Jack Smith: The Prosecutor Becomes the Prosecuted?

00:00:03 Speaker 1: My name is Charlie Kirk. I run the largest pro American student organization in the country, fighting for the future of our republic. My call is to fight evil and to proclaim truth. If the most important thing for you is just feeling good, you're gonna end up miserable. But if the most important thing is doing good, you'll end up purposeful. College is a scam, everybody. You got to stop sending your kids to college. You should get married as young as possible and have as many kids as possible. Go start at turning point you would say college chapter. Go start attning point youould say high school chapter. Go find out how your church can get involved. Sign up and become an activist. I gave my life to the Lord in fifth grade, most important decision I ever made in my life, and I encourage you to do the same. Here I am Lord, Use me. Buckle up, everybody, Here we go. The Charlie Kirk Show is proudly sponsored by Preserved Gold, leading gold and silver experts and the only precious metals company I recommend to my family, friends and viewers. 00:01:09 Speaker 2: All right, welcome back to The Charlie Kirkshow. Hour two is underway. First day of America Fest at the Phoenix Convention Center kicks off tonight. Erica Kirk's gonna be welcoming everybody. We got Tucker Carlson, Ben Shapiro and more. I think Russell brand I forget who all is actually in tonight, but it's a killer lineup and it just keeps going the whole weekend. There are no breaks, no taking our foot off. The gas is going to be absolutely amazing. Lots of interviews at the members dot charliekirk dot com lounge, so those are private for members of the Charlie Kirkshow community, which is great. 00:01:42 Speaker 3: But in the meantime, Charlie Kirkshow community like the intelligence community or something that I say. 00:01:48 Speaker 2: It's a community. It's a group of people that share something in common. But right now we have Mike Davis, the Article three project. Mike, welcome back to the show. My friend. There is all this news. Chuck Grassley, I know you know, Chuck Grassley. Senator Grassley puts out this memo and basically says the FBI denied that there are at least is there's voices within the FBI asserting that they did not have probable cause to raid mar A Lago. Then you got Jack Smith who goes in for an eight hour closed door testimony making his case for why he, you know, embarked upon this Special Council political prosecution to President Trump, what is the truth? 00:02:30 Speaker 4: What did they learn yesterday? 00:02:33 Speaker 2: And you know what is going on behind the scenes with this FBI bombshell from Senator Grassley. 00:02:39 Speaker 5: Well, it's what we've been discussing on this show for over three years, Andrew, and that is that this was a political hits on President Trump in mar A Lago. It was a political hits to get back the damning Crossfire Hurricane records that President Trump declassified via Presidential ex executive order the day before he left office the first time. And they wanted to get back these records because they're so damning. 00:03:08 Speaker 6: They knew these. 00:03:09 Speaker 5: Records were going to come out because President Trump suited Hillary Clinton in a civil lawsuit in the Southern District of Florida for Crossfire Hurricane, for the Russian illusion hoax. When Obama Biden, Hillary Brennan, Clapper company, so many bad actors politicized and weaponized intel agencies to protect Hillary and her corruption when she was a Secretary of State, and the Clinton Foundation was taking tens of millions of dollars in shady foreign donations. Were just learning today that there is evidence of quid pro quo foreign corruption. With that that the Biden Justice Department sat on, and then with Crossfire Hurricane, they wanted to take out President Trump's campaign. So if these damning, if this damning evidence came out of Hillary Clinton's corruption because her server got hacked, that she wanted to be able to point to the Trump campaign and say, you can't believe this is a campaign, dirty trick, this is a hoax. They did the same thing with Hunter Biden's laptop in twenty twenty, so the FBI knew they didn't have probable cause to do this raid to get back these Crossfire Hurricane records, you have this US magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhardt in the Southern District of Florida, who was on the Trump versus Hillary civil case. He had to recuse because he had twenty seventeen Facebook post trashing President Trump, so obviously he's not going to be a fair judge. Six weeks later, that judicial bias somehow magically disappeared when Jay Bratz from the Biden Justice Department who went on to work for Jack Smith, went to Bruce Reinhardt and got this unprecedented's unlawful home raid on Trump when they knew they didn't have probable cause. It's so damning. I've talked about this for a long time. They've opened up a new grand jury in Fort Pierce, Florida, in the Southern District of Florida. My friend Jason Redding Quinones is Trump's new US attorney, and I have very publicly called for a grand jury to probe all of this and hold all of these lawfare democrats and other bad actors accountable for this, because this is the biggest scandal in American history. 00:05:25 Speaker 2: Wow, So you've got you know, what will never cease to amaze me is that you have these federal judges that just go on Facebook and like Trump's terrible, Like I mean, like the fact that a judge would feel so you know, loose to something, to say something political publicly on a social media site. It just it's just damning. I mean, in and of itself, I just find it really crass in low class. Actually, I don't know, I don't know if you're trying to chime in here, but it's just like you, you know, judges, you have this air of impartiality, you have an air of above the fray, and then you just go on to Facebook and like Trump sucks, Like okay, I don't know. 00:06:05 Speaker 4: It just seems beneath the office. Yeah, it is. 00:06:08 Speaker 5: It's also a violation of the judicial cannons. But I would say this about that US Magistrate Judge Bruce Reinhart at the timing of that Maro Lago rate seems very fishy. He recuses in the civil lawsuit. Six weeks later, the recusal issue goes away, and all of a sudden, Jay Bratt is down in Maro a Lagos sniffing around and coming up with a pretext that through this trade for presidential records that the president is allowed to have under the Presidential Records Act. What did Bruce Reinhardt talk to Jay Bratts about this? How did Ja Bratt know that these documents were going to be produced in that civil lawsuit versus Hilary when it was This whole thing needs to be investigated, and all of these bad actors need to be investigated, including these judges. 00:06:55 Speaker 2: So you say we need accountability here, I would agree, Mike Davis Article three project. What so you form a grand jury? What would accountability look like for somebody like Jack Smith? 00:07:10 Speaker 5: The accountability would be what we've been talking about for over three years. You open up a criminal probe under eighteen USC. Section two forty one. Conspiracy against rights when you politicize and weaponize intel agencies and law enforcement to go after your political enemies for non crimes. That's the textbook definition of conspiracy against rights. Jack Smith is very well aware of this conspiracy against rights crime because it's one of the four charges he made against President Trump for the non crime of the non crime of President Trump objecting to a presidential election, which is allowed by the Electoral Count Act of eighteen eighty seven and the First Amendment. Jack Smith can go into that closed door hearing and say whatever he wants. He said he had all the goods, he had all the evidence to get President Trump. He didn't. This guy is a part of scud Missile, who Democrats sent in to take out Republican presidential candidates. They'd sent in Jack Smith to take out former Virginia Governor Bob McDonald when he was a likely presidential candidate for Republicans. Jack Smith got a criminal conviction for fraud. It got overturned eight to nothing by the Supreme Court of the United States. It would have been nine to nothing, but Justice Scalia died. But Jack Smith didn't care that the damage was done. He took out Reverend mcgovernor McDonald as a presidential candidate. Jack Smith got banished to the Hey, he should have lost his law license after that. He's after you get beat eight to nothing at the Supreme Court. It's very hard to get beat eight to nothing at the Supreme Court, particularly on a criminal case. But Jack Smith found the way and they brought him back. The Biden regime brought him back to take out Trump at all costs. They failed because President Trump hired John Sower than now the Solicitor General, and John Sower the presidential immunity argument, which stopped the prosecutions in their tracks. But if John Sower didn't do that, President Trump would be sitting in a prison cell right now instead of the White House. 00:09:12 Speaker 3: But it does strike me, isn't that probably the best defense Jack Smith could make is you can say it's politicized. I think we agree it felt politicized, but a lot of it is if they can cover it with enough measure of legal formality. 00:09:26 Speaker 4: And getting evidence. 00:09:28 Speaker 3: He brings up we have part of his statement and he said, I just brought the charges that a grand jury returns. So doesn't he have sort of a pretty strong defense of a grand jury agreed with us? 00:09:39 Speaker 4: Yep. 00:09:41 Speaker 5: Everyone knows that a grand jury will indict a ham Sandwich. And you have a separate duty as a prosecutor to make sure that you have probable cause to make sure that there is a good faith legal basis for what you're doing, to make sure that you're not bringing not he remember what Jack Smith did. He brought novel legal charges. He tried to throw Trump in prison for the non crime of having presidential records, which is allowed by the Presidential Records Act. He tried to throw Trump in prison for the non crime of objecting to a presidential election, which is allowed by the Electoral Account Act of eighteen eighty seven. In the First Amendment, Jack Smith politicized and weaponized intel agencies and law enforcement to take out trouble Law with many many others, and Jack Smith can raise that defense to the jury. 00:10:30 Speaker 7: This is Lane Schumberger, chief investment officer and founding partner of y Refi. It has been an honor and a privilege to partner with Turning Point and for Charlie to endorse us. His endorsement means the world to us and we look forward to continuing our partnership with Turning Point for years to come. Now hear Charlie in his own words, tell you about y refi. 00:10:50 Speaker 1: I'm going to tell you guys about yrefight dot com. That is why are e f y dot com. Y refi is incredible private student loan net in America told us about three hundred billion dollars. Y refi is refinancing distress or defaulted private student loans. You can finally take control of your student loan situation with a plan that works for your monthly budget. Go to yrefight dot com. That is why refight dot com. Do you have a co borrower, why ref i can get them released from the loan. You're going to skip a payment up the twelve times without penalty. It may not be available at all fifty states. Go to y refight dot com. That is why are e f y dot com. Let's face it, if you have distress or default the student loans, it can be overwhelming because of privacit loan debt, so many people feel stuck. Go to y refight dot com. That is y R e f y dot com Private student loan debt relief yrefight dot com. 00:11:39 Speaker 2: Mike, you, uh, what have you heard from your sources about this, this briefing that happened on the Narco boats. I mean even Fetterman's coming out and saying this is all legal. They have a three step process, multi tier process, and there's lawyers at every step of the way. Is there any concern that you know that they're gonna have any legal basis to attack Pete Hegseth when he's no longer Secretary of War for example, or any of the people in the chain of command. 00:12:04 Speaker 5: Here, President of the United States, as the commander in chief, has the constitutional and statutory power and duty to protect our nation, including repelling an invasion. And that's exactly what's going on here. You have these Narco boats bringing in fence and all that's killing tens of thousands of Americans, and that the President is well within his constitutional and statutory authority. He's well within his constitutional authority as the commander in chief. Under the Commander in Chief Clause even if there's not a declaration of war, because going back to our founding, everyone agrees that the president can repel an invasion into our country. And also under the War Powers Act of nineteen seventy three, passed by Congress over President Nixon's veto, many presidents do not consider the War Powers Act constant utional because they think it constrains too much of the president's power to fight wars and to defend our country. But even if you think that the War Powers Act of nineteen seventy three is constitutional, what President Trump is doing is within his statutory powers under the War Powers Act of nineteen seventy three. There's no legal issue here whatsoever. And I don't remember these Democrats like Senator Mark Kelly complaining when President Obama ordered extra judicial drone strikes on American citizens abroad, including a minor so and I supported that if President Obama at drone strike Americans, President Trump and certainly Bob Narco boats. 00:13:46 Speaker 3: Are there any limits on what he could choose to bomb? 00:13:51 Speaker 4: I suppose sure. 00:13:52 Speaker 5: I mean there are limits if you have to show that they're you know, if the president is bombing things that are not danger to the United States, then sure, there could be limits on that, but it's the president has very broad discretion. He has very broad power and very broad discretion as the chief executive officer and as the commander in chief as it relates to controlling our military, protecting our country, protecting shipping lanes, protecting our allies. He has broad powers. Remember that if you look at the Constitution, that the Congress has the power to declare war, not make war, right, So there's a difference there, And the founders actually debated that. If you go back and look at the Federalist papers, they intentionally changed that language from make war to declare war to give the president more leeway, more running room to protect our country. 00:14:46 Speaker 4: Yeah. 00:14:46 Speaker 2: I mean, I'm mostly just worried that, you know, if the future elections don't go our way, that they're going to try and you know, throw secretary headset in the gulag. 00:14:56 Speaker 4: I doubt they would. 00:14:56 Speaker 3: I think there's probably a I mean, there's I guess I shouldn't say they won't, because there's really no limit to the damage the left might do to the country in a fit of peak. 00:15:05 Speaker 4: But I think. 00:15:07 Speaker 3: Historically, at least there would be a very strong bipartisan hesitancy to have our military leaders be second guessing actions they take because they're just going to get prosecuted for it. Sound a party because at that point an if they're going to throw out that, they could do it for probably any other military action as well. I think you need a more clear cut unanimity on it being something completely unacceptable, you know, massacre of village in Rightetnam, where they had evidence that was clear. 00:15:34 Speaker 2: That they were only civilians. For for example, Mike, we've got only about a minute and a half left in this segment, but I wanted to play this cut from a judge Janine or I guess US attorney Jeanine Piro two ninety one. 00:15:47 Speaker 8: There certainly was an effort to you know, misclassify, mischaracterize certain categories of crime, and it was an attempt to make crime look lower than it was. And the investigation that we inducted over a period of several months based upon the report of the deflation of numbers, it was very thorough. As you indicated, over six thousand reports were looked at, over fifty witnesses, and those witnesses were rank and filed from the top down. But the bottom line here is this now we're in a situation with President Trump and the Attorney General Pam BONDI, where every case is being looked at, every case is being reviewed by my office. 00:16:27 Speaker 2: My questions quick here, Mike, What can you do? I guess state level other states are probably cooking the books on crime stats as well, but at least in DC there are some federal control. How do you fix this? Who can you hold accountable? 00:16:40 Speaker 5: I would open a criminal proll because if you are making false statements to the federal government with your crime statistics in order to get, for example, more grant money, you could be charged for that. You could be charged for fraud. You could be charged for conspiracy. 00:16:56 Speaker 4: Can judge the charge? Hinjinine Piro do that? 00:16:59 Speaker 5: She could? I think you should look more closely at this. 00:17:03 Speaker 4: Mike Davis, thanks for the time, my friend, will see you soon. 00:17:05 Speaker 5: Thank you. 00:17:08 Speaker 2: You know, I've been thinking about how much culture is shaped by what we choose to watch, because, whether we realize it or not, the stories we invite into our homes shape the way we see the world. That's why what Angel Studios is doing matters. And right now they're having their biggest sale of the year for a limited time You can get an Angel Guild membership for his low as six ninety nine a month for twelve months, plus two free tickets to see David in theaters. Angel Studios is leading a quiet revolution in entertainment. They're telling stories that elevate truth, celebrate family, and remind us what courage really looks like. 00:17:41 Speaker 1: These aren't just good films, their cultural reset buttons. When you join the Angel Guild, you don't just stream entertainment. 00:17:48 Speaker 2: You help create it, and you help decide what the next generation of stories will look like. Take advantage of the lowest price of the year. Become a member of the Angel Guild and get your two free tickets to see David in theaters this Christmas. Go to Angel dot com slash Charlie. That's Angel dot com slash Charlie to learn more. All right, so, Senator Mike Lee, welcome back to the show. It's great to have you. Thank you for making the time. There has been a raging debate online and then I think Mark Waynemullen, one of your senate colleagues who also comes on the show often, he sort of seemed like he was now open to the idea of nuking the filibuster. I had all these questions, why if we don't you know, you got Mitch McConnell, you got Susan Collins Murkowski. I don't know what you could even get accomplished if you do nuke the philibuster. And then you came out with this tweet threeh eight you say, the chronic abuse of the Senate sixty vote cloture standard must come to an end. Now the Senate GOP must immediately start fighting cloture abuse by, among other things, requiring senators to debate. So lay out how this is distinct from just nuking the filibuster. 00:18:57 Speaker 9: Look, these are all ways that we're focused on to try to and filibuster abuse and cloture abuse. And first let me explain what cloture is and what the filibuster is. The Senate from the very beginning of its existence, for nearly two and a half centuries, has had as a general rule unlimited debate that you allow as long as any senator wants to debate, debate will continue. Now, starting about a century ago, I think it was maybe in nineteen seventeen, they came up with a means by which they could bring debate to a close. Initially it required a three fourth supermajority that was later lowered to a two third supermajority. It's now a three fifths supermajority and has been there for about fifty years. Meeting in a one hundred vote senate, you've got to have sixty votes from sixty different senators to bring debate to a close. Then, and only then can you bring debate to a close. So the whole point of this cloture rule, it's not to create a de facto sixty vote threshold for passing legislation itself. It often has that effect, but really the purpose of it is to extend debate. 00:20:12 Speaker 6: In lesser until you get sixty votes to bring debate to a close. Here's what it's metastasized into. Though. 00:20:18 Speaker 9: What it's turned into is something very interesting. It's turned into people saying, well, I don't want to vote for it, I won't support cloture. Therefore I don't have to debate it, and I can kill it simply by refusing to support culture. But then we don't require them to debate, and so this allows them a cheap and easy way of creating a de facto sixty vote threshold. 00:20:44 Speaker 6: For passing legislation. That's not how it's supposed to work. 00:20:47 Speaker 9: The point is this, if we enforce the cloture rule, we could end cloture abuse and we could end this perpetual tail chasing model in which even when Republicans control the Senate and the House and the White House as we currently do, we just take all sorts of things off the table. 00:21:06 Speaker 6: We can't accomplish this. We can't accomplish that. Why well, because we don't have sixty votes. There are other ways that break through this. 00:21:13 Speaker 9: You enforce the rules by requiring them to debate, and then the minute they stop debating, either because you've physically exhausted them or because they have exhausted their. 00:21:24 Speaker 6: Right to continue speaking. We have a number of rules about. 00:21:27 Speaker 9: That, including you can only speak twice on the same legislative day, on the same discrete legislative matter. If they have exhausted either themselves physically or their right to speak, that moment, you can call of the vote and that vote is cast as simple majority threshold and you can get a lot past. 00:21:43 Speaker 6: We haven't been doing that. We need to get back into that business. 00:21:46 Speaker 2: Yeah, that's so you're basically you know you've seen these. Senator Cruz did the marathon. You had Corey Booker do these marathon Is that kind of what if we change the rules? I have a question about how you would actually change it. But if we actually started enforcing in person, you know, irl debate on the floor of the Senate, that's what you would basically start seeing, is you'd start seeing, yes, fifty senators doing marathon debate to try and outlast their opponent. 00:22:13 Speaker 4: Basically, that's right, that's right. 00:22:15 Speaker 9: The problem with today's filibuster is that it's not really a filibuster. It's not Jimmy Stewart speaking until he collapses on the Senate floor. 00:22:25 Speaker 6: So at no point have Democrats. 00:22:28 Speaker 9: This year, while we've held the Senate and the House in the White House, at no point of Democrats been forced to go down to the floor and talk without stopping to defend their terrible policies until they have to go to the bathroom or get some sleep, or until everybody who wants to speak and debate on it have exhausted their ability to do so. That is what most Americans justifiably understand the filibuster to be. And it's not happening because we're not enforcing our own rules. 00:22:54 Speaker 3: Yeah, I'm seeing this could have the beneficial side effect. It might force some earlier retirements by some as. 00:23:00 Speaker 4: You just say I'm not up for eight eight hours. 00:23:02 Speaker 2: You'd start having to elect in the primaries like based on like youth and vigor, because we need a guy that can actually. 00:23:08 Speaker 3: Like stand on the Senate floor to drafting a hockey team. This guy's got quite as based on the policies, but he's a great stammin Yeah. 00:23:15 Speaker 2: Great, Sammy. This is what we've done with Supreme Court. It's like, what are they thirty seven? Yeah, let's yeah, that's that's interesting. So how would you go about changing the rules? What needs to happen? Could this be a majority leader Thune? Could he get this done? 00:23:30 Speaker 6: Essentially? Yes. 00:23:32 Speaker 9: So that's the beauty of this thing, Andrews that no rules change is required. We don't have to do anything to change them because the rules not only already allow this, the rules already contemplate that this is what a filibuster is. So remember, Democrats have been able to use just the mere concept of a talking filibuster to grind things from. 00:23:54 Speaker 6: A halt, and we've allowed them to do that. 00:23:57 Speaker 9: Because we haven't enforced it, So yes, if we adopted this standpoint, the majority leader in a consultation with whoever is sitting in the presiding Officer's chair at the moment it decides that he's. 00:24:12 Speaker 6: That we're going to begin enforcing this. 00:24:15 Speaker 9: And the minute they're not there to debate, either because they physically don't want to or because they can't because they've exhausted their right to do so under our existing rules, then you call the question, you meaning, you call the vote on that matter, and when there's nobody there debating it, the passage that the passage of that legislation is set at a simple majority. 00:24:39 Speaker 2: That is a really I mean, it does strike me when I saw you tweet this out, Senator, I was like, this is I mean, you do think of the Senate being the premier legislative body in the world, that you think of all this vigorous debate that happens on the Senate floor, But it's really not like that. It's a bunch of grand standing for clips, and so you can post them on social and you can, you know, take cheap shots at your opponents without them answering back, and and then you don't really debate that's the whole point of culture, is that you just you, you stave off actual vigorous debate. And it wouldn't the Senate be benefited by this back and forth of ideas. 00:25:16 Speaker 4: I mean it does. 00:25:18 Speaker 2: It does strike me that this is your you're sort of getting it back to its original purpose. 00:25:22 Speaker 6: No, that's exactly right now. I will be clear. 00:25:25 Speaker 9: There are times when real debate does happen on the Senate floor. Sometimes it's in slow motion, but sometimes there's no debate going on at all, which brings back, brings us back to how we would do this. The only real catch here what's difficult about this. I don't mean to describe this as easy, and I don't mean to suggest that the minute we decided to do this, we could and would immediately pass everything that we wanted without any hitch or without any difficulty, And. 00:25:53 Speaker 6: That's not true. 00:25:54 Speaker 9: But it gives us the opportunity to do that, and I think in many cases we would be the past things that we wouldn't otherwise be able to do. 00:26:03 Speaker 6: But here's the catch. 00:26:04 Speaker 9: The catch is that Republicans would need, as the majority party in the Senate, would need to show up and spend significant time on the Senate floor, the Republican leadership. 00:26:17 Speaker 6: Yeah right, I mean, but that is what we signed up for. 00:26:20 Speaker 9: We've often been told as senators, you know, if you don't want to fight hires, don't become a firefighter. And if you don't want to cast difficult votes at inconvenient times, don't become a lawmaker. Don't come to the United States Senate. If we decided as a conference we're going to do this, there's a lot more that we could accomplish, and we could do it this way without having to change a single rule. It really is the natural fulfillment of what the filibuster is supposed to be. Right now, we don't have real filibusters. We just have chronic cloture abuse. And then we deceive the public into thinking that the reason we can't do some of the things that we want to. 00:27:01 Speaker 6: Do is because we don't have sixty votes. 00:27:04 Speaker 9: Well, it's been over one hundred years since Republicans have had sixty votes in the Senate, that three fifths supermajority. And that's why we can't blame it all on the filibuster, because it's born on the seventeenth. 00:27:16 Speaker 2: You can blame it on the seventeenth. But that's you know, I hadn't even Yeah, I haven't even thought about that. 00:27:21 Speaker 4: Senator that we have. 00:27:22 Speaker 2: It's been over one hundred years since we've had sixty Republican senators. 00:27:25 Speaker 4: One hundred years. 00:27:26 Speaker 2: I mean, if we think we're ever going So my big thing, Senator Lee, is that I want immigration reform. That's what I think that. I think it is the switch that you could flip that would solve a ton of our problems. That's me personally. I think there's a lot of energy for that in the base. But we're never going to get there with this Democrat party. There's the But here's my concern is that even if we got there, we nuked the filibuster, we don't have enough votes to do anything important anyways. So the question is, you know, will Senator Thoon, have you pitched this to Senator Thuon, Leader Thoon, have you pitched this to the President of the White House? Is this something that could actually gain momentum, attraction and become a thing. 00:28:05 Speaker 6: I have pitched it. 00:28:06 Speaker 9: To the President, I've pitched it to Leader through and I've pitched it to Senate Republicans. I've pitched it to the White House staff, and I have yet to hear anyone identify a reason why it couldn't work. Sometimes people will point out correctly what the difficulty could be, and the difficulty is exactly what I just described it as, which is that it would require attendance and prolonged attendance at inconvenient hours. But nobody has explained any reason why it wouldn't work. And while there are some difficulties inherent in that, I think we owe that to the American people at a time when we've had millions upon millions of people coming into our country illegally under the over the last four years, at a. 00:28:52 Speaker 6: Time when our laws are making it very difficult. 00:28:54 Speaker 9: That is becoming an obvious in litigation pending now in the District of ill Be over our ability to deport those individuals who came in unlawfully, given the now huge backlog we have in our immigration course. 00:29:08 Speaker 6: Yes, we've got to have reform in that area. 00:29:10 Speaker 9: We need permitting reform, we need regulatory reform, we need to pass the Reins Act. 00:29:14 Speaker 6: All these things could benefit from this strategy. 00:29:16 Speaker 4: I think it's brilliant. 00:29:17 Speaker 2: I think I don't see a good example or a good reason to not do it as you said, and senators should be pulling long hours. Our US senator should be pulling very long hours, Senator Mike Lee, a really amazing idea. Thank you for making the time. 00:29:31 Speaker 6: Thank you. 00:29:34 Speaker 2: Christmas is a time of giving, and there's nothing better than knowing that what you give results in saving the life of an innocent baby. And for every baby we save, there is a mom who is saved from a lifetime of regret. Every Christmas stocking you will look at this month is a blessing in your life. Won't you make that possible for another mom? 00:29:53 Speaker 4: Today? 00:29:53 Speaker 2: Preborn provides free ultrasounds to girls and women, and an ultrasound doubles the chance she'll choose life. Undred and forty dollars gives five free ultrasounds and saves babies. Just twenty eight dollars a month can save a baby a month for less than a dollar a day, and today, thanks to a dollar for dollar match, your gift saves twice as many babies. And if you're looking for the perfect tax deductible year end giving idea, I personally cannot think of a better one than a fifteen thousand dollars gift providing an ultrasound machine, saving thousands of lives for years to come join me, and saving babies right now and making it a merry Christmas. Call eight three three eight five zero two two two nine, or click on the preborn banner at Charlie Kirk dot com. We're just Blake and I. We were imagining all these octagenarians in the Senate just trying to pull all nighters and stand up on their own two field. 00:30:45 Speaker 4: I bet they maybe they pull in, you. 00:30:47 Speaker 2: Know, like a like a chair for some of the oldies. Dick Durbins eighty one, Richard Blumenthal is, that's funny, seventy nine to eighty years old. 00:30:56 Speaker 4: I guess that's it's older than I thought. 00:30:59 Speaker 2: Chuck Grassley's the old oldest at ninety two, Chuck Schumer seventy five, Elizabeth Warren is seventy six. And let's see here, Bernie Sanders gotta be like, what like eighty Sanders is eighty four eighty four. 00:31:11 Speaker 3: But as he said, Sanders, he kind of comes off like he can still hang. He's an energetic eighty four. 00:31:17 Speaker 2: So the whole time I was doing that interview with Sinatarly, I was like, Blake's probably sitting here just spinning a twitally as thumbs, going why it won't work, and that bothered me to feel your energy. 00:31:29 Speaker 3: I appreciate that the senator wants more real debate in the Senate. It's sort of a funny thing. You can read about these great debates in the United States House and in the United States Senate. In the eighteen hundreds, you have this speech on the Senate floor that's so fiery by Charles Sumner that this guy from South Carolina comes in and beats him over the head with a cane in front of everybody. Because the senators would be there and debate in person, and they don't anymore. You get this myth because of c Span that they're doing that, but they're not. It's they're just speaking to an empty hall and some yawning tourists. 00:32:00 Speaker 4: Yeah. 00:32:00 Speaker 2: I think you imagine it more like like you know the Oxford Union. 00:32:05 Speaker 4: Yeah, or don't do that. 00:32:07 Speaker 3: In the UK, they have Prime Minister's questions. The PM goes in, everyone's there and it's they still have a tradition. I would you have the people there to debate. I would love to see you've lost that. It would be good to restore that that said, I think this is just a slightly different, dressed up way to nuke the filibuster. 00:32:23 Speaker 4: I mean, yeah, it's it. 00:32:25 Speaker 2: But I actually do think I was compelled by a return to what it should be, what it was supposed to be. And I actually think Leader Thune should keep like just totally reform it. 00:32:36 Speaker 4: So they have to go back to our position. 00:32:37 Speaker 3: It's are getting rid of if you have good legislation that you will pass. 00:32:41 Speaker 4: If you don't, what's the point. 00:32:44 Speaker 2: Yeah, well, immigration is the north Star telling you go ahead and throw up. I don't know if this is this b roll or is this audio anyways? 00:32:52 Speaker 4: Three ten uh. 00:32:54 Speaker 2: This is from Tyler Boyer COO of Turning Point Action and he this is him entering the venue this morning, three ten uh. And it's just beautiful presentation. It's got images of Charlie. There's some like I don't even know, they put decals on the floor and they look like they kind of glow or whatever. So that's just that's one of the entry points into Amfest and it's a I mean, it's phenomenal. So tonight we're gonna have Russell Brand, Ben Shapiro, Tucker Carlson, Erica Kirk is gonna welcome us in and more and then tomorrow obviously Day two, lots of speakers, tons of breakouts. If you want to check out the agenda, you can go to tpsa dot com slash agenda if you want to see everything that's going on. We're gonna have the Thought Crime crew together at one thirty tomorrow local IK. Yeah, one thirty Local, three thirty Eastern. They're gonna be doing that from Expo Hall. We got this big trailer, so Jack, Cliff, Maloney, me Tyler you and then we'll probably do some Q and A with the students, which will be really fun. And then we've got a Proved Me Wrong at that same location. Megan Kelly's doing it, Michael Knowles is doing it, Lots of different folks are going to be doing that. We're capturing all that content and the back and forth with the students, So keeping Charlie's legacy of doing. 00:34:15 Speaker 4: That alive at that at Amfest. 00:34:17 Speaker 2: And I think last year was the first year he actually did it, proved me wrong inside the Expo hall, so I think so. 00:34:22 Speaker 3: Yeah, I don't think that many people were trying to prove him wrong on anything. 00:34:25 Speaker 2: It was like it was fun questions. I was like, you know which team is better? 00:34:29 Speaker 4: Sports? 00:34:29 Speaker 2: Sports questions, football questions, ragging on his trime. 00:34:33 Speaker 3: Do we begin the stream today because we've had a few questions about that. 00:34:37 Speaker 2: The stream is probably going to start, I believe at around four forty five, so or for thirty six thirty eastern. Yeah, right, yeah, because we've got pastor John Onmchuku is going to start us, and then we've got Yeah, so we've got so updated Erica Kurr, Ben Shapiro, Russell Brand, Michael Noles, Tucker Carlson, and then there's a concert tonight with Nate Smith, and that is starting probably. 00:35:07 Speaker 4: I would say we'll probably strike the. 00:35:09 Speaker 2: Stream at four thirty and then programming begins at four fifty and I'll get again that's local time, so keep it on eastern. Six point thirty begins at six forty five probably is when the programming begins eastern. So you're gonna check it out and you can get that on rumble dot com for streaming. If you want to watch it on Real America's Voice, Rumorkers Voice will also have it. And uh, it's gonna be a great weekend. It's gonna be a phenomenal, phenomenal weekend. And I think to some of the themes that we were talking about before, Blake that I just think the movement is hungry for a moment where we get to see all these disparate voices, these competing, competing viewpoints come together in one big event that's big enough to hold them all. 00:35:47 Speaker 4: That's the goal. 00:35:49 Speaker 3: Now it's it's not big enough to hold them all. That's the amazing thing. And that's always what Charlie wanted. He wanted the you know, the stadium event we had that. He wanted the event he wanted to grow so huge Phoenix itself wasn't big enough. 00:36:02 Speaker 2: Yeah, and we we we are going to announce some big news about that for next year, but we're not ready yet. Okay, there's there's there's stuff going on behind the scenes about the super Bowl halftime show. Actually I said that wrong, the halftime show, the All American forgive me that that is not our branding the physically large game officially halftime show. 00:36:23 Speaker 4: I apologize. 00:36:24 Speaker 2: And so there's news that that we'll have there, there's news about next year. And if you want to get tickets and you weren't able to for Amfest this year. Go to amfest dot com to uh pre order your tickets for next year with a discount. We will see you tomorrow from the floor of America Fest talk to you them. 00:36:46 Speaker 7: For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to Charliekirk dot com.