So talk to us about the Sarah Gannon reporter.

And by the way, the benefit of hindsight is totally free.

I don't even think it has ads anymore.

So, I mean, this is not, our executive producer, Mike Agavino, has lost a ton of money producing this thing.

So he deserves all sorts of kudos for producing with the benefit of hindsight.

This is in no way, shape, or form a money-making venture as if you could ever make money defending the most hated man in America.

But Sarah Ganim is interesting.

know, but I got to do what I got to

Like, for people who haven't followed this since 2011, what is the nature of the moral panic you're alleging?

Two separate, uh, questions.

Let me deal with both of them.

Uh, is everyone lying? The only people that are lying are those that got paid millions of dollars for their testimony So everybody.

I mean, 'cause everybody that testified against Jerry Sandusky, including the main only witness, so-called, uh, former s- uh, Penn State assistant coach Mike McQueary, all got paid many millions of dollars.

And the eight men, not boys, these were adult men from terrible backgrounds who testified against him, all got paid many millions of dollars.

And let's be clear why everyone believed them.

thatIs that testimony not true? Is that testimony changed over time? What's the story there with Mike McQueary?

Was Mike McQueary lying?

Yes.

Although he may not have realized he was lying.

Here's the Mike McQueary story, obviously, is what most people remember.

And the first episode of our podcast with the benefit of hindsight is devoted almost entirely to the Mike McQueary episode.

And it's called The Date.

And the date of when this allegedly happened is incredibly important because what we were told was, at the time when this story exploded, was that Mike McQuarrie witnessed Jerry Sandusky in a Penn State shower sexually assaulting or raping a young boy that he believed to be around 10 years old.

Why would Mike McQueary do this?

John.

First of all, thanks for having me on.

Second of all, I wanna give a shout out to Charlie Kirk, because Charlie Kirk was by far the most prominent commentator to express skepticism about this only a couple of weeks before he was assassinated, showing what remarkable instincts Charlie had, because he didn't know, as far as I'm aware, all of the facts that I do, having covered this and investigated this for 15 years, he just understood that the story didn't make any sense.

And kudos for Charlie for having the courage to express that.

And boy, I wish he was around to be part of this interview, because I really wanted to tell him how right he was.

Because I have investigated this case for 15 years, and I began it back when this moral panic started in November of 2011, presuming, like everybody else did, that Jerry Zendusky was obviously guilty.

I had questions about the so-called Penn State cover-up theory, but I presumed, for the sake of argument, well, everybody couldn't possibly be wrong.

and then he looked in i think this is what i remember hearing is that he looked in and he saw jerry sandusky in a compromising position with a boy seven or eight years old i think a lot of people remember that is that testimony not true was that testimony changed over time what's the story there with mike mcquarrie

... before we started filming

...

it doesn't matter.

It doesn't matter who came up with it because it's, it's, it's 100% true.

It's ironic that there's a very good chance that the whole Netflix documentary is going to be about avoiding the verdict, which is the title of the film series, because that verdict was remarkable in the context of what was happening at the time.

You have to remember, this is still in the post-O.J. Simpson era in Southern California.

There is an enormous amount of skepticism towards a celebrity case.

Would you like to explain that?