Speaker 1: Broadcasting live from the Abraham Lincoln Radio Studio, the George
Speaker 1: Washington Broadcast Center, Jack Armstrong, Joe Getty, arm Strong and
Speaker 1: Jetty and no He Armstrong and Yetty.
Speaker 2: This week, European leaders are focused on both trade and Tehran.
Speaker 2: US allies will meet with Iranian officials in Turkey to
Speaker 2: talk about its nuclear program, something Iran's foreign minister said
Speaker 2: on special report last night it has no plans to abandon.
Speaker 1: We cannot give up our enrichment because it is an
Speaker 1: achievement of our own scientists.
Speaker 2: Trump posted on social media future strikes against Iran are possible,
Speaker 2: writing We'll do it again if necessary.
Speaker 3: What was that comment from the Iranian foreign minister? We
Speaker 3: can't give up our program because it's an achievement are
Speaker 3: of our scientists? What the hell kind of argument is that?
Speaker 1: That was a very odd one. I was just reading
Speaker 1: about all of those scientists. What was that? Was it
Speaker 1: nineteen who Israel took out, Yeah, as part of the
Speaker 1: big raid, and how senior they were and how they're
Speaker 1: in charge of everything. That was that. I think the
Speaker 1: bombs in Florida were certainly significant, and Israel's other bombing
Speaker 1: very significant, But I think the whole rub it out
Speaker 1: all those scientists is underappreciated.
Speaker 3: Probably make the next generation of smart kids. Maybe choose
Speaker 3: a different major. Also, I was going to be a
Speaker 3: nuclear scientist, but I think I'll study something else.
Speaker 1: Can I do computers? Please?
Speaker 3: Right before we get to the main thing I wanted
Speaker 3: to get to. So, Fox's number one story today, just
Speaker 3: observing Fox, is that scumbag murderer up in Idaho and
Speaker 3: is sentencing today. Any idea why they elevated that to
Speaker 3: the number one story?
Speaker 1: If it blades it, Lads, it's just a sort of
Speaker 1: kind of low browish, clickbaity horrifying murders. You don't, I myself,
Speaker 1: I want to know about that because it's part of
Speaker 1: you know, our psycheist human beings. We want to know
Speaker 1: more about what might kill us on how to prevent it.
Speaker 3: Okay, So Brett Stevens, he's an opinion piece journalist for
Speaker 3: the New York Times. As a piece out today, No,
Speaker 3: Israel's not committing a genocide, which I think is you know,
Speaker 3: good news that the New York Times is willing to
Speaker 3: print that. I'm sure the newsroom was very upset about that.
Speaker 3: It's also an argument that needs to be made. I'm
Speaker 3: gonna skip to the very end before I get into
Speaker 3: some of the details, because I thought it was pretty
Speaker 3: important that.
Speaker 1: He said this.
Speaker 3: Genocide is a word that was coined in the nineteen forties,
Speaker 3: and if it is to retain its status as a
Speaker 3: uniquely horrific crime, then the term can't be promiscuously applied
Speaker 3: to any military situation.
Speaker 1: We don't like.
Speaker 3: Wars are awful enough, but the abuse of the term
Speaker 3: genocide runs the risk of ultimately blinding as to real
Speaker 3: ones when they unfold, which is obviously true. Diluting the
Speaker 3: meeting of genocide of the word will only make them
Speaker 3: more likely to.
Speaker 1: Happen, right, Yeah, it's like clearly argued for years when
Speaker 1: everybody was calling everybody a racist for anything they didn't like.
Speaker 1: Of course we didn't understand it was an effort to
Speaker 1: take over institutions, but yeah, it's the same thing. It
Speaker 1: weakens the word, Oh I'm racist. Who cares you call
Speaker 1: everybody a racist? You call everything a genocide.
Speaker 3: He makes the argument that the term genocide does not
Speaker 3: fit with the facts on the ground, with what Israel
Speaker 3: is doing in Gaza. He points out, for instance, if
Speaker 3: Israel's intentions and actions are genocidal. If it is so
Speaker 3: malevolent that is committed to the annihilation of Gozins, which
Speaker 3: is what a genocide would be, why hasn't it been
Speaker 3: more methodical and vastly more deadly or more successful. Why
Speaker 3: not say hundreds of thousands of deaths after two years
Speaker 3: of being at this as opposed to about sixty thousand,
Speaker 3: which is the claim of the Hamas run Health Ministry.
Speaker 3: And they're probably exaggerating, and they don't distinguish between combatant
Speaker 3: and civilian deads. Even their exaggerated number that includes Hamas
Speaker 3: combatants is sixty thousand, not hundreds of thousands. If Israel
Speaker 3: has wanted to commit a genocide, they're the most powerful
Speaker 3: military in all of them. Add least they could do
Speaker 3: it and quickly. So that's one argument. It's kind of
Speaker 3: hard to get around.
Speaker 1: I have a comment. Just let me know when you're
Speaker 1: wanting to move on from this topic, but go ahead.
Speaker 1: I wanted to get to the He talks about how.
Speaker 3: Lots of civilians have died and the completely chaotic food
Speaker 3: distribution and everything like that, and the impossible situation that
Speaker 3: Israel is in and trying to get food to the
Speaker 3: gosens without Hama stealing it and strengthening them. And he
Speaker 3: also points out that the fact that over a million
Speaker 3: German civilians died in World War Two, thousands of them
Speaker 3: in bombings that we were doing, and dressden in other towns,
Speaker 3: made them victims of the war, but not a genocide.
Speaker 3: The aim of the Allies in the United States was
Speaker 3: to defeat the Nazis for leading Germany into war, not
Speaker 3: to wipe out the Germans simply for being German. Same
Speaker 3: as what's going here. Quite a few Gozens or Palestinians
Speaker 3: or whatever you want to call them could die in
Speaker 3: the attempt to wipe out Hamas, but the goal is
Speaker 3: to wipe out Hamas, not the Gozens.
Speaker 1: So that actually fits really well with the point I
Speaker 1: was going to make. And I've been saying this for
Speaker 1: a while, and I have not come across anybody who
Speaker 1: has refuted it via email or text or whatever or
Speaker 1: in alternate media. I think what we are seeing is
Speaker 1: something close to total victory for the first time, televised
Speaker 1: all over the world. Everybody's got a camera, everybody's televising
Speaker 1: what it looks like for one country to say that's it,
Speaker 1: We've got to completely defeat our enemy because they attack
Speaker 1: us over and over again, and we're through with it,
Speaker 1: and it's ugly and it's heartbreaking. And from the Israeli perspective,
Speaker 1: and I happen to agree with them, it's necessary. I mean,
Speaker 1: for instance, you loosen up the food distribution thing, so
Speaker 1: Hamas steals more of it, and your guys and the
Speaker 1: American contractors are at much greater risk. You let people
Speaker 1: cluster around you, some of whom have weapons, you don't
Speaker 1: fire into them, et cetera, et cetera. Then you strengthen
Speaker 1: your adversary. And Israel's attitude at this point is no
Speaker 1: Anything that strengthens somemas We're not gonna do, including getting
Speaker 1: our hostages back. That's what we're watching.
Speaker 3: In my opinion, I keep mentioning that I'm reading this book,
Speaker 3: Twilight of the Gods, which is about the last year
Speaker 3: of the war in the Pacific, the very end of
Speaker 3: World War Two, which we're celebrating the anniversary of right now.
Speaker 3: I'm surprised it's not getting more attention the eightieth anniversary
Speaker 3: of Ewojima, and you know, some of those great big
Speaker 3: battles leading up to the dropping of the atomic bombs.
Speaker 3: I have a feeling here. In about a week or
Speaker 3: so on the actual eightieth anniversary of dropping the bomb,
Speaker 3: there's going to be quite a bit of talk of
Speaker 3: they were on their backs, we didn't need to do that,
Speaker 3: et cetera, et cetera. So all that stuff is going
Speaker 3: to come back up. But man, we were just obliterating
Speaker 3: Japan at the weeks leading up to this, Like some
Speaker 3: of the stats are just incredible. We dropped more bombs
Speaker 3: on Japan, like in the day before the atomic bomb
Speaker 3: than the entire previous part of the war. I mean,
Speaker 3: it just had ramped up so much toward the end
Speaker 3: to try to get hit them to your point, to capitulate,
Speaker 3: to completely submit, to surrender, same way that had to
Speaker 3: happen with the Germans. And imagine if that had been
Speaker 3: televised and reported on and Twitter in the way that
Speaker 3: it would be now, or the way it is with
Speaker 3: Israel trying to wipe out a moss.
Speaker 1: It's hard to imagine.
Speaker 3: I mean, a lot of this stuff didn't get a
Speaker 3: lot of these stories didn't get told for decades. You know,
Speaker 3: best case scenario was a week later in the New
Speaker 3: York Times there'd be a paragraph, But some of this
Speaker 3: stuff didn't get told for years of what.
Speaker 1: I And there are some people who can't deal with that.
Speaker 1: They think, no, there's got to be another way that
Speaker 1: I can't be for that, We've got to give piece
Speaker 1: a chance or whatever. And there are some of us
Speaker 1: who are a bit more coldly practical who say that
Speaker 1: all of those things you just described ultimately saved many lives.
Speaker 1: So it was horrible, horrible, horrifying, but necessary.
Speaker 3: Back to this story because I have a feeling where
Speaker 3: you ty of chance to talk about the end of
Speaker 3: World War II here in a couple of weeks, because
Speaker 3: that's guaranteed mainstream media is going to go big on
Speaker 3: the whether we should have dropped the bomb or not.
Speaker 3: But Brett Stevens writes in The New York Times, what's
Speaker 3: unusual about Gaza is the cynical and criminal way Hamas
Speaker 3: has chosen to wage war in Ukraine. When Russia attacks
Speaker 3: with missiles, drones or artillery, the civilians go underground, while
Speaker 3: the Ukrainian military stays above ground to fight. In Gaza,
Speaker 3: it's the reverse. Harmasque goes underground doesn't allow the civilians
Speaker 3: to use their network of tunnels.
Speaker 1: They're not allowed in there.
Speaker 3: Ha Mosco's underground to leave the Gazins up above and
Speaker 3: suffer the consequences of Israel trying to bomb out Hamas.
Speaker 1: Right, Yeah, they're despicable. It is quite amazing despicable. Islamis totalitarians.
Speaker 1: Israel said, that's enough. We can't trust you ever again.
Speaker 3: How do you prosecute a war in the modern world
Speaker 3: where everybody gets to see it up close?
Speaker 1: I guess we're watching that. You've almost got to have
Speaker 1: the desperation of the Israeli people, a lot of them,
Speaker 1: and somebody like net Yahoo, who depending on the app
Speaker 1: who you ask, is just a very, very practical man,
Speaker 1: having been a Special Forces soldier himself, or a maniac,
Speaker 1: or he's holding out of power to keep himself out
Speaker 1: of jail or whatever. You've got to have a leader
Speaker 1: who is completely resolute.
Speaker 3: Back to the end of World War Two, there's been
Speaker 3: a lot of controversy for the last eighty years over
Speaker 3: whether or not FDR should have demanded unconditional surrender. The
Speaker 3: part that I didn't know was it was a complete
Speaker 3: off the cuff.
Speaker 1: None of his aides knew it was coming.
Speaker 3: It was a very trump asque and that everybody was
Speaker 3: scrambling because the press immediately was asking questions to you know,
Speaker 3: chief of staff, everybody, unconditional surrender? Would that come from?
Speaker 3: What does that mean?
Speaker 1: What about this? What about that?
Speaker 3: And they're all, we'll get back to you on that,
Speaker 3: because nobody knew he was going to say that.
Speaker 1: Hmm, interesting, yeah, it really is. Then he croaked.
Speaker 3: Then he croaked, and I was just reading the part
Speaker 3: last night where they have to sit down Harry Truman
Speaker 3: and let him know. Interesting story. Here we see we're
Speaker 3: working on this bomb or actually just about done. It's
Speaker 3: been to New Mexico. It's beautiful anyway, got to be
Speaker 3: the biggest weapon in the history of the world.
Speaker 1: So he is completely in the dark on that.
Speaker 3: Yeah, he was completely in the dark on practically everything
Speaker 3: about the war, not just that he was just not involved.
Speaker 1: I had to get up to speed really quick. He
Speaker 1: was the classic balancing VP choice for FDR, Midwestern guy
Speaker 1: down to Earth. He attracted the ex voter and the
Speaker 1: Y voter, but they had nothing to do with each other.
Speaker 3: He was not even close to the last person in
Speaker 3: the room when big decisions are made. He had no
Speaker 3: idea what was going on for the strategy of world
Speaker 3: War two. Then all of a sudden, it drops in
Speaker 3: your lap in the final weeks and you got to
Speaker 3: figure out do we drop a bomb? Do we invade
Speaker 3: with The plan was significantly bigger than.
Speaker 1: D Day invasion of France for invading Japan.
Speaker 3: Significantly, this is gonna be much much bigger and bloodier
Speaker 3: and bloodier. Anyway, we'll get chance to talk about that
Speaker 3: in early August. I guarantee you stay here.
Speaker 4: Hey, hi, guys, I saw the Subway just hired an
Speaker 4: executive from Burger Kinge to be their new CEO. It
Speaker 4: could be a lot of changes coming to Subway, but
Speaker 4: they just put out a new ad to reassure their
Speaker 4: longtime customers.
Speaker 5: Even though we're changing management, We've promised to keep all
Speaker 5: your favorite things about Subway, like five dollars foot longs
Speaker 5: for eight.
Speaker 1: Dollars workers who clearly hate your guts, cookies that were
Speaker 1: made either ten minutes or ten days ago. No in between,
Speaker 1: the writer lights than an operating room, a.
Speaker 6: Massive Jarrett cover up on the same scale as.
Speaker 1: The Epstein cover and Tuna Subway. Yeah, who was that
Speaker 1: shot at Tuna?
Speaker 3: I'm not having that lights as bright as an operating room.
Speaker 3: That is true, Subway is an incredibly bright restaurant.
Speaker 1: I'm not exactly sure now.
Speaker 3: My local subway. The person does seem to hate the customers.
Speaker 1: True.
Speaker 3: My experience with the cookies are always fresh and delicious.
Speaker 3: Their cookies are damn good. They brought this hate on themselves, though.
Speaker 3: Don't claim you have a foot long sandwich and it
Speaker 3: turns out to be eleven inches.
Speaker 1: All right, all right, Speaking of the world to work,
Speaker 1: a couple of more stories. First of all, Judy and
Speaker 1: I having a remodel done. I've enjoyed watching the process
Speaker 1: take place. Sometimes the work crewis are there, sometimes they're not.
Speaker 1: Sometimes the weather turns and they go home. At one
Speaker 1: point yesterday I texted her the carpenters are back, but
Speaker 1: they're not carpenting yet. And I found myself wondering, because
Speaker 1: I like words. Where the hell did the term carpenter
Speaker 1: come from. It originates from the Late Latin word carpenterius,
Speaker 1: meaning wagon maker or carriage maker. Term itself is derived
Speaker 1: from carpentum, referring to a two wheeled carriage, and has
Speaker 1: been adopted from the French form of that word.
Speaker 3: I guess sharpened tear, so you're getting a bowling Lane
Speaker 3: put in that's cool, it's correct, and an archery gallery.
Speaker 3: My twin loves archery and bowling. I love them. Actually,
Speaker 3: I do enjoy both of them. But anyway, Plumber's plumb right.
Speaker 1: Electricians deal with electricity, but Carpenter's deal with some far
Speaker 1: Latin word. Why don't we have our own word? A
Speaker 1: good American work. I can see why you're upset. Another
Speaker 1: note from the world of work. The w NBA All
Speaker 1: Stars already fairly commented upon. They're showing up for their game.
Speaker 1: Nobody watched, wearing the pay us what You Owe us shirts,
Speaker 1: a demand for higher salaries and profit sharing among the players.
Speaker 1: And I'm quoting Jeff Blair of the National Review here.
Speaker 1: From time to time, he says, then they played a game.
Speaker 1: Excuse me that nobody watched? Who won? I did? I
Speaker 1: was reading a book at the time, he says. The
Speaker 1: reaction on social media was instantaneous and brutal. However, who
Speaker 1: exactly what exactly is owed to whom? By whom tens
Speaker 1: of thousands of online accounts asked significantly ye simultaneously. My
Speaker 1: first reaction was that if woh now Le's skip that
Speaker 1: part the Babylon b had the best headline, as they
Speaker 1: often do. Uh oh. WNBA players demand to be paid
Speaker 1: what they're worth, and now they owe the NBA four
Speaker 1: hundred million dollars.
Speaker 3: Ooh good one, that's pretty good. And then he gets
Speaker 3: into whether it's actually a woke social justice.
Speaker 1: Thing or it's just a h hum labor dispute. They're
Speaker 1: trying to get a better deal, which is fine, trying
Speaker 1: to get the fans on their side. Yeah, I suppose.
Speaker 1: I don't know.
Speaker 3: I know people that I would describe as above average intelligence.
Speaker 3: I think it's unfair that they're getting paid less than
Speaker 3: NBA players.
Speaker 1: They are intelligent, but they are fools. They have no judgment.
Speaker 1: Back in twenty twenty, the WNBA players union negotiated a
Speaker 1: revenue sharing agreement guaranteeing them nine point nine percent of
Speaker 1: league revenues. Meanwhile, NBA players currently get a fifty percent
Speaker 1: share of all basketball related income distributed to them. And
Speaker 1: that's blah blah blah. That's what gets to why their
Speaker 1: complaints rings so hollow. The NBA essentially pays for the WNBA,
Speaker 1: which has lost money every single year of its existence.
Speaker 1: And he goes into elaborates on that. During the last
Speaker 1: very profitable season. The NBA generated eleven point three billion
Speaker 1: dollars in revenue, the WNBA somewhere around one hundred to
Speaker 1: two hundred million, a teeny tiny fraction is Television ratings
Speaker 1: are similarly a school compared with the NBA's except for
Speaker 1: occasionally a Caitlin Clark came right, So good luck with
Speaker 1: your labor dispute.
Speaker 3: Yeah, and then the fact that they don't embrace the
Speaker 3: one person that has risen them to the level of
Speaker 3: even discussing it. Risen having helped them, wrote Rosen.
Speaker 1: We more on the ways to hear Armstrong and Getty.
Speaker 1: Whether it's right or wrong, It's time to go after people.
Speaker 1: Obama's been caught directly. Okay, So.
Speaker 3: I hadn't been paying close attention to this story until today.
Speaker 3: Trump making some pretty uh should be headline grabbing claims.
Speaker 3: But as David Mure on ABC News last night, led,
Speaker 3: do you have that clip still, Michael.
Speaker 5: Tonight, we have breaking news as we come on VI air,
Speaker 5: Ozzy Osbourne has died.
Speaker 1: Yeah.
Speaker 3: Never mind that the sitting pre just said that two
Speaker 3: presidents ago committed treason in lying about intelligence to try
Speaker 3: to ruin his presidency, which seems like a pretty big story.
Speaker 1: But that probably ought to go to jail.
Speaker 3: Yeah, exactly, And sennyj Van jail Nope on the oddsboard died,
Speaker 3: So we covered that up anyway. Here's here's the Fox
Speaker 3: version of the story. And Obama responded to Trump's claims.
Speaker 5: President Donald Trump in the Oval office suggesting his predecessor,
Speaker 5: Barack Obama should face criminal charges.
Speaker 1: He's guilty. They this was treason. This was every word
Speaker 1: you can think of. They tried to steal the election.
Speaker 5: Trump's comments come after the Director of National Intelligence Tulsey
Speaker 5: Gabbard asked the Justice Department to look into allegations that
Speaker 5: members of the Obama administration quote altered intelligence to push
Speaker 5: the narrative of a Trump Russia plot days before Trump
Speaker 5: took office in twenty seventeen, despite prior intelligence reportedly indicating otherwise.
Speaker 3: So Matt Tybee, who had been quoting a lot lately.
Speaker 3: He's a journalist we both like. And one of the
Speaker 3: reasons I really believe him on this stuff is he
Speaker 3: can't stand Trump.
Speaker 1: He hates Donald Trump.
Speaker 3: He's written books about how awful he thinks Donald Trump is,
Speaker 3: but he hates lying in government.
Speaker 1: Even more than that. He and the journalists who kissed
Speaker 1: the ass of power.
Speaker 3: And particularly has been very skeptical, skeptical of our intelligence
Speaker 3: agent intelligence agencies and some of the things that they've done.
Speaker 1: So Tolci Gabbert, who you know, the.
Speaker 3: Messenger on this doesn't help because Telsey Gabbert to me
Speaker 3: is a bit of a whack job. But that doesn't
Speaker 3: mean everything that she does is not true. She released
Speaker 3: these documents. The documents newly declassified by her as the
Speaker 3: D and I show that the intelligence community assessment Muller,
Speaker 3: who was running the FBI at the time, and Senate
Speaker 3: reports all exclude voted the intelligence community's own secretly identified
Speaker 3: doubts about the allegation. The allegation being that Russia Putin
Speaker 3: specifically ordered the hack of the Democrat emails, remember Hillary's emails,
Speaker 3: that whole thing. Putin was behind that, and it was
Speaker 3: an effort by the Russians to get Donald Trump elected. Well,
Speaker 3: according to previously unpublished intelligence and this is just out,
Speaker 3: the FBI and the NSA expressed low confidence that Russia
Speaker 3: was behind the hack and release of the Democratic Party emails,
Speaker 3: and as has pointed out here, the joint FBI NSA
Speaker 3: descent is especially significant giving their role in this. The
Speaker 3: NSA is the agency best position to assess this sort
Speaker 3: of thing.
Speaker 1: They're the best in the world of this sort of thing.
Speaker 3: And the FBI would be the group that would lead
Speaker 3: a probe the cyber theft and all that sort of stuff,
Speaker 3: and they didn't because they had such low confidence that
Speaker 3: Russia was behind the hack.
Speaker 1: This is all new.
Speaker 3: So then why if the NSA and the FBI both thought,
Speaker 3: we don't have any evidence that Putin and the Russians
Speaker 3: were the ones that hacked Hillary's emails? Why then, in
Speaker 3: October of twenty sixteen, right before the election, did the
Speaker 3: Department of Homeland Security put out a statement claiming that
Speaker 3: US intelligence community is confident that Russia hacked the Democratic
Speaker 3: Party in order to interfere with the US election and
Speaker 3: help get Trump elected.
Speaker 1: Why did that happen? According to Jessaman, one member of
Speaker 1: the working group who I mentioned yesterday, said, we have
Speaker 1: no intelligence to directly support the idea that they wanted
Speaker 1: Trump to win. None in Komy and Clapper essentially said
Speaker 1: shut up. This has been and.
Speaker 3: Reported as now for how many years? Is that nine years?
Speaker 3: And I was watching MSNBC last night. They THEYD statis fact.
Speaker 3: We all know that Russia was hoping to get Donald
Speaker 3: Trump elected, that they hacked Tillery's emails. No, we don't
Speaker 3: know that. At least the FBI in the NSA didn't
Speaker 3: know that. I don't know where you're getting your information,
Speaker 3: but those are the two best organizations to try to
Speaker 3: figure that out, and their confidence was low. Notably, the
Speaker 3: FBI objected to formally accusing Russia and refused to participate.
Speaker 3: By that point, the joint statement had a more powerful
Speaker 3: endorser that According to testimony from Jay Johnson, who was
Speaker 3: the DHS secretary at the time, President Obama approved the
Speaker 3: statement and wanted us to make it. That is his
Speaker 3: testimony on that statement that came out October of twenty sixteen,
Speaker 3: that Obama was behind it for whatever his reasons were,
Speaker 3: and I think we can probably guess. And then on December,
Speaker 3: after Trump had had been already been a lot, Obama
Speaker 3: made another request asking the intelligence community to produce a
Speaker 3: new version of the Intelligence Community assessment that could be
Speaker 3: made public.
Speaker 1: The FBI and the how wow, wow, that's that's worth saying.
Speaker 1: He said, look, we got to come up with a
Speaker 1: version of this we can put out. Yeah, because there's
Speaker 1: too much classified stuff in here. But I got to
Speaker 1: get this to the New York Times. I still my
Speaker 1: assessment is this.
Speaker 3: I have very low confidence this will go anywhere and
Speaker 3: anything will come of it, just because of the way
Speaker 3: the world works. But I will for the rest of
Speaker 3: my life believe that this was an absolute railroad job,
Speaker 3: even more than I had thought before. I assumed that
Speaker 3: Russia probably did hack Hillery emails because they're you know,
Speaker 3: they're always they're messing it on stuff all the time.
Speaker 3: And I always assumed the trying to help Trump thing
Speaker 3: was just the Hillary had a ninety five percent chance
Speaker 3: of winning according to the New York Times. I mean,
Speaker 3: they were just trying to muck up our elections. It
Speaker 3: wasn't particularly that they thought Trump was going.
Speaker 1: To help them in anyway.
Speaker 3: They were just trying to mess with our elections and
Speaker 3: make it harder on the person that was going to
Speaker 3: come in as president. But the fact that the NSCA
Speaker 3: and the FBI thought, I don't know who hacked those emails.
Speaker 1: We certainly don't know it was the Russians. We have
Speaker 1: no reason to know that. Wow. Wow, Yeah, so much
Speaker 1: dirty pool, so much lying, so much cover up. But
Speaker 1: you know, you say it's not going to go anywhere
Speaker 1: because of the way the world works, and I know
Speaker 1: what you mean by that. I just also think there's
Speaker 1: too much plausible deniability. I mean, like the paper trail
Speaker 1: around the Brennan decision, when he had a number of
Speaker 1: top people saying, look, we have no evidence of this,
Speaker 1: we cannot assert this. This is a complete violation of
Speaker 1: our standards. And he had a lengthy meeting in which
Speaker 1: they articulated their serious concerns and quote, the assessment will
Speaker 1: stay the same, he reported. At the end of the meeting,
Speaker 1: Brennan could get up there and say, you know, then
Speaker 1: the guys for a living, so he'd say under oath, yeah,
Speaker 1: I was at that meeting, and yeah, five of the
Speaker 1: six guys said there's no evidence for it. But that
Speaker 1: sixth guy, man was he eloquent and he convinced me completely.
Speaker 1: He made some excellent points that nobody else had, and Yep,
Speaker 1: he convinced me that it was the Russians. So what
Speaker 1: do you got now.
Speaker 3: The FBI objected to formally accusing Russia and refused to participate,
Speaker 3: but the joint statement came out anyway from Jay Johnson,
Speaker 3: who testified under oath that Obama approved the statement and
Speaker 3: wanted us to make it that Russian Putin were behind
Speaker 3: the hack. Where did that come from? That's that's made
Speaker 3: up on a whole cloth, or like you said, maybe
Speaker 3: there's one person that did believe it for whatever reason.
Speaker 1: And then at what point did Obama, Brennan, Slade, Hillary
Speaker 1: get the FBI to go along with it? The infamous
Speaker 1: you know, call me leaking that steal dossier, which is
Speaker 1: just just unforgivable.
Speaker 3: That whole thing is so awful, and there's gonna be
Speaker 3: a reverse version of that at some point where the
Speaker 3: intelligence agencies screw a democrat or a Yeah, that goes
Speaker 3: the other way. And don't you worry about that as
Speaker 3: a lefty that you don't want. You don't want these
Speaker 3: intelligence agencies playing these.
Speaker 1: Games, no, because so many of them don't have principles.
Speaker 1: They just want power, especially inside the Beltway, they pretend
Speaker 1: to have principles. To quote for the empteenth time, that
Speaker 1: great few lines in Mark Leibovich's book This Town, we're
Speaker 1: both in on the joke. What's the joke? They didn't
Speaker 1: want to tell them, They finally told them. The joke
Speaker 1: is that we're patriots. Now they just want power because
Speaker 1: then they have access to the treasury. So yeah, they'll
Speaker 1: do about anything to get it. And if this happens
Speaker 1: next week, the scenario you described where the sh he
Speaker 1: was on the other foot, you will see every big
Speaker 1: foot media member you can name shouting about how the
Speaker 1: Intelligence Committee needs to be or community needs to be
Speaker 1: brought to heal and the spooks need to have some
Speaker 1: serious regulation on him and this is an absolutely awful
Speaker 1: dereliction of duty, an abuse of power, and blah blah blah.
Speaker 1: Now they can't be bothered. Eh.
Speaker 3: So the headline on that article that Matt Tayebee retweeted,
Speaker 3: and again he's no Trump fan by any means whatsoever.
Speaker 3: He's a guy who's, as everyone should be, highly scared
Speaker 3: of these big intelligence agencies and their ability to like
Speaker 3: manipulate the world.
Speaker 1: Right, But anyway, the headline was.
Speaker 3: US Intel concealed high level doubts about Russian interference. The
Speaker 3: whole narrative of Russian interference doesn't exist. Again, as recently
Speaker 3: as last night I was watching all the news channels
Speaker 3: reported is well, this one thing we do know, Russia
Speaker 3: hacked Tillery's emails and wanted Trump to be elected. We
Speaker 3: know that, so let's start there. No, we don't know that.
Speaker 3: We never knew that.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 3: How many people in America will ever hear this? Five percent?
Speaker 1: Too few? Yeah, Yeah, it's disappointing. Democracy doesn't work. Oh,
Speaker 1: speaking of which, I should have asked for this audio.
Speaker 1: The Secretary of Energy, whose name is of course in Schmidkevich.
Speaker 1: I can never remember his name. I'm the Secretary of
Speaker 1: lack of Energy today for some reason. Wow wow, I
Speaker 1: sorry to hear that. But whatever his name is, I
Speaker 1: really like the cut of his Jim. He's a smart guy,
Speaker 1: an entrepreneur. He joked with Brett Bear last night on
Speaker 1: Special Report that he hasn't had a boss since he
Speaker 1: was nineteen, but he's really enjoying Trump as a boss
Speaker 1: because Trump is so into energy, developing more sources of energy, more,
Speaker 1: a greater quantity of energy, cheaper energy, blah blah blah,
Speaker 1: and so it's been really really fun for him. But
Speaker 1: he mentioned, in kind of a lesser emphasized part of
Speaker 1: the interview that their cybersecurity programs are a super high
Speaker 1: priority because China. We know China is inside our systems,
Speaker 1: our energy systems. Right now, they are poised to do
Speaker 1: us damage and take our systems off grid, you know,
Speaker 1: just screw with us any way they can. Don't trust China,
Speaker 1: that's right, sir. I don't, but I thought that was
Speaker 1: something secretary Energy saying, Oh yeah, they're inside our systems
Speaker 1: already and we're trying to figure out how and looking
Speaker 1: for them and everything. But man, if the Chinese ever
Speaker 1: decided to pull that trigger, it's going to be crazy days.
Speaker 1: That's frightening. Your power goes out, your cell phone goes out,
Speaker 1: traffic lights go out, the local hospitals is running on
Speaker 1: emergency power. Oof.
Speaker 3: One more note on the story where we're talking about
Speaker 3: about the whole Russian hoax thingy. This I just came across.
Speaker 3: Even after John Brennan was told by career intel experts
Speaker 3: that the Steel dossier was garbage, Brennan ignored them and
Speaker 3: forced its inclusion into the Intelligent Community Assessment, the one
Speaker 3: that Obama put out. And this testimony is claimed to
Speaker 3: be true. Yes, but doesn't it ring true? Brennan reportedly
Speaker 3: responded after being told the Steele dossier failed to meet
Speaker 3: the basic requirements for being in this report. Yes, but
Speaker 3: does this range your job doesn't it sound like the
Speaker 3: sort of thing that Trump would do, so they put
Speaker 3: it in there.
Speaker 1: No, the intelligence agencies joined in on the oppo research
Speaker 1: and character assassination that is, you know, characteristic big time politics.
Speaker 1: As sure as hell shouldn't but that's exactly what happened.
Speaker 3: And they sleep well at night by feeling like they
Speaker 3: were patriots because Trump was the new Hitler.
Speaker 1: So we were doing the right thing.
Speaker 3: We're standing up for America, right, ah right, we'll see
Speaker 3: if we ever get to the bottom this.
Speaker 1: More on the way. We do not have time for
Speaker 1: this kind of sillings.
Speaker 7: Here are some other headlines tonight. Life threatening dome is intensifying.
Speaker 7: It's expected to push temperatures into the upper nineties for
Speaker 7: a huge portion of the country. High humidity will make
Speaker 7: the conditions seem hotter, with feels like readings above one
Speaker 7: hundred degrees in some places.
Speaker 3: Or as Joe calls it, summer. Oh my god, a
Speaker 3: life threatening heat dome.
Speaker 1: You say, hey, Michael, you know a metal guy who
Speaker 1: does Catle crumb Land for us and stuff like that.
Speaker 1: He's got to do. Love threatening heat dome just feels
Speaker 1: like it needs that to me.
Speaker 3: So we got a new one Life threatening heat Dome
Speaker 3: good Lord, or, as Joe Getty calls it, summer.
Speaker 1: Yeah. My wife and I were caught in the LTHD
Speaker 1: the other day and we said to each other, cheese,
Speaker 1: it's hot. I don't want to do anything outside, do
Speaker 1: you know, Let's stay inside. That's how we dealt with
Speaker 1: the lave threatening heat Dome.
Speaker 3: You want to hear something amusing, I just asked chat
Speaker 3: GPT give me a list of things people have blamed
Speaker 3: climate change on. Oh really, and uh, some of them
Speaker 3: kind of makes sense, but even in total, when you
Speaker 3: hear them, it's I mean, it is what it is like.
Speaker 3: For instance, Number one, shark attacks, warmer oceans, more sharks
Speaker 3: near the short that could be, but I'll just go
Speaker 3: through them. Fast shark attacks, more plain turbulence, worsening allergies,
Speaker 3: blander wine, angrier lobsters, cows producing less milk, coffee shortages,
Speaker 3: shorter ski seasons, increase in jellyfish, more kidney stones, sex
Speaker 3: changing reptiles, birds are getting smaller invasions of spiders, Moose
Speaker 3: are losing their hair, worsening bo more left handed polar bears.
Speaker 3: Wait a second, wow, more left handed polar bears.
Speaker 1: The nightmare he had thousands of polar bears, can't use
Speaker 1: a pair of.
Speaker 6: Scissors, tasteless, tasteless fish, exploding trees, longer mating seasons for pandas,
Speaker 6: Falling iguanas and floriders are like.
Speaker 3: Oh ye, thank you fossil fuel. Falling iguanas in Florida.
Speaker 3: I actually had that. I was laying in a hummock.
Speaker 3: Is that how you pronounce it? I was making a
Speaker 3: hammock by this little house I rented by the ocean,
Speaker 3: and it was just as like serena idyllic, like you're
Speaker 3: in Paradise sort of setting as you could have. But
Speaker 3: I was in this hammock under this thatch roof thing,
Speaker 3: and there's like this rustling and stuff.
Speaker 1: I was half asleep.
Speaker 3: There's all this wrestling, and then a PLoP and I
Speaker 3: looked down in this iguana had fallen out of the
Speaker 3: top of the thing and landed next to me in
Speaker 3: the in the hammock on the ground, and it kind
Speaker 3: of looked around like, what the hell was.
Speaker 1: That it ran off? Because of the global warming exactly
Speaker 1: tasteless fish.
Speaker 3: Warm water can alter fish muscle composition, oh of course, okay,
Speaker 3: and so they taste worse, not better. It seems like
Speaker 3: just as likely as it make them taste better, worsting
Speaker 3: bo higher temps equals more sweat.
Speaker 1: Okay, the sex change in rectal thing is true, but
Speaker 1: what does happen? Because then this is so bizarre. I've
Speaker 1: learned this about sea turtles that if the temperature the
Speaker 1: mean temperature when the eggs are what eggs do, it's
Speaker 1: a gest state as they're laying their eggifying. If the
Speaker 1: temperature is below a very precise point, they figured it out,
Speaker 1: the turtles will be females, and if it's above temp
Speaker 1: they will be males, or vice versa. I can't remember which,
Speaker 1: but it's thought provoking, in very very odd.
Speaker 3: Does that work that way for people? Make your wife
Speaker 3: sleep out in the car overnight and you have a.
Speaker 1: Boy or I really want a son this time, honey,
Speaker 1: So I'm sorry, and no, no jacket.
Speaker 3: How about giant spiders? Kind of a reverse sort of situation,
Speaker 3: birds getting smaller? Is there anything we can do about that?
Speaker 3: More Kelly or Park buy some shorts like this one.
Speaker 3: More kidney stones, dehydration from rising temps.
Speaker 1: Drink more water.
Speaker 3: Then if you're hotter, drink more. You don't just drink
Speaker 3: the same amount of water no matter how hot it gets.
Speaker 1: Do you now, of course not, It's all ridiculous, and besides,
Speaker 1: what are you going to do anyway? China's cranking out
Speaker 1: the pollutants as fast as they can. That was pretty
Speaker 1: good speaking, Yeah, that's pretty funny. Speaking of progressive policies,
Speaker 1: Next Hour, What you don't get Next Hour subscriber podcast
Speaker 1: Armstrong and Getty on demand wherever you like to get podcasts.
Speaker 1: Give us a nice review to what Ah Speaking of
Speaker 1: progressive policies. The new mayor of San Francisco who has
Speaker 1: jettisoned virtually every woke policy. What's his approval rating now
Speaker 1: in the city after just six months. We'll tell you
Speaker 1: about it. I want to hear that. Armstrong and Getty