Could the ticking clock on the U.S. debt ceiling bring forth an economic tempest or will political bravado yield to practicality? That's the urgent question we tackle, as I lay bare the high-stakes tug-of-war in Washington that could affect millions, including our veterans who might face VA budget cuts. We also slice through the thick air of the Kansas anti-LGBTQ legislation debate, with a personal touch provided by my cousin Josh, whose insights add depth to the discourse. Our conversation aims to cut through the layers of complexity and present straightforward solutions amidst the tumultuous climate of contemporary issues like gun control and abortion rights.
The spirit of competition is alive, but so is the controversy in the world of sports, as we confront the topic of transgender athletes on the playing field. From the history of sports integration to the logistics of trans teams, we're analyzing what fairness really means when we step onto the track or the court. But the arena of sports isn't the only place where predictability reigns – I share my candid thoughts on the recent Trump Town Hall, the unwavering nature of his supporter base, and what that could spell out for the political landscape as we inch closer to 2024.
Taking a step back from the frontline of current events, we delve into the interpretation of historical narratives with an eye for humility and the empathetic teaching of complex social issues. I'm looking forward to bringing more discussions to the table with Over-opinionated's Josh Scott, spotlighting the voices from Giles County, Southwest Virginia, and unpicking systemic failures like the tragic incident involving a homeless individual and a former Marine. And as we pore over Senator Diane Feinstein's Senate return and the $5 million defamation case victory against Donald Trump, we're setting the stage for a political season that promises to be as riveting as it is unpredictable. Join me, and let's navigate these waters together, seeking clarity amid the chaos of our times.
Could the ticking clock on the U.S. debt ceiling bring forth an economic tempest or will political bravado yield to practicality? That's the urgent question we tackle, as I lay bare the high-stakes tug-of-war in Washington that could affect millions, including our veterans who might face VA budget cuts. We also slice through the thick air of the Kansas anti-LGBTQ legislation debate, with a personal touch provided by my cousin Josh, whose insights add depth to the discourse. Our conversation aims to cut through the layers of complexity and present straightforward solutions amidst the tumultuous climate of contemporary issues like gun control and abortion rights.
The spirit of competition is alive, but so is the controversy in the world of sports, as we confront the topic of transgender athletes on the playing field. From the history of sports integration to the logistics of trans teams, we're analyzing what fairness really means when we step onto the track or the court. But the arena of sports isn't the only place where predictability reigns – I share my candid thoughts on the recent Trump Town Hall, the unwavering nature of his supporter base, and what that could spell out for the political landscape as we inch closer to 2024.
Taking a step back from the frontline of current events, we delve into the interpretation of historical narratives with an eye for humility and the empathetic teaching of complex social issues. I'm looking forward to bringing more discussions to the table with Over-opinionated's Josh Scott, spotlighting the voices from Giles County, Southwest Virginia, and unpicking systemic failures like the tragic incident involving a homeless individual and a former Marine. And as we pore over Senator Diane Feinstein's Senate return and the $5 million defamation case victory against Donald Trump, we're setting the stage for a political season that promises to be as riveting as it is unpredictable. Join me, and let's navigate these waters together, seeking clarity amid the chaos of our times.
Welcome to the Daryl McLean show. Today is Friday, may 12th. You are listening to episode 343. Let's get to our show. I am honored and blessed to be able to have a loyal patron, community and constituents who regularly send me questions, and today I'm going to start to show off a little bit different by dealing with questions that people have sent me over the last few days. The first question I have is from the first patron, actually is from Jean Show question will the debt ceiling be raised before the June 1st deadline? Now, of course, you're making me deal with the hypothetical, which I normally don't like to do, so let me do a little bit of throat clearing first.
Speaker 1:The debt ceiling is a game that is played anytime we have split government. In the last previous administration there was no debt ceiling fight because Republicans went along and raised the debt ceiling for President Trump every time it was needed. Before this, when it was dealing with Barack Obama, he had to deal with the debt ceiling and some excited sort of a grand bargain and compromise, and in the Bill Clinton years he had to do the same thing when he was dealing with Speaker Newt Giggrich. Now the debt ceiling is a silly fight in my opinion humble opinion, I shall say because I think that there is a fundamental problem with the government already allotting money for certain programs and then, when those bills come due, saying we will not pay. I think that there is a 14th amendment question that really should be wrestled with when it especially when you deal with the fact that it says the full faith and credit of the United States shall not be questioned. But I think this is a very particular fight that has had anytime. There's divided government and I actually am going to say something controversial here. I think that it's okay to have this fight. What I don't like about the fight is about how they pretend that this is a game where Stephen Representative McCartney needs to get something and Representative Chuck Schumer needs to get something, and AOC needs to get something and Mitch McConnell needs to get something. What actually needs to happen in this fight is you need to be able to look at the constituents that these people represent and look at what is being proposed and say actually, the people in your district would not benefit from that proposal, and take that fight to the people. So I look at some of the cuts alleged cuts that is being proposed in the Republican budget. I don't think that that stuff is popular with the constituencies.
Speaker 1:Even I think I played on the not the last episode, but the episode before where they were proposing certain cuts to the VA and it was like, well, the VA is rising at this rate and yada, yada, yada. And I kept looking at it and I said, well, what's actually happening is the fact that the war in Afghanistan has ended and the VA has expanded and more people are getting out. The military has been having positive retention problems. It only makes sense that VA claims would start to go up as people transition out. So it's not like the VA is. The budget is growing. It's something that was not predictable.
Speaker 1:You have a war. The war lasts for a certain amount of years. The war ends. Whether you think that should have ended or not, the war ends. You have an administration that may be unpopular. People get out of the military. They are going to now apply for the benefits that was promised to them when they joined. The administration that deals with that is the Department of Veterans Affairs. So why look at the Department of Veterans Affairs and say that the programs are growing when it is the biggest? No duh, it was somewhat. That should have been known. The second you decided to go into Iraq and Afghanistan or in Desert Storm or Vietnam or whatever. You should know that a lot of those people are going to eventually transition out and when they transition out they're going to need a certain amount of care. So that is that. Will it be raised? The guess is a strong. Eventually it's going to be raised if the business community says it's not good for them.
Speaker 1:This is a two-party system, right, and the party that runs the heaviest toward the business district is the party that normally wins. As I said on a previous episode, it is a big club and you ain't in it. So thank you for the question. Will the full? Will they threaten the full faith and credit of the United States of America by not raising the debt ceiling? They have done it before and the person that usually is seen as responsible for not raising it normally takes the hit Circa. Go look at what new giga-age added to Bill Clinton. Go look at what they tried to do to Barack Obama. Most people, when the government shuts down, shuts down because the debt limit or whatever the government's run out of money. Most people blame the party that they see causing it, not necessarily the party that is in power. Thank you for the question. Another show question that I have is about a Kansas House Speaker, daniel Hawkins, who had passed a anti-LGBTQ bill that allows forced genitalial inspection of children in order to play sports, and the other Republicans that are currently working to pass these types of bills across the country. And was this a good or bad thing? The person that sent me this question his name is actually Josh, and this young man who sent me this point of question is actually my cousin, so either way. So Joshua McClain sent me this, but it says I agree with this, but I do think it's too far. You don't have to expect them to make them tell the truth. And then I somewhat replied to me, asked me what he thought about this and I said you really just need a birth certificate and it will tell you everything you need to know. Or you can go to the Department of Vital Statistics or you can just ask the parents. He replied to me, said this is becoming a very difficult situation because both sides feel like that. They're right and, to be honest to me they both have good points. I think it's going to be right up there with guns and abortions. And I replied to Josh. He said this is actually not difficult. There are less than 100 or so athletes who are trans that are trying to compete. I flat out tell them to compete as your born gender or way to you have a trans team.
Speaker 1:When I wrestled in Florida we had no girls league, so the girls actually wrestled on the team with the boys. The girls, when they came with the lead it only had about a state championship. So the girls would wrestle with the boys for the entire year and during when they would break off for the end of the year and go wrestle with the boys. We didn't make a big deal out of it because it was only about eight of them. All of this money in the LGBT community they can fund transports and support them on their own if they actually care about this issue. Josh then told me that is the obvious answer.
Speaker 1:But the first thing is progressives will say oh, you want to say humans again? What would MLK say? I responded to him by saying well, I would say yes, and so do you. You, which is why you lock your doors when you go in your house. It's when you have a privacy fence, is why you live in the neighborhood you live in and set up picking the one across the road are across the city. It is why everyone you know thinks like you. You live in an area where everybody thinks and acts like you. Next question I would also say doesn't your child go to a private school? And when you go to church, is it a all people's church or utilitarian church? Are you are? Do you go to a church with a certain denominational background. Oh, by the way, you do know MLK was a Baptist preacher. So we do and practice and, in part, even though we say we don't like segregation etc.
Speaker 1:We all do self-segregate ourselves and the notion that this hasn't be complicated when it comes to sports is, honestly, just us being silly. We know for a fact that that a man, if he has lived his life as a man and got muscles as a man, is going to be stronger than most women. Now, does that mean that most women cannot be trained in order to kind of close the gap? Yes, but when all things are equal. If this man is lifted, lifting the same amount of weight and doing the same amount of training as this woman, and then he transitions to try to be a woman, he's going to crush that woman that has been doing the exact same things, and it is a level of common sense and fairness that I think we just have to say is nothing wrong with telling people that not everybody at all the times get to do everything and we have to be adult about that situation. When it comes to certain sports, I have the same concept. We know that not everything is all said and equal, but I also have to say like we knew this was going to happen. We knew this was the inevitable step that was going to happen.
Speaker 1:I remember when people used to celebrate that there was a female on the boys football team. What made you people think that it wasn't going to eventually go into the opposite direction, that there was going to be a male trying to be on a female team. You open the door for this type of stuff and people you didn't think were peeking stepped in. That is how it goes. That is always how it goes. History does not repeat itself, but it does run. Thank you for the conversation to my wonderful cousin, joshua McLean. So that is that. I guess I will eventually jump into this politics thing that I'm going to kind of touch a bit.
Speaker 1:Of course, the obvious thing is the Trump Town Hall meeting that happened at CNN and I am going to talk about that and I'm going to go ahead and break the news for most of you Watch the town hall, listen to it, and it was exactly what you thought. It was going to be Nothing new, more the same. I don't know why. I didn't hear anything different than what would have I heard President Trump say over the past six or so years now actually longer than that since he stepped down that elevator and said that he was running. It was literally the crowd cheering for sometimes what I thought was the most ridiculous parts, and the other portion was the media trying to trap Trump on what I thought were the reasonable parts. But so it was a crowd full of Republican voters who already are going to vote for the Republican Party no matter what, and a media personality that, when you go look up their past, is very interesting and dubious to me that they got this part. There used to be a George Soros funding this and this conspiracy person. So, but not only that, it just, in my opinion, it didn't seem like they actually wanted to have a person there that would provide a significant amount of back-and-forward and push-back on what the former president is saying and have them say it back.
Speaker 1:Imagine a world where you know that Donald Trump is a Republican, that he is going to be bombastic, that he is going to say certain things, but instead of giving him an opponent who is not going to be able to deal with the Gish Gallup, and you put his exact counterpart on the stage, not as a unbiased journalist or somebody with an opinion pretending to be independent. Let's say, you put Donald Trump there and you have a town hall and you have Donald Trump with his charisma and his answers and you juxtapose him with somebody like the MSNBC host, lawrence O'Donnell, and you let them have a back-and-forth. That would be something interesting to watch. Are you put Donald Trump there, as unbombastic and entertaining as he could be? Are you put him with Mehdi Hassan? Somebody who is very aggressive in their interview style of most people, shreds people with the way he interviews folks. I used to watch him way back on the BBC and he has an internet sort of thing now, but he's very good in his questioning. He actually has a book that I just bought called how to Win Every Argument, just in case. But that is somebody, because a lot of times when you deal with these politicians, what I feel like happens is they are very good at steamrolling you and when you have a crowd packed that is going to have a cheering and cheering section, I don't think that the normal playbook of journalism works.
Speaker 1:So there was nothing new in the Trump town hall. It was just kind of the same old. He repeated some of the same claims. The personality said that it wasn't true. It seemed like she tried to pin Donald Trump down on saying the election was a stolen yada yada. He just reiterated the claims that have already been made over the past few years. It was basically like CNN needed some ratings. They just fired Don Lemon, they put Donald Trump up there and Donald Trump played himself the greatest hits. And that was basically my analysis of the town hall.
Speaker 1:I didn't see anything that I thought was significant enough to make me want to play the audio. I just saw journalists says thing, presidents says stuff that he already has said 50 million times before them trying to back him in the corner to apologize about something Him, of course, not going to apologize. I just didn't see anything significant to where I thought it was a big deal. It was just almost like when I hear Bernie Sanders speech. It's kind of border plate. You know what's going to be said. You know you're going to agree with it. You're going to agree with it, you don't. You're going to not agree with it.
Speaker 1:I think that what people fail to realize when it comes to this Trump buying thing, when it comes to a prediction, is that you're literally running the exact same playbook because none of these people have changed. You know what it was like during the four years of a Donald Trump administration. If you thought Donald Trump hung the moon, you're going to go back out and you're going to vote for Donald Trump in the exact same way you did the first two times. You would get one more third time to go out and try to do the same thing. If you like the way that Donald Trump did things, you're going to vote for him again. You don't care that he's bombastic and brash and all these other things on koof. Whatever you actually like that. You like that. He is not a politician who shakes up the establishment, and that is just how it is. You might as well just realize that that is baked in a cake. On the other end, jejex deposed that position. If you thought that Biden was bland and boring but he was going to steady the ship and the only thing is he was the anti-Trump, you're going to make that exact same vote. You're going to make the issue If Donald Trump and Joe Biden meet again for the presidency.
Speaker 1:I see it actually playing out the exact same way because you're dealing with the exact same voters. The only thing that is actually is going to change in this specific situation is the amount of people who have died during the COVID pandemic. That's the only difference. Who died and what constituency is going to be the core difference. The other core differences who are going to be the new voters who were not there to vote last time? And, of course, the small portion will be the who are the people that were disenfranchised so much that they are not interested in voting anymore. That is basically the core of it. The town hall was a massive waste of my time, didn't hear anything new, didn't hear anything significant, didn't hear anything that I thought I wanted to share. You can go waste your time and watch the entire extravaganza. I watched it for the sake of you guys. Just didn't hear anything new. If you ever heard one rally for the former president, you somewhat heard them all.
Speaker 2:This news story was written by Gillian Brockhill and published on the 10th of May 2023. It's read by Adrian Walker and produced by NOAA News Over Audio, an app offering curated audio articles from the world's best publishers. Jonathan Ive was deep in the Duke University Archives researching his new biography of Martin Luther King Jr when he made an alarming discovery King's harshest and most famous criticism of Malcolm X, in which he accused his fellow civil rights leader of fiery, demagogic oratory, appears to have been fabricated. I think its historic reverberations are huge. I told the Washington Post We've been teaching people for decades, for generations, that King had this harsh criticism of Malcolm X, and it's just not true. The quote came from a January 1965 Playboy interview with author Alex Haley, a then 43-year-old black journalist, and was the longest published interview King ever did. Because of the severity of King's criticism, it has been repeated countless times cast as a dividing line between King and Malcolm X. The new revelation shows that King was much more open-minded about Malcolm than we tended to portray him. I accept Haley's legacy has been tarnished by accusations of plagiarism and historical inaccuracy in his most famous book, roots that this latest finding could open up more of his work to criticism, especially in his book the Autobiography of Malcolm X as told to Alex Haley, released nine months after Malcolm X's assassination in 1965. Malcolm X, a member of the Nation of Islam, had frequently attacked King and his commitment to nonviolence, going so far as to call King a modern Uncle Tom. But his criticism often had strategic purposes, I accept, and acting as a foil to King, his message had more value to the media. King saw value in being a foil to Malcolm sometimes too, but I think at their core they had a lot in common. They certainly shared a lot of the same goals, I accept. I, who previously wrote acclaimed biographies of Muhammad Ali and Lou Gehry, said he found the fabrication in the course of his standard book research for King Alive due out May 16. When a subject has given a long interview, he'll look through the archives of the journalist who conducted it, hoping to find notes or tapes with previously unpublished anecdotes. He did not find a recording of Haley's interview with King in the Haley archives at Duke, but he did find what appears to be an unedited transcript of the full interview, likely typed by a secretary straight from a recording I accept. I provided the post with a copy of the transcript On page 60 of the 84-page document, haley asks Dr King, would you care to comment upon the articulate former black Muslim Malcolm X?
Speaker 2:King responds I have met Malcolm X but circumstances didn't enable me to talk with him for more than a minute. I totally disagree with many of his political and philosophical views. As I understand them. He is very articulate, as you say. I don't want to seem to sound as if I feel so self-righteous or absolutist that I think I have the only truth, the only way. Maybe he does have some of the answer, but I know that I have so often felt that I wished that he would talk less of violence, because I don't think that violence can solve our problem. And in his litany of expressing the despair of the Negro without offering a positive, creative approach, I think that he falls into a rut sometimes. That is not how King's response appeared in the published interview, while the top part is nearly identical with the transcript, it ended in Playboy like this. And in his litany of articulating the despair of the Negro without offering any positive, alternative alternative, I feel that Malcolm has done himself and our people a great disservice.
Speaker 2:Fiery, demagogic oratory in the Black ghettos, urging Negroes to arm themselves and prepare to engage in violence, as he has done, can reap nothing but grief. Some of the phrases added to King's answer appear to be taken significantly out of context, while others appear to be fabricated. For example, I feel that Malcolm has done himself and our people a great disservice. King does not say this or anything similar anywhere in the 84-page interview transcript. As for Fiery demagogic oratory in the Black ghettos urging Negroes to arm themselves and prepare to engage in violence, king says this phrase much earlier in the transcript, on page 12,. And in answer to the question after King, what is your opinion of Negro extremists who advocate armed violence and sabotage? King gives a lengthy response that begins Fiery demagogic oratory in the Black ghettos urging Negroes to arm themselves and prepare to engage in violence can achieve nothing but negative results. It goes on to say, as he Malcolm X has done, when King does not name Malcolm X as an example of Fiery demagogic oratory anywhere in the transcript. And lastly, the phrase can reap nothing but grief does not appear in the transcript.
Speaker 2:It is a standard practice in journalism when publishing Q&A-style interviews to make minor changes, such as removing excessive ums or truncating long answers where the subject repeats their point over and over again or wanders from the topic at hand. But journalists typically take great pains to ensure any changes do not alter the intended meaning of an interviewee's response. In addition, outlets commonly will include an editor's note informing the reader of such changes. What Hailey appears to have done amounts to journalistic malpractice.
Speaker 2:I've said we should remember that King was always more radical than we like to imagine or talk about. I continued. He was a Christian radical and his radicalism came from a different place than Malcolm's did, but they always had a lot in common. They always believed that you had to take radical steps to change America, to end racism, to create a country that lived up to the words of its promises. Indeed, in another part of the transcript, hailey asks King about critics labeling him an extremist, to which King responded at first it disturbed me. Then I began to consider that, yes, I would like to think of myself as an extremist in the light of Christ-like spirit, which made Jesus an extremist for love. I have shared this discovery with a number of King scholars and the changes jumped out to them as a real fraud, I've said. They're like oh my God. I've been teaching that to my students for years and now they have to rethink it, I've said. One of these scholars is Peniel E Joseph, director of the Center for Race and Democracy at the University of Texas at Austin and the author of a number of books about the civil rights and Black power movements. He told the Post that he would change how he teaches now that Ike's terrific research was setting the historical record straight. Given Hailey's other scandals, this is not really surprising or shocking, but it's bad. Joseph said.
Speaker 2:We know on other occasions King is talking about Malcolm X without mentioning him at all. Joseph said In this specific case we have more clarification about how certain media wanted to pick them against each other and use Dr King as a cudgel against Malcolm. King and Malcolm X met only once, and briefly, outside a Senate hearing at the US Capitol on March 26, 1964. Weeks before Malcolm X had announced his break with the nation of Islam and its leader, elijah Muhammad, and his willingness to work with other civil rights leaders. When the men met, he told King I'm throwing myself into the heart of the civil rights struggle.
Speaker 2:Haley, who spent much of his life struggling to pay the bills, may have decided to emphasize or exaggerate King's and Malcolm X's differences to increase his public profile. Joseph suggested. In the same period, between 1963 and 1965, haley was also conducting a series of interviews that would become Malcolm X's autobiography, as Malcolm X allegedly told it to him. I believe that what we know about this incident and others that we know about Alex Haley should prompt us to scrutinize everything he's written, including the autobiography I've said.
Speaker 2:Joseph is more cautious, saying that even if Haley took license with it, all autobiographies should be understood as a literary creation and not an exact historical record. Still, educators using the autobiography in their classes teach students to think critically about it. He said In the end, king was not afraid to criticize Malcolm, but he was also willing to listen to him and he was not ruling him out as a crackpot, as a violent wild card. He was thinking about Malcolm and where he belonged on the team of people fighting for justice. I've said, whatever thoughts King may have had about working with Malcolm X in the future, no such partnership would come to pass. Malcolm X was assassinated on February 21, 1965, a month after the King interview published.
Speaker 1:Now, I read a lot, and one of my favorite subjects that I read about is philosophy and history, history probably being one of my favorites especially what I call I'll just label as recent history. So I'm thinking from where I'm sitting now to 75 years in the past, and I do this because you see how difficult this can be that if we are still finding out things about what happened during the Civil Rights era versus what we were taught in school being incorrect or inaccurate, I will then think what does that mean? That we have been mistaught or not don't know the full truth about, about things that happened in 1776, about things that happened before that period? There is a old saying that became kind of, you know, came, it used to be in vogue and it went out. We used to say history means history, history, and then there used to be a juxtaposition to that, what we would say history is often written by the victors, and so I think sometimes, when we approach these topics, we need to approach them with a certain amount of humility and grace. This is the first generation that people in school now actually have books. Their textbooks finally talk about September 11th attack. What do you think those books actually say, because there are a amazing amount of differences about what each American who was living through that event thought about what happened, thought about why was cause, thought about how it could have been avoided and everything that happened, all the geopolitical things that happened around it, everything that happened domestically, and it all is always a battle over how the story is told and who gets to tell the story and who gets the privilege to listen to it. Not only that, but this proves this happened in the 60s and now this is a fundamental piece of history that has been taught in all these classes that we now know, as of today, is wrong. How many people will get this information and, of course, correct, and how many people will never know that this revelation exists and for the next few years, they'll be teaching this to their children, our teachers will be teaching this to other people's children, etc. How many people died believing something that was not true? So when we approach all these things philosophy, politics, religion, psychology, sociology, behavioral science, how we deal with each other I just would cement that we approach it with a certain amount of humbleness and humility and to just try our best, to do our best to be kind.
Speaker 1:I want to do a bit of housekeeping show announcements before I back out of this. Everybody knows that my loyal patrons allow me to sponsor and to do certain things and fund other media organizations that are bigger than mine that have to be saying what I think is legitimate on a different platform. I will be joining a patron by the name of outspoken outspoken with Josh Scott. We'll be trying to help fund that and if you would join me, that would be great. That will be something that I'm going to be doing on next week and I was also honored to be able to go on the show out. I'm sorry, and I said outspoken.
Speaker 1:The show is actually called Over-opinionated with Josh Scott. It was a great title and it's just coming up about six episodes. All of them have been getting better and better and better and if you could go and give him a shout out, listen to it, give him a review, put him up there in the algorithms like share, subscribe, that'd be great. We in this community of independent media are going to be helping Over-opinionated with Josh Scott try to get the voice heard from the Giles County Southwest Virginia area and now we are gearing up for the campaign season and that does mean that times are about to go back to what it used to be. I will be producing more shows, because this kind of high goes in this space.
Speaker 1:There's a lot of time where people start to engage in more of this because politics is right up in their face when it comes to stuff like the debt ceiling, when it comes to stuff like the government shutdown, when it comes to the Fed raising interest rates and, more importantly, are what people seem to pay attention to the most when the presidential race is getting to full gear. We are now coming up on to where we are about to hit the 2024 election. So I have gone to the people who post this show company based in out of Jacksonville, florida. I have upgraded my subscription again to be able to record more episodes and that is exactly what is going to happen. So we are going to start to dig back deep into the weeds of a lot of topics that are going on. So buckle up. It's going to be a ride and I will be on the train with you leading this course.
Speaker 1:We will be actually doing a weekend show for probably the next two days, because I want to talk about some of the stuff that is going on inside of DC politics, as well as a video that I have just been seeing and I have been making a breast up of a very sad situation where a homeless person with mental illness problems was actually subdued by a former Marine veteran, and now both people's lives have been tragically affected. The homeless gentleman was actually put in a sleeper or a strangulation and ended up dying, and now the former Marine veteran is being charged with manslaughter. This is not just a failing of people. Obviously, that veteran was doing what he thought was right. He was trying to protect the people on the train. He stepped in, like he has been taught to step in his entire life and he is, for all intent purposes, he has stepped in, and the person who suffered is a homeless person who is also fairly young, who is suffering a mental health crisis.
Speaker 1:And I want to deal with the bigger issue of this is where I get to stuff like systemic why was this person out on the street? That is a failing not just of them. That is a failing of the system. Why didn't this person have the mental health things that they needed? That is not just failing on them. That is a failing of the system.
Speaker 1:That is something that I am going to be wrestling with on the next episode, as well as the return of Diane Feinstein to the Senate and what that likely means, as well, as EJ and Carol, who sued Donald Trump for defamation and also accused him of a sexual assault a few years ago, has won her case and was awarded by a jury of their peers $5 million, so we have to talk about that. What does that mean? That Trump has now not only been indicted in New York, but now has lost another case for defamation and has been told to cough up $5 million. We will be back with more as we gear up for this campaign season. Thank you for tuning in and I will see you on the next episode.