October 8, 2025 • 34 mins
Dennis A. Brennan joins to discuss his media career and the evolution of journalism. The conversation delves into the rise of biased media personalities and the decline of investigative journalism, examining the impact on public trust and the use of anonymous sources. Brennan reflects on the historical influence of media in politics and the emergence of new media outlets. The episode explores the media's role in shaping public perception and its potential link to violence, highlighting podcasts as modern archives of truth with historical parallels. Brennan's book, "DC Swamp Strikes Back," is promoted, offering further insights into these themes.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:02):
On today's episode, we're joined by author,attorney, and historian Dennis a Brennan, whose
bold new book explores the striking parallelsbetween Aaron Burr and Donald Trump.
He challenges us to rethink politicalnarratives and examine how history repeats
itself.
Get ready for a fascinating conversation.
(00:25):
The following program is part of the Patreonbroadcasting project brought to you by the
Scene Projects Podcast Network.
Welcome into this exciting episode of thePatriot Broadcasting Project.
With us today is Dennis a Brennan.
(00:45):
Dennis, welcome to the show.
Well, thank you for having me, Bubba.
I really appreciate it.
Yeah.
Well, I was a little unprepared.
I thought we were gonna do an episode of ourother show, the scene projects, which is more
focused on music and culture.
But, after being told that I had the wrongDennis Brennan, that, we we made a quick
(01:06):
changeover.
So I appreciate you being a little bit pliablefor us today, and I'm really looking forward to
hearing more about your new book and and andgetting to know you here.
So, before we get too far into everything,obviously, we're gonna talk about that book and
and helping you to promote that.
But we'd like to know a little bit of yourbackstory and, how how we got to here.
So the floor is yours, sir.
(01:27):
Sure.
Well, I've been an attorney for thirty fiveyears.
And, as part of that, I've been involved inlocal politics, state politics, helping on
campaigns, even running some of them.
So I have an interest in politics just ingeneral.
On top of that, before I went to law school andthen somewhat after, I was also a newspaper
(01:51):
reporter, edited a small community newspaper,even published a paper down the road.
So I have some interest in how the media actsand how you're supposed to act.
I, I combine both of those into this bookdealing with both Donald Trump and Aaron Burr
because of the similarities of, you know, bothhow the press acted towards both of them, how
(02:15):
history has acted towards both of them, andjust the general politics where they came from
and, you know, where they went, so to speak.
That's my background.
I'm still practicing as an attorney.
This is my first book.
Hopefully, there'll be more, but this is thefirst go around.
(02:36):
Fantastic.
And love that you kinda have a media backgroundin there as well and kind of riding that line
between the lawmakers and the the people whowho kind of publicize how it is.
Because we know in this day and age, it's soeasy to twist the story and to twist even
(02:58):
quotes these days.
Everything is taken out of context, and youhave to be so careful about who you get your
news from and and and deciphering what it isthey're actually trying to tell you.
So I'm thrilled to kinda hear your take on, allof it.
Right?
Like, what what is the media's role in, youknow, the public portrayal of happenings
(03:24):
throughout, whether it's politics or it's justthe local news and and local politics and all
the way up to the national scale.
Why would what do you think the media's role inthis is?
Is it to be a a commentator, or should it bejust to deliver the news as it is?
Yes.
It should be just to deliver the news.
(03:46):
In college, I studied journalism.
So that was my background.
I thought I would actually do that.
I am glad I really didn't do that.
But, journalism, when I the way I was taught,and this goes back to, you know, the early
eighties, you know, you had the five w's andthe one h.
So you in every story, especially in theintroduction, you're supposed to have that in
(04:10):
there or at least emphasize that.
And that's who, what, where, when, why are thefive w's, and then the one h is how.
That's what the story you're supposed to buildwhen you're writing a straight news story.
Use those, you know, words to build it out.
Somewhere along the line, journalism changed toadvocacy, what they call advocacy journalism.
(04:34):
And you can see it I first saw it at the locallevel working on political campaigns where no
matter what you did, there were certainreporters and columnists who would write things
that just were a little bit slanted.
They were trying to push their guy over thefinish line.
And that's, at the local level, and I thought,well, you know, it's local.
(04:56):
They're idiots.
Whatever.
They don't know what they're doing.
But I never realized it had gone, you know,national until, really, you know, Trump really
made it clear.
You know, when Trump came into the spotlight,they were so, you know, so far to the one side
(05:16):
against them.
No matter how you report it, it became what'sthe worst thing we can see out of this to
report?
And they were really advocating for the otherposition rather than whatever he would say.
You know, everybody that read about Trump,especially in the first term, you'd see fact
checks or just it's been debunked.
That became a new word.
(05:37):
Trump said whatever.
That's been debunked.
And I was like, where was it debunked?
I didn't read it being debunked.
So I'm no big fan of the media.
In the book, I talk about the connectionsbetween, you know, politicians, their staffs.
Many of them have left and then go on tobecome, you know, network stars.
(05:59):
George Stephanopoulos is a good example.
No journalism background whatsoever, and he'sgot one of the premier shows on the network.
You would think you'd find someone who had abackground in journalism to do that show, and
you'd hope that that person's, background wouldbe free of bias.
Like, you didn't work in the White House, forinstance.
(06:20):
And it's not only him that I listed a lot ofpeople that are involved like that.
Chuck Todd didn't even go to school forjournalism, and he had a a great premier show
on NBC, but he worked for a staff or worked onsome political campaigns.
When you do that, it's only natural.
I would do it too.
You end up slanting the news for your party,your people.
(06:43):
It's it's become that it's too hard toseparate, and they really believe they're part
of the campaign now, that they're fighting thegood fight.
Right.
They they aren't journalists.
They are media personalities.
Right?
They are, actors.
They are portrayers and who are reading from ascript.
And I've spent enough time in local newsstations to see the teleprompters and to know
(07:07):
how the game works.
And and that these people are not necessarily,investigative journalism is all but dead, I
would say, in this day and age, unless you'reindependent.
Right?
None of these major markets, they there are,you know, these major media players, The New
York Times or The Washington Post or any ofthese, you know, major conglomerate.
They have no interest any longer ininvestigative journalism.
(07:31):
They have a a financial obligation to theiradvertisers and to their business to just print
stuff that's gonna get people to read it.
And it's funny how we used to kinda laugh attabloids.
Right?
In the nineties, the tabloids and the salaciousheadlines, and they were a joke.
(07:53):
And now that's kind of become all thatjournalism is.
Right?
And not to the real journalist, but on theforward facing front of it, is it's all just a
joke.
It's all salacious headlines.
It's all clickbait.
And there isn't really a whole lot of real newsor journalism happening anymore.
At least that would be the appearance to asmall town guy like me.
(08:16):
Yeah.
I I think you're you're right on.
That's that's a big part of the problem.
And I think the excuse that they've used overthe years is, well, you have to be first.
They wanted to be first rather than right, andyou would come out with a story.
And now it's kind of gone even further whereit's your team and my team and, you know,
(08:37):
you'll you'll see certain places where alltheir sources are coming from one party or the
other, and they just buy into it.
They don't ask for any proof.
They don't, you know, they don't check it out.
There's a there's an old saying withjournalism, and, you know, it's been used a
lot.
You know, if your mother tells you she lovesyou, you know, get a second opinion, check it
(09:00):
out.
That's the rough the rough translation of it.
There's more to it, but that's and, really,that's what they should be doing, though.
You can't you can't just take, you know,someone's word for it, and you can't say, okay.
We'll we'll print that because we wanna see youdo well.
You know?
We've seen so many examples of it.
(09:21):
The Russian collusion, which now I would say isthe Russian hoax, has, you know, brought that
out with Trump for sure, where you had not onlyfirst being reported, I believe it's the New
York Times or Washington Post.
One of them won a Pulitzer for it.
It's a fake story.
You won a and that's not the first time thatthe Pulitzer award has gone on a fake story.
(09:45):
There was one years ago about some kid that wasa heroin addict at, like, 11 years old.
They did a whole piece on it.
It was all fake.
There was no heroin addict.
But that kind of diverts a little bit from thisconversation.
So it's it's a long history of, you know,rewarding bad journalism where nobody questions
(10:06):
it.
And once you have
And it degrades the the prize.
Right?
I mean, a Pulitzer, if we know that you canjust make up a fake story and and win this what
used to be a very prestigious award, right,that we have degraded all of these things that
we once held in a much higher regard.
And and it's very unfortunate because a lot of,you know, journalists work their whole lives
(10:31):
trying to, to attain that.
And now it it's been not just diluted, butcompletely denigrated to the point where I
don't I it it would almost be a a detriment toa real journalist's career to be awarded
something that has been tainted in this way.
Sure.
And I think the problem is when you when yousee, you know, the public's response to
(10:56):
journalism and the numbers are they're they'redisliked or trusted about as much as congress
is.
It's really a bad number, and that shouldn't bethe case.
You should look at it you know, journalism, weshould be able to trust what they're telling
us.
It shouldn't become what we made fun of, youknow, when I was studying it, which was really,
(11:18):
oh, what's a problem to put now in the SovietUnion?
You know, they it was all slanted towards them.
There's no there's no real story there.
It's whatever the government has told you.
They've done that so many times now that peopleI know I do it.
I I read a story and it first, I'll check,like, who's saying this?
And then I'll say, that doesn't sound right.
(11:41):
And you start to look and see, is anyone elsereporting it?
But that's not enough because The New YorkTimes reports it, and it sounds outlandish, but
they report it, and they'll say they have asource.
Then the Washington Post reports that the NewYork Times is reporting, and they'll just use
that line.
It's like, wait a minute.
You can't just copy them and say they reportedit.
(12:02):
Nobody checked it out.
So you end up with this constant everybodydoing the same story.
They're all referring to a source nobody talkedto.
And then a lot of times, it's an anonymoussource, so it could be just made up.
And, know, or at least manufactured.
What we saw with the Russian collusion, it wasmanufactured if not made up, where they just
(12:24):
created this, you know, file, the dossier, andthen all reported on it.
Well, that's not the way journalism's supposedto work.
And, unfortunately, that's why you get theselow numbers where nobody trusts the story.
And people like me and maybe others will sitthere and say, well, that's that doesn't sound
right.
Let me do my own research.
(12:46):
So I'm researching like I'm the journalist.
I've gotta find the truth somewhere in there.
Well, we don't have time to do that on everysingle story.
We all have our own lives, families, work,whatever, to be doing the work that they were
supposed to be doing in the first place.
And it's just completely devalued, thosepublications.
(13:09):
There that loss of trust, and I think they'reseeing it now.
I think you're seeing a much different tone,especially out of the New York Times, over the
last year.
And, you know, for them, it seemed like as longas the advertising money was coming in, mostly
from big pharma, I I would assume.
And so, you know, so you have this whole thiswhole machine that is running on on one side of
(13:34):
the political aisle that is only pushing thoseideas, and it happened to be some of the
largest publications in the world.
It it put us into really a a false world forthe better part of a decade, really.
I mean, you can kind of I know we're gonnapoint to, you know, Trump coming down the
escalator as kind of that point because priorto that, he was a media darling.
(13:55):
They loved him, and I loved seeing the clips ofhim on The View and him with these lady.
And now you listen to how these people talkabout him when the man never changed.
He didn't change.
They did.
And and it's so blatant to see that, and andI'm glad that we brought this over to this
network because we talk about it a lot.
We mostly focus on our local and statepolitics.
(14:18):
We've had a couple of our South Dakota staterepresentatives on.
We've had our US congressional candidate JamesBayoletta on with us to talk about these things
that we face at the local level because inSouth Dakota, there's really two major news
networks across the entire state, and thenewspapers are all owned by the same company,
and the radio stations are all owned by thesame.
(14:39):
It's very easy for them to create this feedbackloop.
And with the lack of a lot of independentmedia, there's maybe our programming and and a
newspaper called the Dakota Scout that it spunoff from the one of the major newspapers
because they were tired of not getting toreport the truth.
Right?
They were they were tired of being told, no.
(15:00):
This is the company line that you're going totow, and that's it.
And it's just it it needs to be, first of all,exposed, which I think, you know, books like
you've written now and some of these equatingit to history.
This isn't the first time we've seen somethinglike this.
So I'd love to take this opportunity to kindaget into, really what your book is about and
(15:24):
and and telling people that this isn't thefirst time that these major publications in The
United States that may have different namesnow, of course, but Mhmm.
This play is as old as our country.
It is.
And that's that's interesting.
When I started researching on the book andrealized some of the things I didn't know, and
(15:46):
even though I studied journalism, I don't knowif that's an indictment on my own ability to
educate myself or my school or, you know, justin general, maybe it's not something that was
really, taught in great detail.
But back in the days of Aaron Burr, there wassomething called the party press era where the
(16:08):
political parties or the members of the party,the the top guys, owned the newspapers.
And, obviously, you had democrat papers,republican papers.
And you didn't have the other media at thattime.
You just had newspapers.
But, yes, they were very slanted, and theywould do the same thing they're doing now.
(16:29):
So we've had a return to that time, with youjust you know, how many people will tell you
they hate CNN or they hate Fox, and you canalmost immediately say, well, I know which way
they vote.
You know?
Or or they'll just have differentunderstandings of an event that happened, and
(16:49):
it was the same way then.
So, you know, Burr had to deal with that.
One of the guys who was his, I'd say, enemy isAlexander Hamilton.
They had the duel.
Hamilton started the, New York Post.
Happens to still be around, but there were manypapers.
Hamilton had allies.
One of the guys that prosecuted Burr, Davies,had a paper out in Missouri.
(17:14):
So these papers were spread everywhere, andthey were all funded by the political parties,
which is kind of fascinating because while wemove to more supposed, capitalist ownership and
trying to make money, we still have that party,you know, influence on our media outlets.
(17:36):
I mean, Fox News really started, I think,because the other networks were slanted too far
to the left.
And Roger Ailes saw an avenue where you couldget a lot of conservatives, and they do get a
lot to watch their shows.
And I think, you know, when you when you lookat it that way, that's really not how
journalism's supposed to be, but we we see itagain now with a lot of podcasts have popped up
(18:02):
over the last five, ten years.
We've seen, you know, x.
Well, it used to be Twitter.
You know, as, Elon said, we are the we are thenews.
In some ways, that's true.
A lot of people get their news now on socialmedia, and a lot of it is being broken on
there.
Now you're you're also running in the problemof you know, on your feed, you might see
(18:25):
somebody who's just spreading total lies, butthat's not any different than what you do if
you pick up one of the major newspapers And youread it, I'll you know, I get the tribune the
Chicago Tribune delivered to my house, and I'llstart reading the story.
I'm like, where did they come up with this?
It's the opinion of the writer is in there, andthis is supposed to be a hard news story.
(18:48):
And you might not get to the real facts untilpage, you know, six where you turn it over.
And that's a problem if you're a reader, butit's not something totally new.
You know, they they had the party press there.
They got to the point where it was a littlebetter.
Journalism, I think, had improved.
Maybe the the best time for journalists was,you know, around Watergate where you actually
(19:13):
had them breaking news stories.
And when you look at, you know, a show that'sstill on sixty minutes, those that are old
enough to remember it when it started would saythat was a a hard hitting news show.
They had a lot of news stories andinvestigations and so forth.
I you know, now it's hard to watch it.
(19:34):
It's it's very biased.
And it's all hard to watch.
I I think no matter which side of the politicaleye, I don't tune I don't have cable.
I don't get any of my news from there.
I would rather watch a podcast podcast like TimPool where at least I'm being read the story.
This is the source.
This is what we're doing.
And then we're telling you that we're givingyour opinion our opinions about it.
(19:56):
And then he always makes sure to have a adiffering of opinion on there on a panel of
five people.
I I would say that the show is kinda modeledalmost around what Bill Maher show used to be.
Right?
They're a little more conservative leaning intheir views.
I would say, you know, Tim Pool is probablymore of a libertarian than anything, But you go
and look at what they say about him on leftmedia, and he's a far right extremist.
(20:20):
Right?
And you're like, no.
I listen to the man every day, and he has a lotof what you would term left wing views on
social issues and some things like that.
But you you've swung the pendulum.
And there's only so many times you can callsomeone a racist and a bigot.
And and I think that that that play is kindaworn out.
It's not working anymore.
(20:41):
The cancel culture isn't working anymore.
And now, unfortunately, it seems like the left,the far left extremists are just going to to
turn to violence.
And we've seen an increase in that over thelast several you know, the last month has been
unreal with the assassination of Charlie Kirk,with attacks on ice facilities around the, you
(21:04):
know, around the country.
And to the point where now we have NationalGuard that are being sent out in these cities
to defend people that are trying to do theirjob to get these tens of millions of illegal
aliens that were let in under a previousadministration out of our country.
I I I think that it all it all has to startfrom there.
And the way that it's all being spun in themedia and how it is and and emboldening
(21:30):
regular, you know, citizens to go out and tocommit acts as atrocious as murder is just
beyond me, and it is all fueled and driven by aa media and by news news publications that
aren't reporting on the news whatsoever.
No.
I I agree, and I do think, you know, it'sterrible.
(21:53):
Obviously, the Charlie Kirk assassinationreally hit home for a lot of a lot of viewers,
a lot of people out there because, you know, wesee it on video for one thing.
You know, he he's famous for doing thesecollege campus tours, and everything you're
doing is being videoed by your own people, butalso other people have their phones up thinking
(22:15):
they're gonna get him to say something good orbad.
And, it it's terrible when you see it, and thenyou start realizing why this, man and I'm not
gonna call him a kid because to me, that's thecop out when someone's, you know, over 20
actually, over 18.
But when you're 22, you should know better.
(22:36):
Sorry.
You don't go around shooting people.
Do you you know, because you're upset with whatthey said.
It really is an attack on freedom of speech inits worst form.
It's bad enough that you see other attempts,Donald Trump twice, you know, the idea that
they're going after some of the Supreme Courtjustices.
And it's just it it's the worst type of,assassination attempts.
(23:03):
You really you're trying to stifle theopposition, instead of not that there's a great
assassination attempt, and all these peoplehave some mental illness problem one way or the
other.
But, you know, to try to shut down free speech,it I often it doesn't work anyhow.
I mean, I don't understand how they thinktaking a gun and shooting Charlie Kirk is gonna
(23:29):
stop people from talking about the issues thatwere important to him.
No other Well,
it's terrorism.
It's it is an act of terrorism because you aretrying to silence the masses by making it very
evident that we will kill anyone who is goingto speak up and to and and what was the such a
(23:49):
shame about Charlie.
And I hope that his death, his murder onnational television and, you know, the
reverberations of that are that more peoplewant to have real conversations because that's
all he was doing.
And for people that get out and to call him allthe racist and the bigot and and all these
things I've heard is, like, you've neverwatched any of his clips from these college
(24:12):
campuses.
You've never actually listened to the man atall.
You're just parroting some narrative or you sawa clip taken out of context, and you saw that
one thing.
The man put on tens of thousands of hours ofcontent, of which I have not consumed even a
small fraction of it, but enough to know thathe was not who the left media was trying to
(24:32):
say.
And the fact that people went out not justcelebrated his death, but then rail against
their own rights to free speech with the JimmyKimmel fallout.
Nobody stopped Jimmy Kimmel from going out andsaying what he did, but there are repercussions
to those actions as well.
Your free speech is not being limited.
You had the freedom to go say what you wantedto say.
(24:53):
You said it.
Now you have repercussions of those actions.
That is much different than someone telling youthat you cannot say something or that you're
not allowed to do that.
And I think there's a huge disparity between,you know, what is free speech and what they're
terming as First Amendment right violations.
(25:14):
Right.
And I think, you know, obviously, when you whenyou kill Charlie Kirk, you're shutting down his
First Amendment rights to speak.
And, you know, the rest of us, I have seenquite a few of his, videos.
And the reason, you know, I I have a SamsungTV, and there's a network in which his podcast
plays.
(25:35):
So recently, you know, probably three weeksbefore he was killed, I had seen a lot of
those.
Also with x, a lot of them play, and, you know,it's it is exactly what you said.
People will take either snippets or more likelythey repeat what they've heard because they're
they're too lazy to look it up.
I spoke before about having to look up your youknow, when you see something, gee, is that
(25:56):
right?
Let me look it up.
Because Kirk has been called a homophobe, aracist, transphobe.
I I looked and saw on each of those issues,what he actually said, and they were not, you
know, indicative of how these people arecalling him a racist or a homophobe.
I actually, he actually defended.
(26:18):
There was a guy in one of those, college campusmeetings where, guy stood up and was railing
about gay people being within the conservativemovement.
And Kirk really just shut him down and and saidthings were like, do you wanna keep Guy Benson
(26:38):
out of the conservative movement?
Because he's gay.
Do you want and this guy in the audience says,yes.
And Kirk said, then you're not you're not aconservative.
You're not a republican.
That's not the party.
And he said, get out of here.
You know, he just pointed towards the door asif he was Ralph Cramden or something.
But it it was a good video.
(27:00):
It showed in his heart he's not a homophobe.
Now he did explain he's a Christian.
He doesn't believe you should do that, but hedoesn't think that those people shouldn't be
allowed to be part of a political party orexpress their views.
And, I think the the guy asking the questionmight have been the homophobe, but, he
certainly wasn't.
(27:20):
Same thing with those other issues.
He he wasn't racist.
And if you look at it, it's unfortunate thatpeople are able to spread those kind of lies.
I guess they did it when he was alive, andthey're doing it when he when he died also.
But it's up to everybody else to set the recordstraight.
And I think part of that is why I wrote thisbook, you know, to set the record straight.
(27:44):
It's often that, you know, you you see,newspapers, and I do have a quote in the in the
book about how newspapers are the firstrecording of history.
It's a quote that Philip Graham, who used to bethe publisher of the Washington Post said.
And it's it's true.
But then after that, history has to be written.
(28:06):
And if you sit there and allow the other theother side, I'm doing it now too, you know, if
you allow other people to decide what's true,you end up with a large group of future
populations thinking that Donald Trump wascontrolled by, you know, the Russians, that he
was a Russian asset.
There are people that still think that eventhough all the evidence shows that's not the
(28:31):
case beyond the four years, you know, aspresident where you saw nothing like that.
We now have evidence that it was all a hoax.
It was all made up by the Clinton campaign andthe Obama administration.
And it's sad, though, that the news media onall sides should be broadcasting that
everywhere, and they've kinda covered it up insome cases.
(28:54):
Well and and I've heard people talk about itthat, you know, there's there's a reason that
they they do this, and it's not for the peoplethat are here now.
It's so that ten, twenty years down the line,they can point back at all of these articles
and all of these these archives that they'vecreated of that and to go, oh, no.
Look.
He was this person when everybody who knowsbetter is dead and gone.
(29:17):
And you're using it to brainwash a futuregeneration.
And it's why books like yours and more, morearchives that tell the truth are so important.
In many ways, podcasts have become an archive.
And I think a lot of people who maybe believedwhat the left said that had the willingness to
(29:41):
challenge that idea and to go and to actuallywatch Charlie and Charlie's own words realized
and and for the first time maybe had their eyesopened up to what to what the propaganda
machine on the left side of the media isbecause everything that Charlie said is on
(30:03):
tape.
It's out there.
You can't take snippets of everything.
And if you're willing to go explore, thenyou're going to discover the truth.
And I think that's why podcasts are soimportant.
And I know now, I I think even more so howimportant they are because they are our own
archive of the truth as it was and without thespin and without the inclinations of a few
(30:29):
advertisers or, you know, whatever it may bethat drives that business and keeps these
publications afloat.
Well, that's exactly true.
And I think, you know, we touch upon that inthe book on how the media has changed.
And I think that's the the pushback that we'reseeing now with the podcast and other things.
(30:49):
With the with the book, you look at it youknow, Aaron Burr is a good example of how
history has done him wrong, basically.
And there's a few people I mean, I I startedthis book researching it because a friend of
mine wrote a book just about Aaron Burr.
And this friend happens to be a Democrat partyconsultant.
(31:11):
He's run congressional races.
Right guy.
We disagree on some political issues, but he heasked me to read it.
I did.
And a few weeks later, he came back to theoffice and said, what do you think?
And I said, well, I think I didn't know allthis about Aaron Burr, but more importantly, I
think you missed the story, how they treatedBurr is how they've treated Trump.
(31:34):
Now he didn't buy into that.
He he looked at me like I had two heads orsomething.
It is that divide between democrat andrepublican.
And, you know, I said, well, if you're notgonna correct it, then I'm going to correct it
because someone has to tell the real story.
I do believe Aaron Burr is known more you know,besides the he shot and killed Alexander
(31:58):
Hamilton in a duel that Hamilton challenged himto.
You know, there's the the burr conspiracy,which if anybody knows, it you know, we break
it down in in the book on how it really had nolegs.
It was, you know, charges against him ontreason that he actually won in court twice.
(32:18):
But for a long time, a lot of people thinkAaron Burr was a traitor.
He wasn't.
He served in the military.
He was a vice president.
He was a patriot.
But the story they tell makes him out to be thebad guy, and, you know, it has to be told
differently.
And the same thing for Donald Trump.
If we if we go on sixty years or a hundredyears, people look and go, well, Donald Trump
(32:43):
was the guy that was controlled by theRussians, and they fixed the election.
All these things that we think have beendebunked, at least at real time, will carry on
for future generations.
So that's part of why we need, you know, stuffrecorded.
We need stuff in books, where the real story istold because that that is history.
(33:08):
Incredible stuff, Dennis.
Where can people find the book now?
I'll have you plug the name and everything forus, and I I wanna thank you for your time
today.
It's been a great conversation.
Well, thank you.
The the book is called DC Swamp Strikes Back.
Aaron Burr, Donald Trump, and their SimilarBattles.
This is how it looks.
(33:29):
And, it is available on my my website, which isauthordennisbrennan.com.
It's also available in 50 other locations.
I don't know all of them, but I do know Barnesand Noble is one, and Amazon is another one.
You can get it in hard, cover paperback.
(33:51):
There's an eversion or Kindle.
So there's many ways to get it.
But the easy way is author dennisbrennan.com,and it's, on sale now.
Fantastic.
Well, Dennis, I I appreciate you taking thetime to write the book, and I appreciate you
taking a little time for us today to come onthe show as well, sir.
(34:11):
Thank you for being part of the scene.
Well, thanks for having me.
I appreciate it.
On today's episode, we're joined by author,attorney, and historian Dennis a Brennan, whose
bold new book explores the striking parallelsbetween Aaron Burr and Donald Trump.
He challenges us to rethink politicalnarratives and examine how history repeats
itself.
Get ready for a fascinating conversation.
(00:25):
The following program is part of the Patreonbroadcasting project brought to you by the
Scene Projects Podcast Network.
Welcome into this exciting episode of thePatriot Broadcasting Project.
With us today is Dennis a Brennan.
(00:45):
Dennis, welcome to the show.
Well, thank you for having me, Bubba.
I really appreciate it.
Yeah.
Well, I was a little unprepared.
I thought we were gonna do an episode of ourother show, the scene projects, which is more
focused on music and culture.
But, after being told that I had the wrongDennis Brennan, that, we we made a quick
(01:06):
changeover.
So I appreciate you being a little bit pliablefor us today, and I'm really looking forward to
hearing more about your new book and and andgetting to know you here.
So, before we get too far into everything,obviously, we're gonna talk about that book and
and helping you to promote that.
But we'd like to know a little bit of yourbackstory and, how how we got to here.
So the floor is yours, sir.
(01:27):
Sure.
Well, I've been an attorney for thirty fiveyears.
And, as part of that, I've been involved inlocal politics, state politics, helping on
campaigns, even running some of them.
So I have an interest in politics just ingeneral.
On top of that, before I went to law school andthen somewhat after, I was also a newspaper
(01:51):
reporter, edited a small community newspaper,even published a paper down the road.
So I have some interest in how the media actsand how you're supposed to act.
I, I combine both of those into this bookdealing with both Donald Trump and Aaron Burr
because of the similarities of, you know, bothhow the press acted towards both of them, how
(02:15):
history has acted towards both of them, andjust the general politics where they came from
and, you know, where they went, so to speak.
That's my background.
I'm still practicing as an attorney.
This is my first book.
Hopefully, there'll be more, but this is thefirst go around.
(02:36):
Fantastic.
And love that you kinda have a media backgroundin there as well and kind of riding that line
between the lawmakers and the the people whowho kind of publicize how it is.
Because we know in this day and age, it's soeasy to twist the story and to twist even
(02:58):
quotes these days.
Everything is taken out of context, and youhave to be so careful about who you get your
news from and and and deciphering what it isthey're actually trying to tell you.
So I'm thrilled to kinda hear your take on, allof it.
Right?
Like, what what is the media's role in, youknow, the public portrayal of happenings
(03:24):
throughout, whether it's politics or it's justthe local news and and local politics and all
the way up to the national scale.
Why would what do you think the media's role inthis is?
Is it to be a a commentator, or should it bejust to deliver the news as it is?
Yes.
It should be just to deliver the news.
(03:46):
In college, I studied journalism.
So that was my background.
I thought I would actually do that.
I am glad I really didn't do that.
But, journalism, when I the way I was taught,and this goes back to, you know, the early
eighties, you know, you had the five w's andthe one h.
So you in every story, especially in theintroduction, you're supposed to have that in
(04:10):
there or at least emphasize that.
And that's who, what, where, when, why are thefive w's, and then the one h is how.
That's what the story you're supposed to buildwhen you're writing a straight news story.
Use those, you know, words to build it out.
Somewhere along the line, journalism changed toadvocacy, what they call advocacy journalism.
(04:34):
And you can see it I first saw it at the locallevel working on political campaigns where no
matter what you did, there were certainreporters and columnists who would write things
that just were a little bit slanted.
They were trying to push their guy over thefinish line.
And that's, at the local level, and I thought,well, you know, it's local.
(04:56):
They're idiots.
Whatever.
They don't know what they're doing.
But I never realized it had gone, you know,national until, really, you know, Trump really
made it clear.
You know, when Trump came into the spotlight,they were so, you know, so far to the one side
(05:16):
against them.
No matter how you report it, it became what'sthe worst thing we can see out of this to
report?
And they were really advocating for the otherposition rather than whatever he would say.
You know, everybody that read about Trump,especially in the first term, you'd see fact
checks or just it's been debunked.
That became a new word.
(05:37):
Trump said whatever.
That's been debunked.
And I was like, where was it debunked?
I didn't read it being debunked.
So I'm no big fan of the media.
In the book, I talk about the connectionsbetween, you know, politicians, their staffs.
Many of them have left and then go on tobecome, you know, network stars.
(05:59):
George Stephanopoulos is a good example.
No journalism background whatsoever, and he'sgot one of the premier shows on the network.
You would think you'd find someone who had abackground in journalism to do that show, and
you'd hope that that person's, background wouldbe free of bias.
Like, you didn't work in the White House, forinstance.
(06:20):
And it's not only him that I listed a lot ofpeople that are involved like that.
Chuck Todd didn't even go to school forjournalism, and he had a a great premier show
on NBC, but he worked for a staff or worked onsome political campaigns.
When you do that, it's only natural.
I would do it too.
You end up slanting the news for your party,your people.
(06:43):
It's it's become that it's too hard toseparate, and they really believe they're part
of the campaign now, that they're fighting thegood fight.
Right.
They they aren't journalists.
They are media personalities.
Right?
They are, actors.
They are portrayers and who are reading from ascript.
And I've spent enough time in local newsstations to see the teleprompters and to know
(07:07):
how the game works.
And and that these people are not necessarily,investigative journalism is all but dead, I
would say, in this day and age, unless you'reindependent.
Right?
None of these major markets, they there are,you know, these major media players, The New
York Times or The Washington Post or any ofthese, you know, major conglomerate.
They have no interest any longer ininvestigative journalism.
(07:31):
They have a a financial obligation to theiradvertisers and to their business to just print
stuff that's gonna get people to read it.
And it's funny how we used to kinda laugh attabloids.
Right?
In the nineties, the tabloids and the salaciousheadlines, and they were a joke.
(07:53):
And now that's kind of become all thatjournalism is.
Right?
And not to the real journalist, but on theforward facing front of it, is it's all just a
joke.
It's all salacious headlines.
It's all clickbait.
And there isn't really a whole lot of real newsor journalism happening anymore.
At least that would be the appearance to asmall town guy like me.
(08:16):
Yeah.
I I think you're you're right on.
That's that's a big part of the problem.
And I think the excuse that they've used overthe years is, well, you have to be first.
They wanted to be first rather than right, andyou would come out with a story.
And now it's kind of gone even further whereit's your team and my team and, you know,
(08:37):
you'll you'll see certain places where alltheir sources are coming from one party or the
other, and they just buy into it.
They don't ask for any proof.
They don't, you know, they don't check it out.
There's a there's an old saying withjournalism, and, you know, it's been used a
lot.
You know, if your mother tells you she lovesyou, you know, get a second opinion, check it
(09:00):
out.
That's the rough the rough translation of it.
There's more to it, but that's and, really,that's what they should be doing, though.
You can't you can't just take, you know,someone's word for it, and you can't say, okay.
We'll we'll print that because we wanna see youdo well.
You know?
We've seen so many examples of it.
(09:21):
The Russian collusion, which now I would say isthe Russian hoax, has, you know, brought that
out with Trump for sure, where you had not onlyfirst being reported, I believe it's the New
York Times or Washington Post.
One of them won a Pulitzer for it.
It's a fake story.
You won a and that's not the first time thatthe Pulitzer award has gone on a fake story.
(09:45):
There was one years ago about some kid that wasa heroin addict at, like, 11 years old.
They did a whole piece on it.
It was all fake.
There was no heroin addict.
But that kind of diverts a little bit from thisconversation.
So it's it's a long history of, you know,rewarding bad journalism where nobody questions
(10:06):
it.
And once you have
And it degrades the the prize.
Right?
I mean, a Pulitzer, if we know that you canjust make up a fake story and and win this what
used to be a very prestigious award, right,that we have degraded all of these things that
we once held in a much higher regard.
And and it's very unfortunate because a lot of,you know, journalists work their whole lives
(10:31):
trying to, to attain that.
And now it it's been not just diluted, butcompletely denigrated to the point where I
don't I it it would almost be a a detriment toa real journalist's career to be awarded
something that has been tainted in this way.
Sure.
And I think the problem is when you when yousee, you know, the public's response to
(10:56):
journalism and the numbers are they're they'redisliked or trusted about as much as congress
is.
It's really a bad number, and that shouldn't bethe case.
You should look at it you know, journalism, weshould be able to trust what they're telling
us.
It shouldn't become what we made fun of, youknow, when I was studying it, which was really,
(11:18):
oh, what's a problem to put now in the SovietUnion?
You know, they it was all slanted towards them.
There's no there's no real story there.
It's whatever the government has told you.
They've done that so many times now that peopleI know I do it.
I I read a story and it first, I'll check,like, who's saying this?
And then I'll say, that doesn't sound right.
(11:41):
And you start to look and see, is anyone elsereporting it?
But that's not enough because The New YorkTimes reports it, and it sounds outlandish, but
they report it, and they'll say they have asource.
Then the Washington Post reports that the NewYork Times is reporting, and they'll just use
that line.
It's like, wait a minute.
You can't just copy them and say they reportedit.
(12:02):
Nobody checked it out.
So you end up with this constant everybodydoing the same story.
They're all referring to a source nobody talkedto.
And then a lot of times, it's an anonymoussource, so it could be just made up.
And, know, or at least manufactured.
What we saw with the Russian collusion, it wasmanufactured if not made up, where they just
(12:24):
created this, you know, file, the dossier, andthen all reported on it.
Well, that's not the way journalism's supposedto work.
And, unfortunately, that's why you get theselow numbers where nobody trusts the story.
And people like me and maybe others will sitthere and say, well, that's that doesn't sound
right.
Let me do my own research.
(12:46):
So I'm researching like I'm the journalist.
I've gotta find the truth somewhere in there.
Well, we don't have time to do that on everysingle story.
We all have our own lives, families, work,whatever, to be doing the work that they were
supposed to be doing in the first place.
And it's just completely devalued, thosepublications.
(13:09):
There that loss of trust, and I think they'reseeing it now.
I think you're seeing a much different tone,especially out of the New York Times, over the
last year.
And, you know, for them, it seemed like as longas the advertising money was coming in, mostly
from big pharma, I I would assume.
And so, you know, so you have this whole thiswhole machine that is running on on one side of
(13:34):
the political aisle that is only pushing thoseideas, and it happened to be some of the
largest publications in the world.
It it put us into really a a false world forthe better part of a decade, really.
I mean, you can kind of I know we're gonnapoint to, you know, Trump coming down the
escalator as kind of that point because priorto that, he was a media darling.
(13:55):
They loved him, and I loved seeing the clips ofhim on The View and him with these lady.
And now you listen to how these people talkabout him when the man never changed.
He didn't change.
They did.
And and it's so blatant to see that, and andI'm glad that we brought this over to this
network because we talk about it a lot.
We mostly focus on our local and statepolitics.
(14:18):
We've had a couple of our South Dakota staterepresentatives on.
We've had our US congressional candidate JamesBayoletta on with us to talk about these things
that we face at the local level because inSouth Dakota, there's really two major news
networks across the entire state, and thenewspapers are all owned by the same company,
and the radio stations are all owned by thesame.
(14:39):
It's very easy for them to create this feedbackloop.
And with the lack of a lot of independentmedia, there's maybe our programming and and a
newspaper called the Dakota Scout that it spunoff from the one of the major newspapers
because they were tired of not getting toreport the truth.
Right?
They were they were tired of being told, no.
(15:00):
This is the company line that you're going totow, and that's it.
And it's just it it needs to be, first of all,exposed, which I think, you know, books like
you've written now and some of these equatingit to history.
This isn't the first time we've seen somethinglike this.
So I'd love to take this opportunity to kindaget into, really what your book is about and
(15:24):
and and telling people that this isn't thefirst time that these major publications in The
United States that may have different namesnow, of course, but Mhmm.
This play is as old as our country.
It is.
And that's that's interesting.
When I started researching on the book andrealized some of the things I didn't know, and
(15:46):
even though I studied journalism, I don't knowif that's an indictment on my own ability to
educate myself or my school or, you know, justin general, maybe it's not something that was
really, taught in great detail.
But back in the days of Aaron Burr, there wassomething called the party press era where the
(16:08):
political parties or the members of the party,the the top guys, owned the newspapers.
And, obviously, you had democrat papers,republican papers.
And you didn't have the other media at thattime.
You just had newspapers.
But, yes, they were very slanted, and theywould do the same thing they're doing now.
(16:29):
So we've had a return to that time, with youjust you know, how many people will tell you
they hate CNN or they hate Fox, and you canalmost immediately say, well, I know which way
they vote.
You know?
Or or they'll just have differentunderstandings of an event that happened, and
(16:49):
it was the same way then.
So, you know, Burr had to deal with that.
One of the guys who was his, I'd say, enemy isAlexander Hamilton.
They had the duel.
Hamilton started the, New York Post.
Happens to still be around, but there were manypapers.
Hamilton had allies.
One of the guys that prosecuted Burr, Davies,had a paper out in Missouri.
(17:14):
So these papers were spread everywhere, andthey were all funded by the political parties,
which is kind of fascinating because while wemove to more supposed, capitalist ownership and
trying to make money, we still have that party,you know, influence on our media outlets.
(17:36):
I mean, Fox News really started, I think,because the other networks were slanted too far
to the left.
And Roger Ailes saw an avenue where you couldget a lot of conservatives, and they do get a
lot to watch their shows.
And I think, you know, when you when you lookat it that way, that's really not how
journalism's supposed to be, but we we see itagain now with a lot of podcasts have popped up
(18:02):
over the last five, ten years.
We've seen, you know, x.
Well, it used to be Twitter.
You know, as, Elon said, we are the we are thenews.
In some ways, that's true.
A lot of people get their news now on socialmedia, and a lot of it is being broken on
there.
Now you're you're also running in the problemof you know, on your feed, you might see
(18:25):
somebody who's just spreading total lies, butthat's not any different than what you do if
you pick up one of the major newspapers And youread it, I'll you know, I get the tribune the
Chicago Tribune delivered to my house, and I'llstart reading the story.
I'm like, where did they come up with this?
It's the opinion of the writer is in there, andthis is supposed to be a hard news story.
(18:48):
And you might not get to the real facts untilpage, you know, six where you turn it over.
And that's a problem if you're a reader, butit's not something totally new.
You know, they they had the party press there.
They got to the point where it was a littlebetter.
Journalism, I think, had improved.
Maybe the the best time for journalists was,you know, around Watergate where you actually
(19:13):
had them breaking news stories.
And when you look at, you know, a show that'sstill on sixty minutes, those that are old
enough to remember it when it started would saythat was a a hard hitting news show.
They had a lot of news stories andinvestigations and so forth.
I you know, now it's hard to watch it.
(19:34):
It's it's very biased.
And it's all hard to watch.
I I think no matter which side of the politicaleye, I don't tune I don't have cable.
I don't get any of my news from there.
I would rather watch a podcast podcast like TimPool where at least I'm being read the story.
This is the source.
This is what we're doing.
And then we're telling you that we're givingyour opinion our opinions about it.
(19:56):
And then he always makes sure to have a adiffering of opinion on there on a panel of
five people.
I I would say that the show is kinda modeledalmost around what Bill Maher show used to be.
Right?
They're a little more conservative leaning intheir views.
I would say, you know, Tim Pool is probablymore of a libertarian than anything, But you go
and look at what they say about him on leftmedia, and he's a far right extremist.
(20:20):
Right?
And you're like, no.
I listen to the man every day, and he has a lotof what you would term left wing views on
social issues and some things like that.
But you you've swung the pendulum.
And there's only so many times you can callsomeone a racist and a bigot.
And and I think that that that play is kindaworn out.
It's not working anymore.
(20:41):
The cancel culture isn't working anymore.
And now, unfortunately, it seems like the left,the far left extremists are just going to to
turn to violence.
And we've seen an increase in that over thelast several you know, the last month has been
unreal with the assassination of Charlie Kirk,with attacks on ice facilities around the, you
(21:04):
know, around the country.
And to the point where now we have NationalGuard that are being sent out in these cities
to defend people that are trying to do theirjob to get these tens of millions of illegal
aliens that were let in under a previousadministration out of our country.
I I I think that it all it all has to startfrom there.
And the way that it's all being spun in themedia and how it is and and emboldening
(21:30):
regular, you know, citizens to go out and tocommit acts as atrocious as murder is just
beyond me, and it is all fueled and driven by aa media and by news news publications that
aren't reporting on the news whatsoever.
No.
I I agree, and I do think, you know, it'sterrible.
(21:53):
Obviously, the Charlie Kirk assassinationreally hit home for a lot of a lot of viewers,
a lot of people out there because, you know, wesee it on video for one thing.
You know, he he's famous for doing thesecollege campus tours, and everything you're
doing is being videoed by your own people, butalso other people have their phones up thinking
(22:15):
they're gonna get him to say something good orbad.
And, it it's terrible when you see it, and thenyou start realizing why this, man and I'm not
gonna call him a kid because to me, that's thecop out when someone's, you know, over 20
actually, over 18.
But when you're 22, you should know better.
(22:36):
Sorry.
You don't go around shooting people.
Do you you know, because you're upset with whatthey said.
It really is an attack on freedom of speech inits worst form.
It's bad enough that you see other attempts,Donald Trump twice, you know, the idea that
they're going after some of the Supreme Courtjustices.
And it's just it it's the worst type of,assassination attempts.
(23:03):
You really you're trying to stifle theopposition, instead of not that there's a great
assassination attempt, and all these peoplehave some mental illness problem one way or the
other.
But, you know, to try to shut down free speech,it I often it doesn't work anyhow.
I mean, I don't understand how they thinktaking a gun and shooting Charlie Kirk is gonna
(23:29):
stop people from talking about the issues thatwere important to him.
No other Well,
it's terrorism.
It's it is an act of terrorism because you aretrying to silence the masses by making it very
evident that we will kill anyone who is goingto speak up and to and and what was the such a
(23:49):
shame about Charlie.
And I hope that his death, his murder onnational television and, you know, the
reverberations of that are that more peoplewant to have real conversations because that's
all he was doing.
And for people that get out and to call him allthe racist and the bigot and and all these
things I've heard is, like, you've neverwatched any of his clips from these college
(24:12):
campuses.
You've never actually listened to the man atall.
You're just parroting some narrative or you sawa clip taken out of context, and you saw that
one thing.
The man put on tens of thousands of hours ofcontent, of which I have not consumed even a
small fraction of it, but enough to know thathe was not who the left media was trying to
(24:32):
say.
And the fact that people went out not justcelebrated his death, but then rail against
their own rights to free speech with the JimmyKimmel fallout.
Nobody stopped Jimmy Kimmel from going out andsaying what he did, but there are repercussions
to those actions as well.
Your free speech is not being limited.
You had the freedom to go say what you wantedto say.
(24:53):
You said it.
Now you have repercussions of those actions.
That is much different than someone telling youthat you cannot say something or that you're
not allowed to do that.
And I think there's a huge disparity between,you know, what is free speech and what they're
terming as First Amendment right violations.
(25:14):
Right.
And I think, you know, obviously, when you whenyou kill Charlie Kirk, you're shutting down his
First Amendment rights to speak.
And, you know, the rest of us, I have seenquite a few of his, videos.
And the reason, you know, I I have a SamsungTV, and there's a network in which his podcast
plays.
(25:35):
So recently, you know, probably three weeksbefore he was killed, I had seen a lot of
those.
Also with x, a lot of them play, and, you know,it's it is exactly what you said.
People will take either snippets or more likelythey repeat what they've heard because they're
they're too lazy to look it up.
I spoke before about having to look up your youknow, when you see something, gee, is that
(25:56):
right?
Let me look it up.
Because Kirk has been called a homophobe, aracist, transphobe.
I I looked and saw on each of those issues,what he actually said, and they were not, you
know, indicative of how these people arecalling him a racist or a homophobe.
I actually, he actually defended.
(26:18):
There was a guy in one of those, college campusmeetings where, guy stood up and was railing
about gay people being within the conservativemovement.
And Kirk really just shut him down and and saidthings were like, do you wanna keep Guy Benson
(26:38):
out of the conservative movement?
Because he's gay.
Do you want and this guy in the audience says,yes.
And Kirk said, then you're not you're not aconservative.
You're not a republican.
That's not the party.
And he said, get out of here.
You know, he just pointed towards the door asif he was Ralph Cramden or something.
But it it was a good video.
(27:00):
It showed in his heart he's not a homophobe.
Now he did explain he's a Christian.
He doesn't believe you should do that, but hedoesn't think that those people shouldn't be
allowed to be part of a political party orexpress their views.
And, I think the the guy asking the questionmight have been the homophobe, but, he
certainly wasn't.
(27:20):
Same thing with those other issues.
He he wasn't racist.
And if you look at it, it's unfortunate thatpeople are able to spread those kind of lies.
I guess they did it when he was alive, andthey're doing it when he when he died also.
But it's up to everybody else to set the recordstraight.
And I think part of that is why I wrote thisbook, you know, to set the record straight.
(27:44):
It's often that, you know, you you see,newspapers, and I do have a quote in the in the
book about how newspapers are the firstrecording of history.
It's a quote that Philip Graham, who used to bethe publisher of the Washington Post said.
And it's it's true.
But then after that, history has to be written.
(28:06):
And if you sit there and allow the other theother side, I'm doing it now too, you know, if
you allow other people to decide what's true,you end up with a large group of future
populations thinking that Donald Trump wascontrolled by, you know, the Russians, that he
was a Russian asset.
There are people that still think that eventhough all the evidence shows that's not the
(28:31):
case beyond the four years, you know, aspresident where you saw nothing like that.
We now have evidence that it was all a hoax.
It was all made up by the Clinton campaign andthe Obama administration.
And it's sad, though, that the news media onall sides should be broadcasting that
everywhere, and they've kinda covered it up insome cases.
(28:54):
Well and and I've heard people talk about itthat, you know, there's there's a reason that
they they do this, and it's not for the peoplethat are here now.
It's so that ten, twenty years down the line,they can point back at all of these articles
and all of these these archives that they'vecreated of that and to go, oh, no.
Look.
He was this person when everybody who knowsbetter is dead and gone.
(29:17):
And you're using it to brainwash a futuregeneration.
And it's why books like yours and more, morearchives that tell the truth are so important.
In many ways, podcasts have become an archive.
And I think a lot of people who maybe believedwhat the left said that had the willingness to
(29:41):
challenge that idea and to go and to actuallywatch Charlie and Charlie's own words realized
and and for the first time maybe had their eyesopened up to what to what the propaganda
machine on the left side of the media isbecause everything that Charlie said is on
(30:03):
tape.
It's out there.
You can't take snippets of everything.
And if you're willing to go explore, thenyou're going to discover the truth.
And I think that's why podcasts are soimportant.
And I know now, I I think even more so howimportant they are because they are our own
archive of the truth as it was and without thespin and without the inclinations of a few
(30:29):
advertisers or, you know, whatever it may bethat drives that business and keeps these
publications afloat.
Well, that's exactly true.
And I think, you know, we touch upon that inthe book on how the media has changed.
And I think that's the the pushback that we'reseeing now with the podcast and other things.
(30:49):
With the with the book, you look at it youknow, Aaron Burr is a good example of how
history has done him wrong, basically.
And there's a few people I mean, I I startedthis book researching it because a friend of
mine wrote a book just about Aaron Burr.
And this friend happens to be a Democrat partyconsultant.
(31:11):
He's run congressional races.
Right guy.
We disagree on some political issues, but he heasked me to read it.
I did.
And a few weeks later, he came back to theoffice and said, what do you think?
And I said, well, I think I didn't know allthis about Aaron Burr, but more importantly, I
think you missed the story, how they treatedBurr is how they've treated Trump.
(31:34):
Now he didn't buy into that.
He he looked at me like I had two heads orsomething.
It is that divide between democrat andrepublican.
And, you know, I said, well, if you're notgonna correct it, then I'm going to correct it
because someone has to tell the real story.
I do believe Aaron Burr is known more you know,besides the he shot and killed Alexander
(31:58):
Hamilton in a duel that Hamilton challenged himto.
You know, there's the the burr conspiracy,which if anybody knows, it you know, we break
it down in in the book on how it really had nolegs.
It was, you know, charges against him ontreason that he actually won in court twice.
(32:18):
But for a long time, a lot of people thinkAaron Burr was a traitor.
He wasn't.
He served in the military.
He was a vice president.
He was a patriot.
But the story they tell makes him out to be thebad guy, and, you know, it has to be told
differently.
And the same thing for Donald Trump.
If we if we go on sixty years or a hundredyears, people look and go, well, Donald Trump
(32:43):
was the guy that was controlled by theRussians, and they fixed the election.
All these things that we think have beendebunked, at least at real time, will carry on
for future generations.
So that's part of why we need, you know, stuffrecorded.
We need stuff in books, where the real story istold because that that is history.
(33:08):
Incredible stuff, Dennis.
Where can people find the book now?
I'll have you plug the name and everything forus, and I I wanna thank you for your time
today.
It's been a great conversation.
Well, thank you.
The the book is called DC Swamp Strikes Back.
Aaron Burr, Donald Trump, and their SimilarBattles.
This is how it looks.
(33:29):
And, it is available on my my website, which isauthordennisbrennan.com.
It's also available in 50 other locations.
I don't know all of them, but I do know Barnesand Noble is one, and Amazon is another one.
You can get it in hard, cover paperback.
(33:51):
There's an eversion or Kindle.
So there's many ways to get it.
But the easy way is author dennisbrennan.com,and it's, on sale now.
Fantastic.
Well, Dennis, I I appreciate you taking thetime to write the book, and I appreciate you
taking a little time for us today to come onthe show as well, sir.
(34:11):
Thank you for being part of the scene.
Well, thanks for having me.
I appreciate it.
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.
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