Speaker 1: From the Skyinging Center. This is Paul Murray Live. Thank you, James,
Speaker 1: all the best to Sharry. See her again tomorrow or
Speaker 1: definitely next week. We've got lots to get to tonight,
Speaker 1: including a massive debate. And yes, I'm going to rip
Speaker 1: into Jim Chalmers. How can you not after the garbage
Speaker 1: that he's been serving up today. Oh, it's all a
Speaker 1: global and systemic problem, loang, and it was very personal
Speaker 1: when it was the other bloke. And I'll tell you
Speaker 1: why Australia is actually underperforming the rest of the world.
Speaker 1: Can you believe there's a plan for facial recognition to
Speaker 1: be the way that you may end abit paying for things?
Speaker 1: You wouldn't even need to double tap or beep, you
Speaker 1: would just use your face. What could possibly go wrong?
Speaker 1: And the Great Meghan Kelly joins us to discuss two
Speaker 1: months ago in the American election and about a week
Speaker 1: ago until the debate. But first, every now and then
Speaker 1: we like to try to focus and start with some
Speaker 1: good news. We know how tough the rest of the
Speaker 1: news is. It doesn't mean we won't talk about the
Speaker 1: serious stuff, but an update on some stuff that we
Speaker 1: hope will make you smile, including your update today on
Speaker 1: the little Bubba that we've been following for more than
Speaker 1: a week now, the little Bubba who, of course was
Speaker 1: burnt by a lunatic who decided to pour what was
Speaker 1: hot coffee and now we understand a thermos full of
Speaker 1: it and he's been pretty badly burned. Now, we brought
Speaker 1: you the news on Sunday that thankfully he is up
Speaker 1: at walking, laughing again. Well, the good news I can
Speaker 1: bring you now comes via a social media post of
Speaker 1: his mum. They're out of hospital. In a social media post,
Speaker 1: the woman said that he has been home for a
Speaker 1: few hours. He's already knocked his head like toddlers often do.
Speaker 1: It's going to be a great few months. She's of
Speaker 1: course saying that because back to hospital on Friday and
Speaker 1: then on Monday of next week to start the skin
Speaker 1: graft process. The Bubber's had three surgeries and they were
Speaker 1: undertaken on Monday, early procedures revealing that he would most
Speaker 1: likely suffer scars under his neck and chest due to
Speaker 1: the serious burns. But the good news is the firstly
Speaker 1: up and walking, secondly now at home, and thirdly a
Speaker 1: recovery process is going on. I still don't understand how
Speaker 1: or why the person police believe responsible has not been found.
Speaker 1: If you know the image, if you know the information,
Speaker 1: if you know anything, even a week and a bit
Speaker 1: on call Crime Stoppers one one hundred, triple three, triple zero. Now,
Speaker 1: the Fox sisters are legends of the paras Olympic Games
Speaker 1: because not one but two of them ended up winning
Speaker 1: gold medals. Between them, the family won at three gold
Speaker 1: medals and they are rock stars. Well, of course, there
Speaker 1: is a facility that was built almost quent five years
Speaker 1: ago for the Sydney Olympic Games for canoeing and kayaking,
Speaker 1: and it's the water sports arena that is in Penrith
Speaker 1: on the outskirts of Sydney. They are both from there.
Speaker 1: They are both proud Panthers fans, and today a part
Speaker 1: of the course has now been named after them. It
Speaker 1: will be known as Fox Island.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's very special.
Speaker 3: Something we see every day and the cost Island, say a.
Speaker 4: Lot of island.
Speaker 1: They are cuties. And in terms of the Paralympics, look
Speaker 1: I like you. I love watching them, I really do.
Speaker 1: Just to see what these athletes are able to do
Speaker 1: with the obvious disabilities. People who've got you would imagine
Speaker 1: no capacity to be athletic. Of course, will they outshine
Speaker 1: able bodied people. It's incredible to see what they do.
Speaker 1: And a perfect example of somebody that we've met before
Speaker 1: who was at the Paralympics is Madison do d Rosario.
Speaker 1: My apologies, she's a rockstar. She's going to be competing
Speaker 1: in marathon as well as the fifteen hundred meters. We
Speaker 1: of course met her when we were doing our town
Speaker 1: in bower Galla on the northern beaches of Sydney, and
Speaker 1: I'm pleased to say that she is now a medal winner.
Speaker 1: She got bronze in one of the three events that
Speaker 1: she is competing in. The one that she hopes to
Speaker 1: go for gold will be in a couple of days time.
Speaker 1: But congratulations, three bits of good news to start the day. Now.
Speaker 1: I'm pleased to see that a few people have noticed
Speaker 1: what we told you last night, which was that Giggles Miles,
Speaker 1: Stephen Miles, the Queensland Premiere, took an eleven minute flight
Speaker 1: on a private jet paid for by the Queensland taxpayer,
Speaker 1: an eleven minute flight so he could go to an
Speaker 1: MP's birthday and he can announce a brand new school
Speaker 1: fence This is ridiculous. I agree with everything that's been
Speaker 1: said thus far. Now, of course, Stephen Miles, well, as
Speaker 1: always when it comes to labor, you never a minute mistake,
Speaker 1: you double down. You know you're the one with the problem,
Speaker 1: not me. Well that was the game today. At the
Speaker 1: press conference as the Cory mal said that, he defended himself,
Speaker 1: saying he had no regrets about the flight. It is
Speaker 1: an eleven minute flight on a jet, taxpayer funded simply
Speaker 1: because it's an easier way to get around than driving
Speaker 1: on the goat tracks that the Queensland government have let
Speaker 1: become goat tracks.
Speaker 5: So well, look, it might be easy fodder to pick
Speaker 5: one leg of that trip, but taken in its totality,
Speaker 5: I think you'll see that I was very busy and
Speaker 5: it was an appropriate, entirely appropriate.
Speaker 1: Use of travel resources.
Speaker 5: I get that it's easy fodder for tableaux journalists, but
Speaker 5: when you look at the trip in totality, it made sense.
Speaker 1: Please please if he uses tone diff as this after
Speaker 1: what we caught him doing earlier in the year when
Speaker 1: he had a private jet and the Police Commission had
Speaker 1: a private jet to fly from the same place to
Speaker 1: the same place, and he got torched in and around that. Politically,
Speaker 1: you would think that when you look at the itiner
Speaker 1: and you say, wellang I am, we're going from here
Speaker 1: to here's for eleven minutes. I don't know about that, because,
Speaker 1: of course on the plane with him were news reporters,
Speaker 1: so the idea that it was ever going to get out,
Speaker 1: of course, was not to be seen. But the courier
Speaker 1: mal who had the information and put it on their
Speaker 1: newspapers and have gone after him again today well done,
Speaker 1: have got a lot of commenters to their website and
Speaker 1: the letter section of the newspaper, and says, typical of
Speaker 1: this goose. He knows he's cooked, Hence he doesn't give
Speaker 1: a hoot. Ian says, if his goal is to look stupid,
Speaker 1: he's doing a first rate job of it. Paul says,
Speaker 1: the arrogance of this bloke shows no bounds. He loves
Speaker 1: splourging other people's money. Now that sounds like something that
Speaker 1: I would have written to the paper, but it was
Speaker 1: somebody else called Paul. But it's one hundred percent true.
Speaker 1: And Graham says, this is yet another example of why
Speaker 1: we don't have money for our roads and hospitals. Out
Speaker 1: the door in twenty four oh yet one more, David says, Oh,
Speaker 1: come on, guys, it's hardly fair to be critical of
Speaker 1: mister males. Do you realize how long a seventy five
Speaker 1: kilometer trip would take on Queensland roads, with all the
Speaker 1: potholes and acts and delays, he could have taken a day.
Speaker 1: Tongue firmly, of course, planted in cheek. But it is
Speaker 1: yet another example about other people's money and how it
Speaker 1: is spent. Now we know that the Prime Minister has
Speaker 1: got quite a sweet tooth when it comes to this
Speaker 1: stuff about the amount of private travel bouncing around an
Speaker 1: airbus elbow, the brand new plane that's coming, which he
Speaker 1: couldn't possibly have canceled despite the fact that it was
Speaker 1: ordered a couple of years ago, and even as we know,
Speaker 1: nicknames the plane that you and I pay for Toto
Speaker 1: after the dog. Well, today Daily Telegraph had to look
Speaker 1: at some of the money that he's spending on top
Speaker 1: of a bunch of other things that you're already paying for.
Speaker 1: It's three point eight million dollars. Three point eight million
Speaker 1: dollars must be fun to be up the front of
Speaker 1: the bus, or not have a bus, or to have
Speaker 1: your own plane a brand new one. Anthony Alberdezi slugg
Speaker 1: taxpayers one hundred thousand dollars and twelve months for private
Speaker 1: com car bookings. So, by the way, this is on
Speaker 1: top of on top of CEE one plus two hundred
Speaker 1: and fifty three thousand dollars for printing in communications his
Speaker 1: staff and he has sixty one of them. Remember a
Speaker 1: significant number of those working in the media department helping
Speaker 1: to fluff the image of this Prime minister was worth
Speaker 1: two and a half billion dollars. The Prime Minister's annual
Speaker 1: three point eight million dollar expenses bill does not include
Speaker 1: his private chartered flights, It does not include his salary
Speaker 1: at six hundred thousand dollars. It does not include the
Speaker 1: wages of his staff, which are estimated to be about
Speaker 1: ten million dollars. Again, comments to the paper that wrote
Speaker 1: about it this morning and has been online all day
Speaker 1: about it, Anthony says, mister Alberinsi talks about the cost
Speaker 1: of living, how Australians are struggling, but neglects to mention
Speaker 1: it doesn't include him. Francis, we can't afford a forty
Speaker 1: dollars cab ride, Prime Minister, so out of touch. You
Speaker 1: are also inside this report is the amount of money
Speaker 1: that is being spent by some of the dopes that
Speaker 1: are in Parliament and some of the dullards that are
Speaker 1: in and around this Prime Minister formerly sitting around the
Speaker 1: Cabinet table or the ministry idiot Andrew Giles, the bloke
Speaker 1: who absolutely stuffed up the National security with the response
Speaker 1: to the High Court decision. He spent a million dollars
Speaker 1: on office administration. That's rent bills, printing, stationary software and telecommunications.
Speaker 1: Jim Charmers or Grim. Jim had to of course flight
Speaker 1: in the United States. We talked about this trip at
Speaker 1: the time. We now know his five day trip costs
Speaker 1: eighty five thousand dollars. All of these people tell you
Speaker 1: should work from home. All of these people say your
Speaker 1: kids shouldn't go to school during a pandemic. All of
Speaker 1: these people say why not do it on zoom? But
Speaker 1: when it's them Tims and Tim hehs is the Assistant
Speaker 1: Trade Minister. He spent two hundred and fifty eight thousand
Speaker 1: dollars on international flights. And if you don't remember who
Speaker 1: this bloke is, like most people in Australia, he's the
Speaker 1: one who abused anyone who believes that we should have
Speaker 1: a proper royal commission or real inkoo worry into COVID.
Speaker 1: He basically calls you a conspiracy theory and a lunatic.
Speaker 2: There is a well spring, a sort of fitted wellspring
Speaker 2: of COVID conspiracy theorists, and some of them, some of them,
Speaker 2: some of them in habit the benches over.
Speaker 1: There, classy staff, Oh, we always care about cost of living.
Speaker 1: Quarter of a million dollars flying around the world and
Speaker 1: it's extended to the people that aren't even in the government.
Speaker 1: Sophie Scamps is the Independent or the Teal Party MPO
Speaker 1: should say, oh, of course it's not a party. We
Speaker 1: all just look the same, say the same and fund
Speaker 1: the same. But it's absolutely a community independent. She spent
Speaker 1: two hundred and forty six thousand dollars on printing and communications.
Speaker 1: A perfect example of once you elect somebody, they have
Speaker 1: taxpayer funds to market themselves to the electorate. When you
Speaker 1: are not in government, you're able to not have to
Speaker 1: take responsibility for anything. There are more people on the
Speaker 1: cross bench as a result of the potential minority parliament.
Speaker 1: They will all have the ability to do so. And
Speaker 1: why it's so hard to move them on, no matter
Speaker 1: how irrelevant they are or how far the actual reality
Speaker 1: of their time in offices. Remember she didn't even work
Speaker 1: weekends at one point. Is with their rhetoric. So let's
Speaker 1: get to the economy. I know a couple of other
Speaker 1: people have mentioned it in some detail tonight, but you know,
Speaker 1: this is our Bally week, this is what we do.
Speaker 1: This is our line and length, and there's lots of
Speaker 1: numbers I need to get to here. As you know,
Speaker 1: the Prime Minister and Jim Chalmers claim that they have
Speaker 1: been pushing the economy in the right direction. Well, as
Speaker 1: you know, the GDP results so that Australia is still
Speaker 1: in a per capita recession. This would be the sixth
Speaker 1: quarter in a row that we have been in a
Speaker 1: per capita recession. That is the best part now of
Speaker 1: eighteen months. The ABC, by the way, actually agrees with
Speaker 1: my worldview when it comes to how bad the situation is,
Speaker 1: because once you take away the Ponzi scheme of immigration,
Speaker 1: the average Australian you and I is in a world
Speaker 1: of trouble.
Speaker 6: There's an argument that it's a dumb way to keep
Speaker 6: yourself out of recession simply by adding more people into
Speaker 6: the economy because it's not a real reflection of your
Speaker 6: economic performance. So if his trip that out, we're gone
Speaker 6: backwards for six consecutive quarters, which is not a great
Speaker 6: performance for the economy.
Speaker 1: Outrageous, unbelievable right to give you an idea of the
Speaker 1: growth rates where we were as rather than roaring, if
Speaker 1: we were a car, we're idling, and you know when
Speaker 1: your car's out of tune, and the idle means that
Speaker 1: you slightly roll forward at the traffic lights. Well, that's
Speaker 1: been the Australian economy in September of last year zero
Speaker 1: point two percent, in December zero point two percent, March
Speaker 1: zero point one percent, and the statistics released today again
Speaker 1: zero point two percent. The annual rate is now the
Speaker 1: best part of one percent, and that is the worst
Speaker 1: it's been since the recession in nineteen ninety one. In
Speaker 1: a blow of the Albanese government's economic credentials, figures released
Speaker 1: by the Australian Bureau Statistics on Wednesday show the economy
Speaker 1: grew by just zero point two percent in the June
Speaker 1: corter of the annual growth down to one percent last
Speaker 1: financial year. It's the weakest performance by the economy outside
Speaker 1: of COVID since nineteen ninety one's recession. The poor result
Speaker 1: has been driven by households who cut spending by zero
Speaker 1: point two percent in the three months to the end
Speaker 1: of June. They are pulling back on things like food, alcohol, clothing, footwear, cafes, hotels,
Speaker 1: the purchase of new cars. Discretionary spending down one point
Speaker 1: one percent. This, of course, was the treasurer pretending nothing
Speaker 1: to do with us. It's happening everywhere around the world.
Speaker 7: This is the inevitable consequence of global economic uncertainty. In
Speaker 7: the context of a really difficult global economic environment, any
Speaker 7: growth in our economy is welcome growth. This is an
Speaker 7: economy being buffeted by global uncertainty.
Speaker 1: Now, the reality is is that if we're being buffeted
Speaker 1: by a global uncertainty, you would imagine that people who
Speaker 1: have economies similar to ours would be in the same
Speaker 1: position as us. But as I showed you last night,
Speaker 1: when it comes to inflation, that's not true. But they
Speaker 1: know there's not enough time for that to be mentioned
Speaker 1: in the six pm news. It'll barely make the headlines
Speaker 1: of the clickbait let alone the papers the next day.
Speaker 1: Australia's inflation three point eight percent, the United States two
Speaker 1: point nine, Japan two point eight, Canada two point five,
Speaker 1: the UK two point two. We are almost double that
Speaker 1: of the United Kingdom. And when it comes to growth
Speaker 1: around the world, the most recent quarterly numbers in the
Speaker 1: United States three percent, we're zero point two, Japan, the UK,
Speaker 1: Canada all doing better than us. We are sputtering along
Speaker 1: and the only reason we are above water is of
Speaker 1: course because of the amount of government spending that goes
Speaker 1: into state based projects and the amount of pay rises
Speaker 1: being given to the public sector, as well as the
Speaker 1: number of people that are being bust into the country.
Speaker 1: All of that means they can say, oh, we've technically
Speaker 1: avoided a recession, but the per capita recession, the one
Speaker 1: you and I are living in a quarter is three months.
Speaker 1: Six of those quarters now the best part of as
Speaker 1: I say, eighteen months, we have been in a recession.
Speaker 1: By the way, the japan number this is after their
Speaker 1: country had come out of a recession. So what exactly
Speaker 1: is the excuse for Australia will debate that in a
Speaker 1: moment or two's time, very much looking forward to that.
Speaker 1: Now interesting little bit of politics is playing right now
Speaker 1: around tax agents. Now, as you know, two ways that
Speaker 1: you do your tax One is that you prepare your
Speaker 1: own turn. And remember that was sort of big even
Speaker 1: a few years ago. You know, you stack pack or
Speaker 1: tax pack or whatever it is to be called. Now,
Speaker 1: of course, there's a whole bunch of people who can
Speaker 1: do it for themselves online, or you go to an accountant.
Speaker 1: You go to somebody who will you give them all
Speaker 1: the receipts. They work out what's possible, what's not possible.
Speaker 1: You have a look, you make sure everything's above board,
Speaker 1: you sign, and away we go. Where there may will
Speaker 1: be a change in a relationship between the accountant and
Speaker 1: you and the accountant rather than being the person who
Speaker 1: helps you get the largest possible tax return that you
Speaker 1: are entitled to under the law, not suggesting anything other
Speaker 1: than that, but what you are entitled to under the law,
Speaker 1: will they now move from being the person who's on
Speaker 1: your side to the one on the side of the
Speaker 1: tax department and may well end up having to play
Speaker 1: the role of being a tax cop. Tax agents could
Speaker 1: be forced to dob in clients for any misleading tax
Speaker 1: statements and reveal personal mental health in from about themselves
Speaker 1: to clients. Under new reforms which are planned by the
Speaker 1: Albanezy government. Under a rafter changes to the tax sector,
Speaker 1: tax agents will be required to act as compliance officers,
Speaker 1: so again not helping you get as much back as
Speaker 1: you can legally, but helping the tax offers take as
Speaker 1: much as possible. The agents would also be required to
Speaker 1: advise all current and prospective clients of any matter that
Speaker 1: could significantly influence a client's decision to hire them. The
Speaker 1: Chartered accountants say, well, hang on, what if I've got
Speaker 1: a mental health issue? Would I have to declare that
Speaker 1: to my client? And therefore the client would know that
Speaker 1: I had a mental health issue and they may well
Speaker 1: run the other way, which I think would actually be discriminatory.
Speaker 1: But still this is what may will be being put
Speaker 1: into the system. Furious Chartered Accounts have written an Assistant
Speaker 1: Treasurer with independent legal advice that shows broad new requirements
Speaker 1: could extend to mental health condition. Whose side are they
Speaker 1: on and by that I mean the government. It's always
Speaker 1: on their side, not on yours. It's already your money.
Speaker 1: It's the vast majority of people pay it through their
Speaker 1: employer in the pay as you go system. In fact,
Speaker 1: that is the single largest source of revenue for the
Speaker 1: federal government. It's not the GST. It's not company tax
Speaker 1: it's not smoking taxes, it's not taxes on mining. It's
Speaker 1: the employees paying their tax. Now we will debate tonight
Speaker 1: an interesting topic. It is one of the Greens have
Speaker 1: tried to own for a while. But I think there's
Speaker 1: a great opportunity here for everyone to think of how
Speaker 1: to do it, and that is going to the dentist. Now,
Speaker 1: depending on your lifestyle, you may well rarely go, will
Speaker 1: you go as frequently as I do? And I've got
Speaker 1: to say a big shout out to my dentist. Wonderful, amazing,
Speaker 1: great management of pain. In fact, even fall asleep sometimes
Speaker 1: while they are bashing away with mutum, which is probably
Speaker 1: a sign of morbid obesity. But anyway, I digress. A
Speaker 1: bunch of labor in peace have come forward today to
Speaker 1: suggest that Medicare should have more dental involved in it,
Speaker 1: and that there should be a better taxpayer funded system
Speaker 1: in and around dental care. We'll debate it tonight, but
Speaker 1: I'll tell you what my position is. I agree. Now,
Speaker 1: I know that the NDIS, once introduced, has blown out
Speaker 1: now to tens of billions of dollars in a giant
Speaker 1: black hole. But I also know that there's an awful
Speaker 1: lot of people who put off going to the dentist
Speaker 1: because they can't afford it. We have to make sure
Speaker 1: that there is a properly funded dental scheme because, as
Speaker 1: you know, what may be problems in your mouth ends
Speaker 1: up going into other parts of your body, and worst
Speaker 1: case scenario, the worst possible consequences. If we have a system,
Speaker 1: a better system, well we'll debate it all in a
Speaker 1: moment or two time. Also back to Queensa now for
Speaker 1: another example about other people's money and how it is spent.
Speaker 1: You may remember the former Deputy Premier Jackie Tradd. Now
Speaker 1: she was of course a threat to Palachet, so she
Speaker 1: was slowly but surely pushed out the side door, and
Speaker 1: thanks to idiotic preference deals where the Liberal Party decided
Speaker 1: to give preferences to the Greens, her seat has now
Speaker 1: been replaced in Central Brisbane with a Greens MP. The
Speaker 1: idea of the Libs backing in the Greens is as
Speaker 1: dumb as Labor backing in the Teals, both of them
Speaker 1: setting themselves up for huge disasters. But you may remember
Speaker 1: that there was a matter that went before the Crime
Speaker 1: and Corruption Commission surrounding mus trad Now she was absolutely
Speaker 1: cleared of any wrongdoing, any illegality. This was a good report.
Speaker 1: But for some reason, Jackie Tradd and the Queensland government
Speaker 1: has spent more than three hundred thousand dollars trying to
Speaker 1: stop the release of the report into a politician who
Speaker 1: hasn't been in the parliament at all this term. Three
Speaker 1: hundred thousand dollars. Now, remember that's a premier ago, a
Speaker 1: couple of deputy premiers ago. Why do they hide this stuff? Again?
Speaker 1: It was a good report, a good report, but a
Speaker 1: good report that they don't want you to see. It
Speaker 1: doesn't make any sense, does it. And massive news out
Speaker 1: of the United States today, there's nothing to do with
Speaker 1: Trump and Harris. A Chinese spy had been working for
Speaker 1: the Governor of New York and had been doing so
Speaker 1: for many, many years. The money that came via the
Speaker 1: kickbacks of the Chinese went into a mansion in a
Speaker 1: regional part of New York, plus ferraris and even some
Speaker 1: free salted duck. Here is also what was happening in
Speaker 1: exchange for the money. According to the authorities. The news
Speaker 1: source the American version of the ABC.
Speaker 8: Worked for former Governor Andrew Cuomo and his successor, Governor
Speaker 8: Kathy Hokeel for more than a decade and never disclosed
Speaker 8: any benefits she received. Instead, prosecutors say she acted as
Speaker 8: an undisclosed agent of China, allegedly blocking representatives of the
Speaker 8: Taiwanese government from having access to the New York State
Speaker 8: Governor's office and changing the governor's messaging regarding issues of
Speaker 8: importance to the Chinese. Sun traveled to China, as seen
Speaker 8: in this photo included in the indictment, where prosecutors say
Speaker 8: she met with officials from the Chinese Communist Party.
Speaker 1: Nothing to see here now to the rice between Trump
Speaker 1: and Harris. Now, I wanted to do something while there
Speaker 1: is this little bit of a lull, which is to
Speaker 1: explain how much happens between today and election day, which
Speaker 1: is the first Tuesday in November Melbourne Cup Day here
Speaker 1: in Australia, but in the United States it is the
Speaker 1: fifth of November. Now, there are a lot of things
Speaker 1: that happen, and that means that where the rice is
Speaker 1: to die matters now. Right now there are predictions that
Speaker 1: he's Trump's path to two seventy here's her path to
Speaker 1: two seventy. It's always tight. And again I can show
Speaker 1: you a bunch of poles, it will tell you it's
Speaker 1: Trump in front by a bit, or it's Harris in
Speaker 1: front by a bit. But it matters about just how
Speaker 1: few days there are left to change people's minds. And
Speaker 1: I'm not talking about the two months between now an
Speaker 1: election day. In fact, can we bring up here the
Speaker 1: calendar of how many things happen between right now and
Speaker 1: the fifth of November, being the election day next week
Speaker 1: the most likely only debate between Trump and Harris. About
Speaker 1: a week later, Trump is then sentenced in New York City.
Speaker 1: What would happen to the race if he's sent to
Speaker 1: jail for thirty days? What would happen to the race
Speaker 1: if he is able to walk away from it all?
Speaker 1: We'll all see. As early as September twenty early voting
Speaker 1: starts in many states. On September the twenty sixth, Trump
Speaker 1: is back in court where he is trying to appeal
Speaker 1: against a five hundred million dollar fine that was put
Speaker 1: in place by the people going after him in New York.
Speaker 1: On October the I that is the vice presidential debate,
Speaker 1: and there looks like there is a full month of
Speaker 1: nothing happening between October the first and November fifth, but
Speaker 1: not entirely so. In fact, as early as this week,
Speaker 1: people will start getting ballots in the mail and they
Speaker 1: will be able to return them well and truly before
Speaker 1: election day. Now under the rules that when Nancy Pelosi
Speaker 1: and the Democrats were in charge of the House of Representatives,
Speaker 1: they made sure that all of the rules in and
Speaker 1: around how the election works during the COVID times now
Speaker 1: become standard in all fifty states now, the seven states
Speaker 1: that will decide the election. In North Carolina they vote
Speaker 1: this week, voting this week. So again, if Trump is
Speaker 1: up right now, but Harris comes up in time for
Speaker 1: the election, well will people be voting on the assumption
Speaker 1: of Trump winning or Harris winning? About again a week later.
Speaker 1: The state that matters Pennsylvania, then Wisconsin, Michigan. In October
Speaker 1: you get Georgia and Arizona. And then if we happen
Speaker 1: to be in one of those statistical things that I've
Speaker 1: shown you before, if he wins here and she wins
Speaker 1: there and carry the one and the state of Nevada
Speaker 1: will matter more than any others it could have the
Speaker 1: possible ability to put either of them above two hundred
Speaker 1: and seventy. Well, obviously they are a couple of hours
Speaker 1: behind the polls closing, so it will become very late
Speaker 1: in the night, if not early in the morning in
Speaker 1: the United States, which will be almost like a full
Speaker 1: day since the election had started for us watching here
Speaker 1: in Australia, but in Nevada that don't actually have elections
Speaker 1: like we would assume, where you go to a polling
Speaker 1: places fill out the ballot instead everyone in the state
Speaker 1: and the only way to vote in the state is
Speaker 1: to get your ballot by mail. So there is a
Speaker 1: lot to happen that we know about. Let alone the
Speaker 1: October surprise. Let alone what we don't know about. Let
Speaker 1: alone what they say, lettle a bone, what they do,
Speaker 1: Which is why I hope you join us every night
Speaker 1: between now and that election, because I'll only tell you
Speaker 1: the stuff that matters, but I'll always give you just
Speaker 1: a little bit more information than everyone else, so you
Speaker 1: can pass yourself off as yeah, I know everything that's
Speaker 1: going on in the States. So that's my favorite to you,
Speaker 1: your favor to me. Keep watching every night, be here
Speaker 1: in the front row, nine o'clock Eastern in Paul Murray
Speaker 1: Life quick break back with more lots to talk about
Speaker 1: here none other than rom a Bushop carry out a
Speaker 1: Champ takes on Stephen Conroy, the forever challenger who's here
Speaker 1: to help. That's next Meghan Kelly in a moment or
Speaker 1: two from the US as well. I made sure that
Speaker 1: I wrap it up quickly at the start of the
Speaker 1: show because I wanted to give even more time to
Speaker 1: the people who I know you love seeing go the
Speaker 1: full ding dong. They do so again this evening, none
Speaker 1: other than the carry out Champ, Bromwan Bishop of course,
Speaker 1: former Speaker of the House, the man who's the former
Speaker 1: Communications Minister, send it up but always just here to help,
Speaker 1: none other than the wonderful Stephen Conroy. Now, I am
Speaker 1: not going to pretend that the story that we heard
Speaker 1: about a cabinet discussion about the what isn't in the
Speaker 1: senses is a big story. But I am going to
Speaker 1: talk about one thing, which is I've been around long
Speaker 1: enough that once you start to hear leaks from cabinet,
Speaker 1: something's going wrong. Now some people have told me, well
Speaker 1: a story clearly that is favorable to the Prime Minister.
Speaker 1: That is leaked from cabinet was really clearly something that
Speaker 1: he approved of. It's a different way of doing a
Speaker 1: press release, but very obviously the way that all of
Speaker 1: this was packaged up in the papers today was that
Speaker 1: someone was telling the newspapers what was being said around
Speaker 1: the cabinet table. Now, Steve, and I'll start with you. Obviously,
Speaker 1: the nature of the leak is positive to the Prime Minister.
Speaker 1: Obviously the issue is one that we've discussed before. But
Speaker 1: let's all imagine things were as they appeared by it
Speaker 1: from a journalists perspective, was that this was a leak
Speaker 1: from the cabinet table. You would surely agree with me that,
Speaker 1: regardless of whether it was Team Red, Team Blue, or
Speaker 1: any government in our history. As soon as we start
Speaker 1: to know what's going on in and around the cabinet table,
Speaker 1: something's going on.
Speaker 9: Well, I think, as you said, it wouldn't matter who
Speaker 9: was in government, and both Promin and I have been
Speaker 9: in the ministry and cabinets. When you start reading multiple
Speaker 9: sources being quoted and giving accurate descriptions, it's not in
Speaker 9: the spirit of cabinet solidarity. So I think that you
Speaker 9: know the fact that this isn't the absolute first has
Speaker 9: been one or two minor in but certainly this is
Speaker 9: the biggest. It's not, you know, earth shattering, as you've said,
Speaker 9: it's sort of on a relatively small issue given the
Speaker 9: other issues that are impacted in the Australian public. But
Speaker 9: it's it is very untidy when you start to see
Speaker 9: and read commentary that takes place in cabinet. And I'm
Speaker 9: sure even Bromwinnen would agree with that.
Speaker 1: Well, and this is the point problem where I mean
Speaker 1: I both if you know, right, the way it's supposed
Speaker 1: to work is the cabinet is the place where you
Speaker 1: can speak as freely as possible as a collective group
Speaker 1: to work out which what decision you're going to take.
Speaker 1: Then you're all bound by whatever the majority of the
Speaker 1: room is and you all go out and argue it
Speaker 1: to the hilt. Right if there is someone saying what's
Speaker 1: being said during what would otherwise be sort of you know,
Speaker 1: like any meeting anyone has in their office that it's
Speaker 1: a planning meeting or a decision meeting, well then you've
Speaker 1: got a problem with your business. And this is a
Speaker 1: I think the beginning of a significant problem for Anthony Obernezi.
Speaker 1: I'm not he is about to be rolled as prime minister.
Speaker 1: Any garbage that in the next But let's be honest,
Speaker 1: every pole says that he's underwater when it comes to
Speaker 1: his own popularity. They're at fifty to fifty in two
Speaker 1: party preferred, they're behind in primary vote and as we'll
Speaker 1: get to a second in the economy, there's not a
Speaker 1: lot that's going their way at the moment. That's why
Speaker 1: I lead with this tonight.
Speaker 10: What do you think, Well, whenever a cabinet starts to leak,
Speaker 10: it's trouble. And the idea that a prime minister would
Speaker 10: authorize someone to leak from cabinet is crazy stuff.
Speaker 1: I should say that's the best possible spinnoker. Yeah.
Speaker 10: One of the telltale lines was when somebody said he
Speaker 10: spoke about it in cabinet, talking about the prime minister
Speaker 10: and then said it was far and broomstone. That indicates
Speaker 10: he was rattled, right, And that's the impression that statement gives.
Speaker 1: Because in that room you're not supposed to get fired up.
Speaker 1: You're supposed to have these logical back and forth, or
Speaker 1: in that room you do fire.
Speaker 10: Up, you're certainly not supposed to have it reported outside
Speaker 10: that because you are seating with anger or whatever. But
Speaker 10: whenever a cabinet starts to leak, it's trouble. And the
Speaker 10: next sign is when the public service starts to leak,
Speaker 10: that is more trouble.
Speaker 1: Well, they've just got their biggest pay rise in ten years,
Speaker 1: so I think there's a hope that they won't at
Speaker 1: anytime soon. But you're very right, And of course the
Speaker 1: way that that works is that again you tell me
Speaker 1: if I'm in the wrong zone here, guys. But I'm
Speaker 1: imagining that when you've got a problem, you ask the
Speaker 1: public servants to come up with the solutions. There's the
Speaker 1: sandwich that's really rotten, there's the sandwich that is not
Speaker 1: really a sandwich, and then you've presented with the moderate
Speaker 1: option in the middle. But of course, if for whatever reason,
Speaker 1: you start to be saying to your people, no, I'm
Speaker 1: going to go for this sandwich you don't want, then
Speaker 1: suddenly questions start turning up, minister, is it not true
Speaker 1: that you have been offered one of three sandwiches, one
Speaker 1: sam which is particularly bad, And then that's what becomes
Speaker 1: the question time game for the next of the while.
Speaker 1: So that would be the example of the public service
Speaker 1: leaking correct, good, All right, Now let's talk about the
Speaker 1: economy here. It ain't good. It ain't good, And the
Speaker 1: Treasurer is sort of saying, oh, it's all global, when
Speaker 1: I just showed the numbers of it, how similar things
Speaker 1: are going around the world. Again, we are part of
Speaker 1: a wider system, but we were with the last mob.
Speaker 1: But everything was so personal in relation to the last mob.
Speaker 1: So the same rule will be applied in this case.
Speaker 1: But what does today's number show when again even on
Speaker 1: the ABC, they are saying, the only reason the car
Speaker 1: is idling at the lights and slightly rolling forward is
Speaker 1: because of the number of people we're trying to shove
Speaker 1: on the back seat.
Speaker 10: Well, the really worrying thing is and Chalmers comes out
Speaker 10: and says, the only reason there was any growth is
Speaker 10: because of government spending. What that means is it is
Speaker 10: sucking success out of the private sector. It's sucking the
Speaker 10: ability of the private sector to attract people that it
Speaker 10: needs to survive in this very difficult time. And so
Speaker 10: the economy is very largely out of balance. Now, the
Speaker 10: RBA doesn't care about that spending and spending, but if
Speaker 10: you look at the figures and you see the imbalance
Speaker 10: where so many of the new jobs created are either
Speaker 10: in the public sector or dependent on the government spending
Speaker 10: like the NDAs. So it really is a big concern.
Speaker 10: And this is a figure we haven't seen since nineteen
Speaker 10: ninety one. I remember what it was like when we
Speaker 10: had the recession we had to have. And I've got
Speaker 10: to tell you, mister Chalmers, ain't no mister Keating.
Speaker 1: Well, and remember the doctor bid is not a doctor
Speaker 1: of economics, doctor of political communication.
Speaker 10: He might have written PhD thesis on Keating. There is
Speaker 10: no comparison. When riche said to me the other day
Speaker 10: in conversation, he really does need more enemies, doesn't he?
Speaker 10: It says a lot.
Speaker 1: All right, give me an idea here, Stephen. Again, we
Speaker 1: know where where we are. No doubt you will say
Speaker 1: it's not as bad as I may will present it.
Speaker 1: But it's pretty obvious that when they say global, global, global,
Speaker 1: and then you go and have a look at what
Speaker 1: the inflation rate is in those places and the growth
Speaker 1: rate in those places, and if all of them are
Speaker 1: doing better than us, then we're running kind of towards
Speaker 1: the back end of the global economy, aren't we.
Speaker 9: Look, Paul, your views have heard me extensively on the
Speaker 9: appalling Reserve Bank performance over the last number of years.
Speaker 9: They pushed interest rates to high after promising they wouldn't
Speaker 9: put them up, and now they're being pigheaded in refusing
Speaker 9: to a.
Speaker 1: Lot of them.
Speaker 9: They have ground this economy to an almost halt. And
Speaker 9: I'm sorry, Paul, but you know GDP is measured C consumption, consumers, I,
Speaker 9: investment G governments. That equals GDP. That's one O one economics.
Speaker 9: So the governments are part of what creates GDP growth
Speaker 9: or contraction. And if the government didn't have the sort
Speaker 9: of spending that it's got at the moment, the Reserve
Speaker 9: Bank would have successfully destroyed this economy. Those are the
Speaker 9: simple facts. It's maths, it's statistics, it's whatever you want
Speaker 9: to call it. And to borrow from Bromwyn, the s
Speaker 9: Romen just just go read a first year textbook, Okay,
Speaker 9: to borrow if they've actually they've actually sucked the life
Speaker 9: out of the private sector. Deserve bank so okay, So
Speaker 9: he's killing this economy and.
Speaker 1: We're in a per capita recession. We have been now
Speaker 1: for the best part of eighteen months. The Reserve Bank,
Speaker 1: by keeping the interest rates makes all of that harder
Speaker 1: that the individual is going backwards on all of those
Speaker 1: fronts that we've just talked about. So what is the
Speaker 1: solution here about? Because the Reserve Bank has made it
Speaker 1: clear they're not touching anything till at least next year,
Speaker 1: which means we all stay in this in this very
Speaker 1: pressured spot.
Speaker 10: Look, the Treasurer has a lot of words. It's very
Speaker 10: good on adjectives and adverbs, not too good on nouns.
Speaker 10: But one word that he leaves out all the time
Speaker 10: is productivity. Yes, never mentions it. That's what we desperately
Speaker 10: need now.
Speaker 9: He is a government zero productivity zero. You don't get
Speaker 9: to play the car.
Speaker 10: He has been just done it very very provocative in
Speaker 10: the words he's used about the Reserve Bank. There's obviously
Speaker 10: a brawl on this should be and today and today
Speaker 10: he had the absolutely insulting term to describe John Hard
Speaker 10: as being rolled out. What an insulting term, buddy respects him?
Speaker 10: Of course, of course John Hard would know more about
Speaker 10: these issues than in his little finger and the current
Speaker 10: Treasurer know and to be so disrespectful in that manner
Speaker 10: really made me and a lot of other people very angry.
Speaker 1: Well in fact I have that comment. Let's roll the tape. Well,
Speaker 1: none team press play.
Speaker 7: We need to remember, of course, John Howard is a
Speaker 7: liberal warrior. He's not exactly an objective observer. He's a
Speaker 7: partisan warrior, and that's fine. But if he was an
Speaker 7: objective observer, he'd acknowledge that we have turned two big
Speaker 7: liberal deficits into two big labor surpluses.
Speaker 1: And your own intergeneration reports your deficit every year every years.
Speaker 10: I mean, where is the where is the common sense
Speaker 10: in what he says? He says, Oh, look, I've got
Speaker 10: these two great surpluses. What about the stuff that's off budget? Yeah,
Speaker 10: well we're given away here, have a couple of hundred
Speaker 10: millionaire for a hundred millionaire because it just gets given
Speaker 10: away like it doesn't exist.
Speaker 1: Correct, All right, now, let's get to well, something that
Speaker 1: is completely unrelated to the problems we're at right now,
Speaker 1: but just about a general issue which may will be
Speaker 1: an awful lot more spinning to come into the future.
Speaker 1: I don't hate the idea of medicare for dental I
Speaker 1: know it's tens of billions of dollars and I don't
Speaker 1: know where it comes from, and I don't know how
Speaker 1: that works. But as a system we know that one
Speaker 1: of the good things about the public health system means
Speaker 1: that eventually, if you seek someone's going to be taken
Speaker 1: care of. But of course things with dental, yes, there's
Speaker 1: a very small program and the most extreme, but it's
Speaker 1: not something that you would say the working poor would
Speaker 1: be turning to with the same frequency that they would
Speaker 1: a public hospital or bulk billing of a GP. So bromin,
Speaker 1: why am I crazy to even talk about a bigger,
Speaker 1: better system for people to be able to take care
Speaker 1: of their teeth, whatever rage they are, that is better
Speaker 1: than what's currently on offer.
Speaker 10: Well, one of the problems is, Paul, and you said
Speaker 10: it right from the beginning. It's mathematical. Where is the
Speaker 10: money coming from? Even Whitlam decided not to put it in.
Speaker 10: It's a separate profession, which is why it didn't go
Speaker 10: in under the doctor category.
Speaker 1: And they say, if we go to full medicare dental,
Speaker 1: you need twenty thousand dentists and it cost forty five
Speaker 1: billion dollars and that of course can't be done with
Speaker 1: a little optic in the medicare.
Speaker 10: We've seen what happened with the ndis.
Speaker 1: Correct, absolutely correct.
Speaker 10: We have an enormous problem. Yes, we have to look
Speaker 10: after people, and I think we could have a few
Speaker 10: good programs about dental hygiene and dental care, looking after
Speaker 10: your teeth more.
Speaker 1: Now, get ready for some people to flip their tables somewhere.
Speaker 1: Government really wants it. They've got three hundred billion dollars
Speaker 1: for submarines that will arrive sometime in the next four
Speaker 1: hundred years. But give us an idea against Stephen? Am
Speaker 1: I off with the fairies? Am I down in the
Speaker 1: lefty garden? Have I accidentally drunken the kool aid?
Speaker 5: Or?
Speaker 1: Am I just I just think about that working poor section.
Speaker 1: Those people that we know right now are making the choices.
Speaker 9: Paul, you're dead right. In a perfect world, yes would
Speaker 9: be part of and labor has at various stages proposed
Speaker 9: concepts like this. But I have it both ways. You can't.
Speaker 9: You can't spend twenty five minutes of your program attacking
Speaker 9: the government for overspending and then advocate forty five million
Speaker 9: dollars worth of spending. Go I don't know where the
Speaker 9: money comes from. As an it's an increase in the
Speaker 9: Medicare levee. All of all of the ideas.
Speaker 1: Out a little bit of the transcript.
Speaker 9: But okay, they're all worthy, but you can't actually criticize
Speaker 9: the government spending. The advocate the next biggest program since
Speaker 9: the ndis well no.
Speaker 1: But what I am saying, though, is that it's all
Speaker 1: about priorities. They get, they've got more money than ever before.
Speaker 1: My suggestion is that there are other priorities, and in
Speaker 1: the current pie, I would consider trying to find out
Speaker 1: how to expand that system. All right, That's what's my advocacy.
Speaker 1: And I think that there's a little bit of waste
Speaker 1: that you might be able to cut out of that pie.
Speaker 1: And as the tubby man, I get the final say
Speaker 1: on pie. All right, thank you very much. I appreciate it.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Brobwan, thank you Steven. Meghan Kelly. Straight after
Speaker 1: the break, can you know what you think about that
Speaker 1: or any other issue? Sent me in my Paul. It's
Speaker 1: guy news dot com, do au. It's all good hearted,
Speaker 1: it's all good fun. More on a second. Our favorite
Speaker 1: time of the week is when we talk to Meghan Kelly.
Speaker 1: She's in the United States and we're talking an awful
Speaker 1: lot of politics because there's a lot of it around.
Speaker 1: Love it to see a rock star.
Speaker 4: Great to be here.
Speaker 1: So about a week's time, we will be right on
Speaker 1: top of what is supposed to be the Trump Paras debate.
Speaker 1: They say it's locked, but then it seems like it's not.
Speaker 1: I think it's about microphones. I think it's about whether
Speaker 1: Harris can bring paper notes with her. What do you
Speaker 1: think it wake out from when they're supposed to debate.
Speaker 4: It's just such nonsense.
Speaker 3: They're going to do it. They're going to debate. Well,
Speaker 3: it's too tight a race not to do it. Both
Speaker 3: sides think that they can win, that they can beat
Speaker 3: the other one. So I guess we're just going to
Speaker 3: have these, like I don't know, pissing contest between now
Speaker 3: and then about Mike's or notes or what have you.
Speaker 4: The notes thing is absolutely absurd.
Speaker 3: Technically, she's already been denied the ability to bring notes
Speaker 3: on there.
Speaker 4: The test is easier if it's open book. We all
Speaker 4: know that. But she's running to be president.
Speaker 3: She's going to have to be faciled with policy without
Speaker 3: her little notepad next door at all times. So I
Speaker 3: don't think she's going to be allowed to bring notes in.
Speaker 3: I actually think Trump will throw down over that one.
Speaker 3: And the mic thing is just a reason to keep
Speaker 3: attention going. Trump loves to have drama around these debates,
Speaker 3: so I think that's why he's continuing it.
Speaker 1: Harris of course thinks that one of the ways she's
Speaker 1: going to get through the next little while is by
Speaker 1: doing a bus tour. Now, fascinating here about the logic
Speaker 1: of the bus tour. Now, anyone who remembers twenty years
Speaker 1: ago the Straight Talk Express and a bus tour that
Speaker 1: John McCain took across the country, that's not what she's doing.
Speaker 1: What she's doing is, yes, getting on a bus, but
Speaker 1: it goes from small venue to small venue to small venue.
Speaker 1: When I see this stuff, I don't see interactions with people.
Speaker 1: I see this as proof of life, but making sure
Speaker 1: that the risk is nonexistent. What do you think?
Speaker 4: I think that's smart.
Speaker 3: And if she were my candidate, that's exactly what I'd
Speaker 3: be doing. I mean, you saw her in that interview
Speaker 3: with CNN. She is not good on her feet. She's
Speaker 3: not fascial, she really isn't. She doesn't really know her facts,
Speaker 3: She lies, she meanders. I joked the other day on
Speaker 3: my show that she went from being this person who
Speaker 3: seems drunk all the time to seeing Aslia hungover. It
Speaker 3: was very humbling. It's very humbling when my niece saw me.
Speaker 3: I mean, there's no in between. The real Kamala, I think,
Speaker 3: is the cackling Kamala. And so they've given her some
Speaker 3: sort of a depressant I think, to dig rid of
Speaker 3: the cackle because they realize how off putting it is.
Speaker 4: They tried to rebrand it as bratt.
Speaker 3: Maybe that worked with some twenty year olds, but no
Speaker 3: sober fifty year old things. It's bratt, nor do they
Speaker 3: even know what brad is. So now they've tried to
Speaker 3: do sober Kamala. She's just depressed and kind of sad
Speaker 3: all the time, which undermines their joyful message. But they
Speaker 3: got to choose which one they want, and they put
Speaker 3: the money down on sober Kamala because that's that's how
Speaker 3: she came out with CNN. So that's what I guess
Speaker 3: she's going to be on the campaign trail now. She's
Speaker 3: going to be the serious sober one we can trust
Speaker 3: to what pull us out of Afghanistan without any deaths
Speaker 3: of troops, just as Joe Biden nobody died. Like that's
Speaker 3: a position they're in and I just don't think that's inspirational.
Speaker 3: And you see Trump, what does he do, Yes, he
Speaker 3: does the rallies. We've talked about all those, but he
Speaker 3: does these stops where he goes into like a seven eleven,
Speaker 3: or he goes into some random restaurant or some donut
Speaker 3: shop or what have you. And the people love him
Speaker 3: because the thing about Trump is, unless you're a diehard Democrat,
Speaker 3: he's very charming, and you will find him charming, and
Speaker 3: he will smile at you, and he will what was
Speaker 3: the Jane Austen line, you will smile and make love
Speaker 3: to us. All That's kind of how he approaches any
Speaker 3: interaction and people feel it. So Kama Harris doesn't have
Speaker 3: the ability to do that. So I think they're absolutely right.
Speaker 3: Keep her in tight controlled settings on prompter, keep it quick,
Speaker 3: don't give her a chance to meander or cackle, and
Speaker 3: let's see if we can keep that rolling for two
Speaker 3: months right into the presidency.
Speaker 1: Now at the very heart of the thresholds at which
Speaker 1: different candidates are held. Two stories involving the military. I've
Speaker 1: walked everyone through in laborious daytile the laws that we're
Speaker 1: told about what happened when Donald Trump was invited by
Speaker 1: some of the families of the thirteen who died in
Speaker 1: Afghani Stan. And you have done phenomenal work showing that
Speaker 1: people who served with Tim Waltz that when he decided
Speaker 1: to pull the pin run for Congress rather than laid
Speaker 1: them into battle. One story goes for a week, and
Speaker 1: even as as well researched multiple people, multiple sources sitting
Speaker 1: in front of a camera, the media will choose to ignore.
Speaker 3: But that story at Arlington is the Democrats stepping on
Speaker 3: a rake. I mean that what a stupid, stupid thing
Speaker 3: for them to try to make an issue out of right,
Speaker 3: given how vulnerable she is on the issue of veterans
Speaker 3: and the military.
Speaker 4: Like this was just absolute folly by her team.
Speaker 3: It should have been a two day story that they
Speaker 3: put on other people like Surrogate's not having to do
Speaker 3: with her, but she weighed in directly and now she's
Speaker 3: getting the rake right in her face as she ought to,
Speaker 3: since she hasn't given them any sort of dignity or
Speaker 3: respectful goodbye or even paid her respect any meaningful way
Speaker 3: to the families. And they were ready for this, So
Speaker 3: you know, the media is one hundred percent on her side.
Speaker 3: So I guess from that standpoint, they took a calculated
Speaker 3: risk that the media would run cover for her, which
Speaker 3: it is. But I really think this is a net
Speaker 3: negative story for Kamala Harris. It's only brought back into
Speaker 3: the forefront the fact that she doesn't give two figs
Speaker 3: about the thirteen service servicemen and women who died at
Speaker 3: Abbey Gate, and she wasn't at the dignified transfer, she
Speaker 3: didn't show up at Arlington. Trump's been there. Trump was
Speaker 3: there at Arlington, and he was there beforehand. He's met
Speaker 3: with the families now for years and paid his respects
Speaker 3: over and over and over, giving them unlimited time. We
Speaker 3: heard that from one of the families at his convention.
Speaker 3: So in any event, there's that story, the thing about
Speaker 3: the Walls and his stolen valor.
Speaker 4: It's not going away.
Speaker 3: And so you're right, the media will ignore the fact
Speaker 3: that these four men, two of whom actually do hold
Speaker 3: the rank of retired command sergeant major, which is as
Speaker 3: high as you can get in the non commissioned officer front.
Speaker 3: Came out to say he's a coward. Tim wall is
Speaker 3: a coward who cut and ran and abandoned his men,
Speaker 3: and that he's been doing this stolen valor when it
Speaker 3: comes to his rank, when it comes to his story
Speaker 3: about why he didn't go to Iraq, and when it
Speaker 3: comes to whether he served it in actually in war,
Speaker 3: whether it was Afghanistan or Iraq, for years, and that
Speaker 3: these military guys have been going to him privately, behind
Speaker 3: the scenes to say, please stop. You're embarrassing yourself and
Speaker 3: you're disrespecting us, and he wouldn't do it. So the
Speaker 3: medium will try to ignore that story, but I just
Speaker 3: think it has legs and that the independents who are
Speaker 3: in these critical swing states are going to see the
Speaker 3: clips that were on my show. These guys have been
Speaker 3: out there, some of them individually, the clips that have
Speaker 3: been out there, and they know there's something about Tim
Speaker 3: Walls that's disrespectful, dishonorable when it comes to the military.
Speaker 4: And that's a problem Tim Walls.
Speaker 3: It's basically handicapped him from being able to tout his
Speaker 3: military record on the stump. And that's a problem for
Speaker 3: him because JD. Vans can still do that. And the
Speaker 3: American people still hold Afghanistan against this administration. Now will
Speaker 3: they hold it against Kamala Harris?
Speaker 4: They should?
Speaker 3: She said she was last in the room, and so on.
Speaker 3: Trump's got to remind people of that over and over
Speaker 3: and over again. But he's been hobbled on bragging about
Speaker 3: his military service because these guys refused to remain silent.