July 10, 2026 • 31 mins
On this episode of The Tudor Dixon Podcast, Tudor sits down with Washington Times editor-at-large Alex Swoyer for a deep dive into the biggest political and legal stories shaking Washington.
Tudor and Alex discuss the growing questions surrounding Mitch McConnell’s health and transparency in Washington, the latest developments in the Charlie Kirk murder case and Tyler Robinson hearings, and why the legal process matters in high-profile trials.
They also break down the collapse of Graham Platner’s Senate campaign, the fight for control of the Senate, and the growing divide inside the Democratic Party as progressive and socialist-aligned candidates gain momentum. Plus, they examine the rise of digital political campaigns, the future of American capitalism, and what voters should watch heading into the next election cycle.
Follow Clay & Buck on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/c/clayandbuck
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Listen
Watch
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Hey, everyone, it's the Tutor Dixon Podcast, and today we
have Alex Swoyer with us. She is the editor at
large of The Washington Times, where she also hosts the
sit Down with Eric Alex Swoyer and writes the column
Scene Heard and Whispered. Because you were like behind the scenes,
getting all of the scene heard in whispered stuff all
(00:20):
of us. That's awesome, I mean, but that really is.
It's exciting because we don't actually so much of what's
happening in Washington. We don't actually know. And since we're
talking about things that are being whispered, I will ask
you your take on Mitch McConnell.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
Yeah, I think that's a really good question.
Speaker 3 (00:38):
I covered the Senate from like twenty seventeen to about
twenty twenty one, so I was in there. My desk
was in the Senate press gallery at the time. He
was Majority leader, his staff was I would say, if
you approached them or they approach.
Speaker 2 (00:53):
You, it was good, good and easy to communicate with them.
Speaker 3 (00:56):
They weren't always sending out the most detail information. If
you got a press release, it was usually you know,
a clip from the senator's remarks on the Senate floor.
So That's one of the things I've noticed in this
whole questions about what's going on with McConnell. I think
that had there been more information put out steadily giving
(01:19):
the public updates about his condition, then there would not
be these I don't want know if we want to
call them all conspiracy theories, but different lines of thinking
out there on X that I've seen, So, you know,
I think that that's one of the issues I think
with the communications strategy here, the more information kind of
coming out steadily, the better.
Speaker 2 (01:40):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (01:41):
So, so just since you mentioned that, for people who
don't know, Senator Mitch McConnell had a health episode, we
don't exactly know what happened. He's we're hearing he's in
the hospital. He hasn't been seen in quite some time.
But we were seeing this for a few years where
he would have like these moments where he just paused
(02:01):
and then we didn't really ever hear what that was.
Speaker 3 (02:04):
Yeah, and I also think just I think this doesn't
take an expert, but the fact that his wife immediately
didn't travel back. I think she was overseas in China
at the time of the latest health episode suggested possibly
that they thought this was going to be a brief
situation he would recover, But then she has since traveled back,
and because we aren't getting study flow of information or updates,
(02:26):
I would say from the staff, it makes you wonder
if his condition hasn't worsened, you know, the fact that
she felt like she needed to return, maybe the fact
that the staff is being careful about exactly what they're
going to put out there if things didn't weren't on
the up and.
Speaker 2 (02:41):
Up, if you will.
Speaker 3 (02:42):
So, I think that's kind of just from a reporter's perspective,
having covered the Senate when he was leader.
Speaker 2 (02:47):
That's my take.
Speaker 3 (02:49):
You know, I've seen there's reports that he had a
heart attack, possibly, you know, living off of a machine.
There's no I have no confirmation of that. I think
that this is what happens when there's a ceity flow
of information, and also then you get kind of the
wheels turning when all of a sudden, on one day,
all these people put out information that they spoke to.
Speaker 2 (03:08):
McConnell, and you know, they had twenty forty.
Speaker 3 (03:11):
Five minute conversations. I think we saw Scott Jennings did that.
I think it was other former lawmakers or those that
are closed with McConnell. It just kind of seemed like
if it was kind of sprinkled here and there, not
so eyebrow raising. But when everyone kind of has the
same messaging, it makes you I understand why people pause
and wonder.
Speaker 1 (03:31):
I mean, the exact same, Like those tweets were almost
exactly the same. And I think for those of us
who are watching were.
Speaker 3 (03:37):
Like, this is like, because about how long you talk to,
what your name is, what you want to say, you
talked about It's like it was just a little lot.
Speaker 1 (03:46):
And we've seen these weird I mean, let's face it,
we've seen influencer campaigns where it's like we want to
get a message across, so we we have it's the
same message, and it goes and they'll put the tweets
up on the board and be like, oh, look all
of these people tweeted the same thing, which is generally
about you know, I don't know, a bill they want
to pass or a topic not someone's health.
Speaker 2 (04:08):
Around me that israel Yeah, yeah, I don't like that.
Speaker 1 (04:11):
Yeah, this is the weird thing. And now you brought
up his wife, Elaine Chow. She went to China. I mean,
so her trip was like a significant trip she was
in China, and then there's also conspiracies around that because
it seems weird. Obviously she's worked in the government before,
but meeting with China's VP feels off, and like when
your husband ends up in the hospital for an extended
(04:33):
period of time, it's just a weird feeling. And that's
when a lot of conspiracy theories just go run amook.
Speaker 3 (04:41):
Yeah, like unconfirmed rumor mill, like why is she in China?
Is she working as a spy? You know, nothing like
that confirmed. Actually, I don't even know what she's doing
since she left the Trump administration. I'm sure whatever it is,
you know, McConnell would be the type with all the
scrutiny to have it above board, have the proper file.
Maybe she's doing some sort of lobbying, you know, who knows.
(05:04):
But I do think that the fact that she didn't
immediately return suggested that initially they possibly didn't think this
was going to be as serious as it's become. Because
then she did return, and like I said, we've kind
of not had a steady flow of information coming from
the office, and you would think that if things were
looking up, we would be getting positive updates yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1 (05:24):
It's interesting. So other things in the news right now
are we have the hearing of Charlie Kirk's murderer, I
accused murderer going on. So we watched as this is unfolding,
and I feel like this has been an extremely powerful
moment for a lot of us because we've not just
(05:47):
gone through his murder and watching that. Everybody watched that,
and even if you didn't want to watch that, you
watched it. You know, It's like one of those things
where you were scrolling through and you were like, oh
my gosh, I I did that.
Speaker 3 (06:01):
You honestly couldn't really avoid seeing it. Unfortunately, Yes, exactly.
Speaker 1 (06:06):
But then afterward, I mean we're talking about conspiracy theories
with Mitch McConnell. Afterward, what this family has been put
through with the constant, who was it, what actually happened,
and the accusations. Now we're in this hearing right where
we have this Tyler Robinson and he's on trial for this,
and the evidence is from what I'm understanding, the evidence
(06:29):
is overwhelming. We saw Donald Trump Junior, who we know
was very close to Charlie Kirk. He came out and
he was like, as I'm sitting and he seems to
be in the courtroom, and he's like, as I'm sitting
in the courtroom, this is very obvious to me. But
you are experienced in the courtroom. You are in a
different realm than we are. So as you watch this,
(06:50):
you've got the video which is now suddenly some of
this evidence that's coming to light is a little different
than I think what we knew. You've got the video
of him visiting the school that day in shorts, in
a different outfit. He's there, he's talking to Turning Point people.
He comes back and then and then he's actually back
(07:11):
on the eleventh as well, So it happened on the tenth,
he's back on the eleventh as well. That I mean,
that's glad.
Speaker 3 (07:18):
You brought that up, because to me, like, so this
preliminary hearing just for like non lawyers. This is basically
only for the judge. It's where the lawyers the prosecution
present what evans they have and the judge can say
whether or not the case the trial will go forward.
If the judge were to say no, the prosecution can
go revisit the case, maybe refile charges, try again. It
(07:40):
kind of depends on the jurisdiction. It also depends, you know,
from state to federal. This is this is really only
for the judge, So there's questions about what the public
can see. And also you know, there's been some criticism,
there's been you know, want to see more and more access. Well,
to be honest to your point, just now, I think
we got quite a bit of we didn't really know,
(08:01):
and it's not looking good for Tyler Robinson. The fact
that they have the prosecution has evidence that he was
kind of visiting the campus, strolling through. I think he
had it shows his car there and then eventually leaving
he went and had lunch. I think it was like
Chick fil a. The fact the biggest thing to me
is the fact that he made contact with Kirk's staff.
That is huge. I wonder if we're going to hear
(08:24):
from that member of the of Charlie Kirk's the employee,
if that would be a witness being able to say yes,
like this is the person I saw. These were the
questions he was asking, which would then go to you know,
was he asking about where exactly things would be, where.
Speaker 2 (08:39):
Is Charlie going to be seated? Those questions that the
killer the shooter would't want to know, so I think
that was huge.
Speaker 3 (08:47):
I think that there's questions about, like, why will the
judge not allow a certain amount of video to be played?
I believe it's from Tyler Robinson's boyfriend. I think as
a lawyer sometimes the judge, we need to give the
judge the benefit of the doubt.
Speaker 2 (09:01):
He has to protect the jury pool from being tainted.
Speaker 3 (09:05):
When we're putting all this information out there, there's I
think ammunition say down the line for conviction to come
down against Tyler Robinson, for the defense to work with
and say, well, this was out there. You know, this
was prejudicial. The judge made this ruling and that came
against our client's constitutional rights because no matter what, if
there's a conviction, which I think we all think that
(09:28):
the evidence is pretty clear, then there is going to
be a legal right and path to an argue on
appeal to have that conviction overturned.
Speaker 2 (09:37):
That's what all defendants do.
Speaker 3 (09:39):
It's very rare that it happens, but it does happen,
and so I think that it's better for the judge
to be careful about what's being put out there at
this early stage and let more come out during the
actual trial.
Speaker 1 (09:51):
So when you talked about the video, I think that
what you're referring to is there was an interview with
the boyfriend, Tyler Robinson's partner that was he was living
with at the time, and there was an interview, like
a right after it happened. They interviewed him. And so
there's a question in the judges is I think, saying
that they don't want to include that in the evidence.
(10:11):
When you think about that, I mean, I imagine this
is a pretty emotional time for this kid. He's young,
he gets taken in, he's being asked questions. Maybe there's
something in there that they felt like this was compromised
because of his emotional state or something. I don't know
what is what would cause a judge to say, no,
(10:33):
this isn't we're not going to include this.
Speaker 2 (10:35):
It's possible.
Speaker 3 (10:36):
So like at this early stage, the judge is looking
for probable cause. Is there enough evidence for a reasonable
person to believe that this individual committed a crime.
Speaker 2 (10:45):
It's a very low standard.
Speaker 3 (10:46):
It's not the standard that the jury is going to
be looking at, like the hire beyond a reasonable doubt,
even in a civil case that it's like for ponderance
of the evidence, Like where does the evidence kind of
weigh this is like your lowest standard, what police kind
of use when they're deciding whether or not to somewhat
over so to that point, the judge sees is the
one to make this decision, and the judge sees the
(11:07):
full video okay, So like even though that portion is
redacted currently for the public, then to me, that doesn't
suggest any we're not the ones making the decision, the judges,
So you know, there's a sigh of relief that the
judge has seen all of that. For security purposes, there
could be a reason to not allow that portion publicly
(11:28):
right now, whether like this is a high profile witness.
It's my understanding this witness will testify at trial, not
during the preliminary hearing. So maybe there's going to be
things that this witness is asked about from that portion.
There could be another hearing, legal fight about having more
and more come out actually during trial, not during this
preliminary hearing. You know, it could be about making sure
(11:49):
that there's nothing like I mentioned, prejudicial going out there
in the airwaves before the media as well before this
trial is actually start it because they haven't picked a jury, right,
that's my understanding. And the problem with that is, you know,
you're going to have a defense that's able to argue
about what all was put out there and that this
(12:12):
was basically tried in the media prior to having the
actual formal trial against their client, and you know, the
judge needs to be very careful about what's going to
all be be tainted if you will. I think that again,
one of these things is we're gonna have to kind
of watch this process play out. I've heard a lot
(12:33):
of people say, Erica Kirk and Charlie Kirk's friends and family,
they've waited ten months for this moment, and of course
they have. I would argue that I think that, like
the law moves so slow that I think that ten
months is pretty significant to be at this point.
Speaker 1 (12:52):
Interesting.
Speaker 2 (12:52):
You know, sometimes trials can take years to come to be.
Speaker 3 (12:56):
Well.
Speaker 1 (12:57):
I also think that you're doing a good job for
us right now of a explaining the difference between a
preliminary hearing and a trial, and that's where I think
a lot of the public is getting confused, and we're
hearing Erica Kirk has filed a new motion asking the
court to order that every exhibit is being admitted into
evidence and shown openly in the courtroom. Now is if
(13:19):
it's shown openly in the courtroom, is it then available
to the news? Is this something that I'm so glad.
Speaker 2 (13:24):
That you just asked that.
Speaker 3 (13:25):
So, as you and I are sitting here right now,
there's a hearing going on a little bit about this,
and the last thing I heard was that there is
a lawyer representing the media, and so one of the
things that you know, there's restrictions on the camera, so
the camera can't look, it will not be able to
show jurors, doesn't show Tyler Robinson's face.
Speaker 2 (13:45):
It's basically the back of the viewing point.
Speaker 3 (13:48):
And then one of the things the media lawyer is
currently arguing for is that when the camera is not
allowed to show some of this evidence that's being you know,
presented during this preliminary hearing, is if some members of
this this media group can go see it and then
reprint it. So, yes, it won't be broadcast to the
public through the media, but it could be that they
(14:09):
have a look and they're able to report on it.
Speaker 2 (14:13):
Again.
Speaker 3 (14:13):
You know, I don't know what the judge will do.
I think that there could be I'm a lawyer and
I'm a reporter. I could argue both sides. Of course,
as a reporter you want all the access, I would think.
As the prosecutor, you know you would want to be
careful too, because this is your case. You want to
make sure not too much of your evidence is out there,
(14:34):
as I mentioned, because you want to make sure should
you get the conviction, it sticks. So I think there's
are a lot of things the judge will have to
weigh here. But when you have a group of reporters
looking at something describing it, they can describe it in
different ways. It could be very subjective that there could
be pros and cons to that.
Speaker 1 (14:51):
We live in such a different world and just I
would say the last fifteen years where information is right there,
you know, you never have to question whether or not
you can get information. And not all of us are
schooled in the law or how hearings like this or
trials like this actually work. So I think there is
(15:11):
this big competing faction. I mean, I almost think of
it as like your kids, which when they constantly push
like we want this, we want this, and they wear
you down and then you finally give in and you
give it all to them, and you go, why did
I do that? But I feel like this is where
we are with situations like this, especially with someone as
famous as Charlie Kirk. And I think even you know,
(15:34):
with the trials that we've seen of other famous people,
where people are like, I deserve this information. It should
be here, I should be able to see it right now.
And Charlie's life was so open and everything was recorded,
you know, they were constantly giving you information, and Erica
asking for this to be out there, I think makes
(15:55):
the public push even more. But I do have this
great fear of account ability for Tyler Robinson, and that
not being him, not seeing accountability if there's some some
legal break where his or a loophole where his team
can come out and say, hey, there was too much
of this in the media. This is not a fair trial.
(16:17):
It ends up, you know, he could get a mistrial.
Anything could happen if this is not handled correctly. And
I feel like that's a hard thing when we all
felt like we were emotionally connected to this person to say,
let's do it right, to make sure there's accountability and
scare the next person.
Speaker 2 (16:33):
Yeah, I totally agree.
Speaker 3 (16:35):
I am a bit conservative when I say, like, I'd
rather err on the side of safety in securing a
fair trial and a conviction that would stick, then trying
to maybe broadcast and go full on transparency at this
point in time. Now, my hope is and I believe,
(16:55):
like think about the Casey Anthony trial O. J. Simpson,
like these high profile trials that are brought cast on TV.
I think that this one similarly will have a high
viewership and that's where the public will really get that
transparency that Erica Kirk and those surrounding Charlie want. And
to your point, yes, they live their life very publicly.
That was the idea I think behind the organization, the
(17:17):
advocacy and even like it as an influencer, Right, that's
what you do. But at the same time, there is
this element in the law and we have to be
careful and the law move slow. I do think that
they'll get more and more out there, but that comes
with time.
Speaker 1 (17:33):
Yeah, yeah. I mean also, I think it's interesting because
we're in a world where we feel like the people
that are famous and the people that are out there
putting themselves out there are also extremely protected, and we
don't see that protection and that he had this massive
security force and felt like he was untouchable. And I
(17:53):
think that's why so many people have said, this couldn't
have been a kid if something has to be off.
But you know what, it's interesting when you look. I mean,
Charlie had security, but I think his and I don't
speak for him, obviously, but I think that his whole
thing was he didn't want to look like he was
covered in security because he wanted to be accessible. And ultimately,
(18:16):
obviously this kid got through. But I think that is
part of the reason this is unbelievable for people, because
they think, how could he not have been better protected.
Speaker 3 (18:25):
I think that there's a few things there that come
to my mind. Is one I think that we learned
over the course of the past year, I guess two years.
If you think back to July of twenty twenty four,
that outside events with rooftops nearby are not safe for
(18:46):
political discourse.
Speaker 2 (18:50):
You know.
Speaker 3 (18:50):
Unfortunately, I think everybody's flabbergasted to think somebody's so young
that's doing really what work you expect on a college campus,
which is debate. Civil debate would be a target of
political violence.
Speaker 2 (19:04):
You know.
Speaker 3 (19:05):
Again, this isn't a political candidate. This wasn't a political candidate.
Could he have someday been one percent? Like that's what
people have talked about, like his success rate, But at
the time, I don't think that was thought about.
Speaker 2 (19:19):
And we're talking Utah, we're.
Speaker 1 (19:22):
Kind of working like so yes, yeah.
Speaker 3 (19:24):
Like what you would might consider a friendly territory to
a conservative speaker. So I think that this was just
a wake up call to how unfortunately divided and uh
maybe mentally ill our country has become, especially when it
comes to politics, and you know, hopefully this will be
(19:47):
a driving force for change in security measures for individuals
like Charlie Kirk going forward, but not silence them. I
liked that after his death that you had others in
his in our circle rising up and saying, I'm going
to carry on his tour.
Speaker 2 (20:04):
I'm going to make sure I'm there. I think Megan.
Speaker 3 (20:05):
Kelly was one of those that went out and spoke.
Of course, there's gonna be different security measures going forward,
but all of what you pointed out is good points.
I just think that sometimes maybe we get a little
lax and don't realize where the state of the country
actually is.
Speaker 1 (20:22):
Yeah, well, you bring up the political candidates and kind
of the vitriol on the left and the right. But
we've had this bizarre experience in the last week with
Graham Plattner. And if you haven't heard, there is a
candidate out Maine or I guess there was a candidate
out in Maine for a US Senate And just so
(20:43):
that I can set this up for the audience right now,
if you're not completely tuned into politics like we are,
every Senate seat counts and each one, each side is
trying to make sure they get every Senate seat possible
because it's right on the edge. It's right on the
edge of who controls the Senate. And obviously, if the
(21:03):
Democrats get the House and then they get the Senate,
an impeachment would be catastrophic for the president. He can
be thrown out of office. So that fight for the
Senate is crucial right now. And I say that because
I don't know if people really realize that the goal
of the Democrats has always been Donald Trump. I mean,
(21:24):
it's ultimately the Republicans, but they are after him. They
can't stand him, they want him out. So it didn't
matter that Graham Plattner had all of these accusations against him.
This is the guy that had the Nazi tattoo. They
were going to look past that. This is the guy
who abused his girlfriend. They were going to look past that.
This is the guy who was sextying. This is the
(21:44):
guy who desecrated the military. I mean, this guy had
so many things against him, and they still voted for him,
which I think the Democrats dropped a lot of this
just before the primary, thinking while you've though Janet Mills
had essentially ended her campaign, she was still on the ballot.
(22:05):
I think they thought they could get him out in
the primary, and then they were shocked and they had
to figure out another way.
Speaker 2 (22:12):
I think you're right.
Speaker 3 (22:14):
One of the other things that I'll just jump in
here is someone who's covered the Supreme Court since almost
for the past ten years. The Senate really is important
for judicial confirmations, and should there be another vacancy, that
would be the key with being able to confirm a
new Trump nominee. So that's huge in terms of the elections.
With Graham Plattner some of the interesting there's just there's
(22:36):
so much there. I think clearly this was coming from
the Democratic establishment. There was buzz you mentioned my scene
heard whispered column One Democrat strategist I had talked to
a little bit was just like, why did our party
let these candidates run like this? Why do they let
DSA aligned candidates run. Why shouldn't they have to run
as a third party. I think there's talk there in
(22:58):
some regret about not I'm sure this changes state to
state on their ballot requirements for different parties, but that's
something I think that they're probably going to look at
going forward.
Speaker 2 (23:08):
I talked to you a little bit about the term
I think platnered.
Speaker 3 (23:11):
They're going to try to platner other candidates and see
what they can do, because you know, these type of
candidates are playing well with some of their base that's
extremely frustrated. I would align them with all the way
back ten years ago. You know, maybe those that were
for Bernie Sanders that felt the burn and then felt
like in twenty sixteen that he was kind of given
(23:33):
the shaft by the DNC and the party leaders in
his back and forth with Hillary Clinton. If you remember,
there was like fundraising stuff going on, There was like
leaked emails that showed kind of like party heads making
fun of Sanders, and so we then, of course in
twenty twenty four, they don't really get to pick go
replacement for Biden.
Speaker 2 (23:51):
Kamala Harris's kind of crown.
Speaker 3 (23:52):
I can see where there's some frustration from the Democratic
base and they're going for these loud candidates that promised
this Bernie Sanders wish list that never got accomplished. So,
you know, that's where I think this is coming from.
I think it's very dangerous when we're talking about purple
states and where there's a formidable Republican candidate like Susan Collins,
(24:13):
that type of candidate, the progressive will not win.
Speaker 2 (24:15):
They need a moderate Democrat.
Speaker 3 (24:17):
To like, you know, have a fighting chance, at least
at this point in time in our country. We saw
that with Steve Hilton and Basara in California. It wasn't
Tom Steyer that's up against Steve Hilton. Keep that in mind,
you know. So I think that this is kind of
a we're watching the Democratic Party really have I guess
what you could call a civil war and fight this out.
My thought is, with what they've done with Platner, this
(24:38):
is only going to give fuel to.
Speaker 2 (24:39):
This kind of DSA aligned movement.
Speaker 3 (24:43):
They're going to be even further frustrated and angry, So
you know it's going to be one to watch. Get
the popcorn, but also potentially dangerous for the future of
our country. As that party moves further to the left,
there will be less and less bipartisanship and less and
less opportunities for anything to get done here Washington, which
very little gets done anyways, Right, but I.
Speaker 1 (25:03):
Even worry more about It's one thing when you are
Republicans against democrats and you're capitalist against capitalists. The fundamentals
of what you believe in are the same. How you
get there is what's different. But we are talking about
being a republican party against a capitalist party, against a
socialist party, and that is completely changing the economic system
(25:27):
our entire country runs on. And it's not a joke.
I mean, I'm listening. We had in Michigan a debate
against Haley Stevens, Haley Stevens against Abdul Lsaiad, and Abdul
is the socialist candidate, and he's clever, very clever about
how he says it. You have to actually fully understand
what he's saying. And he says things like, well, we
(25:50):
want to make sure that democracy owns AI. So we're
not going to allow these data centers to come in
and not be owned by democracy. And I think that's fair.
And you're you're probably saying to yourself, what the heck
does that mean? What does that even mean? Well, he's yes, yes, yes,
So our hospitals will be government owned. Our schools already
(26:11):
are going so well, aren't they. Why wouldn't we expand
this into AI and hospitals. But that's what they want.
Speaker 3 (26:17):
Yeah, I think it's it's frightening. There's a few things
from reports I've gleamed. So one issue is that these
candidates you're talking about, they're painting this socialist brush as
like a democratic twist for the worker, the working class.
They're choosing in really tight races in either red or
(26:38):
purple states. Aside from Abdul So, I'm thinking Platiner, I'm
thinking the Brassa, some white men who previously served in
the military that they think are a working class version
of somebody described Platiner. And I think this is so great,
a rich man's version of a poor man. And I
think that's what they're trying to put out there to
(26:59):
uh win over this kind of blue collar vote and unfortunately.
I do think this is both good and bad. They're
doing smart marketing with what they're calling socialism. The frightening
thing about the future is I think there's someone Morris Katz,
like a twenty seven year old, very digitally savvy with
social media, was involved with Mandani's campaign.
Speaker 2 (27:20):
Platner.
Speaker 3 (27:21):
I do think that he's one to watch as he
climbs his way through different as a political consultant. Because
on Donald Trump's side, we've seen him be very smart
with digital campaigning, being able to reach younger voters this
time around than prior to, and the Democrats really hadn't
had someone like that. I've noticed that that's a name
coming and popping up, so we'll have.
Speaker 2 (27:42):
To watch there. But socialism still kind of pulls. It
doesn't pull well.
Speaker 3 (27:46):
It holls okay in the Democrat Party, but overall, I
think there's only like thirty something percent of Americans that
have a favorable view of it. So the more Donald
Trump can talk about it like he did just now
when he was giving his speech at NATO, the more
all of our Republican candidates can talk about it, they
can blaster these people across campaign ads. I think the
better because it does still turn people off. You're the
(28:08):
candidate you're talking about. Abdul talked about taking guns away
from police. That was part of his defund the police slogans.
I'm sorry, but like who thinks taking guns away? Very small,
non common sense individuals would think that's a good idea.
Their Republicans wouldn't behind it. Independence wouldn't be and you
need the independence to win an election.
Speaker 1 (28:30):
Yeah, I agree, but it is surprising. It is surprising
to me to see the staying power he's had now
obviously this is the second time he's run. I think
this is different than the Republican side. I think oftentimes
we have and the Democrats and the DSA are both
(28:50):
good at this. Oftentimes the Republicans have a candidate run
one and done and all that person didn't win, we're
not going to have them back. There's a lot you
learn a race, and there's a lot you learn about
what you're gonna do once you get to the primary,
what you're going to do when you get through the primary,
how much money, how to raise money, all of that
knowledge that you gain in that two year process of
(29:12):
running for office. Too often, I think Republicans are throwing
that out. I look at him and I'm like, Okay,
he ran for governor a statewide race. He became much
much more clever in this race. And I've seen Democrats
do it too. I mean, Justcelyn Benson is another example
here in Michigan, where she ran for secretary of State.
She lost. She ran again. Hillary Clinton has taken her
(29:35):
all over this country to meet people. It's like they
choose people and they're like, Okay, we'll groom them, and
they hope they stay and they keep doing it. And
now she's running for governor. He's running for US Senate.
I'm in an area of the state that is really conservative.
The only signs I see out are abdual signs, which
are shocking to me because I think we also on
(29:58):
the Republican side have to get really good at educating
about that. Hey, he wants to take weapons away from police.
Think about what that means. Hey, he wants to he
wants to defund the military because he believes that if
you defund the military, you can put that money into healthcare.
I mean, essentially sitting ducks. This is the goal to
make America a sitting duck. And I have to say
(30:19):
that his radical ties to the Muslim brotherhood make me
question what is the ultimate goal here that you want
to make us a sitting duck and being a US
senator is powerful, and it just it very much concerns me.
And I just want to say, I appreciate you coming
on to talk about this, but these are my concerns.
Speaker 2 (30:37):
Yeah, I don't blame you.
Speaker 3 (30:38):
And Michigan's always kind of been you know, red state,
purple state.
Speaker 2 (30:41):
It's gone further blue.
Speaker 3 (30:43):
I personally with shocked, and I see polls it looks
like he's neck and neck with the more moderate Democrat.
Speaker 2 (30:48):
I guess you're on the grounds, you know.
Speaker 3 (30:50):
I think it's the fact that you're seeing yard signs
in a conservative area for him is a red flag.
Speaker 1 (30:56):
Yeah, it's it is terrible. It's terrible. Hey, it's been
amazing talking to you. I've really enjoyed this conversation. Alex Swayer.
Tell people where they can find your column.
Speaker 2 (31:06):
Thank you so much.
Speaker 3 (31:07):
Yeah, they can go to Washington Times dot com and
find all of my content there and follow me on
x at Aswayer.
Speaker 2 (31:14):
Thanks for having me.
Speaker 1 (31:15):
Thank you so much. It's been so great. Thank you
all for listening to the tutor. Dixon Podcast as always.
You can get it on the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcasts,
Rumble or YouTube and share it with your friends and
have a blessed day. Thank you.
Hey, everyone, it's the Tutor Dixon Podcast, and today we
have Alex Swoyer with us. She is the editor at
large of The Washington Times, where she also hosts the
sit Down with Eric Alex Swoyer and writes the column
Scene Heard and Whispered. Because you were like behind the scenes,
getting all of the scene heard in whispered stuff all
(00:20):
of us. That's awesome, I mean, but that really is.
It's exciting because we don't actually so much of what's
happening in Washington. We don't actually know. And since we're
talking about things that are being whispered, I will ask
you your take on Mitch McConnell.
Speaker 2 (00:36):
Yeah, I think that's a really good question.
Speaker 3 (00:38):
I covered the Senate from like twenty seventeen to about
twenty twenty one, so I was in there. My desk
was in the Senate press gallery at the time. He
was Majority leader, his staff was I would say, if
you approached them or they approach.
Speaker 2 (00:53):
You, it was good, good and easy to communicate with them.
Speaker 3 (00:56):
They weren't always sending out the most detail information. If
you got a press release, it was usually you know,
a clip from the senator's remarks on the Senate floor.
So That's one of the things I've noticed in this
whole questions about what's going on with McConnell. I think
that had there been more information put out steadily giving
(01:19):
the public updates about his condition, then there would not
be these I don't want know if we want to
call them all conspiracy theories, but different lines of thinking
out there on X that I've seen, So, you know,
I think that that's one of the issues I think
with the communications strategy here, the more information kind of
coming out steadily, the better.
Speaker 2 (01:40):
Yeah.
Speaker 1 (01:41):
So, so just since you mentioned that, for people who
don't know, Senator Mitch McConnell had a health episode, we
don't exactly know what happened. He's we're hearing he's in
the hospital. He hasn't been seen in quite some time.
But we were seeing this for a few years where
he would have like these moments where he just paused
(02:01):
and then we didn't really ever hear what that was.
Speaker 3 (02:04):
Yeah, and I also think just I think this doesn't
take an expert, but the fact that his wife immediately
didn't travel back. I think she was overseas in China
at the time of the latest health episode suggested possibly
that they thought this was going to be a brief
situation he would recover, But then she has since traveled back,
and because we aren't getting study flow of information or updates,
(02:26):
I would say from the staff, it makes you wonder
if his condition hasn't worsened, you know, the fact that
she felt like she needed to return, maybe the fact
that the staff is being careful about exactly what they're
going to put out there if things didn't weren't on
the up and.
Speaker 2 (02:41):
Up, if you will.
Speaker 3 (02:42):
So, I think that's kind of just from a reporter's perspective,
having covered the Senate when he was leader.
Speaker 2 (02:47):
That's my take.
Speaker 3 (02:49):
You know, I've seen there's reports that he had a
heart attack, possibly, you know, living off of a machine.
There's no I have no confirmation of that. I think
that this is what happens when there's a ceity flow
of information, and also then you get kind of the
wheels turning when all of a sudden, on one day,
all these people put out information that they spoke to.
Speaker 2 (03:08):
McConnell, and you know, they had twenty forty.
Speaker 3 (03:11):
Five minute conversations. I think we saw Scott Jennings did that.
I think it was other former lawmakers or those that
are closed with McConnell. It just kind of seemed like
if it was kind of sprinkled here and there, not
so eyebrow raising. But when everyone kind of has the
same messaging, it makes you I understand why people pause
and wonder.
Speaker 1 (03:31):
I mean, the exact same, Like those tweets were almost
exactly the same. And I think for those of us
who are watching were.
Speaker 3 (03:37):
Like, this is like, because about how long you talk to,
what your name is, what you want to say, you
talked about It's like it was just a little lot.
Speaker 1 (03:46):
And we've seen these weird I mean, let's face it,
we've seen influencer campaigns where it's like we want to
get a message across, so we we have it's the
same message, and it goes and they'll put the tweets
up on the board and be like, oh, look all
of these people tweeted the same thing, which is generally
about you know, I don't know, a bill they want
to pass or a topic not someone's health.
Speaker 2 (04:08):
Around me that israel Yeah, yeah, I don't like that.
Speaker 1 (04:11):
Yeah, this is the weird thing. And now you brought
up his wife, Elaine Chow. She went to China. I mean,
so her trip was like a significant trip she was
in China, and then there's also conspiracies around that because
it seems weird. Obviously she's worked in the government before,
but meeting with China's VP feels off, and like when
your husband ends up in the hospital for an extended
(04:33):
period of time, it's just a weird feeling. And that's
when a lot of conspiracy theories just go run amook.
Speaker 3 (04:41):
Yeah, like unconfirmed rumor mill, like why is she in China?
Is she working as a spy? You know, nothing like
that confirmed. Actually, I don't even know what she's doing
since she left the Trump administration. I'm sure whatever it is,
you know, McConnell would be the type with all the
scrutiny to have it above board, have the proper file.
Maybe she's doing some sort of lobbying, you know, who knows.
(05:04):
But I do think that the fact that she didn't
immediately return suggested that initially they possibly didn't think this
was going to be as serious as it's become. Because
then she did return, and like I said, we've kind
of not had a steady flow of information coming from
the office, and you would think that if things were
looking up, we would be getting positive updates yeah, yeah.
Speaker 1 (05:24):
It's interesting. So other things in the news right now
are we have the hearing of Charlie Kirk's murderer, I
accused murderer going on. So we watched as this is unfolding,
and I feel like this has been an extremely powerful
moment for a lot of us because we've not just
(05:47):
gone through his murder and watching that. Everybody watched that,
and even if you didn't want to watch that, you
watched it. You know, It's like one of those things
where you were scrolling through and you were like, oh
my gosh, I I did that.
Speaker 3 (06:01):
You honestly couldn't really avoid seeing it. Unfortunately, Yes, exactly.
Speaker 1 (06:06):
But then afterward, I mean we're talking about conspiracy theories
with Mitch McConnell. Afterward, what this family has been put
through with the constant, who was it, what actually happened,
and the accusations. Now we're in this hearing right where
we have this Tyler Robinson and he's on trial for this,
and the evidence is from what I'm understanding, the evidence
(06:29):
is overwhelming. We saw Donald Trump Junior, who we know
was very close to Charlie Kirk. He came out and
he was like, as I'm sitting and he seems to
be in the courtroom, and he's like, as I'm sitting
in the courtroom, this is very obvious to me. But
you are experienced in the courtroom. You are in a
different realm than we are. So as you watch this,
(06:50):
you've got the video which is now suddenly some of
this evidence that's coming to light is a little different
than I think what we knew. You've got the video
of him visiting the school that day in shorts, in
a different outfit. He's there, he's talking to Turning Point people.
He comes back and then and then he's actually back
(07:11):
on the eleventh as well, So it happened on the tenth,
he's back on the eleventh as well. That I mean,
that's glad.
Speaker 3 (07:18):
You brought that up, because to me, like, so this
preliminary hearing just for like non lawyers. This is basically
only for the judge. It's where the lawyers the prosecution
present what evans they have and the judge can say
whether or not the case the trial will go forward.
If the judge were to say no, the prosecution can
go revisit the case, maybe refile charges, try again. It
(07:40):
kind of depends on the jurisdiction. It also depends, you know,
from state to federal. This is this is really only
for the judge, So there's questions about what the public
can see. And also you know, there's been some criticism,
there's been you know, want to see more and more access. Well,
to be honest to your point, just now, I think
we got quite a bit of we didn't really know,
(08:01):
and it's not looking good for Tyler Robinson. The fact
that they have the prosecution has evidence that he was
kind of visiting the campus, strolling through. I think he
had it shows his car there and then eventually leaving
he went and had lunch. I think it was like
Chick fil a. The fact the biggest thing to me
is the fact that he made contact with Kirk's staff.
That is huge. I wonder if we're going to hear
(08:24):
from that member of the of Charlie Kirk's the employee,
if that would be a witness being able to say yes,
like this is the person I saw. These were the
questions he was asking, which would then go to you know,
was he asking about where exactly things would be, where.
Speaker 2 (08:39):
Is Charlie going to be seated? Those questions that the
killer the shooter would't want to know, so I think
that was huge.
Speaker 3 (08:47):
I think that there's questions about, like, why will the
judge not allow a certain amount of video to be played?
I believe it's from Tyler Robinson's boyfriend. I think as
a lawyer sometimes the judge, we need to give the
judge the benefit of the doubt.
Speaker 2 (09:01):
He has to protect the jury pool from being tainted.
Speaker 3 (09:05):
When we're putting all this information out there, there's I
think ammunition say down the line for conviction to come
down against Tyler Robinson, for the defense to work with
and say, well, this was out there. You know, this
was prejudicial. The judge made this ruling and that came
against our client's constitutional rights because no matter what, if
there's a conviction, which I think we all think that
(09:28):
the evidence is pretty clear, then there is going to
be a legal right and path to an argue on
appeal to have that conviction overturned.
Speaker 2 (09:37):
That's what all defendants do.
Speaker 3 (09:39):
It's very rare that it happens, but it does happen,
and so I think that it's better for the judge
to be careful about what's being put out there at
this early stage and let more come out during the
actual trial.
Speaker 1 (09:51):
So when you talked about the video, I think that
what you're referring to is there was an interview with
the boyfriend, Tyler Robinson's partner that was he was living
with at the time, and there was an interview, like
a right after it happened. They interviewed him. And so
there's a question in the judges is I think, saying
that they don't want to include that in the evidence.
(10:11):
When you think about that, I mean, I imagine this
is a pretty emotional time for this kid. He's young,
he gets taken in, he's being asked questions. Maybe there's
something in there that they felt like this was compromised
because of his emotional state or something. I don't know
what is what would cause a judge to say, no,
(10:33):
this isn't we're not going to include this.
Speaker 2 (10:35):
It's possible.
Speaker 3 (10:36):
So like at this early stage, the judge is looking
for probable cause. Is there enough evidence for a reasonable
person to believe that this individual committed a crime.
Speaker 2 (10:45):
It's a very low standard.
Speaker 3 (10:46):
It's not the standard that the jury is going to
be looking at, like the hire beyond a reasonable doubt,
even in a civil case that it's like for ponderance
of the evidence, Like where does the evidence kind of
weigh this is like your lowest standard, what police kind
of use when they're deciding whether or not to somewhat
over so to that point, the judge sees is the
one to make this decision, and the judge sees the
(11:07):
full video okay, So like even though that portion is
redacted currently for the public, then to me, that doesn't
suggest any we're not the ones making the decision, the judges,
So you know, there's a sigh of relief that the
judge has seen all of that. For security purposes, there
could be a reason to not allow that portion publicly
(11:28):
right now, whether like this is a high profile witness.
It's my understanding this witness will testify at trial, not
during the preliminary hearing. So maybe there's going to be
things that this witness is asked about from that portion.
There could be another hearing, legal fight about having more
and more come out actually during trial, not during this
preliminary hearing. You know, it could be about making sure
(11:49):
that there's nothing like I mentioned, prejudicial going out there
in the airwaves before the media as well before this
trial is actually start it because they haven't picked a jury, right,
that's my understanding. And the problem with that is, you know,
you're going to have a defense that's able to argue
about what all was put out there and that this
(12:12):
was basically tried in the media prior to having the
actual formal trial against their client, and you know, the
judge needs to be very careful about what's going to
all be be tainted if you will. I think that again,
one of these things is we're gonna have to kind
of watch this process play out. I've heard a lot
(12:33):
of people say, Erica Kirk and Charlie Kirk's friends and family,
they've waited ten months for this moment, and of course
they have. I would argue that I think that, like
the law moves so slow that I think that ten
months is pretty significant to be at this point.
Speaker 1 (12:52):
Interesting.
Speaker 2 (12:52):
You know, sometimes trials can take years to come to be.
Speaker 3 (12:56):
Well.
Speaker 1 (12:57):
I also think that you're doing a good job for
us right now of a explaining the difference between a
preliminary hearing and a trial, and that's where I think
a lot of the public is getting confused, and we're
hearing Erica Kirk has filed a new motion asking the
court to order that every exhibit is being admitted into
evidence and shown openly in the courtroom. Now is if
(13:19):
it's shown openly in the courtroom, is it then available
to the news? Is this something that I'm so glad.
Speaker 2 (13:24):
That you just asked that.
Speaker 3 (13:25):
So, as you and I are sitting here right now,
there's a hearing going on a little bit about this,
and the last thing I heard was that there is
a lawyer representing the media, and so one of the
things that you know, there's restrictions on the camera, so
the camera can't look, it will not be able to
show jurors, doesn't show Tyler Robinson's face.
Speaker 2 (13:45):
It's basically the back of the viewing point.
Speaker 3 (13:48):
And then one of the things the media lawyer is
currently arguing for is that when the camera is not
allowed to show some of this evidence that's being you know,
presented during this preliminary hearing, is if some members of
this this media group can go see it and then
reprint it. So, yes, it won't be broadcast to the
public through the media, but it could be that they
(14:09):
have a look and they're able to report on it.
Speaker 2 (14:13):
Again.
Speaker 3 (14:13):
You know, I don't know what the judge will do.
I think that there could be I'm a lawyer and
I'm a reporter. I could argue both sides. Of course,
as a reporter you want all the access, I would think.
As the prosecutor, you know you would want to be
careful too, because this is your case. You want to
make sure not too much of your evidence is out there,
(14:34):
as I mentioned, because you want to make sure should
you get the conviction, it sticks. So I think there's
are a lot of things the judge will have to
weigh here. But when you have a group of reporters
looking at something describing it, they can describe it in
different ways. It could be very subjective that there could
be pros and cons to that.
Speaker 1 (14:51):
We live in such a different world and just I
would say the last fifteen years where information is right there,
you know, you never have to question whether or not
you can get information. And not all of us are
schooled in the law or how hearings like this or
trials like this actually work. So I think there is
(15:11):
this big competing faction. I mean, I almost think of
it as like your kids, which when they constantly push
like we want this, we want this, and they wear
you down and then you finally give in and you
give it all to them, and you go, why did
I do that? But I feel like this is where
we are with situations like this, especially with someone as
famous as Charlie Kirk. And I think even you know,
(15:34):
with the trials that we've seen of other famous people,
where people are like, I deserve this information. It should
be here, I should be able to see it right now.
And Charlie's life was so open and everything was recorded,
you know, they were constantly giving you information, and Erica
asking for this to be out there, I think makes
(15:55):
the public push even more. But I do have this
great fear of account ability for Tyler Robinson, and that
not being him, not seeing accountability if there's some some
legal break where his or a loophole where his team
can come out and say, hey, there was too much
of this in the media. This is not a fair trial.
(16:17):
It ends up, you know, he could get a mistrial.
Anything could happen if this is not handled correctly. And
I feel like that's a hard thing when we all
felt like we were emotionally connected to this person to say,
let's do it right, to make sure there's accountability and
scare the next person.
Speaker 2 (16:33):
Yeah, I totally agree.
Speaker 3 (16:35):
I am a bit conservative when I say, like, I'd
rather err on the side of safety in securing a
fair trial and a conviction that would stick, then trying
to maybe broadcast and go full on transparency at this
point in time. Now, my hope is and I believe,
(16:55):
like think about the Casey Anthony trial O. J. Simpson,
like these high profile trials that are brought cast on TV.
I think that this one similarly will have a high
viewership and that's where the public will really get that
transparency that Erica Kirk and those surrounding Charlie want. And
to your point, yes, they live their life very publicly.
That was the idea I think behind the organization, the
(17:17):
advocacy and even like it as an influencer, Right, that's
what you do. But at the same time, there is
this element in the law and we have to be
careful and the law move slow. I do think that
they'll get more and more out there, but that comes
with time.
Speaker 1 (17:33):
Yeah, yeah. I mean also, I think it's interesting because
we're in a world where we feel like the people
that are famous and the people that are out there
putting themselves out there are also extremely protected, and we
don't see that protection and that he had this massive
security force and felt like he was untouchable. And I
(17:53):
think that's why so many people have said, this couldn't
have been a kid if something has to be off.
But you know what, it's interesting when you look. I mean,
Charlie had security, but I think his and I don't
speak for him, obviously, but I think that his whole
thing was he didn't want to look like he was
covered in security because he wanted to be accessible. And ultimately,
(18:16):
obviously this kid got through. But I think that is
part of the reason this is unbelievable for people, because
they think, how could he not have been better protected.
Speaker 3 (18:25):
I think that there's a few things there that come
to my mind. Is one I think that we learned
over the course of the past year, I guess two years.
If you think back to July of twenty twenty four,
that outside events with rooftops nearby are not safe for
(18:46):
political discourse.
Speaker 2 (18:50):
You know.
Speaker 3 (18:50):
Unfortunately, I think everybody's flabbergasted to think somebody's so young
that's doing really what work you expect on a college campus,
which is debate. Civil debate would be a target of
political violence.
Speaker 2 (19:04):
You know.
Speaker 3 (19:05):
Again, this isn't a political candidate. This wasn't a political candidate.
Could he have someday been one percent? Like that's what
people have talked about, like his success rate, But at
the time, I don't think that was thought about.
Speaker 2 (19:19):
And we're talking Utah, we're.
Speaker 1 (19:22):
Kind of working like so yes, yeah.
Speaker 3 (19:24):
Like what you would might consider a friendly territory to
a conservative speaker. So I think that this was just
a wake up call to how unfortunately divided and uh
maybe mentally ill our country has become, especially when it
comes to politics, and you know, hopefully this will be
(19:47):
a driving force for change in security measures for individuals
like Charlie Kirk going forward, but not silence them. I
liked that after his death that you had others in
his in our circle rising up and saying, I'm going
to carry on his tour.
Speaker 2 (20:04):
I'm going to make sure I'm there. I think Megan.
Speaker 3 (20:05):
Kelly was one of those that went out and spoke.
Of course, there's gonna be different security measures going forward,
but all of what you pointed out is good points.
I just think that sometimes maybe we get a little
lax and don't realize where the state of the country
actually is.
Speaker 1 (20:22):
Yeah, well, you bring up the political candidates and kind
of the vitriol on the left and the right. But
we've had this bizarre experience in the last week with
Graham Plattner. And if you haven't heard, there is a
candidate out Maine or I guess there was a candidate
out in Maine for a US Senate And just so
(20:43):
that I can set this up for the audience right now,
if you're not completely tuned into politics like we are,
every Senate seat counts and each one, each side is
trying to make sure they get every Senate seat possible
because it's right on the edge. It's right on the
edge of who controls the Senate. And obviously, if the
(21:03):
Democrats get the House and then they get the Senate,
an impeachment would be catastrophic for the president. He can
be thrown out of office. So that fight for the
Senate is crucial right now. And I say that because
I don't know if people really realize that the goal
of the Democrats has always been Donald Trump. I mean,
(21:24):
it's ultimately the Republicans, but they are after him. They
can't stand him, they want him out. So it didn't
matter that Graham Plattner had all of these accusations against him.
This is the guy that had the Nazi tattoo. They
were going to look past that. This is the guy
who abused his girlfriend. They were going to look past that.
This is the guy who was sextying. This is the
(21:44):
guy who desecrated the military. I mean, this guy had
so many things against him, and they still voted for him,
which I think the Democrats dropped a lot of this
just before the primary, thinking while you've though Janet Mills
had essentially ended her campaign, she was still on the ballot.
(22:05):
I think they thought they could get him out in
the primary, and then they were shocked and they had
to figure out another way.
Speaker 2 (22:12):
I think you're right.
Speaker 3 (22:14):
One of the other things that I'll just jump in
here is someone who's covered the Supreme Court since almost
for the past ten years. The Senate really is important
for judicial confirmations, and should there be another vacancy, that
would be the key with being able to confirm a
new Trump nominee. So that's huge in terms of the elections.
With Graham Plattner some of the interesting there's just there's
(22:36):
so much there. I think clearly this was coming from
the Democratic establishment. There was buzz you mentioned my scene
heard whispered column One Democrat strategist I had talked to
a little bit was just like, why did our party
let these candidates run like this? Why do they let
DSA aligned candidates run. Why shouldn't they have to run
as a third party. I think there's talk there in
(22:58):
some regret about not I'm sure this changes state to
state on their ballot requirements for different parties, but that's
something I think that they're probably going to look at
going forward.
Speaker 2 (23:08):
I talked to you a little bit about the term
I think platnered.
Speaker 3 (23:11):
They're going to try to platner other candidates and see
what they can do, because you know, these type of
candidates are playing well with some of their base that's
extremely frustrated. I would align them with all the way
back ten years ago. You know, maybe those that were
for Bernie Sanders that felt the burn and then felt
like in twenty sixteen that he was kind of given
(23:33):
the shaft by the DNC and the party leaders in
his back and forth with Hillary Clinton. If you remember,
there was like fundraising stuff going on, There was like
leaked emails that showed kind of like party heads making
fun of Sanders, and so we then, of course in
twenty twenty four, they don't really get to pick go
replacement for Biden.
Speaker 2 (23:51):
Kamala Harris's kind of crown.
Speaker 3 (23:52):
I can see where there's some frustration from the Democratic
base and they're going for these loud candidates that promised
this Bernie Sanders wish list that never got accomplished. So,
you know, that's where I think this is coming from.
I think it's very dangerous when we're talking about purple
states and where there's a formidable Republican candidate like Susan Collins,
(24:13):
that type of candidate, the progressive will not win.
Speaker 2 (24:15):
They need a moderate Democrat.
Speaker 3 (24:17):
To like, you know, have a fighting chance, at least
at this point in time in our country. We saw
that with Steve Hilton and Basara in California. It wasn't
Tom Steyer that's up against Steve Hilton. Keep that in mind,
you know. So I think that this is kind of
a we're watching the Democratic Party really have I guess
what you could call a civil war and fight this out.
My thought is, with what they've done with Platner, this
(24:38):
is only going to give fuel to.
Speaker 2 (24:39):
This kind of DSA aligned movement.
Speaker 3 (24:43):
They're going to be even further frustrated and angry, So
you know it's going to be one to watch. Get
the popcorn, but also potentially dangerous for the future of
our country. As that party moves further to the left,
there will be less and less bipartisanship and less and
less opportunities for anything to get done here Washington, which
very little gets done anyways, Right, but I.
Speaker 1 (25:03):
Even worry more about It's one thing when you are
Republicans against democrats and you're capitalist against capitalists. The fundamentals
of what you believe in are the same. How you
get there is what's different. But we are talking about
being a republican party against a capitalist party, against a
socialist party, and that is completely changing the economic system
(25:27):
our entire country runs on. And it's not a joke.
I mean, I'm listening. We had in Michigan a debate
against Haley Stevens, Haley Stevens against Abdul Lsaiad, and Abdul
is the socialist candidate, and he's clever, very clever about
how he says it. You have to actually fully understand
what he's saying. And he says things like, well, we
(25:50):
want to make sure that democracy owns AI. So we're
not going to allow these data centers to come in
and not be owned by democracy. And I think that's fair.
And you're you're probably saying to yourself, what the heck
does that mean? What does that even mean? Well, he's yes, yes, yes,
So our hospitals will be government owned. Our schools already
(26:11):
are going so well, aren't they. Why wouldn't we expand
this into AI and hospitals. But that's what they want.
Speaker 3 (26:17):
Yeah, I think it's it's frightening. There's a few things
from reports I've gleamed. So one issue is that these
candidates you're talking about, they're painting this socialist brush as
like a democratic twist for the worker, the working class.
They're choosing in really tight races in either red or
(26:38):
purple states. Aside from Abdul So, I'm thinking Platiner, I'm
thinking the Brassa, some white men who previously served in
the military that they think are a working class version
of somebody described Platiner. And I think this is so great,
a rich man's version of a poor man. And I
think that's what they're trying to put out there to
(26:59):
uh win over this kind of blue collar vote and unfortunately.
I do think this is both good and bad. They're
doing smart marketing with what they're calling socialism. The frightening
thing about the future is I think there's someone Morris Katz,
like a twenty seven year old, very digitally savvy with
social media, was involved with Mandani's campaign.
Speaker 2 (27:20):
Platner.
Speaker 3 (27:21):
I do think that he's one to watch as he
climbs his way through different as a political consultant. Because
on Donald Trump's side, we've seen him be very smart
with digital campaigning, being able to reach younger voters this
time around than prior to, and the Democrats really hadn't
had someone like that. I've noticed that that's a name
coming and popping up, so we'll have.
Speaker 2 (27:42):
To watch there. But socialism still kind of pulls. It
doesn't pull well.
Speaker 3 (27:46):
It holls okay in the Democrat Party, but overall, I
think there's only like thirty something percent of Americans that
have a favorable view of it. So the more Donald
Trump can talk about it like he did just now
when he was giving his speech at NATO, the more
all of our Republican candidates can talk about it, they
can blaster these people across campaign ads. I think the
better because it does still turn people off. You're the
(28:08):
candidate you're talking about. Abdul talked about taking guns away
from police. That was part of his defund the police slogans.
I'm sorry, but like who thinks taking guns away? Very small,
non common sense individuals would think that's a good idea.
Their Republicans wouldn't behind it. Independence wouldn't be and you
need the independence to win an election.
Speaker 1 (28:30):
Yeah, I agree, but it is surprising. It is surprising
to me to see the staying power he's had now
obviously this is the second time he's run. I think
this is different than the Republican side. I think oftentimes
we have and the Democrats and the DSA are both
(28:50):
good at this. Oftentimes the Republicans have a candidate run
one and done and all that person didn't win, we're
not going to have them back. There's a lot you
learn a race, and there's a lot you learn about
what you're gonna do once you get to the primary,
what you're going to do when you get through the primary,
how much money, how to raise money, all of that
knowledge that you gain in that two year process of
(29:12):
running for office. Too often, I think Republicans are throwing
that out. I look at him and I'm like, Okay,
he ran for governor a statewide race. He became much
much more clever in this race. And I've seen Democrats
do it too. I mean, Justcelyn Benson is another example
here in Michigan, where she ran for secretary of State.
She lost. She ran again. Hillary Clinton has taken her
(29:35):
all over this country to meet people. It's like they
choose people and they're like, Okay, we'll groom them, and
they hope they stay and they keep doing it. And
now she's running for governor. He's running for US Senate.
I'm in an area of the state that is really conservative.
The only signs I see out are abdual signs, which
are shocking to me because I think we also on
(29:58):
the Republican side have to get really good at educating
about that. Hey, he wants to take weapons away from police.
Think about what that means. Hey, he wants to he
wants to defund the military because he believes that if
you defund the military, you can put that money into healthcare.
I mean, essentially sitting ducks. This is the goal to
make America a sitting duck. And I have to say
(30:19):
that his radical ties to the Muslim brotherhood make me
question what is the ultimate goal here that you want
to make us a sitting duck and being a US
senator is powerful, and it just it very much concerns me.
And I just want to say, I appreciate you coming
on to talk about this, but these are my concerns.
Speaker 2 (30:37):
Yeah, I don't blame you.
Speaker 3 (30:38):
And Michigan's always kind of been you know, red state,
purple state.
Speaker 2 (30:41):
It's gone further blue.
Speaker 3 (30:43):
I personally with shocked, and I see polls it looks
like he's neck and neck with the more moderate Democrat.
Speaker 2 (30:48):
I guess you're on the grounds, you know.
Speaker 3 (30:50):
I think it's the fact that you're seeing yard signs
in a conservative area for him is a red flag.
Speaker 1 (30:56):
Yeah, it's it is terrible. It's terrible. Hey, it's been
amazing talking to you. I've really enjoyed this conversation. Alex Swayer.
Tell people where they can find your column.
Speaker 2 (31:06):
Thank you so much.
Speaker 3 (31:07):
Yeah, they can go to Washington Times dot com and
find all of my content there and follow me on
x at Aswayer.
Speaker 2 (31:14):
Thanks for having me.
Speaker 1 (31:15):
Thank you so much. It's been so great. Thank you
all for listening to the tutor. Dixon Podcast as always.
You can get it on the iHeartRadio app, Apple podcasts,
Rumble or YouTube and share it with your friends and
have a blessed day. Thank you.
The Clay Travis and Buck Sexton Show News
Hosts And Creators
Clay Travis
Buck Sexton
Show Links
WebsiteNewsletterPopular Podcasts
Betrayal Weekly
Betrayal Weekly is back for a new season. Every Thursday, Betrayal Weekly shares first-hand accounts of broken trust, shocking deceptions, and the trail of destruction they leave behind. Hosted by Andrea Gunning, this weekly ongoing series digs into real-life stories of betrayal and the aftermath. From stories of double lives to dark discoveries, these are cautionary tales and accounts of resilience against all odds. From the producers of the critically acclaimed Betrayal series, Betrayal Weekly drops new episodes every Thursday. If you would like to share your story, you can reach out to the Betrayal Team by emailing them at betrayalpod@gmail.com and follow us on Instagram at @betrayalpod and @glasspodcasts. Please join our Substack for additional exclusive content, curated book recommendations, and community discussions. Sign up FREE by clicking this link Beyond Betrayal Substack. Join our community dedicated to truth, resilience, and healing. Your voice matters! Be a part of our Betrayal journey on Substack.
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Dateline NBC
Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations. Follow now to get the latest episodes of Dateline NBC completely free, or subscribe to Dateline Premium for ad-free listening and exclusive bonus content: DatelinePremium.com