‘FBI Lovebirds’ Producer on His Hilarious Play Using Strzok and Page’s Text Messages—Phelim McAleer

June 20, 2019 Updated: July 6, 2019

Take Peter Strzok and Lisa Page’s texts, throw in a little behind-closed-doors congressional testimony, and what do you get? Ever heard of “verbatim” theatre? And what’s the REAL definition of controversial theater in this day and age?

Today we sit down with Phelim McAleer who wrote “FBI Lovebirds: Undercovers,” a verbatim play 100 percent composed of real text messages and statements from Strzok and Page—and their inquisitors. Dean Cain and Kristy Swanson starred in its world premiere in Washington, D.C., on June 13.

Phelim is also the producer and co-writer, with his wife Ann McElhinney, of “Gosnell: The Trial of America’s Biggest Serial Killer.”

Jan Jekielek:  So, you know, I had Ann, your coconspirator, so to speak, some months ago to talk about “Gosnell,” which is also, you know, you’re the producer and co-writer with her. We learned some fantastic things. This is an unbelievable film. And this is, I guess, your next venture.

Phelim McAleer:  Yes, yes.

Mr. Jekielek: So tell me a little bit … maybe, I’ll just outline. You actually took the text messages of Peter Strzok and Lisa Page and congressional testimony behind closed doors of both of them and put that into a verbatim theater play. Tell me the genesis of this idea.

Mr.  McAleer: Well, verbatim is better known in the United Kingdom or verbatim theater. It’s kind of a thing that’s, you know, they do. There was the Bloody Sunday inquiry, which was a long judicial inquiry into a massacre in Northern Ireland in the ’70s. And somebody took that, all those eyewitnesses [inaudible] and boil them down into a play. So, you know, that’s been going on in the U.K. for a while, so I brought it to America. … I did Ferguson like that, I took the grand jury testimony and boiled it down into a play. And when I heard about these text messages which, you know, were personal and political–

Mr. Jekielek: Right.

Mr.  McAleer: That told a love story and a hate story, because of the hatred of Trump, it comes through. I thought, that sounds like a drama. So let’s put it on stage.

Mr. Jekielek: Fascinating. You know, I saw it last night, and it was, I’ve just never seen this kind of theater before. And can you just tell me, it was literally every word in the whole play from actual testimony or text messages.

Mr.  McAleer: Every single word. And in fact, some of it, you know, we could have been clearer or some of it, you know, people were talking about, you know, with the crossfire hurricane investigation or whatever, we could have said the Russia investigation, but I was very careful. You know, I wanted, even where they were unclear, I wanted to keep it a little bit of unclearness there. But every word from that play last night that you saw, every word that you saw and heard was from the actual, it was verbatim, 100 percent. It was either texted by … Lisa Page and Peter Strzok or it was part of their congressional testimony, their closed-door congressional testimony. I did not add any drama. I did not add any paragraphs. I did not add any context or, or distortion, it’s all their own words. As Dean Cain said, playing Peter Strzok as written by Peter Strzok.

Mr. Jekielek: Right. And you had Kristy Swanson playing Lisa Page and Dean Cain playing Strzok. It’s quite the cast you found. And I guess you made friends during the “Gosnell” filming with Dean.

Mr.  McAleer: Yes. Yes. I mean, you’ve got, well, as I said, we had young Superman and Buffy the Vampire Slayer on our side, you know, who could lose, you know? Yeah, no. So “Gosnell” … Dean played detective Jim Wood in “Gosnell.” And, you know, I just shot him an email when I was doing it. I just shot him an email, and I said, you know, what do you think of this? And he almost joined up before he saw the script.

Mr. Jekielek: Oh, wow.

Mr.  McAleer: And he said, it sounded like a great idea. I sent him the script and he was in. And then he’s friends with Kristy. Kristy actually came to the “Gosnell” premiere. I sort of knew her through that, but I’d never met her. [I don’t think I’d] ever spoken to her. He sent it to Christie, and Christie jumped in as well.

Mr. Jekielek: That’s fantastic. So, you know, you had your premiere last night, quite a packed amphitheater. I heard there was some intrigue around the venue. You actually had to find a new venue at one point. What exactly happened?

Mr.  McAleer: You know, censorship is a powerful force in America these days. So we were coming to D.C. with this play, and we hired the Mead Theatre, which is part of the studio theater complex. And we hired the studio theater, how to contract with them. Everything was good. Once we announced the play and once the media started paying attention to it, I think the studio theater got a lot of, you know, upset “darlings” from the theater world who said, darling, you can’t do this, you know, this is appalling. And this is, you know, I mean, even though it’s the truth, you know, that’s, and actually that’s the problem, especially because it’s the truth, they hated it. So just before they all went up to New York to award themselves lots of Tonys for being brave, just before they did that, they did the least brave thing on the planet, then they canceled. They just … wrote and said we’re just canceling the contract with no reason.

Mr. Jekielek: Really?

Mr.  McAleer: Yeah. Sorry. They cited security reasons because of one tweet. So they canceled the contract because they do not like the truth. They call themselves brave. They give themselves awards for being brave, but they are political cowards. They’re artistic cowards, and they are … they’re artistic pygmies as well, actually, because they only want to put on shows and plays that their friends like, that their little bubble likes.

Mr. Jekielek: Right.

Mr.  McAleer: That’s to me, that’s not being brave at all.

Mr. Jekielek: So avant-garde theater isn’t really avant-garde anymore.

Mr.  McAleer: If I’m speaking to people, I say avant-garde. Let me … you’re probably not French. Let me translate it to you. Avant-garde, roughly translated from the French, means anti-American. You know? And that’s–

Mr. Jekielek: Here, you mean, effectively, here?

Mr.  McAleer: When you hear somebody say, I’m avant-garde, what they’re really saying is, I hate America, I hate Trump. You know, it’s not avant-garde. They’re [inaudible]. They’re leading from behind. They’re with the mob. Avant-garde … actually avant-garde is, “I’m with the mob.” That’s the translation. But you know, I’d rather not be with the mob.

Mr. Jekielek: So you think this is actually a decision made internally, or is it something where it just simply there was this outcry and effective kind of heckler’s veto that was played out?

Mr.  McAleer: No, it was just an internal thing. I mean, you know, there’s no heckler’s veto in the sense, it was one tweet that they claimed. But no, it is an internal cowardice. Actually, not cowardice, internal sense, internal hatred of the truth.

Mr. Jekielek: … How much time did you have to find this new venue?

Mr.  McAleer: Ten days.

Mr. Jekielek: Ten days. And, well, you ended up in the Ronald Reagan Building.

Mr.  McAleer: Yes.

Mr. Jekielek: Curiously.

Mr.  McAleer: In the amphitheater.

Mr. Jekielek: Right. And it was just that simple? You went in and found it?

Mr.  McAleer: No. That is another story. No, these things are never simple, and, you know, it was very, very difficult. And it wasn’t until really last Friday that I was sure that we had the venue.

Mr. Jekielek: Wow. And really cutting it close.

Mr.  McAleer: But I was determined because the studio theater, the Mead Theatre censored this play, I was determined it was going to go on in D.C. regardless. Even if we had a performance on the steps of the Capitol building, you know? I don’t care how we performed it. I would’ve performed it on the pavement outside the studio theater. Right?

Mr. Jekielek: Right.

Mr.  McAleer: You know, it was happening—sorry sidewalk I know the Americans would say. I would have performed it on the sidewalk outside the studio theater.

Mr. Jekielek: So tell me a little bit about some of the scenes. Is there some scene in particular in the play that struck you particularly? One thing that I noticed was that the emojis were being read out and actually I thought that was particularly powerful. You know, winky face, Dean Cain with his winky face, and so forth.

Mr.  McAleer: Yeah. I mean … I think, I mean, you never know what’s going to be powerful when it’s performed on the stage. To be honest, I wrote it, and I didn’t see half of what they saw in it and what they brought to it. Like, it’s just totally different from what it looks like on the page. So I thought, I just–

Mr. Jekielek: Well, what about last night? What did you remark on?

Mr.  McAleer: You know, people were laughing at things that I thought were not funny, but they were when you heard them spoken. The absurdity of it, I mean, it’s the greatest, absurd comedy in America at the minute. Somebody said … it’s a long “Saturday Night Live” skit, only it’s funny.

Mr. Jekielek: That’s funny. No, it actually struck me as being “Saturday Night Life”–once upon a time.

Mr.  McAleer: Yeah.

Mr. Jekielek: You know, the kind of … in the old days or something like that. I thought of that.

Mr.  McAleer: Yeah. … I mean everyone says “Saturday Night Live” used to be funny, but I would say if you go back 20 years ago, people were saying “Saturday Night Live” used to be funny, you know?

Mr. Jekielek: I see.

Mr.  McAleer: I think it’s what a Golden Age of “Saturday Night Live” could have been, you know, could be. I mean, the fun, I mean, I’m not a comedian. Actually, Dean’s a good comic actor.

Mr. Jekielek: People were laughing throughout from what I could tell. It was quite remarkable, actually.

Mr.  McAleer: Yes, yeah. All the time. …And then, you know, I could [inaudible] with five minutes from nobody laughing, I was going, I was getting nervous, you know? And of course, like for most people that would be like, always people need a break, you know, I think people need a break.

Mr. Jekielek: Right.

Mr.  McAleer: But for most playwrights that would be, you know, five minutes when I laugh. They would think that’s a victory. But for me, I was … people were laughing so much that I felt bad when they didn’t laugh.

Mr. Jekielek: So some people might say that some of these could have been taken out of context to make Strzok and Page look bad. How do you deal with that sort of thing? Did you try to make things seem more inflammatory or less? What’s your personal take on this?

Mr.  McAleer: No, well, I mean I wrote this play to give context to the Russia investigation.

Mr. Jekielek: Right.

Mr.  McAleer: Right? So there was a 500-page Mueller report and everyone’s very excited or whatever it was. And I want people to see what was going on behind closed doors at the beginning of the Russia investigation. So I was, this is giving people context, you know? …So when they were opening the Russia investigation, Peter Strzok was texting Lisa Page saying, don’t worry, well she was saying … do you think Trump’s going to get elected? And he goes, maybe it’s time to open the insurance policy. And that was the Russia investigation, you know? So, and also people who say, oh, they’re taken it out of context and they’re edited down. These are journalists who take the Mueller report and write a 700-word article about it.

Mr. Jekielek: OK.

Mr.  McAleer: Right? So they edit a 50,000-word report to 700 words, and they accuse me of editing something, you know, as if that’s a crime, editing. Every journalist edits every day of their life. This interview will be edited, you know?

Mr. Jekielek: Definitely.

Mr.  McAleer: Yeah. So I hope so. Can you make me look good? So every interview’s edited. … I’m in an hour-long interview with a journalist who accuses me of editing. He says, you edited these. And, I’m going, you’re going to edit this. So, like, that just doesn’t stand scrutiny that they’re edited or taken out of context.

Mr. Jekielek: But I guess what I’m trying to get at is your personal philosophy. I mean, some people might want to make something more inflammatory. Some people might want to just present things in an unvarnished way. What are you trying to do?

Mr.  McAleer: Well, by the way, I think this is the purest form of journalism because there’s no authorial voice. … So some journalists takes the Mueller report of tens of thousands of words, reduces it to, if he’s lucky, a thousand-word article. But there’s lots of journalistic comment in that article, right? It’s actually very few quotes from the Mueller report. You know, a lot of it’s journalistic interpretation. That play last night that you saw cut out the middle man. There’s no … it’s directly from Peter Strzok’s phone to the audience. I’m not getting in the way and counting [inaudible].

Mr. Jekielek: Right. So, I mean, effectively you’re trying to present … but it is cut down. It isn’t all the text, it isn’t all the testimony. I mean, how many hours was there, right?

Mr.  McAleer: I think it was 55,000 texts. We didn’t get them all, but they sent a lot of texts. They were young and in love or old and in love.

Mr. Jekielek: Absolutely. No, and it’s something that actually comes through, which is very interesting. On one hand there’s this–I mean, this is the sense I got from the play. On one hand there’s this kind of, well, of course, animus towards candidate Trump, President Trump, and so forth, right? And on the other hand, there’s a lot of insecurity, right? It’s very interesting. I mean, it’s a very intimate, these text messages present an intimate portrait. And actually something that I got from there, which, I mean, I hope others did too, is the sincerity of this conversation. It, you know, these people were sincerely approaching this, right?

Mr.  McAleer: Yeah.

Mr. Jekielek: That’s what I [got], is that right?

Mr.  McAleer: As we’ll say it like, when are you at your most honest, right? It’s when you’re texting someone, texting your mistress and you believe these will be, not only will they remain … they’ll remain private between you. So that’s when you’re at your most honest, and that’s when your insecurities come out. And, I mean, I, in some respects, the political part of that play was easy to write and bring together. The personal bit was more difficult because you’re, I mean, the insecure … I mean, Strzok is a very interesting character. He’s got this, it’s hard to know whether he’s insecure or playing insecure, right? Because all the time–

Mr. Jekielek: I see, for Lisa’s benefit.

Mr.  McAleer: For Lisa’s benefit. Because she’s definitely insecure, and she’s telling him, you know, and she’s got … I mean, it’s a wonderful portrait of modern American womanhood actually. You know, she’s got kids, a very high-pressure job. She’s talking about going for a promotion that’s an unbelievable promotion, but she doesn’t want it because she wants to spend time with their family. Like, you know, it’s a wonderful examination of all the pressures of a working mother.

Mr. Jekielek: Right.

Mr.  McAleer:  And … she feels like she’s an imposter at work, that she’s not actually qualified for a job, even though she’s highly qualified, and he’s trying to reassure her. And then he, I think he throws some insecurities to make her feel better.

Mr. Jekielek: I see.

Mr.  McAleer: But I don’t, I don’t think–but I’d be very interested with what you think–I don’t think hes as insecure as he pretends. I think there’s an arrogance coming through there. But what did you get out of it?

Mr. Jekielek: Fascinating. Well, to me, frankly, I know some of the content–some of our columnists and some of our journalists have been covering this issue extensively, and I’m kind of, I’m shocked and stunned at the things that I had learned. You know? It’s very hard to be sympathetic–OK, let’s put it that way–to these folks when you know what they were doing. But, actually, to me, I gained sympathy to them through watching the play because, I mean, it basically, it put a human element. The thing that also struck me and actually disturbed me was that it seems like, again, from the play that they very sincerely believed they needed to do whatever it took to stop the president from becoming president or staying president. …This is a big question mark, right? And it leaves a big question mark in one’s mind.

Mr.  McAleer: Yeah, no, no. These these the anguished texts of people who believed their country was in danger.

Mr. Jekielek: Absolutely.

Mr.  McAleer: Because of candidate Trump. You know, and I mean this was the politicization of the FBI. Right?

Mr. Jekielek: Right.

Mr.  McAleer:  You know, this is like–

Mr. Jekielek: That’s what it sounds like, right?

Mr.  McAleer: Yeah, it is. This is like reading J. Edgar Hoover’s texts. I mean, it’s very similar to what J. Edgar Hoover did to Martin Luther King, [Jr.].

Mr. Jekielek: OK. How so?

Mr.  McAleer: He, well, he investigated, he believed King was a communist and a threat to the American way, right? Just like they believe–not that Trump’s a communist–they believe [inaudible] that Trump is an existential danger to America. And they’re quite clear with that. And how can we stop that? J. Edgar Hoover believed the same about Martin Luther King, [Jr.], and had King investigated and surveilled and investigated and surveilled. And, you know, liberals are all, and Democrats are all exasperated with Hoover, and they all think this was terrible and awful and terrible and awful, but these people, you know, were doing exactly the same in 2016 with candidate Trump.

Mr. Jekielek: Right.

Mr.  McAleer: You know, I think if you take some of those texts and put them in a memo from J. Edgar Hoover to a subordinate, and you wouldn’t recognize the difference if you just changed the names. You know, that’s how, I mean, they were talking about opening an insurance policy to stop candidate Trump. They were talking about, you know, Watergate and hopefully … I mean, the day after they opened the Mueller report, Strzok wrote to Page, hopefully he’ll resign, and hopefully there’ll be impeachment. And it’s like, yeah, I know as the congressman said to him, I think you had your mind made up before you started the investigation. And that is not the way the FBI is supposed to work.

Mr. Jekielek: Well, no, exactly, exactly. Which it also kind of begs the question, you know, how can people … the thing that struck me, OK, that really made me think is, well, this progressivist ideology that’s, you know, become more prevalent in American society, it’s almost [inaudible] that everything is politicized and that, you know, taking the political position is the right thing to do wherever you are, whether you’re in the FBI or, you know, in government or, or whatnot.

Mr.  McAleer: Well, last night you were, there was a big crowd, but I spoke to several members of the audience. There were several retired and serving members of the FBI there, right? And they’re furious with Strzok and Page and Andy McCabe and James Comey for politicizing the FBI and destroying the reputation of the FBI. I mean, the FBI had a bad reputation in the ’60s and ’70s, but it had regained–it’s one of last respected organizations in America, the media is not respected, Congress is not respected.

Mr. Jekielek: CIA is not respected, right?

Mr.  McAleer: And now these people went in there and politicized the FBI. And, I mean, they openly talked about trying to thwart an American democratic election, you know? Lisa Page wrote to Strzok and said, Trump’s not going to get elected, is he? And Strzok wrote back and said, no, we’ll stop it. And this is not some guy, you know, walking around houses, knocking on doors to the FBI. He’s the head of espionage at the FBI. He was the head of the Russia desk. He was under Andy McCabe, who’s the deputy director.

Mr. Jekielek: Right.

Mr.  McAleer: She was the general counsel to Andy McCabe, the deputy director. These are serious people who both … he initiated and led the Russia investigation. He was in charge of the Hillary Clinton email investigation. And he sends a text saying, we’re going to stop Trump getting elected. This is bad. And I think American people don’t know really what’s in these text messages. And that’s why, I had to play it last night, but if you looked around there were five or six cameras filming it. So we’re gonna film it and put it online so the American people can see

Mr. Jekielek: So how did you pick the director, Richard Coleman?

Mr.  McAleer: Well, I did a previous play, which was based, wasn’t fully verbatim, was called the $18 billion prize. It was in San Francisco. And the producer who made all that happen logistically last night had recommended Richard.

Mr. Jekielek: OK.

Mr.  McAleer: And then he did a great job there for no budget. And so he was the guy that we thought would … he’s great when you have no money and no set.

Mr. Jekielek:  Speaking of no budget, this is entirely crowdfunded, isn’t it? An Indiegogo, is that right?

Mr.  McAleer: I’m glad you mentioned that, the crowdfunding there. Yes, it’s entirely crowdfunded. So, I mean, people have been very generous. It’s really has seems to have struck a nerve. And we, the studio theater, when we were censored and banned from the studio theater, we went to the Ronald Reagan amphitheater, which was three times the cost.

Mr. Jekielek: Oh, wow.

Mr.  McAleer: So we had a certain target of $95,000 for the whole production and the filming and all that. And now, unfortunately, we have to go over that. So if anyone’s out there, although it looks like we’ve reached the target on “FBI Lovebirds” .com, we haven’t, we actually need more than that. But I think you would recommend people to help push it out, wouldn’t you?

Mr. Jekielek: Well, you just did.

Mr.  McAleer: Crowdfunding is a great way of getting past the gatekeepers. And I think more people, more conservatives, more libertarians, more people not in the mainstream need to stop complaining, and get out and crowdfund

Mr. Jekielek: You’ve been remarkably successful, in fact, with crowdfunding. This isn’t your first rodeo, right?

Mr.  McAleer: No. We raised $2.3 million for “Gosnell,” we made $200,000 for our “FrackNation” documentary. I did “Ferguson”–raised $100,000 there. You know, so you need the right play, the right product, and, you know, by the way, conservatives, you need to produce a quality product also. Right? You know.

Mr. Jekielek: Obviously. Critically.

Mr.  McAleer: Yes. You know, the one thing I say about “Gosnell,” it stands with any other Hollywood movie, I believe. And that play last night, I think you could see that having a run on Broadway or a classy off-Broadway.

Mr. Jekielek:  Well, so what are the prospects of that?

Mr.  McAleer: Well, if the world was fair, I wouldn’t be able to do this interview because I’d be fielding phone calls from Broadway producers because, you know, that was a one-off staged reading last night. The Guardian was there, the Washington Post was there, the Times was there, you know, it’s had unbelievable deadline Hollywood Hollywood reporter, it’s had unbelievable publicity for a staged reading. A one-night staged reading in unfashionable Washington, D.C. So you would think a Broadway producer would be on the phone saying, you know, with a cigar going, I can make, let’s bring this, even off Broadway to a big theater there, [inaudible]. So if the world was fair, this would be in New York, or this would have a run in D.C. I mean, I think we could fill D.C. for a couple of months here.

Mr. Jekielek:  You would think that controversy itself would be, you know, good publicity, right?

Mr.  McAleer: You see, the artistic world, they don’t understand what controversy is. They believe controversy is something that all their friends believe in, but shout it in a loud voice. So shouting “F Trump” or shouting, “I hate Trump” or shouting something like that, they believe that’s controversial. It’s not. If they were to get up at one of these awards dinners and say, I, you know, we should all give Trump a chance, or maybe we’re being harsh on Trump, that would, they would, they would understand the meaning of controversial then. Unfortunately, we have illiterate artistic classes now who don’t understand the meaning of the word controversy.

Mr. Jekielek: It’s just this kind of intellectual orthodoxy that must be made. That’s what you’re talking about. Is that right?

Mr.  McAleer: Yeah. So the new controversy is, as you say, intellectual orthodoxy. They have no idea what diversity means. None. And it’s ruthless how they enforce this intellectual orthodoxy. And that’s why Broadway producers are not [inaudible] saying, I want, I don’t get into a bidding war for this highly reviewed and controversial play.

Mr. Jekielek:  OK. Well, like I said, I can imagine lots of people, if last night was any indication, which I think it is. I mean, the thing is, basically, it was laughter throughout. I thought it was fantastic. So tell me a little bit more about your, you know, coconspirator, co-collaborator Ann McElhinney.

Mr.  McAleer: I call her my co-colluder.

Mr. Jekielek:  So how do you guys work together?

Mr.  McAleer: I think you need to ask other people how we work together. People who were in the room. You know, there’s surprisingly, there are sometimes raised voices, give that there’s two Irish people and one of them was Ann McElhinney. So most of the raised voices are from me, by the way. So we, we try and, you know, it depends on every, every project.

Mr. Jekielek: You have a creative sparring, I guess, that kind of thing. And then you come up with clearly something of note.

Mr.  McAleer: Yeah. So Ann and our partner Magda, you know, as I say, I come into the room and go, we’ve got to do this, and they laugh. And I go, we’ve got to do this. And they laugh. I come up with all these ideas, and they laugh. And about once every 20 ideas they go, hmm, OK. And then we take it from there, but they mostly laugh at my ideas. So there is a lot of humor in the work I do, but it’s mostly in the room with Ann and Magda when they’re laughing at my ideas.

Mr. Jekielek: I remember she was talking a little bit about this in our interview, you know, a few months ago. We’ll link that to the bottom of this one so that people can check that out. That’s great. *

Mr.  McAleer:  Ann’s my wife, obviously.

Mr. Jekielek: Of course!

Mr.  McAleer: There’s a lot of intellectual sparring and other sparring and all kinds of back and forth, but it seems to work.

Mr. Jekielek: So let’s talk a little bit about “Gosnell.” I heard that it’s actually coming to Netflix, which means that there was quite a reception, ultimately, even though there was, I guess, a lot of these types of forces that you’ve been discussing that seem to be against the film because of its subject matter.

Mr.  McAleer: Yeah. Well, yeah, I think there was a lot of opposition to that. And it’s not so much the subject matter. It tells the truth about a subject that some people, a lot of people don’t like the truth being told about. I mean, we rely heavily on the court transcripts.

Mr. Jekielek: Right.

Mr.  McAleer: Heavily. So, and as I said last night, you know, a court room is a wonderful place for a conservative because people are forced to tell the truth. There’s no political slogans, there’s no emotionalism. It’s all rational. We have to defend everything with evidence. Or the judge tells them that’s excluded, or the lawyer tells them that it’s excluded. So it’s really boils down sometimes to facts, and that’s a great place. And that’s why I think the “Gosnell” movie had such opposition because of facts.

Mr. Jekielek: Well, it had opposition, but then it actually had a pretty strong reception.

Mr.  McAleer: Oh, yeah. I mean, it had an amazing reception. And it had, you know, people … I know one person drove eight hours to see it. It opened in 800 theaters. It was very, very successful. Massive publicity and press. And really it has kept the name Gosnell in the public mind, for years now. And it’s, you know, it’s funny, abortion is ramping up as an issue now.

Mr. Jekielek: Right, of course.

Mr.  McAleer: People are still referencing “Gosnell,” and that’s good that he’s part of the debate.

Mr. Jekielek: You know, this, I remember something from “Gosnell.” There was this concept of “comfort care,” which was referenced in the film. And this, you know, this is something that I think Ralph Northam was talking about subsequently. It’s just interesting, it’s a little bit almost prophetic that this would become–

Mr.  McAleer: Yeah. So one of the most dramatic parts, I think, of the “Gosnell” movie is, the good abortion doctor, the prosecution brought in a good abortion doctor, a proper abortion doctor to show how bad “Gosnell’s” behavior was. And she was asked about what happens if a baby’s born alive. And eventually she said, we would give it comfort care. And the lawyers said, what’s that? And we put the child aside, keep it warm, eventually it will pass. Right? Comfort care.

Mr. Jekielek: And that’s the transcript

Phelim McAleer: That’s the transcript. And that’s why Ralph Northam was so relaxed when he talked about the baby being put aside and kept comfortable in that interview because he was actually talking about standard medical practice. Ralph Northam is a doctor. Everyone in the medical profession knows this happens. Everyone in the abortion industry knows this happens. And, but he, he let the cat out of the bag. And it’s very interesting when his KKK scandal erupted, the first organization to call for his resignation was not NAACP or something like that, it was Planned Parenthood.

Mr. Jekielek: Interesting.

Mr.  McAleer: Even though they gave $3 million to his reelection campaign.

Mr. Jekielek: Fascinating.

Mr.  McAleer: Because they realized they did not want that in a few of his on a loop going forward. They wanted to discredit it, so they threw him under the bus because he spoke the truth, and you can’t do that it seems in the abortion debate.

Mr. Jekielek: So back to Lovebirds before we have to finish up in a moment, but, so what are the plans? What’s next?

Mr.  McAleer: Well, you saw all the cameras last night. It’s going to be filmed and released online. It was added as released online. That’s going to give it a whole new lease of life. People are going to, I mean, Americans are going to get access to this and see it in its full glory. And, you know, I’d like to take it to Broadway. I’d like to take it … I’d like as many Americans to see this as possible. So watch out for it coming out online. That going to be the next big thing. I think that’s going to open the eyes of a lot of people, and, you know, it’s time that the truth was told on that.

So the American, you know, it was very important, actually. That was one thing Dean Cain said was, I hope you’re going to film this and put it online because … and I think he was sort of saying that kind of conditional, I’ll do it as long as it’s filmed and put online because he wants everyone to see it. We all want everyone to see the truth. And so we’re going to do that. And, you know, who knows what will come out of that, too. What interest that might spark, and we could go on a tour or whatever. So watch this space.

Mr. Jekielek:  We’ll definitely make sure to link it to the video when it does become available. Phelim McAleer, you know, you’re raising some very important issues in putting them into the cultural zeitgeist here. Thanks so much for being on the show.

This interview has been edited for clarity and brevity.

American Thought Leaders is a new Epoch Times show available on Facebook and YouTube.

Follow Jan on Twitter: @JanJekielek