Election Integrity, Foreign Influence & the Media Narrative Wars | Jack & Charles

Jack Moore: So you don't think it's fraudulent influence? Okay.

Charles: the the people gonna no. No, it's influence. If the people gonna have a fit about Russia spending thirty two thousand dollars on Facebook ads and saying that influenced the national election enough to consider it being interference, then what do you say about the fifteen to eighteen million dollars? that was spent in one congressional district.

Jack Moore: More to consider. Does Trump lie? It's Jack and Charles. Trump gives speech last night, sixteenth July, year of our Lord, twenty twenty-six. President Trump announced the declassification of documents related to alleged Chinese interference in the 2020 election. He reiterated claims of election fraud, which have been widely disputed and lack credible evidence, according to I think it says here NBC. Key points from his speech. Trump reiterated his allegation of election fraud in the 2020 election. He announced the declassification of documents alleging Chinese interference. These claims have been widely disputed and lack credible evidence. Purpose of the address, the speech aimed to justify the push for a stricter voter ID bill heading into the upcoming November midterm elections. Trump sought to raise doubts about the legitimacy. Now that this part, what I'm getting ready to read, this is from a report, is assuming some things about his intentions or motivations, and maybe they're right, but Trump sought to raise doubts about the legitimacy of U.S. elections, framing it as a necessary measure. For election integrity. Now he may be saying, based upon this history, I need to raise doubt about past elections so we can clean up future elections. That's being most cr you know, charitable to him, maybe whatever. Trump's claims have drawn criticism from Democrats. Can you can you imagine that?

Charles: Right. No, I can't imagine Democrats no, never. Th they never

Jack Moore: Charles, Trump Trump gave a speech and Democrats have criticized his speech.

Charles: No way, man. That can't be r that can't be real that you what you're reading is no way.

Jack Moore: I don't know what the hell to think. the hell? Okay, here we go. The Democrats argue he's attempting to delegitimize the twenty twenty six midterm elections. now well I think another way of putting it is he's getting out in front to say if the Democrats win, they cheated.

Charles: Mm-hmm. Yeah, it could say that.

Jack Moore: Okay. Democratic leaders have labeled this assertion as totally bogus and emphasize that intelligence agencies, okay, okay, intelligence agencies found no evidence of foreign interference that changed election results, nor did they find that Hunter had a laptop. Or no, he had a laptop, but the Russians were involved. Or something. Go ahead. Go ahead and jump in on this. Mm-hmm.

Charles: This is the thing though. So when it comes to election fraud, is it election fraud or is it voter fraud? Because those are two different things. I think when they say election fraud well, when they say election fraud, with some people, mostly people on the left are saying, so you're alleging that the Russians or the Chinese hacked into our computer systems and changed the votes? No.

Jack Moore: Yes. Talk to me. Clarify for the audience. Mm-hmm.

Charles: What we're saying is there are people who shouldn't be voting that are voting. Those are two different things. Unfortunately, the the Democrats only look at from look at it from one side, and the Republicans only look at it from the other side. Is it a mix of the two? I mean, it's possible, but honestly, the thing that happens the most is there are people that are voting that shouldn't be voting. That's what's happening.

Jack Moore: Right. Yeah, you're right. You're right. Yeah, you're you're making well, you're making a great point. We could be, you and I could be members of the bureaucratic mess. It's probably an election age a board of ag of agents that, you know, work an election. And there could be Jimmy and Billy and Timmy and all their falsifying records or in mail in ballots, they're falsifying things. They're having dead people, wh whatever these things that have been alleged. And they may not they may not be wise to it and they may not be complicit. It doesn't mean that they're in the election aspect of it. Those that govern the f the factors of the gathering of votes in the election, they have nothing to do with it. But there are people who are voting that, like you say, shouldn't be somebody's perpetrating defraud upon the election process. Or there could be in the election process, people are massaging the numbers of the facts, their stuff in ballot boxes. I mean, people that are actually active in the vote count, the counting of the votes. You're right. So it could be it you you could. Have fraud in elections, and the people that run the elections have nothing to do with it. Now you may say they have a greater responsibility to not have a fraud perpetrated upon them to allow this to happen. But yeah, they don't they don't have an active role in it, but others do. Okay, so Democrats, again, as amazing as this may seem, are critical of Trump. Security measures discussed, Homeland Security Secretary Mark Wayne Mullen. in a related briefing threatened legal action against anyone voting illegally in the upcoming election. He also indicated potential penalties for state election officials who do not comply with requests for sensitive voter data. The speeches yes, go. Mm-hmm.

Charles: So think about what you're saying. Excuse me, as I as I said earlier, the Republicans are looking at at it from the point of voter fraud. The Democrats only want to concentrate or focus on election fraud, but they're two different things. Two completely different things. And the reason why that the the Republicans are

Jack Moore: Okay.

Charles: Focusing on the voter fraud because it calls into question all the illegals that we have in the country. The Democrats don't want to even talk about it.

Jack Moore: Right. Well, clearly that, yes. If if we get into the question of could there be people, regardless of their country of origin, but they're in country voting. well, you know, and also this voting the this this valid harvesting that they say goes on, you know, God knows what goes on with that. I mean, I know it came up one of the primaries, right? They're out there paying people on the street. Like, do you care one way or the other? No, well, here's twenty bucks, go vote a certain way. Sure, I don't care, buy me a meal.

Charles: Yes. Yeah.

Jack Moore: so who knows? People do what they do. sometimes they're goosed by people to do these particular things. So you're saying, yeah, that the Republicans will tend to go to there are people voting that should not be voting. Now, so where where do you say that's where the Republicans' concern is? So tell me what the Democrat, according to what you're saying again, what is the concern of the Democrats in all of this? If they have a concern.

Charles: Yes. The Democrats well the their focus one is they're trying to get people to believe that the Chinese or the Russians or whoever else is literally hacking into our voting s machines. That's the point that they're trying to make. Well, yeah, that's the evidence that the the intelligence agencies can't find. Cause more

Jack Moore: Well, I mean, you l you lost me on that because I thought Trump in his address was saying the evidence is showing that the Chinese monkeyed around with the election. I thought the Democrat position was no, China had nothing to do with this.

Charles: Well, they're using the same argument that they use when it came to r it comes to Russia. That Russia influenced our election. But again excuse me. Again, all they're saying is, well, Russians they put out was it a couple of Facebook ads or whatever, I think it was thirty two thousand dollars worth of Facebook ads to try to influence the election and the Democrats had an absolute fit about it. Absolute fit about that. Yeah.

Jack Moore: Okay. No, I remember that. I I totally agree with you on that. I remember Hillary lost and it well, of course, this was all part of the buildup too that Trump is a Russian agent, he's Putin's boy, all the other yeah. So at fit that. But I remember thinking when I first heard it, I'm like, okay, in a concrete fashion, explained this to me. Does that mean I'm I'm in the booth? And I see twenty sixteen. And I see these levers or I get a sheet of paper or whatever. And I and and my and I'm either pulling the lever or my hand is shaking because I'm voting for Trump. I'm sorry, voting for Hillary. I'm voting for Hillary. I'm in there to vote for Hillary. I'm in there to vote for and then something pops in from Russia. It's something waves come in. Some inf or right before I go in, I go to my phone and I'm like, it's a Facebook. God. God. I gotta vote for Trump. Is that what they're saying? Or are they saying I hit Hillary?

Charles: Right. Yeah. Yes.

Jack Moore: And it r and

Charles: they're

Jack Moore: it and and it and it tallied Trump. Those are two different things say both, okay.

Charles: They're actually saying both. I've I've heard them say both. Yeah. But remember it was if I'm not mistaken, it was thirty two thousand dollars worth of Facebook ads that they're claiming is the basis for the election fraud. When it c ohs I'm sorry, Russia influence in our election. That's all they had. But

Jack Moore: Yeah, I mean, again, it it it it makes me wonder, like, okay, when I think of that garden variety M1A1 standard issue person who may or may not vote, some are gonna be passionately for Hillary, for Donald Trump, they hate the country, they go third party, they do whatever. Then I think that there should be there could be someone who is eligible to vote, who if somebody said, I'll give you a ham sandwich, I'll take you to McDonald's for the day.

Charles: As I said earlier.

Jack Moore: I'll do whatever. If yeah, I'll do that for for pay. Or but again, the person is going into when when they said that, I know I'm trying to be funny the third time on this, but really when it was like, wait a minute, what did you think that Russia could say in a Facebook ad that was going to influence me? Now, some could say, and this would be a good example. I remember how shocked I was in 2016 when James Coney came out, Comey came out, and it was.

Charles: Yeah.

Jack Moore: Yes, Hillary did all the things alleged, basically, but no reasonable prosecutor would ever prosecute her for all this mishandling of files and and or the email of thing, you know. So we're not gonna do it. Then that was what summer of twenty sixteen? And then in October, sometime close to, you know, we're gonna go back in there and check this out again. And I think later, because he was definitely, I think, more swinging her favor.

Charles: Mm-hmm. Yes.

Jack Moore: I think he thought it was a cleanup on aisle six. Didn't he come out eventually and say something like he thought it was going to benefit her to clear her? But what it did was muddy the waters. It did muddy the waters. And I remember the Clinton people being upset, like, well, that bastard, he comes out, brings up this question about the the email servers again. And now America's back on that. They'd cleared the decks on that. They were ready to vote for her. I think it did adversely affect her. But how about the

Charles: Yeah, I did.

Jack Moore: What about this? And again, I'm spitballing every bumper sticker thing that we all kind of know and heard. Is it not true that the famous 51 in the 2020 debate did not Trump allege at some level that Hunter Biden's captured, left at a what a Delaware computer store or repair shop, had a bunch of bad stuff on it, and Biden, I if I remember the verbiage c correctly was pretty much like it got fifty got a letter 51 of these federal agency types, chief heads, these you know alphabet agencies, they're gonna say it's Russian different f disinformation. Is that correct? That's pretty much how it went down, right? And then I understand from polling of people post the election of 2020, had I known that the Hunter Biden laptop was real and not fraudulent,

Charles: Right. Yeah, that's what they said. Yeah.

Jack Moore: And that these people had said what they had said, if I had known the legitimacy of what was being claimed against this, the contents of this laptop, I wouldn't have voted for Biden. Fair. And it could have been a number enough to whatever the hell happened in that election, maybe influence the numbers. I think it was pretty substantial. So would it not be fair to say if people who signed this paper signed this letter?

Charles: Yes. I mean it's it's possible.

Jack Moore: say now I know they had the plausible deniability because they said, like, no, all we said was it had all the earmarks of some Russian stuff. We didn't we didn't say it came from Russia, and that's pretty much what they did. But wouldn't it be fair to say if you if you had knowledge, you were knowledgeable of these events and you were an active agency director or somebody in the higher part of the food chain or former. If you were to say something in a letter that a president, well,

Charles: You're right. Yeah.

Jack Moore: the the nominee of his party at the time. If this person running for political office could straight face say, I got a letter with fifty one names on it, aren't those people somehow b in heavily involved in the influence of eleven elections through false information?

Charles: Yeah. I yeah, you could make that argument. You sure could.

Jack Moore: Is that is that a fraud perpetrated upon the election process?

Charles: I again I guess you could look at it that way that they knowingly said something that was false, to help a certain person get elected. Yeah, okay, yeah. But I I think the Democrats are so focused on when it comes to the Russia thing and the China thing, it was the money that they were dumping into influencing a certain group of people's vote. That's what they're doing. Okay, that's fine. But if you're gonna pick on them, you need to pick on some other people too.

Jack Moore: Okay.

Charles: You can't just let you just can't let them slide as Thomas Massey.

Jack Moore: Okay. I knew you were gonna go there. So let's go ahead and let's go ahead and mix that up. Okay. You let's go ahead and be clear. Thomas Massey, still member of the House of Representatives, Commonwealth of Kentucky, fourth district, I think, congressional district, had a primary here, what May, May ish? Wasn't it May? Yeah. And

Charles: I I have to. Yes. Yes. Yep. Yeah, it was in May, yeah. May or June, one the two. May or June, one of the two.

Jack Moore: I think it was May, but yeah, okay. So it's in that time frame. he loses in the primary. He's been what, six terms, twelve years, something like that, six times two. So now he doesn't get his party's nomination for another another shot at the seat there for another two years. And you believe there's some

Charles: I think so.

Jack Moore: Election fraud, voter fraud, combination of the two, what what do you think was involved there? Okay. Okay. So you don't think it's fraudulent influence? Okay.

Charles: No, I don't think it's fraud. I think it's influence. If the the people gonna no. No, it's influence. If the people gonna have a fit about Russia spending thirty two thousand dollars on Facebook ads and saying that influenced the national election enough to consider it being election I'm sorry, yeah, election in interference, then what do you say about the fifteen to eighteen million dollars? that was spent in one congr congressional district.

Jack Moore: Yeah, and you used the term there. Yeah, that I think that was a very I I think that was important to point out again. You did say election interference. You didn't say it was anything fraudulent, right? Okay, so now so we can get the baskets together, apples to apples and all that. Wow. Okay. What was Trump saying in the speech then? Was he saying that the Chinese interfered with the election by influencing certain things? He didn't say that they w they weren't changing numbers.

Charles: The Democrats should be Yeah. No. Yes, yes. He didn't actually specify it, which I found interesting. He didn't specify it at all.

Jack Moore: So we're we're back to mm-hmm. I was gonna say we're we're kind of back to defining terms. Yeah.

Charles: But the Democrats the Democrats were the ones who were saying, Yeah, I agree with you. And nobody wants to actually define the term. Well, I'm looking at it just personally, I'm looking at it looking at it as if you're dumping money into an election, regardless of what election it is, you can't say that that money doesn't have an influence on that election. You can't. Make that argument because it we all know that it does. If you're going to be on the side that says that 32,000 will influence an entire national election, then by extension, you have to say that over $15 million for sure is going to influence a congressional district. Why aren't we hearing about this? Why is why aren't the two being argued from the same, I guess you say, point of view? One gets a pass and the other doesn't. I don't know what to say, man. It's right there in your face.

Jack Moore: All right. Do you Do you believe it's your take, your view of what happened back with the primary cycle for Massey? Do you believe no one brought out that they thought there was undue influence by some particular powers?

Charles: Not only did somebody bring it up, you remember after the election, they put out a Twitter post and said, Yeah, we did it.

Jack Moore: Congratulations, us. Right.

Charles: Yeah, congratulations to us. And as a matter of fact, they took it a step further in other primary elections that said, Yeah, we helped all the people that we wanted sub to support to win. And if you don't support us, this is what it pretty much this is what's gonna happen to you. Say what?

Jack Moore: Now

Charles: And you don't consider that election interference? Okay.

Jack Moore: I I don't I I really don't even know where to start sometimes. no, it's all I mean, you know, I I wonder like, okay, if there's groups of people that are like minded people with certain pat particular interest, if they want to pool their resources together, fund things to try to buy influence in the elections and all, I don't know exactly where you draw the line on that. So back to what I was talking about in twenty twenty, I think the stain of what I describe was more the use of federal agencies and their heads to make a declaration that would seem to be, well, they're in a position to know, and they're being maybe perp maybe with purpose factually incorrect. But if China wants to play games with or Russia. If they wanted to play games with the twenty sixteen election by posting things on Facebook, they're they're is it any different than the other political ad? Is that something that you say, well, I don't care. It came from a foreign power. It came from a foreign country. They have no business. I don't know. You tell me.

Charles: I I agree with you. I don't think it matters. me being America first, if any country is trying to influence our election, I have a problem with. I I don't care if it's England, our closest ally, I don't care. They should not have any any influence on our election whatsoever. Period.

Jack Moore: Even if you felt like there were powers in, say England, you want to use England, what if there were powers in England that sort of positively aligned with someone that you really wanted to see elected to some position in America? Okay. I mean, go back to use using a bad example, but go back to the eighties. Margaret Thatcher, apparently, kind of according to pop culture and and lore of the time, must have been pretty good with Reagan, fair?

Charles: They have an ulterior motor because Yeah, yeah, for sure.

Jack Moore: So what if she'd come out in nineteen eighty three, late, you know, before the eighty four election and said, I love some Ronald Reagan, I sure do want to see him reelected. Is that undue influence on the election?

Charles: I don't in that way, not really, because her just saying that, that's fine. But if she started guiding money into the excuse me, into the election cycle, then I have a problem.

Jack Moore: Okay. So what I I don't even really know how the politics worked as far as finance and everything else in England, especially, you know, four decades ago plus. But I could certainly see where there may have been people who lived in England that were big fans of Thatcher, that also thought Reagan was perfect for, you know, that portion of the twentieth century to go forward towards the end of the, you know, into the twenty first century, and they liked that. And you know, there might be some people with dual citizenship and things. That's that's where it really gets murky, maybe. But I think I think, you know, culturally as we watch the last six, seven decades, when it comes to music, some degree films and other entertainment, especially music, and I'm using that example, we're not that distantly cut from England. I mean, you know, the Beatles. I mean, you know, so we are there's so much of English culture that

Charles: No, we're not.

Jack Moore: When you and I were growing up, and you're younger than I am, but we were definitely immersed heavily in the influences of fashion and music and things like that from England. And a lot of our political spectrum fights are very similar.

Charles: Right. Right. Yes, they are. But

Jack Moore: Yeah. So I could see yeah.

Charles: But should we be trying to influence their elections? No.

Jack Moore: You know, I I think other than using this, I guess is okay, now that we've done this discussion at this point, I guess this is where I draw the line. I really don't care if public figures from another country who align with someone maybe from our country in philosophy, theory, function of government or whatever, if if if they're f I to me, honestly, if they were funding even, if they were pouring some money into the US. Because they think the US is a better if if they were lovers of liberty and they said, we'll pour some money in to try to get liberty-minded candidates, I I don't care. The only thing I think would be a concern is if they fund clearly falsehoods. If they begin on campaigns where they're perpetrating clear, as it maybe turn maybe doesn't, it's not known at the time, but if there are clear lies being perpetrated against a candidate that are provably false. And that influences elections, I guess. I I d yeah.

Charles: So to use England as an example, imagine if England was providing us with certain things that turned out to be false.

Jack Moore: Mm-hmm.

Charles: So obviously if a country is going to try to influence our election, they're going to do it.

Jack Moore: In what but in what direction in what direction?

Charles: To try to manipulate us even past the election. I give you an example. Remember in nineteen ninety, the little girl who was testifying in front of c Congress

Jack Moore: Yeah, okay. Yep. I know exactly where you're going. Yep.

Charles: Okay, and it turned out to be false. What she was saying. Right. And

Jack Moore: Yeah, they were putting babies in the microwave ovens. Yeah. And then it turns out she's an official that's very clo very closely tied to US intelligence, but she's a daughter of somebody from said country, right? Where Yeah. Yeah, because she's testifying before members of Congress to influence whether or not to take further steps in a conflict. And and they're making up stor yeah. Right.

Charles: Exactly. Yeah, that's a problem. Yes. Because they benefit from it. Yeah, they're benefiting. We got there was nothing that we were gonna gain from this. Nothing. They just use this to influence us to go and send our troops and our equipment over there to help them. That's where I have to draw the line. If if there's a country out there like this is say Margaret Thatcher, do we have a common a common goal to defeat communism? Yeah, I I

Jack Moore: Yeah, yeah, yeah.

Charles: I'll say that. But I don't think it was a solely one on her part that it was solely because she wanted us or she needed something specifically from us. Or she wanted us to do their bidding. No, that's not the case. But now we have an entity out there that does want us to do their bidding. And they're gonna provide us with false information for us to do their bidding. No. And you want to influence our election too? Hell no. No. No I'm sorry.

Jack Moore: Boy. All right, we're not getting anywhere with any I I mean, we're kind of talking in circles here a little bit. I mean, I think we're both making some some points, but I I think it's both we're both uncomfortable with the fact that I don't see how you get around. We're in a global the the it's you know it's redundant, right? Global world, but there's a world of global influence. I mean, these platforms and all are worldwide. You don't know what's saying what. I mean

Charles: Hmm. Yeah. Yes.

Jack Moore: Somebody could certainly pose as an American person trying to influence the vote and it's coming from a foreign country. I mean, you would all the layers. That is entirely different. And that's why I think the other zone of concern is greater. That's entirely different than who actually goes to vote. That's the one I think that needs to be reined in. And and why I said the thing too about if I go into the ballot box or go into the booth to cast ballot.

Charles: I agree with him. Yeah. Yes.

Jack Moore: And I I don't hear like, my gosh, pull the trigger for Trump. I would never do that. I love Hillary. Like, I can't help myself. Boom, here I pull. I I don't see that. And I always wondered, they're like, yeah, the Russians influenced a lot of people to vote for Trump. And I'm like, really? There were Hillary voters, and then something the Russians said in a Facebook ad tripped them. And like, gosh, now that I see the world this way, if you were a Hillary voter, now I do think.

Charles: Yeah.

Jack Moore: There were a lot of people on the fence in the rust belt, as it was said, and you know, there's always a criticism. She didn't go to Wisconsin. She thought she had it in the bag. Trump looked at certain states in that twenty sixteen election, took his shots at it, campaigned well enough to get the Pennsylvania's to Wisconsin's and it won the election for him. Michigan, I think it was Michigan was in that mix. And Hillary took for granted you're you're looking, you got the look, your your eyes were spinning.

Charles: No, I c no, because what you're saying is making perfect sense. It yeah.

Jack Moore: Right. Well, and and I'm saying there was more of a criticism of her that and you know, there was the argument, I don't know these things. I just know what I read. And I know some guy wrote a book post like When Hell Froze Over or something. It was like some kind of title like, you know, what it was like in the war room. And some said that she got a couple of modern kids in, and they were supposed to be telling her what's what in the in in the new you know, th th this new century and and that Bill was like, hi, you need to get your fate on straight. You need to, you know, I'm Bill Clinton. I'm I know politics and she won't listen. And she listened to the wrong people and it and it blew up on her. And there were fights about that were supposedly, but I have heard it said if Bill Clinton gives you certain political advice on what to do in campaign, you probably all listen to him.

Charles: Yeah, I think you better take it. Really. Yeah.

Jack Moore: Right. And I'm sure that there may have been a certain amount with her. He's been a two term president and I don't want it ever known or felt that I'm the girl in the relationship, I'm the wife, and I only got elected because I listened to my husband. I don't know. I mean, there might have been some of that.

Charles: So, and I'm listening to what you're saying, and it made me think about the twenty sixteen election. they started b they the ubiquitous they they were blaming Hillary's loss on an outside entity instead of attributing her loss to her. Because they just couldn't understand that how is it that more people didn't agree with Hillary?

Jack Moore: Mm-hmm. Mm-hmm.

Charles: Because they didn't. And I think about Trump and his speech last night. I wonder is him trying to you know h his speech is him trying to get ahead of the shellacking that they're about to get in November and then gonna try to blame it on election fraud.

Jack Moore: Right. Well, that is that is nakedly what I'm reading. That that's what a lot of the den Democrat criticism was. Like he's just doing this to put in the American mind, hey, they cheat in elections. So if the Republicans sweep and maintain the House and Senate, it'll be, see, I got out there and clean that stuff up. Remember my speech? That was to but if he loses, it's like, son of a gun. It's exactly what I said. And I mean, that's as old as the hills. I mean, that's

Charles: Right. Right.

Jack Moore: That's definitely, you know, you get out in front of something, you say something, and either way you say, See, told you so.

Charles: I I think he's coming to the realization that the poll numbers not exactly in his favor or the rest of Republicans' favor, 'cause they just keep screwing up. And they keep screwing up by not doing the right thing. Or should I say, or in some cases not doing anything. They're screwing up by omission. I don't know how else to say it. If you can't pay the s pass a Save Act, why?

Jack Moore: That works perfectly well.

Charles: you're benefiting from it. okay. All right. you're trying to merge our military intelligence agencies with some other countries. Why the hell would you do that?

Jack Moore: Yeah, I guess what's so so frustrating, I gotta say this, and I w I wanna address this one other thing, and then we're gonna cut off this show and go to something else later in another show, but I think what I find so frustrating in any discussion that we're having like this, I think it's an interesting discussion, but I don't think there's any virtue in either party. I think there's craziness at some levels that exceed one party over the other.

Charles: It's zero. Yes.

Jack Moore: I I think there's danger sometime in some of the party members that I think is greater than the other party. But I think neither one of them are like out there with any particular heavy dose of virtue or anything like that. I mean, it's just so and sometimes I look and I go, son of a gun, this is where we've ended up. I've thought that for years. Like, and then somebody watching this in comments could say, yeah, like you could do better or whatever. I don't know, but I I think I think that the people

Charles: I agree. Yeah.

Jack Moore: The grab, and you saw it in school. I remember seeing it. I remember seeing it in law school. You you kind of get around people who do a lot of glad handing and they're just they're kind of empty personalities with, they just seem like they're ass kissed on. Well then, and then I see years later they're in politics. You know what I mean? It's kind of like that's kind of what the drill is. They say these platitudes, like, you I'm going in there to reform to, you know, turn the system around and all then, you know, they're on the hook with everybody else taking money from influencers to influence their vote. And they make,

Charles: Right. Yeah.

Jack Moore: Like we've said before, they come in in six or eight twel six or eight, twelve years after X number of cycles of being a member of the House, they're worth twenty two million dollars. You're like, you know. So we we we've seen all that. So I I don't know how much it even really matters, this whole pissing and moaning about election fraud, influence, whatever, because the same kind of people keep getting voted in.

Charles: Yep. I agree with you, a hundred percent. I agree.

Jack Moore: But I do think I do think you're right. Trump's getting out of front of the. Let's ask it. Let's ask about this though. CNN host John King, and I saw the video of this, revealed why the network would not be airing President Donald Trump's primetime address Thursday night. So I see this. He comes out and says, Hey, can't do it. Here's why. He confirmed the network's decision at the top of the APM hour during Anderson Cooper 360, saying the choice was due to Trump's previous false statements on the topic of electron election integrity. We're going to be watching and listening to what he says tonight, and we will bring you any breaking news, ASAP, but we're not going to take the present or we're not going to, he says, take the president's speech live. That's because of the president's history of misleading and in some cases false statements on the subject of elections and integrities. elections and election integrity. He also said the White House earlier said that he'll be showing newly declassified documents. And we want to make sure we have time to review them, to bring them into context before airing it. And I also, you know, he said we're going to run it by experts. We're going to have false, you know, we're going to have fact checkers and and experts and

Charles: Wow. Yeah, about fifty one of them, right?

Jack Moore: Could be 51. I think that's a good number. Maybe they go to 52 this time, but I thought I and then but I I looked at it when it was on YouTube and I looked in the comments and somebody's like, hey, is anybody else, any other networks to your knowledge, ever like not broadcast present? In the response, somebody's like, yeah, the Fox used to do it to Obama all the time. I don't know that. I don't even remember. I don't I'm not sure. I don't remember historically, I do not remember this. I could see where Fox said punt.

Charles: maybe so

Jack Moore: Go show something else. I don't know what would have been more important than the president speaking live, but maybe they did. But I don't ever remember a Fox, anchor or any other this blatantly coming out and saying, Hey, we're not gonna show you the president's live address because he lies.

Charles: Yeah, I I don't recall that either. I I think I think what Fox was doing, they were playing to their their base. Whereas they probably didn't feel feel that their audience wanted to watch it anyway. Now if they wanted to watch it, there's a hundred other outlets for them to watch it. But I seriously doubt that they wanted to. Okay. Same thing with CNN.

Jack Moore: I don't either. So well so what's your feeling on that? Audience re base. Right. Right. Right. So you

Charles: Except there's it accepted.

Jack Moore: yeah. Well yeah, and CNN you may be right, and CNN gets a double dig in. They get to give their viewers what they want, no Trump, and at the same time get to shit on Trump and go, ew, you can't trust him anyway. And we're gonna bring in and what we're gonna do later is we're gonna do, you know, when the carcass is down, we're gonna r we're gonna tear at it and we're gonna talk about all the crazy things he said and bring in our PhDs from what other yeah, to come in here and say how stupid he is and how the things he said has no merit. Yeah.

Charles: Yep. Exactly. Yep. Yes. Right. Cause remember wasn't a last thing, I wanna, you know, stretch this out too long. Remember MSNBC and I think CNN were on the verge of going bankrupt until until Trump won the election. And the next thing you know. So we're back we're really back at that point right now. If you have the likes of hmm

Jack Moore: Yeah, so that is two yeah. Yeah. Yeah. sure. No, I don't think there's I don't think there's any doubt that CNN the best they probably ever did as far as a spike on a graph that was probably yeah twenty sixteen. They probably had other good times since Ted Turner started it. But I think probably one of their greatest, you know, rises and or increases in viewership and the rest was definitely Trump. Trump was good for business, put it that way.

Charles: Yeah. The podcast The podcast numbers kind of prove it out that CNN, MSNBC, and the likes of them, those are Days in the past. Who who's who's really watching them now? Not very many people.

Jack Moore: Yeah. It's a function of technology. It also may be a function of we know more now about the lack of veracity in a lot of the different reporting, which was again always there.

Charles: Yes. They're only playing to the people who who don't know how to fact check themselves because what people do now is fact check CNN.

Jack Moore: Yeah, I do think No, I was gonna say I I remember hearing someone the other day, it was someone that was notable, it was somebody big, and they're like, Hey, my mom my mom still watches certain things. She still thinks Cronkite was right all the time, she's of an age, she's from that era. And I I was like, Mom, this this network, this way, come on, they got a pretty bad track record. And she just looked at him and you gotta be kidding me. She's eighty two, eighty-five, something, but it and I know that that that

Charles: And the people that watch CNN, hmm?

Jack Moore: That group of people is dying off. I think younger people are definitely going to get their news from whatever sources, they're going to get it from social media. But I do think there's people that cling to, well, it's gotta be true. It's on television. Well, what are you talking about? Right. Good. I'm sorry. I I cut all So finish up for us. Let's and then get on to yeah.

Charles: Yeah. Yeah. This is crazy. No, no, no, that's good that's good. I was pretty much gonna say the same thing, right? We were just reading each other each other's minds. So yeah, I agree with you.

Jack Moore: All right, this has been more to consider. Please like and subscribe. Get her subscriptions up. Charles, yell at people. Yell at them. Okay, yeah.

Charles: Yes. Yeah, d yes, I will. If you don't, I will I will come through the internet and I will yell at you.

Jack Moore: Yeah, be stern. Okay, so write comments that Charles will read and I won't. And this has been more to consider. Jack and Charles will be back soon. Charles, say good night.

Charles: Good night, everybody.

Jack Moore: Let's say goodnight, Charles, okay.

Charles: Ha ha ha.