Discover more from Bernard Goldberg's Commentary
Bernie’s Q&A: Schiff, Hunter Biden, Drudge, Watters, and more! (10/4) — Premium Interactive ($4 members)
Welcome to this week’s Premium Q&A session for Premium Interactive members. I appreciate you all signing up and joining me. Thank you.
Editor's note: Just a friendly reminder to please try to keep your questions relatively short. Thank you.
Let’s get to your questions (and my answers):
Bernie, I'd like your take on my theory about the general public's interest in the impeachment inquiry proceedings. Of course when I say "general public", I mean NOT the Kool-Aid drinking folks who watch Fox, CNN, and MSNBC daily. My prediction is ratings on those networks or any other network televising the proceedings won't increase that much....the general public is tuning this out due to 1) exhaustion over the last 3 years of non-stop media hysteria and 2) perception of just further political arguments and skepticism of the charges. What say you? -- Jeff
I'm with you on the "exhaustion" point you make. But in the United States of Entertainment, impeachment is a pretty good show. I do NOT think the public will tune it out if it gets that far. But as always, I could be wrong.
Editor's Note: This next question came in last week, but after the Q&A deadline. Thus we moved it to this week.
Just finished watching Acting DNI Msguire's testimony . Schiff now wants the "whistleblower" to testify. Well the whistleblower is not relevant. The relevant ones are the "numerous" people who "gossipped". They are the whistleblowers. Do you think they will be exposed ? Or does Adam Schiff go down in flames again. -- Joseph V.
I too would like to know who "gossiped" to the "whistleblower." When he testifies, he may very well be asked. But I doubt he'll answer. As for Adam Schiff: If he had an ounce of introspection he'd see how rabidly partisan he comes off. IF.
California just passed a law that would permit college athletes to profit on their image and likeness. These seems, to me, a good compromise in the debate over getting paid or not. I don't support paid athletes at the collegiate level. In my humble opinion, getting a 1st class education is worth much more. This approach would even help those athletes in the less profitable sports. Tennis players could endorse a local sporting goods store. Swimmers could endorse speedos (chuckle). Anyways, just wanted your thoughts on this. -- Tim H.
Hey Tim. First, I'm not at all sure how many athletes even want a so-called first class education. Given the choice between that and cash for playing football, I think most would choose the latter. But getting paid for the use of their likeness: Sure, they should get paid. Why should a billion dollar company be able to use their likeness to make money while the actual athlete gets nothing?
Hi Bernie, Left wing progressive You Tuber Kyle Kulinski (whom I respect despite often disagreeing with) reports that Saudi Arabia has been committing genocide in Yemen, that it was not Iran but Houthi rebels tho attacked the Saudi oil fields (with Iranian weapons) because of Saudi atrocities being committed in Yemen (with support from America), and now the Trump administration is sending American troops and ground forces to help defend the Saudis, bringing America & Iran closer to all Out war! Do you know if any of these claims are true, and what are your thoughts on these allegations? -- Marching Orders Regards from The Emperor
It's now obvious that Donald Trump isn't the only one who exhausts me, EMPEROR. I have no idea who Kyle Kulinski is and don't want to know. I barely know what You Tube is. Since I'm not in Yemen, or Saudi Arabia, or Iran ... since Donald Trump doesn't personally tell me if he's going to send ground troops to help defend the Saudis, all I know is what I hear on the news and read in the paper -- which is the same stuff as you hear and read. I have many thoughts on the New York Yankees, none at the moment on your many scenarios. But, next time the president rings me up, I'll ask him about all your concerns. I won't tell him you're the Emperor, though. That would only make him jealous, being a mere president.
Hi Bernie. My assessment of why we have a sad group of candidates running for president is that the media and social media have destroyed our election process. They dig up dirt on candidates from when they were children that has nothing to do with how competent they are. They shred the candidates apart and tear up every word they say. I believe there are many great leaders out there (on both sides) who would a be great as president, but with the mutilation they have to go through- no thanks! Your thoughts? -- Chris K.
I think you're right, Chris. Who would want to run knowing that if they ever picked their nose in public, it'll be all over the news? Despite that, there are people out there who run anyway. Last time around there were about a thousand Republicans running and this time the same number of Democrats. So how do we account for that? A sincere belief that they can lead the country in the right direction? Sure. That along with a massive amount of ego and a thirst for power.
Regarding impeachment, the Dems have put their last bullet in a pistol and stuck it in their mouth. Now they're trying to decide if such geniuses as Jerry Nadler, Adam Schiff and the hysterical, intellectually arrested 12 year old girl running the House caucus should be allowed to pull the trigger. Plus, isn't it at least a little fair to compare this to the felonies that Bill Clinton did in fact commit and the Dems didn't think were a big deal? -- Dennis C.
Dennis ... I think you meant "isn't it at least a little UNfair to compare this to the felonies that Bill Clinton did in fact commit ... "
Impeachment may in fact turn out to be a political mistake for the Democrats, as you say, but I think you're way off base on the Clinton analogy. Bill Clinton was impeached, technically, because he lied under oath. But in the minds of millions of voters he was impeached over sex. And his poll numbers went up, not down.
Donald Trump on the other hand is accused of inviting a foreign government to investigate a domestic political opponent. That, in my opinion, is quite different from impeaching a president over sex.
But you're right about Dems not thinking Clinton's impropriety was a big deal. And now Republicans don't think Mr. Trump's encouragement to investigate Joe Biden is a big deal.
I guess it depends on what team you're rooting for, Dennis. Principles? Who needs principles, right?
King Bernard... sorry I was absent last week...had a little legal problem concerning the Mann Act...all better now but something is bothering me...not sure if you’ll touch this porcupine...BUT...how did you make it all those terrific years with O’Reilly and never slapped Jesse Watters so hard it would jar his future grandchildren?...that dude just rubs me the wrong way and seems so crooked that if we swallowed a nail he’d spit up a corkscrew....I’ll hang up and listen..... -- Greggo
Greggo, my friend, Jesse Watters annoys me more than he annoys you -- if that's possible. He once put his foot in the door of a university president who didn't want to talk to him. It was at the guy's house! I contacted Watters and said if he ever tried that at my house he'd leave with one foot. I blame O'Reilly for this. He's responsible for this idiot.
On Tuesday President Trump tweeted, "Congratulations to President Xi and the Chinese people on the 70th Anniversary of the People’s Republic of China!"
It upset many people. Jay Nordlinger responded with this tweet: "Disgusting. Stomach-turning. The Communist dictatorship in China is one of the most illiberal regimes of our time: murderous, enslaving, lawless -- endlessly cruel. It stamps its boot on the face of the individual. It is the antithesis of everything that America stands for."
I'm with Jay. Why do you think Trump does stuff like this? Is it just plain ignorance to history and foreign realities, or does he really somehow admire brutal regimes? -- Andy
I don't think he ... thinks! It's not that he admires brutal regimes -- though, he might. It may be that he's ignorant of history and foreign realities, as you say. Or it may be that he needs a deal with China so he compliments the dictatorship. He's just not sophisticated -- or a "stable genius" if you know what I mean.
Does the recent Hunter Biden discovery have the potential to finally blow the lid off of our politicians abuses of becoming super rich during their time in Congress and also getting extreme privileges for their children including preferential Ivy League educations and then unqualified for and ridiculously overpaying jobs? Ie. Chelsea Clinton and many others. Shouldn’t this all be part of “Draining the swamp”? -- ScottyG
Most Americans know that if you have connections you're way ahead of the game. But liberals are the ones constantly telling us how the rich get away with all sorts of things. And then Hunter Biden gets a big payday because his father's the VP and Chelsea Clinton got a job as an NBC News correspondent, also with a hefty paycheck, because of her last name. Yes, GOP kids also get advantages because of who their parents are, but it's liberals, mainly, who portray the well off as a bunch of cheaters getting away with murder. So when Hunter or Chelsea get a cushy job they don't deserve, it irks us more than when the Bush girls or the Trump kids may benefit from their father's position.
The media and Democrats are always saying that Trump has destroyed the norms and traditions of our government. It seems to me there is some truth to that. It also seems that the media, permanent government, leftists, and Dems have contributed a great deal to ending traditional norms. Since before Trump, the level of vitriol has amped up so high that there's nowhere to go. He's a treasonous criminal, nazi, white nationalist, and every other "ist." His admin staff and appointed officials have been leaking from day 1, and everything that sounds a little off is blown up to be the next Watergate. Former Intelligence officials are paid contributors on cable news channels! My question: Who has changed traditional norms more; the establishment political and media class or Trump? -- Dave E.
Why pick one, Dave? I think you got it right. Both sides have contributed to the polarization in America. And it started before Donald Trump was elected. The media, by and large anyway, have 20/20 eyesight when it comes to the president's behavior, which in my view leaves a lot to be desired. But they're not good at all in analyzing the other side, the name-calling from the left. They're not good, in other words, at putting responsibility on themselves. I'll end where I began: Both sides have a lot to answer for.
In the 2020 election, I have a strategy the Dem candidate can use. Whomever the candidate is should totally ignore Trump, his nasty nicknames, and his antagonistic remarks. Just run on whatever the platform may be and point out why they would make a good President. Never mention Trump by name, and if specifics arise, always use the term "the current administration," not Trump. Have televised town halls and do not debate Trump one on one. I think ignoring his name would drive him further up the wall than he is now. What do you think? -- Warren K.
Interesting idea, Warren. But if Donald Trump can't control himself, you think the Democratic candidate can? You think Biden or Warren can go 10 minutes without mentioning the president's name? But it would be fun to watch things unfold if they followed your advice.
I am not sure if you follow the Drudge Report, but I have noticed recently that the headlines he uses are not flattering to Trump and that he is linking to a lot of stories written by the New York Times and Washington Post. I am not saying that linking to these stories is bad, but those organizations certainly are not writing anything at all that favors the President. Do you think Drudge has soured on Trump, and could losing his influence hurt the President? -- JM
I noticed the same thing, JM. And wondered what you're wondering: Has Drudge soured on Trump. I don't have any inside information, but it's either that -- or he's presenting both sides in a fair and impartial way. That may not please a lot of folks on the right, but it would be a welcome change from partisan websites.
Bernie; I know you don't like anyone saying the media is all fake news but it's tough to accept since all media appear to have an agenda. When do you believe the media moved from reporting the news truthfully to creating the news for maximum profit? And... could that have been hastened by global news reporting... like the Israeli Palestinian conflict with all that fake news? -- Charles K.
I don't know when it started, Charles, but I do know that cable news accelerated the spiral downward. They're not the only ones with an agenda. Let me be clear about that. But it's more blatant in the world of cable. I've said this before: Cable news is not a journalism model. It's a business model. Give the viewers what they want; validate their biases; throw them red meat so they'll come back for more. The culture is polarized and the news media both reflect that polarization and contribute to it -- with their agendas.
Now that the emotions of the NFL-kneeling and Brett Kavanaugh stories have died down, I wanted to look more soberly at the subject of protesting. Other than outside of abortion clinics, conservatives just don't think or act so vocally upon our side of social justice. Why do you think it is mostly liberals taking to the streets and the microphones to protest seemingly every action they disagree with? Regarding Kaepernick and the screeching masses at the Kavanaugh hearings: Free speech is enshrined in the Constitution, but our soldiers fight and die for the flag, and when they're buried, their coffins are draped in the flag. In addition, the confirmation of a Supreme Court justice should be orderly and not subject to disruption. Every constitutional right has its limits. Shouldn't protesting have its limits as well? -- Steve R.
Protesting does have limits. You can't call for the imminent overthrow of the government ... or take a microphone an call for the assassination of the president. But the Constitution gives us a lot of leeway ... we can say a lot without being silenced and we can protest any issue we want, as long as we keep it within reasonable bounds. I'm guessing, Steve, you'd set the boundaries a lot tighter than I would.
What's your take on this whole Ukraine thing? Sounds like fake umbrage again. It's not wrong to want to find out what really happened. How would we find out if Biden and son did something wrong? Democrats won't be investigating it. So Donald has to let it go? I think not. At the same time, you have to be careful to not have crossed a line. Seems to me he should have had the FBI or DOJ do the search and perhaps saved his bacon. It's messy. What is different having the House trying to sway an election to find out if there was wrong doing on Trump, but Trump can't find out in return? It makes no sense. Your take on this? -- Bill N.
I'm pretty much with you. But the president should not have asked a foreign leader to investigate a political rival. That's where he went wrong. If he had stayed with his first request -- to help the U.S. government find out what Ukraine's role was in the 2016 election, no problem. But he didn't stop there. And Democrats don't need much of an excuse to yell, IMPEACH HIM!
Thanks, everyone! You can send me questions for next week using the form below! You can also read previous Q&A sessions by clicking here.