The Darrell McClain show
Independent media that won't reinforce tribalism. We have one Planet; nobody's leaving so let’s reason together!! Darrell, McClain is a Military veteran with an abnormal interest in politics, economics, religion, philosophy, science, and literature. He was born and raised in Jacksonville FL, and went to Edward H white High School where he wrestled Under Coach Jermy Smith and The Late Brian Gilbert. He was a team wrestling captain, District champion, and an NHSCA All-American in freestyle Wrestling. He received a wrestling scholarship from Waldorf University in Forest City, Iowa. After a short period, he decided he no longer wanted to cut weight which effectively ended his college wrestling journey. Darrell Mcclain is an Ordained Pastor under The Universal Life Church and is still in good standing, he's a Believer in The Doctrines of Grace Also Known as Calvinism. He joined the United States Navy in 2008 and was A Master At Arms (military police officer) He was awarded several awards while on active duty including an expeditionary combat medal, a Global War on Terror medal, a National Defense Medal, a Korean defense medal, and multiple Navy achievement medals. While In the Navy he was also the assistant wrestling coach at Robert E Lee High School. He's a Brown Belt in Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu under six six-degree black belt Gustavo Machado, Darrell Trains At Gustavo Machado Norfolk under the 3rd-degree black belt, and Former Marine Professor Mark Sausser. He went to school for psychology at American Military University and for criminal justice at ECPI University.
The Darrell McClain show
From Rooftop to RNC to Menendez found guilty
What if the security measures protecting a former president could be breached with ease? Join us on the Darrell Mcclain Show as we reveal the shocking details behind the security failure at a recent Trump rally, where a gunman, Thomas Matthew Crooks, managed to injure former President Donald Trump from a rooftop vantage point. With insights from former FBI agents Phil Andrew and Andrew McCabe, we dissect the miscommunication and planning failures that led to this catastrophic breach, despite the presence of multiple security teams including counter-sniper units.
The episode then shifts focus to the broader challenges the Secret Service faces in an increasingly demanding environment. Stretched thin by their responsibilities at the RNC and the addition of new protectees like JD Vance and Robert Kennedy Jr., the agency's reliance on local law enforcement is scrutinized. We highlight JD Vance's selection as Trump's running mate, analyzing his credentials and the political strategy behind this move. This discussion underscores the urgent need for more individuals to consider careers in law enforcement to meet these growing demands.
In another compelling segment, we explore Sean O'Brien's history-making pro-union speech at the Republican National Convention and its implications for union support. We also delve into Senator Bob Menendez's conviction on federal charges, breaking down the legal and political ramifications. The conversation doesn't stop there; we tackle the polarized nature of today's political discourse, the real-life consequences of political decisions, and the economic impacts of policies under both the Biden and Trump administrations. This episode promises a thorough and thought-provoking examination of some of the most pressing issues facing our nation today.
Welcome to the Darrell McLean show. Independent media that will not reinforce tribalism. We have one planet, nobody is leaving, and let us reason together. Today is 7-17 of 2024. It is a Wednesday, a big news day, as you probably would have guessed if you have been paying attention. Get into our episode.
Speaker 1:A picture is now starting to present itself of details of the Trump's security shooting breakdown start to emerge. So, amid swirling questions over how the Secret Service allowed a gunman with the AR-style rifle to get close enough to shoot an injured former president at a security rally on Saturday, some answers are actually now starting to emerge. A security gap appears to stem from how the agency communicated with law enforcement before and during the event and the apparent decision not to place security personnel on the building. The gunman climbed up before shooting. Now the gunman, thomas Matthew Crooks, a 20-year-old of Bethel Park, pennsylvania, was killed by Secret Service agents, but not before he fired multiple shots toward the stage from a rooftop just outside the rally venue, about 152 yards from where the grand old party's presidential nominee, Donald John Trump, was standing. The shooter grazed Trump's ear with a bullet, killed one attendee and injured two others.
Speaker 1:Now members of the Secret Service counter-sniper team and counter-assault team were at the rally, in place on the rooftops immediately in the vicinity of the stage, but the Secret Service director, kimberly Chettle, told ABC News that a no-agent had been placed on the building, the Shooter Climb because it had a sloped roof. That building, in particular, had a sloped roof at the highest point and so there is a safety factor that would have to be considered. That there we wouldn't want to put somebody up on that slope, she said in an interview that aired on Tuesday. So you know the decision was made to secure the building from inside. The reasoning has gotten a heavy blowback, giving the Secret Service Snipers, a heavily armed counter-assault team with the code name Hawkeye, who were positioned on a roof that also had a slope. The team is responsible for taking out threats so that agents on the ground can physically shield and remove the person they are protecting. Another Secret Service counter-sniper team, codenamed Hercules, was also at the rally to eliminate any long-range threats. Now local law enforcement agencies were tasked with securing areas around the venue that didn't require attendees to go through the magnetometers for screening, but officers told the BeaverCountingcom a lack of manpower and extremely poor planning were to blame for endangering the former president While three snipers were stationed inside the building. The shooter climbed, but the operation plan having them look out windows toward Trump rally. No one was placed on the roof, local law enforcement officers said In her ABC News interview. Channel confirmed that there was local police in the building. There was local police in the area and they were responsible for the outer perimeter of the building.
Speaker 1:Part of the Department of Homeland Security, the Secret Service is a primary agency in charge of protecting current and former presidents, as well as presidential candidates and sometimes foreign dignitaries, a job that includes thousands of trips requiring even security. That massive undertaking requires the agency to gain assistance from local law enforcement, with the two teams typically working together on a rally for a former presidential candidate, like Saturday. Phil Andrew, a former FBI agent and the head of Fox Group Security, or PAX Group Security because it's spelled P-A-X consulting firm, said the protection and such an event are made up of three rings of security, with the first being the Secret Service agents who can physically shield an individual, and the second team working the perimeter of the event, and the third focused on the exterior areas. Now, while the first two rings are pretty much entirely Secret Service's responsibility, local law enforcement can be used for the third, as they were with the building the shooter climbed. What seems to be the issue is whether that part of the venue should have never been given to local law enforcement or if it was assigned to he. And then, if it was assigned to local local law enforcement, how it was briefed and how it how it understood that they should control or maintain that building.
Speaker 1:In Tuesday, the statement the Secret Service said it was not putting any blame on local law enforcement. It actually said our agency relies on support of courageous police officers and local partners. We are deeply grateful for their unwavering commitment and bravery. Any suggestions otherwise is simply not true. Now, of course, when you get down to the nitty gritty, it really did seem when I was looking at the initial reports that the Secret Service was in fact trying to cast blame and pass the buck and say well, the perimeter that we had was on this rooftop up by the local law enforcement. And they did seem in the initial reporting that they were saying that the local law enforcement dropped the ball. Now, once shots begin to be fired, secret Service members rush to the stage to shield Trump, but we're heard in the microphone asking each other what are we doing? Where are we going from here? The gap in coverage and confusion in the midst of chaos has roiled many Trump supporters, some of whom allege gross incompetence are an outright conspiracy.
Speaker 1:Multiple investigations have been since opened into the incident, including by the Biden administration and several congressional committees, including by the Biden administration and several congressional committees. Andrew McCabe, the former deputy director of the FBI, noted that one of the most basic elements for securing a site like a rally is to remove the site's lines to the place where the protectee will be speaking. Now, the building just outside the perimeter of the rally, including one that should have climbed, should have been found within the shooting range, and some law enforcement should have been on top of the structure or placed on obstacles between them and Trump. Now, mccabe told that to CNN on the show that CNN has, on Sunday, called the State of the Union. I think, preliminarily, there are going to be a lot of questions about why those steps weren't taken. Preliminarily, there are going to be a lot of questions about why those steps weren't taken. Mccabe said there are many questions to be answered in the light of what we know Now.
Speaker 1:Several former top secret security service agents told the Associated Press that the agency must find how crooks even gain access to the roof, suggesting that there have been a flaw in the event's security. Rep Dan Crenshaw, the Republican from Texas and a former Navy SEAL, cautioned against jumping to assumptions. Crenshaw went on to say that he had spoken with law enforcement and with the Secret Service and gotten a better understanding of what actually happened. He said in the video posted on X Now no excuses being made here. This is a security failure. Anytime a president gets shot, it's a security failure, but we have to access whose fault it was.
Speaker 1:Now, reports actually indicate that Crooks was spotted observing the building by local law enforcement, who alerted others that he was walking towards the back of the building with the backpack. One officer was even reportedly hoisted up to the top of the building, but Crooks pointed a gun at him and they dropped back down. State police also started rushing to the scene. Crenshaw said that failure to actually confront the shooter was a problem, but it was important to keep in mind that the officers were no Secret Service agents or trained military specialists and it was likely the first time that they had ever had to do security of this manner in such a large event, and Andrew said that the Secret Service agents traveled though and through the country to interact with a number of roughly 18,000 police departments.
Speaker 1:There can be differences in how individual departments respond or understand to what is being communicated to them. There was a communication problem before, during and after. No question he said whether Secret Service didn't communicate to the local police that they have responsibility or did or asked somebody to. They didn't understand it and they didn't do it, and there is some sort of pre-event communication issue. Many have also pointed to the fact that the attendees in the crowd noticed the gunman on the roof nearly two minutes before shots were fired, according to witnesses' videos from the event. Now, due to the time lapse, a popular conspiracy alleges that the counter-snipers purposely didn't take the shot when the shooter was spotted, but Crenshaw said agents are meant to exert control in an evolving situation where things aren't clear.
Speaker 1:You're a counter-sniper at a Trump rally. There's people everywhere. It's loud. Supporters are very excited. They will climb on the top of whatever they can to get to see the former president. What's more, if Secret Service agents believe the building had been secured by the local law enforcement team, they may have thought the shooter was a SWAT officer, because those are guys who are supposed to be at the building in the first place. You don't exactly know what you're looking at, and the consequences of making a mistake by shooting a civilian are enormous. They're absolutely enormous, he said. Now, of course, the consequences of Trump getting shot are even more enormous.
Speaker 1:But you should at least have some context in your head before you start pointing fingers so look, of course I think I've made mention on this show before, as of maybe two days ago it was my two-year anniversary from leaving contract security. I have done in my lifetime several security details and of course, unequivocally, I have to say we all have to say this was a massive failure on the part of security. In almost every security detail I've been on, we had had local law enforcement working with us and the roles, at least in the ones that I have been on, with very high dignitaries I'm not going to get into how high up, but the roles are very well established and who was in charge over what area was very well established and backup pans are very well established and if, if somebody gains access to your dignitary or the person you're supposed to be protecting, that is a massive failing and to to pretend like the former president is safe. But the former president is safe because the person was just not a good shot and there's no other way to put it. The president is not safe or is not still alive because of anything. Security did so and that's that's what has to be looked at Now.
Speaker 1:As far as I know this, the secret service, like all security agencies, is heavily stretched. You know they have manning issues. It it's um from the people that I know, the secret service. Um, I'll just say that they sometimes have complained that they may have to do a thing in arizona on tuesday and a thing in Wisconsin on Friday. That's how stressed they are and sometimes that does come with a bit of fatigue. Sometimes, being on a security team, it can be a bit of relaxation.
Speaker 1:But this is a time where we have these conversations about the shrinking of federal agencies and rolling back some forms of the admin state. We needed to look at the Secret Service and be very open and honest and say that this has been a decline for a for a while now. We remember when the Obama administration was in office you had somebody jump over the gate of the White House and, you know, make it through the door, or something like that. There was another incident where on a patrol they found that there was bullets that had been lodged inside of one of the windows, I think, if I'm remembering that correctly, and nobody knew until the patrol had happened. So that's a fail, that's a breakdown, you know, a major breakdown, and we've heard stories of people partying and doing cocaine and everything else, and I don't know if the standards and conditions have gotten so low that things like this can happen, but I will say this I have a lot more questions. I don't want to speculate anything, but there needs to be a massive investigation and not one where they just point the blame at local law enforcement, and I do think that some people's heads need to roll. Somebody, some, lots of people have to be fired for this. There needs to be an update in the training manual and to what you do in these situations, because almost killing the former president enough to where it's just because he turned his head to look at a chart is why he's alive is unacceptable, is unacceptable.
Speaker 1:I'm going to end this particular segment by going to an interview that I heard with a former FBI official on the beat, with Ari Melber. I'm going to let you hear that and we're going to get into more of the news of the week. We're joined by 20-year FBI agent Frank Figluzzi. Frank, from a security perspective, what do you see there? I see a failure, ari, the Secret Service uses the phrase zero fail to describe its own mission. They failed. It's a very high bar, you can't get it right all the time, but they failed. The question now, of course, with an independent investigation ordered by President Biden, is to answer the question why did they fail? It's like a Polaroid photo that's coming slowly into focus, but it is getting sharper as NBC News reporters gather more information.
Speaker 1:What are we learning? We're learning, it appears, that this was outside the Secret Service perimeter. They totally acknowledged it during an advance, that it was a threat. A threat for two reasons One, 150 yards or so easy shot by a sniper with a rifle and elevated, that's two strikes against that building. But they put it outside the responsibility of the Secret Service perimeter. That means, logically, that they must have delegated it to local, county or state police, and that's where something broke down horribly.
Speaker 1:But there's a greater issue here, because the reliance on local and state police at these rallies and at all other events is going to come to light as this investigation plays out. It's far more than we would think. It's part of the plan. Why is that? They are a stretched agency, stretched to the max this weekend. Where was much of the Secret Service? Milwaukee, wisconsin, adding to the resource issue. They're a tiny agency, roughly 4,000 special agents to literally cover the world. One thing we're not hearing about already is all the other responsibilities that it has for investigations.
Speaker 1:Let's slow down the important point you made. Much has been discussed about this going into the RNC, the former President Trump announcing, for example, that he was going to go ahead with his travel motions. He didn't want to change many of his plans, having survived the attempt. But you're saying, based on your understanding, that things could be related in the sense that the vulnerability which has now been exposed came at a time when they were very preoccupied with all of the officials, including Trump, for four days at the RNC. Yeah, 25 years in the FBI, including some time being the FBI lead in a Democratic national convention early in the FBI, including some time being the FBI lead in a Democratic National Convention. Early in my career doing many special events alongside Secret Service, yes, I do think. When you're dealing with stressed resources and you've got to put a significant percentage of your agents in another city, yes, I think that factored into the plan to delegate this building to local police.
Speaker 1:And final question, 30 seconds when someone looks at this type of security failure by the Secret Service in this domain, should that raise concern and questions about how they're handling other protectees From a federal law enforcement perspective, do you look at this failure and say terrible for any elapse? Does it also raise questions about other protectees, including the president? It does, and now they're about to add another protectee, jd Vance and his family. So, yes, they have too many protectees and too few resources and something has to give Frankfurt Luzi. Thank you.
Speaker 1:That was our special report on, again, what more we've learned in these days since the attempted assassination, including the wider view now that we have an understanding of what happened and the timing, the way that the shooter was approached and some of these security failures that are still coming to life.
Speaker 1:So, look again, that was on July, the 15th, when that interview happened and we may know a little bit more now, but this is going to be a thing where everybody's trying to analyze what happened and that's a big deal when you think about 4,000 people protecting all those dignitaries, more difficult because of the vice presidential selection of JD Vance by Donald Trump and Secret Service will now have to provide a security detail for JD Vance and the fact that, because of this, that President Biden gave Secret Service protection to Robert Kennedy Jr, rfk, so that further stretches the agency.
Speaker 1:And so you know, look, a lot of people think it's very difficult to get government jobs. I'm not going to try to bust a balloon or bubble and say that it's not as hard as some people think, but what I will say is this is a lot of people don't apply for the jobs and a lot of the jobs are kind of the jobs of older men, because they believe in it and they hang around. Because they believe in it and they hang around. And so if you ever thought about law enforcement or anything like that, or you have a background your country needs you, don't disqualify yourself.
Speaker 1:I would say, go through the process and get in one of these law enforcement agencies and take it very seriously because, uh, you are obviously needed right back with more so, as I teased in the last segment or maybe I didn't tease, I just flat out said it that, uh, donald Trump had elected or C would be a better term JD Vance as his vice presidential candidate. Now, if you had listened to the conversation between me and T-Bone from Lonsby with T-Bone and Chick Brew, with T-Bone and Chick Brew you can remember that I had said that JD Vance would be a good pick and that I teased T-Bone privately and said that President Trump had been listening to me and that's why JD got the pick and that I should be called a kingmaker. But anyway, this is, in all seriousness, on true social. The former president said after a after lengthy States as Senator JD Vance of the great state of Ohio. Jd honorably served our country in the Marine Corps and graduated Ohio State University in two years, summa cum laude.
Speaker 1:And he's a Yale Law School graduate, where he was editor of the Yale Law Journal and president of Yale Law Veterans Association. Jd's book Hillbilly Elegy became a major bestseller and movie as it championed the hard-working men and women of our country. Jd has had a very successful business career in technology and finance and now, during the campaign, will be strongly focused on the people in Pennsylvania, michigan, wisconsin, ohio, minnesota and far beyond. So let me go out and just say this I believe that this was a good pick. I think this was a good pick and I think this also says what the heart of Donald Trump showed, because, politically speaking, this is just politically speaking, not not speaking. As you know, a person of good character who Marine yada, yada, yada. But politically speaking, jd Vance doesn't bring really anything to the table as far as politics goes. It's not. Ohio is not a swing state. Donald Trump is going to win Ohio. Donald Trump is going to win Ohio. He is kind of just like Donald Trump as far as being able to carry on the mantle of the MAGA movement.
Speaker 1:Jd Vance is very young he's actually one year older than me, which I do find very attractive and he does have the background of coming from the most. If you read the book the Hillbilly Elegy, which I did, and then watched the movie, you see that he came from the worst type of abject poverty in Kentucky, and it is something to say that he is a shining example of what we would say the American dream would be, which is somebody coming from nothing, putting themselves through school, graduating United States Marine Corps, becoming a United States senator and now a selectee for the vice president of the United States From poverty to probably going to be the vice president of the United States. That is a great turnaround, the United States, that is a great turnaround. Now, of course, the media is going to make a lot of this because JD Vance said some very critical things of Donald Trump in the past and, um, we may deal with that on another episode, but as far as it goes now, it is going to be JD Vance in a debate against Kamala Harris. Now, what I do think is going to be very interesting is JD Vance is a very interesting figure as far as his profile, I think because of the extreme poverty that he brought himself out of and when I say brought himself out of, obviously nobody gets out of poverty alone he obviously had help along the way, et cetera.
Speaker 1:But when you deal with the extreme poverty that he was able to overcome and where he brought himself, that is going to nullify, in my observation, if Kamala Harris tries to pull any type of identity politics, any type of race card type of thing, because he'll be able to juxtapose the probably decently middle-class life she had versus the life of a hillbilly growing up in Kentucky everything that we read in the book and everything that we saw in the movie. I think that his access to the poverty narrative will null and void her access to the race narrative and we may be able to get down to the nitty gritty of what this is all supposed to be about. At the end of the day, public policy. About, at the end of the day, public policy. And I think we're going to have to have a deep conversation about where this now goes into the public policy debate. Because if you really look at JD Vance's life, a lot of the privileges he got was because of his grandfather havinga job that I don't know if we would have access to today, but it was a good, union-based job. And that is going to lead me into this next story of something that I did not think that I would have lived to see, but I did live to see the event.
Speaker 1:And what happened is I'm watching the Republican National Convention and you know everybody's doing their speaking and trying to somewhat have a unified tone because of the events that just happened. And here comes the Teamsters general president Right by the name of Sean O'Brien. Now Sean O'Brien is the International Brotherhood of the Teamsters General President. He is the first union leader to speak at a Republican National Convention in over 100 years. He spoke at the Republican National Convention. He did not endorse any candidate and he gave a pro-union speech to the Republican Party and it was a great speech. I cannot play it all. Here was 29 minutes. It was a barn burner of a speech and I would chat, I would have a challenge you to go listen to it and it's it, it, it to the speech in its entirety. I will just give you some excerpts here and I will say the analysis on that was this this was the the teamsters looking at the democratic party and saying it has been long said that you are the party of working people, that you are the party of working people, etc.
Speaker 2:But you have not been showing us that you are the party of working people, and so what's going to happen is we will take our union votes elsewhere. Labor law must be reformed. Companies fire workers who try to join unions and hide behind toothless laws that are meant to protect working people but are manipulated to benefit corporations.
Speaker 1:So, look, we can talk about the Republican Party and the unfriendliness over the years towards a certain type of Republican who really didn't believe in unions, years towards a certain type of Republican who really didn't believe in unions. But I will say that, with the rise of populism in the United States electorate, with Donald Trump running as a populist candidate in 2016, with him picking JD Vance, who I think I would consider to have a populist fervor, at least when he first ran you know, jd Vance has only been in the Senate for two years, so you know, I think that this was a shot across the bow. Like again I said, I would challenge you to go listen to the entire speech and then just remember this speech pro-union speech is being given by the head of the Teamsters Union, the regional president or whatever, and it is not at a Democratic convention. It is at a Democratic convention. It is at a Republican convention. The only way that Democrats could fight this off is to invite him to the Democratic National Convention and let him light it up, like he did at the Republican National Convention Convention.
Speaker 1:Now I'm going to approach this next story with just the straight facts. The New Jersey Senator, bob Menendez, has been found guilty on all 16 counts of everything that he did. I'm going to go to the news clip courtesy of the Hill. Let us hear it, and then I'm going to close with a conversation about fascism and agreeing to. Let's say how can we turn down the rhetoric, if that's possible, and I will see you on the next episode Probably will be tomorrow, because we have a lot more things that I want to discuss.
Speaker 3:Breaking news today. New Jersey Senator Bob Menendez has been found guilty on all 16 federal charges. Over a nine-week trial, prosecutors told tales of cash bribes, gold bars and even a luxury car. Menendez was accused of abusing his power of office to protect certain allies from criminal investigations and helping enrich friends, including his wife. Joining me now is the Hill staff writer, Ella Lee Ella. What are the charges that prosecutors alleged?
Speaker 4:Hunter Menendez faced 16 charges. On all of those charges a jury convicted him. He was accused and found guilty of trading his political clout for lavish bribes like hundreds of thousands of dollars in cash, gold bars, even even a Mercedes-Benz convertible and other benefits from these. New Jersey businessmen who were tried alongside him. Menendez was found guilty of attempting to intervene in separate criminal investigations for those businessmen and of helping them to enrich themselves and to enrich Egypt.
Speaker 4:In regard to Egypt, he was accused and convicted of acting as a foreign agent of that country, using his influential post as chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, which he no longer holds, to gather information and sway outcomes in the country's favor.
Speaker 3:What type of sentencing will he face?
Speaker 4:So the judge today scheduled Menendez's sentencing for October 29th, which is obviously just days before Election Day. Menendez has turned down calls to resign, but he is running for re-election, but not as a Democrat. Instead, he's mounting an independent re-election bid, but of course this could completely shake that up. Not only are prominent Democrats, like House Majority Leader Chuck Schumer, calling for his immediate resignation, but he's also facing decades in prison. If you look at just the statutes that he's charged under, he actually faces up to 222 years in prison, but he's a first-time offender and those maximum penalties are rarely applied. But still, given the wide range of charges that he was convicted of, his sentence will likely not be insignificant.
Speaker 3:His wife, Nadine Menendez, is also facing similar charges, but the trial has been delayed due to her ongoing breast cancer treatment. Could Menendez's conviction today force her into a plea deal, or will we see this case move forward?
Speaker 4:Yeah, it absolutely could. Nadine Menendez, as you said, faces very similar charges to the senator and at trial the senator's attorneys really painted her as this go-between for Menendez and the businessmen that were tried alongside him. Now prosecutors can't use what was said at that trial as evidence in Nadine Menendez's trial. However, it could inform how they lay out their case, and the sweeping conviction that Menendez had on these charges might weaken Nadine Menendez's confidence in her ability to beat similar charges in all likelihood with a similar jury.
Speaker 3:What about the other defendants in this case?
Speaker 4:So the other two defendants, whale Hannah and Fred Dibes. They were also found guilty on all counts that they faced. Their sentencing guidelines are less than Menendez's, but they are still also potentially looking at decades in prison. The third businessman who was indicted alongside them, jose Uribe. He pleaded guilty before the trial began and testified against his co-defendants At trial. He said that he thought he struck a quarter-million-dollar deal with Menendez in 2018 to pressure New Jersey's Attorney General's Office into ceasing an investigation into his friends and family. So if Nadine Menendez ends up going to trial, he will also likely testify in her case, but for now, his sentencing is set for October. It's unclear at this point how his participation in the case will impact the sentence that federal prosecutors are seeking All right.
Speaker 1:So I must admit to the audience, when I was growing up I was a big fan of the no Spin Zone with um bill o'reilly and I enjoyed watching bill o'reilly when he had the coveted uh eight o'clock uh slot. I enjoyed listening to him, you know, every night of the week, monday through friday. I enjoyed watching him and Keith Olbermann duel it out, et cetera, and I was not particularly happy when he was taken off the air. Oh, I do understand that his behavior towards the staffers and things that he had been accused of was inappropriate. Accused of was, um, you know, inappropriate, but um he, if you look at how fox news turned since he left, I I think I can make a very good argument that it was.
Speaker 1:The station was a lot better when he was at the at the helm in the prime time chair and um bill o'reilly had a conversation with another staple of not really American news but American news satire, the comedian Jon Stewart, where they talked about, you know, politics, turning down the tone, et cetera, et cetera, and I thought it was good enough to listen to. So in the spot where I normally play the blast from the Intellectual Past, we're going to end with the conversation between Bill O'Reilly and Jon Stewart, and I'll see you on the next episode.
Speaker 5:Please welcome back to the program Bill O'Reilly. Please welcome back to the program Bill O'Reilly, sir.
Speaker 2:Welcome back. Take your time, sir.
Speaker 6:Sir, thanks for having me.
Speaker 4:Take your time.
Speaker 6:Appreciate it, william.
Speaker 5:Yes, sir, Our country, we are in such a dangerous moment. You've written books on almost every assassination as you have a whole line of the killing, the killing, the killing, the children's series. You're right About killing presidents. Is the time we're in in your mind?
Speaker 1:are we in a unique time in American history of polarization.
Speaker 5:Or as you looked back on those other moments of terrible tragedy in our country. Are there similarities?
Speaker 6:or differences. Yeah, it's not unique, but the social media and the corporate media heighten everything You're saying.
Speaker 5:Lincoln's tweets were not a part of that.
Speaker 6:He had to, like, get a pigeon and throw them out the window. Right, it's limited, but the assassins all have one thing in common they were all mentally ill, all of them, and most of them did their terrible deeds because they were in a rage. And you're going to find out that this guy, pennsylvania, fits both of those categories.
Speaker 5:That has been human nature since they came to the case. So do you believe, then, that the political rhetoric, I mean John Wilkes Booth, was clearly a political actor? No, but he was also mentally ill.
Speaker 6:Well, John Wilkes Booth was a fanatical conservative and racist who hated Lincoln. Good thing that's gone out of the country.
Speaker 5:Well, that's what I'm saying. No, I know, I was saying it too. I'm saying that's what I'm saying.
Speaker 6:We were both saying it, no we're obviously sharing that opinion.
Speaker 5:We're simpatico.
Speaker 6:Yes, exactly, exactly, don't so Latin I'm sorry so it's not new Right, but we're now in a society where hatred is rewarded, it's incentivized, it's monetized. That's right, and I'm on a. The hate brigade is now pulling back a little bit because they have to, but they're going to be back in two weeks Because they get paid to do this. They're so untalented.
Speaker 5:You and I, oh boy, oh boy.
Speaker 6:I want to make this point because Stuart and I have a history, all right, but if you watch, if you Google, all right.
Speaker 5:Really, ships passing in a night, it's real.
Speaker 6:We are able to disagree without hating each other. Now, I truly hate it, but I don't show it.
Speaker 5:You hold it very well, I don't put it out no, absolutely.
Speaker 6:But now that's not rewarded. That kind of detente, where two people look at life differently, isn't rewarded. The haters get the big money and so that's what you have, and I think all Americans start to hold the corporations accountable. You can't do anything about the guys in the basement that are chucking this stuff out and you just had it on these conspiratorial nuts. Can't do anything about that. But you can say to corporations you better knock this stuff off. You better stop calling people racist and nazis and this and that now your question and thank you for letting me take over the show I don't remember.
Speaker 6:Thank you for letting me while you were talking I was watching a different program.
Speaker 5:I'm watching. I'm watching South Park reruns right now.
Speaker 6:I don't even know what you're talking about, but this one is better, so listen to me. I'm going to listen to you, but then I have a follow-up to this, which I think is important.
Speaker 6:Okay. So your question is that what can people do about this? Reject it, don't celebrate it. So this kid, 20 years old, in Pennsylvania, we don't know what caused him to do that. We knew he was a miserable kid, he was bullied and all of this stuff. We all know that, but we don't get into. Oh, he's a Republican. That's the first thing they said on the View, the first thing they said on Monday on the View he's a Republican. Stop it. That does nobody any good. All right, but Bill, let me push a Republican. Stop it.
Speaker 5:That does nobody any good, all right. But, bill, let me push back a bit. Look, you and I are both somewhat fossilized practitioners of the rhetorical arts that are confrontational at times, provocative at times, and we made a really spectacular living pushing those envelopes. It seems now to say, hey, these other people should stop and look well it's like it's like.
Speaker 5:it's like saying like we don't know why these people do it. They're all mentally ill. But let's stop the rhetoric, Even though we have no idea. Wouldn't it be better to come up with? People can be passionate People can defend their position. And shouldn't we be? Shouldn't the argument be? We have to start arguing with each other in good faith.
Speaker 6:Okay, so Biden made a good point last night in the Lester-Holt interview when he said what am I supposed to do? Not criticize Trump.
Speaker 5:He feels it is a threat to our democracy.
Speaker 6:Yeah, because I feel he's the third right. You know, he didn't say that. No, he was thinking it, stuart, he was thinking it. I can read him Stop monetizing your anger.
Speaker 2:So, thinking it, stuart, he was thinking it and I can read him Stop monetizing your anger.
Speaker 6:So anyway, stop, I don't like it. I don't like it one bit, but he made a point where I've got to criticize the guy, because I don't believe he's good for.
Speaker 6:America, and I believe he's X, y and Z. Okay, criticism is good, robust debate is good. I like coming on here in front of all of your friends out here. I, the only you know I have no friends, okay, not just here. I'm giving them that one, all right, okay. So we have made a nice living confronting other people, sometimes making fun of them, sometimes serious debate. I'm going to do your podcast tomorrow and I'm going to kick your butt, okay so, but we don't want to see them at least I don't destroyed. Right? That's the difference. The fanatics on the left and the right want to see their opposition destroyed. They want to hurt them.
Speaker 5:But I've heard a lot about, and even from you. You're not arguing that point, are you? I'm not arguing that point. I think that's a more measured point than you've probably been making and that I've been hearing. Most of your points from what I've been following is that the left has to take it down a notch. You've mentioned MSNBC.
Speaker 6:I ran a montage on the no Spin News last night. It was on BillOReillycom, by the way. 4 million.
Speaker 5:By the way, log on.
Speaker 6:It is hard to get on there, it is, it's not hard for the 4 million people that watch me on the weekend 4 million 4 million Wasn't hard for them. That's a lot of cheese. Thank you All right. So I ran a montage of haters on the left and the right, Okay, and I didn't have to, you know he's terrible, I just let their words speak for themselves.
Speaker 5:On the right and I don't know if you would argue this there is a feeling that they haven't been doing that and that it is the purview of the left.
Speaker 6:There's been a lot of that. People believe what they want to believe. But those of us who are sane and fact-based and that might not be you we know what reality is because we can see and hear it, but we're no longer agreeing.
Speaker 5:How we know what reality is because we can see and hear it, but we're no longer agreeing. How can we have a conversation about rhetoric if we can't even agree? If there are delusions of, it's really only them. I mean when I watch the guy from the Heritage Foundation say the revolution will be bloodless if the left, you know, allows that.
Speaker 2:And you're just like.
Speaker 5:What? What are we doing here? You know, some of the fears of people are justified tens of millions of women lost access to reproductive choice based on the decisions Of that party. Those are real-life consequences of great gravity. How do we talk about those in a way that, so that you're able to express it, it's not difficult to talk about it, right, and you don't have?
Speaker 2:It seems like it.
Speaker 6:See the mistake that you made, one of the many. Yeah, Understood. You're trying to get the fringe people in to be reasonable.
Speaker 5:You're never going to do that. The lead is not the fringe. And when I watch, no, no, no, no.
Speaker 6:It the fringe and what I want? No, no, it is. The people don't know what that is. Most Americans I put the number at 70% are good. People don't know. Don't down that acrimony they don't want fun. Those are the people you play to, not the fringe people who are just out there wanting to, as I said, destroy the other party. Your, your candidate. Why no, I don't have a candidate.
Speaker 5:Oh right, okay this is what you did look at this corner West fella, right, if you guys watch the air condition isium.
Speaker 2:He did the same thing.
Speaker 5:Listen to me now, romney, listen you are fossilized.
Speaker 2:Listen to me.
Speaker 5:Yeah, I'm listening. The candidate who represents many of your kinfolk oh, man, kinfolk. He said yeah, he said the election was stolen and rigged and drove people to this madness on January 6th. How are we to deal with that? Truly, what is the hallmark of a democracy? Peaceful transfer? That is haunting him, that put him in jeopardy?
Speaker 6:That has haunted him every day since, oh, he's paid a terrible price. No, he has. Can I explain the choice?
Speaker 5:Get back to the White House. I have to fix the damage himself.
Speaker 6:Oh, there, there, there, paint that wall. If Trump hadn't done that on January 6th, he'd be ahead of Biden by 25 points in the poll. That's how bad Biden has been for the country.
Speaker 5:Well, I disagree with that, but that's what you do. But that's okay well, I understand I can back it up.
Speaker 6:Do you want me to? Okay, I'm gonna ruin your day.
Speaker 5:I'm gonna ruin your day, so you brought a handkerchief.
Speaker 6:All right, I was prepared for this food prices under biden up, 20 percent Gas prices 38. Mortgage rates 160 percent. Drug ODs up 36 percent. Ok, car insurance 125 percent. These are folks. They have to spend that money.
Speaker 5:There's no question that post-pandemic, this country and the world have suffered.
Speaker 6:Trump had two years of post-pandemic.
Speaker 5:Right, but Trump ran an $8 trillion deficit. He spent $1.7 trillion on tax cuts.
Speaker 6:He deregulated inflation. He cut 1.5% when he walked out the door.
Speaker 5:But look at it in relation to the world, I respectfully say yes, inflation was too high, and that hurts American consumers. So what did Biden do to create that, though?
Speaker 6:I don't know, and that's what I would have asked.
Speaker 5:I don't know. You wrote down a piece of paper but you didn't look up the answer. We're going to need two days on the podcast.
Speaker 6:I want to ask Biden about that. Okay, so you're saying why didn't Biden do it? I'm not going to hear it.
Speaker 5:If you don't mind, that was a very poor impression of how I could say it.
Speaker 6:Okay, all right, so my job as a journalist is to know I don't know. Okay, all right. So my job as a journalist is to say oh, when did you get that job?
Speaker 2:You really make it too easy, we're going to talk tomorrow.
Speaker 5:We got to go. We need to talk. Thank you for being here. Confirming the Presidents comes out September 10th. Available for pre-order Bill O'Re.