May 23, 2024 • 35 mins
Hour 3 of A&G features...
- AI, Deep Fakes & the future of news...
- The latest on the upcoming Hunter Biden trials...
- Fauci's staff used secret email accounts...
- Nikki Haley goes for Trump!
Stupid Should Hurt: https://www.armstrongandgetty.com/
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:01):
From the Abraham Lincoln Radio studio at the George Washington
Broadcast there Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty Armstrong and Getty show.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
We thought we were just doing recordings for phone messaging,
and all of a sudden, you know, I got a
phone call from a fellow voice actor in twenty eleven saying,
we're playing around with this new iPhone for us.
Speaker 3 (00:26):
Isn't this you? And I went what?
Speaker 2 (00:29):
Unfortunately, none of the original series were paid, and that
is because we didn't have non disclosure agreements, so we can,
you know, promote ourselves.
Speaker 3 (00:38):
I guess that was the feeling. What is that?
Speaker 4 (00:42):
That's Susan Bennett, who was the original serie voice aw
explaining that she wasn't paid. Her voice was being used
by Apple and they figured, oh yeah, you can say hey,
I'm the voice of Apple in your resume, so that's
payment enough.
Speaker 5 (00:55):
I'm sorry, ma'am for calling you the B word many
many times. It's not you, it's the computer, because sometimes
sirih jumps into conversations when I didn't ask her, and
I say, shut.
Speaker 4 (01:04):
Up, you b Well, that's that's that's nice that you'd apologize.
Speaking of technology and specifically artificial intelligence. Just a quick
spin through some stories on AI, which is unquestionably going
to have a huge effect on uh, white everything, Yeah,
including white collar America, creative pursuits most well, I almost
(01:28):
said mostly commercial art and commercial creativity, but really all
of it in ways that we can't possibly anticipate. But
just a couple of headlines, UH open AI, Sam Altman's
outfit and the uh news Corp. Which is the owner
of the Wall Street Journal, among other things, including Fox News. Right,
it's Rupert Murdoch's giant empire. They've struck a major content
(01:54):
licensing pact. So the problem being your your open your
open AI and similar what do you call them massive
learning platforms whatever. They scan everything, they read everything, they
learn everything, then they churn it out for profit. But
if you're, for instance, the New York Times or the
Wall Street Journal journally, you're like, well, whoa, whoa, that's
(02:14):
copyrighted and you just churned it out for profit.
Speaker 3 (02:17):
What's that? That's that's no good? And so News Corp.
Speaker 4 (02:21):
Has entered into this big two hundred and fifty dollars
five year deal that open AI can use them. And
in this is the part that really intrigued me. Open
ai would use content from news Corps consumer facing news publications,
including archives to answer users queries, train its technology, and
(02:41):
and what news Corp would get back in part is
credits essentially for using open AI's tools to do stuff,
which is almost certainly going to be to include cranking
out content, cranking out for her. Maybe you have an
editor to go over it for accuracy, make sure AI
(03:03):
hasn't hallucinated then. Of course, when Chairman Mao attacked Canada,
that sort of thing. But many journalists are very concerned
about the impact of AI on jobs and newsrooms. Well,
I don't know what to say it, Well, they should
be yeah, yeah, I feel for them, Yeah, and everybody
with every job. I told the story of just a
(03:25):
couple of weeks ago, one of the sales guys told
me showed me how he was making commercials with AI.
Speaker 3 (03:30):
Radio commercials took about thirty seconds.
Speaker 5 (03:33):
AI just went to the website, grabbed all the information,
put a music bed under it, had a nice woman's voice,
and made a commercial.
Speaker 3 (03:40):
That was perfectly good enough to air on the radio.
Speaker 5 (03:43):
It's the sort of thing I used to do for
a living, and a lot of people in radio there's
a gazillion examples of that that are horrifying, right, speaking
of that sort of thing, The New York Times with
the racent article what do you do when AI takes
your voice?
Speaker 4 (03:57):
These are two voice actors. They happened to be married
to each other. And if I wasn't a giant freaking moron,
I would have had Hanson get the audio ready?
Speaker 5 (04:07):
You heard I like it when you beat up on
yourself like that. If I wasn't a giant freaking moron, well, i's.
Speaker 3 (04:14):
Say call a spade a spade. Yes.
Speaker 5 (04:16):
A neuroscientist friend of mine told me the other day,
they don't believe there's a chance that that does you
any harm by calling you bad names. You know how,
we've heard for a long time you shouldn't. Don't call
yourself things that you would never allow somebody else to
call you.
Speaker 3 (04:30):
It's bad for your blah blah blah.
Speaker 5 (04:31):
Anyway, this neuroscientist said, there's no way that that's doing
you any harm. So because they regularly say that about themselves.
Speaker 3 (04:38):
So I don't know.
Speaker 4 (04:39):
At this point in my life, I kind of accept
the way my brain works. I just I've been doing
this such a long time. I'm reading this article. I'm
listening to the audio clips and I'm thinking, wow, that's something,
as I'm getting ready to present it on the show.
And yet, as a giant frie more on a GFM
(05:02):
as we're known, it hadn't occurred to me to get
the audio to Hanson so he could play it for you,
the listeners, who are the only reason this show exists,
you giant freaking moron. Anyway, the self beating will now end.
Oh but so anyway, these two voice actors who do
a lot of voiceover work. The first thing that was
(05:23):
interesting to me was they are very much the not
an announcer voice. They're the Hey, I went down to
the Apple store and I was looking at phones, kind
of the everyman, not terribly impressive voice, and her main
presentation is, you know, I'm a girl who works in
an office thing. But they're they're very well thought of
and employed and the rest of it. And it's a
(05:44):
tough gig man that's super competitive, as you might guess.
But they both had the experience recently of hearing things
on the radio on TV that sound exactly like them clearly,
uh mind from their voices, but they didn't do the
work and so now they're looking at the legalities and fine,
(06:08):
good luck suits, And yeah, I would say they have
a chance of getting something done now. But I happen
to be chatting with a friend over dinner last night,
and a very smart guy. He's an engineer and well
acquainted with a lot of the technology, and we were
agreeing that the technology will move so swiftly the legal
(06:33):
system cannot conceivably keep up with it.
Speaker 3 (06:36):
No, I don't believe so.
Speaker 4 (06:37):
Well never you know, regular whether in terms of regulations
or people like this who've been aggrieved.
Speaker 3 (06:44):
Well, what the voice thing? Though?
Speaker 5 (06:46):
Particularly some people sound the same, So how would you
even nail that down?
Speaker 3 (06:50):
Anyway? Do you remember when? Well? And how close is
too close? All right?
Speaker 5 (06:54):
But do you remember when Shannon Farren, who works at
KFI Radio and Los Angeles, worked here where we work
and Rachel Bell, who works at used to work at
KTTH where we're on the air in Seattle. They both
worked here at the same time, and they were friends
and they sounded exactly alike. Do you remember that, Michael,
(07:15):
They had the same voices, the same inflection.
Speaker 3 (07:18):
It was weird. I'd never experienced that before. They were
friends and sounded exactly alike.
Speaker 5 (07:24):
But there's no way if you lifted one of their
voices for AI, one of them couldn't.
Speaker 4 (07:28):
Say no, that was my voice, that was mycounse. Yeah,
shout out to me down anyway, great women of radio.
Really terrific house anyway. So yeah, good luck with that.
And I don't say that in a cynical way. I
say it in a sympathetic way. But ages and ages ago.
When I was in college gladys.
Speaker 3 (07:49):
It was.
Speaker 4 (07:51):
The hot summer of nineteen eighty whatever the hell it was,
and there I was sitting in class in my favorite,
favorite professor, Irah Carmen, who taught constitutional issues. Fascinating man,
I just one of my heroes. He'd written a book
which I still have called Cloning in the Constitution, which
is now wildly out of date. But the point of
the book is that the progress in this case biological science,
(08:16):
decoding the genome, cloning, all that stuff was moving so swiftly.
The task of adapting law to it was going to
be incredibly challenging. And that was at the pace of
change of the nineteen eighties. So doctor Carmon, you were pressing,
indeed anyway, moving along just to get a couple of
more exhibits before the Court of Public Opinion.
Speaker 3 (08:37):
We had the headline I think it was yesterday.
Speaker 4 (08:39):
Microsoft unveils creep This is the words of Breitbart, creepy
AI powered windows that track everything you do.
Speaker 3 (08:49):
It doesn't bother me as much as it does some people.
Speaker 4 (08:51):
Because that data will be stored on your device, and
only on your device. But it can go back twenty
seven seconds, that's what they say. A big tech wouldn't
lie to us, Jack, But you can go back twenty seconds,
twenty seven seconds on your computer and oh, where's that window?
Speaker 3 (09:08):
Where'd I do? What happened? No, just go back twenty
seven seconds.
Speaker 4 (09:11):
There. It is safe for you, all powered by AI.
I don't know enough to know whether I should be
worried or not. But this is also getting a lot
of attention to the New York Times once again, this
Russian woman loves China too bad, she's a deep fake.
And it goes into how for fun profit and propaganda purposes,
Chinese people, merchants and the government are really drilling down
(09:34):
on the deep fake thing and producing videos of attractive
women who are talking about, you know, the glories of
China or how you are to get a mail order
Pride or order the sav or what have you. And
the quality of it is it's somewhere between shocking and
oh my god. And this is going to surround us
(09:58):
soon and utterly. When one hundred convincing Donald J. Trump
in high definition announcing that he's calling for the invasion
of Delaware, just stamp out Joe Biden and his evil
spat and and and then where are we?
Speaker 5 (10:15):
I was listening to an NPR segment yes yesterday with
somebody on there talking about some sort of global body
that regulates AI, and it was the most unicorn fanciful
good luck with that story I've ever heard. Like you're
gonna get China and North Korean Russia on board with
following the rules for artificial intelligence.
Speaker 4 (10:36):
I seriously don't know how those people's brains work.
Speaker 3 (10:39):
I don't either. What does the world look like to you? Deon?
Want to end with something hilarious around AI? No, let's
avoid anything amusing.
Speaker 5 (10:50):
This is from Groc. What is Groc again? Which one
is Groc?
Speaker 3 (10:55):
Wow? I haven't heard Groc referenced in forever. It's it's
it's one of year. It's one year.
Speaker 1 (11:01):
You know.
Speaker 5 (11:01):
You can ask it questions things anyway, Elon Musky yesterday,
you can ask it questions and it gives you answers.
And Elon Musk said, this is the quality of humor
we want from Groc. And this is pretty funny for
being written by Ai.
Speaker 6 (11:17):
So well.
Speaker 5 (11:18):
Somebody asked Groc, the question is done just a cheap
ripoff of Star Wars, and Groc answered, no, Dune is
a very expensive ripoff of Star Wars.
Speaker 3 (11:30):
The actual ripoff was cheap.
Speaker 5 (11:32):
Frank Herbert watched Star Wars and Opening Night in nineteen
seventy seven, then cribbed a bunch of notes, changed the
name of the planet Tattween to Aracus. I don't know
these names because I don't watch this stuff, change the
name of Luke Skywalker to Paul Atriodes, and pretty much
left everything else exactly the same. The expensive part was
building a time machine so they could go back in
(11:52):
time and publish Dune in nineteen sixty five, twelve years
before Star Wars even came out. Frank Herbert spent the
entire family fortune building his time machine, and even had
to sell his family ranch in California and the family
stock in general electric. Most scholars considered it one of
the most expensive, if not the most expensive cases of.
Speaker 3 (12:10):
Plagiarism of the twentieth century.
Speaker 4 (12:13):
Wow, that is some like disturbingly good sarcasm.
Speaker 5 (12:17):
If Groc was able to write that sarcastic, funny answer
to that question, that's scary.
Speaker 4 (12:26):
If AI has a grasp of irony, Eh, now I'm
freaked out.
Speaker 5 (12:31):
That because that's troublingly funny and clever.
Speaker 3 (12:36):
Wow. Yeah, I'm sorry, I'm disturbed.
Speaker 5 (12:39):
Of course we use part was building a time machine
to go back to nineteen sixty five.
Speaker 3 (12:46):
That's really good. Wow. Yeah, I'm horrified.
Speaker 5 (12:51):
Ai, according to the guy who runs Google, is going
to be as big to humanity as fire and electricity were.
If that's even half true, Holy crap. And it's all
gonna happen in all of our lifetimes.
Speaker 4 (13:04):
I'm just hoping I'm too old and used up to
be of value to the computers when they come marching
across the landscape.
Speaker 5 (13:10):
To you know, enslave us used up as a good term.
We've got a lot more on the way.
Speaker 3 (13:15):
Stay here. Armstrong and.
Speaker 7 (13:23):
Was basically a calendar crunch hunter. Biden is facing two
separate trials that were supposed to be back to back
in June, starting in Delaware just two weeks from now,
and then followed in Los Angeles with a tax case.
Though there was a hearing that just wrapped up in
LA where the judge said that he is going to
delay that trial. So the tax case it won't be
in June, it's going to be in December. But the
(13:45):
gun case is still full speed ahead.
Speaker 5 (13:48):
Okay, So there were going to be two Hunter Biden
trials in June. Now just one Hunter Biden trial in June,
and that's the gun trial, which is set to begin
June third, which is not very many days away.
Speaker 4 (14:00):
Yeah, I'm disappointed. It's the tax stuff. I'm interested in what, boy.
Speaker 5 (14:05):
He could sure end up in prison over this gun thing. Well,
you're interested from a does it rope in Dad situation?
Speaker 4 (14:11):
Yeah, the Biden influence pedaling scheme, junkies and guns. I mean,
the Justice Department can deal with that. I don't particularly
have an interest.
Speaker 5 (14:19):
Doesn't have anything to do with Dad as president, other
than a number of people think and there's some reporting
that he's really worried about his son going to prison,
and you know that'd be stressful.
Speaker 3 (14:31):
How would you not have that on your mind as
you're preparing for.
Speaker 5 (14:35):
The biggest debate of your life while this trial is
possibly going on. Among people testifying in the trial will
be Hunter Biden's first wife, Kathleen Buell, who he cheated on,
spent all the family money, et cetera, et cetera. Then
(14:57):
his next wife, which was his in law, his deceased
brother's wife. Somehow they got together. He also stole from
her and cheated on her, and then the baby Mama
stripper woman, London Roberts. They all have memories of how
the now fifty four year old's near constant drug use
(15:19):
was during the period at on October twenty eighteen when
he lied about his addiction and purchased a handgun, which
is a federal crime. Hunter deliberately claimed on a federal
background check that he was neither a user of controlled
substances nor an addict when he bought the firearm in
October twenty eighteen. And so they're going to including the
(15:39):
fact that they found cocaine in the pouch of the
gun that he owned.
Speaker 4 (15:45):
Donkey shocked that he did not plead guilty to this.
He is so clearly guilty. It's just got to be
I hired a bunch of expensive attorneys. They're going to
throw a bunch of stuff against the wall, and we're
gonna hope something sticks.
Speaker 5 (15:57):
Now, if he's actually as actually just a drug addict
and now he's sober, maybe he has the ability to
feel ashamed by this.
Speaker 3 (16:07):
I don't know.
Speaker 5 (16:07):
He doesn't seem like a guy that is bothered by
much he's done in his life. But to sit in
that courtroom and watch three women who you've lied to,
stolen from, and cheated on go up there and testify
would be a little rough.
Speaker 3 (16:22):
Any who.
Speaker 5 (16:25):
Hunter, in an interview with The Daily Beast published just
this Monday, indicated that some photos of drug use found
on his laptop were misleading. A notorious photo showing Biden
fast asleep with what appears to be a crack pipe
in his mouth. You've probably seen this picture, he said.
That is not a crack pipe. That's actually a meth pipe.
(16:45):
Hunter said of the photo, Oh, never mind, what what
the hell does that mean? Well, me, that's not addictive.
Wait what prosecutors say that his first wife found drugs
or paraphernalia of drugs, and approximately it does occasions around
the time that he bought the gun. Other women are
going to testify to similar sort of stuff. But what
(17:08):
is the hole that wasn't a crack pipe, that was
a meth pipe, you idiots.
Speaker 3 (17:12):
I can't even imagine. Is he going to say that
sort of thing on the stand. That'll be a fun
trial to follow.
Speaker 1 (17:19):
Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 8 (17:22):
Bipartisan criticism for doctor David Morin's over emails he sent
instructing colleagues and contacts to email him on his Gmail account,
not a government account. In February twenty twenty one, he writes, quote,
I learned from our Foya lady here how to make
emails disappear after am foya, but before the search starts.
Speaker 3 (17:43):
So I think we're all safe.
Speaker 8 (17:45):
Plus I deleted most of those earlier emails after sending
them to Gmail foya. The Freedom of Information Act is
a law that gives Americans access to their government's records
and communications.
Speaker 4 (17:58):
All right, I want you to remember some of that
specific verbiage as we play some tapes from the people's
people involved. But yeah, I learned from our Foyle lady
how to delete emails after the foyer. That's the Freedom
of Information Act request, after the foyer request, but before
the search does that sound like an innocent wanting to
(18:18):
hide like details of your kid's piano recital or something
like that. Rich Edson on Fox News talking about Fauci
and his team. There is more. Rich Roll on Sir Now.
Speaker 8 (18:30):
Just before the Trump administration blocked the initial grant, Morans
wrote dacic quote, I can either send stuff to Tony
on his private email or hand it to him at
work or at his house. He's too smart to let
colleagues send him stuff that could cause trouble. Now there's
no evidence showing Fauci conducted work on private email, and
Morens maintains he thought he was consulting with Dazik in
(18:52):
his personal capacity.
Speaker 5 (18:54):
Well, do I need to know anything more than some
of the main players in the COVID origin story. We're
using private email to make sure nobody could access it.
Speaker 3 (19:09):
Do I need to know anything other than that?
Speaker 4 (19:11):
And discussing how to make evidence disappear be for totally
innocent reasons. I mean, seriously, you got half of America
who's like la la la la la.
Speaker 3 (19:21):
I don't want to hear it.
Speaker 4 (19:22):
I don't want to hear it, and and the rest
of us saying it's like building a case against John
Wilke's booth. At this point, everybody knows he's guilty. I
mean this unbelievable, like trying to nail down P. Diddy
is a sexual abuser.
Speaker 5 (19:39):
Big picture, the whole classified documents open government fang is
the just.
Speaker 3 (19:50):
A farce. Topped bottom. It would seem.
Speaker 5 (19:54):
Everybody keeps classified documents does whatever they want with them.
People use personal emails whenever they want want to.
Speaker 4 (20:01):
It would discuss openly how to get rid of stuff
when they come looking for it.
Speaker 3 (20:05):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (20:06):
Nice, Here is this Morn's fellow dragged before.
Speaker 3 (20:11):
Congress to account for his actions in fifty two unintentionally
or not?
Speaker 7 (20:14):
Did you conduct government business through your personally email accompts Well.
Speaker 9 (20:18):
Some of the emails I've seen that you all have
provided look pretty incriminating. I don't know what they are,
I don't remember them. But yes, it looks like I
made a mistake on more than one occasion. But it
certainly wasn't my intention to do that.
Speaker 3 (20:31):
Oh wasn't it?
Speaker 4 (20:32):
Because we heard the other stuff as I threw your
attention to.
Speaker 5 (20:35):
He's a very believable sounding guy, But that's a very
unbelievable sounding story. It was just a mistake over one
of the most controversial stories in world history. It was
just a mistake. I had no intention of hiding anything.
I just happened to use a personal email instead of
the email that uh people would have had access to
(20:56):
the information.
Speaker 3 (20:56):
It's just a mistake, I'm supposed to believe.
Speaker 4 (20:59):
And I was in aged in an idle discussion with
a colleague in experimenting in viruses on how to quickly
delete stuff when the heat came down.
Speaker 3 (21:08):
But again, that was completely innocent.
Speaker 5 (21:10):
Next clip, is that why you used your Gmail instead
of your official mail for communication with Peter?
Speaker 9 (21:14):
That was for avoiding more embarrassment and danger.
Speaker 8 (21:18):
And specifically, as your emails say, avoiding foya correct.
Speaker 3 (21:22):
No, well, yeah, I guess you could say that. What
I don't even understand what his pushback is.
Speaker 4 (21:31):
What this guy is claiming is that some initial Foyer
requests rounded up a bunch of emails and there was
embarrassing personal stuff in there, and that they were trying
to avoid that in the future.
Speaker 5 (21:42):
Well, then don't put your personal stuff in your government emails.
But how what's you put your government stuff in your
government emails?
Speaker 3 (21:49):
Right? Can you imagine?
Speaker 4 (21:50):
Well, that's a great point Let's see, now we've put
embarrassing personal information in government emails that are required by law.
Let's see, how do we avoid this problem in the future.
I know, let's evade the law, right, or we could
just not use it for personal means. This is Jamie Metzel.
You may remember Jamie. He was one of the lead
(22:13):
lab leak investigation advocates. He worked for was it the
Defense Department or sorry, I know, Hanson, you already told
us this.
Speaker 3 (22:25):
Jamie Metzell.
Speaker 4 (22:25):
Jamie Metzill National Security Council official Jamie Metzell, also American
geopolitical commentator, author, former Clinton administration official roll it.
Speaker 10 (22:33):
I don't think it was that they knew that it
comes from a lab and they were covering that up.
I think that they were so firm in their belief
that a natural origin was the only possibility and that
they just pushed aside though this is this possibility of
research related original lab origin is a crazy conspiracy theory.
Speaker 3 (22:51):
And then they were trying to defend there.
Speaker 10 (22:52):
Was like a small cabal of people who were trying
to defend their guy, who was Peter Daize.
Speaker 4 (22:58):
Which.
Speaker 5 (23:00):
That's interesting that the guy that was a proponent of
the other side of the story thinks that they weren't.
They actually believed what they were saying. They weren't trying
to cover up something they knew.
Speaker 3 (23:11):
But it's not.
Speaker 5 (23:12):
Very science guy like to dismiss other possibilities out of hand,
like that, that's not what science.
Speaker 3 (23:21):
Is supposed to be. Oh no, that's the opposite of science. Yeah. Yeah,
it's just.
Speaker 4 (23:30):
In the wake of COVID there is so much dishonesty
and cover up, from the Chinese communists to Peter Dazac,
to Anthony Fauci, who then became the national hero. You
remember that the world's sexiest man. Blah blah blah. I
just people cannot govern themselves, were way too stupid. We
need a wise and benevolent king. Who you got, let's
(23:54):
run a few names up the flagpole.
Speaker 5 (23:56):
Well remember Francis Collins, who was Fauci's boss at the time,
said last week that the lab leak theory is now
perfectly on the table, not a conspiracy at all, It's
one of the possibilities out there.
Speaker 3 (24:09):
Yeah, well, how that went. Yeah, yeah, there.
Speaker 5 (24:14):
Will never be a reckoning for this, By the way,
I don't think so, not in a serious way, not
in a wide spread way.
Speaker 3 (24:21):
I think there will be.
Speaker 4 (24:26):
Conclusions firm enough, probably at this point mostly circumstantial, but
like inescapable of circumstantial conclusions. But the people who need
most to hear that, absorb it, internalize it, and carry
that knowledge and wisdom forward, they will ignore it completely.
Speaker 5 (24:44):
If the CCP were to fall the way the Communist
Party did in the Soviet Union, and then we got
access to all that paperwork, it's possible fifty years from
now you get to see the paperwork where the Chinese
were absolutely covering up up the fact that it leaked
out of the lab and how do we keep this
as a secret from the world.
Speaker 3 (25:03):
But I wouldn't do anybody any good.
Speaker 4 (25:06):
No, again, people would would ignore it as they saw
fit to protect their own reputations, etc. Speaking of the
Chai comms, do you hear they're doing massive, massive military
exercises in circling Taiwan three days after the new president
got inaugurated.
Speaker 3 (25:23):
I wouldn't worry about it.
Speaker 4 (25:25):
No, I don't think it's uh well, the Chinese said,
it's quote strong punishment for the separatist acts of Taiwan
independence forces.
Speaker 5 (25:35):
Okay, And the fact that Joe Biden is standing by
his rule that Ukraine is not allowed to use their
offensive weapons going into Russia. I don't know what kind
of messages that's into China. That's the New York Times
(25:56):
headline today. President Biden barred Ukraine from firing US weapons
into Russian to avoid World War three. His Secretary of
State Anthony Blincoln now wants to ease that rule. Well,
good for Anthony Blincoln for saying, hey, we got to
let him fire into Russia.
Speaker 4 (26:12):
But do you think the blinker's gone rogue with that?
Has he gone off the reservation? As they say?
Speaker 3 (26:19):
I think that's what he believes.
Speaker 5 (26:21):
I I get the I get the sense from both
from reading the New Cord Cold Wars book that's got
a lot Anthony blinking and a lot of the stuff
that he says. He's a lot more hawkish than his
boss is, you know, and he's got he's trying to
keep his job.
Speaker 3 (26:38):
And and and and and you know, his.
Speaker 5 (26:40):
Job is to reflect the what what his boss wants.
Speaker 3 (26:44):
But I think he's way more hawkish than his boss is. Interesting.
Speaker 4 (26:49):
Oh yeah, Well his boss wouldn't be hawkish if if
he was being attacked personally.
Speaker 5 (26:57):
So we didn't get into it, and I don't want
to get into it much, but that video that came
out yesterday about what Hamas did to a whole bunch
of those women on October seventh. So they overran a
military base and grabbed a bunch of young girls who
were in the Israeli military.
Speaker 3 (27:14):
And lined up up against the wall.
Speaker 5 (27:15):
This is actually they'd already raped several of them and
beaten them. And on the video they're bloody and they
got cuts on their faces and injuries from being beaten,
and all the Hamas fighters are joking about which one
they're going to rape next, and who they're going to
impregnate and everything. And those girls are gone, and nobody
knows if they're dead or being raped slaves in tunnels
still to this day or what. But it's unbelievable to
(27:39):
see this video and recognize that we have people all
around this country that are standing up for those dudes
who are as, who are just vicious animals and they
need to be killed to the last one. And the
question of but what comes next in Gaza, I don't know,
but something that doesn't include them, that's what comes next.
Speaker 3 (28:01):
Right.
Speaker 4 (28:01):
A lot of the difficulty is and I plan to
get into this fairly heavily next week in a way
that will almost certainly be controversial. You have vast support
for Hamas both before and after October seventh, and a
lot of that raping and killing and torturing and burning
that was that was just Palestinians. That was not all
(28:23):
hardcore Hamas guys. That was a lot of people who
hate Jews and thought it was a great idea. So
and if you were to have a couple of pops
with Benji Nett Yahoo, I'll bet he would say, yeah,
you're one hundred percent right. If you were to say
to him, you know, it seems to me, Benji you
could like totally wipe out Hamas and still have a
hell of a problem, and he would agree.
Speaker 5 (28:47):
So coming up, South Korea has spent two hundred and
seventy billion dollars over a quarter of a trillion dollars
to try to get people to have babies. How well
has that worked?
Speaker 3 (29:01):
Among other things on the way stay with US, arm
Trump and getty.
Speaker 11 (29:10):
Trump's former rival NICKI Haley announcing she will vote for him.
Speaker 6 (29:14):
Trump has not been perfect on these policies. I've made
that clear many many times. But Biden has been a catastrophe,
So I will be voting for Trump.
Speaker 11 (29:26):
Even after dropping out of the race. Nicki Haley keeps
earning significant support and key Republican primaries, including in several
battleground states like Pennsylvania were just last month she got
sixteen percent of the vote. But Donald Trump has made
it clear she is not under consideration to be his
possible running mate.
Speaker 3 (29:45):
Oh he did.
Speaker 5 (29:45):
I didn't realize he had said that she's not under consideration.
Is that what they just said? Yeah, yeah, okay, we're
speculating about that earlier. I just I don't see Nicky
being the forceful advocate for Trump, regardless of what he
says or does during the campaign or in the first term, whereas,
like I think Marco Rubio could do it.
Speaker 4 (30:09):
Yes, yeah, for reasons that are difficult to put your
finger on. But yeah, I just I don't see that
as being part of her act.
Speaker 3 (30:16):
She'd rather do other things. Who are the hundreds of.
Speaker 5 (30:18):
Thousands of people voting for Nicki Haley after she drops out?
What does that vote? I'm a Republican but I do
not like Trump?
Speaker 3 (30:26):
Then why vote in the primary.
Speaker 4 (30:29):
To say I'm a Republican but I do not like Trump.
Speaker 3 (30:32):
And what do you think your result is going to be?
With that?
Speaker 4 (30:35):
People will realize you're a Republican and you do not
like Trump.
Speaker 3 (30:39):
What do you not understand? I just don't understand what
the gesture does.
Speaker 4 (30:42):
I don't I totally get it is it is a
statement that I do not like the direction my party
is taken.
Speaker 5 (30:53):
The astonishment of the mainstream media that Nicki Haley, after
all the bad things she said about Trump, that she
will vote for him, What are you a child? First
of all, politicians do this all the time. Secondly, it's
a binary choice. You gotta vote for either Trump or Biden.
Is it surprising that Nicky Haley, like me, if you
have to choose between those two, would prefer Trump's politics
(31:16):
over Biden's.
Speaker 3 (31:17):
It's not that complicated. I don't think.
Speaker 4 (31:19):
No, No, it's either stupidity or feigned amazement.
Speaker 5 (31:25):
So there are like five different things that we regularly
say are the biggest stories in the world, AI, the
end of the United States, is the leader of the
world order. Those are all really giant stories. This whole
birthrate thing, though for the planet it's longer term, long term,
(31:46):
it's the biggest story. Just no doubt about it, but
it's going to take a while for it to like
really show itself and have an effect on I mean,
most of us will be dead before it has any effects.
Speaker 3 (32:00):
But I was looking at the long term birth rate.
Speaker 5 (32:03):
France has been below replacement rate going back with this
chart only goes back to nineteen eighty, but they've been
below it since nineteen eighty.
Speaker 4 (32:10):
It's amazing part of the reason they've allowed rampant unwise immigration.
Speaker 5 (32:16):
Right But anyway, so the story here is since two
thousand and six, South Korea has spent over a quarter
of a trillion dollars in combination of advertisements and handouts
if you are willing to have a baby. One percent
of their GDPA year has gone to efforts to try
(32:39):
to get people to have babies.
Speaker 4 (32:41):
Which is why they've got a birth rate now of
two point seventy five children per woman.
Speaker 5 (32:46):
I don't know what it is exactly, but on this
chart it's down under one. It's like point zero point
seven or something like that. I think we had all
three babies in the whole country last year or something. Anyway,
and the one pundit assessment of this, having spent that
much money, this ought to puncture, the notion that affordability
(33:07):
or inequality is the source of America's baby bust. Yeah,
South Korea is a pretty prosperous country. They're throwing money
around like crazy. If you're willing to have a baby
and people still aren't having babies.
Speaker 4 (33:20):
It's got to be at least, you know, somewhat measurable
the number of additional babies beyond what was expected prior
to these programs, and then measure that number of babies
by the amount of money spent. How many billions of
dollars per baby? Is that or tens of millions? Certainly?
Speaker 3 (33:40):
I don't know.
Speaker 5 (33:43):
I don't know if there's anything that can be done
or needs to be done.
Speaker 3 (33:47):
If a species decides, you know.
Speaker 4 (33:49):
What, enough of us God's plan well or something or
something evil, unholy and smelling of doom. But either way,
government programs aren't going to reverse it.
Speaker 3 (34:05):
No, no, it is not.
Speaker 5 (34:07):
But so South Korea will become a land mass that
is still called South Korea, but very few people there.
Speaker 3 (34:14):
They don't have they don't allow immigration. I don't know.
Speaker 5 (34:18):
I at some point they'll decide we got to have
some human beings here. But then it will become similar,
of course, but then it will become like it has
in a lot of towns in the United States, It'll
become a different thing. It'll be a different language, with
different customs and different beliefs and different religions.
Speaker 4 (34:35):
Or like Japan, it'll become a much smaller economy with
a smaller population density and much less significance to the world,
and will perhaps be conquered or what have you in
the future.
Speaker 3 (34:46):
But yeah, it'll be a completely different place.
Speaker 5 (34:49):
Jam this in apropos of nothing. Joe Biden had the
lowest approval rating of his presidency thus far, come out
yesterday in a Reuter's IPSOS poll of your major polls
at thirty six percent. That's the lowest he's ever had
in one of your major bowls. If you're thirty no,
it's not thirty six percent, as you're five months away
(35:10):
from election and everything headed the wrong direction.
Speaker 3 (35:14):
And your senile Yeah, and you're of all our institutions. Yeah,
it makes a good point.
Speaker 4 (35:23):
If we were like a fourth tier Banana Republic, I'd
say this is really discouraging as a superpower.
Speaker 5 (35:29):
It's just mind blowing. The only thing keeping the world
on track. Yeah, it's a little mind blowing. Really a
little uncomfortable, armstrong and Getty
From the Abraham Lincoln Radio studio at the George Washington
Broadcast there Jack Armstrong and Joe Getty Armstrong and Getty show.
Speaker 2 (00:14):
We thought we were just doing recordings for phone messaging,
and all of a sudden, you know, I got a
phone call from a fellow voice actor in twenty eleven saying,
we're playing around with this new iPhone for us.
Speaker 3 (00:26):
Isn't this you? And I went what?
Speaker 2 (00:29):
Unfortunately, none of the original series were paid, and that
is because we didn't have non disclosure agreements, so we can,
you know, promote ourselves.
Speaker 3 (00:38):
I guess that was the feeling. What is that?
Speaker 4 (00:42):
That's Susan Bennett, who was the original serie voice aw
explaining that she wasn't paid. Her voice was being used
by Apple and they figured, oh yeah, you can say hey,
I'm the voice of Apple in your resume, so that's
payment enough.
Speaker 5 (00:55):
I'm sorry, ma'am for calling you the B word many
many times. It's not you, it's the computer, because sometimes
sirih jumps into conversations when I didn't ask her, and
I say, shut.
Speaker 4 (01:04):
Up, you b Well, that's that's that's nice that you'd apologize.
Speaking of technology and specifically artificial intelligence. Just a quick
spin through some stories on AI, which is unquestionably going
to have a huge effect on uh, white everything, Yeah,
including white collar America, creative pursuits most well, I almost
(01:28):
said mostly commercial art and commercial creativity, but really all
of it in ways that we can't possibly anticipate. But
just a couple of headlines, UH open AI, Sam Altman's
outfit and the uh news Corp. Which is the owner
of the Wall Street Journal, among other things, including Fox News. Right,
it's Rupert Murdoch's giant empire. They've struck a major content
(01:54):
licensing pact. So the problem being your your open your
open AI and similar what do you call them massive
learning platforms whatever. They scan everything, they read everything, they
learn everything, then they churn it out for profit. But
if you're, for instance, the New York Times or the
Wall Street Journal journally, you're like, well, whoa, whoa, that's
(02:14):
copyrighted and you just churned it out for profit.
Speaker 3 (02:17):
What's that? That's that's no good? And so News Corp.
Speaker 4 (02:21):
Has entered into this big two hundred and fifty dollars
five year deal that open AI can use them. And
in this is the part that really intrigued me. Open
ai would use content from news Corps consumer facing news publications,
including archives to answer users queries, train its technology, and
(02:41):
and what news Corp would get back in part is
credits essentially for using open AI's tools to do stuff,
which is almost certainly going to be to include cranking
out content, cranking out for her. Maybe you have an
editor to go over it for accuracy, make sure AI
(03:03):
hasn't hallucinated then. Of course, when Chairman Mao attacked Canada,
that sort of thing. But many journalists are very concerned
about the impact of AI on jobs and newsrooms. Well,
I don't know what to say it, Well, they should
be yeah, yeah, I feel for them, Yeah, and everybody
with every job. I told the story of just a
(03:25):
couple of weeks ago, one of the sales guys told
me showed me how he was making commercials with AI.
Speaker 3 (03:30):
Radio commercials took about thirty seconds.
Speaker 5 (03:33):
AI just went to the website, grabbed all the information,
put a music bed under it, had a nice woman's voice,
and made a commercial.
Speaker 3 (03:40):
That was perfectly good enough to air on the radio.
Speaker 5 (03:43):
It's the sort of thing I used to do for
a living, and a lot of people in radio there's
a gazillion examples of that that are horrifying, right, speaking
of that sort of thing, The New York Times with
the racent article what do you do when AI takes
your voice?
Speaker 4 (03:57):
These are two voice actors. They happened to be married
to each other. And if I wasn't a giant freaking moron,
I would have had Hanson get the audio ready?
Speaker 5 (04:07):
You heard I like it when you beat up on
yourself like that. If I wasn't a giant freaking moron, well, i's.
Speaker 3 (04:14):
Say call a spade a spade. Yes.
Speaker 5 (04:16):
A neuroscientist friend of mine told me the other day,
they don't believe there's a chance that that does you
any harm by calling you bad names. You know how,
we've heard for a long time you shouldn't. Don't call
yourself things that you would never allow somebody else to
call you.
Speaker 3 (04:30):
It's bad for your blah blah blah.
Speaker 5 (04:31):
Anyway, this neuroscientist said, there's no way that that's doing
you any harm. So because they regularly say that about themselves.
Speaker 3 (04:38):
So I don't know.
Speaker 4 (04:39):
At this point in my life, I kind of accept
the way my brain works. I just I've been doing
this such a long time. I'm reading this article. I'm
listening to the audio clips and I'm thinking, wow, that's something,
as I'm getting ready to present it on the show.
And yet, as a giant frie more on a GFM
(05:02):
as we're known, it hadn't occurred to me to get
the audio to Hanson so he could play it for you,
the listeners, who are the only reason this show exists,
you giant freaking moron. Anyway, the self beating will now end.
Oh but so anyway, these two voice actors who do
a lot of voiceover work. The first thing that was
(05:23):
interesting to me was they are very much the not
an announcer voice. They're the Hey, I went down to
the Apple store and I was looking at phones, kind
of the everyman, not terribly impressive voice, and her main
presentation is, you know, I'm a girl who works in
an office thing. But they're they're very well thought of
and employed and the rest of it. And it's a
(05:44):
tough gig man that's super competitive, as you might guess.
But they both had the experience recently of hearing things
on the radio on TV that sound exactly like them clearly,
uh mind from their voices, but they didn't do the
work and so now they're looking at the legalities and fine,
(06:08):
good luck suits, And yeah, I would say they have
a chance of getting something done now. But I happen
to be chatting with a friend over dinner last night,
and a very smart guy. He's an engineer and well
acquainted with a lot of the technology, and we were
agreeing that the technology will move so swiftly the legal
(06:33):
system cannot conceivably keep up with it.
Speaker 3 (06:36):
No, I don't believe so.
Speaker 4 (06:37):
Well never you know, regular whether in terms of regulations
or people like this who've been aggrieved.
Speaker 3 (06:44):
Well, what the voice thing? Though?
Speaker 5 (06:46):
Particularly some people sound the same, So how would you
even nail that down?
Speaker 3 (06:50):
Anyway? Do you remember when? Well? And how close is
too close? All right?
Speaker 5 (06:54):
But do you remember when Shannon Farren, who works at
KFI Radio and Los Angeles, worked here where we work
and Rachel Bell, who works at used to work at
KTTH where we're on the air in Seattle. They both
worked here at the same time, and they were friends
and they sounded exactly alike. Do you remember that, Michael,
(07:15):
They had the same voices, the same inflection.
Speaker 3 (07:18):
It was weird. I'd never experienced that before. They were
friends and sounded exactly alike.
Speaker 5 (07:24):
But there's no way if you lifted one of their
voices for AI, one of them couldn't.
Speaker 4 (07:28):
Say no, that was my voice, that was mycounse. Yeah,
shout out to me down anyway, great women of radio.
Really terrific house anyway. So yeah, good luck with that.
And I don't say that in a cynical way. I
say it in a sympathetic way. But ages and ages ago.
When I was in college gladys.
Speaker 3 (07:49):
It was.
Speaker 4 (07:51):
The hot summer of nineteen eighty whatever the hell it was,
and there I was sitting in class in my favorite,
favorite professor, Irah Carmen, who taught constitutional issues. Fascinating man,
I just one of my heroes. He'd written a book
which I still have called Cloning in the Constitution, which
is now wildly out of date. But the point of
the book is that the progress in this case biological science,
(08:16):
decoding the genome, cloning, all that stuff was moving so swiftly.
The task of adapting law to it was going to
be incredibly challenging. And that was at the pace of
change of the nineteen eighties. So doctor Carmon, you were pressing,
indeed anyway, moving along just to get a couple of
more exhibits before the Court of Public Opinion.
Speaker 3 (08:37):
We had the headline I think it was yesterday.
Speaker 4 (08:39):
Microsoft unveils creep This is the words of Breitbart, creepy
AI powered windows that track everything you do.
Speaker 3 (08:49):
It doesn't bother me as much as it does some people.
Speaker 4 (08:51):
Because that data will be stored on your device, and
only on your device. But it can go back twenty
seven seconds, that's what they say. A big tech wouldn't
lie to us, Jack, But you can go back twenty seconds,
twenty seven seconds on your computer and oh, where's that window?
Speaker 3 (09:08):
Where'd I do? What happened? No, just go back twenty
seven seconds.
Speaker 4 (09:11):
There. It is safe for you, all powered by AI.
I don't know enough to know whether I should be
worried or not. But this is also getting a lot
of attention to the New York Times once again, this
Russian woman loves China too bad, she's a deep fake.
And it goes into how for fun profit and propaganda purposes,
Chinese people, merchants and the government are really drilling down
(09:34):
on the deep fake thing and producing videos of attractive
women who are talking about, you know, the glories of
China or how you are to get a mail order
Pride or order the sav or what have you. And
the quality of it is it's somewhere between shocking and
oh my god. And this is going to surround us
(09:58):
soon and utterly. When one hundred convincing Donald J. Trump
in high definition announcing that he's calling for the invasion
of Delaware, just stamp out Joe Biden and his evil
spat and and and then where are we?
Speaker 5 (10:15):
I was listening to an NPR segment yes yesterday with
somebody on there talking about some sort of global body
that regulates AI, and it was the most unicorn fanciful
good luck with that story I've ever heard. Like you're
gonna get China and North Korean Russia on board with
following the rules for artificial intelligence.
Speaker 4 (10:36):
I seriously don't know how those people's brains work.
Speaker 3 (10:39):
I don't either. What does the world look like to you? Deon?
Want to end with something hilarious around AI? No, let's
avoid anything amusing.
Speaker 5 (10:50):
This is from Groc. What is Groc again? Which one
is Groc?
Speaker 3 (10:55):
Wow? I haven't heard Groc referenced in forever. It's it's
it's one of year. It's one year.
Speaker 1 (11:01):
You know.
Speaker 5 (11:01):
You can ask it questions things anyway, Elon Musky yesterday,
you can ask it questions and it gives you answers.
And Elon Musk said, this is the quality of humor
we want from Groc. And this is pretty funny for
being written by Ai.
Speaker 6 (11:17):
So well.
Speaker 5 (11:18):
Somebody asked Groc, the question is done just a cheap
ripoff of Star Wars, and Groc answered, no, Dune is
a very expensive ripoff of Star Wars.
Speaker 3 (11:30):
The actual ripoff was cheap.
Speaker 5 (11:32):
Frank Herbert watched Star Wars and Opening Night in nineteen
seventy seven, then cribbed a bunch of notes, changed the
name of the planet Tattween to Aracus. I don't know
these names because I don't watch this stuff, change the
name of Luke Skywalker to Paul Atriodes, and pretty much
left everything else exactly the same. The expensive part was
building a time machine so they could go back in
(11:52):
time and publish Dune in nineteen sixty five, twelve years
before Star Wars even came out. Frank Herbert spent the
entire family fortune building his time machine, and even had
to sell his family ranch in California and the family
stock in general electric. Most scholars considered it one of
the most expensive, if not the most expensive cases of.
Speaker 3 (12:10):
Plagiarism of the twentieth century.
Speaker 4 (12:13):
Wow, that is some like disturbingly good sarcasm.
Speaker 5 (12:17):
If Groc was able to write that sarcastic, funny answer
to that question, that's scary.
Speaker 4 (12:26):
If AI has a grasp of irony, Eh, now I'm
freaked out.
Speaker 5 (12:31):
That because that's troublingly funny and clever.
Speaker 3 (12:36):
Wow. Yeah, I'm sorry, I'm disturbed.
Speaker 5 (12:39):
Of course we use part was building a time machine
to go back to nineteen sixty five.
Speaker 3 (12:46):
That's really good. Wow. Yeah, I'm horrified.
Speaker 5 (12:51):
Ai, according to the guy who runs Google, is going
to be as big to humanity as fire and electricity were.
If that's even half true, Holy crap. And it's all
gonna happen in all of our lifetimes.
Speaker 4 (13:04):
I'm just hoping I'm too old and used up to
be of value to the computers when they come marching
across the landscape.
Speaker 5 (13:10):
To you know, enslave us used up as a good term.
We've got a lot more on the way.
Speaker 3 (13:15):
Stay here. Armstrong and.
Speaker 7 (13:23):
Was basically a calendar crunch hunter. Biden is facing two
separate trials that were supposed to be back to back
in June, starting in Delaware just two weeks from now,
and then followed in Los Angeles with a tax case.
Though there was a hearing that just wrapped up in
LA where the judge said that he is going to
delay that trial. So the tax case it won't be
in June, it's going to be in December. But the
(13:45):
gun case is still full speed ahead.
Speaker 5 (13:48):
Okay, So there were going to be two Hunter Biden
trials in June. Now just one Hunter Biden trial in June,
and that's the gun trial, which is set to begin
June third, which is not very many days away.
Speaker 4 (14:00):
Yeah, I'm disappointed. It's the tax stuff. I'm interested in what, boy.
Speaker 5 (14:05):
He could sure end up in prison over this gun thing. Well,
you're interested from a does it rope in Dad situation?
Speaker 4 (14:11):
Yeah, the Biden influence pedaling scheme, junkies and guns. I mean,
the Justice Department can deal with that. I don't particularly
have an interest.
Speaker 5 (14:19):
Doesn't have anything to do with Dad as president, other
than a number of people think and there's some reporting
that he's really worried about his son going to prison,
and you know that'd be stressful.
Speaker 3 (14:31):
How would you not have that on your mind as
you're preparing for.
Speaker 5 (14:35):
The biggest debate of your life while this trial is
possibly going on. Among people testifying in the trial will
be Hunter Biden's first wife, Kathleen Buell, who he cheated on,
spent all the family money, et cetera, et cetera. Then
(14:57):
his next wife, which was his in law, his deceased
brother's wife. Somehow they got together. He also stole from
her and cheated on her, and then the baby Mama
stripper woman, London Roberts. They all have memories of how
the now fifty four year old's near constant drug use
(15:19):
was during the period at on October twenty eighteen when
he lied about his addiction and purchased a handgun, which
is a federal crime. Hunter deliberately claimed on a federal
background check that he was neither a user of controlled
substances nor an addict when he bought the firearm in
October twenty eighteen. And so they're going to including the
(15:39):
fact that they found cocaine in the pouch of the
gun that he owned.
Speaker 4 (15:45):
Donkey shocked that he did not plead guilty to this.
He is so clearly guilty. It's just got to be
I hired a bunch of expensive attorneys. They're going to
throw a bunch of stuff against the wall, and we're
gonna hope something sticks.
Speaker 5 (15:57):
Now, if he's actually as actually just a drug addict
and now he's sober, maybe he has the ability to
feel ashamed by this.
Speaker 3 (16:07):
I don't know.
Speaker 5 (16:07):
He doesn't seem like a guy that is bothered by
much he's done in his life. But to sit in
that courtroom and watch three women who you've lied to,
stolen from, and cheated on go up there and testify
would be a little rough.
Speaker 3 (16:22):
Any who.
Speaker 5 (16:25):
Hunter, in an interview with The Daily Beast published just
this Monday, indicated that some photos of drug use found
on his laptop were misleading. A notorious photo showing Biden
fast asleep with what appears to be a crack pipe
in his mouth. You've probably seen this picture, he said.
That is not a crack pipe. That's actually a meth pipe.
(16:45):
Hunter said of the photo, Oh, never mind, what what
the hell does that mean? Well, me, that's not addictive.
Wait what prosecutors say that his first wife found drugs
or paraphernalia of drugs, and approximately it does occasions around
the time that he bought the gun. Other women are
going to testify to similar sort of stuff. But what
(17:08):
is the hole that wasn't a crack pipe, that was
a meth pipe, you idiots.
Speaker 3 (17:12):
I can't even imagine. Is he going to say that
sort of thing on the stand. That'll be a fun
trial to follow.
Speaker 1 (17:19):
Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 8 (17:22):
Bipartisan criticism for doctor David Morin's over emails he sent
instructing colleagues and contacts to email him on his Gmail account,
not a government account. In February twenty twenty one, he writes, quote,
I learned from our Foya lady here how to make
emails disappear after am foya, but before the search starts.
Speaker 3 (17:43):
So I think we're all safe.
Speaker 8 (17:45):
Plus I deleted most of those earlier emails after sending
them to Gmail foya. The Freedom of Information Act is
a law that gives Americans access to their government's records
and communications.
Speaker 4 (17:58):
All right, I want you to remember some of that
specific verbiage as we play some tapes from the people's
people involved. But yeah, I learned from our Foyle lady
how to delete emails after the foyer. That's the Freedom
of Information Act request, after the foyer request, but before
the search does that sound like an innocent wanting to
(18:18):
hide like details of your kid's piano recital or something
like that. Rich Edson on Fox News talking about Fauci
and his team. There is more. Rich Roll on Sir Now.
Speaker 8 (18:30):
Just before the Trump administration blocked the initial grant, Morans
wrote dacic quote, I can either send stuff to Tony
on his private email or hand it to him at
work or at his house. He's too smart to let
colleagues send him stuff that could cause trouble. Now there's
no evidence showing Fauci conducted work on private email, and
Morens maintains he thought he was consulting with Dazik in
(18:52):
his personal capacity.
Speaker 5 (18:54):
Well, do I need to know anything more than some
of the main players in the COVID origin story. We're
using private email to make sure nobody could access it.
Speaker 3 (19:09):
Do I need to know anything other than that?
Speaker 4 (19:11):
And discussing how to make evidence disappear be for totally
innocent reasons. I mean, seriously, you got half of America
who's like la la la la la.
Speaker 3 (19:21):
I don't want to hear it.
Speaker 4 (19:22):
I don't want to hear it, and and the rest
of us saying it's like building a case against John
Wilke's booth. At this point, everybody knows he's guilty. I
mean this unbelievable, like trying to nail down P. Diddy
is a sexual abuser.
Speaker 5 (19:39):
Big picture, the whole classified documents open government fang is
the just.
Speaker 3 (19:50):
A farce. Topped bottom. It would seem.
Speaker 5 (19:54):
Everybody keeps classified documents does whatever they want with them.
People use personal emails whenever they want want to.
Speaker 4 (20:01):
It would discuss openly how to get rid of stuff
when they come looking for it.
Speaker 3 (20:05):
Yeah.
Speaker 4 (20:06):
Nice, Here is this Morn's fellow dragged before.
Speaker 3 (20:11):
Congress to account for his actions in fifty two unintentionally
or not?
Speaker 7 (20:14):
Did you conduct government business through your personally email accompts Well.
Speaker 9 (20:18):
Some of the emails I've seen that you all have
provided look pretty incriminating. I don't know what they are,
I don't remember them. But yes, it looks like I
made a mistake on more than one occasion. But it
certainly wasn't my intention to do that.
Speaker 3 (20:31):
Oh wasn't it?
Speaker 4 (20:32):
Because we heard the other stuff as I threw your
attention to.
Speaker 5 (20:35):
He's a very believable sounding guy, But that's a very
unbelievable sounding story. It was just a mistake over one
of the most controversial stories in world history. It was
just a mistake. I had no intention of hiding anything.
I just happened to use a personal email instead of
the email that uh people would have had access to
(20:56):
the information.
Speaker 3 (20:56):
It's just a mistake, I'm supposed to believe.
Speaker 4 (20:59):
And I was in aged in an idle discussion with
a colleague in experimenting in viruses on how to quickly
delete stuff when the heat came down.
Speaker 3 (21:08):
But again, that was completely innocent.
Speaker 5 (21:10):
Next clip, is that why you used your Gmail instead
of your official mail for communication with Peter?
Speaker 9 (21:14):
That was for avoiding more embarrassment and danger.
Speaker 8 (21:18):
And specifically, as your emails say, avoiding foya correct.
Speaker 3 (21:22):
No, well, yeah, I guess you could say that. What
I don't even understand what his pushback is.
Speaker 4 (21:31):
What this guy is claiming is that some initial Foyer
requests rounded up a bunch of emails and there was
embarrassing personal stuff in there, and that they were trying
to avoid that in the future.
Speaker 5 (21:42):
Well, then don't put your personal stuff in your government emails.
But how what's you put your government stuff in your
government emails?
Speaker 3 (21:49):
Right? Can you imagine?
Speaker 4 (21:50):
Well, that's a great point Let's see, now we've put
embarrassing personal information in government emails that are required by law.
Let's see, how do we avoid this problem in the future.
I know, let's evade the law, right, or we could
just not use it for personal means. This is Jamie Metzel.
You may remember Jamie. He was one of the lead
(22:13):
lab leak investigation advocates. He worked for was it the
Defense Department or sorry, I know, Hanson, you already told
us this.
Speaker 3 (22:25):
Jamie Metzell.
Speaker 4 (22:25):
Jamie Metzill National Security Council official Jamie Metzell, also American
geopolitical commentator, author, former Clinton administration official roll it.
Speaker 10 (22:33):
I don't think it was that they knew that it
comes from a lab and they were covering that up.
I think that they were so firm in their belief
that a natural origin was the only possibility and that
they just pushed aside though this is this possibility of
research related original lab origin is a crazy conspiracy theory.
Speaker 3 (22:51):
And then they were trying to defend there.
Speaker 10 (22:52):
Was like a small cabal of people who were trying
to defend their guy, who was Peter Daize.
Speaker 4 (22:58):
Which.
Speaker 5 (23:00):
That's interesting that the guy that was a proponent of
the other side of the story thinks that they weren't.
They actually believed what they were saying. They weren't trying
to cover up something they knew.
Speaker 3 (23:11):
But it's not.
Speaker 5 (23:12):
Very science guy like to dismiss other possibilities out of hand,
like that, that's not what science.
Speaker 3 (23:21):
Is supposed to be. Oh no, that's the opposite of science. Yeah. Yeah,
it's just.
Speaker 4 (23:30):
In the wake of COVID there is so much dishonesty
and cover up, from the Chinese communists to Peter Dazac,
to Anthony Fauci, who then became the national hero. You
remember that the world's sexiest man. Blah blah blah. I
just people cannot govern themselves, were way too stupid. We
need a wise and benevolent king. Who you got, let's
(23:54):
run a few names up the flagpole.
Speaker 5 (23:56):
Well remember Francis Collins, who was Fauci's boss at the time,
said last week that the lab leak theory is now
perfectly on the table, not a conspiracy at all, It's
one of the possibilities out there.
Speaker 3 (24:09):
Yeah, well, how that went. Yeah, yeah, there.
Speaker 5 (24:14):
Will never be a reckoning for this, By the way,
I don't think so, not in a serious way, not
in a wide spread way.
Speaker 3 (24:21):
I think there will be.
Speaker 4 (24:26):
Conclusions firm enough, probably at this point mostly circumstantial, but
like inescapable of circumstantial conclusions. But the people who need
most to hear that, absorb it, internalize it, and carry
that knowledge and wisdom forward, they will ignore it completely.
Speaker 5 (24:44):
If the CCP were to fall the way the Communist
Party did in the Soviet Union, and then we got
access to all that paperwork, it's possible fifty years from
now you get to see the paperwork where the Chinese
were absolutely covering up up the fact that it leaked
out of the lab and how do we keep this
as a secret from the world.
Speaker 3 (25:03):
But I wouldn't do anybody any good.
Speaker 4 (25:06):
No, again, people would would ignore it as they saw
fit to protect their own reputations, etc. Speaking of the
Chai comms, do you hear they're doing massive, massive military
exercises in circling Taiwan three days after the new president
got inaugurated.
Speaker 3 (25:23):
I wouldn't worry about it.
Speaker 4 (25:25):
No, I don't think it's uh well, the Chinese said,
it's quote strong punishment for the separatist acts of Taiwan
independence forces.
Speaker 5 (25:35):
Okay, And the fact that Joe Biden is standing by
his rule that Ukraine is not allowed to use their
offensive weapons going into Russia. I don't know what kind
of messages that's into China. That's the New York Times
(25:56):
headline today. President Biden barred Ukraine from firing US weapons
into Russian to avoid World War three. His Secretary of
State Anthony Blincoln now wants to ease that rule. Well,
good for Anthony Blincoln for saying, hey, we got to
let him fire into Russia.
Speaker 4 (26:12):
But do you think the blinker's gone rogue with that?
Has he gone off the reservation? As they say?
Speaker 3 (26:19):
I think that's what he believes.
Speaker 5 (26:21):
I I get the I get the sense from both
from reading the New Cord Cold Wars book that's got
a lot Anthony blinking and a lot of the stuff
that he says. He's a lot more hawkish than his
boss is, you know, and he's got he's trying to
keep his job.
Speaker 3 (26:38):
And and and and and you know, his.
Speaker 5 (26:40):
Job is to reflect the what what his boss wants.
Speaker 3 (26:44):
But I think he's way more hawkish than his boss is. Interesting.
Speaker 4 (26:49):
Oh yeah, Well his boss wouldn't be hawkish if if
he was being attacked personally.
Speaker 5 (26:57):
So we didn't get into it, and I don't want
to get into it much, but that video that came
out yesterday about what Hamas did to a whole bunch
of those women on October seventh. So they overran a
military base and grabbed a bunch of young girls who
were in the Israeli military.
Speaker 3 (27:14):
And lined up up against the wall.
Speaker 5 (27:15):
This is actually they'd already raped several of them and
beaten them. And on the video they're bloody and they
got cuts on their faces and injuries from being beaten,
and all the Hamas fighters are joking about which one
they're going to rape next, and who they're going to
impregnate and everything. And those girls are gone, and nobody
knows if they're dead or being raped slaves in tunnels
still to this day or what. But it's unbelievable to
(27:39):
see this video and recognize that we have people all
around this country that are standing up for those dudes
who are as, who are just vicious animals and they
need to be killed to the last one. And the
question of but what comes next in Gaza, I don't know,
but something that doesn't include them, that's what comes next.
Speaker 3 (28:01):
Right.
Speaker 4 (28:01):
A lot of the difficulty is and I plan to
get into this fairly heavily next week in a way
that will almost certainly be controversial. You have vast support
for Hamas both before and after October seventh, and a
lot of that raping and killing and torturing and burning
that was that was just Palestinians. That was not all
(28:23):
hardcore Hamas guys. That was a lot of people who
hate Jews and thought it was a great idea. So
and if you were to have a couple of pops
with Benji Nett Yahoo, I'll bet he would say, yeah,
you're one hundred percent right. If you were to say
to him, you know, it seems to me, Benji you
could like totally wipe out Hamas and still have a
hell of a problem, and he would agree.
Speaker 5 (28:47):
So coming up, South Korea has spent two hundred and
seventy billion dollars over a quarter of a trillion dollars
to try to get people to have babies. How well
has that worked?
Speaker 3 (29:01):
Among other things on the way stay with US, arm
Trump and getty.
Speaker 11 (29:10):
Trump's former rival NICKI Haley announcing she will vote for him.
Speaker 6 (29:14):
Trump has not been perfect on these policies. I've made
that clear many many times. But Biden has been a catastrophe,
So I will be voting for Trump.
Speaker 11 (29:26):
Even after dropping out of the race. Nicki Haley keeps
earning significant support and key Republican primaries, including in several
battleground states like Pennsylvania were just last month she got
sixteen percent of the vote. But Donald Trump has made
it clear she is not under consideration to be his
possible running mate.
Speaker 3 (29:45):
Oh he did.
Speaker 5 (29:45):
I didn't realize he had said that she's not under consideration.
Is that what they just said? Yeah, yeah, okay, we're
speculating about that earlier. I just I don't see Nicky
being the forceful advocate for Trump, regardless of what he
says or does during the campaign or in the first term, whereas,
like I think Marco Rubio could do it.
Speaker 4 (30:09):
Yes, yeah, for reasons that are difficult to put your
finger on. But yeah, I just I don't see that
as being part of her act.
Speaker 3 (30:16):
She'd rather do other things. Who are the hundreds of.
Speaker 5 (30:18):
Thousands of people voting for Nicki Haley after she drops out?
What does that vote? I'm a Republican but I do
not like Trump?
Speaker 3 (30:26):
Then why vote in the primary.
Speaker 4 (30:29):
To say I'm a Republican but I do not like Trump.
Speaker 3 (30:32):
And what do you think your result is going to be?
With that?
Speaker 4 (30:35):
People will realize you're a Republican and you do not
like Trump.
Speaker 3 (30:39):
What do you not understand? I just don't understand what
the gesture does.
Speaker 4 (30:42):
I don't I totally get it is it is a
statement that I do not like the direction my party
is taken.
Speaker 5 (30:53):
The astonishment of the mainstream media that Nicki Haley, after
all the bad things she said about Trump, that she
will vote for him, What are you a child? First
of all, politicians do this all the time. Secondly, it's
a binary choice. You gotta vote for either Trump or Biden.
Is it surprising that Nicky Haley, like me, if you
have to choose between those two, would prefer Trump's politics
(31:16):
over Biden's.
Speaker 3 (31:17):
It's not that complicated. I don't think.
Speaker 4 (31:19):
No, No, it's either stupidity or feigned amazement.
Speaker 5 (31:25):
So there are like five different things that we regularly
say are the biggest stories in the world, AI, the
end of the United States, is the leader of the
world order. Those are all really giant stories. This whole
birthrate thing, though for the planet it's longer term, long term,
(31:46):
it's the biggest story. Just no doubt about it, but
it's going to take a while for it to like
really show itself and have an effect on I mean,
most of us will be dead before it has any effects.
Speaker 3 (32:00):
But I was looking at the long term birth rate.
Speaker 5 (32:03):
France has been below replacement rate going back with this
chart only goes back to nineteen eighty, but they've been
below it since nineteen eighty.
Speaker 4 (32:10):
It's amazing part of the reason they've allowed rampant unwise immigration.
Speaker 5 (32:16):
Right But anyway, so the story here is since two
thousand and six, South Korea has spent over a quarter
of a trillion dollars in combination of advertisements and handouts
if you are willing to have a baby. One percent
of their GDPA year has gone to efforts to try
(32:39):
to get people to have babies.
Speaker 4 (32:41):
Which is why they've got a birth rate now of
two point seventy five children per woman.
Speaker 5 (32:46):
I don't know what it is exactly, but on this
chart it's down under one. It's like point zero point
seven or something like that. I think we had all
three babies in the whole country last year or something. Anyway,
and the one pundit assessment of this, having spent that
much money, this ought to puncture, the notion that affordability
(33:07):
or inequality is the source of America's baby bust. Yeah,
South Korea is a pretty prosperous country. They're throwing money
around like crazy. If you're willing to have a baby
and people still aren't having babies.
Speaker 4 (33:20):
It's got to be at least, you know, somewhat measurable
the number of additional babies beyond what was expected prior
to these programs, and then measure that number of babies
by the amount of money spent. How many billions of
dollars per baby? Is that or tens of millions? Certainly?
Speaker 3 (33:40):
I don't know.
Speaker 5 (33:43):
I don't know if there's anything that can be done
or needs to be done.
Speaker 3 (33:47):
If a species decides, you know.
Speaker 4 (33:49):
What, enough of us God's plan well or something or
something evil, unholy and smelling of doom. But either way,
government programs aren't going to reverse it.
Speaker 3 (34:05):
No, no, it is not.
Speaker 5 (34:07):
But so South Korea will become a land mass that
is still called South Korea, but very few people there.
Speaker 3 (34:14):
They don't have they don't allow immigration. I don't know.
Speaker 5 (34:18):
I at some point they'll decide we got to have
some human beings here. But then it will become similar,
of course, but then it will become like it has
in a lot of towns in the United States, It'll
become a different thing. It'll be a different language, with
different customs and different beliefs and different religions.
Speaker 4 (34:35):
Or like Japan, it'll become a much smaller economy with
a smaller population density and much less significance to the world,
and will perhaps be conquered or what have you in
the future.
Speaker 3 (34:46):
But yeah, it'll be a completely different place.
Speaker 5 (34:49):
Jam this in apropos of nothing. Joe Biden had the
lowest approval rating of his presidency thus far, come out
yesterday in a Reuter's IPSOS poll of your major polls
at thirty six percent. That's the lowest he's ever had
in one of your major bowls. If you're thirty no,
it's not thirty six percent, as you're five months away
(35:10):
from election and everything headed the wrong direction.
Speaker 3 (35:14):
And your senile Yeah, and you're of all our institutions. Yeah,
it makes a good point.
Speaker 4 (35:23):
If we were like a fourth tier Banana Republic, I'd
say this is really discouraging as a superpower.
Speaker 5 (35:29):
It's just mind blowing. The only thing keeping the world
on track. Yeah, it's a little mind blowing. Really a
little uncomfortable, armstrong and Getty
Popular Podcasts
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.
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 Nikki Glaser Podcast
Every week comedian and infamous roaster Nikki Glaser provides a fun, fast-paced, and brutally honest look into current pop-culture and her own personal life.