December 18, 2025 • 36 mins
Will Jack Smith's ultra-political prosecution of Donald Trump put him into the defendant's seat? Mike Davis of Article 3 Project reacts to Smith's House testimony and explains the legal authority for President Trump's bombing of Caribbean drug boats. Sen. Mike Lee explains his plan to change the filibuster so that the GOP can pass legislation without abolishing it completely.
Watch every episode ad-free on members.charliekirk.com!
Get new merch at charliekirkstore.com!
Support the show: http://www.charliekirk.com/support
See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:03):
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
(00:26):
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
(00:50):
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.
Speaker 2 (01:09):
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
(01:31):
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.
Speaker 3 (01:42):
But in the meantime, Charlie Kirkshow community like the intelligence
community or something that I say.
Speaker 2 (01:48):
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
(02:08):
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?
Speaker 4 (02:30):
What did they learn yesterday?
Speaker 2 (02:33):
And you know what is going on behind the scenes
with this FBI bombshell from Senator Grassley.
Speaker 5 (02:39):
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
(03:00):
executive order the day before he left office the first time.
And they wanted to get back these records because they're
so damning.
Speaker 6 (03:08):
They knew these.
Speaker 5 (03:09):
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
(03:29):
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.
(03:53):
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
(04:16):
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
(04:39):
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.
(05:01):
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
(05:23):
scandal in American history.
Speaker 2 (05:25):
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.
(05:47):
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.
Speaker 4 (06:05):
It just seems beneath the office. Yeah, it is.
Speaker 5 (06:08):
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
(06:30):
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
(06:52):
to be investigated, including these judges.
Speaker 2 (06:55):
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?
Speaker 5 (07:10):
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
(07:33):
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
(07:55):
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
(08:18):
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
(08:38):
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,
(08:59):
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.
Speaker 3 (09:12):
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.
Speaker 4 (09:26):
And getting evidence.
Speaker 3 (09:28):
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?
Speaker 4 (09:39):
Yep.
Speaker 5 (09:41):
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
(10:04):
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
(10:27):
that defense to the jury.
Speaker 7 (10:30):
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.
Speaker 1 (10:50):
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
(11:11):
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
(11:31):
is y R e f y dot com Private student
loan debt relief yrefight dot com.
Speaker 2 (11:39):
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
(12:00):
longer Secretary of War for example, or any of the
people in the chain of command.
Speaker 5 (12:04):
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
(12:24):
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
(12:46):
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
(13:09):
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
(13:32):
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.
Speaker 3 (13:46):
Are there any limits on what he could choose to bomb?
Speaker 4 (13:51):
I suppose sure.
Speaker 5 (13:52):
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
(14:12):
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
(14:33):
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.
Speaker 4 (14:46):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (14:46):
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.
Speaker 4 (14:56):
I doubt they would.
Speaker 3 (14:56):
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.
Speaker 4 (15:05):
But I think.
Speaker 3 (15:07):
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
(15:28):
completely unacceptable, you know, massacre of village in Rightetnam, where
they had evidence that was clear.
Speaker 2 (15:34):
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.
Speaker 8 (15:47):
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
(16:09):
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.
Speaker 2 (16:27):
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?
Speaker 5 (16:40):
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.
Speaker 4 (16:56):
Can judge the charge? Hinjinine Piro do that?
Speaker 5 (16:59):
She could? I think you should look more closely at this.
Speaker 4 (17:03):
Mike Davis, thanks for the time, my friend, will see
you soon.
Speaker 5 (17:05):
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (17:08):
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,
(17:29):
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.
Speaker 1 (17:41):
These aren't just good films, their cultural reset buttons. When
you join the Angel Guild, you don't just stream entertainment.
Speaker 2 (17:48):
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
(18:11):
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
(18:33):
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
(18:54):
distinct from just nuking the filibuster.
Speaker 9 (18:57):
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
(19:17):
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
(19:40):
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
(20:01):
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.
Speaker 6 (20:12):
In lesser until you get sixty votes to bring debate
to a close. Here's what it's metastasized into. Though.
Speaker 9 (20:18):
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
(20:39):
this allows them a cheap and easy way of creating
a de facto sixty vote threshold.
Speaker 6 (20:44):
For passing legislation. That's not how it's supposed to work.
Speaker 9 (20:47):
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.
Speaker 6 (21:06):
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.
Speaker 9 (21:13):
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.
Speaker 6 (21:24):
Right to continue speaking. We have a number of rules about.
Speaker 9 (21:27):
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.
Speaker 6 (21:43):
We haven't been doing that. We need to get back
into that business.
Speaker 2 (21:46):
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,
(22:09):
fifty senators doing marathon debate to try and outlast their opponent.
Speaker 4 (22:13):
Basically, that's right, that's right.
Speaker 9 (22:15):
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.
Speaker 6 (22:25):
So at no point have Democrats.
Speaker 9 (22:28):
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
(22:51):
happening because we're not enforcing our own rules.
Speaker 3 (22:54):
Yeah, I'm seeing this could have the beneficial side effect.
It might force some earlier retirements by some as.
Speaker 4 (23:00):
You just say I'm not up for eight eight hours.
Speaker 2 (23:02):
You'd start having to elect in the primaries like based
on like youth and vigor, because we need a guy
that can actually.
Speaker 3 (23:08):
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.
Speaker 2 (23:15):
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?
Speaker 6 (23:30):
Essentially? Yes.
Speaker 9 (23:32):
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.
Speaker 6 (23:54):
A halt, and we've allowed them to do that.
Speaker 9 (23:57):
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.
Speaker 6 (24:12):
That we're going to begin enforcing this.
Speaker 9 (24:15):
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
(24:37):
at a simple majority.
Speaker 2 (24:39):
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
(24:59):
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.
Speaker 4 (25:16):
I mean it does.
Speaker 2 (25:18):
It does strike me that this is your you're sort
of getting it back to its original purpose.
Speaker 6 (25:22):
No, that's exactly right now. I will be clear.
Speaker 9 (25:25):
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
(25:48):
could and would immediately pass everything that we wanted without
any hitch or without any difficulty, And.
Speaker 6 (25:53):
That's not true.
Speaker 9 (25:54):
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.
Speaker 6 (26:03):
But here's the catch.
Speaker 9 (26:04):
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.
Speaker 6 (26:17):
Yeah right, I mean, but that is what we signed
up for.
Speaker 9 (26:20):
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
(26:42):
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.
Speaker 6 (27:01):
Do is because we don't have sixty votes.
Speaker 9 (27:04):
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.
Speaker 2 (27:16):
You can blame it on the seventeenth. But that's you know,
I hadn't even Yeah, I haven't even thought about that.
Speaker 4 (27:21):
Senator that we have.
Speaker 2 (27:22):
It's been over one hundred years since we've had sixty
Republican senators.
Speaker 4 (27:25):
One hundred years.
Speaker 2 (27:26):
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
(27:48):
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.
Speaker 6 (28:05):
I have pitched it.
Speaker 9 (28:06):
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,
(28:27):
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
(28:50):
the last four years, at a.
Speaker 6 (28:52):
Time when our laws are making it very difficult.
Speaker 9 (28:54):
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.
Speaker 6 (29:08):
Yes, we've got to have reform in that area.
Speaker 9 (29:10):
We need permitting reform, we need regulatory reform, we need
to pass the Reins Act.
Speaker 6 (29:14):
All these things could benefit from this strategy.
Speaker 4 (29:16):
I think it's brilliant.
Speaker 2 (29:17):
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.
Speaker 6 (29:31):
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (29:34):
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?
Speaker 4 (29:53):
Today?
Speaker 2 (29:53):
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
(30:17):
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
(30:37):
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.
Speaker 4 (30:45):
I bet they maybe they pull in, you.
Speaker 2 (30:47):
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.
Speaker 4 (30:56):
I guess that's it's older than I thought.
Speaker 2 (30:59):
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.
Speaker 3 (31:11):
But as he said, Sanders, he kind of comes off
like he can still hang. He's an energetic eighty four.
Speaker 2 (31:17):
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.
Speaker 3 (31:29):
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
(31:50):
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.
Speaker 4 (32:00):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (32:00):
I think you imagine it more like like you know
the Oxford Union.
Speaker 4 (32:05):
Yeah, or don't do that.
Speaker 3 (32:07):
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.
Speaker 4 (32:23):
I mean, yeah, it's it.
Speaker 2 (32:25):
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.
Speaker 4 (32:36):
So they have to go back to our position.
Speaker 3 (32:37):
It's are getting rid of if you have good legislation
that you will pass.
Speaker 4 (32:41):
If you don't, what's the point.
Speaker 2 (32:44):
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?
Speaker 4 (32:52):
Three ten uh.
Speaker 2 (32:54):
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
(33:16):
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
(33:38):
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
(33:59):
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.
Speaker 4 (34:15):
That alive at that at Amfest.
Speaker 2 (34:17):
And I think last year was the first year he
actually did it, proved me wrong inside the Expo hall,
so I think so.
Speaker 3 (34:22):
Yeah, I don't think that many people were trying to
prove him wrong on anything.
Speaker 2 (34:25):
It was like it was fun questions. I was like,
you know which team is better?
Speaker 4 (34:29):
Sports?
Speaker 2 (34:29):
Sports questions, football questions, ragging on his trime.
Speaker 3 (34:33):
Do we begin the stream today because we've had a
few questions about that.
Speaker 2 (34:37):
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
(34:59):
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.
Speaker 4 (35:07):
I would say we'll probably strike the.
Speaker 2 (35:09):
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.
(35:29):
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.
Speaker 4 (35:47):
That's the goal.
Speaker 3 (35:49):
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.
Speaker 2 (36:02):
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.
Speaker 4 (36:23):
I apologize.
Speaker 2 (36:24):
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.
Speaker 7 (36:46):
For more on many of these stories and news you
can trust, go to Charliekirk dot com.
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
(00:26):
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
(00:50):
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.
Speaker 2 (01:09):
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
(01:31):
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.
Speaker 3 (01:42):
But in the meantime, Charlie Kirkshow community like the intelligence
community or something that I say.
Speaker 2 (01:48):
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
(02:08):
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?
Speaker 4 (02:30):
What did they learn yesterday?
Speaker 2 (02:33):
And you know what is going on behind the scenes
with this FBI bombshell from Senator Grassley.
Speaker 5 (02:39):
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
(03:00):
executive order the day before he left office the first time.
And they wanted to get back these records because they're
so damning.
Speaker 6 (03:08):
They knew these.
Speaker 5 (03:09):
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
(03:29):
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.
(03:53):
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
(04:16):
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
(04:39):
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.
(05:01):
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
(05:23):
scandal in American history.
Speaker 2 (05:25):
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.
(05:47):
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.
Speaker 4 (06:05):
It just seems beneath the office. Yeah, it is.
Speaker 5 (06:08):
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
(06:30):
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
(06:52):
to be investigated, including these judges.
Speaker 2 (06:55):
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?
Speaker 5 (07:10):
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
(07:33):
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
(07:55):
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
(08:18):
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
(08:38):
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,
(08:59):
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.
Speaker 3 (09:12):
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.
Speaker 4 (09:26):
And getting evidence.
Speaker 3 (09:28):
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?
Speaker 4 (09:39):
Yep.
Speaker 5 (09:41):
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
(10:04):
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
(10:27):
that defense to the jury.
Speaker 7 (10:30):
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.
Speaker 1 (10:50):
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
(11:11):
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
(11:31):
is y R e f y dot com Private student
loan debt relief yrefight dot com.
Speaker 2 (11:39):
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
(12:00):
longer Secretary of War for example, or any of the
people in the chain of command.
Speaker 5 (12:04):
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
(12:24):
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
(12:46):
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
(13:09):
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
(13:32):
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.
Speaker 3 (13:46):
Are there any limits on what he could choose to bomb?
Speaker 4 (13:51):
I suppose sure.
Speaker 5 (13:52):
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
(14:12):
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
(14:33):
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.
Speaker 4 (14:46):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (14:46):
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.
Speaker 4 (14:56):
I doubt they would.
Speaker 3 (14:56):
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.
Speaker 4 (15:05):
But I think.
Speaker 3 (15:07):
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
(15:28):
completely unacceptable, you know, massacre of village in Rightetnam, where
they had evidence that was clear.
Speaker 2 (15:34):
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.
Speaker 8 (15:47):
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
(16:09):
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.
Speaker 2 (16:27):
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?
Speaker 5 (16:40):
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.
Speaker 4 (16:56):
Can judge the charge? Hinjinine Piro do that?
Speaker 5 (16:59):
She could? I think you should look more closely at this.
Speaker 4 (17:03):
Mike Davis, thanks for the time, my friend, will see
you soon.
Speaker 5 (17:05):
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (17:08):
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,
(17:29):
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.
Speaker 1 (17:41):
These aren't just good films, their cultural reset buttons. When
you join the Angel Guild, you don't just stream entertainment.
Speaker 2 (17:48):
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
(18:11):
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
(18:33):
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
(18:54):
distinct from just nuking the filibuster.
Speaker 9 (18:57):
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
(19:17):
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
(19:40):
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
(20:01):
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.
Speaker 6 (20:12):
In lesser until you get sixty votes to bring debate
to a close. Here's what it's metastasized into. Though.
Speaker 9 (20:18):
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
(20:39):
this allows them a cheap and easy way of creating
a de facto sixty vote threshold.
Speaker 6 (20:44):
For passing legislation. That's not how it's supposed to work.
Speaker 9 (20:47):
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.
Speaker 6 (21:06):
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.
Speaker 9 (21:13):
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.
Speaker 6 (21:24):
Right to continue speaking. We have a number of rules about.
Speaker 9 (21:27):
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.
Speaker 6 (21:43):
We haven't been doing that. We need to get back
into that business.
Speaker 2 (21:46):
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,
(22:09):
fifty senators doing marathon debate to try and outlast their opponent.
Speaker 4 (22:13):
Basically, that's right, that's right.
Speaker 9 (22:15):
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.
Speaker 6 (22:25):
So at no point have Democrats.
Speaker 9 (22:28):
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
(22:51):
happening because we're not enforcing our own rules.
Speaker 3 (22:54):
Yeah, I'm seeing this could have the beneficial side effect.
It might force some earlier retirements by some as.
Speaker 4 (23:00):
You just say I'm not up for eight eight hours.
Speaker 2 (23:02):
You'd start having to elect in the primaries like based
on like youth and vigor, because we need a guy
that can actually.
Speaker 3 (23:08):
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.
Speaker 2 (23:15):
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?
Speaker 6 (23:30):
Essentially? Yes.
Speaker 9 (23:32):
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.
Speaker 6 (23:54):
A halt, and we've allowed them to do that.
Speaker 9 (23:57):
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.
Speaker 6 (24:12):
That we're going to begin enforcing this.
Speaker 9 (24:15):
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
(24:37):
at a simple majority.
Speaker 2 (24:39):
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
(24:59):
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.
Speaker 4 (25:16):
I mean it does.
Speaker 2 (25:18):
It does strike me that this is your you're sort
of getting it back to its original purpose.
Speaker 6 (25:22):
No, that's exactly right now. I will be clear.
Speaker 9 (25:25):
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
(25:48):
could and would immediately pass everything that we wanted without
any hitch or without any difficulty, And.
Speaker 6 (25:53):
That's not true.
Speaker 9 (25:54):
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.
Speaker 6 (26:03):
But here's the catch.
Speaker 9 (26:04):
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.
Speaker 6 (26:17):
Yeah right, I mean, but that is what we signed
up for.
Speaker 9 (26:20):
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
(26:42):
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.
Speaker 6 (27:01):
Do is because we don't have sixty votes.
Speaker 9 (27:04):
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.
Speaker 2 (27:16):
You can blame it on the seventeenth. But that's you know,
I hadn't even Yeah, I haven't even thought about that.
Speaker 4 (27:21):
Senator that we have.
Speaker 2 (27:22):
It's been over one hundred years since we've had sixty
Republican senators.
Speaker 4 (27:25):
One hundred years.
Speaker 2 (27:26):
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
(27:48):
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.
Speaker 6 (28:05):
I have pitched it.
Speaker 9 (28:06):
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,
(28:27):
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
(28:50):
the last four years, at a.
Speaker 6 (28:52):
Time when our laws are making it very difficult.
Speaker 9 (28:54):
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.
Speaker 6 (29:08):
Yes, we've got to have reform in that area.
Speaker 9 (29:10):
We need permitting reform, we need regulatory reform, we need
to pass the Reins Act.
Speaker 6 (29:14):
All these things could benefit from this strategy.
Speaker 4 (29:16):
I think it's brilliant.
Speaker 2 (29:17):
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.
Speaker 6 (29:31):
Thank you.
Speaker 2 (29:34):
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?
Speaker 4 (29:53):
Today?
Speaker 2 (29:53):
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
(30:17):
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
(30:37):
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.
Speaker 4 (30:45):
I bet they maybe they pull in, you.
Speaker 2 (30:47):
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.
Speaker 4 (30:56):
I guess that's it's older than I thought.
Speaker 2 (30:59):
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.
Speaker 3 (31:11):
But as he said, Sanders, he kind of comes off
like he can still hang. He's an energetic eighty four.
Speaker 2 (31:17):
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.
Speaker 3 (31:29):
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
(31:50):
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.
Speaker 4 (32:00):
Yeah.
Speaker 2 (32:00):
I think you imagine it more like like you know
the Oxford Union.
Speaker 4 (32:05):
Yeah, or don't do that.
Speaker 3 (32:07):
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.
Speaker 4 (32:23):
I mean, yeah, it's it.
Speaker 2 (32:25):
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.
Speaker 4 (32:36):
So they have to go back to our position.
Speaker 3 (32:37):
It's are getting rid of if you have good legislation
that you will pass.
Speaker 4 (32:41):
If you don't, what's the point.
Speaker 2 (32:44):
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?
Speaker 4 (32:52):
Three ten uh.
Speaker 2 (32:54):
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
(33:16):
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
(33:38):
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
(33:59):
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.
Speaker 4 (34:15):
That alive at that at Amfest.
Speaker 2 (34:17):
And I think last year was the first year he
actually did it, proved me wrong inside the Expo hall,
so I think so.
Speaker 3 (34:22):
Yeah, I don't think that many people were trying to
prove him wrong on anything.
Speaker 2 (34:25):
It was like it was fun questions. I was like,
you know which team is better?
Speaker 4 (34:29):
Sports?
Speaker 2 (34:29):
Sports questions, football questions, ragging on his trime.
Speaker 3 (34:33):
Do we begin the stream today because we've had a
few questions about that.
Speaker 2 (34:37):
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
(34:59):
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.
Speaker 4 (35:07):
I would say we'll probably strike the.
Speaker 2 (35:09):
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.
(35:29):
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.
Speaker 4 (35:47):
That's the goal.
Speaker 3 (35:49):
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.
Speaker 2 (36:02):
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.
Speaker 4 (36:23):
I apologize.
Speaker 2 (36:24):
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.
Speaker 7 (36:46):
For more on many of these stories and news you
can trust, go to Charliekirk dot com.
Popular Podcasts
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
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.
The Bobby Bones Show
Listen to 'The Bobby Bones Show' by downloading the daily full replay.