S1: Following recording may or may not include instances of words being said that the FCC would find me for if their long arm could ever reach.
S2: It’s Thursday, February 13th, twenty twenty from Slate. It’s the gist. I’m Mike PESCA. Michael Bloomberg. All what he say now? Well, not now, but in 2008, in fact, 10 days after Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were taken over by the federal government, just two days after Lehman went bankrupt, back then, the president of Georgetown University was onstage with New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg and asked him, how did this happen?
S1: How did this financial crisis happen? A lot of people were asking Bloomberg that back then he was America’s most high profile politician. With a background in finance, the Obama administration would soon call on Bloomberg for advice. In fact, the Obama candidacy did, too, as did the McCain candidacy. Here was how Bloomberg answered the question about the complex and varied causes of the financial crisis.
S3: Red lining, if you remember, was the term.
S1: And that’s it. That’s all he said. He said that that’s it. Said redlining. That’s why there was a crisis. Wait, wait. That’s not what he said. Even though I’m not geared hardass, who is a noted progressive thinker, an activist, described Bloomberg’s answer as. Mike Bloomberg describes redlining as a rational and prudent tactic. I don’t think he did. It helps to listen to more of the answer than just that one short clip.
S3: I would say it probably all started back when there was a lot of pressure on banks to make loans to everyone. Red lining, if you remember, was the term where banks took whole neighborhoods and said people in these neighborhoods are poor, they’re not going to be able to pay off their mortgages. Tell them you’re salesmen don’t go into those areas. And then Congress got involved as local elected officials as well and said, oh, that’s not fair. These people should be able to get credit. And once you started pushing in that direction, banks started making more and more loans where the credit of the person buying the house wasn’t as good as you would like.
S1: Now, it’s not so bad when the market for houses keeps going up, because I’ll stop there to point out that Bloomberg never defends redlining is rational or prudent, not cutting anything out about what he said about redlining. He said that when redlining was in place, there was no market for mortgages as a monetizable financial instrument with high risks and high yields. It was an eight minute answer and he talked about that specifically.
S3: Some people want to buy a group of mortgages, but they want that group of mortgages that have low return, but very low risk. Other people are more willing to take risk. They say, I want more risk and I don’t mind if there’s more volatility. And so the bankers started taking the different components of a mortgage and the different types of mortgages and packaging them in innovative ways, for example.
S1: Now, one man’s innovative is another man’s complex and dangerous. But Bloomberg acknowledge that, too.
S3: Wall Street got into the position where they created so many sophisticated products. My theory is that most people couldn’t understand them. People that worked in the firms, I don’t know.
S1: Correct. Now, it’s not an especially novel analysis, but a couple days after Lehman collapsed, it was a useful and helpful perspective, especially from a person with Bloomberg standing in expertise.
S3: A full seven minutes into his answer, he said this Our leadership is not willing to tell us that there is a cost. Congress and the president and not just one administration, not just one side of the aisle, but both. We keep going and saying we want to have it. We don’t want to pay for it. You can’t go on forever. Not addressing the key issues in this country of health care and immigration. And who’s going to pay for Social Security and public education and guns in the streets and greening our planet and this enormous deficit that the federal government keeps running up. And there’s gonna be some people very badly hurt.
S1: Gonna be some minutes now for all of that. I do not get that. Bloomberg quote blamed the financial crisis on redlining. I get the Bloomberg laid out a fairly detailed analysis of the financial crisis with the jumping off point that changes in the way mortgages were given, the way mortgages went from a boring, safe investment that only the bank could make a little money on over 30 years to this much more volatile investment. That’s the thing that went wrong. Blame. It’s one of those words like evidence. It means a little bit of the thing, but it also means all of the thing like a sand castle or grain of sand. Another way to put this, if I wanted to be fair to Bloomberg, but also fair to you, is that the disconnect between did he blame it all? Did he blames some? It is a classic case of confusion between the necessary and the and the sufficient. Bloomberg is definitely saying that the loosening of lending standards was a necessary component for what came next. But he never says it was a sufficient component and he never said it was a good thing or a bad thing, though you would hope that a politician would say it’s a bad thing. An analogy I thought of is to say all these cases of head trauma in the NFL that could be blamed on Teddy Roosevelt because Teddy Roosevelt saw that football was dangerous, founded the NCAA made it a bit safer. Cut to today. We have helmets, we have head trauma. But again, Bloomberg should have characterized redlining as a bad thing. Most politicians who understand emotions and their audience would do that. He didn’t do that. I think with a little phrase like redlining, which, of course, is a bad thing. And then he could go on. We wouldn’t even be talking about and obsessing over this clip. For the record, his description of the financial crisis wasn’t great. It blames government more than I think the evidence shows that it should. Elizabeth Warren describes the causes of the financial crisis with more empathy than Bloomberg. But also, I think with more accuracy than in that clip right there. But no, I do not think Mike Bloomberg, quote, blamed the. Financial crisis on the end of redlining. Full stop. There’s a lot of nuance missing from that statement. Nuance that Bloomberg himself rebuts in his full statement, which I played some of. And also his fall political career. On the show today, you won’t believe what the boys of Chapo trespass say about Pete Bhuta JEJ. Oh, it’s a lot worse than fiddling with baguette prices. You won’t believe it. And I’m really advising you don’t believe it. But first, Leon Neyfakh, the original host of Slow Burn is off doing Fiasco. His podcast about big presidential crises that just might have something to say about the crises of today. He’s in this current season talking about Iran. Does that grab you? It should. How about the Contras Nicaraguan guerillas? That’s cool, right? Why is it when I put them together in the phrase Iran contra affair, the Transco loses some of its sizzle because as Leon’s new podcast shows, it really shouldn’t. My favorite historical podcast host that’s close to my favorite podcast host in history, Leon Neyfakh, is up next.
S4: We are Neyfakh is the founding host of Slow Burn. His first two seasons on Nixon and Clinton were, I don’t know, just about the two greatest podcast seasons of narrative journalism ever. He has since taken his shop. It’s not just him, it’s his whole crew of historical excavators taking them to luminary where he’s doing fiasco. Last season was about was it a season or a season that would you sense a season? It was season. Six episodes was shorter than we usually write. That was Bush-Gore. And now I’m so excited because I am a geek. He is doing the Iran contra affair. And where these scandals hit, based on how old you are, is very determinative of your relationship to him. And I’m going to ask Leon about that. And it’s fantastic. LEIGH on Neyfakh, welcome back to THE GIST. Thanks, Mike. How happy to be here. How old gentleman are you, Leon? 34. OK. So this means Clinton was something you and your dad would debate. All right. Bush-Gore was something you were pretty much a young adult for. I definitely remember. And Nixon was something literally before your time. So this was you have any memory of the Iran-Contra affair took place in like 84, 83, 84?
S5: Yeah. I was just being born in April of 85, which is right before all this really got started. 85, 86 is really where the action is.
S4: So it’s a little bit more difficult, especially when compared to the Lewinsky affair or Bush-Gore.
S1: It’s not like those weren’t complicated, but there is a central question. A one central thing was Iran Contra has like to pull laboratories of scandal that also interact to form yet a third scandal. Exactly. Difficult from like a narrative from what you have to do to the audience.
S5: Yeah. And also in terms of orienting the audience, like our first question was, what do we consider common knowledge about Iran-Contra? It’s a question we asked ourselves about Watergate, about the Clinton impeachment. You know, obviously everyone’s different. You’re hopefully getting a wide enough audience that there’s people who are young, people who are older and people who are there, people who, you know, have read about it, even though they don’t remember it. People know very little about Iran-Contra. I’m 34 people in my age group. We were just being born as this happened. Not only did it make not make an impact on us at the time, obviously, but more to the point than get like passed down to us. Over the course of our education and adolescence and adulthood ever, it just didn’t sort of last as a cultural touchstone. It didn’t somehow find a permanent place in our collective consciousness.
S4: Yeah. And I’m going to lay on you a couple of theories as to why I think first some. Yes. Let’s lay out what it was. The Iran part was the ayatollah takes control of Iran. The state becomes the Islamic Republic of Iran. The hostages are taken. The hostages are freed, not because of Reagan, but freed on the day he’s inaugurated. He gets credit for them. It was an embarrassment to Carter. That’s where Reagan comes into play. Iran’s in a war against Iraq. A bunch of Iranian surrogates are taking hostages across the Middle East. Iran is literally on the watch list of terrorism. And yet someone comes to the administration saying, I got a deal for you. Give us some weapons for our war with Iraq and we’ll free some of the hostages.
S5: So tracking like the chain of events that led to President Reagan getting this briefing or being told about this possibility is quite hard. We call it a bizarre daisy chain in the show. And we we don’t dwell on it super long because it doesn’t ultimately matter that much like exactly who told whom and in which meeting happened on which day. But the long and short of it is there were people in Israel who had been dealing with people in Iran whom the Israelis believed to be moderates or pragmatists, people who didn’t see eye to eye with the ayatollah. People who wanted a better relationship with the West. And they had a guy, an Iranian guy, who sort of presenting himself to them as the intermediary to broker, who says, look, I got these friends or associates in Iran. I’m close to their moderate. They don’t want death to America. And you should deal with them. And the Israelis trusted this guy. His name is Muncher Ghorbanifar and Ghorbanifar. We describe him as like an international fixer. He could get to parties into a room, even though the two parties maybe don’t trust each other. Right. And so at some point, an Israeli official tells his friend and associate in the National Security Council. But Macfarlane, about this connection, he has money trigger Varnæs Farr, who can connect Americans in the government to these moderates in Iran and the like. Again, the details are a little bit murky. There’s some conflicting accounts about what was actually exactly told to whom, when. But it becomes clear that in order to engage this channel, this group of moderates in Iran, we needed to sell them some amount of weaponry.
S4: Yes, missiles. If people are listening and they could weigh in. Good idea. Bad idea. Here’s how it goes. Down a hundred or so missiles are shipped. Yes. Yes. And they really happens. They really get the missiles and then the word comes back. Actually, we need more missiles. We need more. We need four times as many missiles. And at that point, I’d have been out if I was anyone who was. I said, OK, you beat us for the hundred missiles. No. Yeah. No. From now.
S5: Not only do they ask for more missiles. This is when I say they I mean Ghorbanifar. So he says, yes, we need 400 more. Not only that, we actually can’t bring about the release of all seven hostages that we know of being held in Beirut. We can only probably do one. Yeah. USO to figure out amongst yourselves which one you wanted to be.
S4: Right. And then when they ask for is the former CIA agent, William Buckley. Too sick to actually be given back? So they get you.
S5: Well, so it turned out he’d been dead for a while. He’d had what they believed to be a heart attack at some point, even before the missiles were sent. They instead a guy named Benjamin Weir, who is a reverend who lived in Beirut. You interview his son? Yeah, we interviewed your son. What’s amazing about Reverend, we’re being the hostage. They gave back their other people they could have released. They chose. We’re. And I think some in the administration suspected that it was because Wiehrs politics were kind of he had an appreciation for the plight of his captors. He and his wife both had lived a long time in the Middle East. They identified, I think, with people there and they understood American policy in the Middle East to be a destructive force. In fact, Weir’s wife met with Shultz, secretary of state, to sort of get him involved in the quest to get her husband back. She kind of lectured him a little bit on like all the reasons why her husband’s kidnappers, like, made some good points. Yeah. Some of the people who are involved in this transaction in America refer to him as Reverend Weird.
S4: Oh, wow. A clever play on words. Stick it to the hostage. This is not all, but this is some of the Iran part of the Iran contra affair. At the same time, you have a central the Nicaraguan rebel group called the Contras, who the Reagan administration has identified as being like George Washington and the founding fathers of our country. And they want to get funding. The Republicans in Washington want to fund these countries, but literally the Republicans not all but a significant number of them. Right. The isolationists don’t really care. And some of the realists say, you know, it’s not worth it and that they’re terrible people. But anyway, Ronald Reagan did. It was against the law to do so. So how they went about funding the Contras takes up some pretty hilarious slash tragic aspects of that. One episode with wining and dining old Republican ladies ever north was in charge of the charm offensive.
S5: Indeed. So basically they decided that Congress says we can’t spend, you know, American money like government money on the Contras. OK. A lot of the Reagan people that I’ve talked to believe that the law that you’re referring to, the Bowl Independent, was narrowly enough tailored that it invited an end-run, that it really everyone understood what was going on. They just needed to make a show of it. So they passed this law, but it was understood that they left holes on purpose, as bullets say. I don’t think so. So this law is a real obstacle to Reagan’s very strong held desire to help these anti-communists in Nicaragua. And so what do they do instead of taking U.S. government money? They solicit donations from wealthy private donors in America, people who have been, you know, counted on to fund Republican political campaigns. You know, they show them a slide show. They haven’t come in and meet the president, really make it worth their while. One lady asked for her name to be inscribed on a missile. That’s beautiful. Yeah, they really kind of like sold them the idea that the Contras were a coalition of freedom fighters and that we couldn’t abandon them as Congress would have us do, just like we abandoned our allies in Vietnam and we pulled out, which is really what’s behind a lot of this is like Oliver North Ray and like they hate that we don’t we abandoned our brothers are, you know, anti-communist allies. We can’t let it happen again. And that’s what they see happening in Nicaragua.
S4: If we abandon the Contras and they also they the United States government also hilariously founds this group to act as sort of the figurehead spokesman for the Contras, even though they have very little actual association with the Contras.
S6: Some of the people, some of the people you’re your friend to the seven people who would present a attractive image of the Contras because the Contras were understood to be made up of a lot of different factions. But among them were former National Guards men who had served under Somoza. Who is this brutal right wing dictator who the U.S. supported until the end? And so a lot of his people, a lot of his guys with guns, you know, his goons. Yeah. They continue to support him. Well, they wanted the power back. Right. And so these people, to some assisters, made up a large percentage of the contra forces. And, you know, I think it was understood that that was not a winning brand and start to use a contemporary term. And so they wanted to organize like the seven member public board of people who could plausibly say they weren’t extremist, that they certainly weren’t in favor of torture or atrocities. And, you know, so it’s to the board. You know, as you say, it was supposed to be the face of this organization, but it’s all like these were completely, you know, unaffiliated people. You know, there was there were some Montre curious contrast, she says, if you will. And so we interviewed one of the members of the directorate who quit outside a certain point because he felt disenchanted with it. He was a Nicaraguan guy who had moved to Miami and had gotten sort of interested in the political turmoil back home, didn’t support the Sandinistas, thought they were too extreme. And so he got recruited by the CIA. He believes to sort of serve as one of the seven. Yeah. And so there’s a certain point he you know, he was roped into making apologies for the things the Contras were doing. He was, you know, called in the middle of night to say, listen, you got to go on the radio and say that it was us that, you know, laid those bombs in the Nicaraguan harbor. We can’t let anyone know that it was anything to do with the CIA. Yeah, which, of course, it was. And that eventually came out. Yes, it came out during a debate, didn’t it? Well, it came out before that. But yes, it was brought up during the in the debate.
S4: So the arms for hostages, its own scandal. If people were to find out about it, then it becomes arms for money. Is that what happens?
S6: Well, I mean, there was always money. I think what you’re referring to, I think, is that there was there were profits being made off the arms sales. And those profits at a certain point started being funneled by all over North and some of his associates into the contra war. And this is the hyphen or the &NDASH. I have a friend who is very upset with me for referring to it as a hyphen Hobbes.
S4: That’s why it’s not a well-known scandal.
S6: The hyphen over M dash and dash, not m dash and dash herrlin. Oh God. Anyway, the hyphen or the dash is the money, right? The thing that connects these two otherwise unrelated operations? Well, one thing is that they they’re being run by the same people, which makes it possible for the money to intermingle to then have profits from the arms sales being used to buy guns for the Contras. Yeah.
S1: Why don’t they just use all their crack profits that year? No, but this is true of the people who study the CIA or study secret organizations. If they want to do surreptitiously, technically illegal things, you have to be funded somehow and that’s usually via illegal funding methods. So there’s a chronicle history of the CIA working with, say, mafia factions because they needed the money for other things.
S6: Well, there is a way to get covert operations, you know, funded and approved and make them legal. And it was there’s a law that says that a president can order a covert action as long as he signs a piece of paper called a presidential finding in advance and explains what it is, what the rationale is, and commits to briefing Congress on it. Not all of Congress, but like a select you know, the Intel Committee. Yeah. Yeah. And there was a finding for CIA involvement in Nicaragua. And then the Bulan minute passed and the CIA could no longer be serving that purpose with regard to the arms sales and other covert operation. One of the big problems that the Reagan ministration faced once everything started coming out was the first two arms shipments that they engaged the Iranians on were not covered by presidential finding. There was a finding signed after the fact. Yeah. Which the Reagan folks wanted to say was retroactive. But in any event, there was no briefing of Congress. You know, yes, he signed a piece of paper. But I would say, like the important part of the law would be that there is oversight from Congress, which they declined to do. On the theory that, well, it says in a timely manner, you know, who’s to say timely means before it happened. And sure enough to say it to me, as you know, a week as opposed to a year. So that was that was sort of to answer your question, like. Sure. They’ve caught covert operations have to be secret. That doesn’t necessarily mean they need to be funded illegally.
S4: Yeah, well, the fact is, the host of Fiasco, the second season of which is available on that luminary service about the Iran contra affair. Thank you so much, Leon. Thanks, Mike.
S1: And now the spiel. If you don’t know Chapo, the podcast, not the drug lord, it’s a phenomenon. It’s called Chapo Trap House. It’s currently the 16th ranked news podcast in i-Tunes, which is three ahead of the BBC. Unfortunately, five behind the verdict with Ted Cruz guilty. The Chapo Trap House guys have written New York Times bestseller. They each have over 100000 followers on Twitter. And it’s the big one. They’ve been on the just begging for Pedialyte. After a night of hard drinking, their producer, Chris, is an old Slate employee who I like very much. I met for me and Chapo guys at the Iowa State Fair. They were funny. I could not take them up on their offer of a night of hard drinking. I listen to the show because I like hearing their good arguments from a strong socialist point of view. They also present the very harshest critiques of more moderate politicians than Bernie Sanders, which is to say, I think every other politician in America. They are funny and their politics are really influential as ardent Bernie supporters. They are scathing in their attacks on his rivals. They look at Elizabeth Warren like a Jew, looks at a Jew for Jesus. Now, if you don’t know this little spat, you might say, well, isn’t that almost a Jew? But to an actual Jew. Jews for Jesus are the worst. Every once in a while. Actually, pretty frequently, Chapo goes full conspiracy mode and sometimes it’s embarrassing. And other times, like this recent show, it’s bordering on the dangerous. At the very least, it’s an a factual disregard for documentable truth. And it shows that the far left is every bit as eager to get high off the paint fumes of innuendo and suggestion. In their last posted show, Chapo went full bore into an area they’ve tiptoed around in the past. The notion that Pete Bhuta JEJ is an agent for the CIA. So before they launch into their full diatribe, complete with knowing winks and the technique of paralysis, which is I’m not saying, I’m just saying they pander a little bit to the live crowd in New Hampshire by putting down Iowa and then they analyze the results from Iowa and accurately as it happens here as well.
S7: We did prevail in Iowa. Bernie won the Iowa caucus decisively.
S8: We are not bullshitting you. We are not trolling you. We are not saying that it’s just hype up confidence and support. We are telling you objectively, Bernie Sanders won the Iowa caucus decisively. Yes.
S1: Then they buttress their incorrect assertion that Bernie won the Iowa caucuses decisively with a quasi conspiracy theory and built an escape clause. And that foreshadows what’s to come next. But first, the guise of Chapo engage in a bit of fun. Funny, funny stuff. People to judge corny one liners. There are two types of Pete isms.
S9: There is one that’s like almost like a joke.
S10: If I told the joke and that is when Pete says things like, well, the community that I’m from, we care less about the Nasdaq and more about building a coat rack.
S9: It will be something like something resembling like it gets worse.
S10: Where I’m from, we care less about the schools Montessori and more about raising our son Corey.
S9: And that’s like that’s like almost like the least evil type of ism, because it’s like the robot wants to be part of humanity, kind of. There’s like a spiritual yearning.
S11: And you wish you could update, you know, the human to lie, the humor.
S9: You wish you could update his in video settings to get that done. And we wouldn’t have to go through this whole thing. Sad because, you know, he kind of feels pain. Oh, yeah, it definitely does. There’s pain in that little Arthur Fist. He makes. There’s pain.
S1: That was Felix. That clip is Trap House at its most appealing. Its funny, smart and sharp. They’re mocking a rival for his style and his pretension. Clearly satire. But this next part where they talk about Pete Boobage being in the CIA was not satire.
S8: So when you begin to assemble these facts or go down these various rabbit holes or look at the bigger picture, you will never, ever get. And this is what Tom O’Neil said to us. That’s very important. You will never, ever, ever get to a point of capital t. Journalistic truth that can be published in The New York Times.
S1: Oh, it’s not New York Times truth. What would their strict definitions of things that are true?
S12: Then Virgil issued this disclaimer, 0 9, by the way, very, very quickly, anyone out there who’s a reporter for New York magazine, Politico, The New Yorker, The New York Times, Washington Post, anything like that? This is off the record. OK.
S1: So is it a joke? Is it not a joke? It is a joke because people laughed. And of course, you can’t go off the record on a publicly available podcast. But it shows Chapo knows what they’re doing. They understand the uses and purposes of propaganda. And they also know what they’re about to do in their extremely influential and popular podcast. They’re about to smear Bernie Sanders biggest rival to date with a batshit insane conspiracy theory. So here is Chapo member Matt Crisman making the case that Pete Bhuta JEJ active CIA asset.
S13: He began by citing a 2008 New York Times op ed that booted JEJ wrote about Somaliland, the on Cleeve of Somalia that was seeking independence at the exact same time that the U.S. government was making inroads to attempt to establish military bases there with the connivance of the local leadership. Pete Bush and his friend from Harvard, his friend from Harvard, a guy whose name is Oh, good lord. Nathaniel Myers. This is a guy who works for USAID, the U.S. Aid International Development Organization, which has been for 40 years a known CIA front.
S1: USAID is actually the largest government sponsored aid agency in the world. Half of all U.S. foreign aid flows through USAID. The guys continue to trace Bhuta Judge’s career.
S11: Then he joins Naval Intelligence and goes to Afghanistan. The Navy famously necessary to get intelligence. A landlocked Afghanistan Navy is really good at mountains. Yes. Where he has admitted it in his own books that he spent time in CIA safe houses. A guy who has a glowing portrait of this guy. Talk about how in his study he has maps of the mineral resources of Afghanistan and his fucking house. He’s a court informed guy. He’s a cartography buff. He loves maps. He is a goddamn math nerd. So this is a guy whose entire career before he becomes mayor is pure intelligence. Absolutely. There is not a single thing he did.
S14: He’s little McKinsey or with the military that does not indicate that he was doing at the very least like high end grifting McKinley shit. Or at the worse, like Project Phoenix, like targeted assassinations, LGBTQ, CIA, etc..
S11: My joke that someone else’s show.
S1: But you know, Project Phoenix was a CIA back program during the Vietnam War that was credited. If you want to use that word with killing tens of thousands of Vietcong sympathizers, many, if not most of them neutral civilians, not to be fair to Chapo. Killing tens of thousands of innocent Vietnamese. Or a similar venture was at the upper bounds of what they say that Pete Boogied was doing right before being elected mayor of South Bend, Indiana. And they describe his morality this way.
S14: And then he and then he becomes mayor of South Bend, where he becomes the most media savvy. Most media connected guy in this pissant town of a hundred thousand people where his job is basically just to ethnically cleanse the black people out of the neighborhoods so they can be gentrified.
S1: By the way, how did this small town mayor become a presidential candidate? Perhaps. I mean, the way I figured is that maybe you saw him like a lot of voters did and said, oh, I like this guy. I like what he has to say. I like how he says it, his temperament and his story. Perhaps you didn’t say that you know someone who did or find a plausible that this is a reason why a reasonable person might like Pete booted jej. No, you’re wrong. It’s not. It’s CIA.
S13: So then he gets to run. And as I said, he’s running against one of the biggest fields they’ve ever had. Governors, senators, every half of them just trying to run the Obama playbook.
S14: All of them fall away. And he’s the last one left. And he is the one that the media is willing to go to bat for and lie on behalf of after he stole Iowa.
S1: So at this point, I suppose it’s incumbent upon me to deny being a member of Project Mockingbird mockingbird. To Catching Fire. Guess that’s the updated program. They’re denying being in the employ of the CIA is exactly what someone in the employ of the CIA would say. Well, putting aside this unfalsifiable premise, let us continue to do Langley’s bidding as I play you more of the unhinged conspiratorial ramblings of the number one Bernie Sanders podcast in America, co-hosted by The New York Times best selling authors and their pal Amber Aley. Frost, by the way, Frost was a contributor to the Columbia Journalism Review. She wrote the ninth most popular article there last year. The tone in that article was tailored to the S.J. R audience, not CIIC J.R.. Columbia Journalism Review for the. Harpo. Audience Frost took a different tone, one that embraced conspiracy, but also told the true believers, fueled by the truths that were revealed, that they must not give away the game when trying to convince others to oppose butI jej. It is actually really important that we crazy Matt played it less close to the vest.
S11: Fucking bear Pete is at the nexus of every black ops CIA fucking thing in the last 30 fucking years.
S1: So since he was 8, this is the point in their podcast where the hosts both embraced the depths of their theories and offered a fig leaf of deniability using phrases like You can believe all of this. You could believe none of it. The end result equals the same thing, which is that you need to know. Powerful forces opposed Bernie Sanders. They advised the audience on the best way to take this knowledge, this special knowledge that they imparted and to use it when dealing with members of the public who might not be as informed as they are.
S8: And I remember early on on the show when we were making fun of Pete by calling him Agent Pete or saying he’s a CIA OP. And of course, I was half kidding then. Am I kidding now? I will leave it to you, the audience, to judge for yourself.
S1: This is some Glenn Beck. Alex Jones. 9/11 truther type technique right there. So ask yourself, is the difference that those conspiracies are wrong and the pete booted judge is a CIA cat’s paw, right? Is that the difference? Or is the difference that Pete Bhuta JEJ is working black ops theory? Is that different from birtherism because one is in service of a bad outcome and the other fuels a righteous fire? I think it’s a lot like birtherism in that the crazy private innacurate theory really inspires the congregation and they know when they interact with the public who don’t think like they do. They know how to put on a more plausible public face. Oh well, no matter what you think about that, you have to really be concerned with his executive overreach with the DACA program. But privately, they’re going out there and saying this with such fervor because they know he was really born in Kenya. The Chapo guys do say a version of hey, believe it or don’t believe it, but they definitely think that it’s important enough to put out in their podcast, which is listened to by 100 to 200 thousand listeners, because they know that even if it’s not true, if their fellow Sanders supporters believe it’s true, then it’s all to the good in their eyes. What I say is that a lie is a lie and propaganda is propaganda. And that’s why it’s useful for me to surface this horseshit. So we could say that it’s horseshit. If you wanna say universal health care, that’s a great idea. Just realize this. Okay. Maybe it is. It’s in a bag with horseshit. If universal healthcare and free college are the right goals, what is it? Say that we have to use horse shit as a means to achieve these goals? Does it say you can’t have anything good unless you embrace insane fictions to get there? I’m trying to be fair to Bernie Sanders himself. The person, the candidate. He never said any of this. There is no evidence he believes it. Again, the part about there being no evidence, I think that’s important. And also, every good leader has some bonkers followers or some followers who spout bonkers notions and every good believe in it. But Bernie Sanders, the candidacy is premised on a political revolution, the coming revolution. So if you throw in with him, maybe you should ask yourself how many of your fellow revolutionaries will be motivated by beliefs like this, by thinking like this or even by tactics like pretending to believe theories like this or throwing lies out there just in case they inspire others who they can use to achieve what they say is a righteous goal. Anyway, that’s the update about what’s going on over there. Chapo thought you should know.
S2: And that’s it for today’s show, Priscilla Lobby is the associate producer of The Gist. She’s working out the theory that Liz Warren is massaged, massaged to the core. Daniel Schrader produces the gist. He knows Trump might be working with the Russians, but he thinks we dodged a bullet with John Kasit, who might be in the pocket of nefarious Slovenian factions. The gist, I take it, a 1988 Democratic nominee, Mike Dukakis loses to former CIA director George H.W. Bush. But now it can be revealed Dukakis was a sleeper agent of the Fish and Wildlife Service. And it gets worse because it wasn’t a fish part whom were desperate to prove. And thanks for listening.