Skip to main content

tv   Marc Morano Green Fraud  CSPAN  August 28, 2021 11:00am-11:38am EDT

11:00 am
engagement. you know, i grew up with food rations. i remember that everything with rations, it would limit the supply. my parents had to get up 4:00 in th morning to stand in long lines outside the grocery store in order to get cooking oil or sugar. so i remember the first type i went to the mcdonald's thanks to the hamberger theory, the first -- hamburger theory, the first mcdonald's opened in beijing, the only thing i got was an apple pie and it took me 20 minutes to realize the -- to eat it. i nev had something so sweet and tasty. i mean, now i today away fm them because i want to stay fit. [laughter] but back then i didn't care. it was, you know, to me it was not freedom and liberty, it was apple pie inspire me to someday i want to go to the places that where you can eat as much sugar as you want, right?
11:01 am
[laughter] so i'm a beneficiary of that economic engagement. is so economic engagement itself is not wrong. it's not a wrong policy. what we did wrong -- when i say we, american government and business -- what we did wrong was we assume that unconditioned economic engagement would somehow change behaviors. we forgot who we're really dealing with, the true character of the communist party. >> to watch the rest of this program, visit use the search function at the top of the page the look for helen raleigh and the title of her book, "back be lash." backlash. >> you're watching booktv. next from the annual libertarian conference freedom fest, mark milano, publisher of climate, argues that the sciencen climate change is not settled, and legislation like the green new deal will do more harm than good.
11:02 am
then, miami herald investigative journalist julie k. brown details her coverage of the jeffrey epstein story. and later, we talk with senate minority leader mitch mcconnell about what he's currently reading. find more schedule information in your program guide or online at >> host: author mark moran know, in your book "green fraud: why the green new deal is even worse than you think," you write that the green new deal is an all-encompassing transformation of society. what do you mean by that? >> guest: well, in the book i lay are out that the vision of the green new deal is not chiefly about climate or energy policy. what they're i trying to do is remake society,, quite literally every aspect of society, and that would include everything from health care, housing, racial justice, identity politics on down to our energy structure, our climate, our transportation, your home
11:03 am
heatin your ability the -- to travel. the entire spectrum o of human life they want to reengineer to make it earth-friendly and this vision, if you will, of equity. and that's going to require people turning over decisions that were previously held by the people to, essentially, unelected bureaucrats who are going to be managing every aspect of our lives. and i mean that, and i lay that out in the book with, down to what your thermostat can be at, all your appliances. we're already seeing what's happening with dishwashers, washers and dryers, even showerheads. every little aspect will be regulated. but beyond that, it goes much deeper as well. the's calls for ending private car ownership, roving fleets of electric rtal vehicles, assaults on the suburbs. so all of this is built into the vision, the broad vision of the between new deal, and it means all -- green new deal, and it
11:04 am
means all things. so whatever branch of the left wing is pushing this is going to be the pushing different aspects of it. and this is not l like, oh, a climate energy bill,ing that's great, i care about the earth, let's support the green new deal. there is much, much more in it than that. >> host: well, let's start with some of the environmental factors. you describe do it as an ultimate wish list of the progressive environmental agenda. how specifically would the green new deal change our lives, if your view? >> guest: well, the first thing it's going to do is make energy more expensive. and we're actually already seeing that here in mid 2021 because energy markets go by signals. and one of the first things that happens with this new administration is they sent a signal to the energy marketplace that we aren't going to do the keystone pipeline are, we're not going to be doing drilling on federal lands, we're going to be, essentially, shutting down
11:05 am
traditional fossil fuel energy which american 2019, pre-pandemic, we were leading the world. we were the largest producer of oil and gas. we had actually been the biggest energy producer as opposed to user since harry s. truman was president, more energy if exports than imports. you could argue we were energy dominant. so one of the first things we do in january 2021 is start shutting down this amazing american energy renaissance, if you will, over the last decade and a half if chiefly led by fracking. and the way it's going to change our life almost immediately is higher energy costs and potentially inflation related to those higher energy costs. so we're already seeing the effects of of this in gas prices and other factors. we have a sitting u.s. president now begging opec to increase oil production if x this is a shock because america was the world's largest oil and gas producer, energy dominant just prior to
11:06 am
all of this, and now we're begging that we also have russian oil imports reaching record levels. and we're going to be turning over our energy dominance for reliance on chinese rare everett mining which is going to be done by slave labor in china and human rights abuses in africa mining things like cobalt and other rare minerals for things like solar panels, electric car batteries. so the green new deal is a hughes-lose-lose proposition -- lose-lose-lose proposition, and it do nothing for global co2 emissions. so it iss failed cost benefit, t fails the sniff test, it fails the logic test, the science test, the public polictest, and that's what my book goes through. it is perhaps one of the most ill-add vised plans ever deviced and foisted -- devised and foisted upon the american people in decades at least. >> host: are we facing clima
11:07 am
catastrophe? >> guest: no. and that's one of the things spend a lot of time in the book -- first of all, i have a chapter devoted to the science, and i also have a chapter devoted to the climate emergency and these claims, the alleged climate emergency. so starting out, one of the ways they claim we face a climate emergency, and this is very well documented and even mainstream climate scientists are rebuking things like the national climate assessment which was done during the trump administration, but it was done by president obama if holdovers, and it included activists from environmental groups like union of concerned scientists, katherine cahill, they used extreme model scenarios to scare the public. and now these model scenarios by the original architects are said they were never meant to do it. what they've done embedded in these government reports is use an extreme model scenario that now is being wholesale rejected by the climate community, and
11:08 am
they use those scenarios in order to scare the public to gin up public policy. so, no, we have faced the further thing possible from a climate emergency. anin the book, if you go behind the headlines and look at a u.n. press release, it's dire and scary, and it's all about political lobbying, they use science to lobby for political action. even al gore said the u.n. reports are, qte, torqued up in order to get policymakers' attention. not just the u.n. report, but the national climate assessment and other government reports like that including e.u. reports, u.k. government reports. but if you look deep within the reports, and i do in my book, droughts, wildfires, sea level rise, hurricanes, even according to these reports that people cite as evidence of a climate emergency, the premise of your question, shohows either no tres or declining trends on climate time scales, 30 years, 50 years,
11:09 am
100 years. so people can say, oh, california's evidence of a climate energy or the heat wave in the south -- nonsense, nonsense. epa data shows up currently the 1930s was the hottest heat wave in history. we're below the 30-year average temperature on satellites. the u.s. is less than 2% of the earth's surface. there's many areas of cold. so if you look at all of these factors, there is no climate emergency. and then, of course, i also quote scientists who look at the geologic history. we've had co2 many times higher, 90% of earth's history has had the highest co2 levels -- lower levels -- i'm sorry, higher levels than current, and essentially the earth was too warm to support -- we'rere in te 10% coldest period of the geologically speaking, we're also in the 10% lowest co2 of
11:10 am
the earth geologically speaking. so i spend some time explaining th concept. so co2 is not the dririver. there are hundreds of factors that drive climate change, and the idea that co2 that government can impose if, well, we're going to regulate this or ban that suv or shut down and that somehow we're going to get better weather, which is what they claim. senatotor chuck schumer saying f we had done more on climate, we know these hurricanes would be less severe. that's modern witchcraft. that's nonsense. we can also cool the atmosphere through aerosols. i have a whole chapter devoted to the global cooling scare in the 1970s. we believed then that fossil fuels, before they closed global warming, fossil fuels were causing global cooling because we were releasing aerosol which was blocking satellites, dimming the earth and causing a reduction in temperature. and this was cia reports, scientists wrote letters to
11:11 am
president nixon urging him to look into the global cooling scare. but more important to that, peter, what's most interesting about that chapter -- and, by the way, 1970s, hurricanes, floods, war, national security all blamed on manmade global cooling back then. so that's changed. but what was most interesting was the solutions were the same as the green new deal. they wanted reduction are of free markets, they wanted to limit economic activity, ask they wanted more regulation -- and they wanted more regulations on the environment. al just, essentially, to give them central planning powers which is what we're doing now. we're seeing the administrative state take over more and more aspects of our lives because left to our own devices, we will destroy the planet. we need the guideing hand of ph.d. and bureaucrats to tell us how to live so the earth doesn't die, and that's what they're asking us to do under the green new deal, give up our
11:12 am
freedom. >> host: marc moran know, what's your background that you can report and know about this? >> guest: good question. i'm not a scientist, but i play one on tv. my background is investigative reporting. i approach the climate energy issue as an investigative journalist. i cut my teeth, if you will, back in the '90s investigating the amazon rain forest scare. prior to global warming becoming the front and center environmental issue, we had sting's rain forest concert, national geographic, all these school children involved in saving the rain fressments i went down to brazil, i actually had footage of them screaming the curse words that it was nonsense, all the claims that people were being told in the '90s about the rain forests. they were telling us how many football fields a minute. a few years after that, 2006-7, "the new york times" admitted people are generally leaving the slash and burn agriculture,
11:13 am
moving to cities, moving to suburbs, and they're leaving the jungles back to the jungle. and forestry practices have increased -- improved dramatically. they now can do what you call sustainable forestry where instead of clear cutting, they can cut little swaths of land and within seven years, you can't distinguish from where a forest has been cut. that's the kind of stuff i did, and that led me to the climate issue, and i worked in the u.s. senate environment and public works committee. and one of the things i did was collect the names of hundreds of scientists and statement ise from around the world and issued a report to the environment and public works committee in 2007 about 400 defending scientists which then grew to 700, then grew over to 1,000, dissenting the idea that we face manmade climate crisis. >> host: climate, what's that? >> guest: that's my daily news, information site on climate, energy and the environment. it's your one-stop shopping to
11:14 am
get balance from what you might see on cnn and abc, nbc, new york times, washington post. the media on this has been shameful, the mainstream media. they look at it a they are advocates for the climate cause. we now know they won't even have a scientist who dissents from the narrative on their show. the l.a. times has said they won't even print letters to the editor from what they call climate deniers. scott pelley announced he wouldn't interview a climate denier for the same reason he wouldn't interview a holocaust denier. that's the reason it's so necessary, because i provide you th information the media willfully and preplanned just censors and completely write out. they won't even let you know that we have nobel prize-winning scientists who have turned against the u.n. screaming from the rafters that we not only don't face a climate emergency, that all of these so-called
11:15 am
solutions would have no impact not only on the climate, but on emissions, and they would have massive side effects to society that people aren't even aware of. and i will end with this point, one of the reasons the -- movement has become so big, climate activists went after kids because they're more gullible. and that's why you have high school kids now skipping school and we have the greta thunberg phenomenon, and i have a whole chapter developed to that. it's a corporate children's crusade with big money, and they have kids now suing not only our federal government, the united states, but the europeans, e.u. in order to assure a healthy climate for the future, they're suing to make sure the government comes in and shuts down fossil fuel energy. we demonize the life blood of modern civilization. keep in mind the people funding this whether it's jeff bezos or richard branson is, they're off not following my of this or bill
11:16 am
gates who is one of the biggest climate activists is bidding on one of the world's largest private jet transport companies. it's not going to affect them at all, and i get into that in the book as well. this is a system where the people in charge aren't going to have their lives affected. this is going to affect what we call the masses. the green new deal is going to repress the absolute masses. we have people declaring that in clate emergency they want to morph of from covid lockdowns to climate lockdowns. we have the international energy agency report proposing climate lockdowns where people are going to have less freedom of movement so we can reduce emissions. we have a planned recession movement if because they reduce emissions. this is why all the major environmentalists praised the covid lockdowns. there's actually a movement now, and i detail this in the book,
11:17 am
in academia where i think want to add climate change as the a cause of death so we can start getting the toll from climate change will be much greater than covid-19. they want to have climate change daily, monthly, annual death tos so they can gin up more political action. we are being cobbed by a -- conned by a political movement wrapping itself in science, and that is what my book is all about, and that's why it's worse than you actually think. >> host: marc moran know, what do you think of the term climate changeenier, and do you consider yourself one? >> guest: you know, i jokingly will say, oh, yes, i'm a climate denier. no, the term actually -- and i actually quoted in my previous book which is more an overview on climate science, i've quoted climate sciences who were offended by this. roger pill key jr. actually said this is a horrible term to use because it connotates directly to holocaust denier: they're
11:18 am
equating somebody who doesn't accept the view that mankind is driving a climate crisis as a hold denier. it's a way to silence people, same way the 97% claim d i actually show in thisook that even lead authors from the climate panel at the united nations say these numbers are pulled from thin air. there's no basis in the statistics from the studies that try to cite it. and climate deniers are meant to silence everyone, they bring up climate deniers as a way to mirror you as some sort of holocaust denier so you're not welcome in polite society, and you're not legitimate. you're like the evil holocaust deniers. that's the way they use climate denier. >> host: let's go back to where we started. all-encompassing transformation of society. you said that this would affect health care. how so?
11:19 am
>> guest: well, part of the green new deal they're talking all about health care, access to health care, it's all about equity. we have a transportation bill recently which is being implemented now in the biden administration which is only 5, maybe 10% traditional infrastructure. but it's all now dealing with everything from everyone's access to health care, equity to housing, it's an assault on traditional suburbs. they want the bring in -- to bring in, you know, much denser housing in the suburbs. on every aspect of our life, this is essentially goes back -- and i detail this in the book, goes back to the united nations' sustainable agenda which came out of the real earth summit actually born in the 1970s. george h.w. bush, the first george bush president, 1992, got us onto this whole path. and the sustainable development essentially means it's going to controrol every aspect of yr life. it's going to have bureaucratic planners saying you can't to this, you can't do that, this
11:20 am
part -- we have presidential candidates now saying a moratorium on new home building unless they're sustainably built. and we have, again, when i mentioned these climate lockdowns, the climate lockdowns which they're talking about, it's literally marrying a covid lockdown -- mirroring, and it's all about economics as well. so one of the things i mentioned in 1972 george mcgovern ran for president supporting a universal basic income. that would have helped with health care and other things, that was their goal was to help those. but even democrats didn't support that. and what happened was george mcgovern lost in the largest land slide election. well, fast forward. because of the covid lockdowns and n the representation of economic growth, we now have -- repression of economic growth, we now i have government starting a universal basic income because they collapsed the economy with covid are lockdowns, they want to keep them collapsed with climate lockdowns, and we're already seeing, well, because of all the
11:21 am
pain and suffering people have done due to government policies and lockdowns and now climate restrictions, we're who going to have to give them better access, provide free health care, free state tuition, free housing, free transportation. this is all embedded in the green new deal, and i go through a chapter called the details of the deal, and it's amazing how much of the green new deal is nothing about environment or climate. >> host: what do you think about a carbon tax? >> guest: that's funny. [laughter] a carbon tax is a quaint notion -- a joke with, 2006 when al gore's film came out, we just celebrated the 15th anniversary. and and i'm not going to say anything about al gore, but i'll actually compliment him. carbon taxes, capp and trade, these were on -- cap and trade, these were on the table as solutions. al gore talked about to polar bears, extreme weather, these were all metrics people
11:22 am
understood. and by the way, polar bears are disappearing from al gore's books and movies because in the sequel in 2017, polar bears aren't mentionerred, and a simple reason, they've never counted this many. his predictedded polar bear apocalypse never happened. but essentially, the carbon t, to go back to the answer here, that was a quaint, old solution. nowadays the whole climate movement has gone completelyback i key. back d wacky. we now look at airline turbulence, how many redheaded kids we have, all kinds of wacky metrics, and solutions now are end white supremacy, defund the police, green new deal architects who want to abolish the police during the height of the george floyd/blm riots. that's how the climate has change. to answer your question directly, and i put in the book, carbon taxes increase missions,
11:23 am
period. when you put carbon taxes on the united states, canada, western europe, developed industrial economies, all you're going to do is offshore znergy development to countries that don't have the same environmental standards and political safeguards and freedom that we have here, in europe, the uned states and canada. so all that's going to happen i the more we we shut down and restrict our energy production, it just means china, africa, asia, south america if, all of them are going to pick up the slack,nd they're not going to have to tim technological advancements -- same technological advancements. i make the points, since 1970 the u.s. has radically improved air, water quality, and at the same time we've radically increased our population and economic growth. and we've done this through the magic of technological innovation. and i actually have a section in the book that shows you, i think it was 2011, the energy
11:24 am
information agency did all these predictions of the next decade. they bombed out on every single one. they didn't foresee the fracking revolution that was going to take natural gas fracking and replace coal which would make the united states, a country that rejected carbon taxes and rejected the -- we never actually followed the u.n. paris agreement, but we didn't follow kyoto, copenhagen, we never signed on to this. we led the world in reducing co2 emissions because of our transfer that no one foresaw. all the energy experts couldn't foresee it. so my answer to you is simple, it's not carbon taxes. if we face a climate energy, if we face a climate crisis, we would do the opposite of what they're propoagz. we would not want a green new deal, regulatory top-down proposal that was going to restrict freedom, make us do with less.
11:25 am
we would actually want economic growth, technological advancement, we would want innovation, we would want ways like we've done in the last ten years with unforeseen ways like fracking, and we're on a path to all this. we want breakthroughs in solar are, wind and other technologies. but the problem is you can't ban an energy that's proven, fossil fuels, and then mandate solar, wind that's not ready for prime time, and it's not. and i point out in the book that less than 4%f the united states energy proction is solar and wind combined. 80 plus percent is fossil fuels in the united states, 80 plus percent is fossil fuels in the global energy production. so the green new deal not magically wave a wand, and we're not going to have, you know, net zero in the next dade. it's all if we do get to net zero, it's going to be accounting tricks and some kind of indulgences, some kind of offsets and nonsense that companies do, companies like apple which which claim they're carbon neutral now.
11:26 am
we've had towns in texas claim the same thing. so that's the bottom line. if we did face an emergency, which we don't, but we would do the opposite of what the green new deal proposes. >> host: has fracking led to earthquakes and environmental damage? >> guest: yeah, the short answer to your question is, yes. there are more earthquakes due to fracking, but they're tiny, small earthquakes. they're hard to even notice without equipment or slight rumbles. i haven't seen evidence and they're still investigating, if there's any evidence they would do actual harm but, yes, there is evidence they create a bunch of tiny elle quakes. -- earthquakes. they're still investigating, and i haven't shown any anything that shows that's a huge deal. again, it's benefit analysis. does giving the united states energy dominance and the earth quakes, i think, are more of a media scare a tactic.
11:27 am
yes, they're measuring more little rumbles and quakes, but we're not seeing the san francisco earthquake of 1900 or anything on that level anything to do with fracking. this is part of -- a guy named jo fox did a film yrs ago on fracking and tried to claim it was causing flames to come out of water from the methane, and it turned out this has been happening for a century or more, the documented cases, and this is just one of the things people try to do to scare you on that. but it was worth study, and it is something to be aware of. >> host: back around the turn of the century we were talking about the ozone hole over the antarctic. what's the discuss of that in. >> guest: ozone hole is an interesting topic. i don't get into that in "green fraud," but essentially what it is, people thought it was directly related to cfts in the atmosphere from air conditioners and other things so they tried to do an international treaty, the montreal protocol, they banned that.
11:28 am
and it seems to have turned out that the hole sort of grows and shifts and expands unrelated to that at this point. it's unclear even to me and i think a lot of scientists. you'll find advocates on both sides, but that's still an unclear question. but i don't think it's as simple as the story we were told back in the 1990s that if we changed over all our air conditioners,hanged over the refrigerators, we'll be able to solve the ozone hole problem and move on. it earlily ever -- rarely ever does. you're more likely to solve something like -- you can't leapt climate to compare the two issues. >> host: and finally, marc morano, what's your take on the move into electric vehicles and less combustion engines in. >> guest: good question because i actually, i try finish it's an important distinction to make here. i'm not against solar and wind and electric cars.
11:29 am
i don't think you should be. technological breakthroughs would make them feasible and uks retire, you know, you could retire fossil fuels someday. but what i say is you don't mandate 'em this. so the answer -- mandate them. so to answer your question on electric cars, the problem we're having is due to gernment policy, they're making people -- they're essentially trying to ban the american suv internal combustion engine and mandate that you start getting electric cars. people don't like to be forced to do anything. if we want an electric car, dazzle us. show us great power, great range on the car. show us all these great consumer things. what they've done now is corporate average fuel economy, they're making the americanuv statutorily dead because 52.5 miles per hour is statutorily coming up, you're going to make it so that the suv is no longer going to be a feasible thing for automakers to make, so you're
11:30 am
taking that away and telling people they have to drive an electric car. the aforementioned problem with electric cars is that it relies on rare earth mining from china. this is going to be electric car mandates are going to be nothing but empowering china. it's going to be a national security threat to the united statesecause we're going to be relying on china for all these rare earth mining which china has a virtual monopoly on both in china and in africa. so this is a problem with it. but aside from that, you know, americans don't want to be forced to buy it. so electric cars have a long way to go, and the other problem with this, of course, is massive federal subsidies. people like elon musk are billionaires not so much because, you know, he's a great capitalist. it's not a capitalism, i think, most people wanted to learn about in school. s this is about government, corporate, lobbying capitalists and that's where people like elon musk and even jeff bezos as
11:31 am
they go into the space flights, these are not capitalists. these are people who know how to lobby the government and lobby and get monopolies and get control. and that's part of why i think the average person sees, they see these electric cars being shoved town their throat. yeah, i'm not opposed to electric cars, and i don't think many people are in that sense, but if they're forced on us and suvs and big trucks, we have a guy that wants to ban the sale of pickup trucks. it's a canadian publication that's called for this. this goes on the heels of banning private car ownership by climate activists in reports. so people are weary of all these mandates. so they're going to make the electric car the enemy of the population because people think that the electric car's going to be forced upon them, and they're probably right if they think that. >> host: in his book "green fraud: why the green new deal is even worse than you think," author marc morano describes it
11:32 am
as the ultimate wish list of the progressive environmental i general da and an all-encompassing transformation of society. he has been our guest from the annual freedom fest libertarian convention in rapid city, south dakota. ♪ >> weekends we bring you the in american history and nonfiction books. on booktv senate minority leader mitch mcconnell shares what's on his reading list. also author discussions on afghanistan including wesley morgan with his book, "the hardest place." national security analyst peter bergin talks about his book, "the rise and fall of osama bin laden." and from freedom fest, scott horton arguings that the war on terror has been counterproductive and too costly to continue in his book, "enough already: time to end the war on terrorism." watch booktv every weekend and find a full schedule on your program guide or watch online
11:33 am
anytime at ♪ >> here's a look at some publishing industry news. hash chet book group is acquiring workman publishing. that -- hachette will pay $140 million. this continues the trend of consolidation that includes the recently-announced mergers of penguin random house and simon n and -- simon & schuster. publishers weekly reports on the abundance of books about former president trump that have been released or are forthcoming. carol eleven ig and phillip rutgers i alone can fix it has been the best selling with close to 139,000 copies sold. however, it lags behind books from last year such as mary trtrump's too much and never
11:34 am
enough that has sold over 1.2 million copies and john bolton's the room where it happened with 679,000 copies sold. one of the soon to be released books about donald trump is bob woodward's third on the 45th president. this week it was announced the ok will be titled peril, and it will cover the transitional period between the trump and biden administrations. the book, cowritten with mr. woodward's washington post colleague robert costa, is drawn from over 200 interviews and 6,000 pages of transcripts. it will be released on september 21st. also in the news according to npd book scan, print book sales were down 8% for the week ending principle august 7th -- you can watch all of our past proams anytime at >> in our weekly author interview program "after words,"
11:35 am
retired lieutenant colonel wayne phelps. offered his views on drone warfare. >> guest: so one of the biggest changes that we have seen with the employment of our own drones is that lethal transition occurs on almost a daily basis. particularly within the airports where they're flying remotely-piloted aircraft mother las vegas. so that mental transition occurs, you wake up at your house in the morning, and then you drive to work, you basically commute the combat, and you'll y a, you know, a combat mission on the other side of the planet. you might have a strike, you know, during that period of time, and then you're mentally transitioning yourself to return home at the end of thehe day. so a lot of the people that i interviewed talked about strange
11:36 am
feeling that they often refer the as deployed in garrison where you're conducting combat operations from home, and you're doing these transitions on a daily basis, sometimes working 12, 14-hour shifts. several,everal days a week. soso you have these strange, strange periods of work where you're mentally deployed but you're physically till in the united states. -- still in the united states. you may have conducted a strike at some period in your mission, and you may be home in time for dinner with your family or is seeing, you know, a soccer game or picking up milk from the store or something like that, right? it's unlike anything that most traditional warriors have ever experienced in the past.
11:37 am
that's just, i think that's biggest change in the psychology of how these warriors are actually fighting. >> watch the rest of this program online at click the "after words" tab the find this and all previous episodes. >> good afternoon and welcome, everybody, to this afternoon's program at the commonwealth club. my name is robert rosenthal, and i'm a board member and longtime journali, and i'm now a board member at the center for investigative reporting. earlier in my career i did work in philadelphia, and we were not in the same newspaper, but we certainly just reminisced about some places we loved in philly, including cheesesteaks. without julie's really heroic journalistic efforts at the miami heral we may never have knowning what wknow today about jeffrey epstein. and while, of course, much remains a mystery about epstein, we know more about his victims and the


info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on