 It was more than just an insurrection. You know, it was like an indicator, an expression of something deep under the hood. This is American Issues Take Two. I'm Jay Feindell, and I have with me my co-host, Tim Appichella, we're going to talk about that today. Let me make a welcome to the show, Tim. Thank you, Jay. I'll make a little bit of an introduction. It was more than just an insurrection. What is happening under the hood? Something is happening. And I say that because it's so odd what we find is the likely result of these elections 12 days away. And we have the insurrection boys, they're still around. They have not been broadly, widely prosecuted. Trials are still going on almost two years after the fact. And we have, you know, the top dogs have not been reached. We have the acolyte boys, they're still there. They're still embedded, where are they? But they're still there. You're still here from them. And Congress, they're, oh my God. We have the boys in Moscow. Never forget the boys in Moscow. We have the internet research agency. We have Putin and his friends and his oligarchs. You can say that he's under political pressure. People don't like what he's doing in Ukraine. But the fact is he's still running the show. He's still got the leverage of power. And he's still interested in having Trump win. So my proposition is, you know, let me throw it at you, Tim. We're all being distracted. Every day we hear about, you know, the possible indictments and investigations and all the, you know, the strategies. There's a Department of Justice and the FBI should use. And all these, you know, potential criminal actions and civil actions and whatnot and how Trump could get dinged on them. And the expectation that the results of those legal proceedings will somehow go to affect the election in 12 days. So if we connect the dots, though, and we look back at 2016 and what he was doing in 2020, for that matter, they are, and what the news is today, the real news about the likely result of this election, the likely expression of power by Trump and his friends and his base, we're in for a bad time. We're in for a clear and dangerous autocracy. So was 2020 a replay of Putin's, you know, help in 2016? And will 2022, two weeks away, be a replay of 2016? So let me ask you some questions, Tim. Have the voters gotten smarter or not? I think a lot of voters have resigned themselves to go with the flow. I think they're burned out on politics. I think they have bread and butter issues that need their attention, inflation, the rising price of everything. And politics has taken a back seat. And the drama that follows politics has taken a back seat. I'm not gonna say they've become apathetic, but I'm saying they are distracted. And some are good reasons to be distracted and many aren't. Certainly you alluded to the little news blurbs here and there that distract us from the main issue. What is the main issue? I think it's one party's desire to retain power and undermine the electoral system that can switch power to another party if one party's not satisfying the needs of the people of the country. And I think there's the movement under foot to seriously damage and hamper our two-party electoral system. And- I mean, I'll throw the government, overthrow the constitutional government. I was gonna go there for a minute. I mean, Donald Trump is a self-described nationalist. Every time I think of a nationalist, I think of a soft-footed fascist. And I do believe that Donald Trump wants to move in the direction of turning our republic into a form of fascist dictatorship with him being at the top of it. And I don't think that's hyperbole. I've seen enough examples of it. Now in the last five years, connect the dots. You'll see exactly very similar things that every democratic society, as they turn into a more of an autocracy, you'll see the exact same things take place. You mentioned Ann Applebaum and her ability to define that slow move from a democracy, from a republic, into an autocracy and or a fascist state. Are we there yet? No. Are we moving in that direction? Certainly. We had a show with Carlos Suarez of the East-West Center a couple of days ago to discuss an article which was in Foreign Affairs called Is Democracy Dying? And it wasn't a question, it was a statement. Democracy is dying in Mexico under AMLO. And what's really scary is it's a playbook and it rhymes with what Trump has been doing, the same things. And he's moving clearly to autocracy. And one of the big factors in Mexico is using the military as the police. This is very scary, very autocratic. So let me ask you another question. In the past few years and more recently, has the media gotten smarter about digesting, interpreting and promulgating rather broadcasting, producing the news? Especially the news that's fed to it by people who are looking at the political machinations every day. Is the media gotten smarter? And the subset to that is, have we gotten smarter? You and me and national issues take one and two and Sir Crumpton shows. Are we more Akamai about appreciating the reality around us? Yes, yes, and yes. Yeah, I mean, the media has gotten smarter. No two ways about it. They do realize when they're being played by Trump or his acolytes, they realize it. They also realize that, when a candidate now starts to spin their political spin room, that they're starting to call it out a spin. Whereas before, they would never dream of calling it spin. Wasn't that long ago where it was forbidden for anyone in the media to out and out call a politician a liar? Well, they do it now. Not as often as they ought to, but they do it and they do it especially when Trump's at the microphone. They're more than happy to say this is an out and out lie and he's lying. Wow, 10 years ago, that was unheard of. So yeah, the media is sharper. I think the consumer of media knows a little bit more than they used to. In many ways, they know when they're being played and what kind of examples are being played. We talked about it on a previous show about polling. The media's love polling, because they could make it seem like a horse race down to the final wire and they're coming up around the corner and in the meantime, they get the ratings, they get more viewership and guess what they get to do? Play more commercials, more revenue. So I think the consumer of media is becoming more savvy. They're recognizing it and unfortunately that means they turn it off. And when they turn it off, that equals or can spell voter apathy. And that is the death knell, I think, of any republic. You know, let me take a moment from my questions that I have for you and just ask about not so much apathy, but fatigue. Fatigue, yeah. Fatigue. I mean, I was telling you yesterday that if I get 500 emails a day from multicolored HTML emails, asking me to give money to candidates I never heard of before in states I don't really care about or haven't cared about, I get tired of those emails. And as a result, I reject them all. I just, I delete them. As soon as I see the color, honestly, and the little tabs where I'm supposed to give money, I reject them and I turn them off. And I'm probably a good example of somebody who's- Yeah, but think about that statement. You're politically engaged and you're turned off. Yes, I'm turned off from that email. And I am turned off from social media too, because I think there's so much trash on social media. My level of confidence, you know, that any given post is an accurate statement of anything is really low. And simply because so many of them are trash. And so two reactions. One is, I'm not alone. I am sure a lot of people are equally fatigued. And fatigue, if you agree with me, fatigue leads to apathy. It leads to lower voter turnout. In some states they're having high voter turnout right now today. We are all excited about, you know, a debate or all the publicity and some candidates are getting and all the scare they're getting and you know, the democratic media. But for the most part, I think a lot of people are turned off and they're not voting. There's not enough of this. I have no control over the result. And I'm not gonna spend the time waiting online or whatever it is to get past all those Republican obstacles. What do you think? Are we experiencing a significant, and I mean democratic fatigue here, democratic voter fatigue? Yes, definitely. And why is that? Because each election since the Obama era, each election had such high stakes involved. And it was advertised by the media as high stakes and both sides see it that way. And so that means that there's a lot of stress. And that means they're watching a lot more political news and that's stressful. And after a certain point, especially with COVID where you're locked in your house for two years and you know, you're watching nothing but either game shows or political news shows and you got burned out, you're fatigued. And I'm still surprised that the 2020 election had what an 80 million on the Democrat side and a 74, 75 million on the Republican GOP side for turnout of votes, the highest ever. And we'll see if 2022 is similar to that by early description, some of the early voting is off the charts compared to 2020 or even 2016. Don't forget, one great indicator of fatigue is your immune system and your immune system, it's not working quite right. It gives you psoriasis. That's right. It's Guy Rizzi. Guy Rizzi and Ren Vogue and a dozen others that we see, we're all experts on psoriasis. I mean, it's a joke, of course. And what it really is is the networks trying to make a lot of money or the cable networks. But the reality is I would guess that a lot of people have, you know, stress and therefore stress related diseases, not only because of COVID or the economy but because of the political news that comes to them. But let me go back to a question I asked you earlier. Has the media gotten smarter? It was my question. And, you know, you referred to the fact the media was more Akamai about when somebody was lying and they called it out. In fact, I remember a really interesting discussion of the public editor of the New York Times. The public editor is the one that watches the reporters and makes sure the reporters are ethical. Very important position and good for them for having a public editor. And she talked about the internal debate over the use of the word liar. Went back three, four, five years. And, you know, it was not universal, not unanimous. They argued about it for a long time before they came to the conclusion that, you know, to call a liar out is good. But, you know, going beyond that though, you know, I'm just concerned that the media may not be giving us the priorities. Global priorities. I don't think, for example, they have taught the American electorate that when you compare gas prices against the liberal world order, the liberal world order is more important. But I don't think the American viewer understands that because the media hasn't made it clear. And there's a lot of other things about, you know, they say, oh, this is an election for democracy. But the media hasn't made it clear what happens to us if we lose democracy. They haven't given us examples of rights that we would lose of how our daily life would change. There's a lot I can get along. I'll just, I'll go to Safeway, buy some food. I'll be fine. I'll have my job. I'll have my bank account. Everything can be just fine. They don't realize or the media doesn't teach us that there are implications to losing your democracy. What do you think? Well, I think that would require a history lesson. It's not just the media's responsibility. It's the education system. It's our family. It's our community to remind us of history and why it was important. Look at our history and you'll see what happens when democracy starts to erode and you start seeing strong men start to march in lockstep with other strong men, something called autocracy or fascism. Maybe that's not the media's job but it's certainly important. And I'm just gonna go back to some of the sources of why we're in this pickle that we are. The newsroom used to be a nonprofit non-income revenue generator. It was a lost leader. It was a firewall saying the advertising should not make its way into the newsroom. Well, those days are gone. So now you have corporate influence. Look at the CEO of CNN telling all his commentators, telling everyone, don't use the term big lie. That's done with. What's that all about? As you'd like to say, Jay, Kay Pasa. Yeah, absolutely. And really I'm very careful about CNN now for that reason because that guy is running the content. Let me go to my next question. Okay, we've all had some years of experience on this since 2016, since the election where if you read Tim Snyder's book, The Road to Unfreedom, you find out that Putin was into it up to his eyeballs. And he made public statements about how Trump was his friend. He didn't do everything possible to get Trump elected with details, with names and facts and figures and all those names of people who got indicted and convicted. You know, I have a short list of them. I just read them to you. Flynn, remember him? Still around, Manafort. He was pardoned, stoned, pardoned. Giuliani, nothing yet. And there's others, the Carter Page, I think was another one of them. You know, they were all acolytes, they were all active. And here's the thing, they were all engaged with Russia. And probably the most chilling thing in that Comey rules movie was where Trump tried to get Comey to lay off on Russia. And although, you know, you can't believe everything from that movie or from the book, Comey, I believe that, I think that's clear. He was really interested in separating himself from Russia. And ultimately he got Bill Bar to do that by misstating the Mueller report. That was really crisis critical. And the result is Trump felt that he had been excused from the whole Russia connection. But in fact, there were so many indications. And Snyder goes through this in his book. Trump and Putin were bonded at the hip and that they were each trying to help each other and that Putin was dedicated to help Trump win in 2016 with all of the resources at his command. No reason to think that Putin isn't doing exactly the same thing. He did it in 2020 unsuccessfully, but we saw the indications of it. And he's probably doing it right now. So my question is, over the past few years, has Trump and his co-conspirators, including Putin, had they gotten smarter about affecting the American electorate? I would say probably yes. Anytime a cockroach has a flashlight shine on, they scamper and they find cover. This is no different. In 2016, they found out, okay, we had all these Russian bots. We had all these influences of messages that were unsubstantiated accounts on Facebook and Twitter. And so they recognized that and they started trying to clean that up. Okay, well, where did the cockroaches scamper to? Dark money for campaign contributions. Is it dark money for ad contributions? Is it trying to infiltrate secretaries of state and prop up candidates? That way, trying to undermine our democracy and electoral system by propping up you know, lackeys and loyalists in those roles of government. There's a hundred different one ways to do this, Jay. And who knows at this point, what direction they've taken. But I guarantee you, they haven't left the building. The building has not been fumigated. Yeah, and you can say that Trump is having trouble with the Department of Justice and some of the courts and all of them about his Mar-a-Lago adventure. But on the other hand, gee, what a great way to distract the American public. It's a great reality show. And it's not clear where all of it goes. At the end of the day, you know, he's very good at escaping justice, escaping indictments, escaping the Department of Justice over so many issues and so many years. I mean, all the people who have sued him or called for criminal prosecution on him, he's Teflon, the guy's Teflon. And he's Teflon before he was elected. He Teflon during his election, Teflon after his election. You know, look, he got away with the Mueller report, got away completely. He got away with all those guys who were involved with Putin and Russia making deals for him and God knows what else and telling secrets, terrible, bottom of the barrel people. Well, even the Republicans had to take that Mueller report and admit there was overt Russian influence in 2016. They actually came out and said, yes, we acknowledge this. Now, you know, where were all the details? Well, you know, the report was so thick we forgot the details. But the fact that the influence was there in 2016 and I guarantee you, Donald Trump's involvement with Russia was there decades earlier. I mean, he's working with the oligarchs. Who are the oligarchs emboldened to? Putin. So is this a trickle-down system of, you know, Donald Trump making and getting loans from Russia on your favorable conditions and terms? And there's a sense of indebtedness to that or obligation to that. And that's well before 2016. And I don't think enough has been highlighted on that. I think some media shows have done a pretty good job trying to connect the dots on his obligations of financial commitments in Russia, but not enough. And I think those things still hang over Donald Trump's head. Well, I think they're still active. Yeah. If you look at that Tim Snyder book, you see that they were in a kind of love affair in 2016 and Putin was just as ardent as Trump was to get Trump elected and succeeded with all of these internet plays and social media, what have you. Don't forget, once he was president, don't forget Helsinki. My God, that was a love affair right there in front of the world. Yep. Okay, and then he gets away with the first impeachment. Thanks to, what's his name? McConnell. And Barr. And Barr. He gets away with doing all kinds of horrible, corrupt things and damaging the government, you know, like I believe permanently, permanently through his term and then he has the insurrection on top of that. And so far, he's gotten away with that. And he got away with the second impeachment. The guy's Teflon. And so it seems to me he's learned how to distract, change the subject, New York style. It's hard to get your hands on a slippery cockroach who runs away. And I think, you know, that playbook is still in play. My next question for you is, has the FBI and the DOJ and Homeland Security, you know, our primary first line of defense, you know, law enforcement agencies, have they gotten smarter? And before you answer, just remember that the insurrection was January 6th, 2021. And here we are going on two years and we're still watching the metronome tick day by day. And watching Congress have this, you know, so far unsuccessful select committee investigation and the metronome ticks day by day without any real result. I'm sorry, no real result. Distraction in every direction, but no real result. So my question to you is, has the FBI, the DOJ, Homeland Security gotten smarter? If they hadn't been, they are now. And I think no greater thing has set the alarm bell, ringing very loud in their heads right now is the documents, the classified documents that Donald Trump had at Mar-a-Lago. Some really serious top secret stuff. And all three agencies are going, what was he doing with those and what would he planning to do with those? Or what did he do with those? So I think they're awake now, I really do. Were they before? Well, yes, but they probably have, you know, like every agency, they have their infighting. And to what degree does Donald Trump still have his dedicated loyal staff fighting his agenda for him that are still in these agencies? We've done a show about that more than once. So, you know, everyone, you just can't get done what you want to get done when you have half your staff trying to work against you or, you know, try to derail the agenda of prosecution. Yeah, here's one we've talked about before a number of times and the media has talked about it constantly. So we have the possibility of indictments. Okay, we also have the possibility of a crashing result, terrible, terrible result in two weeks. And again, in 2024, in a lawless society with lawless leaders, the question is, does the possibility of these indictments change everything? If Trump was, you know, indignant on this, that, or the other thing or all of them, or is this some of them? Does that really change anything? Or are we being distracted by all of that? And is the reality something else? You know, and you have to, in that analysis, to factor in the appeals, the possibility that he will try to get this in front of the judge, he has appointed, that he will intimidate witnesses, intimidate judges, intimidate jurors, lie as and when he can. I mean, we assume that and use social media. And I go to episodes three, particularly in Rachel Maddow's ultra podcast where there was a trial in 1940 and the FBI had the goods, the Department of Justice had the goods, but the people who were on the right wing of things who were the racists and the anti-Semites and the ones who wanted to overthrow the government the State Department. Yeah. They were outside the courthouse chanting in favor of the defense. And they were in the courtroom chanting in favor of the defense. And at the end of the day, the jury, the jury acquitted a good number of them, the rest of them would declare to mistrial and the result is a perfectly good case of 17 people who wanted to overthrow the government walked. And I'm saying do indictments really change anything because you can have an indictment even assuming you can get an indictment which we've been waiting a long time day by day the metronome went back and forth. You've got to get to a prosecution, a conviction, a punishment. All this takes a long time and there's a lot of vagaries. We know how many ways Trump has escaped this in the past both civil and criminal. And I would factor one more thing in watch Elon Musk. And I do not trust that man. I do not think his sensibilities favor the national interest at all. And he is supposed to close on Twitter this week. This week supposed to. And if he closes on Twitter, he's made it clear that he's gonna let Trump get back on Twitter. And that's Trump's favorite and most effective platform. Though that is the factor in whether indictments or prosecutions can affect and what's gonna happen going forward. The rule of law, if you will. So we've talked about it before. I know what you've said, but I wanna ask you again, do the possibility of indictments really affect the result of the attack on our democracy? Yes, and here's why. We don't know how things unfold as the feature rose along. Sometimes it's planned and you know, you can, as divers say, you plan the dive, you dive the plan. But when it comes to the arena of politics and government, we don't know what unfolds. It's kind of like Texas Hold'em where you get one card and you don't know if you should bet on it or not but you do and then you get the card you wanted on the next hand. And so you have to start somewhere. You have to get the ball rolling somehow and the indictment is that first, if you will, those first three cards in Texas Hold'em and are you guaranteed success by no means? But you have to get the synergy, the ball rolling and things in nature, things kind of fall together. They come together and that may well be the case in the prosecution and possibly conviction of Donald Trump. It'll be a historic moment. No president, former president has ever been indicted. There'll be sense of awareness on that. There'll be a sense of historic grandeur, if you will. Now the MAGA GOP we'll see is a badge of courage. They'll mock it, but they'll see it as, you know, their fearless leader taking one for the team in order to implement his agenda for the good of all the nation. So it'll be perceived differently by different factions of this country but it's imperative that it begin and I think things will come together. And Donald Trump, although he is Teflon, even on the best of pants, Teflon wears off after a number of years. That's utterly quotable. That'll be on the final exam for sure. Okay, good. Yeah, well, okay. I mean, you know, you're kind of optimistic in that way. Two weeks from now, we'll know a lot more. And I was saying before the show, it's very hard to predict that you imply the same notion. It's very hard to predict what will happen here because there are so many variables that play, so many possibilities. And for example, you know, a couple of politicians, more than a couple, a number of GOP-MAGA politicians have said that if he's indicted, there will be violence. And... Okay, well, we've had that before. Guess what? Didn't get very far. You can't stop violence, but you sure can stop it from getting bigger. No, let me go to another question about that. I don't believe that there'll be another insurrection along the same lines as we had on January 6th. But I do believe that we'll have insurrection in other forms, insurrections in the state capitals around the country, insurrections... Yeah, it's happening now. Yeah, and proud boys on the streets and people who don't respond to subpoenas and sitting congressmen who don't respond to subpoenas. It's incredible. More and more of them, it seems like. So, and public officials all over the place who are sworn to reject any vote they don't like or any democratic vote they don't like. So I guess insurrections come in many forms, many flavors. Insurrections can be by these state officials, by appointees and acrolytes, by proud boys, and any number of other things. And where does that play in all of this? I think we have to broaden our definition of insurrection because one way or the other, the people, you can quote me on this, the people who are behind that insurrection on January 6th, the co-conspirators and the Willard and otherwise, and not only the boys at the bottom, but the boys at the top, they're still there. They're busy. They're still around. They're busy boys. So we can have another insurrection. We're probably having one right now in a different flavor. Do you agree? I absolutely agree that there are forces at work that are trying to undermine our existing form of government. There are forces at work that are very subtle, that aren't catching the headlines, but the placement of people at the right time in the right position, ready to act if need be to ensure their candidate wins. Now, does that mean we're gonna have a faulty election? No, but if you play chess, you know the game isn't won with the direct move. It's always the chess pieces on the side that enable the direct move to take place. And that's how you get checkmate. So like I became a chess here, the pieces are slowly being moved into place. And will there be a direct move? Well, it depends on who's winning. Okay, one more question about getting smarter. So we have seen Joe Biden operate for the past two years. And we sort of know how he does operate, where he comes from, that is a career in the Senate, you know? And we know how he handles things under pressure. We know how he responds to the attacks by the GOP and Trump, which are relentless. So my question to you is over the past, one of the almost two years, has Joe Biden gotten smarter in using the tools available to him, the levers of government and the levels of social media, the levels of his bully pulpit, his platform. Has he gotten smarter in using those things to counterman what Trump and the co-conspirators are doing? He has, he's gotten smarter in what the tools are, but he hasn't exercised his ability to use those tools to his advantage. And that's a problem. It's one thing to learn something, it's another to use it to your advantage and to win the day. I don't know if it's just by age or that he's distracted or he doesn't see the importance of what it is that is really under foot here. But he does understand now the power of social media. He does understand the power of multi-messaging that's constant, it's a blitzkrieg of messages and how that does influence people and undermine his agenda. You know, in that show I mentioned about the president of Mexico, the president of Mexico is really odd and ironic and does what FDR did back in the 30s. He has a fireside chat with people once a week that spends an hour or two with them just schmoozing on the media. And this has endeared him to his base. He's trying to create a base the same way that Trump has got his base. And Trump, you know, Trump talks to them in many ways. The rallies have multiple effects. They are in effect, I guess, along with the social media, Trump's way of doing fireside chats. So the question I put to you is Biden learned how to do that because I think you've got to bond up with the electorate. And here we are with these, you know, like pessimistic expectations for the election in two weeks. And I know that, you know, midterms don't favor the existing president, but, you know, could he have done better? Can he do better in terms of connecting with people of having that eyeball to eyeball fireside chat kind of influence on the electorate of pulling people away from Trump's base? I think there was a time when Joe Biden could do that and do that well. He could speak off the cuff. He could improvise. He could speak readily on a variety of topics and policies with the greatest of ease. Unfortunately, Joe Biden now is basically limited to a script and a teleprompter. And that's hard to have an interactive fireside chat when you're reading a script. I think partly is that his staff is worried that he's gonna say something that he ought not to, which he's done in the past, the second he goes off script. And I just think Joe Biden's mental acuity isn't what it used to be. And that's unfortunate because I think he has a lot of great ideas, but he's starting to show some frailty. Last question is to the extent that Joe Biden loses ground or the Democrats lose ground in two weeks from now. How does that affect the direction of life in Europe? The growth of autocracies in Europe, Africa, Latin America, and certainly China, which has its own development in autocracy. So if Biden loses, and if the Democrats lose, it's Biden's loss really in the elections coming in two weeks. How does that affect American influence overseas? And if there's a fragmentation of the EU and NATO, which it looks like that may very well happen and the growth of the influence of Putin, relatively speaking, in Europe, how does that affect Biden's chances going forward? It's an echo chamber. I think for 2022, it doesn't affect it much unless there's loud overtones about a retraction of commitment to Ukraine. That would be the tell-tale sign. And I think that would fracture EU and their dedication to supporting Ukraine. But I think really the big test would be if Donald Trump were to become the nominee of the Republican Party again. And if that happens, I think you can expect all sorts of fracturing of EU's commitment to trying to preserve their form of democracy and their form of parliaments and things of that nature. But that's 2023, not 2022. You know, it's like the stock market, isn't it? The stock market is based on expectations. So Biden doesn't have to lose and Trump doesn't have to win. It's all what the policymakers, the influencers think will happen, whether it's time for that to happen or not. And I suggest that if these things sort of take the direction of Biden losing and Trump winning and Putin winning, people will act even though the ultimate has not happened yet. Like the stock market, yeah. Well, and I just like to say that, you know, in the midterm, it is often expected that the House will swing to the other party. I mean, it's not unusual that that happens. So in this case, if it does happen, it's not a real statement about Donald Trump's influence. It's kind of a natural course of events. Now, if they lose both the Senate and the House, then, you know, that's more of a dramatic statement. But certainly the loss of one House, the House of Representatives, I don't see it as a cataclysmic event. It's a natural course of politics. Okay, last question. You know, the Democratic press, MSNBC, it's at some extent CNN. And for that matter, to some extent, the BBC and Shepard Smith, you know, all express concern over these distractions, what we see and the fragmentation and the chaos and the political chaos, you know, more and more revealing itself. But I can see, and maybe I'm asking you to look too, into what happens after this election, when the Republicans win at least one House and maybe two, and then you have the press trying to react to that. And the same newscasters that we see every day, now they're wringing their hands and they're saying, oh my goodness gracious, what's gonna happen? And they worry too about the First Amendment. They worry too about the future of the FCC and the freedom of the press, especially the big media and the ownership of the big media. All these are complicated issues. So what you thought about what happens to the press if the worst case analysis comes through, what are they gonna report on? What are they gonna say? What are they gonna focus on? And I suppose they can sell a lot more psoriasis medicine. What, you know, how do you see that unfolding aside from the ringing of hands? How will the press be covering it? Okay, that's it, the ringing of hands. What I'm getting tired of the press doing is the ringing of hands, which becomes the prediction and the prediction becomes the advice towards a candidate or his advisors. The media has to stop playing the role of predictor and or advice giver. And that's the problem with not just reporting the news, that's the problem of trying to mix the news with commentary and editorial. So believe me, Donald Trump watches a lot of news. And guess what? Sometimes he picks up on the ideas presented on MSNBC and their guests and CNN and their guests. So yeah, hand-ringing is a natural occurrence from after any election, but get over it and start reporting the news and stop making predictions of what will be versus what might be. Okay, and I suppose here on this show we are not gonna do any hand-ringing. Well, we're not gonna do too much. We'll soak our heads in cold water but we're not gonna do any hand-ringing. That's correct. Tim Appichella here on National Issues, American Issues, take two. Thank you so much for this very important discussion. Aloha. Thank you so much for watching Think Tech Hawaii. If you like what we do, please like us and click the subscribe button on YouTube and the follow button on Vimeo. You can also follow us on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter and LinkedIn and donate to us at thinktechhawaii.com. Mahalo.