Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Good morning from South Dakota. I closed my eyes from
oh anywhere for a half hour forty five minutes during
your show, and I'm only seventy. Everyone have it's a
great day.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
Yeah? Uh? Is it cold?
Speaker 3 (00:14):
With in a well digger's ass and the Dakota's right now.
He could have given us a weather report. He didn't
do that, so you know, obviously he's failing down.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
How about that new Rules of Engagement from God? No
Gold is pretty good?
Speaker 3 (00:29):
Yeah, you know, Jewish Grandmother is pretty damn good.
Speaker 2 (00:32):
I love it. I loved it.
Speaker 3 (00:35):
I We have an email from the Boss that says
I'm supposed to do a promo, and I would normally
kind of ignore it except it's from the Boss, which
is kind of a minor point. But the real reason
I'm going to go ahead and do the promo is
because it mentions Tequila.
Speaker 4 (00:54):
So and the fact that he was just standing behind
your back. Oh oh was he just staring at me? Okay, well,
in that case, maybe I'll do it. Let's see promo
voice here. Two PM Sunday, watched Broncos Raiders with Benjamin
Albright and Nick Ferguson at Burned Down, Denver. Yeah, let's
do let's burn down Denver. Ah, I didn't know that.
(01:17):
Is that a thing?
Speaker 2 (01:18):
Now? Burn down Denver? It's a sports bar, okay.
Speaker 3 (01:22):
Two pm Sunday he watched Broncos Raiders with Benjamin Albright
and Nick Ferguson at Burned Down Denver off Broadway, as
opposed to like on Broadway? Is it like a Broadway
thing we're doing or an off Broadway thing off Broadway?
So it's an off Broadway event. See, I can have
so much fun, you know, when they asked me to
do stuff like this, I can have so much fun
(01:42):
with the promo.
Speaker 2 (01:43):
You're going to stop getting asked, aren't you? Okay, let's
try it again.
Speaker 3 (01:51):
Two pm Sunday watched Broncos Raiders with Benjamin Albright and
Nick Ferguson at burn Down Denver off Broadway. Entered wind
Broncos Packers ticket. It's all presented by Art the Tequila,
the official tequila of the Denver Broncos. Now we're docing, now,
we're docing now. Now, no I remind now I will
(02:13):
say anything about that particular brand of tequila. They're sponsoring it,
so it must be good. It must be good.
Speaker 2 (02:21):
Right.
Speaker 3 (02:24):
The New York Times. Here's what I really wanted to do.
New York Times posted a story today this morning. I
read it. Very first thing, headline is hexas. That would
be the Secretary of War ordered a lethal attack, but
not the killings of survivors, official say the subhead, amid
(02:46):
talk of war crimes. The details and precise sequence of
a September two attack on a boat in the Caribbean
are facing intensifying scrutiny. Let me just read to you
the first paragraph. The Trump administration on Monday defended the
legality of a September two attack on a boat in
the Caribbean Sea, as calls grew in Congress to examine
(03:09):
whether a follow up missile strike that killed survivors amounted
to a crime. Now you know that based on the
reporting over the weekend about the story, including all the
cable outlets, including Fox News, all indicated based on their
facts reporting of the facts, that I believed it could
(03:31):
rise to the level of a war crime, and I
gave you the statutes and everything. Now, based on those
facts as earlier presented, I would still make the argument
that it rises to the level of a war crime.
But as you know, in any case, civil or criminal.
(03:53):
The facts are what you apply to the law. And
as the facts change, or as a fact is presented,
say by one side is presented is countered by a
so called fact by the other side, then the jury
has to decide whether or not the facts meet the
(04:15):
elements of the crime or whatever the issue is in
a civil court. The article that you can find them
on the New York Times website. It may be behind
the paywall, I'm not sure. I unfortunately subscribe to the
New York Times so that you don't have to. But
the article frames the September second strike and the follow
(04:37):
on strike in a way that tends to maximize suspicion
of criminality around Pete Hagsnth and Donald Trump, while giving
comparatively little weight to competing legal views.
Speaker 2 (04:52):
It almost ignores.
Speaker 3 (04:54):
Completely operational realities or of course, the broader policy context.
So I want to go through a point by point
critical review of how it handles facts, sourcing, framing, and law.
This is a great lesson in how to read stories
from places like The Old Gray Lady the New York Times.
(05:15):
Let's think about the framing and the headline. Now, the
headline that I read, you emphasizes that Hagesuth's quote ordered
a lethal attack, but not the killing of survivors. Now
that implies exoneration on the narrow question of a second
strike order, while still tightly associating hegesas with the most
(05:36):
controversial allegation, so that framing both walks back the earlier
implications that he directly ordered the killing of survivors. Yet
they try to preserve the narrative of suspicion, But the
article does not candidly acknowledge how much this undercuts the
original Washington Post account that it is in implicitly recorrecting.
(06:02):
In other words, this New York Times story tries to
correct the inaccurate reporting from the Washington Post, but to
lead adopts language like quote legally contentious campaign, or quote
treating them as if they were combatants in a conflict,
which presupposes the illegitimacy of the administration's arm conflict theory,
(06:26):
without at least at that point explaining that their divided
expert views on whether that kind of characterization is even
possible under current law. That's the first problem with this.
The second problem with the New York Times article is
the use of anonymous officials the core factual pivot that
(06:46):
HEGSATH ordered a legal strike on the boat and its occupants,
but did not issue a specific quote kill the survivor
instruction rests on five anonymous officials. There is no granularity
at all in the story about who are these five
individuals wrote, what roles did they hold? How there how
(07:08):
is their access different among the five individuals. So, given
that those sources materially contradict, refine, or clarify the Washington
Post earlier very explosive reporting, this article does not squarely
address why readers should treat these new anonymous sources as
more reliable than the previous anonymous sources. So the story
(07:33):
leans heavily on characterizations like according to officials or you
know for all the key inferences such as whether HEGSA
saw surveillance footage showing survivors or what he so supposedly
air quote here meant by his orders, but the article
does not distinguish distinguish between what is documented and what
(07:57):
is retrospective interpretation or what I might even say is
bureaucratic damage control. And then there's a selective treatment of
the factual record.
Speaker 5 (08:10):
Michael, how did the news and media and everybody find
out that there was a second air site on that
drug boat.
Speaker 2 (08:19):
No idea, Probably a leak, yeah to the media right there.
Speaker 3 (08:24):
Well, we have five anonymous sources, so you know that
somebody within the bowels of the bureaucracy called somebody at
the New York Times this. You know, let me let
me divert for just a moment, because you raise a
question that many many people may wonder about but never
really thought deeply about. And in every cabinet, department and agency,
(08:48):
with maybe a few exceptions here or there, a reporter
is assigned to that department or agency, particularly the larger
ones Homeland Security, deal, the State Treasury. Somebody is there,
just like they're at the White House, twenty four hours
a day, seven days a week, and that's what they cover.
(09:09):
And over time they develop relationships. Now they try to
develop relationships as high up in the hierarchy as they can,
but if they're really smart reporters, they develop relationships with
the worker bees, the bureaucrats, the civil servants, because those
people like to talk and they like to know that
(09:32):
when they read about an anonymous source in the Washington Post,
that that was them that talked to that reporter, and
then they can't tell all of their friends, so they
want to remain anonymous, and they don't have the kahonies
to you know, put their name out there. But then
when they go to dinner that night, they'll tell all
their friends about it. Oh yeah, that was me. I
talked to them about it. I mean, they're just that stupid.
That's just how stupid they are. And then there are
(09:54):
people that know where the press office is, or they
know somebody that in the press, and they'll just reach
out to them. It's why I always told my staff
there are times when we have to break the rules,
or there are times when we have to do X
y Z, or there are times when you might make
a mistake honest or otherwise. But all I ask of
(10:16):
my staff is that you tell me so that when
it gets, you know, published in the Washington Post, I
don't get blindsided by it.
Speaker 2 (10:24):
I want to know about it ahead of time.
Speaker 3 (10:26):
And quite frankly, I want to know about ahead of
time because there might be somebody in the White House
and I want to make sure, hey, listen, the Post
is running a story tomorrow about X y Z and
I'm already on top of it, or if I know
the reporter, like there were certain Wall Street Journal, Washington
Post reporters, AP reporters and others that I knew personally,
and I would call and say, hey, listen, I understand
(10:48):
that one of your colleagues is writing a story about
blah blah blah blah. Would you like somebody to go
on the record as opposed to the anonymous sources? Would
you like to hear our side of the story. Sometimes yes,
sometimes no, but at least I made the effort. But
then I want you to think about I don't know this,
(11:08):
this is from yesterday. I don't know where he was
is well, the source is Fort Smith, Arkansas, but I
don't think that's where he was. I think he was
talking to some I don't know who he was talking to.
But here's Barack Obama trying to explain to you the
(11:29):
the opposite of what I'm telling you about this story
in Today's New York Times lent.
Speaker 5 (11:35):
Out there that you would consider the least bias, sort
of the most street news.
Speaker 2 (11:43):
You know, the typical Obama, don't you missing?
Speaker 5 (11:50):
Here's the thing I actually think, I actually think that man.
Speaker 3 (11:56):
There's a lot of stuttering here trying to figure out
what do what do I think? What do I say?
What's my answer? What's my answer? What I was saying over.
Speaker 5 (12:04):
Here's the thing I actually think. I actually think that
the mainstream news still does a very good job of
just presenting facts.
Speaker 2 (12:24):
Come again, play that last little part.
Speaker 5 (12:26):
Still does a very good job of just presenting facts.
Speaker 3 (12:32):
Okay, back there, huh yeah.
Speaker 2 (12:34):
Yeah, you've just been reading all the wrong things.
Speaker 5 (12:37):
News still does a very good job of just presenting facts.
Speaker 2 (12:45):
I think.
Speaker 3 (12:45):
Really, then let's go next back, or let's go back
to the New York Times and see how they play.
Speaker 2 (12:52):
A game again.
Speaker 1 (12:53):
From South Dakota where it's twenty four degrees, no wind
and cloudy. Looks like a nice day to finish putting
up by car lights. Everyone have a great day.
Speaker 3 (13:03):
Yeah, well, your days coming. Let's go back to the
New York Times article real quickly before I get to
the next point.
Speaker 2 (13:09):
Because listen to the headline.
Speaker 3 (13:12):
Hegsath ordered a lethal attack, but not the killing of survivors.
Officials say, why is it worded that way? Wouldn't the
natural way of framing something be that, you know, officials
say that Hegesith did order a legal lethal attack, but
he didn't order the killing of of survivors. So you
(13:34):
take that and put it into a headline, and the
headline would say officials say, Hegesith ordered a lethal attack,
but not the killing of survivors. Well, you put official
say at the end, because the brain naturally hears, oh,
he ordered a lethal attack, but not the killing of
the survivors. So you've got to make sure that you
(13:54):
understand that it was a lethal attack and oh the
survivors were so there really were no survivors. It's all
the subliminal of trying to get you to understand that, oh,
they have an agenda. Well, they don't want you to
understand it, but they want you to understand what the
(14:14):
narrative is that they're trying to establish. And then they
in the core of the article they correctly note that
and this really is what I would call selective treatment
of the factual record. They're taking a factual record, but
they're just nippicking and pulling out things that fit their narrative.
Speaker 2 (14:36):
Because the article does note that the.
Speaker 3 (14:38):
White House in the Pentagon say that Admiral Frank Bradley
and not the Secretary of War, ordered the second strike,
and that the administration claims that he the admiral acted
within his delegated authority, But that underplays the tension between
this version and the earlier public statements touting a broad aggressive,
(15:02):
you know Heggsa's doctrine of lethal kinetic strikes against these
NARCO vessels, you know, statements that really matter for understanding
how subordinates might have reasonably interpreted Pete Heggs's intent. Then
all of the related reporting makes clear that there have
been you know, twenty one such operations eighty plus fatalities
(15:25):
across both the Caribbean and the Pacific in the past
two months, which obviously speaks to a sustained campaign that
this is not an isolated aberration. The article mentions the
number of strikes and deaths, but does not delve into
the patterns. What's the targeting criteria or any internal reviews
(15:49):
that either would strengthen a war crimes narrative or weaken
it or complicate a war crimes narrative. So, as a result,
that The York Times is simply cherry picking the most
inflammatory operation while leaving the rest of the record not examined.
That's establishing a narrative by omission. Then how do they
(16:15):
handle the Washington Post allegation. Because all of this kerfuffle
started with a story in the Washington Post. I think
one of the most striking omissions is the lack of
any real media accountability analysis about the Washington Post prior
claim that Hegesath gave a verbal no survivor's order and
(16:36):
that's what prompted the second strike. The article that was
published this morning notes that this earlier report triggered the uproar,
but then goes on to treat the discrepancy between quote
Hegsath ordered execution of survivors and quote Hegesath did not
(16:56):
specify what to do if the first left survivors. That's
a matter of nuance, and as a matter of nuance,
rather than a potentially what I believe to be a
serious journalistic failure, because by adopting a clarification of events
postures that Times does, they are effectively cleaning up the
(17:19):
narrative without interrogating how such a major allegation tenn them
out to accusing a sitting secretary of Defense of ordering
a war crime? How did that make it into print
on such say, shaky ground to begin with. So that choice,
that very definite, assertive choice by the New York Times.
(17:44):
That's blurring the line between reporting a new fact pattern
and reinforcing a storyline that originated in what is probably
a flawed coverage by a rival news organization. This is
not to beat this dead horse, but this is why
I refer to it as a cabal. They don't really
(18:07):
want to point out that the Washington Post probably was inaccurate.
What they want to do is now lay claim to
their own narrative and force the focus back onto them
as opposed to the Washington Post. That's why it's truly
a cabal. It's the unholy alliance. For those of you
(18:30):
knew to the program, the cabal is that unholy alliance
between the dominant media, the ruling elite, and the tech giants.
Because and when I say the tech giants, I'm talking
about not just Facebook and Instagram or Act or Instagram.
I'm talking about all the different platforms under which all
these stories will now be spread. Because it goes to
(18:52):
reinforce the drive by consumer of news that well, there's
some nuance here. The narrative remains the same even among
rivals competing for subscribers, advertising space, everything. And then they
go into the New York times does they then go
(19:15):
into a legal analysis that, in my opinion, is really
more advocacy than just explanation. When I talked about the
possibility of a war crime on Monday, I described the
facts as they were reported, and then applied the War
(19:37):
Crimes Act and the Geneva and Haye Conventions to those
facts as they were reported. I think that's and I'm
not a journalist, but I think that's my obligation as
a lawyerre and talk show host to tell you that, oh,
here's this story, and if this story is true, that
is tenemount and could possibly be a war crime. And
(20:01):
I point out, yeah, some legal experts agree, some legal
experts disagree, But that's not what they're doing here. They
emphasize that intentionally killing shipwrecked survivors would be a war crime.
They do quote experts who say that such an order
would be unequivocally criminal, and who also question whether there is.
Speaker 2 (20:23):
Any valid arm conflict going on at all.
Speaker 3 (20:26):
That is a legitimate and important perspective, But what's my
rule about the butt The article mostly sidelines the Trump
administration's legal rationale, namely that the president has determined that
we are in a armed conflict with certain cartels, and
the suspected NARCO vessels can be treated as military objectives.
(20:49):
And they do that beyond anything that would be a
rational or you would look at it and say, oh,
you know, Obama tells us that the mainstream is just
be good at presenting facts. Well, here's just the opposite
of that. The story doesn't do that whatsoever. The story
(21:09):
mentions but does not, in any stretch of the imagination,
meaningfully unpack the Office of Legal Counsel's memo that supports
the administration's theory that drug shipments and crew members indeed
may be targeted, and without going into or articulating the
memos' arguments, if you're a reader of the story like
(21:31):
I was this morning, then you're left with a one
sided impression. Critics get detailed quotes about why this is illegal,
while the government's case gets summarized in maybe two sentences
and then just summarily dismissed. It is hard to be
(21:52):
a discerning consumer of the news in today's environment, and
I know the easy thing to do is to just
find somebody that reflects your point of view and then
just stick with that. I refuse to do so if
I'm going to come in here and tell you what
I really think that I have to be honest with
(22:13):
you about. Listen, I do. I read the New York Times,
the Washington Post, the LA Times, the Wall Street Journal.
I look at what MSNBC or CNN is reporting, because
without doing that, I can't tell you or describe to
you the nuance, or tell you definitively or you know,
equivocated a little bit and say, well, based on this,
(22:34):
this might be true. That's why I try to give
you the perspective. That's why I try to give you
the analysis so that you yourself can then when you hear
about the story of the news, when you go home
tonight and it's cold and you got some you know,
hot chocolate with the maybe a little bourbon in it,
and you're sitting there, you know, watching the TV and
the ABC World News Tonight comes on and David Muir says,
(22:57):
x y Z, you can say to yourself or think
to yourself, hmmm, based on what Michael Brown told me
this morning, I wonder what he's not telling me, or
I wonder why he used that word. It's both omission
and commission. The article circles the kind of who gave
(23:18):
the order question. But they don't apply the law of
command responsibility, or for that matter, of the military's own
doctrine on manifestly unlawful orders. For instance, outside coverage, if
you look outside the New York if you don't look
outside the pages of this story, there's outside coverage that
(23:41):
discusses Judge Affagate General. Those are the lawyers in the military,
all these different groups calling any quote no survivor's order
clearly illegal, who stressing the service members must refuse such orders.
But the Times piece does not fully explore whether Admiral
Bradley strike, even within his delegated authority, would still be
(24:04):
lawful or unlawful if it knowingly targeted non threatening survivors.
Speaker 2 (24:12):
Why would they.
Speaker 3 (24:13):
Omit that, Why would they omit where the buck stops
or the command's responsibility within the military. Because they don't
want you to be thinking for yourself. They don't want
you to be able to compare and contrast what may
or may not be true or you know, because right now,
if I haven't looked, I don't have it in front
(24:34):
of me right now. But this morning, before I came
on there, I refreshed the Drudge Report and one of
the it's not a headline, it's it's what Drudge puts
as the headline to try to get you to lick
to click on to go read the story. But the
click the clickbait on the Drudge report was Pete hesitth
(24:55):
throws Admiral Bradley, Admiral Bradley under the bus.
Speaker 2 (25:02):
Hmm, did he or didn't he?
Speaker 3 (25:05):
Because I'll take you to the New York Times of
The New York Times doesn't address that that issue about
command responsibility and the military's own doctrine on what are
manifestly clearly unlawful orders. And in likewise, the article reports
that Trump's attempt to try to distance himself from the
(25:26):
second strike.
Speaker 2 (25:27):
Saying that he quote would not have wanted that.
Speaker 3 (25:30):
But they don't scrutinize how credible or legally relevant that
statement is, given that he approved the overall campaign and
has been publicly lotting its aggressiveness. So now you've got
some soft glove treatment of presidential responsibility that contrasts with
the harder edge they somehow gets applied to Pete Haigsath,
(25:51):
which then makes me think that, oh, what this really
is is a hit piece directed at the Secretary of
War Pete Haiggs.
Speaker 2 (26:01):
So when you have Trump de arrangement syndrome in.
Speaker 3 (26:03):
This case, the New York Times is willing to inoculate
themselves with their against their hatred of Trump, because their
hatred of Pete Hegesath is simply a way He's the target.
Speaker 2 (26:17):
He's the target here.
Speaker 3 (26:18):
Not Donald Trump, because I sincerely believe in the editorial
rooms of the New York Times, Washington Post, all the
rest of them, they probably agree and understand that in totively,
the president has the authority in the in terms of
national security interests, to protect the country, and that these
narco terrists fall under that regime of authority. But if
(26:40):
we can go after somebody else, and in this case
we can go after oh, we can go after Pete Hagsath,
then yeah, that's what we'll do. We'll go after Pete Hegesath.
You get how it really is difficult to be a
discerning consumer the news.
Speaker 2 (27:01):
But then let's step back from them.
Speaker 3 (27:04):
Let's think about just the tone in the insinuation the
article as a whole, the narrative arc. Every story and
every narrative has an arc. Well, this one leans heavily
on really ominous language we joke about, you know, danger weather.
Oh it's snowing out. My god, is the snowmageddon. It's
horrible out there. Well, the same thing's true here, like
(27:26):
things like political illegal turmoil, or a contentious campaign, or
treating as combatants.
Speaker 2 (27:33):
So what does that do?
Speaker 3 (27:34):
That pushes a reader who's just mindlessly reading the story
toward a conclusion of wrongdoing, even as the article admits
key facts are still being contested, key facts are still
in doubt, key facts are not really fact shit, And
that's especially visible when it states it actually states this
(27:57):
in the article. The notion that the Secretary of Defense
or Admiral Bradley might have indeed targeted survivors because they
write quote has generated significant concern as such actions could
be classified.
Speaker 2 (28:14):
As war crimes. What does that do?
Speaker 3 (28:17):
That very subtly conflates the worst case possibilities with a
still uncertain factual record. So when Barack Obama tells me that, oh, yeah,
the mainstream media they're really good about just reporting the facts,
I want to take this article and smash it in
his face because it does just the opposite. At the
(28:40):
same time, this story just glosses over evidence that could
cut against the war crime narrative because there are official
claims that the second strike was aimed at the vessel
and the cargo that could have been recovered by cartel,
other cartel linked votes, or alleged intercepted communications between the
(29:03):
survivors and other traffickers that may have been in the
area or willing to dispatch themselves from Havana or Caracus
or wherever and go rescue them and go rescue what
you know, drugs were not destroyed in the first missile attack.
Now those details objectively, they're mentioned, but then they get
(29:25):
overshadowed by all the dramatic speculation. So that is where
you produce an imbalance between exculpatory and incriminating information, information
that would say, oh, this was lawful, an information that says.
Speaker 2 (29:44):
Oh, this is a war crime.
Speaker 3 (29:47):
It's all about context, policy, politics, precedent. The article Situation
situates the episode in Trump's broader lethal force against drug
traffickers campaign, but it does it never explores anywhere in
it how similar maritime interdiction operations have been treated historically
(30:08):
or under other administrations, and without that comparative framework, rules
for disabling the go fast boats, dealing with swimmers in
the water or prior to base about treating cartels as
nonstate armed groups. If you're a reader of this story,
there's no way you can gauge whether this campaign is
some radical break from precedent or an aggressive extension of
(30:33):
existing in previous practices. And then, politically, the piece notes
by partisan calls for investigation, but never does it dig
into the incentives that some lawmakers and rival agency might
have to leak or to posture in ways that damage
Pete hesitth individually or the administration as a whole. So
(30:57):
a critical review must observe that The Times accepts much
of this so called bipartisan concern bull craft at face value,
while delivering to their readers a skeptical posture almost exclusively
toward the administration's defenses, which again tilts the playing field.
(31:18):
This article raises serious and appropriate questions about lethal operation
and possible violations of armed conflict, with anonymous sources, selective
legal explanations, highly charged framing. This is an advocacy piece,
pure and simple,
Good morning from South Dakota. I closed my eyes from
oh anywhere for a half hour forty five minutes during
your show, and I'm only seventy. Everyone have it's a
great day.
Speaker 2 (00:12):
Yeah? Uh? Is it cold?
Speaker 3 (00:14):
With in a well digger's ass and the Dakota's right now.
He could have given us a weather report. He didn't
do that, so you know, obviously he's failing down.
Speaker 2 (00:25):
How about that new Rules of Engagement from God? No
Gold is pretty good?
Speaker 3 (00:29):
Yeah, you know, Jewish Grandmother is pretty damn good.
Speaker 2 (00:32):
I love it. I loved it.
Speaker 3 (00:35):
I We have an email from the Boss that says
I'm supposed to do a promo, and I would normally
kind of ignore it except it's from the Boss, which
is kind of a minor point. But the real reason
I'm going to go ahead and do the promo is
because it mentions Tequila.
Speaker 4 (00:54):
So and the fact that he was just standing behind
your back. Oh oh was he just staring at me? Okay, well,
in that case, maybe I'll do it. Let's see promo
voice here. Two PM Sunday, watched Broncos Raiders with Benjamin
Albright and Nick Ferguson at Burned Down, Denver. Yeah, let's
do let's burn down Denver. Ah, I didn't know that.
(01:17):
Is that a thing?
Speaker 2 (01:18):
Now? Burn down Denver? It's a sports bar, okay.
Speaker 3 (01:22):
Two pm Sunday he watched Broncos Raiders with Benjamin Albright
and Nick Ferguson at Burned Down Denver off Broadway, as
opposed to like on Broadway? Is it like a Broadway
thing we're doing or an off Broadway thing off Broadway?
So it's an off Broadway event. See, I can have
so much fun, you know, when they asked me to
do stuff like this, I can have so much fun
(01:42):
with the promo.
Speaker 2 (01:43):
You're going to stop getting asked, aren't you? Okay, let's
try it again.
Speaker 3 (01:51):
Two pm Sunday watched Broncos Raiders with Benjamin Albright and
Nick Ferguson at burn Down Denver off Broadway. Entered wind
Broncos Packers ticket. It's all presented by Art the Tequila,
the official tequila of the Denver Broncos. Now we're docing, now,
we're docing now. Now, no I remind now I will
(02:13):
say anything about that particular brand of tequila. They're sponsoring it,
so it must be good. It must be good.
Speaker 2 (02:21):
Right.
Speaker 3 (02:24):
The New York Times. Here's what I really wanted to do.
New York Times posted a story today this morning. I
read it. Very first thing, headline is hexas. That would
be the Secretary of War ordered a lethal attack, but
not the killings of survivors, official say the subhead, amid
(02:46):
talk of war crimes. The details and precise sequence of
a September two attack on a boat in the Caribbean
are facing intensifying scrutiny. Let me just read to you
the first paragraph. The Trump administration on Monday defended the
legality of a September two attack on a boat in
the Caribbean Sea, as calls grew in Congress to examine
(03:09):
whether a follow up missile strike that killed survivors amounted
to a crime. Now you know that based on the
reporting over the weekend about the story, including all the
cable outlets, including Fox News, all indicated based on their
facts reporting of the facts, that I believed it could
(03:31):
rise to the level of a war crime, and I
gave you the statutes and everything. Now, based on those
facts as earlier presented, I would still make the argument
that it rises to the level of a war crime.
But as you know, in any case, civil or criminal.
(03:53):
The facts are what you apply to the law. And
as the facts change, or as a fact is presented,
say by one side is presented is countered by a
so called fact by the other side, then the jury
has to decide whether or not the facts meet the
(04:15):
elements of the crime or whatever the issue is in
a civil court. The article that you can find them
on the New York Times website. It may be behind
the paywall, I'm not sure. I unfortunately subscribe to the
New York Times so that you don't have to. But
the article frames the September second strike and the follow
(04:37):
on strike in a way that tends to maximize suspicion
of criminality around Pete Hagsnth and Donald Trump, while giving
comparatively little weight to competing legal views.
Speaker 2 (04:52):
It almost ignores.
Speaker 3 (04:54):
Completely operational realities or of course, the broader policy context.
So I want to go through a point by point
critical review of how it handles facts, sourcing, framing, and law.
This is a great lesson in how to read stories
from places like The Old Gray Lady the New York Times.
(05:15):
Let's think about the framing and the headline. Now, the
headline that I read, you emphasizes that Hagesuth's quote ordered
a lethal attack, but not the killing of survivors. Now
that implies exoneration on the narrow question of a second
strike order, while still tightly associating hegesas with the most
(05:36):
controversial allegation, so that framing both walks back the earlier
implications that he directly ordered the killing of survivors. Yet
they try to preserve the narrative of suspicion, But the
article does not candidly acknowledge how much this undercuts the
original Washington Post account that it is in implicitly recorrecting.
(06:02):
In other words, this New York Times story tries to
correct the inaccurate reporting from the Washington Post, but to
lead adopts language like quote legally contentious campaign, or quote
treating them as if they were combatants in a conflict,
which presupposes the illegitimacy of the administration's arm conflict theory,
(06:26):
without at least at that point explaining that their divided
expert views on whether that kind of characterization is even
possible under current law. That's the first problem with this.
The second problem with the New York Times article is
the use of anonymous officials the core factual pivot that
(06:46):
HEGSATH ordered a legal strike on the boat and its occupants,
but did not issue a specific quote kill the survivor
instruction rests on five anonymous officials. There is no granularity
at all in the story about who are these five
individuals wrote, what roles did they hold? How there how
(07:08):
is their access different among the five individuals. So, given
that those sources materially contradict, refine, or clarify the Washington
Post earlier very explosive reporting, this article does not squarely
address why readers should treat these new anonymous sources as
more reliable than the previous anonymous sources. So the story
(07:33):
leans heavily on characterizations like according to officials or you
know for all the key inferences such as whether HEGSA
saw surveillance footage showing survivors or what he so supposedly
air quote here meant by his orders, but the article
does not distinguish distinguish between what is documented and what
(07:57):
is retrospective interpretation or what I might even say is
bureaucratic damage control. And then there's a selective treatment of
the factual record.
Speaker 5 (08:10):
Michael, how did the news and media and everybody find
out that there was a second air site on that
drug boat.
Speaker 2 (08:19):
No idea, Probably a leak, yeah to the media right there.
Speaker 3 (08:24):
Well, we have five anonymous sources, so you know that
somebody within the bowels of the bureaucracy called somebody at
the New York Times this. You know, let me let
me divert for just a moment, because you raise a
question that many many people may wonder about but never
really thought deeply about. And in every cabinet, department and agency,
(08:48):
with maybe a few exceptions here or there, a reporter
is assigned to that department or agency, particularly the larger
ones Homeland Security, deal, the State Treasury. Somebody is there,
just like they're at the White House, twenty four hours
a day, seven days a week, and that's what they cover.
(09:09):
And over time they develop relationships. Now they try to
develop relationships as high up in the hierarchy as they can,
but if they're really smart reporters, they develop relationships with
the worker bees, the bureaucrats, the civil servants, because those
people like to talk and they like to know that
(09:32):
when they read about an anonymous source in the Washington Post,
that that was them that talked to that reporter, and
then they can't tell all of their friends, so they
want to remain anonymous, and they don't have the kahonies
to you know, put their name out there. But then
when they go to dinner that night, they'll tell all
their friends about it. Oh yeah, that was me. I
talked to them about it. I mean, they're just that stupid.
That's just how stupid they are. And then there are
(09:54):
people that know where the press office is, or they
know somebody that in the press, and they'll just reach
out to them. It's why I always told my staff
there are times when we have to break the rules,
or there are times when we have to do X
y Z, or there are times when you might make
a mistake honest or otherwise. But all I ask of
(10:16):
my staff is that you tell me so that when
it gets, you know, published in the Washington Post, I
don't get blindsided by it.
Speaker 2 (10:24):
I want to know about it ahead of time.
Speaker 3 (10:26):
And quite frankly, I want to know about ahead of
time because there might be somebody in the White House
and I want to make sure, hey, listen, the Post
is running a story tomorrow about X y Z and
I'm already on top of it, or if I know
the reporter, like there were certain Wall Street Journal, Washington
Post reporters, AP reporters and others that I knew personally,
and I would call and say, hey, listen, I understand
(10:48):
that one of your colleagues is writing a story about
blah blah blah blah. Would you like somebody to go
on the record as opposed to the anonymous sources? Would
you like to hear our side of the story. Sometimes yes,
sometimes no, but at least I made the effort. But
then I want you to think about I don't know this,
(11:08):
this is from yesterday. I don't know where he was
is well, the source is Fort Smith, Arkansas, but I
don't think that's where he was. I think he was
talking to some I don't know who he was talking to.
But here's Barack Obama trying to explain to you the
(11:29):
the opposite of what I'm telling you about this story
in Today's New York Times lent.
Speaker 5 (11:35):
Out there that you would consider the least bias, sort
of the most street news.
Speaker 2 (11:43):
You know, the typical Obama, don't you missing?
Speaker 5 (11:50):
Here's the thing I actually think, I actually think that man.
Speaker 3 (11:56):
There's a lot of stuttering here trying to figure out
what do what do I think? What do I say?
What's my answer? What's my answer? What I was saying over.
Speaker 5 (12:04):
Here's the thing I actually think. I actually think that
the mainstream news still does a very good job of
just presenting facts.
Speaker 2 (12:24):
Come again, play that last little part.
Speaker 5 (12:26):
Still does a very good job of just presenting facts.
Speaker 3 (12:32):
Okay, back there, huh yeah.
Speaker 2 (12:34):
Yeah, you've just been reading all the wrong things.
Speaker 5 (12:37):
News still does a very good job of just presenting facts.
Speaker 2 (12:45):
I think.
Speaker 3 (12:45):
Really, then let's go next back, or let's go back
to the New York Times and see how they play.
Speaker 2 (12:52):
A game again.
Speaker 1 (12:53):
From South Dakota where it's twenty four degrees, no wind
and cloudy. Looks like a nice day to finish putting
up by car lights. Everyone have a great day.
Speaker 3 (13:03):
Yeah, well, your days coming. Let's go back to the
New York Times article real quickly before I get to
the next point.
Speaker 2 (13:09):
Because listen to the headline.
Speaker 3 (13:12):
Hegsath ordered a lethal attack, but not the killing of survivors.
Officials say, why is it worded that way? Wouldn't the
natural way of framing something be that, you know, officials
say that Hegesith did order a legal lethal attack, but
he didn't order the killing of of survivors. So you
(13:34):
take that and put it into a headline, and the
headline would say officials say, Hegesith ordered a lethal attack,
but not the killing of survivors. Well, you put official
say at the end, because the brain naturally hears, oh,
he ordered a lethal attack, but not the killing of
the survivors. So you've got to make sure that you
(13:54):
understand that it was a lethal attack and oh the
survivors were so there really were no survivors. It's all
the subliminal of trying to get you to understand that, oh,
they have an agenda. Well, they don't want you to
understand it, but they want you to understand what the
(14:14):
narrative is that they're trying to establish. And then they
in the core of the article they correctly note that
and this really is what I would call selective treatment
of the factual record. They're taking a factual record, but
they're just nippicking and pulling out things that fit their narrative.
Speaker 2 (14:36):
Because the article does note that the.
Speaker 3 (14:38):
White House in the Pentagon say that Admiral Frank Bradley
and not the Secretary of War, ordered the second strike,
and that the administration claims that he the admiral acted
within his delegated authority, But that underplays the tension between
this version and the earlier public statements touting a broad aggressive,
(15:02):
you know Heggsa's doctrine of lethal kinetic strikes against these
NARCO vessels, you know, statements that really matter for understanding
how subordinates might have reasonably interpreted Pete Heggs's intent. Then
all of the related reporting makes clear that there have
been you know, twenty one such operations eighty plus fatalities
(15:25):
across both the Caribbean and the Pacific in the past
two months, which obviously speaks to a sustained campaign that
this is not an isolated aberration. The article mentions the
number of strikes and deaths, but does not delve into
the patterns. What's the targeting criteria or any internal reviews
(15:49):
that either would strengthen a war crimes narrative or weaken
it or complicate a war crimes narrative. So, as a result,
that The York Times is simply cherry picking the most
inflammatory operation while leaving the rest of the record not examined.
That's establishing a narrative by omission. Then how do they
(16:15):
handle the Washington Post allegation. Because all of this kerfuffle
started with a story in the Washington Post. I think
one of the most striking omissions is the lack of
any real media accountability analysis about the Washington Post prior
claim that Hegesath gave a verbal no survivor's order and
(16:36):
that's what prompted the second strike. The article that was
published this morning notes that this earlier report triggered the uproar,
but then goes on to treat the discrepancy between quote
Hegsath ordered execution of survivors and quote Hegesath did not
(16:56):
specify what to do if the first left survivors. That's
a matter of nuance, and as a matter of nuance,
rather than a potentially what I believe to be a
serious journalistic failure, because by adopting a clarification of events
postures that Times does, they are effectively cleaning up the
(17:19):
narrative without interrogating how such a major allegation tenn them
out to accusing a sitting secretary of Defense of ordering
a war crime? How did that make it into print
on such say, shaky ground to begin with. So that choice,
that very definite, assertive choice by the New York Times.
(17:44):
That's blurring the line between reporting a new fact pattern
and reinforcing a storyline that originated in what is probably
a flawed coverage by a rival news organization. This is
not to beat this dead horse, but this is why
I refer to it as a cabal. They don't really
(18:07):
want to point out that the Washington Post probably was inaccurate.
What they want to do is now lay claim to
their own narrative and force the focus back onto them
as opposed to the Washington Post. That's why it's truly
a cabal. It's the unholy alliance. For those of you
(18:30):
knew to the program, the cabal is that unholy alliance
between the dominant media, the ruling elite, and the tech giants.
Because and when I say the tech giants, I'm talking
about not just Facebook and Instagram or Act or Instagram.
I'm talking about all the different platforms under which all
these stories will now be spread. Because it goes to
(18:52):
reinforce the drive by consumer of news that well, there's
some nuance here. The narrative remains the same even among
rivals competing for subscribers, advertising space, everything. And then they
go into the New York times does they then go
(19:15):
into a legal analysis that, in my opinion, is really
more advocacy than just explanation. When I talked about the
possibility of a war crime on Monday, I described the
facts as they were reported, and then applied the War
(19:37):
Crimes Act and the Geneva and Haye Conventions to those
facts as they were reported. I think that's and I'm
not a journalist, but I think that's my obligation as
a lawyerre and talk show host to tell you that, oh,
here's this story, and if this story is true, that
is tenemount and could possibly be a war crime. And
(20:01):
I point out, yeah, some legal experts agree, some legal
experts disagree, But that's not what they're doing here. They
emphasize that intentionally killing shipwrecked survivors would be a war crime.
They do quote experts who say that such an order
would be unequivocally criminal, and who also question whether there is.
Speaker 2 (20:23):
Any valid arm conflict going on at all.
Speaker 3 (20:26):
That is a legitimate and important perspective, But what's my
rule about the butt The article mostly sidelines the Trump
administration's legal rationale, namely that the president has determined that
we are in a armed conflict with certain cartels, and
the suspected NARCO vessels can be treated as military objectives.
(20:49):
And they do that beyond anything that would be a
rational or you would look at it and say, oh,
you know, Obama tells us that the mainstream is just
be good at presenting facts. Well, here's just the opposite
of that. The story doesn't do that whatsoever. The story
(21:09):
mentions but does not, in any stretch of the imagination,
meaningfully unpack the Office of Legal Counsel's memo that supports
the administration's theory that drug shipments and crew members indeed
may be targeted, and without going into or articulating the
memos' arguments, if you're a reader of the story like
(21:31):
I was this morning, then you're left with a one
sided impression. Critics get detailed quotes about why this is illegal,
while the government's case gets summarized in maybe two sentences
and then just summarily dismissed. It is hard to be
(21:52):
a discerning consumer of the news in today's environment, and
I know the easy thing to do is to just
find somebody that reflects your point of view and then
just stick with that. I refuse to do so if
I'm going to come in here and tell you what
I really think that I have to be honest with
(22:13):
you about. Listen, I do. I read the New York Times,
the Washington Post, the LA Times, the Wall Street Journal.
I look at what MSNBC or CNN is reporting, because
without doing that, I can't tell you or describe to
you the nuance, or tell you definitively or you know,
equivocated a little bit and say, well, based on this,
(22:34):
this might be true. That's why I try to give
you the perspective. That's why I try to give you
the analysis so that you yourself can then when you hear
about the story of the news, when you go home
tonight and it's cold and you got some you know,
hot chocolate with the maybe a little bourbon in it,
and you're sitting there, you know, watching the TV and
the ABC World News Tonight comes on and David Muir says,
(22:57):
x y Z, you can say to yourself or think
to yourself, hmmm, based on what Michael Brown told me
this morning, I wonder what he's not telling me, or
I wonder why he used that word. It's both omission
and commission. The article circles the kind of who gave
(23:18):
the order question. But they don't apply the law of
command responsibility, or for that matter, of the military's own
doctrine on manifestly unlawful orders. For instance, outside coverage, if
you look outside the New York if you don't look
outside the pages of this story, there's outside coverage that
(23:41):
discusses Judge Affagate General. Those are the lawyers in the military,
all these different groups calling any quote no survivor's order
clearly illegal, who stressing the service members must refuse such orders.
But the Times piece does not fully explore whether Admiral
Bradley strike, even within his delegated authority, would still be
(24:04):
lawful or unlawful if it knowingly targeted non threatening survivors.
Speaker 2 (24:12):
Why would they.
Speaker 3 (24:13):
Omit that, Why would they omit where the buck stops
or the command's responsibility within the military. Because they don't
want you to be thinking for yourself. They don't want
you to be able to compare and contrast what may
or may not be true or you know, because right now,
if I haven't looked, I don't have it in front
(24:34):
of me right now. But this morning, before I came
on there, I refreshed the Drudge Report and one of
the it's not a headline, it's it's what Drudge puts
as the headline to try to get you to lick
to click on to go read the story. But the
click the clickbait on the Drudge report was Pete hesitth
(24:55):
throws Admiral Bradley, Admiral Bradley under the bus.
Speaker 2 (25:02):
Hmm, did he or didn't he?
Speaker 3 (25:05):
Because I'll take you to the New York Times of
The New York Times doesn't address that that issue about
command responsibility and the military's own doctrine on what are
manifestly clearly unlawful orders. And in likewise, the article reports
that Trump's attempt to try to distance himself from the
(25:26):
second strike.
Speaker 2 (25:27):
Saying that he quote would not have wanted that.
Speaker 3 (25:30):
But they don't scrutinize how credible or legally relevant that
statement is, given that he approved the overall campaign and
has been publicly lotting its aggressiveness. So now you've got
some soft glove treatment of presidential responsibility that contrasts with
the harder edge they somehow gets applied to Pete Haigsath,
(25:51):
which then makes me think that, oh, what this really
is is a hit piece directed at the Secretary of
War Pete Haiggs.
Speaker 2 (26:01):
So when you have Trump de arrangement syndrome in.
Speaker 3 (26:03):
This case, the New York Times is willing to inoculate
themselves with their against their hatred of Trump, because their
hatred of Pete Hegesath is simply a way He's the target.
Speaker 2 (26:17):
He's the target here.
Speaker 3 (26:18):
Not Donald Trump, because I sincerely believe in the editorial
rooms of the New York Times, Washington Post, all the
rest of them, they probably agree and understand that in totively,
the president has the authority in the in terms of
national security interests, to protect the country, and that these
narco terrists fall under that regime of authority. But if
(26:40):
we can go after somebody else, and in this case
we can go after oh, we can go after Pete Hagsath,
then yeah, that's what we'll do. We'll go after Pete Hegesath.
You get how it really is difficult to be a
discerning consumer the news.
Speaker 2 (27:01):
But then let's step back from them.
Speaker 3 (27:04):
Let's think about just the tone in the insinuation the
article as a whole, the narrative arc. Every story and
every narrative has an arc. Well, this one leans heavily
on really ominous language we joke about, you know, danger weather.
Oh it's snowing out. My god, is the snowmageddon. It's
horrible out there. Well, the same thing's true here, like
(27:26):
things like political illegal turmoil, or a contentious campaign, or
treating as combatants.
Speaker 2 (27:33):
So what does that do?
Speaker 3 (27:34):
That pushes a reader who's just mindlessly reading the story
toward a conclusion of wrongdoing, even as the article admits
key facts are still being contested, key facts are still
in doubt, key facts are not really fact shit, And
that's especially visible when it states it actually states this
(27:57):
in the article. The notion that the Secretary of Defense
or Admiral Bradley might have indeed targeted survivors because they
write quote has generated significant concern as such actions could
be classified.
Speaker 2 (28:14):
As war crimes. What does that do?
Speaker 3 (28:17):
That very subtly conflates the worst case possibilities with a
still uncertain factual record. So when Barack Obama tells me that, oh, yeah,
the mainstream media they're really good about just reporting the facts,
I want to take this article and smash it in
his face because it does just the opposite. At the
(28:40):
same time, this story just glosses over evidence that could
cut against the war crime narrative because there are official
claims that the second strike was aimed at the vessel
and the cargo that could have been recovered by cartel,
other cartel linked votes, or alleged intercepted communications between the
(29:03):
survivors and other traffickers that may have been in the
area or willing to dispatch themselves from Havana or Caracus
or wherever and go rescue them and go rescue what
you know, drugs were not destroyed in the first missile attack.
Now those details objectively, they're mentioned, but then they get
(29:25):
overshadowed by all the dramatic speculation. So that is where
you produce an imbalance between exculpatory and incriminating information, information
that would say, oh, this was lawful, an information that says.
Speaker 2 (29:44):
Oh, this is a war crime.
Speaker 3 (29:47):
It's all about context, policy, politics, precedent. The article Situation
situates the episode in Trump's broader lethal force against drug
traffickers campaign, but it does it never explores anywhere in
it how similar maritime interdiction operations have been treated historically
(30:08):
or under other administrations, and without that comparative framework, rules
for disabling the go fast boats, dealing with swimmers in
the water or prior to base about treating cartels as
nonstate armed groups. If you're a reader of this story,
there's no way you can gauge whether this campaign is
some radical break from precedent or an aggressive extension of
(30:33):
existing in previous practices. And then, politically, the piece notes
by partisan calls for investigation, but never does it dig
into the incentives that some lawmakers and rival agency might
have to leak or to posture in ways that damage
Pete hesitth individually or the administration as a whole. So
(30:57):
a critical review must observe that The Times accepts much
of this so called bipartisan concern bull craft at face value,
while delivering to their readers a skeptical posture almost exclusively
toward the administration's defenses, which again tilts the playing field.
(31:18):
This article raises serious and appropriate questions about lethal operation
and possible violations of armed conflict, with anonymous sources, selective
legal explanations, highly charged framing. This is an advocacy piece,
pure and simple,
Popular Podcasts
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
Are You A Charlotte?
In 1997, actress Kristin Davis’ life was forever changed when she took on the role of Charlotte York in Sex and the City. As we watched Carrie, Samantha, Miranda and Charlotte navigate relationships in NYC, the show helped push once unacceptable conversation topics out of the shadows and altered the narrative around women and sex. We all saw ourselves in them as they searched for fulfillment in life, sex and friendships. Now, Kristin Davis wants to connect with you, the fans, and share untold stories and all the behind the scenes. Together, with Kristin and special guests, what will begin with Sex and the City will evolve into talks about themes that are still so relevant today. "Are you a Charlotte?" is much more than just rewatching this beloved show, it brings the past and the present together as we talk with heart, humor and of course some optimism.
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.