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