Welcome to the Commentary Magazine Daily podcast today is Roddy June, eleventh, twenty twenty one is the seventeenth birthday of my oldest daughter, China, so happy birthday, shaman, yes and, as I said yesterday, came almost exactly on the anniversary of my the twentyth anniversary of my first meeting with her mother. So we we were very hopeful that day,

that she would be borne other anniversary and shoe ended up being born half an hour into the following day, and then we got our wish two years later, oddly enough cars are our second child. Cheery was born on our anniversary, which turns out to be a complex matter, when you are the parent of a small child, because you re The aren't allowed to celebrate anything, but the birthday of the child on the day of the child's birthday, even if there is something else to celebrate this is not taken. Well, is not considered an appropriate matter for celebration, since the only possible celebration on the birth of a child is that child's birthday of any other. Anything that intrudes upon that is a m moral hazard of extraordinary proportions so anyway,

so we're so and our third child born on by still day. That's all. I can say that there is a really really count for anything anyhow so we birthday the shame and wood me as always: executive editor, a Green Waldheim, Hydra Senor Writer, Christine rose high, Christine IDA. and associate editor nor Rossman, high Noah Asia. So the news of of yesterday with him, a certain circles, was the fact that the lamb- afternoon at a nowhere, Jeffrey Turban, pops up on CNN After several months of course, having been caught pleasure in himself on the Zoom Cameron front of his colleagues at the New Yorker

fired by the new Yorker, then I guess suspended by CNN were of course he has been a commentator reporter when everyone column for in a more than more than twenty years- and I brought back to both Answer- question about two to two to answer: questions about what happened as the as the prologue to him returning to CNN as a legal commentator largely because of way in part because of the Supreme Court has now issue its decisions for this year's term and there they apparently while wanted it back. I have very complicated feelings about Jeff Tuebingen there very personal and go into that little later, but I bring this up only because we, this is a very its raises, interesting issues about our culture.

Forgiveness and help peculiarly unforgiving. Our culture has become awe and add, then, how the lesser evil The people at the two people who are at the summit of our culture apparently get to pick and choose based on no observable or coca comprehensible or coherent standard who gets a second chance who gets a pass, who gets treated with compassion and forgiveness? and who is you, know, ostracised excommunicated an shunned in perpetuity and apparently Jeff Turban has been given a second chance is being shown compassion.

Sean forgiveness, and I go into a little later. Why there's something peculiarly M hypocritical ironic about that relates to my own family. But where do you guys come down on this question a question? collective mercy as as well it out by the baby boy, just search questions, one of which is does, he deserves a second chance, a mercy and all that and then the second question. I guess the larger question of how are we doing I understand this given what has gone on in America over the last four years and given what is going on right at this minute. All over the place, every single day never. Anybody says something that somebody else wants to call out well for him, I'm glad by the way that you didn't introduce the question? Is it being a touchy subject, but he saw him

personally. If it was just confined to that issue of him, accidently masturbating on the zoom call, I would say the outsize over reaction of the new Yorker to fire him for that baby. You know that there were other means that they could have taken. to deal with that, but he also has a history and has some credible accusations of harassment and any kind of questionable. Sexual behaviour that that became Publican and his behaviour in general with regard to these matters gives it a slightly different tent, in my opinion, I don't think that that should have destroyed his entire career, and so I guess it's good that scene and brought it back on. I think it was ridiculous. They they had this poor female anger in a kind of hostage like situation having to read the questions to him. That was one of the more the current second hand, embarrassment watching those to which was quite something, but to the boy our question. I think it's him being allowed to come back is actually a great great sign of a broader hypocrisy that that's at work here because

look. For example, at the New York Times, treatment of a high school student who said the Edward while singing on a tick, Tock video and was a couple years later that was exposed and she was kicked out of those. You can go to college kids into if you go to new, while these son of the President, you know text message is showing him saying here things, including using the inward it is not even treated as a store the mainstream media so that there is an outsize mental ism about people who art in the elite in some way and then a really really unforgiving sense of punishing those who have the least power, but that that's the distinction here between these cases for for a lot of men. In this audience, I would imagine. You can at least envision a circumstance where they are, but for the grace of God go you therefore you it has a little bit of compassion for people who are caught in condition. Like this, but the reason why they know it knew about. It is because it was leaked,

we shouldn't know anything about this, in the absence of the kind of professional jealousies that made this public and that a lot of what we see in so called cancel culture the meeting out of punishments motivated entirely by the prostate desire to prosecute professional jealousies, professional problems and to benefit from the defenestration of people who were above your station that you could probably exceed, I think that was entirely what was what related deaths in this city patient and regardless of just toucans merits, which are a subject of debate entirely. Outside of this conversation, those this had no business ruining his life. So what, according to what has been said, yesterday. The internal investor nations that the New Yorker did following the with this, when it would be in this initial

happened on. They found no other, no instances of anyone complaining about his behaviour. If that's the case, then he would, he would have been fired from the new Yorker solely because of this which eight, but I do think, is preposterous, because nothing about what he did on the zoom call is predatory right. It's it's pathetic and without not trying to make upon it. self. Punishing, because the second heed that it's out what he in doing what he endured is not taking the news is out when he endured is jays, just that is

as bad as as any sort of punishment. That's gonna be meted out I'll make you re actually ass, a punishment made yes. Well, that's it! That's an interesting question: if the mockery were sufficient unto the day, he wouldn't on television. Yesterday I mean I had a series of a private exchanges with friends of mine and people have had issues with Jeff over the years and all of that, I think all of us said that I've had we a bit being cool. We were that, had we been in his circumstances, we would rather have died than ever go back on television and was it that that to be subjected a second, a new to the kind of pub a mockery and the exposure again not to make another five foot the exposure of the of the event and now and then

the re litigating of it and all of that the shame that we would feel had we been caught under similar circumstances. with vitiate any desire to play a visible public role. I mean as say, not not to be a writer not and would not to not write books, not to sort of proffer, r, R where's, but now he is a person with two professions see he writes for living rights, were very successful. Books wrote for the new Yorker and was on and then that the second part of his career was being on television. Ok, so he did something where so. I dont know that it's the self punishing in the same way, because that's in the that's that's a subjective question Whether he feels that the same kind of cane from what happened

that that that I might feel- or you might feel or other people might feel from the experts. So I think the answer that is now. I think the answer is that that he is looking to re, establish himself as a television personality and was willing to sit there, with some camera then answer questions about why he Bastard baited unobserved call in front of his colleagues where I differ with you guys by the way is that I don't think it's preposterous for David Remnant of the New Yorker too have said. I can't really have you work here, any more after after what just happened, if, if in an odd, if in a if in his office, if you

then sitting in his office doing it and people had walked by and opened the door and found him there. I don't think there would have been any question whatsoever that it was a thought that it was a legitimately fireball offence that you can't behave that way in public in your in your in your workplace. It it raises two men need at discomforts, not that it was abusive of other people. That's not even, issue. It just goes to the good working order of a functioning unprofessional. It's love violently unprofessional. I mean, I don't even know what the word right, where we say: unprofessional, you're, right, of course, with someone who doesn't capture the in the They got guttural elemental nature of of doing that most cry, that kind of thing that this is a complex at it. This is the point

and the reason that when, when you talk to your friends knew all say we would not go back on television after this, but he did is the shamelessness. It's actually said this: The question is: if you're in, if you have someone and CNN, has many people actually on air on a regular basis who have this ability, if you're, if the person is it shameless about their behaviour, they can return very easily as long as the powers that be determined that it's fine for them to do so, but I think we witnessed a display of shamelessness. I think we witnessed a display of public penance. This was his time in the pillory he was put in the stockade. before the public to endure his punishment for the sin that he had committed We're gonna. Do you believe it poor? He can't really that segment even I watch that segment, that segment was six minutes long, let's say and the first,

three minutes were his Elias. Six minutes of his life can all be focused yours now, because it had two parts, because the first part was going to answer these questions. like I was stupid. Man forget what do I need to be about a person yet another, and then it was like well MR insights. Now, let's talk about this Bream Court will Stephen Briar what What are the cases that are coming up? It was a two part interview. The first part was let's clear, the decks can't come back on the air without answering a few of these questions. Now guess what we're gonna talk as though This never happened and have you want? Is our supreme Court outlast? So it was not the longest sick, the? It was a long three minutes and then it was a hey. I'm back baby. You know our I you know I took. Why don't you let me in the face

but you know I took my my twenty lashes and now I'm back in the classroom, but he spent months in the in the in the stockade. So to speak I mean just not not visibly not in public. He didn't. A kind of latin now that, by virtue of his employers, applied by virtue of television shows, and so the media nirvana I mean you it there's. I would. Honestly rather be suspended without pay, then You know and then not endure right, all the other aspects of its only a button will that do without saying: I'm saying that I wouldn't I couldn't bear those three minutes, but those three minutes were totally valuable for him. There was that was fined for him regarding the validity of his being fired. John, I completely

You know in the office anywhere on the grounds of your employer, or anything like that is, of course, viable my understanding and it may be wrong of the of them. What happened during the cause? They were on a break in the call And he was the answer: finally point here is that near you, this was happening during a time when work our home hours were sort of ill defined. it's a little trick here, your beauty, is literally home they may be on a break in the call you screwed up. You know massively, obviously, but I don't. I don't know that if it carries with it being be, the exact same

the grave deviants that doing something like that on work properly. What I don't even think what he did with deviant They reject that's not right. Ok, so point is its lead, stuff. I don't think there's any of our business right. He's got a private relationship with his employer contained asked of the New Yorker if his bosses think they can't really work with them any more because what they saw can't be unseen. You now and the end. They can't just deal with many more legates it existed to whom is due to fraud, and- and he does have the grounds to sue them on the grounds that they were being obeyed. They fired him unjustly or something that's a private matter between him and his employer. It's a little differently can I see a man? Is a public good in a weird way. Obviously it's also private employers, or they can do whatever they want. I'm not saying CNN doesn't have the right to put him on the air. If they were

put him on the air they want to rehabilitate him. That's not really. It's more goes to the fact that he was it's one thing, if he publishes an article right under his name and then people they were my God able publishing its another your faces there. You have to answer specific questions about it. All of that, that's like what I would find on Annette, horrible, and I think a lot of us would find unendurable and that we are now, I think, hampered some degree culturally by the being the kind of people who would find them unhindered. This, of course, is the enduring lesson of one of the subjects that may Jeff up. You know and international celebrity, which was Monica Lewinsky Gait, which is Clinton taught us was don't stop, don't be shameless, don't apologize,

I won't say: you're, sorry, don't say you did it, don't look for pennant, don't ask for back, don't ask for forgiven Shift, the blame why woman yeah lie say: didn't whatever it is, just keep moving forward and you can motor through these things because of the nature of contemporary society. baby and that path that he's that he laid out that had not been present because, of course We ve been through this ten years earlier with Gary Heart, who said go add see if you can find that I have a girlfriend and the pressing, Finally, it had a girlfriend and harmful like ok, you got me and he quit and he who left the presidential race This is even more alike com. in saying I don't have a girlfriend how dare you and Gary hearts? Why saying I didn't just sit here, bacon cookies, and then he goes. Right I mean that it is an interesting example of

The things changed the nature of public. Shame in the nature of hypocrisy being the the tribute that vice pace to virtual back as it turns out that paint. In that way, maybe self defeating Maybe you can get away with it and by the way, if you don't get away with it. This is the other weird aspect of this stuff, the common, Active part used to be you get shamed, and you say: oh, my god. I can't live like this anymore and you quit and then the subject is dropped. because the culture doesn't want to talk about this stuff. Either the culture finds it Agonizing to have public discussions of personal sexual peccadilloes that aren't serve just you know, joking conversations around the dinner table or at a supper earn of men's club, or something like that now, if you're Ralph, north them or somebody else who gets.

doing something, and you have and people say you should resign or your Andrew Chrome. It doesn't matter who it is an you resign you are not there. Resignation does not spare you, it gets you absolutely nothing that conversation will not stop no topic, in the world is undiscoverable. Any more practically and you might as well just keep going because with. If you stop going, The pain is gonna, be just is just too severe as if you keep going you hold onto your position in your power. Toby was not that position, because he wasn't that either we didn't have a choice. Choices the choice was made for him by his superiors. But you know the governor, Virginia, the governor of New York. They dont have superiors in that sense. They don't have somebody who can say. Ok, I gotta quit and.

So you just go on and it's a different kind of society, but I think This gets to the larger same question. We talked about the sixteen urea them the girl who, Kurt. You know who said something about other cheer. You now bad, not getting on the cheerleader squad and on Instagram or as Snapchat or whatever it was an thee. A person in her class save the video for two years she gets into the school she wants to go to, and this person slope sends the makes public the twentieth. our video that was made and. Raise her life. She is she can't go to. The college college withdraws her acceptance and she's done and toast she was fourteen fifteen years old,

She said something incendiary and somebody just kept it in their back pocket too Ruin her later at somebody, a fellow students at her school, yes, who kept it saved it anyway I've tried produces for those view. Dont normative disappear pretty soon after they ve been while she saved it. He kept he sat on it and he plodded revenge and that students was giving a given up really flattering profile in the New York Times. Thousands of words expended on this you know hand wringing about oh raise in this and that never once did anyone in that article point out the is about this kid like that. Isn't that is a kind of sociopath it way to proceed, who were in your fellow teenagers in high school, and I pity be people who happen,

work with that guy down the law, but it was in the name of larger social justice without tells of racial justice. Exactly ok! So, let's, let's discuss so we are now in a position where hasn't happened. That much I mean is certainly as it happens, like Louis K, hasn't really had a revival or anything like that, but but what the tube an example seems to suggest is. We talked about this with crystal While does this question of whether or not in the world, of the new american aristocracy as long as you don't express opinions that run counter to the general social opinion of the elite, Is that all you're going to get that compassion, you're going to get that by that? Nobody else is going to get Jeff can go back on CNN.

will we start once is cleared by CNN. He can probably start writing for whoever he could write for that's not than it could be. Somebody else, whatever and kind of reestablish himself re Donovan, the Reagan Secretary of Labour died this week at the age of ninety. No one would remember re Donovan, who was up. Who was a new Jersey Republican except that he came under.

group me first suppose it illegal activity. I dont really remember what the circumstances were and after a two year, investigation that cost him millions of dollars he didn't have. He was cleared by an inspector general of wrong doing and when he gave Prescott whatever he stood up, and he said where do I go to get my reputation back is one of the great say it's a sword. He was pursued for any logical reasons and effort to criminalize policy differences. He was gone after illegitimate Lee on the grounds that he had done something illegal that he hadn't done because his ideological enemies wanted to destroy. And the question was: where does he getting his reputation back? That's an interesting thing to think about here, because it is now in America is now people who have absolutely that who have not

lot of standing, who are the most easily destroyed by by weakness, and this this political culture and an that's. I think where, where we get to this question of come because I think we can all I understand that every it's ridiculous in a society in which. We're not letting you know actual people who do things in it. We ve ended bail, but you say the wrong thing in your and you're in your ear, your lively Europe, your ability to simply proffer livelihood is in, I was destroyed forever. Where do we go from here? I don't even know. Well, I mean you know, that's the thing that won the problems and we ve been saying throughout the age of woke. Listen. This is one of the early problems with me too, despite some of the good,

about the meeting movement on the possibility of forgiveness is nil. if you weren't and unless you are some sort of you know. Champion or were emblem of elite opinion. So so. What where we go with this, I think, is further down that road, because who, because you you the people who are not forgiven or there are the relative nobody's and soul, who then is there? Who then is going to So why would this change because its nobody's ever that are being really cancelled? Then there is there's no serve cultural forced to do, stick up for them. While there is in the form of small narrow, committed bands, people who render you on cancer

and that's that's a direction which were heading in an entertainment, at least institution. No longer protect the people that serve for them? But but audiences do and in so far as you can have a small committed band of people didn't even have to be. A lot of people could couple ten thousand Twenty thousand thirty thousand people will want. Keep you protected said to the extent that would the controversy you encounter. It? Has a new cycle, but it can draw what these people want, which is blood or income. They have to exact some sort. Concession from you in order for it to go, Given that concession, then it it real does Kind Peter out over the course of seventy two hours. That's why the apology thing doesn't work anymore. If you put a jealous you ve, given you liked it who cycle, but I mean what, if you're, what, if you're the high school student? Who is it

listening is worked out and then and then five years from now, you're you're you're up for a job and your names googled by your perspective, employer and all that comes flooding through all these other media outlets, doing when name prosecute a problem that is TAT, has written a high school there. Saturday I mean they're, not turn him did this, isn't it has no in this area. a broader implications, save for the fact that are giving an audience something titillating that they want and what they want is Chris in your bedroom says they want that narrative. They want the they went. The people punish there also satisfying. I think, though, a lot of their own junior staffers, who believe there on a mission as journalists to root out this kind of whatever school ten minutes ago themselves of the running avatar to exact there. revenge right, but they never got to mete out the New York Times story about the about the the

the young girl who lost her place at college, and I don't remember what college was it doesn't really matter. I don't want to just say that this is a problem with the media cause that that that's not legitimate. This is an institutional problem across larger institutions. Particularly universities This was a story because the college rescinded her acceptance on the basis of a tick tock or their dead Snapchat video made three years before they had accepted her when she was fourteen or fifteen years old and they covered thereafter. Is the admissions department the college worried that they were gonna get into trouble, decided it's easier for us to destroy this girl's life and for us to have to say, if we asked she was fourteen or fifteen years old. We do not approve of what she did, but we know we are not going to judge her

bake it. We are not going to ruin her life based on this one thing that was too for them because you don't want to have to say that, so they don't and the fact that they hold the few sure of somebody in their hands as a matter of absolutely no concern to them when their own asses aren't are in need of coverage and as the entire story of weakness, corporate leaned, institutionally, it is, There is a person there is controversy about a person and the institution that is was to be so big can absorb blows and have shock absorbers that individual people don't they turn out to suck They turn out to be cruel, uncharitable, selfish self, focused and and protective of themselves. in the worst way, not the best way, but only in ideological direction. Rightly this is that this is the

It's the end, if there's a way through or out of this, an increase actually was somewhat weirdly. Optimist boxes are well adjust our. What use is it the day, public, seeing be hypocrisy of how inconsistently these things are prosecuted. eventually my it, and I think it already has to some extent turn change people's minds about If you're saying we're doing this in the name of racial justice and then one of the with people who has been put Computing. Others turns out to be say. I don't know, for example, horribly anti semitic and nothing it's done or maybe dawns black face just for fun. and when he was in college, nothing happens or say happens to be african amount. In sexually harassing women, but he's the lieutenant Governor Virginia so ACT which is not going to talk about the cases piling up in it. Right now. It's it tends to be conservative media this pointing out these hypocrisy. But people see that its view

Are you clear that certain people are punished more harshly because they are not conforming to ideologies and they don't look like a victim so that those will continue to pile up as long as this continues? Ok, so I promise that I would sort of go into my the person oh issue that debt that that triggers me in relation to turn to Jeffrey Turban, which seems to be only fair. I went to high school which have to open. We worked on the school. bring together, so I've known him for you? No forty, five. Years and was staggered discover in my twenties, when I'd brother in LAW Elliot Abrams This will, in the regular ministration, found himself involved in IRAN, Contra scandal that, after the appointment of warrants, washes the spot.

A prosecutor in the IRAN Contra matter that the lead lawyer in Wash office looking to prosecute Elliot was Jeff Tube in a person that I had gone to Highschool Press and who had at The school paper with me, which it doesnt occur to me now could have occurred to me then occurred to me, then, when I found out that it was the case could have made it public's think about. It could have said that you know this was a conflict of interests that we had weird we he had a weird personal, tangible connection, including the fact that my father knew his parents all kinds of stuff that would I mean the Jeff shouldn't have been on Elliot's case and Anne Elliot was unjustly legitimately unfairly and disgustingly prosecuted by walls was charged with a ludicrous offences, for

which he ended up pleading guilty in order to spare the family from having to spend more means of dollars. In his day aunt em was then pardoned by George W Bush. At the end of the book illustration, I bring all this out because a I dont, Your stand. Why Jeff was, on the case, it's very hard for me to believe that my familiar connection to Elliot about play some kind of funny we, role in his desire to work on the Elliot case it's too get out, we we competed for roles and plays in high school. It's too weird, like we were too much in each other's lives in each other's consciousnesses. For this not to play some kind of apart and I only I bring this up because when he was on that show on CNN yesterday. He said something about. You know how, as

as a person as a human being he never and as a prosecutor, he never really thought of himself as a hanging judge, he wasn't really a hanging judge. No, he believed in Japan. Then stuff like that, to which I say bullshit- that is a lie. Elliot did not profit. Marine Contra Elliot was a public official who was attempting to do something you thought was. important and good for the United States and the world they had, a thing on him: they jined up to Judges of having lie down a document Tina know that one of those documents at everybody swears too, and in his book undue n in in in Jeff's book about IRAN Contra, which is what began his career as legal rider. He can If acknowledges this, but He says well least Elliot Abrams, won't be able to work and government any more good.

And you know what Elliot went into the George the Bush administration and ended this time in the George W Bush administration is the senior official at their nationals. Ernie Council, running the Middle EAST for George W Bush and Yes, he was largely implicitly because of what had happened. Somebody who could not get can but could not could not have been comfortably confirmed for office running through running through the Senate, but he served his country admirably and did so again in the trunk, ministration as are senior. What you would call him that serve the the envoys dealing with Venezuela and then at the at the tail end, also with IRAN so I'm Ellie got the last laugh. But I'd saying this only because yes, I have because he made my sister he's made by

sisters, life a hell, he he I have three I have three children whose lives he made a misery and, and I do- and I do not believe that start my own personal family experience that he deserves and out a smidgen eighth day. You know part per million of compassion based on what he did to my family. So I wish him all the best, which is to say I wish have none of the best. and let him Let's see what happens but offer for him to claim that what he deserves human being is is hastily open, hearted treatment. I would like to go, look in the eyes of my my niece and nephews em up

poligized to them, for what he did Elliot doesn't need his apology and my sister is dead So moving on to Lafayette Park the idea of the visit the Interior Department. I carrots so some odd the poets, it wasn't just suppose the ideology of the department, I think, was Erica premier tasked with figuring out what have and at the beginning of June, twenty twenty in Lhasa Park, where the doubtful, and so the where was where it was said that the that the partly said use tear gas to clear Lafayette Park, which is right across the street from the White House. In order that Trump could go, have a photo up there if your memory walked from, he walked from the White House to save jobs are visible church which had

set on fire the previous night- and look a bible, lonely. He held up the Bible upside down, and then it was said that this would all be done to help him do this. Follow up and all of that and This is what we know about it right this. What we know is they cleared the park so, but so Trump could have a follow up and they use tear gas against peaceable processors and that so now it's a year later and there's this incredibly detail. Poured, which I haven't read: Noah Christine. Can you can you fill us him on the on the findings of the report, because I think Christine will have little them were to say on this. But my overall impression of this thing is that its very weird I have no reason to second guess the conclusions of the idea to parliament. The conclusions are that it was predetermined, that these protesters being violent, being aggressive, being

reasonable and not responsive to law enforcement needed to be cured contained in that containing consisted of putting offensive or on the White House this is one of the eight they couldn't do that, because in these This is where, in the way Lafayette Parking it'd be cleared out, so they could put up these emergency barriers now and that's it what they did and what happened was We can only assume that Donald Trump and administration policy. The political people around him didn't say this should happen. Didn't didn't demand that it should happen for political, follow up but took advantage of it with extraordinary alacrity and had this follow up the second that basically, these people cleared out within ten minutes of them being clear and the impression that you can get there is that down from one of this to happen, apparently, that's an erroneous impression, but it was one that was shared by the people in the Department of defense. He resigned in protest over the.

The assumption that more Casper had something to do with this. So I'd just it's weird. It's weird, not unjustified, but a lot of you know the target, these doubts, but when one of the things that the ideal report I hope will be and people of is that that there was a really but much broader context for what happened with this. The easy narrative that was immediately picked up, which has no, I grew, nor is totally it's actually completely believable that Trump would gas protesters to get them out of his way to stage a follow up right that that's kind of his style. The fact that it wasn't questioned, if that was the narrative is huge, deficiency on the part of the media, which immediately went with one story, never really even asked questions about any other alternatives, but they all did something else and that they completely ignored and downplayed what then going on a couple of days before that, in that exact area, the Prodi sisters in that area were not peaceful. They were repeatedly violent d,

and dozens of of police officers had been injured over the course of just a few days they try. burn down the church, they were destroying the unit this this park and and the media was reporting it as look at these heroes, look at them right outside the White House, challenging Donald Trump like look at them. This is a more peaceful, certainly many were not, and there is a lot of violence and lot of destruction and the reason they needed to bring in that no scale fencing is that there was a perceived actual security threat to the White House grounds and regardless of what you think of Donald Trump We do have people in our government whose sole job is to protect the president, whom ever here, she might be. So. I feel like the context of what started this whole narrative was also deliberately downplayed by the media in in ache, absent we lockstep attempt to make Donald Trump looked like a crazy authoritarian tyrant. In that moment, the photo up with ridiculous and

like no said, it's weird, that people would resign avert, assuming he did call for it, but this report not getting the attention it deserves both for the context it provides about what happened last year and for the behaviour of the media in sick effectively sick effectively following the narrative the best suited their ideological priors. They didn't follow they create a green it. Yes, I literally creator narrative that we now know to be untrue, that in brought an idea- that is what is important here. I mean an end at the fact that took a year of you know deep investigation by the park police too, destroy the story line that was invented before our eyes, I think is, is is astoundingly damning about the fact that yes I agree with both of you that you know Donald Trump with somebody who said things like we should use of force

violence against protesters. That was one of his political issues and twenty fifteen and twenty sixteen were so so so then saying either protesters there were clear from laughing park, follow up. Is there you know that? Does it follow a credible wine that this sum eagerly? He would be interested? Yes, do you presume as a matter of course, that he ordered it. No, you do not presume, because you're nuts was to presume anything, that's not an end. Philip bump of the Washington Post, declaring that you know. I don't know people at far. So Molly Hemingway, however, who raise skeptical question But this narrative were being propagandists when he was the propaganda that that is the point. This was a propaganda. War against Trump in the heat of the campaign, as the country was going absolutely,

arc raving insane over because it had been two months of covered and and George Floyd. It happened, and people in this country were going nuts and at the end the people who held the starter, fluid were shooting at on the flames, and that was filled bump and people like him, and it wasn't the park police who actually did what they were supposed to do. In an erecting fencing to make sure that their wasn't going to be destroyed. The out destruction wasn't going to take place in and around laugh at park, which has bill things on three sides of including Blair House, the faint location where people tend to jam. they tend to sleep the night before there worn and as president of the night states like a house which is also where, where, where were the church was that was that had been set on fire

feed it I mean there have been significant destruction already when they made the determination that they needed to put up the fencing and protect the square. So what? What strikes me? what we are seeing here. I think, to some extent that stir comfortable distance from from being an office. Work were getting serve afresh, dream of information about a number of stories about trumpet the Trump years, and policies and ideas during those times that really show a lot of what was made popular in the media was not true and its there's, it's kind of been a bit of a cascade of me and you take things like The russian bounty story in Afghanistan right that, where were you noted from supposed he was a fine with their there being

Russians contract, contracted to kill american soldiers in Afghanistan, which was not true? I think that the burying or the discrediting of the lab leak hypothesis is is. It is part of this as well, because that was somehow is seen as a Trump designed I'm narrative and this in there, and there are others that I've forgotten. Is there a cumulative effect here in the EU for a conservatives. We we know where this is not shocking. Is there a cumulative effect on the average news, consumer guess and now, I'm in a review, the cumulative effect is that the continuing destruction of any sense of reliability from the press on the part of anybody who is remotely sympathetic to the reply,

looking party or or were or is not sympathetic to the Democratic Party and to liberalism in general. These hits just come constantly you now and the end and they just reinforce the idea that what is said cannot cannot be trusted or were actively must be resisted. For the same people to walk ranting. Oh my god, you know these people, don't even believe. In truth, you know I won't even we don't even accept the same version of truth, any more. What about truth their liar, sir. You know the Higgs or the very least a bit. If you don't want to say that this was like a conscious knowing why they misrepresented reality may be innocently. that doesn't matter. If you dont make a reckoning of having done it and say part of what we do is correct, the record. Will we get a wrong and one of the things here of course, is that nobody went back and checked the only prison, went back and

as a result of their legal obligations, was the inspector general here washing powder, but had done it now? Good has done a piece a week later and said you know what this isn't what happened, but they didn't. we are worried that it works it s, art interrupted, continue it. They did something worse, which is hark back to deep information over and over again and all of their coverage of the trouble administration and now, I will say to their credit places like ABC News. I think NBC also did this motion and posted it. They acknowledge what the age you report said, and then did not seen and had several segments where people were trying to talk their way around the report and pretend as if a well still the coincidence. What can you say is this? I d really non partisan. Let me they were. They were just asking. Questions does, as we say but some of the media outlets have been proven to have just absolutely misled. The public have acknowledged that that's it? You're not gonna, hear more of it. I wouldn't. I would bet a lot of money that many

Opinion riders will continue to raise. The dear gassing protesters is a kind of trope to attack the right. So it's it's out there big battle misinformation actually spreads. I got one other recall unjust. Sorry, I don't recall either Donald Trump or his supporters in the press, doing anything to despair notion they did. Molly Hemingway literally was on Fox, saying I'll know. All she was saying was that tear gas and pepper, sparing that the same thing that was her crew said that wasn't the only thing she said, but I don't want to. I was using the trumpet moorish supporters interests to projecting impression of toughness tedious and that they were not even think. You know that. That's why I think that that is it. That is an unjust moral equivalence I'm sorry it just is either it happened or didn't out when they said it doesn't matter, because the narrative that was being proffered was a mainstream media narrative that fast

some was coming to America, because protesters were being Gaston Lafayette Park and it didn't happen. Now they may what I've wanted reject toughness like we cleared Lafayette Park, Tear gas was not used and the purpose of what was going on a Lafayette Park was to protect. Public property occur from the White House and to protect this church from being set on fire again and that was not whatever to the conservative press of the conservative media was pushing even if they wanted to see a tough. I mean, I just don't think that comes anywhere near the level of the of the story line that then simply became an accepted store. I mean, do you recall how more Casper very publicly said that we would not military force and enforce the insurrection act to clear up protests, and that was the fall out from this event. Didn't restoration arguing with itself. So if we're paying attention to what they were saying, not just for internal consumption. Within the conservative movement, they were done

I think that this balanced, but they went well. It was. It was inconsistent because Trump, I think, tweeted an article that Molly Hemingway had written in the Federalist that questioned the media narrative. That said, actually the park police were putting up the stuff because of all the destruction of a going on Lafayette Square, and he retreated that like this is a must read or one of his like you know, Trump endorse tweets are, there was weirdly there were there. There was, contradictory messaging. I agree with you know that plenty of people in the trunk administration will look at how tough this makes us look. A lot from supporters said felt that I too, but there is also some acknowledgement among conservatives that the mainstreaming not least among Molly and a few others that this might not be an unquestionably true story. But in any case, I think, if you asked most p to try to remember what happened and they could it would say the park police cleared out laughing swear using tear gas

stuff, so the trump could have a follow up. I mean that that and I think that that was What people came away with an and not to use the concept? its cliche Platos Cave yet again, but if the Platos Cave fantasy, Probably no ghost reality became reality bull resigned over it, for no good reason, and we we responded, incompetent. We, too January six because of a false understanding of what had happened on May thirtieth. I mean that Another way of looking at this. It shows the power of the false narrative power to affect people who's should be allergic to its effects. I wanted to

move on to one thing before we go witches eight, which is a pretty astonishing tweet that just popped up this morning from Thomas Freedom. Thomas Frieden: was the head of the CDC under Barack Obama? Was the head of the New York City Health Department under Michael Bloomberg? Here's what he treated this morning quote whether or not he That emerged from the lab. We know the labs around the Laurent, safe enough. We need a much better way of regulating lab, so people aren't doing dangerous experiments without sufficient oversight. That's one step toward include improving global health security, This guy ran the CDC. Ok, it's like you know what? Let's change the subject as to whether or not a pandemic

That is now. On the other hand, I was on the road to killing at least four million people on the planet. If not many more lives, I really talk about who did it? Let's talk about labs security, so I'm I'm. I'm kind of. This is, I think, the leading edge of where this kind of conversation is gonna go here. Which is one of those it doesn't matter whether Tijuana Brawley lied, she really cast a spotlight on the problem of people being raped in small all towns and having feces spread on their bodies, which really is a very large issue in the world. Like obscurity is a huge issue in the world, because as we now millions of people die because of lab leaks. No billions, we don't lie because of lab leaks. Millions of people die maybe because of this one lab leak and if you want us

playing this game of suggesting of somehow ring, the Chinese pass if it happened, how ever. It happened because the problem is a generic one having to do with how people behave in facilities. This as a leading american public health official with twenty experience, ran the New York City out department and ran the cdc. This is very dangerous. This is this: is the world preparing to go amnesiac all about what may be the most foreign policy most most important events of the last fifteen to twenty years is not wrong. That lab links do happen very often in China deadly once this wouldn't be the first say China yet right. Well, I bet they ve happened in the west of the horse, they ve our. Unless, of course, leave happened, for it was one of the answers.

by the way, the Chinese that we know that it could have happened. We know that it could have happened because lab leaks happen there the notion that that letter was published in the lancet in February, saying. How dare anybody say this lab could have happened when everybody on that letter knows perfectly well that lab leaks happen. One of the reasons but the lovely hypothesis is credible is because langleys happen, but they don't kill tens of millions of people. They may kill dozens of people, they don't kill tens of millions of people, and so we get it I mean I just think that, as long as it is a matter of emphasis, we're moving the very weird and interesting territory here, This is how the public health community is going to try to cauterize the wound seal it before before everybody else, goes bananas and white, the toothache

financial meltdown, unlike other things, the political consequences of trying not to get to the bottom of this are going to be world epoch, historical in ways. We don't even know how they would work. right, two thousand eight. You know my theory. Two thousand eight leads to Trump. We don't reckon with the event the financial meltdown and its causes for there its reasons having to do with Obama's behaviour and the nomination Mitt Romney in everything like that, and it explode that word anyway in a complete revision of the american political system in part, because we didn't and we don't deal with the lab leak hypothesis credibly seriously, with put with upper linear consequences should turn out to be the case. That is to say, China will have to be forced if we build with. We have credible reason to believe that it really did happen. China will be forced to play too

to provide some restitution for what it did not normally does, but to the world. If that doesn't happen by twenty twenty four, when he twenty eight guy God knows what the political response is gonna be want to talk about a populist explosion when it went back rotarian communist regime is below even by hundreds of millions of people around the world to have killed ten, the millions may, by then tens of millet, ten million people oh man I mean don't even know I mean I who knows, and if you said this could make this could make tromp look like Mr Rogers is all I'm saying I don't like Mr Rogers there with that? We will we won't. We thank you for listening will be back to you next week for April steam, the norm, jump on words, keep the camera