(upbeat music) - Hey everyone and welcome to a Tuesday edition of The Allen Samber Show on this Thanksgiving Day week. Our Thanksgiving holiday week because Thanksgiving Day is coming up on Thursday. Just a reminder, I won't have a show out Friday because I'm just gonna be doing too many shows back to back but you're gonna get as much content if not more because all of the filling work I'm gonna release this bonus episode. So you're still gonna get plenty to listen to. It'll just be in a little bit of a different timing and maybe some of them dropping over the weekend versus on Friday. So thank you again for your understanding as we head into this big holiday. And for many people, even though you may not have a Thanksgiving in some countries, a lot of people listen to this show around the world, it does mark at least in the United States, the start, the full-on start of the holiday season. I mean, I've been in holiday mode but now everybody else that's the, you can't have a Christmas tree until after Thanksgiving. Well, now's your time. You can catch up with the rest of us who actually love the holiday and can't get enough of it. All right, we gotta go to CNN. We're gonna start with last night. I think before I start, I am always and I shouldn't be. I am always though, just blown away at the sheer ignorance, the willful ignorance of people in positions where they've got all the resources, all of the time, all of the, they've got wealth. How do people who work for giant corporate media outlets, how do they not understand simple things? I'm gonna give you an example. The first amendment and specifically freedom of speech. That's a big issue we're talking a lot about then. A lot of people talk about freedom of speech. So I wanna talk about that for just a moment because I fundamentally find that the media is full of stupid people. I mean, if they're not stupid, then they are willfully ignorant. Let us talk about what the first amendment says. Congress shall pass no law infringing the right to free speech. There's a bunch of other things in the first amendment. It's a very short one. It's a lot of lists. Congress, the government, cannot create a law that keeps you as a citizen of this United States of America from expressing yourself. They cannot nor can they deprive you of your right to free speech. Nowhere, at all, anywhere in the first amendment. Nowhere does it say your employer is okay and cannot fire you for what you say at work. Your employer can't let you go, lay you off, put you under discipline, bring you in for an HR consult. Ladies and gentlemen, if you are one of these guys who thinks or people that thinks that the first amendment means you get to say anything you want anytime you want, well, that's only from the government's perspective. The government can't punish you. The government can't put you in jail. The government can't arrest you. They can't take over your bank account. They can't do things to punish you. That's because it's about the government, the public sector. You're allowed to speak at your school board meetings. You're allowed to go to your city council meetings. You're allowed to go to your county commission meetings. You're allowed to speak and you cannot be punished by the government. This is nothing to do with the private sector. I'm gonna tell you right now. I have a job and I have some great latitude to talk about the things that interest me. But I can't go on any one of the public airways and start dropping the F bomb and start putting a bunch of racial epithets out there and expect my employer to go, well, he's got freedom of speech. No, you're right. The government can't come get me, but I can get fired. I can absolutely be fired. There is a big difference in understanding what does freedom of speech mean and to whom it applies. You need to think about what you're gonna say when you're in a private setting. You need to think about when you're at a work setting, when you work for the private sector. And the whole reason I'm bringing this up to start with is there was a great back and forth debate and I am amazed. I am amazed at Scott Jennings of CNN. You know, CNN, if you took Scott Jennings out of the conversations, if you're token, and I get it, he's the token conservative. It's so CNN can pat themselves on the back and go, see, we allowed one person with a difference of opinion. Now, he's, we don't think he's smart. We don't like him and he's just a meanie, but we let him on so that way we can put ourselves in the back, say, see how much better we are. See, we're CNN, we're better than MSNBC. There's no tokens over there. We at least have a token conservative here. It's like, okay. Somehow Scott Jennings, when he's outnumbered five to one, it makes it sound like there's more of him because everybody around him is so dumb, one smart phrase, one fact, makes everybody else sound, well, stupid. And I'm gonna illustrate that with what they talked about last night. There is absolutely no doubt whatsoever that X being unregulated has the most moderated free speech I have found on any platform. I can find opinions from the far left, from the far right, from the middle. It is a, it is a more balanced platform because no one's being throttled. People aren't being shadow banned. Now, there are some guidelines. Obviously hate speech is not on there. There's a lot of, there are some guidelines and rules, but as far as opinion, as far as ideas. And maybe I don't, I don't get into the trap of being involved in racial conversations all day long. And I don't get into the grievance industry all day long. I'm actually looking for news. I'm looking for information. I'm trying to get what people are saying, when people are sharing, trying to get underneath it, trying to hear what people have then added to a thread and the people who then comment back and forth. I spend my time reading the back and forth. And I see, well, this person says X, but this person says Y, but this person comes along and says Z. Well, somewhere in all of that, there's gotta be some truth. Maybe there's something worth discussing. That's what I'm talking about. When I say it's an open platform, that the ideas are allowed to float out there. But see, if you don't want someone challenging your ideas, and I'm used to having my ideas challenged, but that's okay, I love it. I've always loved it because I've told you, how can I feel comfortable in what I believe unless you challenge those beliefs from time to time? You have to test them out. You need to shoot some holes in it. Like the kids that were talking from the school in Austin, Texas, the inaugural class, instituting MEI, merit excellence intelligence. They're like, I have to assume I'm wrong on something. I can't assume I know everything. I can't assume I'm right on everything. I need to make sure I challenge my ideas, and I need to listen to other people. Maybe they successfully poke a hole in my thought. Maybe they fail. And if they fail, doesn't that just mean that by allowing the free expression that I open myself up to decide whether or not I had a solid argument. And at four or five people try to punch a hole in my argument and it goes nowhere, don't you feel better then that you've got a solid, reasonable argument? If it can stand up to scrutiny, especially among people who are ideologically different than you, isn't that a good thing? Don't you want to do that? If you're on the left, if you think you've got all the answers, let's approach it that way. If you think that your ideas are the right ones, why do you worry about being challenged? What bothers you so much of having your ideas tested? Maybe it's because you know your ideas will fail. Maybe it's because you know your ideas aren't based on merit or logic or reason, and that's often why they fall apart. Now, I'm not suggesting that the right has always the greatest ideas. I've seen people who say things, I'm like, okay, that test doesn't make any sense. You do have to test these out. But in general, wouldn't we all agree, regardless of where we are, we should be able to have the free exchange of ideas and that the government shouldn't be coming in and telling us what's allowed and what's not allowed. If you don't like somebody, mute 'em. If you don't want to see what they're having to say, unfollow them, it's super easy. You control your content. And if you don't like what's in your feed, go somewhere else. I just, I've never understood when the left gets challenged, they take it as somehow like a personal insult, as if what's happening is how dare you even question me. How dare you? We should shut you down. The fact that I have to sit here and defend myself? Well, that's an awful arrogant condescending position from which to start. Let's go to the very first one. Scott Jennings pointing out, X does feel more ideologically balanced since Elon Musk bought the platform and got rid of the shadow banning and everything that was designed to throttle down conservative voices. And listen to this back and forth a little bit. I can tell you, and actually this first bite I actually have is Kari Champion. First off, I jumped ahead of myself. I'm gonna get to that one about being evenly balanced. It starts off actually with Kari Champion. Kari Champion's on there along with the host, Audie Cornish. This was last night's CNN. Let's start with the first thought that Kari Champion brings out a Kari, Kari Champion, is that free speech won't be free under Trump. They wanna make this idea that you're not gonna be allowed to speak because of Donald Trump. Now, remember, all of the throttling was under Biden's regime. And under, and behind the scenes, Trump didn't know what was happening. It started under Barack Hussein. Oh, you know, the sainted one. All of the, the back behind the scenes, the meetings, the having access to, the bringing spreadsheets and saying, here's who you need to throttle. Here's what you need to bring down. Here's what you need to curtail. And it was happening behind the scenes in the Trump administration and went full bore right after. And it wasn't until Elon Musk bought, and this was two years ago. So it's only been two years that X has been free. It used to be Twitter. Let's remember that, okay? So we've got this woman on here, Kari Champion, who believes that suddenly you won't have free speech under Donald Trump. This is how the first exchange went. X, and you said in some ways, always. I feel like X, I don't know if anyone is on it in any capacity. I don't know if you're on it. And you're the only one. You're on it. You all are on it. Oh, she's trying to make a point here about, you know, I mean, who's on it now? After all, anyway, ever since Elon Musk, who actually, and then everybody, including every one of the lefties on the panel, she's like, oh, oh, oh, okay. So you're all on it? I just, I wanted to pause it there because I don't think she was realizing, you know, they cheat you in law school, try not to ask a question. You don't already know the answer to, or reasonably figure out what the answer should be, but you're just asking the question for the benefit of the jury. You should take this, take that to heart, Kari. If you're going to try to make an example of how, well, see, look, nobody here even is on X. Everyone was. You're the only one trying to make a point. Who's really on X? How do you get this free speech in balance when hardly anyone's on it? That argument completely just got tanked within the first 10 seconds here, let me back up. You're the only one? You're on it? You all are on it? Okay, I've actually decided to take a rest of peace because it is not a peaceful place. Oh, it's not a peaceful place. Is it, is that how you measure when somebody challenges your thoughts? When you say, hey, I think we need to have, you know, living wages for all. I think we should, people should be able to just collect a paycheck even if they don't have a job. And you come along and say, well, that's unsustainable. And you would have to, you would have to kill any kind of sense of productivity from those who are currently the millionaires, the billionaires, because they're the ones who are actually creating the jobs. And if these people that normally are the job creators, we're just gonna pay people to stay at home. Well, then what's the point of creating any new innovations? What's the point of moving forward? You'll end up killing the economy. Does that make you feel like it's no longer sunny rainbows and sunshine? Is that what you're talking about? 'Cause I have a feeling, what she means is people are disagreeing. And I don't like that. I liked it when everybody thought like I thought and said what I said and was in the same bubble. And I think you have to hear, when they start talking about stuff like this, it's from a feelings perspective. It's not from logic and reason, and it's certainly not coming from a truthful perspective. It's a feeling, you're making me feel bad. I'm seeing ideas that run contrary to what I believe, and that makes me feel bad. Why would I log on to a platform that makes me feel bad? And grammatically feel badly. I'll go a little further, back up a little bit here. Peace, because it is not a peaceful place for me. And I know if in fact you don't agree with this current administration, most people can say that it's not a peaceful place. I would not-- Did you hear that? And I would say, most people would say, if you do not agree with this administration, it is not a peaceful place. Once again, she's showing her hand. Hey, you know, I'm a Democrat, and we got the Biden regime, and the Biden regime, I love them, and I love Kamala Harris, and I'm still mad that she lost because of misogyny, and because of stupid people, and because of bigotry. But if you dare point out how much better Kamala Harris is, and you dare say anything, the other people are gonna be like, oh, you're so stupid, blah, blah, blah. Well, yeah, there's going to be discussion because your team lost, and I didn't think you were supposed to pick a team if you're a journalist. I didn't think you were supposed to take it so personally, and that your peacefulness was being interrupted by people the other half of the country who won victoriously, who ran the table, not only on the popular vote, but the electoral vote flipped all seven swing states. I don't want to hear from them, it ruins my piece. Well, maybe that's the problem, maybe the reason you lost, is you got so used to the idea that if nobody thought like you, it wasn't worth listening to. She continues. I wouldn't be surprised if there was an actual bid made to take on MSNBC, but the fact that it just can't happen in real life. - Yeah, and we just can't, it's not even a risk for sale, we should say. - Yeah, it's not even a risk. - Especially for sale, it's not real estate. - The last time he knew about maybe buying something. - It's not even realistic in real life, but I do believe that media, everyone sitting here at this table, if you don't agree, we are in for some tough, we're in for some tough years ahead. - Okay, now there's a couple of things that are trying to overlap here, and you should see Scott Jennings' face when these women are just both talking about, and now there's talk that Elon Musk is gonna buy MSNBC. Well, that just can't happen, that just can't happen. I mean, no, it's not gonna happen. Oh, I mean, it's just silly talk, that's not gonna happen because, you know, we need the media and we can't have somebody like Elon Musk who's done what he did to X come in here and buy MSNBC. And boy, let's just face her, we're gonna have some really hard times ahead of us. Let's just really understand, we've got some really hard times ahead of us. Well, she's speaking in terms of legacy mainstream media. Yeah, Kari, yes, you do have some extremely hard times ahead of you because you've squandered the goodwill of the people who used to be your audience. Remember this folks, I have an audience. You listening right now are in my audience. You are free to go somewhere else. You're free to unsubscribe, or you're also free to spread the word. You're free to tell people, gosh, I really enjoyed this. I have no control over you, you're in my audience. Now, I as a broadcaster recognize that while I have to be true to my core and I make no bones about it, there's no way you listen to this show and I come across as a communist. If you're looking for somebody who supports your ideas of communism, Marxism, socialism, you're not gonna find your approval here. That is not who I am. I am going to filter everything through the lens of the U.S. Constitution and constitutionality from a constitutional republic because I believe in our founding document. I believe in why this country, why it grew to the size, wealth and prominence that it did in the shortest time possible in all of Western history, let alone all of the world history because we unleashed freedom and liberty down to the individual level. We decided we could find a way to govern ourselves that we didn't need people that told us we've been chosen by God to be your bettors. We didn't need a group of elites who thought, hey, we're smarter and better than you, do as you're told. We don't need another set of parents. We get a pair of parents when we come into this world and they do the best they can to raise us, but once we're adults, we're on our own. I don't need another set of parents and I certainly don't want a parent who's gonna be treating me like a child from the time I'm born to the time I die. And what a wonderful governance we had here. What a wonderful way to govern ourselves for so many years. It slowly got corrupted. And I think the more we pulled away from ethics and morals, and you can read into that however you want, especially on the moral side, but I think the more we lost sight of being a moral and ethical people, the easier it was for the wrong sorts to gravitate toward the power and all power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. We've known that since the Roman times, this is not new. This is a truism of humanity. Macbeth turned into Macbeth simply because they thought, hey, these witches came and gave me a prophecy that I could be a king one day and his wife said, see, do whatever it takes because you're supposed to be king. Next thing you know, he's murdered half of the royalty and half the people in his quest that he actually says at one point, if I were to try to stop now and go back, it's too late. It's better to go forward because I am so far steeped in blood that to go back would be worse than to keep plowing ahead. Because of the power, because of the promise and the draw and the allure of power. You need to have the right kind of moral fiber and the right kind of an ethical being to deal with the kind of power that comes from the controls you have in government. Just think of the power you get. And that's why we, the people, can never take for granted the election cycle and to do the due diligence of researching, who do we want to go to office to represent us? Not to rule us, not to order us, not to dictate to us. And that's too many of these folks, once they get there, they're like, okay, now I'm in charge. No, you're not in charge. The people are always in charge. And the fact that if you have a politician who doesn't remember that, doesn't believe that, that's your problem, that's your huge red flag. So Scott Jennings has got this look of like, what do you mean Elon Musk can't buy MSNBC? That it just can't happen. He's just kind of looking at the camera and split screen, like what are these two women talking about? That just can't happen. And then she's talking, I'm going to back it up. It's going to be really hard times. Well, the really hard times are the fact that we've stopped trusting you. And the reason, Carly, the reason we've stopped trusting you is you've lied and you continuously lie. And you're out here today. You're going to start making these pronouncements that Donald Trump wants to take freedom of speech away. The thing he ran on, the thing that was denied to him. Do you remember when he couldn't speak about his court? He couldn't speak about the charges being levied against him. We watched law fair and step all over his First Amendment rights when he was being prosecuted with all the nonsense crimes. We got some stories about that coming up. You got a bunch of leftists are melting down, knowing that all of the charges have been vacated, or at least a motion to vacate. We'll get into that in just a minute. I want to finish this whole point because there was several things that went on here to illustrate not only what's wrong with legacy mainstream media, but the fact of the matter is Elon Musk as a free citizen, if a media company goes up for sale and he's the highest buyer, he can buy a media company. You didn't say anything about Bill Gates. You didn't say anything about Jeff Bezos. You don't say anything about the other multi-millionaires that own the companies that own you. This is just, it's nonsense. These two women are equating the fact that now you can hear differing ideas on X and that scares the crap out of them. I want you to think about that for just a moment. Just pull back. You have people in media, news media. You're going to hear her in one of these bites, call herself a journalist. I know, but she believes it. You've got journalists who are literally saying we are in fear for our lives that someone might have a differing point of view, that someone may come to us with a story that takes our story and turns it on its head. Someone may come along and show us we were wrong and they can't handle that. They have to be, they've got such arrogance and such narcissism that they're the only ones who know, they're the only ones who have the facts and even if the facts turn out wrong, well it's okay, they're still the purveyor of truth and you just have to accept it no matter what. They don't want to be challenged and that is a very childish place to be. Most four and five year olds don't like being told no. Most adults, if you grow up to be an actual adult, if you become a real person living in real will, you understand sometimes you don't have the answer and sometimes the idea you come up with isn't right and people tell you that's not going to work and they explain why and you go oh, never thought of it that way, thank you, let's try again because real people can do that. I guess mature people can do that. So let me back up with Kari still finishing off how she is in a fit over the idea of could Elon actually buy a media company? I mean, let's face it, it's going to be a really bad time for us, we're going to be for some really hard times. - Well, if you don't agree, we are in for some tough, we're here for some tough years ahead. I do believe that we are not going to be able to be as safe or say what we want to. I don't think free speech is going to be as free. - Now Scott, I want to bring you in here because-- - All right, before we get to Scott, I don't think free speech is going to be free. So is this projection? Is she aware of what they've been doing to be able to win in the marketplace of ideas? Have they for so long gotten used to the idea that the way we win is we squash opposing ideas rather than win on merit? We win because we've just cut out the competition. We don't allow a differing point of view. And now all of a sudden, is she worried that there may be differing points of view and their ideas may not measure up? That's what it sounds like to me. I've always been a fan of the marketplace of ideas. Look, if the free market works for the most part when it comes to industry, when it comes to the business, why wouldn't it works ideologically for ideas? The free exchange of ideas, the more you put out there, there's competition for who's got the better idea. Doesn't that mean that someone's going to have to come up with the rock solid plan if they want to win the support of the most people? So that's called the marketplace of ideas. You throw it out there and you have the open air battles, you have the debates, you have the discussions, you poke the holes and then the best ideas will come to the surface. If you don't allow that debate, well then you get to pick which idea comes to the surface. And we saw that during COVID. We saw what happens when an all powerful elite government tells you we've got all the answers and nobody else can have any other answers that deviate from ours. Let's go to the next one, because CNN is calling for X to be censored. What they're really saying here folks, and this is what you have to understand, what they're really concerned about is if you let X have full reign to say whatever they want for people to weigh in, for this full free and exchange of ideas to have this marketplace, that means our ideas are going to be kicked to the side. They're worried their ideas won't measure up, they probably know they won't. The only way they know to win is to squash the competition. They want the monopoly on ideas. So what they're asking for basically is we need to censor, we need to make sure that the people who have better ideas are not allowed to speak. We can't afford to have people who have better ideas challenge us because then we won't win. And it's all about winning and staying in charge and staying in control and staying in power. So listen to this exchange that followed, this is still the same evening, the same panelists talking about X and censorship and Elon Musk to an extent. - Calculate it right now, which gives them - Carblage to whatever they want right now. Elon is not someone who likes to be regulated. And so to buy MSN, he would go under some federal regulation. - Who's regulating CNN right now? - The FCC. - We're not a broadcast, it's cable. - I mean, I don't really think, I don't really think cable stations are under the same regulatory structure that the whole republic area is that broadcast is. - Oh, Scott. Scott, what are you doing bringing facts to this? You're supposed to bring a motion to this. You're not supposed to bring facts. Starts off with, you know, Elon Musk, he's created a situation over there where they're pretty much unregulated. There's no regulations. And if you were to buy MSN, BC, I mean, he'd have to at least come under some regulations, wouldn't he? I mean, it's NBC, you have MSN, BC. He'd have to, he's like, who regulates us? We're a cable network. Do you think the FCC regulates a cable network? He literally is just dropping the question to these journalists who again, think they're the smartest people in the room. All he simply said is, who do you think regulates us? Do you think the FCC regulates us? We're not over the air broadcast, we're cable. We're not, we're not part of the public airwaves. This continues. - It's definitely regulated more than Facebook. And there's still, what she's saying is that there's still a litmus house of journalism that you have to pass. You can't come on TV and just make on things. - No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no. Now, do you hear how they've tried to do this? Did you hear that? She's saying, whoa, whoa, whoa, I mean, there is some regulation because, you know, you just can't, because we're CNN. You know, we've got editors, we're a corporation, we're a news outlet, we have journalists with standards. We're not gonna just make things up. (laughing) Do you hear how unself-aware these people are? Do I need to bring out my giant list of media hoaxes, everything the media ran with, night after night, day after day, week after week for years, and still we keep adding to it? Do we wanna go through the list? Do we CNN, do you need me? I'm sorry, do you need me? Audie, Audie Cornish, do you need me? Karri Champion, do you need me? Anybody on this panel? To start going through the list of things that you guys put out night after night? What are you talking about? You, well, we do have some regulations, we regulate ourselves, we have a higher standard, we're journalists, we can't come out here and lie every night. We can't have guests on here that make things up. Oh, really, 'cause I've got an Adam Schiff quote coming up. He was on an MSNBC. We had the former designated liar. He wants the title back. What are you talking about? You guys, it's like they're living in a fantasy. They're selling what they think they are. They're literally giving you the talking points of what they think they are. When we know the reality is they're the exact opposite of what they're telling us right here. Do you think CNN is a bastion of truth and honesty and self-reflection? Do you think CNN are the first people that the second they realize they've been selling the hoax, they tell you, whoa, whoa, whoa, sorry folks, are bad. Find people hoax, was a hoax. Inject bleach, that was a hoax. The whole idea that the 100 Biden laptop being Russian dissenter, no, no, sorry, that was our bad. Where were those apologies? If what they're saying is true here, that they have some sense of integrity to the truth and that their oversight, their sort of regulation is they look at themselves as journalists, please. I am. That may be the weakest possible argument they could have given themselves. Scott Jennings asked an actually quite good question. You're worrying about regulation on social media and you're like, you know, if he buys MSNBC, he'd have a whole lot of regulations like from who? The FCC, well, they're not broadcast. It's not on-air broadcast. What do you mean they'd have regulation from the FCC? Whoa, whoa, they're gonna be something because I know we can't do that here. Well, now you're talking about your culture within the company. What does your company allow? Elon Musk may have a different culture in his company that has nothing to do with regulation. There's no policy or regulation that can stop you from putting people on the air that wanna tell you that the world is burning when it's not or that the sky is yellow when it's blue. We've seen the exacting, I mean, hoax after hoax on the legacy mainstream media. It's why you guys have lost such credibility and I get it. You're fighting for your jobs now. You're fighting for your very existence and you have to act all high and mighty. You have to act like you're superior, but the fact of the matter is I have a much better track record with truth and success with the truth and being honest and being able to predict what's really happening and tell you what's really happening and it turns out, I mean, sometimes I get it. I can be six months, 18 months sometimes ahead of the truth. I was saying from within a few weeks after the whole COVID lockdowns, I was like, okay, this is dumb, this is stupid. And then you're ignoring natural immunity and you want us to wear a mask and you want us six feet apart and I was the one saying that's stupid and I nearly lost my radio jobs because I was so far ahead of where everyone else was. Why? Is it because I'm a brainiac? Is it because I'm Einstein? Is it because I have a crystal ball in the back room and I can look into the future? No, I actually read the research that was being censored. I read the folks talking about the things that were working for them that were being squashed. I read about the treatments and about the fact we were ignoring actual evidence because it ran contrary to the public health narrative. We're gonna get into more of that as well on today's show. So let me can let her continue because now we're moving from the idea of we need government control, we need government censorship is what she's asking for, regulation. And then when Scott brings up the idea, well, we're not under FCC. Well, we regulate ourselves, do you? - She's saying is that there's still a litmus of journalism that you have to pass. You can't come on TV and just make up things and say things. That happens on X. Please don't give me the eyebrow furrow as if you don't know what I'm talking about. It happens often on X. I can go and say the color is blue and I will be met with so many disrespectful remarks. - No, now we're conflating even further. Now we're conflating even further. Scott's giving her a look because she's saying, you know, you could just say whatever you want on X and we can't do that here. And he's like, what are you talking about? You do it here every night. Every night you say something that I have to challenge you on because you're spouting nonsense. Every single night, Scott Jennings is in the middle of a panel discussion. He has to point out where the other panelists are wrong. What are you talking about, Kari? We don't come on here and just spot when say whatever we want. Yes, you do. And you're free to do that if your boss lets you. But then she goes, you know, you know it's not true. I go on X, I could say the sky is yellow and someone's gonna yell at me and say nasty things. Well, now you're talking about feedback from the audience. You're conflating, you are moving. This argument has moved inside and out and flipped over on itself. Have you ever gone to any of your social media, Kari? Have you looked at CNN? Have you looked at people who have responded to you? The people who love you? The people who are kind of ambivalent and the people who hate you? That's your audience. You're trying to tell me now it bothers you if you post something on X and audience out there may react directly to you because that's the nature of the platform. Are you suggesting that when you do a show at night that you don't think that people don't respond and tag CNN, what is this? You know, I'm gonna prove my point that people can just say whatever they want on Twitter or X, I can come on and say the sky is yellow and they're gonna tell me I'm wrong and call me names. Right, because we're all individual people and we're allowed to do that. But that's not coming up with news content. That's just somebody arguing with you. And if they're wrong, why would you engage? If they're stupid, if they're comments, I've told you, I've got my own troll. I don't know, I think he may have, I think he may have gotten, I don't know, there needs to be a wellness check on him because after the Trump just shallacking, after all of the nonsense, and look it, I never engaged. I never once, now some of my listeners did and I appreciated that. I don't feed the trolls. I know there's trolls out there, Kari. Nothing, they're free to act like absolute idiots and post the most inane or vile crap. Hey, I want a spotlight on them, Kari. I want people to realize, holy crap, is that what that side thinks? Look, I want, maybe I want to decide with the Democrats, but if that's an example of how the Democrats think, do I really want to decide with that? I want that nonsense out there, Kari. I want stupidity. I want the people who are on the opposite side who can't make a reasonable cogent argument and resort to name calling and smear tactics. I want them to expose themselves for the weak, pathetic little minds that they are. And you're out there, people can just say the worst things. Yeah, they can. It's called freedom. You don't have to read it. And by the way, if my audience were to be thrown off by the stupidity of a troll, then I didn't earn my audience. If my audience can be so easily swayed by a liar with a bunch of stupid memes, then I didn't earn my audience. I believe in the marketplace of ideas. I believe if I make a more passionate, more accurate, more informative and engaging point, if I have a discussion that's worth listening to, then it's not gonna get derailed by someone who disagrees or posts vile crap. What are you so afraid of? I'll let her finish this next section here. No one's regulating the inward. No one's regulating the criticism. No one is regulating how people are treated. How much more of them are you for? Let me tell you something. (laughing) Scott, that's a great question. Once again, she's conflating individuals, which by the way, there are some heinous, hateful, just awful people out there. That doesn't mean that the platform is the right place to put algorithms to stop people, block them, hide them, mute them. But you're conflating the fact of the matter, this whole thing started off with, if Elon Musk were to buy MSNBC, would he create the same kind of openness with no regulation that he's allowed on X? And I'm arguing that's a good thing. That, I think, is robust and is what's been missing from so many of our debates on so many of these topics. Maybe the country wouldn't be so far off the path if we had had more robust debates that were honest and open and didn't censor. So I want to back up, but I love the Scott Jennings, just how much infringement are you looking for on the First Amendment? It's a great question in the middle of this rant that really is rooted in nothing more than emotion, not logic. The criticism no one is regulating how people are treated or the lies. How much government regulation of the First Amendment are you for? Let me tell you something. If I came on here and I just started calling you all kind of names, do you think the bosses would let me continue to do that? I mean, it happens to me occasionally. I don't want to question you. It doesn't happen to you, but it doesn't happen to me. And I know that I wouldn't be able to do that. There's a level of-- No, wait a minute. What is she talking about? Now all of a sudden, again, she shifts. Do you see how they can't stay focused on the reality? It's an emotional argument. Now she's saying, well, my bosses here wouldn't let me get away with that. I couldn't just come on here and start spouting a bunch of names. Well, now you're talking about CNN's corporate culture. Now you're talking about what CNN execs approve of or don't approve of. And you, as an employee in a private business, have to it. I have to understand that while you have a First Amendment right that the government can't come after you, of course your employer can come after you. That's not the First Amendment. That's not government regulation. That's not government control of speech. Your employer could have it. Now Elon Musk could have a different tolerance for what he allows in terms of ideas on his network if he were to buy it. That's what they're freaking out over, folks. Don't you understand? They're making all these emotional arguments because they hate the idea that someone else might float ideas that run contrary to theirs. And heaven forbid, the different ideas-- well, more people like them. That the majority decides, oh, whoa, whoa. There's this idea over here. I didn't know we had this. We have an option here. I was told it's chicken. I didn't know it was chicken or steak. You've just offered me steak. I prefer steak tonight. I'm going to go over here. They don't want you to have the option. They want you to be told, tonight's only dish. Chicken, it's what we're serving. Enjoy it. There is no other option. Now let's get to the whole concept of who is more balanced. Who has a more robust balancing act? Who has more ideological balance? And once again, Scott Jennings almost punches them, I mean, figuratively, not literally, with the fact that he heard that statistic from their very own network. Also, I heard what you're saying about X. I saw a survey this week. It's now the most ideologically balanced user platform. Scott, stop. Scott, stop. It's too early. I just sat down. I've only been here for two minutes. It's okay when I continue to say, you cannot say that. So that the case, what was the source of that? What I thought. We reported it on this network. Who's the source? Who's the source? Oh, come on, Scott. You can't bother-- who's the source? Oh my god, it's too early. You can't do this up on my head or you can't honestly tell me. You believe X is ideologically balanced? Where did you hear that? On this network. On CNN, ladies. Who's your source? CNN. These women, they're so emotionally invested and upset they can't process information properly. It's impossible. Their brains are not capable of processing the logic because they're so emotionally invested in their position. They have a radical leftist view of what they want to have happen. They hate the idea that their ideas can be challenged. They hate the idea that their narratives can be upended. They hate the idea that someone else could allow more freedom of speech and it hurts their feelings because now they're forced to have to deal with the fact that maybe everybody doesn't think like them. Heaven forbid we all have our unique ways of looking at things. I'm going to let this continue. It's not accurate and you know it. OK. I'll let you make your statement. But my point is this. Can I reframe it a different way? Because the site changed radically, right? So whether you think the voices, it is somehow more balanced now, that's fine. But notice the matter is like, oh, crap. He did point out that we said that. OK, OK, let me rephrase that. There's no doubt that I mean ever since it's been bought. I mean, yes, I'm sure it's more ideologically balanced. Well, let's rephrase that. Let's reframe the debate here because I have to admit that we did say that. Oh, it's so sad. It's so sad when they get caught with the truth. Now, she does recover very well. She does try to say calm. I'm having more fun at what's probably her brain sounds like rather than her mouth. But you know, she's going, oh, I've got to correct this. And I've got to still shift in the direction I want to shift it. I can't possibly accept the fact that he's right and I'm wrong. All right, let me continue. It is somehow more balanced now. That's fine. But no doubt Musk's influence is profound and that you open it up and now you're there with his opinion and he is now part of this administration. Whoa, whoa, whoa, whoa. Are you suggesting that your owners of CNN, that the folks above you, that they may not have ideological perspectives, that they want to shove down, you're telling me we haven't heard of any of these meetings where the owners of the business, where the executives have said, we need more stories like this. We need less stories like that. Are you trying to tell me that that doesn't happen at CNN? You don't have anybody telling you. These are the kind of stories that our focus tests say we like. And these are the kind of stories that lose us audience. Are you trying to tell us that, that you don't have that, that Elon Musk chooses to go on X because it's the platform he bought and he wants to share his opinion for his business model. You've got a different business model. You want it to be identical? You want to be able to control how Elon runs his business? You have a problem with him expressing his opinion, yet we know your owners shove their opinions down their throats to the producers and the producers tell the reporters, this is what we're going to allow. This is what we're not going to allow. Come on, let's join Reelville for just a moment. All right, I'm going to finish this up. This is just one last little clip. So does anyone else think that there should be this greater concern about billionaires purchasing media companies? OK, would you be worried if Bill Gates controlled MSNBC? No, because he's saying. Gary, she just realizes, again, an ideological question. OK, OK, you're saying that we have a problem here because it's billionaires owning a media company. OK, so would you have a problem? Let's say Microsoft owned MSNBC. That's what the MS stands for. Well, no, because Bill Gates is not crazy. Ah, now we hit it. Now there's the emotional underpinning of their whole argument. Everything we just listened to, everything we've just digested for the last 35 minutes, everything about this, well, but I think Elon's crazy. And therefore, since I think it must mean it's true, then therefore, it is true. So why would I ever let a crazy person dictate what's news and what's not? You see how that works? Isn't that great? Isn't it great being such an ideological elite? I can determine who's got good intentions and who's got bad. And Bill Gates, oh, no bad intentions whatsoever. Never once was on the Lolita Express. Never once was with Jeffrey Epstein. Never once sold us the one-size-fits-all approach for vaccinating. Never once wanted to try to make a billion dollars off of his own vaccine investments. No, no, no, no, he's sane. Elon Musk, who's done almost everything he's done on his own and has made more advancements in terms of science, technology, and culture than anything Bill Gates has done, well, he's crazy. Why? He allows free speech. Folks, you've got to learn how to watch these people. You've got to learn how to listen to these people and understand who they are. It's so easy to see who they are. I've got one more soundbite from this exchange of the panel, and it is about the slippery slope of the impulse to restrict speech. Listen to Scott and then the rest of the panel. The impulse to restrict speech is a slippery slope but a dangerous one. Is it more speech is better? Is it really? OK. Do you think-- so you actually think that X is the place of free speech? Yeah, I mean, I think-- I mean, I don't know why you would argue otherwise. Is it not? OK. I think before. I think before he took it over, it was not a great place for conservatives, and now it's a great place for everybody. Oh, look, do you hear them? They're just talking about what he's saying. I think the impulse to restrict speech is a slippery slope and a dangerous one. Is it? Is it really? I don't think so. I think we need to restrict free speech. I think he's like-- Scott Jennings represents exactly what I say to you all the time on the show. I've said it already even in this episode. He said, more ideas. I think we should have more speech, not less. And that is exactly what I believe. It's exactly what Elon Musk believes. And hey, that's what our founding fathers believed. You don't even have to go beyond Elon or me or anybody else who's a pro speech person. Let's look at the guys who came up with the actual First Amendment. Let's go to the guys who actually came up with the First Amendment. I'm pretty sure that they were all for more speech, not less, when they wrote it. All right, I told you we'd get on to the cases, the law fair. Oh, the left is losing their minds. Yesterday, Jack Smith filed a motion to dismiss all charges against President Trump. All charges, all of them. We're taking them off without prejudice, which is a fancy way of saying we reserved the right to charge you again later. But we've realized we can't do anything. You're about to be president. We couldn't make our case. We couldn't derail you. Basically, our mission failed. The whole point was to make sure you didn't get elected. We failed. So we just want a motion to dismiss. Judge Chutkin, Tanya Chutkin, who hates Donald Trump, begrudgingly said fine. But remember, this is without prejudice. And so the court reserves the right to charge you again later. OK, whatever. Donald Trump put out this statement. Actually, I think it was his calm person. The American people reelected President Trump with an overwhelming mandate to make America great again. Today's decision by the DOJ ends the unconstitutional federal cases against President Trump and is a major victory for the rule of law. The American people and President Trump want an immediate end to the political weaponization of our justice system. And we look forward to uniting our country. Now, I want to parse this out. And I want to be fair. I want to read those stitches on the fastball. I 100% believe that after having gone through it, Donald Trump wants to make sure nobody ever has the federal government, specifically the Department of Justice, but that nobody has the justice system weaponized as a political tool to go after your opposition. I think there is zero doubt in my mind that Donald Trump wants to make sure that the processes, the policies, the laws that this is never allowed to happen again. That does not curtail the new Department of Justice from filing charges if they discover people broke the law. And we better not get conflated into this discussion that the legacy mainstream media is going to do intentionally. If we discover Jack Smith broke the law, if there is clear evidence of law breaking, of colluding, of denying rights, of trampling on the Constitution, if it's clear that he thought, per the mandate, the ends justify the means, I must stop Donald Trump, no matter what, and broke the law, well, letting him go is not about uniting the country. If anything, you're still showing legal favoritism. Now you're like, oh, well, it doesn't matter. If you're in a certain class, you get to get away with things. I think the way you unite the country is you do make sure that the tools can't be warped, bent, and twisted to go after political opposition. But at the same time, everyone who breaks the law needs to be subject to the very law they broke. They need to be subject to one rule of law. And I want to be very clear. I don't want to see Donald Trump persecuting people just to make their lives miserable and bring up innuendo and hearsay and just to go after people because he will have lessened in my eyes. He will have become a much less respectable person who I felt and still feel wants to eliminate that because he knows what it feels like. He knows what it's been like for his family, for those around him. I want to believe that he's not so petty after having won because winning is the ultimate revenge. I mean, I think he already got the ultimate revenge. I even think he said that Denny on that campaign trail, winning would be the ultimate revenge. I don't think he needs to have petty partisan witch hunts. But if it's obvious someone or any groups broke the law, if it's obvious that we have people destroying evidence, if we have evidence of people who hid witnesses and they did things to tamper and manipulate a trial, then yeah, yeah, I think those need to be, I think that only helps reinforce the fact that we do have a one-size-fits-all rule of law. That is where we have one rule of law. We can't have different tiers of justice. We need a single tier that we all have to be held accountable to. And I think the only way you convince the American people that the Department of Justice is fair is you have to look at every case on a case-by-case basis and did the person break the law or not. We're not gonna use it as a weapon, not for intimidation, not to try to get the political end we want. Did they break the law or not? What's funny, ladies and gentlemen, is the former designated liar, Adam Schifferbrains, who's now gonna be an incoming senator, he wants to regain the mantle of designated liar. I mean, he played the role for so long. It's kinda like one of those day players in a soap opera or one of those, I guess maybe not a day player, but I guess just a consistent character in a soap opera. That's the only thing you've ever played now once. You know, you did a little commercial here, you did a commercial there. Maybe you were in a small film in a backup role. All of a sudden you get cast in a soap opera and that character takes off and all of a sudden, that's it, that's your acting career. You're just forever known as that character. Well, the designated liar, Adam Schifferbrains, that's who he is. He is the designated liar and he has a script and his script has to be Donald Trump is a lawbreaker. Donald Trump broke the law. Donald Trump is a bad person. Donald Trump is evil and I am here to try to make sure he goes to jail for the rest of his life. And I have to lie about it and I have to cheat about it and I have to pretend I've seen information. He doesn't care, that's his character. He's the nasty, he's the JRU-ing I guess of this soap opera. He's just gonna go after anybody and everybody and doesn't care who he hurts, doesn't care who he brings down. Well, Adam Schiff was on with MSNBC's former White House press secretary, Jen Circleback-Saki. And he's not happy that Jack Smith had to drop the charges and he's not happy that those charges are not gonna be pursued. He thinks Jack Smith made a mistake. He thinks that you're supposed to still go after Donald Trump. This was him on MSNBC. But remember, Kari and the others on the panel said you can't just have a guest on who can just make things up and say whatever and yet here's Adam Schiff. - Does that mean you think there was an alternative to what Jack Smith did today? - Yes, I think there was an alternative. The alternative would have been to postpone for the proceedings in the case until after he left office. Now what Jack Smith did is seek to dismiss the case without prejudice. That means they can bring charges against Trump again once he leaves office. But it's nevertheless a very serious distinction because the status quo now is no charges against the president. You would have to upset that status quo to later bring charges again as opposed to merely postponing the proceedings. Which case the presumption is they continue when he leaves office. Now Jack Smith relied on the opinion of lawyers within the department who said that they thought it was required by the Constitution to dismiss the case. But it isn't required by the Constitution. There's nothing. - Notice how Adam Schiff is the only expert on the US Constitution here. The designated liar wants you to believe that he understands the Constitution. Think about this, better than the weaponized lawyers currently in the DOJ who were trying to go after Trump. The very weaponized DOJ lawyers are telling Jack Smith, you need to drop this now. We have no legal leg to stand on. There is no constitutional leg to stand on. You're done. We didn't do it. We failed the objective. We couldn't get him to stop from being reelected. We failed. So we need to cut, bait, and run. We are already gonna be in some serious hot water for everything we've done. The lawyers, Adam Schiff for brains, the very lawyers who were weaponized to get Trump, you're telling them they made a mistake understanding what they knew exactly what needed to be done. They understood exactly, Adam. Now it's great for you to say that because you're not in the DOJ. You're not the one who prosecuted this illegally. You're not the one who committed the law fair. You just went on the programs and lied about it. You've got a nice insulated place as the designated lawyer, the previous designated lawyer, and now you want your job back. But he's not done. He continues. That would interfere with his performance of the office, whether the case is dismissed without prejudice or merely postponed. So I think this is a serious mistake by the department. It compounds the mistake that you alluded to, which is they waited a year before they even brought this case. Oh yeah, that's right. Jen Psaki was like, you know, was it a mistake to wait so long to bring the case? This audience is very intelligent and they understand the timeline. But if you're new to the audience, we went through this. There was no organized law fair until November the 18th. We can trace all four of the law fair cases against Donald Trump, the two from Jack Smith, the one from Letitia James, and the big Fannie Willis Rico case from Georgia. There was collusion. They were all working and conniving and talking about what they would be able to do if Donald Trump announced. He didn't announce until November the 15th of 2022. November the 18th of 2022, everything was put in motion. If charges were filed, the one dude quits the Merrick Garland's office as the second or third level down Assistant Attorney General goes to work for Alvin Bragg's office to bring the charges in New York under Letitia James. You've got big Fannie Willis. She's got her boyfriend up there. He's up there already having ideas and having meetings colluding with the White House and you had Jack Smith. Everyone was ready to go. They had to wait. So it wasn't a mistake. They couldn't bring charges when he wasn't gonna run. They weren't gonna bother to waste the resources to tank an opponent. They waited until he announced. So this is an absolute lie to say, well, as you alluded to, they waited a year. That was too long. They didn't wait too long. They couldn't pull the trigger until they found out whether or not he was running again. If he wasn't running again, they would have never brought any of these cases. The whole point was to tank the campaign. This audience has been around for a while. You all knew that. If you're new, like I said, that's why you listen to the show because you get the whole information and you get the backstory and you get the context. And by the way, this is my passion. So you get the depth. I kind of think about this way too much. So let me get this back up a little bit and we'll finish this quote from Adam Schiff because he's about to misrepresent what a grand jury does. Who, which is, they waited a year before they even brought this case forward or began the investigation. And then you have the Supreme Court with this immunity decision and now you have a potential nominee in Pam Bondi who was saying she's gonna prosecute the prosecutors. All of that goes against what Jack Smith said in his brief motion, which is that no one's above the law. So we're hearing that phrase a lot but we're not giving validity to it by these actions. - No, okay, I've got another quote coming up then about the grand jury. But what he says here, which is interesting, and he's got a nominee in Pam Bondi who is gonna be the replacement to Merrick worthless Garland who's gonna prosecute the prosecutors. No, what did Pam Bondi say? We're gonna restore order. We're gonna make sure that this office is not weaponized but if we discover that people broke the law, if we had bad actors who did bad things, we're gonna go after them. I don't think that's unreasonable. I fully believe that that's exactly what you should do. By the way, apologies to the liar, to the designated liar, former designated liar. I was conflating in my head because they're both really good at lying. I've got a damn Goldman quote where he talks about the grand jury. My apologies, you did enough damage on MSNBC. Let's go to CNN. We have the self-appointed, consignally area of the Biden crime family syndicate, the Levi trust fund baby himself. Dan gets his feet in his mouth. Goldman goes on CNN and he comments on the fact that Jack Smith has not only filed to dismiss but that Judge Chetkin has approved the dismissal. All charges dropped, no charges done. This is Dan Goldman on CNN yesterday. I think it is a shame for justice in this country. It establishes that Donald Trump is above the law. The Supreme Court put him above the law, in that opinion that Paula just mentioned, but now he appears to escape full accountability for what were crimes charged by a grand jury. Oh, no, no, come on, Dan. You supposedly are a lawyer? Now, I didn't go to law school and I certainly didn't pass the bar if I didn't go to law school. But I understand how our legal system works. I would have thought a lawyer, I would have thought somebody who pretends he's the consignally area of the Biden crime family syndicate might understand how the law works. What is the purpose of a grand jury? Because he just told you the grand jury put charges onto Donald Trump. Let me back up, I want you to hear that last little bit 'cause all the other nonsense you can kind of hear through the BS and the crap that he's throwing out there, the whole idea that somehow Jack Smith, that he was subverted by the Supreme Court and Donald Trump's above the law because the Supreme Court affirmed that the president has certain duties and that those certain duties need to fall within the purview of the Constitution. This is so stupid. I mean, you guys are so much smarter than Dan Goldman. It would be funny if this was a Saturday Night Live sketch. It's not funny when he's a member of Congress. But I want you to hear what Dan Goldman says about the grand jury specifically. - Crimes charged by a grand jury. - Crimes charged by a grand jury. Has anybody ever served on a grand jury? You want to tell me where you went to law school that you can formally charge somebody? Do you know how this works, Dan? The grand jury is made up of everyday ordinary citizens. They don't charge anything. That is the prosecutor's job. That is the law enforcement wing of our justice system. Somebody makes an arrest. The police show up and they say, oh, we believe you committed the following crimes. We're going to arrest you right now under the following crimes. We're going to refer these crimes to our district attorney or to the attorney general or whomever under the right umbrella of the justice system. We're going to refer you and then the prosecution is going to review what you've done. They may take some of these off. They may add more. But they're the ones who formally charge you. You are given formal charges. Those charges then result in a court date. Now, generally in criminal proceedings, although you can have grand juries for other things, what's the purpose of a grand jury? Because Dan Goldman believes the purpose is to charge people and that he's mad, the grand jury criminally charged Donald Trump and this got completely overturned. A jury of his peers found him guilty and here comes the Supreme Court giving him immunity. I mean, it's so stupid and not even close to the legal system we have. Everybody, anybody, I know you can't answer me but just take a second, show everybody in the room how smart you are in the car if you're listening. What's the purpose of a grand jury? It's to vet whether or not the prosecution has enough to make the case to go to trial. It's not about guilt and it's not about innocence. It's, hey, we've got a bunch of cases. The cops arrested a bunch of people. We've investigated some of these things. We believe these cases are worth going to trial, the next step. But to make sure and to make it fair, we're gonna go to a jury of your peers, the people who have been charged, because once again, the grand jury is not charging. The grand jury is there to just listen to the, and it's one-sided, remember that. The defense is not part of a grand jury. All the jurors do is they sit there and the prosecutor says, we have case docket number XC4465 Donald Trump versus the state. We believe he did this, this and this. Here's the information. Here's the evidence we've collected thus far. Here's a statement from the officer. Here's a statement from an eyewitness. Do we have enough to move forward? That's it. And you can indict a ham sandwich if you put enough spin around it. But the fact of the matter is, you get two things out of a grand jury. You get a true bill or a no bill. True bill means, hey, we think there's merit. We don't think there's guilt. We don't think there's innocence. We think there's enough here. You've made a compelling argument that we think that this as far as taxpayer resources, as far as allocated resources, as far as time and effort, and in deference to the person who's being held in court or in jail, maybe under charges or maybe there are house arrest or on their own recognizance, whatever. Someone is sort of entangled in the legal system in an effort to try to make sure that it's fair. Now, if you get a no bill, the grand jury is like, are you kidding me? You want to try to go to trial with this? You're not even convincing us it's worth exploring if you are brought up on charges, folks. And a grand jury no bills you. You're done. You're out of it. You don't go to court. Everything's dropped. It's over. The grand jury only assesses the weight and the validity of what the prosecution thinks is their argument that you broke the law. It's still not guilt or innocence. All the grand jury is is whether or not there's merit to the evidence. If they true bill you, then you get a court date and then your defense gets involved and then you have your actual court trial. And after your court trial, you have a verdict. And the verdict is whether you're guilty or not guilty. You're still not convicted, not until sentencing. The fact that you've got a lawyer, Dan Goldman, who doesn't understand that, who wants to lie if he does. If he does understand it, he's out and outlying. He's telling the CNN audience that a grand jury charged Donald Trump with crimes. The way he makes it sound is that a jury found him guilty and therefore he is guilty. That's law fair, folks. When you're misrepresenting the law, when you're lying to the audience, when you don't even represent the facts correctly, that's devious, that's insidious, that's just wrong. Let me back up and I'm gonna let him finish this thought out on CNN. - For what were crimes charged by a grand jury? And I would just add one other thing that we ought to pay close attention to. We cannot normalize the fact that Donald Trump as the President-elect should not be held accountable for crimes that he committed before. - Oh, Dan, oh my goodness. So they want to go after him, Jack Smith's case, for having documents that he was allowed to have, but they spun it and they try to make you believe that he stole documents and that he was responsible for an insurrection, which we know he was never charged with insurrection and we know that the Supreme Court specifically said giving a speech doesn't amount to him committing a crime. - Oh, they've just put him above the law. Nope, they simply just followed the First Amendment. These were all things when he was a president. And Dan Goldman trying to get one under the, you know, a low blow. We should not normalize all the other crimes that he did before he came into office. These people are just sick and pathetic and sad. And they're on MSNBC, they're on CNN. I thought I was told at the very beginning when I started today's show, playing the panel discussion from last night that CNN had standards. You can't just bring people on who can just make stuff up. Well, I just heard Dan Goldman shovel a load of BS on your network, CNN. Maybe you don't understand how it works. Maybe you guys shovel out whatever BS you like as long as you are okay with it. It doesn't hurt your feelings, but if it's suddenly information that runs a foul of your beliefs, then it hurts your feelings and you don't like it and you want it off your way. You stay, you know, your television grow up. You're not four. I gotta tell you, Rachel Maddow, you know, here's the thing. I know Rachel Maddow is smarter, but I'm telling you what, just the kind of soulless person you have to be to intentionally misrepresent and lie. Rachel Maddow went off on Dr. Bhattacharya. Dr. J. Bhattacharya is being nominated to lead the National Institute of Health. Now, you'll remember during COVID, J. Bhattacharya was like, oh wait a second, wait a second. We have natural immunity. See, natural immunity leads to herd immunity. What does that mean? If you and I catch something and we're relatively healthy and we overcome it, we won't get sick again, we won't pass it on. It's sort of like, I don't know, a vaccine where they give you a little bit of something to teach your body how to fight it so you don't catch it and therefore you can't pass it on. The idea of an actual vaccine, if it works, remember this folks, if a vaccine per the traditional definition, not the one they had to manipulate to try to convince themselves that when they were selling you an experimental gene therapy, it's not a vaccine. A vaccine, if you get it, if it's a true vaccine, you are inoculated, which means you get a shred of that virus, a piece of it, and a dead version that can't really make you sick sick. But your body learns to fight enough of that original virus that if you get the real virus, it knows how to fight it, you never get sick. It's like, if you get the measles vaccine and then you never come down with measles, does that mean you've never been exposed to the measles virus? No, you probably have. Your body knows how to fight it before you get sick. Chickenpox, no, it's not a fight it before you get sick. Measles, mumps, rubella, all the traditional things that vaccines, polio, those are real diseases and those are real vaccines, they really stop you from getting them. The idea of herd immunity is even if you're not vaccinated as people get a virus, as people come down with it, they won't be re-infected. If they're not re-infected, they can't re-pass it along which means you don't propagate it, it eventually dies. The herd has enough immunity that the handful of people that do get it, well, there's always a handful of people that are just genetically weaker and have their weak and immune systems. You can't vaccinate everybody from everything. Jay Bhattacharya actually brought up real science. He was one of the people censored during COVID. He was one of the people that was bringing real science, real data and it ran a foul of Dr. Duttoni Fauci and it ran a foul of NIH and we needed to hide the fact we created this virus through our third-party proxy. We went through EcoHealth Alliance, we sent millions of taxpayer dollars to the Wuhan lab and now we're gonna lie about it and we're gonna make even more money on gene therapy. All right, Rachel Maddow went off on Jay Bhattacharya last night. So I'm gonna bring you just a piece of her going off on him and mocking him and then I'm gonna remind you what she said. 'Cause remember, Dr. Bhattacharya believed, hey, we have natural immunity that once you catch it, you can't get sick again, you won't pass it on. How effective was that vaccine, folks? How many of you heard of people getting it and then still coming now with COVID and getting the booster and then coming down with COVID again and going and getting another booster? And guess what, getting COVID again, I wouldn't call that a vaccine, would you? - On the heels of Donald Trump picking him to run Medicare and Medicaid in this country, we also got news on other healthcare picks around the CDC, Donald Trump picked a former Republican Congressman who for years has crusaded on the false claim that vaccines must be the cause of autism to lead the National Institute of Health, Trump's top candidate endorsed herd immunity as the best way to address the COVID pandemic. Just a... - All right, so there you go, racial matter, just mocking, oh, these people, all right, you're just putting all these people in, ah, ah, okay, cow. What did you say? Because I thought the whole idea was, if you got the vaccine, you couldn't come down with the virus and you wouldn't spread it and that's how you get immunity, which sounds an awful lot like herd immunity, but okay, what did you tell us as fact, as uncontrovertible, 100% truth, Rachel Maddow, what did you tell us? - Now we know that the vaccines work well enough that the virus stops with every vaccinated person. A vaccinated person gets exposed to the virus. The virus does not infect them, the virus cannot then use that person to go anywhere else. It cannot use a vaccinated person, as a host, it will get more people. That means the vaccines will get us to the end of this. - Who was right, Rachel, while you're mocking Dr. J. Badacharya, while you're mocking R.F.K. Jr., while you're mocking all of the people, Dr. Marty McCarrie, while you're mocking the people who ended up being right. So that's the crazy part. It's not like we're still in the middle of it and we're still arguing who's got better facts, who's got a better track record. We know who was right, we know who was wrong. We know Dr. Marty McCarrie, I played it for you yesterday, was right, we know Dr. J. Badacharya was right, Dr. Peter McCullough was right. These folks were correct, they were the ones censored, they were the ones that were de-platformed, they were the ones that were mocked incessantly, oh, I thought you don't do lies, Cari, I thought you told me, when we started at the very beginning of the show, I'm sorry, Cari Champion, did you lie to me? You told me, you don't bring people on your program, you guys as journalists don't just get to say anything you want, you don't get to make things up, you certainly are held to a higher standard, you don't bring guests on who lie, you don't tell lies yourself, I mean, come on. And yet here we are, Rachel Maddow. You told us if you get the vaccine, you'll never get sick with COVID, you'll never pass it along. And you mocked herd immunity and natural immunity, you mocked Ivermectin and everything else that turned out to be correct. And you know what's even worse, folks? We gotta love James O'Keefe and his undercover little video, this is a great, this is a great little business model. I mean, yeah, is it a little sneaky? Of course, O'Keefe Media Group. They go on the dating sites, this is just wonderful. You know, you guys, be smarter than this. You are people that are in high positions of power in all of the public sectors. And they're on these dating sites 'cause they just want a good time, maybe they wanna hook up, we live in that age where you know, swipe left, swipe right, I don't know, one of them means I don't like you, one of them means says, I'll have sex tonight, I don't care if I ever get your name, I don't know what it means, I'm so happy I don't live in that era. And so, James O'Keefe and his undercover reporters realize, hey, if we can learn a little bit more about the social predilections of people in positions of power and we go on these dates with them, we might be able to get them to talk about some of the things that they're not allowed to talk about publicly. Well, I don't wanna waste a lot of your time since we're on the backside of the whole COVID discussion and Rachel Maddow's mocking the choices that Donald Trump is making of the doctors who were right. O'Keefe Media Group, breaking news yesterday, N-I-H, chief, the National Institute of Health, a chief with the National Institute of Health, it's called Chief of Health Data Standards, his name is Rajak Cholan, confesses, COVID health initiatives were completely made up. At one point, realizing, quote, I probably shouldn't be saying this out loud. O'Keefe Media Group yesterday released the first of its undercover video of the N-I-H series. They've got more to come. The video in this first one with Rajak Cholan, chief of health data standards branch U.S. National Library of Medicine said the COVID health initiatives were completely made up, saying, quote, I probably shouldn't be saying this out loud. They might have funded a lab in Wuhan, China, and Pfizer and Moderna are getting a bunch of money from all these vaccine mandates. Raja said to an OMG O'Keefe Media Group undercover journalist, quote, I don't even know if these vaccines stop you from getting COVID. They don't, he said, adding, we're all gonna learn about the dangers of the COVID vaccine when it's too late. Cholan said the six foot of social distancing wasn't based on any real evidence. It was completely made up. The N-I-H chief told OMG that Trump's victory is going to be worse for the N-I-H. He said it would have been better if a Democrat had won the office. He said we fly under the radar of really being scrutinized. I don't think I have too much to worry about. That's not recording. And then he says to her, let's not recording, right? Yeah. Everything we talked about during that time, everything's going to come out. And I think one of the big things the media is really upset about, it's not just the marketplace of ideas. I think what really, when I think about it now, when I really, really start to process why they're so upset about X and about the rumor that Elon Musk might buy MSNBC, is I think with X, the time that the lie is able to get going before the truth comes out and knocks it off has been so drastically reduced. Their lies, their hoaxes, their spin, their propaganda. It used to get around the world a couple of times before the truth could catch up. And by the time the truth was out there, everyone was already repeating and believing the lie. We told you about the steps of a psychological operation. You get a couple of trusted news sources, big, big, longstanding legacy news sources to break a bombshell story. It's gotta be true because why would you stake your reputation on such a lie? And that gets everybody else to repeat the story. They rip and read the headline. And pretty soon, everyone starts thinking, well, on our show tonight, we should have a panel discussion. Let's talk about it. And now everybody that was at work during the day and has no idea about the big lie, tunes into all the programs that goes, Jesus, everyone's talking about the same thing and they're all using the same phrases. It must be true. Now, thanks to X, the people who are being the watch guards, the people who are keeping an eye on the other people spreading news. If it turns out that what you're spreading is not true, well, we can catch it a lot faster and we can nip it in the bud, as they say in the South. We can nip it. Folks, it must be working too. See, CNN just did a little net approval poll on the transition that Donald Trump is putting together. Well, the Rachel Maddows and the CNNs and all these other folks are mocking Donald Trump's picks. CNN asked, "All right, Americans, "you've seen these nominees. "You've seen all these cabinet posts. "You've seen all these positions of power. "They're gonna be that Donald Trump is surrounding himself with." What are your feelings? Because we polled you in 2016 when he put his first cabinet around him during his first time. Now that he's coming in for a second time, what are your thoughts? This was CNN going through the data. - President Trump's transition net approval. You go back to November of 2016. Look at this. It was just a plus one point. Just a plus one point. That was well, well, well below the historical norm. Look at where we are today. It's significantly higher. Plus 18 points at 17 points higher on the presidential transition net approval rating. The bottom line is this. If eight years ago, Americans were lukewarm on Donald Trump. At this particular point, they're giving him much more of the benefit of the doubt. A lot more Americans are in love with this transition. This much more meets the historical norm where normally presidents get that boost coming out of their victory. And what we're seeing here is Donald Trump's presidential transition is getting a thumbs up, and dare I say, two thumbs up from the American people. - Oh, there will be much crying on the panels. Oh, no, the people love the transition. They love it a lot more than last time. They were dubious. They weren't quite sure. What did we do? Did we get buyer's remorse within the first few days? This time around, people have woken up. They've learned their lessons. Ladies and gentlemen, we have a clear mandate, and that clear mandate is coming down to Donald Trump and the people he's putting in positions of power and authority around him. And I still want you to understand, I want them accountable. I want them accountable to we the people. And we better keep an eye on them, 'cause I gotta tell you, you put RFK Jr. up in the HHS secretary. And fundamentally, I'm okay with it. But if RFK decides, you know, well, I'm in this position, I can make national health a climate change, a national health problem. No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, you're gonna be out of there, sir. I can tell you this, Donald Trump ain't gonna play. You guys came together because you wanted to share certain ideological similarities. Donald Trump agrees we need Americans healthy. We wanna stop the revolving door. We wanna get rid of the corruption in the FDA. We wanna get rid of the corruption in the USDA. We wanna get rid of the corruption in HHS. So I'm asking you to focus on that. If you start politicizing, if you start going environmental, if you start doing things that are outside of your lane, I guarantee you, Donald Trump's gonna pull them out. Now, the fear is RFK Jr. has those beliefs. RFK Jr. is a green new deal kind of person. He is an environmentalist wacko when it comes to some of his thinking. He didn't turn into a conservative, folks. But his passion, his number one passion, and it convinced Donald Trump, it was worth bringing on the team. If you can leverage someone's passion for the greater good, I don't care what your background is. That's what Donald Trump's thoughts are. I don't care your color. I don't care your race. I don't care your background. I don't even care if you're on the opposite side of the aisle. If you're gonna do the job I need done and you're the best person for it, I'm gonna give you the crack at it. And I think we should applaud that. I think that is exactly what we should be doing all the time. As we close out, I've got two sound bites here. You know, I don't like the Morgan and Morgan law firm because they're leftist lunatics, they're Democrat donors. John Morgan is the biggest ambulance chaser out there. Anybody who comes to me and says, "What do you think about calling the Morgan?" I'm like, "Uh, call a local attorney. "Go where you can talk to somebody "who's actually lives in your community, "is accountable to you. "We'll try to represent you the absolute best way possible, "not just negotiate a plea. "Their ads are just such crap. "But I will tell you this. "John Morgan sat down with Chris Cuomo "and he he he forked over a lot of learning "about why Kamala Harris was not only a bad candidate "but that she was so bad that he can't imagine "that she would ever be able to run again." I know they're already floating her name out. John Morgan is like, "If you can't even run a campaign, "there's no way you can run a country. "I wanna give you just a little snippet. "This was from yesterday's show with Chris Cuomo "talking to John Morgan about his thoughts "about how Kamala squandered so much money." I mean, just we know, I mean, it's billions and billions of dollars here, like 1.5 billion and in debt. This is what he said. - To me, you remember the movie Mad Max when everybody just doing whatever they wanted into the world, that's what happened here. All of a sudden everybody's got the keys to the candy store. Ad buyers, talent, consultants. There's a hundred days to do it. And the money started pouring in, pouring in. Remember this, Chris, it wasn't pouring in for Harris. It was pouring in against Trump. Everybody that was voting and supporting Harris was really voting against Trump and everybody that was voting for Trump was voting for Trump. So she had all this money coming in. She had all these consultants. And if you don't run the ads, you don't get paid for the buy. They were running ads in Florida where I live nonstop. And I'm like, why? I mean, are they running in Alabama and Idaho too? I'll tell you why. If you don't run the ads, the buyer doesn't get paid. A 900,000 to put her face on the sphere in Las Vegas. And the sphere, the ego, the crazy, the commissions. I was at the White House for a dinner Friday night talking to a lot of people. And I'm telling you, man, there's a lot of whispering. There's a lot of names about who got paid this, who got paid that. And a lot of people got rich on the back of donors trying to stop Trump. And I think this disqualifies her forever, forever. If you can't run a campaign, you can't run America. (laughs) - All right, John Morgan, you sold me on that. You got me. I would never use you or your business or anything about it. I love the fact you hobnobbed at the White House. You went over there, you were a big donor and you listened to all the other donors and all the other donors were like, did you see how much money she wasted? Do you see how ineffective? Do you see what, this is the worst run campaign. Look at the financial losses this person. This is, we spent one. Now it's up to $1.5 billion and she's in debt. In fact, the funny news story of the day, the DNC, the Democrat National Committee, has just set up a GoFundMe to help pay staff members after Kamala not only spent $1.5 billion but is millions in debt campaign staffers laid off and no money to pay them for the time they served. Listen to this exchanges. This morning, Peter Ducey joined the Fox and Friends when asked about this that are you telling me that there's no money to pay? These staffers didn't realize that number one, that after she lost that they'd be out of a job, but number two, that there may not be enough money to pay her or pay them. Doesn't sound like it, no. And they are about $16,000 of a $25,000 goal. It doesn't seem like that people who donated a lot of money for months, even just $10, $15 at a time on those recurring payments that you get the text messages about constantly in an election season. It doesn't seem like there's much of an appetite for people to open their wallets again for that or for the Harris campaign that now needs Tim Walz to go out and ask for help. (laughing) Oh, fiscal malfeasance, fiscal mismanagement. That is our government. That is what happens when you have too many of these folks who don't understand how money's made. They don't understand the value of money. Oh, they understand how much they want for themselves. But Kamala Harris spent money like it was air to breathe. She didn't think about it. She didn't have people who knew how to manage it. And she had everyone within the Democrat, the whole apparatus. They were just double and triple and quadruple charging. She just, this is why we are in so in debt, folks. That's why I keep telling you, just this story, the microcosm of how Kamala ran the campaign and the sheer amount of money, thinking if you just throw enough money, you can win. That's what they do all the time. Just throw money at a problem, that'll fix it. It doesn't, it doesn't. You need qualified people with intelligent ideas, creative thinking. You need merit. You need excellence. You need intelligence. You're not gonna find that by just putting money on the table. You're gonna have to find quality people. You can't pay for problems to go away. It may work in the short term, but it certainly isn't a way to run a country. All right folks, tell tomorrow. I'll have a wonderful rest of your day. I'll be back with another episode of The Alan Sander Show. Find me on Facebook, X, Instagram, get our truth social, YouTube and rumble. Support by rate, reviewing and sharing, but you can also support what I do by becoming a patron. Visit patreon.com/The Alan Sander Show. Take care. (dramatic music)
