Speaker 1: What's slowly destroying the brains of the people who raised
Speaker 1: us my various Rupert Murdoch properties. I'm Robert Evans, host
Speaker 1: Stuff Behind the Bastards, and today we have a very
Speaker 1: special episode. Before we get into that, I'm going to
Speaker 1: bring on my my co hosts, my once in Future
Speaker 1: podcast buddies, Cody Johnston and Katie Stove Daniel forty five
Speaker 1: straight seconds of air horns here, followed by a lap track. Yeah, beepeep,
Speaker 1: How's how's everything going? Midc Yeah? Yeah, oh wow, Cody,
Speaker 1: I might try to have you do a couple of
Speaker 1: Murdoch lines for us, a little bit like Ringo. To me,
Speaker 1: it sounds a little bit like my Boston and Colson.
Speaker 1: It would be so much, It would be so good if,
Speaker 1: like his historically, you could go back in time and
Speaker 1: switch them so that, like Tucker, Carlson was kind of
Speaker 1: the most replaceable beetle and Ringo was a fascist on
Speaker 1: mets um. Anyway, how are you? How are you guys? Oh, Robert? Okay,
Speaker 1: more specific question, have any of you, like had a
Speaker 1: complications among your loved ones as a result of a
Speaker 1: Rupert Murdoch property. I just laughed, and it's been a
Speaker 1: thing that has complicated my life with a number of
Speaker 1: family members, and it's a kind of a thing that like,
Speaker 1: I have a couple of cousins, and every now and
Speaker 1: then we'll talk, like, you know, something will be going around,
Speaker 1: so to speak. I'm trying to be vague in the
Speaker 1: interests of like family piece. Something will be going around
Speaker 1: and we'll be like, yeah, it's fucking Tucker Carlson or
Speaker 1: whatever like started started this saying this bullshit. Now a
Speaker 1: bunch of the people, bunch of the very nice people
Speaker 1: who raised me, believe something terrible. Um, and it's it's
Speaker 1: deeply frustrating, it's very effective. Yeah, it's um, it's and
Speaker 1: it's it's been kind of this black box up until recently,
Speaker 1: Like every now and then you would get these lawsuits
Speaker 1: involving Fox, you know, and a bit, one little bit
Speaker 1: of it would go viral and you'd see in like
Speaker 1: all of the lefty newspapers whatever, Oh Fox argues that
Speaker 1: they're not you know, a news agency or whatever, that
Speaker 1: it's a character or yeah. But we we we we
Speaker 1: haven't gotten like a tremendous amount of detail about what
Speaker 1: inside the company looks like until very recently. Now, you
Speaker 1: have y'all been paying much attention to the Dominion lawsuit
Speaker 1: against Fox News. No, it's no that that's that's good,
Speaker 1: you're I'm aware of it. So there are there are yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: there are two big lawsuits that Fox is fighting off
Speaker 1: right now. One is from Dominion Voting Systems, which is
Speaker 1: in I think twenty eight states, and it's a one
Speaker 1: point six billion dollar defamation suit. And there's also a
Speaker 1: two point six billion dollar defamation lawsuit from Smart Mattock,
Speaker 1: which I think was only in one state. But there
Speaker 1: were a bunch of Fox allegations that they were like
Speaker 1: hacking the election. We'll get into the details of all
Speaker 1: this in a little bit, but um, it's it's been
Speaker 1: interesting because you know, for years and years and years
Speaker 1: there have been Fox has been what I would morally
Speaker 1: consider not in a legal sense because they haven't been
Speaker 1: found guilty this in a legal sense, but I would
Speaker 1: morally consider them to be doing slander on a pretty
Speaker 1: regular basis against a wide variety of people. I think
Speaker 1: that's fair, Yeah, fair statement to make a fair statement
Speaker 1: of protected opinion. But Dominion chose to fight back, and
Speaker 1: I you know, I think there's an argument to be
Speaker 1: made that they had more of a solid legal ground
Speaker 1: than a lot of the people that Fox has targeted
Speaker 1: over the years, or that Fox personalities have targeted over
Speaker 1: the years. Um but they they they sue Fox, and
Speaker 1: throughout twenty twenty two, they put together this team of
Speaker 1: lawyers who started running through a laundry list of Fox
Speaker 1: News producers, line executives, and on air personalities and in
Speaker 1: deposing them. Right, so, you sit someone down, You sit
Speaker 1: Sean Hannity down, you sit Tucker Carlson down, you sit
Speaker 1: Lachlan Murdoch down, who who's probably going to be the
Speaker 1: heir to Rupert Murdock's fortune, and you ask them questions
Speaker 1: about what happened in you know, this kind of spate
Speaker 1: of disinformation, and if they lie, they can go to jail,
Speaker 1: right Like it's a crime to lie in a deposition.
Speaker 1: And in order to help enforce that, there's also a
Speaker 1: process called discovery where Dominion's lawyers got access to what
Speaker 1: seems to be a mountain of text messages, memos, emails
Speaker 1: from Fox personalities in order to hold them accountable because
Speaker 1: you can actually see what they were saying to each
Speaker 1: other in addition to what they claim during the deposition
Speaker 1: and the questions that Dominion asked. They spread well beyond
Speaker 1: kind of just the specific allegation Fox personalities made against
Speaker 1: Dominion and went more broadly into Fox company culture and
Speaker 1: how decisions filtered both up and down from management. And yeah,
Speaker 1: it's as a result, it's given us kind of the
Speaker 1: most complete look inside Fox and the most complete look
Speaker 1: at like the kind of human beings who work there
Speaker 1: and how they talk amongst themselves, and how they kind
Speaker 1: of what they see, like the moral universe they inhabit
Speaker 1: in a way that I never thought we actually were
Speaker 1: going to get evidence of. And so that's what I
Speaker 1: want to go into this week because there's there's a
Speaker 1: tremendous amount here. It's worth noting before we start that
Speaker 1: Fox is in actually some potentially serious financial trouble. We're
Speaker 1: talking between these two lawsuits, somewhere around four billion dollars
Speaker 1: that they could be found liable for. And this is
Speaker 1: in addition to the one point two billion that Fox
Speaker 1: is paid over the last decade due to the phone
Speaker 1: hacking scandal that racked the Sun and News of the World.
Speaker 1: You're both UK Murdoch properties, are you? Did you guys
Speaker 1: hear remember do you guys recall much about the phone
Speaker 1: hacking scandal. Not a lot of details, but I remember
Speaker 1: the basic story. Yeah, the gist of it is that
Speaker 1: Rebecca Brooks, who edited both of those publications and went
Speaker 1: on to lead their UK publishing arm, and Andrew Colson,
Speaker 1: who was an editor at News of the World, and
Speaker 1: five of the papers journalists conspired to hack the voicemails
Speaker 1: of more than six hundred people over a six year period. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's so. They hacked like a bunch of public figures
Speaker 1: and celebrities. But what really got them in trouble was
Speaker 1: they hacked the voicemail of a murdered schoolgirl, um, in
Speaker 1: order to like what, Yeah, it's fucked up like that
Speaker 1: is unbelievable. I mean it's no, it's unbelievable. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: mean it, Yeah, it's it's I think what's really unbelievable
Speaker 1: is that Rupert Murdoch claimed whence this came public, that
Speaker 1: he'd had no knowledge of it. Um, he told me
Speaker 1: this is very fun. Actually, Cody, I'm gonna I'm gonna
Speaker 1: toss this text into the into the chat and you
Speaker 1: can you can do your Rupert Murdock boys. Oh god, yeah,
Speaker 1: you're a really good Foilfield people I trusted. I'm not
Speaker 1: saying who let me down? And I think they behaved
Speaker 1: disgracefully and it's time for them to pay. Wow, I
Speaker 1: think you're the one that led us all down by
Speaker 1: that accent. No, I think that's a flawless Aussie. Thank you.
Speaker 1: I just mean I've worked on it. Yeah, it's it's okay.
Speaker 1: Most people who do an Australian accent it just winds
Speaker 1: up really Boston. So you know, I'm glad that I
Speaker 1: got New Zealand that happened crooking. So that's that's very funny.
Speaker 1: Um that he's like, oh, those bad Fox News reporters,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna make him pay. I had no idea this
Speaker 1: was happening as the CEO of Fox News. A lot
Speaker 1: of people wondered whether, you know, sorry, I'm sorry, like
Speaker 1: it's time for them to pay. Is such a weird
Speaker 1: thing like phrasing for like you could make that happens.
Speaker 1: Yeah yeah, yeah, like be you know, taken to account
Speaker 1: or like yeah there should be consequences, like it's time
Speaker 1: for them to pay. Such a who phrasing whoever needs
Speaker 1: to kill them is what he's saying. Yeah, Okay, um, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: it's yeah, it's it's it's good, good old fashioned, weasely bullshit.
Speaker 1: So now, obviously, legally I can't say that Rupert certainly
Speaker 1: knew something. But we are in the United States and
Speaker 1: I can say which I couldn't say if we were
Speaker 1: in the UK. It seems kind of weird and suspicious
Speaker 1: that he wouldn't know anything about this massive hacking scandal
Speaker 1: as journalists and editors engaged in. And while I'm not
Speaker 1: going to push much further than that, because he is
Speaker 1: a billionaire with a lot of lawyers, what I will
Speaker 1: do is quote a Fox News article about the UK
Speaker 1: Parliamentary Committee investigation into the hacking scandal. Quote from Fox News.
Speaker 1: Although Rupert Murdoch and his son James were not accused
Speaker 1: of misleading parliament, the committee said it was simply astonishing
Speaker 1: that they only realized that the hacking was not confined
Speaker 1: to one rogue reporter in December of twenty ten. The
Speaker 1: report said that they should ultimately be prepared to take
Speaker 1: responsibility for the willful blindness of News International and News
Speaker 1: Corporation over the scandal. Aside from the four hundred and
Speaker 1: fifty four million they spent on legal fees. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: that's good stuff. So sketchy as that all was. The
Speaker 1: phone hacking scandal did not wind up doing Murdoch or
Speaker 1: News Corp any like permanent harm. But Dominion's lawsuit included
Speaker 1: not only depositions under oath, but again this expansive discovery process.
Speaker 1: So suddenly we know exactly what Rupert Murdoch's involvement was
Speaker 1: here to a degree of legal certainty. I should also
Speaker 1: note here because it's very funny that dominions lawyers to
Speaker 1: post Sean Hannity for more than seven hours and honestly,
Speaker 1: moment of silence for those lawyers because they had to
Speaker 1: talk to Sean Hannity for seven hours. Brutal, that's hazard pay.
Speaker 1: Yeah yeah, I hope they hope they have. They had
Speaker 1: to take frequent breaks. Yeah, they needed some MDMA and
Speaker 1: a therapist. Shit. So the bulk of the questions asked
Speaker 1: and materials provided have to do with discussions around the
Speaker 1: decision of several major Fox stars to host Sydney Powell
Speaker 1: on their pro Remember Sidney Powell, Yeah, she was a
Speaker 1: former lawyer for Donald Trump who filed lawsuits in numerous
Speaker 1: states attempting to overturn the results of the election. Now
Speaker 1: she spent most of her time since twenty twenty fighting
Speaker 1: disbarment hearings. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like she's going to
Speaker 1: get disbarred. I think the case wound up being in Texas.
Speaker 1: But in the heavy days after November second, she started
Speaker 1: massaging a collection of deeply questionable sources to argue that Dominion,
Speaker 1: which ran voting machines in twenty eight states and smart
Speaker 1: Mattock quote ran an algorithm that shaved votes from Trump
Speaker 1: and awarded them to Biden. There's a lot more to
Speaker 1: her allegations, and we'll cover those presently, but that's what
Speaker 1: you need to go to start. And before we get
Speaker 1: into all that, I wanted to begin this episode by
Speaker 1: giving you guys an example of how good journalists treated
Speaker 1: Sydney Powell, because we're going to spend most of this
Speaker 1: time talking about how Fox did. I want to play
Speaker 1: a clip from an interview she did with an Australian journalist,
Speaker 1: so Cody, you can brush up on your accent working
Speaker 1: for ABC four Corners, an Australian news agency. Yeah, it's
Speaker 1: it's it's good stuff that Smartmatic shifted votes from Trump
Speaker 1: to Biden in multiple battleground states. That was your argument,
Speaker 1: wasn't it that there was an algorithm run the machines
Speaker 1: via the software of it, shaved votes from Trump and
Speaker 1: gave those Biden. What actual research or bactricking did you
Speaker 1: do at the time to find out what smartmatics actual
Speaker 1: involvement in the election was. If you work for smart matter,
Speaker 1: Smartematic that the election. I think it's incumbent on both
Speaker 1: of us to know what smart matos involvement was. It
Speaker 1: seems like a pretty foundational fact. Confused right now about
Speaker 1: why you're here because you made a series of very
Speaker 1: strong allegations against smart Mating, containing many errors of fact.
Speaker 1: Do you accept the fact now that the company that
Speaker 1: you accused of stealing a national election only operated in
Speaker 1: one county in LA in California, one county, one state. No,
Speaker 1: I'm not prepared to accept that fact. I think smartmatics
Speaker 1: involvement was far more significant than that. I think they're
Speaker 1: trying to minimize their involvement, of course, I do. You
Speaker 1: said that smart matic owns dominion. How do you justify
Speaker 1: the basic factory error interview. We're not even in the
Speaker 1: area of great dispute. These are the simple and she
Speaker 1: gets up, what did she think this was? What did
Speaker 1: she think she was showing up for? Which she interview like,
Speaker 1: I love fuck Sydney. Legitimately, what did you think they
Speaker 1: were going to ask? Think they were going to do
Speaker 1: what Fox did? Actually, I think is the answer. It's like,
Speaker 1: can you tell me you're just any any reason for
Speaker 1: you to have made these claims? Do you work for them? Yeah?
Speaker 1: Do you have any evidence that they were present in
Speaker 1: more than one county in Los Angeles? Can you show
Speaker 1: your work, Sydney. It's a simple question, Sydney. Um. We
Speaker 1: will talk about where her what her sources later And
Speaker 1: I don't want to spoil it, but it involves decapitation.
Speaker 1: So yeah, I know, I know, I know that's going
Speaker 1: to be started that word. I thought you were going
Speaker 1: to say, DiCaprio no, but no, no, no. I do
Speaker 1: believe everyone involved was older than twenty one, so he
Speaker 1: was unlikely that we have played a role. Yeah. Yeah,
Speaker 1: So we will continue our main source for today with
Speaker 1: our main source for today, which is the public version
Speaker 1: of a filing by Dominion Voting Systems against Fox News.
Speaker 1: This is a brief in support of Dominion's motion for
Speaker 1: summary judgment on liability. I'm going to explain the legally shortly.
Speaker 1: The document opens up with several quotes, however, and I
Speaker 1: think these are interesting. Quote Number one, seventy one million
Speaker 1: voters will never accept Biden. This process is to destroy
Speaker 1: his presidency before it even starts. If it even starts,
Speaker 1: we either close on Trump's victory or delegitimize Biden. The
Speaker 1: plan all caps that. Steve Bannon to Maria bartar Romo
Speaker 1: on November tenth, twenty twenty. Maria bartar Romo is a
Speaker 1: Fox News financial journalist and TV personality who hosts Mornings
Speaker 1: with Maria and Maria Bartaromo's Wall Street. She used to
Speaker 1: work at like CBS. She was like a fairly respected
Speaker 1: border before all this um. When you google her name,
Speaker 1: Rick Wikipedia provides this poll quote. As a reporter, I
Speaker 1: approach every situation knowing that everyone has his or her
Speaker 1: own agenda. It's not a bad thing. It's just a fact, Okay,
Speaker 1: I mean not untrue. For example, the agenda you and
Speaker 1: Steve Bannen hatched to de legitimize the Biden election. The
Speaker 1: only thing, yeah, the only thing that I would push
Speaker 1: back on is the it's not a bad thing part. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean it is a bad thing in your case,
Speaker 1: because your agenda was to overturn a democratic election and
Speaker 1: commit treason. It certainly can. Yeah. Yeah. If the thing is,
Speaker 1: for example, installing a dictatorship, then yes, that personal Agendato, Tomato, Robert.
Speaker 1: If your personal agenda is increased post office funding, then
Speaker 1: perhaps it's okay. Yeah, yeah, we could give that a path. Yeah.
Speaker 1: So Maria started Fox's troubles when she interviewed Sidney Powell
Speaker 1: right after the election on November eight, twenty. She said, quote, Sydney,
Speaker 1: we talked about the dominion software. I know they were
Speaker 1: voting irregularities. Tell me about that. And Powell replied, that's
Speaker 1: putting it mildly. The computer glitches could not and should
Speaker 1: not have happened at all. This is where the fraud
Speaker 1: took place, where they were flipping votes in the computer
Speaker 1: system or adding votes that did not exist. Now, immediately,
Speaker 1: thank you, thank you. I've practiced for years now. Immediately
Speaker 1: after airing this, Rupert Murdoch sent a message to one
Speaker 1: of his producers saying it was very hard to credibly
Speaker 1: cry foul everywhere because Trump had lost multiple swing states. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's hard point yeah, yeah, yeah, And it's one of
Speaker 1: those things. You can see why there was an interest
Speaker 1: on behalf of the Fox personalities using Sidney Powell to
Speaker 1: tie in Dominion to this because they were they were
Speaker 1: active in a bunch of different swing states and kind
Speaker 1: of creating this and pushing this conspiracy allowed them to
Speaker 1: explain how all of those swing states had broken against Trump,
Speaker 1: which was the thing that Fox's reporting had led folks
Speaker 1: to believe was not really possible. Dominion's filing notes that
Speaker 1: Fox was aware that these claims were bogus from the jump.
Speaker 1: And here's a message from Sean Hannity to Fox Politics
Speaker 1: editor Chris Sterwalt that whole narrative that Sidney was pushing.
Speaker 1: I did not believe it for one second. No reasonable
Speaker 1: person would have thought that Stirwalt gets fired after this.
Speaker 1: By the way, so the motion itself opens with this.
Speaker 1: Fox knew from the top down. Fox knew that the
Speaker 1: Dominion stuff was total bs. Yet despite knowing the truth,
Speaker 1: or at minimum recklessly disregarding that truth, Fox spread and
Speaker 1: endorsed these outlandist voter fraud claims about Dominion, even at
Speaker 1: as it internally recognized the lies as crazy, absurd, and
Speaker 1: shocklingly reckless. Those are all quotes from Fox executives. So
Speaker 1: this all serves to support dominion's key contention that Fox
Speaker 1: knew their claims were false unless they reported on an
Speaker 1: election fraud in a way that demonstrated actual malice without
Speaker 1: resort to motive or other circumstantial factors. That's the legal
Speaker 1: term for they're completely at fault and they don't even
Speaker 1: have a right to defend themselves, right, Like, that's that's
Speaker 1: basically what complicit. Yeah, that's that that's more or less
Speaker 1: what they are saying here, because like this is a
Speaker 1: motion for summary judgment. So the thing that they're saying is,
Speaker 1: we want the judge to just kind of rule on
Speaker 1: this right now based on the merits of the case.
Speaker 1: We think that this is such a clear case that
Speaker 1: like there's there's really nothing else to say, um, based
Speaker 1: on the information that discovery and the depositions have drug up,
Speaker 1: Like it's like on its face prima facy or whatever,
Speaker 1: however the fuck you're supposed to pronounce that, Um, this
Speaker 1: is just such an obvious case that we want a
Speaker 1: ruling right now, um, which is rare. You don't generally
Speaker 1: get that, especially with very large lawsuits like this. We'll
Speaker 1: see what actually happens. Um. But based on the reporting
Speaker 1: they've put together, I think I think they have a
Speaker 1: strong yeah. Yeah, um. So I want to continue from
Speaker 1: the motion. But first, you know what motion. I want
Speaker 1: to urge people towards forward, pulling out that pulling out
Speaker 1: that wallet, Abby, pulling out that wallet. That's right, baby,
Speaker 1: m shrimping the dingo ate your baby, that's right. Yes,
Speaker 1: that's a that's Australian for purchase these products and services.
Speaker 1: No one knows why we're back quite quite quode. I'm
Speaker 1: gonna give you the rest of the episode to figure
Speaker 1: out what that acronymics on it. So, um, I want
Speaker 1: to continue from the motion here. Fox's correct call of
Speaker 1: Arizona for Joe Biden triggered a backlash among its audience,
Speaker 1: and the network was being rejected. That's a quote from
Speaker 1: a Fox executive. Rival net network such as Newsmax took
Speaker 1: advantage of the opening by promoting an alternative universe another
Speaker 1: quote of election fraud. So Fox went on a war footing,
Speaker 1: caring more about protecting its own following viewership than about
Speaker 1: the truth and the words of Fox News is SVP
Speaker 1: and managing editor of the Washington DC Bureau, Bill Salmon,
Speaker 1: It's remarkable how weak ratings make good journalists do bad things.
Speaker 1: I might have a couple of notes for that, including
Speaker 1: the idea that there were many good journalists at Fox News.
Speaker 1: But that's where I went as well, Yeah, that's that's
Speaker 1: where I might have an issue. So next dominion goes
Speaker 1: on to assert why this is different from most defamation lawsuits. Normally,
Speaker 1: plaintiffs proved defendant's actual malice, whether they knew it was
Speaker 1: false or in fact entertained serious doubts as to the
Speaker 1: truth of the statement by inference, as it would be
Speaker 1: rare for a defendant to admit such doubts. And they
Speaker 1: cite Solano versus Playgirl in that here, and they note
Speaker 1: that here overwhelming direct evidence establishes Fox's knowledge of falsity,
Speaker 1: not just doubts. And I want to I want to
Speaker 1: talk about the Clanov Playgirl case. That it's a two
Speaker 1: thousand and two ninth Circuit Court case that dominion brings
Speaker 1: up here because because it's kind of interesting. And then
Speaker 1: in the January nineteen ninety nine issue of Playgirl magazine,
Speaker 1: there was a cover photograph of actor Jose Solano, who
Speaker 1: played someone called Manny Gutierrez in Baywatch from ninety six
Speaker 1: to ninety nine. Solano had not posed for or given
Speaker 1: an interview to Play Girl, and he did not consent
Speaker 1: for them to use his image. He was shown shirtless
Speaker 1: and wearing red lifeguard trunks and had like a bunch
Speaker 1: of models surrounding them on the front cover in like
Speaker 1: a suggestive way that was kind of like meant to
Speaker 1: portray an image of him as a less wholesome character
Speaker 1: than he personally portrayed himself as. And since he hadn't
Speaker 1: actually like sat down to be interviewed or anything by Playgirl,
Speaker 1: his argument. Salano's argument was that they were basically there
Speaker 1: was essentially direct like they either knew that what they
Speaker 1: were doing was false or they had serious doubts as
Speaker 1: to the truth of the statement. Right, Like that's kind
Speaker 1: of the case that's being cited here as like a
Speaker 1: previous example of um of precedent, and Salano won the
Speaker 1: case and established damages. I think it's I don't know,
Speaker 1: I think it's interesting that they're they're falling black on
Speaker 1: this Playgirl case is sort of evidence of like this
Speaker 1: is the most this is like this is the most
Speaker 1: um directly similar kind of irresponsibility from like a major
Speaker 1: a major media network in the recent past. UM Dominions
Speaker 1: lawyers note that Fox to fame their company, uh not
Speaker 1: once or twice, but many times over a period of months.
Speaker 1: H Tucker Carlson accused Dominion of committing quote, the single
Speaker 1: greatest crime in American history. Um. Yeah, and so again
Speaker 1: that's yeah, it's pretty hard to mitigate that. I know, right,
Speaker 1: there's a few genocides, there's a lot of Yeah, that
Speaker 1: sounds pretty hyperbolic, oh, Tucker, and that that's that's going
Speaker 1: to come back to bite Tucker in the ass in
Speaker 1: a very short time. Here. UM Dominion notes that while
Speaker 1: defamation cases tend to involve just the malicious acts of
Speaker 1: either an individual employee at a company or maybe a
Speaker 1: small group of people at Fox, literally dozens of people
Speaker 1: with editorial responsibility were involved, which is part of why
Speaker 1: they're saying, we just want the judge to rule on
Speaker 1: this because the irresponsibility is so deep and far reaching.
Speaker 1: M Fox, for their part, it admits Sidney Pale and
Speaker 1: her team never provided Fox with any evidence as to
Speaker 1: her claims. Dominion, by contrast, made thirty six hundred separate
Speaker 1: communications to Fox, with a dozen separate and widely circulated
Speaker 1: fact check emails, each pointing the third party information debunking
Speaker 1: the claims. I bet the algorithm did something, no to
Speaker 1: it made it lies? Well, yeah, because Sydney stuff just
Speaker 1: trended so well. Yeah, yeah, I love that clip of
Speaker 1: her talking. They love just like being like, an algorithm
Speaker 1: did it. There's a seister algorithm. It's always, it's always
Speaker 1: Algorithm's so easy to point to the thing that nobody
Speaker 1: actually understands very well. That's the fun thing about algorithms,
Speaker 1: and it's about to be the fun thing about AI
Speaker 1: and deep fakes and that and that. Like, as far
Speaker 1: as most people in media are concerned, it's just magic.
Speaker 1: And so like, if you're a bad actor, like literally
Speaker 1: anyone at Fox, you can just use the word algorithm
Speaker 1: or now it's yeah, deep fake. It's easy. Yeah. Um,
Speaker 1: it's just like saying a wizard did it, but some
Speaker 1: sort of plausible explanation for an implausible thing. Yeah. And
Speaker 1: I don't know. I'm torn on this because I do
Speaker 1: think we need more wizards in American politics, but not
Speaker 1: not like this, not like this. No, no actual wizards
Speaker 1: computer wizards, not computer wizards, real wizard wizards. No wizards,
Speaker 1: yeah wizards, Yeah, like Gandolf. Yeah, I want Gandolf to
Speaker 1: have his own like fascist news show where he supports
Speaker 1: Rhonda Santis in removing books from from elementary schools. That's
Speaker 1: what I want, That's what even like a Gumbledore, I
Speaker 1: don't know, Well, Gandolf in particular Hosts he got radicalized
Speaker 1: after they banned indoor smoking. That really that really that
Speaker 1: really got him. Well yeah, he's a big anti masker too.
Speaker 1: Dumbledore and JK are type still so mm hmm yeah, problematic. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm just glad he's dead. Um. So now Dominion is yeah,
Speaker 1: moving for summary judgment, which again has a there's a
Speaker 1: very high burden of evidence when you ask a judge
Speaker 1: to do this. Dominion argues that they can cross it easily.
Speaker 1: Quote Fox falsely claimed. Number one Dominion committed election fraud
Speaker 1: by rigging the twenty twenty presidential election. Number two Dominion
Speaker 1: Software and algorithms manipulated vote counts in the twenty twenty
Speaker 1: presidential election. Number three Dominion is owned by a company
Speaker 1: founded in Venezuela to rig elections for the dictator, Hugo
Speaker 1: Chavez and number four Dominion government official machines. This is
Speaker 1: what this is what false the claims. But yeah, these
Speaker 1: are the claims. They have to be ver falls. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: they don't have to prove it, like Dominions saying these
Speaker 1: are obvious false claims, Like yeah, this is the only
Speaker 1: evidence that they have that would make what they did
Speaker 1: responsible if these were true, and it's it's patently ridiculous.
Speaker 1: Um so the number four oh yeah, number four Cody
Speaker 1: is Dominion paid kickbacks to government officials who used its
Speaker 1: machines in the twenty twenty presidential election. Um yeah, this
Speaker 1: is like, these are pretty serious allegations to make with
Speaker 1: absolute there's not quite no history. Oh again, we're building
Speaker 1: towards what the evidence here was for the greatest crime
Speaker 1: in American history. So Dominion insists that it's irrelevant that
Speaker 1: the accused statements that I just read were made by
Speaker 1: guests of Fox rather than the hosts. Yeah, and basically
Speaker 1: they're like, look, Fox is a publisher. Every statement that
Speaker 1: they choose to put out without contradiction or questioning is
Speaker 1: something they are publishing. If you were to have Sidney
Speaker 1: Powell on and then question her like that, ABC four
Speaker 1: current Corners journalist died. That's okay, Then you don't have
Speaker 1: to defend what she's said, because you're deliberately like questioning
Speaker 1: its accuracy, you know, like you're actually trying to report.
Speaker 1: But if you just let somebody talk as Fox News,
Speaker 1: you are publishing their allegations. Yeah. There's also like there's
Speaker 1: a supportive language that a lot of Fox News, I
Speaker 1: mean all of them, I guess, maybe use when dealing
Speaker 1: with these topics because of stuff like this, because they
Speaker 1: know they can't say one hundred percent, but they're not
Speaker 1: always great at it. Yeah, and they maybe they won't
Speaker 1: get away with it. Yeah. I mean it's like, uh,
Speaker 1: you know when when when the three of us were
Speaker 1: trying to launch that podcast on your network, and you
Speaker 1: guys wanted to report on breaking news, and I wanted
Speaker 1: to make a series of allegations against the Home Depot
Speaker 1: Corporation um and and these of one bad time you
Speaker 1: had at home Depot. Yeah. Well, and because of the
Speaker 1: tunnels underneath home depots where they traffic, well, I probably
Speaker 1: shouldn't make another trafficking children joke. The last one we
Speaker 1: made went badly against us all see it. I can't
Speaker 1: imagine why Robert, this is me being a responsible publisher.
Speaker 1: That's right. Yeah, recognizing that the years of lawsuits from
Speaker 1: home Depot when we tried to put that out are
Speaker 1: not worth repeating a second time. See, unlike Fox, some
Speaker 1: of us can learn your lessons. Go to home Depot,
Speaker 1: did it dot Org? Anyway, let's move on. Let's move
Speaker 1: on here. So yeah, the bulk of Dominion's assertion is
Speaker 1: that they are due summary judgment because Fox editorially employees
Speaker 1: demonstrated actual malice. Prevailing on summary judgment in this case
Speaker 1: requires that they show just one person acted with malice
Speaker 1: free false claim about the company. And this is where
Speaker 1: the stuff that's really interesting to us comes in. Quote,
Speaker 1: as Tucker Carlson told Sidney Powell November seventeenth, you keep
Speaker 1: telling our viewers that millions of votes were changed by
Speaker 1: the software. I hope you will prove that very soon.
Speaker 1: You've convinced them that Trump will win. If you don't
Speaker 1: have conclusive evidence of fraud at that scale, it's a
Speaker 1: cruel and reckless thing to keep saying. And then on
Speaker 1: November twenty first, Carlson texted, it was shockingly useless to
Speaker 1: claim that Dominion rigged the election. If there's no one
Speaker 1: inside the company willing to talk or internal dominion documents
Speaker 1: or copies of the software showing that they did it,
Speaker 1: and as you know, there isn't, which is is a
Speaker 1: pretty clear evidence that Tucker knew that what Sidney was
Speaker 1: saying was wildly irresponsible. Yeah, oh yeah, no, I mean
Speaker 1: you're right. I'm wondering how like much pushback? Like what
Speaker 1: qualifies pushback? Right, because again, what he said was like,
Speaker 1: well this is a very it's compelling, and you've you've
Speaker 1: convinced people, but you need to show evidence, so like
Speaker 1: you know the thing that he does and he knows
Speaker 1: that he's doing. Yeah yeah, Now. Dominion furthermore alleges that
Speaker 1: the statements Fox made are what you call, again per
Speaker 1: se defamatory. This means that they alleged that the dominion
Speaker 1: that the defendant committed a serious crime, and those allegations
Speaker 1: injured the defendant in their trade or profession. The key
Speaker 1: here is that when a statement is per se defamatory,
Speaker 1: the injured party doesn't need prove specific damages to establish liability, right,
Speaker 1: not per se? Yeah, not per se. I love you,
Speaker 1: you know lawyers, those wacky guys. Per Se defamatory so
Speaker 1: Dominion also notes that Fox cannot claim they had some
Speaker 1: sort of a right to report on Powell's allegations against
Speaker 1: Dominion on the basis of newsworthiness, since doing so would
Speaker 1: require them to report accurately that Powell had no evidence
Speaker 1: to back up her assertions. Discovery has given Dominion some
Speaker 1: interesting ammo here, including a text from Rupert Murdoch asking
Speaker 1: Suzanne Scott, current Fox News CEO, whether it was quote
Speaker 1: and here's Murdoch again, unarguable that high profile Fox voices
Speaker 1: fed the story that the election was stolen and that
Speaker 1: January sixth was an important chance to have the results overturned.
Speaker 1: That is Rupert Murdoch telling the CEO Fox. It is
Speaker 1: a unarguable that high profile Fox voices fed the story
Speaker 1: that the election was and that jan six was an
Speaker 1: important chance to have the results overturned. That's Murdoch's saying,
Speaker 1: we absolutely caused January or help. That is nuts, an
Speaker 1: unbelievable thing that he just said, Yeah, what he texted
Speaker 1: his coworker. He texted the quiet part. You can't just
Speaker 1: say that, Yeah, maybe you can't. He did. He did.
Speaker 1: That's that's maybe I should have been paying attention to
Speaker 1: this story we did January. That's that Rupert Murdoch quote.
Speaker 1: We did January six. You put that on some merch.
Speaker 1: I just wanted to get that lady Murky by the
Speaker 1: Secret Service. Yeah, that's that's Rupert Murdoch for you. That's
Speaker 1: a joke. It's not legally actionable. Uh So Fox News
Speaker 1: responded to Murdoch's like state, but basically Murdoch is like,
Speaker 1: I'm fairly certain that we contributed to this. Do we
Speaker 1: have evidence of like our voices feeding, like our people
Speaker 1: feeding the story that the election was stolen? And executives
Speaker 1: responded to him with fifty examples of this um, which
Speaker 1: again really making the lawyers at Dominion's job easy for them.
Speaker 1: That's so they can't even be like Dominions like dug
Speaker 1: up all these examples and Fox those aren't examples, they're
Speaker 1: like noreast sign it signed Rupert. Yeah from Rupert. Here's
Speaker 1: some perfect evidence. I hope, I hope it gave him
Speaker 1: indigestion when he had to hand over all of his
Speaker 1: fucking text messages to these rhea. I agree with you, Katie.
Speaker 1: I hope, I hope he was shitting a sand bag.
Speaker 1: So to spool boys, I hope. Yeah, Rupert Murdoch's shit.
Speaker 1: There's a video going around. I tweeted it recently. If
Speaker 1: a guy like getting sucked down into a grain silo,
Speaker 1: that's the consistency of that is awful. Yeah, stay the
Speaker 1: fuck away from grain silos, Yes, Joe, don't stay away
Speaker 1: from them. Shoot them at a distance, talking about readily
Speaker 1: grain silos, and I was like, what's that about? Didn't investigate? Now,
Speaker 1: I know. I came from a small farming town where
Speaker 1: every year people would die in grain silos, Grain silos
Speaker 1: and drunken ATV rides. Um, those were two of the
Speaker 1: leading causes of death. Um. If only Fox News had
Speaker 1: a similar record. I'm going to continue quoting from the
Speaker 1: dominion lawsuit, as Rupert Murdoch told Suzanne Scott, who's again
Speaker 1: the CEO of Fox in the aftermath of January sixth,
Speaker 1: All very well for Sean to tell you he was
Speaker 1: in despair about Trump. But what did he tell his
Speaker 1: viewers When Rupert Murdoch watched Rudy Giuliani and Sidney Powell
Speaker 1: spin their lives on November nineteenth, he told Suzanne Scott
Speaker 1: terrible stuff, damaging everybody. I fear Scott concurred, Yes, Sean,
Speaker 1: and even Piero agrees. They talk about judge Janine Pierrouh.
Speaker 1: My god, yeah, look at all the damage. We're cozy. Yeah. Wow,
Speaker 1: we're really fucking some shit up there. Um, you know
Speaker 1: who else is fucking like all those other times? No
Speaker 1: speaking of fucking shit up, but like in a good way,
Speaker 1: in an ethical, capitalist way where we all learn about
Speaker 1: what kind of mattresses we need. Cody, A lot of
Speaker 1: people don't know this about you. You prefer to sleep
Speaker 1: we call it PEB and J style, with a mattress
Speaker 1: below you and another mattress on top of you. Makes
Speaker 1: me feel secure, that's right, A little bit um, a
Speaker 1: little bit cozier, a little bit more weight than a
Speaker 1: weighted blanket. Yeah, I'm not rustling around. Yeah. If you
Speaker 1: have guests over, they can stay on top. This is
Speaker 1: this is the difference between us, Cody. I prefer to
Speaker 1: sleep literally PEB and J style, where once a week
Speaker 1: I bake two large bedside sheets of bread and I
Speaker 1: fill them with jam and with peanut butter, and I
Speaker 1: just I just roll around in a naked all night
Speaker 1: and then in the morning my breakfast is ready. Oh,
Speaker 1: I just licked myself clean like a lizard. Like that's good.
Speaker 1: I'm good the mattresses. Yeah, anyway, here's some real ads. Ah,
Speaker 1: we're back. I hope you enjoyed those good words from
Speaker 1: the good people at Jeff Jeff. It mixes well with
Speaker 1: your sweat. Um. Oh man, you're gonna steal the big
Speaker 1: Jeff account from me, Cody, We're waiting w dot Patreon
Speaker 1: backslash hit him up. Jeff a lot of money here, potentially. So.
Speaker 1: One of the things I find compelling about the allegations
Speaker 1: Dominions lawyers have put together is the fact that Fox
Speaker 1: execs were aware ahead of time that Trump would claim
Speaker 1: fraud if he lost. Now, this suggests you might say
Speaker 1: something of a conspiracy, a loose plan to find a
Speaker 1: serviceable election fraud argument and then push it whether or
Speaker 1: not it's true. In the words of Chris Sterwalt, Fox's
Speaker 1: politics editor, who again gets shit canned after this, during
Speaker 1: the relevant timeframe, long before the election, Chris says, Trump
Speaker 1: started making the claim that the only way he could
Speaker 1: lose the election was by fraud, or that the only
Speaker 1: way he would not prevail would be if it was stolen.
Speaker 1: He had laid that predicate down throughout the spring and
Speaker 1: into the summer, and it was very well known and
Speaker 1: understood by everybody in the business that this was the
Speaker 1: gambit that he was making. That's a straight quote from
Speaker 1: Sterwalt's deposition. Now Sterwalt Welt said this under oath, and
Speaker 1: dominion adds that other Fox executives made similar statements under oath.
Speaker 1: They understood that Trump was laying out a false line
Speaker 1: ahead of time so that he could justify contesting the
Speaker 1: election even if the evidence did not support it. As
Speaker 1: the COVID nineteen pandemic made more male in voting inevitable,
Speaker 1: and understanding evolved that the discrepancy between in person counts
Speaker 1: and mail votes would provide an opportunity to question the election.
Speaker 1: So before the election, Fox personalities were talking about like, well,
Speaker 1: you're going to have all the in person votes get
Speaker 1: counted first, but then the mail ins are going to
Speaker 1: come and it's going to cause a sudden shift. And
Speaker 1: that what's funny is that we were all talking about
Speaker 1: how they were going to be doing this. Yes see,
Speaker 1: we're not so different after all, Katie, We're all things. Yeah,
Speaker 1: we created I'm gonna quote again from Chris Steerwaltz deposition. Here,
Speaker 1: election day votes are going to skew heavily Republican. Early
Speaker 1: in absentee votes are going to skew heavily democratic. If
Speaker 1: you stretch out the period of time over which that's
Speaker 1: going to be counted, it's going to create a false
Speaker 1: It could tend to create a false impression about the
Speaker 1: direction that the election was going to go overall um.
Speaker 1: He noted that political professionals and political journalists at Fox
Speaker 1: universally understood this phenomenon, also termed the red mirage and
Speaker 1: the blue shift. Yeah, so that's good. That's good, good
Speaker 1: that they just said all this. Now, dominion just happened
Speaker 1: to be in a position at the nexus of all
Speaker 1: these facts, which made them a convenient scapegoat for false
Speaker 1: claims of election fraud. Discovery in this case also gives
Speaker 1: us some insight as to communications between Fox employees and
Speaker 1: members of the Trump team. When Fox called Arizona first
Speaker 1: at eleven twenty pm, a member of Trump's team called
Speaker 1: Fox's Washington Bureau managing editor Bill Salmon and told him
Speaker 1: it was quote way too soon to be calling Arizona.
Speaker 1: White House chief of Staff Mark Meadows followed up shortly thereafter,
Speaker 1: just as angry and Fox viewers were even more enraged.
Speaker 1: Quote on November fifth, Fox's chief White House correspondent told
Speaker 1: Salmon and FANC president Jay Wallace, we are taking major
Speaker 1: heat over the AZ call. Our viewers are also chanting
Speaker 1: Fox News sucks. Something I have never heard, something I
Speaker 1: have never heard before. Why, I've definitely heard that. UM.
Speaker 1: Listing Dominion also cites internal Fox emails, stating, holy cow,
Speaker 1: our audience is mad at the network and they're all
Speaker 1: caps furious. Um. It is at this point that we
Speaker 1: get to one of the more into because again, parts
Speaker 1: of this are redacted, and the way that redactions work,
Speaker 1: you know, you don't you don't always know why, right, Um, Like,
Speaker 1: that's that's sometimes yeah, yeah, But there's there's uh the
Speaker 1: like immediately following those internal Fox emails. Um, there's this
Speaker 1: paragraph that begins the backlash was so strong that and
Speaker 1: then the rest of the paragraph is all blacked out. UM.
Speaker 1: I am no idea what that's going on about, but
Speaker 1: I hope we find out some days. Um. And the
Speaker 1: mystery of what that paragraph holds is made all the
Speaker 1: more enticing by what comes next. Fox hosts Tucker Carlson,
Speaker 1: Laura Ingram, and Sean Hannity immediately understood the threat to
Speaker 1: them personally. Carlson wrote his producer Alex Piffer on November fifth,
Speaker 1: we worked really hard to build what we have. Those
Speaker 1: fuckers are destroying our credibility. It enrages me. He added
Speaker 1: that he had spoken with Laura and Sean a minute
Speaker 1: ago that they are highly upset. Carlson noted, at this point,
Speaker 1: we're getting hurt no matter what. Phifer responded, It's a
Speaker 1: hard needle to thread, but I really think many on
Speaker 1: our side are being reckless demagogues right now. Tucker replied,
Speaker 1: of course they are. We're not going to follow them,
Speaker 1: and then he added what Trump's good at is destroying things.
Speaker 1: He's the undisputed world champion of that. He could easily
Speaker 1: destroy us if we play it wrong. This is awful
Speaker 1: and so good it is. There's so much going on
Speaker 1: there too, because He's like, first off, I'm furious they're
Speaker 1: destroying our credibility by questioning the narrative that Trump's election
Speaker 1: was stolen from him, Right, That's what they're doing that's
Speaker 1: destroying our credibility, is they're making the audience distrust us
Speaker 1: because the audience will only believe the lie that the
Speaker 1: election was stolen. But then he's like, fuck these people
Speaker 1: who spread the election lies in the first place, because
Speaker 1: they're being reckless demagogues and we're not going to follow them.
Speaker 1: But also Trump is a destroyer and I don't want
Speaker 1: him to destroy It's this incredible mix of totally aware
Speaker 1: of how much of a lie that they're spreading, and
Speaker 1: also comprehensive cowardice. Yeah, and a history of that knowledge too,
Speaker 1: because even the they're all they're acting like demagogues. Of
Speaker 1: course they are, is what he's saying. Yeah, imply like,
Speaker 1: of course they are. That's what they do, That's what
Speaker 1: we are, right, Yeah, Yeah, they don't mind that part yep, Nope.
Speaker 1: So Dominion Next presents evidence that Summit Fox sought to
Speaker 1: actively reign in this disinformation. Chief political correspondent Brett bare
Speaker 1: repeatedly told colleagues that there was no evidence of fraud,
Speaker 1: and he alerted his boss when Maria Barbaromo posted baseless
Speaker 1: allegations of vote dumps social media, telling him we have
Speaker 1: to prevent this stuff, we need to fact check. And
Speaker 1: it is a note of how bad this is that
Speaker 1: Brett Baar is the is the voice of recent center
Speaker 1: of the company out. Yeah, Like I I'm like, I
Speaker 1: understand kind of because Shep Smith was like the other
Speaker 1: guy at Fox there was not not not a completely
Speaker 1: broken monster. Um. It's fascinating to me, like what these
Speaker 1: guys must have told themselves in order to keep doing this,
Speaker 1: because they clearly have some ethical center, right, because this
Speaker 1: is also like it's interesting because this is just about
Speaker 1: this one yeah topic. Yeah, and I can't imagine just
Speaker 1: now do all the rest? Yeah, yeah, what have you
Speaker 1: been saying about everything? Yeah? Yeah, because one of two
Speaker 1: things is true. Either Brett does this with everything that
Speaker 1: Fox lies about or this was the first time he
Speaker 1: was like, well this is a bridge too far, right, Yeah,
Speaker 1: like everybody like textasure like this is damaging. How we're
Speaker 1: gonna do this and play it in a lie to people? Yeah? Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think I kind of suspect because you remember there's
Speaker 1: that thing, Um, oh god, what's her name? The lady
Speaker 1: with the TV show who's like very popular liberal news person.
Speaker 1: Um racial matter. I was literally she put anyway whatever, Um,
Speaker 1: I can't believe I forgot her name. Um, But like
Speaker 1: she's made comments about Tucker being a nice guy in
Speaker 1: person and like they're friendly together, and I kind of
Speaker 1: suspect that's what's going on with Brett, where it's like
Speaker 1: there's a certain degree of like malfeasance and propaganda that
Speaker 1: like his friends, who you know, are elsewhere in media
Speaker 1: and politics. Don't mind from Fox Right, but this denying
Speaker 1: the election entirely trying to inciting this fucking seditious act
Speaker 1: of January sixth, that was fucking a step too far,
Speaker 1: and it was it was gonna make him look bad
Speaker 1: in front of his friends, so he had to. I
Speaker 1: don't know, I don't know Brett Bete, but clearly for
Speaker 1: some of them there's a line. By November sixth, Rupert
Speaker 1: Murdoch had stated the same fears as Brett Bear and
Speaker 1: Warren CEO Suzanne Scott. If Trump becomes a sore loser,
Speaker 1: we should watch Sean especially, and others don't sound the
Speaker 1: same union Sean, He's gonna be a wildcard on this
Speaker 1: one if Trump ties to make himself a dictator. That
Speaker 1: same day, Sidney Powell was a guest on lou Dobbs Tonight,
Speaker 1: where she told viewers about a supposed CIA program called
Speaker 1: Hammer and Scorecard. Hammer was a government supercomputer, she told viewers,
Speaker 1: and Scorecard was a program that would allow it to
Speaker 1: change votes. She told Fox viewers, this quote explains a
Speaker 1: lot of what we're seeing. After the broadcast, a viewer
Speaker 1: emailed Brett bar about Hammer and Scorecard. He forwarded this
Speaker 1: to Fox president Jay Wallace and asked, what is this?
Speaker 1: What the fuck is this? So there is evidence that
Speaker 1: Murdoch even took steps with one of his other properties,
Speaker 1: The New York Post, to stop stolen election conspiracy theories
Speaker 1: from spreading. On November seventh, the Post published an editorial
Speaker 1: begging Trump to admit he'd lost and quote get Rudy
Speaker 1: Giuliani off TV Murdoch. One of the things that discovery
Speaker 1: revealed is Murdoch thanking a Post employee for ensuring the
Speaker 1: editorial was spread, so he had no problem with like
Speaker 1: manipulating his various periodicals in order to get this message out,
Speaker 1: which is particularly interesting to me given another factor revealed
Speaker 1: by the dominion lawsuit. Dominion alleges Rupert Murdoch provided Donald
Speaker 1: Trump's senior advisor and son in law, Jared Kushner, with
Speaker 1: confidential information about the Biden campaign, and specific they gave
Speaker 1: Kushner access to Biden campaign ads before publication, and information
Speaker 1: on his debate strategy. Dominion does not go into more
Speaker 1: detail here. That is just an allegation that they make
Speaker 1: in their filing. Fox, for their part, say that Dominion
Speaker 1: is mischaracterizing the acts here, and they further note quote
Speaker 1: Dominion cherry picks any sound bite it confined from any
Speaker 1: corner of the Fox organization, even though it admits in
Speaker 1: its brief one hundred and seventeen pages later that most
Speaker 1: of the evidence is utterly irrelevant to the legal issues
Speaker 1: in this case. Dominions focus on such irrelevant evidence demonstrates
Speaker 1: that it is more interested in headlines than in law
Speaker 1: or fact. And what's compelling to me about this is
Speaker 1: that that's not entirely wrong. I don't think they're Dominions
Speaker 1: wrong on the facts. They are including a lot of
Speaker 1: shit in here that is not specifically targeted towards their lawsuit. Right,
Speaker 1: that is not specifically about claims Fox made about Dominion.
Speaker 1: I think their strategy here is to try and improve
Speaker 1: how comprehensive the malice and irresponsive delivers a Fox also
Speaker 1: the culture and what this Yeah, yeah, painting a full
Speaker 1: picture here, yeah, And I think what they're doing is fair.
Speaker 1: I also kind of suspect that a piece of it
Speaker 1: also is them being like, well, they fucking dragged our
Speaker 1: name through the mud, and we can do that without
Speaker 1: lying about I'll be fun pieces of shit. Well we
Speaker 1: can throw down. You want to throw down, motherfuckers? Try me. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's what this is. But right now, do you want
Speaker 1: to motherfuckers? Want to throw down by telling people your plugs?
Speaker 1: This is part one. We're done. This is part one.
Speaker 1: We're done. We're done and done a being bought a
Speaker 1: boom baby and then the lessons. Yeah, and everything was
Speaker 1: good forever. Yeah, this wraps up. Yeah, we've got piece
Speaker 1: of shows for you to check out. Plug the podcast
Speaker 1: Even More News. Oh but you guys have a podcast
Speaker 1: and um and we talk about stuff. We shoot the ship,
Speaker 1: we make jokes, we have fun guests. Sometimes Roberts a guest. Robert,
Speaker 1: would you like to come on our show again soon?
Speaker 1: We'll typically love to come down the show again. I've
Speaker 1: been meaning to get into podcasting, so this could be
Speaker 1: a really good I think that you'd be really good interesting, interesting, interesting,
Speaker 1: Cody plug our other things. Oh yeah, we have another
Speaker 1: show called some More News. Um. It's also available as
Speaker 1: a podcast if you'd like. It's on YouTube dot com
Speaker 1: as well as a video. There's stuff in it with
Speaker 1: puppets are there sometimes and check out our Patreon dot
Speaker 1: com s. Last some more news support those things. Yeah, furthermore, furthermore,
Speaker 1: things to be continued doing when we return. Yeah yeah,
Speaker 1: what yeah, how are you doing? Like, would you flex
Speaker 1: for us? Maybe? Like lay down, take those shoes off,
Speaker 1: get that shirt off too, you know, come on, come
Speaker 1: on asking them to flex their cuddle up with me?
Speaker 1: Just just just come on, get on, get on in here.
Speaker 1: Another mattress, mattress on top of us. Just make that
Speaker 1: a double texts. We got ourselves get covered in peanut
Speaker 1: butter and jelly together. Kay, this guy, maybe watch season
Speaker 1: one of True Detective. You know, good stuff, good stuff,
Speaker 1: good stuff. It's a great season. I did. I rewatched
Speaker 1: it recently. It's I love that show, that season, just
Speaker 1: for the Regila to do of it, that show. Um, anyway,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna go dig out my generator from this pile
Speaker 1: of fucking snow. Yeah, and I'm gonna rewatch True Detective
Speaker 1: season one again again already. Wow, I'm not going to
Speaker 1: do either of Those Things behind the Bastards is a
Speaker 1: production of cool Zone Media. For more from cool Zone Media,
Speaker 1: visit our website cool zonemedia dot com, or check us
Speaker 1: out on the iHeartRadio app, Apple Podcasts, or wherever you
Speaker 1: get your podcasts.