Speaker 1: Why on Sky News.
Speaker 2: This is Sharry Good Evening.
Speaker 3: Welcome to the show where we've got huge guests on
Speaker 3: the program. Tonight, Donald Trump's former attorney general will join
Speaker 3: me live for an exclusive interview. This as Kamala Harris
Speaker 3: accuses Trump of fascism while struggling to answer questions at
Speaker 3: a town hall. Also tonight, former British Commander Richard Kemp
Speaker 3: is on the show. He's flawed by our revelations that
Speaker 3: the SBS censored his interview, removing it from their platforms,
Speaker 3: or because he dared to support Israel. So that exclusive
Speaker 3: interview with Richard Kemp coming up in just a moment
Speaker 3: live and a high profile restaurant her pleads guilty today
Speaker 3: in court to holding a Nazi symbol his wife, issuing
Speaker 3: a desperate plea to customers who've turned their back on
Speaker 3: the Nomad group. More on what unfolded a bit later,
Speaker 3: but first tonight, Darton has called on the Corruption Commission
Speaker 3: to investigate whether there was any political interference from the
Speaker 3: Albanesi government in stripping.
Speaker 2: Mike Bizzullo's Order of Australia.
Speaker 3: Pizzulo was the tough Secretary of the Home Affairs Department
Speaker 3: when he was sacked by Anthony Alberzi for engaging in
Speaker 3: political gossip with a liberal lobbyist friend of Scott Morrison's.
Speaker 3: There was no corruption, no criminality involved. Peter Dutton today
Speaker 3: called this a vindictive move. He claimed the government was
Speaker 3: trying to seek retribution against Buzzullo and he says the
Speaker 3: Corruption Agency should now investigate here he was on Ray Hadley.
Speaker 4: This is a clear demonstration of political interference in the process.
Speaker 4: I actually think it's a matter for the Integrity Commission
Speaker 4: to investigate because there is no conviction against mister Bizzullo.
Speaker 4: There's no impropriety alleged against him that would warrant the
Speaker 4: stripping of this honor, and it is nothing more than
Speaker 4: the government trying to seek retribution against him. They passed
Speaker 4: a retrospective law to take part of his salary away
Speaker 4: or his payout, which was done to apply to him only.
Speaker 4: And I'd never seen anything like that before and I
Speaker 4: haven't seen anything like the stripping of this award.
Speaker 3: And Peter Darton said the Albanezy government ministers need to
Speaker 3: disclose whether they were involved in removing Pazzullo's honor because
Speaker 3: the whole process is meant to be independent.
Speaker 4: I'm sure that Katie Gallaha and others frankly need to
Speaker 4: disclose what sort of instruction they've given to the committee
Speaker 4: and what their expectation has been, because it's not the
Speaker 4: fair process and in the end it should be and
Speaker 4: it should be impartial and independent, and it's been anything.
Speaker 4: But if the Prime Minister believes that he can justify this,
Speaker 4: he should be talking about why, because I think it's
Speaker 4: a matter of frankly, the government should refer to Integrity
Speaker 4: Commission because there clearly has been in appearance in what
Speaker 4: is supposed to be an independent process.
Speaker 3: I first broke the story back in March that Mike
Speaker 3: Pezzulo was set to be stripped of his Order of Australia.
Speaker 2: I could hardly believe it at the time.
Speaker 3: It was so petty, so political, so typical of the
Speaker 3: characters of some of the ministers in this Albanese government.
Speaker 2: So we're just breaking the.
Speaker 3: News now that there are plans to strip Mike Bizzullo
Speaker 3: of his AO despite no corruption or criminality.
Speaker 2: This is a very rare move.
Speaker 3: Mike Pezzulo has given a lifetime of service to Australia,
Speaker 3: including stopping the boats strengthening the borders. But now because
Speaker 3: of his gossipy text messages with a lobbyist, he's facing
Speaker 3: having his order stripped. And now around seven months later,
Speaker 3: the order has officially been removed. Pazzulo was made an
Speaker 3: Officer of the Order of Australia in the twenty twenty
Speaker 3: Queen's Birthday Honors for distinguished services to public administration through
Speaker 3: leadership roles in the areas of national security, border control
Speaker 3: and immigration.
Speaker 2: Given for a lifetime of work, and that.
Speaker 3: Body of work can't be extinguished because of some text messages.
Speaker 3: Nothing criminal, nothing actually wrong, just a breach of the
Speaker 3: Public Service Code, according to one interpretation. As Ray Hadley
Speaker 3: pointed out today, there are many people who have fallen
Speaker 3: foul of the.
Speaker 2: Law yet still hold their honors.
Speaker 5: Well, I'll give you one prime example. There's a TV
Speaker 5: or former TV personality in New South Wales, Andrew Keith,
Speaker 5: who's had numerous convictions for violence involving violence against women,
Speaker 5: and he still enjoys being a member of the Order
Speaker 5: of Australia. And I mean and this has been going
Speaker 5: on not just for months, but for years, and there's
Speaker 5: been no investor. Well, they say there's an investigation now,
Speaker 5: but they did this very quickly with Mike Bozzullo. They
Speaker 5: haven't been quite as quick with someone who'd been before
Speaker 5: the course and convicted on the news occasions.
Speaker 1: Now.
Speaker 2: Bazzullo was apolitical.
Speaker 3: He's worked for both sides of politics. He was responsible
Speaker 3: for setting up the Home Affairs Superministry that has now
Speaker 3: been all but undone by the Albanezi government, and he
Speaker 3: also played a major role in stopping the boats also
Speaker 3: in Operation Sovereign Borders. Tony Abbott backed Puzzullo in and
Speaker 3: he told me when I first broke this story that
Speaker 3: of all the senior border protection officials from September twenty thirteen,
Speaker 3: he was the one above all who was convinced that
Speaker 3: the boats both could and should be stopped. In my view,
Speaker 3: his departure from public service is a serious loss to
Speaker 3: our country and from a Prime minister. Scott Morrison also
Speaker 3: backed in Puzzulo, telling me at the time that no
Speaker 3: one was more deserving of recognition in our honor system
Speaker 3: as a public servant than Mike. He's a big loss
Speaker 3: to the Australian public service. He was an important internal
Speaker 3: voice to governments of both political persuasions on protecting Australia's
Speaker 3: national security. So this is an official that both Tony
Speaker 3: Abbott and Scott Morrison say should be honored.
Speaker 2: Yet look at how Albanezi treated him.
Speaker 3: The Prime Minister sacked Pezzulo in late November after a
Speaker 3: review found that his text messages with Liberal powerbroker Scott
Speaker 3: Briggs breached the Public Service Code through using his position
Speaker 3: to gain a benefit for himself for failing to be
Speaker 3: a political and engaging in disrespectful critiques of ministers. Now,
Speaker 3: the personal benefit was supposedly having a personal communicationation channel
Speaker 3: with senior leadership that was said not to be available
Speaker 3: to other secretaries. But as I've said before, this finding
Speaker 3: could only be made if the messages of the other
Speaker 3: departmental secretaries were checked, because some we know are long
Speaker 3: term friends with ministers, lobbyists and powerbrokers. But it was
Speaker 3: also a fastical finding because Puzzulo already had direct contact
Speaker 3: with Turnbull and Morrison, he didn't need the back channel,
Speaker 3: so there was no personal benefit here at all. Peter
Speaker 3: Dutton has in the past spoken about how puzzullo sacking
Speaker 3: by alban EASi was highly political.
Speaker 4: Clara Kneels at war with her secretary at the moment
Speaker 4: you said the review that she just commissioned to try
Speaker 4: and white an like Bazzulla, the secretary of her Home
Speaker 4: Affairs Department.
Speaker 6: I don't think there's any question that it's political. Mean
Speaker 6: An important point here is that there's obviously a huge
Speaker 6: battle going on at the moment between the Home Affairs
Speaker 6: Minister Clara O'Neill and the secretary of the her department,
Speaker 6: Mike Bazzilla, who was a secretary when I was at
Speaker 6: the department. He's a first class public servant and I
Speaker 6: was very well served by him and by the public
Speaker 6: servants within the Department of Home Affairs.
Speaker 3: This all matters because Pazzulo was at the helm of
Speaker 3: the Home Affairs Department keeping us all safe. Our national
Speaker 3: security is at stake, and now Tony Burke heads up
Speaker 3: this ministry which has overseen the fast tracking of visas
Speaker 3: from Gaza. If there has been political interference to deliberately
Speaker 3: harm a long serving and distinguished public servant, then Duvn's
Speaker 3: right the Corruption Commission should investigate. This government promised transparency, Albanezi,
Speaker 3: promised to do politics differently, but in the end we've
Speaker 3: seen a new low of mean spirited politics, malice and retribution. Now,
Speaker 3: Richard Camp will join me live in a moment on
Speaker 3: that major story that the SPS pulled his interview because
Speaker 3: he was too supportive of Israel. But right now let's
Speaker 3: bring in commentator Jason Morrison and perth Mere Basil zemplist.
Speaker 3: Thank you both very much for your time. Now I
Speaker 3: want to get your feedback on what I've just been
Speaker 3: speaking about Peter Dutton saying that there should be a
Speaker 3: corruption inquiry into why Mike Bozullo's Order.
Speaker 2: Of Australia was stripped. What do you think, Jason, Well,
Speaker 2: there's a lot.
Speaker 7: Of transparency about it, so that's probably a good starting point.
Speaker 7: The malice in all of this.
Speaker 2: Is so obvious.
Speaker 8: It's so obvious.
Speaker 7: Why of all the people in the Hadley example of
Speaker 7: Andrew o'keith is a perfect example. There is a list
Speaker 7: of people who deserve these awards because of things they
Speaker 7: have done posts the awards being issued, and they pick
Speaker 7: on this guy why because he's got some kind link
Speaker 7: across the room. It's malicious, it's grubby and yeah, the
Speaker 7: big C word is part of it and it should
Speaker 7: be investigated. We know what that one is.
Speaker 3: Basil Order of Australia Awards and others like it have
Speaker 3: been stripped more than forty times in the past, but
Speaker 3: it's usually from pedophiles after people have had criminal convictions,
Speaker 3: not from someone who may or may not have breached
Speaker 3: the Public Service Code.
Speaker 9: There doesn't seem to be the compelling evidence to rip
Speaker 9: it off him in this instance, that's for sure. There's
Speaker 9: not the transparency, as Jason just said, and it does
Speaker 9: wreak of a politicization of the Australian awards system, and
Speaker 9: that's not what it's there for.
Speaker 1: That's not what it's about.
Speaker 9: It's not supposed to be political in any way, shape
Speaker 9: or form. And I reckon there's a lot of Australian
Speaker 9: so that thought it might be one of the few
Speaker 9: things that still remains a political but not anymore. If
Speaker 9: this is the treatment that somebody who appears to have
Speaker 9: deserved that award one at fair and square and now
Speaker 9: had it stripped off him, it just doesn't seem right.
Speaker 9: There's not enough evidence. It needs to be more transparent.
Speaker 9: We need to see the reasons.
Speaker 2: We need to get the paper trail as well.
Speaker 3: We need to see whether there were any ministers who
Speaker 3: did make representations or have involvement ahead of that shocking decision.
Speaker 3: Let's turn to the US now, where Kamala Harris has
Speaker 3: called Trump a fascist. She also appeared at a town
Speaker 3: hall today with Addison Cooper on CNN.
Speaker 2: Have a look.
Speaker 8: Yes, I do believe that Donald Trump is unstable, increasingly unstable,
Speaker 8: and unfit to serve.
Speaker 1: Do you think Donald Trump is a fascist?
Speaker 6: Yes?
Speaker 8: I do, Yes, I do. He admires dictators, sending love
Speaker 8: letters back and forth with Kim Jong un.
Speaker 3: Now, the only problem with this argument is that Trump
Speaker 3: has already been president and he wasn't a fascist while
Speaker 3: he was in office. You might not have liked everything
Speaker 3: he did, but he wasn't a fascist.
Speaker 2: Do you think this is.
Speaker 3: Stretching it, taking it just a bit too far? When
Speaker 3: the Democrats, and you know, Kamala Harris, who's running to
Speaker 3: be president, accuses him of fascism, it's pretty amazing.
Speaker 2: She's lucky.
Speaker 7: That's the headline that came out of an interview I
Speaker 7: watched it. Unfortunately, it was tragic when even Anderson Cooper,
Speaker 7: you know, a copper for the far left in America,
Speaker 7: is out there correcting her and pulling her up and
Speaker 7: stopping her and reminding her she's been the vice president
Speaker 7: through all this time. She's saying she could have done
Speaker 7: they should have done better. That's the headline of this.
Speaker 7: CNN is being very very generous with the fascism thing,
Speaker 7: which is just I mean, it's trivial political point scoring,
Speaker 7: you know, anything with an ist at the end of
Speaker 7: it at this time at the election campaign is just
Speaker 7: muth flinging. You're right, your spot on. People know what
Speaker 7: Trump is, even if they don't like him, they know
Speaker 7: what they're going to get because they've seen it before.
Speaker 7: And that's her problem because they've seen her before too,
Speaker 7: and she's underwhelming.
Speaker 3: I think that's a good point you made though that
Speaker 3: in saying that in greed agreeing or saying that it
Speaker 3: is a fascist again, that is now the headline out
Speaker 3: of that interview, rather than all of the other weak
Speaker 3: answers that she gave. We are going to come back
Speaker 3: to those answers because I've got Trump's former acting Attorney
Speaker 3: general on the show later this hour. But Basil, there
Speaker 3: has been criticism that, given Trump has already faced two
Speaker 3: potentially three assassination attempts on his life, that by calling
Speaker 3: him a fascist, by claiming that he likes Hitler, This
Speaker 3: dangerous language could once again incite violence against him.
Speaker 9: What do you think of that argument, Well, that's possible,
Speaker 9: and a case could be made for that argument. I
Speaker 9: think what it really reaks off, though, is desperation here
Speaker 9: from Kamala Harris trying to reverse the trend that's sliding
Speaker 9: away from her and towards Trump. This is his third
Speaker 9: time around the block in terms of a presidential campaign,
Speaker 9: and it's at the eleventh hour of the third occasion
Speaker 9: when he stood before the American people and asked for
Speaker 9: them to consider him to be their president of the
Speaker 9: United States. It doesn't matter that they call him a
Speaker 9: fascist or any of the other stuff. They've already judged
Speaker 9: him on all of those things. It's not about Trump
Speaker 9: and what people think of him. It's really about what
Speaker 9: they think of Harris. And I don't think she's done
Speaker 9: enough to give anybody enough confidence that she's a leader
Speaker 9: of substance in waiting.
Speaker 3: Yeah, there was a good line actually in an article
Speaker 3: in the Sydney Morning Herald. I read earlier that effectively
Speaker 3: Trump has been running for office for nine years, Kamala
Speaker 3: Harris just for one hundred days. So he's a very
Speaker 3: well known quantity to everyone around the world.
Speaker 2: They know what they're getting. But Kamala, there are still there's.
Speaker 3: Still concerns, they're still uncertainty about what she actually stands
Speaker 3: for and what she do in office. As I said,
Speaker 3: we're going to come back to this later this hour
Speaker 3: with trump'sformer attorney general. Let's have a look now though
Speaker 3: at this debate over Lydia Thorpe's eligibility to sit in
Speaker 3: the Senate.
Speaker 2: As you know by now, footage.
Speaker 3: Has emerged where she has previously said that she deliberately
Speaker 3: mispronounced the word heirs, as has in her parliamentary oath.
Speaker 3: If you've missed it, this was the moment back in
Speaker 3: twenty twenty two.
Speaker 10: True allegiance to her Majesty Queen Elizabeth for second, her
Speaker 10: hairs and successes according to law.
Speaker 3: And then in subsequent interviews she said she deliberately said
Speaker 3: hair so that when the Queen passed away there would
Speaker 3: be no allegiance.
Speaker 2: I mean, this is childish, juvenile, natty stuff. Her own words.
Speaker 3: Today, though in an interview with Laura Jay's she backed
Speaker 3: down from that argument to have.
Speaker 10: A look now, forgive me for not being you know,
Speaker 10: my English grammar isn't as good as others. And I
Speaker 10: spoke what I read, so I misspoke. And to have
Speaker 10: this country questioned or particularly you know, people like Dutton
Speaker 10: and other senators from his party, for them to question
Speaker 10: my legitimacy in this job is an insult and they
Speaker 10: can't get rid of me.
Speaker 3: I mean, Jason, it was Lydia who said originally that
Speaker 3: she deliberately mispronounced the word It wasn't done it.
Speaker 7: Yes, there's a good reason in the House the last
Speaker 7: seventy two hours reflected why they nickname her Lydiat because
Speaker 7: she behaves like it. Look, she put actually she put
Speaker 7: her fist up, didn't she, And she you know, uttered
Speaker 7: the words required under section forty two of the Constitution,
Speaker 7: and then she signed a document which reaffirmed her and
Speaker 7: then she took the pay under section forty two. I mean,
Speaker 7: everything she has done has ticked every box. I'm not
Speaker 7: shocked she doesn't agree with what's on the bit of
Speaker 7: paper or the affirmation. I mean a third of the
Speaker 7: Parliament don't even with why they swear an allegiance to it.
Speaker 7: But it's because they're ignoramisis it's because they don't know
Speaker 7: what they're actually about, and they don't really understand. The
Speaker 7: nine eighty six we passed a law in the Australian
Speaker 7: Parliament which made it all all this crown business all
Speaker 7: about Australia, the Australia Act. And in nine to eighty
Speaker 7: six and the haw government, it became very very clear
Speaker 7: to absolutely everyone that the king is a symbol or
Speaker 7: the crown is a symbol of it.
Speaker 11: But you are.
Speaker 7: Swearing an allegiance to Australia.
Speaker 11: And its people.
Speaker 7: And if she doesn't get that, I put it politely
Speaker 7: to say, she's not.
Speaker 2: Quite right, basil. What do you think.
Speaker 3: Do you think there's an argument she might be ineligible?
Speaker 3: Or is this just a waste of everyone's time or
Speaker 3: perhaps wishful thinking?
Speaker 1: Absolutely idiotic.
Speaker 9: It is a waste of everybody's time, and it is
Speaker 9: a waste of everybody's time that she prompted actually by
Speaker 9: highlighting it to everybody, trying to say, well, I never
Speaker 9: took that oath of allegiance because I misspoke, then suddenly
Speaker 9: realizing hang on, that couldn't cost the quarter of a
Speaker 9: million dollars that I'm earning at the moment, so I
Speaker 9: better backflip away from that one they can't get rid
Speaker 9: of me. I misspoke. I didn't deliberately say it, but
Speaker 9: actually in those two statements that she's made within about
Speaker 9: twenty four forty eight hours, it just highlights the ridiculous
Speaker 9: nature of her approach, the contempt with which she treats
Speaker 9: the Australian Parliament, and quite frankly, I'm not sure who
Speaker 9: she is representative of. She's got three and a half
Speaker 9: years to go, can't come quickly enough.
Speaker 7: Just never forget though she was the deputy Leader of
Speaker 7: the Greens and all those nutbags in.
Speaker 2: There voted for her to be the deputy.
Speaker 7: Leader of the Greens. How do all unbelievable?
Speaker 3: These characters who you know, I mean, the people representing
Speaker 3: Australians in the Senate and in the Parliament should be
Speaker 3: the cream of the crop, should be the smartest people
Speaker 3: in this country. Yep. Show from diverse backgrounds, but they
Speaker 3: should be smart and we just don't see that Jason
Speaker 3: Deputy Leader.
Speaker 7: It's just unbelievable. Look, she's getting what she wants though.
Speaker 7: The tragedy here is she's getting a lot of publicity.
Speaker 3: All right, Well, before we go, just a final quick topic.
Speaker 3: The Home Affairs Minister Tony Burke. It's been revealed front
Speaker 3: page or at least in the Daily Telegraph today. He's
Speaker 3: one of a number of labor politicians who went on
Speaker 3: a study tour to the Palestinian territories funded by an
Speaker 3: anti Israel lobby group. APAN that's the Australian Palasine Advocacy
Speaker 3: Network has accused Israel of genocide. It was a posed
Speaker 3: to her Musk being categorized as a terror organization. And
Speaker 3: that's just the tip of the iceberg. I don't have
Speaker 3: time to show you all the offensive remarks that its
Speaker 3: leadership have made Basil. It also looks like some of
Speaker 3: the labor funds went into this trip as well.
Speaker 2: Not a good look for Tony Burke.
Speaker 9: No, not a good look.
Speaker 1: And it's pretty straightforward, isn't it.
Speaker 9: If you're not anti Israel, you're not taking trips paid
Speaker 9: for by a group which effectively is AINTI ISRAELI.
Speaker 1: It's as simple as that.
Speaker 9: So it's time that a number of the members of
Speaker 9: the Labor government came clean on where they really stand
Speaker 9: on this issue. It's not simple, we know that, but
Speaker 9: we do understand that what happened over twelve months ago
Speaker 9: was the worst loss of life for Jewish people since
Speaker 9: the Holocaust, and there are still a great number of
Speaker 9: hostages being held. We'll released those hostages. Let's move on,
Speaker 9: and let's hear the labor government call for that.
Speaker 7: And they've got their money's worth in they out of
Speaker 7: the trip, cost them a few airfares. And look what
Speaker 7: Tony Burk's done for the cause.
Speaker 3: Hey Eiggs now the Home Affairs minister. And yet they
Speaker 3: sacked Mike Bazulo as secretary. Just appalling, all right, Jason Morrison,
Speaker 3: bazle zemplist, thank you both very much. Say now to
Speaker 3: more on my investigation into the shocking censorship of pro
Speaker 3: Jewish and Israel content at SPS. The taxpayer funded broadcaster
Speaker 3: refused to publish, or remove from online or edit it
Speaker 3: interviews that they thought were too supportive of Israel. One
Speaker 3: was with a family member of the current hostage being
Speaker 3: held in Gaza. That interview was completed, but it never
Speaker 3: went to air.
Speaker 2: It is beyond shocking.
Speaker 3: Imagine silencing the family member of a current hostage, and
Speaker 3: that family member, by the way, is going to come
Speaker 3: on my show on Monday night and speak about this.
Speaker 3: There needs to be a federal government investigation into what
Speaker 3: has gone on here? In another example, an internationally renowned
Speaker 3: activist fighting antisemitism, she had her interview edited, then another
Speaker 3: interview with Richard Kemp.
Speaker 2: It was initially.
Speaker 3: Broadcast on SBS radio, then it was deleted completely from
Speaker 3: all SBS platforms just a few hours later. And he's
Speaker 3: going to join me live right now. The Jewish journalist
Speaker 3: who did those interviews I meet.
Speaker 2: Rehak is now seeking legal advice. But it shouldn't be
Speaker 2: up to him. It needs to be up to.
Speaker 3: All of us to hold this taxpayer funded broadcaster to account. Meanwhile,
Speaker 3: Israel has uncovered evidence that six Al Jazeera journalists are
Speaker 3: terrorist operatives from Hamas and Palestinian Islamic g Had. One
Speaker 3: of the journalists is said to have served as the
Speaker 3: head of a rocket launching squad.
Speaker 2: I mean, listen to that.
Speaker 3: One of the Al Jazeera journalists served as the head
Speaker 3: of a rocket launching squad. Another was said to be
Speaker 3: the deputy of a propaganda unit in Islamic g Had.
Speaker 3: One was a sniper, another was a training company commander
Speaker 3: who was then wounded in an Israeli air strike. These
Speaker 3: terrorists weren't bringing you the news, they were bringing you propaganda.
Speaker 3: Straight from terror organizations, Yet the mainstream media lapped it
Speaker 3: up because they were hungry to accuse Israel of war
Speaker 3: crimes and when Israel has killed terrorists, media outlets have
Speaker 3: complained that journalists.
Speaker 2: Were being targeted.
Speaker 3: I asked Esper today whether they would now be cutting
Speaker 3: ties with our Jazeira no response.
Speaker 2: To these questions or to discuss all of this.
Speaker 3: Let's bring in now live from Israel. Retired British commander
Speaker 3: Richard Kemp, Colonel, thank you very much for joining me
Speaker 3: now you've led British forces into a raq in Afghanistan.
Speaker 3: Your views, anyone.
Speaker 2: Would argue, deserve to be hurt.
Speaker 3: What is your reaction to my revelation that the SBS
Speaker 3: deleted an interview with you because you were too supportive
Speaker 3: of Israel.
Speaker 11: Well, unfortunately, it's the reality of so many large scale
Speaker 11: and influential broadcasts and other media outs as well that
Speaker 11: they want to bias their output against Israel. It's not
Speaker 11: a question of just deleting people who are speaking in
Speaker 11: support of Israel or in support of the truth and reality,
Speaker 11: but also they want their primary emphasis is on anti
Speaker 11: Israel bias, and people like Gues, SBS, the BBC over
Speaker 11: here in the UK and other broadcasting organizations, they basically
Speaker 11: fuel her mass, They encourage he mass, they give strength
Speaker 11: to her mass, they prolong the conflict. And it's all
Speaker 11: by supporting her massa's narrative, whether wittingly or unwittingly, that's
Speaker 11: what they do.
Speaker 1: And it's the same with people.
Speaker 11: Organizations like the United Nations and the International Court of Justice,
Speaker 11: the International Criminal Court, they're all strengthening her mass.
Speaker 1: They might as well be.
Speaker 11: Part of the mass with the bias that they show
Speaker 11: towards har Mass and against Israel.
Speaker 3: I understand a scenario where, say, you know, Vladimir Putin
Speaker 3: was being interviewed, and so the interview was required to
Speaker 3: ask very tough questions. But Israel is an ally of Australia,
Speaker 3: of America, of the United States. So can you understand this, SAI,
Speaker 3: where you, as a farm a British commander, a distinguished
Speaker 3: war veteran, where you're not allowed to express your viewpoint
Speaker 3: on a public broadcaster in Australia because you were too
Speaker 3: supportive of one of our allies.
Speaker 11: Yeah, I can understand it. I disagree with it, of course,
Speaker 11: but I was actually asked some quite tough questions during
Speaker 11: the SBS interview, and quite rightly too, that they're entitled
Speaker 11: and they should probe people views, whoever, whatever their background,
Speaker 11: whoever they are. But if they want, if they do
Speaker 11: want to have if they do want their listeners to
Speaker 11: have a balanced perspective of Israel and of the conflict
Speaker 11: there and of the different mechanics there, then they need
Speaker 11: to include people like me. And you know, I don't
Speaker 11: demand a right to be to have a platform. They
Speaker 11: invited me to be interviewed in the first place. I
Speaker 11: didn't ask for it. But I've got objective experience. I'm
Speaker 11: not Israeli, I'm not Jewish. I have a great deal
Speaker 11: of experience of armed conflict around the world. I've been
Speaker 11: in Israel for most of the last year, into Gaza
Speaker 11: with the idea if I've seen the reality of what's happening.
Speaker 11: I've studied her massing great depth, and I think my perspective,
Speaker 11: you know, with modesty, I think my perspective is probably
Speaker 11: worth hearing, which I assume is the reason they asked
Speaker 11: for me to join in the first place, although they
Speaker 11: obviously didn't like what they heard.
Speaker 3: A very good point an apologies, I thought you were
Speaker 3: still in Israel because when I was there a couple
Speaker 3: of weeks ago, I interviewed you on the ground, but
Speaker 3: you're now back in London.
Speaker 2: Just before we move on to other.
Speaker 3: Topics, Given SBS is a publicly funded broadcaster, do you
Speaker 3: think there should be an investigation into the extent of
Speaker 3: this censorship of pro Israel vices.
Speaker 11: Yeah, I do. I think if if any organization, any
Speaker 11: media organization, is funded by taxpayers money, the taxpayer should
Speaker 11: have an objective or the media organization should be speaking objectively.
Speaker 11: They shouldn't be censoring people who just don't happen to
Speaker 11: suit their their private agenda. The same applies, as I
Speaker 11: mentioned to organizations like the BBC. There will been numerous
Speaker 11: investigations into the BBC finding horrific, horrific anti Israel bias
Speaker 11: over many years, and what's the result. Zero as investigations.
Speaker 11: There's not public or formal investigations yet. There should be,
Speaker 11: but all of the investigators this bias and the BBC
Speaker 11: simply brushes aside.
Speaker 1: And I'm sure FBS will do the same.
Speaker 2: Yeah.
Speaker 3: I want to ask you about this FBI investigation into
Speaker 3: the leaking of at least two classified documents to social media.
Speaker 3: This detailed Israel's preparations for a potential strike on Iran
Speaker 3: in retaliation for the ballistic missiles a couple of weeks ago,
Speaker 3: maybe three weeks ago. Now, Richard, how concerning is this
Speaker 3: leak of classified material? It looks we don't know for certain,
Speaker 3: it looks like it has come from the US end.
Speaker 11: Yeah, I think it's deeply concerning, and it does show
Speaker 11: I think it was either a desire among certain individuals
Speaker 11: within the within the US government organizations to do damage
Speaker 11: to Israel, either that or gross misjudgment about what is
Speaker 11: the right thing in relation to trying to trying to
Speaker 11: as they continually discuss it, de escalate the situation. But
Speaker 11: it goes beyond that kind of misjudgment and the direct
Speaker 11: damage of this leak, which is certainly going to be
Speaker 11: damaging Israel, provides a huge amount of intelligence to the
Speaker 11: United States, as it does to Australia and the UK
Speaker 11: and other countries in relation to threats to our countries.
Speaker 11: And you know, when I was in Australia a few
Speaker 11: years back, it came to light that there was a
Speaker 11: terrorist plan and al Qaeda plan, I think, to hijack
Speaker 11: an aircraft from Sydney Airport. And crash it, and that
Speaker 11: was stopped by Israeli intelligence.
Speaker 4: So if.
Speaker 11: There's damage to the intelligence relationship through leakage, then of
Speaker 11: course that puts in jeopardy the continued flow of intelligence
Speaker 11: from Israel. I don't think actually Israel would ever, no
Speaker 11: matter what any country does to it, would ever deny intelligence,
Speaker 11: life saving intelligence to any country.
Speaker 1: But it's potentially very damaging.
Speaker 3: Look, we have been expecting Israel to retaliate against those
Speaker 3: Iranian strikes for a couple of weeks now it still
Speaker 3: hasn't happened. Is your sense that Israel was waiting for
Speaker 3: this US THAD missile defense system to be up and
Speaker 3: running or do you think there's a possibility And I
Speaker 3: think it was that they were waiting for the THAD
Speaker 3: Missile defense system to be up and running before they
Speaker 3: launched an attack on Iran. But do you think there
Speaker 3: is a possibility that they could be waiting until after
Speaker 3: the US election.
Speaker 11: I think all of those things and other factors come
Speaker 11: into play here. And Prime Minister Netanya, who is the
Speaker 11: person who will make the ultimate decision with the authority
Speaker 11: of the Security Cabinet on exactly when and what actions
Speaker 11: to take. I think Israel knows what it's going to do.
Speaker 11: But all of these different factors, like making sure there
Speaker 11: is enough defense in Israel against a potential large scale
Speaker 11: Iranian retaliation does come into play, as of course does
Speaker 11: the US election. And you know, Israel has been extremely
Speaker 11: effective so far in this war to some extent that
Speaker 11: is due to US support with weaponry, etc.
Speaker 1: As well as defense systems, and of.
Speaker 11: Course that it's therefore important that Israel doesn't do anything
Speaker 11: to seriously undermine its relationship with the US, particularly at
Speaker 11: this critical point before an election. I think they may
Speaker 11: have greater freedom to act when they see the outcome
Speaker 11: of the election, So potentially it'll be after that, but
Speaker 11: I wouldn't nor would I discount it happening at any time.
Speaker 11: You know, all these different there's so many different factors
Speaker 11: involve which week about. But the Israeli Prime Minister does
Speaker 11: and as far as I can see so far, he's
Speaker 11: been calling all the right shots in this war.
Speaker 2: YEP.
Speaker 3: Couldn't agree with you more, all right, Colonel Richard Kemp,
Speaker 3: really appreciate your time tonight.
Speaker 2: Thank you.
Speaker 3: After the break, China ramps up attacks on Australia with
Speaker 3: accusations of hate crimes or how will the Prime Minister respond?
Speaker 3: Plus the wife of Nomad restaurant ownA speaks out as
Speaker 3: her husband face court today. We're also going to cover
Speaker 3: those desperate accusations from the Democrats that Trump liked Hitler.
Speaker 3: Trump's former attorney general would join me a bit later
Speaker 3: on the show.
Speaker 2: That's all coming up, welcome back.
Speaker 3: Well, China has hit out at the Albanezy government, accusing
Speaker 3: it of systematic racism and hate crimes, seriously violating the
Speaker 3: rights of refugees and immigrants and indigenous people with vulnerable
Speaker 3: living conditions. This came after Australia is you and Envoy
Speaker 3: cord on Beijing Beijing to do more about the massi
Speaker 3: ab use of wigas in Shingiang and we've hardly heard
Speaker 3: the actual ministers in the Albanezi government raised the issue
Speaker 3: of the wigas in Shingxiang their entire time in office. Well,
Speaker 3: the Prime Minister had this to say today.
Speaker 12: We'll always stand up for Australia's interests and when it
Speaker 12: comes to China, we've said we'll cooperate where we can,
Speaker 12: we'll disagree where we must, and we'll engage in our
Speaker 12: national interest. And we've raised issues of human rights with China.
Speaker 12: We've done that in a consistent and clear way.
Speaker 3: Okay, let's bring in former Liberal Minister Gary Hargrave and
Speaker 3: associate editor at The Australian Graham Lloyd.
Speaker 2: Welcome to you both. Gary.
Speaker 3: This is ering a rare criticism from China because the
Speaker 3: Albanzi government has taken a very different approach from the
Speaker 3: United States in the past two and a half years.
Speaker 13: Yeah, but it's probably off the back of the Australian
Speaker 13: government negotiating Pat Conroy's negotiation for seven billion dollars worth
Speaker 13: of missiles. I mean, I think this is just their
Speaker 13: little shot back at us, and it's just purely them
Speaker 13: reminding us that they have the power to decide whether
Speaker 13: they want our lobsters or our wine. So this could
Speaker 13: be another set of problems that have just recently been
Speaker 13: fixed on the trade front. Look, there's no doubt the
Speaker 13: wig applight is awful and what has happened there is
Speaker 13: genuinely dreadful and it's reasonable, as the Premister said, for
Speaker 13: Australia to call it out. But I think this is
Speaker 13: just this usual kind of diplomacy that China's decided, oh well,
Speaker 13: you've gone and bought missiles.
Speaker 1: It could be aimed at us.
Speaker 13: Because no one knows really where the missiles are going.
Speaker 13: We suspect aim towards China. So we'll just say, oh,
Speaker 13: you're dreadful to indigenous Australians, so you've got human rights abuses.
Speaker 13: Don't pick on us over the vegas. So look, I
Speaker 13: think we just have to stand our ground. If we don't, Charie,
Speaker 13: this is the problem with a lot of what we
Speaker 13: do between Australia and China. If we actually fold because
Speaker 13: they have a go at us, they'll have no respect
Speaker 13: for us. We have to stand our ground on the
Speaker 13: issues we know are important.
Speaker 1: Pretty simple, Graham.
Speaker 3: What do you think about the fact that people like
Speaker 3: Foreign Minister Penny Wong, when she was in opposition, she
Speaker 3: raised human rights issues often, very rarely does she raise
Speaker 3: them now, despite pledging to do so when in opposition.
Speaker 2: We have seen this very muted response.
Speaker 3: Shod's good that our trade relationship is back on track
Speaker 3: with China. But I mean, you see far more criticism
Speaker 3: of our ally Israel than you do of the human
Speaker 3: rights issues going on with the wigs here.
Speaker 14: Yeah, yeah, that's right, Charri. And certainly all of the
Speaker 14: actions of the Albanesi government have been geared towards trying
Speaker 14: to plicate China and get back sort of the crumbs
Speaker 14: off the table that we're taking in a way. But
Speaker 14: what would surprise a lot of people is China and
Speaker 14: other groups in the United Nations they portray a picture
Speaker 14: of Australia as a colonial country that treats its indigenous
Speaker 14: community in a terrible fashion and sends its soldiers overseas
Speaker 14: to fight and indulge in all these awful war crimes.
Speaker 14: And this is a narrative that's played out against us
Speaker 14: routinely that we're probably unaware of. And as we have
Speaker 14: discussions in the media here about all these issues to
Speaker 14: do with war crimes and soldiers that is all harvested
Speaker 14: and deployed against us in the international diplomacy. So really
Speaker 14: there needs to be in across the board grown up
Speaker 14: understanding of how this all plays out, and certainly we
Speaker 14: must do everything to call out China for its human
Speaker 14: rights abuses. And it's astonishing that they would really try
Speaker 14: to mount the case that there's an equivalence with how
Speaker 14: we behave both here and overseas.
Speaker 3: Yeah, well, let's have a look at no mad because
Speaker 3: the now disgraced owner has pled guilty today in court
Speaker 3: to displaying a Nazi swastika at a pro Palestinian rally
Speaker 3: in Sydney. Our Yasbeck fronted Downing Center local court today.
Speaker 15: Here's what happened an esteemed restaurateur whose success is owed
Speaker 15: to good decision making. Whether this choice was regrettable is
Speaker 15: a question only Alan Yasbik can answer.
Speaker 1: Alan, do you regret your actions? Respectfully?
Speaker 2: No comment, no comment?
Speaker 15: The fifty six year old today pleading guilty.
Speaker 3: Gary, his wife is imploring customers to return. She says
Speaker 3: she's furious over her husband's actions and claims that he's
Speaker 3: no longer involved in the management of the business. Do
Speaker 3: you think this is going to win back any customers?
Speaker 13: Well, I don't know, but I got to say I thought,
Speaker 13: respectfully no comment is not the way to go. I
Speaker 13: think he needed to actually purge himself completely of the
Speaker 13: offensive nature of his decision making a week or three
Speaker 13: or whatever it was ago. There is actually no place
Speaker 13: at all for anybody who does these sorts of things.
Speaker 13: The anti anti Semitism is just rife on our universities,
Speaker 13: and we can't allow people, can't allow people in the
Speaker 13: business community to perpetuate that. You know, Shari, this is
Speaker 13: just not a good look. And if he loses his
Speaker 13: business over it, then his wife will know exactly why
Speaker 13: it happened. The bloke needed to actually apologize, He actually
Speaker 13: needed to make it clear that he was angry at
Speaker 13: himself because people are angry at him, and until he
Speaker 13: actually man's up and, as I said, purges himself of
Speaker 13: this offensive conduct. I don't know whether a lot of
Speaker 13: people are going to rush back there. I mean, I
Speaker 13: haven't been a Woolworth and spend any money since they
Speaker 13: turned their back on Australia Day. I'm not Jewish, but
Speaker 13: I'm very supportive of what is happening in Israel and
Speaker 13: very very angry about what is being done to Jews
Speaker 13: in general around the world. This bloke really should hang
Speaker 13: his head in shame, and customers will vote with their wallet,
Speaker 13: That's all I'll say.
Speaker 2: And Graham, it wasn't a one off.
Speaker 3: There have been reports in the newspapers that several years
Speaker 3: ago he had water bomb balloons outside a synagogue, so
Speaker 3: he's obviously a long term pattern of behavior here.
Speaker 14: It's hard to understand, isn't it What goes on in
Speaker 14: people's heads. But it's no surprise that his wife is
Speaker 14: now traumatized that the state of affairs, he's blown the
Speaker 14: family business up, and she's concerned about that, probably as
Speaker 14: much as anything else. But you've got to have that
Speaker 14: sneaking suspicion that she knew all along what he thought
Speaker 14: about everything. It doesn't really ring true that this has
Speaker 14: all come as a bit of surprise, and it's very traumatic.
Speaker 14: It certainly will be traumatic for the wallet and that's
Speaker 14: perhaps how it should be right.
Speaker 3: Thank you both for your support on that one as well.
Speaker 3: Gary Hargrave, Graham Lloyd.
Speaker 2: Good to see you both. Now still to.
Speaker 3: Come concerns over Kamala's performance Today at the CNN town Hall,
Speaker 3: I'm going to speak with Trump's former acting Attorney general
Speaker 3: shortly plus the fallout from the Energy regulator's damning admission
Speaker 3: that Labour's renewable energy plans won't bring down power prices,
Speaker 3: Cam Reddin will join me from Canberra next.
Speaker 14: Well.
Speaker 2: When Peter Dutton announced.
Speaker 3: His plan for nuclear energy, the Albanzi government ordered a
Speaker 3: snap inquiry designed to expose flaws in his vision, and
Speaker 3: today was the start of the inquiry. We saw major agencies,
Speaker 3: AEMO CSIRO and the Department give evidence. So just how
Speaker 3: much damage did this achieve politically for Dutton? Well joining
Speaker 3: me now is Sky News political reporter cam Reddin.
Speaker 2: Cam So this inquiry.
Speaker 3: Was basically a political hit by the government on Dutton's
Speaker 3: nuclear energy proposal.
Speaker 2: Did it achieve its purpose?
Speaker 3: Whether were their concerns from the agencies today about the.
Speaker 16: Plan that was certainly the design Shario, I think they've
Speaker 16: caught a few blows, but perhaps not a knockout one.
Speaker 16: And what we really learned today one of the key
Speaker 16: takeouts from this nearly eight nine hours of inquiries here
Speaker 16: in Canberra was that the main opponent, or the biggest
Speaker 16: hurdle that the coalition might have to clear, isn't the
Speaker 16: Labor Party. It might not even be skeptics of nuclear energy.
Speaker 16: It's the bureaucracy and the red tape. The energy regulated
Speaker 16: today as part of these hearings revealed that they think
Speaker 16: even in a best case scenario, it could take between
Speaker 16: eight and ten years to design all the rules and regulations,
Speaker 16: the big system and network of red tape that would
Speaker 16: underpin a nuclear energy industry just to get it off
Speaker 16: the ground. So think about that eight to ten years
Speaker 16: of writing the documents of rules, of regulations, of permits,
Speaker 16: and all the different forms that need to be filled
Speaker 16: out before a single brick could be laid down to
Speaker 16: build the first reactor. Now we know under the coalition's plan,
Speaker 16: they believe they can get nuclear into the energy grid
Speaker 16: by twenty thirty five. That's when they think the first
Speaker 16: one can be up and running. According to the regulator,
Speaker 16: though they think they might not be able to even
Speaker 16: get the red tape done by twenty thirty five. So
Speaker 16: for all the hurdles that the coalition might need to
Speaker 16: leap over in order to get nuclear power up and going, if,
Speaker 16: of course, it wins the next election, one of the
Speaker 16: biggest ones might be getting the bureaucracy to feed up.
Speaker 16: They need to go pretty quick smart. If that's the
Speaker 16: kind of hurdle they're facing.
Speaker 2: Yeah, sounds like it. Cam. You've been on the ground
Speaker 2: for the Queensland election.
Speaker 3: What's your prediction for where things are headed on Saturday,
Speaker 3: given the polls have been tightening this week.
Speaker 16: Yeah, they always tend to tighten a few days out
Speaker 16: from election day. Show it should be enough to still
Speaker 16: see the Liberal National Party home everywhere I went for
Speaker 16: the ten days or so I spent in Queensland and
Speaker 16: we went up the north. I was following David chris
Speaker 16: A fully around through Townsville, even out to long Reach
Speaker 16: in the middle of back Queensland. There were two issues
Speaker 16: I think that really cut through more than anything. One
Speaker 16: was the issue of crime. You can see why the
Speaker 16: LNP has made this the bedrock really of its campaign.
Speaker 16: Almost everywhere we went, almost everyone had a story, whether
Speaker 16: it was their own personal one, or someone they worked with,
Speaker 16: someone they knew who'd had their castle and their business
Speaker 16: broken into. It was just everywhere, and when that takes old,
Speaker 16: it's hard for a government to hold on. The Other
Speaker 16: one that I thought was quite surprising was the issue
Speaker 16: of fifty cent fares. It is so universally popular everywhere
Speaker 16: you go, so popular in fact, the l ANDP dropped
Speaker 16: any opposition to it and said if we win, we
Speaker 16: will keep fifty cent public transport fares around as well.
Speaker 16: Even though Sharia voters are giving labor credits saying we
Speaker 16: like the idea of cheap of public transport, I'm not
Speaker 16: sure it's enough that they will vote for them too.
Speaker 16: So the polls still have the l ANDP in front.
Speaker 16: It may not be the smashing that some people are predicting,
Speaker 16: but barring a last minute disaster, the LNP should cruise
Speaker 16: to victory on Saturday night.
Speaker 3: Yeah, it's looking like a certainty that the next Premier
Speaker 3: of Queensland will be David Chris if Wooley Cameron.
Speaker 2: And thank you so much for that excellent analysis.
Speaker 3: And after the break, the US election campaign takes another turn.
Speaker 3: The jabs at Donald Trump coming thick and fast.
Speaker 2: Now former US.
Speaker 3: Acting Attorney General will join me to discuss Kamala's last
Speaker 3: ditch effort to win over voters. Stay tuned, welcome back,
Speaker 3: and let's bring in now Donald Trump's former acting US
Speaker 3: Attorney General, Matthew Whittaker. Matthew, welcome back to the show. Look,
Speaker 3: you're traveling around with Team Trump. You were in Pennsylvania today.
Speaker 3: I understand what's the plan for the final countdown for
Speaker 3: the Trump campaign.
Speaker 17: Well, it's good to be with you again. And you
Speaker 17: know what I can tell you is we are not
Speaker 17: taking anything for granted and we're going to sprint through
Speaker 17: the finish. Here we are on a bus tour across Pennsylvania.
Speaker 17: Great crowds and really a lot of enthusiasm. One of
Speaker 17: the things We're trying to make sure folks do is
Speaker 17: vote early and then so we can focus on those
Speaker 17: that don't vote in every election. Unlike Australia where everybody
Speaker 17: is mandated to vote. You know, we have people that
Speaker 17: almost half of our fellow citizens that don't show up
Speaker 17: and vote every year reliably for president. And so we're
Speaker 17: making sure that we were the reliable voters. We're banking
Speaker 17: those votes, and then we're focused on those you know,
Speaker 17: sometimes sometimes vote, sometimes not voters.
Speaker 3: Look, the seven battleground states are really crucial for the
Speaker 3: outcome of this election. Clearly you and the former president
Speaker 3: are spending a lot of time there in the final
Speaker 3: fourteen days. What's the reaction been like on the ground
Speaker 3: in Pennsylvania? The polls have Donald Trump just ahead around
Speaker 3: one point one percent in the seven battleground states on average.
Speaker 3: Do you think this is going to be enough to
Speaker 3: get him over the line, Well, it just depends.
Speaker 17: You know, we've had inaccurate polling in the last two
Speaker 17: presidential elections in twenty sixteen, twenty eighteen, I mean in
Speaker 17: twenty twenty and so what you're seeing is a is
Speaker 17: a cautiousness because we don't know whether these polls are
Speaker 17: accurate this year or whether they're off again. You know,
Speaker 17: typically Trump voters are hard to find, harder to find
Speaker 17: for polsters than Democrat voters.
Speaker 1: But you know, I've been to all of the swing states.
Speaker 17: Most recently, I've been in Georgia, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Michigan.
Speaker 1: And you know, what I'm seeing is a real.
Speaker 17: Desire from those that support Donald Trump and those that
Speaker 17: are interested in Donald Trump in making sure that he
Speaker 17: is the one in the White House in January. Because
Speaker 17: you know, the issues, whether it's the border, the southern border,
Speaker 17: whether it's national security, whether it is energy policy, whether
Speaker 17: it is law and order issue that I care a
Speaker 17: lot about, or whether it's the economy, all of those issues,
Speaker 17: Donald Trump is very strong and I think a lot
Speaker 17: of voters think he is the one that can fix
Speaker 17: these problems that really, quite frankly, have been caused by
Speaker 17: Kamala Harris and Joe Biden.
Speaker 3: Well, Kamala rus I did another town hall with CNN
Speaker 3: with Addison Cooper today. She was asked yet again why
Speaker 3: she's changed positions on some issues.
Speaker 2: Have a look.
Speaker 4: Can you talk a little bit about how your positions
Speaker 4: have shifted and.
Speaker 8: Why sure, and thank you. So. First of all, on fracking,
Speaker 8: I've been very clear we kind of dispense with this
Speaker 8: in twenty twenty, I am not going to bandfracking. I
Speaker 8: did not as vice president. In fact, as vice president,
Speaker 8: I cast the tie breaking vote that now has opened
Speaker 8: up more fracking leases. My value on the issue of
Speaker 8: what we need to do to invest in a clean
Speaker 8: energy economy and a clean energy future has not changed.
Speaker 8: But frankly, I now have the experience perspective of having
Speaker 8: been vice president.
Speaker 3: Matt, what did you think of her answers on why
Speaker 3: she's changed positions on major policy areas.
Speaker 17: Yeah, well, I've never seen a major party candidate debate
Speaker 17: themselves alone.
Speaker 1: It's really quite extraordinary.
Speaker 17: She can't be trusted on so many issues you know
Speaker 17: that the American people care about. Here in Pennsylvania, a
Speaker 17: major state that has a lot of jobs that depend
Speaker 17: on fracking, the folks I'm talking to that are on
Speaker 17: the ground do not believe that she can be trusted
Speaker 17: on this. I mean, she was a strong proponent when
Speaker 17: she ran in twenty nineteen for ending fracking. Her campaign
Speaker 17: and even herself have been all over the board. You know,
Speaker 17: Kamala Harris is unfortunately one of those politicians that will
Speaker 17: say anything to anybody in order to try to win
Speaker 17: an election. But she just can't be trusted on this
Speaker 17: issue in so many others.
Speaker 3: We've played the comments already on the show tonight where
Speaker 3: she accused Donald Trump of being a fascist. She repeated
Speaker 3: those accusations today. What do you think this says about
Speaker 3: her mindset a couple of weeks out.
Speaker 17: It just shows, you know, that she's willing to take
Speaker 17: cheap political hits at Donald Trump. I mean, no one
Speaker 17: believes that Donald Trump is a fascist because I'll tell
Speaker 17: you what, he was a president of the United States
Speaker 17: for four years and really took no action that would
Speaker 17: suggests that he wants to lead us to something like
Speaker 17: Mussolini's Italy. So you know, I just I think that
Speaker 17: is just a cheap political slur that Kamala Harris is
Speaker 17: trying to throw against President Trump in order to steal
Speaker 17: this election.
Speaker 1: But she's just not going to make it happen.
Speaker 3: All right, Matt Whitaker, thank you very much for your
Speaker 3: time in joining us from the campaign trail.
Speaker 2: Now that's it for me.
Speaker 3: On Monday, I'm going to be joined by a family
Speaker 3: member of a hostage in Gaza. Who did the interview
Speaker 3: with SBS but they refuse to run it. This is
Speaker 3: going to steamroll into a major story censorship from a
Speaker 3: public broadcaster, So tune in Monday at eight up now
Speaker 3: Paul Murray