Jon Stewart’s podcast “The Weekly Show” podcast featured former Obama speechwriter and current “Pod Save America” co-host Jon Lovett, who used the show to admit what should cause the Democratic Party and its supporters to apologize, throw themselves on the mercy of voters and engage in a sweeping ethics reform since, you know, the party betrayed America. (It won’t, though, so it’s futile even to hope for that appropriate response.)
During a discussion of Biden’s fitness for office, Lovett spat out too many inarticulate “Unethical Quotes of the Week” to clean up, collect and enumerate, but the meaning was damning anyway. He recalled how Biden appeared in April 2024: “He was rambling, and he was hard to follow, and he repeated a story.”
“And, you know, I— I think people inside maybe weren’t being honest with themselves about what they were seeing,” he said. This is the “group think” excuse that the party’s consultants apparently worked out in a bunker somewhere and circulated around the Axis. I’m guessing it beat out the “Dr. Jill hypnotized everyone with her laser eyes” narrative. Lovett continued, “But I know if, like, from my own point of view, part of what was a challenge was because Joe Biden seemed so hellbent on staying in, right? I never wanted to be dishonest about what I felt we were seeing.”
He didn’t want to be dishonest; he just was, poor guy. The Democrats simply cannot be allowed to escape accountability for this.
At the now infamous George Clooney fundraiser, Lovett says, it was clear to all that Biden had no business being President. “I remember feeling, ‘I wanna talk about this as a huge liability, I wanna talk about this as something Joe Biden can overcome.’ But I’m not gonna go so far as to say, ‘I think Joe Biden must drop out—He is too old to be president.’” Lovett explained. “If Joe Biden is the candidate, I want him to fucking win because I care about the country.”
He cares so much about the country that he’s willing to re-elect a disabled President who can’t do the job. That’s not “caring about the country.” That’s caring about keeping power in defiance of the Constitution and democracy.
I suppose I’m obsessing about this lately, but everybody should be obsessing about it. Democrats did this for four years, the news media let them do it, and there have to be consequences.
Ethics Alarms 
Sorry but in my haste to clear my computer I erased the responses concerning the Judges opinion and sentencing of the gentleman that received the manslaughter charge and the use of AI of the voice and video of the deceased. The following attachment is the interview with the family member of how the video and voice was created and how the judge made his ruling.
https://www.komando.com/episode/ai-lets-slain-man-confront-his-killer-may-24th-hour-2/
In the discussion between the family member and Kim Komando, to me there were points brought out and purposely left out by the family member creating the AI Video to distract the judge and jurors purposely. The AI creation to me seems to have purposely evoked distortion of facts when it would be time to make a judgement.
The family members spouse creates AI/videos professionally for business etc. Businesses often have videos to create emotional impact of the business view only for a certain outcome and distort actual findings /not reality.
The voice in the video is of someone/Chris at a younger age which can create emotion.
Chris at some point and maybe still was involved and having PSTD issues from serving in the military. Did Chris have anger issues as well he was dealing with at the time of his death? How many of the 40 people remembering Chris was part of his PSTD group because they would be dealing with possible anger issues as well.
If I am correct, Chris got out of his vehicle and approached the vehicle that was involved in the road rage and asked if the driver wanted to start something. In what voice tone did Chris use?
When someone passes often humans will remember the individual in only a loving manner and letting go issues created or had that were troublesome.
The fact remains that Chris’s words and emotions were false/not reality.
While the individual sent to prison was convicted, would there been a different judgement sat by the judge if real evidence was only allowed throughout the trial? The judges’ reactions were obviously wrapped up in deep emotions created and not of Chris himself.
I worry this is setting a dangerous precedence to allow in trials.
https://www.komando.com/episode/ai-lets-slain-man-confront-his-killer-may-24th-hour-2/
Thank you for your time.
Since rewatching “Cat on A Hot Tin Roof” I an finding much use for Burl Ive’s line, “I smell Mendacity here!”
I am tired of the “we only lied to save Democracy” nonsense. I’m also tired of them using age as a euphemism for senility.
Maybe we can take comfort in the fact the Dem party is in shambles. Their leaders are either too young or too old. Traditional print and broadcast media are in disarray and have vanishing influence. The party and media will never apologize but they may be going the way of the dodo bird.
just saw the clip and was relieved to realize Jon Lovett was not a typo of Jon Lovitz.
-Jut
Oh ye of little faith!