Speaker 1: You're listening to the Buck Sexton Joe podcast, make sure
Speaker 1: you subscribe to the podcast on the iHeart Radio app
Speaker 1: or wherever you get your podcasts. President Joe Biden is
Speaker 1: making a plea to federal lawmakers to take action to
Speaker 1: curb gun violence in America. Of course, Democrats never explained
Speaker 1: how their legislation would stop the shootings. As a matter
Speaker 1: of fact, their ideas tend to have the opposite of
Speaker 1: their intended effect. And it's all good though, as long
Speaker 1: as they do something right. That's what they seem to think. Friends,
Speaker 1: it's time for hold the line. Welcome to hold on.
Speaker 1: I'm Buck Sexton. He had another chance last night, Joe Biden,
Speaker 1: President of United States. Better for worse. I think we
Speaker 1: all see it's pretty much always for worse. But he
Speaker 1: had an opportunity to bring together the American people and
Speaker 1: say some intelligent things, first of all, about the national
Speaker 1: healing process that should still be underwear in the aftermath
Speaker 1: of the horrific shooting in Uvalde, amongst some other shootings
Speaker 1: as well in recent days that having gotten nearly as
Speaker 1: much attention but also atrocious the shooting in Oklahoma, for example.
Speaker 1: But Joe Biden took the opportunity to give a speech
Speaker 1: that was rooted in emotional blackmail, a lot of untruth,
Speaker 1: a lot of misdirection, and was basically just an opportunity
Speaker 1: to attack his political opponents instead of actually looking at
Speaker 1: what would be serious about trying to stop violence in
Speaker 1: this country. Joe Biden wants to tell you how much
Speaker 1: he hates the NRA and the gun owners out there
Speaker 1: who don't want to go along with this. Here he says, though,
Speaker 1: that he has by partisan legislation to do something. This time,
Speaker 1: we have to take the time to do something, and
Speaker 1: this time it's time for the Senate to do something.
Speaker 1: But as we know, in order to do any get
Speaker 1: anything done in the Senate, we need a minimum of
Speaker 1: ten Republican senators. I support the partisan efforts that include
Speaker 1: small group of Democrats and Republicans centers trying to find
Speaker 1: a way, But my god, the fact that the majority
Speaker 1: of the Senate Republicans don't want any of these proposals
Speaker 1: even to be debated or come up for a vote,
Speaker 1: I find unconscionable. We can't fail the American people again.
Speaker 1: Do what, Joe, That's really what this comes in. Okay,
Speaker 1: do what we'll talk about some of the things that
Speaker 1: he said should be done. And see, the reason they
Speaker 1: want to get so much of the emotion out there
Speaker 1: is that they just want a mobilized mentality on this
Speaker 1: issue without having to explain how then the actions that
Speaker 1: they want taken wouldn't actually change anything that we've seen
Speaker 1: going on. And for example, Biden mentioned there have been
Speaker 1: twenty mass shootings. Now, how you define mass shootings is
Speaker 1: something that people There are different definitions of it out there,
Speaker 1: but usually it's three or more people who have been shot.
Speaker 1: Often these mass shootings involve gang activity and other criminal
Speaker 1: activity that is completely in a different category from the
Speaker 1: kind of mass murder that we saw in that school
Speaker 1: in Uval Day. But here's Biden saying, there have been
Speaker 1: twenty mass shooting since you've all day watched, since Valdi
Speaker 1: just over a week ago, there have been twenty other
Speaker 1: mass shootings in America, each with four or more people
Speaker 1: killed or injured, including yesterday at a hospital in Tulsa, Oklahoma,
Speaker 1: a shooter to liberally target a surgeon using an assault
Speaker 1: up and he bought just a few hours before his
Speaker 1: rampage that left a surgeon, another doctor, receptionist and a
Speaker 1: patient dead and many more injured. That doesn't count the
Speaker 1: carnage we see every single day. It doesn't make the headlines.
Speaker 1: So how would any of the things which include an
Speaker 1: assault rifle, band, magazine limitation, How would any of these
Speaker 1: things that he wants, safe storage requirements, red flag laws
Speaker 1: would they have stopped? He said there have been twenty
Speaker 1: mass shootings. Would they have stopped any of those mass shooting?
Speaker 1: If the answer is yes, Joe Biden should tell us
Speaker 1: how and which mass shooting would have been stopped. Let's
Speaker 1: just say, for example, the shooter in Tulsa, Oklahoma, had
Speaker 1: been told sorry, there's an assault rifle ban. In effect,
Speaker 1: shooter could have just bought a pistol, just as lethal,
Speaker 1: could have used two pistols, like the horrific mass shooting
Speaker 1: at Virginia Tech, where it was two pistols. It was
Speaker 1: not a rifle that was used in that mass shooting.
Speaker 1: In fact, if you look at the ford Hood shooting,
Speaker 1: another mass shooting, high casualty account many debts attributed to
Speaker 1: that incident. That horrific incident, pistols, not a rifle. So
Speaker 1: changing the weapon isn't going to actually change the lethal
Speaker 1: intent of psychopathic Hillers, So how would it have stopped anything?
Speaker 1: He doesn't even pretend that he has an answer to that.
Speaker 1: But what he does want, of worse is political mobilization. Here.
Speaker 1: He wants people who are Democrats and I guess some independence,
Speaker 1: although he's not winning over any independence with this from
Speaker 1: the numbers that we can see. He wants his political rivals,
Speaker 1: the Republican Party, to suffer the consequences of not going
Speaker 1: along with these proposals that quite clearly would do nothing
Speaker 1: to stop gun violence in any meaningful way. Why. I've
Speaker 1: been in this fight for a long time. I know
Speaker 1: how hard it is, but I'll never give up. Congress fails,
Speaker 1: I believe this time a majority of the American people
Speaker 1: won't give up either. I believe the majority of you
Speaker 1: will act to turn your outrage into making this issue
Speaker 1: central to your vote. Enough enough, No, he's wrong, that's
Speaker 1: not going to happen. But it does make the left
Speaker 1: wing anti gun base feel good about themselves. Really, so
Speaker 1: much of Democrat politics around guns is just they don't
Speaker 1: like gun owners in general, lawful gun owners, criminals Democrats
Speaker 1: always have a soft spot for, but lawful gun owners
Speaker 1: they do not like, and they want to always remind
Speaker 1: everybody of that fact in whatever ways they can. Um karine.
Speaker 1: Jean Pierre says that Biden knows how to get things
Speaker 1: done because he's taken on the gun lobby. Watch thanks.
Speaker 1: If the resident thinks that Congress must act immediately to
Speaker 1: end this apidemic of gun violence, is he going to
Speaker 1: bring any of the key players from Capitol Hill to
Speaker 1: the beach with him tonight? Okay? Um uh so, I
Speaker 1: don't have a whole thing that he knows how to
Speaker 1: get things done. He does, he does. I mean, he's
Speaker 1: he's beating the gun lobby before he has but it's
Speaker 1: not it's not say this is how it's done, but
Speaker 1: it's not his thing. It's actually fact we saw he
Speaker 1: did that in the Senate during his crow Congress days,
Speaker 1: that he beat the gun lobby. Think about this beat
Speaker 1: the gun lobby as if there's some all powerful enemy
Speaker 1: out there. That's the gun lobby. The problem that they
Speaker 1: have is gun owners, as in Americans who have Second
Speaker 1: Amendment rights who don't agree with this nonsense. That's it.
Speaker 1: At the end of the day. By the way, since
Speaker 1: we're talking about ending or rather limiting mitigating violence to
Speaker 1: the greatest of your possible loss of life. Look at
Speaker 1: Democrat policies and cities all across the country. Do you
Speaker 1: think they're really strict about enforcing gun crimes when it
Speaker 1: comes to when it comes to people who are associated
Speaker 1: with gangs, people who have a previous criminal history. Not
Speaker 1: in New York, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Philadelphia, Chicago. Oh no, no,
Speaker 1: they're letting them walk. In many cases, they're giving them
Speaker 1: plea bargains that they should never be handing to people
Speaker 1: with any kind of violent intent who are carrying firearms
Speaker 1: on the streets. But you know, social justice. And then
Speaker 1: there's this Oregon's decriminalization of drugs, for example, Democrats push
Speaker 1: this Oregan's first in the nation's scheme to decriminalize drugs
Speaker 1: and encourage those possessing them to seek medical help has
Speaker 1: been blighted with problems. They've had a seven hundred percent
Speaker 1: increase in overdoses in the past year seven x. Another
Speaker 1: Democrat policy like going soft on crime, like defunding police
Speaker 1: that results in people dying in large numbers. Why don't
Speaker 1: they address that? Because these large numbers of people that
Speaker 1: are dying from this one hundred thousand plus overdoses last year.
Speaker 1: Now Democrats would rather just do a lot of virtue signaling.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about protecting your home first. I don't know
Speaker 1: if you saw this. There was a recent story about
Speaker 1: an Arizona real estate agent who found that the home
Speaker 1: she lived and was listed for sale. That's fine, right,
Speaker 1: except no, it wasn't actually selling her home. He was
Speaker 1: the victim of home title fraud, a devastating crime that
Speaker 1: happens all over the country. According to the experts at
Speaker 1: home title lock, the crime is incredibly profitable and hard
Speaker 1: to detect. An identity thief simply creates a fake title
Speaker 1: transfer for your home and refiles as the new owner.
Speaker 1: Then he can take out loans on your home or
Speaker 1: sell it. Typical identity theft services don't cover you, and
Speaker 1: neither does homeowners insurance. Home title lock does. Home title
Speaker 1: puts a barrier around your home's titled the instant. They
Speaker 1: detect anyone tampered with your home's title, They help shut
Speaker 1: it down, and they help get your home back in
Speaker 1: your name. So go to hometetlelock dot com. Now tell
Speaker 1: them that Bucks sent you for thirty free days or protection.
Speaker 1: That's hometetlelock dot com again, hometetlelock dot com. Support from
Speaker 1: my podcast is brought to you by Manscape, the best
Speaker 1: and men's below the waste grooming. Their products are precision
Speaker 1: engineered tools. Manscapes Performance Package is the ultimate men's hygiene bundle.
Speaker 1: Join over four million men worldwide who trusts Manscape with
Speaker 1: its exclusive offer for you twenty percent off and free
Speaker 1: worldwide shipping with the code buck at manscape dot com.
Speaker 1: The Performance Package four point zero includes a ton of
Speaker 1: men's grooming products like the Lawnmower four point zero trimmer,
Speaker 1: the weed Whacker, Era NOO's hair trimmer, performance boxer, briefs,
Speaker 1: and a bunch of other great men's hygiene products you
Speaker 1: never knew you needed, plus a travel bag to hold
Speaker 1: at all. A lawnmower trimmer is the best. It's got
Speaker 1: a cutting edge ceramic blade to reduce grooming accidents, and
Speaker 1: it's waterproof so no more messes on the bathroom floor.
Speaker 1: You'll also get the waterproof weed Whacker Nose, an ear
Speaker 1: hair trimmer with proprietary skin safe technology which helps reduce
Speaker 1: nick snags and tugs in all those delicate areas. Get
Speaker 1: twenty percent off and free shipping with the code buck
Speaker 1: at manscape dot com. That's twenty percent off with free
Speaker 1: shipping at manscape dot com and use code buck to
Speaker 1: unlock your confidence and always use the right tools with Manscape.
Speaker 1: I want to tell you Gorsuch. I want to tell
Speaker 1: you Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will
Speaker 1: pay the price. You won't know what hit you if
Speaker 1: you go forward with these awful decisions. That was that
Speaker 1: under Chuck Schumer back in twenty twenty, funding and off
Speaker 1: a lot like he's calling for consequences, perhaps even inciting
Speaker 1: violence against sitting Supreme Court justices. Suspect Nicholas Roski has
Speaker 1: been arrested fast forward, of course there's today and charged
Speaker 1: with the attempted murder or kidnapping of Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh.
Speaker 1: This man was arrested less than a block from Kavanaugh's
Speaker 1: Maryland home in possession of a handgun, knife, zip ties,
Speaker 1: and burglary tools, among other things. Roski also made a
Speaker 1: deranged nine one one called the police as a warning
Speaker 1: before he attempted to find the justices home. New York
Speaker 1: Post reports California man was incensive about the League Supreme
Speaker 1: Court draft opinion, and he was arrested near Justice Kavanaugh's
Speaker 1: Maryland home Wednesday, after he hatcheder planned to kill the
Speaker 1: jurist to quote, give his life purpose, join me now,
Speaker 1: discussed senior editor at The Federalist, David Orsaani. David, thanks
Speaker 1: for being with us, Thanks for having me. So this
Speaker 1: is officially someone arrested for attempted murder of a sitting
Speaker 1: Supreme Court justice. Don't I don't know how much digging
Speaker 1: around you did, David into the Democrat media, but this
Speaker 1: was covered, if at all, as like a page seven
Speaker 1: midway down the fold story. In a way, it was
Speaker 1: pretty shocking. No mention of it at all last night
Speaker 1: on PBS airwaves or on PBS's website. It may may
Speaker 1: have updated it today, but this happened yesterday. It was
Speaker 1: a minor news item in either the New York Times
Speaker 1: a Washington Post. I can't remember now which one it was.
Speaker 1: But if this had been let's say, you had a
Speaker 1: sodomayor under similar threat with a pending decision, does anyone
Speaker 1: think that the media wouldn't act like this was the
Speaker 1: great And by the way, it is a grave threat
Speaker 1: to the institutions of our government. But it feels like
Speaker 1: the partisanship is all that really matters to a lot
Speaker 1: of the folks in the media. Well, yeah, it doesn't
Speaker 1: get tiring to always say. Imagine if it had been
Speaker 1: you know, a liberal who has happened to you or whatever,
Speaker 1: you'd have you know, we'd have we'd be in the
Speaker 1: midst of a national conversation about right wing violence. You know,
Speaker 1: it would be front page news. We'd still we talk,
Speaker 1: we'd be talking about it all the time on every
Speaker 1: single cable network. And these people just simply don't care
Speaker 1: because they other people incite and instigate this sort of thing.
Speaker 1: And it's not just I'm not saying that Chuck Schumer,
Speaker 1: you know, is responsible for the actions of a madman,
Speaker 1: but I will say that it's not. It's it's the
Speaker 1: constantly calling people child murderers, fascists, insurrectionists. You're talking about
Speaker 1: people on the right and dehumanizing them. So if I
Speaker 1: thought those things were true that they said, I would
Speaker 1: pick up a gun too. I mean, we'd all want
Speaker 1: to pick up guns. It would be a rational thing
Speaker 1: to do. But it's of course an insidious lie, and
Speaker 1: yet they do it all the time. And it's it's
Speaker 1: just this whole rhetoric that you see on MSNBC that
Speaker 1: now you hear senators. I mean, Chuck Schumer is a
Speaker 1: very powerful man, and the things he said in that clip,
Speaker 1: I mean there's specific threats to specific people. It's just insanity. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean to anybody would say, well, oh, he's just
Speaker 1: talking about what political consequences they have lifetime appointments to
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court? Well, how are they gonna feel the
Speaker 1: fury of the public for a decision that some leftist
Speaker 1: lunatics don't like. I mean, there's you know, it's not
Speaker 1: like when you're running against somebody in the general election
Speaker 1: you're saying, oh, you know, you're gonna feel the fury
Speaker 1: of at the ballot box, and these are these are judges.
Speaker 1: He did have to step back from that and apologize,
Speaker 1: But I mean, I also can't forgive or forget that
Speaker 1: in the immediate aftermath of the leak of the draft opinion,
Speaker 1: David and the protests outside some of these judges, including
Speaker 1: Kavanaugh's home, which are explicitly clearly illegal under federal statute.
Speaker 1: And as I've explained this to anybody who asks, oh, okay,
Speaker 1: so if I'm being prosecuted, I can hire a mob
Speaker 1: to go stand outside the home of my prosecutor, screaming
Speaker 1: crazy stuff. That's the justice system we think we're allowed
Speaker 1: to have. So Jensaki at the time was saying, well,
Speaker 1: you know, there's a lot of stuff that people are
Speaker 1: upset about, so no big deal for these protests outside
Speaker 1: Supreme Court justices homes, and it's conservative justices. Let's be honest. Yeah,
Speaker 1: of course, I mean they would never let this happen
Speaker 1: to the others. But I'll say that, you know, you
Speaker 1: make a good point. These are lifetime appointments for a reason.
Speaker 1: They're lifetime appointments because we don't want justices pressured by
Speaker 1: by politics, by protests, by picketing. And yet the Senate,
Speaker 1: the Senate leader tells people to go to the president.
Speaker 1: They actually said. I think Saki said like something like,
Speaker 1: you know, it's just part of the process or whatever
Speaker 1: she said. It was basically encouragement for people to go
Speaker 1: and pressure politically lifetime lifetime judges. I mean, it's it's
Speaker 1: an attack on on separation of power, it's an attack
Speaker 1: on civility and decency. I'm all, listen, I'm basically a
Speaker 1: First Amendment um, you know, absolutist. I mean, if you
Speaker 1: want to you know, go on the street and yellow people,
Speaker 1: you know from you know, decent you know, decent space.
Speaker 1: That's fine by me, but they're but to have our leaders,
Speaker 1: to have left wing leaders basically inciting and egging on
Speaker 1: these people, that is completely out of line. And you know,
Speaker 1: and that's why I think part of the reason why
Speaker 1: they don't cover this stuff. You wrote in The Federalist,
Speaker 1: David that normally I wouldn't blame Democrats for the actions
Speaker 1: of extremists. The problem is that not only does the
Speaker 1: left continue to push the boundaries with humor like threats,
Speaker 1: but they are engaged in the relentless daily smearing of
Speaker 1: their political opponents as seditious, vote stealing, child murdering, fascists
Speaker 1: and insurgents. If this were true, violence would be justified.
Speaker 1: But it's just a sinister lie. I mean, I do
Speaker 1: think that that we have reached a point now where
Speaker 1: you have the total normalization of from the left, from
Speaker 1: the Democrats, of treating anyone who would cast a vote
Speaker 1: for any Republican as effectively a threat to our government.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's what this whole direction thing is all about.
Speaker 1: They don't care about the you know, the very foolish
Speaker 1: and simple minded and you know, in some cases criminal
Speaker 1: depending what they did. People that were actually in the
Speaker 1: Capitol on January six. It's about everybody. It's about everyone
Speaker 1: whoever casts a vote for a Republican Yeah, have you
Speaker 1: noticed that, you know, I've noticed that people demand that
Speaker 1: I take some kind of ownership of people who went
Speaker 1: into the Capitol. I don't have anything to do with them.
Speaker 1: I don't agree with what they did. I don't probably
Speaker 1: even agree with their philosophical ideas if they have any ideas.
Speaker 1: I don't know if they had any. But yet you
Speaker 1: have a person who tries to wipe out Bernie Sanderson,
Speaker 1: tries to wipe out Republican leadership, or you have someone
Speaker 1: showing up someone's house where you have a summer of
Speaker 1: rioting and you know, and murder, and you know, the
Speaker 1: destruction of the lives of thousands of people. And no,
Speaker 1: they don't take any any ownership of that. They don't.
Speaker 1: They just disconnect from it like it has zero to
Speaker 1: do what they're reatoring. Well, it can't. You know, again,
Speaker 1: we're trying, you know, they want us to play by
Speaker 1: two sets of rules, and that you can't have a
Speaker 1: civil society of functioning democratic republic, when you have two
Speaker 1: sets of rules where you put you know, when one
Speaker 1: person doesn't show up for a subpoena, you put him
Speaker 1: in shackles, and the other guy gets you know, nothing
Speaker 1: happens to him. I mean, you just simply can't function
Speaker 1: that way. And that's literally what's happening. I know I'm
Speaker 1: jumping all over, but I think these things are connected.
Speaker 1: Agree with you. By the way, De Santis had a
Speaker 1: good statement in the Kavanaugh threat situation. He said, it
Speaker 1: wasn't even just the fact that this guy was looking
Speaker 1: to murder someone, which is very serious in itself, that
Speaker 1: was being done in service of changing the outcome at
Speaker 1: the judicial branch of government. And that is really really problematic.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is someone who was looking to alter
Speaker 1: the course of this nation through violence, and it's coming
Speaker 1: at a time when Democrats are suggesting that people who
Speaker 1: don't agree with them are a threat to the government itself. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, the leak itself, most likely, almost surely was
Speaker 1: meant to put pressure on the justices who might turn
Speaker 1: overturn rov way and the things that, you know, a
Speaker 1: Senate leader of standing on the steps of the Scode
Speaker 1: is yelling about consequences, is trying to make them intimidate
Speaker 1: those judges. This is just it's a outlandish I don't
Speaker 1: even know historically speaking as certainly in modern history, nothing
Speaker 1: like this has happened. I mean, the closest I can
Speaker 1: think of is when Barack Obama sort of braided the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court for upholding the First Amendment. But other than that,
Speaker 1: I really, I really can't think of any comparable situation
Speaker 1: to this. David, appreciate joining us, Thanks for being here.
Speaker 1: Thank you. At first, I want to talk you about
Speaker 1: protecting your online data. A lot of companies promise your
Speaker 1: privacy is guaranteed, but we know that's not true. That's
Speaker 1: why you need a new privacy and cybersecurity application tool
Speaker 1: called Secure. It's spelled SEK. You are. Secure is using
Speaker 1: proprietary encryption and offering secure instant messaging and email with
Speaker 1: Secure all of your communications based on servers and data
Speaker 1: centers hosted in Switzerland, without using any of the big
Speaker 1: tech platforms. Privacy is a big issue now. Without real security,
Speaker 1: people can read your emails, your messages, even your bank information.
Speaker 1: Secure will never mind your data, never ask your phone number.
Speaker 1: You can send emails to your doctor. Banker, lawyer, or
Speaker 1: anyone else with total confidence you're not being spied on.
Speaker 1: Secure is your solution to stop the constant theft of
Speaker 1: your digital identity. Costs only five dollars to the messenger,
Speaker 1: only ten dollars to the messenger and email combination package.
Speaker 1: Go to secure dot com and take back your privacy today.
Speaker 1: That's sekuar dot com and use promo code buck for
Speaker 1: twenty five percent off. We'll be right back with more.
Speaker 1: Hold the line. Pandemic Arab policy. Title forty two remains
Speaker 1: in limbo, but migrant shelters in Bordertown say now is
Speaker 1: the time to prepare for its end. With a massive
Speaker 1: migrant caravan already heading toward our border, many are concerned
Speaker 1: that the termination of Title forty two will open the
Speaker 1: floodgates even more to illegal immigration. More than a year,
Speaker 1: Arizona's Attorney General, Mark Bernovich has been fighting to get
Speaker 1: the Biden administration to do its job. From suing DHS
Speaker 1: Secretary Mayorchis to the CDC to present Biden himself. Bernovitch
Speaker 1: is doing everything in his power to protect this community,
Speaker 1: stop the White House from rescinding Title forty two. Berney
Speaker 1: in general the state of Arizona, joins me. Now A G. Bernovich.
Speaker 1: Good to have you, sir. Thank you Bob for having me.
Speaker 1: I really appreciate it. So just tell me this. The
Speaker 1: end of Tittle forty two would be a problem. But
Speaker 1: as I understand it, mister Attorney General, the reality of
Speaker 1: Title forty two as it is at the border right now,
Speaker 1: whether it's Arizona, Texas, you name it, is that they're
Speaker 1: not really using it except against illegal Mexican and Central
Speaker 1: American migrant. What's going on? Yeah, I mean, you know
Speaker 1: you mentioned this that we'ven't been involved in so many
Speaker 1: lawsuits against the Bide administration trying to force them to
Speaker 1: do their job. Now we went into court, we led
Speaker 1: the coalition, our lawyers argued that the Biden administration who
Speaker 1: could not resume the title forty two. And what we
Speaker 1: had found out they were doing was they were trying
Speaker 1: to play these games where they were trying to create
Speaker 1: exclusions and exceptions for people from certain countries, and the
Speaker 1: court told them they could not do that. But we
Speaker 1: have seen the Biden administration in the past when we
Speaker 1: suit him over the permanent guidance or that time most
Speaker 1: temporary guidance where they were not supporting people deportation orders.
Speaker 1: You know, they would tell the court they're doing it,
Speaker 1: and they would slightly tweak the policy, and then they
Speaker 1: would say, well, we're following that decision, but then they
Speaker 1: would change and create a new policy. So the one
Speaker 1: thing that has been very consistent is the Biden administration
Speaker 1: is trying to systematically undermine the rule of law and
Speaker 1: basically eradicate our entire southern border. I know, folks like
Speaker 1: we've talked about this where we thought at one point
Speaker 1: they maybe wanted to abolish ice, but it's clear they
Speaker 1: just want to eradicate the southern border. So that's why
Speaker 1: I keep having to go into court and keep getting
Speaker 1: these injunctions, keep getting these restraining orders, just to try
Speaker 1: to get the Biden administration to do their actual job.
Speaker 1: Entitle forty two is one of the last things we
Speaker 1: have left in our toolbox, so I'm doing everything I
Speaker 1: can to save it. Here's that list of one of
Speaker 1: the cases you've brought Arizona v. Garland challenging DHS fast
Speaker 1: Track Asylum system, Arizona VCDC, challenging the replication of Title
Speaker 1: forty two. We were just discussing. You've also challenged DHS's
Speaker 1: final guidance, challenging Biden administrations illegal violation, led into cancelation
Speaker 1: of border wall construction, and once again challenging interim guidance.
Speaker 1: So you are not afraid to take the Feds into
Speaker 1: court over this stuff. How have these challenges played out?
Speaker 1: You're winning, some losing some something in between. What's going on? Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean we unfortunately, for example, in the border wall,
Speaker 1: you know, that's still a litigation. We didn't know we
Speaker 1: were successful at the beginning to appen. We we're continuing
Speaker 1: to litigate it. One thing you did not mention is
Speaker 1: that I literally argued to a Supreme Court in February
Speaker 1: of the public charge rule, and this is where the
Speaker 1: Biden administration tries is trying to give government welfare medicst
Speaker 1: non citizens. And so I'm very confident we're gonna win
Speaker 1: that case. We had take that all the way to
Speaker 1: the US Supreme Court. You know, we got the restraining
Speaker 1: order to stop a Title forty two from being revoked,
Speaker 1: and you know on the permanent guidance, some of these
Speaker 1: other cases are still winding them way through the courts,
Speaker 1: and unfortunately, what the Biden administration is shown is a
Speaker 1: complete disregard not only for administrative procedures, but they're shredding
Speaker 1: the constitution of the process. And so I'm doing everything
Speaker 1: I can but to try to hold them accountable and
Speaker 1: to try to force them to just follow the existing law.
Speaker 1: And so you know, we've been very successful in some cases.
Speaker 1: In some cases we literally are having to take to
Speaker 1: the US Supreme Court to make sure the court orders
Speaker 1: the Biden administration just follow the law and do the
Speaker 1: right thing. So with that in mind, what would need
Speaker 1: to happen for I mean, right now, obviously a federal
Speaker 1: judges said Title forty two cannot be rescinded as it
Speaker 1: currently stands. At some point it will be rescinded. One
Speaker 1: would assume, right it's a pandemic related CDC authority. So
Speaker 1: what would have to happen for it to be legal?
Speaker 1: And what would be the change is necessary from your
Speaker 1: perspective that the Biden administration could make so that they
Speaker 1: wouldn't get the massive search. I mean, we already have
Speaker 1: a huge caravan. They asked him a ten to fifteen
Speaker 1: thousand on the way, So what could they do differently?
Speaker 1: And then how could we get and then what happens
Speaker 1: when Title forty two goes Yeah, Title forty two, I
Speaker 1: think we all recognize it's like the little kid the
Speaker 1: story about holding the finger in the diet. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's all we're doing. These are stock out measures, and
Speaker 1: it's because the Biden administration is feeling to build the wall,
Speaker 1: which when it was working, they tried to ascend the
Speaker 1: remain in Mexico policy. They aren't deporting people's deportation orders.
Speaker 1: They're trying to incentimize and monetize people coming here like
Speaker 1: in government benefits. We're trying to stop that. So Type
Speaker 1: forty two. What we basically argued is that, look, if
Speaker 1: the Biden administration wants to rescind it, what has been
Speaker 1: good for the goose is good for the gander and
Speaker 1: an assents these left wing groups, they always sue Republican
Speaker 1: administrations trying to tell them they cannot change rules or
Speaker 1: policies without going through the proper rulemaking process. So what
Speaker 1: we've said, and what the judge agreed with, is that
Speaker 1: if the Biden administration wants to restend to revolt Title
Speaker 1: forty two, they have to go through the process, the
Speaker 1: legal process, and now would include rulemaking and public notice
Speaker 1: in common and so yeah, ultimately, if the administration wants
Speaker 1: to change that policy, they can, but we've are that
Speaker 1: they have to do it in the legally correct way,
Speaker 1: and that basically means the states get to have input
Speaker 1: saying this has happens will affect us and this is
Speaker 1: how illegal immigration is impacting us all over the country.
Speaker 1: So they have to provide that notice and they have
Speaker 1: to provide public input in notice in common from the
Speaker 1: states as well. So you are currently the attorney general
Speaker 1: in Arizona, you are running for a Senate seat on
Speaker 1: the Republican side from your state. You have a primary
Speaker 1: to get through here with your primary opponent being like
Speaker 1: Masters Trump Donald Trump, former present the United States Dorist Masters,
Speaker 1: and today he put out a statement I wanted to
Speaker 1: let you react to a mister attorney general. He said
Speaker 1: that Mark Bernovitch is such a disappointment to me. He
Speaker 1: is the current Arizona attorney general, and while he understands
Speaker 1: what took place in the twenty twenty presidential election and
Speaker 1: that it was rigged and stolen, he only views it
Speaker 1: as something he would not like to see happen again.
Speaker 1: That was a statement that former President Trump put out,
Speaker 1: how do you respond to that? I mean, I think
Speaker 1: I've heard your policies, and I've seen a lot of
Speaker 1: what you've you've done as attorney general. It would seem
Speaker 1: to be in line with President Trump's ideology. So what
Speaker 1: happened here? Yeah, you know, Buck, I can never control
Speaker 1: whether people are going to say or do, and what
Speaker 1: I've said, I'm literally told President Trump this is that
Speaker 1: if you care about securing the border, if you care
Speaker 1: about confirming good federal judges that were the first laws
Speaker 1: it is, and not create policy. You care about low
Speaker 1: energy prices and energy independence, if you care about low taxes,
Speaker 1: low regulation, you go through that entire agenda. I've actually
Speaker 1: been there. I mean, I was a prosecutor and I
Speaker 1: began my career game prosecutor protecting our communities. I worked
Speaker 1: in a think tank called the Goldwater to where I
Speaker 1: wrote extensively about federalism and low energy prices. And now
Speaker 1: as an age, look at all I've done. Whether we're
Speaker 1: suing the Biden administration of run constitutional vaccine mandates were
Speaker 1: literally last year, and I've brought this up to the President.
Speaker 1: The most important election case in the generation is literally
Speaker 1: called Bernavici, DNC, And when the left wing groups tried
Speaker 1: to come into places like Arizona, I fought them all
Speaker 1: the way to the Supreme Court and the Court of
Speaker 1: heel ability of states like Arizona and other states now
Speaker 1: to enact election integrity measures that limit and restrict ballot
Speaker 1: harvesting and out of preseine voting. So I've actually been
Speaker 1: in the forefront of these fights. So you get a
Speaker 1: lot of folks now that come up and they talked
Speaker 1: the talk, they've never walked the walk, They've never actually
Speaker 1: been in the fight. And then they can say a
Speaker 1: lot of things now, but where's the evidence, where's the
Speaker 1: receipts as kids saying nowadays with what they've actually done.
Speaker 1: And I've been in the forefront of this and holding
Speaker 1: at the end of the day, I think it's important
Speaker 1: to be principled. Arizona taken on Mark Kelly because the
Speaker 1: stakes are so high, and if you want someone that
Speaker 1: understands limited government, federalism and concernative principles, then I'm the
Speaker 1: guy learning General Bernovitch, State of Arizona. Good to see you, Sara,
Speaker 1: thanks for being with us today. Thanks Mark, Thank you
Speaker 1: very much. Each morning, the president of the United States
Speaker 1: receives a highly classified briefing on the most important issues
Speaker 1: facing the country. It's called the President's Daily Brief, or PDB.
Speaker 1: It's delivered by America's spies and analysts. Well, now you
Speaker 1: can hear your very own PDB in the form of
Speaker 1: a podcast hosted by me Brian Dean Wright, a former
Speaker 1: CIA operations officer. Each morning at six am Eastern, I'll
Speaker 1: bring you fifteen to twenty minutes of the most important
Speaker 1: issues facing the country, giving you the critical intelligence and
Speaker 1: analysis you need to start your morning. One of the
Speaker 1: most liberal cities in America is putting its progressive prosecutor
Speaker 1: on notice. Finally, the first time ever, San Francisco has
Speaker 1: recalled its district attorney, Chessi bud Dan, as voters hold
Speaker 1: him responsible for a surge in murders, violent crime, and
Speaker 1: shameless shoplifting. So will this recall send a message to
Speaker 1: soft on crime prosecutors across the country. Let's ask former
Speaker 1: NYPD Coppen conservative commentator John Cardillo. John, good to see you. Hey,
Speaker 1: Bacco is good to be again. So this is a
Speaker 1: good thing. It's not a seismic shift, right, I'm sure
Speaker 1: they're going to replace. When the mayor London Breed puts
Speaker 1: forward his replacement and they have elections, they're going to
Speaker 1: replace him with a Democrat to San Francisco. But at
Speaker 1: least it's moving in the right direction here. What do
Speaker 1: you think? Yeah, I mean, look one thing about We'll
Speaker 1: get into this guy ratible as they come, right. Aaron's
Speaker 1: for whether underground members, convicted cop killers, contemporaries of such
Speaker 1: illustrious luminaries as Bill Ayres and Assada Shakur, who the
Speaker 1: Joanne Chesimar and wrights a bit on those, I mean,
Speaker 1: just radical radical terrorists. But here's the thing. Jesse Bodin
Speaker 1: did not do one thing that he did not tell
Speaker 1: people he was going to do any campaigned. Nothing was
Speaker 1: a surprise with this guy. He laid out the blueprint
Speaker 1: during his campaign then executed it to the letter. San
Speaker 1: Franciscans is radical leftist. Fuck. Maybe they don't really like
Speaker 1: the real life version of these utopian which are really
Speaker 1: dystopian policies they promote. Because he didn't do anything he
Speaker 1: didn't say he was going to do. Here he is
Speaker 1: last night, by the way, in his concession speech, here's
Speaker 1: Jesse Budan soon to be the former District Attorney of
Speaker 1: San Francisco. Watch. People are angry, they're frustrated, and I
Speaker 1: want to be very clear about what happened tonight. The
Speaker 1: right wing billionaires outspent us three to one. They exploited
Speaker 1: an environment in which people are appropriately upset, and they
Speaker 1: created an electoral dynamic where we were literally shadow boxing.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is amazing. We just take this is amazing.
Speaker 1: The right wing billionaires are I mean, sixty percent of
Speaker 1: San Franciscans voted to kick this clown out of office
Speaker 1: because they're sick of the home invasions, the assaults on
Speaker 1: the street, the theft, the armed robbery, you name it.
Speaker 1: And why does he think they're all so upset? This
Speaker 1: guy is like a lunatic. Oh, I mean, didn't you
Speaker 1: see the AGM and cameras that that hidden footage of
Speaker 1: Hilarry Ellison and Elon must upping raw sewage and Herwin
Speaker 1: needles on the streets of San Francisco. I mean, the
Speaker 1: guys out of his mind. Look, he was letting bad
Speaker 1: guys go free. He wasn't prosecuting worse bad guys. And
Speaker 1: he and so many other Democrats have abandoned quality of life. Crimes.
Speaker 1: They won't even touch him, which we know. You and
Speaker 1: I know this, right, we both in some fashion with
Speaker 1: the NYPD. You were over there on the intel side,
Speaker 1: I was there on the law enforcement side. We know
Speaker 1: that when you addressed what Rudy Giuliani get, addressing quality
Speaker 1: of life crimes typically leads to a reduction in the
Speaker 1: bigger crimes. This had nothing to do with anyone or
Speaker 1: anything other than you're so polite in the way you
Speaker 1: say his name as well Chessebo'dan's refusal to be a prosecutor.
Speaker 1: He wanted to be a far less activist, not the
Speaker 1: chief law enforcement officer, the chief prose prosecutorial officer of
Speaker 1: the city of San Francisco. It's amazing, John, because as
Speaker 1: we all know, there was a thirty percent increase in
Speaker 1: homicides in nationwide in twenty twenty to twenty twenty one.
Speaker 1: George Floyd Movement and BLM and all this played into this,
Speaker 1: of course, But the progressive prosecutors, they had already been
Speaker 1: seeded into all these different city bureaucracies in the years
Speaker 1: leading up to this, in part because I think of
Speaker 1: the media stoking a racial panic over the election of
Speaker 1: Donald Trump, right so twenty seventeen, twenty eighteen, you start
Speaker 1: seeing the Chessa bou Dan and you know the Kim
Speaker 1: Fox and these other Larry Kraszner, these progressive prosecutors taking office.
Speaker 1: And it wasn't just that they had one year. The
Speaker 1: next year, twenty twenty two to twenty twenty one was
Speaker 1: also terrible in these cities. So we knew it wasn't
Speaker 1: just a pandemic blip or whatever crap they were saying
Speaker 1: at the time, the lies they were telling. In San Francisco,
Speaker 1: for example, twenty twenty two verses twenty twenty one. Larceny
Speaker 1: so far this year up twenty percent, assaults up eleven percent,
Speaker 1: homicides up eleven percent, rape up nine percent. So they
Speaker 1: had a terrible year of crime rise across the country,
Speaker 1: but in San Francisco, San Francisco specific, and it keeps going. John,
Speaker 1: I think that was what people disabled. Enough is enough? Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean it goes back to addressing those quality of
Speaker 1: life crimes, right, the broken windows pleasing strategies you do.
Speaker 1: And I talk about this a lot, and so sometimes
Speaker 1: I don't delve into it when we're on air, but
Speaker 1: it's important to understand that maybe you have new viewers,
Speaker 1: which I'm sure you do with your audience grows who
Speaker 1: or maybe younger, they don't understand we're talking about. And simply,
Speaker 1: but what Rue Giuliani his police commissioners understood in New
Speaker 1: York City in the nineties when they manage a crime reduction,
Speaker 1: crime fell off a cliff in New York is if
Speaker 1: you go after the little things, the big things follow.
Speaker 1: Very simply put, if you arrest a guy or a
Speaker 1: shoplifting or jumping the turnstile in the subway not paying
Speaker 1: the fair oftentimes when you run their information after the arrest,
Speaker 1: you find they had warrants for delany robbery, delany burglary, felony.
Speaker 1: Has solved some of these bigger crimes, and but getting
Speaker 1: those people off the street, returning them on those warrants
Speaker 1: to a judge, you were reducing crime across the board. Again,
Speaker 1: these progressive das. I'm so glad you brought up Larry
Speaker 1: Krasner in Philadelphia. He was really George Soros' first experiment
Speaker 1: with funding far left district attorneys to affect social change
Speaker 1: in the wrong direction. And look where Philadelphia is today.
Speaker 1: It's a mess. I have phillyops reached out to me
Speaker 1: on Twitter on Facebook all the time telling me how
Speaker 1: bad it is. But it's very simple. If you address
Speaker 1: the quality of life crimes, if you actually enforce the
Speaker 1: law as crazy as it sounds, buck crime drops, and
Speaker 1: when you do the opposite, prime rises. The big city
Speaker 1: crime spike isn't just San Francisco, as I noted a
Speaker 1: moment ago, John, and again in its second year of
Speaker 1: rise right twenty twenty, twenty twenty one was the worst
Speaker 1: year pretty much ever for a one year crime spike
Speaker 1: nationwide twenty twenty one verse twenty twenty two, though San
Speaker 1: Francisco's up seven point eight percent, New York City though
Speaker 1: with a new mayor, up thirty eight percent, Los Angeles
Speaker 1: eleven percent, Chicago thirty five percent, Philadelphia twenty two. Philadelphia
Speaker 1: last year had its all time murder record, and it's
Speaker 1: just running slightly below that pace six months into twenty
Speaker 1: twenty two. John, I, I just want to know what
Speaker 1: your take is on I've got a theory that in
Speaker 1: some of these cities they're realizing that the progressive prosecutors,
Speaker 1: I mean, that's just essentially suicidal for the city, but
Speaker 1: bringing in a kind of mainstream Democrat who's still a
Speaker 1: little you know, wishywashi. That's not going to turn the
Speaker 1: momentum around. They're gonna need a Giuliani like figure to
Speaker 1: come in and say there's a new sheriff in town.
Speaker 1: I mean New York City is the proof of that, right,
Speaker 1: Eric said Eric Adams. I mean the guy who's in
Speaker 1: New York City police officer, retired as a New York
Speaker 1: City Police captain. And crime is rising in New York City.
Speaker 1: Why because instead of being a leader, instead of saying
Speaker 1: I had twenty three years in the New York City
Speaker 1: Police Department, I made a d behind my name. But
Speaker 1: I know it works, and I know what doesn't to
Speaker 1: reduce crime. What's he doing? He's deferring to guys like
Speaker 1: Alvin Bragg, the bar left Manhattan District that won't prosecute
Speaker 1: anyone for anything. He's now beholding the radicals in the
Speaker 1: New York City Council and crime is rising. Also important
Speaker 1: notice city like Portland, Ted Wheeler, one of the furthest
Speaker 1: left mayors in the United States. There was a period
Speaker 1: in those years you mentioned Buck twenty one, twenty two,
Speaker 1: twenty to twenty one when Portland saw an eight hundred
Speaker 1: percent increase in murders. This is unheard of. We haven't
Speaker 1: seen these numbers since the seventies. Crazy, but we'll see
Speaker 1: if people are waking up. Even Democrats they got to
Speaker 1: wake up too, because they've managed to take over and
Speaker 1: now destroy their own cities. John, my friend, always words
Speaker 1: a wisdom. Good to see it, great to see a buck. Thanks.
Speaker 1: Billionaire Elon Musk seems to have won at least one
Speaker 1: battle against Twitter. Earlier this week, Must threaten to walk
Speaker 1: away from a deal to buy the social media company
Speaker 1: if it didn't allow him and his legal team full
Speaker 1: access to its internal data to address concern about the
Speaker 1: number of spambots on the platform. In a letter to Twitter,
Speaker 1: must attorney wrote Twitter's latest offer to simply provide additional
Speaker 1: details regarding the company's own testing methodologies, whether through written
Speaker 1: materials or verbal explanations, is tantamount to refusing mister Musk's
Speaker 1: data requests. Twitter's effort to characterize it otherwise is merely
Speaker 1: an attempt to obfuscate and confuse the issue. Mister Musk
Speaker 1: has made it clear he does not believe that the
Speaker 1: companies lacks testing methodologies are adequate, so he must conduct
Speaker 1: his own analysis the data he has requested as necessary
Speaker 1: to do so. After Twitter had about forty eight hours
Speaker 1: of deliberation, it appears Musk will receive the information he
Speaker 1: asked for. Joined me now to discuss former Facebook intelligence
Speaker 1: analyst and director of Heritage's Heritage Foundations Tech Policy Center
Speaker 1: Para Frederick Carrett. Thanks for being with us, orts, thanks
Speaker 1: for having me. So let's start with what is it
Speaker 1: forever and at home? You know, people work in this
Speaker 1: stuff and the media care a lot more about the
Speaker 1: Twitter situation, I think than everyday folks. But so explain
Speaker 1: to us what the issue was here. There are too
Speaker 1: many bots on. Basically, Elon, as the purchaser of Twitter,
Speaker 1: wants to know how many fake accounts there are? Is
Speaker 1: that what this is exactly? And the lawyers, the letters
Speaker 1: that are flying between the lawyers, Elon's lawyers at least
Speaker 1: are saying that this is a clear material breach of
Speaker 1: the takeover agreement because Twitter has said we're not going
Speaker 1: to let you look under the hood in this way.
Speaker 1: We're not going to reveal proprietary information. They're calling it
Speaker 1: private information that they don't want to reveal to the
Speaker 1: public about their bot counting. And their spam methodologies. So
Speaker 1: Twitter has itself publicly said that we the platform is
Speaker 1: comprised of only five percent bots, but Elon said, nah,
Speaker 1: I've done a little digging with my own people, and
Speaker 1: we're thinking it could be upwards of twenty percent bots,
Speaker 1: composed of you know, what the platform is, or the
Speaker 1: automated accounts that are on the platforms vice the real legitimate,
Speaker 1: authentic users. So that's what this is about, because if
Speaker 1: Twitter is comprised of twice any percent bobs, then Elon's
Speaker 1: not getting his money's worth out of this platform. It
Speaker 1: doesn't Hey, it's not real political discourse that's going on.
Speaker 1: It's not real authentic users that are engaging with each other.
Speaker 1: It's you know, those automated accounts that push various you
Speaker 1: can push propaganda, you can push advertising, you can push
Speaker 1: all sorts of crazy things, you know, strings and puppeteers
Speaker 1: from state ling actors like the CCP can run rampant
Speaker 1: on these platforms too. So Elon wants to know what
Speaker 1: he's paying for, and Twitter has thus far said, we're
Speaker 1: not going to let you in on that because all
Speaker 1: of that is proprietary to us, our private platform. In
Speaker 1: an article on the Verge, they wrote that Twitter will
Speaker 1: give Elon Musk fire hose data access to settle bot complaints,
Speaker 1: and Twitter preparing to grant Elon Musk unprecedented access to
Speaker 1: platform data in an effort to address his concerns about
Speaker 1: automated accounts. So this fire hose of data they're talking about,
Speaker 1: how could they assume that? I mean, if someone's going
Speaker 1: to buy your company, don't they and you have an
Speaker 1: agreement with them that they're looking at they're doing their
Speaker 1: due diligence. How could they hide this? I mean, that's
Speaker 1: it just seems like this is so basic. Yeah, no kidding,
Speaker 1: And that's why I think what's going through Elon's head
Speaker 1: as well. He wants to make sure that he's what
Speaker 1: he was promised is what he's actually getting. So if
Speaker 1: that fire hose of data comes at him, you know,
Speaker 1: Elon knows a lot of smart people in the industry.
Speaker 1: I hope he has an army of data scientists, of programmers,
Speaker 1: of people who can actually comb through this data and
Speaker 1: make sense of it. That would be great and look
Speaker 1: and basically double check the methodologies for bot counting and
Speaker 1: all of these spam accounts. So that would be fantastic,
Speaker 1: But you're right, it's the most basic thing. And what
Speaker 1: I think this actually does end up highlighting buck is
Speaker 1: the fact that these tech companies they do not operate
Speaker 1: with transparency as one of their major goals or one
Speaker 1: of their major values whatsoever. If Elon Musk, the richest
Speaker 1: man in the world, has to beg and beg and
Speaker 1: beg to get access to a platform that he should
Speaker 1: ultimately end up owning, then this is a problem. Think
Speaker 1: of what the average American user gets when they sign
Speaker 1: up for these tech companies. It ain't transparency. Well, what
Speaker 1: do you what do you think he may find here?
Speaker 1: Because there's clearly some sensitivity on the part of the
Speaker 1: current and hopefully soon to be former Twitter leadership about
Speaker 1: their data their practices. Do you have some sense of
Speaker 1: what Elon could be looking at beyond just bots? You know,
Speaker 1: Twitter's had a long heads up right now, so they've
Speaker 1: had time to sort of try to clean up their act.
Speaker 1: There were reports initially when the deal first emerged in
Speaker 1: the public eye that they were sort of mining their
Speaker 1: p's and ques, that they were halting all a product
Speaker 1: tinkering and any sort of different sort of evolutions of
Speaker 1: their product. From being shipped so that remember everyone was
Speaker 1: experienced on the conservative side at least that there was
Speaker 1: tick in user counts and whatnot. So I think they've
Speaker 1: had a while to try to clean up their act
Speaker 1: and get those content moderation processes. If they don't want
Speaker 1: Elon to investigate and look at what they're doing that's
Speaker 1: obviously been very biased, they're probably cleaning that up right now.
Speaker 1: They've probably had a lot of time to clean it up,
Speaker 1: as you know, we in the intelligence community to burn
Speaker 1: all the documents and whatnot would have done before we're
Speaker 1: getting out of embassies overseas, So I think it's I
Speaker 1: think they've been given a lot of lead time to
Speaker 1: clean up their act. But you know, Elon's good and
Speaker 1: again he has really powerful friends who are good at
Speaker 1: this stuff too, so we'll see. I think they'll be
Speaker 1: able to ferret something out for the American people to
Speaker 1: look at. Do you think this transaction, the purchase of Twitter,
Speaker 1: which could have enormous implications for our information ecosystem on
Speaker 1: the new side, just free speech implications in general, Do
Speaker 1: you think Elan's gonna actually end up the owner of
Speaker 1: Twitter based on what you're seeing? You know, book I
Speaker 1: think it's fifty fifty. And just in terms of what
Speaker 1: Elon's thinking himself, he could be walking away or he
Speaker 1: could again be setting himself up for those more advantageous
Speaker 1: terms and actually trying to get this platform added discount.
Speaker 1: So at this point, you know, I was a little
Speaker 1: skeptical in the beginning. Then my hope really really spiked.
Speaker 1: But look at what they're throwing at him. Remember when
Speaker 1: the board took those poison pills. Look at the Joint
Speaker 1: SEC and DOJ investigations by the Biden administration reportedly into
Speaker 1: his other business dealings. Look at the sexual misconduct allegations.
Speaker 1: I mean, these people are throwing everything they can at Elon.
Speaker 1: And if he ends up actually confirming that the bobs
Speaker 1: are only at five percent or in an area that
Speaker 1: Twitter sets they are, I really really hope he does,
Speaker 1: and I really hope he takes over breaks the ideological
Speaker 1: monopoly that these big tech companies have over Americans and
Speaker 1: uses it as a force for free speech in the world,
Speaker 1: as he says, So I hope it goes through. Right now,
Speaker 1: I think it's fifty fifty. To be completely honest, do
Speaker 1: any of these free speech devoted platforms that have been
Speaker 1: popping up in the last couple of years. I mean,
Speaker 1: you were at Facebook, which is kind of the granddaddy
Speaker 1: of all this, if you will, right, I mean, the
Speaker 1: biggest one and the one that really got the whole
Speaker 1: social media revolution started. So do you think that whether
Speaker 1: it's Getter or truth Social or any of them, could
Speaker 1: they maybe break parlor? Could they maybe break out? You know,
Speaker 1: I think it really depends on their underlying technologies. So
Speaker 1: there's a company called Rumble that you're familiar with, the
Speaker 1: YouTube competitive competitor, and there they have their own cloud
Speaker 1: hosting services. There's other even specifically designed cloud hosting services
Speaker 1: that are for free speech, like righte Forge. So you know,
Speaker 1: it depends on if they make themselves themselves invulnerable to
Speaker 1: something like Amazon Web Services yanking a parlor off of
Speaker 1: their cloud hosting services. So, conservatives, if they build with
Speaker 1: that full digital stack in mind and have an acknowledgement
Speaker 1: that the infrastructure actually matters, not just the platforms sitting
Speaker 1: on top of those cloud oasting services and those servers,
Speaker 1: then I think they have a chance at survival. But
Speaker 1: if they just ride on top of what these big
Speaker 1: tech platforms have already built, then you know there's always
Speaker 1: the chance that you're going to get snuffed out, or
Speaker 1: you have to be beholden to the ideology of these
Speaker 1: companies and what they're pushing. Dare I always appreciate it.
Speaker 1: Thanks for being with us. Thanks Buck. Each morning, the
Speaker 1: President of the United States receives a highly classified briefing
Speaker 1: on the most important issues facing the country. It's called
Speaker 1: the President's Daily Brief or PDB. It's delivered by America's
Speaker 1: spies and analysts. Well, now you can hear your very
Speaker 1: own PDB in the form of a podcast hosted by
Speaker 1: me Brian Dean Wright, a former CIA operations officer. Each
Speaker 1: morning at six a m. Eastern, I'll bring you fifteen
Speaker 1: to twenty minutes of the most important issues facing the country,
Speaker 1: giving you the critical intelligence and analysis you need to
Speaker 1: start your morning.