November 21st, 2024 • 3h 24m
Shownotes
Every new episode of No Agenda is accompanied by a comprehensive list of shownotes curated by Adam while preparing for the show. Clips played by the hosts during the show can also be found here.
M5M
Jeff Bezos Cracks Down on the Washington Post
Even before 250,000 digital readers unsubscribed from the Washington Post in protest, the paper was on track to lose at least as much money as it lost last year: $77 million. A deputy managing editor shared the figure in a recent meeting with reporters and editors, per multiple sources. The editor did not say what the added impact of the non-endorsement exodus would be, according to those present. “Mind-blowing,” as one staffer put it. “The level of anger is through the roof, and fear is also through the roof. There’s huge concern that Bezos is going to pull the plug.”
Comcast to spin off cable networks
Cord cutting continues to impact the traditional TV business. Comcast lost 365,000 TV customers during the third quarter, it said last month. The industry overall lost roughly 4 million traditional pay TV customers in the first six months of the year, according to analyst firm MoffettNathanson.
Still, traditional TV networks remain cash cows for media businesses. Comcast reported in October that third-quarter revenue for its media segment, which is mainly comprised of the TV networks, was up nearly 37% to $8.23 billion, largely due to the Olympics. Without the Summer Games, revenue was up almost 5%.
Disney executives recently said they don’t plan to separate their TV networks anytime soon, noting the complexities of doing so, and saying the costs would outweigh the benefits. And Warner Bros. Discovery CEO David Zaslav called the business “extraordinarily important” to the company, despite a $9.1 billion write down of its TV networks.
Big Pharma
This is the moment when Dutch Health Minister Fleur Agema admits Covid was a military operation under NATO.
The control of health policy lies with the NCTV, the National Coordinator for Security and Counter- Terrorism.
The Minister tells the chamber that pandemic preparedness is related to treaty obligations and the intelligence service is in charge.
It was never about health.
Vaccine podcast BOTG
Hi Adam,
I heard your discussion on Vaccines on Episode # 1714 and thought I would pass along this info to you and the other producers at No Agenda.
Alexandra is the founder of "Just the Inserts" [https://www.justtheinserts.com](https://www.justtheinserts.com) she walks people through the medical product inserts and uses only information obtained by .gov sites in order to break down this important material to parents and care providers (Because I don't think most people know that the vaccine information sheet that you get from your doctor is not the same as the package insert for the product!). I think her information is easily digestible and offers some eye opening insight to those that are still in the "pro-vaccine" campaign.
As a Certified Neonatal Intensive Care (NICU) Registered Nurse who administered many vaccines in my 8 years of working a Level 4 (highest level of care) NICU, I can attest that I too felt so much shame and regret at the possibility that I may have caused more harm than good to so many of my patients. Especially when I witnessed adverse reactions first hand on some of the preemie babies that we administered them to. (Another side note, many of the vaccines that are given to preemies are administered against manufacturing guidelines as many of them do not meet the weight requirements for dosing). But instead of "offing" myself (as your ER Dr. friend stated), I decided to push back and do something about it. So I started a podcast! (Go Podcasting!!) with the goal of empowering parents to make decisions for themselves and their children by using knowledge, insight and intuition, not Fear or Social pressure!
So, If any of the No Agenda producers wants to hear the founder explain for herself what she has discovered or if anyone wants to gain some more insight about what true informed consent is, they can listen to her Episode on our podcast Fearless Motherhood in late Decemeber.
Thank you and remember, Stay Fearless!
--
_Andrea Dickert (Pronounced: Dick-ert)_
_Fearless Motherhood Podcast_
Major Questions Doctrine - Backgrounder BOTG
- _Chevron_ Deference (RIP): Before SCOTUS overruled it, the _Chevron_ Deference doctrine came into play whenever an agency interpreted a statute capable of multiple constructions. The only catch was that the agency’s interpretation had to be “permissible”—a low bar indeed. In those cases, the agency’s interpretation was _controlling_. The courts _had no choice_ but to accept it. This ended with _Loper Bright_. Now, courts are no longer _required_ to accept an agency’s interpretation, although they certainly _may_ if they wish. (And honestly, they probably will most of the time—_see Skidmore_ below.)
- _Skidmore_ Deference: This doctrine survives. It entails a case-by-case approach in which the agency’s interpretations aren’t _controlling_, but they receive significant weight. The idea is that the agency is staffed with professionals who provide a body of knowledge worth considering.
- Major Questions Doctrine: This doctrine says that certain questions are just too important to casually turn over to bureaucrats. Congress bears the constitutional responsibility for deciding these questions, so they can’t be delegated to agencies unless Congress makes a _clear_ _statement_ to that effect. As Justice Scalia said, Congress does not “hide elephants in mouseholes.” (Aside: There’s a similar doctrine called the “Political Question Doctrine” that says the courts lack jurisdiction to decide disputes involving political questions that must be resolved by Congress or the Executive. Keep your eyes peeled for this one.)
Deciding what issues are “major questions” involves many factors: economic impact, political impact, and whatever else things the courts find important. This is a case-by-case determination; there’s no “bright-line rule.”
A couple of idle observations:
- Until recently, the Major Questions Doctrine provided an important safeguard against runaway use of _Chevron_ Deference by limiting the universe of issues that agencies could claim to govern. If an issue was important enough, and Congress hadn’t _clearly_ delegated authority to the agency, then no deference was necessary because the agency lacked authority to regulate the issue in the first place.
- It remains to be seen how courts will use the Major Questions Doctrine now that _Chevron_ is dead. I think they’ll continue to use it to limit what agencies may regulate—and who knows, without the counterweight of _Chevron_, they may even use it more often. I admit I’m just guessing here, but the current zeitgeist seems to be that we must tame a sprawling administrative state.
- Why this matters to RFK: Before _Loper Bright_, agencies could get away with a lot more because the courts had to buy whatever the agencies were selling. This was great if you were in power, but distressing if you weren’t. It also opened the door to a lot of regulatory instability as new administrations could swing policy from one pole to the other. But now that _Chevron_ is gone, the courts have more power to temper agency actions. The Major Questions Doctrine is part of their toolkit.
- My take on Dr. Gounder’s comments (tell me if you disagree): As I understand Dr. Gounder’s comments, she’s concerned that purging “career bureaucrats” (her words) would cause problems—and might even hinder RFK’s own agenda. As she sees it, RFK needs these insiders to get things done.
If I may mind-read a little, I suspect that she fears the agencies may not have the power that RFK needs to get his agenda done. She suggests that RFK’s plan may entail “major questions” that Congress hasn’t clearly delegated. Therefore, she believes that RFK must retain the existing personnel who know how to work the system.
I also expect that special interests (pharma, junk-food purveyors, etc.) will challenge RFK’s every move. Among their arguments will be that RFK is using administrative agencies to govern “major questions” without clear Congressional authority.
- _Auer_ Deference: This appears to survive _Loper Bright_; we’ll see what the courts say, but I expect it to continue pretty much unimpeded. Sometimes, an agency’s _own regulation_ (as opposed to an underlying statute) leaves room for interpretation. Because the agency itself wrote the regulation (and not Congress), _Auer_ Deference requires courts to give the agency’s interpretation of its own regs _controlling_ weight.
This struck me as important because RFK could argue that his anticipated policy changes aren’t interpreting _statutes_, but the agencies’ own regulations. He may also invoke the Political Question Doctrine and argue that these are political questions that the courts lack jurisdiction to resolve.
Daddy Long Legs
The same Joe Biden suddenly looks different | CNN Politics
Joe Biden is no more or less capable a president than he was two months ago. His staff is no more or less competent.
But suddenly, images of Biden as a feeble septuagenarian atop a mismanaged White House have given way to those of an experienced leader, smiling behind aviator sunglasses, whose battle-tested team has delivered on a range of national priorities. A winning streak does that for you.
Diddystein
Diddy Bonfire of the Vanities moment BOTG
Adam—We’ve now entered the “Bonfire of the Vanities” phase of the Diddy litigation. Remember our discussion about Tony Buzbee sending out demand letters to obtain quick settlements? (See “FAQ” below.) Well, an “anonymous public figure” in LA just sued Buzbee accusing him of extortion. I haven’t found a copy of the complaint yet, but I’ve attached a short article.
In a nutshell, this “public figure” received a confidential demand letter earlier this month. He hired the Quinn Emanuel law firm (a respected outfit) and filed a lawsuit in LA County under the name John Doe. Mr. Doe says that Buzbee’s demand letter accuses him of “rap[ing] both male and female minors who had been drugged at parties hosted by [Diddy].” He denies it all and says that Buzbee is just extorting money.
Nonsense. Demand letters are an important part of the litigation process. Worse, this move is risky as hell. If Mr. Doe’s name emerges publicly, he’ll forever have an asterisk next to his name, rightly or wrongly. And if he’s accused of raping drugged minors _in a lawsuit_, he can’t sue for defamation because statements made in litigation generally enjoy an _absolute privilege_. _See_ [Cal. Civ. Code § 47(b)](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?sectionNum=47.&lawCode=CIV). This privilege shields alleged victims from making allegations regardless of whether they ultimately prevail in the case.
Mr. Doe probably doesn’t relish being named in a rape lawsuit. Yet that very outcome is now more likely than before: Buzbee says that he’ll go ahead and file suit against Mr. Doe now that “professional efforts at resolution obviously have failed.” But as riveting as that lawsuit would be, I don’t expect it to happen immediately, if at all. I think Buzbee’s current intention is to let Mr. Doe marinate awhile on the prospect of being publicly accused, just to see if he changes his tune. That’s the path to a quick settlement. Still, I could be wrong—Buzbee can play rough; and who knows, maybe he’ll make an example out of Mr. Doe.
This whole thing is a game of brinksmanship. But it’ll be a pretty exciting one to watch.
PS: I also expect Buzbee to seek dismissal of Mr. Doe’s suit under California’s “anti-SLAPP” statute—a law designed to prevent lawsuits intended to stifle would-be claimants from exercising their rights to free speech and petitioning the government for redress of grievances (this includes lawsuits). “SLAPP” stands for “strategic lawsuits against public participation,” and the courts hate them. _See_ [Cal. Code. Civ. P. § 425.16](https://www.casp.net/california-anti-slapp-first-amendment-law-resources/statutes/c-c-p-section-425-16/). So watch for Buzbee to seek a quick dismissal.
Another Buzbee Diddy lawsuit BOTG
You said it, brother! And now there’s more!
Yesterday, a “Jane Doe” filed papers in NYC to sue Buzbee for malpractice. She claims that he represented her in what sounds like a juicy divorce proceeding, apparently in the city. He allegedly assaulted her and then proceeded to mess up her case. A copy of the two-page summons is attached (apparently in NY, you file a summons before filing a complaint).
Just like the LA suit, I suspect that this one is connected to a demand letter. The fact that these things are being filed anonymously suggests to me that they’re intended only to fire a shot across Buzbee’s bow, without any intention of going to trial. This could well backfire.
The lawyer who filed this suit is Jeremy Bohrer of Austin (and I guess NYC). His [bio can be found here](http://bohrerpllc.com/professionals/jeremy-i-bohrer/). I don’t know anything about him, but his bio connects him with “a multi-billion dollar hedge fund,” where he served as “Chief Operating Officer and General Counsel.” It’s a very investor-heavy resume.
You know the saying: When you start to take flak, you know you’re over the target. I think Buzbee has kicked a hornet’s nest filled with powerful people, and now the lawfare is unfolding. And don’t forget, Buzbee is a Trump supporter.
Personally, I hope that these “Doe” litigants are unmasked soon. Let the dominoes fall.
ATACMS
Biden allows Ukraine to strike Russia with US-supplied long-range missiles | AP News
MANAUS, Brazil (AP) — President Joe Biden has authorized Ukraine to use U.S.-supplied missiles to strike deeper inside Russia, easing limitations on the longer range weapons as Russia deploys thousands of North Korean troops to reinforce its war, according to a U.S. official and three other people familiar with the matter.
Memorandum on the Delegation of Authorities Under Sections 507(d) and 508(a) of the Ukraine Security Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2024
(d) Cancellation of Indebtedness.—
(1) The President may not before November 15, 2024 take any action related to the indebtedness of the Government of Ukraine that cancels any indebtedness incurred by Ukraine pursuant to this section.
(1) In General.—Notwithstanding any other provision of law, before taking any action described in paragraph (2), the President shall submit to Congress a written report that describes that action and the reason for that action
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 505. (a) Transfer of Long-Range ATACMS Required.—As soon as practicable after the date of enactment of this Act, the President shall transfer long range Army Tactical Missile Systems to the Government of Ukraine to assist the Government of Ukraine in defending itself and achieving victory against the Russian Federation.
(b) Notification.—If the President determines that executing the transfer of long-range Army Tactical Missile Systems to the Government of Ukraine pursuant to subsection (a) would be detrimental to the national security interests of the United States, the President may withhold such transfer and shall notify the congressional defense committees, the Committees on Appropriations and Foreign Relations of the Senate, and the Committees on Appropriations and Foreign Affairs of the House of Representatives of such determination.
Climate Change
Big Tech AI and the Socials
Trump
The Oil Baron has 175k acres in ND and drilling since 2021
Pegasus
Dumb Dems
Texas cannot succeed, but *can* break up into 5 states with 10 Senators
