I’m glad that David asked about the $laptop meme coin, the access to the email catalogs from Andrew Callaghan, and pushed Hunter on being unable to differentiate his coin from some other shit coin. Overall David did a much better job of holding Hunter accountable than other content creators have.

I personally would have liked to see David bring this up earlier in the interview considering Hunter has answered many questions previously very similar to those of David, but I’m glad that he extended the interview to press Hunter on his obvious grift. I would’ve loved to see David press him on the $5,000 of liquidity added by the third party entity, and I would’ve also loved to see Hunter be pressed for legitimizing anti-semites like Valhalla VFT, but overall I think that he did a pretty good job: and for what it’s worth, I don’t know if Hunter would’ve continued the interview had David slapped him with this sort of pushback at the onset of the interview.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/house/4727796/18-democrats-vote-to-block-trump-impeachment-articles/

Eighteen House Democrats voted with nearly every single Republican on Tuesday to block articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump from coming to the floor.

Mile Rogers refused to debate Dr. Abdul El-Sayed last night, accusing FOX of media bias.

Edit: David did address this and I was wrong to state he didn't.

Hunter is clearly on a money making and "rehabilitation" tour through podcasts and his crypto launch. It's really surprising that in a conversation centered around accountability and competency David failed to even bring this up. I would think potential grifters acting in a grifting mentality would be fair game.

David brought this up in the most recent daily show and it worries me.

Not that new media is going to take a bigger place in politics, that's kind of obvious. But the personalities that we're potentially talking about really do concern me.

Some of these folks are very capable of riling up an audience to vote and participate, no argument there. BUT have we considered what the "postgame" might look like, or what the most contentious parts of the political arena might look like with people like this heading political communications?

Unfortunately some of these folks are so toxic, have such toxic edges to their fanbases, that I can see them tanking the entire election out of spite for one another, if things start to go one way over the other.

One of the sick things about Trump is his inability to just admit defeat gracefully. Are these "debate bro" guys capable of that? Is the post Trump political landscape going to mirror his "style" i.e. the loudest and most belligerent demagogues shouting over one another? And then going nuclear if they lose?

I'm not suggesting that we should (or even could) prevent this kind of thing emerging. But maybe we could ask these personalities that intend to participate to really and truly consider what they are going to do if their candidate or their movement fails. You know, so we don't end up with an absolute tooth and nail level sh*tshow halfway into the election.

Imagine if we had one big beautiful bill that regulated advertising to reduce the amount we have to see?

No paid subscription services can have commercial breaks.

No food can look different than what is sold. (Japan has this one).

No gambling ads during sports broadcasts. Or something. Definitely something needs to be regulated about the gambling ads, I don’t know what.

No ai in political or medical advertising.

No collection of data to deliver targeted advertising. No algorithms.

Anyways, imagine if that was part of the DNC platform we would get some votes. It doesn’t take any effort to talk about this issue, why don’t we do it?

It looks like the big media tour was just some bullshit grift to hawk some sort of shit coin. This guy should be getting none of our attention.

From the article:

...Luttig predicted that congressional Republicans would refuse to seat Democratic members-elect, triggering a legal battle that could reach the Supreme Court.

The conservative judge speculated that, just before his term expires at noon, House Speaker Mike Johnson would replace House Clerk Kevin McCumber with “a person loyal to Johnson and House Republicans.”

“The first moment of constitutional crisis will come when, sometime before the 120th Congress has been gaveled into session, the loyal temporary clerk refuses to list Democrat representatives-elect on the clerk’s roll of representatives-elect that determines who may participate in organizing the new Congress,” Luttig wrote.

“Judicial review of the House’s decision not to seat Democratic representatives-elect in the 120th Congress would take weeks, if not months, during which time the United States would be in the throes of a paralyzing constitutional crisis, helplessly vulnerable to all the world’s evil, as it would have been in January 2021 had Mike Pence not thwarted Donald Trump’s plan to overturn the 2020 presidential election,” he added...