Mike Pompeo, Lebron James, David Ascher discussed on The Armstrong & Getty Show

Automatic TRANSCRIPT

Than anything. We never really got an opportunity to see our like our 14 and four strength either because of injury, or covid, or Or something going on with our with our ball club this year, we could never fully get into a rhythm. And it never really kind of see the full potential where we could well capable of. Yeah, You're not supposed to say those things. I don't mind him, saying those things about that's LeBron James, with his reasons for why firm very few times over the last almost 20 years, has the NBA playoffs not included LeBron James going way deep in the playoffs, if not winning at all. And, um and playing in the finals. What 11 with that's Tom Brady? I get mixed up like 678 times in a row. Something like that, anyway. LeBron James bumped in the first round of the NBA playoffs. The Lakers are done and it was not. It was no nail biter, either. They're just wapt by the sun's anyway, so this you don't know who he is. But he's a jackass. Skip Bayless Sports reporter was saying all kinds of things bad about LeBron James Charles Barkley, who you probably do know who that is, said last night. That if he ever gets Skip Bayless alone in a room, Skip Bayless would need a full body cast. What, Chuck? You can't say that. Just like a threat. You can't threaten the media like that. Charles and the famous Charles Barkley story. Shawn is when he threw a person out of a bar window. He was later asked if he had any regrets, and he said, I regret we weren't on the second floor. That's why he rolls Punch him in the balls. Oh, hey, now. Hey, now, Chuck now, So we're talking about this enormous vanity fair piece about the origins of the coronavirus and how it's become increasingly clear that it absolutely leaked from the Wuhan Institute of Virology. And the side story, of course, is Wait a minute. How did it become almost immediately the gospel truth that it didn't Well, we've talked about the Chinese cover up and the wh chose compliance with the Chinese doctor Tedros being a stooge of China. We've talked about that for a long time, and we've also talked about the the media's incredible enthusiasm for anything that contradicted Trump. Mean enthusiasm to the point of they would throw their own mother under the train if it contradicted Trump, so that did childish and idiotic and that was part of it. But here's the part we missed. And the Vanity Fair piece doesn't exhaustive job and laying this out. There were huge interests within the US government protecting the Chinese because they were involved in the funding of the work that was being done there at the Institute of Virology. And you know, as we've talked about this before, through the Trump hears, especially the idea of the deep state, which is a term I've always found a little dramatic, um or the swamp, which is pretty good, but it's vague. Can you just joined me in using the term permanent bureaucracy? Yeah. These people who worked their entire lives at, for instance, the State Department They stay, no matter who's in power, and they run the department. I mean, the like the secretary of state tries to, but sometimes they have to beg for help. Mike Pompeo has talked about this, how he just tried and tried and tried to get people to just institute his policies. I remember Dick Morris we had him in studio years ago. Legendary political mover and Shaker. Saying the state Department it was the is the most entrenched bureaucracy in the world. Yeah, Yeah, So anyway, this piece in Vanity fair and we touched on some of this earlier, Um they interviewed dozens and dozen people reviewed hundreds of pages of documents, memos, meeting minutes, etcetera. And it is absolutely clear that conflicts of interest stemming in part from large government grants supporting controversial virology research hampered the U. S investigation into the Covid nineteen's origin. In one State Department meeting. Officials seeking to demand transparency from the Chinese government were explicitly told by colleagues not to explore the Wuhan Institute of Virology is gain of function research because it would bring unwelcome attention to the U. S government funding of it. They were warned not to pursuit an investigation at all because it would open a can of worms if it continued. So that's where we left off. Um, a while back, skipping their idiotic stuff about Trump. Dr. Richard Ebright, Board of Governors professor of chemistry and chemical biology at Rutgers, said that from the very first reports of a novel bat related coronavirus outbreak in Wuhan, it took him a nanosecond to consider a link to the Wuhan Institute of Royal Virology. Only two other labs in the world In Galveston, Texas, and Chapel Hill, North Carolina. We're doing similar research, he said. And I quote it's not a dozen cities. It's three places on Earth. Then came the revelation that the famous Lancet statement that we're talking about from was at February of last year that explicitly said it came from nature. It did not come from the lab. That's a conspiracy theory. That Lancet statement was not only signed but organized by a zoologist named Peter Day. Zack, who's repackaged US government grants and allocated them to facilities conducting gain of function research, among them the Wi V itself. This guy was a major mover in financing gain of function research at the Wuhan Institute. And he was the guy who organized the also persuasive letter that said, no way, at least from the lab. No way and all of America's journalists, etc. See all these scientists, they say Trump's wrong DC Trump's wrong So you must be wrong. So this David Ascher, now a senior fellow at the Hudson Institute, ran the State Department's day to day Covid nineteen's origin inquiry, he said, This is the head guy at the State Department looking into the Covid. He said it soon became clear quote. There is a huge gain of function bureaucracy inside the federal government. They won the fight over whether we should finance this stuff or not. In spite of the dangers, they laid their careers on the line and said, You can do this. It's a good idea. It won't escape and kill a million people. And then it did right and I don't remember who's cool. So I'm sorry to finish the thought. So what do you suppose they did? They covered it up as fast and as hard as they could write. I don't know. I don't remember who is quoted in that Vanity Fair article, but saying this would what's going to turn out to be anyway? But they were concerned this would be their Chernobyl or three mile island. Those were two big nuclear disasters that turned everyone off of nuclear power in a lot of the world because there were a you know a couple of problems. They believed that this research was very important to do. And if the story got out that Oh my God, this horrible virus leaked out of the lab. That would be the end of them being able to do this research. Right, Uh, which they think would be a mistake. And they may be right. They might, You know, I don't know. No. If about it. They may be absolutely right. Hey, this is no reason to stop gain of function. Research may be correct. But we still need to know.

Coming up next