Speaker 1: Countdown with Keith Olderman is a production of iHeartRadio. The
Speaker 1: greatest President since FDR is dead, My friend, What a
Speaker 1: privilege it has been to call him a friend. President
Speaker 1: Jimmy Carter would disagree that he is still the lead
Speaker 1: story the day after. After all, he might note he
Speaker 1: was one hundred years old, he was in hospice for
Speaker 1: a year and a half. His own grandson, a reliable
Speaker 1: reporter on most occasions, said he was in his final days.
Speaker 1: That was last May fifteenth. How Keith, is this a
Speaker 1: surprise to you? President Carter would say, the Braves letting
Speaker 1: Freddie Freeman go to the Dodgers should have been a
Speaker 1: surprise to you. He might have argued that the story
Speaker 1: of constitutional scholars arguing that even at this late hour,
Speaker 1: Congress has all the enabling legislation it needs to disqualify
Speaker 1: Trump from taking power, that the Supreme Court roadblock had
Speaker 1: been overcome without the Supreme Court noticing that that was
Speaker 1: the lead story. I'm going to overrule him. I will
Speaker 1: get to that story in a moment. I do not
Speaker 1: honestly know if Jimmy Carter would have argued about my
Speaker 1: other point. I don't know he would have argued that
Speaker 1: he was not the greatest president since FDR. Jimmy Carter
Speaker 1: was an extraordinary mixture, possibly a unique mixture of intelligence,
Speaker 1: self confidence, uncertainty, honesty, and realism. I suspect he might
Speaker 1: have said, whoever the greatest president since FDR was? He
Speaker 1: got re elected, and here I will again overrule him.
Speaker 1: The essence of the election of President Carter as an outsider,
Speaker 1: the governor of Georgia, who once went, as the famous
Speaker 1: story goes on the show What's My Line, where contestants
Speaker 1: used to guess what somebody did for a living, and
Speaker 1: as he was running for president, none of the contestants
Speaker 1: knew who he was, underscored the fact that the American
Speaker 1: political system still worked after what Richard Nixon did to
Speaker 1: it in the nineteen sixties and early nineteen seventies. In fact,
Speaker 1: the entirety of the Carter presidency, sometimes successful, sometimes desperately unsuccessful,
Speaker 1: but always professional, even in dealing with crises in his
Speaker 1: own family and his own cabinet. Professional, operative, open wherever possible,
Speaker 1: restored the premise of American government, whatever the outcome, was
Speaker 1: the transformation of the presidency, which was a joke. On
Speaker 1: January first, nineteen seventy six, a joke along with the
Speaker 1: idea of believing that the government might actually do something
Speaker 1: good rather than something to you. That was a joke
Speaker 1: held universally in spite of party. Not a menace, not
Speaker 1: a conspiracy, not a maga, lunatic, paranoid, sons of bitches
Speaker 1: kind of stupidity, but genuine We're done with this attitude.
Speaker 1: Maybe we should make a new country attitude, not violent,
Speaker 1: not retributory. Just after Nixon and Ford, I've had enough
Speaker 1: of this whole government thing. The man who changed that
Speaker 1: Wasjimmy Carter. Jimmy Carter was a president from the first
Speaker 1: day to the last day, and in ways he has
Speaker 1: yet to be given credit for restored the concept of
Speaker 1: American government. And then the guy after him pissed it
Speaker 1: all away. But look what he did in the Middle
Speaker 1: East midway through his only term. The Camp David Accords
Speaker 1: essentially peace in the Middle East, or at least a
Speaker 1: stopping of the escalation of the disasters of the Middle
Speaker 1: East that have been going on uninterrupted for forty years,
Speaker 1: well four thousand and forty years. Peace in the Middle
Speaker 1: East until the terrorists in both of the principal countries
Speaker 1: undid it, killed their own leaders, assassinated their own directors
Speaker 1: and presidents. Because of course, too much peace is bad
Speaker 1: for the terrorism business, and thus too much peace is
Speaker 1: bad for the military business. On the second day of
Speaker 1: Jimmy Carter's administration, he pardoned the Vietnam draft evaders. Spiritually,
Speaker 1: the next time Trump says something about Jimmy Carter, somebody
Speaker 1: should smack Trump in the mouth. Pardoned those who did
Speaker 1: not and would not fight in Vietnam, would not subject
Speaker 1: themselves to the draft. He was a hardliner President Carter
Speaker 1: against Russia while also reducing nuclear weapons. He gave the
Speaker 1: Panama Canal back. This is in the news recently because
Speaker 1: of course we did steal the canal from Panama. In fact,
Speaker 1: we fomented a revolution within Panama to create the entire
Speaker 1: country and the canal zone. And my source for this
Speaker 1: is President Theodore Roosevelt, who did it and said I
Speaker 1: stole it fair and square. At least reportedly he said
Speaker 1: that others certainly did. In his cabinet, Carter fought back
Speaker 1: against an economy the GOP had sabotaged throughout the nineteen
Speaker 1: sixties and seventies for the sake of big business. He
Speaker 1: fought back against the energy crisis, and we may never
Speaker 1: know to what degree since the Republicans got involved in
Speaker 1: the thing that resulted from the energy crisis, the Iran
Speaker 1: hostage drama, they got involved in that illicitly. We'll never
Speaker 1: know to what degree the Republicans were involved in the
Speaker 1: raising first of gas prices and then the gas shortage
Speaker 1: of nineteen seventy eight. In nineteen seventy nine, Carter was
Speaker 1: the first to address toxic waste dump sites and the
Speaker 1: poisoning of the land the love Canal idea. He actually
Speaker 1: drained the swamp. One of the reasons he did not
Speaker 1: get all the support that he needed to run a
Speaker 1: competitive race against Ronald Reagan in nineteen eighty was because
Speaker 1: he'd pissed off all the Congressmen and the senators. He
Speaker 1: would not play Democratic Party politics. He would not take
Speaker 1: their phone calls, he would not give them the appointments
Speaker 1: that they wanted. He would not support their boondoggles and
Speaker 1: their pork barrel options. He actually did with this idiot
Speaker 1: Trump has been talking about. He actually tried to turn
Speaker 1: the government back into a government. He bailed out Chrysler,
Speaker 1: he bailed out Chrysler and in turn probably bailed out
Speaker 1: the entirety of the American auto industry in the seventies,
Speaker 1: and if it had collapsed in the nineteen seventies, the
Speaker 1: nineteen eighties would have seen another depression. He created the
Speaker 1: Department of Education, and boy oh boy, though what he
Speaker 1: should have done was given the Department of Education weapons
Speaker 1: nuclear weapons. Because the lack of education in this country,
Speaker 1: which was already becoming a parent by the time the
Speaker 1: Department of Education was instituted Byjimmy Carter to just set
Speaker 1: some sort of minimum standards, that decline has now turned
Speaker 1: into a world in which half of Americans are mortally stupid,
Speaker 1: and of course, under dire circumstances in which part of
Speaker 1: this country, part of the political structure of this country,
Speaker 1: was operating against him. He dealt honorably with the Iran
Speaker 1: hostage crisis, and it did him in And did that
Speaker 1: make him the greatest president since FDR? I think it did,
Speaker 1: because let's look exactly at the histories in capsule of
Speaker 1: the ones since FDR Truman well meaning, and he did
Speaker 1: well under the circumstances. I guess. On the other hand,
Speaker 1: he did not stand up to Joe McCarthy, and when
Speaker 1: the tough got going, or the going got tough, he
Speaker 1: got out of town and back to independence Missouri. He
Speaker 1: also failed internationally. Yes, we probably should have been involved
Speaker 1: in some way in Korea. The way he handled it
Speaker 1: met with disaster, he pleased no one. Eisenhower twice lied
Speaker 1: about his health and his near fatal heart attacks. Should
Speaker 1: not have been able to run for presidential reelection in
Speaker 1: nineteen fifty six, spent months not in charge of the government,
Speaker 1: and he introduced Richard Nixon to US. JFK didn't stop
Speaker 1: the Bay of Pigs, set the tone for the Cuban
Speaker 1: missile crisis, introduced in many respects the TV presidency that
Speaker 1: we have now. It was fine for him. He was
Speaker 1: a smart man who understood that it could not be
Speaker 1: just a TV presidency. But do you think the current
Speaker 1: guy understands that, I mean, the guy who's supposed to
Speaker 1: take office in two weeks, do you think he understands that.
Speaker 1: I don't think he understands which is left and which
Speaker 1: is right. But I digress. JFK didn't stop the Bay
Speaker 1: of Pigs, set the tone for the Cuban missile crisis.
Speaker 1: Was late on civil rights and under different circumstances. Perhaps
Speaker 1: a second term, his personal life could have been the
Speaker 1: background for a new international blackmail attempt every hour. Maybe
Speaker 1: it didn't bother people at the time that he appointed
Speaker 1: his own brother as Attorney general. Maybe the institutionalization of
Speaker 1: that family as a political force and the beginning of
Speaker 1: regal families in this country wasn't apparent to be the
Speaker 1: disaster that it has become. But let me know what
Speaker 1: you think of the idea of your brother as attorney
Speaker 1: general if and when in the next four years Trump
Speaker 1: announces that one of his relatives is going to be
Speaker 1: his successor, and then we'll talk about the Kennedys. And
Speaker 1: of course it was the youngest of the Kennedys who
Speaker 1: undermined Jimmy Carter Lyndon Johnson. The idea of the great
Speaker 1: society and the integration, as we called it in the
Speaker 1: sixties would have made him the best of the presidents
Speaker 1: since FDR. Except for the small matter of Vietnam, which
Speaker 1: destroyed his presidency and nearly this country and overwhelmed everything
Speaker 1: good that he did. Johnson is the most tragic president
Speaker 1: since FDR Nixon. All he tried to do was make
Speaker 1: everything that the president did illegal into something that was
Speaker 1: okay among them. All he tried to do is choose
Speaker 1: the nominee of the other party who would run against him,
Speaker 1: and in many respects he succeeded to turn it into
Speaker 1: a two party system in which one of the parties
Speaker 1: was the subsidiary of the other party. Don't tell Trump
Speaker 1: Ford pardon Nixon. You will never ever ever convince me,
Speaker 1: and I am now yes, vouching for a conspiracy theory,
Speaker 1: you will never convince me that there was not some
Speaker 1: sort of tacit agreement beforehand between Ford and Nixon that
Speaker 1: if Nixon resigned, Ford would pardon him. But the whole
Speaker 1: idea that this country was spared something because Nixon did
Speaker 1: not go on trial. There wasn't going to be a trial.
Speaker 1: He wasn't going to go to jail. But we might
Speaker 1: have gotten something out of that that would have told
Speaker 1: future presidents, don't break the goddamned laws. Instead, Gerald Ford,
Speaker 1: never elected to the vice presidency and certainly never elected
Speaker 1: to the presidency, decided for all time that all future
Speaker 1: presidents should get this message. Do whatever you can get
Speaker 1: away with. Then we have the Jimmy Carter presidency. As
Speaker 1: I outlined, it before. Reagan, terrible actor, political opportunist, a
Speaker 1: one time liberal leader of the Union in Hollywood, whose minions,
Speaker 1: at best, this is the best interpret his minions treasonously
Speaker 1: betrayed this country and caused our hostages to be held
Speaker 1: longer in Iran, just so that they could use that
Speaker 1: as a political hammer to beat Jimmy Carter into the
Speaker 1: ground during the nineteen eighty election. Those hostages might have
Speaker 1: been out sooner but for Ronald Reagan. May he be
Speaker 1: burning in hell. I might add as well, Ronald Reagan
Speaker 1: was mentally unfit for that office no later than nineteen
Speaker 1: eighty five, and if he had not been shot in
Speaker 1: nineteen eighty one, he would not have been reelected. As
Speaker 1: we have seen that play out again. Bush one was
Speaker 1: a condescending joke. Clinton. His presidency was fine in terms
Speaker 1: of most of the things that can go right or
Speaker 1: go wrong. His personal choices, including the idea that somehow
Speaker 1: the first Lady should be considered, based largely on that
Speaker 1: as a candidate for the US Senate in let's see
Speaker 1: what state shall we pick, or that the first Lady
Speaker 1: should become president, those turned into furtherances of the disasters
Speaker 1: previously outlined by the Kennedy presidency. We should not have
Speaker 1: legacy presidents Bush two, if his father was a joke.
Speaker 1: Bush two was a lazy joke who had no interest
Speaker 1: in America and who mainstreamed torture and the breaking of laws. Obama,
Speaker 1: I don't think he achieved what he could have achieved.
Speaker 1: I think the healthcare system is marvelous. I think they
Speaker 1: will eventually find ways to roll most of it back.
Speaker 1: So I think Obama's legacy will become he did not
Speaker 1: prosecute Bush or at least say no, you broke the law.
Speaker 1: Your people broke the law, and we are going to
Speaker 1: do something about it. Another president who defended the rights
Speaker 1: of presidents Biden, my friend, never once saw Trump needing
Speaker 1: to be defeated, not just defeated with principles and uprightness
Speaker 1: and results and a good place to live, but defeated
Speaker 1: in that way and then come over here, mister Trump
Speaker 1: and your supporters and kick them all on the groin.
Speaker 1: He never saw it. I don't know that he sees
Speaker 1: it now. Whoever defeats this, if we do defeat it,
Speaker 1: will have done both of those things. Be an upright
Speaker 1: citizen leading an upright presidency or an upright opposition and
Speaker 1: also beat the hell out of these people. Jimmy Carter
Speaker 1: was the best president since FDR, and that he did
Speaker 1: not get reelected was the beginning of the end. When
Speaker 1: I realized sometime late in the nineteen eighty campaign that
Speaker 1: he was going to go down to a big defeat,
Speaker 1: it was clear what America wanted was a spokesmodel, not
Speaker 1: a leader. I mean, honest to goodness, we had never
Speaker 1: before elected somebody solely on the idea that they were
Speaker 1: acting like a president. There was no choice there. Out
Speaker 1: of touch, not mentally fit, wasn't mentally fit when he
Speaker 1: was mentally fit. A man who advocated cruelty and was
Speaker 1: a big fan of the nineteenth century. He thought eighteen
Speaker 1: ninety four was a good year. Only unlike Trump, Reagan
Speaker 1: was virtually there in eighteen ninety four, and he might
Speaker 1: have thought he was in eighteen ninety four a fake
Speaker 1: smile instead of principles, a guy who pretended to be
Speaker 1: perfect as opposed to somebody who acknowledged he was flawed.
Speaker 1: The nineteen eighty election was the beginning of the end
Speaker 1: of our democracy. Even Clinton and Obama won on charisma,
Speaker 1: we re elected him because he was shot work for Trump.
Speaker 1: Jimmy Carter's problem, and he admitted to this in many
Speaker 1: public interviews and also in private. He did not suffer
Speaker 1: fools gladly. He never hid that he was the smartest
Speaker 1: in the room. And he suffered from something that people
Speaker 1: who are like that often suffer from. He could not
Speaker 1: understand why it was not clear to everybody that this idea,
Speaker 1: whether it was his idea or somebody else's, was the
Speaker 1: best one. It was obviously the best one. Well, people
Speaker 1: don't necessarily perceive things as quickly as Jimmy Carter did.
Speaker 1: Jimmy Carter was a nuclear engineer and a small businessman
Speaker 1: and the governor of Georgia. He had more smarts in
Speaker 1: that head than the three presidents before him and the
Speaker 1: three presidents after him combined. And his one fatal tragic
Speaker 1: flaw was he could not hide that. He could not
Speaker 1: just smile with those giant teeth of his and nod
Speaker 1: and then say something unfortunate off camera. Now he stood
Speaker 1: behind everything he did and everything he said, and America,
Speaker 1: which claims to believe in standing behind everything you say
Speaker 1: in everything you do, punished him for it. Now, it
Speaker 1: is interesting that the remaining reasonable people of the other
Speaker 1: party would agree with this. There is no doubt that
Speaker 1: Jimmy Carter had the best post presidency of any president
Speaker 1: in the nation's history. Now, the competition for this is
Speaker 1: kind of minimal because very few presidents live for forty
Speaker 1: three years nearly after their presidency's end. At least many
Speaker 1: of the early ones did not. His post presidency, including
Speaker 1: advocacy for international representative government, a willingness to travel to
Speaker 1: places I wouldn't even spell correctly, to go and try
Speaker 1: to make sure the elections were fair, and his willingness
Speaker 1: to get out a hammer and build somebody a home
Speaker 1: underscored who this man was. He was the greatest president
Speaker 1: since mtr and we did not re elect him because America,
Speaker 1: and if you have not noticed this since November fifth,
Speaker 1: is largely made up of stupid people, the Reagan Bush
Speaker 1: Trump people. Now why I got the privilege of calling
Speaker 1: him a friend in two thousand and eight at the
Speaker 1: Denver Democratic National Convention, the one that nominated Obama. That
Speaker 1: made that official. I was co anchoring with Chris Matthews
Speaker 1: on MSNBC. Yes, I know it was. I haven't been
Speaker 1: able to even say the s correctly since then have I.
Speaker 1: I was co anchoring with Chris Matthews on MSNBC and
Speaker 1: Chris Matthews when it was announced Jimmy Carter was going
Speaker 1: to come over to our location near the train station.
Speaker 1: Because of course, MSNBC's idea of covering the Democratic National
Speaker 1: Convention was that its co anchor should never actually be
Speaker 1: inside the convention. There was just a room with people
Speaker 1: in it who wanted to watch that. So we were
Speaker 1: set up by the train station out under a tent
Speaker 1: I digress. When it was announced that Jimmy Carter would
Speaker 1: be coming over to be interviewed by Chris Matthews and
Speaker 1: I one afternoon during the convention, I was like, oh
Speaker 1: my god, I'm going to meet a former president, the
Speaker 1: first one of my adult life. Goodness. Matthews then began
Speaker 1: to tell stories about Jimmy Carter's good friend, Jimmy Carter,
Speaker 1: Jimmy Carter, my good friend I used to work for.
Speaker 1: I used to advise me. In a minute, it sounded
Speaker 1: like when we used to have reel to reel tape
Speaker 1: and it would begin to run out at the end,
Speaker 1: and the thing would speed up in somebody's voice would
Speaker 1: just kind of start a faster pastor president. That was
Speaker 1: Chris Matthews when he got over excited as opposed to
Speaker 1: the normal level of just slightly over excited. Well, his
Speaker 1: good friend Chris matthews good friend Jimmy Carter came over
Speaker 1: and basically ignored Chris Matthews and said to me off camera,
Speaker 1: but with Matthew standing next to me, that he watched
Speaker 1: Countdown every night. Now, my opinion about his presidency was
Speaker 1: formed before he said that, but it wasn't hurt by
Speaker 1: the fact that he said this. The thought of such
Speaker 1: a thing, and I did not tell him that Ted
Speaker 1: Kennedy also watched Countdown every night. I didn't want to
Speaker 1: bring that up, but the thought of such a thing
Speaker 1: was still one of the pinnacles. In fact, where do
Speaker 1: I go from here moments of my career? It's a
Speaker 1: president of the United States. There, I know he didn't
Speaker 1: get reelected. He watches my newscast. But then he went on,
Speaker 1: he said, we watch it. My wife and I watch
Speaker 1: it with the kids. In fact, several of them usually
Speaker 1: come over every night at eight o'clock so we can
Speaker 1: all watch it together. Now I'm beginning to wonder if
Speaker 1: I am getting pranked, if there's the cameras that are
Speaker 1: around us are in fact rolling, and President Carter has
Speaker 1: for some reason decided to play a trick on me
Speaker 1: to see what my reaction is. If I will faint,
Speaker 1: or if my head will swell to such proportions that
Speaker 1: it will burst. If the President goes on to say,
Speaker 1: we can't all be together. We tend to watch it
Speaker 1: and talk to each other on the phone during the commercials.
Speaker 1: That's how much we enjoy your newscast. I have disagreed
Speaker 1: with many of your conclusions, but never your process. By
Speaker 1: this point I had lost the ability to speak. That
Speaker 1: he had a little further surprise for me. When it
Speaker 1: nears eight o'clock and the phone rings, I know that
Speaker 1: it's one of my kids or one of my grandkids,
Speaker 1: explaining that they're a little delayed somewhere. So let's hold off.
Speaker 1: They'll be home in nine or ten minutes, so let's
Speaker 1: just pause. I believe it was still a t bow
Speaker 1: at that point, or a DVR. Let's just pause that
Speaker 1: until we can all watch it simultaneously. Jimmy Carter was
Speaker 1: not just a fan of Countdown. He was a super fan.
Speaker 1: And then he said, and the final note to this
Speaker 1: and the reason that he has been in my heart
Speaker 1: since that moment. I had always been fond of him
Speaker 1: and his presidency and what he stood for, and the
Speaker 1: fact that he might have been our last ultimately principled
Speaker 1: man in the office. After this, with me gasping for
Speaker 1: breath inside at least trying to put up a brave
Speaker 1: face and saying thank you more than I have anytime
Speaker 1: in my life, President Carter then asked, saying that his
Speaker 1: wife regretted that she could not be with him for
Speaker 1: this interview. She had a speaking engagement during the convention
Speaker 1: orhether otherwise she would have been there to meet me.
Speaker 1: She said, Keith, do you mind if if we take
Speaker 1: a picture so I can show her? And of course,
Speaker 1: at that moment, Chris Matthews rose and moved into the shot,
Speaker 1: and President Carter, with a big smile on his face, said,
Speaker 1: we'll get a shot another time. This is for Rosalind.
Speaker 1: This just Keith me, Jimmy Carter the best president since FDR.
Speaker 1: And if you disagree with me on that point, I
Speaker 1: think you may agree with me that he probably also
Speaker 1: was the funniest president since FDR. Also, of interest, here,
Speaker 1: thank you, Chris, will get you next time. Also of
Speaker 1: interest here in a world that just got at least
Speaker 1: one percent worse, even though the man who died had
Speaker 1: not been president for sixteen thousand and fifty days. I
Speaker 1: was not kidding about that earlier reference. The plea bi
Speaker 1: legal scholars who have written even now that there is
Speaker 1: a means to at least protest the return of an
Speaker 1: insurrectionist to an office once held by Jimmy Carter might
Speaker 1: as well just have put a pile of human feces
Speaker 1: on the chair. Even now, these legal experts, constitutional scholars,
Speaker 1: in fact, former clerks at the Supreme Court, insists there
Speaker 1: is a means to at least protest the return of
Speaker 1: Trump to power, that Democrats need to just do what's
Speaker 1: right for once and damn the consequences, at least say no,
Speaker 1: even if yes is going to win. They say that
Speaker 1: when the Supreme Court made up a requirement last year
Speaker 1: earlier this year for a legislation to disqualify a presidential
Speaker 1: candidate or president who is connected to a rebellion, the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court missed something. Alito actually slept on the job.
Speaker 1: It did not realize that that required legislation is already
Speaker 1: in place and that if they could do it, they
Speaker 1: could legally and peacefully deny Trump the presidency. That's next.
Speaker 1: This is countdown. President Carter would have looked at the
Speaker 1: headlines as Trump continues to threaten wars of aggression to
Speaker 1: annex Greenland or Mexico or Canada, or maybe it's somewhere
Speaker 1: else like Mars. I haven't checked in the last hour,
Speaker 1: headlines like Musk threatening Maga and Maga turning on Ramaswami.
Speaker 1: While Biden reportedly thinks he would have beaten Trump, President
Speaker 1: Carter would have pointed to this story as the most
Speaker 1: important one. Two legal scholars and former Supreme Court clerks
Speaker 1: insist that a week from today, Democrats in the House
Speaker 1: must refuse to certify Trump's election because the specific legislation
Speaker 1: to disqualify him for insurrection, the legislation the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: made up and demanded in this year's fourteenth Amendment case.
Speaker 1: That legislation already exists. By the way, a week from
Speaker 1: today is January sixth. I will say what I said
Speaker 1: previously on this topic. There are not enough words. There
Speaker 1: is not enough time left in eternity for me to
Speaker 1: completely cover how much this is not going to happen.
Speaker 1: But on the Washington focused news site The Hill, the
Speaker 1: former editor in chief of the Columbia Law Review and
Speaker 1: Justice Potter Stuart Clerk Evan Davis, and the former editor
Speaker 1: in chief of the Yale Law Journal and Justice Potter
Speaker 1: Stuart Clerk. David Shulty insists that no matter what the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court says, and no matter what the consequences might be,
Speaker 1: Trump has already been disqualified from federal office under the
Speaker 1: fourteenth Amendment and Article two of the Constitution gives the
Speaker 1: House the sole authority to confirm a presidential election outcome
Speaker 1: or not. And I will add that while I can't
Speaker 1: tell you how much this is not going to happen,
Speaker 1: it would be nice to see Democrats do something, something,
Speaker 1: anything at all, just to peacefully protest what a failed
Speaker 1: and useless shit show the government at its supposed protections
Speaker 1: against dictatorships and authoritarians and foreign influence on our government
Speaker 1: has become, and what a hapless and flaccid vessel the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party has become in the wake of Trump's treacherous
Speaker 1: conspiracies to transform and subvert what was our clunky but
Speaker 1: largely functional form of representative government in you know, the
Speaker 1: good old days of your like you know, twenty thirteen
Speaker 1: and fourteen, to transform it from that time into a
Speaker 1: subsidiary of Trump or Musk enterprises. You know America X
Speaker 1: in their Peace for the Hill, Davis and Schilty do
Speaker 1: not put it this way, but goddamn it, Democrats, your
Speaker 1: response to this is as telling and cringing a confirmation
Speaker 1: of one party rule as would be any threat from
Speaker 1: Steve Bannon or any goose honk from Maria Bartiromo. And
Speaker 1: until this hour your response to this has been the
Speaker 1: shrug emoji quote. No person shall hold any office civil
Speaker 1: or military under the United States or under any State, who,
Speaker 1: having previously taken an oath to support the Constitution of
Speaker 1: the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion
Speaker 1: against the same, or given aid or comfort to the
Speaker 1: enemies thereof. Congress may, by a vote of two thirds
Speaker 1: of each House, remove such disability. And what about the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court's interference in the constitution Last March in the
Speaker 1: Colorado case Anderson, you may recall Colorado had thrown Trump
Speaker 1: off the ballot there because the fourteenth Amendment says you
Speaker 1: can't be president if you've engaged in or give an
Speaker 1: aid or comfort to an insurrection or rebellion engaged, not
Speaker 1: that you've been convicted or imprisoned for doing so. Engaged.
Speaker 1: It's automatic that the Constitution specifically provides a legal requirement
Speaker 1: not to prove guilt of insurrection and disqualification, but to
Speaker 1: disprove it. Namely, that the Congress may waive the insurrection
Speaker 1: disqualification of anybody, even Trump, by a two thirds vote.
Speaker 1: Tells you what the founders had in mind, and the
Speaker 1: authors of the amendment. You are guilty until proven innocent.
Speaker 1: But Sam Alito's all you can eat fascist buffet conveniently
Speaker 1: made up a requirement that reverses what the Constitution says.
Speaker 1: Alito's quote court unquote insists that there must be specific
Speaker 1: legislation to keep Trump or anybody else off the ballot
Speaker 1: or out of office. And Messrs Davis and Sheilton say,
Speaker 1: all right, fine, guess what. That doesn't happen to be
Speaker 1: the case, but let's pretend that is the case. There
Speaker 1: has to be a specific piece of legislation to keep
Speaker 1: Trump out of office. And they say there already is,
Speaker 1: to quote them, specific legislation designed for this situation already exists.
Speaker 1: The Electoral count Act, was first enacted in eighteen eighty
Speaker 1: seven and later amended and restated in twenty twenty two.
Speaker 1: That statute provides a detailed mechanism for resolving disputes as
Speaker 1: to the validity of electoral College votes. The Act specifies
Speaker 1: two grounds for objection to an electoral vote, if the
Speaker 1: electors from a state were not lawfully certified, or if
Speaker 1: the vote of one or more electors was not regularly given.
Speaker 1: A vote for a candidate disqualified by the Constitution is
Speaker 1: plainly in accordance with the normal use of the words
Speaker 1: not regularly given. Disqualification for engaging an insurrection is no
Speaker 1: different from disqualification based on other constitutional requirements, such as
Speaker 1: age citizenship from birth and fourteen years residency in the
Speaker 1: United States. To make an objection under the Count Act
Speaker 1: requires a petition signed by twenty percent of the members
Speaker 1: of each House. If the objection is sustained by majority
Speaker 1: vote in each house, the vote is not counted, and
Speaker 1: the number of votes required to be elected is reduced
Speaker 1: by the number of disqualified votes. In other words, the
Speaker 1: legislation that is required is the Count Act. It's the
Speaker 1: Electoral Count Act of twenty twenty two, once again not
Speaker 1: going to happen. The only people in this country who
Speaker 1: actually believe Trump and MAGA and the Republicans got a
Speaker 1: mandate two months ago and must be obeyed are the
Speaker 1: craziest of his supporters, and maybe Trump himself, and of
Speaker 1: course Joe Scarborough and most PTSD adduled Democratic politicians. Trump
Speaker 1: is guilty of insurrection and cannot be president did not
Speaker 1: work as a campaign slogan this year, so the Democrats
Speaker 1: are now afraid to say it, let alone act on it.
Speaker 1: Let alone act on it by taking a risk, Let
Speaker 1: alone taking a risk for something that ultimately will be
Speaker 1: purely symbolic. Oh no, Now, I'm not standing up for
Speaker 1: the constitution or the truth or reality or the future
Speaker 1: restoration of democracy in this country because in our next
Speaker 1: election somebody will run against me by throwing my objection
Speaker 1: back in my face and calling me a sore loser.
Speaker 1: Oh no, sorry, that was Ted lu the congressman who
Speaker 1: called those who claim Trump is disqualified from office because
Speaker 1: of the twenty twenty one insurrection quote sore losers. Democratic congressman,
Speaker 1: sore losers wouldn't want to be sore about the electoral
Speaker 1: process being overthrown by someone whose first plan is to
Speaker 1: make it easier for him to then sue you for
Speaker 1: claiming the electoral process was overthrown. Wouldn't want to stand
Speaker 1: for something, even in a losing cause. Wouldn't want to
Speaker 1: put up a protest to protect your preferred form of
Speaker 1: government when the other guys, with not even one one
Speaker 1: millionth of the constitutional validity behind them, decided they needed
Speaker 1: to protect their preferred form of government and fabricated out
Speaker 1: of whole cloth the African prince spam email equivalent of
Speaker 1: a legal theory of nullifying an election, and to enforce it,
Speaker 1: they sent a mob to try to kill or take
Speaker 1: hostage anybody who got in their way while they were
Speaker 1: at the effing capital four years ago. Next Monday, you know,
Speaker 1: the day the Republicans stuck to the peaceful transfer of
Speaker 1: power and we're not sore losers. The Davis Shilty article was,
Speaker 1: for what it is worth, the most popular piece at
Speaker 1: the Hill website. Normally that kind of fact is irrelevant
Speaker 1: to the public discourse, but since the essence of the
Speaker 1: piece is, maybe you could do what's right rather than
Speaker 1: just what you think you can get away with without
Speaker 1: getting your hands dirty. Maybe you could be just a
Speaker 1: little aggressive rather than maintaining the new democratic mantra of
Speaker 1: they go low, we go high. You'll see the electorate
Speaker 1: will give us a golf clap and then reward us
Speaker 1: with landslide victories forever. This distribution of the article suggests
Speaker 1: that the other way, the way in which Trump's entire
Speaker 1: existence what can I get away with? Does not produce
Speaker 1: a Trump resistance predicated on don't say anything about it,
Speaker 1: trump is getting away with it does not permit a
Speaker 1: judicial response predicated on how can we disfigure the law
Speaker 1: on the Constitution so Trump can get away with it?
Speaker 1: Does not permit a media environment predicated on let's look
Speaker 1: at our latest polling showing how well Trump is getting
Speaker 1: away with it. That there is an alternate to this.
Speaker 1: There is something akin to Henry la Boucher's comment about
Speaker 1: the imperious holier than thou nineteenth century British Prime minister
Speaker 1: William Gladstone, that well, la Boucher did not object to
Speaker 1: Gladstone's habit of hiding a fifth ace up his sleeve.
Speaker 1: Laba Cher did object to Gladstone's repeated insistence that the
Speaker 1: fifth ace had been put up his sleeve by Almighty God,
Speaker 1: that there is a philosophy that we could adopt that says,
Speaker 1: no matter the consequences, somebody somewhere, at some point has
Speaker 1: to say, I don't care if you got away with it,
Speaker 1: you still stole it, that that philosophy shall not perish
Speaker 1: from the earth. I will confess that, despite my clenched fists,
Speaker 1: and despite my taking a page from the late President
Speaker 1: Carter's attitude towards such things, I also like the completely
Speaker 1: opposite approach to the certification next week of King Dumbass.
Speaker 1: The first, namely let them fight. The Democrats, as you know,
Speaker 1: disappeared just after midnight on November sixth, And the group
Speaker 1: that has done more damage to Maga and Trump than
Speaker 1: even revivified punch throwing Democrats could even dream of is
Speaker 1: Maga and Trump and Musk and Ramaswami, the Schwam as
Speaker 1: we call him. If somehow you missed this, Musk told
Speaker 1: the nativist, racist, anti immigrant Magabase to quote take a
Speaker 1: big step back and quote f yourself in the face, which,
Speaker 1: to be honest, I always thought was a Robert F.
Speaker 1: Kennedy junior quote, take a big step back and f
Speaker 1: yourself in the face. Somebody's Ketaman arrived on time. This,
Speaker 1: I think is the ten thousandth time I have said this.
Speaker 1: The democracy abides, not so much because of the exertions
Speaker 1: of those of us who want to preserve it as
Speaker 1: the utter stupidity of those who would destroy it. Now,
Speaker 1: I am not going to try to recap every part
Speaker 1: of the Maga Civil War, except to mention the two
Speaker 1: newest developments, which, like the old developments, each reminds me
Speaker 1: of exactly the same comedy bit Dave Chappelle as Clayton Bigsby,
Speaker 1: the sightless KKK member who had never learned he was black.
Speaker 1: That's Maga, that's everybody in Maga. That's Trump, that's Musk,
Speaker 1: that's Ramaswami, that's all of them. The new developments. After
Speaker 1: spending forty four billion dollars to turn Twitter into an
Speaker 1: asset for Putin and China and Trump and a haven
Speaker 1: for Nazis and a place he himself can write f
Speaker 1: yourself in the face in caps, Musk yesterday pleaded, please
Speaker 1: post a bit more positive, beautiful or informative content on
Speaker 1: this platform. That's stupid, even for him. What could be
Speaker 1: even more stupid than that? Ramaswami yesterday posted and affirmative Action,
Speaker 1: America is the land of meritocracy, let me do it
Speaker 1: Ramaswami's voice, and affirmative Action America's land for meritocracy. True.
Speaker 1: If by meritocracy mister Hairdoo means not merely selling the
Speaker 1: snake oil but running up the stock price of the
Speaker 1: snake oil company to make countless millions before it all collapses,
Speaker 1: that's a meritocracy. Also, even after this weekend, it is
Speaker 1: not clear to that genuinely stupid man that the vast
Speaker 1: majority of his fascist supporters believed that he vivet Ramaswami
Speaker 1: is where he is because and only because of affirmative action.
Speaker 1: For a while, I was trying to figure out which
Speaker 1: was true here, Whether Musk and Ramaswami were not aware
Speaker 1: that when the maggots said they wanted all foreigners out,
Speaker 1: they meant all of them, except maybe Musk and Ramaswami,
Speaker 1: but certainly the kinds of foreigners that Musk and Ramaswami
Speaker 1: wanted to hire and bring here on H one B
Speaker 1: employment visas. I've been trying to figure out whether it
Speaker 1: was that or that the MAGA rank and file on
Speaker 1: scum and vermin did not realize that when Trump promised
Speaker 1: to round up and expel all migrants. He meant all
Speaker 1: migrants except the ones that he and Musk and Ramaswami
Speaker 1: want to hire and bring into this country. The answer,
Speaker 1: of course, is why can't it be both? Because it
Speaker 1: is both, because they are all Clayton Bigsby. Conveniently, Trump
Speaker 1: has ratcheted up a notch here by revealing he appears
Speaker 1: to have been involved in aiding illegal immigration, that is,
Speaker 1: immigration that violates immigration law. He told the New York Post, quote,
Speaker 1: I have many H one B visas on my properties.
Speaker 1: Not only did Trump repudiate H one B visas during
Speaker 1: the twenty sixteen campaign, but the H one B visa
Speaker 1: is exclusively for specialty occupations and foreign applicants who have
Speaker 1: expertise that cannot be found, or at least cannot be
Speaker 1: found easily among Americans who are already here. Think nuclear engineers,
Speaker 1: not grounds keepers. Tending to the first hole where Ivana
Speaker 1: is buried at Trump's Gulf Rama in Bedminster, New Jersey.
Speaker 1: H one bees Less, Carl Speckler, more Werner Van Prau,
Speaker 1: unclear who will fire whom here, though Bannon has called
Speaker 1: Musk a toddler and my god it's happened to Bannon
Speaker 1: is finally right about something. But Musk and Trump now
Speaker 1: cannot coexist because Musk seems to think Trump will let
Speaker 1: him decide things like this, and Musk's behavior is getting
Speaker 1: even more deranged than Trump's, and Trump has got to
Speaker 1: realize this. Musk has now, in addition to all this
Speaker 1: telling people to f themselves in the face while then
Speaker 1: asking for a more beautiful content, He has now written
Speaker 1: an editorial supporting those German AfD neo nazis an actual
Speaker 1: newspaper editorial, and the first rule of Trump Neo Nazi
Speaker 1: club is say whatever you want, just remember never write
Speaker 1: it down. Never write it down, Elmo. Meanwhile, Ramaswami, of course,
Speaker 1: sees the opportunity to become other Musk. This raises the
Speaker 1: delightful prospect of what happens to Musk and his influence
Speaker 1: when he and Trump split or at least distance themselves
Speaker 1: from one another. I mean, maybe Musk does wind up
Speaker 1: as Speaker of the House. God knows. Mike Johnson is
Speaker 1: now one vote away from being thrown off the bridge
Speaker 1: of death. African or European swallow my Mike Johnson impression.
Speaker 1: Back to seizing the Panama Canal and moving it to
Speaker 1: Greenland or whatever the latest non forever war. Trump is
Speaker 1: ginning up. Hard to believe the media could get more
Speaker 1: complicit in the coming fascism. But yeah, you know, that's
Speaker 1: one area in which they all appear to be hiring.
Speaker 1: New York Times. Trump showed that his America First philosophy
Speaker 1: has an expansionist dimension by calling for or asserting US
Speaker 1: control over the Panama Canal and Greenland. An expansionist dimension,
Speaker 1: that's what it is like, you know, Hitler's expansionist dimension. CNN.
Speaker 1: Trump is teasing US expansion into Panama, Greenland, and Canada.
Speaker 1: By Steve Contorno, Trump appears to be entertaining an American
Speaker 1: territorial expansion that, if he's serious, would rival the Louisiana
Speaker 1: purchase or the deal that netded Alaska from Russia. Yes,
Speaker 1: that's exactly what it's like. It's like the Louisiana purchase
Speaker 1: where we sent the French money for Louisiana and the French. Okay,
Speaker 1: it's like the purchase of Alaska from Russia, not like
Speaker 1: Hitler marching into the Rhineland. It's it's expansion, like we're
Speaker 1: adding two teams to our league. What it is is
Speaker 1: it's more media ass kissing. That's what it is, coming
Speaker 1: from shock of shocks, the fatally compromised CNN and it's
Speaker 1: new chairman, Scott Jennings. I made that up. Scott Jennings
Speaker 1: is not the chairman of CNN. But you believed it,
Speaker 1: didn't you. And while we are on the subject of
Speaker 1: kissing Trump's ass I'd like to just say to hell
Speaker 1: with Alvin Bragg. Yes that Alvin Bragg. I repeat, I
Speaker 1: am completely opposed to the targeted assassinations of any buddy,
Speaker 1: especially in my neighborhood. It's murder and it should be
Speaker 1: prosecuted as such, and Alvin Bragg should resign. Today Alvin
Speaker 1: Bragg has added a charge of first degree murder in
Speaker 1: furtherance of terrorism. Trump's insurrectionists attacked the capital of the
Speaker 1: United effing States of America, and none of them has
Speaker 1: been charged with anything resembling terrorism. And again, not to defend,
Speaker 1: nor encourage, nor excuse Luigi Mangione's presumed shooting of Brian
Speaker 1: Thompson around the corner from my house. But guess when
Speaker 1: it isn't terrorism. Remember when I said I really hope
Speaker 1: they didn't do any polling on this murder because part
Speaker 1: of me was afraid of what it would show. Turns
Speaker 1: out should have been all of me that was afraid
Speaker 1: Nork and Orc. The posters at the University of Chicago
Speaker 1: asked who bears responsibility for the assassination. Eight out of
Speaker 1: ten Americans said the assassin allegedly that is mister Mangione.
Speaker 1: Eight out of ten said he bears a great deal
Speaker 1: or some responsibility. Can't sneak anything past the American public
Speaker 1: eight out of ten. Seven out of ten, however, said
Speaker 1: denials of coverage and excessive profits mean the healthcare industry
Speaker 1: bears at least a moderate amount of responsibility for the
Speaker 1: death of Brian Thompson. Seven out of ten is not terrorism.
Speaker 1: It's a vast majority. And if you are Alvin Braggan,
Speaker 1: you have decided this is the place to test out
Speaker 1: the what about the corporations? Won't anybody think about the
Speaker 1: corporations terrorism bonus clause law? You are knowingly or otherwise
Speaker 1: doing it as a sop to Trump and his minions,
Speaker 1: because this is Trump logic. Try to hang or shoot
Speaker 1: or beat to death politicians and their husbands who disagree
Speaker 1: with Trump, not terrorism, shoot corporate executives so detached from
Speaker 1: morality that seven out of ten Americans think that to
Speaker 1: some degree they had it coming. That's terrorism if you're Trump,
Speaker 1: or if you're trying to save your own ass and
Speaker 1: you are Alvin Pragg. I will note that District Attorney
Speaker 1: Bragg and Judge Van Mere Shawn also both stealthily slow
Speaker 1: walk the sentencing of Trump before the election. I don't
Speaker 1: know if it would have made a difference in the
Speaker 1: election or not, but I think it is pretty clear
Speaker 1: now that they both were confident it would make a
Speaker 1: difference in how much vengeance Trump would seek against them.
Speaker 1: So to hell with them both. Speaking of which worst
Speaker 1: persons is next? Spoiler alert, it's Jank Yuger. Does this
Speaker 1: countdown with Keith Olberman Aberman? Believe it or not, There's
Speaker 1: still more new idiots to talk about before we close
Speaker 1: this one out. The daily roundup of the miss Grants, Morons,
Speaker 1: and Dunning Krueger effects specimens who constitute today's other worst
Speaker 1: persons in the world, The Brons worse Two unidentified men
Speaker 1: from Washington State. What did you do for Christmas? How
Speaker 1: did you spend Christmas Eve? These guys went out looking
Speaker 1: for sasquatch. They're not living anymore. Actually they died in
Speaker 1: Washington State. They were from Oregon. A fifty nine year
Speaker 1: old and a thirty seven year old unidentified as we
Speaker 1: recorded this, appeared to have died from exposure. According to
Speaker 1: the Scamania County Sheriff's Office at a Facebook post from
Speaker 1: the Associated Press story, the weather and the men's lack
Speaker 1: of preparedness led the office to draw that conclusion. It
Speaker 1: said they went out looking for sasquatch in a heavily
Speaker 1: wooded area of the Gifford Pinchot National Forest. Coincidentally, talking
Speaker 1: about best presidents and funniest presidents, that would be Gifford
Speaker 1: Pinchow was the head of the first Department of Interior
Speaker 1: under Teddy Roosevelt. So this is one hundred and fifty
Speaker 1: miles northeast of Portland, Oregon. A family member reported the
Speaker 1: missing at around one am on Chris Day, after they
Speaker 1: failed to return from their Christmas Eve outing. They said
Speaker 1: they were looking for sasquatch. Apparently they went out into
Speaker 1: the woods on Christmas Eve wearing overcoats. I'm inferring that
Speaker 1: from the story. I don't know that it was overcoats.
Speaker 1: It might have been sweaters. Sixty volunteer search and rescue
Speaker 1: personnel helped in the three day search, canine teams, drone teams,
Speaker 1: ground teams, infrared technology to search from the air. Because
Speaker 1: we let people like this out in public, Let's go
Speaker 1: find sasquatch. Now you're dead. Is Sasquatch there? And we
Speaker 1: have all the pious Oh what a tragedy. It's they
Speaker 1: went looking for sasquatch. The runner up, mary Anne Williamson.
Speaker 1: I don't know her attitude about Sasquatch, but I wouldn't
Speaker 1: be a bit surprised she is running for Chairman of
Speaker 1: the Democratic National Committee because this is not enough of
Speaker 1: a hell for us. What fresh hell is this? It's
Speaker 1: one in which Mary Anne Williamson wants to be the
Speaker 1: chair of the Democratic National Committee. MAGA is a distinctly
Speaker 1: twenty first century political movement, and it will not be
Speaker 1: defeated by a twentieth century toolkit. Data analysis, fundraising, field
Speaker 1: organizing and beefed up technology. While all are important, will
Speaker 1: not be enough to prepare the way for the Democratic
Speaker 1: victory in twenty twenty four and beyond. That's why I
Speaker 1: have decided to run for DNC chair this year. Writes
Speaker 1: Mary Anne Williamson. So what else is there going to
Speaker 1: be besides data analysis, fundraising, field organizing, beefed up technology.
Speaker 1: What do you got, Marianne, Crystals, vibes. We've tried crystals
Speaker 1: and vibes, but you got you got Sasquatch, your Democratic
Speaker 1: nominee in twenty twenty eight. Sasquatch. We found him. As
Speaker 1: we're continuing to build the memorial for those two men
Speaker 1: who died just after Christmas in twenty twenty four, when
Speaker 1: they went out looking, they found him. Because of those men,
Speaker 1: that idiot Olderman, remember him, He made fun of them.
Speaker 1: Now we've made seven hundred foot tall monuments to them
Speaker 1: in the forests in Washington State. I have mentioned this before.
Speaker 1: Somebody tried to set me up on a date at
Speaker 1: Mary Anne Williamson's request. With Mary Ann Williamson, I have
Speaker 1: described to you in my personal life and the many,
Speaker 1: many bad choices I have made, that was one of
Speaker 1: the good choices. Pew pew pew. Those are all the
Speaker 1: bullets that I avoided in that one. And speaking of
Speaker 1: which in a different context, no dating involved here, but
Speaker 1: bullets ducked are winner Jank Huger, who did some sort
Speaker 1: of panel discussion with Charlie Kirk because sure, let's negotiate
Speaker 1: with them. Joe Scarborough would not have sat down with
Speaker 1: Charlie Kirk. Jank. I have to admit I underestimated the
Speaker 1: tribalism on our side. These people are fascists. It's not
Speaker 1: tribalism to oppose fascists. We spilled the blood of what
Speaker 1: five hundred thousand Americans in the Second World War fighting fascists.
Speaker 1: That's not tribalism. It was self defense. I thought once
Speaker 1: people realized that I am defending left wing positions in
Speaker 1: front of right wing crowds, they would understand that's not
Speaker 1: selling out, that's the opposite. But no, most seem to
Speaker 1: think just the mere act of talking to the other
Speaker 1: side is an unbearable heresy. This is because it's an
Speaker 1: unbearable heresy. The only thing you get from them in
Speaker 1: talking to them is the possibility that one of them
Speaker 1: might say something stupid that you can then put on
Speaker 1: your show, which they will then clip and alter in
Speaker 1: such way to make you look stupid. We should never
Speaker 1: talk because that's appeasement, etc. Yes, it's appeasement. It's exactly
Speaker 1: the same thing. Jank. The fact that people can't see
Speaker 1: how crazy that sounds shows you how thick the bubbles are.
Speaker 1: The bubbles are in your bloodstream. Jank see a physician.
Speaker 1: On and on and on this rationalization for Jank Huger,
Speaker 1: who has taken every political position available for the last
Speaker 1: twenty years loudly and with absolute certainty and bashed everybody
Speaker 1: who disagreed with him, is now telling us that the
Speaker 1: key to this is to exchange ideas with Charlie Kirk.
Speaker 1: Let me explain briefly Jank Huger. At MSNBC, I think
Speaker 1: we had him on once and I listened to him
Speaker 1: and realized that what he was talking about and what
Speaker 1: had actually happened were not the same things. I said,
Speaker 1: we don't put him on again. Somebody at MSNBC, I
Speaker 1: believe it was Phil Griffin hired him as a guest
Speaker 1: host or invited him in as a contributor, and I
Speaker 1: remember himing around my office waiting for me to come
Speaker 1: out so he could meet me. And I was literally
Speaker 1: in that position of having to leave to go to
Speaker 1: the bathroom. And I held it in later at Current TV,
Speaker 1: where I tried to hire first Rachel Maddow. Well, okay,
Speaker 1: It was an idea, as I said to her, look
Speaker 1: at least, said to her through her agent, who had
Speaker 1: been my agent. At least you'll get more money out
Speaker 1: of it from NBC. Little did I know, And when
Speaker 1: that didn't work out, I had an idea for a
Speaker 1: show at nine o'clock, an extension of Countdown with Chris
Speaker 1: Hayes and Gene Robinson. Those are the people I wanted
Speaker 1: to hire. The guy that Al Gore's business partner, Joel
Speaker 1: Hyatt hired was Jank Huger. When Jank Huger was hired,
Speaker 1: I gathered my staff together and I said, I think
Speaker 1: I think they spent all the money on me this.
Speaker 1: If you guys want to start looking for work, I
Speaker 1: will not hold it against you. I will write you
Speaker 1: all letters of reference. I think I said to them
Speaker 1: in Whenever. That was July of twenty eleven. I think
Speaker 1: we have eight to twelve months, but I'm not sure
Speaker 1: they got rid of me. I believe eight months from
Speaker 1: that point. And if there's any further information about Jank Yuger,
Speaker 1: you need to know a lot of people are paying
Speaker 1: attention to Jink right now. He's having a moment and
Speaker 1: then a reposting of that. I have to admit I
Speaker 1: underestimated the tribalism on our side. A lot of people
Speaker 1: are paying attention to Jank right now. He's having a moment,
Speaker 1: signed former Congressman Matt Gates, showing an interest in something
Speaker 1: other than a seventeen year old girl for the first
Speaker 1: time in months. Jank, when Matt Gates is on your side,
Speaker 1: you're on your way out. He's not having a moment.
Speaker 1: What he's having is an episode. Uger two days other
Speaker 1: worst person than the world. I've done all the damage
Speaker 1: I can do here. Thank you for listening. Shank Huger,
Speaker 1: Holy crap. Brian Ray and John Phillip Chanel, the musical
Speaker 1: directors of Countdown Arranged, produced and performed most of our music.
Speaker 1: I never ascertained by the way, whether or not Current
Speaker 1: TV paid Jank Huger or it was the other way around.
Speaker 1: Brian and John Phillip Chanel Arrange produced and performed most
Speaker 1: of our music. Mister Chaneil on orchestration and keyboards, mister
Speaker 1: Ray on guitars, bass and drums. It was produced by
Speaker 1: Tko Brothers. Our satirical and pithy musical comments are by
Speaker 1: the best baseball stadium organist ever Nancy Faust. The sports
Speaker 1: music is the Olderman theme from ESPN two, written by
Speaker 1: Mitch Warren Davis courtesy ESPN, Inc. Other music arranged and
Speaker 1: performed by the group No Horns Allowed. My announcer today
Speaker 1: was my friend Larry David doing his impression of the
Speaker 1: late announcer a Yankee Stadium, Bob Shepard. Everything else was
Speaker 1: as ever, my fault. That's countdown for today, Just eighty
Speaker 1: three days until the scheduled end of the lane duck
Speaker 1: presidency of Trump. Probably the next scheduled countdown will be
Speaker 1: next Monday, because it's New Year's As always, bulletins is
Speaker 1: the news warrants till next time. I'm Keith Ouldraman. Good morning,
Speaker 1: good afternoon, good night, good luck, and Happy New Year.
Speaker 1: Countdown with Keith Olderman is a production of iHeartRadio. For
Speaker 1: more podcasts from iHeartRadio, visit the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts,
Speaker 1: or wherever you get your podcasts.