July 9, 2025 • 61 mins
Democracy hangs in the balance as American institutions face unprecedented challenges. In this gripping examination of contemporary crises, Darrell McClain takes listeners through the devastating Camp Mystic flood tragedy in Texas that claimed over 100 lives, revealing both the heroism of everyday Americans and the systemic failures that made this disaster worse than it should have been.
The episode moves beyond partisan responses to tragedy, urging a return to our shared humanity. "Mourning is not a political act," McClain reminds us, pushing back against the reflexive grabbing of talking points and hashtags that too often replaces genuine grief and substantive action.
From Texas floodwaters, the conversation shifts to Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson's emerging role as the Supreme Court's most independent voice. Her blistering dissents on executive power—warning that "our beloved constitutional republic will be no more" if current trends continue—have provoked unprecedented pushback from other justices. McClain contextualizes these judicial battles as fundamental to the separation of powers that protects American democracy.
Most urgently, the episode confronts the administration's threats to prosecute CNN for standard journalism—a precedent that would fundamentally alter press freedom in America. Drawing historical comparisons to previous attempts to silence media critics, McClain warns: "When truth becomes a crime, we all eventually become criminals." This isn't merely about defending one news outlet but preserving the constitutional cornerstone that enables all other freedoms.
Through these interconnected crises, the episode delivers a powerful message: democracy requires more than voting; it demands our constant vigilance, civic courage, and willingness to stand for constitutional principles even when—especially when—doing so isn't politically convenient.
Are you ready to move beyond partisan talking points and engage with the substantive threats facing American democracy? Listen now to understand what's truly at stake and how we might still preserve our constitutional republic for future generations.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome to the Darrell McLean Show.
I'm your host, darrell McLean.
Independent media that won'treinforce tribalism.
We have one planet.
Nobody is leaving, so let usreason together.
We're coming together onepisode 463.
Let's get into our episode.
I woke up this morning withTexas heavy on my heart.
Another tragedy, anotherheadline, another moment where
(00:23):
we're forced to ask ourselveswhat exactly are we doing here?
Texas is supposed to be asymbol of big skies, big dreams,
big courage, but today it's aplace marked by loss, by grief
and by a familiar questionechoing across living rooms
since sanctuary pulpits alikewhy see when?
(00:45):
See when tragedy strikes,whether it's a mass shooting, a
deadly heat wave, a migrantcrisis at the border or
environmental disaster, we rushto our corners.
We grab our talking points, ourhashtags, our politics, but we
rarely grab our humanity.
We forget that behind everystatistic is a mother who will
(01:06):
never tuck her child in again, afather who can't walk his
daughter down the aisle, afriend who will never hear that
laugh one more time.
The prophets in scripture neverhesitated to speak truth to
power.
They didn't mince words.
Amos cried a gallant againstinjustice at the gates.
Micah told us that the Lordrequires to act justly, to love
(01:32):
mercy and to walk humbly withGod.
But somehow in modern America,and especially in the hearts of
Texas, justice too quickly hasbecome a partisan slogan.
Mercy is viewed as weakness andhumility has become a partisan
slogan.
Mercy is viewed as weakness andhumility.
Well, that's a virtue we tradedin for cheap bravado a very
(01:53):
long time ago.
I don't know who needs to hearthis today, but mourning is not
a political act.
Mourning is a deeply human act,and if we can't pause long
enough to sit in the ashes witheach other, to truly grieve,
truly listen, then it doesn'tmatter how many flags we wave or
how many prayers we tweet.
We will keep repeating thiscycle until our souls go numb.
So today I don't have any realpolicy solutions in my pocket,
(02:19):
but I do have a plea Don't lookaway, don't numb out, don't let
tragedy just become anotherheadline.
You scroll past on the way toyour favorite sports highlight
or celebrity gospel.
As much as it hurts, sit withit, feel with it and let it move
you to action, real,compassionate, collective action
, because Texas and all of usdeserve more than empty thoughts
(02:44):
and prayers.
We deserve a future where thesetragedies don't keep replaying
on an endless loop, and thefuture that starts this.
We decide that each lifematters enough to change our
hearts and to change our system.
So let's get into this episodeabout what happened in Texas
(03:08):
this week.
So here's it.
We have to come today with ourheavy hearts because the tragedy
that struck in Texas that hasleft me breathless while I'm
grieving with these families andasking questions that I don't
have easy answers to.
Over a hundred lives were lostthis week, with floodwaters
(03:32):
ripping through Camp Mystic, aChristian girl's summer camp
nestled by Gillip River.
In a matter of minutes, whatwas meant to be a week of
worship songs, late nightwhispers under the stars and
joyful summer memories turnedinto an unspeakable nightmare.
Among the victims were younggirls just starting to dream,
(03:55):
counselors who dedicated theirsummer to guiding and protecting
, and even leaders like thedirector, dick Eastland, who
lost his life trying to saveothers.
It's the kind of story thatmakes you clutch your children a
little tighter and makes youcall your loved ones just to
hear their voice.
But beyond the headlines, beyondthe numbers, there's something
(04:15):
deeper we have to talk abouttoday, because every tragedy,
especially one on this scale,it's a mirror and it shows us
who we really are.
First, we see the raw beauty ofhumanity Young counselors
writing young children's nameson their arms, with shoppies so
they wouldn't be lost in thechaos.
(04:35):
Rescue swimmers diving intoraging waters without hesitation
, parents driving through thenight praying for a miracle.
In these moments you see cursethat humbles you to your knees.
But then there's the other sideof that mirror, a side that
asks why weren't the properwarning systems in place?
Why do we continue to build andgather in flood zones without
(04:57):
enough protection?
Why do our governments alwaysseem ready to send thoughts and
prayers but slow to sendresources and reform?
We talk so much in this countryabout American exceptionalism,
this idea that we are somehowuniquely blessed, set apart,
chosen, and yet, time and timeagain, we fail to protect the
very people we claim to cherishthe most our children, our
(05:21):
future.
Isaiah said woe to those whomake unjust laws, to those who
issue oppressive decrees.
Amos told us to let justiceroll on like a river,
righteousness never failingstream.
So this is not enough for us tomourn.
We are called to change, we arecalled to build a society where
(05:45):
safety isn't a privilege, butsafety becomes a promise.
And to those families in Texaswe see you, we grieve with you,
we stand ready to walk besideyou in this valley.
You are not alone.
To all my listeners, let thisnot just be another tragic
headline we stroll past.
Let this be a call to demandaction, demand better
(06:12):
infrastructure, demandaccountability, support those
who are rebuilding and grievingand, above all, remember
community isn't just aboutsomething we talk about in our
churches, in our coffee shops oron social media.
It's something we live,something we protect and
something we choose every singleday.
And you can give money, giveyour voice if you can't give
(06:36):
money.
Share their stories, pray withintention, show up in ways that
matter.
Let's briefly talk about whatwe do know.
A flash flood struck early July4th near the river at Camp
Mystic, a woman's Christiansummer camp in Care County,
(06:57):
texas.
An astonishing amount of rainover 20 inches in just a few
hours caused the river to riseroughly to 26 to 29 feet in just
45 minutes, unleashing a wallof water in the dead of night.
So far, at least 118 peoplehave died, including 27 campers
(07:18):
and counselors at Camp Mystic,with at least 180 people still
missing, with at least 180people still missing.
Among the victims are twinsisters, hannah and Rebecca,
both eight and belovedcounselors, coyle Childress, 18,
alongside the director, chrisEastland, who died trying to
(07:40):
save campers.
Camp videos just hours beforethe show before show girls
dancing, playing, laughing justa chilling contrast to what
(08:00):
happened a few minutes later.
A Coast Guard rescue swimmerand team counselor who had just
started his job it was his firstever mission saved dozens
Writing names of campers on hisarms, with shoppies for
identification.
During the rescue mission,director Dick Eastland, in a
full dedication, died rushing toaid campers.
(08:22):
People have described him asembodying a strong Christian man
and a protector.
Warning systems and the officialresponses seem to have failed
us.
Flood warnings were issued daysprior, so from July 2nd to the
3rd, but Kerr County lacked aformal early warning system.
(08:46):
Some families received nothingbefore the disaster struck.
Texas Governor Abbott hasdeclared a disaster, committed
to rescue efforts and speciallegislative session is in the
works to review emergencypreparedness view, emergency
(09:07):
preparedness, federal response.
President Trump and Melaniaplan to visit and the president
signed a major disasterdeclaration and pause FEMA's
scaling rhetoric amidst callsfor federal support.
Why this happens to matter isobviously the scale of loss,
with over 100 lives gone,including dozens of children and
(09:27):
young women, leaves families,communities and faith
congregations shattered, evenhistorically safe places like a
Christian summer camp can becatastrophically vulnerable
without a robust warninginfrastructure.
Stories of brave campers,counselors, rescuers and staff
like Eastland showcase thissacrificial love that often
(09:49):
emerges in disaster.
This disaster directly impactsspiritual communities.
Circles of prayer, mourning andinspected faiths are
intertwined in this response.
This moment, even though itturned political, almost
immediately calls us to acollective response, a
(10:11):
collective prayer, collectivepresence and personful giving as
families navigate this profoundgrief.
Communities must start tochampion better warning systems,
flood mitigation and fasteralerts in high-risk zones.
We have to remember the lives,keeping alive stories of Hannah,
cole, dick and countless others, and this is the only thing we
(10:35):
can do in this moment, inhonoring both the loss and the
love.
Like I said before, we don'twant this to just become another
news cycle.
It's a stark reminder that noplace is too sacred or secure
for tragedy.
Yet, amid our sorrow, our faithinvites us to respond not with
(10:57):
despair but with presence, butwith hope, accountability and
justice.
We remember the loss, we praywith the living and we commit to
building systems community,spiritually and civically that
refuse to let these catastrophescontinue over and over and over
(11:20):
again.
Speaker 2 (11:21):
We'll be right back with more and Zach Schoenfeld To
hear Justice Ketanji BrownJackson tell it over again.
We'll be right back in themorning of unevenly applying the
(11:41):
law, even if it meant standingon her own from the court's
other liberal justices.
Jackson has had an independentstreak since President Biden
nominated her to the bench in2022.
But the dynamic has intensifiedthis term, especially as
litigation over PresidentTrump's sweeping agenda reached
the court.
It climaxed with her finaldissent of decision season, when
(12:04):
Jackson accused her fellowjustices of decision season,
when Jackson accused her fellowjustices of helping Trump
threaten the rule of law at amoment they should be hunkering
down.
It is not difficult to predicthow this all ends, jackson wrote
.
Eventually, executive powerwill become completely
uncontainable and our belovedconstitutional republic will be
no more.
Her stark warning came asTrump's birthright citizenship
(12:32):
order split the court on its sixto three ideological lines,
with all threeDemocratic-appointed justices
dissenting from the decision tolimit nationwide injunctions.
Jackson bounded farther thanher two liberal colleagues,
writing in a blistering solocritique that said the court was
embracing Trump's apparentrequest for permission to engage
in unlawful behavior.
(12:52):
The decision amounts to anexistential threat to the rule
of law, she said.
It was not the first timeJackson's fellow liberal
justices left her out in thecold.
She has been writing solodissents since her first full
term on the bench.
Jackson did so again in anothercase last month when the court
revived the energy industry'seffort to axe California's
(13:15):
stricter car emissions standard.
Jackson accused her peers ofruling inequitably.
This case gives fodder to theunfortunate perception that
moneyed interests enjoy aneasier road to relief in this
court than ordinary citizens.
Jackson wrote Because the courthad ample opportunity to avoid
that result.
I respectfully dissent Ratherthan join Justice Sonia
(13:39):
Sotomayor's dissent that forwentsuch fiery language.
Jackson chose to pen her owndissent that forwent such fiery
language.
Jackson chose to pen her own.
The duo frequently agrees.
They were on the same side in94% of cases this term,
according to data from Scott USBlog, more than any other pair,
(13:59):
except for Justices ClarenceThomas and Samuel Alito, the
court's two leadingconservatives.
Sometimes Sotomayor signs on toJackson's piercing dissents,
including when she last monthcondemned the court's emergency
order allowing the Department ofGovernment Efficiency to access
Americans' social security data.
The court is therebyunfortunately suggesting that
what would be an extraordinaryrequest for everyone else is
(14:22):
nothing more than an ordinaryday on the docket for this
administration.
I would proceed without fear orfavor, jackson wrote, but it
appears there are rhetoricallines the most senior liberal
justice will not cross Inanother case regarding
disability claims.
Sotomayor signed onto portionsof Jackson's dissent but
(14:42):
rejected a footnote in whichJackson slammed the majority's
textualism as somehow alwaysflexible enough to secure the
majority's desired outcome.
Pure textualism's refusal totry to understand the text of a
statute in the larger context ofwhat Congress sought to achieve
turns the interpretive taskinto a potent weapon for
(15:03):
advancing judicial policypreferences.
The most junior justice wrote,refusing to remove the footnote
from her dissent.
Jackson's colleagues do not seeit that way.
It is your job to do the legalanalysis to the best you can.
Chief Justice John Roberts tolda crowd of lawyers at a
judicial conference last weekend, rejecting the notion that his
(15:25):
decisions are driven by thereal-world consequences.
If it leads to someextraordinarily improbable
result, then you want to go backand take another look at it,
roberts continued.
But I do not start from whatthe result looks like and go
backwards.
Though Roberts was notreferencing Jackson's recent
dissents, her willingness tocall out her peers has not gone
(15:47):
unaddressed.
Jackson's dissent in thebirthright citizenship case
earned a rare, mercilesssmackdown from Justice Amy Coney
Barrett, co-signed by thecourt's conservative majority.
Replying to Jackson's remarkthat everyone from the president
on down is bound by law,barrett turned that script into
her own punchline.
(16:08):
That goes for judges too.
The most junior conservativejustice clapped back, deriding
Jackson's argument as extreme.
Barrett said her dissentingopinion ran afoul of centuries
of precedent and theConstitution itself.
We observe only this Justice.
Jackson decries an imperialexecutive while embracing an
(16:30):
imperial judiciary.
Barrett wrote the piercingrebuke was a staunch departure
from the usually restrainedwriting of the self-described
one jalapeno gal.
That is compared to the fivejalapeno rhetoric of the late
Justice Antonin Scalia.
Barrett said the lateconservative icon for whom she
clerked.
(16:50):
On today's court it is oftenThomas who brings some of the
most scathing critiques ofJackson, perhaps most notably
when the two took diametricallyopposite views of affirmative
action.
Two years ago, page after page,thomas ripped into Jackson's
defense of race-consciouscollege admissions, accusing her
of labeling all blacks asvictims.
(17:12):
Her desire to do so isunfathomable to me.
I cannot deny the greataccomplishments of black
Americans, including those whosucceeded despite long odds.
Thomas wrote in a concurringopinion.
It is not Thomas's practice toannounce his separate opinions
from the bench, but that day hesaid he felt compelled to do so
(17:33):
as he read it aloud from thebench for 11 minutes.
Jackson stared blankly aheadinto the courtroom.
Jackson's boldness comes acrossnot only in the court's
decision-making.
At oral arguments this term shespoke 50% more than any other
justice.
She embraces her openness.
She told a crowd in May, whileaccepting an award named after
(17:54):
former President Truman, thatshe liked to think it was
because they both share the sametrait Bravery.
I am also told that some peoplethink I am courageous for the
ways in which I engage.
Jackson said.
Speaker 1 (18:19):
If the truth is a crime, then we are all criminals
, because silence is whattyranny depends on.
Now that President Trump hasthreatened to prosecute CNN,
what happens next will definethe role of the press and, I
dare say, the soul of the nation.
Soul of the nation.
(18:44):
History rarely announces itself.
It creeps in quietly, cloakedin the language of law and order
, national security andpatriotism.
But every now and then, historyscreams for us.
Last week it screamed.
President Donald Trump, nowseated once again behind the
Resolute Desk, and his HomelandSecurity Secretary, kristi Noem,
have openly threatened CNN withcriminal prosecution for
(19:07):
reporting on the existence andthe use of an app called
IceBlock.
Now, iceblock alertsundocumented immigrants about
the nearby immigrationsEnforcement of ICE operations.
This app, which is publiclyavailable and the reporting
around it likewise rooted inpublic records, is suddenly
(19:30):
being framed as a nationalsecurity threat.
Let's be clear about what'shappening.
About what's happening thePresident of the United States
and his administration arethreatening to jail journalists
for doing their jobs.
This isn't just anauthoritarian flirtation.
(19:52):
It's a shot across the bow ofour American Republic and it
should chill every citizen whostill believes in a sacred
protection of the FirstAmendment and the role of the
press in our constitutionalrepublic.
There is a reason.
The founders placed freedom ofthe press at the very very first
(20:14):
of its concerns by putting itin the First Amendment, they
understood that tyranny doesn'tannounce itself with tanks in
the streets, although thePresident has brought us that
too in DC and Los Angeles.
It begins with dissent, silenceand truth becomes optional when
(20:36):
the government gains the powerto determine what is and wasn't
acceptable Journalism, ourcitizens, monitoring of
government actions.
Democracy doesn't just wobble,it collapses.
We have seen this before.
In the 1970s, richard Nixoncompiled an enemies list,
(21:01):
weaponizing the IRS and the FBIagainst journalists and
political opponents.
But even Nixon, as infamous ashe was, never dared to prosecute
a major news network forreporting publicly available
facts or proudly announcingcriminal investigations of
individuals monitoring thepolice.
(21:23):
In 1917, woodrow Wilson signedthe Espionage Act into law, a
piece of legislation later usedto imprison dissenters and
suppress anti-war journalistsduring World War I.
Senator Bernie Sanders' hero,the democratic socialist eugene
debs, was actually thrown intoprison for protesting our
(21:46):
involvement in world war one,and eugene debs went on to run
for president in 1920 from hisjail cell.
In 1950s, mccarthyist americajournalists who didn't toe the
anti-communist line wereblacklisted, surveilled and
driven from their careers.
(22:07):
Historians and even high schoolhistory class correctly
identify Wilson's and McCarthy'sexcessive as a terrible moment
in our past, moments that shouldnever be repeated.
Moment in our past, momentsthat should never be repeated.
But now, in 2025, we arerevisiting that time with a best
(22:29):
a beast entirely a populistauthoritarian with an open
content for the constitutionalconstraints, embodied by a cult
of personality and empowered bysix of his lot of appointed
republicans on the supreme courtthat have told him he is immune
(22:53):
and that he can basicallyopenly commit crimes without any
fear of prosecution.
Combining, combining, thiscrisis of democracy is a
billionaire-owned mediaecosystem that no longer even
pretends to tell the truth.
President Donald Trump is notunique in history, but the
(23:16):
confluence of power, propagandaand a post-truth politics have
embodied is dangerouslyunprecedented in America.
The most terrifying part ofthis episode when Trump versus
CNN is not that Trump isthreatening CNN.
It's that every other newsroomin America is now taking notice
(23:41):
and, unfortunately, some areimmediately bending the knee.
For example, cbs News presidentDavid Ellison, the son of the
billionaire MAGA.
Larry Ellison reportedly justgave $15 million to a Trump and
promised, according to Trumphimself, another $15 million in
(24:03):
a nationwide free advertisementfor the MAGA message.
When a president targets a mediaoutlet for reporting on a
publicly available app, arequoting anonymous officials.
The effect isn't just thatoutlet.
It reverberates through everyeditorial board, every
reporter's notebook, everynewsroom's budget meeting,
(24:26):
because they ask themselvesshould we cover the story or
will we get sued?
Will our reporters getsubpoenaed?
Is it worth the cost, risk oreven the hassle?
That is a chilling effect in anation of exactly what
authoritarians want.
That is a chilling effect in anation of exactly what
authoritarians want.
It's exactly what dictators get.
They don't need to jail everyjournalist or even prosecute the
(24:50):
opposition politicians.
For example, there are onlyactually around 1,500 political
prisoners in Russia, in acountry with a population of 143
million.
That's all Putin needed to cowthe press and his political
(25:12):
opposition and the people in thestreets into silence.
Ask the journalist activists inMexico, where the threats of
violence have silenced entirenewspapers.
Back to Russia, where one lawcriminalized the reporting of
the word war the word war todescribe the Ukrainian invasion
and the entire nation's pressimmediately bent the knee.
Or let's go to Hungary, whereViktor Orban turned independent
(25:33):
press outlets into intogovernment mouthpieces.
It always starts the same exactway, without exceptions
Investigations, nationalsecurity and fake news Sound
familiar, so let's talk aboutwhat CNN actually reported.
The so-called Iceblock app wasnot a secret Pentagon tool.
(25:56):
It's publicly downloadable.
It informs undocumentedimmigrants, many of whom have
lived and worked in the UnitedStates for decades, about where
ICE raids might be happening.
You know the exact same way.
Waze tells drivers where policespeed traps are.
On internal US governmentdiscussions about military
(26:23):
options in Iran, again based oninformation already circulating
through DC and partially leakedby officials themselves.
It was nothing that would haveshocked the Ayatollah, but the
president of the United Statessaw a headline he didn't like,
and Noem saw a politicalopportunity to play tough cop on
immigration.
So now, instead of debatingimmigration policy, our Middle
(26:46):
East strategy, we're talkingabout jailing journalists and
suing news outlets.
Let me repeat jailingjournalists, not pressuring them
, not criticizing them.
Prosecuting them, themprosecuting them.
Now, here's the thing.
All Trump's needs is a fewambitious prosecutors, a
(27:12):
distracted electorate and amedia too scared or too worried
about this and it's the bottomline and they will stop fighting
back.
That is authoritarian in adesigner suit, and it's already
here.
Right-wing billionaires havealready bought up local
newspapers and radio stations,converting once-independent
(27:37):
media voices into megaphones formega or right-wing talking
points.
Citizen journalists on socialmedia.
Russian troll farms pairconspiracy theories generated by
AI enhanced bots that areamplified by the algorithms.
The line between what is newsand what is propaganda has
blurred beyond all recognition.
Meanwhile, genuineinvestigation reports, those who
(27:58):
dig into government corruption,environmental devastation,
police abuse, are under constantthreat financially, legally and
even sometimes physically.
Just ask the journalists shotor arrested during the Black
Lives Matter protests.
Are the ones surveilled by ICEfor uncovering abuses in
(28:19):
detention centers?
Are the ones like JeremyScahill, glenn Greenwald, edward
Snowden, who were run out oftown sued, still under lawsuit
for releasing information aboutwhat the government's military
(28:40):
industrial complex or spynetworks are doing?
This isn't just about CNN.
It's about where the truthstill has a place in the
conversation in America.
If this process threat succeeds,whether through actual charges
or through the intimidation itprovokes, the consequences will
(29:00):
be draconian.
Whistleblowers will go silent.
Why leak evidence of governmentwrongdoing if the journalists
who published it are draggedinto court and forced to reveal
their sources?
Investigative journalism willwither.
Why invest time and money intoreporting if the legal risk
outweighs losing your job orgoing to prison?
(29:21):
Civic ignorance will grow.
Without trusted sources ofinformation, citizens turn to
whatever confirms their biasYouTube grifters, twitter trolls
or state-run propaganda.
Corruption will thrive, fromcorporate polluters to racist
sheriffs to mass agents of thestate.
(29:44):
The worst among us willflourish in darkness.
This is how democracies die notwith a bang, but with a threat
and a few individuals, a feworganizations destroyed to make
an example.
So what do we do?
First, we demand that everymember of Congress, democrats
(30:06):
and Republicans, publiclycondemn this threat against news
organizations.
Silence becomes complicity.
Second, we urge our courts todefend the first amendment with
vigor.
It demands the press mustremain free from government
intimidation or it is not trulyfree.
(30:27):
Third, we have to start tosupport independent media,
independent journalism, with ourwallets subscribe, donate,
share their stories.
The corporate media will notsave you.
We, the people, will have to dothat ourselves.
(30:52):
Fourth, we organize not justaround press freedom, but around
every interconnected pillar ofdemocracy under threat Voting
rights, judicial integrity,environmental justice and, yes,
immigration reform rooted incompassion and not cruelty.
And finally, we remember thefounders gave us a roadmap.
We, the people, are theultimate check on tyranny, but
(31:15):
only if we show up, only if wespeak out July 2nd 2025, only if
we speak out July 2nd 2025,when Trump made the threat will
go down as a dark day inAmerican history, unless we
choose to make it a turningpoint.
Trump's assault on the press isnot a sideshow.
It's not a distraction, it'sthe whole game.
(31:37):
Control the narrative and youcontrol the country.
Silence, dissent and you can doanything.
The American experimentsurvives only as long as we
defend the institutions thatmake it possible, and a free
press is not just one of thoseinstitutions, it's the first
line of defense.
So, even though I don'tpersonally watch the network
(32:02):
today, we have to stand with CNN.
Tomorrow it might be ProPublica, the next day it could be
Mother Jones, the Nation, csnbc,abc, msnbc, fox News or your
local paper, or even my newSubstack newsletter.
(32:26):
When the truth becomes a crime,we all will eventually become
criminals, and then in that case, I proudly say we have to print
the truth anyway.
Speaker 3 (32:44):
Would you declassify the Epstein files?
Speaker 5 (32:47):
Yeah, yeah, I would All right.
I guess I would Release thelist.
Speaker 6 (32:53):
Seriously, we need to release the Epstein list.
That is an important thing.
Will you work with me on thisissue so we know who worked with
Jeffrey Epstein in buildingthese sex trafficking rings?
Speaker 3 (33:07):
Absolutely, Senator.
Child sex trafficking has noplace in the United States of
America and I will do everything, if confirmed as FBI director,
to make sure the American publicknows the full weight of what
happened in the past and how weare going to countermand missing
children and exploited childrengoing pure.
Speaker 6 (33:24):
Just last week, the president's excellent pick for
FBI director, Kash Patel, vowedto work with me in releasing the
Epstein records and breakingapart the trafficking rings that
harm countless women andchildren across our country.
Speaker 5 (33:43):
The DOJ may be releasing the list of Jeffrey
Epstein's clients.
Will that really happen?
It's sitting on my desk rightnow to review that's been a
directive by President Trump.
I'm reviewing that.
All this evidence is sitting inthe Southern District of New
York so, based on that, I gavethem the deadline.
Friday at 8, a truckload ofevidence arrived.
(34:04):
It's now in the possession ofthe FBI.
Cash is going to get me andhimself really a detailed report
as to why all these documentsand evidence have been withheld.
It's a new administration andeverything's going to come out
to the public.
The public has a right to know.
Americans have a right to know.
Speaker 6 (34:22):
I know the attorney general has committed to
releasing those files.
I would defer you to theDepartment of Justice on her
timeline.
But when she's made a promisein the past she has kept it and
I'm certain that she will inthis case as well.
Welcome back everybody 20minutes to the top of the hour.
Case closed.
The Justice Departmentrevealing Jeffrey Epstein died
by suicide and insists there isno secret client list out there.
Speaker 1 (34:45):
So you heard it there .
After months of the DonaldTrump and his top allies in the
administration and Congresspromising to release the Epstein
files, the president'sDepartment of Justice, led by
former lobbyist Pam Bondi, nowsays that the child sex offender
Jeffrey Epstein had no clientlist and they ruled his death a
(35:15):
suicide.
Now look, for years now, wehave heard so many people
talking about this list, theflight logs, many people talking
(35:35):
about this list, the flightlogs.
We've heard the presidenthimself talk about the fact that
, well, he maybe didn't want torelease information because
there was some phony stuff inthere or that there were.
There could have been people,there were names in there that
were not.
Uh, let's just say it may notbe fair.
There were people saying thatthey have to take a good careful
(35:58):
look at it because you have toprotect the identity of the
victims, etc.
Etc.
Etc.
I wrote a piece in Substantabout this because this has
literally been a major issue inthe country.
They were saying even the FBIdirector and the deputy director
(36:23):
listed Bill Gates by name.
For years, you've heard of thissatanic pedophile ring run in
Washington DC by Democrats.
The Democrats get in power.
No names come out on the list.
(36:44):
The Republicans get in powerafter saying it is a list full
of your very powerful Democrats.
Not one name comes out.
Nobody on the list.
There is no list of your verypowerful Democrats.
Not one name comes out.
Nobody on the list.
There is no list.
There are no files, there areno videos.
So you have to ask yourselfsome very, very profound
questions and maybe one day I'mgoing to go through the
(37:08):
questions of tell me why therewere so many intelligence
officials at Jeffrey Epstein'sfunerals.
Tell me where Jeffrey Epstein'smoney came from.
This is in the show, but thepiece I wrote in Substack the
utter absurdity of the Epsteinno list, no murder narrative.
(37:32):
Here we go again, dear reader,summoned into a surreal circus
tent where the troop is bentlike a cheap spoon at a psychic
fair.
The Department of Justice, thatillustrious institution famed
for its impeachable record oftransparency, would have us
(37:56):
believe that there is no JeffreyEpstein client list.
Furthermore, they insist hewasn't murdered.
Why not go further and announcethat pigs can fly, that Orwell
wrote the Hungry Caterpillar andthat gravity is merely an
opinion?
(38:17):
Epstein case stands as amonument to the human capacity
for self-deception.
That was not just anothertabloid tragedy, tragedy.
It is a rebuke cube globalpower, sex trafficking and a
money of combination guaranteedto attract the worst instincts
(38:39):
of the ruling class.
To watch the official narrativeunfold is to remind us all
painfully that the public is notonly lied to but expected to
thank their abusers for theprivilege.
We live in an era where everyclick, swipe and Google search
(39:04):
is archived in some dystopiandigital tomb.
Yet we are told that Epstein'sLittle Black Book, reportedly
veritable social directory ofthe world's Rich and Powerful,
simply does not exist in anyactual form.
How delightful.
Next, they'll tell us that hisisland was a quiet monastery for
chess retreats.
(39:25):
The names of princes,presidents, tech titans,
hollywood morgals swirl aroundEpstein's memory like a fetid
cloud, and yet, miraculously,not a single verifiable incident
emerges.
Such vanishing acts would makeDavid Copperfield weep with envy
(39:47):
.
Perhaps these clients possessan invisibility cloak on loan
from Hogwarts School ofWitchcraft and Witchery?
Once upon a time, journalistsprided themselves on speaking
truth to power.
Today they resemble well-fedpoodles, grateful for scraps
from their corporate masters.
(40:08):
From their corporate masters.
One might think that child sextrafficking ring implicating
global elites would generatewall-to-wall coverage.
Instead, we get carefullymanicured headlines and
hush-hush settlements.
The public left drooling beforecelebrity trials and TikTok
(40:30):
trends never demands more.
A high-profile prisoner,arguably the most notorious in
the country, somehow manages tohang himself while under
constant watch.
Meanwhile, guards fall asleep,cameras malfunction and logs
vanish.
If one wrote this as a crimenovel editors would scoff and
(40:52):
send it back because it was tooimplausible.
Medical examiners foundinjuries more consistent with
homicidal strangulation.
Yet the narrative spun fasterthan a derailed journal.
In December, beocraticmouthpieces declared it a
suicide, presumably to keep thepublic docile and the donor
(41:13):
dinners undisturbed.
Epstein's cell cameras failedat the moment of cosmic
convenience.
Guards, apparently inspired byRip Van Winkle, took unscheduled
naps.
Here lies an insult so brazenthat it becomes almost comedic,
the dark kind of comedy thatleaves one reaching for a
(41:37):
whiskey bottle.
The Department of Justice issupposed to be a bulwark against
corruption.
Instead, it acts like asorcerer's apprentice,
tirelessly conquering illusionsto protect its betters.
Tirelessly conquering illusionsto protect its betters.
In a society where money andinfluence dictate outcomes, we
mustn't be shocked when thewatchdog turns into a lapdog.
(42:01):
To accept these official linesrequire mental gymnastics that
will put Olympic athletes toshame.
A public eager to resume Netflixmarathons Prefers easy lies
over hard truths.
The very idea that our readersand our leaders might be
irredeemably corrupt Is toofrightening, so we choose the
(42:26):
comforting fiction.
Those who parted on Epstein'sjet, those who logged and
lounged in his island, literallyknown as Pedophile Island, have
every reason to ensure thetruth stays buried deeper than
the Egyptian pharaoh.
(42:47):
Their interests are global,their power transcendent.
They are the very architects ofour moral ruin.
A public armed with facts mightask uncomfortable questions.
They might even heaven forbiddemand accountability.
Far easier to drown them indistractions, celebrity gossip,
(43:11):
partisan bickering and neuroticglow of social media.
In a just society, the presswould be the dagger aimed at the
heart of power.
Instead, it is a shieldprotecting the powerful from
consequences.
Those who dare to dig deeper,like Julia K Brown, stand as a
(43:38):
rare exception in a fieldotherwise cloaked with moral
pygmies.
In the end, the Department ofJustice narrative is not merely
a lie.
It's an insult to anyonecapable of rational thought.
The Epstein saga is a mirrorheld up to our collective
(43:59):
cowardice and to ourintellectual laziness.
We are asked not to merelydisbelieve.
We are asked to disbelieve oureyes, but to lobotomize our
sense of outrage.
As the late Christopher Hitchensonce said, the essence of the
(44:19):
independent mind lies in notwhat it thinks, but how it
thinks.
Let us honor that spirit bydemanding answers, reject facile
explanations.
Above all, refuse to let thepowerful whitewash their own
(44:39):
absolution.
We're going to get into theblasphemy of the intellectual
past and we'll see you on thenext episode.
I wrote a sub stack yesterdaycalled Bring Us Vidal, bring Us
Buckley, the iconic clash that'sshaping intellectual debates.
I'm going to go to a clip fromGore Vidal versus William F
Buckley in the DemocraticNational Convention debate of
(45:02):
1968.
This is not going to be theclash that became famous, but I
want you to hear theintellectual rigor between the
father of modern conservatismand the father of modern
liberalism Gore Vidal versusWilliam F Buckley.
See you on the next episode.
Speaker 4 (45:25):
The main source of contention on the floor of the
convention tonight is theVietnam plank of the newly
published Democratic platform.
I would like to ask our guestcommentators if they can find
any serious differences betweenwhat the Republicans said about
Vietnam and what the Democratssay about it.
To my mind, I see very littledifference.
It To my mind, I see verylittle difference.
(45:49):
Our guests are the playwright,gord Vidal, a Democrat, a former
candidate for Congress from NewYork State, and William Buckley
, editor and a former candidatefor mayor of New York City.
Mr Buckley, will you begin?
I think that the importantdifference of Mr Smith is not in
the planks, as it were, finallywritten, but in the effort that
(46:10):
went into their composition.
The Democrats a great many ofthem, are clearly displeased
with the plank insofar as itdoesn't call immediately for an
unconditional end in bombing.
We know that Mr McGovern and MrMcCarthy joined forces to
demand nothing less than thatthe unconditional end of bombing
(46:32):
.
There were no equivalent forcesin the Republican Party, so
that, although they ended upsaying roughly the same thing,
one is entitled to suppose that,in the case of the Republicans,
this truly represents thesettlement of the overwhelming
majority of them, which is notthe case.
Concerning the Democrats, Ithink that's well observed.
(46:53):
There's a definite split heretonight.
I personally favored, as manypeople did, the
McCarthy-McGovern plank.
I was just told the latest hotrumor here at the convention
hall that the plaque was givento Lyndon B Johnson himself, who
rewrote it and sent it back,and that is the one that they
are now celebrating down on thefloor.
(47:14):
We were just given bits andpieces of this platform and my
favorite little bit here is westrongly support the Paris talks
and applaud the initiative ofPresident Johnson which brought
North Vietnam to the peace table.
Of course it was SenatorMcCarthy in New Hampshire and
the enormous movement of a greatmany people in the United
States that caused our leader tomake that diplomatic gesture.
(47:36):
So I would say that thedifference between the two
platforms is, as Mr Buckleysuggests the Republicans are
pretty united in being not onlyon the one hand hawkish, but on
the other hand they seem to feelthat they're open for
negotiation, trying to relive, Isuppose, the days of the Korean
(47:58):
settlement by GeneralEisenhower, who talked very
tough in the campaign and then,of course, made a peace with
Korea.
I suspect that may well be thenixon plan.
Meanwhile, a very divideddemocratic party here tonight.
What can the republicans dothat the democrats can't?
If nixon is elected, mr buckley?
Well, if, if nixon is elected,it seems to mean that the
(48:31):
strategic seriousness of ouranti-communist position there,
that is to say, that he won't behampered by a divided party,
some of which, perhaps even themajority of which, is bitterly
opposed, as Mr Vidal quitecorrectly suggests, to this
policy.
I do think, though, that MrVidal's diagnosis is
insufficient, primarily for thereason that he doesn't take into
(48:52):
account extrinsic circumstances.
For instance, eisenhower'spiece on Korea may very well, as
Democratic Chairman Paul Butlerpointed out at the time, have
also had something to do withthe death of Stalin, which
conveniently took place two orthree months after Eisenhower's
election.
But also, one has to bear inmind that there have been such
sentimentalities as calling fora coalition government, as
(49:16):
calling for sending blood to theViet Cong, all that kind of
business, which haveconsiderably hampered the
negotiations which mightotherwise have taken place more
speedily, considerably hamperedthe negotiations which might
otherwise have taken place morespeedily.
Well, I think Mr Buckley hasgiven us a preview of what we
will hear from the Republicanson this subject.
I'd like to introduce a notethat absolutely nobody has so
(49:36):
far in the Vietnam debate, andthat is that I happen to favor a
sort of diplomacy in the grandold style and I'm sure Mr
Buckley will agree with me,since he too is a lover of the
Congress of Vienna andMetternich policy, that we
should, since Ho Chi Minh is theenemy of Mao Tse Tung,
therefore we should support HoChi Minh.
(49:56):
Mao Tse Tung is the enemy ofthe Kremlin, therefore, in
certain cases, we should supporthim, and the Kremlin is, of
course, the enemy of Mao TseTung, and we should support them
.
Now, this is grand politics,this is not ideological.
It's not as interesting as theholy war, as the fascinating war
that we must, we are the forcesof light and we must destroy
all of the government.
(50:17):
But it has always beentraditional in the conduct of
foreign policy, until thepietisms of John Foster Dulles,
who really did believe, at leastas far as we can tell, that we
were indeed the forces of lightand they were night that we
began forcing our way into theworld and forever setting up
this pietistic view thatgovernments that we disapproved
of should be dealt with harshly.
(50:37):
So I'm simply saying, to theextent that the leader of North
Vietnam is no friend of China.
This is not a monolithicconspiracy.
We should support him and, bythe same token, mao Zedong, and
again in this Viennesecongressional circle.
Mr Buckley, would you like toadd to that?
Well, mr Dowell's suggestionthat perhaps it would be in our
(50:59):
interest to support Ho Chi Minhsuggests perhaps also that, as a
matter of testamentaryintegrity, I reveal a concrete
proposal to that end, containedin a letter sent to me by
Senator Kennedy about six monthsago, the PS of which was I have
(51:22):
changed my platform for 1968from let's give blood to the
Viet Cong to let's give GoreVidal to the Viet Cong.
Speaker 3 (51:30):
May.
Speaker 4 (51:31):
I see that really.
I think, however, that would beimmoderate notion that Mr
Vidal's idea of how to prosecutethe whole situation out there,
quite apart from the fact of acongruence of general policy, is
(51:53):
marred by his sort of strangefantasies concerning the
realisms of politics.
I must say I'm looking at this.
What a very curious handwriting.
It also slants up a sign of amanic depressive.
Did you find out about SenatorKennedy?
I did see that.
Whether you forged it or not, Idon't know, and I will have to
have my handwriting experts, thegraphologists will have to look
(52:14):
at it.
I put nothing beyond you, notsince the Dreyfus case, and we
had such evidence brought intocourt.
But it's very, very amusing andhas nothing to do with the case
.
The fact that he was writingyou letters makes me terribly
suspicious of him as apresidential candidate.
I will say that I'm not talkingabout him as a candidate.
This is Senator Bobby Harris.
Yes, I realize I recognize thehandwriting.
He makes you suspicious.
(52:37):
It makes me very suspicious ofwhat he might have been like as
president.
But to get back to the plank,it's been fun inspecting your
correspondence, but what mattershere is that we have, in a word
, lost the war Clank while we've.
It's been fun inspecting yourcorrespondence, but what matters
here is that we have, in a word, lost the war, and I think that
that was really the impressionthat the McCarthy-McGovern
people have been trying to givethe country that we must get out
(52:57):
of this.
This cost us $100 billion.
This cost us 25,000 dead.
It has cost us something like90% of the casualties are
civilians.
So when they accuse us ofgenocide, they are not without
point.
Now wait a minute.
We have nothing to gain by thiswar.
Now wait a minute.
The activity of the UnitedStates in North Vietnam cannot
(53:18):
be categorized as genocide byanyone who doesn't accept the
postulates of the CommunistParty, their postulates being,
of course, that we areinterested in killing people for
the sake of killing people, thedistinction being how many
people is it necessary to killin order to pursue a perfectly
legitimate military mission, adistinction that has been
(53:38):
honored during the past 1,000years.
But we have not lost the war inVietnam.
What we have lost is anopportunity to press that war
with such weapons as areespecially at our disposal.
And the reason we haven't isbecause we have proceeded
schizophrenically make love tothe communists this side of the
(53:58):
hemisphere, hate them and killthem.
This side of the hemisphere andthis doesn't know.
Speaker 3 (54:02):
What do you think?
Speaker 4 (54:03):
would you favor just an all-out war on communism,
using nuclear weapons, as youhave in the past?
Uh, on the chinese, uh, nuclearcapacity?
Yes, indeed, you and something,a marvelous moment, a blow for
peace.
You came out.
You said, quote, to give atwo-hour notice to the red
chinese that we intend todestroy these nuclear facilities
(54:24):
and so give the civilian,military and scientific
population a chance to evacuatethe plants, which we then
proceed, pure and simple, toblow up.
This is.
Speaker 3 (54:32):
The great statesman said that is an act of war.
Why with nuclear?
Speaker 4 (54:35):
weapons.
I never said nuclear weapons, Iblew them up with poison ivy.
Of all I'm concerned.
Speaker 3 (54:39):
The point is oh well, what is the difference?
Speaker 4 (54:41):
well, it is an act of war.
It was an act of war, mr, todrop bombs on another country.
You an act of war.
You want to change what youfinished saying a moment ago?
I will welcome any change atany point in here.
But you said a moment ago thatI favored nuclear bombing in Red
China.
For the record, I did not, no.
But when you said bombing,explain that I favored,
alongside a number of veryserious military strategists, a
(55:06):
preemptive strike against thenuclear facilities of Red Shire
and you expect really to betaken seriously A position which
was explored by President JohnF Kennedy in the fall of 1963.
And should be thought of by allserious people who not only are
against the nuclear bomb in thecafe society, but you are trying
to do something about it.
If the bad guys have got thenuclear bomb we don't want that
to it.
You're both much better when youdon't talk at the same time.
(55:28):
Could we take turns?
Yes, well, I would like to justpick up.
We'll just take that point.
I would like to pick up thatpoint.
You did indeed want to dropbombs on China, which is a
foreign country of enormous size.
It is no business of ours, Ishould think, to begin a Pearl
Harbor, give them a Pearl Harbor.
You have also advocated theinvasion of Cuba and what you
(55:51):
call the immediate enactment ofthe Monroe Doctrine, something I
suspect you have never read,because the Monroe Doctrine
ceased to exist, in fact, since1917.
Monroe Doctrine, for yourinformation, happened to be
dependent upon did your foreignpowers.
Foreign powers, the unitedstates, in this hemisphere were
not to be allowed, but by thesame token, we would maintain
(56:12):
ourselves outside europeanaffairs.
We abrogated that by going tothe first world war.
So an effective monroe doctrinedoes not exist.
This is our case.
It is laborious job tostraighten out history after
you've had a couple of sentencesago at it.
The distinction was that wewould not go to Europe except at
the invitation of Europe.
If you will give me the name ofone country in Europe where we
(56:32):
are without the invitation ofthe local government, then I
will say that we have violatedthe equivalent of the Monroe
Doctrine.
Speaker 3 (56:38):
But the Monroe Doctrine is perfectly clear.
How do we get out of the war inVietnam, the last few?
Speaker 4 (56:42):
have not read it.
The is about the plank inVietnam.
How do we get out?
Have we really been beaten?
The answer is that we have notbeen beaten, mr Smith.
The answer is that we arenegotiating in Paris at this
moment because the enemy feelsthe pressure of a four-,
five-year effort by the UnitedStates and South Vietnam and
(57:04):
certain of its Asian allies, bythe United States and South
Vietnam and certain of its Asianallies.
It's not there simply becauseSenator McCarthy got 43,000
votes in New Hampshire.
This isn't the way Tai Phongworks, hanoi works.
We can, of course, win the war,but it's going to take our
concerted effort and it's goingto take the kind of
Welcome to the Darrell McLean Show.
I'm your host, darrell McLean.
Independent media that won'treinforce tribalism.
We have one planet.
Nobody is leaving, so let usreason together.
We're coming together onepisode 463.
Let's get into our episode.
I woke up this morning withTexas heavy on my heart.
Another tragedy, anotherheadline, another moment where
(00:23):
we're forced to ask ourselveswhat exactly are we doing here?
Texas is supposed to be asymbol of big skies, big dreams,
big courage, but today it's aplace marked by loss, by grief
and by a familiar questionechoing across living rooms
since sanctuary pulpits alikewhy see when?
(00:45):
See when tragedy strikes,whether it's a mass shooting, a
deadly heat wave, a migrantcrisis at the border or
environmental disaster, we rushto our corners.
We grab our talking points, ourhashtags, our politics, but we
rarely grab our humanity.
We forget that behind everystatistic is a mother who will
(01:06):
never tuck her child in again, afather who can't walk his
daughter down the aisle, afriend who will never hear that
laugh one more time.
The prophets in scripture neverhesitated to speak truth to
power.
They didn't mince words.
Amos cried a gallant againstinjustice at the gates.
Micah told us that the Lordrequires to act justly, to love
(01:32):
mercy and to walk humbly withGod.
But somehow in modern America,and especially in the hearts of
Texas, justice too quickly hasbecome a partisan slogan.
Mercy is viewed as weakness andhumility has become a partisan
slogan.
Mercy is viewed as weakness andhumility.
Well, that's a virtue we tradedin for cheap bravado a very
(01:53):
long time ago.
I don't know who needs to hearthis today, but mourning is not
a political act.
Mourning is a deeply human act,and if we can't pause long
enough to sit in the ashes witheach other, to truly grieve,
truly listen, then it doesn'tmatter how many flags we wave or
how many prayers we tweet.
We will keep repeating thiscycle until our souls go numb.
So today I don't have any realpolicy solutions in my pocket,
(02:19):
but I do have a plea Don't lookaway, don't numb out, don't let
tragedy just become anotherheadline.
You scroll past on the way toyour favorite sports highlight
or celebrity gospel.
As much as it hurts, sit withit, feel with it and let it move
you to action, real,compassionate, collective action
, because Texas and all of usdeserve more than empty thoughts
(02:44):
and prayers.
We deserve a future where thesetragedies don't keep replaying
on an endless loop, and thefuture that starts this.
We decide that each lifematters enough to change our
hearts and to change our system.
So let's get into this episodeabout what happened in Texas
(03:08):
this week.
So here's it.
We have to come today with ourheavy hearts because the tragedy
that struck in Texas that hasleft me breathless while I'm
grieving with these families andasking questions that I don't
have easy answers to.
Over a hundred lives were lostthis week, with floodwaters
(03:32):
ripping through Camp Mystic, aChristian girl's summer camp
nestled by Gillip River.
In a matter of minutes, whatwas meant to be a week of
worship songs, late nightwhispers under the stars and
joyful summer memories turnedinto an unspeakable nightmare.
Among the victims were younggirls just starting to dream,
(03:55):
counselors who dedicated theirsummer to guiding and protecting
, and even leaders like thedirector, dick Eastland, who
lost his life trying to saveothers.
It's the kind of story thatmakes you clutch your children a
little tighter and makes youcall your loved ones just to
hear their voice.
But beyond the headlines, beyondthe numbers, there's something
(04:15):
deeper we have to talk abouttoday, because every tragedy,
especially one on this scale,it's a mirror and it shows us
who we really are.
First, we see the raw beauty ofhumanity Young counselors
writing young children's nameson their arms, with shoppies so
they wouldn't be lost in thechaos.
(04:35):
Rescue swimmers diving intoraging waters without hesitation
, parents driving through thenight praying for a miracle.
In these moments you see cursethat humbles you to your knees.
But then there's the other sideof that mirror, a side that
asks why weren't the properwarning systems in place?
Why do we continue to build andgather in flood zones without
(04:57):
enough protection?
Why do our governments alwaysseem ready to send thoughts and
prayers but slow to sendresources and reform?
We talk so much in this countryabout American exceptionalism,
this idea that we are somehowuniquely blessed, set apart,
chosen, and yet, time and timeagain, we fail to protect the
very people we claim to cherishthe most our children, our
(05:21):
future.
Isaiah said woe to those whomake unjust laws, to those who
issue oppressive decrees.
Amos told us to let justiceroll on like a river,
righteousness never failingstream.
So this is not enough for us tomourn.
We are called to change, we arecalled to build a society where
(05:45):
safety isn't a privilege, butsafety becomes a promise.
And to those families in Texaswe see you, we grieve with you,
we stand ready to walk besideyou in this valley.
You are not alone.
To all my listeners, let thisnot just be another tragic
headline we stroll past.
Let this be a call to demandaction, demand better
(06:12):
infrastructure, demandaccountability, support those
who are rebuilding and grievingand, above all, remember
community isn't just aboutsomething we talk about in our
churches, in our coffee shops oron social media.
It's something we live,something we protect and
something we choose every singleday.
And you can give money, giveyour voice if you can't give
(06:36):
money.
Share their stories, pray withintention, show up in ways that
matter.
Let's briefly talk about whatwe do know.
A flash flood struck early July4th near the river at Camp
Mystic, a woman's Christiansummer camp in Care County,
(06:57):
texas.
An astonishing amount of rainover 20 inches in just a few
hours caused the river to riseroughly to 26 to 29 feet in just
45 minutes, unleashing a wallof water in the dead of night.
So far, at least 118 peoplehave died, including 27 campers
(07:18):
and counselors at Camp Mystic,with at least 180 people still
missing, with at least 180people still missing.
Among the victims are twinsisters, hannah and Rebecca,
both eight and belovedcounselors, coyle Childress, 18,
alongside the director, chrisEastland, who died trying to
(07:40):
save campers.
Camp videos just hours beforethe show before show girls
dancing, playing, laughing justa chilling contrast to what
(08:00):
happened a few minutes later.
A Coast Guard rescue swimmerand team counselor who had just
started his job it was his firstever mission saved dozens
Writing names of campers on hisarms, with shoppies for
identification.
During the rescue mission,director Dick Eastland, in a
full dedication, died rushing toaid campers.
(08:22):
People have described him asembodying a strong Christian man
and a protector.
Warning systems and the officialresponses seem to have failed
us.
Flood warnings were issued daysprior, so from July 2nd to the
3rd, but Kerr County lacked aformal early warning system.
(08:46):
Some families received nothingbefore the disaster struck.
Texas Governor Abbott hasdeclared a disaster, committed
to rescue efforts and speciallegislative session is in the
works to review emergencypreparedness view, emergency
(09:07):
preparedness, federal response.
President Trump and Melaniaplan to visit and the president
signed a major disasterdeclaration and pause FEMA's
scaling rhetoric amidst callsfor federal support.
Why this happens to matter isobviously the scale of loss,
with over 100 lives gone,including dozens of children and
(09:27):
young women, leaves families,communities and faith
congregations shattered, evenhistorically safe places like a
Christian summer camp can becatastrophically vulnerable
without a robust warninginfrastructure.
Stories of brave campers,counselors, rescuers and staff
like Eastland showcase thissacrificial love that often
(09:49):
emerges in disaster.
This disaster directly impactsspiritual communities.
Circles of prayer, mourning andinspected faiths are
intertwined in this response.
This moment, even though itturned political, almost
immediately calls us to acollective response, a
(10:11):
collective prayer, collectivepresence and personful giving as
families navigate this profoundgrief.
Communities must start tochampion better warning systems,
flood mitigation and fasteralerts in high-risk zones.
We have to remember the lives,keeping alive stories of Hannah,
cole, dick and countless others, and this is the only thing we
(10:35):
can do in this moment, inhonoring both the loss and the
love.
Like I said before, we don'twant this to just become another
news cycle.
It's a stark reminder that noplace is too sacred or secure
for tragedy.
Yet, amid our sorrow, our faithinvites us to respond not with
(10:57):
despair but with presence, butwith hope, accountability and
justice.
We remember the loss, we praywith the living and we commit to
building systems community,spiritually and civically that
refuse to let these catastrophescontinue over and over and over
(11:20):
again.
Speaker 2 (11:21):
We'll be right back with more and Zach Schoenfeld To
hear Justice Ketanji BrownJackson tell it over again.
We'll be right back in themorning of unevenly applying the
(11:41):
law, even if it meant standingon her own from the court's
other liberal justices.
Jackson has had an independentstreak since President Biden
nominated her to the bench in2022.
But the dynamic has intensifiedthis term, especially as
litigation over PresidentTrump's sweeping agenda reached
the court.
It climaxed with her finaldissent of decision season, when
(12:04):
Jackson accused her fellowjustices of decision season,
when Jackson accused her fellowjustices of helping Trump
threaten the rule of law at amoment they should be hunkering
down.
It is not difficult to predicthow this all ends, jackson wrote
.
Eventually, executive powerwill become completely
uncontainable and our belovedconstitutional republic will be
no more.
Her stark warning came asTrump's birthright citizenship
(12:32):
order split the court on its sixto three ideological lines,
with all threeDemocratic-appointed justices
dissenting from the decision tolimit nationwide injunctions.
Jackson bounded farther thanher two liberal colleagues,
writing in a blistering solocritique that said the court was
embracing Trump's apparentrequest for permission to engage
in unlawful behavior.
(12:52):
The decision amounts to anexistential threat to the rule
of law, she said.
It was not the first timeJackson's fellow liberal
justices left her out in thecold.
She has been writing solodissents since her first full
term on the bench.
Jackson did so again in anothercase last month when the court
revived the energy industry'seffort to axe California's
(13:15):
stricter car emissions standard.
Jackson accused her peers ofruling inequitably.
This case gives fodder to theunfortunate perception that
moneyed interests enjoy aneasier road to relief in this
court than ordinary citizens.
Jackson wrote Because the courthad ample opportunity to avoid
that result.
I respectfully dissent Ratherthan join Justice Sonia
(13:39):
Sotomayor's dissent that forwentsuch fiery language.
Jackson chose to pen her owndissent that forwent such fiery
language.
Jackson chose to pen her own.
The duo frequently agrees.
They were on the same side in94% of cases this term,
according to data from Scott USBlog, more than any other pair,
(13:59):
except for Justices ClarenceThomas and Samuel Alito, the
court's two leadingconservatives.
Sometimes Sotomayor signs on toJackson's piercing dissents,
including when she last monthcondemned the court's emergency
order allowing the Department ofGovernment Efficiency to access
Americans' social security data.
The court is therebyunfortunately suggesting that
what would be an extraordinaryrequest for everyone else is
(14:22):
nothing more than an ordinaryday on the docket for this
administration.
I would proceed without fear orfavor, jackson wrote, but it
appears there are rhetoricallines the most senior liberal
justice will not cross Inanother case regarding
disability claims.
Sotomayor signed onto portionsof Jackson's dissent but
(14:42):
rejected a footnote in whichJackson slammed the majority's
textualism as somehow alwaysflexible enough to secure the
majority's desired outcome.
Pure textualism's refusal totry to understand the text of a
statute in the larger context ofwhat Congress sought to achieve
turns the interpretive taskinto a potent weapon for
(15:03):
advancing judicial policypreferences.
The most junior justice wrote,refusing to remove the footnote
from her dissent.
Jackson's colleagues do not seeit that way.
It is your job to do the legalanalysis to the best you can.
Chief Justice John Roberts tolda crowd of lawyers at a
judicial conference last weekend, rejecting the notion that his
(15:25):
decisions are driven by thereal-world consequences.
If it leads to someextraordinarily improbable
result, then you want to go backand take another look at it,
roberts continued.
But I do not start from whatthe result looks like and go
backwards.
Though Roberts was notreferencing Jackson's recent
dissents, her willingness tocall out her peers has not gone
(15:47):
unaddressed.
Jackson's dissent in thebirthright citizenship case
earned a rare, mercilesssmackdown from Justice Amy Coney
Barrett, co-signed by thecourt's conservative majority.
Replying to Jackson's remarkthat everyone from the president
on down is bound by law,barrett turned that script into
her own punchline.
(16:08):
That goes for judges too.
The most junior conservativejustice clapped back, deriding
Jackson's argument as extreme.
Barrett said her dissentingopinion ran afoul of centuries
of precedent and theConstitution itself.
We observe only this Justice.
Jackson decries an imperialexecutive while embracing an
(16:30):
imperial judiciary.
Barrett wrote the piercingrebuke was a staunch departure
from the usually restrainedwriting of the self-described
one jalapeno gal.
That is compared to the fivejalapeno rhetoric of the late
Justice Antonin Scalia.
Barrett said the lateconservative icon for whom she
clerked.
(16:50):
On today's court it is oftenThomas who brings some of the
most scathing critiques ofJackson, perhaps most notably
when the two took diametricallyopposite views of affirmative
action.
Two years ago, page after page,thomas ripped into Jackson's
defense of race-consciouscollege admissions, accusing her
of labeling all blacks asvictims.
(17:12):
Her desire to do so isunfathomable to me.
I cannot deny the greataccomplishments of black
Americans, including those whosucceeded despite long odds.
Thomas wrote in a concurringopinion.
It is not Thomas's practice toannounce his separate opinions
from the bench, but that day hesaid he felt compelled to do so
(17:33):
as he read it aloud from thebench for 11 minutes.
Jackson stared blankly aheadinto the courtroom.
Jackson's boldness comes acrossnot only in the court's
decision-making.
At oral arguments this term shespoke 50% more than any other
justice.
She embraces her openness.
She told a crowd in May, whileaccepting an award named after
(17:54):
former President Truman, thatshe liked to think it was
because they both share the sametrait Bravery.
I am also told that some peoplethink I am courageous for the
ways in which I engage.
Jackson said.
Speaker 1 (18:19):
If the truth is a crime, then we are all criminals
, because silence is whattyranny depends on.
Now that President Trump hasthreatened to prosecute CNN,
what happens next will definethe role of the press and, I
dare say, the soul of the nation.
Soul of the nation.
(18:44):
History rarely announces itself.
It creeps in quietly, cloakedin the language of law and order
, national security andpatriotism.
But every now and then, historyscreams for us.
Last week it screamed.
President Donald Trump, nowseated once again behind the
Resolute Desk, and his HomelandSecurity Secretary, kristi Noem,
have openly threatened CNN withcriminal prosecution for
(19:07):
reporting on the existence andthe use of an app called
IceBlock.
Now, iceblock alertsundocumented immigrants about
the nearby immigrationsEnforcement of ICE operations.
This app, which is publiclyavailable and the reporting
around it likewise rooted inpublic records, is suddenly
(19:30):
being framed as a nationalsecurity threat.
Let's be clear about what'shappening.
About what's happening thePresident of the United States
and his administration arethreatening to jail journalists
for doing their jobs.
This isn't just anauthoritarian flirtation.
(19:52):
It's a shot across the bow ofour American Republic and it
should chill every citizen whostill believes in a sacred
protection of the FirstAmendment and the role of the
press in our constitutionalrepublic.
There is a reason.
The founders placed freedom ofthe press at the very very first
(20:14):
of its concerns by putting itin the First Amendment, they
understood that tyranny doesn'tannounce itself with tanks in
the streets, although thePresident has brought us that
too in DC and Los Angeles.
It begins with dissent, silenceand truth becomes optional when
(20:36):
the government gains the powerto determine what is and wasn't
acceptable Journalism, ourcitizens, monitoring of
government actions.
Democracy doesn't just wobble,it collapses.
We have seen this before.
In the 1970s, richard Nixoncompiled an enemies list,
(21:01):
weaponizing the IRS and the FBIagainst journalists and
political opponents.
But even Nixon, as infamous ashe was, never dared to prosecute
a major news network forreporting publicly available
facts or proudly announcingcriminal investigations of
individuals monitoring thepolice.
(21:23):
In 1917, woodrow Wilson signedthe Espionage Act into law, a
piece of legislation later usedto imprison dissenters and
suppress anti-war journalistsduring World War I.
Senator Bernie Sanders' hero,the democratic socialist eugene
debs, was actually thrown intoprison for protesting our
(21:46):
involvement in world war one,and eugene debs went on to run
for president in 1920 from hisjail cell.
In 1950s, mccarthyist americajournalists who didn't toe the
anti-communist line wereblacklisted, surveilled and
driven from their careers.
(22:07):
Historians and even high schoolhistory class correctly
identify Wilson's and McCarthy'sexcessive as a terrible moment
in our past, moments that shouldnever be repeated.
Moment in our past, momentsthat should never be repeated.
But now, in 2025, we arerevisiting that time with a best
(22:29):
a beast entirely a populistauthoritarian with an open
content for the constitutionalconstraints, embodied by a cult
of personality and empowered bysix of his lot of appointed
republicans on the supreme courtthat have told him he is immune
(22:53):
and that he can basicallyopenly commit crimes without any
fear of prosecution.
Combining, combining, thiscrisis of democracy is a
billionaire-owned mediaecosystem that no longer even
pretends to tell the truth.
President Donald Trump is notunique in history, but the
(23:16):
confluence of power, propagandaand a post-truth politics have
embodied is dangerouslyunprecedented in America.
The most terrifying part ofthis episode when Trump versus
CNN is not that Trump isthreatening CNN.
It's that every other newsroomin America is now taking notice
(23:41):
and, unfortunately, some areimmediately bending the knee.
For example, cbs News presidentDavid Ellison, the son of the
billionaire MAGA.
Larry Ellison reportedly justgave $15 million to a Trump and
promised, according to Trumphimself, another $15 million in
(24:03):
a nationwide free advertisementfor the MAGA message.
When a president targets a mediaoutlet for reporting on a
publicly available app, arequoting anonymous officials.
The effect isn't just thatoutlet.
It reverberates through everyeditorial board, every
reporter's notebook, everynewsroom's budget meeting,
(24:26):
because they ask themselvesshould we cover the story or
will we get sued?
Will our reporters getsubpoenaed?
Is it worth the cost, risk oreven the hassle?
That is a chilling effect in anation of exactly what
authoritarians want.
That is a chilling effect in anation of exactly what
authoritarians want.
It's exactly what dictators get.
They don't need to jail everyjournalist or even prosecute the
(24:50):
opposition politicians.
For example, there are onlyactually around 1,500 political
prisoners in Russia, in acountry with a population of 143
million.
That's all Putin needed to cowthe press and his political
(25:12):
opposition and the people in thestreets into silence.
Ask the journalist activists inMexico, where the threats of
violence have silenced entirenewspapers.
Back to Russia, where one lawcriminalized the reporting of
the word war the word war todescribe the Ukrainian invasion
and the entire nation's pressimmediately bent the knee.
Or let's go to Hungary, whereViktor Orban turned independent
(25:33):
press outlets into intogovernment mouthpieces.
It always starts the same exactway, without exceptions
Investigations, nationalsecurity and fake news Sound
familiar, so let's talk aboutwhat CNN actually reported.
The so-called Iceblock app wasnot a secret Pentagon tool.
(25:56):
It's publicly downloadable.
It informs undocumentedimmigrants, many of whom have
lived and worked in the UnitedStates for decades, about where
ICE raids might be happening.
You know the exact same way.
Waze tells drivers where policespeed traps are.
On internal US governmentdiscussions about military
(26:23):
options in Iran, again based oninformation already circulating
through DC and partially leakedby officials themselves.
It was nothing that would haveshocked the Ayatollah, but the
president of the United Statessaw a headline he didn't like,
and Noem saw a politicalopportunity to play tough cop on
immigration.
So now, instead of debatingimmigration policy, our Middle
(26:46):
East strategy, we're talkingabout jailing journalists and
suing news outlets.
Let me repeat jailingjournalists, not pressuring them
, not criticizing them.
Prosecuting them, themprosecuting them.
Now, here's the thing.
All Trump's needs is a fewambitious prosecutors, a
(27:12):
distracted electorate and amedia too scared or too worried
about this and it's the bottomline and they will stop fighting
back.
That is authoritarian in adesigner suit, and it's already
here.
Right-wing billionaires havealready bought up local
newspapers and radio stations,converting once-independent
(27:37):
media voices into megaphones formega or right-wing talking
points.
Citizen journalists on socialmedia.
Russian troll farms pairconspiracy theories generated by
AI enhanced bots that areamplified by the algorithms.
The line between what is newsand what is propaganda has
blurred beyond all recognition.
Meanwhile, genuineinvestigation reports, those who
(27:58):
dig into government corruption,environmental devastation,
police abuse, are under constantthreat financially, legally and
even sometimes physically.
Just ask the journalists shotor arrested during the Black
Lives Matter protests.
Are the ones surveilled by ICEfor uncovering abuses in
(28:19):
detention centers?
Are the ones like JeremyScahill, glenn Greenwald, edward
Snowden, who were run out oftown sued, still under lawsuit
for releasing information aboutwhat the government's military
(28:40):
industrial complex or spynetworks are doing?
This isn't just about CNN.
It's about where the truthstill has a place in the
conversation in America.
If this process threat succeeds,whether through actual charges
or through the intimidation itprovokes, the consequences will
(29:00):
be draconian.
Whistleblowers will go silent.
Why leak evidence of governmentwrongdoing if the journalists
who published it are draggedinto court and forced to reveal
their sources?
Investigative journalism willwither.
Why invest time and money intoreporting if the legal risk
outweighs losing your job orgoing to prison?
(29:21):
Civic ignorance will grow.
Without trusted sources ofinformation, citizens turn to
whatever confirms their biasYouTube grifters, twitter trolls
or state-run propaganda.
Corruption will thrive, fromcorporate polluters to racist
sheriffs to mass agents of thestate.
(29:44):
The worst among us willflourish in darkness.
This is how democracies die notwith a bang, but with a threat
and a few individuals, a feworganizations destroyed to make
an example.
So what do we do?
First, we demand that everymember of Congress, democrats
(30:06):
and Republicans, publiclycondemn this threat against news
organizations.
Silence becomes complicity.
Second, we urge our courts todefend the first amendment with
vigor.
It demands the press mustremain free from government
intimidation or it is not trulyfree.
(30:27):
Third, we have to start tosupport independent media,
independent journalism, with ourwallets subscribe, donate,
share their stories.
The corporate media will notsave you.
We, the people, will have to dothat ourselves.
(30:52):
Fourth, we organize not justaround press freedom, but around
every interconnected pillar ofdemocracy under threat Voting
rights, judicial integrity,environmental justice and, yes,
immigration reform rooted incompassion and not cruelty.
And finally, we remember thefounders gave us a roadmap.
We, the people, are theultimate check on tyranny, but
(31:15):
only if we show up, only if wespeak out July 2nd 2025, only if
we speak out July 2nd 2025,when Trump made the threat will
go down as a dark day inAmerican history, unless we
choose to make it a turningpoint.
Trump's assault on the press isnot a sideshow.
It's not a distraction, it'sthe whole game.
(31:37):
Control the narrative and youcontrol the country.
Silence, dissent and you can doanything.
The American experimentsurvives only as long as we
defend the institutions thatmake it possible, and a free
press is not just one of thoseinstitutions, it's the first
line of defense.
So, even though I don'tpersonally watch the network
(32:02):
today, we have to stand with CNN.
Tomorrow it might be ProPublica, the next day it could be
Mother Jones, the Nation, csnbc,abc, msnbc, fox News or your
local paper, or even my newSubstack newsletter.
(32:26):
When the truth becomes a crime,we all will eventually become
criminals, and then in that case, I proudly say we have to print
the truth anyway.
Speaker 3 (32:44):
Would you declassify the Epstein files?
Speaker 5 (32:47):
Yeah, yeah, I would All right.
I guess I would Release thelist.
Speaker 6 (32:53):
Seriously, we need to release the Epstein list.
That is an important thing.
Will you work with me on thisissue so we know who worked with
Jeffrey Epstein in buildingthese sex trafficking rings?
Speaker 3 (33:07):
Absolutely, Senator.
Child sex trafficking has noplace in the United States of
America and I will do everything, if confirmed as FBI director,
to make sure the American publicknows the full weight of what
happened in the past and how weare going to countermand missing
children and exploited childrengoing pure.
Speaker 6 (33:24):
Just last week, the president's excellent pick for
FBI director, Kash Patel, vowedto work with me in releasing the
Epstein records and breakingapart the trafficking rings that
harm countless women andchildren across our country.
Speaker 5 (33:43):
The DOJ may be releasing the list of Jeffrey
Epstein's clients.
Will that really happen?
It's sitting on my desk rightnow to review that's been a
directive by President Trump.
I'm reviewing that.
All this evidence is sitting inthe Southern District of New
York so, based on that, I gavethem the deadline.
Friday at 8, a truckload ofevidence arrived.
(34:04):
It's now in the possession ofthe FBI.
Cash is going to get me andhimself really a detailed report
as to why all these documentsand evidence have been withheld.
It's a new administration andeverything's going to come out
to the public.
The public has a right to know.
Americans have a right to know.
Speaker 6 (34:22):
I know the attorney general has committed to
releasing those files.
I would defer you to theDepartment of Justice on her
timeline.
But when she's made a promisein the past she has kept it and
I'm certain that she will inthis case as well.
Welcome back everybody 20minutes to the top of the hour.
Case closed.
The Justice Departmentrevealing Jeffrey Epstein died
by suicide and insists there isno secret client list out there.
Speaker 1 (34:45):
So you heard it there .
After months of the DonaldTrump and his top allies in the
administration and Congresspromising to release the Epstein
files, the president'sDepartment of Justice, led by
former lobbyist Pam Bondi, nowsays that the child sex offender
Jeffrey Epstein had no clientlist and they ruled his death a
(35:15):
suicide.
Now look, for years now, wehave heard so many people
talking about this list, theflight logs, many people talking
(35:35):
about this list, the flightlogs.
We've heard the presidenthimself talk about the fact that
, well, he maybe didn't want torelease information because
there was some phony stuff inthere or that there were.
There could have been people,there were names in there that
were not.
Uh, let's just say it may notbe fair.
There were people saying thatthey have to take a good careful
(35:58):
look at it because you have toprotect the identity of the
victims, etc.
Etc.
Etc.
I wrote a piece in Substantabout this because this has
literally been a major issue inthe country.
They were saying even the FBIdirector and the deputy director
(36:23):
listed Bill Gates by name.
For years, you've heard of thissatanic pedophile ring run in
Washington DC by Democrats.
The Democrats get in power.
No names come out on the list.
(36:44):
The Republicans get in powerafter saying it is a list full
of your very powerful Democrats.
Not one name comes out.
Nobody on the list.
There is no list of your verypowerful Democrats.
Not one name comes out.
Nobody on the list.
There is no list.
There are no files, there areno videos.
So you have to ask yourselfsome very, very profound
questions and maybe one day I'mgoing to go through the
(37:08):
questions of tell me why therewere so many intelligence
officials at Jeffrey Epstein'sfunerals.
Tell me where Jeffrey Epstein'smoney came from.
This is in the show, but thepiece I wrote in Substack the
utter absurdity of the Epsteinno list, no murder narrative.
(37:32):
Here we go again, dear reader,summoned into a surreal circus
tent where the troop is bentlike a cheap spoon at a psychic
fair.
The Department of Justice, thatillustrious institution famed
for its impeachable record oftransparency, would have us
(37:56):
believe that there is no JeffreyEpstein client list.
Furthermore, they insist hewasn't murdered.
Why not go further and announcethat pigs can fly, that Orwell
wrote the Hungry Caterpillar andthat gravity is merely an
opinion?
(38:17):
Epstein case stands as amonument to the human capacity
for self-deception.
That was not just anothertabloid tragedy, tragedy.
It is a rebuke cube globalpower, sex trafficking and a
money of combination guaranteedto attract the worst instincts
(38:39):
of the ruling class.
To watch the official narrativeunfold is to remind us all
painfully that the public is notonly lied to but expected to
thank their abusers for theprivilege.
We live in an era where everyclick, swipe and Google search
(39:04):
is archived in some dystopiandigital tomb.
Yet we are told that Epstein'sLittle Black Book, reportedly
veritable social directory ofthe world's Rich and Powerful,
simply does not exist in anyactual form.
How delightful.
Next, they'll tell us that hisisland was a quiet monastery for
chess retreats.
(39:25):
The names of princes,presidents, tech titans,
hollywood morgals swirl aroundEpstein's memory like a fetid
cloud, and yet, miraculously,not a single verifiable incident
emerges.
Such vanishing acts would makeDavid Copperfield weep with envy
(39:47):
.
Perhaps these clients possessan invisibility cloak on loan
from Hogwarts School ofWitchcraft and Witchery?
Once upon a time, journalistsprided themselves on speaking
truth to power.
Today they resemble well-fedpoodles, grateful for scraps
from their corporate masters.
(40:08):
From their corporate masters.
One might think that child sextrafficking ring implicating
global elites would generatewall-to-wall coverage.
Instead, we get carefullymanicured headlines and
hush-hush settlements.
The public left drooling beforecelebrity trials and TikTok
(40:30):
trends never demands more.
A high-profile prisoner,arguably the most notorious in
the country, somehow manages tohang himself while under
constant watch.
Meanwhile, guards fall asleep,cameras malfunction and logs
vanish.
If one wrote this as a crimenovel editors would scoff and
(40:52):
send it back because it was tooimplausible.
Medical examiners foundinjuries more consistent with
homicidal strangulation.
Yet the narrative spun fasterthan a derailed journal.
In December, beocraticmouthpieces declared it a
suicide, presumably to keep thepublic docile and the donor
(41:13):
dinners undisturbed.
Epstein's cell cameras failedat the moment of cosmic
convenience.
Guards, apparently inspired byRip Van Winkle, took unscheduled
naps.
Here lies an insult so brazenthat it becomes almost comedic,
the dark kind of comedy thatleaves one reaching for a
(41:37):
whiskey bottle.
The Department of Justice issupposed to be a bulwark against
corruption.
Instead, it acts like asorcerer's apprentice,
tirelessly conquering illusionsto protect its betters.
Tirelessly conquering illusionsto protect its betters.
In a society where money andinfluence dictate outcomes, we
mustn't be shocked when thewatchdog turns into a lapdog.
(42:01):
To accept these official linesrequire mental gymnastics that
will put Olympic athletes toshame.
A public eager to resume Netflixmarathons Prefers easy lies
over hard truths.
The very idea that our readersand our leaders might be
irredeemably corrupt Is toofrightening, so we choose the
(42:26):
comforting fiction.
Those who parted on Epstein'sjet, those who logged and
lounged in his island, literallyknown as Pedophile Island, have
every reason to ensure thetruth stays buried deeper than
the Egyptian pharaoh.
(42:47):
Their interests are global,their power transcendent.
They are the very architects ofour moral ruin.
A public armed with facts mightask uncomfortable questions.
They might even heaven forbiddemand accountability.
Far easier to drown them indistractions, celebrity gossip,
(43:11):
partisan bickering and neuroticglow of social media.
In a just society, the presswould be the dagger aimed at the
heart of power.
Instead, it is a shieldprotecting the powerful from
consequences.
Those who dare to dig deeper,like Julia K Brown, stand as a
(43:38):
rare exception in a fieldotherwise cloaked with moral
pygmies.
In the end, the Department ofJustice narrative is not merely
a lie.
It's an insult to anyonecapable of rational thought.
The Epstein saga is a mirrorheld up to our collective
(43:59):
cowardice and to ourintellectual laziness.
We are asked not to merelydisbelieve.
We are asked to disbelieve oureyes, but to lobotomize our
sense of outrage.
As the late Christopher Hitchensonce said, the essence of the
(44:19):
independent mind lies in notwhat it thinks, but how it
thinks.
Let us honor that spirit bydemanding answers, reject facile
explanations.
Above all, refuse to let thepowerful whitewash their own
(44:39):
absolution.
We're going to get into theblasphemy of the intellectual
past and we'll see you on thenext episode.
I wrote a sub stack yesterdaycalled Bring Us Vidal, bring Us
Buckley, the iconic clash that'sshaping intellectual debates.
I'm going to go to a clip fromGore Vidal versus William F
Buckley in the DemocraticNational Convention debate of
(45:02):
1968.
This is not going to be theclash that became famous, but I
want you to hear theintellectual rigor between the
father of modern conservatismand the father of modern
liberalism Gore Vidal versusWilliam F Buckley.
See you on the next episode.
Speaker 4 (45:25):
The main source of contention on the floor of the
convention tonight is theVietnam plank of the newly
published Democratic platform.
I would like to ask our guestcommentators if they can find
any serious differences betweenwhat the Republicans said about
Vietnam and what the Democratssay about it.
To my mind, I see very littledifference.
It To my mind, I see verylittle difference.
(45:49):
Our guests are the playwright,gord Vidal, a Democrat, a former
candidate for Congress from NewYork State, and William Buckley
, editor and a former candidatefor mayor of New York City.
Mr Buckley, will you begin?
I think that the importantdifference of Mr Smith is not in
the planks, as it were, finallywritten, but in the effort that
(46:10):
went into their composition.
The Democrats a great many ofthem, are clearly displeased
with the plank insofar as itdoesn't call immediately for an
unconditional end in bombing.
We know that Mr McGovern and MrMcCarthy joined forces to
demand nothing less than thatthe unconditional end of bombing
(46:32):
.
There were no equivalent forcesin the Republican Party, so
that, although they ended upsaying roughly the same thing,
one is entitled to suppose that,in the case of the Republicans,
this truly represents thesettlement of the overwhelming
majority of them, which is notthe case.
Concerning the Democrats, Ithink that's well observed.
(46:53):
There's a definite split heretonight.
I personally favored, as manypeople did, the
McCarthy-McGovern plank.
I was just told the latest hotrumor here at the convention
hall that the plaque was givento Lyndon B Johnson himself, who
rewrote it and sent it back,and that is the one that they
are now celebrating down on thefloor.
(47:14):
We were just given bits andpieces of this platform and my
favorite little bit here is westrongly support the Paris talks
and applaud the initiative ofPresident Johnson which brought
North Vietnam to the peace table.
Of course it was SenatorMcCarthy in New Hampshire and
the enormous movement of a greatmany people in the United
States that caused our leader tomake that diplomatic gesture.
(47:36):
So I would say that thedifference between the two
platforms is, as Mr Buckleysuggests the Republicans are
pretty united in being not onlyon the one hand hawkish, but on
the other hand they seem to feelthat they're open for
negotiation, trying to relive, Isuppose, the days of the Korean
(47:58):
settlement by GeneralEisenhower, who talked very
tough in the campaign and then,of course, made a peace with
Korea.
I suspect that may well be thenixon plan.
Meanwhile, a very divideddemocratic party here tonight.
What can the republicans dothat the democrats can't?
If nixon is elected, mr buckley?
Well, if, if nixon is elected,it seems to mean that the
(48:31):
strategic seriousness of ouranti-communist position there,
that is to say, that he won't behampered by a divided party,
some of which, perhaps even themajority of which, is bitterly
opposed, as Mr Vidal quitecorrectly suggests, to this
policy.
I do think, though, that MrVidal's diagnosis is
insufficient, primarily for thereason that he doesn't take into
(48:52):
account extrinsic circumstances.
For instance, eisenhower'spiece on Korea may very well, as
Democratic Chairman Paul Butlerpointed out at the time, have
also had something to do withthe death of Stalin, which
conveniently took place two orthree months after Eisenhower's
election.
But also, one has to bear inmind that there have been such
sentimentalities as calling fora coalition government, as
(49:16):
calling for sending blood to theViet Cong, all that kind of
business, which haveconsiderably hampered the
negotiations which mightotherwise have taken place more
speedily, considerably hamperedthe negotiations which might
otherwise have taken place morespeedily.
Well, I think Mr Buckley hasgiven us a preview of what we
will hear from the Republicanson this subject.
I'd like to introduce a notethat absolutely nobody has so
(49:36):
far in the Vietnam debate, andthat is that I happen to favor a
sort of diplomacy in the grandold style and I'm sure Mr
Buckley will agree with me,since he too is a lover of the
Congress of Vienna andMetternich policy, that we
should, since Ho Chi Minh is theenemy of Mao Tse Tung,
therefore we should support HoChi Minh.
(49:56):
Mao Tse Tung is the enemy ofthe Kremlin, therefore, in
certain cases, we should supporthim, and the Kremlin is, of
course, the enemy of Mao TseTung, and we should support them
.
Now, this is grand politics,this is not ideological.
It's not as interesting as theholy war, as the fascinating war
that we must, we are the forcesof light and we must destroy
all of the government.
(50:17):
But it has always beentraditional in the conduct of
foreign policy, until thepietisms of John Foster Dulles,
who really did believe, at leastas far as we can tell, that we
were indeed the forces of lightand they were night that we
began forcing our way into theworld and forever setting up
this pietistic view thatgovernments that we disapproved
of should be dealt with harshly.
(50:37):
So I'm simply saying, to theextent that the leader of North
Vietnam is no friend of China.
This is not a monolithicconspiracy.
We should support him and, bythe same token, mao Zedong, and
again in this Viennesecongressional circle.
Mr Buckley, would you like toadd to that?
Well, mr Dowell's suggestionthat perhaps it would be in our
(50:59):
interest to support Ho Chi Minhsuggests perhaps also that, as a
matter of testamentaryintegrity, I reveal a concrete
proposal to that end, containedin a letter sent to me by
Senator Kennedy about six monthsago, the PS of which was I have
(51:22):
changed my platform for 1968from let's give blood to the
Viet Cong to let's give GoreVidal to the Viet Cong.
Speaker 3 (51:30):
May.
Speaker 4 (51:31):
I see that really.
I think, however, that would beimmoderate notion that Mr
Vidal's idea of how to prosecutethe whole situation out there,
quite apart from the fact of acongruence of general policy, is
(51:53):
marred by his sort of strangefantasies concerning the
realisms of politics.
I must say I'm looking at this.
What a very curious handwriting.
It also slants up a sign of amanic depressive.
Did you find out about SenatorKennedy?
I did see that.
Whether you forged it or not, Idon't know, and I will have to
have my handwriting experts, thegraphologists will have to look
(52:14):
at it.
I put nothing beyond you, notsince the Dreyfus case, and we
had such evidence brought intocourt.
But it's very, very amusing andhas nothing to do with the case
.
The fact that he was writingyou letters makes me terribly
suspicious of him as apresidential candidate.
I will say that I'm not talkingabout him as a candidate.
This is Senator Bobby Harris.
Yes, I realize I recognize thehandwriting.
He makes you suspicious.
(52:37):
It makes me very suspicious ofwhat he might have been like as
president.
But to get back to the plank,it's been fun inspecting your
correspondence, but what mattershere is that we have, in a word
, lost the war Clank while we've.
It's been fun inspecting yourcorrespondence, but what matters
here is that we have, in a word, lost the war, and I think that
that was really the impressionthat the McCarthy-McGovern
people have been trying to givethe country that we must get out
(52:57):
of this.
This cost us $100 billion.
This cost us 25,000 dead.
It has cost us something like90% of the casualties are
civilians.
So when they accuse us ofgenocide, they are not without
point.
Now wait a minute.
We have nothing to gain by thiswar.
Now wait a minute.
The activity of the UnitedStates in North Vietnam cannot
(53:18):
be categorized as genocide byanyone who doesn't accept the
postulates of the CommunistParty, their postulates being,
of course, that we areinterested in killing people for
the sake of killing people, thedistinction being how many
people is it necessary to killin order to pursue a perfectly
legitimate military mission, adistinction that has been
(53:38):
honored during the past 1,000years.
But we have not lost the war inVietnam.
What we have lost is anopportunity to press that war
with such weapons as areespecially at our disposal.
And the reason we haven't isbecause we have proceeded
schizophrenically make love tothe communists this side of the
(53:58):
hemisphere, hate them and killthem.
This side of the hemisphere andthis doesn't know.
Speaker 3 (54:02):
What do you think?
Speaker 4 (54:03):
would you favor just an all-out war on communism,
using nuclear weapons, as youhave in the past?
Uh, on the chinese, uh, nuclearcapacity?
Yes, indeed, you and something,a marvelous moment, a blow for
peace.
You came out.
You said, quote, to give atwo-hour notice to the red
chinese that we intend todestroy these nuclear facilities
(54:24):
and so give the civilian,military and scientific
population a chance to evacuatethe plants, which we then
proceed, pure and simple, toblow up.
This is.
Speaker 3 (54:32):
The great statesman said that is an act of war.
Why with nuclear?
Speaker 4 (54:35):
weapons.
I never said nuclear weapons, Iblew them up with poison ivy.
Of all I'm concerned.
Speaker 3 (54:39):
The point is oh well, what is the difference?
Speaker 4 (54:41):
well, it is an act of war.
It was an act of war, mr, todrop bombs on another country.
You an act of war.
You want to change what youfinished saying a moment ago?
I will welcome any change atany point in here.
But you said a moment ago thatI favored nuclear bombing in Red
China.
For the record, I did not, no.
But when you said bombing,explain that I favored,
alongside a number of veryserious military strategists, a
(55:06):
preemptive strike against thenuclear facilities of Red Shire
and you expect really to betaken seriously A position which
was explored by President JohnF Kennedy in the fall of 1963.
And should be thought of by allserious people who not only are
against the nuclear bomb in thecafe society, but you are trying
to do something about it.
If the bad guys have got thenuclear bomb we don't want that
to it.
You're both much better when youdon't talk at the same time.
(55:28):
Could we take turns?
Yes, well, I would like to justpick up.
We'll just take that point.
I would like to pick up thatpoint.
You did indeed want to dropbombs on China, which is a
foreign country of enormous size.
It is no business of ours, Ishould think, to begin a Pearl
Harbor, give them a Pearl Harbor.
You have also advocated theinvasion of Cuba and what you
(55:51):
call the immediate enactment ofthe Monroe Doctrine, something I
suspect you have never read,because the Monroe Doctrine
ceased to exist, in fact, since1917.
Monroe Doctrine, for yourinformation, happened to be
dependent upon did your foreignpowers.
Foreign powers, the unitedstates, in this hemisphere were
not to be allowed, but by thesame token, we would maintain
(56:12):
ourselves outside europeanaffairs.
We abrogated that by going tothe first world war.
So an effective monroe doctrinedoes not exist.
This is our case.
It is laborious job tostraighten out history after
you've had a couple of sentencesago at it.
The distinction was that wewould not go to Europe except at
the invitation of Europe.
If you will give me the name ofone country in Europe where we
(56:32):
are without the invitation ofthe local government, then I
will say that we have violatedthe equivalent of the Monroe
Doctrine.
Speaker 3 (56:38):
But the Monroe Doctrine is perfectly clear.
How do we get out of the war inVietnam, the last few?
Speaker 4 (56:42):
have not read it.
The is about the plank inVietnam.
How do we get out?
Have we really been beaten?
The answer is that we have notbeen beaten, mr Smith.
The answer is that we arenegotiating in Paris at this
moment because the enemy feelsthe pressure of a four-,
five-year effort by the UnitedStates and South Vietnam and
(57:04):
certain of its Asian allies, bythe United States and South
Vietnam and certain of its Asianallies.
It's not there simply becauseSenator McCarthy got 43,000
votes in New Hampshire.
This isn't the way Tai Phongworks, hanoi works.
We can, of course, win the war,but it's going to take our
concerted effort and it's goingto take the kind of
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com
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.
Law & Order: Criminal Justice System - Season 1 & Season 2
Season Two Out Now! Law & Order: Criminal Justice System tells the real stories behind the landmark cases that have shaped how the most dangerous and influential criminals in America are prosecuted. In its second season, the series tackles the threat of terrorism in the United States. From the rise of extremist political groups in the 60s to domestic lone wolves in the modern day, we explore how organizations like the FBI and Joint Terrorism Take Force have evolved to fight back against a multitude of terrorist threats.