The Daily Signal - #456: US, Russia Vie Over the Future of Venezuela

Episode Date: May 8, 2019

The crisis in Venezuela is only getting worse by the week. And with Russian backing, it looks less likely that dictator Nicolas Maduro will step aside. Ana Quintana of The Heritage Foundation explains what's at stake, and what's going on. We also cover these stories:•Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell says it's "case closed" when it comes to the Mueller report. •Georgia Governor Brian Kemp signs a bill that bans abortions after an unborn child has a heartbeat.•A Pennsylvania Democratic lawmaker taunts pro-lifers in videos shot outside Planned Parenthood.The Daily Signal podcast is available on Ricochet, iTunes, SoundCloud, Google Play, or Stitcher. All of our podcasts can be found at DailySignal.com/podcasts. If you like what you hear, please leave a review. You can also leave us a message at 202-608-6205 or write us at [e-mail]. Enjoy the show! Hosted on Acast. See acast.com/privacy for more information. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

Snap up Ancestry DNA's lowest price ever in our incredible cyber sale. With 50% off Ancestry DNA kits, it's the perfect time to help a loved one unwrap the past. And with their latest update, they'll discover their family origins like never before. With even more precise regions and new and exclusive features, their best gift, our lowest price. 50% off Ancestry DNA, only until December 2nd. Visit Ancestry.ca for more details. Terms apply. This is the Daily Signal podcast for Wednesday, May 8th.

I'm Kate Trinco. And I'm Daniel Davis. The crisis in Venezuela is only getting worse by the week. And with Russian and Cuban backing, it looks less likely that dictator Nicholas Maduro will step aside. Today, we'll talk to Anna Kintana of the Heritage Foundation to get a read on what's happening in Venezuela. Plus, the long-awaited Ted Bundy movie is out. Our team will give some analysis. By the way, if you're enjoying this podcast, please consider leaving a review or a five-star rating on iTunes

and please subscribe. Now on to our top news. Well, Georgia's governor, Brian Kemp, signed a bill on Tuesday banning abortion after the doctor can detect a heartbeat. That makes abortion illegal in the state as early as six weeks into pregnancy. It makes Georgia the fourth state this year to sign such a bill. Others include Ohio, Mississippi, and Kentucky, though the Kentucky bill was temporarily blocked by a judge. These state efforts could end up provoking a lawsuit that could lead to a third. the Supreme Court reconsidering Roe v. Wade, and that's the hope of some pro-life activists. As for Georgia, the state ACLU chapter says it plans to sue.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell thinks it's time that everyone stopped fixating on Russia and Trump, given the findings of the Mueller investigation. Two years of exhaustive investigation and nothing to establish the fanciful conspiracy theory that Democratic politicians and TV talking heads had treated like a foregone. conclusion. They told everyone there had been a conspiracy between Russia and the Trump campaign. Yet on this central question, the special counsel's finding is clear. Case closed. Case closed. This ought to be good news for everyone. But my Democratic colleagues seem to be publicly working through the five stages of grief. And speaking of those Democrats, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi

made it clear she has no interest in taking McConnell's advice. When the floor of the Senate, Senator McConnell is reported to be saying, doesn't matter to hear from Mueller, case closed. Case closed. No, I don't think so. I don't think so. Well, some Democrats have the knives out to impeach President Trump, but Speaker Nancy Pelosi is being a lot more cautious. At an event in New York City hosted by Cornell University, Pelosi filled the audience in on why she's not going for impeachment.

Trump is goading us to impeach him. That's what he's doing. Every single day he's just like taunting, taunting, taunting, because he knows that it would be very divisive in the country, but he doesn't really care, just wants to solidify his base. That might have been too political, so, you know, criticize me for that. But that's what it is. So we can't impeach him for political reasons,

and we can't not impeach him for political reasons. But we have to see where the facts take us. Just want to say the side note that strikes me that Pelosi is doing victim blaming there, saying that it's Trump's fault that he's being considered impeachable. And I thought that wasn't cool on the left. Anyway, back to our regular news. FBI director Christopher Ray was asked

during a congressional hearing Tuesday about Attorney General William Barr's use of the word spying in questioning from New Hampshire Democratic Senator Gene Shaheen. I'd like to follow up on Senator Moran's question about the hearing we had with Attorney General Barr because I was very concerned by his use

of the word spying, which I think is a very loaded word. It conjures a criminal connotation. And I want to ask you, and I'd appreciate a yes or no, answer if possible. When FBI agents conduct investigations against alleged mobsters, suspected terrorists, other criminals, do you believe that they're engaging in spying when they're following FBI investigative policies and procedures? Well, that's not the term I would use. Thank you. So I would say that's a no to that question. Well, I mean, look, there are lots of people have different colloquial phrases. I believe that the

FBI is engaged in investigative activity and part of investigative activity includes surveillance activity of different shapes and sizes. And to me, the key question is making sure that it's done by the book consistent with our lawful authorities. That's the key question. Different people use different colloquial phrases. However, whatever the word, Ray doesn't seem to be disputing that the FBI did monitor and watch the Trump campaign, as Barr said. Well, former White House counsel, Don McGahn, has refused to comply with a congressional subpoena after being ordered by the White House to disregard it. The House Judiciary Committee had subpoenaed McGahn for documents relating to special counsel Robert Mueller's investigation. Those documents were due on Tuesday, but current White

House counsel Pat Kippelone says that they were only given to McGahn with the understanding that they remain subject to White House control. The House Judiciary Committee is investigating possible obstruction of justice, even though Mueller didn't conclude there was any. Two videos by a Pennsylvania state representative and Democrat, Brian Sims, show him harassing pro-lifers at a Planned Parenthood. Hi, everyone. Representative Brian Sims here, and I'm once again out in front of Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania. It's not only in my district, it's the most heavily protested Planned Parenthood. I believe in the country, and today's protester. Now,

she is an old white lady who's going to try to avoid showing you her face. But the same laws, luckily, that protect her from being out here also protect me from showing you who she is. And so my hope is, is that you'll donate $100 for every extra hour that this woman is out here, telling people what's right for their bodies. So I have a couple questions for you, ma'am. How many children have you clothed today? I'm sorry, I missed your answer. How many children have you clothes today? How about how many children have you put shoes on their feet today? And here's another Sims video where there are three young women present and they appear to be teenagers.

Hi everyone. Representative Brian Sims here and I am outside the Planned Parenthood at southeastern Pennsylvania. Oh, no, they're leaving now. What we've got here is a bunch of protesters, a bunch of pseudo-Christian protesters who've been out here shaming young girls for being here. And so here's the deal. I've got a hundred to anybody who will identify any of these three. So I'm going to donate to Planned Parenthood. I'm going to donate to Planned Parenthood. So look, a bunch of white people standing out in front of a Planned Parenthood.

Shaming people. There's nothing Christian about what you're doing. Nothing Christian at all about what you're doing. Nine, nothing Christian or loving or godly about what you're doing. So I've got $100 to anybody who will identify. $100. See if you've got some friends out here. $100.

It'd be easier if you'd just give me your name and your address. Now Sims is kind of sort of apologizing. I was a neighbor and a concerned citizen, and I was aggressive. I know that two wrongs don't make a right, and I can do better, and I will do better for the women of Pennsylvania. Well, Tiger Woods made a historic comeback last month, winning his sixth Masters tournament after years of injury and decline. Well, on Monday, President Trump honored that resilience, awarding him the Presidential Medal of Freedom. New people to the sport of golf from every background and from every walk of life. He inspired millions of young Americans with his thrilling wire-to-wire victories.

Tiger Woods is a global symbol of American excellence, devotion, and drive. Next up, we'll talk to Anna Quintana of the Heritage Foundation about the situation in Venezuela. Do conversations about the Supreme Court leave you scratch? your head? If you want to understand what's happening at the court, subscribe to SCOTUS 101, a Heritage Foundation podcast, breaking down the cases, personalities, and gossip at the Supreme Court. Joining us today is Anna Quintana, as senior policy analysts specializing in Latin America at the Heritage Foundation. And she is here to explain to us what's going on in Venezuela and what the U.S. should do. Anna, thanks for joining us.

Thanks for having me. Okay, first off, for those of us who don't have the best memories, walk us through why Juan Guido, not Nicholas Maduro, is the true leader of Venezuela right now and how we got to this mess. Sure. So in May of 2018, Maduro held presidential elections and they were incredibly fraudulent. I mean, the only countries that recognized the results were, you know, Russia, China, Cuba, the Palestinian Authority. I mean, like, barely any countries recognized the results. So back then, dozens of countries said they would not recognize Maduro as a legitimate leader. So fast forward to January 10th, Maduro is supposed to. inauguration day, that is when Juan Guaido became president. Because according to Article 233,

specifically of Venezuela's constitution, if there exists a void in the presidency, if there exists a legitimate void in the executive, the next in the line of succession is the head of the National Assembly. And Juan Guaido was an elected member of the National Assembly, and he was the president of the National Assembly. So we've heard about a lot of violence happening right now, erupting in the streets. I mean, people are protesting. Guido said you know, that he was, what did he call it, his last phase of, you know, revolution against Maduro and the government responded by, like, running people over in the streets. That was last week.

Where do things stand right now? Yeah. So I think, you know, to break down what happened last week. So, you know, last week's events have been interpreted as a huge failure for Guaido. That's not the way I'm looking at it, right? So Guido that day was on Tuesday. LED was trying to lead a military uprising. against Maduro and, you know, people have tried to classify this as a coup. It's not. You can't

lead a coup against somebody who's a usurper who's an illegitimate president. So Guaitho called upon the military to help him essentially pressure Maduro out of power. That did not work, but what ended up happening was it exposed that one, Maduro does not have the full control of the military. He spent 14 hours not appearing on TV and he didn't call upon the military to protect him because it was revealed that his minister of defense was actually conspired. with Guaido against him. Two, he called on the paramilitaries to protect him, which is quite significant. On three, typically when you would see these protests, Maduro would call the military to repress protesters. He called on the paramilitaries to repress the protesters. And you would always see

kind of widespread deaths. That did not happen. And then also Maduro's chief of intelligence defected. That is huge. Imagine all the secrets this man knows. He is the chief of military and domestic intelligence. So yeah, so now the situation is, you know, kind of fast forward to today, Maduro is weak. Maduro is incredibly vulnerable. He's in a situation right now where he's looking to his left and to his right, to his inner circle, wondering who's conspiring behind my back, who's trying to hedge their beds, who's trying to plan for day zero when I'm not around? And frankly, I think there's probably a lot more of them than not. And yeah, so I think why those has a significant advantage right now, but I think we should recognize that it's not inevitable

that Maduro falls, right? He could perpetually stay into power. I mean, look at what happened in Syria with Assad. I remember every, you know, back when like, you know, when at the height of the Syrian Civil War, people said, oh, Assad only has five, six more months. And look how the Russians guided him through this. And that's exactly what the Russians are now doing with Maduro. So tell us more. Why is Russia caring about Venezuela and why are they getting involved? Oh, man. I mean, think about this. If you're the Russian, this is low hanging fruit, right? This is an opportunity for you to stick your thumb in the eye of the United States. It's an opportunity for you to insert yourself in the middle of a conflict and to distract attention away from all the other bad things that you're doing

in Ukraine, in the Middle East and Syria and kind of the other bad things that you want to do elsewhere. And now the Russians have, they've inserted themselves inside of Venezuela and they're essentially a power broker, right? So they can sit down with the United States and they can say, hey, you need my help solving this crisis. This is what I want. I want in exchange for you to leave me alone in Ukraine, for you to let me have Crimea, for you to let me have X, Y, and Z. And it's, And also the Venezuelans owe the Russians a lot of money. There is a lot of money. I think it's like probably close to $10 billion, if I'm not mistaken.

And also for the Russians, it's to their benefit to have such a powerful ally in charge of such a powerful country of Venezuela. Like Venezuela, it's the most oil-rich nation in the entire world. It's a country that's able to project a significant amount of power in Latin America. you know, the Russia-Cuba relationship is always going to exist, but Cuba doesn't have the capacity and the power to project, you know, kind of and to spread influence like it once did. So just to follow up on what you said about, like Russia has a history of propping up dictators, how are we talking military weapons here? Are we talking strategic advice? How when Maduro finds himself in this situation so isolated from, you know, some of his own people, as you discussed, some of his top people, can Russia practically help? I mean, everything that you just stated right there. So Venezuela has been the largest purchaser and recipient of Russian weapons from tanks. I think it's been about 100 tanks, about 5,000, you know, surface to air missiles, manpads.

I mean, it's just been this wide plethora of weapons that the Venezuelans have purchased from the Russians. And you have these, you have dozens, if not hundreds of Russian military advisors inside of Venezuela. You have, you know, the Russians are providing the Venezuelans with political advice. I mean, it's, you know, there's such an, there's an outsized value that the Russians of the Russia's contributions to Maduro right now, regardless of how weak he is. You know, because he's incredibly weak. He has nobody around him that he can trust, but he does have the Russians. And for the Russians right now, Maduro knows that he is protected because right now he's internationalized this conflict. He has now made this a conflict between Russia and the U.S.

United States. And he knows by raising these stakes and not just making it something between, you know, he himself, this, you know, South American dictator, he is now able to project a lot more power. So Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and the president have spoken, you know, pretty strongly against what Russia is doing and Cuba. But what are they, at the end of the day, what do they do? What can they do to stop cut off Russia's influence, you know, apart from, like you were saying, you know, conceding stuff in Eastern Europe? Yeah, no, they definitely shouldn't sit down on a negotiating table with the Russians and concede anything, nor with the Cubans. I definitely think, one, they definitely, they need to sit down and talk with the Cubans and the

Russians. But I think this is a time to make them pay a cost. Like, they cannot get away with what they have been doing inside of Venezuela, with what they have, with what they've continued to do for God knows how many years. I mean, this is an opportunity right now to look at visa and travel restrictions against like Russian oligarchs, right? I mean, to hit them financially where it hurts because that's where these guys respond. These guys don't respond to diplomatic statements and, you know, to condemnation and all these things. They don't care about that for them.

They actually fundraise and make money off of that. It makes them look good when the United States attacks them, frankly. And on the Cuba side of things, I think that's where the administration has been incredibly tough by implementing all these, you know, this host of target of sectoral sanctions and opening Cuba up to the possibility of being sued by American companies. But frankly, I think it's very difficult for. the United States to do a lot of this when our European partners aren't being helpful. So Secretary of State Mike Pompeo didn't rule out military action. Do you think there's any

chance of Venezuela could be the next Iraq or Afghanistan? So my perspective on the statements on military action are, you know, the regime of Nicholas Maduro, this is not a regime of politicians, right? This is a regime of thugs and you don't speak to them in, you know, statesmen like diplomatic terms, you talk to them like thugs and you scare them like thugs. And I think that's kind of, you know, we should be scaring these guys, right? We should scare them out of power. That being said, I think at this juncture, at this point, any sort of military intervention would have the complete opposite adverse effect. It would be the absolute worst thing this administration could do. I mean, there's, you know, there's some ideas that have been floated around

tactical precision strike to take out key military installations. That would be stupid because that would draw the United States into this long-term peacekeeping operation. And then on the other side, a ground invasion, the same thing. It would also draw the United States to a long-term peacekeeping operation. And then there's a humanitarian fallout. I mean, there's all sorts of things that I think just make there's little to be gained and so much more to be lost. And we've seen it in Libya.

We've seen it in so many other countries where we think we can take a dictator out quickly, militarily, and it just devolves into such an even bigger mess. And you can't have a UN force. in there, right? Because Russia is on the Security Council and so they would veto everything. Then that's the other challenge, right? Russia's on the UN. Once again, highlighting the uselessness of the Security Council. I mean, it just, it highlights the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the, the ridiculousness of much of the UN system, right? That it gives this outsized influence to countries like Russia and China that just don't have a serious, you know, humanitarian bone in their body now. So recently, we, we've got to get your comment on this, uh, representative, uh, Ilan Omar. made a comment about Venezuela on, she told Democracy Now, quote,

a lot of the policies that we have put in place has kind of helped lead the devastation in Venezuela. And we've sort of set the stage for where we're arriving today, end quote. And quote, this particular bullying and the use of sanctions to eventually intervene and make regime change really does not help the people of countries like Venezuela. And it certainly does not help and is not in the interest of the United States. Thoughts. It's like there's this like boilerplate quotes from like that all the progressives use to criticize anything that the United States does when they have no concept of what

exactly is happening. Right. U.S. sanctions have largely been against corrupt Venezuelan government officials for humanitarian reasons. They have been to cut off the financial access for these regime officials to make money and to stop them from drug trafficking. Right.

One of the sanctions was against then vice president, Terika Lassami, who was found to be a drug trafficker along with Los Etaas, and they've discovered over $500 million of drug trafficking related assets in the United States. I don't understand how seizing $500 million of narcotics-related assets that were trafficked with Losetas hurts the Venezuelan people. I mean, she has no idea what she's talking about. So speaking of the Venezuelan people, how are they faring right now? Are there food shortages?

Are they facing violence? What is life like in Venezuela right now? And what about that electricity outages that still has? happening too. I mean, the electricity outages are horrible, right? So consider just how much the regime has destroyed the country. Venezuela is the most oil rich nation in the entire world. This is a country that literally used to produce about 3.5, 3.6 million barrels of oil per day. It would have, it would be able to, it had enough oil to export and to use for its own domestic consumption. It's now producing about 900,000 barrels of oil per day. It's gone down fourfold in the last

10 years, and half of that oil is used to service external debt. So Venezuela is in a position right now where it's importing refined oil for its own internal consumption, so which is just an absolute, just mind-boggling to consider that this is a country that has the most oil resources. And so these electricity shortages are a consequence of just not investing in the energy infrastructure. They just did not care. The regime has stolen so much money. They've used the oil industry as like a slush fund for like party loyalist. And, you know, for the average Venezuelan, I mean, it's estimated that 90% of people live in poverty. About five million Venezuelans are going to leave the country by the end of this year. Venezuela migrants and

refugees are scattered all throughout Latin America. There's about two million right now in Colombia. I mean, the situation is bad. It is a dire, dire humanitarian catastrophe. And the worst part is it's a man-made crisis. Well, Anna Cantana, as always, we appreciate your expertise. We'll be watching the situation unfold. Thank you. No, thank you, guys. Do you have an opinion that you'd like to share? Leave us a voicemail at 202-608-6205 or email us at letters at daily signal.com. Yours could be featured on the Daily Signal podcast. Okay, for our second segment, we essentially have a panel to discuss the new Netflix movie about Ted Bundy, the serial killer, of course. It's called

called extremely wicked, shockingly evil and vile. Joining us is Tim Desher, who works at Coalitions at the Heritage Foundation, reporter and podcast hosts Rachel Del Judas, and podcast producer and problematic women host. And guys, I laugh because she just started like basically applauding for herself. So that's why. But anyway, her name is Lauren Evans and she does not have a self-esteem problem. Anyway.

So, guys, unlike me, all of you have seen it, and also, I should say unlike Daniel, who once again had to step out of the room because he was afraid of spoilers to a movie about a character who died 30 years ago. He should really man up. We know what happens. All right. Tim, what was your take on the movie? Look, I have followed this story ever since my parents showed me the final interview that he did with Dr. Dobson right before. he was executed. Wait, James Dobson, interview.

Yeah, I didn't know that happened. Focus on the family had the very final interview. He wanted. Ted Bundy wanted Dobson. He actually asked for him specifically. And so he came in and, I mean, this thing is incredible. I think you can find it on YouTube and go watch it. But he essentially used it as an opportunity to say that my addiction to pornography led to this.

Wait, but did Bundy allege that he had changed his life and repented or? anything? He, yes, he hinted to that, yes, in the final. He hinted. Yes. I believe he did. Yeah. Yeah. It was very, very compelling because you're sitting on the edge of, do I really know, is he really telling the truth or is this just a giant manipulation like everything else was? So, very crazy. So anti-porn crusader, Ted Bundy. Okay, so you've been following it for a long time. Sorry, this really threw me, guys. Okay, what did you think of the movie? And the documentary that was released on Netflix right before this. Believe it or not, I thought that you probably will get more out of watching that than you would out of this movie. I thought that this movie missed many opportunities to show how

extremely wicked, you know, vile, shockingly vile, evil, however they say it. I thought that they missed that. I walked away, you know, not sure if I'm supposed to like this guy or if I'm supposed to see him as the disgusting serial killer that he was. You know, you kind of, I think think they missed opportunities to display that. And that's what the documentary that you can watch on Netflix, that's what they were able to do in that. Tim, I have to agree, because when I was watching it, I kept waiting for them to actually, like, get into some of the details

and, like, tell the stories of the women that he had killed and also just show a little bit behind his thought process why he was doing this, what was happening. And I know that the film was portrayed through his girlfriend's eyes, Elizabeth Kendall, but it didn't even come across that way. I mean, that's what a lot of coverage says about the film, but it was almost like they're telling their story and how they met and, you know, their life together, they lived together, and then Elizabeth's daughter and how he was good to her. But it's not until the end of the movie that you start to see,

actually some of the gruesome details of the women he had murdered, like those details come out. And it was more just about like him as a person in their relationship. And it was like, like you said, Tim, am I supposed to like this person or am I supposed to be like, you know, incredibly incensed at what he did. Well, I think they did that on purpose. They wanted you to kind of like him. They wanted you to see how easy it is to be manipulated by this psychopath. He was literally killing people and then going home to his pretty much wife and pretty much daughter. Like, I think Zach Efron did a really good job of being this smiley, kind of like nice guy. And then he did so many like little facets of you of insanity throughout the movie yeah but that's not all he

again though that's not all he was i mean a majority of him was evil and i think that they went too far on the how nice was they could have at least taken a moment to maybe show a flashback scene of of you know a mental process of him maybe transitioning from this loving boyfriend and then you know the switch flipping and showing him go through this process of, no, I'm going to go lure women away and murder them. There wasn't any of that. There was none of that. It just went from him being nice to a scene of him in prison, essentially.

And it really didn't also, and I mean, it could have been on purpose. They were trying to show how he could come across as so normal. But apparently he did at one point consider murdering his girlfriend. He had, like, closed the trap of the chimney and then put like a rug under the door so that she would suffocate. and she ended up waking up that night coughing. I think she said she had been drunk, but she remembered waking up and not being able to breathe. And if they were telling it through her eyes,

I feel like they should have included some of those details just to give a complete full picture of how he was. No, I think that I agree with you, though, that Ephron probably isn't the one that you should blame. Zach Ephron is the one that played Ted Bundy. So you know he's got great muscles and abs, which is a Zach Ephron trait. And so, you know, really, really good-looking guy playing a guy who was told, you know, told to be super good-looking and charming.

So you had that guy playing him. But at the same time, you know, I think that that might be a directing thing, not an Ephron thing. Well, so one other thing I just wanted to ask all of you is this seems to be part of, you know, a resurgent interest in true crime. And I listen to some true crime podcasts, but there's more and more true crime documentaries and movies. And, you know, opinions are very mixed on these. Like, is this someone whose life we should be even thinking about? I think some people argue. And others obviously find it really interesting and fascinating.

So I'm just sort of curious, you know, yeah, why were you guys interested in seeing in this movie? And what do you think about the rise of true crime? Lauren, do you want to kick it off? Yeah. So I watched the original Ted Bunny tapes. And that's kind of what got me to be excited about this movie. Using the word excited may be not appropriate. But it might be this Netflix thing.

I have never been a person to really want to watch these crime documentaries. Usually I get really bad nightmares. But when it just comes up and it's so fascinating, it's so pulled in. And then serial podcast really, I was like 10 years late to the game on that. But I listened to it like two months ago. But it's just really this whole kind of phenomenon of what is vile and shocking. But it was really interesting. And I think what made that movie, when the credits rolled, I was like, oh, it was, you know, I watched it on a Sunday afternoon.

There was worse ways to spend your time. But what the credits did was play clips from the movie, and then it played exact footage from the trial. And it was word for word what they said. And that really kind of shook me. At my core would be like, oh, man, this isn't, this is real. Like, this is a someone's life and all these women were really killed. And so I think in that part, this movie is important to understand history and that this bad stuff actually happens. And this just isn't another Netflix program.

Something else that was shocking. And you even saw this. And I think one of the clips they played, you mentioned, of his girlfriend once he was in prison, she was so convinced of his innocence. And there were so many women. And I think one of the people covering the hearings, one of the reporters, he even made a comment, like all these women are just flocking to see this. me and this trial because they're so fascinated by him. I think it's an important thing to be aware of, even in our society today, like we're very, you know, interested in people's social media and how they portray themselves and how people present themselves to the public. And just to be aware that,

you know, you have to take all things into consideration. Sometimes just because someone, you know, is fascinating, doesn't make them, you know, a good person or someone we should give, you know, all of this emulation to. I don't think much has changed since when this happened and now. I mean, one of the things that they showed in the documentary that preceded this movie, and they also showed it in the movie, was this, you know, scores of people, hundreds of people outside of the prison cheering for his death. We want him dead. Kill him, kill him, you know, justice, justice. And, you know, I studied the death penalty quite extensively during law school. And a lot has changed since 1989.

And I just wonder, you know, in people's perceptions of the death penalty and that kind of thing. And I just wonder if this were to happen today, if you would have the people standing outside yelling, we want them dead, we want them dead, we want them dead, you know, all that stuff like they actually were back then. It just was a really interesting thing. And you mentioned, you know, this phenomenon with true crime. But where does that stop? You know, people love watching this stuff, but would they actually go down there and protest?

It's just an interesting thing. It would be all day on CNN. It would be on Facebook, live stream. You know, everybody would live tweet it, Periscope polls, you know, like just everything. Well, I would just say, when was Bin Laden captured, 11, 12? Yeah. I was in New York City at the time, and I went to Ground Zero when he was killed. And the glee was off the charts.

Like, I found it disturbing as someone who, you know, obviously was not a fan of Bin Laden. But, like, people were just drunk and screaming with joy. So I think Ted Bundy would probably still have a roaring crowd out there. But anyway, thank you all for joining us to discuss this disturbing movie. And that'll do it for today's episode. Thanks for listening to The Daily Signal Podcast, brought to you from the Robert H. Bruce Radio Studio at the Heritage Foundation. Please be sure to subscribe on iTunes, Google Play, or SoundCloud. And please leave us a review or a five-star rating on iTunes unless you dislike our take on this movie to give us feedback.

We'll see you again tomorrow. You've been listening to The Daily Signal podcast, executive produced by Kate Trinko and Daniel Davis. Sound design by Michael Gooden, Lauren Evans, and Thalia Rampersad. For more information, visitdailysignal.com.