Speaker 1: My name is Charlie Kirk. I run the largest pro
Speaker 1: American student organization in the country, fighting for the future
Speaker 1: of our republic. My call is to fight evil and
Speaker 1: to proclaim truth. If the most important thing for you
Speaker 1: is just feeling good, you're gonna end up miserable. But
Speaker 1: if the most important thing is doing good, you'll end
Speaker 1: up purposeful. College is a scam, everybody. You got to
Speaker 1: stop sending your kids to college. You should get married
Speaker 1: as young as possible and have as many kids as possible.
Speaker 1: Go start at turning point you would say college chapter.
Speaker 1: Go start attning point youould say high school chapter. Go
Speaker 1: find out how your church can get involved. Sign up
Speaker 1: and become an activist. I gave my life to the
Speaker 1: Lord in fifth grade, most important decision I ever made
Speaker 1: in my life, and I encourage you to do the same.
Speaker 1: Here I am Lord, Use me. Buckle up, everybody, Here
Speaker 1: we go. The Charlie Kirk Show is proudly sponsored by
Speaker 1: Preserved Gold, leading gold and silver experts and the only
Speaker 1: precious metals company I recommend to my family, friends and viewers.
Speaker 2: All right, welcome back to The Charlie Kirkshow. Hour two
Speaker 2: is underway. First day of America Fest at the Phoenix
Speaker 2: Convention Center kicks off tonight. Erica Kirk's gonna be welcoming everybody.
Speaker 2: We got Tucker Carlson, Ben Shapiro and more. I think
Speaker 2: Russell brand I forget who all is actually in tonight,
Speaker 2: but it's a killer lineup and it just keeps going
Speaker 2: the whole weekend. There are no breaks, no taking our
Speaker 2: foot off. The gas is going to be absolutely amazing.
Speaker 2: Lots of interviews at the members dot charliekirk dot com lounge,
Speaker 2: so those are private for members of the Charlie Kirkshow community,
Speaker 2: which is great.
Speaker 3: But in the meantime, Charlie Kirkshow community like the intelligence
Speaker 3: community or something that I say.
Speaker 2: It's a community. It's a group of people that share
Speaker 2: something in common. But right now we have Mike Davis,
Speaker 2: the Article three project. Mike, welcome back to the show.
Speaker 2: My friend. There is all this news. Chuck Grassley, I
Speaker 2: know you know, Chuck Grassley. Senator Grassley puts out this
Speaker 2: memo and basically says the FBI denied that there are
Speaker 2: at least is there's voices within the FBI asserting that
Speaker 2: they did not have probable cause to raid mar A Lago.
Speaker 2: Then you got Jack Smith who goes in for an
Speaker 2: eight hour closed door testimony making his case for why he,
Speaker 2: you know, embarked upon this Special Council political prosecution to
Speaker 2: President Trump, what is the truth?
Speaker 4: What did they learn yesterday?
Speaker 2: And you know what is going on behind the scenes
Speaker 2: with this FBI bombshell from Senator Grassley.
Speaker 5: Well, it's what we've been discussing on this show for
Speaker 5: over three years, Andrew, and that is that this was
Speaker 5: a political hits on President Trump in mar A Lago.
Speaker 5: It was a political hits to get back the damning
Speaker 5: Crossfire Hurricane records that President Trump declassified via Presidential ex
Speaker 5: executive order the day before he left office the first time.
Speaker 5: And they wanted to get back these records because they're
Speaker 5: so damning.
Speaker 6: They knew these.
Speaker 5: Records were going to come out because President Trump suited
Speaker 5: Hillary Clinton in a civil lawsuit in the Southern District
Speaker 5: of Florida for Crossfire Hurricane, for the Russian illusion hoax.
Speaker 5: When Obama Biden, Hillary Brennan, Clapper company, so many bad
Speaker 5: actors politicized and weaponized intel agencies to protect Hillary and
Speaker 5: her corruption when she was a Secretary of State, and
Speaker 5: the Clinton Foundation was taking tens of millions of dollars
Speaker 5: in shady foreign donations. Were just learning today that there
Speaker 5: is evidence of quid pro quo foreign corruption. With that
Speaker 5: that the Biden Justice Department sat on, and then with
Speaker 5: Crossfire Hurricane, they wanted to take out President Trump's campaign.
Speaker 5: So if these damning, if this damning evidence came out
Speaker 5: of Hillary Clinton's corruption because her server got hacked, that
Speaker 5: she wanted to be able to point to the Trump
Speaker 5: campaign and say, you can't believe this is a campaign,
Speaker 5: dirty trick, this is a hoax. They did the same
Speaker 5: thing with Hunter Biden's laptop in twenty twenty, so the
Speaker 5: FBI knew they didn't have probable cause to do this
Speaker 5: raid to get back these Crossfire Hurricane records, you have
Speaker 5: this US magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhardt in the Southern District
Speaker 5: of Florida, who was on the Trump versus Hillary civil case.
Speaker 5: He had to recuse because he had twenty seventeen Facebook
Speaker 5: post trashing President Trump, so obviously he's not going to
Speaker 5: be a fair judge. Six weeks later, that judicial bias
Speaker 5: somehow magically disappeared when Jay Bratz from the Biden Justice
Speaker 5: Department who went on to work for Jack Smith, went
Speaker 5: to Bruce Reinhardt and got this unprecedented's unlawful home raid
Speaker 5: on Trump when they knew they didn't have probable cause.
Speaker 5: It's so damning. I've talked about this for a long time.
Speaker 5: They've opened up a new grand jury in Fort Pierce, Florida,
Speaker 5: in the Southern District of Florida. My friend Jason Redding
Speaker 5: Quinones is Trump's new US attorney, and I have very
Speaker 5: publicly called for a grand jury to probe all of
Speaker 5: this and hold all of these lawfare democrats and other
Speaker 5: bad actors accountable for this, because this is the biggest
Speaker 5: scandal in American history.
Speaker 2: Wow, So you've got you know, what will never cease
Speaker 2: to amaze me is that you have these federal judges
Speaker 2: that just go on Facebook and like Trump's terrible, Like
Speaker 2: I mean, like the fact that a judge would feel
Speaker 2: so you know, loose to something, to say something political
Speaker 2: publicly on a social media site. It just it's just damning.
Speaker 2: I mean, in and of itself, I just find it
Speaker 2: really crass in low class. Actually, I don't know, I
Speaker 2: don't know if you're trying to chime in here, but
Speaker 2: it's just like you, you know, judges, you have this
Speaker 2: air of impartiality, you have an air of above the fray,
Speaker 2: and then you just go on to Facebook and like
Speaker 2: Trump sucks, Like okay, I don't know.
Speaker 4: It just seems beneath the office. Yeah, it is.
Speaker 5: It's also a violation of the judicial cannons. But I
Speaker 5: would say this about that US Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart
Speaker 5: at the timing of that Maro Lago rate seems very fishy.
Speaker 5: He recuses in the civil lawsuit. Six weeks later, the
Speaker 5: recusal issue goes away, and all of a sudden, Jay
Speaker 5: Bratt is down in Maro a Lagos sniffing around and
Speaker 5: coming up with a pretext that through this trade for
Speaker 5: presidential records that the president is allowed to have under
Speaker 5: the Presidential Records Act. What did Bruce Reinhardt talk to
Speaker 5: Jay Bratts about this? How did Ja Bratt know that
Speaker 5: these documents were going to be produced in that civil
Speaker 5: lawsuit versus Hilary when it was This whole thing needs
Speaker 5: to be investigated, and all of these bad actors need
Speaker 5: to be investigated, including these judges.
Speaker 2: So you say we need accountability here, I would agree,
Speaker 2: Mike Davis Article three project. What so you form a
Speaker 2: grand jury? What would accountability look like for somebody like
Speaker 2: Jack Smith?
Speaker 5: The accountability would be what we've been talking about for
Speaker 5: over three years. You open up a criminal probe under
Speaker 5: eighteen USC. Section two forty one. Conspiracy against rights when
Speaker 5: you politicize and weaponize intel agencies and law enforcement to
Speaker 5: go after your political enemies for non crimes. That's the
Speaker 5: textbook definition of conspiracy against rights. Jack Smith is very
Speaker 5: well aware of this conspiracy against rights crime because it's
Speaker 5: one of the four charges he made against President Trump
Speaker 5: for the non crime of the non crime of President
Speaker 5: Trump objecting to a presidential election, which is allowed by
Speaker 5: the Electoral Count Act of eighteen eighty seven and the
Speaker 5: First Amendment. Jack Smith can go into that closed door
Speaker 5: hearing and say whatever he wants. He said he had
Speaker 5: all the goods, he had all the evidence to get
Speaker 5: President Trump. He didn't. This guy is a part of
Speaker 5: scud Missile, who Democrats sent in to take out Republican
Speaker 5: presidential candidates. They'd sent in Jack Smith to take out
Speaker 5: former Virginia Governor Bob McDonald when he was a likely
Speaker 5: presidential candidate for Republicans. Jack Smith got a criminal conviction
Speaker 5: for fraud. It got overturned eight to nothing by the
Speaker 5: Supreme Court of the United States. It would have been
Speaker 5: nine to nothing, but Justice Scalia died. But Jack Smith
Speaker 5: didn't care that the damage was done. He took out
Speaker 5: Reverend mcgovernor McDonald as a presidential candidate. Jack Smith got
Speaker 5: banished to the Hey, he should have lost his law
Speaker 5: license after that. He's after you get beat eight to
Speaker 5: nothing at the Supreme Court. It's very hard to get
Speaker 5: beat eight to nothing at the Supreme Court, particularly on
Speaker 5: a criminal case. But Jack Smith found the way and
Speaker 5: they brought him back. The Biden regime brought him back
Speaker 5: to take out Trump at all costs. They failed because
Speaker 5: President Trump hired John Sower than now the Solicitor General,
Speaker 5: and John Sower the presidential immunity argument, which stopped the
Speaker 5: prosecutions in their tracks. But if John Sower didn't do that,
Speaker 5: President Trump would be sitting in a prison cell right
Speaker 5: now instead of the White House.
Speaker 3: But it does strike me, isn't that probably the best
Speaker 3: defense Jack Smith could make is you can say it's politicized.
Speaker 3: I think we agree it felt politicized, but a lot
Speaker 3: of it is if they can cover it with enough
Speaker 3: measure of legal formality.
Speaker 4: And getting evidence.
Speaker 3: He brings up we have part of his statement and
Speaker 3: he said, I just brought the charges that a grand
Speaker 3: jury returns. So doesn't he have sort of a pretty
Speaker 3: strong defense of a grand jury agreed with us?
Speaker 4: Yep.
Speaker 5: Everyone knows that a grand jury will indict a ham Sandwich.
Speaker 5: And you have a separate duty as a prosecutor to
Speaker 5: make sure that you have probable cause to make sure
Speaker 5: that there is a good faith legal basis for what
Speaker 5: you're doing, to make sure that you're not bringing not
Speaker 5: he remember what Jack Smith did. He brought novel legal charges.
Speaker 5: He tried to throw Trump in prison for the non
Speaker 5: crime of having presidential records, which is allowed by the
Speaker 5: Presidential Records Act. He tried to throw Trump in prison
Speaker 5: for the non crime of objecting to a presidential election,
Speaker 5: which is allowed by the Electoral Account Act of eighteen
Speaker 5: eighty seven. In the First Amendment, Jack Smith politicized and
Speaker 5: weaponized intel agencies and law enforcement to take out trouble
Speaker 5: Law with many many others, and Jack Smith can raise
Speaker 5: that defense to the jury.
Speaker 7: This is Lane Schumberger, chief investment officer and founding partner
Speaker 7: of y Refi. It has been an honor and a
Speaker 7: privilege to partner with Turning Point and for Charlie to
Speaker 7: endorse us. His endorsement means the world to us and
Speaker 7: we look forward to continuing our partnership with Turning Point
Speaker 7: for years to come. Now hear Charlie in his own words,
Speaker 7: tell you about y refi.
Speaker 1: I'm going to tell you guys about yrefight dot com.
Speaker 1: That is why are e f y dot com. Y
Speaker 1: refi is incredible private student loan net in America told
Speaker 1: us about three hundred billion dollars. Y refi is refinancing
Speaker 1: distress or defaulted private student loans. You can finally take
Speaker 1: control of your student loan situation with a plan that
Speaker 1: works for your monthly budget. Go to yrefight dot com.
Speaker 1: That is why refight dot com. Do you have a
Speaker 1: co borrower, why ref i can get them released from
Speaker 1: the loan. You're going to skip a payment up the
Speaker 1: twelve times without penalty. It may not be available at
Speaker 1: all fifty states. Go to y refight dot com. That
Speaker 1: is why are e f y dot com. Let's face it,
Speaker 1: if you have distress or default the student loans, it
Speaker 1: can be overwhelming because of privacit loan debt, so many
Speaker 1: people feel stuck. Go to y refight dot com. That
Speaker 1: is y R e f y dot com Private student
Speaker 1: loan debt relief yrefight dot com.
Speaker 2: Mike, you, uh, what have you heard from your sources
Speaker 2: about this, this briefing that happened on the Narco boats.
Speaker 2: I mean even Fetterman's coming out and saying this is
Speaker 2: all legal. They have a three step process, multi tier process,
Speaker 2: and there's lawyers at every step of the way. Is
Speaker 2: there any concern that you know that they're gonna have
Speaker 2: any legal basis to attack Pete Hegseth when he's no
Speaker 2: longer Secretary of War for example, or any of the
Speaker 2: people in the chain of command.
Speaker 5: Here, President of the United States, as the commander in chief,
Speaker 5: has the constitutional and statutory power and duty to protect
Speaker 5: our nation, including repelling an invasion. And that's exactly what's
Speaker 5: going on here. You have these Narco boats bringing in
Speaker 5: fence and all that's killing tens of thousands of Americans,
Speaker 5: and that the President is well within his constitutional and
Speaker 5: statutory authority. He's well within his constitutional authority as the
Speaker 5: commander in chief. Under the Commander in Chief Clause even
Speaker 5: if there's not a declaration of war, because going back
Speaker 5: to our founding, everyone agrees that the president can repel
Speaker 5: an invasion into our country. And also under the War
Speaker 5: Powers Act of nineteen seventy three, passed by Congress over
Speaker 5: President Nixon's veto, many presidents do not consider the War
Speaker 5: Powers Act constant utional because they think it constrains too
Speaker 5: much of the president's power to fight wars and to
Speaker 5: defend our country. But even if you think that the
Speaker 5: War Powers Act of nineteen seventy three is constitutional, what
Speaker 5: President Trump is doing is within his statutory powers under
Speaker 5: the War Powers Act of nineteen seventy three. There's no
Speaker 5: legal issue here whatsoever. And I don't remember these Democrats
Speaker 5: like Senator Mark Kelly complaining when President Obama ordered extra
Speaker 5: judicial drone strikes on American citizens abroad, including a minor
Speaker 5: so and I supported that if President Obama at drone
Speaker 5: strike Americans, President Trump and certainly Bob Narco boats.
Speaker 3: Are there any limits on what he could choose to bomb?
Speaker 4: I suppose sure.
Speaker 5: I mean there are limits if you have to show
Speaker 5: that they're you know, if the president is bombing things
Speaker 5: that are not danger to the United States, then sure,
Speaker 5: there could be limits on that, but it's the president
Speaker 5: has very broad discretion. He has very broad power and
Speaker 5: very broad discretion as the chief executive officer and as
Speaker 5: the commander in chief as it relates to controlling our military,
Speaker 5: protecting our country, protecting shipping lanes, protecting our allies. He
Speaker 5: has broad powers. Remember that if you look at the Constitution,
Speaker 5: that the Congress has the power to declare war, not
Speaker 5: make war, right, So there's a difference there, And the
Speaker 5: founders actually debated that. If you go back and look
Speaker 5: at the Federalist papers, they intentionally changed that language from
Speaker 5: make war to declare war to give the president more leeway,
Speaker 5: more running room to protect our country.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 2: I mean, I'm mostly just worried that, you know, if
Speaker 2: the future elections don't go our way, that they're going
Speaker 2: to try and you know, throw secretary headset in the gulag.
Speaker 4: I doubt they would.
Speaker 3: I think there's probably a I mean, there's I guess
Speaker 3: I shouldn't say they won't, because there's really no limit
Speaker 3: to the damage the left might do to the country
Speaker 3: in a fit of peak.
Speaker 4: But I think.
Speaker 3: Historically, at least there would be a very strong bipartisan
Speaker 3: hesitancy to have our military leaders be second guessing actions
Speaker 3: they take because they're just going to get prosecuted for it.
Speaker 3: Sound a party because at that point an if they're
Speaker 3: going to throw out that, they could do it for
Speaker 3: probably any other military action as well. I think you
Speaker 3: need a more clear cut unanimity on it being something
Speaker 3: completely unacceptable, you know, massacre of village in Rightetnam, where
Speaker 3: they had evidence that was clear.
Speaker 2: That they were only civilians. For for example, Mike, we've got
Speaker 2: only about a minute and a half left in this segment,
Speaker 2: but I wanted to play this cut from a judge
Speaker 2: Janine or I guess US attorney Jeanine Piro two ninety one.
Speaker 8: There certainly was an effort to you know, misclassify, mischaracterize
Speaker 8: certain categories of crime, and it was an attempt to
Speaker 8: make crime look lower than it was. And the investigation
Speaker 8: that we inducted over a period of several months based
Speaker 8: upon the report of the deflation of numbers, it was
Speaker 8: very thorough. As you indicated, over six thousand reports were
Speaker 8: looked at, over fifty witnesses, and those witnesses were rank
Speaker 8: and filed from the top down. But the bottom line
Speaker 8: here is this now we're in a situation with President
Speaker 8: Trump and the Attorney General Pam BONDI, where every case
Speaker 8: is being looked at, every case is being reviewed by
Speaker 8: my office.
Speaker 2: My questions quick here, Mike, What can you do? I
Speaker 2: guess state level other states are probably cooking the books
Speaker 2: on crime stats as well, but at least in DC
Speaker 2: there are some federal control. How do you fix this?
Speaker 2: Who can you hold accountable?
Speaker 5: I would open a criminal proll because if you are
Speaker 5: making false statements to the federal government with your crime
Speaker 5: statistics in order to get, for example, more grant money,
Speaker 5: you could be charged for that. You could be charged
Speaker 5: for fraud. You could be charged for conspiracy.
Speaker 4: Can judge the charge? Hinjinine Piro do that?
Speaker 5: She could? I think you should look more closely at this.
Speaker 4: Mike Davis, thanks for the time, my friend, will see
Speaker 4: you soon.
Speaker 5: Thank you.
Speaker 2: You know, I've been thinking about how much culture is
Speaker 2: shaped by what we choose to watch, because, whether we
Speaker 2: realize it or not, the stories we invite into our
Speaker 2: homes shape the way we see the world. That's why
Speaker 2: what Angel Studios is doing matters. And right now they're
Speaker 2: having their biggest sale of the year for a limited
Speaker 2: time You can get an Angel Guild membership for his
Speaker 2: low as six ninety nine a month for twelve months,
Speaker 2: plus two free tickets to see David in theaters. Angel
Speaker 2: Studios is leading a quiet revolution in entertainment. They're telling
Speaker 2: stories that elevate truth, celebrate family, and remind us what
Speaker 2: courage really looks like.
Speaker 1: These aren't just good films, their cultural reset buttons. When
Speaker 1: you join the Angel Guild, you don't just stream entertainment.
Speaker 2: You help create it, and you help decide what the
Speaker 2: next generation of stories will look like. Take advantage of
Speaker 2: the lowest price of the year. Become a member of
Speaker 2: the Angel Guild and get your two free tickets to
Speaker 2: see David in theaters this Christmas. Go to Angel dot
Speaker 2: com slash Charlie. That's Angel dot com slash Charlie to
Speaker 2: learn more. All right, so, Senator Mike Lee, welcome back
Speaker 2: to the show. It's great to have you. Thank you
Speaker 2: for making the time. There has been a raging debate
Speaker 2: online and then I think Mark Waynemullen, one of your
Speaker 2: senate colleagues who also comes on the show often, he
Speaker 2: sort of seemed like he was now open to the
Speaker 2: idea of nuking the filibuster. I had all these questions,
Speaker 2: why if we don't you know, you got Mitch McConnell,
Speaker 2: you got Susan Collins Murkowski. I don't know what you
Speaker 2: could even get accomplished if you do nuke the philibuster.
Speaker 2: And then you came out with this tweet threeh eight
Speaker 2: you say, the chronic abuse of the Senate sixty vote
Speaker 2: cloture standard must come to an end. Now the Senate
Speaker 2: GOP must immediately start fighting cloture abuse by, among other things,
Speaker 2: requiring senators to debate. So lay out how this is
Speaker 2: distinct from just nuking the filibuster.
Speaker 9: Look, these are all ways that we're focused on to
Speaker 9: try to and filibuster abuse and cloture abuse. And first
Speaker 9: let me explain what cloture is and what the filibuster is.
Speaker 9: The Senate from the very beginning of its existence, for
Speaker 9: nearly two and a half centuries, has had as a
Speaker 9: general rule unlimited debate that you allow as long as
Speaker 9: any senator wants to debate, debate will continue. Now, starting
Speaker 9: about a century ago, I think it was maybe in
Speaker 9: nineteen seventeen, they came up with a means by which
Speaker 9: they could bring debate to a close. Initially it required
Speaker 9: a three fourth supermajority that was later lowered to a
Speaker 9: two third supermajority. It's now a three fifths supermajority and
Speaker 9: has been there for about fifty years. Meeting in a
Speaker 9: one hundred vote senate, you've got to have sixty votes
Speaker 9: from sixty different senators to bring debate to a close. Then,
Speaker 9: and only then can you bring debate to a close.
Speaker 9: So the whole point of this cloture rule, it's not
Speaker 9: to create a de facto sixty vote threshold for passing
Speaker 9: legislation itself. It often has that effect, but really the
Speaker 9: purpose of it is to extend debate.
Speaker 6: In lesser until you get sixty votes to bring debate
Speaker 6: to a close. Here's what it's metastasized into. Though.
Speaker 9: What it's turned into is something very interesting. It's turned
Speaker 9: into people saying, well, I don't want to vote for it,
Speaker 9: I won't support cloture. Therefore I don't have to debate it,
Speaker 9: and I can kill it simply by refusing to support culture.
Speaker 9: But then we don't require them to debate, and so
Speaker 9: this allows them a cheap and easy way of creating
Speaker 9: a de facto sixty vote threshold.
Speaker 6: For passing legislation. That's not how it's supposed to work.
Speaker 9: The point is this, if we enforce the cloture rule,
Speaker 9: we could end cloture abuse and we could end this
Speaker 9: perpetual tail chasing model in which even when Republicans control
Speaker 9: the Senate and the House and the White House as
Speaker 9: we currently do, we just take all sorts of things
Speaker 9: off the table.
Speaker 6: We can't accomplish this. We can't accomplish that. Why well,
Speaker 6: because we don't have sixty votes. There are other ways
Speaker 6: that break through this.
Speaker 9: You enforce the rules by requiring them to debate, and
Speaker 9: then the minute they stop debating, either because you've physically
Speaker 9: exhausted them or because they have exhausted their.
Speaker 6: Right to continue speaking. We have a number of rules about.
Speaker 9: That, including you can only speak twice on the same
Speaker 9: legislative day, on the same discrete legislative matter. If they
Speaker 9: have exhausted either themselves physically or their right to speak,
Speaker 9: that moment, you can call of the vote and that
Speaker 9: vote is cast as simple majority threshold and you can
Speaker 9: get a lot past.
Speaker 6: We haven't been doing that. We need to get back
Speaker 6: into that business.
Speaker 2: Yeah, that's so you're basically you know you've seen these.
Speaker 2: Senator Cruz did the marathon. You had Corey Booker do
Speaker 2: these marathon Is that kind of what if we change
Speaker 2: the rules? I have a question about how you would
Speaker 2: actually change it. But if we actually started enforcing in person,
Speaker 2: you know, irl debate on the floor of the Senate,
Speaker 2: that's what you would basically start seeing, is you'd start seeing, yes,
Speaker 2: fifty senators doing marathon debate to try and outlast their opponent.
Speaker 4: Basically, that's right, that's right.
Speaker 9: The problem with today's filibuster is that it's not really
Speaker 9: a filibuster. It's not Jimmy Stewart speaking until he collapses
Speaker 9: on the Senate floor.
Speaker 6: So at no point have Democrats.
Speaker 9: This year, while we've held the Senate and the House
Speaker 9: in the White House, at no point of Democrats been
Speaker 9: forced to go down to the floor and talk without
Speaker 9: stopping to defend their terrible policies until they have to
Speaker 9: go to the bathroom or get some sleep, or until
Speaker 9: everybody who wants to speak and debate on it have
Speaker 9: exhausted their ability to do so. That is what most
Speaker 9: Americans justifiably understand the filibuster to be. And it's not
Speaker 9: happening because we're not enforcing our own rules.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I'm seeing this could have the beneficial side effect.
Speaker 3: It might force some earlier retirements by some as.
Speaker 4: You just say I'm not up for eight eight hours.
Speaker 2: You'd start having to elect in the primaries like based
Speaker 2: on like youth and vigor, because we need a guy
Speaker 2: that can actually.
Speaker 3: Like stand on the Senate floor to drafting a hockey team.
Speaker 3: This guy's got quite as based on the policies, but
Speaker 3: he's a great stammin Yeah.
Speaker 2: Great, Sammy. This is what we've done with Supreme Court.
Speaker 2: It's like, what are they thirty seven? Yeah, let's yeah,
Speaker 2: that's that's interesting. So how would you go about changing
Speaker 2: the rules? What needs to happen? Could this be a
Speaker 2: majority leader Thune? Could he get this done?
Speaker 6: Essentially? Yes.
Speaker 9: So that's the beauty of this thing, Andrews that no
Speaker 9: rules change is required. We don't have to do anything
Speaker 9: to change them because the rules not only already allow this,
Speaker 9: the rules already contemplate that this is what a filibuster is.
Speaker 9: So remember, Democrats have been able to use just the
Speaker 9: mere concept of a talking filibuster to grind things from.
Speaker 6: A halt, and we've allowed them to do that.
Speaker 9: Because we haven't enforced it, So yes, if we adopted
Speaker 9: this standpoint, the majority leader in a consultation with whoever
Speaker 9: is sitting in the presiding Officer's chair at the moment
Speaker 9: it decides that he's.
Speaker 6: That we're going to begin enforcing this.
Speaker 9: And the minute they're not there to debate, either because
Speaker 9: they physically don't want to or because they can't because
Speaker 9: they've exhausted their right to do so under our existing rules,
Speaker 9: then you call the question, you meaning, you call the
Speaker 9: vote on that matter, and when there's nobody there debating it,
Speaker 9: the passage that the passage of that legislation is set
Speaker 9: at a simple majority.
Speaker 2: That is a really I mean, it does strike me
Speaker 2: when I saw you tweet this out, Senator, I was like,
Speaker 2: this is I mean, you do think of the Senate
Speaker 2: being the premier legislative body in the world, that you
Speaker 2: think of all this vigorous debate that happens on the
Speaker 2: Senate floor, But it's really not like that. It's a
Speaker 2: bunch of grand standing for clips, and so you can
Speaker 2: post them on social and you can, you know, take
Speaker 2: cheap shots at your opponents without them answering back, and
Speaker 2: and then you don't really debate that's the whole point
Speaker 2: of culture, is that you just you, you stave off
Speaker 2: actual vigorous debate. And it wouldn't the Senate be benefited
Speaker 2: by this back and forth of ideas.
Speaker 4: I mean it does.
Speaker 2: It does strike me that this is your you're sort
Speaker 2: of getting it back to its original purpose.
Speaker 6: No, that's exactly right now. I will be clear.
Speaker 9: There are times when real debate does happen on the
Speaker 9: Senate floor. Sometimes it's in slow motion, but sometimes there's
Speaker 9: no debate going on at all, which brings back, brings
Speaker 9: us back to how we would do this. The only
Speaker 9: real catch here what's difficult about this. I don't mean
Speaker 9: to describe this as easy, and I don't mean to
Speaker 9: suggest that the minute we decided to do this, we
Speaker 9: could and would immediately pass everything that we wanted without
Speaker 9: any hitch or without any difficulty, And.
Speaker 6: That's not true.
Speaker 9: But it gives us the opportunity to do that, and
Speaker 9: I think in many cases we would be the past
Speaker 9: things that we wouldn't otherwise be able to do.
Speaker 6: But here's the catch.
Speaker 9: The catch is that Republicans would need, as the majority
Speaker 9: party in the Senate, would need to show up and
Speaker 9: spend significant time on the Senate floor, the Republican leadership.
Speaker 6: Yeah right, I mean, but that is what we signed
Speaker 6: up for.
Speaker 9: We've often been told as senators, you know, if you
Speaker 9: don't want to fight hires, don't become a firefighter. And
Speaker 9: if you don't want to cast difficult votes at inconvenient times,
Speaker 9: don't become a lawmaker. Don't come to the United States Senate.
Speaker 9: If we decided as a conference we're going to do this,
Speaker 9: there's a lot more that we could accomplish, and we
Speaker 9: could do it this way without having to change a
Speaker 9: single rule. It really is the natural fulfillment of what
Speaker 9: the filibuster is supposed to be. Right now, we don't
Speaker 9: have real filibusters. We just have chronic cloture abuse. And
Speaker 9: then we deceive the public into thinking that the reason
Speaker 9: we can't do some of the things that we want to.
Speaker 6: Do is because we don't have sixty votes.
Speaker 9: Well, it's been over one hundred years since Republicans have
Speaker 9: had sixty votes in the Senate, that three fifths supermajority.
Speaker 9: And that's why we can't blame it all on the filibuster,
Speaker 9: because it's born on the seventeenth.
Speaker 2: You can blame it on the seventeenth. But that's you know,
Speaker 2: I hadn't even Yeah, I haven't even thought about that.
Speaker 4: Senator that we have.
Speaker 2: It's been over one hundred years since we've had sixty
Speaker 2: Republican senators.
Speaker 4: One hundred years.
Speaker 2: I mean, if we think we're ever going So my
Speaker 2: big thing, Senator Lee, is that I want immigration reform.
Speaker 2: That's what I think that. I think it is the
Speaker 2: switch that you could flip that would solve a ton
Speaker 2: of our problems. That's me personally. I think there's a
Speaker 2: lot of energy for that in the base. But we're
Speaker 2: never going to get there with this Democrat party. There's
Speaker 2: the But here's my concern is that even if we
Speaker 2: got there, we nuked the filibuster, we don't have enough
Speaker 2: votes to do anything important anyways. So the question is,
Speaker 2: you know, will Senator Thoon, have you pitched this to
Speaker 2: Senator Thuon, Leader Thoon, have you pitched this to the
Speaker 2: President of the White House? Is this something that could
Speaker 2: actually gain momentum, attraction and become a thing.
Speaker 6: I have pitched it.
Speaker 9: To the President, I've pitched it to Leader through and
Speaker 9: I've pitched it to Senate Republicans. I've pitched it to
Speaker 9: the White House staff, and I have yet to hear
Speaker 9: anyone identify a reason why it couldn't work. Sometimes people
Speaker 9: will point out correctly what the difficulty could be, and
Speaker 9: the difficulty is exactly what I just described it as,
Speaker 9: which is that it would require attendance and prolonged attendance
Speaker 9: at inconvenient hours. But nobody has explained any reason why
Speaker 9: it wouldn't work. And while there are some difficulties inherent
Speaker 9: in that, I think we owe that to the American
Speaker 9: people at a time when we've had millions upon millions
Speaker 9: of people coming into our country illegally under the over
Speaker 9: the last four years, at a.
Speaker 6: Time when our laws are making it very difficult.
Speaker 9: That is becoming an obvious in litigation pending now in
Speaker 9: the District of ill Be over our ability to deport
Speaker 9: those individuals who came in unlawfully, given the now huge
Speaker 9: backlog we have in our immigration course.
Speaker 6: Yes, we've got to have reform in that area.
Speaker 9: We need permitting reform, we need regulatory reform, we need
Speaker 9: to pass the Reins Act.
Speaker 6: All these things could benefit from this strategy.
Speaker 4: I think it's brilliant.
Speaker 2: I think I don't see a good example or a
Speaker 2: good reason to not do it as you said, and
Speaker 2: senators should be pulling long hours. Our US senator should
Speaker 2: be pulling very long hours, Senator Mike Lee, a really
Speaker 2: amazing idea. Thank you for making the time.
Speaker 6: Thank you.
Speaker 2: Christmas is a time of giving, and there's nothing better
Speaker 2: than knowing that what you give results in saving the
Speaker 2: life of an innocent baby. And for every baby we save,
Speaker 2: there is a mom who is saved from a lifetime
Speaker 2: of regret. Every Christmas stocking you will look at this
Speaker 2: month is a blessing in your life. Won't you make
Speaker 2: that possible for another mom?
Speaker 4: Today?
Speaker 2: Preborn provides free ultrasounds to girls and women, and an
Speaker 2: ultrasound doubles the chance she'll choose life. Undred and forty
Speaker 2: dollars gives five free ultrasounds and saves babies. Just twenty
Speaker 2: eight dollars a month can save a baby a month
Speaker 2: for less than a dollar a day, and today, thanks
Speaker 2: to a dollar for dollar match, your gift saves twice
Speaker 2: as many babies. And if you're looking for the perfect
Speaker 2: tax deductible year end giving idea, I personally cannot think
Speaker 2: of a better one than a fifteen thousand dollars gift
Speaker 2: providing an ultrasound machine, saving thousands of lives for years
Speaker 2: to come join me, and saving babies right now and
Speaker 2: making it a merry Christmas. Call eight three three eight
Speaker 2: five zero two two two nine, or click on the
Speaker 2: preborn banner at Charlie Kirk dot com. We're just Blake
Speaker 2: and I. We were imagining all these octagenarians in the
Speaker 2: Senate just trying to pull all nighters and stand up
Speaker 2: on their own two field.
Speaker 4: I bet they maybe they pull in, you.
Speaker 2: Know, like a like a chair for some of the oldies.
Speaker 2: Dick Durbins eighty one, Richard Blumenthal is, that's funny, seventy
Speaker 2: nine to eighty years old.
Speaker 4: I guess that's it's older than I thought.
Speaker 2: Chuck Grassley's the old oldest at ninety two, Chuck Schumer
Speaker 2: seventy five, Elizabeth Warren is seventy six. And let's see here,
Speaker 2: Bernie Sanders gotta be like, what like eighty Sanders is
Speaker 2: eighty four eighty four.
Speaker 3: But as he said, Sanders, he kind of comes off
Speaker 3: like he can still hang. He's an energetic eighty four.
Speaker 2: So the whole time I was doing that interview with Sinatarly,
Speaker 2: I was like, Blake's probably sitting here just spinning a
Speaker 2: twitally as thumbs, going why it won't work, and that
Speaker 2: bothered me to feel your energy.
Speaker 3: I appreciate that the senator wants more real debate in
Speaker 3: the Senate. It's sort of a funny thing. You can
Speaker 3: read about these great debates in the United States House
Speaker 3: and in the United States Senate. In the eighteen hundreds,
Speaker 3: you have this speech on the Senate floor that's so
Speaker 3: fiery by Charles Sumner that this guy from South Carolina
Speaker 3: comes in and beats him over the head with a
Speaker 3: cane in front of everybody. Because the senators would be
Speaker 3: there and debate in person, and they don't anymore. You
Speaker 3: get this myth because of c Span that they're doing that,
Speaker 3: but they're not. It's they're just speaking to an empty
Speaker 3: hall and some yawning tourists.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 2: I think you imagine it more like like you know
Speaker 2: the Oxford Union.
Speaker 4: Yeah, or don't do that.
Speaker 3: In the UK, they have Prime Minister's questions. The PM
Speaker 3: goes in, everyone's there and it's they still have a tradition.
Speaker 3: I would you have the people there to debate. I
Speaker 3: would love to see you've lost that. It would be
Speaker 3: good to restore that that said, I think this is
Speaker 3: just a slightly different, dressed up way to nuke the filibuster.
Speaker 4: I mean, yeah, it's it.
Speaker 2: But I actually do think I was compelled by a
Speaker 2: return to what it should be, what it was supposed
Speaker 2: to be. And I actually think Leader Thune should keep
Speaker 2: like just totally reform it.
Speaker 4: So they have to go back to our position.
Speaker 3: It's are getting rid of if you have good legislation
Speaker 3: that you will pass.
Speaker 4: If you don't, what's the point.
Speaker 2: Yeah, well, immigration is the north Star telling you go
Speaker 2: ahead and throw up. I don't know if this is
Speaker 2: this b roll or is this audio anyways?
Speaker 4: Three ten uh.
Speaker 2: This is from Tyler Boyer COO of Turning Point Action
Speaker 2: and he this is him entering the venue this morning,
Speaker 2: three ten uh. And it's just beautiful presentation. It's got
Speaker 2: images of Charlie. There's some like I don't even know,
Speaker 2: they put decals on the floor and they look like
Speaker 2: they kind of glow or whatever. So that's just that's
Speaker 2: one of the entry points into Amfest and it's a
Speaker 2: I mean, it's phenomenal. So tonight we're gonna have Russell Brand,
Speaker 2: Ben Shapiro, Tucker Carlson, Erica Kirk is gonna welcome us
Speaker 2: in and more and then tomorrow obviously Day two, lots
Speaker 2: of speakers, tons of breakouts. If you want to check
Speaker 2: out the agenda, you can go to tpsa dot com
Speaker 2: slash agenda if you want to see everything that's going on.
Speaker 2: We're gonna have the Thought Crime crew together at one
Speaker 2: thirty tomorrow local IK. Yeah, one thirty Local, three thirty Eastern.
Speaker 2: They're gonna be doing that from Expo Hall. We got
Speaker 2: this big trailer, so Jack, Cliff, Maloney, me Tyler you
Speaker 2: and then we'll probably do some Q and A with
Speaker 2: the students, which will be really fun. And then we've
Speaker 2: got a Proved Me Wrong at that same location. Megan
Speaker 2: Kelly's doing it, Michael Knowles is doing it, Lots of
Speaker 2: different folks are going to be doing that. We're capturing
Speaker 2: all that content and the back and forth with the students,
Speaker 2: So keeping Charlie's legacy of doing.
Speaker 4: That alive at that at Amfest.
Speaker 2: And I think last year was the first year he
Speaker 2: actually did it, proved me wrong inside the Expo hall,
Speaker 2: so I think so.
Speaker 3: Yeah, I don't think that many people were trying to
Speaker 3: prove him wrong on anything.
Speaker 2: It was like it was fun questions. I was like,
Speaker 2: you know which team is better?
Speaker 4: Sports?
Speaker 2: Sports questions, football questions, ragging on his trime.
Speaker 3: Do we begin the stream today because we've had a
Speaker 3: few questions about that.
Speaker 2: The stream is probably going to start, I believe at
Speaker 2: around four forty five, so or for thirty six thirty eastern. Yeah, right, yeah,
Speaker 2: because we've got pastor John Onmchuku is going to start us,
Speaker 2: and then we've got Yeah, so we've got so updated
Speaker 2: Erica Kurr, Ben Shapiro, Russell Brand, Michael Noles, Tucker Carlson,
Speaker 2: and then there's a concert tonight with Nate Smith, and
Speaker 2: that is starting probably.
Speaker 4: I would say we'll probably strike the.
Speaker 2: Stream at four thirty and then programming begins at four
Speaker 2: fifty and I'll get again that's local time, so keep
Speaker 2: it on eastern. Six point thirty begins at six forty
Speaker 2: five probably is when the programming begins eastern. So you're
Speaker 2: gonna check it out and you can get that on
Speaker 2: rumble dot com for streaming. If you want to watch
Speaker 2: it on Real America's Voice, Rumorkers Voice will also have it.
Speaker 2: And uh, it's gonna be a great weekend. It's gonna
Speaker 2: be a phenomenal, phenomenal weekend. And I think to some
Speaker 2: of the themes that we were talking about before, Blake
Speaker 2: that I just think the movement is hungry for a
Speaker 2: moment where we get to see all these disparate voices,
Speaker 2: these competing, competing viewpoints come together in one big event
Speaker 2: that's big enough to hold them all.
Speaker 4: That's the goal.
Speaker 3: Now it's it's not big enough to hold them all.
Speaker 3: That's the amazing thing. And that's always what Charlie wanted.
Speaker 3: He wanted the you know, the stadium event we had that.
Speaker 3: He wanted the event he wanted to grow so huge
Speaker 3: Phoenix itself wasn't big enough.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and we we we are going to announce some
Speaker 2: big news about that for next year, but we're not
Speaker 2: ready yet. Okay, there's there's there's stuff going on behind
Speaker 2: the scenes about the super Bowl halftime show. Actually I
Speaker 2: said that wrong, the halftime show, the All American forgive
Speaker 2: me that that is not our branding the physically large
Speaker 2: game officially halftime show.
Speaker 4: I apologize.
Speaker 2: And so there's news that that we'll have there, there's
Speaker 2: news about next year. And if you want to get
Speaker 2: tickets and you weren't able to for Amfest this year.
Speaker 2: Go to amfest dot com to uh pre order your
Speaker 2: tickets for next year with a discount. We will see
Speaker 2: you tomorrow from the floor of America Fest talk to
Speaker 2: you them.
Speaker 7: For more on many of these stories and news you
Speaker 7: can trust, go to Charliekirk dot com.