Speaker 1: Welcome.
Speaker 2: It is verdic with center, Teed Cruz, Ben Ferguson with you, Senator.
Speaker 2: It's a very big day because I'm just gonna go
Speaker 2: ahead and throw it out there. It's my birthday, and
Speaker 2: why not throw in a Donald Trump up getting reindicted.
Speaker 2: All at the same time, it's the best birthday president
Speaker 2: you can ask for.
Speaker 3: Well, happy birthday, big guy. I'm really proud to see
Speaker 3: you enter age sixty. You know, you don't look a
Speaker 3: day over fifty five, and so that's really great.
Speaker 1: Man.
Speaker 2: You know, forty three, I'm never gonna catch up to you, sir.
Speaker 2: You're just older than I am. I don't you know older.
Speaker 2: You can throw in the wiser thing, but I'm still
Speaker 2: coming for you.
Speaker 3: Look, you're forty three, so you're George W.
Speaker 1: Bush today. That's right. I like it, so you'll remember
Speaker 1: it this year. There you go. So let's talk about
Speaker 1: this indictment for a second. This is crazy, all right.
Speaker 3: So it's a big day number one, As Yogi Barra said,
Speaker 3: it's deja vu all over again. Donald Trump has been indicted.
Speaker 3: I gotta say, I wish that were new, I wish
Speaker 3: that were different, I wish that were unusual. At this point,
Speaker 3: it feels like any day that ends with a why
Speaker 3: the Democrats are indicted on Donald Trump again? Every time
Speaker 3: they're scared that he's going to win, they indict him again. So, yes,
Speaker 3: that has happened again. We're going to explain exactly what
Speaker 3: Jack Smith did and what it means beyond that. This
Speaker 3: is actually a big bombshell. Facebook admits it is actively
Speaker 3: censoring social media and that they was doing so at
Speaker 3: the behest of the Biden administration. The government asked it,
Speaker 3: and Facebook saluted and actively censored. We're going to talk
Speaker 3: about that. And then finally Kamala Harris wants to build
Speaker 3: the wall. Truly a stunning admission. This is a bizarre chapter.
Speaker 4: We live in. We're going to lay that out as well.
Speaker 1: Yeah, it certainly is.
Speaker 2: I want to tell you real quick about our friends
Speaker 2: of the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews. We are
Speaker 2: quickly approaching the one year anniversary of the horrific Commas
Speaker 2: attacks on Israel and the Holy Land is under a
Speaker 2: day after day, this time on multiple fronts, from deadly
Speaker 2: threats that are increasing in northern Israel, constant rocket attacks
Speaker 2: from Hesblah that have been fired at Israel and then
Speaker 2: the threats from Iran as well. It is a major
Speaker 2: problem to be safe in Israel right now now, since
Speaker 2: the war started, the International Fellowship of Christians and Jews
Speaker 2: has been on the forefront of Israel, addressing the needs
Speaker 2: of those that are most vulnerable. And that's why I
Speaker 2: am proud to partner with IFCJ and many of you.
Speaker 2: I say thank you because you've already given donations, and
Speaker 2: these life saving donations are helping provide emergency food as
Speaker 2: well as critical security needs such as flat jackets, firefighting equipment,
Speaker 2: armored vehicles including armored ambulances that have been used countless
Speaker 2: time since the attacks, temporary bomb shelters that are being
Speaker 2: installed as we speak, and much more. Right now, we're
Speaker 2: asking for five hundred of you to join the Fellowship
Speaker 2: and meet by donating one hundred and fifty dollars to
Speaker 2: meet these urgent security needs. And thanks to an incredible
Speaker 2: IFCJ supporter, your gift will be matched, doubling your impact
Speaker 2: in the Holy Land. So all you have to do
Speaker 2: is call to make your gift right now eight at
Speaker 2: eight four eight eight IFCJ. That's eight eight eight four
Speaker 2: eight eight IFCJ are four three, two five. You can
Speaker 2: go online as well to support them at support IFCJ
Speaker 2: dot org. That's one word, SUPPORTIFCJ dot org. Israel needs
Speaker 2: are support now more than ever. So go to support
Speaker 2: IFCJ dot org. And I'll say it in advanced thank
Speaker 2: you to all of you that are getting involved, in
Speaker 2: all of you that already have center. This was one
Speaker 2: of those headlines. And I'm I'm not shocked anymore. As
Speaker 2: you almost described in the intro there, that the left
Speaker 2: is afraid Trump's going to win. So okay, let's try
Speaker 2: to throw him in jail, let's indict him again. But
Speaker 2: there is some confusion. How is it that this guy
Speaker 2: who was told you did it wrong from the Supreme
Speaker 2: Court can then go back to the federal grand jury
Speaker 2: in DC and reindict Donald Trump on these four felony
Speaker 2: charges in essence going around with the Supreme Court. That's
Speaker 2: what it seems like, is that reality.
Speaker 3: Yeah, look, I understand that. Let me say, first of all,
Speaker 3: put this in a broader context. A year ago, no
Speaker 3: president of the United States has ever been indicted, No
Speaker 3: major party candidate for the president had ever been indicted.
Speaker 3: In the past year, Donald Trump has been indicted, not once,
Speaker 3: not twice, not three times, four separate times by rabid
Speaker 3: Democrat partisans who are very concerned that the voters are
Speaker 3: going to elect him. Every one of these indictments. They're
Speaker 3: not about the criminal law, they're not about the rule
Speaker 3: of law, they're not about actual conduct to Donald Trump.
Speaker 3: They are about trying to stop the voters from voting
Speaker 3: for him. In November, we are sixty nine days away
Speaker 3: from election day, and Democrats are terrified he's going to win.
Speaker 3: And so I got to say, after four different indictments,
Speaker 3: to wake up and see yesterday a fifth indictment. It
Speaker 3: almost feels like that classic Saturday Night Live skit with
Speaker 3: Christopher Walken where he's a record producer and his solution
Speaker 3: to everything is more cow bell, more cow bell. The
Speaker 3: Democrats answered, everything is more indictments, more indictments. They just
Speaker 3: want to indict Trump. So Jack Smith, Jack Smith is
Speaker 3: like to use another analogy.
Speaker 4: I don't know.
Speaker 3: I feel a little bit like Dennis Miller stopped me
Speaker 3: before I sub reference again. Jack Smith is like Javert
Speaker 3: from Le Miz. He is going after Jean Valjean, and
Speaker 3: Jean Valjean for him is Donald Trump. And he must
Speaker 3: get him, and so he filed a brand new indictment
Speaker 3: thirty six pages, and he indicted Trump again. Now it
Speaker 3: is you asked, is this permissible after the Supreme Court decision,
Speaker 3: And the answer is yes, it is.
Speaker 5: So.
Speaker 3: The Supreme Court did not conclude that jack Smith had
Speaker 3: no authority in charges. The Supreme Court did not rule
Speaker 3: on whether jack Smith was properly appointed. That was a
Speaker 3: basis for ruling from the judge down in Florida concerning
Speaker 3: the document's case, but that was not in front of
Speaker 3: the Supreme Court. What the Supreme Court ruled is that
Speaker 3: presidents of the United States enjoy significant immunity from prosecution.
Speaker 3: And the line the Supreme Court laid out is that
Speaker 3: the immunity presidents enjoy is an immunity for actions carried
Speaker 3: out that are official actions that are carrying out that
Speaker 3: are exercising their power as president, and significant parts of
Speaker 3: the first indictment were in the direct exercise of Trump's
Speaker 3: authority as president. The Supreme Court said, you can indict
Speaker 3: a president for that. Lookresident, and let's do all sorts
Speaker 3: of things that frankly you and I can't do. Presidents
Speaker 3: send the military into combat and kill people if you
Speaker 3: and I sent someone out to kill someone, we would
Speaker 3: in all likelihood be charged with potentially murder attempted murder.
Speaker 3: Presidents have authority under the Constitution that ordinary citizens do not.
Speaker 3: What Jack Smith did here is he refiled the indictment,
Speaker 3: and you can do that. So one question, and you
Speaker 3: and I were talking beforehand, and a question was, well,
Speaker 3: does this violate double jeopardy?
Speaker 4: And it does not.
Speaker 3: So double jeopardy is the protection of the constitution against
Speaker 3: trying someone multiple times for the same crime. And the
Speaker 3: general rule is that jeopardy attaches when a jury is impaneled.
Speaker 3: In other words, when the trial, you get a jury together,
Speaker 3: you bring the jury, you start the trial. That's the
Speaker 3: point at which, okay, if the guy gets off, if
Speaker 3: the guy is acquitted, you can't prosecute him again because
Speaker 3: pretty is attached. At this point, jeopardy has not attached legally,
Speaker 3: because an indictment has come down, but a jury has
Speaker 3: not been impaneled. So the prosecutor can indict Trump as
Speaker 3: many times as he wants to. That that is part
Speaker 3: of being a prosecutor. Now, indicting is simply bringing a
Speaker 3: charge against him. And so what Jack Smith tried to
Speaker 3: do here was narrow the indictmenty as many of the
Speaker 3: same claims he had before, but he tried to carve
Speaker 3: out to excise the bases that were most connected to
Speaker 3: Trump's official exercise of presidential authority. Now, I think this
Speaker 3: is going to fail. I think this is not going
Speaker 3: to go anywhere. But as I said, Jack Smith is
Speaker 3: like Javert, he is on a crusade, and so he
Speaker 3: did it yet again.
Speaker 2: When I look at the timing of this, and this
Speaker 2: is the next question, is you mentioned the Facebook story?
Speaker 4: Right?
Speaker 2: Mark Zuckerberg has now admitted that he played a major
Speaker 2: part in election interference, along with by the way, the
Speaker 2: FBI and the Biyden regime. So this story comes out
Speaker 2: and actually like, all right, let's indict Donald Trump again today.
Speaker 2: Is there any threat that this could also be straight
Speaker 2: up election interference from the standpoint that Donald Trump's gonna
Speaker 2: actually have to go back to court, be in court,
Speaker 2: be in a trial between now in November.
Speaker 3: Now, I don't think there's any risk of that. Look, look,
Speaker 3: we're sixty nine days out from the election. This new indictment,
Speaker 3: a new indictment takes time. You're not going to see
Speaker 3: a criminal trial between now an election day. We're just
Speaker 3: too close that there's no prospect of that happening that quickly.
Speaker 3: In DC. There might be some pre trial hearing or something.
Speaker 3: It could conceivably take one day, but it's not going
Speaker 3: to consume significant time between now an election day and
Speaker 3: what this means. Listen, if Trump wins and he gets
Speaker 3: inaugurated as the president on January twentieth the next year,
Speaker 3: this case will be dismissed on January twentieth because as
Speaker 3: president he has the authority to order the case to
Speaker 3: be dismissed, and he will. So this is number one.
Speaker 3: It's another political shot at Trump for them to say, oh,
Speaker 3: he's been indicted again. He's a felon. He's a felon,
Speaker 3: He's a felaon. At this point, they already say he's
Speaker 3: a fellain NonStop. When we have a debate between Kamala
Speaker 3: Harris and Donald Trump, and by the way, when we
Speaker 3: do have the debate, this podcast is going to analyze
Speaker 3: before the debate and great detail what to expect, and
Speaker 3: then after the debate we're going to break it down
Speaker 3: in great detail. I'll point out on this pod you
Speaker 3: and I did a special pod the night of the
Speaker 3: debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden, and I think
Speaker 3: it was a really consequential pod because that night real time,
Speaker 3: we predicted and we said in my judgment the odds
Speaker 3: were one hundred percent that Joe Biden would not be
Speaker 3: the nominee of the Democrat Party, that this would prove
Speaker 3: to be the most consequential presidential debate in US history.
Speaker 3: That prediction proved right because just after a month later,
Speaker 3: they remove Biden from the ballot. So we'll do the
Speaker 3: same thing on this debate. But I gotta say, I
Speaker 3: actually am not terribly excited about this Jack Smith indictment one.
Speaker 4: Way or the other.
Speaker 3: Yeah, he hates Trump, Yes, he's willing to abuse power.
Speaker 3: We know that this is nothing new. I don't think
Speaker 3: there are a whole lot of political consequences to another
Speaker 3: indictment after there have been four. I don't really see
Speaker 3: how a fifth indictment has any more political bite to it.
Speaker 3: And I don't think there are real legal consequences. Now,
Speaker 3: if God forbid, Kamala wins, then this legal case will
Speaker 3: proceed and Trump may be dragged into ongoing proceedings for
Speaker 3: years as a consequence of this. But in terms of
Speaker 3: the election, I don't see any significant consequences.
Speaker 2: So let's talk about this other massive story and that
Speaker 2: broke and this is dealing with Meta, which owns Facebook, Instagram.
Speaker 2: And the House Judiciary Committee came out and said, hey,
Speaker 2: Mark Zuckerberg, who's the founder owner of Facebook, has in
Speaker 2: a letter to Congress admitting some pretty major things. One
Speaker 2: that the Biden Herricks administration pressured Facebook to censor Americans.
Speaker 2: Two they did it. Facebook said sure, we're all in,
Speaker 2: we will censor Americans. And three Facebook then throttled the
Speaker 2: Hunter Biden laptop story as well. And we have to
Speaker 2: I think connect the dots here center. Zuckerberg was all
Speaker 2: in for the Democrats in Biden. There was a thing
Speaker 2: called zuck Bucks. We're talking about tens of millions of
Speaker 2: hundreds of millions of dollars that were going to leftist candidates.
Speaker 2: Mark Zuckerberg is a hardcore lefty. It's very clear follow
Speaker 2: the money. But in this letter, it was like he
Speaker 2: tried to wash his hands of any of that. It's like, oh,
Speaker 2: I was just trusting the government, and I probably shouldn't
Speaker 2: have my bad.
Speaker 3: So there's a lot to say here. Let me say
Speaker 3: first of all that Mark Zuckerberg sent a letter to
Speaker 3: Jim Jordan sent it on to August twenty sixth, So
Speaker 3: this week and this letter is a big deal, and
Speaker 3: I want to read what's in this letter. It's not
Speaker 3: very long, it's just over a page, but our listeners
Speaker 3: need to know exactly what Zuckerbrok said because there's a
Speaker 3: lot of substance. Then I want to break down what
Speaker 3: it means. So here's what Zuckerberg said. Chairman Jordan, I
Speaker 3: appreciate the committee's interest and content moderation online platforms. As
Speaker 3: you are aware, Metas produced thousands of documents part of
Speaker 3: investigation and made a dozen employees available for transcribed interviews
Speaker 3: further to our cooperation with your investigation. I welcome the
Speaker 3: opportunity to share what I've taken away from this process.
Speaker 3: There's a lot of talk right now about how the
Speaker 3: US government interacts with companies like Meta, and I want
Speaker 3: to be clear about our position. Our platforms are for everyone.
Speaker 3: We're about promoting speech and helping people connect in a
Speaker 3: safe and secure way. As part of this, we regularly
Speaker 3: hear from governments around the world and others with various
Speaker 3: concerns about public discourse and public safety. In twenty twenty one,
Speaker 3: and I will note that's when Biden was in office.
Speaker 3: Senior officials from the Biden administration, including the White House,
Speaker 3: repeatedly pressured our teams for months to censor certain COVID
Speaker 3: nineteen content, including humor and satire, and expressed a lot
Speaker 3: of frustration with our teams when we didn't agree. Ultimately,
Speaker 3: was our decision whether or not to take content down,
Speaker 3: and we own our decisions, including COVID nineteen related changes
Speaker 3: we made to our enforcement in the wake of this pressure.
Speaker 3: I believe the government pressure was wrong, and I regret
Speaker 3: that we were not more outspoken about it. I also
Speaker 3: think we made some choices that, with the benefit of
Speaker 3: hindsight and new information, we wouldn't make today. Like I
Speaker 3: said to our teams at the time, I feel strongly
Speaker 3: that we should not compromise our content standards due to
Speaker 3: the pressure from any administration in either direction, and we're
Speaker 3: ready to push back if something like this happens again.
Speaker 3: In a separate situation, the FBI warned us about a
Speaker 3: potential Russian disinformation operation about the Biden family and Barisma
Speaker 3: in the lead up to the twenty twenty election that fall.
Speaker 3: When we saw a New York Post story reporting on
Speaker 3: corruption allegations involving then Democratic presidential nominee Joe Biden's family.
Speaker 3: We sent the story to fact checkers for review and
Speaker 3: temporarily demoted it while waiting for a reply. It's since
Speaker 3: been made clear that the reporting was not Russian disinformation,
Speaker 3: and in retrospect, we shouldn't have demoted the story. We've
Speaker 3: changed our policies and processes to make sure this doesn't
Speaker 3: happen again. For example, we no longer temporarily demote things
Speaker 3: in the US while waiting for fact checkers. Apart from
Speaker 3: content moderation, I want to assess the contributions I made
Speaker 3: during the last presidential cycle to support electoral infrastructure. The
Speaker 3: idea here was to make sure local election jurisdictions across
Speaker 3: the country had the resources they needed to help people
Speaker 3: vote safely during the global pandemic. I made these contributions
Speaker 3: through the chan Zuckerberg Initiative. They were designed to be nonpartisan,
Speaker 3: spread across urban, rural, and suburban communities. Still, despite despite
Speaker 3: the analyzes I've seen showing otherwise, I know that some
Speaker 3: people believe this work benefited one party over the other.
Speaker 3: My goal is to be neutral and not play a
Speaker 3: role one way or the other, or even appear to
Speaker 3: be playing a role. So I don't plan on making
Speaker 3: a similar contribution this cycle, respectfully, Mark Zuckerberg.
Speaker 2: Now, I'm sorry this last because I just don't believe
Speaker 2: any of this crap from him, and I just maybe
Speaker 2: I'm cynical center, but like this, to me, seems like
Speaker 2: he's hedging his bets. Maybe Donald Trump wins, maybe Republicans
Speaker 2: are in control of stuff, and so now I'm hedging
Speaker 2: my bets. That don't come down hard on me.
Speaker 4: You know, yes, and no, I actually have a little
Speaker 4: bit take on it than you do. Ben.
Speaker 3: So let me say, first of all, the admission he
Speaker 3: made publicly that the Biden White House repeatedly pressure him
Speaker 3: to censor speech. That's a big deal. That is enormously consequential.
Speaker 3: The predicate of legislation that different states have passed, including Texas,
Speaker 3: including Florida, is that government cannot use private industry to
Speaker 3: censor for them. His admission there has real legal consequences
Speaker 3: because there's a whole doctrine where when government uses private
Speaker 3: industry to violate the constitution, that that is, the courts
Speaker 3: can step in and stop that Now, the Supreme Court
Speaker 3: this past term basically concluded, gosh, we don't know that
Speaker 3: government was pressuring big tech to censor people. Well, you
Speaker 3: know what, the Supreme Court's entire assumption was just disproven
Speaker 3: by Mark Zuckerberg's admission. That has real consequences and consequences
Speaker 3: that will appear in litigation going forward. So his saying
Speaker 3: that and even his saying we should have stood up
Speaker 3: to that pressure more, that's meaningful. Now the second point
Speaker 3: he made, which was that the Biden that the FBI
Speaker 3: pressured Facebook to censor information about the Hunter Biden laptop. Look,
Speaker 3: you and I have talked about this at length on
Speaker 3: this podcast. That was blatant election interference. It may well
Speaker 3: have changed the outcome of the twenty twenty election. I
Speaker 3: am angry as you are. That's saying sorry four years
Speaker 3: later is too little, too late. But I'm glad for
Speaker 3: the I'm sorry as compared to denying it ever happened.
Speaker 3: That there is at least some tiny kernel of accountability
Speaker 3: in that. And finally, the point about the Zuckbucks. Look,
Speaker 3: the single largest Democrat donor in twenty twenty was named
Speaker 3: Mark Zuckerberg. He invested four hundred million dollars in election
Speaker 3: in for structure in big blue cities, and that easily
Speaker 3: could have changed the outcome of the election. By the way,
Speaker 3: by contrast, the biggest Republican donor in twenty twenty was
Speaker 3: seld Natilson. He put about one hundred million, so it
Speaker 3: was a four to one differential. Wow, Zuckerberg is saying, well, gosh,
Speaker 3: I didn't mean to influence the outcome of the election.
Speaker 3: Now I call bs on that. I don't believe that
Speaker 3: at all. He's a very bright man. He knew damn
Speaker 3: well what he was doing. But I do think it's meaningful.
Speaker 3: The closing line of the letter, I will not be
Speaker 3: making a similar contribution going forward. I'll tell you something
Speaker 3: I've heard from multiple people in the tech world, which
Speaker 3: is that Zuckerberg is souring on the leftists and the Democrats.
Speaker 3: That he's souring on that he had been look in
Speaker 3: the last cycle, he was the single biggest Democrat donor
Speaker 3: in the country. The fact that he's saying, I'm not
Speaker 3: doing that again, I'm really glad not to have four
Speaker 3: hundred million dollars coming in on behalf of Kamala Harris
Speaker 3: in the last two months. If he doesn't do that.
Speaker 3: That's a big deal. That dramatically enhances the chance of
Speaker 3: Trump's victory. That's good for democracy, that's good for America.
Speaker 3: And I do think it's a broader sense where Look,
Speaker 3: I know Zuckerberg a little bit. I don't know him well,
Speaker 3: but I spent He and I had about a three
Speaker 3: and a half hour dinner together. It was a very
Speaker 3: interesting dinner. Look, he's a crazy smart guy. We did
Speaker 3: it by the way off the grid. We did it
Speaker 3: in DC. We didn't do it at a restaurant because, frankly,
Speaker 3: Ben people would lose their crap if they saw me
Speaker 3: and Mark Zuckerberg sitting at a restaurant having dinner together.
Speaker 4: So we didn't do that.
Speaker 3: Yeah, but it was an interesting He reached out and said, Hey,
Speaker 3: I'd like to have dinner with you. I said sure,
Speaker 3: and we had. I would characterize a vigorous intellectual debate
Speaker 3: where I was very aggressively saying to him, stop censoring people.
Speaker 3: Who the hell are you to decide what is and
Speaker 3: what isn't permissible to say? Just to allow free speech. Basically,
Speaker 3: I was urging Zuckerberg to do to Facebook what Elon
Speaker 3: Musk has done to Twitter.
Speaker 4: Now X.
Speaker 1: What was his reaction to that.
Speaker 2: I mean, because I've been I've had the privilege of
Speaker 2: having quite a few meals with you, and having those
Speaker 2: types of spirited conversations are very fun because you're honest,
Speaker 2: you're blunt, but it's also a genuine conversation.
Speaker 1: Was what was the demeanor towards that?
Speaker 3: Listen, he's very smart, and he's he's he's a geek.
Speaker 3: And I don't mean that pejoratively. I mean, heck, I'm
Speaker 3: a geek like that. I actually can talk to geeks
Speaker 3: quite well. I mean, I'm my parents are both mathematicians
Speaker 3: and computer programmers.
Speaker 4: So if you.
Speaker 3: Really want to walk out, But by the way, when
Speaker 3: I hang out with you, Ben, you like enhance my
Speaker 3: cool factor dramatically.
Speaker 4: Like you were like a.
Speaker 3: College jock at Old miss playing Division one tennis. I
Speaker 3: was a debater at Princeton. I mean, there's got to.
Speaker 2: Bring some of the table you know, I bring that,
Speaker 2: You bring the smarts.
Speaker 1: Everybody went.
Speaker 3: Look, I just appreciate in the entire course of our friendship,
Speaker 3: you've never once given me a wedgie. You haven't given
Speaker 3: me a noggie, and you haven't stuffed me in the Locker.
Speaker 3: So I'm glad of that. But look, I promise Zuckerberg
Speaker 3: has gotten all three of those and so I can
Speaker 3: talk to people who are geeks, because that's the world.
Speaker 4: I come from.
Speaker 5: You know.
Speaker 3: I will say this, when we had this dinner, and
Speaker 3: this was years ago, I do think he was intellectually
Speaker 3: trying to struggle through and think through this issues. I
Speaker 3: don't think Zuckerberg is a hard lefty someone like Jack Dorsey.
Speaker 3: I've never met Jack Dorsey, but the old CEO of Twitter, Yeah,
Speaker 3: you knew he was. I've had him testify and I've
Speaker 3: questioned him in hearings. Everything about Jack Dorsey screamed hard lefty.
Speaker 3: I don't think that's what Zuckerberg is. Does he lean
Speaker 3: left of center?
Speaker 4: Yes, but.
Speaker 3: It was interesting on the free speech issues. So he's
Speaker 3: actually in the world to free speech. He's given some
Speaker 3: speeches saying, gosh, tech should protect free speech.
Speaker 4: Now. Facebook has been terrible on this.
Speaker 3: They suppressed the Hunter laptop, the Hunter Biden laptop. They
Speaker 3: suppressed speech about COVID. They aggressively suppressed any discussion about
Speaker 3: the COVID virus origin coming from the Wuhan Institute of Rology,
Speaker 3: which I will note this podcast covered before just about
Speaker 3: any other place in the world. Multiple times we laid
Speaker 3: out the facts for it on Verdict. But it was
Speaker 3: interesting in talking with Zuckerbrand. I don't know him well,
Speaker 3: but you know, three three and a half hour dinner,
Speaker 3: he was someone intellectually trying to figure out what the
Speaker 3: right answer is. And in his general approach, he would
Speaker 3: point to number one Twitter and he'd be like, oh,
Speaker 3: they're worse than we are. And by the way, when
Speaker 3: Dorsey was CEO, he was right, and he would point
Speaker 3: to number two Google and they're bigger and more powerful
Speaker 3: and more dangerous than they are. He was number two,
Speaker 3: write on that, and then number three point to TikTok
Speaker 3: and they're Chinese commies and he was right in that,
Speaker 3: And so it was the sort of thing Facebook kind.
Speaker 2: Of benefit its me, look at everybody else. But so
Speaker 2: then that brings up this question. How much of do
Speaker 2: you think this letter could have been connected to the
Speaker 2: fact that we've seen the pendulum swing so much with
Speaker 2: a cell of Twitter and Dorsey losing that to Elon Musk,
Speaker 2: who is all about free speech.
Speaker 3: I think significantly, And you and I have talked about.
Speaker 3: I think the fact that Elon Musk bought Twitter was
Speaker 3: the single most important development for free speech in decades,
Speaker 3: change the terrain of media. So Facebook is feeling pressure
Speaker 3: to be a greater free speech forum because Twitter is
Speaker 3: I think, the most important free speech forum in the
Speaker 3: world right now. But I also think, and I can't
Speaker 3: overstate this, look I talked to a lot of people
Speaker 3: in the tech world. I think Zuckerberg is pissed at
Speaker 3: the totalitarian lefties who he's sort of tried to cozy
Speaker 3: up to, and they've taken his money and kind of
Speaker 3: crapped all over him. That's an interesting moment. It's just
Speaker 3: an interesting inflection moment. So I am angry about what
Speaker 3: Facebook did in twenty twenty, and I'm going to continue
Speaker 3: to lay that out at length. That being said, I'm
Speaker 3: a big believer in redemption, so I will welcome Zuckerberg, Mark,
Speaker 3: if you want to defend free speech, if you want
Speaker 3: to be a champion of free speech, I want to
Speaker 3: give an invitation to Mark Zuckerberg be an even bigger
Speaker 3: defender of free speech than Elon Musk, because, by the way,
Speaker 3: competition would be awesome. If Facebook steps forward and says
Speaker 3: we will be a forum for free.
Speaker 4: Speech x can you match.
Speaker 3: That's even better because competition will make both better, and
Speaker 3: so I don't want some conservatives are responding to this
Speaker 3: letter by just beating Zuckerberg over the head with a stick.
Speaker 4: I think that's a mistake.
Speaker 3: If you want to come into the light, come into
Speaker 3: the light, we welcome you. If you will embrace free speech,
Speaker 3: that's good for America and good for the world.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's an interesting perspective, certainly because mine was more cynical, like, Okay,
Speaker 2: he's just hedging his bets, as I mentioned, with the
Speaker 2: election coming up, and if it is different than that,
Speaker 2: you're right. Welcome him in and say welcome to the
Speaker 2: club where we may disagree on issues, but let everyone
Speaker 2: have a voice and don't pick winners and losers when
Speaker 2: it comes to free speech. I want to talk to
Speaker 2: you real quick about Patriot Mobile. Americans are tired and
Speaker 2: frustrated by installing economy, inflation, endless wars than relentless assault
Speaker 2: on our values. Thankfully, there are companies like Patriot Mobile
Speaker 2: that still believe in America and our constitution. I'm proud
Speaker 2: to tell you that I use Patriot Mobile because they're
Speaker 2: on the front lines fighting for our first and Second
Speaker 2: Amendment rights for the sanctity of life, as well as
Speaker 2: our military, our veterans, our first responders, and our wounded warriors.
Speaker 1: How do they do that? This is the best part.
Speaker 2: When I switched to Patriot Mobile from Big Mobile, I
Speaker 2: got the same exact service I was accustomed to, but
Speaker 2: without the woll agenda of the left. In fact, Patriot
Speaker 2: Mobile takes about five percent of my bill every month
Speaker 2: at no extra cost to me, and they give it
Speaker 2: back to conservative causes and organizations.
Speaker 1: It's that list that I just gave you.
Speaker 2: I love that because I know I'm partnered with a
Speaker 2: company that stands up for what I believe in. Now,
Speaker 2: Big Mobile they're fighting against your values. They're giving massive
Speaker 2: donations democratic causes, candidates and organizations, including organizations that are
Speaker 2: paying for abortions right now. If you don't want your
Speaker 2: money going there, take a stand for conservative causes and
Speaker 2: put your values first. By switching to Patriot Mobile, you'll
Speaker 2: get the same nationwide coverage is the Big providers, because
Speaker 2: Patriot Mobile use the same exact towers that you're using
Speaker 2: right now, and they back their service with a coverage guarantee,
Speaker 2: and you can keep your same number you have now
Speaker 2: keep your phone you have now or upgrade to a
Speaker 2: new one.
Speaker 1: So how do you switch? It's so easy.
Speaker 2: Now go to Patriotmobile dot com slash verdict. Patriotmobile dot
Speaker 2: com slash verdict. Are called them nine to seven to
Speaker 2: two Patriot. That's nine to seven to two Patriot and
Speaker 2: if you use the promo code vertict, you're gonna get
Speaker 2: a free month of service today nine seven to two
Speaker 2: Patriot for your free month of service today or Patriot
Speaker 2: Mobile dot com slash verdict. There is also another story
Speaker 2: you mentioned earlier, and this one I'm sorry, Senner, I
Speaker 2: just laughed when I saw this happen in real time.
Speaker 2: Kamala Harris has come out and now flip flopped on.
Speaker 1: The border wall issue.
Speaker 2: She is one that said she would never, okay never
Speaker 2: ever support building a wall, and I'm going to play
Speaker 2: it because I think people should hear. This is her
Speaker 2: in her own words in Des Moines, Iowa.
Speaker 5: Let me be very clear, I'm not going to vote
Speaker 5: for a wall under any circumstances. And I do support
Speaker 5: border security, and if we want to talk about that,
Speaker 5: let's do that.
Speaker 2: But I will never support a wall under any circumstances. Now,
Speaker 2: the polling data is not looking good for her on
Speaker 2: security at the border, and she's like, Okay, I guess
Speaker 2: I might be in favor of wall, even putting out
Speaker 2: an ad that shows Donald Trump's wall in her ad.
Speaker 3: Well, the single greatest vulnerability to Kamala Harrison Democrats nationally
Speaker 3: is the open borders they've had for four years. It
Speaker 3: is the number one issue voters are concerned about. We're
Speaker 3: seeing an invasion at our southern border, eleven point five
Speaker 3: million illegal immigrants. People are seeing the death, the suffering,
Speaker 3: the children being brutalized, the women being sexually assaulted. People
Speaker 3: are seeing the criminals being released who are murdering Americans,
Speaker 3: who are raping women, who are assaulting kids. People are
Speaker 3: seeing the risk of terrorism coming across the southern border,
Speaker 3: and they're very unhappy. So the Democrats are looking at
Speaker 3: the same poll numbers we are. They realize, gosh, this
Speaker 3: is a vulnerability. Now, mind you, They're not willing to
Speaker 3: change their policies. They still want another eleven million, another
Speaker 3: twenty million, another thirty million league immigrants to come into
Speaker 3: this country because they view them all as future Democrat voters.
Speaker 3: They want to stay in power. But we've got sixty
Speaker 3: nine days to election day, and so in the sixty
Speaker 3: nine days to election day, they will say whatever whatever
Speaker 3: they feel they can to convince the voters to elect
Speaker 3: Kamala Harris, and after which she will go hard left
Speaker 3: and continue to destroy this country. Now we saw at
Speaker 3: the outset of her campaign. By the way, she's been
Speaker 3: the presumptive Democrat nominee for over a month, she's done
Speaker 3: zero interviews, no press conferences, no questions. They put her
Speaker 3: in front of a teleprompter, she reads the teleprompter, They
Speaker 3: tackle her, they throw her back in Joe Biden's basement.
Speaker 3: They say shut up and please don't say anything. The
Speaker 3: first major policy provision she came out for was no
Speaker 3: taxes on tips. That was literally a proposal Donald Trump
Speaker 3: rolled out in Nevada. It's a proposal, by the way,
Speaker 3: that I introduced in the Senate. I introduced it, the
Speaker 3: no Taxes on Tips legislation. When I introduced it, both
Speaker 3: Democrat senators from Nevada co sponsored my legislation. And there's
Speaker 3: a reason for that, which is twenty five percent of
Speaker 3: the workers in Nevada are tipped workers. And so both
Speaker 3: Democrats immediately sponsored my legislation. Kamala came out and suddenly
Speaker 3: had this crazy idea. Hey, no taxes on tips. So
Speaker 3: that was where she started. She is now gone. So
Speaker 3: she also said this week she is not for an
Speaker 3: EV mandate. Suddenly she loves her some internal combustion engine.
Speaker 3: No electric vehicle mandate, just keep your car. Never mind.
Speaker 3: For the last four years of Joe Biden and Kamala Harris,
Speaker 3: they have been pushing an EV mandate date on every front.
Speaker 3: They've been trying to ban the internal combustion engine. They've
Speaker 3: been using regulatory assaults in every front. None of that exists.
Speaker 3: As Obi Wan Kenobi said, these are not the drones
Speaker 3: you're looking for. Do not pay attention to anything Kamala
Speaker 3: Harris and Joe Biden have done. Listen instead to the
Speaker 3: nonsense they're spewing sixty nine days before the election. But
Speaker 3: this truly is the one that is is the cherry
Speaker 3: on the top of the banana. Sunday, let me read
Speaker 3: the headline from Axios quote Harris flip flops on building
Speaker 3: the border wall. If she's elected president. Kamala Harris pledges
Speaker 3: to spend hundreds of millions of dollars on a wall
Speaker 3: along the Southern border, a project she once opposed it
Speaker 3: and called un American during the Trump administration. By the way,
Speaker 3: I'm going to break news right now, and this may
Speaker 3: not be news, you know, but next week I am
Speaker 3: reliably told from leaks within the White House that Kamala
Speaker 3: Harris plans to dye her hair blonde, dye her skin orange,
Speaker 3: and buy enormously long red ties and wear only those
Speaker 3: in public appearances.
Speaker 2: And you got to add, Beyonce's going to be in
Speaker 2: there with her doing the same thing, right, because if
Speaker 2: we're going to start rumors, whom as we go back
Speaker 2: to that one to get people excited.
Speaker 3: But by the way, Beyonce is going to be blonde
Speaker 3: and also with orange skin.
Speaker 1: I love it.
Speaker 3: Listen, I want to go back. I want you to
Speaker 3: listen to a montage that Martha McCallum put together on
Speaker 3: Fox of Kamala's prior positions on the wall, because this
Speaker 3: is Look, there's a Yiddish word, juspa, that doesn't even
Speaker 3: begin to capture what Kamala Harris has claimed that she's
Speaker 3: going to build.
Speaker 4: The wall is. Now listen to this axious.
Speaker 6: News calling out Vice President Harris's quote flip flop on
Speaker 6: the border wall. Here is some of what she has
Speaker 6: said in the past.
Speaker 1: Watch.
Speaker 5: I'm all for increased border security where we need it.
Speaker 1: I am not for a wall.
Speaker 5: I specialize on transnational criminal orgnisations.
Speaker 1: That wall, I'm going to stop them.
Speaker 7: No, no, okay.
Speaker 6: But last week Harris said that she supports the bipartisan
Speaker 6: border bill, which includes requiring the Trump border wall. According
Speaker 6: to its negotiators, Oxyo is reporting that Tim Harris says
Speaker 6: that the bill doesn't include new wall funding, it just
Speaker 6: extends the timeline to spend funds appropriated during the Trump administration.
Speaker 6: So we hope we'll hear directly from the candidate to
Speaker 6: clear that up in an interview, which we would love
Speaker 6: to see over the next several days.
Speaker 2: By the way, the interview is now going to be
Speaker 2: a joint interview, apparently on CNN, where she doesn't have
Speaker 2: to worry about babbling so much because the VP will
Speaker 2: be there with their candidate, which still makes me laugh.
Speaker 2: That's her first interview, But we have no policies, decisions.
Speaker 1: It's just sold.
Speaker 4: Ben.
Speaker 3: Let me ask you something, so, Ben, you have been
Speaker 3: following politics closely since you were like in the womb. Yeah,
Speaker 3: and it's your birthday. So like in the womb was
Speaker 3: for three.
Speaker 1: Years, you're going numbers.
Speaker 3: I'm digging this in forty three years. Do you know
Speaker 3: of a single instance ever, And I'm asking this comprehensively in.
Speaker 4: Forty three years where.
Speaker 3: A presidential candidate was so terrified to do an interview
Speaker 3: on their own that they demanded their VP candidate be
Speaker 3: with there with them.
Speaker 2: Yeah, bring a buddy with you, right, No, I've never
Speaker 2: seen that. But what's even more weird. It's weird, but
Speaker 2: it's even more shocking then, is we had a convention.
Speaker 2: And if you go to her website right now, because
Speaker 2: I check it every day when I'm doing my show,
Speaker 2: no policy. There is still no policy tabs on her
Speaker 2: damn website.
Speaker 3: There's no taxes on tips and building a wall and
Speaker 3: protect the internal combustion engine. Yeah, and the same wall
Speaker 3: that it's not actually on the website for the fact
Speaker 3: checkers there. That's just the policy she's rolling out. But
Speaker 3: she has no policies on her website.
Speaker 2: Well, and that's the port I think that Axis was
Speaker 2: trying to get at, is like, give me a break.
Speaker 2: I mean, Kamala Harris, if you go back.
Speaker 4: And by the way, Axios is not a right wing website.
Speaker 3: It is a center left media organizations. It's not one
Speaker 3: of the most left wing organizations, but it's not conservative. No,
Speaker 3: and they're pointing out, are you friggin kidding me? Like
Speaker 3: this is what she's saying.
Speaker 2: Yeah, and let's go back to what she called the wall,
Speaker 2: which she's now using parts of the wall visually in
Speaker 2: her ads.
Speaker 5: Listen, we don't need to build a wall. This is
Speaker 5: a crisis of his own making. And by definition does
Speaker 5: planes speak basic English language definition, it is not an emergency.
Speaker 5: What's going to end up happening is that he will
Speaker 5: end up without any question if he proceeds. We're going
Speaker 5: to be looking at a situation where, in particular, homeowners
Speaker 5: and landowners in places like New Mexico and Texas are
Speaker 5: probably going to look at government taking their land. We're
Speaker 5: looking at military resources being focused again on the president's
Speaker 5: vanity project instead of focused on real national security issues.
Speaker 2: I mean, she says it's a vanity project and it's
Speaker 2: not a crisis and we don't need it, and everybody
Speaker 2: this Donald Trump is the idiot. I'm the brilliant one.
Speaker 2: She said this for years, and now she's using Trump's
Speaker 2: wall as like as a prop for her own campaign.
Speaker 3: Listen, I serve for years on the Senate Judiciary Committee
Speaker 3: with Kamala Harris one hundred percent of the time, without exception.
Speaker 4: She was hard left.
Speaker 3: As the non partisan bill tracking organization guv TRAC raided her,
Speaker 3: she was the single most liberal senator in the entire
Speaker 3: US Senate. She voted to the left of Bernie Sanders,
Speaker 3: to the left of Elizabeth Warren. She has never, once
Speaker 3: in any hearing I've been in, expressed any concern with
Speaker 3: securing the border. She is always, always, always sighted on
Speaker 3: side of illial aliens, of the cartels, of the human traffickers,
Speaker 3: of the drugs mugglers. In fact, in one hearing with
Speaker 3: the head of ICE, the Immigration and Customs Enforcement she
Speaker 3: analogized ICE agents to the ku Klux Klan, which is grotesque,
Speaker 3: it is offensive. And so now when she's pretending she
Speaker 3: will secure the border, she has been in charge of
Speaker 3: the border for the last four years. She has been
Speaker 3: the borders are as much as the media is trying
Speaker 3: to erase that those are the facts.
Speaker 4: She wanted.
Speaker 3: This outcome, this invasion, is her desired outcome, and if
Speaker 3: God forbid, she gets elected president eleven and a half
Speaker 3: million is going to become twenty million or even thirty
Speaker 3: million illegal immigrants.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's it's truly astounding. And Kama Harris on the
Speaker 2: border over the years. It's twenty seventeen. I go back,
Speaker 2: she was asking taxpayers to pay for a border wall.
Speaker 2: She said it was quote a terrible idea. She said
Speaker 2: Trump's border wall was stupid in eighteen. In nineteen, she
Speaker 2: said funding Trump's unrealistic border wall would be a gross
Speaker 2: misuse of taxpayer dollars. And that is where she's always been.
Speaker 2: But now it's election season, let's rewrite history of the past.
Speaker 1: And I don't know. Now she's tough on the border.
Speaker 2: I hope this doesn't play out the way she thinks
Speaker 2: it is that the media is going to cover for.
Speaker 2: And I've got a question about that. I want to
Speaker 2: ask you in a second. But let me tell you
Speaker 2: about AMO squared. I love it when I get notes
Speaker 2: from you guys on social media telling us that you
Speaker 2: get to use companies that I tell you about.
Speaker 1: And that you love them. Ammo squared is just awesome.
Speaker 2: If you're a Second Amendment guy or gal, and you
Speaker 2: love to shoot, and you want to make sure you
Speaker 2: got AMO no matter what happens in the future. If
Speaker 2: there's a run on Ammo like we saw during COVID,
Speaker 2: you're covered if you're at Ammo Squared because AMO Squared
Speaker 2: helps you ensure that you have Ammo when you need it.
Speaker 1: It is an.
Speaker 2: Automated approach to purchsing Ammo on any budget. All you
Speaker 2: do is pick your calibers, you set your budget, then
Speaker 2: you select a shipping trigger and that it's your AMMO
Speaker 2: grows slowly over time, and this is the cool part.
Speaker 2: It is stored for free as it builds up, and
Speaker 2: its shipped with a click of three to one, and
Speaker 2: it shipped with a click of a button or automatically
Speaker 2: on your schedule. Unlike a traditional subscription service, you aren't
Speaker 2: forced into a set budget or a monthly shipment. You
Speaker 2: decide your budget, you schedule when you want your AMMO
Speaker 2: to arrive. AMO Squared also offers nearly seventy different caliber options.
Speaker 2: And if you buy one caliber for a long time
Speaker 2: and then maybe you decide you don't need it anymore,
Speaker 2: maybe you switch caliber firearms, not a problem. You can
Speaker 2: trade it for another caliber. Now, what happens if prices
Speaker 2: go through the roof like they did during COVID. Well,
Speaker 2: you can cash in on that investment like a four
Speaker 2: to oh one K and sell that Ammo back for
Speaker 2: big markups. So if you want to try Amo squared,
Speaker 2: I want to give you some free Amo right now
Speaker 2: in your account. All you got to do is go
Speaker 2: to Amo squared dot com, slash ben ammosquare dot com
Speaker 2: slash bend a day to get free Ammo in your account.
Speaker 2: There is no minimum to buy, no membership needed, and
Speaker 2: no extra fees. Customers can buy Ammo on a small
Speaker 2: budget and watch it grow. Amosquare dot com slash bend
Speaker 2: a day to get free Ammo in your account. Senator, finally,
Speaker 2: I want to ask you it finally came out that
Speaker 2: she's gonna do an interview. We mentioned a moment ago
Speaker 2: on CNN, but she's gonna do it with someone holding
Speaker 2: her hand. That is the VP that's gonna change the
Speaker 2: dynamic of the interview. It's gonna be more I think,
Speaker 2: like propaganda. That's why they're agreeing to this, because like,
Speaker 2: let's talk about how amazing you two are and your
Speaker 2: relationship and how excited you are. It's not gonna get
Speaker 2: into the policy stuff. That's what drives me nuts about
Speaker 2: the fact that they're even calling this an interview.
Speaker 1: It's not, it's propaganda.
Speaker 3: Well, let me say several points this. Number One, the
Speaker 3: Kamala Harris campaign spent weeks. I mean it's been I
Speaker 3: think thirty seven days since she was the presumptive dominee.
Speaker 3: They've done zero interviews, they've done zero press conferences. The
Speaker 3: last couple of weeks, they've been feeling out different media
Speaker 3: outlets saying, Hey, who wants to do the first interview?
Speaker 3: Because I guess we can't go all the way to
Speaker 3: election day without doing interviews, So we're going to do one.
Speaker 3: Who's willing to throw us the most softballs, who's willing
Speaker 3: to give us the most gentle format imaginable? And it
Speaker 3: turns out Ding Ding Ding Winter Chicken Dinner CNN step forward.
Speaker 3: So there are several questions. Number One, it is astonishing
Speaker 3: that the interview is not Kamala Harris, but it's Kamala
Speaker 3: Harris and Tim Waltz, and presumably Tim Waltz is sitting
Speaker 3: there so if that Kamala is screwing up, Tim Waltz
Speaker 3: can step in and try to bail her.
Speaker 1: Out.
Speaker 3: I have never seen in my life. I'm ten years
Speaker 3: older than you are, I'm fifty three. I have never
Speaker 3: once seen a presidential candidate who was so week that
Speaker 3: he or she needed their vice presidential candidate as a
Speaker 3: safety blanket. That is bizarre. Can you imagine I'm just
Speaker 3: just just think back a little bit. Can you imagine
Speaker 3: Donald Trump saying I need Mike Pence there? Yeah, like
Speaker 3: it's it's unimaginable. Can you imagine Hillary Clinton saying I
Speaker 3: need Tim Caine there? Can you imagine Barack Obama saying
Speaker 3: I need Joe Biden there? Can Can you imagine Ronald
Speaker 3: Reagan saying I need George Bush there? Like it is?
Speaker 3: You can go back? Can you imagine George Washington saying
Speaker 3: I need John Adams there?
Speaker 7: Like?
Speaker 3: It is a bizarre thing for a presidential candidate to
Speaker 3: be so weak that they need someone to hold their hand.
Speaker 3: But secondly, this is a pre taped interview. They're gonna
Speaker 3: pretape it.
Speaker 2: Hold on to say that again, because I think people
Speaker 2: don't understand that.
Speaker 1: Say that again. That's a very important data point here.
Speaker 3: This is a pre taped interview. They're gonna pretape it.
Speaker 3: And then CNN is going to edit it. And I believe,
Speaker 3: and I think many Americans believe CNN is gonna edit it.
Speaker 3: So if and when Kamala says things that are dumb,
Speaker 3: if and when she says some word salad, if and
Speaker 3: when there's a moment that's bad, they'll cut it right
Speaker 3: out that Like, like I have to ask, does CNN
Speaker 3: and you worked what seven years is?
Speaker 1: In hell?
Speaker 3: Yes, do they have anywhere in that institution a tiny
Speaker 3: shred of journalistic integrity? If CNN did, here's what CNN
Speaker 3: should do.
Speaker 4: Say.
Speaker 3: We will release the entirety of the interview. We're gonna
Speaker 3: put out every word of it. We're not going to
Speaker 3: edit it. We're gonna put it all out. That's actually
Speaker 3: what a real journalistic outlet would do. We're not going
Speaker 3: to do a package that is a promo piece for
Speaker 3: the for the Harris campaign. We're going to release, We're
Speaker 3: gonna ask questions and release what she actually says, not
Speaker 3: editing out the bad stuff and only including the good stuff.
Speaker 2: Well, and this goes back to CNN's I think desperation
Speaker 2: to get the interview. They were willing to they were
Speaker 2: willing to basically do whatever it took. And so I
Speaker 2: think the deal was and again, knowing how this works
Speaker 2: behind the scenes, Hey, we want this thing to be
Speaker 2: not live, we want it to be Taylor.
Speaker 3: Were begging, they were gravely. They were conceding that will
Speaker 3: give you whatever, you will be.
Speaker 1: Whatever you want.
Speaker 2: Just give us the interview, give us the interview. Okay,
Speaker 2: well now we also want the VP to be with her. Okay, great,
Speaker 2: what else do you need from us? And because if
Speaker 2: you look at just data live interviews that you can
Speaker 2: promote as by the way, the last big interview Kamala did.
Speaker 3: The last big interview Kamala did was with Lester Holt. Yeah,
Speaker 3: and Lester Holt asked to actually asked her some real
Speaker 3: questions as she looked like an imbecile. He pointed out
Speaker 3: that she had not been to the southern border, she'd
Speaker 3: not been to the Rio Grande Valley, and she like
Speaker 3: it was a disaster. It's striking that even as biased
Speaker 3: as the big networks are, they wanted more. They wanted
Speaker 3: make sure you will protect her. But here's the question
Speaker 3: I want to close this podcast on. You know Dana Bash.
Speaker 3: I know Dana well, I've probably done a dozen interviews
Speaker 3: with Dana. She has now what is the biggest interview
Speaker 3: of her career? What does Dana Bash do to not
Speaker 3: be a laughingstock, to not be a patsy and simply
Speaker 3: a spokesperson for the.
Speaker 4: Kamala Harris campaign.
Speaker 3: Dana, recently she's been on air saying Kamala was never
Speaker 3: the borders are. She was never the borders are. So
Speaker 3: Dana has not been helping herself by giving those talking points.
Speaker 3: But I got to say, look, Dana, there's got to
Speaker 3: be a part of her somewhere that desires to be
Speaker 3: a real journalist. What does she do to not go
Speaker 3: down in history as a total stooge.
Speaker 2: Yeah, it's a great question. I don't know if it's
Speaker 2: just pure sellout. No matter what you got the interview,
Speaker 2: you play by the rules and you act like you
Speaker 2: accomplished something. When the interview's over and you're all glad
Speaker 2: and each other and go, that was so great. That
Speaker 2: was amazing, great interview. And how do you sleep at night?
Speaker 2: I guess you just cast that scene in check and
Speaker 2: you say, oh, it'll be fine. And look, I don't
Speaker 2: think any of her.
Speaker 3: Is that your prediction then that she totally rolls over
Speaker 3: because any difficult question, I mean I mean, you know her,
Speaker 3: I'm asking.
Speaker 1: Yeah, I mean, as a very I don't.
Speaker 3: Know the answer. I'm not trying to feed you the answer.
Speaker 3: I'm asking you legitimate no.
Speaker 1: I look, I've watched her.
Speaker 2: When i've watched her, we were on set together when
Speaker 2: Bernie Sanders was running, for example, when she was tough
Speaker 2: on Bernie, but that was because they wanted Bernie out.
Speaker 2: And so if she's all in for Harris, which I
Speaker 2: believe that she absolutely is, and I don't think there's
Speaker 2: anybody that judges her selling out in this interview because
Speaker 2: all the members of the media, the mainstream media, of
Speaker 2: the liberal media, they're all in this together.
Speaker 1: So you're not judged by your peers.
Speaker 2: I do think back in the day, whether it was
Speaker 2: Kronkite or broke Call, or or or Jinnings, like if
Speaker 2: you did a tie or tim Reser, if you did
Speaker 2: a crappy interview, there were people around you that judged you.
Speaker 2: And you were walking around and people are whispering about
Speaker 2: like what a sellout?
Speaker 1: Did you see? How pathetic that was?
Speaker 3: There's not a tiny and maybe naively hopeful statement, danna
Speaker 3: prove the naysayers wrong, do a real interview.
Speaker 4: And then don't edit the damn thing show the real answers.
Speaker 1: I hope that happens.
Speaker 2: I really do, and it's and the sad part is
Speaker 2: you shouldn't have to encourage a real journalist to do
Speaker 2: their damn job. But here we are. Don't forget. We
Speaker 2: do this show Monday, Wednesday and Friday. Make sure that
Speaker 2: subscribe or auto download button wherever you're listening, and on
Speaker 2: those in between days, I'll keep you update on my podcast,
Speaker 2: The ben ferg some podcasts, so make sure you download
Speaker 2: that one as well, and The Senator and I will
Speaker 2: see you back here on Friday morning