August 19, 2025 • 22 mins
(Tuesday Aug 19,2025)
KFI White House correspondent John Decker joins the show to discuss Trump and Zelenskyy meeting and what comes next. Several lawsuits expose cracks in Tesla’s self-driving future. Newsmax will pay $67MIL to settle dominion defamation lawsuit. ‘Pregnancy robots’ could give birth to human children in revolutionary breakthrough – and a game-changer for infertile couples.
KFI White House correspondent John Decker joins the show to discuss Trump and Zelenskyy meeting and what comes next. Several lawsuits expose cracks in Tesla’s self-driving future. Newsmax will pay $67MIL to settle dominion defamation lawsuit. ‘Pregnancy robots’ could give birth to human children in revolutionary breakthrough – and a game-changer for infertile couples.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
You're listening to Bill Handle on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
KFI AM six forty Handle here on a Tuesday morning,
August nineteenthkfi's White House correspondent John Decker is one of
the reporters that is consistently in the Oval Office when
the President effectively has a news conference every time he
walks into a door or out of a door.
Speaker 3 (00:29):
John, you were there yesterday.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
Let's talk about the flavor of the room, because that's
really the interesting part morning, John, Thanks for joining us.
Speaker 1 (00:38):
Hey, thanks for having me. A much different atmosphere yesterday
compared to the atmosphere that we saw back on February
the twenty eighth, and of course that was when president's
Lensky came to the White House to meet with President
Trump for the first time. You could cut the tension
in the air with a knife back then. Yesterday, I
think a more relaxed atmosphere. President Welcome, President Zelenski. He
(01:02):
felt welcomed not only by the President but also by
those other European leaders who came to the White House
yesterday to discuss next steps for trying to end the
war in Ukraine.
Speaker 2 (01:14):
Has anybody brought up the fact that all of this
basically that undermines Lensky, throws him under the bus. In
terms of keeping onto the eastern part of Ukraine.
Speaker 1 (01:30):
Well, that's one of the ideas out there that Russia
would like, certainly like to see happen, and that is
acquiring all of eastern Ukraine, including parts of eastern Ukraine
that Russia has not conquered. That's problematic. But I think
that having said that, President Zelensky understands that there will
(01:51):
need to be concessions made by both Ukraine and by
Russia in terms of getting to a place where we're
bringing in end to this war now three and a
half years old. And you know that's where the rubber
hits the road. This is the hard part of the equation.
Now that these leaders that came here to the White
House and President Trump and President Zelensky appear to be
(02:14):
unified and on the same page.
Speaker 2 (02:16):
Does well do all of the leaders and Russia and
Ukraine look at President Trump as putting this together that
there would be no peace but for President Trump, and
he is going to be the basically the underwriting reason
that there will be peace if there is.
Speaker 1 (02:36):
If there is, I think that's right. You know, I
can't imagine President Trump's predecessor having a meeting like the
one that we saw yesterday at the White House President Biden.
President Biden certainly was an advocate for a strong NATO
defense alliance. But that being said, yesterday was just unusual
happening when it did in August, in mid August, and
(03:00):
you know, happening just three days after President Trump met
with President Putin in Anchorage, Alaska.
Speaker 2 (03:09):
And Putin, I think, for the first time, has agreed
that he will meet in some way or another with Zelensky,
which is kind of interesting because he doesn't recognize Lelensky
as the president of a sovereign country. Ukraine doesn't exist
for Putin. It's all part of Russia.
Speaker 3 (03:26):
Yeah, it's fantastic, Yeah, Bill.
Speaker 1 (03:31):
The thing of it is is we don't know a time,
a place, and manner for such a meeting. And you know,
we just heard some reports that you know, Putin would
would be up for that. You know, I think that
that's where President Trump comes into play. You know, he's
the I think the only person who could twist Putin's
arm to meet with Zelensky, to be in a room
with Zelensky, someone that he does not see as his equal.
Speaker 2 (03:54):
Uh.
Speaker 1 (03:54):
And you know, to get to that point is an
important part bringing in to the war. What the President
may clear yesterday, and I asked the President about this
in the Oval Office, is that he's backed away from
this idea of trying to secure a ceasefire first before
a permanent end to the war. And that is something
(04:16):
that the President was advocating for just last week. Now
he's moved away from that position. And there's some European
leaders who outwardly expressed disappointment that the President has moved
away from that position. Germany's Chancellor, Chancellor Mertz said he
believes that it is very important to pursue a ceasefire
(04:37):
before anything else, and French President Emmanuel Macron also represented
that same point of view yesterday in the East Room
at the White House.
Speaker 3 (04:45):
All right, now, John, I know you have to run.
Speaker 2 (04:47):
Thanks for reporting as always, love the fact that you're
always in the Oval Office when all of this happens.
Speaker 3 (04:52):
John, take care, Thanks a lot, Peale, appreciate it.
Speaker 1 (04:56):
Have a good day by budd it.
Speaker 3 (04:57):
Thank you you too. All right. So, one of the
things that I've noticed is.
Speaker 2 (05:03):
And wasn't brought up, is that while this discussion of
a potential piece, not that Putin has even agreed at
this point to meet with Zelenski, is that Putin has
ramped up the attacks on Ukraine. He is moving these
attacks in a much, a much harder way. I mean,
(05:24):
you look at the video and you're seeing building after
building being attacked, and civilian buildings. You can't argue or
he can't argue that, okay, this was a misfiring, or
we missed and somehow a straight drone hit this apartment building.
It was three or four separate drones that came in
(05:46):
and destroyed this apartment building. And five people were killed
and I don't know how many dozens were injured. And
so I don't get around, and no one is mentioning this.
I mean, everybody's walking on eggshells. No one is mentioning
that only Ukraine is going to be asked to give
up Ukrainian land. And what Putin wants is tell you
(06:12):
what I want. You give up the land, and I
want security, or Ukraine wants security that you won't attack
other parts of Ukraine or any part of Europe. Okay,
I'll make a promise that that won't happen. Although he
has broken every promise since twenty fourteen. Everyone and everybody's
(06:34):
pretending that that didn't happen. I said earlier, Why, here's
history that shows us exactly what happening. You have a
dictator that is taking land, and you give me this land,
and I promise I won't ask for any more. Nineteen
thirty eight Hitler and Czechoslovakia. Except the difference is with Czechoslovakia,
(06:57):
there was no fighting, there was no war. The Allies
just gave Hitler the su Dtan land of Czechoslovakia where
all of the industry is. By the way, the Skoda works,
which is the biggest manufacturer of arms and cars and
all kinds of heavy machinery, et cetera. It's it's it's
(07:20):
history repeating itself and just we don't learn. We just
don't learn, all right, Moving on Tesla, Tesla is looking
at a couple of big lawsuits while sales are falling,
and Tesla's future is now resting on the robo taxi
(07:43):
launch and AI in intelligence or advancements in AI. And
why is a Tesla looking at those and not just
selling cars because sales are dropping dramatically, because well, Tesla
ain't that.
Speaker 3 (07:59):
Good a car.
Speaker 2 (08:00):
I bought a Tesla, I had two weeks and I
returned it and took a huge hit. And Woody on
The Woody Show at ninety eight point seven bought.
Speaker 3 (08:13):
A Tesla and also hated it.
Speaker 2 (08:15):
There are two types of people in the world when
it comes to Tesla. One of them hate Tesla, the
other ones love Tesla.
Speaker 3 (08:24):
It's like two types of them.
Speaker 1 (08:26):
Though they're beautiful vehicles, I don't know.
Speaker 2 (08:30):
They just I think they're a little tiney. I don't
think they're that solid. I just don't like them. It's
that simple. I didn't like the drive. It's not that complicated.
But in the meantime, what's happening is the DMV is
trying to get them off the roads in California and
not sell anymore.
Speaker 3 (08:50):
In California is a huge market.
Speaker 2 (08:51):
And why is that Well, because Musk through Tesla is
advertising that it's technology is self driving, except that it's not.
Speaker 3 (09:04):
It's driver assisted.
Speaker 2 (09:05):
And they say that, but the implication is that it's
self driving, and they don't really push the driver assisted.
And what happened there was a lawsuit man, the first
one that really really hit Tesla big time, and This
one had to do with a guy who was driving
a Tesla and he was they were turning a corner
(09:29):
and it was looking at a cell phone. Because Tesla,
of course is self driving and it reads the road well.
The problem is it kept on going straight and hit
a couple of people, killing.
Speaker 3 (09:40):
The man and or the woman injuring the man seriously.
They sued big time. This is Florida.
Speaker 2 (09:49):
Now, Florida has comparative negligence like we do in California,
and a jury or a judge can award percentage of fault,
and the jury did award Tesla as the majority of fault.
The driver also is at fault because he kept on
looking at his cell phone and that's not cool and
(10:09):
he shouldn't have done that clearly. Why Because the self
driving assists that Tesla has really isn't autopilot.
Speaker 3 (10:19):
It isn't automatic.
Speaker 2 (10:21):
And so the jury hits Tesla with two hundred and
forty million dollars, which means that the other guy got
hit with what one hundred and something million dollars because
it's comparative as if he has the money.
Speaker 3 (10:33):
However, Tesla has the money.
Speaker 2 (10:37):
You talk about deep pockets, and so why is this
such a big deal because this is the first time
a jury has done this. Tesla has settled up to
this point. Does this open the floodgates? And Tesla's fay
sales are falling dramatically, and Musk comes back to Tesla
after being head of DOGE and taking out entire cabinet
(11:01):
positions or entire sections of the US government and ignoring Tesla.
Now SpaceX is still doing great, Starlink is still doing great.
I mean, the fact of his Musk is truly a
visionary there's no question about it. Is the world's richest man.
And Tesla state Tesla shares falling like crazy. Does that
really affect him? No, although there's some really good shareholder
(11:25):
suits against him. And so what's going on. You don't
buy a I don't buy a Tesla. I just don't
like the car. So it's basically a computer with four wheels.
I mean, that's it. It's not a car. And I
don't think it drives well. I don't think it corners well.
(11:46):
You close the door and there isn't that solid, heavy
thump that you would expect from a car.
Speaker 3 (11:54):
So the bottom line is the self driving.
Speaker 2 (11:57):
Aspect of Tesla really isn't self driving, although in twenty
fifteen Musk promised and said that he's right on the
verge of true self driving that you don't need a
driver there.
Speaker 3 (12:10):
Well, you do, that's for sure. Okay.
Speaker 2 (12:15):
Lawsuit has been settled, and this one is between Newsmacs
and Dominion Voting Systems and Newsmac Newsmax one on this one.
Speaker 3 (12:24):
I'll tell you why.
Speaker 2 (12:26):
It has agreed to pay sixty seven million dollars to
Dominion Voting Systems in a defamation suit.
Speaker 3 (12:31):
Over three years, I might add.
Speaker 2 (12:34):
And this is This announcement was in a filing with
US Securities and Exchange Commission the SEC in which the
two sides usually agreed to resolve the litigation. Dominion provides
voting equipment in twenty eight states, and the systems include
(12:54):
touchscreen screens and paper ballots, scanning devices and the voting
machines themselves. And Newsmax, by the way, is a one
point five billion dollar company, so it has money. And
sixty seven million dollars over three years for a company
that has this kind of income, I don't know. So
(13:16):
last September, Newsmax agreed to a settlement with another voting
machine company, Smart Mattics before a trial that was forty
million dollars.
Speaker 3 (13:25):
So here's what happened.
Speaker 2 (13:26):
In twenty twenty one, Dominion files lawsuitainst Newsmax, asking for
one point six billion, saying that statements made in Newsmacks
coverage about the election of twenty twenty were defamatory.
Speaker 3 (13:40):
It's that simple. It's that Newsmax.
Speaker 2 (13:44):
It said Dominion was part of a scheme to steal
the election, to miscount votes purposely to miss to transfer
votes that were made in favor of Trump over to
Joe Biden. Now, I mean it's crazy. They straight out
falsely claimed the election results were rigged.
Speaker 3 (14:08):
And Dominion did this.
Speaker 2 (14:10):
So at this point, we don't even know it's going
to be an on air apology or even acknowledgment that
it did anything wrong. So here's what the company says
in a statement relative to this settlement. Quote, Newsmax believed
it was critically important for the American people hear both
sides of the election disputes that arose by in twenty twenty.
(14:33):
We stand by our coverage as fair balance and conducted
within professional standards of journalism. There was not a shred
of evidence that Dominion did any of the allegations not
a shred, but Newsbacks has to prevent both present both sides.
Let me give you an example, and not that I
(14:53):
don't remember if Newsmax printed this or broadcast this. There
is a keba of Democrats that are child predators that
abuse children under the age of fourteen underneath the pizza
parlor in Chicago, and that is reported. And so we
(15:16):
whatever organization on the right who is anti Joe Biden
and pro Trump, we believe that both sides have to
be presented. You say, there isn't a cabal a group
of Democratic lawmakers that are having sex with fourteen year
(15:36):
olds at a secret location under a pizza parlor. We
have the right to put together the other side.
Speaker 3 (15:45):
Is there another side?
Speaker 2 (15:46):
There isn't a shred of evidence, and Newsbacks is saying
we have to present both sides. By the way, I'm
not alleging Newsmax said that about the pizza parlor.
Speaker 3 (15:58):
I have no idea whether it did or not.
Speaker 2 (16:02):
And the judge ruled a couple things that were not
in favor of Newsmax. For example, refused to allow the
jury to hear that Fox Fox News had paid Dominion
seven hundred and eighty seven million dollars in a settlement,
and the judge said, now you're not going to hear it.
Why because the jury may think they've already paid three
(16:24):
quarters of a billion dollars that's enough. And it's prejudicial
to the case because the law does not allow bringing
extraneous evidence into a case. It has to be looked
at just the facts in front of the jury. And
so Newsbacks immediately accused the judge of being biased and
(16:47):
said the judge is pro democratic and therefore, what's the
next step, Well, how about alleging the judge is how
about this one? The judge, okay, molests little children underneath
his courthouse. Well, we have to bring both sides to
(17:08):
that story, don't we. By the way, I'm not alleging
that that happened or Newsmax said anything about that. I'm
going to make that clear, but I think the analogy holds.
And so Newsmacks, without admitting guilt, while arguing that the
coverage of the very settlement is unfair and biased, without
(17:28):
admitting guilt, has to pay sixty seven million dollars or
agrees over three years. I don't know why Dominion allowed
that to happen. Because the judges had already rude a
ruled according to emotion. Where Newsmax says there's nothing here,
the judge says, oh, there is something here to this lawsuit,
and then went forward said this is going to be
(17:49):
set for trial, and a.
Speaker 3 (17:51):
Trial was set.
Speaker 2 (17:53):
And Newsmax could very well have been hit with malice,
which means it knew it was false, that what they
said or should have known it was false, and went
ahead and published that information, and punitive damages might get
it might hit and they would be big ones. So
(18:13):
I think Newsmax won this one. I don't know if
you've ever watched Newsmax not biased in the least is it.
Now here's the story. Boys are right up my wheelhouse.
And I'm sure as soon as Anne saw this said, oh, yeah,
this is handled. This has to do with surrogate mothers
or surrogate robots. Now I wrote the first, well certainly
(18:34):
that when I wrote my first surrogate contract in nineteen
eighty and there were exactly two of us practicing this
kind of law in the country. It was human surrogates,
of course, carrying babies for other people, pursuing into a
contract and all of that, and then I had a
surrogacy agency for a bunch of years, and at some
point science fiction was going to be there, even ivf
(18:57):
with science fiction in terms of successful births, because the
first test two baby in the world had been born
in seventy eight and I started nineteen eighty, and the
chances of having a surrogate mother carry a child in
those days was less than five percent. Today, of course,
it's a whole different world. So out of China comes
(19:18):
a surrogate robot. Now, hiring women to do this is
between one hundred and two hundred thousand dollars. That's women
who carry a child, especially if you're talking about egg donation.
According to this program Chinese program, hiring a humanoid a
robot to carry a baby's going to cost fourteen thousand dollars.
Speaker 1 (19:41):
Woo.
Speaker 2 (19:42):
That makes it affordable for virtually everybody. And so the
question is is this close? You know what, when you
think of the technology, oh and it's not bad, You go, okay, why, well,
because I've obviously embry be created and they can be inserted.
(20:02):
Now can they be inserted in a robotic uterus? How
hard is that to create? When you think of technology
and then having birth. A robot having birth, how do
you do that? How about an elevator door who opens
up and out comes the baby?
Speaker 3 (20:19):
And how does it get as nutrients? A hose.
Speaker 2 (20:24):
That's how babies get their nutrients anyway, with the umbilical cord.
So if you're talking about a robotic hose, it would
be a garden hose would work, wouldn't it where the
nutrients would come in.
Speaker 3 (20:40):
You know, this doesn't seem all that far fetched.
Speaker 2 (20:43):
Of course, it would have put me out of business,
which is why I no longer do surrogate parenting. Well,
not because of garden hoses helping people have babies, because
I just switched careers, which we talked about many times.
But this is kind of interesting, to say the least.
And when I think about the technology, it is not
(21:05):
that far fetched. It was IVF was more fi far fetched.
Organ transplants were more far fetched when you think about it.
Artificial the artificial heart, which we're right on the verge.
We've been on the verge of an artificial heart for
(21:26):
decades and decades. But you know that's gonna happen, don't you.
Robotic surrogates. Wow, I think it's gonna happen. And this
is China where things are made much less expensively. I mean,
we're going to you'll see a program where President Trump
is going to say, we have to bring robotic surrogates
(21:47):
in this country and manufacture the surrogates here, and you'll
pay a lot more money.
Speaker 3 (21:53):
Wow. What a story. What a story? All right? KF
I am sixty and listening to the Bill Handle Show.
Speaker 2 (22:01):
Catch my show Monday through Friday, six am to nine am,
and anytime on demand on the iHeartRadio app.
You're listening to Bill Handle on demand from KFI AM
six forty.
Speaker 2 (00:06):
KFI AM six forty Handle here on a Tuesday morning,
August nineteenthkfi's White House correspondent John Decker is one of
the reporters that is consistently in the Oval Office when
the President effectively has a news conference every time he
walks into a door or out of a door.
Speaker 3 (00:29):
John, you were there yesterday.
Speaker 2 (00:31):
Let's talk about the flavor of the room, because that's
really the interesting part morning, John, Thanks for joining us.
Speaker 1 (00:38):
Hey, thanks for having me. A much different atmosphere yesterday
compared to the atmosphere that we saw back on February
the twenty eighth, and of course that was when president's
Lensky came to the White House to meet with President
Trump for the first time. You could cut the tension
in the air with a knife back then. Yesterday, I
think a more relaxed atmosphere. President Welcome, President Zelenski. He
(01:02):
felt welcomed not only by the President but also by
those other European leaders who came to the White House
yesterday to discuss next steps for trying to end the
war in Ukraine.
Speaker 2 (01:14):
Has anybody brought up the fact that all of this
basically that undermines Lensky, throws him under the bus. In
terms of keeping onto the eastern part of Ukraine.
Speaker 1 (01:30):
Well, that's one of the ideas out there that Russia
would like, certainly like to see happen, and that is
acquiring all of eastern Ukraine, including parts of eastern Ukraine
that Russia has not conquered. That's problematic. But I think
that having said that, President Zelensky understands that there will
(01:51):
need to be concessions made by both Ukraine and by
Russia in terms of getting to a place where we're
bringing in end to this war now three and a
half years old. And you know that's where the rubber
hits the road. This is the hard part of the equation.
Now that these leaders that came here to the White
House and President Trump and President Zelensky appear to be
(02:14):
unified and on the same page.
Speaker 2 (02:16):
Does well do all of the leaders and Russia and
Ukraine look at President Trump as putting this together that
there would be no peace but for President Trump, and
he is going to be the basically the underwriting reason
that there will be peace if there is.
Speaker 1 (02:36):
If there is, I think that's right. You know, I
can't imagine President Trump's predecessor having a meeting like the
one that we saw yesterday at the White House President Biden.
President Biden certainly was an advocate for a strong NATO
defense alliance. But that being said, yesterday was just unusual
happening when it did in August, in mid August, and
(03:00):
you know, happening just three days after President Trump met
with President Putin in Anchorage, Alaska.
Speaker 2 (03:09):
And Putin, I think, for the first time, has agreed
that he will meet in some way or another with Zelensky,
which is kind of interesting because he doesn't recognize Lelensky
as the president of a sovereign country. Ukraine doesn't exist
for Putin. It's all part of Russia.
Speaker 3 (03:26):
Yeah, it's fantastic, Yeah, Bill.
Speaker 1 (03:31):
The thing of it is is we don't know a time,
a place, and manner for such a meeting. And you know,
we just heard some reports that you know, Putin would
would be up for that. You know, I think that
that's where President Trump comes into play. You know, he's
the I think the only person who could twist Putin's
arm to meet with Zelensky, to be in a room
with Zelensky, someone that he does not see as his equal.
Speaker 2 (03:54):
Uh.
Speaker 1 (03:54):
And you know, to get to that point is an
important part bringing in to the war. What the President
may clear yesterday, and I asked the President about this
in the Oval Office, is that he's backed away from
this idea of trying to secure a ceasefire first before
a permanent end to the war. And that is something
(04:16):
that the President was advocating for just last week. Now
he's moved away from that position. And there's some European
leaders who outwardly expressed disappointment that the President has moved
away from that position. Germany's Chancellor, Chancellor Mertz said he
believes that it is very important to pursue a ceasefire
(04:37):
before anything else, and French President Emmanuel Macron also represented
that same point of view yesterday in the East Room
at the White House.
Speaker 3 (04:45):
All right, now, John, I know you have to run.
Speaker 2 (04:47):
Thanks for reporting as always, love the fact that you're
always in the Oval Office when all of this happens.
Speaker 3 (04:52):
John, take care, Thanks a lot, Peale, appreciate it.
Speaker 1 (04:56):
Have a good day by budd it.
Speaker 3 (04:57):
Thank you you too. All right. So, one of the
things that I've noticed is.
Speaker 2 (05:03):
And wasn't brought up, is that while this discussion of
a potential piece, not that Putin has even agreed at
this point to meet with Zelenski, is that Putin has
ramped up the attacks on Ukraine. He is moving these
attacks in a much, a much harder way. I mean,
(05:24):
you look at the video and you're seeing building after
building being attacked, and civilian buildings. You can't argue or
he can't argue that, okay, this was a misfiring, or
we missed and somehow a straight drone hit this apartment building.
It was three or four separate drones that came in
(05:46):
and destroyed this apartment building. And five people were killed
and I don't know how many dozens were injured. And
so I don't get around, and no one is mentioning this.
I mean, everybody's walking on eggshells. No one is mentioning
that only Ukraine is going to be asked to give
up Ukrainian land. And what Putin wants is tell you
(06:12):
what I want. You give up the land, and I
want security, or Ukraine wants security that you won't attack
other parts of Ukraine or any part of Europe. Okay,
I'll make a promise that that won't happen. Although he
has broken every promise since twenty fourteen. Everyone and everybody's
(06:34):
pretending that that didn't happen. I said earlier, Why, here's
history that shows us exactly what happening. You have a
dictator that is taking land, and you give me this land,
and I promise I won't ask for any more. Nineteen
thirty eight Hitler and Czechoslovakia. Except the difference is with Czechoslovakia,
(06:57):
there was no fighting, there was no war. The Allies
just gave Hitler the su Dtan land of Czechoslovakia where
all of the industry is. By the way, the Skoda works,
which is the biggest manufacturer of arms and cars and
all kinds of heavy machinery, et cetera. It's it's it's
(07:20):
history repeating itself and just we don't learn. We just
don't learn, all right, Moving on Tesla, Tesla is looking
at a couple of big lawsuits while sales are falling,
and Tesla's future is now resting on the robo taxi
(07:43):
launch and AI in intelligence or advancements in AI. And
why is a Tesla looking at those and not just
selling cars because sales are dropping dramatically, because well, Tesla
ain't that.
Speaker 3 (07:59):
Good a car.
Speaker 2 (08:00):
I bought a Tesla, I had two weeks and I
returned it and took a huge hit. And Woody on
The Woody Show at ninety eight point seven bought.
Speaker 3 (08:13):
A Tesla and also hated it.
Speaker 2 (08:15):
There are two types of people in the world when
it comes to Tesla. One of them hate Tesla, the
other ones love Tesla.
Speaker 3 (08:24):
It's like two types of them.
Speaker 1 (08:26):
Though they're beautiful vehicles, I don't know.
Speaker 2 (08:30):
They just I think they're a little tiney. I don't
think they're that solid. I just don't like them. It's
that simple. I didn't like the drive. It's not that complicated.
But in the meantime, what's happening is the DMV is
trying to get them off the roads in California and
not sell anymore.
Speaker 3 (08:50):
In California is a huge market.
Speaker 2 (08:51):
And why is that Well, because Musk through Tesla is
advertising that it's technology is self driving, except that it's not.
Speaker 3 (09:04):
It's driver assisted.
Speaker 2 (09:05):
And they say that, but the implication is that it's
self driving, and they don't really push the driver assisted.
And what happened there was a lawsuit man, the first
one that really really hit Tesla big time, and This
one had to do with a guy who was driving
a Tesla and he was they were turning a corner
(09:29):
and it was looking at a cell phone. Because Tesla,
of course is self driving and it reads the road well.
The problem is it kept on going straight and hit
a couple of people, killing.
Speaker 3 (09:40):
The man and or the woman injuring the man seriously.
They sued big time. This is Florida.
Speaker 2 (09:49):
Now, Florida has comparative negligence like we do in California,
and a jury or a judge can award percentage of fault,
and the jury did award Tesla as the majority of fault.
The driver also is at fault because he kept on
looking at his cell phone and that's not cool and
(10:09):
he shouldn't have done that clearly. Why Because the self
driving assists that Tesla has really isn't autopilot.
Speaker 3 (10:19):
It isn't automatic.
Speaker 2 (10:21):
And so the jury hits Tesla with two hundred and
forty million dollars, which means that the other guy got
hit with what one hundred and something million dollars because
it's comparative as if he has the money.
Speaker 3 (10:33):
However, Tesla has the money.
Speaker 2 (10:37):
You talk about deep pockets, and so why is this
such a big deal because this is the first time
a jury has done this. Tesla has settled up to
this point. Does this open the floodgates? And Tesla's fay
sales are falling dramatically, and Musk comes back to Tesla
after being head of DOGE and taking out entire cabinet
(11:01):
positions or entire sections of the US government and ignoring Tesla.
Now SpaceX is still doing great, Starlink is still doing great.
I mean, the fact of his Musk is truly a
visionary there's no question about it. Is the world's richest man.
And Tesla state Tesla shares falling like crazy. Does that
really affect him? No, although there's some really good shareholder
(11:25):
suits against him. And so what's going on. You don't
buy a I don't buy a Tesla. I just don't
like the car. So it's basically a computer with four wheels.
I mean, that's it. It's not a car. And I
don't think it drives well. I don't think it corners well.
(11:46):
You close the door and there isn't that solid, heavy
thump that you would expect from a car.
Speaker 3 (11:54):
So the bottom line is the self driving.
Speaker 2 (11:57):
Aspect of Tesla really isn't self driving, although in twenty
fifteen Musk promised and said that he's right on the
verge of true self driving that you don't need a
driver there.
Speaker 3 (12:10):
Well, you do, that's for sure. Okay.
Speaker 2 (12:15):
Lawsuit has been settled, and this one is between Newsmacs
and Dominion Voting Systems and Newsmac Newsmax one on this one.
Speaker 3 (12:24):
I'll tell you why.
Speaker 2 (12:26):
It has agreed to pay sixty seven million dollars to
Dominion Voting Systems in a defamation suit.
Speaker 3 (12:31):
Over three years, I might add.
Speaker 2 (12:34):
And this is This announcement was in a filing with
US Securities and Exchange Commission the SEC in which the
two sides usually agreed to resolve the litigation. Dominion provides
voting equipment in twenty eight states, and the systems include
(12:54):
touchscreen screens and paper ballots, scanning devices and the voting
machines themselves. And Newsmax, by the way, is a one
point five billion dollar company, so it has money. And
sixty seven million dollars over three years for a company
that has this kind of income, I don't know. So
(13:16):
last September, Newsmax agreed to a settlement with another voting
machine company, Smart Mattics before a trial that was forty
million dollars.
Speaker 3 (13:25):
So here's what happened.
Speaker 2 (13:26):
In twenty twenty one, Dominion files lawsuitainst Newsmax, asking for
one point six billion, saying that statements made in Newsmacks
coverage about the election of twenty twenty were defamatory.
Speaker 3 (13:40):
It's that simple. It's that Newsmax.
Speaker 2 (13:44):
It said Dominion was part of a scheme to steal
the election, to miscount votes purposely to miss to transfer
votes that were made in favor of Trump over to
Joe Biden. Now, I mean it's crazy. They straight out
falsely claimed the election results were rigged.
Speaker 3 (14:08):
And Dominion did this.
Speaker 2 (14:10):
So at this point, we don't even know it's going
to be an on air apology or even acknowledgment that
it did anything wrong. So here's what the company says
in a statement relative to this settlement. Quote, Newsmax believed
it was critically important for the American people hear both
sides of the election disputes that arose by in twenty twenty.
(14:33):
We stand by our coverage as fair balance and conducted
within professional standards of journalism. There was not a shred
of evidence that Dominion did any of the allegations not
a shred, but Newsbacks has to prevent both present both sides.
Let me give you an example, and not that I
(14:53):
don't remember if Newsmax printed this or broadcast this. There
is a keba of Democrats that are child predators that
abuse children under the age of fourteen underneath the pizza
parlor in Chicago, and that is reported. And so we
(15:16):
whatever organization on the right who is anti Joe Biden
and pro Trump, we believe that both sides have to
be presented. You say, there isn't a cabal a group
of Democratic lawmakers that are having sex with fourteen year
(15:36):
olds at a secret location under a pizza parlor. We
have the right to put together the other side.
Speaker 3 (15:45):
Is there another side?
Speaker 2 (15:46):
There isn't a shred of evidence, and Newsbacks is saying
we have to present both sides. By the way, I'm
not alleging Newsmax said that about the pizza parlor.
Speaker 3 (15:58):
I have no idea whether it did or not.
Speaker 2 (16:02):
And the judge ruled a couple things that were not
in favor of Newsmax. For example, refused to allow the
jury to hear that Fox Fox News had paid Dominion
seven hundred and eighty seven million dollars in a settlement,
and the judge said, now you're not going to hear it.
Why because the jury may think they've already paid three
(16:24):
quarters of a billion dollars that's enough. And it's prejudicial
to the case because the law does not allow bringing
extraneous evidence into a case. It has to be looked
at just the facts in front of the jury. And
so Newsbacks immediately accused the judge of being biased and
(16:47):
said the judge is pro democratic and therefore, what's the
next step, Well, how about alleging the judge is how
about this one? The judge, okay, molests little children underneath
his courthouse. Well, we have to bring both sides to
(17:08):
that story, don't we. By the way, I'm not alleging
that that happened or Newsmax said anything about that. I'm
going to make that clear, but I think the analogy holds.
And so Newsmacks, without admitting guilt, while arguing that the
coverage of the very settlement is unfair and biased, without
(17:28):
admitting guilt, has to pay sixty seven million dollars or
agrees over three years. I don't know why Dominion allowed
that to happen. Because the judges had already rude a
ruled according to emotion. Where Newsmax says there's nothing here,
the judge says, oh, there is something here to this lawsuit,
and then went forward said this is going to be
(17:49):
set for trial, and a.
Speaker 3 (17:51):
Trial was set.
Speaker 2 (17:53):
And Newsmax could very well have been hit with malice,
which means it knew it was false, that what they
said or should have known it was false, and went
ahead and published that information, and punitive damages might get
it might hit and they would be big ones. So
(18:13):
I think Newsmax won this one. I don't know if
you've ever watched Newsmax not biased in the least is it.
Now here's the story. Boys are right up my wheelhouse.
And I'm sure as soon as Anne saw this said, oh, yeah,
this is handled. This has to do with surrogate mothers
or surrogate robots. Now I wrote the first, well certainly
(18:34):
that when I wrote my first surrogate contract in nineteen
eighty and there were exactly two of us practicing this
kind of law in the country. It was human surrogates,
of course, carrying babies for other people, pursuing into a
contract and all of that, and then I had a
surrogacy agency for a bunch of years, and at some
point science fiction was going to be there, even ivf
(18:57):
with science fiction in terms of successful births, because the
first test two baby in the world had been born
in seventy eight and I started nineteen eighty, and the
chances of having a surrogate mother carry a child in
those days was less than five percent. Today, of course,
it's a whole different world. So out of China comes
(19:18):
a surrogate robot. Now, hiring women to do this is
between one hundred and two hundred thousand dollars. That's women
who carry a child, especially if you're talking about egg donation.
According to this program Chinese program, hiring a humanoid a
robot to carry a baby's going to cost fourteen thousand dollars.
Speaker 1 (19:41):
Woo.
Speaker 2 (19:42):
That makes it affordable for virtually everybody. And so the
question is is this close? You know what, when you
think of the technology, oh and it's not bad, You go, okay, why, well,
because I've obviously embry be created and they can be inserted.
(20:02):
Now can they be inserted in a robotic uterus? How
hard is that to create? When you think of technology
and then having birth. A robot having birth, how do
you do that? How about an elevator door who opens
up and out comes the baby?
Speaker 3 (20:19):
And how does it get as nutrients? A hose.
Speaker 2 (20:24):
That's how babies get their nutrients anyway, with the umbilical cord.
So if you're talking about a robotic hose, it would
be a garden hose would work, wouldn't it where the
nutrients would come in.
Speaker 3 (20:40):
You know, this doesn't seem all that far fetched.
Speaker 2 (20:43):
Of course, it would have put me out of business,
which is why I no longer do surrogate parenting. Well,
not because of garden hoses helping people have babies, because
I just switched careers, which we talked about many times.
But this is kind of interesting, to say the least.
And when I think about the technology, it is not
(21:05):
that far fetched. It was IVF was more fi far fetched.
Organ transplants were more far fetched when you think about it.
Artificial the artificial heart, which we're right on the verge.
We've been on the verge of an artificial heart for
(21:26):
decades and decades. But you know that's gonna happen, don't you.
Robotic surrogates. Wow, I think it's gonna happen. And this
is China where things are made much less expensively. I mean,
we're going to you'll see a program where President Trump
is going to say, we have to bring robotic surrogates
(21:47):
in this country and manufacture the surrogates here, and you'll
pay a lot more money.
Speaker 3 (21:53):
Wow. What a story. What a story? All right? KF
I am sixty and listening to the Bill Handle Show.
Speaker 2 (22:01):
Catch my show Monday through Friday, six am to nine am,
and anytime on demand on the iHeartRadio app.
The Bill Handel Show News
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.