, he believed
j Edgar Hoover believed in the FBI's non partisan independence.
B Stop there, let me stop you right there. All right,

(29:28):
this is a real pet peeve of mine over the
last six years or so throughout the Trump era, the
insistence that either the Department of Justice or the FBI
is or should be independent, independent of the president. It

(29:50):
sounds good, Well, these are law enforcement officials, they should
have their independence from the president. That's the kind of
thing that people say, and they just sort of nod
and think, oh, yeah, that's fine, that's reasonable, that's reasonable.
And Donald Trump is a bad guy because he wanted
to have some influence over their proceedings, allegedly, even though frankly,
when you look at how Trump conducted business over the

(30:11):
DOJ and over the FBI over his time in office,
he really didn't meddle with their affairs that much, other
than appointing a competent attorney general in his second go
around when he appointed Bill Barr, and Bill Barr helped
conclude the Russigate investigation, which ultimately showed no, there's no

(30:31):
evidence that Trump did anything wrong. Now, but but they've
been al yelling and Biden allegedly was this wonderful hero
because he preserved the independence of the FBI, preserve the
independence of the Department of Justice. All right, we don't

(30:56):
want the FBI or the DOJ to be in dependent
of politics. We don't want it. Why they have enormous
power to investigate you, prosecute you, possibly convict you, and

(31:16):
lock you up. That's an extraordinary amount of power that
the FBI slash DOJ have. If they can do that
with total impunity, above the law, above base, floating above politics,

(31:36):
then they're not accountable. If they are answerable to a president.
If a president is directing what's happening, then guess what.
The FBI and the DOJ becomes politically accountable because the
president's in charge and the president has to be accountable
and responsive to politics. If the president directs the FBI

(31:59):
director to do a bunch of abusive things, that president
will get voted out of office, and he'll probably not
direct the FBI to do destructive things because he doesn't
want the political ramifications. If the DOJ does bad things,
it's the president who will eat it. If you actually

(32:25):
have an FBI or a DOJ that is genuinely independent,
i eat not responsive to the elected executive branch, then
it's a free, floating thing that has no check on
its ability to abuse power. So this is the thesis

(32:48):
of the article was that, yeah, Jay Edgar Hoover was horrible,
wildly abusive of power, but he was an independent operator
at least, and so he used the FBI to as
basically an abusive way against both Republicans and Democrats that
he didn't like. So that's better than cash Pattel because
cash Pattel is gonna use weaponize the FBI against Trump opponents.

(33:13):
It's a pretty lame argument. Here's the thing. Let's suppose
that cash Pateel is the worst case scenario, the worst
case version of what liberals in their worst nightmares think
he's going to be as the head of the FBI,

(33:34):
that he's gonna fire everybody, all the liberals who work
at the FBI, that he's gonna that he's gonna use
the FBI to investigate and prosecute Liz Cheney and this
person and this person in this person. If the American
people don't like it, they can vote Donald Trump's party

(33:57):
out of power in twenty twenty six. If the American
people don't like it, Republicans will lose the White House
in twenty twenty eight. If look, if Trump maximally abuses
his power and has the FBI maximally abuse their power,
which by the way, I don't even think they're going to,

(34:20):
but if they did, they're politically accountable. That's the point.
That's the point of the executive branch. The executive branch
wields tons of power all over the place, and that's
why it's headed by a person who's politically accountable to
the people. And this article just writes as if they've

(34:44):
never read a single conservative critique of what's gone on
over the last six years, it says this New York
Times piece, the idea that people who work at the
FBI are closet leftists conspiring to bring down the Republic
has to be one of the more bizarre takes in
a political moment with no shortage of them. That is

(35:05):
literally what Peter Struck did. He literally was a closet liberal.
Well not literally, he was a closet liberal. He was
texting with his girlfriend, also a high level FBI official,
about how to take out the duly elected president of
the United States. That literally happened. That's literally why Republicans

(35:31):
are so furious about the FBI over the last five
or six years, because that genuinely happened. James Comey, Andrew McKay,
Peter Struck, these guys were like three of the three
of the leading officials in the FBI, all of whom
did all kinds of dirty, sneaky tricks to try to
unseat the elected president of the United States. They were

(35:57):
all three of them huge liberals. And that's yeah, yeah, yes,
that's what we think. We think the FBI is full
of huge liberals who did, in fact want to overthrow
the duly elected government of Donald Trump, the duly elected
executive branch of Donald Trump. When we return. I wonder

(36:24):
if liberal journalists ever read anything from the right. Next
on the John Girardi Show, this big New Yorker piece
has come out talking about, oh, Cash Patel is gonna
turn the FBI into something worse than Jay Edgar Hoover
ever design blah blah blah, blah blah, and it has
this sentence here. The idea that people who work at

(36:46):
the FBI are closet leftists conspiring to bring down the
Republic has to be one of the more bizarre takes
in a political moment, with no shortage of them. I mean, yeah,
we do think that Peter Struck genuine only tried to
do that. Peter Stock and James Comey Andrew mckat, they
genuinely were trying to unseat a duly elected president of

(37:09):
the United States. We have their text messages saying so.
Peter Strock's text message is genuinely saying so. They are
a bunch of leftists. They did want to unseat a
duly elected president. And it leads me to ask this
something I noticed about journalism in general. Like most mainstream journalism,

(37:33):
it's obvious that they have zero engagement whatsoever with any
right wing opinion, none at all, no familiarity with what
the right is thinking. They're journalists will still say, oh,
all the Hunter Biden stuff was overblown. I'm not saying

(37:56):
you gotta read like MAGA for you dot geocites dot com.
I'm saying, like, pick up a copy of National Review
every other month and skim through it like they have
no engagement with how the right is thinking about stuff whatsoever.

(38:16):
That'll do it, John Geordy Show, see you next time
on Power Talk