Speaker 1: Welcome in his verdict with Senator Ted Cruz, Ben Ferguson
Speaker 1: with you. Senator Kamala Harris has got quite a history
Speaker 1: when it comes to wanting to limit free speech, and
Speaker 1: it seems to all be boiling up at this moment,
Speaker 1: just days before this big presidential debate.
Speaker 2: Kamala Harris and Tim Waltz are the most anti free
Speaker 2: speech presidential and vice presidential candidate in American history. Kamala
Speaker 2: has a long, long history of calling for censorship, calling
Speaker 2: for silencing anyone who disagrees with her, of wanting to
Speaker 2: use government power to silence her critics. If Kamala Harris
Speaker 2: becomes president, I predict now she will try to muzzle X.
Speaker 2: She will try to ban X. She wants to follow
Speaker 2: Brazil's path and ban X. She wants to use government
Speaker 2: power to go after big tech and force them to
Speaker 2: be her censors.
Speaker 3: We're gonna break that down.
Speaker 2: We're gonna lay out her record record is stunning and
Speaker 2: it is consistent over the years. A profound threat to
Speaker 2: the government silencing you.
Speaker 3: Number two.
Speaker 2: Kamala Harris on the border wall, over and over and
Speaker 2: over and over again, has been opposed to the border
Speaker 2: while she's denounced the border wall. Now she's running millions
Speaker 2: of dollars of TV ads featuring hold for it, the
Speaker 2: border wall, utterly and completely hypocritical, and astonishingly CNN has
Speaker 2: called her out for it. All of that in today's pod.
Speaker 1: Yeah, telegraphing that move in court. It was a wild
Speaker 1: day and that is going to be very interesting to
Speaker 1: chat about a moment. We are quickly approaching the one
Speaker 1: year anniversary of the horrific Hamas attacks on Israel, and
Speaker 1: still the Holy Land continues to be attacked on multiple
Speaker 1: fronts on a daily basis. Deadly threats are increasing in
Speaker 1: northern Israel. Constant rocket attacks from Hesbwab been fired at Israel,
Speaker 1: causing widespread damage.
Speaker 4: Since the war started.
Speaker 1: The International Fellowship of Christian and Jews has been on
Speaker 1: the forefront in Israel addressing the needs of the most vulnerable.
Speaker 1: And that's why I'm proud to stand and partner and
Speaker 1: tell you about IFCJ because with your life saving donation,
Speaker 1: you are literally helping provide for emergency food as well
Speaker 1: as critical security needs. We're talking about flat jackets, firefighting equipment,
Speaker 1: armored vehicles including armored ambulances that have saved countless lives
Speaker 1: over the last year. Already, they're also helping put in
Speaker 1: bomb shelters and much more. We're asking for five hundred
Speaker 1: of you to join the Fellowship and me by donating
Speaker 1: one hundred and fifty dollars because right away, a generous
Speaker 1: IFC supporter has said that they will match your one
Speaker 1: hundred and fifty dollars donation, doubling your impact in helping
Speaker 1: the people in the Holy Land. To make your gift
Speaker 1: right now and to stand with the people in Israel,
Speaker 1: you can call them eight to eight four eight eight IFCJ.
Speaker 1: That's eight to eight four eight eight IFCJ are four
Speaker 1: three two five. You can also give securely online at
Speaker 1: SUPPORTIFCJ dot org. That's one word support IFCJ dot org.
Speaker 1: Is Israel needs our support and the people need our
Speaker 1: support right now.
Speaker 4: Senator, let's get into freedom of speech.
Speaker 1: I believe that this should be a center point of
Speaker 1: this debate that we are just days away from. And
Speaker 1: that is what you said a moment ago. Not only
Speaker 1: is Kamala Harris and her VP running mate Walls extremists,
Speaker 1: but they are at the top of the list of
Speaker 1: those wanting to suppress the rights of free speech of
Speaker 1: every American, including Donald Trump.
Speaker 2: Look, Kamala Harris displays more antipathy to free speech in
Speaker 2: the First Amendment than any presidential candidate in two hundred
Speaker 2: and twenty four years. The last time we had a
Speaker 2: presidential CANi with this antipathy was John Adams, our second president,
Speaker 2: who had enforced the Alien and Sedition Acts and used
Speaker 2: them to persecute his political opponents. It's been two centuries
Speaker 2: since that has happened since then, and Kamala Harris displays
Speaker 2: an unprecedented willingness to use government power to silence you.
Speaker 2: And I want to go back. I want you to
Speaker 2: listen to an interview that Kamala Harris did with Jake
Speaker 2: Tapper on CNN in twenty nineteen and listen to this
Speaker 2: back and forth between Tapper and Kamala Harris.
Speaker 5: But I guess the question about you. I know you
Speaker 5: wrote to Twitter and the CEO, Jack Dorsey, and asked
Speaker 5: him to take away the president's yeah Twitter handle his account.
Speaker 5: How is that not a violation of free speech? I mean,
Speaker 5: the president has the same rights that you.
Speaker 4: Have that I have, And how.
Speaker 5: Would that not just be a slippery sloper? They have
Speaker 5: to ban you know half of the people on Twitter.
Speaker 6: I've heard that argument. But here's the thing, Jake. First
Speaker 6: of all, a corporation, which is what Twitter is, it
Speaker 6: does not have the has obligations. And in this case,
Speaker 6: Twitter has terms of use policy, and there are terms
Speaker 6: of use dictate who receives the privilege of speaking on
Speaker 6: that platform and who does not. And Donald Trump has
Speaker 6: clearly violated the terms of use, and there should be
Speaker 6: a consequence for that, not to mention the fact that
Speaker 6: he has used his platform being the president of the
Speaker 6: United States, in a way that has been about inciting
Speaker 6: fear and potentially inciting harm against a witness to what
Speaker 6: might be a crime against our country and our democracy.
Speaker 6: And for that reason, I do believe that he is
Speaker 6: that it's clear that he has violated the terms of use,
Speaker 6: and I'm asking that Twitter does what it has done
Speaker 6: in previous occasions, which is to revoke someone's privilege because
Speaker 6: they've not lived up to the advantages of the privilege.
Speaker 1: Freedom of speech is a privilege, she says, is granted
Speaker 1: to you by us, the dictators, And she was advocating
Speaker 1: for the president of the United States of America to
Speaker 1: be silenced by big tech and demanding it.
Speaker 2: She was, and mind you, this is twenty nineteen, so
Speaker 2: this is before January sixth. It had nothing to do
Speaker 2: with that. He was the sitting president that she was
Speaker 2: calling on to be silenced. And I'll tell you what
Speaker 2: I want to do something. Play that clip again and
Speaker 2: I want to just start it. I'm going to tell
Speaker 2: you to stop it a couple of times midway through,
Speaker 2: but play it one more time.
Speaker 5: I guess the question about you. I know you wrote
Speaker 5: to Twitter and the CEO, Jack Dorsey and asked him
Speaker 5: to take away the president's yeah Twitter handle his account.
Speaker 5: How is that not a violation of free speech? I mean,
Speaker 5: the president has the same rights that you have that
Speaker 5: I have, And how would that not just be a
Speaker 5: slippery sloper They have to ban, you know, half of
Speaker 5: the people on Twitter.
Speaker 3: Stop.
Speaker 2: Okay, let me start by saying, that is an excellent
Speaker 2: question from Jake Tapper. And I don't often praise CNN,
Speaker 2: but that was CNN. That was Jake Tapper being a
Speaker 2: real journalist. His question is exactly right. She is saying
Speaker 2: silence the president of the United States. He says, well,
Speaker 2: how's that not a violation of free speech? He has
Speaker 2: the same rights you do.
Speaker 3: I do.
Speaker 2: And isn't the consequence of what you're saying that Twitter
Speaker 2: would have to ban half the country anyone who disagrees
Speaker 2: with you, Kamala Harris, if you're not a leftist, if
Speaker 2: you dare say something conservative, if you say something like
Speaker 2: we need to see the border, Twitter has to ban you.
Speaker 2: How is that not a violation of free speech? That's
Speaker 2: a great question. Now, notice she doesn't answer it. Instead
Speaker 2: play what she says. And I'm going to stop you
Speaker 2: again pretty soon, just to play what she says.
Speaker 6: I've heard that argument. But here's the thing, Jake. First
Speaker 6: of all, a corporation, which is what Twitter is.
Speaker 2: So this is one of the classic arguments of leftists,
Speaker 2: which is corporations don't have free speech rights. That's what
Speaker 2: she's referring to. Now, that is, as a matter of
Speaker 2: constitutional law, objectively false.
Speaker 3: That is wrong. And let me tell you why it
Speaker 3: is wrong.
Speaker 2: The New York Times is a corporation, Ben Do you
Speaker 2: think The New York Times has free speech rights? I
Speaker 2: think they absolutely do. CNN is a corporation. Do you
Speaker 2: think CNN has free speech rights?
Speaker 4: Yes.
Speaker 2: Simon and Schuster, which publishes books, they're a corporation. You
Speaker 2: think they have free speech rights.
Speaker 1: If they didn't, they would be in a lot of
Speaker 1: trouble a lot of days the year.
Speaker 2: Paramount Pictures, which makes movies, they're a corporation. You think
Speaker 2: they have free speech rights? Planned Parenthood is a corporation?
Speaker 2: You think Planned Parenthood has free speech rights?
Speaker 4: As much as I don't like it, Yes.
Speaker 3: The NRA is a corporation. Does the NRA have free
Speaker 3: speech rights?
Speaker 4: Absolutely?
Speaker 2: The NAACP is a corporation. Does the NAACP have free
Speaker 2: speech rights?
Speaker 4: Yes, And they would argue all day and all night
Speaker 4: to that.
Speaker 2: And by the way, the Supreme Court has agreed with
Speaker 2: your answers on every one of those, over and over
Speaker 2: and over and over again. So understand her standard left
Speaker 2: is well, it's a corporation, so it doesn't matter. That
Speaker 2: is gibberish, It is nonsense. What is a corporation? A
Speaker 2: corporation is a legal structure for human beings to organize
Speaker 2: together in a collective endeavor, and in politics, corporations frequently
Speaker 2: engage in speech and political speech. It is a method
Speaker 2: through which people speak. And so she starts with the idea, okay, corporations.
Speaker 3: We can do it. Now, keep playing what else she says,
Speaker 3: does not.
Speaker 6: Have the has obligations and in this case, Twitter has
Speaker 6: terms of use policy.
Speaker 2: Okay, to notice what she said, Twitter, Twitter is a corporation,
Speaker 2: and a corporation has obligations. Now that those are the
Speaker 2: words of a collectivist. Those are the words of a totalitarian.
Speaker 2: If you do business in my government, you have obligations,
Speaker 2: you have obligations. She's going to tell you what those
Speaker 2: obligations are, and they are not to be a spoiler,
Speaker 2: but to silence anyone who dares disagree with me. The
Speaker 2: all powerful oz keep playing.
Speaker 6: Views, dictate who receives the privilege of speaking on that
Speaker 6: platform and who does not stop the privilege.
Speaker 3: She's saying.
Speaker 2: By the way, and to be clear, it's not just
Speaker 2: Donald Trump that has the privilege of speaking.
Speaker 3: On that platform.
Speaker 2: Twitter has become the public square X today has become
Speaker 2: the public square. It is the most important forum on
Speaker 2: planet Earth for free speech. And in Kamala's leftist totalitarian view,
Speaker 2: and that's what this is. This is government unchecked power.
Speaker 2: It is merely a privilege, and a privilege that she
Speaker 2: as the dictator, can revoke if you dare dissc agree
Speaker 2: with her. It is not a privilege. The First Amendment
Speaker 2: says Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech.
Speaker 2: It's not a privilege, it is a right protected in
Speaker 2: the Bill of Rights.
Speaker 3: Keep playing.
Speaker 6: He violated the terms of use, and there should be
Speaker 6: a consequence for that, not to mention the fact that
Speaker 6: he has used his platform being the President of the
Speaker 6: United States in a way that has been about inciting
Speaker 6: fear and potentially inciting harm against.
Speaker 2: So number one, she says there should be a consequence. Notice,
Speaker 2: she is threatening, we will punish you. If you do
Speaker 2: not obey, we will punish you. And to be clear,
Speaker 2: she's not talking about silencing an ordinary citizen. She's talking
Speaker 2: about silencing. This is twenty nineteen, the sitting president of
Speaker 2: the United States. She wants him banned from speaking. Why
Speaker 2: because she says he has incited fear. So, in other words,
Speaker 2: when he talks about the threats of murderers coming across
Speaker 2: our southern border, when he talks about the threats of
Speaker 2: terrorists coming across our southern border, well, in her world,
Speaker 2: that's inciting fear. That's a message she does not want
Speaker 2: people to hear. Why because she wants as many illegal immigrants,
Speaker 2: including murderers and terrorists coming across our southern border, and
Speaker 2: if you incite fear, well, that's really inconvenient for her
Speaker 2: political agenda.
Speaker 6: Keep going yes to what might be a crime against
Speaker 6: our country and our democracy. And for that reason, I
Speaker 6: do believe that he is that it's clear that he
Speaker 6: has violated the terms of use, and I'm asking that
Speaker 6: Twitter does what it has done in previous occasions, which
Speaker 6: is to revoke someone's privilege because they've not lived up
Speaker 6: to the advantages of the privilege.
Speaker 4: Revoke someone's privileges. That is radical, yep.
Speaker 2: And by the way, at the time Jack Dorsey was
Speaker 2: the CEO. Jack Dorsey is someone who does not respect
Speaker 2: free speech, who would use Twitter repeatedly to censor aggressively.
Speaker 2: When Elon Musk bought Twitter, he released the Twitter files,
Speaker 2: so we now know just how eager Jack Dorsey was
Speaker 2: to censor people who dared disagree with the leftist orthodoxy.
Speaker 2: But even Jack Dorsey, this was too much for him.
Speaker 2: He did not ban Donald Trump in twenty nineteen when
Speaker 2: Kamala Harris asked him to from Twitter. He didn't do
Speaker 2: it then, but she was saying, she's demanding that they
Speaker 2: silenced the existing the sitting president because she doesn't like
Speaker 2: what he's saying.
Speaker 3: Now, I want to play another interview.
Speaker 2: Actually that Jake Tapper did with Kamala Harris the same month,
Speaker 2: October of twenty nineteen, and on the same topic. So
Speaker 2: this is a different night but the same rough time period.
Speaker 2: Play the second interview.
Speaker 6: He has lost his privileges and it should be taken down.
Speaker 6: And the bottom line is that you can't say that
Speaker 6: you have one rule for Facebook and you have a
Speaker 6: different rule for Twitter. The same rule has to apply,
Speaker 6: which is that there has to be a responsibility that
Speaker 6: is placed on these social media sites to understand their power.
Speaker 6: They are directly speaking to millions and millions of people
Speaker 6: without any level of oversight or regulation, and that has
Speaker 6: to stop.
Speaker 2: I want to take the end of her statement there.
Speaker 2: They are directly speaking to millions of people without any
Speaker 2: level of oversight or regulation, and that has to stop.
Speaker 2: That may be the single most anti free speech statement
Speaker 2: I have ever heard a political candidate give. She is
Speaker 2: saying that the government must provide oversight and regulation of
Speaker 2: any platform that, in her words, speaks to millions of people.
Speaker 2: Because if you are effective in free speech, if you
Speaker 2: reach a lot of people. The government is going to
Speaker 2: decide whether you get this privilege or not if you
Speaker 2: care a free speech. That ought to scare the hell
Speaker 2: out of you. And let me be clear, Listen, the
Speaker 2: difference between me and Kamala Harris could not be more stark.
Speaker 2: She wants to silence her opponents. She wants to silence
Speaker 2: Donald Trump, she wants to silence Elon Musk, she wants
Speaker 2: to ban X all of it. I believe if she's
Speaker 2: president she will try to do that. I'm sure she
Speaker 2: wants to silence you and me, Ben, Let's be clear
Speaker 2: about the difference. Yeah, I would silence you, and I
Speaker 2: do not want you and I do not want to
Speaker 2: silence her. I would vigorously oppose any effort to censor
Speaker 2: or silence her. I don't want to silence Bernie Sanders.
Speaker 2: I don't want to silence AOC. I think their policies
Speaker 2: are blithering idiocy. So I want people to hear what
Speaker 2: they're saying. Look, in this podcast, we are playing her words.
Speaker 2: We're not silencing them. We're doing the opposite, which is Look.
Speaker 2: John Stuart Mill said, the best cure for bad speech
Speaker 2: is more speech. If we were to talitarians. This is
Speaker 2: not there's not a both sides does this. We're not
Speaker 2: saying silence the other side, use power. We're saying no, no, no.
Speaker 2: She has a right to prattle on to her heart's content,
Speaker 2: and if you don't like what she's saying, that the
Speaker 2: remedy for that is to lay out the truth, the facts,
Speaker 2: the argument, and prove why she's wrong.
Speaker 1: It is also scary just how easy it rolls off
Speaker 1: their tongue and how quickly they're willing to just go
Speaker 1: automatically to well, you should just silence someone. And this
Speaker 1: is I think part of what the Democratic Party has become.
Speaker 1: They do believe that every American that disagrees with them
Speaker 1: there should be a consequence for their views, There should
Speaker 1: be a consequence for their statements, for their words. We
Speaker 1: also heard, and I'll never forget this because I've said
Speaker 1: this before, Senator, Believe them when they say what they say,
Speaker 1: Believe them when they tell you what their plan is.
Speaker 1: Remember when they said that we need re education camps
Speaker 1: for Trump supporters and Trump voters. And it wasn't just
Speaker 1: one person that, it was like the entire Democratic Party
Speaker 1: singing in verse on a Sunday morning, in choir together.
Speaker 1: It was like weeks of we need to re educate
Speaker 1: these people.
Speaker 2: Well, and they have a new mantra that if you
Speaker 2: disagree with leftist orthodoxy, you are a quote enemy of democracy.
Speaker 2: And that's their new justification. In defensive democracy, they're going
Speaker 2: to silence half the country in defensive democracy, they're going
Speaker 2: to muzzle free speech. In defensive democracy, they're going to
Speaker 2: ensure that you can only say what they want you
Speaker 2: to say. Look, that reminds me of a Nigo Montoya
Speaker 2: and the Prince's Pride. You'll keep on using that word.
Speaker 2: I do not think it means what you think it means.
Speaker 2: That is not, in fact, what democracy means. Democracy does
Speaker 2: not mean the government has the power to silence you
Speaker 2: if you dare disagree with your government overlords. In fact,
Speaker 2: that would be precisely the opposite of democracy. But with
Speaker 2: or Will Orwellian irony, they use the word democracy to
Speaker 2: justify their silencing their opponents. I want you to play now,
Speaker 2: Kamala Harris when she went to speak at the NAACP
Speaker 2: again and this is in twenty nineteen or the presidential campaign,
Speaker 2: listen to what she promised to do if she became president.
Speaker 7: And will put the Department of Justice of the United
Speaker 7: States back in the business of justice. We will double
Speaker 7: the Civil Rights Division and direct law enforcement to counter
Speaker 7: this extremism. We will hold social media platforms accountable for
Speaker 7: the hate infiltrating their platforms because they have a responsibility
Speaker 7: to help fight against this threat to our democracy. And
Speaker 7: if you profit off of hate, if you act as
Speaker 7: a megaphone for misinformation or cyber warfare, if you don't
Speaker 7: police your platforms, we are going to hold you accountable
Speaker 7: as a community.
Speaker 2: Wows you accountable? And who is it that's going to
Speaker 2: hold you accountable? The United States Department of Justice. That
Speaker 2: is a threat to X, to Facebook, to every social
Speaker 2: media site, to every Internet site, to every media site.
Speaker 2: If you dare what she says is if you act
Speaker 2: as a platform for misinformation and understand what she means
Speaker 2: by misinformation is anything she disagrees with.
Speaker 1: If it is not fifty of America, you must silence yes,
Speaker 1: and the Department of Justice is going to do it.
Speaker 2: We will hold you accountable. She's threatening government power to
Speaker 2: force censorship, and if big tech doesn't go along with it,
Speaker 2: the Department of Justice will come after it. You know,
Speaker 2: Jonathan Turley tek.
Speaker 4: You this real quick?
Speaker 1: Yeah, does that mean when you say come after? I
Speaker 1: think people need to understand what that means. We hear that,
Speaker 1: we think, Okay, it's gonna be like a parking ticket.
Speaker 1: I don't think that's what she means, but there's a
Speaker 1: I be like, Wow, that just means you're gonna get
Speaker 1: like a little fine. I think what she means is
Speaker 1: what they've done so far with people they don't like.
Speaker 1: They want to put you in jail. They would be
Speaker 1: locking up people that work at these companies as the
Speaker 1: threat and massive finds that could bankrupt companies.
Speaker 2: Well, to understand that they want to put you in jail.
Speaker 2: Look at what they're doing on January sixth, the prosecution
Speaker 2: from January sixth, the Department of Justice, Jack Smith is
Speaker 2: trying to prosecute Donald Trump. And you know what they're
Speaker 2: using as a basis for the prosecution tweets he sent.
Speaker 2: He sent tweets and they're trying to put him in
Speaker 2: jail for it. By the way, we covered in this
Speaker 2: podcast couple of weeks ago in the United Kingdom, they
Speaker 2: sentenced a mand to twenty months in jail for a
Speaker 2: Facebook post twenty most couple weeks ago. That is happening
Speaker 2: right now.
Speaker 3: And so.
Speaker 2: Listen, we've seen under Joe Biden, the Department of just weaponized.
Speaker 2: The difference between Biden and Kamala. Biden is a puppet.
Speaker 2: He is unaware of what's going on around himself, and
Speaker 2: so he is manipulated by the hard left, the radicals
Speaker 2: in his party. Kamala is a true believer.
Speaker 3: She believes in this.
Speaker 2: She is eager to use government power. And I was
Speaker 2: mentioning a second ago Jonathan Turtley. He was a terrific
Speaker 2: law professor at GW. He is a friend, and he's
Speaker 2: a really good thinker. He wrote an op ed on
Speaker 2: September fourth that is entitled quote that has to Stop.
Speaker 2: Harris denounces unfettered free speech in twenty nineteen CNN interview
Speaker 2: and it's the one we played just a minute ago.
Speaker 2: But I want to read a couple of paragraphs from
Speaker 2: his op ed because it's really really strong. Here's how
Speaker 2: he opens quote. I previously wrote how a Harris Waltz
Speaker 2: administration would be a nightmare for free speech. Both candidates
Speaker 2: that would be Harrison Waltz have shown a pronounced and
Speaker 2: have shown pronounced anti free speech values. Now ex owner
Speaker 2: Elon Musk and former Independent presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy
Speaker 2: Junior have posted a Harris interview to show the depths
Speaker 2: of the hostility of Harris to unfettered free speech. I
Speaker 2: have long argued that Trump and the third party candidates
Speaker 2: should make free speech a central issue in this campaign.
Speaker 2: That has not happened. Kennedy was the only candidate who
Speaker 2: was substantially and regularly talking about free speech in this election.
Speaker 2: Yet Musk and Kennedy are still trying to raise the
Speaker 2: chilling potential of a potential of a Harris Waltz administration.
Speaker 2: And then I want to focus on the end of
Speaker 2: Turley's article because it's really good. He's talking about the
Speaker 2: end of it, he says quote for free speech advocates.
Speaker 2: The twenty twenty four election is looking strikingly similar to
Speaker 2: the election of eighteen hundred. One of the greatest villains
Speaker 2: in our history discussed in my book was President John Adams,
Speaker 2: who used the Alien and Sedition Acts to arrest his
Speaker 2: political opponents, including journalists, members of Congress, and others. Many
Speaker 2: of those prosecuted by the Adams administration were Jeffersonians. In
Speaker 2: the election of eighteen hundred, Thomas Jefferson ran on the
Speaker 2: issue and defeated Adams. It was the only presidential election
Speaker 2: in our history where free speech was a central issue
Speaker 2: for voters. It should be again. While democracy is really
Speaker 2: not on the ballot at this election, free speech is Turley.
Speaker 2: Professor Turley is exactly right. That is powerful, it is profound,
Speaker 2: It is true. And I look, I've spent my entire
Speaker 2: adult life fighting to defend the Constitution and the Bill
Speaker 2: of Rights, and free speech in particular. I am passionate
Speaker 2: about free speech. And you and I are ringing the
Speaker 2: alarm bells the threat that Kamala Harris and Tim Waltz
Speaker 2: posed to free speech. It is greater than any candidate
Speaker 2: in our lifetime, and greater than any candidate in two centuries.
Speaker 4: Amen to that.
Speaker 1: Americans are tired and frustrated by installing economy, inflation, endless wars,
Speaker 1: and the relentless assault on our values and our freedom
Speaker 1: of speech. Thankfully, there are companies like Patriot Mobile that
Speaker 1: still believe in America and our values and our constitution. Now,
Speaker 1: I'm proud to be a well customer of Patriot Mobile,
Speaker 1: and I'm proud to tell you about them. Because they
Speaker 1: are on the front lines fighting right now for our
Speaker 1: First and our Second Amendment rights, the sanctity of life,
Speaker 1: as well as our military, our first responders, and our
Speaker 1: wounded warrior heroes. Now you may say that seems interesting, Ben,
Speaker 1: why would a mobile phone company be involved and all
Speaker 1: of these things. Well, it's because they're taking a stand
Speaker 1: after they found out what Big Mobile was doing. Every
Speaker 1: time you pay your bill every month, they're giving a
Speaker 1: portion of that bill to major donations to places that
Speaker 1: support abortions, candidates and radical causes. At the local, state
Speaker 1: and the national level. We're talking about big Democratic candidates
Speaker 1: running for office right now. If you don't want your
Speaker 1: money going there, then now is the time for you
Speaker 1: to switch to Patriot Mobile. You're going to get the
Speaker 1: same nationwide coverage that you're used to right now because
Speaker 1: they operate on all three major networks, meaning the same
Speaker 1: towers you're using now are the same towers you're going
Speaker 1: to be using when you make the switch. Plus, they
Speaker 1: back their service with a coverage guarantee. Switching in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty four is so easy you literally can do it
Speaker 1: over the phone. They're one hundred percent US based customer
Speaker 1: service team will find the best plan for you and
Speaker 1: you can keep your same number, keep your same phone,
Speaker 1: or upgrade to a new one. So how do you
Speaker 1: switch and make a difference with every phone call and
Speaker 1: every text you send? Go to Patriotmobile dot com slash verdict.
Speaker 1: That's Patriot Mobile dot com slash verdict, or call them
Speaker 1: nine to seven to two Patriot right now to get
Speaker 1: a free month when you use the offer code verdict again.
Speaker 1: Join me and switch to America's only Christian conservative mobile provider,
Speaker 1: Patriot Mobile at Patriotmobile dot com slash verdict or nine
Speaker 1: seven to two Patriot and get that free month of
Speaker 1: service today with a promo code Verdict center. There was
Speaker 1: also something else that happened, and it was just weird.
Speaker 1: When I say weird, like a next level weird. CNN
Speaker 1: and I've got two theories I want your take on
Speaker 1: this came out and did a three and a half
Speaker 1: minute segment attacking Kamala Harrison Primetime, attacking her for using
Speaker 1: Trump's wall in her new border ads.
Speaker 4: They actually went.
Speaker 1: Back years, all the way back to twenty seventeen, and
Speaker 1: they were proud of themselves, patting themselves on their back
Speaker 1: for finding more than fifty instances of Harris slamming Trump's
Speaker 1: border wall, and they put this story together. Now I
Speaker 1: want to play it, but there's two things here that
Speaker 1: I think could be a possibility. A CNN has become
Speaker 1: so irrelevant with no one watching, and the ratings back
Speaker 1: up that point that they're desperate to get their ratings back.
Speaker 1: Having Trump in office delivers that to them. The highest
Speaker 1: ratings that CNN's had in years was when Donald Trump
Speaker 1: was in office and they were attacking him twenty four
Speaker 1: to seven, and that brought the crazies end to watch them.
Speaker 1: That's option number one. Option number two is are they
Speaker 1: doing this center because they're realizing that Harris and this
Speaker 1: big bump she was supposed to have for the convention
Speaker 1: didn't actually happen. Are they hedging their bets they think
Speaker 1: she might lose and so they want to look like
Speaker 1: they're actual journalists or could both of those be true
Speaker 1: at the same time.
Speaker 2: Well, let's play this first, because it really is a
Speaker 2: stunning piece, and it simply takes the fact that she's
Speaker 2: spending millions of dollars advertising and featuring the border wall
Speaker 2: as something she now supports, and it contrasts that with
Speaker 2: her record for years and years and years viciously, passionately,
Speaker 2: emphatically opposing the border wall, and I'll tell you the
Speaker 2: contrast is striking. Give a listen, and remember this is CNN.
Speaker 8: Tonight, K File investigates in a new report you'll see
Speaker 8: first out Front. The K file team scoured Kamala Harris's
Speaker 8: tweets and statements going all the way back to twenty seventeen,
Speaker 8: and what they found was more than fifty instances of
Speaker 8: Harris slamming Trump's border wall. But now new Harris campaign
Speaker 8: ads actually showcase that very wall.
Speaker 3: As a border state prosecutor, she took on drug cartels
Speaker 3: and jail gang members for smuggling weapons and drugs across And.
Speaker 8: On top of critical tweets, Harris also wrote in her
Speaker 8: twenty nineteen book quote, there was a bigger reason to
Speaker 8: oppose the border wall.
Speaker 3: A useless wall on.
Speaker 8: The southern border would be nothing more than a symbol,
Speaker 8: a monument standing in opposition to not just everything I value,
Speaker 8: but to the fundamental values upon which this country was built.
Speaker 8: How could I vote to build what would be little
Speaker 8: more than a monument designed to send the cold, hard
Speaker 8: message keep out well. P files Andrew Kaczinski joins me. Now, so, Andrew,
Speaker 8: I mean you and you all have gone through, I
Speaker 8: mean scoured an incredible amount of material. Tell me more
Speaker 8: about what you found.
Speaker 9: Yeah, that's right. We found more than fifty of those
Speaker 9: those tweets criticizing the border wall before she used that
Speaker 9: in her ad, and I want people to take a
Speaker 9: look at just a few of what she said here.
Speaker 9: She called it wasteful, useless, a waste of taxpayer money,
Speaker 9: a vanity wall project, a wasteful border wall, a stupid wall,
Speaker 9: a medieval vanity project, and an unnecessary wall. And those
Speaker 9: are really I mean, there were more of It was
Speaker 9: just like ten or fifty, but there was. There was
Speaker 9: really a lot of. This was the common refrain during
Speaker 9: the campaign. You read that quote where she said it
Speaker 9: was against everything that not only she stood for everything
Speaker 9: America stood abord, but and she brought this up a lot.
Speaker 9: Take a listen to just one instance of that. In
Speaker 9: twenty nineteen.
Speaker 6: It's the president's vanity project.
Speaker 10: His multi billion dollar vanity project called a wall, is
Speaker 10: nothing more than a distraction from the fact that he
Speaker 10: actually has it focused on working people in America. He
Speaker 10: contrived in National crisis around his big distraction.
Speaker 8: All right, so you go through all of that, You've
Speaker 8: got all the tweets, and yet all of a sudden,
Speaker 8: in the ads there's pictures of the wall. And then
Speaker 8: you went through to look at that wall, like, what
Speaker 8: is that specific wall that's in her campaign ads now?
Speaker 8: And you found something very interesting about this specific portion
Speaker 8: of the wall.
Speaker 9: And what's I think what's also really remarkable. This is
Speaker 9: like I mean, you heard her talking about it. There
Speaker 9: the Trump's wall in his campaign during his presidency, there
Speaker 9: was really no greater symbol of Trump's presidency than the
Speaker 9: wall in the way that Democrats were attacking him over
Speaker 9: the wall and his restrictive immigration policies. So we looked
Speaker 9: in that ad and if you look at it, that
Speaker 9: exact area of wall is in Sasabe or sip Arizona,
Speaker 9: and that is a portion of wall that was actually
Speaker 9: built by Donald Trump. It was built in an area
Speaker 9: where there was not previous wall. It was actually pretty
Speaker 9: controversial when they were building it at the time. So
Speaker 9: just to see that, and then there are others.
Speaker 8: He's using his wall that he built to say look at.
Speaker 4: What I did.
Speaker 9: And the other images of the wall, we weren't able
Speaker 9: to pinpoint. But there's there's telltale signs that that was
Speaker 9: a Trump wall because there's an anti climbing plate on
Speaker 9: top that became popularized during the Trump years.
Speaker 8: It's really incredible reporting and important. All right, Andrew Kosinski
Speaker 8: and k File, thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Now there's also another theory center, and that could be
Speaker 1: they were just hold on before the theories before the
Speaker 1: third is I do want to take the very end
Speaker 1: the comment.
Speaker 2: It's really incredible reporting. So actually, no, it's not. It's
Speaker 2: not incredible reporting to say one nominee for president is
Speaker 2: spending millions of dollars running ads claiming to support something
Speaker 2: that she spent her entire entire professional career denouncing over
Speaker 2: and over and over and again. Like, that's not incredible reporting.
Speaker 2: That's called just actually doing your job. That that is,
Speaker 2: in fact, what reporters are supposed to do. And this
Speaker 2: is a story that illustrates that her campaign is built
Speaker 2: on deception, it's built online. Understand this goes back to
Speaker 2: why is it in the six weeks since Kamala Harris
Speaker 2: became the presumptive Democrat nominee, she's done precisely one media interview,
Speaker 2: actually with CNN, the fake interview she did with Dana
Speaker 2: Bash that we broke down. If you didn't listen to
Speaker 2: the podcast analyzing the Dana Bash interview, you ought to
Speaker 2: because it was not an interview, it was a campaign commercial.
Speaker 3: That that that that that protected her.
Speaker 2: But other than that, she's done no media interviews. She's
Speaker 2: done zero press conferences. And it's because her strategy is
Speaker 2: to hide from everything she's ever said, everything she's ever done,
Speaker 2: every vote she's ever cast, to hide from her record
Speaker 2: and instead to claim to claim that she supports things
Speaker 2: she does not support. Now listen, her left wing supporters
Speaker 2: are not upset that she is running ads picturing the
Speaker 2: border wall. Why because they know she's lying. Everyone knows
Speaker 2: she's lying. But CNN called her out and and it
Speaker 2: that is, in fact the job of journalism to call
Speaker 2: people out when their record is directly contrary to what
Speaker 2: they're saying on the campaign trail.
Speaker 1: You look at the CNN interview that you mentioned, and
Speaker 1: that was my third. My third possibility is it really
Speaker 1: seemed to do some damage to CNN. They were embarrassed
Speaker 1: at how much they were called out for just propaganda
Speaker 1: that night, even from putting live. You and I talked
Speaker 1: about this putting up live on the screen when the
Speaker 1: interview was taped.
Speaker 2: So let me tell me something, Ben, So, Ben, you
Speaker 2: spent a lot of years as a paid CNN employee.
Speaker 4: Yes, seven years in hell, so what I call it?
Speaker 2: Yeah, you said they were embarrassed. Do you think they
Speaker 2: actually were embarrassed. I'm not sure they can be embarrassed.
Speaker 2: I'm actually curious about your thoughts on this.
Speaker 1: So I actually think they were because they were just ridiculed.
Speaker 1: It was daylight outside, it was primetime at night when
Speaker 1: they aired it. It was obvious that it wasn't live.
Speaker 1: And when you do something that egregious, I think even
Speaker 1: people that are left of center are like, come on,
Speaker 1: like really, Like you think we're dumb enough to believe
Speaker 1: that it's daytime right now while we're watching it at nighttime,
Speaker 1: and we're dumb enough to believe it's live when we've
Speaker 1: already we already know it's been taped and it.
Speaker 4: Has been well publicized it was taped.
Speaker 1: But I also think the other part that hurt them
Speaker 1: and embarrass them was the interview was incredibly short compared
Speaker 1: to what normal interviews of this magnitude are. I mean,
Speaker 1: you look at the town hall last night that happened
Speaker 1: with Trump and Hannity. I mean, it's solid hour plus
Speaker 1: on these things, and her interview taped edited in the
Speaker 1: daytime and then you know, claiming it's live at night.
Speaker 1: I think that that is a point where they're like, Okay,
Speaker 1: maybe we have to bring the penulum back here a
Speaker 1: little bit because we look so much like we are
Speaker 1: a mouthpiece for a campaign, and if she loses, that
Speaker 1: puts us in a really bad situation.
Speaker 2: Look, that's possible. And you asked a minute ago if
Speaker 2: they're trying to cover their bases. You know, I actually,
Speaker 2: you know, I'm a believer in Occham's razor that sometimes
Speaker 2: the simplest explanation is the best. I actually think in
Speaker 2: this instance, the dissonance, the the the contrast between what
Speaker 2: Kamala Harris is campaigning on and what she has said
Speaker 2: for her entire career it is so massive that I
Speaker 2: think they just ended up saying, all right, let's let's
Speaker 2: say it. I actually think, even though they're propagandists, it
Speaker 2: to see her embracing Trump's border wall is a level
Speaker 2: at which, you know, I asked a minute ago if
Speaker 2: they could get embarrassed. I think for a brief moment
Speaker 2: in time, they actually wanted to be journalists. And and
Speaker 2: and and I have a and and By the way,
Speaker 2: let's be clear, this is a remarkable podcast and maybe
Speaker 2: the only podcast we've ever done where twice now I
Speaker 2: praise CNN.
Speaker 3: I praise CNN at the beginning of.
Speaker 2: The podcast for Jake Tapper's question of Kamala Harris, that
Speaker 2: was a real question. It was a good question, Jake.
Speaker 2: It was a question a journalist would and should ask
Speaker 2: and listen, this story, this story is a question a
Speaker 2: journalist would and should covered. By the way, has ABC
Speaker 2: run the story? No, NBC, CBS, MSNBC, Nope, Like wait,
Speaker 2: they say their journalist. I mean CNN doesn't have it exclusive.
Speaker 2: Do you think MSNBC knows that she's lying when she
Speaker 2: runs an ad saying look at this border wall.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Well look, there's also another possibility that you and I
Speaker 1: have been having this discussion. It could be this is
Speaker 1: their way of slapping come on the hand for not
Speaker 1: being radical enough, like no, no, no, we don't go to
Speaker 1: border wall. And if you do it, we're gonna embarrass you.
Speaker 1: You're supposed to, you're supposed to hate the border wall.
Speaker 1: That's who you are. We're going to remind you of
Speaker 1: who you are, and we're gonna make you look bad
Speaker 1: when you when you pander this way on an issue
Speaker 1: we disagree with that. That also could be part of
Speaker 1: what the executive producers at CNN we're so mad at.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 2: Look, maybe you know I years ago one of my
Speaker 2: very first bosses, uh had had a bit of advice
Speaker 2: for me that I think was really insightful, and it
Speaker 2: was about government, and it was never ascribed to malice.
Speaker 2: What can be explained with incompetence in this instance, at
Speaker 2: least to me, I'm not reading a whole lot of
Speaker 2: Machiavellian uh you know positioning in CNN doing this. I
Speaker 2: think it was just there were like, holy crap, this
Speaker 2: is BS. I hope that is. I mean, that's actually
Speaker 2: a human instinct, and it is an instinct a journalist
Speaker 2: is supposed to have. Now, maybe I'm being naive, I mean, Ben,
Speaker 2: maybe you're you're more cynical than I am on this,
Speaker 2: and maybe I'm not cynical enough, but but one hundred percent, I.
Speaker 4: Wait, I would say this way. I wish that I
Speaker 4: thought the way you thought on this.
Speaker 1: I just think this is too big of a one
Speaker 1: to eighty from them sucking up to Kamala Harris a
Speaker 1: week ago, like.
Speaker 2: It's like what happened, Yes, but to be clear, it
Speaker 2: is different. Okay, it is different.
Speaker 3: Listen.
Speaker 2: One of the reasons that we didn't talk about this,
Speaker 2: I think in in our podcast analyzing the Dana Bash
Speaker 2: fake interview. But I do think a component is CNN
Speaker 2: desperately wanted that interview, Like the Kamala Harris campaign put
Speaker 2: it out there, Hey, we're going to do an interview
Speaker 2: with someone, and we want to see who will kiss
Speaker 2: our ass the most. If you're just doing it a little, no,
Speaker 2: that's not enough. We want both lips full pucker. We
Speaker 2: want enthusiasm. And I do think there was a level
Speaker 2: of just corporate servility that we want this interview and
Speaker 2: we will abase ourselves. We will we will abandon any
Speaker 2: pretense of journalistic ethics. We'll do any thing we can
Speaker 2: to get this interview. And so I think it's easier
Speaker 2: in a story where you don't have Kamala Harris, and
Speaker 2: in particularly the context where they won't give anyone an
Speaker 2: interview with Kamala Harris. When you don't have her there,
Speaker 2: it is easier to actually run one real story for
Speaker 2: three minutes out of the twenty four hours a day
Speaker 2: you're on TV.
Speaker 3: Yeah.
Speaker 1: No, I mean it's look, it's there is a possibility
Speaker 1: on all of these For you guys that listen to
Speaker 1: this podcast regularly, you know, we do this show pretty
Speaker 1: late at night, and six hours from now, I'm going
Speaker 1: to be back up on the radio talking about the
Speaker 1: latest breaking news, and I cannot start my show with
Speaker 1: an average cup of coffee. I've got to be awake,
Speaker 1: I've got to be alert, I've got to be read
Speaker 1: in on the biggest news that's happened over the next
Speaker 1: six hours. And that is why I love Blackout Coffee.
Speaker 1: Blackout Coffee is a one hundred percent committed brand of
Speaker 1: conservative values. And in the coffee space there are a
Speaker 1: lot of woke, radical companies. When I said that, you
Speaker 1: probably thought of a couple big coffee brands instantly. Well,
Speaker 1: at Blackout Coffee, you don't get an average cup of coffee.
Speaker 1: You get a premium cup of coffee every time, and
Speaker 1: the values they stand by are what you and I
Speaker 1: believe in. From the sourcing of the beans, the roasting process,
Speaker 1: customers support and shipping. They embody true American values and
Speaker 1: they accept no compromise on taste or on quality.
Speaker 4: Now, I'm going to save you.
Speaker 1: Some money right now, and I want you to try
Speaker 1: blackout Coffee. Go to Blackoutcoffee dot com slash verdict. That's
Speaker 1: Blackoutcoffee dot com slash vertict. Now, if you use the
Speaker 1: cubon code vertict, you're going to get twenty percent off
Speaker 1: your first order. Yeah, twenty percent off instantly. Blackoutcoffee dot
Speaker 1: com slash vertict. Be Awake not Woke. That's Blackoutcoffee dot
Speaker 1: com slash vertict. Promo code vertict for twenty percent off
Speaker 1: your first order. Senator, we are just days of from
Speaker 1: the first president of debate between the new candidate that
Speaker 1: no one voted for in Kamala Harris and Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: I got to ask you, is debate prep is happening?
Speaker 1: Maybe as we speak right now, what do you think
Speaker 1: the biggest vulnerability is now for Harris that we're in
Speaker 1: this thing post convention? Is it the flip flop on
Speaker 1: the border, is it freedom of speech? Is it national
Speaker 1: security issues? What do you think now? The real issues
Speaker 1: are two months out from election day.
Speaker 3: Look, it's her record.
Speaker 2: Why is it that she's hiding in Joe Biden's basement
Speaker 2: because she's terrified of her record. Her record's a failure.
Speaker 2: The Biden Harris record of the last four years is terrible.
Speaker 2: Whether it's inflation in the economy, whether it's crime, whether
Speaker 2: it's the disaster at the Southern border, whether it is
Speaker 2: the absolute wreck of foreign policy that has led to
Speaker 2: the war in Ukraine, the war in Israel, the anti
Speaker 2: Semitic protests on college campuses, the radicalization of the Democrat Party.
Speaker 2: Her record is a disaster. That's why she's desperately trying
Speaker 2: to run against run away from it. That's why she's
Speaker 2: hiding from the media because she doesn't want to talk
Speaker 2: about a record. We're going on the next podcast, We're
Speaker 2: going to talk about what to expect in the debate,
Speaker 2: and after the debate, we'll do a podcast analyzing exactly
Speaker 2: what we heard. Listen, this debate matters. This debate matters
Speaker 2: a lot. Both candidates have risk here, and from her perspective,
Speaker 2: she wants to run away from her record as much
Speaker 2: as possible. My hope is that Donald Trump calmly prosecutes
Speaker 2: the case against her, that her record has been a
Speaker 2: mess that all the things she's promising to do. She
Speaker 2: is in office right now. She is part of the
Speaker 2: current administration, and I hope that Trump, more than anything,
Speaker 2: keeps the focus not on him but on the American people,
Speaker 2: on the people who have been hurt by the policy
Speaker 2: failures of Kamala Harris and Joe Biden. If Trump does that,
Speaker 2: he'll win the debate. Kamala, on the other hand, wants
Speaker 2: to do everything she can to provoke, to poke Trump
Speaker 2: into coming across as a jerk. That's what she wants.
Speaker 2: I don't know that that will happen. I hope it
Speaker 2: does not happen. But her strategy, she is right now
Speaker 2: prepping saying how can I poke the hornet's nest and
Speaker 2: get him to hurt himself. She's not looking to hurt him,
Speaker 2: She's looking to get him to hurt himself. If he
Speaker 2: can resist that, he'll have a very good debate.
Speaker 5: Night.
Speaker 4: Don't forget.
Speaker 1: We do the show three days a week just for
Speaker 1: you guys, and thank you for listening. Also, thank you
Speaker 1: for supporting this show by sharing this podcast wherever you
Speaker 1: are on social media. We love doing this show giving
Speaker 1: you guys the info and it's up to you guys
Speaker 1: to get it out to the masses. Without you, we
Speaker 1: wouldn't be doing it. So again, thank you. Make sure
Speaker 1: you share this at that subscribe or auto download button. Also,
Speaker 1: on those in between days, make sure you grab my podcast,
Speaker 1: the Ben Ferguson Podcasts, and I'll give you the latest
Speaker 1: breaking news and analysis as well. And the Senator I
Speaker 1: will see you back here in a couple of days.