Join Washington Examiner Senior Writer David Harsanyi and Federalist Editor-In-Chief Mollie Hemingway to discuss the corporate media's coverage of the Pearl Street Mall terrorist attack, explain how the Chinese Communist Party uses American universities to advance its agenda, and give an update on the FBI's attempt to bury access to key Russia collusion hoax documents. Mollie also shares about her experience in the new media seat at the White House press briefing, and David shares his culture picks for the week.
If you care about combating the corrupt media that continue to inflict devastating damage, please give a gift to help The Federalist do the real journalism America needs.
If you care about combating the corrupt media that continue to inflict devastating damage, please give a gift to help The Federalist do the real journalism America needs.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:16):
Welcome back, everyone to a new episode of You Were
Wrong with Molly Hemingway, editor in chief of the Federalist
and David Harsani, senior writer at The Washington Examiner. Just
as a reminder, if you'd like to email the show,
please do so at radio at the Federalist dot com. So, Molly,
another week and another anti Semitic attack in America, this
time in Boulder, Colorado, your old stomping grounds up there
(00:39):
in Pearl Street. Did you go to Colorado? I forget
My brother.
Speaker 2 (00:44):
And sister went to see you Boulder, and I went
to see you Denver. So I'm very familiar with Pearl
Street Mall, which is where this attack happened, and Boulder,
and you're very familiar with it from having lived out
there as well.
Speaker 1 (01:00):
Yeah, it's nice. I mean, you know, well it's nice.
Speaker 2 (01:04):
One thing I don't think people realize, like CU Boulder
has a reputation for being a very liberal school. The
town itself is actually much more liberal than the school.
And you know, I remember when I was in high school,
their mayor was an abortionist, like a literal like she
ran an abortion facility, and they were known for wanting
(01:26):
to import homeless people, you know, never mind that homeless
people are smart enough to know that maybe Boulder is
not the best place to endure a winter, a winter
if you don't have a house. But it's a very
left wing city. But they apparently had been having a
weekly march to call for the return of the Israeli
(01:47):
hostages that were seized in the October seven attacks by Hamas,
and so that's when this attack happened, which you can
tell us about.
Speaker 1 (01:54):
Yeah, yeah, Boulder is insanely left wing. Warren Hern, I
believe had his office.
Speaker 2 (01:59):
Up there is late term abortion.
Speaker 1 (02:02):
Yeah, just the worst person in America probably. I mean,
I can't think of anyone more evil than that guy.
So just a terrible place in that sense. It's it's
a very weird thing because it's it's also quite rich,
you know. So anyway, this guy who was he was
a He built a flamethrower basically, and he threw it
(02:22):
at a bunch of people who are marching for the hostages.
He was an illegal, He was illegally here. He's an Egyptian.
I just read today. He has like five kids here.
Speaker 2 (02:32):
Well over, he overstayed his visa with a visa and
then he completely overstayed his visa and then like after
it had been overstayed for quite some time, then he
was like, oh, I one asylum and I think that
was denied and so he was still here.
Speaker 1 (02:48):
Well, the asylum claim has just become this kind of
shortcut for people to try to you know, for illegals,
to try.
Speaker 2 (02:54):
To set the illegality here.
Speaker 1 (02:56):
Yeah, exactly. I mean the system needs reform and that's sure.
And honestly, I don't even want to talk a ton
about the attack or obviously it's just this crazed anti Semite.
It's not going to be the last attack. Unfortunately, as
of now, I don't think anyone has died, and I
hope that that's the case. He's charged with, you know,
terrorism and a bunch of other things. I want to
(03:17):
talk about how the media covered this. Now I'm going
to be ranting and raving a bit, I think today,
so I hope people go for it. When NBC described this,
describe this attack, this is what they called the people
there And I'm not making this up. It's so are
well in but I'm not making this up. Gaza hostage
(03:39):
awareness marchers like can you imagine? I'm not even joking Molly,
and just imagine the like Zoomer editorial assistant person who
had to find out a way to say this without
calling those people Jews. It was definitely no easy task,
and this is what they came up with.
Speaker 2 (03:55):
So they're not gozzen like they're being held in Gaza
Gaza hostage awareness there Israeli hostages.
Speaker 1 (04:03):
Well, it's completely misleading. It's someone who struggled in a
hand fisted way to talk about these people, not say
maybe you know pro Israel, pro Jewish hostage or pro
hostages or whatever. I don't even know how you did
describe it. I just say, you know whatever. But the
entire coverage of this is like it soft pedals what
(04:27):
this guy did. It's soft pedals what he's about. For instance,
NBC News lone wolf attacks, which should be lone wolves
attacks in Boulder and DC highlight the difficulty in securing
public spaces. So if you're.
Speaker 2 (04:43):
Sharing it quite literally, if it's a plural, it's not
a lone wolf.
Speaker 1 (04:49):
Okay, So let's say they're talking about separate incidents. But
if those string of incidents share the same rhetoric, the
same ideology, the same targets, the same kind of people doing.
Then it's a movement. You don't have to have a
meeting of everyone to get together and say, oh, we're
going to shoot some diplo Israeli. You know, some work
people who work at the Israeli diplomatic offices in DC,
(05:12):
and we're going to throw flames at Jews elsewhere. I
mean God, and I mean I.
Speaker 2 (05:15):
Hope people are remembering that the Democrat governor of Pennsylvania
who's Jewish had his mansion firebombed by a pro Palestinian
activist as well.
Speaker 1 (05:25):
Right, So there were a slew of stories recently that
had to be retracted that kinds of feeds the anger
at Jewish people and the genocide myth. And this is
a hoax. I'm not going to get too into that,
but to say this, it reminds me a little bit
of the Russia collusion hoax. In this way, the media
will say, oh, we made a mistake, we got it
(05:47):
wrong this time, We're going to retract this story days
after the damage is done. I'm going to give you
some of those examples, but it always skews in the
same exact direction. Somehow. That's a miracle, right, when you're
just making honest mistakes that every mistake you make excuse
in one direction towards Hamas in this point, in their
point of view of the world, that seems probably right.
Speaker 2 (06:06):
David. Are you talking about the story we discussed last
week about how like the false report that there were
going to be some like insane number of children.
Speaker 1 (06:15):
Dead within fourteen thousand children, babies were going to die
in two days if Israel didn't, you know, do this
and that forget that. After that, there was a story
about a tank attack on aid workers that killed a
bunch of Palestinians. Well, there were cameras there. Unfortunately for
the people who spread this story, it was untrue. Nothing
blew up. No one died there. Now I'm not saying
no one dies, I'm just saying no one died there.
(06:37):
The next day, BBC reported that the IDEAF had fired
into a group of Palestinians who were there at an
American ag center in thirty one had died. That was
completely unfounded and untrue. It did not happen. The Washington
Post ran with a story That story retracted it days after.
(06:57):
One of the reporters on that story one of the bylines,
have you noticed that there's always like ten bylines on
every story. Does no one like write.
Speaker 2 (07:03):
A story sea?
Speaker 1 (07:05):
But anyway, she won. I believe that she won a
Pulitzer Prize for their coverage of the Israel and Palestinian situation.
Here's the thing, though, they'll go back tomorrow to quoting
Hamas's casualty numbers. They'll keep doing it. I don't know
if you remember, ten days after the October seventh attack
(07:25):
in twenty twenty three, the New York Times ran with
the story that the Israelis had bombed a hospital and
killed like two hundred and thirty people. It turned out
it was Islamic Jihad had a misfired rocket that did it.
You know so, it's story after story that build, like
the Russia collusion hoax, build onto this narrative, and then
you forget how many of these stories are completely untrue
(07:45):
and not based in any reality. All you remember is
the string of stories of how terrible you know Israel
is Now. The Washington Post is one of the worst
at this, and the you know so, they were sin
They retracted this story, deleted the story even though I
saw it up there still, so I don't know how
they did it. But the other day on their editorial page,
which has former Katari propaganda soul over the place. A
(08:09):
guy named Shadi Hamid ran a tired propaganda piece based
on Hamas's statistics saying that Israel Israel had committed genocide
in Gaza. So you know, I mean, it's nuts, it's nuts,
how misleading this is and how dangerous this is to
people in America. Okay.
Speaker 2 (08:29):
Also, all war involves propaganda, like all sides in a
war engage in propaganda. That is particularly true as we
have witnessed with Palestinian propaganda for many, many, many decades now.
So even understanding that this is kind of something you're
(08:50):
actually dealing with all the time in war, whether it's
Ukraine and Russia, Israel versus Hamas, Hamas has a well
established reputation for just not telling the truth, as evidenced
by what you just said with the hospital claims that
the Israel had purposely bombed a hospital to kill people
who were in a hospital, and none of it was true.
(09:13):
So if you're a media person and you do anything
other than basically shelve a claim from Hamas untel and
unless you can verify it independently, you're just part of
a propaganda operation. They know to check claims made from Israel,
as you should any claim, but they are going out
(09:34):
of their way to accept and regurgitate false claims from
the Palestinians.
Speaker 1 (09:39):
Yeah, and they'll do it again tomorrow. And you're right,
I mean I don't want honestly, you know, I am
pro Israel. Doesn't mean I think Israel does everything correctly,
or Israel does it make mistakes, or that there aren't
even bad people within, you know, the Israel ideaf who
would do something terrible. It happens in every country, every army.
And the difference, of course is that it Israel as
(10:00):
a democracy and has a system of checks and balances.
It has a media that that is very critical of Israel.
I mean, the Horretz newspaper will run, will run editorials
about it. Our Israel shouldn't even exist, you know. I mean,
this is an open and free nation. So I certainly
don't think that Israel deserves a pass. But I mean,
(10:21):
when you're you shouldn't also treat homoso terist organization as
you do Israel with the same level, with the same
level of skepticism. But anyway, let's talk about.
Speaker 2 (10:30):
Yeah, just on this, you know, we mentioned the attack
on Shapiro's mansion, the assassination of the Israeli embassy workers,
and then the fire bombing of the peaceful rally to
get people to care about the hostages. And we also
have a political movement that's quite large that's pushing these things.
(10:55):
We have the propaganda press that's pushing it. It's like
a real problem Americans are being Like one of the
women who was attacked in Boulder survived the Holocaust and
then she comes to Boulder, which is such an idyllic,
lovely place to live, and then has burns on her
body from someone who wants to kill Jews. Does it
(11:16):
seem that the media are giving this the attention that
they would give it if like, do you remember when
a small group of like crazy, not great, you know,
a small group of racists had that rally in Charlottesville
that also included some people who just didn't want statues
(11:37):
being torn down, and it became the main focus of
media attention for like six years.
Speaker 1 (11:44):
Yeah. Joe Biden said he ran, who's been running for
present since nineteen eighty seven, said he ran for president
because of the Charlottesville march and something that Donald Trump
didn't say about it.
Speaker 2 (11:52):
Yeah, so I'm just saying Charlottesville every day seemed to
be demanding that Hakim Jeffries denounce his political party for
how much they're doing to support this movement of you know,
antie Israeli rhetoric that's leading to this.
Speaker 1 (12:09):
I'm not one of these people who likes to blame.
How can I say this? I blame the person who
did it for what happened. But there is an environment
that you create, and there is especially when you're lying
about stuff. So everyone comes out on the you know,
within the Democratic House leadership and elsewhere and say, boy,
this is horrific, this attack is horrific, you know, but
(12:30):
never once do they ever say anything about the people
within their party. And there are many who spread the
genocide claim who kind of bolster this kind of thinking. Like,
forget even Charlottesville, think about like the Westboro church, which
it's like two families right wherever they show up actually
one family. Yeah, whatever they show up, there's pictures and
(12:50):
you know, and immediately they want conservatives to take ownership
of those people. By by asking you to denounce them,
like you say, you're essentially giving them ownership of it.
Like they're part of your movement. You literally are people
part of your movement with elected officials, and you don't
denounce them at all. So the other part of this
(13:11):
I wanted to talk about, And again I'll go back
to the Washington Post. Here's an editorial that they ran
after the flame throwing incident, anti Semitism does not respect
national This is a headline, anti Semitism does not respect
national borders. Underneath it says Trump says the Boulder attacks
suspect should not have been here. He is missing the point. Now,
(13:32):
I don't think he's missing the point at all. We
are the rise in anti Semitism. Yes, some of it
is driven by domestic leftists and unfortunately some people on
the right as well, but it is often imported into
this country. And I can't do anything about someone who's
(13:53):
an anti Semite here. They could say what they want,
But do I have to now import and into the
country people who will not assimilate or won't be assimilated
by the left. Now, I think that is the point.
That's why we have a border. I can't do anything
of any anti semitism in Saudi Arabia, but I can
do something about it here. By not letting anti Semites in,
(14:14):
you don't want to become part of the American you know,
fabric of American life. Right.
Speaker 2 (14:19):
For me, this was a real wake up call when
the left got so angry that white South African farmers
were granted refugee status. And then I think it was
Marco Rubio or someone said something to the effect that
these are people who will do a very quick assimilation
to this country. And even like as they landed, they're
like flying American flags and kissing the ground and saying
(14:41):
thank you for letting us come here were.
Speaker 1 (14:43):
You know, do you think any of them will ever
throw flames at Jewish people were marching? Do you think
any of them going to blow something up?
Speaker 2 (14:48):
I doubt it, right, So that's my point is I
understand that the country it has like a difference from
a lot of other countries, although I think even that
is like overstated. The idea that you can't think about
who assimilates well and what culture, values and norms assimilate
well with we with what our ancestors fought very hard
(15:10):
to establish in this country. It's insane and stupid, Like
people are pretending to be stupid when they say stuff like,
do we really not understand that Islam has a component
in it like that is legendarily hostile to Judaism, Which
is not the same thing as saying a Muslim can't
live here, a Muslim can't be a good American, or
that a Muslim can't immigrate here. You know what I mean? Yeah,
(15:32):
I agree, Yeah, but to not understand that there's quite
a history of Islam not being a religion of peace
when it comes to Jews and Christians, like you just
have to pretend to be stupider than you are to
say that.
Speaker 1 (15:47):
Yeah, I mean, yeah, I just want to say it.
I'm not saying Muslims can't be assimilated at all. I'm
saying that it's a concern that we should that's fair
to talk about with some people. And I would say this,
the person who executed the two workers at the Israeli embassy,
that guy, you know, he was I think he was
a Mexican descent or whatever it was. You know, he
(16:08):
was an American, And.
Speaker 2 (16:10):
Like the guy who I think firebombed the Governor's mansion
was also American. And to your point, we got enough
problems with Americans here exactly, no need to add to
it with like importing problems exactly.
Speaker 1 (16:22):
And it's not just anti Semitism. I don't want to
bring anyone here who can't live with other people, can't
respect other people's you know, traditions, religion, points of view, whatever,
we need to live together. We're going to have a
diverse nation, obviously.
Speaker 3 (16:40):
Do you think you can afford your own car payment?
The watched aut on Wall Street podcast with Chris Markowski.
Every day Chris helps unpack the connection between politics and
the economy and how it affects your wallet. Autodelinquency rates
are at their highest level ever recorded. People are stretched
as auto prices aren't coming down. Make sure you can
afford or you it repode. Whether it's happening in DC
(17:02):
or down on Wall Street, it's affecting you financially.
Speaker 1 (17:04):
Be informed.
Speaker 3 (17:04):
Check out the Watchdot on Wall Street podcast with christ
Markowski on Apple, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1 (17:12):
Well, that's a good segue. Let's talk about this another
Washington Post headline, okay from their editorial page or no,
this is a news story and it just said the
mysterious drop in fetnyl seizures on the US Mexico border
they're completely flummixed. They don't know what happened down there.
All of a sudden, there's less, you know, or fewer
(17:34):
apprehensions of people, you know, bringing drugs into the country.
How on earth did that happen? Many do you think?
Do you think you could crack the mystery. I think
that maybe the administration did something about the border, right,
But they're surprised or don't understand why people are killing,
you know, want to burn Jews alive. They're surprised, and
(17:54):
they don't understand why we need borders closed. I mean,
it is just I don't even know what to say anymore.
That's what I'm saying. I was going to just be ranting.
I'm reading all this this morning, and I'm just like,
you know, we have a media that is in the
Washington Post, okay, one of the it's the premiere, one
of the premiere papers in the country. It is in
(18:14):
our nation's capital, should be one of our best papers
and most reliable papers. And they're a joke. They're an
absolute joke. I mean, I've written for them in the past.
I wouldn't I wouldn't even write for them now if
they asked me, you know.
Speaker 2 (18:28):
I always feel so badly, Like there'll be like, you know,
some writer at Reason who's like, I'm proud to announce
my first time being published in the Washington Post or
New York Times. I'm like, Oh, that's really sad that
you think that's something to aspire to. And that might
explain why you're so bad at your job already, is
that you think that that's something that you would want
(18:50):
to have at some point, like after decades of the
Washington Post being what it is, I actually just like
get annoyed when people even pretend like it's a paper
of prestige or anything like that.
Speaker 1 (18:59):
If they let me rip into some of their own writers,
then I would write for It's all the time.
Speaker 2 (19:06):
Or like my real favorite thing is when people are
excited to be published in the New York Times. Literally,
ninety five percent of the time that someone who's not
a leftist is allowed to publish at the New York Times,
all they have to do is attack the right. That's
all you have to do to get published in the
New York Times. It's actually not even difficult to get
published in the New York Times. You just have to
attack the right, and if you are willing to do that,
(19:27):
and a lot of people are so like desperate for
love from the left that they'll do it. You get published. Anyway,
back to the immigration thing, though, I want to point
out that Colorado has a policy of being hostile to
immigration federal law enforcement. And this guy, as we noted,
(19:48):
had over state as visa, was here illegally and also
with his wife and five children by the way, so
not just like a random dude over here, but had
like moved his whole family here, and I think had
no intention of doing anything other than staying. And Colorado
has a policy of making it difficult for removal of
(20:08):
people who are in the country illegally. They have many
such policies. I'm sure Boulder and Denver sanctuary cities, and
there are consequences to this. You have a guy lobbing
molotov cocktails at a peaceful protest designed to make sure
people don't forget the remaining Israeli hostages, and he's here
in part because of the policies of the Colorado governor
(20:29):
and legislature, and they should be held accountable for it too.
Speaker 1 (20:33):
The city of Boulder has formally declared itself a sanctuary
city committed to fostering equity, social justice, of protecting the
human rights of all persons, regardless of immigration status.
Speaker 2 (20:45):
One of our editors went to high school near Boulder,
and she looked up what the Boulder official pages said,
and they were loath to describe it as a terrorist
attack or to be specific about who was targeted or
by whom.
Speaker 1 (20:59):
But so it was the New York you know, many
many years ago, probably twenty years ago now, I went
to a pro Israel demonstration in Boulder. I could have
sworn I wrote about it, but I can't find the column.
And I was surrounded. I had said something, and I
was surrounded by people who were kind of trying to
intimidate me. I think there were students or something like that,
(21:20):
and I wish I could find the column. And maybe
I just passed on it because I'd gotten personally involved
in that way. So I don't know. But anyway, it
is always such a weird place. But anyway, I'm not blaming.
I mean, it's not just Boulder. It happened in DC,
it happened in Pennsylvania. It's you know, it's something that I,
unfortunately I think is going to happen again until we
(21:42):
start really I don't know. I don't know what we
can do with this.
Speaker 2 (21:45):
Well. I was glad to see like they'd rounded up
the family member of the guy who was on video
appearing to, you know, take credit for the firebombing of
the Peaceful March, and Marco Rubio was like, if you're
doing terrorist stuff, you and your whole family are going
to be like quickly ex but di ided out of
the country.
Speaker 1 (22:06):
You know, speaking of immigration, did you see this story
about a Chinese national I believe it is teaches at
the University of Michigan. It was caught trying to smuggle
in a biological pathogen that could, if released, devastates certain crops,
including wheat. I believe, though I might have the science
wrong on that, and he said that he had brought
(22:28):
it in for research, only for research. So this whole
thing with like Mahmut Khalil and these people, I don't
want them here. I certainly don't want to give them citizenship,
but we have to be careful about Chikom's as well.
Now I'm not the Chinese people are fine, and there
are great Chinese Americans, but Chai com you know, spies
(22:49):
and Chai Coom people want to bring in pathogens. I mean,
something we have to be more vigilant about. Clearly.
Speaker 2 (22:57):
Did you ever watch the TV show The American Not really?
Speaker 1 (23:01):
No, And just to begin, that's so good, that's a
good sleeper sells sleeper cells in here. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (23:07):
And I think one of the subplots involved my confusing
different TV shows or movies. Some movie or TV show
I watched there about the Russians trying to hurt the
weed or we were trying to hurt the Russian weed
or something out of them. Yeah, and there are a lot.
(23:28):
So the issue with the Chinese Communist Party is they
demand things of their Chinese citizens who come to the
United States that other countries don't, including like reporting back
and basically being under the thumb of the Communist Party,
And so we should be much more careful. It's like
(23:49):
pretty rampant amounts of immigration. Also, there's just the issue
of you know, like when Harvard they were getting penalized
and that with all of the like insane amounts of
taxpayer funding they get, and they were saying, like, our
foreign student base is the heart of our university. There's
also this issue where we have people from hostile foreign
(24:10):
countries coming in receiving the best possible education going back
into communist environments and with state controlled means of production,
competing against the United States. So you actually have Harvard
and other institutions acting as agents of harm to the
United States, like knowingly, willingly, happily claiming it's the heart
(24:31):
of their institution. Like if that's true, they should just
actually be shut down because as much good as you
could possibly imagine coming from a Harvard education for an American,
if it's true that twenty five percent of their student
body is foreign and a lot of these are from
communist countries and they're being educated in order to basically
go to war against the United States, like any institution
(24:53):
harboring that should be shut down.
Speaker 1 (24:55):
Well, I mean Harvard, I believe, I don't have a
story in front of me. I mean has trained chi
comm officials, I mean knowingly kind of you know, in
conjunction with the with the Chinese government train them now,
you know, I read somewhere that around sense seems like
high number fifty percent of you know, students come here
stay here in some capacity. I don't know if that's
(25:17):
true or not, But if these schools and it's not
just China's cutter or qatar As I say that spend
you know, billions, not millions, billions on these schools and uh,
and that's something to think about. Now. I don't know
what to do about it. But bolstering these institutions that
(25:37):
already get that money with taxpayer dollars, well that's insane,
you know.
Speaker 2 (25:42):
So, so did you hear the big story, Like it's
it's kind of crazy. The Russia coclusion hope story keeps
keeps occurring. But last week Chuck Grassley put out a
release about a document showing that Nelly Or, who's the
wife of Bruce Orr, who was then the number three
(26:05):
guy at Department of Justice, that she had lied to
Congress dead to rights twice and another couple of times
she seemed to applied to Congress. And so there was
this document showing this, and Chuck Grassley released it, and
everyone's kind of going through the document and they're like, oh,
there's some really interesting stuff in this document. But in
(26:26):
the document it also reveals something that is like such
a big scandal, it's almost hard to believe it's real,
but it is real, which is that the FBI has
a database system called sentinel where they put all their
case files. Have you heard of that sentinel? Yeah, And
sometimes you are working on information and it's actually really
(26:48):
sensitive and you don't want everybody in the FBI to
know it. So they have a way that you can
restrict access to those files while still putting it in
the sentinel system. And if you're flagging a search for
something and it comes up that there's restricted access, there
are ways that you can kind of like interrogate whether
you can get access to it or not. Or let's
(27:10):
say you were charged with providing the Brady material for something.
You know what Brady material is where the Supreme Court
is said that in a criminal case, the government asked
to supply any and all information it has on it,
including an you know, particularly anything exculpatory. And so you
have to do Brady searches and those are really important.
(27:30):
And so like let's say you're doing a Brady search
and something comes up restricted access, you can like figure
out a way to get that information or see if
that information is responsive to your search. Well, it turns out,
unbeknownst to like even very high level people at the FBI,
there was a third tier in which information was put
(27:54):
in and it was so restricted that you didn't even
know it existed. Like, it wasn't just restricted access, it
was prohibited.
Speaker 1 (28:02):
Access for who like just for normal agents and only like.
Speaker 2 (28:09):
And so, and there's no way to know. There's no
like master file of prohibited access items. And a whistleblower
went to Chuck Grassley to kind of just basically let
it be.
Speaker 1 (28:18):
You know.
Speaker 2 (28:19):
That was the actual big news that came out of
Chuck Grassley's office, I think, was that the FBI has
been harboring really important information in a prohibited access area
of Sentinel so that nobody even knew. And so the
Molar probe was stashing stuff into the prohibited access area.
(28:39):
And it appears like we're digging into this story quite
zealously right now, but it appears that the Durham investigation
did not know about these files. We had a story
this week from Margot Cleveland showing that the guy who
was tasked with like digging into Joe Biden corruption did
not know about the existence of this prohibited access area
(29:02):
in which, you know, lots of key information was being stashed.
I don't think the Inspector General who was supposed to
dig into the Russia collusion probe knew about this prohibited
access area, and this is where they were put you know,
So they were putting stuff in there about Nelly or
who should have been charged with crimes, with felony crimes
(29:24):
for a lying to Congress. They were hiding stuff from Congress.
So Congress would ask for information and the FBI would
come back and say, we don't have anything responsive to
that request, or Foyer searches would come in and they say, oh,
we don't have anything responsive to that request. And there
was enough stuff where people knew there was information that
It's kind of like I think led to these whistleblowers
(29:46):
revealing the existence of this super secret area. But I
mean this is like Gestapo, Communist party style like hidden information,
and they were using it not for any like good
pers but to cover up their own crimes of the
Russia collusion hoax.
Speaker 1 (30:04):
So we we know this tier of secret you know
files existed, do we know have people seen the files
or we just know that it exists, and still we
have to sit through it.
Speaker 2 (30:17):
One of the challenges is, again, like I said, there's
no master list of what's in the prohibited access files.
You basically have to know a file exists to begin
to even like hope finding it in the prohibited access
Like the people who put it in there, they know
what's in there. But if you're like trying to root
out corruption, you don't know what you don't know, so
(30:40):
it's very hard to find out. But there were some again,
there was apparently some whistleblowers. Grassley is very good at
working with whistleblowers, whether they are whether they're you know,
helping out Democrats or Republican administrations. He's very good and
consistent about that, and I think that paid off in
this case.
Speaker 1 (31:00):
But this is.
Speaker 2 (31:02):
Really bad. I mean, avoiding congressional oversight by hiding documents,
that's pretty bad.
Speaker 1 (31:11):
Who is h I hope Senator Grassley lives a long time,
but he's always up there. Who is going to take
over his sort of dogged investigative, you know role once
he retires.
Speaker 2 (31:26):
I've thought about this a lot, because you know, he
is like literally in his nineties, and you need a
guy who's as strong as he is to lead the shop.
But he's always had really good people working for him
who care about the cause of whistleblower protection and government transparency.
So I hope, like when he moves on from the Senate,
(31:47):
that either he's replaced by someone who cares at the
same level, or that the people can like move that
Integrity Unit to another Senate office, because it's very important
to have it. I just want to also say that
after this all broke, Margot was pointing out that I
don't know if you saw the interview with by Brett
Baer of Cash Patel.
Speaker 1 (32:09):
No.
Speaker 2 (32:10):
He says in it something about how like a lot
is going to be coming out, and Brett is asking,
you know, some questions about like when and how, and
he basically alludes to the discovery of information that he
didn't even know existed. And Cash Patel got his job
as FBI director because he was the guy who unraveled
(32:31):
the Russia collusion hooks. If there's a document to know about,
Cash Patel knew about it. You know, he came from
the FBI, he or came from the Department of Justice,
and he like understood the system and everything. And if
you rewatch that interview, it's pretty interesting to kind of realize, like, oh,
he he just learned about this himself.
Speaker 1 (32:51):
Democrats are going to frame all this sort of vengeance
or whatever. I don't really care about that, but I
actually think someone has There has to be some sort
of percussion for what went on, not because I want
to punish those people, though I think they deserve it. It's
more like moving forward, right. If no one ever has
to answer for this sort of corruption, the corruption goes
(33:13):
on and on. It will happen next time, It'll happen, now,
you know what I mean. So I feel like that's
the real good argument for why we need to uncover
what happened.
Speaker 2 (33:23):
I mean, one of the things that's so evil about
what they did with hiding this information is it's hidden
past the point of the statute of limitations for a
lot of the activity that you could engage in or
it might be. And of course, if no one's held
accountable for one of them, like one of the most insane,
horrible things to ever happen in this country, which is
(33:45):
the FBI trying to run a coup on a duly
elected president, then you kind of seems to function as
a legitimate country.
Speaker 1 (33:53):
Once they started hiding things on third tier, third tier
computer systems or whatever, that signals to me that they
they were up to no good. There has to be
some accountability.
Speaker 2 (34:03):
Marco was talking to different people, like at very high
levels at Department of Justice, and they had no idea
that this was going on.
Speaker 1 (34:12):
I mean.
Speaker 2 (34:14):
Also, actually I had some questions when I was like
digging into this myself, like it was my understanding and
still is that basically the FBI was all in cahoots
with the Russia collusion hoax. So to have a whistleblower
who knows about this system revealing it to the Senate
(34:34):
Oversight you know that handles this or the Senate whistleblower
guru Chuck Grassley, must mean that there's at least one
person within the FBI, like at a pretty high level.
And I could be wrong about this, but I think
what was going on is even while the Russia collusion
hoax was going on, there were good and proper people
trying to do their jobs of unraveling it, and they
(35:00):
were thwarted by this hiding of information. I think that's
how it ended up coming out, was that they knew
something was happening, They knew information was there that was
getting disappeared, and they kept on trying to figure it out.
And I think that's how we learned about this completely unconstitutional,
(35:20):
prohibited access area that is now being broken wide open.
Speaker 1 (35:24):
I guess I should ask or play Devil's advocate here
and say, now, when you're conducting investigations, when there are
leaks within whatever department you're talking about, don't people in
charge need to have some kind of way to communicate
with each other, to have some sort of system where
they can talk about highly sensitive documents things of that nature.
(35:45):
I mean, there has to be some secrecy when you're
investigative unit or whatever.
Speaker 2 (35:49):
That's what the restricted access area is for. That so
that your investigation is not being compromised while it's going
on prohibited access, which prevents discovery of even like the
existence of certain information that is responsive to congressional query
or foyer. You know, that's the law. The law says,
(36:10):
there's Freedom of Information Act that has all sorts of
rules governing like yeah, you might not get the information,
but if you're told we have nothing responsive to this,
like nothing exists, that can seriously derail outside investigation and oversight.
If Congress says, hand us, like your information on Nelly
or or whatever, and they say we have no information
(36:32):
on Nelly or that can materially harm a congressional investigation
as opposed to saying we're not able to give you
the information that we have right now. Do you understand
what I'm saying?
Speaker 1 (36:46):
Yeah, yeah, I do. Okay, let's move on to culture.
One quick thing to say, just the correction from last
week because someone sent an email about it. Yeah, we
were talking another very fun topic. We were talking about
the Holocauster trip to Poland. I'd said something like Hungary
(37:07):
was resistant to Nazis. That came off like I had
said that the Hungarians were protecting Jews from the Nazis.
That's not what I meant at all. I meant that
they had tried to make a separate peace with the West.
You know, they were resistant to basically ending where the
Germany ended up. You know what I'm saying. I wasn't
talking about Jews. I think maybe that was a side
(37:29):
effect that they were the last taken, but they were
quite often quite enthusiastic participants in what happened to Jewish people.
I just wanted to clarify that in case someone comes back,
like ten years from now, it's like David said something crazy.
Speaker 2 (37:42):
So on that note of that conversation last week and
how i'd been in Poland and got man. We have
a lot of Polish listeners, by the way, so that
was fun to get email from people about my newfound
love of Poland. But Poland had presidential elections this weekend
and the more right leaning guy was elected in what
(38:05):
it was viewed by many as is a pretty big
upset over the war Warsaw mayor who's pretty liberal. And
the guy who was elected Carol what is it, no
Rica or something, I forget the name. He's very US friendly,
and so I think a lot of people in the
US and Poland are excited about a new front. Like
who's Anne Applebaum's husband. Anne Applebaum's husband was the foreign
(38:30):
minister of the liberal government, maybe still is Ratislaw Sikorski,
and he's like trumped arranged, as is his wife, and
they have been basically running like in fact even pushing,
Like I wrote a piece about this many months ago,
(38:50):
some of the people in the left leaning Polish government
were pushing the Russia collusion hoax at a very late date,
and the Polish people have just kind of had enough
of this and unseen are put in this new more
conservative president. They still have their prime minister. Okay, so
we get this email from Daniel saying, Molly, David, whoever
(39:10):
is monitoring this as if we have like a large
staff of people monitoring our email. With all the disdain
both you and David have had for the White House
Press correspondence over the year. Over the years, it's kind
of hard to believe you'd have the audacity to sit
in on a press briefing and associate with all of
those smug, uncurious so called journalists who are all about gatekeeping, prestige,
(39:34):
and privilege. Anyway, perhaps this will be addressed in the
future podcast.
Speaker 1 (39:40):
So tell us what happened, Molly.
Speaker 2 (39:42):
Yeah, Well, so, first off, the White House Correspondence Association
has been neutered and made marginalized under this White House.
So the White House Correspondence Association, which really acted as
a cartel and gatekeeping organization, no longer has this wait.
So they used to actually assign seats and dictate who
(40:04):
got to ask questions basically, or who would go first,
who would go last, and where you got sat was
all based on, you know, how much power you had
in the White House Correspondents Association, and this Trump White
House just kind of said we're no longer playing that game,
so they handle one of the cool things if the
White House Correspondent Association did that nobody wants to do,
(40:25):
is handled press rotation pool rotation. So you can't have
everybody who's a White House correspondent at every event. So
you pick certain people to be in the pool on
a given day and like, if that's the day that
exciting news happens, you get to be there. And if
it's a day that nothing happens, and oh, that's your day.
So now the White House handles its own pool rotation.
(40:46):
And one of the changes they made was to create
a new media seat. And that seat is just right
off it's like right at the front, and if you're
in the new media seat, usually get to ask a
question that day. And so with my cough and my
horrible illness and everything last week, they asked if or
(41:10):
you know, I got I got it that day. Like
we put our name in immediately when they announced the
new media seat, like thousands of people put in their
name for like, I'd like to be in the new
media seat. It's kind of funny because, as you know, David,
we've been around since twenty thirteen, so we're not like
all that new, but new relative to you know, a
two hundred year old publication, and then you can you know,
you can ask what you want. And so I asked
(41:32):
a question about the seeming lack of a plan that
the White House has to respond to the judicial coup
going on, and Caroline leave it. I don't think like
had the you know, most responsive answer to what I said,
But I enjoyed asking the question. I even enjoyed asking
(41:54):
a tough question from the right. So you hear tough
for hostile questions all the time from the left, you know,
why do you eat babies? Or why do you kill
grandma's or you know, why are you so awful? But
you rarely get to hear like tough questions from the right,
where you're saying, why aren't you doing more here? Why
are you letting this happen? What's your actual plan? You
don't seem to have a plan to stop this judicial coup?
(42:15):
And so it was fun to ask from that side.
And I also like even though I attacked the room
when I asked the question, like I pointed out that
a bunch of the people in the room had pushed
the Russia collusion hoax or worked for media outlets that
did I got like a very nice reception in the room.
So even like people were joking that I a lot
of the people who's in that new media seat ask
(42:37):
questions that are sort of like how awesome is it
to work for Donald Trump? You know, They're very friendly questions.
And so a bunch of people were teasing me that
I didn't get the memo that I was supposed to
ask a puffball question or stuff like that. I, you.
Speaker 1 (42:51):
Know, just going back to that email of the guys
sent I don't really have a problem with gatekeepers like everywhere,
Like the word gatekeeping doesn't really bother me. I just
want it to gate kept so that there are real
reporters in there who are attack dogs, who are asking
real questions, who are and I don't mean gaatekeeping like
keeping out a certain kind of ideological person or anything
like that. I just want people who are doing their
(43:12):
jobs in there and letting someone to come and sit
and say, oh, isn't it great to work for Donald Trump?
That's a waste of time. You want people listen, Most
of my attacks I guess against Trump, or I won't
call them a criticisms are from the right, I think,
And you know that's important too, you need both, but
it's like.
Speaker 2 (43:32):
It doesn't exist if you're critiquing from the right, it
doesn't count in the minds of a lot of like
Trump ranged individuals. And yeah, every time. What I find
funny about is, first off, in normal people, like a
normal Fox viewer, for instance, if I offer a critique
from the conservative perspective, nobody is like, why are you
being so mean to Donald Trump? Or not nobody, but
(43:52):
almost nobody is like why are you being mean? Because
they probably have this similar thought you know themselves, like
why isn't this getting done? Or why is it that
getting done? But people who are Trump arranged, unless you
adopt their criticism of Trump, your criticism doesn't count and
not like I think my job is to be critical
per se, Like my that's you know, that's just as
(44:13):
silly as being reflexively positive. But it's hard for people
to understand, like the media environment is so left wing
they only understand criticism from the left. They never really
hear it from the right. But I will say my
mom was like, I thought your question was kind of
tough because she loves Caroline leave It, so she just
(44:34):
thought maybe that was mean to ask a tough question,
and I had to explain to mom that Caroline leave
It and I have different jobs. And you know, her
job is to articulate on behalf of the president. In
mine is to ask questions for the federalists. And those
are different jobs. They don't need to be completely hostile,
but they're not necessarily anywhere near the same objective.
Speaker 1 (44:59):
Get mad, I mean, I write a column criticizing Donald
trup on tariffs or protectionism, right, and then some left
winger likes it or whatever. It just makes me mad,
do you know what I'm saying? Because they are nowhere
to be found. Like, I don't feel like it's brave
or anything. Trusts me. I think it's fun to be
able to criticize people in power, but they're nowhere to
(45:20):
be found when Biden's around, you know what I mean,
And there they are a little like just annoys me.
It doesn't make me happy whatsoever. Anyway, Congratulations, I think
that's cool.
Speaker 2 (45:32):
Yeah, it was fun. Yeah, I just wish I didn't
have a cough Like I had to really focus on
not coughing, as you've heard in this podcast as well.
By the way, I think maybe a Chinese scientist imported
a virus that has been given to me.
Speaker 1 (45:48):
I'm sorry, you'll get over it soon.
Speaker 2 (45:49):
It is just joking to all my as well our
communist Chinese listeners.
Speaker 1 (45:55):
Culture. I want to talk about it. Yeah, I don't
know much. You go, okay. I watched a few shows
Department Q.
Speaker 2 (46:06):
Oh didn't a listener recommend that to us?
Speaker 1 (46:10):
Oh? Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah yeah he did, he did.
And another show called Death Valley, which I haven't been
able to track down yet. A British show. Yeah. This
is a guy named Matthew Good I think is how
you pronounced it is in it. He was like a
British actor, I believe. And then a bunch of Scottish
actresses and actors are in It happens in Scotland. It's
(46:32):
like a detective show. I think it's pretty good so far.
I've only watched I think in episode and a half.
I enjoyed it. The other thing I finished watching is
mob Land, which I really have to recommend. Tom Hardy
is in it. I mean, this is a Guy Ritchie show,
so that's but it's not like the movie I recommended
last week. This is Guy Ritchie as you as people
(46:53):
like Guy Ritchie stuff, you know, it's a mob mob show.
And then I finished watching the best I think what
I would call the best Star Wars show I guess
made and or I loved the first season. I thought
it was just fantastic. This one I found not as great,
still interested enough, interesting enough to hold my attention through
(47:16):
the whole deal. So that's it for me.
Speaker 2 (47:20):
Okay, well I have almost nothing. But I saw a
Netflix movie called Nona's.
Speaker 1 (47:27):
I watched that you did last week? I forgot to
mention it. Yeah, I mean I watch anything Vince vawn Is,
and I think I'm just a fan.
Speaker 2 (47:37):
So that's kind of where I am. I love Vince Vaughn.
It was PG. I was traveling with my kid and
so we were just like trying to decompress, and so
it's like, I'll watch it, and I thought it was fine,
but I do have a complaint about it. So it's
about this guy whose mom dies and he's struggled with that,
(48:00):
and then he decides to open up a restaurant where
known as like Italian grandmothers make their favorite meals and
it's like a it's like a new restaurant, and then
it struggles to work and there are all these subplots
and there it's like star studded cast like Vin's Vaughn,
(48:20):
Susan Sarandon, Lorraine Brocco, Talia Shire. Did you realize that
was Tymo Shire? Linda Cardelini, you know, just toun Dreda
Matteo who I really like.
Speaker 1 (48:33):
Brenda vccaro was big when I was a kid, and
she was in a lot of movies. She was in it.
Speaker 2 (48:37):
Do I know her? I mean I know who she was.
Speaker 1 (48:39):
She was, Yeah, yeah, she was in a lot of
movies in the seventies and even in the eighties, I
think so.
Speaker 2 (48:48):
My complaint was, there's like this scene where Susan Sarandon,
who plays the part of like I have a derisive
word for who she is, an unmare married woman who
chose to not be married.
Speaker 1 (49:03):
Can we talk about her for a moment. She looks
fantastic for her age? Am I wrong about this?
Speaker 2 (49:07):
How old is she? I don't know?
Speaker 1 (49:08):
If she doesn't you take a guess how old she is?
Seventy she's seventy eight years old? Whoa? I mean, she
looks like she's in good shape. She looks younger. She's
really doesn't.
Speaker 2 (49:21):
He plays like a in this Yes, Okay, So Susan
Sarandon plays this like intentionally unmarried hairdresser who's also the
pastry chef and she has the other known as over
for like a makeover, and they're talking about things and
Lorraine Broco who also like I mean, it was like
(49:43):
the equivalent of when they put the glasses on a
teenage girl and then she takes them off and she's
actually really pretty. Kind of did that with Lorraine Bracco's
Broccos character and then but the Talia Shire one annoyed me.
Speaker 1 (49:58):
Oh my god.
Speaker 2 (49:59):
Yeah, oh, they're all talking and like about you know,
she's she left them the nunnery to come work at
the restaurant, and then she reveals that she did have
a love of her life and his name was Isabella.
So she's like, in no way does being gay match
in any way with her character. And it was so
(50:21):
obviously like put in there just to achieve some kind
of diversity inclusions so they can be you know, so
they won't get like kicked off the air or whatever,
and it was so stupid and annoying and it made
me hate everybody.
Speaker 1 (50:37):
I yeah, you know, I thought the movie sucked. Really,
you know, I'm just gonna be honest, I wanted to
watch it. I love movies where people making Italian food.
You know, my wife's Italian, big Italian family. I like it.
I feel a bit of you know, sort of through
through proxy part of it, you know what I mean.
But the movie was just, first of all, it's just weak. Yeah,
it was just weak. That was that whole Talia shy
(51:00):
or none. Thing was shoehorned in and annoying. The way
the how can I say? They were cartoonishly Italian in
a way that really Italians don't act like she's spinning
on the floor because this one's from Sicily and this
I'm not saying there's no like, you know, tension there,
but the way they did it was just nonsense and
it's fawness didn't seem Italian at all to me. You know.
Speaker 2 (51:21):
So when we were in Poland, we went to some
quote unquote Jewish restaurants and they were joking, like our
group was joking that they were like accidentally bigoted Jewish restaurants.
Like it was all these caricatures of what a Jew
is and chricatures of Jewish music, and like that's what
(51:42):
this movie seemed like.
Speaker 1 (51:43):
Yes, yeah, I.
Speaker 2 (51:44):
Mean they are Italian movie.
Speaker 1 (51:48):
Yeah, yeah, that's what it felt like. I mean I
thought I wanted to give it a slight pass because
I think that, like the heart of the movie, the
intention was nice. You know, these older people, you know,
have nothing going on, get to cook for people. It's
a nice.
Speaker 2 (52:02):
I also just have to say I kind of have
the hots for Linda CARLINI so like, if she's in
a movie or a TV show, she's very pretty, so
I like to watch her. And so she was the
love interest, and I liked that subplot. I liked everything
about it. You know, she's.
Speaker 1 (52:19):
Pretty for sure, I'm get in trouble the uh yeah. Also,
did you notice this weird thing that happened in the
movie where the flashbacks happened like in the sixties, and
then they're supposed like Vince Vaughan's a kid in the
sixties and he's supposed to be like in his fifties.
Like it didn't. It didn't add up.
Speaker 2 (52:40):
Oh to me, So I didn'ver saw it dated, Like
if it said the sixties, I missed that. To me,
it looked like the seventies.
Speaker 1 (52:48):
Okay, And now wait even then, yeah, I don't know.
Speaker 2 (52:52):
And then wait, wait, I want to say further. The
song that was their prom song? What was that?
Speaker 1 (53:00):
Oh? I forget, but it was was it out? It
was out of it was out of time as well.
Speaker 2 (53:04):
No, it was from nineteen eighty six.
Speaker 1 (53:08):
Oh okay, so there you are right anyway, whatever I mean,
I wish it was better. I wish it would be
better with me, all right? Did you watch anything else?
It's so hard to find a movie where I can
watch it with your kids. Honestly, you know, my kids
are like in their twenties and I still won't watch
I won't watch anything with them that's not g rated.
I want to.
Speaker 2 (53:28):
I do want to mention one thing too. We have
this listener who texted me a picture of his church,
like a church building, intern church building that has a
Jerusalem Cross on it. Do you remember a couple months
ago someone was like, oh, when when Pete heggsaid had
a Jerusalem Cross. Everybody was trying to say that it
(53:48):
was this like completely obscure symbol, and Pete was like, it's.
Speaker 1 (53:51):
Just Christian white supremacist symbol.
Speaker 2 (53:54):
And this guy was like, I've never seen one in
my life, and anyone who says they've seen one is
a liar, And so this listener like texts a picture
of the church building or building at the church that
has the Jerusalem Cross like in the brick. And I
was in Tennessee this weekend because one of my kids
became a godmother to a baby who was baptized at
(54:17):
a different Lutheran church. And of course, like on the
altar on the right, there's a Jerusalem Cross like mosaic.
And I thought it was funny that, Yeah, people keep
seeing them all the time, like they're so common that
you almost forget how often you see them.
Speaker 1 (54:32):
I know someone who has that same tattoo, who I've
worked with in the past, who is in the world
right now right. I won't give away names of people
because they might not want people to know who has
that tattoo or rather large one on their arms. So
I've seen it my whole life, I think. And it
was just one of these hit pieces again against a
(54:53):
Republican that has become the norm over the last thirty
years in the media. All it's great, okay, yeah, hopefully
keep sending the recommendations. Maybe that's where I got to Apartment Q.
I appreciate it. Be back next week. Until then, below
free difference.
Speaker 2 (55:13):
Some things raw and mumbo mumbo mumbo
Welcome back, everyone to a new episode of You Were
Wrong with Molly Hemingway, editor in chief of the Federalist
and David Harsani, senior writer at The Washington Examiner. Just
as a reminder, if you'd like to email the show,
please do so at radio at the Federalist dot com. So, Molly,
another week and another anti Semitic attack in America, this
time in Boulder, Colorado, your old stomping grounds up there
(00:39):
in Pearl Street. Did you go to Colorado? I forget
My brother.
Speaker 2 (00:44):
And sister went to see you Boulder, and I went
to see you Denver. So I'm very familiar with Pearl
Street Mall, which is where this attack happened, and Boulder,
and you're very familiar with it from having lived out
there as well.
Speaker 1 (01:00):
Yeah, it's nice. I mean, you know, well it's nice.
Speaker 2 (01:04):
One thing I don't think people realize, like CU Boulder
has a reputation for being a very liberal school. The
town itself is actually much more liberal than the school.
And you know, I remember when I was in high school,
their mayor was an abortionist, like a literal like she
ran an abortion facility, and they were known for wanting
(01:26):
to import homeless people, you know, never mind that homeless
people are smart enough to know that maybe Boulder is
not the best place to endure a winter, a winter
if you don't have a house. But it's a very
left wing city. But they apparently had been having a
weekly march to call for the return of the Israeli
(01:47):
hostages that were seized in the October seven attacks by Hamas,
and so that's when this attack happened, which you can
tell us about.
Speaker 1 (01:54):
Yeah, yeah, Boulder is insanely left wing. Warren Hern, I
believe had his office.
Speaker 2 (01:59):
Up there is late term abortion.
Speaker 1 (02:02):
Yeah, just the worst person in America probably. I mean,
I can't think of anyone more evil than that guy.
So just a terrible place in that sense. It's it's
a very weird thing because it's it's also quite rich,
you know. So anyway, this guy who was he was
a He built a flamethrower basically, and he threw it
(02:22):
at a bunch of people who are marching for the hostages.
He was an illegal, He was illegally here. He's an Egyptian.
I just read today. He has like five kids here.
Speaker 2 (02:32):
Well over, he overstayed his visa with a visa and
then he completely overstayed his visa and then like after
it had been overstayed for quite some time, then he
was like, oh, I one asylum and I think that
was denied and so he was still here.
Speaker 1 (02:48):
Well, the asylum claim has just become this kind of
shortcut for people to try to you know, for illegals,
to try.
Speaker 2 (02:54):
To set the illegality here.
Speaker 1 (02:56):
Yeah, exactly. I mean the system needs reform and that's sure.
And honestly, I don't even want to talk a ton
about the attack or obviously it's just this crazed anti Semite.
It's not going to be the last attack. Unfortunately, as
of now, I don't think anyone has died, and I
hope that that's the case. He's charged with, you know,
terrorism and a bunch of other things. I want to
(03:17):
talk about how the media covered this. Now I'm going
to be ranting and raving a bit, I think today,
so I hope people go for it. When NBC described this,
describe this attack, this is what they called the people
there And I'm not making this up. It's so are
well in but I'm not making this up. Gaza hostage
(03:39):
awareness marchers like can you imagine? I'm not even joking Molly,
and just imagine the like Zoomer editorial assistant person who
had to find out a way to say this without
calling those people Jews. It was definitely no easy task,
and this is what they came up with.
Speaker 2 (03:55):
So they're not gozzen like they're being held in Gaza
Gaza hostage awareness there Israeli hostages.
Speaker 1 (04:03):
Well, it's completely misleading. It's someone who struggled in a
hand fisted way to talk about these people, not say
maybe you know pro Israel, pro Jewish hostage or pro
hostages or whatever. I don't even know how you did
describe it. I just say, you know whatever. But the
entire coverage of this is like it soft pedals what
(04:27):
this guy did. It's soft pedals what he's about. For instance,
NBC News lone wolf attacks, which should be lone wolves
attacks in Boulder and DC highlight the difficulty in securing
public spaces. So if you're.
Speaker 2 (04:43):
Sharing it quite literally, if it's a plural, it's not
a lone wolf.
Speaker 1 (04:49):
Okay, So let's say they're talking about separate incidents. But
if those string of incidents share the same rhetoric, the
same ideology, the same targets, the same kind of people doing.
Then it's a movement. You don't have to have a
meeting of everyone to get together and say, oh, we're
going to shoot some diplo Israeli. You know, some work
people who work at the Israeli diplomatic offices in DC,
(05:12):
and we're going to throw flames at Jews elsewhere. I
mean God, and I mean I.
Speaker 2 (05:15):
Hope people are remembering that the Democrat governor of Pennsylvania
who's Jewish had his mansion firebombed by a pro Palestinian
activist as well.
Speaker 1 (05:25):
Right, So there were a slew of stories recently that
had to be retracted that kinds of feeds the anger
at Jewish people and the genocide myth. And this is
a hoax. I'm not going to get too into that,
but to say this, it reminds me a little bit
of the Russia collusion hoax. In this way, the media
will say, oh, we made a mistake, we got it
(05:47):
wrong this time, We're going to retract this story days
after the damage is done. I'm going to give you
some of those examples, but it always skews in the
same exact direction. Somehow. That's a miracle, right, when you're
just making honest mistakes that every mistake you make excuse
in one direction towards Hamas in this point, in their
point of view of the world, that seems probably right.
Speaker 2 (06:06):
David. Are you talking about the story we discussed last
week about how like the false report that there were
going to be some like insane number of children.
Speaker 1 (06:15):
Dead within fourteen thousand children, babies were going to die
in two days if Israel didn't, you know, do this
and that forget that. After that, there was a story
about a tank attack on aid workers that killed a
bunch of Palestinians. Well, there were cameras there. Unfortunately for
the people who spread this story, it was untrue. Nothing
blew up. No one died there. Now I'm not saying
no one dies, I'm just saying no one died there.
(06:37):
The next day, BBC reported that the IDEAF had fired
into a group of Palestinians who were there at an
American ag center in thirty one had died. That was
completely unfounded and untrue. It did not happen. The Washington
Post ran with a story That story retracted it days after.
(06:57):
One of the reporters on that story one of the bylines,
have you noticed that there's always like ten bylines on
every story. Does no one like write.
Speaker 2 (07:03):
A story sea?
Speaker 1 (07:05):
But anyway, she won. I believe that she won a
Pulitzer Prize for their coverage of the Israel and Palestinian situation.
Here's the thing, though, they'll go back tomorrow to quoting
Hamas's casualty numbers. They'll keep doing it. I don't know
if you remember, ten days after the October seventh attack
(07:25):
in twenty twenty three, the New York Times ran with
the story that the Israelis had bombed a hospital and
killed like two hundred and thirty people. It turned out
it was Islamic Jihad had a misfired rocket that did it.
You know so, it's story after story that build, like
the Russia collusion hoax, build onto this narrative, and then
you forget how many of these stories are completely untrue
(07:45):
and not based in any reality. All you remember is
the string of stories of how terrible you know Israel
is Now. The Washington Post is one of the worst
at this, and the you know so, they were sin
They retracted this story, deleted the story even though I
saw it up there still, so I don't know how
they did it. But the other day on their editorial page,
which has former Katari propaganda soul over the place. A
(08:09):
guy named Shadi Hamid ran a tired propaganda piece based
on Hamas's statistics saying that Israel Israel had committed genocide
in Gaza. So you know, I mean, it's nuts, it's nuts,
how misleading this is and how dangerous this is to
people in America. Okay.
Speaker 2 (08:29):
Also, all war involves propaganda, like all sides in a
war engage in propaganda. That is particularly true as we
have witnessed with Palestinian propaganda for many, many, many decades now.
So even understanding that this is kind of something you're
(08:50):
actually dealing with all the time in war, whether it's
Ukraine and Russia, Israel versus Hamas, Hamas has a well
established reputation for just not telling the truth, as evidenced
by what you just said with the hospital claims that
the Israel had purposely bombed a hospital to kill people
who were in a hospital, and none of it was true.
(09:13):
So if you're a media person and you do anything
other than basically shelve a claim from Hamas untel and
unless you can verify it independently, you're just part of
a propaganda operation. They know to check claims made from Israel,
as you should any claim, but they are going out
(09:34):
of their way to accept and regurgitate false claims from
the Palestinians.
Speaker 1 (09:39):
Yeah, and they'll do it again tomorrow. And you're right,
I mean I don't want honestly, you know, I am
pro Israel. Doesn't mean I think Israel does everything correctly,
or Israel does it make mistakes, or that there aren't
even bad people within, you know, the Israel ideaf who
would do something terrible. It happens in every country, every army.
And the difference, of course is that it Israel as
(10:00):
a democracy and has a system of checks and balances.
It has a media that that is very critical of Israel.
I mean, the Horretz newspaper will run, will run editorials
about it. Our Israel shouldn't even exist, you know. I mean,
this is an open and free nation. So I certainly
don't think that Israel deserves a pass. But I mean,
(10:21):
when you're you shouldn't also treat homoso terist organization as
you do Israel with the same level, with the same
level of skepticism. But anyway, let's talk about.
Speaker 2 (10:30):
Yeah, just on this, you know, we mentioned the attack
on Shapiro's mansion, the assassination of the Israeli embassy workers,
and then the fire bombing of the peaceful rally to
get people to care about the hostages. And we also
have a political movement that's quite large that's pushing these things.
(10:55):
We have the propaganda press that's pushing it. It's like
a real problem Americans are being Like one of the
women who was attacked in Boulder survived the Holocaust and
then she comes to Boulder, which is such an idyllic,
lovely place to live, and then has burns on her
body from someone who wants to kill Jews. Does it
(11:16):
seem that the media are giving this the attention that
they would give it if like, do you remember when
a small group of like crazy, not great, you know,
a small group of racists had that rally in Charlottesville
that also included some people who just didn't want statues
(11:37):
being torn down, and it became the main focus of
media attention for like six years.
Speaker 1 (11:44):
Yeah. Joe Biden said he ran, who's been running for
present since nineteen eighty seven, said he ran for president
because of the Charlottesville march and something that Donald Trump
didn't say about it.
Speaker 2 (11:52):
Yeah, so I'm just saying Charlottesville every day seemed to
be demanding that Hakim Jeffries denounce his political party for
how much they're doing to support this movement of you know,
antie Israeli rhetoric that's leading to this.
Speaker 1 (12:09):
I'm not one of these people who likes to blame.
How can I say this? I blame the person who
did it for what happened. But there is an environment
that you create, and there is especially when you're lying
about stuff. So everyone comes out on the you know,
within the Democratic House leadership and elsewhere and say, boy,
this is horrific, this attack is horrific, you know, but
(12:30):
never once do they ever say anything about the people
within their party. And there are many who spread the
genocide claim who kind of bolster this kind of thinking. Like,
forget even Charlottesville, think about like the Westboro church, which
it's like two families right wherever they show up actually
one family. Yeah, whatever they show up, there's pictures and
(12:50):
you know, and immediately they want conservatives to take ownership
of those people. By by asking you to denounce them,
like you say, you're essentially giving them ownership of it.
Like they're part of your movement. You literally are people
part of your movement with elected officials, and you don't
denounce them at all. So the other part of this
(13:11):
I wanted to talk about, And again I'll go back
to the Washington Post. Here's an editorial that they ran
after the flame throwing incident, anti Semitism does not respect
national This is a headline, anti Semitism does not respect
national borders. Underneath it says Trump says the Boulder attacks
suspect should not have been here. He is missing the point. Now,
(13:32):
I don't think he's missing the point at all. We
are the rise in anti Semitism. Yes, some of it
is driven by domestic leftists and unfortunately some people on
the right as well, but it is often imported into
this country. And I can't do anything about someone who's
(13:53):
an anti Semite here. They could say what they want,
But do I have to now import and into the
country people who will not assimilate or won't be assimilated
by the left. Now, I think that is the point.
That's why we have a border. I can't do anything
of any anti semitism in Saudi Arabia, but I can
do something about it here. By not letting anti Semites in,
(14:14):
you don't want to become part of the American you know,
fabric of American life. Right.
Speaker 2 (14:19):
For me, this was a real wake up call when
the left got so angry that white South African farmers
were granted refugee status. And then I think it was
Marco Rubio or someone said something to the effect that
these are people who will do a very quick assimilation
to this country. And even like as they landed, they're
like flying American flags and kissing the ground and saying
(14:41):
thank you for letting us come here were.
Speaker 1 (14:43):
You know, do you think any of them will ever
throw flames at Jewish people were marching? Do you think
any of them going to blow something up?
Speaker 2 (14:48):
I doubt it, right, So that's my point is I
understand that the country it has like a difference from
a lot of other countries, although I think even that
is like overstated. The idea that you can't think about
who assimilates well and what culture, values and norms assimilate
well with we with what our ancestors fought very hard
(15:10):
to establish in this country. It's insane and stupid, Like
people are pretending to be stupid when they say stuff like,
do we really not understand that Islam has a component
in it like that is legendarily hostile to Judaism, Which
is not the same thing as saying a Muslim can't
live here, a Muslim can't be a good American, or
that a Muslim can't immigrate here. You know what I mean? Yeah,
(15:32):
I agree, Yeah, but to not understand that there's quite
a history of Islam not being a religion of peace
when it comes to Jews and Christians, like you just
have to pretend to be stupider than you are to
say that.
Speaker 1 (15:47):
Yeah, I mean, yeah, I just want to say it.
I'm not saying Muslims can't be assimilated at all. I'm
saying that it's a concern that we should that's fair
to talk about with some people. And I would say this,
the person who executed the two workers at the Israeli embassy,
that guy, you know, he was I think he was
a Mexican descent or whatever it was. You know, he
(16:08):
was an American, And.
Speaker 2 (16:10):
Like the guy who I think firebombed the Governor's mansion
was also American. And to your point, we got enough
problems with Americans here exactly, no need to add to
it with like importing problems exactly.
Speaker 1 (16:22):
And it's not just anti Semitism. I don't want to
bring anyone here who can't live with other people, can't
respect other people's you know, traditions, religion, points of view, whatever,
we need to live together. We're going to have a
diverse nation, obviously.
Speaker 3 (16:40):
Do you think you can afford your own car payment?
The watched aut on Wall Street podcast with Chris Markowski.
Every day Chris helps unpack the connection between politics and
the economy and how it affects your wallet. Autodelinquency rates
are at their highest level ever recorded. People are stretched
as auto prices aren't coming down. Make sure you can
afford or you it repode. Whether it's happening in DC
(17:02):
or down on Wall Street, it's affecting you financially.
Speaker 1 (17:04):
Be informed.
Speaker 3 (17:04):
Check out the Watchdot on Wall Street podcast with christ
Markowski on Apple, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 1 (17:12):
Well, that's a good segue. Let's talk about this another
Washington Post headline, okay from their editorial page or no,
this is a news story and it just said the
mysterious drop in fetnyl seizures on the US Mexico border
they're completely flummixed. They don't know what happened down there.
All of a sudden, there's less, you know, or fewer
(17:34):
apprehensions of people, you know, bringing drugs into the country.
How on earth did that happen? Many do you think?
Do you think you could crack the mystery. I think
that maybe the administration did something about the border, right,
But they're surprised or don't understand why people are killing,
you know, want to burn Jews alive. They're surprised, and
(17:54):
they don't understand why we need borders closed. I mean,
it is just I don't even know what to say anymore.
That's what I'm saying. I was going to just be ranting.
I'm reading all this this morning, and I'm just like,
you know, we have a media that is in the
Washington Post, okay, one of the it's the premiere, one
of the premiere papers in the country. It is in
(18:14):
our nation's capital, should be one of our best papers
and most reliable papers. And they're a joke. They're an
absolute joke. I mean, I've written for them in the past.
I wouldn't I wouldn't even write for them now if
they asked me, you know.
Speaker 2 (18:28):
I always feel so badly, Like there'll be like, you know,
some writer at Reason who's like, I'm proud to announce
my first time being published in the Washington Post or
New York Times. I'm like, Oh, that's really sad that
you think that's something to aspire to. And that might
explain why you're so bad at your job already, is
that you think that that's something that you would want
(18:50):
to have at some point, like after decades of the
Washington Post being what it is, I actually just like
get annoyed when people even pretend like it's a paper
of prestige or anything like that.
Speaker 1 (18:59):
If they let me rip into some of their own writers,
then I would write for It's all the time.
Speaker 2 (19:06):
Or like my real favorite thing is when people are
excited to be published in the New York Times. Literally,
ninety five percent of the time that someone who's not
a leftist is allowed to publish at the New York Times,
all they have to do is attack the right. That's
all you have to do to get published in the
New York Times. It's actually not even difficult to get
published in the New York Times. You just have to
attack the right, and if you are willing to do that,
(19:27):
and a lot of people are so like desperate for
love from the left that they'll do it. You get published. Anyway,
back to the immigration thing, though, I want to point
out that Colorado has a policy of being hostile to
immigration federal law enforcement. And this guy, as we noted,
(19:48):
had over state as visa, was here illegally and also
with his wife and five children by the way, so
not just like a random dude over here, but had
like moved his whole family here, and I think had
no intention of doing anything other than staying. And Colorado
has a policy of making it difficult for removal of
(20:08):
people who are in the country illegally. They have many
such policies. I'm sure Boulder and Denver sanctuary cities, and
there are consequences to this. You have a guy lobbing
molotov cocktails at a peaceful protest designed to make sure
people don't forget the remaining Israeli hostages, and he's here
in part because of the policies of the Colorado governor
(20:29):
and legislature, and they should be held accountable for it too.
Speaker 1 (20:33):
The city of Boulder has formally declared itself a sanctuary
city committed to fostering equity, social justice, of protecting the
human rights of all persons, regardless of immigration status.
Speaker 2 (20:45):
One of our editors went to high school near Boulder,
and she looked up what the Boulder official pages said,
and they were loath to describe it as a terrorist
attack or to be specific about who was targeted or
by whom.
Speaker 1 (20:59):
But so it was the New York you know, many
many years ago, probably twenty years ago now, I went
to a pro Israel demonstration in Boulder. I could have
sworn I wrote about it, but I can't find the column.
And I was surrounded. I had said something, and I
was surrounded by people who were kind of trying to
intimidate me. I think there were students or something like that,
(21:20):
and I wish I could find the column. And maybe
I just passed on it because I'd gotten personally involved
in that way. So I don't know. But anyway, it
is always such a weird place. But anyway, I'm not blaming.
I mean, it's not just Boulder. It happened in DC,
it happened in Pennsylvania. It's you know, it's something that I,
unfortunately I think is going to happen again until we
(21:42):
start really I don't know. I don't know what we
can do with this.
Speaker 2 (21:45):
Well. I was glad to see like they'd rounded up
the family member of the guy who was on video
appearing to, you know, take credit for the firebombing of
the Peaceful March, and Marco Rubio was like, if you're
doing terrorist stuff, you and your whole family are going
to be like quickly ex but di ided out of
the country.
Speaker 1 (22:06):
You know, speaking of immigration, did you see this story
about a Chinese national I believe it is teaches at
the University of Michigan. It was caught trying to smuggle
in a biological pathogen that could, if released, devastates certain crops,
including wheat. I believe, though I might have the science
wrong on that, and he said that he had brought
(22:28):
it in for research, only for research. So this whole
thing with like Mahmut Khalil and these people, I don't
want them here. I certainly don't want to give them citizenship,
but we have to be careful about Chikom's as well.
Now I'm not the Chinese people are fine, and there
are great Chinese Americans, but Chai com you know, spies
(22:49):
and Chai Coom people want to bring in pathogens. I mean,
something we have to be more vigilant about. Clearly.
Speaker 2 (22:57):
Did you ever watch the TV show The American Not really?
Speaker 1 (23:01):
No, And just to begin, that's so good, that's a
good sleeper sells sleeper cells in here. Yeah.
Speaker 2 (23:07):
And I think one of the subplots involved my confusing
different TV shows or movies. Some movie or TV show
I watched there about the Russians trying to hurt the
weed or we were trying to hurt the Russian weed
or something out of them. Yeah, and there are a lot.
(23:28):
So the issue with the Chinese Communist Party is they
demand things of their Chinese citizens who come to the
United States that other countries don't, including like reporting back
and basically being under the thumb of the Communist Party,
And so we should be much more careful. It's like
(23:49):
pretty rampant amounts of immigration. Also, there's just the issue
of you know, like when Harvard they were getting penalized
and that with all of the like insane amounts of
taxpayer funding they get, and they were saying, like, our
foreign student base is the heart of our university. There's
also this issue where we have people from hostile foreign
(24:10):
countries coming in receiving the best possible education going back
into communist environments and with state controlled means of production,
competing against the United States. So you actually have Harvard
and other institutions acting as agents of harm to the
United States, like knowingly, willingly, happily claiming it's the heart
(24:31):
of their institution. Like if that's true, they should just
actually be shut down because as much good as you
could possibly imagine coming from a Harvard education for an American,
if it's true that twenty five percent of their student
body is foreign and a lot of these are from
communist countries and they're being educated in order to basically
go to war against the United States, like any institution
(24:53):
harboring that should be shut down.
Speaker 1 (24:55):
Well, I mean Harvard, I believe, I don't have a
story in front of me. I mean has trained chi
comm officials, I mean knowingly kind of you know, in
conjunction with the with the Chinese government train them now,
you know, I read somewhere that around sense seems like
high number fifty percent of you know, students come here
stay here in some capacity. I don't know if that's
(25:17):
true or not, But if these schools and it's not
just China's cutter or qatar As I say that spend
you know, billions, not millions, billions on these schools and uh,
and that's something to think about. Now. I don't know
what to do about it. But bolstering these institutions that
(25:37):
already get that money with taxpayer dollars, well that's insane,
you know.
Speaker 2 (25:42):
So, so did you hear the big story, Like it's
it's kind of crazy. The Russia coclusion hope story keeps
keeps occurring. But last week Chuck Grassley put out a
release about a document showing that Nelly Or, who's the
wife of Bruce Orr, who was then the number three
(26:05):
guy at Department of Justice, that she had lied to
Congress dead to rights twice and another couple of times
she seemed to applied to Congress. And so there was
this document showing this, and Chuck Grassley released it, and
everyone's kind of going through the document and they're like, oh,
there's some really interesting stuff in this document. But in
(26:26):
the document it also reveals something that is like such
a big scandal, it's almost hard to believe it's real,
but it is real, which is that the FBI has
a database system called sentinel where they put all their
case files. Have you heard of that sentinel? Yeah, And
sometimes you are working on information and it's actually really
(26:48):
sensitive and you don't want everybody in the FBI to
know it. So they have a way that you can
restrict access to those files while still putting it in
the sentinel system. And if you're flagging a search for
something and it comes up that there's restricted access, there
are ways that you can kind of like interrogate whether
you can get access to it or not. Or let's
(27:10):
say you were charged with providing the Brady material for something.
You know what Brady material is where the Supreme Court
is said that in a criminal case, the government asked
to supply any and all information it has on it,
including an you know, particularly anything exculpatory. And so you
have to do Brady searches and those are really important.
(27:30):
And so like let's say you're doing a Brady search
and something comes up restricted access, you can like figure
out a way to get that information or see if
that information is responsive to your search. Well, it turns out,
unbeknownst to like even very high level people at the FBI,
there was a third tier in which information was put
(27:54):
in and it was so restricted that you didn't even
know it existed. Like, it wasn't just restricted access, it
was prohibited.
Speaker 1 (28:02):
Access for who like just for normal agents and only like.
Speaker 2 (28:09):
And so, and there's no way to know. There's no
like master file of prohibited access items. And a whistleblower
went to Chuck Grassley to kind of just basically let
it be.
Speaker 1 (28:18):
You know.
Speaker 2 (28:19):
That was the actual big news that came out of
Chuck Grassley's office, I think, was that the FBI has
been harboring really important information in a prohibited access area
of Sentinel so that nobody even knew. And so the
Molar probe was stashing stuff into the prohibited access area.
(28:39):
And it appears like we're digging into this story quite
zealously right now, but it appears that the Durham investigation
did not know about these files. We had a story
this week from Margot Cleveland showing that the guy who
was tasked with like digging into Joe Biden corruption did
not know about the existence of this prohibited access area
(29:02):
in which, you know, lots of key information was being stashed.
I don't think the Inspector General who was supposed to
dig into the Russia collusion probe knew about this prohibited
access area, and this is where they were put you know,
So they were putting stuff in there about Nelly or
who should have been charged with crimes, with felony crimes
(29:24):
for a lying to Congress. They were hiding stuff from Congress.
So Congress would ask for information and the FBI would
come back and say, we don't have anything responsive to
that request, or Foyer searches would come in and they say, oh,
we don't have anything responsive to that request. And there
was enough stuff where people knew there was information that
It's kind of like I think led to these whistleblowers
(29:46):
revealing the existence of this super secret area. But I
mean this is like Gestapo, Communist party style like hidden information,
and they were using it not for any like good
pers but to cover up their own crimes of the
Russia collusion hoax.
Speaker 1 (30:04):
So we we know this tier of secret you know
files existed, do we know have people seen the files
or we just know that it exists, and still we
have to sit through it.
Speaker 2 (30:17):
One of the challenges is, again, like I said, there's
no master list of what's in the prohibited access files.
You basically have to know a file exists to begin
to even like hope finding it in the prohibited access
Like the people who put it in there, they know
what's in there. But if you're like trying to root
out corruption, you don't know what you don't know, so
(30:40):
it's very hard to find out. But there were some again,
there was apparently some whistleblowers. Grassley is very good at
working with whistleblowers, whether they are whether they're you know,
helping out Democrats or Republican administrations. He's very good and
consistent about that, and I think that paid off in
this case.
Speaker 1 (31:00):
But this is.
Speaker 2 (31:02):
Really bad. I mean, avoiding congressional oversight by hiding documents,
that's pretty bad.
Speaker 1 (31:11):
Who is h I hope Senator Grassley lives a long time,
but he's always up there. Who is going to take
over his sort of dogged investigative, you know role once
he retires.
Speaker 2 (31:26):
I've thought about this a lot, because you know, he
is like literally in his nineties, and you need a
guy who's as strong as he is to lead the shop.
But he's always had really good people working for him
who care about the cause of whistleblower protection and government transparency.
So I hope, like when he moves on from the Senate,
(31:47):
that either he's replaced by someone who cares at the
same level, or that the people can like move that
Integrity Unit to another Senate office, because it's very important
to have it. I just want to also say that
after this all broke, Margot was pointing out that I
don't know if you saw the interview with by Brett
Baer of Cash Patel.
Speaker 1 (32:09):
No.
Speaker 2 (32:10):
He says in it something about how like a lot
is going to be coming out, and Brett is asking,
you know, some questions about like when and how, and
he basically alludes to the discovery of information that he
didn't even know existed. And Cash Patel got his job
as FBI director because he was the guy who unraveled
(32:31):
the Russia collusion hooks. If there's a document to know about,
Cash Patel knew about it. You know, he came from
the FBI, he or came from the Department of Justice,
and he like understood the system and everything. And if
you rewatch that interview, it's pretty interesting to kind of realize, like, oh,
he he just learned about this himself.
Speaker 1 (32:51):
Democrats are going to frame all this sort of vengeance
or whatever. I don't really care about that, but I
actually think someone has There has to be some sort
of percussion for what went on, not because I want
to punish those people, though I think they deserve it. It's
more like moving forward, right. If no one ever has
to answer for this sort of corruption, the corruption goes
(33:13):
on and on. It will happen next time, It'll happen, now,
you know what I mean. So I feel like that's
the real good argument for why we need to uncover
what happened.
Speaker 2 (33:23):
I mean, one of the things that's so evil about
what they did with hiding this information is it's hidden
past the point of the statute of limitations for a
lot of the activity that you could engage in or
it might be. And of course, if no one's held
accountable for one of them, like one of the most insane,
horrible things to ever happen in this country, which is
(33:45):
the FBI trying to run a coup on a duly
elected president, then you kind of seems to function as
a legitimate country.
Speaker 1 (33:53):
Once they started hiding things on third tier, third tier
computer systems or whatever, that signals to me that they
they were up to no good. There has to be
some accountability.
Speaker 2 (34:03):
Marco was talking to different people, like at very high
levels at Department of Justice, and they had no idea
that this was going on.
Speaker 1 (34:12):
I mean.
Speaker 2 (34:14):
Also, actually I had some questions when I was like
digging into this myself, like it was my understanding and
still is that basically the FBI was all in cahoots
with the Russia collusion hoax. So to have a whistleblower
who knows about this system revealing it to the Senate
(34:34):
Oversight you know that handles this or the Senate whistleblower
guru Chuck Grassley, must mean that there's at least one
person within the FBI, like at a pretty high level.
And I could be wrong about this, but I think
what was going on is even while the Russia collusion
hoax was going on, there were good and proper people
trying to do their jobs of unraveling it, and they
(35:00):
were thwarted by this hiding of information. I think that's
how it ended up coming out, was that they knew
something was happening, They knew information was there that was
getting disappeared, and they kept on trying to figure it out.
And I think that's how we learned about this completely unconstitutional,
(35:20):
prohibited access area that is now being broken wide open.
Speaker 1 (35:24):
I guess I should ask or play Devil's advocate here
and say, now, when you're conducting investigations, when there are
leaks within whatever department you're talking about, don't people in
charge need to have some kind of way to communicate
with each other, to have some sort of system where
they can talk about highly sensitive documents things of that nature.
(35:45):
I mean, there has to be some secrecy when you're
investigative unit or whatever.
Speaker 2 (35:49):
That's what the restricted access area is for. That so
that your investigation is not being compromised while it's going
on prohibited access, which prevents discovery of even like the
existence of certain information that is responsive to congressional query
or foyer. You know, that's the law. The law says,
(36:10):
there's Freedom of Information Act that has all sorts of
rules governing like yeah, you might not get the information,
but if you're told we have nothing responsive to this,
like nothing exists, that can seriously derail outside investigation and oversight.
If Congress says, hand us, like your information on Nelly
or or whatever, and they say we have no information
(36:32):
on Nelly or that can materially harm a congressional investigation
as opposed to saying we're not able to give you
the information that we have right now. Do you understand
what I'm saying?
Speaker 1 (36:46):
Yeah, yeah, I do. Okay, let's move on to culture.
One quick thing to say, just the correction from last
week because someone sent an email about it. Yeah, we
were talking another very fun topic. We were talking about
the Holocauster trip to Poland. I'd said something like Hungary
(37:07):
was resistant to Nazis. That came off like I had
said that the Hungarians were protecting Jews from the Nazis.
That's not what I meant at all. I meant that
they had tried to make a separate peace with the West.
You know, they were resistant to basically ending where the
Germany ended up. You know what I'm saying. I wasn't
talking about Jews. I think maybe that was a side
(37:29):
effect that they were the last taken, but they were
quite often quite enthusiastic participants in what happened to Jewish people.
I just wanted to clarify that in case someone comes back,
like ten years from now, it's like David said something crazy.
Speaker 2 (37:42):
So on that note of that conversation last week and
how i'd been in Poland and got man. We have
a lot of Polish listeners, by the way, so that
was fun to get email from people about my newfound
love of Poland. But Poland had presidential elections this weekend
and the more right leaning guy was elected in what
(38:05):
it was viewed by many as is a pretty big
upset over the war Warsaw mayor who's pretty liberal. And
the guy who was elected Carol what is it, no
Rica or something, I forget the name. He's very US friendly,
and so I think a lot of people in the
US and Poland are excited about a new front. Like
who's Anne Applebaum's husband. Anne Applebaum's husband was the foreign
(38:30):
minister of the liberal government, maybe still is Ratislaw Sikorski,
and he's like trumped arranged, as is his wife, and
they have been basically running like in fact even pushing,
Like I wrote a piece about this many months ago,
(38:50):
some of the people in the left leaning Polish government
were pushing the Russia collusion hoax at a very late date,
and the Polish people have just kind of had enough
of this and unseen are put in this new more
conservative president. They still have their prime minister. Okay, so
we get this email from Daniel saying, Molly, David, whoever
(39:10):
is monitoring this as if we have like a large
staff of people monitoring our email. With all the disdain
both you and David have had for the White House
Press correspondence over the year. Over the years, it's kind
of hard to believe you'd have the audacity to sit
in on a press briefing and associate with all of
those smug, uncurious so called journalists who are all about gatekeeping, prestige,
(39:34):
and privilege. Anyway, perhaps this will be addressed in the
future podcast.
Speaker 1 (39:40):
So tell us what happened, Molly.
Speaker 2 (39:42):
Yeah, Well, so, first off, the White House Correspondence Association
has been neutered and made marginalized under this White House.
So the White House Correspondence Association, which really acted as
a cartel and gatekeeping organization, no longer has this wait.
So they used to actually assign seats and dictate who
(40:04):
got to ask questions basically, or who would go first,
who would go last, and where you got sat was
all based on, you know, how much power you had
in the White House Correspondents Association, and this Trump White
House just kind of said we're no longer playing that game,
so they handle one of the cool things if the
White House Correspondent Association did that nobody wants to do,
(40:25):
is handled press rotation pool rotation. So you can't have
everybody who's a White House correspondent at every event. So
you pick certain people to be in the pool on
a given day and like, if that's the day that
exciting news happens, you get to be there. And if
it's a day that nothing happens, and oh, that's your day.
So now the White House handles its own pool rotation.
(40:46):
And one of the changes they made was to create
a new media seat. And that seat is just right
off it's like right at the front, and if you're
in the new media seat, usually get to ask a
question that day. And so with my cough and my
horrible illness and everything last week, they asked if or
(41:10):
you know, I got I got it that day. Like
we put our name in immediately when they announced the
new media seat, like thousands of people put in their
name for like, I'd like to be in the new
media seat. It's kind of funny because, as you know, David,
we've been around since twenty thirteen, so we're not like
all that new, but new relative to you know, a
two hundred year old publication, and then you can you know,
you can ask what you want. And so I asked
(41:32):
a question about the seeming lack of a plan that
the White House has to respond to the judicial coup
going on, and Caroline leave it. I don't think like
had the you know, most responsive answer to what I said,
But I enjoyed asking the question. I even enjoyed asking
(41:54):
a tough question from the right. So you hear tough
for hostile questions all the time from the left, you know,
why do you eat babies? Or why do you kill
grandma's or you know, why are you so awful? But
you rarely get to hear like tough questions from the right,
where you're saying, why aren't you doing more here? Why
are you letting this happen? What's your actual plan? You
don't seem to have a plan to stop this judicial coup?
(42:15):
And so it was fun to ask from that side.
And I also like even though I attacked the room
when I asked the question, like I pointed out that
a bunch of the people in the room had pushed
the Russia collusion hoax or worked for media outlets that
did I got like a very nice reception in the room.
So even like people were joking that I a lot
of the people who's in that new media seat ask
(42:37):
questions that are sort of like how awesome is it
to work for Donald Trump? You know, They're very friendly questions.
And so a bunch of people were teasing me that
I didn't get the memo that I was supposed to
ask a puffball question or stuff like that. I, you.
Speaker 1 (42:51):
Know, just going back to that email of the guys
sent I don't really have a problem with gatekeepers like everywhere,
Like the word gatekeeping doesn't really bother me. I just
want it to gate kept so that there are real
reporters in there who are attack dogs, who are asking
real questions, who are and I don't mean gaatekeeping like
keeping out a certain kind of ideological person or anything
like that. I just want people who are doing their
(43:12):
jobs in there and letting someone to come and sit
and say, oh, isn't it great to work for Donald Trump?
That's a waste of time. You want people listen, Most
of my attacks I guess against Trump, or I won't
call them a criticisms are from the right, I think,
And you know that's important too, you need both, but
it's like.
Speaker 2 (43:32):
It doesn't exist if you're critiquing from the right, it
doesn't count in the minds of a lot of like
Trump ranged individuals. And yeah, every time. What I find
funny about is, first off, in normal people, like a
normal Fox viewer, for instance, if I offer a critique
from the conservative perspective, nobody is like, why are you
being so mean to Donald Trump? Or not nobody, but
(43:52):
almost nobody is like why are you being mean? Because
they probably have this similar thought you know themselves, like
why isn't this getting done? Or why is it that
getting done? But people who are Trump arranged, unless you
adopt their criticism of Trump, your criticism doesn't count and
not like I think my job is to be critical
per se, Like my that's you know, that's just as
(44:13):
silly as being reflexively positive. But it's hard for people
to understand, like the media environment is so left wing
they only understand criticism from the left. They never really
hear it from the right. But I will say my
mom was like, I thought your question was kind of
tough because she loves Caroline leave It, so she just
(44:34):
thought maybe that was mean to ask a tough question,
and I had to explain to mom that Caroline leave
It and I have different jobs. And you know, her
job is to articulate on behalf of the president. In
mine is to ask questions for the federalists. And those
are different jobs. They don't need to be completely hostile,
but they're not necessarily anywhere near the same objective.
Speaker 1 (44:59):
Get mad, I mean, I write a column criticizing Donald
trup on tariffs or protectionism, right, and then some left
winger likes it or whatever. It just makes me mad,
do you know what I'm saying? Because they are nowhere
to be found. Like, I don't feel like it's brave
or anything. Trusts me. I think it's fun to be
able to criticize people in power, but they're nowhere to
(45:20):
be found when Biden's around, you know what I mean,
And there they are a little like just annoys me.
It doesn't make me happy whatsoever. Anyway, Congratulations, I think
that's cool.
Speaker 2 (45:32):
Yeah, it was fun. Yeah, I just wish I didn't
have a cough Like I had to really focus on
not coughing, as you've heard in this podcast as well.
By the way, I think maybe a Chinese scientist imported
a virus that has been given to me.
Speaker 1 (45:48):
I'm sorry, you'll get over it soon.
Speaker 2 (45:49):
It is just joking to all my as well our
communist Chinese listeners.
Speaker 1 (45:55):
Culture. I want to talk about it. Yeah, I don't
know much. You go, okay. I watched a few shows
Department Q.
Speaker 2 (46:06):
Oh didn't a listener recommend that to us?
Speaker 1 (46:10):
Oh? Yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah yeah he did, he did.
And another show called Death Valley, which I haven't been
able to track down yet. A British show. Yeah. This
is a guy named Matthew Good I think is how
you pronounced it is in it. He was like a
British actor, I believe. And then a bunch of Scottish
actresses and actors are in It happens in Scotland. It's
(46:32):
like a detective show. I think it's pretty good so far.
I've only watched I think in episode and a half.
I enjoyed it. The other thing I finished watching is
mob Land, which I really have to recommend. Tom Hardy
is in it. I mean, this is a Guy Ritchie show,
so that's but it's not like the movie I recommended
last week. This is Guy Ritchie as you as people
(46:53):
like Guy Ritchie stuff, you know, it's a mob mob show.
And then I finished watching the best I think what
I would call the best Star Wars show I guess
made and or I loved the first season. I thought
it was just fantastic. This one I found not as great,
still interested enough, interesting enough to hold my attention through
(47:16):
the whole deal. So that's it for me.
Speaker 2 (47:20):
Okay, well I have almost nothing. But I saw a
Netflix movie called Nona's.
Speaker 1 (47:27):
I watched that you did last week? I forgot to
mention it. Yeah, I mean I watch anything Vince vawn Is,
and I think I'm just a fan.
Speaker 2 (47:37):
So that's kind of where I am. I love Vince Vaughn.
It was PG. I was traveling with my kid and
so we were just like trying to decompress, and so
it's like, I'll watch it, and I thought it was fine,
but I do have a complaint about it. So it's
about this guy whose mom dies and he's struggled with that,
(48:00):
and then he decides to open up a restaurant where
known as like Italian grandmothers make their favorite meals and
it's like a it's like a new restaurant, and then
it struggles to work and there are all these subplots
and there it's like star studded cast like Vin's Vaughn,
(48:20):
Susan Sarandon, Lorraine Brocco, Talia Shire. Did you realize that
was Tymo Shire? Linda Cardelini, you know, just toun Dreda
Matteo who I really like.
Speaker 1 (48:33):
Brenda vccaro was big when I was a kid, and
she was in a lot of movies. She was in it.
Speaker 2 (48:37):
Do I know her? I mean I know who she was.
Speaker 1 (48:39):
She was, Yeah, yeah, she was in a lot of
movies in the seventies and even in the eighties, I
think so.
Speaker 2 (48:48):
My complaint was, there's like this scene where Susan Sarandon,
who plays the part of like I have a derisive
word for who she is, an unmare married woman who
chose to not be married.
Speaker 1 (49:03):
Can we talk about her for a moment. She looks
fantastic for her age? Am I wrong about this?
Speaker 2 (49:07):
How old is she? I don't know?
Speaker 1 (49:08):
If she doesn't you take a guess how old she is?
Seventy she's seventy eight years old? Whoa? I mean, she
looks like she's in good shape. She looks younger. She's
really doesn't.
Speaker 2 (49:21):
He plays like a in this Yes, Okay, So Susan
Sarandon plays this like intentionally unmarried hairdresser who's also the
pastry chef and she has the other known as over
for like a makeover, and they're talking about things and
Lorraine Broco who also like I mean, it was like
(49:43):
the equivalent of when they put the glasses on a
teenage girl and then she takes them off and she's
actually really pretty. Kind of did that with Lorraine Bracco's
Broccos character and then but the Talia Shire one annoyed me.
Speaker 1 (49:58):
Oh my god.
Speaker 2 (49:59):
Yeah, oh, they're all talking and like about you know,
she's she left them the nunnery to come work at
the restaurant, and then she reveals that she did have
a love of her life and his name was Isabella.
So she's like, in no way does being gay match
in any way with her character. And it was so
(50:21):
obviously like put in there just to achieve some kind
of diversity inclusions so they can be you know, so
they won't get like kicked off the air or whatever,
and it was so stupid and annoying and it made
me hate everybody.
Speaker 1 (50:37):
I yeah, you know, I thought the movie sucked. Really,
you know, I'm just gonna be honest, I wanted to
watch it. I love movies where people making Italian food.
You know, my wife's Italian, big Italian family. I like it.
I feel a bit of you know, sort of through
through proxy part of it, you know what I mean.
But the movie was just, first of all, it's just weak. Yeah,
it was just weak. That was that whole Talia shy
(51:00):
or none. Thing was shoehorned in and annoying. The way
the how can I say? They were cartoonishly Italian in
a way that really Italians don't act like she's spinning
on the floor because this one's from Sicily and this
I'm not saying there's no like, you know, tension there,
but the way they did it was just nonsense and
it's fawness didn't seem Italian at all to me. You know.
Speaker 2 (51:21):
So when we were in Poland, we went to some
quote unquote Jewish restaurants and they were joking, like our
group was joking that they were like accidentally bigoted Jewish restaurants.
Like it was all these caricatures of what a Jew
is and chricatures of Jewish music, and like that's what
(51:42):
this movie seemed like.
Speaker 1 (51:43):
Yes, yeah, I.
Speaker 2 (51:44):
Mean they are Italian movie.
Speaker 1 (51:48):
Yeah, yeah, that's what it felt like. I mean I
thought I wanted to give it a slight pass because
I think that, like the heart of the movie, the
intention was nice. You know, these older people, you know,
have nothing going on, get to cook for people. It's
a nice.
Speaker 2 (52:02):
I also just have to say I kind of have
the hots for Linda CARLINI so like, if she's in
a movie or a TV show, she's very pretty, so
I like to watch her. And so she was the
love interest, and I liked that subplot. I liked everything
about it. You know, she's.
Speaker 1 (52:19):
Pretty for sure, I'm get in trouble the uh yeah. Also,
did you notice this weird thing that happened in the
movie where the flashbacks happened like in the sixties, and
then they're supposed like Vince Vaughan's a kid in the
sixties and he's supposed to be like in his fifties.
Like it didn't. It didn't add up.
Speaker 2 (52:40):
Oh to me, So I didn'ver saw it dated, Like
if it said the sixties, I missed that. To me,
it looked like the seventies.
Speaker 1 (52:48):
Okay, And now wait even then, yeah, I don't know.
Speaker 2 (52:52):
And then wait, wait, I want to say further. The
song that was their prom song? What was that?
Speaker 1 (53:00):
Oh? I forget, but it was was it out? It
was out of it was out of time as well.
Speaker 2 (53:04):
No, it was from nineteen eighty six.
Speaker 1 (53:08):
Oh okay, so there you are right anyway, whatever I mean,
I wish it was better. I wish it would be
better with me, all right? Did you watch anything else?
It's so hard to find a movie where I can
watch it with your kids. Honestly, you know, my kids
are like in their twenties and I still won't watch
I won't watch anything with them that's not g rated.
I want to.
Speaker 2 (53:28):
I do want to mention one thing too. We have
this listener who texted me a picture of his church,
like a church building, intern church building that has a
Jerusalem Cross on it. Do you remember a couple months
ago someone was like, oh, when when Pete heggsaid had
a Jerusalem Cross. Everybody was trying to say that it
(53:48):
was this like completely obscure symbol, and Pete was like, it's.
Speaker 1 (53:51):
Just Christian white supremacist symbol.
Speaker 2 (53:54):
And this guy was like, I've never seen one in
my life, and anyone who says they've seen one is
a liar, And so this listener like texts a picture
of the church building or building at the church that
has the Jerusalem Cross like in the brick. And I
was in Tennessee this weekend because one of my kids
became a godmother to a baby who was baptized at
(54:17):
a different Lutheran church. And of course, like on the
altar on the right, there's a Jerusalem Cross like mosaic.
And I thought it was funny that, Yeah, people keep
seeing them all the time, like they're so common that
you almost forget how often you see them.
Speaker 1 (54:32):
I know someone who has that same tattoo, who I've
worked with in the past, who is in the world
right now right. I won't give away names of people
because they might not want people to know who has
that tattoo or rather large one on their arms. So
I've seen it my whole life, I think. And it
was just one of these hit pieces again against a
(54:53):
Republican that has become the norm over the last thirty
years in the media. All it's great, okay, yeah, hopefully
keep sending the recommendations. Maybe that's where I got to Apartment Q.
I appreciate it. Be back next week. Until then, below
free difference.
Speaker 2 (55:13):
Some things raw and mumbo mumbo mumbo
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
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.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.