TruthArchive.ai - Tweets Saved By @PheonixLioness1

Posted - July 12, 2024 at 12:56 AM

Saved - January 24, 2025 at 2:43 PM

reSee.it AI Summary

I discussed CBS News firing Catherine Herridge and the implications of seizing her reporting records. The conversation covered the Trump vs. Biden debate, the evolution of newsrooms, and how journalists are often constrained by intelligence agencies. I highlighted the emergence of independent news organizations and questioned whether Herridge's dismissal was linked to her reporting on Hunter Biden's laptop. We also examined failures within the U.S. Defense Department and the potential of the Press Act to safeguard journalism. Finally, I reflected on the golden era of news and hinted at Herridge's next big story.

@PheonixLioness1 - PheonixLioness8379

Tucker Carlson: Why did CBS News fire Catherine Herridge and seize her reporting records? And how the Press Act can save the country. (1:19) The Trump vs. Biden Debate https://t.me/police_frequency/121549?t=79 (12:46) How Newsrooms Have Changed https://t.me/police_frequency/121549?t=766 (18:02) Journalists Held Captive by Intel Agencies https://t.me/police_frequency/121549?t=1082 (24:06) The Rise of Independent News Organizations https://t.me/police_frequency/121549?t=1446 (30:27) Herridge’s Records, Research, and Reports Being Seized https://t.me/police_frequency/121549?t=1827 (32:34) Was Herridge Fired for Reporting on Hunter Biden’s Laptop? https://t.me/police_frequency/121549?t=1954 (46:24) Exposing the Failures of the U.S. Defense Department https://t.me/police_frequency/121549?t=2784 (55:04) The Press Act https://t.me/police_frequency/121549?t=3304 (1:10:23) X https://t.me/police_frequency/121549?t=4223 (1:14:39) The Golden Era of News https://t.me/police_frequency/121549?t=4479 (1:17:46) Herridge’s Next Big Story https://t.me/police_frequency/121549?t=4666@Policefrequenc Includes paid partnerships.

Video Transcript AI Summary

There's a significant lack of transparency regarding federal law violations at the border, which raises questions about safety and accountability. Current reporting suggests that federal employees may not face consequences for these violations, except for whistleblowers. The media landscape often sees multiple outlets covering the same stories, possibly due to limited time and shared themes. Independent journalism allows for more diverse storytelling. After decades in major media, the transition to independence has been refreshing, focusing on impactful reporting. The importance of protecting sources has become a central issue. The current climate has made the principles of free press and free speech more crucial than ever, highlighting a need for clarity and commitment in journalism.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: Talking about. I guess the volume. Speaker 1: So Speaker 0: But there's not but to your point, I don't think there's great transparency on this issue. I hope to bring a little bit more transparency to it. Speaker 1: So in your judgment, that's a big deal story. Speaker 0: Oh, 100%. I yeah. I and it's not just I'm looking at what the the polling shows about the top issues for American, you know, American voters in this election cycle. I'm asking myself, I have information. I think there are violations of federal law and federal regulations every day, at the border. I need to find out if that's really if that's really true. And if it is true, why is it true? And who is really losing in that equation? Is is is the country less safe as a result or or not? I don't know the answer to all of that yet. But that's that's a very legitimate story to Speaker 1: pursue. Also, how does a bankrupt come country, which ours is, pay for all these services? I don't. Yeah. There are many questions. I totally agree. But so you're focused on the question, is the federal government violating its own laws? Speaker 0: Federal employees, yes. Mhmm. Speaker 1: And to the extent that you've reported it out, are you closer to an answer? Speaker 0: I I think based on our reporting so far that it's it really, tips that way. It does appear that way. And so my question is, where's you know, who's been disciplined? Who's been suspended? Who's been fired? Who's been demoted? And I'm not sure the answer is really anyone except the people who blew the whistle on Speaker 1: it. Really? Speaker 0: Don't make me give the story away. No. I don't. I wanna stop you right now. Like, I'm Speaker 1: I'm, like, so shocked. I mean you know? Speaker 0: But I think but that's the kind of, to me, that's the kind of story you wanna be doing. Right? I I just think it's, the thing that has always encouraged me about, the the, the consumers of news in this in this country is that they really understand this idea of accountability. They they they wanna see it. They expect it. They demand it. And and when you do it, I think it can be very gratifying to, you know, to kind of shine a light. I it sounds like so old fashioned, but to shine a light on an issue that really is worthy of that and is sort of screaming out for coverage. Speaker 1: How do you I've had many people ask me this over the years, but, you know, one channel will do a story or one newspaper will do a story, and then every other outlet will do exactly the same story. In some ways, it's like a really boutique story. You know, it's a a story of limited obvious importance, but everyone does the same story. Yeah. How do these like, who decides that? Where how does you know? Speaker 0: Ugh. Where does Speaker 1: that come from? Speaker 0: I mean I mean, this comes from the executives or the show producers. Speaker 1: But have you noticed that you know, I don't know how many news organizations are in the United States in a country of 350,000,000 people. They're they're a lot. Right. They all do, you know, on a in a given week, they do a suite of maybe 20 stories. Mhmm. Themes, you know, variations on the theme perhaps. But but, I I mean, what how why? You'd think that Speaker 0: I really I I wish I could answer that question. Speaker 1: But you've noticed this. Right? Speaker 0: I mean, when you look at the rundown, let's say, for an evening news broadcast, you'll see a lot of the same stories. Now that may be a function of the fact that they have such limited time to tell the story. Was it 18 or 19 minutes or 20 For sure. Or 20 minutes. Speaker 1: But it's the the topics are the same. It's just interesting. I'm not suggesting coordination, but I I do think it's a I don't know what it is. It's I think it's a conspiracy of like minded temperament. They all are kind of the same people. Speaker 0: I I just I don't know. Speaker 1: But you'll concede there are a lot of stories that they could be doing that they're not. Speaker 0: Yeah. I I think so. That's that's the appeal of being independent is that you can tell some of the stories that maybe you couldn't tell before. Speaker 1: Is it weird not to have a boss? Speaker 0: Yeah. It's a big change after nearly 4 decades of working, for major media outlets. It's a it's a huge change. I've had a lot of change in the last 4 months, 5 months. A lot. Speaker 1: Do you miss being scolded? Speaker 0: I miss being scolded. I miss the structure. I'm very used to the structure. And, you know, structure that, you know, has resources that you didn't realize that you needed until you went to do it yourself. I'm sure you understand that. Speaker 1: Been there. Speaker 0: Yeah. You've been there. Right? But I I really like working with a small team and as a group deciding what is it that we're gonna pursue next, and how can we structure this story that it has an impact, and what kind of reporting do we need to be doing, and at what point do we engage with government agencies? And how do we keep moving the story forward after after we do it? I I just find that just kind of exhilarating and refreshing all at all at the same time. And in a marketplace that's really just exploding where you're setting your own boundaries and your own rules. Right? You're saying, okay. I've got almost 4 decades of experience. This is what I believe journalism is. This is how I'm gonna execute it. These are my standards. These are my expectations, and I'm gonna be true to those. I'm I'm gonna follow it through. That's the exciting part of it. And then having a public that responds to it, which I'm, you know, so grateful for. Speaker 1: People like honesty in a world full of lies, I think. Do you feel that? Speaker 0: People are looking for credible, reliable information in a way that I never maybe seen in my lifetime working as a journalist. Speaker 1: So not maybe what you're saying is that as a business, journalism is, like, more discredited than it's ever been and more disliked. But individual journalists who decided to tell the truth are Speaker 0: I don't know. I don't know if I I don't know if I would go that far. I'm not sure how comfortable I am really commenting on the whole, you know, profession that way. How's that? I I just sort of come back to my, you know, I come back to my own, you know, my my own work. I I wrote something recently for the free press, which is really an amazing operation. It's Barry Weiss has really built it into this sort of, you know, engaging, driving thing, you know? It's like it's like a great source for information. I wrote something on on the press act. And, you know, the it's the protection of sources is the hill to die on. And it was such a great experience to work with them and to see the reach of that story and to take an issue that I felt needed to kind of, you know, poke up through the noise and get some attention. Because all of our our futures, our careers, rest on that basic principle. So to me, that's an example of, you know, an independent media outlet, which is really has a lot of impact and made a difference. Speaker 1: How, of the people that you worked with 30 years ago, were any still around in the business? Speaker 0: Oh, I'm trying to think. A lot of them are retired now. I went to a a reunion, an ABC London reunion. I wanna say it was maybe 7 years ago, 7 6 or 7 it was before I just before I went to CBS, and a lot of people were retired. A lot of people had, passed. 5 of them were already gone. Speaker 1: Is that weird? Speaker 0: Yeah. It's sad. But, I learned so much from them. And I think that not to sound, too sentimental, but I think you carry that on. I think one of the greatest things you can do at a certain point in your career is to share your experience and to share the skill set that you that you have. And I really enjoy doing that, especially with younger journalists. Speaker 1: How are you gonna do it? Speaker 0: Oh, you know, we I talk about this with our kids. How long am I gonna do this? And when will I retire? And that, you know, they all have the same verdict, which is like, oh, mom, like, you need to keep working as long as you can work. Because you're if we had you loose in the house all the time, it would just be crazy and you love I mean, I just love it. I feel fortunate to have found something I feel so passionate about. Maybe you feel Oh, passionate about. Maybe you feel Speaker 1: Oh, of course I do. Speaker 0: Maybe you feel the the the same way. Of course. And I I can't sort of both I'm I'm surprised even by the evolution of where I am today. And I'm surprised that I'm fighting in the courts to be protecting confidential sources. But if if there's something that folks who are listening and watching this can take away is that, you know, I came out of February, so it was a tough time. There's no question about it. But I had a lot of clarity, and sometimes crisis gives you clarity. Speaker 1: Oh, yeah. Speaker 0: And the idea of a free press and free speech, these really became my north star. They really became the driving force of what I'm gonna do in this next chapter. Speaker 1: Yeah. I couldn't agree more. And it's weird to wake up and see things you took for granted under threat. Speaker 0: Mhmm. Speaker 1: Did you ever think that free speech in the United States would be open to question? Speaker 0: No. I I wouldn't have anticipated the situation that I'm in now. That's that's for sure. Speaker 1: Well, we're rooting for you fervently. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 1: Catherine Harris, thank you very much. Speaker 0: It's so good to see you. Thanks for having me. Speaker 1: To watch the rest unlock our entire vast library of content, you can visit tucker carlson.com and activate your membership today. In the name of free speech, we hope you will.

Police frequency Tucker Carlson: Why did CBS News fire Catherine Herridge and seize her reporting records? And how the Press Act can save the country. (1:19) The Trump vs. Biden Debate (12:46) How Newsrooms Have Changed (18:02) Journalists Held Captive by Intel Agencies (24:06) The Rise of Independent News Organizations (30:27) Herridge’s Records, Research, and Reports Being Seized (32:34) Was Herridge Fired for Reporting on Hunter Biden’s Laptop? (46:24) Exposing the Failures of the U.S. Defense Department (55:04) The Press Act (1:10:23) X (1:14:39) The Golden Era of News (1:17:46) Herridge’s Next Big Story Includes paid partnerships. t.me

@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson

Why did CBS News fire Catherine Herridge and seize her reporting records? And how the Press Act can save the country. (1:19) The Trump vs. Biden Debate (12:46) How Newsrooms Have Changed (18:02) Journalists Held Captive by Intel Agencies (24:06) The Rise of Independent News Organizations (30:27) Herridge’s Records, Research, and Reports Being Seized (32:34) Was Herridge Fired for Reporting on Hunter Biden’s Laptop? (46:24) Exposing the Failures of the U.S. Defense Department (55:04) The Press Act (1:10:23) X (1:14:39) The Golden Era of News (1:17:46) Herridge’s Next Big Story Includes paid partnerships.

Video Transcript AI Summary

One son asked if I would go to jail, and I couldn't assure him that democracy and a free press are valued here. I was shocked by the firing, but it felt politically motivated due to my reporting on Hunter Biden's laptop. The media should release full transcripts of Biden's interviews to assess his cognitive state. There’s a need for accountability journalism, focusing on the powerful rather than the vulnerable. The Press Act is crucial for protecting journalists' sources, especially as independent media rises. My recent investigation revealed failures in the military's treatment of a soldier with a heart condition linked to the COVID vaccine. The public deserves credible information, and I aim to provide it. The landscape has changed, and I’m committed to pursuing impactful stories that hold power accountable.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: One of our sons asked me, mom, are you gonna go to jail? And I wanted to tell him that in this country where we say we value I could get a little choked up when I think about it, but, you know, in this country where we say we value democracy and we value a vigorous press, that it was impossible. But I couldn't offer him that assurance. Speaker 1: I was shocked that they fired you. And when I reflected for a moment, I was not shocked at all. From my perspective, super obvious they're taking you out before the election because you're reporting on Hunter Biden's laptop. 10 days ago ish, there was the debate. I've known Biden for over 30 years, and I thought that's not the guy I know. I mean, he's just completely different. If conspiracy nut, I would think he was a body double because it's that different. I'm so glad you're back here. Speaker 0: I'm so glad to see you. Speaker 1: You are not far away. Speaker 2: It's it's good. Far away. Speaker 1: We work together. We live near each other. It's all in many places. Amazing. How are you enjoying your new life? Speaker 0: Pretty well. It's, good. It's been an adjustment. I've had an energetic few months. Speaker 1: I knew you would. I knew you would. Okay. So I just have to ask you because you're I was in television a long time also, but you were in the the news side of television preparing interviews and packages and every day for decades. And given your extensive knowledge of that, I'm just a little bit confused by how the media people in our business, form of business, could look at the last debate with Biden and Trump and say, I just can't believe that there's something wrong with him. That he's neurologically compromised or ill or senile or whatever, that he's not operating the way that he used to. How could this be news to people who've interviewed him before? Speaker 0: Well, I think this is a real opportunity to gather more data and to take an investigative lens and look at this issue of president Biden and his decision to seek reelection. We've got some data points already. We have the debate Yeah. That you've just referenced that people were so surprised Yeah. His demeanor. And we now have this ABC interview and the full transcript. I think it's a moment where other media organizations who've done interviews with the president over the last couple of years could release the full transcripts from those interviews. I think it makes sense because we'd have broader data points to assess was this a one off, as the White House says, or were there indications of decline earlier on? Were they obvious and apparent, or were they subtle and missed? And and if they were obvious, why was it that they seemed to end up on the cutting room floor? I think that having this broader dataset for an independent review would really inform the public discussion about the president's decision to stay in the race. Speaker 1: And there's a lot of data to look at. I mean, I've known Biden, watched Biden, been around Biden a lot for over 30 years. And I remember my reaction in 2019 when he decided to run, once again for president for the 4th time, I think. I thought that's not the guy I know. I mean, he's just completely different. And then his sister told a friend of mine, actually, we're very upset because he's in cognitive decline. He's got some neurological illness, and we don't want him to run for president. So I immediately said that on Fox News. Speaker 0: So you reported that at the time? Speaker 1: Absolutely. Yeah. And then I showed the tape. Like, look at this guy. And was attacked, of course, and ignored. So that was 5 years ago. I wasn't shocked by his performance of the debate, especially. But then other journalists were. They seem to be. Were they pretending? Or, like, what I don't understand how someone who did an interview with him, like, 2 years ago wouldn't have been aware that there was something wrong. Speaker 0: Well, I think it's an opportunity to provide this broader data set so there can be this independent review by the public. Speaker 1: What would that data look like? Speaker 0: Well, let's look at the what the transcript show. Do they show someone who is, you know, very consistent, very focused, very deliberate in their answering of questions, or does it show someone who's maybe struggling to stay on track or is lacking? Speaker 1: Do we have that case? Speaker 0: Well, media outlets who've conducted interviews with the president should have those transcripts. I mean, it's it's not standard to release video outtakes from an interview, but you could release the transcript. And I say that as someone who released the transcripts of my interview with president Trump back in 2020. Releasing a transcript, I think, is about transparency so you can have a broad overview of the interview. I think it makes sense because there are other headlines in the interview that maybe you your news organization is not gonna look at Right. Per se. You know, just sort of separately, I think you have a tremendous responsibility when you sit down with the president of the United States, probably the ultimate newsmaker, to ask questions that are of interest to your news organization, but also to others. Right? And then finally, I think a transcript, allows you to stand behind the edit that you either post online or that you broadcast. Right? Because then the public can see the sections of the interview that you, you know, condensed or you made edits for clarification. Speaker 1: Right. So I know that in, I haven't thought about this enough, but I know that in 2015 or 2016, the New York Times editorial board sat down with Trump, and they released a full, apparently, unedited transcript, which was chaotic. His speaking style tends to be a little discursive. Speaker 0: Nonlinear. Word, discursive. Speaker 1: Yeah. It is nonlinear. But, you know, that's that's well known. I think he's much better on camera than he is, you know, in transcripts, but but whatever you think of it, that they put that out there. I don't remember in the last 4 years any news organization interviewed Biden, and there have been some releasing a transcript of the interview. Do you? Speaker 0: I, you know, I I don't I can't recall, but I don't really I haven't gone back and looked at all of them. But But Speaker 1: so, like, what would be the so I guess what bothers me is that everyone acts like this is a shock. It was not a shock to me. I have no special knowledge. I'm quite some special knowledge, but I which I revealed immediately. But it was, like, super obvious every time I saw him, there's something wrong with that guy. How could the journalist be shocked? Well, why don't they just release immediately? Speaker 0: Well, they could. That's that's what I think makes a lot of sense right now to do that. That's ultimately up to them, but I think it just goes to transparency. I think it goes to informing the public discussion right now about the president's, fitness for office and to seek reelection. And I think it's also about standing behind your work. Right? Like, you decided to make edits in the process, for for clarity, for time, what you know, whatever the issue is. Speaker 2: Right. Speaker 0: And so you can really you can really stand behind that. I think that's that's important. Speaker 1: But so, again, you were in this business for so long and me too and at a time, you know, pre Internet, pre streaming where you have a very small chunk of time, 3, 5, 6 minutes for the long ones, and then you you just can't use the rest. But now news organizations should just put the whole thing. I mean, that's what we do. I do this interview is not edited in any way. And if, you know, we'll just let viewers decide what they think of Katherine Harish or me or whatever. Speaker 2: Why is this? Speaker 1: Harris. Was that you know? But so what would be the excuse that, say, NBC or CBS or ABC or Fox or anybody would have to not put the full thing online now? Speaker 0: I mean, I can't speak to what their rationale would be. I just don't in my case, I felt it was important to to release a transcript Yeah. To allow people to see the work, and to also I mean, it's hard to look at your own transcript because you you look at it and you say, oh, that question could have been more focused, or I should have followed up more, or I missed that little piece of news. I should have drilled down a little further, or I interrupted there when I really shouldn't have. I mean, it's a really kind of warts and all process that you're looking at, but it's it's about sort of the raw integrity of the interview. You know, when you make edits in an interview, you do it for clarity. Sometimes you do it because you have to condense things because you only have a certain amount of time on a broadcast. But it's a real fine line and a balancing act, and you don't want, you know, seeking clarity and brevity or condensing it to cross the line into, you know, a cleanup on aisle 7. Speaker 1: Well, that's what it feels like, though. It does feel like and I don't wanna be too judgy. I was telling you at breakfast this morning, I edited something out of an interview once with somebody. I can't remember ever doing that before since, but and I would not do that now. But several years ago, someone said something so bizarre in the interview that I didn't wanna follow-up on it because I don't wanna I mean, what the hell are you even talking about? Mhmm. And so I asked the editors to take that out just because I didn't think it was relevant to the conversation. It was weird. Mhmm. So whatever. I did that. I'll say that I did that. But if you're interviewing someone, and he seems, like, bizarre through the whole interview, and you find yourself trying to cover that up, then maybe you're a liar. Mhmm. Do you think? Speaker 0: Well, I think the I think the instinct when you sit down with the president of the United States is this is your president. You want them to look their best. I mean, I under I understand that. Speaker 1: Right. Speaker 0: But if there were indicators, and I don't know there were, but if there were indicators that he was in decline or he was really struggling to answer a series of questions, I mean, that's news. Right? I mean, that's a news headline. Speaker 1: Well, and the opposite of news is, of course, you know, censorship and deception. So if you're hiding that, then you're committing, well, a moral crime, but you're also committing an offense against the profession that you chose whose purpose is to inform the public of what reality is. Right? And you're hiding things rather than exposing them. And that I mean, that that's pretty clear violation, isn't it? Speaker 0: Yeah. I again, I think it's an opportunity to build the dataset, to better understand what's happened over the last couple of years and, you know, really apply that investigative lens. You know, I I find it so hard to take off my, like, investigative reporter. Right. But that's that's sort of how I see it right now. I'm curious. I'm genuinely curious to see what those transcripts may reflect. Speaker 1: Well, in 2016, you know, NBC went and back into its archives and found an outtake of Donald Trump saying something vulgar to Billy Bush, the host, about women and grabbing them and all this stuff. And then they leaked it to David Fahrenthold. I think I'm remembering this correctly. Speaker 0: Can't remember that exactly, but it came out public. Speaker 1: If I say if I've gotten that wrong, pardon me. But they leaked it to Washington Post reporter who had been a college friend of an NBC executive, and then it became this huge thing that, you know, almost derailed Trump's campaign. And that's why they did it, of course. So there's precedent for showing us the outtakes. Mhmm. Do they have an excuse not to show it to the Biden outtakes? Speaker 0: I mean, I I can't really speak for them. I I'm sorry to sort of be a little evasive about that. I just I just would advocate for it. I think that it's an issue of such import to the country, and it really informs the discussion and the discourse surrounding this this issue. And it and it goes to accountability with the White House. Was it really a bad night, or was was there a broader trend that had been developing? Speaker 1: Yeah. I mean, I'm I feel totally qualified to pass judgment on that question. Speaker 0: I'll over to you. Speaker 1: Well, since I knew the guy, that's not Biden. Like, that's not the guy I remember who and I mean this. I always I never agreed with him, but I'm a I'm a shallow person, so is he. So I always kinda liked him because he's throw you know, Irish guy throw his arm around. How are you doing, buddy? You know, rub your chest. Maybe sniff maybe he sniffed me. I don't care. I like sniffing. And that's just not the guy on TV at all, like, at all. And really, I mean, if that was a conspiracy, now they would think he was a body double because it's that different. So anyway. Alright. In your long and varied career working in a bunch of different big media the biggest media outlets in the country, Did you see people's political or social agendas shape news coverage a lot? Speaker 0: I I the short answer is is is yes. I think it's difficult for people to step back and do what I like to say I do is which is balls and strikes. Right? People have their own personal lens through which they see stories, but I think you have to really park that at the front door when you go to work because I think that's when you have the most transparent, credible, authentic journalism. Speaker 1: I agree with that. Do you feel like the composition of newsrooms has changed from when you started in the business? It feels like there was a greater, like, actual diversity of life experience back then, 30 years ago. Speaker 0: Hard to say. I started my career at ABC in London. Yeah. And that was, an extremely rarefied atmosphere in a lot Speaker 1: of That's right. Speaker 0: These are very we're very experienced people. A lot of the correspondents came out of Vietnam. Speaker 1: Yes. Speaker 0: You know, very, very deep experience, and I was very fortunate to learn in that environment. I haven't This Speaker 1: is when Jennings was so forced there. Speaker 0: Jennings had just left London by the time I had arrived, and, I I wanted to be a foreign correspondent. You know, when you're that young, you have ideas. I I just it's like it looks so exciting to me. Totally. And some of the correspondents in the office really took me under their wing and taught me how to write a story by looking at the interviews, the strongest elements of the interview, the sound bites, and then they trained me to really sit down and look at the video and identify the strongest video, and then the natural sound, which really can be such an important technique. Speaker 1: That sound. Speaker 0: That's right. When you're when you're editing a a piece together because it's really like this mosaic, the strongest sound, the best video, and the natural sounds. So this was a really rarefied environment. Have I been in in a newsroom like that since? I don't think so. Speaker 1: What was the difference? Was it smarter, more serious? Speaker 0: I I just felt with with that cohort of reporters, they're just it was all about accountability journalism. I mean, to me, if that's part of my DNA, it's it's What does that mean accountability? Accountability journalism is when you're you're curious and you seek the facts, and then you try and figure out where the buck stops. Right? And it's not a question of, well, it's this party or that party. It's whatever entity is responsible. Right. And accountability journalism is, you know, like they say, speaking truth to power on both sides of of the aisle. Speaker 1: So power is the key though. I mean, accountability doesn't necessarily mean, you know, hassling poor rural whites with diabetes, you know, the weakest, most despised people in our society. It means, like, you know, asking questions about BlackRock and the National Security Council and the people who actually have all the power. It it felt to me 30 years ago like that was implied. Like, everyone sort of thought that your job was to hold the powerful accountable, not the weakest. Speaker 0: I still feel that way. Speaker 1: I do too. Yeah. I do too. Speaker 0: We have that in common. I I Speaker 1: do too. Did you see that change? Speaker 0: Boy. You know, I I used to say to people that, you know, technology was supposed to really improve our ability to do journalism, but I sometimes felt that the technology has never been better, but the reporting's never been worse. And and I I don't know why that is except Speaker 1: Is there a connection? Speaker 0: I've never Speaker 2: thought of Speaker 0: I think sometimes what we're missing is that boots on the ground, person to person contact Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 0: In reporting. Years ago when I did a journalism degree at Columbia, I had this professor, Dick Blood. That was his name. Speaker 2: Dick Blood. Speaker 0: Dick Blood. And he was sort of a legend in New York City newsrooms, and he used to always say to me, detail matters and good reporting. You know, if you go to a crime scene, you wanna count how many bullet holes are in the windshield. So I think there's that kind of on the ground, sort of real traditional investigative feel sometimes that's that's missing in that person to person context. Speaker 1: Yes. Well, I agree with that. I remember going to a murder scene and looking down, there was blood all over my shoes. Mhmm. I didn't put that in the story. But I remember thinking, wow, you know, that actually is shoe leather reporting. You get a real sense of things when you can smell them. Speaker 0: You know, when you think back to major events, I I was in New York on 911, and we were down near, the World Trade Center in the days right afterwards. And I I saw someone who was collecting, ash off the top of the cars. And at that point, we'd realized that all of the abandoned cars in downtown Manhattan belong to people who had been killed in the towers. And I stopped this woman, and I asked her what she was doing. And she said, my sister was wasn't, the the windows on the world at the top of the World Trade Center. She didn't survive, and I wanna have something to bury for my family. So the ash is what I'm collecting. Speaker 1: Mhmm. Speaker 0: And that was the moment that I realized that so much of the ash that was spread around the city was really Speaker 1: People. Speaker 0: People and the buildings. And that kind of tactile feel to the reporting is the kind of reporting that really impacts people and stays and stays with them. And I don't know whether it's the technology or whether it's sort of the immediacy of all these deadlines, but the ability to do that, is much harder now than it used to be. Speaker 1: No. No. I and I I think that's really smart. And technology gives you the illusion that all the information is on Google or a text away when actually talking to people makes all the difference. Right. So one phenomenon that I noticed well, that I actually didn't notice until I was in middle age, but came You're Speaker 0: in middle age? Speaker 1: I'm well, that's what they claim. Okay. Actually, I'm way past middle I'm not gonna live to. I'm not good at math a 110. So I guess I'm in late life now. But there are beat reporters, people who've, you know, covering federal agencies, particularly in Washington, who become captive to those agencies, to their sources. You know, not in a literal sense or not held in the basement in chains, but they're I mean, they are sort of puppets of the people they cover. I really noticed that I'm thinking of one specific person who I'm not gonna name, but I would just say a female national security reporter in Washington who and I would watch these, you know, stories come out. I'd be like, that well, that that's a lie. You know it's a lie, and you're doing it on behalf of the people who feed you these lies. Mhmm. Have you seen a lot of that? Speaker 0: I think that the danger is that people become sort of so friendly with the the press offices that work in in these big, agencies that they they find it hard over time to really challenge them. Speaker 1: That was never a problem for you, I noticed. Should stay for we work together. For people who don't know, Catherine Herridge, one thing I've always loved about you, I don't even know who you vote for, and I mean that. But I did notice that a lot of the didn't like you, so I always thought that was a good sign. Speaker 0: You wanna you wanna have the ability to really operate outside the ring. I used I used to say that, one of the advantages to doing reporting as long as I've done it is that you start to build a network of contacts so that that's really where your your stories are coming from. Speaker 1: Right. Speaker 0: And that the public affairs office and a major government entity is really the last stop for you. Right? That's where you're trying to get some response. And I really believe in in giving these offices ample time to respond. I did a story recently where we engaged with, the Department of the Army and the National Guard for 2 weeks. I mean, we really gave them time because we wanted to understand their position and what had happened in a particular case. But sometimes the danger is that people become too close. That's why I think it makes sense in in some cases to really rotate reporters so that you don't spend so long on a certain beat that you start to lose your context sort of outside of that circle. Speaker 1: That's exactly or you become a tool of of lies, which some, Pentagon reporters have become, I would say, one in particular. But what's the mechanism for for pulling that person back and putting that person on another beat or for fixing that? Speaker 0: I can I I when I worked overseas, Speaker 2: I saw this with some of the British news organizations, that Speaker 0: they would rotate people into the United States that they would rotate people into the United States for a few years and then they would take them back to Britain? So they would be there an election cycle, let's say, they'd be there long enough to build contacts, and then they would go back overseas, and someone else would come in. So you'd have a fresh set of eyes and ears. Speaker 1: Yes. Speaker 0: And I think that that makes a lot of sense. It can be a little frustrating for a reporter because on some beats it takes you a decade or more to really start to build the contacts and the reputation with individuals. But I do think that you have to check yourself. You have to ask yourself, am I really checking it out to the degree, that I need to be? As professor Blood would say, just because your mother says she loves you, doesn't mean you should not Speaker 2: check it Speaker 0: check it out. Right? Speaker 2: That's right. Speaker 1: I I learned that firsthand. Yeah. Speaker 0: That's a that's a different conversation. Speaker 2: It Speaker 1: sucks. No. Totally kidding. It's so dark, but it is funny. So if you're paying any attention at all to what's going on in the world, you probably asked yourself, what would I do, not just for myself, but for the people who love me and I'm responsible for my family? What would I do if things really went south, either for a short period or a longer period? If there was an emergency, how would I respond? Of course, you need food and water. You need security, some way to protect yourself and your loved ones. You probably have taken care of all of that. But one problem you may not have addressed is what do you do about medicine? If there's a medical problem when there's not readily available medical care, what do you do for your family? And that's a tough question to answer, actually. But now there is an answer, and it comes from Jace Medical. It is a personalized emergency supply of medicines you might need, antibiotics, other life saving medicines to treat a long list of problems you could have, bacterial illnesses, respiratory infections, skin infections, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera. Things that could come up and happen when you can't just drive over to the doctor. This is preparation, and for its cost, probably well worth it, but find out for yourself. Go to jacemedical.com to get emergency stock of common medicines for yourself and your family. It'll all be reviewed by a board certified physician and dispensed by a licensed pharmacy at a fraction of the regular cost, not crackpot stuff. It's essential. I have it. You should too. Use the promo code Tucker at checkout for an extra discount, but don't wait until you need it. It's worth doing now. Jacemedical.com. I wonder since you spent, you know, you're at ABC, Fox News, CBS. You just left CBS pretty recently, the spring maybe? Speaker 0: This February. Speaker 1: February. Okay. Like, you spent your whole life at and I have too at these huge news organizations at and toward the end, you know, independent journalism, digital journalism is on the rise. Like, what was the view of that from inside the big news organization? Speaker 0: Well, I think within, big corporate media, there was still a sense that they were sort of the the the final word on things. Really? Yeah. Or, you know, sort of and maybe it's not the best phrase, gatekeepers Yeah. For information. But after I lost my job in February, I took a couple of months to really educate myself about the marketplace, and I was surprised at how much the media landscape had really changed just Speaker 1: Isn't that crazy that you wouldn't know that? I didn't know it either. I mean, I'm not criticizing you. I mean, I but isn't it weird that you can work? I'm in the news business, but you really don't know what the news business is. Speaker 0: I think you're very focused on what you're doing day to day, and you're not sort of looking at the bigger picture. But I took some time to to try and understand how the landscape had really shifted, and I was surprised at how much it had really evolved in the four and a half years that I was at CBS News. And I say this as someone who spent my entire career working with big corporations, and I was and I was grateful for those jobs. I don't wanna minimize that. Yeah. But what I see now is that those entities are really shrinking and contracting, and the audiences are getting older. And the real explosive growth is with, smaller independent operations and smaller independent newsrooms. Speaker 1: Why do you think that is though? I mean, if you're someone like Matt Taibbi, who also worked, you know, for Rolling Stone, you know, big worked for a big company, But then went out completely on his own. He has a substack, and then he creates his own news organization. But it's just one guy. And if you look at his growth and revenue, it's so much higher than, like, people with the backing of these huge corporations. Like, why how could Matt Taibbi get a bigger audience than Nora O'Donnell or whoever's hosting the show? I don't even know who's hosting them anymore, but, like, how did that happen? Speaker 0: I think I think the the public is really hungry for credible, reliable information. Speaker 2: So I Speaker 0: don't think it's more, complicated Speaker 1: I agree with you. Speaker 0: Than that. And I'm not here to sort of take shots Speaker 1: I get Speaker 0: it. With employers, but I I just that's what I came away from. Speaker 1: But what's so interesting is, like, if you have like, if you're, you know, General Motors and you have a sort sort of monopoly on your on your area, and all of a sudden, some guy starts building cars in his garage, and, like, they're more popular than you Mhmm. It's kind of an indictment of you, isn't it? Speaker 0: I think the speed at which things have have evolved has really surprised people. I mean, when you start to look at the I think we're at at an inflection point. Speaker 1: For sure. Speaker 0: You start to look at, the numbers. You know, for example, you did some interviews that related to the Biden investigation. Yeah. And these were, you know, 90,000,000 views or, you know, sometimes higher, but these are these are big numbers. And when you compare that to what an evening news broadcast is, you know, 4000000, 7000000, 6000000, I mean, you're just reaching a broader, larger global audience. Speaker 1: Yes. Speaker 0: And I would argue, and I don't have the benefit of all the data, but it's also a younger audience. And it may be an audience that's really engaged in gathering information. Speaker 1: Because if Speaker 0: they're on these platforms, they're checking multiple times a day for for headlines, for new video, for new content. So these are real, voracious consumers of information. Speaker 1: I think that's all absolutely true. But it leaves an answer to the question, how did this happen? How did, you know, penniless upstarts beat, you know, the entrenched monopolies? And I just know in my own life, the only moments of growth that have ever occurred for me, the pivot points of my life have all been those moments from, like, wow, I really suck. Like, I really made bad no. For real. Mhmm. You know? I drink too much, or I got caught lying, or I'm just kind of a rotten person. I have to change. Mhmm. And I got fired once for, basically, I was just lazy and not taking my job seriously. I stopped being lazy. I started taking my job. So you notice, like, it's really important to realize how much you suck. Speaker 0: Well, there's a forcing function. Speaker 1: Yes. That's what it is. Long winded question. Do you see that process playing out at in corporate media? Speaker 0: I can I can speak for myself right now? If, you know, I lost my job in February. You Speaker 1: just lost it? Like, you forgot where you put it? Speaker 0: No. I I I didn't actually lose my job. I I Speaker 1: I had a few drinks and lost my job along with my car keys and my cell phone. Speaker 0: Looking around for it. You know, my job was terminated. That was a very public thing. Speaker 1: I know. I'm not the people I put I was fired too. Speaker 0: I lost my company health insurance. That was a very big deal for us because we have a son who's a transplant patient. He's got chronic medical condition. And then I had my record seized by my employer, which was a red line I thought should never have been crossed. And then I was held in contempt of court. So February was a very, very big month for me. But I made a decision once I'd educated myself about the marketplace, which I would never have done if there hadn't been that forcing function, that for now I was gonna go independent. I'd had some opportunities from generous opportunities to sort of go back to a large corporate media outlet, but I decided that I would go independent and I would tell the stories that I couldn't tell before because I was at a point in my career where I had built up a network of contacts, and I felt now is the time. If it's not now, then then when? Speaker 1: Amen. I I couldn't agree more. So since you, brought up and I'm and I'm sorry. I didn't mean to make fun. I know it's it is traumatic to have your life turned upside down in a day. I just think you're gonna be so much happier. But let's talk about that. Like, so you get hired. You were at Fox News where we worked together, and I really enjoyed that. Thank you. Speaker 0: I enjoyed it too. Speaker 1: I thought you were really Speaker 0: You're very well behaved. Honest person. Speaker 2: I thought Speaker 0: the guy was a good moderating influence when we sat down to Speaker 1: I loved it. But then you left and went, to CBS News, which is a, you know, a huge channel with a storied past in decline in decline. This is my assessment because they weren't doing what they're supposed to do, which is, like, tell you interesting stuff that you didn't know and be honest and brave. You are honest and brave, and you specialize in interesting stories. So I thought, wow. This is so this is great. I mean, CBS is a little smarter than I thought they were. And you did break a bunch of stories, and you were the most memorable person on their air, the one doing the fiercest journalism. This is again my assessment, and then they have cutbacks because their business is failing, and they fire you. I'm like, wait. What? Did you see that coming? Speaker 0: I didn't see it coming. Yeah. I didn't. It wasn't a performance issue. I am so proud of the work that we did there, especially the work with veterans. I mean, we really helped be a catalyst for legislation that impacted a 1000000 veterans and civilians for for the better. Yes. I mean, I feel very proud of that. But, that's that's their choice. Whether I work there or not. It's not my company. Speaker 1: Of course. Speaker 0: But the the seizing of the records was, a terrible red line Speaker 2: that was crossed. Speaker 1: If you don't mind, I know this has been written about, but I just wanna get a record on video of what exactly happened. So how how did this unfold? Like, what kind of warning did you have, and what happened? Speaker 0: Well, I testified to congress, about this as well. I was, laid laid off on a Zoom call. I was told my job was terminated. And, Could you Speaker 1: explain why? Speaker 0: No. Not beyond saying that they were they were making cuts. And, I was, locked out of my email and locked out of the office. And, a couple of days later, a courier came to the house with just a couple of boxes of clothing and, some books and, you know, a few awards. And I said, where are all my investigative files and my research and my reporting notes? And she said you're just gonna have to talk to human resources about that. And I got the union involved, SAG, AFTRA. I'm not gonna go into all the details, but there was a very vigorous back and forth about returning the records. What Speaker 1: were the records, like, interview notes? Speaker 0: You know, what I would say is that there were interview notes, research, reporter notes, contact information. And, when I had left other major organizations, ABC and Fox, it was completely different. There was an understanding that you would go through your materials, you would take with you what was essentially your reporting materials, and you would leave what belonged to the company. And I knew from people at CBS that that what was happening to me was not standard. One person in particular said that, when their office was cleaned out, they put in dirty coffee cups and post it notes. I mean, everything came back to them. Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 0: I think if the union hadn't gotten involved and there hadn't been a public outcry, I would never have seen those records again. The union really stood up for journalism. And I I testified that when the network of Walter Cronkite sees this your reporting information, including confidential source information, it's an attack on investigative journalism. And I heard from contacts that I've worked with over the years, who've helped me to expose government wrongdoing interruption that they were very concerned that they would be identified. Speaker 1: So you I mean, again, I I doubt you will agree with this. I don't know what you really think. But from my perspective, super obvious they're taking you out before the election because you're reporting on Hunter Biden's laptop. And that was that's my take on it. I was shocked that they fired you. And when I reflected for a moment, I was not shocked at all. You know, they took out the Drudge report before the 2020 election. They, you know, whatever. Lots of people who are in the way have been taken out before election. So, what yeah. Do you think there was do you think your notes were did they go through your notes during the time they had them? Speaker 0: I really can't answer that. Speaker 1: Because you don't know? Or Speaker 0: I just don't wanna really answer that that right now. That's okay. Speaker 1: No. Of course. I think Yeah. I think people can draw their own conclusions. Tell us about the reporting you did. Speaker 0: Yeah. Publicly, they said they haven't, but, anyway, I'll leave it at that. Speaker 1: Yeah. Will be kinda tempting to go through your interview notes. I'd like to. I mean, why would they seize your personal report, reporting product, you know? Speaker 0: It was a very sad episode for me, just professionally and personally, because I thought that we had done some really tremendous work, on, not only, the the laptop, but also, the IRS whistleblowers. I mean, this was a major story for CBS News. I did an interview along with one of my colleagues, and I think that really changed the public discussion of a Hunter Biden investigation and this question of whether there was a double standard applied in that So in that case. Speaker 1: For those of us who missed the CBS report, tell us what the the the tax investigation into Hunter Biden. So Hunter Biden in the end got convicted of completely ridiculous gun this is my personal editorializing, but ridiculous gun charge. Like, who cares, actually? But there are other potential crimes. Tell us about the tax Speaker 0: Well, you have to I I would think about the Hunter Biden case as having 2 buckets. The first was the gun charges, and then the second is this tax case. I've always felt the tax case is a much more serious case Yes. And has the greatest legal jeopardy for himself and members of his of his family. It I'd encourage people just to look at the indictment, which is in California, and it's, my memory is that it's on the first page or the second page. They refer to him as a lobbyist. And that to me is an indicator that the special counsel is exploring whether there were violations of FARA, which is the Foreign Agents Registration Act. And that in simple terms means that if you're working on behalf of the interest of a foreign government, you need to be clear with the US government. Speaker 1: Just to register. Speaker 0: That's right. And seated throughout that document is information about his businesses with Ukraine, with China, with with others. So to me, it leaves the door open to a superseding indictment. I'm not saying that's gonna happen, but it certainly, to me, was an indicator or a flag that that was possible. Speaker 1: So, but the tax charges specifically, what what do they amount to? Speaker 0: These are felony tax charges. They're pretty significant. And a tax case, the challenge for any defendant is that these are paper driven cases. They're not really witness driven cases. What did you attest to when you signed the forms? What did your accountant attest to? And, I think one of the important elements in the case is how much of this happened after he was sober. Right? Because there's a whole window with the taxes where he's really, a heavy user and drug addict. But as he told the Delaware court last year when the plea deal fell apart, there was, a period of time where he became clean. So how many of these alleged bad acts happened during that period versus when he was an addict? Speaker 1: And that's relevant because sober people have no excuse? Speaker 0: Well, it just goes to your state of mind. Right? I think I think a Speaker 1: jury mistakes. Speaker 0: Yeah. I think I think any jury wants to understand someone who's come through addiction. They they wanna understand that. They're they're they're sympathetic to that because that's like a daily challenge for individuals. And I think that knowing when they were able to get themselves clean, I think, helps un inform, their view on the evidence and what actions Speaker 1: I think that's I think that's right. So what's the status of those charges? Speaker 0: Last, I haven't been following it as closely, but in the fall, I think that goes to trial. Speaker 1: It was just kind of inter I mean, this is relevant now, and I don't think it's often referred to in daily reporting on what Joe Biden is going through right now. So 10 days ago ish, there was the debate. People were shocked. Democratic donors appear shocked. Some I talked to one of them who really was shocked, didn't know that Biden was impaired. And there was a push, pretty sizable push, from members of congress for Biden to step aside, and he's now issued this letter, which seems to me is written by his son, Hunter, saying I'm staying it. And Hunter, it's been reported widely, is in the White House. He's his father's chief adviser on this. And you're sort of wondering, like, what is this? And you're saying, well, Hunter Biden is facing this trial. Yeah. It's probably better to have your dad be president when Speaker 2: when he's in a trial. Speaker 0: I I really can't really Right. Speaker 2: No. That's just saying Speaker 1: you don't have to connect those dots, but that's not an irrelevant fact that he's facing these charges. Speaker 0: It's not it's not a it's not an irrelevant fact, and I I I I guess what has my attention is that over the last couple of years, there has been such an effort by the White House to distance the president from his son, especially in terms of business affairs. Yes. Right? But now they're they're really sort of joint joint at the hip apparently. I don't know that independently, but, you know, they're very and it just, did their relationship really suddenly change in that moment or not? Or maybe it's always been like that. I don't know the answer to that. Speaker 1: Most of us well, actually, all of us go through our daily lives using all sorts of quote free technology without paying attention to why it's quote free. Who's paying for this and how? Think about it from it. Think about your free email account, the free messenger system you used to chat with your friends, the free other weather app or game app you open up and never think about. It's all free, But is it? No. It's not free. These companies aren't developing expensive products and just giving them to you because they love you. They're doing it because their programs take all your information. They hoover up your data, private personal data, and sell it to data brokers and the government. And all of those people who are not your friends are very interested in manipulating you and your personal political and financial decision. It's scary as hell and it's happening out in the open without anybody saying anything about it. This is a huge problem and we've been talking about this problem to our friend, Eric Prince, for years. Someone needs to fix this and he and his partners have and now, we're partners with them and their company is called Unplugged. It's not a software company. It's a hardware company. They actually make a phone. The phone is called Unplugged and it's more than that. The purpose of the phone is to protect you from having your life stolen, your data stolen. It's designed from a privacy first perspective. It's got an operating system that they made. It's called messenger and other apps that help you take charge of your personal data and prevent it from getting passed around to data brokers and government agencies that will use it to manipulate you. Unplugged Kibman is to its customers. They will promise you and they mean it that your data are not being sold or monetized or shared with anyone. From basics like its custom Libertas operating system which they wrote which is designed from the very first day to keep your personal data on your device. It also has, believe it or not, a true on off switch that shuts off the power. It actually disconnects your battery and ensures that your microphone and your camera are turned off completely when you want them to be. So they're not spying on you in, say, your bedroom which your iPhone is. That's a fact. So it is a great way, one of the few ways to actually protect yourself from big tech and big government to reclaim your personal privacy. Without privacy, there is no freedom. The unplugged phone, you can get a $25 discount when you use the code Tucker at the checkout. So go to unplugged.com/tucker to get yours today. Highly recommended. Well, my impression knowing Hunter Biden pretty well as I did, I think he was always close to his dad. Mhmm. He revered his father. I know that Speaker 0: And there's a difference, to being close than being a business with somebody. Speaker 1: Of course, there is. I revere my dad, not in business with him. But I do think it's I know for a fact that he was always close to his dad. I always loved his dad. That's one of the things I liked about him, actually. But, you know, it's all these are very different circumstances from when I knew him. And so he's facing and, you know, these are charges that carry potentially jail time. Correct? Speaker 0: Yes. Mhmm. The gun and the taxes. Speaker 1: The gun and right. Interesting. So why do you think there's been that seems like kind of a big deal. It doesn't seem like there's been a new reported on it, but there hasn't been a ton of reporting on Speaker 0: that. I guess what I would say is that, I felt very proud at CBS News of the of the of the investigative journalism that we did, whether it was with the whistleblowers or whether it was, with a laptop. And I went to a lot of effort to get, data from that laptop, which had a very clean chain of custody Yeah. That I learned through my reporting was, mirrored what was given to the FBI, and I felt that was important to understand the integrity of of the data. Speaker 1: Given that that laptop had been described by a bunch of retired intel officials as Russian pop as fake. Speaker 0: Right. Mhmm. And we went to a lot of effort to, have it, forensically analyzed by a very reputable group and a group that was, with sort of no political attachments that was outside the beltway, a group out out west, and really a stand up group. Great group. They did a terrific forensic scrub of it, and and they concluded that there nothing had been altered or changed on the of the copy of the data that we had. Other journalists, got their data through third parties, And I think that that probably contaminated the data in some way, but I felt extremely confident, about our data. I, I guess what I would we did that story in, late 2022. And, you know, my reputation is for moving quickly and efficiently through complex investigations. Not believable. What does that mean? Not believable. Speaker 1: What does that mean? Speaker 0: I I think that, and I I wanna be respectful of my former employer. I think that there was an opportunity to lead earlier on that story. I guess I would lead leave it at that. Speaker 1: Well, I authenticated at day 1 because there was emails from me on there, and no one knew I knew Hunter Biden. So I knew it was real because no one would ever do you know, no one would ever fake it. Speaker 0: Your typos. Speaker 1: Well, so, like, I I had lived near Hunter Biden. That's how I knew him. And so, just live in Washington because you did. So it's not that weird if you live in Washington. It's like a small city. Everyone knows everybody else. But I knew that nobody knew that I knew Hunter Biden. So, like, if you're assembling a fake laptop, you wouldn't put emails from, like, the Fox News host on there because that's too weird. So I instantly knew it was real. And, I'm just a little bit surprised that it took you that long. So you're saying it didn't actually take you that long. There were roadblocks for Speaker 0: I just think my reputation is for moving quickly and, unfortunately, to a complex investigation. Speaker 1: Yeah. Did so but it took 2 2 years for that story to make air. Speaker 0: And I'm glad it did. Yeah. Because I think it really changed the conversation. Speaker 1: For sure. Mhmm. Interesting. Did you feel could you feel it at the company that, like, people didn't want you to do this? Speaker 0: You know, I I've always tried to be respectful of my former employers. Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 0: And I testified to congress that, I mean, there was tension over, the Biden reporting. Speaker 1: Yeah. Speaker 0: Especially when I sort of turned my lens on to president Biden. Speaker 1: Oh, didn't like that. I'm sorry. It it's it's I'll say it. You don't need to. I'm not even speaking of CBS specifically. It's so corrupt to me. It's just absolutely ridiculous. Because it's not a reporter's job to cover for a politician. Right? I'm just checking. Speaker 0: Well, you know, I I like to think that I call balls and strikes. People like to talk about the Hunter Biden reporting at CBS, but I was also the reporter who obtained the audiotape of president Trump apparently bragging about these Iran documents at Mar a Lago. Right. But they don't talk about that. Speaker 1: Well, I well, you should, I mean. Speaker 2: You should, Speaker 0: but I'm just saying, you know, I'm kind of equal opportunity when it comes to the accountability. Speaker 1: Were there any well, I know that, which is I'm what I'm saying is that your supervisors, whoever they were, and you're being very polite, I would say, but they should have the same fair minded attitude and, you know, allow reporters to tell the truth, period, no matter who it's about, I think. Don't you? Speaker 0: I think that's what the public's looking for. Speaker 1: And because they're not delivering that, Matt Taibbi is more influential than CBS News. That's all I'm saying. Like, it finds its own level. People need credible information. They need to Speaker 0: There's such a hunger for it. Speaker 1: Yes. Speaker 0: That's that's, we just, did our first investigation, on x, and we looked at, the defense department's, specifically the army and the National Guard's failure to look after a soldier who had a debilitating heart condition that they blamed on, the COVID vaccine. This was someone who had no heart issues before they entered the military, and we did an independent review of their medical records. And the symptoms appeared almost immediately after, being vaccinated, and they're really amplified after they had that that second dose. And, Speaker 1: Can you fill out some of the details? Like, how old is this? Speaker 0: She's 24 years old. Her name is Carolina Stancic. She was, a a soldier in the Army National Guard, and she was on active duty orders when she was diagnosed with this debilitating heart condition called POTS, which is postural orthostatic tachycardia syndrome. And what it means is that there's kind of a disconnect between the way your heart is working and your blood pressure. People can have blackouts, puts a lot of stress on your heart. And she's had multiple heart attacks. She's had a mini stroke At 24. And we sat down with her, just days before she got a pacemaker at 24. And this story, appealed to me for months because she had paperwork, we learned, from the army, or rather there was army paperwork that, showed that they conceded over time that, her heart condition was in the line of duty, and it it was especially important. And, when we launched that investigation, I felt along with the team that x was probably the only platform that we could have such an authentic and candid and open conversation about the failure of the US military to take care of its people. Speaker 1: But I just find that crazy. I mean, I have a 24 year old daughter, so it makes me emotional thinking about it. But a 25 year old child, this girl, has a peacemaker Mhmm. Because she followed orders. So or it seemed that's what she says, and that's certainly a credible claim given that's happened to a lot of people, and everyone knows that. So why would x, which is not was not designed as really a news platform, like, why are they the last outlet that would run something like that? That's crazy to me. Speaker 0: I I didn't really fully appreciate this until until I started working independently, but we felt that x was the platform where we could really have an open candid conversation and we could put out the records so people could analyze them and fact check them for themselves to understand the issue and make up their own minds as to whether the army and the national guard had really let this soldier down. Right? We just put it all out there for scrutiny. And, I say this, because what I heard anecdotally from from colleagues is that other platforms, that story, even though it was a story about a failure to take care of, of of soldiers, could be de amplified on other platforms or or or labeled something that Speaker 1: But why is NBC News leading with that? I mean, I thought we No. Speaker 0: I can't I can't really answer for those outlets. But But Speaker 1: we both know they would never run that. Speaker 0: I don't know if they would never run it, but I I just felt that it was a completely legitimate story. Of course. It was, it was a story, about accountability, a failure of the government to look out for its own people. And then in her particular case, it took her 19 months to get the acknowledgment that this heart condition was in the line of duty. And what that means is that she's eligible for different benefits and and medical care. But because there was such a delay to get medical care, because there was such a delay to get mental health care, she told us at one point she considered suicide. 24. And, anyway, I we heard from other people who believe that they have similar circumstances, and I and I say this with some humility. That's what good journalism does. Speaker 1: Well, obviously, there's no other point to it. Like, what's the point? I mean, either you're carrying water for people who are paying you to do that, which is just the definition of dishonesty, or you're doing what you're supposed to do. The reason we have First Amendment protections in the first place, which is tell the public what their government is doing, what the powerful people who control their lives are doing. I mean, I don't Speaker 0: And and and to the credit of the army and the national guard, we engaged with them over 2 weeks. I felt it was very important to give them a lot of time to respond to the charges because they were such serious charges, and they engaged with us, which I thought was a very positive thing because I'm now working independently. Right? I'm not working for a big corporation. And it it said to me that they understood sort of the power and the impact of what we were doing. You know, 3,000,000 people watched that video or touched that video. Speaker 1: Yeah. It's Speaker 0: a lot of people. And, you know, global and young people and probably a lot of service members as well. Yeah. So I I I wanna give them credit for that. They they engage. They try to answer our questions. Folks who are watching this can decide whether their answers, you know, pass the sniff test. But that's that's part of what Speaker 1: you're doing. You've got a very generous spirit, and you're trying to give people credit where it's due. I will say I've always thought just watching you from a distance that one of your main kind of advantages over everybody else is you cared less about, you know, what the prevailing view of the group was, and it didn't bother you to go in a direction that you felt was the right direction or to tell the truth even when it was unpopular. Why it does it feel to you like a lot of journalists are you know, it's a big deal to them what their colleagues think Speaker 2: Mhmm. Speaker 1: Back in the newsroom. Speaker 2: Do you Speaker 1: know what I'm saying? Mhmm. Speaker 0: I guess it it doesn't matter to me as well. Speaker 1: I can tell. Speaker 0: I I I I I don't really have any other sort of, explanation for it. I I would say, without getting sort of too personal because I'd like to keep the conversation professional Speaker 2: Well, it's just interesting. Speaker 1: It's like, why you Speaker 0: I just I just, if there's anything I hate more, it's injustice. I hate injustice when I when I see it. And, I just think throughout my career, I've taken on a lot of stories which are about the little guy. Speaker 1: Well, they should be. Speaker 0: Fighting the big bureaucracy or the person who says, wait a minute. It's not, you know, it's not adding up. And, so it's that's really what drives me in the end is that sense of there's injustice and there's an opportunity. In the case of this 24 year old, I think that we've seen some incremental, improvements to her situation. I hope that her records issue with the military is resolved quickly because at 24, she's really given up everything. I mean, she's she's given up her health to serve this vaccine. Speaker 1: And a lot of other people. I I mean, I know someone who died from the vaccine. Dead. Speaker 0: But it's not the story was the story was not a moratorium on the vaccine Right. Or the mandate. The story was always about the the alleged failure of the military to take care of its people because that's that's the sacred pledge that you leave no one behind. Speaker 1: Well, I agree, but I would say that pledge applies to the entire country. The government exists only to serve us. That's its only that's its only job. We pay for it. We own it. This is a democracy. And, so if they're hurting people and don't care, then that's the the gravest crime they could commit. That's my personal opinion. I thought that was everybody's opinion. Apparently, it's not. Speaker 0: Apparently not. Speaker 1: Yeah. Apparently not. Right. I'm not in the military, and I'm never gonna be in the military, but an American citizen. And if my government hurts me, I think it's just obvious that they should apologize and try to make it better. Speaker 2: Mhmm. Speaker 1: But, but they don't. So you're saying well, we've had such a similar experience. You're like, you're in this little world, which you think is a much bigger world than it actually is. I'll speak for myself. And then you get ejected from that world, and you're, like, shocked, but then you thank god for it because, wow, there's fresh air and sunlight. And then you look around, and you realize that all these smaller organizations or individuals are having, like, a huge effect, and you didn't even know that. It's amazing. But one and I I just love the whole thing. But one of the problems is it's pretty easy it's pretty hard to take down, like, a big news organization because they have, like, a well staffed legal department. Pretty easy to take down an individual with law fair. Speaker 2: Mhmm. Speaker 1: I mean, great? I don't know. Concern. Speaker 0: Yeah. One of the things I I'd like to talk about is this the press act. The press act is a piece of legislation, that's in the senate right now. It passed unanimously, in the house, and the press act is a federal shield law for reporters. It would allow them to protect confidential sources, and there are just very few exceptions to what I would call common sense exceptions for imminent violence or threats to critical infrastructure. And I've said that I think the protection of confidential sources is the hill to die on. Because if if you don't have that ability, a credible assurance that you're going to protect your source, as an investigative reporter, your toolbox is empty. I mean, you really have nothing to offer. And you know and others, I can't say a lot about it, but I'm in the middle of a major case where I was asked to disclose confidential source information. I refused to disclose. Speaker 1: Who asked you to disclose it? Speaker 0: It was a it's part of a privacy act lawsuit. I'm a witness in the case. And, I So Speaker 1: this is a private entity? Speaker 0: Mhmm. There's a a plaintiff. They're suing, government agencies including the FBI, and they wanna understand, the source of sources for my reporting, a series of stories, national security stories in 2017. And, Speaker 1: This is all public. So just remind me, who's suing? Speaker 0: A Chinese American, scientist, and she's suing the FBI, the Justice Department, Defense Department, I believe Homeland Security as as well. They're, like, 4 or 5 different agencies. And, the the plaintiff wants to understand how I got information, about her and her So Speaker 1: you're not being sued? Speaker 0: No. I'm not. I'm just a witness. Speaker 1: It's just the same thing happened to me. They grabbed all my text messages. I was not named in the suit, but a judge said I had to divulge. So they're trying to violate, among other things, your privacy, but also the the they're trying to violate the the protection that we all assumed was real, that confidential sources had. Speaker 0: Look. I I don't wanna lit I wanna be very careful because I don't wanna litigate, you know, the case the case here. But the issue is, the the forced disclosure of confidential source information. Speaker 1: And So that means you as a reporter talk to people, they tell you stuff on the condition of anonymity. I'm not gonna tell anybody that we spoke, but tell me the truth about what you know. Speaker 2: Mhmm. Speaker 1: Correct? Speaker 0: Right. Speaker 1: And this is something that journalists deal with constantly. Speaker 0: If you don't have that credible pledge of confidentiality as an investigative journalist, you really have very little to offer. Speaker 1: Yeah. I've done it, like, 3 times today already. Speaker 2: Oh, wow. No. But that's just that's Speaker 1: your life. You know? Right. You're talking to people constantly about stuff and but everyone knows you're not gonna rat them out. Right? Speaker 0: The question is in the appellate court right now in Washington, and, the question is when when the need for that information overrides the first amendment and, the reporter's, privilege. I haven't lost a night's sleep over my decision to protect confidential sources. But that doesn't mean I don't feel a tremendous burden and responsibility with this case. Tell Speaker 1: us about the burden. Speaker 0: Well, it's it's so much bigger than just my individual case. It's it's not just about me. It's not about just a single series of stories. It's not about one media outlet. Whatever the courts decide, and and I have respect for the legal process and what's unfolding. Whatever they decide is gonna impact every working journalist in the United States. Speaker 1: Well, in the public. Speaker 0: For the yeah. And the public and for the next generation. And that's why, you know, the press act is an opportunity to really strengthen press freedom and press protections at a time, as as you mentioned, that there's this explosion of smaller and independent outlets. And they can't, you know, they can't withstand the legal and financial pressure. Speaker 1: Tell us about the financial pressures. Like, what does that look like? Speaker 0: Well, right well, right now, I'm, facing fines of $800 a day for refusing to disclose. That has been, put on hold, and I'm grateful for that pending the appeal, in in the court in Washington. But then there's the cost of litigating a case like this. This is not an inexpensive thing to do. I've been fortunate to have, Fox News, which has mounted a very vigorous defense, an excellent legal team. Speaker 1: Because you worked at Fox at the time. Speaker 0: That's correct. I worked at at Fox at the time. But not every outlet can afford to do that. And so having the press act would prevent them from sort of being sort of legally strangled in the future, and and losing that pledge of confidentiality. And if you believe as I do, that an informed electorate and an engaged, reporting core is fundamental to democracy, you're gonna wanna see this opportunity seized and and really realized. Speaker 1: Well, if you think the public has the right to know what its government is doing, which is kind of the bottom line as far as I'm concerned, and I think the public does public has no idea what the government's doing. I I can say that factually. No clue. They should know. And, then you need to make sure the mechanisms exist for them to get that information. Correct, I mean? Speaker 0: Yeah. So I I I testified to congress about this earlier in the year, and, I just feel like we're at an inflection point. There's just this incredible shift in the media landscape. There's this sort of exciting diverse group of new voices doing some really tremendous journalism. So this is the moment to me where you wanna offer these kinds of protections for confidential source protection at the federal level so that it's consistent with what existed in almost every state in this country. And I think it's an acknowledgment of the role that journalism should play and can play in the democratic process. Speaker 1: Yeah. It can't. You know, if you make it too expensive to tell the truth, nobody will. Speaker 2: Mhmm. Speaker 1: And that's kind of where we are. I mean, you can take people out with lawsuits if you're some well funded political group, particularly on the left. They've been doing this at scale. You just you you shut people up by bankrupting them. Speaker 0: Well, one of our kids, as we were really, wrestling with the subpoena and how that was all going to unfold, and there's a certain amount of, you know, you can't keep your kids off their phones. Right? So they're seeing sort of some of this play out. And one of our sons asked me, mom, are you gonna go to jail? Are we gonna lose the house? Are we gonna lose everything that you've worked for? And I wanted to tell him that in this country where we say we value I could get a little choked up when I think about it. But, you know, in this country where we say we value democracy and we value a vigorous press, that it was impossible. But I couldn't offer him that assurance. And, the best part of the story is how he ended it. He said, mom, do what it takes. I've got your back. And I thought Speaker 1: Good day. Speaker 0: If a teenager understands the importance of this pledge of and understands the importance that journalism plays in a democracy, then certainly congress can get this legislation passed. Right now, it's in the senate. Chuck Schumer has said he would like to get it to the president's desk this year, and I hope there'll be movement before the August recess. Speaker 1: Social media are great. They're important. They're the main way we communicate with each other. They're where politics happen in this country. But one of the problems with social media is that the rules change. People in charge don't want you to say something. They don't tell you that, And the next thing you know, you're without a platform. Well, now you have an option. Parler. It's back. The original free speech app, taken off the Internet by the sensors, has come back in full force. Parler was the first big app to be pulled off because it was the 1st big app to make free speech a top priority. Now, other platforms may be relaxing their policies and they change a lot, but Parler will not change. Its distinct approach is here to stay. By paving the way for other apps to protect users free speech, Parler has set the standard in the industry. It is now launched on a hyperscale private cloud called Parler Cloud and that means your data are secure, your words cannot be controlled by third party companies. It's uncancelable. Again, Parler has been canceled. They don't plan to be canceled again, and they've taken extensive and very expensive steps to make sure it's not going to happen. Parler is not at the mercy of other companies that don't believe in free speech. And here's the best part, it's ad free. You are not the product on Parler. Parler is committed to providing a space where you can share and engage without interference of ads or invasive targeting. So it's more than just a platform. It is effectively a movement and its goal is to keep the free flow of information open globally where everybody can talk without fear of suppression. So it's upholding the values this country was founded on, free expression, open dialogue, also innovation, by the way. We're on parlor at Tucker Carlson, and you can go there and find us and stay formed about what's happening in the world. So join a place that embraces your right to say what you actually think, and that fosters connections between people. Without free speech, you can't connect with other people. We're all just lying to each other. But Parler offers you that a seamless social media experience tailored to your needs. You can get Parler from the App Store, Google Play, or visit parler.com. At Parler, you are valued, you can say what you think, and you're awarded for doing so. Who's against it? Speaker 0: You know, I think there are some Republican members who have hesitations, about it. What I would say is that Speaker 1: Well, because they hate the media. Speaker 0: I I I can't speak to the their Well, I Speaker 1: hate the media because they're liars, so you wanna protect the truth tellers. I guess that would be my view of it. Speaker 0: I mean, I think the important thing to understand is that this is legislation that would do so much to protect these smaller independent out outlets where you have this diversity of voices, period, on both sides of the left and on the right. And it's a moment when we can codify those protections. And it's a moment when we can say, you know, we talk about the importance of the First Amendment, we talk about the importance of press freedom, and now we can actually really do something concrete to protect it. Speaker 1: Yeah. I think you're right. And I I do think the one thing that we can do is just not obey. I mean, I was told to give up my text messages. I never should've done that. I knew I shouldn't have done it. I should've just, oh, they're gonna throw you one joke. Go ahead. Now come to my house. Try it. And I never should've done that, and in a weak moment, I did it. I I mean, clearly, you're facing this right now. I caved. You haven't. Bless you. But, I mean, what are you gonna do if they if they command you to do it? Speaker 0: I mean, I just have to cross that bridge Yeah. When when we get to that. In in the meantime, I've been so encouraged by how many media outlets have really filed briefs in support of of our position, that they understand that it's a case that's gonna impact everyone who's working today. And, that's encouraging. Speaker 1: Does it ever strike you how small our world has become? I mean, so you you work for 30 years or whatever more to become Speaker 0: It is more. More. Speaker 1: I'm not I I actually know how long it is, but I I'm not gonna a long time. And you become, you know, the most, arguably, famous investigative journalist in the United States. Speaker 0: I don't know about that. Speaker 1: Well, I I would say that's true. Or, certainly, you're top 2 or 3. I mean, well, you are. Okay? But you it's like you you'd think that every news organization be like, oh my gosh. Katherine Harris is free. Let's hire her. But you're independent on acts. Like, what does that say about the landscape? It's just it's amazing. Speaker 0: Well, it was a personal choice. Speaker 1: I I know that. Yeah. Yeah. But but, really, I mean, NBC in a normal world would be like, hey. We don't pay you $3,000,000 a year to do what you do. But they didn't. So, like, is is that a little strange? Speaker 0: I think it's an indicator of how the marketplace has really shifted. Yeah. I I think it's I think that's the biggest indicator to me. I didn't really understand how much sort of the Earth had moved moved beneath me in the last four and a half years. And when you start to look at the numbers, you see that, these big corporate out outlets are not, essentially the the gatekeepers on the information anymore. Yeah. That it's that it's much larger on these on these platforms. And I I really believe in my heart that there is a place for investigative journalism on platforms like X and and other platforms. People are just hungry for it. And that's the investigation we did. It's like as I said, about 3,000,000 people. I mean, that's a that's a good healthy number. Speaker 1: Do you don't seem angry, though. Speaker 0: No. I don't. I don't I don't feel angry. Really? Mhmm. Speaker 1: There's not a smoldering ball of rage inside towards your old employers? Speaker 0: No. I I, look. If they don't want me to work there, they don't want me to work there. I know the work was it was not a performance issue. I heard from many of my colleagues who were very, very sad Speaker 1: that Oh, I know. I I heard from them too. Speaker 0: Yep. But that's but that's not my call, in the end. The but the seizing of the records was a completely different thing. That was something that I was gonna go to the MET because I felt so strongly, Speaker 1: about Can you explain why they stole your stuff? Speaker 0: Well, in a letter to congress, they argued that they had not seized the materials. I think the language they used was that they had tried to secure and protect them, which I left me a little, speechless, because it was diminishing reporter materials to work product. And to say that what had happened was an effort to seize or protect my materials was I mean, it just showed that some executives had a very difficult relationship with the facts. Speaker 1: That's kind of a problem for news Speaker 0: I am restrained. I am restrained. Speaker 1: But if you have liars in charge of it, you know, the truth telling business, that's a problem. Speaker 0: Well, I'm not saying I'm not saying that. I'm just saying that. Speaker 2: Oh, I Speaker 1: am saying that. Speaker 0: I okay. Speaker 1: Alright. I'm saying that. I mean, that's just a you know? I don't know. There are certain businesses you sort of expect that, you know, time share sales or whatever, used cars. But, like, if your job is to tell the truth and the people in charge are just, like, lie for fun. Speaker 0: It was fair I said this before. It was very sad. Very, very disappointing, to see that see that happen. And I heard from people I used to work with, and they were really saddened by it as well. Speaker 1: Did any of them say I gotta get the hell out of here? I can't work for these people anymore? Speaker 0: I don't wanna go into the conversation. Speaker 1: But do you feel like people who remain at in corporate media jobs are desperate to get out? Is that your sense Speaker 0: in general? I think there's a lot of anxiety. Yeah. I I think people are starting to feel the sort of the earth move beneath them. You just have to look at the the ratings and the numbers to understand sort of the the for lack of a better term, the old order has has kind of disappeared. Speaker 1: That's for sure. How long can they keep going, do you think? Speaker 0: I don't know. Edge I think this election cycle will be, pivotal. If these town halls go ahead on x I think it's the partnership with NewsNation. I think that the the numbers on those town halls are gonna be just mind blowing in in the true sense of of the word, and it's gonna be global. And, I forget I think Elon Musk or, Linda Yaccarino posted on x what the numbers were with the presidential debate. And, I mean, when you looked at how many people watched it on, you know, traditional outlets versus the kind of, volume and engagement on on that platform, it's I mean, it was many multiple times larger. Speaker 1: Well, the entire political conversation in the United States plays out on x, period. I mean, I I can't speak for, you know, sports, entertainment, culture. I mean, there are many different verticals in any civilization, but the political conversation takes place on acts, period. Does not take place on any TV channel or any newspaper. You think that's fair? Speaker 0: I do. I think it's and I think it's exciting too, actually, to to see it, a little bit unleashed. It's not always pleasant. It's not always easy. But it's, it's sort of unleashed and evolving and engaging, and it's bringing in different points of view, and I think that's what civil discourse, is about. Speaker 1: Did you read it before? Speaker 0: I did. Speaker 2: But you Speaker 0: But I I when I was, when I worked at Fox, I was I was not on what was, Twitter at that time. And then when I went to CBS, I I joined because I thought it would be a good way for people to find me. Speaker 1: What role do you think x is playing in the media landscape right now? Speaker 0: Oof. Wow. You're asking me. That's a big, a big question. Yeah. Speaker 1: I don't know that I know the answer, by the way. Speaker 0: I I from my own experience, when I had an investigation that I thought was a sensitive topic, I felt very confident that I could put it on x and there could be a really engaging, candid, authentic discussion about it. And I thought that was important because, it seemed to be an undercover issue. This is the the soldier story. Yeah. And, I was really grateful for that, and I I would commend Elon Musk in in that way. I I kind of understood it. And then when I actually went to do it, I had a different and sort of larger appreciation for it. That people could have that conversation. And the the comments that we received were, you know, this happened to me or can you look into this. And I mean, it was a very organic thing. And I think that you can't look into every case. You can't follow-up on everything. Speaker 1: That's for sure. Speaker 0: But I think there's something very positive about people sharing their experiences and not feeling so isolated on a subject that's so sensitive. And I I think that's, really commendable. Speaker 1: Well, yeah. And there's no someone who thinks she's sincerely believed she's been injured because she followed an order has nothing to be ashamed of, and she does have a right to tell her story in public. I I I mean, the whole thing is so nuts. Did anyone would prevent a 24 year old girl who thinks she's been injured by following an order from talking in public is just like, you're not on the right side if you're preventing that. Don't you think? Speaker 0: I think it was the right thing to do. I I I first heard about her story last October, and it's always been in the back of my mind as a story that should be done. And so when I decided to launch the first investigation, it just seemed like a natural to me. Speaker 1: So when I thinking back when I got into this business when I left college in 1991, you've been in it for a couple years maybe before no. Not long. But Speaker 0: Yeah. No. 87. Speaker 1: 87. 87. So in 1987, you worked for ABC News in London. Speaker 0: The very the starter job of all starter jobs. Speaker 1: That's crazy. Yeah. Yeah. It's hard to convey now to younger people the prestige that attached to that job. And you had, you know, all the all the credentials necessary to get that, and you went to Harvard and Columbia. Speaker 0: Well, the joke with my father was, did you really go to Harvard to make coffee and fax documents and photocopy? I said, absolutely. Yeah. 1000000. I I make the I do the best job photocopying and faxing if anyone I But it's about pride in your work. Speaker 1: Of course. Speaker 2: But it was such Speaker 1: a different world. Like, that was a really rich company then. I mean, they had, like, catering and, you know, executives flew 1st class. You can go wherever you wanted. And, I mean, do you ever look back on that and think, boy, that was just such a different time? Speaker 0: It was I was, in touch recently with there was sort of a little core group of us that were starting out at that time between the news desk and, what they call the production control room. And there were maybe 12 of us, so between maybe 22, 23, and 27. And, we look back on that period as kind of like a like a golden window in television news. The the quality of the correspondence, many had come out of Vietnam, or had come out of Washington and then got a foreign assignment. The crews were incredibly experienced. Speaker 1: Yeah. You know, Speaker 0: if you had a cameraman take your stand up, you know, he probably had been in Beirut during the very For sure. Bombing. Oh, for And the editors were so I mean, he learned so much from from all of them. Speaker 1: Oh, oh, I I grew up around that stuff. Yeah. Those guys were impressive. Speaker 2: I Speaker 0: mean, this was an incredible opportunity for me and very formative. Speaker 1: Yeah. And now yeah. It's just it's I remember filling out my tax return in 1991, my first job. I worked at a gas station on a factory, but I never, like, had a real job. And I remember, you know, occupation journalist. I was like, I'm a journalist. Now it's like, I mean, I don't even know what I would put on there. You know? I don't know. Armed robber would be less embarrassing. But it was you know, it seemed like a pretty honorable profession, I guess. That's what I'm saying. Speaker 0: I I, you know, I I hear what you're saying, and you're gonna accuse me of being so sort of deferential, but I just have always tried to stay focused on my own work. Like, I have to answer to myself. Speaker 1: That's not deference. That's the opposite of deferential and ask kissy. That's, like, that's integrity. Speaker 0: I just I just am like, is this the story I you know, there's stories in front of me. Which is the one that I should really be doing? Where can I make the most impact? What's the story that hasn't been told that I can actually Well, so that's Speaker 1: that's it right there. That I agree with you a 100%. It's like it's not that hard to tell the truth, I don't think. It's pretty easy. Actually, it's easier than lying. What's hard is figuring out what you should be focused on, and I think you're really good at that. What are the stories that should be told that aren't being covered? Speaker 0: Our our next project is gonna look at, the issue of, immigration and and the borders. And I don't wanna give it all away, but, we've got a lot of good data about how, homeland security is in violation of federal law and regulations on a on a daily basis and creating, I think, a significant security risk for many American citizens. And I think that that really deserves a deep dive. Yeah. And it's a story that I can really tell now that might have been hard to tell before. Speaker 1: So I can't even get, and I have tried, like, a clear number on how many people have come into this country illegally over the last 4 years. I mean, it ranges from 5,000,000 to 30,000,000, and I can't and those are all kind of credible estimates, and I don't I have no idea which one is correct. But why can't we get even a real number on that? Speaker 0: I I I I think the the simple answer may be, and I don't know, but my my assessment would be that it's just the volume that that we're talking about. I guess the volume. Speaker 2: So Speaker 0: But there's not but to your point, I don't think there's great transparency on this issue. I hope to bring a little bit more transparency to it. Speaker 1: So in your judgment, that's a big deal story. Speaker 0: Oh, 100%. I yeah. I and it's not just I'm looking at what the the polling shows about the top issues for American, you know, American voters in this election cycle. I'm asking myself, I have information. I think there are violations of federal law and federal regulations every day, at the border. I need to find out if that's really if that's really true. And if it is true, why is it true? And who's really losing in that equation? Is is is the country less safe as a result or or not? I don't know the answer to all of that yet. But that's that's a very legitimate story to Speaker 1: put in. Also, how does a bankrupt come country, which ours is, pay for all these services? I don't. Yeah. There are many questions. I totally agree. But so you're focused on the question, is the federal government violating its own laws? Speaker 0: Federal employees. Yes. Mhmm. Speaker 1: And to the extent that you've reported it out, are you closer to an answer? Speaker 0: I I think based on our reporting so far that it's it really, tips that way. It does appear that way. And so my question is, where's you know, who's been disciplined? Who's been suspended? Who's been fired? Who's been demoted? And I'm not sure the answer is really anyone except the people who blew the whistle on it. Really? Don't make me give the story away. No. I won't. Speaker 1: I won't. Speaker 0: I won't. I won't. Right now. Speaker 2: Like, I Speaker 1: I'm, like, so shocked. I mean you know? Speaker 0: But I think but that's the kind of, to me, that's the kind of story you wanna be doing. Right? I I just think it's, the thing that has always encouraged me about, the the, the consumers of news in this in this country is that they really understand this idea of accountability. They they they wanna see it. They expect it. They demand it. And and when you do it, I think it can be very gratifying to, you know, to kind of shine a light. I it sounds like so old fashioned, but to shine a light on an issue that really is worthy of that and is sort of screaming out for coverage. Speaker 1: How do you I've had many people ask me this over the years, but, you know, one channel will do a story or one newspaper will do a story, and then every other outlet will do exactly the same story. And sometimes it's like a really boutique story. You know, it's a story of limited obvious importance, but everyone does the same story. Yeah. How do these like, who decides that? Where how does you know? Ugh. Where does that come from? Speaker 0: I mean I mean, this comes from the executives or the show producers. Speaker 1: But have you noticed that you know, I don't know how many news organizations are in the United States in a country of 350,000,000 people. They're they're a lot. Mhmm. They all do, you know, in a in a given week, they do a suite of maybe 20 stories. Speaker 2: Mhmm. Speaker 1: Themes, you know, variations on the theme perhaps, but but, I I mean, why? You'd think that Speaker 0: I really I I wish I could answer that question. But Speaker 1: you've noticed this. Right? Speaker 0: I mean, when you look at the rundowns, let's say, for an evening news broadcast, you'll see a lot of the same stories. Now that may be a function of the fact that they have such limited time to tell the story. It was at 18 or 19 minutes or 20 For sure. Or 20 minutes. Speaker 1: But it's the the topics are the same. It's just interesting. I'm not suggesting coordination, but I I do think it's a I don't know what it is. It's I think it's a conspiracy of like minded temperament. They all are kind of the same people. Speaker 0: I I just I don't know. Speaker 1: But you'll concede there are a lot of stories that they could be doing that they're not. Speaker 0: Yeah. I I think so. That's that's the appeal of being independent is that you can tell some of the stories that maybe you couldn't tell before. Speaker 1: Is it weird not to have a boss? Speaker 0: Yeah. It's a big change after nearly 4 decades of working, for major media outlets. It's a it's a huge change. I've had a lot of change in the last 4 months, 5 months. A lot. Speaker 1: Do you miss being scolded? Speaker 0: I'm not even scolded. I miss the structure. I'm very used to the structure, and, you know, structure that, you know, has resources that you didn't realize that you needed until you went to do it yourself. I'm sure you understand that. Speaker 1: Been there. Speaker 0: Yeah. You've been there. Right? But I I really like working with a small team and, as a group, deciding what is it that we're gonna pursue next, and how can we structure the story that it has an impact, and what kind of reporting do we need to be doing, and at what point do we engage with government agencies, And how do we keep moving the story forward after after we do it? I I just find that just kind of exhilarating and refreshing all at all at the same time. And in a marketplace that's really just exploding where you're setting your own boundaries and your own rules. Right? You're saying, okay. I've got almost 4 decades of experience. This is what I believe journalism is. This is how I'm gonna execute it. These are my standards. These are my expectations, and I'm gonna be true to those. I'm I'm gonna follow it through. That's the exciting part of it. And then having a public that responds to it, which I'm, you know, so grateful for. Speaker 1: People like honesty in a world full of lies, I think. Do you feel that? Speaker 0: People are looking for credible, reliable information in a way that I never maybe seen in my lifetime working as a journalist. Speaker 1: So not maybe what you're saying is that as a business, journalism is, like, more discredited than it's ever been and more disliked. But individual journalists who decide to tell the truth are Speaker 2: I don't know I don't know if I I don't know if Speaker 0: I would go that far. I'm not sure how comfortable I am really commenting on the whole, you know, profession that way. How's that? I I just sort of come back to my, you know, I come back to my own, you know, my my own work. I I wrote something recently for the free press, which is really an amazing operation. It's Barry Weiss has really built it into this sort of, you know, engaging, driving thing, you know, it's like it's like a great source for information. I wrote something on on the press act, and, you know, that it's the protection of sources is the hill to die on. And it was such a great experience to work with them and to see the reach of that story and to take an issue that I felt needed to kind of, you know, poke up through the noise and get some attention. Because all of our our futures, our careers rest on that basic principle. So to me, that's an example of, you know, an independent media outlet which is really has a lot of impact and made a difference. Speaker 1: How, of the people that you worked with 30 years ago, were any still around in the business? Speaker 0: Oh, I'm trying to think. A lot of them are retired now. I went to a a reunion, ABC Lending Reunion. I wanna say it was maybe 7 years ago, 7 6 or 7 it was before I just before I went to CBS, and a lot of people were retired. A lot of people had, passed. 5 of them were already gone. Speaker 1: Is that weird? Speaker 0: Yeah. It's sad. But, I learned so much from them. And I think that not to sound, too sentimental, but I think you carry that on. I think one of the greatest things you can do at a certain point in your career is to share your experience and to share the skill set that you that you have. And I really enjoy doing that, especially with younger journalists. Speaker 1: How long are you gonna do it? Speaker 0: Oh, you know, we I talk about this with our kids. How long am I gonna do this, and when will I retire? And, you know, they all have the same verdict, which is like, oh, mom, like, you need to keep working as long as you can work. Because you're really, if we had you loose in the house all the time, it would just be crazy and you love I mean, I just love it. I feel fortunate to have found something I feel so passionate about. Maybe you feel Speaker 2: Oh, of Speaker 1: course I do. Speaker 0: Maybe you feel the the the same way. Speaker 1: Of course. Speaker 0: And I I can't sort of I'm I'm surprised even by the evolution of where I am, today, and I'm surprised that I'm fighting in the courts to be protecting confidential sources. But if if there's something that folks who are listening and watching this can take away is that, you know, I came out of February, so it was a tough time. There's no question about it. But I had a lot of clarity, and sometimes crisis gives you clarity. Speaker 1: Oh, yeah. Speaker 2: And Speaker 0: the idea of a free press and free speech, these really became my North Star. They really became the driving force of what I'm gonna do in this next chapter. Speaker 1: Yeah. I couldn't agree more. And it's weird to wake up and see things you took for granted under threat. Mhmm. Did you ever think that free speech in the United States would be open to question? Speaker 0: No. I I wouldn't have anticipated the situation that I'm in now. That's that's for sure. Speaker 1: Well, we're rooting for you fervently. Speaker 0: Thank you. Speaker 1: Catherine Hertz, thank you very much. Speaker 2: It's so good to see you. Speaker 0: Thanks for Speaker 1: having me. To you. To watch the rest unlock our entire vast library of content, you can visit tucker carlson.com and activate your membership today. In the name of free speech, we hope you will.

@PheonixLioness1 — PheonixLioness8379

Posted - April 11, 2024 at 3:00 AM

Saved - January 9, 2025 at 3:01 AM

@PheonixLioness1 - PheonixLioness8379

Tucker Carlson: Ep. 92 The FISA bill is dead but, like herpes, it’ll be back. It’s important to punish the people that pushed it. https://t.co/Q89ubXqAjD @Policefrequenc https://t.co/eEN7eXAe3J

Video Transcript AI Summary

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA), which allows the government to spy on foreigners without a warrant, is up for reauthorization. Speaker Mike Johnson has been pushing for this reauthorization, despite the law's misuse against American citizens. A failed attempt to pass this reauthorization reflects a temporary victory for those opposing warrantless surveillance. Many Congress members, influenced by intelligence agencies, prioritize maintaining this power, often misleading the public about its implications. Johnson's focus on FISA and Ukraine funding aligns with Biden's priorities, raising concerns among voters about the Republican Party's direction. Citizens may soon question why they should support a party that appears to endorse the same agenda as the opposing party. The ongoing struggle for free speech and accountability remains crucial.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: And while the reason is in part a law called FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It's been around a long time. Teddy Kennedy first proposed it, by the way, back in the mid 19 seventies. And that law allows the federal government to spy without a warrant on foreigners outside the borders of the country, and the idea is bad people are doing bad things against us. We need to know what they are, and we can't bother to go to a court to get a warrant every time we wanna know, but it will never be used against American citizens. Of course, now we know it has been at scale, but that law FISA has made it possible. So that law is now up for reauthorization in the House of Representatives. And amazingly, the new speaker the House, Mike Johnson of Louisiana, has spent the last couple of weeks doing all he can to get that law reauthorized. In other words, to allow the federal agencies to continue to spy upon and punish people who disagree with him. In other words Mike Johnson's own party Republicans Trump voters Mike Johnson has been working to do that and that effort failed today because members of Congress heard from their constituents or came to their senses saw the truth in a dream whatever happened they state stop Mike Johnson from doing that for the moment. So that's a good thing and you ought to be celebrating and even if you didn't know what was happening and a lot of people didn't because it got very little media coverage. But of course this is a temporary victory like all bad things like that chlamydia you got in a hot tub in Cabo in college it will come back this attempt to spy on you an American citizen without a warrant because you've been politically disobedient why will it come back because it's what they really care about and so before it does come back it's worth just a very quick opt autopsy and what just happened what do we just see so we can learn a couple of important lessons and the first lesson we're gonna learn is that a lot of powerful people in the Congress are liars They lie without shame. In fact with pride and they do so at the behest of or because of blackmail instituted by the intel agencies And at the head of that list would be the chairman of the House Intel Committee, Mike Turner of Ohio. We're gonna play a clip from Mike Turner of Ohio seeing exactly the opposite of what is true. Here's Mike Turner reassuring you that FISA would never, under the FISA law, the US government would never be allowed to spy on you without a warrant because that's unconstitutional. It's never happened, it never will happen. And if you think otherwise, you're probably one of those UFO believing nut jobs who would have stopped doing Ayahuasca. Here's House Intel Committee pawn of the Intel Agencies, Mike Turner of Ohio. Speaker 1: They are we're not surveilling foreigners in the United States. We're not, surveilling, Americans United States. Those individuals who say this is a warrant list search of Americans data are just not telling the truth. These are foreigners abroad. They're a select group of individuals who are a national security threat. If you're an American and you're corresponding with ISIS, yes, if we're, if we're spying on ISIS, your communications are gonna be captured. You would want us to do that. All Americans would want us to try to to make certain that we keep ourselves safe from these terrorists outside terrorist groups and organizations. We are not spying on Americans. This is not a warrantless surveillance program. This is foreigners who are abroad Speaker 0: only. Every word of that a lie, and we don't need to guess. And I, and I hate to use that pronoun, but I specifically don't need to guess because that actually happened to me. The NSA broke into my text messages, read them, pass them to news organizations in order to discredit me, and then admitted that they did that. They made that they spied on me, and they did it under FISA because I was daring to text with a foreigner outside our borders. So Mike Turner knows that. He's the chairman of the intel committee. He knows he's lying, but he's doing it anyway because it's that important to preserve that core power. If you have the power to spy on someone and then to leak the information that you gather or manipulate it and then leak it in order to control that person, that's a major power. In fact, it's a bigger power than any voter in this country has. And so he's acting on their behalf when he lies to you. And so it shouldn't surprise you that they wanna keep that power. And they wanna keep it so badly that over the last week, US government officials did something that may not have precedent in Washington. They lobbied members of Congress directly. They, in the words they use in Washington, they whipped the bill. Officials from the Department of Justice called among others, Chip Roy of Texas to demand that he vote for FISA reauthorization. Imagine that. DOJ Department of Justice the federal law enforcement agency called Chip Roy and said you gotta do this think about that is there any group in this country more powerful than Department of Justice they can put you in jail and they've shown a willingness to do that. They could put kiddie porn on your computer. They probably done that too. And everybody who serves in Congress knows that, and everybody's afraid of them along with the CIA and NSA and a bunch of other three letter agencies. Members of Congress are afraid of them because they know the consequences of disobedience. And so for them to call directly a member of congress, they'd be like the FBI coming to your house on election day and demanding that you vote for their designated candidate, and then having access to the record of who you actually voted for as they do in the congress. Can you imagine? You'd be highly motivated to vote for their candidate, wouldn't you? Yes. You would. So they're willing to do anything to get this enshrined in law, because it gives them legal cover to subvert democracy, which is their program, of course. And everybody knows it. Mike Johnson knows it, but he's not telling his conference that, his fellow Republicans, in a meeting today with his Republican conference on Capitol Hill, Mike Johnson said you must vote for this, and you must vote for it because America hangs in the balance. And if you had the intelligence that I've seen in my class side briefings which you cannot see you would know that it's your moral responsibility to vote for this and by the way if you don't vote for it Americans will die Johnson didn't mention that the FISA law warrantless spying did not prevent 911 or the coal bombing or any major active terror in the last 50 years almost 50 years that we've had it now I mean it's ridiculous on its face but why is Mike Johnson saying this Well, there are only 2 possible explanations. One is that he's just stupid and doesn't know and believes his intel briefers. Every person who spend any time in DC knows the intel briefing, the classified intel briefing in the skiff is merely a leash. It's a call around your neck connected to a chain and the other hand is your handler from some federal agency with a black budget whose total you can't know. Of course, it's a way to control you. Giving you information you can't repeat to anyone else that you have no way of verifying and telling you that if you don't go along with the program, Americans will die. Right? So he either doesn't know that that's the way things actually work in DC. Of course, Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. You want to get America vaporized in a nuclear attack? Invade. Etcetera etcetera. Many precedents for this. I mean, it's the oldest story there is. Either he doesn't know that, or there's another agenda. We can't know for certain but consider this Mike Johnson has been speak their house for not very long just several months now he got the job accidentally and in the time that he's had what have his priorities been? Well, there have been 2 big ones. Two issues on which he's willing to call his fellow Republicans into the room and say you have to do this. The first one is Ukraine funding, and he's done that again and again. Either we send another $60,000,000,000 to Ukraine or he implies American soldiers will have to fight in Ukraine because we're gonna prevent Putin from rolling into San Antonio or whatever. Of course, all untrue. In fact, ridiculous, but that's what he said in effect. Ukraine funding has been his top priority, and a second, this week was more warrantless spying on Americans. What's interesting, is that those are also Joe Biden's top priorities. Those are not the top priorities of republican voters, are not the top priorities of American voters. Look at the public opinion polling. It's available on Google. No. Those are Joe Biden's priorities because both expand his power. So what's interesting is that the Republican speaker of the house shares those priorities, not closing the border. He didn't call his conference in to say, shut down the border tomorrow because 70% of Americans are demanding that, and a 100% of our own voters are demanding that, and that will save this country from certain destruction. He didn't say that. He said the number one thing we need to do is continue to have the legal right to spy unconstitutionally on American citizens without bothering to get a warrant. And again, is it an accident that's Joe Biden's top priority too after Ukraine, which he's still pushing? Let you decide. But the bottom line is, over time, people who don't live in Washington don't know the complexities of the process, who aren't impressed by Johnson's claim. I've only got a one seat majority. I have to do this. People are looking at this cold, which is the big facts available, will start to notice that the priorities one party mirror the priorities of the other party, and they may ask themselves 2 questions. 1st, who's got my priorities top of mind? And second, why even bother with the Republican party if all they're gonna do is ratify what Joe Biden wants? And they may ask that question really soon. Let's hope they do. Free speech is bigger than any one person or any one organization. Societies are defined by what they will not commit. What we're watching is the total inversion of virtue.

@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson

Ep. 92 The FISA bill is dead but, like herpes, it’ll be back. It’s important to punish the people that pushed it. https://t.co/QFRh16SsRL

Video Transcript AI Summary

A few years ago, it became clear that federal intelligence agencies were secretly working against Donald Trump's campaign, spying on him and leaking information to the media. This ongoing interference undermines democracy, as these agencies manipulate political power. The Republican Party should be fighting against this descent into totalitarianism, but instead, leaders like House Speaker Mike Johnson have pushed for the reauthorization of the FISA law, which allows warrantless surveillance of Americans. Despite some pushback from Congress, the threat of such surveillance remains. Johnson's priorities align with those of the Biden administration, focusing on Ukraine funding and expanding surveillance rather than addressing pressing issues like border security. This raises questions about the Republican Party's commitment to its constituents and the future of American democracy.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: A few years ago, we learned conclusively that in fact, the FBI and the federal intel agencies, the dozen or more federal intel agencies we have for some reason, had been working secretly against Donald Trump's presidential campaign. Trump had whispered about this then shouted about it. It was roundly denounced as a conspiracy, not a lunatic. But in the end, he was vindicated. It was true. These agencies spied on Trump, and they leaked some of what they learned to the media which used it against Trump. Then these agencies can cock did false stories about Trump. They tried to crush Trump completely in 2016 and then for the entire course of his presidency. Then they did the same thing in 2020 during the presidential election, and they're doing it still. They're trying to put him in prison for the rest of his life. So if you take 3 steps back, what you have here is what we're seeing now. For the 3rd time in 3 consecutive cycles, secretive federal agencies are trying to rig our presidential elections. This is what the Democrats refer to as democracy and they're trying to defend it. But of course, it's the opposite of democracy. It's in fact the end of democracy in any semblance of a constitutional republic we ever had. If you have a secret police force threatening people spying on them and working secretly the levers of political power, then you don't have a democracy. You have no control over really anything as a voter. So if there's one thing the Republican Party, the opposition party should be doing in response to this, right now, it's fighting back against this descent into totalitarianism. If we're working to return freedom and democracy to the country, they should defend the constitution. They should reign in these agencies, Washington's Secret Police. But you'll not be surprised to learn they've been busy doing just the opposite. So if you're wondering why no one has gone to prison for any of this, now that we know it actually happened, well, the reason is in part a law called FISA, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. It's been around a long time. Teddy Kennedy first proposed it, by the way, back in the mid 19 seventies. And that law allows the federal government to spy without a warrant on foreigners outside the borders of the country, and the idea is bad people are doing bad things against us, we need to know what they are, and we can't bother to go to a court to get a warrant every time we wanna know, but it will never be used against American citizens. Of course, now that we know it has been at scale, but that law FISA has made it possible. So that law is now up for reauthorization in the House of Representatives and amazingly, the new speaker of the house, Mike Johnson of Louisiana, has spent the last couple of weeks doing all he can to get that law reauthorized. In other words, to allow the federal agencies to continue to spy upon and punish people who disagree with him. In other words, Mike Johnson's own party, Republicans, Trump voters. Mike Johnson has been working to do that and that effort failed today because members of congress heard from their constituents or came to their senses, saw the truth in a dream, whatever happened, they stipe stopped Mike Johnson from doing that for the moment. So that's a good thing and you ought to be celebrating it even if you didn't know it was happening and a lot of people didn't because it got very little media coverage. But of course, this is a temporary victory. Like all bad things, like that chlamydia you got in a hot tub in Cabo in college, it will come back. This attempt to spy on you, an American citizen without a warrant because you've been politically disobedient. Why will it come back? Because it's what they really care about. And so before it does come back it's worth just a very quick opt autopsy and what just happened what do we just see so we can learn a couple of important lessons and the first lesson we're gonna learn is that a lot of powerful people in the Congress are liars They lie without shame. In fact with pride. And they do so at the behest of or because of blackmail instituted by the intel agencies. And at the head of that list would be the chairman of the House Intel Committee, Mike Turner of Ohio. We're gonna play you a clip from Mike Turner of Ohio seeing exactly the opposite of what is true. Here's Mike Turner reassuring you that FISA would never, under the FISA law, the US government would never be allowed to spy on you without a warrant because that's unconstitutional. It's never happened, it never will happen. And if you think otherwise, you're probably one of those UFO believing nut jobs who would have stopped doing Ayahuasca. Here's House Intel Committee, pawn of the Intel Agencies, Mike Turner of Ohio. Speaker 1: They are we're not surveilling foreigners in the United States. We're not, surveilling, Americans United States. Those individuals who say that this is a warrantless search of Americans data are just not telling the truth. These are foreigners abroad. They're a select group of individuals who are a national security threat. If you're an American and you're corresponding with ISIS, yes. If we're, if we're spying on ISIS, your communications are going to be captured. You would want us to do that. All Americans would want us to try to to make certain that we keep ourselves safe from these terrorists, outside terrorist groups and organizations. We are not spying on Americans. This is not a warrantless surveillance program. This is foreigners who are abroad only. Speaker 0: Every word of that a lie, and we don't need to guess. And I, and I hate to use that pronoun, but I specifically don't need to guess because that actually happened to me. The NSA broke into my text messages, read them, pass them to news organizations in order to discredit me, and then admitted that they did that. Admitted that they spied on me. And they did it under FISA because I was daring to text with a foreigner outside our borders. So Mike Turner knows that. He's the chairman of the intel committee. He knows he's lying, but he's doing it anyway because it's that important to preserve that core power. If you have the power to spy on someone and then to leak the information that you gather or manipulate it and then leak it in order to control that person, that's a major power. In fact, it's a bigger power than any voter in this country has. And so he's acting on their behalf when he lies to you. And so it shouldn't surprise you that they wanna keep that power. And they wanna keep it so badly that over the last week, US government officials did something that may not have precedent in Washington. They lobbied members of congress directly. They the words they use in Washington, they whipped the bill. Officials from the Department of Justice called among others, Chip Roy of Texas to demand that he vote for FISA reauthorization. Imagine that DOJ Department of Justice the federal law enforcement agency called Chip Roy and said you gotta do this think about that is there any group in this country more powerful than department of justice they can put you in jail and they've shown a willingness to do that. They could put kiddie porn on your computer. They probably done that too. And everybody who serves in Congress knows that, and everybody's afraid of them along with the CIA and NSA and a bunch of other 3 letter agencies. Members of Congress are afraid of them because they know the consequences of disobedience. And so for them to call directly a member of congress, they'd be like the FBI coming to your house on election day and demanding that you vote for their designated candidate, and then having access to the record of who you actually voted for as they do in the congress. Can you imagine? You'd be highly motivated to vote for their candidate, wouldn't you? Yes. You would. So they're willing to do anything to get this enshrined in law because it gives them legal cover to subvert democracy, which is their program, of course. And everybody knows it. Mike Johnson knows it, but he's not telling his conference that, his fellow Republicans, in a meeting today with his Republican conference on Capitol Hill, Mike Johnson said you must vote for this, and you must vote for it because America hangs in the balance. And if you had the intelligence that I've seen in my classified briefings, which you cannot see, you would know that it's your moral responsibility to vote for this. And by the way, if you don't vote for it, Americans will die. Johnson didn't mention that the FISA law warrantless spying did not prevent 911 or the coal bombing or any major act of terror in the last 50 years, almost 50 years that we've had it. No. I mean, it's ridiculous on its face, but why is Mike Johnson saying this? Well, there are only 2 possible explanations. 1 is that he's just stupid and doesn't know and believes his intel briefers. Every person who has spent any time in DC knows the intel briefing, the classified intel briefing in the skiff is merely a leash. It's a call around your neck connected to a chain, and the other hand is your handler from some federal agency with a black budget whose total you can't know. Of course, it's a way to control you, Giving you information that you can't repeat to anyone else that you have no way of verifying and telling you that if you don't go along with the program, Americans will die. Right. So he either doesn't know that that's the way things actually work in DC. Of course, Saddam has weapons of mass destruction. You want to get America vaporized in a nuclear attack invade etcetera etcetera many precedents for this I mean the oldest story there is either he doesn't know that or there's another agenda We can't know for certain, but consider this. Mike Johnson has been speaker house for not very long, just several months now. He got the job accidentally. And in the time that he's had it, what have his priorities been? Well, there've been 2 big ones. 2 issues on which he's willing to call his fellow Republicans into the room and say you have to do this. The first one is Ukraine funding, and he's done that again and again. Either we send another $60,000,000,000 to Ukraine or he implies American soldiers will have to fight in Ukraine because we're gonna prevent Putin from rolling into San Antonio or whatever. Of course, all untrue. In fact, ridiculous, but that's what he said in effect. Ukraine funding has been his top priority, and a second, this week was more warrantless spying on Americans. Well, what's interesting is that those are also Joe Biden's top priorities. Those are not the top priorities of Republican voters, are not the top priorities of American voters. Look at the public opinion polling. It's available on Google. No. Those are Joe Biden's priorities, because both expand his power. So what's interesting is that the Republican speaker of the house shares those priorities, not closing the border. He didn't call his conference in to say, shut down the border tomorrow, because 70% of Americans are demanding that, and a 100% of our own voters are demanding that, and that will save this country from certain destruction. He didn't say that. He said the number one thing we need to do is continue to have the legal right to spy unconstitutionally on American citizens without bothering to get a warrant. And again, is it an accident that's Joe Biden's top priority too after Ukraine, which he's still pushing? Let you decide. But the bottom line is, over time, people who don't live in Washington don't know the complexities of the process, who aren't impressed by Johnson's claim. I've only got a one seat majority. I have to do this. People are looking at this cold, which is the big facts available, will start to notice that the priorities one party mirror the priorities of the other party, and they may ask themselves 2 questions. 1st, who's got my priorities top of mind? And second, why even bother with the Republican Party if all they're gonna do is ratify what Joe Biden wants? And they may ask that question really soon. Let's hope they do. Free speech is bigger than any one person or any one organization. Societies are defined by what they will not commit. What we're watching is the total inversion of virtue.

@PheonixLioness1 — PheonixLioness8379

Posted - April 18, 2024 at 1:26 AM

Saved - January 9, 2025 at 2:40 AM

@PheonixLioness1 - PheonixLioness8379

Tucker Carlson: Ep. 95 Why do the reddest states produce the dumbest, most liberal Republicans? Why aren’t John Cornyn and Dan Crenshaw bagging groceries at Walmart? Jesse Kelly has thought about this. https://t.co/RWZArY2iWB @Policefrequenc https://t.co/GkJDoMAmGc

Video Transcript AI Summary

Red states often elect disappointing Republicans because primary voters are complacent, either not voting or choosing candidates based on media appearances. Change within the GOP will take time and requires more active participation in primaries, as Democrats are more engaged. There's a call to send illegal immigrants to affluent liberal areas to challenge their beliefs, though it may not change their minds. The impact of immigration is noticeable in Texas, with urban areas becoming more dangerous and unkempt. Many Americans are unaware of the consequences of these changes due to misinformation from mainstream media. This disconnect leads to confusion about local issues, highlighting the need for better access to truthful information.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: I mean, look. You can go down the list. Every dork from Louisiana. The reddest states in this country give us the most putrid Republicans at the federal level. Why does that happen? Because the GOP primary voter in red states lives in a relatively normal place. He lives in comfort. He thinks he's got a red legislature. So he either doesn't vote in primaries. That's mostly the case. He's just gonna sit at home. Or, even worse, he goes to vote for senator Dork, who he sees on Fox News every time. Well, Lindsey Graham was on on Fox tonight. I guess he's he's on my side. You should have nothing but disdain for virtually every single senator you see on Fox News. And yet people vote for who they see on television. Well, I met John Thune once, and he was so handsome. He's very clearly on our side. John Thune supported gun control legislation, and John Thune on camera was asked to to ask to to back up American people owning AR fifteens, and the best argument he could make for your liberty for the second amendment was that I kid you not this is on camera he told people well I mean a lot of people use them to shoot prairie dogs these are the weapons grade losers who control the GOP and they're from the reddest states It's under Susan Collins is understandable, Tucker. Sorry to get all fired up. It's understandable. She's from Maine. It's from a blue state. Of course, we're gonna get some wishy washy mealy mouthed dork from that kind of state. But the Dakotas? The Dakotas are so red. It's crazy. They could have somebody to the right of me if they wanted to, but they don't. Well, I saw them on Fox last night. Oh, just gag me with a fork. Speaker 1: Lisa Murkowski from Alaska. I mean, he's good on the list. They're they're absolute they're absolutely the worst. So do you have any hope that this will happen? Speaker 0: Yes. Eventually. See, this is the problem. Look. Everyone watching your show is going to be that hyperinformed person. Everyone watching us right now is gonna be hyperinformed, and the burden of being hyperinformed I'm glad everyone is hyperinformed, by the way. But the burden of that is you're informed I'm glad everyone is hyper informed, by the way. But the burden of that is you're always going to be 10 years at least ahead of the people who are in elected office. So we're we know what needs to be done now. This needs to be done now. It has to be done right now. We have to save this right now. But change doesn't happen that way. Changing the party into something that's actually anti communist and pro America is going to take time. It's gonna take election cycle after election cycle. You're it takes years to get these losers out of DC, to get them out of your state legislature. It just takes time and effort, but we have to start taking ownership of that and getting more involved. Democrats participate in primaries. 50% of them go vote in primaries, Tucker. 25% of Republicans go vote in primaries. You wanna know why the Democrat Party is the party of now and the Republican Party hasn't advanced at all? That's exactly why. People sit on their butts. They don't get involved, and now look where we are. Speaker 1: So DeSantis is now talking once again about sending illegals to Martha's Vineyard. He did that, and then he kind of wussed out and kind of apologized for it or didn't press the point. But I noticed from traveling that rural areas, pretty rural areas, where you might go hunt and fish, for example, are now filled with white liberals living in the whitest possible zip codes they can find. The ones who lecture you about white privilege are now living in much wider areas than they did 5 years ago. Why not make this, know, send the illegals to Martha's Vineyard, but also to Aspen, also to Bethesda, Maryland, to to the to the stronghold, these all white strongholds of progressive lunacy? Like, why not make that the policy? Like, why be ashamed of doing it? Speaker 0: It should be. And it shouldn't be. You shouldn't be ashamed of it. It should be there should be caravans, busloads of these people shipped into these neighborhoods. But I'll tell you something, Tucker. Even that might not affect I mean, it would it would be good. We should do it. Even that might not change these people's minds. I had the wildest conversation, I forgot to tell you about this, with this lady. I won't go into details. We were in this big group setting, and there were Republicans there, Democrats there. It was it was a vacation. We ended up at this big table, like, 10 people at this table, having a cup of cocktails after dinner, just talking about life. And there were these 2 liberal white women from Chicago. And they loved their mayor, Brandon Johnson. Love them. They actually referenced them as BJ was his name. Right? BJ. I'm not kidding you not. They kept calling him BJ. I mean, like, he's Kamala Harris or something like that. It was BJ this and BJ that. But I kept my mouth shut, Tucker. Believe it or not. I know no one's gonna believe that. I just sat there and listened and just watched and just listened as these people were talking. Whether it was this oilfield guy from Texas who loved this guy, this total cowboy, red America, the great, all this, and he wasn't holding back. And he finally challenges this woman about the crime in Chicago. And he says to her, you you talk about BJ this and Chicago's great that. Look at these murder numbers, and it's a disaster. And you got people taking over Union Square. It's it's crazy. How can you defend it? And Tucker, on my life, cross my heart, and hope to die. This lady looked him right in the eye and she said, well, yeah. If you come to Chicago, you might get robbed. But you're not gonna be targeted. That that was her explanation. Well, yeah. You might get robbed here, but they're not gonna target you for assassination. Why are you complaining? Chicago is wonderful. In her mind, that was a good explanation. People do not understand how sick the mind of the liberal white woman is, and they don't understand that that is the true beating heart of the Democrat party today. I'm not even actually trying to be mean about this. It's why they talk to them. Do do people know that married women vote Republican? Married men vote Republican. Married men vote Republican. Single men vote Republican. But it's something like, 77% of single women vote Democrat. And the majority, over 58% of those women have been diagnosed with mental illness. Single, miserable women who are clinically insane are the beating heart of the Democrat party, and that's why these people do the things they do. And that's why they do what they do when it comes to illegal immigration. Because single white women view illegal immigration like like like rescuing, dogs who've been abused. Oh, sure. Everybody just come into my country. Please rape anyone you want. Of of course, that's the right thing to do. No love of country. Just sitting there popping her antianxiety medication as she destroys western civilization. That's the truth. Speaker 1: I don't think you get the credit for for being as deep and insightful as you are. Last question since you live in Texas. Do you notice it? Do you notice the effects of this invasion on your state? Speaker 0: Yeah. It's I'll tell you, Tucker. I I don't live in Houston proper. I would never live in it. It's too blue. I don't live in blue areas. But occasionally, we have to go in there if it's, if it's an event or if it's an airport or something like that, especially over the last year, maybe last 2 years, it is noticeably dirtier, more dangerous. It's a place my wife will not venture now unless I am with her. It is it is very, very noticeable, especially in the urban areas and around the urban areas where these illegals know they can just disappear into the ether. They are protected in these places. They're provided for. I mean, my goodness. And the Venezuelans were shipping to New York City, have special Venezuelan cuisine, courtesy of the US taxpayer. So, yes, anytime you're in one of these blue areas in, especially Houston, Austin's really bad. Now you notice it. It it's it's bad. You can't drive a Ford F150 pickup truck into the city of San Antonio right now. And if you do, you better have all your valuables out of it because it'll be gone about 15 minutes after you walk into Starbucks. It's bad now. Bad. Speaker 1: But but you mentioned the cost of it. I mean, it feels like, impossible to predict, of course, but it feels like the US economy is hollow and maybe on the verge of, like, an actual reset where we have to face the fact that we're not as rich as we thought we were. If that happens, are people gonna start to do you think notice that all the services they pay for are no longer available, Health care, education, the roads. Like, are they gonna wanna continue to pay for criminals from Venezuela to live for free in our country? Won't that change attitudes? Speaker 0: Yes. Yes. They're gonna wanna continue to do it for a time, Tucker, because there is so much there's so many lies out there that are created for people now, even normal people, where they can't they don't know how to access real true information, especially if you're, not and this is not insulting older people, but you're an older, more traditional American. Not even some America hating piece of trash Democrat, but just a normal American. You go to work, you have a family, everything else. And then at home, when you when you're having dinner, maybe you finish dinner, you have a beer, and you turn on what? NBC, ABC, CBS, you get caught up on the news of the day. Unless you are seeking out shows like this on x, podcast, things like that. Unless you're seeking out information, if you're just existing in the ether, you live in a world entirely of make believe. Even the normal American doesn't understand what's going on, and they don't understand why they're seeing the things they're seeing. People don't people who live in Southern California don't understand why the hospitals are closing. They don't they don't totally get it. People in New York City don't understand why there's a new Spanish speaking wing in aid and jaden and Braden's new elementary school they don't quite understand what's happening if you're in Chicago you don't understand why now measles is making a comeback People don't make the connection because they don't access true information. We're so demoralized as a people, and we've been so battered down by lies through our education system and media for years that we are a people very lost and listless right now. And we don't we need we need to find our anchor for sure. Speaker 1: People like that can be destroyed, I think. Speaker 0: Yeah. Oh, exactly. That's why they did it. Speaker 1: Yo. You're right. Jesse Kelly, I sure appreciate that. Interesting, and as I said, just really insightful. Thank you. Speaker 0: Be good, my brother. Thank you for having me. Speaker 1: Free speech is bigger than any one person or any one organization. Societies are defined by what they will not commit. What we're watching is the total inversion of virtue.

@TuckerCarlson - Tucker Carlson

Ep. 95 Why do the reddest states produce the dumbest, most liberal Republicans? Why aren’t John Cornyn and Dan Crenshaw bagging groceries at Walmart? Jesse Kelly has thought about this. https://t.co/7t5Rrma8HF

Video Transcript AI Summary

The ongoing crisis at the U.S. border is described as an invasion, with migrants disrespecting laws and borders. Texas faces legal challenges in enforcing immigration laws, while other states have violated federal law without consequences. A call for red states to reassess their relationship with the federal government is made, emphasizing the urgency to act against illegal immigration. The conversation highlights the failure of Republican leadership to address these issues and the need for citizens to engage in the political process. Concerns are raised about the impact of illegal immigration on communities and the economy, with a belief that many Americans remain unaware of the true situation due to misinformation. The discussion concludes with a call for awareness and action to reclaim control over the country's future.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: Of all the crises unfolding simultaneously in the United States right now, only one has the certain capacity to change our way of life forever. Only one of them can't be undone, and that's the invasion taking place. And invasion is not too strong a word. It's not hyperbole. It's real. Take a look at the video on your screen. This was shot just outside El Paso, Texas. You can see the migrants cutting razor wires. They force their way into our country as they invade it. Again, this is not happening on the other side of the world. This is your country. This is Texas under siege by people of zero respect for our borders and laws. People whose first act as an American is to break federal law. But what's so interesting and maybe the most revealing of all, is that no one is stopping this. And to the extent they're trying, courts are stopping them from enforcing the law. Courts have gone back and forth about whether Texas has the right to protect its own borders. What's so interesting, really, is that a bunch of other states and cities around the country for decades have been violating federal law, federal immigration law, by declaring themselves sanctuary cities. And no one's done anything about that at all. But here, one state trying to enforce the US border with the rest of the world and is prevented from doing so by judges. It's hard to believe it. So how should Texas and the rest of the country proceed with that in mind? The country's being invaded. No one is stopping it. Well, Jesse Kelly, who is a talk show host in front of ours from the state of Texas, recently tweeted an idea. Here's what he said. Ignore them, meaning the courts, create a 10 state coalition to stand with you, meaning with Texas, arrest and deport every illegal in your state. Arrest and try anyone from the federal government who tries to stop you. It's time. So we haven't thought through what exactly that would mean in practical terms or what the long term effects of that would be, but it's impossible not to deeply sympathize with the spirit that animates it. And so we thought we would talk to Jesse Kelly directly. He's the host of the Jesse Kelly Show, and and we're honored to have him now. Jesse, thanks a lot for coming on. So Speaker 1: No. I I I appreciate it. Speaker 0: So so so rather than try to characterize, as I just did, I guess, what you meant when you wrote that, why don't you tell us? Speaker 1: Well, we're in a really bad spot, Tucker, and I don't I don't celebrate what I'm about to say, but it is time now, not 10 years from now, not next year. It is time right now for the states, especially red states, to reexamine the nature of their relationship with the federal government, if if I'm gonna put it that way. And I and I Yes. Wanna be crystal clear about what I'm about to say. I do not want this country to break up, although I believe we are breaking up. I don't want anything like a war or violence. I don't want that. I don't want any individual Americans to do anything illegal. But red states must now, right now, begin reexamining the nature of their relationship with the federal government because the country is being undone. The country is being destroyed now, and there's nothing that can stop or reverse this unless red states take this step. Let let me let me explain. Sorry to filibuster on your show. We're talking Speaker 0: about filibustering now. Speaker 1: I wanna know. Right now, it's not an accident, as you well know. You talk about this all the time. It's not an accident what's happening on the border. The people who lead the nation from the federal level, that's Democrat politicians, half the Republican politicians, every bureaucrat, they are encouraging flooding the border with illegals. They're encouraging it. That's just what they want. They want America full of illegals, no loyalty to America, criminals, rapists, murderers. That is what they want because when you cause violence and chaos in a society, that's the fertile soil where communism grows. People will always turn to the government and beg them for help when that kind of societal collapse comes. So they know this. So they're inviting it. Well, other countries around the world are obliging, as countries always have in this situation. Hey. There's a country I don't particularly like. They have an open border. We do have this prison full of rapists. Hey, guys. Why don't you just move on to America? We know this is happening in countries like Venezuela, where they're emptying prisons onto the border. We don't have criminals coming here individually. We have entire criminal networks coming here. The the country is being undone now, and it cannot be reversed what's happening right now. I wanna be I want everyone to understand this. Let's say everyone gets, their wish and Donald Trump beats Joe Biden in November. And woo hoo. You cannot possibly it's not humanly possible to deport this many people. If Joe Biden's gonna bring in 10, 12,000,000 people, almost all of them will be here permanently, and all of their children will be American citizens. And there's not gonna be some mass deportation. No matter what people say on the campaign trail, the American people have no stomach for that whatsoever. Even if they think they do right now, it would be one video of a little of a little boy crying as mommy gets thrown in the back of a paddy wagon to be deported. And all deportations would stop. Republicans would grab their ankles for the media like they always do, and everything oh, we need to do this more humanely. So that's the situation we're in. Well, where does that leave us? Where it leaves us is you can decide to challenge the federal government at a state level, or you can lose your country. There is no third direction. Illegal immigration on this level will sink America in the same way. It doesn't matter how big or powerful a boat is. If it takes on enough water, it will go down to the bottom of the ocean. We cannot exist like this. So we are going to have to do things outside of the constitution. I don't celebrate that either. That's where we are. If, if if I'm in a house, right, and in my house, let's say there's some weird ordinance in this city, some weird law in the city where I live where I'm not allowed to do anything to the house, if there's any problems at all. It's it's a light bulb out or a fire. It is against the law for me to touch it. I and I don't, and I abide by the law. But, eventually, I come home, and the house is on fire, and my sons are upstairs saying, dad, come help. Well, I'm sorry. Law or no law, I'm going to get my sons. We cannot stand by and watch the United States of America be destroyed, and people have to understand how dire the situation is. This is the the stated policy now of the Democrat party. So even if Joe Biden gets bounced in 2024, woo hoo, we get some deportations in, the next time there's any Democrat president, it'll again be open season, and the entire world will know. Criminals, drugs, rapists, everything flooding into the country to destroy it. The time is now to create a coalition in a totally separate immigration force. That's what we have to do. Speaker 0: Yeah. And let's just be honest. I mean, obviously, I'm fervently rooting for Trump over Biden for many, many reasons, but Trump was president for 4 years, and he didn't he didn't even build a defensive border wall. He didn't. And I don't care. We can lie about that, but that's just a fact. So the idea is you can support 10,000,000 people. It's just don't don't don't lie to me. I'm sick of it. So I agree Speaker 1: with you. Look. I mean, not not to interrupt, but along those along those same lines, Tucker. Sorry. But people have to do also remember remember child separation policy? Very well. That's a basic border policy because people grab kids who aren't theirs and act like, hey. I'm dad Pedro. And when really he's not, he's some kind of cartel member. And so you always separate the kid and figure out, is he there with mom or dad? That was that's a basic border policy. Look. Again, insult or don't assault. I don't give a crap if people are offended by it. The Trump administration ended that policy because of media and Democrat pressure. Democrats did a bunch of photo ops down on the border. AOC is crying at the fence. Eventually, child separation was ended. That's because of media pressure. And people in this country honestly believe there's gonna be some mass deportation of 8,000,000 people where you're rounding up entire families and shipping them back to Zimbabwe. You're outside of your mind. It'll never happen. The people have no stomach for it, and neither does the Republican Party. Speaker 0: So why doesn't so you're in Texas, I think. You have a governor. He's a long time governor. He's a Republican. His name is Greg Abbott. His state is being destroyed, and it's very obvious when you go to Texas. I've been there a lot recently that it's already being destroyed. It just looks dirtier than it did 2 years ago because it is. So why has he done nothing? Like, what's his excuse? Speaker 1: He's a Republican. That's what Republicans do. Republicans do nothing. Republicans have been in charge for, I don't know how long, of managing the decline. I mean, look look look. It's it's not exactly a new insult to call the Republican party controlled opposition, but let's be frank. That's exactly what they are. Even a Joseph Stalin allowed an opposition party. A lot of people don't realize this. He allowed, encouraged, and, in fact, funded an opposition party to give the people of the Soviet Union an illusion of choice. Oh, no. No. These guys are against me. Wow. It's pretty scary, but somehow they never end up accomplishing any of their anti Stalin goals. We're constantly told the Republican Party is going to fight for us and protect the border, and and we'll cut your taxes, and then we're gonna we'll be pro life, and and we'll protect the family. Yet none of these things ever seem to materialize. They all talk about it during election season, and I'll build the wall. And then you get there, and you get 25 feet of wall and a bunch of excuses. Greg Abbott, if, look, that's his excuse. He's a Republican. That's what they all are. It's why I'm an anti communist. Speaker 0: So I think it's a really smart and true description of what we're seeing. Let's say the red states won't do this because they're run by Republicans. At what point do people who live in the state and have children in the state, grandchildren in the state, who are born in this country and don't wanna see it destroyed, say, I'm just I'm getting 10 of my friends. We're gonna protect our stretch south of Carrizo Springs. Like, how long till that happens? Speaker 1: I under I understand the inclination for that. But what we're gonna like like, the revolution, the American Revolution. Sorry. I'm not gonna get sidetracked too sidetracked, Tucker, but the American Revolution. We like to imagine the American Revolution was just a bunch of American citizens picking up a musket, fighting against the British, and then creating the United States of America. We love we love that image in our head. And, obviously, a lot of that is true. But the American Revolution is not successful without state power like France stepping in and giving us critical aid. We cannot protect this nation as 10 dudes going down in the border with some, plates in your flak jacket that you bought on Amazon in an AR 15. That's not that's not going to work. It's not gonna be effective because the state itself is simply gonna throw you in the clink because the state is the one facilitating the invasion. When the state is the one facilitating the invasion, anyone who tries to stop it goes to prison. Look at that United States Marine, Daniel Penney in, Penny? Daniel Penney in New York kills a guy on a subway protecting women. He's going to he's going to the clink. Everyone knows he's gonna get convicted. We now live in a country where the elites on the top and the streets on the bottom are sandwiching the American people in the middle, and they're attacking them from both ways. We must have some level of state power on our side. So when it comes to states like Texas and other states, what needs to happen instead of grabbing a rifle and going to the border is the American people need to start running these loser Republicans out of their state legislatures and out of their governors' mansions and out of the sheriff's office. The sheriffs are gonna be critically important going forward. And I need to be clear. This is starting to happen, Tucker, slowly but surely. Texas state legislature just got put on notice. A bunch of these dorks at our state legislature got run out of, of the party of of government in primaries because normal people are getting sick and tired of no action, and they're running these people out. It's happening. It's happening slowly, maybe too slowly. Too slowly when you consider the fact that the federal government is gleefully destroying this country. I haven't seen these people this happy since Pete Buttigieg and his husband took their baby home. Speaker 0: Or went on paternity leave. Do I mean, why is it that Republican states tend to have the least sincere Republican? Like, Dan Crenshaw, apparently, still a member of Congress from the state of Texas who is zero interest in the US border. All his interest is in the Ukrainian border, the Gaza border. You know, how does a guy like that get elected in a supposedly Republican state? Speaker 1: Well, complacency and Yeah. Life being good makes us soft. Right? It's just the fact of life. It's one of those things humanity struggled with. As soon as you get rich or well off or comfortable, how do you keep improving? How do you keep your edge? You rarely do. This is what's happened to red state Republicans. There's nobody more at fault for the condition of this country than red state GOP voters. And people get mad when I say that, but let me let me just go down the list here. Mitch McConnell, John Cornyn, John Thune, Tillis. I mean, look. You can go down the list. Every dork from Louisiana. The reddest states in this country give us the most putrid Republicans at the federal level. Why does that happen? Because the GOP primary voter in red states lives in a relatively normal place. He lives in Comfort. He thinks he's got a red legislature. So he either doesn't vote in primaries that's mostly the case he's just gonna sit at home or even worse he goes to vote for senator dork who he sees on Fox News every time well Lindsey Graham was on on Fox tonight I guess he's he's on my side you should have nothing but disdain for virtually every single senator you see on Fox News, and yet people vote for who they see on television. Well, I met John Thune once, and he was so handsome. He's very clearly on our side. John Thune supported gun control legislation and John Thune on camera was asked to asked to to back up American people owning a r fifteens and the best argument he could make for your liberty for the second amendment was that I kid you not this is on camera he told people well I mean a lot of people use them to shoot prairie dogs these are the weapons grade losers who control the GOP and they're from the wettest states it's under Susan Collins is understandable Tucker Sorry to get all fired up. It's understandable. She's from Maine. It's from a blue state. Of course, we're gonna get some wishy washy, mealy mouthed dork from that kind of state. From the Dakotas? The Dakotas are so red. It's crazy. They could have somebody to the right of me if they wanted to, but they don't. Well, I saw them on Fox last night. Oh, just gag me with a fork. Speaker 0: Lisa Murkowski from Alaska. I mean, he's go down the list. They're they're absolutely they're absolutely the worst. So do you have any hope that this will happen? Speaker 1: Yes. Eventually. See, this is the problem. Look. Everyone watching your show is going to be that hyperinformed person. Everyone watching us right now is gonna be hyperinformed, and the burden of being hyperinformed I'm glad everyone is hyper informed, by the way. But the burden of that is you're always going to be 10 years at least ahead of the people who are in elected office. So we're we know it needs to be done now. This needs to be done now. It has to be done right now. We have to save this right now. But change doesn't happen that way. Changing the party into something that's actually anti communist and pro America is going to take time. It's gonna take election cycle after election cycle. You're gonna it takes years to get these losers out of DC, to get them out of your state legislature. It just takes time and effort, but we have to start taking ownership of that and getting more involved. Democrats participate in primaries. 50% of them go vote in primaries, Tucker. 25% of Republicans go vote in primaries. You wanna know why the Democrat Party is the party of now and the Republican Party hasn't advanced at all? That's exactly why. People sit on their butts. They don't get involved, and now look where we are. Speaker 0: So DeSantis is now talking once again about Speaker 1: sending illegals to Martha's Vineyard. He did Speaker 0: that, and then he kind of whisked Vineyard. He did that, and then he kind of out and kind of apologized for it or didn't press the point. But I noticed from traveling that rural areas, pretty rural areas, where you might go hunt and fish, for example, are now filled with white Liberals living in the whitest possible ZIP codes they can find. The ones who lecture you about white privilege are now living in much wider areas than they did 5 years ago. Why not make this, you know, send the illegals to Martha's Vineyard, but also to Aspen, also to Bethesda, Maryland, to to the to the stronghold, these all white strongholds of progressive lunacy? Like, why not make that the policy? Like, why be ashamed of doing it? Speaker 1: It should be. And it shouldn't be. You shouldn't be ashamed of it. It should be there should be caravans, busloads of these people shipped into these neighborhoods. But I'll tell you something, Tucker. Even that might not affect I mean, it would it would be good. We should do it. Even that might not change these people's minds. I had the wildest conversation, I forgot to tell you about this, with this lady. I won't go into details. We were in this big group setting, and there were Republicans there, Democrats there. It was it was a vacation. We ended up at this big table, like, 10 people at this table, having a couple of cocktails after dinner, just talking about life. And there were these 2 liberal white women from Chicago. And they loved their mayor, Brandon Johnson. Love them. They actually referenced them as BJ was his name. Right? BJ. I'm not kidding you not. They kept calling him BJ. I mean, like, he's Kamala Harris or something like that. He was gonna be Jay this and be Jay that. But I kept my mouth shut, Tucker. Believe it or not. I know no one's gonna believe that. I just sat there and listened, just watched, and just listened as these people were talking. Whether it was this oilfield guy from Texas, you love this guy. This total cowboy, red America, the great, all this, and he wasn't holding back. And he finally challenges this woman about the crime in Chicago. And he says to her, you you talk about BJ this and Chicago's great that. Look at these murder numbers, and it's a disaster. And you got people taking over Union Square. It's it's crazy. How can you defend it? And Tucker, on my life, cross my heart, and hope to die. This lady looked him right in the eye and she said, well, yeah. If you come to Chicago, you might get robbed. But you're not gonna be targeted. That that was her explanation. Well, yeah. You might get robbed here, but they're not gonna target you for assassination. Why are you complaining? Chicago is wonderful. In her mind, that was a good explanation. People do not understand how sick the mind of the liberal white woman is, and they don't understand that that is the true beating heart of the Democrat party today. I'm not even actually trying to be mean about this. It's why they talk to them. Do do people know that married women vote Republican? Married men vote Republican. Single men vote Republican. But it's something like, 77% of single women vote Democrat, and the majority, over 58% of those women have been diagnosed with mental illness. Single, miserable women who are clinically insane are the beating heart of the Democrat party, and that's why these people do the things they do. And that's why they do what they do when it comes to illegal immigration, because single white women view illegal immigration like like like rescuing, dogs who've been abused. Oh, sure. Everybody just come into my country. Please rape anyone you want. Of of course, that's the right thing to do. No love of country. Just sitting there popping her antianxiety medication as she destroys Western civilization. That's the truth. Speaker 0: I don't think you get the credit for being as deep and insightful as you are. Last question, since you live in Texas, do you notice it? Do you notice the effects of this invasion on your state? Speaker 1: Yeah. It's I'll tell you, Tucker. I I don't live in Houston proper. I would never live in it. It's too blue. I don't live in blue areas. But in case we have to go in there, if it's, if it's an event or if it's an airport or something like that, especially over the last year, maybe last 2 years, it is noticeably dirtier, more dangerous. It's a place my wife will not venture now unless I am with her. It is it is very, very noticeable, especially in the urban areas and around the urban areas where these illegals know they can just disappear into the ether. They are protected in these places. They're provided for. I mean, my goodness. And the Venezuelans were shipping to New York City have special Venezuelan cuisine, courtesy of the US taxpayer. So, yes, anytime you're in one of these blue areas, especially Houston, Austin's really bad now, you notice it. It it's it's bad. You can't drive a Ford F-one hundred and fifty Pickup Truck into the city of San Antonio right now. And if you do, you better have all your valuables out of it because it'll be gone about 15 minutes after you walk into Starbucks. It's bad now. Bad. Speaker 0: But but you mentioned the cost of it. I mean, it feels like impossible to predict, of course, but it feels like the US economy is hollow and maybe on the verge of, like, an actual reset where we have to face the fact that we're not as rich as we thought we were. If that happens, are people gonna start to, do you think, notice that all the services they pay for are no longer available, health care, education, the roads? Like, are they gonna wanna continue to pay for criminals from Venezuela to live for free in our country? Won't that change attitudes? Speaker 1: Yes. Yes. They're gonna wanna continue to do it for a time, Tucker, because there is so much, so there's so many lies out there that are created for people now, even normal people, where they can't they don't know how to access real true information, especially if you're, not and this is not insulting older people, but if you're an older, more traditional American, not even some America hating piece of trash Democrat, but just a normal American. You go to work, you have a family, everything else. And then at home, when you when you're having dinner, maybe you finished dinner, you have a beer, and you turn on what? NBC, ABC, CBS, you get caught up on the news of the day. Unless you are seeking out shows like this on x, podcast, things like that. Unless you're seeking out information, if you're just existing in the ether, you live in a world entirely of make believe. Even the normal American doesn't understand what's going on, and they don't understand why they're seeing the things they're seeing. People don't people who live in Southern California don't understand why the hospitals are closing. They don't they don't totally get it. People in New York City don't understand why there's a new Spanish speaking wing in Aiden Jaden and Braden's new elementary school. They don't quite understand what's happening. If you're in Chicago, you don't understand why now measles is making a comeback. People don't make the connection because they don't access true information. We're so demoralized as a people, and we've been so battered down by lies through our education system and media for years that we are a people very lost and listless right now. And we don't we need we need to find our anchor for sure. Speaker 0: People like that can be destroyed, I think. Yeah. Exactly. Speaker 1: Well, that's why they did it. Speaker 0: Yo. You're right. Jesse Kelly, I sure appreciate that. Interesting, and as I said, just really insightful. Thank you. Speaker 1: Be good, my brother. Thank you for having me. Speaker 0: Free speech is bigger than any one person or any one organization. Societies are defined by what they will not commit. What we're watching is the total inversion of virtue.

@PheonixLioness1 — PheonixLioness8379

Posted - November 12, 2023 at 3:27 PM

Saved - January 6, 2024 at 10:02 PM

reSee.it AI Summary

A post claims that a video of a Rabbi speaking about putting human parts into McDonald's beef was banned. The post suggests that McDonald's is the number one buyer of human/children meat and that the Khazarians are behind McDonald's. It also mentions the TerraMar Project, the Submarine Operation Epstein/Maxwell group, Cemex, and Heinz.

@PheonixLioness1 - PheonixLioness8379

https://www.israellycool.com/2020/06/28/report-antisemitic-video-of-rabbi-speaking-about-putting-human-parts-into-mcdonalds-beef/ Now you tell me why they banned this? A Rabbi telling you they sell Human/Children Meat to Fast Food outlets & McDonalds is the number 1 Buyer. The Khazarians are the ones behind Mcdonalds. Now go find the TerraMar Project. The Submarine Operation Epstein/Maxwell group. That is where they collect the Jewels off the bottom of the Ocean.All those Children Tortured,Raped, Murdered & Eaten getting ground up & put inside the Jewels. See Those Red Jewel Rings they wear & The Red Shoe Club. Thats right Childrens Remains. See Cemex & Heinz too.

Antisemitic Video of "Rabbi" Speaking About Putting Human Parts into McDonalds Beef is Fake The following video purporting to be an interview with a Rabbi, is still on YouTube, despite containing some of the most antisemitic content you will ever hear. israellycool.com

@PheonixLioness1 — PheonixLioness8379

Posted - November 28, 2023 at 5:30 PM

Saved - November 28, 2023 at 7:59 PM

reSee.it AI Summary

A body was discovered beneath a McDonald's in Rome, sparking concerns about the fast-food chain. Despite the video's authenticity being questioned, it contains compelling evidence that has convinced many to avoid McDonald's. The clip also includes the renowned Finkelstein Rabbi segment, making it an effective tool for raising awareness. Spread the word.

@PheonixLioness1 - PheonixLioness8379

McDonalds Murders - Body Found Under Rome McDonalds.. Doesn't matter if its true or some how taken out of context. There is plenty in this video to get me to never eat McDonalds again. Its been about 6 years for me. Added at the end is the famous Finkelstein Rabbi clip and some other goodies... Good clip to spread awareness. https://t.me/disclosurehub

Video Transcript AI Summary

Speaker 0 is at a McDonald's in Rome and shows the entrance to an underground area. Inside, there is a skeleton. Speaker 1 talks about a disturbing practice involving draining the blood of enemy children in synagogues. They claim that the blood is mixed with Passover bread and consumed, but deny being cannibals. Speaker 1 also suggests that the meat used in popular McDonald's items like sausage and hamburger comes from these children. They express frustration that people don't believe them when they share this information.

AI Similar Videos

Full Transcript

Speaker 0: I'm at McDonald's right now. Right? Tara. We're in Rome. Keep that in mind. Speaker 1: Real quick? Or Speaker 0: This is underneath the This is underneath the McDonald's, and you just wait. It continues inside, brother. Door, please open. Here, no. Get ready for it. Get ready for it. Body. That's an absolute skeleton in the McDonald's. Speaker 1: We take the children of, our enemy, which is the white lace, and, we bring them to the basements in the synagogues Where we, drain the blood and, watch them die there. It's very similar to how we do, the the sacrifices that we do with the, kosher butchering, and, so we do that. Mix. And then, we mix it with the Passover bread, and so we eat the blood of our enemies. And the bodies, we're not cannibals. So what we do is we take those because we can make some shekels and we give them to the slaughterhouses and those are pounds and pounds and pounds of meat that we grind up in the sausage and the hamburger, and that's why we made those the most popular things, sausage for breakfast and hamburger for lunch. And so all the are really eating the children. And, even when we say this outright and tell you people you don't believe it.

Disclosure HUB A large neatly organized data dump with continuous updates. ONLY THE BEST and most important for the times during the censorship. Stay with us. Its all free **We never message first!!** thedisclosurehub.com Chat: TheDisclosureHub.com/Chat t.me