August 6, 2025 • 49 mins
In this explosive episode of Carnivore Bites, hosts Jeff Sherman and Dr. Eric Lopkin dissect the political theater surrounding Kamala Harris’s new book 107 Days, calling out its delusions, ghostwriting, and billion-dollar blunders. The duo dives into Harris's failed campaign, her likability problem, and why her political future may be finished. But that's just the beginning—things heat up as they explore the DOJ investigation into Adam Schiff for mortgage fraud, the unraveling Russiagate scandal, and the growing media reckoning from Howard Stern to Colbert. They wrap up with sharp insights on crumbling job numbers, questionable economic reporting, and the dangerous ripple effects of false data.
It’s raw. It’s unfiltered. It’s what mainstream media won’t touch.
It’s raw. It’s unfiltered. It’s what mainstream media won’t touch.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
Do you want more success, more growth, more results than
It's time for the Boundless Success Accelerator from the Modern
Observer group. This isn't your average coaching program. It's where
top performers come to dominate, weekly group sessions, on demand coaching,
a community that's got your back, and a powerpack library
(00:23):
of tools to supercharge your business and career. No more excuses,
no more waiting, Get in, level up and start building
the life you've been dreaming about. Visit us at modernobserver
dot com slash Boundless Success to join today. Let's get
you to the next level.
Speaker 2 (01:04):
Welcome to another edition of Carnivore Bites. I'm your host,
Jeff Sherman, along with doctor Eric Lopkin, and we've all
had difficult times in our life. Doctor Lopkin, we've overcome them.
Certain things I'm not sure I could overcome, and that
would be the Kamala Harris book One hundred and seven Days.
(01:25):
My question to you is you would you rather be
water water boarded or have to listen to the audio book.
Speaker 1 (01:35):
That's tough because as bad as I know the book is,
there's this morbid curiosity.
Speaker 2 (01:47):
I would live into about an hour on my commute
you know not you know, the back and forth of
the audiobook. Yeah, it would be pretty fun.
Speaker 1 (01:59):
I think it depends on how long the book is.
I mean, I have heard from some people who have
seen advanced drafts of the book that I heard five hundred.
Speaker 2 (02:11):
Oh.
Speaker 1 (02:12):
I didn't hear anything about page counts, but I have
I have heard several people that have seen advanced drafts
of the book say essentially that this is a book
of fiction because Kamala is so delusional about what she
did wrong. She refuses to take any responsibility for her
(02:34):
own gaffs, her own inadequacies. So the book is essentially
who she wants to blame.
Speaker 2 (02:45):
Yeah, but isn't that indicative of pretty much her life?
As she ever really grabbed on to this amazing you
ever had conviction, I would say, no, odd, you're an
analytical person. The chances of her actually writing this book
from one to ten, one being like, well, zero, ten, zero,
zero and ten, what do you think?
Speaker 1 (03:05):
Oh no, this was ghost written. There's no doubt about it.
Speaker 2 (03:09):
It's really funny because she did her real quick. She
did her video social media launch, and when she says,
and I launched my book, she actually looked at the
cover for a second to remind her of what the
title is.
Speaker 1 (03:23):
Well, now, I'm gonna defend her slightly. Ninety nine percent
of books written by politicians on both sides of the
aisle are ghost written. These people can't. Bill Clinton didn't
write his own Most of the guys don't write their
own memoirs. I would doubt that even Barack Obama, who
(03:47):
he is, as much as I didn't like his policy,
an amazing communicator, But I doubt that he. But I
doubt that he wrote his entire book. He probably did more,
and Kamala did. But they bring in ghost writers. They're
heavily edited. So you know, say, saying that she didn't
(04:08):
write it really isn't shocking, okay, But there is a difference.
Speaker 2 (04:13):
You had the semblance or the or the veneer of possibility. Okay,
Like it's about as it's about as believable as an
AI generated mister Sherman dunking the ball in an NBA game.
Speaker 1 (04:28):
There is no well, actually agion that what you just
said is actually a possibility that she did do this,
but she had a I write it. You are correct,
that's now that's now another that's now another possibility.
Speaker 2 (04:52):
Hey, first, time Carnivore bites, there you go. And she
did say that she's dropping out of politics because of
Broken Broken, that's all she's done her entire life.
Speaker 1 (05:04):
Well, none of she did. She didn't say she's dropping
out of politics. She said she's dropping out of the
California gubernatorial race. She was very careful not to say
she's not gonna run for presidents in the next election.
She desperately wants to keep that possibility open because, again
(05:27):
the same way the book does not acknowledge her own
shortcomings and her own mistakes. She does not accept the
fact that she got her clock cleaned and it had
nothing to do with the fact that it was a
short campaign.
Speaker 2 (05:42):
And she also can't come to grips that no one
likes her. She's one of these people that always wanted
to be liked. Either it's Willie Brown or whoever. She's
not likable. She's in the same category as Hillary. I
do believe that in her deepest crevices of that pea brain,
(06:03):
that she does understand whether her operatives have told her
that she has zero chance of winning the presidency. But well,
that probably will not stop her.
Speaker 1 (06:12):
It probably it probably won't stop her, But your Your
comparison to Hillary Clinton is interesting because I would actually
say she is less likable than Hillary Clinton.
Speaker 2 (06:24):
And I'm that's possible.
Speaker 1 (06:26):
I'm basing this on her own staff. Hillary Clinton had
staff members that were with her for decades. They stuck
with her through thick and thin. Many How many turnovers
did she have in her staff just during the time
she was vice president. It was a revolving door. She
(06:48):
couldn't even keep people on her own staff well done.
Speaker 2 (06:52):
I would agree with that one hundred percent. I've actually
heard a story, and I believe it is true that
to give an idea of how horrible it is work
working with her, she had her whole staff basically do
a mock up because she was going to go to
some state dinner and they had to pretend that they
were different figures of countries. Like that is like out there, dude,
(07:15):
that's out there.
Speaker 1 (07:16):
I don't know that that's so out there. That is
actually that is actually the only indication we've ever seen
that she was acknowledging her own shortcomings. She knew she
couldn't go to this event unprepared. She failed at the preparation,
but at least she tried. That's again, that's the only
(07:36):
time we've ever seen her acknowledge her own shortcomings.
Speaker 2 (07:41):
I think you're correct on that one. Yes, good point. Yes,
but her home mo Zepparandi, has always been no hard
work because you know, you are a product of your past,
and everything that came easier easy to her. Appointed for
this nominee if it's got the senatorial nod by not
(08:03):
really running, so everything's been gettn to her. She's never
really worked. And the whit middle class. No, both her
parents were professors and I don't know how they produced
such a dummy.
Speaker 1 (08:14):
But oh well, yeah, no, she was not middle class.
But actually, what you're talking about with her always taking
the easy path was pointed out during her presidential run
in twenty twenty because numerous Democratic pundits pointed out that
(08:36):
she had never run a real campaign and because of that,
she did not have the grassroots backing that most candidates
build up. She did not have the built in audience
that most politicians. Remember, it's very rare that a politician
wins their first race. Usually they they run for some
(09:00):
thing local, they come closer, they don't quite make it,
but they've started to make a name for themselves. So
the next time they come back and they do better,
and then they go into the whole run up to Congress,
governor whatever it is they want to do. She never
had that campaign experience. It was because it was all
(09:23):
handed to her. She never had that built in audience.
Speaker 2 (09:29):
I don't want to also throw out something it's a
huge leap of faith. But I'm not so sure she
ever bounced to check book. Why do I say that,
how do you blow a billion? No? That should be
the book that's much more engaged.
Speaker 1 (09:46):
Honestly, I would no, I would read.
Speaker 2 (09:49):
How to blow almost two million in three months?
Speaker 1 (09:53):
Two millions? Where were you getting your numbers? Yes? No,
it was one billion. But okay, I thought you said million.
I'm like, no, no, no, a lot more than that it was.
It was yeah, one. One is the number that gets
tossed around. The exact figure varies from person to person.
(10:17):
It's probably around one and a half billion dollars that
she actually got she actually spent in one hundred and
seven days. And it's it's not that she spent the money.
I mean, campaigns are expensive. It's the fact that she
spent it and lost ground from Joe Biden in every district.
Speaker 2 (10:44):
Good. Well, you know her money well spent because you
got to try to do that. Yeah, she was so dumb.
Maybe she gave the checkbook to the to the to
the Republican Party. You never know.
Speaker 1 (11:00):
I don't know what she did. I mean, we do
know she was paying famous people to show up and
perform at her events. That was the only way apparently
she could get audiences to show up. We know she
was paying people to attend her rallies. The PR company
(11:20):
or yeah, the PR company now I'm just talking about crowds.
The PR companies that actually hire the folks to do
this have all come out and said, yes, we built
fake audiences for her. So a lot of it was
just trying to show that she stood a chance when
(11:45):
everybody knew she didn't.
Speaker 2 (11:48):
Well, we'll talk about that later. We'll get into the
media later. But that's another subject. You know. You know,
in my old age, I'm a bigger believer in karma.
Hillary has her own karma. The hell Lottie like that.
I think Kamala might have not the degree of temperature,
but a not gonna be all that happy. She's not
(12:10):
gonna make it any Her political future is gone. There's
no way anyone's gonna want to pay her for any
kind of uh uh, you know, ch noted dress. I mean,
I don't know, maybe I heard maybe like a one
of those housewives show on reality TV.
Speaker 1 (12:29):
I'm not even sure she can do that. I mean,
we keep comparing her in Hillary Clinton, and let's face it,
the reason we keep doing that is because they both
ran for president. They both lost to Donald Trump. There
are some parallels, but there are also suitable. Yeah, definitely unlikable,
but there's also some pretty big differences. And I think
(12:51):
the biggest one is Hillary is not stupid, but she
is my Chiavellian. She is manipulative. She is absolutely you know,
trying to control everything behind the scenes. I never got
the feeling that Harris was like that. I thought she
(13:14):
was just completely incompetent and in over her head.
Speaker 2 (13:19):
I would believe in that analysis one hundred percent. But
it also goes into you can make some assertion that
Hillary did put some effort into some things. Yes, I
think that, and became Macabellian in the end because that's
the only thing she had in her whole life is power.
I think Kamala is a story of just like the
(13:41):
Glamour but didn't really. She had no interest in really
doing the job of a president. She just wanted to
be in the limelight.
Speaker 1 (13:50):
Yes, without doing the work very much. So Hillary wanted
to be president because she wanted the power, Harris. Harris
went wanted the presidency because she wanted the fame and
the limelight. Hillary, as much as we dislike her and
disagree with her policies, would have done the job. I'm
(14:12):
not saying she would have done a good job, but
she would have made the effort and done the job. Harris,
I don't think would if she would have tried to
pass everything off on other people, and it would have
been an abject disaster.
Speaker 2 (14:27):
I actually will go one step further. I think with Hillary,
your life, my life, our listeners, LIFs would go on,
Her policies would suck. But whatever with Kamala, we could
have we dodged a bullet, a literal bullet. I believe
we could have been an easily in World War Three.
(14:47):
It was that bad. You had a cackling moron who
makes Biden look like a mensic.
Speaker 1 (14:53):
Well, I mean, just just think of how Ukraine would
have escalated Russia. Ukraine would have escalated the crisis in
Israel would have escalated because nobody would have had their
foot on the break Trump has the bomb, Yeah, Iran
would have been running wild all over the Middle East.
(15:16):
I don't think Iran would have gotten the bomb yet,
but they'd certainly be well on their way. Like Trump
or not, he has been a moderating influence. And I
can't believe I'm saying that, but he has been a
moderating influence on these these ongoing wars, even going as
(15:37):
far as getting a peace treaty in Africa. Harris would
not have been able to do any of that. NATO
would not have stepped up to pay five percent of
their GDP for defense because nobody would have taken her seriously.
Speaker 2 (15:57):
I think it would have been also someone who we
won't be doing the show next week. You can get some,
you know, retirement possibilities, and I would have to say
that all bets would be off economically if you're on
a fixed income basically who knows, I mean, could be
(16:20):
hyper inflation, recessions. I mean, it was just a disaster.
In closing, we glad we I am going to miss her, though,
I am I miss Uncle Joe. I'm glad he's out
but I am going to miss the cackling I loved.
I was better than Johnny Carson, or at least close
when she tried to be so profound, you know, a
(16:43):
walking about the simple like how to change cat litter.
I'm going to miss that. I'm going to miss it.
Sorry I am, But anyway, moving on, any final thoughts
on Kamala.
Speaker 1 (16:55):
Now, I think she'll sell the book. She'll hype the
book up. I doubt it's going to do all that well.
Speaker 2 (17:07):
And then please tell me the demographics and IQ of
her readers, the five of them.
Speaker 1 (17:18):
No, I think she'll have more than that because she
is going to have what what has been termed the
awfuls affluent white female liberals. I think they will buy
her book. These folks, these folks supported her for president.
(17:38):
They wanted her in the White House. They had no
idea how bad it would be, but they wanted her.
And I think they'll go out and buy the book.
So I don't know that it'll do all that well.
But she'll sell books. It'll you know, it'll do. But
I don't think it'll be enough for her. And I
have a feeling that that lack of spotlight, the lack
(18:02):
of success. I think that's going to push her further
into wanting to run for president again because she needs
that spotlight.
Speaker 2 (18:14):
I think you have a very good point, and you're right,
because without that, she's hollowed, because that's driven her throughout
her entire life. Very interesting, speaking of individuals who are
maybe seen their best days, we have Adam Shift and
it used to be kind of wishful thinking on the
GOP side, and we're going to do this to him.
(18:36):
He's an all Accounts in real Trouble doctor Lopkin Legal.
Speaker 1 (18:41):
That is, yes, he is now being investigated by the
DOJ for mortgage fraud, and already we've actually seen legal documents,
which is rare this early in an investigation. Usually it's
kept well under wraps. But I think Schiff himself had
(19:04):
actually over the years made these documents public. Where As
Congressman from California now Senator from California, he has a
house in Maryland and to get a better loan, term
claimed that his home in Maryland was his primary residence. Now,
(19:30):
this is obviously mortgage fraud. It's illegal, it's fraudulent on
the bank. So you have this is very interesting because
you have this contrast between the case that they tried
to bring against Donald Trump, where the banks were saying, no,
(19:51):
we didn't get hurt, there was nobody was damaged in this,
it didn't happen. Where Here the banks are actually going
to be plaintiffs and where in the Trump case this
was the state versus because they could not name a
(20:11):
single entered party, right, there were no victims. Here, there
are actual victims. And there have been politicians who have
done this before. They have been convicted and they have
gone to jail. So there is an actual possibility that
(20:31):
he will be sent to jail, he can be stripped
of his law license. And if he doesn't go to jail,
there is the possibility that if he can prove that
Maryland was actually his primary residence, love it, he will
(20:55):
probably be forced out of the Senate because you cannot
represent but the state you don't live in, only doctor lockin.
Speaker 2 (21:05):
Isn't that the catch twenty two that to get out
of jail you might have to get out.
Speaker 1 (21:11):
Of the city one or the other.
Speaker 2 (21:15):
Right, Yeah, like that.
Speaker 1 (21:17):
It is absolutely ridiculous. And the irony of all of
this is this is not the only political mortgage fraud
investigation going on because Letitia James, the Attorney General of
New York that tried today, you know, that tried to
go up against Trump and swore in her campaign she
(21:38):
was going to nail him, is also being investigated for
the exact same crime because she did the exact same thing.
Speaker 2 (21:49):
You can't make it up, could you?
Speaker 1 (21:51):
No, you really can't it. You know, we've said over
and over on this podcast that anytime the Democrat to
accuse somebody of something, it's because they've done it. Well,
guess what they were a trajection. Yes, they were trying
to nail Trump for you know, for all this real
estate front turned out they were the ones doing it.
Speaker 2 (22:15):
Couldn't happen to a nicer group of people, very very good,
and speaking of a nice group of people, we have
Russia Gate was a sideline, a a right wing back
infatuation with no meriage. Just to put in perspective. We'll
talk about media in our next segment, but we have
(22:36):
the media, the voting hours, hours of Russiagate coverage, and
now that we have the tables turning literally and you
might think I made this up. I didn't. Three minutes
that's across all networks.
Speaker 1 (22:55):
Yeah, they the media coverage has been absolutely pathetic because
they don't want to admit that they didn't even investigate.
They took what and it would again it was Adam Shiff, Yeah,
it was Adam Schiff who was the biggest proponent of
this theory. He was out there on every news show
(23:17):
claiming he had the evidence. And now not only did
he not have the evidence, but we find they knew
this was a phony narrative and decided to classify that
information so that the Trump campaign couldn't see this. And
(23:39):
they found that it goes all the way up to
Barack Obama. And here's the thing, and this absolutely infuriates
me because when there is coverage of this, even on
the networks that tend to lean conservative, they all talk
(23:59):
about the fact that, well, there's nothing that can be
done to Obama because he has presidential immunity, as the
Supreme Court decided in the Trump case. No, this is
not correct. If you read the Supreme Court decision, presidential
(24:23):
immunity only exists for things you are doing in the
course of the presidency. If Donald Trump orders a drone
strike on a known terrorist to protect national security, he
cannot be prosecuted for that. If However, he orders a
(24:48):
drone strike on a private American citizen because he wants
to buy his real estate, he can be prosecuted for that,
even though he is the same thing goes for Obama.
What this was was Donald Trump had already won the presidency,
(25:11):
So this was an attempt to hamstring the next president.
That is, by no yeah, that is, by no stretch
of the imagination, an official presidential act.
Speaker 2 (25:28):
I would agree and all that. I also, in my
I believe in many others do it makes Watergate look
like a double a baseball game, nothing, biggest scandal in
at least one hundred years in America, going back to
maybe McKinley. I I think nothing will legally happen to Obama.
(25:51):
I think Clapper Brannan better be they're they're they're not
enjoying themselves right now. I would I would actually believe
the odds are in their dis phase. I believe that
legal consequences will happen to them. But you know, the
theme of the show has kind of been the unofficial theme,
that is of kind of karma. And I think Obama,
(26:13):
his legacy was already circling down the toilet. It's just
one more one more more more fuel on the fire.
Hillary's already finished. It's just a further shovel fall on
the grave. Your thoughts, I don't even take lesson before
you say that. I believe that almost the legality besides
(26:34):
Brennan and Clapper because they deserve and call me, they
deserve jail time. But it's almost inconsequential that you know
Obama or Hillary. It's it's just the stain because again,
they live for their reputation, especially Obama, the only president
never left Washington, and now from Uncle Joe, Hillary's loss
(26:59):
and this entanglement his legacy and it also more reflection
has failed presidency. He's pretty much could put your thoughts Lopkin.
Speaker 1 (27:11):
Yeah, I think you know, I kind of want to
say this is the final nail, but I don't think
it is, because every time we learn more about the
Obama presidency, his legacy takes another hit. I don't know
how much, you know more you can degrade it, but
I think I think it's going to be bigger than
(27:32):
than just his legacy, because what now that the investigation
is in full rain, you're going to see how many
people were involved in this. You're going to I mean
certainly Schiff is going to be lamb baseded because he
was the front man for all of this. He was
(27:54):
the one.
Speaker 2 (27:54):
Manerg the question ma energic the questions. Could he be
censured in the Senate from that, basically when it comes
out of he completely fabricated it was complete bullshit.
Speaker 1 (28:07):
I'm not I'm not sure. I think it's going to
depend on what the investigation finds, because Schiff isn't that.
I don't honestly believe that Schiff is the mastermind behind
all of this. If he were, then yes, he could
certainly be censured for this behavior I have.
Speaker 2 (28:28):
I don't think. I don't think he's the mastermind. No,
but I.
Speaker 1 (28:32):
Think he was the I don't even know that he's
a conspirator. I think he was the chosen dupe. I
think he was the I think he was the one
that everybody else fed fake information to because they knew
he would believe it, they knew he would bang the
drum for it, and they could stay in the shadows.
Speaker 2 (28:57):
Lapkin, that's brilliant. I have never heard that on anything.
I think you're right because everyone who every media out
of that is conservative who talks about shits portrays him
positions him as a leading operative. So does I think
you're I think, who do we dump this shit on?
Who's gullible enough, eager enough to just run with his ship,
(29:18):
and an opportunist enough. And he hits all the categories,
doesn't he?
Speaker 1 (29:24):
Yes, he does. I mean we do know that he
knew he was lying in a lot of these interviews.
And I will actually give credit to my wife because
she actually caught his tell in some of these interviews.
(29:44):
And for the most part, he would talk, and he
would talk to his fine, but when he knew he
was lying lying, his eyes bugged a little bit. And immediately,
you know, anybody, anybody who's played poker knows people when
and they bluff, have it tell. That was his So
he knew everything wasn't above board. But I don't know
(30:08):
how much of it he knew wasn't above board. I
think he had been fed all of this stuff by
the folks that wanted to stay in the shadows, and
he was more than happy to try to make a
name for himself. He probably thought he was going to
be able to make such a name that he would
be able to run for president.
Speaker 2 (30:28):
I think you're correct. I think he's sweating. I think
I envision him as kind of a windy guy, so
he didn't have the constitution to weather storms like Trump did.
I think he's gonna cry like a bitch. How do
you like that? He's already doing that behind the scenes
because he knows he's in real trouble with mortgage fraud
(30:50):
and he's at the center, not as the orchestra, because
I do agree, but he's in. He's in net deep
in the biggest scanned in one hundred years.
Speaker 1 (31:02):
See. Now, the question is will he withstand enough to
get you know, find everything out and get punished.
Speaker 2 (31:14):
Or.
Speaker 1 (31:16):
Is he so big an opportunist that he will take
the opportunity to flip and name names and say where
he got this stuff and help the investigation in order
to save his owns behind. And I'm not sure which
way he'll go. I don't think he has the strength
(31:37):
of character to really face down the investigation. But I
think he also might not have enough character to flip
and do the right thing.
Speaker 2 (31:50):
Yeah, I think he would flip if it wasn't this situation.
Because if he flips, look what they did to Trump,
who is a president of the United States. You think
a little pencil neck is going to withstand the full
force of Obama. You know, Uh, the Clinton's whole APPARATCHI not.
Speaker 1 (32:14):
But that's the thing if he if he were to flip,
and I'm not saying that's going to happen, This is
all speculation, but if he were, it would cripple that apparatus.
They you know, what they could do to him would
be Yeah, it would be so much less than what
(32:35):
they tried to do to Trump because the credibility would
be gone. The certainly the money would be gone.
Speaker 2 (32:44):
Goodbye. Yep, it's for some good TV.
Speaker 1 (32:51):
Yes, it'll it'll make for interesting storytelling.
Speaker 2 (32:55):
Now, speaking of TV, we have the media and it's
been going on for some time, but nothing more profound
than our last presidential election. And that is the changing media.
You look at what's going on with the firings. Okay
of late just came over the speculation that Howard Stern
(33:17):
is gone. Who was once the king of all media,
then he became woke. And you know what his whole
listenership is. He used to have twenty million listeners. Do
you know what it is now?
Speaker 1 (33:29):
I'd be shocked if it was two.
Speaker 2 (33:33):
It's one hundred and forty thousand.
Speaker 1 (33:36):
Wow. I would not have expected it to go that low.
Speaker 2 (33:39):
Yep, it's a serious radio has a subscription base of
about thirty million. He has a small, small slipper and
someone that deals with youth. There's some good commentaries that
if you look at someone that's under thirty, they don't
even know who the hell he is.
Speaker 1 (33:59):
No, they don't.
Speaker 2 (34:01):
Yeah, and that's a Democrat, you know. I would say
even you could be pushing people under forty. That's how
long he's been irrelevant. But he did flip. He became
boring and I did like the commentary, just like old
rock groups. He stayed on. I don't know why he
stayed on so long. But he also became kind of
(34:22):
macabre and sick at me. And that's just because I
don't agree with him politically. I mean kind of like
a real whissy, Like he wouldn't leave his compound because
of the pandemic. It's like, grow a pair, dude, he
still doesn't come out of his compound.
Speaker 1 (34:39):
Yeah, we are seeing a massive shift in media, and
it's not just television. Obviously. You were just talking about
Howard Stern thats satellite radio. I don't think he's been
on TV in about twenty years at least. I mean
if you remember, actually, no, come to.
Speaker 2 (34:58):
The something some bullshit show like the stuff. He hasn't
been in relevant TV. I agree with you for over
twenty years. Yes, you're right.
Speaker 1 (35:09):
Yeah, but you're seeing now that the media companies are going,
wait a minute, you know what. Yeah, well we agree
with the politics, we agree with what they're saying. We
can't afford to support this anymore.
Speaker 2 (35:29):
So now, no, no, what you said is not a
minor point. It's been said before, but now it's like,
you can bullshit long enough. And yeah, I like him
because he needed like Colbert, he's woke. But when you're
talking forty million with run power, I'm not going to
do the math. But when you have a one hundred
and thirty thousand listeners, you're making one hundred billion, do
(35:51):
the math, you know. I mean, you get to a
point where I ain't working on even Gail King, who
I have to give her full It looks like she's
going to be fired. I know that Oprah is behind her,
but someonet of minimal intellect and less than minimal ability,
I give her credit. She milked it for over twenty
(36:12):
years now, a lot more money than I ever did.
Speaker 1 (36:15):
She did, but right now, right now, CBS Mornings is
getting less than two million viewers. It is hemorrhage. No,
it's especially not for one of what used to be
called the Big three networks. It is hemorrhaging money. And
(36:35):
she's just not worth her paycheck. So yeah, they're no.
Now you're also seeing though, I mean, first of all,
the left is completely overreacting because they don't want to
believe that they're costing this much money. I saw on
social media this massive conversation because the person who was
(37:04):
responsible for making the decision to fire Cobert under the
new management is going to be running television, which puts
him in charge of a brand new deal that Paramount
signed with south Park. And they're like, oh my god,
the person that fired Colbert is going to be censoring
(37:28):
south Park. No, he's not going to censor south Park
because south Park is profitable. South Park pays the bills.
That's yeah, that's what this is about. It's about making
money again. Now in terms of politics and making money,
(37:48):
you're starting to see an expansion of media, which shocked me.
In the newspaper industry, whoa two major, two major stories
came out about brand new newspapers. One coming out of
New York was the reemergence of the New York Sun. Now,
(38:14):
for those of our listeners who were not familiar with
the New York Son, the New York Son is a
one hundred and sixty year old newspaper that, over the
past twenty years has come and gone and got. You know,
the reputation of the New York Sun, and most of
(38:37):
our listeners will probably recognize this story. But the reputation
of the New York Sun was beyond such reproach. Everybody
believed everything. It was so trustworthy that in eighteen ninety nine,
(38:57):
a young girl wrote a letter to The New York
Sun because her father told her, if you see it
in the Sun, it's true, and the response to that
letter became the most famous editorial of all time. Yes, Virginia,
(39:19):
there is a Santa Claus.
Speaker 2 (39:23):
That's awesome.
Speaker 1 (39:25):
Now really now it is back. And the mission that
is stated all over it is that they are coming
back to bring truth back to New York newspapers, and
they name in particular the lies that have been told
(39:46):
by the New York Times.
Speaker 2 (39:50):
Let me let me ask you a question about the
New York Times, because that really kind of baffles me.
Isn't it really a left wing rag dressed up as
an euro diet high falutint intellectual paper.
Speaker 1 (40:05):
But it is now rush it is now. I mean,
this is really something that happened probably over the last
twenty years or so, maybe a little longer, maybe a
little shorter, but around that. But I mean, certainly when
I was growing up and when I was studying journalism.
(40:27):
You know, this is back in the eighties and early nineties,
the New York Times was still impeccable, and then it
just fell apart. The politics became too much.
Speaker 2 (40:41):
Isn't that just basically a not a microcosm, definite correlation
between what happened to the New York Times. I know,
one is news, but also with Late Night with Colbert
and Kimmel and all these others, and you're.
Speaker 1 (40:59):
Seeing, yes, and you're seeing a shift in Late Night
also now that Colbert has doubled down, now that he's
been fired, he's doubled down. He has had nothing but
extreme left wing guests on, including Kamala Harris. Well, guess
(41:22):
what it's well, it's not going well, but NBC has
decided they need to counter program this, and you are
seeing more conservative voices have a place on the Tonight Show.
In fact, at some point this week, I'm not sure
if it's Tonight, Tomorrow or Friday. The get One of
(41:46):
the guests on the Tonight Show is Greg Guttfeld.
Speaker 2 (41:52):
That's awesome. That's a huge shift.
Speaker 1 (41:56):
Yes, so you're you're seeing late night shift. And then
getting back to newspapers, the New York Post has announced
they are going to be publishing a brand new newspaper,
same basic look, feel and voice as the New York Post,
(42:18):
based in Los Angeles, and it is going to be
the California Post.
Speaker 2 (42:26):
Fantastic yup. There is definitely a sea change. You look
at media, even with you know, the Sweeney commercials, there
there is you can sense it. You can sense it
the old guard and they're not going peacefully. That is
in politics and in media. Uh, you know, there's structural differences.
(42:47):
But when you look at the media, yes, they certainly
accelerated their demise by being abject liars Russia Gate and
the you know, embracing everything that supported their narrative. And
even the only people that are left are probably the
ideologues on MSNBC to though, that's drinking as well. Who
are just hopeless. Even CNN has had positive reports that
(43:11):
it's prevalent about Trump, calling him actually the most consequential
president in one hundred years. That would never happen.
Speaker 1 (43:20):
Ana, And remember, yeah, MSNBC is hanging on to this,
but they're also about to be spun off because Comcasts
doesn't want to lose the money anymore.
Speaker 2 (43:33):
We'll see what happens there now. Looking at our last
subject matter, that's economic data, some interesting things with the
jobs number, Powell, other things that's hit off, doctor Lopkin.
Speaker 1 (43:48):
Yeah, the jobs numbers came out last week and they
were abysmal, and even more than the horrible jobs numbers
that were reported for Jill lie May and June were
revised downwards. They were both up approximately around one hundred
and forty thousand jobs. They were both downgraded to I
(44:13):
believe between the two and estimated around an average of
fifteen fifteen thousand jobs from one hundred and forty thousand jobs.
And the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics was
fired by Trump, and of course the left is yelling, well,
(44:34):
she said that the economy's bad under Trump, so he
fired her. Okay, there's one of two things going on.
Either one she lied about the current numbers, in which
case she should be fired, or the other choice in
(44:57):
this matter is she missed the estimates on the job
numbers for the past two months by more than ten times. Okay,
to steal an old line from Lewis Black, if you
were a roofer and you missed by that much, you'd
(45:19):
still be in jail.
Speaker 2 (45:23):
True, yes, I you know. But she also inflated the
job numbers before the election of last year.
Speaker 1 (45:32):
Right, the job numbers from just before the election were inflated.
That came out after the election. Oh no, we overestimated.
So she has been wrong consistency, consistently for months in
both directions. I mean, this is someone that needed to
(45:54):
be removed.
Speaker 2 (45:56):
Didn't surprise you that she's a Biden appointee, No pas
to character.
Speaker 1 (46:01):
It didn't surprise me at all. And the problem is
this wasn't just well, she made Trump look bad and
that's the problem. No, this had major repercussions. If the
accurate numbers. Let's assume that the May revision is accurate
(46:27):
and that it was only around ten thousand jobs. If
that had been reported in May, the FED would have
lowered interest rates because that would have been pushing the
economy downwards if it had if that same thing, if
(46:47):
the June numbers were correct, the FED would have stood
by that lowering of interest rates. Might have lowered it again,
might have not, But that's the real role. Yes, that
whole thing had major economic implications for both better and worse.
(47:10):
So yeah, this is somebody that needed to be removed
because she was clearly not capable of doing the job.
Speaker 2 (47:19):
I cannot argue with that. You know, you have the
conspiracy deep state? What have you? I mean, I wonder
I'm an either co workers constituents were in on the
gig as well. I mean, over you once in a
once it happens, I've seen that. But I mean, she's
been doing this for almost a year now. Again another
stellar Biden appointee. Of course she didn't know he appointed
(47:42):
There's no.
Speaker 1 (47:43):
Way, no, of course she knew.
Speaker 2 (47:47):
No, No, he didn't know that he did.
Speaker 1 (47:51):
He didn't know that she Okay, Yes, that that's completely
that's completely plausible.
Speaker 2 (47:56):
Yes, there you go, well doctor. In another edition of
Carnivore Bites be back in two. Our listeners can contribute
to the show can't they.
Speaker 1 (48:07):
Yeah, let's hear what you have to say. What what
do you want us to look at? What topics are
you interested in? And what do you think of our analysis?
Do you disagree? Let us know. We want to know,
not just if you agree, but if you disagree, and
we want to hear your arguments for and against. You
can go to the Facebook Carnivore Radio page messages there.
(48:30):
You can also go to xvadio dot com slash connect
send us a message that way, and of course you
can catch every episode of Carnivore Bites at the Carnivore
Radio website xvadio dot com, the Apple podcasts app, YouTube, Rumble, Spotify, iHeartRadio, Audible,
Amazon Music, and other platforms that respect freedom of speech.
Speaker 2 (48:54):
Thank you, doctor Lockin, See you next time.
Speaker 1 (48:57):
We'll see you then.
Speaker 2 (49:03):
The first SA
Do you want more success, more growth, more results than
It's time for the Boundless Success Accelerator from the Modern
Observer group. This isn't your average coaching program. It's where
top performers come to dominate, weekly group sessions, on demand coaching,
a community that's got your back, and a powerpack library
(00:23):
of tools to supercharge your business and career. No more excuses,
no more waiting, Get in, level up and start building
the life you've been dreaming about. Visit us at modernobserver
dot com slash Boundless Success to join today. Let's get
you to the next level.
Speaker 2 (01:04):
Welcome to another edition of Carnivore Bites. I'm your host,
Jeff Sherman, along with doctor Eric Lopkin, and we've all
had difficult times in our life. Doctor Lopkin, we've overcome them.
Certain things I'm not sure I could overcome, and that
would be the Kamala Harris book One hundred and seven Days.
(01:25):
My question to you is you would you rather be
water water boarded or have to listen to the audio book.
Speaker 1 (01:35):
That's tough because as bad as I know the book is,
there's this morbid curiosity.
Speaker 2 (01:47):
I would live into about an hour on my commute
you know not you know, the back and forth of
the audiobook. Yeah, it would be pretty fun.
Speaker 1 (01:59):
I think it depends on how long the book is.
I mean, I have heard from some people who have
seen advanced drafts of the book that I heard five hundred.
Speaker 2 (02:11):
Oh.
Speaker 1 (02:12):
I didn't hear anything about page counts, but I have
I have heard several people that have seen advanced drafts
of the book say essentially that this is a book
of fiction because Kamala is so delusional about what she
did wrong. She refuses to take any responsibility for her
(02:34):
own gaffs, her own inadequacies. So the book is essentially
who she wants to blame.
Speaker 2 (02:45):
Yeah, but isn't that indicative of pretty much her life?
As she ever really grabbed on to this amazing you
ever had conviction, I would say, no, odd, you're an
analytical person. The chances of her actually writing this book
from one to ten, one being like, well, zero, ten, zero,
zero and ten, what do you think?
Speaker 1 (03:05):
Oh no, this was ghost written. There's no doubt about it.
Speaker 2 (03:09):
It's really funny because she did her real quick. She
did her video social media launch, and when she says,
and I launched my book, she actually looked at the
cover for a second to remind her of what the
title is.
Speaker 1 (03:23):
Well, now, I'm gonna defend her slightly. Ninety nine percent
of books written by politicians on both sides of the
aisle are ghost written. These people can't. Bill Clinton didn't
write his own Most of the guys don't write their
own memoirs. I would doubt that even Barack Obama, who
(03:47):
he is, as much as I didn't like his policy,
an amazing communicator, But I doubt that he. But I
doubt that he wrote his entire book. He probably did more,
and Kamala did. But they bring in ghost writers. They're
heavily edited. So you know, say, saying that she didn't
(04:08):
write it really isn't shocking, okay, But there is a difference.
Speaker 2 (04:13):
You had the semblance or the or the veneer of possibility. Okay,
Like it's about as it's about as believable as an
AI generated mister Sherman dunking the ball in an NBA game.
Speaker 1 (04:28):
There is no well, actually agion that what you just
said is actually a possibility that she did do this,
but she had a I write it. You are correct,
that's now that's now another that's now another possibility.
Speaker 2 (04:52):
Hey, first, time Carnivore bites, there you go. And she
did say that she's dropping out of politics because of
Broken Broken, that's all she's done her entire life.
Speaker 1 (05:04):
Well, none of she did. She didn't say she's dropping
out of politics. She said she's dropping out of the
California gubernatorial race. She was very careful not to say
she's not gonna run for presidents in the next election.
She desperately wants to keep that possibility open because, again
(05:27):
the same way the book does not acknowledge her own
shortcomings and her own mistakes. She does not accept the
fact that she got her clock cleaned and it had
nothing to do with the fact that it was a
short campaign.
Speaker 2 (05:42):
And she also can't come to grips that no one
likes her. She's one of these people that always wanted
to be liked. Either it's Willie Brown or whoever. She's
not likable. She's in the same category as Hillary. I
do believe that in her deepest crevices of that pea brain,
(06:03):
that she does understand whether her operatives have told her
that she has zero chance of winning the presidency. But well,
that probably will not stop her.
Speaker 1 (06:12):
It probably it probably won't stop her, But your Your
comparison to Hillary Clinton is interesting because I would actually
say she is less likable than Hillary Clinton.
Speaker 2 (06:24):
And I'm that's possible.
Speaker 1 (06:26):
I'm basing this on her own staff. Hillary Clinton had
staff members that were with her for decades. They stuck
with her through thick and thin. Many How many turnovers
did she have in her staff just during the time
she was vice president. It was a revolving door. She
(06:48):
couldn't even keep people on her own staff well done.
Speaker 2 (06:52):
I would agree with that one hundred percent. I've actually
heard a story, and I believe it is true that
to give an idea of how horrible it is work
working with her, she had her whole staff basically do
a mock up because she was going to go to
some state dinner and they had to pretend that they
were different figures of countries. Like that is like out there, dude,
(07:15):
that's out there.
Speaker 1 (07:16):
I don't know that that's so out there. That is
actually that is actually the only indication we've ever seen
that she was acknowledging her own shortcomings. She knew she
couldn't go to this event unprepared. She failed at the preparation,
but at least she tried. That's again, that's the only
(07:36):
time we've ever seen her acknowledge her own shortcomings.
Speaker 2 (07:41):
I think you're correct on that one. Yes, good point. Yes,
but her home mo Zepparandi, has always been no hard
work because you know, you are a product of your past,
and everything that came easier easy to her. Appointed for
this nominee if it's got the senatorial nod by not
(08:03):
really running, so everything's been gettn to her. She's never
really worked. And the whit middle class. No, both her
parents were professors and I don't know how they produced
such a dummy.
Speaker 1 (08:14):
But oh well, yeah, no, she was not middle class.
But actually, what you're talking about with her always taking
the easy path was pointed out during her presidential run
in twenty twenty because numerous Democratic pundits pointed out that
(08:36):
she had never run a real campaign and because of that,
she did not have the grassroots backing that most candidates
build up. She did not have the built in audience
that most politicians. Remember, it's very rare that a politician
wins their first race. Usually they they run for some
(09:00):
thing local, they come closer, they don't quite make it,
but they've started to make a name for themselves. So
the next time they come back and they do better,
and then they go into the whole run up to Congress,
governor whatever it is they want to do. She never
had that campaign experience. It was because it was all
(09:23):
handed to her. She never had that built in audience.
Speaker 2 (09:29):
I don't want to also throw out something it's a
huge leap of faith. But I'm not so sure she
ever bounced to check book. Why do I say that,
how do you blow a billion? No? That should be
the book that's much more engaged.
Speaker 1 (09:46):
Honestly, I would no, I would read.
Speaker 2 (09:49):
How to blow almost two million in three months?
Speaker 1 (09:53):
Two millions? Where were you getting your numbers? Yes? No,
it was one billion. But okay, I thought you said million.
I'm like, no, no, no, a lot more than that it was.
It was yeah, one. One is the number that gets
tossed around. The exact figure varies from person to person.
(10:17):
It's probably around one and a half billion dollars that
she actually got she actually spent in one hundred and
seven days. And it's it's not that she spent the money.
I mean, campaigns are expensive. It's the fact that she
spent it and lost ground from Joe Biden in every district.
Speaker 2 (10:44):
Good. Well, you know her money well spent because you
got to try to do that. Yeah, she was so dumb.
Maybe she gave the checkbook to the to the to
the Republican Party. You never know.
Speaker 1 (11:00):
I don't know what she did. I mean, we do
know she was paying famous people to show up and
perform at her events. That was the only way apparently
she could get audiences to show up. We know she
was paying people to attend her rallies. The PR company
(11:20):
or yeah, the PR company now I'm just talking about crowds.
The PR companies that actually hire the folks to do
this have all come out and said, yes, we built
fake audiences for her. So a lot of it was
just trying to show that she stood a chance when
(11:45):
everybody knew she didn't.
Speaker 2 (11:48):
Well, we'll talk about that later. We'll get into the
media later. But that's another subject. You know. You know,
in my old age, I'm a bigger believer in karma.
Hillary has her own karma. The hell Lottie like that.
I think Kamala might have not the degree of temperature,
but a not gonna be all that happy. She's not
(12:10):
gonna make it any Her political future is gone. There's
no way anyone's gonna want to pay her for any
kind of uh uh, you know, ch noted dress. I mean,
I don't know, maybe I heard maybe like a one
of those housewives show on reality TV.
Speaker 1 (12:29):
I'm not even sure she can do that. I mean,
we keep comparing her in Hillary Clinton, and let's face it,
the reason we keep doing that is because they both
ran for president. They both lost to Donald Trump. There
are some parallels, but there are also suitable. Yeah, definitely unlikable,
but there's also some pretty big differences. And I think
(12:51):
the biggest one is Hillary is not stupid, but she
is my Chiavellian. She is manipulative. She is absolutely you know,
trying to control everything behind the scenes. I never got
the feeling that Harris was like that. I thought she
(13:14):
was just completely incompetent and in over her head.
Speaker 2 (13:19):
I would believe in that analysis one hundred percent. But
it also goes into you can make some assertion that
Hillary did put some effort into some things. Yes, I
think that, and became Macabellian in the end because that's
the only thing she had in her whole life is power.
I think Kamala is a story of just like the
(13:41):
Glamour but didn't really. She had no interest in really
doing the job of a president. She just wanted to
be in the limelight.
Speaker 1 (13:50):
Yes, without doing the work very much. So Hillary wanted
to be president because she wanted the power, Harris. Harris
went wanted the presidency because she wanted the fame and
the limelight. Hillary, as much as we dislike her and
disagree with her policies, would have done the job. I'm
(14:12):
not saying she would have done a good job, but
she would have made the effort and done the job. Harris,
I don't think would if she would have tried to
pass everything off on other people, and it would have
been an abject disaster.
Speaker 2 (14:27):
I actually will go one step further. I think with Hillary,
your life, my life, our listeners, LIFs would go on,
Her policies would suck. But whatever with Kamala, we could
have we dodged a bullet, a literal bullet. I believe
we could have been an easily in World War Three.
(14:47):
It was that bad. You had a cackling moron who
makes Biden look like a mensic.
Speaker 1 (14:53):
Well, I mean, just just think of how Ukraine would
have escalated Russia. Ukraine would have escalated the crisis in
Israel would have escalated because nobody would have had their
foot on the break Trump has the bomb, Yeah, Iran
would have been running wild all over the Middle East.
(15:16):
I don't think Iran would have gotten the bomb yet,
but they'd certainly be well on their way. Like Trump
or not, he has been a moderating influence. And I
can't believe I'm saying that, but he has been a
moderating influence on these these ongoing wars, even going as
(15:37):
far as getting a peace treaty in Africa. Harris would
not have been able to do any of that. NATO
would not have stepped up to pay five percent of
their GDP for defense because nobody would have taken her seriously.
Speaker 2 (15:57):
I think it would have been also someone who we
won't be doing the show next week. You can get some,
you know, retirement possibilities, and I would have to say
that all bets would be off economically if you're on
a fixed income basically who knows, I mean, could be
(16:20):
hyper inflation, recessions. I mean, it was just a disaster.
In closing, we glad we I am going to miss her, though,
I am I miss Uncle Joe. I'm glad he's out
but I am going to miss the cackling I loved.
I was better than Johnny Carson, or at least close
when she tried to be so profound, you know, a
(16:43):
walking about the simple like how to change cat litter.
I'm going to miss that. I'm going to miss it.
Sorry I am, But anyway, moving on, any final thoughts
on Kamala.
Speaker 1 (16:55):
Now, I think she'll sell the book. She'll hype the
book up. I doubt it's going to do all that well.
Speaker 2 (17:07):
And then please tell me the demographics and IQ of
her readers, the five of them.
Speaker 1 (17:18):
No, I think she'll have more than that because she
is going to have what what has been termed the
awfuls affluent white female liberals. I think they will buy
her book. These folks, these folks supported her for president.
(17:38):
They wanted her in the White House. They had no
idea how bad it would be, but they wanted her.
And I think they'll go out and buy the book.
So I don't know that it'll do all that well.
But she'll sell books. It'll you know, it'll do. But
I don't think it'll be enough for her. And I
have a feeling that that lack of spotlight, the lack
(18:02):
of success. I think that's going to push her further
into wanting to run for president again because she needs
that spotlight.
Speaker 2 (18:14):
I think you have a very good point, and you're right,
because without that, she's hollowed, because that's driven her throughout
her entire life. Very interesting, speaking of individuals who are
maybe seen their best days, we have Adam Shift and
it used to be kind of wishful thinking on the
GOP side, and we're going to do this to him.
(18:36):
He's an all Accounts in real Trouble doctor Lopkin Legal.
Speaker 1 (18:41):
That is, yes, he is now being investigated by the
DOJ for mortgage fraud, and already we've actually seen legal documents,
which is rare this early in an investigation. Usually it's
kept well under wraps. But I think Schiff himself had
(19:04):
actually over the years made these documents public. Where As
Congressman from California now Senator from California, he has a
house in Maryland and to get a better loan, term
claimed that his home in Maryland was his primary residence. Now,
(19:30):
this is obviously mortgage fraud. It's illegal, it's fraudulent on
the bank. So you have this is very interesting because
you have this contrast between the case that they tried
to bring against Donald Trump, where the banks were saying, no,
(19:51):
we didn't get hurt, there was nobody was damaged in this,
it didn't happen. Where Here the banks are actually going
to be plaintiffs and where in the Trump case this
was the state versus because they could not name a
(20:11):
single entered party, right, there were no victims. Here, there
are actual victims. And there have been politicians who have
done this before. They have been convicted and they have
gone to jail. So there is an actual possibility that
(20:31):
he will be sent to jail, he can be stripped
of his law license. And if he doesn't go to jail,
there is the possibility that if he can prove that
Maryland was actually his primary residence, love it, he will
(20:55):
probably be forced out of the Senate because you cannot
represent but the state you don't live in, only doctor lockin.
Speaker 2 (21:05):
Isn't that the catch twenty two that to get out
of jail you might have to get out.
Speaker 1 (21:11):
Of the city one or the other.
Speaker 2 (21:15):
Right, Yeah, like that.
Speaker 1 (21:17):
It is absolutely ridiculous. And the irony of all of
this is this is not the only political mortgage fraud
investigation going on because Letitia James, the Attorney General of
New York that tried today, you know, that tried to
go up against Trump and swore in her campaign she
(21:38):
was going to nail him, is also being investigated for
the exact same crime because she did the exact same thing.
Speaker 2 (21:49):
You can't make it up, could you?
Speaker 1 (21:51):
No, you really can't it. You know, we've said over
and over on this podcast that anytime the Democrat to
accuse somebody of something, it's because they've done it. Well,
guess what they were a trajection. Yes, they were trying
to nail Trump for you know, for all this real
estate front turned out they were the ones doing it.
Speaker 2 (22:15):
Couldn't happen to a nicer group of people, very very good,
and speaking of a nice group of people, we have
Russia Gate was a sideline, a a right wing back
infatuation with no meriage. Just to put in perspective. We'll
talk about media in our next segment, but we have
(22:36):
the media, the voting hours, hours of Russiagate coverage, and
now that we have the tables turning literally and you
might think I made this up. I didn't. Three minutes
that's across all networks.
Speaker 1 (22:55):
Yeah, they the media coverage has been absolutely pathetic because
they don't want to admit that they didn't even investigate.
They took what and it would again it was Adam Shiff, Yeah,
it was Adam Schiff who was the biggest proponent of
this theory. He was out there on every news show
(23:17):
claiming he had the evidence. And now not only did
he not have the evidence, but we find they knew
this was a phony narrative and decided to classify that
information so that the Trump campaign couldn't see this. And
(23:39):
they found that it goes all the way up to
Barack Obama. And here's the thing, and this absolutely infuriates
me because when there is coverage of this, even on
the networks that tend to lean conservative, they all talk
(23:59):
about the fact that, well, there's nothing that can be
done to Obama because he has presidential immunity, as the
Supreme Court decided in the Trump case. No, this is
not correct. If you read the Supreme Court decision, presidential
(24:23):
immunity only exists for things you are doing in the
course of the presidency. If Donald Trump orders a drone
strike on a known terrorist to protect national security, he
cannot be prosecuted for that. If However, he orders a
(24:48):
drone strike on a private American citizen because he wants
to buy his real estate, he can be prosecuted for that,
even though he is the same thing goes for Obama.
What this was was Donald Trump had already won the presidency,
(25:11):
So this was an attempt to hamstring the next president.
That is, by no yeah, that is, by no stretch
of the imagination, an official presidential act.
Speaker 2 (25:28):
I would agree and all that. I also, in my
I believe in many others do it makes Watergate look
like a double a baseball game, nothing, biggest scandal in
at least one hundred years in America, going back to
maybe McKinley. I I think nothing will legally happen to Obama.
(25:51):
I think Clapper Brannan better be they're they're they're not
enjoying themselves right now. I would I would actually believe
the odds are in their dis phase. I believe that
legal consequences will happen to them. But you know, the
theme of the show has kind of been the unofficial theme,
that is of kind of karma. And I think Obama,
(26:13):
his legacy was already circling down the toilet. It's just
one more one more more more fuel on the fire.
Hillary's already finished. It's just a further shovel fall on
the grave. Your thoughts, I don't even take lesson before
you say that. I believe that almost the legality besides
(26:34):
Brennan and Clapper because they deserve and call me, they
deserve jail time. But it's almost inconsequential that you know
Obama or Hillary. It's it's just the stain because again,
they live for their reputation, especially Obama, the only president
never left Washington, and now from Uncle Joe, Hillary's loss
(26:59):
and this entanglement his legacy and it also more reflection
has failed presidency. He's pretty much could put your thoughts Lopkin.
Speaker 1 (27:11):
Yeah, I think you know, I kind of want to
say this is the final nail, but I don't think
it is, because every time we learn more about the
Obama presidency, his legacy takes another hit. I don't know
how much, you know more you can degrade it, but
I think I think it's going to be bigger than
(27:32):
than just his legacy, because what now that the investigation
is in full rain, you're going to see how many
people were involved in this. You're going to I mean
certainly Schiff is going to be lamb baseded because he
was the front man for all of this. He was
(27:54):
the one.
Speaker 2 (27:54):
Manerg the question ma energic the questions. Could he be
censured in the Senate from that, basically when it comes
out of he completely fabricated it was complete bullshit.
Speaker 1 (28:07):
I'm not I'm not sure. I think it's going to
depend on what the investigation finds, because Schiff isn't that.
I don't honestly believe that Schiff is the mastermind behind
all of this. If he were, then yes, he could
certainly be censured for this behavior I have.
Speaker 2 (28:28):
I don't think. I don't think he's the mastermind. No,
but I.
Speaker 1 (28:32):
Think he was the I don't even know that he's
a conspirator. I think he was the chosen dupe. I
think he was the I think he was the one
that everybody else fed fake information to because they knew
he would believe it, they knew he would bang the
drum for it, and they could stay in the shadows.
Speaker 2 (28:57):
Lapkin, that's brilliant. I have never heard that on anything.
I think you're right because everyone who every media out
of that is conservative who talks about shits portrays him
positions him as a leading operative. So does I think
you're I think, who do we dump this shit on?
Who's gullible enough, eager enough to just run with his ship,
(29:18):
and an opportunist enough. And he hits all the categories,
doesn't he?
Speaker 1 (29:24):
Yes, he does. I mean we do know that he
knew he was lying in a lot of these interviews.
And I will actually give credit to my wife because
she actually caught his tell in some of these interviews.
(29:44):
And for the most part, he would talk, and he
would talk to his fine, but when he knew he
was lying lying, his eyes bugged a little bit. And immediately,
you know, anybody, anybody who's played poker knows people when
and they bluff, have it tell. That was his So
he knew everything wasn't above board. But I don't know
(30:08):
how much of it he knew wasn't above board. I
think he had been fed all of this stuff by
the folks that wanted to stay in the shadows, and
he was more than happy to try to make a
name for himself. He probably thought he was going to
be able to make such a name that he would
be able to run for president.
Speaker 2 (30:28):
I think you're correct. I think he's sweating. I think
I envision him as kind of a windy guy, so
he didn't have the constitution to weather storms like Trump did.
I think he's gonna cry like a bitch. How do
you like that? He's already doing that behind the scenes
because he knows he's in real trouble with mortgage fraud
(30:50):
and he's at the center, not as the orchestra, because
I do agree, but he's in. He's in net deep
in the biggest scanned in one hundred years.
Speaker 1 (31:02):
See. Now, the question is will he withstand enough to
get you know, find everything out and get punished.
Speaker 2 (31:14):
Or.
Speaker 1 (31:16):
Is he so big an opportunist that he will take
the opportunity to flip and name names and say where
he got this stuff and help the investigation in order
to save his owns behind. And I'm not sure which
way he'll go. I don't think he has the strength
(31:37):
of character to really face down the investigation. But I
think he also might not have enough character to flip
and do the right thing.
Speaker 2 (31:50):
Yeah, I think he would flip if it wasn't this situation.
Because if he flips, look what they did to Trump,
who is a president of the United States. You think
a little pencil neck is going to withstand the full
force of Obama. You know, Uh, the Clinton's whole APPARATCHI not.
Speaker 1 (32:14):
But that's the thing if he if he were to flip,
and I'm not saying that's going to happen, This is
all speculation, but if he were, it would cripple that apparatus.
They you know, what they could do to him would
be Yeah, it would be so much less than what
(32:35):
they tried to do to Trump because the credibility would
be gone. The certainly the money would be gone.
Speaker 2 (32:44):
Goodbye. Yep, it's for some good TV.
Speaker 1 (32:51):
Yes, it'll it'll make for interesting storytelling.
Speaker 2 (32:55):
Now, speaking of TV, we have the media and it's
been going on for some time, but nothing more profound
than our last presidential election. And that is the changing media.
You look at what's going on with the firings. Okay
of late just came over the speculation that Howard Stern
(33:17):
is gone. Who was once the king of all media,
then he became woke. And you know what his whole
listenership is. He used to have twenty million listeners. Do
you know what it is now?
Speaker 1 (33:29):
I'd be shocked if it was two.
Speaker 2 (33:33):
It's one hundred and forty thousand.
Speaker 1 (33:36):
Wow. I would not have expected it to go that low.
Speaker 2 (33:39):
Yep, it's a serious radio has a subscription base of
about thirty million. He has a small, small slipper and
someone that deals with youth. There's some good commentaries that
if you look at someone that's under thirty, they don't
even know who the hell he is.
Speaker 1 (33:59):
No, they don't.
Speaker 2 (34:01):
Yeah, and that's a Democrat, you know. I would say
even you could be pushing people under forty. That's how
long he's been irrelevant. But he did flip. He became
boring and I did like the commentary, just like old
rock groups. He stayed on. I don't know why he
stayed on so long. But he also became kind of
(34:22):
macabre and sick at me. And that's just because I
don't agree with him politically. I mean kind of like
a real whissy, Like he wouldn't leave his compound because
of the pandemic. It's like, grow a pair, dude, he
still doesn't come out of his compound.
Speaker 1 (34:39):
Yeah, we are seeing a massive shift in media, and
it's not just television. Obviously. You were just talking about
Howard Stern thats satellite radio. I don't think he's been
on TV in about twenty years at least. I mean
if you remember, actually, no, come to.
Speaker 2 (34:58):
The something some bullshit show like the stuff. He hasn't
been in relevant TV. I agree with you for over
twenty years. Yes, you're right.
Speaker 1 (35:09):
Yeah, but you're seeing now that the media companies are going,
wait a minute, you know what. Yeah, well we agree
with the politics, we agree with what they're saying. We
can't afford to support this anymore.
Speaker 2 (35:29):
So now, no, no, what you said is not a
minor point. It's been said before, but now it's like,
you can bullshit long enough. And yeah, I like him
because he needed like Colbert, he's woke. But when you're
talking forty million with run power, I'm not going to
do the math. But when you have a one hundred
and thirty thousand listeners, you're making one hundred billion, do
(35:51):
the math, you know. I mean, you get to a
point where I ain't working on even Gail King, who
I have to give her full It looks like she's
going to be fired. I know that Oprah is behind her,
but someonet of minimal intellect and less than minimal ability,
I give her credit. She milked it for over twenty
(36:12):
years now, a lot more money than I ever did.
Speaker 1 (36:15):
She did, but right now, right now, CBS Mornings is
getting less than two million viewers. It is hemorrhage. No,
it's especially not for one of what used to be
called the Big three networks. It is hemorrhaging money. And
(36:35):
she's just not worth her paycheck. So yeah, they're no.
Now you're also seeing though, I mean, first of all,
the left is completely overreacting because they don't want to
believe that they're costing this much money. I saw on
social media this massive conversation because the person who was
(37:04):
responsible for making the decision to fire Cobert under the
new management is going to be running television, which puts
him in charge of a brand new deal that Paramount
signed with south Park. And they're like, oh my god,
the person that fired Colbert is going to be censoring
(37:28):
south Park. No, he's not going to censor south Park
because south Park is profitable. South Park pays the bills.
That's yeah, that's what this is about. It's about making
money again. Now in terms of politics and making money,
(37:48):
you're starting to see an expansion of media, which shocked me.
In the newspaper industry, whoa two major, two major stories
came out about brand new newspapers. One coming out of
New York was the reemergence of the New York Sun. Now,
(38:14):
for those of our listeners who were not familiar with
the New York Son, the New York Son is a
one hundred and sixty year old newspaper that, over the
past twenty years has come and gone and got. You know,
the reputation of the New York Sun, and most of
(38:37):
our listeners will probably recognize this story. But the reputation
of the New York Sun was beyond such reproach. Everybody
believed everything. It was so trustworthy that in eighteen ninety nine,
(38:57):
a young girl wrote a letter to The New York
Sun because her father told her, if you see it
in the Sun, it's true, and the response to that
letter became the most famous editorial of all time. Yes, Virginia,
(39:19):
there is a Santa Claus.
Speaker 2 (39:23):
That's awesome.
Speaker 1 (39:25):
Now really now it is back. And the mission that
is stated all over it is that they are coming
back to bring truth back to New York newspapers, and
they name in particular the lies that have been told
(39:46):
by the New York Times.
Speaker 2 (39:50):
Let me let me ask you a question about the
New York Times, because that really kind of baffles me.
Isn't it really a left wing rag dressed up as
an euro diet high falutint intellectual paper.
Speaker 1 (40:05):
But it is now rush it is now. I mean,
this is really something that happened probably over the last
twenty years or so, maybe a little longer, maybe a
little shorter, but around that. But I mean, certainly when
I was growing up and when I was studying journalism.
(40:27):
You know, this is back in the eighties and early nineties,
the New York Times was still impeccable, and then it
just fell apart. The politics became too much.
Speaker 2 (40:41):
Isn't that just basically a not a microcosm, definite correlation
between what happened to the New York Times. I know,
one is news, but also with Late Night with Colbert
and Kimmel and all these others, and you're.
Speaker 1 (40:59):
Seeing, yes, and you're seeing a shift in Late Night
also now that Colbert has doubled down, now that he's
been fired, he's doubled down. He has had nothing but
extreme left wing guests on, including Kamala Harris. Well, guess
(41:22):
what it's well, it's not going well, but NBC has
decided they need to counter program this, and you are
seeing more conservative voices have a place on the Tonight Show.
In fact, at some point this week, I'm not sure
if it's Tonight, Tomorrow or Friday. The get One of
(41:46):
the guests on the Tonight Show is Greg Guttfeld.
Speaker 2 (41:52):
That's awesome. That's a huge shift.
Speaker 1 (41:56):
Yes, so you're you're seeing late night shift. And then
getting back to newspapers, the New York Post has announced
they are going to be publishing a brand new newspaper,
same basic look, feel and voice as the New York Post,
(42:18):
based in Los Angeles, and it is going to be
the California Post.
Speaker 2 (42:26):
Fantastic yup. There is definitely a sea change. You look
at media, even with you know, the Sweeney commercials, there
there is you can sense it. You can sense it
the old guard and they're not going peacefully. That is
in politics and in media. Uh, you know, there's structural differences.
(42:47):
But when you look at the media, yes, they certainly
accelerated their demise by being abject liars Russia Gate and
the you know, embracing everything that supported their narrative. And
even the only people that are left are probably the
ideologues on MSNBC to though, that's drinking as well. Who
are just hopeless. Even CNN has had positive reports that
(43:11):
it's prevalent about Trump, calling him actually the most consequential
president in one hundred years. That would never happen.
Speaker 1 (43:20):
Ana, And remember, yeah, MSNBC is hanging on to this,
but they're also about to be spun off because Comcasts
doesn't want to lose the money anymore.
Speaker 2 (43:33):
We'll see what happens there now. Looking at our last
subject matter, that's economic data, some interesting things with the
jobs number, Powell, other things that's hit off, doctor Lopkin.
Speaker 1 (43:48):
Yeah, the jobs numbers came out last week and they
were abysmal, and even more than the horrible jobs numbers
that were reported for Jill lie May and June were
revised downwards. They were both up approximately around one hundred
and forty thousand jobs. They were both downgraded to I
(44:13):
believe between the two and estimated around an average of
fifteen fifteen thousand jobs from one hundred and forty thousand jobs.
And the head of the Bureau of Labor Statistics was
fired by Trump, and of course the left is yelling, well,
(44:34):
she said that the economy's bad under Trump, so he
fired her. Okay, there's one of two things going on.
Either one she lied about the current numbers, in which
case she should be fired, or the other choice in
(44:57):
this matter is she missed the estimates on the job
numbers for the past two months by more than ten times. Okay,
to steal an old line from Lewis Black, if you
were a roofer and you missed by that much, you'd
(45:19):
still be in jail.
Speaker 2 (45:23):
True, yes, I you know. But she also inflated the
job numbers before the election of last year.
Speaker 1 (45:32):
Right, the job numbers from just before the election were inflated.
That came out after the election. Oh no, we overestimated.
So she has been wrong consistency, consistently for months in
both directions. I mean, this is someone that needed to
(45:54):
be removed.
Speaker 2 (45:56):
Didn't surprise you that she's a Biden appointee, No pas
to character.
Speaker 1 (46:01):
It didn't surprise me at all. And the problem is
this wasn't just well, she made Trump look bad and
that's the problem. No, this had major repercussions. If the
accurate numbers. Let's assume that the May revision is accurate
(46:27):
and that it was only around ten thousand jobs. If
that had been reported in May, the FED would have
lowered interest rates because that would have been pushing the
economy downwards if it had if that same thing, if
(46:47):
the June numbers were correct, the FED would have stood
by that lowering of interest rates. Might have lowered it again,
might have not, But that's the real role. Yes, that
whole thing had major economic implications for both better and worse.
(47:10):
So yeah, this is somebody that needed to be removed
because she was clearly not capable of doing the job.
Speaker 2 (47:19):
I cannot argue with that. You know, you have the
conspiracy deep state? What have you? I mean, I wonder
I'm an either co workers constituents were in on the
gig as well. I mean, over you once in a
once it happens, I've seen that. But I mean, she's
been doing this for almost a year now. Again another
stellar Biden appointee. Of course she didn't know he appointed
(47:42):
There's no.
Speaker 1 (47:43):
Way, no, of course she knew.
Speaker 2 (47:47):
No, No, he didn't know that he did.
Speaker 1 (47:51):
He didn't know that she Okay, Yes, that that's completely
that's completely plausible.
Speaker 2 (47:56):
Yes, there you go, well doctor. In another edition of
Carnivore Bites be back in two. Our listeners can contribute
to the show can't they.
Speaker 1 (48:07):
Yeah, let's hear what you have to say. What what
do you want us to look at? What topics are
you interested in? And what do you think of our analysis?
Do you disagree? Let us know. We want to know,
not just if you agree, but if you disagree, and
we want to hear your arguments for and against. You
can go to the Facebook Carnivore Radio page messages there.
(48:30):
You can also go to xvadio dot com slash connect
send us a message that way, and of course you
can catch every episode of Carnivore Bites at the Carnivore
Radio website xvadio dot com, the Apple podcasts app, YouTube, Rumble, Spotify, iHeartRadio, Audible,
Amazon Music, and other platforms that respect freedom of speech.
Speaker 2 (48:54):
Thank you, doctor Lockin, See you next time.
Speaker 1 (48:57):
We'll see you then.
Speaker 2 (49:03):
The first SA
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
My Favorite Murder with Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark
My Favorite Murder is a true crime comedy podcast hosted by Karen Kilgariff and Georgia Hardstark. Each week, Karen and Georgia share compelling true crimes and hometown stories from friends and listeners. Since MFM launched in January of 2016, Karen and Georgia have shared their lifelong interest in true crime and have covered stories of infamous serial killers like the Night Stalker, mysterious cold cases, captivating cults, incredible survivor stories and important events from history like the Tulsa race massacre of 1921. My Favorite Murder is part of the Exactly Right podcast network that provides a platform for bold, creative voices to bring to life provocative, entertaining and relatable stories for audiences everywhere. The Exactly Right roster of podcasts covers a variety of topics including historic true crime, comedic interviews and news, science, pop culture and more. Podcasts on the network include Buried Bones with Kate Winkler Dawson and Paul Holes, That's Messed Up: An SVU Podcast, This Podcast Will Kill You, Bananas and more.
The Joe Rogan Experience
The official podcast of comedian Joe Rogan.