Calculating the MAGA Coefficient in Congress with Rep. Matt Gaetz & Devin Nunes
As Midterms continue to creep ahead at a rapid rate and analysis of the GOP's "Red Wave" continues to mount as aggressively across most conservative commentary, Charlie continues to needle in on a question we've not seen asked by any other program: what are the benefits of a Narrow MAGA majority vs. a Sweeping GOP Landslide? Congressman Matt Gaetz from Florida's First Congressional District joins Charlie to discuss the pros and cons of each. They also talk leadership races, agenda, and Democrats' hopes in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Dobbs. Next, CEO of TRUTH Social and Former Congressman Devin Nunes joins Charlie to weigh in on that and much more, including breaking news about Igor Danchenko, John Durham, Russian Collusion, and his insider analysis of it all. He also shares updates on the growth of TRUTH Social and what the former president's platform is doing to differentiate itself from other silicon valley competitors. Support the show: http://www.charliekirk.com/supportSee omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.
Transcriber: nvidia/parakeet-tdt-0.6b-v2, sat-12l-sm, and large-v3-turbo
|
Time
Text
Slim vs Big Majority00:14:51
Hey, everybody, today on the Charlie Kirk Show.
Matt Gates joins us, and we ask the question: is it better to have a slim majority than a big majority?
And listening back to this episode, I have to say, I did not do a good enough job articulating that we should want everybody to show up in a massive red wave.
And Matt says some stuff I totally agree with, and other things I disagree with.
We received some voluminous amount of emails of people that find this argument to be silly and to disagree with it.
That's fine.
But I can say from doing research and speaking to people, there is a lot of merit to Matt's argument here about actually how Congress itself runs.
I'll leave the conclusions up to you.
I see it from both perspectives.
I definitely sympathize with Matt on a lot of this, but it's a very important discussion.
It's critical for the well-being of our nation and for the Republican Party.
So I leave it up to you.
But I want to be very clear.
We have to try to create the biggest red wave imaginable so that we can be able to be in political power and then we can worry about the rest later.
Email me your thoughts, freedom at charliekirk.com.
That's freedom at charliekirk.com.
If you want to get involved with Turning PointUSA, go to tpusa.com.
That is tpusa.com.
Get engaged and get involved.
Start a high school chapter, start a college chapter, tpusa.com.
Support the Charlie Kirk Show at charliekirk.com/slash support.
And if you want to support Turning Point USA and got our latest book, go to tpusa.com/slash book.
That is tpusa.com/slash book.
We also have Devin Nunes that joins us later this hour.
And I want your thoughts on this episode: freedom at charliekirk.com.
That is freedom at charliekirk.com.
Buckle up, everybody.
Here we go.
Charlie, what you've done is incredible here.
Maybe Charlie Kirk is on the college campus.
I want you to know we are lucky to have Charlie Kirk.
Charlie Kirk's running the White House, folks.
I want to thank Charlie.
He's an incredible guy.
His spirit, his love of this country.
He's done an amazing job building one of the most powerful youth organizations ever created, Turning Point USA.
We will not embrace the ideas that have destroyed countries, destroyed lives, and we are going to fight for freedom on campuses across the country.
That's why we are here.
Brought to you by Andrew and Todd at Sierra Pacific Mortgage.
For personalized loan services, you can count on.
Go to andrewandtodd.com, the wonderfulandrewandtodd.com.
Boy, did we get a reaction to our conversation yesterday about going into the midterms?
If we get a narrow MAGA majority, it actually might be better than a massive victory.
And we got a lot of response.
Some people were very supportive of that.
Other people were saying, Charlie, I don't understand that at all.
What do you mean we want to only win by a little and not win by a lot?
I did my best to try to explain it.
But on the program, here is Matt Gates, who actually was the first one to convince me of this.
We got in a rather, I don't want to say an argument, but let's say a spirited discussion backstage of our turning point event in Tampa.
And he did convince me of this particular thing.
Didn't convince me of all the things we were talking about, but we'll keep some of that private.
And this was one of them, which is that if we actually want a Congress that will do something, then you want the margins to benefit the America First Movement.
So I'm going to let Matt articulate the argument, Congressman Matt Gates, the great Congressman Matt Gates, and then I'm going to play devil's advocate.
Matt, welcome back to the program.
Oh, thanks so much for having me, Charlie.
And I always enjoy our spirited discussions, especially in the rare case that I'm able to change your mind on something.
I know you changed my mind about a lot of stuff.
So the Dobbs decision, definitely going to result in more life being protected and definitely going to result in a smaller Republican majority in the House of Representatives.
And while every politician would love to win every election in every circumstance, and I'm no exception to that, the impact of the Dobbs decision in both of those cases may end up being good for the country.
Hear me out.
I've been a part of big majorities.
I've been a part of slim majorities.
And slim majorities are able to work more cohesively for a few reasons.
One, fewer mouths to feed, fewer people that believe that they ought to be the brand carrier for a particular committee or the party or any other number of the endeavors that a caucus engages in in the United States Congress.
Second, fewer of these people who consider themselves the majority makers.
I can't tell you after Donald Trump drug all these people to victory on a bold MAGA agenda in 2016, how many of them got here and then said, oh, well, I'm one of the majority makers.
So I have to be given a pass on this vote or I have to be given an opportunity to take a walk on that vote and be with the Democrats.
And then next thing you know, you turn around and you're losing large chunks of your caucus and that cascades in a very negative way.
If we were to have like a six or seven seat majority, well, then everyone's a majority maker.
And then kind of in the same way, no one is.
And it becomes harder to swim away from the school, right?
If you get a larger group, it is more subject to cleavages and factions within the caucus.
If you have a very slim majority, it forces you to work as a team.
It forces you to understand that you can't do things that are going to drive away a substantial portion of the people that you need to be able to get a bill passed.
And look no further than Joe Manchin, right?
Like for all of the like independence and bluster that we got from him early on, I mean, Joe Manchin came home to the Democrats because as like the one guy swimming away from the school, like he was beat so hard, there's not enough relief factor on the planet Earth to have kind of like resolved his political pains.
And so he came back to the Democrats and gave them their disastrous reconciliation bill.
So there's a few of the arguments why I think we could actually get more done.
Also, we've got like proof of concept before.
You talk a lot about immigration, and I completely agree with you that if we do not seal the border and deport people who are not here legally, then we don't have a country anymore.
We've lost the shape and character of our country.
Well, I mean, when we had these big majorities, we couldn't pass immigration bills because you'd have 20, 30 people out there talking about a pathway to citizenship.
You got a six seat majority, 12 seat majority, then we'll be able to say, look, that's not where a majority of everyone is.
And everybody's got to come home to roost and we got to solve this problem.
So the best argument I heard in opposition to that is don't we want to level a metaphorical extinction event of the Democrat Party?
If we have a 50 or 60 or 70 seat majority, you're going to have some MAGA in America firsters along the way.
And it's going to put Democrats into oblivion.
They won't be able to get political power anytime soon.
What do you think of that argument?
Well, let's play that back to 2010.
In 2010, Republicans had overwhelming wins in the midterms.
And did that result in the extinction of the Democratic Party?
No.
Why?
Because the Democrats controlled the White House and the administrative state and the deep state, and they were able to use that to marshal a big win for Barack Obama in 2012.
So I think that that's had a proof of concept.
It did not result in the extinction event.
I think the extinction event for Republicans was probably more likely like getting power and then not doing enough with it to vindicate our voters, right?
I mean, we lost in 2018 because we didn't keep the promises that we made for multiple elections before Donald Trump was even on the political stage regarding the repeal of Obamacare.
So, Matt, it's just, I want to build this out further because it's somewhat paradoxical because some of our audience says, I want to win big.
I want to put as many points on the board as possible.
And I sympathize with that.
And so, can you also differentiate, though, that let's say it's a 20 or 30 seat majority.
If it were to be that you have some, you know, like a Joe Kent, for example, that wins or an Ana Paulina, phenomenal, great.
But the moving average or history would tell us, once you start to creep up to 15, 20, 30 seat majorities, that means you're winning with a lot of Adam Kinzinger types, isn't it?
I do believe that a small majority would be more ideologically MAGA because a greater percentage of that majority would come from districts that are demanding an adherence to the America First Agenda.
And undeniably, we have great MAGA candidates in toss-up districts in New Hampshire.
Caroline Levitt, certainly very proud of her for that great win.
And that's one of those seats that's on the bubble.
And we want her in Congress.
But if you have a majority that is, you know, 40 seats, that 50 seats, like some were even potentially predicting before the Dobbs decision, well, then I think that you're far more likely to have the win, the sugar high of the win on election day, but then the consistent disappointment of policy losses.
I want to win more than anybody.
I want to win with policy.
I don't want to win by like, you know, patting ourselves on the back for having a good election night.
So let me ask you this, though, Matt.
What happens?
Someone sent us a great email here.
Joe did freedom at charliekirk.com.
He said, I'm tracking with you, but let's say we have an eight-seat majority.
What happens if six or seven become like Mitt Romney?
Do we really have an eight-seat majority, right?
Don't you want a little bit more flex in the joints?
I mean, again, who could, you know, who could know predicting numbers, but what would be the counter argument to that?
Well, I mean, Joe Manchin is the Democrats Mitt Romney, and he eventually came home because the pressure of being, you know, one or two out there harming the rest of the body becomes overwhelming after a certain point in time.
So yeah, maybe not a one or two or a three seat majority.
Maybe that would be a little too tight for that reason.
But I do believe that you have a greater influence on the sort of Mitt Romney faction, the smaller they are.
If you have a larger majority and you had an Adam Kinzinger archetype wanting to lead them in the House Republican conference, if there's like two, three, four of them, well, it becomes a lot harder for them to get attention and critical mass than if there are 12, 15, 20 of them.
So someone says this.
They said a supermajority is the only way to go.
Matt's old argument doesn't work as Trump and the MAGA movement didn't exist in 2010, your thoughts.
But I think there's a different wrinkle to this argument you haven't touched on, Matt, which is who does leadership listen to?
So if there is a 40 or 50 or 60 seat majority, by definition, you've diluted the pool of the voice of Freedom Caucus Gates, Marjorie Taylor Green, Anna Paulina types, and the voice would be fractionally less.
And you just have to look at this mathematically that there's only so many Matt Gates' and Marjorie Taylor Greens.
There's just so many of them.
And when you increase the pool too much, right, we don't want to be in the minority, want to be in the majority, then leadership doesn't have to take your complaints seriously, doesn't have to take any of your demands seriously.
We're talking about a very provocative thing, which is, is it better for the MAGA movement, is it better for the Republican movement to win a nice majority, a 15, 20 seat majority, or is it better for us to blow it out of the water?
And the second question is, are we dampening our enthusiasm and lowering our base's likelihood to vote, donate, and show up that might impact the Senate?
So I want Matt Gates' thoughts on that, but this is inside baseball stuff, everybody.
And someone says, Charlie, you sound like Mitch McConnell.
Interesting.
I don't think so.
Hello, everybody.
Charlie Kirk here.
Super important announcement.
Look, when you swipe your credit card, you're funding liberal causes.
Dozens and dozens of times a month.
Every time you swipe that card, you might as well do BLM, LGBT, Clinton Foundation.
But now there's a choice.
I got to know these guys.
I vetted them, checked out the technology.
I'm a partner with them.
I'm all in.
It's called Coin, C-O-I-G-N.
It's a new credit card built for conservatives.
I'm moving all my credit card activity under COIN.
And the Coin credit card is an unlimited cashback Visa credit card that is just like every other credit card you've ever owned with one huge exception.
Every time you use the Coin card, they contribute to conservative charities that support your values.
I'm using it, and you should too.
Remember, we have to create a parallel economy, and this is a great new option.
Act now.
Go to C-O-I-G-N.com right now to sign up to get a conservative coin credit card.
That's COIGN.com.
Join Coin and let's start spending right.
People are not happy.
Email us freedom at charliekirk.com.
Okay, Matt, people say that, hey, we need to win by as much as we can.
Talk about leadership elections, Matt.
Obviously, you're being inadequately persuasive so far.
So continue.
It's, I guess, a terrain I'm somewhat familiar with.
To those who are saying we want big wins no matter what, we want a 40, 50 seat majority.
Let me start by telling you, you're not going to get one.
The Dobbs decision is going to result in a smaller Republican majority than people were anticipating previously.
And so the media, predictably, will go out and say, ah, well, the red wave was deflated, defeated.
Joe Biden is truly empowered.
Embrace Dark Brandon.
When the reality is we could get exactly what we need in a tighter, firmer, more effective fighting force.
And what people have to focus on, rather than just the size of an illusory majority, like, what, if you add me at like 12 more, 17 more Adam Kinzingers, do you think I'm stronger just because the volume of the number of them?
No, that's absolutely false.
You have to look at the MAGA coefficient.
And there's a possibility that a smaller majority could have a higher MAGA coefficient so that we actually win on policy.
And to the people that say that we sound like Mitch McConnell, they need to listen to Mitch McConnell more because it's Mitch McConnell who publicly and I would say shamefully admits that the only thing that matters to him is electability.
That's it.
Electability.
Because all they care about are titles and power.
And that's what brings us to the leadership elections.
I do believe that this is a very dynamic process.
The MAGA Coefficient00:07:20
You know, I've had in the last 48 hours more members call me to say they're running for whip or conference chair, different things.
And that is premature.
We need to focus on the midterms.
We need to win the midterms.
We need to get the majority.
And then we should only embark on leadership selections when we see the size of that majority.
Because frankly, how could you even vote for a leader without knowing the shape and contours and membership of the body?
Because that's the body that that leader would have to serve.
So it's premature to suggest that McCarthy would certainly be speaker or Scalise would certainly be leader or anyone else would be in any other position.
There's a lot of ground left to go between now and then.
Is it if there was a major majority, let's say 40 or 50 seats, hypothetically, which I do actually disagree.
I think it's possible.
I think anything could happen with what's happening.
But let's say that happens.
Is that will the Republican establishment?
It happens even that McCarthy is speaker.
Yeah, it's a a for to all the people who say they want the big wins.
Well, then then then live with this reality.
A 40 to 50 seat majority undeniably means that Kevin McCarthy becomes Speaker of the House.
And so, but if there was a slimmer majority, then what would happen?
I don't know.
That would depend on the composition of that majority.
Is it a majority of, you know, eight people with nine Adam Kinzingers and Liz Cheneys?
Or, you know, do you get an Ana Paulina Luna, Caroline Levitt, you know, running energetic, enthusiastic, bridge-building campaigns, you know, winning even in a slim majority.
So I think the membership would inform the options for leadership.
But in a world in which we go from the minority to a 40 or 50 seat majority, there would be no option.
It would be McCarthy or bust.
What do you have to say to the argument, Matt, that some people are saying that the way you're talking is demoralizing us and people aren't going to show up because of it?
And people are saying, I wish that many people listened to me.
No, look, look, I still want to, I started this discussion with the caveat.
I want to win every race.
If I had my drothers, we'd win all 435 of them.
But the purpose of this exercise is to inform the audience about the opportunities that only unlock in a world in which you have a more cohesive, smaller majority.
I'm going to work hard for every Republican candidate.
I am super enthusiastic about our candidates.
Unlike Mitch McConnell, I'm not trash talking our candidates while they're out there working to make their case to the voters in these dispositive final weeks.
I'm encouraging them and supporting them in every possible way.
But the reality is that this is a different political landscape.
So really quick, someone says, Charlie, you guys are wrong.
The people who have been winning have been MAGA.
Let's be honest, though.
What percentage of the Republican Conference is actually legitimately America first Trump supporters?
When the chips are down right now, maybe 20, 25%.
Got it, 20, 25%.
And that percentage actually goes down if you increase the amount of Republicans that win to such a disproportionate amount.
Is that correct?
Well, I think the percentage is going up either way because Donald Trump had a remarkable impact on a lot of these primaries.
The question is, does it go up by a little or does that coefficient go up by a lot?
Well, people definitely want that 50 or 60 seat majority from everyone I've talked to, from you to Marjorie Taylor Greene, Lauren Bobert, to Andy Biggs to Mark Meadows, to people that have really dealt.
They say, if you want strong conservative, legitimate oversight and action, these big majorities make conservatives the afterthought because they're not necessary.
Just something to think about, everybody.
Someone asked, what's the purpose of this discussion?
The purpose is to talk about governing as well.
It's important.
Okay, Matt, thank you so much.
Appreciate it.
Email us your thoughts, freedom at charliekirk.com, freedom at charliekirk.com.
I could say definitely not a winning argument.
We'll see what happens.
How many years have I been telling you about Relief Factor?
Producer Andrews right here doing an Iron Man thanks to Relief Factor.
And truth is, I know there are millions of people.
In fact, some say over 100 million people struggling with some kind of pain, maybe from exercise or just getting older.
That can do it, getting older, which is why I'm so impressed with the people at relieffactor.com.
They are on a mission.
You rarely see this kind of focus and commitment.
They recently shared with me that they are doubling down and want to literally double their total number of happy customers in the next year.
And I believe they'll do it.
So here's the deal.
If you're struggling with back pain, neck pain, shoulder, hip, or knee pain, even general muscle aches and pain, then I'm suggesting you order their three-week quick start, still discounted, only $19.95.
Go to relieffactor.com.
That's relieffactor.com.
Check it out right now, relieffactor.com.
You should order the three-week quick start too.
Discount only $19.95.
See if it will work for you.
I think it possibly could.
Give your body what it needs to heal itself.
Go to relieffactor.com.
That's relief factor.com.
Check it out right now.
Boy, we got a lot of emails on that last topic.
Someone says, Charlie, what's the point here?
The entire topic seemed pointless.
We don't control the number of seats.
We're going to win.
I think that's a fair point.
I do think the topic makes sense in one regard, though, is that we win to govern.
And I want people to wonder or to think about what is the best form of a majority that would allow us to govern.
I think that's a very appropriate point.
And that was the point of it.
But I can understand that the essence did convey, like, Charlie, why are you postulating potentially not winning by a lot?
By the way, we're going to have Steve Bannon on the program either tomorrow because he's at our great reset event, and he wants the biggest majority possible.
I want to hear what he has to say there.
Email us your thoughts, freedom at charliekirk.com.
Other people say, Charlie, this is actually probably the best way to articulate it, I have to say.
Someone said here, yeah, this is the best way.
Mara said, Charlie, I kind of get it.
We want a lean, mean, MAGA fighting machine, no deadweight holding us back.
That is really well articulated.
If there were to be the defense of that argument, and I do see it partially both ways.
Now, this is the other best argument, I have to say.
Kenneth on the other side says, be careful what you wish for.
Don't want to persuade motivated voters to sit out thinking they're taking one for the team for a better outcome.
Maybe leave it to fate and speak less of it.
That's probably a very, very good argument, Kenneth.
I accept that.
Devin Nunez joins us right now.
I can actually ask Devin about that too.
That would be an interesting take.
Devin, how are you doing?
Hey, Charlie.
Great to be with you.
So, Devin, I want to ask you about, again, I don't know where you stand on this.
And it would be actually, it's just kind of something we've been thinking about, which is, is there a scenario where it's actually better to have a slimmer MAGA America first majority, or is it always better to have massive, huge House majorities?
What's your take on this as someone who served in Congress and understands it?
What's your take?
Always better to have the more, the better.
And I think for the first time, we have the chance to have even more Republicans than we had back in 2010, which we got over, I think, 240 some.
So, you know, look, a lot's going to depend on the next, what is it, 56 days.
But I'm actually in Washington right now and was talking to a few of my colleagues, my former colleagues, I should say.
And look, we've got great candidates all over the country.
I mean, even in districts, I was in one district last night out in Maryland.
FBI National Security Abstractions00:08:40
And, you know, Maryland's a state we haven't been able to play in in a long time.
And we've got good candidates out there.
So, look, I think that there's a good shot here.
And Charlie, I just don't know.
Most of the candidates out there, you know, they're at least MAGA.
I don't know if they're ultra MAGA, but they're at least MAGA.
I, yeah, ultra MAGA.
That's interesting.
I do think that Trump's takeover of the Republican Party changed the calculus.
So anyway, thanks, Devin, for that contribution to it.
A lot of people are emailing us, freedom at charliekirk.com.
And I don't want to belabor the point too much.
Okay, let's get to this one here.
So I've not been following the Durham thing as closely as I should.
So can you tell us what is the update with Igor Danchenko, the main steel dossier source?
We're hearing that he was an FBI operative.
Devin, you have did heroes' work, courageous work for years exposing all of this.
What's going on here?
Yeah, and it seems like it never stops.
You know, I'm out of Congress, yet I still spend a lot of time on the Russia hoax.
It's like a bad penny.
It never dies.
It just keeps, you know, regurgitating itself.
And, you know, including in the Mar-a-Lago raid, by the way, Charlie, that I believe that that raid is specific to Russia Gate and possibly Russia gate documents that Trump declassified.
But we'll see.
We just don't know what will happen there.
So simply put, you know, it's always, there's so many names involved in the Russia hoax.
You know, so who is Danchenko?
Let's start with that.
You said he's the source of the dossier.
Well, he is.
He's a phony source.
He's one of the supposed fusion GPS.
They claimed on the record in Congress that their source was going to die.
People within DOJ and FBI told me and my counterparts that the source was in life was in jeopardy.
And so, of course, we never knew who the source was until later we finally figured it out, which I think it was a couple of years later, that Danchenko was a guy who was, he was actually born in Russia.
At least he had that going for him.
But he did things like worked at the Brookings Institute, which is a left-wing think tank here in Washington.
After that, he was doing some, appears like he was doing some consulting work living just across the Potomac in Virginia.
So the whole, and look, at least from what Durham has now filed, he doesn't have any connect.
He hasn't been to Russia, we now learn.
And supposedly he had been there.
And he's accusing Danchenko of lying to the FBI.
Now, why is this important?
And he's going to be on trial here, I think, in October.
So that's where this at.
So this is the big indictment.
Durham's going to be the lead prosecutor in the case.
Danchenko is on trial for lying to the FBI and a whole host of accusations.
But here's why Dan Chenko, this is also important.
And I think this relates to me.
Even though we knew at the time the dossier was bogus, the FBI knew it was bogus, they decide to bring on Danchenko in March of 2017 as a confidential human informant for the FBI.
Now, that is why and how they were able to keep this guy from us for so long, because he actually was then put on the FBI's payroll.
And look, this is nothing short of DOJ and FBI obstructing our congressional investigation.
Do you know what we would have known had we known in March 2017 who Danchenko was and the fact they, why would you bring a know-in liar, a known con man?
You already know the dossier is nonsense.
You know Clinton and the DNC paid for it, and you bring this guy on.
So that's going to take now.
So obviously Durham prosecuting Dan Chenko, but Congress is now, if the Republicans like we were just talking about, take over, they have to get to the bottom of this.
And I'm still frustrated because we're still waiting, hopefully on Durham.
He's got to bring, he's got to bring charges against the corrupt DOJ and FBI officials.
And he's going to have to bring a conspiracy charge.
So sorry for that long explanation.
No, Charlie.
I have one question, though, here, which is, it's more of a technical question.
Is there any way that Congress in the future can find out who the FBI is paying and who is the FBI operatives, basically?
What I'm getting at here is the FBI should not just be able to hide behind national security abstractions, right?
I mean, Devin, this is a huge revelation that was critical to an ongoing congressional investigation.
The FBI is not a superior branch of government.
It is a co-equal branch.
And so you said something very telling to me.
If we had only have known, how the heck is it that they can't tell you this stuff, Devin?
I mean, what branch is greater than the other here?
Yeah, so that's a great point.
And this is something that we've learned once again with the Mar-a-Law, going back to the Mar-a-Lago raid and how this is all and how this is all related.
We thought at the time back in the day when we figured out the Lovebirds, you know, and how they were at the FBI, McCabe, Comey was fired.
We went through the Mueller witch hunt.
It turned up zero.
We thought that our investigation at least didn't fix the problem, but we thought maybe we cauterized the wound.
We stopped the bleeding.
Well, what we find out now with the Mar-a-Lago raid, now we don't have a lot of information, but this FBI agent that was taken out of the building a few weeks ago, what it appears like is that the holdovers, you had the Obama-Biden administration.
They weaponized the National Security Division of the Department of Justice and consequently the FBI.
A lot of those people burrowed in.
Many of those people that were then involved back in 15 and 16 are now at the very top of where?
The Biden White House, the DOJ, and the National Security Division.
And so they are using the National Security Division, counterintelligence specifically, and they're using all their rules and guidelines to circumvent congressional oversight.
And that, I think, gets to the point that you're making, Charlie.
Congress has to end, they have to end it because there is a, and I'll just simply put it this way: they have had a get Trump Gestapo operating within the DOJ since at least 2015 when Donald Trump came down the escalator.
This is the administrative state run in the country, Devin.
This is a much deeper, structural, form-based problem that goes to show how the Constitution has just merely become not even a suggestion, just an afterthought for these people.
The administrative state thinks they're so powerful.
They look at Congress as an annoyance.
So, Devin, what is the battle plan here to not just talk about we got to fix this?
This is a constitutional fire alarm.
Yeah, it's a constitutional crisis, actually.
And the only thing I would just to clarify: when you say administrative state, don't forget it's an administrative state that's working on behalf of the Democratic Party.
Party, that's exactly right.
They're not separate.
They're all one in the same place.
Yeah, it's even worse than that.
It's that Trump, even when he ran the executive branch, didn't run this part of the executive branch.
And so you had, they carved themselves out into basically a fourth branch of government.
Yeah, but yeah, essentially, there is a cell operating even in the Trump administration.
Nobody was able to, you know, we exposed most of it, but we weren't, clearly weren't able to stop it.
And the fact that that lived all through the Trump administration, I think, tells you how deep the tentacles of Obama and Clinton and all these people are.
They basically had people within the inside that were giving information to the Democrats, taking actions on their behalf.
And don't forget, their other co-partner in this is essentially the fake news, where they selectively leaked information to the fake news and continue to do that today.
And look, just to add insult to injury, and the reason that I'm running True Social, we also now know that they were taking that big tech was taking action on behalf of these bad actors.
Why True Social Exists00:05:52
So it's a crisis.
I really want to talk about next.
Yeah, it's extraordinary.
It really is.
And by the way, the work Truth Social is doing is so important.
Everyone's got to check out Truth Social.
We post there regularly.
It's phenomenal.
So Devin Nunes is here.
We're always trying to go a level deeper here on this program.
And the constitutional violations of separate but equal powers and checks and balances is so flagrant.
That's the buried lead here, is how they feel as if they can run the government.
Man, if there's a reason to put people in prison, it would be to think that they can create their own branch of government.
MyPillow is having their biggest sheet sale of the year.
You've all helped build MyPillow into an amazing company that is today.
Now, Mike Lindell, inventor and CEO, wants to give back exclusively to his listeners.
The Perkale and Giza dream bedsheet sets are available in a variety of colors and sizes, and they are all now for sale for $29.98 with our listener promo code Kirk.
Order now because when they're gone, they're gone.
The Perkale and Giza dream sheets are breathable and have a cool, crisp feel.
They come with a 10-year warranty and a 60-day money-back guarantee.
Don't miss out on this incredible offer.
There is limited supply, so make sure you order now.
Call 800-875-0425NOW and use promo code Kirk or go to mypillow.com and click on the Radio Listener Square and use promo code Kirk.
This offer will not last long and they're known to sell out quickly.
So use promo code Kirk at mypillow.com.
That is mypillow.com.
Devin, talk about Facebook, the news story from the New York Post, spying on private messages of Americans who question the 2020 election.
Yeah, I actually just posted that, reposted that on True Social, Charlie, because that came as a shock to me.
And this is just right on the heels of the Biden administration and the evidence of FBI and others saying that the, I'm sorry, during the Biden campaign, pressuring FBI to then pressure Facebook and Twitter and others to censor the Hunter Biden laptop story and say that it was Russian disinformation.
You may remember, I think it was Zuckerberg revealed that on Joe Rogan's podcast here just a month ago.
So this is something new.
Obviously, a lot of ground to plow here for hopefully what is a new Republican Congress.
They've got a lot of work to do and all they're going to be able to do is expose and then hope for 2024.
Yeah, I mean, the details of this, as reported by Miranda Devine, Facebook has been spying on the private messages and data of Americans who report and reporting them to the FBI if they express anti-government or anti-authority sentiments or question the 2020 election.
Under the FBI collaboration question, somebody at Facebook, operation, I'm sorry, somebody at Facebook red flagged these supposedly subversive private messages over the last 19 months.
So I'm sure that some agreement that they check a box on, Devin, you know, shows that, okay, we're, you know, we don't, we can give whatever data we want to whatever people.
But how is this more philosophically not a violation of privacy?
How is this not a core crossing of the privacy Rubicon that Mark Zuckerberg always says true?
I mean, that Facebook has.
Yeah, that really gets to the gist of it, right?
So when you, you brought up a good term.
Nobody ever pays attention to those terms of service and people just click the box.
But this is the problem.
This is why True Social exists.
This is why Rumble exists because we have to have a place where people can go and know that their data is not going to be searched through.
It's not going to be given away or sold.
And that's the problem is that these are private companies.
And you know all the arguments that some of these big tech companies are probably should be sued under antitrust because they're monopolies.
But for sure, kind of the social media companies just sucking up and taking all your data is something that we don't do at True Social.
And I would even go one step further.
A lot of people have compared us to Twitter, True Social to Twitter.
And look, that's fine because right now we are news and information.
But look, we know where the users are.
And Twitter is just a place for people to go put their press releases on.
for corporates and and Hollywood types and sports figures, they just and politicians to put out press releases.
But you know this, Charlie, you know, you get under the age of 45, not a lot of people are on, those people are not on Twitter.
And in fact, they're not even on Facebook anymore.
You can argue they're on Instagram, which is owned by Facebook, but these young kids are on TikTok.
And so what's worse, you got Facebook doing work on behalf of a corrupt DOJ and FBI that we just talked about in the last segment, which I think brings up all kinds of questions.
It's totally true.
Also, you got to remember the TikTok data is likely going right back to the Chinese communist.
Yeah, I mean, TikTok should be banned from operation in our country.
There is no redeemable value of TikTok.
I think it's awful.
It's terrible.
They're spying on our kids.
They're making our kids literally have behavioral disorders and problems.
Actual ticks are developing in young girls.
It's increasing depression, suicide, anxiety.
I wish Trump would have just totally banned it.
I know he tried to.
It's so bad for our country.
And for parents out there, you should never let your kids use TikTok.
Waiting for Google Approval00:01:06
Devin, really quick, 30 seconds.
How are things going at Truth Social?
Hey, you know, it's every day, every day we grow and every day we get attacked by the left, Charlie, and by the fake news, which means things are going well.
They're not attacking us.
It means that we're not doing well.
And obviously, we're patiently waiting on Google to put us in the Play Store.
You can go to the Play Store and you can pre-order, or you can do a sideload.
If you go to truthsocial.com, if you have an Android app, you can, or an Android phone, you can actually sideload the app.
But look, we want to be in the Google Play Store, and we are just praying to the Google gods that they'll let us on there someday.
Don't hold your breath to those pagan idols of Molech.
Okay, Devin Nunes is here.
God bless you.
Thank you, Devin.
You have the great work.
Thanks, Charlie.
Appreciate it.
Thanks so much for listening, everybody.
Email me your thoughts as always, freedom at charliekirk.com.
Thanks so much for listening.
God bless.
For more on many of these stories and news you can trust, go to CharlieKirk.com.