It's A Second Sunday Morning Bonus Podcast For 8-24-25-Part 1

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:00):
The Michael Berry Show.

Speaker 2 (00:02):
I have been looking forward to this day for quite
some time. It's one of the few occasions where I
am interviewing the author of a book and I've actually
read the entire book word for word. I posted on
Facebook page last night with I suspect an air of
desperation that if you were going to listen to one
day of our show this year, that this would be

(00:27):
the show that you should listen to. And the reason
is because this story is so compelling, and I'm realistic
enough to know that no matter how hard I push
this book and the story that it tells, some people
are not going to read it. They may buy it,
but they're not going to read it for whatever reason.
And what is on these pages and the story that

(00:48):
it tells, I think needs to be heard by every
single American. We're going to talk to Cheryl Atkinson, formerly
of CBS, CNN, all sorts of other places, and she's
want to tell us her story. We're going to talk
about what's in this book. Welcome Cheryl.

Speaker 3 (01:04):
Thank you.

Speaker 2 (01:05):
It's odd being across from a broadcast professional. I feel
like it might be, especially because you're a TV person.
You're even perked up you went into anchor mode. You're
even sitting around. We're going to talk about Fast and Furious,
a story that she led on. We're going to talk
about Benghazi. We're going to talk about spying on US
citizens because she was the victim of that, and a

(01:28):
very high profile one. Before we knew the name Edward Snowden,
we knew that Cheryl Atkinson was being spied on. And
the last of the four subjects we will talk about
is green energy in the stories she has written there,
let's start with Fast and Furious, and let's start with
a fellow named Dodson. You were contacted by an informant

(01:50):
and it turned out he was a high ranking official
with the Border Patrol, and that story ended up breaking
what we now know as Fast and Furious. Talk us
through that.

Speaker 3 (02:00):
It was sort of a long road. Initially, my producer
and I found out this story was going on because
someone anonymously sent us a letter that Senator Grassley had
written to atf alcohol, tobacco, and firearms, asking questions in
a way that let me know, because I'm somewhat familiar
with how his office works, that he had whistleblowers inside

(02:21):
the government telling him this amazing tale that federal agents
were actually facilitating the delivery of thousands of assault rifles
and other weapons into the hands of drug cartels in Mexico,
which sounded so far fetched, but again, knowing how whistleblowers
go to Senator Grassley's office and how he operates, I

(02:42):
realized he probably had internal sources telling him this and
that there was something to it. So from there, my
producer and I tried very hard to find some of
the whistleblowers. Grassley's office wasn't returning our calls back then,
and we turned to bloggers and online people that were
in touch with some of these federal agents, and ultimately
it led us to John Dodson, who worked for Alcohol

(03:06):
works still for ATF Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms as a
special agent, who objected to this so called gun walking
that was being done because he told his bosses he
couldn't believe they were letting guns go unchecked to Mexico
to be used in crimes, and he would say to
his bosses, you know what's going to happen if one
of these guns kills a federal agent, that one of

(03:26):
these cartel members uses it against us or other innocent people,
and that's indeed what happened with Fast and Furious. Ultimately,
a Border Patrol agent, Brian Terry, was shot and killed
in December of twenty ten by illegal immigrants who were
armed with some of these guns that federal agents had
let walk. That was basically how this big story got started.

Speaker 2 (03:47):
You right that your sources told you that quote ATFS
secretly enlisted the help of licensed gun dealers in Arizona
and encouraged them to do the unthinkable. So AK forty
six seven types semi automatic assault rifles, fifty caliber guns
capable of taking down an element, an elephant, and other
firearms to suspected traffickers for the cartels. How did the

(04:11):
actual exchange occur? Gun dealer in Arizona has possession of
an AK forty seven type. I don't know what what
they were carrying across. How does the transfer occur? How
does the walk occur?

Speaker 3 (04:21):
There are different ways. And by the way, some documents
now being released which I haven't fully gone through three
years later, indicate Dallas. Since I'm here in Texas, I'll
mention that Dallas was very much involved in some of
these gunwalking cases, as were other cities and other states.
But for an example would be a gun shop that

(04:44):
ATF was familiar with because ATF regulates gun shops would
be selling to suspicious characters that would come in with
a bag of cash and buy, you know, want to
buy twenty AK forty seven's. They call them weapons of
choice of the drug cartels and the gun agents. The
gun shops would report this to ATF as good gun

(05:05):
shop owners would do, and just give them an alert,
sort of a heads up, and ATF instead of saying, well,
let's see what we can do, it looks like these
are straw purchasers. Maybe sometimes they lied on their forms.
They could have been arrested. At that point, ATF would say,
you know, just sell them the guns. And the gun
shops some of them would actually say, are you sure?

(05:27):
You know we really they even some of them made
objections in writing or made their concerns and writing to
ATF as this drew on and they worried that these
guns the gun shop owners were being let go or
let walk, and some of them worried in writing that
the guns, like agent John Dotson had said, would be
used against a federal agent. But ATF said, nope, go ahead,

(05:50):
do it instead of watching the suspects from every moment
that they had the gun on so that the gun
wouldn't go into the population. They would just let the
gun go, and time and time again, when these same
suspects would come back after they had transferred guns to
drug cartels, they would be allowed to buy more guns.
So some suspects bought hundreds and hundreds of guns over

(06:13):
the course of a year and were allowed to continue
to operate.

Speaker 2 (06:17):
You say that it may be unprecedented an on camera
interview with a sitting federal agent criticizing a major government
law enforcement initiative. You got Dotson on the record. I
got one minute left in this segment. Tell us how
that first interview went.

Speaker 3 (06:34):
It was great. I mean, he came across as very
honest and forthright, nervous. He came forward because in the
first story that I aired that had no on camera sources,
the federal government had said that was all lies, none
of it was true, and he was really in your
face when he did the interview. He basically looked at
me and looked in the camera and said, tell me,

(06:54):
now this is a lie. Now you have my name,
now you have my face. Tell me I didn't do
the things that you told me to do for the
past year.

Speaker 2 (07:02):
It's fair to say we may not recognize the term
Fast and Furious outside the media industry, outside the Beltway,
if it had not been for John Dobson.

Speaker 3 (07:11):
I think that's true.

Speaker 2 (07:12):
More with Cheryl Atkinson coming up more about the gun
running the second interview, which was the groundbreaking interview that
made Fast and Furious a huge national issue. We'll talk
about that coming up. There was a NBC investigative reporter

(07:34):
who was also on the trail for Fast and Furious.
According to Cheryl Atkinson's book, she is our guest live
in studio. And you mentioned that that source, the sources
were not handled very delicately, and they, as you say,
pissed off the sources, and you swooped in and you
got James Dodson, John Dodson, And here is the exchange

(07:55):
during the second interview March fourth, twenty eleven. Cheryl Atkinson
says you he worked for the federal government. You were
intentionally letting guns go to Mexico. And he responds, yes, ma'am.
The agency was. I'm boots on the ground in Phoenix
telling you We've been doing it every day since I've
been here. Here I am. Tell me I did not

(08:17):
do the things that I did. Tell me, you didn't
order me to do the things I did. Tell me,
it didn't happen. Now you have a name on it,
you have a face to put with it. Here, I
am someone now tell me it didn't happen, and you
write fast and furious. Has just become an undeniable reality.

(08:39):
If ever there's a story that transcends politics, I think
surely this is the one. But on this point I'm
incredibly mistaken. At that moment the Obama administration begins to
shut you down.

Speaker 3 (08:54):
There was, I think it's fair to say, outright panic
inside the administration when John Dodson came forward, because they
were portraying all of this as false, with no names
behind it and lies and telling other reporters none of
it ever happened. And internal emails now show they were
delighted nobody else was picking up the story other than

(09:14):
what I was doing. By and large, at the point,
I think Fox probably did some. The Washington Post had,
I think at one time early on, done a very
very short couple of paragraphs, but by and large they
were delighted that the press was not making as big
a deal of this story as it deserved. And when
John Dodson spoke on the CBS Evening News like that,

(09:36):
it just set off panic. They hardly knew what to do.

Speaker 2 (09:40):
Tell us where those guns ended up. There's more than
the Brian Terry case.

Speaker 3 (09:46):
There were thousands of guns in Fast and Furious, and
as I write, even though a lot of the focus
was on that case, understandably so, there were many other
cases going on in which guns were let go too,
So I'd say thousands and thousand, and the government has
tried very hard to find out. The Congress has where

(10:07):
the guns have ended up, because through tracings, the Bureau
of Alcohol to back when fire and gets notified if
a gun is recovered at a criminal event or a murder.
But to this day, three years later, the government will
not disclose to Congress where these guns are showing up.
I think they have no valid reason not to, but
they're just not doing it, kind of thumbing their nose. Still,

(10:27):
through public reports, we are able to find out where
some of the guns have ended up. Guns that were
walked by suspects in a related case, were used in
the murder of an ICE agent and Immigrations and Customs
agent from the US who is down in Mexico. Fast
and furious guns were used in the torture murder of
the brother of the equivalent of an attorney general in Mexico.

(10:49):
Fast and furious guns were used to shoot at military
helicopters in Mexico. They've been used in crimes in the
United States. There's a pretty long list of what we
do know, which I've put on my website under the
Fast and Furious bar at Cheryl Akison dot com.

Speaker 2 (11:05):
Which nobody can spell.

Speaker 3 (11:06):
By the way, That's okay, it'll show up in a
Google search. But I think the irony is they know
where the guns are showing up and they won't tell us.
But John Dotson said in his initial interview that these guns,
because they can be used over and over again, will
be committed used to commit crimes for decades to come.
You know, they can murder more than one person.

Speaker 2 (11:28):
And let me interrupt you. This sounds like something a
conservative talk host would say. This sounds like it's coming
from Rush Limbaugh, connecting the dots as not just to
what happened, but why. But these are the words of
Cheryl Akison. A simple three step, gun control advocates could

(11:49):
have their checkmate, but how to make that happen? A
simple three step strategy could do the trick. ATF could
work with licensed gun dealers in a scheme to encourage
and monitor sales to suspicious characters and known traffickers, entering
the serial numbers into ATF's suspect gun database on the
front end, so that tracings later are easy because at
that point they believed they wanted them. Number two, let

(12:10):
the guns sold to these suspicious characters and known traffickers walk.
Number three wait sometimes an incredibly short time to crime,
as the weapons are recovered at crime scenes in Mexico
and their serial numbers easily traced back to the American origins.
The paradox here being that a gun control administration was

(12:30):
actually creating these crimes, if not encouraging or at least
permitting these crimes, so that as you say, it was
all a setup.

Speaker 3 (12:42):
That is one theory, and the theory has some basis
in fact, because we have emails that show if this
is not why they conceived of Fast and Furious, it's
certainly something they thought of that the federal agents were using.
The guns being recovered in Mexico to make the case
for greater gun control laws that they were trying to push.

(13:04):
And they weren't planning at the time to tell anybody
that they were sending the guns to Mexico. They were
just going to argue, look at all the US guns
sold by the bad gun shops to Mexican drug cartels
and traffickers, without acknowledging their own role in making those
guns go there. But there is traffic from emails that

(13:24):
show they wanted to use this to support something called
Demand Letter three, which was a push for greater gun
control regulations.

Speaker 2 (13:32):
Cheryl Atkinson is our guest. The book is stonewalled you
right during Fast and Furious. The Obama administration has improperly
used its powers to ban me from the Justice Department building,
where it was presumed I would ask uncomfortable questions. So
the Justice Department spokeswoman Tracy Schmeler tells you, when you're

(13:53):
on your way over to a meeting, don't bother to come.
Only the regular Justice Department reporters are allowed. She tells
me she will not clear me through secut ready to
come into the building, and you point out I've been
on planes with presidents and their families. I have every
clearance there is, so they shut you out so that
you couldn't write about this story.

Speaker 3 (14:10):
I think this is one of the biggest outrages that
we the media have allowed under this administration. They get
to pick and choose which they shouldn't be allowed to do,
what reporters cover their stories. They get to bar reporters
from public federal buildings if they don't want them in
their reporting on their story. And when that happened, I

(14:30):
went to my bureau chief at CBS and said, we
need to push back against this. They don't have a
right to keep me out of the building so that
they can only have friendly reporters cover their story. And
I just was very disappointed at the media's lack of
willingness to get together and do something about our rights
being infringed upon in this way. The bureau chief agreed

(14:50):
that that was a bad thing, but sort of shrugged
his shoulders and said, well, the press conference has already
started now, so what are we going to do? But
I thought that was a really outrageous.

Speaker 2 (15:00):
We're going to get later in our conversation to the
spying on you individually, but I want to talk about
you as sort of a whistleblower on the industry or
someone who, as you say, says the media has lost
its mojo. Did you ever see yourself? I mean, you
were an insider, you were a star, you were on
CBS News. I mean, you've been a CNN. Your name

(15:23):
is household and in the industry so well respected. You
worked hard to gain that, And here you are today,
sitting here and saying that industry I loved is failing
the American people by selling out. It has to surprise
you to end up here.

Speaker 3 (15:37):
Yeah, I never thought that would happen.

Speaker 2 (15:39):
He's good, But I mean at this point.

Speaker 3 (15:41):
Well, I always fought my battles, as some reporters do
inside my company, for the good of what I saw
as my company, and for the good of journalism and
for the good of CBS work. I absolutely did so.
Anything I did and pushing back against something I saw
that I thought wasn't right, I did in my mind
for the good of CBS, for the good of journalists,
for the good of the public. I never thought, I guess,

(16:04):
like many whistleblowers in government and in corporations, that I
would end up having to go outside of CBS or
going outside of CBS to kind of blow the whistle
when my efforts seemed to just fall short inside the company,
and I guess in the end that's kind of what happened.
I do see similarities between myself and my experience and
the many whistleblowers that I've dealt with who are marginalized

(16:26):
inside their agency when they try to tell the truth
and try to change things from within and are sort
of punished or at least feel punished and retaliated against
for that, so they end up going public.

Speaker 2 (16:38):
Cheryl Agison is our guest, formerly of CBS, but more
importantly Cheryl Atkinson dot com. Let's talk about what the
Obama administration started doing to you when you reported some
pretty serious stuff on Fast and Furious, not the least
of which was keeping you out of press conferences. But

(17:00):
as you write through the course of and we'll get
to being Ghazi and the personal spying in a bit,
but as you write, your own network seemed to be
letting you down. CBS seemed to be saying there's one
part I can't remember if it was this or being Gazi,
that one of the senior producers says, Oh, you're so
far out ahead of everybody else, just enough has been said,
leave it alone.

Speaker 3 (17:17):
Yeah, that was Fast and Furious. And there's a pattern
that I described the last couple of years in CBS,
which did not take place the previous twenty or so,
but there were some new managers in charge of broadcasts,
and they would assign me to stories or accept a
good story like Fast and Furious, and be very enthusiastic

(17:38):
at first, you know, we want more of that. That's fantastic.
And then when these pushback campaigns would start by the
administration or whatever corporation was involved, whoever it may be,
pushback campaigns that are increasingly sophisticated and powerful and well
funded and surreptitious. In many cases, it seemed as though
to me the managers would would succumb to those because suddenly,

(18:00):
as I described, the light switch would go off on
a story they liked yesterday. Suddenly they acted like I
was a troublemaker. My producer and I for continuing to
cover the story as it developed and got more and
more important.

Speaker 2 (18:12):
You tell the story. I think it's later on Benghazi,
but it seems to be true as a pattern of
j Krney calling your bosses, the news directors and the
bureau chiefs, and it's sort of they're working these parallel
tracks using the exact same language, so it was clearly coordinated.
And I guess that's their job to spend. So I'm

(18:33):
not mad at them for trying to spend every boss
of yours that you're off track and going after them
and not being fair, but that CBS or any network
would allow that had to disappoint you, and it infuriates me.

Speaker 3 (18:45):
I think CBS could have done a better job at
You do have to listen to people who complain about stories,
but I feel like by being overly receptive to this
sort of ridiculous pushback that sometimes had no merit at all,
it encouraged more of it to occur. And I can't
say CBS is the only place where that was happening,

(19:06):
because I've spoken to my colleagues there was relentless phone calling,
emails pressure from this White House. They have been more aggressive,
I think, at least in the experience of the journals
I've spoken to, than other administrations in this sort of pushback,
because I think they know it leads to or hope
it leads to a sort of self censorship because they
provide so much headache and pushback to any story that

(19:30):
they perceive as negative that maybe they figure you won't
do the next one.

Speaker 2 (19:33):
There's no headache unless you care about their opinion. And
I'm hearing you tell a story of CBS executives wanting
the approval of Jay Carney and the President.

Speaker 3 (19:43):
I think to some degree, yes, they would much rather
be padded on the back. It's a more pleasant experience
to be told you did a great story and you're
going to get that next big interview from the administration,
rather than kind of yelled at and argued at all
the time.

Speaker 2 (19:57):
Let's talk about media matters. Chryl atkis and is our guest.
The book is stonewalled, you say, but it's not journalism,
and it's not how I operate. It's not that I
mind getting the idea, and you tell about these ideas
that are handed to you. And then, all of a sudden,
when you won't do what Media Matters wants, you write.
When I prove to be non compliant and continue covering

(20:20):
stories considered potentially damaging to the Obama administration, media Matters
will strike me from their list of valuable media contacts
and make me a target of their aggressive campaign to
smear and controversialize with false information. If one were to
believe the Liberal blog. In an overnight transformation, I went

(20:41):
from being a trusted journalist whom they wanted on their
side to a shoddy reporter. Fortunately few are swayed by
their narrative, well as we know some are. Were you
surprised by these attacks? You were, all of a sudden
a bad person. You were Sheryl Akison, consummate insider, and
now you were some sort of a spy for Fox.

Speaker 3 (21:01):
I wasn't surprised because this is how as I described
in the book, these are these propaganda operations that are
now employed by Media Matters works on behalf of the
Obama administration in Hillary Clinton, So it kind of made
sense they would do that. I think what surprised me
is even though CBS was pretty good on its face

(21:22):
at not succumbing to that or acting like it mattered.
I think it did matter a little bit. Again, they
just don't like the social media campaigns that come forward
after Media Matters puts forth it's propaganda. Then there are
quasi news media that pick up Media Matters propaganda, and
pretty soon, if you really can't turn a ten ear
to that sort of thing. It would bother you, and

(21:44):
I think it did bother some people at CBS.

Speaker 2 (21:46):
There was a data dump on election day of Fast
and Furious documents. There have been many who theorize that
Eric Holder is leaving the AG's office so that they
can ensure that someone comes in afterwards to clean up.
Do you think he was involved with Fast and Furious?

Speaker 3 (22:05):
I think, whatever the truth is, he should have been.
Let's let's take him at face value when he says
he didn't read his briefings, which in of itself I
think is its own scandal that the news media didn't
seem to care about. But let's take him at face
value that he didn't know. He certainly should have known
that agents under the Department of Justice were involved in

(22:25):
an international cross border operation to arm Mexican drug cartels
over a course of more than a year, in many
operations involving not just ATF but the IRS was involved,
the DEA was involved.

Speaker 2 (22:40):
As an individual. Do you believe that he knew?

Speaker 3 (22:46):
I would say right now, I think he did not know,
did not have a firm grip on the details of
it until late in the game.

Speaker 2 (22:55):
Then why not step forward and prove that.

Speaker 3 (22:58):
I would say he he would say he has. He's
testified he didn't read his briefings. He testified that even
if he had read his briefings, the briefings didn't contain
that kind of detail. The whole that exists in his defense, however,
is the fact that we don't have all the documents
and testimony because the President of the United States stepped
in to withhold it from us. So we don't know

(23:20):
for sure a lot of the answers because they've stepped
in to keep us from getting them, and we can
only wonder what's in those documents that they haven't turned over.

Speaker 2 (23:29):
We're going to move to bing Ghazi. But it was
on fast and furious. Let me read this. Let me
read your line back to you. Perhaps the Justice Department's
biggest blunder was its February fourth, twenty eleven letter to Congress,
which falsely stated that ATF does not let guns walk, specifically,
Holder's assistant attorney general, his assistant Attorney general. Oh my goodness,

(23:53):
I've misspaid wrong page. Here we go, next page. As
I continue to push for CBS to cover ongoing developments,
one broadcast producer tells me, quote The thing is, you've
done such a great job covering the story. You were
so far ahead of everyone else. You've reported everything. There's
really nothing left to say. And you add, in fact,

(24:13):
we've barely begun to peek through the door. Did you
get the sense that they were quashing your story or
they just were unaccustomed to breaking this kind of negative news.

Speaker 3 (24:24):
No, they were accustomed to the stories I'd been doing
for twenty years, whether it was perceived a target a
corporation or a charity or the Bush administration. Well, I
had done some Obama related stories, and they were again
receptive initially to a lot of these stories. But then
you know, the lights which would go off. That's all

(24:44):
I can say. And I could tell when it happened.
My producer and I would look at each other and think,
oh my gosh, because Fast and Furious had only just begun.
And how can a manager declare a story over without
even asking me what's left to report? They didn't even
ask brief me on what. You don't report everything you
know the second you know it. There's a lot of
developing information, and just they simply declared the story over

(25:07):
when we were getting that incredible pushback and we got
the pushback as the story. We kind of thought initially
it was a local Phoenix atf story, had no idea
it was going to lead to the Department of Justice
and White House executive privilege. But as it started to
go in that direction, that's when they lost interest, and
we were familiar with that pattern by then.

Speaker 2 (25:28):
Let's talk about being Ghazi, how you got involved in
that case in that story.

Speaker 3 (25:32):
I wasn't interested in Benghazi initially because if a story's
being well covered by everybody else, I'm trying to do
to uncover facts other people aren't covering, or cover stories
other people aren't covering. So I wasn't really paying a
lot of attention to it. But about three weeks and
CBS asked me to see what I could find out
because there was a perception that there was more to
it than perhaps was being covered by a lot of

(25:54):
the media. So I dove in about three weeks into
it and immediately saw a lot of inconsistencies and warning signs,
the kind of signals you get when simple questions won't
aren't answered by authorities that they should answer, when public
information is being withheld, when there are contradictory statements so
I dived in.

Speaker 2 (26:14):
Let's talk about an exchange. This is the opening of
chapter four of the book Stonewalled. You write under the
heading Benghazi The Unanswered Questions. It's July twenty nine, twenty thirteen.
I'm out somewhere in northern Virginia leading my private life
when a US Special Forces officer approaches me unsolicited. We

(26:35):
were ready, he tells me quietly, with no preface, no
drama in his voice. He assumes I know what he's
referring to, and I do. I've been approached the same
way on a regular basis since I began covering the
September eleventh, twenty twelve, terrorist attacks on Americans in Benghazi, Libya, Libya,
approached by men affiliated with the secretive world of military

(26:57):
special ops, men who know firsthand the ability and capabilities
of our elite teams and in extremist forces, so called
Tier one assets. They speak to me about the lack
of an outside military rescue attempt, as several dozen Americans
were trapped under attack at a CIA NX. So when

(27:17):
he says, we were ready, what's the story there?

Speaker 3 (27:21):
The story is, according to insiders, and that I really
can't name, and that can't speak publicly that there were
assets in the area, there were things that could have
been done, there were forces who were stopped from going,
even if the words stand down weren't necessarily used, and
that they're universally appalled that the night that was uniquely

(27:45):
I guess designed in some ways as the type of
thing our special forces are trained to respond to. That
they were kept away and they're bitter over that to
this day because they feel as though, you know, when
it was said the fog of war was too dangerous
to send our guys in, we didn't really know what
was going on. The guys say, that's exactly what we're
trained for. You never know exactly what's going on. There's

(28:08):
always a fog of war. So they feel very strongly
about that.

Speaker 2 (28:13):
But these sources are unnamed, unseen, we're left to trust you.

Speaker 3 (28:19):
Well, I didn't report based on those sources. That's just
what led me to know there was more to the story.
So that's what kept me digging for the facts. I
can't take a lot of unnamed information and do a
news story in the CBS News based on that, especially
if people can't go on camera. But that's the type
of thing you find out behind the scenes that tells

(28:41):
you there is a story here. So with that information,
I was able to move forward and prove some of
what they were saying was true. And I did report
that early on about the idea of what rescue attempts
could have been made. Some of that, although the government
denied it has now been admitted and acknowledged in closed
hearings by military officials. It was set at one point, oh,

(29:04):
there were no assets in the area. Of course, there
were assets in the area, and they've now acknowledged we, yes,
we had some things we could have done, we decided
not to do. And you know, they admitted there were
They said there were reasons they decided not to use
certain assets, but they've acknowledged there were some assets.

Speaker 2 (29:20):
We're going to talk about Benghazi, what Cheryl Atkinson learned,
where we are today, recent developments with a House committee
making a statement on that issue, who was involved, what
she thinks happened, and more coming up.

Speaker 1 (29:35):
If you liked the Michael Berry Show and podcast, please
tell one friend, and if you're so inclined, write a
nice review of our podcast, Comments, suggestions, questions, and interest
in being a corporate sponsor and partner can be communicated
directly to the show at our email address, Michael at

(29:56):
Michael Berryshow dot com, or simply by clicking on our website,
Michael Berryshow dot com. The Michael Berry Show and Podcast
is produced by Ramon Roeblis, The King of Ding. Executive
producer is Chad Knakanishi. Jim Mudd is the creative director.

(30:21):
Voices Jingles, Tomfoolery and Shenanigans are provided by Chance McLean.
Director of Research is Sandy Peterson. Emily Bull is our
assistant listener and superfan. Contributions are appreciated and often incorporated
into our production. Where possible, we give credit, where not,

(30:44):
we take all the credit for ourselves. God bless the
memory of Rush Limbaugh. Long live Elvis, be a simple
man like Leonard Skinnard told you, and God bless America. Finally,
a veteran suffering from PTSD call Camp Hope at eight

(31:04):
seven seven seven one seven PTSD and a combat veteran
will answer the phone to provide free counseling.