ADVERTISEMENT

With the Benefit of Hindsight - Ziegler's new documentary podcast on scandal to start in 2021

Can you explain this? Are you saying that if he is lying about this, he could be lying about other things? Specifically how would people confirm he is being dishonest about this topic?


I guess I have to point out again that the "agreeing to never do so again" part is disputed.
Yes, obviously. If he’s willing to lie about having sex with his wife, he surely would be willing to lie bout having sex with boys.
How would they confirm it? No idea but either he lies about his sex life or he was still virile enough to be having sex 2-4 times a week. Either one brings up credibility as an issue with his denials.
 
But he didn’t stop himself from doing it, which should be concerning for my reasonable person.
I understand, but that goes back to AM's relationship with Jerry. In Jerry's judgment, there was no chance AM was going to turn on him. And the longevity and closeness of that relationship bears that out.
 
He shouldn’t have had to rely upon his relationship with somebody to not turn on him. He shouldn’t have been in the shower at all and certainly shouldn’t have been touching anybody in that shower. I’m sure your own father wouldn’t have done it with you, my father wouldn’t have done it with me, I wouldn’t have done it with my own son if I had one. It’s beyond the realm of reasonable behavior. Even more so if you’re not related and even more so than that if you are the head of a charitable organization that focuses on disadvantaged youth.
 
I got that. Still I would expect a good samaritan or political opponent to make an issue out of MM's emails saying he was misrepresented in the presentment and the response to those emails that acknowledged the MM's words were embellished to the point of lies.
It’s a radioactive issue, and I bet nobody wants to go anywhere near it.

I’m still trying to ascertain if MM has ever been asked, point blank and under oath, what he saw in the shower and what he told Joe he saw in the shower. So simple and yet I can’t find anyone or any documents to confirm he has or hasn’t.
 
Yes, obviously. If he’s willing to lie about having sex with his wife, he surely would be willing to lie bout having sex with boys.
How would they confirm it? No idea but either he lies about his sex life or he was still virile enough to be having sex 2-4 times a week. Either one brings up credibility as an issue with his denials.

So if you have no idea how anyone could confirm it, how could it possibly hurt his claims of innocence?
 
His statements are certainly not less believable than the claptrap uttered (under oath) by the accusers.
To be fair, it’s not just his words. It’s combining his words (sex with his wife 2-4 times a week) with the words of some on here that claim he has hypogonadism. I’ve never heard that claim from him directly. Something is not right between the two things.
 
If you have no idea how anyone could confirm it, how does it make it less believable?
Because if he has hypogonadism, he’s not having sex 2-4 times a week with anybody. So if that’s true, he’s lying about his rate of sexual activity. If he doesn’t have hypogonadism and is having sex with his wife 2-4 times a week, he is certainly physically capable of having sex with boys as well.
 
It's irrelevant. You are stuck like a broken record.
You keep answering with irrelevant responses. Average people misrepresenting their sexual activity is entirely different from a guy facing the rest of his life in jail for sexually abusing kids misrepresenting his sexual activity.
 
You keep answering with irrelevant responses. Average people misrepresenting their sexual activity is entirely different from a guy facing the rest of his life in jail for sexually abusing kids misrepresenting his sexual activity.
and you know that the Sandusky's misrepresented their sexual activity because......?
 
and you know that the Sandusky's misrepresented their sexual activity because......?
I don’t, which means he was possibly physically capable of having sex with boys. The spin is tough to keep up with from some of you. My point about this has been that either way, he and his wife saying they had sex 2-4 times a week isn’t good for his cause. They are either liars or proving that he was virile enough to perform sexually.
 
I don’t, which means he was physically capable of having sexual with boys. The spin is rough to keep up for some of you. My point about this has been that either way, he and his wife saying they had sex 2-4 times a week isn’t good for his cause. They are either liars or proving that he was virile enough to perform sexually.
Using your criteria, you and I are presumably capable of having sex with boys.
Again. irrelevant to his innocence or guilt.
 
  • Like
Reactions: SBuxton320
Using your criteria, you and I are presumably capable of having sex with boys.
Again. irrelevant to his innocence or guilt.
Yeah, physically capable. However, I have not been accused of doing so my multiple people (or any people for that matter), been known to have been showering and having physical contact alone with separate boys including once after already being investigated for that activity, been tried for and found guilty of sexually abusing boys. I am going to assume you haven’t either.
 
Connorpozlee said:
Because if he has hypogonadism, he’s not having sex 2-4 times a week with anybody. So if that’s true, he’s lying about his rate of sexual activity.

So the only way to confirm he exaggerated, and thus make him less believable... is to prove he has a medical condition which makes it essentially impossible for him to have committed the crimes. Got it.

Connorpozlee said:
If he doesn’t have hypogonadism and is having sex with his wife 2-4 times a week, he is certainly physically capable of having sex with boys as well.

Or if one approached this information with an open mind, it could also mean he has a healthy relationship with his wife, and there is no need to look elsewhere. You don't always have to assume that every piece of data confirms your pre-conceived thoughts about this case. The fact that you, or anyone tries to spin this as proof of one side or the other, is ridiculous.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marshall23
So the only way to confirm he exaggerated, and thus make him less believable... is to prove he has a medical condition which makes it essentially impossible for him to have committed the crimes. Got it.



Or if one approached this information with an open mind, it could also mean he has a healthy relationship with his wife, and there is no need to look elsewhere. You don't always have to assume that every piece of data confirms your pre-conceived thoughts about this case. The fact that you, or anyone tries to spin this as proof of one side or the other, is ridiculous.
I don’t have preconceived notions of the case. Nor have I said it’s proof of anything. What I have said is that if he can have sex with his wife 2-4 times a week, then certainly he was physically capable of having sex with boys. That’s not really disputable, is it? And I have said that If he and his wife are lying about how often they have sex, then he could also be lying about sexually abusing boys. I have not said that it proves that he has or hasn’t, just that neither of these situations being true helps his case. Honestly, I don’t see how it could seen differently.
The spin is not coming from me. I’m just offering up thoughts that are in opposition to the bulk of people in this thread but would likely be agreed to by the vast majority of people not in this thread.
 
Yeah, physically capable. However, I have not been accused of doing so my multiple people (or any people for that matter), been known to have been showering and having physical contact alone with separate boys including once after already being investigated for that activity, been tried for and found guilty of sexually abusing boys. I am going to assume you haven’t either.
Perhaps if we employed memory regression therapy and dangled multiple millions of $$$, that could change. ;)
 
I'm still curious as to whether Jerry had hypogonadism....and when it started.
 
Connorpozlee said:
Yes, unless you’re looking at it through Jerry colored glasses.

So just to make sure I understand. You think that saying that you don't know how something could be seen differently, rather than hearing and considering other view points on a given topic... is a behavior that shows open mindedness? What are "Jerry colored glasses" and why are you introducing this concept into a post that is focused on your words and the sort of attitude they show, and has nothing to do with anyone named Jerry?
 
So just to make sure I understand. You think that saying that you don't know how something could be seen differently, rather than hearing and considering other view points on a given topic... is a behavior that shows open mindedness? What are "Jerry colored glasses" and why are you introducing this concept into a post that is focused on your words and the sort of attitude they show, and has nothing to do with anyone named Jerry?
“Jerry colored glasses” are when you look at every single thing and fail to admit it’s not a good look for Jerry. Showering and having physical contact with boys for instance. People bend over backwards to come up with ridiculous reasons for that (they just worked out and had to shower off........ together....... with Jerry holding boys in the process). Jerry can have sex with his wife 2-4 times a week? Absolutely! But by no means would he then be able to have sex with a boy in the same time period! Jerry has hypogonadism and can’t have sex. That stuff about having sex with his wife 2-4 times a week? Just some good old fun-loving braggadocio to impress the populace who thinks he’s a pedophile! We all do that!
Those are Jerry colored glasses. Being so intent to believe that he is not a pedophile so you find an excuse for everything that even offers up the possibility (not 100% proof, but even the possibility) that he might be.
 
I'm still curious as to whether Jerry had hypogonadism....and when it started.
According to Zig, he says on the podcast he had it. Allegedly, according to one doctor, he had it a "very long time....possibly life." I believe JZ said the record was from 2008.

Episode Nine, Part III: "A Few Bad Men" Details of the medical records start around 54:30 in.

 
  • Like
Reactions: didier
Episode Twelve Part II, The Settlements has dropped.

Zig and Liz take us deep inside the Penn State Board of Trustees and the decisions that were made regarding the "victim" settlements. While Zig steadfastly sticks to his belief that the entire Penn State scandal was a "perfect storm of self interest" and NOT a conspiracy, he does believe that in the end there was a conspiracy to seal the fate of Joe Paterno. We are joined by two former board members and an undercover accuser to help explain it all.

 
  • Like
Reactions: indynittany
So if Sandusky was having sex with his wife 2-4 times per week are you saying he's innocent? If Sandusky was not having sex with his wife 2-4 times a week is this proof beyond a reasonable doubt that he is guilty? If not, then this discussion is completely irrelevant.
Sandusky did not get a fair trial.
Many if not most of his accusers either embellished their stories or just completely lied.
The only hope of ever finding out if Sandusky is guilty and if so, the degree of guilt is to have a new trial. Short of this....everyone is just jerking off about....oh he showered....oh he did or didn't have sex with his wife....LOL
If Sandusky was the worst pedophile ever encountered by the crack PSP investigators....why did so many bullshit irregularities occur in the trial. Should have been simple to put him away without the myth of the crying janitor, only God knows, MM keep quiet and don't correct the GJR.....PSP perjuring themselves on tape.....indicting Gary and Tim so they could not contradict MM....
Correctamundo!
 
Because this was a professional hit that worked exactly as intended. And it did so because so many people with so much power were, and remain, complicit.
Professional hit…great description…reminds me of JFK assassination (also a professional hit).
 
Connorpozlee said:
“Jerry colored glasses” are when you look at every single thing and fail to admit it’s not a good look for Jerry. Showering and having physical contact with boys for instance. People bend over backwards to come up with ridiculous reasons for that (they just worked out and had to shower off........ together....... with Jerry holding boys in the process). Jerry can have sex with his wife 2-4 times a week? Absolutely! But by no means would he then be able to have sex with a boy in the same time period! Jerry has hypogonadism and can’t have sex. That stuff about having sex with his wife 2-4 times a week? Just some good old fun-loving braggadocio to impress the populace who thinks he’s a pedophile! We all do that!
Those are Jerry colored glasses. Being so intent to believe that he is not a pedophile so you find an excuse for everything that even offers up the possibility (not 100% proof, but even the possibility) that he might be.

If when someone, like you, does the opposite of what you describe above, where they are so intent on believing that he is guilty you find an excuse for everything... what do you call those glasses? Wouldn't they also be "Jerry colored glasses"? Why not just view the information without any bias?

Also, you forgot to respond to the most important part of my last post.

pandaczar12 said:
So just to make sure I understand. You think that saying that you don't know how something could be seen differently, rather than hearing and considering other view points on a given topic... is a behavior that shows open mindedness?

I'm also still waiting for you to respond to this:

pandaczar12 said:
So the only way to confirm he exaggerated, and thus make him less believable... is to prove he has a medical condition which makes it essentially impossible for him to have committed the crimes.
 
  • Like
Reactions: francofan
If when someone, like you, does the opposite of what you describe above, where they are so intent on believing that he is guilty you find an excuse for everything... what do you call those glasses? Wouldn't they also be "Jerry colored glasses"? Why not just view the information without any bias?

Also, you forgot to respond to the most important part of my last post.



I'm also still waiting for you to respond to this:
I’ve never said I know he’s guilty, so saying I’m not open minded about it is not true. I’ve asked for years in here for somebody to reasonably explain away his showering nonsense and none of it is reasonable. If somebody can convince me there were innocent reasons for him to be there (and on a wrestling mat alone with another boy, face to face in an empty gym) I can can come around to the “Jerry is innocent” mindset.
To answer the last part there, I don’t know enough about hypogonadism (actually, I don’t really know anything about it) to know exactly how detrimental it is to ones sex drive. Does it make one unable to perform sexually at all? If so, then absolutely that would go a long way towards saying he was not capable of some of the things he was accused of. As unc stated earlier in this thread, it doesn’t mean he couldn’t partake in a one-sided sexual relationship (didn’t one of the accusers say Jerry perform oral sex on him a bunch of times and only performed oral sex on Jerry once or twice?) but it certainly makes it harder to believe. The fact that it was never brought up at his trial or has been stated by him leads me to believe it’s probably not the silver bullet to innocence it’s been made out to be in here but again, I’m not a medical expert.
Again, I will ask you these two questions:
1) If Jerry was indeed having sex with his wife 2-4 times a week, is it reasonable to believe he could also have sex another time or two each week?
2) If Jerry (and Dottie) was lying about how often they have sex while being interviewed about allegations of him sexually abusing children, is it reasonable to think he may be lying about other things?

Saying yes to these two questions does not mean that you are calling Jerry a pedophile. They’re two simple questions.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, physically capable. However, I have not been accused of doing so my multiple people (or any people for that matter), been known to have been showering and having physical contact alone with separate boys including once after already being investigated for that activity, been tried for and found guilty of sexually abusing boys. I am going to assume you haven’t either.
Showers are no joke -
That appears to be what happened to McQueary, who had a “schema” of what child sexual abuse in a shower would look like. He had thought at the time that some kind of sexual activity must have occurred in the shower. The police were telling him that they had other witnesses claiming that Sandusky had molested them. Thinking back to that long-ago night, McQueary now visualized a scene that never occurred, but the more he rehearsed it in his memory, the more real it became to him.
“As your memory for an episode becomes more and more interwoven with other thoughts you’ve had about that episode, it can become difficult to keep track of which elements are linked to the episode because they were, in truth, part of the episode itself and which are linked merely because they are associated with the episode in your thoughts,” Reisberg writes. That process “can produce intrusion errors – so that elements that were part of your thinking get misremembered as being actually part of the original experience.”
In conclusion, Reisberg writes, “It is remarkably easy to alter someone’s memory, with the result that the past as the person remembers it differs from the past as it really was.”
On Nov. 23, 2010, McQueary wrote out a statement for the police in which he said he had glanced in a mirror at a 45 degree angle over his right shoulder and saw the reflection of a boy facing a wall with Sandusky standing directly behind him.
“I am certain that sexual acts/the young boy being sodomized was occuring [sic],” McQueary wrote. “I looked away. In a hurried/hastened state, I finished at my locker. I proceeded out of the locker room. While walking I looked directly into the shower and both the boy and Jerry Sandusky looked directly in my direction.”
But it is extremely unlikely that this ten-year-later account is accurate. Dranov was adamant that McQueary did not say that he saw anything sexual. When former Penn State football player Gary Gray went to see Joe Paterno in December 2011, the month before he died, Gray told Paterno that he still had a hard time believing that Sandusky had molested those children. “You and me both,” Paterno said.
In a letter to the Penn State Board of Trustees after the trial, Gray recalled their conversation about McQueary’s telling Paterno about the shower incident. “Joe said that McQueary had told him that he had seen Jerry engaged in horseplay or horsing around with a young boy. McQueary wasn’t sure what was happening, but he said that it made him feel uncomfortable. In recounting McQueary’s conversation to me, Coach Paterno did not use any terms with sexual overtones.”
Similarly, in November 2011, when biographer Joe Posnanski asked Paterno about what McQueary told him back in 2001, Paterno told him, “I think he said he didn’t really see anything. He said he might have seen something in a mirror. But he told me he wasn’t sure he saw anything. He just said the whole thing made him uncomfortable.”
If McQueary had told Paterno, Curley or other administrators that he had seen Sandusky in such a sexual position with the boy, it is inconceivable that they would not have turned the matter over to the police.
This was not a “cover-up.” Sandusky didn’t even work for Penn State by the time of the incident, so what was there to cover up? Paterno and Sandusky had never really liked one another, and Paterno was famed for his integrity and honesty. If he thought Sandusky was molesting a child in the shower, he would undoubtedly have called the police.

It is clear that Paterno, Curley, Schultz, and Spanier took the incident for what it apparently was – McQueary hearing slapping sounds that he misinterpreted as being sexual.
McQueary gave five different versions of what he heard and saw, but all were reconstructed memories over a decade after the fact. They changed a bit over time, but none of them are reliable.
McQueary had painted himself into a difficult corner. If he had really seen something so horrendous, why hadn’t he rushed into the shower to stop it? Why hadn’t he gone to the police? Why hadn’t he followed up with Paterno or other Penn State administrators to make sure something was being done? Why had he continued to act friendly towards Sandusky, even taking part in golfing events with him?
When angry people began to ask these questions, that first week in November 2011, McQueary emailed a friend. "I did stop it not physically but made sure it was stopped when I left that locker room,” he wrote. He now said that he had in essence contacted the police about the incident by alerting Joe Paterno, which led to Gary Schultz talking to him about it, and Schultz was the administrator the campus police reported to.
“No one can imagine my thoughts or wants to be in my shoes for those 30-45 seconds," McQueary said. "Trust me…. I am getting hammered for handling this the right way ... or what I thought at the time was right … I had to make tough, impacting quick decisions.”
Subsequently, McQueary changed his story somewhat. He now recalled that he had loudly slammed his locker door, which made Sandusky stop the abuse, and that he had taken yet a third look in the shower to make sure they had remained apart.
At the trial, he said that he had “glanced” in the mirror for “one or two seconds,” then lengthened his estimate to “three or four seconds, five seconds maybe.” During that brief glance, he now said that he had time to see Sandusky standing behind a boy whose hands were against the shower wall, and that he saw “very slow, slow, subtle movement” of his midsection.
But neither the newly created sodomy scene nor the slammed locker would save McQueary’s career.

The Elusive Allan Myers [From Chapter 13]
By the time of the trial, eight accusers had been “developed,” as Assistant Attorney General Jonelle Eshbach put it. But Allan Myers, the boy in the shower in the McQueary incident, had been so public and vehement in his previous defense of Sandusky that the prosecution did not dare call him to testify.
When police inspector Joseph Leiter first interviewed him on September 20, 2011, Myers had emphatically denied that Sandusky had abused him or made him uncomfortable in any way.
After the Grand Jury Presentment was published on November 5, 2011, with its allegations that Mike McQueary had witnessed sodomy in a locker room shower, Myers realized that he was “Victim 2,” the boy in the shower that night, but that the sounds McQueary heard were just snapping towels or slap boxing. Myers then gave a detailed statement to Joseph Amendola’s investigator, Curtis Everhart, denying that Sandusky had ever abused him.
But within two weeks, Myers had become a client of Andrew Shubin. For months, Shubin refused to let the police interview Myers without Shubin being present, and he apparently hid Myers in a remote Pennsylvania hunting cabin to keep them from finding him.
After a February 10, 2012, hearing, Shubin verbally assaulted Anthony Sassano, an agent for the attorney general's office, outside the courthouse, cursing him roundly. “He was very vulgar, critical of me,” Sassano recalled. “Let’s call it unprofessional [language], for an attorney.”
Shubin was angry because the Attorney General’s Office wouldn’t interview Myers, who, he claimed, had stayed at Sandusky’s house “over 100 times” where he had been subjected to “both oral and anal sex.” But the police still refused to allow Shubin to be present during any interview.
Soon afterwards, Shubin relented, allowing a postal inspector named Michael Corricelli to talk to Allan Myers alone on February 28, 2012. But during the three-hour interview, Myers never said Sandusky had abused him. On March 8, Corricelli tried again, but Myers again failed to provide any stories of molestation. On March 16, Corricelli brought Myers to the police barracks for a third interview in which Anthony Sassano took part. Asked about three out-of-state trips, Myers denied any sexual contact and said that Sandusky had only tucked him into bed.
“He did not recall the first time he was abused by Sandusky,” Sassano wrote in his notes, nor did Myers recall how many times he was abused. “He indicated it is hard to talk about the Sandusky sexual abuse because Sandusky was like a father to him.” Finally, Myers said that on a trip to Erie, Pennsylvania, Sandusky put his hand inside his pants and touched his penis. Sassano tried valiantly to get more out of him, asking whether Sandusky had tried to put Myers’ hand on his own penis or whether that had been oral sex. No.
Still, Myers now estimated that there had been ten sexual abuse events and that the last one was in the shower incident that McQeary overheard. “I attempted to have Myers elaborate on the sexual contact he had with Sandusky, but he refused by saying he wasn’t ready to talk about the specifics,” Sassano wrote. Myers said that he had not given anyone, including his attorneys, such details. “This is in contrast to what Shubin told me,” Sassano noted.
On April 3, 2012, Corricelli and Sassano were schedule to meet yet again with the reluctant Allan Myers, but he didn’t show up, saying that he was “too upset” by a friend’s death.
“Corricelli indicated that Attorney Shubin advised him that Myers had related to him incidents of oral, anal, and digital penetration by Sandusky,” Sassano wrote in his report. “Shubin showed Corricelli a three page document purported to be Myers’ recollection of his sexual contact with Sandusky. Corricelli examined the document and indicated to me that he suspected the document was written by Attorney Shubin. I advised that I did not want a copy of a document that was suspected to be written by Attorney Shubin.” Sassano concluded: “At this time, I don’t anticipate further investigation concerning Allan Myers.”
That is how things stood as the Sandusky trial was about to begin. Karl Rominger wanted to call Myers to testify as a defense witness, but Amendola refused. “I was told that there was a détente and an understanding that both sides would simply not identify Victim Number 2,” Rominger later recalled. The prosecution didn’t want such a weak witness who had given a strong exculpatory statement to Curtis Everhart. Amendola didn’t want a defense witness who was now claiming to be an abuse victim. “So they decided to punt, to use an analogy,” Rominger concluded.

Mike McQueary Takes The Stand [From Chapter 15]
Mike McQueary then took the stand to tell his latest version of the shower incident with “Victim 2” (i.e., the unnamed Allan Myers), where he heard “showers running and smacking sounds, very much skin-on-skin smacking sounds.” (Later in his testimony, he said he heard only two or three slapping sounds that lasted two or three seconds.) He had re-framed and re-examined his memory of the event “many, many, many times,” he said, and he was now certain that he had looked into the shower three separate times, for one or two secondseach, and that he saw “Coach Sandusky standing behind a boy who is propped up against the shower. The showers are running and, and he is right up against his back with his front. The boy’s hands are up on the wall.” He saw “very slow, slow, subtle movement.” After he slammed his locker, McQueary said, they separated and faced him. Surprisingly, he said that Sandusky did not have an erection. When Amendola failed to object, Judge Cleland inserted himself, obviously fearful of future appeal or post-conviction relief issues. “Wait, wait, wait, just a second,” he warned McGettigan. “I think you have to be very careful for you not to lead this witness.”A few minutes later, the judge asked both lawyers to approach the bench. “I don’t know why you’re not getting objections to this grossly leading [questioning],” he told McGettigan, who said, “I’m just trying to get through it fast.”McQueary recounted how he had met with Joe Paterno.“I made sure he knew it was sexual and that it was wrong, [but] I did not go into gross detail.” Later, he said, he met with Tim Curley, the Penn State athletic director, and Gary Schultz, a university vice president. In an email quoted during his testimony, McQueary had written, “I had discussions with the police and with the official at the university in charge of the police.” He now explained that by this he meant just one person, since Schultz oversaw the university police department. With only an hour’s warning, Joe Amendola asked Karl Rominger to conduct the cross-examination of McQueary and handed him the file. Rominger did the best he could, asking McQueary why in 2010 he had told the police that he’d looked into the showers twice but had now added a third viewing, and he questioned him about his misremembering that the shower incident occurred in 2002 rather than 2001. Rominger also noted that McQueary had told the grand jury, “I was nervous and flustered, so I just didn’t do anything to stop it.” Now he was saying that he slammed the locker, which allegedly ended the incident.
 
  • Like
Reactions: francofan
@KSN Jim and Mike Agovino revisit their WtBoH conversation from the perspective of Penn State.

Mike Agovino is an excellent spokesman for the With the Benefit of Hindsight view of what happened in the Penn State/Sandusky story imho. His pleasant just-the-facts style is a nice contrast to John Ziegler’s more confrontational style.

Why are there no takers to Jim Galanti’s offer to have opposing views on his show. There has been some blowback to KSN for giving oxygen to a contrary view of Sandusky being a monster and Penn State administrators enabling him but no one wants to go on the show and defend the established OAG and media story. I believe it is because there is not a good response to all of the material on the podcast. I believe that any rebuttal would be easily impeached. Does anybody have a different take?
 
Mike Agovino is an excellent spokesman for the With the Benefit of Hindsight view of what happened in the Penn State/Sandusky story imho. His pleasant just-the-facts style is a nice contrast to John Ziegler’s more confrontational style.

Why are there no takers to Jim Galanti’s offer to have opposing views on his show. There has been some blowback to KSN for giving oxygen to a contrary view of Sandusky being a monster and Penn State administrators enabling him but no one wants to go on the show and defend the established OAG and media story. I believe it is because there is not a good response to all of the material on the podcast. I believe that any rebuttal would be easily impeached. Does anybody have a different take?
Because the population at large and media no longer care about this story. The narrative has been written, it's old news.
 
  • Like
Reactions: WHCANole
ADVERTISEMENT

Latest posts

ADVERTISEMENT