TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @HarmeetKDhillon

marcorandazza
Posted - May 20, 2021 at 6:11 PM
Saved - February 10, 2026 at 1:32 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
Marco questioned vaccinating children since the flu barely affects them. Harmeet Dhillon replied, accusing him of wanting children to die and making a racist remark.

@marcorandazza - Marc J. Randazza 🇺🇸 🇮🇹 🇧🇷

I am not against the vaccine, in principle. but, can someone give me a reason that we would use this vaccine on children, when this flu doesn't even really affect them?

@HarmeetKDhillon - Harmeet K. Dhillon

@marcorandazza You want the children to die, I see. Just like a white man to say that.

marcorandazza
Posted - May 20, 2021 at 6:11 PM
Saved - February 9, 2026 at 4:13 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
One user questions pediatric vaccine use, noting the flu hardly affects children. Another user accuses the first of wanting children to die and implies racism. A third user then condemns civil rights leadership in response to the exchange.

@marcorandazza - Marc J. Randazza 🇺🇸 🇮🇹 🇧🇷

I am not against the vaccine, in principle. but, can someone give me a reason that we would use this vaccine on children, when this flu doesn't even really affect them?

@HarmeetKDhillon - Harmeet K. Dhillon

@marcorandazza You want the children to die, I see. Just like a white man to say that.

@MmHabitual - 𝙃𝙖𝙗𝙞𝙩𝙪𝙖𝙡 𝙇𝙞𝙣𝙚 𝙎𝙩𝙚𝙥𝙥𝙚𝙧

@HarmeetKDhillon @marcorandazza This is who we have in charge of civil rights?

HarmeetKDhillon
Posted - December 18, 2025 at 11:41 PM
Saved - December 19, 2025 at 3:36 AM

@HarmeetKDhillon - Harmeet K. Dhillon

Election litigation update!

@AAGDhillon - AAGHarmeetDhillon

Promises made, promises kept! @CivilRights just sued 4 more jurisdictions—GA, DC, IL, & WI—for failing to hand over their voter rolls. @TheJusticeDept will make elections great again! https://t.co/HVsj6DzuVD

Video Transcript AI Summary
The Civil Rights Division of the DOJ provided an update on its election integrity litigation. The department announced that it sued four additional jurisdictions for not complying with federal election laws and facilitating the sharing of voter data: Georgia, the District of Columbia, Illinois, and Wisconsin. In addition, three more jurisdictions provided voluntary compliance, bringing the total to ten states that are voluntarily sharing their voter data so that the DOJ can help ensure that only American citizens vote, and that each person votes only once in federal elections per election cycle. The DOJ stated that, despite the holiday season, it will continue its work to obtain compliance from every jurisdiction or pursue lawsuits where necessary. The announcement framed the effort as part of making federal elections great again and ensuring that every citizen has confidence in them.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hi, I'm here with an important update on our election integrity litigation here in the Civil Rights Division at the DOJ. Happy to report that as promised, today we sued four additional jurisdictions that have refused to comply with our legal requests under federal election laws, and they include Georgia, The District Of Columbia, Illinois, and Wisconsin. We also got voluntary compliance from three additional jurisdictions today, bringing the total to 10 states that are voluntarily complying with our requests to share their voter data so that we can help those jurisdictions and all states ensure that only American citizens are voting only one time in our federal elections every election cycle. And rest assured, even as people are getting ready to pack up for Christmas and go visit their family and friends, we are not going to rest here at the DOJ. We're gonna continue this work and ensure that we either get compliance from every jurisdiction or, unfortunately, we sue them. So I'm here to make sure that we make our federal elections great again and that every citizen has confidence in them. And that's the commitment of this Department of Justice. Thank you very much and happy holidays.
HarmeetKDhillon
Posted - December 18, 2025 at 10:15 PM
Saved - December 19, 2025 at 3:24 AM

@HarmeetKDhillon - Harmeet K. Dhillon

Newly gifted hat I knit for our amazing @CivilRights assistant Grace! (Yes I knit that sweater!) Love my team! https://t.co/J0dpVcQSfL

HarmeetKDhillon
Posted - December 10, 2024 at 12:15 AM
Saved - December 16, 2025 at 10:52 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I'm honored by President Trump's nomination to aid our civil rights agenda. It's been my dream to serve our country, and I'm excited to join the team led by @PamBondi. I couldn't have reached this day without my mother, brother, and my late father Tejpal and husband Sarv; I hope to honor them.

@HarmeetKDhillon - Harmeet K. Dhillon

I'm extremely honored by President Trump's nomination to assist with our nation's civil rights agenda. It has been my dream to be able to serve our great country, and I am so excited to be part of an incredible team of lawyers led by @PamBondi. I cannot wait to get to work! I would not be here today without my amazing mother and brother's support, and my beloved father Tejpal and husband Sarv, who did not live to see this day. I hope I will honor their memories, with God's grace.

HarmeetKDhillon
Posted - September 10, 2025 at 8:56 PM
Saved - September 10, 2025 at 11:42 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I recently had Charlie in my office to discuss the challenges facing America’s youth. It was touching to see my deputy's son meet his idol, Charlie. Having known him for years, I considered him a dear friend, and my heart is shattered for Erika, his children, and the Turning Point family he cherished. In this painful time, I pray for comfort and protection from evil. We must ensure that his killer is brought to justice and hold accountable everyone who played a role in this senseless act.

@HarmeetKDhillon - Harmeet K. Dhillon

Charlie was sitting in my office @CivilRights just a few weeks ago to discuss issues affecting America’s youth. One of my deputies brought in his young son to meet Charlie, who he idolized. I knew Charlie for so many years and considered him a dear friend. My heart is broken for Erika, his kids, his family, and the Turning Point family he loved — and all who loved him. May God grant us all comfort in this horrible time. And may God protect us from this evil. And may we bring his killer to justice. And hold accountable, ALL who contributed to this senseless murder. 🙏🏽🙏🏽🙏🏽

HarmeetKDhillon
Posted - September 3, 2025 at 4:23 AM
Saved - September 3, 2025 at 5:16 AM

@HarmeetKDhillon - Harmeet K. Dhillon

Awkward

@BreannaMorello - Breanna Morello

🚨JUST IN🚨 DHS Secretary Kristi Noem today fired several FEMA employees for viewing pornographic content on government-issued devices during work hours. An investigation into FEMA employee conduct revealed that nearly half of the agency’s staff regularly access social media platforms while carrying out their taxpayer-funded responsibilities.

HarmeetKDhillon
Posted - September 3, 2025 at 2:27 AM
Saved - September 3, 2025 at 3:10 AM

@HarmeetKDhillon - Harmeet K. Dhillon

My staff told me this ⁦@NatConTalk⁩ speech was cocktail attire, so I pulled out the fashion big guns…. Nice to get dressed up and out of the office occasionally! https://t.co/0bkac5hfEr

HarmeetKDhillon
Posted - August 29, 2025 at 2:07 PM
Saved - August 29, 2025 at 3:28 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
Finding primary medical care in DC has been a nightmare for me since moving here. I'm shocked by the lack of doctors who accept insurance, the inconvenient locations, and the overall quality of facilities and staff. I've been here for six months, and it's been frustrating. Also, why does the AMA limit the number of medical schools in the U.S.?

@HarmeetKDhillon - Harmeet K. Dhillon

For those of us who moved to DC or the suburbs from America, trying to find primary medical care has proven a nightmare. I’m shocked at what passes for acceptable primary care in DC. Doctors don’t take insurance, practice in a convenient area, have clean and modern facilities, or staff that seem into their jobs. I have been here for six months and this has been my experience. Why does the AMA artificially limit the number of medical schools in America? 🇺🇸 🧐

HarmeetKDhillon
Posted - August 17, 2025 at 8:41 PM
Saved - August 18, 2025 at 11:05 AM

@HarmeetKDhillon - Harmeet K. Dhillon

Second hand embarrassment for this

@CollinRugg - Collin Rugg

NEW: Former FBI Director and 'Swiftie' James Comey releases a 5-minute video talking about how Taylor Swift inspires him and how she helps him deal with Trump. "At my second Taylor Swift concert in Hartford, CT, 14 years ago, she sang a song about this topic, asking..." "Why you gotta be so mean?" Comey said while quoting Swift's 2010 song 'Mean' as he discussed how mean people on X are. It's truly mind-blowing that this man served as the FBI director.

Video Transcript AI Summary
The writer contrasts national turmoil with Taylor Swift as an inspirational figure. He describes watching Swift’s podcast with the Kelsey brothers and notes he’s a lifelong fan, listing favorites like All Too Well (ten minute version) and Exile. He says Swift has grown up with his family and provided a soundtrack through adversity, modeling how to stand up to bullies without becoming mean. He mentions the California governor mocks Trump on social media, and Swift urged Americans not to elect him; he observes there are far more decent, honest, kind people in America than mean jerks. Swift’s energy advice matters: "Think of your energy as if it's expensive, she said, as if it's like a luxury item." We can't stop people from being jerks. What we can do is stop it from hurting us. He cites Arthur Brooks on happiness.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hey, everybody. Welcome back to my Substack. Last week's cold turns out to have been COVID, quite a flashback, and Donald Trump is still president and still humiliating America on a national stage standing next to Vladimir Putin. It's like a dream, a bad dream you can't wake up from. But I don't wanna talk about that bad dream this week. I wanna talk about a truly inspirational public figure named Taylor Swift. Of course, I watched her podcast interview with the Kelsey brothers. Of course, I watched the whole thing. Although on YouTube, Patrice and I got kicked off for the last fifteen minutes and finished it on her phone, but I watched it. You see, Taylor Swift and I go way back. I went to my first concert of hers fifteen years ago. I've been to a second, and I have helped financially support the attendance of a lot of family members at others. I'm in a family's Swifty group chat. I know all her music, and I listened to it in my headphones when I cut the grass. So, yes, I have a favorite of hers. Although, honestly, for me, it's a tie between All Too Well, ten minute version, and Exile featuring Bon Iver. Taylor Swift has grown up with my family and provided us a soundtrack, really, as we've grown ourselves and learned and adapted and dealt with adversity and celebration. She had songs for all of it. I suspect that's something that millions of Americans have also experienced in their families. I think that's because Taylor Swift produces great art, but also because she models something. At every stage of her career, she's shown a certain way of being that resonated with my kids and also felt right to me as a parent, and she's still doing that as a grown up. Like a lot of you, I struggle with how to stand up to bullies without letting their meanness infect me and change me. You may have seen that the governor of California has been generating a lot of attention lately by posting on social media in a satirical way where he mocks Donald Trump and is all caps megalomania and his absurdity, and I find it very funny, hilarious even sometimes. But I gotta be honest, it also leaves me with a strange feeling at times because I don't want us to become like Trump and his followers. There are far more decent, honest, kind people in America than there are mean jerks. And don't get me wrong. We have our jerks, millions of them. You may have noticed. In particular, there's a stunning coarseness and ugliness in the Republican Party today. It's upsetting, but it's also a minority of America. On the whole, we aren't like that, and we don't like that. I think that's a big part of the reason so few Americans support Donald Trump when they have to see him and that up close, and why Republicans are so worried about what's coming for them next year. And to be clear, I am not an advocate for weakness. Of course, we need to stand up to jerks and defend what matters, but I think we have to try to do that without becoming like them, which is what makes me think about Taylor Swift. She's made clear that she sees Donald Trump for what he is. And last year, she urged Americans not to make the serious mistake of electing him. Of course, we're now living with the consequences of that mistake. But while our elderly makeup covered president is posting about whether Taylor Swift is still hot and declaring that he can't stand her, what's she doing? Living her best life, producing great music and, as she urged all of us to do during the podcast, not giving the jerks power over her mind. She said something about dealing with Internet trolls that stuck with me. Think of your energy as if it's expensive, she said, as if it's like a luxury item. Not everyone can afford it. I really enjoy reading Arthur Brooks who writes columns about happiness in the Atlantic. I don't know if he's a Swifty, but last week, he wrote about research on the way that being rude or snarky actually hurts the rude person. As he wrote, when you become less polite, the alteration in your conduct can make you less happy, more depressed, and angrier about life. I know you get that even without the research. Just watch Fox News or hang around an x, and you'll see what he means. We can't stop people from being jerks. What we can do is stop it from hurting us, from changing us. At my second Taylor Swift concert in Hartford, Connecticut 14 ago this summer, she sang a song about this topic, asking why you gotta be so mean. And she spoke directly to the nasty people. I bet you got pushed around. Somebody made you cold, but the cycle ends right now because you can't lead me down that road. You'll be glad I didn't sing that. That's right. Because down that road is unhappiness. Nobody should have that power over us. Thank you, Taylor Swift. Keep the faith.
HarmeetKDhillon
Posted - August 13, 2025 at 8:17 PM
Saved - August 14, 2025 at 5:52 AM

@HarmeetKDhillon - Harmeet K. Dhillon

Every American has the right to their vote being counted only with other legal votes. Period!

@AAGDhillon - AAGHarmeetDhillon

Buckle up! Sloppy voter rolls are no longer being tolerated. This @CivilRights Division is protecting every American’s right to vote! https://t.co/Wjqjlcs7Cs

Video Transcript AI Summary
"we have sent out a number of letters to states, under two federal statutes." "We administer different statutes, Help America Vote Act and NVRA, National Voter Registration Act." "these acts have different purposes and different rules, but basically states are required to maintain certain data." "they're required to keep their voter rules generally up to date." "we're finding that a lot of states are being very sloppy, cutting corners, not doing this, certainly not doing the list maintenance required." "And too many millions of Americans today don't feel confident." "And that means it's deterring some people from voting." "We have sloppy maintenance requirements in these different states." "There are a lot of problems with this."
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: In your announcement, you did say that the that your office and the Trump DOJ is going to revisit all 50 states and start doing things like cleaning up voter rolls, going through and making sure that every state is compliant with voter laws, something that we, I guess, have not been doing for the last six decades? Speaker 1: Right. So we have sent out a number of letters to states, under two federal statutes. We administer different statutes, Help America Vote Act and NVRA, National Voter Registration Act. And so these acts have different purposes and different rules, but basically states are required to maintain certain data. They're required to keep their voter rules generally up to date, and they're required to have certain procedures whereby people are registered for federal elections to safeguard and ensure as best they can that people are citizens when they're registering to vote in a federal election. And so we're finding that a lot of states are being very sloppy, cutting corners, not doing this, certainly not doing the list maintenance required, and also, in some cases, also not properly ensuring that people are getting on the voter rolls correctly in the first place. So we we need to clean that up because as an American and as a civil rights lawyer, I wanna make sure that every citizen, whatever their party, whatever their, you know, views are, they should feel confident in the outcome of the election. And too many millions of Americans today don't feel confident. And in part, they don't feel confident because we have sloppy voter rolls. We have sloppy maintenance requirements in these different states. And that means it's deterring some people from voting. It's making people challenge the outcome of elections. So there are a lot of problems with this.
HarmeetKDhillon
Posted - August 14, 2025 at 2:50 AM
Saved - August 14, 2025 at 5:46 AM

@HarmeetKDhillon - Harmeet K. Dhillon

Buckle up, buttercups!

@AAGDhillon - AAGHarmeetDhillon

Buckle up! Sloppy voter rolls are no longer being tolerated. This @CivilRights Division is protecting every American’s right to vote! https://t.co/Wjqjlcs7Cs

Video Transcript AI Summary
The office and the DOJ will revisit all 50 states to clean up voter rolls and ensure compliance with voter laws. Letters have been sent to states under two federal statutes—Help America Vote Act and the National Voter Registration Act (NVRA). These acts have different purposes and rules, but states must maintain data, keep rules up to date, and have procedures whereby people are registered for federal elections to safeguard that registrants are citizens. They are finding that many states are sloppy, cutting corners, not doing list maintenance, and not properly ensuring people are getting on the voter rolls in the first place. The goal is to clean that up so every citizen should feel confident in the election outcome; too many Americans don’t feel confident because of sloppy voter rolls.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: In your announcement, you did say that the that your office and the Trump DOJ is going to revisit all 50 states and start doing things like cleaning up voter rolls, going through and making sure that every state is compliant with voter laws, something that we, I guess, have not been doing for the last six decades? Speaker 1: Right. So we have sent out a number of letters to states, under two federal statutes. We administer different statutes, Help America Vote Act and NVRA, National Voter Registration Act. And so these acts have different purposes and different rules, but basically states are required to maintain certain data. They're required to keep their voter rules generally up to date, and they're required to have certain procedures whereby people are registered for federal elections to safeguard and ensure as best they can that people are citizens when they're registering to vote in a federal election. And so we're finding that a lot of states are being very sloppy, cutting corners, not doing this, certainly not doing the list maintenance required, and also, in some cases, also not properly ensuring that people are getting on the voter rolls correctly in the first place. So we we need to clean that up because as an American and as a civil rights lawyer, I wanna make sure that every citizen, whatever their party, whatever their, you know, views are, they should feel confident in the outcome of the election. And too many millions of Americans today don't feel confident. And in part, they don't feel confident because we have sloppy voter rolls. We have sloppy maintenance requirements in these different states. And that means it's deterring some people from voting. It's making people challenge the outcome of elections. So there are a lot of problems with this.
HarmeetKDhillon
Posted - August 8, 2025 at 1:00 AM
Saved - August 8, 2025 at 3:58 AM

@HarmeetKDhillon - Harmeet K. Dhillon

You ain’t seen nothin’ yet!

@AAGDhillon - AAGHarmeetDhillon

In @realDonaldTrump’s first 200 days, @CivilRights “has been been incredibly active and you will see a lot of activity going forward.” https://t.co/k4cKwGOooH

Video Transcript AI Summary
The DOJ can't comment on ongoing investigations, but there has been a lot of activity recently. The DOJ doesn't act rashly; rules, requirements, and ethical considerations go into everything presented to a court, such as indictments or subpoenas. Despite the speaker only starting their job four months ago, and others joining even more recently, the DOJ has been incredibly active. The expectation is that there will be a lot of activity and increasing activity going forward on this front, as well as many others.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: With ongoing investigations, we can't really comment on them, but I think that you've seen a lot, even without us commenting, you've seen a lot of activity in the last few days. And I can tell you that, you know, we don't do things on a dime at the DOJ. We have certain rules and requirements and ethical rules for anything that you present to a court. So a lot of work goes into every single thing that you present in an indictment or in a subpoena. And so we've it's only been six months. And in fact, I just started my job four months ago today, and others came even more recently than that. We just swore in the office of legal counsel assistant attorney general earlier this week. But with that short runway, we have been incredibly active. And so I think you're going to see a lot of activity and increasing activity going forward in that front as well as many others.
HarmeetKDhillon
Posted - November 19, 2020 at 2:56 PM
Saved - August 3, 2025 at 12:47 AM
reSee.it AI Summary
Harmeet Dhillon discussed Gavin Newsom's dinner at the French Laundry with medical professionals, highlighting perceived hypocrisy regarding COVID-19 safety measures. She criticized the differing standards for elites compared to the general public, suggesting that if anyone faces repercussions for their Thanksgiving gatherings, the French Laundry incident should be referenced as evidence of double standards. Dhillon emphasized that such disparities in rules are becoming increasingly unacceptable.

@HarmeetKDhillon - Harmeet K. Dhillon

Thread/ I joined @FoxNews @foxandfriends to discuss Gavin Newsom’s #unmasked #FrenchLaundry dinner with top medical professionals. He clearly doesn’t think there is a serious #COVID19 health risk. Please watch and share! https://t.co/BS4bmodaY0

Video Transcript AI Summary
New photographs show California Governor Gavin Newsom unmasked and not social distancing at an upscale party at the French Laundry restaurant. Constitutional law attorney Harmeet Dillon reports that members of the California Medical Association were also in attendance, including the CEO and top lobbyist. Dillon states that this sets a terrible example for Californians who have been locked down since March. She claims that Newsom and the California Medical Association have lectured people about wearing masks, with Newsom suggesting masks even between bites at family dinners, yet none of them were following these guidelines. Dillon alleges they initially lied about being outdoors when they were actually inside. Dillon suggests that Californians are fed up with the hypocrisy and believes there are two possible explanations: either Newsom wants everyone around him to get sick, or he doesn't think the disease is that serious. She believes it is probably the latter.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Alright. Welcome back. New photographs appear to show California governor Gavin Newsom unmasked and not social distancing in an upscale party at the French Laundry in California. But Newsom is not the only one facing criticism. Members of California's top physicians group, the California Medical Association, also in attendance joins us right now with reaction constitutional law attorney and California RNC committee woman, Harmeet Dillon, joins us from the San Francisco area. Harmeet, it's not just anybody in the medical community. It's the CEO of the California Medical Association, their top lobbyist, and the governor all right there saying, we've got all these restrictions for everybody else except us. Speaker 1: That's right. It sets a terrible example in our state where people have been locked down since March. The governor and the California Medical Association have given lectures to people about wearing a mask. The governor has said, even if you're at a family dinner, you should put your mask on in between bites. None of them were doing that, and they even lied about it when they were caught. They said they were outdoors. They weren't outdoors. There's a chandelier overhead and a mirror. So what this means to Californians is people are really fed up with the hypocrisy, and people are wondering. Now that there are two explanations to this. Either the governor wants everybody around him to get sick and die, including his own family, which I don't believe. Or he doesn't think the disease is that serious, and it isn't a health risk for him to get together with five unrelated couples. Speaker 0: Right. Speaker 1: And so I it's probably the latter. Speaker 0: Yeah. Yeah. So

@HarmeetKDhillon - Harmeet K. Dhillon

2/ The #COVID19 hypocrisy is stunning. If anybody gets in trouble over #Thanksgiving just hand over the #FrenchLaundry photograph. There are different rules for the elites and different rules for the rest of us and it’s not going to fly much longer. https://t.co/5lAEsxgnaw

Video Transcript AI Summary
The speaker discusses the hypocrisy of elites having different rules than the rest of Americans, particularly regarding Thanksgiving gatherings. They mention being warned against having extended family over, while lobbyists attend expensive meals. The speaker suggests that if anyone gets in trouble for having too many people at Thanksgiving, their lawyer should present a photograph to authorities. They assert that Americans understand personal responsibility and don't need the government to dictate their actions.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: I I loved your comment that you said if anybody gets in trouble over Thanksgiving, you know, with having too many people around a table or something like that, they should just hand this have have their lawyer hand this photograph to the cops or whoever says, hey. You're breaking the rules. Rules. Speaker 1: That's right. And so it it Thanksgiving, we're being warned not to even have our extended family over, much less a bunch of lobbyists at a $400 a person meal. And so the hypocrisy is very stunning, and I think Americans are beginning to wake up to what's going on here. There are different rules for the elites and different rules for the rest of us, and it's not gonna fly much longer. Speaker 0: Right. We know about personal responsibility. We know what is right and what we should do. We don't need the government to tell us. Harmit, thank you very much for joining us live. Speaker 1: My pleasure. Speaker 0: Alright. We're gonna step away. More Fox and Friends in just a couple.
HarmeetKDhillon
Posted - May 21, 2025 at 5:06 PM
Saved - July 22, 2025 at 4:19 PM

@HarmeetKDhillon - Harmeet K. Dhillon

In which I discuss what it's like to head up civil rights for @TheJusticeDept, consent decrees run amok and what we're doing to get back on track, big-city mayor racism, and our top priorities at the DOJ. Always a thougthful conversation with @TuckerCarlson --

@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson

For decades, big city mayors have hired public employees based on race. That’s illegal but nobody’s stopped them. Then Harmeet Dhillon took over the civil rights division at DoJ. (0:00) Introduction (1:20) The Grim Reality Dhillon Was Faced With After Entering the DOJ (4:24) The DOJ Lawyers Who Actually Cried After Trump’s Election (10:05) Dhillon’s Mission to End Discrimination Against White Christian Men (20:01) Dhillon vs. Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson (24:32) Is Dhillon Worried About Being Trapped by Deep State Actors? (26:13) Corrupt Lawyers Targeting Police and Allowing Crime (34:42) Why Does the Deep State Want to Increase Crime? (37:39) The Crimes of Biden’s DOJ (42:27) The Ridiculous Race War Waged by Democrat Lawyers (49:42) Dhillon’s Strategy to End Abuse of the Legal System (59:54) The Only Lawyers Ever Disbarred Are the Ones That Represent Trump (1:01:29) What Dhillon’s Department Is Focusing on Next Includes paid partnerships.

HarmeetKDhillon
Posted - July 24, 2021 at 1:40 AM
Saved - July 22, 2025 at 4:18 PM

@HarmeetKDhillon - Harmeet K. Dhillon

(Thread 1/3): Joined @MarkSteynOnline on @FoxNews tonight to discuss the #NSA unmasking of @TuckerCarlson. Unmasking like this was abused during the @BarackObama administration and I am afraid it is being abused now. No #American journalist should be surveilled this way. https://t.co/oJyTLlOdxg

HarmeetKDhillon
Posted - December 10, 2020 at 4:38 AM
Saved - July 22, 2025 at 4:17 PM

@HarmeetKDhillon - Harmeet K. Dhillon

#Thread (1/2): I joined @TuckerCarlson tonight to discuss @YouTube’s new policy of removing all videos regarding #ElectionIntegrity #ElectionFruad while still hosting videos with crazy 9/11 conspiracy theories — #SiliconValley is trying to hide the evidence... https://t.co/syIiIX0T5Q

HarmeetKDhillon
Posted - July 21, 2025 at 2:51 AM
Saved - July 21, 2025 at 12:17 PM

@HarmeetKDhillon - Harmeet K. Dhillon

Who’s delivering results for the American people? @AlinaHabba is doing a great job indicting criminals and putting Americans first // which begs the question — when someone is doing their job so well, why would a politician pressure judges to undermine her? 🤨

@mrddmia - 🇺🇸 Mike Davis 🇺🇸

🚨 House Democrat Leader @HakeemJeffries is corruptly strong-arming 17 New Jersey U.S. district judges--including 15 Obama and Biden judges--to fire New Jersey U.S. Attorney @AlinaHabba tomorrow at 10 am. @Article3Project just filed this House ethics complaint against Hakeem: https://t.co/HLbpQcaVTI

HarmeetKDhillon
Posted - June 23, 2025 at 8:13 PM
Saved - June 30, 2025 at 1:58 PM

@HarmeetKDhillon - Harmeet K. Dhillon

Reminder that the more people you copy on your unsolicted email to to my work email address, the less likely I am to read your email. Exponentially so. Thank you for your attention to this matter!

HarmeetKDhillon
Posted - April 29, 2025 at 5:21 PM
Saved - April 29, 2025 at 7:32 PM

@HarmeetKDhillon - Harmeet K. Dhillon

Preach!

@Elex_Michaelson - Elex Michaelson

.@USAttyEssayli says the California is "on legal notice" after @realDonaldTrump executive order taking on sanctuary states & cities. @billessayli: "people have the impression our immigration laws are up for negotiation. They're not it's the law. No one is above the law." Via @FOXLA

Video Transcript AI Summary
The US Attorney for the Central District of California states California is a sanctuary state that doesn't recognize ICE detainers, facilitating the release of criminal illegal immigrants. The federal government may withhold funding from states that don't honor ICE detainers. The office will file criminal charges for illegal immigrants who unlawfully re-entered the US. The speaker discusses a case where an individual sentenced to ten years for killing two teenagers may only serve three. The office will charge him with illegal reentry, potentially leading to 20 years in federal prison, followed by deportation. The current administration is enforcing the law regarding deported individuals who re-enter the country, a change from the previous administration. Last year, only seven such cases were filed, while this year, over 250 have already been filed. The message to those considering re-entry or re-offending is: don't. Immigration laws are not up for negotiation and must be followed.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: He is the United States attorney for the Central District Of California. Welcome back. Thanks so much for being here. Yeah. Sanctuary cities, what does that does this mean for Southern California for people living here? Speaker 1: Yeah. This notice today puts Southern California and in fact, the whole state of California on legal notice. The state of California is a sanctuary state. Right. The state of California does not recognize ICE detainers and in which that does is it facilitates the release of criminal illegal immigrants back into the community and that is what President Trump has taken aim at today. Speaker 0: So what does that look like? What is the administration gonna do? What does that mean for you? Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, I think what this order is focused on today is funding. One of the ways the federal government compels compliance with its policies is with money. So this executive order today is gonna put them on notice, give them opportunity to comply, and I think you're gonna see the president and, potentially congress go after federal funding for states that refuse to honor ICE detainers. What my office is doing in the meantime, we're using the laws on Speaker 0: the books. So we are gonna file criminal charges where we can for illegal immigrants who are, here unlawfully and reentered. Governor Newsom says that the state does cooperate, with when violent criminals who have been convicted are getting out and does work with with the federal government in those cases? Speaker 1: He will only work with us generally under specific limited circumstances. He the state of California generally does not do not respect or honor ICE detainers. They ignore them. And could ask any county sheriff. Yeah. You can bring sheriffs in here, they'll tell you their hands are tied. They cannot honor an ICE detainer. Speaker 0: But not all of them. I mean, you would admit that on some of the most extreme cases, the governor works with the the federal government. The governor, in limited circumstances for prisoners, there is some some wiggle room Speaker 1: in the statute. But the overwhelming majority of cases are just ICE detainers and they they do not comply with those. Let's talk The thing is you don't know who's gonna go out and reoffend and hurt somebody. Speaker 0: Yeah. So Let's talk about a case that got a whole lot of attention that was broken by Fox News reporter Bill Melusion last week. It involves a guy named Oscar Eduardo Ortego Arguiano. In 2021, he was convicted of killing two 19 year olds on the 405 Freeway, driving under the influence, hit them, killed, and he was already set to get out. His parents their parents outraged. Your take on on this and and sort of where where it goes from here. What's the latest on this case? Speaker 1: Yeah. Well, first of all, this is an outrageous case and it's an indictment on the state of California and governor Newsom's policies. These this individual sentenced to ten years in prison for killing those two innocent teenagers. They're gonna he's gonna barely serve three years. That's unacceptable. I don't care who you are, where you're at. Three years for killing two people is unacceptable. So what we're gonna do is pick up the slack. We're gonna charge him with illegal reentry under eight USC thirteen twenty six. He's looking up to potentially twenty years in federal prison. Speaker 0: And then would does he get deported back Speaker 1: after that? Speaker 0: Yes. He gets deported again for a third time. And let's talk more about this this concept because, the the previous administration did not do very much in terms of prosecuting, illegal reentry. These are people that got deported, come back into the country. You're making a big change on that front. Speaker 1: Yeah. That is that is a federal law that says if you are deported and you reenter, it's a crime. Depending on your criminal history at the time you're deported, you can get severe severe punishment including, again, like I said, up to twenty years in federal prison. So we are enforcing that law. The prior administration was not enforcing that law. So that is one tool we have in our bucket, to enforce immigration policies in California. Speaker 0: And so you were given some stats beforehand. The prior administration did it seven times and you've already enforced it hundreds of times in a couple months? Speaker 1: Yeah. I just got some numbers last year. They filed seven of these cases total. Speaker 0: In in the whole year and you're now Speaker 1: at what? The last report I have is we're above 250 cases that we filed just this year under the new administration. Speaker 0: And so what reaction are you getting from some of these Mhmm. People that you are now, filing who maybe were used to staying here and weren't expecting something like this? Speaker 1: I mean, they're not saying anything because they're facing criminal charges and they have an attorney and they probably shouldn't say anything. So so we are enforcing the law and we're not really making any bones about it and it's not a negotiation. Speaker 0: And the bottom message to to folks who are considering coming back or reoffending? Speaker 1: Don't. And we and I encourage everyone to comply with our immigration laws. It's somewhere along the line here, we we've people have the impression that our immigration laws are up for negotiation. They're not. It's a law. Nobody's above the law. That judge in Wisconsin is not above the law. No illegal immigrants above the law. You have to follow the law. Speaker 0: Bill O'Salley, thanks so much for coming in. Really appreciate it.
pnjaban
Posted - October 12, 2024 at 1:17 AM
Saved - December 21, 2024 at 11:50 PM

@pnjaban - Harmeet K. Dhillon

If you enjoyed this interview and the two hours of receipts I brought on who Kamala Harris really is, please follow me and share it! Thank you @TuckerCarlson for the opportunity!

@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson

Harmeet Dhillon is a San Francisco lawyer who’s known Kamala Harris for more than 20 years. Her verdict: Kamala Harris is a criminal. Here are the details. (0:43) Who Really Is Kamala Harris? (2:41) Kamala and Willie Brown (22:17) How Does Kamala Pronounce Her Name? (32:23) Kamala’s Crimes (45:03) How Has Kamala Changed? (47:44) Corporate Media Covering for Kamala’s Gaffes (49:46) Kamala Protecting Criminals (1:06:11) What Kind of Attorney General Was Kamala? (1:09:10) Kamala’s Hatred for the Pro-Life Movement and Free Speech (1:18:14) Who Is Kamala’s Husband Doug Emhoff? (1:30:47) Kamala’s “Minority” Status (1:39:03) Voters Don’t Like Kamala (1:44:59) What Happens If Kamala Wins? Includes paid partnerships.

Video Transcript AI Summary
James O'Keefe's documentary, "Line in the Sand," premieres on October 10th. A discussion about Kamala Harris reveals her complex background, including her late voter registration at age 29 and her rise in politics through connections, particularly with Willie Brown. She became a prosecutor but had a low case trial record, which contrasts with her public persona as a tough law enforcement figure. Critics highlight her soft-on-crime policies, especially during her tenure as district attorney in San Francisco, where crime rates increased. Her political ascent is attributed to identity politics rather than merit. The conversation raises concerns about her potential presidency, suggesting it could lead to increased censorship and a departure from constitutional rights. The discussion emphasizes the importance of free speech and accountability in governance.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: James O'Keefe's Line in the Sand premiering only on TCN on October 10th. You can sign up to watch at tucker carlson.com. James O'Keefe's new documentary, Line in the Sand at tuckercorlson.com. So you are roughly, you're younger than Kamala Harris, but in the same generation. You're an attorney. You're from San Francisco. You first ran into Kamala Harris in 2003, 21 years ago. You know everyone in her orbit. You live in the the same world. And so with less than a month ago before the campaign, I thought it'd be interesting to hear the perspective of someone who actually knows a lot about Kamala Harris's life. There aren't don't seem to be many of those. So thank you for doing this. Who is Kamala Harris exactly? Speaker 1: Well, you see the words Kamala, chameleon, and, you know, nicknames like that applied to her today. Speaker 0: Yes. Speaker 1: And she really has been kind of a shape shifter throughout her entire career and existence. I would call her, in some ways, a survivor. You know? She's had a number of different environments, sort of growing up in Oakland to 2 university professors as a small kid. And then after divorce, her mom took her and her sister, Maya, to Canada, where she Yes. Went to high school and then started college there. Yeah. And then she, you know, came as a almost an adult to the United States and went to Howard University and sort of immersed herself in that culture of the, predominantly black, college. And then she came to San Francisco where, she went to Hastings in the Tenderloin area of San Francisco. So, educationally, she's kinda traveled all over the United States. Speaker 0: And spent her high school years in a In Canada. Speaker 1: Canada. Yeah. She spent her high school years in Canada and, you know, not in San Francisco. And so I think one of the interesting things that I found when looking at her background is the first time she registered to vote was at age 29. So Really? Yeah. So many years after coming to the United States and during the year that she dated, our former mayor and speaker Willie Brown is the year that she registered to vote. And so connecting the dots, it seems like that might be the time when she decided that politics is in her future because, you know, she began to create a voting record and and sending down what she had time. Speaker 0: To vote before she was Speaker 1: almost record of her having registered to vote until she was almost 30, which is you know, I have nieces and nephews, and I urge them to get educated and register to vote and and and get active. And so, you know, it's it's kind of an important thing. So well after she became an attorney, well after she became a prosecutor, she hadn't registered to vote. Speaker 0: Well, that's interest. 11 years after she was eligible. Yeah. Yep. Be and that's interesting not because everyone has to vote, in my opinion, but because she's described herself repeatedly in public as a child activist. Yeah. She was basically leading the march on Washington. She single handedly desegregated the American South. Speaker 1: Right. Speaker 0: You know, she was always into politics. Speaker 1: She was a warrior for freedom Yes. You know, early on. And, Speaker 0: There wasn't just for the record, there was no segregation. Speaker 1: Yeah. Mom was interviewed Speaker 0: many years Speaker 1: ago before she passed away and tells a story about how where they were growing up in, in Montreal in the in the, apartment complex where they lived. Apparently, children weren't allowed to play outside. So Kamala Harris single handedly protested this and organized and forced the apartment building to allow children to be able to play outdoors. So So Speaker 0: she was annoying as a child to say? Speaker 1: She was a she was a she was a, you know, activist as a child according Speaker 0: to Speaker 1: her mom, but then, you know, didn't exercise the most basic form of United States citizen activism by exercising the franchise until much later in life. And Speaker 0: After she was a lawyer, how did she become a lawyer? Speaker 1: Well, she became a lawyer, went to UC Hastings in downtown San Francisco, did not pass the bar the first time she took it, did pass it the second time around, and, got her first job after that as a prosecutor in Alameda County. So in Alameda County, she eventually specialized in, child sex crimes, you know, an important job. And according to research that was done by some of her opposition when she ran for district attorney in 2003, She tried something like 8 cases that they can prove there during her 8 years or so as, a prosecutor in Alameda County. Speaker 0: So I I lack perspective on this. Is that a lot? A little? Speaker 1: It's very little. Speaker 0: Very little. Speaker 1: For somebody who's claimed today in all of her public appearances, to have been a, you know, lifelong law enforcement officer and prosecutor. And when she ran for district attorney claimed to have tried hundreds of cases. She actually, according to what I've been able to dig up and what her opposition dug up on her in 2003, which she never refuted, 2 cases in San Francisco during the 2 years that she worked at the DA's office before quitting and then planning her run against her boss, 8 in the Alameda County District Attorney's Office. So she basically held those two jobs as a prosecutor. Now Terrence Hallinan let's setting the stage of my meeting her in San Francisco. So San Francisco had a very progressive prosecutor. I think he he was elected in 2006 sorry, 1996 or so named Terrence Hallinan. Speaker 0: Fame fame famous person in California. Speaker 1: Guy. He was one of, some brothers. Speaker 0: Yeah. Speaker 1: My, departed husband served on the board of the, Liberal Pacifica radio station with the other one of the other Hallinan brothers. So, you know, they were kind of regulars in the left wing activist circles in San Francisco. And Hallinan promised to be a progressive prosecutor, and, you know, he came on board and was a progressive prosecutor, would, you know, serve soup at the soup kitchens and things like that, you know, kind of old school liberal. And that said, he was tough on murders and tough on the serious crimes, but it was the lower level drug dealers and so forth that quality of life crimes that he was a little bit softer on. But he recruited Kamala Harris, or hired her anyway, and she hired her out of the Alameda County District Attorney's Office. And, during that campaign in 2003, he actually said that he did it as a favor to the mayor of San Francisco, Willie Brown, but there's a mixed record on that. But he gave her her chance to move from the job she was in, which was sort of, you know, Alameda County is not San Francisco. You know, San Francisco is the the big leagues where all the glamorous stuff happens in the Bay Area and where we had 2 United States senators from there. A lot of the top brass in California that's now infecting the United States came from cal from San Francisco County. So she was a step up to go to be a prosecutor in the big city there in San Francisco. So she got her opportunity to move over there, and she was the head of the criminal organization's 5 person unit, after being there for a bit of time. And so, you know, it was 5 people she was in charge of, but she was passed over for chief of staff, which is the number 2 position in the district attorney's office on 2 occasions. And, you know, as soon as she got there, she began making her mark and setting her eyes on her political career. Okay? So starting around age 29, again, when she moved to San Francisco, she started dating the mayor of San Francisco, Willie Brown. And Speaker 0: While he was mayor? Speaker 1: While he was mayor, and he had been the speaker of the assembly. He was maybe the most powerful machine politician in Democrat politics. Willie Brown and John Burton ran San Francisco. They had a political machine. And to win election in that town, their stamp of approval was necessary. And they really had a I mean, not a complete control, but they they were the most formidable block to get ahead in San Francisco. So they kind of approved, who got to be on the board of supervisors, who, you know, really ran for all these different positions and handed out patronage jobs in the city. And so the fastest way to ascend in politics there is to be tied to the coattails of, of Willie Brown. And so, you know, she did that, and Speaker 0: I don't know what more tied more than tied to the coattails. I mean Yeah. I mean, she sleeping with him. Speaker 1: Right? Dated him. Yeah. That's how he describes it. He's he is still married at the time, and so he's he's 90 today, but he was married throughout this time that he was, together with her for 2 years. Okay? And so they were a society couple, and they went to all the operas, ballets, black tie events very openly. And, you know, I've met Willie Brown several times. He just you know? She does not disputed that he gave her her start in politics and almost certainly encouraged her. Hey. Maybe you should register to vote. That might be a good start. Certainly, how to move up in the ranks. And so one of the ways you do that is you get started with some lower level elective office. But even before that, a lot of our politicians in congress and in the senate and, you know, former presidents have been lawyers. It's a great stepping stone to a political career. So, getting a good record in the DA's office would have been a way to do that. So she, you know, hustled her way into the, district attorney's office and immediately began setting her sights on her power base. So she developed relationships in the African American community, became friendly with Amos Brown, a notorious, pastor and activist in, the Bayview Hunters, Point District, where there's a large African American population there. And, you know, it's one of the rougher parts of town where the projects are. A lot of the drug and gang violence was centered in that area, and so she tried to make that her patch. And her theme was, you know, supposedly hard on crime, but but not in an unfair disproportionate way on the African American community. So as you know, during that time, the 19 nineties, there was a lot of discussion in our country about harsh drug laws and disproportionate impact on African Americans. And so she kind of focused her efforts on that, and that was her assignment was criminal organizations, basically gangs. Okay. So she was a gang, and drug prosecutor. Not a murder prosecutor, not a violent crime prosecutor. She never was that in her jobs before she became the district attorney. So, she wanted those jobs. According to reporting at the time, she wanted to be moved up to the more serious responsibilities of violent crime and murder prosecutor, but she never was given that opportunity by Terrence Hallinan, who I think, reading between the lines, began to suspect that he was she was gunning for his job pretty early on. So after she was passed over a couple of times for the top, lieutenant position in the district attorney's office, she quit. She quit, and she went immediately sideways to the city attorney's office in San Francisco, which is also a prominent breeding ground for, some some excellent judges I've been up I've been in front of have been, city attorneys. Dennis Herrera was the city attorney at the time, and he held that position for a very long time. So she moved sideways after less than 2 years at the district attorney's office to the city attorney's office where she, put together a portfolio involving, child welfare and, you know, sort of juvenile offenders, you know, that sort of a thing. Again, I will call it a pretty fluffy portfolio, but something that's designed to give her something to talk about if she runs for office. And so so for 2 or 3 years, she spent her time there at the city attorney's office. Again, by the way, all on the, you know, public employment. She's never had a job in the private sector Speaker 0: Ever? Speaker 1: Ever. And so Speaker 0: Pamela Harris has been living on taxpayer money her entire she's sick. Speaker 1: Entire her entire career. That's correct. She's never had a private sector job. Now let me pause for a second. While she was doing some of these jobs, she actually was doing multiple jobs on paper. Because Willie Brown, one of the one of the, positions that you get access to when you're the speaker and then you pretty much continue to have a lot of access to over the years is the ability to appoint people to patronage jobs. And so before he, you know, kinda left the speaker's office, he was able to appoint her to, one of 2 commissions. So she was on a taxpayer funded commission called the, unemployment appeals board, And so you hear appeals of denials of unemployment benefits. That's a cushy part time job, which pays almost a $100,000 salary. You show up a couple of days a month. And then he also got her appointed to a second sort of part time job, very part time, couple of days a month again, called something called, like, the med medical assistance commission, which was dealing with Medi Cal contracts and and appeals over that. And so over the years that she was taking a salary as, first, an Alameda County prosecutor and then a San Francisco County prosecutor, she earned an additional over $400,000 over a 5 year period from these low show slash no show jobs. He also got her a BMW as a gift. And so Speaker 0: Willie Brown gave Kamala Harris a BMW. Speaker 1: He gave her a BMW, and he got her these extra 100 of 1,000 of dollars of jobs. And to give you some perspective, the salary of a prosecutor around that time was about $100,000. So she basically got double or triple what her colleagues were getting. So imagine the morale in the office when your person sitting next to you is also dating the mayor and also is making 100 of 1,000 of dollars more than you because And Speaker 0: getting a free BMW. Speaker 1: And getting a free BMW. So she was marked out as privileged in her twenties thirties very early on, and that allowed her to leap over the career hurdles that those of us who work for a living in the private sector have to actually earn. Right? And I think it's and, you know, she's she's had to face these criticisms over time, and she's become very glib and and good at deflecting Speaker 0: Yes. Speaker 1: The criticism. But it's it's I don't think it's disputable that the, extra income and, more importantly, the patronage that she enjoyed in her twenties and early thirties made her the person who's, you know, the vice president of the United States today and, seeking the top job. Not merit, but influence peddling and using her female wiles. Speaker 0: And just all the sleaze and corruption that inevitably arises in a one party state like California? Speaker 1: You know, multiplied by by a 100 when you're dating the most, you know, powerful person there. And even after she broke up with him, as the story goes, because she realized that he was never going to make her a wife, she continued that strong relationship. And to this day, you know, Willie Brown has endorsed her and is, you know, out there helping her raise money. And so she had broken up with him by the time she ran for district attorney, but he was instrumental in helping her raise 100 of 1,000 of dollars and eventually winning in in that in that position. Speaker 0: Brown has a reputation for the last 60 years for corruption. I I'm not alleging a specific crime. He was a jailhouse lawyer for years representing radicals of various kinds, but he he has a reputation for corruption. Is that fair to say? Speaker 1: Oh, absolutely. And even specifically in this district attorney race. So I'll I'll break that down for you. So Terrence Hallinan was a mixed bag. He was the district attorney for, you know, the one who Kamala Harris replaced. And so but he was tough on corruption. Okay? So there was some corruption in the police department in San Francisco. The SFPD had a scandal called Fajita Gate where, some cops got into a beef, with some street vendors over some fajitas. So it's kind of a silly beginning of the story, but the end of that story is that Terrence Hallinan brought charges against the, police chief, his deputy, and some other cops involved in this scandal. Okay. Well, Willie Brown didn't like this. You know? He had put all these people basically basically, everybody in the top jobs in San Francisco owed it in some way to Willie Brown. And so Willie Brown was able to get stuff done in the city as a lobbyist and as a fixer and particularly for the real estate industry by controlling a lot of the elected officials and the law enforcement in San Francisco. There were corruption investigations that Terrence Hallinan was looking at regarding some of this power structure in San Francisco. And so by replacing Terrence Hallinan, Willie Brown, through his agent of Kamala Harris, was able to put an end to some of these investigations. These investigations were quietly dropped. The Fahidi gate thing quietly went away. The case collapsed, and the police who were accused of wrongdoing were never held accountable. But because of that investigation and indictments that were brought by Terrence Hallinan, you know, that began some friction. That continued some friction. The police were also frustrated at Hallinan's failure to take drug dealers off the streets. So Willie Brown, through that dent of getting his former mistress the DA job by helping her raise money, getting her key endorsements from the socialites, the Getty family and all the top families in San Francisco who backed her, the founder of, North Face and others. Speaker 0: Getty family be the the patrons of Gavin Newsom, now the governor. Speaker 1: Gavin Newsom's patrons and the patrons I mean, I think they're supporters of Kamala Harris and others. They've supported every major democrat elite, in California. And so, you know, they're they're Pacific Heights, establishment noblesse, Oblige, and Heights Speaker 0: being the Speaker 1: Yep. One of Speaker 0: the richest neighborhoods in San Francisco. Speaker 1: Absolutely. And so fundraisers, glittering events, black tie events, patrons of the arts, you know, these are the folks these are the circles that Kamala Harris moved in through Willie Brown's assistance. And so so Willie Brown was able to put an end to pesky investigations into corruption in San Francisco and misconduct by the police department by getting Kamala Harris installed over there. So everything became smooth again when she became, the district attorney and stayed that way under control for many years while she was the district attorney until she ran for attorney general. Speaker 0: So every year when Apple releases the overpriced new iPhone, the big carriers play the same old game. Sign up now. Next 2 years, some big cellular contract. Get a free iPhone. Well, what do you give up in return? A lot. Don't fall for it this time. Choose PureTalk. With PureTalk, you get great savings on the new iPhone 16, and you still get an affordable data plan that fits your needs on America's most dependable 5 g network. Stop falling into the same trap and paying for unlimited data that you're probably not going to use. Pay for what you use. With PureTalk, for $25 a month, you get unlimited talk, tax, and 5 gigs of data. That's more than enough for most people. It's not enough for you to buy more, but it probably is. So why pay for something you're not going to use? With PureTalk, you don't have to. It's proudly veteran led, and its entire customer service team is right here in the United States, the country that you live in, so everyone can understand each other pretty well and they're responsive. No contract, no cancellation fees, 30 day money back guarantee. PureTalk is easy to switch to. The average family saves almost $1,000 a year when they switch. Try it. Go to puretalk.com/tucker, and you'll save an additional 50% off your very first month. That's pure talk.com/tucker. Switch your cell service to a company you can be proud to do business with. During this period, how does she pronounce her first name? And I ask because she's on video pronouncing it, Kamala and Kamala, Two different ways. Speaker 1: So I remember her putting the emphasis on the second syllable, so it was like Kamala. Kamala. Kamala was how she pronounced it. Speaker 0: Not Kamala. Speaker 1: Not Kamala. Kamala is actually how Indian Indians pronounce it. The name derives from the word for lotus in Sanskrit, which is komal. So, Really? Yeah. And so, you know, that that is how you're supposed to pronounce Speaker 0: it. Conventional name? Speaker 1: It's a it's a conventional name. Absolutely. And it's a it's a it's a Brahmin she's a she's from a Brahmin family. Her mother is Brahmin, and so, you know, high caste background. Speaker 0: I thought she was oppressed. Well, Speaker 1: she's a shape shifter, like I said. So although you know, I I saw an explanation in one of these, liberal publications trying to explain how throughout the most of her career, she's passed as African American and not mixed race because, of course, not until Tiger Woods became prominent did people parse out their differences in their racial background. So, you know, it was it was suggested that she had to pick 1 or the other early in her career, and she's largely identified as African American. And so she really focused on the African American community in San Francisco. She identified as African American. Black Speaker 0: neighborhood? Did she live in Hunters Point? Speaker 1: She did not live in Hunters Point. Yeah. No. She she lived in a nice condo in the South of Market in the Mill Speaker 0: Park area. Right. Yeah. Absolutely. Quote, focused Speaker 1: on the African American focused on the African Speaker 0: American community. Speaker 1: Now I I've read just about everything that's written about her. And, back in that time period, Willie Brown actually got one of his political clients and patrons to rent her her campaign headquarters in Bayview Hunters Point, not where she lived and not where the courthouse is, but she had her campaign headquarters in that African American neighborhood at well below market rent from a connection of Willie Brown. Speaker 0: It's unbelievable. Speaker 1: Yeah. And it's translating. Speaker 0: Rewind just for one moment. She it's without, it's not controversial to say because it's factual. It's provable. She has pronounced her own first name in at least 2 different ways. Speaker 1: I think 3 or 4 different ways. Speaker 0: 3 or 4 different ways. So if we can just, like, consider for a moment how weird that is. You have a non Anglo first name. Yeah. Hermite. Speaker 1: That's right. Speaker 0: Indian name, I assume. Speaker 1: It's been pronounced consistently Right. Since childhood. Yeah. Speaker 0: By you because it's your name. Speaker 1: That's my name. Yeah. And I haven't pretended to be different things over the years. Speaker 0: But how's have you ever met anyone who's pronounced his or her own first name different ways over No. Speaker 1: I I really haven't, and it was striking to me when she was running for district attorneys when I first met her. And I had a you know, I was new to San Francisco. I just moved to San Francisco in 2003. I'd been I came to California in 2000, and I you know, during the dotcom boom, and I went down to Silicon Valley. I practiced law there, and then I moved to San Francisco in 2003. I was new to town, so I had a friend from the South Asian Bar Association who'd practiced with her in the DA's office in Alameda County who was, you know, helping her with her DA run. So I went to this fundraiser. I was new to town, and, you know, Kamala Harris walks into the fundraiser. It was all Indian Americans at this particular fundraiser, and so she was, you know, she she was all business, no nonsense, strides into the room, wearing a designer outfit well beyond her means as a district attorney, assistant district attorney, or at that time, city attorney employee, like, 4 inch heels, you know, strides confidently into the room and begins telling us why she's gonna be the better candidate than Terrence Hallinan, who is running for reelection. And I recall from that meeting, you know, she was really focused on process. She didn't really have a policy difference with Terrence Hallinan. She has also always painted herself as a progressive, but tough on crime, but progressive prosecutor. Okay? So, she talked a lot about how the computers in the district attorney's office were outdated, and, you know, we really needed to professionalize the office. I mean, who could argue with that? Right? I mean, of course, the district attorney's office in a major American city should have up to date computers. I mean, I had them in my law firm practice, and so that sounded good. And, you know, she also criticized Hallinan for being soft on crime, which in retrospect is not fair because she had a much worse record than him in, prosecuting violent crime, but I'll get to that. But, you know, she really portrayed herself as just being the younger, more competent, liberal, but tough on crime prosecutor. And so she was planning to prosecute marijuana and drug offenses. She was planning to prosecute, you know, these quality of life crimes that Hallinan allegedly wasn't prosecuting. And so that was her selling point, in this in this fundraiser. But when I saw her in other settings, you know, she didn't identify with the Indian American community at all. And so I I saw her in South Asian Bar Association events after she became the district attorney and otherwise. And so when she came into an event where there were Indian Americans there, like a South Asian lawyers event, she was all, you know, namaste and, you know, all of that. But you never saw that outside that setting. Right? Speaker 0: She didn't do that in Hunter's Point. She Speaker 1: didn't do that in Hunter's Point. She didn't Speaker 0: do any namaste as Speaker 1: well. Namaste in Hunter's Point. Speaker 0: That would have been hilarious. Speaker 1: No. She so that's fake. And I I immediately saw that when I saw her in more than one setting that this woman is just pandering to whoever's in front of her, which is, of course, you and I have been around a lot of politicians over the years. That's a common theme in politics. Right? But the extent to which she was willing to just adopt and abandon persona Speaker 0: was really striking. Too. I mean, you know, of course, every politician panders. I think people pander to each other. Oh, it's all it's all very common and very human. But when caught, you know, you don't scream at the other person and call that person a racist for noticing, which is exactly her response. I mean, Trump made that point. It was totally fair point. I thought she was Indian. Now she's black. Well, sounds like he had reason to say that. All of a sudden, Speaker 1: shut up, racist. Absolutely. Well, let me pick up on that for a second. So it's been really striking in this campaign for president and even when she ran for president in 2019 and 2020, how she's very self righteous about being in law enforcement and, you know, a top cop and a border cop and just like this law enforcement icon. But she actually began her career in politics by breaking the law on multiple occasions. And so this dates back even to before she ran for the district attorney position. In 2000, Willie Brown asked her to take a break from her job at the city attorney's office, take a little leave of absence, and do some work for Amos Brown, this notorious pastor who was running for reelection for the board of supervisors. And Amos Brown was representing that, African American community, and he was one of Willie Brown's people. Right? And so she had no background in politics or anything, but, you know, he thought, well, this is a good way for you to learn the ropes of how a campaign is run, and it is a good way. Volunteering for a campaign is a good way to do that. She wasn't a volunteer, though. That's the key point. She was paid as a political consultant by Amos Brown's campaign, but she never registered under city law, which requires all political consultants who are paid by a campaign more than $1,000 to register. And so, she was paid, I think, almost $10,000 during this time she worked there. She never registered. She was called out on it, and she skated. She explained she didn't know the rules, and, you know, she she hadn't really intended anything. And so I think a fine or some penalty was paid at that point. And that was the beginning of simply giving the middle finger to the law by Kamala Harris. She created she she got herself embroiled in a much bigger scandal when she ran for district attorney. So in San Francisco, like many of our liberal cities in California, there's there's campaign finance matching funds that are available, but there's also a benefit that you get if you agree to voluntarily cap your raising and spending. At the time, for mayor, I I think it was a little bit higher, but for district attorney and mayor, it might have been the same. It was $211,000. So if you agreed to cap your raising and spending at $211,000 in 2003, you got a statement published in the voter guide that's mailed to all the almost half a 1000000 voters in San Francisco, registered voters, saying that you had voluntarily agreed to confine yourself to that spending cap. So it's like a level playing field, and it's a little bit of a a gold star that you're agreeing not to engage in corruption, wasteful spending, cronyism by raising money from all kinds of unknown sources. So she agreed to that. She filed a piece of paper. She signed it under penalty of perjury saying I, Kamala Harris, agree to this voluntary spending limit. The other most of the other candidates in the race and candidates for mayor during that race, they also agreed to that spending limit. Okay? So most of the candidates running for office in California in San Francisco, rather, agreed to that spending limit. Well, it turns out that Kamala Harris, who, by the way, started out in this campaign 3rd, behind her boss, Terrence Hallinan, who was in the lead, and then, a guy named Vic Fazio, who was a former prosecutor, then defense attorney, who was gonna be the hard on crime guy. He was eventually endorsed by the Republicans in San Francisco. So she was 3rd. She was the underdog, and so she quickly she was getting no traction at first, so she realized she was gonna have to really supercharge her spending. Willie Brown helped her with this. Willie Brown also helped raise money for independent expenditures to support her as well. So, it's a funny story, but, you know, one of her one of her campaign themes was that she was gonna be tough on drugs, tough on marijuana. And back in 2003, marijuana wasn't the recreational use of marijuana was not legal in California. And so she was gonna be tough on pot. So, apparently, some pot activists who didn't like this, you know, they were pouring over the campaign finance records, and it's a pot activist to realize that Kamala Harris had raised over $300,000 and had spent over $300,000. So this person went and let the other campaigns know. They filed an ethics complaint against her. And, at the end of the election, she had spent over $600,000, so triple the amount that she was allowed. But thanks to hiring a good lawyer, and making the excuse that, oh, the form changed. I didn't really understand the meaning of this, so please lift the cap. She got the San Francisco Ethics Commission. And by the way, many of those people on the ethics commission owed their positions to Willie Brown. She got them to look the other way on this gross violation. It's a crime, by the way. It could have been a she could have been prosecuted for a misdemeanor, had she been properly held accountable for this significant campaign finance violation, and anybody else would have. But the ethics commission simply lifted the cap, which is not in the statute. So instead of disqualifying her, which would have been the normal punishment, and prosecuting her, she simply got away with it. So in her first race for elected office, she ignored the campaign finance limits. She used corrupt patronage from her former lover to raise the money necessary to do the glossy ads. I've got several examples here. She did more mailers than all of the other candidates. She had independent expenditures on her behalf, and she simply was able to outspend and blow through these limits. And so Speaker 0: got an ad from her the rest in 2000 Speaker 1: The I have a lot of, this material here from 2,000 and through it's 2,003. And so this is, all the people who endorsed her, and this is all the main political machine there in in San Francisco. Now one of those guys is in jail for, he's a former state senator, Leland Yee. He was later indicted for Speaker 0: The reverend Cecil Williams. Speaker 1: Reverend Cecil Williams. Speaker 0: And keeps involved with Jim Jones, but maybe I'm misremembering that. Speaker 1: There's a lot of blast from the past over there. Because she raised so much money, she was able to send multiple of these, you know, big glossy mailers. Speaker 0: She's today's voice voice for justice. Yeah. Today's voice for justice, Speaker 1: Kamala Harris, her district attorney, you know, Erin Peskin, Fiona Ma. You know, some of the shadiest, politicians in California are here on her endorsement list. Of course, Willie Brown, she was you know, she checked all the boxes to get the gay community on board, the Asian community on board. You know, she really put the coalition together thanks to the mentorship she enjoyed. Here's assemblyman Marklellan. No one is better prepared to lead our district attorney's office in this new era than Kamala Harris. Well, they're actually almost every prosecutor in that office was better prepared. Terrence Hallinan was better prepared. Vic Fazio was better prepared. So by simply outspending and violating the campaign finance cap, she was able to, to win this election. She she got it into the runoff, and then she was able to win in the runoff against her boss. So it was a pretty incredible upset. This is another one of her glossy glossy mayors glossy mailers. So, she's a veteran prosecutor with 13 years of courtroom experience and a 90% conviction rate. She actually had only been a prosecutor for 10 years, and her conviction rate, I mean, you can manipulate any statistic you you want by simply changing the numerator and the denominator. And so, you know, it's pretty incredible that the birth of this meteoric career comes out of multiple campaign finance violations. Speaker 0: So she won? Speaker 1: She won that race. I mean, one of the mailers from the other side, is is a mailer from the, from the tenants union, which was supporting Kamala Harris. Sorry. War sorry. Supporting Terrence Hallinan. And they pointed out that she had committed another violation, and that is soliciting money from landlords, who she was supposed to be regulating in her job at the city attorney's office. So one of her jobs in the city attorney's office involved, you know, sort of the welfare of people who were on public assistance, and that included people in, the SRO, single residence housing, and section 8 housing. Speaker 0: Vegan sales. Speaker 1: I mean, it's it's a lot of our residents are on public assistance and live in this kind of housing. And so she happily took tens of 1,000 of dollars from slumlords who she was supposed to be regulating in this campaign. And the tenants union, there's a there's a mailer in here I have somewhere that talks about her taking money from the roach motels. And, you know, they were able to put that one mailer out, but it ended up not, not convincing. Speaker 0: San Francisco has more roach motels in any city in any city. Speaker 1: I think per square foot, it's probably Number 1. Speaker 0: So we're getting pretty close to presidential election. That probably has you thinking about the future and possibly feeling a little anxious about it. So what can you do to secure your future? Well, probably a lot of things, but maybe one of the first, and this is not glamorous, but get some life insurance. According to the annual insurance barometer study, 41% of people don't have the coverage they need should something unexpected happen to them and unexpected things happen. In fact, it's gonna happen to all of us, not to be morbid. You don't wanna leave a mess behind. You've got people who love you and depend on you. They have mortgage payments or credit card debt. They need money, and you don't wanna leave them in the lurch. And that has happened probably to people you know. And that's why we're proud to partner with Policygenius. It's a very straightforward tool that helps you find the right life insurance policy at the best price so you can have some peace of mind. Policygenius, it is easy. You can find life insurance policies that start at just $292 per year for a $1,000,000 of coverage. Some options are a 100% online and let you avoid unnecessary medical exams. And if you're in the business of avoiding unnecessary medical exams, that's good news. Policygenius combines the best of a fast and easy to use digital tool with the expertise of real licensed agents. You compare quotes from America's top insurance side by side for free, so it's not confusing, and you don't suspect that you're getting shafted because you're not. Go to policygenius.com/tucker to get your free life insurance quotes and see how it works and how much you could save. That's policygenius.com/tucker. Speaker 1: So, Tucker, I mentioned to you that, she blew through those campaign finance limits. Speaker 0: Yeah. Speaker 1: And, she was given a pass if she issued corrective apology and disclosure to the public. So how she did that was she had a, a door hanger. And those of us who are involved in politics, you know, you go and walk doors, you knock on the doors, and you hang a door hanger with your materials. So she replaced her door hanger with this, Kamala Harris folded door hanger. And then in the tiniest possible print Speaker 0: Would you like my glasses? Speaker 1: Yeah. I'll put mine on. Let me show you. I mean, due to an error by the Kamala Harris campaign, the voter information pamphlet indicates that the campaign has agreed to voluntary limit campaign spending. This is incorrect. We take responsibility for this error. Now this is printed on the top of this hanger. So you hang it on the door. Oh goodness. Speaker 0: And No way. Speaker 1: Normal the normal wage slave coming home from their actual job where they worked, you know, a full day, unlike Kamala Harris, would go and lend Speaker 0: People who were not dating Willie Brown, you mean? Speaker 1: People norm those of us taxpayers who have private sector jobs, you come home, and the first thing you do with this annoying piece of crap is tear it off. Right? So this is the part that would fall to the ground when you tear it off and maybe to clutch your mail and take it in. Nobody read this, like, 3 point disclosure on this thing. And so because her patronage boyfriend had fixed it for her, she got away with this. Nobody else would be able to get away with this today. I can guarantee you. And so no shame, and that's how she got her start in politics by by breaking the rules. And so I mentioned to you these no show jobs as well. She had the lowest attendance record of any of the attendees of these 2 commissions either. So on top of having a job where she got paid 100 of 1,000 of dollars to do very little, she didn't even show up and do that. But there's one more fact about this. You know? In the city attorney's office, they had to keep time sheets. Now you you know a lot of lawyers. You've you've you've gotten bills from lawyers. We Speaker 0: Yes. I have. Speaker 1: We, we bill by the hour, and we're supposed to record our time in tenths of an hour. Okay? So in the city attorney's office, you recorded your time that way. And so someone in one of these various campaigns she's been in over the years did a Public Records Act request for these hours, and her predecessor in her job at the city attorney's office was, a now, I think, retired or semi retired judge, Catherine Feinstein, the daughter of Dianne Feinstein, the former, United States senator. So Feinstein had the job, and then Kamala Harris had the job. So if you compare their hours, you see that Kamala Harris, I think, worked one day over 8 hours in all the 3 years that she worked there. Dianne Feinstein's daughter regularly worked long, normal lawyer hours. Speaker 0: One day over 8 hours in how long? 3 years. Yeah. And She's just lazy. Speaker 1: Yeah. And there were a number of days where she had blocked 8 hours, phone calls, research something, 8 hours. So she didn't work full days in that job. That's that's what any supervisor I'm a supervisor of about 25 lawyers. If I saw timesheets like that, I would call that person and then put them on probation because they clearly aren't working a full day's worth of work. They're block billing. They're putting down time. They're they're doing a lot of admin time, days and days of admin time, meaning I didn't work that day. I read the newspaper. Yeah. I did continuing legal education. I did some, you know, background research. She did not work those full days. So that's what that's what any supervising lawyer being honest would tell you. So that's pretty striking because as it is, you're, you know, only expected to work, you know, sort of 9 to 5, unlike those of us who are, you know, working in the private sector, working much harder to make a living and keep our jobs. Speaker 0: Yeah. Speaker 1: There's no such accountability in in the the jobs that she's held. And so when she ran for DA, she claimed, I've tried 100 and 100 of serious felony cases, and she got busted by the tenants' union saying, actually, you've tried 10 cases. And then she had to sort of, over the years, own that maybe she was affiliated with hundreds of cases. She didn't actually try them. And, look, as you get more senior as a lawyer, you don't try every case. I get it. But in those early years of your career, if you're billing yourself as a top cop and a top prosecutor, normally people do. But, that is not Kamala Harris. Speaker 0: You have a an excellent memory, well, in general, but for this period 20 years ago, and you were around Kamala Harris, living in that world matter, all that. When you see Kamala Harris now, does she seem like the same person to you? Speaker 1: So this is interesting, Tucker. I got the impression from the first time I met Kamala Harris when she strode into my friend's, apartment in that small fundraiser of an extremely confident, competent, articulate person. Now Yes. I don't think she's a great lawyer, and I think she's hardly had much courtroom experience, but she exuded competence and confidence. And the Kamala Harris you saw as vice president of the United States seems to be a completely different person, inarticulate, lacking confidence, almost like dazed or medicated in some way. And I don't know that, of course. I'm just telling you that the impression of somebody extremely competent and confident and able to talk about their record, their recent record, even falsely with a degree of confidence and bravado, there's a couple of dynamics there. First of all, I think the record that she's been running on is way in the past, and so it's become part of her own personal hagiography that she's, you know, this brilliant, accomplished, stunning, you know, top cop who peep criminals quake in their boots to see her. That's not true, but, you know, it's she's adopted it, but it's also way in the past. But, secondly, it feels like she's not able to articulate herself. There seems to be a veil of inability to string together complete and coherent sentences. Speaker 0: Seems afraid to me. And you saw it in the opening moments of her debate with Trump where I thought she she did well, as the debate continued. But in the opening moments, it's worth looking at the tape again. You see her eyes. This woman's terrified. Speaker 1: There maybe it's imposter syndrome. I don't know what it is. But Speaker 0: Can you explain Speaker 1: Well, imposter syndrome is somebody who is successful, has reached certain levels of at least outward appearances of success, but yet is plagued by self doubt that maybe I don't belong here. Speaker 0: Right. Speaker 1: What am I doing here? Speaker 0: I feel like I'm an imposter. Speaker 1: How did I find myself here? Like a bad dream. Speaker 0: Yes. Speaker 1: Like, those dreams we all have before the exam that, you know, you go in and you haven't studied, and it's Speaker 0: the final exam. Speaker 1: You're in your pajamas Speaker 0: or something. Yeah. Speaker 1: You're in your pajamas or whatever. And so but it isn't one it It can happen to any of us. I mean, we all freeze sometimes in tense situations. What we've all seen around the national and international stage doing increasingly incoherent word salad statements. We've just seen the the incident with 60 minutes substituting a completely incoherent answer that she gave to a question with something else that she did in another part of the interview or maybe even taped afterwards. Who knows? I have no idea how 60 Minutes came up with that. Speaker 0: But 60 Minutes got caught lying about the interview. Speaker 1: 60 Minutes has been caught blatantly fixing her incoherence for her, and, you know, that has been the case with the mainstream media. And I think this is a theme throughout her career dating back to that 20,021,003 as she gotten her leg up in life by, shortcuts, not by meritocracy. And then she finds herself in a position that is beyond her capabilities. And then she has to lie and exaggerate to maintain that position and get get to the next level. But with the assistance of the democratic machine in California and she to be fair to her, she's not the only person. I mean, Gavin Newsom is another example of somebody who has faked his way to the top. Javier Becerra, who's in the cabinet today, is a guy who had basically 1 year of legal experience before he became the attorney general of California. And so California's machine has produced a number of underqualified and overconfident duds, but this person is seeking the top job of the United States with with an exaggerated record with a tattered history of sordid ways that she got to where she is, of numerous legal violations that could have resulted in criminal prosecution, just the campaign finance violations alone. And so, you know, I can understand why somebody might have an imposter syndrome, and that's their history. Speaker 0: The sad thing is California used to be famous for producing things from the world's best ag to aerospace to great movies, and now it's, like, failed light rail projects in Kamala Harris and Gavin Newsom. Speaker 1: And and gaslighting gaslighting the voters on so many levels. So, I mean, Kamala Harris promised to San Francisco voters to get elected that she was going to be tough on crime. The murder rate skyrocketed during her years as a district attorney. And why did that happen? Well, gangs in the whole Bay Area, they do talk to each other. I was talking to a prosecutor in her office, a couple of days ago in preparation for our interview, And they and this prosecutor said, Harmit, these criminals, you may think, oh, they're, like, you know, criminals. They're on the margins of society. They're subhuman. No. They're very smart. They communicate with each other. They know that if you are doing certain crimes in San Francisco, you're gonna get a pass. If you're doing drunk driving in San Francisco, you are gonna get a pass during Kamala Harris' tenure. If you did it in Alameda County, San Mateo County, Marin County, you would get prosecuted. So guess what? The criminals came to San Francisco to do their drug dealing, to do their, break ins, their hot prowl burglaries, their low level offenses. Kamala Harris was notorious for being hard on gun possession by legal taxpayers but extremely lenient to the point of multiple, criminals who possess guns committing murders after she let them off with a slap on the wrist or no punishment at all. So there was a double standard there in her prosecution. Speaker 0: And that's a theme throughout the state where, you know, they've legalized stealing. Yep. You can steal from stores. It's took nothing no one can do anything about it. But any store owner who tried to defend himself against violence or homeowner who tries the same will be prosecuted. That's right. Why what is that impulse, that anarchotyarny, where does that come from? Speaker 1: Well, it's there's 2 aspects of it. First of all, it's treating the successful people in society as criminals and putting them in a box. I mean, I'm a legal gun owner, and, you know, the scrutiny you have to jump through to get a gun legally in California is incredible. But if you sim are an illegal alien, you get a free pass. We're a sanctuary we're a sanctuary city before we were a sanctuary state, so Kamala Harris has long been in the camp of protecting those folks by simply looking the other way. Speaker 0: Breaking federal law, in other words. Speaker 1: Breaking federal law. And How Speaker 0: is that then not insurrection, by the way? Speaker 1: I mean, I think it's look. You know, the criminals have guns, and they get away with it. Speaker 0: But how is it not I mean, she's always running around calling all the j six, all the diabetic grandmothers languishing in prison, insurrectionists. But how is it not insurrection against the United States of America to allow foreigners in your con in your state against federal law? Speaker 1: Well, I completely agree. I mean, it's even worse than that. There was a in interesting situation where, a criminal committed a crime in San Francisco while she was the district attorney, and that criminal was free to commit that crime because she had pushed for that criminal to be part of a program of rehabilitation. So there was a rehabilitation program where if you did some job training as someone arrested for a serious crime, you could avoid prison time. Well, an illegal alien is not entitled to hold a job. So San Francisco taxpayers, California taxpayers under Kamala Harris's leadership were paying for jobs training for illegal alien criminals to get out of their criminal sentences, and then they weren't even eligible to go on to hold those jobs. So one of those people, committed a serious violent crime, shattering the skull of a taxpayer in San Francisco, and he was able to do that because Kamala Harris signed him up for jobs training when he isn't illegally allowed under United States law. Want Speaker 0: that? I mean, you clearly are trying to overthrow the society. Speaker 1: You know, you're pandering to a particular element of society. I think, eventually, democrats have wanted to legalize all of the illegal aliens in the country. That's not a secret now. They tried to lie about it in the past, but today, that's a campaign promise of hers that she wants to legalize all of these illegal aliens in the country and get their votes. So it's a long term vote, recruitment program by these folks. But look. You can't forget the detail. Speaker 0: So she's the insurrectionist. I mean Speaker 1: She's the insurrectionist. Speaker 0: Overthrow the United States government and system and destroy democracy and invalidate our founding documents, our core freedoms. I mean, that's all those are all species of insurrection, that would seem to me. She sounds like a criminal. Speaker 1: Well, she's broken a lot of laws over the years just in the, you know, white collar laws, but she's enabled 100, if not thousands, of criminals to go on to commit violent crimes and even even fatalities. I mean, there there are police officers in San Francisco who lost their lives because Kamala Harris was soft on the criminals who went on to kill them as one of their dozens of offenses. There there's a long trail of victims in San Francisco and now California who have suffered because of Kamala Harris's soft on crime policies, and she's lied about it and gotten away with it. And it's kind of incredible that someone who failed, who increased the murder rate by many percentage points, who who prosecuted almost no violent crimes in San Francisco during the many years she was a district attorney, she she failed up to becoming the attorney general, where she went on to violate the rights of criminal defendants on a much more massive scale. But even before that, Tucker, one of the interesting incidents is in the last two years of her, race of her tenure as district attorney, she was embroiled in a major scandal involving the systematic violation of criminal defendants' rights. And in San Francisco, in the drug lab, there was a drug technician who was supposed to test the drugs, and, this person was sampling the drugs, taking them home and sampling them and also making numerous errors. This was an open secret in the district attorney's office. So after, you know, people mentioned it in numerous occasions, judges chastised the district attorney's office. Eventually, a top manager in the office sent a cover your ass email to Kamala Harris saying, hey. By the way, I think the, the head of this, drug lab section is actually taking drugs and regularly violating, protocols and handling evidence. Kamala Harris, instead of doing her immediate duty as a district attorney to inform all defense counsel in all the cases in which this lab technician had handled the drugs for testing, she sat on it for a period of 3 months. And it only came out, not through Kamala Harris disclosing it. And so the judge in that case, Christine Mazzullo, excoriated the district attorney's office. Now by this time, Kamala Harris had been the district attorney for 6 years. In the 6 years she was a district attorney, she created no protocol for disclosing to defense counsel this what's called a Brady violation, a violation which is so massive that you have to disclose to the other side that there's been a due potential due process violation that could be exculpatory. So she got in trouble for that. She went on after that 2 years later to become the attorney general of California. So there's literally no accountability for by some accounts, 1400 cases, either convictions or pending cases, had to be dismissed in San Francisco because of this due process violation of the rights of the accused. I personally litigated a case against Kamala Harris myself, and I saw the same pattern. So I had an important civil rights case involving a sick applicant for a prison guard job in the, in the prison department in Sacramento County. Kamala Harris was the attorney general when this case went to trial, was getting prepared for trial. And I had won this case at the administrative level. So I was able to prove at an administrative hearing for state employees that the civil rights of my client had been violated because he was denied a job with the prison department because of his articles of faith. He had a beard. He had a turban. And under, federal equal employment law and state law as well, you're in you know, the state has to accommodate that. They had to, you know, offer him the opportunity to take a different gas mask test and prove that he could do the job. Well, I won that case at the administrative level, which should have been a slam dunk for the state to agree that he should have this job. Well, Kamala Harris fought that that decision all the way to eve of trial. And I remember, you know, getting the United States Department of Justice involved in this case, and it was only after the United States Department of Justice opened up a civil rights investigation from the Office of Civil Rights into the state corrections department and how the state was handling this particular case. And after I got a national coalition of civil rights organizations ranging all the way from the American Civil Liberties Union to the Beckett Fund, a conservative organization, so a whole panoply of almost 30 civil rights organizations. Only when I had a massive press conference on this issue did Kamala Harris, 4 years into this case, finally agree to settle the case. So you know? And why would why would she do that? Well, the prison guards union, it turns out, only wanted accommodations for certain people, but not others, and they didn't want this newcomer coming into their ranks. So there there you know, it was a blatant violation of my client's civil rights. But I finally won, but only after exerting outside pressure, and this has been her pattern typically. She's only willing to back down not because she's wrong, but because she's embarrassed or confronted publicly. And even then, she's had such a entire career of faking her way to the top that there's just no shame there, and, you know, she's willing to continue to lie until she got shot. Speaker 0: To be attorney general of the state of California after failing as a prosecutor for San Francisco County? Speaker 1: Well, again, it's the machine politics of California. You mentioned Gavin Newsom. You know, at the same time, there was consideration of whether Kamala Harris might run for governor. And, basically, in the upper echelons of Democrat politics in California, these things are all worked out in advance. You know? Multiple people might want the job, but I can guarantee you that's happening right now in the case of Nancy Pelosi who's, you know, reaching the end of her career at some point of her you know, it'll it'll naturally expire, but there's a lot of jockeying like that. You know? Which constituency? Is it gonna be gay? Is it gonna be Asian? Is it gonna be black? Who's gonna get the prize? So it's kind of like that. So Speaker 0: So that's all that matters. Speaker 1: All that matters is identity politics. So, you know, at that point in time, she was a district attorney, and she could have run for multiple different offices. Senate wasn't open at the time, so she ran for the attorney general position. And so despite this massive and I could go on for hours. I have a dossier of horrific instances of gross civil rights and human rights violations that occurred on her watch. She had the resume, and she had the powerful backing, and she checked the boxes of identity politics. First woman, 1st African American, 1st Indian American. No. So she checked those boxes. She ran. Now she ran against a highly competent seasoned district attorney of Los Angeles County, Steve Cooley, who I consider a friend and who's been a fellow warrior in the pro life movement with me. Steve Cooley ran the strongest campaign that year of all the campaigns, and, he narrowly lost by just a handful of votes. He was winning on election night. This is a familiar story to, people who've been watching elections recently. He was winning on election night. And then in California, we don't have election day. We have election 2 months. People are able to vote for 30 days before the election, and then they have 30 days to count the votes. In Florida, by the way, they typically announce the results of an election on election night, like in civilized countries. But in California, we don't do that. So because because that Speaker 0: just makes it easier to cheat. Speaker 1: Makes it easier to cheat. Yeah. 100%. So she won extremely narrowly. I think it was, like, 2,000 votes statewide in a in a state of 40,000,000 people. She won extremely narrowly, and she won weeks into the, election counting, ballot counting period. Speaker 0: I think we can, maybe not prove. We can assume cheating. Speaker 1: You know, that was certainly suggested. I I can't prove it today, but I can say that when you're talking about a single party state, machine politics, differential application of safeguards on how votes are counted, like, some counties match the signatures. Some counties don't bother to do that even though that's required under the law. Some counties, look the other way on irregularities on things like, is the ballot dated? Some don't. Some counties, Los Angeles County is a prime example, have over a 1000000 voters on the voter rolls at that time who were not entitled to be on the rolls, dead having moved multiple registrations. A 1000000? Over a 1000000. A 2017 settlement, after a lawsuit by Judicial Watch in Los Angeles County showed that in Los Angeles County alone, there were over a 1000000 people on the rolls who should have been removed, and they entered into a settlement. And I think 4 years later, they still hadn't removed those people Crazy. Crazy. From the voter rolls. And so when you have a state, you add you add COVID to that. So 4 years after 2017 is is COVID, and you start having all mail voting because of COVID, suddenly, there are a million extra ballots. Speaker 0: Not the Saudi kind of all mail, but MAIL Speaker 1: MAIL. By mail. Ballot mail ballot voting. Speaker 0: Because all mail voting would would not allow Kamala Harris to be elected. Speaker 1: Correct. That's correct. So so in in our system there in California, which, by the way, has now become the national system by default because crazy California politicians are now running the country in many ways or seeking to run the country. It's a very dangerous situation for election integrity, and the person seeking the top job in the United States got her start with campaign and election violations, got away with it, has won elections while getting away with it, and is now seeking that top job. So if anyone thinks that she would qualm, or have any second thoughts about violating the law to get what she wants, she's done it many times in her career. Speaker 0: So this is a stressful time here. The kids are going back to school. Vacation is over. It's the height of a presidential election season. There's a lot going on. You need a good night's sleep, but it's never been harder to get it. So we're talking about this in the office the other day, and a couple people who work here were raving about a product called 8 Sleep, and I wanted to know more about it. It turns out that temperature has a lot to do with whether or not you sleep wake up feeling rested, like you actually slept. Now the makers of 8 Sleep Pod figured out that if you make a climate controlled mattress cover, you can add to your existing bed, you don't have to buy a new bed, just the cover, that it changes everything. You get far fewer problems with falling asleep and staying asleep, and so you feel rested the next day. Sleep actually has its desired effect. The 8 Sleep Pod can be used to warm up or cool off your bed, and that matters because temperatures change seasonally. We have climate change in this country. It's It's called winter. And so you can feel comfortable all night long. It even adjusts to different preferences on either side of the bed, which might be helpful in your relationship if you have one of those relationships where the different partners want different temperatures. And those are pretty common. The 8 Sleep pod has been studied. It's been proven to improve people's sleep and health. Mark Zuckerberg's into it, Elon Musk on the other side, many others use this product, including people here. So try it. Go to 8 sleep.com/tucker. Use the code Tucker to get $350 off the Pod 4 Ultra. Recommended. What kind of attorney general was she? Speaker 1: Well, she had a couple of big flashy cases involving so called consumer protection, but civil rights organizations criticized her for repeatedly violating the rights of the accused. There were several instances of actual innocence claims by convicted felons who claimed that it was a case of false identity or otherwise. And her attorney general's office rigidly took the position that, on a technicality, for example, that someone had failed to raise this claim in a timely manner, you know, because they're an uneducated criminal, they should lose the right to prove their innocence claim. She won on some of these, and she lost on some of these. We had prison overcrowding lawsuits in California during the time that she was the attorney general, and federal judges ordered California to release lower level criminals from prison due to prison overcrowding. Kamala Harris was, nearly held in contempt of court for failing to do this. And the reason that her office gave under her direction for not obeying a federal court order to sustain the civil rights of these inmates was because California has a lot of wildfires, and prison, inmates are used as cheap labor to fight those fires. And who's going to fight the fires if we don't have the free or cheap labor of the prisoners to be able to do that. I mean, it's akin to saying, who's gonna pick the cotton if we free the slaves? And that's an argument made by our attorney general, Kamala Harris, and she Speaker 0: was tens of millions of illegal alien aliens in California. You wouldn't think they would have a a labor problem? Speaker 1: No. But, you know, that's that's a whole other, that's a whole other argument there. I mean, the I think the left is systematically counting on the votes of people who aren't entitled to vote in multiple different ways in order to try to win this coming election. I mean, they have gone to court repeatedly, the Mark Elias, through the Democrat machine that Kamala Harris is now enjoying the full support of, to block voter ID laws. It's illegal in California to ask for voter ID, and this is after some jurisdictions tried to pass at a local level, Huntington Beach, voter ID requirements when you register to vote, when you vote. And, so the left in this country wants to make it illegal to ask for ID in just about every other and every other way to I mean, to register to, check into a hotel last night. I had to show my ID. Speaker 0: Of course. To do anything. Speaker 1: To do anything, you have to Speaker 0: do that. So if you don't have to produce an ID to vote to choose the government, why do you need to produce 1 to buy a firearm? Speaker 1: Indeed. Speaker 0: Right. Right. Indeed. So, she seemed to have just watching, having fled myself, California decades ago. I'm just watching this on the news, but she seemed to have, special animus toward pro life people. Speaker 1: Yes. Thank you for raising that. So I represent David Dyliden, who is one of the most courageous young, Americans I've had the privilege to represent in my 31 years of practicing law. David went undercover in a long form undercover investigation spanning years, posing as a purchaser of fetal tissue in order to expose Planned Parenthood and National Abortion Federation's systematic violation of federal law. It's illegal in the United States, as it should be in every civilized place, to buy fetal remains, for any reason. But there's, in fact, a brisk trade in fetal remains, and planned parenthood and its members of the National Abortion Federation members were circumventing or flouting federal law by, by openly by offering price lists for different parts of feudal remains. And, you know, this is a this is a con on multiple levels. So women who were unsure when they went into a abortion clinic what they should do. They're in a crisis. Their boyfriend has abandoned them. One of the selling points used by these abortion merchants is, well, the remains of, of your child will go to a good cause. They'll be used for research. You know, it's illegal to sell those remains, but, actually, planned parenthood clinics were caught offering them for sale to researchers. And so David busted them by taping in San Francisco hotel lobbies at abortion trade shows. Believe it or not, National Abortion Federation runs trade shows for abortion providers. He collected this testimony, this evidence by himself and with a couple of other helpers over the years and then exposed it in in, video recordings that he made public. Now this was That'd Speaker 0: be called journalism, I think. Speaker 1: It's called it used to be called journalism. Hardly anybody does that work anymore, going undercover like he did. And it was very brave, and it was it was explosive. As a result of this testimony, several states opened up investigations. And in some states, public funding was stripped from these clinics who did this horrific act of selling human body parts, arms, legs, livers. I mean, there was a price list that these people were circulating. And so this was obviously very upsetting to, big abortion. So big abortion, which is a big supporter of Kamala Harris and other, big time democrats in California, they can be counted on regularly to contribute millions to their campaigns. So Big Abortion went to Kamala Harris and asked her to prosecute David de Leiden. Now there's this pesky little problem called the First Amendment, and the First Amendment allows citizens to do journalism. And so, multiple jurisdictions in the United States have ruled that journalists going undercover, even if there's a wiretapping statute, are not to be prosecuted for that because because of the first amendment. They're they're exercising their free speech rights. Well, California has a wiretapping law. It's never been used against a journalist. So it's a single party consent state. So under the rule, both people have to consent to the taping. Now the exception is if it's in a public place, which most of these tapings arguably, all of these tapings in California were made in a public place. So Kamala Harris ignored the first amendment and custom made the first prosecution of a journalist in California history. So David Dyliden was indicted for, for undercover journalism 7 years ago, and his case has been pending now for 7 years in San Francisco Superior Court. Judge after judge after judge has not been willing to send a journalist to prison, not been willing to bring it to a head. And so people just keep changing assignments, and David remains on the hook, paying all this money to defend himself from the charge of doing journalism. Speaker 0: What penalties does he face? Speaker 1: He faces years in prison Speaker 0: if he's convicted. Did Kamala Harris prosecute any of the companies where people illegally selling baby parts? Speaker 1: No. Of course not. There's been no accountability for them at all. Speaker 0: Prosecuted the person who told the truth about what was happening, but not the people who are committing the crime? Speaker 1: That's correct. Speaker 0: That seems evil. Speaker 1: Well, it is evil. I mean, it's it's and it's characteristic of her double standards and lack of morality throughout her entire professional life. I think that's I I think it's look. I mean, when when people are looking and when she's embarrassed, she does the right thing. I mean, there's a there's a case of a death penalty inmate who was wrongfully convicted, and it was only after somebody circulated the embarrassing 9th Circuit argument where her office made ridiculous arguments that she reversed herself and dropped her office's opposition to letting this person go free. So, now what's scary about this, Tucker, is, as you and I both know, without Elon Musk being willing to invest in x and allowing us to have a free speech platform, we wouldn't be able to have this conversation publicly right now. Right? Well, Kamala Harris wants to make it illegal for journalists to expose the wrongdoing that public officials regularly commit. And so if you don't have the media accountability and you don't have the ability to speak freely and criticize these politicians, they get away with crimes themselves. And so she has made it a hallmark, not only of her current campaign, but dating back to her campaign for president in in 2020, that, people shouldn't be allowed to speak freely on the Internet. We must be able to I mean, she confronted Elizabeth Warren during one of these debates, trying to get Elizabeth Warren, no shrinking violet herself, to agree that we must have censorship online. And Elizabeth Ward kept trying to change the subject to her credit. You know? She didn't wanna agree with Kamala Harris that, yes, we must force x and every social media platform to censor commentary that might be dangerous, not just false, but so called malinformation. Speaker 0: Right. Something that criticizes bad leadership. Speaker 1: Exactly. So she wants to make it illegal for us to have this kind of a conversation. And in Kamala Harris's United States, it would be illegal for us to criticize the government because that might be dangerous. It might give people the wrong ideas. Speaker 0: Right. They might lose control. Speaker 1: They might lose control. And it's it the their hostility to free speech I mean, you know, you saw the vice presidential debate recently where a sitting governor of the United States, her running mate, spouted wrong think and wrong information about the First Amendment, saying that, for example, you can't shout fire in a crowded theater, which is a dicta from a, overruled case that that was a shameful case involving censorship of flyers during World War 1, you know, criticism of the government. That, that Speaker 0: Truly a shameful case. Speaker 1: Truly a shameful case. And that Speaker 0: People who objected to getting into the most pointless war of all time, which was the first real war, for no reason whatsoever other than the vanity and ambition of our politicians. Anyone who criticized that went to jail. A lot of people did go to jail. Speaker 1: People did go to jail for that, and, you know, he also tried to state the canard that, hate speech is not protected by the First Amendment. Hate speech is absolutely protected by the First Amendment. There's no such thing as hate speech. Hate speech is a relative term, which is whatever Speech that you hate. People whatever you don't like. Exactly. Whatever you don't like. And so, the freedom that we enjoy today on social media, in some circles, x specifically, would go away under Kamala Harris's regime. And she has gotten power and abused it repeatedly throughout her career. And, we saw her shameful performance in the Kavanaugh hearings, you know, for example, where she used her platform to pretend to be this big prosecutor and to hold Brett Kavanaugh accountable on zero evidence. But it's very selective. You know? When someone when someone close to her is accused of sexual misconduct and violence, her husband, she's silent. Speaker 0: You know? So let's let's explore that in a little more detail. So she marries a guy called Doug Emhoff Yeah. Who is, kind of a moral scold himself. His job has been to scold the rest of us for moral inferiority, I've noticed. But who is he exactly? Speaker 1: So Doug Emhoff is a lifetime long term partner at big American law firms. And so he came of age, you know, around the same time as comma in 19 nineties era. He became a partner at this law firm Venables, big partner in Los Angeles. Speaker 0: Can I say there's no sleazier group I've ever met? I mean, they a lot of big law partners, I would rather make it, like, a rapper, the godfather to my kids than those people. Sorry. I just wanna say that. Speaker 1: And I grew up in that kind of a No. I know you're changing. New York, and you're absolutely correct. So in I mean, if anyone's seen the the, fictional series Mad Men, the advertising agencies, well, that was law firms in the 19 nineties and even 2000, some people say, to this day, where powerful men exploited less powerful women for their sexual gratification, cheated on their wives. You know? You wanna make partner at some big law firms, and the time I was growing up, you had to sleep with a partner to do it. I, myself, accused a partner of my first job of sexual harassment, and, you know, that person went on to still be a partner to this day at other big powerful law firms. And so it's really commonplace. Okay? So this guy is in that vein of, you know, that era of, of, I would really call it regressive, male centric law firm partnership. So Doug Emhoff has a couple of kids. He was married to a, I think, a Hollywood executive, Hollywood producer, and divorced from her. You know? They're they remain on good terms. In fact, Doug Emhoff's law firm has represented his ex wife in, in litigation, actually, involving, a a entertainment dispute. So they're on good terms. Maybe he's done her some favors or what have you. But Kamala Harris dated Willie Brown, dated some other powerful men over the years Williams, please. On Phil Williams. You know, there's been allegations that she dated Phil Braunstein, the you know, who ran the San Francisco Chronicle for many years. Speaker 0: Married Sharon Stone, I think. Speaker 1: Married Sharon Stone. And so Speaker 0: Got eaten by some kind of iguana at the zoo. Speaker 1: She she's dated a lot of powerful she pretty much only dated powerful guys. Let's be honest. Okay? I don't know any ordinary Joes who've come out of the woodwork to say, oh, yeah. I was, like, the plumber, and I dated Kamala Harris. Right? Speaker 0: What is that? What's the significance of it? Speaker 1: The significance of it is is is she's a she's a user. I think she's a, you know, ambitious person, and she's only, you know, wanted to climb the rungs of power by by aligning herself in a very medieval way with people who can further her, geopolitical interests, if you will. So Emhoff hits that bill. He had access to the millions of, Hollywood. He had access to the law firm money, and he, you know, is a person who gave her entree. That really helped her out a lot in her senate fundraising and and so forth. So, you know, she's married this guy. In recent weeks, it's come out that he is very credibly accused, by a woman who's told her story to multiple publications of publicly slapping her at the Cannes Film Festival where this lady had In the face. Invited in the face so hard that she spun around from it. And he did it because after a couple of cocktails, he was apparently very jealous. You know, she went up to a valet to try to jump the line a little bit after waiting over an hour after the film festival got out and was trying to tip him to let them cut the line. And he got jealous of this and publicly assaulted her. Speaker 0: Hit her in the face. Speaker 1: Hit her in the face. And she immediately reported this to multiple friends of hers. And under law, this is considered what we call an excited utterance. So if you tell somebody something horrible that happened to you in the immediate seconds and minutes afterwards, it has assigned a higher degree of credibility under hearsay law than other Speaker 0: reasons. Yeah. Speaker 1: Right. Because, you know, people are more likely to be truthful when they've got the adrenaline running through them in the moment of what exactly just happened. So because of the dynamics of the situation, she allegedly got into the car. The the valets were shocked by this disgusting scene and, you know, let them go. He forced his way into the same car. So while she's in the car with this person, the story goes that the Daily Mail has, reported, she called somebody she knew back in the United States and told them what was happening, and she also reported it to a couple of friends of hers. And so her her story has apparently been consistent according to the witnesses who the, press has interviewed. And that's one instance. But the more shocking part of the story is that this woman recounts that Emhoff casually told her in the days or weeks before this incident because she was she was being what she called love bombed by him. He was allegedly, you know, pursuing her for marriage. You know, this is after he got divorced from his wife, and they were dating for a period of months. She finally, you know, sort of I think it must have come up. How did you get divorced? Like, what happened to your marriage? And, apparently, he told her that he had he had been accused by his elementary school teacher's babysitter of getting her pregnant. Speaker 0: His elementary school age children? Speaker 1: Children's teachers. Sorry. Correct. Sorry. That's correct. So he had 2 elementary school kids at the time, and this teacher was serving as their after school babysitter slash nanny, tutor, whatever you wanna call it, getting her pregnant and then causing the miscarriage, the loss of the pregnancy. Speaker 0: Causing the miscarriage. Speaker 1: Causing the the causing the termination of the pregnancy, not explicitly through abortion, but maybe through a miscarriage. You know? That's the only thing. Since he's Through violence Speaker 0: hit a woman in the face. Speaker 1: Yeah. Exactly. Exactly. And so now American told Speaker 0: her this? Speaker 1: He told her this casually. So American media beating what it is today. You know? Speaker 0: Kind of a big deal. The vice president's husband who's redefining masculinity and lecturing us all about bigotry all the time, sanctimonious little prick that guy is, that guy is accused of hitting a woman in the face and causing another woman to have a miscarriage. Speaker 1: Right. And, I mean, you know, dating back to my years in law school, I took 40 hours of training and become a became a counselor for victims of domestic violence. I've gone to court for many women who have been abused, and it's a it's, you know, science behind it that someone who hits a woman once in a public place In the face. In the face, in front of hundreds of witnesses in a line, this person has done it in other circumstances. I I would I would I would virtually guarantee that. It doesn't happen one time. It's it's the culmination of pattern of years of experience. Another story has come out about Doug Amhof's conduct at his own law firm, Venables, where he apparently hired a, lady to be his paralegal or secretary sitting on his desk, and, her name was Katia, and to the point that other partners other male partners in in the office demanded their own Katya, demanded their own paralegal to sit on on their desk. And, this Katya episode happened during the time that Kamala Harris was engaged to be married to Doug Amhoff. She may have come into contact with this person. Speaker 0: Implication is? Speaker 1: The implication is he uses women as objects and doesn't treat them as equals and doesn't respect them. I think that's fair. Speaker 0: Probably not too surprising that he's, like, some power feminist now. Right? Speaker 1: Well, I think Speaker 0: Have you ever met a male feminist who treats women well? I haven't. Speaker 1: I one should always be suspicious of the male feminist. That's my experience. Speaker 0: I've I've never met anybody more likely to hit a woman in the face or cause a miscarriage than a male feminist. I mean, they're all abusers. I've never met one who was not an abuser of women ever. Speaker 1: Well, what concerns me as a 30 year plus activist on domestic violence is the prospect that somebody like that might be in the White House. I think that's very scary and that the president of the United States might be an enabler of somebody like that. That really bothers me. Speaker 0: Well yeah. What so that's the obvious question. I mean, these sound like these are cred this is not Brett Kavanaugh stuff. These are credible. Speaker 1: Very credible. These stories were sourced with multiple sources, and I think there's probably more that's gonna come out. I won't be surprised. Speaker 0: And this is an actual human being making these allegations? Speaker 1: Actual human being making these allegations, and, you know, they're making them to a person who has a history of looking in the other way, enabling, being the beneficiary of Speaker 0: Well, so that's the question. Kamala Harris is a huge defender of women. All the all the girls are voting for her because she's for women. What's her position on these houses? Speaker 1: Hasn't commented. And, you know, when she was running for district attorney, I've looked at her resume at the time, and she listed as one of her credentials being the being the, chairman of the board of a domestic violence advocacy organization. She has promoted herself Speaker 0: so perfect. Speaker 1: She has promoted herself as a prosecutor who's been, you know, protecting women from sex trafficking and human trafficking. And I can tell you like, I mean, just a quality of life issue in San Francisco where I've lived for the last almost 25 years now is that you you can't get elected in San Francisco without checking the boxes of different constituencies. And Speaker 0: one of Speaker 1: those is the Chinese American, Chinatown community, which includes a lot of organized crime and sex trafficking. And in her years as district attorney It Speaker 0: always has, but she Speaker 1: never touched the sex trafficking dens in in Chinatown. I walked through Chinatown on my way to work before it got, you know, super dangerous in San Francisco. Speaker 0: Chinatown is dangerous now? Speaker 1: San Francisco is dangerous. I don't think there's any safe place in San Francisco. Speaker 0: It was one of the safest cities in the country. It's Speaker 1: and I it's tragic because it's a beautiful city. You Speaker 0: know? It's beautiful. Speaker 1: It's a it's like it's like some would call it the Paris of, the United States. Speaker 0: The Cape Town. Speaker 1: That's right. City. And during her years there, she really allowed sex trafficking to flourish. She was notorious as a prosecutor for only taking up, the the slam dunk cases. And even there, she had a very low prosecution rate in her later years. And so Speaker 0: I mean, the if if you just descend, you know, to 25,000 feet, she's this member of the law enforcement community, she says. She's the prosecutor in both San Francisco and then statewide in our largest state. And both the city of San Francisco and the state of California became more dangerous and chaotic during that that same period. Speaker 1: 100%. And so nothing happens overnight. So today's fentanyl bend that you see on every corner in San Francisco, the gangs of young criminals who come into the city to rip it off, you can trace all of that back to Kamala Harris's leadership. When she ran for district attorney in 2003, she proudly noted that she was one of the prosecutors, one of the few prosecutors who is opposed to a proposed law, a proposition that would allow prosecutors to treat juveniles who committed violent crimes, prosecute them as adults. She was opposed to that. She wanted to protect the juvenile violent criminals and the people who would go on inevitably to create to to commit greater and greater crimes. So she's been soft on crime, at the same time calling herself a top prosecutor all these years. I mean, she has been open about what she is in many ways, but, you know, packaged it in very slick terms. And because she's a woman and because she's a minority and because so much of our culture panders to this identity politics, she's been able to somehow get away with the Marxist substance of what she has been peddling. Speaker 0: She's a minority. It's hilarious. I mean, unless you're Hispanic, you are a minority in California, no matter what you look like or where your ancestors are from. Speaker 1: Right. Speaker 0: I mean, in a state like California where there's not a white majority, can you still is it still meaningful to call yourself a minority? Speaker 1: Well, you know, in San Francisco and in in these circles, somehow, there's this cognitive dissonance about it. Yeah. Right? And, you know, what's even I bring I come back to Amos Brown, who she did her first known violation of the campaign finance laws for in 2000 when she, was a consultant for his campaign. Just last year, she traveled to Ghana with, Amos Brown on a mission on behalf of the United States where she promised 1,000,000,000 of dollars of aid to Ghana. And I juxtapose that Why Ghana? Ghana, Africa in general. I don't know. Some, expiation of white guilt in the United States, you know, that somehow we're responsible for crimes and impoverishment that has occurred over there. I don't know why, but, you know, we we as a country, the Biden and Harris administration, have promised 1,000,000,000 of dollars to Africa at the same time that white Appalachia is drowning, and we've had this flood, damage in North Carolina where I grew up, and no one's promising them even 1,000,000 of dollars, much less 1,000,000,000. And so this is this is the administration, and, you know, this is normal. No one even comments on it, it seems. Speaker 0: Yeah. Things are totally out of control. There's no doubt about that. How does she get from attorney general of California to the senate? Speaker 1: Well, again, it was the machine politics of of California. And, you know, in California, there's usually a game of musical chairs. And so one politician is anointed for the next office, and then, you know, there's jockeying behind the scenes, and then people take their turn. I will say to the democrats' credit that they're usually very disciplined about these issues, and, you know, they'll have their vicious, game of identity politics behind the scenes. Right? But then one person will emerge from that in some deal making, okay. You run for this. You run for that. You run for the other. You wait your turn. So it was Kamala Harris' turn to graduate from her two terms as attorney general to run for the senate, and the pathway was cleared for her to do that. Speaker 0: So then, I mean, if you when you win the Democratic primary in California statewide, you're you're done. Speaker 1: Yeah. The the opposition, we always do as Republicans, and I'm I've been a leader in the Republican Party. We always recruit somebody and run somebody, and they do their best, and they're usually better than the Democrat. But the Democrat funding mechanism is such and the voter registration advantage is such in California that it's virtually impossible for Republicans to win statewide office. And, indeed, it's been many years since we've won a statewide Any statewide office. In in California. And so Speaker 0: So it's just it is a one party state. Speaker 1: It's a one party state, and one party states become corrupt. And there's a lack of accountability, and the quality of the legislators goes down and down and down. And so the the gene pool, if you will, for these higher offices in California is decreasing. And, I mean, the there was a point in time when you had a Jerry Brown. Now, of course, very liberal. I didn't agree with him on just about anything, but at least he was a, you know, accomplished person academically. Speaker 0: He's a dynamic, interesting person, actually. He's a big liberal. I disagreed with him too. He's a big liberal, but Jerry Brown was not mediocre. Speaker 1: He was not mediocre, talented, you know, intelligent. That is not the caliber of California Democrats today. I mean, I told you, for example, now, cabinet member in the Biden administration, Javier Becerra, had barely practiced law before he was deemed to be appropriate to replace Kamal Harris as the, attorney general in California when she became United Speaker 0: States senator. Practiced law? Speaker 1: Barely practiced law. I believe it was 1 year that he had practiced law. So he had an inactive law license for a period of time. He reactivated it. Speaker 0: Seriously? Speaker 1: That became the attorney general. That's that's the standard. It doesn't matter. It's just a waiting room for the next office and the next office. So it's gonna become interesting to see who who's anointed by their machine to replace Gavin Newsom. But we are in California behind this iron curtain of the left, and, you know, taxpayers are just at the mercy of these increasing increasingly mediocre Marxists in California. So Speaker 0: Well, this is why the productive people have left. Speaker 1: Yep. It's something that every taxpayer definitely has to think about, and it's Speaker 0: What do you pay all in, would you say, in California? What percentage of your gross income goes to the government? Speaker 1: I pay well over 50%. Let me let me give you, you know, some facts. In San Francisco, there's a payroll tax. So those of us who earn a wage in San Francisco, and I'm an employer in San Francisco, have to pay a payroll tax on every employee. It's over a percentage point of every employee that I hire over there. If you're making over a couple of $100,000, you're paying 13 and a half percent income tax in San Francisco in California, rather. And then on top of that, you're paying the federal taxes as well. So for that, what do you get? You can't go into a drugstore in California today and pick up a deodorant and take it to the counter. You have to call an assistant to come and unlock it for you in in any city in California because we have a law that effectively legalized this theft under $950. And so I've witnessed gangs of criminals come into my CVS or Walgreens and to steal 100 of dollars of stuff right in front of my eyes, 1,000 of dollars of stuff. They they bring in bags. They put it into the bags. They walk out. And the employees of these stores are disciplined by their employers if they take any steps to try to interfere with You Speaker 0: can't shoot them. Speaker 1: Wholesale larceny. Absolutely. And by the way, it would be dumb to interfere with them because they have weapons, and you as a citizen don't have a weapon typically. You know, it's virtually impossible. In San Francisco still, there's only in the dozens of people, I think, have gotten concealed carry permits to carry after, you know, the Supreme Court has effectively made that mandatory as a shall issue. So there's a huge imbalance there. And the criminals are on the ascendancy, and the Democrat politicians who made that so keep failing upward. And, you know, Kamala Harris is the most glaring example of that. Speaker 0: So there's a legislator in in the state of California who he's the one, who legalized the intentional spreading of AIDS. Speaker 1: Scott Wiener, my united my my state senator. Speaker 0: Yeah. So Scott Wiener, the most obviously evil politician in America. I mean, I don't think there are many evil politicians, but he's he's the one who tries, the least hard to hide it. Does he have any connection to Kamala Harris? Speaker 1: Only in the sense that they're both heirs of the same machine. Yeah. He's part of that machine. So, you know, he's he is he has you know, I've I've shown you some flyers here of the people who've endorsed her. He was anointed as the next senator after Mark Leno. It's been considered to be a gay senate seat. You know, that's how they identify the politics there. And so Speaker 0: It's a gay senate seat? Speaker 1: Yeah. Like, that's it's reserved for the, you know, gay Democrat politician who's next in line in San Francisco. So Speaker 0: Are we sure they're gay, or they're just pretending to be gay? Speaker 1: I think we're pretty sure Scott Wiener's gay. He's a regular fixture at the Folsom Street Fair, wears bondage gear, and is is very out about that. Yeah. Yeah. Speaker 0: Where's bondage? Performative. Totally cool. Yeah. That that's not weird. So I was really surprised during the Democratic primaries of 2019 to discover how unpopular Kamala Harris was in the state of California. Yeah. And that was really as a native California. And the first moment I realized, voters don't play a meaningful role in kind of anything in California. Speaker 1: Right. I mean, so what's interesting is you got a lot of politicians out there who are Democrats who have some charm, some charisma. Speaker 0: For sure. Speaker 1: Some would even call Joe Biden as somebody earlier in his career. I don't Speaker 0: know about Joe Biden. Lot of crew. I knew him. Barbara Boxer. Barbara Boxer. On everything. Barbara Boxer, very charming woman. Just being honest. Speaker 1: I mean, Dianne Feinstein even had a better pulse on, the people when Kamala Harris, as a district attorney, refused to seek the death penalty for a cop killer in San Francisco in her 1st year as district attorney. Dianne Feinstein called her out on it, and she said if there were ever a special circumstance, it's a gangbanger shooting a cop in cold blood. And, you know, she had the common touch. She had the charm. And Kamala Harris is just lacking charisma, and I you know, you try to unpack that and analyze it. Well, if you have had everything handed to you from a fairly early age and she started getting her leg up, if you will, in the age of 20 29, in politics Speaker 0: I'm stealing that. Speaker 1: You Is Speaker 0: it catty? Yes. Is it awesome? Oh, yeah. Speaker 1: You you don't have to earn it. You don't have to try very hard, and so she's unlikable. She's got that scoldy, schoolarmy way about her, preachy way about her, and she doesn't have to be she hasn't had to be likable to get to where she is. You think about her choice. She was not the obvious choice for for vice president, for many of us. Like, you know, people would have said Gretchen Whitmer or somebody from the Midwest, you know, someone who's adding something to the ticket, but the politics of the Democratic Party have become such that their most loyal constituency today is African American women. And so, you know, Joe Biden himself was a marginal candidate, and so the calculation was made that we need to pick the best, African American female candidate, and they they had a list of 3, and Kamala Harris was selected to fill that role. She wasn't the most talented. She wasn't the most charismatic, but she checked a couple of boxes for the Democrats, and that's how he was he was, paired with her. And if if Joe Biden and Joe Biden had thought about it, they might have gone back and asked Terrence Hallinan, who gave Kamala Harris her start in San Francisco, how that went for him. How did it go for him to hire her into the office and give her a chance? Well, she took his she ate his lunch pretty quickly, and that's exactly what happened with Kamala Harris, who's been scheming, I suspect, since day 1 getting into the, White House, undermining Joe Biden, and, you know, eventually, clawed her way to the top of the ticket. And Has Speaker 0: she ever created anything that you know of? Speaker 1: Well, she's responsible for many deaths of innocent people in San Francisco. She's created a lot of tragedy for victims of crime Yeah. In our state. She's created a lot of civil rights violations. She has she has not created anything in the sense that you or I would consider a proud accomplishment. I can't think of anything. Speaker 0: What does she believe? Speaker 1: I think she you know? So she's famous for saying that I have one client, and it's, you know, you, the people. She has one client, and it's Kamala Harris. She believes in Kamala Harris getting ahead. I think that's, at her core, all that she fundamentally believes. Speaker 0: So she doesn't have a detectable philosophy or ideology or principal commitment to any set of ideas? Speaker 1: Well, not that I can tell. I mean, I think early on, she adopted the persona of, advocate for the downtrodden African American youth. But I I mean, that was Oh, Larry. That itself was focus tested, I think. And And Speaker 0: growing up in Montreal, the daughter of college professors, you know, should be in the civil rights movement. Speaker 1: Exactly. Exactly. And, you know, I wrote a piece in The Wall Street Journal in 2019 when she was running for president highlighting her flip flops as a prosecutor on marijuana, on truancy, on even on, you know, many other forms of crime and other policy issues. And she's unashamed about it, and she's she just says, well, I've evolved. The circumstances have changed. She's evolved on just about every single issue, and what that tells you is there is no fundamental core there. And now you can look at a Bernie Sanders, for example, complete Marxist, far left, but he's kind of inconsistent throughout this whole you know where you stand with him. He isn't gonna suddenly embrace drilling or Speaker 0: Right. Speaker 1: You know, any particular issue that he's been opposed to. You know, he's in there. Speaker 0: Like a yurt in Vermont in the seventies. So, you know, whatever you think of yurts in Vermont, he seems to mean it. Speaker 1: He's authentic. Yeah. And you can't say the same of Kamala Harris. She's pronounced her name differently over the years. She's adopted different persona depending on who she's speaking to. She's flip flopped on marijuana usage, on gun ownership. She she claims she owns a Glock today. I I would you know? I don't think she knows how to load a weapon. I seriously doubt she knows how to Speaker 0: bodyguards that we pay for. Speaker 1: Yeah. Exactly. And so, she's supposed advocate for victims of domestic violence and yet silent when her husband is credibly accused of the same. Speaker 0: Pitting a woman in the face. If this is my last question. If she is elected presidents the 2nd week of October as we're having this conversation, Trump is ahead, substantially ahead, appears to be, in internal polling, which I think is real. But, you know, the Democratic Party cheats, They're gonna cheat in this election. We can say confidently, if she becomes president, what is the country in for, do you think, based on what you've seen? Speaker 1: Well, the Democratic Party of today has become the party of big business and and pharma. So I think they're they're also the party of the warmongers. Speaker 0: Yes. Speaker 1: So I think you can expect, big warmongering and neocons to be happy with the level of, quote, unquote, investment in other people's countries. You can expect the forced taking of drugs, that Joe Biden tried to force on all American employers to, in turn, force on their employees the ineffective COVID vaccines that don't prevent what they claimed and other drugs. You know, America is one of only 2 countries in the world that allows drugs to be advertised on television, and, you know, Democratic party is definitely both parties, but, certainly, the Democrats are definitely taking from from that side. But the most scary thing to me is the conversation that you and I are having that, presumably, a lot of people are going to see will not be possible in Kamala Harris's United States. She has openly called for the censorship of viewpoints that she doesn't agree with, and, you can expect the permanent change to the United States Supreme Court of stuffing, term limits, otherwise corrupting it away from the vision of the founders. And I think you can expect, so many other innovations that Democrats have talked about, innovations like, eliminating the electoral college, national, popular vote as our way of, permanently putting rural Americans under the heel of the corrupt coastal elites. So the way of life that my parents brought me to the United States as a small child to enjoy will not be available to Americans under the vision of Kamala Harris that she's openly promising. Speaker 0: How will you respond if she's the president Speaker 1: in January? Part of the resistance. Yes. That's the only way to live. I will not live on my knees. So we will have to fight that in whatever corners of the country, in whatever courts that'll still hear us until we're silenced. Speaker 0: So if the laws change and she has promised to change them and she has the support of The Atlantic Magazine and all the basically, everyone in Washington, and free speech ends in America. You can be punished for saying things the regime doesn't like. Will you stop talking? Speaker 1: I will not stop talking, and I know you won't either talk. Won't. No. Speaker 0: I'll go to jail before I do that. Do do you think Americans I mean, to you said we can know, but they took the COVID vaccine. I gotta say I say that with great embarrassment. People did stand passably by and allow their civil liberties to evaporate during COVID. Do you think people will do the same when their free speech right is taken from them? Speaker 1: People are doing it. People did it. People did it in the years after 2020 and the years before 2020. So many Americans have passively allowed and then, I mean, I would date this back to the to the Patriot Act in Yes. 2001 when I was one of the few Republicans who stood up and said, it is wrong to interrogate Americans on the basis of their background. It is wrong to surveil Americans and all of our communications. Yep. And today, in the name of national security, Republicans and Democrats have repeatedly enabled the deep state and the big state to collect all of our communications Speaker 0: Yep. Speaker 1: And surveil us and and, for our own good, force us to take drugs and censor what we're allowed to see. And so those Americans who are getting their news from, you know, cable and the nightly news and the networks are are seeing a version of Plato's forms. It's a distorted vision of reality. And so without the free speech that the founders so wisely guaranteed as our first of those civil rights in the Bill of Rights and the second amendment, which allows us to defend those rights, this isn't a country anymore, and I think that's the apocalyptic future that we're facing. Speaker 0: I remember you right after 911. I should say for those who don't know this, but you're from a religious tradition that's a a small religious minority in India, and they were mistaken for radical it sounds funny now even to say it, radical Muslims. I guess it's not funny at all, but there were a lot of Speaker 1: People lost their lives in the wake of 911 because they were mistaken. 6 were mistaken as people from Afghanistan or the Middle East. And Speaker 0: But completely different religion. Nothing to do with it. Speaker 1: Different religion, totally different up you know? In fact, 6 fought against Muslim invaders in India and safeguarded, that whole subcontinent from invasion. And so it's no joke to us to to have our right to exercise our faith, to not be have the FBI show up at your door because of ignorance and start interrogating. Speaker 0: Even if they I should just say, as a matter of principle in fact, I know a million great Muslims personally who I love. And so even if they had been Muslims, it wouldn't it you can't hassle people because of their religion. Speaker 1: And then the ACLU, in which I, you know, joined back then because of this specific issue, was the only voice in America fighting against Muslims being rounded up and interrogated in Los Angeles in 2001. It's it's it's abhorrent, and it smacks of, you know, Japanese concentration camps and other dark periods in our American history. And today, those voices aren't there. So Americans conservatives have always relied on liberal civil rights activists to safeguard those rights. Hey. You know what? Conservatives sometimes get falsely arrested for crimes. For sure. And today, those liberal groups have abandoned those principles. So today, it's republicans and conservatives who go to court. It's, you know, my nonprofit, the Center For American Liberty, that goes to court to defend the rights of, students to hear differing viewpoints on campus or to defend young girls from being mutilated by, abusive doctors in the name of transgender, craziness. And so today, we are the civil libertarians. Ill prepared as we are, institutionally, conservatives are the last bastion to defend our country from Speaker 0: absolutely right. And they're waking up to it, and I just wanna say I wanna add to the list of things I've apologized for over the years, including Iraq War. I didn't perceive just how scary and anti American the Patriot Act was. You were one of the very first very first people in the right you were definitely the first person in the right I saw say that, and bless you for for catching that immediately. Speaker 1: Well, you know, again, we go back to the constitution. And when I look at this election, Kamala Harris has shown herself over all of her decades of public service exactly who she is. She's someone who is ruthless, who has ignored the law when it benefits her, who was even ignored as a guardian of the law, the constitution repeatedly, the rights of the accused Speaker 0: Yes. Speaker 1: The rights of the wrongfully convicted, the rights of the citizens she has sworn to defend, and those laws that she has sworn to uphold, she has ignored them when convenient. And I think that's particularly when you take on the mantle of I'm the top cop. I'm the border czar. I'm the prosecutor. I'm America's top law enforcement person. It's scary that that person wants to be the number one person with the most power in the free world. And so that's what's at stake in this election. So it isn't about mean tweets. It isn't about style. It's about what country we want in the next 4 years. Speaker 0: It's a wonderful summation. Hermit Dawn, thank you very, very much. Speaker 1: Thank you for having me, Tucker. Speaker 0: We had a pretty remarkable interview with Elon Musk the other day right after his appearance with Donald Trump at the rally in Butler Township. Elon Musk is all in. This is, an interview we highly recommend. It's over on x. Check it out if you haven't met.
pnjaban
Posted - November 19, 2024 at 8:18 PM
Saved - November 19, 2024 at 8:35 PM

@pnjaban - Harmeet K. Dhillon

It’s incredible that @JoshShapiroPA is openly enabling contempt of the highest court of his own state of which he is the Governor! Talk about election deniers!

@billessayli - Bill Essayli

A court order is an ORDER, not a request. The ongoing illegal Pennsylvania ballot counting is going to haunt @JoshShapiroPA and complicit Democrats like Commissioner Diane Ellis-Marseglia who should be arrested for breaking the law. #LockHerUp Meanwhile California still has over 600,000 uncounted ballots — we need voter ID and a complete overhaul of our elections system to restore confidence and public trust. @elonmusk @pnjaban @NRSC

Video Transcript AI Summary
A Bucks County, Pennsylvania board of commissioners chairman argues that court precedents are disregarded and that violating laws can draw attention to the courts. He emphasizes the importance of counting votes. In response, another individual expresses that violating a court order is a serious crime, equating it to contempt of court. They highlight that past officials faced consequences for similar actions and suggest that it's time to enforce compliance through legal measures.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Here's a Bucks County, Pennsylvania board of commissioners chairman explaining why the courts, yeah, they should be ignored. Watch. Speaker 1: We all know that precedent by a court doesn't matter anymore in this country, and people violate laws anytime they want. So for me, if I violate this law, it's because I want a court to pay attention to it. And, there is nothing more important than counting votes. Speaker 0: What do you think? Speaker 2: Oh, I think it's criminal. A court order is not a suggestion. It's an order. And actually violating it is a crime. It's contempt of court. You know, people in Trump's administration were locked up for contempt of congress. This is way worse than anything Steve Bannon or Peter Navarro did. So I think it's time to stop going back to court. It's time to put her in handcuffs until she complies. Yeah.
pnjaban
Posted - November 7, 2024 at 6:35 PM
Saved - November 8, 2024 at 12:35 PM

@pnjaban - Harmeet K. Dhillon

Arizona update: there are lawyers and trained observers monitoring tabulation of ballots, duplicating, and adjudication until we are done. I’m in constant touch with Kari’s lawyers and supporters about this and we are watching every ballot drop, as is @AZGOP @GinaSwoboda.

pnjaban
Posted - November 5, 2024 at 6:28 PM
Saved - November 6, 2024 at 12:39 AM

@pnjaban - Harmeet K. Dhillon

Hi 👋🏼 everyone! Positive news from the ground in Maricopa County! Things are going well, issues are being handled, and the main issue is those Arizona voters who haven’t gotten in line and voted! 🗳️ Let’s finish strong! https://t.co/XeVZAb2Y2t

Video Transcript AI Summary
Hi, everyone. This is Harmit Dhillon in Scottsdale, Arizona, with the election integrity team. We have numerous lawyers and thousands of observers reporting on voting conditions, including line lengths and issues with paper and ink. I'm pleased to share that we are quickly resolving any problems and assisting voters. So far, there are no significant long lines that haven't been addressed. We are effectively deploying voters from crowded locations to nearby polling places. The communication and get-out-the-vote efforts have improved significantly from previous elections, leading to great voter turnout. Every vote matters, especially in close races here in Arizona, and we aim to win decisively. Thank you for your efforts, and please make sure to vote. Looking forward to a successful election day!
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Hi, everyone. This is Harmit Dhillon, and I'm coming to you from Scottsdale, Arizona where I am with the election integrity team here composed of dozens of lawyers as well as constant communication with thousands of observers in the field who are giving us back reports about how people are voting, the length of the lines, issues with paper and ink and other issues like that. And I'm happy to report that we are quickly resolving issues and helping a lot of people vote. So far, no significantly long lines that haven't been addressed. Where we have minor issues here and there, we are working with a rapid response team to deploy voters from one place with a long line to numerous nearby locations to be able to vote. And, it's really exciting to see the improvements in communication and get out the vote effort here in Arizona from prior election cycles. And so, great team working together and great turnout from the voters. So we just like to make sure that people keep it up. Every vote is going to count. There are many close races here in Arizona, and we wanna make sure that we win by an overwhelming margin. And so thanks to everyone for their efforts, and, please get out there and vote. Looking forward to success tonight on election day. Thank you.
pnjaban
Posted - November 4, 2024 at 5:11 PM
Saved - November 4, 2024 at 8:36 PM

@pnjaban - Harmeet K. Dhillon

Less than 20 hours till voting in person starts in Arizona. We have a highly organized effort of veteran & newly trained volunteers & lawyers on the ground in ALL Arizona counties not only today and tomorrow but until tabulation concludes, watching all. Vote 🗳️ & bring friends!

pnjaban
Posted - November 1, 2024 at 5:06 PM
Saved - November 2, 2024 at 2:53 PM

@pnjaban - Harmeet K. Dhillon

On election lawyer duty today in AZ, together with other @dhillonlaw lawyers and staff, associated Arizona lawyers, and Republican lawyers from other states. We are here for the duration. Let’s go! https://t.co/bAVN1jROVE

pnjaban
Posted - November 1, 2024 at 1:44 AM
Saved - November 1, 2024 at 9:53 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I highlighted that Fieldcorps has received over $2.9 million from Arizona Democrats this year, along with significant funding from Mi Familia Vota, which is known for challenging Arizona's voter protections. Additionally, I mentioned ongoing investigations into an alleged voter fraud scheme in several Pennsylvania counties, with more counties expected to announce similar investigations soon. I questioned the purpose of the payments to Fieldcorps.

@pnjaban - Harmeet K. Dhillon

The people allegedly behind these illegal PA registrations— Fieldcorps — have been paid more than $2.9M by Arizona Democrats alone so far this year, and hundreds of thousands by Mi Familia Vota, Democrats’ favorite vehicle for court challenges to tear down AZ voter protections! https://t.co/IdEoNsqXo2

@Athan_K - Athan Koutsiouroumbas

Lancaster, York, Monroe, and Cambria Counties in Pennsylvania are investigating an alleged voter fraud scheme. Additional Pennsylvania counties may announce fraud investigations tomorrow. https://t.co/ErNZmxUMi5

@pnjaban - Harmeet K. Dhillon

What are they getting paid for? https://t.co/a7Bqt33gsM

pnjaban
Posted - October 16, 2024 at 1:08 AM
Saved - October 16, 2024 at 12:51 PM

@pnjaban - Harmeet K. Dhillon

This is a very serious ethical violation and lawyers can be disciplined by the bar for contacting a represented party concerning the subject matter of the representation, without the permission and knowledge of that party’s lawyer.

@OversightAdmn - Oversight Subcommittee

🧵NEW: Chairman @RepLoudermilk obtained NEVER BEFORE SEEN correspondence between J6 Select Committee’s Liz Cheney and Cassidy Hutchinson.

pnjaban
Posted - October 13, 2024 at 5:47 AM
Saved - October 13, 2024 at 10:02 AM

@pnjaban - Harmeet K. Dhillon

I had so much material to cover during my interview with @TuckerCarlson … I didn’t get to show this one but here’s the flyer from the tenant group blasting Kamala in 2003 in the DA race where she committed an ethical violation by taking money from the slumlords she regulated: https://t.co/FBxEbBeXx9

pnjaban
Posted - October 11, 2024 at 11:24 PM
Saved - October 12, 2024 at 3:03 PM
reSee.it AI Summary
I'm excited to share that after engaging with state party members, candidates, and volunteers, we are in a stronger position than ever for Republican success in Arizona. It's important to stay calm. There are always challenges in election administration, but the GOP and AZGOP are collaborating closely with field operatives and election officials to identify and resolve issues promptly. We've already addressed several questions just in the last couple of days.

@pnjaban - Harmeet K. Dhillon

🥵 I’m happy to report that after meeting and speaking with state party and candidates and outside volunteer groups and Arizona lawyers, we are in better shape this cycle than ever before and on a strong legal and political footing for Republican victory in AZ! Have to stay cool! https://t.co/netML2VHL4

@pnjaban - Harmeet K. Dhillon

There are always issues in election administration. The @GOP and @AZGOP are working hand in hand with field operatives and election administrators to flag and address issues in real time, assessing and acting on information quickly. Just yesterday and today we handled several Qs.

pnjaban
Posted - August 14, 2024 at 3:34 PM
Saved - August 15, 2024 at 3:11 PM

@pnjaban - Harmeet K. Dhillon

Harris campaign literally manipulating voters by astroturfing fake headlines … a total sham campaign! Meanwhile Trump talks directly about what he has done and will do for the American people. https://t.co/GxpNu9vzQG

Video Transcript AI Summary
The speakers discuss Kamala Harris's campaign allegedly paying for Google ads to promote articles with edited headlines and subheads. These altered headlines, according to the speakers, present a more favorable view of Harris than the original articles. Speaker 1 asserts that the Harris campaign is paying for misinformation, while simultaneously criticizing others for spreading it. Speaker 2 notes that while the ads are labeled as "paid for," many people may not notice the disclaimer. He adds that the original articles are already so positive that the campaign only needs to tweak the headlines to make them even more favorable. Speaker 0 expresses disgust, pointing out Harris has never received a vote, yet was allowed to approach the nomination without scrutiny. The Harris campaign did not respond to a request for comment.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Let's stick with insanity. So can you imagine getting great media coverage? I mean, literally letting you coast to the nomination with no votes. And that not being enough, apparently, Kamala Harris is editing, headlines. This is what the AP has. VP Harris, economic vision, lower cost and higher wages. Then you got NPR. Harris will lower health costs, supporting text underneath. Kamala Harris will lower the cost of high quality affordable health care. The Guardian writes VP Harris fights abortion bans. Harris defends, repro freedom, with supporting tech techs underneath, of course. VP Harris is a champion for some reproductive freedom and stop Trump's abortion. I mean, it goes on and on and on and on. Pete. Speaker 1: So I need to do this for a few headlines. Speaker 2: I'm a make sure Speaker 0: Go ahead. Speaker 1: Go for it, Will. You could because, you know, I wanna make sure everybody understands this, Pete. What's going on is these are legitimate articles that are written well, I say legit. Correct. There are articles written by CNN or NPR or Axios. They're they are articles written. And then the Harris campaign pays for an advertisement at the top of Google to link for those those those articles. But because they paid for the ad, they can change the headline, and they can change what we call, you know, in the media, the subhead, the short description under it. They write it themselves, so they can make the headline, and who reads beyond the headline anymore? Right? Very few. If we're all being honest, headline, subhead, good. Scroll on. So they've paid for all you're gonna consume there, and they're false and fake headlines. They're paying for misinformation. The same people that are terrified of a 2 hour conversation and tried to get it taken away, taken off the Internet, a 2 hour conversation between Elon Musk and Donald Trump. They scream about misinformation while committing misinformation. Speaker 2: For sure. For sure. And it it does say in really small font at the top, paid for by or sponsored by. But how many times have have you had to scroll back and be like, wait. Is this real or not real in your own feed? I've done it. You've done it. This is the case. The other part of this is these articles are so positive about their campaign. Already. To Will's point, these outlets are so fawning already. They probably wouldn't even have to change the headline. They just they just tweak it nice and even more nicely so that if you did click through, you the campaign loves the article so much, you're clicking through to propaganda they already like. I mean, this is I've this is next level media coverage for this for this campaign. I've never seen anything like it, and it's only gonna get worse. Speaker 0: It's disgusting. Not a vote cast for her ever ever ever cast for her. They let her go close to the nomination. No pushback. No questions. No nothing. Gentlemen, as always, appreciate it, brothers. Speaker 1: Thanks, Lawrence. Speaker 0: So we reached out to the Harris campaign for official statement. Of course, they did not get back to us. She's always welcome on the program as usual.
pnjaban
Posted - June 10, 2024 at 4:47 PM
Saved - June 10, 2024 at 4:52 PM

@pnjaban - Harmeet K. Dhillon

BOOM!💥 Our petition for panel rehearing in case involving elected official’s blocking of journalist on @X results in amended order and the case proceeds for injunctive and declaratory relief! Outstanding work, @MurdockJDF!

@MurdockJDF - Jesse Franklin-Murdock

BREAKING: The 9th Circuit amended its order after granting our petition for rehearing. While Dean Preston benefited from qualified immunity due to a narrowing of 1st Am. rights after we won in the district court, @TheMarinaTimes's injunctive and declaratory relief claims remain. https://t.co/AzLt4kINM8

pnjaban
Posted - May 22, 2024 at 12:25 AM
Saved - May 22, 2024 at 12:41 PM

@pnjaban - Harmeet K. Dhillon

Does anyone know this preacher? I would like to help him. @Liberty_Ctr — we literally just won a lawsuit on this topic about this very location last week after three years of litigation. That means no qualified immunity soup for you, Capitol Police!

@corinnecliford - Corinne Cliford 🇺🇸

BREAKING News: 5.21.2024 US Capitol a Christian Preacher just got arrested in front of me for talking about the Bible & handing out a Christian postcard. I have never seen anything like this. Officially the persecution of non violent Christians has started in the U.S.A. https://t.co/4BZ68WmjSi

Video Transcript AI Summary
My rights as a journalist are being violated at the US Capitol. I'm trying to film the arrest of a Christian on May 21, 2024. The persecution of Christians under the Biden administration is out of control.
AI Similar Videos
Full Transcript
Speaker 0: Okay. What are my rights? Tell me my rights. I'm looking at my feet. Where can I stand? Tell me where to stand. I'm seeing my feet right now. Where do I stand? Okay. So can I walk one further? Can I go this way? No? I can only go this way. I do wanna do this parallel game. I'm trying to get the person you arrested on video because I'm a journalist. Don't violate my first amendment. Okay. It's a felony that'll violate the first amendment. Do you know why he got arrested? No. I'm not sure that. He's a Christian. One Christian arrested at the US Capitol. It is May 21st, 2024. Welcome to the United States of America arresting Christians at the US Capitol. I will get the full story and report it to all y'all out there. It's never ending. The persecution, prosecution, and arrest of Christians under the Biden regime is completely out of control.
pnjaban
Posted - April 2, 2024 at 7:58 PM
Saved - April 3, 2024 at 8:08 PM

@pnjaban - Harmeet K. Dhillon

This is a travesty of justice and meant to intimidate every Republican election lawyer in the country from pursuing election-related legal challenges. It’s a one-way ratchet, of course — the Marc Eliases of the world can spam the dockets with garbage lawsuits with all impunity.

@amuse - @amuse

LAWFARE: Ex-Trump Election Lawyer John Eastman Has Been Disbarred. More than a hundred lawyers who represented Trump are facing similar fights - Democrats want to prevent Republicans from having access to the courts prior to November. https://www.mediaite.com/politics/just-in-ex-trump-election-lawyer-john-eastman-has-been-disbarred/

Ex-Trump Election Lawyer John Eastman Has Lost His Law License John Eastman, the former Donald Trump election lawyer behind the so-called "fake electors" scheme, officially lost his ability to practice law mediaite.com
pnjaban
Posted - January 5, 2024 at 3:43 AM
Saved - January 5, 2024 at 8:02 PM

@pnjaban - Harmeet K. Dhillon

Not again! Yes again … Wyoming federal judge threw yet another 14th amendment challenge out on its ear today. Bye! Congratulations and thanks to my @dhillonlaw colleagues and our local counsel for riding this one out of town on a rail. https://t.co/BnaxrgL3uR

pnjaban
Posted - November 20, 2023 at 4:51 PM
Saved - November 20, 2023 at 8:43 PM

@pnjaban - Harmeet K. Dhillon

You are an election denier. You denied Californians accurate and timely elections with clean voter rolls while Secretary of State. You hired Democrat consultants to bully social media companies into silencing lawful speech about the 2020 election. You are a disgrace.

@AlexPadilla4CA - Alex Padilla

Let's be perfectly clear: Election deniers don't belong in elected office.

View Full Interactive Feed